larger of which all our question is where the peoples free consent is wholy and altogeather denyed them such as I know not cleerly either at this day to be or to have ben any where but vnder the Papacie and now in England Certainly against this that is the proper Diocesan Church and governement all our controversie at this day is intended Which also I have noted in my Declaration pag. 21. 22. So that the Diocesan Church which I absolutly speake against in “ In Reas. for reform Exposition of the a Com. The Divine beginning institution of Christes Visible Church c. other places is to bee vnderstood of this proper Dioc. Church so likewise questionles it is meant in the Offer of disputation and in the Petition for toleration also Now no proofe can be made from the law fulnes or toleration of the improper Piocesan Church for the lawfulnes or tolerablenes of the proper Dioces Church Because they differ formally essentially as elswhere “ Declarat pag. 12. 13. 34. 35. I have shewed These can not by any meanes sustifye the one the other In which respect D. Downames foule abusing of Christian people in his Defence by his perpetuall Equivocating and bringing in infinit matters which are nothing to the intent of our questioÌ„ is to be marked and confidered of all men For he taking in hand to proove our Diocesan or rather Provinciall Churches in England and our Bishops who do all things in Ecclesiasticall governement without any free consent of the severall Congregations to be for the substance of their calling and condition Apostolicall hee pleadeth only in generall for Diocesan Churches or larger and for Bishops in generall His proofes such as they be are only for the improper Diocesan Churches and larger and for their Bishops As if simply we did deny them Or as if our Diocesan Churches and Bishops in England were such What intollerable doubling and deceaving of Gods people is this What altering the question What Equivocating as bad as Iesuiticall This is all that he doth in his second booke of the said Defence where the proper place is for this point and where is the very foundation of all his writing beside Yea indeed he doth nothing els throughont his whole Defence Wherefore even this which heere is spoken is enough for a iust confutation of his saide whole Defence The very like dealing Doctor Bilson vseth also in his Perpetuall governement chapt 12.13.14 where he dealeth about Bishops and Dioceses out of the Fathers Chiefly in pag. 260. where he setteth downe 4. Ranks of Bishops which I deny not were in those foure Chiefe Churches there named viz. Ierusalem Antioch Rome Alexandria But the truth is touching his purpose these are so many Catalogues of Equivocations and changings of the question For neither were those Bishops all of one kinde and power neither were any of them of that kinde and power as ours now in England are For whose allowance and approbation they are notwithstanding by him heere produced and mightily vrged But hitherto I have digressed speaking of the divers kindes of Diocesan Churches and Bishops and of their originall likewise of the deceit of the Defenders of our Church state in England by Equivocating so palpably by changing the question The maine point heere in this place is Seeing the Church governement vnder the Gospel ought to be alwaies with the peoples free consent which before wee have sufficiently shewed therefore every true Church vnder the Gospell is only one ordinarie Congregation And consequently no proper Diocesan Church or larger is lawfull A second Consequent also is heere hence to be considered To wit This being admitted that the Church governement ought to be alwayes with the peoples free consent it followeth that such Synods or Presbyteries can not be approoved which rule imperiously over the CoÌ„gregations and impose on them whether they will or no their actes Canons vnder some spirituall penaltie as Excommunication Suspension Deprivation Degradation from the Ministerie c. To which purpose many excellent men also do speake expresly Zuinglius of all other is heerein peremptorie Saith he speaking to such Synodes “ Zuignl Artic 8. Explanat Quod Ecclesia sitis representativa libenter eredimus vera enim non estis c. Wee willingly believe that you are a representative Church for a true Church you are not But I pray you shew vs whence you fetch this name Who hath given this name Who hath given you power to meet and conspire togeather Who hath given you power to make Canons and Decrees differing from Gods word Who hath suffered you to impose these thinges on mens shoulders Who hath perswaded you to grieve mens consciences c. And a little before he saith Deistâ representativâ— Ecclefiâ in Scripturis Sanctis nihil invenis Ex hominum commentis fingere quisquis potest quidlibet Nos Scriptura netimur sacra contraquam nec tis quidquam tentabis si Christianus es Of this represeÌ„tative church I finde nothing in the holy Scriptures Our of mans devises any may faigne what they list Wee rest in the holy Scripture against which thou maist not attempt any thing if thou be a Christian And they that impose their Decrees without the peoples consent saith he tviolento imperio ius Ecclesia invadunt Ad Valent. Comp. They invade vpoÌ„ the Churches right by violent command And such are “ Artic. 64. nomine tenus Episcopi revera tyranni in name Bishops but indeed tyrants As †Pag. 31. before also is observed No lesse sharpe hee is likewise heerein els-where saying “ Epichirisis de Canon Missae Est particularis Ecclisia ea cut praceptum est vt morbidum membrum resecer Math. 18 qualis est ea Corinthi ad qua scribit Paulus aliae quarum se curam geâ—ere predicat in quibus se parâ— modo daceâ—e asseres inquiens Sollicitudo omnium Ecclesiarum Siâ—â—â— in omnibus Eeclesijs doceâ— Superest vs concursantium Eispeopor um ne dicam conspirantium Ecclesia non sit alia quam cut Propheta Malignantium nomen dedit Quod enim vlera verum est a malo est Verax autem est solus Deus omnis homo mendax Quiequitigetur à Deo est equum verum bonum est quiequid al 's homine profectum iniquum mendax malum est Hac horum Ecclesia a Deo non est a malo igitur est Siquis vberiora desideret Conclusionum nostrarum farraginem legat It is a particular Church which is commaunded to cut off the infected member Math. 18. Such as that is of Corinth to which Paul writeth and others of which he saith hes had care and in which he affirmeth that he taught alike saying The care of all Churches is I teach in all Churches It remayneth
Congregation there all reason and rules of religion will require Christes said Church to bee no lesse then Vniversall For no man can â—hew that Christes said Church in the New Testament is limited and restrained to a Diocese or Province only No limiting of a Dioces-Church in the N. Test. that it is there forbidden to be a Vniversal church Our adversaries seeme not to desire to shewe it For as they weakely and slightly affirme Diocesan and Provinciall Churches to be in the New Testament yea even against Grammar so they openly acknowledge that Christ hath vpon earth “ See before pag 112. Hook 126.132 one whole Church being but one Body subiect to governemeÌ„t So that they yeeld the Church not to be limited to a Dioces or a Province And what can the Papistes wish more They will never desire more to be yeelded them from Protestantes if we stick to our owne wordes then to acknowledge all Christes Diocesan and Provinciall Churches and therefore our owne in England to be but Membrall Churches not intire and independent not indued with authoritie for the governement of them selves immediatly from Christ but to be partes and dependants of one whole Church being one Body subiect to governement For theÌ„ we must by Christes ordinaÌ„ce referre our selves for religion and spirituall governement to that one Body Visible whereof wee say wee are a part Heere a hundred “ Before pag. 179. difficulties will come vpon vs. The Doct. acknowledgeth also †Def. 3.5 a highest Senat of the Vniversall Church for the governement of it And certainly in all true reason there must bee so For there must bee by Christe ordinance a correspondent governement to the Body of every Church which is of Christ Maister Hooker trulie acknowledgeth it saying there “ Hook 3.132 must be a correspondent Church-polirie to every Visible Church But Doct. Downame wil perhaps turne this to a Vniversall Councill or Synod If he doe it is yet a simple evasion First I noted “ Pag. 113. 178. before that there never was right Vniversall Synode how so ever some have ben so named But if any Synod have ben helde for Vniversall yet such are exceedingly rare and extraordinarie in deed in these dayes not to be had But the Churches Body beeing ordinary and continuing alwayes it must have a correspondent governement as is said that is ordinarie dayly and continuall And this is it which we speake of If the Doctor wil grant such a highest Senat of the Vniversall Church that is ordinary constant and dayly exercising governement to this constant Body theÌ„ what is this els but a College of Cardinalls And in every such Consistorie or Senat I hope he will grant a President yea constant and during life not for a weeke or a short time And what is he but a Pope Neither is it materiall whether this President bee subiect to his Senat or not Which hee idly casteth in a little †Pag. 6. after Many Papistes do hold the Pope to be inferior to his Councill and yet they are verie Papistes And the Doct. holdeth a Provinciall Bishop to be by Divine ordinance Superior to his Provinciall Synod Why then may not the Vniversall Bishop be superior likewise to his Vniversall whether Synod or Senat Without question he ought to bee as well Thus no marvaill if Popish Walsingham who conferred with this Doctor went from him worse then hee came For holding such grounds hee can never make any sufficieÌ„t defence against Poperie as I have said His foure other reasons of difference betweene a Provinciall and a Vniversall Bishop which hee setteth downe pag. 6. are as frivolous as that which is most First he alleageth Calvins authoritie But what is that to a Papist or to one tempted that way And yet hee abuseth Calvin also For though Calvin saye “ Instit 4.6.2 There is not a like reason of one Nation and of the whole worlde yet he meaneth this vpon supposition That is if a Nation have Gods worde for their warrant as the Iewes had if the whole world have not Divine warrant as the Catholike Visible Church now in deed hath not then there is not the like reason betweene a Nation and the whole world But otherwise verily there is For a Bishop to both is necessary if both have Gods ordinance for it selfe a Bishop to neither is lawfull if neither have Gods ordinance And this Calvin him selfe plainly signifyeth in Sect. 9. Saying Nihil proficiunt Papistae nisi prius ostender in t hoc Ministerium Vniversale 〈◊〉 Christo esse ordinatum Noting by this that it is Christes ordinance that maketh the difference betweene a Nation and the whole world not the oddes of the Circuit But this the Do. wholy supprâ—sseth as also Calvins second answer to the Papistes immediatly following in the former place Saith he Est altera citamnum ratio cut illud Iudaicum in imitationem trahi non debeat The high Priest was a figure of Christ which now ceaseth Summum illum Pontificem typum fuisse Christi nemo ignorat Nune traslato Sacerdotio ius illud trasferri coÌ„venit Wherefore Calvin reiecteth the Iewes High Priestes National Ministerie and denyeth the vse of the like now for another reason which the Doct. also dissembleth So that his abusing of Calvin heerein is manifest Againe these last mentioned wordes of Calvin do confute the Do. in another place where to resist “ Reas. for reform pag. 5. me †Def. 25. hee denyeth the Iewes High Priestes Governement to have bene a type Secondly the Doct. maketh this difference betweene a Provinciall and a Vniversall Bishop saith he No mortall man is able to wield the governement of the whole Church It is true Nor yet of a Province nor of a Diocese For the least Pastor of these shall bee a huge Pluralist and Nonresident See pag. 150 and Reas. for Refor Reas. 3. which are contrary to Christ as before hath ben shewed The cause then of all this vnablenes is the want of Christes ordinance Which to both is alike as I have said and so their vnablenes is both alike Otherwise both should bee able and sufficient for such a charge well enough The Doctors third exception is as the last before Saith he it would proove dangerous and pernicious if that one Head should fall into error So also it is dangerous and pernicious to many thousands when a Provinciall Bishop falleth into error Yet the D. will not hold this a reason to proove him simply vnlawfull And therefore neither is it for the Vniversal Specially seeing a Provinciall Bishop can not make vnitie a Vniversall may as I have said His fourth exception is likewise a verie fancie viz. that it is infinit trouble much inconvenience to repaire from all partes of the world to one place There is no such matter if Christes ordinance for it were manifest If any inconvenience may seeme therein to
of England in maintayning Diocesan and Provinciall Churches Calvin and Beza abused and that therein they are against vs. First though Calvin doe note in this Chapt. the Churches state “ Institut 4.4.1 before the Papacie yet he saith not neither was it before Papalitie began Againe your governement may bee not withstanding from the Papâ—sts as indeed it is though this Church state there noted by Calvin were before the Papacie Chap. 4. For your governement is by him described in his †Chap. 5. next Chapter where hee saith “ Sect. I am in eligendo totum illud ius populi sublatum est Ad solos Canonicos integra potestas translata est Ills in quem volunt conferunt Episcopatum eum mox in conspestu plebis producunt non examinanduÌ„ sed adoraÌ„dum Now all the right of the people to chose thâ—ir Pastor was taken away The whole power was transferred to the Chanons or Prebendaries only They bestow the Bishoprike on whom they will him they bring forth before the people not to be tryed but to be worshipped of them And though hee saith this was “ In the title of chap. 5. tyrannide Papatus by the tyrannie of the Papacie yet every one seeth it to be the same kinde that is vsed in EnglaÌ„d which differeth substantially from the ancient forme of Church governement yea from that by him noted in his 4. Chapter which is not it that you exercise labour to maintaine So any may see from whom in deed you have receaved your governement Secondly he saith those before had almost nothing dissonant from Gods word Where he graunteth they had somewhat And therefore hee would not that this Church governement should be * See before pag. 149. our patterne though hee held it not wholy intolerable What meaneth the vaine Doctor to say wee “ Pag. 146. our selves do extend our assertioÌ„ to two hundred yeares We do not extend our patterne so farre Indeed we say a proper Diocesan Church was not before that time But we take our patterne of a Church only from the New Testam as wee ought Against which fundamentall point of ChristiaÌ„ religion see how profanely and yet absurdly hee reasoneth Aswell they may alleage that no whole Countrey ought to be converted because none was in the Apostles times as to deny a whole Countrey to be a Church Should weâ— not vse that forme of a Church which the Apost vsedâ— because it was not so in the Apostles times Never did I heare a more senseles speach and yet it savoureth all of impietie Every visible Church may containe no mo ordinary Congregations then the New Testament sheweth that a Church coÌ„tayned then which was but one and yet a whole Country may be converted to the faith and being converted may be reduced into many Churches in nomber according to the forme †Galat. 1 â— 21. and â— Cor. 8.1 1 Cor. 16.19 extaÌ„t in Christs TestameÌ„t And God forbid wee should professe to doe otherwise As for Calvin beside that above noted in him “ Pag. 149. speaking of the Order set down in Scripturs he saith the same is it †Instit 4. â— â— quo EcclesiaÌ„ suam gubernari voluit Dominus wherewith the Lord would have his Church to bee governed alwayes Againe “ Sect. â— Ecclesiae disitpationem vel ruinam potiùs exitium molitur quisquis ordinem hunc de quo disputamus HOC GENVS regiminis vel abolere studet vel quasi minus necessarium elevat He seeketh the ruine and destruction of the Church whosoever indeavoureth to abolish this order and THIS KIND of governement whereof wee treate or maketh light of it as lesse necessarie speaking as I said of that same kinde of ordinary governement which is fouÌ„d in the New Testament Which being Calvins minde can we thinke that hee would like of the Doctors mutabilitie No nor of his calling him and Beza “ Defen 2. pag. 140. Authors of Discipline and him the first or chiefe founder of it Beside is not this Doct. a cunning dissembler who can say of Calvin that his memorie with me is blessed and yet curseâ—h and revileth his Discipline as he calleth it Thirdly is it truth must we abide it that Calvin agreeth with the Do. against Lay Elders as he calleth them And his Refuter reproving him for that speach he mocketh saying What shall become of me now He saith he will salve it But how Forsooth he confesseth Calvin is against him both touching the Scripture and also the practise of the first Churches How salveth he the matter then Calvin saith that afterward Every City had a College of Elders all which were Teachers What then Can not Calvin thinke that this might somewhat differ from the Scripture and that this was thus about and after the Nicen Councell hitherward and yet in the first age of the Church after the Apostles there were som such lay Elders Is it not possible that Calvin may thus meane but that hee must needes agree in this matter with the D. and grosly contradict himselfe Thus forsooth our D. will needes have it in wordes commending Calvin Beza for the learned Disciplinarians but indeed making them what he can to seeme fooles Fourthly neither Calvin nor Beza “ Pag. 14â— 144. agreeth with them nor materially differeth from vs about a Diocesan Church as hee almost every where repeateth that they doe and is still beating vpoÌ„ it But falsly For first Calvin maketh not even then the City Country to be but one body He saith †Instit 4.4 2. velut Corpus as it were a Body Hee meaneth not that it was a persit Body but that there was some resemblance of one Body because of the consociation of all vnder one Bishop Yet indeed hee maketh each Parish then a Body substantially Saying “ Sect. 1â— Cum Parochijs novi Presbyters destinabantur tunc loci multitudinem nominatim consentire oportuit When newe Presbyters were appointed to Parishes then the multitude of the place must namely consent This power made them a Body indeed and to the Diocese they belonged but as it were to a Body or as having som resemblance of a body Which yet consisted in deed of many distinct bodyes someway independent This is the Diocesan Church which Calvin and Beza also speake of and is constituted at Geneva and in France and in the Lowcountries c. But this is not the †See before pag. 88. 89. proper Diocesan Church which is in England There is a substantiall difference betweene this improper and vnperfit Diocesan Body and that which is proper and persit Now then how do Calvin and Beza agree with the Bishops of Englande touching a Diocesan Church as he so ofte vaunteth and boasteth that they do Or how do they dissent from vs Wee see they do not The Doct. doth but slander them Neither “ Def. 2.147 doth Beza meane that any first Presbyter in a Church was formally appointed to 〈◊〉 Diocese vnder
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
they who lately published that book of D. Bils in Latin so to do vnles they meant to shew abroad further his most impertineÌ„t ambiguous vncertain writing yet fraught with bitternes enough against vs. In a word we desire that all men should know that our question is not whether Bishops and their governement be Apostolicall about the proving whereof the greatest part of these twoo Doctors bookes are spent Further though we denie Diocesan Provinciall Bishops of any sort to bee Apostolical yet we do not “ See Reas for Reform Pag. 7. 38 simply deny but that some kinde of them also may bee lawfull were it not that certaine waightie circumstances in these our dayes do stande against them Yea there are Circumstances now verie evident and pregnant against the best sort of Diocesan Bishops which were not in 200. or 300. yeares after Christ So that no reason can be made because they were lawfull in the second or third age therefore they are lawfull now The case being thus it is to be noted that the DD. do not propound the true question betwene vs. For if the peoples free coÌ„sent in their owne Church-governement were not as it is Christs ordinaÌ„ce in the New Testament certainly no CircuÌ„stance nor any thing els could make Diocesan or Provinciall Bishops at all reproveable For which cause the true question indeed betwene the Prelacie and vs or the principal maine question is Whether the people ought to have alwaies their free coÌ„sent in their owne Church government But this specially “ See his Defen 1 38.47 4.80.99 D. Downame putteth away from him with high disdaine coÌ„tempt rayling hatefull accusations and exclamations So that with this hee will not vouchsafe to medle Wherein truely we may see him to be I can not say learned but a cunning bolde and exquisite Sophister And this may be in generall a sufficient Answer even to his whole Defence Although for some other respectes I hope some body will one day examine his particular passages more exactly in a place for the purpose But to our point in hand We cleerâ—y see by this that it is the peoples coÌ„â—ent in the affaires of their owne spiâ—ituall that is Church governement which maketh the matter putteth the difference in deed betweene the Ecclesiasticall Reformation which in all dutifulnes wee seeke and that Church-governement which the L. Bishops in Engl. do exercise I say this concerning the peoples right heerein is it which toncheth the life of our coÌ„troversie Where vnderstand Note that I meane only such people as are not ignorant in religion nor scandalous in their life For only of such Christes Visible Church ought to consist Well to proceed theÌ„ with our point Questionles hence it is that generally the Adversaries of the forenamed Reformation do so strangly reiect yea so hatefully resist and strive against this same Christian doctrine heere propouÌ„ded coÌ„cerning the churches only true governement with the peoples free coÌ„sent as they do Wherein they expresse shew litle ChristiaÌ„ patieÌ„ce for they prosecute those that hold teach the same though out of meere conscience with all bitter reproches base skoffings iniurious slanders and vnmercifull dealings And all this it is plaine not for any manner of evill that they finde in this doctrine or for any incoÌ„venience therin For in truth there is none at all as partly I have shewed “ Reas. for reform pag. 28 heretofore it will further be manifested heereafter But they so hate this doctrine only because of the inevitable consequence of the said reformation which it bringeth with it Which crosseth overturneth wholy their divers enormous worldly carnall desires as any man that looketh into the case may easily see Howsoever it be yet the truth and the agreeablenes heereof with the holy Gospell of Iesus Christ with the assuring of our soules in the way to eternall life as it hath appeared to the world ever since the discovery of Antichrist more cleerely then it did for many yeres before so doubtles it will more and more appeare yet still be made further manifest to al men even where the Gospell is receaved as it is in many places yet not so sincerely as it ought to be See chapt 7. pag. 156. c. For my part because I well perceave that the Antichristian idolatrie and tyrannie of the Church of Rome caÌ„not by Divinitie be souÌ„dly resisted as experience in time will shew neyther was it resisted by our Forefathers at the beginning but by maintayning this Evangelicall point of doctrine among others therefore I have coÌ„descended the more willingly after diligent inquirie thereinto to approve the said point of doctrine viz. that the Church governement ought to be exercised alwayes with the peoples free consent Which also even for “ For that the Papa cie els will come in See Chap. 7. this same cause I can not but beleeve to be the holy ordinance of Iesus Christ for his Church vnder the Gospel and to have ben delivered vnto vs by the Apostles in their perpetuall practise of Church-governement But specially seeing for the same we have the most sure evidence of Gods word in the New Testament which I †Argnm. 3. 9. of the Divine beginning of Chrsts Visible church Declarat pag. 20 â—1 Reas. for Reform pag. 45. 46 47. 48. have heeretofore gathered and observed at large Secondly seeing we have for it a plentifull and cleere Attestation of many Learned Godly and famous Divines both New and Old confirming our faith and strengthening our consciences therein Which Attestation I have thought it needfull at this time and in this place to gather and produce for many causes First my desire is that it may ly open to the sight of all men what a great holy agreement of good men heerein we have which being added to the forenoted fundameÌ„tal certaintie thereof in Gods word giveth so full a satisfaction to every good Christian that who can desire more Secondly all ChristiaÌ„ Civill Magistrates may heereby take good content and be satisfyed touching the innocencie of this way in the Church governement which we holde For when they shall see with what a cloud of such witnesses we are coÌ„passed in defence of this matter they can not imagine any inconvenience by it to their governement notwithstanding all the clamours and invectives of partiall Adversaries against it Lastly heereby also our adversaries virulent tongues and pens if it be possible may bee ashamed to abuse vs as they do with al kinde of vnworthy reproches and slanders when they shall see whom they hate and persecute revile togeather with vs. Wherefore for the publishing of this matter there appeareth every way very great and necessarie reason CHAP. II. The Method and order of this Treatise NOw heerein I purpose to proceed thus First I will shew who among the New Writers are our Maisters Teachers in this point of doctrine
is before noted Whence it is that Doct. Downame heere saith truly the succession of their owne Clergie fayling and the helpe of others wanting the right is devolved to the whole body of the Church If the Doctor will reply say that this power and right is not essentially in the whole Congregation alwayes nor at all times but sometimes only that is in the case of necessitie aforesaid I answer then the D. folly and want of true reason will be manifest to all men For what soever is essentiall to any thing at sometime is essentiall to the same alwayes and evermore That which is essentiall once is essentiall still So that if the Congregations power right to consent in making of Ministers in Censures be essentiall at sometime as he acknowledgeth it is then certainly it is essentiall therein at all times and evermore The truth heereof can never be denyed And hence it is that Luther saieth If Titus would not Luth. de Ministr Eccles instit propâ— finem the Congregation might ordaine Ministers to them selves And of Excommunication Zuinglius saith “ Artic. 31. Non quod solus Episcopus hac facere debeat quisque hoc â—â—â—est si Episcopus fuerit negligens Any man may do this if the Bishop be negligent Hee meaneth any Man appointed by the Church may do it In which respect also that senteÌ„ce of Epiphanius that †Epiph. haereâ—â— 75. Biâ—â—ops can beget Fathers to the Church but Presbyters can not is to be refused as vntrue and erroneous For before wee have seene that only the CoÌ„gregation doth beget Fathers that is maketh Ministers essentially the Bishop doth it but instrumentally and Ministerially And so a Presbyter may do it as well as he whom they name a Bishop yea any other also may do it as Luther and Zuinglius before affirme when the Church imployeth them to that vsâ— Our two Doctors before cited even aâ— the Papistes also do hold strongly with those wordes of “ â—aereâ— 75. Epephanius to the great preiudice of the Gospel But their bare opinions names are nothing to our cleere and certain reason for the contrarie before set downe Neither are the bare opinions and naked names of any other men whosoever any better worth Seventhly 〈◊〉 last of all hence it foloweth so that it can not bee denyed that seeing thâ— whole CoÌ„gregation doth always give the Calling of ordinary Ministers essentially therfore the whole Congregation ought alwayes of necessitie tâ— give their free consent to their Minister at least so farre foorth that nonâ— bee imposed on them whether they will or no. The like also is to bee saiâ— of their power in iurisdiction And these pointes wee must imagine that they are acknowledged and held by D. Downame or surely that hee ought to acknowledge them all seeing by force of true reason they al do follow from those his wordes which he affirmeth holdeth as before I have declared Now this is all that wee professe touching the pleoples right tâ— Church government For we deniâ— not but in the ordinarie peaceable and right state of the Church when al things are caried well the chief diâ—ection sway of the whole government belongeth to the Bishop or Paâ—tor the people beeing on their part â—o hearken to their Teacher to folâ—ow their Guide obediently dutieâ—ully D. Down Deâ—â— 1.41 Their power to iudge and to provide otherwise for themselves being wheÌ„ they see their Guides to faile Which seeing it is his minde also set downe in his owne words before reâ—earsed I have truly affirmed that â—ouching our present cause even this Doctor agreeth with vs sometime in â—ull effect by good consequence of â—eason from his expresse wordes Though at other times he do as some report Cicero said to Salust “ Orat. 〈◊〉 Cicer. 〈◊〉 Salust Aliud stans â—â—â—â—d sedens de repub sentis Of the common â—ealth thou thinkest one thing standing another sitting Of Christes Visible Church and the governement thereof verily our Doctor doth likewise CHAPTER VII Chap. 7. Consequences of greatest importance following vpon the peoples free coÌ„sent in their Church governement inconveniences in Religion not sufferable following from the contrary AFter the forerehearsed Witnesses for this Doctrine we wil now shewe certain cleere and necessarie Consequences which follow from the same also some true and great Inconveniences to faith and godly life and to Civill authoritie such as are not to be tolerated which yet cannot be avoyded where men professing to be Christians imbrace not this point Of all fortes I wil heere observe eight great and waightie Consequentes heerevpon First this being receaved as the Ordinance of Christ and the practise of the Apostles 1. CoÌ„sequent that the Church governement ought to be alwayes with the peoples free consent it followeth that every Church is only “ As is also shewed in the Declaration pag. 12. 13. 14. 35. one ordinarie Congregation and not any proper Diocesan or Provinciall Church or larger Vnderstanding alwayes the peoples free consent to be orderly conveniently taken and practised so as Christ intendeth that †1. Cor. 14.40 every thing should bee done in his Church For where the peoples free consent is orderly and conveniently practised alwayes in the Church governement there the Body of the Church can not be so large as a Diocese much lesse as a Province or Nation and least of all so large as a Vniversall Church Seeing all this people can not possibly by any meanes give their free consent in the ordinarie Church-governement neither can any person take it of all them iustly orderly and conveniently This to say the truth is not possible For in such a state when onely some maine partes of the Church governement are exercised it will bee alwayes with much defect and also with great disturbance and tumult oftentimes I say where it is extended so largely so wide with concurrence of such multitudes of people This is true first in very reason and withall often experience hath shewed it in former times vnder most Christian carefull Princes after the Nicen Councill as at Alexandria at Antioch at Rome at Constantinople and in infinite places mo a great part whereof the “ Euseâ— Socrat. Zozomeâ— Theodoret. Evagrius Stories doe record In which Church actions though done with to inconvenient libertie of the people yet the greatest part of the people whoÌ„ the effect of those businesses reached vnto were absent and so wanted their right those which were present were full of confusion and tumult neither could it be otherwise But God is the God of equitie of order and of peace Wherefore this disorder can nor be fit for Gods Church And so neither can a Diocesan circuit Râ—as for reform p. 26.27 or larger in which this disorder wil arise necessarilie if all that people togeather have their free consent in their Church-governement Which the whole
people of every Church alwayes ought to have by Christes and the Apostles ordinaÌ„ce as “ Pag. 19. chap. 3.4.5 before we have seene Nay to come nearer No proper and perfect Diocesan Church or larger ever did or doth admit the peoples free consent in their ordinarie governement Vniversally and alwayes it is so indeed it can not be otherwise For where each ordinarie Congregation hath their free consent in their ordinarie governement there certainly each Congregation is an intire and independent Body politike Spirituall and is indued with power in it selfe immediatly vnder Christ And so every of them are true proper Churches So that these Congregations admit not where they are any proper Diocesan Church or larger neither doth the proper Diocesan Church or larger admit intire and independent ordinary CoÌ„gregations Which as I said have their free consent in their ordinary governement They are indeed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 such as “ Reas. for 〈◊〉 form pag. 23.25 cannot stand together possibly And therfore it is likewise that which heretofore †Ibid pag. 8â— I have affirmed and so do still in the Newe Testament there is not any Diocesan Church or larger to be found Which point though I have in my Declaration proved it by this and 6. other reasons yet I will heere draw it into this Syllogisme againe No Church holding the peoples free consent in their ordinary governement with iust and decent order is Diocesan or larger Every Visible Church in the New Testament holdeth the peoples free consent in their ordinary governement with iust and decent order Therfore No Visible Church in the New Testament is Diocesan or larger The first proposition is manifest of it selfe and I have shewed it more “ Pag. 84 8â— 86. c. fully before The Assumption or 2. proposition is at large proved confirmed in those places which are noted in the margin before viz. pag. 19. and are mentioned againe particularly pag. 76. To which purpose also the whole 3.4 5. chap. do helpe Where I am to adde moreover that this Conclusion is true not only in the New Testament but also in the ages following a long while after That is no such Diocesan churches were fouÌ„d till 420. yeres after Christ yea til 680. and more were past Which I shewed before in the end of the fift Chap. as also I touched it in my Declaration pag. 24.25 But let it be remembred that heere I speake precisely of proper Diocesan Churches and larger There is therefore necessarily a distinction to be made of Diocesan Churches There are proper Diocesan Churches and larger there are improper The proper Diocesan Church and larger is where the people have no power freely to consent in the affaires of their ordinarie Church governement The improper Diocesan Church and larger is where although there be a kinde of Diocesan or larger Consociation of many ordinarie CoÌ„gregations in Spirituall governement vnder one generall Presidencie or Superioritie yet the ordinarie Congregations have their free consent at least they have nothing by their Spirituall Governors imposed on them against their wills Which kinde of Dioces church being duly ordered wee do not gainsay There are hereof also two kinds The one is “ Act. 15.2.3.6.7 Apostolicall viz. where many ordinarie Congregations consociating togeather in their spirituall governement have a Diocesan or larger Synod or Presbyterie over them for their better direction Such the forraigne reformed Churches at this day do enioy The other kinde is where many ordinary Congregations so consociating togeather have one person a constant President during life over them whom men after the Apostles called a Diocesan Bishop some a Metropolitan and such like other names Albeit of these there were without question divers kindes and sortes some exercising greater power and authoritie some lesse that is the ancienter had lesse the later for the most part alwayes had their power greater and greater Ad â—vagr in Tit. 1. For of these Ierome saith most truly both that their Matoritie over the Presbyters of Congregations was by Humane ordinaÌ„ce and also that it came in grew greater paâ—latim by litle and litle that is by degrees Albeit I say therefore that these Diocesan Bishops were of divers kindes sortes yet the first of them neither were in the Apostles times neither were they immediatly after the Apostles Contrariwise D. Downame affirmeth that Marke the Evangelist ordained in Alexandria a Diocesan church coÌ„sisting of many ordinarie Congregations Which he thinketh to prove by some words of “ Euseb 2.15 Eusebius who saith Marke first †D. Downâ— Def. 2.124 constituted churches 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Alexandria it selfe as he falsly translateth it I say this he falsly translateth as “ 3.137 3.25.16 Doct. Dovâ— also did before him wherevpon the whole grouÌ„d of their error doth rest Def pag. 17 â—â— Which their falsificatioÌ„ I shall by Gods helpe shew plainly out of Eusebius him self even in this very place The preposition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth not heere signifie in a place as they vntruly imagine but it signifyeth to a place and so it ought to be translated In Latin we should say ad Alexandriaâ— ipsam or vsque ad that is to Alexandria or vnto Alexandria it selfe This is Eusebius true meaning For he would shew that Marke was the first that constituted Churches in the country of Egypt and withall that hee did so even vnto the chiefe City thereof viz. Alexandria And this is all that hee meaneth heere Twice in this very place besides Eusebius vseth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in this same construction and sense Both immediatly before the wordes in question and immediatly after Before thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to Egypt or vnto Egypt After thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to Rome or vnto Rome not in Rome nor in Egypt Wherefore so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifyeth likewise in this place which we have in hand seing it runneth in one coÌ„text together with the former and is all one manner of phrase Besides Eusebius straight after alleaging Philo concerning this same people whom Marke converted saith that he spake 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the Churches about in the Countrey and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 about Alexandria not in Alexandria Last of all Eusebius vttereth this as he doth the next foregoing clause likewise with this terme 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they say or some report By which and the like termes he vseth to relate vncertain and apocryphall things yea sometimes fabulous and vntrue For Eusebius is not precise in setting down all his matters chiefly those which he hath only vpon rumour and report And where hee seemeth to require credit in deed hee is not sparing to name his authors as Egesippus Clemens Dionysius and such other Wherefore divers wayes D. Downames presumptuous assertion and which he doth so boast of that Marke instituted many Churches in AlexaÌ„dria waÌ„teth
proofe For indeed Euseb doth not avouch it Yea D. Bilson also denieth it generally saying “ D. Bils perper govern Pag. 306. Each place were it never so great had but one Church and one chiefe Pastor He speaketh of those first times Peradventure if Eusebius write true and if hee had good intelligence heereof Iulianus the tenth Bishop of Alexandria was a Diocesan Bishop in some measure For I will not deny but Churches may begin to be mulplyed in Alexandria about that time So that some small beginning shew of a Diocesan Bishop which heeretofore I called fitly a “ Rem for refor pag. 7. Titular Diocesan was in him peradventure And I say peradventure because this graunt is gotten from vs only by reason of a few wordes in * Euseb 5.9 Eusebius whose words yet alwayes are not Gospell Yea in historie †Rain confes pag. 257. he is not alwayes so sure at that we may build on him Which also before I insinuated Howbeit I will not sticke to acknowledge Iulianus to have ben such a Diocesan Bishop as I said But withall I affirme that for any thing wee finde hee was the first that ever was that by no record any DiocesaÌ„ can be shewed before him Now this was “ Vnder Commodus Emperour neare vpon 200. yeres after Christ Yet for the Westerue partes of Christendome I agree with Platina who out of one Damasus saith that Dionysius Bishop of Rome first ordained Dioceses which was about the yeare of Christ 260. Against this D. Downame excepteth vrging that †D. Down Def. 2.99 Platina saith not Dionysius did it first I answer and will avouch it that in effect he saith so much For he saith that Dionys being made Bishop of Rome †Platin. in Dionys. straightway divided Churches in the Citie of Rome Which cannot be otherwise meant but that hee did it first and that before him the Congregations there were not divided As for that he saith before of Evaristus Bishop of Rome that “ In Evaristus he divided titles to the Presbyters I answer this verily is meant of divers praecincts and quarters belonging only to one intire CoÌ„gregation and ordinarie Assemblie Reason requireth that in great Cities wheÌ„ Christians multiplied first there should be such praecinctes and quarters designed before many ordinarie churches were divided and constantly set in them The French Duch Churches in London have such praecinctes and quarters yet they have each but one ordinary Congregation And questionles so it was in Rome for divers ordinarie set Congregations were not appointed there long after this no not in the time of Cornelius B. of Rome nor in Carthage vnder Cyprian Which may well bee gathered out of their Writings They both flourished togeather about the yeare of Christ 250. Wherefore though such Titles as are praecincts beloÌ„ging to one ordinarie Congregation might well be instituted by Evaristus and multiplyed afterward Yet this nothing hindereth our assertion that Dionysius first instituted distinct Churches there and so a Diocesan Church improper And Doc. Downame presumeth too grosly where hee affirmeth that these titles signifyed “ D. Down Def. 2.100 Parish Churches then in Rome What soever the word may signifie sometime questionles heere in this busines touching Evaristus it signifieth as I have said divers quarters and praecincts of one ordinarie Congregation and nothing els And this is the cleerest most certain notice that wee have touching the first Diocesan Bishops and Churches improperly so called Which after they were erected continued in the Christian world in divers kindes and sortes as I said before They were begun and set vp at first I doubt not out of a good intent yet it as plaine as may be that errour alwayes accompanied them even from the first The best of these Bishops not waÌ„ting some ambition and partiall respect toward them selves and all of them possessed with that erroneous opinion that the peereles authoritie of one Bishop over the Churches was the best meanes of true vnitie and chieflie Gods purpose being that thus the Vniversal Papacie should at last be advaÌ„ced which otherwise never could have ben so I say it came to passe that these Diocesan Bishops and Churches and their authoritie in continuance of time grew still greater and greater yet as Ierome saith and as reason also sheweth it to bee likely it proceeded paulatim by litle and litle by small degrees and by increasings not spyed of every one till at last they all grew to be transformed into proper Diocesan Bishops and Churches and got the power of Spirituall governement absolutly into their handes cleane excluding all power of the people in the ordinarie Congregations freely to consent which formerly they had ever held more or lesse But this was not fully brought to passe till after that the great Apostasie and tyrannie of the Vniversall Bishop the Romane Antichrist was begun to be set vp as “ Pag. 06. â—â—â— 88. before I declared I graunt heere that the improper Diocesan Churches as I note them were called and named Diocesan many yeares agoe and are also at this time by many learned men But yet indeed they are such Churches viz. Diocesan or larger improperly are called so by a catachresis an abusive maner of speaking The reason is because truly these Churches are not each of them one proper and intire Diocesan Body as a proper diocesan Church is but hath so many distinct Bodies and independent as there are Ordinarie Congregations in each of them inioying their free consent in their severall governements Yet each of them is called a Diocesan Church or larger for other respectes to wit because it hath a certain kinde of Diocesan or larger consociation of so many Churches togeather and a kinde of dependance vnder one generall Presidencie or Superioritie as before I observed Againe Pag. 88. 89. both the kinds of these improper Diocesan Churches above specified that is the Synodall Episcopall do guide and rule much alike In respect of the severall Congregations vnder them they rule not absolutly nor as intire and sole governors but with relation to the saide Congregations free consent which is their ancient right and immunitie as they are Churches of Christ Which immunitie and free power they may lawfully take to them selves vse whensoever they see necessary cause for it as even our adversaries acknowledge D. Down Def. 4.99 Whence it is that both stand well beeing duly ordered with the good proceedings of the Gospell Neither did any man of vnderstanding ever deny this Howbeit yet we affirme that of these two the consociation by Synodes or Presbyteries is most convenient most profitable and most safe for vs at least wise now that is in respect of these times in which we live and of the circumstances in them The governement of Diocesan Bishops though of the best sort is not so good nor safe especially now Whereof it is easie to yeelde many good reasons which heere I passe over But what is this to approve the governement of a proper Diocesan Church or
saith somewhat in the Church may “ Def. 1.7 be of Apostolicall institution D Down and yet not straightwayes Divini iuris of Divine right And every * Pag. 29. Apostolicall and so Divine Ordinance is not generally perpetually and immutably necessary Which he doth often repeat in his 4. booke It seemeth to be taken from Bellarmine the Iesuit Controv. 1. lib. 4. cap. 2. I am sure it is contrary to holy Scripture whiche sheweth that the Apostles whole practise in the Churches was Christes very commaundement The Apostles practise was Christs commandemet and vnchangeable by men Christ saith to his Apost “ Math. 28.20 Teach all Nations to do whatsoever I have commaunded you And Paul testifyeth to the Church of Corinth †1 Cor. 11.23 He receaved of the Lord that which he delivered to them And he chargeth others “ 2 Thes 2.15 To stand fast and to keepe the Ordinances which they had ben taught either by word or by his Epistle Therefore whatsoever is Apostolicall is indeed Divine and it is Christes very commandement and in respect of vs generally and immutably necessarie And so we affirme that the peoples consent in Church governemeÌ„t being a practise Apostolicall as by those Scriptures “ Pag. 76. the margin of pag. 19. above specified it is proved therefore it is also Christes Commaundement and therefore also vnchangeable by men Yea touching Church Censures it is expresly Christes Commandement Math. 18.17 Therfore I conclude seeing we not they do stande with the All-sufficieÌ„cie of holy Scripture with the intire and absolute Offices of Christ our Savior viz. his Propheticall and Kingly Offices even in teaching and inioyning a certaine forme of his Church and governement absolutely and vnchangeably for ever and seeing wee not they do thus asscribe vnto Christ this Divine Honor due in deed to his owne person wholy and only it must needes bee easily perceaved that we not they have the truth also we not they are free from schisme Will any defend our adversaries heerein deny that they thus teach against the honor of Christ or of his Word in his New Testament Or that the pointes which they hold do force meÌ„ to any such impious coÌ„sequents First therefore I will shew that such Consequentes must of necessitie folâ—ow from their opinion then I will â—ote their expresse wordes Whosoever will not holde one vniforme opinion of the Church and governement thereof as we do who beleeve the peoples consent therein to be alwayes necessarie but do preferre the Diocesan and Provincial Church-governement by L. Bishops and yet do also allow of that forme of a Church and governent where are no Diocesan Bishops at all yea where the peoples free consent and voyce-giving is receaved they of necessitie must say that the forme of Christes Visible Church of the governement therof may both bee instituted and also changed by men Of force they must say that Christ in his New Testament is not the Teacher Institutor Framer Lord and Law-giver of his Visible Church as he was in the Old Testament They must deny Christes Propheticall and Kingly Offices toward vs in respect of appointing his Visible Church and governement as also they must deny that Christes Testament is a sufficient rule for vs every where and for ever But that vniforme opinion our adversaries do deny Therefore such are the Consequents which men are forced to acknowledge who will hold as our Adversaries do Now heare their words D. Downame saith “ D. Down Def. 4.104 Where the governement by Bishops can not be had another forme may be vsed Yea he affirmeth †Def. 1.29 Def. 4.103 The Apostolicall and so Divine OrdinaÌ„ce of governement “ Pag 82. by the Bishop alone as hee thinketh Timothie and Titus were * commanded to governe is changeable by men And this in his 4. booke hee often inculcateth and repeateth But he saith hee teacheth thus * Def. 3.107 Out of charitie to those Churches which have no L. Bishops and in †Pag. 108. favour of them See this Doctor how for favor of men he wil spoile Christ Iesus of his due honor glory Such is his charitie to meÌ„ that it maketh him vncharitable and vndutifull to his Savior and to his blessed Gospell But hee will say perhaps that he graunteth this change of the Apostolike Ordinances and Preceptes only Vpon necessitie Fy What necessitie may breake the Apostles Ordinances and Preceptes Yea such preceptes whereof the Apostle saith “ 1 Tim. 6.13 14. I charge thee in the sight of God who quickeneth all things and before Iesus Christ c. that thou keepe this Commandement without spot and vnrebukeable vntill the appearing of our Lord Iesus Christ. Againe what necessity have the French and Dutch Churches c. to be without Diocesan and Provinciall L. Bishops Nay how easily might they have such if they thought them Apostolike And wofull it were God knoweth if they had need of this faver and charitie of the Doctor to maintaine them selves withall against the Papistes objections But let vs go on Gabriel Pawell also in that which he punished with the great allowaÌ„ce of the L. Bb. of Canterburic and London theÌ„ being saith expresly †G. Powel a Prefat â—d Adiaph Christ is not the Law-gives of his Church Archbishop Whitgâ—fe against Maister Cartwright of blessed memorie saith that to holde the forme of the Church governement thereof to be constant alwayes one and vnchangeable by men is “ D. Whitgâ— against T. C. in the Presa a false principle and rotten pillar So rottenly writeth that great Atlas of the Prelacie in England D. Bilson maketh it the maine drift of the third Chapt. of his Perpet governement to deny this part of Christes Kingdome Hee saith “ D. Bilson Perp. gov pag. 14. 15. The Kingdome and Throne which Christ reserved to himselfe farre passeth directing and ordering of outward things in the Church which he hath left to others Nay sure he hath †Isa 42. 〈◊〉 not left it to others He still reserveth this authority dignitie to him selfe vnder the Gospell as well as hee did vnder the Law And it is more then frivolous by advauncing Christes inward kingdome by his Spirit which the Doct. doth in this Chapter to denie his Outward Kingdom which ordereth the Outward Spirituall things in his Church Such as are the instituting of Sacraments the Ordayning of the Ministerie the appointing of Excommunication the Commanding of Sacred Societies and Assemblies c. Is the power of these Outward things left to others It is not it may not be Hee saith heere indeed that “ Pag. 16. the outward face of the Church where the good and bad by the Word and Sacraments are gathered togeather may be called the kingdome of heaven and of Christ And he saith well But in this he either contradicteth his generall purpose discourse or els
be it is superabundantly recompenced with far greater blessings when wee practise Christes ordinance And truly this must be so Such a Bishop to such a Church must be if the Do. opinion be true that Christ hath in the New Testamēt appointed a Vniversall Church Visible being but one Body subiect to governement as above we have seene Hee addeth These reasons may suffice Yea truly they suffice to make 10000. Papists but they wil never reclaime one Vnto this wee may adde that the very Natures of a Diocesan or Provinciall Church and of a Vniversall have no essentiall difference in them The very Forme and Order of administring thē differeth not in any substantiall point Only a Church limited to one ordinary Cōgregation differeth essentially from a Vniversall Church as also from a Diocesan and Provinciall as “ Declar. pag. 11. 12. 13. I have shewed elswhere Whence it is that where the Church is Diocesan or Provinciall as it is now in England there is an easie passage to the Vniversall and sooner they may be combined into one then where the Churches are limited each to one ordinarie Congregation the people inioying their free consent in Church-governement Nay there are many stronge seeming reasons inducing men of reason to yeelde that the Diocesan and Provinciall Formes of Churches not only may easily but also ought necessarily to bee combined to come into one Vnivers Church For whatsoever is or can bee brought by Doctor Downame or any other to maintayne Diocesan and Provinciall Churches the same is much more pregnant for a Vniversall And what warrant alloweth them to rule over the particular Congregations that same requireth them to be ruled also by a Vniversall Church If Diocesans and Provincialistes go about to produce Scripture for their origen institution they do it so weakly so vntowardly and so vnlikely that any man seeing considering it without partialitie would bee ashamed But heere the Catholikes step in boldly foorth-with they name sundrie places in the New Testament for their Vniversall Church Visible Eph. 4.4 12. 16. Math. 16.18 1 Cor. 12.28 Rev 20.9 Gal. 4.26 And in the Creed I beleeve the Catholike Church Which indeed have more shew for it then anie places have for Diocesan or Provinciall Churches independent as ours be in England Againe if Vnitie concorde and peace-making be a reason for Diocesan and Provincial churches it is much better for a Vniversal Church For it is true a Vniversall Church may cause in Christendom a kind of Vnitie peace but Diocesan Provincial Churches can never For among these there may bee easily so many opinions as there bee Provinces Their Bishops beeing 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Heads by them selves Where the D. saith †The Church was freer from Schismes before the Papacie Def. 3.66.67 then vnder it It is most vntrue and it bewrayeth in him much ignorance though he disdaine to have that once imagined in him The case being thus what resistance can be made to the subtill and mightie perswasions of Iesuites and Popish Priestes vrging tender soules consciences vpon these advātages Chiefly when they shall shew them withall that our great learned Divines Doctors confesse that Christ hath ordayned in the New Testament that his true Visible Church should be one Body subiect to governement A strange oversight in our Defenders against Poperie granting a Vniversall Church Visible in the N. Testam and that a Vniversall Church Visible is Christes ordinance now vnder the Gospell Seeing it is plaine that a Vniversall Church Visible at this day in all the world there is none but the Romane And the Roman Church in deed is a Vniversall Visible Church intending to have and having members in every Nation vnder heaven Yea it hath seemed to have bene such for these thousand yeares past but the Catholikes avouch it to have ben ever since Christ And why may not that bee likely if a Vniversall Visible Church bee Christes Ordinance Certainly Christes Visible Ministerial Church must continue “ Math. 28.20 alwayes from the time of his Ascētion vnto the Worlds end And some-where extant it must be But this hath not ben any where since in all Christendome except at Rome Whence it will follow if those our Doctors sayings be true that the Roman Church hath ben and is Christs Vniversall Church Visible It is fond to obiect as some doe that No particular Church can be Vniversall because they are opposit And so neither can the Roman Church seeing it is particular bee Vniversall I saye this is fond For a Vniversal Church Visible must have some particular Visible Church to bee their Head As from King David till Christ the Vniversall Church had the particular Church at Ierusalem for their Head So the Roman◠Church may be the Head of the Vniversall Church visible now if Christ have ordayned any such which those our D.D. seeme to grant and in that respect it may bee well called a Vniversal Church though it selfe bee but particular Thus the Catholikes will have strong advantage still vpon the Provincials And they will presse that we ought rather to imbrace the Vniversall Church then any Diocesan or Provinciall independent as ours in England is Nay they will shewe that if we will be saved simply we must be professed members of Christes Vniversal Church Visible seeing Chirst hath ordayned it And this absolutly can not be mo then only one in the world And in this case we must suspect our opinions in religion which differ from the doctrine of Christes only true Church we must thinke it at least probable that the doctrine of the said Church is the very minde of Christ though otherwise wee might make question of somewhat therein And such doubtes must be decided tryed within the saide Church not without it So that first we must provide that our selves be in the communion of the said Church And this after the former reckoning will proove as I have shewed to bee the Roman Church And so Doctor Downame and the rest have spun a faire threed Which fearfull inconvenience and mischiefe followeth by denying this true Christian Assertion viz. that Christes true Visible Church vnder the Gospel is only one Ordinary Congregation as also this that the peoples free consent in the Church governement ought to bee alwayes admitted To grant a Vniversall Church Visible vnder the Gospel is the groūd of all mischief Where may be added an other vnspeakeable and intolerable mischiefe which cometh by this magnifying of a Vniversal Visible Church against the Kings Maiesties Soveraigntie and against al other Civil Magistrates free governement A Vniversall Visible Church is the very ground and reason that so many do give their lives against the oth of allegeance to our King as now there do and as it may be feared many mo will For the Vniversal Pastor or Bishop of the said Vniversal Visible Church whom the members are bound to heare
their trust in the living God “ Chap. 2.13 They digge to themselves pits that can hold no water It is true the Vniversall and perpetuall practise of Christs Church is to bee held alwayes good and holy This I grant but it is because such practise evermore hath the Apostles plaine writing for it and with it Which the Churches said practise can not bee destitute of But yet suppose our adversaries had som kind of general consent of men for theÌ„ as they pretend seeing they can not indeed produce the Scripture more then the Papists do who also preteÌ„d the like Vniversal consent for their turne or suppose that they do but pretend all this Vniversalitie perpetuitie beeing far from it indeed then why I praâ— should not we answer them as D. Bilson somtime answered the said Papists Saying “ Answ to the Seminar part 4. pa. 360 If you want the foundation of faith and religion he meaneth the Scripture in vaine you do seeke to make a shew of Catholicisme with such patches and pamplets c. When you muster the Fathers to disprove the Scriptures and to establish an vnwritten faith vnder the credit of traditions you corrupt the Writers and abuse the Readers †Pag. 362. Nowe cite not only 9. but 9. skore Fathers if you will for Traditions the more you stir the worse you spcede “ Pag. 300. Truth hee meaneth the Scripture is authoritie sufficient against all the world * Pag. 301. One man with truth is warrant against all the world yea every private man for his owne person may embrace Gods Lawes whosoever say nay And as Tertullian hath against this no man may prescribe nor space of time nor patronage of persons nor privilege of places “ Pag. 299. Though the whole world pronounce againe the word yet God will bee true and all men lyars †Pag. 384. God speaketh not now but in the Scriptures How excellently are these things written if he himselfe and his associats would followe the same or would suffer vs to follow it The effect wherof is that not only wee are bound evermore to holde fast Gods word and never to admit the carnal reasoÌ„ of Humane consent in Divine matters such as our questioÌ„ of the forme of Christs Church is but also it notifyeth D. Bilsons open coÌ„tradictioÌ„ to himselfe who presseth hardly against vs that which hee denyeth to the Papists Is God an accepter of persons Is it ill for Papists to plead Vniversall consent and yet must we content our selves with it rest thereon Shall he say to vs “ Perp. gov pag. 223.235 Is not the whole Church a lawfull and sufficient witnes in that case And that it is enough †Pag. 228. if any christian persons deserve to be credited And yet shall he say to Papists “ Lib. 4 38â— It is alike Haereticall to believe without Scripture aâ— to believe against Scripture Yea even to ourselves when hee list hee can say †Perp. gov pag. 286. Make vs good proofes out of Scripturs or leave tying Gods ordinances to your appetites Wherfore we must crave leave in our cause also to answer him and all of his minde with his owne words afore rehearsed And likewise with D. Rainold that “ Cons 257. No Humane proofe is sure in Divinitie †Pag. 19â— Truth is not to be tryed by consent of Fathers “ Pag. 45â— For my selfe I assure you that neither dead nor quicke Fathers nor children shall perswade me any thing in matter of religion which they cannot prove by Moses the Prophetes or which hee meaneth by the Apostles writings Now thus the Churches Vniversall perpetuall consent beeing no good proofe in Divinitie the whole Churches consent at some time only is a proofe much worse and by no meanes to be admitted Though Augustin in a certain place it seemeth held it good yet it is his error as where hee saith “ August epist 118. Si quid tota hodiè per orbem frequentat Ecclesia hoc quin ita faciendum sit disputare insolentissimae insaniae est If the whole Church through out the world at this day observe any thing it is insolent madnes to reason against it Certainly there have ben and may be †As sometime Polygamie was Catholike errors which yet questionles may be yea ought to bee reproved by all them that vnderstaÌ„d them Well but have our adversaries a Vniversall coÌ„sent of the whole Church at any time Alas they are far from it Neither D. Bilson nor D. Downame nor they al have alleaged neither can they alleage halfe a quarter of the whole Church at any time What then Then they are to lavish of their wordes in saving they have the Vniversall consent of the whole Church They indeed come short of it by many hundred thousandes A poore fewe God knowes they cite in comparison of all It may be they name some of the chiefe most famous in their dayes Yet it followeth not that all who lived then were of their minde D. Bilson against the Seminar lib. 1. part 2. pag. 402. Neither is it necessary that all differences should bee recorded in writing nor that all Records should be preserved come to our handes So that they are far from proving a Vniversall consent at any time much lesse at all times of the Church But what speake I of Vniversalitie and perpetuitie Let our adversaries not equivocat Let them deale plainly Let them vse no deceit in wordes nor force to mens consciences And then I assure thee good reader nothing but noveltie and iniquitie is in their Defence and assertion against vs. I have shewed before that in our controversie which wee have at this day “ Above pa. 98.97 â—â— we speak against only a proper Diocesan Church and the Bishop thereof where the peoples free coÌ„sent is wholy denyed them as it is in England and our adversaries defende namely this Diocesan Church and Bishop Of this particularly and precisely is all their †Def. 2.114 Epist to the King pag. 1 great and glorious commendation and praise which they publish Nowe to the point Is this kind of Diocesan Church and this kind of Bishop Apostolicall Have they Vniversall perpetuall approbation for this Nothing lesse I appeale heerin to our right worthy Attestators before alleaged yea to all indifferent and vnpartiall witnesses yea to the partial also in times of “ Pag. 64. 65. 66. antiquitie who do stand with vs. By all true evidence it wil be as cleare as the light at noone day that this foresaid proper Diocesan Church and Bishop were not in the world till after 200. yeares of Christ which is the time limited by vs Indeed not till after 300. Nay it was after 400 and longer also As I have shewed “ Pag. 66. 67. 88. before So that both D. Bilsons and D. Downames Defences which they have made for
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
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
if our proofes stand or subvertion if your answere be good For if this faile well may Bishops claine their authoritie by the custome of the Church by any divine precept expressed in the Scriptures they can not Saith hee so Let vs see then howe soundly this will stand But first I desire him to remember if it happen that this his proofe out of the Scripâ—â—â—◠〈◊〉 subverted and then he be forced to flie to the Churches Custom for succour that himselfe hath ruined cast downe and defaced that weake hold all ready So that there he can have no reliefe Now then to his proofes out of scripture that Titus Timothie were Bishops He frameth 4. Arguments for it 1. That power to ordaine sit Ministers to convent discharge vnsit prescribed to Titus Timothie was no power proper to Evangelists Wee grant this wholy even the Conclusion It is another point and nothing against vs. The Conclusion of his 2. argument is like to the former therefore we grant it also For this proveth not that Timothie or Titus were proper Bishops which is the question Yet in the Minor where hee saith that Presbyteries claime this power comitted to Timothie Tite even to ordain examine censure deprive Pastors I deny this to bee true Presbyteries claime not this power Neither have they it properly originally as Bucer shewed “ Pag 33. before Properly and originally the whole Church hath this power the Presbyterie hath only the authoritie of administring the same that in the name of the whole Church as Piscator and Vâ—sinus †Pag. 46. â—1 before do expresse And further I answer by that distinction above noted This power of ordayning examining censuring c. committed to Timothie and Titus the Presbyterie in deed hath and executeth Materially but not Formally Which maketh his Minor Proposition to bee false most cleerely His 3. argument is concluded in no forme But where he “ Perp. gov Pag. 391. saith The precepts of Ordayning and Censuring are delivered to Timothie and Titus and to those that should succeed them vnto the end of the world Ergo Timothies power function in this behalfe must bee perpetuall This is true likewise Materially but not Formally Their Successors are to execute the same in deed alwayes as touching the material actions Those things must be done but vnder divers formes of Ministeries or maners of administration Heere Timothie and Titus being properly Evangelistes did these actions vnder the forme of an Evangelisticall Ministerie Sometime Apostles did the same actions but vnder the forme of an Apostolicall Ministerie After them Bishops did the same actions also but vnder the forme of a proper Bishops office c. Wherefore the perpetuitie of these actions materially which Timothie and Titus did proveth not the Office and Ministerie of Timothie and Titus formally to bee perpetuall This is a very weake conclusion and very crooked His 4. argument is The whole Church of Christ since the Apostles times without exception hath so constred the Apostles wordes to Timothie and Titus touching their governement And hee names Eusebius Ierome Ambrose c. D. Rainolds answereth Hart the Priest Confer pag. 267. I perceave the Pope must fetch his Supremacie from Earth and not from Heaven You are fallen from Scripture to Eusebius Even so our adversaries when all is done they must fetch the Diocesan L. Bishops Office from earth and not from heaven They fall from Scripture to Eusebius c. And yet not Eusebius not the rest do conster those preceptes to Timothie and Titus as belonging only to Bishops much “ See before pag. â—24 â—â—5 lesse did the whole Church of Christ since the Apostles times without exception This is a strange Hyperbole But these writers acknowledged Timothie and Titus to have ben Bishops Nay not Diocesan L. Bishops they neither acknowledged nor knew any such in their times as before hath ben shewed Yet only of these our question is Againe they held Timothie Titus not to be Bishops at all properly but in a generall sense as “ Pag. 230. 238. before I observed If they meant otherwise they missed the truth saith D. Rainolds Conf. p. 267 Howbeit They suffred none but Bishops either to ordaine or degrade Presbyters Yet as I said before not absolutly with out the peoples consent as our L. Bishops do If any among them inclined to neglect the people herein they did contrary to the Canons of those times Lastly it is true these ancients to much rested on Custome Counsaills of men and humane policie in setting the Church governemeÌ„t they as Ierome inclined to much to approve Diocesan Provinciall and Patriarchall Bishops with too absolute power only grounding vpon the Custome of the Church though they knew they wanted Divine disposition Whence afterward Antichrist easily sprang vp Now then I pray with what colour can Doct. Bilson from those preceptes to Timothie and Titus plead for our Diocesan and Provinciall L. Bishops whom they nothing concerne and say The wordes be singular the charge is vehement the parties were Bishops * Perp. gov pag. 299. And how vainly doth he insult without reason charging vs that “ Pag. 30â— Fire will better agree with water then we with our selves Which is his familiar custome not ours After him let vs see what D. Downame saith for Timothie and Titus Bishoprikes Truly in effect he saith nothing more for he followeth D. Bilson most diligently Yet hee hath a Cart-load of words about this point which he knoweth well to bee his only refuge Wherein yet hee can finde no helpe First I will examine the pith of his discourse and theÌ„ I will set downe reasons of mine owne proving souÌ„dly that Timothie Titus were not proper Bishops First he saith “ Def. 4. p. 75 It is presupposed in the Epistles to Timothie and Titus that the Apostle committed to them Bishoply authoritie It is vntrue this is not presupposed Then the Epistles bee the very patternes and precedents of Bishoply function c Well what then Then Timothie and Titus were Bishops I deny this consequence There is no truth in this And T.C. answer to D. Whitgifts like argument is sounde and good though this great Logician calleth it “ Pag. 76. sleight and frivolous The directions to Timothie and Titus about Ordination and iurisdiction being not “ Pag. 77. peculiar to Bishops as hee vntruly addeth in the end For him selfe giveth this power and that rightly to other Christians †Pag. 99. in case of necessitie and the truth giveth it to Apostles and Evangelists the “ Eph 4.11 Superiors of Bishops His reason * Pag. 77. these are perpetuall directions is an excellent reason to prove that this power is indeed essentially seated by Christ in the Congregation of the people The power of Ecclesiasticall governement essenâ—ially in the people For it is certain that such Christian Congregations only are perpetuall Apostles
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
Luther Bucer P. Martyr Viret Calvin Beza Danaeus Vrsinees Gualter c. And not the later only but the elder Christians also For all these we have seene do consent with vs in our profession And it is a slander that in Geneva or any where els the reformed Churches do substantially differ from our iudgement As may be seene through out the 3. 4. Chapters before If any thing dissonaÌ„t from those testim may now be found in some of these Churches which I will not deny then it cometh to passe with theÌ„ as with goodly and faire Houses A Similitude which being inhabited by men will neede sweeping very oft If they bee not swept cleaned they will soone become foule And so truly it may be in some of the Churches before named Which can be no preiudice to vs who seeing transgression creepe in do wish all men and even them also ad originem reverti Cyprian cont Epist StephaÌ„ De Vnit. Eccles. to returne to the originall and first Plantation both of them selves in particular and specially of all Churches at the first In the which only there is safetie As for this intemperat Doctors rayling wordes in calling this our doctrine “ Def. 1.41 4.80.99 Brownisticall Anabaptisticall †Def. 3.142 4.81 fanaticall fantasticall dotage phrensie c. We will beare it knowing as Cyprian said of some such in his dayes “ Cyprian Epist 4.2 Non possunt laudare nos qui recedunt à nobis We must looke for hatefull and â—â—â—lent wordes from them that fall from vs. Yet in the meane whyle let him know also that in this he reprocheth not so much vs as those pillars of the truth and lights of the Gospell before named zuinglius Luther Bucer Martyr Viret Calvin and the rest of whom we have directly receaved this doctrine and profession These are our Maisters heerein as in the beginning I said Our Do. obiecteth often that these are partiall that this is their owne cause And that as well we might cite “ Def. 4.30 Mai. Cartwright and Mai. Travers as some of these Yea hee will have Ierome also to be †Def. 4.137 partiall Yet we frankly acknowledge Ierome to be theirs touching the lawfulnes of Dioces Ierome not ours simply Bishops Although he and many other of the Fathers beside are with vs in this that Diocesan Bishops are not Apostolicall but Humane And this verily they teach far from partialitie Partiall they may be for the said Prelacie not against it And the truth is they were notoriously partiall for it it was indeed their owne cause Who are partiall They may be partial are wont so to be counted who are likely to get by their opinion some temporall commoditie not they who loose by it Now the Fathers Cui bono CassianuÌ„ erotema specially vnder Constantine after by approoving Diocesan Prelacie got great honor power and rule among the people and wealth and pleasure what they desired Which by opposing against it they should have lost WheÌ„ce certainly it is that D. Downame might as well cite B. Whitgift B. Bancroft and B. Bilson for his authors as some of those ancientes viz. as wel as B. Eusebius B. Epiphanius B. Theodoret B. Damasus B. Leo B. Chrysostom c. Who questionles in this point were very partiall And no les if not more may be thought of some of those Diocesan L. Bishops who began our Church reformation in England They by proceeding no further did get much temporall commoditie which by setting the Church state neerer to the forme Apostolike they must needes have lost And so they though otherwise as likewise those Ancientes were good and godly Fathers yet they were meÌ„ and might easily be partiall in this Good and godly Fathers yeâ— Men. Which and more wee may thinke of many of our Diocesan Lord Bishops since Most of all of D. Downame himselfe who besides these temporall hopes beeing a Diocesan L. Bishops fonne had neede of much grace I coÌ„fesse to cause him to degenerat But I pray then hath he done wisely to obiect as hee doth every foot against those singular instrumentes and very effectuall reformers our Attestators others like them that they were partiall and that this was their owne cause Indeed they were partiall that is they tooke part throughly with the sinceritie of the Gospell and stood against all Papall and Pontificall over-ruling of Gods people spiritually so should this Doct. and others do well if they were partiall likewise But partiall otherwise they neither were nor could be viz. they did not get but lost by this their proceeding great worldly honor much power and rule among the people large wealth daintie pleasure and ease which ours now do abound with as all the world seeth Whereby the worlde seeth likewise which side may rather plead partialitie to be in those whom they take to be their adversaries In many places D. Downame signifyeth that the godly late defenders of the Gospell do mislike only “ Def. 4.151.157.158.161 popish tyrannizing Bishops not orthodoxall Bishops as he presumeth ours to bee But let him know that those are Orthodoxall who imitate the Apostles and the patterne of the Church left vs in the New Testament And they are tyrannizing not Orthodoxe †viz. in this nor truly believing who imitate the popish though otherwise they be not papists Cicero said well to Antonie †Cicer. Philippic 2. Miror te Antoni quorum fasta imitere corum exitus non perhorrescere I wonder Antonie said hee that thou fearest not their iudgement whose deedes thou imitatest Now how wee imitate the very forme of the Popish Church-government all the world seeth and the Gospell rueth What meaneth the racke and the wracke of many consciences viz. the Oath ex officio What the Bishops depriving and imposing of Ministers without Imitation of Popish Church-governement yea contrarie to the Congregation What meane also such Excommunications What their imprisoning of Christians and punishing their purses with fees fines c. Are these the partes of Orthodoxe Bishops Are these things approved of those godly Writers Nothing lesse Likewise his vaine and frivolous seeking to avoid the Waldenses Wickliffe Hus Zuinglius Luther Oecolampadius Bucer Martyr Calvin c. our Tindal Fr. and Ioh. Lamberts Bradsord Bale c. is of no worth Some of theÌ„ signifie that they disalow not Diocesan Bishops simply Well no more do I as I have shewed “ Pag. 15.16.73.89.97 before Yet heereby appeareth no allowance of ours in England Our old English translators of the New Testament some other Writers since doe expresse the word Church by Congregation But saith our Doctor heere by they meane the †Def. 2.106.107.108 Vnivesall Church Which answer is vntrue and absurd That is where they speake of a Visible Ministe Church of which only our question is Speaking of this that they
should by a Congregation signifye either Vniversall or Provinciall or Diocesan Church is a most false vnlikely conceit Can any of these bee one Visible Congregation in the singular nomber He alleageth as hee thinketh textes for his pupose Matt. 16. Ephe. 1. and 5. Which surely may well yea they are to bee vnderstood of a Visible Congregation viz. indefinitly taken See heereof the Divine beginning and institution of Christes Visible Church Argum. 26. 23. Of Mai. Beza “ Def. 4.166 hee affirmeth that hee wished with all his heart for the Diocesan Bishops governemēt in Geneva Which is as true as that which the Iesuits blazed abroad how Beza before his death recanted his religion Beza lived to cōvince the Iesuits of vntruth to their faces If hee were now alive he would do the like to this Doct. and those other of whō he saith hee heard it The like audacitie is in that his report that the most learned iudicious Divines in France and Geneva could bee content that Diocesan Bb. governement were renewed among them The most learned in France and Geneva Verily as they were who renewed it Scotland of late Most learned and most iudicious were they Laus proprio sordescit in ore And I feare rather that knowen parable to be heerein verifyed When the trees would have a King the Olive Figtree and Vine refusing the Bramble tooke it on him and said to the trees †Iudg. 9.15 Come put your trust vnder my shadow When all shiftes faile the adversaries will calumniate vs as not dutifull to the King and Civil governement Which though D. Downame saith “ Def. 1.45 hee will not dispute yet he maliciously insinuateth As touching dutifull affection to the Kings person none can say more if he list then D. Downame him selfe in my particular Yea what wordes I spake whē he held his peace to a Noble Lord of Scotl. An. 1601. when neither of vs durst be seene nor heard abroad for feare of whom Verily of those who were his best friends since If I was thē so dutifully animated toward the K. when we only hoped for his Maiestie God forbid I should bee lesse now when we have him Being so maligned traduced as I am I could not but speake of this Touching our duty generally to his Maiesties authoritie and place the evidence of reason sense plead for vs. Tertull. ad Scapul We acknowledge with Tertullian that he is Solo Deo minor Lesse then God only In Church governement we impeach not his Soveraigtie neither in matter nor manner Therefore no way at all The matter is only about Ezcommunication and Making of Ministers and such like things Of the essentiall forme whereof Christ only is institutor his Ecclesiasticall servantes bee the Ministers The King is neither Author nor Minister Vnto this I suppose all agree For the maner Seeing we holde each whole Church in the greatest extent can be no mo ordinarie Congregations then one how can these either by their comming togeather or by their consenting in any Spirituall busines only for them selves I say how can these impeach the Kings power one haire His Supreme Vniversall overseeing and ordering them and all others yea his chastising them when they do any thing amisse how can it be let how can it be hindered by such a handfull And because hee must vse Substitute Rulers in his general overseeing the Churches of his Dominions we frō our hearts do honor them also and submit to them as to Gods Lieutenants in their severall places Only we testifie that if the Kings power be committed to any Ecclesiasticall person especially Civill coactive power it draweth with it both a breach of Christes ordinance who said to such Ministers “ Luc. 22.25 Math. 20.25 2. Chro. 19.11 You shall not be so and also a torture to Christian subiects cōsciences Wherefore we desire of God that the King would be pleased to appoint as Ichosaphat did a Zebadiah to bee generall Governor vnder him in Church causes so far as it pertaineth to the King to deale in them and as King Henry 8. a L. Cromwell his Vicegerent in rebus Ecclesiasticis and as his Maiestie him selfe did as I have heard in Scotland before hee came among vs. Which may be far more easily performed with inferior subordinate Officers vnder them also for this purpose in every place in a Monarchie then in any Popular or Aristocraticall Cōmon wealth Vnitie how And verily this is it and not a Diocesan Bishop which would bring great vnitie and that according to God If D. Downame wil vrge which he grateth vpon in this said †Def. 1.45 pag. 45. that the Churches indepēdent authoritie standeth not with the Kings Supremacie in causes Ecclesiasticall and that which els where wee say viz. nothing may be obtruded on the Church against their willes I answer indeed every Churches power is independent spiritually and immediat vnder Christ our meaning therefore is that by ptetended Spirituall authoritie Chap. 9. nothing may be obtruded imposed on any true Church against their willes But we grant that Civill Magistrates may and sometime ought to impose good things on a true Church against their willes if they stifly erre as somtime they may And me thinks Doct. Downame also should bee of this minde with vs. This is thus answered often before pag. 115. c. Hitherto our answer to some of our Adversaries chiefest obiections and evill wordes And so I draw to an end CHAP. IX A short advertisement to the vpright hearted and Christian Reader touching this Writing Cause YET first I desire the Christian Reader to be advertised of a few things pertayning to this Cause Seavē things I intreat him to take notice of First how great a blame and shame it is to D. Downame a principall Logician to treate so largely as in his Sermon defenc he hath done concerning the Nature Forme and Constitution of Christs true Visible Church and yet in all this not once to define the same Which defect of D. Bilson also is to be noted in his perpetuall governement of the Church Surely this one matter viz. a Definition of Christes true Visible Church vnder the Gospell well performed would have saved a great deale of paines and trouble would have prevēted much error And thus it is wiselie taught by Cicero that “ Cicer. Offic. 1. all purposes reasonable ought to be begū with a Definitiō of the matter in band For the avoyding therefore of this imputation I have in †The Divine beginning institution of Christs Visible Church another Treatise defined the said Visible Church of Christ Which I did and rested not on some others who have Defined the Church heertofor because I desired to distinguish cleerly betweene the Iewish Church and the Christian which verily differ not in Accidentes alone but in kinde of governement and in essentiall constitution The Iewish Christian Church
the sense of the word Ecclesia pa. 109. 209. 210. 211. 308. French Liturgie with vs. pag. 50. Genevian Discipline with vs. pag. 49. Giftes no calling of a Minister pag. 162. Gualter with vs. pag. 37. 38. 39. 40. H. The world Hateth our profession and why pa. 17. 18. Helvetian confession with vs. pag. 49. I. Iames no proper Bishop pag. 238. 239. The Iewish Church governement differed substantially from the Christian pag. 158. 317. The forme of the Iewish church governement is ceased pag. 184. 185. 279. Iunius with vs. pag. 43. 44. 45. Iulianus of Alexandria the first Diocesan Bishop and yet but a Titular Diocesan pag. 92. K. Christes Kingdom commissive pag. 145. L. Lord and Lordship vnlawfull for the Ministerie pag. 118. A Spirituall Lord who pag. 118. Christ only ought to be a Spiritual Lord. p. 121. Luther with vs. pag. 31. 32. c. And Lutherans pag. 51. 52. M. P. Martyr with vs. pag. 34. 35. 150. 193. The civill Magistrat advanced by our profession pag. 18. 20. 115. 137. 313. 315. Every Metropolitan not a Diocesan pa. 254. Metropolitans in place not in office pag. 231. c. 235. 213. Outward Meanes necessarie to salvation and namely Christes pag. 150. 152. 154. 155. 194 195. 269. They who make Ministers must have Divine authoritie to do it pa. 163. 74. 75. 194. 147. Musculus for vs. pag. 36. N. We desiâ—e things Necessary pag. 18. 19. 193. The grievous hurt by Nonresidents pag. 129 To mislike Pluralists and Nonresidents are curious positions with our adversaries p. 132. P. The Palatine Catechisme with vs. pag. 51. Who cause Papistes to increase in England pa. 183. 186. Papistes more sound in the generall opinion of the Church then some protestantes p. 150. 180 A Parish in our reasoning what it is pag. 201. 202. 209. A Church no more but a Parish pag. 30. 103. 104. 108. 214. See Ecclesia Partiall who are pagt 301. In Church government the Peoples consent is Apostolicall pag. 68. 69. Evident Scriptures for the Peoples consent in church censures pag. 279. 140. 281. 282. Likewise in making of Ministers pag. 70. 164 165. 291. c. Power in the People administration in their Guides pag. 33. 42. 298. 278. 82. 83. What maner of People pag. 17. Great good cometh to Religion by granting the Peoples consent in church governemeÌ„t p. 130 The Papacie not to be overthroweÌ„ but by holding the Peoples free coÌ„sent p. 18. 156. 157. c. Our maine question is about the Peoples free consent in church governement pag. 10. 16. The Peoples necessary freedom power right in church gov what and how much ordinarily pag. 18. 22. 48. 61. 73. 82. 83. 278. Piscator for vs. pag. 46. Oâ—â— Profession giveth good satisfaction chiefly to the Magistrat p. 19. 20. 191. 313. 315 In reasoning we must alwayes speak Properly pag. 240. Some Protestants opinion holding changeablenes in the Churches forme and governement not without impietie pag. 133. 141. R. Rebaptizing refuted pag. 172. Reordayning lawfull and fit pag. 173. To receave our Ministerie derivatively and successively from the church of Rome a miserable answer pag. 170. 173. S. Who are Schismatiks pag. 138. 176. The Separation how they erre pag. 249. 280. Sole governement pag. 252. Succession a popish reason pag. 238. The Archb. with vs spiritually Sapreme pa. 119. â—ynods some lawfull Apostolike necessariâ— 116. 117. 179. Some not Apostolike nor lewfull p. 31. 48. 100. c. 111. c. 117. 178. A Synod absolut induceth a Pope p. 105. 110. 111. c. 179. T. Tertullian proveth not a Diocesan church or Bishop pag. 233. Tilenus for vs. pag. 43. 164. 166. Timothie and Titus no proper Bishops pag. 241. 264. Toleration of vs not vnmeet e. pag. 137. 193. 194. 195. 318. V. Viret for vs. pa. 28. 29. No Vnitie by Diocesan or Provinciall Churches and Bishops pag. 174. 176. 188. Gods written word the true cause of Vnitie pa. 175. 176. After Gods word the Magistrates helpe is the chief cause of Vnitie pag. 177. 315. The hurtfull error of some Protest antes granting one Vniversall Visible Church vnder the Gospell pag. 112. 181. 182. 189. 190. A Vniversall Church Visible induceth a Pope pag. 112. c. 181 c. 187. 189. To deny the peoples consent in Church governement to be a Divine ordinance bringeth in a Vniversall Church Visible pag. 157. 180. 189. and by a likely consequence will set the Pope above the King pag. 191. 192. Vniversalitie a popish reason pag. 221. 222. 223. Some Vniversall errors pag. 233. W. D. Whitaker for vs. pag. 47. 106. 107. Z. Zuinglius for vs. pag. 29. 30. 214. 215. 216.
is true another ground thereof there is likewise that of no lesse importance in this matter which is That Christes true Visible and Ministeriall Church vnder the Gospell consisteth not of many ordinarie Congregations but only of one Which I have at large prooved to be a truth and have made it manifest in my Declaration pag. 10.11.12 c. and in Reas. for Reform pag. 19.20 65.66 And againe †Chapt. 8. heere after I do shew it further Yet the former point in some respect may bee thought rather the chief because this secoÌ„d is a depeÌ„dant on the former followeth by a necessarie consequence from it as partly is shewed in the said Declarat pag. 13.14 and more fully in the VII Chapt. of this present Treatise insuing Againe that requiring the peoples free consent noteth Christes Visible Churches nature and essence intensivè The Churches nature intensivè as the Scholes do speake that is it sheweth thâ— ground of the power and life thereof The other sheweth the essence of it extensivè Extensivè that is the largenes of the Body of the Church iust extent or the due limites and bounds thereof outwardly Wherefore that requiring the peoples free consent is manifestly a most proper and speciall Argument in our cause and such as toucheth the quicke in the matter of the said reformation most neerely D. Downame erreth greatly in his late Defence making his first booke thereof full long tedious only to disprove Lay Elders as he calleth them Thinking without all reason that if hee speed well therein he hath gotten the victorie Wherevpon hee most fondly inferreth thus “ Defenc. 1. pag. 62. Who seeth not that the disproofe of their Presbyteries is a direct proofe for our Bishops And in another place * Defenc. 2.2 Who seeth not that vpon the overthrow of the Presbyteries the governement by Bishops is necessarily inferred Who seeth not Verily neither hee nor any man living seeth it Hee was tolde sufficiently by his Refuter †Ibid. pa. 10. of this his vaine and frivolous inference But hee seemeth so in love with his owne folly that he caÌ„ indure no maÌ„ to shew him his errour Nay such a minde hee beareth that in his Defence he goeth about with pretended Logike to make this his idle conceit seeme reason and therevpon hee saith his adversarie must “ Defen 1.6 confesse him selfe ignorant in Logike if hee will deny this his inference And so ‡ Pag. 62. this passage concerning Lay Elders he hopeth will be acknowledged not to bee impertinent Never a whit truly The question of Elders wholy impertinent For this passage still is not only impertinâ—nt and idle but even a false defence of those whom he peadeth for if he will yet holde his opinion still He hath not Logike at commaund neither can hee by his Sophistrie amonge men of anie vnderstandinge make that to seeme which is not Where hee saieth it is “ Pag. 61. presupposed on both sides it is his folly to say so And in saying his Refuter witnesseth it hee grosly abuseth him He doth the contrarie in the same place which hee alleadgeth out of him For the Doctor leaveth out his Refuters wordes presently following those which hee alleageth Which later words are flat against him So iustly and truly our Doctor dealeth in his writings Like to this is his great boast which hee maketh heere in his booke and often afterwards also viz. that he hath found out twoo sortes of Disciplinarians as his wisedometermeth them one “ Defenc. 1.60 and 2.147 elder and more learned the chiefe of whom he saith are Calvin and Beza Another new shallow and ignorant sort of whom he maketh †Defenc. 2.2 82.130 Maister Cartwright chiefe adioyning others of vs since vnto him But what difference â—ndeth hee in these Disciplinarians â—orsooth the elder he saith holde â—resbyteries in Cities to governe â—hole Dioceses and Provinces and â—erein he avoucheth “ Defenc. 2.2 they ioyne with â—e Bishops in England against the new sort of â—isciplinarians The new sort * Defen 1.60 boldly and â—â—noranâ—ly hold Parishionall Presbyteâ—ies Naythis Doctor slandereth either â—gnorantly or maliciously For wee whoÌ„ he maketh of the new shallow â—nd ignorant sort we I say Wee agree with Calvin Beza in substance differ not â—ne haire from Calvin and Beza touâ—hing the substance of this matter We as they they as we do acknowâ—edge both the one and the other that â—s both the Parishionall and the Dioâ—esan Presbyteries yea the Provinciâ—ll and larger too if occasion serve â—t is false which he imputeth to Calvin â—nd Beza that they maintayne the Church-governement by Diocesan Provinciall Presbyteries absolutly without any relation to the peoples â—onsent in the ordinarie Congregations Also that heerein they ioyne with the Bishops in Englande or that they materially differ from vs. All which God willing we shal shew to be vntrue and that most cleerely in the 3. Chapt. also in the 7. 8. here following Wherefore these be all slanderous forgeries of the Doctors devising of purpose to make our innocencie odious by all the shifts be can to cast some “ Defen 1.53 colour of iust cause or shew of reason for his leaving of our acquaintance Wherefore D. Downame left his first profession to whom heeretofore he ioyned him self namely while there was som expectation of his Maiesties favour towards vs. And this is fully enough for answer to the substance of his whole first booke Seeing to trouble our selves much with impertinent stuffe would be in vs also great folly Yea to speake the truth the prosecuting of all the rest of his Defence besides is such likewise that is cleane from the maine purpose toucheth not the chiefe question betweene vs. Indeed he propouÌ„deth one part of the question wel in the title of the second booke of his Defence but his prosecuting of it both there and every where els even to the end is as if we denyed Bishops and their governement in the Churches of Christ We deny not Church government by Bishops Which is nothing els but lyes malicious forgerie against vs by equivocating falshood slander to make vs seeme as if wee were against both the expresse letter of the New Testament EquivocatoÌ„ and also of the most ancient Ecclesiasticall Writers where we know any maÌ„ may see Bishops their government to be coÌ„mended as from God and as the ordinance of the Apostles Which is the very practise likewise of Doct. Bilson against vs in his booke Of the perpetuall governement of Christs Church Whose trace our Doctor followeth step by step But as I said both their great and large volumes about this matter are nothing els but two heapes of equivocations or sentences wholy impertinent such as we admit with them or some conclusions wherein they plainly contradict theÌ„selves elswhere Little cause therefore had
and whose faith wee follow therein whom I put first namely for their singular perspicuitie and resolutnes in it Then I will rehearse the practise of the most ancient times after the Apostles After that I will remember our very adversaries consent with vs heerein sometimes Then I will shew some certaine firme consequences whiche follow from this ground necessarily also some true great inconveniences in reâ—ecting this doctrine Moreover I will answer some of the adversaries chiefest obiections noting also briefly their immodest and vnchristian reproches against this Evangelicall truth And finally adding a brief advertisement touching this cause we will commit the whole coÌ„sideration thereof to the vpright hearted and discreet Christian Reader CHAP. III. The testimonies of many particular late Writers of blessed memorie making for vs in this matter BEGINNING therefore with the New Writers I iudge it meet and convenient to alleage in the formost place the resolut determination of Maister Beza Beza because he of al others is thought by some vnadvised persons to be most against vs in this point Now hee disputing this question at large in his Epist 8â— setteth downe this conclusion Populo invito nihil obtrudatur Let nothing be imposed on the people or Congregation agâ—aâ—t their willes Then the which verily we desire no more this is all in substance that we seek in our assertion Againe vnles it bee so the Church-governement either is a Monarchie or a verie Oligarchie But Maister Beza expresly condemneth both these and the later namely on Math. ca. 18.17 Wherefore howsoever Maister Beza interpreteth some things otherwise then we do vseth some times other phrases then we perhaps do thinke so fit or so frequently to be vsed yet touching this point in question hee agreeth wholy with vs in substance and in effect For let this which he in these wordes setteth downe be yeelded vnto vs theÌ„ wee are satisfyed for the substance of Church-governemeÌ„t To which purpose Maister Beza saith also in Confes 5.35 The Apostles intended in the Churches which they planted that no Pastor should bee obtruded on a flocke against their willes Yet moreover I pray the Reader to note that even hee also strongly maintayneth this right of the people in the affayres of their soules many tymes in more free and large termes As where he saith “ Confes 5.34 I finde no where in any Christian Church built vp that any is promoted either to the Ministerie of the word or Deaconship or Eldership any other way then by a publike and free election And †Sect 35. I repeat againe that which I said before It was never receaved in Christian Churches established that any should be admitted to an Ecclesiastscall function but being freely and lawfully chosen of that Church which it concerneth Againe “ ibid. Pastors are not to be chosen without the consent of the whole Church Also * ibid. They whosoever they are bring Tyrannie into the Church if they call any man to a publike function at their owne will the consent of the multitude being neglected Againe “ ibid. Presbyters were chosen by the voyces at least by the allowance of the whole assembly Vpon the Act. 14.23 he saith See Oecumen in hunc loc Also Badei Commentar The force of this word Chirotonein is to be noted that wee way know Paul and Barnabas did nothing by their private will neither exercised any tyrannie in the Church He meaneth that they here made Ministers by the peoples voyces or free consent not otherwise And vpon 1. Time 5.22 All the authoritiâ— of making Ministers was not in Timothie alone but election being made by the consent of the whole Church then the President of the assemblie did consecrate him by laying on of handes And on 2. Cor. 2.8 By the publike consent of the Church declare that you embrace that penitent sinner againe as a brother even as by the publike iudgement of the Church he was cast out In all the which it is easie to see Maister Bezaes minde and resolution in this question to bee cleerely with vs. As for that which D. Downame “ Defens 4. pag. 81. obiecteth out of him where he calleth one Morellius †Deâ—grad Ministr 6.23 Fanaticall because he pleaded in like maner for the popular governement The D. abuseth Beza and vs all Morellius pleaded for the popular governement in far vnlike maner He sought in Churches perfectly established to bring all things in particular and ordinarily to the peoples hearing examining iudging and voice-giving But neither Beza nor we intend so Wee acknowledge that the ordinarie sway of all Ecclesiasticall authoritie ought to bee in the true Bishop or Pastour of the church and we affirme that right wel so it may bee although never anie thing be imposed on the Church by him against their willes Which thing D. Downame him selfe also acknowledgeth may be and “ Def. 4. p. 21 was heeretofore in a state of the Church * Rather about 420. about 400. yeres after Christ which hee seemeth to allow of Saving that he cunningly falsifyeth the wordes of the Councill which there he mentioneth to wit in saying the assent or connivence of the people where the Councill saith “ Concil Carth. 4. Can. 22. the assent and connivence But to proceed By this before alleaged all men may see Maist Bezaes iudgement in this cause to be as I said cleerely with vs. And so much concerning him In the second place we will consider Maister Calvin 2. Calvin a Pastor and Guide of the Church of Geneva before Mai. Beza Hee also every where in all his writings is a most earnest patron of this point which heere we professe I will note certain of his sentences to this purpose Saith he “ Instit 4.5.15 Est haec ex verbo Dei legitima Ministri vocatio vhi ex populi consensu approbatione creant qui visi suerint idonei Preesse autem Electioni debent alij Pastores nequid per levitatem vel per malae studia vet per tumultum à multitudine peccetur This is the lawfull calling of a Minister by the word of God where they which seeme fit are created by the consent and approbation of the people Indeed other Pastors ought to moderate and order the Election least the multitude should offend through lightues or ill affection or tumult And a litle before Videmus ipsum Paulum ex populi suffragijs Episcopos creare solitum We see that Paul him selfe was wont to create Bishops by the voyce giving of the people Againe Falluntur qui putant vel Timotheum Ephesi vei Titum in Creta regnum exercuisse vt suo vterque arbiâ—rio omnia disponeret Praefuerunt enim tantum vt bonis salutaribus consilijs populâ— praeirent non vt soli exclusis alijs onnibus agerent quod placereÌ„t They are deceaved who thinke either that Timothie at Ephesus or Titus in Crete did
practise a kingdome that either of them disposed all at their owne will Only they were over the people in going before them with good and holesome countails not that they alone did what pleased them excluding all the rest And presently hee sheweth they did no more but crave the voyces moderate the people in chosing And affirmeth that this is Commune ius libertas Ecclesiae the common right and libertie of the Church and that not to bee diminished And in another place hee saith “ Cap. 5.2 Etiamsi nihil aliud mali foret quitamen hoe excusare poterunt quod it a spoliaverint suo iure Ecclesiam Although there were no other evill yet how can they excuse this that they have so spoiled the Church of her right And †Sect. 3. Est impia Ecclesiae spoliatio c. It is a wicked robbing or spoyling of the Church so often as a Bishop is put vppon any people whom they have not desired or at least have not approoved with a free voyce And It it is a ly that they say this is a remedy against the peoples tumultes They had other wayes Eyther to prevent these faultes or to correct them being committed But to say the truth when the people began to be somewhat too negligeÌ„t in holding their Elections did give ouer this care to the Presbyters as a thing not so beseeming theÌ„ selves they the Pres byters abused this occasion to take to theÌ„ selves a tyrannie which afterward they coÌ„firmed with Canons And vpon the Acts thus hee writeth “ In Act. 3. â— Est tyranicum c. It is tyrannicall if any one man make Ministers at his will Therefore this is the lawfull way that they be chosen by common voyâ—â—â— who are to exercise any publike office in the Church And this is the meane betweene tyranâ—â—e and confused libertie that nothing in deed may bee done without the consent and allowance of the people and yet the Pastors should moderate them c. Likewise rouching Ecclesiastical censure and iudgement in generall saith he †Instit 4.11.6 Contra ius fas quod Ecclesiae datum erat sibi vni vendicavit Episcopus The Bishop against right and equitie hath taken to him selfe alone that which was given to the Church And Fuit facinus aimis improbum c. It was to wicked a fact that one man in translating to him selfe the Common power made way for tyrannous lust and tooke away that which was the Churches owâ—e and suppressed the Eldership ordayned by the Spirit of Christ A game Animadvertendum quod Paulus quam vis Apostolus forei non pro sua libidine excommunicavit solus sed consilium cum Ecclesia participat vt communi authoritate res agat ur It is to be marked that Paul though an Apostle yet he did not excommuni are alone after his owne will but did participat the matter with the Church that it might bee doâ—â— by common authorttie Thus plainly doth Calvin maintaine the peoples free consent in the Church governement alwayes To these we will adde Maister Viret 3. Viret a rare light of the Gospell a pillar of the truth and partner with Maist Farell in planting the Church of Geneva before Calvin came there “ Dialog 20. The Church saieth hee in respect of the gouernement which Iesus Christ instituted is a holy and free communaltie which for the same cause is called a Communion of Saints to the which generally and not to any one person particularly Iesus Christ gave the whole power authoritie to edification and not to destructioÌ„ Quest But if you so take it there seemeth to me no order at all but rather great coÌ„fusion Answer That followeth not from that which I said For first the Church is not Headles having Iesus Christ for a Head Moreover although the power and authoritie be given to the whole Communaltie of the faithfull as it is in a Democratie yet nothing letteth but the Church should choose by her common consent out of the body of this Communitie certain men to have the speciall charge of exercising and administring the publike offices which are ordayned of God c. Question Your meaning then is that all the authoritie and power of Ecclesiasticall governement generally is given to the whole church and therefore that it pertaineth to the same according to Gods word to choose them whom shee knoweth most worthie to exercise the publike Offices c. Answer All that time wherein the Church was rightly governed according to Gods word and not oppressed with tyrannie she vsed that order alwayes And therefore it is more then necessary that shee should alwayes keepe her right her power authoritie which she receyved of God c. Question And if they which execute speciall charge in the Church do tollerate one another in ill doing them selves do give matter of scaÌ„dall scattering hath not theÌ„ the whole Church togeather power to correct them and to procure remedit to such evills Answer Seeing the power whereof we speake is by Christ Iesus given to the whole church who can take it from theÌ„ Can they to whoÌ„ the church it self hath given it No truly vnles they be tyrants c. And againe “ Dialog 21. The Ministers ought not to give to theÌ„ selves alone the power which God gave to the whole church vnles so as they execute their Office in the Name of the church and after that her iudgement hath gone before This is well to be noted that iniurie bee done to none that the Minister exercise not tyrannie in the Church and that the governement serve not their affections Thus plainly Maister Viret From these let vs ascend to the verie first Worthies who have brought vs the light of the Gospell in this latter age Zuinglius and Luther Zuinglius saith thus “ Zuinglius Aruc 31. Explanat Quid audio What do I heare Can a Bishop alone excommunicate I thought it had ben given to the Church Christ saith Tell the Church Doth the Bishop or Abbot signifie the Church Excommunication is not one mans part whosoever it be but it is thâ— office of the Church None therefore can excommunicate but that Church in whâ— a 〈◊〉 dwelleth who offendeth by his sinne The right of pronouncing against him is in tâ—e Church and the Pastor of the Church It remayneth then that Christ commaundeâ—h that the sinner be shewed to the Church which weâ— call a Parish In another place likewise “ Ad Valentiuâ—m Compa 〈◊〉 Excommunicatio non in Episeoporum in Synodo Congregatorum sed in vntuscutusque paroeciae potestate arbitrio sita est euâ—us◠〈◊〉 est impudentius peccantem ab Ecclesiae communione excludere Sâ— Christs veroa quae Math. 18. habentur penitùs inspiciamus hune demum excÌ„municatum esse deprehendere licebit quem communis Ecclesiae in qua quis habitat consâ—nsus exclusit Excommunication is not in the Bishops gathered together
in a Synod but it is in the power and free liking of every Parish who only have power to exclude from the Churches communion the impudent sinner If wee looke thoroughly into the wordeâ— which are in Math 18. we may finde him only to be excommunicate whom the common consent of that Church where the man dwelleth hath shut out Againe “ Epichirifis de Ganone Missae Est particularis Ecclesia ea cuâ— preceptum est vt morbidum membrum resecet Math. 18. quales ea Corinthi ad quam seribit Paulus aliae quarum se curam gereâ—â—dicat quibus se pari modo docere asserit â—nquiens Sollicitudo omnium EcclesiaruÌ„ sicut 〈◊〉 omnibus Ecclesijs doceo That is a parti ulat Church which is commanded to cut of the infected member Math. 18. Chap. â— Such as that of Corinth is to which Paul writeth and others which he saith be hath care of and in which he affirmeth that he taught altogeather alike saying The care of all Churches and As I teach in all Churches And concerning Calling to the Ministerie he saith * Ecclesiaste◠†It seemeth that there is nothing so agreeable to the ordinance of God and to the old institution as that all the whole Church of the faithfull amongst a people togeather with certain learned and godly Bishops and other faithfull men having skill in things should choose a Pastor And after againe Let therfore these proud Bishops and foolish Abbots goe shake their â—ares For it is convenient that the right of the Election should be in the power of the church of the faithfull instructed by the counsaill of learned meÌ„ Moreover he writeth thus “ Ad Valent Compar Hee that with a Councill of Bishops shall impose on Christian people any law or observatioÌ„ at their own liking he meaneth without the peoples coÌ„sent hic violento imperio ius Ecclesiae invadit Hee invadeth the Churches right by a violent command And therefore such Bishops as thus doe absque Ecclesia without the Churches consent statuentes suâ libidine Artic. 64. decreeing at their owne pleasure he saith are nomine tenus Episcopi reverà tyranni in name Bishops but in deed tyrants And thus much out of this holy man of God and noble witnes of Christ Maister Zuinglius Maister Luther another mightie and Luther principal champion for Gods truth at the same time wrote a special treatise which hath this title * Tom. 2. pag. 374. Quod Ecclesia â—us potestatem habeat indicandi de quavis doctrinâ item vocandi Ministros Evangelij aut si fideles esse desierint deponendi That the “ In this word he signifieth the CongregatioÌ„ of the people Church hath the right power to iudge of any doctrine also of calling the Ministers of the Gospell or if they cease to be faithfull to depose them What can be more for vs then this is In another place he saith “ Pag. 369. b. Chemnic examp part 2.27 a. Claves sunt totius Ecclesia The Keyes belong to the whole Church In his booke of the Privat Masse hee speaketh to the Bishops of his time thus Spiritus Sanctus vui Civitats plures constituit Episcopos Vos singuli estis pluribus Quâ authoritate Nonne ipsius Satanae c The holy Ghost appointed to one City many Bishops but you are one Bishop to many Cities By what authoritie Is it not of Sathan him selfe by you opposing against the authoritie of the Holy Ghost We conclude therfore boldly that you according to the Scriptures the H Ghosts decree are not so much as to be called Bishops but rather adversaries and destroyers both of Bishops and of the Divine decree concerning the appointing of Bishops Againe in his booke against the falsly named Order of Bishops hee saith †pag. 322. At citra iocum vides palam c. But without iest thou seest openly that the Apostle Paul calleth only them Bishops which do preach the Gospell and Minister Sacraments to the people as in our time the parish Ministers and Preachers do Therefore I beleeve without doubt that they by fight possesse the title and name of Bishops And in another treatise “ De Ministâ— Eccles instituendâ— pag. 365. b. Donabo hoc ordmibus Papisticis quod solius Episcopi autoritate instituuntur quos vocant Sacerdotes consensu aut suffragio populi cui preficiendi sunt neque requisito nec obtento cuius tamen cum sint populus Dei maximè intererat vt non sine suffragijs suis quisquaÌ„ eis imponeretur I will yield this saith he to the popish orders that Priestes as they call them are instituted by the authoritie of the Bishop alone the câ—nsent and voyce giving of the people over whoÌ„ they are to bee set neither sought nor obtâ—yned whose chiefe right nevertheles it was seeing they are Gods people that not any one should be set over them without their voyce-giving Thus teach these Pillars of the Gospell Zuinglius and Luther To whom wee will ad our two great lightes that shined sometyme in England Maister Bucer and P. Martyr Bucer Bucer hath these wordes †In Math 16. â—9 Haec potestas penes omnem Ecclesiam est authoritas modo Ministerij penes Presbyteros Episcopos Ita vt Roma olim potestas populs fuit authoritas Senatus This power sway of the governement is in the whole Church but the authoritie only of ministration therof is in the Presbyters and Bishops So as in old time at Rome the power was in the people but the authoritie or direction was in the Senat. In an other place he saith “ De regno Chrâ—â—â— 1. â— The Apostle accuseth the Corinthianâ— for that the whole church did not cast out of their company the incestuous person P. Martyr saith 7. P Martyr †In â— Cor. 16.15 Fatemur claves Ecclesia vniversae datas We confesse the Keyes are given to the whole Church By the Keyes he meaneth Governement and Ecclesiasticall power Also hee saith “ vers 3. it is no mervaile that it is the Churches right to chose Ministers seeing we see the Civill Lawes do give power to Townes to choose their Physicians and Scholemaisters at their owne liking In an other place thus he saith “ In cap. 5.11 Quoniam in Ecclesia de negotijs gravioribus quae sunt maximi momenti ad plebem â—efertur vt patet in Actis Apostolicis ideò politâ—ae rationem habet Because in the Church matters of waight are referred to the people to determine as it is manifest in the Acâ—es therefore the Church hath a respect of the Popular governement or Democracie For so P. Martyr heere meaneth by politia as wee may see if we look in the place Also namely of Excommunication hee saieth Consentiente vniversa Eccsesia Excommunicetur Hoc debet ist ad iudicium antecedere Let Excommunication be with the consent of
the whole Church This ought to go before that iudgement And Non absque consensu Ecclesiae quispiam excommunicari potest lus hoc ad Ecclesiam pertinet neque ab illâ eripi potest Witthout the consent of the Church not any one can bee excommunicated This right belongeth to the Church neither ought it to bee taken away from it And the consent of the people is still to be observed in Excommunication both that tyrannie may be avoyded that it may be done with greatâ—er fruit and gravitie The same worthy man greatly coÌ„mendeth the pietie of a Bishop at Troie in France who about the yeare 1561. left his Popish state and did betake him to a flocke of Christians there Epict. â—â— and taught them the word of God purely But quia ei gravis scrupulus â—iectus est de suâ vocatione quod in ed Ecclesis ac populi Elestionem seu Censirmationem uâ— is habuerit ideò c. Beâ—ause he had a great scruple in his conscience about his Calâ—aâ—g seeing hee had not therein the Elâ—ction or Confirmation of the Church and people Therefore hee sent for the Elders of the reformed Church and desired theÌ„ that they would consider godly and wisely whether they would chose confirme and haâ—e hâ—n for their Bishop Which if they thought good to do hee would doe his indeavour that as hee began so hee would go on as hee was able by teaching and exhorting to edifiâ—â— and increase the Church committed to him But if they thought him not fit for so great an Offâ—â—â— they should speake it freely and openly hee was â—eadie to give place c. And hee desired that they would speedily deâ—berate with the Church about the matter Which when it was done hee was acknowledged â—aâ— reâ—eaved of all with one consent as a true Bishop Wherefore his authoritie and pâ—â—iâ— doth much profit the Church of Chriâ—t God bee praised who governeth and gâ—ideth the kingdome of his Sonne in this manner O where shall wee see such Bishops in these dayes 8. Musculus Musculus also speaketh and reasoneth cleerely with vs heerein Hee saith †Com. plac Of Min. Elect. There is no doubt but the Apostles keâ—t that maner of ordayning viz. after the church had chosen And After fasting and praying which was wont to be done in the Congregation of the faithful They ordayned Elders which were first chosen of the faithfull And this forme of Electing and ordayning Elders and Bishops the Apostle commended vnto his fellow workman Titus and Timothie saying “ Tiâ— 1 5. For this cause I left thee in Crete c. For who would beleeve that he ordained that Titus should do otherwise then both hee and the rest of the Apostles were accustomed to do Therefore both by example and ordinace of the Apostle in the primitive church Elders Pastors Bishops and Deacons were in the Ecclesiasticall Meetings chosen of the people by lifting vp of handes Also hee saith The Forme of Election vsed in the Apostles times is conformable to the libertie and priviledge of the Church whereof Cyprian made mention and that forme of choise whereby men began to be thrust vpon the people of Christ beeing not chosen of it doth agree to a Church which is not free but subiect to bondage And this forme of electioÌ„ by the peoples choise he calleth the Old the Fittest the Divine the Apostolicall and lawfull election the other to come from the corrupt state of the Church and Religion 9. Bullinger Bullinger assirmeth thus “ Decaâ— 5.4 The Lord from the beginning gave authoritio to the Church to chose and ordayne fit Ministers And Those which thinke that the Bishop Archbishop have power to make Ministers vse these places of the Scripture * Tit. 1. Therefore I left thee at Crete that thou mightest appoint Elcers Towne by Towne And againe “ 1. Tim. 5. Take heed that thou lay not thy handes rashly on anie But we answer that the Apostles did not vse any tyranny in the Churches nor themselves alone to have don these thinges which pertayned either to Election or Ordination other men in the Church shut out For the Apostles and Elders did create Bishops and Elders in the Church but communicating their counsaill with the Churches yea and with the consent and approving of the people Yea of Ministers that governe anic Church without or against their consent thus he saith “ In 1. Coâ— 5.4 Vâ—bem prodere diâ—untur Legati qui diversum ab eo quod ab vrbe prescriptum est agunt Those embassadors are said to betray the Citie who do any thing divers from that which is prescribed them by the Citie 10. Gualter Gualter likewise is as plaine as can be Saith hee of the calling of Ministers †Hoâ—â—il in Act 13.1 Divinitùs vocatos esse censebimus quâ—scunque Dei spiritus donis necessarijs instruxerit legitiâ—â—s Ecclesiae suffragijs elegerit Aliquas enim in hac causa partes Ecclesiae mandatas esse hiâ— locus perspicuè tradit Ecclesiae calculum spiritus requirit We wil esteeme them to have a calling from God whomsoever Gods spirit hath â—â—abled with necessarie giftes and hath chosen by the Churches lawful giviâ—g of voyces For this place plainly sheweâ—h that in this cause there are some partes committed to the Church The Spirit requireth the Churches iudgâ—ment Afterward he saith “ In Act. 14. â—â— Foedá tyranâ—ide Ecclesiarum slatus opprimitur The state of the Churches is oppressed by filthy tyrannie where at this day the Churches have not this libertie to give their free consent at least For heere he respecteth that right and iust order according to the rule of the Gospell which before he had described †In Act. 1. â—â— Ministrorum verbi Ecclesiae Electiones atque ordinationes non occultè intra privatos parietes à paucis hominiâ—us sed publicè ab Ecclesia in totius Ecclesiae conspectu fieri debent Neque noâ— movet quod Paulus alibi vni Tito vel Timâ—theo ius potestatem Episcopoâ— eligendi tribuere videtur Non enim illos privata authâ—ritate quiâ—quam agere voluit sed pro antistâ—tum â—fficio iubet curare vt Ministri digni idones legittimè crdinentur Nec verisimile est illis plus concessum fu isse quà m Apostolis ipsis qui inconsulta Ecclesia nihil in hac causa vnquam statuerunt Nam paulo post Diaconos coram Ecclesia publicè eligunt Paulus oum Barnabá collectis viritim suffiagijs Presbyâ—eres per Ecclesias singulas ordinavisse leguntur Act. 6. 3.4 The Elections and ordinations of the Ministers of the word and of the Church ought not to bee made secretly within privat walls by a few men but publikly by the Church and in the face of the whole Church Neither doth it moove vs that Paul inan other place seemeth to give right power of chofing Bishops to Titus aloâ—e
or to Timothie For he would not that they should do any thing by their privat authorâ—tie but he commaundeth them to take care that worthy and fit Ministers bee ordayned aâ—cording to the office of Guides and Overseers Nâ—ither is it likely that more was graunted to them then to the Apostles themselves who determined nothing in this cause at any time without the churches cousaill or witbout taking the churches advise For a little after they both chose Deacons publikly in the preseÌ„ce of the church and Paul with Barnabas are read to have ordayned Presbyters throughout every Church gathering the voyces of every maÌ„ Act 6 3.4 Arguitur exemple hoc corruptissimus idemque perniciosissimus Ministros eligends mos quem tam seculis aliquot hâc in causa imperâ—um obtinuisse constat Quofit vt non raro vâ—us aliquis in pluribus Ecclesijs privata authoritate Ministros Eligat Ordinet Quaete potissimum ab Abbatibus Episcopis Prapositis peccaiur Nec meitùs rem administrant nonnulli inter eos qui Evangelij nomine gloriantur Ecclesiarum reformatores baberi volunt Dum enim isis malè vsurpata possessione Monachos Episcopos vt par est eijeiunt Ecclesijstamen libertatem illorum tyrannide ereptam non restituunt Sed pro suâ— arbitrio administrant quae olim ab Episcopis Monachis administrari solebant Quod malum nisi brevi reprimatur Simoniâ—m exitialem omnis Ecclesiasticae Disciplina confusionem nobis pariet Atque omne boâ— Romanis Pontificibus debetur c. Maximè Calisto secundo ex quo tempore Ecclesia libertas ceu lethali morbo contabescens tandem in vniversum evanuit Quam quicunque restitutam volunt sive illi verbi Ministri sint sive Magistratus huc incumbendum sibi esse sciant vt vetus Ministrorum eligendorum consuetudo in ducatur By this example is reproved that most corrupt also most pernicious manner of chosing Ministers which it is manifest hath gotteÌ„ DominioÌ„ Lordly rule in this affaire now these certaine ages Whereby it is that not seldome one both choseth and ordayneth Ministers in many Churches by his privat authoritie Wherein chieflic the Abbots As in England c. Bishops and Rulers offende Neither do divers others among those that glorie in the name of the Gospell and would be counted Reformers of Churches order this matter better For while they put foorth the Monkes Bishops as it is meete they should out of their possession wickedly vsurped yet the libertie which they tooke away from their tyrannie they restore not to the Churches but administer those thinges at their owne will which in time past were wont to bee administred by the Bishops and Monkes Which evill vnles it bee shortly repressed it will bring foorth among vs both Simonie and also a deadly confusion of all Church Dâ—â—ciplice And all this wee have from the Bishops of Rome c. Chieflie from Calistus the second FroÌ„ which time the Churches libertie as it were languishing with a deadly sicknes at last vanished away wholy Which whosoever do desire that it may be restored whether they be Ministers or Magistrates let them know they must labour for this that the old custome of chosing Ministers bee brought in againe 11. Vrsimus Vnto these we will adde Vrsinus who teacheth thus Math. 18.17 If he refuse to heare the Church “ Catech. pa. 799.800 Printed at Oxfor An. 1589 let him be vnto thee as a Heathen a Publican In these wordes Christ expresly commaundeth all whosoever beeing after this sort admonished by the Church will not repent to bee by the common consent of the Church excommunicated vntill they repent And whosoever are excommunicated they againe professing and shewing in their actions amendment are altogeather in lake sort receaved into the Church as they were exiled from it namely by the iudgement of the Elders by the consent of the Church and the authoritie of Christ and the Scripture And that deâ—untiation whereby one is excommunicated is not in the power of the Minister of the Church but in the power of the Church and is done in the name of the Church because this Commandment was given by Christ vnto the church For he saith expresly Tel the Church 12. Danaus In 1 Tim. 5.22 Heere also Danaus is worthie to bee remembred He saith Approbatio eligendi Ministri ad plebem totum populum Ecclesia sanè pertinet The approbation of the Minister to bee chosen pertayneth truly to the whole people of the Church Againe Plebem non esse ab ordinationibâ— vocandorum preficiendorum muneribu Ecclesiasticis excludâ—ndam demonstant examplâ— veteris Ecclesiae c. That the people â—ught not to bee excluded from the ordinations of Ministers the examâ—les of the old Church do demonstrat in which without doubt the Election by voyces of the whole Church was vsed as it is easie to be shewed in Act 6. 14. Therefore they do perfidiously deprive the Church of her right Perfidie who thrust a Pastor on a people without their knowledge and consent For they do the Church the greatest iniurie when they spoile her of her iudgement and voyce giving Sacrilege or Church robbing Who therefore are truly to bee called Sacrilegious or Church-robbers Neither indeed is he a lawful Pastor which is over a flocke being ignorant of his comming or against their will or not consenting Which presently after he sticketh not to applie to the callings of the Ministers in England saying Ex his omnibus apparet quam nulla sit vel non legitima corum verbi Ministrorum Vocatio c. By all this it appeareth how that calling of Ministers is none or not lawfull which is made by the authoritie letters commaundement and iudgement of the King alone or Queene or the Patrone or Bishop or Archbishop c. veluti in mediâ Angliâ as it is vsed in England Id quod dolendum est which I speake with greefe Moreover concerning Excommunication he saith “ In vers 1. Hac iurisdictio est totuâ— quidem Ecclesia ratione potestatis Prepositotum autem ratione exercitij adminisirationis This iurisdiction is the whole Churâ—hes in respect of the power thereof but it beâ—ongeth to the Guides of the Church in respect â—f administring it namely populo assentiente with the peoples consent as hee addeth a â—ittle after And againe Executioni puâ—lica censura intervenire debet notitia conâ—ensus Ecclesia The knowledge and consent of the Church ought to be in the execution of the publike censure 13. Tilenus Neither shall Tilenus testimonie bee vnremembred who aunswering the Coâ—nt Lavl that required him to shew what calling Calvin had saith “ Respons ad Com Lavallium quest 3 The people of Geneva professing the Gospel did first call Farel to be their Pastor then he they called Calvin to be likewise Applying Ciprians sentence thervnto who avoucheth “ Epist
14. That the people most of all have power to chose worthy Ministers and to refuse their vnworthy ones After which he sheweth that the other churches els-where professing the Gospell refusing Poperie did likewise They who had a calling from the church of Râ—me renounced it resting on that which they have according to the rule of the Gospell 14. Iunius Also Iunius saith †Ecclesiastie 3.1 Simplicissimam quidem probatissimamque Eligendi Vocandi viam illam esse constat ex Scripturae Sacrae testimonijs quam Apostoli in Ecclesijs tenuerunt olim prisca Ecclesia aliquamdiu eos imitata observavit Eligebat tota Ecclesia id est corpus ex Presbyterio populo seu plebe constitutum equis communihus suffragijs Haec iusta electionis ratio It is manifest that that way of chosing and calling Ministers is most simple and most approoved by the testimonies of holy Scripture which the Apostles in old time did keepe in the Churches and the ancient Church sometime imitating them did observe The whole Church did chose that is the Body consisting of the Eldership and people or common sort by equal common voyces This is the iust manner of Chosing Ministers Afterward hee saith This the old Church did observe very long doneo res coeperunt vt fit humanitus in peius ruere atque retrò sublapsa referri Vntill as through mens corruption it comes to passs things began to grow worse and to runne to ruine And after that corruptioÌ„ in the Church government was come in Yet saith he id semper obtinuit vt Ecclesia actioni toti interesset camque prasentiâ suâ haberet raetam That alwayes was in force that the Church was present at the whole action and ratifyed it with their presence But neither this in England is seene anie where neither will bee allowed Also Iunius saith Where the Church at any time doth no more but ratifie matters by their presence only the Guidâ—t ought to certifie the Church that if they can them selves take care for do their owne affaires non fore penâ—â—â—â—lâ—um Episcoporum Seniorumve coetum vt 〈◊〉 siâ—i cum damno Ecclesia iniuriae ignominâ arroget It shall not be in the power of any asâ—eÌ„bly of Bishops or Elders to arrogat so much to them selves with the Churches dammage iniurie and shame Where hee professeth that this is the Church â—s daÌ„mage iniurie shame if being vnderstaÌ„ding Christians they be only present at the chosing and ordayning of their Ministers if they do not also them selves chose or at least freely expresly coÌ„sent to the chosing and ordayning of them After noting the tyrannie which was in this behalfe vnder the Pope he saith Iam de populo queÌ„ Christus redemit suo sanguine Ecclesiam sibi ex eo compararet verbum nullum Now of the people there was not one word whom Christ redeemed with his bloud that they might be his Church And he addeth Hinc illa barbaries hinc colluvies selelerum omnium hinc illa fraudum nundinationuÌ„ sentina exundavit Hence came that barbarous ignorance in those times that heape of all sinnes that sinke of deceit and selling of the soules of men TheÌ„ speaking of some Churches Magistrates who have worthily freed themselves from the Pope yet hee leaveth this foule blot vpon them Ius illud Eccesiasticum institutionis ordimationis restitut non curant Ecclesijs They care not to restore to the Churches this right of theirs viz of making ordaining of Minister Finally he answeceth some obiections At nescit populus dixerit quispiam Doceatur sciet At nescit vti Imo nesciet vnquam Siture suo non vtatur vnquam At factiosus est plerumque in diversas partes studiaque scinditur Revocetur adpaceÌ„ monitis salutaribus compescatur authoritate verbt virorumque bonorum officijs vt conciliatis compositis animis faciant quod sui turis est But some will say The people is ignorant of their duty and right heerein Let them be taught and they wil vnderstand it But they know not how to vse this their right They will not know it ever if they vse it never But they are factious often and are divided into partes Let them be reduced to Peace by wholesome counsaill and let them be ruled by the authority of the word and the indeavours of good men that their mindes being ordered they may do that which is their right to do 15. Piscator About ExcoÌ„municatioÌ„ Piscator saith “ Observ ex â— cap. 1. Cor. Excommunication ought to bee don by the Church or by the Presbyterie iudging in the name of the Church Where all meÌ„ may see his meaning to bee this viz. that the Presbyterie may excoÌ„municat howbeit alwayes with the Churches free consent For so he signifieth by these wordes iudging in the name of the Church It can not be that hee should meane that they may Excommunicate by their owne power and right onely or whether the Church will or no. After the same maner also I doubt not som others do speake concerning the making king of Ministers Whose sense and meaning is to be taken altogeather to that purpose likewise In the Churches â—amâ— that is Executing the Churches â—uthoritie and power and doing that which they do with their free conâ—ent and approbation 16. Chemniciâ—â— Chemnicius a man most famous of â—are learning among the followers of Luther in the matter of the reall presence yet in our cause hee saith thus “ Exam. part pag. 226. 227. 228. Non sine consensu Ecclesiae Paulus Barâ—abas invitis obtruserunt Presbyteros Paul and Barnabas did not thrust Ministers on the Church being vnwilling or without their â—onsent And Exempla Aposiolica bistoria â—â—are oftendunt c. The examples of the Apostles storie do cleerely shew that Election or Vocation did belong to the whole church And Haec est Apostolicae primitiva veteâ—â— Eccesia sententia de legitima Electione Vocatione Ministrorum c. This is the iudgement and way of the Apostolike primitive and ancient Church concerning the lawful Election and Calling of Ministers which iudgement and way hath place in those Churches which are coÌ„stituted according to Gods word And he addeth In our Churches it is so meaning in those that follow Luther 17. Whitakeâ— Neither can I forget that among â—ur owne Country-men D. Whitaker â—eacheth thus “ De Coneâ—â— pag. 44. Quod omnes attingit ab â—â—â—â—bus approbari debet That which toucheth all Chap. 4. ought to be approved of all Meaning that nothing should bee obtruded vpon any people in Ecclesiasticall and Spirituall regiment no not by Synods except the people consent to it And this consent of the people hitherto avouched verily many other worthy Divines both among vs abroad do maintaine likewise But I forbeare to nominate any mo Knowing that to whom any thing will be enough
meet and able to have the governement of the Church there And againe out of Egesippus “ 4. â—1 After that Iames was slame Simeon the soâ—e of Cleophas was made Bishop whom in tâ—esecond place all the Disciples appointed by voyces to that governement This was the first most notable exaÌ„ple of the Christians pract se in this matter neither caÌ„â—â—â— we read of any neerer to the Apostles after the times of the New TestameÌ„t then this Also wee see it was in the very Mother Church of all Christianitie Wherefore this order of Calling to the ministerie rather then any later is most worthy yea necessary to be observed and imitated by vs every where and for ever The like we read of there againe thus “ 6â— Anno 205. When Narcissiâ— the Bishop had withdrawne himselfe was gone no man knew whither they who governed the neighbour Churches thought good to make another Bishop But how By the peoples voyces And so Dius was chosen Afterward Narcissus returning the Brethren desired him to take againâ— the governement of the Church Vnto whom was adioyned Alexander for his fellow the people of Ierusalem with the common consent of the neighbour Bishops constrayning him necessarily to tary with them These were the meanes that made these Ministers Ignatius of Antioch teacheth and saith to the Church at Philadelphia that “ Ignat. ad Philad It was meâ—te for them as being a Church of God Anno 112. by voices to chose their Bishop 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It can not be denied but that this writer sheweth in the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is Lifting vp of hands â—n thepeoples voyce giving that Elections of Ministers were then made by the peoples free choyce Seeing he signifyeth Ordination and Laying on of handes by another proper word viz. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The practise of the Church of Rome was also the same in this matter Anno 240. Of which we read ' Euseb 6.2 When all the Brethren were come togeather in the Church for the purpose to chose a Bishop whose place now was voyd the whole people with one consent cryed that Fabianus was worthy of that dignitie and presently he was placed in the same Afterward againe we read of Cornelius that he was chosen in like maner For so writeth Cyprian of him saying †Cyprian Epist 4.2 Factus est Cornelius Episcopus de Dei Christs eius iudicio de plebis qua tune affuit suffragio c. Cornelius was made Bishop by the iudgement of God and his Christ by the voyce giving of the people which was then present c In an other place also he saith Hee was †3.13 de Dei iudtcio Cleri ac Plebis suffragio ordinatus Ordayned by the iudgement of God and by the voyces of the Clergie and people The practise of the Church of Carthage was the same Anno â—5â— as Cyprian also speaking of him self sheweth saying that he was chosen “ Cyprian Epist 1.3 Populi vniversi suffragio in pace by the voyce-giving of the whole people in peace and quietly also he calleth this †1.8 their voyce giving Gods iudgement And he writeth of another Church in Afrike at Legio as we may gather that there one Sabinus was made Bishop †1.4 de vniversae fraternstatis suffragio by the voyce-giving of the whole brotherhood and by the iudgement of the Bishops that were come togeather But above all other that place in Cyprian is singular for our purpose where his owne iudgement and sentence with many other Bishops besides is to bee noted concerning this power and right of the people It is in this same Epistle a litle before thus “ Ibidem viz. 1.4 Plebs obsequens praeceptis Dominicis Deum metuens a peccatore praeposito separate se debet nec se ad sacrilegi Sacerdotis sacrificsa miscere cum ipsa maximè babeat poteslatem vel eligendi dignos Sacerdotes vel indignos recusandi Quod ipsum videmus de Divina authoritate descendere c. A people obeying the Lords Commandementes and fearing God ought to separate them selves from a wickeâ— Minister and not ioyne them selves to the Divine Service of a Sacrilegious Priest seeing they the people chiefly have power to chose worthy Ministers and to refuse vnworthy ones Which thing also we see cometh fiâ— Divine authoritie c. Lo what Cyprians iudgement is of the peoples power right in the making of Ministers He with divers other his fellow-fellow-Bishops doth heere professe that it cometh froÌ„ Divine authoritie So before he called it Gods iudgement and his Christes What can be more full and absolute to our purpose then this The same also he holdeth touching the peoples power in Church ceÌ„sures As where he willeth Stephan Bishop of Rome to write “ Epist 3.14 ad plebem Arelate consistentem to the people at Arles in France His intent is heere that their Novatian Bishop Martianus should bee removed and another set in his place by them togeather with Stephans helpe And elswhere touching one Victor a Presbyter fallen from the Church returned againe Cyprian greatly misliketh rebuketh Therapius the Bishop for receaving him †3.8 sine petitu conscientia plebis without the desire knowledge of the people and adviseth him that hee do so no more And as touching himselfe hee sheweth in many places his owne constant practise to be such also Or without the desire c conscience of the people First of some rash and proud Presbyters hee saith if they persisted in their scandalous behaviour they should answer it “ 3.14 apud plebe vniversam before all the people as iudges with himselfe others of their misdemeanor Againe writing severally to his people about some that desired to bee reconciled to the Church at Carthage he saith “ 3.16 Examinabuntur singula praese itibus iudicantibus vobis Every thing shal be examined you the people being present and iudging of it And thus hee meaneth where he saith hee must †3 1â— dispomere omnia consilij communis religione disoose all things by a religious observing of such common advise Lo he putteth acknowledgeth Religion heerein And therfore it is that to a few Presbyters of his Church who had written to him being then absent from Carthage about som of his church affaires he saith He could not so much as write backe to theÌ„ therof “ 3.10 Seeing he had determined to do nothing privatly of his owne minde without the Presbyters counsaill and the peoples consent And promiseth that when hee should returne he will handle matters in common both such as were past while hee was absent and also such as were to come after his returne Yea and therfore in an other place he saith “ 3.19 Praiudicare ego solum mihi rem communem vendicare non audeo I dare not praeiudge
and take to my selfe alone common matters Adde vnto this that he saith also †◠4 Apud nos quoque ferè per Provincias vniversas teâ—etur Thus custome and practise is observed with vs at Carthage almost through out all Provinces By all which it is manifest that D. Bilson vainly answereth that Cyprian did yeeld to the people their free coÌ„sent in the Church-governement out of “ D. Bilâ— perpet gover pag. 171. 176. a private moderation and but of his owne free will Nay he saith as wee heard that he durst not do otherwise and that he observed it out of religion and that this power of the people cometh from Divine authoritie Yea doubtles such a generall and perpetuall custome even from the Apostles times and appearing in the Apostles practise also as the New Testament sheweth can not be in Cypriaen a privat moderation only but even an vnchangeable law Neither is that anie truer where hee saith that “ Pag. 178. Cyprian him selfe was the first that casâ—iered his owne confession †Pag. 18â— and brake that custome Hee brake it not Hee did not cassier his owne confession Though that is a thing not impossible Cyprian is not so persit but hee might thus faile thorough affection to him selfe and yet his former testimonies of the peoples right and power afore said may be as they are most true But as I said CypriaÌ„ neverbrake this his own others custome Verily as touching the substance of the matter he never brake it What instances hath hee against vs Saith he Cyprian without the people made Epist 4.5 Celerinus †2 5. Aurelius and “ 3.22 Saturus Readers and Optatus a Subdeacon What of this None of these come into our question Wee have no care of making Readers and Subdeacons But without the people he made * 4.10 Numidicus a Presbyter The place sheweth no such matter nor yet that he was made Presbyter then But rather being absent hee sheweth the Presbyters and people at Carthage that Numidicus was to be made a Presbyter Saying in the future tence Et promovebitur quidem dum tempus permiserit ad ampliorem locum religionis suae cum in presentia protegente Dominâ— venerimus He shal be promoted when wee shall come in presence among you So that he saith not that hee alone had nowe made him a Presbyter Beside it is most manifest in all these places that Cyprian shewed a speciall care to have the peoples liking and free consent to all which hee did and that in his absence hee would attempt not anie thing but that which he presumed was sure of that their liking was to it as much as his own So that he maketh it apparant even heere that hee would do none of these things against their wills Which is all that we seeke also in our assertioÌ„ as touching the substance of it as before we have often shewed Last of all hee saith of Numidicus that he was to bee a Presbyter dignatione Divinâ by Gods speciall Divine will and that Celerinus and Aurelius had their places so I kewise But we speake of no such extraordinaâ—e Divine calling This also toucheth not our question We holde the peoples right of giving consent to be only for the ordinarie callings in the Ministerie D. Bilson further vrgeth that Cyprian receaved some into the Church “ Pag. 17â— without the peoples consent yea when the people withstood it because hee saith in one place †Vix plebi persuadeâ— immo extorqueo I scarce persuade the people Epist 1.3 or rather I wring it from them c. And obnitente plebe contradicente I receaved theÌ„ the people striving against it gainsaying it I answer Seeing hee saith I scarce persuade the people therefore they were persuaded did coÌ„sent to his minde Indeed he sheweth that this matter was hardly gotten at their handes yea a whilè they spake against it but they were persuaded at last and so in conclusioÌ„ thei agreed to do as he thought good Thus hee did not this thing plainly and simply without the peoples consent or against their wâ—â—s simply but with their consent agâ—eement so as I said Whereby it appeareth how frivolous exceptions are taken against Cyprians concurrence and correspondence with vs in this cause whose most cleere and vnanswerable and frequent speaking on our part heerein we have seene before Now only one place more I will note in him describing fully his ordinarie practise in Church governemeÌ„â— and may bee a singular example and patterne for vs. Epist. 3.11 shewing how he receaved againe certaine pâ—enitents who had schismed from the Church He saith thereof first “ 3.11 Omni actu ad me perlato placuit coÌ„trahi Presbyteâ—uÌ„ Every act of their repeÌ„taÌ„ce being brought vnto me I thought good to call togeather he Presbyterie or Eldership Whether heere were any Lay Elders in this Presbyteric or whether all were ordinarie Ministers of the Word and Sacramentes it is nothing materiall Though D. Bilson and D. Downame do make all their sturre about this question yet as I said even in the “ pag. 11. 12. 23. entrance of this Treatise it is nothing to the substance of the controversie betweene vs but it is impertinent from the maine purpose altogeather To passe this therefore Secondly Cyprian in this place addeth His ita gestis in Presbyterium venerunt c. Then the peâ—ntentes came into the Eldership earnestly praying that the things they had committed might be forgotten c. Thirdly Quod eâ—at consequens omnis hic actus populo fuerat â—nsinuandus It remayned that all this action was to be signifyed to the people Magnus fraâ—ernitatis concursus factus est There was a great Meeting of the brethren Vna vox eras â—mnium Maximum Presbyterum locum suum agnoscereiussimus Caeteros cum ingenti populi suffragio recepimus There was one voyce of vs all We willed Maximus the Presbyter to know his place The rest we receaved with a great voycegiving of the people allowing it Heere we see what place and order consent the people vnder Cyprian had in the ordinarie Church governemeÌ„t Certainly it is a plaine example and right worthie to bee followed of vs. And so much concerning Cyprian is sufficient A while after this time Antioch at Antioch the neighbour Bishops comming togeather Anno 27â— do acknowledge that even the Churches thereabouts coÌ„curred and ioyned with them in the act of Excommunicating deposing Paul the Bishop there and in ordayning Domnus in his roome This they signifie iâ— the title of their “ Euseb 7.24 Episâ—le which they all togeather do write about this matter Now questionles among these Churches the Church that is the people of Antioch it selfe were the principall in this action For they were the proper Body of which that wicked Bishop was the proper Ministerial Head also there the Meeting about his deposing
was helde they were they which were speciallie grieved with him who yet for feare of his pride and tyrannie durst not themselves alone accuse him as it is there signified The point is we see heere at Antioch the Churches that is the peoples concurrence and consent with other Bishops and Teachers neare adioyning in the Excommunication Deposition of one and in Ordayning to them selves another Bishop After this againe the Councill of Nice decreed Concil Nicen that the people should chose their Minister as appeareth where they say Anno. 330. If any Church Minister dye let one of the Chuch succede in his place so that he seeme fit and be chosen of the people and the Bishop consent and confirme the peoples election “ Socrat. 1.6 This order was written by this Councill Theodoret. 1.9 namely to the AlexaÌ„drian Churches because of a particular occasion but it served as a rule generally for all places as the Councill was generall Which doth plainly appeare by that which afterward the Councill of Constantinople did in “ Theodores â— 9 observing this Nicen ordinance as an order belonging to them About the yeare 420. the fourth Councill of Carthage decreed thus †Concil Cartha 4 Câ—n 22 Au câ—c 420. Eâ—â—â—â—â—pus sine Concilio Clericorum suâ—rum Cleâ—â—â—s non ordinet ita vt Civium assensum â—â—â—ventiam testimonium quarat Let 〈◊〉 a Bishop ordayne any Clergie-man wichout an assemblie of his Clergie so that let him â—â—eke the peoples consent and connivence and Mimonie This Canon will have Ministers made in no wise without the peoples consent contentment testimonie of their worthines Heere D. Downame with little shew but with great falshood turneth this word Et and into Or saying assent or connivence where he should say assent and coÌ„nivence as “ Pag 24.25 before I brieflie touched Whereby he would make the Council seeme to meane that either of these was sufficient in the making of Ministers that their assent was not simply necessarie but if they did connive or hold their peace the Councill was content and required no more But both the present wordes and all circumstances of these times do plainly declare that the Councill heere requireth in making Ministers the peoples expresse consent and testimonie also of their worthines as before I noted Of these times Calvin saith thus “ Instiâ— 4.4.10 Cum parochâ—â— no vt Presbyters destinabantur tunc loci multitudinem nominatim consentire oportuit When new Presbyters were appointed to the parishes then the people of the place must consent expresly This with the rest of the Councillâ— of Carthage was confirmed in the generall Council of Constantinople holden in Trullo about the yeare of Christ 682. Conâ—ll Constantinop Aâ— 682. Wherefore so long longer also wee may well thinke particular Congregations kept their spirituall right and power in this behalfe Which Calvin saith was such that though the Governors somtimes did of them selves first chose and then brought the matter to the people yet “ Instie 4 4.1â— they the people were not bound to those foreiudgemeÌ„ts And when the Church was deprived of this her right it is by him called Impia Ecclesia spoliatie quoties alicui populâ— ingeritur Episcopus quem non petierit aut saltem liberâ voce approbarit It is an vngodly robbing of the Church so often as a Pastor is putvpon any people whom they havenot desired or at least approved by free voyce I grant by this time many great preparations were made to bring in that Antichristian apostasie and tyrannie which afterward followed and overflowed every where Howbeit yet thus long the Churches even by publike lawes retayned their life at least wise that iniurie and violence spirituall robbery tyranny which afterward prevayled against them as yet was not generall It is to no purpose heere to inquire wheÌ„ or by whom this wrong first entered I meane this withholding froÌ„ the people of God their free consent in spirituall governement It is sufficient that we see this their freedome to be Apostolicall also to bee taught and observed in the Christian Churches next succeeding the Apostles yea even till after the time that Antichrist began the desolation of abhominarion which since hath ben every-where set vp with strong hand maintayned Also that wee see the most vndoubted instruments of God in these later times so cleerely to avouch this most singular meanes of overthrowing Antichrist and so earnestly to defend it as they do viz. as if without it there were neither any way to repell him at first nor securitie afterward for vs to stand long against his vncessant indeavours labouring still to returne and tyrannise over our soules againe This I say is sufficient for our present purpose at this time and in this place Which also being well considered can not but cause every honest man to mourne and sigh before the Lord beholding this foundation of pietie and godly life to be so despised yea so maligned and resisted as by many it is now amoÌ„g our selves where the Gospell is and hath ben entertayned thankes be to God these many yeares FroÌ„ which most iust cause of griefe it proceedeth also necessarily that we cannot but opeÌ„ our mouthes as we do to beare witnes in the behalfe of this cause of Christ being also the only true and assured meanes which doeth most nearely concerne vs as we wel vnderstand in the matter of the salvation of our soules And so much touching this point Only this moreovet for a Conclusion I desire may be hoere noted the ground whereof I take out of our adversaries Namely Whatsoever the whole Church militant ever since the Apostles hath held and was not instituted by Councills but hath ben alwayes retayned that is most rightly believed to be delivered by the Apostles The whole Church Militant over since the Apostles hath held the peoples consent in then owne Church governement it was nor instituted by Councills but it bath ben alwaye retained Therefore the peoples consent in their owne Church governement is most rightly believed to bee delivered and ordained by the Apostles The first Proposition is our adversaries “ pâ—rpâ—â— govern pag. 258. D. Bilson and †D. Downame do much magnifie it out of †Serm pag. 56. 57. Defen 4 Austin And we acknowledge it to bee true The Assumption is proved heere before in this 5. Chapter so fully and plentifully as any thing can be by Humane records and testimonies For wee have none extant better theÌ„ these At least by these it is prooved so fully as our adversaries do intend in the Proposition Wherefore the Conclusion is most certain and cleere against them viz. that the peoples consent in their owne Church governement is an institution and ordinance of the Apostles Whence also consequently it will follow that those textes of Scripture vsually alleadged for proofe of the same mentioned also pag. 76. and which I
have to that purâ—ise handled in my 3. and 9. Argumentes of the Divine beginning and institution of Christes Visible and Ministeriall Church do well shew and testifie to vs so much CHAP. VI. Our very Adversaries do acknowledge with vs the truth of this doctrine sometimes in plaine termes Chap. 6. and sometimes to the same full effect specially when they deale against the Papistes THE force and evidence of this truth viz. touching the peoples right for their free consent in Church governement is such that also our very Adversaries sometimes in plaine termes sometimes to the same full effect do acknowledge it Among many I will content my selfe with two for the present viz. D. Bilson and D. Downame The first of these in his Answer to the Apologie of the Seminarie Pristes and Iesuits writeth thus “ D. Bila against the Seminar part 2 353.356 We have the words and warrant of the H. Ghost for that which we say c. viz. That the people can and ought to disceme and trie the doctrine and spirits of the Teachers c so to chose and refuse theÌ„ as they by the word should see good Thus saith hee And what can be spoken by any of our selves more plainly and more fully to our purpose If the people can and ought to chose their Teachers and to refuse whom they finde worthy to be refused then why are they not allowed so to do in England If the wordes and warrant of the holy Ghost be for it then who may impeach it Who may resist it What are they that revile and persecute this way Hee addeth heere in this place that the people “ Pag. 355. have skill and leave to discerne both viz. to discerne the Teachers their doctrine Where also hee discourseth much vpon this right of the people as being Christes ordinaÌ„ce and presseth it against the Papistes Yea in another booke where he pleadeth to the contrarie purpose against vs yet hee writeth thus Perpet gov pag 300. * The Apostles left Elections indifferently to the people and Clergie of Ierusalem The people had as much right to chose their Pastor as the Clergie that had more skill to iudge “ Pag 339. Well may the peoples interest stand vpon the grounds of Reason Nature and be derived from the rules of Christian equitie * Pag. 359. The late Bishops of Rome have not ceased cursing and fighting till excluding both Prince and people they reduced the Election wholy to the Clergie But hee telleth them that by their leave applying heerevnto the wordes of Christ Mat. 19. 8. it was not so from the beginning Againe hee saith †Pag. 330. I a knowledge each Church and people stand frâ—e by Gods law to admit maintaine and obey no man as their Pastor without their liking Where in deed he addeth to the contrarie vnles by law custome or consent they restraine themselves But this he him selfe els-where answereth roundly “ Pag. 221. What authoritie had others after the Apostles deathes to chaÌ„ge the Apostolike governement And that it was not so from the beginning which before he answered is a full confutation also of this exception As also where he calleth Mens ordinances in Church governement †Pag. 19. Corruptions of times inventions of Men and a transgressing of the Commandement of God for the traditions of men And where he calleth such ordinances “ Pag. 111. intrusion and presumption As for that he saith elswhere in this booke †Pag 82. the Multitude hee meaneth the Christian people neither could not can iudge of the giftes and abilities of Pastors no more then blind men of colours This sheweth plainly his variable minde contradiction to him selfe As for the matter it is spoken meerely out of an humour and partialitie against vs and that his Lordship in spirituall things over Christes people might be stablished But before against the maine adversaries of the Gospell the Papistes he taught the truth as the Scripture there alleaged doth shew but heere in this last place he turneth about ioyneth with them rather then he would seeme to consent with vs. Nevertheles his former most cleere and syncere testimonie on our behalfe can not be blotted out Againe in the same booke speaking of Bishops in plaine termes thus hee saith “ pag. 340. They have no power to impose a Pastor on any Church against their willes nor to force them to yeeld him obedience or maintenance against their liking If this were ingenuously acknowledged and professed practised likewise religiously we should desire no more for the substance of the matter as it hath ben often saide Our agreement togeather touchinge Church-governement would soone appeare But he when he listeth will tell vs that Timothie and Tâ—â—s whom hee esteemeth Bishops had power to make Presbyters to Churches and the Apostles also “ pag. 88. without the people or their consent Wherefore what to reckon of his sayings and speaches we know not Only his foresaid agreement with vs in wordes is manifest Next to him wee will consider of Doctor Downame He in a certain place though it seemeth full sore against his will yet through the force of the truth being compelled acknowledgeth and yeeldeth vnto vs that †D Down Def. 4.99 the power of ordination and iurisdiction by right is seated in the whole Church or Congregation in case of necessitie wherein both the succession of their owne Clergie fayling and the helpe of others wanting the right is devolved to the whole body of the Church In which words I desire all men to observe how this Doctor graunteth vs the cause in full effect and agreeth wholy to our purpose For that which heere hee saith and which necessarilie followeth from these wordes is all that weâ— desire Wherefore I pray the Christian Reader to marke well these seaven Consequentes which follow froÌ„ these wordes of D. Downame and cannot be denyed by any honest and true-hearted Christian First in that he holdeth that the power of ordination and iurisdiction by right is seated in the particular Congregation in case of necessitie it is certain therfore that he must hold that this right and power is seated in the whole particular Congregation by Christ and by the ordinance of God For no person or persons can at any time nor in any respect have such power by Mans ordinance It can not bee either Naturally or Civilly given or receaved Wherefore in whom soever that power is seated at what time soever doubtles it is in them Supernaturally God by his speciall grace giveth it and Christ by his holy ordinance seateth it in them Yea though it bee in any case of necessitie whatsoever For thus it is written “ Iob 3. â—7 A man can receave nothing except it be given him from heaven That is No dignitie no authoritie no power in the Church can be but from God And it is spoken absolutly touching all
times places and persons without any limitation The like proofe is that also in another text viz. †Hebr. 9. â—â— No man taketh this honour to him selfe but be that is called of God as Aaron was But I wil presse this no further For I suppose every Christian advised will acknowledge it and I have shewed it at large in a speciall treatise for the purpose viz. The Divine beginning and institution of Christes true visible Ministeriall Church Secondly If Chist him selfe have seated the power of Ordination and Iurisdiction in the whole CoÌ„gregation at any time then it is certain that so much is contained some-where in the New Testament This is no Vnwritten Tradition neither can be by any meanes if Christ him selfe be the Author heereof as before we have seene that he is Thirdly This being contayned in the New Testament viz. that Christ him selfe hath seated the power of ordination iurisdiction in the whole body of a particular CoÌ„gregation in the case of necessitie it is certain then that it is contained in those speciall places which after many other worthy Divines I have to this purpose cited and alleaged in the third and 9. Arguments of my forenamed Treatise of the Divine beginning and instituâ—â—â— of Christs true visible Ministerial Church For there can bee no other instance shewed at least none can bee shewed of any other tenor then those are Which speciall places are these Math. 18.17 and 1. Cor. 5.13 2. Thes 3.14 and 2. Co. 2.8 Also Act. 14.23 Act. 6.3.5.6 Act. 1.23.26 and Act. 15.22.25.28 as it appeareth in the foresaid Arguments of the said Treatise Fourthly these places of Christes Testament shewing that Christ hath seated the power of ordination and iurisdiction in the whole particular CoÌ„gregation theÌ„ it must needes be that these shew the said whole Congregation to have that power and right not in the case of necessitie only but even alwayes at all seasons This likewise cannot be denyed For in these speciall places there is no restraint of this power and right in the Congregation no abridging thereof no tying it to the case of necessitie only but they shew it to be in the people from God indefinitly and without limitation Neither is it otherwise to be found in Christes Testament any where els Wherefore by no meanes may men restraine that which God hath given indefinitly Nor take that away from â—is people at any time which he hath given them simply 2. Cor 2.24 What is proud â—lesh and bloud to inhibit or lessen Christs vnlimited free graunt gracious gift to his Church Or how can our soules rest assured wheÌ„ we yeeld to such presumption of men Wherevpon wee may fee that this restraining clause of our Doctor heere added that this acknowledgement of his is not true of any particular Congregation but in pase of necessitie is both a false and absurd addition False as beeing contrary to the generalitie of those speciall places of Christes Testament above mentioned absurd as implying by necessary consequence a contradiction to himselfe in one the same sentence For his present acknowledgement such as it is implyeth the contrary to this his limitation by necessarie consequence as before in this fourth point I have shewed Fiftly this power of Ordination and Iurisdiction being by Christ seated in the whole Congregation and that alwayes surely then it must needs be in them only And so I vnderstand in another place “ Declaâ—â—â— Pag. â— 35. where I say that this power is coÌ„vertible with the CoÌ„gregation I affirme therefore that this power indeed is onely in the whole Congregation Although D. D. Downame hath skill to go two ways to Heaven for the true Church-governemeÌ„t is the way to heaveÌ„ yet our good holy and wise God approoveth but one way as where he saith “ Isa 30.21 This is the way walke ye in it Turne not therefrom neither to the right hande nor to the less And where Christ saith * Ioh. 14.6 I am the way the truth and the life He alloweth simply but one way even that which is his owne ordinance and none other Vas via vna veritas One way one truth Also Veritas simplex error autem multiplex Truth is but one Error is manifold Wherefore it can not be but the power of Ordination and Iurisdiction being by Christ seated in the whole Congregation it is also only in them Heere the adversaries thinke they have a great advantage against vs. They say it appeareth in the Scripture that “ 1. Tim. 5.22 Tamothie and †Tit. 1.5 Titus had power of Ordination and iurisdiction Therefore only the CoÌ„gregations had not that power I answer This consequence is vtterly false it followeth not at all For Timothie Titus had the power of Ordination and iurisdiction with the Congregations Now the CoÌ„gregatioÌ„ only had power not without them Being partes of them and being present in them for the time not being personally out of them or absent froÌ„ them So as the L. Bishops do exercise their power in England Againe as Paul saith to the Corinthians that “ 2 Cor â— 24 he was not 〈◊〉 Lord over their faith but a helper to them for their â—oy So these viz. Timothia and Titus in the Congregations were not Lords but they were Helpers to them in the managing of these affaires They did not alone without the Congregations concurrence what themselves listed but they ordered guided the Congregations in this their busines as Directors and chiefe Counsellors and as the most worthie to bee Actors thereof for them And the like was the power of the Apostles also towards the Congregations It was such I say and none other Indeed in their Doctrine and teaching they by them selves alone instructed them sometime commaunded them in the name of Christ but in outward governement they did not any thing alone or Lordly that is without the Congregations free consent Wherefore much rather the power of all ordinarie true Bishops and Pastors is such and no greater They have power of Ordination and iurisdiction but yet evermore with the Congregations presence and free consent as their instruments doing their actes in the Churches name and by their authoritie not in their owne name noâ— solely as Lords So it remayneth evident that Bishops primitively yea Timothie and Titus and the Apostleâ— themselves had power of ordinarie Church governement and yet the Congregations only had this power Because they evermore were partes of the Congregations in them when they had and vsed their power Sixtly it followeth also necessarily from hence that the power of Ordination and iurisdiction is in the body of the Congregation Substantially Essentially and Fundamentally after Christ and the Congregation may bee truly said in such respect to do performe those actions the Bishops and Guides do these actions Instrumentally and Ministerially and no otherwise then in the Congregations name and by their authoritie as
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
generally improperly sometime strictly and properly And wee ought alwayes to speake thus viz. properly when wee reason and dispure of any matter If the Doct. thinke generally and improperly Bishops may be called Apostles and likewise that Apostles may be called Bishops and if †Def. 4.72 Theodores meane so I will not gainsay but in the time of the New Testament yea and now still these names may be interchangeably vsed But this will prove nothing for the D. purpose For so there is nothing but meere Equivocation therein If he or any other thinke that Bishops were in the time of the New Testam called Apostles in the strict and proper sense of those words doubtles they erre egregiously Or that Bishops then were called Apostles by a dayly ordinary and familiar a pâ—llation as our Bishops are called Lords Which yet must be proved or els they have no colour from hence Hee maketh great adoe about Phil. 2.25 that from hence Epaphroditus might be proved to have ben the Philippians Bishop Defenc. 4.65 c. Though he might be their Bishop yet the circumstance of this place sheweth that this is meant of his bringing reliefe vnto Paul froÌ„ the Philippians as some did to the Saints at Ierusalem froÌ„ the Corinthians 2. Cor. 8.23 As for Theodâ—ret who seemeth to be the Author of the D. opinion heerein hee is insufficient and no equall nor iust foundation of this matter I know “ Bellarm. de Cleric 1.15 Bellarmine and other Prelates would faine make somewhat of this vnhansome shift in their owne defence yet they know not how All this is true and yet I grant as I said Epaphroditus might be the Philippians Bishop as some write that he was But indeed I think rather he was with them as an Evangelist properly like as Timothie and after him Tychicus was at Ephesus and Titus in “ 2. Cor. 8. 9. Achaia and afterward in Crete and Marke in Alexandria Egypt as som say Well but let it be granted which yet is not to be granted that Bishops in the New Testament were by a dayly ordinarie and familiar appellation called Apostles Yet neither hence can it follow that they may bee Lordes or may be so called For no Apostle was ever so great in respect of outward iurisdiction over any one CongregatioÌ„ none I say was ever a sole governour over one Congreg as our L. Bishops are over many hundreds Beside this the D. †Def. 3.148 would have the termes given to Prelates by Prelates and by their dependants in the time of Constantiâ—â— and since to be reason warrant now vnto vs to call our Bishops Lords and most honorable Lords Which is like to that where he saith “ Pag. 13. Hee seeth no reason why the Church in Constantines time should not rather be propounded as a patterne for imitation to Churches that live vnder Christian Princes then the Churches of former times A saying fit for a Diplodophilus fit for one who careth not to take from Christ his Office and Honor and to give it to Prelates and Princes For this is Christes due and immutable right and divine glorie in his Testament to set the patterne of his Visible Church for vs to imitate for ever and every where even in peace as well as in persecution As touching Constantine and the Bishops then and after for some huÌ„dreds of yeares though they were godly vertuous yet it caÌ„ not be denyed but the Bishops even then presently “ Nazianz. Orat. post redit in vrb Socrat. 7.11 were caryed with much ambition and strove for praeemineÌ„ce and outward greatnes And the Princes let them have it thinking that therein they did service to God But they knew not that they did amisse Yea indeed vnder Constantine began the Dioces an ruling Bishop who till this time had but a name and no power Diocesan †Reas. for reform pag. 8. Heeretofore I guessed they might have ben elder But the truth is they had no life nor strength of Diocesans till vnder Constantine and the Nicen Councill Which I have declared in “ Declar. pa. 24. an other place likewise After which time ambition and dominion Ecclesiasticall did still grow and increase more and more eveÌ„ in the best Fathers Whereby Antichrist at the last did easily come vp In which regard Maister Brightman iudged that the Prophesie of the womans beeing driven into the wildernes by the Dragon T. Brightm in Apoc. 12. Rev. 12. began to take effect vnder Constantine and to be accomplished stil more and more till in the end vtter darknes and tyrannie overflowed Now then are the deedes and wordes and practise of the Bishops of these times meet rules for vs to follow namely as touchinge Prelacie and Church governement Is it equall to make these our iudges heerein No by no meanes Which I have signified also †Pag. 109â— before Yea if there were no perill as there is much in following their wordes and deedes in the matter of Church governement aforesaide yet wee ought not to offer so much wrong to Christ and his word as to seeke for direction and warrant in a matter of conscience any where but in his word Howbeit notwithstanding al this though those titles given to Bishops vnder Constantine and after as heere hee alleageth them are too glorious and stately for Ministers of the Gospell yet none of them implyeth such Lordship nor Sole authoritie Spirituall as with vs the English wordes Lord Bishop do imply For theÌ„ they had not such sole authoritie as I have “ Pag. 64.63 66. already shewed nor long time after as now they * have Wherefore neither do these allegations of the Doct. that is the titles given to Bishops vnder Constantin nor 100. yeares after fit his turne neither wil they serve his purpose Finally it is to bee noted how the Doct denyeth that “ Def. 3 15â— Bishops may behave them selves as Lords of the Churches yet holdeth they may be called Lordes Surely his conscience telleth him that it is to much which hee giveth them For els why may they not behave theÌ„ selves answerably and according as their iust name is Where hee saith “ Pag. 153. the title of Lord Bishop is not given with relation but as a simple title of honor and reverence And the relation is not in the worde Lord but in the word Bishop This is plainly a meere shift and an vntruth For the relation is in both these wordes Lord Bishop iointly That is to their people they are Bishops with Spirituall Lordly power that is they have sole authoritie spirituall over them And so they are called Lords Spirituall which †Pag. 150. hee seemeth in an other place to acknowledge Thus all in vaine hath the D. laboured to make good the lawfulnes of our L. Bishops Now fourthly let vs note that froÌ„ this point that the Church governement ought to be alwayes with the peoples
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
strangers voice they will flee from Ioh. 10.27.3 But they can not thus discerne and try vnles they may reiect their Teachers being false and erroneous And if they may reiect they may chose Yet alwayes as I said in the best maner they can Some heere obiect and say The people in deed have power and right but they have not meanes thus to do wheÌ„ they want Ministers I answer if they have power froÌ„ whom have they it It wil be said from God If the people have power from God then they have meanes also Otherwise God giveth power in vaine But that is absurd c false that God giveth any power in vaine or such as can not be acted If God intend an end as he doth in giving all power then sure hee intendeth Meanes also to effect the said end And so a Church wanting Ministers but having power from GOD hath Meanes also to make Ministers and so likewise to do everie other Ecclesiasticall action They are not vtterly altogeather destitute of iust and lawfull meanes to performe any such action for their owne vse in the feare of God That is the best meanes they have is sufficient wheÌ„ they have not such as they would and should have otherwise So then this was the answer which the said Tilenus gave to that FreÌ„ch Lord. But in deed this is not only Tilenus answer in this matter for it hath ben the coÌ„mon defence of all sound Protestantes alwayes when they be opposed touching their Ministerie Which the common consent of all our Attestators before cited See our very Adversaries beeren Above pa. 73. 74. c. and many other maketh manifest If any have given other answeres yet only this hath ben the firme sure anchre to trust to Other answeres are all to weake vncertain this only is cleere and constant Though “ Perpe gov Pag. 335. D. Bilson do vniustly deny it A most certain deduction of this power and right of the people from Christes ordinance in the Gospell I have plainly shewed before in the sixt Chapter Also the benefit and fruit of this defence we see in all Churches abroad namely it is evident in those of France Against which the learnedst of the Papistes have nothing soundly to reply So that the Churches there flourish and increase mightily blessed bee God Who but for this answer would certainly both then when Tilenus so did write before and since have ben much troubled and staggered and no lesse then shamed As many are now with vs in England who do shunne and despise this answer Whereby I see that to lay against the Papistes their other errors before we have cleered the lawfulnes of our Ministerie is in deed vnseasonable and little availeable For if we be shamed in the eyes of vnderstanding people or have not certainly what to hold stand to when we be vrged to make good the Calling and lawfulnes of our Ministerie Papistes will easily with distinctions and subtile answeres make a faire shew in reconciling other matters betweene vs in controversie to Gods worde though I graunt they be grosse When we are shamed in so maine a point as the Calling of our Ministers is in no other matter afterward we shall neither can we have good successe But our adversaries of the Protestantes in Englande what say they to this How defend they the Calling of our Ministers against the Papistes D. Bilson denyeth vehemently that “ Perpet gov pag. 335. 368. the peoples consent is essentiall in the making of any Ministers I desire him then to tell vs what is essentiall in it There is no question but somewhat is The very question is Who have power essentially to make Ministers Then what is it which is essentiall in making a Minister If the peoples consent be not surely I know not what els they will assigne to be And yet as I said somewhat must be Wherefore I conceave the peoples consent may be said to be essentiall by Gods word in the making of a Minister vnder the Gospell because no other thing els can be assigned by Protestants as Essentiall therein The common answer in a maner of all men is that in England our Diocesan and Provincial Bishops do give our Ministers their Calling and Office Heere I demande is this Essentiall in the Calling of our Ministers or is it not I thinke few advisedly will saye it is Essentiall For whatsoever is Essentiall any where the same is essentiall every where as “ Pag. 81. before I have observed And so they must deny the true Essence of Ministerie in the forraigne reformed Churches where they have no such Bishops at all where at first they had no Minister at all Therefore they will not say I thinke I know they can not that the Ordination by Bishops is Essentiall to Christes Ministerie vnder the Gospell Yet againe if they say not so they answer the Papist nothing they satisfie not the question So that what they will resolve on in this point Surely no man can well tell Wherefore heere the craftie Priestes and Iesuites among vs will perswade vehemently their disciples that they have got the victorie Seeing wee can not affirme whence our Ministerie is essentially derived given vs. In the end I doubt not the coÌ„mon defence will be this that our said Bishops by their sole authoritie and power do essentially give the Calling of all our Ministerie And that from Archb. Cranmer Ridley our first Protestant Bishops they have stil so done Let what inconvenience soever follow thereof Be it then so Yet even they likewise must have it given to them They viz. those our first Bishops must have it derived vnto them froÌ„ others From whom had they their authoritie and power Briefly it will bee answered they had it given them from the Bishop and Church of Rome And that in deed is the truth the Pope is he who made Archb. Cranmer and Ridley c. such Bishops They had no other Ordination since And from them all the rest of our Ministers have had their Ordination to this day And so the effect of all is that our whole Ministerie in England successively and derivatively cometh from the Pope See the Supplication for Toleration pa. â— Doct. Downame Doct. Bilson and all that maintaine the Church state in England will thus answer But O miserable defence wofull vnto vs. Which in deed though it be false yet it is such as the Papâ—sâ—es desire and do triumph in It is false two wayes First whatsoever the Church of Rome did give to Archbi Cranmer c. that wholy they tooke away againe namely when he fel from them For then they both deposed him and excommunicated him So that they left him no whit of that power function so much as lay in them which they had given him But questionles if they could give it they could take it away Wherefore so soone as hee was ours being thus
Schismatickes and peace-breakers but look vnto the word of God theÌ„ them selves will be found to bee the makers of the Schisme in departing from the said word of God by their Traditions The true cause of Vnitie We see then by this that the true iust cause of Vnitie in the churches of Christ is to cleave vnseparably to Christes Testament Which meÌ„ not willing to follow alwayes but seeking to walke rather in the wayes and customes and inventions of men thereby they give occasion indeed of much strife The true cause of dissension in Religion discord dissention This is the true cause of our differences in religion It is as fenseleâ— which D. Downame maintaineth that Diocesan and Provinciall Bishops having no Superior Ecclesiasticall can be causes of Vnitie Def. 2.114 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For none of these can do any thing but each in his owne circuit Now what is that to Christian Vnitie when nevertheles there may be for all theÌ„ so many opinions as there be independent Provinciall Bishops Only a Vniversall Church and Bishop if we list to follow Mens policies and not Christes Testament may in deed cause a kinde of Vnitie But againe such Vnitie without Veritie is vnto Christian people plaine tyrannie And we professe that absolute Vnitie vnder a Visible Head is not so good as the TyraÌ„nie of such a one is mischievous Christ rather would his faithfull servantes should be prooved and exercised by Schismatikes then their consciences oppressed by tyrants Some perhaps will say that thus we seeme to desire dissentions seeing we refuse reasonable likelie meanes of Vnitie I answer First The Pope hath better colour so to obiect then Provincialls as before is said Second our meanes of Vnitie which we imbrace are far more likely to effect the same then their way For they have a Provinciall L. Bishop without the word but we have Christs written word his churches helpe also These meanes among vs will settle more vnitie and peace in truth a hundred times especially within the body of our Churches then our adversaries have or can have by their L. Bishops The Magistrats favor a speciall cause of Vnitie If our Magistrates would shew vs their favor and aide which our adversaries enioy this that I say would quickly vniversally be evident But for want of the Magistrates said favor I grant mo differences do appeare amonge vs then would otherwise In which case yet no ChristiaÌ„ ought to be offended but to consider both that vnder the Apostles it hath been so and that Allmightie God she weth heereby that it is “ See D. Downam Def. 3.67.68 better so to bee then vnder Humane tyrannie though pretending Vnitie Doct. Downame setteth vp his rest vpon a †Def. 3.4.6 Vniversall Synod for Vnitie This is his chiefest buck lar But alas how vaine is it For first a Vniversall Synode indeed is impossible to be had especially by vs in these dayes For when and where had any Christians the least benefit by a Vniversall Synod since the Pope hath ben detected What a meanes then of Vnitie is that which our Adversaries pretend Namely which is not possible to be had or howsoever most rare difficult Secondly such a Synod at the D. stands for viz. Setting downe Decreta tanquam Dictatoria 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ecclesijs Decrees as it were vncontroulable and not vnder the examination of the Churches is by the learned “ Pag. 101. c. 105. 106 c. before plainly condemned to whom I will adde M. Chemnicius †Exam. Concil Trid. part 1. pag. 3. condemning the Council of Trent for this very cause in these very wordes denying also that any of the Primitive Councills were such And yet a Vniversall Councill if it may bee had and other Councills so far as they may be had we allow and imbrace and do acknowledge great benefit by them namely so that their Decrees may bee examined and tryed by Gods worde of them to whom Gods word appertaineth This vse I say of a Generall Synod wee allow as well as he which in deed is the only true vse of Synods Certainly Provinciall and Diocesan Synods wee allow more then he doth For hee so admitteth these Synods that yet the Head Bishop in any of theÌ„ is to “ Def. 4.82.83 2.114 over rule all And what vse of them is there then The L. Bishop may have as good Counsel and advise with lesse trouble and charge But these are not that Meanes of Vnitie which hee pretendeth It is as I said the Synod Vniversall and that of supreme and absolute power spirituall over all Christians and that from Christes expresse ordinance Which verily also taketh away Soveraigne power froÌ„ all within England Note this ill Consequent to reforme our selves in religion what need so ever there be Which I leave to the wise to consider of Yea this his opinion doth in the end necessarily induce a Pope as I have said Hitherto of perverting the true intensive Nature of Christes Visible Church viz. where the people of the ordinary Congregations are barred their free consent in the Church governemeÌ„t Where we have seene what great and lamentable evills follow therevpon even to the making of a plaine path way for the Popes reentrance among vs. What extent or limit is there of a Church in the New Testam Now wee shall see that the same mischiefe cometh likewise by extending the Churches outward Body larger and further then it ought to bee The iust extent of the outward Body or the true boundes and limites of Christes Visib Church alwayes vnder the Gospell is one ordinarie Congregation only See also before pag. 10. 157. The reason is because so we finde it to bee in the whole New Testament of Christ All the which I have proved and declared plainly els where viz. before pag. 87. and Declarat pag. 10. 19. 20. c. It is to prophane and vnchristian advisedly to affirme that in the New Testament Christ or his Apostles have limited and defined no Church Oâ— that men may change those boundeâ— which Christ or his Apostles have seâ— The Papistes them selves are not 〈◊〉 grosse as †Pag. 150. before I have noted they would desire no greater hand vpon vs then that we should so answer them Some certain limites therefore and bounds of a Church questionles Chrisâ— hath set But our adversaries and namely “ Def. â— c. D. Downame refuseth the ordinary Congregation They avouch and maintayne a diocesan and Provinciall Church to be of Divine institution in the New Testament What maintaine they A Diocesan Church Nay in deed Christes Visible Church â—hen must be not only Diocesan A Diocesan Church requireth a Vniversall Church nor only Provincial no nor only Patriarâ—hall but eveÌ„ Vniversall I say where Christes Visible Church is not beleeved to bee by Christ limited only to one ordinary
this †Pag. 65. The Apoâ—les appointed Ministers to whole Cities and Countryes adioyning to labor so far as they â—ere able the conversion of all True What â—hen Therefore they appointed them â—o stande Ministers still to whole Ciâ—ies and Countryes adioyning I deny â—his consequence It is a plaine fallacie â—b eo quod est secundum quâ—d Fallaciâ— ad simpliciter 〈◊〉 pray Sir when Logike fayleth you play not the Sophister The Apostles appointed Ministers to convert what they could in great Cities and Countries adioyning yea and in the whole “ Math. 13.33 world but not to stand Ministers Pastors to all them when they should be converted But only according tâ— the order and forme of a Church seâ— downe in the New Testament Which representeth to vs each Ordinarie Congregation as an entire Church Wherefore they might not remayne as Pastors to all when all were converted because so Ordinarie Pastors after the time of the New Testament should become substantially contrary to the ordinary Pastors constituted in the New Testament It i Ì„s blasphemie to avouch that the Apostles intended the Churches forme should be substantially coÌ„trary to that which is in the New Testament Which certainly was never the Apostles intent it is no lesse then blasphemie for any that will persist in saying the Apostles intended so You will aske how are Pastors so large and so generall contrary substantially to Pastors of but one ordinarie Congregation I answer they are substantially coÌ„trary in that these may and do admit the Christian peoples free consent in Church governement the other can not these caÌ„ personally administer to their whole flocke they possibly can not but by Substitutes and Curates as wee call them For there the proper Pastors them selves are of necessitie must be grand Pluralistes and NoÌ„residents Which plainly are substantiall differences in Pastors Besides that the one can execute a whole and intire Pastorall Office the other can not c. as “ Declarat Pag. 12.13.14 15 16. â— els-where I have more fully declared His 2. reason is this †Def. 2.69 In the Apostles times the Churches were not divided into Parishes â—or Presbyters assigned to their several Cures Therefore then a Church was not a Paâ—ish I answere Heere againe hee doth nothing but Equivocat Let him vnderstand a Parish in that sense as before have defined it Pa. 204.205 and so I affirme that by the very Apostles the Churches were divided into severall Parishes That is â—ach Church was it selfe a distinct Paâ—ish and severally divided from all oâ—her Also the Presbyters then were assigned to their severall cures viz. to these Parishes or Churches But if hee â—ake a Parish as it is a Congregation liâ—ited within a certaine circuit of â—round and as a Dioces is subdivided â—nto many of them as they are now so â—ve speake not of them Yet commonly â—r altogeather †Pag. 77. hee doth so speake of â—hem Wherefore heere every man may â—â—e his vanitie Hee doth fly the true â—uestion and shufleth in things that â—e never intended Then his grosse vnâ—ruth vnschollerlike assertion ought 〈◊〉 bee marked where he saith “ Pag 75. The â—ord Ecclesia is of a larger extent then to sigâ—â—fy only one assembly I appeale to all auâ—entike Greeke Authors Thucidides Deâ—osthenes Plato Aristotle Isocrates c. Out â—f whom plentifull allegations may be brought all of them shewing that this word Ecclesia did evermore signifie only one assembly and never a dispersed multitude holding many ordinary set meetings in far remote places as Diocesan and larger Churches do Now according to these and other Greekes living in the Apostles dayes doe the Apostles speake And this I have heeretofore often “ Reas. for ref pag 64. Declarat pag 31. 32. above pa. 110. propounded and affirmed as a principall ground and cause of our dissent from the Church state in England And the ground is certain it can not be with reason spoken against The D. heere †Pag. 14. 15. putteth in to the contrary the vse of the word Ecclesia in Eusebius who vseth it to signify sometimes a Diocesan and Provinciall Church Hee doth so sometimes I deny it not And so after him the Fathers do vse the word likewise as Epiphanius Theodoret Chrysostome and the Councilles and Historie writers c. All this we know well But what have wee to doe with these Authors so late and so partiall as these all were touching the exposition of the Greeke word Ecclesia The time that Eusebius wrote in When Eusebius wrote was about 340. yeares of Christ or little lesse All the rest wrote after him At which time or before viz. presently vnder Constantine the outward forme of the Church did so alter and change from that vnder the Apostles even in substantiall points of Church politie or in such points as did come neere to the substance of it that it appeared outwardly to be allmost not the same And as the state of the Church altered so the Fathers and Councills which were then much affecting that state did alter the old vse of â—he words pertaining to these matters As they practised so likewise they spake and wrote And so have most men followed after them Wherby at the last Antichrist was vndoubtedly advanced But our noble “ Our Attestators before mentioned specially pag. 104. after pag. 214. forefathers of late having discovered this mysterie of iniquitie have found out also the corruption depravation even of this word Ecclesia which hath ben extended larger and farther then Apostolically it was The which abuse of this very word doubtles was a pregnant reason and meanes among other to extend the Church and Governement thereof to that Vniversalitie which it came to and is still vehemently chalenged by the Catholiks Wherefore great cause have we ad originem reverti to go backe even vp to the first originall and beginning as Cyprian well adviseth vs. For so saith he cessat error humanus thus and not otherwise error which hath begun from men will cease Wherefore wee must refuse Eusebius Epiphanius Theodoret and all either in or after their times for iudges or interpreters of matters or words specially touching Church-governement The forme whereof inclined toward alteration yea somewhat before them as wee may perceave in “ Can 6. Nic. Concilâ— through Humane ambition and desyre of greatnes which is incident even to the godliest best men But vnder Constantin and after it degenerated much more Wherfore in “ See before pa. 125. 127. conscience to God and to his blessed word we must leave all men when they so palpably differ from the Scripture as in this cause they doe cleave only and vnseparably to the plaine and †Math 22.29 Ioh. 5.39.40 Isa 8.20 proper writing of Christs Testament Hee “ In his chap. 5. indeavoureth to make voide some of our reasons against Diocesan Churches vnder
the Apostles Which he doth very poorely 1. He sheweth that the Church of Ierusalem †Pag 84. exceeded the proportion of one particular assembly ordinarily meeting in one place I grant it and have granted it “ Reas. for ret pag. 19. 65. 66. heeretofore But he can not shew that this Church nowe had in it mo ordinary set and constant assemblyes then one Which is the point Hee addeth †Def. 2. p. 87 It was never intended to be one Parish among many but to be a Mother Church when by Gods blessing it should beget others to be severed from it in particular assemblies yet to remaine subordinate and subiect to it as children to the Mother The very same was affirmed by “ Pag 7. him before of all the Primitive Churches But all this is fall â—t was intended by the Apostles that Ierusalems Church should bee one Parish among many others and indeed to be as a Mother Church in reverence and reputation yet as a common Sister with the rest in power iurisdiction They also intended both in Ierusalem and in every other City that the Bishop and his presbyterie should bee set over no more but one particular Congregation and that as more Congregations should be constituted Every Congâ—â—gation 〈◊〉 to be an intâ—â— Church every Church buâ— a Congregation every one should have a Bishop also a Presbyterie if it might be All this I say the Apostles intended both in Ierusalem and every where els in the world And first this my reasons “ Pag. 208. Decâ—â—â— pa. 12 13. 14 15 c. before rehearsed do soundly proove Also Ignat. epistles do plainly shew that the practise was so then every where yea in the Country as wel as in the Cities wheresoever there were any Churches then Ignatius words are these †Ignat. Ad Trall 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Without these there is no Church no meeting togeather of the Saints no holy assembly This is Vniversally spoken So againe “ Ad Phila. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 To every Church for so it may well be translated there is one Bishop with a coÌ„pany of Persbyters Deacons Where Ignat. meaning is that every wher it ought at least so to be In which Calvin likewise consenteth Saying * Calv. Instit 4.1.9 Vnaquaeque nomen authoritatem Ecclesiae iure obtinet Every one of the Congregations which were dispersed “ And 8.15 Oppidatim Vicatim in the Country townes and Villages obtaineth by right the name and authoritie of a Church Again “ Instit 4.3.6 Quod orbi Vniver so prestiterunt Apostoli id gregi suo debet Pastor vnusquisque That which the Apostles were to the whole world the same ought every Pastor be to his owne Flocke Zuinglius also before hin is heerein of all other the most cleere and resolute I touched many of his places †Pag. 102. 103. 104. before But heere I think it fit to lay forth his words more fully First to shew that every Church ought to be but one ordinary Congregation and that in the N. Testament it was so hee saith “ Zuingl ad Valentin Compar Vox Ecclesiae proprie exposita non aliud quà m cetum vel populi CoÌ„gregationem totum plebis collegium significat Vndè singulas paraecias Ecclesiae vocabulo not are licet cum per hoc cetus coÌ„gregati in vnuÌ„ populi multitudo intelligatur The word Church what it is The word Church properly expounded signifyeth no other thing then an assembly or meeting togeather of the people and the whole gathering togeather of the people Whence by the word Church wee may note and signifie every particular Parish Seeing by this word is vnderstood the multitude of an assembly of the people meeting togeather in one place Of the Church of Corinth vnder the Apostles he saith †Ad Valent Compar Non equidem negare poteris Paulum hoc loco communem totius populi fidelis Ecclesiam intelligere qui in vnum collectus Scripturae sensus ab alijs expositos attentus percipit Populus ergo fidelis Christianorum oninium Ecclesia Doctores suos dijudicat de illoruÌ„ doctrina sana ne sit vel impia pronuÌ„ciare solet Truly thou canst not deny that Paul vnderstandeth in this place the common assemby of the whole faitful people which being gathered together in one place attentively heareth the senses of the Scripture expounded by others wherefore the people and faithfull assembly of all the Christians iudgeth of their Teachers is wont to pronounce of their Doctrine whether it be found or wicked Likewise elswhere hee saith that the Corinthian Church †In Pastoâ— erat Paraecia was a Parish And again likewise The Ephesin Church theÌ„ was “ Above pag. 103. Concio a particular assembly And questioÌ„les as he thought of these so likewise he thought of IerusaleÌ„s Church yea of every true visible Church indefinitly Of which he saith “ Artic. 8 Explanat Capitur Ecclesia pro peculiaribus Congregationibus qui ad auditionem verbi ad Communionem Sacramentorum commodè in aliquem vnum locum conveniunt Graeci parikiaâ— voc 〈◊〉 De huiusmodi Ecclesiâ Christus loquitur Math. 18 Sic Paulus 1. Cor. 1. 14. The Church is taken for the particular Congregations which to the hearing of the word and reâ—eaving the Sacraments do come togeather commodiously into one place The Grecians call them Parishes Of such Christ speaketh Math. 18 17. Paul 1. Cor. 1. 14. And that every of these Churches and Parishes should have the “ See before pag. 30. 31. power of governement iudging of causes among themselves that wee must follow herein only the Scriptur he sheweth a little before that it is his meaning Where expressing what Church he speaketh of and also the very cause why there is such strife among men about the Church he saith A multis iam seculis ad nostra vsque tempora quae sit Ecclesia certamen fuit ortum nimirum ex regnanai cupiditate Nam hoc sibi quidam arrogarunt vt se dicerent esse Ecclesiam vt omnia corum manu administrarentur Omissis autem hominum commentis quibus quidam hâc in re nituntur ex Scripturis sacris mente spiritus de Ecclesiâ scribemus Quod Graeci Ecclesiam Hebraei Kahal vocant Latini Concionem There hath ben controversie of old even to our times what the Church is which riseth indeed from a greedines to rule For this some men doe arrogat to theÌ„selves that they say theÌ„selves are the Church to the end that all things may bee done by their hand But we letting go mens devises whereon in this cause some doe rest we will write of the Church out of the holy Scripturs and minde of the spirit That which the Greeks cal a Church the Hebrues call a Congregation the Latineâ— an
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
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.
are not perpetuall Evangelistes are not perpetuall also Bishops yea Presbyters are not perpetuall in Churches vnder the Gospell But a Congregation is perpetuall absolutly “ Math. 16. â—â— the gates of destruction shall never overcome it Wherefore this power is essentially in the Congregation And so the consequence is false “ Pag. 77. These directions are perpetuall therfore peculiar to Bishops I say this sequele can not bee true Wherewith is conioyned an other false reason viz. They were not common either to other Christians or other Ministers therfore peculiar to Bishops Nay they were common They may bee and are exercised by divers formes of administrations as before I shewed not all waies by Bishops And yet I grant thy are to bee exercised most commonly vsually and ordinarily by Bishops I meane true Bishops His owne distinction heere is good There is †Pa. 102. 147 potestas and forma vel modus potestatis The power the accidentall forme and maner of the power It is true the power is perpetuall the accidentall forme or maner thereof is variable In which respect the consequence also of his newe “ Pa. 77. Proposition which †Pag. 78. once againe he taketh for granted once againe I deny The proofe of his Assumption we grant yet with a distinction In the Epistles to Tim. and Tit. the office of Bishops is described generally but not as peculiar to Bishops materially not formally And only so that power was to continue in the Church till the end Also this viz. materially that power was not a higher power then Episcopall But formally it was And so his consequence is false For an Evangelists power was higher yea the Churches power by whom simply sometime both the making of Ministers and Censures are performed is “ 1. Cor. 3.22 higher then the Bishops power Againe hee saith this power of Bishops is so much of the Apostolical power as was to coÌ„tinue to the end But then hee should not make the Bishops power more then the Apostolicall as †See before pag. 240. 248 hee doth Which thus also appeareth viz. the Apostles excluded not the peoples consent but his Bishops doe Howe then saith hee it is Apostolicall Besides in all this hee Equivocateth for this power of Bishops is the Apostles as I said generally not properly materially not formally Hee would finde “ Pag. 79. a difference in his Refuter but it is easily reconciled viz. vnderstanding him of divers kindes of Bishops thus Some kinde of Bishops are in Christs Testament some absolutly have noe place there The former have power from Christ the later have none After hee maketh great outcries of †Pag. 80. 81. Schismatical novelties dreames dotages fantasticall fanaticall spirits and phrensie Right as the Papists cry out Haeretiks Haeretiks TheÌ„selves being the greatest Haeretiks of all But the ChritstiaÌ„ reader may know that this is the Doctors fury malice against our Attestators before cited and against others also who follow them Yea against “ See before pag. 73. 74. c. himselfe it is some of his frindes His slaÌ„der that we maintain such popular government as Morellius strived for is sufficieÌ„tly answered †Pag. 24. before Some of the Separation I grant are to offensive this way which I am heartily sory for They take the wordes in Math. 18.17 Tell the Church more popularly theÌ„ ther is need or then reason or good order would Howbeit in this yet they hold the substaÌ„ce of the true Church-goverm They erre but in the CircumstaÌ„ce of order though it be to “ Bera Anâ—â— cat in Math. 18.17 foule That is they will examine al scandalls c. whatsoever in the presence vnder the iudgment of the whole multitude perpetually necessarily I say perpetually necessarily Wherein I wonder they see not the many very ill Consequents which wil must insue many times As touching vs what we hold heerin I have shewed †Pag. 22. 24. 82. 83. before And our Docts doe most iniuriously “ Def. 4.81 Perp. gov pag. 355. wrong Beza the Geneva discipline if that be Geneva discipline which Viret Calvin Beza taught theÌ„ in saying they differ materially froÌ„ vs. Our D. asketh Is there any shew in Scripture or in reasoÌ„ that the sheep should rule their sheapheard or the flocke their Pastor The very voice of a Iesuit not of a Minister of the Gospel Bellarm. argueth iust so “ Bellarm. de Clersc 1. 7. against the old ProcestaÌ„ts As to the point let him know that reasonable sheep vnder the Gosp have more to do in their spiritual governmeÌ„t theÌ„ brute beastes have to doe in their governement sensuall Lastly heere hee can easily skoffe and revile the modest Christian offer of disputatioÌ„ those that favour it some of vs hee will helpe to persecute but vndertake that Offer honestly plainly he never will Hee saith †Pag. 82. wee vnderstand the speech of “ 1. Tim. 5.22 Laying on of hands as directed not to Timothie but to the people to Titus †Tit. 3.10 Avoid an haeretik or excommunicat him that is thou people Which is falfe we vnderstand it not so He doth therfore heerin slaÌ„der vs. We know these words are directed to Timothie Titus yet to them not as Lords over the people nor as Sole rulers but as Guides and directors of them As Fathers to informe them not as Maisters to overrule them and force them To them therefore by name as the principall Agents in all ordinary government the Epistles and these precepts were written And so the Apostle heere held it not needfull to mention the people though neither doth he exclude them Seeing their consent in such affaires is “ See before pag. 76. Also toward the end of this chap. elswhere in Scripture sufficiently proved And the Apostles practise in this behalfe they knew well enough Which knowen practise of the Apostles it heere behoved Timothie Titus to have regard vnto togeather with these precepts written to them For they stand togeather well enough He saith the Churches at first were governed by the Apostles c. I answere they were But not without the peoples concurrence and consent as presently before is observed But D. Downame avouched †Def. 4 8â— Our Bishops at this day have not greater authoâ—â—tie in menaging Church causes then Timothie and Titus had Which is notoriously vntrue These following the Apostles tooke the peoples consent with them our Bishops do not They only taught them perswaded them vsed spirituall power ours if they can not perswade the people or their Pastors will cast them in prison punishing their bodyes their purses He saith Timothie Titus might vse the presense or consent of the people or the counsell and advise of the Presbyters in 〈◊〉 of greatest moment as Princâ—s doe in Common-wealths I thought it was a stately
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
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
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
were †〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by voyces with the Eleaven He saith prayers and lotts were performed by the Apostles as the principall directors of that action therefore they also presented the two Indeed they that did the one part did the other The cohereÌ„ce of the text sheweth it wel But the truth is not as he saith For these things were performed only by Peter as the principal director of the whole action at this time The Apostles are no where mentioned in this busines there is not one tittle of theÌ„ To the point all those particular actions in this Election before “ Plurally named named are and must bee referred to all the Disciples who are heere expresly mentioned in the middest of whoÌ„ all these things were done I say Peter alone did them as the Moderator and director but iointly with him all the Disciples concurring and consenting presented these two prayed saying cast lottes All the Church ioyned with Peter and accounted the Elected with the Eleaven Thus this is decided in the text the force and coharence of the wordes convince it though the Doct. denyeth it Hee sheweth †Hom. 3. iâ— Act. Chrysostome saying “ pag. 67. Peter might most lawfully have chosen Mathias I vnderstand Chrysostomes meaning to be that he might lawfully have nominated and propounded one or mo And this is true Otherwise Chrysostomes speach is amisse the D. knoweth it to be vntrue acknowledging that an Apostle can not be chosen by men as before I noted This therefore he can not take hold of the “ Bellarm. de Cler. 1.7 Iesuits catch at it likewise as he doth but none of them all get by it Why doth hee not rest on Chrysostomes other words heere that Peter him selfe did not appoint those two but all did it And he did all by the common sentence of the Disciples nothing by his owne authoritie nothing by commaund This is true this is plaine this is for imitation for ever yet this he as also the Iesuit reiecteth though †Cypr. Epist 1.4 Cyprian also say as much and our “ Rain CoÌ„fer pa. 153 late Writers Maist Calvin iustly taxeth the Papistes pervers boasting of the Fathers and we are to taxe our present adversaries likewise Seeing they seem to draw against vs all in one line Saith hee of them to the French King Ists pij scilicet filij quâ sunt ingenij iudicij animi dexteritate Patrum tantum lapsus errores adorant Calvin ad Reg. Gall. Quae benedicta sunt vel non observant vel dissimulant vel corruÌ„punt Vt dicas prorsùs illis cura fuisse in auro legere stercora Such good children they are to these Fathers that only their faultes and errors they adore and it is all their care amongst their golde to gather dirt Next Act. 6.5 The multitude chose 7. Deacons First “ Pâ—â—pet gov pag. 67. 68. he granteth this Then he would make it void for any vse with vs as Bellarmine doth likewise Saith he That the people should very wel like and fully trust such as should be Stewards of their goods had evident reason And I pray is there not more reason that they shold very wel like fully trust such as must bee the Guides of their soules Those by whose meanes they shall go to heaven or to hell I trowe there is much more reason for this Neither is this †Pag. 82. a matter exceeding the reach of Christian people viz. to discerne and try and like their “ Ioh. 10.3.4.5 1 Ioh. 4.1 Oct. 17.11 1. Cor. 10.15 Teachers Against Act. 14.23 he †Pag. 70. obiecteth word for word out of Bellarmine that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is not to be taken heere for the peoples voyce-giving as the prophane Orators among the Grecians applyed it I answer it is necessarie so to bee taken Are not they the true authors of the Greeke language Do not all men try the true propertie of Greeke wordes and phrases by them Nay but the Church-writers vnderstand it for Laying on of handes in Ordination I answer they have changed the native right vse of the word they keepe not the originall propertie of it as they do not in Reas. for refor pag. 64 65 before Pa. 109.127.218.211 many other words mo Time chaÌ„geth many words from their originall veritie Wherefore the Apostles doubtles spake and wrote Greeke not like the phrase which came vp 300.4000 yeres after them but as the authentike Grecians before and in their time did speake Thus then it were folly yea madnes to interprete them by those so long after them Againe he saith this word signifyeth never to take the consents of others Which is not true as I have †Reas for refor pag. 47 shewed out of Demosthenes contra Timocrat Where hee saith thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which of the lawes the chiefe Authors shall appoint by the peoples voice-giving the same is ratifyed Heere the word plainly signifyeth the Guids taking the coÌ„sent of others Further he obiecteth that this word somtime signifyeth “ Act. 10.41 generally to apoint no more I grant there is a †Synecdoche figurative and improper vse of the word The necessitie of the CircuÌ„stance there maketh that it must be so But heere in Act. 14.23 there is no necessitie nor reason at all to take it improperly or otherwise then as al authentike Grecians do vse it viz. for appointing by the peoples voices or free consents as I have said These are D. Bilsons speciall obiections against our texts of Scripture for the peoples consent in Church governement vnder the Apostles Bellarmine dealeth against one or two more Hee saith Ioh. 10. we are coÌ„manded to heare Christs voyce and not a strangers and to try the Spirits only by atteÌ„ding to the doctrine of other Pastors holding their old custome and chieflie to the doctrine of Rome Where hee presumeth that those other Pastors can not erre and chieflie they of Rome But the Apostle telleth vs that †Rom. 3.4 Every man is a lyar that is subiect to error Wherefore the Holy Ghost biddeth the people to attend “ Isa 8.20 to the Law and to the Testimoniâ— in such cases †Ioh. 5.39 to Search the Seriptures and sheweth that in so doing “ 2. Pet. 1.19 wee do well Againe the Iesuit maketh a shew of answering viz. to 1. Pet. 5.2 that Ministers may not be Lords over the Church But he answereth not only hee saith Bishops are servants to the Church as Scholemaisters are to their Scholars and Magistrates to the people who yet do coÌ„mand and rule them solely Which is nothing to the text forbidding Ministers to be Lords over the †As also 2. Cor. 1.24 people he answereth not that point Last to this “ 1. Tim. 3 1â— The Church is the pillar and grouÌ„d of truth he saith it is true
first settled in the Apostles and that this cannot be doubted It is not so I doe both doubt it and am sure of the contrary Christ setled the moderation of the Keyes first in †Mat. 18.17 the Church His commission to his Apostles was given “ Mat. 28.19 Ioh. 20.23 after Not depriving the Church of her former power but ioyning the Apostles their successors to her as her Guides Withall two thinges further are to bee noted 1. Doct. Bilson heere maketh all Pastors indifferently to have power to Minister and deny Sacraments Censures Whereby it followeth that the Diocesan Bishops only have not this power For saith he they the ordinary Ministers must be trusted with both or with neither †Pag. 110. 133. 162. 199. 162. You must free them from both or leave both vnto them Wherein also none may compell them or force them Sure this quite overthroweth his owne practise and state and the whole order in England 2. We may observe a Syllogisme in his owne wordes heere elswhere Speaking indefinitly of those which have authoritie in the Church he saith “ pag. 111. They must looke not only what they chalenge but also from whom they derive it If from the Apostles then are they their Successors if from Christ as Collegues ioyned with the Apostles wee must finde that consociation in the Gospell before wee cleare them from intrusion No man should take this honor vnto him selfe but hee that is called of God as the Apostles were If they be called by Christ Heb. 5. read their assignation from Christ if they be not surcease that presumption And to do otherwise is to “ Pag. 19 Mat. 15 transgresse the commandement of God for the traditions of Men. †Against the Seminar part 2. pag. 318. The authoritie of Patriarkes Archbishops meaner Bishops over other Ministers was not by the institution of Christ or his Apostles but long after by the consent of the Churches the custome of the times and the will of Princes Therefore the Conclusion followeth of it selfe the authoritie of Patriarkes Archbishops meaner Bishops over Ministers is intrusion and presumption and transgressioÌ„ of Gods commandement At vs Doctor Downame would rage if we should conclude so but I hope he will take it better in Do. Bilsons wordes His “ Pag. 114. 115. Fathers and Councills if they absolutly exclude the peoples consent I leave vnder his owne censure †Heere and also pa. 22â— before observed But I take them to meane otherwise though indeed a very great power and almost absolute was nowe exercised by many Diocesan Bb. in ExcoÌ„municatioÌ„ Absolution Hee saith Cyprians Augustines yeelding the people a consent was “ Pag. 119. not for any right they had but to prevent scandalls But their right both by precept and practise of the Apostles is sufficiently shewed before Yet indeed it was to prevent scandalls among the people also Which very point is a firme reason likewise that this spirituall libertie of the people then was their right For first they could not bee scandalized so oft fearing to loose their consent in such affaires so many ages togeather and in so farre distant countreis but that they were then taught and they learned froÌ„ time to time that this was their right If the coÌ„trary then had ben taught then they could not have ben scandalized nor made jealous least they might be wronged in this behalfe as they were That they were is manifest by all monumentes of those times and by our adversaries confession Therefore the peoples free consent in their spirituall governement was then taught and it was their right in the ages after the Apostles And truly this ever hath ben is and wil be scandalous and offensive iustly to a Christian vnderstanding Congregation viz. to have any thing Spiritually and Ecclesiastically forced on them The case is perpetuall But †Mat. 18.7 wo to them by whom offences come specially to such Therefore wo to them who yeelde not this libertie to such people perpetually Yet he saith “ Pag. 112. In Scripture hee findeth neither Example of it nor reason for it Who can let words If men list to speake who can stay them Some will shut their eyes and say they see not light at noone Against Election with the peoples consent he said before †Pag. 69. Examples are no precepts As it were acknowledging Examples How beit besides that this is the “ Bellarm. de Cleric 1.7 verie Iesuits shift he him selfe coÌ„futeth al these evasioÌ„s though they be his owne First yeelding that †Perp. gov pag. 373. the Apostles taught the Church by their example Then testifying thus “ Pag 49. This Prerogative to be best acquainted with the will meaning of our Savior and to have their mouthes and pennes directed and guided by the holy Ghost into all truth aswell of doctrine as of Discipline was proper to the Apostles Againe †Pag. 43. They set an order amongst Christians in all things needfull for the governement continuance peace and vnitie of the Church And “ Pag. 106. The Scriptures once written suffice all ages for instruction And heere I beseech the Christian Readers of all degrees that they take me not amisse to which some mens humors are to prone viz. where in an other place I have said The particular Congregations of England are true Churches “ Declarâ—â— pag. 6. accidentally My meaning is that as those particular Congregations have in them godly and holy Christians consociated togeather to serve God so far as they see agreeablie to his word so they are in right from Christ essentially true Churches of God and are so to be acknowledged by vs and in publike not to be absolutly separated from But in respect as these Congregations are parts of proper Diocesan and Provinciall Churches so they are true Churches of Christ accidentally In respect of them it is an accideÌ„t For proper Diocesan and Provinciall Churches being not in the N. Testam have in them by accident the true essentiall forme of Christs Visible Churches Seeing also this forme is repugnant to the constitutioÌ„ forme of the other as †hertofore I noted †Reas. for ref pag. 23. by comparing their divers Definitions in “ Pag 200. 318. this Treatise it will most plainly appeare And so these two divers respectes acknowledgementes as I conceave may well bs yeelded to the particular Congregations now in England neither do I see any iust exception against it In vaine also doth Doct. Downe vpbraid vs that †Def. 4.81 we seeke to overturne aswell those Churches where the Geneva discipline is established as ours That “ Def. 1.10 we agree with no reformed Church in the worlde That †Pag. 38. 47. nonâ— are of our minde but Brownists and such like Hee maketh the Brownistes happy men Can hee reproove them if they follow Zuinglius