proper visible Church of Christ to which the goverment Ecclesiasticall of iâ—â—â—â—fe doeth alwayes of right appâ—rtaine Ecclesia in the new Testament is taken Ciuilly and originally for a * Act. 19 3â—.39.40 particular Assembly of Citizens in one certaine publike place about matters of the Common wealth Ecclesia in the new Testament is taken Religlouslie for a Church Properly in the next and neerest proportion aunswering to the Originall ciuill vse thereof This is a Particular Visible Ordinary Congregation of Christians meeting for religious Ecclesiasticall actions exercises And this is the only true Visible Church of Christ hauing from him the Spirituall power of order gouernment in it selfe ordinarily The proper Ministers thereof are the onely true ordinarie Ministers of Christ This we read of in the Scripture in 2. respects Definitly This is some certaine known “ Mat. 18 1â— Revel 21. Col. 4.16 Gal. 1.2 â— Thes â— 14 â— Cor. 16.1 19. 2. Cor 8.1 Rom. 16.4.16 particular Congregation in some certaine particular place which we may go vnto consult with and obey Indefinitlie where is vnderstood This or That or * Mat. 3â— â— c. 1. Cor. 12.11 Mat. 6 33. Isa 2.1.2 3. â— Pet. â— 5 any other particular ordinary Congregation in a proportion more remote or further of Such is the Inuisible or Intelllgible Church absolutly Catholike that is the number of †Ephe. 3.10 15 21. and â— 27 all Gods Elect both in Heauen and in Earth Figuratiuely by a Metaphore Such is a holy well ordered Christian “ Rom. 16.5 â— Cor. 16. â—â— familie resembling as it were a very Church though in deed it bee but a part of a true and proper Church Synecdoche viz. of the Visibilitie when the Church it self that is the whole cannot but only some parts of it may be Visible or Sensible at any time to any one man that needeth the vse of it Such is the Catholike Militant Church which is * Mat. 16.18 1. Cor. â—2 28 properly an Inuisible Intelligible Church as it is considered whâ—ly togeather that is as it is one Church Societie as when only the “ Act. 15.4 â—â— People of a particular Congregation hauing Ministers yet without and beside their Ministers are called the Church Whereby it is evident that no Catholike or Vniversall Church Visible is any where in all Christes New Testament to bee found and therefore in no wise is such a Church to be allowed Neither yet any Nationall or Provinciall or Diocesan Church Only a particular ordinarie Congregation is heere found and so is to be held properly and only a true visible Church of Christ Moreover heereby it appeareth and it is likewise to be noted Note III. that the nature and office of a Bishop also is not of one maner but of divers It is as the former word Church very ambiguous and must be likewise necessarily distinguished Bishops of six sortes Six sortes of Bishops have ben and are known in the world 1 1. A Parishionall Bishop who is a Pastor of one ordinary Congregation only Such are all the Bishoppes mentioned any where in the New Testament and also in writers within the space of 200. yeares after Christ 2 2. A Diocesan Titular Bishop who was Bishop of a Diocese in title and in name only in Ecclesiasticall governement having no more power then any other coÌ„mon Pastor He differed not in any essentiall part of the ordinary Pastorall Office but was only President or Moderator coÌ„stantly yet by his fellow Pastors free consent over the Pastors of a Diocese Such perhaps first of all was “ Ann. 190 Iulianus the tenth Bishop of Alexandria In whose time first * Euseb 5.9 mention is made that there were divers Churches in that Citie and he Bishop of them The first sorte of these Bishops we wholy allow The second we do not simply deny They were not much vnlike to the Bishops now lately appointed in Scotland 3 3. There is a Diocesan ruling Bishop He had more power then any of the rest of the ordinarie Pastors though yet not any sole power to rule in his Diocese It may be this began at Alexandria with “ Ann. 260. Dionysius the thirteenth Bishop of that place which seemeth to be Ieroms meaning where he * Ierom ad Evagr. saith that some prioritie in Bishops continued there from Marke to Heraclas and Dionysius At Heraclas it is probable was a period of one sort and with Dionysius began another Prioritie of Order 1. Pariâ—hionall 2. Diocesan 3. Maioritie of rule Diocesan Prioritie of order in one Bishop over a Parish that is one particular compleat Congregation seemeth to haue continued exclusively from Marke vnto Iulianus over a Diocese from Iulianus to Heraclas inclusively and then Maioritie of ruling in the Diocese to haue begun with Dionysius the next Successor after Nothing letteth vs but that thus we may probably thinke Seeing thus Eusebius and Ieroms relation shall well agree How soever it was this is certaine that neither the one nor the other was knowne before these times heere expressed 4 4. A Diocesan Lord Bishop was he who ruled ordinarilie in his Diocese by his sole power This grew vp from the former by litle and litle But it seemeth not to haue ben established in Ambrose Ierome Augustines time though soone after we doubt not it tooke place over the Churches 5 5. A Patriarchall Bishop and they were first 4. in number Of which kinde the Archbishop may be reckoned also viz. at Rome Antioch “ Or els Cae sarea Concil Nic. 1. Can. 7. Ierusalem Alexandria They began by mens voluntarie regarding the Bishops of those principall Cities aboue other sometime before the Nicene Councell But they were by an ordinance established first in that Councell Howbeit yet they were not Lords over the Churches till a long while after In the first Councell of Constantinople an other Patriarch was established at Constantinople 6 6. A Catholike or Vniversall Bishop * Bonifacius was the first began at Rome about 600. yeares after Christ Who also hath had his growinges and increasings and was not perfect Antichrist till some ages after Now all these latter that is the 3.4.5 6. sort are at least Besides the Scriptures yea they are cleane Contrarie to the first which hath place and allowance in the Scripture And therefore these are plainlie contrary to Gods word vtterlie vnlawfull Wherefore also the “ As namelie that in D. Bilsons perpet gouernment pag. 260. coÌ„mon accompts and Catalogues of the succession of Bishops from the Apostles times to our dayes are very deceiptfull and false When as al these are called by one name indifferently Bishops without distinction yet their Offices are exceeding divers and no way like Yea these later directlie contrarie to the first as hath ben said Against this it is * D. Bilson in
a man next vnto God and inferior to God only 3. We gladlie acknowledge that the King is ought to be Supreme governor even in all causes and over all persons Ecclesiasticall Howbeit alwayes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 non 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Civilly not Spiritually or Ecclesiastically 4. The King is Custos Vindex the Keeper and Maintainer by compulsive power of the whole state of Religion But he is not Author or Minister of any Ecclesiasticall thing or CoÌ„stitution whatsoever Will our Adversaries yeeld more Or is not this sufficient I hope this shall suffice to cease heerafter their slanders against vs in this cause And thus much touching our first Assertion The 2. Assertion For the space of 200. yeares after Christ the Visible Churches vsing governement were not Diocesan Churches but particular ordinary Congregations only and the Bishops as they were particularly called after the Apostles were only Parishionall not Diocesan Bishops and differed from other Pastors in Prioritie of order not in Maioritie of rule IN this Assertion we observe 3. distinct partes 1. A Church was then but one Ordinarie Congregation and generally in each Citie then there was but one such Congregation only 2. The particular ordinary Congregations had in themselves their owne governement Ecclesiasticall 3. There was no Maioritie of rule but Prioritie of order only in a Bishop then compared with other Pastors The first is proved by these Testimonies following FIrst let vs consider that in the Apostles dayes the ordayning of Elders “ Citie by Citie Tir. 1.5 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 * Church by Church Act. 14.23 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was all one thing namely because in each Citie in those times there were not many Churches in number but one onely proper Church or Congregation of Christians Which also “ Pag. 19.20 aboue we further declared Then for the next age after * Anno 100 Ignatius plainly sheweth the common state of the visible Churches in this time also to be such where he thus writeth †Ignat. ad Trall Without a Bishop without a Senate of Elders without Deacons c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Without these there is no Church no company of of Saints no holy CoÌ„gregation Which proveth that then each Citie had but only one ordinary CoÌ„gregation of Christians Sith doubtles each Citie then had but one such Senat of Elders and but one Bishop in Ignatius vnderstanding Further also he perswading the Church of Philadelphia to vnitie and concord saith “ Ad Philadelph I exhort you vse one Faith one Preaching one supper of the Lord c. For there is but one CommunioÌ„ Table 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the whole Church heere in this Citie and one Bishop with a company of Elders and Deacons Therefore in this Citie there was then but one Ordinary Congregation of Christians Neither speaketh he of this Church in Philadelphia as being of an other forme or constitution then other Churches then were but indeed as being conformable and like to the maner of the rest If we translate 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as som like better to every Church distributively then our Assertion is more cleerely avouched Againe touching the Church of Philadelphia he saith * Ibid. The Bishop is Gods Ambassador to a people 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that are togeather in one place Lastly writing elswhere to the same effect he saith so much touching an other Visible Church namely in the Citie Magnesia “ Ad Magnes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. All of you com togeather into the fame place to prayer Let there be but one common prayer one minde one hope c. Iustin Martyr shewing the maner of the Churches worshipping of God in the Cities where they then were observeth the very same Saith he * Iust Mart. Apolog. 2. Anno 142. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 On the Sonday as it is called All the Christians dwelling in the Cities or abroad in the Country do com togeather into the same place c. It is very like that this was specially spoken of the Church of Rome then seeing there Iustin wrot and offered vp his Apologie to Antoninus the Emperor Though with all he signifieth that he meanes other Churches in other * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Cities and in Country-places likewise indifferently Therefore then All the Christians in each Citie yea those in Rome made not divers but one constant and ordinary Congregation only Irenaeus in his time observeth no materiall difference betweene Bishops and Presbyters Ministers of the word Which is a plaine argument that Bishops then were not Diocesan Bishops overseeing many coÌ„stantly distinct Congregations but were Pastors of one particular ordinary Congregation only Thus he saith * Irenae lib. 3. cap. 3. Traditio viâ— scripta vel necessario consequens ab 〈◊〉 quod est scriptum per Apostolâ—s Traditio quae est ab Apostolis per successionem Presbyterorum custoditur The tradition which is taken from the Apostles is kept by successioÌ„ of Presbyters In the same place also Episcopi ab Apostolis instituti in Ecclesijs Successores eorum vsque ad nos Bishops ordayned by the Apostles in the Churches and their Successors vntill our times Where also the Romane Bishops Anicetus Pius Hyginus he nameth Presbyters By all which it is evident that the name Bishop Presbyter was not yet exactly distinguished as after it was but remayned yet as it were common and indifferent to all Ministers of the word even so as it was vsed by the Apostles in their writings Also it appeareth heereby that there was not then any kind of Diocesan Bishops For the name then ought to haue ben very distinct and peculiar to him as afterward it came to passe Much lesse had any Bishop a power to rule over a whole Diocesse Otherwise Ireneus should not haue vsed these names and termes then so indifferently Tertullians testimony also seemeth very agreable in this point Where speaking of Christians ordinary Congregations in Cities in his time he saith Corpus sumus c. Pertulian Apolog. â—â—9 we are all one Body c. And againe Coimus in Cetum aggregationem c. We all com togeather into a Company and Congregation He saith not plurally in cetus aggregationes into divers Companies Congregations as surely it seemeth he should and would haue said if there had ben then in one Citie many ordinary constant Congregations Specially seeing he saith also of the same singular Congregation Ibidem est Censura divina iudicatur magno cum pondere c. There are divine Censures exercised The iudgement is given with great waight c. Which surely was done in every such constant Congregation as before he spake of And yet but in one singular Congregation not in many nor in one over many constantly appointed in one Citie at that time Eusebius History sheweth that the Churches of the most famous Cities
were each of them primitiuely no more but a Parish only that is but one ordinary constant Congregation only As wehre he nameth the Church of Ierusalem a Euse lib. 3.11 the Parish of Ierusalem of Ephesus the Parish of b Lib. 3.28 Ephesus and so of c Lib. 3.13.18 lib. 4.1.4.5.19 Alexandria of d Lib. 3.32 Hierapolis of e Lib. 4.22 Corinth of f Lib 4.25 Sardis of g Lib. 5.5 Lyons divers Churches the h Lib. 4.22 6. Parishes of Crete He no where mentioneth many Churches nor Parishes vnder one Bishop in any Citie till Iulianus time in Alexandria as before we observed By Epiphanius testimonie also our Assertion is maintained Who saith Primitiuely * Epiph coÌ„tr Haâ—â—â—â— 73. in a small CoÌ„gregation a Bishop was ordayned alone without other Presbyters assisting him And in som places only Presbyters and Deacons without a Bishop In other places that is in great populous CongregatioÌ„s where they had meete men to be chosen there they chose in each of them a Bishop with other assistant Presbyters By which it appeareth consequently that every-where a Bishop then was but of one particular Congregation only whether greater or simaller The second part is proved The particular Congregations had their owne goverment Ecclefiasticall Ignat. ad Philad NEither let any imagine that these particular Congregations then wanted their owne Ecclesiasticall government among themselves only It is most evident that they had it exercised it only within themselues ordinarily Which is plaine by that of Ignatius writing to one of them thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It is meet for you as being the Church of God to chose by common coÌ„sent your Bishop And to an other particular Church thus * Ad Smyrna 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 In the Church which is with you at Smyrna there is not any thing aboue the Bishop He meaneth the Bishop or Pastor of the particular Congregation is of greatest authoritie and aboue any other there whomsoever So that they in that Congregation had all governement simply and solely among themselves He speaketh heere of governing 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Spiritually not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Civilly For thus the Magistrate is Supreme both in and over each Church and whatsoever Church matters as Mai. Beza religiously and dutifully * Theod. Bez. de Excom Presbyt speaketh we †Pag. 57. before observed Yea verily thus the Magistrat is supreme whether he care for the Church or care not Hence therfore we conclude that these particular Churches had the ordinary Ecclesiasticall government of themselves among themselves TertulliaÌ„ also in the place before cited sheweth so much speaking of each particular ordinarie Congregation in his dayes Ibidem est censura divina Iudicatur magno cum pondere vt apud certos de Dei conspectu Apol. â— 39 President probati quique Seniores There are divine Censures They iudge with great waight and advisednes as being sure that God seeth them The approved Elders are the chiefe or do governe these Censures Therfore all particular ordinary Congregations inioyed their owne spirituall governement then in those times There is no suspicion of any restraint or abridging of them therin till Dionysius the 13. Bishop of Alexandria Anno 260. at the soonest The third part is proved No Maioritie of rule but only Prioritie of order in a primitive Bishop BEsides the testimonies before alleaged Ambrose in plain wordes telleth vs this that primitively * Ambro in Eph. 4. 1 Tim. 3. A Bishop was no more but primus Presbyter the foremost in order among the other Ministers of the word in the Synods or where there were other in the same Congregation with him Therefore the Bishop then differed not in Maioritie of rule from any other Pastor And therefore then there was no Diocesan Church vsing governement nor Diocesan Bishop ruling other Pastors and Churches Much lesse was there any Diocesan Lord Bishop then Ierome doth likewise Where he saith * Ierom. ad Evagr. in Tit. 1. A Bishop and an Elder or common Pastor by Divine institution and ordinance are all one And Maioritie among them came in by the custome of the Church and Humane disposition He meaneth Maioritie of Ruling because he sheweth heere that formerly all did rule “ in coÌ„muniâ— or communi Presbyterorum consiliâ— in common Wherefore by his iudgement there was not at the first any Maioritie of rule in a Bishop over Pastors Much lesse were there any Diocesan L. Bishops ruling by their sole authoritie in those times Som Prioritie in order we doubt not was alwayes First Parishionall and then Diocesan som good while after as before is shewed Yea the Parishionall prioritie of order was we deny not constant yea even among Pastors who had otherwise all one Office intirely I say this was where there were divers Ministers of the word in one particular Congregation As we doubt not there were in som places Now for this matter viz. Bishops Maioritie in governement above Presbyters and also concerning Ieromes opinion thereof it is not amisse to observe what D. Bilson also hath taught and avouched In his * Against the Semina part 2. pag. 318. First Booke he sayeth It was not by the institution of Christ nor his Apostles but long after by the consent of the Churches the Custom of the tymes and the will of Princes Where also he sheweth that this was Ieromes iudgement likewise Howsoever since I can not tell how nor why D. Bilson †Perpeâ— gov pag. 236.237.238 changed much his minde heerein and yet with no more discrepance from himselfe then from the trueth and from almost all learned men beside both ancient and later Further this reason prooveth the present whole Assertion If the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vsed religiously for a Church Visible with order and governement do and ought to keepe in all good Authors a iust proportion answerable to the Civill and Originall vse thereof then it must needs be in proper signification a particular CoÌ„gregation only For Originally and Civilly in all Greeke Authors 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth one particular Assembly in one place only as an Assembly of the people at Athens in Ephesus in Corinth c being com togeather in their publike iudgement-place Which is evident by the writinges of Plato Demosthenes Isocrates Xenophon c. Yea in the * Acte 19. â—2 39.40 Actes of the Apostles we do finde it likewise so vsed But the Apostles and other Ecclesiasticall writers for 200. yeares after Christ vsing this worde for a Visible Church with order and governement do speak properly and so ought to keepe a iust proportion in it answerable to the Civill and originall vse thereof This sentence is vndoubtedly true and vndenyable If any think he can shew to the coâ—â—â—rie let it be shewed Therefore the Apostles and other Ecclesiasticall Writers for 200.
yeares space after Christ vsing this word for a Visibâ—â— Church with order and governement do signifie by it a particular Congregation only And it no where signifieth in them a Diocesan Church c. Where note that the strength of this reason standeth wholy in the proper taking and vsing of this word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Church Note The Adversaries error hath advantage by the improper and ambiguous vse of it which is Sophisticall Yea if you will their sense is a “ By the Scriptures verdict false sense of it wherein yet it often vsed in Writers and in common speach for want of due regard By which meanes also sundry other errors have crept in heeretofore much prevayled even by mis-vnderstanding of certayne wordes As we may see in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and in Latin Meritum Equivocall wordes Poenitentia Crux Sacramentum c. Out of all those Testimonies before alleadged this generall reason may be concluded No Diocesan Church or Bishop was knowen or once heard of in the world till many distinct ordinary Congregations began to be appointed in one Citie But there was no Multiplication nor distinction of many ordinarie and constant Congregations in a Citie till about 200. yeares after Christ Som coÌ„iecture it was long after this No man sheweth that it was before this The truth in deed heereof that for this while generally in each Citie there was but one ordinary constant Congregation of Christians hath ben plentifully shewed in the Proofes of this 2. Assertion before going Therefore till about 200. yeares after Christ there was no manner of Diocesan Church or Bishop knowen nor once heard of in all the Christian world No not the Diocesan Titular Bishop much lesse any Diocesan ruling Bishop Where yet we deny not but that one particular Congregation or Church being populous might occasionally and vncertainly in the time of persecution for their safetie sake assemble in divers smaller Meetings As before we noted pag. 19.20 As also they did we doubt not many times within the space of these 200. yeares after Christ Howbeit yet these smaller Meetings were not so many Churches properly because they were not ordinary sett Companies nor constantly distinct Societies as Churches ought to be and as our Parishes now are Those divers Occasionall and vncertaine meetings made but one Church and ordinary Congregation Act. 6 1. yea though the whole nomber were too populous for one actual Assembly ordinarily It is true in such case they ought to distinguish and distribut themselves into divers competent set Congregations which should be so many proper and intire Churches But when they are as they were in those primitive times dayly in great perill of cruell persecution they may with reason remaine somwhile vndistinguished not so distribute themselves which in time of peace and safetie they always ought to do Wherin now som Reformed Churches beyond Seas do seeme to offend If any say the troublesomnes of those times or the yong age of the Churches who were not yet growen vp to perfection caused that there were no Diocesan Churches with governement nor Diocesan ruling Bishops then And we take advantage of the special state of those times vrging it to our purpose generally I answer we vrge from the state and order of the Apostolike primitive Churches nothing but what is generall in them and ought to be perpetuall with vs. So that neither the troublesomnes of those times nor the young age of the Churches then do give vs our advantage For notwithstanding these speciall Circumstances the Visible Churches vsing gouernement and the Bishops then might have ben very well Diocesan and Provinciall if Christ had so instituted and the Apostles had so framed and left them Nothing in the world hindereth but they might easily have ben such even in those times But the world knew none such then as I have said And it is impietie to say Christes Churches were vnperfect then as touching their Visible forme constitution their Ministery and the whole lawfull order of worshipping God in them Or that the times since have made them more perfect then they were as the Apostles left them Wherefore this advantage do we stand vpon and this do we vrge viz. the same patterne and forme of Visible Churches vsing governement that was then vniversally practised receaved immediatly from Christ and the Apostles which was Parishionall not Diocesan as hath ben declared The 3. Assertion The Scriptures of the New Testament do containe set forth vnto vs besides the governement by Extraordinarie Offices Apostles Prophets Evangelistes an ordinarie forme of Church-governement vsed then IF in the New Testament one kinde of a Visible Church vsing governement and no other is to be found 1. Reason also if speciall distinct ordinarie Offices for Church-governement and speciall Actions therevnto belonging be sett downe therein then the Scripture contayneth a speciall forme of Church-government which was ordinary then But in the New Testament a See before 1. Asseâ—tion 2. Reason One kinde of a Visible Church vsing governement namely a particular ordinarie Congregation and no other is found also speciall distinct ordinarie Offices for Church-governement are set downe therein as Parishionall b T it 1.5 7 1 Tim. 3.1 2. Ephe. 4.11 Phil. 1.1 Act. 20.28 1 Pet. 5.2 Act. 14.23 Bishops or Pastors and an other sort of not Lay but Ecclesiasticall c 1. Tim. 5.17 compared with Gal. 6.10 1 Tim. 4.10 Rom. 12. â— 1 Cor. 12.28 Iam. 5.14 Adde the ancient Writers Ignat. Epist ad Trall Tars Smyr Tertull. Apol. c. 39. d Baptisme Ambr. in 1. Tim. 5 in 1. Cor. 12.28 Ierom. in Isa 3. August Epist 137. Elders who by their Ordinary office were only to assist in governement Third the special Actions belonging to Church-government are also set downe in the Scripture as Election of Ministers Excommunication of spirituall offendors c. Therfore the Scripture of the New Testament coÌ„tayneth a speciall forme of Church-governement ordinary then Where it is to be noted that in those first times there were also those other Officers in the Churches Note Apostles Evangelistes and Prophetes But they had Calling and giftes immediatly from God the others Calling was alwayes by men They abode not in one Church as the other did Their government and vse was not perpetuall but temporary and extraordinarie They therefore hindered not the other neither can they now hinder The rather sith they do not now remaine but are ceased Also those Parishionall Bishops and those other Elders assisting in government Note did differ in their Ordinary office Yea though they both did somtimes Preach c yet thus they differed notwithstanding But a Parishionall Bishop or Pastor cannot differ in his ordinary office of Preaching c. from an Elder who is also by ordinary office a Preacher c. Therefore he is heere an other Church Elder viz. by ordinary office no
is a Visible Church of Christ truly and properly Seeing each true Visible Church hath evermore from Christ power and right of governement in it selfe as before is noted Let this therefore be well declared what is a true Visible Church and we shall soone agree We affirme that every particular ordinarie Cōgregation is and ought to be allowed for such a Church And heerevpon do we stand I am not ignorant of the common and vulgar phrase of speach among men both ancient and of late both vnlearned and learned who have vsed to call everie of those other a Church as a Diocesan Church a Provinciall a National and also a Vniversall Church meaning it seemeth that everie of these may be trulie and rightlie called a Visible Church But this is only the custome of speach among men And * Mos trium literatum tyrannus Bez. Annot. in Luc. 23.17 Custome is a Tyrant as a Reverend Father saith well It is no warrant nor ground for any thing in Religion The word of God alone must suffice vs heerein Yea we consider not what advantage we give the Heretike Catholikes against vs by acknowledging a Catholike Visible Church It followeth from this necessarilie that there is ought to be on earth a Catholike or Vniversall governement Ecclesiasticall This is a Conclusion wherevnto M. Hooker setteth down expreslie * Hook 3. Sect 1. both the Proposition and Assumption viz. Everie Visible Church Pag. 132. truly and properly so called ought to have a correspondent Ecclesiasticall governement But there is a Catholike or Vniversal Visible Church on earth Pag. 126. and 132. To which Premisses everie childe now can quicklie adde the Conclusion Ergo There is and ought to be on earth a Catholike or Vniversall governement Eccle siasticall And I am perswaded that this oversight or error among vs hath caused Thousandes to turne Catholikes that is members of Antichrist and enemies to the true Churches and servants of Christ For if there be properlie one Visible Church and governement Ecclesiasticall throughout the world then this must be in some one place eminently For some whither we must go when Christ biddeth vs Tell the Church Now there is no place in all the world so likelie as Rome is to be the Visible seat and spring-head of the Vniversall governement of the Catholike Church if in deed there be any Therfore most easilie mē are drawen to be Roman Catholiks whē this is not denyed that there is a Catholike Visible Church Which selfe same advantage we give also to our Pontificall Hierarchie in England against the true estate and due governement of Christes Visible Churches heere For while we grant them whether by error or by oversight that there is may be truly and properly a Diocesan Visible Church they will easilie conclude that then there may ought to be a correspondent Diocesan governement Which as before I observed overthroweth quite the proper being and governement of each particular or Parishionall Church But we because Christ and his Apostles throughout all the New Testament have appointed every were allowed the Parishionall Assemblies as to be cleerely absolutly distinct in themselves so to be Visible Churches truly properly and withall a correspondent Ecclesiasticall governement to be in each of them as before hath bene shewed therefore heerevpon do we stand this do we vrge that the Institution of Christ and the Apostles practize ought to be a rule for Christian Churches as every where so heere in England vpon this do our Consciences rest assuredlie Because as before I said who is it that may presume to ordaine any forme of a Church save Christ only Especiallie overthrowing that forme of a Church and governement which Christ hath ordeyned as these Diocesan and Provinciall Churches with their proper Ministers do Ecclesiae nomine armamini contra Ecclesias dimicatis You arme your selves with the name of the Church and fight against the true Churches In this place I can not forget how some thinking thēselves deepe Politicians do imagin that they see our Groūds to be directlie against a Monarchie or Kingly State For this Ecclesiasticall governement being Popular say they it wil require the Civill governement also to becom conformed to it Also they thinke it can never bee menaged without trouble and tumult First we absolutelie denie that any manner of Ecclesiasticall Governement requireth the Civill Governement to becom conformed to it This is a most false conceite The bounds of either Governernement are distinct and cleerlie severed the one from the other albeit each doth ayd succour the other But what should I reason heereof This their insimulation is against none other then Christ him selfe and his blessed Word wherein he hath instituted no other state of a Church Visible but a particular Congregation only Shall we impugne and accuse the true Church of Christ Nay shall we accuse Christ him selfe and his Gospell that heerein he yeeldeth vs not the true right or best forme of a Church And therefore we will of our owne heades devise and constitute a better God forbid that any Christians should so do and wilfully maintaine this doing also But they think this maner of governement will becom tumultuous and troublesom in the State and so it will proove hurtfull to the Prince I would demaund why thinke they that the Church government as we desire it will be troublesom tumultuous They will answere because we require of necessitie that Elections of Ministers and Excommunications c. must be Popular Which can not but bring with them commonly tumult and much trouble if not confusion and perill to manie Wherevnto I replie that this were verie true in deed viz. much trouble and tumult would commonly follow and perhaps perill to divers if we desired or sought for popular Elections of Diocesan Bishops Such as we read of finde to have ben vsed in many places vnder Christian Princes from 300. yeres after Christ hitherward for a long time As for example at Antioch Alexandria Rome Constantinople c. In these and other Cities verie great stirres tumultes and confusions among the People have risen in deed not seldom times even in and about such their Elections The Ecclesiasticall Histories are full of examples to this purpose But such running togeather of a whole Citie or Dioces such voice-giving of such multitudes of people we desire not neither do we any wayes allow it It was a corrupt remainder in deed of the Peoples auncient free voice-giving to the Election of their Parishionall Pastors or Bishops For such all ordinarie Bishops and Pastors were primitively in the Apostles dayes and such every where they were left by them as before we have shewed Every ordinarie Bishop then I say was only of a Parish as the Ancients call it that is of one particular Congregation only and no greater And so their Elections were accomplished by the free consent and voyce-giving only of the People of each of these