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
cut off and excommunicate from the Church of Rome hee could not after that have any power as derived from them to make Ministers nor to do any other Bishoplie act Secondly wee all knowe the Church of Rome to be the very Antichrist chieflie in respect of their Clergie and Spirituall governement and most chieflie of all in respect of the Pope from whom all the rest as from the Head doe take their power and authoritie Now shall we say that very Antichrist can have power from Christ to make Ministers Or that we can have a lawfull Ministerie derived from those who had their power only from him It can not bee “ 2. Cor. 6.14 15. What communion hath light with darknes What concord hath Christ with Belial And so what hath Christ to do with Antichrist Nothing at all Thus then our consciences can have no assurance wee can not have confidence in such estate of the Ministerie But certainly Christs true Ministers among vs in Englande have a better Original thē this Wherefore this answere of our State Protestants must needes be false Yet in this answer who seeth not how the Papistes do reioyce triumph and insult Who seeth not how by this they are incouraged strengthened and multiplyed among vs exceedingly Truly it would pity a mans heart to beholde how this one point putteth life into thousandes to stande vp against Christes Gospell the libertie of their Country also For when they heare our selves openly to ascribe to the Church of Rome and to their meanes such a gift of grace even that which is our glory even the holy instrument of our faith to salvatiō for so is our Ministerie they will say if the branch be holy the root is more if the rivers be sweet the head-spring is delicious And so how can it bee chosen but the Papistes thus will bee graced and get great advātage among vs Many heere have another refuge but that also helpeth nothing Say they as Popish Baptisme is so far acknowledged by vs The last refuge of our Adversaries taken away as that with it only wee are held to bee sufficiently Baptised not to need Baptizing againe when we com from them to the Church of England So likewise wee may acknowledge the Popish Ordination to the Ministerie thus far and yet nevertheles cōdemne their Church and separate from them I answere the case is nothing like betweene Baptisme the signe of our initiation in Christ and the Calling to the Ministerie In the word there is expresse warrant for not repeating the signe of our initiation in Christ which of old was Circumcision and Baptisme now is the same though ministred by a false Ministerie and Church As wee may see in the “ 2. Chron. 30.11.18 35.17.18 Ez◠6.21 not Recircumcising of such Iewes as had receaved that signe in the Apostasie of Israell and turned frō thesame to the truth But there is no warrant at all in Gods word for any to retaine the outward Calling to the Ministerie or to stand in that power and authoritie which is derived from such a Church There is no such thing can be shewed in all Gods booke Therefore we may not conclude the like in this matter of Ordination to the Ministerie which may bee done for not repeating of Baptisme For by Gods worde Ordination may be repeated yea certainly after a Ministerie receaved in Christes true Church much more after it hath ben receaved in a false Church So that these two ordinances of Christ are nothing like in this point Wherefore out of question Ordination to the Ministerie as it is derived from Antichrist must be wholy reuounced of every faithfull man and may bee as is said renewed and repeated in Christes true Church as occasion serveth At Rome there is in it both an impiety and a nullitie In their administring of Baptisme there is not a nullitie altogeather as in that correspondent example of Israell in Apostasie before alleadged it well appeareth And this is sufficient for this though other answeres may be given also Wherefore this remayneth that when wee grant the descent of our Ministerie in Englande to come lineally from the Church and Pope of Rome which we must grant will wee nill we if wedeny it to arise essentially from the Christian peoples consent in each Congregation all the world seeth that we give the Pope a maine advantage against vs and we put into his hande a strong engine to draw vs back againe vnto him Which also he effecteth dayly vppon many among vs as woefull experience sheweth in our Land yea even vpon some of my very friends and neare acquaintance Beside this there is another point of the Churches governement The causing of Vnitie namely their Iurisdiction in cōpounding Schismes in making peace and vnitie and consent among Christian people which beeing ascribed as proper to Diocesan and Provinciall Bishops as they in England do say it is and as “ Def. 3.36 c. D. Downame with great vehemencie defendeth certainly true reason will cary it further it can not possibly stay there This wil serve a Popes turne a great deale better and to such a one it belongeth in deed as a very true and forcible ground for his Vniversall Governement over all Christians in the world if there were any Divine and Evangelicall truth in it at all But there is no truth in it Because this is no Divine and Evangelical way for Vnitie in religion viz. to constitute one Visible Head with absolute power of Spirituall governement whether Diocesan or Provinciall or Vniversall Or to take from the Christian people their free consent There is not in the Gospell any such Meanes to Vnitie It is a Humane policie a carnall device it is no institution of Christ Iesus Gods writt◠word is the cause of Vnitie Who in his word and by his word with the helpe of the Ministerie therein ordained provideth sufficiently for true peace and holy Vnitie among all his people For he saith “ Mat. 28.29 Ye erre not knowing the Scriptures And †Ioh. 5.39 Search the Scriptures for they are they which testifie of me And “ chap. 14.6 Rom. 16 17. I am the way the truth and the life Likewise the Apostle testifyeth that those are the makers of Schismes and divisions who teach and holde any thing besides the doctrine learned from the Apostles So that indeed the meanes appointed of GOD to make Vnitie in the Church is Gods word and not one Superiour over-ruling Minister over many distinct ordinarie Cōgregations which the word knoweth not But in truth such a one is the very proper cause of dissention and schisme For he not willing to submit to Gods word by his power draweth many with him yet he cannot lightly prevayle with all Wherevpon followeth dissention and schisme And then he with his cōpany being the stronger in the world may cry out loudest against those fewer that dissent from him that they are
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
propositions which they offer to maintayne are such as if they were not true wee can not iustly separat froÌ„ the Church of Rome nor stand out against it Those some Proposittions which they meane are namely the fourth eight set down in that Offer Which affirme that a Church is but one Ordinary CoÌ„gregation and that the people ought to have their free consent in the spirituall governement thereof Vnto which may be added the 5.6.7 and 10. as being all of one nature by cleere and certain consequence The soundnes and firme truth of all the which hath ben sufficiently prooved and declared heeretofore and might by such a right ChristiaÌ„ tryal as there they desire bee brought to further light Wherefore D. Downames absurd reproches against that treatise calling it most senselesly “ Def 1.382 4.81 an Vnchristian and vnmodest Offer and the Positions therein Schismatical novelties do declare with what gall of bitternes his heart over-floweth against the truth against his brethren as “ Def. 2.48 hee dissemblingly calleth vs and also against those noble Pillars of the Gospell before alleaged our Attestators who are heerein his vtter adversaries whatsoever he pretendeth to the coÌ„trary He as a cocke on his owne dunghill may crowâ— what he list But if the Offer had ben or might bee accepted in such equall order as is there tendered he would be made to eate his wordes I doubt not and all the infamie of Schisme Noveltie would fall vpon his owne head Without which acceptanc elet the Doct. know that his tedious and Sophisticall writing all other such like will be held by wise men to bee vaine boasting and no better coÌ„quest then of such Champions as draw their weapons strike fight and take on at adversaries whose handes they will bee sure them selves have firste tyed fast Yea whom they will bee sure to have in their power to imprison and persecute if any presume to move against them Neither will they indure to bee shewed the imminent danger from the common enimy till all come about their heads And so much touching the important CoÌ„sequences of our present Assertion CHAP. 8. An answer to divers chiefe Obiections of the adversaries of this cause noting also brieflie their immodest not Christianlike reproches against this Evangelicall doctrine FIRST we will consider heere D. Downames second booke of his Defence D. Downames Defence 2. Booke answereâ—â— affirming and maintaining that there were proper DiocesaÌ„ Churches vnder the Apostles Which being true the people then certainly had not a free consent in Church-governement A cleare reason whereof I shewed before pag. 85. And I willingly acknowledge it still Yea and likewise that neither now they ought to have That vnder the Apostles the Churches were properly Diocesan the D. affirmeth in the title of this second book of his Defense and doth his best to maintaine it in the whole processe thereof afterward Where indeed I coÌ„mend him above al others that ever wrote in this cause against vs D Downames commendatiors namely for that hee doth more fitly and rightly set downe the point of the controversy which hath so long troubled Christian people in England Chap. 8. then any other before him hath don Which “ Whether proper Diocesan Churches were vnder the Apostles point only if it were Christianly and plainly decided would bring great contentment and a ioyful Vnitie I am perswaded to many thousandes But the proofes of his assertion heere do all faile him Nay they are strangely abused and perverted by him specially his Scriptures And heerein he is little to bee commended Let vs examine therefore his Scriptures and then the rest Yet by the way wee will Define a proper Diocesan Church The Definition of a Diocesan Church before wee begin with him A Diocesan Church is a Societiâ— of professed Christians whose spirituall governement is practised without the peoples sieâ— consent and whose Pastor hath a pluralitie of ordinarâ—e Congregations in his charge Such a Church we deny to have ben vnder the Apostles and I pray the Reader to have recourse to those seaven Reasons of mine which I have “ Declarat pag. 20.21 c. elswhere set downe to proove this my denyall and to disprove his assertion Now what doeth the Doctor bring to proove his opinion Expect not good Reader that I should follow him in his vaine flourishes and needles amplificatioÌ„s repetitions invectives other passages more fit for ostentation to satisfy his inteÌ„perate humor then for profit My desire is so as I may with perspicuitie in the cause to vse brevitie and if not to deâ—iver multa paucis yet to take heed not to deliver pauca multis as hee doth Wherefore I will pick out that which 〈◊〉 see materiall in him the rest I will â—et passe In his first Chapter pag. 4. he â—etteth downe a most confused distriâ—ution of the divers senses of the Greeke word Ecclesia D. Down Defen 2.4 in the New Testament which we vsually translate 〈◊〉 Church Wherein hee committeth 5. errors pertinent to our question First from this in Mat. 18.17 Act. 15.22 hee â—ould make a Synod or Consistone which have answered before pa. 108. c. Seâ—ondly a Nationall Church of the Iewes Act. 7.38 Which likewise I have anâ—wered in Reas. for Reform pag. 5. in the margin Thirdly Christian Nationall Churches in the nober plurall as he speaâ—eth namely in Rom. 16.4 1. Cor. 16.1 â—9 2. Cor. 8.1 Gal. 1.2.22 Which places â—e abuseth perverteth most rudely and desperatly The wordes do exâ—resly signifie nothing but a nomâ—er of Ordinarie Congregations Such wee meane by Parishes â—ath of them assembling in one â—lace or at most contayning “ See my Declarat pa 10. and 18.19 28.29.31.32 no mo ordinary assemblies then one and he without yea contrary to the expresse â—etter fancieth to him selfe a Nationall Church from no ground nor shew of ground in these places Fourthly he bringeth Act. 5.11 and 8.1 and 11.12 and 12.1.5 and 13.1 and 14.23 20.17.28 1. Cor. 1.2 2. Cor. 8.23 2. Thes 1.1 1. Tim. 5.16 Iam. 5.14 Apoc. 1.4.11.20 and 2.1 c. to prove a Church of a Citie and Country adioyning Where his error is like to the former What should I say to this man Not one of all these signifyeth a Church of a City and Country adioyning if he meane it to be extended or intended to mo ordinarie Congregations then only one Which is his meaning It is true the Churches of these Cities heere specifyed viz. of Ierusalem Antioch Ephesus Corinth Thessalonica c. might have meÌ„bers then which dwelt scatteringly and some a good way of from the place of their ordinarie maine meeting and such also as did assemble often in divers vncertain companies as in times of trouble there is reason it often commeth to passe but yet in those primitive times they all in each Church then made no mo but “ Which
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
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
by hearing Peter the Pope alwayes Absurd the Pope is not Peter nor Peters true Successor The text sheweth that the Ephesian Church then and every Church stil is a pillar and ground of truth to whom the members are therefore ordinarily to hearken therefore they have the Keyes Church governement “ Mat. 18.17 coÌ„mitted by Christ vnto them But D. Bilson giveth not over so Chap. 9. He hath some generall obiections against our grounds of Scripture First * Pag. 10â— None can give Imposition of handes but they that first receaved the same They must have it theÌ„selves that will bestow it on others Lay men have it not Therefore they can not give it I answer the Proposition faileth Vnder the Law some of the “ Nomb. 8.10 people Imposed their handes on the Levites in the Gospell the 12. Apostles imposed their handes in making Ministers Yet these receaved no impositioÌ„ of hands them selves Againe wee must note heere two distinctions and so the Assumption is false First Lay men as he calleth them are considered singly or iointly They have no Ecclesiasticall power singly But as they are ioyned togeather in a Visible Church which is a Spiritual Body politike and a Mysticall Body of Christ whether they be many or †Mat. 18.20 few so even these Lay men have receaved the power of all the holy things of God all Gods ordinances spirituall As the Apostle saith vnto them “ 1. Cor. 3. â—2 23 All things are yours and yee Christes and Christ Gods The whole CongregatioÌ„ is Christs Church his Spouse his Kingdome his sacred Body as I †Pag. 164. 165. 166. have said From wheÌ„ce by a necessary and vndeniable consequence it followeth that Christ hath given the power of Imposing handes of Censures of Sacramentes of Preaching the word and all vnto the Congregation to bee performed in the best order they can And so it is that our Attestators “ Pag. 32. 33. 34. before have taught that the Keyes are given the whole Church Yet consider secondly that the people thus have receaved all these spirituall things so can give theÌ„ only potestative as I may say that is they have the power of them But activè actually they only can administer them who are the Churches instruments for that purpose by them assigned Thus Tertullian may meane well saying that sometime †Tertull. de Baptis a Lay maÌ„ may Baptize namely if the Church assigne him in a case of necessitie when an ordinarie Minister can not be had Otherwise I can not iustifie his speach Yea the Ordinarie exercise of Prophesie that is Prophesie Interpreting of Scripture publikely in the Church is to be performed by the “ 1. Cor. 14.1.31.34 particular people being by the Church orderly appointed therevnto Touching the excellencie and most profitable vse of which Apostolicall exercise though now it bee every where almost out of vse I wish the Reader to see Ma †Zuingl ad Valentin Compar et Antibol advers Enâ—ser Zuinglius and “ Pet. Mart. in 1. Cor. 14. Iac. Acont Strat. Sat. 4. Calv. Inst 4 1.12 1. Cor. 14. others also Further touchinge Imposition of handes the D. seemeth heere to esteeme it as the very Ordination it selfe that it giveth the power to Preach and Baptize c. But it is not so There are two Essentiall partes of Calling to the Ministerie Election and Ordination The imposing of handes is but a Ceremonie of putting the Minister before made into possession of his right and a commending of him to the blessing of God Though all these actions belong to the people so as before I have shewed yet Imposition of handes the Ceremonie may possibly be wanting in a true Minister and sufficient Ordination may be without it Yea true Ministers have ben without it Howbeit I suppose Christs Church offendeth in omitting it for though it be but a ceremonie yet it is Apostolike Where also that which followeth in answered though to give power to preach and baptize be more then to preach and baptize yet the people have the power of both And though Imposition of hands to Ordination may be said to be a kinde of Sacrament yet the people have the power of it as I have shewed But Calvin saith †Institut 4.3.16 Only Pastors did it Be it so and let them only do it stil for they are the fittest instrumentes for that purpose which the Church can assigne viz. wheÌ„ they are to be had This theÌ„ is nothing materiall Seeing wee seeke only that the Pastor should not ordaine in his owne name power but in the churches next after Christ by their free consent Also if no Pastor can bee had that then some other the fittest they have may act the Churches godly determination for them in their name and by their right receaved froÌ„ Christ their Head For people so ioyned togeather as “ Pag. 164. before I shewed may essentially bee a Church though they want a Pastor And Maister Calvin gainsayeth nothing of this but †See before pag. 43. 164 80. 81. he ioyned in Geneva to the practise of it and in their places Luther and Zuinglius did also c. Finally we caÌ„not but note this speach of Doct. Bils more then strange “ Pag. 109. To create Ministers by imposing handes A strange speach is to give them not only power and leave to preach the word and dispense the Sacramentes but also the grace of the holy Ghost to make them able to execute both partes of their function Alas why then do they create so many vnable and vngracious Ministers in England which there do swarme Why do they so If their imposing of handes can give all this grace Where also is answered that hee would “ Pag. 110. barre the people from the power of Excommunication because they have no power to administer the Word and Sacramentes I have shewed how the people have power of all these and of all spirituall actions beside Where he saith The Pastors shall yeeld account of them to God So shall the Church also But therefore none may compell the Pastors What may not the Magistrat if he see neede I suppose he will retract that Yea and say I the Church may coÌ„pell Pastors in her maner viz. when shee seeth vrgent need And yet properly he can not bee compelled his owne will carieth him vohint as non cogitur So that how soever the Church when they see neede may inioyne him yet his owne will is it which he shal answer for Pastors therfore shall indeed give account to God for their administring the Word and Sacramentes and for their not administring Namely for their part But none of them are therfore Lords of the word and Sacramentes nor absolut arbitrary disposers of them vnder Christ Where he addeth that “ Pag. 111. the moderatioÌ„ of the Keyes and imposition of handes were at