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
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
An Attestation of many Learned Godly and famous Divines Lightes of Religion and pillars of the Gospell iustifying this doctrine viz. That the Church-governement ought to bee alwayes with the peoples free consent Also this That a true Church vnder the Gospell contayneth no more ordinary Congregations but one In the discourse whereof specially Doctor Downames also D. Bilsons chiefe matters in their writings against the same are answered Calvin Instit 4.3.2 Hee laboureth the destruction and ruine of the Church whosoever either seeketh to abolish this order and this kinde of government whereof we treate or maketh light of it as not so necessary ANNO DOM. 1613. To my Christian and beloved friends in London and elswhere in England Grace and peace be multiplied in IESVS CHRIST our Lord. THe great and long afflictions which it hath pleased God to call me vnto onlie for testifying his heavenly truth against the grievous corruptions of the Church in our Land are well knowen vnto you all my most deare and loving friends In the middest of which my troubles what comfort J have receaved from you though I publish not yet both a most thankefull remembrance thereof remaineth in my heart and with God a most precious recompence is laid vp for you at the last day I confesse I might â—og since have ben discouraged through many things which I finde both within and without me Besides I have not escaped the bytings of false brethren Also I am not ignorant that divers yea of those that least should doe not only distast but also speake evill of my innocencie without all cause In very deed they can not tell why But God the righteous Iudge seeth it who yet stil sustayneth and strengthenth my infirmitie by whose grace J am that I am Wherefore in his Name J do still beare witnesse to the truth denyed by many men do now take in hand to intreat heere concerning the Christian peoples power right of †Also coÌ„sequeÌ„tly that a true Church vnder the Gospell coÌ„taineth no mo ordinary Congregations theÌ„ one is not Diocesan properly free consent in their outward spirituall governement given theÌ„ by Christ Jesus in the Gospell And therefore to his gracious assistance heerein I also do trust In the which affaire I thinke it very behoofull for the better manifestation of my lawful and iust indeavour and no lesse needfull for Gods glory to speake to this matter propounded in this Treatise not my selfe alone but to shew openly vnto all who have but a sparke of love to the truth such an Attestation of faithfull and worthy Witnesses with mee in this matter being the maine foundation of our greatest controversie touchinge Church governement that I hope hereafter none will set against this my seeking both of mine owne and your soules good nor cavill at it but such as are too worldly and too earthly minded In my Discourse vpon this cause as touching obiections D Down Defenc Anno. 1611. chiefly I gather out of Doctor Downame such as seeme to any purpose J answer them Him beere J specially deale with because of a friend he is not long since turned from vs and become our adversarie yea the latest I thinkc which openly sheweth him selfe against vs and so is like to be now most in mens eyes also hee hath heaped togeather the most thinges that the best of such Defenders have heeretofore written Besides all this the maner of his writings is with such an “ Defence 1. pag. 16 17. 2. pag 122. insolent conceit of him selfe with such * Defence 2. pag 55. 15. contempt indignation and despite against vs as commonly is not seene in any but those that slide backe from the truth which they had once tacted of And withall though in his Defence he deale with another yet in many passages hee very sharply provoketh me in particular besides other wrongs that he hath done me well knowen For these causes both I write this that I do and I chieflie nominate him for our adversarie as in this treatise so also †In the Declaration elswhere My Christian and loving friends for whose sake most of all I labour and have laboured to make our said question which is long intricat trouble some to be short and plaine and to make the matter it selfe also appeare so waightie as indeed it is Now your partes are wisely and religionsly to ponder in your heartes and to make vse of this same As the Apostle spake to Timothie so do I vnto you Consider Brethren what I say and the Lord give you vnderstanding in all things Amen Iuly 18. Anno 1612. Yours ever in the Lord HENRY IACOB The contents of this Booke divided into Nine Chapters CHAP. I. The great importance of the matter heere handled viz. That the people ought to have their free consent in their owne Churche governement And the causes of publishing this Attestation to it Pag. 9. CHAP. II. The Methode and order of this Treatise Pag. 20. CHAP. III. The Testimonies of many particular late Writers of blessed memorie making for vs in this matter Pag. 21. CHAP. IIII. The publike consent of many late yet excellent Churches heerein with vs. Pag. 48. CHAP. V. The Testimonies practise of the best Antiquitie after the New Testament heerin likewise with vs. Pag. 52 CHAP. VI. Our very Adversaries sometimes do acknowledge with vs the truth of this doctrine in plaine termes and sometimes to the same full effect specially when they deale against the Papistes Pag. 70. CHAP. VII Consequences of exceeding great importance following vpon the peoples free consent in their Church-governement inconveniences intollerable following from the contrary Pag. 84. CHAP. VIII An answer to divers chiefe Obiections of the Adversaries of this cause noting also briefly their immodest not Christian like reproches against this Evangelicall doctrine Pag. 199. CHAP. IX A short Advertisement to the vpright hearted and Christian Reader touching this Writing and Cause Pag. 316. An Attestation of many Learned Godly and Famous Divines Lightes of Religion pillars of the Gospell instifying this doctrine viz. That the Church government ought to be alwayes with the peoples free consent c. CHAP. I. The great importance of the matter heere handled viz. That the people ought to have their free consent in their owne Church-governement And the causes of publishing this Attestation to it WHEREAS many thinges at divers and sundrie times heeretofore have ben writteÌ„ which prove a plaine necessitie by Gods Word to reforme the Church Church-governement now in England verily among them all there is almost no other point so evident so direct and ful to this purpose that is Chap. 1. none in a maner so absolutly importeth the saide necessitie of reformation as this doth which is vtterly wanting among vs namâ—ly That the Church-governement ought tâ—â—â—e exercised alwayes with the peoples free consent One or two maâ—â—â— grounds of our whole controversie It
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
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
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
many good reasons which heere I passe over But what is this to approve the governement of a proper Diocesan Church or 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
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
litle after If you would be further taught that a generall Councill is neither the Vniversall Church nor representeth the Vniversall Church c we can send you to a merchant of the same stampe that your selves are of where you shall see as much as I say debated commended with no small braverie Pigh hierarch lib 6. cap 5. 4. I graunt this man in an other place is “ Perp. gov pag. 370. 371. 372. contrarie to this But that is no newes in him For I know nothing almost which is controverted but if hee affirme it in one place he denyeth it in another As touching the Scriptures which he produceth for his warrant they are the same which D. Downame also “ Def. 2.4 meÌ„tioneth are often alleadged by many men at random For God knoweth they come nothing neare to the purpose The textes are Math. 18.17 Act. 15.22 Both which indeed are to be taken properly and literally and not improperly and figuratively as they in an idle imagination do think Their imagination I say heerein is idle because they have no reason for them in the world requiring that this word Ecclesia heere should be figurative Which is ground “ D. Down Def. â— 33 enough for vs and assurance also that it ought heere to be vnderstood as proper Besides those two Doctors are both learned in the Greeke toung Let them shew that this word was ever vsed by any good Author living in the Apostles times or before for a Confistorie of Governors only or els they ought to acknowledge they speake idly and vntruly If no such place can be shewed as I am very sure there can not shal we thinke the Apostles spake and wrote Greeke in such a phrase as none in all the world ever spake either before or in their dayes What absurditie and vnconscionable presumptioÌ„ were it so to thinke I know they and others do alleage som Greek Fathers that do take the word Ecclesia sometime for the Governours only But those Fathers lived 300. yeres after the time of writing the New Testament and later Now the Aposties framed not their laÌ„guage to the maner of speaking so longe after their owne age Many and great alterations were come in by that time by reason whereof their speach began much to alter also And we following them must needes Equivocat Some pointes therein I noted “ Reaâ— for â—ef pag. 4â— 64. â—5 herefore but our adversaties will not remember nor consider that The effect of al that I say is this Eusâ—bius beodoret Epiphanius Chrysostome and such other of those times are not our Apostles nor maisters of our faith nor equall interpreters of the true Apostles chiefâ—y in the matter of Church governement There was to much iniquitie to much anomie entered then and increased still afterward till Antichrist him selfe stood vp which was anon after â—n such case therfore let vs retire our selves as we are commaunded to the plaine and vnpartiall and syncere evidence of Christs Law and Testimonie if any speake not according this word it is because there is no light in them Sure the vniversad sense and meaning of this Greeke word Ecclesia in all pure and vncorrupt times is to signifie the whole Assemblie even the people evermore togeather wâ—th their Guides vnles their state were such that they had no Guides as at some instant happily the case might be But alwayes it signifyed the people and those asseÌ„bling together in one place Which also is the proper signification of the Latin word Concio and nothing els Concio is the iust expositioÌ„ of Ecclesia It were madnes therefore to go from the native proper sense of the Apostles wordes without cause And if the Humane Politike reasons where with Doct. Bilson “ Perp. gov pa. 370. 372. 374. 376. flourisheth were warrant for vs without Christs worde to erect such a spirituall governement as is in absolut Synods over Christendome besides that then Mens Traditions and politike inâ—entions may be receaved as spiritual instruments in the worke of the salvation of our soules which impietie I thought all good Christians had long since abhorred moreover a plaine direct way is opened for a Vniversall Papacie and for a Vniversall consistorie of Cardinalls to be placed over all Christes people I say the Humane reasons alleadged do inforce this as well yea much better then that each Christian Nation should be ordinarily left to them selves and not bee ruled Spiritually by some one generall ordinarie Superior by whom all in al Countries may be reduced to vnitie This might easily bee adorned with moe flowers of Rhetoâ—â—ke then hee there doth or can set vpon his matter Againe over besides this there is an other plaine Logical coÌ„sequence which will induce a Pope if any Representative Church bee acknowledged to be of Divine institution in the New Testament For if any Representative Church bee in the New Testament of Divine institution then such a Provinciall Representative Church is Nay then a Vniversal representative Church is of Divine institution in the New Testament ArepreseÌ„tâ—tâ—ve Church By a representative Church I meane the Guides one or moe having power to exercise Spiritual governemÌ„et without any consent of the people Which also is a Church figuratively viz. by a Syneedoche And this all men agree vnto Againe if a Vniversall representative Church be of Divine institution in the new Testament then a Vniversall church represented or such a proper Church whereof the figurative is a figure and a representation is of Divine institution also in the New Testament This sequence is of “ Relativa fuut simul Arâ—stoâ— infallible truth Some have thought the figurative Vniversall Church viz. the Vniversall Synod may represent not one Vniversall proper Church but a nomber of particular independent Churches But this is vntrue impossible as any shall see that wel considereth it As for our present adversaries they do acknowledge maintaine the effect of this Sequence at least they say it in plaine termes D. Bilson teacheth that Christ hath “ Perp. gov pa. 372. 377 one Church in generall which is a whole having all particular Churches partes to be ruled by the whole and that this one whole or generall Church is the body of Christ. Doct. Downame expreslie saith †Def. 3.4 the whole Church is but one body Thus in plaine termes they acknowledge and teach as I said One proper Church Vniversall vnder outward governement What meaning they have heerein God knoweth Now from hence I reason further If one Vniversall proper Church subiect to out ward governement bee of Divine institution in the New Testament then a Vniversall ordinarie Pastor is of Divine institution in the New Testament This consequence though in truth it be vndenyable and inevitable yet they in wordes deny it with vehemence without sense reason D. Downame saith Defenc. 1.17 and 3.4.6 He is Antichrist that assumeth to him selfe the governement
of the Vniversal Church which yet he acknowledgeth is to be governed out wardly M. Gabr. Powell like a wise maÌ„ maketh it an heresie in the Pope to holde as he doth †Gabr. Powel de Antichristo pag. 254. In Eccesia oportere esse Visibile caput That in the Visible Church there ought to be a visible head What do I heare A visible Body instituted by Christ without a Visible Head A Church and no Pastor A multitude to be governed and no Governor These are strange assertioÌ„s who soever how many soever do affirme theÌ„ For I graunt there are not a few others also which vse so to speake But in deed there is no colour of truth nor reason in these sayings Some will say D. “ Perp. gov pag. 372. Bilson D. †Def. 3.4 Downame both do shew that this one Body and Church Vniversall is to be governed by a Vniversall Synod Do they so Very well Then who shall call this Synod The calling of Provinciall Synods “ Perp. gov pa. 377 39â— they make a good reason for a Metropolitane or Archbishop Certainly the calling of a Vniversall Synod doth far better and more necessarily require a Pope A Vniversal Synod ablosute Nay â—t requireth a Pope certainly Besides it is a question whether a Vniversall Synod hath ever ben or can possibly â—e rightly and duly had At the most it is plaine that such Synodes are exceeding rare and seldom and hardly effected Math. 18.15.16.17 But the causes of the Churches governement are frequent continuall and every day What shall we thinke Hath Christ left his Body deare Spouse without helpe without governement in such dayly and continuall necessities Or can an ordinarie body be governed without an ordinarie Head To vse D. Bilsons words “ Perp. gov pag. 376. this were an heathenish if not a hellish confusion Wherefore these consequences all do follow certainly and necessarilie A Vniversall Church must have a Vniversall ordinarie Pastor And so much touching the Proposition of this reason My Assumption is this But no Vniversall Ordinarie Pastor is of Divine institution in the New Testament And this they all affirme with me constantly Therefore the Conclusion is true viz No Vniversall proper Church and consequently also no Vniversall nor any other representative Church is of Divine institution in the New Testament Hitherto I have shewed our reasons and witnesses against Synods exercising absolut power spirituall over ChristiaÌ„ people which are also churches representative To which busines I have ben forced by Do. Downames importunat flannders both generally against vs and against my selfe in particular Who heerein first compareth vs to the “ Def. 1 4â— Pope from whom he knoweth we are far enough of Where as indeed his absolut Synods do agree with the Pope too well and do make to much for him as †Pag. 110.111 112.113.114 before we saw Then he vpbraideth vs that wee will not be ruled by Synodes I answer Wee submit our selves to be ruled spiritually by Christes true visible Church instituted in his word And what would he have more Thirdly hee goeth about to deny that we subject our selves to the Kings Supremacie Whether hee doth this with more malice or foolishnes I know not For he can not be ignorant that though we affirme that the Church governement is independent and immediatly derived from Christ yet we affirme also it standeth with good reason that the Civil Magistrate is even therein Supreme Governor Civilly And though nothing may be imposed on the Christian people of a Congregation against their wills by any Spirituall authoritie for so only we intend yet we affirme withall that the Civill Magistrat may impose on them Spirituall matters by Civill power yea whether they like or dislike if hee see it good This we al gladly acknowledge Wherein we referre our selves to that which we have “ Petit. for toleration Offer c. publikly written protested in this behalfe Fourthly he falsly chargeth me by name that I in my booke of Reasons for reformation do not acknowledge in Synods any lawfull authoritie †Def. 3.4 to determine He might “ Perp. gov pa. 382.383 thus charge Doctor Bilson But I in that booke and place which hee wrangleth with do expresly say †Reas. for reform p. 31 Synods determinations are most expedient and wholesome alwayes In which respect I “ See before pag. 89. allow also the Apostles practise in Act. 15. as being both a Synod and an authentike rule and patterne for Synods Where the Apostles with others when an occasion cause was given them did not only meet togeather consult but also they did define determine and decree certain pointes yea they delivered the same to divers Churches to be kept who had no Deputies for them present in that Apostolike assembly Howbeit these Apostles delivered abroad these their Decrees only so and in such wise as informing and teaching all men thereby what they ought to do that is in maner of doctrine To the Church of Antioch whom it most concerned only this they say If ye observe these things “ Act. 15.29 ye shall do well They say not The Minister that imbraceth not these ordinaÌ„ces is deprived of his ministerie the person receyving them not is excommunicat ipso facto or he is Anathema accursed As some Synods do pronounce I grant Synods may discusse and determine of errors and may pronounce them wicked and accursed errors But actually excommunicat mens persons the Apostles never did without the concurrence and consent of that Congregation where they were members Wherefore more then this no Synod at anie time may do by the rule of the Gospell If any do impose any of their acts on a CoÌ„gregation whether they like or dislike vpon pavne of some spirituall censure yea if it be on anie one person without the same Congregations consent of which hee is certainly as I said it is more then the Apostles ever did in the Church-governement and therefore we can not out conclude that it is now vnlawful for vs so to do Also it is that point which all the forenoted sentences of those late Writers most excellent lights of the Gospell do condemne Wherefore we willingly take that Apostolike practise in Act. 15. both as being a Synod also a good patterne of Synods for ever Neither do wee in deed mislike any Christian Synods but greatly approve of them though some out of malice do obiect to vs the contrary Alwayes the Apostles practise we take for our rule And so much touching the second coÌ„sequent in this Chapter Thirdly it being admitted as Christs ordinance that the Church governement ought to bee alwayes with the peoples free coÌ„sent it followeth that Lord Bishops in severall are vnlawfull contrarie to Christ Now a Lord Bishop Who is a Spirituall Lord. and a Spirituall Lord we alwayes vnderstand him to be who exerciseth sole authoritie
and Kingdome are not absolut and perfect toward vs but are diminished and changed now in respect as they were to the Iewes of old And the very forme of Christes saide Visible Church is changeable by men and may be instituted first by men Whence it also followeth that a noble part of Christes divine honor glory may bee by men diminished and taken from him and may lawfully bee attributed to men Every one of these consequents is certain neyther can any of them be denyed nor shifted off by our adversaries who reiect the said opinion of the peoples necessary Consent in the Church governement Now this I earnestly desire all men to take notice of that they may see what it is that hath mooved mee and still doth to imbrace the opinion contrarie to the course of the Church governement in England God is my witnes that were it not for these vnavoydable Consequents which touch the very life and soule of all true religion and godlynes I should long since have conformed now would in this bebalfe For otherwise what reason have I to care for the people But because my heart and conscience can not indure to admit these Consequentes which I hope is both honest yea necessarie and Christianlike and so will bee acknowledged by every good man that considereth it therefore doe I beleeve this said opinion as an Evangelicall truth viz. that the peoples coÌ„sent in church government is an Apostolike ordinance and Christes immutable Commandement to vs. And therefore principally did I write that Treatise which I intituled The Divine beginning and institution of Christes true Visible or Ministeriall Church Also the Vnchangeablenes of the same by men viz. 〈◊〉 the forme and essentiall Constitution thereof Which is all the matter that I have regard vnto even that I may in no wise be guiltie of that fearfull sacrilege of spoyling God of his Honor and of giving his glory to another which be so mainly “ Isa 42.8 forbiddeth Which I am sure is not don by acknowledging the foresaide right of the Christian people I am sure that thus all the fore named wicked and impious Consequentes †As by ouâ— Attestators beforâ— may bee seene are avoyded and the whole glory and honor of Christ our Savior iâ— preserved safe and sound For thus we easily holde him even in respect of instituting the forme of his Visible Church and governement therof vnder the Gospell to be our absolut Prophet and King and his New Testament to bee intire and perfect yea fully so perfect for vs as the Old Testament was for the Iewes and so the forme of his said Church and governement to be absolutly vnchangeable by men Even altogether no lesse then it was vnder the Law All this in holdinge our opinion I say wre are sure of Wherefore let me reason thus That opinion which yeeldeth CoÌ„sequents so godly and pious must needes it self be godly and pious questionles cometh from God But our opinion aforesaid yeeldeth CoÌ„sequents so godly and pious yea such in deed as are principles and fundamental grounds of Christian faith Therefore this our opinion it self is right godly pious and proceeding from God Contrarie-wise That opinion which necessarily forceth men to such impietie and vnchristian Consequentes as “ Pag. 133. 134. before I noted eveÌ„ to the overthrow of principles of faith the same it selfe is not of God neither standeth with truth What autors and fautors so ever it have But the opinion of our adversaries verily is such It forceth men of necessitie to those impious vnchristian Consequents as I shewed They can not possibly avoyd them Therefore the opinion of our adversaries viz. who deny the Christian peoples consent in Church governement to be an Apostolike Ordinance and an immutable coÌ„mandement of Christ and so do hold the forme of a proper Diocesan Church and governement to be lawfull and good their opinion I say is not of God neither standeth with truth Now the case standing thus as most cleerly it doth no man can deny but that in coÌ„sideratioÌ„ of these certain coÌ„sequents aforenamed as also in other iust respectes that faithfull man of God whosoever hee was that made that “ An humble Supplication c. An. 1609 Petition to the Kings Maiestie for a Toleration of our way and profession with peace and quietnes in England had great reason so to do and also his Excellent Maiestie bee it spoken with reverence to his Royall Estate to admit of it For what evill can ensue from vs when wee strictly hold fast as we do such holy and Divine principles of Christian faith as before are mentioned and when our inconformitic to the common course in England is only for these causes as I for my part do call God to witnes to my soule it is I say in regard of Religion thus what evill can probably be thought wil ensue from vs And as touching our tractablenes vnder the Kings authoritie and governement Doc. Downame our bitter adversarie “ Def. 1.66 acknowledgeth that wee submit our selves enough Nay he holdeth it to bee too much and proudly he calleth it a desperate or frantike minde in vs so to do But wee holde it our bounden dutie in the presence of God to submit our selves to any Civil Magistrat be he never so meane if the King appoint him over vs. But saith he †Def. 1.83 The summe of our suite in that petition is that we may be tolerated Schismatikes I challenge this rude Doctor and will prove that we seeing we holde only those fundamental Grounds of ChristiaÌ„ faith above meÌ„tioned and that which is evidently built vpon the same are not Schismaâ—â—kes Againe I will prove and make it manifest that indeed him selfe and his consortes are Schismaticks Who are the Schismatiks in England seeing he and they deny those foresaid fundamentall grounds of faith for which only wee contende They therefore them selves are the Schismatikes and “ Rom. 16.17 1. Tim. 6.3 the makerâ— of the division which is now in England All wise men know that not the difference but the cause maketh a Schismatike Let mee once againe therefore presse them with Augustinâ— sentence against the Donatistes which once already †Ang contra Peril 2.25 I did heretofore But they love not to heare of it Saith Augustine “ Reas. for ref pag 77. Virum Schismatici nos sumus an vos nee ego nec tu sed Christus interrogetur vt indicet Eeclesiam suam Lege ergo Evangelium respondet tibe c. Whether we or you be Schismarikes aske not me nor yourselves but aske Christ that hee may shewe his owne Church Read the Gospell therefore and 〈◊〉 answereth thee c. Our Doctor hath an absurd and profane distinction which though he apply it to another matter yet peradventure hee would vse it in this cause against vs if hee could finde that it would bee taken as currant Hee
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
Ecclesiae forniam quam Apostols constituerunt in quà tamen vnicum habemus verae Ecclesiae exemplar à quo si quis vel minimùm deflectit abâ—rat I will not presse you so precisely as to call you backe to that forme of the Church which the Apostles set In which forme notwithstanding we have the only patterne of a true Church From which if any decline never so little he erreth He meaneth be would take it well at the Cardinalls handes if he could reduce him to the forme of the Church which “ Instit 4.4 the Fathers vsed suppose about 200. till 300. yeares after Christ after for some while Howbeit he absolutly affirmeth that in the forme which the Apostles set in the Scriptures the only patteâ—ne of a true Church is to be had And that if any decline never so little from it hee erreth Which is all one with that where hee saith Extern◠†Instit 4.1.1 subsidia quoque Deus addidit quò infirmitati nostrae consuleret The Outward helpes and Meanes God hath added also to the end that he might provide for our weaknes If God have added them appointed them for vs what arrogancie shall it be for men to alter them And chieflie the forme of the Visible Church Like to these P. Martyr saith “ P. Mart. in Rom. 3.21 Forma reipublica quandoque variatur quod attinet ad Ecclesiam non mutat formam The Forme of a Civill state sometime is changed but as touching the Church it changeth not her forme All this is very contrary to our forenamed adversaries Nay which is to our great shame the very Papistes in this generall point are nearer to the kingdome of God then such vnworthy Protestantes are For they religiously and most strictly do holde this that †Sander Vifib Monatch â— 6 Christ only is the Teacher and Instituter of the forme of his Visible Church and that no men may ever change it from that same which is set downe in Christes Testament In the particular indeed they erre in setting vp vnder the Gospell a Vniversall church exercising governemeÌ„t which is not Christes spouse but the Queene of pride Nevertheles in the generall they holde cleerely the truth as I have shewed whereby they put many of vs to shame who beare a name of professing the Gospell And so much of the Consequentes which highly touch the Honor and Office of Christ and the Dignitie of his New Testament There are also Consequentes from our adversaries opinion which greatly touch our selves First whosoever of the Protestantes do refuse our foresaid Vniforme OpinioÌ„ of the peoples consent must of necessitie holde two distinct formes of Christes Visible Church Two wayes to heaven and two distinct formes of Church-governement to bee lawfull that is both that where the people are absolutly excluded that where they are admitted The one ordinary and best as they say the other extraordinarie and only in case of necessitie as before hath ben shewed Now to hold two distinct opposit formes of the Visible Church Church-governement is directly all one as to holde two wayes to heaven distinct and opposite in them selves Which is very scandalous in religion and that which can not stande with truth For the Visible Church and Church-governement is plainly the way to heaven and the Outward meanes which must bring vs thither or els ordinarilie we can not come there That is Ordinarily faith repentance sanctification and at last glorification in heaven cometh only by the Ministerie of Gods word and none can lawfully administer but being sent now in these dayes by the Visible Church according to their authoritie in this case given them of Christ Thus the only Outward meanes and way to heaven is Christes Visible Church and the exerciâ—ing of her authoritie in such forme and maner as Christ her Lorde hath appointed her Which is only one way it can not bee two wayes There is only one forme ordained of Christ And so only one is true one lawfull which soever it bee “ As before also I noted pag. 78. Two wayes cannot be D. Dewname answereth that there be other wayes which he alloweth which are †Def. 3.108 4.99 by necessitie and necessitie hath no law Nay him selfe is lawles Gods servants at no time are freed from Gods Law As well in necessitie as in pleÌ„tie in adversitie no lesse then in prosperitie they are so tyed to the rule of his word which is alwayes one that they professe it alwayes vnlawfull for them to take vp any invention of their owne vpon anie pretence Indeed in Humane affaires sometime Necessitie doth excuse vs ftoÌ„ following mans law And so the proverbe is verifyed Necessitie hath no law But in Gods matters and in the affaires of the Church which are causes touching our soules no necessitie nor prosperitie can free vs as I said from Gods law and ordinance appointed for vs. So far at least that we may never take vp any invention of men which in Gods Service is evermore the way of “ See my ExpositioÌ„ of the 2. Commandement error and not of truth As for Do. Dwname I remember the time when hee was stout and resolut for Vnica Methodus in Philosophie But the world is so changed with him since that in Divinitie hee is now a professed Diplodophilus one that thinketh there are two wayes to heaven Dioplodophilus two wayes and formes of administring Christes Visible Church of Calling the Ministerie of exercising holy Censures Which matters as before I shewed are the ordinarie way to heaven for every soule the Outward instrumentall Meanes sanctified of Christ to save his people by Now he professeth two formes of administring them essentially distinct and opposit the one to the other and yet both to be lawfull Which indeed is evidence enough that hee is in error For the way of truth is only one as before hath ben noted but errour is manifold Wherefore among the Protestantes seeing only wee holde a Vniforme constant opinion in this matter of Christes Visible Church which is for the peoples consent in the Ordinarie Governement it is certain that wee only have the truth and our adversaries are in error And heere withall this followeth from our opinion that we only have comfortable assurance to our consciences Comfortable assurance on Christs Ordinances not in Mens which the adversaries can not soundly have We hold only vpon the institution of Christ practise of his Apostles Of which wee have reason to be confident and wherein we may well have assurance For when wee builde the forme and frame whole administration of Christes Visible Church vpon the Rocke mentioned in the Gospell Math. 16.18 that is vpon Christ and his worde alone who can make vs to doubt but that God will crowne his owne worke and blesse his owne Ordinance and sanctify his owne way Certainly we ought with all cheerfulnes to expect and to
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
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
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
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
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
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
meane that any first Presbyter in a Church was formally appointed to 〈◊〉 Diocese vnder the Apostles Some kind of †See before Pag. 89. Diocese was Apostolike But hee sheweth sufficieÌ„tly that these Bb. Dioceses began somewhile after the Apostles in that hee saith “ Bez. de grad min. 6.24 they were first framed according to the division of the Prâ—vinces vnder the Romane Empire Which verily was nor regarded in the Apostles time nor in the next age after Wherefore Beza meant the first Presbyter thus assigned formally was after the Apostles their abused name Bishop also Lastly I cannot passe how insolently the D. “ Def. 3.15 c. taunteth me for observing many sortes of Bishops and namely for †In reas for ref pag. 7. setting downe six sorts of them also for being ignorant whether Ierusalem or Caesarea had the Patriarchship for supposing Diocesan Ruling Bishops might begin with Dionysius at Aâ—exandria and for not speaking any thing of Metropolitans beginning Let the D. know I was not ignorant that Ierusalem had the Patriarchship but it is a question and that I meant to touch whether Ierusalem exercised ordinarie jurisdiction over Caeâ—area the Province thereof or not pag. 8. in margine But it is a matter of no worth thereâ—ore I passe it Metropolitans Diocesans Patriarkes all one in substance Metropolitans in his sense 〈◊〉 spake not of wheÌ„ I reckoned vp the livers sortes of Bishops because in substance of their Office they are all â—ne with Diocesans Archbishops and Patriarkes Of whom whosoever holdeth â—ne lawful will holde all so to be and â—e who holdeth one Apostolike will acknowledge them all Apostolike This therfore also is no matter what â—oever he maketh of it Touching Diâ—â—ysius of AlexaÌ„dria I confesse I was to â—lame in thinking hee might bee the â—uthor of Majoritie of power rule â—n Diocesan Bishops It was because I â—udged it to be ancienter then indeed â—t is or then reason giveth it Maioritie of power when it began Nowe â—herefore I professe it cannot bee roved to be ancienter then the Niceâ— Councill or Constantine the Emperor as I noted before Once D. Bilson was also of this minde with me where he sheweth that it was not “ Against the Seminar part 2. pag. 318. by the institution of Christ nor his Apostles but long after by the consent of the Churches the custome of the times and the will of Princes And touching my making many sortes of Bishops and my distinguishing of the word the Doct. misliking that sheweth his ignorance not a little or els he sheweth that which is worse If he mislike that I made so many sortes as six Truly it was my fault that I made so fewe Ierom witnesseth that the Bishops of his time came to that power paulatim by little litle And the Vniversall Monarch of the Roman Church came not to his greatnes at once Papacie had Papalitie going before in divers and sundrie degrees The Word reason and experience do shew in such alterations of governement at least so many distinct differeÌ„ces yea mo also Now therefore I desire the Reader to give me leave vpon better coÌ„sideration to set down the distinctioÌ„ of Bishops in 7. differeÌ„ces Seaven sorts of Bishops I affirme therefore that the name Bishop in Christian Writers is given to seaveÌ„ divers sortes Which to observe is right needfull and most profitable to end this great controversie First the name is generally given even to “ Act. 1 20. Apostles Yea Evangelistes also may so be called Bishops as †Pag. 238. 240. before is shewed Secondly it is given to Pastors equall and “ Act. 20.28 Philip 1.1 many in one ordinarie Congregation To whoÌ„ also the name of Presbyter was common Such is the Ministerie now in the Dutch French Churches Thirdly One Pastor of a Church contayning no mo ordinarie Congregations but one is by the ancientest Church Writers called a Bishop singularly As Linus was at Rome Anianus at AlexaÌ„dria Onesimus at Ephesus Ignatius at Antioch Polycarpus at Smyrna c. Such also was the “ Rev. 2.1 Angell of the Church in Ephesus and in Smyrna c. The Scripture giveth not him the name Bishop peculiarly when he hath other assistant Pastors with him but other Writers doe Which truly I will not strive against Fourthly the name Bishop is given to a Titular Diocesan Bishop Of whoÌ„ none can be proved ancienter then Iulianus the tenth Bishop in Alexandria Fiftly Diocesan Bishops with “ Declarat pag. 24. 25. Maioritie of power are called Bishops These began in the Councill of Nice or otherwise vnder Constantine Though the Councill speake of Metropolitans long before yet their power over their brethren was not ratifyed by any law Fiftly Diocesan Bishops with “ Declarat pag. 24. 25. Maioritie of power are called Bishops These began in the Councill of Nice or otherwise vnder Constantine Though the Councill speake of Metropolitans long before yet their power over their brethren was not ratifyed by any law or publike ordinnance till then it was before but arbitrary by the churches affection and no otherwise Sixtly the Diocesan L. Bishop or the Sole governing Bishop is called a Bishop Such are ours now in Englande Of the originall and first beginning of such I have spokeÌ„ * Pag. 66. 67. before Seaventhly a Pope or Vniversall Pastor hath this name Bishop Hee began at Rome about 600. yeres after Christ but came not to his absolut greatnes till divers hundred yeares after And this distinction will assuredly with case be iustifyed Reason and experience do shew such degrees in proceeding And thus far the Answer to D. Downames Defence of Diocesan Churches Obiections are made also inteÌ„sively viz. against the Christian peoples right to coÌ„sent in Church governe Obiections against the peoples power answered It is fit we should answer these likewise so far as is needfull Frst great much paines have ben taken by the adversaries of the truth to deprave the plaine and easie wordes of Matthewe 18.17 Tell the Church They are content to take them any way so it bee not the right way Doct. Bilson spendeth a “ D. Bilson perp gov chap. 4. whole Chapter to make them seeme to signifie a Senat or bench of Iewish Civill Magistrates which he learned only from a Physician Erastus But there is a sufficient refutatioÌ„ of this opinion in the third Argument of The Divine beginning and institution of Christes true Visib Church Secondly D. Bilson contradicting himself vnderstandeth these words of an Ecclesiasticall Senat or Synod Thus also Do. Downame vnderstandeth them as †Pa. 107.108 before we have seene where is a sufficient answer likewise therevnto Thirdly Maister Iohnson of the Separation since in this point he turned his opinioÌ„ vpside downe “ Treat of the exposit of Mat. 18.19 Anno. 1611. affirmeth that these wordes signifie that the Iewish forme of
governement is by Christ ordayned for the Gospell I discerne not well whether he meane that this rule for the Christian Church governement should be formed after the patterne of the Iewish Civill governement or Ecclesiastical or both Whatsoever Iewish forme of governement he meane his meaning can not bee true For first if Christ in these words meant the Iewish governors theÌ„ here is no direction at all for the Christian Church governement Heere is nothing then that soundeth to any such purpose Christ saith not heere Let my Disciples heereafter in their Churches follow the forme and order Iudaicall In this place there is no such thing But as I suppose even Mai. Iohnson him self holdeth Christ heere in this place setteth an order of governement for his Church vnder the Gospell This in deed is most certainly true Therfore his othet opinion that Christ heere sendeth his Disciples to the Iewish governors is false I grant Calvin and Beza think that Christ heere alludeth to the Iewish Church governement in their particular Synagogues but verily I cannot coÌ„ceave why or how it should be so Be it spoken with revereÌ„ce to these rare servaÌ„ts of Christ Howbeit Calâ—iâ— and Beza touching Mat. 18.17 this nevertheles they hold from this place of Matthew that the people have right so far that nothing in Church governement be obtruded on them by any Ecclesiasticall Monarchie or Oligarchie against their wills Now this is the truth and wee willingly agree vnto it Yeelding the sway of all governement to the Pastor with his assistants in ordinarie cases yet reserving still a power in the people to consent And when a Church is destitute of Guides as it hath fallen out may againe fall out on occasion then the people themselves have full power to accomplish any Ecclesiasticall action in the best order they can particularly Church censures even by vertue of this text So that then the Iewish Church-governement can not bee heere alluded vnto much lesse required to bee kept and practised by Christians Concerning which togeather with all other Iewish ordinances the Apostle teacheth and confirmeth vnto vs that all “ 2. Cor. 3.17 those old things are passed away that all things of such nature vnder the Gospell are made new and that the same things are †Hebr. 12.27 shaken and changed and remaine not now vnto vs. Wherfore fowerthly they who vnderstand these foresaid wordes Tell the Church Math. 18.17 to be meant of the whole Christian people assembled in an ordinarie assembly As our Attestators do viz. that they are to be tolde and that they are to be heard alwayes in the best and most Christian order that can be which I grant doth and must in circumstances somtime differ they I say do truly and rightly vnderstand this place according to the intent of Christ Of which D. Bilson him selfe once taught soundly saying “ Against the Seminaâ— lib. 3. pa. 70. In Math. 18.17 The whole multitude of the faithfull where hee and they the Offendor and the Offended live are signifyed And †Lib. 2. pag 170. in Act. 20.28 The Church is taken for the people Yea The Church is never taken in the New or Old Testament for the Priestes alone but generally for the whole Congregation of the faithfull Let me aske a question Was D. Bilson a Brownist was he an Anabaptist wheÌ„ he wrote thus Why then doth Mai. Downame call vs these odious names only for the same iudgement Or is he offended at vs because we can not change turne our professions to fro as they do for advantage Some will say if this sense of these wordes be true Obiect then perpetually and necessarily al scandalls c. whatsoever must be tryed in the presence vnder the iudgement and sentence of the whole multitude as they of the Separation do holde which also it seemeth was Cyprians vsuall practise of old Answ I answer this consequence is far from truth For the sense of the words in Matthew 18.17 certainly is thus no otherwise to be taken viz. plainly and literally for the whole Congregation Seeing there is “ Def. 1.226 no cause nor reason to the contrarie as elswhere is observed But yet it followeth not that that maner of hearing sentencing of causes must bee in every Church perpetually and necessarily Before pag. 108. c. I grant it may be so in some Churches at some times and so Cyprians practise was now it may be againe in some estates of a Church good and commendable But to holde those popular Circumstances in every Church †Separation it selfe is no such error as this is perpetuall and necessary absolutly as the Separation doth it was neithtr Cyprians meaning nor Chrsstes nor any well advised Christians And yet againe no maÌ„ may take from the people absolutly all maner of free consent as the L. Bishops do This is a Substantiall breach on the other hand Incidit in Scyllam qui vult vitare Charyâ—din Extremities on both sides are to be avoyded As this so other textes likewise Do. Bilson would wrest from vs in his “ Perp goâ—â— pag. 95. 8. Chap. touching jurisdiction First Act. 15.22.23.25.28 where manifestly the Apostles ioyned the people with them selves in determining a controversie It seemed good to the holy Ghost and to vs to lay no more burden on you Now this he granteth expresly saying “ Pag. 9â— The matter was handled in the audience and presence of the whole Church and with a generall consent letters were written in the names of all To which †Horne against Fecknam pa. 11â— B. Horne before him agreeth also Nay D. Bilson goeth further saying * Perp. gov pag. 373. This course the Apostle taught the Church of Christ to follow by their example Which is all that wee desire Yet he laboureth to frustrate this act of the Apostles and to make it of no vse to vs. To which intent hee hath 4. exceptions 1. “ Pag. â—7 Paul stood not in doubt of his preaching neither needed he the consent of Apostles or Elders to his doctrine I answer he doubted not of his doctrine nor submitted it to any to be censured Yet he needed the consent of other Apostles and of the Church at Ierusalem for more couÌ„tenance to his teaching And that was all Pauls purpose heere 2. “ Pag. 97. The Apostles wanted neither authoritie nor sufficiencie to determine the matter But they did in this case We must know therfore there is a twofold dertermining and deciding of questions One is particular and personall which every true Pastor may performe in his ordinarie teaching Much more the Apostles singly might And so Paul was sufficient and did him selfe resolve many doubts to the Romans to the Corinthians to others without a Council Another determining and deciding of questions is Cumulative as I may call it when it is done with more countenance and credit The former may
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