proofe For indeed Euseb doth not avouch it Yea D. Bilson also denieth it generally saying “ D. Bils perper govern Pag. 306. Each place were it never so great had but one Church and one chiefe Pastor He speaketh of those first times Peradventure if Eusebius write true and if hee had good intelligence heereof Iulianus the tenth Bishop of Alexandria was a Diocesan Bishop in some measure For I will not deny but Churches may begin to be mulplyed in Alexandria about that time So that some small beginning shew of a Diocesan Bishop which heeretofore I called fitly a “ Rem for refor pag. 7. Titular Diocesan was in him peradventure And I say peradventure because this graunt is gotten from vs only by reason of a few wordes in * Euseb 5.9 Eusebius whose words yet alwayes are not Gospell Yea in historie †Rain confes pag. 257. he is not alwayes so sure at that we may build on him Which also before I insinuated Howbeit I will not sticke to acknowledge Iulianus to have ben such a Diocesan Bishop as I said But withall I affirme that for any thing wee finde hee was the first that ever was that by no record any DiocesaÌ„ can be shewed before him Now this was “ Vnder Commodus Emperour neare vpon 200. yeres after Christ Yet for the Westerue partes of Christendome I agree with Platina who out of one Damasus saith that Dionysius Bishop of Rome first ordained Dioceses which was about the yeare of Christ 260. Against this D. Downame excepteth vrging that †D. Down Def. 2.99 Platina saith not Dionysius did it first I answer and will avouch it that in effect he saith so much For he saith that Dionys being made Bishop of Rome †Platin. in Dionys. straightway divided Churches in the Citie of Rome Which cannot be otherwise meant but that hee did it first and that before him the Congregations there were not divided As for that he saith before of Evaristus Bishop of Rome that “ In Evaristus he divided titles to the Presbyters I answer this verily is meant of divers praecincts and quarters belonging only to one intire CoÌ„gregation and ordinarie Assemblie Reason requireth that in great Cities wheÌ„ Christians multiplied first there should be such praecinctes and quarters designed before many ordinarie churches were divided and constantly set in them The French Duch Churches in London have such praecinctes and quarters yet they have each but one ordinary Congregation And questionles so it was in Rome for divers ordinarie set Congregations were not appointed there long after this no not in the time of Cornelius B. of Rome nor in Carthage vnder Cyprian Which may well bee gathered out of their Writings They both flourished togeather about the yeare of Christ 250. Wherefore though such Titles as are praecincts beloÌ„ging to one ordinarie Congregation might well be instituted by Evaristus and multiplyed afterward Yet this nothing hindereth our assertion that Dionysius first instituted distinct Churches there and so a Diocesan Church improper And Doc. Downame presumeth too grosly where hee affirmeth that these titles signifyed “ D. Down Def. 2.100 Parish Churches then in Rome What soever the word may signifie sometime questionles heere in this busines touching Evaristus it signifieth as I have said divers quarters and praecincts of one ordinarie Congregation and nothing els And this is the cleerest most certain notice that wee have touching the first Diocesan Bishops and Churches improperly so called Which after they were erected continued in the Christian world in divers kindes and sortes as I said before They were begun and set vp at first I doubt not out of a good intent yet it as plaine as may be that errour alwayes accompanied them even from the first The best of these Bishops not waÌ„ting some ambition and partiall respect toward them selves and all of them possessed with that erroneous opinion that the peereles authoritie of one Bishop over the Churches was the best meanes of true vnitie and chieflie Gods purpose being that thus the Vniversal Papacie should at last be advaÌ„ced which otherwise never could have ben so I say it came to passe that these Diocesan Bishops and Churches and their authoritie in continuance of time grew still greater and greater yet as Ierome saith and as reason also sheweth it to bee likely it proceeded paulatim by litle and litle by small degrees and by increasings not spyed of every one till at last they all grew to be transformed into proper Diocesan Bishops and Churches and got the power of Spirituall governement absolutly into their handes cleane excluding all power of the people in the ordinarie Congregations freely to consent which formerly they had ever held more or lesse But this was not fully brought to passe till after that the great Apostasie and tyrannie of the Vniversall Bishop the Romane Antichrist was begun to be set vp as “ Pag. 06. â—â—â— 88. before I declared I graunt heere that the improper Diocesan Churches as I note them were called and named Diocesan many yeares agoe and are also at this time by many learned men But yet indeed they are such Churches viz. Diocesan or larger improperly are called so by a catachresis an abusive maner of speaking The reason is because truly these Churches are not each of them one proper and intire Diocesan Body as a proper diocesan Church is but hath so many distinct Bodies and independent as there are Ordinarie Congregations in each of them inioying their free consent in their severall governements Yet each of them is called a Diocesan Church or larger for other respectes to wit because it hath a certain kinde of Diocesan or larger consociation of so many Churches togeather and a kinde of dependance vnder one generall Presidencie or Superioritie as before I observed Againe Pag. 88. 89. both the kinds of these improper Diocesan Churches above specified that is the Synodall Episcopall do guide and rule much alike In respect of the severall Congregations vnder them they rule not absolutly nor as intire and sole governors but with relation to the saide Congregations free consent which is their ancient right and immunitie as they are Churches of Christ Which immunitie and free power they may lawfully take to them selves vse whensoever they see necessary cause for it as even our adversaries acknowledge D. Down Def. 4.99 Whence it is that both stand well beeing duly ordered with the good proceedings of the Gospell Neither did any man of vnderstanding ever deny this Howbeit yet we affirme that of these two the consociation by Synodes or Presbyteries is most convenient most profitable and most safe for vs at least wise now that is in respect of these times in which we live and of the circumstances in them The governement of Diocesan Bishops though of the best sort is not so good nor safe especially now Whereof it is easie to yeelde
generally improperly sometime strictly and properly And wee ought alwayes to speake thus viz. properly when wee reason and dispure of any matter If the Doct. thinke generally and improperly Bishops may be called Apostles and likewise that Apostles may be called Bishops and if †Def. 4.72 Theodores meane so I will not gainsay but in the time of the New Testament yea and now still these names may be interchangeably vsed But this will prove nothing for the D. purpose For so there is nothing but meere Equivocation therein If he or any other thinke that Bishops were in the time of the New Testam called Apostles in the strict and proper sense of those words doubtles they erre egregiously Or that Bishops then were called Apostles by a dayly ordinary and familiar a pâ—llation as our Bishops are called Lords Which yet must be proved or els they have no colour from hence Hee maketh great adoe about Phil. 2.25 that from hence Epaphroditus might be proved to have ben the Philippians Bishop Defenc. 4.65 c. Though he might be their Bishop yet the circumstance of this place sheweth that this is meant of his bringing reliefe vnto Paul froÌ„ the Philippians as some did to the Saints at Ierusalem froÌ„ the Corinthians 2. Cor. 8.23 As for Theodâ—ret who seemeth to be the Author of the D. opinion heerein hee is insufficient and no equall nor iust foundation of this matter I know “ Bellarm. de Cleric 1.15 Bellarmine and other Prelates would faine make somewhat of this vnhansome shift in their owne defence yet they know not how All this is true and yet I grant as I said Epaphroditus might be the Philippians Bishop as some write that he was But indeed I think rather he was with them as an Evangelist properly like as Timothie and after him Tychicus was at Ephesus and Titus in “ 2. Cor. 8. 9. Achaia and afterward in Crete and Marke in Alexandria Egypt as som say Well but let it be granted which yet is not to be granted that Bishops in the New Testament were by a dayly ordinarie and familiar appellation called Apostles Yet neither hence can it follow that they may bee Lordes or may be so called For no Apostle was ever so great in respect of outward iurisdiction over any one CongregatioÌ„ none I say was ever a sole governour over one Congreg as our L. Bishops are over many hundreds Beside this the D. †Def. 3.148 would have the termes given to Prelates by Prelates and by their dependants in the time of Constantiâ—â— and since to be reason warrant now vnto vs to call our Bishops Lords and most honorable Lords Which is like to that where he saith “ Pag. 13. Hee seeth no reason why the Church in Constantines time should not rather be propounded as a patterne for imitation to Churches that live vnder Christian Princes then the Churches of former times A saying fit for a Diplodophilus fit for one who careth not to take from Christ his Office and Honor and to give it to Prelates and Princes For this is Christes due and immutable right and divine glorie in his Testament to set the patterne of his Visible Church for vs to imitate for ever and every where even in peace as well as in persecution As touching Constantine and the Bishops then and after for some huÌ„dreds of yeares though they were godly vertuous yet it caÌ„ not be denyed but the Bishops even then presently “ Nazianz. Orat. post redit in vrb Socrat. 7.11 were caryed with much ambition and strove for praeemineÌ„ce and outward greatnes And the Princes let them have it thinking that therein they did service to God But they knew not that they did amisse Yea indeed vnder Constantine began the Dioces an ruling Bishop who till this time had but a name and no power Diocesan †Reas. for reform pag. 8. Heeretofore I guessed they might have ben elder But the truth is they had no life nor strength of Diocesans till vnder Constantine and the Nicen Councill Which I have declared in “ Declar. pa. 24. an other place likewise After which time ambition and dominion Ecclesiasticall did still grow and increase more and more eveÌ„ in the best Fathers Whereby Antichrist at the last did easily come vp In which regard Maister Brightman iudged that the Prophesie of the womans beeing driven into the wildernes by the Dragon T. Brightm in Apoc. 12. Rev. 12. began to take effect vnder Constantine and to be accomplished stil more and more till in the end vtter darknes and tyrannie overflowed Now then are the deedes and wordes and practise of the Bishops of these times meet rules for vs to follow namely as touchinge Prelacie and Church governement Is it equall to make these our iudges heerein No by no meanes Which I have signified also †Pag. 109â— before Yea if there were no perill as there is much in following their wordes and deedes in the matter of Church governement aforesaide yet wee ought not to offer so much wrong to Christ and his word as to seeke for direction and warrant in a matter of conscience any where but in his word Howbeit notwithstanding al this though those titles given to Bishops vnder Constantine and after as heere hee alleageth them are too glorious and stately for Ministers of the Gospell yet none of them implyeth such Lordship nor Sole authoritie Spirituall as with vs the English wordes Lord Bishop do imply For theÌ„ they had not such sole authoritie as I have “ Pag. 64.63 66. already shewed nor long time after as now they * have Wherefore neither do these allegations of the Doct. that is the titles given to Bishops vnder Constantin nor 100. yeares after fit his turne neither wil they serve his purpose Finally it is to bee noted how the Doct denyeth that “ Def. 3 15â— Bishops may behave them selves as Lords of the Churches yet holdeth they may be called Lordes Surely his conscience telleth him that it is to much which hee giveth them For els why may they not behave theÌ„ selves answerably and according as their iust name is Where hee saith “ Pag. 153. the title of Lord Bishop is not given with relation but as a simple title of honor and reverence And the relation is not in the worde Lord but in the word Bishop This is plainly a meere shift and an vntruth For the relation is in both these wordes Lord Bishop iointly That is to their people they are Bishops with Spirituall Lordly power that is they have sole authoritie spirituall over them And so they are called Lords Spirituall which †Pag. 150. hee seemeth in an other place to acknowledge Thus all in vaine hath the D. laboured to make good the lawfulnes of our L. Bishops Now fourthly let vs note that froÌ„ this point that the Church governement ought to be alwayes with the peoples
these we allow and what get our adversaries by that We hold that such Bishops be Apostolike and Divine yet Diocesan both titular and ruling Bishops and also Lord Bishops came in â—aâ—latim by litle and little by Humane policie and ambition and tyraÌ„nie long after But Ierom there saith that these Bishops were in a higher degree above Presbyters Bez. Annoâ—at in Apoc. 2.1 which Beza denyeth Also they were constant Presidents in the Meetings which Beza also denyeth Beza saith Bishops and Presbyters then differed not gradu in degree meaning in degree of power that is in Maioritie of power they differed not then But in degree of Order he granteth they did differ which I call “ Reas. for 1â— Prioritie of Order Which also Ieâ—om meaneth by his higher degree in this place And so heerein we all agree But as touching Bezaes coniecture of the Angell of Ephezus viz. that peradventure he might be a President not continuing but changeable I suppose few approve it For my part I do not Though I greatly honor the name memorie of Maister Beza yet there is no neede to be of his opinion in this A changeable Presidencie no doubt was among those Bishops Act. 20.28 But I am of minde that none of these Bishops meant by the Angells Rev. 2. 3. were changeable In all likelyhood they were constant and continuing for terme of life And such a difference Presidentiall might well com in among the many joint Pastors of the Church at Ephesus by this time and yet they all remaine †Declarâ—â— pag. 15. equall in honor and power Pastorall Howbeit these constant Presidents were Bishops then to no Diocesan multitude dispersed abroad in many ordinary set assemblies but to one ordinary assembly only as is noted often before And so the great argument of these Doctors which they take from the “ Perp. gov pag. 260. D. Down Def. 4. â— Succession of Bishops to proove our Bishops as they are in England to be lawfull may appeare to be a meere Sophisme deceit For the Bishop of Rome also may by such a shew of Succession prove his Office and Function lawfull as in deed he doth indeavour to do and doth it as well as they But though all these Bishops have one name viz. Bishops yet betweene the first and the last of them there are seene many reall and substantiall differences in their Offices To observe therefore this egregious Equivocation I remit the Reader to pag. 98. 99. 128. 129. 211. 212. before Yet Doctor Downame †sticketh hard to this †Defenc. 4.50 c. that Iames the Apostle was a Bishop Iames no proper Bishop What a proper Bishop It is simply impossible whosoever say otherwise Let the Reader marke that all our question is about Bishops properly so called not about the name Bishop vsed in a generall sense There is “ Rain confer pa. 263. 267. a generall taking of the word Bishop and there is a proper taking of it Apostles and Evangelistes may generally improperly be called Bishops the rather if they reside long in one place and do execute a Bishop like Office there As Iames I graunt did in Ierusalem and Titus in Crete yea by assignement of the Apostles And questionles so the Ancient Writers meane where they call Iames Bishop of Ierusalem and Titus Bishop of Crete For neither Iames nor Titus were nor could be proper Bishops there Which I shewe thus Every Bishop is appropriated limited and confined only to one Church Iames neither was nor could be appropriated and confined only to one Church Therefore Iames neither was nor could be a Bishop The Proposition is most evident and granted of our “ D. Bilson pag. 227. 232. adversaries The Assumption they neither ought nor dare deny For Iames having froÌ„ Christ a Ministerie and Calling to all Churches throughout the world this hee retayned still hee never lost that it were sacrilege to reduce him from it and to shorten him of this his right given him froÌ„ heaven Neither could the Apostles do it if they would Heere it will be an absurd evasion to say Iames had in him two Offices viz. an Apostles and a proper Bishops Office In respect of the former hee was still vnlimited in respect of the later he was limited to the Church of Ierusalem This I say is so absurd frivolous as nothing can be more And yet it is the only thing that can bee answered I pray can one and the same man by any distinction be capeable of privative contraries at one time Can the same man be in fetters and at libertie at once Can one be blind and see also Can a man be a Christian an insidell too No more could Iames be both appropriated to Ierusalem and not appropriated at one time Neither could the proper Bishops Office bee conioyned with an Apostleship For it were in vaine Seeing the Apostleship contayneth the whole Bishoply Office and more too But the Apostles in the Churches administratioÌ„ did no thing in vaine idly Again though the Apostleship contained in it the whol office of a proper Bishop yet this was “ Declarat pag. 30. Materially not Formally As a Privie Counsailler in England hath in him the Office and power of a Iustice of peace also a Shilling containeth a Groat But no man that meaneth plainly will say A Shilling is a Groat or a Privie Counsailler is a Iustice of peace If any do it is not rightly nor truely spoken For not the Matter but the Forme doth give the proper name Yet I do not deny all vse of vnproper speaches I grant on some occasion men may speake generally and vndistinctly of things In reasoning we must alwayes speake properly as I deeme those Ancients did of Bishops Nevertheles in ordinary teaching and specially in reasoning and disputing wee must ever vse exact and proper termes avoyding generalities and wordes vnproper Otherwise wee equivocate To this reason that the Apostles gave not Iames any power which hee had not before as an Apostle D. Downame answereth that which is both false and also most presumptuous For plainly hee saith “ Def. 4 5â—â— Iames the Apostle had not the power of Iurisdiction before he was designed Bishop of Ierusalem O hautie Bishops Who arrogat to themselves a power beyond the Apostles No marvaile if he say Pag. 59. it is no depressing of an Apostle to become a proper Bishop For only this may lâ—ft vp a Bishop above an Apostle his other idle “ Pag. 62. 63. respects and considerations neither did nor could Titus and Timothie were no proper Bishops Nay but Titus Timothie and their Bishopriks do make the most busines of all Of whom D. Bilson saith †Perpet govâ— pag. 300. Heere I must pray the Christian Reader advisedly to marke what is said answered on either side This indeed is the maine erection of the Episcopall power and function
the whole Church This ought to go before that iudgement And Non absque consensu Ecclesiae quispiam excommunicari potest lus hoc ad Ecclesiam pertinet neque ab illâ eripi potest Witthout the consent of the Church not any one can bee excommunicated This right belongeth to the Church neither ought it to bee taken away from it And the consent of the people is still to be observed in Excommunication both that tyrannie may be avoyded that it may be done with greatâ—er fruit and gravitie The same worthy man greatly coÌ„mendeth the pietie of a Bishop at Troie in France who about the yeare 1561. left his Popish state and did betake him to a flocke of Christians there Epict. â—â— and taught them the word of God purely But quia ei gravis scrupulus â—iectus est de suâ vocatione quod in ed Ecclesis ac populi Elestionem seu Censirmationem uâ— is habuerit ideò c. Beâ—ause he had a great scruple in his conscience about his Calâ—aâ—g seeing hee had not therein the Elâ—ction or Confirmation of the Church and people Therefore hee sent for the Elders of the reformed Church and desired theÌ„ that they would consider godly and wisely whether they would chose confirme and haâ—e hâ—n for their Bishop Which if they thought good to do hee would doe his indeavour that as hee began so hee would go on as hee was able by teaching and exhorting to edifiâ—â— and increase the Church committed to him But if they thought him not fit for so great an Offâ—â—â— they should speake it freely and openly hee was â—eadie to give place c. And hee desired that they would speedily deâ—berate with the Church about the matter Which when it was done hee was acknowledged â—aâ— reâ—eaved of all with one consent as a true Bishop Wherefore his authoritie and pâ—â—iâ— doth much profit the Church of Chriâ—t God bee praised who governeth and gâ—ideth the kingdome of his Sonne in this manner O where shall wee see such Bishops in these dayes 8. Musculus Musculus also speaketh and reasoneth cleerely with vs heerein Hee saith †Com. plac Of Min. Elect. There is no doubt but the Apostles keâ—t that maner of ordayning viz. after the church had chosen And After fasting and praying which was wont to be done in the Congregation of the faithful They ordayned Elders which were first chosen of the faithfull And this forme of Electing and ordayning Elders and Bishops the Apostle commended vnto his fellow workman Titus and Timothie saying “ Tiâ— 1 5. For this cause I left thee in Crete c. For who would beleeve that he ordained that Titus should do otherwise then both hee and the rest of the Apostles were accustomed to do Therefore both by example and ordinace of the Apostle in the primitive church Elders Pastors Bishops and Deacons were in the Ecclesiasticall Meetings chosen of the people by lifting vp of handes Also hee saith The Forme of Election vsed in the Apostles times is conformable to the libertie and priviledge of the Church whereof Cyprian made mention and that forme of choise whereby men began to be thrust vpon the people of Christ beeing not chosen of it doth agree to a Church which is not free but subiect to bondage And this forme of electioÌ„ by the peoples choise he calleth the Old the Fittest the Divine the Apostolicall and lawfull election the other to come from the corrupt state of the Church and Religion 9. Bullinger Bullinger assirmeth thus “ Decaâ— 5.4 The Lord from the beginning gave authoritio to the Church to chose and ordayne fit Ministers And Those which thinke that the Bishop Archbishop have power to make Ministers vse these places of the Scripture * Tit. 1. Therefore I left thee at Crete that thou mightest appoint Elcers Towne by Towne And againe “ 1. Tim. 5. Take heed that thou lay not thy handes rashly on anie But we answer that the Apostles did not vse any tyranny in the Churches nor themselves alone to have don these thinges which pertayned either to Election or Ordination other men in the Church shut out For the Apostles and Elders did create Bishops and Elders in the Church but communicating their counsaill with the Churches yea and with the consent and approving of the people Yea of Ministers that governe anic Church without or against their consent thus he saith “ In 1. Coâ— 5.4 Vâ—bem prodere diâ—untur Legati qui diversum ab eo quod ab vrbe prescriptum est agunt Those embassadors are said to betray the Citie who do any thing divers from that which is prescribed them by the Citie 10. Gualter Gualter likewise is as plaine as can be Saith hee of the calling of Ministers †Hoâ—â—il in Act 13.1 Divinitùs vocatos esse censebimus quâ—scunque Dei spiritus donis necessarijs instruxerit legitiâ—â—s Ecclesiae suffragijs elegerit Aliquas enim in hac causa partes Ecclesiae mandatas esse hiâ— locus perspicuè tradit Ecclesiae calculum spiritus requirit We wil esteeme them to have a calling from God whomsoever Gods spirit hath â—â—abled with necessarie giftes and hath chosen by the Churches lawful giviâ—g of voyces For this place plainly sheweâ—h that in this cause there are some partes committed to the Church The Spirit requireth the Churches iudgâ—ment Afterward he saith “ In Act. 14. â—â— Foedá tyranâ—ide Ecclesiarum slatus opprimitur The state of the Churches is oppressed by filthy tyrannie where at this day the Churches have not this libertie to give their free consent at least For heere he respecteth that right and iust order according to the rule of the Gospell which before he had described †In Act. 1. â—â— Ministrorum verbi Ecclesiae Electiones atque ordinationes non occultè intra privatos parietes à paucis hominiâ—us sed publicè ab Ecclesia in totius Ecclesiae conspectu fieri debent Neque noâ— movet quod Paulus alibi vni Tito vel Timâ—theo ius potestatem Episcopoâ— eligendi tribuere videtur Non enim illos privata authâ—ritate quiâ—quam agere voluit sed pro antistâ—tum â—fficio iubet curare vt Ministri digni idones legittimè crdinentur Nec verisimile est illis plus concessum fu isse quà m Apostolis ipsis qui inconsulta Ecclesia nihil in hac causa vnquam statuerunt Nam paulo post Diaconos coram Ecclesia publicè eligunt Paulus oum Barnabá collectis viritim suffiagijs Presbyâ—eres per Ecclesias singulas ordinavisse leguntur Act. 6. 3.4 The Elections and ordinations of the Ministers of the word and of the Church ought not to bee made secretly within privat walls by a few men but publikly by the Church and in the face of the whole Church Neither doth it moove vs that Paul inan other place seemeth to give right power of chofing Bishops to Titus aloâ—e
meet and able to have the governement of the Church there And againe out of Egesippus “ 4. â—1 After that Iames was slame Simeon the soâ—e of Cleophas was made Bishop whom in tâ—esecond place all the Disciples appointed by voyces to that governement This was the first most notable exaÌ„ple of the Christians pract se in this matter neither caÌ„â—â—â— we read of any neerer to the Apostles after the times of the New TestameÌ„t then this Also wee see it was in the very Mother Church of all Christianitie Wherefore this order of Calling to the ministerie rather then any later is most worthy yea necessary to be observed and imitated by vs every where and for ever The like we read of there againe thus “ 6â— Anno 205. When Narcissiâ— the Bishop had withdrawne himselfe was gone no man knew whither they who governed the neighbour Churches thought good to make another Bishop But how By the peoples voyces And so Dius was chosen Afterward Narcissus returning the Brethren desired him to take againâ— the governement of the Church Vnto whom was adioyned Alexander for his fellow the people of Ierusalem with the common consent of the neighbour Bishops constrayning him necessarily to tary with them These were the meanes that made these Ministers Ignatius of Antioch teacheth and saith to the Church at Philadelphia that “ Ignat. ad Philad It was meâ—te for them as being a Church of God Anno 112. by voices to chose their Bishop 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It can not be denied but that this writer sheweth in the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is Lifting vp of hands â—n thepeoples voyce giving that Elections of Ministers were then made by the peoples free choyce Seeing he signifyeth Ordination and Laying on of handes by another proper word viz. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The practise of the Church of Rome was also the same in this matter Anno 240. Of which we read ' Euseb 6.2 When all the Brethren were come togeather in the Church for the purpose to chose a Bishop whose place now was voyd the whole people with one consent cryed that Fabianus was worthy of that dignitie and presently he was placed in the same Afterward againe we read of Cornelius that he was chosen in like maner For so writeth Cyprian of him saying †Cyprian Epist 4.2 Factus est Cornelius Episcopus de Dei Christs eius iudicio de plebis qua tune affuit suffragio c. Cornelius was made Bishop by the iudgement of God and his Christ by the voyce giving of the people which was then present c In an other place also he saith Hee was †3.13 de Dei iudtcio Cleri ac Plebis suffragio ordinatus Ordayned by the iudgement of God and by the voyces of the Clergie and people The practise of the Church of Carthage was the same Anno â—5â— as Cyprian also speaking of him self sheweth saying that he was chosen “ Cyprian Epist 1.3 Populi vniversi suffragio in pace by the voyce-giving of the whole people in peace and quietly also he calleth this †1.8 their voyce giving Gods iudgement And he writeth of another Church in Afrike at Legio as we may gather that there one Sabinus was made Bishop †1.4 de vniversae fraternstatis suffragio by the voyce-giving of the whole brotherhood and by the iudgement of the Bishops that were come togeather But above all other that place in Cyprian is singular for our purpose where his owne iudgement and sentence with many other Bishops besides is to bee noted concerning this power and right of the people It is in this same Epistle a litle before thus “ Ibidem viz. 1.4 Plebs obsequens praeceptis Dominicis Deum metuens a peccatore praeposito separate se debet nec se ad sacrilegi Sacerdotis sacrificsa miscere cum ipsa maximè babeat poteslatem vel eligendi dignos Sacerdotes vel indignos recusandi Quod ipsum videmus de Divina authoritate descendere c. A people obeying the Lords Commandementes and fearing God ought to separate them selves from a wickeâ— Minister and not ioyne them selves to the Divine Service of a Sacrilegious Priest seeing they the people chiefly have power to chose worthy Ministers and to refuse vnworthy ones Which thing also we see cometh fiâ— Divine authoritie c. Lo what Cyprians iudgement is of the peoples power right in the making of Ministers He with divers other his fellow-Bishops doth heere professe that it cometh froÌ„ Divine authoritie So before he called it Gods iudgement and his Christes What can be more full and absolute to our purpose then this The same also he holdeth touching the peoples power in Church ceÌ„sures As where he willeth Stephan Bishop of Rome to write “ Epist 3.14 ad plebem Arelate consistentem to the people at Arles in France His intent is heere that their Novatian Bishop Martianus should bee removed and another set in his place by them togeather with Stephans helpe And elswhere touching one Victor a Presbyter fallen from the Church returned againe Cyprian greatly misliketh rebuketh Therapius the Bishop for receaving him †3.8 sine petitu conscientia plebis without the desire knowledge of the people and adviseth him that hee do so no more And as touching himselfe hee sheweth in many places his owne constant practise to be such also Or without the desire c conscience of the people First of some rash and proud Presbyters hee saith if they persisted in their scandalous behaviour they should answer it “ 3.14 apud plebe vniversam before all the people as iudges with himselfe others of their misdemeanor Againe writing severally to his people about some that desired to bee reconciled to the Church at Carthage he saith “ 3.16 Examinabuntur singula praese itibus iudicantibus vobis Every thing shal be examined you the people being present and iudging of it And thus hee meaneth where he saith hee must †3 1â— dispomere omnia consilij communis religione disoose all things by a religious observing of such common advise Lo he putteth acknowledgeth Religion heerein And therfore it is that to a few Presbyters of his Church who had written to him being then absent from Carthage about som of his church affaires he saith He could not so much as write backe to theÌ„ therof “ 3.10 Seeing he had determined to do nothing privatly of his owne minde without the Presbyters counsaill and the peoples consent And promiseth that when hee should returne he will handle matters in common both such as were past while hee was absent and also such as were to come after his returne Yea and therfore in an other place he saith “ 3.19 Praiudicare ego solum mihi rem communem vendicare non audeo I dare not praeiudge
was helde they were they which were speciallie grieved with him who yet for feare of his pride and tyrannie durst not themselves alone accuse him as it is there signified The point is we see heere at Antioch the Churches that is the peoples concurrence and consent with other Bishops and Teachers neare adioyning in the Excommunication Deposition of one and in Ordayning to them selves another Bishop After this againe the Councill of Nice decreed Concil Nicen that the people should chose their Minister as appeareth where they say Anno. 330. If any Church Minister dye let one of the Chuch succede in his place so that he seeme fit and be chosen of the people and the Bishop consent and confirme the peoples election “ Socrat. 1.6 This order was written by this Councill Theodoret. 1.9 namely to the AlexaÌ„drian Churches because of a particular occasion but it served as a rule generally for all places as the Councill was generall Which doth plainly appeare by that which afterward the Councill of Constantinople did in “ Theodores â— 9 observing this Nicen ordinance as an order belonging to them About the yeare 420. the fourth Councill of Carthage decreed thus †Concil Cartha 4 Câ—n 22 Au câ—c 420. Eâ—â—â—â—â—pus sine Concilio Clericorum suâ—rum Cleâ—â—â—s non ordinet ita vt Civium assensum â—â—â—ventiam testimonium quarat Let 〈◊〉 a Bishop ordayne any Clergie-man wichout an assemblie of his Clergie so that let him â—â—eke the peoples consent and connivence and Mimonie This Canon will have Ministers made in no wise without the peoples consent contentment testimonie of their worthines Heere D. Downame with little shew but with great falshood turneth this word Et and into Or saying assent or connivence where he should say assent and coÌ„nivence as “ Pag 24.25 before I brieflie touched Whereby he would make the Council seeme to meane that either of these was sufficient in the making of Ministers that their assent was not simply necessarie but if they did connive or hold their peace the Councill was content and required no more But both the present wordes and all circumstances of these times do plainly declare that the Councill heere requireth in making Ministers the peoples expresse consent and testimonie also of their worthines as before I noted Of these times Calvin saith thus “ Instiâ— 4.4.10 Cum parochâ—â— no vt Presbyters destinabantur tunc loci multitudinem nominatim consentire oportuit When new Presbyters were appointed to the parishes then the people of the place must consent expresly This with the rest of the Councillâ— of Carthage was confirmed in the generall Council of Constantinople holden in Trullo about the yeare of Christ 682. Conâ—ll Constantinop Aâ— 682. Wherefore so long longer also wee may well thinke particular Congregations kept their spirituall right and power in this behalfe Which Calvin saith was such that though the Governors somtimes did of them selves first chose and then brought the matter to the people yet “ Instie 4 4.1â— they the people were not bound to those foreiudgemeÌ„ts And when the Church was deprived of this her right it is by him called Impia Ecclesia spoliatie quoties alicui populâ— ingeritur Episcopus quem non petierit aut saltem liberâ voce approbarit It is an vngodly robbing of the Church so often as a Pastor is putvpon any people whom they havenot desired or at least approved by free voyce I grant by this time many great preparations were made to bring in that Antichristian apostasie and tyrannie which afterward followed and overflowed every where Howbeit yet thus long the Churches even by publike lawes retayned their life at least wise that iniurie and violence spirituall robbery tyranny which afterward prevayled against them as yet was not generall It is to no purpose heere to inquire wheÌ„ or by whom this wrong first entered I meane this withholding froÌ„ the people of God their free consent in spirituall governement It is sufficient that we see this their freedome to be Apostolicall also to bee taught and observed in the Christian Churches next succeeding the Apostles yea even till after the time that Antichrist began the desolation of abhominarion which since hath ben every-where set vp with strong hand maintayned Also that wee see the most vndoubted instruments of God in these later times so cleerely to avouch this most singular meanes of overthrowing Antichrist and so earnestly to defend it as they do viz. as if without it there were neither any way to repell him at first nor securitie afterward for vs to stand long against his vncessant indeavours labouring still to returne and tyrannise over our soules againe This I say is sufficient for our present purpose at this time and in this place Which also being well considered can not but cause every honest man to mourne and sigh before the Lord beholding this foundation of pietie and godly life to be so despised yea so maligned and resisted as by many it is now amoÌ„g our selves where the Gospell is and hath ben entertayned thankes be to God these many yeares FroÌ„ which most iust cause of griefe it proceedeth also necessarily that we cannot but opeÌ„ our mouthes as we do to beare witnes in the behalfe of this cause of Christ being also the only true and assured meanes which doeth most nearely concerne vs as we wel vnderstand in the matter of the salvation of our soules And so much touching this point Only this moreovet for a Conclusion I desire may be hoere noted the ground whereof I take out of our adversaries Namely Whatsoever the whole Church militant ever since the Apostles hath held and was not instituted by Councills but hath ben alwayes retayned that is most rightly believed to be delivered by the Apostles The whole Church Militant over since the Apostles hath held the peoples consent in then owne Church governement it was nor instituted by Councills but it bath ben alwaye retained Therefore the peoples consent in their owne Church governement is most rightly believed to bee delivered and ordained by the Apostles The first Proposition is our adversaries “ pâ—rpâ—â— govern pag. 258. D. Bilson and †D. Downame do much magnifie it out of †Serm pag. 56. 57. Defen 4 Austin And we acknowledge it to bee true The Assumption is proved heere before in this 5. Chapter so fully and plentifully as any thing can be by Humane records and testimonies For wee have none extant better theÌ„ these At least by these it is prooved so fully as our adversaries do intend in the Proposition Wherefore the Conclusion is most certain and cleere against them viz. that the peoples consent in their owne Church governement is an institution and ordinance of the Apostles Whence also consequently it will follow that those textes of Scripture vsually alleadged for proofe of the same mentioned also pag. 76. and which I
have to that purâ—ise handled in my 3. and 9. Argumentes of the Divine beginning and institution of Christes Visible and Ministeriall Church do well shew and testifie to vs so much CHAP. VI. Our very Adversaries do acknowledge with vs the truth of this doctrine sometimes in plaine termes Chap. 6. and sometimes to the same full effect specially when they deale against the Papistes THE force and evidence of this truth viz. touching the peoples right for their free consent in Church governement is such that also our very Adversaries sometimes in plaine termes sometimes to the same full effect do acknowledge it Among many I will content my selfe with two for the present viz. D. Bilson and D. Downame The first of these in his Answer to the Apologie of the Seminarie Pristes and Iesuits writeth thus “ D. Bila against the Seminar part 2 353.356 We have the words and warrant of the H. Ghost for that which we say c. viz. That the people can and ought to disceme and trie the doctrine and spirits of the Teachers c so to chose and refuse theÌ„ as they by the word should see good Thus saith hee And what can be spoken by any of our selves more plainly and more fully to our purpose If the people can and ought to chose their Teachers and to refuse whom they finde worthy to be refused then why are they not allowed so to do in England If the wordes and warrant of the holy Ghost be for it then who may impeach it Who may resist it What are they that revile and persecute this way Hee addeth heere in this place that the people “ Pag. 355. have skill and leave to discerne both viz. to discerne the Teachers their doctrine Where also hee discourseth much vpon this right of the people as being Christes ordinaÌ„ce and presseth it against the Papistes Yea in another booke where he pleadeth to the contrarie purpose against vs yet hee writeth thus Perpet gov pag 300. * The Apostles left Elections indifferently to the people and Clergie of Ierusalem The people had as much right to chose their Pastor as the Clergie that had more skill to iudge “ Pag 339. Well may the peoples interest stand vpon the grounds of Reason Nature and be derived from the rules of Christian equitie * Pag. 359. The late Bishops of Rome have not ceased cursing and fighting till excluding both Prince and people they reduced the Election wholy to the Clergie But hee telleth them that by their leave applying heerevnto the wordes of Christ Mat. 19. 8. it was not so from the beginning Againe hee saith †Pag. 330. I a knowledge each Church and people stand frâ—e by Gods law to admit maintaine and obey no man as their Pastor without their liking Where in deed he addeth to the contrarie vnles by law custome or consent they restraine themselves But this he him selfe els-where answereth roundly “ Pag. 221. What authoritie had others after the Apostles deathes to chaÌ„ge the Apostolike governement And that it was not so from the beginning which before he answered is a full confutation also of this exception As also where he calleth Mens ordinances in Church governement †Pag. 19. Corruptions of times inventions of Men and a transgressing of the Commandement of God for the traditions of men And where he calleth such ordinances “ Pag. 111. intrusion and presumption As for that he saith elswhere in this booke †Pag 82. the Multitude hee meaneth the Christian people neither could not can iudge of the giftes and abilities of Pastors no more then blind men of colours This sheweth plainly his variable minde contradiction to him selfe As for the matter it is spoken meerely out of an humour and partialitie against vs and that his Lordship in spirituall things over Christes people might be stablished But before against the maine adversaries of the Gospell the Papistes he taught the truth as the Scripture there alleaged doth shew but heere in this last place he turneth about ioyneth with them rather then he would seeme to consent with vs. Nevertheles his former most cleere and syncere testimonie on our behalfe can not be blotted out Againe in the same booke speaking of Bishops in plaine termes thus hee saith “ pag. 340. They have no power to impose a Pastor on any Church against their willes nor to force them to yeeld him obedience or maintenance against their liking If this were ingenuously acknowledged and professed practised likewise religiously we should desire no more for the substance of the matter as it hath ben often saide Our agreement togeather touchinge Church-governement would soone appeare But he when he listeth will tell vs that Timothie and Tâ—â—s whom hee esteemeth Bishops had power to make Presbyters to Churches and the Apostles also “ pag. 88. without the people or their consent Wherefore what to reckon of his sayings and speaches we know not Only his foresaid agreement with vs in wordes is manifest Next to him wee will consider of Doctor Downame He in a certain place though it seemeth full sore against his will yet through the force of the truth being compelled acknowledgeth and yeeldeth vnto vs that †D Down Def. 4.99 the power of ordination and iurisdiction by right is seated in the whole Church or Congregation in case of necessitie wherein both the succession of their owne Clergie fayling and the helpe of others wanting the right is devolved to the whole body of the Church In which words I desire all men to observe how this Doctor graunteth vs the cause in full effect and agreeth wholy to our purpose For that which heere hee saith and which necessarilie followeth from these wordes is all that weâ— desire Wherefore I pray the Christian Reader to marke well these seaven Consequentes which follow froÌ„ these wordes of D. Downame and cannot be denyed by any honest and true-hearted Christian First in that he holdeth that the power of ordination and iurisdiction by right is seated in the particular Congregation in case of necessitie it is certain therfore that he must hold that this right and power is seated in the whole particular Congregation by Christ and by the ordinance of God For no person or persons can at any time nor in any respect have such power by Mans ordinance It can not bee either Naturally or Civilly given or receaved Wherefore in whom soever that power is seated at what time soever doubtles it is in them Supernaturally God by his speciall grace giveth it and Christ by his holy ordinance seateth it in them Yea though it bee in any case of necessitie whatsoever For thus it is written “ Iob 3. â—7 A man can receave nothing except it be given him from heaven That is No dignitie no authoritie no power in the Church can be but from God And it is spoken absolutly touching all
is before noted Whence it is that Doct. Downame heere saith truly the succession of their owne Clergie fayling and the helpe of others wanting the right is devolved to the whole body of the Church If the Doctor will reply say that this power and right is not essentially in the whole Congregation alwayes nor at all times but sometimes only that is in the case of necessitie aforesaid I answer then the D. folly and want of true reason will be manifest to all men For what soever is essentiall to any thing at sometime is essentiall to the same alwayes and evermore That which is essentiall once is essentiall still So that if the Congregations power right to consent in making of Ministers in Censures be essentiall at sometime as he acknowledgeth it is then certainly it is essentiall therein at all times and evermore The truth heereof can never be denyed And hence it is that Luther saieth If Titus would not Luth. de Ministr Eccles instit propâ— finem the Congregation might ordaine Ministers to them selves And of Excommunication Zuinglius saith “ Artic. 31. Non quod solus Episcopus hac facere debeat quisque hoc â—â—â—est si Episcopus fuerit negligens Any man may do this if the Bishop be negligent Hee meaneth any Man appointed by the Church may do it In which respect also that senteÌ„ce of Epiphanius that †Epiph. haereâ—â— 75. Biâ—â—ops can beget Fathers to the Church but Presbyters can not is to be refused as vntrue and erroneous For before wee have seene that only the CoÌ„gregation doth beget Fathers that is maketh Ministers essentially the Bishop doth it but instrumentally and Ministerially And so a Presbyter may do it as well as he whom they name a Bishop yea any other also may do it as Luther and Zuinglius before affirme when the Church imployeth them to that vsâ— Our two Doctors before cited even aâ— the Papistes also do hold strongly with those wordes of “ â—aereâ— 75. Epephanius to the great preiudice of the Gospel But their bare opinions names are nothing to our cleere and certain reason for the contrarie before set downe Neither are the bare opinions and naked names of any other men whosoever any better worth Seventhly 〈◊〉 last of all hence it foloweth so that it can not bee denyed that seeing thâ— whole CoÌ„gregation doth always give the Calling of ordinary Ministers essentially therfore the whole Congregation ought alwayes of necessitie tâ— give their free consent to their Minister at least so farre foorth that nonâ— bee imposed on them whether they will or no. The like also is to bee saiâ— of their power in iurisdiction And these pointes wee must imagine that they are acknowledged and held by D. Downame or surely that hee ought to acknowledge them all seeing by force of true reason they al do follow from those his wordes which he affirmeth holdeth as before I have declared Now this is all that wee professe touching the pleoples right tâ— Church government For we deniâ— not but in the ordinarie peaceable and right state of the Church when al things are caried well the chief diâ—ection sway of the whole government belongeth to the Bishop or Paâ—tor the people beeing on their part â—o hearken to their Teacher to folâ—ow their Guide obediently dutieâ—ully D. Down Deâ—â— 1.41 Their power to iudge and to provide otherwise for themselves being wheÌ„ they see their Guides to faile Which seeing it is his minde also set downe in his owne words before reâ—earsed I have truly affirmed that â—ouching our present cause even this Doctor agreeth with vs sometime in â—ull effect by good consequence of â—eason from his expresse wordes Though at other times he do as some report Cicero said to Salust “ Orat. 〈◊〉 Cicer. 〈◊〉 Salust Aliud stans â—â—â—â—d sedens de repub sentis Of the common â—ealth thou thinkest one thing standing another sitting Of Christes Visible Church and the governement thereof verily our Doctor doth likewise CHAPTER VII Chap. 7. Consequences of greatest importance following vpon the peoples free coÌ„sent in their Church governement inconveniences in Religion not sufferable following from the contrary AFter the forerehearsed Witnesses for this Doctrine we wil now shewe certain cleere and necessarie Consequences which follow from the same also some true and great Inconveniences to faith and godly life and to Civill authoritie such as are not to be tolerated which yet cannot be avoyded where men professing to be Christians imbrace not this point Of all fortes I wil heere observe eight great and waightie Consequentes heerevpon First this being receaved as the Ordinance of Christ and the practise of the Apostles 1. CoÌ„sequent that the Church governement ought to be alwayes with the peoples free consent it followeth that every Church is only “ As is also shewed in the Declaration pag. 12. 13. 14. 35. one ordinarie Congregation and not any proper Diocesan or Provinciall Church or larger Vnderstanding alwayes the peoples free consent to be orderly conveniently taken and practised so as Christ intendeth that †1. Cor. 14.40 every thing should bee done in his Church For where the peoples free consent is orderly and conveniently practised alwayes in the Church governement there the Body of the Church can not be so large as a Diocese much lesse as a Province or Nation and least of all so large as a Vniversall Church Seeing all this people can not possibly by any meanes give their free consent in the ordinarie Church-governement neither can any person take it of all them iustly orderly and conveniently This to say the truth is not possible For in such a state when onely some maine partes of the Church governement are exercised it will bee alwayes with much defect and also with great disturbance and tumult oftentimes I say where it is extended so largely so wide with concurrence of such multitudes of people This is true first in very reason and withall often experience hath shewed it in former times vnder most Christian carefull Princes after the Nicen Councill as at Alexandria at Antioch at Rome at Constantinople and in infinite places mo a great part whereof the “ Euseâ— Socrat. Zozomeâ— Theodoret. Evagrius Stories doe record In which Church actions though done with to inconvenient libertie of the people yet the greatest part of the people whoÌ„ the effect of those businesses reached vnto were absent and so wanted their right those which were present were full of confusion and tumult neither could it be otherwise But God is the God of equitie of order and of peace Wherefore this disorder can nor be fit for Gods Church And so neither can a Diocesan circuit Râ—as for reform p. 26.27 or larger in which this disorder wil arise necessarilie if all that people togeather have their free consent in their Church-governement Which the whole
people of every Church alwayes ought to have by Christes and the Apostles ordinaÌ„ce as “ Pag. 19. chap. 3.4.5 before we have seene Nay to come nearer No proper and perfect Diocesan Church or larger ever did or doth admit the peoples free consent in their ordinarie governement Vniversally and alwayes it is so indeed it can not be otherwise For where each ordinarie Congregation hath their free consent in their ordinarie governement there certainly each Congregation is an intire and independent Body politike Spirituall and is indued with power in it selfe immediatly vnder Christ And so every of them are true proper Churches So that these Congregations admit not where they are any proper Diocesan Church or larger neither doth the proper Diocesan Church or larger admit intire and independent ordinary CoÌ„gregations Which as I said have their free consent in their ordinary governement They are indeed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 such as “ Reas. for 〈◊〉 form pag. 23.25 cannot stand together possibly And therfore it is likewise that which heretofore †Ibid pag. 8â— I have affirmed and so do still in the Newe Testament there is not any Diocesan Church or larger to be found Which point though I have in my Declaration proved it by this and 6. other reasons yet I will heere draw it into this Syllogisme againe No Church holding the peoples free consent in their ordinary governement with iust and decent order is Diocesan or larger Every Visible Church in the New Testament holdeth the peoples free consent in their ordinary governement with iust and decent order Therfore No Visible Church in the New Testament is Diocesan or larger The first proposition is manifest of it selfe and I have shewed it more “ Pag. 84 8â— 86. c. fully before The Assumption or 2. proposition is at large proved confirmed in those places which are noted in the margin before viz. pag. 19. and are mentioned againe particularly pag. 76. To which purpose also the whole 3.4 5. chap. do helpe Where I am to adde moreover that this Conclusion is true not only in the New Testament but also in the ages following a long while after That is no such Diocesan churches were fouÌ„d till 420. yeres after Christ yea til 680. and more were past Which I shewed before in the end of the fift Chap. as also I touched it in my Declaration pag. 24.25 But let it be remembred that heere I speake precisely of proper Diocesan Churches and larger There is therefore necessarily a distinction to be made of Diocesan Churches There are proper Diocesan Churches and larger there are improper The proper Diocesan Church and larger is where the people have no power freely to consent in the affaires of their ordinarie Church governement The improper Diocesan Church and larger is where although there be a kinde of Diocesan or larger Consociation of many ordinarie CoÌ„gregations in Spirituall governement vnder one generall Presidencie or Superioritie yet the ordinarie Congregations have their free consent at least they have nothing by their Spirituall Governors imposed on them against their wills Which kinde of Dioces church being duly ordered wee do not gainsay There are hereof also two kinds The one is “ Act. 15.2.3.6.7 Apostolicall viz. where many ordinarie Congregations consociating togeather in their spirituall governement have a Diocesan or larger Synod or Presbyterie over them for their better direction Such the forraigne reformed Churches at this day do enioy The other kinde is where many ordinary Congregations so consociating togeather have one person a constant President during life over them whom men after the Apostles called a Diocesan Bishop some a Metropolitan and such like other names Albeit of these there were without question divers kindes and sortes some exercising greater power and authoritie some lesse that is the ancienter had lesse the later for the most part alwayes had their power greater and greater Ad â—vagr in Tit. 1. For of these Ierome saith most truly both that their Matoritie over the Presbyters of Congregations was by Humane ordinaÌ„ce and also that it came in grew greater paâ—latim by litle and litle that is by degrees Albeit I say therefore that these Diocesan Bishops were of divers kindes sortes yet the first of them neither were in the Apostles times neither were they immediatly after the Apostles Contrariwise D. Downame affirmeth that Marke the Evangelist ordained in Alexandria a Diocesan church coÌ„sisting of many ordinarie Congregations Which he thinketh to prove by some words of “ Euseb 2.15 Eusebius who saith Marke first †D. Downâ— Def. 2.124 constituted churches 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Alexandria it selfe as he falsly translateth it I say this he falsly translateth as “ 3.137 3.25.16 Doct. Dovâ— also did before him wherevpon the whole grouÌ„d of their error doth rest Def pag. 17 â—â— Which their falsificatioÌ„ I shall by Gods helpe shew plainly out of Eusebius him self even in this very place The preposition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth not heere signifie in a place as they vntruly imagine but it signifyeth to a place and so it ought to be translated In Latin we should say ad Alexandriaâ— ipsam or vsque ad that is to Alexandria or vnto Alexandria it selfe This is Eusebius true meaning For he would shew that Marke was the first that constituted Churches in the country of Egypt and withall that hee did so even vnto the chiefe City thereof viz. Alexandria And this is all that hee meaneth heere Twice in this very place besides Eusebius vseth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in this same construction and sense Both immediatly before the wordes in question and immediatly after Before thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to Egypt or vnto Egypt After thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to Rome or vnto Rome not in Rome nor in Egypt Wherefore so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifyeth likewise in this place which we have in hand seing it runneth in one coÌ„text together with the former and is all one manner of phrase Besides Eusebius straight after alleaging Philo concerning this same people whom Marke converted saith that he spake 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the Churches about in the Countrey and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 about Alexandria not in Alexandria Last of all Eusebius vttereth this as he doth the next foregoing clause likewise with this terme 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they say or some report By which and the like termes he vseth to relate vncertain and apocryphall things yea sometimes fabulous and vntrue For Eusebius is not precise in setting down all his matters chiefly those which he hath only vpon rumour and report And where hee seemeth to require credit in deed hee is not sparing to name his authors as Egesippus Clemens Dionysius and such other Wherefore divers wayes D. Downames presumptuous assertion and which he doth so boast of that Marke instituted many Churches in AlexaÌ„dria waÌ„teth
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
Spirituall or sole government Ecclesiasticall yea though over but one Congregation Much more him who exerciseth such spirituall Lordship over a great many CoÌ„gregations Also What is Sole authoritie Spirituall in our sense sole authoritie Spirituall and sole governement Ecclesiasticall we call that which is exercised without the Christian peoples free consent D. Downame laboureth with divers vaine shifts to defend the English L. Bishops herein He can not abide that it should bee saide of them that they exercise “ Def. 1.58.47.43 sole authoritie or sole government Yea in many places hee * Def 3 118.11â—.126.142 sheweth indignation that such wronge should be done them in beeing so reported of But it is strange Are they ashamed to heare of that which they cease not to practise and maintaine every day and that in the sight of the world yea each of them over divers hundreds of Congregations For the people with vs no where enioy any free consent But the D. saith “ Def. 1.43.44 The Bishop hath the Archbishop above him Yea but who is above our 2. Archbishops spiritually No body Againe he saith Provinciall Synods are above the Bishop Idly spoken Is the Diocesan Synod above their owne Bishop Or is the Provinciall Synod above their Archbishop Surely no more then the Vniversall Councill is above the Pope Which is cleane contrarie Now this is it which hee should have affirmed buthe durst not He shifteth further saying “ Pag. 44. Do we not all with one consent acknowledge the Kings Maiestie to have the Supreme authoritie in causes Ecclesiasticall Yea verily wee do But that is Civilly as “ Reas. for ref p. 62. â—â— els-where I have shewed Hee hath no authoritie in causes Ecclesiasticall Spiritually that is his authoritie properly maketh no Church Minister nor Excommunicateth any person Which I suppose your selves do hold even as we do But this is the point in England the Archb. is Spiritually Supreme or hath Supreme authority spiritual in his Province I say thus he is Supreme sole viz. spiritually Wherfore the Doct. Ignorantia Elenchi grosly sophisticateth in shifting from the poâ—â—t in hand to an other matter Where hee speaketh of “ Def. 1. p. 43 Chancellors adioyned to the Bishops and of Presbyters consent with him that †Pag. 42. Presbyters have power to rule their flocke in publike Ministerie and in privat attendance that some of them have voyces in Synods c. I wot not what all this is Sure I am it is as idle as the rest For so much at least is seene in the Popish Church where yet is founde spirituall Lordship sole governement in their Bishops yea oppression violence tyrannie also over the peoples consciences as we well know So that the “ Pag. 43. Supreme and lowdest by and †Pag. 47. the plainely which hee giveth to vs hee ought to take to him selfe Another shift of the Doct. is where because the Hebrew Adoni the Greeke 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Latin Dominus may be given to Bishops therefore “ Def. 3.147 he would conclude that in English they may be called Lords D. Bilson reasoneth †Perp gov pag. 58. 59. so likewise and that very largely He would prove the same also from the Duch terme Here from the French Monsieur c. But I deny this reason absolutly For heerein there is no consequence Our English terme Lord and Lordship doth alwayes imply Sole government but none of those forraigne termes doth so alwayes Wherefore such reasoning is Equivocating also * Ioh. 13.13 1. Cor. 8.6 12.5 2. Cor. 1.24 Againe Christ only is our Lord in respect of Spirituall Lordship he only is to bee called a Spirituall Lord. But our Bishops are Lords and are so called with vs in respect as they bee Spirituall Lordes as the Doctor “ Def. 3.150 observeth well Wherefore our Bishops Lordship is vnlawfull and derogatorie to Christ Doct. Bilson saith further †Perp. gov pag. 62. If we sticke at titles Christ calleth them Gods Lo how nothing satisfyeth these men Would he have Bishops called by the name of Gods also But I would know of him where doth Christ call them Gods Surely it is but his fancie They are in deed so called no where D. Downame presseth that Bishops are called “ Def. 3.146.150 Angells which is a more honor able title then Lord. And therefore that Bishops may bee called Lords I deny that the name Angell is so honorable a title as a Spirituall Lord which is given to our Bishops This is proper to Christ only as before is said the name Angell is not And so his reason is false Againe though the name Angell be given to Bishops sometime and in one respect yet it is very false to say they may lawfully be stiled and called by the dayly appellation of Angells or that they may ordinarilie vse that title as they do the title name of Lord. Againe the name of Lord is given them as importing their sole governement as before is said But the name Angell importeth not so much neither is it given to any Creature in such respect Therfore from the name of Angell the title of Lorde followeth not Indeed the name of Angell is given to Bishops because they are Gods messengers to shew vs his will not in respect of their governement at all though the Doct. presumeth so to say without “ An Allegorie is no proofe proofe Lastly hee knoweth that all Preachers are in the word called Angells or Messengers but for all Preachers to be called in English Lords or your Lordship surely it would be a very arrogant thing And though hee “ Def. 1.34.46 alleage that the Angel of the church of Ephesus in Rev. 2.1 be one and but one before many Ministers yet neither doth this importe any Lordship in him either in name or practise neither is this precedence or praeeminence signifyed by the word Angel but it is gathered by coÌ„paring this word with the knowen circumstances of those times Further he alleageth that “ Def. 3.152 Princes are called Pastors and for the same cause are Lords Wherein there is no truth nor indeed any good sense The like is that where hee addeth the title of Father is as great as Lord. Nay the name of Father is amiable but Lords may and also they vse to force and compell Neither did the Pope at first take the name of Father peculiarly to him selfe to note thereby any Lordship as his due but to deceave the world by his pretended love over all wherein he desired to seeme a commoÌ„ Father In another * Def. 4.71.72 place he teacheth that Bishops in the New Testament were called Apostles VpoÌ„ which grouÌ„d he “ Def. 3 15â— would conclude that therefore the name of Lord is lawfull for them I answer The name of Apostle and also of Bishop may be vsed sometime
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
the present Church-state in England even in the substantiall points of governement therein are cleane frustrat Neither is the same Apostolicall neither hath it Vniversall nor perpetuall nor indeed any old approbation among Christians as they colourably pretend But it is proved to bee novell A proper Diocesan church is novell and meerely of the wit and will of men and that after the time of Antichrists rising The contrary obiectons of our adversaries I will heere observe D. Doves 3. falsifications of Euseb as neere as I can First that which D. Downame borrowed of D. Dove viz. that Marke constituted a Diocesan Church in Alexandria But this I have shewed “ Pag. 90 91. before to bee a meere forgerie of these two D. D. grounded vpon a false translation of their author Eusebius And heere I can not but remember a second and a third like falsifying of Eusebius by D. Dove in his Defence The former of these is pag. 13. where he saith Eusebius wordes be these †Euseb lib 3.4 Timothie was the first Bishop of the whole Precinct of Ephesus in as ample maner as Titus of all the Churches of Crete Eusebius saith not that Timothie was but hee saith it is reported that Timothie was the first Bishop of Ephesus as Titus of the Churches of Crete Againe Eusebius saith not of the whole precinct of Ephesus nor in as ample maner There are no such words in Eusebius This is no translating but perverting an Author Thirly that which Eusebius hath indeed viz. Timothie was said to have ben Bishop of the Parish in Ephesus this he rendreth not but perverteth For in Ephesus is not without the City much lesse the whole precinct of Ephesus containing the large Country adioyning Yea that the Church in Ephesus was but a Parish then Ignatius sheweth writing to the whole Church of Ephesus saying to them “ Iâ—nat aâ— Ephes. When you come oft togeather into the same place c. Therfore the whole then did come togeather in one place And it is not only false but absurd to say that the like may be spoken now of the †Can they all come togeather in one place Diocesan Church of London Thus therefore Eusebius is perverted twise by D. Dove His 3. falsifying of him is where Eusebius saith of Iohn the Apostle in a certain City “ Euseb lib. 3.23 Graec. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 having refreshed the Brethâ—en and looked on the Bishop that was set over al the said brethren of that place hee committed a yong man to him But the D. setteth it down thus Iohn the Apostle coÌ„mitted the charge of a yong man to a Bishop †Pag. 15. 18. qui super cunstâ—s Episcopos erat constitutuâ— which was set over all the rest of the Bishops thereabout As if then there had ben an Archbishop or a Bishop over Bishops So saith this Doctor as out of Eusebius But he abuseth his author Eusebius hath not such a word And yet D. Downame also “ Def. 4.112 alleageth the same place though he cunningly forbeareth to mention the words Doct. Downame further presseth Eusebius in that hee saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it is reported that Titus was Bishop of the Churches of Crete As also Perpet govern pag. 233. He translateth it is recorded in Histories But he can not make that good in this place For the word signifyeth any relation or narration or report of a matter And Eusebius vseth alwayes to name his author at ful to set downe the words when hee groundeth vpon any written historie So hee citeth very often Egesippus Clemens Dionysius Tertullian c. Wherefore questionâ—es heere he meaneth some other report or tradition and speach of meÌ„ I know not whom And in setting downe such matters he is nothing curious many times as “ Pag. 91. 92. before I have signifyed Not seldom he reporteth fabulous things yea wheÌ„ he nameth his author Eusebius of no absolut credit as is wel knowen And yet he is all the warrant and ground which any writer hath either young or old for Tius his being Bishop of Crete Theodoret Epiphanius Chrysostomus Ierome c. Dorotheus Synops is not worth the naming have al their inducement so to thinke from hence All these also them selves were great Prelates or lovers of Prelates and therefore wee may holde them partiall in setting downe and receaving such reportes What wisedom then is in Do. Downame to say it is an vncharitable and vnlearned part yea intolerable impudencie to deny credit to such authorities It is rather intolerable impietie and plaine idolatrie to set vp these and such like for rules of our faith and warrants to our conscience as the D. laboureth to do in this cause Howbeit further Eusebius saith not that Titus was said to be Bishop of Crete but only so as Timothie was Bishop of Ephesus Where he seemeth to meane that both of theÌ„ were then thought to bee not proper Bishops but in the generall sense and vnderstanding of the word Bishop And so he seemeth to meane also that Marke was said to be Bish of AlexaÌ„dria whom yet he nameth an Apostle and Evangelist Iames an Apostle in deed Bishop of Ierusalem I say in a generall sense but not Bishops properly And so truly the other Fathers after Eusebius do seeme to meane and we accord thus with them Otherwise we must needes deny credit to them heerein viz. if Eusebius c. say these were proper Bishops For it is not possible that they could bee so seeing they were both Superior and also Divinely distinguished from proper Bishops as anon we shall see further where further occasion will be given vs to answer D. Downame about Timothie Titus Bishoprikes Againe “ Def. 2.23 and 116. D. Downame citeth out of Councill Carthage 3. and Ephes 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from the beginning and even from the Apostles as †Perpet gov pag. 324. Doct. Bilson before him avoucheth But both of theÌ„ wrest the Councilles For they say not so only they say that Dioceses should remaine such as they were from the beginning that is ever since Dioceses were appointed Not from the beginning simply but from the beginning of Dioceses which though it were loÌ„g before these Councills yet as I iudge it was not before “ About the yeare 260. See before pag. 92.93 Dionysius Bishop of Rome And touching the Apostles the Ephesin Council speaketh of the Apostles Canons Beeing strangely deceaved in attributing them to the Apostles as any one may perceave if hee see the Can. 4.5.8.17 18.27.47.49.65 68 84.25 Wherefore they are falslie fathered on the Apostles beeing but base and bastardly stuffe in respect of them And yet they intende no “ See before pag. 88. 97. 98. proper Diocesan Church viz. like ours in England Neither were these Canons before Constantines age So that our D. D. do argue from hence very vnworthily But D.
Down “ Def. 2.106 boasteth much that Ignatius calleth him selfe “ Ignat. epâ—ad Rom. Bishop of Syria Why What then Ignatius heere sheweth his Nation not the extent of his Bishoprike He sheweth hee was a Bishop of Syria or a Syrian Bishop not the Bishop of all Syria Likewise to the “ Ad Magnes Magnesians that his Church was a most famous notable Church in Syria not the only Church there much lesse extended over all Syria Neither was Philip Archbishop of Crete as the Doctor †Defenc 4.8 and 2.125 would make him seeme by perverting and abusing Eusebius againe For his words “ Euse â— â—3 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 their Bishop are to bee referred to the Church of Gortyna mentioned a little before Not to the very next wordes which are to be vnderstood by themselves as it were in a parenthesis thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 together with the rest of the Churches in Crete To take Eusebius thus is the right taking of him heere For presently him selfe openeth him selfe saying it was the Church of Gortyna which was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vnder him Vnder Philip And yet more plainly after where with speciall respect to the former place in question he saith of this Philip †Cap. 23. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whoÌ„ we know by Dionysius iâ—ordes to have ben Bishop of the Parish in Gortyna So then hee was not Bishop of all Creete by Eusebius testifying The Doc. in another place contradicteth him selfe and maketh Pinytus at this very time to be Bishop of “ Def. 4.9 Candie that is of all Crete as he meaneth In deed Eusebius saith that this Pinytus was †Euseb 4.21 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Bishop of them in Crete But all men vnderstand that hee meaneth heere to shew but his Nation not the extent of his Bishoprike For Eusebius declaresh “ Cap. 23. after that Pinytus was Gnossitaâ—â— paraciae Episcopus the Bishop of the parish in Gnossi Which certainly was not Over all Crete neither was Gnosiâ— the mother City of Crete That which the Doctor †Def. 2.93.100 presumeth of Evaristus Bishop of Rome that he there constituted a Diocesan Church and divided parishes I have answered it †Pag. 93. 94. before His testimonies out of Tertullian Cornelius of Rome and Cyprian for a Diocesan Church proove nothing Touching the “ Def. 2.97.98 first Tertullian saith not that in Rome or in any Citie then the Christians were divided into many set constant and certain companies Tertallian and so had divers such ordinarie assemblies Tertullian saith no such matter which yet is the point Indeed like a Rhetorician hee amplifieth the multitude of Christians and Christianlie affected in his dayes and that is all that he doeth Apol 37. and ad Scapul They are in truth Rhetoricall amplifications Yet I say In the Roman Empire he compreheÌ„deth in these great nombers all Christianly affected and all their favourers not only the open members of the Church Cootiarily hee saith they were one singular Cetus aggregatio Def. 2. Now such may be so many as hee there noteth Nothing of all this we deny But hee sheweth not that yet in any Citie the open resolut Christians were divided into divers ordinary set companies as I said The like do I answer to †Pag. 9â— that of the very great and innumerable people vnder Cornelius Bishop of Rome They were so many that no man among them knew the first nomber of them And so I suppose at this day the church is in Paris in Rouan c. Where yet the Church is not divided into several constant and set Meetings but all belong only to one certaine constant assembly Againe vnder Cornelius the Christian people were not so many but one Trophimus a Presbyter drew away from him “ Cypr. epist 4.2 the greater part of them after Novatian repenting he brought them backe with him againe Also the Church assembled in one place to elect * Cypr. Epi. 3.13 and 4. Cornelius and a little before “ Euseb 6.22 Fabianus to bee their Bishop Wherefore they were not absolutly innumerable But this is plaine and it can not be disprooved that yet the Church in Rome had not divers set constant ordinarie assemblies Nor yet Cyprians Church in Carthage Anno 250. All the which came togeather for “ See pag. 55.56.57.58 his election and vnder him also for all ordinarie Church busines The Do. saith vntruly of him that †Def. 2.40 he was Bishop of Afrike Nazianzen doth make him Bishop Hesperiae Vniversae of all Spaine at least as well as of Afrike And Prudentius goeth further saith he †De Passiâ—â—â— Cypr. Vsque in ortum Solis vsque obitum from the rising of the Sunne to the going downe thereof But doth any man beleeve that Cypriâ—â—s Bishoprike was so large or that these Authors meant so Nothing lesse They meant only that the example of this holy man and his doctrine did good thus far I graunt also that by his letters he admonished and informed divers other Bishops neare about Carthage and so hee did Cornelius of Rome c. But this was out of his singular zeale for the truth and love to his brethren Also hee prevayled much in so doing Howbeit this was through his great credit reverence they had of him it was not out of any Metropolitan power that hee had or superior office which he exercised over theÌ„ For he had none such though he were a Metropolitan in respect of the place where hee was Bishop And altogeather “ Defen 4 8â— so did Policrates of Ephesus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hee lead or guided the Asian Bishops And no otherwise †Def. 2.115 Irenaeus B. of Lions 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 did looke vnto certaine Churches thereabout in France And Victor B. of Rome was a Metropolitan no otherwise also Although without any preiudice to vs wee might well grant these to have bene then such Metropolitans Diocesans †viz. with Prioritie of order not Maioritie of power as before we acknowledged Iulianus of Alexandria to have ben who was somwhat ancienter then they Other Diocesan or MetropolitaÌ„ Bishops after these whom both D. Downame and D. Bilson do name pleÌ„tifully as they hurt not our maine Assertion viz. that no proper Diocesan Church was in the world before 200. yeares after Christ so neither do wee envie their appearing which was “ See pag. 88. 94. c. so late as it was These D. D. do argue earnestly from Ierom saying that * Ierom. ad â—vagr Bishops above Presbyters were at Alexandria even from Marke the Evangelist Which we willingly agree vnto For they were not Diocesan Bishops not over many ordinarie Congregations And such also were those Angells of the Churches which are mentioned in the “ Rev. 2.1 Revelation This wee constantly avouch
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
and princelike Prelacie which this Doctor hunteth after though in many places of his booke hee dissembleth and would not have them called Sole governors Heere hee plainly sheweth that he holdeth the Bishops may take the peoples consent and Presbyters advise if they like it if not then they may neverthelesse proceed and not stand vpon it as Princes may doe in Common wealths Truly all found writers ever have held this in Church-governement to be right “ See our Attestators pag. 23. 25. 26. 27. 29. 31. 32. 33. 35. 36. 37. 42. 45. tyrannicall wronghfull oppression of Christian Mens consciences And yet as I have oft said we grant the sway of the Ecclesiasticall governement to be indeed in the Bishop ordinarily but not absolutly The consequence of his * Pag. 83. next PropositioÌ„ I deny also viz. The things written to informe not Timothie Titus alone as extraordinarie persons but them their Successors to the end of the world were written to informe Diocesan Bishops They were not Diocesan Bishops are no Successors of Timothie and Titus nor intended by the Apostle They came after by reason of that apostasie which through Gods determinat counsaill was to come over Christendome Without which going before Antichrist could not have stood vp Hee addeth “ Pag. 84. the authoritie committed to Tim. and Tit is perpetually necessary It is true Materially not formaly as before is said Beside Tim. Tit. themselves had not the authoritie which Diocesan Bâ—shops have It was far lesse Therefore these are not their Successors Where hee would prove it first disjunctively †Pag. 86. Either they or the Presbyteries or the Congregation were their Successors I answere this disjunction is vnsufficient Hee reckoneth not Pastors or Bishops of one ordinary Congregation only They were the immediate Successors of Timothie Titus speaking of such a successioÌ„ as they had and might have being Evangelists About 200. yeares after Christ Titular Diocesans succeded them After 300. yeares These improperly succeeded viz. in place not in Office Diocesans with Maioritie of power and rule succeeded After them long came the proper and compleat Diocesan Prelats the Diocesan Lord Bishops of whom our question is indeed But among all these whosoever was a Bishop really of mo ordinary Congregations then one therein he succeeded not Timothie nor Titus nor any Aposâ—le Who never intended any such ordinary Successors And succession in place with dissent in doctrine is a false successioÌ„ Beside a Presbyterie did “ Act. 20 17.28 preceed Timothie in Ephesus Therefore they may lawfully succeed as they do now in the Dutch and French reformed Churches The people also have in act succeeded lawfully at somtimes as the D. himselfe †Pag. 99. knoweth and therefore so they may againe on occasion Then hee would “ Pag. 86. 87. name Bishops that succeeded Timothiâ— and Titus Meaneth he proper Diocesan L. Bishops If he doe not hee trifleth But who are they First the Angell of Ephesus and Onesimus Nay these were Bishops only of one ordinary Congregation and that within the City Ephesus as “ Pag. 206. 227. before I have noted That Policrates and Philip of Gortyna in Crete were such also I have shewed †Pag. 235. 231. before as also the Doct. falshood about Philip. Where hee saith “ Pag. 87. Every Metropolitan is a Diocesan it is vntrue The first Bishops were Metropolitans that is Bishops in Mother-cities yet they were not Diocesan Bishops viz. over mo ordinary CoÌ„gregations then one He saith hee readeth not any where of the next Successor to Titus indeed hee readeth of no proper Successor to Titus at all nor to Tim. c. Ordinary Pastors of Congregations succeeded these extraordinarie men as they also succeeded the Apostles viz. improperly not in their whole and proper Offices Our D. following D. Dove would prove that Timothie Titus had “ Pag 89. their ordinary residence in Ephesus in Crete because one was willed †1. Tim 1. â—◠〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to abide at Ephesus Tit. 1.5 the other 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to redresse further the things which hee fouÌ„d there amisse It is true for a time each of them was so resident But not alwayes nor till they dyed For not long after Timothie was †2. Tim. 4.9 called away and Tychicus an other Evangelist was sent to “ Eph. 6 2â— Ephesus in his roome When if Timothie had bene there still it seemeth there had ben no need of Tychicus neither would Paul have left him vnsaluted and vnnamed in that epistle to the Ephesians Also the Apostle †Philip. 2 1â— intended that Timothie being come from Ephesus should vndertake the charge of Philipps Therfore he was now loose and free from Ephesus Writers also say that Iohn the Apostle afterward was at Ephesus doing a Bishoply office when surely Timothie was not Bishop there yet as may be thought he was then living Our D. addeth that Bishops other Pastors may be absent froÌ„ their cures vpon speciall and extraordinary occasion It is vntrue they may not Now residenâ—â— All religion and pietie forbiddeth it vnles it bee with their Churches expresse consent Which Timothie heere had not The Apostle as hee alone placed him at Ephesus so he alone without the Church called him away You will say and he alone might doe so True the Apostle alone might doe so with Evangelists but hee might not with Bishops and Pastors These were more in their Churches power then so Neither indeed had it ben “ Pag. 93. a matter of good report nor of good example as his refuter saith well if Timothie being the Ephesians proper Bishop had without their speciall grant gone from them chiefly so long time and so far of and to take charge of another place Neither verely had Paul any need so to take away a proper Pastor from his flocke The same likewise is to bee said of Titus his departure from Crete first to Rome then to Dalmatia But hee will prove that “ Pag. 91. they lived and dyed in Ephesus and Crete If they did yet it followeth not that therfore they were Bishops there nor yet that they had ordinary resideÌ„ce there all their life time It might happen that travayling to fro they might in the end of their dayes dy there For somwhere they must dy And yet they are not therefore Bishops of that place neither had they therefore ordinary residence there till their end But who saith they dyed there Som whose testimonies whosoever refuse to beleeve do themselves deserve no credit Yea are they so infallible Who are they Dorotheus in Synopis and on his word som other he knowes not well who TheÌ„ all this matter standeth on this Dorotheus whose credit “ Pag. 104. him self feareth Indeed iustly for hee is the most egregious fabler that ever writ Dorotheus a fabler Heere I wish it may
be noted that the Doct. seemeth to take delight to abuse the people with bastard writings fabulous false and apocryphall stuffe which he vseth as his familiar friends and witnesses very often as the Epistles of Clemens and Anacletus Dionysius Areopagita the Canons of the Apostles Bastard writingâ— Dionysius Areopagita the Canons of the Apostles the Subscriptions of the Apostles Epistles this Dorotheus from whom the other witnesses heere by him cited do take this report Therefore in this it is not necessarie to credit them any more theÌ„ him Further to these the like reasons of ours If Timothie and Titus who first were EvaÌ„gelists did become proper Bishops afterward then men may coÌ„ioyne things which God hath severed yea limit depresse them whose Ministrie God hath made generall vnlimited and superior Hee answereth “ Pag â—â— these are nice points which none of the Fathers did ever vnderstand Certes wee have a grosse Doctor who maketh nice to sever those whom God hath severed Evangelists and Bishops or Pastors are so plainly severed by God made divers †Ephe. 4.11 â— Cor. 12.28 persons that nothing can be more plaine Where also it is as cleeâ—e that Evangelists are by God made Superior in the Church and Bishops or Pastors inferior whom hee maketh cleane contrary Hee excepteth against 1. Cor. 12.28 because Evangelists “ Pag. 95. are not mentioned there Yet there it appeareth that all Church-ministeries are severed by God of which Evangelists are one as in the Ephe 4 11. appeareth By comparing these textes togeather So that also even from 1. Cor. 12.18 Evangelists distinction from Bishops and their Superioritie to them is proved well enough Himself graÌ„teth Evangelists to be extraordinary generall and vnlimited Ministers and that Timothie and Titâ—â— were such Which is the truth But this is false when they †Pag. 94. betooke them 〈◊〉 certaine Churches that they were appropriated and limited to them Wherefore neither were they proper Bishops of them Againe The D. can not leave his equivocating any more them 〈◊〉 Black-amore can change his skin For though vulgarly sometime an Evangelist is vnderstood to bee a writer of the Gospell yet the Apostle vnderstandeth not so Ephes 4.11 But heere they are vnlimited Companions and Coadiutors to the Apostles An Evangelist In this sense and so we also doe meane Matâ—hew Iohn neither were nor could bee Evangelists nor Marke a Bishop Whosoever saith otherwise they plain â—y contradict the Apostle But he pretendeth that the ancient Fathers held that Evangelistes and Apostles also might bee Bishops See “ Pag. 222. 223. Vnreverent behavior toward Antiquitâ—e before what a frivolous reason this is Also see how vnreverent hee is to Antiquitie whom hee pretendeth devoutly to honor Hee will have them indeed to seeme fighters with God and resisters of the plaine letter of the text rather then defend them as we doe with an honest excuse It is honest to say they called EvaÌ„gelists Apostles Bishops in a generall sense or if they did not well heerein yet that they did it in not sifting nor much minding that which nowe with vs is a maine questioÌ„ therefore is ought to be more exactly considered nowe But to say of them either that they deny Temoth Titus were Evangelists or that they deny Evangelistes were by God made severall from Bishops or that those were superior to these or that those were extraordinary and general Ministers or to say they hold the Apostles did and could make them being such to become ordinary Ministers limited to one Church and one with Bishops and that they hold this out of consideration and due sifting the matter I say thus to affirme of the Fathers as the D. doth is to make them resist the plaine letter of the text and to fight with God Yet he for his part boldly saith or rather shamelesly that “ Pag. 95. it was no debasing to Timothie Titus wheÌ„ they were made Bishops but an advancemeÌ„t Albeit he knoweth the text above noted viz. Eph. 4.11 maketh a Bishop or Pastor inferior to an Evangelist And prove it hee would 1. †Pag. â—6 Timothie receaved a neâ—e “ 1. Tim. 4.14 2. Tim. 1.6 Ordination and so more authoritie This is vtterly vntrue Hee receaved no newe Ordination This was only when he was taken by the Apostle to be an Evangelist And after this hee never receaved more authoritie Heâ— addeth were men admitted to the extraordinary function of Evangelists by the ordinary meanes of imposing hands I answere Yeaâ— som Evangelists might be like as som Apostles viz. Paul Barnabas whose functions verily were extraordinary were “ Act. 13.3 so admitted Then saith hee may we thinke that any but the Apostles haâ— that authoritie wheresoever they came which Timothie had at Ephesus Titus in Creteâ—l answere yea questionles Evangelists had wheresoever they came specially in the absense of an Apostle He obiecteth Philip the Evangelist had †Act. 8.14.17 not authoritie to impose hands I answere though heere he follow “ Perpe gov pag 83.84 D. Bilson yet both do misse the purpose This imposition of hands heere is an other thing it was to give the miraculous gift of toungs It was not to ordaine to the ministerie Happily it was to furnish men for the ministerie afterwarde but this made them not Ministers Indeed only the Apostles could by laying on of hands give the gift of toungs and the gift of prophesie but in the Apostles absense others as Evangelists c. might lay on hands to ordaine Ministers Wherefore this is to rove fare from the point The rest is answered “ Declarâ—â— pag. 29. elswhere viz. Paul spake not in the generall improper sense wherof there is noe reason nor cause but properly where he willeth Timothie after he was at Ephesus to do the worke of an †2. Tim. 4.5 Evangelist The Fathers “ Pag 244. before are answered to whom Zuinglius also heere may be adioyned He would seeme to bring new matter but it is his olde stuffe viz. that “ Pag. 98. Timothies and Titus function in Ephesus Crete was not to end with their peâ—soâ—s but to be coÌ„tinued to their Successors It is answered †Pag 243. before That is Materially it ended not but formally it ended with their persons It continued to their Successors but vnder an other forme of ministerie viz of proper Bishops Which also I noted in my Declarat pag 30. Hee saith their “ Pag. 100. Apostles were so assigned somtime Act. 8.14 being assigned to Ephesus and Crete was an ordinary function I deny it as touching them Hee hath not a word to prove it Hee saith in Timothie and Titus as Evangelists †Pag. 101. nothing was extraordinary but their not limitation to any certain Churches Which is vntrue their calling to the ministrie was not ordinary It was without the peoples
voice-giving which was then ordinary in Pastors calling Timothie I say came not to Ephesus by the peoples election nor Titus to Creet Paul only authorised them to that Ministrie Therfore their calling or sending thither was also extraordinary And Tâ—mothie attained giftes by extraordinary meanes viz by the Apostles miraculous laying on of hands though the D. deny it Then he addeth 3. other errors 1. The power of ordination and iurisdiction was wholy in Timothie and 〈◊〉 Titus Our Attestators “ Above pa. 23 26 36 38.4â— disprove thâ—â— 2. The function may bee the very sam where one person governeth the church wholy and alone where thâ— people do necessarily coÌ„cur with him Though his wordes bee not these yet his sense is cleerly so And all the next page hee beateth vpon the same Fearfully affirming that the difference “ Pag. 102. seemeth not to bee so essentiall Though he hold so yet see howe hee faltereth 3. Where he addeth the title or calling to a Church seemeth to be variable Which are all grosse vntruths coâ—uted in my †Pag 12 at 34 35. 38 c Declarat the 3. runneth amoÌ„g those evill opinions heere “ Pag. 133.134 before censured That which he addeth as it were a proofe for him the Iewes Church governors came to their places †Pag 103. by succession and lineall discent but in the Churches of Christ by free electioÌ„ is absolutly against â—imselfe For neither of these titles or coming to the Church-governement had bene lawfull by any meanes but because God so ordayned And it being so ordained by God in his word it was theÌ„ absolutly vnchangeable by men as in the Lawe so likewise vnder the Gospel which is the Law of Christ Where he saith the Apostles committed not the power of ordination and iurisdiction to all Ministers I answer they did as I have “ Declarar pag 25. elswhere shewed Their committing it to †Pag 104. Timothie c. denyeth it not to the other Presbyters in the several Churches neither doth the Angells power in the RevelatioÌ„ 2. exclude the ioint power of his fellow presbyters with him nor yet the peoples free concurrence with them all His last reason is If while the Apostles lived it was behoofull to substitute Bishops in the Churches then much more after their decease But the former is evident Therfore the later also This I wholy grant we mislike not Bishops In the end he falleth to the authoritie of those bastard “ Pag. 105. subscriptions namely of the epistles to Tim. and Titus Touching the which I referre him to Mr. Cudworth in his Supplement to Mr. Perkins on the * At the end of chap. 6. Galatians Where he shall finde them to be of no “ Pag. 106. greater antiquitie nor better credit then such counterfait drosse may be The †Pag. 107. testimonies of the Fathers which follow “ Pag. 244.259 have ben sufficiently answered Nowe I will gather briefly our Proofes that Timoth. or Titus were not proper Bishops Proofes that Timothie c. was no Bishop They are 8. in nomber First the H. Ghost made †Ephe. 4.11 Evangelists and Bishops or Pastors distinct persons Therefore the Apostles could not make them one And consequently Timothie and Titus being Evangelists as is known neither were nor could be made proper Bishops Sec An EvaÌ„gelist had an Office “ Ibid. superior extraordinarie temporarie and vnlimited a Bishop was inferior ordinarie perpetuall and limited to one Church Now these qualities are incoÌ„patible they can neither bee togeather nor successively in one person Therefore Timothie and Titus Evangelistes neither were nor could bee proper Bishops at any time Thirdly After Timothie had bene at Ephesus hee was an Evangelist 2. Tim. 4.5 For Paul chargeth him so to bee and cary himselfe Neither is there cause nor reason why Paul here should speake improperly and generally Therfore he spake properly “ See pag. 240. he was still a proper Evangelist and consequently not a proper Bishop And so likewise Titus Fourt Timothies Ministie at Ephesus extended to other distinct and intire Churches viz. to Smyrna to Sardis to Pergamus to Colossi to Hierapolis to Laodicea c. and not to the Church in Ephesus only But the Bishop of Ephesus ministrie was limited and appropriated to the Church in Ephesus only as also of Smyrna to Smyrna of Sardis to Sardis c. As the Angells in Rev. 2. do shew Therefore Timothie was not properly the Bishop of Ephesus And then neither Titus of Crete Fift Timothie was thesame no other at Ephesus then hee was at Philippi and Corinth at Athens and Thessalonica in Phrygia Galatia Mysia Troas But in these bee was no proper Bishop of any place Therefore neither was hee a proper Bishop at Ephesus So likewise * Declarat Pag. 29.30.6 Titus in Crete Sixt proper Bishops in those dayes were not called without the coâ—â—ent and voyces of their Church as before “ Pag. 164.251 hath bene shewed But Titus came to Crete and Timothie into Asia only by the Apostle Pauls sending vtterly without the peoples calling to whom they ministred in all those Churches Therefore Titus in Crete Timothie in Ephesus were no Bishops SeaveÌ„th If Titus were a proper Bishop in Crete then many distinct and intire Churches were not committed to him but only one But to Titus in Crete many distinct intire Churches were committed and not one only Therefore Titus in Crete was no proper Bishop The Assumption is plaine because hee had many “ Tit. 1.5 Cities in his charge And every City had a distinct and intire Church for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 †Act. 14.23 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 In every City in every Church do signifie all one thing And Eusebius “ Euse 4.22 maketh them so likewise But every proper Bishop is limited and appropriated to one Church only The D. saith assigned But that word is to loose Indeed a Bishop is limited appropriated as it were confined to one Church D. Bilson saith †Perpet gov pag 227. 232. affixed Therefore Titus was no Bishop nor Timothie neither Lastly Whatsoever reason maketh Titus Timothie Provinciall Bishops in Crete and in Asia the same serveth to make Paul or Peter Vniversall Bishops and to have Vniversal Bishops their Successors at Rome But no reason is sufficient to make Paul or Peter Vniversall ordinary Bishops of Rome nor that they should have Vniversall Bishops their Successors Therefore no reason sufficient to make Titus in Crete or Timothie at Ephesus Provinciall Bishops And so much of Timothie and Titus that they were indeed no proper Bishops which point yet Doct. Bilson “ See before pag. 241. confesseth to be their only holde After this let vs now shew how D. Downame grosly †Def. 2 14â— abuseth Calvin and Beza affiâ—ming that they ioyne with the Bishops
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
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
Luther Bucer P. Martyr Viret Calvin Beza Danaeus Vrsinees Gualter c. And not the later only but the elder Christians also For all these we have seene do consent with vs in our profession And it is a slander that in Geneva or any where els the reformed Churches do substantially differ from our iudgement As may be seene through out the 3. 4. Chapters before If any thing dissonaÌ„t from those testim may now be found in some of these Churches which I will not deny then it cometh to passe with theÌ„ as with goodly and faire Houses A Similitude which being inhabited by men will neede sweeping very oft If they bee not swept cleaned they will soone become foule And so truly it may be in some of the Churches before named Which can be no preiudice to vs who seeing transgression creepe in do wish all men and even them also ad originem reverti Cyprian cont Epist StephaÌ„ De Vnit. Eccles. to returne to the originall and first Plantation both of them selves in particular and specially of all Churches at the first In the which only there is safetie As for this intemperat Doctors rayling wordes in calling this our doctrine “ Def. 1.41 4.80.99 Brownisticall Anabaptisticall †Def. 3.142 4.81 fanaticall fantasticall dotage phrensie c. We will beare it knowing as Cyprian said of some such in his dayes “ Cyprian Epist 4.2 Non possunt laudare nos qui recedunt à nobis We must looke for hatefull and â—â—â—lent wordes from them that fall from vs. Yet in the meane whyle let him know also that in this he reprocheth not so much vs as those pillars of the truth and lights of the Gospell before named zuinglius Luther Bucer Martyr Viret Calvin and the rest of whom we have directly receaved this doctrine and profession These are our Maisters heerein as in the beginning I said Our Do. obiecteth often that these are partiall that this is their owne cause And that as well we might cite “ Def. 4.30 Mai. Cartwright and Mai. Travers as some of these Yea hee will have Ierome also to be †Def. 4.137 partiall Yet we frankly acknowledge Ierome to be theirs touching the lawfulnes of Dioces Ierome not ours simply Bishops Although he and many other of the Fathers beside are with vs in this that Diocesan Bishops are not Apostolicall but Humane And this verily they teach far from partialitie Partiall they may be for the said Prelacie not against it And the truth is they were notoriously partiall for it it was indeed their owne cause Who are partiall They may be partial are wont so to be counted who are likely to get by their opinion some temporall commoditie not they who loose by it Now the Fathers Cui bono CassianuÌ„ erotema specially vnder Constantine after by approoving Diocesan Prelacie got great honor power and rule among the people and wealth and pleasure what they desired Which by opposing against it they should have lost WheÌ„ce certainly it is that D. Downame might as well cite B. Whitgift B. Bancroft and B. Bilson for his authors as some of those ancientes viz. as wel as B. Eusebius B. Epiphanius B. Theodoret B. Damasus B. Leo B. Chrysostom c. Who questionles in this point were very partiall And no les if not more may be thought of some of those Diocesan L. Bishops who began our Church reformation in England They by proceeding no further did get much temporall commoditie which by setting the Church state neerer to the forme Apostolike they must needes have lost And so they though otherwise as likewise those Ancientes were good and godly Fathers yet they were meÌ„ and might easily be partiall in this Good and godly Fathers yeâ— Men. Which and more wee may thinke of many of our Diocesan Lord Bishops since Most of all of D. Downame himselfe who besides these temporall hopes beeing a Diocesan L. Bishops fonne had neede of much grace I coÌ„fesse to cause him to degenerat But I pray then hath he done wisely to obiect as hee doth every foot against those singular instrumentes and very effectuall reformers our Attestators others like them that they were partiall and that this was their owne cause Indeed they were partiall that is they tooke part throughly with the sinceritie of the Gospell and stood against all Papall and Pontificall over-ruling of Gods people spiritually so should this Doct. and others do well if they were partiall likewise But partiall otherwise they neither were nor could be viz. they did not get but lost by this their proceeding great worldly honor much power and rule among the people large wealth daintie pleasure and ease which ours now do abound with as all the world seeth Whereby the worlde seeth likewise which side may rather plead partialitie to be in those whom they take to be their adversaries In many places D. Downame signifyeth that the godly late defenders of the Gospell do mislike only “ Def. 4.151.157.158.161 popish tyrannizing Bishops not orthodoxall Bishops as he presumeth ours to bee But let him know that those are Orthodoxall who imitate the Apostles and the patterne of the Church left vs in the New Testament And they are tyrannizing not Orthodoxe †viz. in this nor truly believing who imitate the popish though otherwise they be not papists Cicero said well to Antonie †Cicer. Philippic 2. Miror te Antoni quorum fasta imitere corum exitus non perhorrescere I wonder Antonie said hee that thou fearest not their iudgement whose deedes thou imitatest Now how wee imitate the very forme of the Popish Church-government all the world seeth and the Gospell rueth What meaneth the racke and the wracke of many consciences viz. the Oath ex officio What the Bishops depriving and imposing of Ministers without Imitation of Popish Church-governement yea contrarie to the Congregation What meane also such Excommunications What their imprisoning of Christians and punishing their purses with fees fines c. Are these the partes of Orthodoxe Bishops Are these things approved of those godly Writers Nothing lesse Likewise his vaine and frivolous seeking to avoid the Waldenses Wickliffe Hus Zuinglius Luther Oecolampadius Bucer Martyr Calvin c. our Tindal Fr. and Ioh. Lamberts Bradsord Bale c. is of no worth Some of theÌ„ signifie that they disalow not Diocesan Bishops simply Well no more do I as I have shewed “ Pag. 15.16.73.89.97 before Yet heereby appeareth no allowance of ours in England Our old English translators of the New Testament some other Writers since doe expresse the word Church by Congregation But saith our Doctor heere by they meane the †Def. 2.106.107.108 Vnivesall Church Which answer is vntrue and absurd That is where they speake of a Visible Ministe Church of which only our question is Speaking of this that they
the sense of the word Ecclesia pa. 109. 209. 210. 211. 308. French Liturgie with vs. pag. 50. Genevian Discipline with vs. pag. 49. Giftes no calling of a Minister pag. 162. Gualter with vs. pag. 37. 38. 39. 40. H. The world Hateth our profession and why pa. 17. 18. Helvetian confession with vs. pag. 49. I. Iames no proper Bishop pag. 238. 239. The Iewish Church governement differed substantially from the Christian pag. 158. 317. The forme of the Iewish church governement is ceased pag. 184. 185. 279. Iunius with vs. pag. 43. 44. 45. Iulianus of Alexandria the first Diocesan Bishop and yet but a Titular Diocesan pag. 92. K. Christes Kingdom commissive pag. 145. L. Lord and Lordship vnlawfull for the Ministerie pag. 118. A Spirituall Lord who pag. 118. Christ only ought to be a Spiritual Lord. p. 121. Luther with vs. pag. 31. 32. c. And Lutherans pag. 51. 52. M. P. Martyr with vs. pag. 34. 35. 150. 193. The civill Magistrat advanced by our profession pag. 18. 20. 115. 137. 313. 315. Every Metropolitan not a Diocesan pa. 254. Metropolitans in place not in office pag. 231. c. 235. 213. Outward Meanes necessarie to salvation and namely Christes pag. 150. 152. 154. 155. 194 195. 269. They who make Ministers must have Divine authoritie to do it pa. 163. 74. 75. 194. 147. Musculus for vs. pag. 36. N. We desiâ—e things Necessary pag. 18. 19. 193. The grievous hurt by Nonresidents pag. 129 To mislike Pluralists and Nonresidents are curious positions with our adversaries p. 132. P. The Palatine Catechisme with vs. pag. 51. Who cause Papistes to increase in England pa. 183. 186. Papistes more sound in the generall opinion of the Church then some protestantes p. 150. 180 A Parish in our reasoning what it is pag. 201. 202. 209. A Church no more but a Parish pag. 30. 103. 104. 108. 214. See Ecclesia Partiall who are pagt 301. In Church government the Peoples consent is Apostolicall pag. 68. 69. Evident Scriptures for the Peoples consent in church censures pag. 279. 140. 281. 282. Likewise in making of Ministers pag. 70. 164 165. 291. c. Power in the People administration in their Guides pag. 33. 42. 298. 278. 82. 83. What maner of People pag. 17. Great good cometh to Religion by granting the Peoples consent in church governemeÌ„t p. 130 The Papacie not to be overthroweÌ„ but by holding the Peoples free coÌ„sent p. 18. 156. 157. c. Our maine question is about the Peoples free consent in church governement pag. 10. 16. The Peoples necessary freedom power right in church gov what and how much ordinarily pag. 18. 22. 48. 61. 73. 82. 83. 278. Piscator for vs. pag. 46. Oâ—â— Profession giveth good satisfaction chiefly to the Magistrat p. 19. 20. 191. 313. 315 In reasoning we must alwayes speak Properly pag. 240. Some Protestants opinion holding changeablenes in the Churches forme and governement not without impietie pag. 133. 141. R. Rebaptizing refuted pag. 172. Reordayning lawfull and fit pag. 173. To receave our Ministerie derivatively and successively from the church of Rome a miserable answer pag. 170. 173. S. Who are Schismatiks pag. 138. 176. The Separation how they erre pag. 249. 280. Sole governement pag. 252. Succession a popish reason pag. 238. The Archb. with vs spiritually Sapreme pa. 119. â—ynods some lawfull Apostolike necessariâ— 116. 117. 179. Some not Apostolike nor lewfull p. 31. 48. 100. c. 111. c. 117. 178. A Synod absolut induceth a Pope p. 105. 110. 111. c. 179. T. Tertullian proveth not a Diocesan church or Bishop pag. 233. Tilenus for vs. pag. 43. 164. 166. Timothie and Titus no proper Bishops pag. 241. 264. Toleration of vs not vnmeet e. pag. 137. 193. 194. 195. 318. V. Viret for vs. pa. 28. 29. No Vnitie by Diocesan or Provinciall Churches and Bishops pag. 174. 176. 188. Gods written word the true cause of Vnitie pa. 175. 176. After Gods word the Magistrates helpe is the chief cause of Vnitie pag. 177. 315. The hurtfull error of some Protest antes granting one Vniversall Visible Church vnder the Gospell pag. 112. 181. 182. 189. 190. A Vniversall Church Visible induceth a Pope pag. 112. c. 181 c. 187. 189. To deny the peoples consent in Church governement to be a Divine ordinance bringeth in a Vniversall Church Visible pag. 157. 180. 189. and by a likely consequence will set the Pope above the King pag. 191. 192. Vniversalitie a popish reason pag. 221. 222. 223. Some Vniversall errors pag. 233. W. D. Whitaker for vs. pag. 47. 106. 107. Z. Zuinglius for vs. pag. 29. 30. 214. 215. 216.