Congregation there all reason and rules of religion will require Christes said Church to bee no lesse then Vniversall For no man can â—hew that Christes said Church in the New Testament is limited and restrained to a Diocese or Province only No limiting of a Dioces-Church in the N. Test. that it is there forbidden to be a Vniversal church Our adversaries seeme not to desire to shewe it For as they weakely and slightly affirme Diocesan and Provinciall Churches to be in the New Testament yea even against Grammar so they openly acknowledge that Christ hath vpon earth “ See before pag 112. Hook 126.132 one whole Church being but one Body subiect to governemeÌ„t So that they yeeld the Church not to be limited to a Dioces or a Province And what can the Papistes wish more They will never desire more to be yeelded them from Protestantes if we stick to our owne wordes then to acknowledge all Christes Diocesan and Provinciall Churches and therefore our owne in England to be but Membrall Churches not intire and independent not indued with authoritie for the governement of them selves immediatly from Christ but to be partes and dependants of one whole Church being one Body subiect to governement For theÌ„ we must by Christes ordinaÌ„ce referre our selves for religion and spirituall governement to that one Body Visible whereof wee say wee are a part Heere a hundred “ Before pag. 179. difficulties will come vpon vs. The Doct. acknowledgeth also †Def. 3.5 a highest Senat of the Vniversall Church for the governement of it And certainly in all true reason there must bee so For there must bee by Christe ordinance a correspondent governement to the Body of every Church which is of Christ Maister Hooker trulie acknowledgeth it saying there “ Hook 3.132 must be a correspondent Church-polirie to every Visible Church But Doct. Downame wil perhaps turne this to a Vniversall Councill or Synod If he doe it is yet a simple evasion First I noted “ Pag. 113. 178. before that there never was right Vniversall Synode how so ever some have ben so named But if any Synod have ben helde for Vniversall yet such are exceedingly rare and extraordinarie in deed in these dayes not to be had But the Churches Body beeing ordinary and continuing alwayes it must have a correspondent governement as is said that is ordinarie dayly and continuall And this is it which we speake of If the Doctor wil grant such a highest Senat of the Vniversall Church that is ordinary constant and dayly exercising governement to this constant Body theÌ„ what is this els but a College of Cardinalls And in every such Consistorie or Senat I hope he will grant a President yea constant and during life not for a weeke or a short time And what is he but a Pope Neither is it materiall whether this President bee subiect to his Senat or not Which hee idly casteth in a little †Pag. 6. after Many Papistes do hold the Pope to be inferior to his Councill and yet they are verie Papistes And the Doct. holdeth a Provinciall Bishop to be by Divine ordinance Superior to his Provinciall Synod Why then may not the Vniversall Bishop be superior likewise to his Vniversall whether Synod or Senat Without question he ought to bee as well Thus no marvaill if Popish Walsingham who conferred with this Doctor went from him worse then hee came For holding such grounds hee can never make any sufficieÌ„t defence against Poperie as I have said His foure other reasons of difference betweene a Provinciall and a Vniversall Bishop which hee setteth downe pag. 6. are as frivolous as that which is most First he alleageth Calvins authoritie But what is that to a Papist or to one tempted that way And yet hee abuseth Calvin also For though Calvin saye “ Instit 4.6.2 There is not a like reason of one Nation and of the whole worlde yet he meaneth this vpon supposition That is if a Nation have Gods worde for their warrant as the Iewes had if the whole world have not Divine warrant as the Catholike Visible Church now in deed hath not then there is not the like reason betweene a Nation and the whole world But otherwise verily there is For a Bishop to both is necessary if both have Gods ordinance for it selfe a Bishop to neither is lawfull if neither have Gods ordinance And this Calvin him selfe plainly signifyeth in Sect. 9. Saying Nihil proficiunt Papistae nisi prius ostender in t hoc Ministerium Vniversale 〈◊〉 Christo esse ordinatum Noting by this that it is Christes ordinance that maketh the difference betweene a Nation and the whole world not the oddes of the Circuit But this the Do. wholy supprâ—sseth as also Calvins second answer to the Papistes immediatly following in the former place Saith he Est altera citamnum ratio cut illud Iudaicum in imitationem trahi non debeat The high Priest was a figure of Christ which now ceaseth Summum illum Pontificem typum fuisse Christi nemo ignorat Nune traslato Sacerdotio ius illud trasferri coÌ„venit Wherefore Calvin reiecteth the Iewes High Priestes National Ministerie and denyeth the vse of the like now for another reason which the Doct. also dissembleth So that his abusing of Calvin heerein is manifest Againe these last mentioned wordes of Calvin do confute the Do. in another place where to resist “ Reas. for reform pag. 5. me †Def. 25. hee denyeth the Iewes High Priestes Governement to have bene a type Secondly the Doct. maketh this difference betweene a Provinciall and a Vniversall Bishop saith he No mortall man is able to wield the governement of the whole Church It is true Nor yet of a Province nor of a Diocese For the least Pastor of these shall bee a huge Pluralist and Nonresident See pag. 150 and Reas. for Refor Reas. 3. which are contrary to Christ as before hath ben shewed The cause then of all this vnablenes is the want of Christes ordinance Which to both is alike as I have said and so their vnablenes is both alike Otherwise both should bee able and sufficient for such a charge well enough The Doctors third exception is as the last before Saith he it would proove dangerous and pernicious if that one Head should fall into error So also it is dangerous and pernicious to many thousands when a Provinciall Bishop falleth into error Yet the D. will not hold this a reason to proove him simply vnlawfull And therefore neither is it for the Vniversal Specially seeing a Provinciall Bishop can not make vnitie a Vniversall may as I have said His fourth exception is likewise a verie fancie viz. that it is infinit trouble much inconvenience to repaire from all partes of the world to one place There is no such matter if Christes ordinance for it were manifest If any inconvenience may seeme therein to
cut off and excommunicate from the Church of Rome hee could not after that have any power as derived from them to make Ministers nor to do any other Bishoplie act Secondly wee all knowe the Church of Rome to be the very Antichrist chieflie in respect of their Clergie and Spirituall governement and most chieflie of all in respect of the Pope from whom all the rest as from the Head doe take their power and authoritie Now shall we say that very Antichrist can have power from Christ to make Ministers Or that we can have a lawfull Ministerie derived from those who had their power only from him It can not bee “ 2. Cor. 6.14 15. What communion hath light with darknes What concord hath Christ with Belial And so what hath Christ to do with Antichrist Nothing at all Thus then our consciences can have no assurance wee can not have confidence in such estate of the Ministerie But certainly Christs true Ministers among vs in Englande have a better Original thē this Wherefore this answere of our State Protestants must needes be false Yet in this answer who seeth not how the Papistes do reioyce triumph and insult Who seeth not how by this they are incouraged strengthened and multiplyed among vs exceedingly Truly it would pity a mans heart to beholde how this one point putteth life into thousandes to stande vp against Christes Gospell the libertie of their Country also For when they heare our selves openly to ascribe to the Church of Rome and to their meanes such a gift of grace even that which is our glory even the holy instrument of our faith to salvatiō for so is our Ministerie they will say if the branch be holy the root is more if the rivers be sweet the head-spring is delicious And so how can it bee chosen but the Papistes thus will bee graced and get great advātage among vs Many heere have another refuge but that also helpeth nothing Say they as Popish Baptisme is so far acknowledged by vs The last refuge of our Adversaries taken away as that with it only wee are held to bee sufficiently Baptised not to need Baptizing againe when we com from them to the Church of England So likewise wee may acknowledge the Popish Ordination to the Ministerie thus far and yet nevertheles cōdemne their Church and separate from them I answere the case is nothing like betweene Baptisme the signe of our initiation in Christ and the Calling to the Ministerie In the word there is expresse warrant for not repeating the signe of our initiation in Christ which of old was Circumcision and Baptisme now is the same though ministred by a false Ministerie and Church As wee may see in the “ 2. Chron. 30.11.18 35.17.18 Ez◠6.21 not Recircumcising of such Iewes as had receaved that signe in the Apostasie of Israell and turned frō thesame to the truth But there is no warrant at all in Gods word for any to retaine the outward Calling to the Ministerie or to stand in that power and authoritie which is derived from such a Church There is no such thing can be shewed in all Gods booke Therefore we may not conclude the like in this matter of Ordination to the Ministerie which may bee done for not repeating of Baptisme For by Gods worde Ordination may be repeated yea certainly after a Ministerie receaved in Christes true Church much more after it hath ben receaved in a false Church So that these two ordinances of Christ are nothing like in this point Wherefore out of question Ordination to the Ministerie as it is derived from Antichrist must be wholy reuounced of every faithfull man and may bee as is said renewed and repeated in Christes true Church as occasion serveth At Rome there is in it both an impiety and a nullitie In their administring of Baptisme there is not a nullitie altogeather as in that correspondent example of Israell in Apostasie before alleadged it well appeareth And this is sufficient for this though other answeres may be given also Wherefore this remayneth that when wee grant the descent of our Ministerie in Englande to come lineally from the Church and Pope of Rome which we must grant will wee nill we if wedeny it to arise essentially from the Christian peoples consent in each Congregation all the world seeth that we give the Pope a maine advantage against vs and we put into his hande a strong engine to draw vs back againe vnto him Which also he effecteth dayly vppon many among vs as woefull experience sheweth in our Land yea even vpon some of my very friends and neare acquaintance Beside this there is another point of the Churches governement The causing of Vnitie namely their Iurisdiction in cōpounding Schismes in making peace and vnitie and consent among Christian people which beeing ascribed as proper to Diocesan and Provinciall Bishops as they in England do say it is and as “ Def. 3.36 c. D. Downame with great vehemencie defendeth certainly true reason will cary it further it can not possibly stay there This wil serve a Popes turne a great deale better and to such a one it belongeth in deed as a very true and forcible ground for his Vniversall Governement over all Christians in the world if there were any Divine and Evangelicall truth in it at all But there is no truth in it Because this is no Divine and Evangelical way for Vnitie in religion viz. to constitute one Visible Head with absolute power of Spirituall governement whether Diocesan or Provinciall or Vniversall Or to take from the Christian people their free consent There is not in the Gospell any such Meanes to Vnitie It is a Humane policie a carnall device it is no institution of Christ Iesus Gods writt◠word is the cause of Vnitie Who in his word and by his word with the helpe of the Ministerie therein ordained provideth sufficiently for true peace and holy Vnitie among all his people For he saith “ Mat. 28.29 Ye erre not knowing the Scriptures And †Ioh. 5.39 Search the Scriptures for they are they which testifie of me And “ chap. 14.6 Rom. 16 17. I am the way the truth and the life Likewise the Apostle testifyeth that those are the makers of Schismes and divisions who teach and holde any thing besides the doctrine learned from the Apostles So that indeed the meanes appointed of GOD to make Vnitie in the Church is Gods word and not one Superiour over-ruling Minister over many distinct ordinarie Cōgregations which the word knoweth not But in truth such a one is the very proper cause of dissention and schisme For he not willing to submit to Gods word by his power draweth many with him yet he cannot lightly prevayle with all Wherevpon followeth dissention and schisme And then he with his cōpany being the stronger in the world may cry out loudest against those fewer that dissent from him that they are
be it is superabundantly recompenced with far greater blessings when wee practise Christes ordinance And truly this must be so Such a Bishop to such a Church must be if the Do. opinion be true that Christ hath in the New Testamēt appointed a Vniversall Church Visible being but one Body subiect to governement as above we have seene Hee addeth These reasons may suffice Yea truly they suffice to make 10000. Papists but they wil never reclaime one Vnto this wee may adde that the very Natures of a Diocesan or Provinciall Church and of a Vniversall have no essentiall difference in them The very Forme and Order of administring thē differeth not in any substantiall point Only a Church limited to one ordinary Cōgregation differeth essentially from a Vniversall Church as also from a Diocesan and Provinciall as “ Declar. pag. 11. 12. 13. I have shewed elswhere Whence it is that where the Church is Diocesan or Provinciall as it is now in England there is an easie passage to the Vniversall and sooner they may be combined into one then where the Churches are limited each to one ordinarie Congregation the people inioying their free consent in Church-governement Nay there are many stronge seeming reasons inducing men of reason to yeelde that the Diocesan and Provinciall Formes of Churches not only may easily but also ought necessarily to bee combined to come into one Vnivers Church For whatsoever is or can bee brought by Doctor Downame or any other to maintayne Diocesan and Provinciall Churches the same is much more pregnant for a Vniversall And what warrant alloweth them to rule over the particular Congregations that same requireth them to be ruled also by a Vniversall Church If Diocesans and Provincialistes go about to produce Scripture for their origen institution they do it so weakly so vntowardly and so vnlikely that any man seeing considering it without partialitie would bee ashamed But heere the Catholikes step in boldly foorth-with they name sundrie places in the New Testament for their Vniversall Church Visible Eph. 4.4 12. 16. Math. 16.18 1 Cor. 12.28 Rev 20.9 Gal. 4.26 And in the Creed I beleeve the Catholike Church Which indeed have more shew for it then anie places have for Diocesan or Provinciall Churches independent as ours be in England Againe if Vnitie concorde and peace-making be a reason for Diocesan and Provincial churches it is much better for a Vniversal Church For it is true a Vniversall Church may cause in Christendom a kind of Vnitie peace but Diocesan Provincial Churches can never For among these there may bee easily so many opinions as there bee Provinces Their Bishops beeing 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Heads by them selves Where the D. saith †The Church was freer from Schismes before the Papacie Def. 3.66.67 then vnder it It is most vntrue and it bewrayeth in him much ignorance though he disdaine to have that once imagined in him The case being thus what resistance can be made to the subtill and mightie perswasions of Iesuites and Popish Priestes vrging tender soules consciences vpon these advātages Chiefly when they shall shew them withall that our great learned Divines Doctors confesse that Christ hath ordayned in the New Testament that his true Visible Church should be one Body subiect to governement A strange oversight in our Defenders against Poperie granting a Vniversall Church Visible in the N. Testam and that a Vniversall Church Visible is Christes ordinance now vnder the Gospell Seeing it is plaine that a Vniversall Church Visible at this day in all the world there is none but the Romane And the Roman Church in deed is a Vniversall Visible Church intending to have and having members in every Nation vnder heaven Yea it hath seemed to have bene such for these thousand yeares past but the Catholikes avouch it to have ben ever since Christ And why may not that bee likely if a Vniversall Visible Church bee Christes Ordinance Certainly Christes Visible Ministerial Church must continue “ Math. 28.20 alwayes from the time of his Ascētion vnto the Worlds end And some-where extant it must be But this hath not ben any where since in all Christendome except at Rome Whence it will follow if those our Doctors sayings be true that the Roman Church hath ben and is Christs Vniversall Church Visible It is fond to obiect as some doe that No particular Church can be Vniversall because they are opposit And so neither can the Roman Church seeing it is particular bee Vniversall I saye this is fond For a Vniversal Church Visible must have some particular Visible Church to bee their Head As from King David till Christ the Vniversall Church had the particular Church at Ierusalem for their Head So the Roman◠Church may be the Head of the Vniversall Church visible now if Christ have ordayned any such which those our D.D. seeme to grant and in that respect it may bee well called a Vniversal Church though it selfe bee but particular Thus the Catholikes will have strong advantage still vpon the Provincials And they will presse that we ought rather to imbrace the Vniversall Church then any Diocesan or Provinciall independent as ours in England is Nay they will shewe that if we will be saved simply we must be professed members of Christes Vniversal Church Visible seeing Chirst hath ordayned it And this absolutly can not be mo then only one in the world And in this case we must suspect our opinions in religion which differ from the doctrine of Christes only true Church we must thinke it at least probable that the doctrine of the said Church is the very minde of Christ though otherwise wee might make question of somewhat therein And such doubtes must be decided tryed within the saide Church not without it So that first we must provide that our selves be in the communion of the said Church And this after the former reckoning will proove as I have shewed to bee the Roman Church And so Doctor Downame and the rest have spun a faire threed Which fearfull inconvenience and mischiefe followeth by denying this true Christian Assertion viz. that Christes true Visible Church vnder the Gospel is only one Ordinary Congregation as also this that the peoples free consent in the Church governement ought to bee alwayes admitted To grant a Vniversall Church Visible vnder the Gospel is the groūd of all mischief Where may be added an other vnspeakeable and intolerable mischiefe which cometh by this magnifying of a Vniversal Visible Church against the Kings Maiesties Soveraigntie and against al other Civil Magistrates free governement A Vniversall Visible Church is the very ground and reason that so many do give their lives against the oth of allegeance to our King as now there do and as it may be feared many mo will For the Vniversal Pastor or Bishop of the said Vniversal Visible Church whom the members are bound to heare
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
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
Ecclesiae forniam quam Apostols constituerunt in quà tamen vnicum habemus verae Ecclesiae exemplar à quo si quis vel minimùm deflectit abâ—rat I will not presse you so precisely as to call you backe to that forme of the Church which the Apostles set In which forme notwithstanding we have the only patterne of a true Church From which if any decline never so little he erreth He meaneth be would take it well at the Cardinalls handes if he could reduce him to the forme of the Church which “ Instit 4.4 the Fathers vsed suppose about 200. till 300. yeares after Christ after for some while Howbeit he absolutly affirmeth that in the forme which the Apostles set in the Scriptures the only patteâ—ne of a true Church is to be had And that if any decline never so little from it hee erreth Which is all one with that where hee saith Extern◠†Instit 4.1.1 subsidia quoque Deus addidit quò infirmitati nostrae consuleret The Outward helpes and Meanes God hath added also to the end that he might provide for our weaknes If God have added them appointed them for vs what arrogancie shall it be for men to alter them And chieflie the forme of the Visible Church Like to these P. Martyr saith “ P. Mart. in Rom. 3.21 Forma reipublica quandoque variatur quod attinet ad Ecclesiam non mutat formam The Forme of a Civill state sometime is changed but as touching the Church it changeth not her forme All this is very contrary to our forenamed adversaries Nay which is to our great shame the very Papistes in this generall point are nearer to the kingdome of God then such vnworthy Protestantes are For they religiously and most strictly do holde this that †Sander Vifib Monatch â— 6 Christ only is the Teacher and Instituter of the forme of his Visible Church and that no men may ever change it from that same which is set downe in Christes Testament In the particular indeed they erre in setting vp vnder the Gospell a Vniversall church exercising governemeÌ„t which is not Christes spouse but the Queene of pride Nevertheles in the generall they holde cleerely the truth as I have shewed whereby they put many of vs to shame who beare a name of professing the Gospell And so much of the Consequentes which highly touch the Honor and Office of Christ and the Dignitie of his New Testament There are also Consequentes from our adversaries opinion which greatly touch our selves First whosoever of the Protestantes do refuse our foresaid Vniforme OpinioÌ„ of the peoples consent must of necessitie holde two distinct formes of Christes Visible Church Two wayes to heaven and two distinct formes of Church-governement to bee lawfull that is both that where the people are absolutly excluded that where they are admitted The one ordinary and best as they say the other extraordinarie and only in case of necessitie as before hath ben shewed Now to hold two distinct opposit formes of the Visible Church Church-governement is directly all one as to holde two wayes to heaven distinct and opposite in them selves Which is very scandalous in religion and that which can not stande with truth For the Visible Church and Church-governement is plainly the way to heaven and the Outward meanes which must bring vs thither or els ordinarilie we can not come there That is Ordinarily faith repentance sanctification and at last glorification in heaven cometh only by the Ministerie of Gods word and none can lawfully administer but being sent now in these dayes by the Visible Church according to their authoritie in this case given them of Christ Thus the only Outward meanes and way to heaven is Christes Visible Church and the exerciâ—ing of her authoritie in such forme and maner as Christ her Lorde hath appointed her Which is only one way it can not bee two wayes There is only one forme ordained of Christ And so only one is true one lawfull which soever it bee “ As before also I noted pag. 78. Two wayes cannot be D. Dewname answereth that there be other wayes which he alloweth which are †Def. 3.108 4.99 by necessitie and necessitie hath no law Nay him selfe is lawles Gods servants at no time are freed from Gods Law As well in necessitie as in pleÌ„tie in adversitie no lesse then in prosperitie they are so tyed to the rule of his word which is alwayes one that they professe it alwayes vnlawfull for them to take vp any invention of their owne vpon anie pretence Indeed in Humane affaires sometime Necessitie doth excuse vs ftoÌ„ following mans law And so the proverbe is verifyed Necessitie hath no law But in Gods matters and in the affaires of the Church which are causes touching our soules no necessitie nor prosperitie can free vs as I said from Gods law and ordinance appointed for vs. So far at least that we may never take vp any invention of men which in Gods Service is evermore the way of “ See my ExpositioÌ„ of the 2. Commandement error and not of truth As for Do. Dwname I remember the time when hee was stout and resolut for Vnica Methodus in Philosophie But the world is so changed with him since that in Divinitie hee is now a professed Diplodophilus one that thinketh there are two wayes to heaven Dioplodophilus two wayes and formes of administring Christes Visible Church of Calling the Ministerie of exercising holy Censures Which matters as before I shewed are the ordinarie way to heaven for every soule the Outward instrumentall Meanes sanctified of Christ to save his people by Now he professeth two formes of administring them essentially distinct and opposit the one to the other and yet both to be lawfull Which indeed is evidence enough that hee is in error For the way of truth is only one as before hath ben noted but errour is manifold Wherefore among the Protestantes seeing only wee holde a Vniforme constant opinion in this matter of Christes Visible Church which is for the peoples consent in the Ordinarie Governement it is certain that wee only have the truth and our adversaries are in error And heere withall this followeth from our opinion that we only have comfortable assurance to our consciences Comfortable assurance on Christs Ordinances not in Mens which the adversaries can not soundly have We hold only vpon the institution of Christ practise of his Apostles Of which wee have reason to be confident and wherein we may well have assurance For when wee builde the forme and frame whole administration of Christes Visible Church vpon the Rocke mentioned in the Gospell Math. 16.18 that is vpon Christ and his worde alone who can make vs to doubt but that God will crowne his owne worke and blesse his owne Ordinance and sanctify his owne way Certainly we ought with all cheerfulnes to expect and to
conceave assurance to our soules of Gods gracious favor and everlasting goodnes if wee stande in that way which plainly is Christes Gal. 6.16 As many as walke according to this rule peace shal be vpon them mercy and vpon the Israel of God But contrariwise our adversaries allowing of two wayes in the Churches spirituall governement and administratiō the one Apostolike the other Humane both good as they say both changeable by men but neither of them any certain Ordinance or Cōmandement of Christ Againe when they make many “ Those which follow the doctrine of our Attestators before alleged thousand several Churches in the world to vse no other Calling of their Ministers but such as is of Mens institutiō and from naturall reason do they in this give assurance to mens consciences Nay it can not be At the least men standing in such state will often doubt and make question whether the spirituall blessings and graces of God in Christ bee promised or may bee instrumentally wrought in them by such a Ministerie no otherwise authorised and called then so For as it is most certain that God saveth no man Ordinarily but by Outward meanes that these Outward meanes are ordinarilie Christes Visible Church the Ordayning of Ministers and the administring of Gods Word Sacramentes and Censures therein so it is most vncertain and much to bee doubted whether God will acknowledge anie of these Outward meanes and instrumentes to be his or will give his ordinarie blessing vnto them working saith repētance sanctificatiō hereafter his heavēly glorie in vs by thē vnles the saide Outward meanes and instrumentes be simply of that forme and nature and bee exercised by the power and authoritie of such persons only as he himself hath specially ordayned and sanctifyed in his word to that purpose This doubt I say at least As also to stand vnder a Nōresidēt may breed this doubt will and must needes arise from the opinion of our adversaries And it can not but weaken the faith of many if in the end it do not wholy subvert it Which indeed may come to passe from this originall divers and sundry wayes But our vniforme cōstitution of the Church and administration thereof cutteth of all occasion of such doubting and leaveth our consciences safely resting on Christ alone And so much for this Seaventhly where this is held viz. that the peoples free consent ought to be alwayes in the Church governement there necessarily the Visible Catholike Church of Rome is ruined quite overthrowen and destroyed Yea this assertion of ours being made good her spirituall tyrannie vsurpation is easily demonstrated And there is no man who seeth not this But contrariwise many see not and many will not see till they feele that which yet is as certain and as sure a Consequence in true reason viz. that where the peoples consent in the Church governement is condemned and hated Advantage to the Pope by a Diocesan Church there the Church of Rome will get advātage and in time advancement againe notwithstanding that Civill Magistrates for a season doe what they can to resist the same I know many will at the first thinke this a Paradox yet verily it wil prove true For the Church of Rome not only in reason but by cleere rules of Divinitie and Religion must needes get ground of vs if we willingly give away this invincible Bullwarke and Fortresse against thē I meane Christes Visible Churches true and proper Nature and that both intensive Christes Visible Churches Nature Intensive which is the power of Spirituall governement receaved from Christ her Author and Founder wherein the Peoples free consent is comprehended as before I have often rehearsed Extensive and also the Extensive quantitie and Outward Body of the said Church which in the Gospell never reacheth to many Ordinarie Congregations nor to any Set circuit of ground at all as a Diocesan Church doth but to one ordinarie Congregation only as I haue “ Declarat pag. 18. elswhere plainly declared This is the true and proper Nature of Christes Visible Church in the New Testamēt And I would all men did cōsider this viz. that the effectuall defence of our faith against Poperie is must be the alleadging and pressing against them this Nature and proper Constitution of Christes saide Visible Church Without which we shall labor against them al in vaine and which our forefathers Zuinglius Luther and the rest wisely holding and maintayning as †Chapt. 3. 4. and pag. 102. 103. 104. above we have seene have easily mightily from thence by the sword of the Spirit whiche is the word of God put them to flight and quelled them And so may we do still but no otherwise In which regard it greeveth me often times when I see many of our Defenders of the truth against the Papistes being otherwise learned and godly yet dealing in this matter very vncircumspectly and I may say praeposterously Who make no great reckoning to stande with the Papistes vpon the proper Nature of Christes Visible Church A great cause why cur controversies com not to an and. or if they medle with it they do not strictly holde to that Nature forme thereof which is left vs in the N. Testament being plainly another and distinct from that of the Iewes vnder the Law This verily our men against that Adversarie do consider too little and they prosecute it lesse They treat more of Christes Invisible or Militant then of the Ministeriall Church So leaving the question in deed and labouring in things which touch not the point Whereby it cometh to passe that they resist thē not with that fruit as they might For wee must know that ordinarily the Church Ministeriall is the Meanes and instrument of true faith If the Meanes and procuring cause which is most sensible to vs be not first well cleered and mens consciences therein satisfyed and the same demonstrated plainly to bee of Divine institution the doctrine of faith besides will bee but vncertain If any say Our Forefathers overcame the Papistes by the word of God cutting downe their other foule errors Obiection viz. Purgatorie Free-will Auricular confession Reall presence Images Praying to Saints Iustification by workes c. They overcame them not by affirming that the people ought to have alwayes their free cōsent in Church governement And so may wee also overcome them still I answere Men are much deceaved that do thus thinke Answ Our Forefathers as I said by this verie assertion that the people ought to have their said free consent did vtterly overthrow the Papistes and without this they could not possibly have so done For vnles this assertion had ben true neither could the first Protestant Pastors bee truly authorised and called neither could any of the Protestants at first lawfully have forsaken the Roman Church whereof they all stood members And then I pray how could they have overcome them Nay it had
the Apostles Which he doth very poorely 1. He sheweth that the Church of Ierusalem †Pag 84. exceeded the proportion of one particular assembly ordinarily meeting in one place I grant it and have granted it “ Reas. for ret pag. 19. 65. 66. heeretofore But he can not shew that this Church nowe had in it mo ordinary set and constant assemblyes then one Which is the point Hee addeth †Def. 2. p. 87 It was never intended to be one Parish among many but to be a Mother Church when by Gods blessing it should beget others to be severed from it in particular assemblies yet to remaine subordinate and subiect to it as children to the Mother The very same was affirmed by “ Pag 7. him before of all the Primitive Churches But all this is fall â—t was intended by the Apostles that Ierusalems Church should bee one Parish among many others and indeed to be as a Mother Church in reverence and reputation yet as a common Sister with the rest in power iurisdiction They also intended both in Ierusalem and in every other City that the Bishop and his presbyterie should bee set over no more but one particular Congregation and that as more Congregations should be constituted Every Congâ—â—gation 〈◊〉 to be an intâ—â— Church every Church buâ— a Congregation every one should have a Bishop also a Presbyterie if it might be All this I say the Apostles intended both in Ierusalem and every where els in the world And first this my reasons “ Pag. 208. Decâ—â—â— pa. 12 13. 14 15 c. before rehearsed do soundly proove Also Ignat. epistles do plainly shew that the practise was so then every where yea in the Country as wel as in the Cities wheresoever there were any Churches then Ignatius words are these †Ignat. Ad Trall 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Without these there is no Church no meeting togeather of the Saints no holy assembly This is Vniversally spoken So againe “ Ad Phila. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 To every Church for so it may well be translated there is one Bishop with a coÌ„pany of Persbyters Deacons Where Ignat. meaning is that every wher it ought at least so to be In which Calvin likewise consenteth Saying * Calv. Instit 4.1.9 Vnaquaeque nomen authoritatem Ecclesiae iure obtinet Every one of the Congregations which were dispersed “ And 8.15 Oppidatim Vicatim in the Country townes and Villages obtaineth by right the name and authoritie of a Church Again “ Instit 4.3.6 Quod orbi Vniver so prestiterunt Apostoli id gregi suo debet Pastor vnusquisque That which the Apostles were to the whole world the same ought every Pastor be to his owne Flocke Zuinglius also before hin is heerein of all other the most cleere and resolute I touched many of his places †Pag. 102. 103. 104. before But heere I think it fit to lay forth his words more fully First to shew that every Church ought to be but one ordinary Congregation and that in the N. Testament it was so hee saith “ Zuingl ad Valentin Compar Vox Ecclesiae proprie exposita non aliud quà m cetum vel populi CoÌ„gregationem totum plebis collegium significat Vndè singulas paraecias Ecclesiae vocabulo not are licet cum per hoc cetus coÌ„gregati in vnuÌ„ populi multitudo intelligatur The word Church what it is The word Church properly expounded signifyeth no other thing then an assembly or meeting togeather of the people and the whole gathering togeather of the people Whence by the word Church wee may note and signifie every particular Parish Seeing by this word is vnderstood the multitude of an assembly of the people meeting togeather in one place Of the Church of Corinth vnder the Apostles he saith †Ad Valent Compar Non equidem negare poteris Paulum hoc loco communem totius populi fidelis Ecclesiam intelligere qui in vnum collectus Scripturae sensus ab alijs expositos attentus percipit Populus ergo fidelis Christianorum oninium Ecclesia Doctores suos dijudicat de illoruÌ„ doctrina sana ne sit vel impia pronuÌ„ciare solet Truly thou canst not deny that Paul vnderstandeth in this place the common assemby of the whole faitful people which being gathered together in one place attentively heareth the senses of the Scripture expounded by others wherefore the people and faithfull assembly of all the Christians iudgeth of their Teachers is wont to pronounce of their Doctrine whether it be found or wicked Likewise elswhere hee saith that the Corinthian Church †In Pastoâ— erat Paraecia was a Parish And again likewise The Ephesin Church theÌ„ was “ Above pag. 103. Concio a particular assembly And questioÌ„les as he thought of these so likewise he thought of IerusaleÌ„s Church yea of every true visible Church indefinitly Of which he saith “ Artic. 8 Explanat Capitur Ecclesia pro peculiaribus Congregationibus qui ad auditionem verbi ad Communionem Sacramentorum commodè in aliquem vnum locum conveniunt Graeci parikiaâ— voc 〈◊〉 De huiusmodi Ecclesiâ Christus loquitur Math. 18 Sic Paulus 1. Cor. 1. 14. The Church is taken for the particular Congregations which to the hearing of the word and reâ—eaving the Sacraments do come togeather commodiously into one place The Grecians call them Parishes Of such Christ speaketh Math. 18 17. Paul 1. Cor. 1. 14. And that every of these Churches and Parishes should have the “ See before pag. 30. 31. power of governement iudging of causes among themselves that wee must follow herein only the Scriptur he sheweth a little before that it is his meaning Where expressing what Church he speaketh of and also the very cause why there is such strife among men about the Church he saith A multis iam seculis ad nostra vsque tempora quae sit Ecclesia certamen fuit ortum nimirum ex regnanai cupiditate Nam hoc sibi quidam arrogarunt vt se dicerent esse Ecclesiam vt omnia corum manu administrarentur Omissis autem hominum commentis quibus quidam hâc in re nituntur ex Scripturis sacris mente spiritus de Ecclesiâ scribemus Quod Graeci Ecclesiam Hebraei Kahal vocant Latini Concionem There hath ben controversie of old even to our times what the Church is which riseth indeed from a greedines to rule For this some men doe arrogat to theÌ„selves that they say theÌ„selves are the Church to the end that all things may bee done by their hand But we letting go mens devises whereon in this cause some doe rest we will write of the Church out of the holy Scripturs and minde of the spirit That which the Greeks cal a Church the Hebrues call a Congregation the Latineâ— an
Assembly See how lively hee painteth out and taxeth also our Church state in England though primarily he intendeth the Papists And remember that to every of these Churches he alloweth a Bishop as “ Pag. 104. before I have noted So that the D. might have spared his proud boast that “ Pag. 7. All the Disciplinarians in the world are not able to shew that there were or ought to have ben after the division of Parishes any more then one Bishop for a whole Diocese Neither should he have called vs for this our assertion †Pag. 14. New foolish Disciplinarians His worship doubtles is wise when all these our Attestators and abbettors bee fooles Also that “ Pag. 21. his great challenge to his adversary is thus answered Now to proceed he saith it is not probable that Ierusalems Church in the Acts “ Pag. 89. did ordinarily meet in one place I answere yet it is certain they had not then many ordinary set and constant companies meeting togeather Which is the point we stand on will he never see it Further he saith †Pag. 90. The Apostles were never intended to be members all or any of them of one Parish Which is not so they were truly Members of every Church or Parish occasionally that is where when they were present though consâ—antly and necessarily they were not of any one Againe he saith The meetings Act. 6.1 15.22 26 were not Parishionall bur Synodicall They were Parishionall Indeed the later was both I take it Where the Apostles and Elders met first Synodically a part to debate the controversy but Parishionally or with the whole Church when they decreed and set down their resolutioÌ„ Before he said these meetings of the Church were “ Pag. 8 9. Panegyrical meetings Panegyricall not ordinary Which again is not true Such meetings are out of many Cities and Countries but heere the Church of Ierusalem only assembled and in the 15 of the Acts 2. or 3. out of Antioch Againe those are when sundry ordinary set assemblies doe meet in one but these all were of one Church as I said having in it not many ordinary set assemblies Lastly heere matters were haÌ„dled which pertaine to a Church to performe ordinarily so oft as occasion is Therefore they are not to be called extraordinary much lesse were they like the meetings at Pauls Crosse or at the Spittle as he saith least of all were they Panegyricall His obiection from Act. 21.20 of the many 10000. believing Iewes I have answered †Declarat pag. 30. 31 els-where The rest is of no moment In his 6. Chapter he setteth against som other of our reasons viz. touching the Churches of Corinth Ephesus Antioch vnder the Apostles Of all of them he saith “ Def. 2.103 Though it should be granted that each of these Churches in the Apostles time did ordinarily assemble togeather in one place yet would it not follow that therfore each of them was but a Parish much lesse that all Churches should be but Parishes and that every Parish should have a Bishop Verily all this doth follow neither hath hee with any true reason denyed it but all reason is for it as †Pa 208. 213 before I have shewed Then beginning with the Church of Corinth “ Pag. 104. hee dealeth deceitfully leaving out our principall proofe viz. 1. Cor. 14.23 The whole church came togeather in one Which can not bee such as might be written to the Church of England as he saith most vntruly Of this I have said more “ Declarat pag. 26. 27. elswhere To Act. 20.28 of the Church of Ephesus hee saith it needs not signifie only the Congregation of a Parish Yet the wordes are Attend or †〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Cleave close vnto all the flocke and the Apostle nameth it also “ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Congregation Which being taken for a Visible Companie is ever more with authentike Grecians an ordinary CongregatioÌ„ only as I have oft observed So that properly and truly it can not be as he would have it either the Vniversall or a Nationall or Provinciall or Diocesan Church Neither can the Pastors of such cleave close to all such sâ—ockes nor possibly be present to the whole But they must be NoÌ„residents which questioÌ„les these Ephesin Pastors were not as hath ben said Wherefore this place still is a good argument for vs. And so is that touching Antioch also where Act. 14.27 Paul and Barnabas gathered the Church togeather into one particular assembly as the text importeth It is vntrue and against the letter of the text to say as he doth some of the chiefe perhaps not many perhaps not any beside the Clergie Theâ—e perhapses are miserable and desperat shiftes And what forbiddeth Husbandes Wives Servants and children of ripe yeares and vnderstanding to have ben there Hitherto he hath laboured to shew that the Churches mentioned in the New TestameÌ„t were not each of them only one ordinary Congregation but that they were Diocesan Churches Which how vnsufficiently hee hath done every childe may perceave By the way hee obtrudeth a foolish conceit on vs as if by “ Def. 2. pag. 102.104 these aforesaid places of the N. Testament wee intended to prove that the Churches still remained till 200. yeares of Christ such as we hold they were at the first But let him take that collection to himselfe it is none of our meaning Yet where he maketh so much a doe about the space of 200. yeares that we should say for so long time there was no Diocesan Church The truth therof is very perspicuous and certain let the D. know that I can easily maintaine it For the space of 200. yeares after Christ there was no Diocesan Church Therefore let vs see what he hath against it Where first I will note what a cavill he hath against vs for abridging and restraining the primitive Church to 200. yeares only To which I answer in respect of taking the Primitive Church as a pattern for vs to follow so we restraine it yet shorter even to the Apostles times onely yea to the times of writing the N. Testament yea to the N. Testament it selfe only And we affirme if any doe follow any authoritie beside they doe profanely irreligiously adulterously no better So that in this our D. D. Bilson likewise where beeing without all proofes in Christs Testament they heap vp Fathers vpon Fathers and most eagerly cry out that we holde against “ Def. 2.128.142 Def. 4. c. Perp. gov 25â— 259. c. the Vniversall perpetuall practise of the Church of Christ if they could make som shew hereof yet I say seeing they have not nor caÌ„ bring one sound proofe for themselves in Christs Testament therefore they vse heere but a carnall reason and contrary to the honour of God They †Ier. 17 5â— make flesh their arme and put not
their trust in the living God “ Chap. 2.13 They digge to themselves pits that can hold no water It is true the Vniversall and perpetuall practise of Christs Church is to bee held alwayes good and holy This I grant but it is because such practise evermore hath the Apostles plaine writing for it and with it Which the Churches said practise can not bee destitute of But yet suppose our adversaries had som kind of general consent of men for theÌ„ as they pretend seeing they can not indeed produce the Scripture more then the Papists do who also preteÌ„d the like Vniversal consent for their turne or suppose that they do but pretend all this Vniversalitie perpetuitie beeing far from it indeed then why I praâ— should not we answer them as D. Bilson somtime answered the said Papists Saying “ Answ to the Seminar part 4. pa. 360 If you want the foundation of faith and religion he meaneth the Scripture in vaine you do seeke to make a shew of Catholicisme with such patches and pamplets c. When you muster the Fathers to disprove the Scriptures and to establish an vnwritten faith vnder the credit of traditions you corrupt the Writers and abuse the Readers †Pag. 362. Nowe cite not only 9. but 9. skore Fathers if you will for Traditions the more you stir the worse you spcede “ Pag. 300. Truth hee meaneth the Scripture is authoritie sufficient against all the world * Pag. 301. One man with truth is warrant against all the world yea every private man for his owne person may embrace Gods Lawes whosoever say nay And as Tertullian hath against this no man may prescribe nor space of time nor patronage of persons nor privilege of places “ Pag. 299. Though the whole world pronounce againe the word yet God will bee true and all men lyars †Pag. 384. God speaketh not now but in the Scriptures How excellently are these things written if he himselfe and his associats would followe the same or would suffer vs to follow it The effect wherof is that not only wee are bound evermore to holde fast Gods word and never to admit the carnal reasoÌ„ of Humane consent in Divine matters such as our questioÌ„ of the forme of Christs Church is but also it notifyeth D. Bilsons open coÌ„tradictioÌ„ to himselfe who presseth hardly against vs that which hee denyeth to the Papists Is God an accepter of persons Is it ill for Papists to plead Vniversall consent and yet must we content our selves with it rest thereon Shall he say to vs “ Perp. gov pag. 223.235 Is not the whole Church a lawfull and sufficient witnes in that case And that it is enough †Pag. 228. if any christian persons deserve to be credited And yet shall he say to Papists “ Lib. 4 38â— It is alike Haereticall to believe without Scripture aâ— to believe against Scripture Yea even to ourselves when hee list hee can say †Perp. gov pag. 286. Make vs good proofes out of Scripturs or leave tying Gods ordinances to your appetites Wherfore we must crave leave in our cause also to answer him and all of his minde with his owne words afore rehearsed And likewise with D. Rainold that “ Cons 257. No Humane proofe is sure in Divinitie †Pag. 19â— Truth is not to be tryed by consent of Fathers “ Pag. 45â— For my selfe I assure you that neither dead nor quicke Fathers nor children shall perswade me any thing in matter of religion which they cannot prove by Moses the Prophetes or which hee meaneth by the Apostles writings Now thus the Churches Vniversall perpetuall consent beeing no good proofe in Divinitie the whole Churches consent at some time only is a proofe much worse and by no meanes to be admitted Though Augustin in a certain place it seemeth held it good yet it is his error as where hee saith “ August epist 118. Si quid tota hodiè per orbem frequentat Ecclesia hoc quin ita faciendum sit disputare insolentissimae insaniae est If the whole Church through out the world at this day observe any thing it is insolent madnes to reason against it Certainly there have ben and may be †As sometime Polygamie was Catholike errors which yet questionles may be yea ought to bee reproved by all them that vnderstaÌ„d them Well but have our adversaries a Vniversall coÌ„sent of the whole Church at any time Alas they are far from it Neither D. Bilson nor D. Downame nor they al have alleaged neither can they alleage halfe a quarter of the whole Church at any time What then Then they are to lavish of their wordes in saving they have the Vniversall consent of the whole Church They indeed come short of it by many hundred thousandes A poore fewe God knowes they cite in comparison of all It may be they name some of the chiefe most famous in their dayes Yet it followeth not that all who lived then were of their minde D. Bilson against the Seminar lib. 1. part 2. pag. 402. Neither is it necessary that all differences should bee recorded in writing nor that all Records should be preserved come to our handes So that they are far from proving a Vniversall consent at any time much lesse at all times of the Church But what speake I of Vniversalitie and perpetuitie Let our adversaries not equivocat Let them deale plainly Let them vse no deceit in wordes nor force to mens consciences And then I assure thee good reader nothing but noveltie and iniquitie is in their Defence and assertion against vs. I have shewed before that in our controversie which wee have at this day “ Above pa. 98.97 â—â— we speak against only a proper Diocesan Church and the Bishop thereof where the peoples free coÌ„sent is wholy denyed them as it is in England and our adversaries defende namely this Diocesan Church and Bishop Of this particularly and precisely is all their †Def. 2.114 Epist to the King pag. 1 great and glorious commendation and praise which they publish Nowe to the point Is this kind of Diocesan Church and this kind of Bishop Apostolicall Have they Vniversall perpetuall approbation for this Nothing lesse I appeale heerin to our right worthy Attestators before alleaged yea to all indifferent and vnpartiall witnesses yea to the partial also in times of “ Pag. 64. 65. 66. antiquitie who do stand with vs. By all true evidence it wil be as cleare as the light at noone day that this foresaid proper Diocesan Church and Bishop were not in the world till after 200. yeares of Christ which is the time limited by vs Indeed not till after 300. Nay it was after 400 and longer also As I have shewed “ Pag. 66. 67. 88. before So that both D. Bilsons and D. Downames Defences which they have made for
Down “ Def. 2.106 boasteth much that Ignatius calleth him selfe “ Ignat. epâ—ad Rom. Bishop of Syria Why What then Ignatius heere sheweth his Nation not the extent of his Bishoprike He sheweth hee was a Bishop of Syria or a Syrian Bishop not the Bishop of all Syria Likewise to the “ Ad Magnes Magnesians that his Church was a most famous notable Church in Syria not the only Church there much lesse extended over all Syria Neither was Philip Archbishop of Crete as the Doctor †Defenc 4.8 and 2.125 would make him seeme by perverting and abusing Eusebius againe For his words “ Euse â— â—3 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 their Bishop are to bee referred to the Church of Gortyna mentioned a little before Not to the very next wordes which are to be vnderstood by themselves as it were in a parenthesis thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 together with the rest of the Churches in Crete To take Eusebius thus is the right taking of him heere For presently him selfe openeth him selfe saying it was the Church of Gortyna which was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vnder him Vnder Philip And yet more plainly after where with speciall respect to the former place in question he saith of this Philip †Cap. 23. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whoÌ„ we know by Dionysius iâ—ordes to have ben Bishop of the Parish in Gortyna So then hee was not Bishop of all Creete by Eusebius testifying The Doc. in another place contradicteth him selfe and maketh Pinytus at this very time to be Bishop of “ Def. 4.9 Candie that is of all Crete as he meaneth In deed Eusebius saith that this Pinytus was †Euseb 4.21 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Bishop of them in Crete But all men vnderstand that hee meaneth heere to shew but his Nation not the extent of his Bishoprike For Eusebius declaresh “ Cap. 23. after that Pinytus was Gnossitaâ—â— paraciae Episcopus the Bishop of the parish in Gnossi Which certainly was not Over all Crete neither was Gnosiâ— the mother City of Crete That which the Doctor †Def. 2.93.100 presumeth of Evaristus Bishop of Rome that he there constituted a Diocesan Church and divided parishes I have answered it †Pag. 93. 94. before His testimonies out of Tertullian Cornelius of Rome and Cyprian for a Diocesan Church proove nothing Touching the “ Def. 2.97.98 first Tertullian saith not that in Rome or in any Citie then the Christians were divided into many set constant and certain companies Tertallian and so had divers such ordinarie assemblies Tertullian saith no such matter which yet is the point Indeed like a Rhetorician hee amplifieth the multitude of Christians and Christianlie affected in his dayes and that is all that he doeth Apol 37. and ad Scapul They are in truth Rhetoricall amplifications Yet I say In the Roman Empire he compreheÌ„deth in these great nombers all Christianly affected and all their favourers not only the open members of the Church Cootiarily hee saith they were one singular Cetus aggregatio Def. 2. Now such may be so many as hee there noteth Nothing of all this we deny But hee sheweth not that yet in any Citie the open resolut Christians were divided into divers ordinary set companies as I said The like do I answer to †Pag. 9â— that of the very great and innumerable people vnder Cornelius Bishop of Rome They were so many that no man among them knew the first nomber of them And so I suppose at this day the church is in Paris in Rouan c. Where yet the Church is not divided into several constant and set Meetings but all belong only to one certaine constant assembly Againe vnder Cornelius the Christian people were not so many but one Trophimus a Presbyter drew away from him “ Cypr. epist 4.2 the greater part of them after Novatian repenting he brought them backe with him againe Also the Church assembled in one place to elect * Cypr. Epi. 3.13 and 4. Cornelius and a little before “ Euseb 6.22 Fabianus to bee their Bishop Wherefore they were not absolutly innumerable But this is plaine and it can not be disprooved that yet the Church in Rome had not divers set constant ordinarie assemblies Nor yet Cyprians Church in Carthage Anno 250. All the which came togeather for “ See pag. 55.56.57.58 his election and vnder him also for all ordinarie Church busines The Do. saith vntruly of him that †Def. 2.40 he was Bishop of Afrike Nazianzen doth make him Bishop Hesperiae Vniversae of all Spaine at least as well as of Afrike And Prudentius goeth further saith he †De Passiâ—â—â— Cypr. Vsque in ortum Solis vsque obitum from the rising of the Sunne to the going downe thereof But doth any man beleeve that Cypriâ—â—s Bishoprike was so large or that these Authors meant so Nothing lesse They meant only that the example of this holy man and his doctrine did good thus far I graunt also that by his letters he admonished and informed divers other Bishops neare about Carthage and so hee did Cornelius of Rome c. But this was out of his singular zeale for the truth and love to his brethren Also hee prevayled much in so doing Howbeit this was through his great credit reverence they had of him it was not out of any Metropolitan power that hee had or superior office which he exercised over theÌ„ For he had none such though he were a Metropolitan in respect of the place where hee was Bishop And altogeather “ Defen 4 8â— so did Policrates of Ephesus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hee lead or guided the Asian Bishops And no otherwise †Def. 2.115 Irenaeus B. of Lions 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 did looke vnto certaine Churches thereabout in France And Victor B. of Rome was a Metropolitan no otherwise also Although without any preiudice to vs wee might well grant these to have bene then such Metropolitans Diocesans †viz. with Prioritie of order not Maioritie of power as before we acknowledged Iulianus of Alexandria to have ben who was somwhat ancienter then they Other Diocesan or MetropolitaÌ„ Bishops after these whom both D. Downame and D. Bilson do name pleÌ„tifully as they hurt not our maine Assertion viz. that no proper Diocesan Church was in the world before 200. yeares after Christ so neither do wee envie their appearing which was “ See pag. 88. 94. c. so late as it was These D. D. do argue earnestly from Ierom saying that * Ierom. ad â—vagr Bishops above Presbyters were at Alexandria even from Marke the Evangelist Which we willingly agree vnto For they were not Diocesan Bishops not over many ordinarie Congregations And such also were those Angells of the Churches which are mentioned in the “ Rev. 2.1 Revelation This wee constantly avouch
these we allow and what get our adversaries by that We hold that such Bishops be Apostolike and Divine yet Diocesan both titular and ruling Bishops and also Lord Bishops came in â—aâ—latim by litle and little by Humane policie and ambition and tyraÌ„nie long after But Ierom there saith that these Bishops were in a higher degree above Presbyters Bez. Annoâ—at in Apoc. 2.1 which Beza denyeth Also they were constant Presidents in the Meetings which Beza also denyeth Beza saith Bishops and Presbyters then differed not gradu in degree meaning in degree of power that is in Maioritie of power they differed not then But in degree of Order he granteth they did differ which I call “ Reas. for 1â— Prioritie of Order Which also Ieâ—om meaneth by his higher degree in this place And so heerein we all agree But as touching Bezaes coniecture of the Angell of Ephezus viz. that peradventure he might be a President not continuing but changeable I suppose few approve it For my part I do not Though I greatly honor the name memorie of Maister Beza yet there is no neede to be of his opinion in this A changeable Presidencie no doubt was among those Bishops Act. 20.28 But I am of minde that none of these Bishops meant by the Angells Rev. 2. 3. were changeable In all likelyhood they were constant and continuing for terme of life And such a difference Presidentiall might well com in among the many joint Pastors of the Church at Ephesus by this time and yet they all remaine †Declarâ—â— pag. 15. equall in honor and power Pastorall Howbeit these constant Presidents were Bishops then to no Diocesan multitude dispersed abroad in many ordinary set assemblies but to one ordinary assembly only as is noted often before And so the great argument of these Doctors which they take from the “ Perp. gov pag. 260. D. Down Def. 4. â— Succession of Bishops to proove our Bishops as they are in England to be lawfull may appeare to be a meere Sophisme deceit For the Bishop of Rome also may by such a shew of Succession prove his Office and Function lawfull as in deed he doth indeavour to do and doth it as well as they But though all these Bishops have one name viz. Bishops yet betweene the first and the last of them there are seene many reall and substantiall differences in their Offices To observe therefore this egregious Equivocation I remit the Reader to pag. 98. 99. 128. 129. 211. 212. before Yet Doctor Downame †sticketh hard to this †Defenc. 4.50 c. that Iames the Apostle was a Bishop Iames no proper Bishop What a proper Bishop It is simply impossible whosoever say otherwise Let the Reader marke that all our question is about Bishops properly so called not about the name Bishop vsed in a generall sense There is “ Rain confer pa. 263. 267. a generall taking of the word Bishop and there is a proper taking of it Apostles and Evangelistes may generally improperly be called Bishops the rather if they reside long in one place and do execute a Bishop like Office there As Iames I graunt did in Ierusalem and Titus in Crete yea by assignement of the Apostles And questionles so the Ancient Writers meane where they call Iames Bishop of Ierusalem and Titus Bishop of Crete For neither Iames nor Titus were nor could be proper Bishops there Which I shewe thus Every Bishop is appropriated limited and confined only to one Church Iames neither was nor could be appropriated and confined only to one Church Therefore Iames neither was nor could be a Bishop The Proposition is most evident and granted of our “ D. Bilson pag. 227. 232. adversaries The Assumption they neither ought nor dare deny For Iames having froÌ„ Christ a Ministerie and Calling to all Churches throughout the world this hee retayned still hee never lost that it were sacrilege to reduce him from it and to shorten him of this his right given him froÌ„ heaven Neither could the Apostles do it if they would Heere it will be an absurd evasion to say Iames had in him two Offices viz. an Apostles and a proper Bishops Office In respect of the former hee was still vnlimited in respect of the later he was limited to the Church of Ierusalem This I say is so absurd frivolous as nothing can be more And yet it is the only thing that can bee answered I pray can one and the same man by any distinction be capeable of privative contraries at one time Can the same man be in fetters and at libertie at once Can one be blind and see also Can a man be a Christian an insidell too No more could Iames be both appropriated to Ierusalem and not appropriated at one time Neither could the proper Bishops Office bee conioyned with an Apostleship For it were in vaine Seeing the Apostleship contayneth the whole Bishoply Office and more too But the Apostles in the Churches administratioÌ„ did no thing in vaine idly Again though the Apostleship contained in it the whol office of a proper Bishop yet this was “ Declarat pag. 30. Materially not Formally As a Privie Counsailler in England hath in him the Office and power of a Iustice of peace also a Shilling containeth a Groat But no man that meaneth plainly will say A Shilling is a Groat or a Privie Counsailler is a Iustice of peace If any do it is not rightly nor truely spoken For not the Matter but the Forme doth give the proper name Yet I do not deny all vse of vnproper speaches I grant on some occasion men may speake generally and vndistinctly of things In reasoning we must alwayes speake properly as I deeme those Ancients did of Bishops Nevertheles in ordinary teaching and specially in reasoning and disputing wee must ever vse exact and proper termes avoyding generalities and wordes vnproper Otherwise wee equivocate To this reason that the Apostles gave not Iames any power which hee had not before as an Apostle D. Downame answereth that which is both false and also most presumptuous For plainly hee saith “ Def. 4 5â—â— Iames the Apostle had not the power of Iurisdiction before he was designed Bishop of Ierusalem O hautie Bishops Who arrogat to themselves a power beyond the Apostles No marvaile if he say Pag. 59. it is no depressing of an Apostle to become a proper Bishop For only this may lâ—ft vp a Bishop above an Apostle his other idle “ Pag. 62. 63. respects and considerations neither did nor could Titus and Timothie were no proper Bishops Nay but Titus Timothie and their Bishopriks do make the most busines of all Of whom D. Bilson saith †Perpet govâ— pag. 300. Heere I must pray the Christian Reader advisedly to marke what is said answered on either side This indeed is the maine erection of the Episcopall power and function
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