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
in a Synod but it is in the power and free liking of every Parish who only have power to exclude from the Churches communion the impudent sinner If wee looke thoroughly into the wordeâ— which are in Math 18. we may finde him only to be excommunicate whom the common consent of that Church where the man dwelleth hath shut out Againe “ Epichirifis de Ganone Missae Est particularis Ecclesia ea cuâ— preceptum est vt morbidum membrum resecet Math. 18. quales ea Corinthi ad quam seribit Paulus aliae quarum se curam gereâ—â—dicat quibus se pari modo docere asserit â—nquiens Sollicitudo omnium EcclesiaruÌ„ sicut 〈◊〉 omnibus Ecclesijs doceo That is a parti ulat Church which is commanded to cut of the infected member Math. 18. Chap. â— Such as that of Corinth is to which Paul writeth and others which he saith be hath care of and in which he affirmeth that he taught altogeather alike saying The care of all Churches and As I teach in all Churches And concerning Calling to the Ministerie he saith * Ecclesiaste◠†It seemeth that there is nothing so agreeable to the ordinance of God and to the old institution as that all the whole Church of the faithfull amongst a people togeather with certain learned and godly Bishops and other faithfull men having skill in things should choose a Pastor And after againe Let therfore these proud Bishops and foolish Abbots goe shake their â—ares For it is convenient that the right of the Election should be in the power of the church of the faithfull instructed by the counsaill of learned meÌ„ Moreover he writeth thus “ Ad Valent Compar Hee that with a Councill of Bishops shall impose on Christian people any law or observatioÌ„ at their own liking he meaneth without the peoples coÌ„sent hic violento imperio ius Ecclesiae invadit Hee invadeth the Churches right by a violent command And therefore such Bishops as thus doe absque Ecclesia without the Churches consent statuentes suâ libidine Artic. 64. decreeing at their owne pleasure he saith are nomine tenus Episcopi reverà tyranni in name Bishops but in deed tyrants And thus much out of this holy man of God and noble witnes of Christ Maister Zuinglius Maister Luther another mightie and Luther principal champion for Gods truth at the same time wrote a special treatise which hath this title * Tom. 2. pag. 374. Quod Ecclesia â—us potestatem habeat indicandi de quavis doctrinâ item vocandi Ministros Evangelij aut si fideles esse desierint deponendi That the “ In this word he signifieth the CongregatioÌ„ of the people Church hath the right power to iudge of any doctrine also of calling the Ministers of the Gospell or if they cease to be faithfull to depose them What can be more for vs then this is In another place he saith “ Pag. 369. b. Chemnic examp part 2.27 a. Claves sunt totius Ecclesia The Keyes belong to the whole Church In his booke of the Privat Masse hee speaketh to the Bishops of his time thus Spiritus Sanctus vui Civitats plures constituit Episcopos Vos singuli estis pluribus Quâ authoritate Nonne ipsius Satanae c The holy Ghost appointed to one City many Bishops but you are one Bishop to many Cities By what authoritie Is it not of Sathan him selfe by you opposing against the authoritie of the Holy Ghost We conclude therfore boldly that you according to the Scriptures the H Ghosts decree are not so much as to be called Bishops but rather adversaries and destroyers both of Bishops and of the Divine decree concerning the appointing of Bishops Againe in his booke against the falsly named Order of Bishops hee saith †pag. 322. At citra iocum vides palam c. But without iest thou seest openly that the Apostle Paul calleth only them Bishops which do preach the Gospell and Minister Sacraments to the people as in our time the parish Ministers and Preachers do Therefore I beleeve without doubt that they by fight possesse the title and name of Bishops And in another treatise “ De Ministâ— Eccles instituendâ— pag. 365. b. Donabo hoc ordmibus Papisticis quod solius Episcopi autoritate instituuntur quos vocant Sacerdotes consensu aut suffragio populi cui preficiendi sunt neque requisito nec obtento cuius tamen cum sint populus Dei maximè intererat vt non sine suffragijs suis quisquaÌ„ eis imponeretur I will yield this saith he to the popish orders that Priestes as they call them are instituted by the authoritie of the Bishop alone the câ—nsent and voyce giving of the people over whoÌ„ they are to bee set neither sought nor obtâ—yned whose chiefe right nevertheles it was seeing they are Gods people that not any one should be set over them without their voyce-giving Thus teach these Pillars of the Gospell Zuinglius and Luther To whom wee will ad our two great lightes that shined sometyme in England Maister Bucer and P. Martyr Bucer Bucer hath these wordes †In Math 16. â—9 Haec potestas penes omnem Ecclesiam est authoritas modo Ministerij penes Presbyteros Episcopos Ita vt Roma olim potestas populs fuit authoritas Senatus This power sway of the governement is in the whole Church but the authoritie only of ministration therof is in the Presbyters and Bishops So as in old time at Rome the power was in the people but the authoritie or direction was in the Senat. In an other place he saith “ De regno Chrâ—â—â— 1. â— The Apostle accuseth the Corinthianâ— for that the whole church did not cast out of their company the incestuous person P. Martyr saith 7. P Martyr †In â— Cor. 16.15 Fatemur claves Ecclesia vniversae datas We confesse the Keyes are given to the whole Church By the Keyes he meaneth Governement and Ecclesiasticall power Also hee saith “ vers 3. it is no mervaile that it is the Churches right to chose Ministers seeing we see the Civill Lawes do give power to Townes to choose their Physicians and Scholemaisters at their owne liking In an other place thus he saith “ In cap. 5.11 Quoniam in Ecclesia de negotijs gravioribus quae sunt maximi momenti ad plebem â—efertur vt patet in Actis Apostolicis ideò politâ—ae rationem habet Because in the Church matters of waight are referred to the people to determine as it is manifest in the Acâ—es therefore the Church hath a respect of the Popular governement or Democracie For so P. Martyr heere meaneth by politia as wee may see if we look in the place Also namely of Excommunication hee saieth Consentiente vniversa Eccsesia Excommunicetur Hoc debet ist ad iudicium antecedere Let Excommunication be with the consent of
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
times places and persons without any limitation The like proofe is that also in another text viz. †Hebr. 9. â—â— No man taketh this honour to him selfe but be that is called of God as Aaron was But I wil presse this no further For I suppose every Christian advised will acknowledge it and I have shewed it at large in a speciall treatise for the purpose viz. The Divine beginning and institution of Christes true visible Ministeriall Church Secondly If Chist him selfe have seated the power of Ordination and Iurisdiction in the whole CoÌ„gregation at any time then it is certain that so much is contained some-where in the New Testament This is no Vnwritten Tradition neither can be by any meanes if Christ him selfe be the Author heereof as before we have seene that he is Thirdly This being contayned in the New Testament viz. that Christ him selfe hath seated the power of ordination iurisdiction in the whole body of a particular CoÌ„gregation in the case of necessitie it is certain then that it is contained in those speciall places which after many other worthy Divines I have to this purpose cited and alleaged in the third and 9. Arguments of my forenamed Treatise of the Divine beginning and instituâ—â—â— of Christs true visible Ministerial Church For there can bee no other instance shewed at least none can bee shewed of any other tenor then those are Which speciall places are these Math. 18.17 and 1. Cor. 5.13 2. Thes 3.14 and 2. Co. 2.8 Also Act. 14.23 Act. 6.3.5.6 Act. 1.23.26 and Act. 15.22.25.28 as it appeareth in the foresaid Arguments of the said Treatise Fourthly these places of Christes Testament shewing that Christ hath seated the power of ordination and iurisdiction in the whole particular CoÌ„gregation theÌ„ it must needes be that these shew the said whole Congregation to have that power and right not in the case of necessitie only but even alwayes at all seasons This likewise cannot be denyed For in these speciall places there is no restraint of this power and right in the Congregation no abridging thereof no tying it to the case of necessitie only but they shew it to be in the people from God indefinitly and without limitation Neither is it otherwise to be found in Christes Testament any where els Wherefore by no meanes may men restraine that which God hath given indefinitly Nor take that away from â—is people at any time which he hath given them simply 2. Cor 2.24 What is proud â—lesh and bloud to inhibit or lessen Christs vnlimited free graunt gracious gift to his Church Or how can our soules rest assured wheÌ„ we yeeld to such presumption of men Wherevpon wee may fee that this restraining clause of our Doctor heere added that this acknowledgement of his is not true of any particular Congregation but in pase of necessitie is both a false and absurd addition False as beeing contrary to the generalitie of those speciall places of Christes Testament above mentioned absurd as implying by necessary consequence a contradiction to himselfe in one the same sentence For his present acknowledgement such as it is implyeth the contrary to this his limitation by necessarie consequence as before in this fourth point I have shewed Fiftly this power of Ordination and Iurisdiction being by Christ seated in the whole Congregation and that alwayes surely then it must needs be in them only And so I vnderstand in another place “ Declaâ—â—â— Pag. â— 35. where I say that this power is coÌ„vertible with the CoÌ„gregation I affirme therefore that this power indeed is onely in the whole Congregation Although D. D. Downame hath skill to go two ways to Heaven for the true Church-governemeÌ„t is the way to heaveÌ„ yet our good holy and wise God approoveth but one way as where he saith “ Isa 30.21 This is the way walke ye in it Turne not therefrom neither to the right hande nor to the less And where Christ saith * Ioh. 14.6 I am the way the truth and the life He alloweth simply but one way even that which is his owne ordinance and none other Vas via vna veritas One way one truth Also Veritas simplex error autem multiplex Truth is but one Error is manifold Wherefore it can not be but the power of Ordination and Iurisdiction being by Christ seated in the whole Congregation it is also only in them Heere the adversaries thinke they have a great advantage against vs. They say it appeareth in the Scripture that “ 1. Tim. 5.22 Tamothie and †Tit. 1.5 Titus had power of Ordination and iurisdiction Therefore only the CoÌ„gregations had not that power I answer This consequence is vtterly false it followeth not at all For Timothie Titus had the power of Ordination and iurisdiction with the Congregations Now the CoÌ„gregatioÌ„ only had power not without them Being partes of them and being present in them for the time not being personally out of them or absent froÌ„ them So as the L. Bishops do exercise their power in England Againe as Paul saith to the Corinthians that “ 2 Cor â— 24 he was not 〈◊〉 Lord over their faith but a helper to them for their â—oy So these viz. Timothia and Titus in the Congregations were not Lords but they were Helpers to them in the managing of these affaires They did not alone without the Congregations concurrence what themselves listed but they ordered guided the Congregations in this their busines as Directors and chiefe Counsellors and as the most worthie to bee Actors thereof for them And the like was the power of the Apostles also towards the Congregations It was such I say and none other Indeed in their Doctrine and teaching they by them selves alone instructed them sometime commaunded them in the name of Christ but in outward governement they did not any thing alone or Lordly that is without the Congregations free consent Wherefore much rather the power of all ordinarie true Bishops and Pastors is such and no greater They have power of Ordination and iurisdiction but yet evermore with the Congregations presence and free consent as their instruments doing their actes in the Churches name and by their authoritie not in their owne name noâ— solely as Lords So it remayneth evident that Bishops primitively yea Timothie and Titus and the Apostleâ— themselves had power of ordinarie Church governement and yet the Congregations only had this power Because they evermore were partes of the Congregations in them when they had and vsed their power Sixtly it followeth also necessarily from hence that the power of Ordination and iurisdiction is in the body of the Congregation Substantially Essentially and Fundamentally after Christ and the Congregation may bee truly said in such respect to do performe those actions the Bishops and Guides do these actions Instrumentally and Ministerially and no otherwise then in the Congregations name and by their authoritie as
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
of the Vniversal Church which yet he acknowledgeth is to be governed out wardly M. Gabr. Powell like a wise maÌ„ maketh it an heresie in the Pope to holde as he doth †Gabr. Powel de Antichristo pag. 254. In Eccesia oportere esse Visibile caput That in the Visible Church there ought to be a visible head What do I heare A visible Body instituted by Christ without a Visible Head A Church and no Pastor A multitude to be governed and no Governor These are strange assertioÌ„s who soever how many soever do affirme theÌ„ For I graunt there are not a few others also which vse so to speake But in deed there is no colour of truth nor reason in these sayings Some will say D. “ Perp. gov pag. 372. Bilson D. †Def. 3.4 Downame both do shew that this one Body and Church Vniversall is to be governed by a Vniversall Synod Do they so Very well Then who shall call this Synod The calling of Provinciall Synods “ Perp. gov pa. 377 39â— they make a good reason for a Metropolitane or Archbishop Certainly the calling of a Vniversall Synod doth far better and more necessarily require a Pope A Vniversal Synod ablosute Nay â—t requireth a Pope certainly Besides it is a question whether a Vniversall Synod hath ever ben or can possibly â—e rightly and duly had At the most it is plaine that such Synodes are exceeding rare and seldom and hardly effected Math. 18.15.16.17 But the causes of the Churches governement are frequent continuall and every day What shall we thinke Hath Christ left his Body deare Spouse without helpe without governement in such dayly and continuall necessities Or can an ordinarie body be governed without an ordinarie Head To vse D. Bilsons words “ Perp. gov pag. 376. this were an heathenish if not a hellish confusion Wherefore these consequences all do follow certainly and necessarilie A Vniversall Church must have a Vniversall ordinarie Pastor And so much touching the Proposition of this reason My Assumption is this But no Vniversall Ordinarie Pastor is of Divine institution in the New Testament And this they all affirme with me constantly Therefore the Conclusion is true viz No Vniversall proper Church and consequently also no Vniversall nor any other representative Church is of Divine institution in the New Testament Hitherto I have shewed our reasons and witnesses against Synods exercising absolut power spirituall over ChristiaÌ„ people which are also churches representative To which busines I have ben forced by Do. Downames importunat flannders both generally against vs and against my selfe in particular Who heerein first compareth vs to the “ Def. 1 4â— Pope from whom he knoweth we are far enough of Where as indeed his absolut Synods do agree with the Pope too well and do make to much for him as †Pag. 110.111 112.113.114 before we saw Then he vpbraideth vs that wee will not be ruled by Synodes I answer Wee submit our selves to be ruled spiritually by Christes true visible Church instituted in his word And what would he have more Thirdly hee goeth about to deny that we subject our selves to the Kings Supremacie Whether hee doth this with more malice or foolishnes I know not For he can not be ignorant that though we affirme that the Church governement is independent and immediatly derived from Christ yet we affirme also it standeth with good reason that the Civil Magistrate is even therein Supreme Governor Civilly And though nothing may be imposed on the Christian people of a Congregation against their wills by any Spirituall authoritie for so only we intend yet we affirme withall that the Civill Magistrat may impose on them Spirituall matters by Civill power yea whether they like or dislike if hee see it good This we al gladly acknowledge Wherein we referre our selves to that which we have “ Petit. for toleration Offer c. publikly written protested in this behalfe Fourthly he falsly chargeth me by name that I in my booke of Reasons for reformation do not acknowledge in Synods any lawfull authoritie †Def. 3.4 to determine He might “ Perp. gov pa. 382.383 thus charge Doctor Bilson But I in that booke and place which hee wrangleth with do expresly say †Reas. for reform p. 31 Synods determinations are most expedient and wholesome alwayes In which respect I “ See before pag. 89. allow also the Apostles practise in Act. 15. as being both a Synod and an authentike rule and patterne for Synods Where the Apostles with others when an occasion cause was given them did not only meet togeather consult but also they did define determine and decree certain pointes yea they delivered the same to divers Churches to be kept who had no Deputies for them present in that Apostolike assembly Howbeit these Apostles delivered abroad these their Decrees only so and in such wise as informing and teaching all men thereby what they ought to do that is in maner of doctrine To the Church of Antioch whom it most concerned only this they say If ye observe these things “ Act. 15.29 ye shall do well They say not The Minister that imbraceth not these ordinaÌ„ces is deprived of his ministerie the person receyving them not is excommunicat ipso facto or he is Anathema accursed As some Synods do pronounce I grant Synods may discusse and determine of errors and may pronounce them wicked and accursed errors But actually excommunicat mens persons the Apostles never did without the concurrence and consent of that Congregation where they were members Wherefore more then this no Synod at anie time may do by the rule of the Gospell If any do impose any of their acts on a CoÌ„gregation whether they like or dislike vpon pavne of some spirituall censure yea if it be on anie one person without the same Congregations consent of which hee is certainly as I said it is more then the Apostles ever did in the Church-governement and therefore we can not out conclude that it is now vnlawful for vs so to do Also it is that point which all the forenoted sentences of those late Writers most excellent lights of the Gospell do condemne Wherefore we willingly take that Apostolike practise in Act. 15. both as being a Synod also a good patterne of Synods for ever Neither do wee in deed mislike any Christian Synods but greatly approve of them though some out of malice do obiect to vs the contrary Alwayes the Apostles practise we take for our rule And so much touching the second coÌ„sequent in this Chapter Thirdly it being admitted as Christs ordinance that the Church governement ought to bee alwayes with the peoples free coÌ„sent it followeth that Lord Bishops in severall are vnlawfull contrarie to Christ Now a Lord Bishop Who is a Spirituall Lord. and a Spirituall Lord we alwayes vnderstand him to be who exerciseth sole authoritie
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
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
should by a Congregation signifye either Vniversall or Provinciall or Diocesan Church is a most false vnlikely conceit Can any of these bee one Visible Congregation in the singular nomber He alleageth as hee thinketh textes for his pupose Matt. 16. Ephe. 1. and 5. Which surely may well yea they are to bee vnderstood of a Visible Congregation viz. indefinitly taken See heereof the Divine beginning and institution of Christes Visible Church Argum. 26. 23. Of Mai. Beza “ Def. 4.166 hee affirmeth that hee wished with all his heart for the Diocesan Bishops governemēt in Geneva Which is as true as that which the Iesuits blazed abroad how Beza before his death recanted his religion Beza lived to cōvince the Iesuits of vntruth to their faces If hee were now alive he would do the like to this Doct. and those other of whō he saith hee heard it The like audacitie is in that his report that the most learned iudicious Divines in France and Geneva could bee content that Diocesan Bb. governement were renewed among them The most learned in France and Geneva Verily as they were who renewed it Scotland of late Most learned and most iudicious were they Laus proprio sordescit in ore And I feare rather that knowen parable to be heerein verifyed When the trees would have a King the Olive Figtree and Vine refusing the Bramble tooke it on him and said to the trees †Iudg. 9.15 Come put your trust vnder my shadow When all shiftes faile the adversaries will calumniate vs as not dutifull to the King and Civil governement Which though D. Downame saith “ Def. 1.45 hee will not dispute yet he maliciously insinuateth As touching dutifull affection to the Kings person none can say more if he list then D. Downame him selfe in my particular Yea what wordes I spake whē he held his peace to a Noble Lord of Scotl. An. 1601. when neither of vs durst be seene nor heard abroad for feare of whom Verily of those who were his best friends since If I was thē so dutifully animated toward the K. when we only hoped for his Maiestie God forbid I should bee lesse now when we have him Being so maligned traduced as I am I could not but speake of this Touching our duty generally to his Maiesties authoritie and place the evidence of reason sense plead for vs. Tertull. ad Scapul We acknowledge with Tertullian that he is Solo Deo minor Lesse then God only In Church governement we impeach not his Soveraigtie neither in matter nor manner Therefore no way at all The matter is only about Ezcommunication and Making of Ministers and such like things Of the essentiall forme whereof Christ only is institutor his Ecclesiasticall servantes bee the Ministers The King is neither Author nor Minister Vnto this I suppose all agree For the maner Seeing we holde each whole Church in the greatest extent can be no mo ordinarie Congregations then one how can these either by their comming togeather or by their consenting in any Spirituall busines only for them selves I say how can these impeach the Kings power one haire His Supreme Vniversall overseeing and ordering them and all others yea his chastising them when they do any thing amisse how can it be let how can it be hindered by such a handfull And because hee must vse Substitute Rulers in his general overseeing the Churches of his Dominions we frō our hearts do honor them also and submit to them as to Gods Lieutenants in their severall places Only we testifie that if the Kings power be committed to any Ecclesiasticall person especially Civill coactive power it draweth with it both a breach of Christes ordinance who said to such Ministers “ Luc. 22.25 Math. 20.25 2. Chro. 19.11 You shall not be so and also a torture to Christian subiects cōsciences Wherefore we desire of God that the King would be pleased to appoint as Ichosaphat did a Zebadiah to bee generall Governor vnder him in Church causes so far as it pertaineth to the King to deale in them and as King Henry 8. a L. Cromwell his Vicegerent in rebus Ecclesiasticis and as his Maiestie him selfe did as I have heard in Scotland before hee came among vs. Which may be far more easily performed with inferior subordinate Officers vnder them also for this purpose in every place in a Monarchie then in any Popular or Aristocraticall Cōmon wealth Vnitie how And verily this is it and not a Diocesan Bishop which would bring great vnitie and that according to God If D. Downame wil vrge which he grateth vpon in this said †Def. 1.45 pag. 45. that the Churches indepēdent authoritie standeth not with the Kings Supremacie in causes Ecclesiasticall and that which els where wee say viz. nothing may be obtruded on the Church against their willes I answer indeed every Churches power is independent spiritually and immediat vnder Christ our meaning therefore is that by ptetended Spirituall authoritie Chap. 9. nothing may be obtruded imposed on any true Church against their willes But we grant that Civill Magistrates may and sometime ought to impose good things on a true Church against their willes if they stifly erre as somtime they may And me thinks Doct. Downame also should bee of this minde with vs. This is thus answered often before pag. 115. c. Hitherto our answer to some of our Adversaries chiefest obiections and evill wordes And so I draw to an end CHAP. IX A short advertisement to the vpright hearted and Christian Reader touching this Writing Cause YET first I desire the Christian Reader to be advertised of a few things pertayning to this Cause Seavē things I intreat him to take notice of First how great a blame and shame it is to D. Downame a principall Logician to treate so largely as in his Sermon defenc he hath done concerning the Nature Forme and Constitution of Christs true Visible Church and yet in all this not once to define the same Which defect of D. Bilson also is to be noted in his perpetuall governement of the Church Surely this one matter viz. a Definition of Christes true Visible Church vnder the Gospell well performed would have saved a great deale of paines and trouble would have prevēted much error And thus it is wiselie taught by Cicero that “ Cicer. Offic. 1. all purposes reasonable ought to be begū with a Definitiō of the matter in band For the avoyding therefore of this imputation I have in †The Divine beginning institution of Christs Visible Church another Treatise defined the said Visible Church of Christ Which I did and rested not on some others who have Defined the Church heertofor because I desired to distinguish cleerly betweene the Iewish Church and the Christian which verily differ not in Accidentes alone but in kinde of governement and in essentiall constitution The Iewish Christian Church
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-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
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
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
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
strangers voice they will flee from Ioh. 10.27.3 But they can not thus discerne and try vnles they may reiect their Teachers being false and erroneous And if they may reiect they may chose Yet alwayes as I said in the best maner they can Some heere obiect and say The people in deed have power and right but they have not meanes thus to do wheÌ„ they want Ministers I answer if they have power froÌ„ whom have they it It wil be said from God If the people have power from God then they have meanes also Otherwise God giveth power in vaine But that is absurd c false that God giveth any power in vaine or such as can not be acted If God intend an end as he doth in giving all power then sure hee intendeth Meanes also to effect the said end And so a Church wanting Ministers but having power from GOD hath Meanes also to make Ministers and so likewise to do everie other Ecclesiasticall action They are not vtterly altogeather destitute of iust and lawfull meanes to performe any such action for their owne vse in the feare of God That is the best meanes they have is sufficient wheÌ„ they have not such as they would and should have otherwise So then this was the answer which the said Tilenus gave to that FreÌ„ch Lord. But in deed this is not only Tilenus answer in this matter for it hath ben the coÌ„mon defence of all sound Protestantes alwayes when they be opposed touching their Ministerie Which the common consent of all our Attestators before cited See our very Adversaries beeren Above pa. 73. 74. c. and many other maketh manifest If any have given other answeres yet only this hath ben the firme sure anchre to trust to Other answeres are all to weake vncertain this only is cleere and constant Though “ Perpe gov Pag. 335. D. Bilson do vniustly deny it A most certain deduction of this power and right of the people from Christes ordinance in the Gospell I have plainly shewed before in the sixt Chapter Also the benefit and fruit of this defence we see in all Churches abroad namely it is evident in those of France Against which the learnedst of the Papistes have nothing soundly to reply So that the Churches there flourish and increase mightily blessed bee God Who but for this answer would certainly both then when Tilenus so did write before and since have ben much troubled and staggered and no lesse then shamed As many are now with vs in England who do shunne and despise this answer Whereby I see that to lay against the Papistes their other errors before we have cleered the lawfulnes of our Ministerie is in deed vnseasonable and little availeable For if we be shamed in the eyes of vnderstanding people or have not certainly what to hold stand to when we be vrged to make good the Calling and lawfulnes of our Ministerie Papistes will easily with distinctions and subtile answeres make a faire shew in reconciling other matters betweene vs in controversie to Gods worde though I graunt they be grosse When we are shamed in so maine a point as the Calling of our Ministers is in no other matter afterward we shall neither can we have good successe But our adversaries of the Protestantes in Englande what say they to this How defend they the Calling of our Ministers against the Papistes D. Bilson denyeth vehemently that “ Perpet gov pag. 335. 368. the peoples consent is essentiall in the making of any Ministers I desire him then to tell vs what is essentiall in it There is no question but somewhat is The very question is Who have power essentially to make Ministers Then what is it which is essentiall in making a Minister If the peoples consent be not surely I know not what els they will assigne to be And yet as I said somewhat must be Wherefore I conceave the peoples consent may be said to be essentiall by Gods word in the making of a Minister vnder the Gospell because no other thing els can be assigned by Protestants as Essentiall therein The common answer in a maner of all men is that in England our Diocesan and Provincial Bishops do give our Ministers their Calling and Office Heere I demande is this Essentiall in the Calling of our Ministers or is it not I thinke few advisedly will saye it is Essentiall For whatsoever is Essentiall any where the same is essentiall every where as “ Pag. 81. before I have observed And so they must deny the true Essence of Ministerie in the forraigne reformed Churches where they have no such Bishops at all where at first they had no Minister at all Therefore they will not say I thinke I know they can not that the Ordination by Bishops is Essentiall to Christes Ministerie vnder the Gospell Yet againe if they say not so they answer the Papist nothing they satisfie not the question So that what they will resolve on in this point Surely no man can well tell Wherefore heere the craftie Priestes and Iesuites among vs will perswade vehemently their disciples that they have got the victorie Seeing wee can not affirme whence our Ministerie is essentially derived given vs. In the end I doubt not the coÌ„mon defence will be this that our said Bishops by their sole authoritie and power do essentially give the Calling of all our Ministerie And that from Archb. Cranmer Ridley our first Protestant Bishops they have stil so done Let what inconvenience soever follow thereof Be it then so Yet even they likewise must have it given to them They viz. those our first Bishops must have it derived vnto them froÌ„ others From whom had they their authoritie and power Briefly it will bee answered they had it given them from the Bishop and Church of Rome And that in deed is the truth the Pope is he who made Archb. Cranmer and Ridley c. such Bishops They had no other Ordination since And from them all the rest of our Ministers have had their Ordination to this day And so the effect of all is that our whole Ministerie in England successively and derivatively cometh from the Pope See the Supplication for Toleration pa. â— Doct. Downame Doct. Bilson and all that maintaine the Church state in England will thus answer But O miserable defence wofull vnto vs. Which in deed though it be false yet it is such as the Papâ—sâ—es desire and do triumph in It is false two wayes First whatsoever the Church of Rome did give to Archbi Cranmer c. that wholy they tooke away againe namely when he fel from them For then they both deposed him and excommunicated him So that they left him no whit of that power function so much as lay in them which they had given him But questionles if they could give it they could take it away Wherefore so soone as hee was ours being thus
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
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