meane that any first Presbyter in a Church was formally appointed to 〈◊〉 Diocese vnder the Apostles Some kind of †See before Pag. 89. Diocese was Apostolike But hee sheweth sufficieÌ„tly that these Bb. Dioceses began somewhile after the Apostles in that hee saith “ Bez. de grad min. 6.24 they were first framed according to the division of the Prâ—vinces vnder the Romane Empire Which verily was nor regarded in the Apostles time nor in the next age after Wherefore Beza meant the first Presbyter thus assigned formally was after the Apostles their abused name Bishop also Lastly I cannot passe how insolently the D. “ Def. 3.15 c. taunteth me for observing many sortes of Bishops and namely for †In reas for ref pag. 7. setting downe six sorts of them also for being ignorant whether Ierusalem or Caesarea had the Patriarchship for supposing Diocesan Ruling Bishops might begin with Dionysius at Aâ—exandria and for not speaking any thing of Metropolitans beginning Let the D. know I was not ignorant that Ierusalem had the Patriarchship but it is a question and that I meant to touch whether Ierusalem exercised ordinarie jurisdiction over Caeâ—area the Province thereof or not pag. 8. in margine But it is a matter of no worth thereâ—ore I passe it Metropolitans Diocesans Patriarkes all one in substance Metropolitans in his sense 〈◊〉 spake not of wheÌ„ I reckoned vp the livers sortes of Bishops because in substance of their Office they are all â—ne with Diocesans Archbishops and Patriarkes Of whom whosoever holdeth â—ne lawful will holde all so to be and â—e who holdeth one Apostolike will acknowledge them all Apostolike This therfore also is no matter what â—oever he maketh of it Touching Diâ—â—ysius of AlexaÌ„dria I confesse I was to â—lame in thinking hee might bee the â—uthor of Majoritie of power rule â—n Diocesan Bishops It was because I â—udged it to be ancienter then indeed â—t is or then reason giveth it Maioritie of power when it began Nowe â—herefore I professe it cannot bee roved to be ancienter then the Niceâ— Councill or Constantine the Emperor as I noted before Once D. Bilson was also of this minde with me where he sheweth that it was not “ Against the Seminar part 2. pag. 318. by the institution of Christ nor his Apostles but long after by the consent of the Churches the custome of the times and the will of Princes And touching my making many sortes of Bishops and my distinguishing of the word the Doct. misliking that sheweth his ignorance not a little or els he sheweth that which is worse If he mislike that I made so many sortes as six Truly it was my fault that I made so fewe Ierom witnesseth that the Bishops of his time came to that power paulatim by little litle And the Vniversall Monarch of the Roman Church came not to his greatnes at once Papacie had Papalitie going before in divers and sundrie degrees The Word reason and experience do shew in such alterations of governement at least so many distinct differeÌ„ces yea mo also Now therefore I desire the Reader to give me leave vpon better coÌ„sideration to set down the distinctioÌ„ of Bishops in 7. differeÌ„ces Seaven sorts of Bishops I affirme therefore that the name Bishop in Christian Writers is given to seaveÌ„ divers sortes Which to observe is right needfull and most profitable to end this great controversie First the name is generally given even to “ Act. 1 20. Apostles Yea Evangelistes also may so be called Bishops as †Pag. 238. 240. before is shewed Secondly it is given to Pastors equall and “ Act. 20.28 Philip 1.1 many in one ordinarie Congregation To whoÌ„ also the name of Presbyter was common Such is the Ministerie now in the Dutch French Churches Thirdly One Pastor of a Church contayning no mo ordinarie Congregations but one is by the ancientest Church Writers called a Bishop singularly As Linus was at Rome Anianus at AlexaÌ„dria Onesimus at Ephesus Ignatius at Antioch Polycarpus at Smyrna c. Such also was the “ Rev. 2.1 Angell of the Church in Ephesus and in Smyrna c. The Scripture giveth not him the name Bishop peculiarly when he hath other assistant Pastors with him but other Writers doe Which truly I will not strive against Fourthly the name Bishop is given to a Titular Diocesan Bishop Of whoÌ„ none can be proved ancienter then Iulianus the tenth Bishop in Alexandria Fiftly Diocesan Bishops with “ Declarat pag. 24. 25. Maioritie of power are called Bishops These began in the Councill of Nice or otherwise vnder Constantine Though the Councill speake of Metropolitans long before yet their power over their brethren was not ratifyed by any law Fiftly Diocesan Bishops with “ Declarat pag. 24. 25. Maioritie of power are called Bishops These began in the Councill of Nice or otherwise vnder Constantine Though the Councill speake of Metropolitans long before yet their power over their brethren was not ratifyed by any law or publike ordinnance till then it was before but arbitrary by the churches affection and no otherwise Sixtly the Diocesan L. Bishop or the Sole governing Bishop is called a Bishop Such are ours now in Englande Of the originall and first beginning of such I have spokeÌ„ * Pag. 66. 67. before Seaventhly a Pope or Vniversall Pastor hath this name Bishop Hee began at Rome about 600. yeres after Christ but came not to his absolut greatnes till divers hundred yeares after And this distinction will assuredly with case be iustifyed Reason and experience do shew such degrees in proceeding And thus far the Answer to D. Downames Defence of Diocesan Churches Obiections are made also inteÌ„sively viz. against the Christian peoples right to coÌ„sent in Church governe Obiections against the peoples power answered It is fit we should answer these likewise so far as is needfull Frst great much paines have ben taken by the adversaries of the truth to deprave the plaine and easie wordes of Matthewe 18.17 Tell the Church They are content to take them any way so it bee not the right way Doct. Bilson spendeth a “ D. Bilson perp gov chap. 4. whole Chapter to make them seeme to signifie a Senat or bench of Iewish Civill Magistrates which he learned only from a Physician Erastus But there is a sufficient refutatioÌ„ of this opinion in the third Argument of The Divine beginning and institution of Christes true Visib Church Secondly D. Bilson contradicting himself vnderstandeth these words of an Ecclesiasticall Senat or Synod Thus also Do. Downame vnderstandeth them as †Pa. 107.108 before we have seene where is a sufficient answer likewise therevnto Thirdly Maister Iohnson of the Separation since in this point he turned his opinioÌ„ vpside downe “ Treat of the exposit of Mat. 18.19 Anno. 1611. affirmeth that these wordes signifie that the Iewish forme of
many good reasons which heere I passe over But what is this to approve the governement of a proper Diocesan Church or larger of which all our question is where the peoples free consent is wholy and altogeather denyed them such as I know not cleerly either at this day to be or to have ben any where but vnder the Papacie and now in England Certainly against this that is the proper Diocesan Church and governement all our controversie at this day is intended Which also I have noted in my Declaration pag. 21. 22. So that the Diocesan Church which I absolutly speake against in “ In Reas. for reform Exposition of the a Com. The Divine beginning institution of Christes Visible Church c. other places is to bee vnderstood of this proper Dioc. Church so likewise questionles it is meant in the Offer of disputation and in the Petition for toleration also Now no proofe can be made from the law fulnes or toleration of the improper Piocesan Church for the lawfulnes or tolerablenes of the proper Dioces Church Because they differ formally essentially as elswhere “ Declarat pag. 12. 13. 34. 35. I have shewed These can not by any meanes sustifye the one the other In which respect D. Downames foule abusing of Christian people in his Defence by his perpetuall Equivocating and bringing in infinit matters which are nothing to the intent of our questioÌ„ is to be marked and confidered of all men For he taking in hand to proove our Diocesan or rather Provinciall Churches in England and our Bishops who do all things in Ecclesiasticall governement without any free consent of the severall Congregations to be for the substance of their calling and condition Apostolicall hee pleadeth only in generall for Diocesan Churches or larger and for Bishops in generall His proofes such as they be are only for the improper Diocesan Churches and larger and for their Bishops As if simply we did deny them Or as if our Diocesan Churches and Bishops in England were such What intollerable doubling and deceaving of Gods people is this What altering the question What Equivocating as bad as Iesuiticall This is all that he doth in his second booke of the said Defence where the proper place is for this point and where is the very foundation of all his writing beside Yea indeed he doth nothing els throughont his whole Defence Wherefore even this which heere is spoken is enough for a iust confutation of his saide whole Defence The very like dealing Doctor Bilson vseth also in his Perpetuall governement chapt 12.13.14 where he dealeth about Bishops and Dioceses out of the Fathers Chiefly in pag. 260. where he setteth downe 4. Ranks of Bishops which I deny not were in those foure Chiefe Churches there named viz. Ierusalem Antioch Rome Alexandria But the truth is touching his purpose these are so many Catalogues of Equivocations and changings of the question For neither were those Bishops all of one kinde and power neither were any of them of that kinde and power as ours now in England are For whose allowance and approbation they are notwithstanding by him heere produced and mightily vrged But hitherto I have digressed speaking of the divers kindes of Diocesan Churches and Bishops and of their originall likewise of the deceit of the Defenders of our Church state in England by Equivocating so palpably by changing the question The maine point heere in this place is Seeing the Church governement vnder the Gospel ought to be alwaies with the peoples free consent which before wee have sufficiently shewed therefore every true Church vnder the Gospell is only one ordinarie Congregation And consequently no proper Diocesan Church or larger is lawfull A second Consequent also is heere hence to be considered To wit This being admitted that the Church governement ought to be alwayes with the peoples free consent it followeth that such Synods or Presbyteries can not be approoved which rule imperiously over the CoÌ„gregations and impose on them whether they will or no their actes Canons vnder some spirituall penaltie as Excommunication Suspension Deprivation Degradation from the Ministerie c. To which purpose many excellent men also do speake expresly Zuinglius of all other is heerein peremptorie Saith he speaking to such Synodes “ Zuignl Artic 8. Explanat Quod Ecclesia sitis representativa libenter eredimus vera enim non estis c. Wee willingly believe that you are a representative Church for a true Church you are not But I pray you shew vs whence you fetch this name Who hath given this name Who hath given you power to meet and conspire togeather Who hath given you power to make Canons and Decrees differing from Gods word Who hath suffered you to impose these thinges on mens shoulders Who hath perswaded you to grieve mens consciences c. And a little before he saith Deistâ representativâ— Ecclefiâ in Scripturis Sanctis nihil invenis Ex hominum commentis fingere quisquis potest quidlibet Nos Scriptura netimur sacra contraquam nec tis quidquam tentabis si Christianus es Of this represeÌ„tative church I finde nothing in the holy Scriptures Our of mans devises any may faigne what they list Wee rest in the holy Scripture against which thou maist not attempt any thing if thou be a Christian And they that impose their Decrees without the peoples consent saith he tviolento imperio ius Ecclesia invadunt Ad Valent. Comp. They invade vpoÌ„ the Churches right by violent command And such are “ Artic. 64. nomine tenus Episcopi revera tyranni in name Bishops but indeed tyrants As †Pag. 31. before also is observed No lesse sharpe hee is likewise heerein els-where saying “ Epichirisis de Canon Missae Est particularis Ecclisia ea cut praceptum est vt morbidum membrum resecer Math. 18 qualis est ea Corinthi ad qua scribit Paulus aliae quarum se curam geâ—ere predicat in quibus se parâ— modo daceâ—e asseres inquiens Sollicitudo omnium Ecclesiarum Siâ—â—â— in omnibus Eeclesijs doceâ— Superest vs concursantium Eispeopor um ne dicam conspirantium Ecclesia non sit alia quam cut Propheta Malignantium nomen dedit Quod enim vlera verum est a malo est Verax autem est solus Deus omnis homo mendax Quiequitigetur à Deo est equum verum bonum est quiequid al 's homine profectum iniquum mendax malum est Hac horum Ecclesia a Deo non est a malo igitur est Siquis vberiora desideret Conclusionum nostrarum farraginem legat It is a particular Church which is commaunded to cut off the infected member Math. 18. Such as that is of Corinth to which Paul writeth and others of which he saith hes had care and in which he affirmeth that he taught alike saying The care of all Churches is I teach in all Churches It remayneth
strangers voice they will flee from Ioh. 10.27.3 But they can not thus discerne and try vnles they may reiect their Teachers being false and erroneous And if they may reiect they may chose Yet alwayes as I said in the best maner they can Some heere obiect and say The people in deed have power and right but they have not meanes thus to do wheÌ„ they want Ministers I answer if they have power froÌ„ whom have they it It wil be said from God If the people have power from God then they have meanes also Otherwise God giveth power in vaine But that is absurd c false that God giveth any power in vaine or such as can not be acted If God intend an end as he doth in giving all power then sure hee intendeth Meanes also to effect the said end And so a Church wanting Ministers but having power from GOD hath Meanes also to make Ministers and so likewise to do everie other Ecclesiasticall action They are not vtterly altogeather destitute of iust and lawfull meanes to performe any such action for their owne vse in the feare of God That is the best meanes they have is sufficient wheÌ„ they have not such as they would and should have otherwise So then this was the answer which the said Tilenus gave to that FreÌ„ch Lord. But in deed this is not only Tilenus answer in this matter for it hath ben the coÌ„mon defence of all sound Protestantes alwayes when they be opposed touching their Ministerie Which the common consent of all our Attestators before cited See our very Adversaries beeren Above pa. 73. 74. c. and many other maketh manifest If any have given other answeres yet only this hath ben the firme sure anchre to trust to Other answeres are all to weake vncertain this only is cleere and constant Though “ Perpe gov Pag. 335. D. Bilson do vniustly deny it A most certain deduction of this power and right of the people from Christes ordinance in the Gospell I have plainly shewed before in the sixt Chapter Also the benefit and fruit of this defence we see in all Churches abroad namely it is evident in those of France Against which the learnedst of the Papistes have nothing soundly to reply So that the Churches there flourish and increase mightily blessed bee God Who but for this answer would certainly both then when Tilenus so did write before and since have ben much troubled and staggered and no lesse then shamed As many are now with vs in England who do shunne and despise this answer Whereby I see that to lay against the Papistes their other errors before we have cleered the lawfulnes of our Ministerie is in deed vnseasonable and little availeable For if we be shamed in the eyes of vnderstanding people or have not certainly what to hold stand to when we be vrged to make good the Calling and lawfulnes of our Ministerie Papistes will easily with distinctions and subtile answeres make a faire shew in reconciling other matters betweene vs in controversie to Gods worde though I graunt they be grosse When we are shamed in so maine a point as the Calling of our Ministers is in no other matter afterward we shall neither can we have good successe But our adversaries of the Protestantes in Englande what say they to this How defend they the Calling of our Ministers against the Papistes D. Bilson denyeth vehemently that “ Perpet gov pag. 335. 368. the peoples consent is essentiall in the making of any Ministers I desire him then to tell vs what is essentiall in it There is no question but somewhat is The very question is Who have power essentially to make Ministers Then what is it which is essentiall in making a Minister If the peoples consent be not surely I know not what els they will assigne to be And yet as I said somewhat must be Wherefore I conceave the peoples consent may be said to be essentiall by Gods word in the making of a Minister vnder the Gospell because no other thing els can be assigned by Protestants as Essentiall therein The common answer in a maner of all men is that in England our Diocesan and Provincial Bishops do give our Ministers their Calling and Office Heere I demande is this Essentiall in the Calling of our Ministers or is it not I thinke few advisedly will saye it is Essentiall For whatsoever is Essentiall any where the same is essentiall every where as “ Pag. 81. before I have observed And so they must deny the true Essence of Ministerie in the forraigne reformed Churches where they have no such Bishops at all where at first they had no Minister at all Therefore they will not say I thinke I know they can not that the Ordination by Bishops is Essentiall to Christes Ministerie vnder the Gospell Yet againe if they say not so they answer the Papist nothing they satisfie not the question So that what they will resolve on in this point Surely no man can well tell Wherefore heere the craftie Priestes and Iesuites among vs will perswade vehemently their disciples that they have got the victorie Seeing wee can not affirme whence our Ministerie is essentially derived given vs. In the end I doubt not the coÌ„mon defence will be this that our said Bishops by their sole authoritie and power do essentially give the Calling of all our Ministerie And that from Archb. Cranmer Ridley our first Protestant Bishops they have stil so done Let what inconvenience soever follow thereof Be it then so Yet even they likewise must have it given to them They viz. those our first Bishops must have it derived vnto them froÌ„ others From whom had they their authoritie and power Briefly it will bee answered they had it given them from the Bishop and Church of Rome And that in deed is the truth the Pope is he who made Archb. Cranmer and Ridley c. such Bishops They had no other Ordination since And from them all the rest of our Ministers have had their Ordination to this day And so the effect of all is that our whole Ministerie in England successively and derivatively cometh from the Pope See the Supplication for Toleration pa. â— Doct. Downame Doct. Bilson and all that maintaine the Church state in England will thus answer But O miserable defence wofull vnto vs. Which in deed though it be false yet it is such as the Papâ—sâ—es desire and do triumph in It is false two wayes First whatsoever the Church of Rome did give to Archbi Cranmer c. that wholy they tooke away againe namely when he fel from them For then they both deposed him and excommunicated him So that they left him no whit of that power function so much as lay in them which they had given him But questionles if they could give it they could take it away Wherefore so soone as hee was ours being thus
cut off and excommunicate from the Church of Rome hee could not after that have any power as derived from them to make Ministers nor to do any other Bishoplie act Secondly wee all knowe the Church of Rome to be the very Antichrist chieflie in respect of their Clergie and Spirituall governement and most chieflie of all in respect of the Pope from whom all the rest as from the Head doe take their power and authoritie Now shall we say that very Antichrist can have power from Christ to make Ministers Or that we can have a lawfull Ministerie derived from those who had their power only from him It can not bee “ 2. Cor. 6.14 15. What communion hath light with darknes What concord hath Christ with Belial And so what hath Christ to do with Antichrist Nothing at all Thus then our consciences can have no assurance wee can not have confidence in such estate of the Ministerie But certainly Christs true Ministers among vs in Englande have a better Original thē this Wherefore this answere of our State Protestants must needes be false Yet in this answer who seeth not how the Papistes do reioyce triumph and insult Who seeth not how by this they are incouraged strengthened and multiplyed among vs exceedingly Truly it would pity a mans heart to beholde how this one point putteth life into thousandes to stande vp against Christes Gospell the libertie of their Country also For when they heare our selves openly to ascribe to the Church of Rome and to their meanes such a gift of grace even that which is our glory even the holy instrument of our faith to salvatiō for so is our Ministerie they will say if the branch be holy the root is more if the rivers be sweet the head-spring is delicious And so how can it bee chosen but the Papistes thus will bee graced and get great advātage among vs Many heere have another refuge but that also helpeth nothing Say they as Popish Baptisme is so far acknowledged by vs The last refuge of our Adversaries taken away as that with it only wee are held to bee sufficiently Baptised not to need Baptizing againe when we com from them to the Church of England So likewise wee may acknowledge the Popish Ordination to the Ministerie thus far and yet nevertheles cōdemne their Church and separate from them I answere the case is nothing like betweene Baptisme the signe of our initiation in Christ and the Calling to the Ministerie In the word there is expresse warrant for not repeating the signe of our initiation in Christ which of old was Circumcision and Baptisme now is the same though ministred by a false Ministerie and Church As wee may see in the “ 2. Chron. 30.11.18 35.17.18 Ez◠6.21 not Recircumcising of such Iewes as had receaved that signe in the Apostasie of Israell and turned frō thesame to the truth But there is no warrant at all in Gods word for any to retaine the outward Calling to the Ministerie or to stand in that power and authoritie which is derived from such a Church There is no such thing can be shewed in all Gods booke Therefore we may not conclude the like in this matter of Ordination to the Ministerie which may bee done for not repeating of Baptisme For by Gods worde Ordination may be repeated yea certainly after a Ministerie receaved in Christes true Church much more after it hath ben receaved in a false Church So that these two ordinances of Christ are nothing like in this point Wherefore out of question Ordination to the Ministerie as it is derived from Antichrist must be wholy reuounced of every faithfull man and may bee as is said renewed and repeated in Christes true Church as occasion serveth At Rome there is in it both an impiety and a nullitie In their administring of Baptisme there is not a nullitie altogeather as in that correspondent example of Israell in Apostasie before alleadged it well appeareth And this is sufficient for this though other answeres may be given also Wherefore this remayneth that when wee grant the descent of our Ministerie in Englande to come lineally from the Church and Pope of Rome which we must grant will wee nill we if wedeny it to arise essentially from the Christian peoples consent in each Congregation all the world seeth that we give the Pope a maine advantage against vs and we put into his hande a strong engine to draw vs back againe vnto him Which also he effecteth dayly vppon many among vs as woefull experience sheweth in our Land yea even vpon some of my very friends and neare acquaintance Beside this there is another point of the Churches governement The causing of Vnitie namely their Iurisdiction in cōpounding Schismes in making peace and vnitie and consent among Christian people which beeing ascribed as proper to Diocesan and Provinciall Bishops as they in England do say it is and as “ Def. 3.36 c. D. Downame with great vehemencie defendeth certainly true reason will cary it further it can not possibly stay there This wil serve a Popes turne a great deale better and to such a one it belongeth in deed as a very true and forcible ground for his Vniversall Governement over all Christians in the world if there were any Divine and Evangelicall truth in it at all But there is no truth in it Because this is no Divine and Evangelical way for Vnitie in religion viz. to constitute one Visible Head with absolute power of Spirituall governement whether Diocesan or Provinciall or Vniversall Or to take from the Christian people their free consent There is not in the Gospell any such Meanes to Vnitie It is a Humane policie a carnall device it is no institution of Christ Iesus Gods writt◠word is the cause of Vnitie Who in his word and by his word with the helpe of the Ministerie therein ordained provideth sufficiently for true peace and holy Vnitie among all his people For he saith “ Mat. 28.29 Ye erre not knowing the Scriptures And †Ioh. 5.39 Search the Scriptures for they are they which testifie of me And “ chap. 14.6 Rom. 16 17. I am the way the truth and the life Likewise the Apostle testifyeth that those are the makers of Schismes and divisions who teach and holde any thing besides the doctrine learned from the Apostles So that indeed the meanes appointed of GOD to make Vnitie in the Church is Gods word and not one Superiour over-ruling Minister over many distinct ordinarie Cōgregations which the word knoweth not But in truth such a one is the very proper cause of dissention and schisme For he not willing to submit to Gods word by his power draweth many with him yet he cannot lightly prevayle with all Wherevpon followeth dissention and schisme And then he with his cōpany being the stronger in the world may cry out loudest against those fewer that dissent from him that they are
their trust in the living God “ Chap. 2.13 They digge to themselves pits that can hold no water It is true the Vniversall and perpetuall practise of Christs Church is to bee held alwayes good and holy This I grant but it is because such practise evermore hath the Apostles plaine writing for it and with it Which the Churches said practise can not bee destitute of But yet suppose our adversaries had som kind of general consent of men for theÌ„ as they pretend seeing they can not indeed produce the Scripture more then the Papists do who also preteÌ„d the like Vniversal consent for their turne or suppose that they do but pretend all this Vniversalitie perpetuitie beeing far from it indeed then why I praâ— should not we answer them as D. Bilson somtime answered the said Papists Saying “ Answ to the Seminar part 4. pa. 360 If you want the foundation of faith and religion he meaneth the Scripture in vaine you do seeke to make a shew of Catholicisme with such patches and pamplets c. When you muster the Fathers to disprove the Scriptures and to establish an vnwritten faith vnder the credit of traditions you corrupt the Writers and abuse the Readers †Pag. 362. Nowe cite not only 9. but 9. skore Fathers if you will for Traditions the more you stir the worse you spcede “ Pag. 300. Truth hee meaneth the Scripture is authoritie sufficient against all the world * Pag. 301. One man with truth is warrant against all the world yea every private man for his owne person may embrace Gods Lawes whosoever say nay And as Tertullian hath against this no man may prescribe nor space of time nor patronage of persons nor privilege of places “ Pag. 299. Though the whole world pronounce againe the word yet God will bee true and all men lyars †Pag. 384. God speaketh not now but in the Scriptures How excellently are these things written if he himselfe and his associats would followe the same or would suffer vs to follow it The effect wherof is that not only wee are bound evermore to holde fast Gods word and never to admit the carnal reasoÌ„ of Humane consent in Divine matters such as our questioÌ„ of the forme of Christs Church is but also it notifyeth D. Bilsons open coÌ„tradictioÌ„ to himselfe who presseth hardly against vs that which hee denyeth to the Papists Is God an accepter of persons Is it ill for Papists to plead Vniversall consent and yet must we content our selves with it rest thereon Shall he say to vs “ Perp. gov pag. 223.235 Is not the whole Church a lawfull and sufficient witnes in that case And that it is enough †Pag. 228. if any christian persons deserve to be credited And yet shall he say to Papists “ Lib. 4 38â— It is alike Haereticall to believe without Scripture aâ— to believe against Scripture Yea even to ourselves when hee list hee can say †Perp. gov pag. 286. Make vs good proofes out of Scripturs or leave tying Gods ordinances to your appetites Wherfore we must crave leave in our cause also to answer him and all of his minde with his owne words afore rehearsed And likewise with D. Rainold that “ Cons 257. No Humane proofe is sure in Divinitie †Pag. 19â— Truth is not to be tryed by consent of Fathers “ Pag. 45â— For my selfe I assure you that neither dead nor quicke Fathers nor children shall perswade me any thing in matter of religion which they cannot prove by Moses the Prophetes or which hee meaneth by the Apostles writings Now thus the Churches Vniversall perpetuall consent beeing no good proofe in Divinitie the whole Churches consent at some time only is a proofe much worse and by no meanes to be admitted Though Augustin in a certain place it seemeth held it good yet it is his error as where hee saith “ August epist 118. Si quid tota hodiè per orbem frequentat Ecclesia hoc quin ita faciendum sit disputare insolentissimae insaniae est If the whole Church through out the world at this day observe any thing it is insolent madnes to reason against it Certainly there have ben and may be †As sometime Polygamie was Catholike errors which yet questionles may be yea ought to bee reproved by all them that vnderstaÌ„d them Well but have our adversaries a Vniversall coÌ„sent of the whole Church at any time Alas they are far from it Neither D. Bilson nor D. Downame nor they al have alleaged neither can they alleage halfe a quarter of the whole Church at any time What then Then they are to lavish of their wordes in saving they have the Vniversall consent of the whole Church They indeed come short of it by many hundred thousandes A poore fewe God knowes they cite in comparison of all It may be they name some of the chiefe most famous in their dayes Yet it followeth not that all who lived then were of their minde D. Bilson against the Seminar lib. 1. part 2. pag. 402. Neither is it necessary that all differences should bee recorded in writing nor that all Records should be preserved come to our handes So that they are far from proving a Vniversall consent at any time much lesse at all times of the Church But what speake I of Vniversalitie and perpetuitie Let our adversaries not equivocat Let them deale plainly Let them vse no deceit in wordes nor force to mens consciences And then I assure thee good reader nothing but noveltie and iniquitie is in their Defence and assertion against vs. I have shewed before that in our controversie which wee have at this day “ Above pa. 98.97 â—â— we speak against only a proper Diocesan Church and the Bishop thereof where the peoples free coÌ„sent is wholy denyed them as it is in England and our adversaries defende namely this Diocesan Church and Bishop Of this particularly and precisely is all their †Def. 2.114 Epist to the King pag. 1 great and glorious commendation and praise which they publish Nowe to the point Is this kind of Diocesan Church and this kind of Bishop Apostolicall Have they Vniversall perpetuall approbation for this Nothing lesse I appeale heerin to our right worthy Attestators before alleaged yea to all indifferent and vnpartiall witnesses yea to the partial also in times of “ Pag. 64. 65. 66. antiquitie who do stand with vs. By all true evidence it wil be as cleare as the light at noone day that this foresaid proper Diocesan Church and Bishop were not in the world till after 200. yeares of Christ which is the time limited by vs Indeed not till after 300. Nay it was after 400 and longer also As I have shewed “ Pag. 66. 67. 88. before So that both D. Bilsons and D. Downames Defences which they have made for
these we allow and what get our adversaries by that We hold that such Bishops be Apostolike and Divine yet Diocesan both titular and ruling Bishops and also Lord Bishops came in â—aâ—latim by litle and little by Humane policie and ambition and tyraÌ„nie long after But Ierom there saith that these Bishops were in a higher degree above Presbyters Bez. Annoâ—at in Apoc. 2.1 which Beza denyeth Also they were constant Presidents in the Meetings which Beza also denyeth Beza saith Bishops and Presbyters then differed not gradu in degree meaning in degree of power that is in Maioritie of power they differed not then But in degree of Order he granteth they did differ which I call “ Reas. for 1â— Prioritie of Order Which also Ieâ—om meaneth by his higher degree in this place And so heerein we all agree But as touching Bezaes coniecture of the Angell of Ephezus viz. that peradventure he might be a President not continuing but changeable I suppose few approve it For my part I do not Though I greatly honor the name memorie of Maister Beza yet there is no neede to be of his opinion in this A changeable Presidencie no doubt was among those Bishops Act. 20.28 But I am of minde that none of these Bishops meant by the Angells Rev. 2. 3. were changeable In all likelyhood they were constant and continuing for terme of life And such a difference Presidentiall might well com in among the many joint Pastors of the Church at Ephesus by this time and yet they all remaine †Declarâ—â— pag. 15. equall in honor and power Pastorall Howbeit these constant Presidents were Bishops then to no Diocesan multitude dispersed abroad in many ordinary set assemblies but to one ordinary assembly only as is noted often before And so the great argument of these Doctors which they take from the “ Perp. gov pag. 260. D. Down Def. 4. â— Succession of Bishops to proove our Bishops as they are in England to be lawfull may appeare to be a meere Sophisme deceit For the Bishop of Rome also may by such a shew of Succession prove his Office and Function lawfull as in deed he doth indeavour to do and doth it as well as they But though all these Bishops have one name viz. Bishops yet betweene the first and the last of them there are seene many reall and substantiall differences in their Offices To observe therefore this egregious Equivocation I remit the Reader to pag. 98. 99. 128. 129. 211. 212. before Yet Doctor Downame †sticketh hard to this †Defenc. 4.50 c. that Iames the Apostle was a Bishop Iames no proper Bishop What a proper Bishop It is simply impossible whosoever say otherwise Let the Reader marke that all our question is about Bishops properly so called not about the name Bishop vsed in a generall sense There is “ Rain confer pa. 263. 267. a generall taking of the word Bishop and there is a proper taking of it Apostles and Evangelistes may generally improperly be called Bishops the rather if they reside long in one place and do execute a Bishop like Office there As Iames I graunt did in Ierusalem and Titus in Crete yea by assignement of the Apostles And questionles so the Ancient Writers meane where they call Iames Bishop of Ierusalem and Titus Bishop of Crete For neither Iames nor Titus were nor could be proper Bishops there Which I shewe thus Every Bishop is appropriated limited and confined only to one Church Iames neither was nor could be appropriated and confined only to one Church Therefore Iames neither was nor could be a Bishop The Proposition is most evident and granted of our “ D. Bilson pag. 227. 232. adversaries The Assumption they neither ought nor dare deny For Iames having froÌ„ Christ a Ministerie and Calling to all Churches throughout the world this hee retayned still hee never lost that it were sacrilege to reduce him from it and to shorten him of this his right given him froÌ„ heaven Neither could the Apostles do it if they would Heere it will be an absurd evasion to say Iames had in him two Offices viz. an Apostles and a proper Bishops Office In respect of the former hee was still vnlimited in respect of the later he was limited to the Church of Ierusalem This I say is so absurd frivolous as nothing can be more And yet it is the only thing that can bee answered I pray can one and the same man by any distinction be capeable of privative contraries at one time Can the same man be in fetters and at libertie at once Can one be blind and see also Can a man be a Christian an insidell too No more could Iames be both appropriated to Ierusalem and not appropriated at one time Neither could the proper Bishops Office bee conioyned with an Apostleship For it were in vaine Seeing the Apostleship contayneth the whole Bishoply Office and more too But the Apostles in the Churches administratioÌ„ did no thing in vaine idly Again though the Apostleship contained in it the whol office of a proper Bishop yet this was “ Declarat pag. 30. Materially not Formally As a Privie Counsailler in England hath in him the Office and power of a Iustice of peace also a Shilling containeth a Groat But no man that meaneth plainly will say A Shilling is a Groat or a Privie Counsailler is a Iustice of peace If any do it is not rightly nor truely spoken For not the Matter but the Forme doth give the proper name Yet I do not deny all vse of vnproper speaches I grant on some occasion men may speake generally and vndistinctly of things In reasoning we must alwayes speake properly as I deeme those Ancients did of Bishops Nevertheles in ordinary teaching and specially in reasoning and disputing wee must ever vse exact and proper termes avoyding generalities and wordes vnproper Otherwise wee equivocate To this reason that the Apostles gave not Iames any power which hee had not before as an Apostle D. Downame answereth that which is both false and also most presumptuous For plainly hee saith “ Def. 4 5â—â— Iames the Apostle had not the power of Iurisdiction before he was designed Bishop of Ierusalem O hautie Bishops Who arrogat to themselves a power beyond the Apostles No marvaile if he say Pag. 59. it is no depressing of an Apostle to become a proper Bishop For only this may lâ—ft vp a Bishop above an Apostle his other idle “ Pag. 62. 63. respects and considerations neither did nor could Titus and Timothie were no proper Bishops Nay but Titus Timothie and their Bishopriks do make the most busines of all Of whom D. Bilson saith †Perpet govâ— pag. 300. Heere I must pray the Christian Reader advisedly to marke what is said answered on either side This indeed is the maine erection of the Episcopall power and function
of England in maintayning Diocesan and Provinciall Churches Calvin and Beza abused and that therein they are against vs. First though Calvin doe note in this Chapt. the Churches state “ Institut 4.4.1 before the Papacie yet he saith not neither was it before Papalitie began Againe your governement may bee not withstanding from the Papâ—sts as indeed it is though this Church state there noted by Calvin were before the Papacie Chap. 4. For your governement is by him described in his †Chap. 5. next Chapter where hee saith “ Sect. I am in eligendo totum illud ius populi sublatum est Ad solos Canonicos integra potestas translata est Ills in quem volunt conferunt Episcopatum eum mox in conspestu plebis producunt non examinanduÌ„ sed adoraÌ„dum Now all the right of the people to chose thâ—ir Pastor was taken away The whole power was transferred to the Chanons or Prebendaries only They bestow the Bishoprike on whom they will him they bring forth before the people not to be tryed but to be worshipped of them And though hee saith this was “ In the title of chap. 5. tyrannide Papatus by the tyrannie of the Papacie yet every one seeth it to be the same kinde that is vsed in EnglaÌ„d which differeth substantially from the ancient forme of Church governement yea from that by him noted in his 4. Chapter which is not it that you exercise labour to maintaine So any may see from whom in deed you have receaved your governement Secondly he saith those before had almost nothing dissonant from Gods word Where he graunteth they had somewhat And therefore hee would not that this Church governement should be * See before pag. 149. our patterne though hee held it not wholy intolerable What meaneth the vaine Doctor to say wee “ Pag. 146. our selves do extend our assertioÌ„ to two hundred yeares We do not extend our patterne so farre Indeed we say a proper Diocesan Church was not before that time But we take our patterne of a Church only from the New Testam as wee ought Against which fundamentall point of ChristiaÌ„ religion see how profanely and yet absurdly hee reasoneth Aswell they may alleage that no whole Countrey ought to be converted because none was in the Apostles times as to deny a whole Countrey to be a Church Should weâ— not vse that forme of a Church which the Apost vsedâ— because it was not so in the Apostles times Never did I heare a more senseles speach and yet it savoureth all of impietie Every visible Church may containe no mo ordinary Congregations then the New Testament sheweth that a Church coÌ„tayned then which was but one and yet a whole Country may be converted to the faith and being converted may be reduced into many Churches in nomber according to the forme †Galat. 1 â— 21. and â— Cor. 8.1 1 Cor. 16.19 extaÌ„t in Christs TestameÌ„t And God forbid wee should professe to doe otherwise As for Calvin beside that above noted in him “ Pag. 149. speaking of the Order set down in Scripturs he saith the same is it †Instit 4. â— â— quo EcclesiaÌ„ suam gubernari voluit Dominus wherewith the Lord would have his Church to bee governed alwayes Againe “ Sect. â— Ecclesiae disitpationem vel ruinam potiùs exitium molitur quisquis ordinem hunc de quo disputamus HOC GENVS regiminis vel abolere studet vel quasi minus necessarium elevat He seeketh the ruine and destruction of the Church whosoever indeavoureth to abolish this order and THIS KIND of governement whereof wee treate or maketh light of it as lesse necessarie speaking as I said of that same kinde of ordinary governement which is fouÌ„d in the New Testament Which being Calvins minde can we thinke that hee would like of the Doctors mutabilitie No nor of his calling him and Beza “ Defen 2. pag. 140. Authors of Discipline and him the first or chiefe founder of it Beside is not this Doct. a cunning dissembler who can say of Calvin that his memorie with me is blessed and yet curseâ—h and revileth his Discipline as he calleth it Thirdly is it truth must we abide it that Calvin agreeth with the Do. against Lay Elders as he calleth them And his Refuter reproving him for that speach he mocketh saying What shall become of me now He saith he will salve it But how Forsooth he confesseth Calvin is against him both touching the Scripture and also the practise of the first Churches How salveth he the matter then Calvin saith that afterward Every City had a College of Elders all which were Teachers What then Can not Calvin thinke that this might somewhat differ from the Scripture and that this was thus about and after the Nicen Councell hitherward and yet in the first age of the Church after the Apostles there were som such lay Elders Is it not possible that Calvin may thus meane but that hee must needes agree in this matter with the D. and grosly contradict himselfe Thus forsooth our D. will needes have it in wordes commending Calvin Beza for the learned Disciplinarians but indeed making them what he can to seeme fooles Fourthly neither Calvin nor Beza “ Pag. 14â— 144. agreeth with them nor materially differeth from vs about a Diocesan Church as hee almost every where repeateth that they doe and is still beating vpoÌ„ it But falsly For first Calvin maketh not even then the City Country to be but one body He saith †Instit 4.4 2. velut Corpus as it were a Body Hee meaneth not that it was a persit Body but that there was some resemblance of one Body because of the consociation of all vnder one Bishop Yet indeed hee maketh each Parish then a Body substantially Saying “ Sect. 1â— Cum Parochijs novi Presbyters destinabantur tunc loci multitudinem nominatim consentire oportuit When newe Presbyters were appointed to Parishes then the multitude of the place must namely consent This power made them a Body indeed and to the Diocese they belonged but as it were to a Body or as having som resemblance of a body Which yet consisted in deed of many distinct bodyes someway independent This is the Diocesan Church which Calvin and Beza also speake of and is constituted at Geneva and in France and in the Lowcountries c. But this is not the †See before pag. 88. 89. proper Diocesan Church which is in England There is a substantiall difference betweene this improper and vnperfit Diocesan Body and that which is proper and persit Now then how do Calvin and Beza agree with the Bishops of Englande touching a Diocesan Church as he so ofte vaunteth and boasteth that they do Or how do they dissent from vs Wee see they do not The Doct. doth but slander them Neither “ Def. 2.147 doth Beza
Luther Bucer P. Martyr Viret Calvin Beza Danaeus Vrsinees Gualter c. And not the later only but the elder Christians also For all these we have seene do consent with vs in our profession And it is a slander that in Geneva or any where els the reformed Churches do substantially differ from our iudgement As may be seene through out the 3. 4. Chapters before If any thing dissonaÌ„t from those testim may now be found in some of these Churches which I will not deny then it cometh to passe with theÌ„ as with goodly and faire Houses A Similitude which being inhabited by men will neede sweeping very oft If they bee not swept cleaned they will soone become foule And so truly it may be in some of the Churches before named Which can be no preiudice to vs who seeing transgression creepe in do wish all men and even them also ad originem reverti Cyprian cont Epist StephaÌ„ De Vnit. Eccles. to returne to the originall and first Plantation both of them selves in particular and specially of all Churches at the first In the which only there is safetie As for this intemperat Doctors rayling wordes in calling this our doctrine “ Def. 1.41 4.80.99 Brownisticall Anabaptisticall †Def. 3.142 4.81 fanaticall fantasticall dotage phrensie c. We will beare it knowing as Cyprian said of some such in his dayes “ Cyprian Epist 4.2 Non possunt laudare nos qui recedunt à nobis We must looke for hatefull and â—â—â—lent wordes from them that fall from vs. Yet in the meane whyle let him know also that in this he reprocheth not so much vs as those pillars of the truth and lights of the Gospell before named zuinglius Luther Bucer Martyr Viret Calvin and the rest of whom we have directly receaved this doctrine and profession These are our Maisters heerein as in the beginning I said Our Do. obiecteth often that these are partiall that this is their owne cause And that as well we might cite “ Def. 4.30 Mai. Cartwright and Mai. Travers as some of these Yea hee will have Ierome also to be †Def. 4.137 partiall Yet we frankly acknowledge Ierome to be theirs touching the lawfulnes of Dioces Ierome not ours simply Bishops Although he and many other of the Fathers beside are with vs in this that Diocesan Bishops are not Apostolicall but Humane And this verily they teach far from partialitie Partiall they may be for the said Prelacie not against it And the truth is they were notoriously partiall for it it was indeed their owne cause Who are partiall They may be partial are wont so to be counted who are likely to get by their opinion some temporall commoditie not they who loose by it Now the Fathers Cui bono CassianuÌ„ erotema specially vnder Constantine after by approoving Diocesan Prelacie got great honor power and rule among the people and wealth and pleasure what they desired Which by opposing against it they should have lost WheÌ„ce certainly it is that D. Downame might as well cite B. Whitgift B. Bancroft and B. Bilson for his authors as some of those ancientes viz. as wel as B. Eusebius B. Epiphanius B. Theodoret B. Damasus B. Leo B. Chrysostom c. Who questionles in this point were very partiall And no les if not more may be thought of some of those Diocesan L. Bishops who began our Church reformation in England They by proceeding no further did get much temporall commoditie which by setting the Church state neerer to the forme Apostolike they must needes have lost And so they though otherwise as likewise those Ancientes were good and godly Fathers yet they were meÌ„ and might easily be partiall in this Good and godly Fathers yeâ— Men. Which and more wee may thinke of many of our Diocesan Lord Bishops since Most of all of D. Downame himselfe who besides these temporall hopes beeing a Diocesan L. Bishops fonne had neede of much grace I coÌ„fesse to cause him to degenerat But I pray then hath he done wisely to obiect as hee doth every foot against those singular instrumentes and very effectuall reformers our Attestators others like them that they were partiall and that this was their owne cause Indeed they were partiall that is they tooke part throughly with the sinceritie of the Gospell and stood against all Papall and Pontificall over-ruling of Gods people spiritually so should this Doct. and others do well if they were partiall likewise But partiall otherwise they neither were nor could be viz. they did not get but lost by this their proceeding great worldly honor much power and rule among the people large wealth daintie pleasure and ease which ours now do abound with as all the world seeth Whereby the worlde seeth likewise which side may rather plead partialitie to be in those whom they take to be their adversaries In many places D. Downame signifyeth that the godly late defenders of the Gospell do mislike only “ Def. 4.151.157.158.161 popish tyrannizing Bishops not orthodoxall Bishops as he presumeth ours to bee But let him know that those are Orthodoxall who imitate the Apostles and the patterne of the Church left vs in the New Testament And they are tyrannizing not Orthodoxe †viz. in this nor truly believing who imitate the popish though otherwise they be not papists Cicero said well to Antonie †Cicer. Philippic 2. Miror te Antoni quorum fasta imitere corum exitus non perhorrescere I wonder Antonie said hee that thou fearest not their iudgement whose deedes thou imitatest Now how wee imitate the very forme of the Popish Church-government all the world seeth and the Gospell rueth What meaneth the racke and the wracke of many consciences viz. the Oath ex officio What the Bishops depriving and imposing of Ministers without Imitation of Popish Church-governement yea contrarie to the Congregation What meane also such Excommunications What their imprisoning of Christians and punishing their purses with fees fines c. Are these the partes of Orthodoxe Bishops Are these things approved of those godly Writers Nothing lesse Likewise his vaine and frivolous seeking to avoid the Waldenses Wickliffe Hus Zuinglius Luther Oecolampadius Bucer Martyr Calvin c. our Tindal Fr. and Ioh. Lamberts Bradsord Bale c. is of no worth Some of theÌ„ signifie that they disalow not Diocesan Bishops simply Well no more do I as I have shewed “ Pag. 15.16.73.89.97 before Yet heereby appeareth no allowance of ours in England Our old English translators of the New Testament some other Writers since doe expresse the word Church by Congregation But saith our Doctor heere by they meane the †Def. 2.106.107.108 Vnivesall Church Which answer is vntrue and absurd That is where they speake of a Visible Ministe Church of which only our question is Speaking of this that they
is true another ground thereof there is likewise that of no lesse importance in this matter which is That Christes true Visible and Ministeriall Church vnder the Gospell consisteth not of many ordinarie Congregations but only of one Which I have at large prooved to be a truth and have made it manifest in my Declaration pag. 10.11.12 c. and in Reas. for Reform pag. 19.20 65.66 And againe †Chapt. 8. heere after I do shew it further Yet the former point in some respect may bee thought rather the chief because this secoÌ„d is a depeÌ„dant on the former followeth by a necessarie consequence from it as partly is shewed in the said Declarat pag. 13.14 and more fully in the VII Chapt. of this present Treatise insuing Againe that requiring the peoples free consent noteth Christes Visible Churches nature and essence intensivè The Churches nature intensivè as the Scholes do speake that is it sheweth thâ— ground of the power and life thereof The other sheweth the essence of it extensivè Extensivè that is the largenes of the Body of the Church iust extent or the due limites and bounds thereof outwardly Wherefore that requiring the peoples free consent is manifestly a most proper and speciall Argument in our cause and such as toucheth the quicke in the matter of the said reformation most neerely D. Downame erreth greatly in his late Defence making his first booke thereof full long tedious only to disprove Lay Elders as he calleth them Thinking without all reason that if hee speed well therein he hath gotten the victorie Wherevpon hee most fondly inferreth thus “ Defenc. 1. pag. 62. Who seeth not that the disproofe of their Presbyteries is a direct proofe for our Bishops And in another place * Defenc. 2.2 Who seeth not that vpon the overthrow of the Presbyteries the governement by Bishops is necessarily inferred Who seeth not Verily neither hee nor any man living seeth it Hee was tolde sufficiently by his Refuter †Ibid. pa. 10. of this his vaine and frivolous inference But hee seemeth so in love with his owne folly that he caÌ„ indure no maÌ„ to shew him his errour Nay such a minde hee beareth that in his Defence he goeth about with pretended Logike to make this his idle conceit seeme reason and therevpon hee saith his adversarie must “ Defen 1.6 confesse him selfe ignorant in Logike if hee will deny this his inference And so ‡ Pag. 62. this passage concerning Lay Elders he hopeth will be acknowledged not to bee impertinent Never a whit truly The question of Elders wholy impertinent For this passage still is not only impertinâ—nt and idle but even a false defence of those whom he peadeth for if he will yet holde his opinion still He hath not Logike at commaund neither can hee by his Sophistrie amonge men of anie vnderstandinge make that to seeme which is not Where hee saieth it is “ Pag. 61. presupposed on both sides it is his folly to say so And in saying his Refuter witnesseth it hee grosly abuseth him He doth the contrarie in the same place which hee alleadgeth out of him For the Doctor leaveth out his Refuters wordes presently following those which hee alleageth Which later words are flat against him So iustly and truly our Doctor dealeth in his writings Like to this is his great boast which hee maketh heere in his booke and often afterwards also viz. that he hath found out twoo sortes of Disciplinarians as his wisedometermeth them one “ Defenc. 1.60 and 2.147 elder and more learned the chiefe of whom he saith are Calvin and Beza Another new shallow and ignorant sort of whom he maketh †Defenc. 2.2 82.130 Maister Cartwright chiefe adioyning others of vs since vnto him But what difference â—ndeth hee in these Disciplinarians â—orsooth the elder he saith holde â—resbyteries in Cities to governe â—hole Dioceses and Provinces and â—erein he avoucheth “ Defenc. 2.2 they ioyne with â—e Bishops in England against the new sort of â—isciplinarians The new sort * Defen 1.60 boldly and â—â—noranâ—ly hold Parishionall Presbyteâ—ies Naythis Doctor slandereth either â—gnorantly or maliciously For wee whoÌ„ he maketh of the new shallow â—nd ignorant sort we I say Wee agree with Calvin Beza in substance differ not â—ne haire from Calvin and Beza touâ—hing the substance of this matter We as they they as we do acknowâ—edge both the one and the other that â—s both the Parishionall and the Dioâ—esan Presbyteries yea the Provinciâ—ll and larger too if occasion serve â—t is false which he imputeth to Calvin â—nd Beza that they maintayne the Church-governement by Diocesan Provinciall Presbyteries absolutly without any relation to the peoples â—onsent in the ordinarie Congregations Also that heerein they ioyne with the Bishops in Englande or that they materially differ from vs. All which God willing we shal shew to be vntrue and that most cleerely in the 3. Chapt. also in the 7. 8. here following Wherefore these be all slanderous forgeries of the Doctors devising of purpose to make our innocencie odious by all the shifts be can to cast some “ Defen 1.53 colour of iust cause or shew of reason for his leaving of our acquaintance Wherefore D. Downame left his first profession to whom heeretofore he ioyned him self namely while there was som expectation of his Maiesties favour towards vs. And this is fully enough for answer to the substance of his whole first booke Seeing to trouble our selves much with impertinent stuffe would be in vs also great folly Yea to speake the truth the prosecuting of all the rest of his Defence besides is such likewise that is cleane from the maine purpose toucheth not the chiefe question betweene vs. Indeed he propouÌ„deth one part of the question wel in the title of the second booke of his Defence but his prosecuting of it both there and every where els even to the end is as if we denyed Bishops and their governement in the Churches of Christ We deny not Church government by Bishops Which is nothing els but lyes malicious forgerie against vs by equivocating falshood slander to make vs seeme as if wee were against both the expresse letter of the New Testament EquivocatoÌ„ and also of the most ancient Ecclesiasticall Writers where we know any maÌ„ may see Bishops their government to be coÌ„mended as from God and as the ordinance of the Apostles Which is the very practise likewise of Doct. Bilson against vs in his booke Of the perpetuall governement of Christs Church Whose trace our Doctor followeth step by step But as I said both their great and large volumes about this matter are nothing els but two heapes of equivocations or sentences wholy impertinent such as we admit with them or some conclusions wherein they plainly contradict theÌ„selves elswhere Little cause therefore had
or to Timothie For he would not that they should do any thing by their privat authorâ—tie but he commaundeth them to take care that worthy and fit Ministers bee ordayned aâ—cording to the office of Guides and Overseers Nâ—ither is it likely that more was graunted to them then to the Apostles themselves who determined nothing in this cause at any time without the churches cousaill or witbout taking the churches advise For a little after they both chose Deacons publikly in the preseÌ„ce of the church and Paul with Barnabas are read to have ordayned Presbyters throughout every Church gathering the voyces of every maÌ„ Act 6 3.4 Arguitur exemple hoc corruptissimus idemque perniciosissimus Ministros eligends mos quem tam seculis aliquot hâc in causa imperâ—um obtinuisse constat Quofit vt non raro vâ—us aliquis in pluribus Ecclesijs privata authoritate Ministros Eligat Ordinet Quaete potissimum ab Abbatibus Episcopis Prapositis peccaiur Nec meitùs rem administrant nonnulli inter eos qui Evangelij nomine gloriantur Ecclesiarum reformatores baberi volunt Dum enim isis malè vsurpata possessione Monachos Episcopos vt par est eijeiunt Ecclesijstamen libertatem illorum tyrannide ereptam non restituunt Sed pro suâ— arbitrio administrant quae olim ab Episcopis Monachis administrari solebant Quod malum nisi brevi reprimatur Simoniâ—m exitialem omnis Ecclesiasticae Disciplina confusionem nobis pariet Atque omne boâ— Romanis Pontificibus debetur c. Maximè Calisto secundo ex quo tempore Ecclesia libertas ceu lethali morbo contabescens tandem in vniversum evanuit Quam quicunque restitutam volunt sive illi verbi Ministri sint sive Magistratus huc incumbendum sibi esse sciant vt vetus Ministrorum eligendorum consuetudo in ducatur By this example is reproved that most corrupt also most pernicious manner of chosing Ministers which it is manifest hath gotteÌ„ DominioÌ„ Lordly rule in this affaire now these certaine ages Whereby it is that not seldome one both choseth and ordayneth Ministers in many Churches by his privat authoritie Wherein chieflic the Abbots As in England c. Bishops and Rulers offende Neither do divers others among those that glorie in the name of the Gospell and would be counted Reformers of Churches order this matter better For while they put foorth the Monkes Bishops as it is meete they should out of their possession wickedly vsurped yet the libertie which they tooke away from their tyrannie they restore not to the Churches but administer those thinges at their owne will which in time past were wont to bee administred by the Bishops and Monkes Which evill vnles it bee shortly repressed it will bring foorth among vs both Simonie and also a deadly confusion of all Church Dâ—â—ciplice And all this wee have from the Bishops of Rome c. Chieflie from Calistus the second FroÌ„ which time the Churches libertie as it were languishing with a deadly sicknes at last vanished away wholy Which whosoever do desire that it may be restored whether they be Ministers or Magistrates let them know they must labour for this that the old custome of chosing Ministers bee brought in againe 11. Vrsimus Vnto these we will adde Vrsinus who teacheth thus Math. 18.17 If he refuse to heare the Church “ Catech. pa. 799.800 Printed at Oxfor An. 1589 let him be vnto thee as a Heathen a Publican In these wordes Christ expresly commaundeth all whosoever beeing after this sort admonished by the Church will not repent to bee by the common consent of the Church excommunicated vntill they repent And whosoever are excommunicated they againe professing and shewing in their actions amendment are altogeather in lake sort receaved into the Church as they were exiled from it namely by the iudgement of the Elders by the consent of the Church and the authoritie of Christ and the Scripture And that deâ—untiation whereby one is excommunicated is not in the power of the Minister of the Church but in the power of the Church and is done in the name of the Church because this Commandment was given by Christ vnto the church For he saith expresly Tel the Church 12. Danaus In 1 Tim. 5.22 Heere also Danaus is worthie to bee remembred He saith Approbatio eligendi Ministri ad plebem totum populum Ecclesia sanè pertinet The approbation of the Minister to bee chosen pertayneth truly to the whole people of the Church Againe Plebem non esse ab ordinationibâ— vocandorum preficiendorum muneribu Ecclesiasticis excludâ—ndam demonstant examplâ— veteris Ecclesiae c. That the people â—ught not to bee excluded from the ordinations of Ministers the examâ—les of the old Church do demonstrat in which without doubt the Election by voyces of the whole Church was vsed as it is easie to be shewed in Act 6. 14. Therefore they do perfidiously deprive the Church of her right Perfidie who thrust a Pastor on a people without their knowledge and consent For they do the Church the greatest iniurie when they spoile her of her iudgement and voyce giving Sacrilege or Church robbing Who therefore are truly to bee called Sacrilegious or Church-robbers Neither indeed is he a lawful Pastor which is over a flocke being ignorant of his comming or against their will or not consenting Which presently after he sticketh not to applie to the callings of the Ministers in England saying Ex his omnibus apparet quam nulla sit vel non legitima corum verbi Ministrorum Vocatio c. By all this it appeareth how that calling of Ministers is none or not lawfull which is made by the authoritie letters commaundement and iudgement of the King alone or Queene or the Patrone or Bishop or Archbishop c. veluti in mediâ Angliâ as it is vsed in England Id quod dolendum est which I speake with greefe Moreover concerning Excommunication he saith “ In vers 1. Hac iurisdictio est totuâ— quidem Ecclesia ratione potestatis Prepositotum autem ratione exercitij adminisirationis This iurisdiction is the whole Churâ—hes in respect of the power thereof but it beâ—ongeth to the Guides of the Church in respect â—f administring it namely populo assentiente with the peoples consent as hee addeth a â—ittle after And againe Executioni puâ—lica censura intervenire debet notitia conâ—ensus Ecclesia The knowledge and consent of the Church ought to be in the execution of the publike censure 13. Tilenus Neither shall Tilenus testimonie bee vnremembred who aunswering the Coâ—nt Lavl that required him to shew what calling Calvin had saith “ Respons ad Com Lavallium quest 3 The people of Geneva professing the Gospel did first call Farel to be their Pastor then he they called Calvin to be likewise Applying Ciprians sentence thervnto who avoucheth “ Epist
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
free consent and namely that it was so vnder the Apostles which I have shewed “ Pag. 68. 69 before to be certainly true hence it followeth that it is a plaine vntruth a falshood which the Doct. so often “ Def. 1.28 and 4.2.3.38.39.46 affirmeth viz. that the Bishops in the Apostles time were such for the substance of their calling as ours now in England are Ours are sole governours they were not so They admitted the Congregations consent in all important matters of their governement ours do what they please without them yea commonly against their liking Besides the Apostolike Bishops had not any addition of Civill coactive power as ours have Last they had no mo ordinarie set Congregations to their pastorall charge but only one ours are the Pastors each of thē of many hundred Congregations All which are evident substantiall differēces in the churches and Bishops estate as hath ben also observed purposely “ Divine beginning of Christs true visib Church pag. 3. 4. 5. Declarat pag. 12. 13 14. Reas. for ref p. 41. 42. 43. els where In which respect the very ground which the D. buildeth on is false his very text Rev. 1.20 is misinterpreted abused so his Sermon whole Defence standing therevpon is frustrat And he doth Equivocat plainly Fiftly where the Christian people have their free consent in Church governement there never is seene anie Pluralist nor Nonresident Pastor For they wil never indure their Pastor to be a Nonresident from them nor yet to bee distracted with mo charges of soules then their owne Which certainly al that feare God and have care of them selves theirs will esteeme to bee a most godly thing to beholde Besides also they wil never indure any Covetous nor Proud nor adulterer nor drunkard nor ignorant nor false Teacher And as their Pastor and Guide is such will they bee also in a maner alwayes every where The adversary confesseth that “ D. Bils perp gov pag. 344 The wisedom of Gods Church in taking the cōsent of the people in the Election of their Bishops hee can not but commend he findeth so great and good effectes of it in the Church stories For thence it came to passe that the people when their desires were accomplished did quietly receave willingly maintaine diligently heare heartily love their Pastors yea venter their whole estate and hazard their lives rather thē then Pastors should miscarie Verily this sheweth it to bee Gods ordinance in that he accompanyeth it with such and so great blessings Contrariwise Pluralist-Pastors and Nonresidents who of any conscience can allow Who that hath any sparke of religion or care of good life doth not detest and abhorre them and most worthily as being in deed of the reliques of Antichrist and instruments of Satan All blindnes in the people and wicked conversation floweth from these as frō fountaines Continual iarres and warres betwene the Pastor and his flocke And therehence groweth contempt of Religion Yea questionles that which the Pest is in mans body the same are Nonresidents and Pluralitie-men in Christes Church Whose fruits are too plentifull among vs. Archb. Whitgift saith “ Answ to the Admon pag. 44. 45. Now the Church is full of hypocrites dissemblers drunk ands whoremongers Ignorant Papistes Atheistes and such like D. Bilson also †Perp. gov pag. 155. Toom Church comes all sortes Atheistes Hypocrites c. All which filth ought verilie to be imputed chiefly to Nonresidentes and Pluralists Now in Diocesan and Provinciall Churches and larger where the people have not their free consent in the Church governement there must of necessitie be Nonresidents and Pluralitie-men First the chief and best Pastor of a verie large Countrey hee whom they call the Angell of such a Church is no other indeede then a great Pluralist and Nonresident For he hath the proper charge of soules over “ Def. 3.145 2.67 all his Circuit as D. Down professeth they all holde That is to say over manie hundred ordinary set Congregations where for the most part they themselves are never present and never do fo much as see the faces of so many people of whom yet they vndertake to bee their proper Pastors Are not these huge Pluralists Nonresidents in the time of the Gospell And thus hee †Def. 2.127 approoveth Theodorets taking to him selfe to be Pastor of 800. parishes Yea it cometh to passe that some Bishops are Pastors to many mo Againe note how Do. Belson shrinketh not to make Pluralistes and Nonresidentes a Divine Ordinance and Apostolike which he doth to the end that Diocesan Bishops might seeme to be Divine Saith he against the mislikers of Pluralitie and Nonresidencie “ Perp gov pag. 328. Saint Paul him selfe knew not these curious positions when he appointed Titus to take charge and oversight of the whole Island of Crete and saw no cause why one man might not performe many Pastorall and Episcopall duties to all that were in the same Countrey with him And this touching the chiefe and best and †Pag. 247. only proper Pastor in a Diocesan Church and larger Secondly his Substitutes will all seeke to bee in proportion like their Superiors Whereof in deede there is great cause For if the most Angelike Pastor he who in his Office cometh nearest vnto Christ bee such that is so great a Pluralist and Nonresident then who in conscience can mislike Nōresidents Who would not desire to be plurifyed abundantly Who would not iudge the greatest Pluralist the worthiest Pastor most excellent servant of Christ I say even inferior Nonresidents and Pluralistes in such Church estates must needes not only aboūd but also superaboūd True reason requireth it and experience among our selves doth shew it Whereby what wofull wrack and havocke of mens soules is happened in our Lande every-where any that looke about consider may see And hee that seeth can not have so flintie a heart as not to sorrow and mourne for it Against which Spirituall desolation yea rather ruine and destruction no remedie can bee had without giving the Christian people their free consent in their spirituall governement For none have that care of other mens soules as Christian people would have of their owne Sixtly heere are other Consequents of a most high nature both in respect of God and also in respect of our selves First in respect of God thus I gather and conclude If this opinion be false viz. that the peoples consent in the Church governement is the Apostles ordinance and Christes immutable commaundement for vs then Christ in his New Testament is not the Teacher Institutor Framer “ Impious opinions Lord and Lawgiver of his Visible Church which is the Kingdome of heaven vpon earth At least hee only is not And the New Testament is not compleat nor all-sufficient for matters of Religion Nor so compleat as the Old Testament was And Christes divine Offices of Prophesie
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
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