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
Spirituall or sole government Ecclesiasticall yea though over but one Congregation Much more him who exerciseth such spirituall Lordship over a great many CoÌ„gregations Also What is Sole authoritie Spirituall in our sense sole authoritie Spirituall and sole governement Ecclesiasticall we call that which is exercised without the Christian peoples free consent D. Downame laboureth with divers vaine shifts to defend the English L. Bishops herein He can not abide that it should bee saide of them that they exercise “ Def. 1.58.47.43 sole authoritie or sole government Yea in many places hee * Def 3 118.11â—.126.142 sheweth indignation that such wronge should be done them in beeing so reported of But it is strange Are they ashamed to heare of that which they cease not to practise and maintaine every day and that in the sight of the world yea each of them over divers hundreds of Congregations For the people with vs no where enioy any free consent But the D. saith “ Def. 1.43.44 The Bishop hath the Archbishop above him Yea but who is above our 2. Archbishops spiritually No body Againe he saith Provinciall Synods are above the Bishop Idly spoken Is the Diocesan Synod above their owne Bishop Or is the Provinciall Synod above their Archbishop Surely no more then the Vniversall Councill is above the Pope Which is cleane contrarie Now this is it which hee should have affirmed buthe durst not He shifteth further saying “ Pag. 44. Do we not all with one consent acknowledge the Kings Maiestie to have the Supreme authoritie in causes Ecclesiasticall Yea verily wee do But that is Civilly as “ Reas. for ref p. 62. â—â— els-where I have shewed Hee hath no authoritie in causes Ecclesiasticall Spiritually that is his authoritie properly maketh no Church Minister nor Excommunicateth any person Which I suppose your selves do hold even as we do But this is the point in England the Archb. is Spiritually Supreme or hath Supreme authority spiritual in his Province I say thus he is Supreme sole viz. spiritually Wherfore the Doct. Ignorantia Elenchi grosly sophisticateth in shifting from the poâ—â—t in hand to an other matter Where hee speaketh of “ Def. 1. p. 43 Chancellors adioyned to the Bishops and of Presbyters consent with him that †Pag. 42. Presbyters have power to rule their flocke in publike Ministerie and in privat attendance that some of them have voyces in Synods c. I wot not what all this is Sure I am it is as idle as the rest For so much at least is seene in the Popish Church where yet is founde spirituall Lordship sole governement in their Bishops yea oppression violence tyrannie also over the peoples consciences as we well know So that the “ Pag. 43. Supreme and lowdest by and †Pag. 47. the plainely which hee giveth to vs hee ought to take to him selfe Another shift of the Doct. is where because the Hebrew Adoni the Greeke 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Latin Dominus may be given to Bishops therefore “ Def. 3.147 he would conclude that in English they may be called Lords D. Bilson reasoneth †Perp gov pag. 58. 59. so likewise and that very largely He would prove the same also from the Duch terme Here from the French Monsieur c. But I deny this reason absolutly For heerein there is no consequence Our English terme Lord and Lordship doth alwayes imply Sole government but none of those forraigne termes doth so alwayes Wherefore such reasoning is Equivocating also * Ioh. 13.13 1. Cor. 8.6 12.5 2. Cor. 1.24 Againe Christ only is our Lord in respect of Spirituall Lordship he only is to bee called a Spirituall Lord. But our Bishops are Lords and are so called with vs in respect as they bee Spirituall Lordes as the Doctor “ Def. 3.150 observeth well Wherefore our Bishops Lordship is vnlawfull and derogatorie to Christ Doct. Bilson saith further †Perp. gov pag. 62. If we sticke at titles Christ calleth them Gods Lo how nothing satisfyeth these men Would he have Bishops called by the name of Gods also But I would know of him where doth Christ call them Gods Surely it is but his fancie They are in deed so called no where D. Downame presseth that Bishops are called “ Def. 3.146.150 Angells which is a more honor able title then Lord. And therefore that Bishops may bee called Lords I deny that the name Angell is so honorable a title as a Spirituall Lord which is given to our Bishops This is proper to Christ only as before is said the name Angell is not And so his reason is false Againe though the name Angell be given to Bishops sometime and in one respect yet it is very false to say they may lawfully be stiled and called by the dayly appellation of Angells or that they may ordinarilie vse that title as they do the title name of Lord. Againe the name of Lord is given them as importing their sole governement as before is said But the name Angell importeth not so much neither is it given to any Creature in such respect Therfore from the name of Angell the title of Lorde followeth not Indeed the name of Angell is given to Bishops because they are Gods messengers to shew vs his will not in respect of their governement at all though the Doct. presumeth so to say without “ An Allegorie is no proofe proofe Lastly hee knoweth that all Preachers are in the word called Angells or Messengers but for all Preachers to be called in English Lords or your Lordship surely it would be a very arrogant thing And though hee “ Def. 1.34.46 alleage that the Angel of the church of Ephesus in Rev. 2.1 be one and but one before many Ministers yet neither doth this importe any Lordship in him either in name or practise neither is this precedence or praeeminence signifyed by the word Angel but it is gathered by coÌ„paring this word with the knowen circumstances of those times Further he alleageth that “ Def. 3.152 Princes are called Pastors and for the same cause are Lords Wherein there is no truth nor indeed any good sense The like is that where hee addeth the title of Father is as great as Lord. Nay the name of Father is amiable but Lords may and also they vse to force and compell Neither did the Pope at first take the name of Father peculiarly to him selfe to note thereby any Lordship as his due but to deceave the world by his pretended love over all wherein he desired to seeme a commoÌ„ Father In another * Def. 4.71.72 place he teacheth that Bishops in the New Testament were called Apostles VpoÌ„ which grouÌ„d he “ Def. 3 15â— would conclude that therefore the name of Lord is lawfull for them I answer The name of Apostle and also of Bishop may be vsed sometime
never ben possible For it had ben to smal purpose if they had oppugned those their other errors only withal had iustifyed the forme of the Roman Church and the calling of their Ministerie which our Forefathers must have done if our said Assertion had not ben true And so they must have taryed still ordinarie members vnder the governement of the same Church Againe to small purpose had they oppugned those other errors if they had left to obloquie their owne Ministerie Which likewise they must have done if our said Assertion were not true For as in warfare good weapons and much strength without iustifyable authoritie A Similitude will in short time bring ruine and confusion to them that vse the same Even so it is in this cause yea much more heere it is true Though wee seeme to cut down Popish errors with the sword of Gods word yet if wee do not cleere our Ministerie and iustifye our Calling give good satisfaction to mens Consciences for the lawfulnes of our handling the Word and Sacraments and Spirituall governement wee shall quickly labour in vaine And that appeareth certainly to much at this day in England the greater is our woe Not only in respect of Popery but in other respects also Well will our adversaries say The Protestantes Ministerie is iustifyed sufficiently against the Papistes albeit the people have no consent in their Ministers Calling Oh would God our learned men in Englande would shew this substantially Then would I for my part quickly conforme as before also I protested But otherwise let them bee assured the Church of Rome do what they can will get ground of them in England And this maketh mee to lay this to heart as I do Every day we are chalenged by the “ D. KellisoÌ„ Treatise of faith A. D. Iohn Fraser c. Papistes to proove the lawfulnes of our Ministerie in England and of our Calling to it What say our learned men heerevnto A direct and a full and a stedfast answer must be made to this Mens consciences will not be satisfyed with dilatorie and shifting answeres Nor if wee leave Scruples Difficulties in that we speake To iustify the Calling of our Ministerie in England and to prove the lawfulnes thereof The true iustification of the Protestants Ministerie wee must plainly shew that the persons who give this Calling with vs have good authoritie in deed to give the same This is the very point Let our learned men make this cleere and then the Papistes are stopped then all men are satisfyed For it is a plaine case and graunted of all that every true Ministerie in the Church must be receaved from some persons who have good and iust authoritie to give it And this is essentiall to every true Ministerie Some there are in Englande who affirme the Ministers authoritie is only an Inward Calling and gifts of the minde And so hath no absolut necessitie to be Outwardly receaved from any other Which in deed is not fit for any wise man or honest Christian to holde It is the worst answer of a thousand and in a word meerely Anabaptisticall Some others there are who say that this authoritie of the Ministerie and of exercising Excommunication also is derived originally from the Magistrate even from the King and Parliament with vs. And so they expound that ordinance of our Saviour “ Mat. 18.17 Tell the Church to be Tell the civil Magistrate Verily they may also as well expound these wordes †Mat. 86.18 Vpon this Rocke I will build my Church to signifie Vpon the Civill Magistrate vpon the Prince Christ buildeth his church For thus they make Christes Visible Church vnder the Gospell only a Civill Societie and a Humane politie Which profane opinion is so vnworthy of all true Christian people that it deserveth to bee exploded no lesse then the other These answers against the Papistes wee may thinke will do but litle good For as it is absolutly necessary that a true Minister of the Gospell have his calling given him outwardly from some persons and that these persons have good and iust authoritie to give it So likewise it is absolutly necessarie that every true Minister of the Gospell have his calling given him by those who are by Christ him selfe or his holy Spirit in the Apostles authorised to give it For thus only can an Ordinarie Ministers Calling be of God which is “ Ioh. 3.27 Heb. 5.4 Mat. 21.25 1. Cor 12.5 Rom. 10.15 necessarie and not of men And this is that which we call Essentiall in every Ordinarie Ecclesiasticall Minister Who are the persons that have power from Christ to make Ministers Againe as I said this will soundly answere the Papistes and nothing els But now all the matter will be who are the persons which have power authoritie from Christ to give a Calling to a Minister of the Gospell Heere as touching my selfe when I deale with Papistes as often I have don I affirme as D. Tilenus in this case answered the L. Lavall in France which “ Pag. 43. before I remembred viz. that the people consenting togeather in the truth of the Gospell have froÌ„ Christ power and authoritie first to forsake all Sacrilegious Priestes and their ministerie and then to give a true and lawfull calling of Ministerie to some whom them selves do like Wherein Tilenus shewed Cyprians iudgement also agreeing with his Cyprian there affirming likewise that this power of the people is from Divine authoritie as “ Pag. 56. 57. before also is shewed And other very plaine proofes heereof Act. 1.23.26 and 6.3.5.6 and 14.23 I have †Reas. for reform pag. 45. 46. 47. c. Divine beginning of Christs Visib Church Argum. 9. A DefinitioÌ„ generall twice set downe at large out of the New Testament Beside all which there is very pregnant reason also for the same For Christian people whether few or many ioyned togeather in a constant societie of one ordinarie Congregation to serve God according to his word are a true Visible Church of Christ Every true Visible Church of Christ is his Kingdome vpon earth his deare Spouse his owne Body c. Now it ought not to bee doubted but Christ hath given power to his Kingdome to his Spouse to his Body to governe it selfe to preserve it selfe to provide for it selfe when it wanteth all things ordayned for it in the best maner it can This may not bee doubted Therefore such a Societie vnder the Gospell wanting Ministers must have power to ordaine Ministers for her selfe Likewise the Apostle saieth All thinges are theirs and they Christes and Christ Gods Then 1. Cor. 3 2â—.23 wheÌ„ they want Ministers they cannot want power to provide them to them selves Seeing God hath made them theirs Further the Apostle requireth the christiaÌ„ people to try the Spirits of their Teachers whether they be of God or no. 1. Ioh. 4.1 And Christ saith His sheepe heare his voice a
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
be it is superabundantly recompenced with far greater blessings when wee practise Christes ordinance And truly this must be so Such a Bishop to such a Church must be if the Do. opinion be true that Christ hath in the New Testamēt appointed a Vniversall Church Visible being but one Body subiect to governement as above we have seene Hee addeth These reasons may suffice Yea truly they suffice to make 10000. Papists but they wil never reclaime one Vnto this wee may adde that the very Natures of a Diocesan or Provinciall Church and of a Vniversall have no essentiall difference in them The very Forme and Order of administring thē differeth not in any substantiall point Only a Church limited to one ordinary Cōgregation differeth essentially from a Vniversall Church as also from a Diocesan and Provinciall as “ Declar. pag. 11. 12. 13. I have shewed elswhere Whence it is that where the Church is Diocesan or Provinciall as it is now in England there is an easie passage to the Vniversall and sooner they may be combined into one then where the Churches are limited each to one ordinarie Congregation the people inioying their free consent in Church-governement Nay there are many stronge seeming reasons inducing men of reason to yeelde that the Diocesan and Provinciall Formes of Churches not only may easily but also ought necessarily to bee combined to come into one Vnivers Church For whatsoever is or can bee brought by Doctor Downame or any other to maintayne Diocesan and Provinciall Churches the same is much more pregnant for a Vniversall And what warrant alloweth them to rule over the particular Congregations that same requireth them to be ruled also by a Vniversall Church If Diocesans and Provincialistes go about to produce Scripture for their origen institution they do it so weakly so vntowardly and so vnlikely that any man seeing considering it without partialitie would bee ashamed But heere the Catholikes step in boldly foorth-with they name sundrie places in the New Testament for their Vniversall Church Visible Eph. 4.4 12. 16. Math. 16.18 1 Cor. 12.28 Rev 20.9 Gal. 4.26 And in the Creed I beleeve the Catholike Church Which indeed have more shew for it then anie places have for Diocesan or Provinciall Churches independent as ours be in England Againe if Vnitie concorde and peace-making be a reason for Diocesan and Provincial churches it is much better for a Vniversal Church For it is true a Vniversall Church may cause in Christendom a kind of Vnitie peace but Diocesan Provincial Churches can never For among these there may bee easily so many opinions as there bee Provinces Their Bishops beeing 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Heads by them selves Where the D. saith †The Church was freer from Schismes before the Papacie Def. 3.66.67 then vnder it It is most vntrue and it bewrayeth in him much ignorance though he disdaine to have that once imagined in him The case being thus what resistance can be made to the subtill and mightie perswasions of Iesuites and Popish Priestes vrging tender soules consciences vpon these advātages Chiefly when they shall shew them withall that our great learned Divines Doctors confesse that Christ hath ordayned in the New Testament that his true Visible Church should be one Body subiect to governement A strange oversight in our Defenders against Poperie granting a Vniversall Church Visible in the N. Testam and that a Vniversall Church Visible is Christes ordinance now vnder the Gospell Seeing it is plaine that a Vniversall Church Visible at this day in all the world there is none but the Romane And the Roman Church in deed is a Vniversall Visible Church intending to have and having members in every Nation vnder heaven Yea it hath seemed to have bene such for these thousand yeares past but the Catholikes avouch it to have ben ever since Christ And why may not that bee likely if a Vniversall Visible Church bee Christes Ordinance Certainly Christes Visible Ministerial Church must continue “ Math. 28.20 alwayes from the time of his Ascētion vnto the Worlds end And some-where extant it must be But this hath not ben any where since in all Christendome except at Rome Whence it will follow if those our Doctors sayings be true that the Roman Church hath ben and is Christs Vniversall Church Visible It is fond to obiect as some doe that No particular Church can be Vniversall because they are opposit And so neither can the Roman Church seeing it is particular bee Vniversall I saye this is fond For a Vniversal Church Visible must have some particular Visible Church to bee their Head As from King David till Christ the Vniversall Church had the particular Church at Ierusalem for their Head So the Roman◠Church may be the Head of the Vniversall Church visible now if Christ have ordayned any such which those our D.D. seeme to grant and in that respect it may bee well called a Vniversal Church though it selfe bee but particular Thus the Catholikes will have strong advantage still vpon the Provincials And they will presse that we ought rather to imbrace the Vniversall Church then any Diocesan or Provinciall independent as ours in England is Nay they will shewe that if we will be saved simply we must be professed members of Christes Vniversal Church Visible seeing Chirst hath ordayned it And this absolutly can not be mo then only one in the world And in this case we must suspect our opinions in religion which differ from the doctrine of Christes only true Church we must thinke it at least probable that the doctrine of the said Church is the very minde of Christ though otherwise wee might make question of somewhat therein And such doubtes must be decided tryed within the saide Church not without it So that first we must provide that our selves be in the communion of the said Church And this after the former reckoning will proove as I have shewed to bee the Roman Church And so Doctor Downame and the rest have spun a faire threed Which fearfull inconvenience and mischiefe followeth by denying this true Christian Assertion viz. that Christes true Visible Church vnder the Gospel is only one Ordinary Congregation as also this that the peoples free consent in the Church governement ought to bee alwayes admitted To grant a Vniversall Church Visible vnder the Gospel is the groūd of all mischief Where may be added an other vnspeakeable and intolerable mischiefe which cometh by this magnifying of a Vniversal Visible Church against the Kings Maiesties Soveraigntie and against al other Civil Magistrates free governement A Vniversall Visible Church is the very ground and reason that so many do give their lives against the oth of allegeance to our King as now there do and as it may be feared many mo will For the Vniversal Pastor or Bishop of the said Vniversal Visible Church whom the members are bound to heare
An Attestation of many Learned Godly and famous Divines Lightes of Religion and pillars of the Gospell iustifying this doctrine viz. That the Church-governement ought to bee alwayes with the peoples free consent Also this That a true Church vnder the Gospell contayneth no more ordinary Congregations but one In the discourse whereof specially Doctor Downames also D. Bilsons chiefe matters in their writings against the same are answered Calvin Instit 4.3.2 Hee laboureth the destruction and ruine of the Church whosoever either seeketh to abolish this order and this kinde of government whereof we treate or maketh light of it as not so necessary ANNO DOM. 1613. To my Christian and beloved friends in London and elswhere in England Grace and peace be multiplied in IESVS CHRIST our Lord. THe great and long afflictions which it hath pleased God to call me vnto onlie for testifying his heavenly truth against the grievous corruptions of the Church in our Land are well knowen vnto you all my most deare and loving friends In the middest of which my troubles what comfort J have receaved from you though I publish not yet both a most thankefull remembrance thereof remaineth in my heart and with God a most precious recompence is laid vp for you at the last day I confesse I might â—og since have ben discouraged through many things which I finde both within and without me Besides I have not escaped the bytings of false brethren Also I am not ignorant that divers yea of those that least should doe not only distast but also speake evill of my innocencie without all cause In very deed they can not tell why But God the righteous Iudge seeth it who yet stil sustayneth and strengthenth my infirmitie by whose grace J am that I am Wherefore in his Name J do still beare witnesse to the truth denyed by many men do now take in hand to intreat heere concerning the Christian peoples power right of †Also coÌ„sequeÌ„tly that a true Church vnder the Gospell coÌ„taineth no mo ordinary Congregations theÌ„ one is not Diocesan properly free consent in their outward spirituall governement given theÌ„ by Christ Jesus in the Gospell And therefore to his gracious assistance heerein I also do trust In the which affaire I thinke it very behoofull for the better manifestation of my lawful and iust indeavour and no lesse needfull for Gods glory to speake to this matter propounded in this Treatise not my selfe alone but to shew openly vnto all who have but a sparke of love to the truth such an Attestation of faithfull and worthy Witnesses with mee in this matter being the maine foundation of our greatest controversie touchinge Church governement that I hope hereafter none will set against this my seeking both of mine owne and your soules good nor cavill at it but such as are too worldly and too earthly minded In my Discourse vpon this cause as touching obiections D Down Defenc Anno. 1611. chiefly I gather out of Doctor Downame such as seeme to any purpose J answer them Him beere J specially deale with because of a friend he is not long since turned from vs and become our adversarie yea the latest I thinkc which openly sheweth him selfe against vs and so is like to be now most in mens eyes also hee hath heaped togeather the most thinges that the best of such Defenders have heeretofore written Besides all this the maner of his writings is with such an “ Defence 1. pag. 16 17. 2. pag 122. insolent conceit of him selfe with such * Defence 2. pag 55. 15. contempt indignation and despite against vs as commonly is not seene in any but those that slide backe from the truth which they had once tacted of And withall though in his Defence he deale with another yet in many passages hee very sharply provoketh me in particular besides other wrongs that he hath done me well knowen For these causes both I write this that I do and I chieflie nominate him for our adversarie as in this treatise so also †In the Declaration elswhere My Christian and loving friends for whose sake most of all I labour and have laboured to make our said question which is long intricat trouble some to be short and plaine and to make the matter it selfe also appeare so waightie as indeed it is Now your partes are wisely and religionsly to ponder in your heartes and to make vse of this same As the Apostle spake to Timothie so do I vnto you Consider Brethren what I say and the Lord give you vnderstanding in all things Amen Iuly 18. Anno 1612. Yours ever in the Lord HENRY IACOB The contents of this Booke divided into Nine Chapters CHAP. I. The great importance of the matter heere handled viz. That the people ought to have their free consent in their owne Churche governement And the causes of publishing this Attestation to it Pag. 9. CHAP. II. The Methode and order of this Treatise Pag. 20. CHAP. III. The Testimonies of many particular late Writers of blessed memorie making for vs in this matter Pag. 21. CHAP. IIII. The publike consent of many late yet excellent Churches heerein with vs. Pag. 48. CHAP. V. The Testimonies practise of the best Antiquitie after the New Testament heerin likewise with vs. Pag. 52 CHAP. VI. Our very Adversaries sometimes do acknowledge with vs the truth of this doctrine in plaine termes and sometimes to the same full effect specially when they deale against the Papistes Pag. 70. CHAP. VII Consequences of exceeding great importance following vpon the peoples free consent in their Church-governement inconveniences intollerable following from the contrary Pag. 84. CHAP. VIII An answer to divers chiefe Obiections of the Adversaries of this cause noting also briefly their immodest not Christian like reproches against this Evangelicall doctrine Pag. 199. CHAP. IX A short Advertisement to the vpright hearted and Christian Reader touching this Writing and Cause Pag. 316. An Attestation of many Learned Godly and Famous Divines Lightes of Religion pillars of the Gospell instifying this doctrine viz. That the Church government ought to be alwayes with the peoples free consent c. CHAP. I. The great importance of the matter heere handled viz. That the people ought to have their free consent in their owne Church-governement And the causes of publishing this Attestation to it WHEREAS many thinges at divers and sundrie times heeretofore have ben writteÌ„ which prove a plaine necessitie by Gods Word to reforme the Church Church-governement now in England verily among them all there is almost no other point so evident so direct and ful to this purpose that is Chap. 1. none in a maner so absolutly importeth the saide necessitie of reformation as this doth which is vtterly wanting among vs namâ—ly That the Church-governement ought tâ—â—â—e exercised alwayes with the peoples free consent One or two maâ—â—â— grounds of our whole controversie It
14. That the people most of all have power to chose worthy Ministers and to refuse their vnworthy ones After which he sheweth that the other churches els-where professing the Gospell refusing Poperie did likewise They who had a calling from the church of Râ—me renounced it resting on that which they have according to the rule of the Gospell 14. Iunius Also Iunius saith †Ecclesiastie 3.1 Simplicissimam quidem probatissimamque Eligendi Vocandi viam illam esse constat ex Scripturae Sacrae testimonijs quam Apostoli in Ecclesijs tenuerunt olim prisca Ecclesia aliquamdiu eos imitata observavit Eligebat tota Ecclesia id est corpus ex Presbyterio populo seu plebe constitutum equis communihus suffragijs Haec iusta electionis ratio It is manifest that that way of chosing and calling Ministers is most simple and most approoved by the testimonies of holy Scripture which the Apostles in old time did keepe in the Churches and the ancient Church sometime imitating them did observe The whole Church did chose that is the Body consisting of the Eldership and people or common sort by equal common voyces This is the iust manner of Chosing Ministers Afterward hee saith This the old Church did observe very long doneo res coeperunt vt fit humanitus in peius ruere atque retrò sublapsa referri Vntill as through mens corruption it comes to passs things began to grow worse and to runne to ruine And after that corruptioÌ„ in the Church government was come in Yet saith he id semper obtinuit vt Ecclesia actioni toti interesset camque prasentiâ suâ haberet raetam That alwayes was in force that the Church was present at the whole action and ratifyed it with their presence But neither this in England is seene anie where neither will bee allowed Also Iunius saith Where the Church at any time doth no more but ratifie matters by their presence only the Guidâ—t ought to certifie the Church that if they can them selves take care for do their owne affaires non fore penâ—â—â—â—lâ—um Episcoporum Seniorumve coetum vt 〈◊〉 siâ—i cum damno Ecclesia iniuriae ignominâ arroget It shall not be in the power of any asâ—eÌ„bly of Bishops or Elders to arrogat so much to them selves with the Churches dammage iniurie and shame Where hee professeth that this is the Church â—s daÌ„mage iniurie shame if being vnderstaÌ„ding Christians they be only present at the chosing and ordayning of their Ministers if they do not also them selves chose or at least freely expresly coÌ„sent to the chosing and ordayning of them After noting the tyrannie which was in this behalfe vnder the Pope he saith Iam de populo queÌ„ Christus redemit suo sanguine Ecclesiam sibi ex eo compararet verbum nullum Now of the people there was not one word whom Christ redeemed with his bloud that they might be his Church And he addeth Hinc illa barbaries hinc colluvies selelerum omnium hinc illa fraudum nundinationuÌ„ sentina exundavit Hence came that barbarous ignorance in those times that heape of all sinnes that sinke of deceit and selling of the soules of men TheÌ„ speaking of some Churches Magistrates who have worthily freed themselves from the Pope yet hee leaveth this foule blot vpon them Ius illud Eccesiasticum institutionis ordimationis restitut non curant Ecclesijs They care not to restore to the Churches this right of theirs viz of making ordaining of Minister Finally he answeceth some obiections At nescit populus dixerit quispiam Doceatur sciet At nescit vti Imo nesciet vnquam Siture suo non vtatur vnquam At factiosus est plerumque in diversas partes studiaque scinditur Revocetur adpaceÌ„ monitis salutaribus compescatur authoritate verbt virorumque bonorum officijs vt conciliatis compositis animis faciant quod sui turis est But some will say The people is ignorant of their duty and right heerein Let them be taught and they wil vnderstand it But they know not how to vse this their right They will not know it ever if they vse it never But they are factious often and are divided into partes Let them be reduced to Peace by wholesome counsaill and let them be ruled by the authority of the word and the indeavours of good men that their mindes being ordered they may do that which is their right to do 15. Piscator About ExcoÌ„municatioÌ„ Piscator saith “ Observ ex â— cap. 1. Cor. Excommunication ought to bee don by the Church or by the Presbyterie iudging in the name of the Church Where all meÌ„ may see his meaning to bee this viz. that the Presbyterie may excoÌ„municat howbeit alwayes with the Churches free consent For so he signifieth by these wordes iudging in the name of the Church It can not be that hee should meane that they may Excommunicate by their owne power and right onely or whether the Church will or no. After the same maner also I doubt not som others do speake concerning the making king of Ministers Whose sense and meaning is to be taken altogeather to that purpose likewise In the Churches â—amâ— that is Executing the Churches â—uthoritie and power and doing that which they do with their free conâ—ent and approbation 16. Chemniciâ—â— Chemnicius a man most famous of â—are learning among the followers of Luther in the matter of the reall presence yet in our cause hee saith thus “ Exam. part pag. 226. 227. 228. Non sine consensu Ecclesiae Paulus Barâ—abas invitis obtruserunt Presbyteros Paul and Barnabas did not thrust Ministers on the Church being vnwilling or without their â—onsent And Exempla Aposiolica bistoria â—â—are oftendunt c. The examples of the Apostles storie do cleerely shew that Election or Vocation did belong to the whole church And Haec est Apostolicae primitiva veteâ—â— Eccesia sententia de legitima Electione Vocatione Ministrorum c. This is the iudgement and way of the Apostolike primitive and ancient Church concerning the lawful Election and Calling of Ministers which iudgement and way hath place in those Churches which are coÌ„stituted according to Gods word And he addeth In our Churches it is so meaning in those that follow Luther 17. Whitakeâ— Neither can I forget that among â—ur owne Country-men D. Whitaker â—eacheth thus “ De Coneâ—â— pag. 44. Quod omnes attingit ab â—â—â—â—bus approbari debet That which toucheth all Chap. 4. ought to be approved of all Meaning that nothing should bee obtruded vpon any people in Ecclesiasticall and Spirituall regiment no not by Synods except the people consent to it And this consent of the people hitherto avouched verily many other worthy Divines both among vs abroad do maintaine likewise But I forbeare to nominate any mo Knowing that to whom any thing will be enough
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
and Kingdome are not absolut and perfect toward vs but are diminished and changed now in respect as they were to the Iewes of old And the very forme of Christes saide Visible Church is changeable by men and may be instituted first by men Whence it also followeth that a noble part of Christes divine honor glory may bee by men diminished and taken from him and may lawfully bee attributed to men Every one of these consequents is certain neyther can any of them be denyed nor shifted off by our adversaries who reiect the said opinion of the peoples necessary Consent in the Church governement Now this I earnestly desire all men to take notice of that they may see what it is that hath mooved mee and still doth to imbrace the opinion contrarie to the course of the Church governement in England God is my witnes that were it not for these vnavoydable Consequents which touch the very life and soule of all true religion and godlynes I should long since have conformed now would in this bebalfe For otherwise what reason have I to care for the people But because my heart and conscience can not indure to admit these Consequentes which I hope is both honest yea necessarie and Christianlike and so will bee acknowledged by every good man that considereth it therefore doe I beleeve this said opinion as an Evangelicall truth viz. that the peoples coÌ„sent in church government is an Apostolike ordinance and Christes immutable Commandement to vs. And therefore principally did I write that Treatise which I intituled The Divine beginning and institution of Christes true Visible or Ministeriall Church Also the Vnchangeablenes of the same by men viz. 〈◊〉 the forme and essentiall Constitution thereof Which is all the matter that I have regard vnto even that I may in no wise be guiltie of that fearfull sacrilege of spoyling God of his Honor and of giving his glory to another which be so mainly “ Isa 42.8 forbiddeth Which I am sure is not don by acknowledging the foresaide right of the Christian people I am sure that thus all the fore named wicked and impious Consequentes †As by ouâ— Attestators beforâ— may bee seene are avoyded and the whole glory and honor of Christ our Savior iâ— preserved safe and sound For thus we easily holde him even in respect of instituting the forme of his Visible Church and governement therof vnder the Gospell to be our absolut Prophet and King and his New Testament to bee intire and perfect yea fully so perfect for vs as the Old Testament was for the Iewes and so the forme of his said Church and governement to be absolutly vnchangeable by men Even altogether no lesse then it was vnder the Law All this in holdinge our opinion I say wre are sure of Wherefore let me reason thus That opinion which yeeldeth CoÌ„sequents so godly and pious must needes it self be godly and pious questionles cometh from God But our opinion aforesaid yeeldeth CoÌ„sequents so godly and pious yea such in deed as are principles and fundamental grounds of Christian faith Therefore this our opinion it self is right godly pious and proceeding from God Contrarie-wise That opinion which necessarily forceth men to such impietie and vnchristian Consequentes as “ Pag. 133. 134. before I noted eveÌ„ to the overthrow of principles of faith the same it selfe is not of God neither standeth with truth What autors and fautors so ever it have But the opinion of our adversaries verily is such It forceth men of necessitie to those impious vnchristian Consequents as I shewed They can not possibly avoyd them Therefore the opinion of our adversaries viz. who deny the Christian peoples consent in Church governement to be an Apostolike Ordinance and an immutable coÌ„mandement of Christ and so do hold the forme of a proper Diocesan Church and governement to be lawfull and good their opinion I say is not of God neither standeth with truth Now the case standing thus as most cleerly it doth no man can deny but that in coÌ„sideratioÌ„ of these certain coÌ„sequents aforenamed as also in other iust respectes that faithfull man of God whosoever hee was that made that “ An humble Supplication c. An. 1609 Petition to the Kings Maiestie for a Toleration of our way and profession with peace and quietnes in England had great reason so to do and also his Excellent Maiestie bee it spoken with reverence to his Royall Estate to admit of it For what evill can ensue from vs when wee strictly hold fast as we do such holy and Divine principles of Christian faith as before are mentioned and when our inconformitic to the common course in England is only for these causes as I for my part do call God to witnes to my soule it is I say in regard of Religion thus what evill can probably be thought wil ensue from vs And as touching our tractablenes vnder the Kings authoritie and governement Doc. Downame our bitter adversarie “ Def. 1.66 acknowledgeth that wee submit our selves enough Nay he holdeth it to bee too much and proudly he calleth it a desperate or frantike minde in vs so to do But wee holde it our bounden dutie in the presence of God to submit our selves to any Civil Magistrat be he never so meane if the King appoint him over vs. But saith he †Def. 1.83 The summe of our suite in that petition is that we may be tolerated Schismatikes I challenge this rude Doctor and will prove that we seeing we holde only those fundamental Grounds of ChristiaÌ„ faith above meÌ„tioned and that which is evidently built vpon the same are not Schismaâ—â—kes Againe I will prove and make it manifest that indeed him selfe and his consortes are Schismaticks Who are the Schismatiks in England seeing he and they deny those foresaid fundamentall grounds of faith for which only wee contende They therefore them selves are the Schismatikes and “ Rom. 16.17 1. Tim. 6.3 the makerâ— of the division which is now in England All wise men know that not the difference but the cause maketh a Schismatike Let mee once againe therefore presse them with Augustinâ— sentence against the Donatistes which once already †Ang contra Peril 2.25 I did heretofore But they love not to heare of it Saith Augustine “ Reas. for ref pag 77. Virum Schismatici nos sumus an vos nee ego nec tu sed Christus interrogetur vt indicet Eeclesiam suam Lege ergo Evangelium respondet tibe c. Whether we or you be Schismarikes aske not me nor yourselves but aske Christ that hee may shewe his owne Church Read the Gospell therefore and 〈◊〉 answereth thee c. Our Doctor hath an absurd and profane distinction which though he apply it to another matter yet peradventure hee would vse it in this cause against vs if hee could finde that it would bee taken as currant Hee
saith somewhat in the Church may “ Def. 1.7 be of Apostolicall institution D Down and yet not straightwayes Divini iuris of Divine right And every * Pag. 29. Apostolicall and so Divine Ordinance is not generally perpetually and immutably necessary Which he doth often repeat in his 4. booke It seemeth to be taken from Bellarmine the Iesuit Controv. 1. lib. 4. cap. 2. I am sure it is contrary to holy Scripture whiche sheweth that the Apostles whole practise in the Churches was Christes very commaundement The Apostles practise was Christs commandemet and vnchangeable by men Christ saith to his Apost “ Math. 28.20 Teach all Nations to do whatsoever I have commaunded you And Paul testifyeth to the Church of Corinth †1 Cor. 11.23 He receaved of the Lord that which he delivered to them And he chargeth others “ 2 Thes 2.15 To stand fast and to keepe the Ordinances which they had ben taught either by word or by his Epistle Therefore whatsoever is Apostolicall is indeed Divine and it is Christes very commandement and in respect of vs generally and immutably necessarie And so we affirme that the peoples consent in Church governemeÌ„t being a practise Apostolicall as by those Scriptures “ Pag. 76. the margin of pag. 19. above specified it is proved therefore it is also Christes Commaundement and therefore also vnchangeable by men Yea touching Church Censures it is expresly Christes Commandement Math. 18.17 Therfore I conclude seeing we not they do stande with the All-sufficieÌ„cie of holy Scripture with the intire and absolute Offices of Christ our Savior viz. his Propheticall and Kingly Offices even in teaching and inioyning a certaine forme of his Church and governement absolutely and vnchangeably for ever and seeing wee not they do thus asscribe vnto Christ this Divine Honor due in deed to his owne person wholy and only it must needes bee easily perceaved that we not they have the truth also we not they are free from schisme Will any defend our adversaries heerein deny that they thus teach against the honor of Christ or of his Word in his New Testament Or that the pointes which they hold do force meÌ„ to any such impious coÌ„sequents First therefore I will shew that such Consequentes must of necessitie folâ—ow from their opinion then I will â—ote their expresse wordes Whosoever will not holde one vniforme opinion of the Church and governement thereof as we do who beleeve the peoples consent therein to be alwayes necessarie but do preferre the Diocesan and Provincial Church-governement by L. Bishops and yet do also allow of that forme of a Church and governent where are no Diocesan Bishops at all yea where the peoples free consent and voyce-giving is receaved they of necessitie must say that the forme of Christes Visible Church of the governement therof may both bee instituted and also changed by men Of force they must say that Christ in his New Testament is not the Teacher Institutor Framer Lord and Law-giver of his Visible Church as he was in the Old Testament They must deny Christes Propheticall and Kingly Offices toward vs in respect of appointing his Visible Church and governement as also they must deny that Christes Testament is a sufficient rule for vs every where and for ever But that vniforme opinion our adversaries do deny Therefore such are the Consequents which men are forced to acknowledge who will hold as our Adversaries do Now heare their words D. Downame saith “ D. Down Def. 4.104 Where the governement by Bishops can not be had another forme may be vsed Yea he affirmeth †Def. 1.29 Def. 4.103 The Apostolicall and so Divine OrdinaÌ„ce of governement “ Pag 82. by the Bishop alone as hee thinketh Timothie and Titus were * commanded to governe is changeable by men And this in his 4. booke hee often inculcateth and repeateth But he saith hee teacheth thus * Def. 3.107 Out of charitie to those Churches which have no L. Bishops and in †Pag. 108. favour of them See this Doctor how for favor of men he wil spoile Christ Iesus of his due honor glory Such is his charitie to meÌ„ that it maketh him vncharitable and vndutifull to his Savior and to his blessed Gospell But hee will say perhaps that he graunteth this change of the Apostolike Ordinances and Preceptes only Vpon necessitie Fy What necessitie may breake the Apostles Ordinances and Preceptes Yea such preceptes whereof the Apostle saith “ 1 Tim. 6.13 14. I charge thee in the sight of God who quickeneth all things and before Iesus Christ c. that thou keepe this Commandement without spot and vnrebukeable vntill the appearing of our Lord Iesus Christ. Againe what necessity have the French and Dutch Churches c. to be without Diocesan and Provinciall L. Bishops Nay how easily might they have such if they thought them Apostolike And wofull it were God knoweth if they had need of this faver and charitie of the Doctor to maintaine them selves withall against the Papistes objections But let vs go on Gabriel Pawell also in that which he punished with the great allowaÌ„ce of the L. Bb. of Canterburic and London theÌ„ being saith expresly †G. Powel a Prefat â—d Adiaph Christ is not the Law-gives of his Church Archbishop Whitgâ—fe against Maister Cartwright of blessed memorie saith that to holde the forme of the Church governement thereof to be constant alwayes one and vnchangeable by men is “ D. Whitgâ— against T. C. in the Presa a false principle and rotten pillar So rottenly writeth that great Atlas of the Prelacie in England D. Bilson maketh it the maine drift of the third Chapt. of his Perpet governement to deny this part of Christes Kingdome Hee saith “ D. Bilson Perp. gov pag. 14. 15. The Kingdome and Throne which Christ reserved to himselfe farre passeth directing and ordering of outward things in the Church which he hath left to others Nay sure he hath †Isa 42. 〈◊〉 not left it to others He still reserveth this authority dignitie to him selfe vnder the Gospell as well as hee did vnder the Law And it is more then frivolous by advauncing Christes inward kingdome by his Spirit which the Doct. doth in this Chapter to denie his Outward Kingdom which ordereth the Outward Spirituall things in his Church Such as are the instituting of Sacraments the Ordayning of the Ministerie the appointing of Excommunication the Commanding of Sacred Societies and Assemblies c. Is the power of these Outward things left to others It is not it may not be Hee saith heere indeed that “ Pag. 16. the outward face of the Church where the good and bad by the Word and Sacraments are gathered togeather may be called the kingdome of heaven and of Christ And he saith well But in this he either contradicteth his generall purpose discourse or els
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
Congregation there all reason and rules of religion will require Christes said Church to bee no lesse then Vniversall For no man can â—hew that Christes said Church in the New Testament is limited and restrained to a Diocese or Province only No limiting of a Dioces-Church in the N. Test. that it is there forbidden to be a Vniversal church Our adversaries seeme not to desire to shewe it For as they weakely and slightly affirme Diocesan and Provinciall Churches to be in the New Testament yea even against Grammar so they openly acknowledge that Christ hath vpon earth “ See before pag 112. Hook 126.132 one whole Church being but one Body subiect to governemeÌ„t So that they yeeld the Church not to be limited to a Dioces or a Province And what can the Papistes wish more They will never desire more to be yeelded them from Protestantes if we stick to our owne wordes then to acknowledge all Christes Diocesan and Provinciall Churches and therefore our owne in England to be but Membrall Churches not intire and independent not indued with authoritie for the governement of them selves immediatly from Christ but to be partes and dependants of one whole Church being one Body subiect to governement For theÌ„ we must by Christes ordinaÌ„ce referre our selves for religion and spirituall governement to that one Body Visible whereof wee say wee are a part Heere a hundred “ Before pag. 179. difficulties will come vpon vs. The Doct. acknowledgeth also †Def. 3.5 a highest Senat of the Vniversall Church for the governement of it And certainly in all true reason there must bee so For there must bee by Christe ordinance a correspondent governement to the Body of every Church which is of Christ Maister Hooker trulie acknowledgeth it saying there “ Hook 3.132 must be a correspondent Church-polirie to every Visible Church But Doct. Downame wil perhaps turne this to a Vniversall Councill or Synod If he doe it is yet a simple evasion First I noted “ Pag. 113. 178. before that there never was right Vniversall Synode how so ever some have ben so named But if any Synod have ben helde for Vniversall yet such are exceedingly rare and extraordinarie in deed in these dayes not to be had But the Churches Body beeing ordinary and continuing alwayes it must have a correspondent governement as is said that is ordinarie dayly and continuall And this is it which we speake of If the Doctor wil grant such a highest Senat of the Vniversall Church that is ordinary constant and dayly exercising governement to this constant Body theÌ„ what is this els but a College of Cardinalls And in every such Consistorie or Senat I hope he will grant a President yea constant and during life not for a weeke or a short time And what is he but a Pope Neither is it materiall whether this President bee subiect to his Senat or not Which hee idly casteth in a little †Pag. 6. after Many Papistes do hold the Pope to be inferior to his Councill and yet they are verie Papistes And the Doct. holdeth a Provinciall Bishop to be by Divine ordinance Superior to his Provinciall Synod Why then may not the Vniversall Bishop be superior likewise to his Vniversall whether Synod or Senat Without question he ought to bee as well Thus no marvaill if Popish Walsingham who conferred with this Doctor went from him worse then hee came For holding such grounds hee can never make any sufficieÌ„t defence against Poperie as I have said His foure other reasons of difference betweene a Provinciall and a Vniversall Bishop which hee setteth downe pag. 6. are as frivolous as that which is most First he alleageth Calvins authoritie But what is that to a Papist or to one tempted that way And yet hee abuseth Calvin also For though Calvin saye “ Instit 4.6.2 There is not a like reason of one Nation and of the whole worlde yet he meaneth this vpon supposition That is if a Nation have Gods worde for their warrant as the Iewes had if the whole world have not Divine warrant as the Catholike Visible Church now in deed hath not then there is not the like reason betweene a Nation and the whole world But otherwise verily there is For a Bishop to both is necessary if both have Gods ordinance for it selfe a Bishop to neither is lawfull if neither have Gods ordinance And this Calvin him selfe plainly signifyeth in Sect. 9. Saying Nihil proficiunt Papistae nisi prius ostender in t hoc Ministerium Vniversale 〈◊〉 Christo esse ordinatum Noting by this that it is Christes ordinance that maketh the difference betweene a Nation and the whole world not the oddes of the Circuit But this the Do. wholy supprâ—sseth as also Calvins second answer to the Papistes immediatly following in the former place Saith he Est altera citamnum ratio cut illud Iudaicum in imitationem trahi non debeat The high Priest was a figure of Christ which now ceaseth Summum illum Pontificem typum fuisse Christi nemo ignorat Nune traslato Sacerdotio ius illud trasferri coÌ„venit Wherefore Calvin reiecteth the Iewes High Priestes National Ministerie and denyeth the vse of the like now for another reason which the Doct. also dissembleth So that his abusing of Calvin heerein is manifest Againe these last mentioned wordes of Calvin do confute the Do. in another place where to resist “ Reas. for reform pag. 5. me †Def. 25. hee denyeth the Iewes High Priestes Governement to have bene a type Secondly the Doct. maketh this difference betweene a Provinciall and a Vniversall Bishop saith he No mortall man is able to wield the governement of the whole Church It is true Nor yet of a Province nor of a Diocese For the least Pastor of these shall bee a huge Pluralist and Nonresident See pag. 150 and Reas. for Refor Reas. 3. which are contrary to Christ as before hath ben shewed The cause then of all this vnablenes is the want of Christes ordinance Which to both is alike as I have said and so their vnablenes is both alike Otherwise both should bee able and sufficient for such a charge well enough The Doctors third exception is as the last before Saith he it would proove dangerous and pernicious if that one Head should fall into error So also it is dangerous and pernicious to many thousands when a Provinciall Bishop falleth into error Yet the D. will not hold this a reason to proove him simply vnlawfull And therefore neither is it for the Vniversal Specially seeing a Provinciall Bishop can not make vnitie a Vniversall may as I have said His fourth exception is likewise a verie fancie viz. that it is infinit trouble much inconvenience to repaire from all partes of the world to one place There is no such matter if Christes ordinance for it were manifest If any inconvenience may seeme therein to
obey in all doubtes of conscience and questions of faith will easily make a great shew that he is the common Father and that all Princes ought to bee his Sonnes and that their States are appointed of God through Christ for the said Churches inheritance And therefore that they may bee brought vnder this Churches Holy Fathers obedience “ By what meanes soever vijs modis if the saide Church and her friendes can any way effect it Yea so far they may indeavour the advancement and inlargement of this Church into the possessions which Christ hath left to his Vicar if he can get them that in procuring the same they may ordine ad Deum lawfully destroy all obstinate resisters hinderers thereof But most of all where any States or Princes have ben formerly of that Church In such case they thinke by a double right they may iustly and ought necessarily seeke their conversion or confusion But all honest and truly religious Christians do heerein plainly see the pride of Antichrist Wherefore I will vnfolde this packe of spirituall and temporal mischiefes no farther Only I would to God that Governours and people also did marke the true Origen and fountaine of all this as they feele the harme that cometh of it Last of all from the due consideratioÌ„ of the forerehearsed points which have ben heere plainly and truly laid open it followeth and it is manifest that many among vs who would seeme to see somewhat in the knowledge of the Gospell do very fondly and improvidently say that our controversies in the Church of England are but for trifles and thinges indifferent and about Circumstances only not for any Substantial matters They who have any sense of their owne good or feare of future falling away of brethren can not but perceave the vanitie yea in deed the plaine follie and vntruth of such sayings First P. Martyr saith “ P. Mart. epist ad Domin Polon Wee must confesse the Church governement to bee not the least part of Christian religion and that the Gospell seemeth to be neglected by them who put away from them so excellent a part thereof Maister Cartwright affirmeth that it is †T. C. 1. pag 48. 2 247 of the Substance of the Gospell and that “ T. C. 1.26 2.570 the kinde of governement is a matter necessary to salvation and of faith And so Calvin saith as before I noted †Calv epist ad Sadoleâ— In illa Ecclesia formâ quam Apostoli constituerunt vnicum habemus verae Ecclesia exemplar a quo si quis vel minimum deslectit aberrat In that Forme of the Church which the Apostles seâ— downe we have the only patterne of a true Church from which if any bend aside never so little he erreth And thus in another place hee saith “ Instit 4.1.1 Externa subsidia Deuâ— quoque addidit quo infirmitatâ— nostra coÌ„suleret God hath also added Outward meanes and helpes whereby he may provide for our infirmitie Shewing that eveÌ„ touching Outward means our infirmitie is not holpen but by such only as God ordaineth for vs. See the Divine beginning institution of Christes Visible Church And that it is the worke of God to institute the Outward meanes in the exercise of religion the principall whereof is the Forme of the Visible Church and Governement Men can not institute this neither ought any to attempt so much for that is to intrude in Gods office Agreeable heerevnto is that which I have written in my “ Declarat pag. 38. c. Declaration where I shew that vnder the Gospell the forme of Christes Visible Church the kinde of governement and Calling of the Ministerie are matters of substance in religion fundamentall And more fully in a proper place for this point viz. in my Exposition of the second Commandement A true and plaine Exposition of the â— Com. Where I make it manifest that Mens institutions in these matters are a direct breach and violation of Gods sacred Lawe and Divine Commandement to vs even of the â—cond Commandement in the Decalogue and withall that Christes ordinances heerein are in deed partes of Gods true worship matters of doctrine matters of faith matters of substance in religion and ordinarily necessarie to salvation For these Outward Meanes where they are right true that is of Divine institution “ Before pag. 155. they are the instrumentall worke is and causes of inward grace and life to our soules and those that are of men are contrary Nothing in religion more important no thing more waighty then the Controversies now in England For by the true Outward Meanes as by ordinary Instrumentes God coÌ„veyeth to vs his grace giveth vs faith and bringeth vs to salvation God saveth vs not without meanes nor ordinarily without these meanes before named nor with or by these meanes being of Mens institution and invention and tradition His owne ordinances only hee sanctifyeth and blesseth Hee promiseth a blessing only to them to Mens devices though they seeme never so plausible or probable in the reason of men yet he giveth nothing hee promiseth nothing we can bee assured of nothing by them vnles it be of Gods anger Which indeed we may be sure of These then are no small matters I am sure nor Circumstances in religion but matters of substance as I said and such as wee ought first to know and vnderstand in our Christian professioÌ„ before we can reape firme assurance to our soules Without our vnderstanding the truth and falshood of these Outward meanes our whole faith and religion may soone bee shaken overturned specially in these distracted times Yea the manifold ill Consequentes before noted do all hange vpon the vniustifyable form and nature of Christs Visib Church the Ministerie and their Calling Which are the special matters of controversie now in England And particularly the Church of Romes advantage against vs I have somewhat opened “ Pag. 156.157 c. before viz. because the sacred right of Christes faithfull people touching their free consent in Church governement is denyed But in this I have ben to long The waightines of this matter touching the lawfull right making of Ministers and the perill of erring therein hath drawen mee to say so much In regard of all which wee may seâ— also the great cause which they had who published the Offer of Conference disputation The Offer of ConfereÌ„ce why it was published not long since Whereby they desired a iust and equall tryall which hitherto they could never have of these thinges which do so certainly touch the safetie of our soules Chiefly considering how violently they have ben overborne afflicted and despised in this cause as also they still are Moreover by this before delivered their affirmation is shewed evidently to bee true which the Doctor so ignorantly “ Def. 1 3â— skorneth where they say that †Considerâ—tion 6. some of the
in a good sense â—ay becalled a Parish one ordinarie assembly as I have said The true Grammar sense and proper meaning of the worde Ecclesia in those times doth proove it What Divinitiâ— shall we expect from these Doctors whâ— will pervert Grammar Which ouâ— Doctor is not ignorant of but his error heerein is wilfull All sound †See my Declarat pag. 18 32. Autors of the Greek toung according to whom the Apostles do speak do shew that Ecclesia in the times then and alwayes before signifyed one ordinarie Congregation only and not many His fift error heere is that the New Testament noteth some Churches not defining whether an intire church or but a part And he citeth Act. 9.31 and 15. 3.4.41 and 18.22 Rom. 16.16.23.1 Cor. 4.17 and 6.4 and 11.16 and 14.33 with a great many other But all these are likewise by him grosly abused For in all these places the Scripture speaketh intirely properly not by a figure whereof there is no cause appearing in the text Only in Act. 15.4 the Church signifieth a part namely the People because the text expresly distinguisheth it heere froÌ„ their Guids who were a part also Thus in all the whole Writings of the Apostles there is not one word which sheweth a Diocesan Church to have ben then Wherefore in this point hee is quite overthrowen The D. perverteth his text on which his Sermon Defense resteth yea his very text Apoc. â— 20 which was the whole foundation of his Sermon and Defence is found to bee vtterly perverted and abused togeather with the other places So that all which be buildeth vpon it followeth in his writing after is nothing but cavillation And namely that against my selfe in his pag. 6. where hee saith I have first strongly conceited that there is no true Visible Church but a Parish then have haled the places of scripture where Ecclesia is mentioned to the confirmation of my conceit Let him not abuse people as hee doth by the Equivocation of the word Parish For I meane not that the Apostolike Churches were Parishes as we cal a Parish now in England that is limited within a certaine circuit of grounde Though a Church may be so limited yet it is not necessarie neither was it so then But then every Church was such a Parish as I noted a little “ Pag. 201. Declar. pag. 18.19 Reas. for ref pa. 5.29 before And so it is very true Then why saith hee that I have first conceited that there is no true Visible Church but a Parish He might have seene it conceited before me by those noble and sacred instrumentes †Before pag. 103.104 32. c. And after pag. 214.215 Zuinglius Luther the rest of our Attestators But malice drave him against me as it hath driven him against me in other slanders likewise Wherefore rather he might have said that in this not I If in this the Scripture be haled Zuinglius hath don it c. but they have haled the Scripture from whom I have learned it But I hope those worthies knew the meaning of the Greek Ecclesia better then our Doctor though hee be conceited enough of his owne learning and they maintained it prosperouslie against stronger adversaties then hee â—is or ever will bee But in deed hee ought to blush to charge mee in this case with haling the Sciptures Him selfe haler of Scripture when him selfe is thus found to hale them and pervert them most vnconscionably as before is shewed He is often vpon this “ Def. 2.104.65 that the Church of Cenchreae Rom. 16.1 was a Membrall Church to the Church of Corinth and subiect to it But I have †Declarat pag. 30. els-where shewed this his presumptioÌ„ in taking the Apostles words figuratively here also without cause As if the Apostle called but a part of a Church by the name of a Church there being no reason in the text why he should heere speak Synecdochically Nay to take the Apostle so is coÌ„trarie even to his owne rule I will presse him with his owne wordes I would know of him what reason hee hath to forsake the grammaticall sense “ Def. 1. pag. 33. And where the Holy Ghost speaketh properly how dares be to expound him figuratively Heere I could leave of this point concerning his proofes from the New Testament for Diocesan Churches But that hee †Chap. â— resumeth Rev. 1.20 which was his text and laboureth to make shew of some reason therein First hee saith “ Pag. 42.43.44 those 7. Churches contayned the Cities and Countryes adioyning This is his Minor Which is not only contrarie to the propertie of the word Ecclesia before noted but also coÌ„trary to the expresse text beside which saith this Ephesian Church was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Ephesus Rev. 2.1 not without nor contayning that large Country Territorie adioying as he saith it did then The like the text saith of the Church in Smyrna and of the Church in Pergamus and so of all the rest Signifying expresly that every of these Churches was contayned at least when they met within their Cities His shifting heereabout pag. 105 is nothing And that of â—â—keniÌ„g 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to it is as little For Act. 24.12 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is in the City and did not extend it selfe to the CouÌ„try adioyning viz. to the Civill Province of each of them This reason therfore of his is very vntrue Yet he would fortifie it further “ Pag. 43.56 assuming againe that Our Saviour writing to all the Churches of Asia nuÌ„breth but seaven If hee wrote to all then it may seeme that these 7. were generall Churches contayning in and vnder them many other inferior Congregations For it is not like but in Asia properly so called which was the Roman Province and †Cicer. Orat pro L. Flacco contayned Phrygia Mysia Caria Lydia there were moe ordinarie Christian Congregations then only 7. at that time Nay it is plainly false our Saviour heere writ not to all the Churches of Asia The text beside mentioneth “ Act. 20.7 Troas †Colos 4.13 Colossâ— Hierapolis which were questionles within these â—â—undes Magnesia Trallis in all likeâ—â—hood were now also Mentioned in Ignatius Epist and were no â—embers now of any of those seaven 〈◊〉 the Revelation And it is more then â—â—kely that many other besides these â—â—â—ere named were also Indeed Christ â—â—ould that all within Asia yea out â—f Asia too should exemplarily take â—dmonition by this which he writeth â—etsonally directly to these seaven â—one which is all that he meaneth in â—hose wordes “ Rev. 2 1â— Let him that hath an eare â—eare what the Spirit saith to the Churches â—ut this is nothing to proove that all â—hese other Churches were MeÌ„bers subâ—ect to those seaven Yet two reasons â—â—ore “ Chap. 4. he hath One is
this †Pag. 65. The Apoâ—les appointed Ministers to whole Cities and Countryes adioyning to labor so far as they â—ere able the conversion of all True What â—hen Therefore they appointed them â—o stande Ministers still to whole Ciâ—ies and Countryes adioyning I deny â—his consequence It is a plaine fallacie â—b eo quod est secundum quâ—d Fallaciâ— ad simpliciter 〈◊〉 pray Sir when Logike fayleth you play not the Sophister The Apostles appointed Ministers to convert what they could in great Cities and Countries adioyning yea and in the whole “ Math. 13.33 world but not to stand Ministers Pastors to all them when they should be converted But only according tâ— the order and forme of a Church seâ— downe in the New Testament Which representeth to vs each Ordinarie Congregation as an entire Church Wherefore they might not remayne as Pastors to all when all were converted because so Ordinarie Pastors after the time of the New Testament should become substantially contrary to the ordinary Pastors constituted in the New Testament It i Ì„s blasphemie to avouch that the Apostles intended the Churches forme should be substantially coÌ„trary to that which is in the New Testament Which certainly was never the Apostles intent it is no lesse then blasphemie for any that will persist in saying the Apostles intended so You will aske how are Pastors so large and so generall contrary substantially to Pastors of but one ordinarie Congregation I answer they are substantially coÌ„trary in that these may and do admit the Christian peoples free consent in Church governement the other can not these caÌ„ personally administer to their whole flocke they possibly can not but by Substitutes and Curates as wee call them For there the proper Pastors them selves are of necessitie must be grand Pluralistes and NoÌ„residents Which plainly are substantiall differences in Pastors Besides that the one can execute a whole and intire Pastorall Office the other can not c. as “ Declarat Pag. 12.13.14 15 16. â— els-where I have more fully declared His 2. reason is this †Def. 2.69 In the Apostles times the Churches were not divided into Parishes â—or Presbyters assigned to their several Cures Therefore then a Church was not a Paâ—ish I answere Heere againe hee doth nothing but Equivocat Let him vnderstand a Parish in that sense as before have defined it Pa. 204.205 and so I affirme that by the very Apostles the Churches were divided into severall Parishes That is â—ach Church was it selfe a distinct Paâ—ish and severally divided from all oâ—her Also the Presbyters then were assigned to their severall cures viz. to these Parishes or Churches But if hee â—ake a Parish as it is a Congregation liâ—ited within a certaine circuit of â—round and as a Dioces is subdivided â—nto many of them as they are now so â—ve speake not of them Yet commonly â—r altogeather †Pag. 77. hee doth so speake of â—hem Wherefore heere every man may â—â—e his vanitie Hee doth fly the true â—uestion and shufleth in things that â—e never intended Then his grosse vnâ—ruth vnschollerlike assertion ought 〈◊〉 bee marked where he saith “ Pag 75. The â—ord Ecclesia is of a larger extent then to sigâ—â—fy only one assembly I appeale to all auâ—entike Greeke Authors Thucidides Deâ—osthenes Plato Aristotle Isocrates c. Out â—f whom plentifull allegations may be brought all of them shewing that this word Ecclesia did evermore signifie only one assembly and never a dispersed multitude holding many ordinary set meetings in far remote places as Diocesan and larger Churches do Now according to these and other Greekes living in the Apostles dayes doe the Apostles speake And this I have heeretofore often “ Reas. for ref pag 64. Declarat pag 31. 32. above pa. 110. propounded and affirmed as a principall ground and cause of our dissent from the Church state in England And the ground is certain it can not be with reason spoken against The D. heere †Pag. 14. 15. putteth in to the contrary the vse of the word Ecclesia in Eusebius who vseth it to signify sometimes a Diocesan and Provinciall Church Hee doth so sometimes I deny it not And so after him the Fathers do vse the word likewise as Epiphanius Theodoret Chrysostome and the Councilles and Historie writers c. All this we know well But what have wee to doe with these Authors so late and so partiall as these all were touching the exposition of the Greeke word Ecclesia The time that Eusebius wrote in When Eusebius wrote was about 340. yeares of Christ or little lesse All the rest wrote after him At which time or before viz. presently vnder Constantine the outward forme of the Church did so alter and change from that vnder the Apostles even in substantiall points of Church politie or in such points as did come neere to the substance of it that it appeared outwardly to be allmost not the same And as the state of the Church altered so the Fathers and Councills which were then much affecting that state did alter the old vse of â—he words pertaining to these matters As they practised so likewise they spake and wrote And so have most men followed after them Wherby at the last Antichrist was vndoubtedly advanced But our noble “ Our Attestators before mentioned specially pag. 104. after pag. 214. forefathers of late having discovered this mysterie of iniquitie have found out also the corruption depravation even of this word Ecclesia which hath ben extended larger and farther then Apostolically it was The which abuse of this very word doubtles was a pregnant reason and meanes among other to extend the Church and Governement thereof to that Vniversalitie which it came to and is still vehemently chalenged by the Catholiks Wherefore great cause have we ad originem reverti to go backe even vp to the first originall and beginning as Cyprian well adviseth vs. For so saith he cessat error humanus thus and not otherwise error which hath begun from men will cease Wherefore wee must refuse Eusebius Epiphanius Theodoret and all either in or after their times for iudges or interpreters of matters or words specially touching Church-governement The forme whereof inclined toward alteration yea somewhat before them as wee may perceave in “ Can 6. Nic. Concilâ— through Humane ambition and desyre of greatnes which is incident even to the godliest best men But vnder Constantin and after it degenerated much more Wherfore in “ See before pa. 125. 127. conscience to God and to his blessed word we must leave all men when they so palpably differ from the Scripture as in this cause they doe cleave only and vnseparably to the plaine and †Math 22.29 Ioh. 5.39.40 Isa 8.20 proper writing of Christs Testament Hee “ In his chap. 5. indeavoureth to make voide some of our reasons against Diocesan Churches vnder
Assembly See how lively hee painteth out and taxeth also our Church state in England though primarily he intendeth the Papists And remember that to every of these Churches he alloweth a Bishop as “ Pag. 104. before I have noted So that the D. might have spared his proud boast that “ Pag. 7. All the Disciplinarians in the world are not able to shew that there were or ought to have ben after the division of Parishes any more then one Bishop for a whole Diocese Neither should he have called vs for this our assertion †Pag. 14. New foolish Disciplinarians His worship doubtles is wise when all these our Attestators and abbettors bee fooles Also that “ Pag. 21. his great challenge to his adversary is thus answered Now to proceed he saith it is not probable that Ierusalems Church in the Acts “ Pag. 89. did ordinarily meet in one place I answere yet it is certain they had not then many ordinary set and constant companies meeting togeather Which is the point we stand on will he never see it Further he saith †Pag. 90. The Apostles were never intended to be members all or any of them of one Parish Which is not so they were truly Members of every Church or Parish occasionally that is where when they were present though consâ—antly and necessarily they were not of any one Againe he saith The meetings Act. 6.1 15.22 26 were not Parishionall bur Synodicall They were Parishionall Indeed the later was both I take it Where the Apostles and Elders met first Synodically a part to debate the controversy but Parishionally or with the whole Church when they decreed and set down their resolutioÌ„ Before he said these meetings of the Church were “ Pag. 8 9. Panegyrical meetings Panegyricall not ordinary Which again is not true Such meetings are out of many Cities and Countries but heere the Church of Ierusalem only assembled and in the 15 of the Acts 2. or 3. out of Antioch Againe those are when sundry ordinary set assemblies doe meet in one but these all were of one Church as I said having in it not many ordinary set assemblies Lastly heere matters were haÌ„dled which pertaine to a Church to performe ordinarily so oft as occasion is Therefore they are not to be called extraordinary much lesse were they like the meetings at Pauls Crosse or at the Spittle as he saith least of all were they Panegyricall His obiection from Act. 21.20 of the many 10000. believing Iewes I have answered †Declarat pag. 30. 31 els-where The rest is of no moment In his 6. Chapter he setteth against som other of our reasons viz. touching the Churches of Corinth Ephesus Antioch vnder the Apostles Of all of them he saith “ Def. 2.103 Though it should be granted that each of these Churches in the Apostles time did ordinarily assemble togeather in one place yet would it not follow that therfore each of them was but a Parish much lesse that all Churches should be but Parishes and that every Parish should have a Bishop Verily all this doth follow neither hath hee with any true reason denyed it but all reason is for it as †Pa 208. 213 before I have shewed Then beginning with the Church of Corinth “ Pag. 104. hee dealeth deceitfully leaving out our principall proofe viz. 1. Cor. 14.23 The whole church came togeather in one Which can not bee such as might be written to the Church of England as he saith most vntruly Of this I have said more “ Declarat pag. 26. 27. elswhere To Act. 20.28 of the Church of Ephesus hee saith it needs not signifie only the Congregation of a Parish Yet the wordes are Attend or †〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Cleave close vnto all the flocke and the Apostle nameth it also “ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Congregation Which being taken for a Visible Companie is ever more with authentike Grecians an ordinary CongregatioÌ„ only as I have oft observed So that properly and truly it can not be as he would have it either the Vniversall or a Nationall or Provinciall or Diocesan Church Neither can the Pastors of such cleave close to all such sâ—ockes nor possibly be present to the whole But they must be NoÌ„residents which questioÌ„les these Ephesin Pastors were not as hath ben said Wherefore this place still is a good argument for vs. And so is that touching Antioch also where Act. 14.27 Paul and Barnabas gathered the Church togeather into one particular assembly as the text importeth It is vntrue and against the letter of the text to say as he doth some of the chiefe perhaps not many perhaps not any beside the Clergie Theâ—e perhapses are miserable and desperat shiftes And what forbiddeth Husbandes Wives Servants and children of ripe yeares and vnderstanding to have ben there Hitherto he hath laboured to shew that the Churches mentioned in the New TestameÌ„t were not each of them only one ordinary Congregation but that they were Diocesan Churches Which how vnsufficiently hee hath done every childe may perceave By the way hee obtrudeth a foolish conceit on vs as if by “ Def. 2. pag. 102.104 these aforesaid places of the N. Testament wee intended to prove that the Churches still remained till 200. yeares of Christ such as we hold they were at the first But let him take that collection to himselfe it is none of our meaning Yet where he maketh so much a doe about the space of 200. yeares that we should say for so long time there was no Diocesan Church The truth therof is very perspicuous and certain let the D. know that I can easily maintaine it For the space of 200. yeares after Christ there was no Diocesan Church Therefore let vs see what he hath against it Where first I will note what a cavill he hath against vs for abridging and restraining the primitive Church to 200. yeares only To which I answer in respect of taking the Primitive Church as a pattern for vs to follow so we restraine it yet shorter even to the Apostles times onely yea to the times of writing the N. Testament yea to the N. Testament it selfe only And we affirme if any doe follow any authoritie beside they doe profanely irreligiously adulterously no better So that in this our D. D. Bilson likewise where beeing without all proofes in Christs Testament they heap vp Fathers vpon Fathers and most eagerly cry out that we holde against “ Def. 2.128.142 Def. 4. c. Perp. gov 25â— 259. c. the Vniversall perpetuall practise of the Church of Christ if they could make som shew hereof yet I say seeing they have not nor caÌ„ bring one sound proofe for themselves in Christs Testament therefore they vse heere but a carnall reason and contrary to the honour of God They †Ier. 17 5â— make flesh their arme and put not
their trust in the living God “ Chap. 2.13 They digge to themselves pits that can hold no water It is true the Vniversall and perpetuall practise of Christs Church is to bee held alwayes good and holy This I grant but it is because such practise evermore hath the Apostles plaine writing for it and with it Which the Churches said practise can not bee destitute of But yet suppose our adversaries had som kind of general consent of men for theÌ„ as they pretend seeing they can not indeed produce the Scripture more then the Papists do who also preteÌ„d the like Vniversal consent for their turne or suppose that they do but pretend all this Vniversalitie perpetuitie beeing far from it indeed then why I praâ— should not we answer them as D. Bilson somtime answered the said Papists Saying “ Answ to the Seminar part 4. pa. 360 If you want the foundation of faith and religion he meaneth the Scripture in vaine you do seeke to make a shew of Catholicisme with such patches and pamplets c. When you muster the Fathers to disprove the Scriptures and to establish an vnwritten faith vnder the credit of traditions you corrupt the Writers and abuse the Readers †Pag. 362. Nowe cite not only 9. but 9. skore Fathers if you will for Traditions the more you stir the worse you spcede “ Pag. 300. Truth hee meaneth the Scripture is authoritie sufficient against all the world * Pag. 301. One man with truth is warrant against all the world yea every private man for his owne person may embrace Gods Lawes whosoever say nay And as Tertullian hath against this no man may prescribe nor space of time nor patronage of persons nor privilege of places “ Pag. 299. Though the whole world pronounce againe the word yet God will bee true and all men lyars †Pag. 384. God speaketh not now but in the Scriptures How excellently are these things written if he himselfe and his associats would followe the same or would suffer vs to follow it The effect wherof is that not only wee are bound evermore to holde fast Gods word and never to admit the carnal reasoÌ„ of Humane consent in Divine matters such as our questioÌ„ of the forme of Christs Church is but also it notifyeth D. Bilsons open coÌ„tradictioÌ„ to himselfe who presseth hardly against vs that which hee denyeth to the Papists Is God an accepter of persons Is it ill for Papists to plead Vniversall consent and yet must we content our selves with it rest thereon Shall he say to vs “ Perp. gov pag. 223.235 Is not the whole Church a lawfull and sufficient witnes in that case And that it is enough †Pag. 228. if any christian persons deserve to be credited And yet shall he say to Papists “ Lib. 4 38â— It is alike Haereticall to believe without Scripture aâ— to believe against Scripture Yea even to ourselves when hee list hee can say †Perp. gov pag. 286. Make vs good proofes out of Scripturs or leave tying Gods ordinances to your appetites Wherfore we must crave leave in our cause also to answer him and all of his minde with his owne words afore rehearsed And likewise with D. Rainold that “ Cons 257. No Humane proofe is sure in Divinitie †Pag. 19â— Truth is not to be tryed by consent of Fathers “ Pag. 45â— For my selfe I assure you that neither dead nor quicke Fathers nor children shall perswade me any thing in matter of religion which they cannot prove by Moses the Prophetes or which hee meaneth by the Apostles writings Now thus the Churches Vniversall perpetuall consent beeing no good proofe in Divinitie the whole Churches consent at some time only is a proofe much worse and by no meanes to be admitted Though Augustin in a certain place it seemeth held it good yet it is his error as where hee saith “ August epist 118. Si quid tota hodiè per orbem frequentat Ecclesia hoc quin ita faciendum sit disputare insolentissimae insaniae est If the whole Church through out the world at this day observe any thing it is insolent madnes to reason against it Certainly there have ben and may be †As sometime Polygamie was Catholike errors which yet questionles may be yea ought to bee reproved by all them that vnderstaÌ„d them Well but have our adversaries a Vniversall coÌ„sent of the whole Church at any time Alas they are far from it Neither D. Bilson nor D. Downame nor they al have alleaged neither can they alleage halfe a quarter of the whole Church at any time What then Then they are to lavish of their wordes in saving they have the Vniversall consent of the whole Church They indeed come short of it by many hundred thousandes A poore fewe God knowes they cite in comparison of all It may be they name some of the chiefe most famous in their dayes Yet it followeth not that all who lived then were of their minde D. Bilson against the Seminar lib. 1. part 2. pag. 402. Neither is it necessary that all differences should bee recorded in writing nor that all Records should be preserved come to our handes So that they are far from proving a Vniversall consent at any time much lesse at all times of the Church But what speake I of Vniversalitie and perpetuitie Let our adversaries not equivocat Let them deale plainly Let them vse no deceit in wordes nor force to mens consciences And then I assure thee good reader nothing but noveltie and iniquitie is in their Defence and assertion against vs. I have shewed before that in our controversie which wee have at this day “ Above pa. 98.97 â—â— we speak against only a proper Diocesan Church and the Bishop thereof where the peoples free coÌ„sent is wholy denyed them as it is in England and our adversaries defende namely this Diocesan Church and Bishop Of this particularly and precisely is all their †Def. 2.114 Epist to the King pag. 1 great and glorious commendation and praise which they publish Nowe to the point Is this kind of Diocesan Church and this kind of Bishop Apostolicall Have they Vniversall perpetuall approbation for this Nothing lesse I appeale heerin to our right worthy Attestators before alleaged yea to all indifferent and vnpartiall witnesses yea to the partial also in times of “ Pag. 64. 65. 66. antiquitie who do stand with vs. By all true evidence it wil be as cleare as the light at noone day that this foresaid proper Diocesan Church and Bishop were not in the world till after 200. yeares of Christ which is the time limited by vs Indeed not till after 300. Nay it was after 400 and longer also As I have shewed “ Pag. 66. 67. 88. before So that both D. Bilsons and D. Downames Defences which they have made for
the present Church-state in England even in the substantiall points of governement therein are cleane frustrat Neither is the same Apostolicall neither hath it Vniversall nor perpetuall nor indeed any old approbation among Christians as they colourably pretend But it is proved to bee novell A proper Diocesan church is novell and meerely of the wit and will of men and that after the time of Antichrists rising The contrary obiectons of our adversaries I will heere observe D. Doves 3. falsifications of Euseb as neere as I can First that which D. Downame borrowed of D. Dove viz. that Marke constituted a Diocesan Church in Alexandria But this I have shewed “ Pag. 90 91. before to bee a meere forgerie of these two D. D. grounded vpon a false translation of their author Eusebius And heere I can not but remember a second and a third like falsifying of Eusebius by D. Dove in his Defence The former of these is pag. 13. where he saith Eusebius wordes be these †Euseb lib 3.4 Timothie was the first Bishop of the whole Precinct of Ephesus in as ample maner as Titus of all the Churches of Crete Eusebius saith not that Timothie was but hee saith it is reported that Timothie was the first Bishop of Ephesus as Titus of the Churches of Crete Againe Eusebius saith not of the whole precinct of Ephesus nor in as ample maner There are no such words in Eusebius This is no translating but perverting an Author Thirly that which Eusebius hath indeed viz. Timothie was said to have ben Bishop of the Parish in Ephesus this he rendreth not but perverteth For in Ephesus is not without the City much lesse the whole precinct of Ephesus containing the large Country adioyning Yea that the Church in Ephesus was but a Parish then Ignatius sheweth writing to the whole Church of Ephesus saying to them “ Iâ—nat aâ— Ephes. When you come oft togeather into the same place c. Therfore the whole then did come togeather in one place And it is not only false but absurd to say that the like may be spoken now of the †Can they all come togeather in one place Diocesan Church of London Thus therefore Eusebius is perverted twise by D. Dove His 3. falsifying of him is where Eusebius saith of Iohn the Apostle in a certain City “ Euseb lib. 3.23 Graec. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 having refreshed the Brethâ—en and looked on the Bishop that was set over al the said brethren of that place hee committed a yong man to him But the D. setteth it down thus Iohn the Apostle coÌ„mitted the charge of a yong man to a Bishop †Pag. 15. 18. qui super cunstâ—s Episcopos erat constitutuâ— which was set over all the rest of the Bishops thereabout As if then there had ben an Archbishop or a Bishop over Bishops So saith this Doctor as out of Eusebius But he abuseth his author Eusebius hath not such a word And yet D. Downame also “ Def. 4.112 alleageth the same place though he cunningly forbeareth to mention the words Doct. Downame further presseth Eusebius in that hee saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it is reported that Titus was Bishop of the Churches of Crete As also Perpet govern pag. 233. He translateth it is recorded in Histories But he can not make that good in this place For the word signifyeth any relation or narration or report of a matter And Eusebius vseth alwayes to name his author at ful to set downe the words when hee groundeth vpon any written historie So hee citeth very often Egesippus Clemens Dionysius Tertullian c. Wherefore questionâ—es heere he meaneth some other report or tradition and speach of meÌ„ I know not whom And in setting downe such matters he is nothing curious many times as “ Pag. 91. 92. before I have signifyed Not seldom he reporteth fabulous things yea wheÌ„ he nameth his author Eusebius of no absolut credit as is wel knowen And yet he is all the warrant and ground which any writer hath either young or old for Tius his being Bishop of Crete Theodoret Epiphanius Chrysostomus Ierome c. Dorotheus Synops is not worth the naming have al their inducement so to thinke from hence All these also them selves were great Prelates or lovers of Prelates and therefore wee may holde them partiall in setting downe and receaving such reportes What wisedom then is in Do. Downame to say it is an vncharitable and vnlearned part yea intolerable impudencie to deny credit to such authorities It is rather intolerable impietie and plaine idolatrie to set vp these and such like for rules of our faith and warrants to our conscience as the D. laboureth to do in this cause Howbeit further Eusebius saith not that Titus was said to be Bishop of Crete but only so as Timothie was Bishop of Ephesus Where he seemeth to meane that both of theÌ„ were then thought to bee not proper Bishops but in the generall sense and vnderstanding of the word Bishop And so he seemeth to meane also that Marke was said to be Bish of AlexaÌ„dria whom yet he nameth an Apostle and Evangelist Iames an Apostle in deed Bishop of Ierusalem I say in a generall sense but not Bishops properly And so truly the other Fathers after Eusebius do seeme to meane and we accord thus with them Otherwise we must needes deny credit to them heerein viz. if Eusebius c. say these were proper Bishops For it is not possible that they could bee so seeing they were both Superior and also Divinely distinguished from proper Bishops as anon we shall see further where further occasion will be given vs to answer D. Downame about Timothie Titus Bishoprikes Againe “ Def. 2.23 and 116. D. Downame citeth out of Councill Carthage 3. and Ephes 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from the beginning and even from the Apostles as †Perpet gov pag. 324. Doct. Bilson before him avoucheth But both of theÌ„ wrest the Councilles For they say not so only they say that Dioceses should remaine such as they were from the beginning that is ever since Dioceses were appointed Not from the beginning simply but from the beginning of Dioceses which though it were loÌ„g before these Councills yet as I iudge it was not before “ About the yeare 260. See before pag. 92.93 Dionysius Bishop of Rome And touching the Apostles the Ephesin Council speaketh of the Apostles Canons Beeing strangely deceaved in attributing them to the Apostles as any one may perceave if hee see the Can. 4.5.8.17 18.27.47.49.65 68 84.25 Wherefore they are falslie fathered on the Apostles beeing but base and bastardly stuffe in respect of them And yet they intende no “ See before pag. 88. 97. 98. proper Diocesan Church viz. like ours in England Neither were these Canons before Constantines age So that our D. D. do argue from hence very vnworthily But D.
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
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
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
governement differ substantially Which difference I know not who hath touched heeretofore and included in any Definition In so much that from hence hath arisen no small occasion of grievous errors Howbeit yet for the precise name of Definition or Description I strive not let men call it what they will Only I take mine to bee convertible with Christs true Visib Church vnder the Gospell and that sufficeth me Further some thinke it long For whose sakes I will heere againe set downe in effect the same Definition though in other words more short Thus it is A DefinitioÌ„ of Christs true Visible Church A Visible Church of Christ vnder the Gospell is a Spirituall Body politike of no mo ordinarie Congregations then one the people also having power of free coÌ„sent in their ordinarie governement This is shorter yet as full as the other Secondly whereas Do. Downame in his booke of his Sermon and Defence picketh out mee in particular besides his proper antagonist to traduce and calumniat I held it necessarie to Answer him in the pointes that concerne me and by the way some other adversaries now and then who oppugne this cause also which is the originall of all their il will against me Professing for my part that my purpose is heereafter to cease this manner of dealing in this matter vnles I might do it vpoÌ„ more equall conditions which I do not expect The Lord I doubt not wil raise vp others that shall more effectually beare witnes vnto this truth in due time Even vntill the Toleration heereof in England which hath ben most Christianly Supplicated for shal finde grace and favor in his Maiesties eyes for the which I shall not cease to pray continually Thirdly whereas the Writings and Disputes about this cause have ben and are very many intricat and tedious I have heere indeavoured to make the vnderstaÌ„ding thereof short easie and perspicuous Namely by reducing the whole substance of this controversie only to 2. Heads The sumnâ—â— and substance of all our controversie viz. the Peoples free consent in their ordinarie Church governement and that the extent of Christes true Visible Church vnder the Gospel containeth one and not many ordinarie Congregations Which 2. points being plainly and honestly handled will bring an end of other differences also which are vsually considered in our generall controversie I hope therefore this my indeavour will bee profitable to such as would vnderstaÌ„d this cause briefly and distinctly at least my intent was that it should be being my selfe very desirous to draw our long contention as much as I could to a short issue Fourthly I desire that this and all other my writings may be not sinisterly taken Being with much vehemencie charged that for no iust cause I have refused to conforme to the Church order in England I could therefore do no lesse but give out yea vnto posteritie the the true and most important Reasons of my dissenting heerein Also I have ben constrayned by Do. Downame and such other to cleere and confirme the said reasons And this is the only true cause as the Lord knoweth of all my writing Which how iust it is I desire all fearing God vprightly to consider Fiftly I pray all good Christians not to forget nor neglect the due consideration of this matter but to waigh with them selves how important it is indeed Which I have somwhat largely opened before in the “ CoÌ„sequent 5.6.7 8. pag. 129. c. 7. Chapter in divers and sundry respectes It preserveth Christs Honor Ordinance and casteth out Humane Tradition it bringeth to our selves true assurance and cutteth of from the Papistes and others all pretence which otherwise against vs is not little Sixtly the verie Attestation of those most worthie Divines and Churches which heere I alleage gathered out of their publike recordes shall I hope abundantly acquit both my selfe and many other faithfull servantes of Christ in the iudgement of all honest and sounde Christians from the most iniurious slanders given out by D. Downame and other adversaries to our reproach among the ignorant as namely where they call vs Shismatikes Innovators Enemies of Vnitie c. When men shall perceave that we are indeed taught these assertions which wee holde not to speake of the Scripture out of Zuinglius Luther Bucer F. Martyr Viret Musculus Bullinger Gualter Chemnieius Vrsinus Iunius Danaeus Calvin and Beza with many other like rare men of God all coÌ„senting togeather in the substance of these points as before I have shewed more at large then it will be a sufficient satisfactioÌ„ to them on our behalfes And our adversaries shall finde it to be well with them if they themselves can stande cleere of the said crimes of Schisme Noveltie Enmitie to vnitie peace and truth of the Gospell Nay verily they can not stande cleere of these crimes Last of all these our worthy Attestators Teachers shall I hope likewise yet have so much credit and honor yeelded to them in England that their Disciples shall not for their doctrine only bee afflicted imprisoned and more severely punished then those that professe to be the Disciples of the Romish Enemie An enemie indeed not conceited both to Christ to our King the Realme In which hope and full perswasion I humbly commend all this that I have Lud to Gods holy providence gracious blessing to all Christians chatable vpright iudgement To God only wise through Iesus Christ bee praise for ever and ever AMEN An Addition THAT the abusers of Mai. Beza and Mai. Calvin about Mat. 18.17 may see their ill doing I thought good to set downe heere some more of their testimonies a part by themselves Which shew plainly that howsoever they seeme sometime to speake not so warily as they might touching the word Ecclesia in this place calling it the Church-Senat or Presbyterie yet their true and right meaning indeed is that here Ecclesia signifyeth not the Church Senat only meerely as some obstinatly charge theÌ„ to meane They do heere in this word comprehend also the people and their power of free coÌ„sent in Excommunication which is the matter spokeÌ„ of by Christ in this place of Math. I say here in this word they include the people also teach that they must be tolde and that they must be hearkened vnto in a degree in a certain order viz. mediatly finally They intend not that Christ heere committeth this busines to the Presbyterie only and absolutly Thus saith Beza vpon this word “ Bez. Annotat in Mat. 18.17 Doceo Aristocratiam non esse novum institutum Dei verbo Democratiae Ecclesiastica repugnans sicut nonnulls ex vnicâ voculâ temerè arreptâ sunt arbitrati And presently before â—e saith Neque verò Oligarchiam velim in â—cclesiam Dei invehi quae illam tantopere deâ—rmavit atque adeò penitùs transformavit â—lso †In Mat. 16.18 Vocabulo Ecclesiae significari Civium â—nventum nemo
est qui ignoret Calvin saith In this place Mat. 18.17 “ Calvin Instit 4.11.1 Ius Iudaici Synedrij transfertur ad Christi â—egem And †Instit. 4.12.7 Illa est legitima in ExcoÌ„muâ—cando homine progressio si non soli Seniores â—orsum id faciant sed consciâ approbante â—cclesiâ c. * 4.1.15 Totius Ecclesia hac cognitio est Clavium potestatem Dominus fidelium soâ—etati contulit “ 4.1.22 And hee calleth Excommunication †11.2 Fidelium judicium the â—xcommunicat saith he is “ Ibidem 12.4 Fidelium â—uffragijs damnatus Thus must these â—ther worthy men of God be vnderâ—tood and not to contradict themselves Beza also of the Calling of Ministers â—aith “ Bez. CoÌ„fess 7 1â— Per quod ostium sunt ingress Quis â—os vocavit c. Vbi electio Presbyterij Vbi â—opuli suffragia By what dore entred they Who called them Where was the Election of â—he Elders Where was the peoples voice-giving By this shewing that hee helde the peoples free consent to be necessary also in the making of Ministers FINIS Math. 6.10 Thy will bee doâ— A Table of the chief matters contained in this Treatise A. HOw a true Church may bee Accidentally Pag. 306. The Angell of Ephesus a President during life pag. 237. The name Angell or Apostle given in Scripture to Ministers also Dominus in Latin c. proveth not that they may be called Lords iâ— English pag. 121. 123. c. All Apostolike Ordinances are Divine vnchangeable by men pa. 139. 142. The practise of Antiquitie for many ages with vs. pag. 53. c. Asia properly taken how large pag. 206. Comfortable Assurance where pag. 77. 154. 155. 159. Our Attestators were no Brownistes Anabaptists Schismatiks Fantastical Fanaticall doaters pag. 249. 279. 306. B. Belgike Liturgie and Synod with vs. pa. 50. Beza consenteth with vs fully in effect pag. 22. c. 49. 50. 322. Beza abused pag. 13. 22. 270. c. 322. Beza fayleth pa. 237. D. Billons chief matters in his Perp. gov answered pag. 99. 107. 108. 110. 112. 116. 120. 121. 132. 143. c. 146. 148. 239. c. 250. 261. 276. c. D. Bilsons Contradistions pa. 70. 71. 73. 107. 144. 146. 150. 225. 281. 283. 286. 288. 289. 290. 293. 302. 303. 305. We deny not Bishops simply pag. 14. 264. Seaven divers sortes of Bishops pa. 274. Bishops next after the Apostles differed from ours in substaÌ„ce of their Calling p. 98. 99. 128. A Bishop to a Parish pag. 32. 104. 213. c. Bohemian Confession for vs. pag. 48. Bucer for vs. pag. 33. Bullinger for vs. pag. 37. C. Calvin fully with vs. p. 25. c. 149. 193. 214. 269. 323. Calvin much abused p. 13. 267. c. 322. 323. Calling of Ministers must be by the Congregation or els we shall go to wracke pag. 159. 160. 161. 167. Calling of Ministers essentially by the Congregation pag. 246. 247. 78. 79. 80. 81. 164. 166. 168. The truth is not so fruitfully defended where Christs Visible Church Calling to the Ministerie is not well cleared pa. 158. 167. Circumstances in Church government changeable by men pag. 280. 247. Chemnicius for vs. pag. 47. 178. The Church-controversie in England for uâ— trifles pa. 193. 195. 269. 320. A Visible Church what See Ecclesia The dignitie and power of each Visible Church pag 164. 165. Christes Visible Churches Divine constitution pa. 74. 75. 142. c. 147. 102. 104. 154. Christes Visible Churches forme vnchangeable by men pag. 134. 135. 139. 142. 147. 149. 150. 153. 281. A true Visible Church essentially somtime with out Guides pag. 164. 165. 278. 298. 300. Why some strive to change the proper sense of the word Church Ecclesia in Mat. 18.17 pa. 216. Protestantes may iustifie their Church Calling to the Ministery soundly if they will pag. 262. 264. 266. 267. What God hath given to the Congregation men can not take away pag. 76. 77. The Offer of Conference not without necessarie cause and reason pag. 196. 250. The true cause and reason why we Conforme not pag. 137. Two maine pointes of our whole Controversie pag. 10. 303. But the chiefe of all is about the peoples free consent in Church govern pag. 10. 16. 17. Cornelius B. of Rome prooveth no Diocesan Church nor Bishop pag. 233. 234. Cyprian teacheth the peoples consent to bee juris Divini pag. 57. 59. D. Danaeus strongly with vs. pag. 41. 42. A Definition of Christes true Visible Church pag. 318. A Definition of a Diocesan Chuch pag. 200. A Diocesan Church proper improper p. 88. One kinde of improper Diocesan Church is Apostolicall pag. 89. The best sort of Diocesan Bishops not Apostolike pa. 15. 89. 90. Yet not simply evill pag. 16. 89 97. Nor yet expedient now ibid. All our question is against the proper Diocesan Church pag. 15. 88. 97. 98. 131. 225. Substantiall differences between a Church and Ministerie of one Congregation and of a Diocesse pag. 208. 128. 129. A Diocesan church but in a shadow till Constantines time p. 126. 226. c. 231. c. 253 No proper Diocesan Church can bee where the people freely consent pag. 84. 85. c. 88. Apropre Diocesan Church is new pag. 226. A proper Diocesan Church induceth the Pope pag. 157. 179. The Papistes shame Diocesans about their church constitution and calling to the Ministerie pag. 161. 167. 169. 171. 172. 183. 150. Diocesan Bb. are pluralitie men and Nonresidents pag. 131. 185. Diocesan Bd. Metropolitans in Office Archbishops Patriarkes in substance are all one pag. 273. Yea a Vniversall Bishop also pag. 181. 184. 186. 189. 191. In a proper Diocesan Church a true church may be but accidentally pag. 306. 87. Dionysius the first titular Diocesan Bishop in the West pag. 92. 93. Diplodophilus one holding two wayes to heaven pag. 104. 125. 151. 153. D. Dove turneth Eusebius falsly for his advantage 3 times pag. 226. 227. 90. D. Downames Defence answered pa. 11. c. 98. 199. c. 221. c. 245. c. D. Downame maketh Apostles and Evangelistes inferiour in iurisdiction to Bishops pag. 241. 260. 251. D. Downames levitie pag. 14. 74. 83. 313 D. Downames vaine boast pag. 217. D. Down abuseth Scripture p. 201. 202. 203. E. Ecclesia a Church Visible is only one Ordinarie CoÌ„gregatioÌ„ pa. 102. 103. 104. 108. 110. 201 202. 203. 205. 209. 213. 214. 322. 323. The question of Elders or Presbyters wholy impertinent pag. 11. 12. 62. Our adversaries still Equivocat or contradict them selves pag. 14. 15. 98. 99. Their Equivocation pag. 120. 121. 148. 204. 209. 240. Evaristus Titles were but precincts or quarters in one Congregation not Parishes pa. 93. Eusebius of no persit credtt 91. 92. 229. And yet in many things for vs. F. Fabulous and bastard writings cited by Doct. Downame pag. 257. Raw and vndigested Fancies pag. 147. Fathers after 300. yeares of Christ no fit iudges of
the Apostles Which he doth very poorely 1. He sheweth that the Church of Ierusalem †Pag 84. exceeded the proportion of one particular assembly ordinarily meeting in one place I grant it and have granted it “ Reas. for ret pag. 19. 65. 66. heeretofore But he can not shew that this Church nowe had in it mo ordinary set and constant assemblyes then one Which is the point Hee addeth †Def. 2. p. 87 It was never intended to be one Parish among many but to be a Mother Church when by Gods blessing it should beget others to be severed from it in particular assemblies yet to remaine subordinate and subiect to it as children to the Mother The very same was affirmed by “ Pag 7. him before of all the Primitive Churches But all this is fall â—t was intended by the Apostles that Ierusalems Church should bee one Parish among many others and indeed to be as a Mother Church in reverence and reputation yet as a common Sister with the rest in power iurisdiction They also intended both in Ierusalem and in every other City that the Bishop and his presbyterie should bee set over no more but one particular Congregation and that as more Congregations should be constituted Every Congâ—â—gation 〈◊〉 to be an intâ—â— Church every Church buâ— a Congregation every one should have a Bishop also a Presbyterie if it might be All this I say the Apostles intended both in Ierusalem and every where els in the world And first this my reasons “ Pag. 208. Decâ—â—â— pa. 12 13. 14 15 c. before rehearsed do soundly proove Also Ignat. epistles do plainly shew that the practise was so then every where yea in the Country as wel as in the Cities wheresoever there were any Churches then Ignatius words are these †Ignat. Ad Trall 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Without these there is no Church no meeting togeather of the Saints no holy assembly This is Vniversally spoken So againe “ Ad Phila. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 To every Church for so it may well be translated there is one Bishop with a coÌ„pany of Persbyters Deacons Where Ignat. meaning is that every wher it ought at least so to be In which Calvin likewise consenteth Saying * Calv. Instit 4.1.9 Vnaquaeque nomen authoritatem Ecclesiae iure obtinet Every one of the Congregations which were dispersed “ And 8.15 Oppidatim Vicatim in the Country townes and Villages obtaineth by right the name and authoritie of a Church Again “ Instit 4.3.6 Quod orbi Vniver so prestiterunt Apostoli id gregi suo debet Pastor vnusquisque That which the Apostles were to the whole world the same ought every Pastor be to his owne Flocke Zuinglius also before hin is heerein of all other the most cleere and resolute I touched many of his places †Pag. 102. 103. 104. before But heere I think it fit to lay forth his words more fully First to shew that every Church ought to be but one ordinary Congregation and that in the N. Testament it was so hee saith “ Zuingl ad Valentin Compar Vox Ecclesiae proprie exposita non aliud quà m cetum vel populi CoÌ„gregationem totum plebis collegium significat Vndè singulas paraecias Ecclesiae vocabulo not are licet cum per hoc cetus coÌ„gregati in vnuÌ„ populi multitudo intelligatur The word Church what it is The word Church properly expounded signifyeth no other thing then an assembly or meeting togeather of the people and the whole gathering togeather of the people Whence by the word Church wee may note and signifie every particular Parish Seeing by this word is vnderstood the multitude of an assembly of the people meeting togeather in one place Of the Church of Corinth vnder the Apostles he saith †Ad Valent Compar Non equidem negare poteris Paulum hoc loco communem totius populi fidelis Ecclesiam intelligere qui in vnum collectus Scripturae sensus ab alijs expositos attentus percipit Populus ergo fidelis Christianorum oninium Ecclesia Doctores suos dijudicat de illoruÌ„ doctrina sana ne sit vel impia pronuÌ„ciare solet Truly thou canst not deny that Paul vnderstandeth in this place the common assemby of the whole faitful people which being gathered together in one place attentively heareth the senses of the Scripture expounded by others wherefore the people and faithfull assembly of all the Christians iudgeth of their Teachers is wont to pronounce of their Doctrine whether it be found or wicked Likewise elswhere hee saith that the Corinthian Church †In Pastoâ— erat Paraecia was a Parish And again likewise The Ephesin Church theÌ„ was “ Above pag. 103. Concio a particular assembly And questioÌ„les as he thought of these so likewise he thought of IerusaleÌ„s Church yea of every true visible Church indefinitly Of which he saith “ Artic. 8 Explanat Capitur Ecclesia pro peculiaribus Congregationibus qui ad auditionem verbi ad Communionem Sacramentorum commodè in aliquem vnum locum conveniunt Graeci parikiaâ— voc 〈◊〉 De huiusmodi Ecclesiâ Christus loquitur Math. 18 Sic Paulus 1. Cor. 1. 14. The Church is taken for the particular Congregations which to the hearing of the word and reâ—eaving the Sacraments do come togeather commodiously into one place The Grecians call them Parishes Of such Christ speaketh Math. 18 17. Paul 1. Cor. 1. 14. And that every of these Churches and Parishes should have the “ See before pag. 30. 31. power of governement iudging of causes among themselves that wee must follow herein only the Scriptur he sheweth a little before that it is his meaning Where expressing what Church he speaketh of and also the very cause why there is such strife among men about the Church he saith A multis iam seculis ad nostra vsque tempora quae sit Ecclesia certamen fuit ortum nimirum ex regnanai cupiditate Nam hoc sibi quidam arrogarunt vt se dicerent esse Ecclesiam vt omnia corum manu administrarentur Omissis autem hominum commentis quibus quidam hâc in re nituntur ex Scripturis sacris mente spiritus de Ecclesiâ scribemus Quod Graeci Ecclesiam Hebraei Kahal vocant Latini Concionem There hath ben controversie of old even to our times what the Church is which riseth indeed from a greedines to rule For this some men doe arrogat to theÌ„selves that they say theÌ„selves are the Church to the end that all things may bee done by their hand But we letting go mens devises whereon in this cause some doe rest we will write of the Church out of the holy Scripturs and minde of the spirit That which the Greeks cal a Church the Hebrues call a Congregation the Latineâ— an