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 writtē, 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, [Page 10]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) nam [...] ­ly: That the Church-governement ought t [...]e exercised alwayes with the peoples free con­sent. One, or two ma [...] grounds of our whole controver­sie. It is true, another ground there­of there is likewise, & that of no lesse importance in this matter, which is, That Christes true Visible and Ministeriall Church vnder the Gospell consisteth not of ma­ny ordinarie Congregations, but only of one. Which I have at large prooved to be a truth, and have made it manifest in my Declaration, pag. 10.11.12. &c. and in Reas. for Reform. pag. 19.20. & 65.66. And againeChapt. 8. heere after I do shew it further. Yet the former point in some respect may bee thought rather the chief, because this secōd is a depēdant on the former, & followeth by a neces­sarie consequence from it, as partly is shewed in the said Declarat. pag. 13.14. and more fully in the VII. Chapt. of this present Treatise insuing.

Againe, that requiring the peoples free consent, noteth Christes Visible Churches nature and essence intensivè, The Churches na­ture in­tensivè. as the Scholes do speake: that is, it sheweth th [...] ground of the power and life thereof. The other sheweth the essence of it extensivè, Extensivè. that is, the large­nes of the Body of the Church, & iust [Page 11]extent, or the due limites and bounds thereof outwardly. Wherefore that requiring the peoples free consent, is manifestly a most proper and speciall Argument in our cause, and such as toucheth the quicke in the matter of the said reformation most neerely.

D. Downame erreth greatly, in his late Defence making his first booke thereof (full long & tedious) only to disprove Lay Elders, as he calleth them. Thin­king without all reason, that if hee speed well therein, he hath gotten the victorie. Wherevpon hee most fond­ly inferreth thus:Defenc. 1. pag. 62. Who seeth not that the disproofe of their Presbyteries, is a direct proofe for our Bishops? And in another place:Defenc. 2.2. Who seeth not that vpon the over­throw of the Presbyteries, the governement by Bishops is necessarily inferred? Who seeth not? Verily neither hee, nor any man living, seeth it. Hee was tolde sufficiently by his Refuter, Ibid. pa. 10. of this his vaine and frivolous inference. But hee seemeth so in love with his owne folly, that he cā indure no mā to shew him his errour. Nay, such a minde hee beareth, that in his Defence he goeth a­bout with pretended Logike, to make this his idle conceit seeme reason, and therevpon hee saith his adversarie mustDefen. 1.6. confesse him selfe ignorant in Logike, if hee will deny this his inference. [Page 12]And soPag. 62. this passage concerning Lay Elders, (he hopeth) will be acknowledged not to bee im­pertinent. Never a whit truly.The question of Elders wholy im­pertinent. For this passage still is not only impertin [...]nt and idle, but even a false defence of those whom he peadeth for, if he will yet holde his opinion still. He hath not Logike at commaund; neither can hee by his Sophistrie, (amonge men of anie vnderstandinge) make that to seeme, which is not. Where hee saieth, it isPag. 61. presupposed on both sides, it is his folly to say so. And in saying, his Refuter witnesseth it, hee grosly abuseth him. He doth the con­trarie in the same place which hee al­leadgeth out of him. For the Doctor leaveth out his Refuters wordes pre­sently following those which hee al­leageth. Which later words are flat a­gainst him. So iustly and truly our Doctor dealeth in his writings. Like to this is his great boast which hee ma­keth heere in his booke, and often af­terwards also, viz. that he hath found out twoo sortes of Disciplinarians, (as his wisedometermeth them) oneDefenc. 1.60. and 2.147. el­der and more learned, the chiefe of whom (he saith) are Calvin and Beza; Another, new, shallow, and ignorant sort: of whom he makethDefenc. 2.2. 82.130. Maister Cart­wright chiefe, adioyning others of vs since vnto him. But what difference [Page 13] [...]ndeth hee in these Disciplinarians? [...]orsooth, the elder (he saith) holde [...]resbyteries in Cities to governe [...]hole Dioceses and Provinces, and [...]erein he avouchethDefenc. 2.2 they ioyne with [...]e Bishops in England against the new sort of [...]isciplinarians. The new sortDefen. 1.60. boldly and [...]noran [...]ly hold Parishionall Presbyte­ [...]ies. Naythis, Doctor slandereth either [...]gnorantly or maliciously. For wee whō he maketh of the new, shallow, [...]nd ignorant sort) we, I say,Wee agree with Cal­vin & Be­za in sub­stance. differ not [...]ne haire from Calvin and Beza tou­ [...]hing the substance of this matter. We as they, & they as we do acknow­ [...]edge both the one and the other; that [...]s, both the Parishionall and the Dio­ [...]esan Presbyteries, yea the Provinci­ [...]ll, and larger too, if occasion serve. [...]t is false which he imputeth to Calvin [...]nd Beza, that they maintayne the Church-governement by Diocesan & Provinciall Presbyteries absolutly without any relation to the peoples [...]onsent in the ordinarie Congrega­tions. Also, that heerein they ioyne with the Bishops in Englande, or that they materially differ from vs. All which God willing, we shal shew to be vntrue, and that most cleerely in the 3. Chapt. & also in the 7. & 8. here fol­lowing. Wherefore these be all slande­rous forgeries of the Doctors devising, [Page 14]of purpose to make our innocencie o­dious by all the shifts be can, & to cast someDefen. 1.53 colour of iust cause, or shew of reason for his leaving of our acquain­tance,Wherefore D. Dow­name left his first profes­sion. to whom heeretofore he ioyned him self, namely while there was som expectation of his Maiesties favour to­wards vs. And this is fully enough for answer to the substance of his whole first booke. Seeing to trouble our sel­ves much with impertinent stuffe, would be in vs also great folly.

Yea, to speake the truth, the prose­cuting of all the rest of his Defence be­sides, is such likewise: that is, cleane from the maine purpose, & toucheth not the chiefe question betweene vs. Indeed he propoūdeth one part of the question wel in the title of the second booke of his Defence: but his prosecu­ting of it both there and every where els, even to the end, is as if we denyed Bishops and their governement in the Churches of Christ.We deny not Church go­vernment by Bishops. Which is nothing els but lyes, & malicious forgerie a­gainst vs, by equivocating falshood & slander to make vs seeme, as if wee were against both the expresse letter of the New Testament,Equivocatō and also of the most ancient Ecclesiasticall Writers, where (we know) any mā may see Bi­shops & their government to be cō ­mended as from God, and as the or­dinance [Page 15]of the Apostles. Which is the very practise likewise of Doct. Bilson against vs in his booke Of the perpetuall governement of Christs Church. Whose trace our Doctor followeth step by step. But as I said, both their great and large volumes about this matter, are no­thing els but two heapes of equivoca­tions, or sentences wholy imperti­nent, & such as we admit with them, or some conclusions wherein they plainly contradict thēselves elswhere. Little cause therefore had they who lately published that book of D. Bils. in Latin, so to do: vnles they meant to shew abroad further his most impertinēt, ambiguous & vncertain writing, & yet fraught with bitternes enough against vs. In a word, we desire that all men should know that our question is not, whether Bishops and their go­vernement be Apostolicall, about the proving whereof the greatest part of these twoo Doctors bookes are spent. Further, though we denie Diocesan & Provinciall Bishops of any sort to bee Apostolical, yet we do notSee Reas. for Reform. Pag. 7. & 38 simply de­ny but that some kinde of them also may bee lawfull, were it not that cer­taine waightie circumstances in these our dayes do stande against them. Yea, there are Circumstances now ve­rie evident and pregnant against the [Page 16]best sort of Diocesan Bishops, which were not in 200. or 300. yeares after Christ. So that no reason can be made; because they were lawfull in the se­cond or third age, therefore they are lawfull now. The case being thus, it is to be noted that the DD. do not pro­pound the true question betwene vs. For if the peoples free cōsent in their owne Church-governement were not (as it is) Christs ordināce in the New Testament, certainly no Circūstance, nor any thing els could make Dioce­san or Provinciall Bishops at all re­proveable. For which cause the true question indeed betwene the Prelacie and vs, or the principal & maine que­stion is, Whether the people ought to have alwaies their free cōsent in their owne Church government. But this (speciallySee his De­fen 1 38.47 & 4.80.99. D. Dow­name) putteth away from him with high disdaine, cōtempt, rayling, hate­full accusations, and exclamations. So that with this hee will not vouchsafe to medle. Wherein truely we may see him to be, I can not say learned, but a cunning, bolde, and exquisite Sophi­ster. And this may be in generall a suf­ficient Answer even to his whole De­fence. Although for some other re­spectes I hope some body will one day examine his particular passages more exactly in a place for the purpose.

But to our point in hand. We cleer­ [...]y see by this, that it is the peoples cō ­ [...]ent in the affaires of their owne spi­ [...]ituall (that is, Church) governement which maketh the matter, & putteth the difference in deed betweene the Ecclesiasticall Reformation which in all dutifulnes wee seeke, and that Church-governement which the L. Bishops in Engl. do exercise. I say, this concerning the peoples right heerein is it, which toncheth the life of our cōtroversie. Where vnderstand,Note. that I meane only such people as are not ig­norant in religion, nor scandalous in their life. For only of such Christes Visible Church ought to consist.

Well; to proceed thē with our point. Questionles hence it is, that generally the Adversaries of the forenamed Re­formation do so strangly reiect, yea so hatefully resist, and strive against this same Christian doctrine heere pro­poūded (cōcerning the churches only true governement with the peoples free cōsent) as they do. Wherein they expresse & shew litle Christiā patiēce: for they prosecute those that hold & teach the same (though out of meere conscience) with all bitter reproches, base skoffings, iniurious slanders, and vnmercifull dealings. And all this (it is plaine) not for any manner of evill [Page 18]that they finde in this doctrine, or for any incōvenience therin. For in truth there is none at all: as partly I have shewedReas. for re­form. pag. 28 heretofore, & it will further be manifested heereafter. But they so hate this doctrine only because of the inevitable consequence of the said re­formation, which it bringeth with it. Which crosseth & overturneth who­ly their divers enormous, worldly, & carnall desires; as any man that loo­keth into the case, may easily see.

Howsoever it be, yet the truth and the agreeablenes heereof, with the ho­ly Gospell of Iesus Christ, & with the assuring of our soules in the way to e­ternall life, as it hath appeared to the world ever since the discovery of An­tichrist, more cleerely then it did for many yeres before: so doubtles it will more and more appeare yet still, & be made further manifest to al men even where the Gospell is receaved (as it is in many places yet) not so sincerely as it ought to be.See chapt. 7. pag. 156. &c. For my part, because I well perceave that the Antichristian idolatrie and tyrannie of the Church of Rome cānot by Divinitie be soūdly resisted (as experience in time will shew) neyther was it resisted by our Forefathers at the beginning, but by maintayning this Evangelicall point of doctrine among others, therefore I [Page 19]have cōdescended the more willing­ly (after diligent inquirie thereinto) to approve the said point of doctrine, viz. that the Church governement ought to be exercised alwayes with the peoples free consent. Which also even forFor that the Papa cie els will come in. See Chap. 7. this same cause I can not but beleeve to be the holy ordinance of Iesus Christ for his Church vnder the Gospel, and to have ben delivered vnto vs by the Apostles in their per­petuall practise of Church-governe­ment. But specially, seeing for the same we have the most sure evidence of Gods word in the New Testament, which IArgnm. 3. & 9. of the Di­vine begin­ning of Chrsts Visible church Declarat pag. 20 [...]1 Reas. for Reform. pag. 45. 46, 47. 48. have heeretofore gathe­red and observed at large. Second­ly, seeing we have for it a plentifull, and cleere Attestation of many Lear­ned, Godly, and famous Divines both New and Old, confirming our faith, and strengthening our consciences therein.

Which Attestation I have thought it needfull at this time and in this place to gather and produce for many cau­ses. First my desire is that it may ly open to the sight of all men, what a great & holy agreement of good men heerein we have; which being added to the forenoted fundamētal certain­tie thereof in Gods word, giveth so full a satisfaction to every good Chri­stian, [Page 20]that who can desire more? Se­condly, all Christiā Civill Magistrates may heereby take good content and be satisfyed touching the innocencie of this way in the Church governe­ment which we holde. For when they shall see with what a cloud of such witnesses we are cōpassed in defence of this matter, they can not imagine any inconvenience by it to their gover­nement, notwithstanding all the cla­mours and invectives of partiall Ad­versaries against it. Lastly, heereby also our adversaries virulent tongues and pens (if it be possible) may bee a­shamed to abuse vs as they do with al kinde of vnworthy reproches and slanders, when they shall see whom they hate, and persecute, & revile to­geather with vs. Wherefore for the publishing of this matter there appea­reth every way very great and neces­sarie reason.

CHAP. II. The Method and order of this Treatise.

NOw heerein I purpose to proceed 1 thus. First I will shew, who a­mong the New Writers are our Mai­sters & Teachers in this point of do­ctrine, and whose faith wee follow [Page 21]therein: whom I put first, namely, for their singular perspicuitie and reso­lutnes in it. Then I will rehearse the practise of the most ancient times af­ter 2 the Apostles. After that, I will re­member our very adversaries consent 3 with vs heerein sometimes. Then I will shew some certaine & firme con­sequences 4 whiche follow from this ground necessarily: also some true & great inconveniences in re [...]ecting this doctrine. Moreover, I will an­swer 5 some of the adversaries chiefest obiections, noting also briefly their immodest and vnchristian reproches against this Evangelicall truth. And finally, adding a brief advertisement 6 touching this cause, we will commit the whole cōsideration thereof to the vpright hearted and discreet Christi­an Reader.

CHAP. III. The testimonies of many particu­lar late Writers, of blessed memorie, making for vs in this matter.

BEGINNING therefore with the New Writers, I iudge it meet and convenient to alleage in the formost place the resolut deter­mination of Maister Beza, Beza. because he [Page 22]of al others is thought by some vnad­vised persons, to be most against vs in this point. Now hee disputing this question at large in his Epist. 8 [...]. set­teth downe this conclusion; Populo in­vito nihil obtrudatur: Let nothing be imposed on the people (or Congregation) ag [...]a [...]t their willes. Then the which verily we desire no more: this is all in substance that we seek in our assertion. Againe, vnles it bee so, the Church-governe­ment either is a Monarchie, or a verie Oligarchie. But Maister Beza expresly condemneth both these: and the later namely on Math. ca. 18.17. Wherefore howsoever Maister Beza interpreteth some things otherwise then we do, & vseth some times other phrases then we perhaps do thinke so fit, or so fre­quently to be vsed, yet touching this point in question, hee agreeth wholy with vs in substance, and in effect. For let this which he in these wordes setteth downe be yeelded vnto vs, thē wee are satisfyed for the substance of Church-governemēt. To which pur­pose Maister Beza saith also in Confes. 5.35. The Apostles intended in the Churches which they planted, that no Pastor should bee obtruded on a flocke against their willes. Yet moreover I pray the Reader to note, that even hee also strongly maintay­neth this right of the people (in the [Page 23]affayres of their soules) many tymes in more free and large termes. As where he saith:Confes. 5.34. I finde no where in any Christian Church built vp that any is promo­ted either to the Ministerie of the word, or Deaconship, or Eldership, any other way, then by a publike and free election. And,Sect 35. I repeat againe that which I said before, It was never receaved in Christian Churches established, that any should be admitted to an Ecclesiasts­call function, but being freely and lawfully cho­sen of that Church which it concerneth. A­gaine,ibid. Pastors are not to be chosen without the consent of the whole Church. Also,ibid. They (whosoever they are) bring Tyrannie into the Church, if they call any man to a publike fun­ction at their owne will, the consent of the mul­titude being neglected. Againe,ibid. Presbyters were chosen by the voyces, at least, by the allow­ance of the whole assembly. Vpon the Act. 14.23. he saith:See Oecumen. in hunc loc. Also Badei Commentar. The force of this word Chi­rotonein, is to be noted, that wee way know Paul and Barnabas did nothing by their pri­vate will, neither exercised any tyrannie in the Church. He meaneth, that they here made Ministers by the peoples voy­ces, or free consent, & not otherwise. And vpon 1. Time. 5.22. All the authoriti [...] (of making Ministers) was not in Timo­thie alone; but election being made by the con­sent of the whole Church, then the President of the assemblie did consecrate him by laying on of handes. And on 2. Cor. 2.8. By the pu­blike [Page 24]consent of the Church declare that you embrace that penitent sinner againe as a brother, even as by the publike iudgement of the Church he was cast out. In all the which it is easie to see Maister Bezaes minde and resolution in this question to bee cleerely with vs. As for that which D. Downame Defens. 4. pag. 81. obiecteth out of him, where he calleth one Morellius De [...]grad. Ministr. 6.23 Fanati­call, because he pleaded in like maner for the popular governement. The D. abuseth Be­za, and vs all. Morellius pleaded for the popular governement in far vnlike maner. He sought in Churches per­fectly established to bring all things in particular, and ordinarily to the peoples hearing, examining, iudging, and voice-giving. But neither Beza, nor we intend so. Wee acknowledge that the ordinarie sway of all Ec­clesiasticall authoritie ought to bee in the true Bishop, or Pastour of the church: and we affirme that right wel so it may bee, although never anie thing be imposed on the Church by him against their willes. Which thing D. Downame him selfe also acknowled­geth may be, andDef. 4. p. 21 was heeretofore in a state of the Church (Rather a­bout 420. about 400. yeres after Christ) which hee seemeth to al­low of. Saving that he cunningly fal­sifyeth the wordes of the Councill which there he mentioneth: to wit, [Page 25]in saying the assent or connivence of the people, where the Councill saith,Concil. Carth. 4. Can. 22. the assent and connivence. But to proceed: By this before alleaged, all men may see Maist. Bezaes iudgement in this cause to be (as I said) cleerely with vs. And so much concerning him.

In the second place we will consider Maister Calvin, 2. Calvin. a Pastor and Guide of the Church of Geneva before Mai. Be­za. Hee also every where in all his writings is a most earnest patron of this point which heere we professe. I will note certain of his sentences to this purpose. Saith he:Instit. 4.5.15. Est haec ex ver­bo Dei legitima Ministri vocatio, vhi ex populi consensu & approbatione creant qui visi sue­rint idonei. Preesse autem Electioni debent alij Pastores, nequid per levitatem, vel per malae studia, vet per tumultum à multitudine pecce­tur This is the lawfull calling of a Minister by the word of God, where they which seeme fit, are created by the consent and approbati­on of the people Indeed other Pastors ought to moderate and order the Election, least the multitude should offend through lightues, or ill affection, or tumult. And a litle before, Videmus ipsum (Paulum) ex populi suffragijs Episcopos creare solitum. We see that Paul him selfe was wont to create Bishops by the voyce giving of the people Againe, Falluntur qui putant vel Timotheum Ephesi, vei Titum in Creta regnum exercuisse, vt suo vterque arbi­ [...]rio omnia disponeret. Praefuerunt enim tan­tum [Page 26]vt bonis & salutaribus consilijs popul [...] praeirent: non vt soli exclusis alijs onnibus a­gerent quod placerēt. They are deceaved who thinke either that Timothie at Ephesus, or Titus in Crete did practise a kingdome, that either of them disposed all at their owne will. Only they were over the people in going be­fore them with good and holesome countails; not that they alone did what pleased them, excluding all the rest. And presently hee sheweth, they did no more but crave the voyces, & moderate the people in chosing. And affirmeth that this is, Commune ius & libertas Ecclesiae, the common right and li­bertie of the Church, and that, not to bee diminished. And in another place hee saith,Cap. 5.2. Etiamsi nihil aliud mali foret quitamen hoe excusare poterunt quod it a spolia­verint suo iure Ecclesiam? Although there were no other evill, yet how can they excuse this that they have so spoiled the Church of her right? And,Sect. 3. Est impia Ecclesiae spolia­tio, &c. It is a wicked robbing or spoyling of the Church, so often as a Bishop is put vppon any people whom they have not desired, or at least have not approoved with a free voyce And, It it is a ly that they say, this is a remedy against the peoples tumultes. They had other wayes Eyther to prevent these faultes, or to correct them being committed But to say the truth, when the people began to be somewhat too negligēt in holding their Elections, & did give ouer this care to the Presbyters, as a thing not so beseeming thē selves, they (the Pres by­ters) abused this occasion to take to thē selves a tyrannie, which afterward they cōfirmed with [Page 27]Canons. And vpon the Acts thus hee writeth:In Act. 3. [...]. Est tyranicum, &c. It is tyran­nicall if any one man make Ministers at his will. Therefore this is the lawfull way, that they be chosen by common voy [...] who are to exercise any publike office in the Church. And this is the meane betweene tyran [...] [...]e and con­fused libertie, that nothing in deed may bee done without the consent and allowance of the people: and yet the Pastors should mode­rate them &c. Likewise rouching Eccle­siastical censure, and iudgement in ge­nerall, saith he:Instit. 4.11.6. Contra ius & fas quod Ecclesiae datum erat, sibi vni vendicavit Epi­scopus. The Bishop against right and equitie, hath taken to him selfe alone, that which was given to the Church. And, Fuit facinus ai­mis improbum. &c. It was to wicked a fact, that one man, in translating to him selfe the Common power, made way for tyrannous lust, and tooke away that which was the Churches ow [...]e, and suppressed the Eldership ordayned by the Spirit of Christ. A game. Animadvertendum quod Paulus quam vis A­postolus forei, non pro sua libidine excommu­nicavit solus, sed consilium cum Ecclesia par­ticipat, vt communi authoritate res agat ur. It is to be marked that Paul though an Apo­stle, yet he did not excommuni are alone af­ter his owne will but did participat the mat­ter with the Church, that it might bee do [...] by common authorttie. Thus plainly doth Calvin maintaine the peoples free con­sent in the Church governement al­wayes.

To these we will adde Maister Vi­ret, 3. Viret. a rare light of the Gospell, a pillar of the truth, and partner with Maist. Farell in planting the Church of Geneva before Calvin came there,Dialog. 20. The Church (saieth hee) in respect of the gouernement which Iesus Christ instituted, is a holy and free communaltie: which for the same cause is cal­led a Communion of Saints, to the which gene­rally (and not to any one person particularly) Iesus Christ gave the whole power & authori­tie to edification and not to destructiō. Quest. But if you so take it, there seemeth to me no or­der at all, but rather great cōfusion. Answer. That followeth not from that which I said. For first, the Church is not Headles, having Ie­sus Christ for a Head. Moreover, although the power and authoritie be given to the whole Communaltie of the faithfull, as it is in a De­mocratie; yet nothing letteth but the Church should choose by her common consent out of the body of this Communitie certain men to have the speciall charge of exercising and admini­string the publike offices which are ordayned of God. &c. Question. Your meaning then is, that all the authoritie and power of Ecclesia­sticall governement generally is given to the whole church. and therefore that it pertaineth to the same according to Gods word to choose them whom shee knoweth most worthie to ex­ercise the publike Offices. &c. Answer. All that time wherein the Church was rightly go­verned according to Gods word, and not oppres­sed [Page 29]with tyrannie, she vsed that order alwayes And therefore it is more then necessary, that shee should alwayes keepe her right her power, & authoritie, which she receyved of God, &c. Question. And if they which execute speci­all charge in the Church, do tollerate one ano­ther in ill doing, & them selves do give matter of scādall & scattering, hath not thē the whole Church togeather power to correct them and to procure remedit to such evills? Answer. See­ing the power whereof we speake is by Christ Ie­sus given to the whole church, who can take it from thē? Can they, to whō the church it self hath given it? No truly, vnles they be tyrants &c. And againe.Dialog. 21. The Ministers ought not to give to thē selves alone the power which God gave to the whole church: vnles so as they execute their Office in the Name of the church, and after that her iudgement hath gone be­fore. This is well to be noted that iniurie bee done to none, & that the Minister, exercise not tyrannie in the Church and that the governe­ment serve not their affections. Thus plain­ly Maister Viret.

From these let vs ascend to the ve­rie 4 first Worthies who have brought vs the light of the Gospell in this lat­ter age, Zuinglius and Luther. Zuinglius saith thus:Zuinglius Aruc. 31. Ex­planat. Quid audio▪ What do I heare? Can a Bishop alone excommunicate? I thought it had ben given to the Church Christ saith, Tell the Church. Doth the Bishop or Abbot signifie the Church? Excommunication is not [Page 30]one mans part, whosoever it be: but it is th [...] office of the Church. None therefore can ex­communicate but that Church in wh [...] a [...] dwelleth who offendeth by his sinne. The right of pronouncing against him is in t [...]e Church and the Pastor of the Church It re­mayneth then, that Christ commaunde [...]h that the sinner be shewed to the Church which we [...] call a Parish.

In another place likewise,Ad Valenti­u [...]m Compa [...]. Excom­municatio non in Episeoporum (in Synodo Congregatorum) sed in vntuscutusque pa­roeciae potestate & arbitrio sita est, eu [...]us [...] [...] est impudentius peccantem ab Ecclesiae commu­nione excludere. S [...] Christs veroa quae Math. 18. habentur penitùs inspiciamus, hune demum exc̄municatum esse deprehendere licebit quem communis Ecclesiae in qua quis habitat, cons [...]n­sus exclusit. Excommunication is not in the Bishops (gathered together in a Synod) but it is in the power and free liking of every Parish, who only have power to exclude from the Churches communion the impudent sin­ner. If wee looke thoroughly into the worde [...] which are in Math 18. we may finde him on­ly to be excommunicate▪ whom the common consent of that Church, where the man dwel­leth, hath shut out.

Againe,Epichirifis de Ganone Missae. Est particularis Ecclesia ea cu [...] preceptum est vt morbidum membrum resecet, Math. 18. quales ea Corinthi ad quam seri­bit Paulus, & aliae quarum se curam gere [...] ­dicat, & quibus se pari modo docere asserit [...]n­quiens, Sollicitudo omnium Ecclesiarū: & sicut [...] omnibus Ecclesijs doceo. That is a parti ulat [Page 31]Church which is commanded to cut of the in­fected member Math. 18.Chap. [...]. Such as that of Co­rinth is, to which Paul writeth, and others which he saith be hath care of, and in which he affirmeth that he taught altogeather alike, say­ing, The care of all Churches, and, As I teach in all Churches. And concerning Cal­ling to the Ministerie, he saith:Ecclesiaste [...] † It see­meth that there is nothing so agreeable to the ordinance of God. and to the old institution, as that all the whole Church of the faithfull a­mongst a people, togeather with certain lear­ned and godly Bishops and other faithfull men having skill in things, should choose a Pastor. And after againe, Let therfore these proud Bishops and foolish Abbots goe shake their [...]ares, For it is convenient that the right of the Election should be in the power of the church of the faithfull instructed by the counsaill of learned mē. Moreover he writeth thus:Ad Valent, Compar. Hee that with a Councill of Bishops shall impose on Christian people any law or observatiō at their own liking (he meaneth, without the peoples cō ­sent) hic violento imperio ius Ecclesiae invadit. Hee invadeth the Churches right by a violent command And therefore such Bishops as thus doe, absque Ecclesia, without the Churches consent, statuentes suâ libidine, Artic. 64. de­creeing at their owne pleasure, he saith, are nomine tenus Episcopi, reverà tyranni, in name Bishops, but in deed tyrants.

And thus much out of this holy man of God and noble witnes of Christ, Maister Zuinglius.

Maister Luther another mightie andLuther. [Page 32]principal champion for Gods truth at the same time, wrote a special treatise which hath this title,Tom. 2. pag. 374. Quod Ecclesia [...]us & potestatem habeat indicandi de quavis do­ctrinâ, item vocandi Ministros Evangelij;, aut si fideles esse desierint, deponendi. That theIn this word he sig­nifieth the Congregatiō of the people Church hath the right & power to iudge of any doctrine, also of calling the Ministers of the Gospell: or, if they cease to be faithfull to depose them. What can be more for vs then this is? In another place he saith:Pag. 369. b. Chemnic. examp. part. 2.27. a. Claves sunt totius Ecclesia. The Keyes be­long to the whole Church. In his booke of the Privat Masse, hee speaketh to the Bishops of his time, thus: Spiritus San­ctus vui Civitats plures constituit Episcopos: Vos singuli (estis) pluribus. Quâ authoritate? Nonne ipsius Satanae &c? The holy Ghost appointed to one City many Bishops, but you are one Bishop to many Cities. By what au­thoritie? Is it not of Sathan him selfe, by you opposing against the authoritie of the Holy Ghost? We conclude therfore boldly, that you (according to the Scriptures & the H Ghosts decree) are not so much as to be called Bishops, but rather adversaries and destroyers both of Bishops, and of the Divine decree concerning the appointing of Bishops. Againe in his booke against the falsly named Order of Bishops, hee saith:pag. 322. At citra iocum vides palam. &c. But without iest thou seest open­ly that the Apostle Paul calleth only them Bi­shops, which do preach the Gospell and Mini­ster Sacraments to the people, as in our time the parish Ministers and Preachers do. There­fore I beleeve without doubt, that they by [Page 33]fight possesse the title and name of Bishops.

And in another treatise:De Minist [...]. Eccles. insti­tuend [...], pag. 365. b. Donabo hoc ordmibus Papisticis, quod solius Episcopi autoritate instituuntur quos vocant Sacerdo­tes: consensu aut suffragio populi, cui preficien­di sunt, neque requisito nec obtento: cuius ta­men cum sint populus Dei maximè intererat, vt non sine suffragijs suis quisquā eis imponeretur. I will yield this (saith he) to the popish orders, that Priestes (as they call them) are instituted by the authoritie of the Bishop alone: the c [...]n­sent and voyce giving of the people over whō they are to bee set, neither sought nor obt [...]y­ned: whose chiefe right nevertheles it was (see­ing they are Gods people) that not any one should be set over them without their voyce-giving. Thus teach these Pillars of the Gospell Zuinglius and Luther.

To whom wee will ad our two 6 great lightes that shined sometyme in England, Maister Bucer, and P. Martyr. Bucer. Bucer hath these wordes:In Math, 16. [...]9. Haec potestas penes omnem Ecclesiam est: authoritas modo Ministerij penes Presbyteros & Episcopos. Ita vt Roma olim potestas populs fuit, authoritas Senatus. This power & sway of the governe­ment is in the whole Church: but the autho­ritie only of ministration therof is in the Pres­byters and Bishops. So as in old time at Rome the power was in the people, but the authori­tie or direction was in the Senat.

In an other place he saithDe regno Chr [...]. 1. [...]. The A­postle accuseth the Corinthian [...] for that the whole church did not cast out of their company the incestuous person.

P. Martyr saith:7. P Martyr. In [...]. Cor. 16.15. Fatemur claves Ecclesia vniversae datas. We confesse the Keyes are gi­ven to the whole Church. By the Keyes he meaneth Governement, and Ecclesia­sticall power. Also hee saith:vers. 3. it is no mervaile that it is the Churches right to chose Ministers, seeing we see the Civill Lawes do give power to Townes to choose their Physi­cians and Scholemaisters at their owne liking. In an other place thus he saith:In cap. 5.11. Quo­niam in Ecclesia de negotijs gravioribus. & quae sunt maximi momenti, ad plebem [...]efertur (vt patet in Actis Apostolicis) ideò polit [...]ae ra­tionem habet. Because in the Church matters of waight are referred to the people to deter­mine (as it is manifest in the Ac [...]es) therefore the Church hath a respect of the Popular go­vernement, or Democracie. For so P. Martyr heere meaneth by politia, as wee may see if we look in the place. Also name­ly of Excommunication, hee saieth: Consentiente vniversa Eccsesia Excommuni­cetur. Hoc debet ist ad iudicium antecedere. Let Excommunication be with the consent of the whole Church This ought to go before that iudgement. And, Non absque consensu Ecclesiae quispiam excommunicari potest. lus hoc ad Ecclesiam pertinet, neque ab illâ eripi potest. Witthout the consent of the Church, not any one can bee excommunicated. This right belongeth to the Church, neither ought it to bee taken away from it. And, the consent of the people is still to be observed [Page 35]in Excommunication, both that tyrannie may be avoyded, & that it may be done with great­ [...]er fruit and gravitie.

The same worthy man greatly cō ­mendeth the pietie of a Bishop at Troie in France, who about the yeare 1561. left his Popish state and did be­take him to a flocke of Christians there,Epict. [...]. and taught them the word of God purely. But quia ei gravis scrupulus [...]iectus est de suâ vocatione quod in ed Eccle­sis ac populi Elestionem seu Censirmationem u [...] is habuerit, ideò &c. Be [...]ause he had a great scruple in his conscience about his Cal [...]a [...]g, seeing hee had not therein the El [...]ction or Confirmation of the Church and people, Therefore hee sent for the Elders of the refor­med Church, and desired thē that they would consider godly and wisely, whether they would chose, confirme, and ha [...]e h [...]n for their Bishop. Which if they thought good to do, hee would doe his indeavour that as hee be­gan, so hee would go on as hee was able, by teaching and exhorting to edifi [...] and increase the Church committed to him But if they thought him not fit for so great an Off [...] they should speake it freely and openly, hee was [...]eadie to give place, &c. And hee desired that they would speedily de [...]berate with the Church about the matter. Which when it was done, hee was acknowledged [...]a [...] re [...]ea­ved of all with one consent as a true Bi­shop. Wherefore his authoritie and p [...]i [...] doth much profit the Church of Chri [...]t. [Page 36]God bee praised who governeth and g [...]i­deth the kingdome of his Sonne in this man­ner.

O where shall wee see such Bishops in these dayes!

8. Musculus. Musculus also speaketh and reasoneth cleerely with vs heerein. Hee saith:Com. plac. Of Min. Elect. There is no doubt but the Apostles ke [...]t that maner of ordayning, viz. after the church had chosen. And, After fasting and pray­ing (which was wont to be done in the Con­gregation of the faithful) They ordayned El­ders which were first chosen of the faithfull. And this forme of Electing and ordayning El­ders and Bishops the Apostle commended vn­to his fellow workman Titus, and Timothie, saying:Ti [...]. 1- 5. For this cause I left thee in Crete. &c. For who would beleeve that he ordained that Titus should do otherwise, then both hee and the rest of the Apostles were accustomed to do. Therefore both by example and ordinace of the Apostle, in the primitive church Elders, Pastors, Bishops and Deacons were in the Ec­clesiasticall Meetings, chosen of the people by lifting vp of handes. Also hee saith, The Forme of Election vsed in the Apostles times, is conformable to the libertie and priviledge of the Church whereof Cyprian made mention: and that forme of choise whereby men began to be thrust vpon the people of Christ beeing not chosen of it, doth agree to a Church which is not free, but subiect to bondage, And this forme of electiō by the peoples choise he calleth the Old, the Fittest, the Divine, [Page 37]the Apostolicall, and lawfull election: the o­ther to come from the corrupt state of the Church and Religion.

9. Bullinger. Bullinger assirmeth thus;Deca [...]. 5.4. The Lord from the beginning gave authoritio to the Church to chose and ordayne fit Ministers. And, Those which thinke that the Bishop & Archbishop have power to make Ministers, vse these places of the Scripture,Tit. 1. Therefore I left thee at Crete▪ that thou mightest appoint El­cers Towne by Towne: And againe,1. Tim. 5. Take heed that thou lay not thy handes rashly on a­nie. But we answer, that the Apostles did not vse any tyranny in the Churches, nor themsel­ves alone to have don these thinges which per­tayned either to Election or Ordination, other men in the Church shut out. For the Apostles and Elders did create Bishops and Elders in the Church, but communicating their counsaill with the Churches, yea and with the consent and approving of the people.

Yea of Ministers that governe anic Church without or against their con­sent, thus he saith:In 1. Co [...]. 5.4. V [...]bem prodere di­ [...]untur Legati qui diversum ab eo quod ab vr­be prescriptum est, agunt. Those embassadors are said to betray the Citie, who do any thing divers from that which is prescribed them by the Citie.

10. Gualter. Gualter likewise is as plaine as can be, Saith hee of the calling of Ministers:Ho [...]il. in Act 13.1. Divinitùs vocatos esse censebimus qu [...]scunque Dei spiritus donis necessarijs instruxerit, & le­giti [...]s Ecclesiae suffragijs elegerit. Aliquas e­nim [Page 38]in hac causa partes Ecclesiae mandatas esse hi [...] locus perspicuè tradit. Ecclesiae calculum spiritus requirit. We wil esteeme them to have a calling from God, whomsoever Gods spirit hath [...]abled with necessarie giftes, and hath chosen by the Churches lawful givi [...]g of voy­ces. For this place plainly shewe [...]h that in this cause there are some partes committed to the Church The Spirit requireth the Churches iudg [...]ment Afterward he saith,In Act. 14. [...]. Foedá tyran [...]ide Ecclesiarum slatus opprimitur. The state of the Churches is oppressed by filthy ty­rannie where at this day the Churches have not this libertie to give their free consent at least. For heere he re­specteth that right and iust order ac­cording to the rule of the Gospell which before he had described:In Act. 1. [...] Mini­strorum verbi & Ecclesiae Electiones atque or­dinationes non occultè intra privatos parietes à paucis homini [...]us, sed publicè ab Ecclesia & in totius Ecclesiae conspectu fieri debent. Neque no [...] movet quod Paulus alibi vni Tito vel Tim [...] ­theo ius & potestatem Episcopo [...] eligendi tri­buere videtur. Non enim illos privata auth [...] ­ritate qui [...]quam agere voluit, sed pro antist [...] ­tum [...]fficio iubet curare vt Ministri digni & i­dones legittimè crdinentur. Nec verisimile est, illis plus concessum fu isse quàm Apostolis ipsis, qui inconsulta Ecclesia nihil in hac causa vn­quam statuerunt. Nam & paulo post Diaco­nos coram Ecclesia publicè eligunt, & Paulus oum Barnabá collectis viritim suffiagijs Pres­by [...]eres per Ecclesias singulas ordinavisse le­guntur, [Page 39]Act. 6. & 3.4. The Elections and or­dinations of the Ministers of the word and of the Church, ought not to bee made secretly within privat walls by a few men, but publik­ly by the Church and in the face of the whole Church. Neither doth it moove vs, that Paul inan other place seemeth to give right & po­wer of chofing Bishops to Titus alo [...]e, or to Timothie. For he would not that they should do any thing by their privat author [...]tie: but he commaundeth them to take care that worthy and fit Ministers bee ordayned, a [...]cording to the office of Guides and Overseers. N [...]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 presēce of the church, and Paul with Barnabas are read to have or­dayned Presbyters throughout every Church, gathering the voyces of every mā. Act 6 & 3.4.

Arguitur exemple hoc corruptissimus idem­que perniciosissimus Ministros eligends mos, quem tam seculis aliquot hâc in causa imper [...] ­um obtinuisse constat. Quofit, vt non raro v­ [...]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 [Page 40]ereptam non restituunt: Sed pro su [...] arbitrio administrant quae olim ab Episcopis & Monachis administrari solebant. Quod malum, nisi brevi reprimatur, & Simoni [...]m & exitialem omnis Ecclesiasticae Disciplina confusionem nobis pariet. Atque omne bo [...] 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 gottē Dominiō & 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 D [...]ci­plice. [Page 41]And all this wee have from the Bishops of Rome, &c. Chieflie from Calistus the second. Frō 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 de­ [...]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. 5.22Heere 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 ordinationib [...] vocandorum & preficiendorum muneribu; Ec­clesiasticis exclud [...]ndam demonstant exampl [...] veteris Ecclesiae &c. That the people [...]ught not to bee excluded from the ordinations of Ministers, the exam [...]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 totu [...] quidem Ecclesia ratione potestatis: Preposito­tum autem ratione exercitij & adminisira­tionis. [Page 43]This iurisdiction is the whole Chur­ [...]hes in respect of the power thereof: but it be­ [...]ongeth to the Guides of the Church in respect [...]f administring it, namely populo assentiente, with the peoples consent: as hee addeth a [...]ittle after. And againe, Executioni pu­ [...]lica censura intervenire debet notitia & con­ [...]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 Co [...]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. 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 R [...]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 probatissimam (que) 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, [Page 44]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 corruptiō 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 Guid [...]t ought to certifie the Church, that if they can them selves take care for, & do their owne affaires, non fore pen [...]l [...]um Episcoporum Seniorumve coetum vt [...] [Page 45]si [...]i cum damno Ecclesia, iniuriae, & ignominâ arroget: It shall not be in the power of any as­ [...]ēbly 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 [...]s dāmage, in­iurie, & shame, if (being vnderstāding 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 cō ­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, quē 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 & nundinationū 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. Thē 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 studia (que) scin­ditur. Revocetur adpacē 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 Excōmunicatiō Piscator saith,Observ. ex [...]. cap. 1. Cor. Excommunication ought to bee don by the Church, or by the Presbyterie iudging in the name of the Church. Where all mē may see his meaning to bee this, viz. that the Presbyterie may excōmunicat, 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 [Page 47]king of Ministers. Whose sense and meaning is to be taken altogeather to that purpose likewise. In the Churches [...]am [...], that is, Executing the Churches [...]uthoritie and power, and doing that which they do with their free con­ [...]ent and approbation.

16. Chemnici [...]. Chemnicius, a man most famous & of [...]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 & Bar­ [...]abas invitis obtruserunt Presbyteros. Paul and Barnabas did not thrust Ministers on the Church being vnwilling, or without their [...]onsent. And, Exempla Aposiolica bistoria [...]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, & vete­ [...] 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 cōstituted according to Gods word. And he addeth, In our Churches it is so: meaning in those that follow Luther.

17. Whitake [...].Neither can I forget, that among [...]ur owne Country-men D. Whitaker [...]eacheth thus:De Cone [...]. pag. 44. Quod omnes attingit▪ ab [...]bus approbari debet. That which touch­eth [Page 48]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, these are enough.

CHAP. IIII. The publike consent of many late, yet excellent Churches, heerein with vs.

NEvertheles yet I will not spare to adde heerevnto also certain publike voyces of most fa­mous Churches. The Cōsestion of the Bohemian Churches hath these words,Bohemie. Confess. cap. [...]. Animarū Curatoribus & singulis Ecclesiasti­cis Cōmunitatibus (sive parvae sint sive magna) Claves concreditae sunt & concessae. Sic Domi­nus dixit Ecclesi [...]s, Amen dico vobis, quacun­que ligaveritis in teria, erunt ligata in coelo: & quaecunque solveritis in terra, erunt soluta in coelo. Et mox, Nam vbi duo aut tres con­gregati fuerint in nomine meo, ibi in medio eo­rum sum. The Keyes (that is, Ecclesiasti­cal [Page 49]governement) are given in trust and graunted to the Pastors and to every Ecclesia­sticall Communaltie (that is, ordinarie Congregation) whether they bee smal or great So the Lord said to the Churches: Veri­ly I say vnto you. Whatsoever you binde in earth shalbe bound in heaven: and whatsoe­ver you loose in earth, shalb [...] loosed in heaven. And by and by▪ For where two or three shalbe gathered togeather in my name, there am I in the middest of them.

The Helvetian Confession saith;Helvet. con­fess.. prior Artic, 17. Quae cùm vera Dei Electio sit, Ecclesiae suffragio & Sacer­dotis manuum impositione rectè comprobatur. Which when it is Gods true Electiō it is right­ly approoved by the Churches voyce-giving, and the laying on of handes of the Minister.

The Genevian Liturgie setteth downe expreslie,Genev. the peoples consent to be neces­sarie both in their Calling of Mini­sters, and Excommunication of im­penitent offenders. Beza also witnes­seth the same vse in the Elections at Geneva. and likewise in other places where there are free Churches. Saith he,Bez. de grad. Minist▪ cap 11. Presbyters heere are chosen not with­out the knowledge and consent of the people. So every where in other free Churches (accor­ding to the condition of the place) the like choice is made. Elswhere also he saith of the same thus:Annotat in Act. [...]4 2 [...]. Habemus nos Dei bene­fic [...]o certas nostrae vocationis notas, legitimo ab Ecclesijs nostris & vita & doctrinae testimonio [Page 50]ernati, & ab ȳsdemelects, ac demurn etia [...] in nostro ministerio confirmats. Cus Domia [...] (vt spero) e [...]ectis tum furibus, tum mercena­rijs benedicet. Wee have by Gods goodnes [...] certain notes of our Calling, having good te­stimo [...]e from our Churches both for our life and doctrine and being by them Chosen and Confirmed also in our Ministerie, Which I hope the Lord will blesse, when hee will ca [...] out both theeves and hirelings.

According to this order out of que­stion the Savoyan Churches,Savey. and the French also generally are constituted.French. Which the French Liturgie doth like­wise prove.

The Churches of Scotland (before the late wofull breaking off from their former consent) did approove the same publike Order of the Churches of France and Geneva aforesaid.Scottish.

Also the publike Order set forth in the Low countreis consenteth herewith.Belgi [...]. The Synod of Middelburgh Anno 15 [...]1. decreeth thus of the Chosing of Mini­sters:Arti [...]. Electio sit penes Ecclesiam, & fiat per suffiagium in templo publicè. Let the E­lection of the Ministers bee in the po­wer of the Church, and let it be done by voyces publikely in the Temple. Afterward they determine thus: Nulla Ecclesia, nullus Minister, Nullus Senior, nul­lu [...] Diaconus vllum [...]abeat primatum super alterum. No Church, no Minister, no Elder, [Page 51]no Deacon may have any kinde of primacie a­bove other.Chap 4.

The Synod of Tilleburgh in Nasovia Anno 1582,Nasson. receaveth these Points for them selves also: as Zepperus shew­eth in the end of his Politia Ecclesiastica.

There is a publike Order publ [...]ed in Middelburgh Anno 1602. (agreeing withall the former) which touching the Chosing of Ministers saith thus: The partie as chosen with the free consent of the Ministers, Elders, and the whole Congre­gation to be ordayned, is to frame his Sermon. &c. Touching Deposing of them thus: By the like authoritie as he was elected, he is to be Deposed. Touching Excommuni­cation thus: It is ordayned that nothing be attempted in that behalfe without the de­termination of the whole Congregation.

Wherevnto the Churches vnder the Palsgrave do agree,Palatin. in whose pu­blike Catechisme thus we read.In the end of part. [...]. The Church (by the commandement of Christ & his Apostles) vsing the Keyes ought t [...]o drive the wicked from this Supper, till they shall re­pent and change their maners. Which Vrsi­nus (the approved interpreter therof) doth shew to be with the peoples free consent, aspag. 41. before out of Vrsmus wee observed.

Finally,Other chur­ches. this same is allowed by those Churches also which follow Luther according to Chemnicius testimonie of [Page 52]thempag. 47. before alleaged:Chap. 5. where at least he signifieth that many of them do allow it. Which many other churches besides do also, whō here I name not.

Hitherto I have truly and plainly declared, as touching these later times) who they are who have ben our Maister▪ & Teachers in this mat­ter of the Church constitution & go­vernement, viz. that it ought to bee alwayes with the peoples free con­sent. Verily now it appeareth, I hope, that we neede not bee ashamed either of these noble lights of Religion, or of this doctrine which manifestly wee have learned and receaved from such worthies.

CHAP. V. The Testimonies and practise of the best Antiquitie, after the New Testament, heerein likewise with vs.

HOwbeit furthermore, that it may not bee thought noveltie or vnbeseeming Christian Re­ligion, (although no honest mā will once think so of any thing which such a vniforme cōsent of so renow­ned late Christians doth iustifie, yet) I iudge it very cō venient to produce [Page 53]also some testimonies of the most an­cient times of Christianitie after the Apostles downe-ward, even while a­nie soundnes of the Gospell did open­ly shew it selfe in the world. I say, such testimonies I purpose hee [...]e to shew of famous Christians as have ben alwayes continually after the A­postles, by which the practise of the peoples free consent in their Church governement is approoved: yea in peace as well as in persecution, till the tyrannie of Antichrist would beare it no longer in any publike state. And this (God willing) I shall performe in this maner.

To begin therefore, we will first ob­serve the Church of Ierusalems practise in this point immediatly after the de­cease of the Apostle Iames that dyed there, as Eusebius recordeth. Saith [...]ee;Ann [...] circô­ter 70. Euseb 3.10 After Iames was dead it is reported that the Apostles & Disciples out of all places (neare about Ierusalem) came togeather into one, and tooke counsaill togeather who might bee iudged worthy to su [...]ceed in Iames his pla [...]e. Therefore all with one consent did thinke Si­meon the sonne of Cleophas meet and able to have the governement of the Church there. And againe out of Egesippus;4. [...]1. After that Iames was slame, Simeon the so [...]e of Cleophas was made Bishop: whom in t [...]ese­cond place all the Disciples appointed by voy­ces [Page 54]to that governement. This was the first & most notable exāple of the Christi­ans pract se in this matter, neither cā [...] we read of any neerer to the Apostles after the times of the New Testamēt, then this. Also wee see it was in the very Mother Church of all Christia­nitie. Wherefore this order of Calling to the ministerie, rather then any la­ter, is most worthy, yea necessary to be observed and imitated by vs every where and for ever. The like we read of there againe, thus:6 [...]. Anno 205. When Narcissi [...] (the Bishop) had withdrawne him­selfe & was gone no man knew whi­ther, they who governed the neigh­bour Churches thought good to make another Bishop. But how? By the peo­ples voyces. And so Dius was chosen. Af­terward Narcissus returning, the Bre­thren desired him to take again [...] the governement of the Church. Vnto whom was adioyned Alexander for his fellow, the people of Ierusalem with the common consent of the neighbour Bishops constrayning him necessarily to tary with them. These were the meanes that made these Ministers.

Ignatius of Antioch teacheth, and saith to the Church at Philadelphia, thatIgnat. ad Philad. It was me [...]te for them as being a Church of God,Anno 112. by voices to chose their Bishop. [...] [Page 55]It can not be denied, but that this writer sheweth in the word [...], that is. Lifting vp of hands [...]n thepeoples voyce giving, that Elections of Ministers were then made by the peoples free choyce. Seeing he signify­eth Ordination and Laying on of handes, by another proper word, viz. [...].

The practise of the Church of Rome was also the same in this matter.Anno 240. Of which we read,Euseb, 6.2 & "When all the Bre­thren were come togeather in the Church for the purpose to chose a Bi­shop (whose place now was voyd) the whole people with one consent cryed that Fa­bianus was worthy of that dignitie, and pre­sently he was placed in the same. Afterward againe we read of Cornelius that he was chosen in like maner. For so writeth Cyprian of him, saying:Cyprian. Epist. 4.2. Factus est Corne­lius Episcopus de Dei & Christs eius iudicio, de plebis (qua tune affuit) suffragio, &c. Cornelius was made Bishop by the iudgement of God and his Christ by the voyce giving of the people which was then present. &c In an other place also he saith, Hee was3.13. de Dei iudtcio & Cleri ac Plebis suffragio ordi­natus: Ordayned by the iudgement of God, and by the voyces of the Clergie and people.

The practise of the Church of Car­thage was the same,Anno [...]5 [...]. as Cyprian also (spea­king of him self) sheweth, saying that [Page 56]he was chosenCyprian. Epist. 1.3. Populi vniversi suffragio in pace, by the voyce-giving of the whole peo­ple in peace, and quietly: also he calleth this1.8. their voyce giving, Gods iudgement. And he writeth of another Church in Afrike at Legio (as we may gather) that there one Sabinus was made Bishop1.4. de vniversae fraternstatis suffragio, by the voyce-giving of the whole brotherhood, and by the iudgement of the Bishops that were come to­geather.

But above all other, that place in Cyprian is singular for our purpose, where his owne iudgement and sen­tence with many other Bishops be­sides, is to bee noted concerning this power and right of the people. It is in this same Epistle a litle before, thus:Ibidem. viz. 1.4. Plebs obsequens praeceptis Dominicis & De­um metuens a peccatore praeposito separate se debet, nec se ad sacrilegi Sacerdotis sacrificsa miscere, cum ipsa maximè babeat poteslatem vel eligendi dignos Sacerdotes, vel indignos re­cusandi. Quod & ipsum videmus de Divina authoritate descendere. &c. A people obey­ing the Lords Commandementes and fearing God ought to separate them selves from a wic­ke [...] Minister, and not ioyne them selves to the Divine Service of a Sacrilegious Priest, seeing they (the people) chiefly have power to chose worthy Ministers and to refuse vnwor­thy ones. Which thing also we see cometh fi [...] [Page 57]Divine authoritie &c. Lo what Cyprians iudgement is of the peoples power & right in the making of Ministers. He with divers other his fellow-Bishops doth heere professe that it cometh frō Divine authoritie.So before he called it Gods iud­gement and his Christes. What can be more full and absolute to our purpose, then this?

The same also he holdeth touching the peoples power in Church cēsures. As where he willeth Stephan Bishop of Rome to writeEpist. 3.14. ad plebem Arelate consi­stentem, to the people at Arles in France. His intent is heere that their Novati­an Bishop Martianus should bee remo­ved and another set in his place by them togeather with Stephans helpe. And elswhere touching one Victor a Presbyter fallen from the Church & returned againe, Cyprian greatly misli­keth & rebuketh Therapius the Bishop for receaving him3.8. sine petitu & consci­entia plebis, without the desire & knowledge of the people: and adviseth him that hee do so no more. And as touching him­selfe hee sheweth in many places his owne constant practise to be such al­so.Or, without the desire &c conscience of the people. First of some rash and proud Pres­byters hee saith, if they persisted in their scandalous behaviour, they should answer it3.14. apud plebe vniversam, before all the people, as iudges with him­selfe [Page 58]& others of their misdemeanor. Againe writing severally to his peo­ple about some that desired to bee re­conciled to the Church at Carthage, he saith,3.16. Examinabuntur singula praese itibus & iudicantibus vobis: Every thing shalbe ex­amined, you (the people) being present and iudging of it. And thus hee meaneth where he saith hee must3.1 [...]. dispomere om­nia consilij communis religione, disoose all things by a religious observing of such com­mon advise. Lo, he putteth & acknow­ledgeth Religion heerein And therfore it is, that to a few Presbyters of his Church, who had written to him be­ing then absent from Carthage about som of his church affaires, he saith; He could not so much as write backe to thē therof.3.10. Seeing he had determined to do no­thing privatly of his owne minde without the Presbyters counsaill and the peoples consent, And promiseth that when hee should returne he will handle matters in com­mon, both such as were past while hee was absent, and also such as were to come after his returne. Yea and ther­fore in an other place he saith:3.19. Pra­iudicare ego, & solum mihi rem communem vendicare non audeo. I dare not praeiudge, and take to my selfe alone common matters Adde vnto this that he saith also, [...].4. Apud nos quoque, & ferè per Provincias vniversas te­ [...]etur: Thus custome and practise is ob­served [Page 59]with vs at Carthage, & almost through out all Provinces.

By all which it is manifest that D. Bilson vainly answereth, that Cyprian did yeeld to the people their free cō ­sent in the Church-governement out ofD. Bil [...]. perpet gover. pag. 171. 176. a private moderation, and but of his owne free will. Nay, he saith (as wee heard) that he durst not do otherwise, and that he observed it out of religi­on, and that this power of the people cometh from Divine authoritie. Yea doubtles, such a generall and perpe­tuall custome, even from the Apostles times, and appearing in the Apostles practise also (as the New Testament sheweth) can not be in Cypriaen a privat moderation only, but even an vn­changeable law. Neither is that anie truer where hee saith, thatPag. 178. Cyprian him selfe was the first that cas [...]iered his owne confession, Pag. 18 [...]. and brake that custome. Hee brake it not: Hee did not cassier his owne confession. Though that is a thing not impossible. Cyprian is not so persit, but hee might thus faile tho­rough affection to him selfe: and yet his former testimonies of the peoples right and power afore said may be (as they are) most true. But as I said, Cy­priā neverbrake this his own & others custome. Verily as touching the sub­stance [Page 60]of the matter he never brake it. What instances hath hee against vs? Saith he, Cyprian without the people madeEpist. 4.5. Celerinus, 2 5. Aurelius, and3.22. Satu­rus Readers: and Optatus a Subdeacon. What of this? None of these come in­to our question. Wee have no care of making Readers and Subdeacons. But without the people he made4.10. Numidi­cus a Presbyter. The place sheweth no such matter; nor yet that he was made Presbyter then. But rather being ab­sent hee sheweth the Presbyters and people at Carthage, that Numidicus was to be made a Presbyter. Saying in the future tence, Et promovebitur quidem dum tempus permiserit, ad ampliorem locum religi­onis suae, cum in presentia, protegente Domin [...], venerimus. He shalbe promoted, when wee shall come in presence among you. So that he saith not, that hee alone had nowe made him a Presbyter. Beside, it is most manifest in all these places that Cyprian shewed a speciall care to have the peoples liking and free consent to all which hee did: and that in his ab­sence hee would attempt not anie thing, but that which he presumed & was sure of that their liking was to it as much as his own. So that he ma­keth it apparant even heere, that hee would do none of these things a­gainst [Page 61]their wills. Which is all that we seeke also in our assertiō, as touching the substance of it, as before we have often shewed. Last of all, hee saith of Numidicus, that he was to bee a Presby­ter dignatione Divinâ, by Gods speciall Divine will: and that Celerinus, and Au­relius had their places so I kewise. But we speake of no such extraordina [...]e & Divine calling. This also toucheth not our question. We holde the peo­ples right of giving consent to be on­ly for the ordinarie callings in the Ministerie. D. Bilson further vrgeth that Cyprian receaved some into the ChurchPag. 17 [...] without the peoples consent: yea when the people withstood it, because hee saith in one place, † Vix plebi persuade [...], immo extorqueo, I scarce persuade the people,Epist. 1.3. or rather I wring it from them. &c. And obni­tente plebe & contradicente, I receaved thē the people striving against it, & gainsaying it. I answer, Seeing hee saith, I scarce per­suade the people, therefore they were persuaded & did cōsent to his minde. Indeed he sheweth that this matter was hardly gotten at their handes, yea a whilè they spake against it: but they were persuaded at last, and so in con­clusiō thei agreed to do as he thought good. Thus hee did not this thing plainly and simply without the peo­ples [Page 62]consent, or against their w [...]s sim­ply: but with their consent & ag [...]ee­ment, so as I said. Whereby it appea­reth how frivolous exceptions are ta­ken against Cyprians concurrence and correspondence with vs in this cause: whose most cleere, and vnanswerable, and frequent speaking on our part heerein, we have seene before.

Now only one place more I will note in him describing fully his ordi­narie practise in Church governemē [...], and may bee a singular example and patterne for vs. Epist. 3.11. shewing how he receaved againe certaine p [...]e­nitents who had schismed from the Church. He saith thereof first;3.11. Omni actu ad me perlato placuit cōtrahi Presbyte [...]ū: Every act of their repētāce being brought vnto me, I thought good to call togeather he Presbyterie or Eldership. Whether heere were any Lay Elders in this Presby­teric, or whether all were ordinarie Ministers of the Word and Sacra­mentes, it is nothing materiall. Though D. Bilson and D. Downame do make all their sturre about this que­stion, yet as I said (even in thepag. 11. 12. 23. en­trance of this Treatise) it is nothing to the substance of the controversie betweene vs: but it is impertinent & [Page 63]from the maine purpose altogeather. To passe this therefore: Secondly Cy­prian in this place addeth, His ita gestis in Presbyterium venerunt, &c. Then the pe­ [...]ntentes came into the Eldership, earnestly praying that the things they had committed might be forgotten, &c. Thirdly, Quod e­ [...]at consequens, omnis hic actus populo fuerat [...]nsinuandus. It remayned, that all this action was to be signifyed to the people Magnus fra­ [...]ernitatis concursus factus est. There was a great Meeting of the brethren. Vna vox eras [...]mnium. Maximum Presbyterum locum su­um agnoscereiussimus. Caeteros cum ingenti po­puli suffragio recepimus. There was one voyce of vs all. We willed Maximus the Presbyter to know his place. The rest we receaved with a great voycegiving of the people allowing it. Heere we see what place and order & consent the people vnder Cyprian had in the ordinarie Church governemēt. Certainly it is a plaine example, and right worthie to bee followed of vs. And so much concerning Cyprian is sufficient,

A while after this time,Antioch. at Antioch the neighbour Bishops comming to­geather,Anno 27 [...]. do acknowledge that even the Churches thereabouts cōcurred and ioyned with them in the act of Ex­communicating & deposing Paul the Bishop there, and in ordayning Dom­nus [Page 64]in his roome. This they signifie i [...] the title of theirEuseb 7.24. Epis [...]le which they all togeather do write about this mat­ter. Now questionles among these Churches, the Church (that is, the peo­ple) of Antioch it selfe were the prin­cipall in this action. For they were the proper Body of which that wic­ked Bishop was the proper Ministerial Head also there the Meeting about his deposing, was helde; & they were they which were speciallie grieved with him, who yet for feare of his pride and tyrannie durst not them­selves alone accuse him, as it is there signified. The point is, we see heere at Antioch the Churches (that is, the peo­ples) concurrence and consent with other Bishops and Teachers neare ad­ioyning, in the Excommunication & Deposition of one, and in Ordayning to them selves another Bishop.

After this againe the Councill of Nice decreed,Concil. Ni­cen. that the people should chose their Minister, as appeareth where they say,Anno. 330. If any Church Mini­ster dye, let one of the Chuch succede in his place, so that he seeme fit, and be chosen of the people, and the Bishop consent, and confirme the peoples election. Socrat. 1.6. This order was written by this Councill,Theodoret. 1.9. name­ly to the Alexādrian Churches, because [Page 65]of a particular occasion, but it served as a rule generally for all places as the Councill was generall. Which doth plainly appeare by that which after­ward the Councill of Constantinople did inTheodores. [...].9. observing this Nicen ordinance as an order belonging to them.

About the yeare 420. the fourth Councill of Carthage decreed thus:Concil. Car­tha. 4 C [...]n 22 Au c [...]c. 420. E­ [...]pus sine Concilio Clericorum su [...]rum Cle­ [...]s non ordinet; ita vt Civium assensum, & [...]ventiam, & testimonium quarat. Let [...] a Bishop ordayne any Clergie-man wich­out an assemblie of his Clergie: so that let him [...]eke the peoples consent, and connivence, and Mimonie. This Canon will have Mi­nisters made in no wise without the peoples consent, contentment, & te­stimonie of their worthines. Heere D. Downame with little shew, but with great falshood turneth this word Et and, into Or: saying assent, or connivence, where he should say assent and cōnivence, asPag 24.25. before I brieflie touched. Where­by he would make the Council seeme to meane that either of these was suf­ficient in the making of Ministers, & that their assent was not simply neces­sarie: but if they did connive or hold their peace, the Councill was content and required no more. But both the present wordes, and all circumstances of these times do plainly declare that [Page 66]the Councill heere requireth in ma­king Ministers, the peoples expresse consent, and testimonie also of their worthines, as before I noted. Of these times Calvin saith thus:Insti [...]. 4.4.10. Cum paroch [...] no vt Presbyters destinabantur, tunc loci mul­titudinem nominatim consentire oportuit. When new Presbyters were appointed to the parishes then the people of the place must con­sent expresly.

This, with the rest of the Councill [...] of Carthage, was confirmed in the gene­rall Council of Constantinople holden in Trullo about the yeare of Christ 682.Con [...]ll. Con­stantinop. A [...]. 682. Wherefore so long, & longer also wee may well thinke, particular Congre­gations kept their spirituall right and power in this behalfe. Which Calvin saith was such, that though the Go­vernors somtimes did of them selves first chose, and then brought the mat­ter to the people, yetInstie. 4.4.1 [...]. they (the peo­ple) were not bound to those foreiudgemēts. And when the Church was deprived of this her right, it is by him called Impia Ecclesia spoliatie, quoties alicui popul [...] ingeritur Episcopus quem non petierit, aut sal­tem liberâ voce approbarit. It is an vngodly robbing of the Church so often as a Pastor is putvpon any people whom they havenot de­sired, or at least approved by free voyce. I grant by this time many great pre­parations were made to bring in that Antichristian apostasie and tyrannie, [Page 67]which afterward followed and over­flowed every where. Howbeit yet thus long the Churches even by pu­blike lawes retayned their life: at least wise that iniurie and violence & spi­rituall robbery & tyranny which af­terward prevayled against them, as yet was not generall.

It is to no purpose heere to inquire whē or by whom this wrong first en­tered; I meane, this withholding frō the people of God their free consent in spirituall governement. It is suffi­cient that we see this their freedome to be Apostolicall: also to bee taught and observed in the Christian Chur­ches next succeeding the Apostles, yea even till after the time that Anti­christ began the desolation of abho­minarion, which since hath ben eve­ry-where set vp, & with strong hand maintayned. Also, that wee see the most vndoubted instruments of God in these later times so cleerely to a­vouch this most singular meanes of overthrowing Antichrist, and so ear­nestly to defend it, as they do, viz. as if without it there were neither any way to repell him at first, nor securi­tie afterward for vs to stand long a­gainst his vncessant indeavours, la­bouring still to returne and tyrannise over our soules againe.

This, I say, is sufficient for our pre­sent purpose at this time and in this place. Which also being well conside­red, can not but cause every honest man to mourne and sigh before the Lord, beholding this foundation of pietie and godly life to be so despised, yea so maligned, and resisted, as by ma­ny it is now amōg our selves, where the Gospell is, and hath ben enter­tayned (thankes be to God) these ma­ny yeares. Frō which most iust cause of griefe it proceedeth also necessarily that we cannot but opē our mouthes (as we do) to beare witnes in the be­halfe of this cause of Christ, being al­so the only true and assured meanes which doeth most nearely concerne vs (as we wel vnderstand) in the mat­ter of the salvation of our soules. And so much touching this point.

Only this moreovet for a Conclu­sion I desire may be hoere noted, the ground whereof I take out of our ad­versaries. Namely, Whatsoever the whole Church militant ever since the Apostles, hath held, and was not instituted by Councills but hath ben alwayes retayned, that is most right­ly believed to be delivered by the Apostles.

The whole Church Militant over since the Apostles hath held the peoples consent in then owne Church governement, & it was nor in­stituted [Page 69]by Councills, but it bath ben alwaye, retained.

Therefore the peoples consent in their owne Church governement is most rightly believed to bee delivered and ordained by the Apo­stles.

The first Proposition is our adver­saries.p [...]rp [...] go­vern. pag. 258. D. Bilson and † D. Downame do much magnifie it out ofSerm pag. 56. 57. Defen. 4 Austin. And we acknowledge it to bee true. The Assumption is proved heere before in this 5. Chapter so fully and plentiful­ly as any thing can be by Humane re­cords and testimonies. For wee have none extant better thē these, At least by these it is prooved so fully as our adversaries do intend in the Proposi­tion. Wherefore the Conclusion is most certain and cleere against them, viz. that the peoples consent in their owne Church governement is an in­stitution and ordinance of the Apost­les. Whence also consequently it will follow, that those textes of Scripture vsually alleadged for proofe of the same,mentioned also pag. 76. and which I have to that pur­ [...]ise handled in my 3. and 9. Argu­mentes of the Divine beginning and insti­tution of Christes Visible and Ministeriall Church, do well shew and testifie to vs so much.

CHAP. VI. Our very Adversaries do acknow­ledge with vs the truth of this doc­trine, sometimes in plaine termes,Chap. 6. and sometimes to the same full effect; spe­cially when they deale against the Pa­pistes.

THE force and evidence of this truth, (viz. touching the peo­ples right for their free consent in Church governement) is such, that also our very Adversaries sometimes in plaine termes, sometimes to the same full effect do acknowledge it. Among many, I will content my selfe with two for the present, viz. D. Bil­son, and D. Downame. The first of these in his Answer to the Apologie of the Seminarie Pristes and Iesuits writeth thus:D. Bila. a­gainst the Se­minar. part. 2 353.356. We have the words and warrant of the H. Ghost for that which we say &c. viz. That the people can and ought to disceme and trie the doctrine and spirits of the Teachers, &c so to chose and refuse thē as they by the word should see good. Thus saith hee. And what can be spoken by any of our sel­ves more plainly, and more fully to our purpose? If the people can and ought to chose their Teachers, and to refuse whom they finde worthy to be refused, then why are they not allow­ed [Page 71]so to do in England? If the wordes and warrant of the holy Ghost be for it, then who may impeach it? Who may resist it? What are they that re­vile and persecute this way? Hee ad­deth heere in this place that the peo­plePag. 355. have skill and leave to discerne both, viz. to discerne the Teachers & their doctrine. Where also hee discourseth much vpon this right of the people as being Christes ordināce, and presseth it against the Papistes. Yea, in another booke where he pleadeth to the con­trarie purpose against vs, yet hee wri­teth thus:Perpet gov. pag 300. *The Apostles left Elections in­differently to the people and Clergie of Ieru­salem The people had as much right to chose their Pastor as the Clergie that had more skill to iudge.Pag 339. Well may the peoples interest stand vpon the grounds of Reason & Nature, and be derived from the rules of Christian e­quitie.Pag. 359. The late Bishops of Rome have not ceased cursing and fighting, till excluding both Prince and people they reduced the Elec­tion wholy to the Clergie. But hee telleth them, that by their leave, (applying heerevnto the wordes of Christ Mat. 19. 8.) it was not so from the beginning. Againe hee saith,Pag. 330. I a knowledge each Church and people stand fr [...]e by Gods law to admit, maintaine, and obey no man as their Pastor without their liking. Where in deed he addeth to the contrarie, vnles by law, custome, or consent they restraine them­selves. [Page 72]But this he him selfe els-where answereth roundly;Pag. 221. What authoritie had others after the Apostles deathes, to chāge the Apostolike governement? And that it was not so from the beginning (which before he answered) is a full confuta­tion also of this exception. As also where he calleth Mens ordinances in Church governementPag. 19. Corruptions of times inventions of Men, and a transgressing of the Commandement of God for the tradi­tions of men. And where he calleth such ordinancesPag. 111. intrusion, and presumption.

As for that he saith elswhere in this booke,Pag 82. the Multitude (hee meaneth the Christian people) neither could not can iudge of the giftes and abilities of Pastors no more then blind men of colours. This sheweth plainly his variable minde & contradiction to him selfe. As for the matter, it is spoken meerely out of an humour, and partialitie against vs, and that his Lordship in spirituall things over Christes people might be stablished. But before against the maine adversaries of the Gospell (the Papistes) he taught the truth, as the Scripture there alleaged doth shew: but heere in this last place he turneth about, & ioyneth with them, rather then he would seeme to consent with vs. Nevertheles his former most cleere and syncere testimonie on our [Page 73]behalfe can not be blotted out.

Againe in the same booke speaking of Bishops, in plaine termes thus hee saith,pag. 340. They have no power to impose a Pa­stor on any Church against their willes, nor to force them to yeeld him obedience or mainte­nance against their liking. If this were in­genuously acknowledged and profes­sed, & practised likewise religiously, we should desire no more for the sub­stance of the matter, as it hath ben of­ten saide. Our agreement togeather touchinge Church-governement, would soone appeare. But he, when he listeth, will tell vs that Timothie and T [...]s (whom hee esteemeth Bishops) had power to make Presbyters to Churches (and the Apostles also)pag. 88. without the people, or their consent. Wherefore what to reckon of his say­ings and speaches, we know not. On­ly his foresaid agreement with vs in wordes, is manifest.

Next to him wee will consider of Doctor Downame. He in a certain place (though it seemeth full sore against his will, yet through the force of the truth being compelled) acknowled­geth and yeeldeth vnto vs, thatD Down. Def. 4.99. the power of ordination and iurisdiction by right is seated in the whole Church or Congregati­on in case of necessitie: wherein both the suc­cession of their owne Clergie fayling and the helpe of others wanting, the right is devolved [Page 74]to the whole body of the Church. In which words I desire all men to observe how this Doctor graunteth vs the cause in full effect, and agreeth wholy to our purpose. For that which heere hee saith, and which necessarilie follow­eth from these wordes, is all that we [...] desire. Wherefore I pray the Christi­an Reader to marke well these seaven Consequentes which follow frō these wordes of D. Downame, and cannot be denyed by any honest and true-hear­ted Christian.

• First, in that he holdeth that the power of ordination and iurisdiction by right is seated in the particular Congrega­tion in case of necessitie, it is certain ther­fore that he must hold that this right and power is seated in the whole par­ticular Congregation by Christ, and by the ordinance of God. For no per­son or persons can at any time nor in any respect have such power by Mans ordinance. It can not bee either Na­turally or Civilly given or receaved. Wherefore in whom soever that po­wer is seated, & at what time soever, doubtles, it is in them Supernatural­ly: God by his speciall grace giveth it, and Christ by his holy ordinance sea­teth it in them. Yea though it bee in any case of necessitie whatsoever. For thus it is written:
  Iob 3. [...]7
  A man can receave nothing, except it be given him from heaven. That is, No dignitie, no authoritie, no [Page 75]power in the Church can be, but from God. And it is spoken absolutly tou­ching all times, places, and persons, without any limitation. The like proofe is that also in another text, viz.
  Hebr. 9. [...]
  No man taketh this honour to him selfe but be that is called of God as Aaron was. But I wil presse this no further. For I sup­pose every Christian advised will ac­knowledge it, and I have shewed it at large in a speciall treatise for the pur­pose, viz. The Divine beginning and institution of Christes true visible, & Ministeriall Church.
• Secondly, If 2 Chist him selfe have seated the power of Ordination and Iurisdiction in the whole Cōgregation at any time, then it is certain that so much is contai­ned some-where in the New Testa­ment. This is no Vnwritten Traditi­on, neither can be by any meanes, if Christ him selfe be the Author heere­of, as before we have seene that he is.
• Thirdly, This being contayned, in the 3 New Testament, viz. that, Christ him selfe hath seated the power of ordina­tion & iurisdiction in the whole bo­dy of a particular Cōgregation in the case of necessitie, it is certain then that it is contained in those speciall places which (after many other wor­thy Divines) I have to this purpose [Page 76]cited and alleaged in the third and 9. Arguments of my forenamed Trea­tise of the Divine beginning and institu [...] of Christs true visible, & Ministerial Church. For there can bee no other instance shewed, at least, none can bee shewed of any other tenor then those are. Which speciall places are these: Math. 18.17. and 1. Cor. 5.13. & 2. Thes. 3.14. and 2. Co. 2.8. Also Act. 14.23. Act. 6.3.5.6. Act. 1.23.26. and Act. 15.22.25.28. as it appeareth in the foresaid Ar­guments of the said Treatise. 4
• Fourth­ly, 4 these places of Christes Testament shewing that Christ hath seated the power of ordination and iurisdiction in the whole particular Cōgregation, thē it must needes be that these shew the said whole Congregation to have that power and right not in the case of necessitie only, but even alwayes at all seasons. This likewise can­not be denyed. For in these speciall places there is no restraint of this po­wer and right in the Congregation, no abridging thereof, no tying it to the case of necessitie only: but they shew it to be in the people from God indefinitly and without limitation. Neither is it otherwise to be found in Christes Testament any where els. Wherefore by no meanes may men restraine that which God hath given [Page 77]indefinitly: Nor take that away from [...]is people at any time, which he hath given them simply.
  2. Cor 2.24.
  What is proud [...]lesh and bloud to inhibit or lessen Christs vnlimited free graunt & gra­cious gift to his Church? Or how can our soules rest assured, whē we yeeld to such presumption of men? Where­vpon wee may fee that this restrai­ning clause of our Doctor heere added, that this acknowledgement of his is not true of any particular Congregation but in pase of necessitie, is both a false and absurd addition. False, as beeing contrary to the generalitie of those speciall places of Christes Testament above mentio­ned: absurd, as implying by necessary consequence a contradiction to him­selfe in one & the same sentence. For his present acknowledgement (such as it is) implyeth the contrary to this his limitation by necessarie conse­quence, as before in this fourth point I have shewed.
• Fiftly, this power of Ordination and Iurisdiction being by 5 Christ seated in the whole Congrega­tion, and that alwayes, surely then it must needs be in them only. And so I vnderstand in another place
  Decla [...] Pag. [...]. 35.
  where I say that this power is cōvertible with the Cōgregation. I affirme therefore that this power indeed is onely in the whole Congregation. Although D. [Page 78]D. Downame hath skill to go two ways to Heaven (for the true Church-go­vernemēt is the way to heavē) yet our good, holy, and wise God approoveth but one way; as where he saith:
  Isa. 30.21
  This is the way, walke ye in it. Turne not therefrom, neither to the right hande, nor to the less. And where Christ saith,
  Ioh. 14.6.
  I am the way, the truth, and the life. He alloweth simply but one way, even that which is his owne ordinance, and none other. Vas via, vna veritas. One way, one truth. Also, Veritas simplex, error autem multiplex. Truth is but one, Error is manifold. Wherefore it can not be, but the power of Ordina­tion and Iurisdiction being by Christ seated in the whole Congregation, it is also only in them.

Heere the adversaries thinke they have a great advantage against vs. They say, it appeareth in the Scrip­ture that1. Tim. 5.22. Tamothie andTit. 1.5. Titus had po­wer of Ordination and iurisdiction. Therefore only the Cōgregations had not that power.

I answer; This consequence is vt­terly false: it followeth not at all. For Timothie & Titus had the power of Or­dination and iurisdiction with the Congregations,Now the Cō ­gregatiō on­ly had power. not without them. Being partes of them and being pre­sent in them for the time; not being personally out of them, or absent frō [Page 79]them; So as the L. Bishops do exercise their power in England Againe, as Paul saith to the Corinthians, that2 Cor [...].24. he was not [...] Lord over, their faith, but a helper to them for their [...]oy: So these, viz. Timothia and Titus in the Congregations were not Lords but they were Helpers to them in the managing of these affaires. They did not alone without the Congregations concurrence what them­selves listed: but they ordered & gui­ded the Congregations in this their busines as Directors, and chiefe Coun­sellors, and as the most worthie to bee Actors thereof for them. And the like was the power of the Apostles al­so towards the Congregations. It was such (I say) and none other. Indeed in their Doctrine and teaching they by them selves alone instructed them, & sometime commaunded them in the name of Christ: but in outward go­vernement they did not any thing a­lone, or Lordly, that is, without the Congregations free consent. Where­fore much rather the power of all or­dinarie true Bishops and Pastors is such, and no greater. They have po­wer of Ordination and iurisdiction, but yet evermore with the Congre­gations presence and free consent, as their instruments doing their actes in the Churches name, and by their au­thoritie; [Page 80]not in their owne name, no [...] solely as Lords. So it remayneth evi­dent, that Bishops primitively, yea & Timothie and Titus, and the Apostle [...] themselves had power of ordinarie Church governement: and yet the Congregations only had this power. Because they evermore were partes of the Congregations in them, when they had and vsed their power. 6 Sixt­ly, it followeth also necessarily from hence that the power of Ordination and iurisdiction is in the body of the Congregation Substantially, Essenti­ally, and Fundamentally after Christ; and the Congregation may bee truly said in such respect. to do & performe those actions: the Bishops and Guides do these actions Instrumentally and Ministerially, and no otherwise then in the Congregations name, and by their authoritie, as is before noted. Whence it is that Doct. Downame heere saith truly, the succession of their owne Clergie fayling, and the helpe of others wan­ting the right is devolved to the whole body of the Church. If the Doctor will reply & say, that this power and right is not essentially in the whole Congregation alwayes nor at all times, but some­times only, that is, in the case of ne­cessitie aforesaid. I answer, then the D. folly, and want of true reason will [Page 81]be manifest to all men. For what so­ever is essentiall to any thing at some­time, is essentiall to the same alwayes and evermore. That which is essenti­all once, is essentiall still. So that if the Congregations power & right to consent in making of Ministers & in Censures be essentiall at sometime (as he acknowledgeth it is) then certainly it is essentiall therein at all times and evermore. The truth heereof can ne­ver be denyed. And hence it is that Luther saieth, If Titus would not,Luth. de Mi­nistr Eccles. instit prop [...] finem. the Congregation might ordaine Mini­sters to them selves. And of Excom­munication Zuinglius saith,Artic. 31. Non quod solus Episcopus hac facere debeat, quisque hoc [...]est, si Episcopus fuerit negligens. Any man may do this, if the Bishop be negligent. Hee meaneth any Man appointed by the Church may do it. In which respect also that sentēce of Epiphanius thatEpiph. haere [...] 75. Bi­ [...]ops can beget Fathers to the Church, but Presbyters can not, is to be refused as vn­true and erroneous. For before wee have seene that only the Cōgregation doth beget Fathers (that is, maketh Ministers) essentially, the Bishop doth it but instrumentally and Ministeri­ally. And so a Presbyter may do it as well as he whom they name a Bishop: yea any other also may do it (as Luther and Zuinglius before affirme) when the [Page 82]Church imployeth them to that vs [...] Our two Doctors before cited (even a [...] the Papistes also do) hold strongly with those wordes of [...]aere [...]. 75. Epephanius, to the great preiudice of the Gospel. But their bare opinions, & names are no­thing to our cleere and certain reason for the contrarie before set downe. Neither are the bare opinions and na­ked names of any other men whoso­ever, any better worth. Seventhly [...] 7 last of all, hence it foloweth (so, that it can not bee denyed) that seeing th [...] whole Cōgregation doth always give the Calling of ordinary Ministers es­sentially, therfore the whole Congre­gation ought alwayes of necessitie t [...] give their free consent to their Mini­ster, at least so farre foorth that non [...] bee imposed on them whether they will or no. The like also is to bee sai [...] of their power in iurisdiction. And these pointes wee must imagine that they are acknowledged and held by D. Downame, or surely that hee ought to acknowledge them all; seeing by force of true reason they al do follow from those his wordes which he affir­meth & holdeth, as before I have de­clared. Now this is all that wee pro­fesse touching the pleoples right t [...] Church government. For we deni [...] not but in the ordinarie, & peaceable▪ [Page 83]and right state of the Church when al things are caried well, the chief di­ [...]ection & sway of the whole govern­ment belongeth to the Bishop or Pa­ [...]tor; the people beeing on their part [...]o hearken to their Teacher & to fol­ [...]ow their Guide obediently & dutie­ [...]ully.D. Down. De [...] 1.41. Their power to iudge and to provide otherwise for themselves be­ing, whē they see their Guides to faile. Which seeing it is his minde also, set downe in his owne words before re­ [...]earsed, I have truly affirmed that [...]ouching our present cause even this Doctor agreeth with vs sometime in [...]ull effect, & by good consequence of [...]eason from his expresse wordes. Though at other times he do, as some report Cicero said to Salust, Orat. [...] Cicer. [...] Salust, Aliud stans, [...]d sedens de repub. sentis. Of the common [...]ealth thou thinkest one thing standing, ano­ther sitting. Of Christes Visible Church and the governement thereof, verily our Doctor doth likewise.

CHAPTER VII. Chap. 7. Consequences of greatest impor­tance following vpon the peoples free cōsent in their Church governement, & inconveniences in Religion not suf­ferable following from the contrary.

AFter the forerehearsed Witnes­ses for this Doctrine, we wil now shewe certain cleere and necessa­rie Consequences which follow from the same: also some true and great In­conveniences (to faith, and godly life, and to Civill authoritie) such as are not to be tolerated, which yet cannot be avoyded where men professing to be Christians, imbrace not this point. Of all fortes I wil heere observe eight great and waightie Consequentes heere­vpon.

First this being receaved as the Or­dinance of Christ and the practise of the Apostles,1. Cōsequent that the Church governe­ment ought to be alwayes with the peoples free consent, it followeth that every Church is onlyAs is also shewed in the Declaration pag. 12. 13. 14. 35. one ordinarie Congregation and not any proper Diocesan or Pro­vinciall Church, or larger. Vnderstan­ding alwayes the peoples free consent to be orderly, & conveniently taken [Page 85]and practised, so as Christ intendeth that1. Cor. 14.40. every thing should bee done in his Church. For where the peoples free consent is orderly and conveni­ently practised alwayes in the Church governement, there the Body of the Church can not be so large as a Dio­cese, much lesse as a Province or Na­tion, and least of all so large as a Vni­versall Church. Seeing all this people can not possibly by any meanes give their free consent in the ordinarie Church-governement (neither can any person take it of all them) iustly, orderly, and conveniently. This (to say the truth) is not possible. For in such a state when onely some maine partes of the Church governement are exercised, it will bee alwayes with much defect, and also with great di­sturbance, and tumult oftentimes I say, where it is extended so largely, & so wide, & with concurrence of such multitudes of people.

This is true, first in very reason: and withall often experience hath shewed it in former times vnder most Chri­stian & carefull Princes after the Ni­cen Councill; as at Alexandria, at Anti­och, at Rome, at Constantinople, and in in­finite places mo, a great part whereof theEuse [...]. Socrat. Zozome [...]. Theodoret. Evagrius. Stories doe record. In which Church actions though done with to [Page 86]inconvenient libertie of the people, yet the greatest part of the people whō the effect of those businesses rea­ched vnto were absent, and so wanted their right; & those which were pre­sent were full of confusion, and tu­mult: neither could it be otherwise. But God is the God of equitie, of or­der, and of peace. Wherefore this dis­order can nor be fit for Gods Church. And so neither can a Diocesan circu­it,R [...]as. for re­form. p. 26.27 or larger; in which this disorder wil arise necessarilie, if all that people to­geather have their free consent in their Church-governement. Which the whole people of every Church al­wayes ought to have by Christes and the Apostles ordināce, asPag. 19. & chap. 3.4.5. before we have seene.

Nay, to come nearer. No proper and perfect Diocesan Church, or larger, e­ver did or doth admit the peoples free consent in their ordinarie go­vernement. Vniversally and alwayes it is so: & indeed it can not be other­wise. For where each ordinarie Con­gregation hath their free consent in their ordinarie governement, there certainly each Congregation is an in­tire and independent Body politike Spirituall, and is indued with power in it selfe immediatly vnder Christ. And so every of them are true & pro­per [Page 87]Churches. So that these Congre­gations admit not (where they are) any proper Diocesan Church, or lar­ger: neither doth the proper Diocesan Church (or larger) admit intire and independent ordinary Cōgregations, Which (as I said) have their free con­sent in their ordinary governement. They are indeed [...] such asReas. for [...] form pag. 23.25. can­not stand together possibly. And ther­fore it is likewise, that which hereto­foreIbid pag. 8 [...] I have affirmed (and so do still) in the Newe Testament there is not any Diocesan Church, or larger, to be found. Which point though I have in my Declaration proved it by this and 6. other reasons, yet I will heere draw it into this Syllogisme againe.

No Church holding the peoples free consent in their ordinary governement with iust and decent order, is Diocesan or larger.

Every Visible Church in the New Testament holdeth the peoples free consent in their ordi­nary governement with iust and decent order.

Therfore No Visible Church in the New Testament is Diocesan or larger.

The first proposition is manifest of it selfe, and I have shewed it morePag. 84.8 [...] 86. &c. fully before. The Assumption, or 2. proposition is at large proved & con­firmed in those places which are no­ted in the margin before, viz. pag. 19. and are mentioned againe particular­ly [Page 88]pag. 76. To which purpose also the whole 3.4. & 5. chap. do helpe. Where I am to adde moreover, that this Con­clusion is true, not only in the New Testament, but also in the ages fol­lowing a long while after. That is, no such Diocesan churches were foūd till 420. yeres after Christ, yea til 680. and more, were past. Which I shewed before in the end of the fift Chap. as also I touched it in my Declaration pag. 24.25.

But let it be remembred, that heere I speake precisely of proper Diocesan Churches, and larger. There is therefore necessarily a distinction to be made of Diocesan Churches. There are pro­per Diocesan Churches, and larger; & there are improper. The proper Dio­cesan Church, and larger, is where the people have no power freely to con­sent in the affaires of their ordinarie Church governement. The impro­per Diocesan Church, and larger, is where although there be a kinde of Diocesan, or larger Consociation of many ordinarie Cōgregations in Spi­rituall governement vnder one gene­rall Presidencie or Superioritie, yet the ordinarie Congregations have their free consent, at least they have nothing by their Spirituall Gover­nors imposed on them, against their [Page 89]wills. Which kinde of Dioces. church, being duly ordered, wee do not gain­say. There are hereof also two kinds. The one isAct. 15.2.3.6.7. Apostolicall, viz. where many ordinarie Congregations con­sociating togeather in their spirituall governement, have a Diocesan (or larger) Synod, or Presbyterie over them for their better direction. Such the forraigne reformed Churches at this day do enioy. The other kinde is, where many ordinary Congregations so consociating togeather, have one person (a constant President during life) over them, whom men after the Apostles called a Diocesan Bishop (& some a Metropolitan) and such like o­ther names. Albeit of these there were (without question) divers kindes and sortes, some exercising greater power and authoritie, some lesse: that is, the ancienter had lesse, the later for the most part alwayes had their power greater and greater.Ad [...]vagr. & in Tit. 1. For of these Ie­rome saith most truly, both that their Matoritie over the Presbyters of Con­gregations was by Humane ordināce, and also that it came in & grew grea­ter pa [...]latim by litle and litle; that is, by degrees. Albeit, I say, therefore that these Diocesan Bishops were of divers kindes & sortes, yet the first of them neither were in the Apostles times, [Page 90]neither were they immediatly after the Apostles.

Contrariwise D. Downame affirmeth that Marke the Evangelist ordained in Alexandria a Diocesan church cōsisting of many ordinarie Congregations. Which he thinketh to prove by some words ofEuseb. 2.15. Eusebius, who saith Marke firstD. Down [...]. Def. 2.124. constituted churches [...] in Alexandria it selfe, as he falsly transla­teth it. I say, this he falsly translateth (as3.137. & 3.25.16. Doct. Dov [...] also did before him) wherevpon the whole groūd of their error doth rest.Def pag. 17 [...]. Which their falsifica­tiō I shall (by Gods helpe) shew plain­ly out of Eusebius him self, even in this very place. The preposition [...] doth not heere signifie in a place, as they vn­truly imagine, but it signifyeth to a place, and so it ought to be translated. In Latin we should say, ad Alexandria [...] ipsam, or vsque ad, that is, to Alexandria, or vnto Alexandria it selfe. This is Eusebi­us true meaning: For he would shew that Marke was the first that constitu­ted Churches in the country of Egypt. and withall that hee did so even vnto the chiefe City thereof, viz. Alexan­dria. And this is all that hee meaneth heere. Twice in this very place be­sides Eusebius vseth [...] in this same construction and sense. Both imme­diatly before the wordes in question, [Page 91]and immediatly after. Before, thus; [...] to Egypt. or vnto Egypt, After, thus: [...] to Rome, or vnto Rome; not in Rome, nor in Egypt. Where­fore, so [...] signifyeth likewise in this place which we have in hand, seing it runneth in one cōtext together with the former, and is all one manner of phrase. Besides, Eusebius straight after alleaging Philo concerning this same people, whom Marke converted, saith that he spake [...] of the Churches about in the Countrey, and [...] about Alexandria, not in Alexandria. Last of all, Eusebius vt­tereth this (as he doth the next fore­going clause likewise) with this terme [...] they say, or some report. By which and the like termes he vseth to relate vncertain and apocryphall things, yea sometimes fabulous and vntrue. For Eusebius is not precise in setting down all his matters, chiefly those which he hath only vpon rumour and report. And where hee seemeth to require credit in deed, hee is not sparing to name his authors, as Egesippus, Clemens, Dionysius. and such other. Wherefore divers wayes D. Downames presump­tuous assertion, and which he doth so boast of (that Marke instituted many Churches in Alexādria) wāteth proofe. For indeed Euseb. doth not avouch it. [Page 92]Yea, D. Bilson also denieth it generally, saying:D. Bils per­per govern. Pag. 306. Each place, were it never so great, had but one Church and one chiefe Pastor. He speaketh of those first times.

Peradventure (if Eusebius write true, and if hee had good intelligence heereof) Iulianus the tenth Bishop of Alexandria was a Diocesan Bishop in some measure. For I will not deny, but Churches may begin to be mul­plyed in Alexandria about that time. So that some small beginning & shew of a Diocesan Bishop (which heereto­fore I called fitly aRem. for refor. pag. 7. Titular Diocesan) was in him peradventure. And I say peradventure, because this graunt is gotten from vs only by reason of a few wordes inEuseb. 5.9. Eusebius, whose words yet alwayes are not Gospell. Yea in historieRain. confes. pag. 257. he is not alwayes so sure, at that we may build on him. Which al­so before I insinuated. Howbeit I will not sticke to acknowledge Iulianus to have ben such a Diocesan Bishop, as I said. But withall I affirme, that (for any thing wee finde) hee was the first that ever was: & that by no record a­ny Diocesā can be shewed before him. Now this wasVnder Com­modus Em­perour. neare vpon 200. yeres after Christ. Yet for the Westerue partes of Christendome I agree with Platina, who out of one Damasus saith, that Dionysius Bishop of Rome first or­dained [Page 93] Dioceses, which was about the yeare of Christ 260.

Against this D. Downame excepteth, vrging thatD. Down. Def. 2.99. Platina saith not, Dionysius did it first. I answer and will avouch it that in effect he saith so much. For he saith, that Dionys. being made Bishop of Rome,Platin. in Dionys. straightway divided Churches in the Citie of Rome. Which cannot be o­therwise meant, but that hee did it first, and that before him the Congre­gations there were not divided. As for that he saith before of Evaristus Bi­shop of Rome, thatIn Evaristus he divided titles to the Presbyters. I answer, this verily is meant of divers praecincts and quar­ters belonging only to one intire Cō ­gregation and ordinarie Assemblie. Reason requireth that in great Cities whē Christians multiplied, first there should be such praecinctes and quar­ters designed, before many ordinarie churches were divided and constant­ly set in them. The French & Duch Churches in London have such prae­cinctes and quarters, yet they have each but one ordinary Congregation. And questionles so it was in Rome: for divers ordinarie set Congregations were not appointed there long after this, no not in the time of Cornelius B. of Rome; nor in Carthage vnder Cypri­an. Which may well bee gathered out [Page 94]of their Writings. They both flouri­shed togeather about the yeare of Christ 250. Wherefore though such Titles as are praecincts belōging to one ordinarie Congregation might well be instituted by Evaristus, and multi­plyed afterward: Yet this nothing hindereth our assertion, that Dionysi­us first instituted distinct Churches there, and so a Diocesan Church im­proper. And Doc. Downame presumeth too grosly where hee affirmeth that these titles signifyedD. Down. Def. 2.100. Parish Churches then in Rome. What soever the word may signifie sometime, questionles heere in this busines touching Evari­stus it signifieth (as I have said) divers quarters and praecincts of one ordina­rie Congregation, and nothing els.

And this is the cleerest & most cer­tain notice that wee have touching the first Diocesan Bishops and Chur­ches improperly so called. Which af­ter they were erected, continued in the Christian world in divers kindes and sortes, as I said before. They were begun and set vp at first, I doubt not, out of a good intent: yet it as plaine as may be that errour alwayes accom­panied them even from the first. The best of these Bishops, not wāting some ambition and partiall respect toward them selves, and all of them possessed [Page 95]with that erroneous opinion that the peereles authoritie of one Bishop o­ver the Churches was the best meanes of true vnitie, and chieflie Gods pur­pose being that thus the Vniversal Pa­pacie should at last be advāced (which otherwise never could have ben) so I say it came to passe, that these Dioce­san Bishops and Churches and their authoritie in continuance of time, grew still greater and greater, yet (as Ierome saith, and as reason also she­weth it to bee likely) it proceeded paulatim, by litle and litle, by small de­grees, and by increasings not spyed of every one, till at last they all grew to be transformed into proper Diocesan Bishops and Churches, and got the power of Spirituall governement ab­solutly into their handes, cleane ex­cluding all power of the people (in the ordinarie Congregations) freely to consent, which formerly they had ever held, more or lesse. But this was not fully brought to passe, till after that the great Apostasie and tyrannie of the Vniversall Bishop (the Romane Antichrist) was begun to be set vp, asPag. 06. [...] & 88. before I declared.

I graunt heere, that the improper Diocesan Churches (as I note them) were called and named Diocesan many yeares agoe, and are also at this time, [Page 96]by many learned men. But yet indeed they are such Churches, viz. Dioce­san, or larger, improperly; & are cal­led so by a catachresis, an abusive maner of speaking. The reason is, because truly these Churches are not each of them one proper and intire Diocesan Body, as a proper diocesan Church is; but hath so many distinct Bodies and independent, as there are Ordi­narie Congregations in each of them inioying their free consent in their severall governements. Yet each of them is called a Diocesan Church, or larger, for other respectes, to wit, be­cause it hath a certain kinde of Dio­cesan or larger consociation of so ma­ny Churches togeather, and a kinde of dependance vnder one generall Presidencie or Superioritie, as before I observed.

Againe,Pag. 88. 89. both the kinds of these im­proper Diocesan Churches above spe­cified (that is, the Synodall & Episco­pall) do guide and rule much alike. In respect of the severall Congregati­ons vnder them they rule not abso­lutly, nor as intire and sole gover­nors, but with relation to the saide Congregations free consent, which is their ancient right and immunitie as they are Churches of Christ. Which immunitie and free power they may [Page 97]lawfully take to them selves, & vse whensoever they see necessary cause for it, as even our adversaries "ac­knowledge.D. Down. Def. 4.99. Whence it is, that both stand well (beeing duly ordered) with the good proceedings of the Gospell. Neither did any man of vnderstan­ding ever deny this. Howbeit yet we affirme that of these two the consoci­ation by Synodes or Presbyteries is most convenient, most profitable, and most safe for vs; at least wise now, that is, in respect of these times in which we live, and of the circumstances in them. The governement of Diocesan Bishops (though of the best sort) is not so good, nor safe, especially now. Whereof it is easie to yeelde 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, [Page 98]pag. 21. 22. So that the Diocesan Church which I absolutly speake a­gainst inIn 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 elswhereDeclarat. 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 questiō, 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 [Page 99]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 [Page 100]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 Cōgregations, 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. [Page 101]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 (representativ [...] 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 (represētative 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 vpō the Churches right by violent command. And such areArtic. 64. no­mine tenus Episcopi, revera tyranni, in name Bishops, but indeed tyrants. AsPag. 31. before al­so [Page 102]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 ge [...]ere predicat, & in quibus se par [...] modo dace [...]e asseres, inqui­ens, Sollicitudo omnium Ecclesiarum, & Si [...] in omnibus Eeclesijs doce [...]. 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 als 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 that the Church of Bishops tunning togeather, I will not save, conspiring togeather, is no other Church hen such as the Prophet nameth Me­lignant. F [...]r that which i [...] besides the truth is of evill. And God only is true, and every man alyar. Therefore what soever is of God, is iust, true, and good: whatsoever cometh of man, is vnrust, false, and evill. This their Church is not of God: it is therefore of evill. If any defire more heereof, let him read out [Page 103]Conclusions: hee meaneth those Articles above cited. Last of all see his iudge­ment of the Church of Ephesus menti­oned in Act. 20.28. Saith he,In Archir [...] Ecce gre­gem, ecce speculatores, ecce concionem pascen­dam, non regendam: ecce Concionem non ho­menis, sed De [...]. Behold a flocke, behold watch­men, b [...]hold a particular Congregation to bee fed, not to be rused (he meaneth not to be ruled by the watchmens absolute po­wer, but with relation to the liking and consent of the flocke) beholde not mans, but Gods Cōg [...]egation Now I de­sire the Reader to note, that Zuinglius, though he speake indeed against Po­pish Bishops and Synods in the places above cited, yet hee speaketh directly against those points in them which some Protestant Bishops and Synods do stande vpon. And therefore thus far they are al togeathet in one & the same condemnation, according to his doctrine. Secondly note, that heere he doth plainly condemne all Imperious Synods, & representative Churches: and that also with more vehement & sharpe termes then are vsed now a­dayes. Thirdly, he affirmeth here the Church in Math. 18.17. & the Church of Corinth, and of Ephesus vnder the A­postles, yea all Churches in the world at that time, to be each of them but a particular ordinary Cōgregation. For [Page 104]here he calleth the same Cōcio, & portio [...] laris Ecclesia, a particular assembly: Elswhere a parish, as where he saith a church isAd Valent, Compar. Vnaquaque paraecia, andIbid. Singula paraecie, andArtic. 31. quam paraeciam vocamus, andArtic. 8. quo commodè in vnum locum conveniunt, which meet conveniently in one place. AndPastor. Epi­scopus, Parochus, Plebanus, Praedicator, & Pa­stor, that is, a Bishop, and a Parish Minister he maketh all one. Fourthly, he most peremptorily affirmeth, that onely God may institute his Visible Church and the forme of outward governe­ment therein. And that such a forme of a Church & governement, as is not instituted by God or not found in his word, is altogeather vnlawfull and wicked, yea malignant. So that heere it is manifest how hee condemneth e­very Diplodophilus, Diplodophilus that is, whosoever approveth two wayes, or formes of Church-governemēt, viz. every one who liketh the Divine and Aposto­like ordinance where it may bee had, and yet holdeth that vpon necessitie it may be altered, and another forme may be vsed. Which D. Downame very Divine-likeDes. 4.104, & Answ. to the Pres. pag 3. 9. maintayneth. Neither is he alone such a Diplodophilus: he hath too many consorts in this prophane opiniō with him. Fiftly, Zuinglius here expresly teacheth that the particular Congregation is commanded in Math. 18.17. [Page 105] to [...]t off the infected member. So that hee holdeth it to bee Christes very Com­mandement (not a permission only) that the people should have the pow­er of Church governement, at least to consent freely therein. And the truth is, that the words in the text are im­perative, Tell the Church, &c. Where­fore, why ought they not so to bee ta­ken? Certainly it is Christes verie Commandement in deed, and there­fore never to bee altered by any mea­nes,

But to returne to the matter of Sy­nods: this man of God, Zuinglius, heere (we see) reprooveth not so much Po­pish Synodes, as the very nature of those Synods which are helde to bee a representative Church, and to have power to impose their decrees on the people of their circuit, whether they wil or no, yea though the same grieve and burden their consciences. Which very thing our adversaries at this day do holde likewise against vs. And D. Downame presumeth that hee hathDes. 1.109, & 2 4. found such Synods in the New Te­stament, which Zuinglius could findeAs above pag. 101. no where. Now vnto this noble Wit­nesse of Iosus Christ I will ad others mo consenting in effect with him. Calvin to this purpose saieth thus;It.stit. 4.9. [...]. Quicquid de Ecclesia dicitur, id mox Papi­sta [Page 106]ad Concilia transferunt, quum corum opi­nione Ecclesiam representent. Whatsoever is spoken of the Church, that presently the Pa­pistes referre to Councills, because in their o­pinion Councills do represent the Church. Where hee noteth this opinion to bee Popish, viz. that a Council is a church representative. Another learned Di­vine, one Iacobus Acontius condemneth vehemently likewise this kinde of Synods or Councills: in his fourth bookeIac. Acont. lib 4. Stratagematum Satana. At home Doctor Whitaker ioyneth with those a­broad: For cōcerning Synods in these dayes, whose decrees may be imposed on a Natiō or Country, he saith thus:Whitak. de Concil pa 35 Etsires ipsa de quibus in Concils deliberatur & consultatur; sint sacrae & religiosae tamen hoc ipsum Congregare Episcopos est merè [...]. Although the things considered & con­sulted of in a Councill be holy and religious, yet this thing to assemble Bishops or Pastors of divers Churches togeather, is meerely Civill. And then consequently the imposing of their Decrees is Civill. Yea so, such a Councill it selfe is Civill, that is, it standeth and hath life & force by Ci­vill power. All which we willingly a­gree vnto. Againe, this learned man writeth of these Councills thus,Pag. 23. Con­cilia si simpliciter necessaria sint, Christus ali­cubi precepisset celebrari, aut cius saltem A­postoli. Quod tamen nusquam ab illis factam esse legimur. If Councills were simply neces­sarie, Christ somewhere would have com­manded [Page 107]that they should be kept, or at least his Apostles would have so commanded. Which yet we read they did no where. Heere he plainly denyeth that Coun­cills exercising spirituall iurisdiction and governement (for such hee must meane of necessitie) are not at all of Divine institution in the New Testa­ment. Wherein hee expresly saith, as Zuinglius before said, contrary to D. Downame But yet nevertheles I graūt D. Whitaker in this booke alloweth & approveth Councills even spiritually exercising governement, if withal the people whom it concerneth, bee not bereaved of their free consent there­in. For so I vnderstand him where he saith,Pag. 44. Quod omnes attingit, ab omnibus approbari debet. That which toucheth all, ought to be approved of all. And so do we also affirme. Lastly, Doct. Bilson saith;Do Bils. a­gainst the Semina. part 2. pag 371. Also see him alleadged in Reas. for re­form pag. 2 [...] And Perp. gov. pa. 382 383. A generall Councill is not the Church. And a litle after. If you would be further taught that a generall Councill is neither the Vniver­sall Church nor representeth the Vniversall Church &c we can send you to a merchant of the same stampe that your selves are of, where you shall see as much as I say debated & commended with no small braverie. Pigh. hierarch. lib 6. cap 5. & 4. I graunt this man in an other place isPerp. gov. pag. 370. 371. 372. contrarie to this. But that is no newes in him. For I know nothing almost which is controverted, but if hee affirme it in [Page 108]one place, he denyeth it in another. As touching the Scriptures which he produceth for his warrant, they are the same which D. Downame alsoDef. 2.4. mē ­tioneth, & are often alleadged by ma­ny men at random. For God knoweth they come nothing neare to the purpose. The textes are Math. 18.17. Act. 15.22. Both which indeed are to be taken properly and literally, and not improperly and figuratively, as they in an idle imagination do think. Their imagination I say heerein is idle, because they have no reason for them in the world requiring that this word Ecclesia heere should be figu­rative. Which is groundD. Down. Def. [...].33. enough for vs and assurance also, that it ought heere to be vnderstood as proper. Be­sides, those two Doctors are both lear­ned in the Greeke toung. Let them shew, that this word was ever vsed by any good Author living in the A­postles times or before, for a Confi­storie of Governors only, or els they ought to acknowledge they speake idly and vntruly. If no such place can be shewed, as I am very sure there can not, shal we thinke the Apostles spake and wrote Greeke in such a phrase, as none in all the world ever spake ei­ther before or in their dayes? What absurditie and vnconscionable pre­sumptiō [Page 109]were it so to thinke? I know, they and others do alleage som Greek Fathers that do take the word Ecclesia sometime for the Governours only. But those Fathers lived 300. yeres af­ter the time of writing the New Te­stament, and later. Now the Aposties framed not their lāguage to the ma­ner of speaking so longe after their owne age. Many and great alterati­ons were come in by that time, by reason: whereof their speach began much to alter also. And we following them must needes Equivocat. Some pointes therein I notedRea [...] for [...]ef pag. 4 [...]. 64. [...]5. herefore; but our adversaties will not remem­ber nor consider that. The effect of al that I say is this: Eus [...]bius, beodoret, E­piphanius, Chrysostome, and such other of those times are not our Apostles, nor maisters of our faith, nor equall in­terpreters of the true Apostles, chief­ [...]y in the matter of Church governe­ment. There was to much iniquitie, to much anomie entered then, and increa­sed still afterward, till Antichrist him selfe stood vp, which was anon after. [...]n such case therfore let vs retire our selves as we are commaunded, to the plaine, and vnpartiall, and syncere e­vidence of Christs Law and Testimo­nie: if any speake not according this word, it is because there is no light in [Page 110]them. Sure the vniversad sense and meaning of this Greeke word Ecclesia in all pure and vncorrupt times is, to signifie the whole Assemblie, even the people evermore togeather w [...]th their Guides, vnles their state were such that they had no Guides, as at some instant happily the case might be. But alwayes it signifyed the people, and those assēbling together in one place. Which also is the proper significati­on of the Latin word Concio, and no­thing els.Concio is the iust expositiō of Ecclesia. It were madnes therefore to go from the native & proper sense of the Apostles wordes without cause. And if the Humane Politike reasons where with Doct. Bilson Perp. gov. pa. 370. 372. 374. 376. flourisheth, were warrant for vs (without Christs worde) to erect such a spirituall go­vernement as is in absolut Synods o­ver Christendome, besides that then Mens Traditions and politike in [...]en­tions may be receaved as spiritual in­struments in the worke of the salva­tion of our soules (which impietie I thought all good Christians had long since abhorred) moreover a plaine & direct way is opened for a Vniversall Papacie, and for a Vniversall consi­storie of Cardinalls to be placed over all Christes people. I say the Humane reasons alleadged do inforce this as well, yea much better, then that each [Page 111]Christian Nation should be ordinari­ly left to them selves, and not bee ru­led Spiritually by some one generall ordinarie Superior, by whom all in al Countries may be reduced to vnitie. This might easily bee adorned with moe flowers of Rheto [...]ke, then hee there doth, or can set vpon his mat­ter. Againe over & besides this, there is an other plaine Logical cōsequence which will induce a Pope, if any Re­presentative Church bee acknowled­ged to be of Divine institution in the New Testament. For if any Repre­sentative Church bee in the New Te­stament of Divine institution, then such a Provinciall Representative Church is; Nay, then a Vniversal re­presentative Church is of Divine in­stitution in the New Testament.Arepresēt [...] ­t [...]ve Church By a representative Church I meane the Guides, one or moe, having power to exercise Spiritual governem̄et with­out any consent of the people. Which also is a Church figuratively, viz. by a Syneedoche. And this all men agree vn­to. Againe, if a Vniversall representa­tive Church be of Divine institution in the new Testament, then a Vniver­sall church represented (or such a pro­per Church, whereof the figurative is a figure and a representation) is of Di­vine institution also in the New Te­stament. [Page 112]This sequence is of Relativa fuut simul. Ar [...]sto [...]. infal­lible truth. Some have thought the figurative Vniversall Church, viz. the Vniversall Synod may represent not one Vniversall proper Church, but a nomber of particular independent Churches. But this is vntrue, & im­possible, as any shall see that wel con­sidereth it. As for our present adver­saries, they do acknowledge & main­taine the effect of this Sequence, at least they say it in plaine termes. D. Bilson teacheth that Christ hath Perp. gov. pa. 372. 377 one Church in generall, which is a whole, ha­ving all particular Churches partes, to be ruled by the whole: and that this one whole or generall Church is the body of Christ. Doct. Downame expreslie saith, Def. 3.4. the whole Church is but one body. Thus in plaine termes they acknow­ledge and teach (as I said) One proper Church Vniversall vnder outward governement. What meaning they have heerein, God knoweth. Now from hence I reason further; If one Vniversall proper Church subiect to out ward governement bee of Divine institution in the New Testament, then a Vniversall ordinarie Pastor is of Divine institution in the New Te­stament. This consequence though in truth it be vndenyable and inevita­ble, yet they in wordes deny it with [Page 113]vehemence without sense & reason. D. Downame saith,Defenc. 1.17. and 3.4.6. He is Antichrist that assumeth to him selfe the governement of the Vniversal Church which yet he acknow­ledgeth is to be governed out wardly. M. Gabr. Powell (like a wise mā) maketh it an heresie in the Pope, to holde as he doth,Gabr. Po­wel de An­tichristo. pag. 254. In Eccesia oportere esse Visibile caput. That in the Visible Church, there ought to be a visible head. What do I heare? A visible Body instituted by Christ without a Visible Head? A Church and no Pa­stor? A multitude to be governed, and no Governor? These are strange as­sertiōs, who soever, & how many soe­ver do affirme thē. For I graunt there are not a few others also which vse so to speake. But in deed there is no co­lour of truth, nor reason in these say­ings. Some will say, D.Perp. gov. pag. 372. Bilson & D.Def. 3.4. Downame both do shew that this one Body and Church Vniversall is to be governed by a Vniversall Synod. Do they so? Very well. Then who shall call this Synod? The calling of Pro­vinciall SynodsPerp. gov. pa. 377.39 [...] they make a good reason for a Metropolitane or Arch­bishop. Certainly the calling of a V­niversall Synod doth far better and more necessarily require a Pope.A Vniversal Synod ab­losute. Nay, [...]t requireth a Pope certainly. Besides, it is a question whether a Vniversall Synod hath ever ben, or can possibly [...]e rightly and duly had. At the most, [Page 114]it is plaine that such Synodes are ex­ceeding rare, and seldom, and hardly effected.Math. 18.15.16.17. But the causes of the Chur­ches governement are frequent, con­tinuall, and every day. What shall we thinke? Hath Christ left his Body, & deare Spouse without helpe, without governement in such dayly and con­tinuall necessities? Or can an ordina­rie body be governed without an or­dinarie Head? To vse D. Bilsons words,Perp. gov. pag. 376. this were an heathenish, if not a hellish con­fusion. Wherefore these consequences all do follow certainly and necessari­lie. A Vniversall Church must have a Vniversall ordinarie Pastor. And so much touching the Proposition of this reason. My Assumption is this: But no Vniversall Ordinarie Pastor is of Di­vine institution in the New Testa­ment. And this they all affirme with me constantly. Therefore the Conclu­sion is true, viz, No Vniversall proper Church, and consequently also no V­niversall, nor any other representa­tive Church is of Divine institution in the New Testament.

Hitherto I have shewed our reasons and witnesses against Synods exerci­sing absolut power spirituall over Christiā people, which are also chur­ches representative. To which busi­nes I have ben forced by Do. Downames [Page 115]importunat flannders, both general­ly against vs, and against my selfe in particular. Who heerein first compa­reth vs to theDef. 1.4 [...]. Pope: from whom he knoweth we are far enough of. Where as indeed his absolut Synods do agree with the Pope too well, and do make to much for him, asPag. 110.111 112.113.114. before we saw. Then he vpbraideth vs that wee will not be ruled by Synodes. I answer: Wee sub­mit our selves to be ruled spiritually by Christes true visible Church insti­tuted in his word. And what would he have more? Thirdly, hee goeth a­bout to deny, that we subject our sel­ves to the Kings Supremacie. Whether hee doth this with more malice or foo­lishnes, I know not. For he can not be ignorant, that though we affirme that the Church governement is indepen­dent and immediatly derived from Christ, yet we affirme also (& it stan­deth with good reason) that the Civil Magistrate is even therein Supreme Governor Civilly. And though no­thing may be imposed on the Christi­an people of a Congregation, against their wills by any Spirituall authori­tie (for so only we intend) yet we af­firme withall that the Civill Magi­strat may impose on them Spirituall matters by Civill power (yea whe­ther they like, or dislike) if hee see it [Page 116]good. This we al gladly acknowledge. Wherein we referre our selves to that which we havePetit. for toleration. Offer. &c. publikly written, & protested in this behalfe. Fourthly, he falsly chargeth me by name, that I in my booke of Reasons for reformation, do not acknowledge in Synods any law­full authoritieDef. 3.4. to determine. He mightPerp. gov. pa. 382.383 thus charge Doctor Bilson. But I in that booke and place which hee wrangleth with, do expresly say,Reas. for reform. p. 31 Sy­nods determinations are most expedient and wholesome alwayes. In which respect ISee before pag. 89. allow also the Apostles practise in Act. 15. as being both a Synod, and an authentike rule and patterne for Sy­nods. Where the Apostles with others (when an occasion & cause was given them) did not only meet togeather & consult, but also they did define, de­termine, and decree certain pointes: yea they delivered the same to divers Churches to be kept, who had no De­puties for them present in that Apo­stolike assembly. Howbeit these Apo­stles delivered abroad these their De­crees only so, and in such wise, as in­forming and teaching all men there­by what they ought to do: that is, in maner of doctrine. To the Church of Antioch, whom it most concerned, only this they say: If ye observe these things,Act. 15.29. ye shall do well. They say not, [Page 117]The Minister that imbraceth not these ordināces is deprived of his mi­nisterie: the person receyving them not, is excommunicat ipso facto: or, he is Anathema accursed. As some Synods do pronounce. I grant Synods may discusse and determine of errors, and may pronounce them wicked and ac­cursed errors. But actually excom­municat mens persons, the Apostles never did without the concurrence and consent of that Congregation where they were members. Where­fore more then this no Synod at anie time may do by the rule of the Go­spell. If any do impose any of their acts on a Cōgregation (whether they like, or dislike) vpon pavne of some spirituall censure, yea if it be on anie one person without the same Congre­gations consent of which hee is, cer­tainly (as I said) it is more then the Apostles ever did in the Church-go­vernement: and therefore we can not out conclude, that it is now vnlawful for vs so to do. Also it is that point which all the forenoted sentences of those late Writers (most excellent lights of the Gospell) do condemne. Wherefore we willingly take that A­postolike practise in Act. 15. both as being a Synod, & also a good patterne of Synods for ever. Neither do wee in [Page 118]deed mislike any Christian Synods, but greatly approve of them: though some out of malice do obiect to vs the contrary. Alwayes the Apostles prac­tise we take for our rule. And so much touching the second cōsequent in this Chapter.

Thirdly, it being admitted as Christs 3 ordinance, that the Church governe­ment ought to bee alwayes with the peoples free cōsent, it followeth that Lord Bishops in severall, are vnlawfull & contrarie to Christ. Now a Lord Bi­shop, Who is a Spirituall Lord. and a Spirituall Lord we alwayes vn­derstand him to be, who exerciseth sole authoritie Spirituall, or sole go­vernment Ecclesiasticall, yea though over but one Congregation. Much more him, who exerciseth such spiri­tuall Lordship over a great many Cō ­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 exerciseDef. 1.58.47.43. sole authoritie, or sole govern­ment. Yea in many places heeDef 3.118.11 [...].126.142 shew­eth indignation that such wronge should be done them in beeing so re­ported of. But it is strange. Are they [Page 119]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, asReas. for ref. p. 62. [...] 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 [Page 120]Supreme & sole, viz. spiritually. Wher­fore the Doct.Ignorantia Elenchi. grosly sophisticateth in shifting from the po [...]t in hand to an other matter. Where hee speaketh ofDef. 1. p. 43 Chancellors adioyned to the Bishops, and of Presbyters consent with him, & thatPag. 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 thePag. 43. Supreme and lowdest by, andPag. 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, there­foreDef. 3.147 he would conclude that in En­glish they may be called Lords. D. Bilson reasonethPerp 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 [Page 121]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 calledDef. 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 [Page 122]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 withoutAn 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 heeDef. 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 cōparing this word with the knowen circumstances of those times. Further he alleageth thatDef. 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 [Page 123]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 commō Father. In anotherDef. 4.71.72. place he teacheth that Bishops in the New Testament were called Apostles. Vpō which groūd heDef. 3.15 [...]. would conclude, that therefore the name of Lord is lawfull for them. I answer, The name of Apostle and also of Bishop may be vsed sometime gene­rally & improperly: sometime strict­ly and properly. And wee ought al­wayes to speake thus, viz. properly, when wee reason and dispure of any matter. If the Doct. thinke generally and improperly Bishops may be called Apostles, and likewise that Apostles may be called Bishops, and ifDef. 4.72. Theodo­res meane so, I will not gainsay, but in the time of the New Testament, yea and now still, these names may be in­terchangeably vsed. But this will prove nothing for the D. purpose. For so there is nothing but meere Equi­vocation therein. If he or any other thinke that Bishops were in the time of the New Testam. called Apostles, in the [Page 124]strict and proper sense of those words, doubtles they erre egregiously. Or, that Bishops then were called Apostles by a dayly, ordinary, and familiar a p [...]l­lation, as our Bishops are called Lords: Which yet must be proved, or els they have no colour from hence. Hee ma­keth great adoe about Phil. 2.25. that from hence Epaphroditus might be pro­ved to have ben the Philippians Bishop.Defenc. 4.65. &c. Though he might be their Bishop, yet the circumstance of this place shew­eth, that this is meant of his bringing reliefe vnto Paul frō the Philippians, as some did to the Saints at Ierusalem frō the Corinthians, 2. Cor. 8.23. As for The­od [...]ret who seemeth to be the Author of the D. opinion heerein, hee is insuffi­cient, and no equall nor iust founda­tion of this matter. I knowBellarm. de Cleric. 1.15. Bellar­mine and other Prelates would faine make somewhat of this vnhansome shift in their owne defence; yet they know not how. All this is true: and yet I grant (as I said) Epaphroditus might be the Philippians Bishop, as some write that he was. But indeed I think rather he was with them as an Evan­gelist properly, like as Timothie, and af­ter him Tychicus was at Ephesus, and Ti­tus in2. Cor. 8. & 9. Achaia, and afterward in Crete; and Marke in Alexandria & Egypt, as som say. Well, but let it be granted (which [Page 125]yet is not to be granted) that Bishops in the New Testament were by a day­ly, ordinarie, and familiar appellation called Apostles. Yet neither hence can it follow that they may bee Lordes, or may be so called. For no Apostle was ever so great (in respect of outward iurisdiction) over any one Congrega­tiō; none (I say) was ever a sole gover­nour over one Congreg. as our L. Bi­shops are over many hundreds. Beside this, the D.Def. 3.148. would have the termes given to Prelates by Prelates and by their dependants in the time of Con­stanti [...] and since, to be reason & war­rant now vnto vs to call our Bishops Lords and most honorable Lords. Which is like to that where he saith,Pag. 13. Hee seeth no reason why the Church in Constantines time should not rather be propounded as a patterne for imitation, to Churches that live vnder Christian Princes, then the Churches of former times. A saying fit for a Diplodophilus: fit for one who careth not to take from Christ his Office and Honor, and to give it to Prelates and Princes. For this is Christes due, and immutable right, and divine glorie in his Testa­ment, to set the patterne of his Visible Church for vs to imitate, for ever and every where, even in peace as well as in persecution. As touching Constan­tine and the Bishops then and after for [Page 126]some hūdreds of yeares, though they were godly & vertuous, yet it cā not be denyed but the Bishops even then presentlyNazianz. Orat. post. redit. in vrb. Socrat. 7.11 were caryed with much ambition, and strove for praeeminēce and outward greatnes. And the Prin­ces let them have it, thinking that therein they did service to God. But they knew not that they did amisse. Yea indeed vnder Constantine began the Dioces an ruling Bishop; who till this time had but a name, and no power Diocesan.Reas. for re­form. pag. 8. Heeretofore I guessed they might have ben elder. But the truth is they had no life nor strength of Di­ocesans till vnder Constantine and the Nicen Councill. Which I have declared inDeclar. pa. 24. an other place likewise. After which time, ambition and dominion Ecclesiasticall did still grow and in­crease more and more, evē in the best Fathers. Whereby Antichrist at the last did easily come vp. In which re­gard Maister Brightman iudged that the Prophesie of the womans beeing dri­ven into the wildernes by the Dra­gon,T. Brightm. in Apoc. 12. Rev. 12. began to take effect vnder Constantine: and to be accomplished stil more and more, till in the end vtter darknes and tyrannie overflowed. Now then, are the deedes and wordes and practise of the Bishops of these times meet rules for vs to follow, [Page 127]namely as touchinge Prelacie and Church governement? Is it equall to make these our iudges heerein? No, by no meanes. Which I have signified alsoPag. 109 [...] before. Yea, if there were no pe­rill (as there is much) in following their wordes and deedes in the matter of Church governement aforesaide, yet wee ought not to offer so much wrong to Christ and his word, as to seeke for direction and warrant in a matter of conscience any where but in his word. Howbeit notwithstan­ding al this, though those titles given to Bishops vnder Constantine and after (as heere hee alleageth them) are too glorious and stately for Ministers of the Gospell, yet none of them imply­eth such Lordship nor Sole authoritie Spi­rituall, as with vs the English wordes Lord Bishop do imply. For thē they had not such sole authoritie (as I havePag. 64.63 66. al­ready shewed) nor long time after, as now they * have. Wherefore neither do these allegations of the Doct. (that is, the titles given to Bishops vnder Constantin, nor 100. yeares after) fit his turne, neither wil they serve his pur­pose. Finally it is to bee noted, how the Doct denyeth thatDef. 3.15 [...]. Bishops may be­have them selves as Lords of the Churches, & yet holdeth they may be called Lordes. Surely his conscience telleth him that [Page 128]it is to much which hee giveth them. For els why may they not behave thē selves answerably and according as their iust name is. Where hee saith,Pag. 153. the title of Lord Bishop is not given with re­lation, but as a simple title of honor and reve­rence. And, the relation is not in the worde Lord, but in the word Bishop. This is plain­ly a meere shift, and an vntruth. For the relation is in both these wordes Lord Bishop iointly. That is, to their people they are Bishops with Spiritu­all Lordly power; that is, they have sole authoritie spirituall over them. And so they are called Lords Spirituall, whichPag. 150. hee seemeth in an other place to acknowledge. Thus all in vaine hath the D. laboured to make good the lawfulnes of our L. Bishops.

4 Now fourthly, let vs note that frō this point that the Church governe­ment ought to be alwayes with the peoples free consent, and namely that it was so vnder the Apostles (which I have shewedPag. 68. 69 before to be certain­ly true) hence it followeth that it is a plaine vntruth & a falshood (which the Doct. so oftenDef. 1.28. and 4.2.3.38.39.46. affirmeth) viz. that the Bishops in the Apostles time were such for the substance of their calling, as ours now in England are. Ours are sole governours, they were not so. They admitted the Congregations [Page 129]consent in all important matters of their governement: ours do what they please without them, yea com­monly against their liking. Besides, the Apostolike Bishops had not any addition of Civill coactive power, as ours have. Last, they had no mo or­dinarie set Congregations to their pa­storall charge but only one: ours are the Pastors (each of thē) of many hun­dred Congregations. All which are e­vident substantiall differēces in the chur­ches and Bishops estate; as hath ben also observed purposelyDivine be­ginning of Christs true visib Church pag. 3. 4. 5. Declarat. pag. 12. 13 14. Reas. for ref. p. 41. 42. 43. els where. In which respect the very ground which the D. buildeth on is false: his very text (Rev. 1.20.) is misinterpre­ted & abused, & so his Sermon & whole Defence standing therevpon is frustrat. And he doth Equivocat plainly.

Fiftly, where the Christian people 5 have their free consent in Church go­vernement, there never is seene anie Pluralist nor Nonresident Pastor. For they wil never indure their Pastor to be a Nonresident from them, nor yet to bee distracted with mo charges of soules then their owne. Which cer­tainly al that feare God and have care of them selves & theirs, will esteeme to bee a most godly thing to beholde. Besides also, they wil never indure a­ny Covetous, nor Proud, nor adulte­rer, nor drunkard, nor ignorant, nor [Page 130]false Teacher. And as their Pastor and Guide is, such will they bee also (in a maner) alwayes & every where. The adversary confesseth thatD. Bils. perp. gov. pag. 344 The wisedom of Gods Church in taking the cōsent of the peo­ple in the Election of their Bishops, hee can not but commend: he findeth so great and good ef­fectes of it in the Church stories. For thence it came to passe, that the people when their de­sires were accomplished, did quietly receave, willingly maintaine, diligently heare, & hear­tily love their Pastors, yea venter their whole estate and hazard their lives, rather thē then Pastors should miscarie. Verily this shew­eth it to bee Gods ordinance, in that he accompanyeth it with such and so great blessings. Contrariwise, Plura­list-Pastors and Nonresidents, who of any conscience can allow? Who that hath any sparke of religion, or care of good life doth not detest and abhorre them, and most worthily; as being in deed of the reliques of Antichrist, and instruments of Satan. All blindnes in the people, and wicked conversation floweth from these as frō fountaines. Continual iarres and warres betwene the Pastor and his flocke. And there­hence groweth contempt of Religion. Yea questionles, that which the Pest is in mans body, the same are Nonresi­dents and Pluralitie-men in Christes Church. Whose fruits are too plenti­full [Page 131]among vs. Archb. Whitgift saithAnsw. to the Admon. pag. 44. 45. Now the Church is full of hypocrites, dissem­blers, drunk ands, whoremongers, Ignorant, Pa­pistes, Atheistes, and such like. D. Bilson also,Perp. gov. pag. 155. Toom Church comes all sortes, Atheistes, Hy­pocrites. &c. All which filth ought ve­rilie to be imputed chiefly to Nonre­sidentes and Pluralists. Now in Dio­cesan and Provinciall Churches and larger (where the people have not their free consent in the Church go­vernement) there must of necessitie be Nonresidents and Pluralitie-men. First, the chief and best Pastor of a ve­rie large Countrey (hee whom they call the Angell of such a Church) is no other indeede then a great Plura­list and Nonresident. For he hath the proper charge of soules overDef. 3.145. & 2.67. all his Circuit, as D. Down. professeth, & they all holde. That is to say, over manie hundred ordinary set Congregations, where for the most part they them­selves are never present; and never do fo much as see the faces of so many people of whom yet they vndertake to bee their proper Pastors. Are not these huge Pluralists & Nonresidents in the time of the Gospell? And thus heeDef. 2.127. approoveth Theodorets taking to him selfe to be Pastor of 800. parishes. Yea it cometh to passe that some Bi­shops are Pastors to many mo. Againe [Page 132]note how Do. Belson shrinketh not to make Pluralistes and Nonresidentes a Divine Ordinance and Apostolike, which he doth to the end that Dioce­san Bishops might seeme to be Divine: Saith he against the mislikers of Plu­ralitie and Nonresidencie:Perp gov. pag. 328. Saint Paul him selfe knew not these curious positions when he appointed Titus to take charge and over­sight of the whole Island of Crete: and saw no cause why one man might not performe many Pastorall and Episcopall duties to all that were in the same Countrey with him. And this touching the chiefe, and best, andPag. 247. on­ly proper Pastor in a Diocesan Church and larger. Secondly, his Substitutes will all seeke to bee in proportion like their Superiors. Whereof in deede there is great cause. For if the most Angelike Pastor, & he who in his Of­fice cometh nearest vnto Christ bee such, that is, so great a Pluralist and Nonresident, then who in conscience can mislike Nōresidents? Who would not desire to be plurifyed abundant­ly? Who would not iudge the greatest Pluralist the worthiest Pastor, & most excellent servant of Christ? I say, even inferior Nonresidents and Pluralistes in such Church estates must needes not only aboūd, but also superaboūd. True reason requireth it, and experi­ence among our selves doth shew it. [Page 133]Whereby what wofull wrack and ha­vocke of mens soules is happened in our Lande every-where, any that looke about & consider, may see. And hee that seeth, can not have so flintie a heart as not to sorrow and mourne for it. Against which Spirituall deso­lation, yea rather ruine and destructi­on, no remedie can bee had, without giving the Christian people their free consent in their spirituall governe­ment. For none have that care of o­ther mens soules, as Christian people would have of their owne.

Sixtly, heere are other Consequents 6 of a most high nature, both in respect of God and also in respect of our sel­ves. First in respect of God, thus I ga­ther and conclude. If this opinion be false, viz. that the peoples consent in the Church governement is the Apo­stles ordinance, and Christes immu­table commaundement for vs; then Christ in his New Testament is not the Teacher, Institutor, Framer,Impious opinions. Lord and Lawgiver of his Visible Church, which is the Kingdome of heaven v­pon earth. At least, hee only is not. And the New Testament is not com­pleat nor all-sufficient for matters of Religion. Nor so compleat as the Old Testament was. And Christes divine Offices of Prophesie and Kingdome are not [Page 132] [...] [Page 133] [...] [Page 134]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 [Page 135]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 cōsent 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 mainlyIsa. 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 Conse­quentesAs by ou [...] Attesta­tors befor [...] may bee seene. are avoyded, and the whole glory and honor of Christ our Savior i [...] 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 [Page 136]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 Cōsequents so godly and pious, must needes it self be godly and pious, & questionles co­meth from God. But our opinion a­foresaid yeeldeth Cōsequents 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 asPag. 133. 134. before I noted, evē 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 [Page 137]immutable cōmandement 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 cōsideratiō of these certain cō ­sequents aforenamed, as also in other iust respectes, that faithfull man of God (whosoever hee was) that made thatAn 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 [Page 138]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 Christiā faith above mē ­tioned, and that which is evidently built vpon the same, are not Schisma­ [...]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, andRom. 16.17 & 1. Tim. 6.3 the maker [...] 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 Au­gustin [...] sentence against the Donatistes, which once alreadyAng 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, [Page 139]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 mayDef. 1.7. be of Apostolicall instituti­on,D Down.and yet not straightwayes Divini iuris, of Divine right. And, everyPag. 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 [Page 140]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 governemēt being a practise Aposto­licall (as by those ScripturesPag. 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-sufficiēcie 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 [Page 141]mē to any such impious cōsequents? First therefore I will shew that such Consequentes must of necessitie fol­ [...]ow from their opinion: then I will [...]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. [Page 142]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 Ordināce of governe­mentPag 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 thusDef. 3.107. Out of charitie to those Churches which have no L. Bi­shops, and inPag. 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 mē, 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 [Page 143]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 allowāce of the L. Bb. of Canterburic and London thē be­ing, saith expresly,G. Powel. a Prefat. [...]d Adiaph. Christ is not the Law-gives of his Church. Archbishop Whitg [...]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, isD. Whitg [...] 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 hathIsa. 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, [Page 144]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 thatPag. 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 he meaneth that it may bee so called, but not truly. Which is but double dealing. For presently after he saith,Pag. 17. He separateth the true Kingdome of Christ from the externall Order and Disci­pline of the Church: which some in these dayes more zealous then wise, do not se­parate. So he calleth the faithful wor­shippers of Christ. But is it such wise­dome, I pray, to seperat frō Christ this his Divine honor and glorie, and to give it to others? Nay, this is accur­sed wisedome. Then, a Ministerie sup­posed to be setled by the Apostles in the Pri­mitive Church, he denyeth to bee any part [Page 145]of Christes Kingdome. Hath hee any rea­son for it? Yea, a strāge one. Saith he, Christes kingdom is proper to his person. As though the power and authoritie to institute, & setle such an ordinance might not be proper to Christes per­son, and yet the execution thereof committed to his Officers and Depu­ties. And nevertheles all is Christes still.Christ hath a Kingdome Commis­sive. It is the Kings authoritie which the Deputie of Irelād executeth. And may it not be Christes power and go­vernement which his Ministers and Deputies on earth do execute? Yea, certainly. Which this D. acknowled­ged before, saying, it may bee called the kingdome of heaven and of Christ. Yet hee doth further strive against the truth in this cause; making the Minister, the Maister of a familie, and the Magistrate to be Gods ordinance alike. Which surely never any sound Divine would say. If we looke but to Moses law, the falsi­tie heereof is soone seene. Every Mi­nisterie in the Iewes Church, must have expresse and particular institu­tion from God: but naturall reason & Humane contractes were sufficient to institute both the other. And is not the case so with vs now also vnder the Gospell? Yeas truly. Wherefore these in deed are nowe Gods ordi­nances, but not alike. He concludeth, [Page 146]that the Ministers may not arrogat any part of Christes honor and power as incident to their calling or function, They may take to them the execution of that, which to ordaine is only Christs right. That power of his which hee hath in his word committed to them and (as the D. speaketh) trusted them with, they may take to them, viz. the Keyes and My­steries of the kingdome of heaven. Which they arrogate not: but it is their right to take & vse the same as Christ himselfe hath specially appointed. From this dissolut opinion aforesaid, and so derogatorie to the holy Offices of Christ it floweth, that this D. teach­ethPag. 339. 348. the peoples interest in Church-go­vernement standeth only vpon the groundes of reason and nature, and is derived from the rules of Christian equitie and societie. And that this is both lawfull andPag. 334. much to be commended. And yet also thatPag. 349. the people may willingly forsake, and worthily loose the right which they had. Nay more, hee holdeth the Apostolike andPag. 299. 300. Divine forme of Church-governement by sole governing Bishops (as hee main­taineth Timotihe and Titus and the An­gell of Ephesus, &c. to have ben) may give place on occasion to those fore­named grounds of reason and nature &Pag. 348. 334. humane governement. Thus he by de­nying the peoples consent to bePag. 368. essen­tiall [Page 147]in the choice of their Pastors, doth indeed make nothing essentiall to them. For that which is Essentiall, must evermore be had to the true being of any thing it can never be altered, nor absent from it, as beforePag. 8 [...]. I have al­so noted. These our adversaries say our assertions are raw and vndigested fan­cies: but what raw and vndigested, yea irreligious assertions they doe holde and maintaine, it maketh me afraid even to thinke of it.

It shall not bee amisse to observe somewhat contrarie to their opini­ons, out of some both of the Ancient and the late writers. Cyprian noteth this in generall as an odious error in the haeretike Novatian, though he aime at an other point in particular. But in generall this which they holde, Cyprian maketh noe lesse then haereticall in him. His words areCypr Epist. 4.2. Ille post Dei traditi­onem, humanam conatur Ecclesiam facere. This man letting go Gods ordinance, indea­vor [...]th to make a Humane Church. Againe touching the order and forme of the Church and administration thereof, hee in another place flyeth only to Christ and his word for authoritie, & saith:Epist. 1.8. Quisquis alibi collegerit, spargit. A­dulterum est, impium est, Sacrilegū est, quod­ [...]unque humano furo [...]e instituitur, vt dispositio divina violetur. Procul ab huiusmodi homi­num [Page 148]contagione discedite. Whosoever gathe­reth elswhere, he scattereth. It is adulterous, it is impious, it is sacrilegious whatsoever is in­stituted by mens madnes, that Gods order should be violated. Depart far away from the infectiō of such mē. And a litle after, Ne­mo vos frat res errare â Domi. viâ faciat. Ne­mo vos Christianos ab Evāgelio Christi rapiat. Brethren, let no man cause you to erre from the Lords way. Let no man pull you Christians from Christes Gospell. Of the church cō ­stitution and order againe hee saith:De Vnitat. Eccles. Verbis Christi insistere, quaecunque & docuit & feat, discere & facere debemus. Crederese in Christum quomodo dicit, qui non facere quod Christus facere praecepit? Wee ought to insist in Christes wordes: whatsoever he taught & did, we must learne and do. How can one say, hee beleeveth in Christ, who doth not that which Christ commandeth? Thus in the order, constitution, and governement of Christes Church this holy man of God layeth a necessity on vs to cleave alwayes to that which is in Christes Testament, not to Humane reason, nor to Civill disposition at any time. Which our adversaries doPerp. gov. pag. 339. Def. 2.73. teach and maintaine to be lawfull. Augustine al­so of the visible Churches constituti­on (beside thatPag. 138.139. above cited in him) elswhere writeth thus:August. con­tra Crescon. Gram. 1.33. Ecclesiam sine vlla ambiguitate sancta Scriptura demonstrat. † Ibi quaeramus Ecclesiam, [...] De Vnit. Eccles. cap. 3. ibi discutiamus cau­sam nostram. N [...]lo humanis documentis, sed [Page 149]divinis oraculis sanctā Ecclesiam demonstrari. The holy Scripture demonstrateth the Church without any doubt. There let vs seeke the Church: there let vs try our cause. I cannot abide that the holy Church should be shewed by mens doctrines but by the Divine Oracles. And in that sense Ierome calleth Christs Visible Church as it is vnder outward governement,Hieron. d [...] 7. Ordin. Ec­cles. Fabrica De [...], a Frame which God him selfe hath buil [...]. Thus these Ancientes. With whom heerein the godly learned of late do consent also. Zuinglius said enoughPag. 101.102.104. before. Calvin to Cardinall Sadolet saith;Calvin ad Sad. Non te adeo pracisè vrgebo vt revocem ad illam Ecclesiae forniam quam Apostols constituerunt, in quà tamen vnicum habemus verae Ecclesiae exem­plar: à quo si quis vel minimùm deflectit, ab­ [...]rat. I will not presse you so precisely, as to call you backe to that forme of the Church which the Apostles set. In which forme not­withstanding we have the only patterne of a true Church. From which if any decline never so little, he erreth. He meaneth, be would take it well at the Cardinalls handes, if he could reduce him to the forme of the Church whichInstit. 4.4. the Fathers v­sed, suppose, about 200. till 300. yeares after Christ, & after for some while. Howbeit he absolutly affirmeth that in the forme which the Apostles set in the Scrip­tures, the only patte [...]ne of a true Church is to be had. And that if any decline never so lit­tle from it, hee erreth. Which is all one with that where hee saith, Extern [...] [Page 150] Instit. 4.1.1. subsidia quoque Deus addidit, quò infirmitati nostrae consuleret. The Outward helpes and Meanes God hath added also, to the end that he might provide for our weaknes. If God have added them & appointed them for vs, what arrogancie shall it be for men to alter them? And chieflie the forme of the Visible Church. Like to these P. Martyr saith:P. Mart. in Rom. 3.21. Forma reipublica quandoque variatur: quod attinet ad Ecclesi­am, non mutat formam. The Forme of a Ci­vill state sometime is changed: but as touching the Church it changeth not her forme. All this is very contrary to our forena­med adversaries. Nay, which is to our great shame, the very Papistes in this generall point are nearer to the king­dome of God, then such vnworthy Protestantes are. For they religiously and most strictly do holde this, thatSander. Vi­fib. Monatch [...].6. Christ only is the Teacher and Insti­tuter of the forme of his Visible Church: and that no men may ever change it from that same which is set downe in Christes Testament. In the particular indeed they erre: in setting vp vnder the Gospell a Vniversall church exercising governemēt; which is not Christes spouse, but the Queene of pride. Nevertheles in the generall they holde cleerely the truth (as I have shewed) whereby they put many of vs to shame who beare a name of [Page 151]professing the Gospell. And so much of the Consequentes which highly touch the Honor and Office of Christ, and the Dignitie of his New Testa­ment.

There are also Consequentes from our adversaries opinion, which great­ly touch our selves. First, whosoe­ver of the Protestantes do refuse our foresaid Vniforme Opiniō of the peo­ples consent, must of necessitie holde two distinct formes of Christes Visible Church,Two wayes to heaven. and two distinct formes of Church-governement to bee lawfull: that is, both that where the people are absolutly excluded, & that where they are admitted. The one ordinary and best (as they say) the other extra­ordinarie and only in case of necessi­tie, as before hath ben shewed. Now to hold two distinct & opposit formes of the Visible Church & Church-go­vernement, is directly all one as to holde two wayes to heaven, distinct and opposite in them selves. Which is very scandalous in religion, and that which can not stande with truth. For the Visible Church and Church-go­vernement is plainly the way to hea­ven and the Outward meanes which must bring vs thither, or els ordina­rilie we can not come there. That is, Ordinarily faith, repentance, sanctifi­cation, [Page 152]and at last glorification in hea­ven, cometh only by the Ministerie of Gods word; and none can lawfully ad­minister, but being sent (now in these dayes) by the Visible Church, accor­ding to their authoritie in this case given them of Christ. Thus the only Outward meanes and way to heaven is Christes Visible Church and the ex­erci [...]ing of her authoritie in such forme and maner as Christ her Lorde hath appointed her. Which is only one way; it can not bee two wayes. There is only one forme ordained of Christ. And so only one is true, & one lawfull, which soever it bee.As before also I noted. pag. 78. Two wayes cannot be. D. Dewname answe­reth that there be other wayes which he alloweth, which areDef. 3.108. & 4.99. by necessitie: and necessitie hath no law. Nay, him selfe is lawles. Gods servants at no time are freed from Gods Law. As well in necessitie as in plētie, in adversitie no lesse then in prosperitie they are so tyed to the rule of his word (which is alwayes one) that they professe it al­wayes vnlawfull for them to take vp any invention of their owne vpon a­nie pretence. Indeed in Humane af­faires sometime Necessitie doth ex­cuse vs ftō following mans law. And so the proverbe is verifyed, Necessitie hath no law. But in Gods matters, and [Page 153]in the affaires of the Church, which are causes touching our soules, no ne­cessitie nor prosperitie can free vs (as I said) from Gods law and ordinance appointed for vs. So far (at least) that we may never take vp any invention of men, which in Gods Service is e­vermore the way ofSee my Expositiō of the 2. Commandement. error and not of truth. As for Do. Dwname I remem­ber the time, when hee was stout and resolut for Vnica Methodus in Philoso­phie. But the world is so changed with him since, that in Divinitie hee is now a professed Diplodophilus, one that thinketh there are two wayes to heaven,Dioplodo­philus. two wayes and formes of ad­ministring Christes Visible Church, of Calling the Ministerie, of exerci­sing holy Censures. Which matters (as before I shewed) are the ordinarie way to heaven for every soule: the Outward instrumentall Meanes san­ctified of Christ to save his people by. Now he professeth two formes of ad­ministring them, essentially distinct and opposit the one to the other, and yet both to be lawfull. Which indeed is evidence enough that hee is in er­ror. For the way of truth is only one (as before hath ben noted) but errour is manifold. Wherefore among the Protestantes seeing only wee holde a Vniforme & constant opinion in this [Page 154]matter of Christes Visible Church, (which is for the peoples consent in the Ordinarie Governement) it is certain that wee only have the truth, and our adversaries are in error.

And heere withall this followeth from our opinion, that we only have comfortable assurance to our consci­ences,Comforta­ble assurance on Christs Ordinances, not in Mens. which the adversaries can not soundly have. We hold only vpon the institution of Christ & practise of his Apostles. Of which wee have reason to be confident; and wherein we may well have assurance. For when wee builde the forme and frame & whole administration of Christes Visible Church vpon the Rocke mentioned in the Gospell Math. 16.18. that is, vpon Christ and his worde alone; who can make vs to doubt, but that God will crowne his owne worke, and blesse his owne Ordinance, and sanctify his owne way. Certainly we ought with all cheerfulnes to expect, and to con­ceave assurance to our soules of Gods gracious favor and everlasting good­nes, if wee stande in that way which plainly is Christes.Gal. 6.16. As many as walke ac­cording to this rule, peace shalbe vpon them & mercy, and vpon the Israel of God. But con­trariwise our adversaries allowing of two wayes in the Churches spirituall governement and administratiō, the [Page 155]one Apostolike the other Humane, both good (as they say) & both chan­geable by men; but neither of them any certain Ordinance or Cōmande­ment of Christ. Againe, when they make manyThose which follow the doctrine of our Atte­stators be­fore alleged. thousand several Chur­ches in the world to vse no other Cal­ling of their Ministers but such as is of Mens institutiō and from naturall reason: do they in this give assurance to mens consciences? Nay, it can not be. At the least, men standing in such state, will often doubt and make que­stion whether the spirituall blessings and graces of God in Christ bee pro­mised, or may bee instrumentally wrought in them by such a Ministe­rie no otherwise authorised and cal­led then so. For as it is most cer­tain that God saveth no man Ordina­rily but by Outward meanes, & that these Outward meanes are ordinari­lie Christes Visible Church, the Or­dayning of Ministers, and the admi­nistring of Gods Word, Sacramentes, and Censures therein; so it is most vncertain and much to bee doubted, whether God will acknowledge anie of these Outward meanes and instru­mentes to be his, or will give his or­dinarie blessing vnto them, working saith, repētance, sanctificatiō, & here­after his heavēly glorie in vs, by thē, [Page 156]vnles the saide Outward meanes and instrumentes be simply of that forme and nature, and bee exercised by the power and authoritie of such persons only, as he himself hath specially or­dayned and sanctifyed in his word to that purpose. This doubt, I say, at least,As also to stand vnder a Nōresidēt, may breed this doubt. will and must needes arise from the opinion of our adversaries. And it can not but weaken the faith of ma­ny, if in the end it do not wholy sub­vert it. Which indeed may come to passe from this originall, divers, and sundry wayes. But our vniforme cō ­stitution of the Church and admini­stration thereof, cutteth of all occasi­on of such doubting, and leaveth our consciences safely resting on Christ alone. And so much for this.

7 Seaventhly, where this is held, viz. that the peoples free consent ought to be alwayes in the Church governe­ment, there necessarily the Visible Catholike Church of Rome is ruined, quite overthrowen, and destroyed. Yea, this assertion of ours being made good, her spirituall tyrannie & vsur­pation is easily demonstrated. And there is no man who seeth not this. But contrariwise many see not, and many will not see (till they feele) that which yet is as certain and as sure a Consequence in true reason; viz. that [Page 157]where the peoples consent in the Church governement is condemned and hated,Advantage to the Pope by a Dioce­san Church. there the Church of Rome will get advātage, and in time advan­cement againe, notwithstanding that Civill Magistrates for a season doe what they can to resist the same. I know many will at the first thinke this a Paradox: yet verily it wil prove true. For the Church of Rome not only in reason, but by cleere rules of Divinitie and Religion; must needes get ground of vs, if we willingly give away this invincible Bullwarke and Fortresse against thē. I meane Christes Visible Churches true and proper Na­ture: and that both intensive, Christes Vi­sible Chur­ches Nature Intensive. which is the power of Spirituall governement receaved from Christ her Author and Founder, wherein the Peoples free consent is comprehended, as before I have often rehearsed;Extensive and also the Ex­tensive quantitie and Outward Body of the said Church, which in the Go­spell never reacheth to many Ordi­narie Congregations nor to any Set circuit of ground at all (as a Diocesan Church doth) but to one ordinarie Congregation only, as I haueDeclarat. pag. 18. els­where plainly declared. This is the true and proper Nature of Christes Visible Church in the New Testamēt. And I would all men did cōsider this; [Page 158] viz. that the effectuall defence of our faith against Poperie is & must be the alleadging and pressing against them this Nature and proper Constituti­on of Christes saide Visible Church. Without which we shall labor against them al in vaine; and which our fore­fathers Zuinglius, Luther, and the rest, wisely holding and maintayning (asChapt. 3. & 4. and pag. 102. 103. 104. above we have seene) have easily & mightily from thence by the sword of the Spirit (whiche is the word of God) put them to flight and quelled them. And so may we do still: but no otherwise. In which regard it gree­veth me often times when I see many of our Defenders of the truth against the Papistes, being otherwise learned and godly, yet dealing in this matter very vncircumspectly, and I may say praeposterously. Who make no great reckoning to stande with the Papistes vpon the proper Nature of Christes Visible Church;A great cause why cur contro­versies com not to an and. or if they medle with it, they do not strictly holde to that Nature & forme thereof which is left vs in the N. Testament, being plainly another and distinct from that of the Iewes vnder the Law. This verily our men against that Adversarie do con­sider too little, and they prosecute it lesse. They treat more of Christes In­visible, or Militant, then of the Mini­ste­riall [Page 159]Church. So leaving the que­stion in deed, and labouring in things which touch not the point. Whereby it cometh to passe, that they resist thē not with that fruit as they might. For wee must know that ordinarily the Church Ministeriall is the Meanes and instrument of true faith. If the Meanes and procuring cause (which is most sensible to vs) be not first well cleered, and mens consciences therein satisfyed, and the same demonstrated plainly to bee of Divine institution, the doctrine of faith besides will bee but vncertain.

If any say, Our Forefathers over­came the Papistes by the word of God cutting downe their other foule er­rors,Obiection. viz. Purgatorie, Free-will, Auricular confession, Reall presence, Images, Praying to Saints, Iustification by workes, &c. They o­vercame them not by affirming that the people ought to have alwayes their free cōsent in Church governe­ment. And so may wee also overcome them still. I answere, Men are much deceaved that do thus thinke.Answ. Our Forefathers (as I said) by this verie assertion (that the people ought to have their said free consent) did vt­terly overthrow the Papistes: and without this they could not possibly have so done. For vnles this assertion [Page 160]had ben true, neither could the first Protestant Pastors bee truly authori­sed and called, neither could any of the Protestants at first lawfully have forsaken the Roman Church, whereof they all stood members. And then, I pray, how could they have overcome them? Nay, it had 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 [Page 161]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 theD. Kellisō. 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. [Page 162]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 [Page 163]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 isIoh. 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 [Page 164]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, whichPag. 43. before I remembred: viz. that the people consenting togeather in the truth of the Gospell, have frō 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, asPag. 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 haveReas. for re­form. pag. 45. 46. 47. &c. Divine begin­ning of Christs Visib Church. Argum. 9. A Definitiō 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 [Page 165]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. 3.2 [...].23. whē they want Ministers they cannot want po­wer to provide them to them selves. Seeing God hath made them theirs. Further, the Apostle requireth the christiā 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, whē they want Ministers. I answer, if they have power, frō whom have they it? It wilbe 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 [Page 166]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, whē they have not such as they would and should have otherwise.

So then, this was the answer which the said Tilenus gave to that Frēch Lord. But in deed this is not only Tilenus an­swer in this matter: for it hath ben the cōmon 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. ThoughPerpe. gov. Pag. 335. D. Bilson do vniustly deny it. A most certain deduction of this power and right of the people, [Page 167]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 [Page 168]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 thatPerpet. 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; asPag. 81. before I have observed. And so they must deny the true Essence of Mini­sterie [Page 169]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 cō ­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 frō 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 [Page 170]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. [...]. 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 Pap [...]s [...]es de­sire, and do triumph in. It is false two wayes. First, whatsoever the Church of Rome did give to Archbi. Cranmer, &c. that wholy they tooke away a­gaine, namely when he fel from them. For then they both deposed him, and excommunicated him. So that they left him no whit of that power & fun­ction (so much as lay in them) which they had given him. But questionles if they could give it, they could take it away. Wherefore (so soone as hee was ours) being thus cut off and excommu­nicate from the Church of Rome, hee could not after that have any power (as derived from them) to make Ministers, nor to do any other Bishoplie act. Se­condly, wee all knowe the Church of Rome to be the very Antichrist, chieflie [Page 171]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 [Page 172]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 the2. 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 [Page 173]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 [Page 174]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 asDef. 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 [Page 175]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. Andchap. 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 cō ­pany (being the stronger in the world) [Page 176]may cry out loudest against those few­er that dissent from him, that they are Schismatickes and peace-breakers: but look vnto the word of God, & thē them selves will be found to bee the makers of the Schisme in departing from the said word of God by their Traditions,The true cause of V­nitie. We see then by this that the true & iust cause of Vnitie in the churches of Christ is to cleave vnseparably to Christes Te­stament. Which mē not willing to fol­low alwayes, but seeking to walke ra­ther in the wayes and customes and in­ventions of men, thereby they give oc­casion indeed of much strife,The true cause of dis­sension in Religion. discord, & dissention. This is the true cause of our differences in religion. It is as fensele [...] which D. Downame maintaineth, that Diocesan and Provinciall Bishops (ha­ving no Superior Ecclesiasticall) can be causes of Vnitie.Def. 2.114. [...] For none of these can do any thing, but each in his owne cir­cuit. Now what is that to Christian Vnitie, when nevertheles there may be (for all thē) so many opinions as there be independent Provinciall Bishops. Only a Vniversall Church and Bishop (if we list to follow Mens policies, and not Christes Testament) may in deed cause a kinde of Vnitie. But againe, such Vnitie without Veritie, is vnto Christian people plaine tyrannie. And we professe, that absolute Vnitie vnder [Page 177]a Visible Head is not so good, as the Tyrānie of such a one is mischievous. Christ rather would his faithfull ser­vantes should be prooved and exerci­sed by Schismatikes, then their con­sciences oppressed by tyrants.

Some perhaps will say, that thus we seeme to desire dissentions, seeing we refuse reasonable & likelie meanes of Vnitie. I answer. First, The Pope hath better colour so to obiect, then Pro­vincialls, as before is said. Second. our meanes of Vnitie which we imbrace, are far more likely to effect the same, then their way. For they have a Pro­vinciall L. Bishop without the word: but we have Christs written word, & his churches helpe also. These meanes among vs will settle more vnitie and peace in truth a hundred times, (espe­cially within the body of our Chur­ches) then our adversaries have or can have by their L. Bishops.The Magi­strats favor a speciall cause of V­nitie. If our Magi­strates would shew vs their favor and aide (which our adversaries enioy) this that I say would quickly & vni­versally be evident. But for want of the Magistrates said favor, I grant mo differences do appeare amonge vs, then would otherwise. In which case yet no Christiā ought to be offended, but to consider both that vnder the A­postles it hath been so, and that All­mightie [Page 178]God she weth heereby that it isSee D. Downam. Def. 3.67.68. better so to bee, then vnder Hu­mane tyrannie though pretending Vnitie. Doct. Downame setteth vp his rest vpon aDef. 3.4.6. Vniversall Synod for V­nitie. This is his chiefest buck lar. But alas, how vaine is it? For first, a Vni­versall Synode indeed is impossible to be had: especially by vs in these dayes. For when and where had any Christi­ans the least benefit by a Vniversall Synod, since the Pope hath ben dete­cted? What a meanes then of Vnitie is that which our Adversaries pre­tend? Namely, which is not possible to be had; or howsoever, most rare & difficult. Secondly, such a Synod at the D. stands for, viz. Setting downe Decreta tanquam Dictatoria & [...] Ecclesijs, Decrees as it were vncontroulable, and not vnder the examination of the Chur­ches, is by the learnedPag. 101. &c. 105. 106 &c. before plainly condemned: to whom I will adde M. Chemnicius, Exam. Con­cil. Trid. part 1. pag. 3. condemning the Council of Trent for this very cause & in these very wordes; denying also that any of the Primitive Councills were such. And yet a Vniversall Councill (if it may bee had) and other Councills so far as they may be had, we allow, and imbrace, and do acknowledge great benefit by them: namely, so that their Decrees may bee examined and tryed [Page 179](by Gods worde) of them to whom Gods word appertaineth. This vse (I say) of a Generall Synod wee allow as well as he: which in deed is the only true vse of Synods. Certainly Provin­ciall and Diocesan Synods wee allow more then he doth. For hee so admit­teth these Synods, that yet the Head Bishop in any of thē is toDef. 4.82.83. & 2.114. over rule all. And what vse of them is there then? The L. Bishop may have as good Counsel and advise with lesse trouble and charge. But these are not that Meanes of Vnitie which hee preten­deth: It is (as I said) the Synod Vni­versall; and that of supreme and abso­lute power spirituall over all Christi­ans, and that from Christes expresse ordinance. Which verily also taketh away Soveraigne power frō all with­in England, Note this ill Consequent. to reforme our selves in religion, what need so ever there be. Which I leave to the wise to consider of. Yea this his opinion doth in the end necessarily induce a Pope, as I have said.

Hitherto of perverting the true in­tensive Nature of Christes Visible Church, viz. where the people of the ordinary Congregations are barred their free consent in the Church go­vernemēt. Where we have seene what great and lamentable evills follow [Page 180]therevpon: even to the making of a plaine path way for the Popes reen­trance among vs.What ex­tent or li­mit is there of a Church in the New Testam. Now wee shall see that the same mischiefe cometh like­wise by extending the Churches out­ward Body larger and further then it ought to bee. The iust extent of the outward Body, or the true boundes and limites of Christes Visib. Church alwayes vnder the Gospell is one or­dinarie Congregation only.See also be­fore pag. 10. 157. The rea­son is, because so we finde it to bee in the whole New Testament of Christ. All the which I have proved and de­clared plainly els where, viz. before pag. 87. and Declarat. pag. 10. 19. 20. &c. It is to prophane and vnchristian, ad­visedly to affirme, that in the New Testament Christ or his Apostles have limited and defined no Church. O [...] that men may change those bounde [...] which Christ or his Apostles have se [...] The Papistes them selves are not [...] grosse, asPag. 150. before I have noted: & they would desire no greater hand vpon vs then that we should so answer them. Some certain limites therefore and bounds of a Church questionles Chris [...] hath set. But our adversaries, and namelyDef. [...]. &c. D. Downame refuseth the or­dinary Congregation. They avouch and maintayne a diocesan and Pro­vinciall Church to be of Divine insti­tution [Page 181]in the New Testament. What maintaine they? A Diocesan Church? Nay, in deed Christes Visible Church [...]hen must be not only Diocesan,A Diocesan Church re­quireth a Vniversall Church. nor only Provincial, no nor only Patriar­ [...]hall, but evē Vniversall. I say, where Christes Visible Church is not belee­ved to bee by Christ limited only to one ordinary Congregation, there all reason and rules of religion will re­quire Christes said Church to bee no lesse then Vniversall. For no man can [...]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 earthSee before pag 112. & Hook. 126.132. one whole Church being but one Body sub­iect to governemēt. 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 [Page 182]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 thē we must by Christes ordināce referre our selves for religion and spirituall governement to that one Body Visi­ble, whereof wee say wee are a part. Heere a hundredBefore pag. 179. difficulties will come vpon vs. The Doct. acknowled­geth alsoDef. 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: thereHook. 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 no­tedPag. 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 [Page 183]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, thē 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 littlePag. 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 sufficiēt 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 int 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 sup­pr [...]sseth as also Calvins second answer to the Papistes immediatly follow­ing [Page 185]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 cōvenit. 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.
• 2 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 3 is as the last before. Saith he, it would [Page 186] 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.
• 4 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 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 [Page 187]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, asDeclar. 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 [Page 188]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 [Page 189]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 continueMath. 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 [Page 190]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 [Page 191]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 [Page 192]members are bound to heare & 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 obedienceBy 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 [Page 193]this, as they feele the harme that co­meth of it.

Last of all, from the due considera­tiō 8 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 thatT. 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 Sadole [...]. 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 se [...] [Page 194]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 Deu [...] quo (que) addidit, quo infirmitat [...] nostra cōsuleret. God hath also added Outward meanes and helpes whereby he may provide for our infir­mitie. Shewing that evē 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 myDeclarat. 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 [...]. 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 [...]cond Commandement in the Deca­logue: [Page 195]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 cōveyeth 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 [Page 196]know and vnderstand in our Christi­an professiō 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 openedPag. 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 se [...] also the great cause which they had who published the Offer of Conference & disputation,The Offer of Conferēce 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 [Page 197]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 ignorantlyDef. 1.3 [...] skorneth) where they say, thatConsider [...] ­tion. 6. some of the propo­sitions which they offer to maintayne are such, as if they were not true, wee can not iustly separat frō the Church of Rome, nor stand out against it. Those some Proposittions which they meane, are namely the fourth & eight set down in that Offer. Which affirme that a Church is but one Ordinary Cōgregation: and that the people ought to have their free con­sent in the spirituall governement thereof. Vnto which may be added the 5.6.7. and 10. as being all of one nature by cleere and certain consequence. The soundnes and firme truth of all the which, hath ben sufficiently prooved and declared heeretofore, and might by such a right Christiā tryal as there they desire, bee brought to further light. Wherefore D. Downames absurd reproches against that treatise, calling it most senseleslyDef 1.382 & 4.81. an Vnchristian and vnmodest Offer, and the Positions there­in, Schismatical novelties, do declare with what gall of bitternes his heart over-floweth against the truth, against his [Page 198]brethren (asDef. 2.48. hee dissemblingly cal­leth vs) and also against those noble Pillars of the Gospell before alleaged, (our Attestators) who are heerein his vtter adversaries, whatsoever he pre­tendeth to the cōtrary. He as a cocke on his owne dunghill, may crow [...] what he list. But if the Offer had ben or might bee accepted in such equall order as is there tendered, he would be made to eate his wordes, I doubt not: and all the infamie of Schisme & Noveltie would fall vpon his owne head. Without which acceptanc, elet the Doct. know that his tedious and Sophisticall writing, & all other such like, will be held by wise men to bee vaine boasting, and no better cōquest then of such Champions as draw their weapons, strike, fight, and take on at adversaries whose handes they will bee sure, them selves have firste tyed fast. Yea, whom they will bee sure to have in their power to imprison and persecute if any presume to move a­gainst them. Neither will they indure to bee shewed the imminent danger from the common enimy, till all come about their heads. And so much touching the important Cōsequences of our present Assertion.

CHAP. 8. An answer to divers chiefe Obiecti­ons of the adversaries of this cause; noting also brieflie their immodest, & not Christianlike reproches against this Evangelicall doctrine.

FIRST we will consider heere D. Downames second booke of his De­fence, D. Dow­names Defence. 2. Booke, answere [...] affirming and maintaining that there were proper Diocesā Chur­ches vnder the Apostles. Which being true, the people then certainly had not a free consent in Church-gover­nement. A cleare reason whereof I shewed before pag. 85. And I willingly acknowledge it still. Yea and likewise that neither now they ought to have. That vnder the Apostles the Churches were properly Diocesan, the D. affirmeth in the title of this second book of his Defense: and doth his best to maintaine it in the whole processe thereof afterward.

Where indeed I cōmend him above al others that ever wrote in this cause against vs;D Dow­names commen­datiors. namely for that hee doth more fitly and rightly set downe the point of the controversy which hath so long troubled Christian people in [Page 200]England,Chap. 8. then any other before him hath don. WhichWhether proper Dio­cesan Chur­ches were vnder the Apostles. point only, if it were Christianly and plainly decided, would bring great contentment and a ioyful Vnitie, I am perswaded, to ma­ny thousandes. But the proofes of his assertion heere do all faile him: Nay, they are strangely abused and perver­ted by him, specially his Scriptures. And heerein he is little to bee com­mended. Let vs examine therefore his Scriptures: and then the rest. Yet by the way wee will Define a proper Diocesan Church,The Defini­tion of a Diocesan Church. before wee begin with him. A Diocesan Church is a Societi [...] of professed Christians, whose spirituall gover­nement is practised without the peoples sie [...] consent, and whose Pastor hath a pluralitie of ordinar [...]e Congregations in his charge. Such a Church we deny to have ben vnder the Apostles: and I pray the Reader to have recourse to those seaven Rea­sons of mine which I haveDeclarat. pag. 20.21. &c. elswhere set downe to proove this my denyall and to disprove his assertion.

Now what doeth the Doctor bring to proove his opinion? Expect not (good Reader) that I should follow him in his vaine flourishes, and need­les amplificatiōs, repetitions, invecti­ves, & other passages more fit for o­stentation, & to satisfy his intēperate humor, then for profit. My desire is, [Page 201]so as I may with perspicuitie in the cause to vse brevitie: and if not to de­ [...]iver multa paucis, yet to take heed not to deliver pauca multis, as hee doth. Wherefore I will pick out that which [...] see materiall in him: the rest I will [...]et passe. In his first Chapter pag. 4. he [...]etteth downe a most confused distri­ [...]ution of the divers senses of the Greeke word Ecclesia, D. Down. Defen. 2.4. (in the New Te­stament) which we vsually translate [...] Church. Wherein hee committeth 5. errors pertinent to our question.

• First 1 from this in Mat. 18.17. Act. 15.22. hee [...]ould make a Synod or Consistone which have answered before pa. 108. &c.
• Se­ [...]ondly a Nationall Church of the Iewes, 2 Act. 7.38. Which likewise I have an­ [...]wered, in Reas. for Reform pag. 5. in the margin.
• Thirdly, Christian Nationall 3 Churches in the nober plurall, as he spea­ [...]eth: namely in Rom. 16.4. 1. Cor. 16.1. [...]9. 2. Cor. 8.1. Gal. 1.2.22. Which places [...]e abuseth & perverteth most rudely and desperatly. The wordes do ex­ [...]resly signifie nothing but a nom­ [...]er of Ordinarie Congregations;
  Such wee meane by Parishes.
  [...]ath of them assembling in one [...]lace, or at most contayning
  See my De­clarat pa 10. and 18.19. & 28.29.31.32.
  no mo ordinary assemblies then one: and he without, yea contrary to the expresse [...]etter fancieth to him selfe a Nationall Church, from no ground, nor shew of [Page 202]ground in these places.
• Fourthly, he bringeth Act. 5.11. and 8.1. and 11.12. and 12.1.5. 4 and 13.1. and 14.23. & 20.17.28. 1. Cor. 1.2. 2. Cor. 8.23. 2. Thes. 1.1. 1. Tim. 5.16. Iam. 5.14. Apoc. 1.4.11.20. and 2.1. &c. to prove a Church of a Ci­tie and Country adioyning. Where his error is like to the former. What should I say to this man? Not one of all these signifyeth a Church of a City and Country adioyning, if he meane it to be extended or intended to mo ordi­narie Congregations then only one. Which is his meaning. It is true the Churches of these Cities heere speci­fyed (viz. of Ierusalem, Antioch, Ephesus, Corinth, Thessalonica, &c.) might have mēbers then which dwelt scattering­ly, and some a good way of from the place of their ordinarie maine mee­ting, and such also as did assemble of­ten in divers vncertain companies (as in times of trouble there is reason, & it often commeth to passe) but yet in those primitive times they all in each Church then made no mo but
  Which in a good sense [...]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 Diviniti [...] shall we expect from these Doctors, wh [...] will pervert Grammar? Which ou [...] Doctor is not ignorant of: but his er­ror [Page 203]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 5 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 frō 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. [...].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 [Page 204]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 littlePag. 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 instrumentesBefore 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: [Page 205]and they maintained it prosperouslie against stronger adversaties then hee [...]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 haveDeclarat. pag. 30. els-where shewed this his presumptiō 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 cōtrarie 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 heeChap. [...]. 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. [Page 206]Which is not only contrarie to the propertie of the word Ecclesia before noted, but also cōtrary 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 [...]kenīg [...] to it is as little. For Act. 24.12 [...] is, in the City. and did not extend it selfe to the Coūtry 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 nūbreth 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, andCicer. 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 mentionethAct. 20.7. Troas, Colos. 4.13. Coloss [...], Hierapolis, [Page 207]which were questionles within these [...]undes. Magnesia & Trallis in all like­ [...]hood were now also:Mentioned in Igna­tius Epist. and were no [...]embers now of any of those seaven [...] the Revelation. And it is more then [...]kely that many other besides these [...]ere named, were also. Indeed Christ [...]ould that all within Asia, yea & out [...]f Asia too, should exemplarily take [...]dmonition by this which he writeth [...]etsonally & directly to these seaven [...]one: which is all that he meaneth in [...]hose wordesRev. 2.1 [...]. Let him that hath an eare [...]eare what the Spirit saith to the Churches. [...]ut this is nothing to proove that all [...]hese other Churches were Mēbers sub­ [...]ect to those seaven. Yet two reasons [...]oreChap. 4. he hath. One is this;Pag. 65. The Apo­ [...]les appointed Ministers to whole Cities and Countryes adioyning, to labor so far as they [...]ere able the conversion of all. True. What [...]hen? Therefore they appointed them [...]o stande Ministers still to whole Ci­ [...]ies and Countryes adioyning. I deny [...]his consequence. It is a plaine fallacie [...]b eo quod est secundum qu [...]d, Fallaci [...]. 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 wholeMath. 13.33. world: but not to stand Ministers & Pastors to all them when they should [Page 208]be converted: But only, according t [...] the order and forme of a Church se [...] 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 īs blasphe­mie to a­vouch that the Apostles intended the Churches forme should be substan­tially cōtra­ry 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 cōtrary in that these may and do admit the Christian peo­ples free consent in Church governe­ment, the other can not: these cā 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 Nōresidents. 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 [Page 209] Declarat. Pag. 12.13.14 15 16. & [...]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, [...]or Presbyters assigned to their several Cures. Therefore then a Church was not a Pa­ [...]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, [...]ach Church was it selfe a distinct Pa­ [...]ish, and severally divided from all o­ [...]her. Also the Presbyters then were as­signed to their severall cures, viz. to these Parishes or Churches. But if hee [...]ake a Parish as it is a Congregation li­ [...]ited within a certaine circuit of [...]round, and as a Dioces is subdivided [...]nto many of them (as they are now) so [...]ve speake not of them. Yet commonly [...]r altogeatherPag. 77. hee doth so speake of [...]hem. Wherefore heere every man may [...]e his vanitie. Hee doth fly the true [...]uestion, and shufleth in things that [...]e never intended. Then, his grosse vn­ [...]ruth & vnschollerlike assertion ought [...] bee marked, where he saith:Pag 75. The [...]ord Ecclesia is of a larger extent, then to sig­ [...]fy only one assembly. I appeale to all au­ [...]entike Greeke Authors, Thucidides, De­ [...]osthenes, Plato, Aristotle, Isocrates, &c. Out [...]f whom plentifull allegations may be [Page 210]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 oftenReas. 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. heerePag. 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 [Page 211]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 [...]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 nobleOur 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 [Page 212]words specially touching Church-go­vernement. The forme whereof incli­ned toward alteration, yea somewhat before them (as wee may perceave inCan 6. Nic. Concil [...]) 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 inSee 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 andMath 22.29 Ioh. 5.39.40. Isa. 8.20. proper writing of Christs Testament.

HeeIn his chap. 5. indeavoureth to make voide some of our reasons against Diocesan Churches vnder 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 itReas. 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 byPag 7. him before of all the Pri­mitive [Page 213]Churches. But all this is fall [...]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 Con­g [...]gation [...] to be an int [...] Church, & every Church bu [...] 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 reasonsPag. 208. & Dec [...] 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 cōpany of Persbyters & Deacons. Where Ignat. meaning is that every wher it ought at least, so to be. In which Calvin likewise consenteth; Say­ing, [Page 214] Calv. Instit. 4.1.9. Vnaquaeque nomen & authoritatem Ec­clesiae iure obtinet. Every one of the Congrega­tions (which were dispersedAnd 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 placesPag. 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 quàm cetum vel populi Cōgre­gationem, & totum plebis collegium significat. Vndè singulas paraecias Ecclesiae vocabulo not are licet, cum per hoc cetus & cōgregati in vnū 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, [Page 215]qui in vnum collectus Scripturae sensus ab a­lijs expositos attentus percipit. Populus ergo, & fidelis Christianorum oninium Ecclesia Docto­res suos dijudicat, & de illorū doctrina, sana ne sit vel impia, pronūciare 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 ChurchIn Pasto [...]. erat Parae­cia, was a Parish. And again likewise. The Ephesin Church thē wasAbove pag. 103. Concio, a particu­lar assembly. And questiōles as he thought of these, so likewise he thought of Ierusalēs 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 parikia [...] 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 re [...]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 [Page 216] 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 thēselves that they say thēselves 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 Latine [...] an Assembly. See how lively hee painteth out and taxeth also our Church state in England, though primarily he intendeth the Papists. And remember that to every of these Churches he alloweth a Bishop, asPag. 104. before I have noted. So that the D. might have spared his proud boast, that [Page 217] 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 as­sertionPag. 14. New foolish Disciplinarians. His worship doubtles is wise, when all these our Attestators and abbettors bee fooles. Also, thatPag. 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 cons [...]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 resolutiō. Before he said these meetings [Page 218]of the Church werePag. 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 hādled 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 answeredDeclarat. 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 [Page 219]all reason is for it, asPa 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 moreDeclarat. 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 Con­gregatiō 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 s [...]ockes, nor possibly be present to the whole. But they must be Nōresidents, which questiōles 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 [Page 220]of the text, to say (as he doth) some of the chiefe, perhaps not many, perhaps not a­ny, beside the Clergie. The [...]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 Testamēt 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 byDef. 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 [Page 221]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 a­gainstDef. 2.128.142. & Def. 4. &c. Perp. gov. 25 [...] 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 cā bring one sound proofe for themselves in Christs Te­stament, therefore they vse heere but a carnall reason, and contrary to the honour of God. TheyIer. 17.5 [...] 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 [Page 222]our adversaries had som kind of gene­ral consent of men for thē as they pre­tend, seeing they can not indeed pro­duce the Scripture more then the Pa­pists do, who also pretēd 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 pra [...]) 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 [Page 223]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 reasō of Hu­mane consent in Divine matters (such as our questiō of the forme of Christs Church is) but also it notifyeth D. Bil­sons open cōtradictiō 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. 4.38 [...]. It is a­like Haereticall to believe without Scripture, a [...] 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, thatCons. 257. No Humane proofe is sure in Divini­tie: &Pag. 19 [...] Truth is not to be tryed by consent of Fathers: &Pag. 45 [...] For my selfe, I assure you that neither dead nor quicke, Fathers nor children [Page 224]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 beAs some­time Poly­gamie was Catholike errors, which yet questi­onles may be, yea ought to bee repro­ved by all them that vnderstād them.

Well: but have our adversaries a V­niversall cōsent 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 [Page 225]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. [...]. we speak against only a proper Dio­cesan Church and the Bishop thereof, where the peoples free cōsent 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 theirDef. 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 [Page 226]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 ofPag. 64. 65. 66. antiquitie, who do stand with vs. By all true evidence it wilbe 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 shewedPag. 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. [Page 227]But this I have shewedPag. 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,I [...]nat. a [...] 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 [Page 228]false, but absurd to say that the like may be spoken now of theCan 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 CityEuseb. lib. 3.23. Graec. [...], having refreshed the Breth [...]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 cōmitted the charge of a yong man to a BishopPag. 15. 18. qui super cunst [...]s Episcopos erat constitutu [...], 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 alsoDef. 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, [Page 229]when hee groundeth vpon any writ­ten historie. So hee citeth very often Egesippus, Clemens, Dionysius, Tertullian, &c. Wherefore question [...]es heere he mea­neth some other report, or tradition, and speach of mē, I know not whom. And in setting downe such matters, he is nothing curious many times, asPag. 91. 92. before I have signifyed. Not seldom he reporteth fabulous things, yea whē 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 [Page 230]he seemeth to meane that both of thē 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 Alexādria: 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, asPerpet. gov. pag. 324. Doct. Bilson before him a­voucheth. But both of thē 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 [Page 231]simply: but from the beginning of Dioceses, which though it were lōg before these Councills, yet as I iudge it was not beforeAbout 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 noSee before. pag. 88. 97. 98. pro­per Diocesan Church, viz. like ours in England. Neither were these Canons before Constantines age. So that our D. D. do argue from hence very vnwor­thily. But D. Down. Def. 2.106. boasteth much that Ignatius calleth him selfeIgnat. ep [...] ­ad Rom. Bishop of Sy­ria. Why? What then? Ignatius heere sheweth his Nation, not the extent of his Bishoprike. He sheweth hee was a Bishop of Syria, or a Syrian Bishop; & not the Bishop of all Syria. Likewise to theAd Mag­nes. Magnesians that his Church was a most famous & notable Church in Syria, not the only Church there, much lesse extended over all Syria. Neither was Philip Archbishop of Crete, as the Doctor Defenc 4.8 and 2.125 would make him seeme by perverting and abusing Eusebius a­gaine. For his wordsEuse. [...]. [...]3 [...] [Page 232] their Bishop, are to bee referred to the Church of Gortyna mentioned a little be­fore. Not to the very next wordes, which are to be vnderstood by them­selves as it were in a parenthesis, thus; (( [...]) together with the rest of the Churches in Crete. To take Eusebius thus, is the right ta­king of him heere. For presently him selfe openeth him selfe, saying it was the Church of Gortyna which was [...] vnder him. Vnder Phi­lip. And yet more plainly af­ter, where with speciall respect to the former place in question, he saith of this Philip, Cap. 23. [...], whō we know by Dionysius i [...]ordes to have ben Bishop of the Parish in Gortyna. So then hee was not Bishop of all Creete by Eusebius testi­fying. The Doc. in another place con­tradicteth him selfe, and maketh Pi­nytus at this very time to be Bishop ofDef. 4.9. Candie, that is, of all Crete, as he mea­neth. In deed Eusebius saith, that this Pinytus wasEuseb. 4.21. [...] Bishop of them in Crete. But all men vn­derstand that hee meaneth heere to shew but his Nation, not the extent of his Bishoprike. For Eusebius decla­reshCap. 23. after, that Pinytus was Gnossita [...] paraciae Episcopus, the Bishop of the parish in Gnossi. Which certainly was not Over all Crete, neither was Gnosi [...] the mother [Page 233]City of Crete. That which the DoctorDef. 2.93.100. presumeth of Evaristus Bishop of Rome, that he there constituted a Dio­cesan Church and divided parishes, I have answered itPag. 93. 94. before. His testimo­nies out of Tertullian, Cornelius of Rome, and Cyprian for a Diocesan Church, proove nothing. Touching theDef. 2.97.98. first, Tertullian saith not that in Rome or in any Citie then, the Christians were divided into many set, constant, and certain companies,Tertallian. and so had divers such ordinarie assemblies. Tertullian saith no such matter, which yet is the point. Indeed, like a Rhetorician hee amplifieth the multitude of Christi­ans and Christianlie affected in his dayes; and that is all that he doeth A­pol 37. and ad Scapul▪ They are in truth Rhetoricall amplifications. Yet, I say,In the Ro­man Em­pire. he comprehēdeth in these great nom­bers all Christianly affected, and all their favourers; not only the open members of the Church.Cootiarily hee saith, they were one singu­lar Cetus & aggre­gatio. Def. 2. Now such may be so many, as hee there noteth. Nothing of all this we deny. But hee sheweth not, that yet in any Citie the open resolut Christians were divided into divers ordinary set companies, as I said. The like do I answer toPag. 9 [...]. that of the very great and innumerable people vnder Cornelius Bishop of Rome. They were so many, that no man among [Page 234]them knew the first nomber of them. And so I suppose at this day the church is in Paris, in Rouan. &c. Where yet the Church is not divided into several constant and set Meetings: but all belong only to one certaine & con­stant assembly. Againe vnder Corneli­us the Christian people were not so many but one Trophimus a Presbyter drew away from himCypr. epist. 4.2. the greater part of them after Novatian; & repenting, he brought them backe with him a­gaine. Also the Church assembled in one place to electCypr. Epi. 3.13. and 4. Cornelius, and a lit­tle beforeEuseb. 6.22. Fabianus, to bee their Bi­shop. Wherefore they were not abso­lutly innumerable. But this is plaine, and it can not be disprooved, that yet the Church in Rome had not divers set, constant, ordinarie assemblies. Nor yet Cyprians Church in Carthage. Anno 250. All the which came togeather forSee pag. 55.56.57.58. his electi­on, and vnder him also for all ordina­rie Church busines. The Do. saith vn­truly of him thatDef. 2.40. he was Bishop of A­frike. Nazianzen doth make him Bi­shop Hesperiae Vniversae, of all Spaine at least, as well as of Afrike. And Pruden­tius goeth further: saith he,De Passi­ [...] Cypr. Vsque in or­tum Solis, & vsque obitum: from the rising of the Sunne, to the going downe thereof. But doth any man beleeve that Cypri­ [...]s Bishoprike was so large? or that [Page 235]these Authors meant so? Nothing lesse. They meant only that the ex­ample of this holy man, and his do­ctrine did good thus far. I graunt also that by his letters he admonished and informed divers other▪ Bishops neare about Carthage: and so hee did Cornelius of Rome, &c. But this was out of his singular zeale for the truth and love to his brethren. Also hee prevayled much in so doing. Howbeit this was through his great credit & reverence they had of him: it was not out of any Metropolitan power that hee had, or superior office which he exercised o­ver thē. For he had none such, though he were a Metropolitan in respect of the place where hee was Bishop. And altogeatherDefen. 4.8 [...] so did Policrates of Ephe­sus, [...] hee lead or guided the Asian Bishops. And no otherwiseDef. 2.115. Irenaeus B. of Lions [...] did looke vnto certaine Churches thereabout in France. And Victor B. of Rome was a Metropolitan no otherwise also. Although without any preiudice to vs, wee might well grant these to have bene then such Metropolitans & Diocesans, viz. with Prioritie of order, not Maioritie of power▪ as before we acknowledged Iulianus of Alexandria to have ben, who was somwhat anci­enter then they. Other Diocesan or Metropolitā Bishops after these, whom both D. Downame and D. Bilson do name [Page 236]plētifully, as they hurt not our maine Assertion, viz. that no proper Diocesan Church was in the world before 200. yeares after Christ, so neither do wee envie their appearing which wasSee pag. 88. 94. &c. so late as it was. These D. D. do argue earnestly from Ierom saying thatIerom. ad [...]vagr. Bi­shops above Presbyters were at Alex­andria even from Marke the Evangelist. Which we willingly agree vnto. For they were not Diocesan Bishops, not over many ordinarie Congregations. And such also were those Angells of the Churches, which are mentioned in theRev. 2.1. Revelation. This wee constantly a­vouch, these we allow, and what get our adversaries by that? We hold that such Bishops be Apostolike and Di­vine: yet Diocesan both titular, and ruling Bishops, and also Lord Bishops came in [...]a [...]latim by litle and little, by Hu­mane policie, and ambition, and ty­rānie long after. But Ierom there saith that these Bishops were in a higher de­gree above Presbyters:Bez. Anno­ [...]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 [Page 237]callReas. for 1 [...]. Prioritie of Order. Which also Ie­ [...]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 remaineDeclar [...], 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 thePerp. gov. pag. 260. D. Down. Def. 4. & [...]. Succession of Bishops, to proove our Bishops as they are in England to be lawfull, may appeare to be a meere [Page 238]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 isRain. 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 [Page 239] Iames nor Titus were, nor could be proper Bishops there. Which I shewe thus.

The Proposition is most evident, and granted of ourD. Bilson pag. 227. 232. adversaries. The Assumption they neither ought, nor dare deny. For Iames having frō 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 frō 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 [Page 240]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 administratiō did no thing in vaine, & idly. Again, though the Apostleship contained in it the whol office of a proper Bishop, yet this wasDeclarat. 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 [Page 241]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. 4.5 [...] 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 l [...]ft vp a Bi­shop above an Apostle; his other idlePag. 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. gov [...] 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▪ if our proofes stand; or subvertion, if your answere be good. For if this faile, well may Bishops claine their authoritie by the custome of the Church; by any divine precept expressed in the Scriptures, they can not. Saith hee so? Let vs see then howe soundly this will stand. But first, I de­sire him to remember, if it happen that this his proofe out of the Scrip­ [...] [...] subverted, and then he be for­ced [Page 242]to flie to the Churches Custom for suc­cour, that himselfe hath ruined, cast downe, and defaced that weake hold all ready. So that there he can have no reliefe. Now then to his proofes out of scripture that Titus & Timothie were Bishops. He frameth 4. Arguments for it.

• 1. That power to ordaine sit Ministers, to convent & discharge vnsit (prescribed to Titus & Timothie) was no power proper to Evange­lists. Wee grant this wholy, even the Conclusion. It is another point: and nothing against vs.
• The Conclusion of his 2. argument is like to the for­mer: therefore we grant it also. For this proveth not that Timothie or Titus were proper Bishops, which is the question. Yet in the Minor where hee saith, that Presbyteries claime this power comitted to Timothie & Tite, even to ordain, examine, censure, & deprive Pastors. I deny this to bee true: Presbyteries claime not this power. Neither have they it properly & originally, as Bucer shew­ed
  Pag 33.
  before. Properly and originally the whole Church hath this power: the Presbyterie hath only the autho­ritie of administring the same, & that in the name of the whole Church, as Piscator and V [...]sinus
  Pag. 46. [...]1.
  before do expresse. And further I answer (by that distin­ction above noted;) This power of or­dayning, [Page 243]examining, censuring, &c. committed to Timothie and Titus, the Presbyterie in deed hath and execu­teth Materially, but not Formally. Which maketh his Minor Proposition to bee false most cleerely.
• His 3. argument is concluded in no forme. But where he
  Perp. gov. Pag. 391.
  saith, The precepts of Ordayning, and Censuring, are delivered to Timothie and Ti­tus, and to those that should succeed them vnto the end of the world. Ergo Timothies power & function in this behalfe must bee perpetuall. This is true likewise Materially: but not Formally. Their Successors are to execute the same in deed alwayes as touching the material actions. Those things must be done: but vnder di­vers formes of Ministeries, or maners of administration. Heere Timothie and Titus being properly Evangelistes did these actions vnder the forme of an Evangelisticall Ministerie. Sometime Apostles did the same actions, but vn­der the forme of an Apostolicall Mi­nisterie. After them, Bishops did the same actions also: but vnder the forme of a proper Bishops office. &c. Wherefore the perpetuitie of these actions materially which Timothie and Titus did, proveth not the Office and Ministerie of Timothie and Ti­tus formally to bee perpetuall. This [Page 244]is a very weake conclusion, and very crooked.
• His 4. argument is, The whole Church of Christ since the Apostles times without exception hath so constred the Apostles wordes to Timothie and Titus tou­ching their governement. And hee names Eusebius, Ierome, Ambrose, &c. D. Rainolds answereth Hart the Priest;
  Confer. pag. 267.
  I perceave the Pope must fetch his Supremacie from Earth and not from Heaven. You are fallen from Scripture to Eusebius. Even so our adversaries, when all is done they must fetch the Diocesan L. Bi­shops Office from earth and not from heaven. They fall from Scripture to Eusebius. &c. And yet not Eusebius not the rest do conster those preceptes to Timothie and Titus, as belonging only to Bishops: much
  See before pag. [...]24. [...]5.
  lesse did the whole Church of Christ since the Apostles times without exception. This is a strange Hyperbole. But these writers ac­knowledged Timothie and Titus to have ben Bishops. Nay, not Diocesan L. Bishops; they neither acknowledged nor knew any such in their times, as before hath ben shewed. Yet only of these our question is. Againe, they held Timothie & Titus not to be Bishops at all properly, but in a generall sense; as
  Pag. 230. 238.
  before I observed. If they meant otherwise, they missed the truth, saith D. Rainolds.
  Conf. p. 267
  Howbeit, They suffred none but [Page 245]Bishops either to ordaine or degrade Presbyters. Yet as I said before, not absolutly with out the peoples consent as our L. Bi­shops do. If any among them incli­ned to neglect the people herein, they did contrary to the Canons of those times. Lastly it is true, these ancients to much rested on Custome, & Coun­saills of men, and humane policie in setting the Church governemēt: they (as Ierome) inclined to much to ap­prove Diocesan, Provinciall, and Pa­triarchall Bishops with too absolute power, only grounding vpon the Cu­stome of the Church, though they knew they wanted Divine disposition. Whence afterward Antichrist easily sprang vp. Now then I pray, with what colour can Doct. Bilson from those preceptes to Timothie and Titus plead for our Di­ocesan and Provinciall L. Bishops, whom they nothing concerne, and say, The wordes be singular, the charge is ve­hement, the parties were Bishops?
  Perp. gov. pag. 299.
  And how vainly doth he insult, without reason charging vs that
  Pag. 30 [...].
  Fire will better agree with water, then we with our selves. Which is his familiar custome, not ours.

After him, let vs see what D. Dow­name saith for Timothie and Titus Bi­shoprikes. Truly in effect he saith no­thing more, for he followeth D. Bilson most diligently. Yet hee hath a Cart-load [Page 246]of words, about this point which he knoweth well to bee his only re­fuge. Wherein yet hee can finde no helpe. First I will examine the pith of his discourse: and thē I will set downe reasons of mine owne, proving soūd­ly that Timothie & Titus were not pro­per Bishops. First, he saith,Def. 4. p. 75 It is presup­posed in the Epistles to Timothie and Ti­tus, that the Apostle committed to them Bi­shoply authoritie. It is vntrue, this is not presupposed. Then, the Epistles bee the very patternes and precedents of Bishoply fun­ction. &c Well: what then? Then Ti­mothie and Titus were Bishops. I deny this consequence. There is no truth in this. And T.C. answer to D. Whitgifts like argument is sounde and good, though this great Logician calleth itPag. 76. sleight and frivolous. The directions to Timothie and Titus about Ordina­tion and iurisdiction being notPag. 77. pecu­liar to Bishops, as hee vntruly addeth in the end. For him selfe giveth this po­wer (and that rightly) to other Chri­stiansPag. 99. in case of necessitie: and the truth giveth it to Apostles and Evangelists theEph 4.11. Superiors of Bishops. His rea­son,Pag. 77. these are perpetuall directions, is an excellent reason to prove that this power is indeed essentially seated by Christ in the Congregation of the people.The power of Ecclesiasticall governement essen [...]ially in the people. For it is certain, that such [Page 247]Christian Congregations only are per­petuall. Apostles are not perpetuall, Evangelistes are not perpetuall; also Bishops, yea Presbyters are not per­petuall in Churches vnder the Go­spell. But a Congregation is perpe­tuall: absolutlyMath. 16. [...] the gates of destruction shall never overcome it. Wherefore this power is essentially in the Con­gregation. And so the consequence is false;Pag. 77. These directions are perpetuall: therfore peculiar to Bishops. I say, this se­quele can not bee true. Wherewith is conioyned an other false reason, viz. They were not common either to other Chri­stians, or other Ministers: therfore peculiar to Bishops. Nay; they were common. They may bee, and are exercised by divers formes of administrations, as before I shewed; & not all waies by Bi­shops. And yet I grant, thy are to bee exercised most commonly, vsually, and ordinarily by Bishops, I meane true Bishops. His owne distinction heere is good. There isPa. 102. 147 potestas and forma vel modus potestatis. The power, & the ac­cidentall forme and maner of the power. It is true, the power is perpetuall: the ac­cidentall forme or maner thereof is variable. In which respect the conse­quence also of his newePa. 77. Proposition, whichPag. 78. once againe he taketh for granted, once againe I deny. The proofe of his Assumption we grant, yet with a distin­ction [Page 248]In the Epistles to Tim. and Tit. the office of Bishops is described gene­rally, but not as peculiar to Bishops: materially, not formally. And only so that power was to continue in the Church till the end. Also this viz. materially that power was not a higher power then Episco­pall. But formally it was. And so his consequence is false. For an Evange­lists power was higher: yea the Chur­ches power (by whom simply some­time both the making of Ministers and Censures are performed) is1. Cor. 3.22 higher then the Bishops power. Againe hee saith, this power of Bishops is so much of the Apostolical power as was to cōtinue to the end. But then hee should not make the Bishops power more then the A­postolicall, asSee before pag. 240. 248 hee doth. Which thus also appeareth, viz. the Apostles ex­cluded not the peoples consent: but his Bishops doe. Howe then saith hee, it is Apostolicall. Besides, in all this hee Equivocateth: for this power of Bishops is the Apostles (as I said) ge­nerally not properly, materially not formally. Hee would findePag. 79. a dif­ference in his Refuter: but it is easily reconciled; viz. vnderstanding him of divers kindes of Bishops, thus. Some kinde of Bishops are in Christs Testa­ment: some absolutly have noe place there. The former have power from [Page 249]Christ, the later have none. After, hee maketh great outcries ofPag. 80. 81. Schismatical novelties, & dreames, & dotages, fanta­sticall & fanaticall spirits, and phrensie. Right as the Papists cry out, Haeretiks, Haeretiks. Thēselves being the greatest Haeretiks of all. But the Chritstiā rea­der may know that this is the Doctors fury, & malice against our Attestators before cited, and against others also who follow them. Yea, againstSee before pag. 73. 74. &c. him­selfe it is, & some of his frindes. His slāder, that we maintain such popular government, as Morellius strived for, is sufficiētly answeredPag. 24. before. Some of the Separation I grant, are to offen­sive this way: which I am heartily sory for. They take the wordes in Math. 18.17. Tell the Church more po­pularly thē ther is need, or then rea­son or good order would. Howbeit in this yet they hold the substāce of the true Church-goverm. They erre but in the Circumstāce of order, though it be toBera An [...]. cat. in Math. 18.17. foule. That is, they will exa­mine al scandalls, &c. whatsoever in the presence & vnder the iudgment of the whole multitude perpetually & necessarily. I say perpetually & ne­cessarily. Wherein I wonder they see not the many very ill Consequents, which wil & must insue many times As touching vs, what we hold heerin [Page 250]I have shewedPag. 22. 24. 82. 83. before. And our Docts. doe most iniuriouslyDef. 4.81. Perp. gov. pag. 355. wrong Beza & the Geneva discipline (if that be Ge­neva discipline which Viret, Calvin, & Beza taught thē) in saying they dif­fer materially frō vs. Our D. asketh, Is there any shew in Scripture or in reasō, that the sheep should rule their sheapheard, or the flocke their Pastor? The very voice of a Iesuit, & not of a Minister of the Gospel. Bellarm. argueth iust soBellarm. de Clersc. 1. 7. against the old Procestāts. As to the point let him know that reasonable sheep vnder the Gosp. have more to do in their spiritual governmēt, thē brute beastes have to doe in their go­vernement sensuall. Lastly, heere hee can easily skoffe and revile the modest & Christian offer of disputatiō, & those that favour it, & some of vs hee will helpe to persecute: but vndertake that Offer honestly & plainly he ne­ver will. Hee saith,Pag. 82. wee vnderstand the speech of1. Tim. 5.22 Laying on of hands as di­rected not to Timothie, but to the people; & to Titus,Tit. 3.10. Avoid an haeretik, or ex­communicat him, that is, thou people. Which is falfe: we vnderstand it not so He doth therfore heerin slāder vs. We know these words are directed to Timothie & Titus: yet to them not as Lords over the people, nor as Sole ru­lers; but as Guides and directors of [Page 251]them. As Fathers to informe them, not as Maisters to overrule them and force them. To them therefore by name, as the principall Agents in all ordinary government, the Epistles and these precepts were written. And so the Apostle heere held it not need­full to mention the people, though neither doth he exclude them. Seeing their consent in such affaires isSee before pag. 76. Also toward the end of this chap. els­where in Scripture sufficiently pro­ved. And the Apostles practise in this behalfe they knew well enough. Which knowen practise of the Apo­stles, it heere behoved Timothie & Titus to have regard vnto, togeather with these precepts written to them. For they stand togeather well enough. He saith, the Churches at first were governed by the Apostles, &c. I answere, they were. But not without the peoples concur­rence and consent, as presently before is observed. But D. Downame avouch­ed,Def. 4.8 [...]. Our Bishops at this day have not greater autho [...]tie in menaging Church causes then Timothie and Titus had Which is, notori­ously vntrue. These (following the Apostles) tooke the peoples consent with them: our Bishops do not. They only taught them & perswaded them, & vsed spirituall power: ours, if they can not perswade the people or their Pastors, will cast them in prison pu­nishing [Page 252]their bodyes & their purses. He saith, Timothie & Titus might vse the presense or consent of the people, or the coun­sell and advise of the Presbyters in [...] of greatest moment, as Princ [...]s doe in Common­wealths. I thought it was a stately and princelike Prelacie which this Doctor hunteth after: though in many pla­ces of his booke hee dissembleth, and would not have them called Sole go­vernors. Heere hee plainly sheweth that he holdeth the Bishops may take the peoples consent and Presbyters advise, if they like it; if not, then they may neverthelesse proceed and not stand vpon it, as Princes may doe in Common wealths. Truly all found writers ever have held this in Church-governement to be rightSee our Attestators. pag. 23. 25. 26. 27. 29. 31. 32. 33. 35. 36. 37. 42. 45. tyrannicall & wronghfull oppression of Christian Mens consciences. And yet (as I have oft said) we grant the sway of the Ecclesi­asticall governement to be indeed in the Bishop ordinarily; but not absolutly.

The consequence of hisPag. 83. next Pro­positiō, I deny also: viz. The things writ­ten to informe not Timothie & Titus alone as extraordinarie persons, but them & their Suc­cessors to the end of the world, were written to informe Diocesan Bishops. They were not. Diocesan Bishops are no Successors of Timothie and Titus, nor intended by the Apostle. They came after by reason of [Page 253]that apostasie, which through Gods determinat counsaill was to come o­ver Christendome. Without which going before, Antichrist could not have stood vp. Hee addethPag. 84. the authoritie committed to Tim. and Tit is perpetually ne­cessary. It is true; Materially, not for­maly, as before is said. Beside, Tim. & Tit. themselves had not the authori­tie which Diocesan B [...]shops have. It was far lesse. Therefore these are not their Successors. Where hee would prove it, first disjunctively;Pag. 86. Either they, or the Presbyteries, or the Congregation were their Successors. I answere, this dis­junction is vnsufficient. Hee recko­neth not Pastors or Bishops of one or­dinary Congregation only. They were the immediate Successors of Timothie & Titus; speaking of such a successiō as they had, and might have being Evan­gelists. About 200. yeares after Christ, Titular Diocesans succeded them. Af­ter 300. yeares,These im­properly suc­ceeded, viz. in place, not in Office. Diocesans with Maio­ritie of power and rule succeeded. After them long, came the proper and compleat Diocesan Prelats, the Dio­cesan Lord Bishops. of whom our que­stion is indeed. But among all these whosoever was a Bishop really of mo ordinary Congregations then one, therein he succeeded not Timothie, nor Titus, nor any Apos [...]le, Who never in­tended [Page 254]any such ordinary Successors. And succession in place with dissent in doctrine, is a false successiō. Beside, a Presbyterie didAct. 20 17.28. preceed Timothie in Ephesus. Therefore they may lawful­ly succeed, as they do now in the Dutch and French reformed Churches. The people also have in act succeeded law­fully at somtimes, as the D. himselfePag. 99. knoweth: and therefore so they may againe on occasion. Then hee wouldPag. 86. 87. name Bishops that succeeded Timothi [...] and Titus. Meaneth he proper Dioce­san L. Bishops? If he doe not, hee tri­fleth. But who are they? First, the An­gell of Ephesus, and Onesimus. Nay, these were Bishops only of one ordinary Congregation, and that within the Ci­ty Ephesus, asPag. 206. 227. before I have noted. That Policrates, and Philip of Gortyna in Crete were such also, I have shewedPag. 235. 231. before: as also the Doct. falshood a­bout Philip. Where hee saith,Pag. 87. Every Metropolitan is a Diocesan, it is vntrue. The first Bishops were Metropolitans, that is, Bishops in Mother-cities: yet they were not Diocesan Bishops, viz. over mo ordinary Cōgregations then one. He saith, hee readeth not any where of the next Successor to Titus: indeed hee rea­deth of no proper Successor to Titus at all, nor to Tim. &c. Ordinary Pastors of Congregations succeeded these ex­traordinarie [Page 255]men, as they also succee­ded the Apostles, viz. improperly, not in their whole and proper Offices.

Our D. (following D. Dove.) would prove that Timothie & Titus hadPag 89. their ordinary residence in Ephesus & in Crete: because one was willed1. Tim 1. [...] [...] to abide at Ephesus,"Tit. 1.5. the other [...] to redresse further the things which hee foūd there amisse. It is true, for a time each of them was so resident. But not alwayes, nor till they dyed. For not long after Timothie was2. Tim. 4.9. called away, and Tychicus an other Evangelist was sent toEph. 6.2 [...]. Ephesus in his roome. When, if Timothie had bene there still, it see­meth there had ben no need of Tychicus, neither would Paul have left him vn­saluted and vnnamed in that epistle to the Ephesians. Also the ApostlePhilip. 2.1 [...] in­tended that Timothie being come from Ephesus should vndertake the charge of Philipps. Therfore he was now loose and free from Ephesus. Writers also say that Iohn the Apostle afterward was at Ephesus doing a Bishoply office: when surely Timothie was not Bishop there, yet as may be thought he was then li­ving. Our D. addeth, that Bishops & other Pastors may be absent frō their cures vpon speciall and extraordinary occasi­on. It is vntrue, they may not.Now resi­den [...] All re­ligion and pietie forbiddeth it, vnles [Page 256]it bee with their Churches expresse consent. Which Timothie heere had not. The Apostle, as hee alone placed him at Ephesus, so he alone without the Church called him away. You will say, and he alone might doe so. True, the Apostle alone might doe so with Evangelists, but hee might not with Bishops and Pastors. These were more in their Churches power then so. Nei­ther indeed had it benPag. 93. a matter of good report, nor of good example (as his refuter saith well) if Timothie being the Ephe­sians proper Bishop had without their speciall grant gone from them, chiefly so long time, and so far of, and to take charge of another place. Neither ve­rely had Paul any need so to take away a proper Pastor from his flocke. The same likewise is to bee said of Titus his departure from Crete, first to Rome, then to Dalmatia. But hee will prove thatPag. 91. they lived and dyed in Ephesus and Crete. If they did, yet it followeth not that therfore they were Bishops there; nor yet that they had ordinary resi­dēce there all their life time. It might happen that travayling to & fro they might in the end of their dayes dy there. For somwhere they must dy. And yet they are not therefore Bi­shops of that place: neither had they therefore ordinary residence there till [Page 257]their end. But who saith they dyed there? Som, whose testimonies whosoever refuse to beleeve, do themselves deserve no cre­dit. Yea, are they so infallible? Who are they? Dorotheus in Synopis, and on his word som other, he knowes not well, who. Thē all this matter standeth on this Dorotheus, whose creditPag. 104. him self feareth. Indeed iustly, for hee is the most egregious fabler that ever writ.Dorothe­us a fabler Heere I wish it may be noted, that the Doct. seemeth to take delight to ab­use the people with bastard writings, fabulous, false, and apocryphall stuffe, which he vseth as his familiar friends and witnesses very often; as the Epi­stles of Clemens and Anacletus, Dionysius Areopagita, the Canons of the Apostles, Bastard writing [...]. Dionysius Areopagita, the Canons of the Apostles, the Subscriptions of the Apostles Epistles, & this Dorotheus, from whom the other wit­nesses heere by him cited, do take this report. Therefore in this it is not ne­cessarie to credit them any more thē him. Further, to these & the like rea­sons of ours, If Timothie and Titus (who first were Evāgelists) did become pro­per Bishops afterward, then men may cōioyne things which God hath seve­red: yea limit & depresse them whose Ministrie God hath made generall, vnlimited, and superior. Hee answe­rethPag [...] ▪ these are nice points, which none of the Fathers did ever vnderstand. Certes wee [Page 258]have a grosse Doctor, who maketh nice to sever those whom God hath seve­red. Evangelists and Bishops or Pa­stors are so plainly severed by God & made diversEphe. 4.11 [...] Cor. 12.28 persons, that nothing can be more plaine. Where also it is as clee [...]e that Evangelists are by God made Superior in the Church, and Bi­shops or Pastors inferior; whom hee maketh cleane contrary. Hee excep­teth against 1. Cor. 12.28. because E­vangelistsPag. 95. are not mentioned there. Yet there it appeareth that all Church-ministeries are severed by God, of which Evangelists are one, as in the Ephe 4▪11. appeareth.By compa­ring these textes to­geather. So that also even from 1. Cor. 12.18. Evangelists distin­ction from Bishops and their Superi­oritie to them is proved well enough. Himself grāteth Evangelists to be ex­traordinary, generall and vnlimited Ministers; and that Timothie and Tit [...] were such. Which is the truth. But this is false, when theyPag. 94. betooke them [...] certaine Churches, that they were appro­priated and limited to them. Where­fore neither were they proper Bishops of them. Againe; The D. can not leave his equivocating, any more them [...] Black-amore can change his skin. For though vulgarly sometime an Evan­gelist is vnderstood to bee a writer of the Gospell, yet the Apostle vnder­standeth [Page 259]not so Ephes 4.11. But heere they are vnlimited Companions and Coadiutors to the Apostles.An Evan­gelist. In this sense (and so we also doe meane) Mat­ [...]hew & Iohn neither were, nor could bee Evangelists, nor Marke a Bishop. Whosoever saith otherwise, they plain [...]y contradict the Apostle. But he pre­tendeth that the ancient Fathers held that Evangelistes and Apostles also might bee Bishops. SeePag. 222. 223. Vnreverent behavior to­ward Anti­quit [...]e. before what a frivolous reason this is. Also see how vnreverent hee is to Antiquitie, whom hee pretendeth devoutly to honor. Hee will have them indeed to seeme fighters with God and resisters of the plaine letter of the text, rather then defend them (as we doe) with an honest excuse. It is honest to say, they called Evāgelists & Apostles Bishops in a generall sense; or, if they did not well heerein, yet that they did it in not sifting, nor much minding that which nowe with vs is a maine questiō, & therefore is & ought to be more exactly considered nowe. But to say of them, either that they deny Te­moth. & Titus were Evangelists; or that they deny Evangelistes were by God made severall from Bishops, or that those were superior to these, or that those were extraordinary and general Ministers: or to say they hold the Apo­stles [Page 260]did and could make them being such to become ordinary Ministers, limited to one Church, and one with Bishops: and that they hold this out of consideration and due sifting the matter. I say, thus to affirme of the Fathers (as the D. doth) is to make them resist the plaine letter of the text, and to fight with God.

Yet, he for his part boldly saith, or rather shamelesly, thatPag. 95. it was no debasing to Timothie & Titus, whē they were made Bi­shops, but an advancemēt; Albeit he know­eth the text above noted (viz. Eph. 4.11.) maketh a Bishop or Pastor infe­rior to an Evangelist. And prove it hee would: 1.Pag. [...]6. Timothie receaved a ne [...]e 1. Tim. 4.14 2. Tim. 1.6. Ordination: and so more authoritie. This is vtterly vntrue. Hee receaved no newe Ordination. This was only when he was taken by the Apostle to be an Evangelist. And after this hee never receaved more authoritie. He [...] addeth, were men admitted to the extraor­dinary function of Evangelists by the ordinary meanes of imposing hands? I answere, Yea [...] som Evangelists might be, like as som Apostles (viz. Paul, & Barnabas, whose functions verily were extraordinary wereAct. 13.3 so admitted. Then saith hee▪ may we thinke that any but the Apostles ha [...] that authoritie wheresoever they came, which Timothie had at Ephesus, & Titus in Crete [...]l [Page 261]answere, yea questionles. Evangelists had, wheresoever they came; specially in the absense of an Apostle. He obie­cteth, Philip the Evangelist had Act. 8.14.17. not autho­ritie to impose hands. I answere, though heere he followPerpe. gov. pag 83.84. D. Bilson, yet both do misse the purpose. This imposition of hands heere is an other thing: it was to give the miraculous gift of toungs. It was not to ordaine to the ministe­rie. Happily it was to furnish men for the ministerie afterwarde: but this made them not Ministers. Indeed on­ly the Apostles could by laying on of hands give the gift of toungs and the gift of prophesie: but in the Apostles absense others (as Evangelists, &c.) might lay on hands to ordaine Mini­sters. Wherefore this is to rove fare from the point. The rest is answeredDeclar [...]. pag. 29. elswhere, viz. Paul spake not in the generall & improper sense (wher­of there is noe reason nor cause) but properly where he willeth Timothie af­ter he was at Ephesus, to do the worke of an 2. Tim. 4.5. Evangelist. The FathersPag 244. before are answered: to whom Zuinglius also heere may be adioyned.

He would seeme to bring new mat­ter, but it is his olde stuffe; viz. thatPag. 98. Timothies and Titus function in Ephesus & Crete, was not to end with their pe [...]so [...]s, but to be cōtinued to their Successors It is answe­red [Page 262] Pag 243. before. That is, Materially it en­ded not, but formally it ended with their persons. It continued to their Successors, but vnder an other forme of ministerie, viz of proper Bishops. Which also I noted in my Declarat pag 30. Hee saith, theirPag. 100. Apostles were so as­signed som­time. Act. 8.14. being assigned to E­phesus and Crete was an ordinary function? I deny it, as touching them. Hee hath not a word to prove it. Hee saith, in Timothie and Titus as EvangelistsPag. 101. no­thing was extraordinary but their not limita­tion to any certain Churches. Which is vn­true: their calling to the ministrie was not ordinary. It was without the peoples voice-giving: which was then ordi­nary in Pastors calling. Timothie I say came not to Ephesus by the peoples election, nor Titus to Creet. Paul only authorised them to that Ministrie. Therfore their calling or sending thi­ther was also extraordinary. And T [...] ­mothie attained giftes by extraordina­ry meanes viz: by the Apostles mira­culous laying on of hands; though the D. deny it. Then he addeth 3. other er­rors. 1. The power of ordination and iurisdiction was wholy in Timothie, and [...] Titus. Our AttestatorsAbove pa. 23 26 36.38.4 [...]. disprove th [...] 2. The function may bee the very sam where one person governeth the church wholy and alone, & where th [...] people do necessarily cōcur with him [Page 263]Though his wordes bee not these, yet his sense is cleerly so. And all the next page hee beateth vpon the same. Fear­fully affirming, that the differencePag. 102. seemeth not to bee so essentiall. Though he hold so, yet see howe hee faltereth. 3. Where he addeth, the title or calling to a Church seemeth to be variable. Which are all grosse vntruths: co [...]uted in myPag 12 at 34 35. 38 &c Declarat. & the 3. runneth amōg those evill opinions heerePag. 133.134. before censu­red. That which he addeth as it were a proofe for him, the Iewes Church gover­nors came to their places Pag 103. by succession and li­neall discent: but in the Churches of Christ, by free electiō, is absolutly against [...]imselfe. For neither of these titles or coming to the Church-governement had bene lawfull by any meanes, but because God so ordayned. And it being so or­dained by God in his word, it was thē absolutly vnchangeable by men, as in the Lawe, so likewise vnder the Gos­pel which is the Law of Christ. Where he saith, the Apostles committed not the pow­er of ordination and iurisdiction to all Mini­sters, I answer, they did: as I haveDeclarar. pag 25. els­where shewed. Their committing it toPag 104. Timothie &c. denyeth it not to the other Presbyters in the several Chur­ches. neither doth the Angells power in the Revelatiō 2. exclude the ioint pow­er of his fellow presbyters with him, [Page 264]nor yet the peoples free concurrence with them all. His last reason is, If while the Apostles lived, it was behoofull to substitute Bishops in the Churches, then much more after their decease. But the former is evident. Ther­fore the later also. This I wholy grant: we mislike not Bishops. In the end he fal­leth to the authoritie of those bastardPag. 105. subscriptions, & namely of the epistles to Tim. and Titus. Touching the which I referre him to M^r. Cudworth in his Supplement to Mr. Perkins on theAt the end of chap. 6. Ga­latians. Where he shall finde them to be of noPag. 106. greater antiquitie nor better cre­dit then such counterfait drosse may be. ThePag. 107. testimonies of the Fathers which followPag. 244.259. have ben sufficiently answered.

Nowe I will gather briefly our Proofes, that Timoth. or Titus were not proper Bishops.Proofes that Timothie, &c. was no Bishop They are 8. in nom­ber.

• First, the H. Ghost made
  Ephe. 4.11
  Evan­gelists and Bishops or Pastors, distinct 1 persons. Therefore the Apostles could not make them one. And consequent­ly Timothie and Titus being Evangelists (as is known) neither were, nor could 2 be made proper Bishops.
• Sec: An Evā ­gelist had an Office
  Ibid.
  superior, extra­ordinarie, temporarie, and vnlimited: a Bishop was inferior, ordinarie, per­petuall, and limited to one Church. Now these qualities are incōpatible: [Page 265]they can neither bee togeather, nor successively in one person. Therefore Timothie and Titus Evangelistes, nei­ther were, nor could bee proper Bi­shops at any time.
• Thirdly, After Ti­mothie 3 had bene at Ephesus, hee was an Evangelist.
  2. Tim. 4.5.
  For Paul chargeth him so to bee and cary himselfe. Neither is there cause nor reason why Paul here should speake improperly and gene­rally. Therfore he spake properly,
  See pag. 240.
  & he was still a proper Evangelist, and consequently not a proper Bishop. And so likewise Titus.
• Fourt: Timothies 4 Ministie at Ephesus extended to other distinct and intire Churches, viz. to Smyrna, to Sardis, to Pergamus, to Colossi, to Hierapolis, to Laodicea &c. and not to the Church in Ephesus only. But the Bishop of Ephesus ministrie was limi­ted and appropriated to the Church in Ephesus only; as also of Smyrna to Smyrna, of Sardis to Sardis. &c. As the Angells in Rev. 2. do shew. Therefore Timothie was not properly the Bishop of Ephesus. And then neither Titus of Crete.
• Fift: Timothie was thesame & no other at Ephesus, then hee was at 5 Philippi and Corinth, at Athens and Thessalonica, in Phrygia, Galatia, My­sia, & Troas. But in these bee was no proper Bishop of any place. Therefore neither was hee a proper Bishop at E­phesus. [Page 266]So likewise
  Declarat. Pag. 29.30.6.
  Titus in Crete.
• Sixt: proper Bishops in those dayes were not called without the co [...]ent and voyces of their Church, as before
  Pag. 164.251.
  hath bene shewed. But Titus came to Crete and Timothie into Asia only by the Apostle Pauls sending, vtterly without the peoples calling to whom they ministred in all those Churches. Therefore Titus in Crete & Timothie in Ephesus were no Bishops.
• Seavēth: If 7 Titus were a proper Bishop in Crete, 7 then many distinct and intire Chur­ches were not committed to him, but only one. But to Titus in Crete many distinct & intire Churches were com­mitted; and not one only. Therefore Titus in Crete was no proper Bishop. The Assumption is plaine, because hee had many
  Tit. 1.5.
  Cities in his charge. And every City had a distinct and intire Church, for [...]
  Act. 14.23
  [...]: In every City, & in every Church do signifie all one thing. And Eusebius
  Euse. 4.22
  maketh them so likewise. But every proper Bishop is limited and appropriated to one Church only. The D. saith assig­ned But that word is to loose. Indeed a Bishop is limited & appropriated, & as it were confined to one Church. D. Bilson saith
  Perpet gov. pag 227. 232.
  affixed. Therefore Titus was no Bishop, nor Timothie neither.
• 8 Lastly, Whatsoever reason maketh Titus & [Page 267] Timothie Provinciall Bishops in Crete, and in Asia, the same serveth to make Paul or Peter Vniversall Bishops and to have Vniversal Bishops their Succes­sors, at Rome. But no reason is suffici­ent to make Paul or Peter Vniversall ordinary Bishops of Rome, nor that they should have Vniversall Bishops their Successors. Therefore no reason sufficient to make Titus in Crete or Timothie at Ephesus Provinciall Bi­shops. And so much of Timothie and Ti­tus, that they were indeed no proper Bishops: which point yet Doct. Bilson
  See before pag. 241.
  confesseth to be their only holde.

After this, let vs now shew how D. Downame groslyDef. 2.14 [...]. abuseth Calvin and Beza, affi [...]ming that they ioyne with the Bishops 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 Pap [...]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 [Page 268]potestas translata est. Ills in quem volunt con­ferunt Episcopatum: eum mox in conspestu ple­bis producunt non examinandū, sed adorādum. Now all the right of the people to chose th [...]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 Englād; & 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.
• 2 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 assertiō 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. [Page 269]as wee ought. Against which funda­mentall point of Christiā 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 we [...] not vse that forme of a Church which the Apost. vsed [...]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 cō ­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 [...] 21. and [...]. Cor. 8.1. & 1 Cor. 16.19.
  extāt in Christs Testamēt. 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. [...]. [...].
  quo Ecclesiā suam gubernari voluit Dominus, wherewith the Lord would have his Church to bee governed alwayes. Againe,
  Sect. [...].
  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, [Page 270]or maketh light of it as lesse necessarie: spea­king (as I said) of that same kinde of ordinary governement which is foūd 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 curse [...]h and revileth his 3 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 [Page 271]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. 14 [...]. 144.
  agreeth with them, nor materi­ally 4 differeth from vs about a Diocesan Church, as hee almost every where re­peateth that they doe, and is still bea­ting vpō 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. 1 [...].
  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 [Page 272]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 sufficiētly 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 Pr [...] ­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 [Page 273]forIn 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 A­ [...]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 Cae­ [...]area & the Province thereof, or not.pag. 8. in margine. But it is a matter of no worth: there­ [...]ore I passe it.Metropoli­tans, Dioce­sans, Patri­arkes, all one in substance Metropolitans (in his sense) [...] spake not of whē I reckoned vp the livers sortes of Bishops, because in substance of their Office they are all [...]ne with Diocesans, Archbishops, and Pa­triarkes. Of whom whosoever holdeth [...]ne lawful, will holde all so to be: and [...]e who holdeth one Apostolike, will acknowledge them all Apostolike. This therfore also is no matter, what [...]oever he maketh of it. Touching Di­ [...]ysius of Alexādria, I confesse I was to [...]lame in thinking hee might bee the [...]uthor of Majoritie of power & rule [...]n Diocesan Bishops. It was because I [...]udged it to be ancienter then indeed [...]t is, or then reason giveth it.Maioritie of power when it began. Nowe [...]herefore I professe, it cannot bee roved to be ancienter then the Nice [...] [Page 274]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 notAgainst 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 differēces, yea mo also. Now therefore I desire the Reader to give me leave vpon better cōsideration to set down the distinctiō of Bishops in 7. differēces.

Seaven sorts of Bishops.I affirme therefore that the name Bishop in Christian Writers is given to seavē divers sortes. Which to observe is right needfull, and most profitable to end this great controversie.

• First, [Page 275]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 whō also the name 2 of Presbyter was common. Such is the Ministerie now in the Dutch & French Churches.
• Thirdly, One Pastor of a Church contayning no mo ordinarie 3 Congregations but one, is by the an­cientest Church Writers called a Bi­shop singularly. As Linus was at Rome: Anianus at Alexādria: 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 4 Titular Diocesan Bishop. Of whō 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 5 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 5 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 [Page 276]or publike ordinnance till then: it was before but arbitrary, by the chur­ches affection, and no otherwise.
• Sixt­ly, 6 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 spokē
  Pag. 66. 67.
  before.
• Seaventh­ly, 7 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 intēsively, viz. against the Christian peoples right to cōsent 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 aD. 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 [Page 277]refutatiō 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, asPa. 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 opiniō vpside downe)Treat. of the exposit. of Mat. 18.19 Anno. 1611. affirmeth that these wordes signifie that the Iewish forme of governement is by Christ ordayned for the Gospell. I discerne not well, whether he meane that this rule for the Christian Church gover­nement should be formed after the patterne of the Iewish Civill governe­ment, or Ecclesiastical, or both. What­soever Iewish forme of governement he meane, his meaning can not bee true. For first, if Christ in these words meant the Iewish governors, thē here is no direction at all for the Christian Church governement. Heere is no­thing then that soundeth to any such purpose. Christ saith not heere, Let my Disciples heereafter in their Churches follow the forme and order Iudaicall. In this place there is no such thing. But as I suppose even Mai. Iohnson him self hol­deth, Christ heere in this place set­teth [Page 278]an order of governement for his Church vnder the Gospell. This in deed is most certainly true. Therfore his othet opinion (that Christ heere sendeth his Disciples to the Iewish governors) is false. I grant Calvin and Beza think that Christ heere alludeth to the Iewish Church governement in their particular Synagogues: but verily I cannot cōceave why, or how it should be so. Be it spoken with re­verēce to these rare servāts of Christ. Howbeit,Cal [...]i [...] and Beza tou­ching Mat. 18.17. this nevertheles they hold from this place of Matthew, that the people have right so far that nothing in Church governement be obtruded on them (by any Ecclesiasticall Mo­narchie or Oligarchie) against their wills. Now this is the truth, and wee willingly agree vnto it. Yeelding the sway of all governement to the Pa­stor with his assistants in ordinarie cases: yet reserving still a power in the people to consent. And when a Church is destitute of Guides (as it hath fallen out, & may againe fall out on occasion) then the people them­selves have full power to accomplish any Ecclesiasticall action in the best order they can, & particularly Church censures, even by vertue of this text. So that then the Iewish Church-go­vernement can not bee heere alluded [Page 279]vnto; much lesse required to bee kept and practised by Christians. Concer­ning which togeather with all other Iewish ordinances, the Apostle tea­cheth and confirmeth vnto vs that all2. Cor. 3.17. those old things are passed away, & that all things (of such nature) vnder the Gospell, are made new: and that the same things areHebr. 12.27. shaken and changed, and remaine not now vnto vs. Wher­fore fowerthly, they who vnderstand these foresaid wordes, Tell the Church, Math. 18.17. to be meant of the whole Christian people assembled in an or­dinarie assembly,As our At­testators do. viz. that they are to be tolde, and that they are to be heard, (alwayes in the best and most Christi­an order that can be, which I grant doth and must in circumstances som­time differ) they, I say, do truly and rightly vnderstand this place accor­ding to the intent of Christ. Of which D. Bilson him selfe once taught sound­ly, saying,Against the Semina [...] lib. 3. pa. 70. In Math. 18.17. The whole multitude of the faithfull where hee and they (the Offendor, and the Offended) live, are signifyed. AndLib. 2. pag 170. in Act. 20.28. The Church is taken for the people. Yea, The Church is never taken in the New or Old Te­stament for the Priestes alone, but generally for the whole Congregation of the faithfull. Let me aske a question; Was D. Bilson a Brownist, was he an Anabaptist whē [Page 280]he wrote thus? Why then doth Mai. Downame call vs these odious names only for the same iudgement? Or is he offended at vs, because we can not change & turne our professions to & fro, as they do for advantage? Some will say, if this sense of these wordes be true, Obiect. then perpetually and necessa­rily al scandalls, &c. whatsoever, must be tryed in the presence & vnder the iudgement and sentence of the whole multitude; as they of the Separation do holde, which also it seemeth was Cy­prians vsuall practise of old.Answ. I answer, this consequence is far from truth. For the sense of the words (in Matthew 18.17.) certainly is thus, & no other­wise to be taken, viz. plainly and lite­rally for the whole Congregation. Seeing there isDef. 1.226. no cause nor reason to the contrarie, as elswhere is obser­ved. But yet it followeth not that that maner of hearing & sentencing of causes must bee in every Church perpetually and necessarily.Before pag. 108. &c. I grant it may be so in some Churches, at some times: and so Cyprians practise was, & now it may be againe in some estates of a Church, good and commendable. But to holde those popular Circum­stances in every ChurchSeparation it selfe is no such error, as this is. perpetuall and necessary absolutly as the Separa­tion doth, it was neithtr Cyprians mea­ning, [Page 281]nor Chrsstes, nor any well advi­sed Christians. And yet againe no mā may take from the people absolutly all maner of free consent, as the L. Bi­shops do. This is a Substantiall breach on the other hand. Incidit in Scyllam qui vult vitare Chary [...]din. Extremities on both sides are to be avoyded.

As this, so other textes likewise Do. Bilson would wrest from vs in hisPerp go [...] pag. 95. 8. Chap. touching jurisdiction. First Act. 15.22.23.25.28. where manifestly the Apostles ioyned the people with them selves in determining a contro­versie, It seemed good to the holy Ghost and to vs to lay no more burden on you. Now this he granteth expresly, saying:Pag. 9 [...]. The matter was handled in the audience and pre­sence of the whole Church and with a generall consent letters were written in the names of all. To whichHorne a­gainst Feck­nam. pa. 11 [...] B. Horne before him agreeth also. Nay, D. Bilson goeth further, say­ing:Perp. gov. pag. 373. This course the Apostle taught the Church of Christ to follow by their example. Which is all that wee desire. Yet he la­boureth to frustrate this act of the A­postles and to make it of no vse to vs. To which intent hee hath 4. excepti­ons.

• 1.
  Pag. [...]7.
  Paul stood not in doubt of his prea­ching, neither needed he the consent of Apostles or Elders to his doctrine. I answer, he doub­ted not of his doctrine, nor submitted it to any to be censured. Yet he nee­ded [Page 282]the consent of other Apostles and of the Church at Ierusalem, for more coūtenance to his teaching. And that was all Pauls purpose heere.
• 2.
  Pag. 97.
  The Apostles wanted neither authoritie nor suffi­ciencie to determine the matter. But they did, in this case. We must know ther­fore, there is a twofold dertermining and deciding of questions. One is par­ticular and personall, which every true Pastor may performe in his or­dinarie teaching. Much more the A­postles singly might. And so Paul was sufficient, and did him selfe resolve many doubts to the Romans, to the Co­rinthians, to others without a Council. Another determining and deciding of questions is Cumulative, (as I may call it) when it is done with more coun­tenance and credit. The former may be of as certaine truth: but this later alwayes hath more waight among men. Thus Paul was not sufficient in this case. Yea the H. Ghost in this case would not have divers other Apostles with Paul to seeme sufficient by them selves, without the
  Whitak. de Concil. quest. 3. c. 3.
  whole Church there: and specially so far foorth, as it was to binde this present Church.
• Thirdly, There were
  Pag. 96. 97. 98. 389.
  reasons which they had why even the whole Church was heerein to concurre. What then? There are, and ever wil be special rea­sons [Page 283]still for the like. I say, such rea­sons are now for vs as those thē were, yea more waightie. Wherefore the imitating of this Apostolike Act is still necessarie.
• 4. He saith,
  Pag. 98.
  Who deci­ded the controversie but Peter & Iames? If he meane, they 2. were the principall men whose credit drewe the rest to consent; It is true. But it sheweth not that they only decided the doubt. Ra­ther they all decided it, who beeing present expresly concurred in the de­cree and promulged it, saying; It see­med good to the H. Ghost & to vs. In all this therefore he hath nothing to infringe his owne grant. Yea thus this ought to bee imitated evermore.

Next, 1. Cor. 5.12.13. Do ye not iudge them that are within? But God iudgeth them that are without. Put away therefore from a­mong your selves that wicked man. ThisPag. 2 [...] he would make void: yet hee knoweth not howe. Hee saith, heere are 2. great doubts. First, what it is to deliver to Sathan: Secondly, by whom it was. For the first, whatsoever Delivering to Sathan is, hee himselfe granteth that this heere is excommunication, saying;pag. 10 [...]. That hee was excommunicated I make no doubt. Hee sheweth also heere by the very text that the Corinthiā Church should have done it. Which is enough: what need we more? Yet hee striveth against it, [Page 284]saying:Pag. 102. Paul decreed it alone. pag. 99. He asketh not their consents, he prayeth not their aide, he referreth not the matter to their liking. How vaine is this? A King may decree to make a law to punish Adulterie: yet hee may intend to have his Counsaill and Parliamēt to ioyne therein with him. He may decree and determine to warre on his enemie: yet not with­out his Nobles & Commons ioyning with him. Neither needed the Apostle in this case to pray their aide, &c. The matter in Nature was odious: also it was open, old, and vnrepented. Hee him selfe was their Father in the Go­spell, their Apostle, & Guide. It stood not therefore with the Corinthians pietie, nor his dignitie to pray thē in this busines, butYea, and to command them doctri­nally: not in order of go­vernement. to admonish them and to shew them what they should speedily do. So then hee prayeth not their aide, nor asketh their cōsent in this; yet he presumeth of it and vseth it, vers. 4. Yea2. Cor. 2.8. &c. for his absolving, hee prayeth their aide, and asketh their cōsent. Therefore in casting him out, he vsed it also. Againe, if Paul alone excommunicated him, then it was fully finished. For hee did all that lay in him, to accomplish it, saying; [...]. I have now iudged it as if I were present. But the man was not yet excommunicat.See 2. Cor. 2 6. Therefore hee requireth the Church [Page 285]to proceed so as hee had determined, vers 4.13. Where the text saying: You being come togeather and my Spirit in the name of the Lord Iesus, sheweth their ioint concurrence and consent was to be had for this action. In the name of the Lord Iesus, signifying that holy worke and ordinance of Christ which also should be to the honor and praise of the Lord Iesus. Hee interpreteth my Spirit apparantly amisse; that is, They shall finde the force of my Spirit present. But the Circumstances shew it to be only, the consent of his heart or Spirit. For els the very same thing is twice noted in one line, (viz. the same force and power). 1. my Spirit. 2. with the power of the Lord Iesus. Which whosoever mar­keth, will see it to bee heere nothing so. Beside, how could it be?This in 1. Cor. 5.5.1 [...] no bodily tormenting by Satan. The force of his Spirit could not be present, his body being so far absent. Never did a­ny Apostle give any to the Divel to be tormented, without seeing the par­tie, without speaking with him. But the cōsent of his Spirit to Excommu­nication might well be present at Co­ [...]inth signifyed in his present letters, though his person were far absent, as then it was. Againe, the text,Therefore also this was no bodily tormenting. you being come togeather, and my Spirit with the power of the Lord Iesus, to deliver such a one to Sa­tan, &c. sheweth that they were to com [Page 286]togeather to deliver him to Sathan: this the wordes import as well as that Paul did it. lastly, he granteth, the A­postlePag. 102. rebuked them for not putting the transgressor from amongest them. Therefore he cōfesseth they had power to do it. And that againe is enough. Where note also that this Do. in his striving to the contrarie, striveth against our worthieSee before pag. 24. 27. 33. 34. Attestators before named. Who are against him in his other point also, viz. that this delivering to Satan isPag. 100. to be smitten with some grievous plague or disease, miraculously inflicted by the Apostle. Yea, herein he standeth against him self teaching at large that heere in 1. Cor. 5. wasAgainst the Seminar part. 3. p. 58 nothing but Ex­communicatiō. But what reason maketh him now thus to thinke? How should The power and might of Christ bee shewed in excluding a man from the Word and Sacra­mentes? Pronouncing a few wordes is suffici­ent for that matter. A strāge speach. Hath not Excommunication the power & might of Christ in it, because pronoū ­cing a few words is sufficient for that matter? In preaching the Gospell pro­nouncing a few wordes is sufficient for that matter: and yet it is the power of God, Rom. 1.16. In sanctifying the Mysticall signes, pronouncing a fewe wordes is sufficient for that matter: & yet the virtue of Christ is in them. [Page 287]Even so Excommunication, an other of Christes Spirituall Ordinances, though it bee done by his Servantes pronoūcing but a few wordes, yet the power of Christ the author and Lord thereof, is not wanting in it, either to convert the Sinner or the more to cōdemne him. Which answereth him also, that [...] in Paul is often taken for Miraculous power in the Apostles. Pa. 101.10 [...] For in that to the Romanes before cited, any may see it to be otherwise, a place ve­rie like to this in 1. Cor. 5.4.5. Neither is him selfe confident in this reason. For if it be but often, then he granteth it is not so alwayes. And then it may be otherwise heere, as indeed it is. Be­side, I remēber not above1 Cor. 12.28. which is not ofte [...] one such place as he signifyeth, and yet there it is in the plural nomber [...] powers, not in the singular. Betweene which place and ours in hand, there is appa­rantly very great difference. Againe he saith, To deliver vnto Sathan, is more then to Excommunicate. It is not. Yea, & him selfe held so likewiseAgainst the Semina. part. 3. pag. 58. heeretofore. He which is excommunicat and as a Hea­then, is out of Christes Kingdom. And being out of Christes Kingdome, he is in the power of Satan. Therefore it is all one. Neither is it true that many are secluded from the company of the godly for a time that are not yeelded to Satan: or that [Page 288] many were delivered to Sathan (by the Church assembled togeather, as this was don heere) without Excommunication. Or that Ananias and Elymas were delive­red to Satan; Which him selfeAgainst the Semi­nar. part. 3. pag. 53 54. once contradicted. He toucheth heere ma­ny thinges beside to no purpose, viz. This Sinner was delivered to Satan, that it might bring him to repentance. Why, and that is the proper end of Excom­munication. Againe the end of this acti­on was the destruction of the flesh: which in Excommunication hath no sense, except it bee Metaphoricall. It is not so. This destru­ction of the flesh (viz. the lustes of the flesh) hath great sense in Excommu­nication. And it seemeth rather a Me­tonymicall phrase, then a Metaphoricall, as he nameth it. He addeth, Excommuni­cation indangereth the Spirit, and toucheth not the flesh. Nay, it is intended to save the Spirit, that is, the Regenerat man by repentance. So the Spirit is1. Cor. 5.5. heere vn­derstoode. Also Excommunication toucheth the flesh: for it serveth to hū ­ble and mortifie the lustes of the flesh, or the vnregenerat man. Hee saith, this is dome not by Excommunication, but by repentance. Strangely spoken. I say, it is done by both. For these are Subor­dinat, not opposit. As well hee might say, the lustes of the flesh are not de­stroyed by Gods worde, but by repen­tance. [Page 289]The truth of both is alike. Here also the one of it selfe is no consequent to the o­ther. For many are preached vnto, that never repent: aswellas Excommunicated that never repent. And yet who kno­weth not that God hath ordained that repentance should follow frō both, as it doth indeed in many. Who would not wonder to see such dallying, in such a man, in a cause so serious? The like is also where hee saith, Excom­munication is before and after in other wordes expressed. Yea, and this is not a­gainst our sense of Delivering to Sathan: but much for it. Seeing all the Circū ­stances & coherence of the text heere, both before and after, speake only of Excommunication; and the phrase it selfe, to deliver to Satan, is so fit and a­greeable to expresse the same, even according to Christes description of it,Mat. 18.17. Let him be to thee as a Heathen, that is, without the Church Christs King­dome, vnder the power and rule of Satan, in like state and cōdition as the very infidelles and vnbeleevers are. This therefore is much for vs. But (saith he)Pag. 100. This is no such new founde or vaine exposition. Chrysostome, Ierome, Am­brose, Theodoret, Occumenius, Theophilact &c. embrace it. Wonderfull! This opinion and these very testimonies hee citedAgainst the Semin. part. 3. pag 54.56. heeretofore as beeing the Papistes. [Page 290]Then hePag [...]5. resisted & refuted the sam [...] at large byAmbr. in 1 Cor. 5. Ambrose, August. in que [...]t. vet. & nov. Test. 49. Austin, and Ierom ad Hiliod. & ad R [...]par. Ie­rome: insinuating that thisIerom. in 1. Cor. 5. Ierome, (which now he groūdeth on, & which then the Papistes alleaged) was a coū ­terfait, or suspected at least. Is this fi­delitie? is this vpright dealing? For advātage to ioyne with the Antichri­stian Enemies, yea against him selfe: to allow of the self same witnes which him selfe then branded with infamie: opposing Chrysostome to Chrysostome, Ie­rome to Ierome, Ambrose there to Ambrose heere: and (which passeth) interpre­ting the same wordes of Theodoret con­trarie heere, to that hee didPag. 59. there. What mutabilitie is this! But to the point, I answer; This his sense out of Chrysostome, &c. heere, can not be true. viz. that this delivering to Satan, was to be tormented corporally by Satan. For then the whole Church of Corinth had this miraculous power given thē at Pauls appointement. They were then the visible instrumentall doers of this Apostolike Miracle in Pauls be­halfe. Also, then the Apostles had po­wer, and did vse to strike men whom they never saw nor spake with beeing far from them in other countries. All which how absurd they are, who seeth not? Againe, this Sinners2. Cor. 2. restoring, was without Miracle: his casting out [Page 291]therefore was so likewise. Neither can it be thought that1. Tim. 8.20. Paul corporally tormentedPag. 103. Hymenaus and Alexander. He only excommunicated them: and yet not he alone, but with the Chur­ches concurrence and consent where­of they were. For so was his practise in other actions of Church-governe­ment, as we see.

InPag. 226. another place hee readeth, 2. Thess. 3.14. not as it should be. He rea­deth, If any obey not our saying, note him by a letter. It should be,Bez. in Thes. 3.1 [...] If any obey not our saying in the Epistle, note him. That is, Ex­communicat him, & withdraw your selves from him, as it is in vers. 6. This he requireth the whole Church of the Thessalonians to do: not to signifie such a one to Paul, that he might do it. The word is not [...] signify to me: but [...] set a marke on him: viz. of Excōmunication. For it can beare no other sense.

Now touching Calling to the Mini­sterie,Chap. 7. pag. 66. he laboureth to take from vs quite, First Act. 1. about Mathias elec­tion to be an Apostle. It is true (as he saith) An Apostle might not be chosen by mē. Yet heere Gods will was that men should, and they did go about this E­lection, and proceeded in it, and ma­naged the same so far as possibly men might. That is, men performed ma­ny [Page 292]waightie and remarkable partes therein: not that there was any simple necessitie for men to concurre heere­in, but only it pleased God it should be so for an example to posteritie to follow, & to practise all that was ordi­narie in the same. D. Bilson excepteth, it is not expressed that the Church intermed­led in the choice of Mathias. Which is not true. For first, all this action was per­formedAct. 1.15 vers. 23. in the middest of the Church: Secondly,vers. 24. they appointed two; andvers. 26. they prayed; and "they cast lotts; and hee was accounted by common consent, as it were [...]. by voyces, with the Eleaven. He saith, pray­ers and lotts were performed by the Apostles, as the principall directors of that action; there­fore they also presented the two. Indeed they that did the one part, did the o­ther. The coherēce of the text sheweth it wel. But the truth is not as he saith. For these things were performed only by Peter, as the principal director of the whole action at this time. The Apostles are no where mentioned in this busines; there is not one tittle of thē. To the point: all those particular actions in this Election beforePlurally named. na­med, are and must bee referred to all the Disciples, who are heere expresly mentioned, & in the middest of whō all these things were done. I say, Peter alone did them as the Moderator and [Page 293]director: but iointly with him all the Disciples concurring and consenting presented these two, prayed saying, cast lottes, All the Church ioy­ned with Pe­ter. and accounted the Elected with the E­leaven. Thus this is decided in the text; the force and coharence of the wordes convince it, though the Doct. denyeth it. Hee shewethHom. 3. i [...] Act. Chrysostome saying,pag. 67. Peter might most lawfully have chosen Mathias. I vnderstand Chrysostomes meaning to be that he might lawfully have nomina­ted and propounded one, or mo. And this is true. Otherwise Chrysostomes speach is amisse, & the D. knoweth it to be vntrue, acknowledging that an Apostle can not be chosen by men, as before I noted. This therefore he can not take hold of: theBellarm. de Cler. 1.7. Iesuits catch at it likewise as he doth, but none of them all get by it. Why doth hee not rest on Chrysostomes other words heere, that Peter him selfe did not appoint those two, but all did it. And he did all by the com­mon sentence of the Disciples nothing by his owne authoritie, nothing by commaund. This is true, this is plaine, this is for imita­tion for ever: yet this he (as also the Iesuit) reiecteth, thoughCypr. E­pist. 1.4. Cyprian also say as much, and ourRain. Cō ­fer. pa. 153 late Writers. Maist. Calvin iustly taxeth the Papistes pervers boasting of the Fathers, and we are to taxe our present adversaries likewise: Seeing they seem to draw a­gainst [Page 294]vs all in one line. Saith hee of them to the French King; Ists pij scilicet filij (quâ sunt & ingenij, & iudicij, & animi dexteritate) Patrum tantum lapsus & erro­res adorant. Calvin. ad Reg. Gall. Quae benedicta sunt, vel non obser­vant, vel dissimulant, vel corrūpunt. Vt dicas prorsùs illis cura fuisse in auro legere stercora. Such good children they are to these Fathers, that only their faultes and errors they adore, and it is all their care amongst their golde, to gather dirt.

Next, Act. 6.5. The multitude chose 7. Deacons. First,P [...]pet. gov. pag. 67. 68. he granteth this. Then he would make it void for any vse with vs, as Bellarmine doth like­wise. Saith he, That the people should very wel like and fully trust such as should be Stew­ards of their goods had evident reason. And I pray, is there not more reason that they shold very wel like & fully trust such as must bee the Guides of their soules? Those by whose meanes they shall go to heaven, or to hell? I trowe there is much more reason for this. Neither is thisPag. 82. a matter exceeding the reach of Christian people, viz. to dis­cerne, and try, and like theirIoh. 10.3.4.5. 1 Ioh. 4.1. Oct. 17.11. 1. Cor. 10.15. Tea­chers. Against Act. 14.23. hePag. 70. obiecteth word for word out of Bellarmine that [...] is not to be taken heere for the peoples voyce-giving as the prophane O­rators among the Grecians applyed it. I an­swer, it is necessarie so to bee taken. Are not they the true authors of the [Page 295]Greeke language? Do not all men try the true propertie of Greeke wordes and phrases by them? Nay, but the Church-writers vnderstand it for Lay­ing on of handes in Ordination. I an­swer, they have changed the native & right vse of the word; they keepe not the originall propertie of it, as they do not inReas. for refor pag. 64 65 & be­fore Pa. 109.127.218.211. many other words mo. Time chāgeth many words from their ori­ginall veritie. Wherefore the Apostles doubtles spake and wrote Greeke, not like the phrase which came vp 300.4000. yeres after them: but as the au­thentike Grecians before and in their time did speake. Thus then it were folly, yea madnes to interprete them by those so long after them. Againe he saith, this word signifyeth never to take the consents of others. Which is not true, as I haveReas for refor. pag. 47 shewed out of Demo­sthenes contra Timocrat. Where hee saith thus; [...]: which of the lawes the chiefe Authors shall appoint by the peoples voice-giving, the same is ratifyed. Heere the word plainly signifyeth the Guids ta­king the cōsent of others. Further he obiecteth, that this word somtime sig­nifyethAct. 10.41. generally to apoint, & no more. I grant, there is aSynecdo­che. figurative and im­proper vse of the word. The necessitie of the Circūstance there maketh that [Page 296]it must be so. But heere, in Act. 14.23. there is no necessitie, nor reason at all to take it improperly, or otherwise then as al authentike Grecians do vse it, viz. for appointing by the peoples voices, or free consents, as I have said.

These are D. Bilsons speciall obiecti­ons against our texts of Scripture for the peoples consent in Church gover­nement vnder the Apostles. Bellarmine dealeth against one or two more. Hee saith,Ioh. 10. we are cōmanded to heare Christs voyce, and not a strangers, and to try the Spirits, only by attēding to the doctrine of other Pastors holding their old cu­stome, and chieflie to the doctrine of Rome. Where hee presumeth that those other Pastors can not erre, and chieflie they of Rome. But the Apo­stle telleth vs thatRom. 3.4 Every man is a lyar, that is, subiect to error. Wherefore the Holy Ghost biddeth the people to attendIsa. 8.20. to the Law, and to the Testimoni [...] in such cases; &Ioh. 5.39. to Search the Seriptures, and sheweth that in so doing,2. Pet. 1.19 wee do well. Againe, the Iesuit maketh a shew of answering: viz. to 1. Pet. 5.2. that Ministers may not be Lords over the Church. But he answereth not: only hee saith Bishops are servants to the Church, as Scholemaisters are to their Scholars, and Magistrates to the people, who yet do cō ­mand and rule them solely. Which is [Page 297]nothing to the text, forbidding Mini­sters to be Lords over theAs also 2. Cor. 1.24. people: he answereth not that point. Last, to this1. Tim. 3.1 [...]. The Church is the pillar and groūd of truth, he saith it is true by hearing Peter (the Pope) alwayes. Absurd: the Pope is not Peter, nor Peters true Successor. The text sheweth that the Ephesian Church then, and every Church stil, is a pillar and ground of truth: to whom the members are therefore ordinarily to hearken, & therefore they have the Keyes & Church governementMat. 18.17. cō ­mitted by Christ vnto them.

But D. Bilson giveth not over so.Chap. 9. He hath some generall obiections against our grounds of Scripture. First,Pag. 10 [...]. None can give Imposition of handes but they that first receaved the same. They must have it thē ­selves, that will bestow it on others.

I answer, the Proposition faileth. Vn­der the Law some of theNomb. 8.10. people Im­posed their handes on the Levites: in the Gospell the 12. Apostles imposed their handes in making Ministers. Yet these receaved no impositiō of hands them selves. Againe, wee must note heere two distinctions: and so the As­sumption is false. First, Lay men (as he calleth them) are considered singly, or iointly. They have no Ecclesiasticall [Page 298]power singly. But as they are ioyned togeather in a Visible Church which is a Spiritual Body politike, and a My­sticall Body of Christ, (whether they be many, orMat. 18.20. few) so even these Lay men have receaved the power of all the holy things of God, all Gods ordi­nances spirituall. As the Apostle saith vnto them;1. Cor. 3. [...]2.23. All things are yours, and yee Christes, and Christ Gods. The whole Con­gregatiō is Christs Church, his Spouse, his Kingdome, his sacred Body, as IPag. 164. 165. 166. have said. From whēce by a necessary and vndeniable consequence it follow­eth that Christ hath given the power of Imposing handes, of Censures, of Sa­cramentes, of Preaching the word, and all, vnto the Congregation to bee per­formed in the best order they can. And so it is, that our Attestators Pag. 32. 33. 34. before have taught, that the Keyes are given the whole Church. Yet consider secondly, that the people thus have receaved all these spirituall things, & so can give thē on­ly potestative (as I may say) that is, they have the power of them. But activè, actu­ally they only can administer them who are the Churches instruments for that purpose by them assigned. Thus Tertullian may meane well, saying, that sometimeTertull. de Baptis. a Lay mā may Baptize: name­ly, if the Church assigne him in a case of necessitie, when an ordinarie Mini­ster [Page 299]can not be had. Otherwise I can not iustifie his speach. Yea, the Ordinarie exercise of Prophesie, that is,Prophe­sie. Interpre­ting of Scripture publikely in the Church, is to be performed by the1. Cor. 14.1.31.34. par­ticular people being by the Church or­derly appointed therevnto. Touching the excellencie and most profitable vse of which Apostolicall exercise, (though now it bee every where almost out of vse) I wish the Reader to see MaZuingl. ad Valentin. Compar. et Antibol. advers. En [...] ser. Zuin­glius, andPet. Mart. in 1. Cor. 14. Iac. Acont. Strat. Sat. 4. Calv. Inst. 4 1.12. & 1. Cor. 14. others also.

Further, touchinge Imposition of handes the D. seemeth heere to esteeme it as the very Ordination it selfe, that it giveth the power to Preach and Baptize, &c. But it is not so. There are two Essenti­all partes of Calling to the Ministerie, Election and Ordination: The imposing of handes is but a Ceremonie of putting the Minister (before made) into posses­sion of his right, and a commending of him to the blessing of God. Though all these actions belong to the people so, as before I have shewed; yet Imposition of handes (the Ceremonie) may possibly be wanting in a true Minister, and suf­ficient Ordination may be without it. Yea, true Ministers have ben without it. Howbeit, I suppose Christs Church offendeth in omitting it: for though it be but a ceremonie, yet it is Apostolike. Where also that which followeth, in [Page 300]answered; though to give power to preach and baptize be more then to preach and bap­tize, yet the people have the power of both. And, though Imposition of hands to Ordination may be said to be a kinde of Sacrament, yet the people have the po­wer of it, as I have shewed. But Calvin saith,Institut. 4.3.16. Only Pastors did it. Be it so: and let them only do it stil (for they are the fittest instrumentes for that purpose which the Church can assigne) viz. whē they are to be had. This thē is nothing materiall. Seeing wee seeke only that the Pastor should not ordaine in his owne name & power (but in the chur­ches) next after Christ, & by their free consent. Also, if no Pastor can bee had, that then some other (the fittest they have) may act the Churches godly de­termination, for them, in their name, and by their right receaved frō Christ their Head. For people so ioyned togea­ther, asPag. 164. before I shewed, may essenti­ally bee a Church, though they want a Pastor. And Maister Calvin gainsayeth nothing of this: butSee before, pag. 43. 164 80. 81. he ioyned in Ge­neva to the practise of it, and in their places Luther and Zuinglius did also, &c. Finally, we cānot but note this speach of Doct. Bils. more then strange.Pag. 109. To create Ministers by imposing handes, A strange speach. is to give them not only power and leave to preach the word, and dispense the Sacramentes; but also [Page 301]the grace of the holy Ghost to make them able to execute both partes of their function. Alas, why then do they create so many vn­able and vngracious Ministers in En­gland, which there do swarme? Why do they so, If their imposing of handes can give all this grace? Where also is answered, that hee wouldPag. 110. barre the people from the power of Excommunica­tion, because they have no power to ad­minister the Word and Sacramentes. I have shewed how the people have power of all these, and of all spirituall actions beside. Where he saith; The Pastors shall yeeld account of them to God. So shall the Church also. But therefore none may compell the Pastors. What? may not the Magistrat, if he see neede? I suppose he will retract that. Yea; and say I, the Church may cōpell Pastors in her ma­ner, viz. when shee seeth vrgent need. And yet properly he can not bee com­pelled: his owne will carieth him: vo­hint as non cogitur: So that how soever the Church (when they see neede) may in­ioyne him, yet his owne will is it which he shal answer for. Pastors ther­fore shall indeed give account to God for their administring the Word and Sacramentes, and for their not admi­nistring. Namely, for their part. But none of them are therfore Lords of the word and Sacramentes, nor absolut ar­bitrary [Page 302]disposers of them vnder Christ; Where he addeth, thatPag. 111. the moderatiō of the Keyes and imposition of handes were at first settled in the Apostles: and that this cannot be doubted. It is not so. I doe both doubt it, and am sure of the contrary. Christ setled the moderation of the Keyes first inMat. 18.17. the Church. His com­mission to his Apostles was givenMat. 28.19. Ioh. 20.23. af­ter. Not depriving the Church of her former power, but ioyning the Apostles & their successors to her as her Guides. Withall two thinges further are to bee noted. 1. Doct. Bilson heere maketh all Pastors indifferently to have power to Minister and deny Sacraments & Cen­sures. Whereby it followeth that the Diocesan Bishops only have not this power. For saith he, they (the ordinary Ministers) must be trusted with both, or with neither: Pag. 110. 133. 162. 199. 162. You must free them from both, or leave both vnto them. Wherein also none may compell them or force them. Sure, this quite overthroweth his owne practise and state, and the whole order in Eng­land. 2. We may observe a Syllogisme in his owne wordes heere & elswhere. Speaking indefinitly of those which have authoritie in the Church, he saith;pag. 111. They must looke not only what they cha­lenge, but also from whom they derive it. If from the Apostles, then are they their Succes­sors: if from Christ, as Collegues ioyned with [Page 303]the Apostles, wee must finde that consociation in the Gospell, before wee cleare them from in­trusion. No man should take this honor vnto him selfe, but hee that is called of God as the Apostles were. If they be called by Christ, Heb. 5. read their assignation from Christ: if they be not, surcease that presumption. And to do other­wise, is toPag. 19 Mat. 15 transgresse the commandement of God for the traditions of Men.

Against the Semi­nar. part. 2. pag. 318. The authoritie of Patriarkes, Archbishops, meaner Bishops over other Ministers, was not by the institution of Christ or his Apostles, but long after by the consent of the Churches, the custome of the times, and the will of Princes. Therefore (the Conclusion followeth of it selfe) the authoritie of Patriarkes, Archbi­shops, meaner Bishops over Ministers, is intru­sion and presumption, and transgressiō of Gods commandement. At vs Doctor Downame would rage, if we should conclude so: but I hope he will take it better in Do. Bilsons wordes. HisPag. 114. 115. & Fathers and Coun­cills, if they absolutly exclude the peo­ples consent, I leave vnder his owne censureHeere and also pa. 22 [...] before observed. But I take them to meane otherwise, though in­deed a very great power and almost ab­solute was nowe exercised by many Diocesan Bb. in Excōmunicatiō & Ab­solution. Hee saith Cyprians & Augustines yeelding the people a consent, wasPag. 119. not for any right they had, but to prevent scandalls. But their right both by pre­cept, [Page 304]and practise of the Apostles, is suf­ficiently shewed before. Yet indeed it was to prevent scandalls among the people also. Which very point is a firme reason likewise, that this spiritu­all libertie of the people then was their right. For first, they could not bee scandalized so oft, fearing to loose their consent in such affaires so many ages togeather, and in so farre distant coun­treis, but that they were then taught and they learned frō time to time that this was their right. If the cōtrary then had ben taught, then they could not have ben scandalized, nor made jealous least they might be wronged in this be­halfe as they were. That they were, is manifest by all monumentes of those times, and by our adversaries confessi­on. Therefore the peoples free consent in their spirituall governement was then taught, and it was their right, in the ages after the Apostles. And truly this ever hath ben, is, and wil­be scandalous and offensive iustly to a Christian vnderstanding Congregati­on, viz. to have any thing Spiritually and Ecclesiastically forced on them. The case is perpetuall. ButMat. 18.7 wo to them by whom offences come, specially to such. Therefore wo to them who yeelde not this libertie to such people perpetually. Yet he saith,Pag. 112. In Scripture hee findeth [Page 305]neither Example of it, nor reason for it. Who can let words? If men list to speake, who can stay them? Some will shut their eyes, and say they see not light at noone. Against Election with the peo­ples consent, he said before,Pag. 69. Examples are no precepts: As it were acknowled­ging Examples. How beit besides that this is theBellarm. de Cleric. 1.7. verie Iesuits shift, he him selfe cōfuteth al these evasiōs, though they be his owne. First, yeelding thatPerp. gov. pag. 373. the Apostles taught the Church by their ex­ample. Then testifying thus,Pag 49. This Pre­rogative to be best acquainted with the will & meaning of our Savior, and to have their mouthes and pennes directed and guided by the holy Ghost into all truth aswell of doctrine as of Discipline, was proper to the Apostles. A­gaine,Pag. 43. They set an order amongst Christians in all things needfull for the governement, con­tinuance, peace, and vnitie of the Church. AndPag. 106. The Scriptures once written suffice all ages for instruction.

And heere I beseech the Christian Readers of all degrees, that they take me not amisse (to which some mens humors are to prone) viz. where in an other place I have said, The particular Congregations of England are true ChurchesDeclar [...]. pag. 6. accidentally. My meaning is, that as those particular Congrega­tions have in them godly and holy Christians consociated togeather to [Page 306]serve God (so far as they see) agreea­blie to his word, so they are in right from Christ essentially true Chur­ches of God, and are so to be acknow­ledged by vs, and in publike not to be absolutly separated from. But in re­spect as these Congregations are parts of proper Diocesan and Provinciall Churches, so they are true Churches of Christ accidentally.In respect of them, it is an accidēt. For proper Dio­cesan and Provinciall Churches being not in the N. Testam. have in them by accident the true essentiall forme of Christs Visible Churches. Seeing also this forme is repugnant to the con­stitutiō & forme of the other; as † her­tofore I noted,Reas. for ref. pag. 23. & by comparing their divers Definitions inPag 200. & 318. this Treatise it will most plainly appeare. And so these two divers respectes & acknow­ledgementes (as I conceave) may well bs yeelded to the particular Congre­gations now in England; neither do I see any iust exception against it.

In vaine also doth Doct. Downe. vp­braid vs, thatDef. 4.81. we seeke to overturne aswell those Churches where the Geneva discipline is established, as ours. ThatDef. 1.10. we agree with no reformed Church in the worlde. ThatPag. 38. 47. non [...] are of our minde but Brownists, and such like. Hee maketh the Brownistes happy men. Can hee reproove them if they follow Zuinglius, Luther, Bucer, P. Martyr, Viret, Calvin, Beza, Danaeus, Vrsinees, Gual­ter, [Page 307]&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 dissonāt from those testim. may now be found in some of these Churches (which I will not de­ny) then it cometh to passe with thē 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. Stephā. 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 doctrineDef. 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 [...]lent wordes from them that fall from vs. [Page 308]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 citeDef. 4.30. Mai. Cartwright and Mai. Travers, as some of these. Yea hee will have Ierome also to beDef. 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? Cassianū erotema. specially vnder Constantine & after, by approoving Diocesan Prela­cie, got great honor, power, and rule [Page 309]among the people, and wealth and pleasure, what they desired. Which, by opposing against it, they should have lost. Whēce 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 mē, and might easily be partiall in this.Good and godly Fa­thers; ye [...] 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 cō ­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, & [Page 310]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 onlyDef. 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 Orthodoxeviz. 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, [Page 311]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 thē signifie that they disalow not Dio­cesan Bishops simply. Well, no more do I, as I have shewedPag. 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 [Page 312] 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 should by a Con­gregation signifye either Vniversall, or Provinciall, or Diocesan Church, is a most false, & vnlikely conceit. Can a­ny of these bee one Visible Congrega­tion in the singular nomber? He allea­geth (as hee thinketh) textes for his pupose Matt. 16. Ephe. 1. and 5. Which surely may well, yea they are to bee vnderstood of a Visible Congregati­on, viz. indefinitly taken. See heere­of the Divine beginning and institution of Christes Visible Church. Argum. 26. & 23. Of Mai. Beza Def. 4.166. hee affirmeth, that hee wished with all his heart for the Diocesan Bishops governemēt in Geneva. Which is as true as that which the Iesuits blazed abroad, how Beza before his death recanted his religion. Beza li­ved to cōvince the Iesuits of vntruth to their faces. If hee were now alive, he would do the like to this Doct. and those other of whō he saith hee heard it. The like audacitie is in that his re­port, that the most learned & iudicious Di­vines in France and Geneva, could bee content that Diocesan Bb. governement were renewed among them. The most learned in France and Geneva? Verily as they were who [Page 313]renewed it Scotland of late. Most lear­ned, and most iudicious were they? Laus proprio sordescit in ore. And I feare ra­ther that knowen parable to be heere­in verifyed; When the trees would have a King, the Olive, Figtree, and Vine refusing, the Bramble tooke it on him, and said to the trees,Iudg. 9.15 Come & put your trust vnder my shadow.

When all shiftes faile, the adversa­ries will calumniate vs as not dutifull to the King, and Civil governement. Which though D. Downame saith,Def. 1.45. hee will not dispute, yet he maliciously insi­nuateth. As touching dutifull affecti­on to the Kings person, none can say more (if he list) then D. Downame him selfe in my particular. Yea, what wordes I spake whē he held his peace to a Noble Lord of Scotl.An. 1601. when nei­ther of vs durst be seene nor heard a­broad, for feare of whom? Verily of those who were his best friends since. If I was thē so dutifully animated to­ward the K. when we only hoped for his Maiestie, God forbid I should bee lesse now, when we have him. Being so maligned & traduced as I am, I could not but speake of this. Touching our duty generally to his Maiesties autho­ritie and place, the evidence of reason & sense plead for vs.Tertull. ad Scapul. We acknowledge with Tertullian, that he is Solo Deo minor: [Page 314]Lesse then God only. In Church governe­ment we impeach not his Soveraig­tie, neither in matter, nor manner. Therefore no way at all. The matter is only about Ezcommunication and Making of Ministers, and such like things. Of the essentiall forme where­of Christ only is institutor, his Eccle­siasticall servantes bee the Ministers. The King is neither Author, nor Mi­nister. Vnto this I suppose all agree. For the maner, Seeing we holde each whole Church in the greatest extent can be no mo ordinarie Congregati­ons then one, how can these either by their comming togeather, or by their consenting in any Spirituall busines only for them selves: I say, how can these impeach the Kings power one haire? His Supreme Vniversall over­seeing and ordering them, and all o­thers, yea his chastising them (when they do any thing amisse) how can it be let, how can it be hindered by such a handfull? And because hee must vse Substitute Rulers in his general over­seeing the Churches of his Domini­ons; we frō our hearts do honor them also, and submit to them as to Gods Lieutenants in their severall places. Only we testifie, that if the Kings power be committed to any Ecclesiasticall person (especially Civill coactive po­wer) [Page 315]it draweth with it both a breach of Christes ordinance, (who said to such Ministers,Luc. 22.25. Math. 20.25. 2. Chro. 19.11. You shall not be so,) and also a torture to Christian subiects cō ­sciences. Wherefore we desire of God, that the King would be pleased to ap­point, as Ichosaphat did, a Zebadiah to bee generall Governor vnder him in Church causes, (so far as it pertaineth to the King to deale in them) and as King Henry 8. a L. Cromwell his Vicege­rent in rebus Ecclesiasticis, and as his Ma­iestie him selfe did (as I have heard) in Scotland before hee came among vs. Which may be far more easily perfor­med (with inferior subordinate Offi­cers vnder them also for this purpose in every place) in a Monarchie, then in any Popular, or Aristocraticall Cō ­mon wealth.Vnitie, how▪ And verily this is it (and not a Diocesan Bishop) which would bring great vnitie, and that according to God. If D. Downame wil vrge (which he grateth vpon in this saidDef. 1.45. pag. 45.) that the Churches indepēdent autho­ritie standeth not with the Kings Su­premacie in causes Ecclesiasticall, and that which els where wee say, viz. no­thing may be obtruded on the Church against their willes. I answer, indeed every Churches power is indepen­dent spiritually, and immediat vnder Christ: our meaning therefore is, that [Page 316]by ptetended Spirituall authoritie,Chap. 9. nothing may be obtruded & imposed on any true Church against their willes. But we grant that Civill Ma­gistrates may and sometime ought to impose good things on a true Church against their willes, if they stifly erre as somtime they may. And me thinks Doct. Downame also should bee of this minde with vs.This is thus answered often be­fore pag. 115. &c. Hitherto our answer to some of our Adversaries chiefest obiections, and evill wordes. And so I draw to an end.

CHAP. IX. A short advertisement to the vpright hearted and Christian Rea­der, touching this Writing & Cause.

YET first I desire the Christian Reader to be advertised of a few things pertayning to this Cause. Seavē things I intreat him to take no­tice of.

• First, how great a blame and 1 shame it is to D. Downame, a principall Logician to treate so largely (as in his Sermon & defenc. he hath done) concer­ning the Nature, Forme, and Consti­tution of Christs true Visible Church, and yet in all this not once to define the same. Which defect of D. Bilson also [Page 317]is to be noted in his perpetuall governe­ment of the Church. Surely this one mat­ter, viz. a Definition of Christes true Vi­sible Church vnder the Gospell, well performed, would have saved a great deale of paines and trouble, & would have prevēted much error. And thus it is wiselie taught by Cicero that
  Cicer. Offic. 1.
  all purposes reasonable ought to be begū with a Definitiō of the matter in band. For the avoyding therefore of this imputation, I have in
  The Di­vine begin­ning & in­stitution of Christs Visible Church.
  another Trea­tise defined the said Visible Church of Christ. Which I did, and rested not on some others who have Defined the Church heertofor, because I desired to distinguish cleerly betweene the Iew­ish Church, and the Christian; which verily differ not in Accidentes alone, but in kinde of governement and in essentiall constitution.
  The Iewish & Christian Church 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 [Page 318]downe in effect the same Definition, though in other words, & more short. Thus it is.
  A Definitiō 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 cōsent in their 2 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 vpō 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 3 Writings and Disputes about this cause have ben and are very many, [Page 319]intricat, and tedious; I have heere in­deavoured to make the vnderstāding thereof short, easie, and perspicuous. Namely by reducing the whole sub­stance of this controversie only to 2. Heads.
  The sumn [...] 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 vnderstād 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 4 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 [Page 320]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.
• 5 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
  Cōsequent 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 6 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, [Page 321]Luther, Bucer, F. Martyr, Viret, Mus­culus, Bullinger, Gualter, Chemnieius, Vrsinus, Iunius, Danaeus, Calvin, and Beza, with many other like rare men of God, all cōsenting togeather in the substance of these points, as before I have shew­ed more at large; then it will be a suf­ficient satisfactiō 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 7 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.