REASONS TAKEN OVT OF GODS WORD AND THE BEST HVMANE TESTIMONIES PROVING A NE­CESSITIE OF REFORMING OVR CHVRCHES IN ENGLAND. Framed and applied to 4. Assertions wherein the foresaid purpose is contained. The 4. Assertions are set downe in the Page next following.

I beleeved, therefore I haue spoken.

Psal. 116.10.

One thing is necessarie.

Luc. 10.42.

1604.

The 4. Assertions.

Pag. 1.
1. It is necessarie to reforme the Churches of England, their Mi­nisterie, and Ceremonies.
Pag. 57.
2. For the space of 200. yeares after Christ the Visible Churches vsing governement were not Diocesan Churches,but parti­cular ordinary Congregations only: and the Bishops (as they were peculiarly called after the Apostles) were only Parishio­nall not Diocesan Bishops, differing from other Pastors only in Prioritie of order not in Maioritie of rule.
Pag. 67.
3. The Scriptures of the New Testaments do cōtaine & set forth vnto vs (besides the government by Extraordinary Offices, Apostles Prophetes Evangelistes) an ordinary forme of Church-governement vsed then.
Pag. 70.
4. The ordinary forme of Church-governement set forth vnto vs in the New Testament, ought necessarily to be kept still by vs; it is not changeable by men, and therefore it only is law­full.

To the high and mightie Prince IAMES by the grace of God King of England, Scotland, France, and Ireland, Defender of the faith, &c. Grace and peace be multiplied in Christ our Saviour.

RIght high, mightie, and gracious Sove­raigne, in most humble wise your Maiesties loyall & devoted Subiects who for the safe­tie of our soules desire the Reformatiō of our Churches according to Gods word, do cast downe our selves in the true affection of our heartes before your Royall presence, whom we acknowledge to be the noblest pillar of the Gospell and the greatest hope for the propagation and establishing thereof that is in all Christendom. Beseeching your Highnes to extend your Kingly ayde and furtherance vnto vs in our foresaid most neces­sarie and iust desire, with protection also toward our innocen­cies against the Oppression of our Adversaries in this cause. Their Oppressions of vs are and have ben many, very grievous. and of long continuance. For the which we▪ have knowen that your Maiestie formerly hath ben touched with a godly & tender com­miseration towards vs. As it is with all humble thankfulnes ac­knowledged (to your immortall honor) by * a Reverend Father,M. Cartwe. Epist. to the King be­fore his Ho­mil. on Ec­cles. one that heeretofore tasted therof, and now lately sleepeth in the Lord. The truth of God maintayned then, is the very same which we now dutifully seeke for. Our consciences are rather more certified of the goodnes and necessitie of these Ordinances of God, by how much more tyme we have spent since in examining and trying the Reasons alleaged to and fro about the same. The great increasing also of Papistes and Libertines among vs since this time, assureth vs that the present Ecclesiasticall Orders are [Page]more friendly to them then to the synceritie of the Gospell. Be­sides, the most lamentable dissentions and diversitie of opinions in matters of Religion breaking foorth every where among the people (contrary to lovely Vnitie, which the Diocesan Bishops do vainly pretend to be a proper fruit of their Office, and con­trary to that which other Churches refusing them and their Tra­ditions do sweetly inioy) this animateth vs with all dutifull in­deavour to seeke this Reformation aforesaid so divinely cōmen­ded vnto vs. Lastly, we have had it from your Maiestie very oft, that whatsoever things in our Churches we can shew to be Con­trary to Gods word, shalbe by your gracious meanes removed: and whatsoever (yet out of vse with vs) may appeare by Gods word to be Necessary; shall be established. May it please your most gracious Majestie, let this word stand. We crave, we desire nothing more. And lesse then this how can we desire? I hope it is shewed and declared competently in the Treatise following that the matters in question wherewith our consciences are trou­bled, are in very truth Contrary to Gods Word. And heere we most humbly beseech your Majestie on our bended knees to think of vs no otherwise. The Lord is witnes to our soules, we by not; that of meere conscience to God we seeke the right, and refuse the wrong, namely these Humane Traditions Ecclesiasti­call: and not (as our Adversaries suggest) of any contentious or peevish mind. There is no other reason in the world moving vs in this matter, but because we see it with our eyes that all such things are directly Contrary to Gods word; and that Christes owne Ordinances which yet we want are necessary to be enjoyed for our soules health. They are vaine words of men vnadvised, yea of corrupt mindes, and studying to flatter, which cease not to inculcat (and specially in greatest presence) that these thinges are Indifferent, and arbitrary. I pray God it com not to passe by such reasoning, that many will hold all things indifferent like­wise: indifferent of what Religion they be: indifferent whether of any, or of no Religion. Which conceits I feare already are entered in to the hearts of many, yea of thousands in England. But we beleeve (and the truth is) Gods word never knew any in­differency in matters of the Church or of Religion: wherein all [Page]things (whether great or small) have ever ben either simply good or evill, necessarie or vnlawfull. Our Adversaries do sharply rise vp against vs, and labour to charge vs with most odi­ous reproches and accusations, chiefly laid out to your Majestie and others neere you. Where as they know well, that we com nothing short of themselves touching any duty to your Highnes Crowne and Dignitie. And in affection to your person we haue ben before them all, yea then when it hath gon the harder with vs for it. Only in a point of Religion we differ from them, that we beleeve Gods written Word ought to be our sole warrant for all things Ecclesiasticall, and even so namely for those with vs now in controversie, if at all they be lawfull. Which point they vtterly deny. And for this cause they cry out importunatly that we are Schismatikes. There is no end of their speeches and writings loading vs with this extreame injurie. Wherevnto though we haue to long vsed more then patient silence, yet all­wayes we can not do so.Ierom. ad Pammach. We are taught by a worthy saying of an ancient Divine; Jn crimine Haereseos neminem oportet esse pa­tientem. When any is accused of Haeresie or Schisme, (as we are) he ought by no meanes to put it vp in silence, but to make his lawfull defense, Wherefore I thought it needfull (being, though the meanest of my brethren, yet by Gods grace one of his ser­vants in the Ministery of the Gospell, and being not only in ge­nerall, but alsoAnswer to the hū ­ble Petiti­on of Mi­nisters de­siring Res. &c. in particular thus traduced by them) needfull therefore I thought it to be to giue out som Reasons of our faith and conscience in this cause. Whereby our innocencie & sound judgment heerein (through Gods blessing) shalbe made mani­fest, and our Adversaries chiefest evasions being taken away the truth and necessity of this Reformation is more distinctly and cleerely demonstrated. I deny not (most noble Prince) but that there be divers Brethren desiring this Reformation, who yet affirme not all that I affirme in this Treatise, or something not so fully. Neither are the Diocesan Bishops, nor their fol­lowers, all wholy of one mind. Yet touching vs, I know we wholy agree in the groūd of our desire; which is the Sufficiency and perfection of Gods word in whatsoever matters meerely Ec­clesiasticall. I say, meerely Ecclesiasticall. For in matters any [Page]way Civil no man doubteth but God hath left liberty vnto mans judgment and liking. Howbeit not so in things meerely Eccle­siasticall; as after shall further be shewed, God willing. And thus every sober minded man well considering the Reasons heereaf­ter deduced from this ground, will (I hope) in short time not hardly accord with vs.

But now it remayneth (Gracious Soveraigne) that I intreate your Majestie, which in most lowly and humble maner I do, to pardon my boldnes. First in gathering these Reasons, & to such a purpose as heere is signified. Secondly in presenting them to your Highnes. Thirdly in presuming heerein to alleage and cite some of your owne goulden sentences. Your religious wisedom easilie perceaveth that this purpose, beside mine owne due de­fence; concerneth a most waightie and holy work: viz. the Re­formation of many and great disorders (as we are perswaded) in our Churches, which hitherto haue ben the proper causes of vn­speakeable hinderance to the Gospell, and of calamitie to infinit faithfull lovers thereof among vs. In which regard how glori­ous a worke this will be and how acceptable to God, how hono­rable for your selfe, and how necessary for vs, your Highnes (I am sure) right well vnderstandeth; and I hope by viewing these small labours of mine you may somwhat more vnderstand. My desire was to be brief and plaine in so important a cause. Wherefore I haue touched the pith of all in a few, namely in 4. Assertions for­tified with short and cleere proofes. And to whom ought I chief­ly to offer them but to your Highnes? Cōsidering that you have willed vs to prease by patience and well grounded Reasons to per­swade all the rest to like of our iudgements, In Basilicon Doron, to the Reader. or where we see better grounds on the other part to incline therevnto. Which by Gods grace we shalbe ready alwayes to performe. Considering also that yours is the Soveraign power heere to give generall redresse to these our not only temporall, but also spirituall grievances in our consciences. And considering that you not only know, but also embrace and professe most religiously the same maine Prin­ciple of our faith and ground of this perswasion of our Consci­ences which we rest vpon: viz. The holy Scriptures absolut per­fection in matters Ecclesiasticall. Lastly, considering how you have established the Churches in your Maiesties other Kingdom [Page]of Scotland, and in your Ilandes of Iersey and Guernsey, accor­dingly already. Therefore have I ben bolde in all duty to offer these Reasons to your Maiestie, as to one whom they principally concerne. Where also we do all beseech you to suffer these words of exhortation. Be strong in the Lord, and loose not the things which you have don. Yea proceed, and do this noble work a­mong vs also. The Lorde is with you, while you be with him. When you follow close his wayes, your very enemies shalbe at peace with you. It shalbe easie to do it. To your people gene­rally it wilbe most acceptable, as a thing looked for before: to all neighbour Protestant Countreys ioyfull, as wherein we shalbe all neerer linked togeather. To be short, every way it shall bring more Honor and lesse inconvenience to your estate, then perhaps you may suppose. Finally, Gracious Soveraigne, as tou­ching my presumption in medling with your writings and ap­plying them to this purpose, I can say nothing, but only submit my selfe to your wise, vertuous, and religious consideration. Sure I am, when we your loyall and faithfull Subiects did first see and read the same, it was the greatest ioy and comfort to our heartes that could come vnto vs. And therfore I could not but give som notice thereof, alwayes in the most dutifull & obedient affection of my heart that I can expresse. The Lord Iesus in mercy blesse your Maiestie for euer, & preserve your precious soule from flat­tery and falshood. AMEN.

Your Maiesties humble, obedi­ent, and faithfull Subiect HENRY IACOB, a Minister of Gods word.

Colimus Imperatorem vt hominem à Deo secundum, & solo Deo minorem.

Tertull. ad Scapul.

The 1. Assertion. It is necessarie to reforme the Churches of England, their Ministerie, and Ceremonies.

A generall Argument.

ALl things Contrarie to Gods word ought of necessitie to be reformed.

But with vs in England there are Formes of some reputed visible Chur­ches, viz. vsing Church-government, their proper Ministeries or Offices, and also divers Ceremonies Contrarie to Gods word.

Therefore with vs in England it is necessarie to reforme the Churches, their Ministerie, and Ceremonies.

The Assumption is proved in 8. Reasons.

FIrst, we haue the 2. Commandement in the Deca­logue;Exod. 2 [...].4.5. Thou shalt not make to thy selfe any image or likenes of any thing, &c. Thou shalt not bow downe to it nor worship it. Which is a perpetuall and vniversall Law now still for all Christians, to the same very effect and purpose also, as it was heeretofore vnto the Iewes. Where we must note, that God forbiddeth not the same Idoll-worship heere, which is forbidden properly in the 1. Commandement, where he saith;vers. 3. Thou shalt not haue any other Gods before me. This heere forbidden is an other kind of idolatrie. In the first he forbiddeth whatsoever Divine or Godly ho­nor given vnto any thing beside vnto God himselfe. Butvers. 4.5. heere he forbiddeth all Meanes being Humane Invētions, [Page 2]whereby men would giue honor to the true God. And namely all Outward meanes; which we call GodsExternus Dei Cultus; Liturgia. Out­ward Worship or Service. Yet consider alwayes that in this Commandemēt such Outward meanes of honoring God are not denyed to mens discretiō as are Civill, either meerely or mixtly. But only such are heere denyed as are meerely Ecclesiasticall things, and serue simply to the ex­ercise of Religion. As all Ecclesiasticall Rites, Actions, Mini­steries, & Formes of Visible Churches; which being (as it were) sensible images serving simply for religious or Ecclesiasti­call vses, and being meerely the inventions of men, must needs by this Commandement be all simply vnlawfull. Or, in Gods Outward worship this Commandement gi­veth leave to mens discretion & wisedom only touching meere Circumstances, which are nothing els but Occasi­onall or Accidentall things therein. And these Occasio­nall Circumstances or Accidents are alwayes such Parti­culars, as whose Generalls are either Civill, or Naturall, or Written in the word. I say, these Particulars only (not­withstāding this Commandement) are permitted to men to appoint, or to change againe, at their discretion. In this text then there are 3. points to be noted.

  • 1. The matter.
  • 2. The Author.
  • 3. The respect due from vs vnto the mat­ter heere contained.

The matter is the whole spirituall Meanes of worshipping the true God. And namely the Outward spirituall meanes; that is, Gods Visible Church, his Ministery, his whole Outward Worship and Service. 2. The Author of all this is precisely determined, viz. God himselfe, and no Man. 3. Such Inventions of men must haue from Gods people no reverence: but Gods owne ordinances must. And thus this 2. Commandement is truly vnderstood.

To this effect likewise [...]re many other places of Scrip­ture, excellent expositions and interpretations of this maine Commaundement. As,Deu. 12 32 Whatsoever I commaund you, take heed that you do it: thou shalt put nothing thereto, nor take ought therefrom. Isa. 30.21 This is the way, walke ye in it: turne not to the right hande nor to the left. Psal. 19.7 The Law of the Lord is per­fect. Psal. 119.113. I hate vaine inventions, but thy lawe doe I love. Nomb. 15.39. Yee shall have fringes, that when ye looke vpon them, ye may remem­ber all the commandements of the Lord, and do them: and that yee seeke not after your owne heart, nor after your owne eyes, after the which ye go a whoring Matt. 15.13. Every plant that my heavenly fa­ther hath not planted, shalbe rooted vp. 2. Tim. 3.16.17. The whole Scripture is given by inspiration of God, making the man of God perfect vnto every good worke. Ioh. 16.13 The holy Ghost shall lead you into all trueth. Gal. 3.15. No mā adde to any thing to a mans Testament: much lesse may we adde vnto Christes Testament. Which is only the holy Scriptures of the Apostles, and nothing els in the world. Lastly,Rom. 16.17.18. Marke them which make schismes and offenses [...] sc [...] Gal. 1.8. 1. Cor. 3.1 [...] Besides the doctrine which you haue learned and avoid them. For such seruenot the Lord Iesus Christ, &c. With ma­nie other mo places to the same purpose.

Out of all which this doctrine remaineth cleare and firme, that all Humane inventions, or Vnwritten Traditions Ecclesiasticall are directly contrarie to Gods woord. Yea being but Beside the Scripture, they are flatly contrarie to it in these places. And therfore Gods owne word (which is only the holy Scriptures as was before noted) ought to be religiouslie beleeved, and held to be for vs as a most perfect and absolute demonstration of all things whatso­ever being properlie and simplie Ecclesiasticall or religi­ous. Which was the speciall end and vse they were given for. As likew [...]se they were given vnto the Iewes; even to [Page 4]be so absolute and perfect for them, ever since God did give them any holy Scripture. From which groundes & principall places of Gods wor [...]e thus declared, we will now conclude and frame our first Reason.

Reason 1 IF we have Diocesan and Provinciall Churches vsing governement,& Ministeries or Offices proper to them, and also Ceremonies (that is, Rites) now in controver­sie, all which are Inventions & Traditions vtterly with­out the Scripture;Vnwritten Traditions.then we have some reputed Churches as touching their outward visible forme, and ministeries, and Ceremonies, contrarie to Gods worde.

But we haue Diocesan & Provinciall Churches vsing government, their proper Offices, viz. the Provinciall & Diocesanviz. as they inflict Ecclesiasticall Censures.high Commission, Provinciall and Diocesan Ruling Bishops, also controverted Ceremonies which are all Ecclesiastical vnwritten Traditions, no wayes con­tained in, but cleane beside the Scripture.

Therefore they are contrarie to these places of Gods word, they are simply evill, & of necesitie the other, viz. the Parish Churches in England ought to bee reformed, freed, and cleered of them all.

Where it is first to be noted, Note 1 that al [...] those forenamed matters Ecclesiasticall, or any other els, which may or can be lawfull, are and ought to be cōtaine [...] in the Scripture, either expreslie or by necessarie consequence. Other­wise we affirme they are meerely Humane Inventions & Traditions, contrarie to the Scripture.

Note II Reputed Visible Churches of divers kindes. Againe it is to be noted, that in the es [...]imation of men a Visible Church (that is, which is indued with power of Spirituall outward governement) is of di [...]ers formes and natures. Nevertheles in trueth and in ve [...]ie deed Christ hath ordeined for vs only one kinde of a Visible Church [Page 5]in his worde. And this only ought to be allowed and be­lieved to be a true Church by all Christians. For who is it, that can or ever could make any societie of people to be a Visible Church, but Christ onely? 1 Some men e­steeme the Vniversal nomber of professed Christians in the world to be one visible Church, calling it the Catho­like or Vniversal visible Church. And the Catholikes taking holde hereof, do conclude that likewise there is & ought to be one Catholike and vniversall governement Ecclesi­asticall vnto which all other Churches and their govern­ments must be subordinate. But in Gods worde there is no such visible Church nor governement anie where to be found. This is meerly devised by the witte and will of men. Againe men esteeme a whole Nation professing the Gospell, to be one visible Church,2 and they call it a National church. Likewise a Province a Provincial church: 3 and a Diocese a Diocesan Church. 4 But none of these like­wise can be found in the whole new Testamēt of Christ.5 Only a Particular ordinary constant Congregation of Chri­stians in Christes Testament is appointed and reckoned to be a visible Church.Particular & Parishio­nall Chur­ches are the onely true Visible Churches. And therefore so standeth the case now heere with vs in England also, and so we ought to esteeme it. The which that it may more clearelie ap­peare to be true, I have thought good to sett downe this brief Table following, wherein all the divers and sundrie senses of a Church in theWe speak not of the Iewes chur­che vnder ye Law, which wee knowe was Natio­nall & only one in the world vnder one High Priest. Which were Figures and are ceased. Such also was that One Church in the wildernes, Acts 7.38 which was yet nevertheles but one particular Assembly a [...]o in one plate gathered to geather so neere as such a multitude could be, Exod 19 11 &c. New Testament are plainlie & distinctlie shewed. And yet none of the 4. forenamed vi­sible Churches (as some do repute them) are any where there to be found.

A Table briefly shewing all the divers and sundry signifi­cations in the New Testament of this word [...] which cō ­monly we translate a Church. Wherein we may easily see which is the on­ [...]e true and proper visible Church of Christ to which the goverment Ecclesiasticall of i [...] [...]fe doeth alwayes of right app [...]rtaine.
  • Ecclesia in ye new Testa­ment is taken. Ciuilly and originally for a
    Act. 19.3 [...].39.40.
    particular Assembly of Citizens in one certaine publike place about matters of the Common wealth.
  • Ecclesia in ye new Testa­ment is taken. Religlous­lie for a Church
    • Pro­perly
      • in the next and neerest pro­portion aunswering to the Originall ciuill vse thereof. This is a Particular Visible Ordinary Congregation of Christians meeting for reli­gious & Ecclesiasticall acti­ons & exercises. And this is the only true Visible Church of Christ hauing from him the Spirituall power of or­der & gouernment in it selfe ordinarily. The proper Mi­nisters thereof are the onely true ordinarie Ministers of Christ. This we read of in the Scripture in 2. respects:
        • Definitly; This is some certaine known
          Mat. 18.1 [...] Revel. 21. Col. 4.16. Gal. 1.2. [...]. Thes. [...].14. [...]. Cor. 16.1, 19. 2. Cor 8.1. Rom. 16.4.16
          parti­cular Congre­gation in some certaine particular place which we may go vn­to consult with and obey.
        • Indefinitlie; where is vnder­stood This, or That, or
          Mat. 3 [...]. [...]. &c. 1. Cor. 12.11. Mat. 6 33. Isa. 2.1.2, 3. [...]. Pet. [...].5.
          any other particular ordinary Con­gregation.
      • in a proportion more remote or further of. Such is the Inuisible or Intelllgible Church ab­solutly Catholike: that is the number of
        Ephe. 3.10, 15, 21. and [...].27.
        all Gods Elect both in Heauen and in Earth.
    • Figurati­uely by a
      • Metaphore; Such is a holy & well ordered Christian
        Rom. 16.5 [...]. Cor. 16. [...].
        familie resembling as it were a very Church though in deed it bee but a part of a true and proper Church.
      • Synec­doche viz. of the
        • Visibilitie, when the Church it self that is the whole cannot but only some parts of it may be Vi­sible or Sensible at any time to any one man that needeth the vse of it Such is the Catholike Mi­litant Church, wc is
          Mat. 16.18. 1. Cor. [...]2.28.
          properly an Inuisible & Intelligible Church as it is considered wh [...]ly togea­ther, that is, as it is one Church.
        • Societie; as when only the
          Act. 15.4. [...].
          Peo­ple of a particular Congregation (hauing Ministers, yet without and beside their Ministers) are called the Church.

Whereby it is evident that no Catholike, or Vniversall Church Visible is any where in all Christes New Testa­ment to bee found: and therefore in no wise is such a Church to be allowed. Neither yet any Nationall, or Pro­vinciall, or Diocesan Church. Only a particular ordinarie Congregation is heere found (and so is to be held) properly and only a true visible Church of Christ.

Moreover heereby it appeareth, and it is likewise to be noted,Note III. that the nature and office of a Bishop also is not of one maner, but of divers. It is as the former word Church very ambiguous, and must be likewise necessarily distin­guished.Bishops of six sortes. Six sortes of Bishops have ben and are known in the world.1. A Parishionall Bishop, who is a Pastor of one ordinary Congregation only. Such are all the Bi­shoppes mentioned any where in the New Testament, and also in writers within the space of 200. yeares after Christ.2. A Diocesan Titular Bishop, who was Bishop of a Diocese in title and in name only, in Ecclesiasticall governement having no more power then any other cō ­mon Pastor. He differed not in any essentiall part of the ordinary Pastorall Office, but was only President or Mo­derator cōstantly (yet by his fellow Pastors free consent) over the Pastors of a Diocese. Such perhaps first of all wasAnn. 190 Iulianus the tenth Bishop of Alexandria. In whose time firstEuseb. 5.9. mention is made that there were divers Chur­ches in that Citie, and he Bishop of them. The first sorte of these Bishops we wholy allow. The second we do not simply deny. They were not much vnlike to the Bishops now lately appointed in Scotland.3. There is a Dioce­san ruling Bishop. He had more power then any of the rest of the ordinarie Pastors (though yet not any sole power) to rule in his Diocese. It may be this began at [Page 8] Alexandria withAnn. 260. Dionysius the thirteenth Bishop of that place: which seemeth to be Ieroms meaning, where heIerom ad Evagr. saith, that some prioritie in Bishops continued there from Marke to Heraclas and Dionysius. At Heraclas (it is pro­bable) was a period of one sort, and with Dionysius began another.Prioritie of Order 1. Pari [...]hio­nall.2. Diocesan.3. Maioritie of rule Diocesan. Prioritie of order in one Bishop over a Parish (that is one particular compleat Congregation) seemeth to haue continued exclusively from Marke vnto Iulianus: over a Diocese from Iulianus to Heraclas inclusively: and then Maioritie of ruling in the Diocese to haue begun with Dionysius the next Successor after. Nothing letteth vs but that thus we may probably thinke: Seeing thus Eusebius and Ieroms relation shall well agree. How soever it was, this is certaine, that neither the one nor the other was knowne before these times heere expressed.4. A Diocesan Lord Bishop was he, who ruled ordinarilie in his Diocese by his sole power. This grew vp from the for­mer by litle and litle. But it seemeth not to haue ben esta­blished in Ambrose, Ierome, & Augustines time: though soone after (we doubt not) it tooke place over the Chur­ches.5. A Patriarchall Bishop: and they were first 4. in number,Of which kinde the Archbishop may be rec­koned also. viz. at Rome, Antioch, Or els Cae sarea. Con­cil. Nic. 1. Can. 7. Ierusalem, Alexandria. They began by mens voluntarie regarding the Bishops of those principall Cities aboue other, sometime before the Nicene Councell. But they were by an ordinance established first in that Councell. Howbeit yet they were not Lords over the Churches, till a long while after. In the first Councell of Constantinople, an other Patriarch was established at Constantinople.6. A Catholike or Vni­versall BishopBonifacius was the first began at Rome, about 600. yeares after Christ. Who also hath had his growinges and increa­sings, and was not perfect Antichrist, till some ages after. [Page 9]Now all these latter, that is, the 3.4.5. & 6. sort, are at least Besides the Scriptures: yea they are cleane Contrarie to the first, which hath place and allowance in the Scripture. And therefore these are plainlie contrary to Gods word, & vtterlie vnlawfull. Wherefore also theAs name­lie that in D. Bilsons perpet. go­uernment, pag. 260. cōmon accompts and Catalogues of the succession of Bishops from the Apostles times to our dayes are very deceiptfull and false. When as al these are called by one name indifferently Bi­shops without distinction, yet their Offices are exceeding divers and no way like. Yea these later directlie contrarie to the first, as hath ben said.

Against this it isD. Bilson in perpetu. govern pa. 299.300. in effect obiected, that Timothy and Titus were properly Diocesan ruling Bishops. Yea such as wee call Lord Bishops, that is, vsingpag 232. sole authoritie: and had charge of mo particular Churches then one. Which is to be in deed a Diocesan Bishop. But they and their Offices are founde in the1 Tim. 3. and 5. Tit. 1.5. & Tit. 3. Scripture: viz. To ordeine Pastors in divers Chur­ches, and to censure them, &c.

I answere, the very Apostles did notAct. 14.23. & 1.15, 23. &c. 6.3 5, 6. & 1 Ti. 4.14. w Act. 16.2. make Ministers nor Censure by their sole and single Authoritie, but ever­more in the presence and with some liking of that particu­lar Church whom it concerned. Therefore much lesse did Timothie or Titus such matters solely and singly, who were lower then Apostles. And therefore they were no Lord Ministers certainelie. Further it is vntrue, they were no proper Bishops at all: neither Diocesan, nor any other. For all proper Bishoppes wereD. Bilson pag. 227. & 232. affixed to certaine places and certaine charges where they were to serve andAct. 20.38 1 Pet [...] 2. Theodoret. [...]n Ephe. 4. attend (in purpose) continually. But Timothie and Titus were never affixed to one certaine charge. For they (like the Apostles) intended not a constant continuance in a place, but after a time of their aboade in one Nation, translated both their [Page 10]presence and their labours into another Countrie. Being Comites Apostolorum, Cōpanions or Assistants to the Apo­stles,See Bez. Annotat. in Acts 19. & de Mini. grad. cap. 5. indued doubtles with the extraordinarie gift of di­vers tongues, and therefore did goe (being cōmonlie sent or called by the Apostles) hither & hither, to the end that they might perfect such Churches as the Apostles had planted, but not throughlie furnished. And this is evident by the text. First Timothie was chosen and ordayned atAct. 16. Lystra, went into Phrygia, Galatia, Mysia, Troas: being at Philippi was sent to1 Cor. 4.17. Corinth, from1 Thes. 3.1.2, 6. Athens went to Thessalonica: fromAct. 19.22 Ephesus went to Macedonia: after he was left at1 Tim 1.3 Ephesus againe to order & redresse things there. And yet2 Tim. 4.9.1. thence he was sent for away and depar­ted. A litle before Paules death he was atPhil. 1 1. Rome, & fromPhil. 2.19 23. thence to goe to the Philippians. Wherefore Timothie was no ordinarie proper Bishop of any sort, nor affixed to anie certaine place, but a verie Evangelist (as also the2 Tim. 4.5. Scripture calleth him) that is, an vnlimited, extraordina­rie, and tēporarie function in the Churches. The like was Titus. Paule chose him for his cōpanion & helper, and had himGal. 2.2. with him to Ierusalem. Also he sent him to2 Cor. 8, 17. Co­rinth. Hee left him inTit. 1.5. Crete a while: but sends for him thēceTit. 3.12 away anon after to Nicopolis. A litle before Pauls death he was with him at2 Tim. 4.10. Rome, & from thence he went into Dalmatia. Both these therefore were verie Evan­gelistes, and no maner of ordinarie Bishops. Neither in deede were there anie Diocesan Bishops, or Diocesan Churches, that can be found in all the New Testament.

Then they will obiect, that some things are Indifferent in Ecclesiasticall actions; and doubtles so are certaine Cir­cumstances, &c. It is not necessarie that these should bee warranted particularly in the Scripture.

I answer; The Papists do hold their Ecclesiasticall Tra­ditions or Rites to be meerelie indifferent in their nature, and to be necessarie onelie as the Church commaundeth them. This is manifest by D. Stapleton saying:Staplet [...]. Promtuar. Catholic. part. Qua­dragesimal. pag. 99. Omnes vi­dent in corum [Rituum Ecclesiasticorum] vsu nullam necessita­tem poni, sed liberè assumi vel non assumi: modò absit contem­ptus, qui non in Ceremoniam sed in Ecclesiae prepositos, qui cam instituerunt, imò in Christum cadit, dicente ad illos Christo, Qui vos spernit me spernit. Also by the Rhemes Testament, saying:Rhem. T [...] stame. An­notat. in Math. 15.1 [...]. Neither flesh nor fish of it selfe doth defile, but the breach of the Churches precept defileth. Likewise writeth Bellarmine in his discourse of their Church-Ceremonies. But yet notwith­standing every good Christian knoweth well, that their Traditions are plainly superstitious and vnlawfull. How then shall not ours also be the like? What are ours better then theirs? Further, though Circumstances be indifferent and may be chaunged by men, yet Formes of Churches are not so; nor the Church Ministeries, nor Ceremonies, nor (in a word) any Traditions Ecclesiasticall, whereof our former Reason wholy intreateth. We denie not then but that in Ecclesiasticall actions the meere Circumstāces are in some sort indifferent, that is, not necessarie to be determined by Scripture. But these truely are not to be called Ecclesiasti­call Traditions. Wherefore we must know that there is a great difference betweene Traditions & Circumstances. Be­sides Gods Ordinances specified in Scripture, there are 2. other kindes of lawfull thinges in the administration of Church matters.

  • 1. Naturall Necessities.
  • 2. Proper and meere Circumstances.

Naturall Necessities, are Persons, Times, Places, &c. what things only are in different. Circūstan­ces. Proper & meere Circumstances (which onely are indifferent in Church actions) are Accidentall things wherof there is no necessitie, but either may or may [Page 12]not be vsed. They are of 2. sortes, either Civill or Occasio­nall. 1 The Civill Circumstances are such as though they be vsed in Church actions,To this do belonge all thinges of Comlinesse and Decēcy. yet even there they import only and meerely a Civill vse. Which we shall easilie discerne thus: viz. when the same things in the same maner are vsed also in actions meerely Civill at other times and places. Such were ChristesJohn 13. wt 1. Tim. 5.10. Washing the Disciples feet, theRom. 16.16. Love feasts, &Iud. 12. Kissings in the Church meetings of old. The ma­ner at this day of the French Preaching covered. To come to the Church in this or that decent and comely common appa­rell. A commodious & distinct House for Gods Service, &c. 2 Occasionall Circumstances are such particulars as some spe­cial occasion requireth and moveth vs vnto, namely when the Generall things are either vsuall in Civill custome, or by Gods owne ordinance in Nature, or in the Word writ­ten. As such or such Places, Times, Persons, Things. Name­lie to come together in Synagogues, or Temples. To vse Pues, or Pulpits, &c. To Pray Kneeling, or Prostrate. To eate and drinke at the L. Table leaning, or sitting, &c. In theMat. 26. 1 Cor. 11.23. Eve­ning, or atActs 20.7 Midnight. To Baptize inActs 16.15. Rivers. Also the A­postles vsing of someGal. 3.24 & 4.9. Iewish Ceremonies among the vnconverted Iewes a while after Christes death. TheirActs 6.3, [...], 6. let­ting the people to nominate their Ministers. Churches more or lesse populous, &c. These and such like wee doubt not, are in Ecclesiasticall actions in some sorte Indifferent. I meane they are changeable, and either can not or ought not to be perpetuall: neither need they to be determined in Scripture. Although yet in their vse they are not to be reckoned so indifferent, but that they ought necessarily to be ruled by the generall rules of Discretion and Charitie. Namely that in all of them Comelinesse, Edification, the Avoyding of offence, and Gods glorie may be respected. [Page 13]Thus then let it be noted, that we affirme in Ecclesiasticall actions no other thing at all beside these is or can be anie way indifferent by any meanes.None of ye things in cō troversie are indifferent; neither are they proper Circumstances. But touching our forena­med Ecclesiasticall vnwrittē Traditions (whether Formes of Visible Churches, Ministeries, or Ceremonies) they are of no such nature, as those things beforenamed either Na­turall necessities, or proper Circumstances are. They are no way like to any sort of them. Wherefore though Cir­cumstances be indifferent, yet mens Traditions in Religiō can not be. Neither did these thinges stande otherwise a­mong the Iewes vnder the Law. So that it remaineth sure, that all Church-Traditions without Gods word (& ther­fore all invented formes of Visible Churches vsing go­vernement, offices of Ministerie, and Ceremonies) are sim­plie evill and vnlawfull; and therefore of necessitie ought to be reformed.

Yet some will reply and say, If men may institute Tem­ples or places meerely Ecclesiasticall, why not also Gar­ments meerely Ecclesiasticall, &c.?

Touching Temples I aunswere: They are esteemed meerely Ecclesiasticall or Religious places, because things meerely Ecclesiasticall or Religious are done in them. Howbeit the trueth is, their proper and principall vse is partlie Naturall and partlie Civill. It is necessarie in Na­ture for Church-Assemblies to bee in a place. It is Civill (namelie when peace & prosperitie is) to have a commo­dious a comely and a distinct House for the publike exer­cises of Gods worship. Which very thing is in Civilitie no lesse requisite for the publike grave actions of the Cōmon Wealth also. So that at the most, a Temple appointed by men can not truelie be accoumpted a thing meerely, but mixtly Ecclesiasticall. And so this Humane institution we acknowledge is lawfull even for Religious affaires, when [Page 14]there is no further vse therof at all. That is, if it be not held as Religious meerely, nor in the proper and principall vse thereof. As the Surplice is with vs. It is an Ecclesiasticall Rite:So are likewise the Kneeling, Crossing, Churching, Burying, &c. which the Temple can not be. It is meerely & sim­ply Ecclesiasticall. There is no respect had to Civilitie in it: considering that it serveth never in any Civill businesse nor place, but it is onely in and for the Church & Church actions. Much lesse is there for it any Naturall necessitie. Beside, the Preface of the Cōmon-prayer-booke maketh it to have (with the rest of the Ceremonies) a speciall signi­fication in Gods worship. Even as the Papists do also vse it; frō whom immediatly we have receaved the same. Wher­fore doubtles such prescript garmēts meerly Ecclesiastical being Humane Inventions, are simply vnlawfull: although Temples for Gods Service be not so. Moreover we have to answere to this and such like matters obiected to vs, in this wise. [...]. Cor. 11. [...]3. & 14.23. & 5.4. Math. 18. [...]7. Such * places of Scripture as doe commaund Church-Assemblies and the publike Worship of God, the same do also by necessarie consequence (in time of peace) commaund some commodious and distinct Houses for them. But no Scripture by any necessarie consequence commaundeth any distinct and meere Ecclesiasticall Gar­ment at any season. Therefore these things can not be cō ­pared nor likened togeather. They are not both things in­different alike. Nay, the one is by Gods word necessarie, the other vnlawfull.

Some think that the appointing of the Altar inIosh. 22. Ioshua, of the Feast ofHest 9. Purim, and Davids ordayning1 Chron. [...]5.1.6. Singers & Musicians in the Temple, do prove that all religious mat­ters invented and instituted by men, are not vnlawfull.

I answere, Howsoever they who appointed and sett vp that Altar in Ioshua might have devised some other thing [Page 15]lesse scandalous then the forme of an Altar, whiche yet might as well have served to the vse they made it for, as the Altar did or could doe. Nevertheles this Altar was truelie no more but a civill monument or Signe, as being vsed no way in any Ecclesiasticall or Religious action of worship­ping God, but set vp as a spectacle only in the open fields or by the river side, though it served for a token that the 2. Tribes and a halfe had a part with the rest of Israell, and in the worship of their God. Not vnlike it might be to this; if the States of the low Countries should commaund eve­rie inhabitant (being no Anabaptist) in that Countrey to weare a litle Dagger on their garmentes, to shew that they beleeve Magistracie and the vse of weapons to be lawfull. Or as perhappes the Signe of the Crosse was vsed by the Ancient Christians dwelling amōg Heathens, to let them see they were not ashamed of Christ crucified. All these are cleerely Civill, and therefore (wee acknowledge) in mens power it is ro ordayne or abrogate them. As for the Feast of Purim, that appeareth no where in the text to have bene a Religious Feast or Holy day. But onely a day of Civill vse also: viz. of reioycing, of making merry, of sen­ding presentes to friends, and giftes to the poore. As may appeare Hest. 9.22. Yet if any contende that it was a Holy day for solemne Thankes-giving & worshipping of God in memorie of the rare deliverance of the Iewes from Ha­mans malice: Though this appeare not, yet wee may an­swere, neither can anie man disprove it, that Mordecai the Iewe (thever [...] 2 [...]. Authour of this institution) was a Prophet of God, and Authour also of this booke of Hester. So that then he ordained this constant Holy-day, not by humane discretion, but by Divine authoritie. Even as David did institute the singing. Levites with Instrumentes of Musike [Page 16]in the Temple. The2. Chron. 29.25. text (as it were of purpose) meeting with this obiection, importeth that David neither did nor might do these things by his Kinglie power, nor by anie discretion Humane, but only by Propheticall authoritie through Gods own commaundement. Where it is to be noted, that by vrging Gods absolute & all sufficient Lawe for matters Ecclesiasticall, wee do not restraine nor binde God, but only vs Men from adding of any thing in the ex­ercise of Gods worship besides that which hee him selfe hath instituted and sealed vp in his Testament.

It will be againe replied, This is true in deed, God hath given vs in his word this sufficiencie for all Ecclesiasticall or Religious matters necessarie to salvation: but not for all Ecclesiasticall matters what soever.

This is a frivolous exception, and most false. For first, divers of our present matters controverted are necessaric enough. They can not be thus reiected as thinges not ne­cessarie: viz. the onely true Forme and Constitution of Christs Visible Churches, with their due Ministeries pro­portioned to them. According to Gods ordinarie dispen­sation of grace by his worde, there is even Necessitie to enioy these (Gods own) Ordinances, and to bee free from all Traditions of men, especially such as are cōtrarie to his. Touching other things, which seeme sinaller and of lesse importance, as some esteeme the Rites & Ceremonies to be in Gods worship. I answere: our Argument before laid downe generally includeth all meere Ecclesiastical or Re­ligious things. I say, All. And where All is included, No­thing is excepted. Wherefore we still affirme and professe that all lawfull Ecclesiasticall Rites whatsoever are con­tained now in the Scriptures of the New Testament, and not onely thinges simply necessarie to salvation. Besides [Page 17]that we must not forget how the wilfull maintayning of small thinges amisse becommeth a great and haynous sinne, wherevnto is due a fearfull punishment. As may be seene in him whoNum. 15.30, and 32. with a high hande did but gather a few stickes on the Sabbath day.

Nothwithstanding all this, yet it semeth to many that these externall things Ecclesiastical are not matters of Do­ctrine, nor of Faith, &c. And therefore may bee lawfull, though they be not contayned in the Scripture. I an­swere, They are all truly & properly matters of Doctrine, of Faith, and of Religion, appertayning to the

  • 1. Table &
  • 2. Commaundement in the Decalogue, & to many other places of Scripture, as before hath bene shewed.

It is the error of men not knowing the holy Scriptures proper and full vse, or true extent, when any do thinke such Ecclesia­sticall things as these heere controverted are not cōtained in the Scripture, & yet that they may be lawfull. They are all simply vnlawfull, if they bee not contained in the holy Scripture. Wherefore, even all these things both the lawful & vnlawfull, contained in the Scripture or not contained (Formes of visible Churches vsing Government, Ministe­ries, & Rites) are matters of Doctrine, of Faith, of Religiō, viz. true or false. So that the one ought as our life to be imbraced, the other as the very wayes of death to be avoy­ded, especially when we discerne and see them thus to be.

Reason 2.

EVERY Visible Church of Christ (truly and pro­perly so called) ought by GodsMat. 18 17.expresse word to have and vse the Ecclesiasticall government of it self.

B [...] [...]very particular Congregation of Christians is a" Visible Church of Christ truly and properly. The true Churches and the false."

Therefore every particular Congregation of Christi­ans by Gods expresse word ought to have and vse the Ec­clesiasticall governement of it selfe: viz. according to the order set downe for a Visible Church in Gods word.

And so in England consequentlie the things that are directlie contrarie therevnto (Diocesan and Provinci­all Churches vsing government, with their Ministers, &c.) are directlie contrarie to Gods word, and there­fore ought of necessitie to be reformed.

Heere first lett it be noted,A Visible Church. that we vnderstande a Visible Church of Christ to be a Societie of Christians whiche any member may and must (on occasion) have a visible or sensible vse of intirely and wholy togeather, the same having the power of Eccle siasticall governement in and for it selfe immediatlie from Christ. I say, The Church intirelie and wholie togeather may and must be vsed on occasion. Considering that a­gainst this there is no text of Scripture in all the New Te­stament, nor anie force of reason appearing.

Then let vs also observe and marke these 3. pointes.Note. For proofe of our Assumption last before. 1.1 The Visible Chur­ches of Christ were in number1 Cor. 11.16. & 4 17. &c. many & divers (and not onely one) by the ordinance of God him selse. So that it is false whiche isHooker lib 3. Sect. 1. pa. 132. held that there is a Vniversall Visible Church like the Sea; which being but one properly, is di­stinguished and called by divers names according to the Countries and places by which it cometh. Nay, the Visi­ble Churches of Christ were by the Apostles ordination many in number, & actuallie divided Bodies or Societies: The Sea properly and alwayes being but one Continued Body, was and is distinguished meerelie by divers names. The Vniversall Invisible Church was and is in deed one in number: but I have shewed there were many▪ in nom­ber [Page 19]of the true and proper Visible Churches. Againe, the Iewish Visible Church according to the Law, was in nū ­ber only one properlie vnder one High Priest, and having one Temple only at Ierusalem. But Christ and his Apostles changed that forme, and did institute and leave the Chri­stian Churches properlie in number many and divers, as I saide.

Secondly they instituted and left particular ordinarie or constant Cōgregations true and proper Visible Chur­ches: Or,2 they left not anie one Visible Church (in the whole world) constitute and compact of divers ordinarie and constant Congregations. Both these points are most manifest and vndeniable in these places of holy Scripture following. First that florishing and plentifull Church of Corinth was1. Cor. 14.23. but one particular Congregation. Whereof the Apostle saith thus, When the whole Church is come togea­ther [...] into one place. Which also we may likewise affirme of the Church ofAct. 14.27. Antioch, and ofIusti. Mar­tyr Apo. 2 Rome, and ofAct. 15.22, 25. Ierusa­lem, and ofAct. 20.28 Ephesus, &c. in those dayes. For though these Cities were great and populous, yet being vnbeleeving & hatefull enemies to the Gospell, each of them had then of faithfull Christians but one particular constant Congre­gation onely. Like as the Protestants are in the Cities at this day vnder the Spanish King; or as they were in divers Cities of France before the peace was made, & as we were heere in London in Queene Maries time. Where yet we denie not, that then some particular Cōgregations being (as that of Ierusalem wasAct. 4.4 before) greater then other som, did by reason of persecution meet occasionallie and vn­certainlie in diversAct. 12.1 [...] smaller numbers. But these smaller numbers were not so many Churches properlie, because they were vncertaine and occasionall. A true and proper [Page 20]Church being alwayes necessarilie an ordinarie sett com­panie and a constant societie. Those therefore notwith­standing made but oneAct. 6.2. particular & compleat Congre­gation or proper Church, which in time of peace (chieflie they growing yet more populous) were to be distributed and divided into sundrie proper and ordinarie Churches, each of them a competent Congregation. Which we do observe further neere the end of our handling the 2. As­sertion afterward. Moreover, likely also it is in these cruell persecuting Cities that so great a multitude of Christians did not long keepe togeather, but many of thē did quick­lie disperse and scatter them selves abroad into other quar­ters and Countries, whereby the whole number there be­came smaller, as we may see they did atAct. 8.1. Ierusalem by rea­son of Stevens persecution, &c. immediatlie after the great and suddaine increase of the Church there. All which be­ing considered, it is plaine yet still that in the greatest Ci­ties, or wheresoever els, the Apostles appointed and left true and proper Visible Churches particular constant Cō ­gregations. Which further alfo appeareth by those many and distinct Churches ofGal. 1.2. 1. Cor. 16.1 Galatia, of2 Cor. 8.1 19, 23. Macedonia, of1 Cor. 16.19. A­sia, of2. Cor. 8.24 Achaia, of1. Th. 2.14 Gal. 1.21. Iudea, ofAct. 9.31. Galile & Samaria, ofAct. 15.41 Syria & Cilicia, ofAct. 14.23 Lycaonia & Pisidia. Likewise by those many Churches of theRom. 16.4 Gentiles, and the Churches of the1 cor. 14 33 Saints, the Churches of1 Cor 11.16 God, the Churches ofRō. 16.16 Christ, and2. Cor. 8.18. & 11.28 1. Cor. 4.17 Reve. 2.23. Act. 16.5 1 Cor. 14.34 3. Ioh. 6. Rev. 22.16. All Churches. All these in number were (not onlie one, but) manie proper distinct Churches. Each of them being severallie but one particular constant Cōgregation. Wherevnto most fitlie agreeth that iniunction and com­mandement of our Saviour Christ touching a Visible Church where he instituteth the externall spirituall pow­er thereof, saying,Mat. 18.17 Tell the Church or Congregation: If he [Page 21]heare not the Church, let him be vnto thee as an Heathen and a Publicane. Where he must necessarilie be vnderstood of a particular Congregation. Which may be told and spoken vnto onely. As also that description of a Visible Church, which our publike Authoritie in England teacheth:Artic. 19. viz. A Visible Church is a Congregation of faithfull people where the word of God is preached, and the Sacraments ministred, &c. Doct. Bilson also, where he saithD. Bils. against the Seminaries. lib. 2. p. 170 The Church is never taken in the New or old Testament for the Priestes alone, but generallie for the whole Congregation of the faithfull. In Act. 20.28. The Church is taken for the People. And it isLib 3. Pa. 70. Math. 18.17. The whole multitude of the faithfull where he and they (the Offen­der and the Offended) live.

The 3.1 point here to be marked (serving also for proofe of our Proposition before) is a generall and sure Maxime in Divinitie: viz. The true and proper Visible Churches of Christ both heeretofore, now, and heereafter, though manie in number, yet all are but one in nature, forme, and Constitution. And each of them hath simply one and the same spirituall or Ecclesiasticall power immediatlie from Christ (not derived from any other) to governe it selfe withall. To which purpose the Scripture often speaketh of the Visible Church indefinitelie as of onelieMath. 22.2, &c. 1. Cor. 12.13. Mat. 6.33 1. Pet. 2.5. Isa. 2.1, 2, 3. 1. Tim. 3.5. one. Be­cause in Nature and Forme and in the true Constitution, as also in the spirituall power thereof, it is only one. Yea it saith also in plaine termes that there isEphe. 4.4. 1. Cor. 12.13 one Body: where is ment the Church. But it is to bee vnderstood, that it is one in nature and power, as I said. Which must of necessi­tie be so, because ChristesMath. 18.17. Institution of a visible Chur­ches externall spirituall governement before noted, must belong equally to every true and proper Visible Church. Wherefore also the nature, forme, & Constitution of eve­rie [Page 22]one must be the same that this is which heere Christ signifieth in Matthew. Which evidentlie was a particu­lar Congregation, as before wee observed. To which purpose also one of our AdversariesHooker lib. 3 pag. 132. a famous Schole-di­vine sheweth that by cleere and vndeniable reason the go­vernement Ecclesiasticall belongeth to everie Visible Church properly so called. And the practise of the Apo­stolike Churches doeth iustifie and confirme it. Which being ordinarie particular Congregations, each of them did or might by their Ministers (and them selves in pre­sence consenting)Act. 14.23 2. Cor. 8.19 choose Elders and1. Cor. 5.4, 5. Mat 18, 17. excommunicate offenders. Neither certainly did Christ ever institute or the Apostles practise divers kindes or formes of Visible Churches. Neither let they any to have greater or lesser spirituall power then other. But they appointed one forme and one power for the Churches (questionles) eve­rie where and alwayes. Therefore they all (though being many in number, yet) were and are one in nature, and forme, and power every-where and for ever.

Whence now it followeth by a necessarie and vndenia­ble cōsequence that these 3. Conclusions insuing are like­wise certaine and true.

  • 1. Every particular ordinarie Congregation of faithfull people in England
    I [...]r [...] Divi­ne. By right from God.
    is a true & proper Visible Church.
  • 2. Everie such Congregation heere and everie where is indued with power immediatly frō Christ to governe it selfe Ecclesiasticallie or fpirituallie.
  • 3. Everie true and proper Visible Church everie where is but one ordinarie or constant Congregation only.

And then no one Church consisteth, neither can consist of many ordinarie distinct Congregations. Wherfore no [Page 23]Diocesan Chuch is ordained or allowed by Christ, no Provinciall, no Nationall, and so likewise no Vniversall vi­sible Church with an externall governement correspon­dent to the same, as the Catholikes heretically do holde.A Catho­like, an He­retike. A Vniversal Militant Church I deny not: but a Vniversal or Catholike Visible Church with correspondent governe­ment I do deny, and so likewise the rest. Now heere thus we do for this reason, because it is not possible, if there be indeed one Vniversall Church properly, or where there is a Nationall Church, or Provinciall, or Diocesan, that there the particular ordinarie Cōgregations are or can be estee­med so many true and proper Churches. These can not stand togeather with any of the former. Everie of those is directlie contrarie to these. Seeing these in such case are properly but Members and partes of the other, and not in them selves proper and intier Churches. Which yet in the places of Scripture * before cited the H. Ghost doth plain­lie affirme. Where if he speake not properly, who doth?Pag. 19.20. Or what is in Divinitie a proper speach, if the cōtinuall phrase of the H. Ghost in Scripture be not proper?Note. And surely to this point, if we marke it well, doth all our present Con­troversie come; that is, to sett downe What is a Visible Church of Christ truly and properly. Seeing each true Visible Church hath evermore from Christ power and right of governement in it selfe, as before is noted. Let this therefore be well declared what is a true Visible Church, and we shall soone agree. We affirme that every particu­lar ordinarie Cōgregation is and ought to be allowed for such a Church. And heerevpon do we stand. I am not ignorant of the common and vulgar phrase of speach a­mong men both ancient and of late, both vnlearned and learned, who have vsed to call everie of those other a [Page 24]Church (as a Diocesan Church, a Provinciall, a National, and also a Vniversall Church) meaning, it seemeth, that e­verie of these may be trulie and rightlie called a Visible Church. But this is only the custome of speach among men. AndMos trium literatum tyrannus. Bez. Annot. in Luc. 23.17. Custome is a Tyrant, as a Reverend Father saith well. It is no warrant nor ground for any thing in Religi­on. The word of God alone must suffice vs heerein. Yea we consider not what advantage we give the Heretike Ca­tholikes against vs, by acknowledging a Catholike Visible Church. It followeth from this necessarilie that there is & ought to be on earth a Catholike or Vniversall governe­ment Ecclesiasticall. This is a Conclusion wherevnto M. Hooker setteth down expreslieHook. 3. Sect 1. both the Proposition and Assumption: viz.

Everie Visible Church,Pag. 132. truly and properly so called, ought to have a correspondent Ecclesiasticall governement.

But there is a Catholike or Vniversal Visible Church on earth.Pag. 126. and 132.

To which Premisses everie childe now can quicklie adde the Conclusion.

Ergo, There is and ought to be on earth a Catholike or Vni­versall governement Eccle siasticall.

And I am perswaded, that this oversight or error among vs hath caused Thousandes to turne Catholikes, that is members of Antichrist and enemies to the true Churches and servants of Christ. For if there be properlie one Visi­ble Church and governement Ecclesiasticall throughout the world, then this must be in some one place eminently. For some whither we must go, when Christ biddeth vs Tell the Church. Now there is no place in all the world so likelie as Rome is to be the Visible seat and spring-head of the Vniversall governement of the Catholike Church, if in deed there be any. Therfore most easilie mē are drawen [Page 25]to be Roman Catholiks, whē this is not denyed that there is a Catholike Visible Church. Which selfe same advan­tage we give also to our Pontificall Hierarchie in England against the true estate and due governement of Christes Visible Churches heere. For while we grant them (whe­ther by error or by oversight) that there is & may be truly and properly a Diocesan Visible Church, they will easilie conclude that then there may & ought to be a correspon­dent Diocesan governement. Which (as before I obser­ved) overthroweth quite the proper being and governe­ment of each particular or Parishionall Church. But we, because Christ and his Apostles throughout all the New Testament have appointed & every were allowed the Pa­rishionall Assemblies, as to be cleerely & absolutly distinct in themselves, so to be Visible Churches truly & properly, and withall a correspondent Ecclesiasticall governement to be in each of them, as before hath bene shewed; there­fore heerevpon do we stand, this do we vrge that the In­stitution of Christ and the Apostles practize ought to be a rule for Christian Churches, as every where, so heere in England: vpon this do our Consciences rest assuredlie. Because (as before I said) who is it that may presume to ordaine any forme of a Church save Christ only? Especi­allie overthrowing that forme of a Church and governe­ment which Christ hath ordeyned, as these Diocesan and Provinciall Churches with their proper Ministers do. Ec­clesiae nomine armamini, & contra Ecclesias dimicatis. You arme your selves with the name of the Church, and fight against the true Churches.

In this place I can not forget how some thinking thēsel­ves deepe Politicians, do imagin that they see our Groūds to be directlie against a Monarchie or Kingly State. For [Page 26]this Ecclesiasticall governement being Popular (say they) it wil require the Civill governement also to becom con­formed to it. Also they thinke it can never bee menaged without trouble and tumult.

First we absolutelie denie that any manner of Ecclesia­sticall Governement requireth the Civill Governement to becom conformed to it. This is a most false conceite. The bounds of either Governernement are distinct and cleerlie severed the one from the other: albeit each doth ayd & succour the other. But what should I reason heere­of? This their insimulation is against none other then Christ him selfe and his blessed Word, wherein he hath instituted no other state of a Church Visible but a parti­cular Congregation only. Shall we impugne and accuse the true Church of Christ? Nay, shall we accuse Christ him selfe and his Gospell; that heerein he yeeldeth vs not the true, right, or best forme of a Church? And therefore we will of our owne heades devise and constitute a better. God forbid that any Christians should so do, and wilfully maintaine this doing also. But they think this maner of go­vernement will becom tumultuous and troublesom in the State: and so it will proove hurtfull to the Prince. I would demaund, why thinke they that the Church government (as we desire it) will be troublesom & tumultuous? They will answere, because we require of necessitie that Electi­ons of Ministers, and Excommunications, &c. must be Po­pular. Which can not but bring with them commonly tu­mult and much trouble, if not confusion and perill to ma­nie. Wherevnto I replie, that this were verie true in deed (viz. much trouble and tumult would commonly follow, and perhaps perill to divers) if we desired or sought for popular Elections of Diocesan Bishops. Such as we read of & [Page 27]finde to have ben vsed in many places vnder Christian Princes from 300. yeres after Christ hitherward for a long time. As for example at Antioch, Alexandria, Rome, Constan­tinople, &c. In these and other Cities verie great stirres, tu­multes, and confusions among the People have risen in deed not seldom times, even in and about such their Elec­tions. The Ecclesiasticall Histories are full of examples to this purpose. But such running togeather of a whole Citie or Dioces, such voice-giving of such multitudes of people we desire not: neither do we any wayes allow it. It was a corrupt remainder in deed of the Peoples auncient free voice-giving to the Election of their Parishionall Pastors or Bishops. For such all ordinarie Bishops and Pastors were pri­mitively in the Apostles dayes, and such every where they were left by them, as before we have shewed. Every ordi­narie Bishop then (I say) was only of a Parish (as the Anci­ents call it) that is of one particular Congregation only, and no greater. And so their Elections were accomplished by the free consent and voyce-giving only of the People of each of these particular ordinarie Congregations, or Pari­shes. Now it is true indeed, we acknowledge we allow and do desire such Elections and Excommunications by the People. Neither is this to bee reckoned anie Popularitie which can be either prejudicious to Princes, or tumultu­ous in it selfe. No, it can not be an inconvenient order, but most reasonable for any place or people in the world. Namely seeing we do expresly hold this assertiō no other­wise (and we hartilie pray that it may bee noted) but as it is grounded on 4. Circumstances.Power Cir­cumstances wheron the fitnes of the Peoples cō ­sent stādeth 1. In regard that it is (as we are well assured) a Divine order and ordinance in­stituted for each Church by Christ and his Apostles: the trueth whereof (we hope) hath evidently appeared in this [Page 28] 2. Reason last handled. Considering that we allow the Peoples consent and voice-giving in Elections, Excommuni­cations, &c. to be done only by the Christian People of one Parish, that is, of one particular ordinarie Congrega­tion only, and by no greater nor larger number of People by any meanes, as before hath bene likewise shewed.3. Considering that in the maner heereof we hold this only to be necessarie & ordinarie, that the Ecclesiasticall Guides there (apart frō the People) do first by themselves prepare and determine the whole matter, namely in such sort that the People may not neede to do ought afterward but only Consent with them, and freelie signifie their consent it it.4. If anie where it should fall out that this People thus gui­ded, & being so few, will yet presume to be in their Church-Elections, &c. vnrulie and violent, then the Princes next dwelling Officers of Iustice may and ought to make them keepe peace and quietnes. Which thing how easie it is for the meanest of them to do, the simplest may perceaue. All which verilie being well considered, this Ecclesiasticall Governement questionles is most reasonable, yea necessa­rie. And it is childish, & without all wit to cry out against vs (as our Adversaries do) Popularitie, Anarchie, and Enmi­tie to Princes, for this our so wel grounded and so approved an assertion.

Another thing is heere to be well remembred, that M. Hooker and M. Tooker the noble Patrons of Pluralities and Nonresidencie are vtterlie defeated in this their purpose. The formerHook. lib. 5. sect. vl­ [...]im. maketh this his Reason for them, because it is a mistaking (saieth he) to thinke that the particular Con­gregations are by Gods ordinance so many distinct & pro­per Churches. For (as he holdeth) there is but one Visible Church properlie, and the same Vniversall thorough the [Page 29]whole world. As for particular Congregations they are not properlie so many Churches, neither distinguished at all by God but only by men. And therefore everie Mini­ster is a Minister properlie to the Whole Church; but by men according to discretion only is limited to this or that Congregation, there to have maintenance made sure to him by Law, & there to teach, till men see it fitt to imploy his giftes in another Benefice, or elswhere. All which be­cause they are meerly Mens ordinances, by men they may be disposed and dispensed with againe as to those in au­thoritie seemeth good. And so both Pluralitie of Livings and Nonresidencie from the same shalbe both lawfull and honest. This is the effect and drift of his reason. And even on the same foundation also buildeth D. Tooker. Yea only this ground he hath, and none other. Where nothing els needeth answere but this his assertion;Fabrike of the Church, pag. 45. Distinctiō of Parish Churches is of meere positive law, not of Divine. For my part, I would graunt this Reason to be in deed sound and good for their purpose; (and not only for that, but also singular and most pregnant to set vp the Romane Papacie too) if this their Foundation were not manifestlie contrarie to Gods word. But before it hath ben shewed to be cleerer then the light that Distinctiō of Parishes in some sort, that is, of particular Churches is by Gods own ordināce in the Apostles Writings, and not by the meere positive law of men. Wherefore this is evident to be a most vngodly and shameles Defence pleading for, or excusing that wretched sinne of soule-murdering Nonresidencie, as if it were a thing allowable and not simplie evill. It can not excuse this sinne to alleadge that Plurified men may haue their 2. Benefices neare togither; perhaps within halfe a myle, a myle, or 2. myle the one of the other. This will not helpe [Page 30]them any more then a man can be excused, who taketh & keepeth two wives at once: though yet by the one he be not drawen farre away from the other. Gods law disallo­weth that former no lesse thē this latter. Yea I avow, There have ben who haue kept two wives at once, honester men and more approved of God, thē any Minister now in En­gland having 2. Churches or Charges lying howsoever. And yet I acknowledge, to have two wives at once, is simply against Gods worde.

Well, yet this will not satisfie some: neither will they yeeld that every particular Congregation of Christians should be allowed for a distinct and a proper Church Vi­sible; and so to inioy their owne Ecclesiasticall governe­ment within themselves. Albeit against it they have no reason, vnles perhaps this only. If it were so (they will say) yet will not thereby all things becom perfect. Somewhat notwithstanding will bee wanting or amisse oftentimes. How then shall this be holpē or amended? Not by Arch­bishops, or Diocesan Ruling, or Lord-Bishops?

I answer, Somewhat wilbe amisse alwayes in whatsoe­ver Ecclesiasticall governement vpon earth. Nevertheles there is no need, nor good vse of these, nor of anie Ecclesi­asticall Vnwritten Traditions in Christes Churches. We believe and know Gods Written word to bee sufficient. Speciallie seeing these are so directlie contrarie to the only true forme and nature of Christs Visible Churches in his word, as hath bene shewed. A greater Ecclesiasticall go­vernement then the Churches wee know none. There is nothing without the Church above it: viz. Ecclesiastical­lie and spirituallie. Seeing each Church hath her power and governement (as before is declared) immediatly from Christ. Yet it is true (beside the Magistrates honorable [Page 31]assistance) verie oft there is great, and singular, yea some­times in a sorte necessarie helpe to bee had by Synodes. Which are meetings of choyse men out of many Chur­ches: and these are lesser or greater as occasion requireth. Whose counsailles, advises, and determinations are most expedient and wholesome alwayes. But touching any cer­taine Governemēt by Synodes, or necessarie imposing of their Synodall Conclusions, Decrees, or Canons vppon Churches without their particular free consentes, this see­meth to be a meere Humane ordinance. I can not finde it (either expreslie, or by necessarie consequence) in any part of Christes Testament. Thus writeth heereof the Reve­rend M. Whitaker, Whitak. de Concil. pag. 44. Quod omnes atttngit, ab omnibus approbari debet. That which concerneth all, ought to be approved of all. Againe,Pag. 23. Concilia si simpliciter necessaria sint, Christus ali­cubi precipisset celebrari, aut cius saltem Apostoli. Quod tamen nusquam ab illis factum esse legimus. If Councills were simply necessarie, Christ somewhere would have commaunded to keepe them, or at least his Apostles. Which yet we read that they did no where. Further,Pag. 35. Etsires ipsae de quibus in Concilio deliberatur & consultatur, sint sacrae & religiosae, tamen hoc ipsum Congregare Episcopos est merè [...]. Although the things deliberated and consulted of in a Councell be holy & religious, yet this thing to assemble Bishops or Pastors of divers Churches togeather, is meerelie Civill. I know well sundrie godlie men do hold that Synodes have pow­er to prescribe and rule Ecclesiastically by Gods Law even sundrie whole Churches though they severallie consent not. But with reverence to their names, I take it the trueth is otherwise. Only in the Actes wee finde somewhat that hath a kinde of likenes to such Synodes. And it is but a kinde of likenes, or scarse that: for it is farre from the same [Page 32]thing. Thus it is: In Act. 15.6.25. we find a cōming togea­ther of the Apostles, with the rest of the Church at Ieru­salem and with a few other sent to them from the Church of Antioch. Where these do make Decrees and impose them on the Churches: yea on divers Churches which hadAct. 16.4. not sent any in their names thither. And on the Church of Antioch, who had perhaps but 4. or 5. there present. This sheweth that this comming togeather at Ie­rusalem was a verie Extraordinarie Synode, comparing it with our Synodes in vse now, yea indeed nothing like to them. First heere theAct. 15.2 text saith, The Apostles onely and the Elders at Ierusalem were sought vnto. And it is mani­fest that heerein the Apostles Extraordinarie office & po­wer tooke place: viz. by imposing their Decrees on Chur­ches who had no persons, and on one Church, viz. of An­tioch who had few for them there present. In which re­spect they at Ierusalem assume also aspeciall authoritie of the H. Ghost, where they say,vers. 28. It seemed good to the H. Ghost, and to vs. Which no Assemblie of ordinarie persons could or can assume to them in such maner. Only where the A­postles were present and consented, there they might. Fi­nallie after this we never finde that any Churches vsed the meanes and power of Synodes till about Constantines time for almost 300. yeares space. Which if it had ben an ordi­nāce Divine for the Churches always, they neither ought nor surelie would so long have neglected the same. Seeing in that vvhile there vvere most waightie and continuall occasions requiring this Divine helpe, if they had so estee­med it. Which seeing they did not, we may well thinke in those first times they held it not to be so. Nevertheles Sy­nodes (when they may be had) are for counsaill, advise, & better resolution cōtinually profitable & most wholesom, [Page 33]as hath ben said. And being well ordered, do make singu­larlie for Vnitie. Whereby also each Churches ordinarie governement may be much holpen & amended. And yet the same with power and authoritie ought to be held still within it selfe only.

Now touching our Synodes at this day in Englande, they may be excepted against iustlie in 3. respects. First be­cause they consist principallie, if not only, of Provinciall & Diocesan L. Bishops (whose Offices are heere shewed, to be plainlie contrarie to Gods word) and of such other as are theirs. Also our Synodes power is not superior, but in­ferior and subiect to the L. Bishops will and liking: which is vtterlie against the nature of true Synodes, and the rule of Gods word. Lastlie they impose Ecclesiasticall Canons on the Churches which give no consent vnto them: as if they had power from God over the Churches thus to do. All which before we have seene to be cleane contrarie.

Reason 3.

To have no place nor part in anie Church.THAT any (being a Christian) should have no place nor part at all in any true & proper Visible Church of Christ, is contrarie to Gods word. Speciallie that any such so standing should Ecclesiasticallie rule manie Churches.

But our Diocesan Bishops (professed Christians) have not any place nor part at all in any true and proper Visible Church of Christ. And yet they rule Ecclesiastically, som 300. som 400. proper and distinct Visible Churches.

Therefore they are all contrarie to Gods word, and ought necessarilie to be reformed.

The first part of the Assumption is thus proved.

If a Diocesan Bishop with vs have any part at all in any [Page 34]true and proper Visible Church, then he is Pastor in som Church or one of the People.

But one of the privat People he is not any where. Nei­ther is he a right and true Pastor sustayning the charge of soules in any proper Visible Church with vs.

Therefore a Diocesan Bishop with vs hath no part at all in any true Visible Church.

I am not ignorant that our Bishops themselves say that they are very Pastors in all those several Churches of their Dioces, and so are in a principall place, and have a chiefe part in them all. Which notwithstanding is vtterly false, considering that they have som Hundreds of Churches in their Dioces which they never saw, nor by law are boūd to see in all their lives. Are they then, or can they be true and right Pastors vnto them? They can not be. It were a shame for any once to thinke that they might. Neither are they Pastors to any one of the Churches vnder them more then they are to all. Therefore in deed they are true Pastors to none of thē, nor to any proper Visible Church at all. Howbeit imagining and supposing them to be (as they say they are) Pastors to those Churches which are vnder them, then I reason against them and cōclude thus.

If Diocesan ruling Bishops by the nature of their office are very Pluralistes and Nonresident Pastors,Acts. 20.28. 1 Pet. 5.2. Prou. 27.18.23.then they are plainly contrary to Gods word, and ought of necessi­tie to be cleane abolished.

But Diocesan Ruling Bishops are very Pluralistes and Nonresidents by the nature of their Office. Seeing everie particular Congregation is a true proper and intire Visi­ble Church, as before hath ben shewed: and seeing they assume to them selves a Pastorall charge of the Peoples soules in mo then one, yea very many such severall and in­tire [Page 35]Visible Churches in England, which they neither do nor can serve as Pastors ought.

Therefore they are plainly contrarie to Gods word, &" ought of necessitie to be cleane dissolved and abolished.

Or thus.

Cōmon sense or the light of Nature (besides the fore­noted" scriptures) sheweth that one proper Pastor should" have only one proper Visible Church. For indeed 1 Cor. [...].16. 2 Tim. 4. [...]. who is sufficient for that one?

But a Diocesan Ruling Bishop hath not only one pro­per visible Church in his Charge. He hath 300. or 400. as before is said.

Therefore a Diocesan ruling Bishop sinneth against the" word, and also against the light of nature.

We denie not that one proper Visible Church may possiblie have many Pastors. But that One Pastor should have many proper Visible Churches, is a thing senseles, vnnaturall, and condemned both by God and man.

Reason 4.

The true Pastors of­fice.IT is the naturall and immutable off ice of a Pastor both to Teach and to Governe (with the assistance of other Elders) his owne flocke.

But every Pastor of each particular Church in England is truly and properly a Pastor of the same Church where­of he is, and shall answer for the soules of his flocke which depend vpon him.

Therefore every Pastor of each particular Church in England ought of necessitie not only to teach but also to governe his owne flocke.

Touching the Proposition, it is manifest to be the na­tural and immutable office of a Pastor to governe his own [Page 36]flocke. First seeing the word [...] which signifieth to do the office of a Pastor, doth in the naturall propertie of it imply Governement and rule.Rain, Cō ­fer chap. 3. divi. [...] pag. 140. As wee may see this word is vsed, Math. 2.6. Reve. 19.15. & 2.27. And therefore even Civill Magistrates are called Rogne Pastors, Ezek. 34.2 and in Homer [...] the Pastors of the people: in Euri­pides [...] the Rulers of chariots. Secondly the whole office of a Spirituall Pastor is found in the Scripture to be both Teaching and Governing: as first this very word doth most plainly signifie Ioh. 21.16. Act. 20.18. and 1. Pet. 5.2. Also where the distinct parts of the Pastors office are noted as 1. Tim. 5.17. and 1. Thes. 5.12. Math. 18.17.18. Ad heervn­to D. Bilsons consent with Athanasius, Perp. gov. pag. 199. To whom Preaching, and Offering at the Lords table do belong to them also carefull ru­ling and governing the Church doth appertaine. Againe he saith,pag. 162. 108. 202. These self same persons that were in one, were in all these actions: and the Churches were governed by the common counsell of the Presbyters. Andpag. 133. The Apostle ioyneth both these properties in good Pastors. Andpag. 111. They must be trusted with both or with neither.

Now touching all this Gods word chargeth vs expresly saying: Col. 4.17 Rom. 12.7 Take heed to your Ministery which you haue receaved in the Lord, to fulfill it.

But to this our Churches order is cleane contrary by reason of our Diocesan ruling Bishops. We may not ful­fill our Ministery for them.

Therfore our Churches order in respect of our Dioce­san ruling Bishops is cleane contrary to Gods word. And therefore of necessitie heerein we ought to be reformed.

Where yet I can not but note,Note. how by our owne Parlia­ment law this is wholy yeelded to every ordinary Pastor in England. As namely where the booke of Ordination [Page 37]maketh every one of them to vndertakeBooke of Ordinatiō Printed Ann. 1596 to minister the Doctrine and Sacraments and Discipline of Christ as the Lord hath commanded, and as this Realme hath receaved the same ac­cording to the commandements of God. Though it saith, as this Realme hath receaved the same; Yet we must marke that it saith not so simplie, but with speciall restraint, according to the commandements of God. Yea before also it requireth the Discipline of Christ to be ministred in such maner as the Lord hath commanded. So that heere this restriction and certaine direction is set downe expresly twice for fayling. Where­fore the Lawes intent and meaning is not heere to do be­side, much lesseAct. Parl. Henr. 8. Ann. 25. cap. 19. against the order set down in Gods word, but to do according to it. And not to take from Pastors the ordinary power of Ecclesiasticall Dicipline (as now the practise is) but to giue it them. Namely if Gods word do giue it them; which we saw before that it doth. God forbid therefore that we in England now should beMath. 19.6. bar­red from the ordinance of God in his word, this being also the true intent of our owne Lawes.

If our Adversaries will say that this bringeth in a paritie of Ministers. And we can not be ignorant that our most wise and Noble King professeth his mislike of the paritie of Ministers.

I answere with all reverence and submission to his Ma­iestie, that I conceaue his meaning not to be against the paritie which before I haue spoken of. And as for a gene­rall paritie we mislike and detest it also. Yea in a sort we say that the Churches state is Monarchicall. For we af­firme that in every severall true Church there ought to be a disparitie of Church Ministers: viz. the Pastor aboue the Elders, and the Elders aboue the Deacons,ad Smyrnē. as Ignatius saith. And in Cōferences & Synods where many Pastors [Page 38]meet, we do not only allow but require a disparitie and prioritie also, namely in the President or Moderator. Yea we do not simply disallow a continuing President, so that his cōtinuance be subiect to his Brethrens free liking, they seeing it to be not against the glorie of God and the com­mon good. And for all this we are well assured there is sound warrant in the word of God. But as touching a farther disparitie then this, We answer, comparing Pastors with Pastors among themselves in their common office, or in any of the naturall parts therof, we see not how there may be any disparitie or difference in them. May one Iu­stice of peace permit the rest in the same Countie to call before them, to reproue and rebuke Malefactors, but not in any wise to cōmit to prison, or to bind in recognizance any man? May one assume this power alone to himselfe, and exclude all the rest? Surely this were in the common wealth arrogant, iniurious, and vnlawful without expresse warrant from the same authoritie by which they all hold their Offices. How much more vnlawfull is it for men without Gods warrant to presume in Gods matters in al­tering and changing, in making greater or lesser the Spiri­tuall offices of Christs Church? Magis and Minus in com­mon reason can not be admitted in the nature of one and the same Office, whatIs one King more a king, then an other? One Father more a Fa­ther then an other? Office soever we speake of. But this is so, more specially in the Ecclesiasticall. For it is excee­ding strange that among true and proper Pastors som should be more, som lesse Pastors: which yet must needes be, if som may have more som lesse Pastorall power. The vnreasonablenes heereof appeareth further if we consider in like manner the nature and condicion of the Visible Churches. One Visible Church can not bee more a Church then any other, though som may be greater som [Page 39]smaller, som richer som poorer. Yet as Churches they are all equally Churches, and one hath as much Ecclesiasticall or spirituall right, power, & authoritie, as any other. Even so is it with their Pastors, being compared (I saye) togea­ther as Pastors among themselves. Againe as the Apostles were all equall Apostles; so surely the Pastors ought to be, who are in deed their right & proper Successors. Pari con­sortio prediti & honoris & potestatis. As Cyprian cypr. de vnit. Eccles. saith: The Apostles were indued with equall honor & power. Therfore the Pastors their Successors ought to be so likewise. To which purpose also is that in the same place following.Ibid. Episcopa­ius vnus est, cuius à singulis in solidum pars tenetur. There is but one kinde or nature of the Bishoplie or Pastoral office, whereof everie one participateth in whole. And in ano­ther place,Cypr. in Cōcil. Ca [...] ­thag. Nemo nostrum Episcopum Episcoporum se facit: None of vs maketh him self a Bishop of Bishops, or over Bishops. Signifying that it was not lawfull for them so to be: nei­ther likewise a Pastor over Pastors. And to what purpose els is that of Ierome to Evagrius, where speaking of Bi­shops or Pastors saith he,Icrom ad Evagr. Eiusdem sunt meriti, eiusdem Sa­cerdotij. They are all of one and the same preeminence, of one and the same Office. These sentences are verie memorable, ten­ding to allow ordinarie equalitie in all Offices which are of one and the same kinde or nature. Howsoever yet a de­clination from the right and perfect Pastorall office began to come in, in the dayes of these men, & also to get allow­ance even of the most famous Doctors, specially about Ieromes dayes. Whereby it is manifest how a paritie of Pastors ought to be held, and yet notwithstanding how a paritie of all Ministers ought not to be in any Church.

But some wil say, this is not enough. For this neverthe­les will be the cause of strife & discord in the Churches.

We answer, The cleane contrarie is true. Your humane disparitie in the Ecclesiasticall Ministeries both is and everNazianz. in orat post redi. hath ben the true cause of discord. But our Divine dis­paritie, that which we hold and allow, is the true cause of peace and vnitie. For where, in what place can discord be? In every Church we acknowledg a Superior, and in everie meeting out of many Churches a Superior likewise. Now no other place can be imagined where discord and strife Ecclesiasticall can arise. If therefore Superioritie and dis­paritie will cause peace, wee through Gods goodnes and blessing shall both have and keepe peace every where. If a­nie other Superioritie bee required, and namely Yours, which crosseth yea cutteth of Gods owne ordinance in the Pastoral office, we deny that it can ever procure peace. And this our present experience doth shew in all the for­raigne Reformed Churches compared with ous. They all inioying this ordinance of God have most admirable vni­tie. We only wanting this, notwithstanding many & sun­drie worldly advantages, yet do remaine still (now these 50. yeeres almost) in wofull dissentions, desolations, and dissipations. Neither can the Lordly Prelacie, neither will they remedy it.

If heerein yet men will not be satissied, but will hold it still to be speciall wisedom to take away from som Pastors the power of spirituall governement, and to give it to som few. We answer againe with the holy Ghost, It behoo­veth vs not, it is high presumption2 Cor. 4.6. [...]: to be wise aboue (much rather contrary to) that which is written.

Reason 5.

THOSE Elders or Pastors (as they coūt themselves) stand directlie contrarie to Gods word, Lord-Mi­nisters. who do rule their fellow-Elders or Pastors (and specially manie whole Churches) with a Lordly Ecclesiasticall power, or sole authoritie: also who do rule them Civilly with out­ward force and compulsive power: and who receave Civil Titles and Stiles answering to the worldly honor due to high Magistrates in the world.

But our Diocesan Bishops in England are such Elders or Pastors, and do thus rule and stand by their publike Of­fice or Offices which they hold.

Therefore our Diocesan Bishops in England even by their publike Office or Offices which they hold, stand di­rectly contrary to Gods word.

The Proposition (whereof only there can be doubt) is proved by many plaine places of Gods word. Christ ear­nestly forbad his Apostles this whole matter (and in them much more all other Ministers their inferiors) in these words:Mat. 20.25. Ye know that the Rulers of the Nations haue dominion over them, and the Great men exercise authoritie over them. But it shall not be so among you. But who soever will be great among you, let him be your servant. Luke hath the same thus:Luke. 22.25. The Kings of the Nations haue dominion, or rule as Lords over them; and they who exercise authoritie over them are called Gratious Lords. But ye shall not be so. And Peter an Elder (as he calleth himselfe) chargeth all Elders that they be not1 Pet. 5.8. as Lords over Gods heritage, but examples to the flocke. And Paul re­nounceth it for his part, saying,2 Cor. 1.24. Not that we haue dominion [...]ver your faith, but are helpers of your ioy.

Heere it is a silly evasion (which som vse) or rather a de­lusion [Page 42]of these manifest Scriptures, to say; Christ heere for­biddeth his Apostles to expect Civill power & authoritie by vertue of their Ecclesiasticall Ministerie: or, it is heere denyed that Civil power is necessarily annexed to the Ec­clesiasticall function. And besides this that nothing els i [...] heere denyed by our Savior to his Apostles and Ministers. I say this is a vaine shift. The Apostles manifestly desired this outward preeminence no other way but by Cōmissi­on from Christ, whom they hoped should haue ben a great Prince in the world. ThisMath. 20.21. Marc. 10. [...]7. they simply desired and this Christ simply denied, both to them and in them to all true Ministers of Christ for ever. Besides Luke also addeth the Magnificent Titles of worldy authoritie, and these to be likewise denyed them. Which indeed necessarily fol­loweth. Finally both Mathew & Luke do principally speake of the forbidding of Civill rule to Ministers, yet their words are so generall that we must needs grant, that Christ there forbiddeth his Ministers simply & generally al Lord­ly rule, or domination, or sole authoritie whatsoever. And therefore Ecclesiasticall domination or sole authoritie in Church matters also. Even as it is manifest that Peter and Paul do (without controversy) in the places before rehear­sed. It is no better shift, to say that Christ heere forbad nothing but Tyrannicall over-ruling of the brethren. Or only the ambitious desire of Lordly rule, sole power, and civill authoritie: but not the things themselues.

But all this D. Bilson alone (though now he be a L. Bishop himselfe) hath most fully and substantially confuted. A­gainst the Iesuits and Seminaries obiecting thus [The word is Math. 20.25. [...] they Over-rule their Subiects with iniusticę and violence. You shall not do so.] He replyeth,D. Bils. against the Apol. of ye Seminar. part. 2. pag. 174. print. Lond. 1586. So your new Translation over-ruleth the word. Howbeit Christ in that place [Page 43]doth not traduce the Power of Princes as vniust and outragious, but distinguisheth the calling of his Apostles from the maner of regiment which God hath allowed the Magistrat. Christ saith not Princes be tyrants, you shall deale more curteously then they do: but he saith Princes be Lords and rulers over their people by Gods or­dinance you shall not be so. Againe the word which S. Luke hath, is [...] without any composition; They be Lords & Masters: and S. Paul confesseth of himselfe and other Apostles, Not that we be Lords or Masters of your faith. Ye the compound [...] is with power & force to rule men whether they will or no, not with wrong and iniury to oppresse them. And therefore the conclusion is inevitable, that Princes may lawfully compell and punish their Subiects, which Bishops may not. Pag. 175. All Pastors and Bishops are straitly charged not to medle with the sword. Pag. 182. To compell Here­tikes and Schismatikes neither is it possible sor the Preacher if he would, nor lawfull if he could: he lacketh both meanes and leave to constraine them. Bishops be flatly forbidden to raigne, and must not meddle with the materiall sword. Pag. 227. Commanding and forcing our Savior forbiddeeh to all his Disciples. Where the full effect of all his discourse is this: All Civill i [...]risdiction and power of the sword to commaund, compell, and punish by losse of life, limme, or libertie, is secluded from the Ministers function and reserved to the Magistrates. Luk. 22.24.25. Christ precisely forbad his Apostles to beare rule and exercise authoritie over their brethren: not vniust and tyrannicall rule, but all compulsive power. And where the thing is not lawfull, the signe is not lawfull. &c. To like purpose also he writeth in his booke of the Perpetual Governement of Christes Church:Pag. 137.142. where he saith, † Many giftes may conioyne in one man, many offices cannot. Pag. 52. The Ministers shall not have any such rule or dominion as the great States have. Pag. 55. The thing so much prohibited by Christ & his Apostles, is, that Preachers & Pastors should [...] behave or thinke themselves to bee Lords [Page 44]and Maisters over their brethren. AndPag. 56. To increase the love of the sheepe toward their Sheepheards, Christ would not have his Apostles to be feared as Maisters, but to be honored as Fathers; and consequently Pastors not to force, but to feede; not to chase, but to lead the flocke committed to their charge; neither roughly to in­treat them as servants, but gently to perswade them as coheires of the same kingdome. Heere are Testimonies of this man for vs most full, most cleare, and above all exception.

Reason 6.

IF in the Lawes estimation the calling of Ministers with vs is given by those who in Gods word have no power to give it,Vsurpationthen this is contrarie to Gods word and neces­sarie to be reformed.

But in the Lawes estimation the calling of Ministers with vs is given by those who in Gods worde have no po­wer to give it. Namely it is given by a Diocesan ruling Bi­shop, who is no where found (as before I shewed) in al the New Testament. So that he can not therein have anie power or authoritie to give Ministers their calling, nor yet to take it from them. Againe by the rule of Gods word that particular Church whiche is to have the Minister, ought to be present and to shew a liking and consent in their Ministers calling. Whiche proveth that no Bishop hath any power or authoritie in Gods word to give anie Minister his calling, or to take it from him in absence of that Church to whom the Minister belongeth, yea and (as the practise now is) vtterly without their liking.

Therefore this, that is the giving of the Ministers cal­ling with vs by such as now do give it and in such maner, is contrary to Gods word, and ought of necessitie to be re­formed.

Where I say; by the rule of Gods worde,The Chur­ches right. that Church which is to have the Minister ought to bee present and to shew a liking and consent in their Ministers Calling: this is evident by many testimonies, and reasons. First, because in the Apostles time the Church had a consent in Excom­munication, as it appeareth to the Corinthians, where the Apostle saith,1 Cor. 5.4.5. I have determined already, when yee are gathe­red together and my spirit, in the name of our L. Iesus Christ, that such a one, by the power of our L. Iesus Christ, be delivered to Satan. And,vers 13. Put away from among your selves that wicked man. Which agreeth with Christes owne ordinance and precept, where he saith,Mat. 18.17. Tell the Church: If he heare not the Church, let him be vnto thee as an Heathen and a Publicane. Now if the Church was to Excommunicate, surelie the Church also was to elect her Ministers. For these are the 2. maine partes of the holy Governement Ecclesiasticall, both which must belong to the Church equallie & alike. Further it is apparant by the Apostles practise. First, the calling of Matthias to the Apostleship was permitted (so farre as was possible) to the Churches Election. For theyAct. 1.23 &c. appointed two, whereof one should be and was divinely chosen. This questionles was done (not of necessitie for that Calling which was then to be given, but only) for an example in Ecclesiasticall Elections which the Churches after should and did imitate. Besides, howsoever the very Election of Matthias was by Divine lot, yet it was all done in the Churches presence with the actuall concurrence of their prayers and free consentes instantly. Now these acts of the Church as they may, so therefore they ought to be perpetual in every Election of whatsoever Minister; seeing even for that end the Apostles caused nowe the Church thus to do. It is a slight answer and vntrue, to say,Parpet. govern. pag. 69. Exam­ples [Page 46]are no preceptes. For the same answerer elswhere confes­seth, thatPer. gov. pag. 373. the Apostles taught the Church by their Example. But if he had not confessed it, yet the trueth of this gene­rall point is in it selfe most certain. Wherefore was the Booke of the Apostles Actes els written? But that their Acts in the Churches should be Rules and patterns for vs to do likewise. All Divines vse the Argument drawen from an act of Christ or his Apostles, and vrge it even to bind vs no les then if it were a formall Precept. And so we read that Christ himself & his Apostles too, reasoned sundry times from the bare Actes of the Prophetes and men of God in the old Law. I know in divers Examples there are to be found Circumstances which fit not all times, places, nor per­sons. What then? Neither do Precepts commonly fit vs in so generall a maner. By this shift then we may avoid ex­presse and direct Precepts also. And thus scarce any thing in Gods word shall suffice to constrayne and binde vs. Wherefore alwayes we vrge no other Exāples of the Apo­stles, or not in any other points, then such as do and may fit vs continually, and every where, even so well as they fitted those of old. In which case it is a miserable denyall to say, Examples are no precepts. God graunt vs and all true Christians, to inioy our Churches ordered after the Apostles examples, and to have all other Customes of men (when once we discerne them) vtterly abandoned. But to proceed a litle: The Apostles againAct. 6.3.5.6. charged the Church at Ierusalem to choose their Deacons: therfore much more ought the Churches (who are not ignorant beastes, but men taught of God) to choose their Pastors. Lastly, theyAct. 14.23. ordeyned Elders to sundrie Churches which were actu­allie present and consenting. So much is most evident by the very text: neither can any except against this; which [Page 47]suffiseth our purpose. So that it is vaine wherePerpet. gov. pag. 70. some con­tende that this worde [...] heere vsed will not ne­cessarilie prove that the Churches did elect their Elders. I answer, this very woord (yea thus as it is heere cōstrued) is not so weak for our purpose as is pretended. For we find the same word in good Authors, having the very like Grā ­maticall construction, that is, ioyned not with the people, but with the Guides or principal in the assemblie. And yet the very nature of this word (signifying in the ordinarie vse thereof the custome which was then to give Voices by lifting vp of handes) implyeth the Peoples concur­rence and voyce-giving iointly with the Guides of the as­semblie. For asmuch as this gesture of lifting vp handes for voyce-giving in the the publicke meetinges did al­wayes and most chieflie concerne the People. In this very manner to this purpose we have this word in Demosthenes: Cont [...]. Timocr. [...]. Which of the Lawes the Nomothetae (which were the principall Au­thors) shall ordayne or constitute by lifting vp of handes the same is ratified. Where notwithstanding, the Lifting vp of hands (as is well knowen) was not the Nomothetaes or chief Authors part only: but the Peoples act is vnderstood also by implication. Whose part was chiefly to Lift vp handes, eyther before or after the Nomothetaes act. Even so likewise this same worde vsed heere in the Actes in the very same maner shall import the Peoples part also: viz. a present cō ­sent in the appointing of their Elders, though only their Guides the Apostles voyce-giving and ordayning of them be named. But we will not presse this. We may (as I said) cleane omit this cōsideration, and yet this text in the Actes doth fully serve our mayne purpose. Namely it proveth fully that these Elders were ordayned by the Apostles in [Page 48]the presence and with the free liking of the severall Chur­ches. Another conceite there is, that the sense of this word heere is the same which the Greeke Ecclesiastical Writers long after do vse it in: viz. only to lay on hands in Ordination, and no more. It is an idle conceite. All do know, that the later Ecclesiasticall Greeke Writers have altered the origi­nall and proper vse of this word, as they (yea and the La­tines also) have done in other: as after weIn the 2. Assertion & 9. Reason in the end thereof. shal further see. In the Apostles time they spake the ordinarie and knowen phrase taken from the former times. But then no man vsed this word in such sense. They which followed som hun­dred yeares, can not prove that the Ancients spake like the after-commers. Wherefore, to our purpose againe: By all these textes thus declared, it remayneth evident that the Church, which is to have a Minister, ought to be present and to shew liking and cōsent freely to their Ministers cal­ling: sith we have seene that it was so in the practise of the Apostles, and by the ordinance of Christ. Which also (it seemeth) our very Book of Ordinatiō (which is by Law) in­tendeth & requireth, where it saith, Take thou authority, &c. in this Congregation. The word, this, importeth that the very particular Congregation wherein he should haue autho­ritie, should be present. And why should they necessarily be present, but freely to consent? Also heere by it is evi­dent that the Law would not that any Minister should be ordained but to a certain Congregation. All which good, necessary, and Christian rules how they be now every where broken & despised, who seeth not? Yea though the manifest intent of our Law doth require them. A word more let vs add touching D. Bilsons approbatiō also of the Churches free consent in chosing their Pastors. Whose testimony I do delight to apply to our purpose for divers [Page 49]good considerations.D [...]ils a­gain the Se­minar part. 2. pag. 353.356. Saith he, We haue the words and war­rant of the H. Ghost for that which we say, &c. viz. that the Peo­ple can and ought to discerne and try the doctrines and spirits of the Teachers; and so to chose and refuse them, as they by the word should see good. pag. 355. How can the People do either, if they haue not skill and leave to discerne both. Perpet. gover pag. 360. The Apostles left elections in­differently to the People and Clergie at Ierusalem. The People had as much right to chose their Pastors, as the Clergie that had more skill to iudge Pag. 339. Well may the Peoples interest stand vpō the grounds of reason and nature, and be derived from the rules of Christian equitie. Pag. 359. The late Bishops of Rome have not ceased cursing & fighting, till excluding both Prince and People they reduced the election wholy to the Clergie. But he telleth them, by their leave it was not so from the beginning. Pag. [...]30. I acknowledge each Church & people stand free by Gods law to admit, maintaine, & obey no man as their Pastor without their liking. It is true he addeth this, vnles by law, custome, or consent they restraine themselves. But this he himselfe elswhere answereth roundly:Pag. 22 [...]. What au­thoritie had others after the Apostles deathes to chaunge the Apo­stolike governement? And such additions he callethPag. 19. Cor­ruptions of times, inventions of men, and a transgressing of the Commaundement of God for the traditions of men. And a­gaine he calleth this plainlyPag. 11 1 [...] Intrusion, and Presumption. This sufficeth to shew, that he well vnderstādeth the truth in this cause.

But now it wilbe demanded: How can we then allow the Calling of the Ministers in England, iudging them by the rule of Gods worde. I answere; First this is ever a sure ground (not in the Schooles only, but) with all faithfull Christians reasoning about any matter: Consequens incom­modum non solvit argumentum. An inconvenient consequence taketh not away an Argument. We must not then decline [Page 50]from the truth for any inconvenience which may follow. Rather it behoveth vs to looke well to our selves & to our profession and standing wherein we abide, and Christian­lie with speed to amend our error. Howbeit I speak not this, as if I absolutly denied the whole Calling of our Mi­nisters. I do not so. The Lord knoweth there is none in England more vnwilling to runne vpon this rocke then I am. And yet nevertheles I dare not, I can not, (nor anie good Christian els) agree to change Gods Ordinances af­ter our occasions. Wherefore I answer to this question thus. For my part, I beleeve that the true ratification and warrant of our Ministers calling which is by Gods word, standeth in this, & only in this,The Chur­ches accep­tation. See Bez. in Act, 14.23. that our Visible Churches do consent and accept them whom they receave for such. I say, they do consent and accept them, after what sort so­ever it be done. And this their consent, I acknowledge, gi­veth them (before God) their Ministery, though conioy­ned with many, great, & publike corruptions otherwayes.

In which respect the Papistes are soundly answered, who calumniat our Ministery as if either we had none at all, or els had that which we have from them. Againe this answereth others, who because in our publike orders there are many evills ioyned with our Ministers Calling which are not to be iustified, nor to be communicated with, and because they are commonly esteemed to have their Cal­ling from these vnlawfull meanes, viz. from the Diocesan ruling Bishops without the Church, though in deed it be not so: therefore they do wholy and absolutly deny the Ministerie in England, which in trueth and by good rea­son they ought not to do absolutly and altogeather. How beit yet I speak not this in favor to such persons or Con­gregations among vs, which do evidently appeare to re­fuse [Page 51]of wilfulnes Christes Ordinances, and to speak evil of the way of God. Toward such I can not deny but the A­postlesAct. 19.9. 1 Tim. 6.5, pra [...] and precept ought to bee followed, who teacheth in this case, saying, "Separate from such. Ephe. 5.12▪ [...] C [...]. 6.19. Have n [...] fellowship with the vnfruitfull workes of darknes. * Touch no vn­cleane thing. Rom. 16.17. Marke them which cause schismes and scandalles beside the doctrine which you have learned, and avoid them.

Reason 7.

TO wantany maine part of the [...] Luke 12.42▪ ordinary appoin­ted meanes of salvation is Math. 28.20. Isa. 30.21. cōtrary to Gods word and necessarie to be reformed.

But the right and true Discipline Ecclesiasticall in each proper Visible Church, is one maine part of the ordinary meanes of salvation Mat. 18.17▪ Ioh. 20.23. Mat. 16.19▪ appointed by God for every soule: and this we in England do vtterly want.

Therefore we in England in respect of Discipline and Governement Ecclesiasticall do stand contrarie to Gods word, and ought heerein necessarily to be reformed.

Or thus.

Where the Apostles true Suceessors are spoyled of their Office and Ministerie of binding and loosing, forgiving & re­tayning of scandalous sinnes, there is grievous Sacrilege, & there ought to be of necessitie a reformation to restore them to this their spirituall Math. 18.18. Ioh. 20.23. right and duty.

But the ordinarie Pastors and Teachers of all the Chur­ches in England are the Apostles true Successors, and they are spoyled of the office of binding and loosing, forgiving and retayning the scandalous sinnes of their owne flockes.

Therefore the ordinarie Pastors and Teachers of all the Churches in England do suffer the wrong of sacrilege, [Page 52]and ought of Necessitie to be restored to this their spiritu­all right and dutie which yet they are held from.

Or thus.

Where the Apostles true Successors are barred from v­singMath. 16.19.both the Keyes which Christ himselfe gave them & put them in trust with all, there the vse of both ought to be restored to them. Otherwise2 Tim. 1.14. Tim. 6.20.14. Cor. 9.17 [...]6.how can they say in their consciences before God that they walke in their calling, and fulfill their Ministery, and discharge their trust? And how can the flocke assuredly expect that Heaven shal be opened to them?

But the ordinaric Pastors and Teachers in all the Chur­ches in England are the Apostles true and only Successors among vs, and they are barred frō vsing one of the Keyes, namely the Key of power or governement, as it is called.

Therefore the vse of this Key also ought of necessitie to be restored to them.

Obedience is better then sacrifice,

1. Samu. 15.22.

If ye know these things, blessed are ye if ye do them,

Ioh. 13.17.

Reason 8.

Christ out Prophet & King. WHOSOEVER denyeth Christ the Saviour to be our intire and perfect Prophet and spirituall King (by taking away from him som parts of his Propheticall and Kingly Offices, and ascribing the same vnto Men) he disninisheth the honor & dignitie of Christ, he impugneth the Foundation of saving faith, and is1 Cor. 3.11. Act. 4.12. [...]oh. [...]4.6.con­trarie to Gods word.

But the Diocesan Bishops, &c. do (by necessary conse­quēce) deny Christ the Saviour to be our perfect Prophet and spiri [...]uall King by taking frō him som proper partes of [Page 53]his Propheticall and Kingly Offices. For they hold sound and intire only Christes Priestly Office. Brieflie, as the Catholikes do ioyne Men with Christ in all these 3. Offi­ces, so do our Diocesans in the 2. former.

Therefore the Diocesan ruling Bishops, &c. do diminish the honor and dignitie of Christ, they impugne the foun­dation of saving faith, and are contrarie to Gods word.

The Proposition if it be wisely considered, is playne. For it can not be doubted, but Christ Iesus hath 3. Offices: viz. he is our Prophet, King, and Priest; & by vertue of all these 3. properly he is our Saviour and Mediator. Againe we are necessarily to believe that Christ Iesus hath in his owne onely person all these 3. Offices intire, absolut, and perfect. In so much that if any shall (with what colour soever) cō ­municate these Offices to others, denying them to Christs sole and proper person, or any of them, yea or any mani­fest and certaine part of them; the same verily do impugne the foundation of saving faith, and deprive Christ of a part of his sole and proper glorie. Where also I desire it may be remembred, that Christ Iesus though he properly worketh our Redemptiō only by his Priestly Office, that is, only by the Sacrifice of his owne sufferings; yet he wor­keth our Salvation and accomplisheth his Mediation not but by all these 3. his Offices iointly togeather. So that it is the error of a nomber who thinke; to beleeve only that Christ dyed for vs, this is enough to salvation. We need not to regard in Christ any more. Whereby men cōmon­lie forget the other partes of Christes glorious worke to­ward vs, viz. his holy compleat Doctrine, and Governement. But both these also ought to be believed & yeelded vnto the person of our Saviour Christ intirely & wholy, even in respect as he is our Saviour & Mediator; no lesse then the [Page 54]other, that he perfectly suffered for vs as our Redeemer. This is well to be considered.

The Assumption our adversaries do make to be true. For they take frō Christ personally a manifest part of his Pro­pheticall Office: and likewise of his Kingly Office. It is a part of Christes owne proper Propheticall Office to teach vs with authoritie by him selfeProved in Reason 1. pa. 1.2 &c. And Heb. 3.2, 3, [...], 6. Math. 17.5 Iohn. 14.6. and 16.13. alone in his owne word and Testament the outward forme, nature, and constitu­tion (which is but one) of all his Visible Churches whe­ther in Countries rich or poore, Monarchies or Demo­craties, &c: likewise all the true Ecclesiasticall Offices and Ministeries in them, with every kinde of action and thing properly Ecclesiasticall vsed in the Church, or where soe­ver els Religiously. Also it is a part of his proper Kinglie Office,Matth. 6.33. and 22.2. &c. Luke 19.14. 27. Iam. 4.12. 1 Cor. 12.5 Mat. 18.17 Iohn 20.23. by him selfe to constitute and inioyne the singu­lar and only true forme of all his Visible Churches, and to admit whersoever none other; spiritually to rule, to guide, and to blesse vs in them only, by his owne Ministeries and Ordinances instituted by him selfe or by his Spirite in his Apostles, and by none other. All which the foresaide Diocesesan ruling Bishops, &c. do take from Christ him­selfe personally, and doD. Whit-gift against Mai. Cart-wright, pa. 370.376. permit them vnto Men. Saying, it is indifferent (and somwhere somtimes convenient) for Christians thus to do. Therefore the Assumption is true.

It wilbe said, if this be so, then likewise the ancient Wri­ters Austine, Ambrose, Chrysostome, Leo, Gregorie, &c. did erre in faith to salvation, and believed not som partes of the fundamentall Offices of Christ our Savior. For those an­cientes did hold sundry Ecclesiasticall Inventions of men, besides that they were thēselves Diocesan ruling Bishops. Wherefore (by this reason) they diminished not a little of our Saviors most holy & healthfull Offices, both Pro­pheticall [Page 55]and Kingly. Which to affirme wilbe very hard. The same must be saide likewise of our late blessed Mar­tyrs, Cranmer, Ridley, Latimer, Ferrar, &c.

I answer, we embrace these holy men of God (both the elder and later) for their other manifolde testimonies of pietie. Therefore we iudge them as faithfull servantes of Christ according to that measure of light wherein they li­ved. That is, they did generally and indistinctly beleeve and professe soundly all the whole Offices of Christ to salvatiō. Yet true it is they erred in these foresaid external partes pertayning to Christes Prophecie and Kingdome through the common sway of the times then: the Myste­rie of iniquitie (that is Antichrist) advancing it selfe day­lie very much even by them, and by these their errors, though they for their partes were vnwitting & vnwilling. The case thus standing with them, we are not to doubt, but these their errors (though of them selves very great) were graciously pardoned in Christ: chiefly considering that these matters were not then examined nor any thing looked into; which with vs now these 40. yeeres have ben much debated, tried, and sifted. Yea and by Gods worde are so cleerlie discovered, that we must needes now say, He that is ignorant let him be ignorant stil: and he that is per­verse let him be perverse still. Wherefore the condition of our Diocesan L. Bishops, &c. in England, is farre vnlike at this day, and in no sorte to be compared with that of those Bishops then. Ours have no excuse, which they might have. Cyprian saieth well in such another case.Cypri. Epi. 2.3. Si quis de antecessoribus nostris vel ignoranter vel simpliciter non hoc ob­servavit & tenuit quod nos Dominus facere exemplo & Magi­sterio suo docuit potest simplicitati eius de indulgētiâ Domini ve­nia concedi, nobis verò non poterit ignosci qui nunc à Domino [Page 56]admoniti & instructi sumus. If any before vs either ignorantly or simply hath not observed and kept that which the Lord by his example & doctrine hath taught vs to do, by the Lords mercy his simplicitie may be pardoned, but we cannot be forgiven who are now warned and instructed of the Lord.

Yet some will say, We can not shew any such forme of a Visible Church somtime for many hundreds of yeares togeather. Shall we then thinke that this is Christs perpe­tuall ordinance? I answere, first for 2. hundred yeares af­ter Christ there is no man can shew any other forme of a Visible Church (but this) any where in the whole world, as in the next Assertion presently (God willing) we shall further see. Which (beside the all-sufficient word of God) is an excellent testimonie also: neither need we looke fur­ther into Humane writinges for the perpetuall necessitie heereof. Second: they who list to search may finde argu­mentes of divers particular Congregations being intire Visible Churches in all ages, I thinke. Howbeit, what is that to vs? Must the Christian faith or any part of it, stand or fall by the report of Mens stories? Or may we in this case conclude from them, Negatively? Mens writings men­tion not such a Church at somtime. Therfore then there was none. And specially to inferre thus; Therefore this is not Christs or­dinance alwayes necessarie for vs. To esteeme mens writings so sufficient as that by them we should prove or disprove a matter of Religion; I say, it is verie foolish at the least.

Finally our Adversaries will obiect, that by these Asser­tions and defences we detract from the Kings authoritie & power: namely thus misliking that which he alloweth, & specially holding an authority Ecclesiasticall not derived from him. I answer, even so did evill & slanderous men accuse the faithfull Christians in the primitive age. They [Page 57]cryed that,Act. 17. [...] These all do against the decrees of Caesar, saying that there is another King, one Iesus. Our reply therefore vn­to them for this shall stand in 4. points. 1. We most glad­lie 1 doMath. 20.21. give vnto Caesar the things that are Caesars, but to God the things that are Gods. Tertul. ad Scapula [...] 2. Colimus Imperatorem vt homi­nem 2 à Deo secundum, & solo Deo minorem. We honor the King as a man next vnto God, and inferior to God only. 3. We glad­lie 3 acknowledge that the King is, & ought to be Supreme governor even in all causes and over all persons Ecclesia­sticall. Howbeit alwayes [...], non [...]: Civilly, not Spiritually or Ecclesiastically. 4. The King is Custos & 4 Vindex, the Keeper and Maintainer (by compulsive pow­er) of the whole state of Religion. But he is not Author or Minister of any Ecclesiasticall thing or Cōstitution what­soever. Will our Adversaries yeeld more? Or is not this sufficient? I hope this shall suffice to cease heerafter their slanders against vs in this cause. And thus much touching our first Assertion.

The 2. Assertion.

For the space of 200. yeares after Christ the Visible Churches vsing governement were not Diocesan Churches, but parti­cular ordinary Congregations only: and the Bishops (as they were particularly called after the Apostles) were only Pari­shionall not Diocesan Bishops, and differed from other Pa­stors in Prioritie of order not in Maioritie of rule.

IN this Assertion we observe 3. distinct partes. 1. A 1 Church was then but one Ordinarie Congregation: [Page 58]and generally in each Citie then there was but one such 2 Congregation only. 2. The particular ordinary Con­gregations had in themselves their owne governement 3 Ecclesiasticall. 3. There was no Maioritie of rule, but Pri­oritie of order only, in a Bishop then compared with other Pastors.

proof 1

The first is proved by these Testimonies following.

FIrst let vs consider that in the Apostles dayes the orday­ning of EldersCitie by Citie. Tir. 1.5. [...]&Church by Church, Act. 14.23. [...] was all one thing; namely because in each Citie in those times there were not many Churches in number, but one onely proper Church or Congregation of Christians. Which alsoPag. 19.20 a­boue we further declared. Then for the next age after,1 Anno 100 Ignatius plainly sheweth the common state of the visible Churches in this time also to be such: where he thus wri­teth.Ignat. ad Trall. Without a Bishop, without a Senate of Elders, without Dea­cons, &c. [...]. Without these there is no Church, no company of of Saints, no holy Cōgregation. Which proveth that then each Citie had but only one ordinary Cōgregation of Christi­ans. Sith doubtles each Citie then had but one such Senat of Elders, and but one Bishop, in Ignatius vnderstanding. Further also he perswading the Church of Philadelphia to vnitie and concord saith.Ad Phi­ladelph. I exhort you vse one Faith, one Preaching, one supper of the Lord, &c. For there is but one Com­muniō Table [...] to the whole Church (heere in this Citie) and one Bishop with a company of Elders and Dea­cons. Therefore in this Citie there was then but one Or­dinary Congregation of Christians. Neither speaketh he of this Church in Philadelphia as being of an other forme or constitution then other Churches then were, but in­deed as being conformable and like to the maner of the [Page 59]rest. If we translate [...] as som like better [to every Church] distributively, then our Assertion is more cleerely avouched. Againe touching the Church of Philadelphia he saith,Ibid. The Bishop is Gods Ambassador to a people [...] that are togeather in one place. Lastly writing elswhere to the same effect he saith so much touching an other Vi­sible Church, namely in the Citie Magnesia; Ad Mag­nes. [...], &c. All of you com togeather into the fame place to prayer; Let there be but one common prayer, one minde, one hope, &c.

Iustin Martyr shewing the maner of the Churches wor­shipping 2 of God in the Cities where they then were, ob­serveth the very same. Saith he;Iust. Mart. Apolog. 2. Anno 142. [...]. On the Sonday as it is called All (the Christians) dwelling in the Cities, or abroad in the Country, do com togeather into the same place, &c. It is very like that this was specially spoken of the Church of Rome then: seeing there Iustin wrot and offered vp his Apologie to Antoninus the Emperor. Though with all he signifieth that he meanes other Churches in other [...]. Ci­ties, and in Country-places likewise indifferently. There­fore then, All the Christians in each Citie (yea those in Rome) made not divers but one constant and ordinary Congregation only.

Irenaeus in his time observeth no materiall difference 3 betweene Bishops and Presbyters Ministers of the word. Which is a plaine argument that Bishops then were not Diocesan Bishops overseeing many cōstantly distinct Con­gregations, but were Pastors of one particular ordinary Congregation only. Thus he saith,Irenae. lib. 3. cap. 3. Traditio vi [...]. scripta: vel necessario con­sequens ab [...] quod est scrip­tum per Apo­stol [...]s. Traditio quae est ab Apo­stolis per successionem Presbyterorum custoditur. The tradition which is taken from the Apostles is kept by successiō of Presbyters. [Page 60]In the same place also: Episcopi ab Apostolis instituti in Eccle­sijs & Successores eorum vsque ad nos. Bishops ordayned by the Apostles in the Churches, and their Successors vntill our times. Where also the Romane Bishops Anicetus, Pius, Hyginus, he nameth Presbyters. By all which it is evident, that the name Bishop & Presbyter was not yet exactly distinguished as after it was, but remayned yet (as it were) common and indifferent to all Ministers of the word, even so as it was vsed by the Apostles in their writings. Also it appeareth heereby that there was not then any kind of Diocesan Bi­shops. For the name then ought to haue ben very distinct, and peculiar to him, as afterward it came to passe. Much lesse had any Bishop a power to rule over a whole Dio­cesse. Otherwise Ireneus should not haue vsed these names and termes then so indifferently.

Tertullians testimony also seemeth very agreable in this 4 point. Where speaking of Christians ordinary Congre­gations in Cities in his time he saith Corpus sumus, &c. Pertulian. Apolog. [...] [...]9. we are all one Body, &c. And againe Coimus in Cetum & ag­gregationem, &c. We all com togeather into a Company and Congregation. He saith not plurally in cetus & aggre­gationes into divers Companies & Congregations; as sure­ly it seemeth he should and would haue said, if there had ben then in one Citie many ordinary constant Congre­gations. Specially seeing he saith also of the same singular Congregation: Ibidem (est) Censura divina: iudicatur magno cum pondere, &c. There are divine Censures exercised. The iudgement is given with great waight, &c. Which surely was done in every such constant Congregation as before he spake of. And yet but in one singular Congregation & not in many, nor in one over many constantly appointed in one Citie at that time.

Eusebius History sheweth that the Churches of the most 5 famous Cities were each of them primitiuely no more but a Parish only; that is, but one ordinary constant Con­gregation only. As wehre he nameth the Church of Ie­rusalemEuse. lib. 3.11. the Parish of Ierusalem, of Ephesus the Parish of Lib. 3.28. E­phesus, and so ofLib. 3.13.18. lib. 4.1.4.5.19. Alexandria, ofLib. 3.32 Hierapolis, ofLib. 4.22 Corinth, ofLib 4.25. Sardis, ofLib. 5.5. Lyons, & divers Churches the Lib. 4.22 6. Parishes of Crete. He no where mentioneth many Churches nor Parishes vnder one Bishop in any Citie till Iulianus time in Alex­andria, as before we observed.

By Epiphanius testimonie also our Assertion is maintai­ned.6 Who saith PrimitiuelyEpiph cōtr. Ha [...]. 73. in a small Cōgregation a Bishop was ordayned alone without other Presbyters assisting him. And in som places only Presbyters and Deacons without a Bishop. In other places, that is in great & populous Con­gregatiōs where they had meete men to be chosen, there they chose in each of them a Bishop with other assistant Pres­byters. By which it appeareth consequently that every­where a Bishop then was but of one particular Congre­gation only whether greater or simaller.

proof 2

The second part is proved.

The parti­cular Con­gregations had their owne go­verment Ecclefiasti­call. Ignat. ad Philad.NEither let any imagine that these particular Congre­gations then wanted their owne Ecclesiasticall go­vernment among themselves only. It is most evident that they had it & exercised it only within themselues ordina­rily. Which is plaine by that of Ignatius writing to one of them thus: [...]. It is meet for you as being the Church of God to chose by common cōsent your Bishop. And to an other particular Church thus,Ad Smyrna. [...]. In the Church (which is with you at Smyrna) there is not any thing aboue the Bishop. He meaneth the Bishop or Pastor of the particular Congregation is of [Page 62]greatest authoritie and aboue any other there whomsoe­ver. So that they in that Congregation had all governe­ment simply and solely among themselves. He speaketh heere of governing [...] Spiritually, not [...] Civilly. For thus the Magistrate is Supreme both in and over each Church and whatsoever Church matters, as Mai. Beza re­ligiously and dutifullyTheod. Bez. de Ex­com. & Pre­sbyt. speaketh, & wePag. 57. before observed. Yea verily thus the Magistrat is supreme whether he care for the Church, or care not. Hence therfore we conclude, that these particular Churches had the ordinary Ecclesia­sticall government of themselves among themselves. Ter­tulliā also in the place before cited sheweth so much, spea­king of each particular ordinarie Congregation in his dayes: Ibidem (est) censura divina. Iudicatur magno cum pon­dere vt apud certos de Dei conspectu. Apol. [...].39. President probati quique Seniores. There are divine Censures. They iudge with great waight and advisednes, as being sure that God seeth them. The ap­proved Elders are the chiefe, or do governe these Censures. Ther­fore all particular ordinary Congregations inioyed their owne spirituall governement then in those times. There is no suspicion of any restraint or abridging of them ther­in till Dionysius the 13. Bishop of Alexandria, Anno 260. at the soonest.

proof 3

The third part is proved.

No Maio­ritie of rule, but only Prioritie of order in a primitive Bishop.BEsides the testimonies before alleaged, Ambrose in plain wordes telleth vs this, that primitivelyAmbro in Eph. 4. & 1 Tim. 3. A Bishop was no more but primus Presbyter, the foremost in order among the other Ministers of the word in the Synods, or where there were other in the same Congregation with him. There­fore 7 the Bishop then differed not in Maioritie of rule from any other Pastor. And therefore then there was no Dioce­san Church vsing governement, nor Diocesan Bishop ru­ling other Pastors and Churches. Much lesse was there [Page 63]any Diocesan Lord Bishop then.

Ierome doth likewise: Where he saith,Ierom. ad Evagr. & in Tit. 1. A Bishop and 8 an Elder or common Pastor, by Divine institution and ordi­nance, are all one. And Maioritie among them came in by the custome of the Church and Humane disposition. He meaneth Maioritie of Ruling, because he sheweth heere that for­merly all did rulein cōmuni [...] or communi Presbytero­rum consili [...]. in common. Wherefore by his iudge­ment there was not at the first any Maioritie of rule in a Bishop over Pastors. Much lesse were there any Diocesan L. Bishops ruling by their sole authoritie in those times. Som Prioritie in order, we doubt not, was alwayes: First Parishionall, and then Diocesan som good while after, as before is shewed. Yea the Parishionall prioritie of order was (we deny not) constant, yea even among Pastors who had otherwise all one Office intirely. I say, this was where there were divers Ministers of the word in one par­ticular Congregation. As we doubt not there were in som places. Now for this matter, viz. Bishops Maioritie in governement above Presbyters, and also concerning Ieromes opinion thereof, it is not amisse to observe what D. Bilson also hath taught and avouched. In hisAgainst the Semina. part. 2. pag. 318. First Booke he sayeth, It was not by the institution of Christ, nor his Apostles, but long after by the consent of the Churches, the Custom of the tymes, and the will of Princes. Where also he sheweth that this was Ieromes iudgement likewise. How­soever since (I can not tell how, nor why) D. Bilson Perpe [...]. gov. pag. 236.237.238. chan­ged much his minde heerein: and yet with no more dis­crepance from himselfe then from the trueth, and from al­most all learned men beside both ancient and later.

Further, this reason prooveth the present whole Asser­tion. If the word [...] vsed religiously for a Church 9 Visible with order and governement, do and ought to [Page 64]keepe in all good Authors a iust proportion answerable to the Civill and Originall vse thereof, then it must needs be in proper signification a particular Cōgregation only. For Originally and Civilly in all Greeke Authors [...] signifieth one particular Assembly in one place only, as an Assembly of the people at Athens, in Ephesus, in Corinth, &c being com togeather in their publike iudgement-place. Which is evident by the writinges of Plato, Demosthenes, Isocrates, Xenophon, &c. Yea in theActe 19. [...]2.39.40. Actes of the Apostles we do finde it likewise so vsed.

But the Apostles and other Ecclesiasticall writers for 200. yeares after Christ vsing this worde for a Visible Church with order and governement do speak properly, and so ought to keepe a iust proportion in it answerable to the Civill and originall vse thereof. This sentence is vn­doubtedly true and vndenyable. If any think he can shew to the co [...]rie, let it be shewed.

Therefore the Apostles and other Ecclesiasticall Wri­ters, for 200. yeares space after Christ vsing this word for a Visib [...] Church with order and governement, do signi­fie by it a particular Congregation only. And it no where signifieth in them a Diocesan Church, &c.

Where note that the strength of this reason standeth wholy in the proper taking and vsing of this word [...] a Church. Note. The Adversaries error hath advantage by the improper and ambiguous vse of it: which is Sophisticall. Yea if you will, their sense is aBy the Scriptures verdict. false sense of it; wherein yet it often vsed in Writers and in common speach for want of due regard. By which meanes also sundry other errors have crept in heeretofore & much prevayled, even by mis-vnderstanding of certayne wordes. As we may see [Page 65]in [...]: and in Latin Meritum, Equivocall wordes. Poenitentia, Crux, Sacramentum, &c.

Out of all those Testimonies before alleadged, this ge­nerall reason may be concluded. No Diocesan Church 10 or Bishop was knowen or once heard of in the world, till many distinct ordinary Congregations began to be ap­pointed in one Citie.

But there was no Multiplication nor distinction of ma­ny ordinarie and constant Congregations in a Citie, till about 200. yeares after Christ. Som cōiecture, it was long after this. No man sheweth that it was before this. The truth in deed heereof, that for this while generally in each Citie there was but one ordinary constant Congregation of Christians, hath ben plentifully shewed in the Proofes of this 2. Assertion before going.

Therefore till about 200. yeares after Christ there was no manner of Diocesan Church or Bishop knowen, nor once heard of in all the Christian world. No not the Dio­cesan Titular Bishop: much lesse any Diocesan ruling Bishop.

Where yet we deny not but that one particular Con­gregation or Church being populous might occasionally and vncertainly in the time of persecution for their safetie sake assemble in divers smaller Meetings.As before we noted pag. 19.20. As also they did we doubt not, many times within the space of these 200. yeares after Christ. Howbeit yet these smaller Meetings were not so many Churches properly: because they were not ordinary sett Companies, nor constantly distinct So­cieties, as Churches ought to be, and as our Parishes now are. Those divers Occasionall and vncertaine meetings made but one Church and ordinary Congregation,Act. 6, 1. yea though the whole nomber were too populous for one [Page 66]actual Assembly ordinarily. It is true in such case they ought to distinguish and distribut themselves into divers competent set Congregations which should be so many proper and intire Churches. But when they are (as they were in those primitive times) dayly in great perill of cru­ell persecution, they may with reason remaine somwhile vndistinguished, & not so distribute themselves, which in time of peace and safetie they always ought to do. Wher­in now som Reformed Churches beyond Seas do seeme to offend.

If any say the troublesomnes of those times or the yong age of the Churches who were not yet growen vp to per­fection, caused that there were no Diocesan Churches with governement nor Diocesan ruling Bishops then. And we take advantage of the special state of those times, vrging it to our purpose generally.

I answer; we vrge from the state and order of the Apo­stolike primitive Churches nothing but what is generall in them, and ought to be perpetuall with vs. So that nei­ther the troublesomnes of those times, nor the young age of the Churches then do give vs our advantage. For not­withstanding these speciall Circumstances the Visible Churches vsing gouernement and the Bishops then, might have ben very well Diocesan and Provinciall, if Christ had so instituted and the Apostles had so framed and left them. Nothing in the world hindereth but they might easily have ben such even in those times. But the world knew none such then, as I have said. And it is im­pietie to say Christes Churches were vnperfect then, as touching their Visible forme & constitution, their Mini­stery, and the whole lawfull order of worshipping God in them. Or that the times since have made them more per­fect [Page 67]then they were as the Apostles left them. Wherefore this advantage do we stand vpon, and this do we vrge, viz. the same patterne and forme of Visible Churches vsing governement that was then vniversally practised & recea­ved immediatly from Christ and the Apostles; which was Parishionall not Diocesan, as hath ben declared.

The 3. Assertion.

The Scriptures of the New Testament do containe & set forth vnto vs (besides the governement by Extraordinarie Offi­ces, Apostles Prophets Evangelistes) an ordinarie forme of Church-governement vsed then.

IF in the New Testament one kinde of a Visible Church vsing governement and no other is to be found,1. Reasonalso if speciall distinct ordinarie Offices for Church-governe­ment, and speciall Actions therevnto belonging, be sett downe therein; then the Scripture contayneth a speciall forme of Church-government which was ordinary then.

But in the New TestamentSee be­fore 1. Asse [...] tion 2. Rea­son.One kinde of a Visible Church vsing governement (namely a particular ordina­rie Congregation) and no other is found: also speciall di­stinct ordinarie Offices for Church-governement are set downe therein, as ParishionallTit 1.5, 7 1 Tim. 3.1, 2. Ephe. 4.11. Phil. 1.1. Act. 20.28 1 Pet. 5.2. Act. 14.23Bishops or Pastors, and an other sort of (not Lay but Ecclesiasticall)1. Tim. 5.17. compared with Gal. 6.10. & 1 Tim. 4.10. Rom. 12. [...] 1 Cor. 12.28. Iam. 5.14 Adde the ancient Writers: Ignat. Epist. ad Trall. Tars, & Smyr. Tertull. Apol. c. 39. & d Baptisme. Ambr. in 1. Tim. 5, & in 1. Cor. 12.28, Ierom. in Isa. 3. August. Epist, 137.Elders, who by their Ordinary office were only to assist in governement. Third: the special Actions belonging to Church-govern­ment are also set downe in the Scripture; as Election of Mi­nisters, [Page 68] Excommunication of spirituall offendors, &c.

Therfore the Scripture of the New Testament cōtayneth a speciall forme of Church-governement ordinary then.

Where it is to be noted, that in those first times there were also those other Officers in the Churches:Note. Apostles Evangelistes and Prophetes. But they had Calling and giftes immediatly from God; the others Calling was alwayes by men. They abode not in one Church, as the other did. Their government and vse was not perpetuall but tempo­rary and extraordinarie. They therefore hindered not the other, neither can they now hinder: The rather sith they do not now remaine, but are ceased.

Also, those Parishionall Bishops and those other Elders assisting in government,Note. did differ in their Ordinary office. Yea though they both did somtimes Preach, &c: yet thus they differed notwithstanding. But a Parishionall Bishop or Pastor cannot differ in his ordinary office of Preaching, &c. from an Elder who is also by ordinary office a Prea­cher, &c. Therefore he is heere an other Church Elder, viz. by ordinary office no Preacher, but only a helper in governement, who in those forenoted places is spoken of, and differeth in his ordinary office plainly from every Bi­shop or Pastor.

Yet som obiect vehemently, that all Elders in the Pri­mitive Churches who assisted the Bishop in government▪ were very Pastors: seeing they had power to preach the word, &c. And that those mentioned namely in Ignatius and Tertullian. before alleaged, were only such. And there­fore then there were none such only governing Elders at all, as we conceave.

I answer, That they differed even then in their ordina­rie office from Pastors it is cleere and questionles (not only [Page 69]in those fore-alleaged places of Scripture, but also) in the foresaid ancient writers Ignatius, and Tertullian, &c. Yet for more evidence to this point which som labour mightily to obscure and darken, I affirme that Preaching and Inter­preting Gods word is of 3. sortes in the Scripture,Preaching of 3. sortes. and so it was vsed in the first Churches after.1. We read of Prea­ching which was byRom. 10.14, 15. ordinary office. This, we say, the Pastors & Teachers only did perform.2. That which was for exercise and for trayning vp, for the making of som apt and able for the Ministerie of the word, yea and for a fur­ther increase of giftes even in the Ministerie themselves. This was the exercise of Prophesie or Interpretatiō, as the1 Cor. 14 29. 1 Cor. 12.30. Scripture calleth it. Wherein were receaved som1 Cor. 14 1.24, 31. Lay men, namely by the Churches order. And then so like­wise might the Deacons, & Elders also somtimes Preach, though they were no Preachers by office. Neverthelesse yet we acknowledge the Preachers were and ought to be the chiefe heerein. But the3. sort of Preaching is most of all heere to be marked. Third. vpon occasion (in Chur­ches without order and scattered, and also vnto persons who were not yet gathered to any Church) there was Preaching which was generall and common forActs 11.19. all true Christians lively Members of Christ, indued with giftes of knowledge & sound iudgement in Religion. In which sense Ambrose is to be vnderstood,Ambro. in Ephe. 4. where he saith that in the first times every Christian preached the worde. Nei­ther is it now a fault but a singular vertue for godly House­holders to instruct in the word of God their owne chil­dren and servantes. Howbeit in Churches orderly gover­ned and setled, no privat Christian may presume, neither did any then presume publikely to preach or interpret the word, except for som speciall reason he were specially ap­pointed [Page 70]so to do by the lawful Governors of the Church. And so did som preach publikely, yea in the very Chur­ches after the Apostles, being even but Lay men as Ignati­us and Tertullian do witnes in the foresaid places. Where they shew, that also the Deacons did and might preach af­ter this maner. And also that the Elders which were ordi­narie Assistantes in governement, did and might preach thus likewise. I say still, after this 3. manner; that is like as the very Lay men did, and as the Deacons did; that is not by their ordinary office, but by the Pastors and Bishops speciall appointment to them all. Wherefore this proveth not the Elders there spoken of to be Preachers by Office: nay it proveth plainly the contrarie, that by their ordinary office they were not Preachers, but only governing El­ders. And this is the purpose that we alleage them for.

Finally we may observe that som shadow of them see­meth still to remayne, though greatly corrupted, in the Church Wardens of our Parishes. Yea som such depravatiō and degencration in them was begun (we doubt not) in Ambrose, Ierome, and Austines time: although yet the an­cient trueth appeareth well enough thereby notwithstan­ding.

The 4. Assertion.

The ordinary forme of Church governement set foorth vnto vs in the New Testament, ought to be kept still by vs: it is not changeable by men, and therefore it only is lawfull.

IF the ordinary forme of Church-government ap­pointed by God in his word, 1. Reason was never since repea­led [Page 71]by himselfe, then Mat. 28.20. 2 Thes. 2.15. 1. Tim. 6.14. the same remayneth still appointed for vs; it is still necessary, and is not changeable by men.

But the ordinary forme of Church-governement ap­pointed by God in his word, and specified before in our 3. Assertiō, was never since repealed nor chāged by himself.

Therefore the same remaineth still appointed by God for vs, it is now stil necessarie, & is not chāgeable by any men.

If every lawfull Visible Church vsing governement, & also if every lawfull Church-Office, and Action,2. Reasonought to be particularly allowed by God in his word, then the or­dinarie forme of Church-governement set forth vnto vs in the new Testament, is necessary for vs now still, it is vn. changeable and only lawfull.

But every lawfull Visible Church vsing governement, and also every lawfull Church Office, and Action1. Assert [...] 1. Reason. Heb. 5.4. Mat. 21.25. 1 Cor. 12.5 28. Ephe. 4.11, 12, 13. 1 Tim. 2.5 Ioh. 10.1.ought to be particularly (as touching the kinde thereof) allowed in Gods worde.

Therefore the Ordinarie forme of Church-governe­ment set downe vnto vs in the New Testament, is necessa­rie for vs now still, it is vnchangeable and only lawfull.

Heerevnto (for a conclusion) let vs adde certaine lear­ned mens very cleere Testimonies, which persons yet are no way partiall for vs. Doctor Bilson (who is now Lord Bi­shop of Winchester) saith thus:D. Bilson perpet goy. pag. 3. We must not frame what kinde of Regiment we list for the Ministers of Christes Church, but rather observe and marke what maner of externall governe­ment the Lord hath best liked and allowed in his Church even from the beginning. And,Pag. 19. It is certaine we must not choose out the corruptions of time nor inventions of men, but ascend to the originall ordinance of God, and thence derive our platforme of Church-governement. To do otherwise, is To transgresse the [Page 72]commandement of God for the traditions of men. Pag. 49. The Apostles had their mouthes and pennes directed and guyded by the Holy Ghost into all trueth aswell of doctrine as Discipline. The Apo­stlesPag. 43. set an order amongst Christians in all things needfull for the governement, continuance, peace, and vnitie af the Church. Pag. 221. What authoritie had others after the Apostles deathes to change the Apostolike governement? Pag 111. They that have authority in the Church must looke not only what they challenge but also frō whom they derive it: If from the Apostles, then are they their Successors: If from Christ as colleagues ioyned with the Apostles, we must find that consociation in the Gospell, before we cleere them from intru­sion. No man should take this honor vnto himselfe but he that is called of God as the Apostles were. If they be called by Christ, read their assignation from Christ: if they be not, surcease that pre­sumption. Pag. 339. If the name [of Diocesan Bishop] were new and lately invented by men, the losse thereof were not great: yea retay­ning the name they must be knowen to be of men and not of God. Heerevnto accordeth D. Sutcliffe in his booke intituled O. E. against N. D. where he refuting the calling of the Iesu­ites, saith thus:D. Su [...] ­ [...]liffe, or O. K. against N. D. pag. 110. It is not enough to say that they have a rule and learning, and live orderly but they must have their Office and calling allowed by Christ Iesus, if they meane to take vpon them the office of Pastors Teachers and Governors in Christes Church. Wherefore either let them shew themselves to have a lawfull cal­ling, or let them not thinke much to be thrust out as intruders. We doe not find either in the Epistle to the Ephesians, chap 4. or the first Epistle to the Corinthians, chapt. 12. any such extravagant Friars. Thus do both these learned men (and our no great friends) maintaine with vs singularly The Scriptures perfe­ction even in these outward Ecclesiastical matters. Yea fur­ther considering the Scriptures phrase & maner of speach perpetually signifying that there is not only One Visible [Page 73]Church of Christ properly, but Many in number in the world; nor only one in a Nation or Province, but many, as beforePag. 19. 20. we have declared: therefore one of these (viz. the B. of Wint.) is to be well observed how he avoucheth the holy Scriptures perfection also even for the phrase and maner of speach, and how vnlawfull a thing he holdeth it to be to vse any [...] new wordes (for religious matters) other thē the very Scripture vseth. Thus generally he affirmeth, though he applieth it to another point thē now we speak of. Saith heThe full redemption of man by &c. Pag. 41. What I reade in the word of God that I beleeve, what I do not reade that I do not beleeve. In Gods causes we may not easily leave Gods wordes, and with a new kinde of speach make way for a new kind of faith. We must learne from God what to be­leeve, & not by correcting or inverting his words teach him how to speake. This religious strictnes even touching the words of Scripture, is indeed (I graunt) to be held religiously and perpetually, vnderstanding the words to be such as either the Scripture it selfe vseth, or may be necessarie conse­quence be proved and allowed from the very Scripture.

But now how vniustly are we vsed by them, yea how vnchristianly, when toward vs they will stand to nothing of all this: and yet (forsooth) all must go still on their side. The very Papistes do see and acknowledge this that I say; viz. both that these grounds of the Scriptures abso­lut perfection in all Ecclesiasticall matters (whereon we exactly do stand) are the true and right principles of the Protestants Religion, & also that the Diocesan L. Bishops,The only true Prote­stants. do, and must needes turne away from these principles, & deny them when they deale with vs: and must ioyn plain­lie with the Catholikes in their answers, if they will main­taine themselves. Thus say they, when one obiected thatNe [...]ves from Spaine & Holland The Puritans (as they falsely and maliciouslie call vs) [Page 74] would certainly be extinguished if the Queene should live any nomber of yeares. Tush saith an other, you are deceaved. Nay much more possible and likely it is, that the Puritan shall over­com the Protestant, then the contrarie. For that the Puritan buildeth directly vpon the Protestants first grounds in Religion, and deduceth thereof cleerely and by ordinary consequence all his conclusions. Which the Protestant can not deny by Divinity but only by Policie and humane ordination, or by turning The Ca­tholikes Supplica­tion An. 1604 hath the like. pag. 17. to Catho­like answers contrary to their owne principles. And it is hard for any man sincerely to be a Protestant, but that he will easily passe also on (more or lesse) to be a Puritan. And only they in effect will be against them, who are interessed in the other side (as Archbi­shops, Bishops, Archdeacons, Canons, Notaries, Registers, Civill Lawyers, and the like) for not leesing their Commodities, &c. This do the very Papistes discerne and confesse. Where­withall they prophesie also (as it were) if the Protestants Religion be not rooted out, that the Puritanes profession will finally prevaile both against the common Protestants and the Catholiks also. Which som with vs much fearing and vngraciously striving against, when they could not endureScottizing & Geneva­ting for Di­scipline, pa. 31. our hope of one Darius comming to build vp the Temple of God among vs, they made it no lesse then a Treasonable mind in vs when we could not conceale in deed such a hope that we had long agoe of this Princes af­ter-comming. Wherefore also they maintayned Semina­rie Priestes (very Traitors in deed) publikly to taxe this our most Christian & Noble Darius (whom God hath of his singular mercy now sent vnto vs) as a Puritan King, saying:Quodli. pag. 26, 27. The Puritans have Princes none at all (vnlesse it be one) on their side. Their malice was thus mooved, because they were not ignorāt of the Kings most holy & religious Confession of his faith made long since and published to the [Page 75]view of the world, as no other Kinge in Christendom hath don, and altogeather agreeable to our Profession. WhereConfess. of faith At Edingburg. Ann. 1580. he detesteth all Rites, Signes, and Traditions brought into the Church without or against the word of God. Promising and swearing by the great Name of our Lord to continue in the o­bedience of the doctrine and discipline of the Church (that is in Scotland) and shall defend the same according to his vocation and power all the dayes of his life. Which also of late againe he hath in effect renued and confirmed: and that even then when there was doubt how his future subiects in En­gland would entertaine his comming. Thus lately wri­teth our worthy & gracious King admonishing his Sonne the noble PrinceBasilicon dôro [...]. pag. 43. The doctrine and discipline preserve in pu­ritie according to Gods word. Pag 7. The whole Scripture is dited by Gods Spirit, thereby, as by his lively word to instruct and rule the whole Church Militant to the end of the world. Pag. 6. The first part of mans service to his God which is Religion, that is the worship of God according to his revealed will, it is wholy grounded vpon the Scripture. Pag. 5. Frame all your affections to follow precisely the rule there set downe. Pag. 15, 1 [...]. By Superstition I meane when one restraines himselfe to any other rule in the service of God then is warranted by the word the only true square of Gods service. The forme e­stablished in Scotland isTo the Reader. the only true forme of Gods wor­ship. which we vnderstand as spoken in this respect that they professe to renounce all humane Traditions therein. For these thinges have those evill Beastes maliciously re­proched his Maiestie, as if this were worthy of no better name then a Puritan opinion. In deed for this only opini­on thus they have, and do still revile vs. But we commit the iudgement heereof to the Lord. Wherefore final­lie let vs observe heere (in regard of the premisses) that godly, wise, and necessarie counsell of Peter Martyr, a man [Page 76]of worthy memory. Saith he,Martyr Epist. ad Dom. Polo. Consulo praeterea vt Disci­plinam quanto ocyùs fieri poterit in vestras Ecclesias omninò in­vehatis, &c. I counsaill you moreover that as soone as possible may be, you bring in the Discipline wholy into your Churches. For if it be not receaved at the beginning when men are whot in love with the Gospell, it will not be easily lett in afterward when som coldnes shall creepe in, as vsually it commeth to passe. And how vainely men labour without it, England described. very many Churches may be an example vnto you: which from the foundations of their restoring when they would not vndergo so healthfull a yoke, they could ne­ver after in their life and maners be brought into order by any rule. Whence it is (with grief I speake it) that all thinges almost have little firmenes and do threaten ruine on every side. There­fore it is a grievous dammage, and a certayne destruction of the Churches, if the sinew of discipline be wanting vnto them. Nei­ther may they be said truly and soundly to have and professe the Gospell which either want the Discipline, or despise it, or have no desire of it. Surely seeing it is delivered vs with so great diligence in the Gospells and Apostles Epistles, we must confesse it to be not the least part of Christian Religion. Whereby it commeth to passe that the Gospell seemeth to be neglected by them, who do put away from thē so excellent a part thereof: &c. Thus say these lear­ned men.

Howbeit yet our Adversaries do & will accuse vs that we are Schismatikes and Seditious in refusing the Diocesan Bishops authoritie and rule Ecclesiasticall, which is pu­blikely receaved.

But we answer; It is no sedition nor disloyaltie at all, it is no misbehaviour against the King, dutifully to endevour that those partes of Christes Gospell, which yet are wan­ting, should be entertayned among vs; that Christes true Visible Churches should be acknowledged and regarded [Page 77]as by Gods word they ought to be, & that in thē Christs owne spirituall ordinances (and none other) should be e­stablished. Nay, it were disloyaltie against the King and his estate to endevour otherwise. Againe touching Schisme,

  • 1. We affirme (with the Canonistes) Non separatio sed causa facit Schismaticum: Not separation, but the cause ma­keth a Schismatike. Wherefore it behoveth all wise men to see where the cause is.
  • 2. Then we affirme & proove that our adversaries themselves do cause or make the Schisme, which in deed is amongst vs.

For the Apostle saith, They make Schismes who teach [any thing Ecclesiastical] [...]. Rom. 16.17. be­side the doctrine which the Apostles left vs, & they ought to be avoyded. Now our Adversaries do teach and vrge all their forenoted Traditions most evidently besides the Apostles doctrine and ordinances. Yea verily contrary vn­to them, as before we have shewed. Whereby it is mani­fest who are in deed the Schismaticks, and to be refused. To which purpose also Cyprian witnesseth, saying:Cypr. de Lapsi [...]. Non Ecclesiae iungitur qui ab Evangelio separatur. He that differeth from the Gospell ioyneth not to the Church: but schismeth from it. And Augustin, Aug. cō [...]. Peril. 2.25. Vtrum Schismatici nos sumus an vos, nec ego nec tu sed Christus interrogetur, vt indicet Ecclesiam suam. Lege ergo Evangelium & respondet tibi, &c. Whether we or you be Schismatickes aske not me, nor your selves, but aske Christ that be may shew his owne Church. Read the Gospell therefore and it answereth thee, &c. Againe,De Vnit [...]. Eccle cap. 3 Ibi quaeramus Ecclesiam, ibi di­scutiamus causam nostram. Nolo humanis documentis sed divi­nis oraculis sanctam Ecclesiam demonstrari. Contr. Crescon. Gram. 1.33 Ecclesiam sine vlla ambiguitate sancta scriptura demonstrat. There [in the New Testament] let vs seeke the Church. There let vs examine our cause. I cannot abide that the holy Church should be shewed by mens doctrines, but by the Divine Oracles. The holy Scriptures [Page 78]do demonstrat the Church without any doubt. Chrysost. operis im­perfect. Hom [...]3. Ecclesia cogn [...] ­scitur tantummodò per Scripturas. Onely by the Scriptures is the Church knowen. And another saith:Basil de confes. sid. Manifesta [...]st [...] à Fide, & Superbiae crimen aut reprobare quid exijs quae s [...]ripta sunt, aut aliquid superinducere ex non scriptis. It is a manifest falling away from the faith, & a sinne of pride, either to refuse any thing of that which is written, or to bring in any thing besides that which is written. Againe Cyprian saith,Cypr. epi. 2.3. No other thing ought to be don of vs then that which our Lord for vs hath don before vs. Epist. 1.7 Whosoever gathereth from any other ground, he scattereth. It is adulterous, it is impious, it is sacrilegious whatsoe­ver it be, which mad men do institute violating thereby the Di­vine or dinance. And againe,Ad Pomp. Vnde est ista Traditio? Whence commeth this Tradion, (speaking namely of an outward Ec­clesiasticall custom) Whether is it from the Lords authoritie in the Gospells, or from the Apostles preceptes and Epistles? Where his meaning in brief is, that every such (that is Ecclesiasti­call) Vnwritten Tradition whatsoever, ought to be vtterly reiected.

These Reasons I had, Christian Reader, which long since perswaded me in this cause. Wherfore I was moved in conscience to communicate them to Gods people now in this seasonable and necessary time. Considering that these things are farre from matters indifferent or arbitra­rie, but are in deed very greatly importing the common salvation. Besides we have ben often & vehemently pro­voked therevnto. And the present opportunitie exacteth it at our handes, as all men do vnderstand. To God only wise be praise through Iesus Christ for ever, Rom. 16.27.

‘Via vna, cor vnum.’

AN EXHORTATION.
To all the godly, learned, and faithfull Pastors of the severall Churches in England, HENRY IACOB Minister of Gods word, wi­sheth grace and peace to be multiplied in CHRIST IESVS.

BRETHREN, my hearts desire & prayer to God for the People of England is that they may be saved. And this you know well, can not be attained ordina­rily with comfortable & firme assurance in Gods Promises vnto vs, but by the due executiō of the whole & entire Pastorall office sancti­fied and set by Christ himself in his Churches to this pur­pose. For which cause I have ben specially at this time moved with inward compassion towards our whole Na­tion; wherein through Gods mercifull goodnes the Go­spell hath ben famously professed now these 50. yeares al­most wholy togeather. And yet notwithstanding never all this while have any of you (the Pastors of our Chur­ches) executed your whole and intiré function towardes your flockes. Being by all meanes forbidden and forcibly kept from one naturall part thereof, and most effectuall, which Christ in his word prescribeth & hath left for you and for all true Pastors to performe. Namely the holy Governement and spiritual Discipline; as by the 2.4. & 7. Reasons in the first Assertion before hath appeared. Whence manifestly it is com to passe, that 3. vnspeakeable evills do raigne among vs. First a generall impeachment & wracke of the soules health of the People every where [Page 80]throughout the Land, by wanting this Ordinarie meanes appointed of God for salvation to every man. Secondly, an iniurious spoyling of all you (beloved Brethren) the true and proper Pastors in England of a principall part of your holy function and spirituall right. Third: no small diminution of the honour of Christ and of his heavenly word.1 Touching the first I do not say (as som seeme to do) that simply there is no salvation in our Chrches, nor true Christianitie at all. But this I say, indeed Christ gracious­ly and apparantly doth impart salvation to many among vs; Howbeit that cometh not by our inioying the whole ordinarie meanes assigned of God for vs, which we haue not; but (as it were) by the one halfe thereof only, that is by the Preaching and Sacraments, which by his speciall mercy we haue and do inioy. In which case whosoever presumeth of Gods loue, and assureth himselfe of blessed­nes with quiet contentment without longing for and seeking further to walke in the perfect way, now that it is discovered, peradventure he may deceaue himselfe. Cer­tainly many thousands among vs do thus very common­ly make shipwrack. The rather seeing even that also which we haue sound in our Land, is mixed and mingled with many other inventions and Traditions of men. And those (though they say they are indifferent things, yet they) are not indifferently vsed, but necessarily vrged by authoritie & imposed vpon vs. Which surely are to none any helpes vnto life: but vnto many (if not to all) are dangerous snares vnto death. And this is all the good that comes by them.2 The second evill is the iniurious spoyling of all the true Pastors in England of their most precious right, the Crowne of their Ministery, the spirituall governing and ordering of their owne flocks for whose soules they stand [Page 81]Bound to answer before God. O my Brethren, what are all your worldly benefites besides to this losse? What are your dignities to this indignitie? Or else are you not the men you are taken to bee? Are you not rightly and truly Pastors to your severall flockes? Are you the Diocesan Bi­shops Curates, and Substitutes only? Have you not pro­perly the charge of soules, and shall you answer to God nothing for the straying & leesing of your sheepe? If you thinke so, let the world vnderstand this matter. If other­wise, looke to your charge, fulfill your ministery which you have receaved of the Lord. Or els consider how you can be in such an office, and yet not do the office; not in­tend to do it. The things which God hath conioyned, who may separate? The Lord for the saving of his chil­dren needeth no mans sinne, which you heere commit in thus violating his Ordinance. Yea he will save his by his owne meanes, and not as we thinke he will. Heaven and Earth may perish, but one Iot or title of his spirituall Or­dinances may not perish, nor be changed by men. It is not in men therfore nor Angels to dispense with you heerein, nor to discharge you of a part of your holy office. Much lesse may lay Chancelors or strange Pastors take into their hands the spirituall censures (which belong vnto you) both over your flockes and over your selves also. The last,3 but not the least evill is, the manefest diminutiō of Christs honour amongst vs thereby. For whatsoever sufficiency is yeelded vnto men to institute and command these Ec­clesiasticall ordinances, that is vniustly detracted from the proper and sole person of Christ, and from his Word, as in the 1. & 8. Reasons before we shewed. These things then are farr from indifferent matters or small trifles in the Churches, as som fond men suggest, and still reiterat. You [Page 82]do see in this Treatise (I hope) how directly contrary they are to Gods word, how preiudiciall and dishonorable to your holy calling, & likewise how pernicious to the soules of all the Christians in the Land. Which also very expe­rience sheweth vs too much. For how do Libertines and Atheists grow by this meanes? How doth Poperie and other Heresies spread abroad & gett footing by it? There is no other such reason truly to be given of these evills, as this, even because the Churches are deprived among vs (contrary to Christs ordinance) of their power to correct and redresse the same. And, because every man wanteth this heavenly defense and preservatiue appointed for vs of God; without which how should they be preserved? Yea it may be truly said, that they all do want one part of their ordinary appointed and sanctified food to eternall life, & that they all do want the vse of one of the Keyes which do open the Kingdom of heaven ordinarily, as before hath ben shewed. Why do you not therefore, bretheren, chief­ly now at this time, seeke vnto God by prayer and to our most wise and noble King, by humble and earnest suit, both for your owne, for your peoples, yea for Christs due right? Our Soveraigne is a gracious Christian Prince: He (as we dayly see) righteth every mans tēporall wrongs who do come vnto him. Much more will he (being duti­fully and diligently sought vnto) give you & your Flockes (every of which is Christs proper visible Church) these so manifest and so necessarie spirituall rights appertayning vnto them, & concerning so neerely all their soules health. And for Christs honor who wilbe more forward then he, who hath don many things most vertuously, most religi­ously already heeretofore. For the better procurement whereof now, and for the easier perswading of you & all [Page 83]men duely to seeke this blessing, I haue taken a little paines in the collecting of these Assertions and Reasons before going. Hoping that even our Adversaries heerein, who haue consciences fearing God, and frameable by his word wishing sincerely the right state of Christs Visible Chur­ches in England, will accord with vs, and not preferr their owne temporall respectes before Gods true glory, yea and their owne principall good. If any (as I feare to many) will resist and pretend reason, and Religion, and care for the State, &c. Them I desire to be as willing, as we are, Chri­stianly to discusse these questions. Wherein humbly we desire that the King him selfe would iudge; who is wise as an Angell of God, to vnderstand & determine this whole cause by the tryall and evidence of Gods written word. Which is and must be among Christians the end of all re­ligious controversies. Wherefore now Brethren, I com­mend you to God and to the word of his grace, which is able to build vs further, & to give vs an inheritance among them that are sanctified.

Your Brother in the Lord HENRY IACOB.

I am the way, the trueth, and the life.

Iohn 14.6.

I will not give my glory to another.

Isa. 42.8.

They teach things which they ought not for filthy lucres sake.

Tit. 1.11.

This keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the Text Creation Partnership. Searching, reading, printing, or downloading EEBO-TCP texts is reserved for the authorized users of these project partner institutions. Permission must be granted for subsequent distribution, in print or electronically, of this EEBO-TCP Phase II text, in whole or in part.