Attestation of Many Learned Godly and Famous Divines — Henry Jacob

Attestation of Many Learned Godly and Famous Divines · Henry Jacob

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Contrariwiſe D. Downame affirmeth that Marke the Evangeliſt ordained in Alexandria a Dioceſan church cōſiſting of many ordinarie Congregations. Which he thinketh to prove by ſome words of“Euſeb. 2.15. Euſebius, who ſaith Marke firſt†D. Down…. Def. 2.124. conſtituted churches foreign in Alexandria it ſelfe, as he falſly tranſlateth it. I ſay, this he falſly tranſlateth (as“3.137. & 3.25.16. Doct. Dov… alſo did before him) wherevpon the whole groūd of their error doth reſt.Def pag. 17 …. Which their falſificatiō I ſhall (by Gods helpe) ſhew plainly out of Euſebius him ſelf, even in this very place. The prepoſition foreign doth not heere ſignifie in a place, as they vntruly imagine, but it ſignifyeth to a place, and ſo it ought to be tranſlated. In Latin we ſhould ſay, ad Alexandria… ipſam, or vſque ad, that is, to Alexandria, or vntounto Alexandria it ſelfe. This is Euſebius true meaning: For he would ſhew that Marke was the firſt that conſtituted Churches in the country of Egypt. and withall that hee did ſo even vntounto the chiefe City thereof, viz. Alexandria. And this is all that hee meaneth heere. Twice in this very place beſides Euſebius vſeth foreign in this ſame conſtruction and ſenſe. Both immediatly before the wordes in queſtion, and immediatly after. Before, thus; foreign to Egypt. or vntounto Egypt, After, thus: foreign to Rome, or vntounto Rome; not in Rome, nor in Egypt. Wherefore, ſo foreign ſignifyeth likewiſe in this place which we have in hand, ſeing it runneth in one cōtext together with the former, and is all one manner of phraſe. Beſides, Euſebius ſtraight after alleaging Philo concerning this ſame people, whom Marke converted, ſaith that he ſpake foreign of the Churches about in the Countrey, and foreign about Alexandria, not in Alexandria. Laſt of all, Euſebius vttereth this (as he doth the next foregoing clauſe likewiſe) with this terme foreign they ſay, or ſome report. By which and the like termes he vſeth to relate vncertain and apocryphall things, yea ſometimes fabulous and vntrue. For Euſebius is not preciſe in ſetting down all his matters, chiefly thoſe which he hath only vponupon rumour and report. And where hee ſeemeth to require credit in deed, hee is not ſparing to name his authors, as Egeſippus, Clemens, Dionyſius. and ſuch other. Wherefore divers wayes D. Downames preſumptuous aſſertion, and which he doth ſo boaſt of (that Marke inſtituted many Churches in Alexādria) wāteth proofe. For indeed Euſeb. doth not avouch it. Yea, D. Bilſon alſo denieth it generally, ſaying:“D. Bils perper govern. Pag. 306. Each place, were it never ſo great, had but one Church and one chiefe Pastor. He ſpeaketh of thoſe firſt times.

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

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

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

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

Againe,Pag. 88. 89. both the kinds of theſe improper Dioceſan Churches above ſpecified (that is, the Synodall & Epiſcopall) do guide and rule much alike. In reſpect of the ſeverall Congregations vnderunder them they rule not abſolutly, nor as intire and ſole governors, but with relation to the ſaide Congregations free conſent, which is their ancient right and immunitie as they are Churches of Chriſt. Which immunitie and free power they may lawfully take to them ſelves, & vſe whenſoever they ſee neceſſary cauſe for it, as even our adverſaries "acknowledge.D. Down. Def. 4.99. Whence it is, that both ſtand well (beeing duly ordered) with the good proceedings of the Goſpell. Neither did any man of vnderſtanding ever deny this. Howbeit yet we affirme that of theſe two the conſociation by Synodes or Presbyteries is moſt convenient, moſt profitable, and moſt ſafe for vsus; at leaſt wiſe now, that is, in reſpect of theſe times in which we live, and of the circumſtances in them. The governement of Dioceſan Biſhops (though of the beſt ſort) is not ſo good, nor ſafe, eſpecially now. Whereof it is eaſie to yeelde many good reaſons, which heere I paſſe over.

But what is this to approve the governement of a proper Dioceſan Church, or larger (of which all our queſtion is) where the peoples free conſent is wholy and altogeather denyed them: ſuch as I know not cleerly either at this day to be, or to have ben any where, but vnderunder the Papacie, and now in England. Certainly againſt this, that is, the proper Dioceſan Church and governement all our controverſie at this day is intended. Which alſo I have noted in my Declaration, pag. 21. 22. So that the Dioceſan Church which I abſolutly ſpeake againſt in“In Reas. for reform. Expoſition of the a Com. The Divine beginning & inſtitution of Chriſtes Viſible Church &c. other places, is to bee vnderſtood of this proper Dioc. Church: & ſo likewiſe queſtionles it is meant in the Offer of diſputation, and in the Petition for toleration alſo. Now no proofe can be made from the law fulnes or toleration of the improper Pioceſan Church for the lawfulnes or tolerablenes of the proper Dioceſ. Church. Becauſe they differ formally & eſſentially, as elswhere“Declarat. pag. 12. 13. 34. 35. I have ſhewed. Theſe can not by any meanes ſuſtifye the one the other. In which reſpect D. Downames foule abuſing of Chriſtian people in his Defence by his perpetuall Equivocating, and bringing in infinit matters which are nothing to the intent of our queſtiō, is to be marked and confidered of all men. For he taking in hand to proove our Dioceſan, or rather Provinciall Churches in England, and our Biſhops (who do all things in Eccleſiaſticall governement without any free conſent of the ſeverall Congregations) to be for the ſubſtance of their calling and condition Apoſtolicall, hee pleadeth only in generall for Dioceſan Churches, or larger: and for Biſhops in generall. His proofes (ſuch as they be) are only for the improper Dioceſan Churches, and larger, and for their Biſhops. As if ſimply we did deny them. Or, as if our Dioceſan Churches and Biſhops in England were ſuch. What intollerable doubling and deceaving of Gods people is this? What altering the queſtion? What Equivocating, as bad as Ieſuiticall? This is all that he doth in his ſecond booke of the ſaid Defence, where the proper place is for this point, and where is the very foundation of all his writing beſide. Yea indeed he doth nothing els throughont his whole Defence. Wherefore even this which heere is ſpoken, is enough for a iuſt confutation of his ſaide whole Defence.

The very like dealing Doctor Bilſon vſeth alſo in his Perpetuall governement, chapt. 12.13.14. where he dealeth about Biſhops and Dioceſes out of the Fathers. Chiefly in pag. 260. where he ſetteth downe 4. Ranks of Biſhops, which I deny not were in thoſe foure Chiefe Churches there named, viz. Ieruſalem, Antioch, Rome, Alexandria. But the truth is, touching his purpoſe, theſe are ſo many Catalogues of Equivocations, and changings of the queſtion. For neither were thoſe Biſhops all of one kinde and power, neither were any of them of that kinde and power as ours now in England are. For whoſe allowance and approbation they are notwithſtanding by him heere produced, and mightily vrged.

But hitherto I have digreſſed ſpeaking of the divers kindes of Dioceſan Churches and Biſhops, and of their originall: likewiſe of the deceit of the Defenders of our Church ſtate in England by Equivocating ſo palpably & by changing the queſtion. The maine point heere in this place is: Seeing the Church governement vnderunder the Goſpel ought to be alwaies with the peoples free conſent (which before wee have ſufficiently ſhewed) therefore every true Church vnderunder the Goſpell is only one ordinarie Congregation. And conſequently, no proper Dioceſan Church or larger, is lawfull.

A ſecond Conſequent alſo is heere hence to be conſidered, To wit, This being admitted that the Church governement ought to be alwayes with the peoples free conſent, it followeth that ſuch Synods or Presbyteries can not be approoved which rule imperiouſly over the Cōgregations, and impoſe on them (whether they will or no) their actes & Canons vnderunder ſome ſpirituall penaltie, as Excommunication, Suſpenſion, Deprivation, Degradation from the Miniſterie. &c. To which purpoſe many excellent men alſo do ſpeake expreſly. Zuinglius of all other is heerein peremptorie. Saith he, ſpeaking to ſuch Synodes:“Zuignl. Artic. 8. Explanat. Quod Eccleſia ſitis repreſentativa libenter eredimus, vera enim non estis. &c. Wee willingly believe that you are a repreſentative Church: for a true Church you are not But I pray you ſhew vsus whence you fetch this name? Who hath given this name? Who hath given you power to meet and conſpire togeather? Who hath given you power to make Canons and Decrees differing from Gods word? Who hath ſuffered you to impoſe theſe thinges on mens ſhoulders? Who hath perſwaded you to grieve mens conſciences? &c. And a little before he ſaith, Deistâ (repreſentativ… Ecclefiâ) in Scripturis Sanctis nihil invenis. Ex hominum commentis fingere quiſquis potest quidlibet. Nos Scriptura netimur ſacra, contraquam nec tis quidquam tentabis ſi Chriſtianus es. Of this (repreſētative church) I finde nothing in the holy Scriptures. Our of mans deviſes any may faigne what they liſt. Wee reſt in the holy Scripture, againſt which thou maiſt not attempt any thing, if thou be a Chriſtian. And they that impoſe their Decrees without the peoples conſent (ſaith he) tviolento imperio ius Eccleſia invadunt. Ad Valent. Comp.They invade vpō the Churches right by violent command. And ſuch are“Artic. 64. nomine tenus Epiſcopi, revera tyranni, in name Biſhops, but indeed tyrants. As†Pag. 31. before alſo is obſerved. No leſſe ſharpe hee is likewiſe heerein els-where, ſaying,“Epichiriſis de Canon, Miſſae. Est particularis Eccliſia ea cut praceptum est vt morbidum membrum reſecer, Math. 18 qualis est ea Corinthi ad qua ſcribit Paulus, & aliae quarum ſe curam ge…ere predicat, & in quibus ſe par… modo dace…e aſſeres, inquiens, Sollicitudo omnium Eccleſiarum, & Si… in omnibus Eecleſijs doce…. Superest vsus concurſantium Eiſpeopor um ne dicam conſpirantium Eccleſia non ſit alia quam cut Propheta Malignantium nomen dedit. Quod enim vlera verum est, a malo est. Verax autem est ſolus Deus. & omnis homo mendax. Quiequitigetur à Deo est, equum, verum, bonum est: quiequid als homine profectum, iniquum, mendax, & malum est. Hac horum Eccleſia a Deo non eſt, a malo igitur est. Siquis vberiora deſideret Concluſionum noſtrarum farraginem legat. It is a particular Church which is commaunded to cut off the infected member, Math. 18. Such as that is of Corinth to which Paul writeth; and others, of which (he ſaith) hes had care, and in which he affirmeth that he taught alike, ſaying. The care of all Churches & is I teach in all Churches. It remayneth that the Church of Biſhops tunning togeather, I will not ſave, conſpiring togeather, is no other Church hen ſuch as the Prophet nameth Melignant. F…r that which i… beſides the truth is of evill. And God only is true, and every man alyar. Therefore what ſoever is of God, is iuſt, true, and good: whatſoever cometh of man, is vnruſt, falſe, and evill. This their Church is not of God: it is therefore of evill. If any defire more heereof, let him read out Concluſions: hee meaneth thoſe Articles above cited. Laſt of all ſee his iudgement of the Church of Epheſus mentioned in Act. 20.28. Saith he,“In Archir… Ecce gregem, ecce ſpeculatores, ecce concionem paſcendam, non regendam: ecce Concionem non homenis, ſed De…. Behold a flocke, behold watchmen, b…hold a particular Congregation to bee fed, not to be ruſed (he meaneth not to be ruled by the watchmens abſolute power, but with relation to the liking and conſent of the flocke) beholde not mans, but Gods Cōg…egation Now I deſire the Reader to note, that Zuinglius, though he ſpeake indeed againſt Popiſh Biſhops and Synods in the places above cited, yet hee ſpeaketh directly againſt thoſe points in them which ſome Proteſtant Biſhops and Synods do ſtande vponupon. And therefore thus far they are al togeathet in one & the ſame condemnation, according to his doctrine. Secondly note, that heere he doth plainly condemne all Imperious Synods, & repreſentative Churches: and that alſo with more vehement & ſharpe termes then are vſed now adayes. Thirdly, he affirmeth here the Church in Math. 18.17. & the Church of Corinth, and of Epheſus vnderunder the Apoſtles, yea all Churches in the world at that time, to be each of them but a particular ordinary Cōgregation. For here he calleth the ſame Cōcio, & portio… laris Eccleſia, a particular aſſembly: Elſwhere a pariſh, as where he ſaith a church is“Ad Valent, Compar. Vnaquaque paraecia, and*Ibid. Singula paraecie, and†Artic. 31. quam paraeciam vocamus, and“Artic. 8. quo commodè in vnum locum conveniunt, which meet conveniently in one place. And†Paſtor. Epiſcopus, Parochus, Plebanus, Praedicator, & Paſtor, that is, a Biſhop, and a Pariſh Miniſter he maketh all one. Fourthly, he moſt peremptorily affirmeth, that onelyonly God may inſtitute his Viſible Church and the forme of outward governement therein. And that ſuch a forme of a Church & governement, as is not inſtituted by God or not found in his word, is altogeather vnlawfull and wicked, yea malignant. So that heere it is manifeſt how hee condemneth every Diplodophilus, Diplodophilusthat is, whoſoever approveth two wayes, or formes of Church-governemēt, viz. every one who liketh the Divine and Apoſtolike ordinance where it may bee had, and yet holdeth that vponupon neceſſitie it may be altered, and another forme may be vſed. Which D. Downame very Divine-like“Deſ. 4.104, & Anſw. to the Preſ. pag 3. 9. maintayneth. Neither is he alone ſuch a Diplodophilus: he hath too many conſorts in this prophane opiniō with him. Fiftly, Zuinglius here expreſly teacheth that the particular Congregation is commanded in Math. 18.17. to …t off the infected member. So that hee holdeth it to bee Chriſtes very Commandement (not a permiſſion only) that the people ſhould have the power of Church governement, at leaſt to conſent freely therein. And the truth is, that the words in the text are imperative, Tell the Church, &c. Wherefore, why ought they not ſo to bee taken? Certainly it is Chriſtes verie Commandement in deed, and therefore never to bee altered by any meanes,

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

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

Thirdly, it being admitted as Chriſts ordinance, that the Church governement ought to bee alwayes with the peoples free cōſent, it followeth that Lord Biſhops in ſeverall, are vnlawfull & contrarie to Chriſt. Now a Lord Biſhop, Who is a Spirituall Lord.and a Spirituall Lord we alwayes vnderſtand him to be, who exerciſeth ſole authoritie Spirituall, or ſole government Eccleſiaſticall, yea though over but one Congregation. Much more him, who exerciſeth ſuch ſpirituall Lordſhip over a great many Cō gregations? Alſo,What is Sole authoritie Spirituall in our ſenſe? ſole authoritie Spirituall, and ſole governement Eccleſiaſticall, we call that which is exerciſed without the Chriſtian peoples free conſent.

D. Downame laboureth with divers vaine ſhifts to defend the Engliſh L. Biſhops herein. He can not abide that it ſhould bee ſaide of them that they exerciſe“Def. 1.58.47.43. ſole authoritie, or ſole government. Yea in many places hee*Def 3.118.11….126.142 ſheweth indignation that ſuch wronge ſhould be done them in beeing ſo reported of. But it is ſtrange. Are they aſhamed to heare of that which they ceaſe not to practiſe and maintaine every day? and that in the ſight of the world; yea each of them over divers hundreds of Congregations. For the people with vsus no where enioy any free conſent. But the D. ſaith,“Def. 1.43.44. The Biſhop hath the Archbiſhop above him Yea, but who is above our 2. Archbiſhops ſpiritually? No body. Againe he ſaith, Provinciall Synods are above the Biſhop. Idly ſpoken. Is the Dioceſan Synod above their owne Biſhop? Or, is the Provinciall Synod above their Archbiſhop? Surely no more then the Vniverſall Councill is above the Pope. Which is cleane contrarie. Now this is it which hee ſhould have affirmed: buthe durſt not. He ſhifteth further, ſaying:“Pag. 44. Do we not all with one conſent acknowledge the Kings Maiestie to have the Supreme authoritie in cauſes Eccleſiaſticall? Yea verily, wee do. But that is Civilly, as“Reas. for ref. p. 62. … els-where I have ſhewed. Hee hath no authoritie in cauſes Eccleſiaſticall Spiritually: that is, his authoritie properly maketh no Church Miniſter, nor Excommunicateth any perſon. Which I ſuppoſe your ſelves do hold, even as we do. But this is the point: in England the Archb. is Spiritually Supreme, or hath Supreme authority ſpiritual in his Province. I ſay thus, he is Supreme & ſole, viz. ſpiritually. Wherfore the Doct.Ignorantia Elenchi. groſly ſophiſticateth in ſhifting from the po…t in hand to an other matter. Where hee ſpeaketh of“Def. 1. p. 43 Chancellors adioyned to the Biſhops, and of Presbyters conſent with him, & that†Pag. 42. Presbyters have power to rule their flocke in publike Miniſterie and in privat attendance, & that ſome of them have voyces in Synods, &c. I wot not what all this is. Sure I am it is as idle as the reſt. For ſo much (at leaſt) is ſeene in the Popiſh Church, where yet is founde ſpirituall Lordſhip & ſole governement in their Biſhops, yea oppreſſion, violence, & tyrannie alſo over the peoples conſciences, as we well know. So that the“Pag. 43. Supreme and lowdeſt by, and†Pag. 47. the plainely, which hee giveth to vsus, hee ought to take to him ſelfe. Another ſhift of the Doct. is, where becauſe the Hebrew Adoni, the Greeke foreign, the Latin Dominus may be given to Biſhops, therefore“Def. 3.147 he would conclude that in Engliſh they may be called Lords. D. Bilſon reaſoneth†Perp gov. pag. 58. 59. ſo likewiſe, and that very largely. He would prove the ſame alſo from the Duch terme Here, & from the French Monſieur, &c. But I deny this reaſon abſolutly. For heerein there is no conſequence. Our Engliſh terme Lord and Lordſhip doth alwayes imply Sole government: but none of thoſe forraigne termes doth ſo alwayes. Wherefore ſuch reaſoning is Equivocating alſo.*Ioh. 13.13. & 1. Cor. 8.6 & 12.5. & 2. Cor. 1.24. Againe, Chriſt only is our Lord in reſpect of Spirituall Lordſhip: he only is to bee called a Spirituall Lord. But our Biſhops are Lords, and are ſo called with vsus in reſpect as they bee Spirituall Lordes, as the Doctor “Def. 3.150.obſerveth well. Wherefore our Biſhops Lordſhip is vnlawfull, and derogatorie to Chriſt. Doct. Bilſon ſaith further,†Perp. gov. pag. 62. If we ſticke at titles, Christ calleth them Gods. Lo, how nothing ſatisfyeth theſe men. Would he have Biſhops called by the name of Gods alſo? But I would know of him, where doth Chriſt call them Gods? Surely it is but his fancie. They are in deed ſo called no where. D. Downame preſſeth, that Biſhops are called“Def. 3.146.150. Angells, which is a more honor able title then Lord. And therefore that Biſhops may bee called Lords. I deny that the name Angell is ſo honorable a title as a Spirituall Lord, which is given to our Biſhops. This is proper to Chriſt only, as before is ſaid: the name Angell is not. And ſo his reaſon is falſe. Againe, though the name Angell be given to Biſhops ſometime and in one reſpect, yet it is very falſe to ſay they may lawfully be ſtiled and called by the dayly appellation of Angells, or that they may ordinarilie vſe that title, as they do the title & name of Lord. Againe, the name of Lord is given them as importing their ſole governement, as before is ſaid. But the name Angell importeth not ſo much, neither is it given to any Creature in ſuch reſpect. Therfore from the name of Angell the title of Lorde followeth not. Indeed the name of Angell is given to Biſhops becauſe they are Gods meſſengers to ſhew vsus his will: not in reſpect of their governement at all, though the Doct. preſumeth ſo to ſay without“An Allegorie is no proofe. proofe. Laſtly, hee knoweth that all Preachers are in the word called Angells, or Meſſengers: but for all Preachers to be called in Engliſh Lords, or your Lordſhip, ſurely it would be a very arrogant thing. And though hee“Def. 1.34.46. alleage that the Angel of the church of Epheſus in Rev. 2.1. be one, and but one, before many Miniſters, yet neither doth this importe any Lordſhip in him either in name or practiſe, neither is this precedence or praeeminence ſignifyed by the word Angel: but it is gathered by cōparing this word with the knowen circumſtances of thoſe times. Further he alleageth that“Def. 3.152. Princes are called Paſtors, and for the ſame cauſe are Lords. Wherein there is no truth, nor indeed any good ſenſe. The like is that where hee addeth, the title of Father is as great as Lord. Nay, the name of Father is amiable: but Lords may, and alſo they vſe to force and compell. Neither did the Pope at firſt take the name of Father peculiarly to him ſelfe to note thereby any Lordſhip as his due, but to deceave the world by his pretended love over all, wherein he deſired to ſeeme a commō Father. In another*Def. 4.71.72. place he teacheth that Biſhops in the New Teſtament were called Apostles. Vpō which groūd he“Def. 3.15…. would conclude, that therefore the name of Lord is lawfull for them. I anſwer, The name of Apoſtle and alſo of Biſhop may be vſed ſometime generally & improperly: ſometime ſtrictly and properly. And wee ought alwayes to ſpeake thus, viz. properly, when wee reaſon and diſpure of any matter. If the Doct. thinke generally and improperly Biſhops may be called Apoſtles, and likewiſe that Apoſtles may be called Biſhops, and if†Def. 4.72. Theodores meane ſo, I will not gainſay, but in the time of the New Teſtament, yea and now ſtill, theſe names may be interchangeably vſed. But this will prove nothing for the D. purpoſe. For ſo there is nothing but meere Equivocation therein. If he or any other thinke that Biſhops were in the time of the New Teſtam. called Apoſtles, in the ſtrict and proper ſenſe of thoſe words, doubtles they erre egregiouſly. Or, that Biſhops then were called Apoſtles by a dayly, ordinary, and familiar a p…llation, as our Biſhops are called Lords: Which yet muſt be proved, or els they have no colour from hence. Hee maketh great adoe about Phil. 2.25. that from hence Epaphroditus might be proved to have ben the Philippians Biſhop.Defenc. 4.65. &c. Though he might be their Biſhop, yet the circumſtance of this place ſheweth, that this is meant of his bringing reliefe vntounto Paul frō the Philippians, as ſome did to the Saints at Ieruſalem frō the Corinthians, 2. Cor. 8.23. As for Theod…ret who ſeemeth to be the Author of the D. opinion heerein, hee is inſufficient, and no equall nor iuſt foundation of this matter. I know“Bellarm. de Cleric. 1.15. Bellarmine and other Prelates would faine make ſomewhat of this vnhanſome ſhift in their owne defence; yet they know not how. All this is true: and yet I grant (as I ſaid) Epaphroditus might be the Philippians Biſhop, as ſome write that he was. But indeed I think rather he was with them as an Evangelist properly, like as Timothie, and after him Tychicus was at Epheſus, and Titus in“2. Cor. 8. & 9. Achaia, and afterward in Crete; and Marke in Alexandria & Egypt, as ſom ſay. Well, but let it be granted (which yet is not to be granted) that Biſhops in the New Teſtament were by a dayly, ordinarie, and familiar appellation called Apoſtles. Yet neither hence can it follow that they may bee Lordes, or may be ſo called. For no Apoſtle was ever ſo great (in reſpect of outward iuriſdiction) over any one Congregatiō; none (I ſay) was ever a ſole governour over one Congreg. as our L. Biſhops are over many hundreds. Beſide this, the D.†Def. 3.148. would have the termes given to Prelates by Prelates and by their dependants in the time of Conſtanti… and ſince, to be reaſon & warrant now vntounto vsus to call our Biſhops Lords and moſt honorable Lords. Which is like to that where he ſaith,“Pag. 13. Hee ſeeth no reaſon why the Church in Conſtantines time ſhould not rather be propounded as a patterne for imitation, to Churches that live vnderunder Chriſtian Princes, then the Churches of former times. A ſaying fit for a Diplodophilus: fit for one who careth not to take from Chriſt his Office and Honor, and to give it to Prelates and Princes. For this is Chriſtes due, and immutable right, and divine glorie in his Teſtament, to ſet the patterne of his Viſible Church for vsus to imitate, for ever and every where, even in peace as well as in perſecution. As touching Conſtantine and the Biſhops then and after for ſome hūdreds of yeares, though they were godly & vertuous, yet it cā not be denyed but the Biſhops even then preſently“Nazianz. Orat. poſt. redit. in vrb. Socrat. 7.11 were caryed with much ambition, and ſtrove for praeeminēce and outward greatnes. And the Princes let them have it, thinking that therein they did ſervice to God. But they knew not that they did amiſſe. Yea indeed vnderunder Conſtantine began the Dioces an ruling Biſhop; who till this time had but a name, and no power Dioceſan.†Reas. for reform. pag. 8. Heeretofore I gueſſed they might have ben elder. But the truth is they had no life nor ſtrength of Dioceſans till vnderunder Conſtantine and the Nicen Councill. Which I have declared in“Declar. pa. 24. an other place likewiſe. After which time, ambition and dominion Eccleſiaſticall did ſtill grow and increaſe more and more, evē in the beſt Fathers. Whereby Antichriſt at the laſt did eaſily come vp. In which regard Maiſter Brightman iudged that the Propheſie of the womans beeing driven into the wildernes by the Dragon,T. Brightm. in Apoc. 12. Rev. 12. began to take effect vnderunder Conſtantine: and to be accompliſhed ſtil more and more, till in the end vtter darknes and tyrannie overflowed. Now then, are the deedes and wordes and practiſe of the Biſhops of theſe times meet rules for vsus to follow, namely as touchinge Prelacie and Church governement? Is it equall to make theſe our iudges heerein? No, by no meanes. Which I have ſignified alſo†Pag. 109… before. Yea, if there were no perill (as there is much) in following their wordes and deedes in the matter of Church governement aforeſaide, yet wee ought not to offer ſo much wrong to Chriſt and his word, as to ſeeke for direction and warrant in a matter of conſcience any where but in his word. Howbeit notwithſtanding al this, though thoſe titles given to Biſhops vnderunder Conſtantine and after (as heere hee alleageth them) are too glorious and ſtately for Miniſters of the Goſpell, yet none of them implyeth ſuch Lordſhip nor Sole authoritie Spirituall, as with vsus the Engliſh wordes Lord Biſhop do imply. For thē they had not ſuch ſole authoritie (as I have“Pag. 64.63 66. already ſhewed) nor long time after, as now they * have. Wherefore neither do theſe allegations of the Doct. (that is, the titles given to Biſhops vnderunder Conſtantin, nor 100. yeares after) fit his turne, neither wil they ſerve his purpoſe. Finally it is to bee noted, how the Doct denyeth that“Def. 3.15…. Biſhops may behave them ſelves as Lords of the Churches, & yet holdeth they may be called Lordes. Surely his conſcience telleth him that it is to much which hee giveth them. For els why may they not behave thē ſelves anſwerably and according as their iuſt name is. Where hee ſaith,“Pag. 153. the title of Lord Biſhop is not given with relation, but as a ſimple title of honor and reverence. And, the relation is not in the worde Lord, but in the word Biſhop. This is plainly a meere ſhift, and an vntruth. For the relation is in both theſe wordes Lord Biſhop iointly. That is, to their people they are Biſhops with Spirituall Lordly power; that is, they have ſole authoritie ſpirituall over them. And ſo they are called Lords Spirituall, which†Pag. 150. hee ſeemeth in an other place to acknowledge. Thus all in vaine hath the D. laboured to make good the lawfulnes of our L. Biſhops.

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

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

Sixtly, heere are other Conſequents of a moſt high nature, both in reſpect of God and alſo in reſpect of our ſelves. Firſt in reſpect of God, thus I gather and conclude. If this opinion be falſe, viz. that the peoples conſent in the Church governement is the Apoſtles ordinance, and Chriſtes immutable commaundement for vsus; then Chriſt in his New Teſtament is not the Teacher, Inſtitutor, Framer,“Impious opinions. Lord and Lawgiver of his Viſible Church, which is the Kingdome of heaven vponupon earth. At leaſt, hee only is not. And the New Teſtament is not compleat nor all-ſufficient for matters of Religion. Nor ſo compleat as the Old Teſtament was. And Chriſtes divine Offices of Propheſie and Kingdome are not duplicate page duplicate page abſolut and perfect toward vsus: but are diminiſhed and changed now in reſpect as they were to the Iewes of old. And the very forme of Chriſtes ſaide Viſible Church is changeable by men, and may be inſtituted firſt by men. Whence it alſo followeth, that a noble part of Chriſtes divine honor & glory may bee by men diminiſhed, and taken from him, and may lawfully bee attributed to men. Every one of theſe conſequents is certain: neyther can any of them be denyed nor ſhifted off by our adverſaries who reiect the ſaid opinion of the peoples neceſſary Conſent in the Church governement. Now this I earneſtly deſire all men to take notice of: that they may ſee what it is that hath mooved mee (and ſtill doth) to imbrace the opinion contrarie to the courſe of the Church governement in England. God is my witnes that, were it not for theſe vnavoydable Conſequents which touch the very life and ſoule of all true religion and godlynes, I ſhould long ſince have conformed, & now would, in this bebalfe. For otherwiſe what reaſon have I to care for the people. But becauſe my heart and conſcience can not indure to admit theſe Conſequentes (which I hope is both honeſt, yea neceſſarie, and Chriſtianlike, and ſo will bee acknowledged by every good man that conſidereth it) therefore doe I beleeve this ſaid opinion as an Evangelicall truth, viz. that the peoples cōſent in church government is an Apoſtolike ordinance, and Chriſtes immutable Commandement to vsus. And therefore principally did I write that Treatiſe which I intituled The Divine beginning and institution of Chriſtes true Viſible or Ministeriall Church. Alſo the Vnchangeablenes of the ſame by men, viz. … the forme and eſſentiall Conſtitution thereof. Which is all the matter that I have regard vntounto, even that I may in no wiſe be guiltie of that fearfull ſacrilege of ſpoyling God of his Honor and of giving his glory to another, which be ſo mainly“Iſa. 42.8. forbiddeth. Which I am ſure is not don by acknowledging the foreſaide right of the Chriſtian people: I am ſure that thus all the fore named wicked and impious Conſequentes†As by ou… Atteſtators befor… may bee ſeene. are avoyded, and the whole glory and honor of Chriſt our Savior i… preſerved ſafe and ſound. For thus we eaſily holde him even in reſpect of inſtituting the forme of his Viſible Church and governement therof vnderunder the Goſpell to be our abſolut Prophet and King: and his New Teſtament to bee intire and perfect: yea fully ſo perfect for vsus, as the Old Teſtament was for the Iewes: and ſo the forme of his ſaid Church and governement to be abſolutly vnchangeable by men; Even altogether no leſſe then it was vnderunder the Law. All this in holdinge our opinion (I ſay) wre are ſure of. Wherefore let me reaſon thus: That opinion which yeeldeth Cōſequents ſo godly and pious, muſt needes it ſelf be godly and pious, & queſtionles cometh from God. But our opinion aforeſaid yeeldeth Cōſequents ſo godly and pious: yea ſuch in deed, as are principles and fundamental grounds of Chriſtian faith. Therefore this our opinion it ſelf is right godly & pious, and proceeding from God. Contrarie-wiſe, That opinion which neceſſarily forceth men to ſuch impietie and vnchriſtian Conſequentes as“Pag. 133. 134. before I noted, evē to the overthrow of principles of faith, the ſame it ſelfe is not of God neither ſtandeth with truth. What autors and fautors ſo ever it have. But the opinion of our adverſaries verily is ſuch. It forceth men of neceſſitie to thoſe impious & vnchriſtian Conſequents, as I ſhewed. They can not poſſibly avoyd them. Therefore the opinion of our adverſaries, viz. who deny the Chriſtian peoples conſent in Church governement to be an Apoſtolike Ordinance and an immutable cōmandement of Chriſt: and ſo do hold the forme of a proper Dioceſan Church and governement to be lawfull and good; their opinion (I ſay) is not of God, neither ſtandeth with truth.

Now the caſe ſtanding thus (as moſt cleerly it doth) no man can deny but that in cōſideratiō of theſe certain cō ſequents aforenamed, as alſo in other iuſt reſpectes, that faithfull man of God (whoſoever hee was) that made that“An humble Supplication, &c. An. 1609 Petition to the Kings Maieſtie for a Toleration of our way and profeſſion with peace and quietnes in England, had great reaſon ſo to do, and alſo his Excellent Maieſtie (bee it ſpoken with reverence to his Royall Eſtate) to admit of it. For what evill can enſue from vsus, when wee ſtrictly hold faſt (as we do) ſuch holy and Divine principles of Chriſtian faith, as before are mentioned; and when our inconformitic to the common courſe in England is only for theſe cauſes, as I for my part do call God to witnes to my ſoule, it is. I ſay, in regard of Religion thus what evill can probably be thought wil enſue from vsus? And as touching our tractablenes vnderunder the Kings authoritie and governement, Doc. Downame our bitter adverſarie,“Def. 1.66. acknowledgeth that wee ſubmit our ſelves enough. Nay, he holdeth it to bee too much: and proudly he calleth it a deſperate or frantike minde in vsus ſo to do. But wee holde it our bounden dutie in the preſence of God, to ſubmit our ſelves to any Civil Magiſtrat, be he never ſo meane, if the King appoint him over vsus. But, ſaith he,†Def. 1.83. The ſumme of our ſuite in that petition is, that we may be tolerated Schiſmatikes. I challenge this rude Doctor, and will prove that we, ſeeing we holde only thoſe fundamental Grounds of Chriſtiā faith above mē tioned, and that which is evidently built vponupon the ſame, are not Schiſma…kes. Againe, I will prove and make it manifeſt that indeed him ſelfe and his conſortes are Schiſmaticks,Who are the Schiſmatiks in England. ſeeing he and they deny thoſe foreſaid fundamentall grounds of faith, for which only wee contende. They therefore them ſelves are the Schiſmatikes, and“Rom. 16.17 & 1. Tim. 6.3 the maker… of the diviſion which is now in England. All wiſe men know, that not the difference but the cauſe maketh a Schiſmatike. Let mee once againe therefore preſſe them with Augustin… ſentence againſt the Donatistes, which once already†Ang contra Peril. 2.25. I did heretofore. But they love not to heare of it. Saith Auguſtine,“Reas. for ref. pag 77. Virum Schiſmatici nos ſumus an vos, nee ego nec tu, ſed Christus interrogetur, vt indicet Eecleſiam ſuam Lege ergo Evangelium & reſpondet tibe. &c. Whether we or you be Schiſmarikes, aske not me, nor yourſelves, but aske Chriſt that hee may ſhewe his owne Church. Read the Goſpell therefore and … anſwereth thee, &c. Our Doctor hath an abſurd and profane diſtinction, which though he apply it to another matter, yet peradventure hee would vſe it in this cauſe againſt vsus, if hee could finde that it would bee taken as currant. Hee ſaith, ſomewhat in the Church may“Def. 1.7. be of Apostolicall institution,D Down. and yet not ſtraightwayes Divini iuris, of Divine right. And, every*Pag. 29. Apostolicall and ſo Divine Ordinance is not generally, perpetually, and immutably neceſſary. Which he doth often repeat in his 4. booke. It ſeemeth to be taken from Bellarmine the Ieſuit, Controv. 1. lib. 4. cap. 2. I am ſure it is contrary to holy Scripture, whiche ſheweth that the Apoſtles whole practiſe in the Churches was Chriſtes very commaundement,The Apoſtles practiſe was Chriſts commandemet. and vnchangeable by men. Chriſt ſaith to his Apoſt.“Math. 28.20. Teach all Nations to do whatſoever I have commaunded you. And Paul teſtifyeth to the Church of Corinth,†1 Cor. 11.23 He receaved of the Lord that which he delivered to them. And he chargeth others,“2 Theſ. 2.15 To ſtand faſt, and to keepe the Ordinances which they had ben taught either by word or by his Epiſtle. Therefore whatſoever is Apoſtolicall, is indeed Divine, and it is Chriſtes very commandement, and (in reſpect of vsus) generally and immutably neceſſarie. And ſo we affirme that the peoples conſent in Church governemēt being a practiſe Apoſtolicall (as by thoſe Scriptures“Pag. 76. & the margin of pag. 19. above ſpecified it is proved) therefore it is alſo Chriſtes Commaundement, and therefore alſo vnchangeable by men. Yea touching Church Cenſures, it is expreſly Chriſtes Commandement, Math. 18.17. Therfore I conclude, ſeeing we & not they do ſtande with the All-ſufficiēcie of holy Scripture, with the intire and abſolute Offices of Chriſt our Savior, viz. his Propheticall and Kingly Offices, even in teaching and inioyning a certaine forme of his Church and governement abſolutely and vnchangeably for ever: and ſeeing wee, not they, do thus aſſcribe vntounto Chriſt this Divine Honor (due in deed to his owne perſon) wholy and only, it muſt needes bee eaſily perceaved that we, & not they, have the truth: alſo we, & not they, are free from ſchiſme.

Will any defend our adverſaries heerein, & deny that they thus teach againſt the honor of Chriſt, or of his Word in his New Teſtament: Or that the pointes which they hold, do force mē to any ſuch impious cōſequents? Firſt therefore I will ſhew that ſuch Conſequentes muſt of neceſſitie fol…ow from their opinion: then I will …ote their expreſſe wordes. Whoſoever will not holde one vniforme opinion of the Church and governement thereof, (as we do, who beleeve the peoples conſent therein to be alwayes neceſſarie) but do preferre the Dioceſan and Provincial Church-governement by L. Biſhops; and yet do alſo allow of that forme of a Church and governent where are no Dioceſan Biſhops at all, yea where the peoples free conſent and voyce-giving is receaved: they of neceſſitie muſt ſay that the forme of Chriſtes Viſible Church & of the governement therof may both bee inſtituted and alſo changed by men. Of force they muſt ſay that Chriſt in his New Teſtament is not the Teacher, Inſtitutor, Framer, Lord, and Law-giver of his Viſible Church, as he was in the Old Teſtament. They muſt deny Chriſtes Propheticall and Kingly Offices toward vsus in reſpect of appointing his Viſible Church, and governement: as alſo they muſt deny, that Chriſtes Teſtament is a ſufficient rule for vsus every where, and for ever. But that vniforme opinion our adverſaries do deny. Therefore ſuch are the Conſequents which men are forced to acknowledge, who will hold as our Adverſaries do. Now heare their words. D. Downame ſaith,“D. Down. Def. 4.104. Where the governement by Biſhops can not be had, another forme may be vſed. Yea he affirmeth,†Def. 1.29. Def. 4.103. The Apoſtolicall and ſo Divine Ordināce of governement“Pag 82. by the Biſhop alone (as hee thinketh Timothie and Titus were * commanded to governe) is changeable by men. And this in his 4. booke hee often inculcateth and repeateth. But he ſaith, hee teacheth thus*Def. 3.107. Out of charitie to thoſe Churches which have no L. Biſhops, and in†Pag. 108. favour of them. See this Doctor, how for favor of men, he wil ſpoile Chriſt Ieſus of his due honor & glory. Such is his charitie to mē, that it maketh him vncharitable and vndutifull to his Savior, and to his bleſſed Goſpell. But hee will ſay perhaps, that he graunteth this change of the Apoſtolike Ordinances and Preceptes only VponUpon neceſsitie. Fy! What neceſſitie may breake the Apoſtles Ordinances and Preceptes? Yea ſuch preceptes, whereof the Apoſtle ſaith,“1 Tim. 6.13 14. I charge thee in the ſight of God who quickeneth all things, and before Ieſus Christ, &c. that thou keepe this Commandement without ſpot, and vnrebukeable, vntill the appearing of our Lord Ieſus Christ. Againe what neceſſity have the French and Dutch Churches, &c. to be without Dioceſan and Provinciall L. Biſhops? Nay, how eaſily might they have ſuch, if they thought them Apoſtolike? And, wofull it were (God knoweth) if they had need of this faver and charitie of the Doctor to maintaine them ſelves withall againſt the Papiſtes objections. But let vsus go on. Gabriel Pawell alſo in that which he puniſhed with the great allowāce of the L. Bb. of Canterburic and London thē being, ſaith expreſly,†G. Powel. a Prefat. …d Adiaph. Chriſt is not the Law-gives of his Church. Archbiſhop Whitg…fe againſt Maiſter Cartwright (of bleſſed memorie) ſaith that to holde the forme of the Church & governement thereof to be conſtant, alwayes one, and vnchangeable by men, is“D. Whitg… againſt T. C. in the Preſa. a falſe principle, and rotten pillar. So rottenly writeth that great Atlas of the Prelacie in England. D. Bilſon maketh it the maine drift of the third Chapt. of his Perpet. governement, to deny this part of Chriſtes Kingdome. Hee ſaith,“D. Bilſon. Perp. gov. pag. 14. 15. The Kingdome and Throne which Chriſt reſerved to himſelfe, farre paſſeth directing and ordering of outward things in the Church, which he hath left to others. Nay, ſure he hath†Iſa. 42. …. not left it to others. He ſtill reſerveth this authority & dignitie to him ſelfe vnderunder the Goſpell, as well as hee did vnderunder the Law. And it is more then frivolous, by advauncing Chriſtes inward kingdome by his Spirit (which the Doct. doth in this Chapter) to denie his Outward Kingdom, which ordereth the Outward Spirituall things in his Church. Such as are the inſtituting of Sacraments, the Ordayning of the Miniſterie, the appointing of Excommunication, the Commanding of Sacred Societies and Aſſemblies, &c. Is the power of theſe Outward things left to others? It is not, it may not be. Hee ſaith heere indeed that“Pag. 16. the outward face of the Church where the good and bad by the Word and Sacraments are gathered togeather, may be called the kingdome of heaven and of Chriſt. And he ſaith well. But in this he either contradicteth his generall purpoſe & diſcourſe; or els he meaneth that it may bee ſo called, but not truly. Which is but double dealing. For preſently after he ſaith,†Pag. 17. He ſeparateth the true Kingdome of Chriſt from the externall Order and Diſcipline of the Church: which ſome in theſe dayes more zealous then wiſe, do not ſeparate. So he calleth the faithful worſhippers of Chriſt. But is it ſuch wiſedome, I pray, to ſeperat frō Chriſt this his Divine honor and glorie, and to give it to others? Nay, this is accurſed wiſedome. Then, a Miniſterie ſuppoſed to be ſetled by the Apoſtles in the Primitive Church, he denyeth to bee any part of Chriſtes Kingdome. Hath hee any reaſon for it? Yea, a ſtrāge one. Saith he, Chriſtes kingdom is proper to his perſon. As though the power and authoritie to inſtitute, & ſetle ſuch an ordinance might not be proper to Chriſtes perſon, and yet the execution thereof committed to his Officers and Deputies. And nevertheles all is Chriſtes ſtill.Chriſt hath a Kingdome Commiſſive. It is the Kings authoritie which the Deputie of Irelād executeth. And may it not be Chriſtes power and governement which his Miniſters and Deputies on earth do execute? Yea, certainly. Which this D. acknowledged before, ſaying, it may bee called the kingdome of heaven and of Christ. Yet hee doth further ſtrive againſt the truth in this cauſe; making the Minister, the Maiſter of a familie, and the Magiſtrate to be Gods ordinance alike. Which ſurely never any ſound Divine would ſay. If we looke but to Moſes law, the falſitie heereof is ſoone ſeene. Every Miniſterie in the Iewes Church, muſt have expreſſe and particular inſtitution from God: but naturall reaſon & Humane contractes were ſufficient to inſtitute both the other. And is not the caſe ſo with vsus now alſo vnderunder the Goſpell? Yeas truly. Wherefore theſe in deed are nowe Gods ordinances, but not alike. He concludeth, that the Miniſters may not arrogat any part of Chriſtes honor and power as incident to their calling or function, They may take to them the execution of that, which to ordaine is only Chriſts right. That power of his which hee hath in his word committed to them and (as the D. ſpeaketh) truſted them with, they may take to them, viz. the Keyes and Myſteries of the kingdome of heaven. Which they arrogate not: but it is their right to take & vſe the ſame as Chriſt himſelfe hath ſpecially appointed. From this diſſolut opinion aforeſaid, and ſo derogatorie to the holy Offices of Chriſt it floweth, that this D. teacheth“Pag. 339. 348. the peoples intereſt in Church-governement ſtandeth only vponupon the groundes of reaſon and nature, and is derived from the rules of Chriſtian equitie and ſocietie. And that this is both lawfull and†Pag. 334. much to be commended. And yet alſo that“Pag. 349. the people may willingly forſake, and worthily looſe the right which they had. Nay more, hee holdeth the Apoſtolike and†Pag. 299. 300. Divine forme of Church-governement by ſole governing Biſhops (as hee maintaineth Timotihe and Titus and the Angell of Epheſus, &c. to have ben) may give place on occaſion to thoſe forenamed grounds of reaſon and nature &“Pag. 348. 334. humane governement. Thus he by denying the peoples conſent to be†Pag. 368. eſſentiall in the choice of their Paſtors, doth indeed make nothing eſſentiall to them. For that which is Eſſentiall, muſt evermore be had to the true being of any thing it can never be altered, nor abſent from it, as before“Pag. 8…. I have alſo noted. Theſe our adverſaries ſay our aſſertions are raw and vndigeſted fancies: but what raw and vndigeſted, yea irreligious aſſertions they doe holde and maintaine, it maketh me afraid even to thinke of it.

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

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

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

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

If any ſay, Our Forefathers overcame the Papiſtes by the word of God cutting downe their other foule errors, Obiection. viz. Purgatorie, Free-will, Auricular confeſsion, Reall preſence, Images, Praying to Saints, Iustification by workes, &c. They overcame them not by affirming that the people ought to have alwayes their free cōſent in Church governement. And ſo may wee alſo overcome them ſtill. I anſwere, Men are much deceaved that do thus thinke. Anſw. Our Forefathers (as I ſaid) by this verie aſſertion (that the people ought to have their ſaid free conſent) did vtterly overthrow the Papiſtes: and without this they could not poſſibly have ſo done. For vnles this aſſertion had ben true, neither could the firſt Proteſtant Paſtors bee truly authoriſed and called, neither could any of the Proteſtants at firſt lawfully have forſaken the Roman Church, whereof they all ſtood members. And then, I pray, how could they have overcome them? Nay, it had never ben poſſible. For it had ben to ſmal purpoſe, if they had oppugned thoſe their other errors only, & withal had iuſtifyed the forme of the Roman Church, and the calling of their Miniſterie; which our Forefathers muſt have done, if our ſaid Aſſertion had not ben true. And ſo they muſt have taryed ſtill ordinarie members vnderunder the governement of the ſame Church. Againe, to ſmall purpoſe had they oppugned thoſe other errors, if they had left to obloquie their owne Miniſterie. Which likewiſe they muſt have done, if our ſaid Aſſertion were not true. For as in warfare, good weapons, and much ſtrength without iuſtifyable authoritie,A Similitude. will in ſhort time bring ruine and confuſion to them that vſe the ſame: Even ſo it is in this cauſe; yea much more heere it is true. Though wee ſeeme to cut down Popiſh errors with the ſword of Gods word, yet if wee do not cleere our Miniſterie, and iuſtifye our Calling, & give good ſatisfaction to mens Conſciences for the lawfulnes of our handling the Word and Sacraments and Spirituall governement, wee ſhall quickly labour in vaine. And that appeareth certainly to much at this day in England; the greater is our woe. Not only in reſpect of Popery, but in other reſpects alſo.

Well; will our adverſaries ſay. The Proteſtantes Miniſterie is iuſtifyed ſufficiently againſt the Papiſtes, albeit the people have no conſent in their Miniſters Calling. Oh would God our learned men in Englande would ſhew this ſubſtantially. Then would I (for my part) quickly conforme, as before alſo I proteſted. But otherwiſe, let them bee aſſured the Church of Rome, do what they can, will get ground of them in England. And this maketh mee to lay this to heart, as I do. Every day we are chalenged by the“D. Kellisō. Treatiſe of faith, A. D. Iohn Fraſer, &c. Papiſtes to proove the lawfulnes of our Miniſterie in England, and of our Calling to it. What ſay our learned men heerevnto? A direct and a full and a ſtedfaſt anſwer muſt be made to this. Mens conſciences will not be ſatisfyed with dilatorie and ſhifting anſweres. Nor, if wee leave Scruples & Difficulties in that we ſpeake. To iuſtify the Calling of our Miniſterie in England and to prove the lawfulnes thereof,The true iuſtification of the Proteſtants Miniſterie. wee muſt plainly ſhew that the perſons who give this Calling with vsus, have good authoritie in deed to give the ſame. This is the very point. Let our learned men make this cleere, and then the Papistes are ſtopped; then all men are ſatisfyed. For it is a plaine caſe and graunted of all, that every true Miniſterie in the Church muſt be receaved from ſome perſons who have good and iuſt authoritie to give it. And this is eſſentiall to every true Miniſterie.

Some there are in Englande who affirme, the Miniſters authoritie is only an Inward Calling, and gifts of the minde. And ſo hath no abſolut neceſſitie to be Outwardly receaved from any other. Which in deed is not fit for any wiſe man, or honeſt Chriſtian to holde. It is the worſt anſwer of a thouſand, and in a word meerely Anabaptisticall. Some others there are who ſay that this authoritie of the Miniſterie (and of exerciſing Excommunication alſo) is derived originally from the Magiſtrate, even from the King and Parliament with vsus. And ſo they expound that ordinance of our Saviour,“Mat. 18.17. Tell the Church; to be, Tell the civil Magiſtrate. Verily they may alſo as well expound theſe wordes,†Mat. 86.18. VponUpon this Rocke I will build my Church, to ſignifie, VponUpon the Civill Magiſtrate, vponupon the Prince Chriſt buildeth his church. For thus they make Chriſtes Viſible Church vnderunder the Goſpell only a Civill Societie, and a Humane politie. Which profane opinion is ſo vnworthy of all true Chriſtian people, that it deſerveth to bee exploded no leſſe then the other. Theſe anſwers againſt the Papiſtes (wee may thinke) will do but litle good. For as it is abſolutly neceſſary that a true Miniſter of the Goſpell have his calling given him outwardly from ſome perſons, and that theſe perſons have good and iuſt authoritie to give it: So likewiſe, it is abſolutly neceſſarie that every true Miniſter of the Goſpell have his calling given him by thoſe who are by Chriſt him ſelfe (or his holy Spirit in the Apoſtles) authoriſed to give it. For thus only can an Ordinarie Miniſters Calling be of God (which is“Ioh. 3.27. Heb. 5.4. Mat. 21.25. 1. Cor 12.5. Rom. 10.15. neceſſarie) and not of men. And this is that which we call Eſſentiall in every Ordinarie Eccleſiaſticall Miniſter.Who are the perſons that have power from Christ to make Miniſters. Againe, as I ſaid, this will ſoundly anſwere the Papiſtes, and nothing els.

But now all the matter will be, who are the perſons which have power & authoritie from Chriſt to give a Calling to a Miniſter of the Goſpell. Heere, as touching my ſelfe, when I deale with Papiſtes (as often I have don) I affirme as D. Tilenus in this caſe anſwered the L. Lavall in France, which“Pag. 43. before I remembred: viz. that the people conſenting togeather in the truth of the Goſpell, have frō Chriſt power and authoritie, firſt to forſake all Sacrilegious Prieſtes and their miniſterie; and then to give a true and lawfull calling of Miniſterie to ſome whom them ſelves do like. Wherein Tilenus ſhewed Cyprians iudgement alſo agreeing with his. Cyprian there affirming likewiſe, that this power of the people is from Divine authoritie, as“Pag. 56. 57. before alſo is ſhewed. And other very plaine proofes heereof (Act. 1.23.26. and 6.3.5.6. and 14.23) I have†Reas. for reform. pag. 45. 46. 47. &c. Divine beginning of Chriſts Viſib Church. Argum. 9. A Definitiō generall. twice ſet downe at large out of the New Teſtament. Beſide all which, there is very pregnant reaſon alſo for the ſame. For Christian people, whether few or many, ioyned togeather in a constant ſocietie of one ordinarie Congregation to ſerve God according to his word, are a true Viſible Church of Chriſt. Every true Viſible Church of Chriſt is his Kingdome vponupon earth, his deare Spouſe, his owne Body. &c. Now it ought not to bee doubted but Chriſt hath given power to his Kingdome, to his Spouſe, to his Body to governe it ſelfe, to preſerve it ſelfe, to provide for it ſelfe (when it wanteth) all things ordayned for it, in the beſt maner it can. This may not bee doubted. Therefore ſuch a Societie vnderunder the Goſpell wanting Miniſters, muſt have power to ordaine Miniſters for her ſelfe. Likewiſe the Apoſtle ſaieth, All thinges are theirs, and they Christes, and Christ Gods. Then,1. Cor. 3.2….23. whē they want Miniſters they cannot want power to provide them to them ſelves. Seeing God hath made them theirs. Further, the Apoſtle requireth the chriſtiā people to try the Spirits of their Teachers whether they be of God or no. 1. Ioh. 4.1.And Chriſt ſaith, His ſheepe heare his voice: a ſtrangers voice they will flee from. Ioh. 10.27.3But they can not thus diſcerne and try, vnles they may reiect their Teachers being falſe and erroneous. And if they may reiect, they may choſe. Yet alwayes (as I ſaid) in the beſt maner they can. Some heere obiect and ſay, The people in deed have power and right, but they have not meanes thus to do, whē they want Miniſters. I anſwer, if they have power, frō whom have they it? It wilbe ſaid, from God. If the people have power from God, then they have meanes alſo. Otherwiſe God giveth power in vaine. But that is abſurd &c falſe; that God giveth any power in vaine, or ſuch as can not be acted. If God intend an end (as he doth) in giving all power, then ſure hee intendeth Meanes alſo to effect the ſaid end. And ſo a Church wanting Miniſters, but having power from GOD, hath Meanes alſo to make Miniſters, and ſo likewiſe to do everie other Eccleſiaſticall action. They are not vtterly & altogeather deſtitute of iuſt and lawfull meanes to performe any ſuch action for their owne vſe in the feare of God: That is, the beſt meanes they have is ſufficient, whē they have not ſuch as they would and ſhould have otherwiſe.

So then, this was the anſwer which the ſaid Tilenus gave to that Frēch Lord. But in deed this is not only Tilenus anſwer in this matter: for it hath ben the cōmon defence of all ſound Proteſtantes alwayes when they be oppoſed, touching their Miniſterie. Which the common conſent of all our Atteſtators before cited,See our very Adverſaries beeren Above pa. 73. 74. &c. and many other, maketh manifeſt. If any have given other anſweres, yet only this hath ben the firme & ſure anchre to truſt to. Other anſweres are all to weake & vncertain: this only is cleere and conſtant. Though“Perpe. gov. Pag. 335. D. Bilſon do vniuſtly deny it. A moſt certain deduction of this power and right of the people, from Chriſtes ordinance in the Goſpell, I have plainly ſhewed before in the ſixt Chapter. Alſo the benefit and fruit of this defence we ſee in all Churches abroad; namely it is evident in thoſe of France. Againſt which the learnedſt of the Papiſtes have nothing ſoundly to reply. So that the Churches there flouriſh and increaſe mightily, bleſſed bee God. Who, but for this anſwer, would certainly both then when Tilenus ſo did write, & before, and ſince, have ben much troubled, and ſtaggered, and no leſſe then ſhamed. As many are now with vsus in England, who do ſhunne and deſpiſe this anſwer. Whereby I ſee, that to lay againſt the Papiſtes their other errors (before we have cleered the lawfulnes of our Miniſterie) is in deed vnſeaſonable, and little availeable. For if we be ſhamed in the eyes of vnderſtanding people, or have not certainly what to hold, & ſtand to, when we be vrged to make good the Calling and lawfulnes of our Miniſterie, Papiſtes will eaſily with diſtinctions and ſubtile anſweres make a faire ſhew in reconciling other matters (betweene vsus in controverſie) to Gods worde, though I graunt they be groſſe. When we are ſhamed in ſo maine a point as the Calling of our Miniſters is, in no other matter afterward we ſhall, neither can we have good ſucceſſe.

But our adverſaries of the Proteſtantes in Englande, what ſay they to this? How defend they the Calling of our Miniſters againſt the Papiſtes? D. Bilſon denyeth vehemently that“Perpet. gov. pag. 335. 368. the peoples conſent is eſſentiall in the making of any Miniſters. I deſire him then to tell vsus what is eſſentiall in it. There is no queſtion but ſomewhat is.The very queſtion is, Who have power eſſentially to make Miniſters. Then what is it, which is eſſentiall in making a Miniſter? If the peoples conſent be not, ſurely I know not what els they will aſſigne to be. And yet, as I ſaid, ſomewhat muſt be. Wherefore I conceave the peoples conſent may be ſaid to be eſſentiall by Gods word in the making of a Miniſter vnderunder the Goſpell, becauſe no other thing els can be aſſigned by Proteſtants as Eſſentiall therein. The common anſwer in a maner of all men is, that in England our Dioceſan and Provincial Biſhops do give our Miniſters their Calling and Office. Heere I demande, is this Eſſentiall in the Calling of our Miniſters, or is it not? I thinke few adviſedly will ſaye, it is Eſſentiall. For whatſoever is Eſſentiall any where, the ſame is eſſentiall every where; as“Pag. 81. before I have obſerved. And ſo they muſt deny the true Eſſence of Miniſterie in the forraigne reformed Churches where they have no ſuch Biſhops at all, & where at firſt they had no Miniſter at all. Therefore they will not ſay, I thinke (I know they can not) that the Ordination by Biſhops is Eſſentiall to Chriſtes Miniſterie vnderunder the Goſpell. Yet againe, if they ſay not ſo, they anſwer the Papiſt nothing: they ſatisfie not the queſtion. So that what they will reſolve on in this point, Surely no man can well tell. Wherefore heere the craftie Prieſtes and Ieſuites among vsus will perſwade vehemently their diſciples, that they have got the victorie. Seeing wee can not affirme whence our Miniſterie is eſſentially derived & given vsus. In the end I doubt not, the cō mon defence will be this, that our ſaid Biſhops by their ſole authoritie and power do eſſentially give the Calling of all our Miniſterie. And that from Archb. Cranmer & Ridley (our firſt Proteſtant Biſhops) they have ſtil ſo done. Let what inconvenience ſoever follow thereof. Be it then ſo. Yet even they likewiſe muſt have it given to them. They (viz. thoſe our firſt Biſhops) muſt have it derived vntounto them frō others. From whom had they their authoritie and power? Briefly it will bee anſwered, they had it given them from the Biſhop and Church of Rome. And that in deed is the truth the Pope is he, who made Archb. Cranmer and Ridley, &c. ſuch Biſhops. They had no other Ordination ſince. And from them all the reſt of our Miniſters have had their Ordination to this day. And ſo the effect of all is, that our whole Miniſterie in England ſucceſſively and derivatively cometh from the Pope.See the Supplication for Toleration, pa. …. Doct. Downame, Doct. Bilſon, and all that maintaine the Church ſtate in England will thus anſwer. But O miſerable defence, & wofull vntounto vsus. Which in deed though it be falſe, yet it is ſuch as the Pap…ſ…es deſire, and do triumph in. It is falſe two wayes. Firſt, whatſoever the Church of Rome did give to Archbi. Cranmer, &c. that wholy they tooke away againe, namely when he fel from them. For then they both depoſed him, and excommunicated him. So that they left him no whit of that power & function (ſo much as lay in them) which they had given him. But queſtionles if they could give it, they could take it away. Wherefore (ſo ſoone as hee was ours) being thus cut off and excommunicate from the Church of Rome, hee could not after that have any power (as derived from them) to make Miniſters, nor to do any other Biſhoplie act. Secondly, wee all knowe the Church of Rome to be the very Antichriſt, chieflie in reſpect of their Clergie and Spirituall governement, and moſt chieflie of all in reſpect of the Pope, from whom all the reſt (as from the Head) doe take their power and authoritie. Now ſhall we ſay that very Antichriſt can have power from Chriſt to make Miniſters? Or that we can have a lawfull Miniſterie derived from thoſe who had their power only from him? It can not bee.“2. Cor. 6.14, 15. What communion hath light with darknes? What concord hath Christ with Belial? And ſo, what hath Chriſt to do with Antichriſt? Nothing at all. Thus then our conſciences can have no aſſurance, wee can not have confidence in ſuch eſtate of the Miniſterie. But certainly Chriſts true Miniſters among vsus in Englande, have a better Original thē this. Wherefore this anſwere of our State Proteſtants muſt needes be falſe. Yet in this anſwer who ſeeth not how the Papiſtes do reioyce, triumph, and inſult? Who ſeeth not, how by this they are incouraged, ſtrengthened, and multiplyed among vsus exceedingly? Truly it would pity a mans heart to beholde how this one point putteth life into thouſandes to ſtande vp againſt Chriſtes Goſpell, & the libertie of their Country alſo. For when they heare our ſelves openly to aſcribe to the Church of Rome and to their meanes ſuch a gift of grace, even that which is our glory, even the holy inſtrument of our faith to ſalvatiō (for ſo is our Miniſterie) they will ſay, if the branch be holy, the root is more; if the rivers be ſweet, the head-ſpring is delicious. And ſo how can it bee choſen, but the Papiſtes thus will bee graced, and get great advātage among vsus? Many heere have another refuge, but that alſo helpeth nothing. Say they, as Popiſh Baptiſme is ſo far acknowledged by vsus,The laſt refuge of our Adverſaries taken away. as that with it only wee are held to bee ſufficiently Baptiſed & not to need Baptizing againe when we com from them to the Church of England: So likewiſe wee may acknowledge the Popiſh Ordination to the Miniſterie thus far, and yet nevertheles cōdemne their Church and ſeparate from them. I anſwere, the caſe is nothing like betweene Baptiſme the ſigne of our initiation in Chriſt, and the Calling to the Miniſterie. In the word there is expreſſe warrant for not repeating the ſigne of our initiation in Chriſt (which of old was Circumciſion, and Baptiſme now is the ſame) though miniſtred by a falſe Miniſterie and Church. As wee may ſee in the“2. Chron. 30.11.18. & 35.17.18: Ez…. 6.21. not Recircumciſing of ſuch Iewes as had receaved that ſigne in the Apoſtaſie of Iſraell, and turned frō theſame to the truth. But there is no warrant at all in Gods word for any to retaine the outward Calling to the Miniſterie, or to ſtand in that power and authoritie which is derived from ſuch a Church. There is no ſuch thing can be ſhewed in all Gods booke. Therefore we may not conclude the like in this matter of Ordination to the Miniſterie, which may bee done for not repeating of Baptiſme. For by Gods worde Ordination may be repeated, yea certainly, after a Miniſterie receaved in Chriſtes true Church: much more after it hath ben receaved in a falſe Church. So that theſe two ordinances of Chriſt are nothing like in this point. Wherefore out of queſtion, Ordination to the Miniſterie as it is derived from Antichriſt, muſt be wholy reuounced of every faithfull man: and may bee (as is ſaid) renewed and repeated in Chriſtes true Church, as occaſion ſerveth. At Rome, there is in it both an impiety, and a nullitie. In their adminiſtring of Baptiſme there is not a nullitie altogeather; as in that correſpondent example of Iſraell in Apoſtaſie before alleadged, it well appeareth. And this is ſufficient for this; though other anſweres may be given alſo. Wherefore this remayneth, that when wee grant the deſcent of our Miniſterie in Englande to come lineally from the Church and Pope of Rome, (which we muſt grant, will wee nill we, if wedeny it to ariſe eſſentially from the Chriſtian peoples conſent in each Congregation, all the world ſeeth that we give the Pope a maine advantage againſt vsus, and we put into his hande a ſtrong engine to draw vsus back againe vntounto him. Which alſo he effecteth dayly vppon many among vsus, as woefull experience ſheweth in our Land: yea even vponupon ſome of my very friends, and neare acquaintance.

Beſide this, there is another point of the Churches governement,The cauſing of Vnitie. namely their Iuriſdiction in cōpounding Schiſmes, in making peace and vnitie and conſent among Chriſtian people, which beeing aſcribed as proper to Dioceſan and Provinciall Biſhops (as they in England do ſay it is, and as“Def. 3.36. &c. D. Downame with great vehemencie defendeth) certainly true reaſon will cary it further, it can not poſſibly ſtay there. This wil ſerve a Popes turne a great deale better: and to ſuch a one it belongeth in deed as a very true and forcible ground for his Vniverſall Governement over all Chriſtians in the world, if there were any Divine and Evangelicall truth in it at all. But there is no truth in it. Becauſe this is no Divine and Evangelical way for Vnitie in religion. viz. to conſtitute one Viſible Head with abſolute power of Spirituall governement whether Dioceſan, or Provinciall, or Vniverſall. Or, to take from the Chriſtian people their free conſent. There is not in the Goſpell any ſuch Meanes to Vnitie. It is a Humane policie, a carnall device: it is no inſtitution of Chriſt Ieſus.Gods writt… word is the cauſe of Vnitie. Who in his word and by his word (with the helpe of the Miniſterie therein ordained) provideth ſufficiently for true peace, and holy Vnitie among all his people. For he ſaith,“Mat. 28.29. Ye erre, not knowing the Scriptures. And,†Ioh. 5.39. Search the Scriptures: for they are they which testifie of me. And“chap. 14.6 Rom. 16, 17. I am the way, the truth, and the life. Likewiſe the Apoſtle teſtifyeth, that thoſe are the makers of Schiſmes and diviſions, who teach and holde any thing "beſides the doctrine learned from the Apoſtles. So that indeed the meanes appointed of GOD to make Vnitie in the Church, is Gods word: and not one Superiour over-ruling Miniſter over many diſtinct ordinarie Cōgregations, which the word knoweth not. But in truth ſuch a one is the very proper cauſe of diſſention and ſchiſme. For he not willing to ſubmit to Gods word, by his power draweth many with him: & yet he cannot lightly prevayle with all. Wherevpon followeth diſſention and ſchiſme. And then he with his cō pany (being the ſtronger in the world) may cry out loudeſt againſt thoſe fewer that diſſent from him, that they are Schiſmatickes and peace-breakers: but look vntounto the word of God, & thē them ſelves will be found to bee the makers of the Schiſme in departing from the ſaid word of God by their Traditions,The true cauſe of Vnitie. We ſee then by this that the true & iuſt cauſe of Vnitie in the churches of Chriſt is to cleave vnſeparably to Chriſtes Teſtament. Which mē not willing to follow alwayes, but ſeeking to walke rather in the wayes and cuſtomes and inventions of men, thereby they give occaſion indeed of much ſtrife,The true cauſe of diſſenſion in Religion. diſcord, & diſſention. This is the true cauſe of our differences in religion. It is as fenſele… which D. Downame maintaineth, that Dioceſan and Provinciall Biſhops (having no Superior Eccleſiaſticall) can be cauſes of Vnitie.Def. 2.114. foreign For none of theſe can do any thing, but each in his owne circuit. Now what is that to Chriſtian Vnitie, when nevertheles there may be (for all thē) ſo many opinions as there be independent Provinciall Biſhops. Only a Vniverſall Church and Biſhop (if we liſt to follow Mens policies, and not Chriſtes Teſtament) may in deed cauſe a kinde of Vnitie. But againe, ſuch Vnitie without Veritie, is vntounto Chriſtian people plaine tyrannie. And we profeſſe, that abſolute Vnitie vnderunder a Viſible Head is not ſo good, as the Tyrānie of ſuch a one is miſchievous. Chriſt rather would his faithfull ſervantes ſhould be prooved and exerciſed by Schiſmatikes, then their conſciences oppreſſed by tyrants.

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

Hitherto of perverting the true intenſive Nature of Chriſtes Viſible Church, viz. where the people of the ordinary Congregations are barred their free conſent in the Church governemēt. Where we have ſeene what great and lamentable evills follow therevpon: even to the making of a plaine path way for the Popes reentrance among vsus.What extent or limit is there of a Church in the New Teſtam. Now wee ſhall ſee that the ſame miſchiefe cometh likewiſe by extending the Churches outward Body larger and further then it ought to bee. The iuſt extent of the outward Body, or the true boundes and limites of Chriſtes Viſib. Church alwayes vnderunder the Goſpell is one ordinarie Congregation only.See alſo before pag. 10. 157. The reaſon is, becauſe ſo we finde it to bee in the whole New Teſtament of Chriſt. All the which I have proved and declared plainly els where, viz. before pag. 87. and Declarat. pag. 10. 19. 20. &c. It is to prophane and vnchriſtian, adviſedly to affirme, that in the New Teſtament Chriſt or his Apoſtles have limited and defined no Church. O… that men may change thoſe bounde… which Chriſt or his Apoſtles have ſe… The Papiſtes them ſelves are not … groſſe, as†Pag. 150. before I have noted: & they would deſire no greater hand vponupon vsus then that we ſhould ſo anſwer them. Some certain limites therefore and bounds of a Church queſtionles Chriſ… hath ſet. But our adverſaries, and namely“Def. …. &c. D. Downame refuſeth the ordinary Congregation. They avouch and maintayne a dioceſan and Provinciall Church to be of Divine inſtitution in the New Teſtament. What maintaine they? A Dioceſan Church? Nay, in deed Chriſtes Viſible Church …hen muſt be not only Dioceſan,A Dioceſan Church requireth a Vniverſall Church. nor only Provincial, no nor only Patriar…hall, but evē Vniverſall. I ſay, where Chriſtes Viſible Church is not beleeved to bee by Chriſt limited only to one ordinary Congregation, there all reaſon and rules of religion will require Chriſtes ſaid Church to bee no leſſe then Vniverſall. For no man can …hew that Chriſtes ſaid Church in the New Teſtament is limited and reſtrained to a Dioceſe or Province only,No limiting of a Dioceſ-Church in the N. Test. & that it is there forbidden to be a Vniverſal church. Our adverſaries ſeeme not to deſire to ſhewe it. For as they weakely and ſlightly affirme Dioceſan and Provinciall Churches to be in the New Teſtament, (yea even againſt Grammar) ſo they openly acknowledge that Chriſt hath vponupon earth“See before pag 112. & Hook. 126.132. one whole Church being but one Body ſubiect to governemēt. So that they yeeld the Church not to be limited to a Dioces or a Province. And what can the Papiſtes wiſh more? They will never deſire more to be yeelded them from Proteſtantes (if we ſtick to our owne wordes) then to acknowledge all Chriſtes Dioceſan and Provinciall Churches, (and therefore our owne in England) to be but Membrall Churches, not intire and independent, not indued with authoritie for the governement of them ſelves immediatly from Chriſt; but to be partes and dependants of one whole Church being one Body ſubiect to governement. For thē we muſt by Chriſtes ordināce referre our ſelves for religion and ſpirituall governement to that one Body Viſible, whereof wee ſay wee are a part. Heere a hundred“Before pag. 179. difficulties will come vponupon vsus. The Doct. acknowledgeth alſo†Def. 3.5. a highest Senat of the Vniverſall Church for the governement of it. And certainly in all true reaſon there muſt bee ſo. For there muſt bee by Chriſte ordinance a correſpondent governement to the Body of every Church which is of Chriſt. Maiſter Hooker trulie acknowledgeth it, ſaying: there“Hook. 3.132. must be a correſpondent Church-polirie to every Viſible Church. But Doct. Downame wil perhaps turne this to a Vniverſall Councill or Synod. If he doe it is yet a ſimple evaſion. Firſt, I noted“Pag. 113. & 178. before, that there never was: right Vniverſall Synode, how ſo ever ſome have ben ſo named. But if any Synod have ben helde for Vniverſall, yet ſuch are exceedingly rare and extraordinarie, in deed in theſe dayes not to be had. But the Churches Body beeing ordinary, and continuing alwayes, it muſt have a correſpondent governement (as is ſaid) that is, ordinarie, dayly, and continuall. And this is it which we ſpeake of. If the Doctor wil grant ſuch a higheſt Senat of the Vniverſall Church, that is, ordinary, conſtant, and dayly exerciſing governement to this conſtant Body, thē what is this els but a College of Cardinalls? And in every ſuch Conſiſtorie or Senat, I hope he will grant a Preſident, yea conſtant and during life; not for a weeke, or a ſhort time. And what is he but a Pope? Neither is it materiall whether this Preſident bee ſubiect to his Senat, or not. Which hee idly caſteth in a little†Pag. 6. after. Many Papiſtes do hold the Pope to be inferior to his Councill; and yet they are verie Papiſtes. And the Doct. holdeth a Provinciall Biſhop to be by Divine ordinance Superior to his Provinciall Synod. Why then may not the Vniverſall Biſhop be ſuperior likewiſe to his Vniverſall whether Synod, or Senat? Without queſtion he ought to bee as well. Thus no marvaill if Popiſh Walſingham (who conferred with this Doctor) went from him worſe then hee came. For holding ſuch grounds, hee can never make any ſufficiēt defence againſt Poperie, as I have ſaid.

His foure other reaſons of difference betweene a Provinciall and a Vniverſall Biſhop (which hee ſetteth downe pag. 6.) are as frivolous as that which is moſt.

Firſt he alleageth Calvins authoritie. But what is that to a Papiſt, or to one tempted that way? And yet hee abuſeth Calvin alſo. For though Calvin ſaye,“Inſtit. 4.6.2 There is not a like reaſon of one Nation and of the whole worlde: yet he meaneth this vponupon ſuppoſition. That is, if a Nation have Gods worde for their warrant as the Iewes had: & if the whole world have not Divine warrant, as the Catholike Viſible Church now in deed hath not, then there is not the like reaſon betweene a Nation and the whole world. But otherwiſe verily there is. For a Biſhop to both is neceſſary, if both have Gods ordinance for it ſelfe: a Biſhop to neither is lawfull, if neither have Gods ordinance. And this Calvin him ſelfe plainly ſignifyeth in Sect. 9. Saying: Nihil proficiunt (Papiſtae) niſi prius oſtender int hoc Ministerium (Vniverſale) … Chriſto eſſe ordinatum. Noting by this, that it is Chriſtes ordinance that maketh the difference betweene a Nation and the whole world, not the oddes of the Circuit. But this the Do. wholy ſuppr…ſſeth as alſo Calvins ſecond anſwer to the Papiſtes immediatly following in the former place. Saith he, Est altera citamnum ratio cut illud (Iudaicum) in imitationem trahi non debeat. The high Prieſt was a figure of Chriſt, which now ceaſeth.Summum illum Pontificem typum fuiſſe Christi nemo ignorat. Nune traſlato Sacerdotio ius illud traſferri cōvenit. Wherefore Calvin reiecteth the Iewes High Prieſtes National Miniſterie, and denyeth the vſe of the like now for another reaſon, which the Doct. alſo diſſembleth. So that his abuſing of Calvin heerein, is manifeſt. Againe, theſe laſt mentioned wordes of Calvin do confute the Do. in another place, where to reſiſt“Reas. for reform. pag. 5. me,†Def. 25. hee denyeth the Iewes High Prieſtes Governement to have bene a type.

Secondly the Doct. maketh this difference betweene a Provinciall and a Vniverſall Biſhop; ſaith he, No mortall man is able to wield the governement of the whole Church. It is true. Nor yet of a Province nor of a Dioceſe. For the leaſt Paſtor of theſe ſhall bee a huge Pluraliſt and Nonreſident,See pag. 150 and Reas. for Refor. Reas. 3. which are contrary to Chriſt, as before hath ben ſhewed. The cauſe then of all this vnablenes is, the want of Chriſtes ordinance. Which to both is alike, as I have ſaid: and ſo their vnablenes is both alike. Otherwiſe both ſhould bee able and ſufficient for ſuch a charge well enough.

The Doctors third exception is as the laſt before. Saith he, it would proove dangerous and pernicious if that one Head ſhould fall into error. So alſo it is dangerous and pernicious to many thouſands when a Provinciall Biſhop falleth into error. Yet the D. will not hold this a reaſon to proove him ſimply vnlawfull. And therefore neither is it for the Vniverſal. Specially ſeeing a Provinciall Biſhop can not make vnitie: a Vniverſall may, as I have ſaid.

His fourth exception is likewiſe a verie fancie; viz. that it is infinit trouble & much inconvenience to repaire from all partes of the world to one place. There is no ſuch matter, if Chriſtes ordinance for it were manifeſt. If any inconvenience may ſeeme therein to be, it is ſuperabundantly recompenced with far greater bleſſings, when wee practiſe Chriſtes ordinance. And truly this muſt be ſo,Such a Biſhop to ſuch a Church must be. if the Do. opinion be true, that Chriſt hath in the New Teſtamēt appointed a Vniverſall Church Viſible being but one Body ſubiect to governement, as above we have ſeene. Hee addeth, Theſe reaſons may ſuffice. Yea truly, they ſuffice to make 10000. Papiſts: but they wil never reclaime one.

VntoUnto this wee may adde, that the very Natures of a Dioceſan or Provinciall Church, and of a Vniverſall, have no eſſentiall difference in them. The very Forme and Order of adminiſtring thē differeth not in any ſubſtantiall point. Only a Church limited to one ordinary Cōgregation differeth eſſentially from a Vniverſall Church, as alſo from a Dioceſan and Provinciall, as“Declar. pag. 11. 12. 13. I have ſhewed elswhere. Whence it is, that where the Church is Dioceſan or Provinciall (as it is now in England) there is an eaſie paſſage to the Vniverſall: and ſooner they may be combined into one, then where the Churches are limited each to one ordinarie Congregation, the people inioying their free conſent in Church-governement. Nay, there are many ſtronge ſeeming reaſons inducing men of reaſon to yeelde that the Dioceſan and Provinciall Formes of Churches not only may eaſily, but alſo ought neceſſarily to bee combined, & to come into one Vniverſ. Church. For whatſoever is or can bee brought by Doctor Downame or any other, to maintayne Dioceſan and Provinciall Churches, the ſame is much more pregnant for a Vniverſall. And what warrant alloweth them to rule over the particular Congregations, that ſame requireth them to be ruled alſo by a Vniverſall Church. If Dioceſans and Provincialiſtes go about to produce Scripture for their origen & inſtitution, they do it ſo weakly, ſo vntowardly, and ſo vnlikely, that any man ſeeing & conſidering it without partialitie, would bee aſhamed. But heere the Catholikes ſtep in boldly, & foorth-with they name ſundrie places in the New Teſtament for their "Vniverſall Church Viſible.Eph. 4.4. & 12. & 16. Math. 16.18. 1 Cor. 12.28 Rev 20.9. Gal. 4.26. And in the Creed, I beleeve the Catholike Church. Which indeed have more ſhew for it, then anie places have for Dioceſan or Provinciall Churches independent, as ours be in England. Againe, if Vnitie, concorde, and peace-making be a reaſon for Dioceſan and Provincial churches, it is much better for a Vniverſal Church. For it is true, a Vniverſall Church may cauſe in Chriſtendom a kind of Vnitie & peace: but Dioceſan & Provincial Churches can never. For among theſe there may bee eaſily ſo many opinions, as there bee Provinces: Their Biſhops beeing foreign, Heads by them ſelves. Where the D. ſaith, † The Church was freer from Schiſmes before the Papacie, Def. 3.66.67.then vnderunder it. It is moſt vntrue; and it bewrayeth in him much ignorance, though he diſdaine to have that once imagined in him.

The caſe being thus, what reſiſtance can be made to the ſubtill and mightie perſwaſions of Ieſuites and Popiſh Prieſtes vrging tender ſoules & conſciences vponupon theſe advātages? Chiefly when they ſhall ſhew them withall that our great learned Divines & Doctors confeſſe that Chriſt hath ordayned in the New Teſtament that his true Viſible Church ſhould be one Body ſubiect to governement:A ſtrange overſight in our Defenders against Poperie, granting a Vniverſall Church Viſible in the N. Teſtam. and that a Vniverſall Church Viſible is Chriſtes ordinance now vnderunder the Goſpell. Seeing it is plaine, that a Vniverſall Church Viſible at this day in all the world there is none, but the Romane. And the Roman Church in deed is a Vniverſall Viſible Church, intending to have, and having members in every Nation vnderunder heaven. Yea, it hath ſeemed to have bene ſuch for theſe thouſand yeares paſt: but the Catholikes avouch it to have ben ever ſince Chriſt. And why may not that bee likely, if a Vniverſall Viſible Church bee Chriſtes Ordinance? Certainly Chriſtes Viſible & Miniſterial Church muſt continue“Math. 28.20. alwayes from the time of his Aſcētion vntounto the Worlds end. And ſome-where extant it muſt be. But this hath not ben any where ſince in all Chriſtendome, except at Rome. Whence it will follow (if thoſe our Doctors ſayings be true) that the Roman Church hath ben and is Chriſts Vniverſall Church Viſible. It is fond to obiect (as ſome doe) that No particular Church can be Vniverſall; becauſe they are oppoſit. And ſo neither can the Roman Church, ſeeing it is particular, bee Vniverſall. I ſaye, this is fond. For a Vniverſal Church Viſible muſt have ſome particular Viſible Church to bee their Head. As, from King David till Chriſt the Vniverſall Church had the particular Church at Ieruſalem for their Head. So the Roman… Church may be the Head of the Vniverſall Church viſible now (if Chriſt have ordayned any ſuch which thoſe our D.D. ſeeme to grant) and in that reſpect it may bee well called a Vniverſal Church, though it ſelfe bee but particular. Thus the Catholikes will have ſtrong advantage ſtill vponupon the Provincials. And they will preſſe, that we ought rather to imbrace the Vniverſall Church then any Dioceſan or Provinciall independent, as ours in England is. Nay, they will ſhewe that (if we will be ſaved) ſimply we muſt be profeſſed members of Chriſtes Vniverſal Church Viſible, ſeeing Chirſt hath ordayned it. And this abſolutly can not be mo then only one in the world. And in this caſe we muſt ſuſpect our opinions in religion which differ from the doctrine of Chriſtes only true Church: we muſt thinke it at leaſt probable, that the doctrine of the ſaid Church is the very minde of Chriſt, though otherwiſe wee might make queſtion of ſomewhat therein. And ſuch doubtes muſt be decided & tryed within the ſaide Church, not without it. So that firſt we muſt provide that our ſelves be in the communion of the ſaid Church. And this, after the former reckoning will proove (as I have ſhewed) to bee the Roman Church. And ſo Doctor Downame, and the reſt, have ſpun a faire threed. Which fearfull inconvenience and miſchiefe followeth by denying this true Chriſtian Aſſertion, viz. that Chriſtes true Viſible Church vnderunder the Goſpel is only one Ordinary Congregation: as alſo this, that the peoples free conſent in the Church governement ought to bee alwayes admitted.

To grant a Vniverſall Church Viſible vnderunder the Goſpel, is the groūd of all miſchief.Where may be added an other vnſpeakeable and intolerable miſchiefe, (which cometh by this magnifying of a Vniverſal Viſible Church) againſt the Kings Maieſties Soveraigntie, and againſt al other Civil Magiſtrates free governement. A Vniverſall Viſible Church is the very ground and reaſon that ſo many do give their lives againſt the oth of allegeance to our King, as now there do, and (as it may be feared) many mo will. For the Vniverſal Paſtor or Biſhop of the ſaid Vniverſal Viſible Church (whom the members are bound to heare & obey in all doubtes of conſcience and queſtions of faith) will eaſily make a great ſhew that he is the common Father, and that all Princes ought to bee his Sonnes, and that their States are appointed of God through Chriſt for the ſaid Churches inheritance. And therefore that they may bee brought vnderunder this Churches & Holy Fathers obedience“By what meanes ſoever. vijs & modis, if the ſaide Church and her friendes can any way effect it. Yea, ſo far they may indeavour the advancement and inlargement of this Church into the poſſeſſions which Chriſt hath left to his Vicar, if he can get them, that in procuring the ſame they may (ordine ad Deum) lawfully deſtroy all obſtinate reſiſters & hinderers thereof. But moſt of all, where any States or Princes have ben formerly of that Church. In ſuch caſe (they thinke) by a double right they may iuſtly, and ought neceſſarily, ſeeke their converſion or confuſion. But all honeſt and truly religious Chriſtians do heerein plainly ſee the pride of Antichriſt. Wherefore I will vnfolde this packe of ſpirituall and temporal miſchiefes no farther. Only I would to God that Governours and people alſo, did marke the true Origen and fountaine of all this, as they feele the harme that cometh of it.

Laſt of all, from the due conſideratiō of the forerehearſed points which have ben heere plainly and truly laid open, it followeth and it is manifeſt, that many among vsus (who would ſeeme to ſee ſomewhat in the knowledge of the Goſpell) do very fondly and improvidently ſay that our controverſies in the Church of England, are but for trifles and thinges indifferent, and about Circumſtances only, not for any Subſtantial matters. They who have any ſenſe of their owne good, or feare of future falling away of brethren, can not but perceave the vanitie, yea in deed the plaine follie and vntruth of ſuch ſayings. Firſt, P. Martyr ſaith,“P. Mart. epiſt. ad Domin. Polon. Wee must confeſſe the Church governement to bee not the least part of Christian religion: and that the Goſpell ſeemeth to be neglected by them who put away from them ſo excellent a part thereof. Maiſter Cartwright affirmeth that it is,†T. C. 1. pag 48. & 2 247 of the Substance of the Goſpell; and that“T. C. 1.26. & 2.570. the kinde of governement is a matter neceſſary to ſalvation and of faith. And ſo Calvin ſaith (as before I noted)†Calv epiſt. ad Sadole…. In illa Eccleſia formâ quam Apoſtoli conſtituerunt vnicum habemus verae Eccleſia exemplar: a quo ſi quis vel minimum deſlectit, aberrat. In that Forme of the Church which the Apoſtles ſe… downe we have the only patterne of a true Church: from which if any bend aſide never ſo little, he erreth▪ And thus in another place hee ſaith:“Inſtit. 4.1.1 Externa ſubſidia Deu… quo que addidit, quo infirmitat… noſtra cōſuleret. God hath alſo added Outward meanes and helpes whereby he may provide for our infirmitie. Shewing that evē touching Outward means our infirmitie is not holpen but by ſuch only as God ordaineth for vsus.See the Divine beginning & institution of Christes Viſible Church. And that it is the worke of God to inſtitute the Outward meanes in the exerciſe of religion: the principall whereof is the Forme of the Viſible Church and Governement. Men can not inſtitute this, neither ought any to attempt ſo much, for that is to intrude in Gods office. Agreeable heerevnto is that, which I have written in my“Declarat. pag. 38. &c. Declaration, where I ſhew that vnderunder the Goſpell the forme of Chriſtes Viſible Church, the kinde of governement, and Calling of the Miniſterie are matters of ſubſtance in religion, & fundamentall. And more fully in a proper place for this point, viz. in my Expoſition of the ſecond Commandement.A true and plaine Expoſition of the …. Com. Where I make it manifeſt that Mens inſtitutions in theſe matters are a direct breach and violation of Gods ſacred Lawe and Divine Commandement to vsus, even of the …cond Commandement in the Decalogue: and withall that Chriſtes ordinances heerein are in deed partes of Gods true worſhip, matters of doctrine, matters of faith, matters of ſubſtance in religion, and ordinarily neceſſarie to ſalvation. For theſe Outward Meanes where they are right & true; that is, of Divine inſtitution,“Before pag. 155. they are the inſtrumentall worke is and cauſes of inward grace and life to our ſoules: and thoſe that are of men are contrary.Nothing in religion more important, no thing more waighty then the Controverſies now in England. For by the true Outward Meanes as by ordinary Inſtrumentes God cōveyeth to vsus his grace, giveth vsus faith, and bringeth vsus to ſalvation. God ſaveth vsus not without meanes, nor ordinarily without theſe meanes before named, nor with or by theſe meanes being of Mens inſtitution, and invention, and tradition. His owne ordinances only hee ſanctifyeth and bleſſeth. Hee promiſeth a bleſſing only to them: to Mens devices, though they ſeeme never ſo plauſible or probable in the reaſon of men, yet he giveth nothing, hee promiſeth nothing, we can bee aſſured of nothing by them, vnles it be of Gods anger. Which indeed we may be ſure of. Theſe then are no ſmall matters (I am ſure) nor Circumſtances in religion, but matters of ſubſtance (as I ſaid) and ſuch as wee ought firſt to know and vnderſtand in our Chriſtian profeſſiō before we can reape firme aſſurance to our ſoules. Without our vnderſtanding the truth and falſhood of theſe Outward meanes, our whole faith and religion may ſoone bee ſhaken, & overturned, ſpecially in theſe diſtracted times. Yea the manifold ill Conſequentes before noted do all hange vponupon the vniuſtifyable form: and nature of Chriſts Viſib. Church, the Miniſterie, and their Calling. Which are the ſpecial matters of controverſie now in England. And particularly the Church of Romes advantage againſt vsus I have ſomewhat opened“Pag. 156.157. &c. before, viz. becauſe the ſacred right of Chriſtes faithfull people touching their free conſent in Church governement is denyed. But in this I have ben to long. The waightines of this matter touching the lawfull & right making of Miniſters, and the perill of erring therein hath drawen mee to ſay ſo much.

In regard of all which wee may ſe… alſo the great cauſe which they had who publiſhed the Offer of Conference & diſputation,The Offer of Conferēce why it was publiſhed. not long ſince. Whereby they deſired a iuſt and equall tryall (which hitherto they could never have) of theſe thinges which do ſo certainly touch the ſafetie of our ſoules. Chiefly conſidering how violently, they have ben overborne, afflicted, and deſpiſed in this cauſe, as alſo they ſtill are. Moreover, by this before delivered their affirmation is ſhewed evidently to bee true (which the Doctor ſo ignorantly“Def. 1.3… ſkorneth) where they ſay, that†Conſider… tion. 6. ſome of the propoſitions which they offer to maintayne are ſuch, as if they were not true, wee can not iuſtly ſeparat frō the Church of Rome, nor ſtand out againſt it. Thoſe ſome Propoſittions which they meane, are namely the fourth & eight ſet down in that Offer. Which affirme that a Church is but one Ordinary Cōgregation: and that the people ought to have their free conſent in the ſpirituall governement thereof. VntoUnto which may be added the 5.6.7. and 10. as being all of one nature by cleere and certain conſequence. The ſoundnes and firme truth of all the which, hath ben ſufficiently prooved and declared heeretofore, and might by ſuch a right Chriſtiā tryal as there they deſire, bee brought to further light. Wherefore D. Downames abſurd reproches againſt that treatiſe, calling it moſt ſenſeleſly“Def 1.382 & 4.81. an Vnchristian and vnmodest Offer, and the Poſitions therein, Schiſmatical novelties, do declare with what gall of bitternes his heart over-floweth againſt the truth, againſt his brethren (as“Def. 2.48. hee diſſemblingly calleth vsus) and alſo againſt thoſe noble Pillars of the Goſpell before alleaged, (our Atteſtators) who are heerein his vtter adverſaries, whatſoever he pretendeth to the cōtrary. He as a cocke on his owne dunghill, may crow… what he liſt. But if the Offer had ben or might bee accepted in ſuch equall order as is there tendered, he would be made to eate his wordes, I doubt not: and all the infamie of Schiſme & Noveltie would fall vponupon his owne head. Without which acceptanc, elet the Doct. know that his tedious and Sophiſticall writing, & all other ſuch like, will be held by wiſe men to bee vaine boaſting, and no better cōqueſt then of ſuch Champions as draw their weapons, ſtrike, fight, and take on at adverſaries whoſe handes they will bee ſure, them ſelves have firſte tyed faſt. Yea, whom they will bee ſure to have in their power to impriſon and perſecute if any preſume to move againſt them. Neither will they indure to bee ſhewed the imminent danger from the common enimy, till all come about their heads. And ſo much touching the important Cōſequences of our preſent Aſſertion.

Attestation of Many Learned Godly and Famous Divines, Chapter 7

p. 84CHAPTER VII. Chap. 7.Conſequences of greatest importance following vponupon the peoples free cōſent in their Church governement, & inconveniences in Religion not ſufferable following from the contrary.

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