Attestation of Many Learned Godly and Famous Divines — Henry Jacob

Attestation of Many Learned Godly and Famous Divines · Henry Jacob

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

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

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

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

Firſt from this in Mat. 18.17. Act. 15.22. hee …ould make a Synod or Conſistone which have anſwered before pa. 108. &c.

Se…ondly a Nationall Church of the Iewes, Act. 7.38. Which likewiſe I have an…wered, in Reas. for Reform pag. 5. in the margin.

Thirdly, Chriſtian Nationall Churches in the nober plurall, as he ſpea…eth: namely in Rom. 16.4. 1. Cor. 16.1.…9. 2. Cor. 8.1. Gal. 1.2.22. Which places …e abuſeth & perverteth moſt rudely and deſperatly. The wordes do ex…reſly ſignifie nothing but a nom…er of Ordinarie Congregations;Such wee meane by Pariſhes. …ath of them aſſembling in one …lace, or at moſt contayning“See my Declarat pa 10. and 18.19. & 28.29.31.32. no mo ordinary aſſemblies then one: and he without, yea contrary to the expreſſe …etter fancieth to him ſelfe a Nationall Church, from no ground, nor ſhew of ground in theſe places.

Fourthly, he bringeth Act. 5.11. and 8.1. and 11.12. and 12.1.5. and 13.1. and 14.23. & 20.17.28. 1. Cor. 1.2. 2. Cor. 8.23. 2. Theſ. 1.1. 1. Tim. 5.16. Iam. 5.14. Apoc. 1.4.11.20. and 2.1. &c. to prove a Church of a Citie and Country adioyning. Where his error is like to the former. What ſhould I ſay to this man? Not one of all theſe ſignifyeth a Church of a City and Country adioyning, if he meane it to be extended or intended to mo ordinarie Congregations then only one. Which is his meaning. It is true the Churches of theſe Cities heere ſpecifyed (viz. of Ieruſalem, Antioch, Epheſus, Corinth, Theſſalonica, &c.) might have mēbers then which dwelt ſcatteringly, and ſome a good way of from the place of their ordinarie maine meeting, and ſuch alſo as did aſſemble often in divers vncertain companies (as in times of trouble there is reaſon, & it often commeth to paſſe) but yet in thoſe primitive times they all in each Church then made no mo but“Which in a good ſenſe …ay becalled a Pariſh. one ordinarie aſſembly, as I have ſaid. The true Grammar ſenſe and proper meaning of the worde Eccleſia in thoſe times doth proove it. What Diviniti… ſhall we expect from theſe Doctors, wh… will pervert Grammar? Which ou… Doctor is not ignorant of: but his error heerein is wilfull. All ſound†See my Declarat pag. 18 32. Autors of the Greek toung, according to whom the Apoſtles do ſpeak, do ſhew that Eccleſia in the times then, and alwayes before ſignifyed one ordinarie Congregation only, and not many.

His fift error heere is, that the New Teſtament noteth ſome Churches not defining whether an intire church, or but a part And he citeth Act. 9.31. and 15. 3.4.41. and 18.22. Rom. 16.16.23.1. Cor. 4.17. and 6.4. and 11.16. and 14.33. with a great many other. But all theſe are likewiſe by him groſly abuſed. For in all theſe places the Scripture ſpeaketh intirely & properly, not by a figure, whereof there is no cauſe appearing in the text. Only in Act. 15.4. the Church ſignifieth a part, namely the People: becauſe the text expreſly diſtinguiſheth it heere frō their Guids, who were a part alſo. Thus in all the whole Writings of the Apoſtles there is not one word which ſheweth a Dioceſan Church to have ben then. Wherefore in this point hee is quite overthrowen:The D. perverteth his text. on which his Sermon & Defenſe reſteth. yea his very text Apoc. ….20. which was the whole foundation of his Sermon and Defence, is found to bee vtterly perverted and abuſed togeather with the other places. So that all which be buildeth vponupon it & followeth in his writing after, is nothing but cavillation. And namely that againſt my ſelfe, in his pag. 6. where hee ſaith, I have firſt ſtrongly conceited that there is no true Viſible Church but a Pariſh, & then have haled the places of ſcripture where Eccleſia is mentioned, to the confirmation of my conceit. Let him not abuſe people, as hee doth, by the Equivocation of the word Pariſh. For I meane not that the Apoſtolike Churches were Pariſhes, as we cal a Pariſh now in England: that is, limited within a certaine circuit of grounde. Though a Church may be ſo limited, yet it is not neceſſarie, neither was it ſo then. But then every Church was ſuch a Pariſh as I noted a little“Pag. 201. & Declar. pag. 18.19. & Reas. for ref. pa. 5.29. before. And ſo it is very true. Then, why ſaith hee that I have firſt conceited that there is no true Viſible Church but a Pariſh. He might have ſeene it conceited before me by thoſe noble and ſacred inſtrumentes†Before pag. 103.104. & 32. &c. And after pag. 214.215. Zuinglius, Luther, & the reſt of our Attestators. But malice drave him againſt me, as it hath driven him againſt me in other ſlanders likewiſe. Wherefore rather he might have ſaid, that in this not I,If in this the Scripture be haled, Zuinglius hath don it, &c. but they have haled the Scripture from whom I have learned it. But I hope thoſe worthies knew the meaning of the Greek Eccleſia better then our Doctor, though hee be conceited enough of his owne learning: and they maintained it proſperouſlie againſt ſtronger adverſaties then hee …is, or ever will bee. But in deed hee ought to bluſh to charge mee in this caſe with haling the Sciptures, Him ſelfe haler of Scripture.when him ſelfe is thus found to hale them and pervert them moſt vnconſcionably, as before is ſhewed. He is often vponupon this,“Def. 2.104.65. that the Church of Cenchreae, Rom. 16.1. was a Membrall Church to the Church of Corinth, and ſubiect to it. But I have†Declarat. pag. 30. els-where ſhewed this his preſumptiō in taking the Apoſtles words figuratively here alſo without cauſe. As if the Apoſtle called but a part of a Church by the name of a Church, there being no reaſon in the text why he ſhould heere ſpeak Synecdochically. Nay, to take the Apoſtle ſo, is cōtrarie even to his owne rule. I will preſſe him with his owne wordes; I would know of him what reaſon hee hath to forſake the grammaticall ſenſe? “Def. 1. pag. 33.And where the Holy Ghost ſpeaketh properly, how dares be to expound him figuratively? Heere I could leave of this point concerning his proofes from the New Teſtament for Dioceſan Churches. But that hee†Chap. …. reſumeth Rev. 1.20. which was his text, and laboureth to make ſhew of ſome reaſon therein. Firſt hee ſaith;“Pag. 42.43.44. thoſe 7. Churches contayned the Cities and Countryes adioyning. This is his Minor. Which is not only contrarie to the propertie of the word Eccleſia before noted, but alſo cōtrary to the expreſſe text beſide; which ſaith this Epheſian Church was foreign in Epheſus; Rev. 2.1.not without: nor contayning that large Country & Territorie adioying, as he ſaith it did then. The like the text ſaith of the Church in Smyrna, and of the Church in Pergamus, and ſo of all the reſt. Signifying expreſly that every of theſe Churches was contayned (at leaſt when they met) within their Cities,His ſhifting heereabout pag. 105 is nothing. And that of …kenīg foreign to it is as little. For Act. 24.12 foreign is, in the City. and did not extend it ſelfe to the Coūtry adioyning, viz. to the Civill Province of each of them. This reaſon therfore of his is very vntrue. Yet he would fortifie it further,“Pag. 43.56. aſſuming againe that Our Saviour writing to all the Churches of Aſia nūbreth but ſeaven. If hee wrote to all, then it may ſeeme that theſe 7. were generall Churches, contayning in and vnderunder them many other inferior Congregations. For it is not like, but in Aſia properly ſo called (which was the Roman Province, and†Cicer. Orat. pro L. Flacco. contayned Phrygia, Myſia, Caria & Lydia) there were moe ordinarie Chriſtian Congregations, then only 7. at that time. Nay, it is plainly falſe: our Saviour heere writ not to all the Churches of Aſia. The text beſide mentioneth“Act. 20.7. Troas, †Coloſ. 4.13.Coloſs…, Hierapolis, which were queſtionles within theſe …undes. Magneſia & Trallis in all like…hood were now alſo:Mentioned in Ignatius Epiſt. and were no …embers now of any of thoſe ſeaven … the Revelation. And it is more then …kely that many other beſides theſe …ere named, were alſo. Indeed Chriſt …ould that all within Aſia, yea & out …f Aſia too, ſhould exemplarily take …dmonition by this which he writeth …etſonally & directly to theſe ſeaven …one: which is all that he meaneth in …hoſe wordes“Rev. 2.1…. Let him that hath an eare …eare what the Spirit ſaith to the Churches. …ut this is nothing to proove that all …heſe other Churches were Mēbers ſub…ect to thoſe ſeaven. Yet two reaſons …ore“Chap. 4. he hath. One is this;†Pag. 65. The Apo…les appointed Ministers to whole Cities and Countryes adioyning, to labor ſo far as they …ere able the converſion of all. True. What …hen? Therefore they appointed them …o ſtande Miniſters ſtill to whole Ci…ies and Countryes adioyning. I deny …his conſequence. It is a plaine fallacie …b eo quod est ſecundum qu…d, Fallaci….ad ſimpliciter. … pray Sir, when Logike fayleth you, play not the Sophiſter. The Apoſtles appointed Miniſters to convert what they could in great Cities and Countries adioyning, yea and in the whole“Math. 13.33. world: but not to ſtand Miniſters & Paſtors to all them when they ſhould be converted: But only, according t… the order and forme of a Church ſe… downe in the New Teſtament. Which repreſenteth to vsus each Ordinarie. Congregation as an entire Church. Wherefore they might not remayne as Paſtors to all, when all were converted, becauſe ſo Ordinarie Paſtors after the time of the New Teſtament ſhould become ſubſtantially contrary to the ordinary Paſtors conſtituted in the New Teſtament.It īs blaſphemie to avouch that the Apostles intended the Churches forme ſhould be ſubstantially cōtrary to that which is in the New Testament. Which certainly was never the Apoſtles intent: it is no leſſe then blaſphemie for any that will perſiſt in ſaying the Apoſtles intended ſo. You will aſke; how are Paſtors ſo large and ſo generall, contrary ſubſtantially to Paſtors of but one ordinarie Congregation? I anſwer, they are ſubſtantially cōtrary in that theſe may and do admit the Chriſtian peoples free conſent in Church governement, the other can not: theſe cā perſonally adminiſter to their whole flocke, they poſſibly can not, but by Subſtitutes and Curates, as wee call them. For there the proper Paſtors them ſelves are, & of neceſſitie muſt be grand Pluraliſtes and Nōreſidents. Which plainly are ſubſtantiall differences in Paſtors. Beſides that, the one can execute a whole and intire Paſtorall Office, the other can not. &c. as “Declarat. Pag. 12.13.14 15 16. &…elſ-where I have more fully declared. His 2. reaſon is this,†Def. 2.69. In the Apoſtles times the Churches were not divided into Pariſhes, …or Presbyters aſsigned to their ſeveral Cures. Therefore then a Church was not a Pa…iſh. I anſwere. Heere againe hee doth nothing but Equivocat. Let him vnderſtand a Pariſh in that ſenſe as before have defined it,Pa. 204.205. and ſo I affirme that by the very Apoſtles the Churches were divided into ſeverall Pariſhes. That is, …ach Church was it ſelfe a diſtinct Pa…iſh, and ſeverally divided from all o…her. Alſo the Presbyters then were aſſigned to their ſeverall cures, viz. to theſe Pariſhes or Churches. But if hee …ake a Pariſh as it is a Congregation li…ited within a certaine circuit of …round, and as a Dioces is ſubdivided …nto many of them (as they are now) ſo …ve ſpeake not of them. Yet commonly …r altogeather†Pag. 77. hee doth ſo ſpeake of …hem. Wherefore heere every man may …e his vanitie. Hee doth fly the true …ueſtion, and ſhufleth in things that …e never intended. Then, his groſſe vn…ruth & vnſchollerlike aſſertion ought … bee marked, where he ſaith:“Pag 75. The …ord Eccleſia is of a larger extent, then to ſig…fy only one aſſembly. I appeale to all au…entike Greeke Authors, Thucidides, De…oſthenes, Plato, Ariſtotle, Iſocrates, &c. Out …f whom plentifull allegations may be brought, all of them ſhewing that this word Eccleſia did evermore ſignifie only one aſſembly, and never a diſperſed multitude holding many ordinary ſet meetings in far remote places, as Dioceſan and larger Churches do. Now according to theſe and other Greekes living in the Apoſtles dayes, doe the Apoſtles ſpeake. And this I have heeretofore often“Reas. for ref. pag 64. Declarat pag 31. 32. & above pa. 110. propounded and affirmed, as a principall ground, and cauſe of our diſſent from the Church ſtate in England. And the ground is certain: it can not be with reaſon ſpoken againſt. The D. heere†Pag. 14. 15. putteth in to the contrary, the vſe of the word Eccleſia, in Euſebius, who vſeth it to ſignify ſometimes a Dioceſan and Provinciall Church. Hee doth ſo ſometimes, I deny it not. And ſo after him the Fathers do vſe the word likewiſe, as Epiphanius, Theodoret, Chryſoſtome, and the Councilles, and Hiſtorie writers, &c. All this we know well. But what have wee to doe with theſe Authors, ſo late, and ſo partiall, as theſe all were touching the expoſition of the Greeke word Eccleſia? The time that Euſebius wrote in,When Euſebius wrote. was about 340. yeares of Chriſt, or little leſſe. All the reſt wrote after him. At which time, or before, viz. preſently vnderunder Conſtantine the outward forme of the Church did ſo alter and change from that vnderunder the Apoſtles, even in ſubſtantiall points of Church politie, or in ſuch points as did come neere to the ſubſtance of it, that it appeared outwardly to be allmoſt not the ſame. And as the ſtate of the Church altered, ſo the Fathers and Councills which were then (much affecting that ſtate) did alter the old vſe of …he words pertaining to theſe matters. As they practiſed, ſo likewiſe they ſpake and wrote. And ſo have moſt men followed after them. Wherby at the laſt Antichriſt was vndoubtedly advanced. But our noble“Our Atteſtators before mentioned: & ſpecially pag. 104. & after pag. 214. forefathers of late, having diſcovered this myſterie of iniquitie, have found out alſo the corruption & depravation even of this word Eccleſia which hath ben extended larger, and farther then Apoſtolically it was. The which abuſe of this very word doubtles was a pregnant reaſon and meanes (among other) to extend the Church and Governement thereof to that Vniverſalitie which it came to, and is ſtill vehemently chalenged by the Catholiks. Wherefore great cauſe have we ad originem reverti to go backe even vp to the firſt originall and beginning, as Cyprian well adviſeth vsus. For ſo, ſaith he, ceſſat error humanus: thus, and not otherwiſe, error which hath begun from men, will ceaſe. Wherefore wee muſt refuſe Euſebius, Epiphanius, Theodoret, and all either in or after their times for iudges or interpreters of matters or words ſpecially touching Church-governement. The forme whereof inclined toward alteration, yea ſomewhat before them (as wee may perceave in“Can 6. Nic. Concil… ) through Humane ambition and deſyre of greatnes, which is incident even to the godlieſt & beſt men. But vnderunder Constantin and after, it degenerated much more. Wherfore in“See before pa. 125. 127. conſcience to God, and to his bleſſed word, we muſt leave all men, when they ſo palpably differ from the Scripture, as in this cauſe they doe, & cleave only and vnſeparably to the plaine and†Math 22.29 Ioh. 5.39.40. Iſa. 8.20. proper writing of Chriſts Teſtament.

Hee“In his chap. 5. indeavoureth to make voide ſome of our reaſons againſt Dioceſan Churches vnderunder the Apoſtles. Which he doth very poorely. 1. He ſheweth that the Church of Ieruſalem †Pag 84.exceeded the proportion of one particular aſſembly, ordinarily meeting in one place. I grant it, and have granted it“Reas. for ret. pag. 19. 65. 66. heeretofore. But he can not ſhew that this Church nowe had in it mo ordinary, ſet, and conſtant aſſemblyes then one. Which is the point. Hee addeth,†Def. 2. p. 87 It was never intended to be one Pariſh among many, but to be a Mother Church, when by Gods bleſsing it ſhould beget others to be ſevered from it in particular aſſemblies, & yet to remaine ſubordinate and ſubiect to it, as children to the Mother. The very ſame was affirmed by“Pag 7. him before of all the Primitive Churches. But all this is fall …t was intended by the Apoſtles that Ieruſalems Church ſhould bee one Pariſh among many others: and indeed to be as a Mother Church in reverence and reputation, yet as a common Siſter with the reſt in power & iuriſdiction. They alſo intended both in Ieruſalem, and in every other City that the Biſhop and his presbyterie ſhould bee ſet over no more but one particular Congregation and that as more Congregations ſhould be conſtituted,Every Cong…gation … to be an int… Church, & every Church bu… a Congregation. every one ſhould have a Biſhop, & alſo a Presbyterie, if it might be. All this I ſay the Apoſtles intended both in Ieruſalem and every where els in the world. And firſt, this my reaſons“Pag. 208. & Dec… pa. 12 13. 14 15 &c. before rehearſed do ſoundly proove. Alſo Ignat. epiſtles do plainly ſhew that the practiſe was ſo then every where: yea in the Country, as wel as in the Cities, whereſoever there were any Churches then. Ignatius words are theſe,†Ignat. Ad Trall. foreign. Without theſe there is no Church, no meeting togeather of the Saints, no holy aſſembly. This is Vniverſally ſpoken. So againe:“Ad Phila. foreign To every Church (for ſo it may well be tranſlated) there is one Biſhop with a cōpany of Persbyters & Deacons. Where Ignat. meaning is that every wher it ought at leaſt, ſo to be. In which Calvin likewiſe conſenteth; Saying, *Calv. Inſtit. 4.1.9.Vnaquaeque nomen & authoritatem Eccleſiae iure obtinet. Every one of the Congregations (which were diſperſed“And 8.15. Oppidatim & Vicatim in the Country townes and Villages) obtaineth by right the name and authoritie of a Church. Again,“Inſtit. 4.3.6. Quod orbi Vniver ſo preſtiterunt Apoſtoli, id gregi ſuo debet Pastor vnuſquiſque. That which the Apoſtles were to the whole world, the ſame ought every Paſtor be to his owne Flocke. Zuinglius alſo (before hin) is heerein of all other the moſt cleere and reſolute. I touched many of his places†Pag. 102. 103. 104. before. But heere I think it fit to lay forth his words more fully. Firſt, to ſhew that every Church ought to be but one ordinary Congregation, and that in the N. Teſtament it was ſo, hee ſaith,“Zuingl. ad Valentin. Compar. Vox Eccleſiae proprie expoſita non aliud quàm cetum vel populi Cōgregationem, & totum plebis collegium ſignificat. Vndè ſingulas paraecias Eccleſiae vocabulo not are licet, cum per hoc cetus & cōgregati in vnū populi multitudo intelligatur. The word Church, what it is.The word Church properly expounded ſignifyeth no other thing then an aſſembly or meeting togeather of the people, and the whole gathering togeather of the people. Whence by the word Church wee may note and ſignifie every particular Pariſh: Seeing by this word is vnderſtood the multitude of an aſſembly & of the people meeting togeather in one place. Of the Church of Corinth vnderunder the Apoſtles, he ſaith,†Ad Valent Compar. Non equidem negare poteris Paulum hoc loco communem totius populi fidelis Eccleſiam intelligere, qui in vnum collectus Scripturae ſenſus ab alijs expoſitos attentus percipit. Populus ergo, & fidelis Chriſtianorum oninium Eccleſia Doctores ſuos dijudicat, & de illorū doctrina, ſana ne ſit vel impia, pronūciare ſolet. Truly thou canſt not deny that Paul vnderſtandeth in this place the common aſſemby of the whole faitful people, which being gathered together in one place attentively heareth the ſenſes of the Scripture expounded by others, wherefore the people, and faithfull aſſembly of all the Chriſtians iudgeth of their Teachers, & is wont to pronounce of their Doctrine whether it be found or wicked. Likewiſe elſwhere hee ſaith "that the Corinthian Church†In Pasto…. erat Paraecia, was a Pariſh. And again likewiſe. The Epheſin Church thē was“Above pag. 103. Concio, a particular aſſembly. And queſtiōles as he thought of theſe, ſo likewiſe he thought of Ieruſalēs Church: yea of every true viſible Church indefinitly. Of which he ſaith,“Artic. 8, Explanat. Capitur Eccleſia pro peculiaribus Congregationibus, qui ad auditionem verbi, ad Communionem Sacramentorum commodè in aliquem vnum locum conveniunt. Graeci parikia… voc …. De huiuſmodi Eccleſiâ Chriſtus loquitur, Math. 18 Sic Paulus 1. Cor. 1. & 14. The Church is taken for the particular Congregations, which to the hearing of the word and re…eaving the Sacraments do come togeather commodiouſly into one place The Grecians call them Pariſhes. Of ſuch Chriſt ſpeaketh, Math. 18 17. & Paul 1. Cor. 1. & 14. And that every of theſe Churches and Pariſhes ſhould have the “See before pag. 30. 31.power of governement & iudging of cauſes among themſelves, & that wee muſt follow herein only the Scriptur, he ſheweth a little before that it is his meaning. Where expreſſing what Church he ſpeaketh of, and alſo the very cauſe why there is ſuch ſtrife among men about the Church, he ſaith: A multis iam ſeculis ad noſtra vſque tempora quae ſit Eccleſia, certamen fuit, ortum nimirum ex regnanai cupiditate. Nam hoc ſibi quidam arrogarunt, vt ſe dicerent eſſe Eccleſiam, vt omnia corum manu adminiſtrarentur. Omiſsis autem hominum commentis quibus quidam hâc in re nituntur, ex Scripturis ſacris & mente ſpiritus de Eccleſiâ ſcribemus. Quod Graeci Eccleſiam, Hebraei Kahal vocant, Latini Concionem. There hath ben controverſie of old even to our times, what the Church is, which riſeth indeed from a greedines to rule. For this ſome men doe arrogat to thēſelves that they ſay thēſelves are the Church, to the end that all things may bee done by their hand. But we letting go mens deviſes whereon in this cauſe ſome doe reſt, we will write of the Church out of the holy Scripturs and minde of the ſpirit. That which the Greeks cal a Church, the Hebrues call a Congregation, the Latine… an Aſſembly. See how lively hee painteth out and taxeth alſo our Church ſtate in England, though primarily he intendeth the Papiſts. And remember that to every of theſe Churches he alloweth a Biſhop, as“Pag. 104. before I have noted. So that the D. might have ſpared his proud boaſt, that “Pag. 7.All the Diſciplinarians in the world are not able to ſhew that there were, or ought to have ben after the diviſion of Pariſhes, any more then one Biſhop for a whole Dioceſe. Neither ſhould he have called vsus for this our aſſertion†Pag. 14. New fooliſh Diſciplinarians. His worſhip doubtles is wiſe, when all theſe our Atteſtators and abbettors bee fooles. Alſo, that“Pag. 21. his great challenge to his adverſary is thus anſwered. Now to proceed: he ſaith, it is not probable that Ieruſalems Church in the Acts “Pag. 89.did ordinarily meet in one place. I anſwere; yet it is certain they had not then many ordinary, ſet, and conſtant companies meeting togeather. Which is the point we ſtand on: will he never ſee it? Further he ſaith,†Pag. 90. The Apoſtles were never intended to be members, all, or any of them, of one Pariſh. Which is not ſo; they were truly Members of every Church or Pariſh occaſionally, that is, where & when, they were preſent; though conſ…antly and neceſſarily they were not of any one. Againe he ſaith, The meetings Act. 6.1. & 15.22 26 were not Pariſhionall, bur Synodicall. They were Pariſhionall. Indeed the later was both, I take it. Where the Apoſtles and Elders met firſt Synodically a part to debate the controverſy: but Pariſhionally, or with the whole Church, when they decreed and ſet down their reſolutiō. Before he ſaid theſe meetings of the Church were“Pag. 8 9. Panegyrical meetings. Panegyricall, & not ordinary. Which again is not true. Such meetings are out of many Cities and Countries: but heere the Church of Ieruſalem only aſſembled, and (in the 15 of the Acts) 2. or 3. out of Antioch. Againe thoſe are, when ſundry ordinary ſet aſſemblies doe meet in one: but theſe all were of one Church (as I ſaid) having in it not many ordinary ſet aſſemblies. Laſtly heere matters were hādled which pertaine to a Church to performe ordinarily ſo oft as occaſion is. Therefore they are not to be called extraordinary; much leſſe were they like the meetings at Pauls Croſſe or at the Spittle, as he ſaith: leaſt of all were they Panegyricall. His obiection from Act. 21.20. of the many 10000. believing Iewes, I have anſwered†Declarat. pag. 30. 31 elſ-where. The reſt is of no moment.

In his 6. Chapter he ſetteth againſt ſom other of our reaſons, viz. touching the Churches of Corinth, Epheſus, & Antioch vnderunder the Apoſtles. Of all of them he ſaith,“Def. 2.103. Though it ſhould be granted that each of theſe Churches in the Apostles time did ordinarily aſſemble togeather in one place, yet would it not follow that therfore each of them was but a Pariſh: much leſſe that all Churches ſhould be but Pariſhes, and that every Pariſh ſhould have a Biſhop. Verily all this doth follow: neither hath hee with any true reaſon denyed it: but all reaſon is for it, as†Pa 208. 213 before I have ſhewed. Then beginning, with the Church of Corinth, “Pag. 104.hee dealeth deceitfully, leaving out our principall proofe, viz. 1. Cor. 14.23. The whole church came togeather in one. Which can not bee ſuch as might be written to the Church of England, as he ſaith moſt vntruly. Of this I have ſaid more“Declarat. pag. 26. 27. elswhere. To Act. 20.28. of the Church of Epheſus hee ſaith, it needs not ſignifie only the Congregation of a Pariſh. Yet the wordes are, Attend, or†foreign. Cleave cloſe vntounto all the flocke: and the Apoſtle nameth it alſo“foreign. a Congregation. Which being taken for a Viſible Companie, is ever more with authentike Grecians an ordinary Congregatiō only, as I have oft obſerved. So that properly and truly it can not be (as he would have it) either the Vniverſall, or a Nationall, or Provinciall, or Dioceſan Church. Neither can the Paſtors of ſuch cleave cloſe to all ſuch ſ…ockes, nor poſſibly be preſent to the whole. But they muſt be Nōreſidents, which queſtiōles theſe Epheſin Paſtors were not, as hath ben ſaid. Wherefore this place ſtill is a good argument for vsus. And ſo is that touching Antioch alſo, where Act. 14.27. Paul and Barnabas gathered the Church togeather into one particular aſſembly, as the text importeth. It is vntrue and againſt the letter of the text, to ſay (as he doth) ſome of the chiefe, perhaps not many, perhaps not any, beſide the Clergie. The…e perhapſes are miſerable and deſperat ſhiftes. And what forbiddeth Husbandes, Wives, Servants and children of ripe yeares and vnderſtanding to have ben there:

Hitherto he hath laboured to ſhew that the Churches mentioned in the New Teſtamēt were not each of them only one ordinary Congregation, but that they were Dioceſan Churches. Which how vnſufficiently hee hath done, every childe may perceave. By the way, hee obtrudeth a fooliſh conceit on vsus, as if by“Def. 2. pag. 102.104. theſe aforeſaid places of the N. Teſtament, wee intended to prove that the Churches ſtill remained (till 200. yeares of Chriſt) ſuch as we hold they were at the firſt. But let him take that collection to himſelfe: it is none of our meaning, Yet where he maketh ſo much a doe about the ſpace of 200. yeares, that we ſhould ſay for ſo long time there was no Dioceſan Church. The truth therof is very perſpicuous and certain, & let the D. know that I can eaſily maintaine it.For the ſpace of 200. yeares after Chriſt there was no Dioceſan Church. Therefore let vsus ſee what he hath againſt it.

Where firſt I will note what a cavill he hath againſt vsus for abridging and reſtraining the primitive Church to 200. yeares only. To which I anſwer, in reſpect of taking the Primitive Church as a pattern for vsus to follow, ſo we reſtraine it yet ſhorter, even to the Apoſtles times onelyonly, yea to the times of writing the N. Teſtament, yea to the N. Teſtament it ſelfe only. And we affirme, if any doe follow any authoritie beſide, they doe profanely, irreligiouſly, adulterouſly, & no better. So that in this our D. & D. Bilſon likewiſe, where beeing without all proofes in Chriſts Teſtament, they heap vp Fathers vponupon Fathers, and moſt eagerly cry out that we holde againſt“Def. 2.128.142. & Def. 4. &c. Perp. gov. 25… 259. &c. the Vniverſall & perpetuall practiſe of the Church of Chriſt, if they could make ſom ſhew hereof, yet I ſay ſeeing they have not, nor cā bring one ſound proofe for themſelves in Chriſts Teſtament, therefore they vſe heere but a carnall reaſon, and contrary to the honour of God. They†Ier. 17.5… make fleſh their arme, and put not their truſt in the living God. “Chap. 2.13They digge to themſelves pits that can hold no water. It is true, the Vniverſall and perpetuall practiſe of Chriſts Church is to bee held alwayes good and holy. This I grant: but it is becauſe ſuch practiſe evermore hath the Apoſtles plaine writing for it, and with it. Which the Churches ſaid practiſe can not bee deſtitute of. But yet ſuppoſe our adverſaries had ſom kind of general conſent of men for thē as they pretend, ſeeing they can not indeed produce the Scripture more then the Papiſts do, who alſo pretēd the like Vniverſal conſent for their turne; or ſuppoſe that they do but pretend all this Vniverſalitie & perpetuitie, beeing far from it indeed; then why (I pra…) ſhould not we anſwer them as D. Bilſon ſomtime anſwered the ſaid Papiſts, Saying,“Anſw. to the Seminar. part. 4. pa. 360 If you want the foundation of faith and religion (he meaneth the Scripture) in vaine you do ſeeke to make a ſhew of Catholiciſme with ſuch patches and pamplets, &c. When you muſter the Fathers to diſprove the Scriptures, and to eſtabliſh an vnwritten faith vnderunder the credit of traditions, you corrupt the Writers, and abuſe the Readers. †Pag. 362.Nowe cite not only 9. but 9. ſkore Fathers if you will for Traditions, & the more you ſtir the worſe you ſpcede. “Pag. 300.Truth (hee meaneth the Scripture) is authoritie ſufficient againſt all the world. *Pag. 301.One man with truth is warrant againſt all the world: yea every private man for his owne perſon may embrace Gods Lawes, whoſoever ſay nay. And as Tertullian hath, againſt this no man may preſcribe, nor ſpace of time, nor patronage of perſons, nor privilege of places. “Pag. 299.Though the whole world pronounce againe the word, yet God will bee true, and all men lyars. †Pag. 384.God ſpeaketh not now but in the Scriptures. How excellently are theſe things written, if he himſelfe and his aſſociats would followe the ſame, or would ſuffer vsus to follow it? The effect wherof is, that not only wee are bound evermore to holde faſt Gods word and never to admit the carnal reaſō of Humane conſent in Divine matters (ſuch as our queſtiō of the forme of Chriſts Church is) but alſo it notifyeth D. Bilſons open cōtradictiō to himſelfe, who preſſeth hardly againſt vsus that which hee denyeth to the Papiſts. Is God an accepter of perſons? Is it ill for Papiſts to plead Vniverſall conſent, and yet muſt we content our ſelves with it & reſt thereon? Shall he ſay to vsus,“Perp. gov. pag. 223.235. Is not the whole Church a lawfull and ſufficient witnes in that caſe? And that it is enough,†Pag. 228. if any chriſtian perſons deſerve to be credited. And yet ſhall he ſay to Papiſts,“Lib. 4.38…. It is alike Haereticall to believe without Scripture, a… to believe againſt Scripture. Yea, even to ourſelves when hee liſt hee can ſay,†Perp. gov. pag. 286. Make vsus good proofes out of Scripturs, or leave tying Gods ordinances to your appetites. Wherfore we muſt crave leave in our cauſe alſo to anſwer him and all of his minde with his owne words afore rehearſed. And likewiſe with D. Rainold, that“Conſ. 257. No Humane proofe is ſure in Divinitie: &†Pag. 19… Truth is not to be tryed by conſent of Fathers: &“Pag. 45… For my ſelfe, I aſſure you that neither dead nor quicke, Fathers nor children ſhall perſwade me any thing in matter of religion, which they cannot prove by Moſes & the Prophetes, or (which hee meaneth) by the Apoſtles writings.

Now thus the Churches Vniverſall & perpetuall conſent beeing no good proofe in Divinitie, the whole Churches conſent at ſome time only, is a proofe much worſe, and by no meanes to be admitted. Though Auguſtin in a certain place, (it ſeemeth) held it good yet it is his error: as where hee ſaith,“August. epiſt, 118. Si quid tota hodiè per orbem frequentat Eccleſia, hoc quin ita faciendum ſit diſputare, inſolentiſsimae inſaniae eſt. If the whole Church through out the world at this day obſerve any thing it is inſolent madnes to reaſon againſt it. Certainly there have ben and may be†As ſometime Polygamie was Catholike errors, which yet queſtionles may be, yea ought to bee reproved by all them that vnderſtād them.

Well: but have our adverſaries a Vniverſall cōſent of the whole Church at any time? Alas, they are far from it. Neither D. Bilſon, nor D. Downame, nor they al have alleaged, neither can they alleage, halfe a quarter of the whole Church at any time. What then? Then they are to laviſh of their wordes, in ſaving they have the Vniverſall conſent of the whole Church. They indeed come ſhort of it by many hundred thouſandes. A poore fewe God knowes they cite, in compariſon of all. It may be they name ſome of the chiefe & moſt famous in their dayes: Yet it followeth not that all who lived then were of their minde.D. Bilſon againſt the Seminar. lib. 1. part. 2. pag. 402. Neither is it neceſſary that all differences ſhould bee recorded in writing: nor that all Records ſhould be preſerved, & come to our handes. So that they are far from proving a Vniverſall conſent at any time, much leſſe at all times of the Church.

But what ſpeake I of Vniverſalitie and perpetuitie? Let our adverſaries not equivocat. Let them deale plainly. Let them vſe no deceit in wordes, nor force to mens conſciences. And then I aſſure thee (good reader) nothing but noveltie and iniquitie is in their Defence and aſſertion againſt vsus. I have ſhewed before, that in our controverſie which wee have at this day.“Above pa. 98.97.…. we ſpeak againſt only a proper Dioceſan Church and the Biſhop thereof, where the peoples free cōſent is wholy denyed them, as it is in England: and our adverſaries defende namely this Dioceſan Church and Biſhop. Of this particularly and preciſely is all their†Def. 2.114. Epiſt. to the King. pag. 1 great and glorious commendation and praiſe, which they publiſh. Nowe to the point. Is this kind of Dioceſan Church, and this kind of Biſhop Apoſtolicall? Have they Vniverſall & perpetuall approbation for this? Nothing leſſe. I appeale heerin to our right worthy Atteſtators before alleaged, yea to all indifferent and vnpartiall witneſſes; yea to the partial alſo in times of“Pag. 64. 65. 66. antiquitie, who do ſtand with vsus. By all true evidence it wilbe as cleare as the light at noone day, that this foreſaid proper Dioceſan Church and Biſhop were not in the world till after 200. yeares of Chriſt, which is the time limited by vsus: Indeed, not till after 300. Nay, it was after 400: and longer alſo. As I have ſhewed“Pag. 66. 67. 88. before. So that both D. Bilſons and D. Downames Defences which they have made for the preſent Church-ſtate in England, even in the ſubſtantiall points of governement therein, are cleane fruſtrat. Neither is the ſame Apoſtolicall, neither hath it Vniverſall, nor perpetuall, nor indeed any old approbation among Chriſtians, as they colourably pretend. But it is proved to bee novell,A proper Dioceſan church is novell. and meerely of the wit, and will of men, and that after the time of Antichriſts riſing.

The contrary obiectons of our adverſaries I will heere obſerve,D. Doves 3. falſifications of Euſeb. as neere as I can. Firſt, that which D. Downame borrowed of D. Dove. viz. that Marke conſtituted a Dioceſan Church in Alexandria. But this I have ſhewed“Pag. 90 91. before to bee a meere forgerie of theſe two D. D. grounded vponupon a falſe tranſlation of their author Euſebius. And heere I can not but remember a ſecond, and a third like falſifying of Euſebius by D. Dove in his Defence. The former of theſe is pag. 13. where he ſaith, Euſebius wordes be theſe,†Euſeb. lib 3.4. Timothie was the firſt Biſhop of the whole Precinct of Epheſus in as ample maner as Titus of all the Churches of Crete. Euſebius ſaith not that Timothie was: but hee ſaith, it is reported that Timothie was the firſt Biſhop of Epheſus, as Titus of the Churches of Crete. Againe, Euſebius ſaith not of the whole precinct of Epheſus, nor in as ample maner. There are no ſuch words in Euſebius. This is no tranſlating, but perverting an Author.Thirly, that which Euſebius hath indeed, viz. Timothie was ſaid to have ben Biſhop of the Pariſh in Epheſus: this he rendreth not, but perverteth. For in Epheſus, is not without the City, much leſſe the whole precinct of Epheſus containing the large Country adioyning. Yea that the Church in Epheſus was but a Pariſh then, Ignatius ſheweth writing to the whole Church of Epheſus, & ſaying to them,“I…nat. a… Ephes. When you come oft togeather into the ſame place, &c. Therfore the whole then did come togeather in one place. And it is not only falſe, but abſurd to ſay that the like may be ſpoken now of the†Can they all come togeather in one place? Dioceſan Church of London. Thus therefore Euſebius is perverted twiſe by D. Dove. His 3. falſifying of him is, where Euſebius ſaith of Iohn the Apoſtle in a certain City“Euſeb. lib. 3.23. Graec. foreign, having refreſhed the Breth…en, and looked on the Biſhop that was ſet over al the ſaid brethren of that place, hee committed a yong man to him. But the D. ſetteth it down thus, Iohn the Apoſtle cōmitted the charge of a yong man to a Biſhop†Pag. 15. 18. qui ſuper cunst…s Epiſcopos erat constitutu…, which was ſet over all the reſt of the Biſhops thereabout. As if then there had ben an Archbiſhop, or a Biſhop over Biſhops. So ſaith this Doctor, as out of Euſebius. But he abuſeth his author. Euſebius hath not ſuch a word. And yet D. Downame alſo“Def. 4.112. alleageth the ſame place, though he cunningly forbeareth to mention the words. Doct. Downame further preſſeth Euſebius in that hee ſaith foreign it is reported that Titus was Biſhop of the Churches of Crete. As alſo Perpet. govern. pag. 233.He tranſlateth, it is recorded in Hiſtories. But he can not make that good in this place. For the word ſignifyeth any relation, or narration, or report of a matter. And Euſebius vſeth alwayes to name his author, & at ful to ſet downe the words, when hee groundeth vponupon any written hiſtorie. So hee citeth very often Egeſippus, Clemens, Dionyſius, Tertullian, &c. Wherefore queſtion…es heere he meaneth ſome other report, or tradition, and ſpeach of mē, I know not whom. And in ſetting downe ſuch matters, he is nothing curious many times, as“Pag. 91. 92. before I have ſignifyed. Not ſeldom he reporteth fabulous things, yea whē he nameth his author,Euſebius of no abſolut credit. as is wel knowen. And yet he is all the warrant and ground which any writer hath (either young or old) for Tius his being Biſhop of Crete. Theodoret, Epiphanius, Chryſostomus, Ierome, &c. Dorotheus Synops. is not worth the naming▪have al their inducement ſo to thinke from hence. All theſe alſo them ſelves were great Prelates, or lovers of Prelates, and therefore wee may holde them partiall in ſetting downe and receaving ſuch reportes. What wiſedom then is in Do. Downame to ſay it is an vncharitable and vnlearned part, yea intolerable impudencie to deny credit to ſuch authorities? It is rather intolerable impietie and plaine idolatrie, to ſet vp theſe and ſuch like for rules of our faith, and warrants to our conſcience (as the D. laboureth to do) in this cauſe. Howbeit further, Euſebius ſaith not that Titus was ſaid to be Biſhop of Crete; but only ſo as Timothie was Biſhop of Epheſus. Where he ſeemeth to meane that both of thē were then thought to bee not proper Biſhops, but in the generall ſenſe and vnderſtanding of the word Biſhop. And ſo he ſeemeth to meane alſo that Marke was ſaid to be Biſh. of Alexādria: whom yet he nameth an Apostle and Evangelist: & Iames (an Apoſtle in deed) Biſhop of Ieruſalem. I ſay, in a generall ſenſe; but not Biſhops properly. And ſo truly the other Fathers after Euſebius, do ſeeme to meane: and we accord thus with them. Otherwiſe we muſt needes deny credit to them heerein, viz. if Euſebius &c. ſay theſe were proper Biſhops. For it is not poſſible that they could bee ſo: ſeeing they were both Superior, and alſo Divinely diſtinguiſhed from proper Biſhops, as anon we ſhall ſee further, where further occaſion will be given vsus to anſwer D. Downame about Timothie & Titus Biſhoprikes.

Againe,“Def. 2.23. and 116. D. Downame citeth out of Councill Carthage 3. and Epheſ. 1. foreign from the beginning, and even from the Apostles, as†Perpet. gov. pag. 324. Doct. Bilſon before him avoucheth. But both of thē wreſt the Councilles. For they ſay not ſo: only they ſay, that Dioceſes ſhould remaine ſuch as they were from the beginning, that is, ever ſince Dioceſes were appointed. Not from the beginning ſimply: but from the beginning of Dioceſes, which though it were lōg before theſe Councills, yet as I iudge it was not before“About the yeare 260. See before pag. 92.93. Dionyſius Biſhop of Rome. And touching the Apoſtles, the Epheſin Council ſpeaketh of the Apoſtles Canons. Beeing ſtrangely deceaved in attributing them to the Apoſtles, as any one may perceave if hee ſee the Can. 4.5.8.17, 18.27.47.49.65. 68, 84.25. Wherefore they are falſlie fathered on the Apoſtles, beeing but baſe and baſtardly ſtuffe in reſpect of them. And yet they intende no“See before. pag. 88. 97. 98. proper Dioceſan Church, viz. like ours in England. Neither were theſe Canons before Constantines age. So that our D. D. do argue from hence very vnworthily. But D. Down. “Def. 2.106.boaſteth much that Ignatius calleth him ſelfe“Ignat. ep… ad Rom. Biſhop of Syria. Why? What then? Ignatius heere ſheweth his Nation, not the extent of his Biſhoprike. He ſheweth hee was a Biſhop of Syria, or a Syrian Biſhop; & not the Biſhop of all Syria. Likewiſe to the“Ad Magnes. Magneſians that his Church was a moſt famous & notable Church in Syria, not the only Church there, much leſſe extended over all Syria. Neither was Philip Archbiſhop of Crete, as the Doctor †Defenc 4.8 and 2.125would make him ſeeme by perverting and abuſing Euſebius againe. For his words“Euſe. ….…3 foreign their Biſhop, are to bee referred to the Church of Gortyna mentioned a little before. Not to the very next wordes, which are to be vnderſtood by themſelves as it were in a parentheſis, thus; ((foreign) together with the rest of the Churches in Crete. To take Euſebius thus, is the right taking of him heere. For preſently him ſelfe openeth him ſelfe, ſaying it was the Church of Gortyna which was foreign vnderunder him. VnderUnder Philip.And yet more plainly after, where with ſpeciall reſpect to the former place in queſtion, he ſaith of this Philip, †Cap. 23.foreign, whō we know by Dionyſius i…ordes to have ben Biſhop of the Pariſh in Gortyna. So then hee was not Biſhop of all Creete by Euſebius teſtifying. The Doc. in another place contradicteth him ſelfe, and maketh Pinytus at this very time to be Biſhop of“Def. 4.9. Candie, that is, of all Crete, as he meaneth. In deed Euſebius ſaith, that this Pinytus was†Euſeb. 4.21. foreign Biſhop of them in Crete. But all men vnderſtand that hee meaneth heere to ſhew but his Nation, not the extent of his Biſhoprike. For Euſebius declaresh“Cap. 23. after, that Pinytus was Gnoſsita… paraciae Epiſcopus, the Biſhop of the pariſh in Gnoſsi. Which certainly was not Over all Crete, neither was Gnoſi… the mother City of Crete. That which the Doctor†Def. 2.93.100. preſumeth of Evaristus Biſhop of Rome, that he there conſtituted a Dioceſan Church and divided pariſhes, I have anſwered it†Pag. 93. 94. before. His teſtimonies out of Tertullian, Cornelius of Rome, and Cyprian for a Dioceſan Church, proove nothing. Touching the“Def. 2.97.98. firſt, Tertullian ſaith not that in Rome or in any Citie then, the Chriſtians were divided into many ſet, conſtant, and certain companies,Tertallian. and ſo had divers ſuch ordinarie aſſemblies. Tertullian ſaith no ſuch matter, which yet is the point. Indeed, like a Rhetorician hee amplifieth the multitude of Chriſtians and Chriſtianlie affected in his dayes; and that is all that he doeth Apol 37. and ad Scapul▪ They are in truth Rhetoricall amplifications. Yet, I ſay,In the Roman Empire. he comprehēdeth in theſe great nombers all Chriſtianly affected, and all their favourers; not only the open members of the Church.Cootiarily hee ſaith, they were one ſingular Cetus & aggregatio. Def. 2. Now ſuch may be ſo many, as hee there noteth. Nothing of all this we deny. But hee ſheweth not, that yet in any Citie the open reſolut Chriſtians were divided into divers ordinary ſet companies, as I ſaid. The like do I anſwer to†Pag. 9…. that of the very great and innumerable people vnderunder Cornelius Biſhop of Rome. They were ſo many, that no man among them knew the firſt nomber of them. And ſo I ſuppoſe at this day the church is in Paris, in Rouan. &c. Where yet the Church is not divided into ſeveral conſtant and ſet Meetings: but all belong only to one certaine & conſtant aſſembly. Againe vnderunder Cornelius the Chriſtian people were not ſo many but one Trophimus a Presbyter drew away from him“Cypr. epiſt. 4.2. the greater part of them after Novatian; & repenting, he brought them backe with him againe. Alſo the Church aſſembled in one place to elect*Cypr. Epi. 3.13. and 4. Cornelius, and a little before“Euſeb. 6.22. Fabianus, to bee their Biſhop. Wherefore they were not abſolutly innumerable. But this is plaine, and it can not be diſprooved, that yet the Church in Rome had not divers ſet, conſtant, ordinarie aſſemblies. Nor yet Cyprians Church in Carthage. Anno 250.All the which came togeather for“See pag. 55.56.57.58. his election, and vnderunder him alſo for all ordinarie Church buſines. The Do. ſaith vntruly of him that†Def. 2.40. he was Biſhop of Afrike. Nazianzen doth make him Biſhop Heſperiae Vniverſae, of all Spaine at leaſt, as well as of Afrike. And Prudentius goeth further: ſaith he,†De Paſsi… Cypr. Vſque in ortum Solis, & vſque obitum: from the riſing of the Sunne, to the going downe thereof. But doth any man beleeve that Cypri…s Biſhoprike was ſo large? or that theſe Authors meant ſo? Nothing leſſe. They meant only that the example of this holy man, and his doctrine did good thus far. I graunt alſo that by his letters he admoniſhed and informed divers other▪ Biſhops neare about Carthage: and ſo hee did Cornelius of Rome, &c. But this was out of his ſingular zeale for the truth and love to his brethren. Alſo hee prevayled much in ſo doing. Howbeit this was through his great credit & reverence they had of him: it was not out of any Metropolitan power that hee had, or ſuperior office which he exerciſed over thē. For he had none ſuch, though he were a Metropolitan in reſpect of the place where hee was Biſhop. And altogeather“Defen. 4.8… ſo did Policrates of Epheſus, foreign hee lead or guided the Aſian Biſhops. And no otherwiſe†Def. 2.115. Irenaeus B. of Lions foreign did looke vntounto certaine Churches thereabout in France. And Victor B. of Rome was a Metropolitan no otherwiſe alſo. Although without any preiudice to vsus, wee might well grant theſe to have bene then ſuch Metropolitans & Dioceſans, †viz. with Prioritie of order, not Maioritie of power▪as before we acknowledged Iulianus of Alexandria to have ben, who was ſomwhat ancienter then they. Other Dioceſan or Metropolitā Biſhops after theſe, whom both D. Downame and D. Bilſon do name plētifully, as they hurt not our maine Aſſertion, viz. that no proper Dioceſan Church was in the world before 200. yeares after Chriſt, ſo neither do wee envie their appearing which was“See pag. 88. 94. &c. ſo late as it was. Theſe D. D. do argue earneſtly from Ierom ſaying that*Ierom. ad …vagr. Biſhops above Presbyters were at Alexandria even from Marke the Evangeliſt. Which we willingly agree vntounto. For they were not Dioceſan Biſhops, not over many ordinarie Congregations. And ſuch alſo were thoſe Angells of the Churches, which are mentioned in the“Rev. 2.1. Revelation. This wee conſtantly avouch, theſe we allow, and what get our adverſaries by that? We hold that ſuch Biſhops be Apoſtolike and Divine: yet Dioceſan both titular, and ruling Biſhops, and alſo Lord Biſhops came in …a…latim by litle and little, by Humane policie, and ambition, and tyrānie long after. But Ierom there ſaith that theſe Biſhops were in a higher degree above Presbyters:Bez. Anno…at. in Apoc. 2.1. which Beza denyeth. Alſo they were conſtant Preſidents in the Meetings: which Beza alſo denyeth. Beza ſaith, Biſhops and Preſbyters then differed not gradu, in degree; meaning in degree of power: that is, in Maioritie of power they differed not then. But in degree of Order, he granteth they did differ: which I call“Reas. for 1…. Prioritie of Order. Which alſo Ie…om meaneth by his higher degree in this place. And ſo heerein we all agree. But as touching Bezaes coniecture of the Angell of Ephezus, viz. that peradventure he might be a Preſident not continuing, but changeable, I ſuppoſe few approve it. For my part, I do not. Though I greatly honor the name & memorie of Maiſter Beza, yet there is no neede to be of his opinion in this. A changeable Preſidencie (no doubt) was among thoſe Biſhops Act. 20.28. But I am of minde that none of theſe Biſhops (meant by the Angells) Rev. 2. & 3. were changeable. In all likelyhood they were conſtant and continuing for terme of life. And ſuch a difference (Preſidentiall) might well com in among the many joint Paſtors of the Church at Epheſus by this time, and yet they all remaine†Declar…, pag. 15. equall in honor and power Paſtorall. Howbeit, theſe conſtant Preſidents were Biſhops then to no Dioceſan multitude diſperſed abroad in many ordinary ſet aſſemblies, but to one ordinary aſſembly only, as is noted often before. And ſo the great argument of theſe Doctors which they take from the“Perp. gov. pag. 260. D. Down. Def. 4. &…. Succeſsion of Biſhops, to proove our Biſhops as they are in England to be lawfull, may appeare to be a meere Sophiſme & deceit. For the Biſhop of Rome alſo may by ſuch a ſhew of Succeſſion prove his Office and Function lawfull, as in deed he doth indeavour to do, and doth it as well as they. But though all theſe Biſhops have one name, viz. Biſhops; yet betweene the firſt and the laſt of them there are ſeene many reall and ſubſtantiall differences in their Offices. To obſerve therefore this egregious Equivocation, I remit the Reader to pag. 98. 99. 128. 129. 211. 212. before.

Yet Doctor Downame † ſticketh hard to this,†Defenc. 4.50. &c. that Iames the Apoſtle was a Biſhop.Iames no proper Biſhop. What? a proper Biſhop? It is ſimply impoſſible, whoſoever ſay otherwiſe. Let the Reader marke that all our queſtion is about Biſhops properly ſo called, & not about the name Biſhop vſed in a generall ſenſe. There is“Rain. confer. pa. 263. 267. a generall taking of the word Biſhop, and there is a proper taking of it. Apoſtles and Evangeliſtes may generally & improperly be called Biſhops, the rather if they reſide long in one place, and do execute a Biſhop like Office there. As Iames, I graunt, did in Ieruſalem, and Titus in Crete, yea by aſſignement of the Apoſtles. And queſtionles ſo the Ancient Writers meane, where they: call Iames Biſhop of Ieruſalem, and Titus Biſhop of Crete. For neither Iames nor Titus were, nor could be proper Biſhops there. Which I ſhewe thus.

Every Biſhop is appropriated limited and confined only to one Church.

Iames neither was, nor could be appropriated and confined only to one Church.

Therefore Iames neither was nor could be a Biſhop.

The Propoſition is moſt evident, and granted of our“D. Bilſon pag. 227. 232. adverſaries. The Aſſumption they neither ought, nor dare deny. For Iames having frō Chriſt a Miniſterie and Calling to all Churches throughout the world, this hee retayned ſtill, hee never loſt that, it were ſacrilege to reduce him from it, and to ſhorten him of this his right given him frō heaven. Neither could the Apoſtles do it, if they would. Heere it will be an abſurd evaſion to ſay; Iames had in him two Offices, viz. an Apoſtles, and a proper Biſhops Office. In reſpect of the former hee was ſtill vnlimited: in reſpect of the later he was limited to the Church of Ieruſalem. This I ſay, is ſo abſurd & frivolous, as nothing can be more. And yet it is the only thing that can bee anſwered. I pray, can one and the ſame man by any diſtinction be capeable of privative contraries at one time? Can the ſame man be in fetters and at libertie at once? Can one be blind, and ſee alſo? Can a man be a Chriſtian, & an inſidell too? No more could Iames be both appropriated to Ieruſalem, and not appropriated at one time. Neither could the proper Biſhops Office bee conioyned with an Apoſtleſhip. For it were in vaine. Seeing the Apoſtleſhip contayneth the whole Biſhoply Office, and more too. But the Apoſtles in the Churches adminiſtratiō did no thing in vaine, & idly. Again, though the Apoſtleſhip contained in it the whol office of a proper Biſhop, yet this was“Declarat. pag. 30. Materially, not Formally. As a Privie Counſailler in England hath in him the Office and power of a Iuſtice of peace: alſo a Shilling containeth a Groat. But no man that meaneth plainly, will ſay; A Shilling is a Groat: or, a Privie Counſailler is a Iuſtice of peace. If any do, it is not rightly nor truely ſpoken. For not the Matter, but the Forme doth give the proper name. Yet I do not deny all vſe of vnproper ſpeaches. I grant, on ſome occaſion men may ſpeake generally and vndiſtinctly of things,In reaſoning we must alwayes ſpeake properly. as I deeme thoſe Ancients did of Biſhops. Nevertheles in ordinary teaching, and ſpecially in reaſoning and diſputing wee muſt ever vſe exact and proper termes, avoyding generalities and wordes vnproper. Otherwiſe wee equivocate. To this reaſon, that the Apostles gave not Iames any power which hee had not before, as an Apostle. D. Downame anſwereth that which is both falſe, and alſo moſt preſumptuous. For plainly hee ſaith,“Def. 4.5… Iames the Apoſtle had not the power of Iuriſdiction before he was deſigned Biſhop of Ieruſalem. O hautie Biſhops! Who arrogat to themſelves a power beyond the Apoſtles. No marvaile if he ſay,Pag. 59. it is no depreſſing of an Apoſtle to become a proper Biſhop. For only this may l…ft vp a Biſhop above an Apoſtle; his other idle“Pag. 62. 63. reſpects and conſiderations neither did, nor could.

Titus and Timothie were no proper Biſhops.Nay, but Titus, & Timothie, and their Biſhopriks, do make the moſt buſines of all. Of whom D. Bilſon ſaith,†Perpet. gov… pag. 300. Heere I muſt pray the Chriſtian Reader adviſedly to marke what is ſaid & anſwered on either ſide. This indeed is the maine erection of the Epiſcopall power and function▪ if our proofes ſtand; or ſubvertion, if your anſwere be good. For if this faile, well may Biſhops claine their authoritie by the cuſtome of the Church; by any divine precept expreſſed in the Scriptures, they can not. Saith hee ſo? Let vsus ſee then howe ſoundly this will ſtand. But firſt, I deſire him to remember, if it happen that this his proofe out of the Scrip… … ſubverted, and then he be forced to flie to the Churches Cuſtom for ſuccour, that himſelfe hath ruined, caſt downe, and defaced that weake hold all ready. So that there he can have no reliefe. Now then to his proofes out of ſcripture that Titus & Timothie were Biſhops. He frameth 4. Arguments for it.

1. That power to ordaine ſit Miniſters, to convent & diſcharge vnſit (preſcribed to Titus & Timothie) was no power proper to Evangeliſts. Wee grant this wholy, even the Concluſion. It is another point: and nothing againſt vsus.

The Concluſion of his 2. argument is like to the former: therefore we grant it alſo. For this proveth not that Timothie or Titus were proper Biſhops, which is the queſtion. Yet in the Minor where hee ſaith, that Preſbyteries claime this power comitted to Timothie & Tite, even to ordain, examine, cenſure, & deprive Paſtors. I deny this to bee true: Preſbyteries claime not this power. Neither have they it properly & originally, as Bucer ſhewed“Pag 33. before. Properly and originally the whole Church hath this power: the Presbyterie hath only the authoritie of adminiſtring the ſame, & that in the name of the whole Church, as Piſcator and V…ſinus †Pag. 46. …1.before do expreſſe. And further I anſwer (by that diſtinction above noted;) This power of ordayning, examining, cenſuring, &c. committed to Timothie and Titus, the Presbyterie in deed hath and executeth Materially, but not Formally. Which maketh his Minor Propoſition to bee falſe moſt cleerely.

His 3. argument is concluded in no forme. But where he“Perp. gov. Pag. 391. ſaith, The precepts of Ordayning, and Cenſuring, are delivered to Timothie and Titus, and to thoſe that ſhould ſucceed them vntounto the end of the world. Ergo Timothies power & function in this behalfe must bee perpetuall. This is true likewiſe Materially: but not Formally. Their Succeſſors are to execute the ſame in deed alwayes as touching the material actions. Thoſe things muſt be done: but vnderunder divers formes of Miniſteries, or maners of adminiſtration. Heere Timothie and Titus being properly Evangeliſtes did theſe actions vnderunder the forme of an Evangeliſticall Miniſterie. Sometime Apoſtles did the ſame actions, but vnderunder the forme of an Apoſtolicall Miniſterie. After them, Biſhops did the ſame actions alſo: but vnderunder the forme of a proper Biſhops office. &c. Wherefore the perpetuitie of theſe actions materially which Timothie and Titus did, proveth not the Office and Miniſterie of Timothie and Titus formally to bee perpetuall. This is a very weake concluſion, and very crooked.

His 4. argument is, The whole Church of Christ ſince the Apostles times without exception hath ſo constred the Apostles wordes to Timothie and Titus touching their governement. And hee names Euſebius, Ierome, Ambroſe, &c. D. Rainolds anſwereth Hart the Prieſt;Confer. pag. 267. I perceave the Pope must fetch his Supremacie from Earth and not from Heaven. You are fallen from Scripture to Euſebius. Even ſo our adverſaries, when all is done they muſt fetch the Dioceſan L. Biſhops Office from earth and not from heaven. They fall from Scripture to Euſebius. &c. And yet not Euſebius not the reſt do conſter thoſe preceptes to Timothie and Titus, as belonging only to Biſhops: much“See before pag. …24. …5. leſſe did the whole Church of Chriſt ſince the Apoſtles times without exception. This is a ſtrange Hyperbole. But theſe writers acknowledged Timothie and Titus to have ben Biſhops. Nay, not Dioceſan L. Biſhops; they neither acknowledged nor knew any ſuch in their times, as before hath ben ſhewed. Yet only of theſe our queſtion is. Againe, they held Timothie & Titus not to be Biſhops at all properly, but in a generall ſenſe; as“Pag. 230. 238. before I obſerved. If they meant otherwiſe, they miſſed the truth, ſaith D. Rainolds. Conf. p. 267Howbeit, They ſuffred none but Biſhops either to ordaine or degrade Presbyters. Yet as I ſaid before, not abſolutly with out the peoples conſent as our L. Biſhops do. If any among them inclined to neglect the people herein, they did contrary to the Canons of thoſe times. Laſtly it is true, theſe ancients to much reſted on Cuſtome, & Counſaills of men, and humane policie in ſetting the Church governemēt: they (as Ierome) inclined to much to approve Dioceſan, Provinciall, and Patriarchall Biſhops with too abſolute power, only grounding vponupon the Cuſtome of the Church, though they knew they wanted Divine diſpoſition. Whence afterward Antichriſt eaſily ſprang vp. Now then I pray, with what colour can Doct. Bilſon from thoſe preceptes to Timothie and Titus plead for our Dioceſan and Provinciall L. Biſhops, whom they nothing concerne, and ſay, The wordes be ſingular, the charge is vehement, the parties were Biſhops? *Perp. gov. pag. 299.And how vainly doth he inſult, without reaſon charging vsus that“Pag. 30…. Fire will better agree with water, then we with our ſelves. Which is his familiar cuſtome, not ours.

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

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

Our D. (following D. Dove.) would prove that Timothie & Titus had“Pag 89. their ordinary reſidence in Epheſus & in Crete: becauſe one was willed†1. Tim 1.… foreign to abide at Epheſus,"Tit. 1.5. the other foreign to redreſſe further the things which hee foūd there amiſſe. It is true, for a time each of them was ſo reſident. But not alwayes, nor till they dyed. For not long after Timothie was†2. Tim. 4.9. called away, and Tychicus an other Evangeliſt was ſent to“Eph. 6.2…. Epheſus in his roome. When, if Timothie had bene there ſtill, it ſeemeth there had ben no need of Tychicus, neither would Paul have left him vnſaluted and vnnamed in that epiſtle to the Epheſians. Alſo the Apoſtle†Philip. 2.1… intended that Timothie being come from Epheſus ſhould vndertake the charge of Philipps. Therfore he was now looſe and free from Epheſus. Writers alſo ſay that Iohn the Apoſtle afterward was at Epheſus doing a Biſhoply office: when ſurely Timothie was not Biſhop there, yet as may be thought he was then living. Our D. addeth, that Biſhops & other Paſtors may be abſent frō their cures vponupon ſpeciall and extraordinary occaſion. It is vntrue, they may not.Now reſiden… All religion and pietie forbiddeth it, vnles it bee with their Churches expreſſe conſent. Which Timothie heere had not. The Apoſtle, as hee alone placed him at Epheſus, ſo he alone without the Church called him away. You will ſay, and he alone might doe ſo. True, the Apoſtle alone might doe ſo with Evangeliſts, but hee might not with Biſhops and Paſtors. Theſe were more in their Churches power then ſo. Neither indeed had it ben“Pag. 93. a matter of good report, nor of good example (as his refuter ſaith well) if Timothie being the Epheſians proper Biſhop had without their ſpeciall grant gone from them, chiefly ſo long time, and ſo far of, and to take charge of another place. Neither verely had Paul any need ſo to take away a proper Paſtor from his flocke. The ſame likewiſe is to bee ſaid of Titus his departure from Crete, firſt to Rome, then to Dalmatia. But hee will prove that“Pag. 91. they lived and dyed in Epheſus and Crete. If they did, yet it followeth not that therfore they were Biſhops there; nor yet that they had ordinary reſidēce there all their life time. It might happen that travayling to & fro they might in the end of their dayes dy there. For ſomwhere they muſt dy. And yet they are not therefore Biſhops of that place: neither had they therefore ordinary reſidence there till their end. But who ſaith they dyed there? Som, whoſe teſtimonies whoſoever refuſe to beleeve, do themſelves deſerve no credit. Yea, are they ſo infallible? Who are they? Dorotheus in Synopis, and on his word ſom other, he knowes not well, who. Thē all this matter ſtandeth on this Dorotheus, whoſe credit“Pag. 104. him ſelf feareth. Indeed iuſtly, for hee is the moſt egregious fabler that ever writ.Dorotheus a fabler Heere I wiſh it may be noted, that the Doct. ſeemeth to take delight to abuſe the people with baſtard writings, fabulous, falſe, and apocryphall ſtuffe, which he vſeth as his familiar friends and witneſſes very often; as the Epiſtles of Clemens and Anacletus, Dionyſius Areopagita, the Canons of the Apostles, Baſtard writing….Dionyſius Areopagita, the Canons of the Apostles, the Subſcriptions of the Apostles Epiſtles, & this Dorotheus, from whom the other witneſſes heere by him cited, do take this report. Therefore in this it is not neceſſarie to credit them any more thē him. Further, to theſe & the like reaſons of ours, If Timothie and Titus (who firſt were Evāgeliſts) did become proper Biſhops afterward, then men may cōioyne things which God hath ſevered: yea limit & depreſſe them whoſe Miniſtrie God hath made generall, vnlimited, and ſuperior. Hee anſwereth“Pag … ▪ theſe are nice points, which none of the Fathers did ever vnderstand. Certes wee have a groſſe Doctor, who maketh nice to ſever thoſe whom God hath ſevered. Evangeliſts and Biſhops or Paſtors are ſo plainly ſevered by God & made divers†Ephe. 4.11 … Cor. 12.28 perſons, that nothing can be more plaine. Where alſo it is as clee…e that Evangeliſts are by God made Superior in the Church, and Biſhops or Paſtors inferior; whom hee maketh cleane contrary. Hee excepteth againſt 1. Cor. 12.28. becauſe Evangeliſts“Pag. 95. are not mentioned there. Yet there it appeareth that all Church-miniſteries are ſevered by God, of which Evangeliſts are one, as in the Ephe 4▪11. appeareth.By comparing theſe textes togeather. So that alſo even from 1. Cor. 12.18. Evangeliſts diſtinction from Biſhops and their Superioritie to them is proved well enough. Himſelf grāteth Evangeliſts to be extraordinary, generall and vnlimited Miniſters; and that Timothie and Tit… were ſuch. Which is the truth. But this is falſe, when they†Pag. 94. betooke them … certaine Churches, that they were appropriated and limited to them. Wherefore neither were they proper Biſhops of them. Againe; The D. can not leave his equivocating, any more them … Black-amore can change his skin. For though vulgarly ſometime an Evangeliſt is vnderſtood to bee a writer of the Goſpell, yet the Apoſtle vnderſtandeth not ſo Epheſ 4.11. But heere they are vnlimited Companions and Coadiutors to the Apoſtles.An Evangelist. In this ſenſe (and ſo we alſo doe meane) Mat…hew & Iohn neither were, nor could bee Evangeliſts, nor Marke a Biſhop. Whoſoever ſaith otherwiſe, they plain …y contradict the Apoſtle. But he pretendeth that the ancient Fathers held that Evangeliſtes and Apoſtles alſo might bee Biſhops. See“Pag. 222. 223. Vnreverent behavior toward Antiquit…e. before what a frivolous reaſon this is. Alſo ſee how vnreverent hee is to Antiquitie, whom hee pretendeth devoutly to honor. Hee will have them indeed to ſeeme fighters with God and reſiſters of the plaine letter of the text, rather then defend them (as we doe) with an honeſt excuſe. It is honeſt to ſay, they called Evāgeliſts & Apoſtles Biſhops in a generall ſenſe; or, if they did not well heerein, yet that they did it in not ſifting, nor much minding that which nowe with vsus is a maine queſtiō, & therefore is & ought to be more exactly conſidered nowe. But to ſay of them, either that they deny Temoth. & Titus were Evangeliſts; or that they deny Evangeliſtes were by God made ſeverall from Biſhops, or that thoſe were ſuperior to theſe, or that thoſe were extraordinary and general Miniſters: or to ſay they hold the Apoſtles did and could make them being ſuch to become ordinary Miniſters, limited to one Church, and one with Biſhops: and that they hold this out of conſideration and due ſifting the matter. I ſay, thus to affirme of the Fathers (as the D. doth) is to make them reſiſt the plaine letter of the text, and to fight with God.

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

He would ſeeme to bring new matter, but it is his olde ſtuffe; viz. that“Pag. 98. Timothies and Titus function in Epheſus & Crete, was not to end with their pe…ſo…s, but to be cōtinued to their Succeſſors It is anſwered †Pag 243.before. That is, Materially it ended not, but formally it ended with their perſons. It continued to their Succeſſors, but vnderunder an other forme of miniſterie, viz of proper Biſhops. Which alſo I noted in my Declarat pag 30. Hee ſaith, their“Pag. 100. Apoſtles were ſo aſſigned ſomtime. Act. 8.14. being aſsigned to Epheſus and Crete was an ordinary function? I deny it, as touching them. Hee hath not a word to prove it. Hee ſaith, in Timothie and Titus as Evangeliſts†Pag. 101. nothing was extraordinary but their not limitation to any certain Churches. Which is vntrue: their calling to the ministrie was not ordinary. It was without the peoples voice-giving: which was then ordinary in Paſtors calling. Timothie I ſay came not to Epheſus by the peoples election, nor Titus to Creet. Paul only authoriſed them to that Miniſtrie. Therfore their calling or ſending thither was alſo extraordinary. And T… mothie attained giftes by extraordinary meanes viz: by the Apoſtles miraculous laying on of hands; though the D. deny it. Then he addeth 3. other errors. 1. The power of ordination and iuriſdiction was wholy in Timothie, and … Titus. Our Atteſtators“Above pa. 23 26 36.38.4…. diſprove th… 2. The function may bee the very ſam where one perſon governeth the church wholy and alone, & where th… people do neceſſarily cōcur with him Though his wordes bee not theſe, yet his ſenſe is cleerly ſo. And all the next page hee beateth vponupon the ſame. Fearfully affirming, that the difference“Pag. 102. ſeemeth not to bee ſo eſſentiall. Though he hold ſo, yet ſee howe hee faltereth. 3. Where he addeth, the title or calling to a Church ſeemeth to be variable. Which are all groſſe vntruths: co…uted in my†Pag 12 at 34 35. 38 &c Declarat. & the 3. runneth amōg thoſe evill opinions heere“Pag. 133.134. before cenſured. That which he addeth as it were a proofe for him, the Iewes Church governors came to their places †Pag 103.by ſucceſsion and lineall diſcent: but in the Churches of Chriſt, by free electiō, is abſolutly againſt …imſelfe. For neither of theſe titles or coming to the Church-governement had bene lawfull by any meanes, but becauſe God ſo ordayned. And it being ſo ordained by God in his word, it was thē abſolutly vnchangeable by men, as in the Lawe, ſo likewiſe vnderunder the Goſpel which is the Law of Chriſt. Where he ſaith, the Apoſtles committed not the power of ordination and iuriſdiction to all Miniſters, I anſwer, they did: as I have“Declarar. pag 25. elſwhere ſhewed. Their committing it to†Pag 104. Timothie &c. denyeth it not to the other Preſbyters in the ſeveral Churches. neither doth the Angells power in the Revelatiō 2. exclude the ioint power of his fellow preſbyters with him, nor yet the peoples free concurrence with them all. His laſt reaſon is, If while the Apoſtles lived, it was behoofull to ſubſtitute Biſhops in the Churches, then much more after their deceaſe. But the former is evident. Therfore the later alſo. This I wholy grant: we miſlike not Biſhops. In the end he falleth to the authoritie of thoſe baſtard“Pag. 105. ſubſcriptions, & namely of the epiſtles to Tim. and Titus. Touching the which I referre him to M^r. Cudworth in his Supplement to Mr. Perkins on the*At the end of chap. 6. Galatians. Where he ſhall finde them to be of no“Pag. 106. greater antiquitie nor better credit then ſuch counterfait droſſe may be. The†Pag. 107. teſtimonies of the Fathers which follow“Pag. 244.259. have ben ſufficiently anſwered.

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

Firſt, the H. Ghoſt made†Ephe. 4.11 Evangeliſts and Biſhops or Paſtors, diſtinct perſons. Therefore the Apoſtles could not make them one. And conſequently Timothie and Titus being Evangeliſts (as is known) neither were, nor could be made proper Biſhops.

Sec: An Evā geliſt had an Office“Ibid. ſuperior, extraordinarie, temporarie, and vnlimited: a Biſhop was inferior, ordinarie, perpetuall, and limited to one Church. Now theſe qualities are incōpatible: they can neither bee togeather, nor ſucceſſively in one perſon. Therefore Timothie and Titus Evangeliſtes, neither were, nor could bee proper Biſhops at any time.

Thirdly, After Timothie had bene at Epheſus, hee was an Evangeliſt.2. Tim. 4.5. For Paul chargeth him ſo to bee and cary himſelfe. Neither is there cauſe nor reaſon why Paul here ſhould ſpeake improperly and generally. Therfore he ſpake properly,“See pag. 240. & he was ſtill a proper Evangeliſt, and conſequently not a proper Biſhop. And ſo likewiſe Titus.

Fourt: Timothies Miniſtie at Epheſus extended to other diſtinct and intire Churches, viz. to Smyrna, to Sardis, to Pergamus, to Coloſsi, to Hierapolis, to Laodicea &c. and not to the Church in Epheſus only. But the Biſhop of Epheſus miniſtrie was limited and appropriated to the Church in Epheſus only; as alſo of Smyrna to Smyrna, of Sardis to Sardis. &c. As the Angells in Rev. 2. do ſhew. Therefore Timothie was not properly the Biſhop of Epheſus. And then neither Titus of Crete.

Fift: Timothie was theſame & no other at Epheſus, then hee was at Philippi and Corinth, at Athens and Theſſalonica, in Phrygia, Galatia, Myſia, & Troas. But in theſe bee was no proper Biſhop of any place. Therefore neither was hee a proper Biſhop at Epheſus. So likewiſe*Declarat. Pag. 29.30.6. Titus in Crete.

Sixt: proper Biſhops in thoſe dayes were not called without the co…ent and voyces of their Church, as before“Pag. 164.251. hath bene ſhewed. But Titus came to Crete and Timothie into Aſia only by the Apoſtle Pauls ſending, vtterly without the peoples calling to whom they miniſtred in all thoſe Churches. Therefore Titus in Crete & Timothie in Epheſus were no Biſhops.

Seavēth: If Titus were a proper Biſhop in Crete, then many diſtinct and intire Churches were not committed to him, but only one. But to Titus in Crete many diſtinct & intire Churches were committed; and not one only. Therefore Titus in Crete was no proper Biſhop. The Aſſumption is plaine, becauſe hee had many“Tit. 1.5. Cities in his charge. And every City had a diſtinct and intire Church, for foreign †Act. 14.23foreign: In every City, & in every Church do ſignifie all one thing. And Euſebius“Euſe. 4.22 maketh them ſo likewiſe. But every proper Biſhop is limited and appropriated to one Church only. The D. ſaith aſsigned But that word is to looſe. Indeed a Biſhop is limited & appropriated, & as it were confined to one Church. D. Bilſon ſaith†Perpet gov. pag 227. 232. affixed. Therefore Titus was no Biſhop, nor Timothie neither.

Laſtly, Whatſoever reaſon maketh Titus & Timothie Provinciall Biſhops in Crete, and in Aſia, the ſame ſerveth to make Paul or Peter Vniverſall Biſhops and to have Vniverſal Biſhops their Succeſſors, at Rome. But no reaſon is ſufficient to make Paul or Peter Vniverſall ordinary Biſhops of Rome, nor that they ſhould have Vniverſall Biſhops their Succeſſors. Therefore no reaſon ſufficient to make Titus in Crete or Timothie at Epheſus Provinciall Biſhops. And ſo much of Timothie and Titus, that they were indeed no proper Biſhops: which point yet Doct. Bilſon “See before pag. 241.confeſſeth to be their only holde.

After this, let vsus now ſhew how D. Downame groſly†Def. 2.14…. abuſeth Calvin and Beza, affi…ming that they ioyne with the Biſhops of England in maintayning Dioceſan and Provinciall Churches,Calvin and Beza, abuſed. and that therein they are againſt vsus.

Firſt, though Calvin doe note in this Chapt. the Churches ſtate“Inſtitut 4.4.1. before the Papacie, yet he ſaith not, neither was it before Papalitie began. Againe, your governement may bee not withſtanding from the Pap…ſts (as indeed it is) though this Church ſtate there noted by Calvin were before the Papacie.Chap. 4. For your governement is by him deſcribed in his†Chap. 5. next Chapter, where hee ſaith;“Sect. I am in eligendo totum illud ius populi ſublatum est. Ad ſolos Canonicos integra potestas tranſlata est. Ills in quem volunt conferunt Epiſcopatum: eum mox in conſpestu plebis producunt non examinandū, ſed adorādum. Now all the right of the people to choſe th…ir Paſtor was taken away. The whole power was transferred to the Chanons or Prebendaries only. They beſtow the Biſhoprike on whom they will: him they bring forth before the people not to be tryed, but to be worſhipped of them. And though hee ſaith this was“In the title of chap. 5. tyrannide Papatus, by the tyrannie of the Papacie, yet every one ſeeth it to be the ſame kinde that is vſed in Englād; & which differeth ſubſtantially from the ancient forme of Church governement, yea from that by him noted in his 4. Chapter, which is not it that you exerciſe, & labour to maintaine. So any may ſee, from whom in deed you have receaved your governement.

Secondly, he ſaith, thoſe before had almost nothing diſſonant from Gods word. Where he graunteth, they had ſomewhat. And therefore hee would not that this Church governement ſhould be*See before pag. 149. our patterne, though hee held it not wholy intolerable. What meaneth the vaine Doctor to ſay, wee“Pag. 146. our ſelves do extend our aſſertiō to two hundred yeares? We do not extend our patterne ſo farre. Indeed we ſay, a proper Dioceſan Church was not before that time. But we take our patterne of a Church only from the New Teſtam. as wee ought. Againſt which fundamentall point of Chriſtiā religion ſee how profanely (and yet abſurdly) hee reaſoneth; Aswell they may alleage that no whole Countrey ought to be converted, becauſe none was in the Apostles times, as to deny a whole Countrey to be a Church,Should we… not vſe that forme of a Church which the Apoſt. vſed… becauſe it was not ſo in the Apostles times. Never did I heare a more ſenſeles ſpeach, and yet it ſavoureth all of impietie. Every viſible Church may containe no mo ordinary Congregations then the New Teſtament ſheweth that a Church cō tayned then, which was but one: and yet a whole Country may be converted to the faith, and being converted may be reduced into many Churches in nomber, according to the forme†Galat. 1 … 21. and …. Cor. 8.1. & 1 Cor. 16.19. extāt in Chriſts Teſtamēt. And God forbid wee ſhould profeſſe to doe otherwiſe. As for Calvin, beſide that above noted in him,“Pag. 149. ſpeaking of the Order ſet down in Scripturs, he ſaith the ſame is it,†Inſtit. 4.….…. quo Eccleſiā ſuam gubernari voluit Dominus, wherewith the Lord would have his Church to bee governed alwayes. Againe,“Sect. …. Eccleſiae diſitpationem vel ruinam potiùs & exitium molitur quiſquis ordinem hunc de quo diſputamus, & HOC GENVS regiminis vel abolere ſtudet, vel quaſi minus neceſſarium elevat. He ſeeketh the ruine and deſtruction of the Church whoſoever indeavoureth to aboliſh this order and THIS KIND of governement whereof wee treate, or maketh light of it as leſſe neceſſarie: ſpeaking (as I ſaid) of that ſame kinde of ordinary governement which is foūd in the New Teſtament. Which being Calvins minde, can we thinke that hee would like of the Doctors mutabilitie? No, nor of his calling him and Beza “Defen. 2. pag. 140.Authors of Diſcipline, and him the first or chiefe founder of it? Beſide, is not this Doct. a cunning diſſembler, who can ſay of Calvin that his memorie with me is bleſſed: and yet curſe…h and revileth his Diſcipline, as he calleth it?

Thirdly, is it truth, & must we abide it, that Calvin agreeth with the Do. againſt Lay Elders, as he calleth them? And his Refuter reproving him for that ſpeach, he mocketh, ſaying; What ſhall become of me now? He ſaith, he will ſalve it. But how? Forſooth he confeſſeth Calvin is againſt him both touching the Scripture, and alſo the practiſe of the firſt Churches. How ſalveth he the matter then? Calvin ſaith, that afterward Every City had a College of Elders, all which were Teachers. What then? Can not Calvin thinke that this might ſomewhat differ from the Scripture? and that this was thus about, and after the Nicen Councell hitherward, and yet in the firſt age of the Church after the Apoſtles there were ſom ſuch lay Elders? Is it not poſſible that Calvin may thus meane, but that hee muſt needes agree in this matter with the D. and groſly contradict himſelfe? Thus forſooth our D. will needes have it: in wordes commending Calvin & Beza for the learned Diſciplinarians; but indeed making them (what he can) to ſeeme fooles.

Fourthly, neither Calvin nor Beza “Pag. 14…. 144.agreeth with them, nor materially differeth from vsus about a Dioceſan Church, as hee almoſt every where repeateth that they doe, and is ſtill beating vpō it. But falſly. For firſt, Calvin maketh not even then the City & Country to be but one body. He ſaith,†Inſtit. 4.4, 2. velut Corpus, as it were a Body. Hee meaneth not that it was a perſit Body, but that there was ſome reſemblance of one Body, becauſe of the conſociation of all vnderunder one Biſhop. Yet indeed hee maketh each Pariſh then a Body ſubſtantially, Saying,“Sect. 1…. Cum Parochijs novi Preſbyters deſtinabantur, tunc loci multitudinem nominatim conſentire oportuit. When newe Preſbyters were appointed to Pariſhes, then the multitude of the place muſt namely conſent. This power made them a Body indeed: and to the Dioceſe they belonged but as it were to a Body, or as having ſom reſemblance of a body. Which yet conſiſted in deed of many diſtinct bodyes, & ſomeway independent. This is the Dioceſan Church which Calvin and Beza alſo ſpeake of, and is conſtituted at Geneva, and in France, and in the Lowcountries, &c. But this is not the†See before pag. 88. 89. proper Dioceſan Church, which is in England. There is a ſubſtantiall difference betweene this improper and vnperfit Dioceſan Body, and that which is proper and perſit. Now then, how do Calvin and Beza agree with the Biſhops of Englande touching a Dioceſan Church, as he ſo ofte vaunteth and boaſteth that they do? Or how do they diſſent from vsus? Wee ſee they do not. The Doct. doth but ſlander them. Neither“Def. 2.147. doth Beza meane that any first Presbyter in a Church was formally appointed to … Dioceſe vnderunder the Apoſtles. Some kind of†See before Pag. 89. Dioceſe was Apoſtolike. But hee ſheweth ſufficiētly that theſe Bb. Dioceſes began ſomewhile after the Apoſtles, in that hee ſaith“Bez. de grad. min. 6.24. they were firſt framed according to the diviſion of the Pr… vinces vnderunder the Romane Empire. Which verily was nor regarded in the Apoſtles time, nor in the next age after Wherefore Beza meant the firſt Preſbyter thus aſſigned formally, was after the Apoſtles, & their abuſed name Biſhop alſo.

Laſtly, I cannot paſſe how inſolently the D.“Def. 3.15. &c. taunteth me for obſerving many ſortes of Biſhops, and namely for†In reas for ref. pag. 7. ſetting downe ſix ſorts of them: alſo for being ignorant whether Ieruſalem or Caeſarea had the Patriarchſhip, & for ſuppoſing Dioceſan Ruling Biſhops might begin with Dionyſius at A…exandria, and for not ſpeaking any thing of Metropolitans beginning. Let the D. know, I was not ignorant that Ieruſalem had the Patriarchſhip: but it is a queſtion (and that I meant to " touch) whether Ieruſalem exerciſed ordinarie juriſdiction over Cae…area & the Province thereof, or not.pag. 8. in margine. But it is a matter of no worth: there…ore I paſſe it.Metropolitans, Dioceſans, Patriarkes, all one in ſubſtance Metropolitans (in his ſenſe) … ſpake not of whē I reckoned vp the livers ſortes of Biſhops, becauſe in ſubſtance of their Office they are all …ne with Dioceſans, Archbiſhops, and Patriarkes. Of whom whoſoever holdeth …ne lawful, will holde all ſo to be: and …e who holdeth one Apoſtolike, will acknowledge them all Apoſtolike. This therfore alſo is no matter, what …oever he maketh of it. Touching Di…yſius of Alexādria, I confeſſe I was to …lame in thinking hee might bee the …uthor of Majoritie of power & rule …n Dioceſan Biſhops. It was becauſe I …udged it to be ancienter then indeed …t is, or then reaſon giveth it.Maioritie of power when it began. Nowe …herefore I profeſſe, it cannot bee roved to be ancienter then the Nice… Councill, or Constantine the Emperor, as I noted before. Once D. Bilſon was alſo of this minde with me, where he ſheweth that it was not“Againſt the Seminar. part. 2. pag. 318. by the inſtitution of Chriſt, nor his Apoſtles, but long after by the conſent of the Churches, the custome of the times, and the will of Princes. And touching my making many ſortes of Biſhops, and my diſtinguiſhing of the word, the Doct. miſliking that, ſheweth his ignorance not a little: or els he ſheweth that which is worſe. If he miſlike that I made ſo many ſortes, as ſix. Truly it was my fault that I made ſo fewe. Ierom witneſſeth that the Biſhops of his time came to that power paulatim, by little & litle,. And the Vniverſall Monarch of the Roman Church came not to his greatnes at once. Papacie had Papalitie going before in divers and ſundrie degrees. The Word, reaſon and experience do ſhew in ſuch alterations of governement, at leaſt ſo many diſtinct differēces, yea mo alſo. Now therefore I deſire the Reader to give me leave vponupon better cōſideration to ſet down the diſtinctiō of Biſhops in 7. differēces.

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

Firſt, the name is generally given, even to“Act. 1 20. Apostles. Yea Evangelistes alſo may ſo be called Biſhops, as†Pag. 238. 240. before is ſhewed.

Secondly, it is given to Pastors. equall, and“Act. 20.28. Philip 1.1. many, in one ordinarie Congregation. To whō alſo the name of Presbyter was common. Such is the Miniſterie now in the Dutch & French Churches.

Thirdly, One Pastor of a Church contayning no mo ordinarie Congregations but one, is by the ancienteſt Church Writers called a Biſhop ſingularly. As Linus was at Rome: Anianus at Alexādria: Oneſimus at Epheſus: Ignatius at Antioch: Polycarpus at Smyrna, &c. Such alſo was the“Rev. 2.1. Angell of the Church in Epheſus, and in Smyrna, &c. The Scripture giveth not him the name Biſhop peculiarly, when he hath other aſſiſtant Paſtors with him: but other Writers doe. Which truly I will not ſtrive againſt.

Fourthly, the name Biſhop is given to a Titular Dioceſan Biſhop. Of whō none can be proved ancienter then Iulianus the tenth Biſhop in Alexandria.

Fiftly, Dioceſan Biſhops with“Declarat. pag. 24. 25. Maioritie of power are called Biſhops. Theſe began in the Councill of Nice, or otherwiſe vnderunder Constantine. Though the Councill ſpeake of Metropolitans long before; yet their power over their brethren was not ratifyed by any law

Sixtly, the Dioceſan L. Biſhop, or the Sole governing Biſhop is called a Biſhop. Such are ours now in Englande. Of the originall and firſt beginning of ſuch, I have ſpokē *Pag. 66. 67.before.

Seaventhly, a Pope or Vniverſall Paſtor hath this name Biſhop. Hee began at Rome about 600. yeres after Chriſt, but came not to his abſolut greatnes till divers hundred yeares after. And this diſtinction will aſſuredly with caſe be iuſtifyed. Reaſon and experience do ſhew ſuch degrees in proceeding. And thus far the Anſwer to D. Downames Defence of Dioceſan Churches.

Obiections are made alſo intēſively, viz. againſt the Chriſtian peoples right to cōſent in Church governe.Obiections againſt the peoples power anſwered. It is fit we ſhould anſwer theſe likewiſe, ſo far as is needfull. Frſt, great & much paines have ben taken by the adverſaries of the truth to deprave the plaine and eaſie wordes of Matthewe 18.17. Tell the Church. They are content to take them any way, ſo it bee not the right way. Doct. Bilſon ſpendeth a“D. Bilſon. perp. gov. chap. 4. whole Chapter to make them ſeeme to ſignifie a Senat or bench of Iewiſh Civill Magiſtrates, which he learned only from a Phyſician Erastus. But there is a ſufficient refutatiō of this opinion in the third Argument of The Divine beginning and inſtitution of Chriſtes true Viſib. Church. Secondly, D. Bilſon contradicting himſelf, vnderſtandeth theſe words of an Eccleſiaſticall Senat, or Synod. Thus alſo Do. Downame vnderſtandeth them, as†Pa. 107.108 before we have ſeene; where is a ſufficient anſwer likewiſe therevnto. Thirdly, Maiſter Iohnſon of the Separation (ſince in this point he turned his opiniō vpſide downe)“Treat. of the expoſit. of Mat. 18.19 Anno. 1611. affirmeth that theſe wordes ſignifie that the Iewiſh forme of governement is by Chriſt ordayned for the Goſpell. I diſcerne not well, whether he meane that this rule for the Chriſtian Church governement ſhould be formed after the patterne of the Iewiſh Civill governement, or Eccleſiaſtical, or both. Whatſoever Iewiſh forme of governement he meane, his meaning can not bee true. For firſt, if Chriſt in theſe words meant the Iewiſh governors, thē here is no direction at all for the Chriſtian Church governement. Heere is nothing then that ſoundeth to any ſuch purpoſe. Chriſt ſaith not heere, Let my Diſciples heereafter in their Churches follow the forme and order Iudaicall. In this place there is no ſuch thing. But as I ſuppoſe even Mai. Iohnſon him ſelf holdeth, Chriſt heere in this place ſetteth an order of governement for his Church vnderunder the Goſpell. This in deed is moſt certainly true. Therfore his othet opinion (that Chriſt heere ſendeth his Diſciples to the Iewiſh governors) is falſe. I grant Calvin and Beza think that Chriſt heere alludeth to the Iewiſh Church governement in their particular Synagogues: but verily I cannot cōceave why, or how it ſhould be ſo. Be it ſpoken with reverēce to theſe rare ſervāts of Chriſt. Howbeit,Cal…i… and Beza touching Mat. 18.17. this nevertheles they hold from this place of Matthew, that the people have right ſo far that nothing in Church governement be obtruded on them (by any Eccleſiaſticall Monarchie or Oligarchie) againſt their wills. Now this is the truth, and wee willingly agree vntounto it. Yeelding the ſway of all governement to the Paſtor with his aſſiſtants in ordinarie caſes: yet reſerving ſtill a power in the people to conſent. And when a Church is deſtitute of Guides (as it hath fallen out, & may againe fall out on occaſion) then the people themſelves have full power to accompliſh any Eccleſiaſticall action in the beſt order they can, & particularly Church cenſures, even by vertue of this text. So that then the Iewiſh Church-governement can not bee heere alluded vntounto; much leſſe required to bee kept and practiſed by Chriſtians. Concerning which togeather with all other Iewiſh ordinances, the Apoſtle teacheth and confirmeth vntounto vsus that all“2. Cor. 3.17. thoſe old things are paſſed away, & that all things (of ſuch nature) vnderunder the Goſpell, are made new: and that the ſame things are†Hebr. 12.27. ſhaken and changed, and remaine not now vntounto vsus. Wherfore fowerthly, they who vnderſtand theſe foreſaid wordes, Tell the Church, Math. 18.17. to be meant of the whole Chriſtian people aſſembled in an ordinarie aſſembly,As our Atteſtators do. viz. that they are to be tolde, and that they are to be heard, (alwayes in the beſt and moſt Chriſtian order that can be, which I grant doth and muſt in circumſtances ſomtime differ) they, I ſay, do truly and rightly vnderſtand this place according to the intent of Chriſt. Of which D. Bilſon him ſelfe once taught ſoundly, ſaying,“Againſt the Semina… lib. 3. pa. 70. In Math. 18.17. The whole multitude of the faithfull where hee and they (the Offendor, and the Offended) live, are ſignifyed. And†Lib. 2. pag 170. in Act. 20.28. The Church is taken for the people. Yea, The Church is never taken in the New or Old Teſtament for the Priestes alone, but generally for the whole Congregation of the faithfull. Let me aske a queſtion; Was D. Bilſon a Browniſt, was he an Anabaptiſt whē he wrote thus? Why then doth Mai. Downame call vsus theſe odious names only for the ſame iudgement? Or is he offended at vsus, becauſe we can not change & turne our profeſſions to & fro, as they do for advantage? Some will ſay, if this ſenſe of theſe wordes be true, Obiect. then perpetually and neceſſarily al ſcandalls, &c. whatſoever, muſt be tryed in the preſence & vnderunder the iudgement and ſentence of the whole multitude; as they of the Separation do holde, which alſo it ſeemeth was Cyprians vſuall practiſe of old.Anſw. I anſwer, this conſequence is far from truth. For the ſenſe of the words (in Matthew 18.17.) certainly is thus, & no otherwiſe to be taken, viz. plainly and literally for the whole Congregation. Seeing there is“Def. 1.226. no cauſe nor reaſon to the contrarie, as elswhere is obſerved. But yet it followeth not that that maner of hearing & ſentencing of cauſes muſt bee in every Church perpetually and neceſſarily.Before pag. 108. &c. I grant it may be ſo in ſome Churches, at ſome times: and ſo Cyprians practiſe was, & now it may be againe in ſome eſtates of a Church, good and commendable. But to holde thoſe popular Circumſtances in every Church†Separation it ſelfe is no ſuch error, as this is. perpetuall and neceſſary abſolutly as the Separation doth, it was neithtr Cyprians meaning, nor Chrsſtes, nor any well adviſed Chriſtians. And yet againe no mā may take from the people abſolutly all maner of free conſent, as the L. Biſhops do. This is a Subſtantiall breach on the other hand. Incidit in Scyllam qui vult vitare Chary…din. Extremities on both ſides are to be avoyded.

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

1.“Pag. …7. Paul ſtood not in doubt of his preaching, neither needed he the conſent of Apoſtles or Elders to his doctrine. I anſwer, he doubted not of his doctrine, nor ſubmitted it to any to be cenſured. Yet he needed the conſent of other Apoſtles and of the Church at Ieruſalem, for more coūtenance to his teaching. And that was all Pauls purpoſe heere.

2.“Pag. 97. The Apoſtles wanted neither authoritie nor ſufficiencie to determine the matter. But they did, in this caſe. We muſt know therfore, there is a twofold dertermining and deciding of queſtions. One is particular and perſonall, which every true Paſtor may performe in his ordinarie teaching. Much more the Apoſtles ſingly might. And ſo Paul was ſufficient, and did him ſelfe reſolve many doubts to the Romans, to the Corinthians, to others without a Council. Another determining and deciding of queſtions is Cumulative, (as I may call it) when it is done with more countenance and credit. The former may be of as certaine truth: but this later alwayes hath more waight among men. Thus Paul was not ſufficient in this caſe. Yea the H. Ghoſt in this caſe would not have divers other Apoſtles with Paul to ſeeme ſufficient by them ſelves, without the“Whitak. de Concil. queſt. 3. c. 3. whole Church there: and ſpecially ſo far foorth, as it was to binde this preſent Church.

Thirdly, There were†Pag. 96. 97. 98. 389. reaſons which they had why even the whole Church was heerein to concurre. What then? There are, and ever wil be ſpecial reaſons ſtill for the like. I ſay, ſuch reaſons are now for vsus as thoſe thē were, yea more waightie. Wherefore the imitating of this Apoſtolike Act is ſtill neceſſarie.

4. He ſaith,“Pag. 98. Who decided the controverſie but Peter & Iames? If he meane, they 2. were the principall men whoſe credit drewe the reſt to conſent; It is true. But it ſheweth not that they only decided the doubt. Rather they all decided it, who beeing preſent expreſly concurred in the decree and promulged it, ſaying; It ſeemed good to the H. Ghoſt & to vsus. In all this therefore he hath nothing to infringe his owne grant. Yea thus this ought to bee imitated evermore.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lay men have it not.

Therefore they can not give it.

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

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

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

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

In vaine alſo doth Doct. Downe. vpbraid vsus, that†Def. 4.81. we ſeeke to overturne aſwell thoſe Churches where the Geneva diſcipline is eſtabliſhed, as ours. That“Def. 1.10. we agree with no reformed Church in the worlde. That†Pag. 38. 47. non… are of our minde but Browniſts, and ſuch like. Hee maketh the Browniſtes happy men. Can hee reproove them if they follow Zuinglius, Luther, Bucer, P. Martyr, Viret, Calvin, Beza, Danaeus, Vrſinees, Gualter, &c. And not the later only, but the elder Chriſtians alſo. For all theſe (we have ſeene) do conſent with vsus in our profeſſion. And it is a ſlander, that in Geneva, or any where els, the reformed Churches do ſubſtantially differ from our iudgement. As may be ſeene through out the 3. & 4. Chapters before. If any thing diſſonāt from thoſe teſtim. may now be found in ſome of theſe Churches (which I will not deny) then it cometh to paſſe with thē as with goodly and faire Houſes:A Similitude. which being inhabited by men, will neede ſweeping very oft. If they bee not ſwept & cleaned, they will ſoone become foule. And ſo truly it may be, in ſome of the Churches before named. Which can be no preiudice to vsus, who ſeeing tranſgreſſion creepe in, do wiſh all men, and even them alſo, ad originem reverti, Cyprian. cont. Epiſt. Stephā. De Vnit. Eccles.to returne to the originall and firſt Plantation both of them ſelves in particular, and ſpecially of all Churches▪ at the firſt. In the which only there is ſafetie. As for this intemperat Doctors rayling wordes in calling this our doctrine“Def. 1.41. & 4.80.99. Browniſticall, Anabaptiſticall, †Def. 3.142. & 4.81.fanaticall, fantaſticall, dotage, phrenſie, &c. We will beare it, knowing (as Cyprian ſaid of ſome ſuch in his dayes)“Cyprian Epiſt. 4.2. Non poſſunt laudare nos, qui recedunt à nobis. We muſt looke for hatefull and …lent wordes from them that fall from vsus. Yet in the meane whyle let him know alſo, that in this he reprocheth not ſo much vsus, as thoſe pillars of the truth and lights of the Goſpell before named zuinglius, Luther, Bucer, Martyr, Viret, Calvin, and the reſt; of whom we have directly receaved this doctrine and profeſſion. Theſe are our Maiſters heerein, as in the beginning I ſaid.

Our Do. obiecteth often that theſe are partiall, & that this is their owne cauſe. And that as well we might cite“Def. 4.30. Mai. Cartwright and Mai. Travers, as ſome of theſe. Yea hee will have Ierome alſo to be†Def. 4.137. partiall. Yet we frankly acknowledge Ierome to be theirs, touching the lawfulnes of Dioceſ.Ierome not ours ſimply. Biſhops. Although he, and many other of the Fathers beſide, are with vsus in this, that Dioceſan Biſhops are not Apoſtolicall but Humane. And this verily they teach far from partialitie. Partiall they may be for the ſaid Prelacie, not againſt it. And the truth is, they were notoriouſly partiall for it; it was indeed their owne cauſe.Who are partiall. They may be partial & are wont ſo to be counted who are likely to get by their opinion ſome "temporall commoditie; not they who looſe by it. Now the Fathers,Cui bono? Caſsianū erotema. ſpecially vnderunder Conſtantine & after, by approoving Dioceſan Prelacie, got great honor, power, and rule among the people, and wealth and pleaſure, what they deſired. Which, by oppoſing againſt it, they ſhould have loſt. Whēce certainly it is, that D. Downame might as well cite B. Whitgift, B. Bancroft, and B. Bilſon for his authors, as ſome of thoſe ancientes, viz. as wel as B. Euſebius, B. Epiphanius, B. Theodoret, B. Damaſus, B. Leo, B. Chryſostom, &c. Who queſtionles in this point were very partiall. And no les (if not more) may be thought of ſome of thoſe Dioceſan L. Biſhops who began our Church reformation in England. They by proceeding no further did get much temporall commoditie; which, by ſetting the Church ſtate neerer to the forme Apoſtolike, they muſt needes have loſt. And ſo they, though otherwiſe (as likewiſe thoſe Ancientes) were good and godly Fathers, yet they were mē, and might eaſily be partiall in this.Good and godly Fathers; ye… Men. Which, and more wee may thinke of many of our Dioceſan Lord Biſhops ſince. Moſt of all, of D. Downame himſelfe; who beſides theſe temporall hopes, beeing a Dioceſan L. Biſhops fonne, had neede of much grace (I cō feſſe) to cauſe him to degenerat. But, I pray then, hath he done wiſely to obiect (as hee doth every foot) againſt thoſe ſingular inſtrumentes and very effectuall reformers, our Atteſtators, & others like them, that they were partiall▪ and that this was their owne cauſe? Indeed they were partiall, that is, they tooke part throughly with the ſinceritie of the Goſpell, and ſtood againſt all Papall and Pontificall over-ruling of Gods people ſpiritually: & ſo ſhould this Doct. and others do well, if they were partiall likewiſe. But partiall otherwiſe they neither were, nor could be, viz. they did not get, but loſt by this their proceeding great worldly honor, much power, and rule among the people, large wealth, daintie pleaſure, and eaſe; which ours now do abound with, as all the world ſeeth. Whereby the worlde ſeeth likewiſe, which ſide may rather plead partialitie to be in thoſe, whom they take to be their adverſaries.

In many places D. Downame ſignifyeth that the godly late defenders of the Goſpell do miſlike only“Def. 4.151.157.158.161. popiſh tyrannizing Biſhops, not orthodoxall Biſhops, as he preſumeth ours to bee. But let him know, that thoſe are Orthodoxall who imitate the Apoſtles and the patterne of the Church left vsus in the New Teſtament. And they are tyrannizing & not Orthodoxe†viz. in this. nor truly believing, who imitate the popiſh, though otherwiſe they be not papiſts. Cicero ſaid well to Antonie; †Cicer. Philippic. 2.Miror te Antoni, quorum fasta imitere corum exitus non perhorreſcere. I wonder Antonie (ſaid hee) that thou feareſt not their iudgement, whoſe deedes thou imitateſt. Now how wee imitate the very forme of the Popiſh Church-government, all the world ſeeth, and the Goſpell rueth. What meaneth the racke and the wracke of many conſciences, viz. the Oath ex officio? What, the Biſhops depriving and impoſing of Miniſters without,Imitation of Popiſh Church-governement. yea contrarie to the Congregation? What meane alſo ſuch Excommunications? What, their impriſoning of Chriſtians? and puniſhing their purſes with fees, fines, &c. Are theſe the partes of Orthodoxe Biſhops? Are theſe things approved of thoſe godly Writers? Nothing leſſe. Likewiſe his vaine and frivolous ſeeking to avoid the Waldenſes, Wickliffe, Hus, Zuinglius, Luther, Oecolampadius, Bucer, Martyr, Calvin, &c. our Tindal, Fr. and Ioh. Lamberts, Bradſord, Bale, &c. is of no worth. Some of thē ſignifie that they diſalow not Dioceſan Biſhops ſimply. Well, no more do I, as I have ſhewed“Pag. 15.16.73.89.97. before. Yet heereby appeareth no allowance of ours in England▪ Our old Engliſh tranſlators of the New Teſtament, & ſome other Writers ſince, doe expreſſe the word Church by Congregation. But ſaith our Doctor, heere by they meane the †Def. 2.106.107.108.Vniveſall Church. Which anſwer is vntrue, and abſurd. That is, where they ſpeake of a Viſible & Miniſte. Church: of which only our queſtion is. Speaking of this, that they ſhould by a Congregation ſignifye either Vniverſall, or Provinciall, or Dioceſan Church, is a moſt falſe, & vnlikely conceit. Can any of theſe bee one Viſible Congregation in the ſingular nomber? He alleageth (as hee thinketh) textes for his pupoſe Matt. 16. Ephe. 1. and 5. Which ſurely may well, yea they are to bee vnderſtood of a Viſible Congregation, viz. indefinitly taken. See heereof the Divine beginning and institution of Christes Viſible Church. Argum. 26. & 23. Of Mai. Beza “Def. 4.166.hee affirmeth, that hee wiſhed with all his heart for the Dioceſan Biſhops governemēt in Geneva. Which is as true as that which the Ieſuits blazed abroad, how Beza before his death recanted his religion. Beza lived to cōvince the Ieſuits of vntruth to their faces. If hee were now alive, he would do the like to this Doct. and thoſe other of whō he ſaith hee heard it. The like audacitie is in that his report, that the most learned & iudicious Divines in France and Geneva, could bee content that Dioceſan Bb. governement were renewed among them. The moſt learned in France and Geneva? Verily as they were who renewed it Scotland of late. Moſt learned, and moſt iudicious were they? Laus proprio ſordeſcit in ore. And I feare rather that knowen parable to be heerein verifyed; When the trees would have a King, the Olive, Figtree, and Vine refuſing, the Bramble tooke it on him, and ſaid to the trees,†Iudg. 9.15 Come & put your trust vnderunder my ſhadow.

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

Attestation of Many Learned Godly and Famous Divines, Chapter 8

p. 199CHAP. 8. An anſwer to divers chiefe Obiections of the adverſaries of this cauſe; noting alſo brieflie their immodest, & not Christianlike reproches againſt this Evangelicall doctrine.

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