Necessity of Reforming Our Churches, Assertion 1

Necessity of Reforming Our Churches · Assertion 1

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

A generall Argument.

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

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

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

The Aſſumption is proved in 8. Reaſons.

FIrſt, we hauehave the 2. Commandement in the Decalogue;**Exod. 2….4.5.Exod 2:4Exod 2:5 Thou ſhalt not make to thy ſelfe any image or likenes of any thing, &c. Thou ſhalt not bow downe to it nor worſhip it. Which is a perpetuall and vniverſall Law now ſtill for all Chriſtians, to the ſame very effect and purpoſe alſo, as it was heeretofore vntounto the Iewes. Where we muſt note, that God forbiddeth not the ſame Idoll-worſhip heere, which is forbidden properly in the 1. Commandement, where he ſaith;““verſ. 3. Thou ſhalt not hauehave any other Gods before me. This heere forbidden is an other kind of idolatrie. In the firſt he forbiddeth whatſoever Divine or Godly honor given vntounto any thing beſide vntounto God himſelfe. But**verſ. 4.5. heere he forbiddeth all Meanes being Humane Invētions, p. 2whereby men would giuegive honor to the true God. And namely all Outward meanes; which we call Gods**Externus Dei Cultus; Liturgia. Outward Worſhip or Service. Yet conſider alwayes that in this Commandemēt ſuch Outward meanes of honoring God are not denyed to mens diſcretiō as are Civill, either meerely or mixtly. But only ſuch are heere denyed as are meerely Eccleſiaſticall things, and ſerue ſimply to the exerciſe of Religion. As all Eccleſiaſticall Rites, Actions, Miniſteries, & Formes of Viſible Churches; which being (as it were) ſenſible images ſerving ſimply for religious or Eccleſiaſticall vſes, and being meerely the inventions of men, muſt needs by this Commandement be all ſimply vnlawfull. Or, in Gods Outward worſhip this Commandement giveth leave to mens diſcretion & wiſedom only touching meere Circumſtances, which are nothing els but Occaſionall or Accidentall things therein. And theſe Occaſionall Circumſtances or Accidents are alwayes ſuch Particulars, as whoſe Generalls are either Civill, or Naturall, or Written in the word. I ſay, theſe Particulars only (notwithſtāding this Commandement) are permitted to men to appoint, or to change againe, at their diſcretion. In this text then there are 3. points to be noted.

1. The matter.

2. The Author.

3. The reſpect due from vsus vntounto the matter heere contained.

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

p. 3To this effect likewiſe …re many other places of Scripture, excellent expoſitions and interpretations of this maine Commaundement. As,““Deu. 12 32Deut 12:32 Whatſoever I commaund you, take heed that you do it: thou ſhalt put nothing thereto, nor take ought therefrom. **Iſa. 30.21Isa 30:21This is the way, walke ye in it: turne not to the right hande nor to the left. ““Pſal. 19.7Ps 19:7The Law of the Lord is perfect. §§Pſal. 119.113.Ps 119:113I hate vaine inventions, but thy lawe doe I love. ““Nomb. 15.39.Yee ſhall have fringes, that when ye looke vponupon them, ye may remember all the commandements of the Lord, and do them: and that yee ſeeke not after your owne heart, nor after your owne eyes, after the which ye go a whoring **Matt. 15.13.Matt 15:13Every plant that my heavenly father hath not planted, ſhalbe rooted vp. ““2. Tim. 3.16.17.2 Tim 3:162 Tim 3:17The whole Scripture is given by inſpiration of God, making the man of God perfect vntounto every good worke. **Ioh. 16.13John 16:13The holy Ghost ſhall lead you into all trueth. ““Gal. 3.15.Gal 3:15No mā adde to any thing to a mans Testament: much leſſe may we adde vntounto Chriſtes Teſtament. Which is only the holy Scriptures of the Apoſtles, and nothing els in the world. Laſtly,**Rom. 16.17.18.Rom 16:17Rom 16:18 Marke them which make ſchiſmes and offenſes ““foreign ſc… Gal. 1.8. 1. Cor. 3.1…Gal 1:81 Cor 3:1Beſides the doctrine which you hauehave learned and avoid them. For ſuch ſeruenot the Lord Ieſus Christ, &c. With manie other mo places to the ſame purpoſe.

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

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

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

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

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

Note II Reputed Viſible Churches of divers kindes.Againe it is to be noted, that in the eſ…imation of men a Viſible Church (that is, which is indued with power of Spirituall outward governement) is of di…ers formes and natures. Nevertheles in trueth and in ve…ie deed Chriſt hath ordeined for vsus only one kinde of a Viſible Church p. 5in his worde. And this only ought to be allowed and believed to be a true Church by all Chriſtians. For who is it, that can or ever could make any ſocietie of people to be a Viſible Church, but Chriſt onelyonly? 1Some men eſteeme the Vniverſal nomber of profeſſed Chriſtians in the world to be one viſible Church, calling it the Catholike or Vniverſal viſible Church. And the Catholikes taking holde hereof, do conclude that likewiſe there is & ought to be one Catholike and vniverſall governement Eccleſiaſticall vntounto which all other Churches and their governments muſt be ſubordinate. But in Gods worde there is no ſuch viſible Church nor governement anie where to be found. This is meerly deviſed by the witte and will of men. Againe men eſteeme a whole Nation profeſſing the Goſpell, to be one viſible Church, 2and they call it a National church. Likewiſe a Province a Provincial church: 3and a Dioceſe a Dioceſan Church. 4But none of theſe likewiſe can be found in the whole new Teſtamēt of Chriſt. 5Only a Particular ordinary constant Congregation of Chriſtians in Chriſtes Teſtament is appointed and reckoned to be a viſible Church.Particular & Pariſhionall Churches are the onelyonly true Viſible Churches. And therefore ſo ſtandeth the caſe now heere with vsus in England alſo, and ſo we ought to eſteeme it. The which that it may more clearelie appeare to be true, I have thought good to ſett downe this brief Table following, wherein all the divers and ſundrie ſenſes of a Church in the**We ſpeak not of the Iewes churche vnderunder y^e Law, which wee knowe was Nationall & only one in the world vnderunder one High Prieſt. Which were Figures and are ceaſed. Such alſo was that One Church in the wildernes, Acts 7.38 which was yet nevertheles but one particular Aſſembly a…o in one plate gathered to geather ſo neere as ſuch a multitude could be, Exod 19 11 &c.Acts 7:38Exod 19:11 New Teſtament are plainlie & diſtinctlie ſhewed. And yet none of the 4. forenamed viſible Churches (as ſome do repute them) are any where there to be found.

A Table briefly ſhewing all the divers and ſundry ſignifications in the New Teſtament of this word foreign which cō monly we tranſlate a Church. Wherein we may eaſily ſee which is the on…e true and proper viſible Church of Chriſt to which the goverment Eccleſiaſticall of i… …fe doeth alwayes of right app…rtaine.

Eccleſia in y^e new Teſtament is taken. Ciuilly and originally for a**Act. 19.3….39.40.Acts 19:3Acts 19:39Acts 19:40 particular Aſſembly of Citizens in one certaine publike place about matters of the Common wealth.

Eccleſia in y^e new Teſtament is taken. Religlouſlie for a Church

Properly

in the next and neereſt proportion aunſwering to the Originall ciuill vſe thereof. This is a Particular Viſible Ordinary Congregation of Chriſtians meeting for religious & Eccleſiaſticall actions & exerciſes. And this is the only true Viſible Church of Chriſt hauing from him the Spirituall power of order & gouernment in it ſelfe ordinarily. The proper Miniſters thereof are the onelyonly true ordinarie Miniſters of Chriſt. This we read of in the Scripture in 2. reſpects:

Definitly; This is ſome certaine known““Mat. 18.1… Revel. 21. Col. 4.16. Gal. 1.2. …. Theſ. ….14. …. Cor. 16.1, 19. 2. Cor 8.1. Rom. 16.4.16Matt 18:1Rev 21Col 4:16Gal 1:22 Cor 8:1Rom 16:4Rom 16:16 particular Congregation in ſome certaine particular place which we may go vntounto conſult with and obey.

Indefinitlie; where is vnderſtood This, or That, or**Mat. 3….…. &c. 1. Cor. 12.11. Mat. 6 33. Iſa. 2.1.2, 3. …. Pet. ….5.Matt 31 Cor 12:11Matt 6:33Isa 2:1Isa 2:2Isa 2:3 any other particular ordinary Congregation.

in a proportion more remote or further of. Such is the Inuiſible or Intelllgible Church abſolutly Catholike: that is the number of††Ephe. 3.10, 15, 21. and ….27.Eph 3:10Eph 3:15Eph 3:21Eph 3:27 all Gods Elect both in Heauen and in Earth.

Figuratiuely by a

Metaphore; Such is a holy & well ordered Chriſtian““Rom. 16.5 …. Cor. 16.….Rom 16:5 familie reſembling as it were a very Church though in deed it bee but a part of a true and proper Church.

Synecdoche viz. of the

Viſibilitie, when the Church it ſelf that is the whole cannot but only ſome parts of it may be Viſible or Senſible at any time to any one man that needeth the vſe of it Such is the Catholike Militant Church, w^c is**Mat. 16.18. 1. Cor. …2.28.Matt 16:181 Cor 2:28 properly an Inuiſible & Intelligible Church as it is conſidered wh…ly togeather, that is, as it is one Church.

Societie; as when only the““Act. 15.4. ….Acts 15:4 People of a particular Congregation (hauing Miniſters, yet without and beſide their Miniſters) are called the Church.

p. 7Whereby it is evident that no Catholike, or Vniverſall Church Viſible is any where in all Chriſtes New Teſtament to bee found: and therefore in no wiſe is ſuch a Church to be allowed. Neither yet any Nationall, or Provinciall, or Dioceſan Church. Only a particular ordinarie Congregation is heere found (and ſo is to be held) properly and only a true viſible Church of Chriſt.

Moreover heereby it appeareth, and it is likewiſe to be noted,Note III. that the nature and office of a Biſhop alſo is not of one maner, but of divers. It is as the former word Church very ambiguous, and muſt be likewiſe neceſſarily diſtinguiſhed.Biſhops of ſix ſortes. Six ſortes of Biſhops have ben and are known in the world.111. A Pariſhionall Biſhop, who is a Paſtor of one ordinary Congregation only. Such are all the Biſhoppes mentioned any where in the New Teſtament, and alſo in writers within the ſpace of 200. yeares after Chriſt.222. A Dioceſan Titular Biſhop, who was Biſhop of a Dioceſe in title and in name only, in Eccleſiaſticall governement having no more power then any other cō mon Paſtor. He differed not in any eſſentiall part of the ordinary Paſtorall Office, but was only Preſident or Moderator cōſtantly (yet by his fellow Paſtors free conſent) over the Paſtors of a Dioceſe. Such perhaps firſt of all was““Ann. 190 Iulianus the tenth Biſhop of Alexandria. In whoſe time firſt**Euſeb. 5.9. mention is made that there were divers Churches in that Citie, and he Biſhop of them. The firſt ſorte of theſe Biſhops we wholy allow. The ſecond we do not ſimply deny. They were not much vnlike to the Biſhops now lately appointed in Scotland.333. There is a Dioceſan ruling Biſhop. He had more power then any of the reſt of the ordinarie Paſtors (though yet not any ſole power) to rule in his Dioceſe. It may be this began at p. 8Alexandria with““Ann. 260. Dionyſius the thirteenth Biſhop of that place: which ſeemeth to be Ieroms meaning, where he**Ierom ad Evagr. ſaith, that ſome prioritie in Biſhops continued there from Marke to Heraclas and Dionyſius. At Heraclas (it is probable) was a period of one ſort, and with Dionyſius began another.Prioritie of Order 1. Pari…hionall. 2. Dioceſan. 3. Maioritie of rule Dioceſan. Prioritie of order in one Biſhop over a Pariſh (that is one particular compleat Congregation) ſeemeth to hauehave continued excluſively from Marke vntounto Iulianus: over a Dioceſe from Iulianus to Heraclas incluſively: and then Maioritie of ruling in the Dioceſe to hauehave begun with Dionyſius the next Succeſſor after. Nothing letteth vsus but that thus we may probably thinke: Seeing thus Euſebius and Ieroms relation ſhall well agree. How ſoever it was, this is certaine, that neither the one nor the other was knowne before theſe times heere expreſſed.444. A Dioceſan Lord Biſhop was he, who ruled ordinarilie in his Dioceſe by his ſole power. This grew vp from the former by litle and litle. But it ſeemeth not to hauehave ben eſtabliſhed in Ambroſe, Ierome, & Auguſtines time: though ſoone after (we doubt not) it tooke place over the Churches.555. A Patriarchall Biſhop: and they were firſt 4. in number,Of which kinde the Archbiſhop may be reckoned alſo. viz. at Rome, Antioch, ““Or els Cae ſarea. Concil. Nic. 1. Can. 7.Ieruſalem, Alexandria. They began by mens voluntarie regarding the Biſhops of thoſe principall Cities aboue other, ſometime before the Nicene Councell. But they were by an ordinance eſtabliſhed firſt in that Councell. Howbeit yet they were not Lords over the Churches, till a long while after. In the firſt Councell of Conſtantinople, an other Patriarch was eſtabliſhed at Conſtantinople.666. A Catholike or Vniverſall Biſhop**Bonifacius was the firſt began at Rome, about 600. yeares after Chriſt. Who alſo hath had his growinges and increaſings, and was not perfect Antichriſt, till ſome ages after. p. 9Now all theſe latter, that is, the 3.4.5. & 6. ſort, are at leaſt Beſides the Scriptures: yea they are cleane Contrarie to the firſt, which hath place and allowance in the Scripture. And therefore theſe are plainlie contrary to Gods word, & vtterlie vnlawfull. Wherefore alſo the““As namelie that in D. Bilſons perpet. gouernment, pag. 260. cōmon accompts and Catalogues of the ſucceſſion of Biſhops from the Apoſtles times to our dayes are very deceiptfull and falſe. When as al theſe are called by one name indifferently Biſhops without diſtinction, yet their Offices are exceeding divers and no way like. Yea theſe later directlie contrarie to the firſt, as hath ben ſaid.

Againſt this it is**D. Bilſon in perpetu. govern pa. 299.300. in effect obiected, that Timothy and Titus were properly Dioceſan ruling Biſhops. Yea ſuch as wee call Lord Biſhops, that is, vſing**pag 232. ſole authoritie: and had charge of mo particular Churches then one. Which is to be in deed a Dioceſan Biſhop. But they and their Offices are founde in the““1 Tim. 3. and 5. Tit. 1.5. & Tit. 3.1 Tim 3Titus 1:5Titus 3 Scripture: viz. To ordeine Paſtors in divers Churches, and to cenſure them, &c.

I anſwere, the very Apostles did not**Act. 14.23. & 1.15, 23. &c. 6.3 5, 6. & 1 Ti. 4.14. w Act. 16.2.Acts 14:23Acts 1:15Acts 1:23Acts 16:2 make Miniſters nor Cenſure by their ſole and ſingle Authoritie, but evermore in the preſence and with ſome liking of that particular Church whom it concerned. Therefore much leſſe did Timothie or Titus ſuch matters ſolely and ſingly, who were lower then Apoſtles. And therefore they were no Lord Miniſters certainelie. Further it is vntrue, they were no proper Biſhops at all: neither Dioceſan, nor any other. For all proper Biſhoppes were““D. Bilſon pag. 227. & 232. affixed to certaine places and certaine charges where they were to ſerve and**Act. 20.38 1 Pet … 2. Theodoret. …n Ephe. 4.Acts 20:381 Pet 2Eph 4 attend (in purpoſe) continually. But Timothie and Titus were never affixed to one certaine charge. For they (like the Apoſtles) intended not a conſtant continuance in a place, but after a time of their aboade in one Nation, tranſlated both their p. 10preſence and their labours into another Countrie. Being Comites Apostolorum, Cōpanions or Aſſiſtants to the Apoſtles,““See Bez. Annotat. in Acts 19. & de Mini. grad. cap. 5.Acts 19 indued doubtles with the extraordinarie gift of divers tongues, and therefore did goe (being cōmonlie ſent or called by the Apoſtles) hither & hither, to the end that they might perfect ſuch Churches as the Apoſtles had planted, but not throughlie furniſhed. And this is evident by the text. Firſt Timothie was choſen and ordayned at**Act. 16.Acts 16 Lystra, went into Phrygia, Galatia, Myſia, Troas: being at Philippi was ſent to““1 Cor. 4.17.1 Cor 4:17 Corinth, from**1 Theſ. 3.1.2, 6.1 Thess 3:11 Thess 3:21 Thess 3:6 Athens went to Theſſalonica: from§§Act. 19.22Acts 19:22 Epheſus went to Macedonia: after he was left at““1 Tim 1.31 Tim 1:3 Epheſus againe to order & redreſſe things there. And yet**2 Tim. 4.9.1.2 Tim 4:92 Tim 4:1 thence he was ſent for away and departed. A litle before Paules death he was at““Phil. 1 1.Phil 1:1 Rome, & from**Phil. 2.19 23.Phil 2:19 thence to goe to the Philippians. Wherefore Timothie was no ordinarie proper Biſhop of any ſort, nor affixed to anie certaine place, but a verie Evangelist (as alſo the**2 Tim. 4.5.2 Tim 4:5 Scripture calleth him) that is, an vnlimited, extraordinarie, and tēporarie function in the Churches. The like was Titus. Paule choſe him for his cōpanion & helper, and had him**Gal. 2.2.Gal 2:2 with him to Ieruſalem. Alſo he ſent him to§§2 Cor. 8, 17.2 Cor 8:17 Corinth. Hee left him in““Tit. 1.5.Titus 1:5 Crete a while: but ſends for him thēce**Tit. 3.12Titus 3:12 away anon after to Nicopolis. A litle before Pauls death he was with him at““2 Tim. 4.10.2 Tim 4:10 Rome, & from thence he went into Dalmatia. Both theſe therefore were verie Evangelistes, and no maner of ordinarie Biſhops. Neither in deede were there anie Dioceſan Biſhops, or Dioceſan Churches, that can be found in all the New Teſtament.

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

p. 11I anſwer; The Papiſts do hold their Eccleſiaſticall Traditions or Rites to be meerelie indifferent in their nature, and to be neceſſarie onelie as the Church commaundeth them. This is manifeſt by D. Stapleton ſaying:**Staplet…. Promtuar. Catholic. part. Quadrageſimal. pag. 99. Omnes vident in corum [Rituum Eccleſiasticorum] vſu nullam neceſsitatem poni, ſed liberè aſſumi vel non aſſumi: modò abſit contemptus, qui non in Ceremoniam ſed in Eccleſiae prepoſitos, qui cam instituerunt, imò in Christum cadit, dicente ad illos Christo, Qui vos ſpernit me ſpernit. Alſo by the Rhemes Testament, ſaying:““Rhem. T… ſtame. Annotat. in Math. 15.1….Matt 15:1 Neither fleſh nor fiſh of it ſelfe doth defile, but the breach of the Churches precept defileth. Likewiſe writeth Bellarmine in his diſcourſe of their Church-Ceremonies. But yet notwithſtanding every good Chriſtian knoweth well, that their Traditions are plainly ſuperſtitious and vnlawfull. How then ſhall not ours alſo be the like? What are ours better then theirs? Further, though Circumstances be indifferent and may be chaunged by men, yet Formes of Churches are not ſo; nor the Church Ministeries, nor Ceremonies, nor (in a word) any Traditions Eccleſiasticall, whereof our former Reaſon wholy intreateth. We denie not then but that in Eccleſiaſticall actions the meere Circumſtāces are in ſome ſort indifferent, that is, not neceſſarie to be determined by Scripture. But theſe truely are not to be called Eccleſiaſticall Traditions. Wherefore we muſt know that there is a great difference betweene Traditions & Circumstances. Beſides Gods Ordinances ſpecified in Scripture, there are 2. other kindes of lawfull thinges in the adminiſtration of Church matters.

1. Naturall Neceſſities.

2. Proper and meere Circumſtances.

Naturall Neceſſities, are Perſons, Times, Places, &c. what things only are in different. Circūſtances.Proper & meere Circumſtances (which onelyonly are indifferent in Church actions) are Accidentall things wherof there is no neceſſitie, but either may or may p. 12not be vſed. They are of 2. ſortes, either Civill or Occaſionall. 1The Civill Circumſtances are ſuch as though they be vſed in Church actions,To this do belonge all thinges of Comlineſſe and Decēcy. yet even there they import only and meerely a Civill vſe. Which we ſhall eaſilie diſcerne thus: viz. when the ſame things in the ſame maner are vſed alſo in actions meerely Civill at other times and places. Such were Chriſtes““John 13. w^t 1. Tim. 5.10.John 131 Tim 5:10 Waſhing the Diſciples feet, the““Rom. 16.16.Rom 16:16 Love feasts, &**Iud. 12.Judg 12 Kiſsings in the Church meetings of old. The maner at this day of the French Preaching covered. To come to the Church in this or that decent and comely common apparell. A commodious & diſtinct Houſe for Gods Service, &c. 2Occaſionall Circumſtances are ſuch particulars as ſome ſpecial occaſion requireth and moveth vsus vntounto, namely when the Generall things are either vſuall in Civill cuſtome, or by Gods owne ordinance in Nature, or in the Word written. As ſuch or ſuch Places, Times, Perſons, Things. Namelie to come together in Synagogues, or Temples. To vſe Pues, or Pulpits, &c. To Pray Kneeling, or Prostrate. To eate and drinke at the L. Table leaning, or ſitting, &c. In the““Mat. 26. 1 Cor. 11.23.Matt 261 Cor 11:23 Evening, or at**Acts 20.7Acts 20:7 Midnight. To Baptize in““Acts 16.15.Acts 16:15 Rivers. Alſo the Apoſtles vſing of ſome**Gal. 3.24 & 4.9.Gal 3:24Gal 4:9 Iewiſh Ceremonies among the vnconverted Iewes a while after Chriſtes death. Their““Acts 6.3, …, 6.Acts 6:3Acts 6:6 letting the people to nominate their Miniſters. Churches more or leſſe populous, &c. Theſe and ſuch like wee doubt not, are in Eccleſiaſticall actions in ſome ſorte Indifferent. I meane they are changeable, and either can not or ought not to be perpetuall: neither need they to be determined in Scripture. Although yet in their vſe they are not to be reckoned ſo indifferent, but that they ought neceſſarily to be ruled by the generall rules of Diſcretion and Charitie. Namely that in all of them Comelineſſe, Edification, the Avoyding of offence, and Gods glorie may be reſpected. p. 13Thus then let it be noted, that we affirme in Eccleſiaſticall actions no other thing at all beſide theſe is or can be anie way indifferent by any meanes.None of y^e things in cō troverſie are indifferent; neither are they proper Circumſtances. But touching our forenamed Eccleſiaſticall vnwrittē Traditions (whether Formes of Viſible Churches, Miniſteries, or Ceremonies) they are of no ſuch nature, as thoſe things beforenamed either Naturall neceſſities, or proper Circumſtances are. They are no way like to any ſort of them. Wherefore though Circumſtances be indifferent, yet mens Traditions in Religiō can not be. Neither did theſe thinges ſtande otherwiſe among the Iewes vnderunder the Law. So that it remaineth ſure, that all Church-Traditions without Gods word (& therfore all invented formes of Viſible Churches vſing governement, offices of Miniſterie, and Ceremonies) are ſimplie evill and vnlawfull; and therefore of neceſſitie ought to be reformed.

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

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

Some think that the appointing of the Altar in**Ioſh. 22.Josh 22 Ioſhua, of the Feaſt of““Heſt 9. Purim, and Davids ordayning**1 Chron. …5.1.6.1 Chr 5:11 Chr 5:6 Singers & Muſicians in the Temple, do prove that all religious matters invented and inſtituted by men, are not vnlawfull.

I anſwere, Howſoever they who appointed and ſett vp that Altar in Ioſhua might have deviſed ſome other thing p. 15leſſe ſcandalous then the forme of an Altar, whiche yet might as well have ſerved to the vſe they made it for, as the Altar did or could doe. Nevertheles this Altar was truelie no more but a civill monument or Signe, as being vſed no way in any Eccleſiaſticall or Religious action of worſhipping God, but ſet vp as a ſpectacle only in the open fields or by the river ſide, though it ſerved for a token that the 2. Tribes and a halfe had a part with the reſt of Iſraell, and in the worſhip of their God. Not vnlike it might be to this; if the States of the low Countries ſhould commaund everie inhabitant (being no Anabaptiſt) in that Countrey to weare a litle Dagger on their garmentes, to ſhew that they beleeve Magiſtracie and the vſe of weapons to be lawfull. Or as perhappes the Signe of the Croſſe was vſed by the Ancient Chriſtians dwelling amōg Heathens, to let them ſee they were not aſhamed of Chriſt crucified. All theſe are cleerely Civill, and therefore (wee acknowledge) in mens power it is ro ordayne or abrogate them. As for the Feaſt of Purim, that appeareth no where in the text to have bene a Religious Feaſt or Holy day. But onelyonly a day of Civill vſe alſo: viz. of reioycing, of making merry, of ſending preſentes to friends, and giftes to the poore. As may appeare Heſt. 9.22. Yet if any contende that it was a Holy day for ſolemne Thankes-giving & worſhipping of God in memorie of the rare deliverance of the Iewes from Hamans malice: Though this appeare not, yet wee may anſwere, neither can anie man diſprove it, that Mordecai the Iewe (the**ver… 2…. Authour of this inſtitution) was a Prophet of God, and Authour alſo of this booke of Heſter. So that then he ordained this conſtant Holy-day, not by humane diſcretion, but by Divine authoritie. Even as David did inſtitute the ſinging. Levites with Inſtrumentes of Muſike p. 16in the Temple. The**2. Chron. 29.25.2 Chr 29:25 text (as it were of purpoſe) meeting with this obiection, importeth that David neither did nor might do theſe things by his Kinglie power, nor by anie diſcretion Humane, but only by Propheticall authoritie through Gods own commaundement. Where it is to be noted, that by vrging Gods abſolute & all ſufficient Lawe for matters Eccleſiaſticall, wee do not reſtraine nor binde God, but only vsus Men from adding of any thing in the exerciſe of Gods worſhip beſides that which hee him ſelfe hath inſtituted and ſealed vp in his Teſtament.

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

This is a frivolous exception, and moſt falſe. For firſt, divers of our preſent matters controverted are neceſſaric enough. They can not be thus reiected as thinges not neceſſarie: viz. the onelyonly true Forme and Conſtitution of Chriſts Viſible Churches, with their due Miniſteries proportioned to them. According to Gods ordinarie diſpenſation of grace by his worde, there is even Neceſſitie to enioy theſe (Gods own) Ordinances, and to bee free from all Traditions of men, eſpecially ſuch as are cōtrarie to his. Touching other things, which ſeeme ſinaller and of leſſe importance, as ſome eſteeme the Rites & Ceremonies to be in Gods worſhip. I anſwere: our Argument before laid downe generally includeth all meere Eccleſiaſtical or Religious things. I ſay, All. And where All is included, Nothing is excepted. Wherefore we ſtill affirme and profeſſe that all lawfull Eccleſiaſticall Rites whatſoever are contained now in the Scriptures of the New Teſtament, and not onelyonly thinges ſimply neceſſarie to ſalvation. Beſides p. 17that we muſt not forget how the wilfull maintayning of ſmall thinges amiſſe becommeth a great and haynous ſinne, wherevnto is due a fearfull puniſhment. As may be ſeene in him who**Num. 15.30, and 32.Num 15:30Num 15:32 with a high hande did but gather a few ſtickes on the Sabbath day.

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

1. Table &

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

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

Reaſon 2.

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

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

p. 18Therefore every particular Congregation of Chriſtians by Gods expreſſe word ought to have and vſe the Eccleſiaſticall governement of it ſelfe: viz. according to the order ſet downe for a Viſible Church in Gods word.

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

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

Then let vsus alſo obſerve and marke theſe 3. pointes.Note. For proofe of our Aſſumption laſt before. 1. 1The Viſible Churches of Chriſt were in number**1 Cor. 11.16. & 4 17. &c.1 Cor 11:161 Cor 4:17 many & divers (and not onelyonly one) by the ordinance of God him ſelſe. So that it is falſe whiche is““Hooker lib 3. Sect. 1. pa. 132. held that there is a Vniverſall Viſible Church like the Sea; which being but one properly, is diſtinguiſhed and called by divers names according to the Countries and places by which it cometh. Nay, the Viſible Churches of Chriſt were by the Apoſtles ordination many in number, & actuallie divided Bodies or Societies: The Sea properly and alwayes being but one Continued Body, was and is diſtinguiſhed meerelie by divers names. The Vniverſall Inviſible Church was and is in deed one in number: but I have ſhewed there were many▪ in nomber p. 19of the true and proper Viſible Churches. Againe, the Iewiſh Viſible Church according to the Law, was in nū ber only one properlie vnderunder one High Prieſt, and having one Temple only at Ieruſalem. But Chriſt and his Apoſtles changed that forme, and did inſtitute and leave the Chriſtian Churches properlie in number many and divers, as I ſaide.

Secondly they inſtituted and left particular ordinarie or conſtant Cōgregations true and proper Viſible Churches: Or, 2they left not anie one Viſible Church (in the whole world) conſtitute and compact of divers ordinarie and conſtant Congregations. Both theſe points are moſt manifeſt and vndeniable in theſe places of holy Scripture following. Firſt that floriſhing and plentifull Church of Corinth was**1. Cor. 14.23.1 Cor 14:23 but one particular Congregation. Whereof the Apoſtle ſaith thus, When the whole Church is come togeather ““foreigninto one place. Which alſo we may likewiſe affirme of the Church of**Act. 14.27.Acts 14:27 Antioch, and of♣♣Iuſti. Martyr Apo. 2 Rome, and of““Act. 15.22, 25.Acts 15:22Acts 15:25 Ieruſalem, and of**Act. 20.28Acts 20:28 Epheſus, &c. in thoſe dayes. For though theſe Cities were great and populous, yet being vnbeleeving & hatefull enemies to the Goſpell, each of them had then of faithfull Chriſtians but one particular conſtant Congregation onelyonly. Like as the Proteſtants are in the Cities at this day vnderunder the Spaniſh King; or as they were in divers Cities of France before the peace was made, & as we were heere in London in Queene Maries time. Where yet we denie not, that then ſome particular Cōgregations being (as that of Ieruſalem was**Act. 4.4Acts 4:4 before) greater then other ſom, did by reaſon of perſecution meet occaſionallie and vncertainlie in divers♣♣Act. 12.1…Acts 12:1 ſmaller numbers. But theſe ſmaller numbers were not ſo many Churches properlie, becauſe they were vncertaine and occaſionall. A true and proper p. 20Church being alwayes neceſſarilie an ordinarie ſett companie and a conſtant ſocietie. Thoſe therefore notwithſtanding made but one““Act. 6.2.Acts 6:2 particular & compleat Congregation or proper Church, which in time of peace (chieflie they growing yet more populous) were to be diſtributed and divided into ſundrie proper and ordinarie Churches, each of them a competent Congregation. Which we do obſerve further neere the end of our handling the 2. Aſſertion afterward. Moreover, likely alſo it is in theſe cruell perſecuting Cities that ſo great a multitude of Chriſtians did not long keepe togeather, but many of thē did quicklie diſperſe and ſcatter them ſelves abroad into other quarters and Countries, whereby the whole number there became ſmaller, as we may ſee they did at**Act. 8.1.Acts 8:1 Ieruſalem by reaſon of Stevens perſecution, &c. immediatlie after the great and ſuddaine increaſe of the Church there. All which being conſidered, it is plaine yet ſtill that in the greateſt Cities, or whereſoever els, the Apoſtles appointed and left true and proper Viſible Churches particular conſtant Cō gregations. Which further alfo appeareth by thoſe many and diſtinct Churches ofaaGal. 1.2. 1. Cor. 16.1Gal 1:21 Cor 16:1 Galatia, ofbb2 Cor. 8.1 19, 23.2 Cor 8:1 Macedonia, ofcc1 Cor. 16.19.1 Cor 16:19 Aſia, ofdd2. Cor. 8.242 Cor 8:24 Achaia, ofee1. Th. 2.14 Gal. 1.21.Gal 1:21 Iudea, offfAct. 9.31.Acts 9:31 Galile & Samaria, ofggAct. 15.41Acts 15:41 Syria & Cilicia, ofhhAct. 14.23Acts 14:23 Lycaonia & Piſidia. Likewiſe by thoſe many Churches of theiiRom. 16.4Rom 16:4 Gentiles, and the Churches of thekk1 cor. 14 33 Saints, the Churches ofll1 Cor 11.161 Cor 11:16 God, the Churches ofmmRō. 16.16 Chriſt, andnn2. Cor. 8.18. & 11.28 1. Cor. 4.17 Reve. 2.23. Act. 16.5 1 Cor. 14.34 3. Ioh. 6. Rev. 22.16.2 Cor 8:182 Cor 11:281 Cor 4:17Rev 2:23Acts 16:51 Cor 14:343 John 1:6Rev 22:16 All Churches. All theſe in number were (not onlie one, but) manie proper diſtinct Churches. Each of them being ſeverallie but one particular conſtant Cōgregation. Wherevnto moſt fitlie agreeth that iniunction and commandement of our Saviour Chriſt touching a Viſible Church where he inſtituteth the externall ſpirituall power thereof, ſaying,ooMat. 18.17Matt 18:17 Tell the Church or Congregation: If he p. 21heare not the Church, let him be vntounto thee as an Heathen and a Publicane. Where he muſt neceſſarilie be vnderſtood of a particular Congregation. Which may be told and ſpoken vntounto onelyonly. As alſo that deſcription of a Viſible Church, which our publike Authoritie in England teacheth:““Artic. 19. viz. A Viſible Church is a Congregation of faithfull people where the word of God is preached, and the Sacraments ministred, &c. Doct. Bilſon alſo, where he ſaith**D. Bils. againſt the Seminaries. lib. 2. p. 170 The Church is never taken in the New or old Testament for the Priestes alone, but generallie for the whole Congregation of the faithfull. In Act. 20.28. The Church is taken for the People. And it is““Lib 3. Pa. 70. Math. 18.17. The whole multitude of the faithfull where he and they (the Offender and the Offended) live.

The 3. 1point here to be marked (ſerving alſo for proofe of our Propoſition before) is a generall and ſure Maxime in Divinitie: viz. The true and proper Viſible Churches of Chriſt both heeretofore, now, and heereafter, though manie in number, yet all are but one in nature, forme, and Conſtitution. And each of them hath ſimply one and the ſame ſpirituall or Eccleſiaſticall power immediatlie from Chriſt (not derived from any other) to governe it ſelfe withall. To which purpoſe the Scripture often ſpeaketh of the Viſible Church indefinitelie as of onelie**Math. 22.2, &c. 1. Cor. 12.13. Mat. 6.33 1. Pet. 2.5. Iſa. 2.1, 2, 3. 1. Tim. 3.5.Matt 22:21 Cor 12:13Matt 6:331 Pet 2:5Isa 2:1Isa 2:2Isa 2:31 Tim 3:5 one. Becauſe in Nature and Forme and in the true Conſtitution, as alſo in the ſpirituall power thereof, it is only one. Yea it ſaith alſo in plaine termes that there is““Ephe. 4.4. 1. Cor. 12.13Eph 4:41 Cor 12:13 one Body: where is ment the Church. But it is to bee vnderſtood, that it is one in nature and power, as I ſaid. Which muſt of neceſſitie be ſo, becauſe Chriſtes**Math. 18.17.Matt 18:17 Inſtitution of a viſible Churches externall ſpirituall governement before noted, muſt belong equally to every true and proper Viſible Church. Wherefore alſo the nature, forme, & Conſtitution of everie p. 22one muſt be the ſame that this is which heere Chriſt ſignifieth in Matthew. Which evidentlie was a particular Congregation, as before wee obſerved. To which purpoſe alſo one of our Adverſaries**Hooker lib. 3 pag. 132. a famous Schole-divine ſheweth that by cleere and vndeniable reaſon the governement Eccleſiaſticall belongeth to everie Viſible Church properly ſo called. And the practiſe of the Apoſtolike Churches doeth iuſtifie and confirme it. Which being ordinarie particular Congregations, each of them did or might by their Miniſters (and them ſelves in preſence conſenting)**Act. 14.23 2. Cor. 8.19Acts 14:232 Cor 8:19 chooſe Elders and““1. Cor. 5.4, 5. Mat 18, 17.1 Cor 5:41 Cor 5:5Matt 18:17 excommunicate offenders. Neither certainly did Chriſt ever inſtitute or the Apoſtles practiſe divers kindes or formes of Viſible Churches. Neither let they any to have greater or leſſer ſpirituall power then other. But they appointed one forme and one power for the Churches (queſtionles) everie where and alwayes. Therefore they all (though being many in number, yet) were and are one in nature, and forme, and power every-where and for ever.

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

1. Every particular ordinarie Congregation of faithfull people in England**I…r… Divine. By right from God. is a true & proper Viſible Church.

2. Everie ſuch Congregation heere and everie where is indued with power immediatly frō Chriſt to governe it ſelfe Eccleſiaſticallie or fpirituallie.

3. Everie true and proper Viſible Church everie where is but one ordinarie or conſtant Congregation only.

And then no one Church conſiſteth, neither can conſiſt of many ordinarie diſtinct Congregations. Wherfore no p. 23Dioceſan Chuch is ordained or allowed by Chriſt, no Provinciall, no Nationall, and ſo likewiſe no Vniverſall viſible Church with an externall governement correſpondent to the ſame, as the Catholikes heretically do holde.A Catholike, an Heretike. A Vniverſal Militant Church I deny not: but a Vniverſal or Catholike Viſible Church with correſpondent governement I do deny, and ſo likewiſe the reſt. Now heere thus we do for this reaſon, becauſe it is not poſſible, if there be indeed one Vniverſall Church properly, or where there is a Nationall Church, or Provinciall, or Dioceſan, that there the particular ordinarie Cōgregations are or can be eſteemed ſo many true and proper Churches. Theſe can not ſtand togeather with any of the former. Everie of thoſe is directlie contrarie to theſe. Seeing theſe in ſuch caſe are properly but Members and partes of the other, and not in them ſelves proper and intier Churches. Which yet in the places of Scripture * before cited the H. Ghoſt doth plainlie affirme. Where if he ſpeake not properly, who doth?Pag. 19.20. Or what is in Divinitie a proper ſpeach, if the cōtinuall phraſe of the H. Ghoſt in Scripture be not proper?Note. And ſurely to this point, if we marke it well, doth all our preſent Controverſie come; that is, to ſett downe What is a Viſible Church of Chriſt truly and properly. Seeing each true Viſible Church hath evermore from Chriſt power and right of governement in it ſelfe, as before is noted. Let this therefore be well declared what is a true Viſible Church, and we ſhall ſoone agree. We affirme that every particular ordinarie Cōgregation is and ought to be allowed for ſuch a Church. And heerevpon do we ſtand. I am not ignorant of the common and vulgar phraſe of ſpeach among men both ancient and of late, both vnlearned and learned, who have vſed to call everie of thoſe other a p. 24Church (as a Dioceſan Church, a Provinciall, a National, and alſo a Vniverſall Church) meaning, it ſeemeth, that everie of theſe may be trulie and rightlie called a Viſible Church. But this is only the cuſtome of ſpeach among men. And**Mos trium literatum tyrannus. Bez. Annot. in Luc. 23.17.Luke 23:17 Custome is a Tyrant, as a Reverend Father ſaith well. It is no warrant nor ground for any thing in Religion. The word of God alone muſt ſuffice vsus heerein. Yea we conſider not what advantage we give the Heretike Catholikes againſt vsus, by acknowledging a Catholike Viſible Church. It followeth from this neceſſarilie that there is & ought to be on earth a Catholike or Vniverſall governement Eccleſiaſticall. This is a Concluſion wherevnto M. Hooker ſetteth down expreſlie**Hook. 3. Sect 1. both the Propoſition and Aſſumption: viz.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Firſt we abſolutelie denie that any manner of Eccleſiaſticall Governement requireth the Civill Governement to becom conformed to it. This is a moſt falſe conceite. The bounds of either Governernement are diſtinct and cleerlie ſevered the one from the other: albeit each doth ayd & ſuccour the other. But what ſhould I reaſon heereof? This their inſimulation is againſt none other then Chriſt him ſelfe and his bleſſed Word, wherein he hath inſtituted no other ſtate of a Church Viſible but a particular Congregation only. Shall we impugne and accuſe the true Church of Chriſt? Nay, ſhall we accuſe Chriſt him ſelfe and his Goſpell; that heerein he yeeldeth vsus not the true, right, or beſt forme of a Church? And therefore we will of our owne heades deviſe and conſtitute a better. God forbid that any Chriſtians ſhould ſo do, and wilfully maintaine this doing alſo. But they think this maner of governement will becom tumultuous and troubleſom in the State: and ſo it will proove hurtfull to the Prince. I would demaund, why thinke they that the Church government (as we deſire it) will be troubleſom & tumultuous? They will anſwere, becauſe we require of neceſſitie that Elections of Miniſters, and Excommunications, &c. muſt be Popular. Which can not but bring with them commonly tumult and much trouble, if not confuſion and perill to manie. Wherevnto I replie, that this were verie true in deed (viz. much trouble and tumult would commonly follow, and perhaps perill to divers) if we deſired or ſought for popular Elections of Dioceſan Biſhops. Such as we read of & p. 27finde to have ben vſed in many places vnderunder Chriſtian Princes from 300. yeres after Chriſt hitherward for a long time. As for example at Antioch, Alexandria, Rome, Conſtantinople, &c. In theſe and other Cities verie great ſtirres, tumultes, and confuſions among the People have riſen in deed not ſeldom times, even in and about ſuch their Elections. The Eccleſiaſticall Hiſtories are full of examples to this purpoſe. But ſuch running togeather of a whole Citie or Dioces, ſuch voice-giving of ſuch multitudes of people we deſire not: neither do we any wayes allow it. It was a corrupt remainder in deed of the Peoples auncient free voice-giving to the Election of their Pariſhionall Pastors or Biſhops. For ſuch all ordinarie Biſhops and Pastors were primitively in the Apoſtles dayes, and ſuch every where they were left by them, as before we have ſhewed. Every ordinarie Biſhop then (I ſay) was only of a Pariſh (as the Ancients call it) that is of one particular Congregation only, and no greater. And ſo their Elections were accompliſhed by the free conſent and voyce-giving only of the People of each of theſe particular ordinarie Congregations, or Pariſhes. Now it is true indeed, we acknowledge we allow and do deſire ſuch Elections and Excommunications by the People. Neither is this to bee reckoned anie Popularitie which can be either prejudicious to Princes, or tumultuous in it ſelfe. No, it can not be an inconvenient order, but moſt reaſonable for any place or people in the world. Namely ſeeing we do expreſly hold this aſſertiō no otherwiſe (and we hartilie pray that it may bee noted) but as it is grounded on 4. Circumſtances.Power Circumſtances wheron the fitnes of the Peoples cō ſent ſtādeth 111.In regard that it is (as we are well aſſured) a Divine order and ordinance inſtituted for each Church by Chriſt and his Apoſtles: the trueth whereof (we hope) hath evidently appeared in this p. 28222.Reaſon laſt handled. Conſidering that we allow the Peoples conſent and voice-giving in Elections, Excommunications, &c. to be done only by the Chriſtian People of one Pariſh, that is, of one particular ordinarie Congregation only, and by no greater nor larger number of People by any meanes, as before hath bene likewiſe ſhewed.333. Conſidering that in the maner heereof we hold this only to be neceſſarie & ordinarie, that the Eccleſiaſticall Guides there (apart frō the People) do firſt by themſelves prepare and determine the whole matter, namely in ſuch ſort that the People may not neede to do ought afterward but only Conſent with them, and freelie ſignifie their conſent it it.444. If anie where it ſhould fall out that this People thus guided, & being ſo few, will yet preſume to be in their Church-Elections, &c. vnrulie and violent, then the Princes next dwelling Officers of Iustice may and ought to make them keepe peace and quietnes. Which thing how eaſie it is for the meaneſt of them to do, the ſimpleſt may perceaue. All which verilie being well conſidered, this Eccleſiaſticall Governement queſtionles is moſt reaſonable, yea neceſſarie. And it is childiſh, & without all wit to cry out againſt vsus (as our Adverſaries do) Popularitie, Anarchie, and Enmitie to Princes, for this our ſo wel grounded and ſo approved an aſſertion.

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

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

I anſwer, Somewhat wilbe amiſſe alwayes in whatſoever Eccleſiaſticall governement vponupon earth. Nevertheles there is no need, nor good vſe of theſe, nor of anie Eccleſiaſticall Vnwritten Traditions in Chriſtes Churches. We believe and know Gods Written word to bee ſufficient. Speciallie ſeeing theſe are ſo directlie contrarie to the only true forme and nature of Chriſts Viſible Churches in his word, as hath bene ſhewed. A greater Eccleſiaſticall governement then the Churches wee know none. There is nothing without the Church above it: viz. Eccleſiaſticallie and ſpirituallie. Seeing each Church hath her power and governement (as before is declared) immediatly from Chriſt. Yet it is true (beſide the Magiſtrates honorable p. 31aſſiſtance) verie oft there is great, and ſingular, yea ſometimes in a ſorte neceſſarie helpe to bee had by Synodes. Which are meetings of choyſe men out of many Churches: and theſe are leſſer or greater as occaſion requireth. Whoſe counſailles, adviſes, and determinations are moſt expedient and wholeſome alwayes. But touching any certaine Governemēt by Synodes, or neceſſarie impoſing of their Synodall Concluſions, Decrees, or Canons vppon Churches without their particular free conſentes, this ſeemeth to be a meere Humane ordinance. I can not finde it (either expreſlie, or by neceſſarie conſequence) in any part of Chriſtes Teſtament. Thus writeth heereof the Reverend M. Whitaker, **Whitak. de Concil. pag. 44.Quod omnes atttngit, ab omnibus approbari debet. That which concerneth all, ought to be approved of all. Againe,““Pag. 23. Concilia ſi ſimpliciter neceſſaria ſint, Christus alicubi precipiſset celebrari, aut cius ſaltem Apostoli. Quod tamen nuſquam ab illis factum eſſe legimus. If Councills were ſimply neceſſarie, Chriſt ſomewhere would have commaunded to keepe them, or at leaſt his Apoſtles. Which yet we read that they did no where. Further,**Pag. 35. Etſires ipſae de quibus in Concilio deliberatur & conſultatur, ſint ſacrae & religioſae, tamen hoc ipſum Congregare Epiſcopos est merè foreign. Although the things deliberated and conſulted of in a Councell be holy & religious, yet this thing to aſſemble Biſhops or Paſtors of divers Churches togeather, is meerelie Civill. I know well ſundrie godlie men do hold that Synodes have power to preſcribe and rule Eccleſiaſtically by Gods Law even ſundrie whole Churches though they ſeverallie conſent not. But with reverence to their names, I take it the trueth is otherwiſe. Only in the Actes wee finde ſomewhat that hath a kinde of likenes to ſuch Synodes. And it is but a kinde of likenes, or ſcarſe that: for it is farre from the ſame p. 32thing. Thus it is: In Act. 15.6.25. we find a cōming togeather of the Apoſtles, with the reſt of the Church at Ieruſalem and with a few other ſent to them from the Church of Antioch. Where theſe do make Decrees and impoſe them on the Churches: yea on divers Churches which had**Act. 16.4.Acts 16:4 not ſent any in their names thither. And on the Church of Antioch, who had perhaps but 4. or 5. there preſent. This ſheweth that this comming togeather at Ieruſalem was a verie Extraordinarie Synode, comparing it with our Synodes in vſe now, yea indeed nothing like to them. Firſt heere the““Act. 15.2Acts 15:2 text ſaith, The Apoſtles onelyonly and the Elders at Ieruſalem were ſought vntounto. And it is manifeſt that heerein the Apoſtles Extraordinarie office & power tooke place: viz. by impoſing their Decrees on Churches who had no perſons, and on one Church, viz. of Antioch who had few for them there preſent. In which reſpect they at Ieruſalem aſſume alſo aſpeciall authoritie of the H. Ghoſt, where they ſay,**vers. 28. It ſeemed good to the H. Ghoſt, and to vsus. Which no Aſſemblie of ordinarie perſons could or can aſſume to them in ſuch maner. Only where the Apoſtles were preſent and conſented, there they might. Finallie after this we never finde that any Churches vſed the meanes and power of Synodes till about Constantines time for almoſt 300. yeares ſpace. Which if it had ben an ordināce Divine for the Churches always, they neither ought nor ſurelie would ſo long have neglected the ſame. Seeing in that vvhile there vvere moſt waightie and continuall occaſions requiring this Divine helpe, if they had ſo eſteemed it. Which ſeeing they did not, we may well thinke in thoſe firſt times they held it not to be ſo. Nevertheles Synodes (when they may be had) are for counſaill, adviſe, & better reſolution cōtinually profitable & moſt wholeſom, p. 33as hath ben ſaid. And being well ordered, do make ſingularlie for Vnitie. Whereby alſo each Churches ordinarie governement may be much holpen & amended. And yet the ſame with power and authoritie ought to be held ſtill within it ſelfe only.

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

Reaſon 3.

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

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

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

The first part of the Aſſumption is thus proved.

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

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

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

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

If Dioceſan ruling Biſhops by the nature of their office are very Pluraliſtes and Nonreſident Paſtors,**Acts. 20.28. 1 Pet. 5.2. Prou. 27.18.23.Acts 20:281 Pet 5:2Prov 27:18Prov 27:23 then they are plainly contrary to Gods word, and ought of neceſſitie to be cleane aboliſhed.

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

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

Or thus.

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

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

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

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

Reaſon 4.

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

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

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

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

Now touching all this Gods word chargeth vsus expreſly ſaying: ““Col. 4.17 Rom. 12.7Col 4:17Rom 12:7Take heed to your Ministery which you hauehave receaved in the Lord, to fulfill it.

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

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

Where yet I can not but note,Note. how by our owne Parliament law this is wholy yeelded to every ordinary Paſtor in England. As namely where the booke of Ordination p. 37maketh every one of them to vndertake**Booke of Ordinatiō Printed Ann. 1596 to minister the Doctrine and Sacraments and Diſcipline of Christ as the Lord hath commanded, and as this Realme hath receaved the ſame according to the commandements of God. Though it ſaith, as this Realme hath receaved the ſame; Yet we muſt marke that it ſaith not ſo ſimplie, but with ſpeciall reſtraint, according to the commandements of God. Yea before alſo it requireth the Diſcipline of Christ to be ministred in ſuch maner as the Lord hath commanded. So that heere this reſtriction and certaine direction is ſet downe expreſly twice for fayling. Wherefore the Lawes intent and meaning is not heere to do beſide, much leſſe““Act. Parl. Henr. 8. Ann. 25. cap. 19. againſt the order ſet down in Gods word, but to do according to it. And not to take from Paſtors the ordinary power of Eccleſiaſticall Dicipline (as now the practiſe is) but to giuegive it them. Namely if Gods word do giuegive it them; which we ſaw before that it doth. God forbid therefore that we in England now ſhould be**Math. 19.6.Matt 19:6 barred from the ordinance of God in his word, this being alſo the true intent of our owne Lawes.

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

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

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

p. 40We anſwer, The cleane contrarie is true. Your humane diſparitie in the Eccleſiaſticall Miniſteries both is and ever**Nazianz. in orat poſt redi. hath ben the true cauſe of diſcord. But our Divine diſparitie, that which we hold and allow, is the true cauſe of peace and vnitie. For where, in what place can diſcord be? In every Church we acknowledg a Superior, and in everie meeting out of many Churches a Superior likewiſe. Now no other place can be imagined where diſcord and ſtrife Eccleſiaſticall can ariſe. If therefore Superioritie and diſparitie will cauſe peace, wee through Gods goodnes and bleſſing ſhall both have and keepe peace every where. If anie other Superioritie bee required, and namely Yours, which croſſeth yea cutteth of Gods owne ordinance in the Paſtoral office, we deny that it can ever procure peace. And this our preſent experience doth ſhew in all the forraigne Reformed Churches compared with ous. They all inioying this ordinance of God have moſt admirable vnitie. We only wanting this, notwithſtanding many & ſundrie worldly advantages, yet do remaine ſtill (now theſe 50. yeeres almoſt) in wofull diſſentions, deſolations, and diſſipations. Neither can the Lordly Prelacie, neither will they remedy it.

If heerein yet men will not be ſatisſied, but will hold it ſtill to be ſpeciall wiſedom to take away from ſom Paſtors the power of ſpirituall governement, and to give it to ſom few. We anſwer againe with the holy Ghoſt, It behooveth vsus not, it is high preſumption**2 Cor. 4.6.2 Cor 4:6 foreign: to be wiſe aboue (much rather contrary to) that which is written.

p. 41Reaſon 5.

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

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

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

The Propoſition (whereof only there can be doubt) is proved by many plaine places of Gods word. Chriſt earneſtly forbad his Apoſtles this whole matter (and in them much more all other Miniſters their inferiors) in theſe words:**Mat. 20.25.Matt 20:25 Ye know that the Rulers of the Nations hauehave dominion over them, and the Great men exerciſe authoritie over them. But it ſhall not be ſo among you. But who ſoever will be great among you, let him be your ſervant. Luke hath the ſame thus:““Luke. 22.25.Luke 22:25 The Kings of the Nations hauehave dominion, or rule as Lords over them; and they who exerciſe authoritie over them are called Gratious Lords. But ye ſhall not be ſo. And Peter an Elder (as he calleth himſelfe) chargeth all Elders that they be not**1 Pet. 5.8.1 Pet 5:8 as Lords over Gods heritage, but examples to the flocke. And Paul renounceth it for his part, ſaying,““2 Cor. 1.24.2 Cor 1:24 Not that we hauehave dominion …ver your faith, but are helpers of your ioy.

Heere it is a ſilly evaſion (which ſom vſe) or rather a deluſion p. 42of theſe manifeſt Scriptures, to ſay; Chriſt heere forbiddeth his Apoſtles to expect Civill power & authoritie by vertue of their Eccleſiaſticall Miniſterie: or, it is heere denyed that Civil power is neceſſarily annexed to the Eccleſiaſticall function. And beſides this that nothing els i… heere denyed by our Savior to his Apoſtles and Miniſters. I ſay this is a vaine ſhift. The Apoſtles manifeſtly deſired this outward preeminence no other way but by Cōmiſſion from Chriſt, whom they hoped ſhould hauehave ben a great Prince in the world. This**Math. 20.21. Marc. 10.…7.Matt 20:21Mark 10:7 they ſimply deſired and this Chriſt ſimply denied, both to them and in them to all true Miniſters of Chriſt for ever. Beſides Luke alſo addeth the Magnificent Titles of worldy authoritie, and theſe to be likewiſe denyed them. Which indeed neceſſarily followeth. Finally both Mathew & Luke do principally ſpeake of the forbidding of Civill rule to Miniſters, yet their words are ſo generall that we muſt needs grant, that Chriſt there forbiddeth his Miniſters ſimply & generally al Lordly rule, or domination, or ſole authoritie whatſoever. And therefore Eccleſiaſticall domination or ſole authoritie in Church matters alſo. Even as it is manifeſt that Peter and Paul do (without controverſy) in the places before rehearſed. It is no better ſhift, to ſay that Chriſt heere forbad nothing but Tyrannicall over-ruling of the brethren. Or only the ambitious deſire of Lordly rule, ſole power, and civill authoritie: but not the things themſelues.

But all this D. Bilſon alone (though now he be a L. Biſhop himſelfe) hath moſt fully and ſubſtantially confuted. Againſt the Ieſuits and Seminaries obiecting thus [The word is **Math. 20.25.Matt 20:25foreign they Over-rule their Subiects with iniusticę and violence. You ſhall not do ſo.] He replyeth,““D. Bilſ. againſt the Apol. of y^e Seminar. part. 2. pag. 174. print. Lond. 1586. So your new Tranſlation over-ruleth the word. Howbeit Christ in that place p. 43doth not traduce the Power of Princes as vniuſt and outragious, but distinguiſheth the calling of his Apostles from the maner of regiment which God hath allowed the Magistrat. Christ ſaith not Princes be tyrants, you ſhall deale more curteouſly then they do: but he ſaith Princes be Lords and rulers over their people by Gods ordinance you ſhall not be ſo. Againe the word which S. Luke hath, is foreign without any compoſition; They be Lords & Masters: and S. Paul confeſſeth of himſelfe and other Apostles, Not that we be Lords or Masters of your faith. Ye the compound foreign is with power & force to rule men whether they will or no, not with wrong and iniury to oppreſſe them. And therefore the concluſion is inevitable, that Princes may lawfully compell and puniſh their Subiects, which Biſhops may not. ““Pag. 175.All Pastors and Biſhops are ſtraitly charged not to medle with the ſword. **Pag. 182.To compell Heretikes and Schiſmatikes neither is it poſsible ſor the Preacher if he would, nor lawfull if he could: he lacketh both meanes and leave to constraine them. Biſhops be flatly forbidden to raigne, and must not meddle with the materiall ſword. ††Pag. 227.Commanding and forcing our Savior forbiddeeh to all his Diſciples. Where the full effect of all his diſcourſe is this: All Civill i…riſdiction and power of the ſword to commaund, compell, and puniſh by loſſe of life, limme, or libertie, is ſecluded from the Ministers function and reſerved to the Magistrates. **Luk. 22.24.25.Luke 22:24Luke 22:25Christ preciſely forbad his Apostles to beare rule and exerciſe authoritie over their brethren: not vniust and tyrannicall rule, but all compulſive power. And where the thing is not lawfull, the ſigne is not lawfull. &c. To like purpoſe alſo he writeth in his booke of the Perpetual Governement of Chriſtes Church:**Pag. 137.142. where he ſaith, † Many giftes may conioyne in one man, many offices cannot. ““Pag. 52.The Miniſters ſhall not have any ſuch rule or dominion as the great States have. **Pag. 55.The thing ſo much prohibited by Christ & his Apostles, is, that Preachers & Pastors ſhould foreign behave or thinke themſelves to bee Lords p. 44and Maiſters over their brethren. And““Pag. 56. To increaſe the love of the ſheepe toward their Sheepheards, Christ would not have his Apoſtles to be feared as Maiſters, but to be honored as Fathers; and conſequently Paſtors not to force, but to feede; not to chaſe, but to lead the flocke committed to their charge; neither roughly to intreat them as ſervants, but gently to perſwade them as coheires of the ſame kingdome. Heere are Teſtimonies of this man for vsus moſt full, moſt cleare, and above all exception.

Reaſon 6.

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

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

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

p. 45Where I ſay; by the rule of Gods worde,The Churches right. that Church which is to have the Miniſter ought to bee preſent and to ſhew a liking and conſent in their Miniſters Calling: this is evident by many teſtimonies, and reaſons. Firſt, becauſe in the Apoſtles time the Church had a conſent in Excommunication, as it appeareth to the Corinthians, where the Apoſtle ſaith,**1 Cor. 5.4.5.1 Cor 5:41 Cor 5:5 I have determined already, when yee are gathered together and my ſpirit, in the name of our L. Ieſus Christ, that ſuch a one, by the power of our L. Ieſus Chriſt, be delivered to Satan. And,**vers 13. Put away from among your ſelves that wicked man. Which agreeth with Chriſtes owne ordinance and precept, where he ſaith,““Mat. 18.17.Matt 18:17 Tell the Church: If he heare not the Church, let him be vntounto thee as an Heathen and a Publicane. Now if the Church was to Excommunicate, ſurelie the Church alſo was to elect her Miniſters. For theſe are the 2. maine partes of the holy Governement Eccleſiaſticall, both which muſt belong to the Church equallie & alike. Further it is apparant by the Apoſtles practiſe. Firſt, the calling of Matthias to the Apoſtleſhip was permitted (ſo farre as was poſſible) to the Churches Election. For they**Act. 1.23 &c.Acts 1:23 appointed two, whereof one ſhould be and was divinely choſen. This queſtionles was done (not of neceſſitie for that Calling which was then to be given, but only) for an example in Eccleſiaſticall Elections which the Churches after ſhould and did imitate. Beſides, howſoever the very Election of Matthias was by Divine lot, yet it was all done in the Churches preſence with the actuall concurrence of their prayers and free conſentes inſtantly. Now theſe acts of the Church as they may, ſo therefore they ought to be perpetual in every Election of whatſoever Miniſter; ſeeing even for that end the Apoſtles cauſed nowe the Church thus to do. It is a ſlight anſwer and vntrue, to ſay,““Parpet. govern. pag. 69. Examples p. 46are no preceptes. For the ſame anſwerer elſwhere confeſſeth, that**Per. gov. pag. 373. the Apoſtles taught the Church by their Example. But if he had not confeſſed it, yet the trueth of this generall point is in it ſelfe moſt certain. Wherefore was the Booke of the Apoſtles Actes els written? But that their Acts in the Churches ſhould be Rules and patterns for vsus to do likewiſe. All Divines vſe the Argument drawen from an act of Chriſt or his Apoſtles, and vrge it even to bind vsus no les then if it were a formall Precept. And ſo we read that Chriſt himſelf & his Apoſtles too, reaſoned ſundry times from the bare Actes of the Prophetes and men of God in the old Law. I know in divers Examples there are to be found Circumſtances which fit not all times, places, nor perſons. What then? Neither do Precepts commonly fit vsus in ſo generall a maner. By this ſhift then we may avoid expreſſe and direct Precepts alſo. And thus ſcarce any thing in Gods word ſhall ſuffice to conſtrayne and binde vsus. Wherefore alwayes we vrge no other Exāples of the Apoſtles, or not in any other points, then ſuch as do and may fit vsus continually, and every where, even ſo well as they fitted thoſe of old. In which caſe it is a miſerable denyall to ſay, Examples are no precepts. God graunt vsus and all true Chriſtians, to inioy our Churches ordered after the Apoſtles examples, and to have all other Cuſtomes of men (when once we diſcerne them) vtterly abandoned. But to proceed a litle: The Apoſtles again**Act. 6.3.5.6.Acts 6:3Acts 6:5Acts 6:6 charged the Church at Ieruſalem to chooſe their Deacons: therfore much more ought the Churches (who are not ignorant beaſtes, but men taught of God) to chooſe their Paſtors. Laſtly, they““Act. 14.23.Acts 14:23 ordeyned Elders to ſundrie Churches which were actuallie preſent and conſenting. So much is moſt evident by the very text: neither can any except againſt this; which p. 47ſuffiſeth our purpoſe. So that it is vaine where**Perpet. gov. pag. 70. ſome contende that this worde foreign heere vſed will not neceſſarilie prove that the Churches did elect their Elders. I anſwer, this very woord (yea thus as it is heere cōſtrued) is not ſo weak for our purpoſe as is pretended. For we find the ſame word in good Authors, having the very like Grā maticall conſtruction, that is, ioyned not with the people, but with the Guides or principal in the aſſemblie. And yet the very nature of this word (ſignifying in the ordinarie vſe thereof the cuſtome which was then to give Voices by lifting vp of handes) implyeth the Peoples concurrence and voyce-giving iointly with the Guides of the aſſemblie. For aſmuch as this geſture of lifting vp handes for voyce-giving in the the publicke meetinges did alwayes and moſt chieflie concerne the People. In this very manner to this purpoſe we have this word in Demoſthenes: **Cont…. Timocr.foreign. Which of the Lawes the Nomothetae (which were the principall Authors) ſhall ordayne or constitute by lifting vp of handes the ſame is ratified. Where notwithſtanding, the Lifting vp of hands (as is well knowen) was not the Nomothetaes or chief Authors part only: but the Peoples act is vnderſtood alſo by implication. Whoſe part was chiefly to Lift vp handes, eyther before or after the Nomothetaes act. Even ſo likewiſe this ſame worde vſed heere in the Actes in the very ſame maner ſhall import the Peoples part alſo: viz. a preſent cō ſent in the appointing of their Elders, though only their Guides the Apoſtles voyce-giving and ordayning of them be named. But we will not preſſe this. We may (as I ſaid) cleane omit this cōſideration, and yet this text in the Actes doth fully ſerve our mayne purpoſe. Namely it proveth fully that theſe Elders were ordayned by the Apoſtles in p. 48the preſence and with the free liking of the ſeverall Churches. Another conceite there is, that the ſenſe of this word heere is the ſame which the Greeke Eccleſiaſtical Writers long after do vſe it in: viz. only to lay on hands in Ordination, and no more. It is an idle conceite. All do know, that the later Eccleſiaſticall Greeke Writers have altered the originall and proper vſe of this word, as they (yea and the Latines alſo) have done in other: as after we**In the 2. Aſſertion & 9. Reaſon in the end thereof. ſhal further ſee. In the Apoſtles time they ſpake the ordinarie and knowen phraſe taken from the former times. But then no man vſed this word in ſuch ſenſe. They which followed ſom hundred yeares, can not prove that the Ancients ſpake like the after-commers. Wherefore, to our purpoſe againe: By all theſe textes thus declared, it remayneth evident that the Church, which is to have a Miniſter, ought to be preſent and to ſhew liking and cōſent freely to their Miniſters calling: ſith we have ſeene that it was ſo in the practiſe of the Apoſtles, and by the ordinance of Chriſt. Which alſo (it ſeemeth) our very Book of Ordinatiō (which is by Law) intendeth & requireth, where it ſaith, Take thou authority, &c. in this Congregation. The word, this, importeth that the very particular Congregation wherein he ſhould hauehave authoritie, ſhould be preſent. And why ſhould they neceſſarily be preſent, but freely to conſent? Alſo heere by it is evident that the Law would not that any Miniſter ſhould be ordained but to a certain Congregation. All which good, neceſſary, and Chriſtian rules how they be now every where broken & deſpiſed, who ſeeth not? Yea though the manifeſt intent of our Law doth require them. A word more let vsus add touching D. Bilſons approbatiō alſo of the Churches free conſent in choſing their Paſtors. Whoſe teſtimony I do delight to apply to our purpoſe for divers p. 49good conſiderations.““D …ilſ again the Seminar part. 2. pag. 353.356. Saith he, We hauehave the words and warrant of the H. Ghost for that which we ſay, &c. viz. that the People can and ought to diſcerne and try the doctrines and ſpirits of the Teachers; and ſo to choſe and refuſe them, as they by the word ſhould ſee good. **pag. 355.How can the People do either, if they hauehave not ſkill and leave to diſcerne both. ““Perpet. gover pag. 360.The Apostles left elections indifferently to the People and Clergie at Ieruſalem. The People had as much right to choſe their Pastors, as the Clergie that had more ſkill to iudge **Pag. 339.Well may the Peoples intereſt ſtand vpō the grounds of reaſon and nature, and be derived from the rules of Christian equitie. ““Pag. 359.The late Biſhops of Rome have not ceaſed curſing & fighting, till excluding both Prince and People they reduced the election wholy to the Clergie. But he telleth them, by their leave it was not ſo from the beginning. **Pag. …30.I acknowledge each Church & people ſtand free by Gods law to admit, maintaine, & obey no man as their Pastor without their liking. It is true he addeth this, vnles by law, custome, or conſent they restraine themſelves. But this he himſelfe elſwhere anſwereth roundly:““Pag. 22 …. What authoritie had others after the Apostles deathes to chaunge the Apoſtolike governement? And ſuch additions he calleth††Pag. 19. Corruptions of times, inventions of men, and a tranſgreſsing of the Commaundement of God for the traditions of men. And againe he calleth this plainly**Pag. 11 1… Intruſion, and Preſumption. This ſufficeth to ſhew, that he well vnderſtādeth the truth in this cauſe.

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

In which reſpect the Papiſtes are ſoundly anſwered, who calumniat our Miniſtery as if either we had none at all, or els had that which we have from them. Againe this anſwereth others, who becauſe in our publike orders there are many evills ioyned with our Miniſters Calling which are not to be iuſtified, nor to be communicated with, and becauſe they are commonly eſteemed to have their Calling from theſe vnlawfull meanes, viz. from the Dioceſan ruling Biſhops without the Church, though in deed it be not ſo: therefore they do wholy and abſolutly deny the Miniſterie in England, which in trueth and by good reaſon they ought not to do abſolutly and altogeather. How beit yet I ſpeak not this in favor to ſuch perſons or Congregations among vsus, which do evidently appeare to refuſe p. 51of wilfulnes Chriſtes Ordinances, and to ſpeak evil of the way of God. Toward ſuch I can not deny but the Apoſtles**Act. 19.9. 1 Tim. 6.5,Acts 19:91 Tim 6:5 pra… and precept ought to bee followed, who teacheth in this caſe, ſaying, "Separate from ſuch. ††Ephe. 5.12▪ … C…. 6.19.Eph 5:12Have n… fellowſhip with the vnfruitfull workes of darknes. * Touch no vncleane thing. ““Rom. 16.17.Rom 16:17Marke them which cauſe ſchiſmes and ſcandalles beſide the doctrine which you have learned, and avoid them.

Reaſon 7.

TO wantany maine part of the **foreign Luke 12.42▪Luke 12:42ordinary appointed meanes of ſalvation is ““Math. 28.20. Iſa. 30.21.Matt 28:20Isa 30:21cōtrary to Gods word and neceſſarie to be reformed.

But the right and true Diſcipline Eccleſiaſticall in each proper Viſible Church, is one maine part of the ordinary meanes of ſalvation **Mat. 18.17▪ Ioh. 20.23. Mat. 16.19▪Matt 18:17John 20:23Matt 16:19appointed by God for every ſoule: and this we in England do vtterly want.

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

Or thus.

Where the Apoſtles true Suceeſſors are ſpoyled of their Office and Miniſterie of binding and looſing, forgiving & retayning of ſcandalous ſinnes, there is grievous Sacrilege, & there ought to be of neceſſitie a reformation to reſtore them to this their ſpirituall **Math. 18.18. Ioh. 20.23.Matt 18:18John 20:23right and duty.

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

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

Or thus.

Where the Apoſtles true Succeſſors are barred from vſing**Math. 16.19.Matt 16:19 both the Keyes which Chriſt himſelfe gave them & put them in truſt with all, there the vſe of both ought to be reſtored to them. Otherwiſe††2 Tim. 1.14. Tim. 6.20.14. Cor. 9.17 …6.2 Tim 1:14 how can they ſay in their conſciences before God that they walke in their calling, and fulfill their Miniſtery, and diſcharge their truſt? And how can the flocke aſſuredly expect that Heaven ſhal be opened to them?

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

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

Obedience is better then ſacrifice,

1. Samu. 15.22.

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

Ioh. 13.17.

Reaſon 8.

Chriſt out Prophet & King.WHOSOEVER denyeth Chriſt the Saviour to be our intire and perfect Prophet and ſpirituall King (by taking away from him ſom parts of his Propheticall and Kingly Offices, and aſcribing the ſame vntounto Men) he disniniſheth the honor & dignitie of Chriſt, he impugneth the Foundation of ſaving faith, and is**1 Cor. 3.11. Act. 4.12. …oh. …4.6.1 Cor 3:11Acts 4:12 contrarie to Gods word.

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

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

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

The Aſſumption our adverſaries do make to be true. For they take frō Chriſt perſonally a manifeſt part of his Propheticall Office: and likewiſe of his Kingly Office. It is a part of Chriſtes owne proper Propheticall Office to teach vsus with authoritie by him ſelfe**Proved in Reaſon 1. pa. 1.2 &c. And Heb. 3.2, 3, …, 6. Math. 17.5 Iohn. 14.6. and 16.13.Heb 3:2Heb 3:3Heb 3:6Matt 17:5John 14:6John 16:13 alone in his owne word and Teſtament the outward forme, nature, and conſtitution (which is but one) of all his Viſible Churches whether in Countries rich or poore, Monarchies or Democraties, &c: likewiſe all the true Eccleſiaſticall Offices and Miniſteries in them, with every kinde of action and thing properly Eccleſiaſticall vſed in the Church, or where ſoever els Religiouſly. Alſo it is a part of his proper Kinglie Office,““Matth. 6.33. and 22.2. &c. Luke 19.14. 27. Iam. 4.12. 1 Cor. 12.5 Mat. 18.17 Iohn 20.23.Matt 6:33Matt 22:2Luke 19:14Luke 19:27Jas 4:121 Cor 12:5Matt 18:17John 20:23 by him ſelfe to conſtitute and inioyne the ſingular and only true forme of all his Viſible Churches, and to admit wherſoever none other; ſpiritually to rule, to guide, and to bleſſe vsus in them only, by his owne Miniſteries and Ordinances inſtituted by him ſelfe or by his Spirite in his Apoſtles, and by none other. All which the foreſaide Dioceſeſan ruling Biſhops, &c. do take from Chriſt himſelfe perſonally, and do**D. Whit-gift againſt Mai. Cart-wright, pa. 370.376. permit them vntounto Men. Saying, it is indifferent (and ſomwhere ſomtimes convenient) for Chriſtians thus to do. Therefore the Aſſumption is true.

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

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

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

Finally our Adverſaries will obiect, that by theſe Aſſertions and defences we detract from the Kings authoritie & power: namely thus miſliking that which he alloweth, & ſpecially holding an authority Eccleſiaſticall not derived from him. I anſwer, even ſo did evill & ſlanderous men accuſe the faithfull Chriſtians in the primitive age. They p. 57cryed that,**Act. 17.…Acts 17 Theſe all do against the decrees of Caeſar, ſaying that there is another King, one Ieſus. Our reply therefore vntounto them for this ſhall ſtand in 4. points. 1. We moſt gladlie 1do**Math. 20.21.Matt 20:21 give vntounto Caeſar the things that are Caeſars, but to God the things that are Gods. ““Tertul. ad Scapula…2. Colimus Imperatorem vt hominem 2à Deo ſecundum, & ſolo Deo minorem. We honor the King as a man next vntounto God, and inferior to God only. 3. We gladlie 3acknowledge that the King is, & ought to be Supreme governor even in all cauſes and over all perſons Eccleſiaſticall. Howbeit alwayes foreign, non foreign: Civilly, not Spiritually or Eccleſiastically. 4. The King is Custos & 4Vindex, the Keeper and Maintainer (by compulſive power) of the whole ſtate of Religion. But he is not Author or Minister of any Eccleſiaſticall thing or Cōſtitution whatſoever. Will our Adverſaries yeeld more? Or is not this ſufficient? I hope this ſhall ſuffice to ceaſe heerafter their ſlanders againſt vsus in this cauſe. And thus much touching our firſt Aſſertion.