Attestation of Many Learned Godly and Famous Divines

CHAP. I. The great importance of the matter here handled; viz. That the people ought to have their free consent in their own Church-government. And the causes of publishing this Attestation to it.

W HEREAS many things at divers and sundry times heretofore have ben writ̄, which prove a plain necessity by God's Word to reform the Church & Church-government now in England; verily among them all there is almost no other point so evident, so direct, and full to this purpose, that is, none (in a manner) so absolutely importeth the said necessity of reformation, as this doth (which is utterly wanting among us) nam • lie: That the Church-government ought t ••• e exercised always with the people's free consent. It is true, another ground thereof there is likewise, & that of no less importance in this matter, which is, That Christ's true Visible and Ministerial Church under the Gospel consisteth not of many ordinary Congregations, but only of one. Which I have at large proved to be a truth, and have made it manifest in my Declaration, pag. 10.11.12. &c. and in Reas. for Reform. pag. 19.20. & 65.66. And again here after I do show it further. Yet the former point in some respect may be thought rather the chief, because this second is a depēdant on the former, & followeth by a necessary consequence from it, as partly is shown in the said Declarat. pag. 13.14. and more fully in the VII. Chapt. of this present Treatise ensuing.

Again, that requiring the people's free consent, noteth Christ's Visible Churches nature and essence intensive, as the Schools do speak: that is, it showeth th • ground of the power and life thereof. The other showeth the essence of it extensive, that is, the largeness of the Body of the Church, & just extent, or the due limites and bounds thereof outwardly. Wherefore that requiring the people's free consent, is manifestly a most proper and special Argument in our cause, and such as toucheth the quick in the matter of the said reformation most nearly.

D. Downame erreth greatly, in his late Defense making his first book thereof (full long & tedious) only to disprove Lay Elders, as he calleth them. Thinking without all reason, that if he speed well therein, he hath gotten the victory. Wherevpon he most fondly inferreth thus: Who seeth not that the disproof of their Presbyteries, is a direct proof for our Bishops? And in another place: Who seeth not that upon the overthrow of the Presbyteries, the government by Bishops is necessarily inferred? Who seeth not? Verily neither he, nor any man living, seeth it. He was told sufficiently by his Refuter, of this his vain and frivolous inference. But he seemeth so in love with his own folly, that he cā endure no mā to show him his error. Nay, such a mind he beareth, that in his Defense he goeth about with pretended Logike, to make this his idle conceit seem reason, and thereupon he saith his adversary must confess him self ignorant in Logike, if he will deny this his inference. And so this passage concerning Lay Elders, (he hopeth) will be acknowledged not to be impertinent. Never a whit truly. For this passage still is not only impertin • nt and idle, but even a false defense of those whom he peadeth for, if he will yet hold his opinion still. He hath not Logike at command; neither can he by his Sophistry, (among men of any understanding) make that to seem, which is not. Where he saith, it is presupposed on both sides, it is his folly to say so. And in saying, his Refuter witnesseth it, he grossly abuseth him. He doth the contrary in the same place which he allegeth out of him. For the Doctor leaveth out his Refuters words presently following those which he allegeth. Which later words are flat against him. So justly and truly our Doctor dealeth in his writings. Like to this is his great boast which he maketh here in his book, and often afterwards also, viz. that he hath found out two sortes of Disciplinarians, (as his wisedometermeth them) one elder and more learned, the chief of whom (he saith) are Calvin and Beza; Another, new, shallow, and ignorant sort: of whom he maketh Master Cartwright chief, adjoining others of us since unto him. But what difference • ndeth he in these Disciplinarians? • orsooth, the elder (he saith) hold • resbyteries in Cities to govern • hole Dioceses and Provinces, and • erein he avoucheth they join with • e Bishops in England against the new sort of • isciplinarians. The new sort boldly and •• noran • lie hold Parishonal Presbyte • ies. Naythis, Doctor slandereth either • gnorantly or maliciously. For we whō he maketh of the new, shallow, • nd ignorant sort) we, I say, differ not • ne hair from Calvin and Beza tou • hing the substance of this matter. We as they, & they as we do acknow • edge both the one and the other; that • s, both the Parishonal and the Dio • esan Presbyteries, yea the Provinci • ll, and larger too, if occasion serve. • t is false which he imputeth to Calvin • nd Beza, that they maintain the Church-government by Diocesan & Provincial Presbyteries absolutely without any relation to the people's • onsent in the ordinary Congregations. Also, that herein they join with the Bishops in England, or that they materially differ from us. All which God willing, we shall show to be untrue, and that most clearly in the 3. Chapt. & also in the 7. & 8. here following. Wherefore these be all slanderous forgeries of the Doctors devising, of purpose to make our innocence odious by all the shifts be can, & to cast some color of just cause, or show of reason for his leaving of our acquaintance, to whom heretofore he joined himself, namely while there was some expectation of his Majesty's favor towards us. And this is fully enough for answer to the substance of his whole first book. Seeing to trouble ourselves much with impertinent stuff, would be in us also great folly.

Yea, to speak the truth, the prosecuting of all the rest of his Defense besides, is such likewise: that is, clean from the main purpose, & toucheth not the chief question between us. Indeed he propoūdeath one part of the question well in the title of the second book of his Defense: but his prosecuting of it both there and everywhere else, even to the end, is as if we denied Bishops and their government in the Churches of Christ. Which is nothing else but lies, & malicious forgery against us, by equivocating falsehood & slander to make us seem, as if we were against both the express letter of the New Testament, and also of the most ancient Ecclesiastical Writers, where (we know) any mā may see Bishops & their government to be commended as from God, and as the ordinance of the Apostles. Which is the very practice likewise of Doct. Bilson against us in his book Of the perpetual government of Christ's Church. Whose trace our Doctor followeth step by step. But as I said, both their great and large volumes about this matter, are nothing else but two heaps of equivocations, or sentences wholly impertinent, & such as we admit with them, or some conclusions wherein they plainly contradict thenselves elsewhere. Little cause therefore had they who lately published that book of D. Bills. in Latin, so to do: unless they meant to show abroad further his most impertinēt, ambiguous & uncertain writing, & yet fraught with bitterness enough against us. In a word, we desire that all men should know that our question is not, whether Bishops and their government be Apostolical, about the proving whereof the greatest part of these two Doctors books are spent. Further, though we deny Diocesan & Provincial Bishops of any sort to be Apostolical, yet we do not simply deny but that some kind of them also may be lawful, were it not that certain weighty circumstances in these our days do stand against them. Yea, there are Circumstances now very evident and pregnant against the best sort of Diocesan Bishops, which were not in 200. or 300. years after Christ. So that no reason can be made; because they were lawful in the second or third age, therefore they are lawful now. The case being thus, it is to be noted that the DD. do not propound the true question between us. For if the people's free consent in their own Church-government were not (as it is) Christ's ordinance in the New Testament, certainly no Circūstance, nor anything else could make Diocesan or Provincial Bishops at all reproveable. For which cause the true question indeed between the Prelacie and us, or the principal & main question is, Whether the people ought to have always their free consent in their own Church government. But this (specially D. Downame ) putteth away from him with high disdain, contempt, railing, hateful accusations, and exclamations. So that with this he will not vouchsafe to medle. Wherein truly we may see him to be, I cannot say learned, but a cunning, bold, and exquisite Sophister. And this may be in general a sufficient Answer even to his whole Defense. Although for some other respects I hope somebody will one day examine his particular passages more exactly in a place for the purpose.

But to our point in hand. We clear • y see by this, that it is the people's cō • ent in the affairs of their own spi • ituall (that is, Church) government which maketh the matter, & putteth the difference in deed between the Ecclesiastical Reformation which in all dutifulnes we seek, and that Church-government which the L. Bishops in Engl. do exercise. I say, this concerning the people's right herein is it, which toncheth the life of our controversy. Where understand, that I mean only such people as are not ignorant in religion, nor scandalous in their life. For only of such Christ's Visible Church ought to consist.

Well; to proceed thē with our point. Questionles hence it is, that generally the Adversaries of the forenamed Reformation do so strangely reject, yea so hatefully resist, and strive against this same Christian doctrine here propounded (concerning the churches only true government with the people's free consent) as they do. Wherein they express & show little Christiā patience: for they prosecute those that hold & teach the same (though out of mere conscience) with all bitter reproaches, base skoffings, injurious slanders, and unmerciful dealings. And all this (it is plain) not for any manner of evil that they find in this doctrine, or for any incōvenience therein. For in truth there is none at all: as partly I have shown heretofore, & it will further be manifested hereafter. But they so hate this doctrine only because of the inevitable consequence of the said reformation, which it bringeth with it. Which crosseth & overturneth wholly their divers enormous, worldly, & carnal desires; as any man that looketh into the case, may easily see.

Howsoever it be, yet the truth and the agreeablenes hereof, with the holy Gospel of Jesus Christ, & with the assuring of our souls in the way to eternal life, as it hath appeared to the world ever since the discovery of Antichrist, more clearly then it did for many years before: so doubtless it will more and more appear yet still, & be made further manifest to all men even where the Gospel is received (as it is in many places yet) not so sincerely as it ought to be. For my part, because I well perceive that the Antichristian idolatry and tyranny of the Church of Rome cannot by Divinity be soundly resisted (as experience in time will show) neither was it resisted by our Forefathers at the beginning, but by maintaining this Evangelical point of doctrine among others, therefore I have cōdescended the more willingly (after diligent inquiry thereinto) to approve the said point of doctrine, viz. that the Church government ought to be exercised always with the people's free consent. Which also even for this same cause I cannot but believe to be the holy ordinance of Jesus Christ for his Church under the Gospel, and to have ben delivered unto us by the Apostles in their perpetual practice of Church-government. But specially, seeing for the same we have the most sure evidence of God's word in the New Testament, which I have heretofore gathered and observed at large. Secondly, seeing we have for it a plentiful, and clear Attestation of many Learned, Godly, and famous Divines both New and Old, confirming our faith, and strengthening our consciences therein.

Which Attestation I have thought it needful at this time and in this place to gather and produce for many causes. First my desire is that it may lie open to the sight of all men, what a great & holy agreement of good men herein we have; which being added to the forenoted fundamētal certainty thereof in God's word, giveth so full a satisfaction to every good Christian, that who can desire more? Secondly, all Christiā Civil Magistrates may hereby take good content and be satisfied touching the innocence of this way in the Church government which we hold. For when they shall see with what a cloud of such witnesses we are compassed in defense of this matter, they cannot imagine any inconvenience by it to their government, notwithstanding all the clamours and invectives of partial Adversaries against it. Lastly, hereby also our adversaries virulent tongues and pens (if it be possible) may be ashamed to abuse us as they do with all kind of unworthy reproaches and slanders, when they shall see whom they hate, and persecute, & revile together with us. Wherefore for the publishing of this matter there appeareth every way very great and necessary reason.

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

NOw herein I purpose to proceed [unspec 1] thus. First I will show, who among the New Writers are our Masters & Teachers in this point of doctrine, and whose faith we follow therein: whom I put first, namely, for their singular perspecuity and resolutnes in it. Then I will rehearse the practice of the most ancient times after [unspec 2] the Apostles. After that, I will remember our very adversaries consent [unspec 3] with us herein sometimes. Then I will show some certain & firm consequences [unspec 4] which follow from this ground necessarily: also some true & great inconveniences in re • ecting this doctrine. Moreover, I will answer [unspec 5] some of the adversaries chiefest objections, noting also briefly their immodest and unchristian reproaches against this Evangelical truth. And finally, adding a brief advertisement [unspec 6] touching this cause, we will commit the whole consideration thereof to the upright hearted and discreet Christian Reader.

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

BEGINNING therefore with the New Writers, I judge it meet and convenient to allege in the foremost place the resolut determination of Master Beza, because he of all others is thought by some vnadvised persons, to be most against us in this point. Now he disputing this question at large in his Epist. 8 • . setteth down this conclusion; Populo invito nihil obtrudatur: Let nothing be imposed on the people (or Congregation) ag • a • t their willes. Then the which verily we desire no more: this is all in substance that we seek in our assertion. Again, unless it be so, the Church-government either is a Monarchy, or a very Oligarchie. But Master Beza expressly condemneth both these: and the later namely on Math. ca. 18.17. Wherefore howsoever Master Beza interpreteth some things otherwise then we do, & useth sometimes other phrases then we perhaps do think so fit, or so frequently to be used, yet touching this point in question, he agreeth wholly with us in substance, and in effect. For let this which he in these words setteth down be yielded unto us, thē we are satisfied for the substance of Church-government. To which purpose Master Beza saith also in Confes. 5.35. The Apostles intended in the Churches which they planted, that no Pastor should be obtruded on a flock against their willes. Yet moreover I pray the Reader to note, that even he also strongly maintayneth this right of the people (in the affairs of their souls) many times in more free and large terms. As where he saith: I find nowhere in any Christian Church built up that any is promoted either to the Ministry of the word, or Deaconship, or Eldership, any other way, then by a public and free election. And, I repeat again that which I said before, It was never received in Christian Churches established, that any should be admitted to an Ecclesiastscall function, but being freely and lawfully chosen of that Church which it concerneth. Again, Pastors are not to be chosen without the consent of the whole Church. Also, They (whosoever they are) bring Tyrannie into the Church, if they call any man to a public function at their own will, the consent of the multitude being neglected. Again, Presbyters were chosen by the voices, at least, by the allowance of the whole assembly. Upon the Act. 14.23. he saith: The force of this word Chirotonein, is to be noted, that we way know Paul and Barnabas did nothing by their private will, neither exercised any tyranny in the Church. He meaneth, that they here made Ministers by the people's voices, or free consent, & not otherwise. And upon 1. Time. 5.22. All the authoriti • (of making Ministers) was not in Timothy alone; but election being made by the consent of the whole Church, then the President of the assembly did consecrate him by laying on of hands. And on 2. Cor. 2.8. By the public consent of the Church declare that you embrace that penitent sinner again as a brother, even as by the public judgment of the Church he was cast out. In all the which it is easy to see Master Beza's mind and resolution in this question to be clearly with us. As for that which D. Downame objecteth out of him, where he calleth one Morellius Fanaticall, because he pleaded in like manner for the popular government. The D. abuseth Beza, and us all. Morellius pleaded for the popular government in far unlike manner. He sought in Churches perfectly established to bring all things in particular, and ordinarily to the people's hearing, examining, judging, and voice-giving. But neither Beza, nor we intend so. We acknowledge that the ordinary sway of all Ecclesiastical authority ought to be in the true Bishop, or Pastor of the church: and we affirm that right well so it may be, although never anything be imposed on the Church by him against their willes. Which thing D. Downame him self also acknowledgeth may be, and was heretofore in a state of the Church ( about 400. years after Christ ) which he seemeth to allow of. Saving that he cunningly falsifyeth the words of the Council which there he mentioneth: to wit, in saying the assent or connivence of the people, where the Council saith, the assent and connivence. But to proceed: By this before alleged, all men may see Mayest. Beza's judgment in this cause to be (as I said) clearly with us. And so much concerning him.

In the second place we will consider Master Calvin, a Pastor and Guide of the Church of Geneva before Mai. Beza. He also everywhere in all his writings is a most earnest patron of this point which here we profess. I will note certain of his sentences to this purpose. Saith he: Est haec ex verbo Dei legitima Ministri vocatio, vhi ex populi consensu & approbatione creant qui visi suerint idonei. Preesse autem Electioni debent alij Pastores, nequid per levitatem, vel per malae studia, vet per tumultum à multitudine peccetur This is the lawful calling of a Minister by the word of God, where they which seem fit, are created by the consent and approbation of the people Indeed other Pastors ought to moderate and order the Election, least the multitude should offend through lightues, or ill affection, or tumult. And a little before, Videmus ipsum (Paulum) ex populi suffragijs Episcopos creare solitum. We see that Paul him self was wont to create Bishops by the voice giving of the people Again, Falluntur qui putant vel Timotheum Ephesi, vei Titum in Creta regnum exercuisse, vt suo vterque arbi • rio omnia disponeret. Praefuerunt enim tantum vt bonis & salutaribus consilijs popul • praeirent: non vt soli exclusis alijs onnibus agerent quod placerēt. They are deceived who think either that Timothy at Ephesus, or Titus in Crete did practice a kingdom, that either of them disposed all at their own will. Only they were over the people in going before them with good and wholesome countails; not that they alone did what pleased them, excluding all the rest. And presently he showeth, they did no more but crave the voices, & moderate the people in choosing. And affirmeth that this is, Commune ius & libertas Ecclesiae, the common right and liberty of the Church, and that, not to be diminished. And in another place he saith, Etiamsi nihil aliud mali foret quitamen hoe excusare poterunt quod it a spoliaverint suo iure Ecclesiam? Although there were no other evil, yet how can they excuse this that they have so spoiled the Church of her right? And, Est impia Ecclesiae spoliatio, &c. It is a wicked robbing or spoiling of the Church, so often as a Bishop is put upon any people whom they have not desired, or at least have not approved with a free voice And, It it is a lie that they say, this is a remedy against the people's tumults. They had other ways Either to prevent these faults, or to correct them being committed But to say the truth, when the people began to be somewhat too negligent in holding their Elections, & did give over this care to the Presbyters, as a thing not so beseeming thē selves, they (the Pres byters) abused this occasion to take to thē selves a tyranny, which afterward they confirmed with Canons. And upon the Acts thus he writeth: Est tyranicum, &c. It is tyrannical if any one man make Ministers at his will. Therefore this is the lawful way, that they be chosen by common voy ••• who are to exercise any public office in the Church. And this is the mean between tyrant • • e and confused liberty, that nothing in deed may be done without the consent and allowance of the people: and yet the Pastors should moderate them &c. Likewise rouching Ecclesiastical censure, and judgment in general, saith he: Contra ius & fas quod Ecclesiae datum erat, sibi vni vendicavit Episcopus. The Bishop against right and equity, hath taken to him self alone, that which was given to the Church. And, Fuit facinus aimis improbum. &c. It was to wicked a fact, that one man, in translating to him self the Common power, made way for tyrannous lust, and took away that which was the Churches ow • e, and suppressed the Eldership ordained by the Spirit of Christ. A game. Animadvertendum quod Paulus quam vis Apostolus forei, non pro sua libidine excommunicavit solus, sed consilium cum Ecclesia participat, vt communi authoritate res agat ur. It is to be marked that Paul though an Apostle, yet he did not excommuni are alone after his own will but did participat the matter with the Church, that it might be do •• by common authorttie. Thus plainly doth Calvin maintain the people's free consent in the Church government always.

To these we will add Master Viret, a rare light of the Gospel, a pillar of the truth, and partner with Mayest. Farel in planting the Church of Geneva before Calvin came there, The Church (saith he) in respect of the government which Jesus Christ instituted, is a holy and free communaltie: which for the same cause is called a Communion of Saints, to the which generally (and not to any one person particularly) Jesus Christ gave the whole power & authority to edification and not to destructiō. Quest. But if you so take it, there seemeth to me no order at all, but rather great confusion. Answer. That followeth not from that which I said. For first, the Church is not Headles, having Jesus Christ for a Head. Moreover, although the power and authority be given to the whole Communaltie of the faithful, as it is in a Democracy; yet nothing letteth but the Church should choose by her common consent out of the body of this Communitie certain men to have the special charge of exercising and administering the public offices which are ordained of God. &c. Question. Your meaning then is, that all the authority and power of Ecclesiastical government generally is given to the whole church. and therefore that it pertaineth to the same according to God's word to choose them whom she knoweth most worthy to exercise the public Offices. &c. Answer. All that time wherein the Church was rightly governed according to God's word, and not oppressed with tyranny, she used that order always And therefore it is more then necessary, that she should always keep her right her power, & authority, which she received of God, &c. Question. And if they which execute special charge in the Church, do tolerate one another in ill doing, & them selves do give matter of scādall & scattering, hath not thē the whole Church together power to correct them and to procure remedit to such evils? Answer. Seeing the power whereof we speak is by Christ Jesus given to the whole church, who can take it from thē? Can they, to whō the church itself hath given it? No truly, unless they be tyrants &c. And again. The Ministers ought not to give to thē selves alone the power which God gave to the whole church: unless so as they execute their Office in the Name of the church, and after that her judgment hath gone before. This is well to be noted that injury be done to none, & that the Minister, exercise not tyranny in the Church and that the government serve not their affections. Thus plainly Master Viret.

From these let us ascend to the very [unspec 4] first Worthies who have brought us the light of the Gospel in this latter age, Zwingli and Luther. Zwingli saith thus: Quid audio▪ What do I hear? Can a Bishop alone excommunicate? I thought it had ben given to the Church Christ saith, Tell the Church. Doth the Bishop or Abbot signify the Church? Excommunication is not one man's part, whosoever it be: but it is th • office of the Church. None therefore can excommunicate but that Church in wh • a 〈◊〉 dwelleth who offendeth by his sin. The right of pronouncing against him is in t • e Church and the Pastor of the Church It remaineth then, that Christ command • h that the sinner be shown to the Church which we • call a Parish.

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

Again, Est particularis Ecclesia ea cu • preceptum est vt morbidum membrum resecet, Math. 18. quales ea Corinthi ad quam seribit Paulus, & aliae quarum se curam gere •• dicat, & quibus se pari modo docere asserit • nquiens, Sollicitudo omnium Ecclesiarū: & sicut 〈◊〉 omnibus Ecclesijs doceo. That is a parti ulat Church which is commanded to cut of the infected member Math. 18. Such as that of Corinth is, to which Paul writeth, and others which he saith be hath care of, and in which he affirmeth that he taught altogether alike, saying, The care of all Churches, and, As I teach in all Churches. And concerning Calling to the Ministry, he saith: † It seemeth that there is nothing so agreeable to the ordinance of God. and to the old institution, as that all the whole Church of the faithful amongst a people, together with certain learned and godly Bishops and other faithful men having skill in things, should choose a Pastor. And after again, Let therefore these proud Bishops and foolish Abbots go shake their • ares, For it is convenient that the right of the Election should be in the power of the church of the faithful instructed by the counsel of learned mē. Moreover he writeth thus: He that with a Council of Bishops shall impose on Christian people any law or observatiō at their own liking (he meaneth, without the people's consent) hic violento imperio ius Ecclesiae invadit. He invadeth the Churches right by a violent command And therefore such Bishops as thus do, absque Ecclesia, without the Churches consent, statuentes suâ libidine, decreeing at their own pleasure, he saith, are nomine tenus Episcopy, reverà tyranni, in name Bishops, but in deed tyrants.

And thus much out of this holy man of God and noble witness of Christ, Master Zwingli.

Master Luther another mighty and principal champion for God's truth at the same time, wrote a special treatise which hath this title, Quod Ecclesia • us & potestatem habeat indicandi de quavis doctrinâ, item vocandi Ministros Evangelij;, aut si fideles esse desierint, deponendi. That the Church hath the right & power to judge of any doctrine, also of calling the Ministers of the Gospel: or, if they cease to be faithful to depose them. What can be more for us then this is? In another place he saith: Claves sunt totius Ecclesia. The Keys belong to the whole Church. In his book of the Privat Mass, he speaketh to the Bishops of his time, thus: Spiritus Sanctus vui Civitats plures constituit Episcopos: Vos singuli (estis) pluribus. Quâ authoritate? Nonne ipsius Satanae &c? The holy Ghost appointed to one City many Bishops, but you are one Bishop to many Cities. By what authority? Is it not of Satan him self, by you opposing against the authority of the Holy Ghost? We conclude therefore boldly, that you (according to the Scriptures & the H Ghosts decree) are not so much as to be called Bishops, but rather adversaries and destroyers both of Bishops, and of the Divine decree concerning the appointing of Bishops. Again in his book against the falsely named Order of Bishops, he saith: At citra iocum vides palam. &c. But without jest thou seest openly that the Apostle Paul calleth only them Bishops, which do preach the Gospel and Minister Sacraments to the people, as in our time the parish Ministers and Preachers do. Therefore I believe without doubt, that they by fight possess the title and name of Bishops.

And in another treatise: Donabo hoc ordmibus Papisticis, quod solius Episcopy autoritate instituuntur quos vocant Sacerdotes: consensu aut suffragio populi, cui preficiendi sunt, neque requisito nec obtento: cuius tamen cum sint populus Dei maxim intererat, vt non sine suffragijs suis quisquā eis imponeretur. I will yield this (saith he) to the popish orders, that Priests (as they call them) are instituted by the authority of the Bishop alone: the c • nsent and voice giving of the people over whō they are to be set, neither sought nor obt • yned: whose chief right nevertheless it was (seeing they are God's people) that not any one should be set over them without their voice-giving. Thus teach these Pillars of the Gospel Zwingli and Luther.

To whom we will ad our two [unspec 6] great lights that shined sometime in England, Master Bucer, and P. Martyr. Bucer hath these words: Haec potestas penes omnem Ecclesiam est: authoritas modo Ministerij penes Presbyteros & Episcopos. Ita vt Roma olim potestas populs fuit, authoritas Senatus. This power & sway of the government is in the whole Church: but the authority only of ministration thereof is in the Presbyters and Bishops. So as in old time at Rome the power was in the people, but the authority or direction was in the Senate.

In another place he saith The Apostle accuseth the Corinthian • for that the whole church did not cast out of their company the incestuous person.

P. Martyr saith: Fatemur claves Ecclesia vniversae datas. We confess the Keys are given to the whole Church. By the Keys he meaneth Governement, and Ecclesiastical power. Also he saith: it is no marvel that it is the Churches right to chose Ministers, seeing we see the Civil Laws do give power to Towns to choose their Physicians and Scholemaisters at their own liking. In another place thus he saith: Quoniam in Ecclesia de negotijs gravioribus. & quae sunt maximi momenti, ad plebem • efertur (vt patet in Actis Apostolicis) ideo polit • ae rationem habet. Because in the Church matters of weight are referred to the people to determine (as it is manifest in the Ac • es) therefore the Church hath a respect of the Popular government, or Democracy. For so P. Martyr here meaneth by politia, as we may see if we look in the place. Also namely of Excommunication, he saith: Consentiente vniversa Eccsesia Excommunicetur. Hoc debet ist ad iudicium antecedere. Let Excommunication be with the consent of the whole Church This ought to go before that judgment. And, Non absque consensu Ecclesiae quispiam excommunicari potest. lus hoc ad Ecclesiam pertinet, neque ab illâ eripi potest. Witthout the consent of the Church, not any one can be excommunicated. This right belongeth to the Church, neither ought it to be taken away from it. And, the consent of the people is still to be observed in Excommunication, both that tyranny may be avoided, & that it may be done with great • er fruit and gravity.

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

O where shall we see such Bishops in these days!

Musculus also speaketh and reasoneth clearly with us herein. He saith: There is no doubt but the Apostles ke • t that manner of ordaining, viz. after the church had chosen. And, After fasting and praying (which was wont to be done in the Congregation of the faithful) They ordained Elders which were first chosen of the faithful. And this form of Electing and ordaining Elders and Bishops the Apostle commended unto his fellow workman Titus, and Timothy, saying: For this cause I left thee in Crete. &c. For who would believe that he ordained that Titus should do otherwise, then both he and the rest of the Apostles were accustomed to do. Therefore both by example and ordinace of the Apostle, in the primitive church Elders, Pastors, Bishops and Deacons were in the Ecclesiastical Meetings, chosen of the people by lifting up of hands. Also he saith, The Form of Election used in the Apostles times, is conformable to the liberty and privilege of the Church whereof Cyprian made mention: and that form of choice whereby men began to be thrust upon the people of Christ being not chosen of it, doth agree to a Church which is not free, but subject to bondage, And this form of electiō by the people's choice he calleth the Old, the Fittest, the Divine, the Apostolical, and lawful election: the other to come from the corrupt state of the Church and Religion.

Bullinger assirmeth thus; The Lord from the beginning gave authoritio to the Church to chose and ordain fit Ministers. And, Those which think that the Bishop & Archbishop have power to make Ministers, use these places of the Scripture, Therefore I left thee at Crete▪ that thou mightest appoint Elcers Town by Town: And again, Take heed that thou lay not thy hands rashly on any. But we answer, that the Apostles did not use any tyranny in the Churches, nor themselves alone to have don these things which pertained either to Election or Ordination, other men in the Church shut out. For the Apostles and Elders did create Bishops and Elders in the Church, but communicating their counsel with the Churches, yea and with the consent and approving of the people.

Yea of Ministers that govern anic Church without or against their consent, thus he saith: V • bem prodere di • untur Legati qui diversum ab eo quod ab vrbe prescriptum est, agunt. Those ambassadors are said to betray the City, who do anything divers from that which is prescribed them by the City.

Gwalther likewise is as plain as can be, Saith he of the calling of Ministers: Divinitùs vocatos esse censebimus qu • scunque Dei spiritus donis necessarijs instruxerit, & legiti •• s Ecclesiae suffragijs elegerit. Aliquas enim in hac causa partes Ecclesiae mandatas esse hi • locus perspicue tradit. Ecclesiae calculum spiritus requirit. We will esteem them to have a calling from God, whomsoever God's spirit hath •• abled with necessary gifts, and hath chosen by the Churches lawful givi • g of voices. For this place plainly show • h that in this cause there are some partes committed to the Church The Spirit requireth the Churches judge • meant Afterward he saith, Foedá tyrant • ide Ecclesiarum slatus opprimitur. The state of the Churches is oppressed by filthy tyranny where at this day the Churches have not this liberty to give their free consent at least. For here he respecteth that right and just order according to the rule of the Gospel which before he had described: Ministrorum verbi & Ecclesiae Electiones atque ordinationes non occulte intra privatos parietes à paucis homini • us, sed publice ab Ecclesia & in totius Ecclesiae conspectu fieri debent. Neque no • movet quod Paulus alibi vni Tito vel Tim • theo ius & potestatem Episcopo • eligendi tribuere videtur. Non enim illos privata auth • ritate qui • quam agere voluit, sed pro antist • tum • fficio iubet curare vt Ministri digni & idones legittime crdinentur. Nec verisimile est, illis plus concessum fu isse quàm Apostolis ipsis, qui inconsulta Ecclesia nihil in hac causa vnquam statuerunt. Nam & paulo post Diaconos coram Ecclesia publice eligunt, & Paulus oum Barnabá collectis viritim suffiagijs Presby • eres per Ecclesias singulas ordinavisse leguntur, Act. 6. & 3.4. The Elections and ordinations of the Ministers of the word and of the Church, ought not to be made secretly within private walls by a few men, but publicly by the Church and in the face of the whole Church. Neither doth it move us, that Paul inan other place seemeth to give right & power of chofing Bishops to Titus alo • e, or to Timothy. For he would not that they should do anything by their private author • tie: but he commandeth them to take care that worthy and fit Ministers be ordained, a • cording to the office of Guides and Overseers. N • ither is it likely, that more was granted to them then to the Apostles themselves, who determined nothing in this cause at any time without the churches cousaill, or witbout taking the churches advise. For a little after they both chose Deacons publicly in the presence of the church, and Paul with Barnabas are read to have ordained Presbyters throughout every Church, gathering the voices of every mā. Act 6 & 3.4.

Arguitur example hoc corruptissimus idemque perniciosissimus Ministros eligends mos, quem tam seculis aliquot hâc in causa imper • um obtinuisse constat. Quofit, vt non raro v • us aliquis in pluribus Ecclesijs privata authoritate Ministros & Eligat & Ordinet. Quaete potissimum ab Abbatibus, Episcopis, & Prapositis peccaiur. Nec meitùs rem administrant nonnulli inter eos qui Evangelij nomine gloriantur, & Ecclesiarum reformatores baberi volunt. Dum enim isis male vsurpata possessione Monachos & Episcopos (vt par est) eijeiunt, Ecclesijstamen libertatem illorum tyrannide ereptam non restituunt: Sed pro su • arbitrio administrant quae olim ab Episcopis & Monachis administrari solebant. Quod malum, nisi brevi reprimatur, & Simony • m & exitialem omnis Ecclesiasticae Disciplina confusionem nobis pariet. Atque omne bo • Romanis Pontificibus debetur, &c. Maxim Calisto secundo: ex quo tempore Ecclesia libertas ceu lethali morbo contabescens tandem in vniversum evanuit. Quam quicunque restitutam volunt, sive illi verbi Ministri sint, sive Magistratus, huc incumbendum sibi esse sciant vt vetus Ministrorum eligendorum consuetudo in ducatur. By this example is reproved that most corrupt, & also most pernicious manner of choosing Ministers, which it is manifest, hath got̄ Dominiō & Lordly rule in this affaire now these certain ages. Whereby it is, that not seldom one both choseth and ordayneth Ministers in many Churches by his private authority Wherein chieflic the Abbots, Bishops, and Rulers offend. Neither do divers others (among those that glory in the name of the Gospel and would be counted Reformers of Churches) order this matter better. For while they put forth the Monks & Bishops (as it is meet they should) out of their possession wickedly usurped, yet the liberty which they took away from their tyranny, they restore not to the Churches: but administer those things at their own will, which in time past were wont to be administered by the Bishops and Monks. Which evil, unless it be shortly repressed, it will bring forth among us both Simony and also a deadly confusion of all Church D •• ciplice. And all this we have from the Bishops of Rome, &c. Chieflie from Calistus the second. Frō which time the Churches liberty as it were languishing with a deadly sickness, at last vanished away wholly. Which whosoever do desire that it may be restored, whether they be Ministers or Magistrates, let them know they must labor for this, that the old custom of choosing Ministers be brought in again.

Unto these we will add Ursinus who teacheth thus. Math. 18.17. If he refuse to hear the Church, let him be unto thee as a Heathen & a Publican: In these words Christ expressly commandeth all, whosoever (being after this sort admonished by the Church) will not repent, to be by the common consent of the Church excommunicated until they repent. And whosoever are excommunicated, they again professing and showing in their actions amendment, are altogether in lake sort received into the Church as they were exiled from it, namely by the judgment of the Elders, by the consent of the Church, and the authority of Christ and the Scripture And that de • untiation whereby one is excommunicated, is not in the power of the Minister of the Church, but in the power of the Church, and is done in the name of the Church, because this Commandment was given by Christ unto the church. For he saith expressly, Tel the Church.

Here also Danaus is worthy to be remembered: He saith, " Approbatio eligendi (Ministri) ad plebem & totum populum Ecclesia sane pertinet. The approbation of the Minister to be chosen pertaineth truly to the whole people of the Church.

Again, Plebem non esse ab ordinationib • vocandorum & preficiendorum muneribu; Ecclesiasticis exclud • ndam demonstant exampl • veteris Ecclesiae &c. That the people • ught not to be excluded from the ordinations of Ministers, the exam • les of the old Church do demonstrate, in which without doubt the Election by voices of the whole Church was used as it is easy to be shown in Act 6. & 14. Therefore they do perfidiously deprive the Church of her right, who thrust a Pastor on a people without their knowledge and consent. For they do the Church the greatest injury, when they spoil her of her judgment and voice giving. Who therefore are truly to be called Sacrilegious, or Church-robbers. Neither indeed is he a lawful Pastor which is over a flock being ignorant of his coming, or against their will or not consenting. Which presently after he sticketh not to apply to the callings of the Ministers in England, saying: Ex his omnibus apparet quam nulla sit, vel non legitima corum verbi Ministrorum Vocatio &c. By all this it appeareth how that calling of Ministers is none, or not lawful, which is made by the authority letters, commandment, and judgment of the King alone, or Queen, or the Patron, or Bishop, or Archbishop, &c. veluti in mediâ Angliâ: as it is used in England. Id quod dolendum est, which I speak with grief.

Moreover concerning Excommunication he saith, Hac iurisdictio est totu • quidem Ecclesia ration potestatis: Prepositotum autem ration exercitij & adminisirationis. This jurisdiction is the whole Chur • hes in respect of the power thereof: but it be • ongeth to the Guides of the Church in respect • f administering it, namely populo assentiente, with the people's consent: as he addeth a • ittle after. And again, Executioni pu • lica censura intervenire debet notitia & con • ensus Ecclesia. The knowledge and consent of the Church ought to be in the execution of the public censure.

Neither shall Tilenus testimony be vnremembred, who answering the Co • nt Lavl, that required him to show what calling Calvin had, saith: The people of Geneva professing the Gospel, did first call Farel to be their Pastor, & then he & they called Calvin to be likewise. Applying Ciprians sentence thereunto, who avoucheth, That the people most of all have power to chose worthy Ministers, and to refuse their unworthy ones. After which he showeth that the other churches else-where professing the Gospel & refusing Popery, did likewise. They who had a calling from the church of R • me renounced it, resting on that which they have according to the rule of the Gospel.

Also Junius saith, Simplicissimam quidem probatissimam{que} Eligendi & Vocandi viam illam esse constat ex Scripturae Sacrae testimonijs, quam Apostoli in Ecclesijs tenuerunt olim, & prisca Ecclesia aliquamdiu eos imitata observavit. Eligebat tota Ecclesia, id est, corpus ex Presbyterio & populo seu plebe constitutum, equis & communihus suffragijs. Haec iusta electionis ratio. It is manifest that that way of choosing and calling Ministers is most simple and most approved by the testimonies of holy Scripture, which the Apostles in old time did keep in the Churches, and the ancient Church sometime imitating them did observe. The whole Church did chose, that is, the Body consisting of the Eldership and people or common sort) by equal & common voices. This is the just manner of Chosing Ministers. Afterward he saith, This the old Church did observe very long, doneo res coeperunt (vt fit humanitus) in peius ruere, atque retro sublapsa referri. Until (as through men's corruption it comes to passes) things began to grow worse, and to run to ruin. And after that corruptiō in the Church government was come in, Yet (saith he) id semper obtinuit, vt Ecclesia actioni toti interesset, camque prasentiâ suâ haberet raetam. That always was in force, that the Church was present at the whole action, and ratified it with their presence. But neither this in England is seen anywhere, neither will be allowed. Also Junius saith, Where the Church at any time doth no more (but ratify matters by their presence only) the Guid • t ought to certify the Church, that if they can them selves take care for, & do their own affairs, non fore pen •••• l • um Episcoporum Seniorumve coetum vt 〈◊〉 si • i cum damno Ecclesia, iniuriae, & ignominâ arroget: It shall not be in the power of any as • ēbly of Bishops or Elders to arrogat so much to them selves with the Churches damage, injury, and shame. Where he professeth that this is the Church • s damage, injury, & shame, if (being understanding Christians) they be only present at the choosing and ordaining of their Ministers, if they do not also them selves chose, or at least freely & expressly consent to the choosing and ordaining of them. After, noting the tyranny which was in this behalf under the Pope, he saith: I am de populo, quē Christus redemit suo sanguine & Ecclesiam sibi ex eo compararet, verbum nullum: Now of the people there was not one word, whom Christ redeemed with his blood, that they might be his Church. And he addeth, Hinc illa barbaries, hinc colluvies selelerum omnium, hinc illa fraudum & nundinationū sentina exundavit. Hence came that barbarous ignorance in those times, that heap of all sins, that sink of deceit and selling of the souls of men. Thē speaking of some Churches & Magistrates who have worthily freed themselves from the Pope, yet he leaveth this foul blot upon them; Ius illud Eccesiasticum institutionis & ordimationis restitut non curant Ecclesijs: They care not to restore to the Churches this right of theirs, viz of making & ordaining of Minister. Finally he answeceth some objections.

At nescit populus, dixerit quispiam. Doceatur, & sciet. At nescit vti. Imo nesciet vnquam, Siture suo non vtatur vnquam. At factiosus est plerumque, & in diversas partes studia{que} scinditur. Revocetur adpacē monitis salutaribus, & compescatur authoritate verbt, virorumque bonorum officijs, vt conciliatis & compositis animis faciant quod sui turis est. But some will say, The people is ignorant of their duty and right herein. Let them be taught, and they will understand it. But they know not how to use this their right. They will not know it ever, if they use it never. But they are factious often, and are divided into partes. Let them be reduced to Peace by wholesome counsel, and let them be ruled by the authority of the word, and the endeavors of good men, that their minds being ordered, they may do that which is their right to do.

About Excōmunicatiō Piscator saith, Excommunication ought to be don by the Church, or by the Presbyterie judging in the name of the Church. Where all mē may see his meaning to be this, viz. that the Presbyterie may excommunicate, howbeit always with the Churches free consent. For so he signifieth by these words, judging in the name of the Church. It cannot be that he should mean, that they may Excommunicate by their own power and right only, or whether the Church will or no. After the same manner also (I doubt not) some, others do speak concerning the making king of Ministers. Whose sense and meaning is to be taken altogether to that purpose likewise. In the Churches • am • , that is, Executing the Churches • uthoritie and power, and doing that which they do with their free con • ent and approbation.

Chemnicius, a man most famous & of • are learning among the followers of Luther in the matter of the real presence, yet in our cause he saith thus: Non sine consensu Ecclesiae Paulus & Bar • abas invitis obtruserunt Presbyteros. Paul and Barnabas did not thrust Ministers on the Church being unwilling, or without their • onsent. And, Exempla Aposiolica bistoria •• are oftendunt, &c. The examples of the Apostles story do clearly show that Election or Vocation did belong to the whole church. And, Haec est Apostolicae, primitiva, & vete •• Eccesia sententia de legitima Electione & Vocatione Ministrorum, &c. This is the judgment and way of the Apostolic, primitive, and ancient Church concerning the lawful Election and Calling of Ministers which judgment and way hath place in those Churches which are cōstituted according to God's word. And he addeth, In our Churches it is so: meaning in those that follow Luther.

Neither can I forget, that among • ur own Country-men D. Whitaker • eacheth thus: Quod omnes attingit▪ ab •••• bus approbari debet. That which toucheth all, ought to be approved of all. Meaning that nothing should be obtruded upon any people (in Ecclesiastical and Spiritual regiment, no not by Synods) except the people consent to it. And this consent of the people (hitherto avouched) verily many other worthy Divines both among us, & abroad do maintain likewise. But I forbear to nominate any mo Knowing that to whom anything will be enough, these are enough.

CHAP. IIII. The public consent of many late, yet excellent Churches, herein with us.

NEvertheles yet I will not spare to add hereunto also certain public voices of most famous Churches. The Cōsestion of the Bohemian Churches hath these words, Animarū Curatoribus & singulis Ecclesiasticis Cōmunitatibus (sive parvae sint sive magna) Claves concreditae sunt & concessae. Sic Dominus dixit Ecclesi • s, Amen dico vobis, quacunque ligaveritis in teria, erunt ligata in coelo: & quaecunque solveritis in terra, erunt soluta in coelo. Et mox, Nam vbi duo aut tres congregati fuerint in nomine meo, ibi in medio eorum sum. The Keys (that is, Ecclesiastical government) are given in trust and granted to the Pastors and to every Ecclesiastical Communaltie (that is, ordinary Congregation) whether they be small or great So the Lord said to the Churches: Verily I say unto you. Whatsoever you bind in earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever you loose in earth, shalb • loosed in heaven. And by and by▪ For where two or three shall be gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.

The Helvetian Confession saith; Quae cùm vera Dei Electio sit, Ecclesiae suffragio & Sacerdotis manuum impositione recte comprobatur. Which when it is God's true Electiō it is rightly approved by the Churches voice-giving, and the laying on of hands of the Minister.

The Genevian Liturgy setteth down expressly, the people's consent to be necessary both in their Calling of Ministers, and Excommunication of impenitent offenders. Beza also witnesseth the same use in the Elections at Geneva. and likewise in other places where there are free Churches. Saith he, Presbyters here are chosen not without the knowledge and consent of the people. So everywhere in other free Churches (according to the condition of the place) the like choice is made. Elswhere also he saith of the same thus: Habemus nos Dei benefic • o certas nostrae vocationis notas, legitimo ab Ecclesijs nostris & vita & doctrinae testimonio ernati, & ab ȳsdemelects, ac demurn etia • in nostro ministerio confirmats. Cus Domia •• (vt spero) e • ectis tum furibus, tum mercenarijs benedicet. We have by God's goodness • certain notes of our Calling, having good testimo • e from our Churches both for our life and doctrine and being by them Chosen and Confirmed also in our Ministry, Which I hope the Lord will bless, when he will ca •• out both thieves and hirelings.

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

The Churches of Scotland (before the late woeful breaking off from their former consent) did approve the same public Order of the Churches of France and Geneva aforesaid.

Also the public Order set forth in the Low countries consenteth herewith. The Synod of Middelburgh Anno 15 • 1. decreeth thus of the Chosing of Ministers: Electio sit penes Ecclesiam, & fiat per suffiagium in templo publice. Let the Election of the Ministers be in the power of the Church, and let it be done by voices publicly in the Temple. Afterward they determine thus: Nulla Ecclesia, nullus Minister, Nullus Senior, nullu • Diaconus vllum • abeat primatum super alterum. No Church, no Minister, no Elder, no Deacon may have any kind of primacy above other.

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

There is a public Order publ •• ed in Middelburgh Anno 1602. (agreeing withal the former) which touching the Chosing of Ministers saith thus: The party as chosen with the free consent of the Ministers, Elders, and the whole Congregation to be ordained, is to frame his Sermon. &c. Touching Deposing of them thus: By the like authority as he was elected, he is to be Deposed. Touching Excommunication thus: It is ordained that nothing be attempted in that behalf without the determination of the whole Congregation.

Wherevnto the Churches under the Palsgrave do agree, in whose public Catechism thus we read. The Church (by the commandment of Christ & his Apostles) using the Keys ought t • o drive the wicked from this Supper, till they shall repent and change their manners. Which Ursinus (the approved interpreter thereof) doth show to be with the people's free consent, as before out of Vrsmus we observed.

Finally, this same is allowed by those Churches also which follow Luther according to Chemnicius testimony of them before alleged: where at least he signifieth that many of them do allow it. Which many other churches besides do also, whō here I name not.

Hitherto I have truly and plainly declared, as touching these later times) who they are who have ben our Master▪ & Teachers in this matter of the Church constitution & government, viz. that it ought to be always with the people's free consent. Verily now it appeareth, I hope, that we need not be ashamed either of these noble lights of Religion, or of this doctrine which manifestly we have learned and received from such worthies.

CHAP. V. The Testimonies and practice of the best Antiquity, after the New Testament, herein likewise with us.

HOwbeit furthermore, that it may not be thought novelty or unbeseeming Christian Religion, (although no honest mā will once think so of anything which such a uniform consent of so renowned late Christians doth justify, yet) I judge it very cō venient to produce also some testimonies of the most ancient times of Christianity after the Apostles down-ward, even while any soundness of the Gospel did openly show it self in the world. I say, such testimonies I purpose he • e to show of famous Christians as have ben always continually after the Apostles, by which the practice of the people's free consent in their Church government is approved: yea in peace as well as in persecution, till the tyranny of Antichrist would bear it no longer in any public state. And this (God willing) I shall perform in this manner.

To begin therefore, we will first observe the Church of Jerusalem's practice in this point immediately after the decease of the Apostle James that died there, as Eusebius recordeth. Saith • ee; After James was dead it is reported that the Apostles & Disciples out of all places (near about Jerusalem) came together into one, and took counsel together who might be judged worthy to su • ceed in James his pla • e. Therefore all with one consent did think Simeon the son of Cleophas meet and able to have the government of the Church there. And again out of Egesippus; After that James was flame, Simeon the so • e of Cleophas was made Bishop: whom in t • esecond place all the Disciples appointed by voices to that government. This was the first & most notable example of the Christians pract se in this matter, neither cā ••• we read of any nearer to the Apostles after the times of the New Testament, then this. Also we see it was in the very Mother Church of all Christianity. Wherefore this order of Calling to the ministry, rather then any later, is most worthy, yea necessary to be observed and imitated by us everywhere and forever. The like we read of there again, thus: When Narcissi • (the Bishop) had withdrawn himself & was gone no man knew whither, they who governed the neighbor Churches thought good to make another Bishop. But how? By the people's voices. And so Dius was chosen. Afterward Narcissus returning, the Brethren desired him to take again • the government of the Church. Unto whom was adjoined Alexander for his fellow, the people of Jerusalem with the common consent of the neighbor Bishops constrayning him necessarily to tarry with them. These were the means that made these Ministers.

Ignatius of Antioch teacheth, and saith to the Church at Philadelphia, that It was me • te for them as being a Church of God, by voices to chose their Bishop. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 It cannot be denied, but that this writer showeth in the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , that is. Lifting up of hands • n thepeoples voice giving, that Elections of Ministers were then made by the people's free choice. Seeing he signifieth Ordination and Laying on of hands, by another proper word, viz. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 .

The practice of the Church of Rome was also the same in this matter. Of which we read, "When all the Brethren were come together in the Church for the purpose to chose a Bishop (whose place now was void) the whole people with one consent cried that Fabianus was worthy of that dignity, and presently he was placed in the same. Afterward again we read of Cornelius that he was chosen in like manner. For so writeth Cyprian of him, saying: Factus est Cornelius Episcopus de Dei & Christ's eius iudicio, de plebis (qua tune affuit) suffragio, &c. Cornelius was made Bishop by the judgment of God and his Christ by the voice giving of the people which was then present. &c In another place also he saith, He was de Dei iudtcio & Cleri ac Plebis suffragio ordinatus: Ordayned by the judgment of God, and by the voices of the Clergy and people.

The practice of the Church of Carthage was the same, as Cyprian also (speaking of himself) showeth, saying that he was chosen Populi vniversi suffragio in pace, by the voice-giving of the whole people in peace, and quietly: also he calleth this their voice giving, God's judgment. And he writeth of another Church in Afric at Legio (as we may gather) that there one Sabinus was made Bishop de vniversae fraternstatis suffragio, by the voice-giving of the whole brotherhood, and by the judgment of the Bishops that were come together.

But above all other, that place in Cyprian is singular for our purpose, where his own judgment and sentence with many other Bishops besides, is to be noted concerning this power and right of the people. It is in this same Epistle a little before, thus: Plebs obsequens praeceptis Dominicis & Deum metuens a peccatore praeposito separate se debet, nec se ad sacrilegi Sacerdotis sacrificsa miscere, cum ipsa maxim babeat poteslatem vel eligendi dignos Sacerdotes, vel indignos recusandi. Quod & ipsum videmus de Divina authoritate descendere. &c. A people obeying the Lord's Commandementes and fearing God ought to separate them selves from a wicke • Minister, and not join them selves to the Divine Service of a Sacrilegious Priest, seeing they (the people) chiefly have power to chose worthy Ministers and to refuse unworthy ones. Which thing also we see cometh fi • Divine authority &c. Lo what Cyprians judgment is of the people's power & right in the making of Ministers. He with divers other his fellow-Bishops doth here profess that it cometh frō Divine authority. What can be more full and absolute to our purpose, then this?

The same also he holdeth touching the people's power in Church censures. As where he willeth Stephan Bishop of Rome to write ad plebem Arelate consistentem, to the people at Arles in France. His intent is here that their Novatian Bishop Martianus should be removed and another set in his place by them together with Stephans help. And elsewhere touching one Victor a Presbyter fallen from the Church & returned again, Cyprian greatly misliketh & rebuketh Therapius the Bishop for receiving him sine petitu & conscientia plebis, without the desire & knowledge of the people: and adviseth him that he do so no more. And as touching himself he showeth in many places his own constant practice to be such also. First of some rash and proud Presbyters he saith, if they persisted in their scandalous behavior, they should answer it apud plebe vniversam, before all the people, as judges with himself & others of their misdemeanor. Again writing severally to his people about some that desired to be reconciled to the Church at Carthage, he saith, Examinabuntur singula praese itibus & iudicantibus vobis: Every thing shall be examined, you (the people) being present and judging of it. And thus he meaneth where he saith he must dispomere omnia consilij communis religione, disoose all things by a religious observing of such common advise. Lo, he putteth & acknowledgeth Religion herein And therefore it is, that to a few Presbyters of his Church, who had written to him being then absent from Carthage about some of his church affairs, he saith; He could not so much as write back to thē thereof. Seeing he had determined to do nothing privately of his own mind without the Presbyters counsel and the people's consent, And promiseth that when he should return he will handle matters in common, both such as were past while he was absent, and also such as were to come after his return. Yea and therefore in another place he saith: Praiudicare ego, & solum mihi rem communem vendicare non audeo. I dare not praeiudge, and take to myself alone common matters Add unto this that he saith also, Apud nos quoque, & fere per Provincias vniversas te • etur: Thus custom and practice is observed with us at Carthage, & almost through out all Provinces.

By all which it is manifest that D. Bilson vainly answereth, that Cyprian did yield to the people their free consent in the Church-government out of a private moderation, and but of his own free will. Nay, he saith (as we heard) that he durst not do otherwise, and that he observed it out of religion, and that this power of the people cometh from Divine authority. Yea doubtless, such a general and perpetual custom, even from the Apostles times, and appearing in the Apostles practice also (as the New Testament showeth) cannot be in Cypriaen a private moderation only, but even an unchangeable law. Neither is that any truer where he saith, that Cyprian him self was the first that cas • iered his own confession, and brake that custom. He brake it not: He did not cassier his own confession. Though that is a thing not impossible. Cyprian is not so persit, but he might thus fail thorough affection to him self: and yet his former testimonies of the people's right and power afore said may be (as they are) most true. But as I said, Cypriā neverbrake this his own & others custom. Verily as touching the substance of the matter he never brake it. What instances hath he against us? Saith he, Cyprian without the people made Celerinus, Aurelius, and Saturus Readers: and Optatus a Subdeacon. What of this? None of these come into our question. We have no care of making Readers and Subdeacons. But without the people he made Numidicus a Presbyter. The place showeth no such matter; nor yet that he was made Presbyter then. But rather being absent he showeth the Presbyters and people at Carthage, that Numidicus was to be made a Presbyter. Saying in the future tense, Et promovebitur quidem dum tempus permiserit, ad ampliorem locum religions suae, cum in presentia, protegente Domin • , venerimus. He shall be promoted, when we shall come in presence among you. So that he saith not, that he alone had now made him a Presbyter. Beside, it is most manifest in all these places that Cyprian shown a special care to have the people's liking and free consent to all which he did: and that in his absence he would attempt not anything, but that which he presumed & was sure of that their liking was to it as much as his own. So that he maketh it apparent even here, that he would do none of these things against their wills. Which is all that we seek also in our assertiō, as touching the substance of it, as before we have often shown. Last of all, he saith of Numidicus, that he was to be a Presbyter dignatione Divinâ, by God's special Divine will: and that Celerinus, and Aurelius had their places so I kewise. But we speak of no such extraordina • e & Divine calling. This also toucheth not our question. We hold the people's right of giving consent to be only for the ordinary callings in the Ministry. D. Bilson further urgeth that Cyprian received some into the Church without the people's consent: yea when the people withstood it, because he saith in one place, † Vix plebi persuade • , immo extorqueo, I scarce persuade the people, or rather I wring it from them. &c. And obnitente plebe & contradicente, I received thē the people striving against it, & gainsaying it. I answer, Seeing he saith, I scarce persuade the people, therefore they were persuaded & did consent to his mind. Indeed he showeth that this matter was hardly gotten at their hands, yea a while they spake against it: but they were persuaded at last, and so in conclusiō thei agreed to do as he thought good. Thus he did not this thing plainly and simply without the people's consent, or against their w •• s simply: but with their consent & ag • eement, so as I said. Whereby it appeareth how frivolous exceptions are taken against Cyprians concurrence and correspondence with us in this cause: whose most clear, and unanswerable, and frequent speaking on our part herein, we have seen before.

Now only one place more I will note in him describing fully his ordinary practice in Church governemē • , and may be a singular example and pattern for us. Epist. 3.11. showing how he received again certain p • enitents who had schismed from the Church. He saith thereof first; Omni actu ad me perlato placuit cōtrahi Presbyte • ū: Every act of their reap̄tāce being brought unto me, I thought good to call together he Presbyterie or Eldership. Whether here were any Lay Elders in this Presbyteric, or whether all were ordinary Ministers of the Word and Sacraments, it is nothing material. Though D. Bilson and D. Downame do make all their stir about this question, yet as I said (even in the entrance of this Treatise) it is nothing to the substance of the controversy between us: but it is impertinent & from the main purpose altogether. To pass this therefore: Secondly Cyprian in this place addeth, His ita gestis in Presbyterium venerunt, &c. Then the pe • ntentes came into the Eldership, earnestly praying that the things they had committed might be forgotten, &c. Thirdly, Quod e • at consequence, omnis hic actus populo fuerat • nsinuandus. It remained, that all this action was to be signified to the people Magnus fra • ernitatis concursus factus est. There was a great Meeting of the brethren. Vna vox eras • mnium. Maximum Presbyterum locum suum agnoscereiussimus. Caeteros cum ingenti populi suffragio recepimus. There was one voice of us all. We willed Maximus the Presbyter to know his place. The rest we received with a great voycegiving of the people allowing it. Here we see what place and order & consent the people under Cyprian had in the ordinary Church government. Certainly it is a plain example, and right worthy to be followed of us. And so much concerning Cyprian is sufficient,

A while after this time, at Antioch the neighbor Bishops coming together, do acknowledge that even the Churches thereabouts cōcurred and joined with them in the act of Excommunicating & deposing Paul the Bishop there, and in ordaining Domnus in his room. This they signify i • the title of their Epis • le which they all together do write about this matter. Now questionless among these Churches, the Church (that is, the people) of Antioch it self were the principal in this action. For they were the proper Body of which that wicked Bishop was the proper Ministerial Head also there the Meeting about his deposing, was held; & they were they which were specially grieved with him, who yet for fear of his pride and tyranny durst not themselves alone accuse him, as it is there signified. The point is, we see here at Antioch the Churches (that is, the people's) concurrence and consent with other Bishops and Teachers near adjoining, in the Excommunication & Deposition of one, and in Ordayning to them selves another Bishop.

After this again the Council of Nice decreed, that the people should chose their Minister, as appeareth where they say, If any Church Minister die, let one of the Church succeed in his place, so that he seem fit, and be chosen of the people, and the Bishop consent, and confirm the people's election. This order was written by this Council, namely to the Alexādrian Churches, because of a particular occasion, but it served as a rule generally for all places as the Council was general. Which doth plainly appear by that which afterward the Council of Constantinople did in observing this Nicene ordinance as an order belonging to them.

About the year 420. the fourth Council of Carthage decreed thus: E ••••• pus sine Concilio Clericorum su • rum Cle ••• s non ordinet; ita vt Civium assensum, & ••• ventiam, & testimonium quarat. Let 〈◊〉 a Bishop ordain any Clergy-man wichout an assembly of his Clergy: so that let him •• eke the people's consent, and connivence, and Mimonie. This Canon will have Ministers made in no wise without the people's consent, contentment, & testimony of their worthiness. Here D. Downame with little show, but with great falsehood turneth this word Et and, into Or: saying assent, or connivence, where he should say assent and cōnivence, as before I briefly touched. Whereby he would make the Council seem to mean that either of these was sufficient in the making of Ministers, & that their assent was not simply necessary: but if they did connive or hold their peace, the Council was content and required no more. But both the present words, and all circumstances of these times do plainly declare that the Council here requireth in making Ministers, the people's express consent, and testimony also of their worthiness, as before I noted. Of these times Calvin saith thus: Cum paroch •• no vt Presbyters destinabantur, tunc loci multitudinem nominatim consentire oportuit. When new Presbyters were appointed to the parishes then the people of the place must consent expressly.

This, with the rest of the Council • of Carthage, was confirmed in the general Council of Constantinople holden in Trullo about the year of Christ 682. Wherefore so long, & longer also we may well think, particular Congregations kept their spiritual right and power in this behalf. Which Calvin saith was such, that though the Governors sometimes did of them selves first chose, and then brought the matter to the people, yet they (the people) were not bound to those foreiudgemēts. And when the Church was deprived of this her right, it is by him called Impia Ecclesia spoliatie, quoties alicui popul • ingeritur Episcopus quem non petierit, aut saltem liberâ voice approbarit. It is an ungodly robbing of the Church so often as a Pastor is putvpon any people whom they havenot desired, or at least approved by free voice. I grant by this time many great preparations were made to bring in that Antichristian apostasy and tyranny, which afterward followed and overflowed everywhere. Howbeit yet thus long the Churches even by public laws retained their life: at least wise that injury and violence & spiritual robbery & tyranny which afterward prevailed against them, as yet was not general.

It is to no purpose here to inquire whē or by whom this wrong first entered; I mean, this withholding frō the people of God their free consent in spiritual government. It is sufficient that we see this their freedom to be Apostolical: also to be taught and observed in the Christian Churches next succeeding the Apostles, yea even till after the time that Antichrist began the desolation of abhominarion, which since hath ben every-where set up, & with strong hand maintained. Also, that we see the most undoubted instruments of God in these later times so clearly to avouch this most singular means of overthrowing Antichrist, and so earnestly to defend it, as they do, viz. as if without it there were neither any way to repel him at first, nor security afterward for us to stand long against his incessant endeavors, laboring still to return and tyrannize over our souls again.

This, I say, is sufficient for our present purpose at this time and in this place. Which also being well considered, cannot but cause every honest man to mourn and sigh before the Lord, beholding this foundation of piety and godly life to be so despised, yea so maligned, and resisted, as by many it is now among ourselves, where the Gospel is, and hath ben entertained (thanks be to God) these many years. Frō which most just cause of grief it proceedeth also necessarily that we cannot but opē our mouths (as we do) to bear witness in the behalf of this cause of Christ, being also the only true and assured means which doeth most nearly concern us (as we well understand) in the matter of the salvation of our souls. And so much touching this point.

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

The whole Church Militant over since the Apostles hath held the people's consent in then own Church government, & it was nor instituted by Councils, but it bath ben alway, retained.

Therefore the people's consent in their own Church government is most rightly believed to be delivered and ordained by the Apostles.

The first Proposition is our adversaries. D. Bilson and † D. Downame do much magnify it out of Austin. And we acknowledge it to be true. The Assumption is proved here before in this 5. Chapter so fully and plentifully as anything can be by Human records and testimonies. For we have none extant better thē these, At least by these it is proved so fully as our adversaries do intend in the Proposition. Wherefore the Conclusion is most certain and clear against them, viz. that the people's consent in their own Church government is an institution and ordinance of the Apostles. Whence also consequently it will follow, that those texts of Scripture usually alleged for proof of the same, and which I have to that pur • ise handled in my 3. and 9. Arguments of the Divine beginning and institution of Christ's Visible and Ministerial Church, do well show and testify to us so much.

CHAP. VI. Our very Adversaries do acknowledge with us the truth of this doctrine, sometimes in plain terms, and sometimes to the same full effect; specially when they deal against the Papists.

THE force and evidence of this truth, (viz. touching the people's right for their free consent in Church government) is such, that also our very Adversaries sometimes in plain terms, sometimes to the same full effect do acknowledge it. Among many, I will content myself with two for the present, viz. D. Bilson, and D. Downame. The first of these in his Answer to the Apology of the Seminary Pristes and Jesuits writeth thus: We have the words and warrant of the H. Ghost for that which we say &c. viz. That the people can and ought to disceme and try the doctrine and spirits of the Teachers, &c so to chose and refuse thē as they by the word should see good. Thus saith he. And what can be spoken by any of ourselves more plainly, and more fully to our purpose? If the people can and ought to chose their Teachers, and to refuse whom they find worthy to be refused, then why are they not allowed so to do in England? If the words and warrant of the holy Ghost be for it, then who may impeach it? Who may resist it? What are they that revile and persecute this way? He addeth here in this place that the people have skill and leave to discern both, viz. to discern the Teachers & their doctrine. Where also he discourseth much upon this right of the people as being Christ's ordinance, and presseth it against the Papists. Yea, in another book where he pleadeth to the contrary purpose against us, yet he writeth thus: *The Apostles left Elections indifferently to the people and Clergy of Jerusalem The people had as much right to chose their Pastor as the Clergy that had more skill to judge. Well may the people's interest stand upon the grounds of Reason & Nature, and be derived from the rules of Christian equity. The late Bishops of Rome have not ceased cursing and fighting, till excluding both Prince and people they reduced the Election wholly to the Clergy. But he telleth them, that by their leave, (applying hereunto the words of Christ Mat. 19. 8.) it was not so from the beginning. Again he saith, I a knowledge each Church and people stand fr • e by God's law to admit, maintain, and obey no man as their Pastor without their liking. Where in deed he addeth to the contrary, unless by law, custom, or consent they restrain themselves. But this he him self else-where answereth roundly; What authority had others after the Apostles deaths, to change the Apostolic government? And that it was not so from the beginning (which before he answered) is a full confutation also of this exception. As also where he calleth Men's ordinances in Church government Corruptions of times inventions of Men, and a transgressing of the Commandment of God for the traditions of men. And where he calleth such ordinances intrusion, and presumption.

As for that he saith elsewhere in this book, the Multitude (he meaneth the Christian people) neither could not can judge of the gifts and abilities of Pastors no more then blind men of colors. This showeth plainly his variable mind & contradiction to him self. As for the matter, it is spoken merely out of an humor, and partiality against us, and that his Lordship in spiritual things over Christ's people might be stablished. But before against the main adversaries of the Gospel (the Papists) he taught the truth, as the Scripture there alleged doth show: but here in this last place he turneth about, & joineth with them, rather then he would seem to consent with us. Nevertheless his former most clear and sincere testimony on our behalf cannot be blotted out.

Again in the same book speaking of Bishops, in plain terms thus he saith, They have no power to impose a Pastor on any Church against their willes, nor to force them to yield him obedience or maintenance against their liking. If this were ingenuously acknowledged and professed, & practiced likewise religiously, we should desire no more for the substance of the matter, as it hath ben often said. Our agreement together touching Church-government, would soon appear. But he, when he listeth, will tell us that Timothy and T •• s (whom he esteemeth Bishops) had power to make Presbyters to Churches (and the Apostles also) without the people, or their consent. Wherefore what to reckon of his sayings and speeches, we know not. Only his foresaid agreement with us in words, is manifest.

Next to him we will consider of Doctor Downame. He in a certain place (though it seemeth full sore against his will, yet through the force of the truth being compelled) acknowledgeth and yieldeth unto us, that the power of ordination and jurisdiction by right is seated in the whole Church or Congregation in case of necessity: wherein both the succession of their own Clergy failing and the help of others wanting, the right is devolved to the whole body of the Church. In which words I desire all men to observe how this Doctor granteth us the cause in full effect, and agreeth wholly to our purpose. For that which here he saith, and which necessarily followeth from these words, is all that we • desire. Wherefore I pray the Christian Reader to mark well these seven Consequentes which follow frō these words of D. Downame, and cannot be denied by any honest and true-hearted Christian.

• First, in that he holdeth that the power of ordination and jurisdiction by right is seated in the particular Congregation in case of necessity, it is certain therefore that he must hold that this right and power is seated in the whole particular Congregation by Christ, and by the ordinance of God. For no person or persons can at any time nor in any respect have such power by Mans ordinance. It cannot be either Naturally or Civilly given or received. Wherefore in whom soever that power is seated, & at what time soever, doubtless, it is in them Supernaturally: God by his special grace giveth it, and Christ by his holy ordinance seateth it in them. Yea though it be in any case of necessity whatsoever. For thus it is written: A man can receive nothing, except it be given him from heaven. That is, No dignity, no authority, no power in the Church can be, but from God. And it is spoken absolutely touching all times, places, and persons, without any limitation. The like proof is that also in another text, viz. No man taketh this honor to him self but be that is called of God as Aaron was. But I will press this no further. For I suppose every Christian advised will acknowledge it, and I have shown it at large in a special treatise for the purpose, viz. The Divine beginning and institution of Christ's true visible, & Ministerial Church.
• Secondly, If [unspec 2] Christ him self have seated the power of Ordination and Jurisdiction in the whole Cōgregation at any time, then it is certain that so much is contained some-where in the New Testament. This is no Vnwritten Tradition, neither can be by any means, if Christ him self be the Author hereof, as before we have seen that he is.
• Thirdly, This being contained, in the [unspec 3] New Testament, viz. that, Christ him self hath seated the power of ordination & jurisdiction in the whole body of a particular Cōgregation in the case of necessity, it is certain then that it is contained in those special places which (after many other worthy Divines) I have to this purpose cited and alleged in the third and 9. Arguments of my forenamed Treatise of the Divine beginning and institu ••• of Christ's true visible, & Ministerial Church. For there can be no other instance shown, at least, none can be shown of any other tenor then those are. Which special places are these: Math. 18.17. and 1. Cor. 5.13. & 2. Thes. 3.14. and 2. Co. 2.8. Also Act. 14.23. Act. 6.3.5.6. Act. 1.23.26. and Act. 15.22.25.28. as it appeareth in the foresaid Arguments of the said Treatise. [unspec 4]
• Fourthly, [unspec 4] these places of Christ's Testament showing that Christ hath seated the power of ordination and jurisdiction in the whole particular Cōgregation, thē it must needs be that these show the said whole Congregation to have that power and right not in the case of necessity only, but even always at all seasons. This likewise cannot be denied. For in these special places there is no restraint of this power and right in the Congregation, no abridging thereof, no tying it to the case of necessity only: but they show it to be in the people from God indefinitely and without limitation. Neither is it otherwise to be found in Christ's Testament anywhere else. Wherefore by no means may men restrain that which God hath given indefinitely: Nor take that away from • is people at any time, which he hath given them simply. What is proud • lesh and blood to inhibit or lessen Christ's unlimited free grant & gracious gift to his Church? Or how can our souls rest assured, whē we yield to such presumption of men? Wherevpon we may fee that this restraining clause of our Doctor here added, that this acknowledgement of his is not true of any particular Congregation but in pase of necessity, is both a false and absurd addition. False, as being contrary to the generality of those special places of Christ's Testament above mentioned: absurd, as implying by necessary consequence a contradiction to himself in one & the same sentence. For his present acknowledgement (such as it is) implieth the contrary to this his limitation by necessary consequence, as before in this fourth point I have shown.
• Fifthly, this power of Ordination and Jurisdiction being by [unspec 5] Christ seated in the whole Congregation, and that always, surely then it must needs be in them only. And so I understand in another place where I say that this power is cōvertible with the Cōgregation. I affirm therefore that this power indeed is only in the whole Congregation. Although D. D. Downame hath skill to go two ways to Heaven (for the true Church-government is the way to heavē) yet our good, holy, and wise God approoveth but one way; as where he saith: This is the way, walk ye in it. Turn not therefrom, neither to the right hand, nor to the less. And where Christ saith, I am the way, the truth, and the life. He alloweth simply but one way, even that which is his own ordinance, and none other. Vas via, vna veritas. One way, one truth. Also, Veritas simplex, error autem multiplex. Truth is but one, Error is manifold. Wherefore it cannot be, but the power of Ordination and Jurisdiction being by Christ seated in the whole Congregation, it is also only in them.

Here the adversaries think they have a great advantage against us. They say, it appeareth in the Scripture that Tamothie and Titus had power of Ordination and jurisdiction. Therefore only the Cōgregations had not that power.

I answer; This consequence is utterly false: it followeth not at all. For Timothy & Titus had the power of Ordination and jurisdiction with the Congregations, not without them. Being partes of them and being present in them for the time; not being personally out of them, or absent frō them; So as the L. Bishops do exercise their power in England Again, as Paul saith to the Corinthians, that he was not 〈◊〉 Lord over, their faith, but a helper to them for their • oy: So these, viz. Timothia and Titus in the Congregations were not Lord's but they were Helpers to them in the managing of these affairs. They did not alone without the Congregations concurrence what themselves listed: but they ordered & guided the Congregations in this their business as Directors, and chief Counselors, and as the most worthy to be Actors thereof for them. And the like was the power of the Apostles also towards the Congregations. It was such (I say) and none other. Indeed in their Doctrine and teaching they by them selves alone instructed them, & sometime commanded them in the name of Christ: but in outward government they did not anything alone, or Lordly, that is, without the Congregations free consent. Wherefore much rather the power of all ordinary true Bishops and Pastors is such, and no greater. They have power of Ordination and jurisdiction, but yet evermore with the Congregations presence and free consent, as their instruments doing their acts in the Churches name, and by their authority; not in their own name, no • solely as Lord's. So it remaineth evident, that Bishops primitively, yea & Timothy and Titus, and the Apostle • themselves had power of ordinary Church government: and yet the Congregations only had this power. Because they evermore were partes of the Congregations in them, when they had and used their power. [unspec 6] Sixthly, it followeth also necessarily from hence that the power of Ordination and jurisdiction is in the body of the Congregation Substantially, Essentially, and Fundamentally after Christ; and the Congregation may be truly said in such respect. to do & perform those actions: the Bishops and Guides do these actions Instrumentally and Ministerially, and no otherwise then in the Congregations name, and by their authority, as is before noted. Whence it is that Doct. Downame here saith truly, the succession of their own Clergy failing, and the help of others wanting the right is devolved to the whole body of the Church. If the Doctor will reply & say, that this power and right is not essentially in the whole Congregation always nor at all times, but sometimes only, that is, in the case of necessity aforesaid. I answer, then the D. folly, and want of true reason will be manifest to all men. For whatsoever is essential to anything at sometime, is essential to the same always and evermore. That which is essential once, is essential still. So that if the Congregations power & right to consent in making of Ministers & in Censures be essential at sometime (as he acknowledgeth it is) then certainly it is essential therein at all times and evermore. The truth hereof can never be denied. And hence it is that Luther saith, If Titus would not, the Congregation might ordain Ministers to them selves. And of Excommunication Zwingli saith, Non quod solus Episcopus hac facere debeat, quisque hoc ••• est, si Episcopus fuerit negligens. Any man may do this, if the Bishop be negligent. He meaneth any Man appointed by the Church may do it. In which respect also that sentence of Epiphanius that Bi •• ops can beget Fathers to the Church, but Presbyters cannot, is to be refused as untrue and erroneous. For before we have seen that only the Cōgregation doth beget Fathers (that is, maketh Ministers) essentially, the Bishop doth it but instrumentally and Ministerially. And so a Presbyter may do it as well as he whom they name a Bishop: yea any other also may do it (as Luther and Zwingli before affirm) when the Church employeth them to that us • Our two Doctors before cited (even a • the Papists also do) hold strongly with those words of Epephanius, to the great prejudice of the Gospel. But their bare opinions, & names are nothing to our clear and certain reason for the contrary before set down. Neither are the bare opinions and naked names of any other men whosoever, any better worth. Seventhly 〈◊〉 [unspec 7] last of all, hence it followeth (so, that it cannot be denied) that seeing th • whole Cōgregation doth always give the Calling of ordinary Ministers essentially, therefore the whole Congregation ought always of necessity t • give their free consent to their Minister, at least so far forth that non • be imposed on them whether they will or no. The like also is to be sai • of their power in jurisdiction. And these pointes we must imagine that they are acknowledged and held by D. Downame, or surely that he ought to acknowledge them all; seeing by force of true reason they all do follow from those his words which he affirmeth & holdeth, as before I have declared. Now this is all that we profess touching the pleoples right t • Church government. For we deni • not but in the ordinary, & peaceable▪ and right state of the Church when all things are carried well, the chief di • ection & sway of the whole government belongeth to the Bishop or Pa • tor; the people being on their part • o hearken to their Teacher & to fol • ow their Guide obediently & duty • ully. Their power to judge and to provide otherwise for themselves being, whē they see their Guides to fail. Which seeing it is his mind also, set down in his own words before re • earsed, I have truly affirmed that • ouching our present cause even this Doctor agreeth with us sometime in • ull effect, & by good consequence of • eason from his express words. Though at other times he do, as some report Cicero said to Salust, Aliud stance, •••• d sedens de repub. sentis. Of the common • ealth thou thinkest one thing standing, another sitting. Of Christ's Visible Church and the government thereof, verily our Doctor doth likewise.

CHAPTER VII. Consequences of greatest importance following upon the people's free consent in their Church government, & inconveniences in Religion not sufferable following from the contrary.

AFter the forerehearsed Witnesses for this Doctrine, we will now show certain clear and necessary Consequences which follow from the same: also some true and great Inconveniences (to faith, and godly life, and to Civil authority) such as are not to be tolerated, which yet cannot be avoided where men professing to be Christians, embrace not this point. Of all fortes I will here observe eight great and weighty Consequentes hereupon.

First this being received as the Ordinance of Christ and the practice of the Apostles, that the Church government ought to be always with the people's free consent, it followeth that every Church is only one ordinary Congregation and not any proper Diocesan or Provincial Church, or larger. Understanding always the people's free consent to be orderly, & conveniently taken and practiced, so as Christ intendeth that everything should be done in his Church. For where the people's free consent is orderly and conveniently practiced always in the Church government, there the Body of the Church cannot be so large as a Diocese, much less as a Province or Nation, and least of all so large as a Universal Church. Seeing all this people cannot possibly by any means give their free consent in the ordinary Church-government (neither can any person take it of all them) justly, orderly, and conveniently. This (to say the truth) is not possible. For in such a state when only some main partes of the Church government are exercised, it will be always with much defect, and also with great disturbance, and tumult oftentimes I say, where it is extended so largely, & so wide, & with concurrence of such multitudes of people.

This is true, first in very reason: and withal often experience hath shown it in former times under most Christian & careful Princes after the Nicene Council; as at Alexandria, at Antioch, at Rome, at Constantinople, and in infinite places mo, a great part whereof the Stories do record. In which Church actions though done with to inconvenient liberty of the people, yet the greatest part of the people whō the effect of those businesses reached unto were absent, and so wanted their right; & those which were present were full of confusion, and tumult: neither could it be otherwise. But God is the God of equity, of order, and of peace. Wherefore this disorder can nor be fit for God's Church. And so neither can a Diocesan circuit, or larger; in which this disorder will arise necessarily, if all that people together have their free consent in their Church-government. Which the whole people of every Church always ought to have by Christ's and the Apostles ordinance, as before we have seen.

Nay, to come nearer. No proper and perfect Diocesan Church, or larger, ever did or doth admit the people's free consent in their ordinary government. Universally and always it is so: & indeed it cannot be otherwise. For where each ordinary Congregation hath their free consent in their ordinary government, there certainly each Congregation is an entire and independent Body politic Spiritual, and is endued with power in it self immediately under Christ. And so every of them are true & proper Churches. So that these Congregations admit not (where they are) any proper Diocesan Church, or larger: neither doth the proper Diocesan Church (or larger) admit entire and independent ordinary Cōgregations, Which (as I said) have their free consent in their ordinary government. They are indeed 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 such as cannot stand together possibly. And therefore it is likewise, that which heretofore I have affirmed (and so do still) in the Newe Testament there is not any Diocesan Church, or larger, to be found. Which point though I have in my Declaration proved it by this and 6. other reasons, yet I will here draw it into this Syllogism again.

No Church holding the people's free consent in their ordinary government with just and decent order, is Diocesan or larger.

Every Visible Church in the New Testament holdeth the people's free consent in their ordinary government with just and decent order.

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

The first proposition is manifest of it self, and I have shown it more fully before. The Assumption, or 2. proposition is at large proved & confirmed in those places which are noted in the margin before, viz. pag. 19. and are mentioned again particularly pag. 76. To which purpose also the whole 3.4. & 5. chap. do help. Where I am to add moreover, that this Conclusion is true, not only in the New Testament, but also in the ages following a long while after. That is, no such Diocesan churches were found till 420. years after Christ, yea til 680. and more, were past. Which I shown before in the end of the fifth Chap. as also I touched it in my Declaration pag. 24.25.

But let it be remembered, that here I speak precisely of proper Diocesan Churches, and larger. There is therefore necessarily a distinction to be made of Diocesan Churches. There are proper Diocesan Churches, and larger; & there are improper. The proper Diocesan Church, and larger, is where the people have no power freely to consent in the affairs of their ordinary Church government. The improper Diocesan Church, and larger, is where although there be a kind of Diocesan, or larger Consociation of many ordinary Cōgregations in Spiritual government under one general Presidencie or Superioritie, yet the ordinary Congregations have their free consent, at least they have nothing by their Spiritual Governors imposed on them, against their wills. Which kind of Dioces. church, being duly ordered, we do not gainsay. There are hereof also two kinds. The one is Apostolical, viz. where many ordinary Congregations consociating together in their spiritual government, have a Diocesan (or larger) Synod, or Presbyterie over them for their better direction. Such the foreign reformed Churches at this day do enjoy. The other kind is, where many ordinary Congregations so consociating together, have one person (a constant President during life) over them, whom men after the Apostles called a Diocesan Bishop (& some a Metropolitan) and such like other names. Albeit of these there were (without question) divers kinds and sortes, some exercising greater power and authority, some less: that is, the ancienter had less, the later for the most part always had their power greater and greater. For of these Jerome saith most truly, both that their Matoritie over the Presbyters of Congregations was by Human ordinance, and also that it came in & grew greater pa • latim by little and little; that is, by degrees. Albeit, I say, therefore that these Diocesan Bishops were of divers kinds & sortes, yet the first of them neither were in the Apostles times, neither were they immediately after the Apostles.

Contrariwise D. Downame affirmeth that Mark the Evangelist ordained in Alexandria a Diocesan church consisting of many ordinary Congregations. Which he thinketh to prove by some words of Eusebius, who saith Mark first constituted churches 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in Alexandria it self, as he falsely translateth it. I say, this he falsely translateth (as Doct. Dov • also did before him) whereupon the whole ground of their error doth rest. Which their falsificatiō I shall (by God's help) show plainly out of Eusebius himself, even in this very place. The preposition 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 doth not here signify in a place, as they untruly imagine, but it signifieth to a place, and so it ought to be translated. In Latin we should say, ad Alexandria • ipsam, or vsque ad, that is, to Alexandria, or unto Alexandria it self. This is Eusebius true meaning: For he would show that Mark was the first that constituted Churches in the country of Egypt. and withal that he did so even unto the chief City thereof, viz. Alexandria. And this is all that he meaneth here. Twice in this very place besides Eusebius useth 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in this same construction and sense. Both immediately before the words in question, and immediately after. Before, thus; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to Egypt. or unto Egypt, After, thus: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to Rome, or unto Rome; not in Rome, nor in Egypt. Wherefore, so 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifieth likewise in this place which we have in hand, seeing it runneth in one cōtext together with the former, and is all one manner of phrase. Besides, Eusebius straight after alleging Philo concerning this same people, whom Mark converted, saith that he spake 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 of the Churches about in the Country, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 about Alexandria, not in Alexandria. Last of all, Eusebius uttereth this (as he doth the next foregoing clause likewise) with this term 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 they say, or some report. By which and the like terms he useth to relate uncertain and apocryphal things, yea sometimes fabulous and untrue. For Eusebius is not precise in setting down all his matters, chiefly those which he hath only upon rumour and report. And where he seemeth to require credit in deed, he is not sparing to name his authors, as Egesippus, Clemens, Dionysius. and such other. Wherefore divers ways D. Downames presumptuous assertion, and which he doth so boast of (that Mark instituted many Churches in Alexādria ) wāteth proof. For indeed Euseb. doth not avouch it. Yea, D. Bilson also denieth it generally, saying: Each place, were it never so great, had but one Church and one chief Pastor. He speaketh of those first times.

Peradventure (if Eusebius write true, and if he had good intelligence hereof) Julianus the tenth Bishop of Alexandria was a Diocesan Bishop in some measure. For I will not deny, but Churches may begin to be mulplyed in Alexandria about that time. So that some small beginning & show of a Diocesan Bishop (which heretofore I called fitly a Titular Diocesan ) was in him peradventure. And I say peradventure, because this grant is gotten from us only by reason of a few words in Eusebius, whose words yet always are not Gospel. Yea in history he is not always so sure, at that we may build on him. Which also before I insinuated. Howbeit I will not stick to acknowledge Julianus to have ben such a Diocesan Bishop, as I said. But withal I affirm, that (for anything we find) he was the first that ever was: & that by no record any Diocesā can be shown before him. Now this was near upon 200. years after Christ. Yet for the Westerue partes of Christendom I agree with Platina, who out of one Damasus saith, that Dionysius Bishop of Rome first ordained Dioceses, which was about the year of Christ 260.

Against this D. Downame excepteth, urging that Platina saith not, Dionysius did it first. I answer and will avouch it that in effect he saith so much. For he saith, that Dionys. being made Bishop of Rome, straightway divided Churches in the City of Rome. Which cannot be otherwise meant, but that he did it first, and that before him the Congregations there were not divided. As for that he saith before of Evaristus Bishop of Rome, that he divided titles to the Presbyters. I answer, this verily is meant of divers praecincts and quarters belonging only to one entire Cōgregation and ordinary Assemblie. Reason requireth that in great Cities whē Christians multiplied, first there should be such praecinctes and quarters designed, before many ordinary churches were divided and constantly set in them. The French & Duch Churches in London have such praecinctes and quarters, yet they have each but one ordinary Congregation. And questionless so it was in Rome: for divers ordinary set Congregations were not appointed there long after this, no not in the time of Cornelius B. of Rome; nor in Carthage under Cyprian. Which may well be gathered out of their Writings. They both flourished together about the year of Christ 250. Wherefore though such Titles as are praecincts belonging to one ordinary Congregation might well be instituted by Evaristus, and multiplied afterward: Yet this nothing hindereth our assertion, that Dionysius first instituted distinct Churches there, and so a Diocesan Church improper. And Doc. Downame presumeth too grossly where he affirmeth that these titles signified Parish Churches then in Rome. What soever the word may signify sometime, questionless here in this business touching Evaristus it signifieth (as I have said) divers quarters and praecincts of one ordinary Congregation, and nothing else.

And this is the clearest & most certain notice that we have touching the first Diocesan Bishops and Churches improperly so called. Which after they were erected, continued in the Christian world in divers kinds and sortes, as I said before. They were begun and set up at first, I doubt not, out of a good intent: yet it as plain as may be that error always accompanied them even from the first. The best of these Bishops, not wanting some ambition and partial respect toward them selves, and all of them possessed with that erroneous opinion that the peereles authority of one Bishop over the Churches was the best means of true unity, and chiefly God's purpose being that thus the Universal Papacie should at last be advanced (which otherwise never could have ben) so I say it came to pass, that these Diocesan Bishops and Churches and their authority in continuance of time, grew still greater and greater, yet (as Jerome saith, and as reason also showeth it to be likely) it proceeded paulatim, by little and little, by small degrees, and by increasings not spied of everyone, till at last they all grew to be transformed into proper Diocesan Bishops and Churches, and got the power of Spiritual government absolutely into their hands, clean excluding all power of the people (in the ordinary Congregations) freely to consent, which formerly they had ever held, more or less. But this was not fully brought to pass, till after that the great Apostasy and tyranny of the Universal Bishop (the Roman Antichrist) was begun to be set up, as before I declared.

I grant here, that the improper Diocesan Churches (as I note them) were called and named Diocesan many years ago, and are also at this time, by many learned men. But yet indeed they are such Churches, viz. Diocesan, or larger, improperly; & are called so by a catachresis, an abusive manner of speaking. The reason is, because truly these Churches are not each of them one proper and entire Diocesan Body, as a proper diocesan Church is; but hath so many distinct Bodies and independent, as there are Ordinary Congregations in each of them enjoining their free consent in their several governements. Yet each of them is called a Diocesan Church, or larger, for other respects, to wit, because it hath a certain kind of Diocesan or larger consociation of so many Churches together, and a kind of dependence under one general Presidencie or Superioritie, as before I observed.

Again, both the kinds of these improper Diocesan Churches above specified (that is, the Synodal & Episcopal) do guide and rule much alike. In respect of the several Congregations under them they rule not absolutely, nor as entire and sole governors, but with relation to the said Congregations free consent, which is their ancient right and immunity as they are Churches of Christ. Which immunity and free power they may lawfully take to them selves, & use whensoever they see necessary cause for it, as even our adversaries "acknowledge. Whence it is, that both stand well (being duly ordered) with the good proceedings of the Gospel. Neither did any man of understanding ever deny this. Howbeit yet we affirm that of these two the consociation by Synods or Presbyteries is most convenient, most profitable, and most safe for us; at least wise now, that is, in respect of these times in which we live, and of the circumstances in them. The government of Diocesan Bishops (though of the best sort) is not so good, nor safe, especially now. Whereof it is easy to yield many good reasons, which here I pass over.

But what is this to approve the government of a proper Diocesan Church, or larger (of which all our question is) where the people's free consent is wholly and altogether denied them: such as I know not clearly either at this day to be, or to have ben anywhere, but under the Papacie, and now in England. Certainly against this, that is, the proper Diocesan Church and government all our controversy at this day is intended. Which also I have noted in my Declaration, pag. 21. 22. So that the Diocesan Church which I absolutely speak against in other places, is to be understood of this proper Dioc. Church: & so likewise questionless it is meant in the Offer of disputation, and in the Petition for toleration also. Now no proof can be made from the law fullness or toleration of the improper Piocesan Church for the lawfulness or tolerablenes of the proper Dioces. Church. Because they differ formally & essentially, as elsewhere I have shown. These cannot by any means sustifye the one the other. In which respect D. Downames foul abusing of Christian people in his Defense by his perpetual Equivocating, and bringing in infinite matters which are nothing to the intent of our questiō, is to be marked and considered of all men. For he taking in hand to prove our Diocesan, or rather Provincial Churches in England, and our Bishops (who do all things in Ecclesiastical government without any free consent of the several Congregations) to be for the substance of their calling and condition Apostolical, he pleadeth only in general for Diocesan Churches, or larger: and for Bishops in general. His proofs (such as they be) are only for the improper Diocesan Churches, and larger, and for their Bishops. As if simply we did deny them. Or, as if our Diocesan Churches and Bishops in England were such. What intolerable doubling and deceiving of God's people is this? What altering the question? What Equivocating, as bad as Jesuitical? This is all that he doth in his second book of the said Defense, where the proper place is for this point, and where is the very foundation of all his writing beside. Yea indeed he doth nothing else throughont his whole Defense. Wherefore even this which here is spoken, is enough for a just confutation of his said whole Defense.

The very like dealing Doctor Bilson useth also in his Perpetual government, chapt. 12.13.14. where he dealeth about Bishops and Dioceses out of the Fathers. Chiefly in pag. 260. where he setteth down 4. Ranks of Bishops, which I deny not were in those four Chief Churches there named, viz. Jerusalem, Antioch, Rome, Alexandria. But the truth is, touching his purpose, these are so many Catalogues of Equivocations, and changings of the question. For neither were those Bishops all of one kind and power, neither were any of them of that kind and power as ours now in England are. For whose allowance and approbation they are notwithstanding by him here produced, and mightily urged.

But hitherto I have digressed speaking of the divers kinds of Diocesan Churches and Bishops, and of their original: likewise of the deceit of the Defenders of our Church state in England by Equivocating so palpably & by changing the question. The main point here in this place is: Seeing the Church government under the Gospel ought to be always with the people's free consent (which before we have sufficiently shown) therefore every true Church under the Gospel is only one ordinary Congregation. And consequently, no proper Diocesan Church or larger, is lawful.

A second Consequent also is here hence to be considered, To wit, This being admitted that the Church government ought to be always with the people's free consent, it followeth that such Synods or Presbyteries cannot be approved which rule imperiously over the Cōgregations, and impose on them (whether they will or no) their acts & Canons under some spiritual penalty, as Excommunication, Suspension, Deprivation, Degradation from the Ministry. &c. To which purpose many excellent men also do speak expressly. Zwingli of all other is herein peremptory. Saith he, speaking to such Synods: Quod Ecclesia sitis representativa libenter eredimus, vera enim non estis. &c. We willingly believe that you are a representative Church: for a true Church you are not But I pray you show us whence you fetch this name? Who hath given this name? Who hath given you power to meet and conspire together? Who hath given you power to make Canons and Decrees differing from God's word? Who hath suffered you to impose these things on men's shoulders? Who hath persuaded you to grieve men's consciences? &c. And a little before he saith, Deistâ (representativ • Ecclefiâ) in Scriptures Sanctis nihil invenis. Ex hominum commentis fingere quisquis potest quidlibet. Nos Scriptura netimur sacra, contraquam nec tis quidquam tentabis si Christianus es. Of this (represētative church) I find nothing in the holy Scriptures. Our of man's devises any may fain what they list. We rest in the holy Scripture, against which thou mayest not attempt anything, if thou be a Christian. And they that impose their Decrees without the people's consent (saith he) tviolento imperio ius Ecclesia invadunt. They invade vpō the Churches right by violent command. And such are nomine tenus Episcopy, revera tyranni, in name Bishops, but indeed tyrants. As before also is observed. No less sharp he is likewise herein else-where, saying, Est particularis Ecclisia ea cut praceptum est vt morbidum membrum resecer, Math. 18 qualis est ea Corinthi ad qua scribit Paulus, & aliae quarum se curam ge • ere predicat, & in quibus se par • modo dace • e asseres, inquiens, Sollicitudo omnium Ecclesiarum, & Si ••• in omnibus Eeclesijs doce • . Superest us concursantium Eispeopor um ne dicam conspirantium Ecclesia non sit alia quam cut Propheta Malignantium nomen dedit. Quod enim vlera verum est, a malo est. Verax autem est solus Deus. & omnis homo mendax. Quiequitigetur à Deo est, equum, verum, bonum est: quiequid als homine profectum, iniquum, mendax, & malum est. Hac horum Ecclesia a Deo non est, a malo igitur est. Siquis vberiora desideret Conclusionum nostrarum farraginem legat. It is a particular Church which is commanded to cut off the infected member, Math. 18. Such as that is of Corinth to which Paul writeth; and others, of which (he saith) hes had care, and in which he affirmeth that he taught alike, saying. The care of all Churches & is I teach in all Churches. It remaineth that the Church of Bishops tunning together, I will not save, conspiring together, is no other Church hen such as the Prophet nameth Melignant. F • r that which i • besides the truth is of evil. And God only is true, and every man alyar. Therefore whatsoever is of God, is just, true, and good: whatsoever cometh of man, is vnrust, false, and evil. This their Church is not of God: it is therefore of evil. If any desire more hereof, let him read out Conclusions: he meaneth those Articles above cited. Last of all see his judgment of the Church of Ephesus mentioned in Act. 20.28. Saith he, Ecce gregem, ecce speculatores, ecce concionem pascendam, non regendam: ecce Concionem non homenis, sed De • . Behold a flock, behold watchmen, b • hold a particular Congregation to be fed, not to be rused (he meaneth not to be ruled by the watchmens absolute power, but with relation to the liking and consent of the flock) behold not man's, but God's Cōg • egation Now I desire the Reader to note, that Zwingli, though he speak indeed against Popish Bishops and Synods in the places above cited, yet he speaketh directly against those points in them which some Protestant Bishops and Synods do stand upon. And therefore thus far they are all togeathet in one & the same condemnation, according to his doctrine. Secondly note, that here he doth plainly condemn all Imperious Synods, & representative Churches: and that also with more vehement & sharp terms then are used nowadays. Thirdly, he affirmeth here the Church in Math. 18.17. & the Church of Corinth, and of Ephesus under the Apostles, yea all Churches in the world at that time, to be each of them but a particular ordinary Cōgregation. For here he calleth the same Cōcio, & portio • laris Ecclesia, a particular assembly: Elswhere a parish, as where he saith a church is Vnaquaque paraecia, and Singula paraecie, and quam paraeciam vocamus, and quo commode in vnum locum convenient, which meet conveniently in one place. And Episcopus, Parochus, Plebanus, Praedicator, & Pastor, that is, a Bishop, and a Parish Minister he maketh all one. Fourthly, he most peremptorily affirmeth, that only God may institute his Visible Church and the form of outward government therein. And that such a form of a Church & government, as is not instituted by God or not found in his word, is altogether unlawful and wicked, yea malignant. So that here it is manifest how he condemneth every Diplodophilus, that is, whosoever approveth two ways, or forms of Church-government, viz. everyone who liketh the Divine and Apostolic ordinance where it may be had, and yet holdeth that upon necessity it may be altered, and another form may be used. Which D. Downame very Divine-like maintayneth. Neither is he alone such a Diplodophilus: he hath too many consorts in this profane opiniō with him. Fifthly, Zwingli here expressly teacheth that the particular Congregation is commanded in Math. 18.17. to •• t off the infected member. So that he holdeth it to be Christ's very Commandment (not a permission only) that the people should have the power of Church government, at least to consent freely therein. And the truth is, that the words in the text are imperative, Tell the Church, &c. Wherefore, why ought they not so to be taken? Certainly it is Christ's very Commandment in deed, and therefore never to be altered by any means,

But to return to the matter of Synods: this man of God, Zwingli, here (we see) reprooveth not so much Popish Synods, as the very nature of those Synods which are held to be a representative Church, and to have power to impose their decrees on the people of their circuit, whether they will or no, yea though the same grieve and burden their consciences. Which very thing our adversaries at this day do hold likewise against us. And D. Downame presumeth that he hath found such Synods in the New Testament, which Zwingli could find nowhere. Now unto this noble Witness of Iosus Christ I will ad others mo consenting in effect with him. Calvin to this purpose saith thus; Quicquid de Ecclesia dicitur, id mox Papista ad Concilia transferunt, quum corum opinione Ecclesiam representent. Whatsoever is spoken of the Church, that presently the Papists refer to Councils, because in their opinion Councils do represent the Church. Where he noteth this opinion to be Popish, viz. that a Council is a church representative. Another learned Divine, one Jacobus Acontius condemneth vehemently likewise this kind of Synods or Councils: in his fourth book Stratagematum Satana. At home Doctor Whitaker joineth with those abroad: For concerning Synods in these days, whose decrees may be imposed on a Natiō or Country, he saith thus: Etsires ipsa de quibus in Concils deliberatur & consultatur; sint sacrae & religiosae tamen hoc ipsum Congregare Episcopos est mere 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Although the things considered & consulted of in a Council be holy and religious, yet this thing to assemble Bishops or Pastors of divers Churches together, is merely Civil. And then consequently the imposing of their Decrees is Civil. Yea so, such a Council it self is Civil, that is, it standeth and hath life & force by Civil power. All which we willingly agree unto. Again, this learned man writeth of these Councils thus, Concilia si simpliciter necessaria sint, Christus alicubi precepisset celebrari, aut cius saltem Apostoli. Quod tamen nusquam ab illis factam esse legimur. If Councils were simply necessary, Christ somewhere would have commanded that they should be kept, or at least his Apostles would have so commanded. Which yet we read they did nowhere. Here he plainly denieth that Councils exercising spiritual jurisdiction and government (for such he must mean of necessity) are not at all of Divine institution in the New Testament. Wherein he expressly saith, as Zwingli before said, contrary to D. Downame But yet nevertheless I grant D. Whitaker in this book alloweth & approveth Councils even spiritually exercising government, if withal the people whom it concerneth, be not bereaved of their free consent therein. For so I understand him where he saith, Quod omnes attingit, ab omnibus approbari debet. That which toucheth all, ought to be approved of all. And so do we also affirm. Lastly, Doct. Bilson saith; A general Council is not the Church. And a little after. If you would be further taught that a general Council is neither the Universal Church nor representeth the Universal Church &c we can send you to a merchant of the same stamp that yourselves are of, where you shall see as much as I say debated & commended with no small bravery. Pigh. hierarch. lib 6. cap 5. & 4. I grant this man in another place is contrary to this. But that is no news in him. For I know nothing almost which is controverted, but if he affirm it in one place, he denieth it in another. As touching the Scriptures which he produceth for his warrant, they are the same which D. Downame also mentioneth, & are often alleged by many men at random. For God knoweth they come nothing near to the purpose. The texts are Math. 18.17. Act. 15.22. Both which indeed are to be taken properly and literally, and not improperly and figuratively, as they in an idle imagination do think. Their imagination I say herein is idle, because they have no reason for them in the world requiring that this word Ecclesia here should be figurative. Which is ground enough for us and assurance also, that it ought here to be understood as proper. Besides, those two Doctors are both learned in the Greek tongue. Let them show, that this word was ever used by any good Author living in the Apostles times or before, for a Confistorie of Governors only, or else they ought to acknowledge they speak idly and untruly. If no such place can be shown, as I am very sure there cannot, shall we think the Apostles spake and wrote Greek in such a phrase, as none in all the world ever spake either before or in their days? What absurdity and unconscionable presumptiō were it so to think? I know, they and others do allege some Greek Fathers that do take the word Ecclesia sometime for the Governors only. But those Fathers lived 300. years after the time of writing the New Testament, and later. Now the Aposties framed not their language to the manner of speaking so longe after their own age. Many and great alterations were come in by that time, by reason: whereof their speech began much to alter also. And we following them must needs Equivocat. Some pointes therein I noted herefore; but our adversities will not remember nor consider that. The effect of all that I say is this: Eus • bius, beodoret, Epiphanius, Chrysostom, and such other of those times are not our Apostles, nor masters of our faith, nor equal interpreters of the true Apostles, chief • y in the matter of Church government. There was to much iniquity, to much anomie entered then, and increased still afterward, till Antichrist him self stood up, which was anon after. • n such case therefore let us retire ourselves as we are commanded, to the plain, and impartial, and sincere evidence of Christ's Law and Testimony: if any speak not according this word, it is because there is no light in them. Sure the vniversad sense and meaning of this Greek word Ecclesia in all pure and uncorrupt times is, to signify the whole Assemblie, even the people evermore together w • th their Guides, unless their state were such that they had no Guides, as at some instant happily the case might be. But always it signified the people, and those assēbling together in one place. Which also is the proper signification of the Latin word Concio, and nothing else. It were madness therefore to go from the native & proper sense of the Apostles words without cause. And if the Human Politike reasons where with Doct. Bilson flourisheth, were warrant for us (without Christ's word) to erect such a spiritual government as is in absolute Synods over Christendom, besides that then Men's Traditions and politic in • entions may be received as spiritual instruments in the work of the salvation of our souls (which impiety I thought all good Christians had long since abhorred) moreover a plain & direct way is opened for a Universal Papacie, and for a Universal consistory of Cardinals to be placed over all Christ's people. I say the Human reasons alleged do enforce this as well, yea much better, then that each Christian Nation should be ordinarily left to them selves, and not be ruled Spiritually by someone general ordinary Superior, by whom all in all Countries may be reduced to unity. This might easily be adorned with moe flowers of Rheto •• ke, then he there doth, or can set upon his matter. Again over & besides this, there is another plain Logical consequence which will induce a Pope, if any Representative Church be acknowledged to be of Divine institution in the New Testament. For if any Representative Church be in the New Testament of Divine institution, then such a Provincial Representative Church is; Nay, then a Universal representative Church is of Divine institution in the New Testament. By a representative Church I mean the Guides, one or moe, having power to exercise Spiritual governem̄et without any consent of the people. Which also is a Church figuratively, viz. by a Syneedoche. And this all men agree unto. Again, if a Universal representative Church be of Divine institution in the New Testament, then a Universal church represented (or such a proper Church, whereof the figurative is a figure and a representation) is of Divine institution also in the New Testament. This sequence is of infallible truth. Some have thought the figurative Universal Church, viz. the Universal Synod may represent not one Universal proper Church, but a number of particular independent Churches. But this is untrue, & impossible, as any shall see that well considereth it. As for our present adversaries, they do acknowledge & maintain the effect of this Sequence, at least they say it in plain terms. D. Bilson teacheth that Christ hath one Church in general, which is a whole, having all particular Churches partes, to be ruled by the whole: and that this one whole or general Church is the body of Christ. Doct. Downame expressly saith, the whole Church is but one body. Thus in plain terms they acknowledge and teach (as I said) One proper Church Universal under outward government. What meaning they have herein, God knoweth. Now from hence I reason further; If one Universal proper Church subject to out ward government be of Divine institution in the New Testament, then a Universal ordinary Pastor is of Divine institution in the New Testament. This consequence though in truth it be undeniable and inevitable, yet they in words deny it with vehemence without sense & reason. D. Downame saith, He is Antichrist that assumeth to him self the government of the Universal Church which yet he acknowledgeth is to be governed out wardly. M. Gabr. Powell (like a wise mā) maketh it an heresy in the Pope, to hold as he doth, In Eccesia oportere esse Visibile caput. That in the Visible Church, there ought to be a visible head. What do I hear? A visible Body instituted by Christ without a Visible Head? A Church and no Pastor? A multitude to be governed, and no Governor? These are strange assertions, who soever, & how many soever do affirm thē. For I grant there are not a few others also which use so to speak. But in deed there is no color of truth, nor reason in these sayings. Some will say, D. Bilson & D. Downame both do show that this one Body and Church Universal is to be governed by a Universal Synod. Do they so? Very well. Then who shall call this Synod? The calling of Provincial Synods they make a good reason for a Metropolitan or Archbishop. Certainly the calling of a Universal Synod doth far better and more necessarily require a Pope. Nay, • t requireth a Pope certainly. Besides, it is a question whether a Universal Synod hath ever ben, or can possibly • e rightly and duly had. At the most, it is plain that such Synods are exceeding rare, and seldom, and hardly effected. But the causes of the Churches government are frequent, continual, and every day. What shall we think? Hath Christ left his Body, & dear Spouse without help, without government in such daily and continual necessities? Or can an ordinary body be governed without an ordinary Head? To use D. Bilsons words, this were an heathenish, if not a hellish confusion. Wherefore these consequences all do follow certainly and necessarily. A Universal Church must have a Universal ordinary Pastor. And so much touching the Proposition of this reason. My Assumption is this: But no Universal Ordinary Pastor is of Divine institution in the New Testament. And this they all affirm with me constantly. Therefore the Conclusion is true, viz, No Universal proper Church, and consequently also no Universal, nor any other representative Church is of Divine institution in the New Testament.

Hitherto I have shown our reasons and witnesses against Synods exercising absolute power spiritual over Christiā people, which are also churches representative. To which business I have ben forced by Do. Downames importunat flannders, both generally against us, and against myself in particular. Who herein first compareth us to the Pope: from whom he knoweth we are far enough of. Whereas indeed his absolute Synods do agree with the Pope too well, and do make to much for him, as before we saw. Then he upbraideth us that we will not be ruled by Synods. I answer: We submit ourselves to be ruled spiritually by Christ's true visible Church instituted in his word. And what would he have more? Thirdly, he goeth about to deny, that we subject ourselves to the Kings Supremacy. Whether he doth this with more malice or foolishness, I know not. For he cannot be ignorant, that though we affirm that the Church government is independent and immediately derived from Christ, yet we affirm also (& it standeth with good reason) that the Civil Magistrate is even therein Supreme Governor Civilly. And though nothing may be imposed on the Christian people of a Congregation, against their wills by any Spiritual authority (for so only we intend) yet we affirm withal that the Civil Magistrate may impose on them Spiritual matters by Civil power (yea whether they like, or dislike) if he see it good. This we all gladly acknowledge. Wherein we refer ourselves to that which we have publicly written, & protested in this behalf. Fourthly, he falsely chargeth me by name, that I in my book of Reasons for reformation, do not acknowledge in Synods any lawful authority to determine. He might thus charge Doctor Bilson. But I in that book and place which he wrangleth with, do expressly say, Synods determinations are most expedient and wholesome always. In which respect I allow also the Apostles practice in Act. 15. as being both a Synod, and an authentic rule and pattern for Synods. Where the Apostles with others (when an occasion & cause was given them) did not only meet together & consult, but also they did define, determine, and decree certain pointes: yea they delivered the same to divers Churches to be kept, who had no Deputies for them present in that Apostolic assembly. Howbeit these Apostles delivered abroad these their Decrees only so, and in such wise, as informing and teaching all men thereby what they ought to do: that is, in manner of doctrine. To the Church of Antioch, whom it most concerned, only this they say: If ye observe these things, ye shall do well. They say not, The Minister that embraceth not these ordinances is deprived of his ministry: the person receyving them not, is excommunicate ipso facto: or, he is Anathema accursed. As some Synods do pronounce. I grant Synods may discuss and determine of errors, and may pronounce them wicked and accursed errors. But actually excommunicate men's persons, the Apostles never did without the concurrence and consent of that Congregation where they were members. Wherefore more then this no Synod at any time may do by the rule of the Gospel. If any do impose any of their acts on a Cōgregation (whether they like, or dislike) upon pavne of some spiritual censure, yea if it be on any one person without the same Congregations consent of which he is, certainly (as I said) it is more then the Apostles ever did in the Church-government: and therefore we cannot out conclude, that it is now unlawful for us so to do. Also it is that point which all the forenoted sentences of those late Writers (most excellent lights of the Gospel) do condemn. Wherefore we willingly take that Apostolic practice in Act. 15. both as being a Synod, & also a good pattern of Synods forever. Neither do we in deed mislike any Christian Synods, but greatly approve of them: though some out of malice do object to us the contrary. Always the Apostles practice we take for our rule. And so much touching the second consequent in this Chapter.

Thirdly, it being admitted as Christ's [unspec 3] ordinance, that the Church government ought to be always with the people's free consent, it followeth that Lord Bishops in several, are unlawful & contrary to Christ. Now a Lord Bishop, and a Spiritual Lord we always understand him to be, who exerciseth sole authority Spiritual, or sole government Ecclesiastical, yea though over but one Congregation. Much more him, who exerciseth such spiritual Lordship over a great many Cōgregations? Also, sole authority Spiritual, and sole government Ecclesiastical, we call that which is exercised without the Christian people's free consent.

D. Downame laboreth with divers vain shifts to defend the English L. Bishops herein. He cannot abide that it should be said of them that they exercise sole authority, or sole government. Yea in many places he showeth indignation that such wrong should be done them in being so reported of. But it is strange. Are they ashamed to hear of that which they cease not to practice and maintain every day? and that in the sight of the world; yea each of them over divers hundreds of Congregations. For the people with us nowhere enjoy any free consent. But the D. saith, The Bishop hath the Archbishop above him Yea, but who is above our 2. Archbishops spiritually? No body. Again he saith, Provincial Synods are above the Bishop. Idly spoken. Is the Diocesan Synod above their own Bishop? Or, is the Provincial Synod above their Archbishop? Surely no more then the Universal Council is above the Pope. Which is clean contrary. Now this is it which he should have affirmed: buthe durst not. He shifteth further, saying: Do we not all with one consent acknowledge the Kings Majesty to have the Supreme authority in causes Ecclesiastical? Yea verily, we do. But that is Civilly, as else-where I have shown. He hath no authority in causes Ecclesiastical Spiritually: that is, his authority properly maketh no Church Minister, nor Excommunicateth any person. Which I suppose yourselves do hold, even as we do. But this is the point: in England the Archb. is Spiritually Supreme, or hath Supreme authority spiritual in his Province. I say thus, he is Supreme & sole, viz. spiritually. Wherefore the Doct. grossly sophisticateth in shifting from the po •• t in hand to another matter. Where he speaketh of Chancellors adjoined to the Bishops, and of Presbyters consent with him, & that Presbyters have power to rule their flock in public Ministry and in private attendance, & that some of them have voices in Synods, &c. I wot not what all this is. Sure I am it is as idle as the rest. For so much (at least) is seen in the Popish Church, where yet is found spiritual Lordship & sole government in their Bishops, yea oppression, violence, & tyranny also over the people's consciences, as we well know. So that the Supreme and loudest by, and the plainly, which he giveth to us, he ought to take to him self. Another shift of the Doct. is, where because the Hebrew Adoni, the Greek 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , the Latin Dominus may be given to Bishops, therefore he would conclude that in English they may be called Lord's. D. Bilson reasoneth so likewise, and that very largely. He would prove the same also from the Duch term Here, & from the French Monsieur, &c. But I deny this reason absolutely. For herein there is no consequence. Our English term Lord and Lordship doth always imply Sole government: but none of those foreign terms doth so always. Wherefore such reasoning is Equivocating also. Again, Christ only is our Lord in respect of Spiritual Lordship: he only is to be called a Spiritual Lord. But our Bishops are Lord's, and are so called with us in respect as they be Spiritual Lord's, as the Doctor observeth well. Wherefore our Bishops Lordship is unlawful, and derogatory to Christ. Doct. Bilson saith further, If we stick at titles, Christ calleth them God's. Lo, how nothing satisfieth these men. Would he have Bishops called by the name of God's also? But I would know of him, where doth Christ call them God's? Surely it is but his fancy. They are in deed so called nowhere. D. Downame presseth, that Bishops are called Angels, which is a more honor able title then Lord. And therefore that Bishops may be called Lord's. I deny that the name Angel is so honorable a title as a Spiritual Lord, which is given to our Bishops. This is proper to Christ only, as before is said: the name Angel is not. And so his reason is false. Again, though the name Angel be given to Bishops sometime and in one respect, yet it is very false to say they may lawfully be styled and called by the daily appellation of Angels, or that they may ordinarily use that title, as they do the title & name of Lord. Again, the name of Lord is given them as importing their sole government, as before is said. But the name Angel importeth not so much, neither is it given to any Creature in such respect. Therefore from the name of Angel the title of Lord followeth not. Indeed the name of Angel is given to Bishops because they are God's messengers to show us his will: not in respect of their government at all, though the Doct. presumeth so to say without proof. Lastly, he knoweth that all Preachers are in the word called Angels, or Messengers: but for all Preachers to be called in English Lord's, or your Lordship, surely it would be a very arrogant thing. And though he allege that the Angel of the church of Ephesus in Rev. 2.1. be one, and but one, before many Ministers, yet neither doth this import any Lordship in him either in name or practice, neither is this precedence or praeeminence signified by the word Angel: but it is gathered by comparing this word with the known circumstances of those times. Further he allegeth that Princes are called Pastors, and for the same cause are Lord's. Wherein there is no truth, nor indeed any good sense. The like is that where he addeth, the title of Father is as great as Lord. Nay, the name of Father is amiable: but Lord's may, and also they use to force and compel. Neither did the Pope at first take the name of Father peculiarly to him self to note thereby any Lordship as his due, but to deceive the world by his pretended love over all, wherein he desired to seem a commō Father. In another place he teacheth that Bishops in the New Testament were called Apostles. Vpō which ground he would conclude, that therefore the name of Lord is lawful for them. I answer, The name of Apostle and also of Bishop may be used sometime generally & improperly: sometime strictly and properly. And we ought always to speak thus, viz. properly, when we reason and dispure of any matter. If the Doct. think generally and improperly Bishops may be called Apostles, and likewise that Apostles may be called Bishops, and if Theodores mean so, I will not gainsay, but in the time of the New Testament, yea and now still, these names may be interchangeably used. But this will prove nothing for the D. purpose. For so there is nothing but mere Equivocation therein. If he or any other think that Bishops were in the time of the New Testam. called Apostles, in the strict and proper sense of those words, doubtless they err egregiously. Or, that Bishops then were called Apostles by a daily, ordinary, and familiar a p • llation, as our Bishops are called Lord's: Which yet must be proved, or else they have no color from hence. He maketh great ado about Phil. 2.25. that from hence Epaphroditus might be proved to have ben the Philippians Bishop. Though he might be their Bishop, yet the circumstance of this place showeth, that this is meant of his bringing relief unto Paul frō the Philippians, as some did to the Saints at Jerusalem frō the Corinthians, 2. Cor. 8.23. As for Theod • ret who seemeth to be the Author of the D. opinion herein, he is insufficient, and no equal nor just foundation of this matter. I know Bellarmine and other Prelates would fain make somewhat of this vnhansome shift in their own defense; yet they know not how. All this is true: and yet I grant (as I said) Epaphroditus might be the Philippians Bishop, as some write that he was. But indeed I think rather he was with them as an Evangelist properly, like as Timothy, and after him Tychicus was at Ephesus, and Titus in Achaia, and afterward in Crete; and Mark in Alexandria & Egypt, as some say. Well, but let it be granted (which yet is not to be granted) that Bishops in the New Testament were by a daily, ordinary, and familiar appellation called Apostles. Yet neither hence can it follow that they may be Lord's, or may be so called. For no Apostle was ever so great (in respect of outward jurisdiction) over any one Congregatiō; none (I say) was ever a sole governor over one Congreg. as our L. Bishops are over many hundreds. Beside this, the D. would have the terms given to Prelates by Prelates and by their dependants in the time of Constanti •• and since, to be reason & warrant now unto us to call our Bishops Lord's and most honorable Lord's. Which is like to that where he saith, He seeth no reason why the Church in Constantine's time should not rather be propounded as a pattern for imitation, to Churches that live under Christian Princes, then the Churches of former times. A saying fit for a Diplodophilus: fit for one who careth not to take from Christ his Office and Honor, and to give it to Prelates and Princes. For this is Christ's due, and immutable right, and divine glory in his Testament, to set the pattern of his Visible Church for us to imitate, forever and everywhere, even in peace as well as in persecution. As touching Constantine and the Bishops then and after for some hūdreds of years, though they were godly & virtuous, yet it cā not be denied but the Bishops even then presently were carried with much ambition, and strove for praeeminēce and outward greatness. And the Princes let them have it, thinking that therein they did service to God. But they knew not that they did amiss. Yea indeed under Constantine began the Dioces an ruling Bishop; who till this time had but a name, and no power Diocesan. Heeretofore I guessed they might have ben elder. But the truth is they had no life nor strength of Diocesans till under Constantine and the Nicene Council. Which I have declared in another place likewise. After which time, ambition and dominion Ecclesiastical did still grow and increase more and more, evē in the best Fathers. Whereby Antichrist at the last did easily come up. In which regard Master Brightman judged that the Prophesy of the woman's being driven into the wilderness by the Dragon, Rev. 12. began to take effect under Constantine: and to be accomplished still more and more, till in the end utter darkness and tyranny overflowed. Now then, are the deeds and words and practice of the Bishops of these times meet rules for us to follow, namely as touching Prelacie and Church government? Is it equal to make these our judges herein? No, by no means. Which I have signified also before. Yea, if there were no peril (as there is much) in following their words and deeds in the matter of Church government aforesaid, yet we ought not to offer so much wrong to Christ and his word, as to seek for direction and warrant in a matter of conscience anywhere but in his word. Howbeit notwithstanding all this, though those titles given to Bishops under Constantine and after (as here he allegeth them) are too glorious and stately for Ministers of the Gospel, yet none of them implieth such Lordship nor Sole authority Spiritual, as with us the English words Lord Bishop do imply. For thē they had not such sole authority (as I have already shown) nor long time after, as now they * have. Wherefore neither do these allegations of the Doct. (that is, the titles given to Bishops under Constantine, nor 100. years after) fit his turn, neither will they serve his purpose. Finally it is to be noted, how the Doct denieth that Bishops may behave them selves as Lord's of the Churches, & yet holdeth they may be called Lord's. Surely his conscience telleth him that it is to much which he giveth them. For else why may they not behave thē selves answerably and according as their just name is. Where he saith, the title of Lord Bishop is not given with relation, but as a simple title of honor and reverence. And, the relation is not in the word Lord, but in the word Bishop. This is plainly a mere shift, and an untruth. For the relation is in both these words Lord Bishop jointly. That is, to their people they are Bishops with Spiritual Lordly power; that is, they have sole authority spiritual over them. And so they are called Lord's Spiritual, which he seemeth in another place to acknowledge. Thus all in vain hath the D. labored to make good the lawfulness of our L. Bishops.

[unspec 4] Now fourthly, let us note that frō this point that the Church government ought to be always with the people's free consent, and namely that it was so under the Apostles (which I have shown before to be certainly true) hence it followeth that it is a plain untruth & a falsehood (which the Doct. so often affirmeth) viz. that the Bishops in the Apostles time were such for the substance of their calling, as ours now in England are. Ours are sole governors, they were not so. They admitted the Congregations consent in all important matters of their government: ours do what they please without them, yea commonly against their liking. Besides, the Apostolic Bishops had not any addition of Civil coactive power, as ours have. Last, they had no mo ordinary set Congregations to their pastoral charge but only one: ours are the Pastors (each of thē) of many hundred Congregations. All which are evident substantial differences in the churches and Bishops estate; as hath ben also observed purposely else where. In which respect the very ground which the D. buildeth on is false: his very text (Rev. 1.20.) is misinterpreted & abused, & so his Sermon & whole Defense standing thereupon is frustrate. And he doth Equivocat plainly.

Fifthly, where the Christian people [unspec 5] have their free consent in Church government, there never is seen any Pluralist nor Nonresident Pastor. For they will never endure their Pastor to be a Nonresident from them, nor yet to be distracted with mo charges of souls then their own. Which certainly all that fear God and have care of them selves & theirs, will esteem to be a most godly thing to behold. Besides also, they will never endure any Covetous, nor Proud, nor adulterer, nor drunkard, nor ignorant, nor false Teacher. And as their Pastor and Guide is, such will they be also (in a manner) always & everywhere. The adversary confesseth that The wisdom of God's Church in taking the consent of the people in the Election of their Bishops, he cannot but commend: he findeth so great and good effects of it in the Church stories. For thence it came to pass, that the people when their desires were accomplished, did quietly receive, willingly maintain, diligently hear, & heartily love their Pastors, yea venter their whole estate and hazard their lives, rather thē then Pastors should miscarry. Verily this showeth it to be God's ordinance, in that he accompanyeth it with such and so great blessings. Contrariwise, Pluralist-Pastors and Nonresidents, who of any conscience can allow? Who that hath any spark of religion, or care of good life doth not detest and abhor them, and most worthily; as being in deed of the relics of Antichrist, and instruments of Satan. All blindness in the people, and wicked conversation floweth from these as frō fountains. Continual jars and wars between the Pastor and his flock. And therehence groweth contempt of Religion. Yea questionless, that which the Pest is in man's body, the same are Nonresidents and Pluralitie-men in Christ's Church. Whose fruits are too plentiful among us. Archb. Whitgift saith Now the Church is full of hypocrites, dissemblers, drunk ands, whoremongers, Ignorant, Papists, Atheists, and such like. D. Bilson also, Toom Church comes all sortes, Atheists, Hypocrites. &c. All which filth ought verily to be imputed chiefly to Nonresidentes and Pluralists. Now in Diocesan and Provincial Churches and larger (where the people have not their free consent in the Church government) there must of necessity be Nonresidents and Pluralitie-men. First, the chief and best Pastor of a very large Country (he whom they call the Angel of such a Church) is no other indeed then a great Pluralist and Nonresident. For he hath the proper charge of souls over all his Circuit, as D. Down. professeth, & they all hold. That is to say, over many hundred ordinary set Congregations, where for the most part they themselves are never present; and never do fo much as see the faces of so many people of whom yet they undertake to be their proper Pastors. Are not these huge Pluralists & Nonresidents in the time of the Gospel? And thus he approoveth Theodorets taking to him self to be Pastor of 800. parishes. Yea it cometh to pass that some Bishops are Pastors to many mo. Again note how Do. Belson shrinketh not to make Pluralistes and Nonresidentes a Divine Ordinance and Apostolic, which he doth to the end that Diocesan Bishops might seem to be Divine: Saith he against the mislikers of Pluralitie and Nonresidencie: Saint Paul him self knew not these curious positions when he appointed Titus to take charge and oversight of the whole Island of Crete: and saw no cause why one man might not perform many Pastoral and Episcopal duties to all that were in the same Country with him. And this touching the chief, and best, and only proper Pastor in a Diocesan Church and larger. Secondly, his Substitutes will all seek to be in proportion like their Superiors. Whereof in deed there is great cause. For if the most Angelike Pastor, & he who in his Office cometh nearest unto Christ be such, that is, so great a Pluralist and Nonresident, then who in conscience can mislike Nōresidents? Who would not desire to be plurifyed abundantly? Who would not judge the greatest Pluralist the worthiest Pastor, & most excellent servant of Christ? I say, even inferior Nonresidents and Pluralistes in such Church estates must needs not only abound, but also superaboūd. True reason requireth it, and experience among ourselves doth show it. Whereby what woeful wrack and havoc of men's souls is happened in our Lande every-where, any that look about & consider, may see. And he that seeth, cannot have so flinty a heart as not to sorrow and mourn for it. Against which Spiritual desolation, yea rather ruin and destruction, no remedy can be had, without giving the Christian people their free consent in their spiritual government. For none have that care of other men's souls, as Christian people would have of their own.

Sixthly, here are other Consequents [unspec 6] of a most high nature, both in respect of God and also in respect of ourselves. First in respect of God, thus I gather and conclude. If this opinion be false, viz. that the people's consent in the Church government is the Apostles ordinance, and Christ's immutable commandment for us; then Christ in his New Testament is not the Teacher, Institutor, Framer, Lord and Lawgiver of his Visible Church, which is the Kingdom of heaven upon earth. At least, he only is not. And the New Testament is not complete nor all-sufficient for matters of Religion. Nor so complete as the Old Testament was. And Christ's divine Offices of Prophesy and Kingdom are not 〈1 page duplicate〉 〈1 page duplicate〉 absolute and perfect toward us: but are diminished and changed now in respect as they were to the Jews of old. And the very form of Christ's said Visible Church is changeable by men, and may be instituted first by men. Whence it also followeth, that a noble part of Christ's divine honor & glory may be by men diminished, and taken from him, and may lawfully be attributed to men. Everyone of these consequents is certain: neither can any of them be denied nor shifted off by our adversaries who reject the said opinion of the people's necessary Consent in the Church government. Now this I earnestly desire all men to take notice of: that they may see what it is that hath moved me (and still doth) to embrace the opinion contrary to the course of the Church government in England. God is my witness that, were it not for these vnavoydable Consequents which touch the very life and soul of all true religion and godliness, I should long since have conformed, & now would, in this bebalfe. For otherwise what reason have I to care for the people. But because my heart and conscience cannot endure to admit these Consequentes (which I hope is both honest, yea necessary, and Christianlike, and so will be acknowledged by every good man that considereth it) therefore do I believe this said opinion as an Evangelical truth, viz. that the people's consent in church government is an Apostolic ordinance, and Christ's immutable Commandment to us. And therefore principally did I write that Treatise which I entitled The Divine beginning and institution of Christ's true Visible or Ministerial Church. Also the Vnchangeablenes of the same by men, viz. 〈◊〉 the form and essential Constitution thereof. Which is all the matter that I have regard unto, even that I may in no wise be guilty of that fearful sacrilege of spoiling God of his Honor and of giving his glory to another, which be so mainly forbiddeth. Which I am sure is not don by acknowledging the foresaid right of the Christian people: I am sure that thus all the fore named wicked and impious Consequentes are avoided, and the whole glory and honor of Christ our Savior i • preserved safe and sound. For thus we easily hold him even in respect of instituting the form of his Visible Church and government thereof under the Gospel to be our absolute Prophet and King: and his New Testament to be entire and perfect: yea fully so perfect for us, as the Old Testament was for the Jews: and so the form of his said Church and government to be absolutely unchangeable by men; Even altogether no less then it was under the Law. All this in holdinge our opinion (I say) wre are sure of. Wherefore let me reason thus: That opinion which yieldeth Cōsequents so godly and pious, must needs itself be godly and pious, & questionless cometh from God. But our opinion aforesaid yieldeth Cōsequents so godly and pious: yea such in deed, as are principles and fundamental grounds of Christian faith. Therefore this our opinion itself is right godly & pious, and proceeding from God. Contrarie-wise, That opinion which necessarily forceth men to such impiety and unchristian Consequentes as before I noted, evē to the overthrow of principles of faith, the same it self is not of God neither standeth with truth. What authors and fautors so ever it have. But the opinion of our adversaries verily is such. It forceth men of necessity to those impious & unchristian Consequents, as I shown. They cannot possibly avoid them. Therefore the opinion of our adversaries, viz. who deny the Christian people's consent in Church government to be an Apostolic Ordinance and an immutable commandment of Christ: and so do hold the form of a proper Diocesan Church and government to be lawful and good; their opinion (I say) is not of God, neither standeth with truth.

Now the case standing thus (as most clearly it doth) no man can deny but that in cōsideratiō of these certain cōsequents aforenamed, as also in other just respects, that faithful man of God (whosoever he was) that made that Petition to the Kings Majesty for a Toleration of our way and profession with peace and quietness in England, had great reason so to do, and also his Excellent Majesty (be it spoken with reverence to his Royal Estate) to admit of it. For what evil can ensue from us, when we strictly hold fast (as we do) such holy and Divine principles of Christian faith, as before are mentioned; and when our inconformitic to the common course in England is only for these causes, as I for my part do call God to witness to my soul, it is. I say, in regard of Religion thus what evil can probably be thought will ensue from us? And as touching our tractablenes under the Kings authority and government, Doc. Downame our bitter adversary, acknowledgeth that we submit ourselves enough. Nay, he holdeth it to be too much: and proudly he calleth it a desperate or frantic mind in us so to do. But we hold it our bounden duty in the presence of God, to submit ourselves to any Civil Magistrate, be he never so mean, if the King appoint him over us. But, saith he, The sum of our suite in that petition is, that we may be tolerated Schismatikes. I challenge this rude Doctor, and will prove that we, seeing we hold only those fundamental Grounds of Christiā faith above mentioned, and that which is evidently built upon the same, are not Schisma •• kes. Again, I will prove and make it manifest that indeed him self and his consortes are Schismatics, seeing he and they deny those foresaid fundamental grounds of faith, for which only we contend. They therefore them selves are the Schismatikes, and the maker • of the division which is now in England. All wise men know, that not the difference but the cause maketh a Schismatike. Let me once again therefore press them with Augustine • sentence against the Donatists, which once already I did heretofore. But they love not to hear of it. Saith Augustine, Virum Schismatici nos sumus an vos, nee ego nec tu, sed Christus interrogetur, vt indicet Eeclesiam suam Lege ergo Evangelium & respondet tibe. &c. Whether we or you be Schismarikes, ask not me, nor yourselves, but ask Christ that he may show his own Church. Read the Gospel therefore and 〈◊〉 answereth thee, &c. Our Doctor hath an absurd and profane distinction, which though he apply it to another matter, yet peradventure he would use it in this cause against us, if he could find that it would be taken as currant. He saith, somewhat in the Church may be of Apostolical institution, and yet not straightways Divini iuris, of Divine right. And, every Apostolical and so Divine Ordinance is not generally, perpetually, and immutably necessary. Which he doth often repeat in his 4. book. It seemeth to be taken from Bellarmine the Jesuit, Controv. 1. lib. 4. cap. 2. I am sure it is contrary to holy Scripture, which showeth that the Apostles whole practice in the Churches was Christ's very commandment, and unchangeable by men. Christ saith to his Apost. Teach all Nations to do whatsoever I have commanded you. And Paul testifieth to the Church of Corinth, He received of the Lord that which he delivered to them. And he chargeth others, To stand fast, and to keep the Ordinances which they had ben taught either by word or by his Epistle. Therefore whatsoever is Apostolical, is indeed Divine, and it is Christ's very commandment, and (in respect of us) generally and immutably necessary. And so we affirm that the people's consent in Church government being a practice Apostolical (as by those Scriptures above specified it is proved) therefore it is also Christ's Commandment, and therefore also unchangeable by men. Yea touching Church Censures, it is expressly Christ's Commandment, Math. 18.17. Therefore I conclude, seeing we & not they do stand with the All-sufficiēcie of holy Scripture, with the entire and absolute Offices of Christ our Savior, viz. his Prophetical and Kingly Offices, even in teaching and enjoining a certain form of his Church and government absolutely and unchangeably forever: and seeing we, not they, do thus ascribe unto Christ this Divine Honor (due in deed to his own person) wholly and only, it must needs be easily perceived that we, & not they, have the truth: also we, & not they, are free from schism.

Will any defend our adversaries herein, & deny that they thus teach against the honor of Christ, or of his Word in his New Testament: Or that the pointes which they hold, do force mē to any such impious cōsequents? First therefore I will show that such Consequentes must of necessity fol • ow from their opinion: then I will • ote their express words. Whosoever will not hold one uniform opinion of the Church and government thereof, (as we do, who believe the people's consent therein to be always necessary) but do prefer the Diocesan and Provincial Church-government by L. Bishops; and yet do also allow of that form of a Church and governent where are no Diocesan Bishops at all, yea where the people's free consent and voice-giving is received: they of necessity must say that the form of Christ's Visible Church & of the government thereof may both be instituted and also changed by men. Of force they must say that Christ in his New Testament is not the Teacher, Institutor, Framer, Lord, and Law-giver of his Visible Church, as he was in the Old Testament. They must deny Christ's Prophetical and Kingly Offices toward us in respect of appointing his Visible Church, and government: as also they must deny, that Christ's Testament is a sufficient rule for us everywhere, and forever. But that uniform opinion our adversaries do deny. Therefore such are the Consequents which men are forced to acknowledge, who will hold as our Adversaries do. Now hear their words. D. Downame saith, Where the government by Bishops cannot be had, another form may be used. Yea he affirmeth, The Apostolical and so Divine Ordināce of government by the Bishop alone (as he thinketh Timothy and Titus were * commanded to govern ) is changeable by men. And this in his 4. book he often inculcateth and repeateth. But he saith, he teacheth thus Out of charity to those Churches which have no L. Bishops, and in favor of them. See this Doctor, how for favor of men, he will spoil Christ Jesus of his due honor & glory. Such is his charity to mē, that it maketh him uncharitable and undutiful to his Savior, and to his blessed Gospel. But he will say perhaps, that he granteth this change of the Apostolic Ordinances and Preceptes only Upon necessity. Fy! What necessity may break the Apostles Ordinances and Preceptes? Yea such precepts, whereof the Apostle saith, I charge thee in the sight of God who quickeneth all things, and before Jesus Christ, &c. that thou keep this Commandment without spot, and unrebukable, until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ. Again what necessity have the French and Dutch Churches, &c. to be without Diocesan and Provincial L. Bishops? Nay, how easily might they have such, if they thought them Apostolic? And, woeful it were (God knoweth) if they had need of this faver and charity of the Doctor to maintain them selves withal against the Papists objections. But let us go on. Gabriel Pawell also in that which he punished with the great allowāce of the L. Bb. of Canterburic and London thē being, saith expressly, Christ is not the Law-gives of his Church. Archbishop Whitg • fe against Master Cartwright (of blessed memory) saith that to hold the form of the Church & government thereof to be constant, always one, and unchangeable by men, is a false principle, and rotten pillar. So rottenly writeth that great Atlas of the Prelacie in England. D. Bilson maketh it the main drift of the third Chapt. of his Perpet. government, to deny this part of Christ's Kingdom. He saith, The Kingdom and Throne which Christ reserved to himself, far passeth directing and ordering of outward things in the Church, which he hath left to others. Nay, sure he hath not left it to others. He still reserveth this authority & dignity to him self under the Gospel, as well as he did under the Law. And it is more then frivolous, by advauncing Christ's inward kingdom by his Spirit (which the Doct. doth in this Chapter) to deny his Outward Kingdom, which ordereth the Outward Spiritual things in his Church. Such as are the instituting of Sacraments, the Ordayning of the Ministry, the appointing of Excommunication, the Commanding of Sacred Societies and Assemblies, &c. Is the power of these Outward things left to others? It is not, it may not be. He saith here indeed that the outward face of the Church where the good and bad by the Word and Sacraments are gathered together, may be called the kingdom of heaven and of Christ. And he saith well. But in this he either contradicteth his general purpose & discourse; or else he meaneth that it may be so called, but not truly. Which is but double dealing. For presently after he saith, He separateth the true Kingdom of Christ from the external Order and Discipline of the Church: which some in these days more zealous then wise, do not separate. So he calleth the faithful worshippers of Christ. But is it such wisdom, I pray, to separate frō Christ this his Divine honor and glory, and to give it to others? Nay, this is accursed wisdom. Then, a Ministry supposed to be settled by the Apostles in the Primitive Church, he denieth to be any part of Christ's Kingdom. Hath he any reason for it? Yea, a strange one. Saith he, Christ's kingdom is proper to his person. As though the power and authority to institute, & settle such an ordinance might not be proper to Christ's person, and yet the execution thereof committed to his Officers and Deputies. And nevertheless all is Christ's still. It is the Kings authority which the Deputy of Irelād executeth. And may it not be Christ's power and government which his Ministers and Deputies on earth do execute? Yea, certainly. Which this D. acknowledged before, saying, it may be called the kingdom of heaven and of Christ. Yet he doth further strive against the truth in this cause; making the Minister, the Master of a family, and the Magistrate to be God's ordinance alike. Which surely never any sound Divine would say. If we look but to Moses law, the falsity hereof is soon seen. Every Ministry in the Jews Church, must have express and particular institution from God: but natural reason & Human contractes were sufficient to institute both the other. And is not the case so with us now also under the Gospel? Yeas truly. Wherefore these in deed are now God's ordinances, but not alike. He concludeth, that the Ministers may not arrogat any part of Christ's honor and power as incident to their calling or function, They may take to them the execution of that, which to ordain is only Christ's right. That power of his which he hath in his word committed to them and (as the D. speaketh) trusted them with, they may take to them, viz. the Keys and Mysteries of the kingdom of heaven. Which they arrogate not: but it is their right to take & use the same as Christ himself hath specially appointed. From this dissolut opinion aforesaid, and so derogatory to the holy Offices of Christ it floweth, that this D. teacheth the people's interest in Church-government standeth only upon the grounds of reason and nature, and is derived from the rules of Christian equity and society. And that this is both lawful and much to be commended. And yet also that the people may willingly forsake, and worthily loose the right which they had. Nay more, he holdeth the Apostolic and Divine form of Church-government by sole governing Bishops (as he maintaineth Timotihe and Titus and the Angel of Ephesus, &c. to have ben) may give place on occasion to those forenamed grounds of reason and nature & human government. Thus he by denying the people's consent to be essential in the choice of their Pastors, doth indeed make nothing essential to them. For that which is Essentiall, must evermore be had to the true being of anything it can never be altered, nor absent from it, as before I have also noted. These our adversaries say our assertions are raw and undigested fancies: but what raw and undigested, yea irreligious assertions they do hold and maintain, it maketh me afraid even to think of it.

It shall not be amiss to observe somewhat contrary to their opinions, out of some both of the Ancient and the late writers. Cyprian noteth this in general as an odious error in the haeretike Novatian, though he aim at another point in particular. But in general this which they hold, Cyprian maketh no less then heretical in him. His words are Ille post Dei traditionem, humanam conatur Ecclesiam facere. This man letting go God's ordinance, endeavor • th to make a Human Church. Again touching the order and form of the Church and administration thereof, he in another place flieth only to Christ and his word for authority, & saith: Quisquis alibi collegerit, spargit. Adulterum est, impium est, Sacrilegū est, quod • unque humano furo • e instituitur, vt dispositio divina violetur. Procul ab huiusmodi hominum contagione discedite. Whosoever gathereth elsewhere, he scattereth. It is adulterous, it is impious, it is sacrilegious whatsoever is instituted by men's madness, that God's order should be violated. Depart far away from the infectiō of such mē. And a little after, Nemo vos frat res errare â Domi. viâ faciat. Nemo vos Christianos ab Evāgelio Christi rapiat. Brethren, let no man cause you to err from the Lord's way. Let no man pull you Christians from Christ's Gospel. Of the church constitution and order again he saith: Verbis Christi insistere, quaecunque & docuit & feat, discere & facere debemus. Crederese in Christum quomodo dicit, qui non facere quod Christus facere praecepit? We ought to insist in Christ's words: whatsoever he taught & did, we must learn and do. How can one say, he believeth in Christ, who doth not that which Christ commandeth? Thus in the order, constitution, and government of Christ's Church this holy man of God layeth a necessity on us to cleave always to that which is in Christ's Testament, not to Human reason, nor to Civil disposition at any time. Which our adversaries do teach and maintain to be lawful. Augustine also of the visible Churches constitution (beside that above cited in him) elsewhere writeth thus: Ecclesiam sine vlla ambiguitate sancta Scriptura demonstrate. † Ibi quaeramus Ecclesiam, ibi discutiamus causam nostram. N • lo humanis documentis, sed divinis oraculis sanctā Ecclesiam demonstrari. The holy Scripture demonstrateth the Church without any doubt. There let us seek the Church: there let us try our cause. I cannot abide that the holy Church should be shown by men's doctrines but by the Divine Oracles. And in that sense Jerome calleth Christ's Visible Church as it is under outward government, Fabrica De • , a Frame which God him self hath buil • . Thus these Ancientes. With whom herein the godly learned of late do consent also. Zwingli said enough before. Calvin to Cardinal Sadolet saith; Non te adeo pracise vrgebo vt revocem ad illam Ecclesiae forniam quam Apostols constituerunt, in quà tamen vnicum habemus verae Ecclesiae exemplar: à quo si quis vel minimùm deflectit, ab • rat. I will not press you so precisely, as to call you back to that form of the Church which the Apostles set. In which form notwithstanding we have the only pattern of a true Church. From which if any decline never so little, he erreth. He meaneth, be would take it well at the Cardinals hands, if he could reduce him to the form of the Church which the Fathers used, suppose, about 200. till 300. years after Christ, & after for some while. Howbeit he absolutely affirmeth that in the form which the Apostles set in the Scriptures, the only patte • ne of a true Church is to be had. And that if any decline never so little from it, he erreth. Which is all one with that where he saith, Extern • subsidia quoque Deus addidit, quo infirmitati nostrae consuleret. The Outward helps and Means God hath added also, to the end that he might provide for our weakness. If God have added them & appointed them for us, what arrogancy shall it be for men to alter them? And chiefly the form of the Visible Church. Like to these P. Martyr saith: Forma reipublica quandoque variatur: quod attinet ad Ecclesiam, non mutat formam. The Form of a Civil state sometime is changed: but as touching the Church it changeth not her form. All this is very contrary to our forenamed adversaries. Nay, which is to our great shame, the very Papists in this general point are nearer to the kingdom of God, then such unworthy Protestants are. For they religiously and most strictly do hold this, that Christ only is the Teacher and Instituter of the form of his Visible Church: and that no men may ever change it from that same which is set down in Christ's Testament. In the particular indeed they err: in setting up under the Gospel a Universal church exercising government; which is not Christ's spouse, but the Queen of pride. Nevertheless in the general they hold clearly the truth (as I have shown) whereby they put many of us to shame who bear a name of professing the Gospel. And so much of the Consequentes which highly touch the Honor and Office of Christ, and the Dignity of his New Testament.

There are also Consequentes from our adversaries opinion, which greatly touch ourselves. First, whosoever of the Protestants do refuse our foresaid Vniforme Opiniō of the people's consent, must of necessity hold two distinct forms of Christ's Visible Church, and two distinct forms of Church-government to be lawful: that is, both that where the people are absolutely excluded, & that where they are admitted. The one ordinary and best (as they say) the other extraordinary and only in case of necessity, as before hath ben shown. Now to hold two distinct & opposit forms of the Visible Church & Church-government, is directly all one as to hold two ways to heaven, distinct and opposite in them selves. Which is very scandalous in religion, and that which cannot stand with truth. For the Visible Church and Church-government is plainly the way to heaven and the Outward means which must bring us thither, or else ordinarily we cannot come there. That is, Ordinarily faith, repentance, sanctification, and at last glorification in heaven, cometh only by the Ministry of God's word; and none can lawfully administer, but being sent (now in these days) by the Visible Church, according to their authority in this case given them of Christ. Thus the only Outward means and way to heaven is Christ's Visible Church and the exerci • ing of her authority in such form and manner as Christ her Lord hath appointed her. Which is only one way; it cannot be two ways. There is only one form ordained of Christ. And so only one is true, & one lawful, which soever it be. Two ways cannot be. D. Dewname answereth that there be other ways which he alloweth, which are by necessity: and necessity hath no law. Nay, him self is lawles. God's servants at no time are freed from God's Law. As well in necessity as in plētie, in adversity no less then in prosperity they are so tied to the rule of his word (which is always one) that they profess it always unlawful for them to take up any invention of their own upon any pretence. Indeed in Human affairs sometime Necessity doth excuse us ftō following man's law. And so the proverb is verified, Necessity hath no law. But in God's matters, and in the affairs of the Church, which are causes touching our souls, no necessity nor prosperity can free us (as I said) from God's law and ordinance appointed for us. So far (at least) that we may never take up any invention of men, which in God's Service is evermore the way of error and not of truth. As for Do. Dwname I remember the time, when he was stout and resolut for Vnica Methodus in Philosophy. But the world is so changed with him since, that in Divinity he is now a professed Diplodophilus, one that thinketh there are two ways to heaven, two ways and forms of administering Christ's Visible Church, of Calling the Ministry, of exercising holy Censures. Which matters (as before I shown) are the ordinary way to heaven for every soul: the Outward instrumental Means sanctified of Christ to save his people by. Now he professeth two forms of administering them, essentially distinct and opposit the one to the other, and yet both to be lawful. Which indeed is evidence enough that he is in error. For the way of truth is only one (as before hath ben noted) but error is manifold. Wherefore among the Protestants seeing only we hold a Vniforme & constant opinion in this matter of Christ's Visible Church, (which is for the people's consent in the Ordinary Governement) it is certain that we only have the truth, and our adversaries are in error.

And here withal this followeth from our opinion, that we only have comfortable assurance to our consciences, which the adversaries cannot soundly have. We hold only upon the institution of Christ & practice of his Apostles. Of which we have reason to be confident; and wherein we may well have assurance. For when we build the form and frame & whole administration of Christ's Visible Church upon the Rock mentioned in the Gospel Math. 16.18. that is, upon Christ and his word alone; who can make us to doubt, but that God will crown his own work, and bless his own Ordinance, and sanctify his own way. Certainly we ought with all cheerfulness to expect, and to conceive assurance to our souls of God's gracious favor and everlasting goodness, if we stand in that way which plainly is Christ's. As many as walk according to this rule, peace shall be upon them & mercy, and upon the Israel of God. But contrariwise our adversaries allowing of two ways in the Churches spiritual government and administratiō, the one Apostolic the other Human, both good (as they say) & both changeable by men; but neither of them any certain Ordinance or Cōmandement of Christ. Again, when they make many thousand several Churches in the world to use no other Calling of their Ministers but such as is of Men's institutiō and from natural reason: do they in this give assurance to men's consciences? Nay, it cannot be. At the least, men standing in such state, will often doubt and make question whether the spiritual blessings and graces of God in Christ be promised, or may be instrumentally wrought in them by such a Ministry no otherwise authorised and called then so. For as it is most certain that God saveth no man Ordinarily but by Outward means, & that these Outward means are ordinarily Christ's Visible Church, the Ordayning of Ministers, and the administering of God's Word, Sacraments, and Censures therein; so it is most uncertain and much to be doubted, whether God will acknowledge any of these Outward means and instruments to be his, or will give his ordinary blessing unto them, working saith, reap̄tance, sanctificatiō, & hereafter his heavenly glory in us, by thē, unless the said Outward means and instruments be simply of that form and nature, and be exercised by the power and authority of such persons only, as he himself hath specially ordained and sanctified in his word to that purpose. This doubt, I say, at least, will and must needs arise from the opinion of our adversaries. And it cannot but weaken the faith of many, if in the end it do not wholly subvert it. Which indeed may come to pass from this original, divers, and sundry ways. But our uniform constitution of the Church and administration thereof, cutteth of all occasion of such doubting, and leaveth our consciences safely resting on Christ alone. And so much for this.

[unspec 7] Seventhly, where this is held, viz. that the people's free consent ought to be always in the Church government, there necessarily the Visible Catholic Church of Rome is ruined, quite overthrowen, and destroyed. Yea, this assertion of ours being made good, her spiritual tyranny & usurpation is easily demonstrated. And there is no man who seeth not this. But contrariwise many see not, and many will not see (till they feel) that which yet is as certain and as sure a Consequence in true reason; viz. that where the people's consent in the Church government is condemned and hated, there the Church of Rome will get advantage, and in time advancement again, notwithstanding that Civil Magistrates for a season do what they can to resist the same. I know many will at the first think this a Paradox: yet verily it will prove true. For the Church of Rome not only in reason, but by clear rules of Divinity and Religion; must needs get ground of us, if we willingly give away this invincible Bullwarke and Fortress against thē. I mean Christ's Visible Churches true and proper Nature: and that both intensive, which is the power of Spiritual government received from Christ her Author and Founder, wherein the Peoples free consent is comprehended, as before I have often rehearsed; and also the Extensive quantity and Outward Body of the said Church, which in the Gospel never reacheth to many Ordinary Congregations nor to any Set circuit of ground at all (as a Diocesan Church doth) but to one ordinary Congregation only, as I have elsewhere plainly declared. This is the true and proper Nature of Christ's Visible Church in the New Testament. And I would all men did consider this; viz. that the effectual defense of our faith against Popery is & must be the alleging and pressing against them this Nature and proper Constitution of Christ's said Visible Church. Without which we shall labor against them all in vain; and which our forefathers Zwingli, Luther, and the rest, wisely holding and maintaining (as above we have seen) have easily & mightily from thence by the sword of the Spirit (which is the word of God) put them to flight and quelled them. And so may we do still: but no otherwise. In which regard it greeveth me often times when I see many of our Defenders of the truth against the Papists, being otherwise learned and godly, yet dealing in this matter very vncircumspectly, and I may say praeposterously. Who make no great reckoning to stand with the Papists upon the proper Nature of Christ's Visible Church; or if they medle with it, they do not strictly hold to that Nature & form thereof which is left us in the N. Testament, being plainly another and distinct from that of the Jews under the Law. This verily our men against that Adversarie do consider too little, and they prosecute it less. They treat more of Christ's Invisible, or Militant, then of the Ministerial Church. So leaving the question in deed, and laboring in things which touch not the point. Whereby it cometh to pass, that they resist thē not with that fruit as they might. For we must know that ordinarily the Church Ministerial is the Means and instrument of true faith. If the Means and procuring cause (which is most sensible to us) be not first well cleared, and men's consciences therein satisfied, and the same demonstrated plainly to be of Divine institution, the doctrine of faith besides will be but uncertain.

If any say, Our Forefathers overcame the Papists by the word of God cutting down their other foul errors, [Objection.] viz. Purgatory, Free-will, Auricular confession, Real presence, Images, Praying to Saints, Justification by works, &c. They overcame them not by affirming that the people ought to have always their free consent in Church government. And so may we also overcome them still. I answer, Men are much deceived that do thus think. [Answ.] Our Forefathers (as I said) by this very assertion (that the people ought to have their said free consent) did utterly overthrow the Papists: and without this they could not possibly have so done. For unless this assertion had ben true, neither could the first Protestant Pastors be truly authorised and called, neither could any of the Protestants at first lawfully have forsaken the Roman Church, whereof they all stood members. And then, I pray, how could they have overcome them? Nay, it had never ben possible. For it had ben to small purpose, if they had oppugned those their other errors only, & withal had justified the form of the Roman Church, and the calling of their Ministry; which our Forefathers must have done, if our said Assertion had not ben true. And so they must have tarried still ordinary members under the government of the same Church. Again, to small purpose had they oppugned those other errors, if they had left to obloquy their own Ministry. Which likewise they must have done, if our said Assertion were not true. For as in warfare, good weapons, and much strength without iustifyable authority, will in short time bring ruin and confusion to them that use the same: Even so it is in this cause; yea much more here it is true. Though we seem to cut down Popish errors with the sword of God's word, yet if we do not clear our Ministry, and iustifye our Calling, & give good satisfaction to men's Consciences for the lawfulness of our handling the Word and Sacraments and Spiritual government, we shall quickly labor in vain. And that appeareth certainly to much at this day in England; the greater is our woe. Not only in respect of Popery, but in other respects also.

Well; will our adversaries say. The Protestants Ministry is justified sufficiently against the Papists, albeit the people have no consent in their Ministers Calling. Oh would God our learned men in England would show this substantially. Then would I (for my part) quickly conform, as before also I protested. But otherwise, let them be assured the Church of Rome, do what they can, will get ground of them in England. And this maketh me to lay this to heart, as I do. Every day we are challenged by the Papists to prove the lawfulness of our Ministry in England, and of our Calling to it. What say our learned men hereunto? A direct and a full and a steadfast answer must be made to this. Men's consciences will not be satisfied with dilatorie and shifting answers. Nor, if we leave Scruples & Difficulties in that we speak. To justify the Calling of our Ministry in England and to prove the lawfulness thereof, we must plainly show that the persons who give this Calling with us, have good authority in deed to give the same. This is the very point. Let our learned men make this clear, and then the Papists are stopped; then all men are satisfied. For it is a plain case and granted of all, that every true Ministry in the Church must be received from some persons who have good and just authority to give it. And this is essential to every true Ministry.

Some there are in England who affirm, the Ministers authority is only an Inward Calling, and gifts of the mind. And so hath no absolute necessity to be Outwardly received from any other. Which in deed is not fit for any wise man, or honest Christian to hold. It is the worst answer of a thousand, and in a word merely Anabaptistical. Some others there are who say that this authority of the Ministry (and of exercising Excommunication also) is derived originally from the Magistrate, even from the King and Parliament with us. And so they expound that ordinance of our Savior, Tell the Church; to be, Tell the civil Magistrate. Verily they may also as well expound these words, Upon this Rock I will build my Church, to signify, Upon the Civil Magistrate, upon the Prince Christ buildeth his church. For thus they make Christ's Visible Church under the Gospel only a Civil Society, and a Human polity. Which profane opinion is so unworthy of all true Christian people, that it deserveth to be exploded no less then the other. These answers against the Papists (we may think) will do but little good. For as it is absolutely necessary that a true Minister of the Gospel have his calling given him outwardly from some persons, and that these persons have good and just authority to give it: So likewise, it is absolutely necessary that every true Minister of the Gospel have his calling given him by those who are by Christ him self (or his holy Spirit in the Apostles) authorised to give it. For thus only can an Ordinary Ministers Calling be of God (which is necessary) and not of men. And this is that which we call Essentiall in every Ordinary Ecclesiastical Minister. Again, as I said, this will soundly answer the Papists, and nothing else.

But now all the matter will be, who are the persons which have power & authority from Christ to give a Calling to a Minister of the Gospel. Here, as touching myself, when I deal with Papists (as often I have don) I affirm as D. Tilenus in this case answered the L. Lavall in France, which before I remembered: viz. that the people consenting together in the truth of the Gospel, have frō Christ power and authority, first to forsake all Sacrilegious Priests and their ministry; and then to give a true and lawful calling of Ministry to some whom them selves do like. Wherein Tilenus shown Cyprians judgment also agreeing with his. Cyprian there affirming likewise, that this power of the people is from Divine authority, as before also is shown. And other very plain proofs hereof (Act. 1.23.26. and 6.3.5.6. and 14.23) I have twice set down at large out of the New Testament. Beside all which, there is very pregnant reason also for the same. For Christian people, whether few or many, joined together in a constant society of one ordinary Congregation to serve God according to his word, are a true Visible Church of Christ. Every true Visible Church of Christ is his Kingdom upon earth, his dear Spouse, his own Body. &c. Now it ought not to be doubted but Christ hath given power to his Kingdom, to his Spouse, to his Body to govern it self, to preserve it self, to provide for it self (when it wanteth) all things ordained for it, in the best manner it can. This may not be doubted. Therefore such a Society under the Gospel wanting Ministers, must have power to ordain Ministers for her self. Likewise the Apostle saith, All things are theirs, and they Christ's, and Christ God's. Then, whē they want Ministers they cannot want power to provide them to them selves. Seeing God hath made them theirs. Further, the Apostle requireth the christiā people to try the Spirits of their Teachers whether they be of God or no. And Christ saith, His sheep hear his voice: a strangers voice they will flee from. But they cannot thus discern and try, unless they may reject their Teachers being false and erroneous. And if they may reject, they may chose. Yet always (as I said) in the best manner they can. Some here object and say, The people in deed have power and right, but they have not means thus to do, whē they want Ministers. I answer, if they have power, frō whom have they it? It will be said, from God. If the people have power from God, then they have means also. Otherwise God giveth power in vain. But that is absurd &c false; that God giveth any power in vain, or such as cannot be acted. If God intend an end (as he doth) in giving all power, then sure he intendeth Means also to effect the said end. And so a Church wanting Ministers, but having power from GOD, hath Means also to make Ministers, and so likewise to do every other Ecclesiastical action. They are not utterly & altogether destitute of just and lawful means to perform any such action for their own use in the fear of God: That is, the best means they have is sufficient, whē they have not such as they would and should have otherwise.

So then, this was the answer which the said Tilenus gave to that French Lord. But in deed this is not only Tilenus answer in this matter: for it hath ben the common defense of all sound Protestants always when they be opposed, touching their Ministry. Which the common consent of all our Attestators before cited, and many other, maketh manifest. If any have given other answers, yet only this hath ben the firm & sure anchre to trust to. Other answers are all to weak & uncertain: this only is clear and constant. Though D. Bilson do unjustly deny it. A most certain deduction of this power and right of the people, from Christ's ordinance in the Gospel, I have plainly shown before in the sixth Chapter. Also the benefit and fruit of this defense we see in all Churches abroad; namely it is evident in those of France. Against which the learnedst of the Papists have nothing soundly to reply. So that the Churches there flourish and increase mightily, blessed be God. Who, but for this answer, would certainly both then when Tilenus so did write, & before, and since, have ben much troubled, and staggered, and no less then shamed. As many are now with us in England, who do shun and despise this answer. Whereby I see, that to lay against the Papists their other errors (before we have cleared the lawfulness of our Ministry) is in deed unseasonable, and little available. For if we be shamed in the eyes of understanding people, or have not certainly what to hold, & stand to, when we be urged to make good the Calling and lawfulness of our Ministry, Papists will easily with distinctions and subtle answers make a fair show in reconciling other matters (between us in controversy) to God's word, though I grant they be gross. When we are shamed in so main a point as the Calling of our Ministers is, in no other matter afterward we shall, neither can we have good success.

But our adversaries of the Protestants in England, what say they to this? How defend they the Calling of our Ministers against the Papists? D. Bilson denieth vehemently that the people's consent is essential in the making of any Ministers. I desire him then to tell us what is essential in it. There is no question but somewhat is. Then what is it, which is essential in making a Minister? If the people's consent be not, surely I know not what else they will assign to be. And yet, as I said, somewhat must be. Wherefore I conceive the people's consent may be said to be essential by God's word in the making of a Minister under the Gospel, because no other thing else can be assigned by Protestants as Essentiall therein. The common answer in a manner of all men is, that in England our Diocesan and Provincial Bishops do give our Ministers their Calling and Office. Here I demand, is this Essentiall in the Calling of our Ministers, or is it not? I think few advisedly will say, it is Essentiall. For whatsoever is Essentiall anywhere, the same is essential everywhere; as before I have observed. And so they must deny the true Essence of Ministry in the foreign reformed Churches where they have no such Bishops at all, & where at first they had no Minister at all. Therefore they will not say, I think (I know they cannot) that the Ordination by Bishops is Essentiall to Christ's Ministry under the Gospel. Yet again, if they say not so, they answer the Papist nothing: they satisfy not the question. So that what they will resolve on in this point, Surely no man can well tell. Wherefore here the crafty Priests and Jesuits among us will persuade vehemently their disciples, that they have got the victory. Seeing we cannot affirm whence our Ministry is essentially derived & given us. In the end I doubt not, the common defense will be this, that our said Bishops by their sole authority and power do essentially give the Calling of all our Ministry. And that from Archb. Cranmer & Ridley (our first Protestant Bishops) they have still so done. Let what inconvenience soever follow thereof. Be it then so. Yet even they likewise must have it given to them. They ( viz. those our first Bishops) must have it derived unto them frō others. From whom had they their authority and power? Briefly it will be answered, they had it given them from the Bishop and Church of Rome. And that in deed is the truth the Pope is he, who made Archb. Cranmer and Ridley, &c. such Bishops. They had no other Ordination since. And from them all the rest of our Ministers have had their Ordination to this day. And so the effect of all is, that our whole Ministry in England successively and derivatively cometh from the Pope. Doct. Downame, Doct. Bilson, and all that maintain the Church state in England will thus answer. But O miserable defense, & woeful unto us. Which in deed though it be false, yet it is such as the Pap • s • es desire, and do triumph in. It is false two ways. First, whatsoever the Church of Rome did give to Archbi. Cranmer, &c. that wholly they took away again, namely when he fell from them. For then they both deposed him, and excommunicated him. So that they left him no whit of that power & function (so much as lay in them) which they had given him. But questionless if they could give it, they could take it away. Wherefore (so soon as he was ours) being thus cut off and excommunicate from the Church of Rome, he could not after that have any power (as derived from them) to make Ministers, nor to do any other Bishoplie act. Secondly, we all know the Church of Rome to be the very Antichrist, chiefly in respect of their Clergy and Spiritual government, and most chiefly of all in respect of the Pope, from whom all the rest (as from the Head) do take their power and authority. Now shall we say that very Antichrist can have power from Christ to make Ministers? Or that we can have a lawful Ministry derived from those who had their power only from him? It cannot be. What communion hath light with darkness? What concord hath Christ with Belial? And so, what hath Christ to do with Antichrist? Nothing at all. Thus then our consciences can have no assurance, we cannot have confidence in such estate of the Ministry. But certainly Christ's true Ministers among us in England, have a better Original thē this. Wherefore this answer of our State Protestants must needs be false. Yet in this answer who seeth not how the Papists do rejoice, triumph, and insult? Who seeth not, how by this they are encouraged, strengthened, and multiplied among us exceedingly? Truly it would pity a man's heart to behold how this one point putteth life into thousands to stand up against Christ's Gospel, & the liberty of their Country also. For when they hear ourselves openly to ascribe to the Church of Rome and to their means such a gift of grace, even that which is our glory, even the holy instrument of our faith to salvatiō (for so is our Ministry) they will say, if the branch be holy, the root is more; if the rivers be sweet, the head-spring is delicious. And so how can it be chosen, but the Papists thus will be graced, and get great advantage among us? Many here have another refuge, but that also helpeth nothing. Say they, as Popish Baptism is so far acknowledged by us, as that with it only we are held to be sufficiently Baptized & not to need Baptizing again when we come from them to the Church of England: So likewise we may acknowledge the Popish Ordination to the Ministry thus far, and yet nevertheless condemn their Church and separate from them. I answer, the case is nothing like between Baptism the sign of our initiation in Christ, and the Calling to the Ministry. In the word there is express warrant for not repeating the sign of our initiation in Christ (which of old was Circumcision, and Baptism now is the same) though ministered by a false Ministry and Church. As we may see in the not Recircumcising of such Jews as had received that sign in the Apostasy of Israel, and turned frō the same to the truth. But there is no warrant at all in God's word for any to retain the outward Calling to the Ministry, or to stand in that power and authority which is derived from such a Church. There is no such thing can be shown in all God's book. Therefore we may not conclude the like in this matter of Ordination to the Ministry, which may be done for not repeating of Baptism. For by God's word Ordination may be repeated, yea certainly, after a Ministry received in Christ's true Church: much more after it hath ben received in a false Church. So that these two ordinances of Christ are nothing like in this point. Wherefore out of question, Ordination to the Ministry as it is derived from Antichrist, must be wholly reuounced of every faithful man: and may be (as is said) renewed and repeated in Christ's true Church, as occasion serveth. At Rome, there is in it both an impiety, and a nullity. In their administering of Baptism there is not a nullity altogether; as in that correspondent example of Israel in Apostasy before alleged, it well appeareth. And this is sufficient for this; though other answers may be given also. Wherefore this remaineth, that when we grant the descent of our Ministry in England to come lineally from the Church and Pope of Rome, (which we must grant, will we nill we, if wedeny it to arise essentially from the Christian people's consent in each Congregation, all the world seeth that we give the Pope a main advantage against us, and we put into his hand a strong engine to draw us back again unto him. Which also he effecteth daily upon many among us, as woeful experience showeth in our Land: yea even upon some of my very friends, and near acquaintance.

Beside this, there is another point of the Churches government, namely their Jurisdiction in cōpounding Schisms, in making peace and unity and consent among Christian people, which being ascribed as proper to Diocesan and Provincial Bishops (as they in England do say it is, and as D. Downame with great vehemency defendeth) certainly true reason will carry it further, it cannot possibly stay there. This will serve a Popes turn a great deal better: and to such a one it belongeth in deed as a very true and forcible ground for his Universal Governement over all Christians in the world, if there were any Divine and Evangelical truth in it at all. But there is no truth in it. Because this is no Divine and Evangelical way for Unity in religion. viz. to constitute one Visible Head with absolute power of Spiritual government whether Diocesan, or Provincial, or Universal. Or, to take from the Christian people their free consent. There is not in the Gospel any such Means to Unity. It is a Human policy, a carnal device: it is no institution of Christ Jesus. Who in his word and by his word (with the help of the Ministry therein ordained) provideth sufficiently for true peace, and holy Unity among all his people. For he saith, Ye err, not knowing the Scriptures. And, Search the Scriptures: for they are they which testify of me. And I am the way, the truth, and the life. Likewise the Apostle testifieth, that those are the makers of Schisms and divisions, who teach and hold anything " besides the doctrine learned from the Apostles. So that indeed the means appointed of GOD to make Unity in the Church, is God's word: and not one Superior over-ruling Minister over many distinct ordinary Cōgregations, which the word knoweth not. But in truth such a one is the very proper cause of dissention and schism. For he not willing to submit to God's word, by his power draweth many with him: & yet he cannot lightly prevail with all. Wherevpon followeth dissention and schism. And then he with his company (being the stronger in the world) may cry out loudest against those fewer that dissent from him, that they are Schismatics and peace-breakers: but look unto the word of God, & thē them selves will be found to be the makers of the Schism in departing from the said word of God by their Traditions, We see then by this that the true & just cause of Unity in the churches of Christ is to cleave inseparably to Christ's Testament. Which mē not willing to follow always, but seeking to walk rather in the ways and customs and inventions of men, thereby they give occasion indeed of much strife, discord, & dissention. This is the true cause of our differences in religion. It is as fensele • which D. Downame maintaineth, that Diocesan and Provincial Bishops (having no Superior Ecclesiastical) can be causes of Unity. For none of these can do anything, but each in his own circuit. Now what is that to Christian Unity, when nevertheless there may be (for all thē) so many opinions as there be independent Provincial Bishops. Only a Universal Church and Bishop (if we list to follow Men's policies, and not Christ's Testament) may in deed cause a kind of Unity. But again, such Unity without Veritie, is unto Christian people plain tyranny. And we profess, that absolute Unity under a Visible Head is not so good, as the Tyrānigh of such a one is mischievous. Christ rather would his faithful servants should be proved and exercised by Schismatikes, then their consciences oppressed by tyrants.

Some perhaps will say, that thus we seem to desire dissensions, seeing we refuse reasonable & likely means of Unity. I answer. First, The Pope hath better color so to object, then Provincialls, as before is said. Second. our means of Unity which we embrace, are far more likely to effect the same, then their way. For they have a Provincial L. Bishop without the word: but we have Christ's written word, & his churches help also. These means among us will settle more unity and peace in truth a hundred times, (especially within the body of our Churches) then our adversaries have or can have by their L. Bishops. If our Magistrates would show us their favor and aide (which our adversaries enjoy) this that I say would quickly & universally be evident. But for want of the Magistrates said favor, I grant mo differences do appear among us, then would otherwise. In which case yet no Christiā ought to be offended, but to consider both that under the Apostles it hath been so, and that Allmightie God she weth hereby that it is better so to be, then under Human tyranny though pretending Unity. Doct. Downame setteth up his rest upon a Universal Synod for Unity. This is his chiefest buck lar. But alas, how vain is it? For first, a Universal Synod indeed is impossible to be had: especially by us in these days. For when and where had any Christians the least benefit by a Universal Synod, since the Pope hath ben detected? What a means then of Unity is that which our Adversaries pretend? Namely, which is not possible to be had; or howsoever, most rare & difficult. Secondly, such a Synod at the D. stands for, viz. Setting down Decreta tanquam Dictatoria & 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Ecclesijs, Decrees as it were vncontroulable, and not under the examination of the Churches, is by the learned before plainly condemned: to whom I will add M. Chemnicius, condemning the Council of Trent for this very cause & in these very words; denying also that any of the Primitive Councils were such. And yet a Universal Council (if it may be had) and other Councils so far as they may be had, we allow, and embrace, and do acknowledge great benefit by them: namely, so that their Decrees may be examined and tried (by God's word) of them to whom God's word appertaineth. This use (I say) of a General Synod we allow as well as he: which in deed is the only true use of Synods. Certainly Provincial and Diocesan Synods we allow more then he doth. For he so admitteth these Synods, that yet the Head Bishop in any of thē is to over rule all. And what use of them is there then? The L. Bishop may have as good Counsel and advise with less trouble and charge. But these are not that Means of Unity which he pretendeth: It is (as I said) the Synod Universal; and that of supreme and absolute power spiritual over all Christians, and that from Christ's express ordinance. Which verily also taketh away Sovereign power frō all within England, to reform ourselves in religion, what need so ever there be. Which I leave to the wise to consider of. Yea this his opinion doth in the end necessarily induce a Pope, as I have said.

Hitherto of perverting the true intensive Nature of Christ's Visible Church, viz. where the people of the ordinary Congregations are barred their free consent in the Church government. Where we have seen what great and lamentable evils follow thereupon: even to the making of a plain path way for the Popes reentrance among us. Now we shall see that the same mischief cometh likewise by extending the Churches outward Body larger and further then it ought to be. The just extent of the outward Body, or the true bounds and limites of Christ's Visib. Church always under the Gospel is one ordinary Congregation only. The reason is, because so we find it to be in the whole New Testament of Christ. All the which I have proved and declared plainly else where, viz. before pag. 87. and Declarat. pag. 10. 19. 20. &c. It is to profane and unchristian, advisedly to affirm, that in the New Testament Christ or his Apostles have limited and defined no Church. O • that men may change those bound • which Christ or his Apostles have se • The Papists them selves are not 〈◊〉 gross, as before I have noted: & they would desire no greater hand upon us then that we should so answer them. Some certain limites therefore and bounds of a Church questionless Chris • hath set. But our adversaries, and namely D. Downame refuseth the ordinary Congregation. They avouch and maintain a diocesan and Provincial Church to be of Divine institution in the New Testament. What maintain they? A Diocesan Church? Nay, in deed Christ's Visible Church • hen must be not only Diocesan, nor only Provincial, no nor only Patriar • hall, but evē Universal. I say, where Christ's Visible Church is not believed to be by Christ limited only to one ordinary Congregation, there all reason and rules of religion will require Christ's said Church to be no less then Universal. For no man can • hew that Christ's said Church in the New Testament is limited and restrained to a Diocese or Province only, & that it is there forbidden to be a Universal church. Our adversaries seem not to desire to show it. For as they weakly and slightly affirm Diocesan and Provincial Churches to be in the New Testament, (yea even against Grammar ) so they openly acknowledge that Christ hath upon earth one whole Church being but one Body subject to government. So that they yield the Church not to be limited to a Dioces or a Province. And what can the Papists wish more? They will never desire more to be yielded them from Protestants (if we stick to our own words) then to acknowledge all Christ's Diocesan and Provincial Churches, (and therefore our own in England ) to be but Membrall Churches, not entire and independent, not endued with authority for the government of them selves immediately from Christ; but to be partes and dependants of one whole Church being one Body subject to government. For thē we must by Christ's ordinance refer ourselves for religion and spiritual government to that one Body Visible, whereof we say we are a part. Here a hundred difficulties will come upon us. The Doct. acknowledgeth also a highest Senate of the Universal Church for the government of it. And certainly in all true reason there must be so. For there must be by Christ ordinance a correspondent government to the Body of every Church which is of Christ. Master Hooker truly acknowledgeth it, saying: there must be a correspondent Church-polirie to every Visible Church. But Doct. Downame will perhaps turn this to a Universal Council or Synod. If he do it is yet a simple evasion. First, I noted before, that there never was: right Universal Synod, how so ever some have ben so named. But if any Synod have ben held for Universal, yet such are exceedingly rare and extraordinary, in deed in these days not to be had. But the Churches Body being ordinary, and continuing always, it must have a correspondent government (as is said) that is, ordinary, daily, and continual. And this is it which we speak of. If the Doctor will grant such a highest Senate of the Universal Church, that is, ordinary, constant, and daily exercising government to this constant Body, thē what is this else but a College of Cardinals? And in every such Consitory or Senate, I hope he will grant a President, yea constant and during life; not for a week, or a short time. And what is he but a Pope? Neither is it material whether this President be subject to his Senate, or not. Which he idly casteth in a little after. Many Papists do hold the Pope to be inferior to his Council; and yet they are very Papists. And the Doct. holdeth a Provincial Bishop to be by Divine ordinance Superior to his Provincial Synod. Why then may not the Universal Bishop be superior likewise to his Universal whether Synod, or Senate? Without question he ought to be as well. Thus no marvaill if Popish Walsingham (who conferred with this Doctor ) went from him worse then he came. For holding such grounds, he can never make any sufficient defense against Popery, as I have said.

His four other reasons of difference between a Provincial and a Universal Bishop (which he setteth down pag. 6.) are as frivolous as that which is most.

• First he allegeth Calvin's authority. But what is that to a Papist, or to one tempted that way? And yet he abuseth Calvin also. For though Calvin say, There is not a like reason of one Nation and of the whole world: yet he meaneth this upon supposition. That is, if a Nation have God's word for their warrant as the Jews had: & if the whole world have not Divine warrant, as the Catholic Visible Church now in deed hath not, then there is not the like reason between a Nation and the whole world. But otherwise verily there is. For a Bishop to both is necessary, if both have God's ordinance for it self: a Bishop to neither is lawful, if neither have God's ordinance. And this Calvin him self plainly signifieth in Sect. 9. Saying: Nihil proficiunt (Papistae) nisi prius ostender int hoc Ministerium (Vniversale) 〈◊〉 Christo esse ordinatum. Noting by this, that it is Christ's ordinance that maketh the difference between a Nation and the whole world, not the odds of the Circuit. But this the Do. wholly suppr • sseth as also Calvin's second answer to the Papists immediately following in the former place. Saith he, Est altera citamnum ratio cut illud (Iudaicum) in imitationem trahi non debeat. Summum illum Pontificem typum fuisse Christi nemo ignorat. Nune traslato Sacerdotio ius illud trasferri cōvenit. Wherefore Calvin rejecteth the Jews High Priests National Ministry, and denieth the use of the like now for another reason, which the Doct. also dissembleth. So that his abusing of Calvin herein, is manifest. Again, these last mentioned words of Calvin do confute the Do. in another place, where to resist me, he denieth the Jews High Priests Governement to have been a type.
• [unspec 2] Secondly the Doct. maketh this difference between a Provincial and a Universal Bishop; saith he, No mortal man is able to wield the government of the whole Church. It is true. Nor yet of a Province nor of a Diocese. For the least Pastor of these shall be a huge Pluralist and Nonresident, which are contrary to Christ, as before hath ben shown. The cause then of all this vnablenes is, the want of Christ's ordinance. Which to both is alike, as I have said: and so their vnablenes is both alike. Otherwise both should be able and sufficient for such a charge well enough.
• The Doctors third exception [unspec 3] is as the last before. Saith he, it would prove dangerous and pernicious if that one Head should fall into error. So also it is dangerous and pernicious to many thousands when a Provincial Bishop falleth into error. Yet the D. will not hold this a reason to prove him simply unlawful. And therefore neither is it for the Universal. Specially seeing a Provincial Bishop cannot make unity: a Universal may, as I have said.
• [unspec 4] His fourth exception is likewise a very fancy; viz. that it is infinite trouble & much inconvenience to repair from all partes of the world to one place. There is no such matter, if Christ's ordinance for it were manifest. If any inconvenience may seem therein to be, it is superabundantly recompensed with far greater blessings, when we practice Christ's ordinance. And truly this must be so, if the Do. opinion be true, that Christ hath in the New Testament appointed a Universal Church Visible being but one Body subject to government, as above we have seen. He addeth, These reasons may suffice. Yea truly, they suffice to make 10000. Papists: but they will never reclaim one.

Unto this we may add, that the very Natures of a Diocesan or Provincial Church, and of a Universal, have no essential difference in them. The very Form and Order of administering thē differeth not in any substantial point. Only a Church limited to one ordinary Cōgregation differeth essentially from a Universal Church, as also from a Diocesan and Provincial, as I have shown elsewhere. Whence it is, that where the Church is Diocesan or Provincial (as it is now in England) there is an easy passage to the Universal: and sooner they may be combined into one, then where the Churches are limited each to one ordinary Congregation, the people enjoining their free consent in Church-government. Nay, there are many strong seeming reasons inducing men of reason to yield that the Diocesan and Provincial Forms of Churches not only may easily, but also ought necessarily to be combined, & to come into one Vnivers. Church. For whatsoever is or can be brought by Doctor Downame or any other, to maintain Diocesan and Provincial Churches, the same is much more pregnant for a Universal. And what warrant alloweth them to rule over the particular Congregations, that same requireth them to be ruled also by a Universal Church. If Diocesans and Provincialistes go about to produce Scripture for their origen & institution, they do it so weakly, so untowardly, and so unlikely, that any man seeing & considering it without partiality, would be ashamed. But here the Catholics step in boldly, & forth-with they name sundry places in the New Testament for their "Universal Church Visible. Which indeed have more show for it, then any places have for Diocesan or Provincial Churches independent, as ours be in England. Again, if Unity, concord, and peace-making be a reason for Diocesan and Provincial churches, it is much better for a Universal Church. For it is true, a Universal Church may cause in Christendom a kind of Unity & peace: but Diocesan & Provincial Churches can never. For among these there may be easily so many opinions, as there be Provinces: Their Bishops being 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Heads by them selves. Where the D. saith, † The Church was freer from Schisms before the Papacie, then under it. It is most untrue; and it bewrayeth in him much ignorance, though he disdain to have that once imagined in him.

The case being thus, what resistance can be made to the subtle and mighty persuasions of Jesuits and Popish Priests urging tender souls & consciences upon these advātages? Chiefly when they shall show them withal that our great learned Divines & Doctors confess that Christ hath ordained in the New Testament that his true Visible Church should be one Body subject to government: and that a Universal Church Visible is Christ's ordinance now under the Gospel. Seeing it is plain, that a Universal Church Visible at this day in all the world there is none, but the Roman. And the Roman Church in deed is a Universal Visible Church, intending to have, and having members in every Nation under heaven. Yea, it hath seemed to have been such for these thousand years past: but the Catholics avouch it to have ben ever since Christ. And why may not that be likely, if a Universal Visible Church be Christ's Ordinance? Certainly Christ's Visible & Ministerial Church must continue always from the time of his Ascētion unto the Worlds end. And some-where extant it must be. But this hath not ben anywhere since in all Christendom, except at Rome. Whence it will follow (if those our Doctors sayings be true) that the Roman Church hath ben and is Christ's Universal Church Visible. It is fond to object (as some do) that No particular Church can be Universal; because they are opposit. And so neither can the Roman Church, seeing it is particular, be Universal. I say, this is fond. For a Universal Church Visible must have some particular Visible Church to be their Head. As, from King David till Christ the Universal Church had the particular Church at Jerusalem for their Head. So the Roman • Church may be the Head of the Universal Church visible now (if Christ have ordained any such which those our D.D. seem to grant) and in that respect it may be well called a Universal Church, though it self be but particular. Thus the Catholics will have strong advantage still upon the Provincials. And they will press, that we ought rather to embrace the Universal Church then any Diocesan or Provincial independent, as ours in England is. Nay, they will show that (if we will be saved) simply we must be professed members of Christ's Universal Church Visible, seeing Christ hath ordained it. And this absolutely cannot be mo then only one in the world. And in this case we must suspect our opinions in religion which differ from the doctrine of Christ's only true Church: we must think it at least probable, that the doctrine of the said Church is the very mind of Christ, though otherwise we might make question of somewhat therein. And such doubts must be decided & tried within the said Church, not without it. So that first we must provide that ourselves be in the communion of the said Church. And this, after the former reckoning will prove (as I have shown) to be the Roman Church. And so Doctor Downame, and the rest, have spun a fair thread. Which fearful inconvenience and mischief followeth by denying this true Christian Assertion, viz. that Christ's true Visible Church under the Gospel is only one Ordinary Congregation: as also this, that the people's free consent in the Church government ought to be always admitted.

Where may be added another unspeakable and intolerable mischief, (which cometh by this magnifying of a Universal Visible Church) against the Kings Majesty's Soveraigntie, and against all other Civil Magistrates free government. A Universal Visible Church is the very ground and reason that so many do give their lives against the oth of allegiance to our King, as now there do, and (as it may be feared) many mo will. For the Universal Pastor or Bishop of the said Universal Visible Church (whom the members are bound to hear & obey in all doubts of conscience and questions of faith) will easily make a great show that he is the common Father, and that all Princes ought to be his Sons, and that their States are appointed of God through Christ for the said Churches inheritance. And therefore that they may be brought under this Churches & Holy Fathers obedience vijs & modis, if the said Church and her friends can any way effect it. Yea, so far they may endeavor the advancement and enlargement of this Church into the possessions which Christ hath left to his Vicar, if he can get them, that in procuring the same they may (ordine ad Deum) lawfully destroy all obstinate resisters & hinderers thereof. But most of all, where any States or Princes have ben formerly of that Church. In such case (they think) by a double right they may justly, and ought necessarily, seek their conversion or confusion. But all honest and truly religious Christians do herein plainly see the pride of Antichrist. Wherefore I will unfold this pack of spiritual and temporal mischiefs no farther. Only I would to God that Governors and people also, did mark the true Origen and fountain of all this, as they feel the harm that cometh of it.

Last of all, from the due consideratiō [unspec 8] of the forerehearsed points which have ben here plainly and truly laid open, it followeth and it is manifest, that many among us (who would seem to see somewhat in the knowledge of the Gospel) do very fondly and improvidently say that our controversies in the Church of England, are but for trifles and things indifferent, and about Circumstances only, not for any Substantial matters. They who have any sense of their own good, or fear of future falling away of brethren, cannot but perceive the vanity, yea in deed the plain folly and untruth of such sayings. First, P. Martyr saith, We must confess the Church government to be not the least part of Christian religion: and that the Gospel seemeth to be neglected by them who put away from them so excellent a part thereof. Master Cartwright affirmeth that it is, of the Substance of the Gospel; and that the kind of government is a matter necessary to salvation and of faith. And so Calvin saith (as before I noted) In illa Ecclesia formâ quam Apostoli constituerunt vnicum habemus verae Ecclesia exemplar: a quo si quis vel minimum deslectit, aberrat. In that Form of the Church which the Apostles se • down we have the only pattern of a true Church: from which if any bend aside never so little, he erreth▪ And thus in another place he saith: Externa subsidia Deu • quo{que} addidit, quo infirmitat • nostra cōsuleret. God hath also added Outward means and helps whereby he may provide for our infirmity. Showing that evē touching Outward means our infirmity is not holpen but by such only as God ordaineth for us. And that it is the work of God to institute the Outward means in the exercise of religion: the principal whereof is the Form of the Visible Church and Governement. Men cannot institute this, neither ought any to attempt so much, for that is to intrude in God's office. Agreeable hereunto is that, which I have written in my Declaration, where I show that under the Gospel the form of Christ's Visible Church, the kind of government, and Calling of the Ministry are matters of substance in religion, & fundamental. And more fully in a proper place for this point, viz. in my Exposition of the second Commandment. Where I make it manifest that Men's institutions in these matters are a direct breach and violation of God's sacred Law and Divine Commandment to us, even of the • cond Commandment in the Decalogue: and withal that Christ's ordinances herein are in deed partes of God's true worship, matters of doctrine, matters of faith, matters of substance in religion, and ordinarily necessary to salvation. For these Outward Means where they are right & true; that is, of Divine institution, they are the instrumental work is and causes of inward grace and life to our souls: and those that are of men are contrary. For by the true Outward Means as by ordinary Instrumentes God cōveyeth to us his grace, giveth us faith, and bringeth us to salvation. God saveth us not without means, nor ordinarily without these means before named, nor with or by these means being of Men's institution, and invention, and tradition. His own ordinances only he sanctifieth and blesseth. He promiseth a blessing only to them: to Men's devices, though they seem never so plausible or probable in the reason of men, yet he giveth nothing, he promiseth nothing, we can be assured of nothing by them, unless it be of God's anger. Which indeed we may be sure of. These then are no small matters (I am sure) nor Circumstances in religion, but matters of substance (as I said) and such as we ought first to know and understand in our Christian professiō before we can reap firm assurance to our souls. Without our understanding the truth and falsehood of these Outward means, our whole faith and religion may soon be shaken, & overturned, specially in these distracted times. Yea the manifold ill Consequentes before noted do all hange upon the vniustifyable form: and nature of Christ's Visib. Church, the Ministry, and their Calling. Which are the special matters of controversy now in England. And particularly the Church of Rome's advantage against us I have somewhat opened before, viz. because the sacred right of Christ's faithful people touching their free consent in Church government is denied. But in this I have ben to long. The weightiness of this matter touching the lawful & right making of Ministers, and the peril of erring therein hath drawn me to say so much.

In regard of all which we may se • also the great cause which they had who published the Offer of Conference & disputation, not long since. Whereby they desired a just and equal trial (which hitherto they could never have) of these things which do so certainly touch the safety of our souls. Chiefly considering how violently, they have ben overborne, afflicted, and despised in this cause, as also they still are. Moreover, by this before delivered their affirmation is shown evidently to be true (which the Doctor so ignorantly skorneth) where they say, that some of the propositions which they offer to maintain are such, as if they were not true, we cannot justly separate frō the Church of Rome, nor stand out against it. Those some Proposittions which they mean, are namely the fourth & eight set down in that Offer. Which affirm that a Church is but one Ordinary Cōgregation: and that the people ought to have their free consent in the spiritual government thereof. Unto which may be added the 5.6.7. and 10. as being all of one nature by clear and certain consequence. The soundness and firm truth of all the which, hath ben sufficiently proved and declared heretofore, and might by such a right Christiā trial as there they desire, be brought to further light. Wherefore D. Downames absurd reproaches against that treatise, calling it most senselessly an Vnchristian and vnmodest Offer, and the Positions therein, Schismatical novelties, do declare with what gall of bitterness his heart over-floweth against the truth, against his brethren (as he dissemblingly calleth us) and also against those noble Pillars of the Gospel before alleged, (our Attestators ) who are herein his utter adversaries, whatsoever he pretendeth to the contrary. He as a cock on his own dunghill, may crow • what he list. But if the Offer had ben or might be accepted in such equal order as is there tendered, he would be made to eat his words, I doubt not: and all the infamy of Schism & Noveltie would fall upon his own head. Without which acceptanc, elet the Doct. know that his tedious and Sophisticall writing, & all other such like, will be held by wise men to be vain boasting, and no better conquest then of such Champions as draw their weapons, strike, fight, and take on at adversaries whose hands they will be sure, them selves have first tied fast. Yea, whom they will be sure to have in their power to imprison and persecute if any presume to move against them. Neither will they endure to be shown the imminent danger from the common enemy, till all come about their heads. And so much touching the important Cōsequences of our present Assertion.

CHAP. 8. An answer to divers chief Objections of the adversaries of this cause; noting also briefly their immodest, & not Christianlike reproaches against this Evangelical doctrine.

FIRST we will consider here D. Downames second book of his Defense, affirming and maintaining that there were proper Diocesā Churches under the Apostles. Which being true, the people then certainly had not a free consent in Church-government. A clear reason whereof I shown before pag. 85. And I willingly acknowledge it still. Yea and likewise that neither now they ought to have. That under the Apostles the Churches were properly Diocesan, the D. affirmeth in the title of this second book of his Defense: and doth his best to maintain it in the whole process thereof afterward.

Where indeed I commend him above all others that ever wrote in this cause against us; namely for that he doth more fitly and rightly set down the point of the controversy which hath so long troubled Christian people in England, then any other before him hath don. Which point only, if it were Christianly and plainly decided, would bring great contentment and a joyful Unity, I am persuaded, to many thousands. But the proofs of his assertion here do all fail him: Nay, they are strangely abused and perverted by him, specially his Scriptures. And herein he is little to be commended. Let us examine therefore his Scriptures: and then the rest. Yet by the way we will Define a proper Diocesan Church, before we begin with him. A Diocesan Church is a Societi • of professed Christians, whose spiritual government is practiced without the people's sie • consent, and whose Pastor hath a plurality of ordinar • e Congregations in his charge. Such a Church we deny to have ben under the Apostles: and I pray the Reader to have recourse to those seven Reasons of mine which I have elsewhere set down to prove this my denial and to disprove his assertion.

Now what doeth the Doctor bring to prove his opinion? Expect not (good Reader) that I should follow him in his vain flourishes, and needles amplificatiōs, repetitions, invectives, & other passages more fit for ostentation, & to satisfy his intēperate humor, then for profit. My desire is, so as I may with perspecuity in the cause to use brevity: and if not to de • iver multa paucis, yet to take heed not to deliver pauca multis, as he doth. Wherefore I will pick out that which 〈◊〉 see material in him: the rest I will • et pass. In his first Chapter pag. 4. he • etteth down a most confused distri • ution of the divers senses of the Greek word Ecclesia, (in the New Testament) which we usually translate 〈◊〉 Church. Wherein he committeth 5. errors pertinent to our question.

• First [unspec 1] from this in Mat. 18.17. Act. 15.22. he • old make a Synod or Consistone which have answered before pa. 108. &c.
• Se • ondly a National Church of the Jews, [unspec 2] Act. 7.38. Which likewise I have an • wered, in Reas. for Reform pag. 5. in the margin.
• Thirdly, Christian National [unspec 3] Churches in the nober plural, as he spea • eth: namely in Rom. 16.4. 1. Cor. 16.1. • 9. 2. Cor. 8.1. Gal. 1.2.22. Which places • e abuseth & perverteth most rudely and desperately. The words do ex • resly signify nothing but a nom • er of Ordinary Congregations; • ath of them assembling in one • lace, or at most containing no mo ordinary assemblies then one: and he without, yea contrary to the express • etter fancieth to him self a National Church, from no ground, nor show of ground in these places.
• Fourthly, he bringeth Act. 5.11. and 8.1. and 11.12. and 12.1.5. [unspec 4] and 13.1. and 14.23. & 20.17.28. 1. Cor. 1.2. 2. Cor. 8.23. 2. Thes. 1.1. 1. Tim. 5.16. I am. 5.14. Apoc. 1.4.11.20. and 2.1. &c. to prove a Church of a City and Country adjoining. Where his error is like to the former. What should I say to this man? Not one of all these signifieth a Church of a City and Country adjoining, if he mean it to be extended or intended to mo ordinary Congregations then only one. Which is his meaning. It is true the Churches of these Cities here specifyed ( viz. of Jerusalem, Antioch, Ephesus, Corinth, Thessalonica, &c. ) might have menbers then which dwelt scatteringly, and some a good way of from the place of their ordinary main meeting, and such also as did assemble often in divers uncertain companies (as in times of trouble there is reason, & it often cometh to pass) but yet in those primitive times they all in each Church then made no mo but one ordinary assembly, as I have said. The true Grammar sense and proper meaning of the word Ecclesia in those times doth prove it. What Diviniti • shall we expect from these Doctors, wh • will pervert Grammar? Which ou • Doctor is not ignorant of: but his error herein is willful. All sound Autors of the Greek tongue, according to whom the Apostles do speak, do show that Ecclesia in the times then, and always before signified one ordinary Congregation only, and not many.

His fifth error here is, that the New Testament noteth some Churches not [unspec 5] defining whether an entire church, or but a part And he citeth Act. 9.31. and 15. 3.4.41. and 18.22. Rom. 16.16.23.1. Cor. 4.17. and 6.4. and 11.16. and 14.33. with a great many other. But all these are likewise by him grossly abused. For in all these places the Scripture speaketh entirely & properly, not by a figure, whereof there is no cause appearing in the text. Only in Act. 15.4. the Church signifieth a part, namely the People: because the text expressly distinguisheth it here frō their Guids, who were a part also. Thus in all the whole Writings of the Apostles there is not one word which showeth a Diocesan Church to have ben then. Wherefore in this point he is quite overthrowen: yea his very text Apoc. • .20. which was the whole foundation of his Sermon and Defense, is found to be utterly perverted and abused together with the other places. So that all which be buildeth upon it & followeth in his writing after, is nothing but cavillation. And namely that against myself, in his pag. 6. where he saith, I have first strongly conceited that there is no true Visible Church but a Parish, & then have hailed the places of scripture where Ecclesia is mentioned, to the confirmation of my conceit. Let him not abuse people, as he doth, by the Equivocation of the word Parish. For I mean not that the Apostolic Churches were Parishes, as we cal a Parish now in England: that is, limited within a certain circuit of ground. Though a Church may be so limited, yet it is not necessary, neither was it so then. But then every Church was such a Parish as I noted a little before. And so it is very true. Then, why saith he that I have first conceited that there is no true Visible Church but a Parish. He might have seen it conceited before me by those noble and sacred instruments Zwingli, Luther, & the rest of our Attestators. But malice drave him against me, as it hath driven him against me in other slanders likewise. Wherefore rather he might have said, that in this not I, but they have hailed the Scripture from whom I have learned it. But I hope those worthies knew the meaning of the Greek Ecclesia better then our Doctor, though he be conceited enough of his own learning: and they maintained it prosperouslie against stronger adversities then he • is, or ever will be. But in deed he ought to blush to charge me in this case with haling the Sciptures, when him self is thus found to hale them and pervert them most unconscionably, as before is shown. He is often upon this, that the Church of Cenchreae, Rom. 16.1. was a Membrall Church to the Church of Corinth, and subject to it. But I have else-where shown this his presumptiō in taking the Apostles words figuratively here also without cause. As if the Apostle called but a part of a Church by the name of a Church, there being no reason in the text why he should here speak Synecdochically. Nay, to take the Apostle so, is contrary even to his own rule. I will press him with his own words; I would know of him what reason he hath to forsake the gramatical sense? And where the Holy Ghost speaketh properly, how dares be to expound him figuratively? Here I could leave of this point concerning his proofs from the New Testament for Diocesan Churches. But that he resumeth Rev. 1.20. which was his text, and laboreth to make show of some reason therein. First he saith; those 7. Churches contained the Cities and Countries adjoining. This is his Minor. Which is not only contrary to the property of the word Ecclesia before noted, but also contrary to the express text beside; which saith this Ephesian Church was 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in Ephesus; not without: nor containing that large Country & Territory adioying, as he saith it did then. The like the text saith of the Church in Smyrna, and of the Church in Pergamos, and so of all the rest. Signifying expressly that every of these Churches was contained (at least when they met) within their Cities, and did not extend it self to the Coūtry adjoining, viz. to the Civil Province of each of them. This reason therefore of his is very untrue. Yet he would fortify it further, assuming again that Our Savior writing to all the Churches of Asia nūbreth but seven. If he wrote to all, then it may seem that these 7. were general Churches, containing in and under them many other inferior Congregations. For it is not like, but in Asia properly so called (which was the Roman Province, and contained Phrygia, Mysia, Caria & Lydia ) there were moe ordinary Christian Congregations, then only 7. at that time. Nay, it is plainly false: our Savior here writ not to all the Churches of Asia. The text beside mentioneth Troas, Coloss • , Hierapolis, which were questionless within these •• undes. Magnesia & Trallis in all like •• hood were now also: and were no • embers now of any of those seven 〈◊〉 the Revelation. And it is more then •• kely that many other besides these ••• ere named, were also. Indeed Christ •• old that all within Asia, yea & out • f Asia too, should exemplarily take • dmonition by this which he writeth • etsonally & directly to these seven • one: which is all that he meaneth in • hose words Let him that hath an ear • ear what the Spirit saith to the Churches. • ut this is nothing to prove that all • hese other Churches were Mēbers sub • ect to those seven. Yet two reasons •• ore he hath. One is this; The Apo • les appointed Ministers to whole Cities and Countries adjoining, to labor so far as they • ere able the conversion of all. True. What • hen? Therefore they appointed them • o stand Ministers still to whole Ci • ies and Countries adjoining. I deny • his consequence. It is a plain fallacy • b eo quod est secundum qu • d, ad simpliciter. 〈◊〉 pray Sir, when Logike faileth you, play not the Sophister. The Apostles appointed Ministers to convert what they could in great Cities and Countries adjoining, yea and in the whole world: but not to stand Ministers & Pastors to all them when they should be converted: But only, according t • the order and form of a Church se • down in the New Testament. Which representeth to us each Ordinary. Congregation as an entire Church. Wherefore they might not remain as Pastors to all, when all were converted, because so Ordinary Pastors after the time of the New Testament should become substantially contrary to the ordinary Pastors constituted in the New Testament. Which certainly was never the Apostles intent: it is no less then blasphemy for any that will persist in saying the Apostles intended so. You will ask; how are Pastors so large and so general, contrary substantially to Pastors of but one ordinary Congregation? I answer, they are substantially contrary in that these may and do admit the Christian people's free consent in Church government, the other cannot: these cā personally administer to their whole flock, they possibly cannot, but by Substitutes and Curates, as we call them. For there the proper Pastors them selves are, & of necessity must be grand Pluralistes and Nōresidents. Which plainly are substantial differences in Pastors. Besides that, the one can execute a whole and entire Pastoral Office, the other cannot. &c. as else-where I have more fully declared. His 2. reason is this, In the Apostles times the Churches were not divided into Parishes, • or Presbyters assigned to their several Cures. Therefore then a Church was not a Pa • ish. I answer. Here again he doth nothing but Equivocat. Let him understand a Parish in that sense as before have defined it, and so I affirm that by the very Apostles the Churches were divided into several Parishes. That is, • ach Church was it self a distinct Pa • ish, and severally divided from all o • her. Also the Presbyters then were assigned to their several cures, viz. to these Parishes or Churches. But if he • ache a Parish as it is a Congregation li • ited within a certain circuit of • round, and as a Dioces is subdivided • nto many of them (as they are now) so • ve speak not of them. Yet commonly • r altogether he doth so speak of • hem. Wherefore here every man may •• e his vanity. He doth fly the true • uestion, and shufleth in things that • e never intended. Then, his gross vn • ruth & vnschollerlike assertion ought 〈◊〉 be marked, where he saith: The • ord Ecclesia is of a larger extent, then to sig •• fy only one assembly. I appeal to all au • entike Greek Authors, Thucydides, De • osthenes, Plato, Aristotle, Isocrates, &c. Out • f whom plentiful allegations may be brought, all of them showing that this word Ecclesia did evermore signify only one assembly, and never a dispersed multitude holding many ordinary set meetings in far remote places, as Diocesan and larger Churches do. Now according to these and other Greeks living in the Apostles days, do the Apostles speak. And this I have heretofore often propounded and affirmed, as a principal ground, and cause of our dissent from the Church state in England. And the ground is certain: it cannot be with reason spoken against. The D. here putteth in to the contrary, the use of the word Ecclesia, in Eusebius, who useth it to signify sometimes a Diocesan and Provincial Church. He doth so sometimes, I deny it not. And so after him the Fathers do use the word likewise, as Epiphanius, Theodoret, Chrysostom, and the Councilles, and History writers, &c. All this we know well. But what have we to do with these Authors, so late, and so partial, as these all were touching the exposition of the Greek word Ecclesia? The time that Eusebius wrote in, was about 340. years of Christ, or little less. All the rest wrote after him. At which time, or before, viz. presently under Constantine the outward form of the Church did so alter and change from that under the Apostles, even in substantial points of Church polity, or in such points as did come near to the substance of it, that it appeared outwardly to be almost not the same. And as the state of the Church altered, so the Fathers and Councils which were then (much affecting that state) did alter the old use of • he words pertaining to these matters. As they practiced, so likewise they spake and wrote. And so have most men followed after them. Whereby at the last Antichrist was undoubtedly advanced. But our noble forefathers of late, having discovered this mystery of iniquity, have found out also the corruption & depravation even of this word Ecclesia which hath ben extended larger, and farther then Apostolically it was. The which abuse of this very word doubtless was a pregnant reason and means (among other) to extend the Church and Governement thereof to that Universality which it came to, and is still vehemently challenged by the Catholics. Wherefore great cause have we ad originem reverti to go back even up to the first original and beginning, as Cyprian well adviseth us. For so, saith he, cessat error humanus: thus, and not otherwise, error which hath begun from men, will cease. Wherefore we must refuse Eusebius, Epiphanius, Theodoret, and all either in or after their times for judges or interpreters of matters or words specially touching Church-government. The form whereof inclined toward alteration, yea somewhat before them (as we may perceive in Nic. Council • ) through Human ambition and desire of greatness, which is incident even to the godliest & best men. But under Constantine and after, it degenerated much more. Wherefore in conscience to God, and to his blessed word, we must leave all men, when they so palpably differ from the Scripture, as in this cause they do, & cleave only and inseparably to the plain and proper writing of Christ's Testament.

He endeavoreth to make void some of our reasons against Diocesan Churches under the Apostles. Which he doth very poorly. 1. He showeth that the Church of Jerusalem exceeded the proportion of one particular assembly, ordinarily meeting in one place. I grant it, and have granted it heretofore. But he cannot show that this Church now had in it mo ordinary, set, and constant assemblies then one. Which is the point. He addeth, It was never intended to be one Parish among many, but to be a Mother Church, when by God's blessing it should beget others to be severed from it in particular assemblies, & yet to remain subordinate and subject to it, as children to the Mother. The very same was affirmed by him before of all the Primitive Churches. But all this is fall • t was intended by the Apostles that Jerusalem's Church should be one Parish among many others: and indeed to be as a Mother Church in reverence and reputation, yet as a common Sister with the rest in power & jurisdiction. They also intended both in Jerusalem, and in every other City that the Bishop and his presbytery should be set over no more but one particular Congregation and that as more Congregations should be constituted, everyone should have a Bishop, & also a Presbyterie, if it might be. All this I say the Apostles intended both in Jerusalem and everywhere else in the world. And first, this my reasons before rehearsed do soundly prove. Also Ignat. epistles do plainly show that the practice was so then everywhere: yea in the Country, as well as in the Cities, wheresoever there were any Churches then. Ignatius words are these, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Without these there is no Church, no meeting together of the Saints, no holy assembly. This is Universally spoken. So again: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 To every Church (for so it may well be translated) there is one Bishop with a company of Persbyters & Deacons. Where Ignat. meaning is that every where it ought at least, so to be. In which Calvin likewise consenteth; Saying, Vnaquaeque nomen & authoritatem Ecclesiae iure obtinet. Everyone of the Congregations (which were dispersed Oppidatim & Vicatim in the Country towns and Villages) obtaineth by right the name and authority of a Church. Again, Quod orbi Vniver so prestiterunt Apostoli, id gregi suo debet Pastor vnusquisque. That which the Apostles were to the whole world, the same ought every Pastor be to his own Flock. Zwingli also (before hin) is herein of all other the most clear and resolute. I touched many of his places before. But here I think it fit to lay forth his words more fully. First, to show that every Church ought to be but one ordinary Congregation, and that in the N. Testament it was so, he saith, Vox Ecclesiae proprie exposita non aliud quàm cetum vel populi Cōgregationem, & totum plebis collegium significat. Vnde singulas paraecias Ecclesiae vocabulo not are licet, cum per hoc cetus & cōgregati in vnū populi multitudo intelligatur. The word Church properly expounded signifieth no other thing then an assembly or meeting together of the people, and the whole gathering together of the people. Whence by the word Church we may note and signify every particular Parish: Seeing by this word is understood the multitude of an assembly & of the people meeting together in one place. Of the Church of Corinth under the Apostles, he saith, Non equidem negare poteris Paulum hoc loco communem totius populi fidelis Ecclesiam intelligere, qui in vnum collectus Scripturae sensus ab alijs expositos attentus percipit. Populus ergo, & fidelis Christianorum oninium Ecclesia Doctors suos dijudicat, & de illorū doctrina, sana ne sit vel impia, pronūciare solet. Truly thou canst not deny that Paul understandeth in this place the common assemby of the whole faitful people, which being gathered together in one place attentively heareth the senses of the Scripture expounded by others, wherefore the people, and faithful assembly of all the Christians judgeth of their Teachers, & is wont to pronounce of their Doctrine whether it be found or wicked. Likewise elsewhere he saith "that the Corinthian Church erat Paraecia, was a Parish. And again likewise. The Ephesin Church thē was Concio, a particular assembly. And questionles as he thought of these, so likewise he thought of Jerusalem's Church: yea of every true visible Church indefinitely. Of which he saith, Capitur Ecclesia pro peculiaribus Congregationibus, qui ad auditionem verbi, ad Communionem Sacramentorum commode in aliquem vnum locum convenient. Graeci parikia • voc 〈◊〉 . De huiusmodi Ecclesiâ Christus loquitur, Math. 18 Sic Paulus 1. Cor. 1. & 14. The Church is taken for the particular Congregations, which to the hearing of the word and re • eaving the Sacraments do come together commodiously into one place The Grecians call them Parishes. Of such Christ speaketh, Math. 18 17. & Paul 1. Cor. 1. & 14. And that every of these Churches and Parishes should have the power of government & judging of causes among themselves, & that we must follow herein only the Scripture, he showeth a little before that it is his meaning. Where expressing what Church he speaketh of, and also the very cause why there is such strife among men about the Church, he saith: A multis iam seculis ad nostra vsque tempora quae sit Ecclesia, certamen fuit, ortum nimirum ex regnanai cupiditate. Nam hoc sibi quidam arrogarunt, vt se dicerent esse Ecclesiam, vt omnia corum manu administrarentur. Omissis autem hominum commentis quibus quidam hâc in re nituntur, ex Scriptures sacris & mente spiritus de Ecclesiâ scribemus. Quod Graeci Ecclesiam, Hebraei Kahal vocant, Latini Concionem. There hath ben controversy of old even to our times, what the Church is, which riseth indeed from a greediness to rule. For this some men do arrogat to thenselves that they say thenselves are the Church, to the end that all things may be done by their hand. But we letting go men's devises whereon in this cause some do rest, we will write of the Church out of the holy Scriptures and mind of the spirit. That which the Greeks cal a Church, the Hebrews call a Congregation, the Latin • an Assembly. See how lively he painteth out and taxeth also our Church state in England, though primarily he intendeth the Papists. And remember that to every of these Churches he alloweth a Bishop, as before I have noted. So that the D. might have spared his proud boast, that All the Disciplinarians in the world are not able to show that there were, or ought to have ben after the division of Parishes, anymore then one Bishop for a whole Diocese. Neither should he have called us for this our assertion New foolish Disciplinarians. His worship doubtless is wise, when all these our Attestators and abbettors be fools. Also, that his great challenge to his adversary is thus answered. Now to proceed: he saith, it is not probable that Jerusalem's Church in the Acts did ordinarily meet in one place. I answer; yet it is certain they had not then many ordinary, set, and constant companies meeting together. Which is the point we stand on: will he never see it? Further he saith, The Apostles were never intended to be members, all, or any of them, of one Parish. Which is not so; they were truly Members of every Church or Parish occasionally, that is, where & when, they were present; though cons • antly and necessarily they were not of any one. Again he saith, The meetings Act. 6.1. & 15.22 26 were not Parishonal, bur Synodical. They were Parishonal. Indeed the later was both, I take it. Where the Apostles and Elders met first Synodically a part to debate the controversy: but Parishionally, or with the whole Church, when they decreed and set down their resolutiō. Before he said these meetings of the Church were Panegyricall, & not ordinary. Which again is not true. Such meetings are out of many Cities and Countries: but here the Church of Jerusalem only assembled, and (in the 15 of the Acts ) 2. or 3. out of Antioch. Again those are, when sundry ordinary set assemblies do meet in one: but these all were of one Church (as I said) having in it not many ordinary set assemblies. Lastly here matters were handled which pertain to a Church to perform ordinarily so oft as occasion is. Therefore they are not to be called extraordinary; much less were they like the meetings at Paul's Cross or at the Spittle, as he saith: least of all were they Panegyricall. His objection from Act. 21.20. of the many 10000. believing Jews, I have answered else-where. The rest is of no moment.

In his 6. Chapter he setteth against some other of our reasons, viz. touching the Churches of Corinth, Ephesus, & Antioch under the Apostles. Of all of them he saith, Though it should be granted that each of these Churches in the Apostles time did ordinarily assemble together in one place, yet would it not follow that therefore each of them was but a Parish: much less that all Churches should be but Parishes, and that every Parish should have a Bishop. Verily all this doth follow: neither hath he with any true reason denied it: but all reason is for it, as before I have shown. Then beginning, with the Church of Corinth, he dealeth deceitfully, leaving out our principal proof, viz. 1. Cor. 14.23. The whole church came together in one. Which cannot be such as might be written to the Church of England, as he saith most untruly. Of this I have said more elsewhere. To Act. 20.28. of the Church of Ephesus he saith, it needs not signify only the Congregation of a Parish. Yet the words are, Attend, or Cleave close unto all the flock: and the Apostle nameth it also a Congregation. Which being taken for a Visible Company, is ever more with authentic Grecians an ordinary Congregatiō only, as I have oft observed. So that properly and truly it cannot be (as he would have it) either the Universal, or a National, or Provincial, or Diocesan Church. Neither can the Pastors of such cleave close to all such s • ockes, nor possibly be present to the whole. But they must be Nōresidents, which questionles these Ephesin Pastors were not, as hath ben said. Wherefore this place still is a good argument for us. And so is that touching Antioch also, where Act. 14.27. Paul and Barnabas gathered the Church together into one particular assembly, as the text importeth. It is untrue and against the letter of the text, to say (as he doth) some of the chief, perhaps not many, perhaps not any, beside the Clergy. The • e perhapses are miserable and desperate shifts. And what forbiddeth Husbandes, Wives, Servants and children of ripe years and understanding to have ben there:

Hitherto he hath labored to show that the Churches mentioned in the New Testament were not each of them only one ordinary Congregation, but that they were Diocesan Churches. Which how insufficiently he hath done, every child may perceive. By the way, he obtrudeth a foolish conceit on us, as if by these aforesaid places of the N. Testament, we intended to prove that the Churches still remained (till 200. years of Christ) such as we hold they were at the first. But let him take that collection to himself: it is none of our meaning, Yet where he maketh so much a do about the space of 200. years, that we should say for so long time there was no Diocesan Church. The truth thereof is very perspicuous and certain, & let the D. know that I can easily maintain it. Therefore let us see what he hath against it.

Where first I will note what a cavil he hath against us for abridging and restraining the primitive Church to 200. years only. To which I answer, in respect of taking the Primitive Church as a pattern for us to follow, so we restrain it yet shorter, even to the Apostles times only, yea to the times of writing the N. Testament, yea to the N. Testament it self only. And we affirm, if any do follow any authority beside, they do profanely, irreligiously, adulterously, & no better. So that in this our D. & D. Bilson likewise, where being without all proofs in Christ's Testament, they heap up Fathers upon Fathers, and most eagerly cry out that we hold against the Universal & perpetual practice of the Church of Christ, if they could make some show hereof, yet I say seeing they have not, nor cā bring one sound proof for themselves in Christ's Testament, therefore they use here but a carnal reason, and contrary to the honor of God. They make flesh their arm, and put not their trust in the living God. They dignity to themselves pits that can hold no water. It is true, the Universal and perpetual practice of Christ's Church is to be held always good and holy. This I grant: but it is because such practice evermore hath the Apostles plain writing for it, and with it. Which the Churches said practice cannot be destitute of. But yet suppose our adversaries had some kind of general consent of men for thē as they pretend, seeing they cannot indeed produce the Scripture more then the Papists do, who also pretend the like Universal consent for their turn; or suppose that they do but pretend all this Universality & perpetuity, being far from it indeed; then why (I pra • ) should not we answer them as D. Bilson sometime answered the said Papists, Saying, If you want the foundation of faith and religion (he meaneth the Scripture) in vain you do seek to make a show of Catholicism with such patches and pamplets, &c. When you muster the Fathers to disprove the Scriptures, and to establish an unwritten faith under the credit of traditions, you corrupt the Writers, and abuse the Readers. Now cite not only 9. but 9. score Fathers if you will for Traditions, & the more you stir the worse you spcede. Truth (he meaneth the Scripture) is authority sufficient against all the world. One man with truth is warrant against all the world: yea every private man for his own person may embrace God's Laws, whosoever say nay. And as Tertullian hath, against this no man may prescribe, nor space of time, nor patronage of persons, nor privilege of places. Though the whole world pronounce again the word, yet God will be true, and all men liars. God speaketh not now but in the Scriptures. How excellently are these things written, if he himself and his associates would follow the same, or would suffer us to follow it? The effect whereof is, that not only we are bound evermore to hold fast God's word and never to admit the carnal reasō of Human consent in Divine matters (such as our questiō of the form of Christ's Church is) but also it notifyeth D. Bilsons open cōtradictiō to himself, who presseth hardly against us that which he denieth to the Papists. Is God an accepter of persons? Is it ill for Papists to plead Universal consent, and yet must we content ourselves with it & rest thereon? Shall he say to us, Is not the whole Church a lawful and sufficient witness in that case? And that it is enough, if any Christian persons deserve to be credited. And yet shall he say to Papists, It is alike Haereticall to believe without Scripture, a • to believe against Scripture. Yea, even to ourselves when he list he can say, Make us good proofs out of Scriptures, or leave tying God's ordinances to your appetites. Wherefore we must crave leave in our cause also to answer him and all of his mind with his own words afore rehearsed. And likewise with D. Reynold, that No Human proof is sure in Divinity: & Truth is not to be tried by consent of Fathers: & For myself, I assure you that neither dead nor quick, Fathers nor children shall persuade me anything in matter of religion, which they cannot prove by Moses & the Prophets, or (which he meaneth) by the Apostles writings.

Now thus the Churches Universal & perpetual consent being no good proof in Divinity, the whole Churches consent at some time only, is a proof much worse, and by no means to be admitted. Though Augustine in a certain place, (it seemeth) held it good yet it is his error: as where he saith, Si quid tota hodie per orbem frequentat Ecclesia, hoc quin ita faciendum sit disputare, insolentissimae insaniae est. If the whole Church through out the world at this day observe anything it is insolent madness to reason against it. Certainly there have ben and may be Catholic errors, which yet questionless may be, yea ought to be reproved by all them that understand them.

Well: but have our adversaries a Universal consent of the whole Church at any time? Alas, they are far from it. Neither D. Bilson, nor D. Downame, nor they all have alleged, neither can they allege, half a quarter of the whole Church at any time. What then? Then they are to lavish of their words, in saving they have the Universal consent of the whole Church. They indeed come short of it by many hundred thousands. A poor few God knows they cite, in comparison of all. It may be they name some of the chief & most famous in their days: Yet it followeth not that all who lived then were of their mind. Neither is it necessary that all differences should be recorded in writing: nor that all Records should be preserved, & come to our hands. So that they are far from proving a Universal consent at any time, much less at all times of the Church.

But what speak I of Universality and perpetuity? Let our adversaries not equivocat. Let them deal plainly. Let them use no deceit in words, nor force to men's consciences. And then I assure thee (good reader) nothing but novelty and iniquity is in their Defense and assertion against us. I have shown before, that in our controversy which we have at this day. we speak against only a proper Diocesan Church and the Bishop thereof, where the people's free consent is wholly denied them, as it is in England: and our adversaries defend namely this Diocesan Church and Bishop. Of this particularly and precisely is all their great and glorious commendation and praise, which they publish. Now to the point. Is this kind of Diocesan Church, and this kind of Bishop Apostolical? Have they Universal & perpetual approbation for this? Nothing less. I appeal herein to our right worthy Attestators before alleged, yea to all indifferent and impartial witnesses; yea to the partial also in times of antiquity, who do stand with us. By all true evidence it will be as clear as the light at noon day, that this foresaid proper Diocesan Church and Bishop were not in the world till after 200. years of Christ, which is the time limited by us: Indeed, not till after 300. Nay, it was after 400: and longer also. As I have shown before. So that both D. Bilsons and D. Downames Defences which they have made for the present Church-state in England, even in the substantial points of government therein, are clean frustrate. Neither is the same Apostolical, neither hath it Universal, nor perpetual, nor indeed any old approbation among Christians, as they colourably pretend. But it is proved to be novel, and merely of the wit, and will of men, and that after the time of Antichrists rising.

The contrary obiectons of our adversaries I will here observe, as near as I can. First, that which D. Downame borrowed of D. Dove. viz. that Mark constituted a Diocesan Church in Alexandria. But this I have shown before to be a mere forgery of these two D. D. grounded upon a false translation of their author Eusebius. And here I cannot but remember a second, and a third like falsifying of Eusebius by D. Dove in his Defense. The former of these is pag. 13. where he saith, Eusebius words be these, Timothy was the first Bishop of the whole Precinct of Ephesus in as ample manner as Titus of all the Churches of Crete. Eusebius saith not that Timothy was: but he saith, it is reported that Timothy was the first Bishop of Ephesus, as Titus of the Churches of Crete. Again, Eusebius saith not of the whole precinct of Ephesus, nor in as ample manner. There are no such words in Eusebius. Thirly, that which Eusebius hath indeed, viz. Timothy was said to have ben Bishop of the Parish in Ephesus: this he rendereth not, but perverteth. For in Ephesus, is not without the City, much less the whole precinct of Ephesus containing the large Country adjoining. Yea that the Church in Ephesus was but a Parish then, Ignatius showeth writing to the whole Church of Ephesus, & saying to them, When you come oft together into the same place, &c. Therefore the whole then did come together in one place. And it is not only false, but absurd to say that the like may be spoken now of the Diocesan Church of London. Thus therefore Eusebius is perverted twice by D. Dove. His 3. falsifying of him is, where Eusebius saith of John the Apostle in a certain City 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , having refreshed the Breth • en, and looked on the Bishop that was set over all the said brethren of that place, he committed a young man to him. But the D. setteth it down thus, John the Apostle committed the charge of a young man to a Bishop qui super cunst • s Episcopos erat constitutu • , which was set over all the rest of the Bishops thereabout. As if then there had ben an Archbishop, or a Bishop over Bishops. So saith this Doctor, as out of Eusebius. But he abuseth his author. Eusebius hath not such a word. And yet D. Downame also allegeth the same place, though he cunningly forbeareth to mention the words. Doct. Downame further presseth Eusebius in that he saith 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 it is reported that Titus was Bishop of the Churches of Crete. He translateth, it is recorded in Histories. But he cannot make that good in this place. For the word signifieth any relation, or narration, or report of a matter. And Eusebius useth always to name his author, & at full to set down the words, when he groundeth upon any written history. So he citeth very often Egesippus, Clemens, Dionysius, Tertullian, &c. Wherefore question • es here he meaneth some other report, or tradition, and speech of mē, I know not whom. And in setting down such matters, he is nothing curious many times, as before I have signified. Not seldom he reporteth fabulous things, yea whē he nameth his author, as is well known. And yet he is all the warrant and ground which any writer hath (either young or old) for Tius his being Bishop of Crete. Theodoret, Epiphanius, Chrysostomus, Jerome, &c. have all their inducement so to think from hence. All these also them selves were great Prelates, or lovers of Prelates, and therefore we may hold them partial in setting down and receiving such reports. What wisdom then is in Do. Downame to say it is an uncharitable and unlearned part, yea intolerable impudency to deny credit to such authorities? It is rather intolerable impiety and plain idolatry, to set up these and such like for rules of our faith, and warrants to our conscience (as the D. laboreth to do) in this cause. Howbeit further, Eusebius saith not that Titus was said to be Bishop of Crete; but only so as Timothy was Bishop of Ephesus. Where he seemeth to mean that both of thē were then thought to be not proper Bishops, but in the general sense and understanding of the word Bishop. And so he seemeth to mean also that Mark was said to be Bish. of Alexādria: whom yet he nameth an Apostle and Evangelist: & James (an Apostle in deed) Bishop of Jerusalem. I say, in a general sense; but not Bishops properly. And so truly the other Fathers after Eusebius, do seem to mean: and we accord thus with them. Otherwise we must needs deny credit to them herein, viz. if Eusebius &c. say these were proper Bishops. For it is not possible that they could be so: seeing they were both Superior, and also Divinely distinguished from proper Bishops, as anon we shall see further, where further occasion will be given us to answer D. Downame about Timothy & Titus Bishoprikes.

Again, D. Downame citeth out of Council Carthage 3. and Ephes. 1. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 from the beginning, and even from the Apostles, as Doct. Bilson before him avoucheth. But both of thē wrest the Councilles. For they say not so: only they say, that Dioceses should remain such as they were from the beginning, that is, ever since Dioceses were appointed. Not from the beginning simply: but from the beginning of Dioceses, which though it were long before these Councils, yet as I judge it was not before Dionysius Bishop of Rome. And touching the Apostles, the Ephesin Council speaketh of the Apostles Canons. Being strangely deceived in attributing them to the Apostles, as any one may perceive if he see the Can. 4.5.8.17, 18.27.47.49.65. 68, 84.25. Wherefore they are falsely fathered on the Apostles, being but base and bastardly stuff in respect of them. And yet they intend no proper Diocesan Church, viz. like ours in England. Neither were these Canons before Constantine's age. So that our D. D. do argue from hence very unworthily. But D. Down. boasteth much that Ignatius calleth him self Bishop of Syria. Why? What then? Ignatius here showeth his Nation, not the extent of his Bishoprike. He showeth he was a Bishop of Syria, or a Syrian Bishop; & not the Bishop of all Syria. Likewise to the Magnesians that his Church was a most famous & notable Church in Syria, not the only Church there, much less extended over all Syria. Neither was Philip Archbishop of Crete, as the Doctor would make him seem by perverting and abusing Eusebius again. For his words 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 their Bishop, are to be referred to the Church of Gortyna mentioned a little before. Not to the very next words, which are to be understood by themselves as it were in a parenthesis, thus; (( 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ) together with the rest of the Churches in Crete. To take Eusebius thus, is the right taking of him here. For presently him self openeth him self, saying it was the Church of Gortyna which was 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 under him. And yet more plainly after, where with special respect to the former place in question, he saith of this Philip, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , whō we know by Dionysius i • ordes to have ben Bishop of the Parish in Gortyna. So then he was not Bishop of all Crete by Eusebius testifying. The Doc. in another place contradicteth him self, and maketh Pinytus at this very time to be Bishop of Candie, that is, of all Crete, as he meaneth. In deed Eusebius saith, that this Pinytus was 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Bishop of them in Crete. But all men understand that he meaneth here to show but his Nation, not the extent of his Bishoprike. For Eusebius declaresh after, that Pinytus was Gnossita •• paraciae Episcopus, the Bishop of the parish in Gnossi. Which certainly was not Over all Crete, neither was Gnosi • the mother City of Crete. That which the Doctor presumeth of Evaristus Bishop of Rome, that he there constituted a Diocesan Church and divided parishes, I have answered it before. His testimonies out of Tertullian, Cornelius of Rome, and Cyprian for a Diocesan Church, prove nothing. Touching the first, Tertullian saith not that in Rome or in any City then, the Christians were divided into many set, constant, and certain companies, and so had divers such ordinary assemblies. Tertullian saith no such matter, which yet is the point. Indeed, like a Rhetorician he amplifieth the multitude of Christians and Christianlie affected in his days; and that is all that he doeth Apol 37. and ad Scapul▪ They are in truth Rhetorical amplifications. Yet, I say, he comprehēdeath in these great numbers all Christianly affected, and all their favorers; not only the open members of the Church. Now such may be so many, as he there noteth. Nothing of all this we deny. But he showeth not, that yet in any City the open resolut Christians were divided into divers ordinary set companies, as I said. The like do I answer to that of the very great and innumerable people under Cornelius Bishop of Rome. They were so many, that no man among them knew the first number of them. And so I suppose at this day the church is in Paris, in Rouan. &c. Where yet the Church is not divided into several constant and set Meetings: but all belong only to one certain & constant assembly. Again under Cornelius the Christian people were not so many but one Trophimus a Presbyter drew away from him the greater part of them after Novatian; & repenting, he brought them back with him again. Also the Church assembled in one place to elect Cornelius, and a little before Fabianus, to be their Bishop. Wherefore they were not absolutely innumerable. But this is plain, and it cannot be disprooved, that yet the Church in Rome had not divers set, constant, ordinary assemblies. Nor yet Cyprians Church in Carthage. All the which came together for his election, and under him also for all ordinary Church business. The Do. saith untruly of him that he was Bishop of Afric. Nazianzen doth make him Bishop Hesperiae Vniversae, of all Spain at least, as well as of Afric. And Prudentius goeth further: saith he, Vsque in ortum Solis, & vsque obitum: from the rising of the Sun, to the going down thereof. But doth any man believe that Cypri •• s Bishoprike was so large? or that these Authors meant so? Nothing less. They meant only that the example of this holy man, and his doctrine did good thus far. I grant also that by his letters he admonished and informed divers other▪ Bishops near about Carthage: and so he did Cornelius of Rome, &c. But this was out of his singular zeal for the truth and love to his brethren. Also he prevailed much in so doing. Howbeit this was through his great credit & reverence they had of him: it was not out of any Metropolitan power that he had, or superior office which he exercised over thē. For he had none such, though he were a Metropolitan in respect of the place where he was Bishop. And altogether so did Policrates of Ephesus, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 he lead or guided the Asian Bishops. And no otherwise Irenaeus B. of Lions 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 did look unto certain Churches thereabout in France. And Victor B. of Rome was a Metropolitan no otherwise also. Although without any prejudice to us, we might well grant these to have been then such Metropolitans & Diocesans, as before we acknowledged Julianus of Alexandria to have ben, who was somewhat ancienter then they. Other Diocesan or Metropolitā Bishops after these, whom both D. Downame and D. Bilson do name plentifully, as they hurt not our main Assertion, viz. that no proper Diocesan Church was in the world before 200. years after Christ, so neither do we envy their appearing which was so late as it was. These D. D. do argue earnestly from Jerome saying that Bishops above Presbyters were at Alexandria even from Mark the Evangelist. Which we willingly agree unto. For they were not Diocesan Bishops, not over many ordinary Congregations. And such also were those Angels of the Churches, which are mentioned in the Revelation. This we constantly avouch, these we allow, and what get our adversaries by that? We hold that such Bishops be Apostolic and Divine: yet Diocesan both titular, and ruling Bishops, and also Lord Bishops came in • a • latim by little and little, by Human policy, and ambition, and tyranny long after. But Jerome there saith that these Bishops were in a higher degree above Presbyters: which Beza denieth. Also they were constant Presidents in the Meetings: which Beza also denieth. Beza saith, Bishops and Presbyters then differed not gradu, in degree; meaning in degree of power: that is, in Maioritie of power they differed not then. But in degree of Order, he granteth they did differ: which I call Prioritie of Order. Which also Ie • om meaneth by his higher degree in this place. And so herein we all agree. But as touching Beza's conjecture of the Angel of Ephezus, viz. that peradventure he might be a President not continuing, but changeable, I suppose few approve it. For my part, I do not. Though I greatly honor the name & memory of Master Beza, yet there is no need to be of his opinion in this. A changeable Presidencie (no doubt) was among those Bishops Act. 20.28. But I am of mind that none of these Bishops (meant by the Angels ) Rev. 2. & 3. were changeable. In all likelihood they were constant and continuing for term of life. And such a difference (Presidentiall) might well come in among the many joint Pastors of the Church at Ephesus by this time, and yet they all remain equal in honor and power Pastoral. Howbeit, these constant Presidents were Bishops then to no Diocesan multitude dispersed abroad in many ordinary set assemblies, but to one ordinary assembly only, as is noted often before. And so the great argument of these Doctors which they take from the Succession of Bishops, to prove our Bishops as they are in England to be lawful, may appear to be a mere Sophism & deceit. For the Bishop of Rome also may by such a show of Succession prove his Office and Function lawful, as in deed he doth endeavor to do, and doth it as well as they. But though all these Bishops have one name, viz. Bishops; yet between the first and the last of them there are seen many real and substantial differences in their Offices. To observe therefore this egregious Equivocation, I remit the Reader to pag. 98. 99. 128. 129. 211. 212. before.

Yet Doctor Downame † sticketh hard to this, that James the Apostle was a Bishop. What? a proper Bishop? It is simply impossible, whosoever say otherwise. Let the Reader mark that all our question is about Bishops properly so called, & not about the name Bishop used in a general sense. There is a general taking of the word Bishop, and there is a proper taking of it. Apostles and Evangelistes may generally & improperly be called Bishops, the rather if they reside long in one place, and do execute a Bishop like Office there. As James, I grant, did in Jerusalem, and Titus in Crete, yea by assignment of the Apostles. And questionless so the Ancient Writers mean, where they: call James Bishop of Jerusalem, and Titus Bishop of Crete. For neither James nor Titus were, nor could be proper Bishops there. Which I show thus.

The Proposition is most evident, and granted of our adversaries. The Assumption they neither ought, nor dare deny. For James having frō Christ a Ministry and Calling to all Churches throughout the world, this he retained still, he never lost that, it were sacrilege to reduce him from it, and to shorten him of this his right given him frō heaven. Neither could the Apostles do it, if they would. Here it will be an absurd evasion to say; James had in him two Offices, viz. an Apostles, and a proper Bishops Office. In respect of the former he was still unlimited: in respect of the later he was limited to the Church of Jerusalem. This I say, is so absurd & frivolous, as nothing can be more. And yet it is the only thing that can be answered. I pray, can one and the same man by any distinction be capable of privative contraries at one time? Can the same man be in fetters and at liberty at once? Can one be blind, and see also? Can a man be a Christian, & an insidell too? No more could James be both appropriated to Jerusalem, and not appropriated at one time. Neither could the proper Bishops Office be conjoined with an Apostleship. For it were in vain. Seeing the Apostleship containeth the whole Bishoply Office, and more too. But the Apostles in the Churches administratiō did nothing in vain, & idly. Again, though the Apostleship contained in it the whole office of a proper Bishop, yet this was Materially, not Formally. As a Privy Counsailler in England hath in him the Office and power of a Justice of peace: also a Shilling containeth a Groat. But no man that meaneth plainly, will say; A Shilling is a Groat: or, a Privy Counsailler is a Justice of peace. If any do, it is not rightly nor truly spoken. For not the Matter, but the Form doth give the proper name. Yet I do not deny all use of improper speeches. I grant, on some occasion men may speak generally and vndistinctly of things, as I deem those Ancients did of Bishops. Nevertheless in ordinary teaching, and specially in reasoning and disputing we must ever use exact and proper terms, avoiding generalities and words improper. Otherwise we equivocate. To this reason, that the Apostles gave not James any power which he had not before, as an Apostle. D. Downame answereth that which is both false, and also most presumptuous. For plainly he saith, James the Apostle had not the power of Jurisdiction before he was designed Bishop of Jerusalem. O haughty Bishops! Who arrogat to themselves a power beyond the Apostles. No marvel if he say, it is no depressing of an Apostle to become a proper Bishop. For only this may l • ft up a Bishop above an Apostle; his other idle respects and considerations neither did, nor could.

Nay, but Titus, & Timothy, and their Bishopriks, do make the most business of all. Of whom D. Bilson saith, Here I must pray the Christian Reader advisedly to mark what is said & answered on either side. This indeed is the main erection of the Episcopal power and function▪ if our proofs stand; or subvertion, if your answer be good. For if this fail, well may Bishops claine their authority by the custom of the Church; by any divine precept expressed in the Scriptures, they cannot. Saith he so? Let us see then howe soundly this will stand. But first, I desire him to remember, if it happen that this his proof out of the Scrip •••• 〈◊〉 subverted, and then he be forced to fly to the Churches Custom for succor, that himself hath ruined, cast down, and defaced that weak hold all ready. So that there he can have no relief. Now then to his proofs out of scripture that Titus & Timothy were Bishops. He frameth 4. Arguments for it.

• 1. That power to ordain sit Ministers, to convent & discharge vnsit (prescribed to Titus & Timothy) was no power proper to Evangelists. We grant this wholly, even the Conclusion. It is another point: and nothing against us.
• The Conclusion of his 2. argument is like to the former: therefore we grant it also. For this proveth not that Timothy or Titus were proper Bishops, which is the question. Yet in the Minor where he saith, that Presbyteries claim this power committed to Timothy & Tite, even to ordain, examine, censure, & deprive Pastors. I deny this to be true: Presbyteries claim not this power. Neither have they it properly & originally, as Bucer shown before. Properly and originally the whole Church hath this power: the Presbyterie hath only the authority of administering the same, & that in the name of the whole Church, as Piscator and V • sinus before do express. And further I answer (by that distinction above noted;) This power of ordaining, examining, censuring, &c. committed to Timothy and Titus, the Presbyterie in deed hath and executeth Materially, but not Formally. Which maketh his Minor Proposition to be false most clearly.
• His 3. argument is concluded in no form. But where he saith, The precepts of Ordayning, and Censuring, are delivered to Timothy and Titus, and to those that should succeed them unto the end of the world. Ergo Timothies power & function in this behalf must be perpetual. This is true likewise Materially: but not Formally. Their Successors are to execute the same in deed always as touching the material actions. Those things must be done: but under divers forms of Ministries, or manners of administration. Here Timothy and Titus being properly Evangelistes did these actions under the form of an Evangelisticall Ministry. Sometime Apostles did the same actions, but under the form of an Apostolical Ministry. After them, Bishops did the same actions also: but under the form of a proper Bishops office. &c. Wherefore the perpetuity of these actions materially which Timothy and Titus did, proveth not the Office and Ministry of Timothy and Titus formally to be perpetual. This is a very weak conclusion, and very crooked.
• His 4. argument is, The whole Church of Christ since the Apostles times without exception hath so constred the Apostles words to Timothy and Titus touching their government. And he names Eusebius, Jerome, Ambrose, &c. D. Rainolds answereth Hart the Priest; I perceive the Pope must fetch his Supremacy from Earth and not from Heaven. You are fallen from Scripture to Eusebius. Even so our adversaries, when all is done they must fetch the Diocesan L. Bishops Office from earth and not from heaven. They fall from Scripture to Eusebius. &c. And yet not Eusebius not the rest do conster those precepts to Timothy and Titus, as belonging only to Bishops: much less did the whole Church of Christ since the Apostles times without exception. This is a strange Hyperbole. But these writers acknowledged Timothy and Titus to have ben Bishops. Nay, not Diocesan L. Bishops; they neither acknowledged nor knew any such in their times, as before hath ben shown. Yet only of these our question is. Again, they held Timothy & Titus not to be Bishops at all properly, but in a general sense; as before I observed. If they meant otherwise, they missed the truth, saith D. Rainolds. Howbeit, They suffered none but Bishops either to ordain or degrade Presbyters. Yet as I said before, not absolutely without the people's consent as our L. Bishops do. If any among them inclined to neglect the people herein, they did contrary to the Canons of those times. Lastly it is true, these ancients to much rested on Custom, & Counsaills of men, and human policy in setting the Church government: they (as Jerome ) inclined to much to approve Diocesan, Provincial, and Patriarchal Bishops with too absolute power, only grounding upon the Custom of the Church, though they knew they wanted Divine disposition. Whence afterward Antichrist easily sprang up. Now then I pray, with what color can Doct. Bilson from those precepts to Timothy and Titus plead for our Diocesan and Provincial L. Bishops, whom they nothing concern, and say, The words be singular, the charge is vehement, the parties were Bishops? And how vainly doth he insult, without reason charging us that Fire will better agree with water, then we with ourselves. Which is his familiar custom, not ours.

After him, let us see what D. Downame saith for Timothy and Titus Bishoprikes. Truly in effect he saith nothing more, for he followeth D. Bilson most diligently. Yet he hath a Cart-load of words, about this point which he knoweth well to be his only refuge. Wherein yet he can find no help. First I will examine the pith of his discourse: and thē I will set down reasons of mine own, proving soundly that Timothy & Titus were not proper Bishops. First, he saith, It is presupposed in the Epistles to Timothy and Titus, that the Apostle committed to them Bishoply authority. It is untrue, this is not presupposed. Then, the Epistles be the very patterns and precedents of Bishoply function. &c Well: what then? Then Timothy and Titus were Bishops. I deny this consequence. There is no truth in this. And T.C. answer to D. Whitgifts like argument is sound and good, though this great Logician calleth it sleight and frivolous. The directions to Timothy and Titus about Ordination and jurisdiction being not peculiar to Bishops, as he untruly addeth in the end. For him self giveth this power (and that rightly) to other Christians in case of necessity: and the truth giveth it to Apostles and Evangelists the Superiors of Bishops. His reason, these are perpetual directions, is an excellent reason to prove that this power is indeed essentially seated by Christ in the Congregation of the people. For it is certain, that such Christian Congregations only are perpetual. Apostles are not perpetual, Evangelistes are not perpetual; also Bishops, yea Presbyters are not perpetual in Churches under the Gospel. But a Congregation is perpetual: absolutely the gates of destruction shall never overcome it. Wherefore this power is essentially in the Congregation. And so the consequence is false; These directions are perpetual: therefore peculiar to Bishops. I say, this sequel cannot be true. Wherewith is conjoined another false reason, viz. They were not common either to other Christians, or other Ministers: therefore peculiar to Bishops. Nay; they were common. They may be, and are exercised by divers forms of administrations, as before I shown; & not all ways by Bishops. And yet I grant, thy are to be exercised most commonly, usually, and ordinarily by Bishops, I mean true Bishops. His own distinction here is good. There is potestas and forma vel modus potestatis. The power, & the accidental form and manner of the power. It is true, the power is perpetual: the accidental form or manner thereof is variable. In which respect the consequence also of his new Proposition, which once again he taketh for granted, once again I deny. The proof of his Assumption we grant, yet with a distinction In the Epistles to Tim. and Tit. the office of Bishops is described generally, but not as peculiar to Bishops: materially, not formally. And only so that power was to continue in the Church till the end. Also this viz. materially that power was not a higher power then Episcopal. But formally it was. And so his consequence is false. For an Evangelists power was higher: yea the Churches power (by whom simply sometime both the making of Ministers and Censures are performed) is higher then the Bishops power. Again he saith, this power of Bishops is so much of the Apostolical power as was to continue to the end. But then he should not make the Bishops power more then the Apostolical, as he doth. Which thus also appeareth, viz. the Apostles excluded not the people's consent: but his Bishops do. Howe then saith he, it is Apostolical. Besides, in all this he Equivocateth: for this power of Bishops is the Apostles (as I said) generally not properly, materially not formally. He would find a difference in his Refuter: but it is easily reconciled; viz. understanding him of divers kinds of Bishops, thus. Some kind of Bishops are in Christ's Testament: some absolutely have no place there. The former have power from Christ, the later have none. After, he maketh great outcries of Schismatical novelties, & dreams, & dotages, fantastical & fanatical spirits, and frenzy. Right as the Papists cry out, Haeretiks, Haeretiks. Thēselves being the greatest Haeretiks of all. But the Chritstiā reader may know that this is the Doctors fury, & malice against our Attestators before cited, and against others also who follow them. Yea, against himself it is, & some of his frindes. His slāder, that we maintain such popular government, as Morellius strived for, is sufficiently answered before. Some of the Separation I grant, are to offensive this way: which I am heartily sory for. They take the words in Math. 18.17. Tell the Church more popularly thē there is need, or then reason or good order would. Howbeit in this yet they hold the substance of the true Church-goverm. They err but in the Circumstāce of order, though it be to foul. That is, they will examine all scandals, &c. whatsoever in the presence & under the judgment of the whole multitude perpetually & necessarily. I say perpetually & necessarily. Wherein I wonder they see not the many very ill Consequents, which will & must insue many times As touching us, what we hold herein I have shown before. And our Docts. do most injuriously wrong Beza & the Geneva discipline (if that be Geneva discipline which Viret, Calvin, & Beza taught thē) in saying they differ materially frō us. Our D. asketh, Is there any show in Scripture or in reasō, that the sheep should rule their shepherd, or the flock their Pastor? The very voice of a Jesuit, & not of a Minister of the Gospel. Bellarm. argueth just so against the old Procestāts. As to the point let him know that reasonable sheep under the Gosp. have more to do in their spiritual government, thē brute beasts have to do in their government sensual. Lastly, here he can easily skoffe and revile the modest & Christian offer of disputatiō, & those that favor it, & some of us he will help to persecute: but undertake that Offer honestly & plainly he never will. He saith, we understand the speech of Laying on of hands as directed not to Timothy, but to the people; & to Titus, Avoid an heretic, or excommunicate him, that is, thou people. Which is false: we understand it not so He doth therefore herein slāder us. We know these words are directed to Timothy & Titus: yet to them not as Lord's over the people, nor as Sole rulers; but as Guides and directors of them. As Fathers to inform them, not as Masters to overrule them and force them. To them therefore by name, as the principal Agents in all ordinary government, the Epistles and these precepts were written. And so the Apostle here held it not needful to mention the people, though neither doth he exclude them. Seeing their consent in such affairs is elsewhere in Scripture sufficiently proved. And the Apostles practice in this behalf they knew well enough. Which known practice of the Apostles, it here behooved Timothy & Titus to have regard unto, together with these precepts written to them. For they stand together well enough. He saith, the Churches at first were governed by the Apostles, &c. I answer, they were. But not without the people's concurrence and consent, as presently before is observed. But D. Downame avouched, Our Bishops at this day have not greater autho •• tie in menaging Church causes then Timothy and Titus had Which is, notoriously untrue. These (following the Apostles) took the people's consent with them: our Bishops do not. They only taught them & persuaded them, & used spiritual power: ours, if they cannot persuade the people or their Pastors, will cast them in prison punishing their bodies & their purses. He saith, Timothy & Titus might use the presence or consent of the people, or the counsel and advise of the Presbyters in 〈◊〉 of greatest moment, as Princ • s do in Commonwealths. I thought it was a stately and princelike Prelacie which this Doctor hunteth after: though in many places of his book he dissembleth, and would not have them called Sole governors. Here he plainly showeth that he holdeth the Bishops may take the people's consent and Presbyters advise, if they like it; if not, then they may nevertheless proceed and not stand upon it, as Princes may do in Common wealths. Truly all found writers ever have held this in Church-government to be right tyrannical & wronghfull oppression of Christian Men's consciences. And yet (as I have oft said) we grant the sway of the Ecclesiastical government to be indeed in the Bishop ordinarily; but not absolutely.

The consequence of his next Propositiō, I deny also: viz. The things written to inform not Timothy & Titus alone as extraordinary persons, but them & their Successors to the end of the world, were written to inform Diocesan Bishops. They were not. Diocesan Bishops are no Successors of Timothy and Titus, nor intended by the Apostle. They came after by reason of that apostasy, which through God's determinat counsel was to come over Christendom. Without which going before, Antichrist could not have stood up. He addeth the authority committed to Tim. and Tit is perpetually necessary. It is true; Materially, not formaly, as before is said. Beside, Tim. & Tit. themselves had not the authority which Diocesan B • shops have. It was far less. Therefore these are not their Successors. Where he would prove it, first disjunctively; Either they, or the Presbyteries, or the Congregation were their Successors. I answer, this disjunction is insufficient. He reckoneth not Pastors or Bishops of one ordinary Congregation only. They were the immediate Successors of Timothy & Titus; speaking of such a successiō as they had, and might have being Evangelists. About 200. years after Christ, Titular Diocesans succeeded them. After 300. years, Diocesans with Maioritie of power and rule succeeded. After them long, came the proper and complete Diocesan Prelates, the Diocesan Lord Bishops. of whom our question is indeed. But among all these whosoever was a Bishop really of mo ordinary Congregations then one, therein he succeeded not Timothy, nor Titus, nor any Apos • le, Who never intended any such ordinary Successors. And succession in place with dissent in doctrine, is a false successiō. Beside, a Presbyterie did precede Timothy in Ephesus. Therefore they may lawfully succeed, as they do now in the Dutch and French reformed Churches. The people also have in act succeeded lawfully at sometimes, as the D. himself knoweth: and therefore so they may again on occasion. Then he would name Bishops that succeeded Timothi • and Titus. Meaneth he proper Diocesan L. Bishops? If he do not, he trifleth. But who are they? First, the Angel of Ephesus, and Onesimus. Nay, these were Bishops only of one ordinary Congregation, and that within the City Ephesus, as before I have noted. That Policrates, and Philip of Gortyna in Crete were such also, I have shown before: as also the Doct. falsehood about Philip. Where he saith, Every Metropolitan is a Diocesan, it is untrue. The first Bishops were Metropolitans, that is, Bishops in Mother-cities: yet they were not Diocesan Bishops, viz. over mo ordinary Cōgregations then one. He saith, he readeth not anywhere of the next Successor to Titus: indeed he readeth of no proper Successor to Titus at all, nor to Tim. &c. Ordinary Pastors of Congregations succeeded these extraordinary men, as they also succeeded the Apostles, viz. improperly, not in their whole and proper Offices.

Our D. (following D. Dove. ) would prove that Timothy & Titus had their ordinary residence in Ephesus & in Crete: because one was willed 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to abide at Ephesus, the other 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to redress further the things which he found there amiss. It is true, for a time each of them was so resident. But not always, nor till they died. For not long after Timothy was called away, and Tychicus another Evangelist was sent to Ephesus in his room. When, if Timothy had been there still, it seemeth there had ben no need of Tychicus, neither would Paul have left him vnsaluted and unnamed in that epistle to the Ephesians. Also the Apostle intended that Timothy being come from Ephesus should undertake the charge of Philipps. Therefore he was now loose and free from Ephesus. Writers also say that John the Apostle afterward was at Ephesus doing a Bishoply office: when surely Timothy was not Bishop there, yet as may be thought he was then living. Our D. addeth, that Bishops & other Pastors may be absent frō their cures upon special and extraordinary occasion. It is untrue, they may not. All religion and piety forbiddeth it, unless it be with their Churches express consent. Which Timothy here had not. The Apostle, as he alone placed him at Ephesus, so he alone without the Church called him away. You will say, and he alone might do so. True, the Apostle alone might do so with Evangelists, but he might not with Bishops and Pastors. These were more in their Churches power then so. Neither indeed had it ben a matter of good report, nor of good example (as his refuter saith well) if Timothy being the Ephesians proper Bishop had without their special grant gone from them, chiefly so long time, and so far of, and to take charge of another place. Neither verily had Paul any need so to take away a proper Pastor from his flock. The same likewise is to be said of Titus his departure from Crete, first to Rome, then to Dalmatia. But he will prove that they lived and died in Ephesus and Crete. If they did, yet it followeth not that therefore they were Bishops there; nor yet that they had ordinary residēce there all their life time. It might happen that travayling to & fro they might in the end of their days dy there. For somwhere they must dy. And yet they are not therefore Bishops of that place: neither had they therefore ordinary residence there till their end. But who saith they died there? Som, whose testimonies whosoever refuse to believe, do themselves deserve no credit. Yea, are they so infallible? Who are they? Dorotheus in Synopis, and on his word some other, he knows not well, who. Thē all this matter standeth on this Dorotheus, whose credit himself feareth. Indeed justly, for he is the most egregious fabler that ever writ. Here I wish it may be noted, that the Doct. seemeth to take delight to abuse the people with bastard writings, fabulous, false, and apocryphal stuff, which he useth as his familiar friends and witnesses very often; as the Epistles of Clemens and Anacletus, Dionysius Areopagita, the Canons of the Apostles, Dionysius Areopagita, the Canons of the Apostles, the Subscriptions of the Apostles Epistles, & this Dorotheus, from whom the other witnesses here by him cited, do take this report. Therefore in this it is not necessary to credit them anymore thē him. Further, to these & the like reasons of ours, If Timothy and Titus (who first were Evāgelists) did become proper Bishops afterward, then men may cōjoin things which God hath severed: yea limit & depress them whose Ministry God hath made general, unlimited, and superior. He answereth these are nice points, which none of the Fathers did ever understand. Certes we have a gross Doctor, who maketh nice to sever those whom God hath severed. Evangelists and Bishops or Pastors are so plainly severed by God & made divers persons, that nothing can be more plain. Where also it is as clee • e that Evangelists are by God made Superior in the Church, and Bishops or Pastors inferior; whom he maketh clean contrary. He excepteth against 1. Cor. 12.28. because Evangelists are not mentioned there. Yet there it appeareth that all Church-ministries are severed by God, of which Evangelists are one, as in the Ephe 4▪11. appeareth. So that also even from 1. Cor. 12.18. Evangelists distinction from Bishops and their Superioritie to them is proved well enough. Himself grāteth Evangelists to be extraordinary, general and unlimited Ministers; and that Timothy and Tit •• were such. Which is the truth. But this is false, when they betook them 〈◊〉 certain Churches, that they were appropriated and limited to them. Wherefore neither were they proper Bishops of them. Again; The D. cannot leave his equivocating, anymore them 〈◊〉 Black-amore can change his skin. For though vulgarly sometime an Evangelist is understood to be a writer of the Gospel, yet the Apostle understandeth not so Ephes 4.11. But here they are unlimited Companions and Coadiutors to the Apostles. In this sense (and so we also do mean) Mat • hew & John neither were, nor could be Evangelists, nor Mark a Bishop. Whosoever saith otherwise, they plain • y contradict the Apostle. But he pretendeth that the ancient Fathers held that Evangelistes and Apostles also might be Bishops. See before what a frivolous reason this is. Also see how vnreverent he is to Antiquity, whom he pretendeth devoutly to honor. He will have them indeed to seem fighters with God and resisters of the plain letter of the text, rather then defend them (as we do) with an honest excuse. It is honest to say, they called Evāgelists & Apostles Bishops in a general sense; or, if they did not well herein, yet that they did it in not sifting, nor much minding that which now with us is a main questiō, & therefore is & ought to be more exactly considered now. But to say of them, either that they deny Temoth. & Titus were Evangelists; or that they deny Evangelistes were by God made several from Bishops, or that those were superior to these, or that those were extraordinary and general Ministers: or to say they hold the Apostles did and could make them being such to become ordinary Ministers, limited to one Church, and one with Bishops: and that they hold this out of consideration and due sifting the matter. I say, thus to affirm of the Fathers (as the D. doth) is to make them resist the plain letter of the text, and to fight with God.

Yet, he for his part boldly saith, or rather shamelessly, that it was no debasing to Timothy & Titus, whē they were made Bishops, but an advancemēt; Albeit he knoweth the text above noted ( viz. Eph. 4.11.) maketh a Bishop or Pastor inferior to an Evangelist. And prove it he would: 1. Timothy received a ne • e Ordination: and so more authority. This is utterly untrue. He received no new Ordination. This was only when he was taken by the Apostle to be an Evangelist. And after this he never received more authority. He • addeth, were men admitted to the extraordinary function of Evangelists by the ordinary means of imposing hands? I answer, Yea • some Evangelists might be, like as some Apostles ( viz. Paul, & Barnabas, whose functions verily were extraordinary were so admitted. Then saith he▪ may we think that any but the Apostles ha • that authority wheresoever they came, which Timothy had at Ephesus, & Titus in Crete • l answer, yea questionless. Evangelists had, wheresoever they came; specially in the absence of an Apostle. He objecteth, Philip the Evangelist had not authority to impose hands. I answer, though here he follow D. Bilson, yet both do miss the purpose. This imposition of hands here is another thing: it was to give the miraculous gift of tongues. It was not to ordain to the ministry. Happily it was to furnish men for the ministry afterward: but this made them not Ministers. Indeed only the Apostles could by laying on of hands give the gift of tongues and the gift of prophesy: but in the Apostles absence others (as Evangelists, &c.) might lay on hands to ordain Ministers. Wherefore this is to rove fare from the point. The rest is answered elsewhere, viz. Paul spake not in the general & improper sense (whereof there is no reason nor cause) but properly where he willeth Timothy after he was at Ephesus, to do the work of an Evangelist. The Fathers before are answered: to whom Zwingli also here may be adjoined.

He would seem to bring new matter, but it is his old stuff; viz. that Timothies and Titus function in Ephesus & Crete, was not to end with their pe • so • s, but to be continued to their Successors It is answered before. That is, Materially it ended not, but formally it ended with their persons. It continued to their Successors, but under another form of ministry, viz of proper Bishops. Which also I noted in my Declarat pag 30. He saith, their being assigned to Ephesus and Crete was an ordinary function? I deny it, as touching them. He hath not a word to prove it. He saith, in Timothy and Titus as Evangelists nothing was extraordinary but their not limitation to any certain Churches. Which is untrue: their calling to the ministry was not ordinary. It was without the people's voice-giving: which was then ordinary in Pastors calling. Timothy I say came not to Ephesus by the people's election, nor Titus to Crete. Paul only authorised them to that Ministry. Therefore their calling or sending thither was also extraordinary. And T • mothie attained gifts by extraordinary means viz: by the Apostles miraculous laying on of hands; though the D. deny it. Then he addeth 3. other errors. 1. The power of ordination and jurisdiction was wholly in Timothy, and 〈◊〉 Titus. Our Attestators disprove th •• 2. The function may be the very sam where one person governeth the church wholly and alone, & where th • people do necessarily cōcur with him Though his words be not these, yet his sense is clearly so. And all the next page he beateth upon the same. Fearfully affirming, that the difference seemeth not to be so essential. Though he hold so, yet see howe he faltereth. 3. Where he addeth, the title or calling to a Church seemeth to be variable. Which are all gross untruths: co • uted in my Declarat. & the 3. runneth among those evil opinions here before censured. That which he addeth as it were a proof for him, the Jews Church governors came to their places by succession and lineal descent: but in the Churches of Christ, by free electiō, is absolutely against • imselfe. For neither of these titles or coming to the Church-government had been lawful by any means, but because God so ordained. And it being so ordained by God in his word, it was thē absolutely unchangeable by men, as in the Law, so likewise under the Gospel which is the Law of Christ. Where he saith, the Apostles committed not the power of ordination and jurisdiction to all Ministers, I answer, they did: as I have elsewhere shown. Their committing it to Timothy &c. denieth it not to the other Presbyters in the several Churches. neither doth the Angels power in the Revelatiō 2. exclude the joint power of his fellow presbyters with him, nor yet the people's free concurrence with them all. His last reason is, If while the Apostles lived, it was behoofull to substitute Bishops in the Churches, then much more after their decease. But the former is evident. Therefore the later also. This I wholly grant: we mislike not Bishops. In the end he falleth to the authority of those bastard subscriptions, & namely of the epistles to Tim. and Titus. Touching the which I refer him to M ^r . Cudworth in his Supplement to Mr. Perkins on the Galatians. Where he shall find them to be of no greater antiquity nor better credit then such counterfeit dross may be. The testimonies of the Fathers which follow have ben sufficiently answered.

Now I will gather briefly our Proofes, that Timoth. or Titus were not proper Bishops. They are 8. in number.

• First, the H. Ghost made Evangelists and Bishops or Pastors, distinct [unspec 1] persons. Therefore the Apostles could not make them one. And consequently Timothy and Titus being Evangelists (as is known) neither were, nor could [unspec 2] be made proper Bishops.
• Sec: An Evāgelist had an Office superior, extraordinary, temporary, and unlimited: a Bishop was inferior, ordinary, perpetual, and limited to one Church. Now these qualities are incōpatible: they can neither be together, nor successively in one person. Therefore Timothy and Titus Evangelistes, neither were, nor could be proper Bishops at any time.
• Thirdly, After Timothy [unspec 3] had been at Ephesus, he was an Evangelist. For Paul chargeth him so to be and carry himself. Neither is there cause nor reason why Paul here should speak improperly and generally. Therefore he spake properly, & he was still a proper Evangelist, and consequently not a proper Bishop. And so likewise Titus.
• Fourt: Timothies [unspec 4] Ministie at Ephesus extended to other distinct and entire Churches, viz. to Smyrna, to Sardis, to Pergamos, to Colossi, to Hierapolis, to Laodicea &c. and not to the Church in Ephesus only. But the Bishop of Ephesus ministry was limited and appropriated to the Church in Ephesus only; as also of Smyrna to Smyrna, of Sardis to Sardis. &c. As the Angels in Rev. 2. do show. Therefore Timothy was not properly the Bishop of Ephesus. And then neither Titus of Crete.
• Fift: Timothy was the same & no other at Ephesus, then he was at [unspec 5] Philippi and Corinth, at Athens and Thessalonica, in Phrygia, Galatia, Mysia, & Troas. But in these be was no proper Bishop of any place. Therefore neither was he a proper Bishop at Ephesus. So likewise Titus in Crete.
• Sixt: proper Bishops in those days were not called without the co •• ent and voices of their Church, as before hath been shown. But Titus came to Crete and Timothy into Asia only by the Apostle Paul's sending, utterly without the people's calling to whom they ministered in all those Churches. Therefore Titus in Crete & Timothy in Ephesus were no Bishops.
• Seavēth: If [unspec 7] Titus were a proper Bishop in Crete, [unspec 7] then many distinct and entire Churches were not committed to him, but only one. But to Titus in Crete many distinct & entire Churches were committed; and not one only. Therefore Titus in Crete was no proper Bishop. The Assumption is plain, because he had many Cities in his charge. And every City had a distinct and entire Church, for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 : In every City, & in every Church do signify all one thing. And Eusebius maketh them so likewise. But every proper Bishop is limited and appropriated to one Church only. The D. saith assigned But that word is to loose. Indeed a Bishop is limited & appropriated, & as it were confined to one Church. D. Bilson saith affixed. Therefore Titus was no Bishop, nor Timothy neither.
• [unspec 8] Lastly, Whatsoever reason maketh Titus & Timothy Provincial Bishops in Crete, and in Asia, the same serveth to make Paul or Peter Universal Bishops and to have Universal Bishops their Successors, at Rome. But no reason is sufficient to make Paul or Peter Universal ordinary Bishops of Rome, nor that they should have Universal Bishops their Successors. Therefore no reason sufficient to make Titus in Crete or Timothy at Ephesus Provincial Bishops. And so much of Timothy and Titus, that they were indeed no proper Bishops: which point yet Doct. Bilson confesseth to be their only hold.

After this, let us now show how D. Downame grossly abuseth Calvin and Beza, affi • ming that they join with the Bishops of England in maintaining Diocesan and Provincial Churches, and that therein they are against us.

• First, though Calvin do note in this Chapt. the Churches state before the Papacie, yet he saith not, neither was it before Papalitie began. Again, your government may be not withstanding from the Pap • sts (as indeed it is) though this Church state there noted by Calvin were before the Papacie. For your government is by him described in his next Chapter, where he saith; I am in eligendo totum illud ius populi sublatum est. Ad solos Canonicos integra potestas translata est. Ills in quem volunt conferunt Episcopatum: eum mox in conspestu plebis producunt non examinandū, sed adorādum. Now all the right of the people to chose th • ir Pastor was taken away. The whole power was transferred to the Canons or Prebendaries only. They bestow the Bishoprike on whom they will: him they bring forth before the people not to be tried, but to be worshipped of them. And though he saith this was tyrannide Papatus, by the tyranny of the Papacie, yet everyone seeth it to be the same kind that is used in England; & which differeth substantially from the ancient form of Church government, yea from that by him noted in his 4. Chapter, which is not it that you exercise, & labor to maintain. So any may see, from whom in deed you have received your government.
• [unspec 2] Secondly, he saith, those before had almost nothing dissonant from God's word. Where he granteth, they had somewhat. And therefore he would not that this Church government should be our pattern, though he held it not wholly intolerable. What meaneth the vain Doctor to say, we ourselves do extend our assertiō to two hundred years? We do not extend our pattern so far. Indeed we say, a proper Diocesan Church was not before that time. But we take our pattern of a Church only from the New Testam. as we ought. Against which fundamental point of Christiā religion see how profanely (and yet absurdly) he reasoneth; Aswell they may allege that no whole Country ought to be converted, because none was in the Apostles times, as to deny a whole Country to be a Church, because it was not so in the Apostles times. Never did I hear a more senseless speech, and yet it savoreth all of impiety. Every visible Church may contain no mo ordinary Congregations then the New Testament showeth that a Church contained then, which was but one: and yet a whole Country may be converted to the faith, and being converted may be reduced into many Churches in number, according to the form extāt in Christ's Testament. And God forbid we should profess to do otherwise. As for Calvin, beside that above noted in him, speaking of the Order set down in Scriptures, he saith the same is it, quo Ecclesiā suam gubernari voluit Dominus, wherewith the Lord would have his Church to be governed always. Again, Ecclesiae disitpationem vel ruinam potiùs & exitium molitur quisquis ordinem hunc de quo disputamus, & HOC GENVS regiminis vel abolere studet, vel quasi minus necessarium elevat. He seeketh the ruin and destruction of the Church whosoever endeavoreth to abolish this order and THIS KIND of government whereof we treat, or maketh light of it as less necessary: speaking (as I said) of that same kind of ordinary government which is found in the New Testament. Which being Calvin's mind, can we think that he would like of the Doctors mutability? No, nor of his calling him and Beza Authors of Discipline, and him the first or chief founder of it? Beside, is not this Doct. a cunning dissembler, who can say of Calvin that his memory with me is blessed: and yet curse • h and revileth his [unspec 3] Discipline, as he calleth it?
• Thirdly, is it truth, & must we abide it, that Calvin agreeth with the Do. against Lay Elders, as he calleth them? And his Refuter reproving him for that speech, he mocketh, saying; What shall become of me now? He saith, he will salve it. But how? Forsooth he confesseth Calvin is against him both touching the Scripture, and also the practice of the first Churches. How salveth he the matter then? Calvin saith, that afterward Every City had a College of Elders, all which were Teachers. What then? Can not Calvin think that this might somewhat differ from the Scripture? and that this was thus about, and after the Nicene Council hitherward, and yet in the first age of the Church after the Apostles there were some such lay Elders? Is it not possible that Calvin may thus mean, but that he must needs agree in this matter with the D. and grossly contradict himself? Thus forsooth our D. will needs have it: in words commending Calvin & Beza for the learned Disciplinarians; but indeed making them (what he can) to seem fools.
• Fourthly, neither Calvin nor Beza agreeth with them, nor materially [unspec 4] differeth from us about a Diocesan Church, as he almost everywhere repeateth that they do, and is still beating vpō it. But falsely. For first, Calvin maketh not even then the City & Country to be but one body. He saith, velut Corpus, as it were a Body. He meaneth not that it was a persit Body, but that there was some resemblance of one Body, because of the consociation of all under one Bishop. Yet indeed he maketh each Parish then a Body substantially, Saying, Cum Parochijs novi Presbyters destinabantur, tunc loci multitudinem nominatim consentire oportuit. When new Presbyters were appointed to Parishes, then the multitude of the place must namely consent. This power made them a Body indeed: and to the Diocese they belonged but as it were to a Body, or as having some resemblance of a body. Which yet consisted in deed of many distinct bodies, & someway independent. This is the Diocesan Church which Calvin and Beza also speak of, and is constituted at Geneva, and in France, and in the Lowcountries, &c. But this is not the proper Diocesan Church, which is in England. There is a substantial difference between this improper and vnperfit Diocesan Body, and that which is proper and persit. Now then, how do Calvin and Beza agree with the Bishops of England touching a Diocesan Church, as he so often vaunteth and boasteth that they do? Or how do they dissent from us? We see they do not. The Doct. doth but slander them. Neither doth Beza mean that any first Presbyter in a Church was formally appointed to 〈◊〉 Diocese under the Apostles. Some kind of Diocese was Apostolic. But he showeth sufficiently that these Bb. Dioceses began somewhile after the Apostles, in that he saith they were first framed according to the division of the Pr • vinces under the Roman Empire. Which verily was nor regarded in the Apostles time, nor in the next age after Wherefore Beza meant the first Presbyter thus assigned formally, was after the Apostles, & their abused name Bishop also.

Lastly, I cannot pass how insolently the D. taunteth me for observing many sortes of Bishops, and namely for setting down six sorts of them: also for being ignorant whether Jerusalem or Cesarea had the Patriarchship, & for supposing Diocesan Ruling Bishops might begin with Dionysius at A • exandria, and for not speaking anything of Metropolitans beginning. Let the D. know, I was not ignorant that Jerusalem had the Patriarchship: but it is a question (and that I meant to " touch) whether Jerusalem exercised ordinary jurisdiction over Cae • area & the Province thereof, or not. But it is a matter of no worth: there • ore I pass it. Metropolitans (in his sense) 〈◊〉 spake not of whē I reckoned up the livers sortes of Bishops, because in substance of their Office they are all • ne with Diocesans, Archbishops, and Patriarchs. Of whom whosoever holdeth • ne lawful, will hold all so to be: and • e who holdeth one Apostolic, will acknowledge them all Apostolic. This therefore also is no matter, what • oever he maketh of it. Touching Di •• ysius of Alexādria, I confess I was to • lame in thinking he might be the • uthor of Majoritie of power & rule • n Diocesan Bishops. It was because I • udged it to be ancienter then indeed • t is, or then reason giveth it. Now • herefore I profess, it cannot be roved to be ancienter then the Nice • Council, or Constantine the Emperor, as I noted before. Once D. Bilson was also of this mind with me, where he showeth that it was not by the institution of Christ, nor his Apostles, but long after by the consent of the Churches, the custom of the times, and the will of Princes. And touching my making many sortes of Bishops, and my distinguishing of the word, the Doct. misliking that, showeth his ignorance not a little: or else he showeth that which is worse. If he mislike that I made so many sortes, as six. Truly it was my fault that I made so few. Jerome witnesseth that the Bishops of his time came to that power paulatim, by little & little,. And the Universal Monarch of the Roman Church came not to his greatness at once. Papacie had Papalitie going before in divers and sundry degrees. The Word, reason and experience do show in such alterations of government, at least so many distinct differences, yea mo also. Now therefore I desire the Reader to give me leave upon better consideration to set down the distinctiō of Bishops in 7. differences.

I affirm therefore that the name Bishop in Christian Writers is given to seavē divers sortes. Which to observe is right needful, and most profitable to end this great controversy.

• First, the name is generally given, even to Apostles. Yea Evangelistes also may so be called Bishops, as before is shown.
• Secondly, it is given to Pastors. equal, and many, in one ordinary Congregation. To whō also the name [unspec 2] of Presbyter was common. Such is the Ministry now in the Dutch & French Churches.
• Thirdly, One Pastor of a Church containing no mo ordinary [unspec 3] Congregations but one, is by the ancientest Church Writers called a Bishop singularly. As Linus was at Rome: Anianus at Alexādria: Onesimus at Ephesus: Ignatius at Antioch: Polycarpus at Smyrna, &c. Such also was the Angel of the Church in Ephesus, and in Smyrna, &c. The Scripture giveth not him the name Bishop peculiarly, when he hath other assistant Pastors with him: but other Writers do. Which truly I will not strive against.
• Fourthly, the name Bishop is given to a [unspec 4] Titular Diocesan Bishop. Of whō none can be proved ancienter then Julianus the tenth Bishop in Alexandria.
• Fifthly, Diocesan Bishops with Maioritie of power are called Bishops. These began [unspec 5] in the Council of Nice, or otherwise under Constantine. Though the Council speak of Metropolitans long before; yet their power over their brethren was not ratified by any law
• Fifthly, Diocesan Bishops with Maioritie of power are called Bishops. These began [unspec 5] in the Council of Nice, or otherwise under Constantine. Though the Council speak of Metropolitans long before; yet their power over their brethren was not ratified by any law or public ordinnance till then: it was before but arbitrary, by the churches affection, and no otherwise.
• Sixthly, [unspec 6] the Diocesan L. Bishop, or the Sole governing Bishop is called a Bishop. Such are ours now in England. Of the original and first beginning of such, I have spokē before.
• Seventhly, [unspec 7] a Pope or Universal Pastor hath this name Bishop. He began at Rome about 600. years after Christ, but came not to his absolute greatness till divers hundred years after. And this distinction will assuredly with case be justified. Reason and experience do show such degrees in proceeding. And thus far the Answer to D. Downames Defense of Diocesan Churches.

Objections are made also intēsively, viz. against the Christian people's right to consent in Church govern. It is fit we should answer these likewise, so far as is needful. Frst, great & much pains have ben taken by the adversaries of the truth to deprave the plain and easy words of Matthew 18.17. Tell the Church. They are content to take them any way, so it be not the right way. Doct. Bilson spendeth a whole Chapter to make them seem to signify a Senate or bench of Jewish Civil Magistrates, which he learned only from a Physician Erastus. But there is a sufficient refutatiō of this opinion in the third Argument of The Divine beginning and institution of Christ's true Visib. Church. Secondly, D. Bilson contradicting himself, understandeth these words of an Ecclesiastical Senate, or Synod. Thus also Do. Downame understandeth them, as before we have seen; where is a sufficient answer likewise thereunto. Thirdly, Master Johnson of the Separation (since in this point he turned his opiniō upside down) affirmeth that these words signify that the Jewish form of government is by Christ ordained for the Gospel. I discern not well, whether he mean that this rule for the Christian Church government should be formed after the pattern of the Jewish Civil government, or Ecclesiastical, or both. Whatsoever Jewish form of government he mean, his meaning cannot be true. For first, if Christ in these words meant the Jewish governors, thē here is no direction at all for the Christian Church government. Here is nothing then that soundeth to any such purpose. Christ saith not here, Let my Disciples hereafter in their Churches follow the form and order Judaical. In this place there is no such thing. But as I suppose even Mai. Johnson himself holdeth, Christ here in this place setteth an order of government for his Church under the Gospel. This in deed is most certainly true. Therefore his othet opinion (that Christ here sendeth his Disciples to the Jewish governors) is false. I grant Calvin and Beza think that Christ here alludeth to the Jewish Church government in their particular Synagogues: but verily I cannot cōceave why, or how it should be so. Be it spoken with reverēce to these rare servants of Christ. Howbeit, this nevertheless they hold from this place of Matthew, that the people have right so far that nothing in Church government be obtruded on them (by any Ecclesiastical Monarchy or Oligarchie) against their wills. Now this is the truth, and we willingly agree unto it. Yeelding the sway of all government to the Pastor with his assistants in ordinary cases: yet reserving still a power in the people to consent. And when a Church is destitute of Guides (as it hath fallen out, & may again fall out on occasion) then the people themselves have full power to accomplish any Ecclesiastical action in the best order they can, & particularly Church censures, even by virtue of this text. So that then the Jewish Church-government cannot be here alluded unto; much less required to be kept and practiced by Christians. Concerning which together with all other Jewish ordinances, the Apostle teacheth and confirmeth unto us that all those old things are passed away, & that all things (of such nature) under the Gospel, are made new: and that the same things are shaken and changed, and remain not now unto us. Wherefore fowerthly, they who understand these foresaid words, Tell the Church, Math. 18.17. to be meant of the whole Christian people assembled in an ordinary assembly, viz. that they are to be told, and that they are to be heard, (always in the best and most Christian order that can be, which I grant doth and must in circumstances sometime differ) they, I say, do truly and rightly understand this place according to the intent of Christ. Of which D. Bilson him self once taught soundly, saying, In Math. 18.17. The whole multitude of the faithful where he and they (the Offendor, and the Offended) live, are signified. And in Act. 20.28. The Church is taken for the people. Yea, The Church is never taken in the New or Old Testament for the Priests alone, but generally for the whole Congregation of the faithful. Let me ask a question; Was D. Bilson a Brownist, was he an Anabaptist whē he wrote thus? Why then doth Mai. Downame call us these odious names only for the same judgment? Or is he offended at us, because we cannot change & turn our professions to & fro, as they do for advantage? Some will say, if this sense of these words be true, [Object.] then perpetually and necessarily all scandals, &c. whatsoever, must be tried in the presence & under the judgment and sentence of the whole multitude; as they of the Separation do hold, which also it seemeth was Cyprians usual practice of old. I answer, this consequence is far from truth. For the sense of the words (in Matthew 18.17.) certainly is thus, & no otherwise to be taken, viz. plainly and literally for the whole Congregation. Seeing there is no cause nor reason to the contrary, as elsewhere is observed. But yet it followeth not that that manner of hearing & sentencing of causes must be in every Church perpetually and necessarily. I grant it may be so in some Churches, at sometimes: and so Cyprians practice was, & now it may be again in some estates of a Church, good and commendable. But to hold those popular Circumstances in every Church perpetual and necessary absolutely as the Separation doth, it was neithtr Cyprians meaning, nor Chrsstes, nor any well advised Christians. And yet again no mā may take from the people absolutely all manner of free consent, as the L. Bishops do. This is a Substantial breach on the other hand. Incidit in Scyllam qui vult vitare Chary • din. Extremities on both sides are to be avoided.

As this, so other texts likewise Do. Bilson would wrest from us in his 8. Chap. touching jurisdiction. First Act. 15.22.23.25.28. where manifestly the Apostles joined the people with them selves in determining a controversy, It seemed good to the holy Ghost and to us to lay no more burden on you. Now this he granteth expressly, saying: The matter was handled in the audience and presence of the whole Church and with a general consent letters were written in the names of all. To which B. Horne before him agreeth also. Nay, D. Bilson goeth further, saying: This course the Apostle taught the Church of Christ to follow by their example. Which is all that we desire. Yet he laboreth to frustrate this act of the Apostles and to make it of no use to us. To which intent he hath 4. exceptions.

• 1. Paul stood not in doubt of his preaching, neither needed he the consent of Apostles or Elders to his doctrine. I answer, he doubted not of his doctrine, nor submitted it to any to be censured. Yet he needed the consent of other Apostles and of the Church at Jerusalem, for more countenance to his teaching. And that was all Paul's purpose here.
• 2. The Apostles wanted neither authority nor sufficiency to determine the matter. But they did, in this case. We must know therefore, there is a twofold dertermining and deciding of questions. One is particular and personal, which every true Pastor may perform in his ordinary teaching. Much more the Apostles singly might. And so Paul was sufficient, and did him self resolve many doubts to the Romans, to the Corinthians, to others without a Council. Another determining and deciding of questions is Cumulative, (as I may call it) when it is done with more countenance and credit. The former may be of as certain truth: but this later always hath more weight among men. Thus Paul was not sufficient in this case. Yea the H. Ghost in this case would not have divers other Apostles with Paul to seem sufficient by them selves, without the whole Church there: and specially so far forth, as it was to bind this present Church.
• Thirdly, There were reasons which they had why even the whole Church was herein to concur. What then? There are, and ever will be special reasons still for the like. I say, such reasons are now for us as those thē were, yea more weighty. Wherefore the imitating of this Apostolic Act is still necessary.
• 4. He saith, Who decided the controversy but Peter & James? If he mean, they 2. were the principal men whose credit drew the rest to consent; It is true. But it showeth not that they only decided the doubt. Rather they all decided it, who being present expressly concurred in the decree and promulgated it, saying; It seemed good to the H. Ghost & to us. In all this therefore he hath nothing to infringe his own grant. Yea thus this ought to be imitated evermore.

Next, 1. Cor. 5.12.13. Do ye not judge them that are within? But God judgeth them that are without. Put away therefore from among yourselves that wicked man. This he would make void: yet he knoweth not howe. He saith, here are 2. great doubts. First, what it is to deliver to Satan: Secondly, by whom it was. For the first, whatsoever Delivering to Satan is, he himself granteth that this here is excommunication, saying; That he was excommunicated I make no doubt. He showeth also here by the very text that the Corinthiā Church should have done it. Which is enough: what need we more? Yet he striveth against it, saying: Paul decreed it alone. He asketh not their consents, he prayeth not their aide, he referreth not the matter to their liking. How vain is this? A King may decree to make a law to punish Adultery: yet he may intend to have his Counsaill and Parliament to join therein with him. He may decree and determine to war on his enemy: yet not without his Nobles & Commons joining with him. Neither needed the Apostle in this case to pray their aide, &c. The matter in Nature was odious: also it was open, old, and unrepented. He him self was their Father in the Gospel, their Apostle, & Guide. It stood not therefore with the Corinthians piety, nor his dignity to pray thē in this business, but to admonish them and to show them what they should speedily do. So then he prayeth not their aide, nor asketh their consent in this; yet he presumeth of it and useth it, verse. 4. Yea for his absolving, he prayeth their aide, and asketh their consent. Therefore in casting him out, he used it also. Again, if Paul alone excommunicated him, then it was fully finished. For he did all that lay in him, to accomplish it, saying; I have now judged it as if I were present. But the man was not yet excommunicate. Therefore he requireth the Church to proceed so as he had determined, verse 4.13. Where the text saying: You being come together and my Spirit in the name of the Lord Jesus, showeth their joint concurrence and consent was to be had for this action. In the name of the Lord Jesus, signifying that holy work and ordinance of Christ which also should be to the honor and praise of the Lord Jesus. He interpreteth my Spirit apparently amiss; that is, They shall find the force of my Spirit present. But the Circumstances show it to be only, the consent of his heart or Spirit. For else the very same thing is twice noted in one line, ( viz. the same force and power). 1. my Spirit. 2. with the power of the Lord Jesus. Which whosoever marketh, will see it to be here nothing so. Beside, how could it be? The force of his Spirit could not be present, his body being so far absent. Never did any Apostle give any to the Devil to be tormented, without seeing the party, without speaking with him. But the consent of his Spirit to Excommunication might well be present at Co • inth signified in his present letters, though his person were far absent, as then it was. Again, the text, you being come together, and my Spirit with the power of the Lord Jesus, to deliver such a one to Satan, &c. showeth that they were to come together to deliver him to Satan: this the words import as well as that Paul did it. lastly, he granteth, the Apostle rebuked them for not putting the transgressor from amongst them. Therefore he confesseth they had power to do it. And that again is enough. Where note also that this Do. in his striving to the contrary, striveth against our worthy Attestators before named. Who are against him in his other point also, viz. that this delivering to Satan is to be smitten with some grievous plague or disease, miraculously inflicted by the Apostle. Yea, herein he standeth against himself teaching at large that here in 1. Cor. 5. was nothing but Excommunicatiō. But what reason maketh him now thus to think? How should The power and might of Christ be shown in excluding a man from the Word and Sacraments? Pronouncing a few words is sufficient for that matter. A strange speech. Hath not Excommunication the power & might of Christ in it, because pronoūcing a few words is sufficient for that matter? In preaching the Gospel pronouncing a few words is sufficient for that matter: and yet it is the power of God, Rom. 1.16. In sanctifying the Mystical signs, pronouncing a few words is sufficient for that matter: & yet the virtue of Christ is in them. Even so Excommunication, another of Christ's Spiritual Ordinances, though it be done by his Servantes pronoūcing but a few words, yet the power of Christ the author and Lord thereof, is not wanting in it, either to convert the Sinner or the more to condemn him. Which answereth him also, that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in Paul is often taken for Miraculous power in the Apostles. For in that to the Romans before cited, any may see it to be otherwise, a place very like to this in 1. Cor. 5.4.5. Neither is him self confident in this reason. For if it be but often, then he granteth it is not so always. And then it may be otherwise here, as indeed it is. Beside, I remember not above one such place as he signifieth, and yet there it is in the plural number 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 powers, not in the singular. Between which place and ours in hand, there is apparently very great difference. Again he saith, To deliver unto Satan, is more then to Excommunicate. It is not. Yea, & him self held so likewise heretofore. He which is excommunicate and as a Heathen, is out of Christ's Kingdom. And being out of Christ's Kingdom, he is in the power of Satan. Therefore it is all one. Neither is it true that many are secluded from the company of the godly for a time that are not yielded to Satan: or that many were delivered to Satan (by the Church assembled together, as this was don here) without Excommunication. Or that Ananias and Elymas were delivered to Satan; Which him self once contradicted. He toucheth here many things beside to no purpose, viz. This Sinner was delivered to Satan, that it might bring him to repentance. Why, and that is the proper end of Excommunication. Again the end of this action was the destruction of the flesh: which in Excommunication hath no sense, except it be Metaphoricall. It is not so. This destruction of the flesh ( viz. the lusts of the flesh) hath great sense in Excommunication. And it seemeth rather a Metonymicall phrase, then a Metaphoricall, as he nameth it. He addeth, Excommunication indangereth the Spirit, and toucheth not the flesh. Nay, it is intended to save the Spirit, that is, the Regenerat man by repentance. So the Spirit is here understood. Also Excommunication toucheth the flesh: for it serveth to humble and mortify the lusts of the flesh, or the unregenerate man. He saith, this is dome not by Excommunication, but by repentance. Strangely spoken. I say, it is done by both. For these are Subordinat, not opposit. As well he might say, the lusts of the flesh are not destroyed by God's word, but by repentance. The truth of both is alike. Here also the one of it self is no consequent to the other. For many are preached unto, that never repent: aswellas Excommunicated that never repent. And yet who knoweth not that God hath ordained that repentance should follow frō both, as it doth indeed in many. Who would not wonder to see such dallying, in such a man, in a cause so serious? The like is also where he saith, Excommunication is before and after in other words expressed. Yea, and this is not against our sense of Delivering to Satan: but much for it. Seeing all the Circūstances & coherence of the text here, both before and after, speak only of Excommunication; and the phrase it self, to deliver to Satan, is so fit and agreeable to express the same, even according to Christ's description of it, Let him be to thee as a Heathen, that is, without the Church Christ's Kingdom, under the power and rule of Satan, in like state and condition as the very infidelles and unbelievers are. This therefore is much for us. But (saith he) This is no such new found or vain exposition. Chrysostom, Jerome, Ambrose, Theodoret, Occumenius, Theophilact &c. embrace it. Wonderful! This opinion and these very testimonies he cited heretofore as being the Papists. Then he resisted & refuted the sam • at large by Ambrose, Austin, and Jerome: insinuating that this Jerome, (which now he groūdeath on, & which then the Papists alleged) was a coūterfait, or suspected at least. Is this fidelity? is this upright dealing? For advantage to join with the Antichristian Enemies, yea against him self: to allow of the self same witness which him self then branded with infamy: opposing Chrysostom to Chrysostom, Jerome to Jerome, Ambrose there to Ambrose here: and (which passeth) interpreting the same words of Theodoret contrary here, to that he did there. What mutability is this! But to the point, I answer; This his sense out of Chrysostom, &c. here, cannot be true. viz. that this delivering to Satan, was to be tormented corporally by Satan. For then the whole Church of Corinth had this miraculous power given thē at Paul's appointment. They were then the visible instrumental doers of this Apostolic Miracle in Paul's behalf. Also, then the Apostles had power, and did use to strike men whom they never saw nor spake with being far from them in other countries. All which how absurd they are, who seeth not? Again, this Sinners restoring, was without Miracle: his casting out therefore was so likewise. Neither can it be thought that Paul corporally tormented Hymenaus and Alexander. He only excommunicated them: and yet not he alone, but with the Churches concurrence and consent whereof they were. For so was his practice in other actions of Church-government, as we see.

In another place he readeth, 2. Thess. 3.14. not as it should be. He readeth, If any obey not our saying, note him by a letter. It should be, If any obey not our saying in the Epistle, note him. That is, Excommunicat him, & withdraw yourselves from him, as it is in verse. 6. This he requireth the whole Church of the Thessalonians to do: not to signify such a one to Paul, that he might do it. The word is not 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signify to me: but 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 set a mark on him: viz. of Excōmunication. For it can bear no other sense.

Now touching Calling to the Ministry, he laboreth to take from us quite, First Act. 1. about Mathias election to be an Apostle. It is true (as he saith) An Apostle might not be chosen by mē. Yet here God's will was that men should, and they did go about this Election, and proceeded in it, and managed the same so far as possibly men might. That is, men performed many weighty and remarkable partes therein: not that there was any simple necessity for men to concur herein, but only it pleased God it should be so for an example to posterity to follow, & to practice all that was ordinary in the same. D. Bilson excepteth, it is not expressed that the Church intermeddled in the choice of Mathias. Which is not true. For first, all this action was performed in the midst of the Church: Secondly, they appointed two; and they prayed; and " they cast lotts; and he was accounted by common consent, as it were by voices, with the Eleaven. He saith, prayers and lotts were performed by the Apostles, as the principal directors of that action; therefore they also presented the two. Indeed they that did the one part, did the other. The coherēce of the text showeth it well. But the truth is not as he saith. For these things were performed only by Peter, as the principal director of the whole action at this time. The Apostles are nowhere mentioned in this business; there is not one tittle of thē. To the point: all those particular actions in this Election before named, are and must be referred to all the Disciples, who are here expressly mentioned, & in the midst of whō all these things were done. I say, Peter alone did them as the Moderator and director: but jointly with him all the Disciples concurring and consenting presented these two, prayed saying, cast lots, and accounted the Elected with the Eleaven. Thus this is decided in the text; the force and coharence of the words convince it, though the Doct. denieth it. He showeth Chrysostom saying, Peter might most lawfully have chosen Mathias. I understand Chrysostom's meaning to be that he might lawfully have nominated and propounded one, or mo. And this is true. Otherwise Chrysostom's speech is amiss, & the D. knoweth it to be untrue, acknowledging that an Apostle cannot be chosen by men, as before I noted. This therefore he cannot take hold of: the Jesuits catch at it likewise as he doth, but none of them all get by it. Why doth he not rest on Chrysostom's other words here, that Peter him self did not appoint those two, but all did it. And he did all by the common sentence of the Disciples nothing by his own authority, nothing by command. This is true, this is plain, this is for imitation forever: yet this he (as also the Jesuit) rejecteth, though Cyprian also say as much, and our late Writers. Mayest. Calvin justly taxeth the Papists pervers boasting of the Fathers, and we are to tax our present adversaries likewise: Seeing they seem to draw against us all in one line. Saith he of them to the French King; Ists pij scilicet filij (quâ sunt & ingenij, & iudicij, & animi dexteritate) Patrum tantum lapsus & errores adorant. Quae benedicta sunt, vel non observant, vel dissimulant, vel corrūpunt. Vt dicas prorsùs illis cura fuisse in auro legere stercora. Such good children they are to these Fathers, that only their faults and errors they adore, and it is all their care amongst their gold, to gather dirt.

Next, Act. 6.5. The multitude chose 7. Deacons. First, he granteth this. Then he would make it void for any use with us, as Bellarmine doth likewise. Saith he, That the people should very well like and fully trust such as should be Stewards of their goods had evident reason. And I pray, is there not more reason that they should very well like & fully trust such as must be the Guides of their souls? Those by whose means they shall go to heaven, or to hell? I trow there is much more reason for this. Neither is this a matter exceeding the reach of Christian people, viz. to discern, and try, and like their Teachers. Against Act. 14.23. he objecteth word for word out of Bellarmine that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is not to be taken here for the people's voice-giving as the profane Orators among the Grecians applied it. I answer, it is necessary so to be taken. Are not they the true authors of the Greek language? Do not all men try the true property of Greek words and phrases by them? Nay, but the Church-writers understand it for Laying on of hands in Ordination. I answer, they have changed the native & right use of the word; they keep not the original property of it, as they do not in many other words mo. Time chāgeth many words from their original verity. Wherefore the Apostles doubtless spake and wrote Greek, not like the phrase which came up 300.4000. years after them: but as the authentic Grecians before and in their time did speak. Thus then it were folly, yea madness to interpret them by those so long after them. Again he saith, this word signifieth never to take the consents of others. Which is not true, as I have shown out of Demosthenes contra Timocrat. Where he saith thus; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 : which of the laws the chief Authors shall appoint by the people's voice-giving, the same is ratified. Here the word plainly signifieth the Guids taking the consent of others. Further he objecteth, that this word sometime signifieth generally to appoint, & no more. I grant, there is a figurative and improper use of the word. The necessity of the Circūstance there maketh that it must be so. But here, in Act. 14.23. there is no necessity, nor reason at all to take it improperly, or otherwise then as all authentic Grecians do use it, viz. for appointing by the people's voices, or free consents, as I have said.

These are D. Bilsons special objections against our texts of Scripture for the people's consent in Church government under the Apostles. Bellarmine dealeth against one or two more. He saith, we are commanded to hear Christ's voice, and not a strangers, and to try the Spirits, only by attēding to the doctrine of other Pastors holding their old custom, and chiefly to the doctrine of Rome. Where he presumeth that those other Pastors cannot err, and chiefly they of Rome. But the Apostle telleth us that Every man is a liar, that is, subject to error. Wherefore the Holy Ghost biddeth the people to attend to the Law, and to the Testimoni • in such cases; & to Search the Seriptures, and showeth that in so doing, we do well. Again, the Jesuit maketh a show of answering: viz. to 1. Pet. 5.2. that Ministers may not be Lord's over the Church. But he answereth not: only he saith Bishops are servants to the Church, as Scholemaisters are to their Scholars, and Magistrates to the people, who yet do command and rule them solely. Which is nothing to the text, forbidding Ministers to be Lord's over the people: he answereth not that point. Last, to this The Church is the pillar and ground of truth, he saith it is true by hearing Peter (the Pope ) always. Absurd: the Pope is not Peter, nor Peters true Successor. The text showeth that the Ephesian Church then, and every Church still, is a pillar and ground of truth: to whom the members are therefore ordinarily to hearken, & therefore they have the Keys & Church government committed by Christ unto them.

But D. Bilson giveth not over so. He hath some general objections against our grounds of Scripture. First, None can give Imposition of hands but they that first received the same. They must have it thenselves, that will bestow it on others.

I answer, the Proposition faileth. Under the Law some of the people Imposed their hands on the Levites: in the Gospel the 12. Apostles imposed their hands in making Ministers. Yet these received no impositiō of hands them selves. Again, we must note here two distinctions: and so the Assumption is false. First, Lay men (as he calleth them) are considered singly, or jointly. They have no Ecclesiastical power singly. But as they are joined together in a Visible Church which is a Spiritual Body politic, and a Mystical Body of Christ, (whether they be many, or few) so even these Lay men have received the power of all the holy things of God, all God's ordinances spiritual. As the Apostle saith unto them; All things are yours, and ye Christ's, and Christ God's. The whole Congregatiō is Christ's Church, his Spouse, his Kingdom, his sacred Body, as I have said. From whence by a necessary and undeniable consequence it followeth that Christ hath given the power of Imposing hands, of Censures, of Sacraments, of Preaching the word, and all, unto the Congregation to be performed in the best order they can. And so it is, that our Attestators before have taught, that the Keys are given the whole Church. Yet consider secondly, that the people thus have received all these spiritual things, & so can give thē only potestative (as I may say) that is, they have the power of them. But active, actually they only can administer them who are the Churches instruments for that purpose by them assigned. Thus Tertullian may mean well, saying, that sometime a Lay mā may Baptize: namely, if the Church assign him in a case of necessity, when an ordinary Minister cannot be had. Otherwise I cannot justify his speech. Yea, the Ordinary exercise of Prophesy, that is, Interpreting of Scripture publicly in the Church, is to be performed by the particular people being by the Church orderly appointed thereunto. Touching the excellency and most profitable use of which Apostolical exercise, (though now it be everywhere almost out of use) I wish the Reader to see Ma Zwingli, and others also.

Further, touching Imposition of hands the D. seemeth here to esteem it as the very Ordination it self, that it giveth the power to Preach and Baptize, &c. But it is not so. There are two Essentiall partes of Calling to the Ministry, Election and Ordination: The imposing of hands is but a Ceremony of putting the Minister (before made) into possession of his right, and a commending of him to the blessing of God. Though all these actions belong to the people so, as before I have shown; yet Imposition of hands (the Ceremony) may possibly be wanting in a true Minister, and sufficient Ordination may be without it. Yea, true Ministers have ben without it. Howbeit, I suppose Christ's Church offendeth in omitting it: for though it be but a ceremony, yet it is Apostolic. Where also that which followeth, in answered; though to give power to preach and baptize be more then to preach and baptize, yet the people have the power of both. And, though Imposition of hands to Ordination may be said to be a kind of Sacrament, yet the people have the power of it, as I have shown. But Calvin saith, Only Pastors did it. Be it so: and let them only do it still (for they are the fittest instruments for that purpose which the Church can assign) viz. whē they are to be had. This thē is nothing material. Seeing we seek only that the Pastor should not ordain in his own name & power (but in the churches) next after Christ, & by their free consent. Also, if no Pastor can be had, that then some other (the fittest they have) may act the Churches godly determination, for them, in their name, and by their right received frō Christ their Head. For people so joined together, as before I shown, may essentially be a Church, though they want a Pastor. And Master Calvin gainsayeth nothing of this: but he joined in Geneva to the practice of it, and in their places Luther and Zwingli did also, &c. Finally, we cannot but note this speech of Doct. Bills. more then strange. To create Ministers by imposing hands, is to give them not only power and leave to preach the word, and dispense the Sacraments; but also the grace of the holy Ghost to make them able to execute both partes of their function. Alas, why then do they create so many unable and ungracious Ministers in England, which there do swarm? Why do they so, If their imposing of hands can give all this grace? Where also is answered, that he would bar the people from the power of Excommunication, because they have no power to administer the Word and Sacraments. I have shown how the people have power of all these, and of all spiritual actions beside. Where he saith; The Pastors shall yield account of them to God. So shall the Church also. But therefore none may compel the Pastors. What? may not the Magistrate, if he see need? I suppose he will retract that. Yea; and say I, the Church may compel Pastors in her manner, viz. when she seeth urgent need. And yet properly he cannot be compelled: his own will carrieth him: vohint as non cogitur: So that how soever the Church (when they see need) may enjoin him, yet his own will is it which he shall answer for. Pastors therefore shall indeed give account to God for their administering the Word and Sacraments, and for their not administering. Namely, for their part. But none of them are therefore Lord's of the word and Sacraments, nor absolute arbitrary disposers of them under Christ; Where he addeth, that the moderatiō of the Keys and imposition of hands were at first settled in the Apostles: and that this cannot be doubted. It is not so. I do both doubt it, and am sure of the contrary. Christ settled the moderation of the Keys first in the Church. His commission to his Apostles was given after. Not depriving the Church of her former power, but joining the Apostles & their successors to her as her Guides. Withall two things further are to be noted. 1. Doct. Bilson here maketh all Pastors indifferently to have power to Minister and deny Sacraments & Censures. Whereby it followeth that the Diocesan Bishops only have not this power. For saith he, they (the ordinary Ministers) must be trusted with both, or with neither: You must free them from both, or leave both unto them. Wherein also none may compel them or force them. Sure, this quite overthroweth his own practice and state, and the whole order in England. 2. We may observe a Syllogism in his own words here & elsewhere. Speaking indefinitely of those which have authority in the Church, he saith; They must look not only what they challenge, but also from whom they derive it. If from the Apostles, then are they their Successors: if from Christ, as Collegues joined with the Apostles, we must find that consociation in the Gospel, before we clear them from intrusion. No man should take this honor unto him self, but he that is called of God as the Apostles were. If they be called by Christ, read their assignation from Christ: if they be not, surcease that presumption. And to do otherwise, is to transgress the commandment of God for the traditions of Men.

The authority of Patriarchs, Archbishops, meaner Bishops over other Ministers, was not by the institution of Christ or his Apostles, but long after by the consent of the Churches, the custom of the times, and the will of Princes. Therefore (the Conclusion followeth of it self) the authority of Patriarchs, Archbishops, meaner Bishops over Ministers, is intrusion and presumption, and transgressiō of God's commandment. At us Doctor Downame would rage, if we should conclude so: but I hope he will take it better in Do. Bilsons words. His Fathers and Councils, if they absolutely exclude the people's consent, I leave under his own censure before observed. But I take them to mean otherwise, though indeed a very great power and almost absolute was now exercised by many Diocesan Bb. in Excōmunicatiō & Absolution. He saith Cyprians & Augustine's yielding the people a consent, was not for any right they had, but to prevent scandals. But their right both by precept, and practice of the Apostles, is sufficiently shown before. Yet indeed it was to prevent scandals among the people also. Which very point is a firm reason likewise, that this spiritual liberty of the people then was their right. For first, they could not be scandalized so oft, fearing to loose their consent in such affairs so many ages together, and in so far distant countries, but that they were then taught and they learned frō time to time that this was their right. If the contrary then had ben taught, then they could not have ben scandalized, nor made jealous least they might be wronged in this behalf as they were. That they were, is manifest by all monuments of those times, and by our adversaries confession. Therefore the people's free consent in their spiritual government was then taught, and it was their right, in the ages after the Apostles. And truly this ever hath ben, is, and will be scandalous and offensive justly to a Christian understanding Congregation, viz. to have anything Spiritually and Ecclesiastically forced on them. The case is perpetual. But woe to them by whom offenses come, specially to such. Therefore woe to them who yield not this liberty to such people perpetually. Yet he saith, In Scripture he findeth neither Example of it, nor reason for it. Who can let words? If men list to speak, who can stay them? Some will shut their eyes, and say they see not light at noon. Against Election with the people's consent, he said before, Examples are no precepts: As it were acknowledging Examples. Howbeit besides that this is the very Jesuits shift, he him self cōfuteth all these evasiōs, though they be his own. First, yielding that the Apostles taught the Church by their example. Then testifying thus, This Prerogative to be best acquainted with the will & meaning of our Savior, and to have their mouths and pens directed and guided by the holy Ghost into all truth as well of doctrine as of Discipline, was proper to the Apostles. Again, They set an order amongst Christians in all things needful for the government, continuance, peace, and unity of the Church. And The Scriptures once written suffice all ages for instruction.

And here I beseech the Christian Readers of all degrees, that they take me not amiss (to which some men's humors are to prone) viz. where in another place I have said, The particular Congregations of England are true Churches accidentally. My meaning is, that as those particular Congregations have in them godly and holy Christians consociated together to serve God (so far as they see) agreeablie to his word, so they are in right from Christ essentially true Churches of God, and are so to be acknowledged by us, and in public not to be absolutely separated from. But in respect as these Congregations are parts of proper Diocesan and Provincial Churches, so they are true Churches of Christ accidentally. For proper Diocesan and Provincial Churches being not in the N. Testam. have in them by accident the true essential form of Christ's Visible Churches. Seeing also this form is repugnant to the constitutiō & form of the other; as † heretofore I noted, & by comparing their divers Definitions in this Treatise it will most plainly appear. And so these two divers respects & acknowledgementes (as I conceive) may well bs yielded to the particular Congregations now in England; neither do I see any just exception against it.

In vain also doth Doct. Down. upbraid us, that we seek to overturn as well those Churches where the Geneva discipline is established, as ours. That we agree with no reformed Church in the world. That non • are of our mind but Brownists, and such like. He maketh the Brownistes happy men. Can he reprove them if they follow Zwingli, Luther, Bucer, P. Martyr, Viret, Calvin, Beza, Danaus, Vrsinees, Gwalther, &c. And not the later only, but the elder Christians also. For all these (we have seen) do consent with us in our profession. And it is a slander, that in Geneva, or anywhere else, the reformed Churches do substantially differ from our judgment. As may be seen through out the 3. & 4. Chapters before. If anything dissonāt from those testim. may now be found in some of these Churches (which I will not deny) then it cometh to pass with thē as with goodly and fair Houses: which being inhabited by men, will need sweeping very oft. If they be not swept & cleaned, they will soon become foul. And so truly it may be, in some of the Churches before named. Which can be no prejudice to us, who seeing transgression creep in, do wish all men, and even them also, ad originem reverti, to return to the original and first Plantation both of them selves in particular, and specially of all Churches▪ at the first. In the which only there is safety. As for this intemperat Doctors railing words in calling this our doctrine Brownisticall, Anabaptistical, fanatical, fantastical, dotage, frenzy, &c. We will bear it, knowing (as Cyprian said of some such in his days) Non possunt laudare nos, qui recedunt à nobis. We must look for hateful and ••• lent words from them that fall from us. Yet in the mean while let him know also, that in this he reproacheth not so much us, as those pillars of the truth and lights of the Gospel before named Zwingli, Luther, Bucer, Martyr, Viret, Calvin, and the rest; of whom we have directly received this doctrine and profession. These are our Masters herein, as in the beginning I said.

Our Do. objecteth often that these are partial, & that this is their own cause. And that as well we might cite Mai. Cartwright and Mai. Travers, as some of these. Yea he will have Jerome also to be partial. Yet we frankly acknowledge Jerome to be theirs, touching the lawfulness of Dioces. Bishops. Although he, and many other of the Fathers beside, are with us in this, that Diocesan Bishops are not Apostolical but Human. And this verily they teach far from partiality. Partiall they may be for the said Prelacie, not against it. And the truth is, they were notoriously partial for it; it was indeed their own cause. They may be partial & are wont so to be counted who are likely to get by their opinion some "temporal commodity; not they who loose by it. Now the Fathers, specially under Constantine & after, by approoving Diocesan Prelacie, got great honor, power, and rule among the people, and wealth and pleasure, what they desired. Which, by opposing against it, they should have lost. Whēce certainly it is, that D. Downame might as well cite B. Whitgift, B. Bancroft, and B. Bilson for his authors, as some of those ancientes, viz. as well as B. Eusebius, B. Epiphanius, B. Theodoret, B. Damasus, B. Leo, B. Chrysostom, &c. Who questionless in this point were very partial. And no les (if not more) may be thought of some of those Diocesan L. Bishops who began our Church reformation in England. They by proceeding no further did get much temporal commodity; which, by setting the Church state nearer to the form Apostolic, they must needs have lost. And so they, though otherwise (as likewise those Ancientes) were good and godly Fathers, yet they were mē, and might easily be partial in this. Which, and more we may think of many of our Diocesan Lord Bishops since. Most of all, of D. Downame himself; who besides these temporal hopes, being a Diocesan L. Bishops son, had need of much grace (I confess) to cause him to degenerate. But, I pray then, hath he done wisely to object (as he doth every foot) against those singular instruments and very effectual reformers, our Attestators, & others like them, that they were partial▪ and that this was their own cause? Indeed they were partial, that is, they took part thoroughly with the sincerity of the Gospel, and stood against all Papal and Pontifical over-ruling of God's people spiritually: & so should this Doct. and others do well, if they were partial likewise. But partial otherwise they neither were, nor could be, viz. they did not get, but lost by this their proceeding great worldly honor, much power, and rule among the people, large wealth, dainty pleasure, and ease; which ours now do abound with, as all the world seeth. Whereby the world seeth likewise, which side may rather plead partiality to be in those, whom they take to be their adversaries.

In many places D. Downame signifieth that the godly late defenders of the Gospel do mislike only popish tyrannizing Bishops, not orthodoxal Bishops, as he presumeth ours to be. But let him know, that those are Orthodoxall who imitate the Apostles and the pattern of the Church left us in the New Testament. And they are tyrannizing & not Orthodox nor truly believing, who imitate the popish, though otherwise they be not papists. Cicero said well to Antony; Mirror te Antoni, quorum fasta imitere corum exitus non perhorrescere. I wonder Antony (said he) that thou fearest not their judgment, whose deeds thou imitatest. Now how we imitate the very form of the Popish Church-government, all the world seeth, and the Gospel rueth. What meaneth the rack and the wrack of many consciences, viz. the Oath ex officio? What, the Bishops depriving and imposing of Ministers without, yea contrary to the Congregation? What mean also such Excommunications? What, their imprisoning of Christians? and punishing their purses with fees, fines, &c. Are these the partes of Orthodox Bishops? Are these things approved of those godly Writers? Nothing less. Likewise his vain and frivolous seeking to avoid the Waldenses, Wycliffe, Hus, Zwingli, Luther, Oecolampadius, Bucer, Martyr, Calvin, &c. our Tindal, Fr. and John. Lamberts, Bradsord, Bale, &c. is of no worth. Some of thē signify that they disallow not Diocesan Bishops simply. Well, no more do I, as I have shown before. Yet hereby appeareth no allowance of ours in England▪ Our old English translators of the New Testament, & some other Writers since, do express the word Church by Congregation. But saith our Doctor, here by they mean the Vnivesall Church. Which answer is untrue, and absurd. That is, where they speak of a Visible & Ministe. Church: of which only our question is. Speaking of this, that they should by a Congregation signify either Universal, or Provincial, or Diocesan Church, is a most false, & unlikely conceit. Can any of these be one Visible Congregation in the singular number? He allegeth (as he thinketh) texts for his pupose Matt. 16. Ephe. 1. and 5. Which surely may well, yea they are to be understood of a Visible Congregation, viz. indefinitely taken. See hereof the Divine beginning and institution of Christ's Visible Church. Argum. 26. & 23. Of Mai. Beza he affirmeth, that he wished with all his heart for the Diocesan Bishops government in Geneva. Which is as true as that which the Jesuits blazed abroad, how Beza before his death recanted his religion. Beza lived to cōvince the Jesuits of untruth to their faces. If he were now alive, he would do the like to this Doct. and those other of whō he saith he heard it. The like audacity is in that his report, that the most learned & judicious Divines in France and Geneva, could be content that Diocesan Bb. government were renewed among them. The most learned in France and Geneva? Verily as they were who renewed it Scotland of late. Most learned, and most judicious were they? Laus proprio sordescit in ore. And I fear rather that known parable to be herein verified; When the trees would have a King, the Olive, Fig tree, and Vine refusing, the Bramble took it on him, and said to the trees, Come & put your trust under my shadow.

When all shifts fail, the adversaries will calumniate us as not dutiful to the King, and Civil government. Which though D. Downame saith, he will not dispute, yet he maliciously insinuateth. As touching dutiful affection to the Kings person, none can say more (if he list) then D. Downame him self in my particular. Yea, what words I spake whē he held his peace to a Noble Lord of Scotl. when neither of us durst be seen nor heard abroad, for fear of whom? Verily of those who were his best friends since. If I was thē so dutifully animated toward the K. when we only hoped for his Majesty, God forbid I should be less now, when we have him. Being so maligned & traduced as I am, I could not but speak of this. Touching our duty generally to his Majesty's authority and place, the evidence of reason & sense plead for us. We acknowledge with Tertullian, that he is Solo Deo minor: Less then God only. In Church government we impeach not his Soveraigtie, neither in matter, nor manner. Therefore no way at all. The matter is only about Ezcommunication and Making of Ministers, and such like things. Of the essential form whereof Christ only is institutor, his Ecclesiastical servants be the Ministers. The King is neither Author, nor Minister. Unto this I suppose all agree. For the manner, Seeing we hold each whole Church in the greatest extent can be no mo ordinary Congregations then one, how can these either by their coming together, or by their consenting in any Spiritual business only for them selves: I say, how can these impeach the Kings power one hair? His Supreme Universal overseeing and ordering them, and all others, yea his chastising them (when they do anything amiss) how can it be let, how can it be hindered by such a handful? And because he must use Substitute Rulers in his general overseeing the Churches of his Dominions; we frō our hearts do honor them also, and submit to them as to God's Lieutenants in their several places. Only we testify, that if the Kings power be committed to any Ecclesiastical person (especially Civil coactive power) it draweth with it both a breach of Christ's ordinance, (who said to such Ministers, You shall not be so, ) and also a torture to Christian subjects consciences. Wherefore we desire of God, that the King would be pleased to appoint, as Ichosaphat did, a Zebadiah to be general Governor under him in Church causes, (so far as it pertaineth to the King to deal in them) and as King Henry 8. a L. Cromwell his Vicegerent in rebus Ecclesiasticis, and as his Majesty him self did (as I have heard) in Scotland before he came among us. Which may be far more easily performed (with inferior subordinate Officers under them also for this purpose in every place) in a Monarchy, then in any Popular, or Aristocratical Cōmon wealth. And verily this is it (and not a Diocesan Bishop) which would bring great unity, and that according to God. If D. Downame will urge (which he grateth upon in this said pag. 45.) that the Churches indepēdent authority standeth not with the Kings Supremacy in causes Ecclesiastical, and that which else where we say, viz. nothing may be obtruded on the Church against their willes. I answer, indeed every Churches power is independent spiritually, and immediate under Christ: our meaning therefore is, that by ptetended Spiritual authority, nothing may be obtruded & imposed on any true Church against their willes. But we grant that Civil Magistrates may and sometime ought to impose good things on a true Church against their willes, if they stiffly err as sometime they may. And me thinks Doct. Downame also should be of this mind with us. Hitherto our answer to some of our Adversaries chiefest objections, and evil words. And so I draw to an end.

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

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

• First, how great a blame and [unspec 1] shame it is to D. Downame, a principal Logician to treat so largely (as in his Sermon & defenc. he hath done) concerning the Nature, Form, and Constitution of Christ's true Visible Church, and yet in all this not once to define the same. Which defect of D. Bilson also is to be noted in his perpetual government of the Church. Surely this one matter, viz. a Definition of Christ's true Visible Church under the Gospel, well performed, would have saved a great deal of pains and trouble, & would have prevēted much error. And thus it is wisely taught by Cicero that all purposes reasonable ought to be begū with a Definitiō of the matter in band. For the avoiding therefore of this imputation, I have in another Treatise defined the said Visible Church of Christ. Which I did, and rested not on some others who have Defined the Church heertofor, because I desired to distinguish clearly between the Jewish Church, and the Christian; which verily differ not in Accidentes alone, but in kind of government and in essential constitution. Which difference I know not who hath touched heretofore, and included in any Definition? In so much that from hence hath arisen no small occasion of grievous errors. Howbeit yet for the precise name of Definition or Description, I strive not: let men call it what they will. Only I take mine to be convertible with Christ's true Visib. Church under the Gospel, and that sufficeth me. Further, some think it long. For whose sakes I will here again set down in effect the same Definition, though in other words, & more short. Thus it is. A Visible Church of Christ under the Gospel, is a Spiritual Body politic of no mo ordinary Congregations then one; the people also having power of free consent in their [unspec 2] ordinary government. This is shorter, & yet as full as the other.
• Secondly, whereas Do. Downame in his book of his Sermon and Defense picketh out me in particular (besides his proper antagonist) to traduce and calumniat, I held it necessary to Answer him in the pointes that concern me, and by the way some other adversaries now and then, who oppugn this cause also which is the original of all their il will against me. Professing (for my part) that my purpose is hereafter to cease this manner of dealing in this matter, unless I might do it vpō more equal conditions, which I do not expect. The Lord (I doubt not) will raise up others, that shall more effectually bear witness unto this truth in due time, Even until the Toleration hereof in England, which hath ben most Christianly Supplicated for, shall find grace and favor in his Majesty's eyes: for the which I shall not cease to pray continually.
• Thirdly, whereas the [unspec 3] Writings and Disputes about this cause have ben and are very many, intricat, and tedious; I have here endeavored to make the understanding thereof short, easy, and perspicuous. Namely by reducing the whole substance of this controversy only to 2. Heads. viz. the Peoples free consent in their ordinary Church government: and that the extent of Christ's true Visible Church under the Gospel containeth one, and not many ordinary Congregations. Which 2. points being plainly and honestly handled, will bring an end of other differences also which are usually considered in our general controversy. I hope therefore this my endeavor will be profitable to such as would understand this cause briefly and distinctly: at least my intent was that it should be, being myself very desirous to draw our long contention (as much as I could) to a short issue.
• Fourthly, I desire that this and all other my writings [unspec 4] may be not sinisterly taken. Being with much vehemency charged, that for no just cause I have refused to conform to the Church order in England, I could therefore do no less but give out (yea unto posterity) the the true and most important Reasons of my dissenting herein. Also I have ben constrained by Do. Downame and such other, to clear and confirm the said reasons. And this is the only true cause (as the Lord knoweth) of all my writing. Which how just it is, I desire all fearing God uprightly to consider.
• [unspec 5] Fifthly, I pray all good Christians not to forget, nor neglect the due consideration of this matter, but to weigh with them selves how important it is indeed. Which I have somewhat largely opened before in the 7. Chapter in divers and sundry respects. It preserveth Christ's Honor & Ordinance, and casteth out Human Tradition, it bringeth to ourselves true assurance, and cutteth of from the Papists (and others) all pretence which otherwise [unspec 6] against us is not little.
• Sixthly, the very Attestation of those most worthy Divines and Churches, which here I allege, gathered out of their public records, shall I hope abundantly acquit both myself and many other faithful servants of Christ in the judgment of all honest and sound Christians, from the most injurious slanders given out by D. Downame and other adversaries, to our reproach among the ignorant, as namely where they call us, Shismatikes, Innovators, Enemies of Unity, &c. When men shall perceive that we are indeed taught these assertions which we hold (not to speak of the Scripture) out of Zwingli, Luther, Bucer, F. Martyr, Viret, Musculus, Bullinger, Gwalther, Chemnieius, Ursinus, Junius, Danaus, Calvin, and Beza, with many other like rare men of God, all consenting together in the substance of these points, as before I have shown more at large; then it will be a sufficient satisfactiō to them on our behalfes. And our adversaries shall find it to be well with them, if they themselves can stand clear of the said crimes of Schism, Noveltie, Enmitie to unity, peace, and truth of the Gospel. Nay, verily they cannot stand clear of these crimes.
• Last of all, these [unspec 7] our worthy Attestators & Teachers shall (I hope likewise) yet have so much credit and honor yielded to them in England, that their Disciples shall not (for their doctrine only) be afflicted, imprisoned, and more severely punished then those that profess to be the Disciples of the Romish Enemy. An enemy indeed (not conceited) both to Christ, to our King, & the Realm. In which hope and full persuasion, I humbly commend all this that I have Lud to God's holy providence & gracious blessing, & to all Christians chatable & upright judgment. To God only wise, through Jesus Christ, be praise forever and ever. AMEN.

An Addition.

THAT the abusers of Mai. Beza and Mai. Calvin about Mat. 18.17 may see their ill doing, I thought good to set down here some more of their testimonies a part by themselves. Which show plainly, that howsoever they seem sometime to speak not so warily as they might touching the word Ecclesia in this place, calling it the Church-Senate or Presbyterie: yet their true and right meaning indeed is that here Ecclesia signifieth not the Church Senate only & merely, as some obstinately charge thē to mean. They do here in this word comprehend also the people, and their power of free consent in Excommunication, which is the matter spokē of by Christ in this place of Math. I say, here in this word they include the people also, & teach that they must be told, and that they must be hearkened unto, in a degree, & in a certain order, viz. mediately & finally. They intend not, that Christ here committeth this business to the Presbyterie only and absolutely. Thus saith Beza upon this word; Doceo Aristocratiam non esse novum institutum, Dei verbo & Democratiae Ecclesiastica repugnans, sicut nonnulls ex vnicâ voculâ temere arreptâ sunt arbitrati. And presently before • e saith; Neque vero Oligarchiam velim in • cclesiam Dei invehi, quae illam tantopere de • rmavit atque adeo penitùs transformavit. • lso, Vocabulo Ecclesiae significari Civium • nventum, nemo est qui ignoret.

Calvin saith; In this place Mat. 18.17. Ius Iudaici Synedrij transfertur ad Christi • egem. And, Illa est legitima in Excōmu • cando homine progressio, si non soli Seniores • orsum id faciant, sed consciâ & approbante • cclesiâ, &c. Totius Ecclesia hac cognitio est. Clavium potestatem Dominus fidelium so • etati contulit. And he calleth Excommunication, Fidelium judicium; & the • xcommunicat (saith he) is Fidelium • uffragijs damnatus. Thus must these (& • there) worthy men of God be under • tood, and not to contradict themselves.

Beza also of the Calling of Ministers, • aith, Per quod ostium sunt ingress? Quis • os vocavit? &c. Vbi electio Presbyterij? Vbi • opuli suffragia? By what door entered they? Who called them? Where was the Election of • he Elders? Where was the people's voice-giving? By this showing that he held the people's free consent to be necessary also in the making of Ministers.