Necessity of Reforming Our Churches

The Assumption is proved in 8. Reasons.

FIrst, we have the 2. Commandment in the Decalogue; Thou shalt not make to thyself any image or likeness of anything, &c. Thou shalt not bow down to it nor worship it. Which is a perpetual and universal Law now still for all Christians, to the same very effect and purpose also, as it was heretofore unto the Jews. Where we must note, that God forbiddeth not the same Idol-worship here, which is forbidden properly in the 1. Commandment, where he saith; Thou shalt not have any other God's before me. This here forbidden is another kind of idolatry. In the first he forbiddeth whatsoever Divine or Godly honor given unto anything beside unto God himself. But here he forbiddeth all Means being Human Invētions, whereby men would give honor to the true God. And namely all Outward means; which we call God's Outward Worship or Service. Yet consider always that in this Commandemēt such Outward means of honoring God are not denied to men's discretiō as are Civil, either merely or mixedly. But only such are here denied as are merely Ecclesiastical things, and serve simply to the exercise of Religion. As all Ecclesiastical Rites, Actions, Ministries, & Forms of Visible Churches; which being (as it were) sensible images serving simply for religious or Ecclesiastical uses, and being merely the inventions of men, must needs by this Commandment be all simply unlawful. Or, in God's Outward worship this Commandment giveth leave to men's discretion & wisdom only touching mere Circumstances, which are nothing else but Occasionall or Accidental things therein. And these Occasionall Circumstances or Accidents are always such Particulars, as whose Generalls are either Civil, or Natural, or Written in the word. I say, these Particulars only (notwithstanding this Commandment) are permitted to men to appoint, or to change again, at their discretion. In this text then there are 3. points to be noted.

• 1. The matter.
• 2. The Author.
• 3. The respect due from us unto the matter here contained.

The matter is the whole spiritual Means of worshipping the true God. And namely the Outward spiritual means; that is, God's Visible Church, his Ministry, his whole Outward Worship and Service. 2. The Author of all this is precisely determined, viz. God himself, and no Man. 3. Such Inventions of men must have from God's people no reverence: but God's own ordinances must. And thus this 2. Commandment is truly understood.

To this effect likewise • re many other places of Scripture, excellent expositions and interpretations of this main Commandment. As, Whatsoever I command you, take heed that you do it: thou shalt put nothing thereto, nor take ought therefrom. This is the way, walk ye in it: turn not to the right hand nor to the left. The Law of the Lord is perfect. I hate vain inventions, but thy law do I love. Ye shall have fringes, that when ye look upon them, ye may remember all the commandments of the Lord, and do them: and that ye seek not after your own heart, nor after your own eyes, after the which ye go a whoring Every plant that my heavenly father hath not planted, shall be rooted up. The whole Scripture is given by inspiration of God, making the man of God perfect unto every good work. The holy Ghost shall lead you into all truth. No mā add to anything to a man's Testament: much less may we add unto Christ's Testament. Which is only the holy Scriptures of the Apostles, and nothing else in the world. Lastly, Mark them which make schisms and offenses Besides the doctrine which you have learned and avoid them. For such seruenot the Lord Jesus Christ, &c. With many other mo places to the same purpose.

Out of all which this doctrine remaineth clear and firm, that all Human inventions, or Vnwritten Traditions Ecclesiastical are directly contrary to God's word. Yea being but Beside the Scripture, they are flatly contrary to it in these places. And therefore God's own word (which is only the holy Scriptures as was before noted) ought to be religiouslie believed, and held to be for us as a most perfect and absolute demonstration of all things whatsoever being properly and simply Ecclesiastical or religious. Which was the special end and use they were given for. As likew • se they were given unto the Jews; even to be so absolute and perfect for them, ever since God did give them any holy Scripture. From which grounds & principal places of God's wor • e thus declared, we will now conclude and frame our first Reason.

[Reason 1] IF we have Diocesan and Provincial Churches using government,& Ministries or Offices proper to them, and also Ceremonies (that is, Rites) now in controversy, all which are Inventions & Traditions utterly without the Scripture; then we have some reputed Churches as touching their outward visible form, and ministries, and Ceremonies, contrary to God's word.

But we have Diocesan & Provincial Churches using government, their proper Offices, viz. the Provincial & Diocesan high Commission, Provincial and Diocesan Ruling Bishops, also controverted Ceremonies which are all Ecclesiastical unwritten Traditions, no ways contained in, but clean beside the Scripture.

Therefore they are contrary to these places of God's word, they are simply evil, & of necesitie the other, viz. the Parish Churches in England ought to be reformed, freed, and cleared of them all.

Where it is first to be noted, [Note 1] that all • those forenamed matters Ecclesiastical, or any other else, which may or can be lawful, are and ought to be cōtaine • in the Scripture, either expressly or by necessary consequence. Otherwise we affirm they are merely Human Inventions & Traditions, contrary to the Scripture.

[Note II] Again it is to be noted, that in the es • imation of men a Visible Church (that is, which is endued with power of Spiritual outward government) is of di • ers forms and natures. Nevertheless in truth and in ve • ie deed Christ hath ordained for us only one kind of a Visible Church in his word. And this only ought to be allowed and believed to be a true Church by all Christians. For who is it, that can or ever could make any society of people to be a Visible Church, but Christ only? [ 1] Some men esteem the Universal number of professed Christians in the world to be one visible Church, calling it the Catholic or Universal visible Church. And the Catholics taking hold hereof, do conclude that likewise there is & ought to be one Catholic and universal government Ecclesiastical unto which all other Churches and their governments must be subordinate. But in God's word there is no such visible Church nor government anywhere to be found. This is merely devised by the wit and will of men. Again men esteem a whole Nation professing the Gospel, to be one visible Church, [ 2] and they call it a National church. Likewise a Province a Provincial church: [ 3] and a Diocese a Diocesan Church. [ 4] But none of these likewise can be found in the whole new Testament of Christ. [ 5] Only a Particular ordinary constant Congregation of Christians in Christ's Testament is appointed and reckoned to be a visible Church. And therefore so standeth the case now here with us in England also, and so we ought to esteem it. The which that it may more clearly appear to be true, I have thought good to set down this brief Table following, wherein all the divers and sundry senses of a Church in the New Testament are plainly & distinctly shown. And yet none of the 4. forenamed visible Churches (as some do repute them) are anywhere there to be found.

A Table briefly showing all the divers and sundry significations in the New Testament of this word which commonly we translate a Church. Wherein we may easily see which is the one true and proper visible Church of Christ to which the government Ecclesiastical of ife doeth always of right apprtaine.
• Ecclesia in y ^e New Testament is taken.
  Ciuilly and originally for a particular Assembly of Citizens in one certain public place about matters of the Common wealth.
• Ecclesia in y ^e New Testament is taken.
  Religlouslie for a Church
  • Properly
    • in the next and nearest proportion answering to the Original civil use thereof. This is a Particular Visible Ordinary Congregation of Christians meeting for religious & Ecclesiastical actions & exercises. And this is the only true Visible Church of Christ having from him the Spiritual power of order & government in it self ordinarily. The proper Ministers thereof are the only true ordinary Ministers of Christ. This we read of in the Scripture in 2. respects:
      • Definitly; This is some certain known particular Congregation in some certain particular place which we may go unto consult with and obey.
      • Indefinitlie; where is understood This, or That, or any other particular ordinary Congregation.
    • in a proportion more remote or further of. Such is the Invisible or Intelllgible Church absolutely Catholic: that is the number of all God's Elect both in Heaven and in Earth.
  • Figuratiuely by a
    • Metaphor; Such is a holy & well ordered Christian family resembling as it were a very Church though in deed it be but a part of a true and proper Church.
    • Synecdoche viz. of the
      • Visibility, when the Church itself that is the whole cannot but only some parts of it may be Visible or Sensible at any time to any one man that needeth the use of it Such is the Catholic Militant Church, w ^c is properly an Invisible & Intelligible Church as it is considered wh • lie together, that is, as it is one Church.
      • Society; as when only the People of a particular Congregation (having Ministers, yet without and beside their Ministers) are called the Church.

Whereby it is evident that no Catholic, or Universal Church Visible is anywhere in all Christ's New Testament to be found: and therefore in no wise is such a Church to be allowed. Neither yet any National, or Provincial, or Diocesan Church. Only a particular ordinary Congregation is here found (and so is to be held) properly and only a true visible Church of Christ.

Moreover hereby it appeareth, and it is likewise to be noted, that the nature and office of a Bishop also is not of one manner, but of divers. It is as the former word Church very ambiguous, and must be likewise necessarily distinguished. Six sortes of Bishops have ben and are known in the world. A Parishonal Bishop, who is a Pastor of one ordinary Congregation only. Such are all the Bishops mentioned anywhere in the New Testament, and also in writers within the space of 200. years after Christ. A Diocesan Titular Bishop, who was Bishop of a Diocese in title and in name only, in Ecclesiastical government having no more power then any other common Pastor. He differed not in any essential part of the ordinary Pastoral Office, but was only President or Moderator constantly (yet by his fellow Pastors free consent) over the Pastors of a Diocese. Such perhaps first of all was Julianus the tenth Bishop of Alexandria. In whose time first mention is made that there were divers Churches in that City, and he Bishop of them. The first sort of these Bishops we wholly allow. The second we do not simply deny. They were not much unlike to the Bishops now lately appointed in Scotland. There is a Diocesan ruling Bishop. He had more power then any of the rest of the ordinary Pastors (though yet not any sole power) to rule in his Diocese. It may be this began at Alexandria with Dionysius the thirteenth Bishop of that place: which seemeth to be Jerome's meaning, where he saith, that some priority in Bishops continued there from Mark to Heraclas and Dionysius. At Heraclas (it is probable) was a period of one sort, and with Dionysius began another. Prioritie of order in one Bishop over a Parish (that is one particular complete Congregation) seemeth to have continued exclusively from Mark unto Julianus: over a Diocese from Julianus to Heraclas inclusively: and then Maioritie of ruling in the Diocese to have begun with Dionysius the next Successor after. Nothing letteth us but that thus we may probably think: Seeing thus Eusebius and Jerome's relation shall well agree. How soever it was, this is certain, that neither the one nor the other was known before these times here expressed. A Diocesan Lord Bishop was he, who ruled ordinarily in his Diocese by his sole power. This grew up from the former by little and little. But it seemeth not to have ben established in Ambrose, Jerome, & Augustine's time: though soon after (we doubt not) it took place over the Churches. A Patriarchal Bishop: and they were first 4. in number, viz. at Rome, Antioch, Jerusalem, Alexandria. They began by men's voluntary regarding the Bishops of those principal Cities above other, sometime before the Nicene Council. But they were by an ordinance established first in that Council. Howbeit yet they were not Lord's over the Churches, till a long while after. In the first Council of Constantinople, another Patriarch was established at Constantinople. A Catholic or Universal Bishop began at Rome, about 600. years after Christ. Who also hath had his growinges and increasings, and was not perfect Antichrist, till some ages after. Now all these latter, that is, the 3.4.5. & 6. sort, are at least Besides the Scriptures: yea they are clean Contrarie to the first, which hath place and allowance in the Scripture. And therefore these are plainly contrary to God's word, & utterly unlawful. Wherefore also the common accounts and Catalogues of the succession of Bishops from the Apostles times to our days are very deceitful and false. When as all these are called by one name indifferently Bishops without distinction, yet their Offices are exceeding divers and no way like. Yea these later directly contrary to the first, as hath ben said.

Against this it is objected, that Timothy and Titus were properly Diocesan ruling Bishops. Yea such as we call Lord Bishops, that is, using sole authority: and had charge of mo particular Churches then one. Which is to be in deed a Diocesan Bishop. But they and their Offices are found in the Scripture: viz. To ordain Pastors in divers Churches, and to censure them, &c.

I answer, the very Apostles did not make Ministers nor Censure by their sole and single Authority, but evermore in the presence and with some liking of that particular Church whom it concerned. Therefore much less did Timothy or Titus such matters solely and singly, who were lower then Apostles. And therefore they were no Lord Ministers certainly. Further it is untrue, they were no proper Bishops at all: neither Diocesan, nor any other. For all proper Bishops were affixed to certain places and certain charges where they were to serve and attend (in purpose) continually. But Timothy and Titus were never affixed to one certain charge. For they (like the Apostles) intended not a constant continuance in a place, but after a time of their abode in one Nation, translated both their presence and their labors into another Country. Being Comites Apostolorum, Cōpanions or Assistants to the Apostles, endued doubtless with the extraordinary gift of divers tongues, and therefore did go (being cōmonlie sent or called by the Apostles) hither & hither, to the end that they might perfect such Churches as the Apostles had planted, but not thoroughly furnished. And this is evident by the text. First Timothy was chosen and ordained at Lystra, went into Phrygia, Galatia, Mysia, Troas: being at Philippi was sent to Corinth, from Athens went to Thessalonica: from Ephesus went to Macedonia: after he was left at Ephesus again to order & redress things there. And yet thence he was sent for away and departed. A little before Paul's death he was at Rome, & from thence to go to the Philippians. Wherefore Timothy was no ordinary proper Bishop of any sort, nor affixed to any certain place, but a very Evangelist (as also the Scripture calleth him) that is, an unlimited, extraordinary, and tēporarie function in the Churches. The like was Titus. Paul chose him for his companion & helper, and had him with him to Jerusalem. Also he sent him to Corinth. He left him in Crete a while: but sends for him thence away anon after to Nicopolis. A little before Paul's death he was with him at Rome, & from thence he went into Dalmatia. Both these therefore were very Evangelistes, and no manner of ordinary Bishops. Neither in deed were there any Diocesan Bishops, or Diocesan Churches, that can be found in all the New Testament.

Then they will object, that some things are Indifferent in Ecclesiastical actions; and doubtless so are certain Circumstances, &c. It is not necessary that these should be warranted particularly in the Scripture.

I answer; The Papists do hold their Ecclesiastical Traditions or Rites to be meerelie indifferent in their nature, and to be necessary only as the Church commandeth them. This is manifest by D. Stapleton saying: Omnes vident in corum [Rituum Ecclesiasticorum] vsu nullam necessitatem poni, sed libere assumi vel non assumi: modo absit contemptus, qui non in Ceremoniam sed in Ecclesiae prepositos, qui cam instituerunt, imo in Christum cadit, dicente ad illos Christo, Qui vos spernit me spernit. Also by the Reims Testament, saying: Neither flesh nor fish of it self doth defile, but the breach of the Churches precept defileth. Likewise writeth Bellarmine in his discourse of their Church-Ceremonies. But yet notwithstanding every good Christian knoweth well, that their Traditions are plainly superstitious and unlawful. How then shall not ours also be the like? What are ours better then theirs? Further, though Circumstances be indifferent and may be changed by men, yet Forms of Churches are not so; nor the Church Ministries, nor Ceremonies, nor (in a word) any Traditions Ecclesiastical, whereof our former Reason wholly entreateth. We deny not then but that in Ecclesiastical actions the mere Circumstāces are in some sort indifferent, that is, not necessary to be determined by Scripture. But these truly are not to be called Ecclesiastical Traditions. Wherefore we must know that there is a great difference between Traditions & Circumstances. Besides God's Ordinances specified in Scripture, there are 2. other kinds of lawful things in the administration of Church matters.

• 1. Natural Necessities.
• 2. Proper and mere Circumstances.

Natural Necessities, are Persons, Times, Places, &c. Proper & mere Circumstances (which only are indifferent in Church actions) are Accidental things whereof there is no necessity, but either may or may not be used. They are of 2. sortes, either Civil or Occasionall. [ 1] The Civil Circumstances are such as though they be used in Church actions, yet even there they import only and merely a Civil use. Which we shall easily discern thus: viz. when the same things in the same manner are used also in actions merely Civil at other times and places. Such were Christ's Washing the Disciples feet, the Love feasts, & Kissings in the Church meetings of old. The manner at this day of the French Preaching covered. To come to the Church in this or that decent and comely common apparel. A commodious & distinct House for God's Service, &c. [ 2] Occasionall Circumstances are such particulars as some special occasion requireth and moveth us unto, namely when the General things are either usual in Civil custom, or by God's own ordinance in Nature, or in the Word written. As such or such Places, Times, Persons, Things. Namelie to come together in Synagogues, or Temples. To use Pues, or Pulpits, &c. To Pray Kneeling, or Prostrate. To eat and drink at the L. Table leaning, or sitting, &c. In the Evening, or at Midnight. To Baptize in Rivers. Also the Apostles using of some Jewish Ceremonies among the vnconverted Jews a while after Christ's death. Their letting the people to nominate their Ministers. Churches more or less populous, &c. These and such like we doubt not, are in Ecclesiastical actions in some sort Indifferent. I mean they are changeable, and either cannot or ought not to be perpetual: neither need they to be determined in Scripture. Although yet in their use they are not to be reckoned so indifferent, but that they ought necessarily to be ruled by the general rules of Discretion and Charity. Namely that in all of them Comelinesse, Edification, the Avoyding of offense, and God's glory may be respected. Thus then let it be noted, that we affirm in Ecclesiastical actions no other thing at all beside these is or can be any way indifferent by any means. But touching our forenamed Ecclesiastical vnwrittē Traditions (whether Forms of Visible Churches, Ministries, or Ceremonies) they are of no such nature, as those things beforenamed either Natural necessities, or proper Circumstances are. They are no way like to any sort of them. Wherefore though Circumstances be indifferent, yet men's Traditions in Religiō cannot be. Neither did these things stand otherwise among the Jews under the Law. So that it remaineth sure, that all Church-Traditions without God's word (& therefore all invented forms of Visible Churches using government, offices of Ministry, and Ceremonies) are simply evil and unlawful; and therefore of necessity ought to be reformed.

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

Touching Temples I answer: They are esteemed merely Ecclesiastical or Religious places, because things merely Ecclesiastical or Religious are done in them. Howbeit the truth is, their proper and principal use is partly Natural and partly Civil. It is necessary in Nature for Church-Assemblies to be in a place. It is Civil (namely when peace & prosperity is) to have a commodious a comely and a distinct House for the public exercises of God's worship. Which very thing is in Civility no less requisite for the public grave actions of the Cōmon Wealth also. So that at the most, a Temple appointed by men cannot truly be accounted a thing merely, but mixedly Ecclesiastical. And so this Human institution we acknowledge is lawful even for Religious affairs, when there is no further use thereof at all. That is, if it be not held as Religious merely, nor in the proper and principal use thereof. As the Surplice is with us. It is an Ecclesiastical Rite: which the Temple cannot be. It is merely & simply Ecclesiastical. There is no respect had to Civility in it: considering that it serveth never in any Civil business nor place, but it is only in and for the Church & Church actions. Much less is there for it any Natural necessity. Beside, the Preface of the Cōmon-prayer-book maketh it to have (with the rest of the Ceremonies) a special signification in God's worship. Even as the Papists do also use it; frō whom immediately we have received the same. Wherefore doubtless such prescript garments merely Ecclesiastical being Human Inventions, are simply unlawful: although Temples for God's Service be not so. Moreover we have to answer to this and such like matters objected to us, in this wise. Such * places of Scripture as do command Church-Assemblies and the public Worship of God, the same do also by necessary consequence (in time of peace) command some commodious and distinct Houses for them. But no Scripture by any necessary consequence commandeth any distinct and mere Ecclesiastical Garment at any season. Therefore these things cannot be compared nor likened together. They are not both things indifferent alike. Nay, the one is by God's word necessary, the other unlawful.

Some think that the appointing of the Altar in Joshua, of the Feast of Purim, and David's ordaining Singers & Musicians in the Temple, do prove that all religious matters invented and instituted by men, are not unlawful.

I answer, Howsoever they who appointed and set up that Altar in Joshua might have devised some other thing less scandalous then the form of an Altar, which yet might as well have served to the use they made it for, as the Altar did or could do. Nevertheless this Altar was truly no more but a civil monument or Sign, as being used no way in any Ecclesiastical or Religious action of worshipping God, but set up as a spectacle only in the open fields or by the river side, though it served for a token that the 2. Tribes and a half had a part with the rest of Israel, and in the worship of their God. Not unlike it might be to this; if the States of the low Countries should command every inhabitant (being no Anabaptist) in that Country to wear a little Dagger on their garments, to show that they believe Magistracy and the use of weapons to be lawful. Or as perhaps the Sign of the Cross was used by the Ancient Christians dwelling among Heathens, to let them see they were not ashamed of Christ crucified. All these are clearly Civil, and therefore (we acknowledge) in men's power it is ro ordain or abrogate them. As for the Feast of Purim, that appeareth nowhere in the text to have been a Religious Feast or Holy day. But only a day of Civil use also: viz. of rejoicing, of making merry, of sending presents to friends, and gifts to the poor. As may appear Hest. 9.22. Yet if any contend that it was a Holy day for solemn Thanks-giving & worshipping of God in memory of the rare deliverance of the Jews from Haman's malice: Though this appear not, yet we may answer, neither can any man disprove it, that Mordecai the Jew (the Author of this institution) was a Prophet of God, and Author also of this book of Hester. So that then he ordained this constant Holy-day, not by human discretion, but by Divine authority. Even as David did institute the singing. Levites with Instrumentes of Music in the Temple. The text (as it were of purpose) meeting with this objection, importeth that David neither did nor might do these things by his Kinglie power, nor by any discretion Human, but only by Prophetical authority through God's own commandment. Where it is to be noted, that by urging God's absolute & all sufficient Law for matters Ecclesiastical, we do not restrain nor bind God, but only us Men from adding of anything in the exercise of God's worship besides that which he him self hath instituted and sealed up in his Testament.

It will be again replied, This is true in deed, God hath given us in his word this sufficiency for all Ecclesiastical or Religious matters necessary to salvation: but not for all Ecclesiastical matters whatsoever.

This is a frivolous exception, and most false. For first, divers of our present matters controverted are necessaric enough. They cannot be thus rejected as things not necessary: viz. the only true Form and Constitution of Christ's Visible Churches, with their due Ministries proportioned to them. According to God's ordinary dispensation of grace by his word, there is even Necessity to enjoy these (God's own) Ordinances, and to be free from all Traditions of men, especially such as are contrary to his. Touching other things, which seem sinaller and of less importance, as some esteem the Rites & Ceremonies to be in God's worship. I answer: our Argument before laid down generally includeth all mere Ecclesiastical or Religious things. I say, All. And where All is included, Nothing is excepted. Wherefore we still affirm and profess that all lawful Ecclesiastical Rites whatsoever are contained now in the Scriptures of the New Testament, and not only things simply necessary to salvation. Besides that we must not forget how the willful maintaining of small things amiss becometh a great and heinous sin, whereunto is due a fearful punishment. As may be seen in him who with a high hand did but gather a few sticks on the Sabbath day.

Nothwithstanding all this, yet it seemeth to many that these external things Ecclesiastical are not matters of Doctrine, nor of Faith, &c. And therefore may be lawful, though they be not contained in the Scripture. I answer, They are all truly & properly matters of Doctrine, of Faith, and of Religion, appertaining to the

• 1. Table &
• 2. Commandment in the Decalogue, & to many other places of Scripture, as before hath been shown.

It is the error of men not knowing the holy Scriptures proper and full use, or true extent, when any do think such Ecclesiastical things as these here controverted are not contained in the Scripture, & yet that they may be lawful. They are all simply unlawful, if they be not contained in the holy Scripture. Wherefore, even all these things both the lawful & unlawful, contained in the Scripture or not contained (Forms of visible Churches using Government, Ministries, & Rites) are matters of Doctrine, of Faith, of Religiō, viz. true or false. So that the one ought as our life to be embraced, the other as the very ways of death to be avoided, especially when we discern and see them thus to be.

Reason 2.

EVERY Visible Church of Christ (truly and properly so called) ought by God's express word to have and use the Ecclesiastical government of itself.

B •• • very particular Congregation of Christians is a" Visible Church of Christ truly and properly. "

Therefore every particular Congregation of Christians by God's express word ought to have and use the Ecclesiastical government of it self: viz. according to the order set down for a Visible Church in God's word.

And so in England consequently the things that are directly contrary thereunto ( Diocesan and Provincial Churches using government, with their Ministers, &c.) are directly contrary to God's word, and therefore ought of necessity to be reformed.

Here first lett it be noted, that we understand a Visible Church of Christ to be a Society of Christians which any member may and must (on occasion) have a visible or sensible use of entirely and wholly together, the same having the power of Eccle siasticall government in and for it self immediately from Christ. I say, The Church intirelie and wholly together may and must be used on occasion. Considering that against this there is no text of Scripture in all the New Testament, nor any force of reason appearing.

Then let us also observe and mark these 3. pointes. For proof of our Assumption last before. 1. [ 1] The Visible Churches of Christ were in number many & divers (and not only one) by the ordinance of God him self. So that it is false which is held that there is a Universal Visible Church like the Sea; which being but one properly, is distinguished and called by divers names according to the Countries and places by which it cometh. Nay, the Visible Churches of Christ were by the Apostles ordination many in number, & actually divided Bodies or Societies: The Sea properly and always being but one Continued Body, was and is distinguished meerelie by divers names. The Universal Invisible Church was and is in deed one in number: but I have shown there were many▪ in number of the true and proper Visible Churches. Again, the Jewish Visible Church according to the Law, was in mumber only one properly under one High Priest, and having one Temple only at Jerusalem. But Christ and his Apostles changed that form, and did institute and leave the Christian Churches properly in number many and divers, as I said.

Secondly they instituted and left particular ordinary or constant Cōgregations true and proper Visible Churches: Or, [ 2] they left not any one Visible Church (in the whole world) constitute and compact of divers ordinary and constant Congregations. Both these points are most manifest and undeniable in these places of holy Scripture following. First that flourishing and plentiful Church of Corinth was but one particular Congregation. Whereof the Apostle saith thus, When the whole Church is come together into one place. Which also we may likewise affirm of the Church of Antioch, and of Rome, and of Jerusalem, and of Ephesus, &c. in those days. For though these Cities were great and populous, yet being unbelieving & hateful enemies to the Gospel, each of them had then of faithful Christians but one particular constant Congregation only. Like as the Protestants are in the Cities at this day under the Spanish King; or as they were in divers Cities of France before the peace was made, & as we were here in London in Queen Mary's time. Where yet we deny not, that then some particular Cōgregations being (as that of Jerusalem was before) greater then other some, did by reason of persecution meet occasionallie and vncertainlie in divers smaller numbers. But these smaller numbers were not so many Churches properly, because they were uncertain and occasional. A true and proper Church being always necessarily an ordinary set company and a constant society. Those therefore notwithstanding made but one particular & complete Congregation or proper Church, which in time of peace (chiefly they growing yet more populous) were to be distributed and divided into sundry proper and ordinary Churches, each of them a competent Congregation. Which we do observe further near the end of our handling the 2. Assertion afterward. Moreover, likely also it is in these cruel persecuting Cities that so great a multitude of Christians did not long keep together, but many of thē did quickly disperse and scatter them selves abroad into other quarters and Countries, whereby the whole number there became smaller, as we may see they did at Jerusalem by reason of Stevens persecution, &c. immediately after the great and sudden increase of the Church there. All which being considered, it is plain yet still that in the greatest Cities, or wheresoever else, the Apostles appointed and left true and proper Visible Churches particular constant Cōgregations. Which further alfo appeareth by those many and distinct Churches of Galatia, of Macedonia, of Asia, of Achaia, of Judea, of Galilee & Samaria, of Syria & Silicia, of Lycaonia & Pisidia. Likewise by those many Churches of the Gentiles, and the Churches of the Saints, the Churches of God, the Churches of Christ, and All Churches. All these in number were (not only one, but) many proper distinct Churches. Each of them being severallie but one particular constant Cōgregation. Wherevnto most fitly agreeth that injunction and commandment of our Savior Christ touching a Visible Church where he instituteth the external spiritual power thereof, saying, Tell the Church or Congregation: If he hear not the Church, let him be unto thee as an Heathen and a Publican. Where he must necessarily be understood of a particular Congregation. Which may be told and spoken unto only. As also that description of a Visible Church, which our public Authority in England teacheth: viz. A Visible Church is a Congregation of faithful people where the word of God is preached, and the Sacraments ministered, &c. Doct. Bilson also, where he saith The Church is never taken in the New or Old Testament for the Priests alone, but generally for the whole Congregation of the faithful. In Act. 20.28. The Church is taken for the People. And it is Math. 18.17. The whole multitude of the faithful where he and they (the Offender and the Offended) live.

The 3. [ 1] point here to be marked (serving also for proof of our Proposition before) is a general and sure Maxim in Divinity: viz. The true and proper Visible Churches of Christ both heretofore, now, and hereafter, though many in number, yet all are but one in nature, form, and Constitution. And each of them hath simply one and the same spiritual or Ecclesiastical power immediately from Christ (not derived from any other) to govern it self withal. To which purpose the Scripture often speaketh of the Visible Church indefinitelie as of only one. Because in Nature and Form and in the true Constitution, as also in the spiritual power thereof, it is only one. Yea it saith also in plain terms that there is one Body: where is meant the Church. But it is to be understood, that it is one in nature and power, as I said. Which must of necessity be so, because Christ's Institution of a visible Churches external spiritual government before noted, must belong equally to every true and proper Visible Church. Wherefore also the nature, form, & Constitution of every one must be the same that this is which here Christ signifieth in Matthew. Which evidently was a particular Congregation, as before we observed. To which purpose also one of our Adversaries a famous Schole-divine showeth that by clear and undeniable reason the government Ecclesiastical belongeth to every Visible Church properly so called. And the practice of the Apostolic Churches doeth justify and confirm it. Which being ordinary particular Congregations, each of them did or might by their Ministers (and them selves in presence consenting) choose Elders and excommunicate offenders. Neither certainly did Christ ever institute or the Apostles practice divers kinds or forms of Visible Churches. Neither let they any to have greater or lesser spiritual power then other. But they appointed one form and one power for the Churches (questionless) everywhere and always. Therefore they all (though being many in number, yet) were and are one in nature, and form, and power every-where and forever.

Whence now it followeth by a necessary and undeniable consequence that these 3. Conclusions ensuing are likewise certain and true.

• 1. Every particular ordinary Congregation of faithful people in England is a true & proper Visible Church.
• 2. Everie such Congregation here and everywhere is endued with power immediately frō Christ to govern it self Ecclesiasticallie or fpirituallie.
• 3. Everie true and proper Visible Church everywhere is but one ordinary or constant Congregation only.

And then no one Church consisteth, neither can consist of many ordinary distinct Congregations. Wherefore no Diocesan Church is ordained or allowed by Christ, no Provincial, no National, and so likewise no Universal visible Church with an external government correspondent to the same, as the Catholics heretically do hold. A Universal Militant Church I deny not: but a Universal or Catholic Visible Church with correspondent government I do deny, and so likewise the rest. Now here thus we do for this reason, because it is not possible, if there be indeed one Universal Church properly, or where there is a National Church, or Provincial, or Diocesan, that there the particular ordinary Cōgregations are or can be esteemed so many true and proper Churches. These cannot stand together with any of the former. Everie of those is directly contrary to these. Seeing these in such case are properly but Members and partes of the other, and not in them selves proper and intier Churches. Which yet in the places of Scripture * before cited the H. Ghost doth plainly affirm. Where if he speak not properly, who doth? Or what is in Divinity a proper speech, if the continual phrase of the H. Ghost in Scripture be not proper? And surely to this point, if we mark it well, doth all our present Controversy come; that is, to set down What is a Visible Church of Christ truly and properly. Seeing each true Visible Church hath evermore from Christ power and right of government in it self, as before is noted. Let this therefore be well declared what is a true Visible Church, and we shall soon agree. We affirm that every particular ordinary Cōgregation is and ought to be allowed for such a Church. And hereupon do we stand. I am not ignorant of the common and vulgar phrase of speech among men both ancient and of late, both unlearned and learned, who have used to call every of those other a Church (as a Diocesan Church, a Provincial, a National, and also a Universal Church) meaning, it seemeth, that every of these may be truly and rightly called a Visible Church. But this is only the custom of speech among men. And Custom is a Tyrant, as a Reverend Father saith well. It is no warrant nor ground for anything in Religion. The word of God alone must suffice us herein. Yea we consider not what advantage we give the Heretike Catholics against us, by acknowledging a Catholic Visible Church. It followeth from this necessarily that there is & ought to be on earth a Catholic or Universal government Ecclesiastical. This is a Conclusion whereunto M. Hooker setteth down expressly both the Proposition and Assumption: viz.

To which Premises every child now can quickly add the Conclusion.

Ergo, There is and ought to be on earth a Catholic or Universal government Eccle siasticall.

And I am persuaded, that this oversight or error among us hath caused Thousandes to turn Catholics, that is members of Antichrist and enemies to the true Churches and servants of Christ. For if there be properly one Visible Church and government Ecclesiastical throughout the world, then this must be in someone place eminently. For some whither we must go, when Christ biddeth us Tell the Church. Now there is no place in all the world so likely as Rome is to be the Visible seat and spring-head of the Universal government of the Catholic Church, if in deed there be any. Therefore most easily mē are drawn to be Roman Catholics, whē this is not denied that there is a Catholic Visible Church. Which self same advantage we give also to our Pontifical Hierarchy in England against the true estate and due government of Christ's Visible Churches here. For while we grant them (whether by error or by oversight) that there is & may be truly and properly a Diocesan Visible Church, they will easily conclude that then there may & ought to be a correspondent Diocesan government. Which (as before I observed) overthroweth quite the proper being and government of each particular or Parishonal Church. But we, because Christ and his Apostles throughout all the New Testament have appointed & every were allowed the Parishonal Assemblies, as to be clearly & absolutely distinct in themselves, so to be Visible Churches truly & properly, and withal a correspondent Ecclesiastical government to be in each of them, as before hath been shown; therefore hereupon do we stand, this do we urge that the Institution of Christ and the Apostles practice ought to be a rule for Christian Churches, as everywhere, so here in England: upon this do our Consciences rest assuredly. Because (as before I said) who is it that may presume to ordain any form of a Church save Christ only? Especiallie overthrowing that form of a Church and government which Christ hath ordained, as these Diocesan and Provincial Churches with their proper Ministers do. Ecclesiae nomine armamini, & contra Ecclesias dimicatis. You arm yourselves with the name of the Church, and fight against the true Churches.

In this place I cannot forget how some thinking thenselves deep Politicians, do imagine that they see our Groūds to be directly against a Monarchy or Kingly State. For this Ecclesiastical government being Popular (say they) it will require the Civil government also to become conformed to it. Also they think it can never be menaged without trouble and tumult.

First we absolutely deny that any manner of Ecclesiastical Governement requireth the Civil Governement to become conformed to it. This is a most false conceit. The bounds of either Governernement are distinct and cleerlie severed the one from the other: albeit each doth aid & succor the other. But what should I reason hereof? This their insimulation is against none other then Christ him self and his blessed Word, wherein he hath instituted no other state of a Church Visible but a particular Congregation only. Shall we impugn and accuse the true Church of Christ? Nay, shall we accuse Christ him self and his Gospel; that herein he yieldeth us not the true, right, or best form of a Church? And therefore we will of our own heads devise and constitute a better. God forbid that any Christians should so do, and willfully maintain this doing also. But they think this manner of government will become tumultuous and troublesome in the State: and so it will prove hurtful to the Prince. I would demand, why think they that the Church government (as we desire it) will be troublesome & tumultuous? They will answer, because we require of necessity that Elections of Ministers, and Excommunications, &c. must be Popular. Which cannot but bring with them commonly tumult and much trouble, if not confusion and peril to many. Wherevnto I reply, that this were very true in deed (viz. much trouble and tumult would commonly follow, and perhaps peril to divers) if we desired or sought for popular Elections of Diocesan Bishops. Such as we read of & find to have ben used in many places under Christian Princes from 300. years after Christ hitherward for a long time. As for example at Antioch, Alexandria, Rome, Constantinople, &c. In these and other Cities very great stirs, tumults, and confusions among the People have risen in deed not seldom times, even in and about such their Elections. The Ecclesiastical Histories are full of examples to this purpose. But such running together of a whole City or Dioces, such voice-giving of such multitudes of people we desire not: neither do we any ways allow it. It was a corrupt remainder in deed of the Peoples ancient free voice-giving to the Election of their Parishonal Pastors or Bishops. For such all ordinary Bishops and Pastors were primitively in the Apostles days, and such everywhere they were left by them, as before we have shown. Every ordinary Bishop then (I say) was only of a Parish (as the Ancients call it) that is of one particular Congregation only, and no greater. And so their Elections were accomplished by the free consent and voice-giving only of the People of each of these particular ordinary Congregations, or Parishes. Now it is true indeed, we acknowledge we allow and do desire such Elections and Excommunications by the People. Neither is this to be reckoned any Popularitie which can be either prejudicious to Princes, or tumultuous in it self. No, it cannot be an inconvenient order, but most reasonable for any place or people in the world. Namely seeing we do expressly hold this assertiō no otherwise (and we hartilie pray that it may be noted) but as it is grounded on 4. Circumstances. In regard that it is (as we are well assured) a Divine order and ordinance instituted for each Church by Christ and his Apostles: the truth whereof (we hope) hath evidently appeared in this Reason last handled. Considering that we allow the Peoples consent and voice-giving in Elections, Excommunications, &c. to be done only by the Christian People of one Parish, that is, of one particular ordinary Congregation only, and by no greater nor larger number of People by any means, as before hath been likewise shown. Considering that in the manner hereof we hold this only to be necessary & ordinary, that the Ecclesiastical Guides there (apart frō the People ) do first by themselves prepare and determine the whole matter, namely in such sort that the People may not need to do ought afterward but only Consent with them, and freely signify their consent it it. If anywhere it should fall out that this People thus guided, & being so few, will yet presume to be in their Church-Elections, &c. unruly and violent, then the Princes next dwelling Officers of Justice may and ought to make them keep peace and quietness. Which thing how easy it is for the meanest of them to do, the simplest may perceive. All which verily being well considered, this Ecclesiastical Governement questionless is most reasonable, yea necessary. And it is childish, & without all wit to cry out against us (as our Adversaries do) Popularitie, Anarchy, and Enmitie to Princes, for this our so well grounded and so approved an assertion.

Another thing is here to be well remembered, that M. Hooker and M. Tooker the noble Patrons of Pluralities and Nonresidencie are utterly defeated in this their purpose. The former maketh this his Reason for them, because it is a mistaking (saith he) to think that the particular Congregations are by God's ordinance so many distinct & proper Churches. For (as he holdeth) there is but one Visible Church properly, and the same Universal thorough the whole world. As for particular Congregations they are not properly so many Churches, neither distinguished at all by God but only by men. And therefore every Minister is a Minister properly to the Whole Church; but by men according to discretion only is limited to this or that Congregation, there to have maintenance made sure to him by Law, & there to teach, till men see it fit to employ his gifts in another Benefice, or elsewhere. All which because they are merely Men's ordinances, by men they may be disposed and dispensed with again as to those in authority seemeth good. And so both Pluralitie of Livings and Nonresidencie from the same shall be both lawful and honest. This is the effect and drift of his reason. And even on the same foundation also buildeth D. Tooker. Yea only this ground he hath, and none other. Where nothing else needeth answer but this his assertion; Distinctiō of Parish Churches is of mere positive law, not of Divine. For my part, I would grant this Reason to be in deed sound and good for their purpose; (and not only for that, but also singular and most pregnant to set up the Roman Papacie too) if this their Foundation were not manifestly contrary to God's word. But before it hath ben shown to be clearer then the light that Distinctiō of Parishes in some sort, that is, of particular Churches is by God's own ordinance in the Apostles Writings, and not by the mere positive law of men. Wherefore this is evident to be a most ungodly and shameless Defense pleading for, or excusing that wretched sin of soul-murdering Nonresidencie, as if it were a thing allowable and not simply evil. It cannot excuse this sin to allege that Plurified men may have their 2. Benefices near together; perhaps within half a mile, a mile, or 2. mile the one of the other. This will not help them anymore then a man can be excused, who taketh & keepeth two wives at once: though yet by the one he be not drawn far away from the other. God's law disalloweth that former no less thē this latter. Yea I avow, There have ben who have kept two wives at once, honester men and more approved of God, thē any Minister now in England having 2. Churches or Charges lying howsoever. And yet I acknowledge, to have two wives at once, is simply against God's word.

Well, yet this will not satisfy some: neither will they yield that every particular Congregation of Christians should be allowed for a distinct and a proper Church Visible; and so to enjoy their own Ecclesiastical government within themselves. Albeit against it they have no reason, unless perhaps this only. If it were so (they will say) yet will not thereby all things become perfect. Somewhat notwithstanding will be wanting or amiss oftentimes. How then shall this be helped̄ or amended? Not by Archbishops, or Diocesan Ruling, or Lord-Bishops?

I answer, Somewhat will be amiss always in whatsoever Ecclesiastical government upon earth. Nevertheless there is no need, nor good use of these, nor of any Ecclesiastical Vnwritten Traditions in Christ's Churches. We believe and know God's Written word to be sufficient. Speciallie seeing these are so directly contrary to the only true form and nature of Christ's Visible Churches in his word, as hath been shown. A greater Ecclesiastical government then the Churches we know none. There is nothing without the Church above it: viz. Ecclesiasticallie and spiritually. Seeing each Church hath her power and government (as before is declared) immediately from Christ. Yet it is true (beside the Magistrates honorable assistance) very oft there is great, and singular, yea sometimes in a sort necessary help to be had by Synods. Which are meetings of choice men out of many Churches: and these are lesser or greater as occasion requireth. Whose counsailles, advises, and determinations are most expedient and wholesome always. But touching any certain Governemēt by Synods, or necessary imposing of their Synodal Conclusions, Decrees, or Canons upon Churches without their particular free consentes, this seemeth to be a mere Human ordinance. I cannot find it (either expressly, or by necessary consequence) in any part of Christ's Testament. Thus writeth hereof the Reverend M. Whitaker, Quod omnes atttngit, ab omnibus approbari debet. That which concerneth all, ought to be approved of all. Again, Concilia si simpliciter necessaria sint, Christus alicubi precipisset celebrari, aut cius saltem Apostoli. Quod tamen nusquam ab illis factum esse legimus. If Councils were simply necessary, Christ somewhere would have commanded to keep them, or at least his Apostles. Which yet we read that they did nowhere. Further, Etsires ipsae de quibus in Concilio deliberatur & consultatur, sint sacrae & religiosae, tamen hoc ipsum Congregare Episcopos est mere 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Although the things deliberated and consulted of in a Council be holy & religious, yet this thing to assemble Bishops or Pastors of divers Churches together, is meerelie Civil. I know well sundry godly men do hold that Synods have power to prescribe and rule Ecclesiastically by God's Law even sundry whole Churches though they severallie consent not. But with reverence to their names, I take it the truth is otherwise. Only in the Acts we find somewhat that hath a kind of likeness to such Synods. And it is but a kind of likeness, or scarce that: for it is far from the same thing. Thus it is: In Act. 15.6.25. we find a coming together of the Apostles, with the rest of the Church at Jerusalem and with a few other sent to them from the Church of Antioch. Where these do make Decrees and impose them on the Churches: yea on divers Churches which had not sent any in their names thither. And on the Church of Antioch, who had perhaps but 4. or 5. there present. This showeth that this coming together at Jerusalem was a very Extraordinarie Synod, comparing it with our Synods in use now, yea indeed nothing like to them. First here the text saith, The Apostles only and the Elders at Jerusalem were sought unto. And it is manifest that herein the Apostles Extraordinarie office & power took place: viz. by imposing their Decrees on Churches who had no persons, and on one Church, viz. of Antioch who had few for them there present. In which respect they at Jerusalem assume also aspeciall authority of the H. Ghost, where they say, It seemed good to the H. Ghost, and to us. Which no Assemblie of ordinary persons could or can assume to them in such manner. Only where the Apostles were present and consented, there they might. Finallie after this we never find that any Churches used the means and power of Synods till about Constantine's time for almost 300. years space. Which if it had ben an ordinance Divine for the Churches always, they neither ought nor surly would so long have neglected the same. Seeing in that while there were most weighty and continual occasions requiring this Divine help, if they had so esteemed it. Which seeing they did not, we may well think in those first times they held it not to be so. Nevertheless Synods (when they may be had) are for counsel, advise, & better resolution continually profitable & most wholesome, as hath ben said. And being well ordered, do make singularlie for Unity. Whereby also each Churches ordinary government may be much holpen & amended. And yet the same with power and authority ought to be held still within it self only.

Now touching our Synods at this day in England, they may be excepted against justly in 3. respects. First because they consist principally, if not only, of Provincial & Diocesan L. Bishops (whose Offices are here shown, to be plainly contrary to God's word) and of such other as are theirs. Also our Synods power is not superior, but inferior and subject to the L. Bishops will and liking: which is utterly against the nature of true Synods, and the rule of God's word. Lastly they impose Ecclesiastical Canons on the Churches which give no consent unto them: as if they had power from God over the Churches thus to do. All which before we have seen to be clean contrary.

Reason 3.

THAT any (being a Christian) should have no place nor part at all in any true & proper Visible Church of Christ, is contrary to God's word. Speciallie that any such so standing should Ecclesiasticallie rule many Churches.

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

Therefore they are all contrary to God's word, and ought necessarily to be reformed.

The first part of the Assumption is thus proved.

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

But one of the private People he is not anywhere. Neither is he a right and true Pastor sustaining the charge of souls in any proper Visible Church with us.

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

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

If Diocesan ruling Bishops by the nature of their office are very Pluralistes and Nonresident Pastors, then they are plainly contrary to God's word, and ought of necessity to be clean abolished.

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

Therefore they are plainly contrary to God's word, &" ought of necessity to be clean dissolved and abolished.

Or thus.

Cōmon sense or the light of Nature (besides the forenoted" scriptures) showeth that one proper Pastor should" have only one proper Visible Church. For indeed who is sufficient for that one?

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

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

We deny not that one proper Visible Church may possibly have many Pastors. But that One Pastor should have many proper Visible Churches, is a thing senseless, unnatural, and condemned both by God and man.

Reason 4.

IT is the natural and immutable off ice of a Pastor both to Teach and to Governe (with the assistance of other Elders) his own flock.

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

Therefore every Pastor of each particular Church in England ought of necessity not only to teach but also to govern his own flock.

Touching the Proposition, it is manifest to be the natural and immutable office of a Pastor to govern his own flock. First seeing the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 which signifieth to do the office of a Pastor, doth in the natural property of it imply Governement and rule. As we may see this word is used, Math. 2.6. Reve. 19.15. & 2.27. And therefore even Civil Magistrates are called Rogne Pastors, Ezek. 34.2 and in Homer 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the Pastors of the people: in Euripides 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the Rulers of chariots. Secondly the whole office of a Spiritual Pastor is found in the Scripture to be both Teaching and Governing: as first this very word doth most plainly signify John. 21.16. Act. 20.18. and 1. Pet. 5.2. Also where the distinct parts of the Pastors office are noted as 1. Tim. 5.17. and 1. Thes. 5.12. Math. 18.17.18. Ad heervnto D. Bilsons consent with Athanasius, To whom Preaching, and Offering at the Lord's table do belong to them also careful ruling and governing the Church doth appertain. Again he saith, These self same persons that were in one, were in all these actions: and the Churches were governed by the common counsel of the Presbyters. And The Apostle joineth both these properties in good Pastors. And They must be trusted with both or with neither.

Now touching all this God's word chargeth us expressly saying: Take heed to your Ministry which you have received in the Lord, to fulfill it.

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

Therefore our Churches order in respect of our Diocesan ruling Bishops is clean contrary to God's word. And therefore of necessity herein we ought to be reformed.

Where yet I cannot but note, how by our own Parliament law this is wholly yielded to every ordinary Pastor in England. As namely where the book of Ordination maketh everyone of them to undertake to minister the Doctrine and Sacraments and Discipline of Christ as the Lord hath commanded, and as this Realm hath received the same according to the commandments of God. Though it saith, as this Realm hath received the same; Yet we must mark that it saith not so simply, but with special restraint, according to the commandments of God. Yea before also it requireth the Discipline of Christ to be ministered in such manner as the Lord hath commanded. So that here this restriction and certain direction is set down expressly twice for failing. Wherefore the Laws intent and meaning is not here to do beside, much less against the order set down in God's word, but to do according to it. And not to take from Pastors the ordinary power of Ecclesiastical Dicipline (as now the practice is) but to give it them. Namely if God's word do give it them; which we saw before that it doth. God forbid therefore that we in England now should be barred from the ordinance of God in his word, this being also the true intent of our own Laws.

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

I answer with all reverence and submission to his Majesty, that I conceive his meaning not to be against the parity which before I have spoken of. And as for a general parity we mislike and detest it also. Yea in a sort we say that the Churches state is Monarchical. For we affirm that in every several true Church there ought to be a disparity of Church Ministers: viz. the Pastor above the Elders, and the Elders above the Deacons, as Ignatius saith. And in Cōferences & Synods where many Pastors meet, we do not only allow but require a disparity and priority also, namely in the President or Moderator. Yea we do not simply disallow a continuing President, so that his continuance be subject to his Brethren's free liking, they seeing it to be not against the glory of God and the common good. And for all this we are well assured there is sound warrant in the word of God. But as touching a farther disparity then this, We answer, comparing Pastors with Pastors among themselves in their common office, or in any of the natural parts thereof, we see not how there may be any disparity or difference in them. May one Justice of peace permit the rest in the same County to call before them, to reprove and rebuke Malefactors, but not in any wise to commit to prison, or to bind in recognizance any man? May one assume this power alone to himself, and exclude all the rest? Surely this were in the common wealth arrogant, injurious, and unlawful without express warrant from the same authority by which they all hold their Offices. How much more unlawful is it for men without God's warrant to presume in God's matters in altering and changing, in making greater or lesser the Spiritual offices of Christ's Church? Magis and Minus in common reason cannot be admitted in the nature of one and the same Office, what Office soever we speak of. But this is so, more specially in the Ecclesiastical. For it is exceeding strange that among true and proper Pastors some should be more, some less Pastors: which yet must needs be, if some may have more some less Pastoral power. The vnreasonablenes hereof appeareth further if we consider in like manner the nature and condition of the Visible Churches. One Visible Church cannot be more a Church then any other, though some may be greater some smaller, some richer some poorer. Yet as Churches they are all equally Churches, and one hath as much Ecclesiastical or spiritual right, power, & authority, as any other. Even so is it with their Pastors, being compared (I say) together as Pastors among themselves. Again as the Apostles were all equal Apostles; so surely the Pastors ought to be, who are in deed their right & proper Successors. Pari consortio prediti & honoris & potestatis. As Cyprian saith: The Apostles were endued with equal honor & power. Therefore the Pastors their Successors ought to be so likewise. To which purpose also is that in the same place following. Episcopaius vnus est, cuius à singulis in solidum pars tenetur. There is but one kind or nature of the Bishoplie or Pastoral office, whereof everyone participateth in whole. And in another place, Nemo nostrum Episcopum Episcoporum se facit: None of us maketh himself a Bishop of Bishops, or over Bishops. Signifying that it was not lawful for them so to be: neither likewise a Pastor over Pastors. And to what purpose else is that of Jerome to Evagrius, where speaking of Bishops or Pastors saith he, Eiusdem sunt meriti, eiusdem Sacerdotij. They are all of one and the same preeminence, of one and the same Office. These sentences are very memorable, tending to allow ordinary equality in all Offices which are of one and the same kind or nature. Howsoever yet a declination from the right and perfect Pastoral office began to come in, in the days of these men, & also to get allowance even of the most famous Doctors, specially about Jerome's days. Whereby it is manifest how a parity of Pastors ought to be held, and yet notwithstanding how a parity of all Ministers ought not to be in any Church.

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

We answer, The clean contrary is true. Your human disparity in the Ecclesiastical Ministries both is and ever hath ben the true cause of discord. But our Divine disparity, that which we hold and allow, is the true cause of peace and unity. For where, in what place can discord be? In every Church we acknowledge a Superior, and in every meeting out of many Churches a Superior likewise. Now no other place can be imagined where discord and strife Ecclesiastical can arise. If therefore Superioritie and disparity will cause peace, we through God's goodness and blessing shall both have and keep peace everywhere. If any other Superioritie be required, and namely Yours, which crosseth yea cutteth of God's own ordinance in the Pastoral office, we deny that it can ever procure peace. And this our present experience doth show in all the foreign Reformed Churches compared with ous. They all enjoining this ordinance of God have most admirable unity. We only wanting this, notwithstanding many & sundry worldly advantages, yet do remain still (now these 50. years almost) in woeful dissensions, desolations, and dissipations. Neither can the Lordly Prelacie, neither will they remedy it.

If herein yet men will not be satissied, but will hold it still to be special wisdom to take away from some Pastors the power of spiritual government, and to give it to some few. We answer again with the holy Ghost, It behooveth us not, it is high presumption 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 : to be wise above (much rather contrary to) that which is written.

Reason 5.

THOSE Elders or Pastors (as they count themselves) stand directly contrary to God's word, who do rule their fellow-Elders or Pastors (and specially many whole Churches) with a Lordly Ecclesiastical power, or sole authority: also who do rule them Civilly with outward force and compulsive power: and who receive Civil Titles and Stiles answering to the worldly honor due to high Magistrates in the world.

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

Therefore our Diocesan Bishops in England even by their public Office or Offices which they hold, stand directly contrary to God's word.

The Proposition (whereof only there can be doubt) is proved by many plain places of God's word. Christ earnestly forbad his Apostles this whole matter (and in them much more all other Ministers their inferiors) in these words: Ye know that the Rulers of the Nations have dominion over them, and the Great men exercise authority over them. But it shall not be so among you. But who soever will be great among you, let him be your servant. Luke hath the same thus: The Kings of the Nations have dominion, or rule as Lord's over them; and they who exercise authority over them are called Gratious Lord's. But ye shall not be so. And Peter an Elder (as he calleth himself) chargeth all Elders that they be not as Lord's over God's heritage, but examples to the flock. And Paul renounceth it for his part, saying, Not that we have dominion • ver your faith, but are helpers of your joy.

Here it is a silly evasion (which some use) or rather a delusion of these manifest Scriptures, to say; Christ here forbiddeth his Apostles to expect Civil power & authority by virtue of their Ecclesiastical Ministry: or, it is here denied that Civil power is necessarily annexed to the Ecclesiastical function. And besides this that nothing else i • here denied by our Savior to his Apostles and Ministers. I say this is a vain shift. The Apostles manifestly desired this outward preeminence no other way but by Cōmission from Christ, whom they hoped should have ben a great Prince in the world. This they simply desired and this Christ simply denied, both to them and in them to all true Ministers of Christ forever. Besides Luke also addeth the Magnificent Titles of worldly authority, and these to be likewise denied them. Which indeed necessarily followeth. Finally both Matthew & Luke do principally speak of the forbidding of Civil rule to Ministers, yet their words are so general that we must needs grant, that Christ there forbiddeth his Ministers simply & generally all Lordly rule, or domination, or sole authority whatsoever. And therefore Ecclesiastical domination or sole authority in Church matters also. Even as it is manifest that Peter and Paul do (without controversy) in the places before rehearsed. It is no better shift, to say that Christ here forbad nothing but Tyrannicall over-ruling of the brethren. Or only the ambitious desire of Lordly rule, sole power, and civil authority: but not the things themselves.

But all this D. Bilson alone (though now he be a L. Bishop himself) hath most fully and substantially confuted. Against the Jesuits and Seminaries objecting thus [The word is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 they Over-rule their Subjects with iniusticę and violence. You shall not do so.] He replieth, So your new Translation overruleth the word. Howbeit Christ in that place doth not traduce the Power of Princes as unjust and outrageous, but distinguisheth the calling of his Apostles from the manner of regiment which God hath allowed the Magistrate. Christ saith not Princes be tyrants, you shall deal more courteously then they do: but he saith Princes be Lord's and rulers over their people by God's ordinance you shall not be so. Again the word which S. Luke hath, is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 without any composition; They be Lord's & Masters: and S. Paul confesseth of himself and other Apostles, Not that we be Lord's or Masters of your faith. Ye the compound 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is with power & force to rule men whether they will or no, not with wrong and injury to oppress them. And therefore the conclusion is inevitable, that Princes may lawfully compel and punish their Subjects, which Bishops may not. All Pastors and Bishops are straitly charged not to medle with the sword. To compel Heretics and Schismatikes neither is it possible sor the Preacher if he would, nor lawful if he could: he lacketh both means and leave to contstrain them. Bishops be flatly forbidden to reign, and must not meddle with the material sword. Commanding and forcing our Savior forbiddeeh to all his Disciples. Where the full effect of all his discourse is this: All Civil i • risdiction and power of the sword to command, compel, and punish by loss of life, limb, or liberty, is secluded from the Ministers function and reserved to the Magistrates. Christ precisely forbad his Apostles to bear rule and exercise authority over their brethren: not unjust and tyrannical rule, but all compulsive power. And where the thing is not lawful, the sign is not lawful. &c. To like purpose also he writeth in his book of the Perpetual Governement of Christ's Church: where he saith, † Many gifts may conjoin in one man, many offices cannot. The Ministers shall not have any such rule or dominion as the great States have. The thing so much prohibited by Christ & his Apostles, is, that Preachers & Pastors should 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 behave or think themselves to be Lord's and Masters over their brethren. And To increase the love of the sheep toward their Sheepheards, Christ would not have his Apostles to be feared as Masters, but to be honored as Fathers; and consequently Pastors not to force, but to feed; not to chase, but to lead the flock committed to their charge; neither roughly to entreat them as servants, but gently to persuade them as coheirs of the same kingdom. Here are Testimonies of this man for us most full, most clear, and above all exception.

Reason 6.

IF in the Laws estimation the calling of Ministers with us is given by those who in God's word have no power to give it, then this is contrary to God's word and necessary to be reformed.

But in the Laws estimation the calling of Ministers with us is given by those who in God's word have no power to give it. Namely it is given by a Diocesan ruling Bishop, who is nowhere found (as before I shown) in all the New Testament. So that he cannot therein have any power or authority to give Ministers their calling, nor yet to take it from them. Again by the rule of God's word that particular Church which is to have the Minister, ought to be present and to show a liking and consent in their Ministers calling. Which proveth that no Bishop hath any power or authority in God's word to give any Minister his calling, or to take it from him in absence of that Church to whom the Minister belongeth, yea and (as the practice now is) utterly without their liking.

Therefore this, that is the giving of the Ministers calling with us by such as now do give it and in such manner, is contrary to God's word, and ought of necessity to be reformed.

Where I say; by the rule of God's word, that Church which is to have the Minister ought to be present and to show a liking and consent in their Ministers Calling: this is evident by many testimonies, and reasons. First, because in the Apostles time the Church had a consent in Excommunication, as it appeareth to the Corinthians, where the Apostle saith, I have determined already, when ye are gathered together and my spirit, in the name of our L. Jesus Christ, that such a one, by the power of our L. Jesus Christ, be delivered to Satan. And, Put away from among yourselves that wicked man. Which agreeth with Christ's own ordinance and precept, where he saith, Tell the Church: If he hear not the Church, let him be unto thee as an Heathen and a Publican. Now if the Church was to Excommunicate, surly the Church also was to elect her Ministers. For these are the 2. main partes of the holy Governement Ecclesiastical, both which must belong to the Church equally & alike. Further it is apparent by the Apostles practice. First, the calling of Matthias to the Apostleship was permitted (so far as was possible) to the Churches Election. For they appointed two, whereof one should be and was divinely chosen. This questionless was done (not of necessity for that Calling which was then to be given, but only) for an example in Ecclesiastical Elections which the Churches after should and did imitate. Besides, howsoever the very Election of Matthias was by Divine lot, yet it was all done in the Churches presence with the actual concurrence of their prayers and free consentes instantly. Now these acts of the Church as they may, so therefore they ought to be perpetual in every Election of whatsoever Minister; seeing even for that end the Apostles caused now the Church thus to do. It is a slight answer and untrue, to say, Examples are no precepts. For the same answerer elsewhere confesseth, that the Apostles taught the Church by their Example. But if he had not confessed it, yet the truth of this general point is in it self most certain. Wherefore was the Book of the Apostles Acts else written? But that their Acts in the Churches should be Rules and patterns for us to do likewise. All Divines use the Argument drawn from an act of Christ or his Apostles, and urge it even to bind us no les then if it were a formal Precept. And so we read that Christ himself & his Apostles too, reasoned sundry times from the bare Acts of the Prophets and men of God in the old Law. I know in divers Examples there are to be found Circumstances which fit not all times, places, nor persons. What then? Neither do Precepts commonly fit us in so general a manner. By this shift then we may avoid express and direct Precepts also. And thus scarce anything in God's word shall suffice to constrayne and bind us. Wherefore always we urge no other Exāples of the Apostles, or not in any other points, then such as do and may fit us continually, and everywhere, even so well as they fitted those of old. In which case it is a miserable denial to say, Examples are no precepts. God grant us and all true Christians, to enjoy our Churches ordered after the Apostles examples, and to have all other Customs of men (when once we discern them) utterly abandoned. But to proceed a little: The Apostles again charged the Church at Jerusalem to choose their Deacons: therefore much more ought the Churches (who are not ignorant beasts, but men taught of God) to choose their Pastors. Lastly, they ordained Elders to sundry Churches which were actually present and consenting. So much is most evident by the very text: neither can any except against this; which sufficeth our purpose. So that it is vain where some contend that this word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 here used will not necessarily prove that the Churches did elect their Elders. I answer, this very word (yea thus as it is here cōstrued) is not so weak for our purpose as is pretended. For we find the same word in good Authors, having the very like Grāmaticall construction, that is, joined not with the people, but with the Guides or principal in the assembly. And yet the very nature of this word (signifying in the ordinary use thereof the custom which was then to give Voices by lifting up of hands) implieth the Peoples concurrence and voice-giving jointly with the Guides of the assembly. For as much as this gesture of lifting up hands for voice-giving in the the public meetings did always and most chiefly concern the People. In this very manner to this purpose we have this word in Demosthenes: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Which of the Laws the Nomothetae (which were the principal Authors) shall ordain or constitute by lifting up of hands the same is ratified. Where notwithstanding, the Lifting up of hands (as is well known) was not the Nomothetaes or chief Authors part only: but the Peoples act is understood also by implication. Whose part was chiefly to Lift up hands, either before or after the Nomothetaes act. Even so likewise this same word used here in the Acts in the very same manner shall import the Peoples part also: viz. a present consent in the appointing of their Elders, though only their Guides the Apostles voice-giving and ordaining of them be named. But we will not press this. We may (as I said) clean omit this consideration, and yet this text in the Acts doth fully serve our main purpose. Namely it proveth fully that these Elders were ordained by the Apostles in the presence and with the free liking of the several Churches. Another conceit there is, that the sense of this word here is the same which the Greek Ecclesiastical Writers long after do use it in: viz. only to lay on hands in Ordination, and no more. It is an idle conceit. All do know, that the later Ecclesiastical Greek Writers have altered the original and proper use of this word, as they (yea and the Latins also) have done in other: as after we shall further see. In the Apostles time they spake the ordinary and known phrase taken from the former times. But then no man used this word in such sense. They which followed some hundred years, cannot prove that the Ancients spake like the after-comers. Wherefore, to our purpose again: By all these texts thus declared, it remaineth evident that the Church, which is to have a Minister, ought to be present and to show liking and consent freely to their Ministers calling: since we have seen that it was so in the practice of the Apostles, and by the ordinance of Christ. Which also (it seemeth) our very Book of Ordinatiō (which is by Law) intendeth & requireth, where it saith, Take thou authority, &c. in this Congregation. The word, this, importeth that the very particular Congregation wherein he should have authority, should be present. And why should they necessarily be present, but freely to consent? Also here by it is evident that the Law would not that any Minister should be ordained but to a certain Congregation. All which good, necessary, and Christian rules how they be now everywhere broken & despised, who seeth not? Yea though the manifest intent of our Law doth require them. A word more let us add touching D. Bilsons approbatiō also of the Churches free consent in choosing their Pastors. Whose testimony I do delight to apply to our purpose for divers good considerations. Saith he, We have the words and warrant of the H. Ghost for that which we say, &c. viz. that the People can and ought to discern and try the doctrines and spirits of the Teachers; and so to chose and refuse them, as they by the word should see good. How can the People do either, if they have not skill and leave to discern both. The Apostles left elections indifferently to the People and Clergy at Jerusalem. The People had as much right to chose their Pastors, as the Clergy that had more skill to judge Well may the Peoples interest stand vpō the grounds of reason and nature, and be derived from the rules of Christian equity. The late Bishops of Rome have not ceased cursing & fighting, till excluding both Prince and People they reduced the election wholly to the Clergy. But he telleth them, by their leave it was not so from the beginning. I acknowledge each Church & people stand free by God's law to admit, maintain, & obey no man as their Pastor without their liking. It is true he addeth this, unless by law, custom, or consent they restrain themselves. But this he himself elsewhere answereth roundly: What authority had others after the Apostles deaths to change the Apostolic government? And such additions he calleth Corruptions of times, inventions of men, and a transgressing of the Commandment of God for the traditions of men. And again he calleth this plainly Intrusion, and Presumption. This sufficeth to show, that he well understandeth the truth in this cause.

But now it will be demanded: How can we then allow the Calling of the Ministers in England, judging them by the rule of God's word. I answer; First this is ever a sure ground (not in the Schools only, but) with all faithful Christians reasoning about any matter: Consequence incommodum non solvit argumentum. An inconvenient consequence taketh not away an Argument. We must not then decline from the truth for any inconvenience which may follow. Rather it behooveth us to look well to ourselves & to our profession and standing wherein we abide, and Christianlie with speed to amend our error. Howbeit I speak not this, as if I absolutely denied the whole Calling of our Ministers. I do not so. The Lord knoweth there is none in England more unwilling to run upon this rock then I am. And yet nevertheless I dare not, I cannot, (nor any good Christian else) agree to change God's Ordinances after our occasions. Wherefore I answer to this question thus. For my part, I believe that the true ratification and warrant of our Ministers calling which is by God's word, standeth in this, & only in this, that our Visible Churches do consent and accept them whom they receive for such. I say, they do consent and accept them, after what sort soever it be done. And this their consent, I acknowledge, giveth them (before God) their Ministry, though conjoined with many, great, & public corruptions other ways.

In which respect the Papists are soundly answered, who calumniat our Ministry as if either we had none at all, or else had that which we have from them. Again this answereth others, who because in our public orders there are many evils joined with our Ministers Calling which are not to be justified, nor to be communicated with, and because they are commonly esteemed to have their Calling from these unlawful means, viz. from the Diocesan ruling Bishops without the Church, though in deed it be not so: therefore they do wholly and absolutely deny the Ministry in England, which in truth and by good reason they ought not to do absolutely and altogether. Howbeit yet I speak not this in favor to such persons or Congregations among us, which do evidently appear to refuse of willfulness Christ's Ordinances, and to speak evil of the way of God. Toward such I cannot deny but the Apostles pra •••• and precept ought to be followed, who teacheth in this case, saying, " Separate from such. Have n • fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness. * Touch no unclean thing. Mark them which cause schisms and scandalles beside the doctrine which you have learned, and avoid them.

Reason 7.

TO wantany main part of the ordinary appointed means of salvation is contrary to God's word and necessary to be reformed.

But the right and true Discipline Ecclesiastical in each proper Visible Church, is one main part of the ordinary means of salvation appointed by God for every soul: and this we in England do utterly want.

Therefore we in England in respect of Discipline and Governement Ecclesiastical do stand contrary to God's word, and ought herein necessarily to be reformed.

Or thus.

Where the Apostles true Suceessors are spoiled of their Office and Ministry of binding and loosing, forgiving & retaining of scandalous sins, there is grievous Sacrilege, & there ought to be of necessity a reformation to restore them to this their spiritual right and duty.

But the ordinary Pastors and Teachers of all the Churches in England are the Apostles true Successors, and they are spoiled of the office of binding and loosing, forgiving and retaining the scandalous sins of their own flocks.

Therefore the ordinary Pastors and Teachers of all the Churches in England do suffer the wrong of sacrilege, and ought of Necessity to be restored to this their spiritual right and duty which yet they are held from.

Or thus.

Where the Apostles true Successors are barred from using both the Keys which Christ himself gave them & put them in trust with all, there the use of both ought to be restored to them. Otherwise how can they say in their consciences before God that they walk in their calling, and fulfill their Ministry, and discharge their trust? And how can the flock assuredly expect that Heaven shall be opened to them?

But the ordinaric Pastors and Teachers in all the Churches in England are the Apostles true and only Successors among us, and they are barred frō using one of the Keys, namely the Key of power or government, as it is called.

Therefore the use of this Key also ought of necessity to be restored to them.

Reason 8.

WHOSOEVER denieth Christ the Savior to be our entire and perfect Prophet and spiritual King (by taking away from him some parts of his Prophetical and Kingly Offices, and ascribing the same unto Men) he disninisheth the honor & dignity of Christ, he impugneth the Foundation of saving faith, and is contrary to God's word.

But the Diocesan Bishops, &c. do (by necessary consequence) deny Christ the Savior to be our perfect Prophet and spiri • uall King by taking frō him some proper partes of his Prophetical and Kingly Offices. For they hold sound and entire only Christ's Priestly Office. Brieflie, as the Catholics do join Men with Christ in all these 3. Offices, so do our Diocesans in the 2. former.

Therefore the Diocesan ruling Bishops, &c. do diminish the honor and dignity of Christ, they impugn the foundation of saving faith, and are contrary to God's word.

The Proposition if it be wisely considered, is plain. For it cannot be doubted, but Christ Jesus hath 3. Offices: viz. he is our Prophet, King, and Priest; & by virtue of all these 3. properly he is our Savior and Mediator. Again we are necessarily to believe that Christ Jesus hath in his own only person all these 3. Offices entire, absolute, and perfect. In so much that if any shall (with what color soever) communicate these Offices to others, denying them to Christ's sole and proper person, or any of them, yea or any manifest and certain part of them; the same verily do impugn the foundation of saving faith, and deprive Christ of a part of his sole and proper glory. Where also I desire it may be remembered, that Christ Jesus though he properly worketh our Redemptiō only by his Priestly Office, that is, only by the Sacrifice of his own sufferings; yet he worketh our Salvation and accomplisheth his Mediation not but by all these 3. his Offices jointly together. So that it is the error of a number who think; to believe only that Christ died for us, this is enough to salvation. We need not to regard in Christ anymore. Whereby men cōmonlie forget the other partes of Christ's glorious work toward us, viz. his holy complete Doctrine, and Governement. But both these also ought to be believed & yielded unto the person of our Savior Christ entirely & wholly, even in respect as he is our Savior & Mediator; no less then the other, that he perfectly suffered for us as our Redeemer. This is well to be considered.

The Assumption our adversaries do make to be true. For they take frō Christ personally a manifest part of his Prophetical Office: and likewise of his Kingly Office. It is a part of Christ's own proper Prophetical Office to teach us with authority by him self alone in his own word and Testament the outward form, nature, and constitution (which is but one) of all his Visible Churches whether in Countries rich or poor, Monarchies or Democraties, &c: likewise all the true Ecclesiastical Offices and Ministries in them, with every kind of action and thing properly Ecclesiastical used in the Church, or where soever else Religiously. Also it is a part of his proper Kinglie Office, by him self to constitute and enjoin the singular and only true form of all his Visible Churches, and to admit wheresoever none other; spiritually to rule, to guide, and to bless us in them only, by his own Ministries and Ordinances instituted by him self or by his Spirit in his Apostles, and by none other. All which the foresaid Diocesesan ruling Bishops, &c. do take from Christ himself personally, and do permit them unto Men. Saying, it is indifferent (and somwhere sometimes convenient) for Christians thus to do. Therefore the Assumption is true.

It will be said, if this be so, then likewise the ancient Writers Augustine, Ambrose, Chrysostom, Leo, Gregory, &c. did err in faith to salvation, and believed not some partes of the fundamental Offices of Christ our Savior. For those ancientes did hold sundry Ecclesiastical Inventions of men, besides that they were thenselves Diocesan ruling Bishops. Wherefore (by this reason) they diminished not a little of our Saviors most holy & healthful Offices, both Prophetical and Kingly. Which to affirm will be very hard. The same must be said likewise of our late blessed Martyrs, Cranmer, Ridley, Latimer, Ferrar, &c.

I answer, we embrace these holy men of God (both the elder and later) for their other manifold testimonies of piety. Therefore we judge them as faithful servants of Christ according to that measure of light wherein they lived. That is, they did generally and indistinctly believe and profess soundly all the whole Offices of Christ to salvatiō. Yet true it is they erred in these foresaid external partes pertaining to Christ's Prophecy and Kingdom through the common sway of the times then: the Mystery of iniquity (that is Antichrist) advancing it self daily very much even by them, and by these their errors, though they for their partes were unwitting & unwilling. The case thus standing with them, we are not to doubt, but these their errors (though of them selves very great) were graciously pardoned in Christ: chiefly considering that these matters were not then examined nor anything looked into; which with us now these 40. years have ben much debated, tried, and sifted. Yea and by God's word are so cleerlie discovered, that we must needs now say, He that is ignorant let him be ignorant still: and he that is perverse let him be perverse still. Wherefore the condition of our Diocesan L. Bishops, &c. in England, is far unlike at this day, and in no sort to be compared with that of those Bishops then. Ours have no excuse, which they might have. Cyprian saith well in such another case. Si quis de antecessoribus nostris vel ignoranter vel simpliciter non hoc observavit & tenuit quod nos Dominus facere exemplo & Magisterio suo docuit potest simplicitati eius de indulgētiâ Domini venia concedi, nobis vero non poterit ignosci qui nunc à Domino admoniti & instructi sumus. If any before us either ignorantly or simply hath not observed and kept that which the Lord by his example & doctrine hath taught us to do, by the Lord's mercy his simplicity may be pardoned, but we cannot be forgiven who are now warned and instructed of the Lord.

Yet some will say, We cannot show any such form of a Visible Church sometime for many hundreds of years together. Shall we then think that this is Christ's perpetual ordinance? I answer, first for 2. hundred years after Christ there is no man can show any other form of a Visible Church (but this) anywhere in the whole world, as in the next Assertion presently (God willing) we shall further see. Which (beside the all-sufficient word of God) is an excellent testimony also: neither need we look further into Human writings for the perpetual necessity hereof. Second: they who list to search may find arguments of divers particular Congregations being entire Visible Churches in all ages, I think. Howbeit, what is that to us? Must the Christian faith or any part of it, stand or fall by the report of Men's stories? Or may we in this case conclude from them, Negatively? Men's writings mention not such a Church at sometime. Therefore then there was none. And specially to infer thus; Therefore this is not Christ's ordinance always necessary for us. To esteem men's writings so sufficient as that by them we should prove or disprove a matter of Religion; I say, it is very foolish at the least.

Finally our Adversaries will object, that by these Assertions and defences we detract from the Kings authority & power: namely thus misliking that which he alloweth, & specially holding an authority Ecclesiastical not derived from him. I answer, even so did evil & slanderous men accuse the faithful Christians in the primitive age. They cried that, These all do against the decrees of Caesar, saying that there is another King, one Jesus. Our reply therefore unto them for this shall stand in 4. points. 1. We most gladly [ 1] do give unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, but to God the things that are God's. 2. Colimus Imperatorem vt hominem [ 2] à Deo secundum, & solo Deo minorem. We honor the King as a man next unto God, and inferior to God only. 3. We gladly [ 3] acknowledge that the King is, & ought to be Supreme governor even in all causes and over all persons Ecclesiastical. Howbeit always 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , non 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 : Civilly, not Spiritually or Ecclesiastically. 4. The King is Custos & [ 4] Vindex, the Keeper and Maintainer (by compulsive power) of the whole state of Religion. But he is not Author or Minister of any Ecclesiastical thing or Cōstitution whatsoever. Will our Adversaries yield more? Or is not this sufficient? I hope this shall suffice to cease hereafter their slanders against us in this cause. And thus much touching our first Assertion.