A DECLARATION AND PLAINER OPENING OF CERTAIN POINTS, WITH A SOVND CONFIRMATION OF SOME OTHER, CONTAINED IN A TREATISE INTITVLED, THE DIVINE BEGINNING and institution of Christes true visible and ministerial Church.  
Written in a Letter by the Author of the said Treatise, out of the Low countries, to a friend of his in England.  
PRINTED ANNO DOM. 1612.   

A Declaration& plainer opening of certain points, with a sound Confirmation of some other, contained in a treatise entitled, The Divine beginning and institution of Christes true visible and ministerial Church.  
Written in a letter by the Author of the said Treatise out of the low Countreys to a friend of his in England.  
The Letter is as followeth.  
MY dear and loving friend, as by yourself, so by sundry other means besides J have ben certified, that divers points& passages of my late Treatise entitled, The Divine beginning and institution of Christes true Visible and ministerial Church, are doubtfully taken, that is, some of them are not well conceived, some misliked, by divers godly, wise,& well affencted in England. Which thing verily could not but be exceeding grievous unto me, so soon as it came unto my bearing. And it moved me forthwith seriously to bethink myself how J might best do, both to remove the offence taken, and to clear the truth contained in that Treatise from all prejudice and misconceit against it. For it being the duty of all modest and sincere hearted Christians, when any offence ariseth, to labour that no persons who soever should bee let alone in scandal, and neglected, if there may be remedy; how much rather ought I in conscience to reach out my hand to the godly and religious servantes of Christ, stumbling at something( as they think) by myself laid in the way, that they may bee holpen and held up from falling, which often happeneth to many vpon too light occasions. Although therefore it bee little material what I writ or speak, what I hold, or do not hold: yet because even on so light an occasion as now is taken, sometimes there may come sundry accidents which I would bee sorry for, if they should come by my fault: for this cause J judged it fit to employ my second thoughts vpon this business again, for the clearing and plainer opening and also for the sound confirming of divers things in my said Treatise, which as J hear have been even by good men excepted against. Being desirous herein to make manifest to all the world my great affection which I bear to give content to every honest and well disposed person, so far as possibly I may or can with safety unto the truth; which of all things in this earth is, and ought to be unto all men the most precious. What points therefore of exception have come to my notice, and are in any sort material, I have remembered here in this letter unto you, and to each of them severally have adjoined an answer so plain and so direct, and where need is, so firm, as I can make. Wherein my desire is( and I hope I shall not fail) to satisfy every indifferent and equally minded Christian, especially who knoweth the corruptions that are among us,& who loveth the simplicity of the truth,& not contention.  
FIRST therefore, whereas some have an imagination that I am one of the Separation,& am separated from all communion with the public Congregations of England. To them my answer is, that touching this point they err in their imagination. Although I know the Separation to be very far off from being so evil as commonly they are held to be, yet I deny not but that in some matters they are straicter then I wish they were. Howsoever, as to the point of Separation, for my part I never was, nor am separated from all public communion with the Congregations of England. I aclowledge therefore that in England are true Visible Churches and Ministers( though accidentally, yet) such as I refuse not to communicate with. And so much for answer to this point shall suffice.  
Secondly, in the Treatise a doubt is made by some, what the meaning and intent is of the main Proposition itself. The words whereof are these, to wit, 
Treat. pag. 1.  Christ is the only author, institutor, and framer of his Visible and ministerial Church touching the Nature and form thereof. My answer hereunto standeth on 4. points. 

First, that the Proposition itself in the generality of it( as the words ly) is true both of the Iewes Visible Church under the Lawe, and also of the Christian Church under the gospel.  
Secondly, yet nevertheless the proper meaning and intent of this proposition( as I apply it) is to signify no more but Christes Visible Church under the gospel, and that indefinitlie and generally: I mean that Christ is,& ought to be belleved to be the only Institutor of his true Visible Churches Nature and form under the gospel, whether it be of this or of that, or whatsoever particular form it be of;& that it ought to be belleved to be of some certain particular form. The words themselves of the Proposition do import the largeness of this sense; reason also requireth such generality in every Proposition where the words and circumstances will permit it, and the 31. Arguments( annexed for proofs) do serve thereunto directly.  
Thirdly, in special sort in the third and nienth Arguments, I prove that Christ is the only institutor of his true Visible Churches nature and form under the gospel definitely and determinately, that is in that very particular form which the Definition there noteth, and is set down further in the second Explanation there ensuing. That is, that such a Church is only one ordinary Congregation governed with the peoples free consent. Where I grant also that secondarily, and by consequence from the said 3. and 9. Arguments, I intend to prove that point also in the rest of the 31. Arguments, even this very particular form( here last mentioned) of Christs visible Church. And I affirm that by consequence they all do sufficiently conclude the same. But it is only by consequence, as I said: it is not contained immediately, expressly, or literally in those Arguments themselves.  
Fourthly, whatsoever other consequentes also do follow from the forenoted points( wherein the main Propositions intent and meaning is now by me declared) I deny not but this said Proposition doth include and import the same. Provided always that these Consequents be necessary, and such as do follow from the former points inevitably.   Which I am careful to observe and note in this place, that the Reader may discern and consider what that is which this Treatise doth mainly and principally defend, and what is only a dependent on it, and a consequent therefrom. Which in equity is not of any person either violently to be strained, nor curiously to be wrong and wrested. But rather we ought to think of the main matter, and remember who saith, 
luke. 21.33.  Heaven and earth shall pass away, but no part of Christes word shall fail, nor alter. Also, 
joh 10.35.  The Scripture can not be broken,& namely, not in those places alleged in the Treatise plentifully, where this Kingly Office& right of Christ is taught vs.  
Besides this, Exception is taken at that a little after, where I set down, that 
Treat. pag. 1.2.  a Visible and ministerial Church is a company of people assembling for the exercise of religion, and administering among themselves the holy things of God and particularly the whole Ecclesiastscall government, as occasion requireth. There may be a Church( some say) which administereth not the whole ecclesiastical government. I answer: In this place my purpose was only to distinguish between a Church Invisible, 
A Church Visible, ministerial, and political. I understand to be all one,  and Visible which I call likewise ministerial: and may also in another term very fitly bee called a Church 
Ephe. 2.12.  political, that is endued with power of outward administration, though spiritual. My purpose here was not to set down any further exact description of a Visible Church about their administering the whole government. Howbeit touching this point also, I say, there is no Visible, ministerial, or political Church, if it bee of Christ, but it hath power and right from him to administer even the whole ecclesiastical government, as well as any part. What Church soever hath right to one part of the ecclesiastical government, the same certainly hath power& right to the whole. nevertheless I doubt not, a true Church may be abridged in the actual execution of the government, as also of some other of Gods ordinances; but not in the right and power to execute thē wholly. Which still sufficeth to the being of a true Visible Church, and is convertible with it, as the schools do speak. So this surely was the very intent& meaning of this word in this place, the whole. ecclesiastical government: which, I hope, no man can justly find fault with.  
again, exception is taken against this that I say, 
Treat. pa. 3.  Christes true ministerial Church is such as hath power over persons not of many ordinary Congregations, but of one ordinary Congregation only. Indeed here I profess that Christes true ministerial or Visible Church is but one ordinary Congregation only, 
The Assertion.  or consisteth of people belonging to no more ordinary Congregations but one only: and therefore that Christs true Ministerial or Visible Church is not any Diocesan or provincial Church. Where my meaning is not, that all Christes true Visible Churches evermore contain( each of them) no more people then do make only one Congregation. But I mean, that none consisteth of many ordinary and constantly set Congregations: every one hath but one such Congregatiô only, although occasionally a Church may have in it many uncertain& change. able Meetings.  
And so the point assuredly is most evident and plain in the whole New Testament. The proof whereof is easy, short, and fully sufficient. Namely thus: In Christes and the Apostles institution and practise, all ministerial Churches were but one ordinary Congregation onely. 
A proof of the foresaid Assertion.  Therefore it followeth necessary that all Christes true ministerial Churches now still and for ever are so, and must bee so: that is, each of them consisteth, and ought to consist of people belonging to no more ordinary Congregations, but to one onely.  

The Consequence proved.  And first for this Consequence, verily it is so clear& inevitable, that nothing can be more. namely, if Christ and his Apostles in their institution and practise left no Diocesan or provincial Church, but such as were each of them one ordinary Congregation onely, then now still and for ever all Christes true ministerial Churches are each of them but one ordinary Congregation only. This doubtless can not be denied. For it is unlawful to hold any form of a Church now which was not then, or hath no pattern for it under the Apostles. The whole scope of the main Treatise,& the 31. Arguments therein contained do prove so much: which also I have shewed before in this Declaration, viz. in my answer to the second doubt, in the 
pag 6.7.  second, third, and fourth point of the answer.  
If any reply, that to be but one ordinary Congregation, or many, is no substantial or essential difference in a Visible Church. And then this is a changeable condition therein, and may bee altered by the discretion of men, according to the diversities of times and places; and so a Visible and Ministerial Church may yet bee all one in nature and substance still, though that which was of old but one ordinary Congregation, bee now a Diocesan or provincial Church. here I deny the first part of this objection. It is a Substantial difference in a Visible Church to be but one ordinary Congregation, or many. Wherefore also it is evident that the Consequence of this objection is nought. And note, that this objection is the chiefest ground of all the error in our question about the being or not being of a true Visible, ministerial, and political Church. Remember likewise, that still we understand a Church Visible, ministerial, and political to be all one, as I observed before in the 
pag. 9.  answer to the third Exception. I say then, that to bee but one ordinary Congregation only,& to be Diocesan or provincial, is a very substantial and essential difference in a Visible Church, 
A substantial difference in Visible Churches.  or at least these divers estates are inseparably joined to the essential differences of Visible and political Churches, which in effect is all one.  
But this needeth good proof for it. Wherefore I make it manifest thus. That Body politic which admitteth not the peoples free consent in their ordinary government, differeth by a substantial and essential difference from a Body politic which admitteth the same freedom.  
A Visible Church Diocesan, or provincial, or larger, is a Body politic, that admitteth not the peoples free consent in their ordinary government; a Church which is but one ordinary Congregation, is a Body politic that admitteth this freedom, and can admit it well.  
Therefore a Diocesan and provincial Church,& larger, differeth by a substantial and essential difference from a Church which is but one ordinary Congregation.  
The first Proposition is acknowledged of all men of understanding, generally to be true. Yet the truth thereof is most evident in the spiritual( that is the ecclesiastical) government, to which intent it is here chiefly applied. It is also plainly shewed in the second Explanation, pag. 3.4.5. of the Treatise. And again, I shall something further declare it in my Answer following to the 5. Exception.  
The second Proposition or Minor is acknowledged also even of our adversaries: indeed it cannot bee denied of any. For Diocesan and provincial Churches have never admitted, nor do admit the peoples free consent in their ordinary government, neither indeed can they admit it orderly. It would be in them to troublesone, confused, and impossible.  
Yea, where each ordinary Congregation giveth their free consent in their own government, there certainly each Congregation is an entire and independent Body politic, and endued with power immediately under, and from Christ, as every proper Church is, and ought to be. And so then there can not be any proper Diocesan or Provintiall Church, where such Congregations be: though perhaps there may be somewhere at sometimes such names used( even of Diocesan and provincial Churches) for other respects.  
Wherefore this very one thing, namely this freedom of the Christian people orderly& religiously practised in a church, maketh that the said Church of necessity must consist of persons belonging not to many ordinary Congregations, and those meeting in far remote places( as the state is of Diocesan and provincial Churches) but of persons belonging to one only ordinary Congregation. And that such were in the New Testament,& since, and are now also in these dayes, it is more then manifest. Wherefore thus the conclusion is most certain, that a Diocesan and provincial Church differeth by a substantial and essential difference, from a Visible Church which is but one ordinary Congregation only.  
Another proof hereof is this: That Church which out of the very Nature& form of the constitution thereof, maketh Pluralitie-Men and Nonrefidentes lawful& good Ministers of the gospel, yea which hath her chief and principal Ministers such, the same differeth by a substantial difference from that Church where no Minister can be so.  
The Diocesan Church, and Provincial, and larger, are Churches of that Nature. The chief and principal Pastors in these, have charge of souls of many ordinary Congregations: also in such wise as that they neither do, nor can yield their ordinary personal presence to their people. And these surely are Pluralitie-men, and non-residents, in the time of the gospel. contrariwise, that Church which is onely one ordinary Congregation, can not have any such Ministers.  
Therefore the Diocesan Church, the provincial, and larger, do differ by a substantial difference from that Church which is but one only ordinary Congregation.  
Thirdly, this is another reason for it. Where all proper Pastors and Bishops, and their Churches do injoye( as the Apostles did among themselves) pari cons●rtio& honoris& potestatis, 
Cypr. dev● Eccle.  even all one and the same honor and power, and where likewise none doth exercise authority over other, nor dominion over the Lords inheritance, there is a substantial difference from those Churches where it is otherwise.  
In the Churches which are each but one ordinary Congregation, this equal honor and power is enjoyed, and no Pastors do exercise authority over others, nor dominion over the lords inheritance: but in provincial and Diocesan Churches it is otherwise. As experience sheweth.  
Therefore in Churches which are each but one ordinary Congregation, there is a substantial difference from Provincial and Diocesan Churches.  
Fourthly thus: In those Churches where every Pastor doth {αβγδ} that is, Teach and govern, exercising both the keys, and delivering wholly the Lords appointed portion of spiritual nourishment to his household, there is a substantial difference from those Churches where the most of the Pastors do not so, nor many do so; but do separate that which God hath joined together.  
In the Churches which are each of thē but one ordinary Congregation, every Pastor doth {αβγδ} that is, Teach and govern, exercising both the keys, and delivering wholly the Lords 
luke. 12.42. Act. 20.28. Pet. 5.2. 1. Tim. 5.17. 1. Thes. 5.12. Mat. 18.17.& 16.19.  appointed portion of spiritual nourishment to his household: in the provincial and Diocesan Churches the most of the Pastors neither do, nor may do so. Yea not above one of 200. or one of 5000. doth so, or can do so. Thus 
Math. 19.6.  Separating that which God hath joined together.  
Therefore in the Churches which are each of them but one ordinary Congregation" there is a substantial difference from Diocesan Churches and provincial and larger.  
Fiftly, thus: That Visible and political Church which hath her foundation in Christes Testament, and also hath set bounds and limits there, differeth fundamentally, and substantially, and Essentially from that Church, which neither hath set bounds and limits in Christes Testament, nor any foundation there.  
A Church which is onely but one ordinary Congregation, hath her Foundation in Christes Testament, and also hath set bounds and limits there: a Diocesan or provincial Church, hath neither.  
Therefore a Visible and political Church which is only but one ordinary Congregation, differeth fundamentally and substantially and essentially from a Diocesan or provincial Church.  
The first Proposition or Mator is certain, because touching 
Math. 16.18.  the Church, 
1. Cor. 3. 1●.  no other foundation can any man lay but that which is laid, which is Iesus Christ. Also every Body politic( namely the spiritual) having bounds& limits set by God, must needs differ substantially from that which hath no set bounds at all, but is left at large to the will of men: Whereby it may soon become( as usually it doth) to great and vnwieldy. Such a false foundation of Christes Church D. Downame layeth, and such false bounds thereof: viz. the order of 
D. Downame defence. Book. 2. pag. 73. &c.  the Civill state. I have proved it at large in the Treatise to be so.  
The Minor is likewise very true: viz, A Visible and Political Church which is only but one ordinary Congregation hath her foundation in Christes Testament. It hath both precepts and patterns for it there, as is shewed in the Treatise Arg. 3.& 9. and in Reas. for reform. pag. 19. 20. 21. yea most directly in the proofs of our Antecedent here presently following, pag. 20, &c. again this Church hath her set bounds and limits in Christes Testament, seeing there it is( namely) Ecclesia, that is not many ordinary set Assemblies but onely one. D. Downame saith, 
Ibid. pag. 42. 43. 30 &c.  a Church under the Apostles was a great City and all the Country adjoining, as it hath ben since. But this is a notorious fable. Never any in those times understood the word. Ecclesia to signify many ordinary assemblies, yea in places far distant a sunder as a Dioces is: though it now so signifieth,& did signify about 300. yeares after Christ, when they began sometime to mean thereby a Province, or a diocese. But we must rest our faith vpon the sincere speaking and doing of the Apostles, not vpon the equivocating words and declining actions of men, especially so late. 
N●….  Neither mean we by bounds and limits of the Visible Church any circuit of ground at all: and so neither the set compass of a Parish, as it is now reckoned with us: but we understand only that all the persons thereof belonged to one ordinary Congregation, and not to many in those times. This limit, we say, is set and determined in the word Ecclesia, where it noteth a political Visible Church in the New Testament. Which also in a good sense may be called a Parish, we grant.  
And these things verily are Substautiall and essential points in the Churches which are each but one ordinary Congregation, distinguishing them essentially from Diocesan Churches and Provincial, and larger: or at least they are inseparably joined to the essence of them( as before I said) which is all one in effect, and cometh to the same issue in our question as if they were of the very essence of them. So that the general proof alleged before in the beginning of 
Pag. 10.  this Answer, viz. In Christes and the Apostles institution and practise all Visible Churches were each of them but one ordinary Congregation.  
Therefore all Christes true Churches now still and for ever are so, and ought to be so.  
This reason, I say, is firm and good, and cannot be shaken; the Consequence is undeniable. Seeing without question all Churches both then and now had& have but one only essence and form, and constitution. Though they are many in number, yet all are but one in nature, and essence, and form. Which both is manifest in reason, and may be proved also by that general axiom in Eph. 4.4.5. There is one Body( that is, one Visible and political Church; seeing the generality of the word may extend hereunto) one Spirit, one Lord, one Faith, one baptism. This Body, Faith, and baptism are each of them simply one in nature; many in number.  
Yet nevertheless this our main reason, 
The Antecedent pag. 10. proved. & Consequence, is true but vpon Supposition only, that is, if the first part therof be true; viz. If in Christes& the Apostles institution and practise all Churches then were each of them but only one ordinary Congregation. Now this many do flatly deny; many do greatly doubt of it; and it is the chiefest point in all our controversy. Wherefore I will here bring some most clear& invincible reasons to prove it, namely, that In Christes and the Apostles institution and practise all Churches then were each of them but only one ordinary Congregation. For proof whereof I reason, first thus.  
Every Visible Church which had the peoples free consent in their ordinary government rightly appointed, the same was only one ordinary Congregation: it was no provincial nor Diocesan Church.  
All Christes true Visible Churches mentioned in the New Testament had the peoples free consent in their ordinary government rightly appointed.  
Therefore all Christes true Visible Churches mentioned in the New Testament were each of them only one ordinary Congregation: none of them was any provincial, nor Diocesan Church.  
The first Proposition is made manifest a little 
Pag. 1●. 1●  before. The second or Minor is proved at large in the Treatise Arg. 3. and 9. as also in the Reas. for reform. pag. 45.46.47. &c. unto which point we have a general consent of all godly learned men: a number of whom are remembered by master Whetenhall, in his Discourse: besides such as master Cartwright plentifully allegeth in his writings to this purpose. briefly, 
See the Attestation &c.  the Churches abroad at this day do generally aclowledge it, as also the Churches in the Primitive times did by their practise. Where I pray let it be noted, that we stand strictly vpon no other free consent of the people but this, 
Beza.  that populo invito nihil obtrudatur: Nothing may be imposed on the people against their will. Which master Beza resolveth ought to bee every where. Epist. 83. And under the Apostles he sheweth that it was so at the least. Annotat. in Act. 14.23.& in 1. Tim. 5.22.  
Secondly I reason thus:  
No Church in the Apostles times had any Pastors Pluralistes and non-residents.  
All provincial and Diocesan Churches have some Pastors Pluralistes and non-residents.  
Therefore no provincial or Diocesan Churches were in the Apostles times.  
The first Proposition is generally held as a Principle of sound doctrine by al that have the fear of God, and any love of the truth in their hearts. For otherwise Pluralistes and non-resident Pastors willbe apostolical and lawful, yea verily ordained& appointed by the Apostles. Howbeit yet justly doth every good man abhor them, 
Dieo vtrumque esse prodigiosum flagitium &c. Calv. Institut. ●. 5.7.  and worthily accounteth them detestable: esteeming them( as in dead they are) contrary to the rule of the gospel, and to the salvation of mens souls. Namely in that they are true and manifest causes of ignorance in the people, and of their vnchristian dissolutnes of life. The Minor is to be understood of a Diocesan or provincial Church properly so called, that is, where the people of the ordinary Congregations have not that free consent in their government which before I spake of, which is, at least, that nothing be urged vpon thē by any spiritual power against their wills. Where the people of the Congregations have not this free power in themselves, but are absolutely under a Diocesan or provincial jurisdiction ecclesiastical, there is that Diocesan or provincial Church which I signify in the Minor proposition. All which Churches have Bishops correspondent& proportionable to their said jurisdiction. I say, they all have such correspondent and proportionable Bishops, or else in all true reason they may& should have. Now al such proper Diocesan& Provincial Bishops have a full pastoral charge of souls of a great many( 300. or 400. or many mo) distinct ordinary Congregations. They themselves, and their defenders aclowledge this plainly. 
D. Down. b. ●. pag. 67. &c.  Also none of these doth nor can give his ordinary personal presence to 2. or 3. of these said Congregations by any possible means. And what else is a non-resident and Pluralist under the gospel but such a one? again, if of necessity every such Bishop be a non-resident to 2. or 3. several Congregations under him, then how much more is he a non-resident& Pluralist in respect of all to which he is Pastor? Wherefore it remaineth clear and certain that every Diocesan Bishop( and the provincial much more) can not but be in the time of the gospel a huge non-resident. Which also maketh the Minor both here& before, pag. 15. to be true: whereupon the conclusion followeth, viz. No provincial or Diocesan Church was in the Apostles dayes.  
A third proof is this.  
Where no Churches are superior to other in power: also where no Pastors do exercise authority over other, nor dominion over the Lords inheritance, there are no provincial nor Diocesan Churches.  
In all the New Testament there are no such Churches, nor such Pastors.  
Therefore in all the New Testament there are. no provincial nor Diocesan Churches: but consequently, all are ordinary Congregations only.  
The Maior proposition is known by experience, and is without all question. The Minor is as clear in the text as any thing can be. For no where can any such superiority& Dominion in spiritual affairs bee found throughout the whole New Testament. Besides, the same is found expressly forbidden in luke. 22.26. and 1. Pet. 5.3. There was not any firm Diocesan authority till the council of Nice, then it began first to be appointed by 
nigh. council. Can. 6.  Law. Before I grant there was an old custom of respecting the Metropolitan Bishops mind in the Churches affairs of meaner places, specially in Egypt: but it was by a free and voluntary affection and inclining hereunto, it was arbitrary, it was without power, it imported no necessity of obedience till this time of the Nicen council. So that then I grant a kind of Diocesan Church began about 330. yeares after Christ. Howbeit yet this was far from making a Diocesan or provincial proper and perfit Church whereof here wee speak. Which indeed so long as the Christian people in the Congregations retained their freedom to consent in their ordinary government, had no place in the world. Now, restraint hereof took not place till after the 4. Council of Carthage: for then the people 
Can. 22.  had this their liberty, about the year 420. yea( as wee may judge) till the great council in Trullo, which 
Can. 2.  confirmed the forenamed council of Carthage, about the year 682. So long therefore and longer wee may well think, this proper Diocesan Church was not erected, at least not generally; but the ordinary Congregations were the proper Churches yet still. Of this more else where. nevertheless by this we see that our Minor is certain.  
A fourth proof is this.  
Where all Pastors do poimainein, that is, Teach and Rule, and where all Churches do exercise both the keys, and do wholly deliver the Lords appointed portion of spiritual nourishment to his household, there is no provincial nor Diocesan Church. In the whole New Testament all Pastors, and all Churches do so.  
Therfore in the whole New Testament there is no provincial nor Diocesan Church.  
This Maior is likewise evident in reason and experience, as the last before was. The Minor is clear by these texts, Act. 20. 28. and 1. Pet. 5.2. and 1. Tim. 5.17. and 1. Thess. 5.12. Math. 18.17. and 16.19. luke. 12.42. unto which all other are conformable and correspondent. If any stick at Math. 18.17.( as perhaps some will) I refer him for satisfaction therein to the Treatise itself, Arg. 3.  
Fiftly thus I prove it.  
If the most flourishing Church of Corinth in the Apostles times was in the whole but onely one ordinary Congregation, then all other Churches at that time, and since, are each of them but only one ordinary Congregation.  
The most flourishing Church of Corinth in the Apostles times was in the whole but only one ordinary Congregation. For so the Apostle saith of it, 1. Cor. 14.23. When the whole Church is come together in one, or into one place, &c. The whole then made but one Congregation. The like we may note, Chap. 11.20.18. chap. 5.4.  
Therfore all other Churches then in the Apostles times and since, are each of them but only one ordinary Congregation.  
The Mai●r is certain, because all true Churches of Christ both then, and for ever, had and haue but one form, nature, and constitution, as is 
Pag. 19.20.  before shewed, and our adversaries do 
D. Down. Book. a. pag. 42.45.  grant. To the Minor, it is idle to say( as some do) that those words, the whole Church came together into one place, are to be understood distributively of many several ordinary Congregations then belonging to the Church of Corinth. Nay; evidently these words are spokon touching all, and to al them, to whom the Epistle is directed, &c also in that very maner. But the Epistle is directed to the Church of Corinth in general collectively, 1. Cor. 1.2. Therefore those words are spoken to the whole Corinthian Church in general collectively;& collectively the whole in general did ceme together in one place at that time. Besides, our adversaries say that the division of Parishes and Dioceses 
Platina in P. Dionys.  came in about the year of Christ 260. So that then in the Apostles dayes neither the Corinthian Church, nor any other, was a Diocesan Church. Some further object 2. Cor. 1.1. To the Church at Corinth with all the Saints which are in al Achaia. As if here al the Saints which were in all Achaia made then but one Visible Church with that at Corinth: and so the Corinthian Church then was a Diocesan or provincial Church. But there is no show of reason in the world for this. As well may they conclude from 1. Cor. 1.2. To the Church at Corinth Saints by calling, with all that call upon the name of our Lord lesus Christ in every place, both their Lord and ours. As well, I say, they may from hence conclude, that all who called vpon the name of Christ in every place then made but one Visible Church with that at Corinth, and so the Corinthian Church then was a universal Visible Church. Which how absurd it is, all men see. Yet this is altogether as good,& as likely a collection, as the other.  
My sixth reason is this.  
If the Apostles, where they speak of Christians set in outward order through a Province, do never memtion any one general Church of that Province, or of a Diocese, but always many several Churches, such as were each of them one ordinary Congregation only, then in the Apostles times there was no Provinicall or Diocesan Church, but only such as were each of them one ordinary Congregation only. This sentence can not be denied or doubted of: Seeing it is both presumptuous& absurd to hold that there was such a form of a Church then as cannot bee gathered out of any of their writings. again, it is no less absurd, yea impious to hold any such form of a Church now as was not then, or hath no pattern for it under the Apostles. But indeed al that former clause is most true: Where the Apostles speak of Christians set in outward Order through a Province, greater or lesser, they never mention any one general Church of the Province, but always many several Churches. As is to be seen by their naming plurally 
1. Cor. 16.1 Gal. 1.2.& 21  the Churches of Galatia: never one singular Church of Galatia. Likewise plurally 
Vers. 26.& 1. Thes 2.14.  the Churches of judea:& 
2. Cor. 8.1.  of Macedonia:& 
1. Cor. 16.19.  of Asia, &c. Never find we one Church general in any of these Provinces: neither can the like be found any where in all the New Testam. Moreover the several Churches thou splurally name, are such as were each of them singularly one ordinary Congregation only. The 
Ecclesia.  word itself importeth it.  
Therefore then in the Apostles times there was no provincial or Diocesan Church, but onely such as were each of them one ordinary Congregation only. And so D. Downames dissolute ground of a Church, viz. that it may follow the order of the civill State is hereby also quiter overthrown.  
Against the Minor they object, 
D. Down. b. 4. pag 87.  that there was a general Church of Crete, whereof Titus was Bishop. I answer, the New Testament no where nameth one general Church of Crete, nor Titus Bishop of Crete. Therefore here is nothing against vs. Eusebius speaking of these times, 
Euseb. 3.4. and 4.22.  nameth the Churches of Crete plurally. Neither could Titus be any proper Bishop of Crete, for he was in the same Function and Office of ministery before he came to Crete, as he was when( for a time) he tarried there. But before, being at 
Gal. 2.1.  jerusalem, at 
2. Cor. 8.17.  Corinth, in 
2. Cor. 12.18 with 9 2.3.  Macedonia, he was thē no proper Bishop: he was an Evangelist. Therefore he was so in Crete also. again he was as timothy was. But the Apostle saith, he was 
2. Tim. 4.5.  an Evangelist: neither is there any reason that the Apostle here spake improperly. Therfore timothy and Titus both were Evangelistes: and by consequence not proper Bishops. The works of Bishos they did,& more too; as also the Apostles did. Who yet were no proper Bishops, neither could be: seeing the H. Ghost had made them 
1. Cor. 12.18. Ephe. 4.11.  divers. Also the Bishoplike power which these all had, was in them materially, not formally, as I may so speak. And it is still to remain with their Successors, not in the form of their proper functions, viz. as they were Apostles or Evangelistes, but in an other form, viz. in the ordinary Bishops and Pastors, who all indeed do equally succeed them. And thus any thing that is objected of worth concerning Titus or Crete, is clearly refuted. Further it is 
D. Down. b. 2. pag 104.  objected, that 
Rom. 16.1.  the Church of Ceachreae was a Parish subordinat to the Church of Corinth. But this is easily proved to be false. Paul calleth it a Church properly: he speaketh here questionless properly, and not by the figure Synecdoche, as signifying a part of a church,& not a whole Church. There is no cause of Paules figurative speaking in this place: Therefore he did not so speak. But certainly he calleth this Church of Cenchteae by this name as properly, as he nameth the Church of Corinth, or Ephesus, or Antioch. And therefore certainly it was then as proper a Church, as entire, as total, and independent, as any of them. Lastly those 
Act. 21.20.  many 10. thousands at jerusalem 
D. Down. b. 2. pag. 91.  are objected, as making that Church then not one ordinary Congregation only, but provincial at least. I answer, these were not all of the Church of jerusalem. here in this text there is no such thing spoken, nor meant. But the solemn feast of Pentecost now being at jerusalem, 
Act. 20.12.  the greatest part of these men were come up thither out of foreign places and far countries, as the Law required. For these were al lews, 
Act. 21.20.  & Zealous of the law, as the text here sheweth. And this 
vers. 22.  multitude( it is like) were they that would come together to know the truth of Paul when they should hear that he also was come thither. These therefore were not members of Ierusalems Church, though they were so many in that city at this time: neither doth this show any thing of the greatness or smallness of the ordinary Church at jerusalem in those times, unless it prove the same then to be, no mo then one Congregation, seeing here it is said of the whole multitude, that they would come together. Lastly thus I reason further: Every company of people joined together in a polity and signified by the greek word Ecclesia in the Apostles dayes, is but one ordinary Congregation only.  
All Christes true Visible Churches in the New Testam. are each of them a company of people joined together in a polity and signified by the greek word Ecclesia in the Apostles dayes.  
Therefore all Christes true Visible churches in the New Testament are each of them but one ordinary Congregation only.  
Every part of this reason is most manifestly true and certain.  
D. Downames whole resistance in his Defence standeth on a most frivolous& false exception against the Maior. Saith he 
D. Down. b. a. pag 49.54.55.65.53.  The circuit of a 
Ecclesia.  Church by the Apostles intention was the same before Parishes( in a Diocese) were divided, as it was afterward. Which all, who understand the property of the 
Ecclesia.  greek word, do know to bee false. For all authentic greek authors do show that Ecclesia with them signified that which in Latin is Conci● populi● that is, 
Zuingl. Artic. 8. Explanat.  one particular assembly of people, and in respect as they are assembled together in one place: but never in those times did it signify a multitude dispersedly coming together in many distinct ordinary Meetings, and in far remote places, as provincial and Diocesan Churches do. Now the Apostles spake as all authentic Grecians spake,& namely as they commonly used to speak in those times. So that, unless the Apostles words in their known proper sense, and their intention be contrary( which to imagine is to absurd) there is no truth in the Doctors saying. His whole discourse beside, being fraught with disdainful& disgraceful reproaches, such as become rather a persecuter, then a Christian teacher of the truth, it deserveth wholly to be neglected,& passed over with silence. But because he seemeth to himself to be somebody, it will not be amiss if his windy and wordy writing bee answered in a several proper place. Which business I commit to the providence of God. As for the point of the controversy here in hand, that which I defend in this place, is easy to be further proved and declared by other reasons also: but for this time I will rest content with these seven before delivered, beside that which 
Reas. for 10. form. pag. 19.20.  heretofore I have alleged to this purpose.  
The substance of all this whole matter is knit up in this one argument following.  
No Visible Church of Divine Institution in the New Testament is provincial or Diocesan.  
Every true Visible Church of Christ is of Divine institution in the New Testament.  
Therefore no true Visible Church of Christ is Provinci all or Diocesan.  
The Maior is proved pag. 20.21. &c. The Minor is proved pag. 10.11.12. &c. Wherefore the Conclusion remaineth sure.  
Further, some think that I set down a contrariety where I say, 
Tractat. page.. 3.  the Single and Compound forms of government differ the one from the other by a specifical& essential difference: and" the one ceaseth necessary when 
page.. 4.  the other cometh in place. And yet( as they imagine) contrary to this I say, 
pag. ●.  the Church government is mixed. How be it nevertheless, indeed these sentences do stand together& agree right well. For the divers kindes of government( as the Diocesan, and parochial, that is, of onely one ordinary Congregation; also the monarchy, aristocraty, and democraty) may bee mixed in graduremisso in their state remiss and abated, but not in intenso gradis in their perfect state: they may conioyne in their Accidents, but not Essentially, or in their distinct pure Essences. As the Direction of a Pastor, with the affistance of the Elders, and the peoples free consent in a Church may concur and stand together: thus may the government be mixed. But the peoples free consent cannot admit either a Diocesan nor yet parochial pure monarchy, or absolute aristocraty, thus they cannot be mixed. The one of these necessary doth cease when the other cometh in place: and these are those forms of government of which I say here, they differ truly the one from the other by a specifical& essential difference. If any stick in the Epistle, where the Visible Churches form is said to be 
Epist. pag. 11.12.  the power of a Single and vncompounded spiritual polity. Let him consider that the reference there noted expressly sendeth him to the second Explanation in the beginning of the Treatise, where( pag. 5.) it is declared that it ought to be with the peoples free consent. Now in this the form is complete and clear. Howbeit yet wee speak not here so exactly and curiously of the Visible Churches form, but that our meaning is only that it doth convenire Subiecto omni, soli,& semper: that it is convertible with it, and inseparable from it, and nothing else. And that this is in dead so proper to the said Church, it is proved in this same Treatise, Argu. 3. and 9. as before is noted. And in the Reasons for reformation, 
Compared with pag. 26.27.28.  pag. 45, 46, 47, &c. Now hence also it cometh, that where the Peoples free consent is orderly and constantly had, there the Church can not bee but 
As in Arg. 9. in the Treat.& above pag. 13.14.  only one ordinary Congregation, and the government is Single, or over one Congregation only. Where the absolute government is Diocesan or larger, there that Church can not possibly be one ordinary Congregation only, nor can use ordinarily the Peoples free consent: but it must of necessity be either by one person alone, or by a few choice persons absolute under Christ over a whole Diocese, or further. So that it is plain enough divers ways, that these governements are indeed( as I said) essentially distinguished: and the fore-rehearsed sentences do well stand together, and agree easily.  
Moreover the first Proposition of the first Argument is thought by some to be amiss: viz. 
Treat. pa. ●.  Whatsoever[ is] a Divine institution, the same is perpetual. But why should any doubt of this? They say, Because the Iewes high Priesthood was a Divine institution, also the Calling of the Apostles: and yet neither is perpetual. whereunto the answer is easy: viz. Neither of these cometh near the point in question. The words of the Proposition are, Whatsoever is: not, Whatsoever was, or hath ben a Divine institution. Wherefore I speak of Divine institutions and ordinances which are now such at this present time, even in our dayes: not of such as were Divine heerctofore only, that is only in the time of the Jews estate, or of the Apostles, such as the instances are which be objected. I speak not( I say) of any levitical or apostolical temporary ordinances. Which to be my very meaning in this place, appeareth partly in the Minor Proposition of the said Argument, which of necessity must bee taken so; and more fully strait after in handling the proof of the said Minor.  
Further it is excepted against, 
Treat.  where I say, 
Pag. 26.  This word Ecclesia or Kahal in Hebrew is no where found in any Author( one or other) to signify a bench of justicers, or Senat of Magistrates. This cannot be shewed in any other place at all. But contrary to this some allege that the Septuagint do translate Kahal in 
Prov. 26.26.  one place {αβγδ} a Senat. I answer, it is not material to our main purpose in this place how the Hebrew Kahal is once by the Septuagint Translated, though I added this word, which I needed not. For all the matter indeed standeth in the Greek word Ecclesia, which is the 
Matth. 18.19  original text. Now concerning this word, there is no exception at all taken against that which here I allege. No man findeth in any author( one or other) this word Ecclesia to signify a Bench of justicers or Senate of Magistrates: no, not once. As for that Hebrew word Kahal also, seeing( for ought that appeareth) it is translated Senat no where, but only this once: we are to suppose that the same Authors( viz. the Septuagint) who translate it more then 100. times otherwise, do think the proper sense of this word not to be a Senat. And why it should not also be proper in the Hebrew translation of Math. 18.17. there is no reason in the world. again the Septuagint themselves are of no good authority for translation. And learned men do judge that( after the five books of Moses) the translation bearing their name, is not theirs. 
D. Field. of the Church.  How so ever, they are generally known for translation to be most wide, strange, and unfit. master Hugh Broughton 
Against Dav. Farrar the jew.  saieth of them, that all learned men for these 1300. yeares space do know the Septuagint translators have infinite millions of faults. Neither do our English translations, nor Tremellius, nor Vatablus, nor the Inter●… arie, nor Arias Montanus, nor Munster, nor any good Translators( as far as I know) follow thē in this place of the proverbs. 
Viz. Neither French, nor Dutch, nor Spanish, nor Italian.  So that namely here they seem to be held of no sound writer, for Authors of any credit in this particular, howsoever they bee esteemed Otherwise.  
again, some mislike that( in the Assumption of Argument 7.) the ministerial Church and Church-government are said to be fundamental points of religion, and a part of the foundation of Christian faith. But if men would consider things well, sure here is no cause of mislike. always remembering, that I do not take the foundation of faith here in that sense as Christ himself is held and acknowledged to bee the Foundation of our faith, 1. Cor. 3.11. He alone is that absolute Foundation. Neither do I take it in that sense as the word of God is acknowledged to be the general foundation of faith, which only together with Christ( the author of it) our faith can rest on. But in that sense I take it as the Apostle useth it in Hebr. 6.1.2. where manifestly he useth this word Foundation to signify certain points of religion, and special Doctrines necessary to salvation ordinarily, and unchangeable by men. He setteth down in this place 6. of them: of which some are Inward, some Outward: Some requiring outward action& practise, some speculation and belief only. Among them that require outward action and practise, he nameth Laying on of hands as one part of this foundation. Now this cannot be here understood with any good colour, but for Calling to the ministery; as is shewed evidently in the Treatise. And Calling to the ministery, or the Making of Ministers is one main part of Church-government. And of that nature as the Church government is, of the same is the Visible, or ministerial, or political Church itself. As also, of that nature as a main part of Church-governement is, of the same is the whole. whereupon I reason thus: If 
That is, Making of Ministers ordinarily effected by laying on of hands.  Laying on of hands( which is one main part of Church-governement, as before is shewed) be of the foundation, necessary to salvation ordinarily, and unchangeable by men, thē the Church-government, and the Church itself is so. But the former is certain by the text Heb. 6.2. as before I have shewed. Therfore the later is certain also, viz. the ministerial Church& Church government are of the foundation of faith, ot fundamental points of religion, they are necessary to salvation ordinarily, and unchangeable by men. Secondly, as baptisms is here called also fundamental, so is this Laying on of hands, or Calling to the ministery. But herein is meant no more( touching baptism) save that it is a means to salvation necessary ordinarily, and simply unchangeable by men. Wherefore even so is Calling to the ministery understood to be, where in the Treatise it is called fundamental. Thirdly, I take it, no well advised Christian will deny Christes true Visible and Ministerial Church to be fundamental. Of which, Cyprians saying is approved by all men, 
Cypr. de vni●at. Eccles.  viz. Deum non habet Patrem, qui Ecclesiam non habet ●atrem: he hath not God for his Father, who hath not the Church for his mother. And likewise is that common saying; Extra Ecclesiam non est salus: Out of the Church there is no salvation. Both which sayings are true of Christes Visible and ministerial Church: howbeit not simply, but ordinarily. Yea they signify also, that this ordinary way and means to salvation,( viz. the Visible Church) appointed by God is unchangeable by men. This sense of foundation is given to Christes true Visible Church, I suppose by all well advised Christians.  
Fourthly, that is a fundamental point which toucheth Christ( the absolute foundation) in some of his main Offices immediately, or( at least) by a sure and plain consequence. But Christes Visible Church and government doth immediately touch him in his Kingly Office and in his prophetical Office also. As is shewed at full in Arg. 3. in the Treatise; yea in every Argument there by a most certain Consequence. Most directly in the 4.6.10.17.18.19.23.24.25.26.28.30.31. And in Reas. for reform. pag. 52. 53. 54. Wherefore Christes Visible Church and government are to bee acknowledged fundamental points in religion. Fiftly, let us here consider how we do judge of the papists touching this matter, viz. touching fundamental errors. We all hold( and justly) that certain Popish errors are fundamental, and against every one of Christes main Offices. Among which, their error about the Visible Church and government thereof is against Christes kingdom. Wherefore hence it followeth that Christes Visible Church and government is a fundamental point in religion: seeing their error which they hold in that matter is a fundamental error, as wee all aclowledge. sixthly, the learned writers 
Beza confess 5.7. P. Mart. in 1. Cor. 1.2. Viret. Dial. 14.& 21. at the end. T. C. Reply 2. pag. 53. D. Field of the Church. 2.6. D. Down. Def. b. 2. pag. 6. The Confess. of faith in the end of the book of come. prayer.  do set down three essential( at least, perpetual and necessary) notes of a Visible Church, viz. the Word, Sacraments, and government. understand, that by this here is meant the power to administer these things, as I have noted before pa. 7. Now if government thus be essential to the Church, it may be also called fundamental without question.  
Where still I desire it may bee remembered, that by this our interpretation of Laying on of hands in Hebr. 6.2. to be fundamental, our whole meaning and intent is to show this only, that the Nature of Christes Visible Church and government is unchangeable by men: and that after the constant& perpetual ordinance of God, salvation through Christ cometh unto us ordinarily always by means of this true Visible Church& ministery of the word therein. According to that, 
〈◇〉. 10.17  Faith is by hearing, and hearing by the preaching of Gods word by Ministers orderly sent( that is) according to his rule. Which doctrine all sound Divines do teach in like sort.  
here unto I will add may. Cartwrights iudgement, who maintaineth this earnestly, that 
Y. C. repl. ● pag. 26.  Matters of Discipline and kind of government are matters necessary to salvation, and of faith.  
If any doubt whether I think a man may bee saved that erreth about the Visible Churches particular form and government. I answer, I think such a man may be saved. In what regard, and how, I have formerly set down in those Reasons for reform. pag. 55.  
Lastly, the Argument 16. in the Treatise is excepted against. Where indeed I deny not, but the maner of gathering that Argument is scarce as it should be: the Enumeration there used might be somewhat more full. Howbeit that text of Scripture 1. Cor. 15.24.( which is the ground of the Argument) will very well yield the Conclusion, so that it bee gathered and framed in such maner as now here it is set down. Wherefore I pray the Reader to conceive it thus:  
Where Christes whole Oeconomicall kingdom is signified, 
Argu. 16. in the Treatise.  there also the Outward Ecclesiastical administration& government, or the State of the Visible Church is indefinitely& generally fignified. And again, it followeth from hence that also there in the same text the Outward Ecclesiastical government and State of the Visible Church under the gospel in special is signified. And withall there is signified that this same Outward ecclesiastical government and State of the Visible Church under the gospel is truly& in dead Christes kingdom. And likewise, that he himself is the only Author, and Framer, yea the only Lord, King, and Law-giver thereof to the worlds end. For who can be Author and Law-giver of his own kingdom but only himself?  
In 1. Cor. 15.24. Christes whole Oeconomicall kingdom is signified.  
Therefore in 1. Cor. 15.24. the Outward ecclesiastical administration& government, or the State of the Visible Church( yea that under the gospel) is also signified. And again from 1. Corinth. 15.24. in such respect it followeth necessary, that the Outward Ecclesiastical government and State of the Visible Church under the gospel is truly and in dead Christes kingdom. And likewise, that he himself is the only Author, and Framer, yea the only Lord, King, and Law-giver thereof to the worlds end.  
The Assumption here is most evidently true. Considering that by Christes Oeconomicall kingdom we mean( and so the Interpreters do call it and understand it to be) all that-power and rule which as Mediator and Head of his Church he received 
Mat. 28.18.  of the Father, and administered ever since( by himself and his servants) till the worlds end, but no longer. This sense the present text( 1. Cor. 15.24.) will well bear being taken in the largest maner that the Circumstances do admit. And every text always must be taken in such most large sense.  
The Consequence of the Proposition standeth on four partes. And I see not how any one of them can possibly be denied. If any should, it will easily be proved.  
Thus, though our former Argument 16. in the Treatise for the manner of gathering, bee not( I grant) altogether so well as it should bee, yet the Text itself 1. Cor. 15.24. doth still afford a good and found Argument for our main purpose, as is said. And thus in effect here is nothing lost. And so much for answer to these 9. Exceptions.  
Hitherto( my dear and loving friend) I have waded labouring to give satisfaction to all good people( according as it may come to their notice) so far as my conscience with warrant of the truth will permit. Humbly desiring all loving and upright hearted Christians to interpret this same, together with what soever J have heretofore written, as only and merely the effects of conscience in me, agreeing( so near as I could discern) to my duty enjoined me in Gods word. The grace, mercy, and love of God in Iesus Christ be with us all. Amen. Middleborough. the 4. of September. Anno 1611.  
HENRY jacob.