REASONS TAKEN OUT OF GOD'S WORD AND THE BEST HUMAN TESTIMONIES PROVING A NECESSITY OF REFORMING OUR CHURCHES IN ENGLAND. Framed and applied to 4. Assertions wherein the foresaid purpose is contained. The 4. Assertions are set down in the Page next following.  
I believed, therefore I have spoken.  Psal. 116.10. 
One thing is necessary.  Luc. 10.42. 
1604.   

The 4. Assertions.  
Pag. 1. 
1. It is necessary to reform the Churches of England, their ministery, and Ceremonies.  Pag. 57 
2. For the space of 200. years after Christ the Visible Churches using government were not Diocesan Churches, but particular ordinary Congregations only: and the Bishops (as they were peculiarly called after the Apostles) were only Parishional not Diocesan Bishops, differing from other Pastors only in Priority of order not in majority of rule.  Pag. 67. 
3. The Scriptures of the New Testaments do contain & set forth unto us (besides the government by Extraordinary Offices, Apostles Prophets Evangelistes) an ordinary form of Church-governement used then.  Pag. 70. 
4. The ordinary form of Church-governement set forth unto us in the New Testament, ought necessarily to be kept still by us; it is not changeable by men, and therefore it only is lawful.    

To the high and mighty Prince JAMES by the grace of God King of England, Scotland, France, and Ireland, Defender of the faith, etc. Grace and peace be multiplied in Christ our Saviour.  
RIght high, mighty, and gracious Sovereign, in most humble wise your majesties loyal & devoted Subjects who for the safety of our souls desire the Reformation of our Churches according to God's word, do cast down ourselves in the true affection of our hearts before your Royal presence, whom we acknowledge to be the noblest pillar of the Gospel and the greatest hope for the propagation and establishing thereof that is in all Christendom. Beseeching your Highness to extend your Kingly aid and furtherance unto us in our foresaid most necessary and just desire, with protection also toward our innocencies against the Oppression of our Adversaries in this cause. Their Oppressions of us are and have been many, very grievous. and of long continuance. For the which we▪ have known that your Majesty formerly hath been touched with a godly & tender commiseration towards us. As it is with all humble thankfulness acknowledged (to your immortal honour) by * a Reverend Father, 
M. Cartwe. Epist. to the King before his Homil. on Eccles.  one that heretofore tasted thereof, and now lately sleepeth in the Lord. The truth of God maintained then, is the very same which we now dutifully seek for. Our consciences are rather more certified of the goodness and necessity of these Ordinances of God, by how much more time we have spent since in examining and trying the Reasons alleged to and fro about the same. The great increasing also of Papists and Libertines among us since this time, assureth us that the present Ecclesiastical Orders are more friendly to them then to the sincerity of the Gospel. Besides, the most lamentable dissensions and diversity of opinions in matters of Religion breaking forth every where among the people (contrary to lovely Unity, which the Diocesan Bishops do vainly pretend to be a proper fruit of their Office, and contrary to that which other Churches refusing them and their Traditions do sweetly enjoy) this animateth us with all dutiful endeavour to seek this Reformation aforesaid so divinely commended unto us. Lastly, we have had it from your Majesty very oft, that whatsoever things in our Churches we can show to be Contrary to God's word, shallbe by your gracious means removed: and whatsoever (yet out of use with us) may appear by God's word to be Necessary; shall be established. May it please your most gracious Majesty, let this word stand. We crave, we desire nothing more. And less than this how can we desire? I hope it is showed and declared competently in the Treatise following that the matters in question wherewith our consciences are troubled, are in very truth Contrary to God's Word. And here we most humbly beseech your Majesty on our bended knees to think of us no otherwise. The Lord is witness to our souls, we by not; that of mere conscience to God we seek the right, and refuse the wrong, namely these human Traditions Ecclesiastical: and not (as our Adversaries suggest) of any contentious or peevish mind. There is no other reason in the world moving us in this matter, but because we see it with our eyes that all such things are directly Contrary to God's word; and that Christ's own Ordinances which yet we want are necessary to be enjoyed for our soul's health. They are vain words of men unadvised, yea of corrupt minds, and studying to flatter, which cease not to inculcat (and specially in greatest presence) that these things are Indifferent, and arbitrary. I pray God it come not to pass by such reasoning, that many will hold all things indifferent likewise: indifferent of what Religion they be: indifferent whether of any, or of no Religion. Which conceits I fear already are entered in to the hearts of many, yea of thousands in England. But we believe (and the truth is) God's word never knew any indifferency in matters of the Church or of Religion: wherein all things (whether great or small) have ever been either simply good or evil, necessary or unlawful. Our Adversaries do sharply rise up against us, and labour to charge us with most odious reproaches and accusations, chief laid out to your Majesty and others near you. Where as they know well, that we come nothing short of themselves touching any duty to your highness Crown and Dignity. And in affection to your person we have been before them all, yea then when it hath gone the harder with us for it. Only in a point of Religion we differ from them, that we believe Gods written Word ought to be our sole warrant for all things Ecclesiastical, and even so namely for those with us now in controversy, if at all they be lawful. Which point they utterly deny. And for this cause they cry out importunately that we are Schismatics. There is no end of their speeches and writings loading us with this extreme injury. Whereunto though we have to long used more than patiented silence, yet always we can not do so. 
jerom. ad Pammach.  We are taught by a worthy saying of an ancient Divine; In crimine Haereseos neminem oportet esse patientem. When any is accused of Heresy or Schism, (as we are) he ought by no means to put it up in silence, but to make his lawful defence, Wherefore I thought it needful (being, though the meanest of my brethren, yet by God's grace one of his servants in the Ministry of the Gospel, and being not only in general, but also 
“ Answer to the humble Petition of Ministers desiring Res. etc.  in particular thus traduced by them) needful therefore I thought it to be to give out some Reasons of our faith and conscience in this cause. Whereby our innocency & sound judgement herein (through God's blessing) shallbe made manifest, and our Adversaries chiefest evasions being taken away the truth and necessity of this Reformation is more distinctly and clearly demonstrated. I deny not (most noble Prince) but that there be diverse Brethren desiring this Reformation, who yet affirm not all that I affirm in this Treatise, or something not so fully. Neither are the Diocesan Bishops, nor their followers, all wholly of one mind. Yet touching us, I know we wholly agree in the ground of our desire; which is the Sufficiency and perfection of God's word in whatsoever matters merely Ecclesiastical. I say, merely Ecclesiastical. For in matters any way Civil no man doubteth but God hath left liberty unto man's judgement and liking. Howbeit not so in things merely Ecclesiastical; as after shall further be showed, God willing. And thus every sober minded man well considering the Reasons hereafter deduced from this ground, will (I hope) in short time not hardly accord with us.  
But now it remaineth (Gracious Sovereign) that I entreat your Majesty, which in most lowly and humble manner I do, to pardon my boldness. First in gathering these Reasons, & to such a purpose as here is signified. Secondly in presenting them to your Highness. Thirdly in presuming herein to allege and cite some of your own golden sentences. Your religious wisdom easily perceaveth that this purpose, beside mine own due defence; concerneth a most weighty and holy work: viz. the Reformation of many and great disorders (as we are persuaded) in our Churches, which hitherto have been the proper causes of unspeakable hindrance to the Gospel, and of calamity to infinite faithful lovers thereof among us. In which regard how glorious a work this will be and how acceptable to God, how honourable for yourself, and how necessary for us, your Highness (I am sure) right well understandeth; and I hope by viewing these small labours of mine you may somewhat more understand. My desire was to be brief and plain in so important a cause. Wherefore I have touched the pith of all in a few, namely in 4. Assertions fortified with short and clear proofs. And to whom ought I chief to offer them but to your Highness? Considering that you have willed us to press by patience and well grounded Reasons to persuade all the rest to like of our judgements, 
In Basilicon Doron, to the Reader.  or where we see better grounds on the other part to incline thereunto. Which by God's grace we shallbe ready always to perform. Considering also that yours is the Sovereign power here to give general redress to these our not only temporal, but also spiritual grievances in our consciences. And considering that you not only know, but also embrace and profess most religiously the same main Principle of our faith and ground of this persuasion of our Consciences which we rest upon: viz. The holy Scriptures absolute perfection in matters Ecclesiastical. Lastly, considering how you have established the Churches in your majesties other Kingdom of Scotland, and in your Islands of jersey and Guernsey, accordingly already. Therefore have I been bold in all duty to offer these Reasons to your Majesty, as to one whom they principally concern. Where also we do all beseech you to suffer these words of exhortation. Be strong in the Lord, and lose not the things which you have done. Yea proceed, and do this noble work among us also. The Lord is with you, while you be with him. When you follow close his ways, your very enemies shallbe at peace with you. It shallbe easy to do it. To your people generally it willbe most acceptable, as a thing looked for before: to all neighbour Protestant Countries joyful, as wherein we shallbe all nearer linked together. To be short, every way it shall bring more Honour and less inconvenience to your estate, than perhaps you may suppose. Finally, Gracious Sovereign, as touching my presumption in meddling with your writings and applying them to this purpose, I can say nothing, but only submit myself to your wise, virtuous, and religious consideration. Sure I am, when we your loyal and faithful Subjects did first see and read the same, it was the greatest joy and comfort to our hearts that could come unto us. And therefore I could not but give some notice thereof, always in the most dutiful & obedient affection of my heart that I can express. The Lord jesus in mercy bless your Majesty for ever, & preserve your precious soul from flattery and falsehood. AMEN.  
Your majesties humble, obedient, and faithful Subject HENRY JACOB, a Minister of God's word.  
Colimus Imperatorem ut hominem à Deo secundum, & solo Deo minorem.  Tertull. ad Scapul.  

The 1. Assertion. It is necessary to reform the Churches of England, their ministery, and Ceremonies.  
A general Argument.  
ALl things Contrary to God's word ought of necessity to be reform.  
But with us in England there are Forms of some reputed visible Churches, viz. using Church-government, their proper ministries or Offices, and also diverse Ceremonies Contrary to God's word.  
Therefore with us in England it is necessary to reform the Churches, their ministery, and Ceremonies.  

The Assumption is proved in 8. Reasons.  
FIrst, we have the 2. Commandment in the Decalogue; 
* Exod. 2●. 4.5.  Thou shalt not make to thyself any image or likeness of any thing, etc. 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; 
“ vers. 3.  Thou shalt not have any other Gods before me. This here forbidden is an other kind of idolatry. In the first he forbiddeth whatsoever Divine or Godly honour given unto any thing beside unto God himself. But 
* vers. 4.5.  here he forbiddeth all Means being human Inventions, whereby men would give honour to the true God. And namely all Outward means; which we call Gods 
* Externus Dei Cultus; Liturgia.  Outward Worship or Service. Yet consider always that in this Commandment such Outward means of honouring God are not denied to men's discretion 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 Occasional or Accidental things therein. And these Occasional Circumstances or Accidents are always such Particulars, as whose Generals 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 Gods 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, 
“ Deu. 12 32  Whatsoever I command you, take heed that you do it: thou shalt put nothing thereto, nor take aught therefrom. 
* Isa. 30.21  This is the way, walk ye in it: turn not to the right hand nor to the left. 
“ Psal. 19.7  The Law of the Lord is perfect. 
§ Psal. 119.113.  I hate vain inventions, but thy law do I love. 
“ Nomb. 15.39.  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 
* Matt. 15.13.  Every plant that my heavenly father hath not planted, shallbe rooted up. 
“ 2. Tim. 3.16.17.  The whole Scripture is given by inspiration of God, making the man of God perfect unto every good work. 
* joh. 16.13  The holy Ghost shall lead you into all truth. 
“ Gal. 3.15.  No man add to any thing 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, 
* Rom. 16.17.18.  Mark them which make schisms and offences 
“ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sc● Gal. 1.8. 1. Cor. 3. 1●  Besides the doctrine which you have learned and avoid them. For such seruenot the Lord jesus Christ, etc. With many other more places to the same purpose.  
Out of all which this doctrine remaineth clear and firm, that all human inventions, or Unwritten 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 Gods own word (which is only the holy Scriptures as was before noted) ought to be religiously 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 likewise 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 Gods 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; 
Unwritten Traditions.  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 
* viz. as they inflict Ecclesiastical Censures.  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 necessity the other, viz. the Parish Churches in England ought to be reform, freed, and cleared of them all.  
Where it is first to be noted, Note 1 that al● those forenamed matters Ecclesiastical, or any other else, which may or can be lawful, are and aught to be containe● in the Scripture, either expressly or by necessary consequence. Otherwise we affirm they are merely human Inventions & Traditions, contrary to the Scripture.  
Note TWO 
Reputed Visible Churches of diverse kinds.  Again it is to be noted, that in the estimation 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 very deed Christ hath ordained for us only one kind of a Visible Church in his word. And this only aught 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? 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 & aught 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 any where 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, and they call it a National church. Likewise a Province a Provincial church: and a Diocese a Diocesan Church. But none of these likewise can be found in the whole new Testament of Christ. Only a Particular ordinary constant Congregation of Christians in Christ's Testament is appointed and reckoned to be a visible Church. 
Particular & Parishional Churches are the only true Visible Churches.  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 diverse and sundry senses of a Church in the 
* We speak not of the jews church under the Law, which we know was Nationall & only one in the world under one High Priest. Which were Figures and are ceased. Such also was that One Church in the wilderness, Acts 7.38 which was yet nevertheless but one particular Assembly a●●o in one plate gathered to gather so near as such a multitude could be, Exod 19 11 etc.  New Testament are plainly & distinctly showed. And yet none of the 4. forenamed visible Churches (as some do repute them) are any where there to be found.  

A Table briefly showing all the diverse and sundry significations in the New Testament of this word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which commonly we translate a Church. Wherein we may easily see which is the on●●e true and proper visible Church of Christ to which the government Ecclesiastical of inchafe doth always of right appertain.  
Ecclesia in the new Testament is taken. Civilly and originally for a 
* Act. 19. 3●.39.40.  particular Assembly of Citizens in one certain public place about matters of the Common wealth.  
Ecclesia in the 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 itself 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 
“ Mat. 18. 1● Revel. 21. Col. 4.16. Gal. 1.2. ●. Thes. ●. 14. ●. Cor. 16.1, 19 2. Cor 8.1. Rom. 16.4.16  particular Congregation in some certain particular place which we may go unto consult with and obey.  
indefinitely; where is understood This, or That, or 
* Mat. 3●. ●. etc. 1. Cor. 12.11. Mat. 6 33. Isa. 2.1.2, 3. ●. Pet. ●. 5.  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 
† Ephe. 3.10, 15, 21. and ●. 27.  all Gods Elect both in Heaven and in Earth.    
Figuratively by a 

Metaphor; Such is a holy & well ordered Christian 
“ Rom. 16.5 ●. Cor. 16. ●●.  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, which is 
* Mat. 16.18. 1. Cor. ●2. 28.  properly an Invisible & Intelligible Church as it is considered wh●ly together, that is, as it is one Church.  
Society; as when only the 
“ Act. 15.4. ●●.  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 any where in all Christ's New Testament to be found: and therefore in no wise is such a Church to be allowed. Neither yet any Nationall, 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, 
Note III.  that the nature and office of a Bishop also is not of one manner, but of diverse. It is as the former word Church very ambiguous, and must be likewise necessarily distinguished. 
Bishops of six sorts.  Six sorts of Bishops have been and are known in the world. 
1 1.  A Parishional Bishop, who is a Pastor of one ordinary Congregation only. Such are all the Bishops mentioned any where in the New Testament, and also in writers within the space of 200. years after Christ. 
2 2.  A Diocesan Titular Bishop, who was Bishop of a Diocese in title and in name only, in Ecclesiastical government having no more power than any other common Pastor. He differed not in any essential part of the ordinary Pastoral Office, but was only Precedent or Moderator constantly (yet by his fellow Pastors free consent) over the Pastors of a Diocese. Such perhaps first of all was 
“ Ann. 190  julianus the tenth Bishop of Alexandria. In whose time first 
* Euseb. 5.9.  mention is made that there were diverse 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. 
3 3.  There is a Diocesan ruling Bishop. He had more power than 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 
“ Ann. 260.  Dionysius the thirteenth Bishop of that place: which seemeth to be jeroms meaning, where he 
* jerom ad Evagr.  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. 
Priority of Order 

1. Parishional.  
2. Diocesan.  
3. majority of rule Diocesan.    Priority 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 majority 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 jeroms 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. 
4 4.  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 been established in Ambrose, Jerome, & Augustine's time: though soon after (we doubt not) it took place over the Churches. 
5 5.  A patriarchal Bishop: and they were first 4. in number, 
Of which kind the Archbishop may be reckoned also.  viz. at Rome, Antioch, 
“ Or else Cae sarea. Concil. Nic. 1. Can. 7.  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 Lords over the Churches, till a long while after. In the first Council of Constantinople, an other Patriarch was established at Constantinople. 
6 6.  A Catholic or Universal Bishop 
* Bonifacius was the first  began at Rome, about 600. years after Christ. Who also hath had his growings and increasing, 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 Contrary 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 
“ As namely that in D. Bilsons' perpet. government, pag. 260.  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 diverse and no way like. Yea these later directly contrary to the first, as hath been said.  
Against this it is 
* D. Bilson in perpetu. govern pa. 299.300. in effect  objected, that Timothy and Titus were properly Diocesan ruling Bishops. Yea such as we call Lord Bishops, that is, using 
* pag 232.  sole authority: and had charge of more particular Churches then one. Which is to be in deed a Diocesan Bishop. But they and their Offices are found in the 
“ 1 Tim. 3. and 5. Tit. 1.5. & Tit. 3.  Scripture: viz. To ordain Pastors in diverse Churches, and to censure them, etc.  
I answer, the very Apostles did not 
* Act. 14.23. & 1.15, 23. etc. 6.3 5, 6. & 1 Ti. 4.14. w Act. 16.2.  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 than 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 
“ D. Bilson pag. 227. & 232.  affixed to certain places and certain charges where they were to serve and 
* Act. 20.38 1 Pet ● 2. Theodoret. ●n Ephe. 4.  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 labours into another Country. Being Comites Apostolorum, Companions or Assistants to the Apostles, 
“ See Bez. Annotat. in Acts 19 & de Mini. grad. cap. 5.  endued doubtless with the extraordinary gift of diverse tongues, and therefore did go (being commonly sent or called by the Apostles) hither & hither, to the end that they might perfect such Churches as the Apostles had planted, but not throughlie furnished. And this is evident by the text. First Timothy was chosen and ordained at 
* Act. 16.  Lystra, went into Phrygia, Galatia, Mysia, Troas: being at Philippi was sent to 
“ 1 Cor. 4.17.  Corinth, from 
* 1 Thes. 3.1.2, 6.  Athens went to Thessalonica: from 
§ Act. 19.22  Ephesus went to Macedonia: after he was left at 
“ 1 Tim 1.3  Ephesus again to order & redress things there. And yet 
* 2 Tim. 4.9.1.  thence he was sent for away and departed. A little before Paul's death he was at 
“ Phil. 1 1.  Rome, & from 
* Phil. 2.19 23.  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 
* 2 Tim. 4.5.  Scripture calleth him) that is, an unlimited, extraordinary, and temporary function in the Churches. The like was Titus. Paul chose him for his companion & helper, and had him 
* Gal. 2.2.  with him to jerusalem. Also he sent him to 
§ 2 Cor. 8, 17.  Corinth. He left him in 
“ Tit. 1.5.  Crete a while: but sends for him thence 
* Tit. 3.12  away anon after to Nicopolis. A little before Paul's death he was with him at 
“ 2 Tim. 4.10.  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, etc. 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 merely indifferent in their nature, and to be necessary only as the Church commandeth them. This is manifest by D. Stapleton saying: 
* Staplet●. Promtuar. Catholic. part. Quadragesimal. pag. 99  Omnes vident in corum [Rituum Ecclesiasticorum] usu nullam necessitatem poni, sed liberè assumi vel non assumi: modò absit contemptus, qui non in Ceremoniam sed in Ecclesiae prepositos, qui came instituerunt, imò in Christum cadit, dicente ad illos Christo, Qui vos spernit me spernit. Also by the Rheims Testament, saying: 
“ Rhem. T● stame. Annotat. in Math. 15. 1●.  Neither flesh nor fish of itself doth defile, but the breach of the Church's 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 than 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 Circumstances 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, etc. 
what things only are in different. Circunstances.  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. sorts, either Civil or Occasional. The Civil Circumstances are such as though they be used in Church actions, 
To this do belong all things of Comeliness and Decency.  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 
“ John 13. with 1. Tim. 5.10.  Washing the Disciples feet, the 
“ Rom. 16.16.  Love feasts, & 
* jud. 12.  Kiss 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, etc. Occasional 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 Gods own ordinance in Nature, or in the Word written. As such or such Places, Times, Persons, Things. Namely to come together in Synagogues, or Temples. To use Pues, or Pulpits, etc. To Pray Kneeling, or Prostrate. To eat and drink at the L. Table leaning, or sitting, etc. In the 
“ Mat. 26. 1 Cor. 11.23.  Evening, or at 
* Acts 20.7  Midnight. To Baptize in 
“ Acts 16.15.  Rivers. Also the Apostles using of some 
* Gal. 3.24 & 4.9.  jewish Ceremonies among the unconverted jews a while after Christ's death. Their 
“ Acts 6.3, ●, 6.  letting the people to nominate their Ministers. Churches more or less populous, etc. These and such like we doubt not, are in Ecclesiastical actions in some sort Indifferent. I mean they are changeable, and either can not 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 Comeliness, Edification, the Avoiding of offence, 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. 
None of the things in controversy are indifferent; neither are they proper Circumstances.  But touching our forenamed Ecclesiastical unwritten 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 Religion can not 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 ministery, and Ceremonies) are simply evil and unlawful; and therefore of necessity ought to be reform.  
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 Common Wealth also. So that at the most, a Temple appointed by men can not 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: 
So are likewise the Kneeling, Crossing, Churching, Burying, etc.  which the Temple can not 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 Common-prayer-booke 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; from 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. 
●. Cor. 11. ●3. & 14.23. & 5.4. Math. 18. ●7.  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 can not 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 
* Josh. 22.  joshua, of the Feast of 
“ Hest 9  Purim, and David's ordaining 
* 1 Chron. ●5. 1.6.  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 than 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 no where 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 Thanksgiving & worshipping of God in memory of the rare deliverance of the jews from Hamans' malice: Though this appear not, yet we may answer, neither can any man disprove it, that Mordecai the jew (the 
* ver● 2●.  Author of this institution) was a Prophet of God, and Author also of this book of Hester. So that then he ordained this constant Holiday, not by human discretion, but by Divine authority. Even as David did institute the singing. Levites with Instruments of Music in the Temple. The 
* 2. Chron. 29.25.  text (as it were of purpose) meeting with this objection, importeth that David neither did nor might do these things by his Kingly power, nor by any discretion human, but only by Prophetical authority through Gods own commandment. Where it is to be noted, that by urging Gods absolute & all sufficient Law for matters Ecclesiastical, we do not restrain nor bind God, but only us Men from adding of any thing in the exercise of God's worship besides that which he himself 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 what soever.  
This is a frivolous exception, and most false. For first, diverse of our present matters controverted are necessaric enough. They can not 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 (Gods 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 wilful maintaining of small things amiss becometh a great and heinous sin, whereunto is due a fearful punishment. As may be seen in him who 
* Num. 15.30, and 32.  with a high hand did but gather a few sticks on the Sabbath day.  
Notwithstanding all this, yet it seemeth to many that these external things Ecclesiastical are not matters of Doctrine, nor of Faith, etc. 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 showed.   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 Religion, 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 
* Mat. 18 17.  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. 
The true Churches and the false. "  
Therefore every particular Congregation of Christians by God's express word ought to have and use the Ecclesiastical government of itself: 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, etc.) are directly contrary to God's word, and therefore ought of necessity to be reform.  
Hear first let it be noted, 
A Visible Church.  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 Ecclesiastical government in and for itself immediately from Christ. I say, The Church entirely 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. points. 
Note.  For proof of our Assumption last before. 1. The Visible Churches of Christ were in number 
* 1 Cor. 11.16. & 4 17. etc.  many & diverse (and not only one) by the ordinance of God him self. So that it is false which is 
“ Hooker lib 3. Sect. 1. pa. 132.  held that there is a Universal Visible Church like the Sea; which being but one properly, is distinguished and called by diverse 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 merely by diverse names. The Universal Invisible Church was and is in deed one in number: but I have showed there were many▪ in number of the true and proper Visible Churches. Again, the jewish Visible Church according to the Law, was in number 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 diverse, as I said.  
Secondly they instituted and left particular ordinary or constant Congregations true and proper Visible Churches: Or, they left not any one Visible Church (in the whole world) constitute and compact of diverse 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 
* 1. Cor. 14.23.  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 
* Act. 14.27.  Antioch, and of 
♣ justi. Martyr Apo. 2  Rome, and of 
“ Act. 15.22, 25.  jerusalem, and of 
* Act. 20.28  Ephesus, etc. 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 diverse 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 Congregations being (as that of jerusalem was 
* Act. 4.4  before) greater then other some, did by reason of persecution meet occasionally and uncertainly in diverse 
♣ Act. 12. 1●  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 
“ Act. 6.2.  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 them did quickly disperse and scatter themselves abroad into other quarters and Countries, whereby the whole number there became smaller, as we may see they did at 
* Act. 8.1.  jerusalem by reason of Stevens persecution, etc. 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 Congregations. Which further also appeareth by those many and distinct Churches of 
a Gal. 1.2. 1. Cor. 16.1  Galatia, of 
b 2 Cor. 8.1 19, 23.  Macedonia, of 
c 1 Cor. 16.19.  Asia, of 
d 2. Cor. 8.24  Achaia, of 
e 1. Th. 2.14 Gal. 1.21.  judea, of 
f Act. 9.31.  Galilee & Samaria, of 
g Act. 15.41  Syria & Cilicia, of 
h Act. 14.23  Lycaonia & Pisidia. Likewise by those many Churches of the 
i Rom. 16.4  Gentiles, and the Churches of the 
k 1 cor. 14 33  Saints, the Churches of 
l 1 Cor 11.16  God, the Churches of 
m Rom. 16.16  Christ, and 
n 2. Cor. 8.18. & 11.28 1. Cor. 4.17 Reve. 2.23. Act. 16.5 1 Cor. 14.34 3. joh. 6. Rev. 22.16.  All Churches. All these in number were (not only one, but) many proper distinct Churches. Each of them being severally but one particular constant Congregation. Whereunto most fitly agreeth that injunction and commandment of our Saviour Christ touching a Visible Church where he suiteth the external spiritual power thereof, saying, 
o Mat. 18.17  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: 
“ Artic. 19  viz. A Visible Church is a Congregation of faithful people where the word of God is preached, and the Sacraments ministered, etc. Doct. Bilson also, where he saith 
* D. Bills. against the Seminaries. lib. 2. p. 170  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 
“ Lib 3. Pa. 70.  Math. 18.17. The whole multitude of the faithful where he and they (the Offender and the Offended) live.  
The 3. 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 itself withal. To which purpose the Scripture often speaketh of the Visible Church indefinitely as of only 
* Math. 22.2, etc. 1. Cor. 12.13. Mat. 6.33 1. Pet. 2.5. Isa. 2.1, 2, 3. 1. Tim. 3.5.  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 
“ Ephe. 4.4. 1. Cor. 12.13  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 
* Math. 18.17.  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 
* Hooker lib. 3 pag. 132.  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 doth justify and confirm it. Which being ordinary particular Congregations, each of them did or might by their Ministers (and themselves in presence consenting) 
* Act. 14.23 2. Cor. 8.19  choose Elders and 
“ 1. Cor. 5.4, 5. Mat 18, 17.  excommunicate offenders. Neither certainly did Christ ever institute or the Apostles practise diverse 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) every where and always. Therefore they all (though being many in number, yet) were and are one in nature, and form, and power everywhere and for ever.  
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 
* I●r● Divine. By right from God.  is a true & proper Visible Church.  
2. Every such Congregation here and every where is endued with power immediately from Christ to govern itself Ecclesiasticallie or fpirituallie.  
3. Every true and proper Visible Church every where 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 Nationall, and so likewise no Universal visible Church with an external government correspondent to the same, as the Catholics heretically do hold. 
A Catholic, an Heretic.  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 Nationall Church, or Provincial, or Diocesan, that there the particular ordinary Congregations are or can be esteemed so many true and proper Churches. These can not stand together with any of the former. Every of those is directly contrary to these. Seeing these in such case are properly but Members and parts of the other, and not in themselves proper and entire Churches. Which yet in the places of Scripture * before cited the H. Ghost doth plainly affirm. Where if he speak not properly, who doth? 
Pag. 19.20.  Or what is in Divinity a proper speech, if the continual phrase of the H. Ghost in Scripture be not proper? 
Note.  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 itself, 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 Congregation is and aught 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 
* Mos trium literatum tyrannus. Bez. Annot. in Luc. 23.17.  Custom is a Tyrant, as a Reverend Father saith well. It is no warrant nor ground for any thing in Religion. The word of God alone must suffice us herein. Yea we consider not what advantage we give the Heretic Catholics against us, by acknowledging a Catholic Visible Church. It followeth from this necessarily that there is & aught to be on earth a Catholic or Universal government Ecclesiastical. This is a Conclusion whereunto M. Hooker setteth down expressly 
* Hook. 3. Sect 1.  both the Proposition and Assumption: viz. 
Every Visible Church, 
Pag. 132.  truly and properly so called, aught to have a correspondent Ecclesiastical government.  
But there is a Catholic or Universal Visible Church on earth. 
Pag. 126. and 132.   To which Premises every child now can quickly add the Conclusion.  
Ergo, There is and aught to be on earth a Catholic or Universal government Ecclesiastical.  
And I am persuaded, that this oversight or error among us hath caused thousands 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, than this must be in some one 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 springhead of the Universal government of the Catholic Church, if in deed there be any. Therefore most easily men are drawn to be Roman catholics, when 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 & aught to be a correspondent Diocesan government. Which (as before I observed) overthroweth quite the proper being and government of each particular or Parishional Church. But we, because Christ and his Apostles throughout all the New Testament have appointed & every were allowed the Parishional 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 showed; therefore hereupon do we stand, this do we urge that the Institution of Christ and the Apostles practise aught to be a rule for Christian Churches, as every where, 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? Especially 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 can not forget how some thinking themselves deep Politicians, do imagine that they see our Grounds 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 managed without trouble and tumult.  
First we absolutely deny that any manner of Ecclesiastical Government requireth the Civil Government to become conformed to it. This is a most false conceit. The bounds of either Governernement are distinct and clearly severed the one from the other: albeit each doth aid & secure the other. But what should I reason hereof? This their insimulation is against none other then Christ himself 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 himself 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 forbidden that any Christians should so do, and wilfully 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, etc. must be Popular. Which can not but bring with them commonly tumult and much trouble, if not confusion and peril to many. Whereunto I reply, that this were very true in deed (viz. much trouble and tumult would commonly follow, and perhaps peril to diverse) if we desired or sought for popular Elections of Diocesan Bishops. Such as we read of & find to have been 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, etc. 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 Diocese, 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 People's ancient free voice-giving to the Election of their Parishional Pastors or Bishops. For such all ordinary Bishops and Pastors were primitively in the Apostles days, and such every where they were left by them, as before we have showed. 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 voicegiving 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 Popularity which can be either prejudicious to Princes, or tumultuous in itself. No, it can not be an inconvenient order, but most reasonable for any place or people in the world. Namely seeing we do expressly hold this assertion no otherwise (and we heartily pray that it may be noted) but as it is grounded on 4. Circumstances. 
Power Circumstances whereon the fitness of the People's consent standeth  
1 1.  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 
2 2.  Reason last handled. Considering that we allow the People's consent and voice-giving in Elections, Excommunications, etc. 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 showed. 
3 3.  Considering that in the manner hereof we hold this only to be necessary & ordinary, that the Ecclesiastical Guides there (apart from the People) do first by themselves prepare and determine the whole matter, namely in such sort that the People may not need to do aught afterward but only Consent with them, and freely signify their consent it it. 
4 4.  If any where it should fall out that this People thus guided, & being so few, will yet presume to be in their Churchelections, etc. unruly and violent, than the Princes next dwelling Officers of justice may and aught 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 Government questionless is most reasonable, yea necessary. And it is childish, & without all wit to cry out against us (as our Adversaries do) Popularity, Anarchy, and Enmity 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 nonresidency are utterly defeated in this their purpose. The former 
* Hook. lib. 5. sect. vl●im.  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 through 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 Plurality of Live and nonresidency from the same shallbe 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; 
* Fabric of the Church, pag. 45.  Distinction 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 Papacy too) if this their Foundation were not manifestly contrary to God's word. But before it hath been showed to be clearer than the light that Distinction of Parishes in some sort, that is, of particular Churches is by Gods 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 Defence pleading for, or excusing that wretched sin of soule-murdering nonresidency, as if it were a thing allowable and not simply evil. It can not 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 any more than 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 than this latter. Yea I avow, There have been who have kept two wives at once, honester men and more approved of God, than 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 holpen or amended? Not by Archbishops, or Diocesan Ruling, or Lordbishops?  
I answer, Somewhat willbe amiss always in whatsoever Ecclesiastical government upon earth. Nevertheless there is no need, nor good use of these, nor of any Ecclesiastical Unwritten Traditions in Christ's Churches. We believe and know Gods Written word to be sufficient. Specially seeing these are so directly contrary to the only true form and nature of Christ's Visible Churches in his word, as hath been showed. A greater Ecclesiastical government than 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 honourable 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 counsels, advices, and determinations are most expedient and wholesome always. But touching any certain Government by Synods, or necessary imposing of their synodal Conclusions, Decrees, or Canons upon Churches without their particular free consents, this seemeth to be a mere human ordinance. I can not find it (either expressly, or by necessary consequence) in any part of Christ's Testament. Thus writeth hereof the Reverend M. Whitaker, 
* Whitak. de Concil. pag. 44.  Quod omnes atttngit, ab omnibus approbari debet. That which concerneth all, aught to be approved of all. Again, 
“ Pag. 23.  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 no where. Further, 
* Pag. 35.  Etsires ipsae de quibus in Concilio deliberatur & consultatur, sint sacrae & religiosae, tamen hoc ipsum Congregare Episcopos est merè 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Although the things deliberated and consulted of in a Council be holy & religious, yet this thing to assemble Bishops or Pastors of diverse Churches together, is merely 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 severally 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 diverse Churches which had 
* Act. 16.4.  not sent any in their names thither. And on the Church of Antioch, who had perhaps but 4. or 5. there present. This showeth that this coming together at jerusalem was a very Extraordinary Synod, comparing it with our Synods in use now, yea indeed nothing like to them. First here the 
“ Act. 15.2  text saith, The Apostles only and the Elders at jerusalem were sought unto. And it is manifest that herein the Apostles Extraordinary 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, 
* vers. 28.  It seemed good to the H. Ghost, and to us. Which no Assembly of ordinary persons could or can assume to them in such manner. Only where the Apostles were present and consented, there they might. Finally 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 been an ordinance Divine for the Churches always, they neither ought nor surely 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 been said. And being well ordered, do make singularly for Unity. Whereby also each Churches ordinary government may be much helped & amended. And yet the same with power and authority ought to be held still within itself 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 showed, 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. Bishop's 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.  

To have no place nor part in any Church.  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. Specially 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 reform.  
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, than he is Pastor in some Church or one of the People.  
But one of the private People he is not any where. 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 Diocese, 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 Diocese 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 can not 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 than they are to all. Therefore in deed they are true Pastors to none of them, 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, than I reason against them and conclude thus.  
If Diocesan ruling Bishops by the nature of their office are very Pluralistes and non-resident Pastors, 
* Acts. 20.28. 1 Pet. 5.2. Prou. 27.18.23.  than they are plainly contrary to God's word, and aught of necessity to be clean abolished.  
But Diocesan Ruling Bishops are very Pluralistes and non-residents by the nature of their Office. Seeing every particular Congregation is a true proper and entire Visible Church, as before hath been showed: and seeing they assume to themselves a Pastoral charge of the People's souls in more than 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, &" aught of necessity to be clean dissolved and abolished.  
Or thus.  
Common sense or the light of Nature (besides the forenoted" scriptures) showeth that one proper Pastor should" have only one proper Visible Church. For indeed 
* 1 Cor. ●. 16. 2 Tim. 4. ●.  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.  

The true Pastor's office.  IT is the natural and immutable off ice of a Pastor both to Teach and to Govern (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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifieth to do the office of a Pastor, doth in the natural property of it imply Government and rule. 
* Rain, Confer chap. 3. divi. ● pag. 140.  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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Pastors of the people: in Euripides 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 joh. 21.16. Act. 20.18. and 1. Pet. 5.2. Also where the distinct parts of the Pastor's office are noted as 1. Tim. 5.17. and 1. Thes. 5.12. Math. 18.17.18. Ad hereunto D. bilson's consent with Athanasius, 
“ Perp. gov. pag. 199.  To whom Preaching, and Offering at the Lords table do belong to them also careful ruling and governing the Church doth appertain. Again he saith, 
* pag. 162. 108. 202.  These self same persons that were in one, were in all these actions: and the Churches were governed by the common counsel of the Presbyters. And 
“ pag. 133.  The Apostle joineth both these properties in good Pastors. And 
* pag. 111.  They must be trusted with both or with neither.  
Now touching all this God's word chargeth us expressly saying: 
“ Col. 4.17 Rom. 12.7  Take heed to your Ministry which you have received in the Lord, to fulfil it.  
But to this our Church's order is clean contrary by reason of our Diocesan ruling Bishops. We may not fulfil our Ministry for them.  
Therefore our Church's order in respect of our Diocesan ruling Bishops is clean contrary to God's word. And therefore of necessity herein we ought to be reform.  
Where yet I can not but note, 
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 every one of them to undertake 
* Book of Ordination Printed Ann. 1596  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 
“ Act. Parl. Henr. 8. Ann. 25. cap. 19  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 Discipline (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 forbidden therefore that we in England now should be 
* Math. 19.6.  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 can not 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 Church's 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, 
ad Smyrnen.  as Ignatius saith. And in Conferences & Synods where many Pastors meet, we do not only allow but require a disparity and priority also, namely in the Precedent or Moderator. Yea we do not simply disallow a continuing Precedent, 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 than 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 recognisance 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 Gods 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 can not be admitted in the nature of one and the same Office, what 
* Is one King more a king, than an other? One Father more a Father then an other?  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 unreasonableness hereof appeareth further if we consider in like manner the nature and condition of the Visible Churches. One Visible Church can not 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 
* cypr. de unit. Eccles.  saith: The Apostles were endued with equal honour & power. Therefore the Pastors their Successors ought to be so likewise. To which purpose also is that in the same place following. 
“ Ibid.  Episcopaius unus est, cuius à singulis in solidum pars tenetur. There is but one kind or nature of the bishoply or Pastoral office, whereof every one participateth in whole. And in another place, 
* Cypr. in Concil. Ca●thag.  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, 
“ Icrom ad Evagr.  Eiusdem sunt meriti, eiusdem Sacerdotij. They are all of one and the same pre-eminence, 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 Ieromes 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 
* Nazianz. in orat post redi.  hath been 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 Superiority and disparity will cause peace, we through God's goodness and blessing shall both have and keep peace every where. If any other Superiority be required, and namely Yours, which crosseth yea cutteth of Gods 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 enjoying 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 Prelacy, neither will they remedy it.  
If herein yet men will not be satisfied, 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 behoveth us not, it is high presumption 
* 2 Cor. 4.6.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: 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, 
Lord-Ministers.  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 Styles answering to the worldly honour 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 forbade his Apostles this whole matter (and in them much more all other Ministers their inferiors) in these words: 
* Mat. 20.25.  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: 
“ Luke. 22.25.  The Kings of the Nations have dominion, or rule as Lords over them; and they who exercise authority over them are called Gracious Lords. But ye shall not be so. And Peter an Elder (as he calleth himself) chargeth all Elders that they be not 
* 1 Pet. 5.8.  as Lords over God's heritage, but examples to the flock. And Paul renounceth it for his part, saying, 
“ 2 Cor. 1.24.  Not that we have dominion ●ver your faith, but are helpers of your joy.  
Hear 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 ministery: 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 Saviour to his Apostles and Ministers. I say this is a vain shift. The Apostles manifestly desired this outward pre-eminence no other way but by Commission from Christ, whom they hoped should have been a great Prince in the world. This 
* Math. 20.21. Marc. 10. ●7.  they simply desired and this Christ simply denied, both to them and in them to all true Ministers of Christ for ever. Besides Luke also addeth the Magnificent Titles of worldy 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 forbade nothing but Tyrannical overruling 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 
* Math. 20.25.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they Overrule their Subjects with iniusticę and violence. You shall not do so.] He replieth, 
“ D. Bills. against the Apol. of the Seminar. part. 2. pag. 174. print. Lond. 1586.  So your new Translation over-ruleth 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 than they do: but he saith Princes be Lords and rulers over their people by God's ordinance you shall not be so. Again the word which S. Luke hath, is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 without any composition; They be Lords & Masters: and S. Paul confesseth of himself and other Apostles, Not that we be Lords or Masters of your faith. Ye the compound 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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. 
“ Pag. 175.  All Pastors and Bishops are straightly charged not to meddle with the sword. 
* Pag. 182.  To compel Heretics and Schismatics neither is it possible sore the Preacher if he would, nor lawful if he could: he lacketh both means and leave to constrain them. Bishops be flatly forbidden to reign, and must not meddle with the material sword. 
† Pag. 227.  Commanding and forcing our Saviour forbiddeeh to all his Disciples. Where the full effect of all his discourse is this: All Civil jurisdiction and power of the sword to command, compel, and punish by loss of life, limb, or liberty, is secluded from the Minister's function and reserved to the Magistrates. 
* Luk. 22.24.25.  Christ precisely forbade 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. etc. To like purpose also he writeth in his book of the Perpetual Government of Christ's Church: 
* Pag. 137.142.  where he saith, † Many gifts may conjoin in one man, many offices cannot. 
“ Pag. 52.  The Ministers shall not have any such rule or dominion as the great States have. 
* Pag. 55.  The thing so much prohibited by Christ & his Apostles, is, that Preachers & Pastors should 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 behave or think themselves to be Lords and Masters over their brethren. And 
“ Pag. 56.  To increase the love of the sheep toward their Shepherds, Christ would not have his Apostles to be feared as Masters, but to be honoured 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. Hear 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, 
Usurpation  than this is contrary to God's word and necessary to be reform.  
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 no where found (as before I showed) in all the New Testament. So that he can not 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, aught 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 aught of necessity to be reform.  
Where I say; by the rule of God's word, 
The Churches right.  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, 
* 1 Cor. 5.4.5.  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, 
* verse 13.  Put away from among yourselves that wicked man. Which agreeth with Christ's own ordinance and precept, where he saith, 
“ Mat. 18.17.  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, surely the Church also was to elect her Ministers. For these are the 2. main parts of the holy Government Ecclesiastical, both which must belong to the Church equally & alike. Further it is apparent by the Apostles practise. First, the calling of Mathias to the Apostleship was permitted (so far as was possible) to the Church's Election. For they 
* Act. 1.23 etc.  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 Mathias was by Divine lot, yet it was all done in the Church's presence with the actual concurrence of their prayers and free consents 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, 
“ Parpet. govern. pag. 69.  Examples are no precepts. For the same answerer elsewhere confesseth, that 
* Per. gov. pag. 373.  the Apostles taught the Church by their Example. But if he had not confessed it, yet the truth of this general point is in itself 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 diverse 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 than we may avoid express and direct Precepts also. And thus scarce any thing in God's word shall suffice to constrain and bind us. Wherefore always we urge no other Examples of the Apostles, or not in any other points, than such as do and may fit us continually, and every where, 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 
* Act. 6.3.5.6.  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 
“ Act. 14.23.  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 
* Perpet. gov. pag. 70.  some contend that this word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here used will not necessarily prove that the Churches did elect their Elders. I answer, this very word (yea thus as it is here construed) is not so weak for our purpose as is pretended. For we find the same word in good Authors, having the very like Grammatical 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 People's concurrence and voicegiving jointly with the Guides of the assembly. For as much as this gesture of lifting up hands for voicegiving 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: 
* Cont●. Timocr.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 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 nomotheta's or chief Authors part only: but the People's act is understood also by implication. Whose part was chief to Lift up hands, either before or after the nomotheta's act. Even so likewise this same word used here in the Acts in the very same manner shall import the People's part also: viz. a present consent in the appointing of their Elders, though only their Guides the Apostles voicegiving 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 
* In the 2. Assertion & 9 Reason in the end thereof.  shall further see. In the Apostles time they spoke 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, can not prove that the Ancients spoke 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, aught to be present and to show liking and consent freely to their Ministers calling: sith 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 Ordination (which is by Law) intendeth & requireth, where it saith, Take thou authority, etc. 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 every where broken & despised, who seethe not? Yea though the manifest intent of our Law doth require them. A word more let us add touching D. bilson's approbation also of the Churches free consent in choosing their Pastors. Whose testimony I do delight to apply to our purpose for diverse good considerations. 
“ D ●ils again the Seminar part. 2. pag. 353.356.  Saith he, We have the words and warrant of the H. Ghost for that which we say, etc. viz. that the People can and aught to discern and try the doctrines and spirits of the Teachers; and so to choose and refuse them, as they by the word should see good. 
* pag. 355.  How can the People do either, if they have not skill and leave to discern both. 
“ Perpet. gover pag. 360.  The Apostles left elections indifferently to the People and Clergy at jerusalem. The People had as much right to choose their Pastors, as the Clergy that had more skill to judge 
* Pag. 339.  Well may the People's interest stand upon the grounds of reason and nature, and be derived from the rules of Christian equity. 
“ Pag. 359.  The late Bishops of Rome have not ceased cursing & fight, 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. 
* Pag. ●30.  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: 
“ Pag. 22 ●●.  What authority had others after the Apostles deaths to change the Apostolic government? And such additions he calleth 
† Pag. 19  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 
* Pag. 11 1●  Intrusion, and Presumption. This sufficeth to show, that he well understandeth the truth in this cause.  
But now it willbe 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: Consequens 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 behoveth us to look well to ourselves & to our profession and standing wherein we abide, and christianly 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 than I am. And yet nevertheless I dare not, I can not, (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, 
The Church's acceptation. See Bez. in Act, 14.23.  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 otherways.  
In which respect the Papists are sound 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 ministery in England, which in truth and by good reason they ought not to do absolutely and altogether. How beit yet I speak not this in favour to such persons or Congregations among us, which do evidently appear to refuse of wilfulness Christ's Ordinances, and to speak evil of the way of God. Toward such I can not deny but the Apostles 
* Act. 19.9. 1 Tim. 6.5,  pra●●●● and precept ought to be followed, who teacheth in this case, saying," Separate from such. 
† Ephe. 5.12▪ ● C●●. 6.19.  Have n● fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness. * Touch no unclean thing. 
“ Rom. 16.17.  Mark them which cause schisms and scandals beside the doctrine which you have learned, and avoid them.   

Reason 7.  
TO wantany main part of the 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Luke 12.42.  ordinary appointed means of salvation is 
“ Math. 28.20. Isa. 30.21.  contrary to God's word and necessary to be reform.  
But the right and true Discipline Ecclesiastical in each proper Visible Church, is one main part of the ordinary means of salvation 
* Mat. 18.17 joh. 20.23. Mat. 16.19.  appointed by God for every soul: and this we in England do utterly want.  
Therefore we in England in respect of Discipline and Government Ecclesiastical do stand contrary to God's word, and aught herein necessarily to be reform.  
Or thus.  
Where the Apostles true Suceessors are spoiled of their Office and ministery of binding and losing, forgiving & retaining of scandalous sins, there is grievous Sacrilege, & there ought to be of necessity a reformation to restore them to this their spiritual 
* Math. 18.18. joh. 20.23.  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 losing, 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 aught 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 
* Math. 16.19.  both the Keys which Christ himself gave them & put them in trust with all, there the use of both aught to be restored to them. Otherwise 
† 2 Tim. 1.14. Tim. 6.20.14. Cor. 9.17 ●6.  how can they say in their consciences before God that they walk in their calling, and fulfil their Ministry, and discharge their trust? And how can the flock assuredly expect that Heaven shall be opened to them?  
But the ordinary Pastors and Teachers in all the Churches in England are the Apostles true and only Successors among us, and they are barred from 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.  
Obedience is better than sacrifice,  1. Samu. 15.22. 
If ye know these things, blessed are ye if ye do them,  joh. 13.17.  

Reason 8.  

Christ out Prophet & King.  WHOSOEVER denieth Christ the Saviour 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 honour & dignity of Christ, he impugneth the Foundation of saving faith, and is 
* 1 Cor. 3.11. Act. 4.12. ●oh. ●4. 6.  contrary to God's word.  
But the Diocesan Bishops, etc. do (by necessary consequence) deny Christ the Saviour to be our perfect Prophet and spiritual King by taking from him some proper parts of his Prophetical and Kingly Offices. For they hold sound and entire only Christ's Priestly Office. Briefly, 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, etc. do diminish the honour 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 can not 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 Saviour 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 colour 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 Redemption 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 any more. Whereby men commonly forget the other parts of Christ's glorious work toward us, viz. his holy complete Doctrine, and Government. But both these also aught to be believed & yielded unto the person of our Saviour Christ entirely & wholly, even in respect as he is our Saviour & Mediator; no less than 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 from 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 himself 
* Proved in Reason 1. pa. 1.2 etc. And Heb. 3.2, 3, ●, 6. Math. 17.5 john. 14.6. and 16.13.  alone in his own word and Testament the outward form, nature, and constitution (which is but one) of all his Visible Churches whether in Country's 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 Kingly Office, 
“ Matth. 6.33. and 22.2. etc. Luke 19.14. 27. jam. 4.12. 1 Cor. 12.5 Mat. 18.17 john 20.23.  by himself 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 himself or by his Spirit in his Apostles, and by none other. All which the foresaid Diocesesan ruling Bishops, etc. do take from Christ himself personally, and do 
* D. Whit-gift against Mai. Cart-wright, pa. 370.376.  permit them unto Men. Saying, it is indifferent (and somewhere sometimes convenient) for Christians thus to do. Therefore the Assumption is true.  
It willbe said, if this be so, then likewise the ancient Writers Austin, Ambrose, Chrysostome, Leo, Gregory, etc. did err in faith to salvation, and believed not some parts of the fundamental Offices of Christ our Saviour. For those ancients did hold sundry Ecclesiastical Inventions of men, besides that they were themselves Diocesan ruling Bishops. Wherefore (by this reason) they diminished not a little of our saviours most holy & healthful Offices, both Prophetical and Kingly. Which to affirm willbe very hard. The same must be said likewise of our late blessed Martyrs, Cranmer, Ridley, Latimer, Ferrar, etc.  
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 sound all the whole Offices of Christ to salvation. Yet true it is they erred in these foresaid external parts pertaining to Christ's Prophecy and Kingdom through the common sway of the times then: the Mystery of iniquity (that is Antichrist) advancing itself daily very much even by them, and by these their errors, though they for their parts were unwitting & unwilling. The case thus standing with them, we are not to doubt, but these their errors (though of themselves very great) were graciously pardoned in Christ: chief considering that these matters were not then examined nor any thing looked into; which with us now these 40. years have been much debated, tried, and sifted. Yea and by God's word are so clearly 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, etc. 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. 
* Cypri. Epi. 2.3.  Si quis de antecessoribus nostris vel ignoranter vel simpliciter non hoc observavit & tenuit quod nos Dominus facere exemplo & Magisterio suo docuit potest simplicitati eius de indulgentiâ Domini venia concedi, nobis verò 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 can not 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) any where in the whole world, as in the next Assertion presently (God willing) we shall further see. Which (beside the all-sufficient word of God) is an excellent 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 diverse 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 King's 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, 
* Act. 17. ●●  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 do 
* Math. 20.21.  give unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, but to God the things that are Gods. 
“ Tertul. ad Scapula●●  2. Colimus Imperatorem ut hominem à Deo secundum, & solo Deo minorem. We honour the King as a man next unto God, and inferior to God only. 3. We gladly acknowledge that the King is, & aught to be Supreme governor even in all causes and over all persons Ecclesiastical. Howbeit always 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, non 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: Civilly, not Spiritually or Ecclesiastically. 4. The King is Custos & 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 Constitution 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.    

The 2. Assertion.  
For the space of 200. years after Christ the Visible Churches using government were not Diocesan Churches, but particular ordinary Congregations only: and the Bishops (as they were particularly called after the Apostles) were only Parishional not Diocesan Bishops, and differed from other Pastors in Priority of order not in majority of rule.  
IN this Assertion we observe 3. distinct parts. 1. A Church was then but one Ordinary Congregation: and generally in each City then there was but one such Congregation only. 2. The particular ordinary Congregations had in themselves their own government Ecclesiastical. 3. There was no majority of rule, but Priority of order only, in a Bishop then compared with other Pastors.  
The first is proved by these Testimonies following.  
FIrst let us consider that in the Apostles days the ordaining of Elders 
“ City by City. Tir. 1.5.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 & 
* Church by Church, Act. 14.23.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was all one thing; namely because in each City in those times there were not many Churches in number, but one only proper Church or Congregation of Christians. Which also 
“ Pag. 19.20  above we further declared. Then for the next age after, 
* Anno 100  Ignatius plainly showeth the common state of the visible Churches in this time also to be such: where he thus writeth. 
† Ignat. ad Trall.  Without a Bishop, without a Senate of Elders, without Deacons, etc. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Without these there is no Church, no company of of Saints, no holy Congregation. Which proveth that then each City had but only one ordinary Congregation of Christians. Sith doubtless each City than had but one such Senate of Elders, and but one Bishop, in Ignatius understanding. Further also he persuading the Church of Philadelphia to unity and concord saith. 
“ Ad Philadelph.  I exhort you use one Faith, one Preaching, one supper of the Lord, etc. For there is but one Communion Table 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the whole Church (here in this City) and one Bishop with a company of Elders and Deacons. Therefore in this City there was then but one Ordinary Congregation of Christians. Neither speaketh he of this Church in Philadelphia as being of an other form or constitution then other Churches than were, but indeed as being conformable and like to the manner of the rest. If we translate 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as some like better [to every Church] distributively, than our Assertion is more clearly avouched. Again touching the Church of Philadelphia he saith, 
* Ibid.  The Bishop is God's Ambassador to a people 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that are together in one place. Lastly writing elsewhere to the same effect he saith so much touching an other Visible Church, namely in the City Magnesia; 
“ Ad Magnes.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. All of you come together into the fame place to prayer; Let there be but one common prayer, one mind, one hope, etc.  
justin Martyr showing the manner of the Churches worshipping of God in the Cities where they than were, observeth the very same. Saith he; 
* just. Mart. Apolog. 2. Anno 142.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. On the Sunday as it is called All (the Christians) dwelling in the Cities, or abroad in the Country, do come together into the same place, etc. It is very like that this was specially spoken of the Church of Rome then: seeing there justin wrote and offered up his Apology to Antoninus the Emperor. Though with all he signifieth that he means other Churches in other 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Cities, and in Country-places likewise indifferently. Therefore then, All the Christians in each City (yea those in Rome) made not diverse but one constant and ordinary Congregation only.  
Irenaeus in his time observeth no material difference between Bishops and Presbyters Ministers of the word. Which is a plain argument that Bishops than were not Diocesan Bishops overseeing many constantly distinct Congregations, but were Pastors of one particular ordinary Congregation only. Thus he saith, 
* Irenae. lib. 3. cap. 3. Traditio vi●. scripta: vel necessario consequens ab 〈◊〉 quod est scriptum per Apostol●s.  Traditio quae est ab Apostolis per successionem Presbyterorum custoditur. The tradition which is taken from the Apostles is kept by succession of Presbyters. In the same place also: Episcopi ab Apostolis instituti in Ecclesijs & Successores eorum usque ad nos. Bishops ordained by the Apostles in the Churches, and their Successors until our times. Where also the Roman Bishops Anicetus, Pius, Hyginus, he nameth Presbyters. By all which it is evident, that the name Bishop & Presbyter was not yet exactly distinguished as after it was, but remained yet (as it were) common and indifferent to all Ministers of the word, even so as it was used by the Apostles in their writings. Also it appeareth hereby that there was not then any kind of Diocesan Bishops. For the name then ought to have been very distinct, and peculiar to him, as afterward it came to pass. Much less had any Bishop a power to rule over a whole Diocese. Otherwise Ireneus should not have used these names and terms then so indifferently.  
Tertullians' testimony also seemeth very agreeable in this point. Where speaking of Christians ordinary Congregations in Cities in his time he saith Corpus sumus, etc. 
Pertulian. Apolog. ●●9.  we are all one Body, etc. And again Coimus in Cetum & aggregationem, etc. We all come together into a Company and Congregation. He saith not plurally in cetus & aggregationes into diverse Companies & Congregations; as surely it seemeth he should and would have said, if there had been then in one City many ordinary constant Congregations. Specially seeing he saith also of the same singular Congregation: Ibidem (est) Censura divina: judicatur magno cum pondere, etc. There are divine Censures exercised. The judgement is given with great weight, etc. Which surely was done in every such constant Congregation as before he spoke of. And yet but in one singular Congregation & not in many, nor in one over many constantly appointed in one City at that time.  
Eusebius History showeth that the Churches of the most famous Cities were each of them primitively no more but a Parish only; that is, but one ordinary constant Congregation only. As wehre he nameth the Church of jerusalem 
a Euse. lib. 3.11.  the Parish of jerusalem, of Ephesus the Parish of 
b Lib. 3.28.  Ephesus, and so of 
c Lib. 3.13.18. lib. 4.1.4.5.19.  Alexandria, of 
d Lib. 3.32  Hierapolis, of 
e Lib. 4.22  Corinth, of 
f Lib 4.25.  Sardis, of 
g Lib. 5.5.  Lions, & diverse Churches the 
h Lib. 4.22 6.  Parishes of Crete. He no where mentioneth many Churches nor Parishes under one Bishop in any City till julianus time in Alexandria, as before we observed.  
By Epiphanius testimony also our Assertion is maintained. Who saith Primitively 
* Epiph x Ha●●●●. 73.  in a small Congregation a Bishop was ordained alone without other Presbyters assisting him. And in some places only Presbyters and Deacons without a Bishop. In other places, that is in great & populous Congregations where they had meet men to be chosen, there they chose in each of them a Bishop with other assistant Presbyters. By which it appeareth consequently that everywhere a Bishop then was but of one particular Congregation only whether greater or simaller.  
The second part is proved.  

The particular Congregations had their own government Ecclesiastical. Ignat. ad Philad.  NEither let any imagine that these particular Congregations than wanted their own Ecclesiastical government among themselves only. It is most evident that they had it & exercised it only within themselves ordinarily. Which is plain by that of Ignatius writing to one of them thus: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. It is meet for you as being the Church of God to choose by common consent your Bishop. And to an other particular Church thus, 
* Ad Smyrna.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. In the Church (which is with you at Smyrna) there is not any thing above the Bishop. He meaneth the Bishop or Pastor of the particular Congregation is of greatest authority and above any other there whomsoever. So that they in that Congregation had all government simply and solely among themselves. He speaketh here of governing 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Spiritually, not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Civilly. For thus the Magistrate is Supreme both in and over each Church and whatsoever Church matters, as Mai. Beza religiously and dutifully 
* Theod. Bez. de Excom. & Presbyt.  speaketh, & we 
† Pag. 57  before observed. Yea verily thus the Magistrate is supreme whether he care for the Church, or care not. Hence therefore we conclude, that these particular Churches had the ordinary Ecclesiastical government of themselves among themselves. Tertullian also in the place before cited showeth so much, speaking of each particular ordinary Congregation in his days: Ibidem (est) censura divina. judicatur magno cum pondere ut apud certos de Dei conspectu. 
Apol. ●. 39.  Precedent probati quique Seniores. There are divine Censures. They judge with great weight and advisedness, as being sure that God seethe them. The approved Elders are the chief, or do govern these Censures. Therefore all particular ordinary Congregations enjoyed their own spiritual government then in those times. There is no suspicion of any restraint or abridging of them therein till Dionysius the 13. Bishop of Alexandria, 
Anno 260.  at the soonest.  
The third part is proved.  

No majority of rule, but only Priority of order in a primitive Bishop.  BEsides the testimonies before alleged, Ambrose in plain words telleth us this, that primitively 
* Ambro in Eph. 4. & 1 Tim. 3.  A Bishop was no more but primus Presbyter, the foremost in order among the other Ministers of the word in the Synods, or where there were other in the same Congregation with him. Therefore the Bishop then differed not in majority of rule from any other Pastor. And therefore then there was no Diocesan Church using government, nor Diocesan Bishop ruling other Pastors and Churches. Much less was there any Diocesan Lord Bishop then.  
Jerome doth likewise: Where he saith, 
* jerom. ad Evagr. & in Tit. 1.  A Bishop and an Elder or common Pastor, by Divine institution and ordinance, are all one. And majority among them came in by the custom of the Church and human disposition. He meaneth majority of Ruling, because he showeth here that formerly all did rule 
“ in communi● or communi Presbyterorum consili●.  in common. Wherefore by his judgement there was not at the first any majority of rule in a Bishop over Pastors. Much less were there any Diocesan L. Bishops ruling by their sole authority in those times. Some Priority in order, we doubt not, was always: First Parishional, and then Diocesan some good while after, as before is showed. Yea the Parishional priority of order was (we deny not) constant, yea even among Pastors who had otherwise all one Office entirely. I say, this was where there were diverse Ministers of the word in one particular Congregation. As we doubt not there were in some places. Now for this matter, viz. Bishop's majority in government above Presbyters, and also concerning Ieromes opinion thereof, it is not amiss to observe what D. Bilson also hath taught and avouched. In his 
* Against the Semina. part. 2. pag. 318.  First Book he sayeth, It was not by the institution of Christ, nor his Apostles, but long after by the consent of the Churches, the Custom of the times, and the will of Princes. Where also he showeth that this was Ieromes judgement likewise. Howsoever since (I can not tell how, nor why) D. Bilson 
† Perpe●. gov. pag. 236.237.238.  changed much his mind herein: and yet with no more discrepance from himself then from the truth, and from almost all learned men beside both ancient and later.  
Further, this reason proveth the present whole Assertion. If the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 used religiously for a Church Visible with order and government, do and aught to keep in all good Authors a just proportion answerable to the Civil and Original use thereof, than it must needs be in proper signification a particular Congregation only. For Originally and Civilly in all Greek Authors 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth one particular Assembly in one place only, as an Assembly of the people at Athens, in Ephesus, in Corinth, etc. being come together in their public iudgement-place. Which is evident by the writings of Plato, Demosthenes, Isocrates, Xenophon, etc. Yea in the 
* Act 19 ●2. 39.40.  Acts of the Apostles we do find it likewise so used.  
But the Apostles and other Ecclesiastical writers for 200. years after Christ using this word for a Visible Church with order and government do speak properly, and so ought to keep a just proportion in it answerable to the Civil and original use thereof. This sentence is undoubtedly true and undeniable. If any think he can show to the co●●●rie, let it be showed.  
Therefore the Apostles and other Ecclesiastical Writers, for 200. years space after Christ using this word for a Visib●● Church with order and government, do signify by it a particular Congregation only. And it no where signifieth in them a Diocesan Church, etc.  
Where note that the strength of this reason standeth wholly in the proper taking and using of this word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Church. 
Note.  The Adversaries error hath advantage by the improper and ambiguous use of it: which is Sophistical. Yea if you will, their sense is a 
“ By the Scriptures verdict.  false sense of it; wherein yet it often used in Writers and in common speech for want of due regard. By which means also sundry other errors have crept in heretofore & much prevailed, even by misunderstanding of certain words. As we may see in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: and in Latin Meritum, 
Equivocal words.  Poenitentia, Crux, Sacramentum, etc.  
Out of all those Testimonies before alleged, this general reason may be concluded. No Diocesan Church or Bishop was known or once heard of in the world, till many distinct ordinary Congregations began to be appointed in one City.  
But there was no Multiplication nor distinction of many ordinary and constant Congregations in a City, till about 200. years after Christ. Some conjecture, it was long after this. No man showeth that it was before this. The truth in deed hereof, that for this while generally in each City there was but one ordinary constant Congregation of Christians, hath been plentifully showed in the Proofs of this 2. Assertion before going.  
Therefore till about 200. years after Christ there was no manner of Diocesan Church or Bishop known, nor once heard of in all the Christian world. No not the Diocesan Titular Bishop: much less any Diocesan ruling Bishop.  
Where yet we deny not but that one particular Congregation or Church being populous might occasionally and uncertainly in the time of persecution for their safety sake assemble in diverse smaller Meetings. 
As before we noted pag. 19.20.  As also they did we doubt not, many times within the space of these 200. years after Christ. Howbeit yet these smaller Meetings were not so many Churches properly: because they were not ordinary set Companies, nor constantly distinct Societies, as Churches ought to be, and as our Parishes now are. Those diverse Occasional and uncertain meetings made but one Church and ordinary Congregation, 
Act. 6, 1.  yea though the whole number were too populous for one actual Assembly ordinarily. It is true in such case they ought to distinguish and distribute themselves into diverse competent set Congregations which should be so many proper and entire Churches. But when they are (as they were in those primitive times) daily in great peril of cruel persecution, they may with reason remain somewhile undistinguished, & not so distribute themselves, which in time of peace and safety they always ought to do. Wherein now some Reformed Churches beyond Seas do seem to offend.  
If any say the troublesomeness of those times or the young age of the Churches who were not yet grown up to perfection, caused that there were no Diocesan Churches with government nor Diocesan ruling Bishops then. And we take advantage of the special state of those times, urging it to our purpose generally.  
I answer; we urge from the state and order of the Apostolic primitive Churches nothing but what is general in them, and aught to be perpetual with us. So that neither the troublesomeness of those times, nor the young age of the Churches than do give us our advantage. For notwithstanding these special Circumstances the Visible Churches using government and the Bishops then, might have been very well Diocesan and Provincial, if Christ had so instituted and the Apostles had so framed and left them. Nothing in the world hindereth but they might easily have been such even in those times. But the world knew none such then, as I have said. And it is impiety to say Christ's Churches were unperfect then, as touching their Visible form & constitution, their Ministry, and the whole lawful order of worshipping God in them. Or that the times since have made them more perfect than they were as the Apostles left them. Wherefore this advantage do we stand upon, and this do we urge, viz. the same pattern and form of Visible Churches using government that was then universally practised & received immediately from Christ and the Apostles; which was Parishional not Diocesan, as hath been declared.   

The 3. Assertion.  
The Scriptures of the New Testament do contain & set forth unto us (besides the government by Extraordinary Offices, Apostles Prophets Evangelistes) an ordinary form of Church-governement used then.  
IF in the New Testament one kind of a Visible Church using government and no other is to be found, 
1. Reason  also if special distinct ordinary Offices for Church-governement, and special Actions thereunto belonging, be set down therein; then the Scripture containeth a special form of Church-government which was ordinary then.  
But in the New Testament 
a See before 1. Asse●tion 2. Reason.  One kind of a Visible Church using government (namely a particular ordinary Congregation) and no other is found: also special distinct ordinary Offices for Church-governement are set down therein, as Parishional 
b 'tis 1.5, 7 1 Tim. 3.1, 2. Ephe. 4.11. Phil. 1.1. Act. 20.28 1 Pet. 5.2. Act. 14.23  Bishops or Pastors, and an other sort of (not Lay but Ecclesiastical) 
c 1. Tim. 5.17. compared with Gal. 6.10. & 1 Tim. 4.10. Rom. 12. ● 1 Cor. 12.28. jam. 5.14 Add the ancient Writers: Ignat. Epist. ad Trall. Tars, & Smyr. Tertull. Apol. c. 39 & d Baptism. Ambr. in 1. Tim. 5, & in 1. Cor. 12.28, jerom. in Isa. 3. August. Epist, 137.  Elders, who by their Ordinary office were only to assist in government. Third: the special Actions belonging to Church-government are also set down in the Scripture; as Election of Ministers, Excommunication of spiritual offenders, etc.  
Therefore the Scripture of the New Testament containeth a special form of Church-governement ordinary then.  
Where it is to be noted, that in those first times there were also those other Officers in the Churches: 
Note.  Apostles Evangelists and Prophets. But they had Calling and gifts immediately from God; the others Calling was always by men. They abode not in one Church, as the other did. Their government and use was not perpetual but temporary and extraordinary. They therefore hindered not the other, neither can they now hinder: The rather sith they do not now remain, but are ceased.  
Also, those Parishional Bishops and those other Elders assisting in government, 
Note.  did differ in their Ordinary office. Yea though they both did sometimes Preach, &c: yet thus they differed notwithstanding. But a Parishional Bishop or Pastor cannot differ in his ordinary office of Preaching, etc. from an Elder who is also by ordinary office a Preacher, etc. Therefore he is here an other Church Elder, viz. by ordinary office no Preacher, but only a helper in government, who in those forenoted places is spoken of, and differeth in his ordinary office plainly from every Bishop or Pastor.  
Yet some object vehemently, that all Elders in the Primitive Churches who assisted the Bishop in government▪ were very Pastors: seeing they had power to preach the word, etc. And that those mentioned namely in Ignatius and Tertullian. before alleged, were only such. And therefore then there were none such only governing Elders at all, as we conceive.  
I answer, That they differed even then in their ordinary office from Pastors it is clear and questionless (not only in those fore-alleaged places of Scripture, but also) in the foresaid ancient writers Ignatius, and Tertullian, etc. Yet for more evidence to this point which some labour mightily to obscure and darken, I affirm that Preaching and Interpreting Gods word is of 3. sorts in the Scripture, 
Preaching of 3. sorts.  and so it was used in the first Churches after. 
1 1.  We read of Preaching which was by 
* Rom. 10.14, 15.  ordinary office. This, we say, the Pastors & Teachers only did perform. 
2 2.  That which was for exercise and for training up, for the making of some apt and able for the ministery of the word, yea and for a further increase of gifts even in the ministery themselves. This was the exercise of prophesy or Interpretation, as the 
“ 1 Cor. 14 29. 1 Cor. 12.30.  Scripture calleth it. Wherein were received some 
* 1 Cor. 14 1.24, 31.  Lay men, namely by the Church's order. And then so likewise might the Deacons, & Elders also sometimes Preach, though they were no Preachers by office. Nevertheless yet we acknowledge the Preachers were and aught to be the chief herein. But the 
3 3.  sort of Preaching is most of all here to be marked. Third. upon occasion (in Churches without order and scattered, and also unto persons who were not yet gathered to any Church) there was Preaching which was general and common for 
* Acts 11.19.  all true Christians lively Members of Christ, endued with gifts of knowledge & sound judgement in Religion. In which sense Ambrose is to be understood, 
Ambro. in Ephe. 4.  where he saith that in the first times every Christian preached the word. Neither is it now a fault but a singular virtue for godly Householders to instruct in the word of God their own children and servants. Howbeit in Churches orderly governed and settled, no private Christian may presume, neither did any than presume publicly to preach or interpret the word, except for some special reason he were specially appointed so to do by the lawful Governors of the Church. And so did some preach publicly, yea in the very Churches after the Apostles, being even but Lay men as Ignatius and Tertullian do witness in the foresaid places. Where they show, that also the Deacons did and might preach after this manner. And also that the Elders which were ordinary Assistants in government, did and might preach thus likewise. I say still, after this 3. manner; that is like as the very Lay men did, and as the Deacons did; that is not by their ordinary office, but by the Pastors and Bishops special appointment to them all. Wherefore this proveth not the Elders there spoken of to be Preachers by Office: nay it proveth plainly the contrary, that by their ordinary office they were not Preachers, but only governing Elders. And this is the purpose that we allege them for.  
Finally we may observe that some shadow of them seemeth still to remain, though greatly corrupted, in the Church Wardens of our Parishes. Yea some such depravation and degencration in them was begun (we doubt not) in Ambrose, Jerome, and Austin's time: although yet the ancient truth appeareth well enough thereby notwithstanding.   

The 4. Assertion.  
The ordinary form of Church government set forth unto us in the New Testament, aught to be kept still by us: it is not changeable by men, and therefore it only is lawful.  
IF the ordinary form of Church-government appointed by God in his word, 
1. Reason  was never since repealed by himself, than 
* Mat. 28.20. 2 Thes. 2.15. 1. Tim. 6.14.  the same remaineth still appointed for us; it is still necessary, and is not changeable by men.  
But the ordinary form of Church-governement appointed by God in his word, and specified before in our 3. Assertion, was never since repealed nor changed by himself.  
Therefore the same remaineth still appointed by God for us, it is now still necessary, & is not changeable by any men.  
If every lawful Visible Church using government, & also if every lawful Church-Office, and Action, 
2. Reason  aught to be particularly allowed by God in his word, than the ordinary form of Church-governement set forth unto us in the new Testament, is necessary for us now still, it is unchangeable and only lawful.  
But every lawful Visible Church using government, and also every lawful Church Office, and Action 
* 1. Assert● 1. Reason. Heb. 5.4. Mat. 21.25. 1 Cor. 12.5 28. Ephe. 4.11, 12, 13. 1 Tim. 2.5 joh. 10.1.  ought to be particularly (as touching the kind thereof) allowed in God's word.  
Therefore the Ordinary form of Church-governement set down unto us in the New Testament, is necessary for us now still, it is unchangeable and only lawful.  
Hereunto (for a conclusion) let us add certain learned men's very clear Testimonies, which persons yet are no way partial for us. Doctor Bilson (who is now Lord Bishop of Winchester) saith thus: 
“ D. Bilson perpet goy. pag. 3.  We must not frame what kind of Regiment we list for the Ministers of Christ's Church, but rather observe and mark what manner of external government the Lord hath best liked and allowed in his Church even from the beginning. And, 
* Pag. 19  It is certain we must not choose out the corruptions of time nor inventions of men, but ascend to the original ordinance of God, and thence derive our platform of Church-governement. To do otherwise, is To transgress the commandment of God for the traditions of men. 
* Pag. 49.  The Apostles had their mouths and pens directed and guided by the Holy Ghost into all truth aswell of doctrine as Discipline. The Apostles 
“ Pag. 43.  set an order amongst Christians in all things needful for the government, continuance, peace, and unity of the Church. 
* Pag. 221.  What authority had others after the Apostles deaths to change the Apostolic government? 
† Pag 111.  They that have authority in the Church must look not only what they challenge but also from whom they derive it: If from the Apostles, then are they their Successors: If from Christ as colleagues joined with the Apostles, we must find that consociation in the Gospel, before we clear them from intrusion. No man should take this honour unto himself but he that is called of God as the Apostles were. If they be called by Christ, read their assignation from Christ: if they be not, surcease that presumption. 
* Pag. 339.  If the name [of Diocesan Bishop] were new and lately invented by men, the loss thereof were not great: yea retaining the name they must be known to be of men and not of God. Hereunto accordeth D. Sutcliffe in his book entitled O. E. against N. D. where he refuting the calling of the jesuits, saith thus: 
“ D. Su●●liffe, or O. K. against N. D. pag. 110.  It is not enough to say that they have a rule and learning, and live orderly but they must have their Office and calling allowed by Christ jesus, if they mean to take upon them the office of Pastor's Teachers and Governors in Christ's Church. Wherefore either let them show themselves to have a lawful calling, or let them not think much to be thrust out as intruders. We do not find either in the Epistle to the Ephesians, chap 4. or the first Epistle to the Corinthians, chapt. 12. any such extravagant Friars. Thus do both these learned men (and our no great friends) maintain with us singularly The Scriptures perfection even in these outward Ecclesiastical matters. Yea further considering the Scriptures phrase & manner of speech perpetually signifying that there is not only One Visible Church of Christ properly, but Many in number in the world; nor only one in a Nation or Province, but many, as before 
* Pag. 19 20.  we have declared: therefore one of these (viz. the B. of Wint.) is to be well observed how he avoucheth the holy Scriptures perfection also even for the phrase and manner of speech, and how unlawful a thing he holdeth it to be to use any 
† 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  new words (for religious matters) other than the very Scripture useth. Thus generally he affirmeth, though he apply it to another point than now we speak of. Saith he 
“ The full redemption of man by etc. Pag. 41.  What I read in the word of God that I believe, what I do not read that I do not believe. In God's causes we may not easily leave God's words, and with a new kind of speech make way for a new kind of faith. We must learn from God what to believe, & not by correcting or inverting his words teach him how to speak. This religious strictness even touching the words of Scripture, is indeed (I grant) to be held religiously and perpetually, understanding the words to be such as either the Scripture itself useth, or may be necessary consequence be proved and allowed from the very Scripture.  
But now how unjustly are we used by them, yea how unchristianly, when toward us they will stand to nothing of all this: and yet (forsooth) all must go still on their side. The very Papists do see and acknowledge this that I say; viz. both that these grounds of the Scriptures absolute perfection in all Ecclesiastical matters (whereon we exactly do stand) are the true and right principles of the Protestants Religion, & also that the Diocesan L. Bishops, 
The only true Protestants.  do, and must needs turn away from these principles, & deny them when they deal with us: and must join plainly with the Catholics in their answers, if they will maintain themselves. Thus say they, when one objected that 
* Ne●ves from Spain & Holland  The Puritans (as they falsely and maliciously call us) would certainly be extinguished if the Queen should live any number of years. Tush saith an other, you are deceived. Nay much more possible and likely it is, that the Puritan shall overcome the Protestant, than the contrary. For that the Puritan buildeth directly upon the Protestants first grounds in Religion, and deduceth thereof clearly and by ordinary consequence all his conclusions. Which the Protestant can not deny by Divinity but only by Policy and human ordination, or by turning 
“ The Catholics Supplication An. 1604 hath the like. pag. 17.  to Catholic answers contrary to their own principles. And it is hard for any man sincerely to be a Protestant, but that he will easily pass also on (more or less) to be a Puritan. And only they in effect will be against them, who are interessed in the other side (as Archbishops, Bishops, Archdeacon's, Canons, Notaries, Registers, Civil Lawyers, and the like) for not losing their Commodities, etc. This do the very Papists discern and confess. Wherewithal they prophesy also (as it were) if the Protestants Religion be not rooted out, that the Puritans profession will finally prevail both against the common Protestants and the catholics also. Which some with us much fearing and ungraciously striving against, when they could not endure 
* Scottizing & Genevating for Discipline, pa. 31.  our hope of one Darius coming to build up the Temple of God among us, they made it no less than a Treasonable mind in us when we could not conceal in deed such a hope that we had long ago of this Princes after-coming. Wherefore also they maintained Seminary Priests (very Traitors in deed) publicly to tax this our most Christian & Noble Darius (whom God hath of his singular mercy now sent unto us) as a Puritan King, saying: 
“ Quodli. pag. 26, 27.  The Puritans have Princes none at all (unless it be one) on their side. Their malice was thus moved, because they were not ignorant of the Kings most holy & religious Confession of his faith made long since and published to the view of the world, as no other King in Christendom hath done, and altogether agreeable to our Profession. Where 
* Confess. of faith At Edingburg. Ann. 1580.  he detesteth all Rites, Signs, and Traditions brought into the Church without or against the word of God. Promising and swearing by the great Name of our Lord to continue in the obedience of the doctrine and discipline of the Church (that is in Scotland) and shall defend the same according to his vocation and power all the days of his life. Which also of late again he hath in effect renewed and confirmed: and that even then when there was doubt how his future subjects in England would entertain his coming. Thus lately writeth our worthy & gracious King admonishing his Son the noble Prince 
“ Basilicon dôro●. pag. 43.  The doctrine and discipline preserve in purity according to God's word. 
† Pag 7.  The whole Scripture is dited by God's Spirit, thereby, as by his lively word to instruct and rule the whole Church Militant to the end of the world. 
* Pag. 6.  The first part of man's service to his God which is Religion, that is the worship of God according to his revealed will, it is wholly grounded upon the Scripture. 
“ Pag. 5.  Frame all your affections to follow precisely the rule there set down. 
* Pag. 15, 1●.  By Superstition I mean when one restrains himself to any other rule in the service of God than is warranted by the word the only true square of God's service. The form established in Scotland is 
“ To the Reader.  the only true form of God's worship. which we understand as spoken in this respect that they profess to renounce all human Traditions therein. For these things have those evil Beasts maliciously reproached his Majesty, as if this were worthy of no better name than a Puritan opinion. In deed for this only opinion thus they have, and do still revile us. But we commit the judgement hereof to the Lord. Wherefore finally let us observe here (in regard of the premises) that godly, wise, and necessary counsel of Peter Martyr, a man of worthy memory. Saith he, 
* Martyr Epist. ad Dom. Polo.  Consulo praeterea ut Disciplinam quanto ocyùs fieri poterit in vestras Ecclesias omninò invehatis, etc. I counsel you moreover that as soon as possible may be, you bring in the Discipline wholly into your Churches. For if it be not received at the beginning when men are hot in love with the Gospel, it will not be easily let in afterward when some coldness shall creep in, as usually it cometh to pass. And how vainly men labour without it, 
England described.  very many Churches may be an example unto you: which from the foundations of their restoring when they would not undergo so healthful a yoke, they could never after in their life and manners be brought into order by any rule. Whence it is (with grief I speak it) that all things almost have little firmness and do threaten ruin on every side. Therefore it is a grievous damage, and a certain destruction of the Churches, if the sinew of discipline be wanting unto them. Neither may they be said truly and sound to have and profess the Gospel which either want the Discipline, or despise it, or have no desire of it. Surely seeing it is delivered us with so great diligence in the Gospels and Apostles Epistles, we must confess it to be not the least part of Christian Religion. Whereby it cometh to pass that the Gospel seemeth to be neglected by them, who do put away from them so excellent a part thereof: etc. Thus say these learned men.  
Howbeit yet our Adversaries do & will accuse us that we are Schismatics and Seditious in refusing the Diocesan Bishop's authority and rule Ecclesiastical, which is publicly received.  
But we answer; It is no sedition nor disloyalty at all, it is no misbehaviour against the King, dutifully to endeavour that those parts of Christ's Gospel, which yet are wanting, should be entertained among us; that Christ's true Visible Churches should be acknowledged and regarded as by God's word they ought to be, & that in them Christ's own spiritual ordinances (and none other) should be established. Nay, it were disloyalty against the King and his estate to endeavour otherwise. Again touching Schism, 

1. We affirm (with the canonists) Non separatio sed causa facit Schismaticum: Not separation, but the cause maketh a Schismatic. Wherefore it behoveth all wise men to see where the cause is.  
2. Then we affirm & prove that our adversaries themselves do cause or make the Schism, which in deed is amongst us.   For the Apostle saith, They make Schisms who teach [any thing Ecclesiastical] 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Rom. 16.17.  beside the doctrine which the Apostles left us, & they ought to be avoided. Now our Adversaries do teach and urge all their forenoted Traditions most evidently besides the Apostles doctrine and ordinances. Yea verily contrary unto them, as before we have showed. Whereby it is manifest who are in deed the Schismatics, and to be refused. To which purpose also Cyprian witnesseth, saying: 
“ Cypr. de Lapsi●.  Non Ecclesiae iungitur qui ab Evangelio separatur. He that differeth from the Gospel joineth not to the Church: but schismeth from it. And Augustin, 
† Aug. con●. Peril. 2.25.  Vtrum Schismatici nos sumus an vos, nec ego nec tu sed Christus interrogetur, ut indicet Ecclesiam suam. Lege ergo Evangelium & respondet tibi, etc. Whether we or you be schismatics ask not me, nor yourselves, but ask Christ that be may show his own Church. Read the Gospel therefore and it answereth thee, etc. Again, 
* De Vnit●. Eccle cap. 3  Ibi quaeramus Ecclesiam, ibi discutiamus causam nostram. Nolo humanis documentis sed divinis oraculis sanctam Ecclesiam demonstrari. 
“ Contr. Crescon. Gram. 1.33  Ecclesiam sine ulla ambiguitate sancta scriptura demonstrat. There [in the New Testament] let us seek the Church. There let us examine our cause. I cannot abide that the holy Church should be showed by men's doctrines, but by the Divine Oracles. The holy Scriptures do demonstrat the Church without any doubt. 
* Chrysost. operis imperfect. Hom ●3.  Ecclesia cogn●scitur tantummodò per Scripturas. Only by the Scriptures is the Church known. And another saith: 
† Basil de confess. sid.  Manifesta ●st 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 à Fide, & Superbiae crimen aut reprobare quid exijs quae s●ripta sunt, aut aliquid superinducere ex non scriptis. It is a manifest falling away from the faith, & a sin of pride, either to refuse any thing of that which is written, or to bring in any thing besides that which is written. Again Cyprian saith, 
* Cypr. epi. 2.3.  No other thing ought to be done of us then that which our Lord for us hath done before us. 
“ Epist. 1.7  Whosoever gathereth from any other ground, he scattereth. It is adulterous, it is impious, it is sacrilegious whatsoever it be, which mad men do institute violating thereby the Divine or dinance. And again, 
† Ad Pomp.  unde est ista Traditio? Whence cometh this Tradion, (speaking namely of an outward Ecclesiastical custom) Whether is it from the Lords authority in the Gospels, or from the Apostles precepts and Epistles? Where his meaning in brief is, that every such (that is Ecclesiastical) Unwritten Tradition whatsoever, aught to be utterly rejected.  
These Reasons I had, Christian Reader, which long since persuaded me in this cause. Wherefore I was moved in conscience to communicate them to God's people now in this seasonable and necessary time. Considering that these things are far from matters indifferent or arbitrary, but are in deed very greatly importing the common salvation. Besides we have been often & vehemently provoked thereunto. And the present opportunity exacteth it at our hands, as all men do understand. To God only wise be praise through jesus Christ for ever, Rom. 16.27.  Via una, cor unum.  

AN EXHORTATION.  
To all the godly, learned, and faithful Pastors of the several Churches in England, HENRY JACOB Minister of God's word, wisheth grace and peace to be multiplied in CHRIST JESUS.  
BRETHREN, my hearts desire & prayer to God for the People of England is that they may be saved. And this you know well, can not be attained ordinarily with comfortable & firm assurance in Gods Promises unto us, but by the due execution of the whole & entire Pastoral office sanctified and set by Christ himself in his Churches to this purpose. For which cause I have been specially at this time moved with inward compassion towards our whole Nation; wherein through God's merciful goodness the Gospel hath been famously professed now these 50. years almost wholly together. And yet notwithstanding never all this while have any of you (the Pastors of our Churches) executed your whole and intiré function towards your flocks. Being by all means forbidden and forcibly kept from one natural part thereof, and most effectual, which Christ in his word prescribeth & hath left for you and for all true Pastors to perform. Namely the holy Government and spiritual Discipline; as by the 2.4. & 7. Reasons in the first Assertion before hath appeared. Whence manifestly it is come to pass, that 3. unspeakable evils do reign among us. First a general impeachment & wrack of the soul's health of the People every where throughout the Land, by wanting this Ordinary means appointed of God for salvation to every man. Secondly, an injurious spoiling of all you (beloved Brethren) the true and proper Pastors in England of a principal part of your holy function and spiritual right. Third: no small diminution of the honour of Christ and of his heavenly word. Touching the first I do not say (as some seem to do) that simply there is no salvation in our Chrches, nor true Christianity at all. But this I say, indeed Christ graciously and apparently doth impart salvation to many among us; Howbeit that cometh not by our enjoying the whole ordinary means assigned of God for us, which we have not; but (as it were) by the one half thereof only, that is by the Preaching and Sacraments, which by his special mercy we have and do enjoy. In which case whosoever presumeth of God's love, and assureth himself of blessedness with quiet contentment without longing for and seeking further to walk in the perfect way, now that it is discovered, peradventure he may deceive himself. Certainly many thousands among us do thus very commonly make shipwreck. The rather seeing even that also which we have sound in our Land, is mixed and mingled with many other inventions and Traditions of men. And those (though they say they are indifferent things, yet they) are not indifferently used, but necessarily urged by authority & imposed upon us. Which surely are to none any helps unto life: but unto many (if not to all) are dangerous snares unto death. And this is all the good that comes by them. The second evil is the injurious spoiling of all the true Pastors in England of their most precious right, the Crown of their Ministry, the spiritual governing and ordering of their own flocks for whose souls they stand Bound to answer before God. O my Brethren, what are all your worldly benefits beside to this loss? What are your dignities to this indignity? Or else are you not the men you are taken to be? Are you not rightly and truly Pastors to your several flocks? Are you the Diocesan Bishop's Curates, and Substitutes only? Have you not properly the charge of souls, and shall you answer to God nothing for the straying & losing of your sheep? If you think so, let the world understand this matter. If otherwise, look to your charge, fulfil your ministry which you have received of the Lord. Or else consider how you can be in such an office, and yet not do the office; not intent to do it. The things which God hath conjoined, who may separate? The Lord for the saving of his children needeth no man's sin, which you here commit in thus violating his Ordinance. Yea he will save his by his own means, and not as we think he will. Heaven and Earth may perish, but one jot or title of his spiritual Ordinances may not perish, nor be changed by men. It is not in men therefore nor Angels to dispense with you herein, nor to discharge you of a part of your holy office. Much less may lay Chancellors or strange Pastors take into their hands the spiritual censures (which belong unto you) both over your flocks and over yourselves also. The last, but not the least evil is, the manifest diminution of Christ's honour amongst us thereby. For whatsoever sufficiency is yielded unto men to institute and command these Ecclesiastical ordinances, that is unjustly detracted from the proper and sole person of Christ, and from his Word, as in the 1. & 8. Reasons before we showed. These things than are far from indifferent matters or small trifles in the Churches, as some fond men suggest, and still reiterate. You do see in this Treatise (I hope) how directly contrary they are to God's word, how prejudicial and dishonourable to your holy calling, & likewise how pernicious to the souls of all the Christians in the Land. Which also very experience showeth us too much. For how do Libertines and Atheists grow by this means? How doth Popery and other Heresies spread abroad & get footing by it? There is no other such reason truly to be given of these evils, as this, even because the Churches are deprived among us (contrary to Christ's ordinance) of their power to correct and redress the same. And, because every man wanteth this heavenly defence and preservative appointed for us of God; without which how should they be preserved? Yea it may be truly said, that they all do want one part of their ordinary appointed and sanctified food to eternal life, & that they all do want the use of one of the Keys which do open the Kingdom of heaven ordinarily, as before hath been showed. Why do you not therefore, brethren, chief now at this time, seek unto God by prayer and to our most wise and noble King, by humble and earnest suit, both for your own, for your peoples, yea for Christ's due right? Our Sovereign is a gracious Christian Prince: He (as we daily see) righteth every man's temporal wrongs who do come unto him. Much more will he (being dutifully and diligently sought unto) give you & your Flocks (every of which is Christ's proper visible Church) these so manifest and so necessary spiritual rights appertaining unto them, & concerning so nearly all their soul's health. And for Christ's honour who willbe more forward than he, who hath done many things most virtuously, most religiously already heretofore. For the better procurement whereof now, and for the easier persuading of you & all men duly to seek this blessing, I have taken a little pains in the collecting of these Assertions and Reasons before going. Hoping that even our Adversaries herein, who have consciences fearing God, and frameable by his word wishing sincerely the right state of Christ's Visible Churches in England, will accord with us, and not prefer their own temporal respects before Gods true glory, yea and their own principal good. If any (as I fear to many) will resist and pretend reason, and Religion, and care for the State, etc. Them I desire to be as willing, as we are, Christianly to discuss these questions. Wherein humbly we desire that the King himself would judge; who is wise as an Angel of God, to understand & determine this whole cause by the trial and evidence of Gods written word. Which is and must be among Christians the end of all religious controversies. Wherefore now Brethren, I commend you to God and to the word of his grace, which is able to build us further, & to give us an inheritance among them that are sanctified.  
Your Brother in the Lord HENRY JACOB.  
I am the way, the truth, and the life.  john 14.6. 
I will not give my glory to another.  Isa. 42.8. 
They teach things which they ought not for filthy lucre's sake.  Tit. 1.11.