A declaration and plainer opening of certain points, with a sound confirmation of some other, contained in a treatise intituled, The divine beginning and institution of Christes true visible and ministeriall church. Written in a letter by the author of the said treatise, out of the Low Countryes, to a friend of his in England

A Declaration & plainer opening of certaine pointes , with a sound Confirmation of some other , contained in a treatise intituled , The Divine beginning and institution of Christes true visible and Ministeriall Church . Written in a letter by the Author of the said Treatise out of the low Countreys to a friend of his in England . The Letter is as followeth .

MY deare and loving friend , as by your selfe , so by sundry other meanes besides J have ben certified , that divers pointes & passages of my late Treatise intituled , The Divine beginning and institution of Christes true Visible and Ministeriall Church , are doubtfully taken , that is , som of them are not well conceaved , som misliked , by divers godly , wise , & well affected in England . Which thing verily could not but be exceeding grievous vnto me , so soone as it came vnto my bearing . And it mooved me foorth-with seriously to bethinke my selfe how J might best doe , both to remoove the offence taken , and to cleare the truth contained in that Treatise from all preiudice and misconceit against it . For it being the duty of all modest and sincere hearted Christians , when any offence ariseth , to labour that no persons who soever should bee let alone in scandall , and neglected , if there may be remedy ; how much rather ought I in conscience to reach out my hand to the godly and religious servantes of Christ , stumbling at something ( as they thinke ) by my selfe laid in the way , that they may bee holpen and held vp from falling , which often happeneth to many vpon too light occasions . Although therefore it bee little materiall what I write or speake , what I hold , or doe not holde : yet because even on so light an occasion as now is taken , sometimes there may come sundry accidents which I would bee sory for , if they should come by my fault : for this cause J iudged it fit to imploy my second thoughtes vpon this busines againe , for the clearing and plainer opening and also for the sound confirming of divers things in my said Treatise , which as J heare have bene even by good men excepted against . Being desirous heerein to make manifest to all the world my great affection which I beare to give content to every honest and well disposed person , so farre as possibly I may or can with safetie vnto the truth ; which of all things in this earth is , and ought to be vnto all men the most precious . What points therefore of exception have come to my notice , and are in any sort materiall , I have remembred heere in this letter vnto you , and to each of them severally have adioyned an answere so plaine and so direct , and where need is , so firme , as I can make . Wherein my desire is ( and I hope I shall not faile ) to satisfie every indifferent and equally minded Christian , especially who knoweth the corruptions that are among vs , & who loveth the simplicitie of the truth , & not contention .

FIRST therefore , whereas some have an imagination that I am one of the Separation , & am separated from all communion with the publike Congregations of England . To them my answere is , that touching this point they erre in their imagination . Although I know the Separation to be very farre off from being so evil as commonly they are held to be , yet I deny not but that in some matters they are straicter then I wish they were . Howsoever , as to the point of Separation , for my part I never was , nor am separated from all publike communion with the Congregations of England . I acknowledge therefore that in England are true Visible Churches and Ministers ( though accidentally , yet ) such as I refuse not to communicate with . And so much for answer to this point shall suffice .

Secondly , in the Treatise a doubt is made by some , what the meaning and intent is of the maine Proposition it selfe . The wordes whereof are these , to wit , Treat . pag . 1. Christ is the only author , institutor , and framer of his Visible and Ministeriall Church touching the Nature and Forme thereof . My answer heerevnto standeth on 4. pointes . First , that the Proposition it selfe in the generalitie of it ( as the words ly ) is true both of the Iewes Visible Church vnder the Lawe , and also of the Christian Church vnder the Gospell . Secondly , yet nevertheles the proper meaning and intent of this proposition ( as I apply it ) is to signifie no more but Christes Visible Church vnder the Gospell , and that indefinitlie and generallie : I meane that Christ is , & ought to be belleved to be the only Institutor of his true Visible Churches Nature and Forme vnder the Gospell , whether it be of this or of that , or whatsoever particular forme it be of ; & that it ought to be belleved to be of some certain particular forme . The wordes them selves of the Proposition do import the largenes of this sense ; reason also requireth such generalitie in every Proposition where the wordes and circumstances wil permit it , and the 31. Arguments ( annexed for proofes ) do serve therevnto directlie . Thirdly , in speciall sort in the third and nienth Arguments , I proove that Christ is the only institutor of his true Visible Churches nature and forme vnder the Gospell definitely and determinately , that is in that very particular forme which the Definition there noteth , and is set downe further in the second Explanation there ensuing . That is , that such a Church is only one ordinarie Congregation governed with the peoples free consent . Where I graunt also that secondarilie , and by consequence from the said 3. and 9. Arguments , I intend to proove that point also in the rest of the 31. Arguments , even this very particular forme ( heere last mentioned ) of Christs visible Church . And I affirme that by consequence they all doe sufficiently conclude the same . But it is only by consequence , as I said : it is not contained immediatly , expresly , or literally in those Arguments them selves . Fourthly , whatsoever other consequentes also do followe from the forenoted pointes ( wherein the maine Propositions intent and meaning is now by me declared ) I deny not but this said Proposition doth include and import the same . Provided alwayes that these Consequents be necessarie , and such as do follow from the former pointes inevitably . Which I am carefull to observe and note in this place , that the Reader may discerne and consider what that is which this Treatise doth mainly and principallie defend , and what is only a dependant on it , and a consequent therefrom . Which in equitie is not of any person either violently to be strayned , nor curiously to be wrong and wrested . But rather we ought to thinke of the maine matter , and remember who saith , Luc . 21.33 . Heaven and earth shall passe away , but no part of Christes word shall faile , nor alter . Also , Ioh 10.35 . The Scripture can not be broken , & namely , not in those places alleadged in the Treatise plentifully , wher this Kingly Office & right of Christ is taught vs.

Besides this , Exception is taken at that a litle after , where I set downe , that Treat . pag . 1.2 . a Visible and Ministeriall Church is a companie of people assembling for the exercise of religion , and administring among themselves the holy things of God and particularly the whole Ecclesiastscall governement , as occasion requireth . There may be a Church ( some say ) which administreth not the whole Ecclesiasticall governement . I answere : In this place my purpose was only to distinguish between a Church Invisible , A Church Visible , Ministeriall , and Politicall . I vnderstand to be all one , and Visible whiche I call likewise Ministeriall : and may also in another terme very fitly bee called a Church Ephe . 2.12 . Politicall , that is indued with power of outward administration , though spirituall . My purpose heere was not to set downe any further exact description of a Visible Church about their administring the whole governement . Howbeit touching this point also , I say , there is no Visible , Ministeriall , or Politicall Church , if it bee of Christ , but it hath power and right from him to administer even the whole Ecclesiasticall governement , as well as any part . What Church soever hath right to one part of the Ecclesiasticall governement , the same certainly hath power & right to the whole . Nevertheles I doubt not , a true Church may be abridged in the actuall execution of the government , as also of some other of Gods ordinances ; but not in the right and power to execute thē wholy . Which still sufficeth to the being of a true Visible Church , and is convertible with it , as the Scholes doe speak . So this surely was the very intent & meaning of this word in this place , the whole . Ecclesiasticall governement : which , I hope , no man can iustly finde fault with .

Againe , exception is taken against this that I say , Treat . pa. 3. Christes true Ministeriall Church is such as hath power over persons not of many ordinarie Congregations , but of one ordinarie Congregation only . Indeed heere I professe that Christes true Ministeriall or Visible Church is but one ordinarie Congregation only , The Assertion . or consisteth of people belonging to no moe ordinarie Congregations but one only : and therefore that Christs true Ministerial or Visible Church is not any Diocesan or Provinciall Church . Where my meaning is not , that all Christes true Visible Churches evermore containe ( each of them ) no moe people then do make only one Congregation . But I meane , that none consisteth of many ordinarie and constantly set Congregations : every one hath but one such Congregatiô only , although occasionally a Church may have in it many vncertain & change . able Meetings .

And so the point assuredly is most evident and plaine in the whole New Testament . The proofe whereof is easie , short , and fully sufficient . Namely thus : In Christes and the Apostles institution and practise , all Ministeriall Churches were but one ordinarie Congregation onely . A proofe of the foresaid Assertion . Therefore it followeth necessarily that all Christes true Ministeriall Churches nowe still and for ever are so , and must bee so : that is , each of them consisteth , and ought to consist of people belonging to no moe ordinarie Congregations , but to one onely .

The Consequence proved . And first for this Consequence , verily it is so cleare & inevitable , that nothing can be more . Namelie , if Christ and his Apostles in their institution and practise left no Diocesan or Provinciall Church , but such as were each of them one ordinarie Congregation onely , then now still and for ever all Christes true Ministeriall Churches are each of them but one ordinarie Congregation only . This doubtles can not be denied . For it is vnlawfull to holde any forme of a Church now which was not then , or hath no patterne for it vnder the Apostles . The whole scope of the maine Treatise , & the 31. Arguments therein contained doe proove so much : which also I have shewed before in this Declaration , viz. in my answere to the second doubt , in the pag 6.7 . second , third , and fourth point of the answer .

If any reply , that to be but one ordinarie Congregation , or many , is no Substantiall or Essentiall difference in a Visible Church . And then this is a changeable condition therein , and may bee altered by the discretion of men , according to the diversities of times and places ; and so a Visible and Ministerial Church may yet bee all one in nature and substance still , though that which was of olde but one ordinarie Congregation , bee now a Diocesan or Provinciall Church . Heere I denie the first part of this obiection . It is a Substantial difference in a Visible Church to be but one ordinarie Congregation , or many . Wherefore also it is evident that the Consequence of this obiection is naught . And note , that this obiection is the chiefest ground of all the errour in our question about the being or not being of a true Visible , Ministeriall , and Politicall Church . Remember likewise , that still we vnderstand a Church Visible , Ministeriall , and Politicall to be all one , as I observed before in the pag . 9. Answere to the third Exception . I say then , that to bee but one ordinarie Congregation only , & to be Diocesan or Provinciall , is a verie substantiall and essentiall difference in a Visible Church , A Substantiall difference in Visible Churches . or at least these divers estates are inseparably ioyned to the essentiall differences of Visible and Politicall Churches , which in effect is all one .

But this needeth good proofe for it . Wherefore I make it manifest thus . That Body politike which admitteth not the peoples free consent in their ordinarie governement , differeth by a substantiall and essentiall difference from a Body politike which admitteth the same freedome .

A Visible Church Diocesan , or Provinciall , or larger , is a Body politike , that admitteth not the peoples free consent in their ordinarie governement ; a Church which is but one ordinarie Congregation , is a Body politike that admitteth this freedome , and can admit it well .

Therefore a Diocesan and Provinciall Church , & larger , differeth by a Substantiall and Essentiall difference from a Church which is but one ordinarie Congregation .

The first Proposition is acknowledged of all men of vnderstanding , generallie to be true . Yet the truth thereof is most evident in the spirituall ( that is the Ecclesiasticall ) governement , to which intent it is heere chiefly applied . It is also plainlie shewed in the second Explanation , pag . 3.4.5 . of the Treatise . And againe , I shall something further declare it in my Answer following to the 5. Exception .

The second Proposition or Minor is acknowledged also even of our adversaries : indeed it cannot bee denied of anie . For Diocesan and Provinciall Churches have never admitted , nor doe admit the peoples free consent in their ordinarie governement , neither indeed can they admit it orderly . It would be in them to troublesome , confused , and impossible .

Yea , where each ordinary Congregation giveth their free consent in their own gouernement , there certainly each Congregation is an intire and independent Body politike , and indued with power immediatly vnder , and from Christ , as every proper Church is , and ought to be . And so then there can not be any proper Diocesan or Provintiall Church , where such Congregations be : though perhaps there may be somwhere at somtimes such names vsed ( even of Diocesan and Provinciall Churches ) for other respects .

Wherefore this very one thing , namelie this freedome of the Christian people orderly & religiously practised in a church , maketh that the said Church of necessitie must consist of persons belonging not to many ordinarie Congregations , and those meeting in farre remote places ( as the state is of Diocesan and Provinciall Churches ) but of persons belonging to one only ordinarie Congregation . And that such were in the New Testament , & since , and are now also in these dayes , it is more then manifest . Wherefore thus the conclusion is most certaine , that a Diocesan and Provinciall Church differeth by a Substantiall and Essentiall difference , from a Visible Church which is but one ordinarie Congregation only .

Another proofe heereof is this : That Church which out of the very Nature & Forme of the constitution thereof , maketh Pluralitie-Men and Nonrefidentes lawfull & good Ministers of the Gospell , yea which hath her chiefe and principall Ministers such , the same differeth by a Substantiall difference from that Church where no Minister can be so .

The Diocesan Church , and Provincial , and larger , are Churches of that Nature . The chief and principall Pastors in these , have charge of soules of many ordinarie Congregations : also in such wise as that they neither doe , nor can yeeld their ordinarie personall presence to their people . And these surely are Pluralitie-men , and Nonresidents , in the time of the Gospell . Contrariewise , that Church which is onely one ordinarie Congregation , can not have any such Ministers .

Therefore the Diocesan Church , the Provinciall , and larger , doe differ by a Substantiall difference from that Church which is but one only ordinarie Congregation .

Thirdly , this is another reason for it . Where all proper Pastors and Bishops , and their Churches do injoye ( as the Apostles did among them selves ) pari cons●rtio & honoris & potestatis , Cypr . dev● Eccle . even all one and the same honor and power , and where likewise none doth exercise authoritie over other , nor dominion over the Lords inheritance , there is a Substantiall difference from those Churches where it is otherwise .

In the Churches which are each but one ordinarie Congregation , this equall honor and power is injoyed , and no Pastors do exercise authoritie over others , nor dominion over the Lordes inheritance : but in Provinciall and Diocesan Churches it is otherwise . As experience sheweth .

Therefore in Churches which are each but one ordinarie Congregation , there is a Substantiall difference from Provincial and Diocesan Churches .

Fourthly thus : In those Churches where everie Pastor doth {αβγδ} that is , Teach and Governe , exercising both the Keyes , and delivering wholy the Lords appointed portion of spiritual nourishment to his houshold , there is a Substantiall difference from those Churches where the most of the Pastors doe not so , nor many doe so ; but doe separate that which God hath ioyned togeather .

In the Churches which are each of thē but one ordinarie Congregation , everie Pastor doeth {αβγδ} that is , Teach and Governe , exercising both the Keyes , and delivering wholy the Lords Luc . 12.42 . Act. 20.28 . Pet . 5.2 . 1. Tim . 5.17 . 1. Thes . 5.12 . Mat . 18.17 . & 16.19 . appointed portion of Spirituall nourishment to his houshold : in the Provinciall and Diocesan Churches the most of the Pastors neither doe , nor may doe so . Yea not above one of 200. or one of 5000. doth so , or can doe so . Thus Math . 19.6 . Separating that which God hath joyned togeather .

Therefore in the Churches which are each of them but one ordinarie Congregation " there is a substantiall difference from Diocesan Churches and Provinciall and larger .

Fiftly , thus : That Visible and Politicall Church which hath her foundation in Christes Testament , and also hath sett boundes and limites there , differeth fundamentally , and substantially , and Essentially from that Church , which neither hath set boundes and limites in Christes Testament , nor any foundation there .

A Church which is onely but one ordinarie Congregation , hath her Foundation in Christes Testament , and also hath set bounds and limites there : a Diocesan or Provinciall Church , hath neither .

Therefore a Visible and Politicall Church which is only but one ordinarie Congregation , differeth fundamentally and substantially and essentially from a Diocesan or Provinciall Church .

The first Proposition or Mator is certain , because touching Math . 16.18 . the Church , 1. Cor . 3 . 1● . no other foundation can any man lay but that which is laid , which is Iesus Christ . Also every Body politike ( namely the Spirituall ) having bounds & limites set by God , must needs differ substantially from that which hath no set boundes at all , but is left at large to the will of men : Whereby it may soone become ( as vsually it doth ) to great and vnwieldy . Such a false foundation of Christes Church D. Downame layeth , and such false boundes thereof : viz. the order of D. Downame Defens . Book . 2. pag . 73. &c. the Civill state . I have proved it at large in the Treatise to be so .

The Minor is likewise very true : viz , A Visible and Political Church which is only but one ordinarie Congregation hath her foundation in Christes Testament . It hath both preceptes and patternes for it there , as is shewed in the Treatise Arg. 3. & 9. and in Reas . for reform . pag . 19. 20. 21. yea most directly in the proofes of our Antecedent heere presently following , pag . 20 , &c. Againe this Church hath her set boundes and limites in Christes Testament , seeing there it is ( namely ) Ecclesia , that is not many ordinarie set Assemblies but onely one . D. Downame saith , Ibid . pag . 42. 43. 30 &c. a Church vnder the Apostles was a great City and all the Country adioyning , as it hath ben since . But this is a notorious fable . Never any in those times vnderstood the word . Ecclesia to signifie many ordinary assemblies , yea in places far distant a sunder as a Dioces is : though it now so signifieth , & did signifie about 300. yeares after Christ , when they began somtime to meane thereby a Province , or a Diocesse . But we must rest our faith vpon the sincere speaking and doing of the Apostles , not vpon the equivocating words and declining actions of men , especially so late . N●… . Neither meane we by boundes and limites of the Visible Church any circuit of ground at all : and so neither the set compasse of a Parish , as it is now reckoned with vs : but we vnderstand only that all the persons thereof belonged to one ordinary Congregation , and not to many in those times . This limit , we say , is set and determined in the word Ecclesia , where it noteth a political Visible Church in the New Testament . Which also in a good sense may be called a Parish , we graunt .

And these things verily are Substautiall and Essentiall pointes in the Churches which are each but one ordinary Congregation , distinguishing them essentially from Diocesan Churches and Provincial , and larger : or at least they are inseparably ioyned to the essence of them ( as before I said ) which is all one in effect , and cometh to the same issue in our question as if they were of the very essence of them . So that the generall proofe alleadged before in the beginning of Pag . 10. this Answer , viz. In Christes and the Apostles institution and practise all Visible Churches were each of them but one ordinarie Congregation .

Therefore all Christes true Churches now still and for ever are so , and ought to be so .

This reason , I say , is firme and good , and cannot be shaken ; the Consequence is vndeniable . Seeing without question all Churches both then and now had & have but one only essence and forme , and constitution . Though they are many in nomber , yet all are but one in nature , and essence , and forme . Which both is manifest in reason , and may be proved also by that generall axiome in Eph. 4.4.5 . There is one Body ( that is , one Visible and Politicall Church ; seeing the generalitie of the word may extend heerevnto ) one Spirit , one Lord , one Faith , one Baptisme . This Body , Faith , and Baptisme are each of them simply one in nature ; many in nomber .

Yet nevertheles this our maine reason , The Antecedent pag . 10. prooved . & Consequence , is true but vpon Supposition only , that is , if the first part therof be true ; viz. If in Christes & the Apostles institution and practise all Churches then were each of them but only one ordinarie Congregation . Now this many do flatlie denie ; many do greatly doubt of it ; and it is the chiefest point in all our controversie . Wherefore I will heere bring some most cleere & invincible reasons to prove it , namely , that In Christes and the Apostles institution and practise all Churches then were each of them but only one ordinarie Congregation . For proofe whereof I reason , first thus .

Every Visible Church which had the peoples free consent in their ordinarie governement rightly appointed , the same was only one ordinarie Congregation : it was no Provinciall nor Diocesan Church .

All Christes true Visible Churches mentioned in the New Testament had the peoples free consent in their ordinarie governement rightly appointed .

Therefore all Christes true Visible Churches mentioned in the New Testament were each of them only one ordinarie Congregation : none of them was any Provinciall , nor Diocesan Church .

The first Proposition is made manifest a little Pag . 1● . 1● before . The second or Minor is proved at large in the Treatise Arg. 3. and 9. as also in the Reas . for reform . pag . 45.46.47 . &c. Vnto which point we have a generall consent of all godly learned men : a nomber of whom are remembred by Maister Whetenhall , in his Discourse : besides such as Maister Cartwright plentifully alleadgeth in his writings to this purpose . Brieflie , See the Attestation &c. the Churches abroad at this day do generally acknowledge it , as also the Churches in the Primitive times did by their practise . Where I pray let it be noted , that we stand strictlie vpon no other free consent of the people but this , Beza . that populo invito nihil obtrudatur : Nothing may be imposed on the people against their will . Which Maister Beza resolveth ought to bee everie where . Epist. 83. And vnder the Apostles he sheweth that it was so at the least . Annotat . in Act. 14.23 . & in 1. Tim . 5.22 .

Secondly I reason thus :

No Church in the Apostles times had anie Pastors Pluralistes and Nonresidents .

All Provinciall and Diocesan Churches have some Pastors Pluralistes and Nonresidents .

Therefore no Provinciall or Diocesan Churches were in the Apostles times .

The first Proposition is generally held as a Principle of sound doctrine by al that have the feare of God , and any love of the truth in their hearts . For otherwise Pluralistes and Nonresident Pastors wil be Apostolicall and lawfull , yea verily ordained & appointed by the Apostles . Howbeit yet iustly doth every good man abhorre them , Dieo vtrumque esse prodigiosum flagitium &c. Calv . Institut . ● . 5.7 . and worthily accounteth them detestable : esteeming them ( as in deed they are ) contrarie to the rule of the Gospell , and to the salvation of mens soules . Namely in that they are true and manifest causes of ignorance in the people , and of their vnchristian dissolutnes of life . The Minor is to be vnderstood of a Diocesan or Provinciall Church properly so called , that is , where the people of the ordinarie Congregations have not that free consent in their governement which before I spake of , which is , at least , that nothing be vrged vpon thē by any spirituall power against their willes . Where the people of the Congregations have not this free power in themselves , but are absolutly vnder a Diocesan or Provinciall jurisdiction Ecclesiasticall , there is that Diocesan or Provinciall Church which I signifie in the Minor proposition . All which Churches have Bishops correspondent & proportionable to their said jurisdiction . I say , they all have such correspondent and proportionable Bishops , or els in all true reason they may & should have . Now al such proper Diocesan & Provincial Bishops have a ful Pastorall charge of soules of a great many ( 300. or 400. or many mo ) distinct ordinarie Congregations . They them selves , and their defenders acknowledge this plainly . D. Down . b . ● . pag . 67. &c. Also none of these doth nor can give his ordinarie personall presence to 2. or 3. of these said Congregations by any possible meanes . And what els is a Nonresident and Pluralist vnder the Gospell but such a one ? Againe , if of necessitie every such Bishop be a Nonresident to 2. or 3. severall Congregations vnder him , then how much more is he a Nonresident & Pluralist in respect of all to which he is Pastor ? Wherefore it remayneth cleere and certaine that everie Diocesan Bishop ( and the Provinciall much more ) can not but be in the time of the Gospell a huge Nonresident . Which also maketh the Minor both heere & before , pag . 15. to be true : wherevpon the conclusion followeth , viz. No Provinciall or Diocesan Church was in the Apostles dayes .

A third proofe is this .

Where no Churches are superior to other in power : also where no Pastors do exercise authoritie over other , nor dominion over the Lords inheritance , there are no Provinciall nor Diocesan Churches .

In all the New Testament there are no such Churches , nor such Pastors .

Therefore in all the New Testament there are . no Provinciall nor Diocesan Churches : but consequently , all are Ordinarie Congregations only .

The Maior proposition is knowen by experience , and is without all question . The Minor is as cleere in the text as any thing can be . For no where can any such Superioritie & Dominion in spiritual affayres bee found throughout the whole New Testament . Besides , the same is found expresly forbidden in Luc . 22.26 . and 1. Pet . 5.3 . There was not any firme Diocesan authoritie till the Councill of Nice , then it began first to be appointed by Nie . Concil . Can . 6. Law . Before I grant there was an old custome of respecting the Metropolitan Bishops mind in the Churches affayres of meaner places , specially in Egypt : but it was by a free and voluntary affection and inclining heerevnto , it was arbitrarie , it was without power , it imported no necessitie of obedience till this time of the Nicen Councill . So that then I grant a kinde of Diocesan Church began about 330. yeares after Christ . Howbeit yet this was farre from making a Diocesan or Provinciall proper and perfite Church whereof heere wee speake . Which indeed so long as the Christian people in the Congregations retained their freedom to consent in their ordinarie governement , had no place in the world . Now , restraint heereof tooke not place till after the 4. Council of Carthage : for then the people Can . 22. had this their libertie , about the yeare 420. yea ( as wee may iudge ) till the great Councill in Trullo , which Can . 2. confirmed the forenamed Councill of Carthage , about the yeare 682. So long therefore and longer wee may well thinke , this proper Diocesan Church was not erected , at least not generally ; but the ordinarie Congregations were the proper Churches yet still . Of this more els where . Nevertheles by this we see that our Minor is certain .

A fourth proofe is this .

Where all Pastors do poimainein , that is , Teach and Rule , and where all Churches do exercise both the Keyes , and do wholy deliver the Lords appointed portion of spirituall nourishment to his houshould , there is no Provinciall nor Diocesan Church . In the whole New Testament all Pastors , and all Churches do so .

Therfore in the whole New Testament there is no Provinciall nor Diocesan Church .

This Maior is likewise evident in reason and experience , as the last before was . The Minor is cleere by these texts , Act. 20. 28. and 1. Pet . 5.2 . and 1. Tim . 5.17 . and 1. Thess. 5.12 . Math . 18.17 . and 16.19 . Luc . 12.42 . vnto which all other are conformable and correspondent . If any sticke at Math . 18.17 . ( as perhaps some will ) I referre him for satisfaction therein to the Treatise it selfe , Arg. 3.

Fiftly thus I prove it .

If the most florishing Church of Corinth in the Apostles times was in the whole but onely one ordinarie Congregation , then all other Churches at that time , and since , are each of them but only one ordinary Congregation .

The most florishing Church of Corinth in the Apostles times was in the whole but only one ordinarie Congregation . For so the Apostle saith of it , 1. Cor . 14.23 . When the whole Church is come togeather in one , or into one place , &c. The whole then made but one Congregation . The like we may note , Chap. 11.20.18 . chap. 5.4 .

Therfore all other Churches then in the Apostles times and since , are each of them but only one ordinarie Congregation .

The Mai●r is certain , because all true Churches of Christ both then , and for ever , had and haue but one forme , nature , and constitution , as is Pag . 19.20 . before shewed , and our adversaries do D. Down . Book . a. pag . 42.45 . graunt . To the Minor , it is idle to say ( as some do ) that those wordes , the whole Church came togeather into one place , are to be vnderstoode distributively of many severall ordinarie Congregations then belonging to the Church of Corinth . Nay ; evidently these wordes are spokon touching all , and to al them , to whom the Epistle is directed , &c also in that very maner . But the Epistle is directed to the Church of Corinth in generall collectively , 1. Cor . 1.2 . Therefore those wordes are spoken to the whole Corinthian Church in generall collectively ; & collectively the whole in generall did ceme togeather in one place at that time . Besides , our adversaries say that the division of Parishes and Dioceses Platina in P. Dionys . came in about the yeare of Christ 260. So that then in the Apostles dayes neither the Corinthian Church , nor any other , was a Diocesan Church . Some further object 2. Cor . 1.1 . To the Church at Corinth with all the Saints which are in al Achaia . As if here al the Saints which were in all Achaia made then but one Visible Church with that at Corinth : and so the Corinthian Church then was a Diocesan or Provinciall Church . But there is no shew of reason in the world for this . As well may they conclude from 1. Cor . 1.2 . To the Church at Corinth Saints by calling , with all that call vppon the name of our Lord lesus Christ in every place , both their Lord and ours . As well , I say , they may from hence conclude , that all who called vpon the name of Christ in every place then made but one Visible Church with that at Corinth , and so the Corinthian Church then was a Vniversall Visible Church . Which how absurd it is , all men see . Yet this is altogeather as good , & as likely a collection , as the other .

My sixt reason is this .

If the Apostles , where they speake of Christians set in outward order through a Province , do never memtion any one generall Church of that Province , or of a Diocese , but alwayes many several Churches , such as were each of them one ordinarie Congregation only , then in the Apostles times there was no Provinicall or Diocesan Church , but only such as were each of them one ordinary Congregation only . This sentence can not be denied or doubted of : Seeing it is both presumptuous & absurd to hold that there was such a forme of a Church then as cannot bee gathered out of any of their writings . Againe , it is no lesse absurd , yea impious to hold any such forme of a Church now as was not then , or hath no patterne for it vnder the Apostles . But indeed al that former clause is most true : Where the Apostles speake of Christians set in outward Order through a Province , greater or lesser , they never mention any one generall Church of the Province , but alwayes many severall Churches . As is to be seene by their naming plurally 1. Cor . 16.1 Gal. 1.2 . & 21 the Churches of Galatia : never one singular Church of Galatia . Likewise plurally Vers . 26. & 1. Thes 2.14 . the Churches of Iudea : & 2. Cor . 8.1 . of Macedonia : & 1. Cor . 16.19 . of Asia , &c. Never finde we one Church general in any of these Provinces : neither can the like be found any where in all the New Testam . Moreover the several Churches thu splurally named , are such as were each of them singularly one ordinary Congregation only . The Ecclesia . word it selfe importeth it .

Therefore then in the Apostles times there was no Provinciall or Diocesan Church , but onely such as were each of them one ordinarie Congregation only . And so D. Downames dissolute ground of a Church , viz. that it may follow the order of the civill State is heereby also quite overthrowne .

Against the Minor they obiect , D. Down . b . 4. pag 87. that there was a generall Church of Crete , whereof Titus was Bishop . I answer , the New Testament no where nameth one generall Church of Crete , nor Titus Bishop of Crete . Therefore heere is nothing against vs. Eusebius speaking of these times , Euseb . 3.4 . and 4.22 . nameth the Churches of Crete plurally . Neither could Titus be any proper Bishop of Crete , for he was in the same Function and Office of Ministerie before he came to Crete , as he was when ( for a time ) he taried there . But before , being at Gal. 2.1 . Ierusalem , at 2. Cor . 8.17 . Corinth , in 2. Cor . 12.18 with 9 2.3 . Macedonia , he was thē no proper Bishop : he was an Evangelist . Therefore hee was so in Crete also . Againe he was as Timothie was . But the Apostle saith , he was 2. Tim . 4.5 . an Evangelist : neither is there any reason that the Apostle here spake improperly . Therfore Timothie and Titus both were Evangelistes : and by consequence not proper Bishops . The workes of Bishos they did , & more too ; as also the Apostles did . Who yet were no proper Bishops , neither could be : seeing the H. Ghost had made them 1. Cor . 12.18 . Ephe . 4.11 . divers . Also the Bishoplike power which these all had , was in them materially , not formally , as I may so speake . And it is still to remaine with their Successors , not in the forme of their proper functions , viz. as they were Apostles or Evangelistes , but in an other forme , viz. in the ordinary Bishops and Pastors , who all indeed do equally succeed them . And thus any thing that is obiected of worth concerning Titus or Crete , is cleerely refuted . Further it is D. Down . b . 2. pag 104. obiected , that Rom. 16.1 . the Church of Ceachreae was a Parish subordinat to the Church of Corinth . But this is easily proved to be false . Paul calleth it a Church properlie : he speaketh heere questionles properlie , and not by the figure Synecdoche , as signifying a part of a church , & not a whole Church . There is no cause of Paules figurative speaking in this place : Therefore he did not so speake . But certainly he calleth this Church of Cenchteae by this name as properly , as he nameth the Church of Corinth , or Ephesus , or Antioch . And therefore certainly it was then as proper a Church , as intire , as totall , and independent , as any of them . Lastly those Act. 21.20 . many 10. thousands at Ierusalem D. Down . b . 2. pag . 91. are obiected , as making that Church then not one ordinary Congregation only , but Provinciall at least . I answer , these were not all of the Church of Ierusalem . Heere in this text there is no such thing spoken , nor meant . But the solemne feast of Pentecost now being at Ierusalem , Act. 20.12 . the greatest part of these men were come vp thither out of forraigne places and farre countries , as the Law required . For these were al lews , Act. 21.20 . & Zealous of the law , as the text heere sheweth . And this vers . 22. multitude ( it is like ) were they that would come togeather to know the truth of Paul when they should heare that he also was come thither . These therefore were not members of Ierusalems Church , though they were so many in that Citie at this time : neither doth this shew any thing of the greatnes or smallnes of the ordinarie Church at Ierusalem in those times , vnles it prove the same then to be , no mo then one Congregation , seeing heere it is said of the whole multitude , that they would come togeather . Lastly thus I reason further : Every company of people ioyned togeather in a politie and signified by the Greeke word Ecclesia in the Apostles dayes , is but one ordinarie Congregation only .

All Christes true Visible Churches in the New Testam . are each of them a companie of people ioyned togeather in a politie and signified by the Greeke worde Ecclesia in the Apostles dayes .

Therefore all Christes true Visible churches in the New Testament are each of them but one ordinarie Congregation only .

Every part of this reason is most manifestly true and certain .

D. Downames whole resistance in his Defence standeth on a most frivolous & false exception against the Maior . Saith he D. Down . b . a. pag 49.54.55.65.53 . The circuit of a Ecclesia . Church by the Apostles intention was the same before Parishes ( in a Diocese ) were divided , as it was afterward . Which all , who vnderstand the propertie of the Ecclesia . Greeke word , do know to bee false . For all authentike Greeke authors do shew that Ecclesia with them signified that which in Latin is Conci● populi● that is , Zuingl . Artic . 8. Explanat . one particular assembly of people , and in respect as they are assembled together in one place : but never in those times did it signifie a multitude dispersedly comming togeather in many distinct ordinarie Meetings , and in farre remote places , as Provinciall and Diocesan Churches do . Now the Apostles spake as all authentike Grecians spake , & namely as they commonly vsed to speak in those times . So that , vnles the Apostles words in their knowen proper sense , and their intention be contrarie ( which to imagine is to absurd ) there is no truth in the Doctors saying . His whole discourse beside , being fraught with disdainfull & disgracefull reproches , such as become rather a persecuter , then a Christian teacher of the truth , it deserveth wholy to be neglected , & passed over with silence . But because hee seemeth to him selfe to be somebody , it will not be amisse if his windy and wordy writing bee answered in a severall proper place . Which busines I commit to the providence of God . As for the poinct of the controversie heere in hande , that which I defend in this place , is easie to be further proved and declared by other reasons also : but for this time I will rest content with these Seaven before delivered , beside that which Reas . for 10. form . pag . 19.20 . heeretofore I have alleadged to this purpose .

The substance of all this whole matter is knit vp in this one argument following .

No Visible Church of Divine Institution in the New Testament is Provinciall or Diocesan .

Every true Visible Church of Christ is of Divine institution in the New Testament .

Therefore no true Visible Church of Christ is Provinci all or Diocesan .

The Maior is proved pag . 20.21 . &c. The Minor is proved pag . 10.11.12 . &c. Wherefore the Conclusion remayneth sure .

Further , some thinke that I set downe a Contrarietie where I say , Tractat . Page . 3. the Single and Compound formes of governement differ the one from the other by a Specificall & Essentiall difference : and " the one ceasseth necessarily when Page . 4. the other cometh in place . And yet ( as they imagine ) contrarie to this I say , pag . ● . the Church governement is mixt . How be it nevertheles , indeed these sentences do stand togeather & agree right well . For the divers kindes of governement ( as the Diocesan , and Parochiall , that is , of onely one ordinarie Congregation ; also the Monarchie , Aristocratie , and Democratie ) may bee mixt in graduremisso in their state remisse and abated , but not in intenso gradis in their perfect state : they may conioyne in their Accidents , but not Essentially , or in their distinct pure Essences . As the Direction of a Pastor , with the affistance of the Elders , and the peoples free consent in a Church may concurre and stand togeather : thus may the governement be mixed . But the peoples free consent cannot admit either a Diocesan nor yet Parochiall pure Monarchie , or absolute Aristocratie , thus they cannot be mixed . The one of these necessarily doth cease when the other cometh in place : and these are those formes of governement of which I say heere , they differ truly the one from the other by a specificall & essential difference . If any sticke in the Epistle , where the Visible Churches Forme is said to be Epist. pag . 11.12 . the power of a Single and vncompounded spiritual politie . Let him consider that the reference there noted expresly sendeth him to the second Explanation in the beginning of the Treatise , where ( pag . 5. ) it is declared that it ought to be with the peoples free consent . Now in this the Forme is compleat and cleere . Howbeit yet wee speake not heere so exactly and curiously of the Visible Churches Forme , but that our meaning is only that it doth convenire Subiecto omni , soli , & semper : that it is convertible with it , and inseparable from it , and nothing els . And that this is in deed so proper to the said Church , it is proved in this same Treatise , Argu . 3. and 9. as before is noted . And in the Reasons for reformation , Compared with pag . 26.27.28 . pag . 45 , 46 , 47 , &c. Now hence also it cometh , that where the Peoples free consent is orderly and constantlie had , there the Church can not bee but As in Arg. 9. in the Treat . & above pag . 13.14 . only one ordinarie Congregation , and the governement is Single , or over one Congregation only . Where the absolute governement is Diocesan or larger , there that Church can not possibly be one ordinarie Congregation only , nor can vse ordinarilie the Peoples free consent : but it must of necessitie be either by one person alone , or by a few choise persons absolut vnder Christ over a whole Diocese , or further . So that it is plaine enough divers wayes , that these governements are indeed ( as I said ) essentially distinguished : and the fore-rehearsed sentences do well stand togeather , and agree easily .

Moreover the first Proposition of the first Argument is thought by some to be amisse : viz. Treat . pa. ● . Whatsoever [ is ] a Divine institution , the same is perpetuall . But why should any doubt of this ? They say , Because the Iewes high Priesthood was a Divine institution , also the Calling of the Apostles : and yet neither is perpetuall . Wherevnto the answer is easie : viz. Neither of these cometh near the point in question . The wordes of the Proposition are , Whatsoever is : not , Whatsoever was , or hath ben a Divine institution . Wherefore I speake of Divine institutions and ordinances which are now such at this present time , even in our dayes : not of such as were Divine heerctofore only , that is only in the time of the Jewes estate , or of the Apostles , such as the instances are which be obiected . I speake not ( I say ) of any Leviticall or Apostolicall temporarie ordinances . Which to be my very meaning in this place , appeareth partly in the Minor Proposition of the said Argument , which of necessitie must bee taken so ; and more fully straight after in handling the proofe of the said Minor .

Further it is excepted against , Treat . where I say , Pag . 26. This word Ecclesia or Kahal in Hebrew is no where found in any Author ( one or other ) to signifie a bench of Iusticers , or Senat of Magistrates . This cannot be shewed in any other place at all . But contrarie to this some alleadge that the Septuagint do translate Kahal in Prov. 26.26 . one place {αβγδ} a Senat . I answer , it is not materiall to our maine purpose in this place how the Hebrew Kahal is once by the Septuagint Translated , though I added this word , which I needed not . For all the matter indeed standeth in the Greek word Ecclesia , which is the Matth . 18.19 originall text . Now concerning this word , there is no exception at all taken against that which heere I alleadge . No man findeth in any author ( one or other ) this word Ecclesia to signifie a Bench of Iusticers or Senate of Magistrates : no , not once . As for that Hebrew word Kahal also , seeing ( for ought that appeareth ) it is translated Senat no where , but only this once : we are to suppose that the same Authors ( viz. the Septuagint ) who translate it more then 100. times otherwise , do thinke the proper sense of this word not to be a Senat . And why it should not also be proper in the Hebrew translation of Math . 18.17 . there is no reason in the world . Againe the Septuagint them selves are of no good authoritie for translation . And learned men do iudge that ( after the five bookes of Moses ) the translation bearing their name , is not theirs . D. Field . of the Church . How so ever , they are generally knowen for translation to be most wide , strange , and vnfit . Maister Hugh Broughton Against Dav . Farrar the Iew . saieth of them , that all learned men for these 1300. yeares space do know the Septuagint translators have infinite millions of faultes . Neither do our English translations , nor Tremellius , nor Vatablus , nor the Inter●… arie , nor Arias Montanus , nor Munster , nor any good Translators ( as far as I know ) follow thē in this place of the Proverbes . Viz . Neither French , nor Dutch , nor Spanish , nor Italian . So that namelie here they seeme to be held of no sound writer , for Authors of any credit in this particular , howsoever they bee esteemed Otherwise .

Againe , some mislike that ( in the Assumption of Argument 7. ) the Ministeriall Church and Church-government are said to be Fundamentall pointes of religion , and a part of the foundation of Christian faith . But if men would consider things well , sure heere is no cause of mislike . Alwayes remembring , that I do not take the foundation of faith heere in that sense as Christ himselfe is held and acknowledged to bee the Foundation of our faith , 1. Cor . 3.11 . He alone is that absolute Foundation . Neither do I take it in that sense as the word of God is acknowledged to be the general foundation of faith , which only togeather with Christ ( the author of it ) our faith can rest on . But in that sense I take it as the Apostle vseth it in Hebr . 6.1.2 . where manifestly he vseth this word Foundation to signifie certaine points of religion , and speciall Doctrines necessary to salvation ordinarily , and vnchangeable by men . He setteth downe in this place 6. of them : of which some are Inward , some Outward : Some requiring outward action & practise , some speculation and beliefe only . Among them that require outward action and practise , he nameth Laying on of handes as one part of this foundation . Now this cannot be heere vnderstood with anie good colour , but for Calling to the Ministerie ; as is shewed evidently in the Treatise . And Calling to the Ministerie , or the Making of Ministers is one maine part of Church-government . And of that nature as the Church government is , of the same is the Visible , or Ministeriall , or Politicall Church it selfe . As also , of that nature as a maine part of Church-governement is , of the same is the whole . Wherevpon I reason thus : If That is , Making of Ministers ordinarily effected by laying on of hands . Laying on of handes ( which is one maine part of Church-governement , as before is shewed ) be of the foundation , necessarie to salvation ordinarily , and vnchangeable by men , thē the Church-government , and the Church it selfe is so . But the former is certain by the text Heb . 6.2 . as before I have shewed . Therfore the later is certain also , viz. the Ministeriall Church & Church governement are of the foundation of faith , ot fundamentall pointes of religion , they are necessarie to salvation ordinarily , and vnchangeable by men . Secondly , as Baptism● is heere called also fundamentall , so is this Laying on of handes , or Calling to the Ministerie . But heerein is meant no more ( touching Baptisme ) save that it is a meanes to salvation necessarie ordinarily , and simply vnchangeable by men . Wherefore even so is Calling to the Ministerie vnderstood to be , where in the Treatise it is called Fundamentall . Thirdly , I take it , no well advised Christian will deny Christes true Visible and Ministerial Church to be fundamentall . Of which , Cyprians saying is approved by all men , Cypr . de vni●at . Eccles . viz. Deum non habet Patrem , qui Ecclesiam non habet ●atrem : Hee hath not God for his Father , who hath not the Church for his mother . And likewise is that common saying ; Extra Ecclesiam non est salus : Out of the Church there is no salvation . Both which sayings are true of Christes Visible and Ministeriall Church : howbeit not simply , but ordinarilie . Yea they signifie also , that this ordinarie way and meanes to salvation , ( viz. the Visible Church ) appointed by God is vnchangeable by men . This sense of foundation is given to Christes true Visible Church , I suppose by all well advised Christians .

Fourthly , that is a fundamentall point which toucheth Christ ( the absolute foundation ) in some of his maine Offices immediatly , or ( at least ) by a sure and plaine consequence . But Christes Visible Church and governement doth immediatly touch him in his Kingly Office and in his Propheticall Office also . As is shewed at full in Arg. 3. in the Treatise ; yea in every Argument there by a most certain Consequence . Most directly in the 4.6.10.17.18.19.23.24.25.26.28.30.31 . And in Reas . for reform . pag . 52. 53. 54. Wherefore Christes Visible Church and Governement are to bee acknowledged fundamentall pointes in religion . Fiftly , let vs heere consider how we do iudge of the Papistes touching this matter , viz. touching Fundamentall errors . We all holde ( and iustly ) that certain Popish errors are Fundamentall , and against every one of Christes maine Offices . Among which , their error about the Visible Church and governement thereof is against Christes Kingdome . Wherefore hence it followeth that Christes Visible Church and Governement is a fundamentall point in religion : seeing their error which they holde in that matter is a fundamentall error , as wee all acknowledge . Sixtly , the learned writers Beza confes 5.7 . P. Mart . in 1. Cor . 1.2 . Viret . Dial . 14. & 21. at the end . T. C. Reply 2. pag . 53. D. Field of the Church . 2.6 . D. Down . Def . b . 2. pag . 6. The Confess . of faith in the end of the book of com . prayer . do set downe three Essentiall ( at least , perpetuall and necessarie ) notes of a Visible Church , viz. the Word , Sacraments , and Governement . Vnderstand , that by this heere is meant the power to administer these things , as I have noted before pa. 7. Now if Governement thus be Essentiall to the Church , it may be also called fundamentall without question .

Where still I desire it may bee remembred , that by this our interpretation of Laying on of handes in Hebr . 6.2 . to be fundamentall , our whole meaning and intent is to shewe this only , that the Nature of Christes Visible Church and Governement is vnchangeable by men : and that after the constant & perpetuall ordinance of God , salvation through Christ cometh vnto vs ordinarily alwayes by meanes of this true Visible Church & Ministerie of the word therein . According to that , 〈◇〉 . 10.17 Faith is by hearing , and hearing by the preaching of Gods word by Ministers orderly sent ( that is ) according to his rule . Which doctrine all sound Divines do teach in like sort .

Heere vnto I will adde Mai . Cartwrights iudgement , who maintaineth this earnestly , that Y. C. repl . ● pag . 26. Matters of Discipline and kinde of Governement are matters necessarie to salvation , and of faith .

If any doubt whether I think a man may bee saved that erreth about the Visible Churches particular forme and Governement . I answere , I thinke such a man may be saved . In what regard , and how , I have formerly set downe in those Reasons for reform . pag . 55.

Lastly , the Argument 16. in the Treatise is excepted against . Where indeed I deny not , but the maner of gathering that Argument is scarce as it should be : the Enumeration there vsed might be somewhat more full . Howbeit that text of Scripture 1. Cor . 15.24 . ( which is the ground of the Argument ) will very well yeeld the Conclusion , so that it bee gathered and framed in such maner as now heere it is set downe . Wherefore I pray the Reader to conceave it thus :

Where Christes whole Oeconomicall Kingdome is signified , Argu . 16. in the Treatise . there also the Outward Ecclesiastical administration & governement , or the State of the Visible Church is indefinitly & generally fignified . And againe , it followeth from hence that also there in the same text the Outward Ecclesiastical Governement and State of the Visible Church vnder the Gospell in speciall is signified . And withall there is signified that this same Outward Ecclesiasticall Governement and State of the Visible Church vnder the Gospell is truly & in deed Christes Kingdome . And likewise , that hee himselfe is the only Author , and Framer , yea the only Lord , King , and Law-giver thereof to the worldes end . For who can be Author and Law-giver of his owne kingdom but only himselfe ?

In 1. Cor . 15.24 . Christes whole Oeconomicall Kingdome is signified .

Therefore in 1. Cor . 15.24 . the Outward Ecclesiasticall administration & governement , or the State of the Visible Church ( yea that vnder the Gospell ) is also signified . And againe from 1. Corinth . 15.24 . in such respect it followeth necessarily , that the Outward Ecclesiastical Governement and State of the Visible Church vnder the Gospell is truly and in deed Christes Kingdome . And likewise , that hee himselfe is the only Author , and Framer , yea the only Lord , King , and Law-giver thereof to the worldes end .

The Assumption heere is most evidently true . Considering that by Christes Oeconomicall Kingdome we meane ( and so the Interpreters do call it and vnderstand it to be ) all that-power and rule which as Mediator and Head of his Church he receaved Mat . 28.18 . of the Father , and administred ever since ( by him selfe and his servants ) till the worldes end , but no longer . This sense the present text ( 1. Cor . 15.24 . ) will well beare being taken in the largest maner that the Circumstances do admit . And every text alwayes must be taken in such most large sense .

The Consequence of the Proposition standeth on foure partes . And I see not how any one of them can possibly be denied . If any should , it will easily be proved .

Thus , though our former Argument 16. in the Treatise for the manner of gathering , bee not ( I grant ) altogeather so well as it should bee , yet the Text it selfe 1. Cor . 15.24 . doth still affoorde a good and found Argument for our maine purpose , as is said . And thus in effect heere is nothing lost . And so much for answer to these 9. Exceptions .

Hitherto ( my deare and loving friend ) I have waded labouring to give satisfaction to all good people ( according as it may come to their notice ) so farre as my conscience with warrant of the truth will permit . Humbly desiring all loving and vpright harted Christians to interpret this same , togeather with what soever J have heeretofore written , as only and meerely the effectes of conscience in me , agreeing ( so neare as I could discerne ) to my dutie inioyned me in Gods word . The grace , mercy , and love of God in Iesus Christ be with vs all . Amen . Middleborough . the 4. of September . Anno 1611.

HENRY IACOB .