more a Church then any other though som may be greater som smaller som richer som poorer Yet as Churches they are all equally Churches and one hath as much Ecclesiasticall or spirituall right power authoritie as any other Even so is it with their Pastors being compared I saye togeather as Pastors among themselves Againe as the Apostles were all equall 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 vnit Eccles saith The Apostles were indued with equall honor power Therfore the Pastors their Successors ought to be so likewise To which purpose also is that in the same place following “ Ibid. Episcopaius vnus est cuius à singulis in solidum pars tenetur There is but one kinde or nature of the Bishoplie or Pastoral office whereof everie one participateth in whole And in another place * Cypr. in CoÌ„cil Caâ—thag Nemo nostrum Episcopum Episcoporum se facit None of vs maketh him self a Bishop of Bishops or over Bishops Signifying that it was not lawfull for them so to be neither likewise a Pastor over Pastors And to what purpose els is that of Ierome 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 preeminence of one and the same Office These sentences are verie memorable tending to allow ordinarie equalitie in all Offices which are of one and the same kinde or nature Howsoever yet a declination from the right and perfect Pastorall office began to come in in the dayes of these men also to get allowance even of the most famous Doctors specially about Ieromes dayes Whereby it is manifest how a paritie of Pastors ought to be held and yet notwithstanding how a paritie of all Ministers ought not to be in any Church But some wil say this is not enough For this nevertheles will be the cause of strife discord in the Churches We answer The cleane contrarie is true Your humane disparitie in the Ecclesiasticall Ministeries both is and ever * Nazianz. in orat post redi hath ben the true cause of discord But our Divine disparitie that which we hold and allow is the true cause of peace and vnitie For where in what place can discord be In every Church we acknowledg a Superior and in everie meeting out of many Churches a Superior likewise Now no other place can be imagined where discord and strife Ecclesiasticall can arise If therefore Superioritie and disparitie will cause peace wee through Gods goodnes and blessing shall both have and keepe peace every where If anie other Superioritie bee required and namely Yours which crosseth yea cutteth of Gods owne ordinance in the Pastoral office we deny that it can ever procure peace And this our present experience doth shew in all the forraigne Reformed Churches compared with ous They all inioying this ordinance of God have most admirable vnitie We only wanting this notwithstanding many sundrie worldly advantages yet do remaine still now these 50. yeeres almost in wofull dissentions desolations and dissipations Neither can the Lordly Prelacie neither will they remedy it If heerein yet men will not be satissied but will hold it still to be speciall wisedom to take away from som Pastors the power of spirituall governement and to give it to som few We answer againe with the holy Ghost It behooveth vs not it is high presumption * 2 Cor. 4.6 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be wise aboue much rather contrary to that which is written Reason 5. THOSE Elders or Pastors as they couÌ„t themselves stand directlie contrarie to Gods word Lord-Ministers who do rule their fellow-Elders or Pastors and specially manie whole Churches with a Lordly Ecclesiasticall power or sole authoritie also who do rule them Civilly with outward force and compulsive power and who receave Civil Titles and Stiles answering to the worldly honor due to high Magistrates in the world But our Diocesan Bishops in England are such Elders or Pastors and do thus rule and stand by their publike Office or Offices which they hold Therefore our Diocesan Bishops in England even by their publike Office or Offices which they hold stand directly contrary to Gods word The Proposition whereof only there can be doubt is proved by many plaine places of Gods word Christ earnestly forbad 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 haue dominion over them and the Great men exercise authoritie 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 haue dominion or rule as Lords over them and they who exercise authoritie over them are called Gratious Lords But ye shall not be so And Peter an Elder as he calleth himselfe chargeth all Elders that they be not * 1 Pet. 5.8 as Lords over Gods heritage but examples to the flocke And Paul renounceth it for his part saying “ 2 Cor. 1.24 Not that we haue dominion â—ver your faith but are helpers of your ioy Heere it is a silly evasion which som vse or rather a delusion of these manifest Scriptures to say Christ heere forbiddeth his Apostles to expect Civill power authoritie by vertue of their Ecclesiasticall Ministerie or it is heere denyed that Civil power is necessarily annexed to the Ecclesiasticall function And besides this that nothing els iâ— heere denyed by our Savior to his Apostles and Ministers I say this is a vaine shift The Apostles manifestly desired this outward preeminence no other way but by CoÌ„mission from Christ whom they hoped should haue ben a great Prince in the world This * Math. 20.21 Marc. 10. â—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 authoritie and these to be likewise denyed them Which indeed necessarily followeth Finally both Mathew Luke do principally speake of the forbidding of Civill rule to Ministers yet their words are so generall that we must needs grant that Christ there forbiddeth his Ministers simply generally al Lordly rule or domination or sole authoritie whatsoever And therefore Ecclesiasticall domination or sole authoritie 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 heere forbad nothing but Tyrannicall over-ruling of the brethren Or only the ambitious desire of Lordly rule sole power and civill authoritie but not the things themselues But all this D. Bilson
alone though now he be a L. Bishop himselfe hath most fully and substantially confuted Against the Iesuits and Seminaries obiecting thus The word is * Math. 20.25 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they Over-rule their Subiects with iniusticÄ™ and violence You shall not do so He replyeth “ D. Bils 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 vniust and outragious but distinguisheth the calling of his Apostles from the maner of regiment which God hath allowed the Magistrat Christ saith not Princes be tyrants you shall deale more curteously then they do but he saith Princes be Lords and rulers over their people by Gods ordinance you shall not be so Againe the word which S. Luke hath is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 without any composition They be Lords Masters and S. Paul confesseth of himselfe 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 iniury to oppresse them And therefore the conclusion is inevitable that Princes may lawfully compell and punish their Subiects which Bishops may not “ Pag. 175. All Pastors and Bishops are straitly charged not to medle with the sword * Pag. 182. To compell Heretikes and Schismatikes neither is it possible sor the Preacher if he would nor lawfull if he could he lacketh both meanes and leave to constraine them Bishops be flatly forbidden to raigne and must not meddle with the materiall sword †Pag. 227. Commanding and forcing our Savior forbiddeeh to all his Disciples Where the full effect of all his discourse is this All Civill iâ—risdiction and power of the sword to commaund compell and punish by losse of life limme or libertie is secluded from the Ministers function and reserved to the Magistrates * Luk. 22.24.25 Christ precisely forbad his Apostles to beare rule and exercise authoritie over their brethren not vniust and tyrannicall rule but all compulsive power And where the thing is not lawfull the signe is not lawfull c. To like purpose also he writeth in his booke of the Perpetual Governement of Christes Church * Pag. 137.142 where he saith †Many giftes may conioyne 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 thinke themselves to bee Lords and Maisters over their brethren And “ Pag. 56. To increase the love of the sheepe toward their Sheepheards Christ would not have his Apostles to be feared as Maisters but to be honored as Fathers and consequently Pastors not to force but to feede not to chase but to lead the flocke committed to their charge neither roughly to intreat them as servants but gently to perswade them as coheires of the same kingdome Heere are Testimonies of this man for vs most full most cleare and above all exception Reason 6. IF in the Lawes estimation the calling of Ministers with vs is given by those who in Gods word have no power to give it Vsurpation then this is contrarie to Gods word and necessarie to be reformed But in the Lawes estimation the calling of Ministers with vs is given by those who in Gods worde have no power to give it Namely it is given by a Diocesan ruling Bishop who is no where found as before I shewed in al the New Testament So that he can not therein have anie power or authoritie to give Ministers their calling nor yet to take it from them Againe by the rule of Gods word that particular Church whiche is to have the Minister ought to be present and to shew a liking and consent in their Ministers calling Whiche proveth that no Bishop hath any power or authoritie in Gods word to give anie Minister his calling or to take it from him in absence of that Church to whom the Minister belongeth yea and as the practise now is vtterly without their liking Therefore this that is the giving of the Ministers calling with vs by such as now do give it and in such maner is contrary to Gods word and ought of necessitie to be reformed Where I say by the rule of Gods worde The Churches right that Church which is to have the Minister ought to bee present and to shew 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 yee are gathered together and my spirit in the name of our L. Iesus Christ that such a one by the power of our L. Iesus Christ be delivered to Satan And * vers 13. Put away from among your selves that wicked man Which agreeth with Christes owne ordinance and precept where he saith “ Mat. 18.17 Tell the Church If he heare not the Church let him be vnto thee as an Heathen and a Publicane Now if the Church was to Excommunicate surelie the Church also was to elect her Ministers For these are the 2. maine partes of the holy Governement Ecclesiasticall both which must belong to the Church equallie alike Further it is apparant by the Apostles practise First the calling of Matthias to the Apostleship was permitted so farre as was possible to the Churches Election For they * Act. 1.23 c. appointed two whereof one should be and was divinely chosen This questionles was done not of necessitie for that Calling which was then to be given but only for an example in Ecclesiasticall Elections which the Churches after should and did imitate Besides howsoever the very Election of Matthias was by Divine lot yet it was all done in the Churches presence with the actuall concurrence of their prayers and free consentes instantly Now these acts of the Church as they may so therefore they ought to be perpetual in every Election of whatsoever Minister seeing even for that end the Apostles caused nowe the Church thus to do It is a slight answer and vntrue to say “ Parpet govern pag. 69. Examples are no preceptes For the same answerer elswhere confesseth that * Per. gov pag. 373. the Apostles taught the Church by their Example But if he had not confessed it yet the trueth of this generall point is in it selfe most certain Wherefore was the Booke of the Apostles Actes els written But that their Acts in the Churches should be Rules and patterns for vs to do likewise All Divines vse the Argument drawen from an act of Christ or his
perpetu govern pa. 299.300 in effect obiected that Timothy and Titus were properly Diocesan ruling Bishops Yea such as wee call Lord Bishops that is vsing * pag 232. sole authoritie and had charge of mo particular Churches then one Which is to be in deed a Diocesan Bishop But they and their Offices are founde in the “ 1 Tim. 3. and 5. Tit. 1.5 Tit. 3. Scripture viz. To ordeine Pastors in divers Churches and to censure them c. I answere the very Apostles did not * Act. 14.23 1.15 23. c. 6.3 5 6. 1 Ti. 4.14 w Act. 16.2 make Ministers nor Censure by their sole and single Authoritie but evermore in the presence and with some liking of that particular Church whom it concerned Therefore much lesse did Timothie or Titus such matters solely and singly who were lower then Apostles And therefore they were no Lord Ministers certainelie Further it is vntrue they were no proper Bishops at all neither Diocesan nor any other For all proper Bishoppes were “ D. Bilson pag. 227. 232. affixed to certaine places and certaine charges where they were to serve and * Act. 20.38 1 Pet â— 2. Theodoret. â—n Ephe. 4. attend in purpose continually But Timothie and Titus were never affixed to one certaine charge For they like the Apostles intended not a constant continuance in a place but after a time of their aboade in one Nation translated both their presence and their labours into another Countrie Being Comites Apostolorum CoÌ„panions or Assistants to the Apostles “ See Bez. Annotat. in Acts 19. de Mini. grad cap. 5. indued doubtles with the extraordinarie gift of divers tongues and therefore did goe being coÌ„monlie 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 Timothie was chosen and ordayned 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 againe to order redresse things there And yet * 2 Tim. 4.9.1 thence he was sent for away and departed A litle before Paules death he was at “ Phil. 1 1. Rome from * Phil. 2.19 23. thence to goe to the Philippians Wherefore Timothie was no ordinarie proper Bishop of any sort nor affixed to anie certaine place but a verie Evangelist as also the * 2 Tim. 4.5 Scripture calleth him that is an vnlimited extraordinarie and teÌ„porarie function in the Churches The like was Titus Paule chose him for his coÌ„panion helper and had him * Gal. 2.2 with him to Ierusalem Also he sent him to § 2 Cor. 8 17. Corinth Hee left him in “ Tit. 1.5 Crete a while but sends for him theÌ„ce * Tit. 3.12 away anon after to Nicopolis A litle before Pauls death he was with him at “ 2 Tim. 4.10 Rome from thence he went into Dalmatia Both these therefore were verie Evangelistes and no maner of ordinarie Bishops Neither in deede were there anie Diocesan Bishops or Diocesan Churches that can be found in all the New Testament Then they will obiect that some things are Indifferent in Ecclesiasticall actions and doubtles so are certaine Circumstances c. It is not necessarie that these should bee warranted particularly in the Scripture I answer The Papists do hold their Ecclesiasticall Traditions or Rites to be meerelie indifferent in their nature and to be necessarie onelie as the Church commaundeth them This is manifest by D. Stapleton saying * Stapletâ— Promtuar Catholic part Quadragesimal pag. 99. Omnes vident in corum Rituum Ecclesiasticorum vsu nullam necessitatem poni sed liberè assumi vel non assumi modò absit contemptus qui non in Ceremoniam sed in Ecclesiae prepositos qui cam instituerunt imò in Christum cadit dicente ad illos Christo Qui vos spernit me spernit Also by the Rhemes Testament saying “ Rhem. Tâ— stame Annotat in Math. 15 1â— Neither flesh nor fish of it selfe doth defile but the breach of the Churches precept defileth Likewise writeth Bellarmine in his discourse of their Church-Ceremonies But yet notwithstanding every good Christian knoweth well that their Traditions are plainly superstitious and vnlawfull How then shall not ours also be the like What are ours better then theirs Further though Circumstances be indifferent and may be chaunged by men yet Formes of Churches are not so nor the Church Ministeries nor Ceremonies nor in a word any Traditions Ecclesiasticall whereof our former Reason wholy intreateth We denie not then but that in Ecclesiasticall actions the meere CircumstaÌ„ces are in some sort indifferent that is not necessarie to be determined by Scripture But these truely are not to be called Ecclesiasticall Traditions Wherefore we must know that there is a great difference betweene Traditions Circumstances Besides Gods Ordinances specified in Scripture there are 2. other kindes of lawfull thinges in the administration of Church matters 1. Naturall Necessities 2. Proper and meere Circumstances Naturall Necessities are Persons Times Places c. what things only are in different CircuÌ„stances Proper meere Circumstances which onely are indifferent in Church actions are Accidentall things wherof there is no necessitie but either may or may not be vsed They are of 2. sortes either Civill or Occasionall The Civill Circumstances are such as though they be vsed in Church actions To this do belonge all thinges of Comlinesse and DeceÌ„cy yet even there they import only and meerely a Civill vse Which we shall easilie discerne thus viz. when the same things in the same maner are vsed also in actions meerely Civill at other times and places Such were Christes “ John 13. with 1. Tim. 5.10 Washing the Disciples feet the “ Rom. 16.16 Love feasts * Iud. 12. Kissings in the Church meetings of old The maner at this day of the French Preaching covered To come to the Church in this or that decent and comely common apparell A commodious distinct House for Gods Service c. Occasionall Circumstances are such particulars as some special occasion requireth and moveth vs vnto namely when the Generall things are either vsuall in Civill custome or by Gods owne ordinance in Nature or in the Word written As such or such Places Times Persons Things Namelie to come together in Synagogues or Temples To vse Pues or Pulpits c. To Pray Kneeling or Prostrate To eate and drinke at the L. Table leaning or sitting c. 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 vsing of
some * Gal. 3.24 4.9 Iewish Ceremonies among the vnconverted Iewes a while after Christes death Their “ Acts 6.3 â— 6. letting the people to nominate their Ministers Churches more or lesse populous c. These and such like wee doubt not are in Ecclesiasticall actions in some sorte Indifferent I meane they are changeable and either can not or ought not to be perpetuall neither need they to be determined in Scripture Although yet in their vse they are not to be reckoned so indifferent but that they ought necessarily to be ruled by the generall rules of Discretion and Charitie Namely that in all of them Comelinesse Edification the Avoyding of offence and Gods glorie may be respected Thus then let it be noted that we affirme in Ecclesiasticall actions no other thing at all beside these is or can be anie way indifferent by any meanes None of the things in coÌ„troversie are indifferent neither are they proper Circumstances But touching our forenamed Ecclesiasticall vnwritteÌ„ Traditions whether Formes of Visible Churches Ministeries or Ceremonies they are of no such nature as those things beforenamed either Naturall necessities or proper Circumstances are They are no way like to any sort of them Wherefore though Circumstances be indifferent yet mens Traditions in ReligioÌ„ can not be Neither did these thinges stande otherwise among the Iewes vnder the Law So that it remaineth sure that all Church-Traditions without Gods word therfore all invented formes of Visible Churches vsing governement offices of Ministerie and Ceremonies are simplie evill and vnlawfull and therefore of necessitie ought to be reformed Yet some will reply and say If men may institute Temples or places meerely Ecclesiasticall why not also Garments meerely Ecclesiasticall c. Touching Temples I aunswere They are esteemed meerely Ecclesiasticall or Religious places because things meerely Ecclesiasticall or Religious are done in them Howbeit the trueth is their proper and principall vse is partlie Naturall and partlie Civill It is necessarie in Nature for Church-Assemblies to bee in a place It is Civill namelie when peace prosperitie is to have a commodious a comely and a distinct House for the publike exercises of Gods worship Which very thing is in Civilitie no lesse requisite for the publike grave actions of the CoÌ„mon Wealth also So that at the most a Temple appointed by men can not truelie be accoumpted a thing meerely but mixtly Ecclesiasticall And so this Humane institution we acknowledge is lawfull even for Religious affaires when there is no further vse therof at all That is if it be not held as Religious meerely nor in the proper and principall vse thereof As the Surplice is with vs. It is an Ecclesiasticall Rite So are likewise the Kneeling Crossing Churching Burying c. which the Temple can not be It is meerely simply Ecclesiasticall There is no respect had to Civilitie in it considering that it serveth never in any Civill businesse nor place but it is onely in and for the Church Church actions Much lesse is there for it any Naturall necessitie Beside the Preface of the CoÌ„mon-prayer-booke maketh it to have with the rest of the Ceremonies a speciall signification in Gods worship Even as the Papists do also vse it froÌ„ whom immediatly we have receaved the same Wherfore doubtles such prescript garmeÌ„ts meerly Ecclesiastical being Humane Inventions are simply vnlawfull although Temples for Gods Service be not so Moreover we have to answere to this and such like matters obiected to vs in this wise â— Cor. 11. â—3 14.23 5.4 Math. 18. â—7 Such * places of Scripture as doe commaund Church-Assemblies and the publike Worship of God the same do also by necessarie consequence in time of peace commaund some commodious and distinct Houses for them But no Scripture by any necessarie consequence commaundeth any distinct and meere Ecclesiasticall Garment at any season Therefore these things can not be coÌ„pared nor likened togeather They are not both things indifferent alike Nay the one is by Gods word necessarie the other vnlawfull Some think that the appointing of the Altar in * Iosh 22. Ioshua of the Feast of “ Hest 9. Purim and Davids ordayning * 1 Chron. â—5 1.6 Singers Musicians in the Temple do prove that all religious matters invented and instituted by men are not vnlawfull I answere Howsoever they who appointed and sett vp that Altar in Ioshua might have devised some other thing lesse scandalous then the forme of an Altar whiche yet might as well have served to the vse they made it for as the Altar did or could doe Nevertheles this Altar was truelie no more but a civill monument or Signe as being vsed no way in any Ecclesiasticall or Religious action of worshipping God but set vp 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 halfe had a part with the rest of Israell and in the worship of their God Not vnlike it might be to this if the States of the low Countries should commaund everie inhabitant being no Anabaptist in that Countrey to weare a litle Dagger on their garmentes to shew that they beleeve Magistracie and the vse of weapons to be lawfull Or as perhappes the Signe of the Crosse was vsed by the Ancient Christians dwelling amoÌ„g Heathens to let them see they were not ashamed of Christ crucified All these are cleerely Civill and therefore wee acknowledge in mens power it is ro ordayne or abrogate them As for the Feast of Purim that appeareth no where in the text to have bene a Religious Feast or Holy day But onely a day of Civill vse also viz. of reioycing of making merry of sending presentes to friends and giftes to the poore As may appeare Hest 9.22 Yet if any contende that it was a Holy day for solemne Thankes-giving worshipping of God in memorie of the rare deliverance of the Iewes from Hamans malice Though this appeare not yet wee may answere neither can anie man disprove it that Mordecai the Iewe the * verâ— 2â— Authour of this institution was a Prophet of God and Authour also of this booke of Hester So that then he ordained this constant Holy-day not by humane discretion but by Divine authoritie Even as David did institute the singing Levites with Instrumentes of Musike in the Temple The * 2. Chron. 29.25 text as it were of purpose meeting with this obiection importeth that David neither did nor might do these things by his Kinglie power nor by anie discretion Humane but only by Propheticall authoritie through Gods own commaundement Where it is to be noted that by vrging Gods absolute all sufficient Lawe for matters Ecclesiasticall wee do not restraine nor binde God but only vs Men from adding of any thing in the exercise of Gods worship besides that which hee him selfe hath instituted and sealed vp in his Testament It will be againe replied
ordinarie Churches each of them a competent Congregation Which we do observe further neere the end of our handling the 2. Assertion afterward Moreover likely also it is in these cruell persecuting Cities that so great a multitude of Christians did not long keepe togeather but many of theÌ„ did quicklie disperse and scatter them selves abroad into other quarters and Countries whereby the whole number there became smaller as we may see they did at * Act. 8.1 Ierusalem by reason of Stevens persecution c. immediatlie after the great and suddaine increase of the Church there All which being considered it is plaine yet still that in the greatest Cities or wheresoever els the Apostles appointed and left true and proper Visible Churches particular constant CoÌ„gregations Which further alfo 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 Iudea of f Act. 9.31 Galile 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 RoÌ„ 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. Ioh. 6. Rev. 22.16 All Churches All these in number were not onlie one but manie proper distinct Churches Each of them being severallie but one particular constant CoÌ„gregation Wherevnto most fitlie agreeth that iniunction and commandement of our Saviour Christ touching a Visible Church where he instituteth the externall spirituall power thereof saying o Mat. 18.17 Tell the Church or Congregation If he heare not the Church let him be vnto thee as an Heathen and a Publicane Where he must necessarilie be vnderstood of a particular Congregation Which may be told and spoken vnto onely As also that description of a Visible Church which our publike Authoritie in England teacheth “ Artic. 19. viz. A Visible Church is a Congregation of faithfull people where the word of God is preached and the Sacraments ministred c. Doct. Bilson also where he saith * D. Bils against the Seminaries lib. 2. p. 170 The Church is never taken in the New or old Testament for the Priestes alone but generallie for the whole Congregation of the faithfull 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 faithfull where he and they the Offender and the Offended live The 3. point here to be marked serving also for proofe of our Proposition before is a generall and sure Maxime in Divinitie viz. The true and proper Visible Churches of Christ both heeretofore now and heereafter though manie in number yet all are but one in nature forme and Constitution And each of them hath simply one and the same spirituall or Ecclesiasticall power immediatlie from Christ not derived from any other to governe it selfe withall To which purpose the Scripture often speaketh of the Visible Church indefinitelie as of onelie * Math. 22.2 c. 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 Forme and in the true Constitution as also in the spirituall power thereof it is only one Yea it saith also in plaine termes that there is “ Ephe. 4.4 1. Cor. 12.13 one Body where is ment the Church But it is to bee vnderstood that it is one in nature and power as I said Which must of necessitie be so because Christes * Math. 18.17 Institution of a visible Churches externall spirituall governement before noted must belong equally to every true and proper Visible Church Wherefore also the nature forme Constitution of everie one must be the same that this is which heere Christ signifieth in Matthew Which evidentlie was a particular Congregation as before wee observed To which purpose also one of our Adversaries * Hooker lib. 3 pag. 132. a famous Schole-divine sheweth that by cleere and vndeniable reason the governement Ecclesiasticall belongeth to everie Visible Church properly so called And the practise of the Apostolike Churches doeth iustifie and confirme it Which being ordinarie particular Congregations each of them did or might by their Ministers and them selves 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 divers kindes or formes of Visible Churches Neither let they any to have greater or lesser spirituall power then other But they appointed one forme and one power for the Churches questionles everie where and alwayes Therefore they all though being many in number yet were and are one in nature and forme and power every-where and for ever Whence now it followeth by a necessarie and vndeniable coÌ„sequence that these 3. Conclusions insuing are likewise certaine and true 1. Every particular ordinarie Congregation of faithfull people in England * Iâ—râ— Divine By right from God is a true proper Visible Church 2. Everie such Congregation heere and everie where is indued with power immediatly froÌ„ Christ to governe it selfe Ecclesiasticallie or fpirituallie 3. Everie true and proper Visible Church everie where is but one ordinarie or constant Congregation only And then no one Church consisteth neither can consist of many ordinarie distinct Congregations Wherfore no Diocesan Chuch is ordained or allowed by Christ no Provinciall no Nationall and so likewise no Vniversall visible Church with an externall governement correspondent to the same as the Catholikes heretically do holde A Catholike an Heretike A Vniversal Militant Church I deny not but a Vniversal or Catholike Visible Church with correspondent governement I do deny and so likewise the rest Now heere thus we do for this reason because it is not possible if there be indeed one Vniversall Church properly or where there is a Nationall Church or Provinciall or Diocesan that there the particular ordinarie CoÌ„gregations are or can be esteemed so many true and proper Churches These can not stand togeather with any of the former Everie of those is directlie contrarie to these Seeing these in such case are properly but Members and partes of the other and not in them selves proper and intier Churches Which yet in the places of Scripture * before cited the H. Ghost doth plainlie affirme Where if he speake not properly who doth Pag. 19.20 Or what is in Divinitie a proper speach if the coÌ„tinuall phrase of the H. Ghost in Scripture be not proper Note And surely to this point if we marke it well doth all our present Controversie come that is to sett downe What
approbari debet That which concerneth all ought to be approved of all Againe “ Pag. 23. Concilia si simpliciter necessaria sint Christus alicubi precipisset celebrari aut cius saltem Apostoli Quod tamen nusquam ab illis factum esse legimus If Councills were simply necessarie Christ somewhere would have commaunded to keepe 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 Councell be holy religious yet this thing to assemble Bishops or Pastors of divers Churches togeather is meerelie Civill I know well sundrie godlie men do hold that Synodes have power to prescribe and rule Ecclesiastically by Gods Law even sundrie whole Churches though they severallie consent not But with reverence to their names I take it the trueth is otherwise Only in the Actes wee finde somewhat that hath a kinde of likenes to such Synodes And it is but a kinde of likenes or scarse that for it is farre from the same thing Thus it is In Act. 15.6.25 we find a cōming togeather of the Apostles with the rest of the Church at Ierusalem and with a few other sent to them from the Church of Antioch Where these do make Decrees and impose them on the Churches yea on divers Churches which had * 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 sheweth that this comming togeather at Ierusalem was a verie Extraordinarie Synode comparing it with our Synodes in vse now yea indeed nothing like to them First heere the “ Act. 15.2 text saith The Apostles onely and the Elders at Ierusalem were sought vnto And it is manifest that heerein the Apostles Extraordinarie office power tooke 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 Ierusalem assume also aspeciall authoritie of the H. Ghost where they say * vers 28. It seemed good to the H. Ghost and to vs. Which no Assemblie of ordinarie persons could or can assume to them in such maner Only where the Apostles were present and consented there they might Finallie after this we never finde that any Churches vsed the meanes and power of Synodes till about Constantines time for almost 300. yeares space Which if it had ben an ordināce Divine for the Churches always they neither ought nor surelie would so long have neglected the same Seeing in that vvhile there vvere most waightie and continuall occasions requiring this Divine helpe if they had so esteemed it Which seeing they did not we may well thinke in those first times they held it not to be so Nevertheles Synodes when they may be had are for counsaill advise better resolution cōtinually profitable most wholesom as hath ben said And being well ordered do make singularlie for Vnitie Whereby also each Churches ordinarie governement may be much holpen amended And yet the same with power and authoritie ought to be held still within it selfe only Now touching our Synodes at this day in Englande they may be excepted against iustlie in 3. respects First because they consist principallie if not only of Provinciall Diocesan L. Bishops whose Offices are heere shewed to be plainlie contrarie to Gods word and of such other as are theirs Also our Synodes power is not superior but inferior and subiect to the L. Bishops will and liking which is vtterlie against the nature of true Synodes and the rule of Gods word Lastlie they impose Ecclesiasticall Canons on the Churches which give no consent vnto them as if they had power from God over the Churches thus to do All which before we have seene to be cleane contrarie Reason 3. To have no place nor part in anie Church THAT any being a Christian should have no place nor part at all in any true proper Visible Church of Christ is contrarie to Gods word Speciallie that any such so standing should Ecclesiasticallie rule manie 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 som 300. som 400. proper and distinct Visible Churches Therefore they are all contrarie to Gods word and ought necessarilie to be reformed The first part of the Assumption is thus proved If a Diocesan Bishop with vs have any part at all in any true and proper Visible Church then he is Pastor in som Church or one of the People But one of the privat People he is not any where Neither is he a right and true Pastor sustayning the charge of soules in any proper Visible Church with vs. Therefore a Diocesan Bishop with vs hath no part at all in any true Visible Church I am not ignorant that our Bishops themselves say that they are very Pastors in all those several Churches of their Dioces and so are in a principall place and have a chiefe part in them all Which notwithstanding is vtterly false considering that they have som Hundreds of Churches in their Dioces which they never saw nor by law are boūd to see in all their lives Are they then or can they be true and right Pastors vnto them They can not be It were a shame for any once to thinke that they might Neither are they Pastors to any one of the Churches vnder them more then they are to all Therefore in deed they are true Pastors to none of thē nor to any proper Visible Church at all Howbeit imagining and supposing them to be as they say they are Pastors to those Churches which are vnder them then I reason against them and cōclude thus If Diocesan ruling Bishops by the nature of their office are very Pluralistes and Nonresident Pastors * Acts. 20.28 1 Pet. 5.2 Prou. 27.18.23 then they are plainly contrary to Gods word and ought of necessitie to be cleane abolished But Diocesan Ruling Bishops are very Pluralistes and Nonresidents by the nature of their Office Seeing everie particular Congregation is a true proper and intire Visible Church as before hath ben shewed and seeing they assume to them selves a Pastorall charge of the Peoples soules in mo then one yea very many such severall and intire Visible Churches in England which they neither do nor can serve as Pastors ought Therefore they are plainly contrarie to Gods word ought of necessitie to be cleane dissolved and abolished Or thus Cōmon sense or the light of Nature besides the forenoted scriptures sheweth that one proper Pastor should have only one proper Visible Church For indeed * 1 Cor. ◠16 2 Tim. 4.
Apostles and vrge it even to bind vs no les then if it were a formall Precept And so we read that Christ himself his Apostles too reasoned sundry times from the bare Actes of the Prophetes and men of God in the old Law I know in divers Examples there are to be found Circumstances which fit not all times places nor persons What then Neither do Precepts commonly fit vs in so generall a maner By this shift then we may avoid expresse and direct Precepts also And thus scarce any thing in Gods word shall suffice to constrayne and binde vs. Wherefore alwayes we vrge no other ExaÌ„ples of the Apostles or not in any other points then such as do and may fit vs continually and every where even so well as they fitted those of old In which case it is a miserable denyall to say Examples are no precepts God graunt vs and all true Christians to inioy our Churches ordered after the Apostles examples and to have all other Customes of men when once we discerne them vtterly abandoned But to proceed a litle The Apostles again * Act. 6.3.5.6 charged the Church at Ierusalem to choose their Deacons therfore much more ought the Churches who are not ignorant beastes but men taught of God to choose their Pastors Lastly they “ Act. 14.23 ordeyned Elders to sundrie Churches which were actuallie present and consenting So much is most evident by the very text neither can any except against this which suffiseth our purpose So that it is vaine where * Perpet gov pag. 70. some contende that this worde 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 heere vsed will not necessarilie prove that the Churches did elect their Elders I answer this very woord yea thus as it is heere coÌ„strued is not so weak for our purpose as is pretended For we find the same word in good Authors having the very like GraÌ„maticall construction that is ioyned not with the people but with the Guides or principal in the assemblie And yet the very nature of this word signifying in the ordinarie vse thereof the custome which was then to give Voices by lifting vp of handes implyeth the Peoples concurrence and voyce-giving iointly with the Guides of the assemblie For asmuch as this gesture of lifting vp handes for voyce-giving in the the publicke meetinges did alwayes and most chieflie concerne the People In this very manner to this purpose we have this word in Demosthenes * Contâ— Timocr 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Which of the Lawes the Nomothetae which were the principall Authors shall ordayne or constitute by lifting vp of handes the same is ratified Where notwithstanding the Lifting vp of hands as is well knowen was not the Nomothetaes or chief Authors part only but the Peoples act is vnderstood also by implication Whose part was chiefly to Lift vp handes eyther before or after the Nomothetaes act Even so likewise this same worde vsed heere in the Actes in the very same maner shall import the Peoples part also viz. a present coÌ„sent in the appointing of their Elders though only their Guides the Apostles voyce-giving and ordayning of them be named But we will not presse this We may as I said cleane omit this coÌ„sideration and yet this text in the Actes doth fully serve our mayne purpose Namely it proveth fully that these Elders were ordayned by the Apostles in the presence and with the free liking of the severall Churches Another conceite there is that the sense of this word heere is the same which the Greeke Ecclesiastical Writers long after do vse it in viz. only to lay on hands in Ordination and no more It is an idle conceite All do know that the later Ecclesiasticall Greeke Writers have altered the originall and proper vse of this word as they yea and the Latines also have done in other as after we * In the 2. Assertion 9. Reason in the end thereof shal further see In the Apostles time they spake the ordinarie and knowen phrase taken from the former times But then no man vsed this word in such sense They which followed som hundred yeares can not prove that the Ancients spake like the after-commers Wherefore to our purpose againe By all these textes thus declared it remayneth evident that the Church which is to have a Minister ought to be present and to shew liking and coÌ„sent freely to their Ministers calling sith we have seene that it was so in the practise of the Apostles and by the ordinance of Christ Which also it seemeth our very Book of OrdinatioÌ„ which is by Law intendeth requireth where it saith Take thou authority c. in this Congregation The word this importeth that the very particular Congregation wherein he should haue authoritie should be present And why should they necessarily be present but freely to consent Also heere 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 seeth not Yea though the manifest intent of our Law doth require them A word more let vs add touching D. Bilsons approbatioÌ„ also of the Churches free consent in chosing their Pastors Whose testimony I do delight to apply to our purpose for divers good considerations “ D â—ils again the Seminar part 2. pag. 353.356 Saith he We haue the words and warrant of the H. Ghost for that which we say c. viz. that the People can and ought to discerne and try the doctrines and spirits of the Teachers and so to chose and refuse them as they by the word should see good * pag. 355. How can the People do either if they haue not skill and leave to discerne both “ Perpet gover pag. 360. The Apostles left elections indifferently to the People and Clergie at Ierusalem The People had as much right to chose their Pastors as the Clergie that had more skill to iudge * Pag. 339. Well may the Peoples interest stand vpoÌ„ the grounds of reason and nature and be derived from the rules of Christian equitie “ Pag. 359. The late Bishops of Rome have not ceased cursing fighting till excluding both Prince and People they reduced the election wholy to the Clergie But he telleth them by their leave it was not so from the beginning * Pag. â—30 I acknowledge each Church people stand free by Gods law to admit maintaine obey no man as their Pastor without their liking It is true he addeth this vnles by law custome or consent they restraine themselves But this he himselfe elswhere answereth roundly “ Pag. 22 â—â— What authoritie had others after the Apostles deathes to chaunge the Apostolike governement And such additions he calleth †Pag. 19. Corruptions of times inventions of men and a transgressing of the Commaundement of God for the traditions of men And againe he calleth this
only by his Priestly Office that is only by the Sacrifice of his owne sufferings yet he worketh our Salvation and accomplisheth his Mediation not but by all these 3. his Offices iointly togeather So that it is the error of a nomber who thinke to beleeve only that Christ dyed for vs this is enough to salvation We need not to regard in Christ any more Whereby men coÌ„monlie forget the other partes of Christes glorious worke toward vs viz. his holy compleat Doctrine and Governement But both these also ought to be believed yeelded vnto the person of our Saviour Christ intirely wholy even in respect as he is our Saviour Mediator no lesse then the other that he perfectly suffered for vs as our Redeemer This is well to be considered The Assumption our adversaries do make to be true For they take froÌ„ Christ personally a manifest part of his Propheticall Office and likewise of his Kingly Office It is a part of Christes owne proper Propheticall Office to teach vs with authoritie by him selfe * Proved in Reason 1. pa. 1.2 c. And Heb. 3.2 3 â— 6. Math. 17.5 Iohn 14.6 and 16.13 alone in his owne word and Testament the outward forme nature and constitution which is but one of all his Visible Churches whether in Countries rich or poore Monarchies or Democraties c likewise all the true Ecclesiasticall Offices and Ministeries in them with every kinde of action and thing properly Ecclesiasticall vsed in the Church or where soever els Religiously Also it is a part of his proper Kinglie Office “ Matth. 6.33 and 22.2 c. Luke 19.14 27. Iam. 4.12 1 Cor. 12.5 Mat. 18.17 Iohn 20.23 by him selfe to constitute and inioyne the singular and only true forme of all his Visible Churches and to admit whersoever none other spiritually to rule to guide and to blesse vs in them only by his owne Ministeries and Ordinances instituted by him selfe or by his Spirite in his Apostles and by none other All which the foresaide Diocesesan ruling Bishops c. do take from Christ himselfe personally and do * D. Whit-gift against Mai. Cart-wright pa. 370.376 permit them vnto Men. Saying it is indifferent and somwhere somtimes convenient for Christians thus to do Therefore the Assumption is true It wil be said if this be so then likewise the ancient Writers Austine Ambrose Chrysostome Leo Gregorie c. did erre in faith to salvation and believed not som partes of the fundamentall Offices of Christ our Savior For those ancientes did hold sundry Ecclesiasticall Inventions of men besides that they were theÌ„selves Diocesan ruling Bishops Wherefore by this reason they diminished not a little of our Saviors most holy healthfull Offices both Propheticall and Kingly Which to affirme wil be very hard The same must be saide likewise of our late blessed Martyrs Cranmer Ridley Latimer Ferrar c. I answer we embrace these holy men of God both the elder and later for their other manifolde testimonies of pietie Therefore we iudge them as faithfull servantes of Christ according to that measure of light wherein they lived That is they did generally and indistinctly beleeve and professe soundly all the whole Offices of Christ to salvatioÌ„ Yet true it is they erred in these foresaid external partes pertayning to Christes Prophecie and Kingdome through the common sway of the times then the Mysterie of iniquitie that is Antichrist advancing it selfe daylie very much even by them and by these their errors though they for their partes were vnwitting vnwilling The case thus standing with them we are not to doubt but these their errors though of them selves very great were graciously pardoned in Christ chiefly considering that these matters were not then examined nor any thing looked into which with vs now these 40. yeeres have ben much debated tried and sifted Yea and by Gods worde are so cleerlie discovered that we must needes now say He that is ignorant let him be ignorant stil and he that is perverse let him be perverse still Wherefore the condition of our Diocesan L. Bishops c. in England is farre vnlike at this day and in no sorte to be compared with that of those Bishops then Ours have no excuse which they might have Cyprian saieth 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 indulgeÌ„tiâ Domini venia concedi nobis verò non poterit ignosci qui nunc à Domino admoniti instructi sumus If any before vs either ignorantly or simply hath not observed and kept that which the Lord by his example doctrine hath taught vs to do by the Lords mercy his simplicitie may be pardoned but we cannot be forgiven who are now warned and instructed of the Lord. Yet some will say We can not shew any such forme of a Visible Church somtime for many hundreds of yeares togeather Shall we then thinke that this is Christs perpetuall ordinance I answere first for 2. hundred yeares after Christ there is no man can shew any other forme 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 testimonie also neither need we looke further into Humane writinges for the perpetuall necessitie heereof Second they who list to search may finde argumentes of divers particular Congregations being intire Visible Churches in all ages I thinke Howbeit what is that to vs Must the Christian faith or any part of it stand or fall by the report of Mens stories Or may we in this case conclude from them Negatively Mens writings mention not such a Church at somtime Therfore then there was none And specially to inferre thus Therefore this is not Christs ordinance alwayes necessarie for vs. To esteeme mens writings so sufficient as that by them we should prove or disprove a matter of Religion I say it is verie foolish at the least Finally our Adversaries will obiect that by these Assertions and defences we detract from the Kings authoritie power namely thus misliking that which he alloweth specially holding an authority Ecclesiasticall not derived from him I answer even so did evill slanderous men accuse the faithfull Christians in the primitive age They cryed that * Act. 17. â—â— These all do against the decrees of Caesar saying that there is another King one Iesus Our reply therefore vnto them for this shall stand in 4. points 1. We most gladlie do * Math. 20.21 give vnto Caesar the things that are Caesars but to God the things that are Gods “ Tertul. ad Scapulaâ—â— 2. Colimus Imperatorem vt hominem à Deo secundum solo Deo minorem We honor the King as
were each of them primitiuely no more but a Parish only that is but one ordinary constant Congregation only As wehre he nameth the Church of Ierusalem a Euse lib. 3.11 the Parish of Ierusalem 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 Lyons divers Churches the h Lib. 4.22 6. Parishes of Crete He no where mentioneth many Churches nor Parishes vnder one Bishop in any Citie till Iulianus time in Alexandria as before we observed By Epiphanius testimonie also our Assertion is maintained Who saith Primitiuely * Epiph coÌ„tr Haâ—â—â—â— 73. in a small CoÌ„gregation a Bishop was ordayned alone without other Presbyters assisting him And in som places only Presbyters and Deacons without a Bishop In other places that is in great populous CongregatioÌ„s where they had meete men to be chosen there they chose in each of them a Bishop with other assistant Presbyters By which it appeareth consequently that every-where a Bishop then was but of one particular Congregation only whether greater or simaller The second part is proved The particular Congregations had their owne goverment Ecclefiasticall Ignat. ad Philad NEither let any imagine that these particular Congregations then wanted their owne Ecclesiasticall government among themselves only It is most evident that they had it exercised it only within themselues ordinarily Which is plaine by that of Ignatius writing to one of them thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It is meet for you as being the Church of God to chose by common coÌ„sent 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 aboue the Bishop He meaneth the Bishop or Pastor of the particular Congregation is of greatest authoritie and aboue any other there whomsoever So that they in that Congregation had all governement simply and solely among themselves He speaketh heere 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 Magistrat is supreme whether he care for the Church or care not Hence therfore we conclude that these particular Churches had the ordinary Ecclesiasticall government of themselves among themselves TertulliaÌ„ also in the place before cited sheweth so much speaking of each particular ordinarie Congregation in his dayes Ibidem est censura divina Iudicatur magno cum pondere vt apud certos de Dei conspectu Apol. â— 39 President probati quique Seniores There are divine Censures They iudge with great waight and advisednes as being sure that God seeth them The approved Elders are the chiefe or do governe these Censures Therfore all particular ordinary Congregations inioyed their owne spirituall governement then in those times There is no suspicion of any restraint or abridging of them therin till Dionysius the 13. Bishop of Alexandria Anno 260. at the soonest The third part is proved No Maioritie of rule but only Prioritie of order in a primitive Bishop BEsides the testimonies before alleaged Ambrose in plain wordes telleth vs 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 Maioritie of rule from any other Pastor And therefore then there was no Diocesan Church vsing governement nor Diocesan Bishop ruling other Pastors and Churches Much lesse was there any Diocesan Lord Bishop then Ierome doth likewise Where he saith * Ierom. ad Evagr. in Tit. 1. A Bishop and an Elder or common Pastor by Divine institution and ordinance are all one And Maioritie among them came in by the custome of the Church and Humane disposition He meaneth Maioritie of Ruling because he sheweth heere that formerly all did rule “ in coÌ„muniâ— or communi Presbyterorum consiliâ— in common Wherefore by his iudgement there was not at the first any Maioritie of rule in a Bishop over Pastors Much lesse were there any Diocesan L. Bishops ruling by their sole authoritie in those times Som Prioritie in order we doubt not was alwayes First Parishionall and then Diocesan som good while after as before is shewed Yea the Parishionall prioritie of order was we deny not constant yea even among Pastors who had otherwise all one Office intirely I say this was where there were divers Ministers of the word in one particular Congregation As we doubt not there were in som places Now for this matter viz. Bishops Maioritie in governement above Presbyters and also concerning Ieromes opinion thereof it is not amisse to observe what D. Bilson also hath taught and avouched In his * Against the Semina part 2. pag. 318. First Booke 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 tymes and the will of Princes Where also he sheweth that this was Ieromes iudgement likewise Howsoever since I can not tell how nor why D. Bilson †Perpeâ— gov pag. 236.237.238 changed much his minde heerein and yet with no more discrepance from himselfe then from the trueth and from almost all learned men beside both ancient and later Further this reason prooveth the present whole Assertion If the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vsed religiously for a Church Visible with order and governement do and ought to keepe in all good Authors a iust proportion answerable to the Civill and Originall vse thereof then it must needs be in proper signification a particular CoÌ„gregation only For Originally and Civilly in all Greeke Authors 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth one particular Assembly in one place only as an Assembly of the people at Athens in Ephesus in Corinth c being com togeather in their publike iudgement-place Which is evident by the writinges of Plato Demosthenes Isocrates Xenophon c. Yea in the * Acte 19. â—2 39.40 Actes of the Apostles we do finde it likewise so vsed But the Apostles and other Ecclesiasticall writers for 200. yeares after Christ vsing this worde for a Visible Church with order and governement do speak properly and so ought to keepe a iust proportion in it answerable to the Civill and originall vse thereof This sentence is vndoubtedly true and vndenyable If any think he can shew to the coâ—â—â—rie let it be shewed Therefore the Apostles and other Ecclesiasticall Writers for 200.
Preacher but only a helper in governement who in those forenoted places is spoken of and differeth in his ordinary office plainly from every Bishop or Pastor Yet som obiect 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 c. And that those mentioned namely in Ignatius and Tertullian before alleaged were only such And therefore then there were none such only governing Elders at all as we conceave I answer That they differed even then in their ordinarie office from Pastors it is cleere and questionles not only in those fore-alleaged places of Scripture but also in the foresaid ancient writers Ignatius and Tertullian c. Yet for more evidence to this point which som labour mightily to obscure and darken I affirme that Preaching and Interpreting Gods word is of 3. sortes in the Scripture Preaching of 3. sortes and so it was vsed 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 trayning vp for the making of som apt and able for the Ministerie of the word yea and for a further increase of giftes even in the Ministerie themselves This was the exercise of Prophesie or Interpretatiō as the “ 1 Cor. 14 29. 1 Cor. 12.30 Scripture calleth it Wherein were receaved som * 1 Cor. 14 1.24 31. Lay men namely by the Churches order And then so likewise might the Deacons Elders also somtimes Preach though they were no Preachers by office Neverthelesse yet we acknowledge the Preachers were and ought to be the chiefe heerein But the 3 3. sort of Preaching is most of all heere to be marked Third vpon occasion in Churches without order and scattered and also vnto persons who were not yet gathered to any Church there was Preaching which was generall and common for * Acts 11.19 all true Christians lively Members of Christ indued with giftes of knowledge sound iudgement in Religion In which sense Ambrose is to be vnderstood Ambro. in Ephe. 4. where he saith that in the first times every Christian preached the worde Neither is it now a fault but a singular vertue for godly Householders to instruct in the word of God their owne children and servantes Howbeit in Churches orderly governed and setled no privat Christian may presume neither did any then presume publikely to preach or interpret the word except for som speciall reason he were specially appointed so to do by the lawful Governors of the Church And so did som preach publikely yea in the very Churches after the Apostles being even but Lay men as Ignatius and Tertullian do witnes in the foresaid places Where they shew that also the Deacons did and might preach after this maner And also that the Elders which were ordinarie Assistantes in governement 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 speciall appointment to them all Wherefore this proveth not the Elders there spoken of to be Preachers by Office nay it proveth plainly the contrarie that by their ordinary office they were not Preachers but only governing Elders And this is the purpose that we alleage them for Finally we may observe that som shadow of them seemeth still to remayne though greatly corrupted in the Church Wardens of our Parishes Yea som such depravatiō and degencration in them was begun we doubt not in Ambrose Ierome and Austines time although yet the ancient trueth appeareth well enough thereby notwithstanding The 4. Assertion The ordinary forme of Church governement set foorth vnto vs in the New Testament ought to be kept still by vs it is not changeable by men and therefore it only is lawfull IF the ordinary forme of Church-government appointed by God in his word 1. Reason was never since repealed by himselfe then * Mat. 28.20 2 Thes 2.15 1. Tim. 6.14 the same remayneth still appointed for vs it is still necessary and is not changeable by men But the ordinary forme of Church-governement appointed by God in his word and specified before in our 3. Assertiō was never since repealed nor chāged by himself Therefore the same remaineth still appointed by God for vs it is now stil necessarie is not chāgeable by any men If every lawfull Visible Church vsing governement also if every lawfull Church-Office and Action 2. Reason ought to be particularly allowed by God in his word then the ordinarie forme of Church-governement set forth vnto vs in the new Testament is necessary for vs now still it is vn changeable and only lawfull But every lawfull Visible Church vsing governement and also every lawfull 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 Ioh. 10.1 ought to be particularly as touching the kinde thereof allowed in Gods worde Therefore the Ordinarie forme of Church-governement set downe vnto vs in the New Testament is necessarie for vs now still it is vnchangeable and only lawfull Heerevnto for a conclusion let vs adde certaine learned mens very cleere Testimonies which persons yet are no way partiall for vs. Doctor Bilson who is now Lord Bishop of Winchester saith thus “ D. Bilson perpet goy pag. 3. We must not frame what kinde of Regiment we list for the Ministers of Christes Church but rather observe and marke what maner of externall governement the Lord hath best liked and allowed in his Church even from the beginning And * Pag. 19. It is certaine we must not choose out the corruptions of time nor inventions of men but ascend to the originall ordinance of God and thence derive our platforme of Church-governement To do otherwise is To transgresse the commandement of God for the traditions of men * Pag. 49. The Apostles had their mouthes and pennes directed and guyded by the Holy Ghost into all trueth aswell of doctrine as Discipline The Apostles “ Pag. 43. set an order amongst Christians in all things needfull for the governement continuance peace and vnitie af the Church * Pag. 221. What authoritie had others after the Apostles deathes to change the Apostolike governement †Pag 111. They that have authority in the Church must looke not only what they challenge but also frō whom they derive it If from the Apostles then are they their Successors If from Christ as colleagues ioyned with the Apostles we must find that consociation in the Gospell before we cleere them from intrusion No man should take this honor vnto himselfe but he that is called of God as the Apostles were If they be called by Christ read
◠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 denie not that one proper Visible Church may possiblie have many Pastors But that One Pastor should have many proper Visible Churches is a thing senseles vnnaturall and condemned both by God and man Reason 4. The true Pastors office IT is the naturall and immutable off ice of a Pastor both to Teach and to Governe with the assistance of other Elders his owne flocke 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 soules of his flocke which depend vpon him Therefore every Pastor of each particular Church in England ought of necessitie not only to teach but also to governe his owne flocke Touching the Proposition it is manifest to be the natural and immutable office of a Pastor to governe his own flocke First seeing the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifieth to do the office of a Pastor doth in the naturall propertie of it imply Governement and rule * Rain Cōfer chap. 3. divi ◠pag. 140. As wee may see this word is vsed Math. 2.6 Reve. 19.15 2.27 And therefore even Civill 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 Spirituall Pastor is found in the Scripture to be both Teaching and Governing as first this very word doth most plainly signifie Ioh. 21.16 Act. 20.18 and 1. Pet. 5.2 Also where the distinct parts of the Pastors office are noted as 1. Tim. 5.17 and 1. Thes 5.12 Math. 18.17.18 Ad heervnto D. Bilsons consent with Athanasius “ Perp. gov pag. 199. To whom Preaching and Offering at the Lords table do belong to them also carefull ruling and governing the Church doth appertaine Againe 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 counsell of the Presbyters And “ pag. 133. The Apostle ioyneth both these properties in good Pastors And * pag. 111. They must be trusted with both or with neither Now touching all this Gods word chargeth vs expresly saying “ Col. 4.17 Rom. 12.7 Take heed to your Ministery which you haue receaved in the Lord to fulfill it But to this our Churches order is cleane contrary by reason of our Diocesan ruling Bishops We may not fulfill our Ministery for them Therfore our Churches order in respect of our Diocesan ruling Bishops is cleane contrary to Gods word And therefore of necessitie heerein we ought to be reformed Where yet I can not but note Note how by our owne Parliament law this is wholy yeelded to every ordinary Pastor in England As namely where the booke of Ordination maketh every one of them to vndertake * Booke of Ordinatiō Printed Ann. 1596 to minister the Doctrine and Sacraments and Discipline of Christ as the Lord hath commanded and as this Realme hath receaved the same according to the commandements of God Though it saith as this Realme hath receaved the same Yet we must marke that it saith not so simplie but with speciall restraint according to the commandements of God Yea before also it requireth the Discipline of Christ to be ministred in such maner as the Lord hath commanded So that heere this restriction and certaine direction is set downe expresly twice for fayling Wherefore the Lawes intent and meaning is not heere to do beside much lesse “ Act. Parl. Henr. 8. Ann. 25. cap. 19. against the order set down in Gods word but to do according to it And not to take from Pastors the ordinary power of Ecclesiasticall Dicipline as now the practise is but to giue it them Namely if Gods word do giue it them which we saw before that it doth God forbid 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 owne Lawes If our Adversaries will say that this bringeth in a paritie of Ministers And we can not be ignorant that our most wise and Noble King professeth his mislike of the paritie of Ministers I answere with all reverence and submission to his Maiestie that I conceaue his meaning not to be against the paritie which before I haue spoken of And as for a generall paritie we mislike and detest it also Yea in a sort we say that the Churches state is Monarchicall For we affirme that in every severall true Church there ought to be a disparitie of Church Ministers viz. the Pastor aboue the Elders and the Elders aboue the Deacons ad Smyrnē as Ignatius saith And in Cōferences Synods where many Pastors meet we do not only allow but require a disparitie and prioritie also namely in the President or Moderator Yea we do not simply disallow a continuing President so that his cōtinuance be subiect to his Brethrens free liking they seeing it to be not against the glorie 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 disparitie then this We answer comparing Pastors with Pastors among themselves in their common office or in any of the naturall parts therof we see not how there may be any disparitie or difference in them May one Iustice of peace permit the rest in the same Countie to call before them to reproue and rebuke Malefactors but not in any wise to cōmit to prison or to bind in recognizance any man May one assume this power alone to himselfe and exclude all the rest Surely this were in the common wealth arrogant iniurious and vnlawful without expresse warrant from the same authoritie by which they all hold their Offices How much more vnlawfull is it for men without Gods warrant to presume in Gods matters in altering and changing in making greater or lesser the Spirituall offices of Christs 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 then an other One Father more a Father then an other Office soever we speake of But this is so more specially in the Ecclesiasticall For it is exceeding strange that among true and proper Pastors som should be more som lesse Pastors which yet must needes be if som may have more som lesse Pastorall power The vnreasonablenes heereof appeareth further if we consider in like manner the nature and condicion of the Visible Churches One Visible Church can not bee