This is true in deed God hath given vs in his word this sufficiencie for all Ecclesiasticall or Religious matters necessarie to salvation but not for all Ecclesiasticall matters what soever This is a frivolous exception and most false For first divers of our present matters controverted are necessaric enough They can not be thus reiected as thinges not necessarie viz. the onely true Forme and Constitution of Christs Visible Churches with their due Ministeries proportioned to them According to Gods ordinarie dispensation of grace by his worde there is even Necessitie to enioy these Gods own Ordinances and to bee free from all Traditions of men especially such as are coÌ„trarie to his Touching other things which seeme sinaller and of lesse importance as some esteeme the Rites Ceremonies to be in Gods worship I answere our Argument before laid downe generally includeth all meere Ecclesiastical or Religious things I say All. And where All is included Nothing is excepted Wherefore we still affirme and professe that all lawfull Ecclesiasticall Rites whatsoever are contained now in the Scriptures of the New Testament and not onely thinges simply necessarie to salvation Besides that we must not forget how the wilfull maintayning of small thinges amisse becommeth a great and haynous sinne wherevnto is due a fearfull punishment As may be seene in him who * Num. 15.30 and 32. with a high hande did but gather a few stickes on the Sabbath day Nothwithstanding all this yet it semeth to many that these externall things Ecclesiastical are not matters of Doctrine nor of Faith c. And therefore may bee lawfull though they be not contayned in the Scripture I answere They are all truly properly matters of Doctrine of Faith and of Religion appertayning to the 1. Table 2. Commaundement in the Decalogue to many other places of Scripture as before hath bene shewed It is the error of men not knowing the holy Scriptures proper and full vse or true extent when any do thinke such Ecclesiasticall things as these heere controverted are not coÌ„tained in the Scripture yet that they may be lawfull They are all simply vnlawfull if they bee not contained in the holy Scripture Wherefore even all these things both the lawful vnlawfull contained in the Scripture or not contained Formes of visible Churches vsing Government Ministeries Rites are matters of Doctrine of Faith of ReligioÌ„ viz. true or false So that the one ought as our life to be imbraced the other as the very wayes of death to be avoyded especially when we discerne and see them thus to be Reason 2. EVERY Visible Church of Christ truly and properly so called ought by Gods * Mat. 18 17. expresse word to have and vse the Ecclesiasticall government of it self Bâ—â—â—very particular Congregation of Christians is a Visible Church of Christ truly and properly The true Churches and the false Therefore every particular Congregation of Christians by Gods expresse word ought to have and vse the Ecclesiasticall governement of it selfe viz. according to the order set downe for a Visible Church in Gods word And so in England consequentlie the things that are directlie contrarie therevnto Diocesan and Provinciall Churches vsing government with their Ministers c. are directlie contrarie to Gods word and therefore ought of necessitie to be reformed Heere first lett it be noted A Visible Church that we vnderstande a Visible Church of Christ to be a Societie of Christians whiche any member may and must on occasion have a visible or sensible vse of intirely and wholy togeather the same having the power of Eccle siasticall governement in and for it selfe immediatlie from Christ. I say The Church intirelie and wholie togeather may and must be vsed on occasion Considering that against this there is no text of Scripture in all the New Testament nor anie force of reason appearing Then let vs also observe and marke these 3. pointes Note For proofe of our Assumption last before 1. The Visible Churches of Christ were in number * 1 Cor. 11.16 4 17. c. many divers and not onely one by the ordinance of God him selse So that it is false whiche is “ Hooker lib 3. Sect. 1. pa. 132. held that there is a Vniversall Visible Church like the Sea which being but one properly is distinguished and called by divers names according to the Countries and places by which it cometh Nay the Visible Churches of Christ were by the Apostles ordination many in number actuallie divided Bodies or Societies The Sea properly and alwayes being but one Continued Body was and is distinguished meerelie by divers names The Vniversall Invisible Church was and is in deed one in number but I have shewed there were many in nomber of the true and proper Visible Churches Againe the Iewish Visible Church according to the Law was in nuÌ„ber only one properlie vnder one High Priest and having one Temple only at Ierusalem But Christ and his Apostles changed that forme and did institute and leave the Christian Churches properlie in number many and divers as I saide Secondly they instituted and left particular ordinarie or constant CoÌ„gregations true and proper Visible Churches Or they left not anie one Visible Church in the whole world constitute and compact of divers ordinarie and constant Congregations Both these points are most manifest and vndeniable in these places of holy Scripture following First that florishing and plentifull Church of Corinth was * 1. Cor. 14.23 but one particular Congregation Whereof the Apostle saith thus When the whole Church is come togeather “ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 into one place Which also we may likewise affirme of the Church of * Act. 14.27 Antioch and of ♣ Iusti Martyr Apo. 2 Rome and of “ Act. 15.22 25. Ierusalem and of * Act. 20.28 Ephesus c. in those dayes For though these Cities were great and populous yet being vnbeleeving hatefull enemies to the Gospell each of them had then of faithfull Christians but one particular constant Congregation onely Like as the Protestants are in the Cities at this day vnder the Spanish King or as they were in divers Cities of France before the peace was made as we were heere in London in Queene Maries time Where yet we denie not that then some particular CoÌ„gregations being as that of Ierusalem was * Act. 4.4 before greater then other som did by reason of persecution meet occasionallie and vncertainlie in divers ♣ Act. 12 1â— smaller numbers But these smaller numbers were not so many Churches properlie because they were vncertaine and occasionall A true and proper Church being alwayes necessarilie an ordinarie sett companie and a constant societie Those therefore notwithstanding made but one “ Act. 6.2 particular compleat Congregation or proper Church which in time of peace chieflie they growing yet more populous were to be distributed and divided into sundrie proper and
a man next vnto God and inferior to God only 3. We gladlie acknowledge that the King is ought to be Supreme governor even in all causes and over all persons Ecclesiasticall Howbeit alwayes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 non 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Civilly not Spiritually or Ecclesiastically 4. The King is Custos Vindex the Keeper and Maintainer by compulsive power of the whole state of Religion But he is not Author or Minister of any Ecclesiasticall thing or CoÌ„stitution whatsoever Will our Adversaries yeeld more Or is not this sufficient I hope this shall suffice to cease heerafter their slanders against vs in this cause And thus much touching our first Assertion The 2. Assertion For the space of 200. yeares after Christ the Visible Churches vsing governement were not Diocesan Churches but particular ordinary Congregations only and the Bishops as they were particularly called after the Apostles were only Parishionall not Diocesan Bishops and differed from other Pastors in Prioritie of order not in Maioritie of rule IN this Assertion we observe 3. distinct partes 1. A Church was then but one Ordinarie Congregation and generally in each Citie then there was but one such Congregation only 2. The particular ordinary Congregations had in themselves their owne governement Ecclesiasticall 3. There was no Maioritie of rule but Prioritie of order only in a Bishop then compared with other Pastors The first is proved by these Testimonies following FIrst let vs consider that in the Apostles dayes the ordayning of Elders “ Citie by Citie Tir. 1.5 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 * Church by Church Act. 14.23 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was all one thing namely because in each Citie in those times there were not many Churches in number but one onely proper Church or Congregation of Christians Which also “ Pag. 19.20 aboue we further declared Then for the next age after * Anno 100 Ignatius plainly sheweth the common state of the visible Churches in this time also to be such where he thus writeth †Ignat. ad Trall Without a Bishop without a Senate of Elders without Deacons c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Without these there is no Church no company of of Saints no holy CoÌ„gregation Which proveth that then each Citie had but only one ordinary CoÌ„gregation of Christians Sith doubtles each Citie then had but one such Senat of Elders and but one Bishop in Ignatius vnderstanding Further also he perswading the Church of Philadelphia to vnitie and concord saith “ Ad Philadelph I exhort you vse one Faith one Preaching one supper of the Lord c. For there is but one CommunioÌ„ Table 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the whole Church heere in this Citie and one Bishop with a company of Elders and Deacons Therefore in this Citie there was then but one Ordinary Congregation of Christians Neither speaketh he of this Church in Philadelphia as being of an other forme or constitution then other Churches then were but indeed as being conformable and like to the maner of the rest If we translate 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as som like better to every Church distributively then our Assertion is more cleerely avouched Againe touching the Church of Philadelphia he saith * Ibid. The Bishop is Gods Ambassador to a people 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that are togeather in one place Lastly writing elswhere to the same effect he saith so much touching an other Visible Church namely in the Citie Magnesia “ Ad Magnes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. All of you com togeather into the fame place to prayer Let there be but one common prayer one minde one hope c. Iustin Martyr shewing the maner of the Churches worshipping of God in the Cities where they then were observeth the very same Saith he * Iust Mart. Apolog. 2. Anno 142. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 On the Sonday as it is called All the Christians dwelling in the Cities or abroad in the Country do com togeather into the same place c. It is very like that this was specially spoken of the Church of Rome then seeing there Iustin wrot and offered vp his Apologie to Antoninus the Emperor Though with all he signifieth that he meanes other Churches in other * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Cities and in country-Country-places likewise indifferently Therefore then All the Christians in each Citie yea those in Rome made not divers but one constant and ordinary Congregation only Irenaeus in his time observeth no materiall difference betweene Bishops and Presbyters Ministers of the word Which is a plaine argument that Bishops then were not Diocesan Bishops overseeing many coÌ„stantly distinct Congregations but were Pastors of one particular ordinary Congregation only Thus he saith * Irenae lib. 3. cap. 3. Traditio viâ— scripta vel necessario consequens ab 〈◊〉 quod est scriptum per Apostolâ—s Traditio quae est ab Apostolis per successionem Presbyterorum custoditur The tradition which is taken from the Apostles is kept by successioÌ„ of Presbyters In the same place also Episcopi ab Apostolis instituti in Ecclesijs Successores eorum vsque ad nos Bishops ordayned by the Apostles in the Churches and their Successors vntill our times Where also the Romane Bishops Anicetus Pius Hyginus he nameth Presbyters By all which it is evident that the name Bishop Presbyter was not yet exactly distinguished as after it was but remayned yet as it were common and indifferent to all Ministers of the word even so as it was vsed by the Apostles in their writings Also it appeareth heereby that there was not then any kind of Diocesan Bishops For the name then ought to haue ben very distinct and peculiar to him as afterward it came to passe Much lesse had any Bishop a power to rule over a whole Diocesse Otherwise Ireneus should not haue vsed these names and termes then so indifferently Tertullians testimony also seemeth very agreable in this point Where speaking of Christians ordinary Congregations in Cities in his time he saith Corpus sumus c. Pertulian Apolog. â—â—9 we are all one Body c. And againe Coimus in Cetum aggregationem c. We all com togeather into a Company and Congregation He saith not plurally in cetus aggregationes into divers Companies Congregations as surely it seemeth he should and would haue said if there had ben then in one Citie many ordinary constant Congregations Specially seeing he saith also of the same singular Congregation Ibidem est Censura divina iudicatur magno cum pondere c. There are divine Censures exercised The iudgement is given with great waight c. Which surely was done in every such constant Congregation as before he spake of And yet but in one singular Congregation not in many nor in one over many constantly appointed in one Citie at that time Eusebius History sheweth that the Churches of the most famous Cities
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.