governement is by Christ ordayned for the Gospell I discerne not well whether he meane that this rule for the Christian Church governement should be formed after the patterne of the Iewish Civill governement or Ecclesiastical or both Whatsoever Iewish forme of governement he meane his meaning can not bee true For first if Christ in these words meant the Iewish governors theÌ„ here is no direction at all for the Christian Church governement Heere is nothing then that soundeth to any such purpose Christ saith not heere Let my Disciples heereafter in their Churches follow the forme and order Iudaicall In this place there is no such thing But as I suppose even Mai. Iohnson him self holdeth Christ heere in this place setteth an order of governement for his Church vnder the Gospell This in deed is most certainly true Therfore his othet opinion that Christ heere sendeth his Disciples to the Iewish governors is false I grant Calvin and Beza think that Christ heere alludeth to the Iewish Church governement in their particular Synagogues but verily I cannot coÌ„ceave why or how it should be so Be it spoken with revereÌ„ce to these rare servaÌ„ts of Christ Howbeit Calâ—iâ— and Beza touching Mat. 18.17 this nevertheles they hold from this place of Matthew that the people have right so far that nothing in Church governement be obtruded on them by any Ecclesiasticall Monarchie or Oligarchie against their wills Now this is the truth and wee willingly agree vnto it Yeelding the sway of all governement to the Pastor with his assistants in ordinarie cases yet reserving still a power in the people to consent And when a Church is destitute of Guides as it hath fallen out may againe fall out on occasion then the people themselves have full power to accomplish any Ecclesiasticall action in the best order they can particularly Church censures even by vertue of this text So that then the Iewish Church-governement can not bee heere alluded vnto much lesse required to bee kept and practised by Christians Concerning which togeather with all other Iewish ordinances the Apostle teacheth and confirmeth vnto vs that all “ 2. Cor. 3.17 those old things are passed away that all things of such nature vnder the Gospell are made new and that the same things are †Hebr. 12.27 shaken and changed and remaine not now vnto vs. Wherfore fowerthly they who vnderstand these foresaid wordes Tell the Church Math. 18.17 to be meant of the whole Christian people assembled in an ordinarie assembly As our Attestators do viz. that they are to be tolde and that they are to be heard alwayes in the best and most Christian order that can be which I grant doth and must in circumstances somtime differ they I say do truly and rightly vnderstand this place according to the intent of Christ Of which D. Bilson him selfe once taught soundly saying “ Against the Seminaâ— lib. 3. pa. 70. In Math. 18.17 The whole multitude of the faithfull where hee and they the Offendor and the Offended live are signifyed And †Lib. 2. pag 170. in Act. 20.28 The Church is taken for the people Yea The Church is never taken in the New or Old Testament for the Priestes alone but generally for the whole Congregation of the faithfull Let me aske a question Was D. Bilson a Brownist was he an Anabaptist wheÌ„ he wrote thus Why then doth Mai. Downame call vs these odious names only for the same iudgement Or is he offended at vs because we can not change turne our professions to fro as they do for advantage Some will say if this sense of these wordes be true Obiect then perpetually and necessarily al scandalls c. whatsoever must be tryed in the presence vnder the iudgement and sentence of the whole multitude as they of the Separation do holde which also it seemeth was Cyprians vsuall practise of old Answ I answer this consequence is far from truth For the sense of the words in Matthew 18.17 certainly is thus no otherwise to be taken viz. plainly and literally for the whole Congregation Seeing there is “ Def. 1.226 no cause nor reason to the contrarie as elswhere is observed But yet it followeth not that that maner of hearing sentencing of causes must bee in every Church perpetually and necessarily Before pag. 108. c. I grant it may be so in some Churches at some times and so Cyprians practise was now it may be againe in some estates of a Church good and commendable But to holde those popular Circumstances in every Church †Separation it selfe is no such error as this is perpetuall and necessary absolutly as the Separation doth it was neithtr Cyprians meaning nor Chrsstes nor any well advised Christians And yet againe no maÌ„ may take from the people absolutly all maner of free consent as the L. Bishops do This is a Substantiall breach on the other hand Incidit in Scyllam qui vult vitare Charyâ—din Extremities on both sides are to be avoyded As this so other textes likewise Do. Bilson would wrest from vs in his “ Perp goâ—â— pag. 95. 8. Chap. touching jurisdiction First Act. 15.22.23.25.28 where manifestly the Apostles ioyned the people with them selves in determining a controversie It seemed good to the holy Ghost and to vs to lay no more burden on you Now this he granteth expresly saying “ Pag. 9â— The matter was handled in the audience and presence of the whole Church and with a generall consent letters were written in the names of all To which †Horne against Fecknam pa. 11â— B. Horne before him agreeth also Nay D. Bilson goeth further saying * Perp. gov pag. 373. This course the Apostle taught the Church of Christ to follow by their example Which is all that wee desire Yet he laboureth to frustrate this act of the Apostles and to make it of no vse to vs. To which intent hee hath 4. exceptions 1. “ Pag. â—7 Paul stood not in doubt of his preaching neither needed he the consent of Apostles or Elders to his doctrine I answer he doubted not of his doctrine nor submitted it to any to be censured Yet he needed the consent of other Apostles and of the Church at Ierusalem for more couÌ„tenance to his teaching And that was all Pauls purpose heere 2. “ Pag. 97. The Apostles wanted neither authoritie nor sufficiencie to determine the matter But they did in this case We must know therfore there is a twofold dertermining and deciding of questions One is particular and personall which every true Pastor may performe in his ordinarie teaching Much more the Apostles singly might And so Paul was sufficient and did him selfe resolve many doubts to the Romans to the Corinthians to others without a Council Another determining and deciding of questions is Cumulative as I may call it when it is done with more countenance and credit The former may
Assembly See how lively hee painteth out and taxeth also our Church state in England though primarily he intendeth the Papists And remember that to every of these Churches he alloweth a Bishop as “ Pag. 104. before I have noted So that the D. might have spared his proud boast that “ Pag. 7. All the Disciplinarians in the world are not able to shew that there were or ought to have ben after the division of Parishes any more then one Bishop for a whole Diocese Neither should he have called vs for this our assertion †Pag. 14. New foolish Disciplinarians His worship doubtles is wise when all these our Attestators and abbettors bee fooles Also that “ Pag. 21. his great challenge to his adversary is thus answered Now to proceed he saith it is not probable that Ierusalems Church in the Acts “ Pag. 89. did ordinarily meet in one place I answere yet it is certain they had not then many ordinary set and constant companies meeting togeather Which is the point we stand on will he never see it Further he saith †Pag. 90. The Apostles were never intended to be members all or any of them of one Parish Which is not so they were truly Members of every Church or Parish occasionally that is where when they were present though consâ—antly and necessarily they were not of any one Againe he saith The meetings Act. 6.1 15.22 26 were not Parishionall bur Synodicall They were Parishionall Indeed the later was both I take it Where the Apostles and Elders met first Synodically a part to debate the controversy but Parishionally or with the whole Church when they decreed and set down their resolutioÌ„ Before he said these meetings of the Church were “ Pag. 8 9. Panegyrical meetings Panegyricall not ordinary Which again is not true Such meetings are out of many Cities and Countries but heere the Church of Ierusalem only assembled and in the 15 of the Acts 2. or 3. out of Antioch Againe those are when sundry ordinary set assemblies doe meet in one but these all were of one Church as I said having in it not many ordinary set assemblies Lastly heere matters were haÌ„dled which pertaine to a Church to performe ordinarily so oft as occasion is Therefore they are not to be called extraordinary much lesse were they like the meetings at Pauls Crosse or at the Spittle as he saith least of all were they Panegyricall His obiection from Act. 21.20 of the many 10000. believing Iewes I have answered †Declarat pag. 30. 31 els-where The rest is of no moment In his 6. Chapter he setteth against som other of our reasons viz. touching the Churches of Corinth Ephesus Antioch vnder the Apostles Of all of them he saith “ Def. 2.103 Though it should be granted that each of these Churches in the Apostles time did ordinarily assemble togeather in one place yet would it not follow that therfore each of them was but a Parish much lesse that all Churches should be but Parishes and that every Parish should have a Bishop Verily all this doth follow neither hath hee with any true reason denyed it but all reason is for it as †Pa 208. 213 before I have shewed Then beginning with the Church of Corinth “ Pag. 104. hee dealeth deceitfully leaving out our principall proofe viz. 1. Cor. 14.23 The whole church came togeather in one Which can not bee such as might be written to the Church of England as he saith most vntruly Of this I have said more “ Declarat pag. 26. 27. elswhere To Act. 20.28 of the Church of Ephesus hee saith it needs not signifie only the Congregation of a Parish Yet the wordes are Attend or †〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Cleave close vnto all the flocke and the Apostle nameth it also “ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Congregation Which being taken for a Visible Companie is ever more with authentike Grecians an ordinary CongregatioÌ„ only as I have oft observed So that properly and truly it can not be as he would have it either the Vniversall or a Nationall or Provinciall or Diocesan Church Neither can the Pastors of such cleave close to all such sâ—ockes nor possibly be present to the whole But they must be NoÌ„residents which questioÌ„les these Ephesin Pastors were not as hath ben said Wherefore this place still is a good argument for vs. And so is that touching Antioch also where Act. 14.27 Paul and Barnabas gathered the Church togeather into one particular assembly as the text importeth It is vntrue and against the letter of the text to say as he doth some of the chiefe perhaps not many perhaps not any beside the Clergie Theâ—e perhapses are miserable and desperat shiftes And what forbiddeth Husbandes Wives Servants and children of ripe yeares and vnderstanding to have ben there Hitherto he hath laboured to shew that the Churches mentioned in the New TestameÌ„t were not each of them only one ordinary Congregation but that they were Diocesan Churches Which how vnsufficiently hee hath done every childe may perceave By the way hee obtrudeth a foolish conceit on vs as if by “ Def. 2. pag. 102.104 these aforesaid places of the N. Testament wee intended to prove that the Churches still remained till 200. yeares of Christ such as we hold they were at the first But let him take that collection to himselfe it is none of our meaning Yet where he maketh so much a doe about the space of 200. yeares that we should say for so long time there was no Diocesan Church The truth therof is very perspicuous and certain let the D. know that I can easily maintaine it For the space of 200. yeares after Christ there was no Diocesan Church Therefore let vs see what he hath against it Where first I will note what a cavill he hath against vs for abridging and restraining the primitive Church to 200. yeares only To which I answer in respect of taking the Primitive Church as a pattern for vs to follow so we restraine it yet shorter even to the Apostles times onely yea to the times of writing the N. Testament yea to the N. Testament it selfe only And we affirme if any doe follow any authoritie beside they doe profanely irreligiously adulterously no better So that in this our D. D. Bilson likewise where beeing without all proofes in Christs Testament they heap vp Fathers vpon Fathers and most eagerly cry out that we holde against “ Def. 2.128.142 Def. 4. c. Perp. gov 25â— 259. c. the Vniversall perpetuall practise of the Church of Christ if they could make som shew hereof yet I say seeing they have not nor caÌ„ bring one sound proofe for themselves in Christs Testament therefore they vse heere but a carnall reason and contrary to the honour of God They †Ier. 17 5â— make flesh their arme and put not
and take to my selfe alone common matters Adde vnto this that he saith also †◠4 Apud nos quoque ferè per Provincias vniversas teâ—etur Thus custome and practise is observed with vs at Carthage almost through out all Provinces By all which it is manifest that D. Bilson vainly answereth that Cyprian did yeeld to the people their free coÌ„sent in the Church-governement out of “ D. Bilâ— perpet gover pag. 171. 176. a private moderation and but of his owne free will Nay he saith as wee heard that he durst not do otherwise and that he observed it out of religion and that this power of the people cometh from Divine authoritie Yea doubtles such a generall and perpetuall custome even from the Apostles times and appearing in the Apostles practise also as the New Testament sheweth can not be in Cypriaen a privat moderation only but even an vnchangeable law Neither is that anie truer where hee saith that “ Pag. 178. Cyprian him selfe was the first that casâ—iered his owne confession †Pag. 18â— and brake that custome Hee brake it not Hee did not cassier his owne confession Though that is a thing not impossible Cyprian is not so persit but hee might thus faile thorough affection to him selfe and yet his former testimonies of the peoples right and power afore said may be as they are most true But as I said CypriaÌ„ neverbrake this his own others custome Verily as touching the substance of the matter he never brake it What instances hath hee against vs Saith he Cyprian without the people made Epist 4.5 Celerinus †2 5. Aurelius and “ 3.22 Saturus Readers and Optatus a Subdeacon What of this None of these come into our question Wee have no care of making Readers and Subdeacons But without the people he made * 4.10 Numidicus a Presbyter The place sheweth no such matter nor yet that he was made Presbyter then But rather being absent hee sheweth the Presbyters and people at Carthage that Numidicus was to be made a Presbyter Saying in the future tence Et promovebitur quidem dum tempus permiserit ad ampliorem locum religionis suae cum in presentia protegente Dominâ— venerimus He shal be promoted when wee shall come in presence among you So that he saith not that hee alone had nowe made him a Presbyter Beside it is most manifest in all these places that Cyprian shewed a speciall care to have the peoples liking and free consent to all which hee did and that in his absence hee would attempt not anie thing but that which he presumed was sure of that their liking was to it as much as his own So that he maketh it apparant even heere that hee would do none of these things against their wills Which is all that we seeke also in our assertioÌ„ as touching the substance of it as before we have often shewed Last of all hee saith of Numidicus that he was to bee a Presbyter dignatione Divinâ by Gods speciall Divine will and that Celerinus and Aurelius had their places so I kewise But we speake of no such extraordinaâ—e Divine calling This also toucheth not our question We holde the peoples right of giving consent to be only for the ordinarie callings in the Ministerie D. Bilson further vrgeth that Cyprian receaved some into the Church “ Pag. 17â— without the peoples consent yea when the people withstood it because hee saith in one place †Vix plebi persuadeâ— immo extorqueo I scarce persuade the people Epist 1.3 or rather I wring it from them c. And obnitente plebe contradicente I receaved theÌ„ the people striving against it gainsaying it I answer Seeing hee saith I scarce persuade the people therefore they were persuaded did coÌ„sent to his minde Indeed he sheweth that this matter was hardly gotten at their handes yea a whilè they spake against it but they were persuaded at last and so in conclusioÌ„ thei agreed to do as he thought good Thus hee did not this thing plainly and simply without the peoples consent or against their wâ—â—s simply but with their consent agâ—eement so as I said Whereby it appeareth how frivolous exceptions are taken against Cyprians concurrence and correspondence with vs in this cause whose most cleere and vnanswerable and frequent speaking on our part heerein we have seene before Now only one place more I will note in him describing fully his ordinarie practise in Church governemeÌ„â— and may bee a singular example and patterne for vs. Epist. 3.11 shewing how he receaved againe certaine pâ—enitents who had schismed from the Church He saith thereof first “ 3.11 Omni actu ad me perlato placuit coÌ„trahi Presbyteâ—uÌ„ Every act of their repeÌ„taÌ„ce being brought vnto me I thought good to call togeather he Presbyterie or Eldership Whether heere were any Lay Elders in this Presbyteric or whether all were ordinarie Ministers of the Word and Sacramentes it is nothing materiall Though D. Bilson and D. Downame do make all their sturre about this question yet as I said even in the “ pag. 11. 12. 23. entrance of this Treatise it is nothing to the substance of the controversie betweene vs but it is impertinent from the maine purpose altogeather To passe this therefore Secondly Cyprian in this place addeth His ita gestis in Presbyterium venerunt c. Then the peâ—ntentes came into the Eldership earnestly praying that the things they had committed might be forgotten c. Thirdly Quod eâ—at consequens omnis hic actus populo fuerat â—nsinuandus It remayned that all this action was to be signifyed to the people Magnus fraâ—ernitatis concursus factus est There was a great Meeting of the brethren Vna vox eras â—mnium Maximum Presbyterum locum suum agnoscereiussimus Caeteros cum ingenti populi suffragio recepimus There was one voyce of vs all We willed Maximus the Presbyter to know his place The rest we receaved with a great voycegiving of the people allowing it Heere we see what place and order consent the people vnder Cyprian had in the ordinarie Church governemeÌ„t Certainly it is a plaine example and right worthie to bee followed of vs. And so much concerning Cyprian is sufficient A while after this time Antioch at Antioch the neighbour Bishops comming togeather Anno 27â— do acknowledge that even the Churches thereabouts coÌ„curred and ioyned with them in the act of Excommunicating deposing Paul the Bishop there and in ordayning Domnus in his roome This they signifie iâ— the title of their “ Euseb 7.24 Episâ—le which they all togeather do write about this matter Now questionles among these Churches the Church that is the people of Antioch it selfe were the principall in this action For they were the proper Body of which that wicked Bishop was the proper Ministerial Head also there the Meeting about his deposing
of the Vniversal Church which yet he acknowledgeth is to be governed out wardly M. Gabr. Powell like a wise maÌ„ maketh it an heresie in the Pope to holde as he doth †Gabr. Powel de Antichristo pag. 254. In Eccesia oportere esse Visibile caput That in the Visible Church there ought to be a visible head What do I heare A visible Body instituted by Christ without a Visible Head A Church and no Pastor A multitude to be governed and no Governor These are strange assertioÌ„s who soever how many soever do affirme theÌ„ For I graunt there are not a few others also which vse so to speake But in deed there is no colour of truth nor reason in these sayings Some will say D. “ Perp. gov pag. 372. Bilson D. †Def. 3.4 Downame both do shew that this one Body and Church Vniversall is to be governed by a Vniversall Synod Do they so Very well Then who shall call this Synod The calling of Provinciall Synods “ Perp. gov pa. 377 39â— they make a good reason for a Metropolitane or Archbishop Certainly the calling of a Vniversall Synod doth far better and more necessarily require a Pope A Vniversal Synod ablosute Nay â—t requireth a Pope certainly Besides it is a question whether a Vniversall Synod hath ever ben or can possibly â—e rightly and duly had At the most it is plaine that such Synodes are exceeding rare and seldom and hardly effected Math. 18.15.16.17 But the causes of the Churches governement are frequent continuall and every day What shall we thinke Hath Christ left his Body deare Spouse without helpe without governement in such dayly and continuall necessities Or can an ordinarie body be governed without an ordinarie Head To vse D. Bilsons words “ Perp. gov pag. 376. this were an heathenish if not a hellish confusion Wherefore these consequences all do follow certainly and necessarilie A Vniversall Church must have a Vniversall ordinarie Pastor And so much touching the Proposition of this reason My Assumption is this But no Vniversall Ordinarie Pastor is of Divine institution in the New Testament And this they all affirme with me constantly Therefore the Conclusion is true viz No Vniversall proper Church and consequently also no Vniversall nor any other representative Church is of Divine institution in the New Testament Hitherto I have shewed our reasons and witnesses against Synods exercising absolut power spirituall over ChristiaÌ„ people which are also churches representative To which busines I have ben forced by Do. Downames importunat flannders both generally against vs and against my selfe in particular Who heerein first compareth vs to the “ Def. 1 4â— Pope from whom he knoweth we are far enough of Where as indeed his absolut Synods do agree with the Pope too well and do make to much for him as †Pag. 110.111 112.113.114 before we saw Then he vpbraideth vs that wee will not be ruled by Synodes I answer Wee submit our selves to be ruled spiritually by Christes true visible Church instituted in his word And what would he have more Thirdly hee goeth about to deny that we subject our selves to the Kings Supremacie Whether hee doth this with more malice or foolishnes I know not For he can not be ignorant that though we affirme that the Church governement is independent and immediatly derived from Christ yet we affirme also it standeth with good reason that the Civil Magistrate is even therein Supreme Governor Civilly And though nothing may be imposed on the Christian people of a Congregation against their wills by any Spirituall authoritie for so only we intend yet we affirme withall that the Civill Magistrat may impose on them Spirituall matters by Civill power yea whether they like or dislike if hee see it good This we al gladly acknowledge Wherein we referre our selves to that which we have “ Petit. for toleration Offer c. publikly written protested in this behalfe Fourthly he falsly chargeth me by name that I in my booke of Reasons for reformation do not acknowledge in Synods any lawfull authoritie †Def. 3.4 to determine He might “ Perp. gov pa. 382.383 thus charge Doctor Bilson But I in that booke and place which hee wrangleth with do expresly say †Reas. for reform p. 31 Synods determinations are most expedient and wholesome alwayes In which respect I “ See before pag. 89. allow also the Apostles practise in Act. 15. as being both a Synod and an authentike rule and patterne for Synods Where the Apostles with others when an occasion cause was given them did not only meet togeather consult but also they did define determine and decree certain pointes yea they delivered the same to divers Churches to be kept who had no Deputies for them present in that Apostolike assembly Howbeit these Apostles delivered abroad these their Decrees only so and in such wise as informing and teaching all men thereby what they ought to do that is in maner of doctrine To the Church of Antioch whom it most concerned only this they say If ye observe these things “ Act. 15.29 ye shall do well They say not The Minister that imbraceth not these ordinaÌ„ces is deprived of his ministerie the person receyving them not is excommunicat ipso facto or he is Anathema accursed As some Synods do pronounce I grant Synods may discusse and determine of errors and may pronounce them wicked and accursed errors But actually excommunicat mens persons the Apostles never did without the concurrence and consent of that Congregation where they were members Wherefore more then this no Synod at anie time may do by the rule of the Gospell If any do impose any of their acts on a CoÌ„gregation whether they like or dislike vpon pavne of some spirituall censure yea if it be on anie one person without the same Congregations consent of which hee is certainly as I said it is more then the Apostles ever did in the Church-governement and therefore we can not out conclude that it is now vnlawful for vs so to do Also it is that point which all the forenoted sentences of those late Writers most excellent lights of the Gospell do condemne Wherefore we willingly take that Apostolike practise in Act. 15. both as being a Synod also a good patterne of Synods for ever Neither do wee in deed mislike any Christian Synods but greatly approve of them though some out of malice do obiect to vs the contrary Alwayes the Apostles practise we take for our rule And so much touching the second coÌ„sequent in this Chapter Thirdly it being admitted as Christs ordinance that the Church governement ought to bee alwayes with the peoples free coÌ„sent it followeth that Lord Bishops in severall are vnlawfull contrarie to Christ Now a Lord Bishop Who is a Spirituall Lord. and a Spirituall Lord we alwayes vnderstand him to be who exerciseth sole authoritie