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
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.
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-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