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
proper visible Church of Christ to which the goverment Ecclesiasticall of iâ—â—â—â—fe doeth alwayes of right appâ—rtaine Ecclesia in the new Testament is taken Ciuilly and originally for a * Act. 19 3â—.39.40 particular Assembly of Citizens in one certaine publike place about matters of the Common wealth Ecclesia in the new Testament is taken Religlouslie for a Church Properly in the next and neerest proportion aunswering to the Originall ciuill vse thereof This is a Particular Visible Ordinary Congregation of Christians meeting for religious Ecclesiasticall actions exercises And this is the only true Visible Church of Christ hauing from him the Spirituall power of order gouernment in it selfe ordinarily The proper Ministers thereof are the onely true ordinarie Ministers of Christ This we read of in the Scripture in 2. respects Definitly This is some certaine known “ Mat. 18 1â— Revel 21. Col. 4.16 Gal. 1.2 â— Thes â— 14 â— Cor. 16.1 19. 2. Cor 8.1 Rom. 16.4.16 particular Congregation in some certaine particular place which we may go vnto consult with and obey Indefinitlie where is vnderstood This or That or * Mat. 3â— â— c. 1. Cor. 12.11 Mat. 6 33. Isa 2.1.2 3. â— Pet. â— 5 any other particular ordinary Congregation in a proportion more remote or further of Such is the Inuisible or Intelllgible Church absolutly Catholike that is the number of †Ephe. 3.10 15 21. and â— 27 all Gods Elect both in Heauen and in Earth Figuratiuely by a Metaphore Such is a holy well ordered Christian “ Rom. 16.5 â— Cor. 16. â—â— familie resembling as it were a very Church though in deed it bee but a part of a true and proper Church Synecdoche viz. of the Visibilitie when the Church it self that is the whole cannot but only some parts of it may be Visible or Sensible at any time to any one man that needeth the vse of it Such is the Catholike Militant Church which is * Mat. 16.18 1. Cor. â—2 28 properly an Inuisible Intelligible Church as it is considered whâ—ly togeather that is as it is one Church Societie as when only the “ Act. 15.4 â—â— People of a particular Congregation hauing Ministers yet without and beside their Ministers are called the Church Whereby it is evident that no Catholike or Vniversall Church Visible is any where in all Christes New Testament to bee found and therefore in no wise is such a Church to be allowed Neither yet any Nationall or Provinciall or Diocesan Church Only a particular ordinarie Congregation is heere found and so is to be held properly and only a true visible Church of Christ Moreover heereby it appeareth and it is likewise to be noted Note III. that the nature and office of a Bishop also is not of one maner but of divers It is as the former word Church very ambiguous and must be likewise necessarily distinguished Bishops of six sortes Six sortes of Bishops have ben and are known in the world 1 1. A Parishionall Bishop who is a Pastor of one ordinary Congregation only Such are all the Bishoppes mentioned any where in the New Testament and also in writers within the space of 200. yeares after Christ 2 2. A Diocesan Titular Bishop who was Bishop of a Diocese in title and in name only in Ecclesiasticall governement having no more power then any other coÌ„mon Pastor He differed not in any essentiall part of the ordinary Pastorall Office but was only President or Moderator coÌ„stantly yet by his fellow Pastors free consent over the Pastors of a Diocese Such perhaps first of all was “ Ann. 190 Iulianus the tenth Bishop of Alexandria In whose time first * Euseb 5.9 mention is made that there were divers Churches in that Citie and he Bishop of them The first sorte of these Bishops we wholy allow The second we do not simply deny They were not much vnlike to the Bishops now lately appointed in Scotland 3 3. There is a Diocesan ruling Bishop He had more power then any of the rest of the ordinarie Pastors though yet not any sole power to rule in his Diocese It may be this began at Alexandria with “ Ann. 260. Dionysius the thirteenth Bishop of that place which seemeth to be Ieroms meaning where he * Ierom ad Evagr. saith that some prioritie in Bishops continued there from Marke to Heraclas and Dionysius At Heraclas it is probable was a period of one sort and with Dionysius began another Prioritie of Order 1. Pariâ—hionall 2. Diocesan 3. Maioritie of rule Diocesan Prioritie of order in one Bishop over a Parish that is one particular compleat Congregation seemeth to haue continued exclusively from Marke vnto Iulianus over a Diocese from Iulianus to Heraclas inclusively and then Maioritie of ruling in the Diocese to haue begun with Dionysius the next Successor after Nothing letteth vs but that thus we may probably thinke Seeing thus Eusebius and Ieroms relation shall well agree How soever it was this is certaine that neither the one nor the other was knowne before these times heere expressed 4 4. A Diocesan Lord Bishop was he who ruled ordinarilie in his Diocese by his sole power This grew vp from the former by litle and litle But it seemeth not to haue ben established in Ambrose Ierome Augustines time though soone after we doubt not it tooke place over the Churches 5 5. A Patriarchall Bishop and they were first 4. in number Of which kinde the Archbishop may be reckoned also viz. at Rome Antioch “ Or els Cae sarea Concil Nic. 1. Can. 7. Ierusalem Alexandria They began by mens voluntarie regarding the Bishops of those principall Cities aboue other sometime before the Nicene Councell But they were by an ordinance established first in that Councell Howbeit yet they were not Lords over the Churches till a long while after In the first Councell of Constantinople an other Patriarch was established at Constantinople 6 6. A Catholike or Vniversall Bishop * Bonifacius was the first began at Rome about 600. yeares after Christ Who also hath had his growinges and increasings and was not perfect Antichrist till some ages after Now all these latter that is the 3.4.5 6. sort are at least Besides the Scriptures yea they are cleane Contrarie to the first which hath place and allowance in the Scripture And therefore these are plainlie contrary to Gods word vtterlie vnlawfull Wherefore also the “ As namelie that in D. Bilsons perpet gouernment pag. 260. coÌ„mon accompts and Catalogues of the succession of Bishops from the Apostles times to our dayes are very deceiptfull and false When as al these are called by one name indifferently Bishops without distinction yet their Offices are exceeding divers and no way like Yea these later directlie contrarie to the first as hath ben said Against this it is * D. Bilson in
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.
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
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
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
yeares space after Christ vsing this word for a Visibâ—â— Church with order and governement do signifie by it a particular Congregation only And it no where signifieth in them a Diocesan Church c. Where note that the strength of this reason standeth wholy in the proper taking and vsing of this word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Church Note The Adversaries error hath advantage by the improper and ambiguous vse of it which is Sophisticall Yea if you will their sense is a “ By the Scriptures verdict false sense of it wherein yet it often vsed in Writers and in common speach for want of due regard By which meanes also sundry other errors have crept in heeretofore much prevayled even by mis-vnderstanding of certayne wordes As we may see in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and in Latin Meritum Equivocall wordes Poenitentia Crux Sacramentum c. Out of all those Testimonies before alleadged this generall reason may be concluded No Diocesan Church or Bishop was knowen or once heard of in the world till many distinct ordinary Congregations began to be appointed in one Citie But there was no Multiplication nor distinction of many ordinarie and constant Congregations in a Citie till about 200. yeares after Christ Som coÌ„iecture it was long after this No man sheweth that it was before this The truth in deed heereof that for this while generally in each Citie there was but one ordinary constant Congregation of Christians hath ben plentifully shewed in the Proofes of this 2. Assertion before going Therefore till about 200. yeares after Christ there was no manner of Diocesan Church or Bishop knowen nor once heard of in all the Christian world No not the Diocesan Titular Bishop much lesse any Diocesan ruling Bishop Where yet we deny not but that one particular Congregation or Church being populous might occasionally and vncertainly in the time of persecution for their safetie sake assemble in divers smaller Meetings As before we noted pag. 19.20 As also they did we doubt not many times within the space of these 200. yeares after Christ Howbeit yet these smaller Meetings were not so many Churches properly because they were not ordinary sett Companies nor constantly distinct Societies as Churches ought to be and as our Parishes now are Those divers Occasionall and vncertaine meetings made but one Church and ordinary Congregation Act. 6 1. yea though the whole nomber were too populous for one actual Assembly ordinarily It is true in such case they ought to distinguish and distribut themselves into divers competent set Congregations which should be so many proper and intire Churches But when they are as they were in those primitive times dayly in great perill of cruell persecution they may with reason remaine somwhile vndistinguished not so distribute themselves which in time of peace and safetie they always ought to do Wherin now som Reformed Churches beyond Seas do seeme to offend If any say the troublesomnes of those times or the yong age of the Churches who were not yet growen vp to perfection caused that there were no Diocesan Churches with governement nor Diocesan ruling Bishops then And we take advantage of the special state of those times vrging it to our purpose generally I answer we vrge from the state and order of the Apostolike primitive Churches nothing but what is generall in them and ought to be perpetuall with vs. So that neither the troublesomnes of those times nor the young age of the Churches then do give vs our advantage For notwithstanding these speciall Circumstances the Visible Churches vsing gouernement and the Bishops then might have ben very well Diocesan and Provinciall if Christ had so instituted and the Apostles had so framed and left them Nothing in the world hindereth but they might easily have ben such even in those times But the world knew none such then as I have said And it is impietie to say Christes Churches were vnperfect then as touching their Visible forme constitution their Ministery and the whole lawfull order of worshipping God in them Or that the times since have made them more perfect then they were as the Apostles left them Wherefore this advantage do we stand vpon and this do we vrge viz. the same patterne and forme of Visible Churches vsing governement that was then vniversally practised receaved immediatly from Christ and the Apostles which was Parishionall not Diocesan as hath ben declared The 3. Assertion The Scriptures of the New Testament do containe set forth vnto vs besides the governement by Extraordinarie Offices Apostles Prophets Evangelistes an ordinarie forme of Church-governement vsed then IF in the New Testament one kinde of a Visible Church vsing governement and no other is to be found 1. Reason also if speciall distinct ordinarie Offices for Church-governement and speciall Actions therevnto belonging be sett downe therein then the Scripture contayneth a speciall forme of Church-government which was ordinary then But in the New Testament a See before 1. Asseâ—tion 2. Reason One kinde of a Visible Church vsing governement namely a particular ordinarie Congregation and no other is found also speciall distinct ordinarie Offices for Church-governement are set downe therein as Parishionall b T it 1.5 7 1 Tim. 3.1 2. Ephe. 4.11 Phil. 1.1 Act. 20.28 1 Pet. 5.2 Act. 14.23 Bishops or Pastors and an other sort of not Lay but Ecclesiasticall c 1. Tim. 5.17 compared with Gal. 6.10 1 Tim. 4.10 Rom. 12. â— 1 Cor. 12.28 Iam. 5.14 Adde the ancient Writers Ignat. Epist ad Trall Tars Smyr Tertull. Apol. c. 39. d Baptisme Ambr. in 1. Tim. 5 in 1. Cor. 12.28 Ierom. in Isa 3. August Epist 137. Elders who by their Ordinary office were only to assist in governement Third the special Actions belonging to Church-government are also set downe in the Scripture as Election of Ministers Excommunication of spirituall offendors c. Therfore the Scripture of the New Testament coÌ„tayneth a speciall forme of Church-governement ordinary then Where it is to be noted that in those first times there were also those other Officers in the Churches Note Apostles Evangelistes and Prophetes But they had Calling and giftes immediatly from God the others Calling was alwayes by men They abode not in one Church as the other did Their government and vse was not perpetuall but temporary and extraordinarie They therefore hindered not the other neither can they now hinder The rather sith they do not now remaine but are ceased Also those Parishionall Bishops and those other Elders assisting in government Note did differ in their Ordinary office Yea though they both did somtimes Preach c yet thus they differed notwithstanding But a Parishionall Bishop or Pastor cannot differ in his ordinary office of Preaching c. from an Elder who is also by ordinary office a Preacher c. Therefore he is heere an other Church Elder viz. by ordinary office no