Apostles and vrge it even to bind vs no les then if it were a formall Precept And so we read that Christ himself his Apostles too reasoned sundry times from the bare Actes of the Prophetes and men of God in the old Law I know in divers Examples there are to be found Circumstances which fit not all times places nor persons What then Neither do Precepts commonly fit vs in so generall a maner By this shift then we may avoid expresse and direct Precepts also And thus scarce any thing in Gods word shall suffice to constrayne and binde vs. Wherefore alwayes we vrge no other ExaÌ„ples of the Apostles or not in any other points then such as do and may fit vs continually and every where even so well as they fitted those of old In which case it is a miserable denyall to say Examples are no precepts God graunt vs and all true Christians to inioy our Churches ordered after the Apostles examples and to have all other Customes of men when once we discerne them vtterly abandoned But to proceed a litle The Apostles again * Act. 6.3.5.6 charged the Church at Ierusalem to choose their Deacons therfore much more ought the Churches who are not ignorant beastes but men taught of God to choose their Pastors Lastly they “ Act. 14.23 ordeyned Elders to sundrie Churches which were actuallie present and consenting So much is most evident by the very text neither can any except against this which suffiseth our purpose So that it is vaine where * Perpet gov pag. 70. some contende that this worde 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 heere vsed will not necessarilie prove that the Churches did elect their Elders I answer this very woord yea thus as it is heere coÌ„strued is not so weak for our purpose as is pretended For we find the same word in good Authors having the very like GraÌ„maticall construction that is ioyned not with the people but with the Guides or principal in the assemblie And yet the very nature of this word signifying in the ordinarie vse thereof the custome which was then to give Voices by lifting vp of handes implyeth the Peoples concurrence and voyce-giving iointly with the Guides of the assemblie For asmuch as this gesture of lifting vp handes for voyce-giving in the the publicke meetinges did alwayes and most chieflie concerne the People In this very manner to this purpose we have this word in Demosthenes * Contâ— Timocr 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Which of the Lawes the Nomothetae which were the principall Authors shall ordayne or constitute by lifting vp of handes the same is ratified Where notwithstanding the Lifting vp of hands as is well knowen was not the Nomothetaes or chief Authors part only but the Peoples act is vnderstood also by implication Whose part was chiefly to Lift vp handes eyther before or after the Nomothetaes act Even so likewise this same worde vsed heere in the Actes in the very same maner shall import the Peoples part also viz. a present coÌ„sent in the appointing of their Elders though only their Guides the Apostles voyce-giving and ordayning of them be named But we will not presse this We may as I said cleane omit this coÌ„sideration and yet this text in the Actes doth fully serve our mayne purpose Namely it proveth fully that these Elders were ordayned by the Apostles in the presence and with the free liking of the severall Churches Another conceite there is that the sense of this word heere is the same which the Greeke Ecclesiastical Writers long after do vse it in viz. only to lay on hands in Ordination and no more It is an idle conceite All do know that the later Ecclesiasticall Greeke Writers have altered the originall and proper vse of this word as they yea and the Latines also have done in other as after we * In the 2. Assertion 9. Reason in the end thereof shal further see In the Apostles time they spake the ordinarie and knowen phrase taken from the former times But then no man vsed this word in such sense They which followed som hundred yeares can not prove that the Ancients spake like the after-commers Wherefore to our purpose againe By all these textes thus declared it remayneth evident that the Church which is to have a Minister ought to be present and to shew liking and coÌ„sent freely to their Ministers calling sith we have seene that it was so in the practise of the Apostles and by the ordinance of Christ Which also it seemeth our very Book of OrdinatioÌ„ which is by Law intendeth requireth where it saith Take thou authority c. in this Congregation The word this importeth that the very particular Congregation wherein he should haue authoritie should be present And why should they necessarily be present but freely to consent Also heere by it is evident that the Law would not that any Minister should be ordained but to a certain Congregation All which good necessary and Christian rules how they be now every where broken despised who seeth not Yea though the manifest intent of our Law doth require them A word more let vs add touching D. Bilsons approbatioÌ„ also of the Churches free consent in chosing their Pastors Whose testimony I do delight to apply to our purpose for divers good considerations “ D â—ils again the Seminar part 2. pag. 353.356 Saith he We haue the words and warrant of the H. Ghost for that which we say c. viz. that the People can and ought to discerne and try the doctrines and spirits of the Teachers and so to chose and refuse them as they by the word should see good * pag. 355. How can the People do either if they haue not skill and leave to discerne both “ Perpet gover pag. 360. The Apostles left elections indifferently to the People and Clergie at Ierusalem The People had as much right to chose their Pastors as the Clergie that had more skill to iudge * Pag. 339. Well may the Peoples interest stand vpoÌ„ the grounds of reason and nature and be derived from the rules of Christian equitie “ Pag. 359. The late Bishops of Rome have not ceased cursing fighting till excluding both Prince and People they reduced the election wholy to the Clergie But he telleth them by their leave it was not so from the beginning * Pag. â—30 I acknowledge each Church people stand free by Gods law to admit maintaine obey no man as their Pastor without their liking It is true he addeth this vnles by law custome or consent they restraine themselves But this he himselfe elswhere answereth roundly “ Pag. 22 â—â— What authoritie had others after the Apostles deathes to chaunge the Apostolike governement And such additions he calleth †Pag. 19. Corruptions of times inventions of men and a transgressing of the Commaundement of God for the traditions of men And againe he calleth this
alone though now he be a L. Bishop himselfe hath most fully and substantially confuted Against the Iesuits and Seminaries obiecting thus The word is * Math. 20.25 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they Over-rule their Subiects with iniusticÄ™ and violence You shall not do so He replyeth “ D. Bils against the Apol. of the Seminar part 2. pag. 174. print Lond. 1586. So your new Translation over-ruleth the word Howbeit Christ in that place doth not traduce the Power of Princes as vniust and outragious but distinguisheth the calling of his Apostles from the maner of regiment which God hath allowed the Magistrat Christ saith not Princes be tyrants you shall deale more curteously then they do but he saith Princes be Lords and rulers over their people by Gods ordinance you shall not be so Againe the word which S. Luke hath is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 without any composition They be Lords Masters and S. Paul confesseth of himselfe and other Apostles Not that we be Lords or Masters of your faith Ye the compound 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is with power force to rule men whether they will or no not with wrong and iniury to oppresse them And therefore the conclusion is inevitable that Princes may lawfully compell and punish their Subiects which Bishops may not “ Pag. 175. All Pastors and Bishops are straitly charged not to medle with the sword * Pag. 182. To compell Heretikes and Schismatikes neither is it possible sor the Preacher if he would nor lawfull if he could he lacketh both meanes and leave to constraine them Bishops be flatly forbidden to raigne and must not meddle with the materiall sword †Pag. 227. Commanding and forcing our Savior forbiddeeh to all his Disciples Where the full effect of all his discourse is this All Civill iâ—risdiction and power of the sword to commaund compell and punish by losse of life limme or libertie is secluded from the Ministers function and reserved to the Magistrates * Luk. 22.24.25 Christ precisely forbad his Apostles to beare rule and exercise authoritie over their brethren not vniust and tyrannicall rule but all compulsive power And where the thing is not lawfull the signe is not lawfull c. To like purpose also he writeth in his booke of the Perpetual Governement of Christes Church * Pag. 137.142 where he saith †Many giftes may conioyne in one man many offices cannot “ Pag. 52. The Ministers shall not have any such rule or dominion as the great States have * Pag. 55. The thing so much prohibited by Christ his Apostles is that Preachers Pastors should 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 behave or thinke themselves to bee Lords and Maisters over their brethren And “ Pag. 56. To increase the love of the sheepe toward their Sheepheards Christ would not have his Apostles to be feared as Maisters but to be honored as Fathers and consequently Pastors not to force but to feede not to chase but to lead the flocke committed to their charge neither roughly to intreat them as servants but gently to perswade them as coheires of the same kingdome Heere are Testimonies of this man for vs most full most cleare and above all exception Reason 6. IF in the Lawes estimation the calling of Ministers with vs is given by those who in Gods word have no power to give it Vsurpation then this is contrarie to Gods word and necessarie to be reformed But in the Lawes estimation the calling of Ministers with vs is given by those who in Gods worde have no power to give it Namely it is given by a Diocesan ruling Bishop who is no where found as before I shewed in al the New Testament So that he can not therein have anie power or authoritie to give Ministers their calling nor yet to take it from them Againe by the rule of Gods word that particular Church whiche is to have the Minister ought to be present and to shew a liking and consent in their Ministers calling Whiche proveth that no Bishop hath any power or authoritie in Gods word to give anie Minister his calling or to take it from him in absence of that Church to whom the Minister belongeth yea and as the practise now is vtterly without their liking Therefore this that is the giving of the Ministers calling with vs by such as now do give it and in such maner is contrary to Gods word and ought of necessitie to be reformed Where I say by the rule of Gods worde The Churches right that Church which is to have the Minister ought to bee present and to shew a liking and consent in their Ministers Calling this is evident by many testimonies and reasons First because in the Apostles time the Church had a consent in Excommunication as it appeareth to the Corinthians where the Apostle saith * 1 Cor. 5.4.5 I have determined already when yee are gathered together and my spirit in the name of our L. Iesus Christ that such a one by the power of our L. Iesus Christ be delivered to Satan And * vers 13. Put away from among your selves that wicked man Which agreeth with Christes owne ordinance and precept where he saith “ Mat. 18.17 Tell the Church If he heare not the Church let him be vnto thee as an Heathen and a Publicane Now if the Church was to Excommunicate surelie the Church also was to elect her Ministers For these are the 2. maine partes of the holy Governement Ecclesiasticall both which must belong to the Church equallie alike Further it is apparant by the Apostles practise First the calling of Matthias to the Apostleship was permitted so farre as was possible to the Churches Election For they * Act. 1.23 c. appointed two whereof one should be and was divinely chosen This questionles was done not of necessitie for that Calling which was then to be given but only for an example in Ecclesiasticall Elections which the Churches after should and did imitate Besides howsoever the very Election of Matthias was by Divine lot yet it was all done in the Churches presence with the actuall concurrence of their prayers and free consentes instantly Now these acts of the Church as they may so therefore they ought to be perpetual in every Election of whatsoever Minister seeing even for that end the Apostles caused nowe the Church thus to do It is a slight answer and vntrue to say “ Parpet govern pag. 69. Examples are no preceptes For the same answerer elswhere confesseth that * Per. gov pag. 373. the Apostles taught the Church by their Example But if he had not confessed it yet the trueth of this generall point is in it selfe most certain Wherefore was the Booke of the Apostles Actes els written But that their Acts in the Churches should be Rules and patterns for vs to do likewise All Divines vse the Argument drawen from an act of Christ or his
perpetu govern pa. 299.300 in effect obiected that Timothy and Titus were properly Diocesan ruling Bishops Yea such as wee call Lord Bishops that is vsing * pag 232. sole authoritie and had charge of mo particular Churches then one Which is to be in deed a Diocesan Bishop But they and their Offices are founde in the “ 1 Tim. 3. and 5. Tit. 1.5 Tit. 3. Scripture viz. To ordeine Pastors in divers Churches and to censure them c. I answere the very Apostles did not * Act. 14.23 1.15 23. c. 6.3 5 6. 1 Ti. 4.14 w Act. 16.2 make Ministers nor Censure by their sole and single Authoritie but evermore in the presence and with some liking of that particular Church whom it concerned Therefore much lesse did Timothie or Titus such matters solely and singly who were lower then Apostles And therefore they were no Lord Ministers certainelie Further it is vntrue they were no proper Bishops at all neither Diocesan nor any other For all proper Bishoppes were “ D. Bilson pag. 227. 232. affixed to certaine places and certaine charges where they were to serve and * Act. 20.38 1 Pet â— 2. Theodoret. â—n Ephe. 4. attend in purpose continually But Timothie and Titus were never affixed to one certaine charge For they like the Apostles intended not a constant continuance in a place but after a time of their aboade in one Nation translated both their presence and their labours into another Countrie Being Comites Apostolorum CoÌ„panions or Assistants to the Apostles “ See Bez. Annotat. in Acts 19. de Mini. grad cap. 5. indued doubtles with the extraordinarie gift of divers tongues and therefore did goe being coÌ„monlie sent or called by the Apostles hither hither to the end that they might perfect such Churches as the Apostles had planted but not throughlie furnished And this is evident by the text First Timothie was chosen and ordayned at * Act. 16. Lystra went into Phrygia Galatia Mysia Troas being at Philippi was sent to “ 1 Cor. 4.17 Corinth from * 1 Thes 3.1.2 6. Athens went to Thessalonica from § Act. 19.22 Ephesus went to Macedonia after he was left at “ 1 Tim 1.3 Ephesus againe to order redresse things there And yet * 2 Tim. 4.9.1 thence he was sent for away and departed A litle before Paules death he was at “ Phil. 1 1. Rome from * Phil. 2.19 23. thence to goe to the Philippians Wherefore Timothie was no ordinarie proper Bishop of any sort nor affixed to anie certaine place but a verie Evangelist as also the * 2 Tim. 4.5 Scripture calleth him that is an vnlimited extraordinarie and teÌ„porarie function in the Churches The like was Titus Paule chose him for his coÌ„panion helper and had him * Gal. 2.2 with him to Ierusalem Also he sent him to § 2 Cor. 8 17. Corinth Hee left him in “ Tit. 1.5 Crete a while but sends for him theÌ„ce * Tit. 3.12 away anon after to Nicopolis A litle before Pauls death he was with him at “ 2 Tim. 4.10 Rome from thence he went into Dalmatia Both these therefore were verie Evangelistes and no maner of ordinarie Bishops Neither in deede were there anie Diocesan Bishops or Diocesan Churches that can be found in all the New Testament Then they will obiect that some things are Indifferent in Ecclesiasticall actions and doubtles so are certaine Circumstances c. It is not necessarie that these should bee warranted particularly in the Scripture I answer The Papists do hold their Ecclesiasticall Traditions or Rites to be meerelie indifferent in their nature and to be necessarie onelie as the Church commaundeth them This is manifest by D. Stapleton saying * Stapletâ— Promtuar Catholic part Quadragesimal pag. 99. Omnes vident in corum Rituum Ecclesiasticorum vsu nullam necessitatem poni sed liberè assumi vel non assumi modò absit contemptus qui non in Ceremoniam sed in Ecclesiae prepositos qui cam instituerunt imò in Christum cadit dicente ad illos Christo Qui vos spernit me spernit Also by the Rhemes Testament saying “ Rhem. Tâ— stame Annotat in Math. 15 1â— Neither flesh nor fish of it selfe doth defile but the breach of the Churches precept defileth Likewise writeth Bellarmine in his discourse of their Church-Ceremonies But yet notwithstanding every good Christian knoweth well that their Traditions are plainly superstitious and vnlawfull How then shall not ours also be the like What are ours better then theirs Further though Circumstances be indifferent and may be chaunged by men yet Formes of Churches are not so nor the Church Ministeries nor Ceremonies nor in a word any Traditions Ecclesiasticall whereof our former Reason wholy intreateth We denie not then but that in Ecclesiasticall actions the meere CircumstaÌ„ces are in some sort indifferent that is not necessarie to be determined by Scripture But these truely are not to be called Ecclesiasticall Traditions Wherefore we must know that there is a great difference betweene Traditions Circumstances Besides Gods Ordinances specified in Scripture there are 2. other kindes of lawfull thinges in the administration of Church matters 1. Naturall Necessities 2. Proper and meere Circumstances Naturall Necessities are Persons Times Places c. what things only are in different CircuÌ„stances Proper meere Circumstances which onely are indifferent in Church actions are Accidentall things wherof there is no necessitie but either may or may not be vsed They are of 2. sortes either Civill or Occasionall The Civill Circumstances are such as though they be vsed in Church actions To this do belonge all thinges of Comlinesse and DeceÌ„cy yet even there they import only and meerely a Civill vse Which we shall easilie discerne thus viz. when the same things in the same maner are vsed also in actions meerely Civill at other times and places Such were Christes “ John 13. with 1. Tim. 5.10 Washing the Disciples feet the “ Rom. 16.16 Love feasts * Iud. 12. Kissings in the Church meetings of old The maner at this day of the French Preaching covered To come to the Church in this or that decent and comely common apparell A commodious distinct House for Gods Service c. Occasionall Circumstances are such particulars as some special occasion requireth and moveth vs vnto namely when the Generall things are either vsuall in Civill custome or by Gods owne ordinance in Nature or in the Word written As such or such Places Times Persons Things Namelie to come together in Synagogues or Temples To vse Pues or Pulpits c. To Pray Kneeling or Prostrate To eate and drinke at the L. Table leaning or sitting c. In the “ Mat. 26. 1 Cor. 11.23 Evening or at * Acts 20.7 Midnight To Baptize in “ Acts 16.15 Rivers Also the Apostles vsing of
some * Gal. 3.24 4.9 Iewish Ceremonies among the vnconverted Iewes a while after Christes death Their “ Acts 6.3 â— 6. letting the people to nominate their Ministers Churches more or lesse populous c. These and such like wee doubt not are in Ecclesiasticall actions in some sorte Indifferent I meane they are changeable and either can not or ought not to be perpetuall neither need they to be determined in Scripture Although yet in their vse they are not to be reckoned so indifferent but that they ought necessarily to be ruled by the generall rules of Discretion and Charitie Namely that in all of them Comelinesse Edification the Avoyding of offence and Gods glorie may be respected Thus then let it be noted that we affirme in Ecclesiasticall actions no other thing at all beside these is or can be anie way indifferent by any meanes None of the things in coÌ„troversie are indifferent neither are they proper Circumstances But touching our forenamed Ecclesiasticall vnwritteÌ„ Traditions whether Formes of Visible Churches Ministeries or Ceremonies they are of no such nature as those things beforenamed either Naturall necessities or proper Circumstances are They are no way like to any sort of them Wherefore though Circumstances be indifferent yet mens Traditions in ReligioÌ„ can not be Neither did these thinges stande otherwise among the Iewes vnder the Law So that it remaineth sure that all Church-Traditions without Gods word therfore all invented formes of Visible Churches vsing governement offices of Ministerie and Ceremonies are simplie evill and vnlawfull and therefore of necessitie ought to be reformed Yet some will reply and say If men may institute Temples or places meerely Ecclesiasticall why not also Garments meerely Ecclesiasticall c. Touching Temples I aunswere They are esteemed meerely Ecclesiasticall or Religious places because things meerely Ecclesiasticall or Religious are done in them Howbeit the trueth is their proper and principall vse is partlie Naturall and partlie Civill It is necessarie in Nature for Church-Assemblies to bee in a place It is Civill namelie when peace prosperitie is to have a commodious a comely and a distinct House for the publike exercises of Gods worship Which very thing is in Civilitie no lesse requisite for the publike grave actions of the CoÌ„mon Wealth also So that at the most a Temple appointed by men can not truelie be accoumpted a thing meerely but mixtly Ecclesiasticall And so this Humane institution we acknowledge is lawfull even for Religious affaires when there is no further vse therof at all That is if it be not held as Religious meerely nor in the proper and principall vse thereof As the Surplice is with vs. It is an Ecclesiasticall Rite So are likewise the Kneeling Crossing Churching Burying c. which the Temple can not be It is meerely simply Ecclesiasticall There is no respect had to Civilitie in it considering that it serveth never in any Civill businesse nor place but it is onely in and for the Church Church actions Much lesse is there for it any Naturall necessitie Beside the Preface of the CoÌ„mon-prayer-booke maketh it to have with the rest of the Ceremonies a speciall signification in Gods worship Even as the Papists do also vse it froÌ„ whom immediatly we have receaved the same Wherfore doubtles such prescript garmeÌ„ts meerly Ecclesiastical being Humane Inventions are simply vnlawfull although Temples for Gods Service be not so Moreover we have to answere to this and such like matters obiected to vs in this wise â— Cor. 11. â—3 14.23 5.4 Math. 18. â—7 Such * places of Scripture as doe commaund Church-Assemblies and the publike Worship of God the same do also by necessarie consequence in time of peace commaund some commodious and distinct Houses for them But no Scripture by any necessarie consequence commaundeth any distinct and meere Ecclesiasticall Garment at any season Therefore these things can not be coÌ„pared nor likened togeather They are not both things indifferent alike Nay the one is by Gods word necessarie the other vnlawfull Some think that the appointing of the Altar in * Iosh 22. Ioshua of the Feast of “ Hest 9. Purim and Davids ordayning * 1 Chron. â—5 1.6 Singers Musicians in the Temple do prove that all religious matters invented and instituted by men are not vnlawfull I answere Howsoever they who appointed and sett vp that Altar in Ioshua might have devised some other thing lesse scandalous then the forme of an Altar whiche yet might as well have served to the vse they made it for as the Altar did or could doe Nevertheles this Altar was truelie no more but a civill monument or Signe as being vsed no way in any Ecclesiasticall or Religious action of worshipping God but set vp as a spectacle only in the open fields or by the river side though it served for a token that the 2. Tribes and a halfe had a part with the rest of Israell and in the worship of their God Not vnlike it might be to this if the States of the low Countries should commaund everie inhabitant being no Anabaptist in that Countrey to weare a litle Dagger on their garmentes to shew that they beleeve Magistracie and the vse of weapons to be lawfull Or as perhappes the Signe of the Crosse was vsed by the Ancient Christians dwelling amoÌ„g Heathens to let them see they were not ashamed of Christ crucified All these are cleerely Civill and therefore wee acknowledge in mens power it is ro ordayne or abrogate them As for the Feast of Purim that appeareth no where in the text to have bene a Religious Feast or Holy day But onely a day of Civill vse also viz. of reioycing of making merry of sending presentes to friends and giftes to the poore As may appeare Hest 9.22 Yet if any contende that it was a Holy day for solemne Thankes-giving worshipping of God in memorie of the rare deliverance of the Iewes from Hamans malice Though this appeare not yet wee may answere neither can anie man disprove it that Mordecai the Iewe the * verâ— 2â— Authour of this institution was a Prophet of God and Authour also of this booke of Hester So that then he ordained this constant Holy-day not by humane discretion but by Divine authoritie Even as David did institute the singing Levites with Instrumentes of Musike in the Temple The * 2. Chron. 29.25 text as it were of purpose meeting with this obiection importeth that David neither did nor might do these things by his Kinglie power nor by anie discretion Humane but only by Propheticall authoritie through Gods own commaundement Where it is to be noted that by vrging Gods absolute all sufficient Lawe for matters Ecclesiasticall wee do not restraine nor binde God but only vs Men from adding of any thing in the exercise of Gods worship besides that which hee him selfe hath instituted and sealed vp in his Testament It will be againe replied