◠who is sufficient for that one But a Diocesan Ruling Bishop hath not only one proper visible Church in his Charge He hath 300. or 400. as before is said Therefore a Diocesan ruling Bishop sinneth against the word and also against the light of nature We denie not that one proper Visible Church may possiblie have many Pastors But that One Pastor should have many proper Visible Churches is a thing senseles vnnaturall and condemned both by God and man Reason 4. The true Pastors office IT is the naturall and immutable off ice of a Pastor both to Teach and to Governe with the assistance of other Elders his owne flocke But every Pastor of each particular Church in England is truly and properly a Pastor of the same Church whereof he is and shall answer for the soules of his flocke which depend vpon him Therefore every Pastor of each particular Church in England ought of necessitie not only to teach but also to governe his owne flocke Touching the Proposition it is manifest to be the natural and immutable office of a Pastor to governe his own flocke First seeing the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifieth to do the office of a Pastor doth in the naturall propertie of it imply Governement and rule * Rain Cōfer chap. 3. divi ◠pag. 140. As wee may see this word is vsed Math. 2.6 Reve. 19.15 2.27 And therefore even Civill Magistrates are called Rogne Pastors Ezek. 34.2 and in Homer 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Pastors of the people in Euripides 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Rulers of chariots Secondly the whole office of a Spirituall Pastor is found in the Scripture to be both Teaching and Governing as first this very word doth most plainly signifie Ioh. 21.16 Act. 20.18 and 1. Pet. 5.2 Also where the distinct parts of the Pastors office are noted as 1. Tim. 5.17 and 1. Thes 5.12 Math. 18.17.18 Ad heervnto D. Bilsons consent with Athanasius “ Perp. gov pag. 199. To whom Preaching and Offering at the Lords table do belong to them also carefull ruling and governing the Church doth appertaine Againe he saith * pag. 162. 108. 202. These self same persons that were in one were in all these actions and the Churches were governed by the common counsell of the Presbyters And “ pag. 133. The Apostle ioyneth both these properties in good Pastors And * pag. 111. They must be trusted with both or with neither Now touching all this Gods word chargeth vs expresly saying “ Col. 4.17 Rom. 12.7 Take heed to your Ministery which you haue receaved in the Lord to fulfill it But to this our Churches order is cleane contrary by reason of our Diocesan ruling Bishops We may not fulfill our Ministery for them Therfore our Churches order in respect of our Diocesan ruling Bishops is cleane contrary to Gods word And therefore of necessitie heerein we ought to be reformed Where yet I can not but note Note how by our owne Parliament law this is wholy yeelded to every ordinary Pastor in England As namely where the booke of Ordination maketh every one of them to vndertake * Booke of Ordinatiō Printed Ann. 1596 to minister the Doctrine and Sacraments and Discipline of Christ as the Lord hath commanded and as this Realme hath receaved the same according to the commandements of God Though it saith as this Realme hath receaved the same Yet we must marke that it saith not so simplie but with speciall restraint according to the commandements of God Yea before also it requireth the Discipline of Christ to be ministred in such maner as the Lord hath commanded So that heere this restriction and certaine direction is set downe expresly twice for fayling Wherefore the Lawes intent and meaning is not heere to do beside much lesse “ Act. Parl. Henr. 8. Ann. 25. cap. 19. against the order set down in Gods word but to do according to it And not to take from Pastors the ordinary power of Ecclesiasticall Dicipline as now the practise is but to giue it them Namely if Gods word do giue it them which we saw before that it doth God forbid therefore that we in England now should be * Math. 19.6 barred from the ordinance of God in his word this being also the true intent of our owne Lawes If our Adversaries will say that this bringeth in a paritie of Ministers And we can not be ignorant that our most wise and Noble King professeth his mislike of the paritie of Ministers I answere with all reverence and submission to his Maiestie that I conceaue his meaning not to be against the paritie which before I haue spoken of And as for a generall paritie we mislike and detest it also Yea in a sort we say that the Churches state is Monarchicall For we affirme that in every severall true Church there ought to be a disparitie of Church Ministers viz. the Pastor aboue the Elders and the Elders aboue the Deacons ad Smyrnē as Ignatius saith And in Cōferences Synods where many Pastors meet we do not only allow but require a disparitie and prioritie also namely in the President or Moderator Yea we do not simply disallow a continuing President so that his cōtinuance be subiect to his Brethrens free liking they seeing it to be not against the glorie of God and the common good And for all this we are well assured there is sound warrant in the word of God But as touching a farther disparitie then this We answer comparing Pastors with Pastors among themselves in their common office or in any of the naturall parts therof we see not how there may be any disparitie or difference in them May one Iustice of peace permit the rest in the same Countie to call before them to reproue and rebuke Malefactors but not in any wise to cōmit to prison or to bind in recognizance any man May one assume this power alone to himselfe and exclude all the rest Surely this were in the common wealth arrogant iniurious and vnlawful without expresse warrant from the same authoritie by which they all hold their Offices How much more vnlawfull is it for men without Gods warrant to presume in Gods matters in altering and changing in making greater or lesser the Spirituall offices of Christs Church Magis and Minus in common reason can not be admitted in the nature of one and the same Office what * Is one King more a king then an other One Father more a Father then an other Office soever we speake of But this is so more specially in the Ecclesiasticall For it is exceeding strange that among true and proper Pastors som should be more som lesse Pastors which yet must needes be if som may have more som lesse Pastorall power The vnreasonablenes heereof appeareth further if we consider in like manner the nature and condicion of the Visible Churches One Visible Church can not bee
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
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
were each of them primitiuely no more but a Parish only that is but one ordinary constant Congregation only As wehre he nameth the Church of Ierusalem a Euse lib. 3.11 the Parish of Ierusalem of Ephesus the Parish of b Lib. 3.28 Ephesus and so of c Lib. 3.13.18 lib. 4.1.4.5.19 Alexandria of d Lib. 3.32 Hierapolis of e Lib. 4.22 Corinth of f Lib 4.25 Sardis of g Lib. 5.5 Lyons divers Churches the h Lib. 4.22 6. Parishes of Crete He no where mentioneth many Churches nor Parishes vnder one Bishop in any Citie till Iulianus time in Alexandria as before we observed By Epiphanius testimonie also our Assertion is maintained Who saith Primitiuely * Epiph coÌ„tr Haâ—â—â—â— 73. in a small CoÌ„gregation a Bishop was ordayned alone without other Presbyters assisting him And in som places only Presbyters and Deacons without a Bishop In other places that is in great populous CongregatioÌ„s where they had meete men to be chosen there they chose in each of them a Bishop with other assistant Presbyters By which it appeareth consequently that every-where a Bishop then was but of one particular Congregation only whether greater or simaller The second part is proved The particular Congregations had their owne goverment Ecclefiasticall Ignat. ad Philad NEither let any imagine that these particular Congregations then wanted their owne Ecclesiasticall government among themselves only It is most evident that they had it exercised it only within themselues ordinarily Which is plaine by that of Ignatius writing to one of them thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It is meet for you as being the Church of God to chose by common coÌ„sent your Bishop And to an other particular Church thus * Ad Smyrna 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 In the Church which is with you at Smyrna there is not any thing aboue the Bishop He meaneth the Bishop or Pastor of the particular Congregation is of greatest authoritie and aboue any other there whomsoever So that they in that Congregation had all governement simply and solely among themselves He speaketh heere of governing 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Spiritually not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Civilly For thus the Magistrate is Supreme both in and over each Church and whatsoever Church matters as Mai. Beza religiously and dutifully * Theod. Bez. de Excom Presbyt speaketh we †Pag. 57. before observed Yea verily thus the Magistrat is supreme whether he care for the Church or care not Hence therfore we conclude that these particular Churches had the ordinary Ecclesiasticall government of themselves among themselves TertulliaÌ„ also in the place before cited sheweth so much speaking of each particular ordinarie Congregation in his dayes Ibidem est censura divina Iudicatur magno cum pondere vt apud certos de Dei conspectu Apol. â— 39 President probati quique Seniores There are divine Censures They iudge with great waight and advisednes as being sure that God seeth them The approved Elders are the chiefe or do governe these Censures Therfore all particular ordinary Congregations inioyed their owne spirituall governement then in those times There is no suspicion of any restraint or abridging of them therin till Dionysius the 13. Bishop of Alexandria Anno 260. at the soonest The third part is proved No Maioritie of rule but only Prioritie of order in a primitive Bishop BEsides the testimonies before alleaged Ambrose in plain wordes telleth vs this that primitively * Ambro in Eph. 4. 1 Tim. 3. A Bishop was no more but primus Presbyter the foremost in order among the other Ministers of the word in the Synods or where there were other in the same Congregation with him Therefore the Bishop then differed not in Maioritie of rule from any other Pastor And therefore then there was no Diocesan Church vsing governement nor Diocesan Bishop ruling other Pastors and Churches Much lesse was there any Diocesan Lord Bishop then Ierome doth likewise Where he saith * Ierom. ad Evagr. in Tit. 1. A Bishop and an Elder or common Pastor by Divine institution and ordinance are all one And Maioritie among them came in by the custome of the Church and Humane disposition He meaneth Maioritie of Ruling because he sheweth heere that formerly all did rule “ in coÌ„muniâ— or communi Presbyterorum consiliâ— in common Wherefore by his iudgement there was not at the first any Maioritie of rule in a Bishop over Pastors Much lesse were there any Diocesan L. Bishops ruling by their sole authoritie in those times Som Prioritie in order we doubt not was alwayes First Parishionall and then Diocesan som good while after as before is shewed Yea the Parishionall prioritie of order was we deny not constant yea even among Pastors who had otherwise all one Office intirely I say this was where there were divers Ministers of the word in one particular Congregation As we doubt not there were in som places Now for this matter viz. Bishops Maioritie in governement above Presbyters and also concerning Ieromes opinion thereof it is not amisse to observe what D. Bilson also hath taught and avouched In his * Against the Semina part 2. pag. 318. First Booke he sayeth It was not by the institution of Christ nor his Apostles but long after by the consent of the Churches the Custom of the tymes and the will of Princes Where also he sheweth that this was Ieromes iudgement likewise Howsoever since I can not tell how nor why D. Bilson †Perpeâ— gov pag. 236.237.238 changed much his minde heerein and yet with no more discrepance from himselfe then from the trueth and from almost all learned men beside both ancient and later Further this reason prooveth the present whole Assertion If the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vsed religiously for a Church Visible with order and governement do and ought to keepe in all good Authors a iust proportion answerable to the Civill and Originall vse thereof then it must needs be in proper signification a particular CoÌ„gregation only For Originally and Civilly in all Greeke Authors 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth one particular Assembly in one place only as an Assembly of the people at Athens in Ephesus in Corinth c being com togeather in their publike iudgement-place Which is evident by the writinges of Plato Demosthenes Isocrates Xenophon c. Yea in the * Acte 19. â—2 39.40 Actes of the Apostles we do finde it likewise so vsed But the Apostles and other Ecclesiasticall writers for 200. yeares after Christ vsing this worde for a Visible Church with order and governement do speak properly and so ought to keepe a iust proportion in it answerable to the Civill and originall vse thereof This sentence is vndoubtedly true and vndenyable If any think he can shew to the coâ—â—â—rie let it be shewed Therefore the Apostles and other Ecclesiasticall Writers for 200.
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
This is true in deed God hath given vs in his word this sufficiencie for all Ecclesiasticall or Religious matters necessarie to salvation but not for all Ecclesiasticall matters what soever This is a frivolous exception and most false For first divers of our present matters controverted are necessaric enough They can not be thus reiected as thinges not necessarie viz. the onely true Forme and Constitution of Christs Visible Churches with their due Ministeries proportioned to them According to Gods ordinarie dispensation of grace by his worde there is even Necessitie to enioy these Gods own Ordinances and to bee free from all Traditions of men especially such as are coÌ„trarie to his Touching other things which seeme sinaller and of lesse importance as some esteeme the Rites Ceremonies to be in Gods worship I answere our Argument before laid downe generally includeth all meere Ecclesiastical or Religious things I say All. And where All is included Nothing is excepted Wherefore we still affirme and professe that all lawfull Ecclesiasticall Rites whatsoever are contained now in the Scriptures of the New Testament and not onely thinges simply necessarie to salvation Besides that we must not forget how the wilfull maintayning of small thinges amisse becommeth a great and haynous sinne wherevnto is due a fearfull punishment As may be seene in him who * Num. 15.30 and 32. with a high hande did but gather a few stickes on the Sabbath day Nothwithstanding all this yet it semeth to many that these externall things Ecclesiastical are not matters of Doctrine nor of Faith c. And therefore may bee lawfull though they be not contayned in the Scripture I answere They are all truly properly matters of Doctrine of Faith and of Religion appertayning to the 1. Table 2. Commaundement in the Decalogue to many other places of Scripture as before hath bene shewed It is the error of men not knowing the holy Scriptures proper and full vse or true extent when any do thinke such Ecclesiasticall things as these heere controverted are not coÌ„tained in the Scripture yet that they may be lawfull They are all simply vnlawfull if they bee not contained in the holy Scripture Wherefore even all these things both the lawful vnlawfull contained in the Scripture or not contained Formes of visible Churches vsing Government Ministeries Rites are matters of Doctrine of Faith of ReligioÌ„ viz. true or false So that the one ought as our life to be imbraced the other as the very wayes of death to be avoyded especially when we discerne and see them thus to be Reason 2. EVERY Visible Church of Christ truly and properly so called ought by Gods * Mat. 18 17. expresse word to have and vse the Ecclesiasticall government of it self Bâ—â—â—very particular Congregation of Christians is a Visible Church of Christ truly and properly The true Churches and the false Therefore every particular Congregation of Christians by Gods expresse word ought to have and vse the Ecclesiasticall governement of it selfe viz. according to the order set downe for a Visible Church in Gods word And so in England consequentlie the things that are directlie contrarie therevnto Diocesan and Provinciall Churches vsing government with their Ministers c. are directlie contrarie to Gods word and therefore ought of necessitie to be reformed Heere first lett it be noted A Visible Church that we vnderstande a Visible Church of Christ to be a Societie of Christians whiche any member may and must on occasion have a visible or sensible vse of intirely and wholy togeather the same having the power of Eccle siasticall governement in and for it selfe immediatlie from Christ. I say The Church intirelie and wholie togeather may and must be vsed on occasion Considering that against this there is no text of Scripture in all the New Testament nor anie force of reason appearing Then let vs also observe and marke these 3. pointes Note For proofe of our Assumption last before 1. The Visible Churches of Christ were in number * 1 Cor. 11.16 4 17. c. many divers and not onely one by the ordinance of God him selse So that it is false whiche is “ Hooker lib 3. Sect. 1. pa. 132. held that there is a Vniversall Visible Church like the Sea which being but one properly is distinguished and called by divers names according to the Countries and places by which it cometh Nay the Visible Churches of Christ were by the Apostles ordination many in number actuallie divided Bodies or Societies The Sea properly and alwayes being but one Continued Body was and is distinguished meerelie by divers names The Vniversall Invisible Church was and is in deed one in number but I have shewed there were many in nomber of the true and proper Visible Churches Againe the Iewish Visible Church according to the Law was in nuÌ„ber only one properlie vnder one High Priest and having one Temple only at Ierusalem But Christ and his Apostles changed that forme and did institute and leave the Christian Churches properlie in number many and divers as I saide Secondly they instituted and left particular ordinarie or constant CoÌ„gregations true and proper Visible Churches Or they left not anie one Visible Church in the whole world constitute and compact of divers ordinarie and constant Congregations Both these points are most manifest and vndeniable in these places of holy Scripture following First that florishing and plentifull Church of Corinth was * 1. Cor. 14.23 but one particular Congregation Whereof the Apostle saith thus When the whole Church is come togeather “ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 into one place Which also we may likewise affirme of the Church of * Act. 14.27 Antioch and of ♣ Iusti Martyr Apo. 2 Rome and of “ Act. 15.22 25. Ierusalem and of * Act. 20.28 Ephesus c. in those dayes For though these Cities were great and populous yet being vnbeleeving hatefull enemies to the Gospell each of them had then of faithfull Christians but one particular constant Congregation onely Like as the Protestants are in the Cities at this day vnder the Spanish King or as they were in divers Cities of France before the peace was made as we were heere in London in Queene Maries time Where yet we denie not that then some particular CoÌ„gregations being as that of Ierusalem was * Act. 4.4 before greater then other som did by reason of persecution meet occasionallie and vncertainlie in divers ♣ Act. 12 1â— smaller numbers But these smaller numbers were not so many Churches properlie because they were vncertaine and occasionall A true and proper Church being alwayes necessarilie an ordinarie sett companie and a constant societie Those therefore notwithstanding made but one “ Act. 6.2 particular compleat Congregation or proper Church which in time of peace chieflie they growing yet more populous were to be distributed and divided into sundrie proper and
ordinarie Churches each of them a competent Congregation Which we do observe further neere the end of our handling the 2. Assertion afterward Moreover likely also it is in these cruell persecuting Cities that so great a multitude of Christians did not long keepe togeather but many of theÌ„ did quicklie disperse and scatter them selves abroad into other quarters and Countries whereby the whole number there became smaller as we may see they did at * Act. 8.1 Ierusalem by reason of Stevens persecution c. immediatlie after the great and suddaine increase of the Church there All which being considered it is plaine yet still that in the greatest Cities or wheresoever els the Apostles appointed and left true and proper Visible Churches particular constant CoÌ„gregations Which further alfo appeareth by those many and distinct Churches of a Gal. 1.2 1. Cor. 16.1 Galatia of b 2 Cor. 8.1 19 23. Macedonia of c 1 Cor. 16.19 Asia of d 2. Cor. 8.24 Achaia of e 1. Th. 2.14 Gal. 1.21 Iudea of f Act. 9.31 Galile Samaria of g Act. 15.41 Syria Cilicia of h Act. 14.23 Lycaonia Pisidia Likewise by those many Churches of the i Rom. 16.4 Gentiles and the Churches of the k 1 cor 14 33 Saints the Churches of l 1 Cor 11.16 God the Churches of m RoÌ„ 16.16 Christ and n 2. Cor. 8.18 11.28 1. Cor. 4.17 Reve. 2.23 Act. 16.5 1 Cor. 14.34 3. Ioh. 6. Rev. 22.16 All Churches All these in number were not onlie one but manie proper distinct Churches Each of them being severallie but one particular constant CoÌ„gregation Wherevnto most fitlie agreeth that iniunction and commandement of our Saviour Christ touching a Visible Church where he instituteth the externall spirituall power thereof saying o Mat. 18.17 Tell the Church or Congregation If he heare not the Church let him be vnto thee as an Heathen and a Publicane Where he must necessarilie be vnderstood of a particular Congregation Which may be told and spoken vnto onely As also that description of a Visible Church which our publike Authoritie in England teacheth “ Artic. 19. viz. A Visible Church is a Congregation of faithfull people where the word of God is preached and the Sacraments ministred c. Doct. Bilson also where he saith * D. Bils against the Seminaries lib. 2. p. 170 The Church is never taken in the New or old Testament for the Priestes alone but generallie for the whole Congregation of the faithfull In Act. 20.28 The Church is taken for the People And it is “ Lib 3. Pa. 70. Math. 18.17 The whole multitude of the faithfull where he and they the Offender and the Offended live The 3. point here to be marked serving also for proofe of our Proposition before is a generall and sure Maxime in Divinitie viz. The true and proper Visible Churches of Christ both heeretofore now and heereafter though manie in number yet all are but one in nature forme and Constitution And each of them hath simply one and the same spirituall or Ecclesiasticall power immediatlie from Christ not derived from any other to governe it selfe withall To which purpose the Scripture often speaketh of the Visible Church indefinitelie as of onelie * Math. 22.2 c. 1. Cor. 12.13 Mat. 6.33 1. Pet. 2.5 Isa 2.1 2 3. 1. Tim. 3.5 one Because in Nature and Forme and in the true Constitution as also in the spirituall power thereof it is only one Yea it saith also in plaine termes that there is “ Ephe. 4.4 1. Cor. 12.13 one Body where is ment the Church But it is to bee vnderstood that it is one in nature and power as I said Which must of necessitie be so because Christes * Math. 18.17 Institution of a visible Churches externall spirituall governement before noted must belong equally to every true and proper Visible Church Wherefore also the nature forme Constitution of everie one must be the same that this is which heere Christ signifieth in Matthew Which evidentlie was a particular Congregation as before wee observed To which purpose also one of our Adversaries * Hooker lib. 3 pag. 132. a famous Schole-divine sheweth that by cleere and vndeniable reason the governement Ecclesiasticall belongeth to everie Visible Church properly so called And the practise of the Apostolike Churches doeth iustifie and confirme it Which being ordinarie particular Congregations each of them did or might by their Ministers and them selves in presence consenting * Act. 14.23 2. Cor. 8.19 choose Elders and “ 1. Cor. 5.4 5. Mat 18 17. excommunicate offenders Neither certainly did Christ ever institute or the Apostles practise divers kindes or formes of Visible Churches Neither let they any to have greater or lesser spirituall power then other But they appointed one forme and one power for the Churches questionles everie where and alwayes Therefore they all though being many in number yet were and are one in nature and forme and power every-where and for ever Whence now it followeth by a necessarie and vndeniable coÌ„sequence that these 3. Conclusions insuing are likewise certaine and true 1. Every particular ordinarie Congregation of faithfull people in England * Iâ—râ— Divine By right from God is a true proper Visible Church 2. Everie such Congregation heere and everie where is indued with power immediatly froÌ„ Christ to governe it selfe Ecclesiasticallie or fpirituallie 3. Everie true and proper Visible Church everie where is but one ordinarie or constant Congregation only And then no one Church consisteth neither can consist of many ordinarie distinct Congregations Wherfore no Diocesan Chuch is ordained or allowed by Christ no Provinciall no Nationall and so likewise no Vniversall visible Church with an externall governement correspondent to the same as the Catholikes heretically do holde A Catholike an Heretike A Vniversal Militant Church I deny not but a Vniversal or Catholike Visible Church with correspondent governement I do deny and so likewise the rest Now heere thus we do for this reason because it is not possible if there be indeed one Vniversall Church properly or where there is a Nationall Church or Provinciall or Diocesan that there the particular ordinarie CoÌ„gregations are or can be esteemed so many true and proper Churches These can not stand togeather with any of the former Everie of those is directlie contrarie to these Seeing these in such case are properly but Members and partes of the other and not in them selves proper and intier Churches Which yet in the places of Scripture * before cited the H. Ghost doth plainlie affirme Where if he speake not properly who doth Pag. 19.20 Or what is in Divinitie a proper speach if the coÌ„tinuall phrase of the H. Ghost in Scripture be not proper Note And surely to this point if we marke it well doth all our present Controversie come that is to sett downe What
is a Visible Church of Christ truly and properly Seeing each true Visible Church hath evermore from Christ power and right of governement in it selfe as before is noted Let this therefore be well declared what is a true Visible Church and we shall soone agree We affirme that every particular ordinarie Cōgregation is and ought to be allowed for such a Church And heerevpon do we stand I am not ignorant of the common and vulgar phrase of speach among men both ancient and of late both vnlearned and learned who have vsed to call everie of those other a Church as a Diocesan Church a Provinciall a National and also a Vniversall Church meaning it seemeth that everie of these may be trulie and rightlie called a Visible Church But this is only the custome of speach among men And * Mos trium literatum tyrannus Bez. Annot. in Luc. 23.17 Custome is a Tyrant as a Reverend Father saith well It is no warrant nor ground for any thing in Religion The word of God alone must suffice vs heerein Yea we consider not what advantage we give the Heretike Catholikes against vs by acknowledging a Catholike Visible Church It followeth from this necessarilie that there is ought to be on earth a Catholike or Vniversall governement Ecclesiasticall This is a Conclusion wherevnto M. Hooker setteth down expreslie * Hook 3. Sect 1. both the Proposition and Assumption viz. Everie Visible Church Pag. 132. truly and properly so called ought to have a correspondent Ecclesiasticall governement But there is a Catholike or Vniversal Visible Church on earth Pag. 126. and 132. To which Premisses everie childe now can quicklie adde the Conclusion Ergo There is and ought to be on earth a Catholike or Vniversall governement Eccle siasticall And I am perswaded that this oversight or error among vs hath caused Thousandes to turne Catholikes that is members of Antichrist and enemies to the true Churches and servants of Christ For if there be properlie one Visible Church and governement Ecclesiasticall throughout the world then this must be in some one place eminently For some whither we must go when Christ biddeth vs Tell the Church Now there is no place in all the world so likelie as Rome is to be the Visible seat and spring-head of the Vniversall governement of the Catholike Church if in deed there be any Therfore most easilie mē are drawen to be Roman Catholiks whē this is not denyed that there is a Catholike Visible Church Which selfe same advantage we give also to our Pontificall Hierarchie in England against the true estate and due governement of Christes Visible Churches heere For while we grant them whether by error or by oversight that there is may be truly and properly a Diocesan Visible Church they will easilie conclude that then there may ought to be a correspondent Diocesan governement Which as before I observed overthroweth quite the proper being and governement of each particular or Parishionall Church But we because Christ and his Apostles throughout all the New Testament have appointed every were allowed the Parishionall Assemblies as to be cleerely absolutly distinct in themselves so to be Visible Churches truly properly and withall a correspondent Ecclesiasticall governement to be in each of them as before hath bene shewed therefore heerevpon do we stand this do we vrge that the Institution of Christ and the Apostles practize ought to be a rule for Christian Churches as every where so heere in England vpon this do our Consciences rest assuredlie Because as before I said who is it that may presume to ordaine any forme of a Church save Christ only Especiallie overthrowing that forme of a Church and governement which Christ hath ordeyned as these Diocesan and Provinciall Churches with their proper Ministers do Ecclesiae nomine armamini contra Ecclesias dimicatis You arme your selves with the name of the Church and fight against the true Churches In this place I can not forget how some thinking thēselves deepe Politicians do imagin that they see our Groūds to be directlie against a Monarchie or Kingly State For this Ecclesiasticall governement being Popular say they it wil require the Civill governement also to becom conformed to it Also they thinke it can never bee menaged without trouble and tumult First we absolutelie denie that any manner of Ecclesiasticall Governement requireth the Civill Governement to becom conformed to it This is a most false conceite The bounds of either Governernement are distinct and cleerlie severed the one from the other albeit each doth ayd succour the other But what should I reason heereof This their insimulation is against none other then Christ him selfe and his blessed Word wherein he hath instituted no other state of a Church Visible but a particular Congregation only Shall we impugne and accuse the true Church of Christ Nay shall we accuse Christ him selfe and his Gospell that heerein he yeeldeth vs not the true right or best forme of a Church And therefore we will of our owne heades devise and constitute a better God forbid that any Christians should so do and wilfully maintaine this doing also But they think this maner of governement will becom tumultuous and troublesom in the State and so it will proove hurtfull to the Prince I would demaund why thinke they that the Church government as we desire it will be troublesom tumultuous They will answere because we require of necessitie that Elections of Ministers and Excommunications c. must be Popular Which can not but bring with them commonly tumult and much trouble if not confusion and perill to manie Wherevnto I replie that this were verie true in deed viz. much trouble and tumult would commonly follow and perhaps perill to divers if we desired or sought for popular Elections of Diocesan Bishops Such as we read of finde to have ben vsed in many places vnder Christian Princes from 300. yeres after Christ hitherward for a long time As for example at Antioch Alexandria Rome Constantinople c. In these and other Cities verie great stirres tumultes and confusions among the People have risen in deed not seldom times even in and about such their Elections The Ecclesiasticall Histories are full of examples to this purpose But such running togeather of a whole Citie or Dioces such voice-giving of such multitudes of people we desire not neither do we any wayes allow it It was a corrupt remainder in deed of the Peoples auncient free voice-giving to the Election of their Parishionall Pastors or Bishops For such all ordinarie Bishops and Pastors were primitively in the Apostles dayes and such every where they were left by them as before we have shewed Every ordinarie Bishop then I say was only of a Parish as the Ancients call it that is of one particular Congregation only and no greater And so their Elections were accomplished by the free consent and voyce-giving only of the People of each of these
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.
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
plainly * Pag. 11 1â— Intrusion and Presumption This sufficeth to shew that he well vnderstaÌ„deth the truth in this cause But now it wil be demanded How can we then allow the Calling of the Ministers in England iudging them by the rule of Gods worde I answere First this is ever a sure ground not in the Schooles only but with all faithfull Christians reasoning about any matter Consequens incommodum non solvit argumentum An inconvenient consequence taketh not away an Argument We must not then decline from the truth for any inconvenience which may follow Rather it behoveth vs to looke well to our selves to our profession and standing wherein we abide and Christianlie with speed to amend our error Howbeit I speak not this as if I absolutly denied the whole Calling of our Ministers I do not so The Lord knoweth there is none in England more vnwilling to runne vpon this rocke then I am And yet nevertheles I dare not I can not nor anie good Christian els agree to change Gods Ordinances after our occasions Wherefore I answer to this question thus For my part I beleeve that the true ratification and warrant of our Ministers calling which is by Gods word standeth in this only in this The Churches acceptation See Bez. in Act 14.23 that our Visible Churches do consent and accept them whom they receave for such I say they do consent and accept them after what sort soever it be done And this their consent I acknowledge giveth them before God their Ministery though conioyned with many great publike corruptions otherwayes In which respect the Papistes are soundly answered who calumniat our Ministery as if either we had none at all or els had that which we have from them Againe this answereth others who because in our publike orders there are many evills ioyned with our Ministers Calling which are not to be iustified nor to be communicated with and because they are commonly esteemed to have their Calling from these vnlawfull meanes viz. from the Diocesan ruling Bishops without the Church though in deed it be not so therefore they do wholy and absolutly deny the Ministerie in England which in trueth and by good reason they ought not to do absolutly and altogeather How beit yet I speak not this in favor to such persons or Congregations among vs which do evidently appeare to refuse of wilfulnes Christes Ordinances and to speak evil of the way of God Toward such I can not deny but the Apostles * Act. 19.9 1 Tim. 6.5 praâ—â—â—â— and precept ought to bee followed who teacheth in this case saying Separate from such †Ephe. 5.12 â— Câ—â— 6.19 Have nâ— fellowship with the vnfruitfull workes of darknes * Touch no vncleane thing “ Rom. 16.17 Marke them which cause schismes and scandalles beside the doctrine which you have learned and avoid them Reason 7. TO wantany maine part of the * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Luke 12.42 ordinary appointed meanes of salvation is “ Math. 28.20 Isa 30.21 coÌ„trary to Gods word and necessarie to be reformed But the right and true Discipline Ecclesiasticall in each proper Visible Church is one maine part of the ordinary meanes of salvation * Mat. 18.17 Ioh. 20.23 Mat. 16.19 appointed by God for every soule and this we in England do vtterly want Therefore we in England in respect of Discipline and Governement Ecclesiasticall do stand contrarie to Gods word and ought heerein necessarily to be reformed Or thus Where the Apostles true Suceessors are spoyled of their Office and Ministerie of binding and loosing forgiving retayning of scandalous sinnes there is grievous Sacrilege there ought to be of necessitie a reformation to restore them to this their spirituall * Math. 18.18 Ioh. 20.23 right and duty But the ordinarie Pastors and Teachers of all the Churches in England are the Apostles true Successors and they are spoyled of the office of binding and loosing forgiving and retayning the scandalous sinnes of their owne flockes Therefore the ordinarie Pastors and Teachers of all the Churches in England do suffer the wrong of sacrilege and ought of Necessitie to be restored to this their spirituall right and dutie which yet they are held from Or thus Where the Apostles true Successors are barred from vsing * Math. 16.19 both the Keyes which Christ himselfe gave them put them in trust with all there the vse of both ought to be restored to them Otherwise †2 Tim. 1.14 Tim. 6.20.14 Cor. 9.17 â—6 how can they say in their consciences before God that they walke in their calling and fulfill their Ministery and discharge their trust And how can the flocke assuredly expect that Heaven shal be opened to them But the ordinaric Pastors and Teachers in all the Churches in England are the Apostles true and only Successors among vs and they are barred froÌ„ vsing one of the Keyes namely the Key of power or governement as it is called Therefore the vse of this Key also ought of necessitie to be restored to them Obedience is better then sacrifice 1. Samu. 15.22 If ye know these things blessed are ye if ye do them Ioh. 13.17 Reason 8. Christ out Prophet King WHOSOEVER denyeth Christ the Saviour to be our intire and perfect Prophet and spirituall King by taking away from him som parts of his Propheticall and Kingly Offices and ascribing the same vnto Men he disninisheth the honor dignitie of Christ he impugneth the Foundation of saving faith and is * 1 Cor. 3.11 Act. 4.12 â—oh â—4 6 contrarie to Gods word But the Diocesan Bishops c. do by necessary consequeÌ„ce deny Christ the Saviour to be our perfect Prophet and spiriâ—uall King by taking froÌ„ him som proper partes of his Propheticall and Kingly Offices For they hold sound and intire only Christes Priestly Office Brieflie as the Catholikes do ioyne Men with Christ in all these 3. Offices so do our Diocesans in the 2. former Therefore the Diocesan ruling Bishops c. do diminish the honor and dignitie of Christ they impugne the foundation of saving faith and are contrarie to Gods word The Proposition if it be wisely considered is playne For it can not be doubted but Christ Iesus hath 3. Offices viz. he is our Prophet King and Priest by vertue of all these 3. properly he is our Saviour and Mediator Againe we are necessarily to believe that Christ Iesus hath in his owne onely person all these 3. Offices intire absolut and perfect In so much that if any shall with what colour soever coÌ„municate these Offices to others denying them to Christs sole and proper person or any of them yea or any manifest and certaine part of them the same verily do impugne the foundation of saving faith and deprive Christ of a part of his sole and proper glorie Where also I desire it may be remembred that Christ Iesus though he properly worketh our RedemptioÌ„
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
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
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