either Civill or Naturall or Written in the word I say these Particulars only notwithstaÌ„ding this Commandement are permitted to men to appoint or to change againe at their discretion In this text then there are 3. points to be noted 1. The matter 2. The Author 3. The respect due from vs vnto the matter heere contained The matter is the whole spirituall Meanes of worshipping the true God And namely the Outward spirituall meanes that is Gods Visible Church his Ministery his whole Outward Worship and Service 2. The Author of all this is precisely determined viz. God himselfe and no Man 3. Such Inventions of men must haue from Gods people no reverence but Gods owne ordinances must And thus this 2. Commandement is truly vnderstood To this effect likewise â—re many other places of Scripture excellent expositions and interpretations of this maine Commaundement As “ Deu. 12 32 Whatsoever I commaund you take heed that you do it thou shalt put nothing thereto nor take ought therefrom * Isa 30.21 This is the way walke ye in it turne not to the right hande nor to the left “ Psal 19.7 The Law of the Lord is perfect § Psal 119.113 I hate vaine inventions but thy lawe doe I love “ Nomb. 15.39 Yee shall have fringes that when ye looke vpon them ye may remember all the commandements of the Lord and do them and that yee seeke not after your owne heart nor after your owne eyes after the which ye go a whoring * Matt. 15.13 Every plant that my heavenly father hath not planted shal be rooted vp “ 2. Tim. 3.16.17 The whole Scripture is given by inspiration of God making the man of God perfect vnto every good worke * Ioh. 16.13 The holy Ghost shall lead you into all trueth “ Gal. 3.15 No maÌ„ adde to any thing to a mans Testament much lesse may we adde vnto Christes Testament Which is only the holy Scriptures of the Apostles and nothing els in the world Lastly * Rom. 16.17.18 Marke them which make schismes and offenses “ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 scâ— Gal. 1.8 1. Cor. 3 1â— Besides the doctrine which you haue learned and avoid them For such seruenot the Lord Iesus Christ c. With manie other mo places to the same purpose Out of all which this doctrine remaineth cleare and firme that all Humane inventions or Vnwritten Traditions Ecclesiasticall are directly contrarie to Gods woord Yea being but Beside the Scripture they are flatly contrarie to it in these places And therfore Gods owne word which is only the holy Scriptures as was before noted ought to be religiouslie beleeved and held to be for vs as a most perfect and absolute demonstration of all things whatsoever being properlie and simplie Ecclesiasticall or religious Which was the speciall end and vse they were given for As likewâ—se they were given vnto the Iewes even to be so absolute and perfect for them ever since God did give them any holy Scripture From which groundes principall places of Gods worâ—e thus declared we will now conclude and frame our first Reason Reason 1 IF we have Diocesan and Provinciall Churches vsing governement Ministeries or Offices proper to them and also Ceremonies that is Rites now in controversie all which are Inventions Traditions vtterly without the Scripture Vnwritten Traditions then we have some reputed Churches as touching their outward visible forme and ministeries and Ceremonies contrarie to Gods worde But we haue Diocesan Provinciall Churches vsing government their proper Offices viz. the Provinciall Diocesan * viz. as they inflict Ecclesiasticall Censures high Commission Provinciall and Diocesan Ruling Bishops also controverted Ceremonies which are all Ecclesiastical vnwritten Traditions no wayes contained in but cleane beside the Scripture Therefore they are contrarie to these places of Gods word they are simply evill of necesitie the other viz. the Parish Churches in England ought to bee reformed freed and cleered of them all Where it is first to be noted Note 1 that alâ— those forenamed matters Ecclesiasticall or any other els which may or can be lawfull are and ought to be coÌ„taineâ— in the Scripture either expreslie or by necessarie consequence Otherwise we affirme they are meerely Humane Inventions Traditions contrarie to the Scripture Note II Reputed Visible Churches of divers kindes Againe it is to be noted that in the esâ—imation of men a Visible Church that is which is indued with power of Spirituall outward governement is of diâ—ers formes and natures Nevertheles in trueth and in veâ—ie deed Christ hath ordeined for vs only one kinde of a Visible Church in his worde And this only ought to be allowed and believed to be a true Church by all Christians For who is it that can or ever could make any societie of people to be a Visible Church but Christ onely Some men esteeme the Vniversal nomber of professed Christians in the world to be one visible Church calling it the Catholike or Vniversal visible Church And the Catholikes taking holde hereof do conclude that likewise there is ought to be one Catholike and vniversall governement Ecclesiasticall vnto which all other Churches and their governments must be subordinate But in Gods worde there is no such visible Church nor governement anie where to be found This is meerly devised by the witte and will of men Againe men esteeme a whole Nation professing the Gospell to be one visible Church and they call it a National church Likewise a Province a Provincial church and a Diocese a Diocesan Church But none of these likewise can be found in the whole new TestameÌ„t of Christ Only a Particular ordinary constant Congregation of Christians in Christes Testament is appointed and reckoned to be a visible Church Particular Parishionall Churches are the onely true Visible Churches And therefore so standeth the case now heere with vs in England also and so we ought to esteeme it The which that it may more clearelie appeare to be true I have thought good to sett downe this brief Table following wherein all the divers and sundrie senses of a Church in the * We speak not of the Iewes churche vnder the Law which wee knowe was Nationall only one in the world vnder one High Priest Which were Figures and are ceased Such also was that One Church in the wildernes Acts 7.38 which was yet nevertheles but one particular Assembly aâ—â—o in one plate gathered to geather so neere as such a multitude could be Exod 19 11 c. New Testament are plainlie distinctlie shewed And yet none of the 4. forenamed visible Churches as some do repute them are any where there to be found A Table briefly shewing all the divers and sundry significations in the New Testament of this word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which coÌ„monly we translate a Church Wherein we may easily see which is the onâ—â—e true and
particular ordinarie Congregations or Parishes Now it is true indeed we acknowledge we allow and do desire such Elections and Excommunications by the People Neither is this to bee reckoned anie Popularitie which can be either prejudicious to Princes or tumultuous in it selfe No it can not be an inconvenient order but most reasonable for any place or people in the world Namely seeing we do expresly hold this assertioÌ„ no otherwise and we hartilie pray that it may bee noted but as it is grounded on 4. Circumstances Power Circumstances wheron the fitnes of the Peoples coÌ„sent staÌ„deth 1 1. In regard that it is as we are well assured a Divine order and ordinance instituted for each Church by Christ and his Apostles the trueth whereof we hope hath evidently appeared in this 2 2. Reason last handled Considering that we allow the Peoples consent and voice-giving in Elections Excommunications c. to be done only by the Christian People of one Parish that is of one particular ordinarie Congregation only and by no greater nor larger number of People by any meanes as before hath bene likewise shewed 3 3. Considering that in the maner heereof we hold this only to be necessarie ordinarie that the Ecclesiasticall Guides there apart froÌ„ the People do first by themselves prepare and determine the whole matter namely in such sort that the People may not neede to do ought afterward but only Consent with them and freelie signifie their consent it it 4 4. If anie where it should fall out that this People thus guided being so few will yet presume to be in their Church-Elections c. vnrulie and violent then the Princes next dwelling Officers of Iustice may and ought to make them keepe peace and quietnes Which thing how easie it is for the meanest of them to do the simplest may perceaue All which verilie being well considered this Ecclesiasticall Governement questionles is most reasonable yea necessarie And it is childish without all wit to cry out against vs as our Adversaries do Popularitie Anarchie and Enmitie to Princes for this our so wel grounded and so approved an assertion Another thing is heere to be well remembred that M. Hooker and M. Tooker the noble Patrons of Pluralities and Nonresidencie are vtterlie defeated in this their purpose The former * Hook lib. 5. sect vlâ—im maketh this his Reason for them because it is a mistaking saieth he to thinke that the particular Congregations are by Gods ordinance so many distinct proper Churches For as he holdeth there is but one Visible Church properlie and the same Vniversall thorough the whole world As for particular Congregations they are not properlie so many Churches neither distinguished at all by God but only by men And therefore everie Minister is a Minister properlie to the Whole Church but by men according to discretion only is limited to this or that Congregation there to have maintenance made sure to him by Law there to teach till men see it fitt to imploy his giftes in another Benefice or elswhere All which because they are meerly Mens ordinances by men they may be disposed and dispensed with againe as to those in authoritie seemeth good And so both Pluralitie of Livings and Nonresidencie from the same shal be both lawfull and honest This is the effect and drift of his reason And even on the same foundation also buildeth D. Tooker Yea only this ground he hath and none other Where nothing els needeth answere but this his assertion * Fabrike of the Church pag. 45. DistinctioÌ„ of Parish Churches is of meere positive law not of Divine For my part I would graunt this Reason to be in deed sound and good for their purpose and not only for that but also singular and most pregnant to set vp the Romane Papacie too if this their Foundation were not manifestlie contrarie to Gods word But before it hath ben shewed to be cleerer then the light that DistinctioÌ„ of Parishes in some sort that is of particular Churches is by Gods own ordinaÌ„ce in the Apostles Writings and not by the meere positive law of men Wherefore this is evident to be a most vngodly and shameles Defence pleading for or excusing that wretched sinne of soule-murdering Nonresidencie as if it were a thing allowable and not simplie evill It can not excuse this sinne to alleadge that Plurified men may haue their 2. Benefices neare togither perhaps within halfe a myle a myle or 2. myle the one of the other This will not helpe them any more then a man can be excused who taketh keepeth two wives at once though yet by the one he be not drawen farre away from the other Gods law disalloweth that former no lesse theÌ„ this latter Yea I avow There have ben who haue kept two wives at once honester men and more approved of God theÌ„ any Minister now in England having 2. Churches or Charges lying howsoever And yet I acknowledge to have two wives at once is simply against Gods worde Well yet this will not satisfie some neither will they yeeld that every particular Congregation of Christians should be allowed for a distinct and a proper Church Visible and so to inioy their owne Ecclesiasticall governement within themselves Albeit against it they have no reason vnles perhaps this only If it were so they will say yet will not thereby all things becom perfect Somewhat notwithstanding will bee wanting or amisse oftentimes How then shall this be holpeÌ„ or amended Not by Archbishops or Diocesan Ruling or Lord-Bishops I answer Somewhat wil be amisse alwayes in whatsoever Ecclesiasticall governement vpon earth Nevertheles there is no need nor good vse of these nor of anie Ecclesiasticall Vnwritten Traditions in Christes Churches We believe and know Gods Written word to bee sufficient Speciallie seeing these are so directlie contrarie to the only true forme and nature of Christs Visible Churches in his word as hath bene shewed A greater Ecclesiasticall governement then the Churches wee know none There is nothing without the Church above it viz. Ecclesiasticallie and spirituallie Seeing each Church hath her power and governement as before is declared immediatly from Christ Yet it is true beside the Magistrates honorable assistance verie oft there is great and singular yea sometimes in a sorte necessarie helpe to bee had by Synodes Which are meetings of choyse men out of many Churches and these are lesser or greater as occasion requireth Whose counsailles advises and determinations are most expedient and wholesome alwayes But touching any certaine GovernemeÌ„t by Synodes or necessarie imposing of their Synodall Conclusions Decrees or Canons vppon Churches without their particular free consentes this seemeth to be a meere Humane ordinance I can not finde it either expreslie or by necessarie consequence in any part of Christes Testament Thus writeth heereof the Reverend M. Whitaker * Whitak de Concil pag. 44. Quod omnes atttngit ab omnibus
approbari debet That which concerneth all ought to be approved of all Againe “ Pag. 23. Concilia si simpliciter necessaria sint Christus alicubi precipisset celebrari aut cius saltem Apostoli Quod tamen nusquam ab illis factum esse legimus If Councills were simply necessarie Christ somewhere would have commaunded to keepe them or at least his Apostles Which yet we read that they did no where Further * Pag. 35. Etsires ipsae de quibus in Concilio deliberatur consultatur sint sacrae religiosae tamen hoc ipsum Congregare Episcopos est merè 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Although the things deliberated and consulted of in a Councell be holy religious yet this thing to assemble Bishops or Pastors of divers Churches togeather is meerelie Civill I know well sundrie godlie men do hold that Synodes have power to prescribe and rule Ecclesiastically by Gods Law even sundrie whole Churches though they severallie consent not But with reverence to their names I take it the trueth is otherwise Only in the Actes wee finde somewhat that hath a kinde of likenes to such Synodes And it is but a kinde of likenes or scarse that for it is farre from the same thing Thus it is In Act. 15.6.25 we find a cōming togeather of the Apostles with the rest of the Church at Ierusalem and with a few other sent to them from the Church of Antioch Where these do make Decrees and impose them on the Churches yea on divers Churches which had * Act. 16.4 not sent any in their names thither And on the Church of Antioch who had perhaps but 4. or 5. there present This sheweth that this comming togeather at Ierusalem was a verie Extraordinarie Synode comparing it with our Synodes in vse now yea indeed nothing like to them First heere the “ Act. 15.2 text saith The Apostles onely and the Elders at Ierusalem were sought vnto And it is manifest that heerein the Apostles Extraordinarie office power tooke place viz. by imposing their Decrees on Churches who had no persons and on one Church viz. of Antioch who had few for them there present In which respect they at Ierusalem assume also aspeciall authoritie of the H. Ghost where they say * vers 28. It seemed good to the H. Ghost and to vs. Which no Assemblie of ordinarie persons could or can assume to them in such maner Only where the Apostles were present and consented there they might Finallie after this we never finde that any Churches vsed the meanes and power of Synodes till about Constantines time for almost 300. yeares space Which if it had ben an ordināce Divine for the Churches always they neither ought nor surelie would so long have neglected the same Seeing in that vvhile there vvere most waightie and continuall occasions requiring this Divine helpe if they had so esteemed it Which seeing they did not we may well thinke in those first times they held it not to be so Nevertheles Synodes when they may be had are for counsaill advise better resolution cōtinually profitable most wholesom as hath ben said And being well ordered do make singularlie for Vnitie Whereby also each Churches ordinarie governement may be much holpen amended And yet the same with power and authoritie ought to be held still within it selfe only Now touching our Synodes at this day in Englande they may be excepted against iustlie in 3. respects First because they consist principallie if not only of Provinciall Diocesan L. Bishops whose Offices are heere shewed to be plainlie contrarie to Gods word and of such other as are theirs Also our Synodes power is not superior but inferior and subiect to the L. Bishops will and liking which is vtterlie against the nature of true Synodes and the rule of Gods word Lastlie they impose Ecclesiasticall Canons on the Churches which give no consent vnto them as if they had power from God over the Churches thus to do All which before we have seene to be cleane contrarie Reason 3. To have no place nor part in anie Church THAT any being a Christian should have no place nor part at all in any true proper Visible Church of Christ is contrarie to Gods word Speciallie that any such so standing should Ecclesiasticallie rule manie Churches But our Diocesan Bishops professed Christians have not any place nor part at all in any true and proper Visible Church of Christ And yet they rule Ecclesiastically som 300. som 400. proper and distinct Visible Churches Therefore they are all contrarie to Gods word and ought necessarilie to be reformed The first part of the Assumption is thus proved If a Diocesan Bishop with vs have any part at all in any true and proper Visible Church then he is Pastor in som Church or one of the People But one of the privat People he is not any where Neither is he a right and true Pastor sustayning the charge of soules in any proper Visible Church with vs. Therefore a Diocesan Bishop with vs hath no part at all in any true Visible Church I am not ignorant that our Bishops themselves say that they are very Pastors in all those several Churches of their Dioces and so are in a principall place and have a chiefe part in them all Which notwithstanding is vtterly false considering that they have som Hundreds of Churches in their Dioces which they never saw nor by law are boūd to see in all their lives Are they then or can they be true and right Pastors vnto them They can not be It were a shame for any once to thinke that they might Neither are they Pastors to any one of the Churches vnder them more then they are to all Therefore in deed they are true Pastors to none of thē nor to any proper Visible Church at all Howbeit imagining and supposing them to be as they say they are Pastors to those Churches which are vnder them then I reason against them and cōclude thus If Diocesan ruling Bishops by the nature of their office are very Pluralistes and Nonresident Pastors * Acts. 20.28 1 Pet. 5.2 Prou. 27.18.23 then they are plainly contrary to Gods word and ought of necessitie to be cleane abolished But Diocesan Ruling Bishops are very Pluralistes and Nonresidents by the nature of their Office Seeing everie particular Congregation is a true proper and intire Visible Church as before hath ben shewed and seeing they assume to them selves a Pastorall charge of the Peoples soules in mo then one yea very many such severall and intire Visible Churches in England which they neither do nor can serve as Pastors ought Therefore they are plainly contrarie to Gods word ought of necessitie to be cleane dissolved and abolished Or thus Cōmon sense or the light of Nature besides the forenoted scriptures sheweth that one proper Pastor should have only one proper Visible Church For indeed * 1 Cor. ◠16 2 Tim. 4.
alone though now he be a L. Bishop himselfe hath most fully and substantially confuted Against the Iesuits and Seminaries obiecting thus The word is * Math. 20.25 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they Over-rule their Subiects with iniusticÄ™ and violence You shall not do so He replyeth “ D. Bils against the Apol. of the Seminar part 2. pag. 174. print Lond. 1586. So your new Translation over-ruleth the word Howbeit Christ in that place doth not traduce the Power of Princes as vniust and outragious but distinguisheth the calling of his Apostles from the maner of regiment which God hath allowed the Magistrat Christ saith not Princes be tyrants you shall deale more curteously then they do but he saith Princes be Lords and rulers over their people by Gods ordinance you shall not be so Againe the word which S. Luke hath is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 without any composition They be Lords Masters and S. Paul confesseth of himselfe and other Apostles Not that we be Lords or Masters of your faith Ye the compound 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is with power force to rule men whether they will or no not with wrong and iniury to oppresse them And therefore the conclusion is inevitable that Princes may lawfully compell and punish their Subiects which Bishops may not “ Pag. 175. All Pastors and Bishops are straitly charged not to medle with the sword * Pag. 182. To compell Heretikes and Schismatikes neither is it possible sor the Preacher if he would nor lawfull if he could he lacketh both meanes and leave to constraine them Bishops be flatly forbidden to raigne and must not meddle with the materiall sword †Pag. 227. Commanding and forcing our Savior forbiddeeh to all his Disciples Where the full effect of all his discourse is this All Civill iâ—risdiction and power of the sword to commaund compell and punish by losse of life limme or libertie is secluded from the Ministers function and reserved to the Magistrates * Luk. 22.24.25 Christ precisely forbad his Apostles to beare rule and exercise authoritie over their brethren not vniust and tyrannicall rule but all compulsive power And where the thing is not lawfull the signe is not lawfull c. To like purpose also he writeth in his booke of the Perpetual Governement of Christes Church * Pag. 137.142 where he saith †Many giftes may conioyne in one man many offices cannot “ Pag. 52. The Ministers shall not have any such rule or dominion as the great States have * Pag. 55. The thing so much prohibited by Christ his Apostles is that Preachers Pastors should 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 behave or thinke themselves to bee Lords and Maisters over their brethren And “ Pag. 56. To increase the love of the sheepe toward their Sheepheards Christ would not have his Apostles to be feared as Maisters but to be honored as Fathers and consequently Pastors not to force but to feede not to chase but to lead the flocke committed to their charge neither roughly to intreat them as servants but gently to perswade them as coheires of the same kingdome Heere are Testimonies of this man for vs most full most cleare and above all exception Reason 6. IF in the Lawes estimation the calling of Ministers with vs is given by those who in Gods word have no power to give it Vsurpation then this is contrarie to Gods word and necessarie to be reformed But in the Lawes estimation the calling of Ministers with vs is given by those who in Gods worde have no power to give it Namely it is given by a Diocesan ruling Bishop who is no where found as before I shewed in al the New Testament So that he can not therein have anie power or authoritie to give Ministers their calling nor yet to take it from them Againe by the rule of Gods word that particular Church whiche is to have the Minister ought to be present and to shew a liking and consent in their Ministers calling Whiche proveth that no Bishop hath any power or authoritie in Gods word to give anie Minister his calling or to take it from him in absence of that Church to whom the Minister belongeth yea and as the practise now is vtterly without their liking Therefore this that is the giving of the Ministers calling with vs by such as now do give it and in such maner is contrary to Gods word and ought of necessitie to be reformed Where I say by the rule of Gods worde The Churches right that Church which is to have the Minister ought to bee present and to shew a liking and consent in their Ministers Calling this is evident by many testimonies and reasons First because in the Apostles time the Church had a consent in Excommunication as it appeareth to the Corinthians where the Apostle saith * 1 Cor. 5.4.5 I have determined already when yee are gathered together and my spirit in the name of our L. Iesus Christ that such a one by the power of our L. Iesus Christ be delivered to Satan And * vers 13. Put away from among your selves that wicked man Which agreeth with Christes owne ordinance and precept where he saith “ Mat. 18.17 Tell the Church If he heare not the Church let him be vnto thee as an Heathen and a Publicane Now if the Church was to Excommunicate surelie the Church also was to elect her Ministers For these are the 2. maine partes of the holy Governement Ecclesiasticall both which must belong to the Church equallie alike Further it is apparant by the Apostles practise First the calling of Matthias to the Apostleship was permitted so farre as was possible to the Churches Election For they * Act. 1.23 c. appointed two whereof one should be and was divinely chosen This questionles was done not of necessitie for that Calling which was then to be given but only for an example in Ecclesiasticall Elections which the Churches after should and did imitate Besides howsoever the very Election of Matthias was by Divine lot yet it was all done in the Churches presence with the actuall concurrence of their prayers and free consentes instantly Now these acts of the Church as they may so therefore they ought to be perpetual in every Election of whatsoever Minister seeing even for that end the Apostles caused nowe the Church thus to do It is a slight answer and vntrue to say “ Parpet govern pag. 69. Examples are no preceptes For the same answerer elswhere confesseth that * Per. gov pag. 373. the Apostles taught the Church by their Example But if he had not confessed it yet the trueth of this generall point is in it selfe most certain Wherefore was the Booke of the Apostles Actes els written But that their Acts in the Churches should be Rules and patterns for vs to do likewise All Divines vse the Argument drawen from an act of Christ or his
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„
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.
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