he meaneth that it may bee so called but not truly Which is but double dealing For presently after he saith †Pag. 17. He separateth the true Kingdome of Christ from the externall Order and Discipline of the Church which some in these dayes more zealous then wise do not separate So he calleth the faithful worshippers of Christ But is it such wisedome I pray to seperat froÌ„ Christ this his Divine honor and glorie and to give it to others Nay this is accursed wisedome Then a Ministerie supposed to be setled by the Apostles in the Primitive Church he denyeth to bee any part of Christes Kingdome Hath hee any reason for it Yea a straÌ„ge one Saith he Christes kingdom is proper to his person As though the power and authoritie to institute setle such an ordinance might not be proper to Christes person and yet the execution thereof committed to his Officers and Deputies And nevertheles all is Christes still Christ hath a Kingdome Commissive It is the Kings authoritie which the Deputie of IrelaÌ„d executeth And may it not be Christes power and governement which his Ministers and Deputies on earth do execute Yea certainly Which this D. acknowledged before saying it may bee called the kingdome of heaven and of Christ. Yet hee doth further strive against the truth in this cause making the Minister the Maister of a familie and the Magistrate to be Gods ordinance alike Which surely never any sound Divine would say If we looke but to Moses law the falsitie heereof is soone seene Every Ministerie in the Iewes Church must have expresse and particular institution from God but naturall reason Humane contractes were sufficient to institute both the other And is not the case so with vs now also vnder the Gospell Yeas truly Wherefore these in deed are nowe Gods ordinances but not alike He concludeth that the Ministers may not arrogat any part of Christes honor and power as incident to their calling or function They may take to them the execution of that which to ordaine is only Christs right That power of his which hee hath in his word committed to them and as the D. speaketh trusted them with they may take to them viz. the Keyes and Mysteries of the kingdome of heaven Which they arrogate not but it is their right to take vse the same as Christ himselfe hath specially appointed From this dissolut opinion aforesaid and so derogatorie to the holy Offices of Christ it floweth that this D. teacheth “ Pag. 339. 348. the peoples interest in Church-governement standeth only vpon the groundes of reason and nature and is derived from the rules of Christian equitie and societie And that this is both lawfull and †Pag. 334. much to be commended And yet also that “ Pag. 349. the people may willingly forsake and worthily loose the right which they had Nay more hee holdeth the Apostolike and †Pag. 299. 300. Divine forme of Church-governement by sole governing Bishops as hee maintaineth Timotihe and Titus and the Angell of Ephesus c. to have ben may give place on occasion to those forenamed grounds of reason and nature “ Pag. 348. 334. humane governement Thus he by denying the peoples consent to be †Pag. 368. essentiall in the choice of their Pastors doth indeed make nothing essentiall to them For that which is Essentiall must evermore be had to the true being of any thing it can never be altered nor absent from it as before “ Pag. 8â— I have also noted These our adversaries say our assertions are raw and vndigested fancies but what raw and vndigested yea irreligious assertions they doe holde and maintaine it maketh me afraid even to thinke of it It shall not bee amisse to observe somewhat contrarie to their opinions out of some both of the Ancient and the late writers Cyprian noteth this in generall as an odious error in the haeretike Novatian though he aime at an other point in particular But in generall this which they holde Cyprian maketh noe lesse then haereticall in him His words are “ Cypr Epist 4.2 Ille post Dei traditionem humanam conatur Ecclesiam facere This man letting go Gods ordinance indeavorâ—th to make a Humane Church Againe touching the order and forme of the Church and administration thereof hee in another place flyeth only to Christ and his word for authoritie saith “ Epist 1.8 Quisquis alibi collegerit spargit Adulterum est impium est SacrileguÌ„ est quodâ—unque humano furoâ—e instituitur vt dispositio divina violetur Procul ab huiusmodi hominum contagione discedite Whosoever gathereth elswhere he scattereth It is adulterous it is impious it is sacrilegious whatsoever is instituted by mens madnes that Gods order should be violated Depart far away from the infectioÌ„ of such meÌ„ And a litle after Nemo vos frat res errare â Domi. viâ faciat Nemo vos Christianos ab EvaÌ„gelio Christi rapiat Brethren let no man cause you to erre from the Lords way Let no man pull you Christians from Christes Gospell Of the church coÌ„stitution and order againe hee saith †De Vnitat Eccles. Verbis Christi insistere quaecunque docuit feat discere facere debemus Crederese in Christum quomodo dicit qui non facere quod Christus facere praecepit Wee ought to insist in Christes wordes whatsoever he taught did we must learne and do How can one say hee beleeveth in Christ who doth not that which Christ commandeth Thus in the order constitution and governement of Christes Church this holy man of God layeth a necessity on vs to cleave alwayes to that which is in Christes Testament not to Humane reason nor to Civill disposition at any time Which our adversaries do “ Perp. gov pag. 339. Def. 2.73 teach and maintaine to be lawfull Augustine also of the visible Churches constitution beside that †Pag. 138.139 above cited in him elswhere writeth thus “ August contra Crescon Gram. 1.33 Ecclesiam sine vlla ambiguitate sancta Scriptura demonstrat †Ibi quaeramus Ecclesiam â— De Vnit. Eccles. cap. 3. ibi discutiamus causam nostram Nâ—lo humanis documentis sed divinis oraculis sanctaÌ„ Ecclesiam demonstrari The holy Scripture demonstrateth the Church without any doubt There let vs seeke the Church there let vs try our cause I cannot abide that the holy Church should be shewed by mens doctrines but by the Divine Oracles And in that sense Ierome calleth Christs Visible Church as it is vnder outward governement “ Hieron dâ— 7. Ordin Eccles Fabrica Deâ— a Frame which God him selfe hath builâ— Thus these Ancientes With whom heerein the godly learned of late do consent also Zuinglius said enough “ Pag. 101.102.104 before Calvin to Cardinall Sadolet saith †Calvin ad Sad. Non te adeo pracisè vrgebo vt revocem ad illam
if our proofes stand or subvertion if your answere be good For if this faile well may Bishops claine their authoritie by the custome of the Church by any divine precept expressed in the Scriptures they can not Saith hee so Let vs see then howe soundly this will stand But first I desire him to remember if it happen that this his proofe out of the Scripâ—â—â—◠〈◊〉 subverted and then he be forced to flie to the Churches Custom for succour that himselfe hath ruined cast downe and defaced that weake hold all ready So that there he can have no reliefe Now then to his proofes out of scripture that Titus Timothie were Bishops He frameth 4. Arguments for it 1. That power to ordaine sit Ministers to convent discharge vnsit prescribed to Titus Timothie was no power proper to Evangelists Wee grant this wholy even the Conclusion It is another point and nothing against vs. The Conclusion of his 2. argument is like to the former therefore we grant it also For this proveth not that Timothie or Titus were proper Bishops which is the question Yet in the Minor where hee saith that Presbyteries claime this power comitted to Timothie Tite even to ordain examine censure deprive Pastors I deny this to bee true Presbyteries claime not this power Neither have they it properly originally as Bucer shewed “ Pag 33. before Properly and originally the whole Church hath this power the Presbyterie hath only the authoritie of administring the same that in the name of the whole Church as Piscator and Vâ—sinus †Pag. 46. â—1 before do expresse And further I answer by that distinction above noted This power of ordayning examining censuring c. committed to Timothie and Titus the Presbyterie in deed hath and executeth Materially but not Formally Which maketh his Minor Proposition to bee false most cleerely His 3. argument is concluded in no forme But where he “ Perp. gov Pag. 391. saith The precepts of Ordayning and Censuring are delivered to Timothie and Titus and to those that should succeed them vnto the end of the world Ergo Timothies power function in this behalfe must bee perpetuall This is true likewise Materially but not Formally Their Successors are to execute the same in deed alwayes as touching the material actions Those things must be done but vnder divers formes of Ministeries or maners of administration Heere Timothie and Titus being properly Evangelistes did these actions vnder the forme of an Evangelisticall Ministerie Sometime Apostles did the same actions but vnder the forme of an Apostolicall Ministerie After them Bishops did the same actions also but vnder the forme of a proper Bishops office c. Wherefore the perpetuitie of these actions materially which Timothie and Titus did proveth not the Office and Ministerie of Timothie and Titus formally to bee perpetuall This is a very weake conclusion and very crooked His 4. argument is The whole Church of Christ since the Apostles times without exception hath so constred the Apostles wordes to Timothie and Titus touching their governement And hee names Eusebius Ierome Ambrose c. D. Rainolds answereth Hart the Priest Confer pag. 267. I perceave the Pope must fetch his Supremacie from Earth and not from Heaven You are fallen from Scripture to Eusebius Even so our adversaries when all is done they must fetch the Diocesan L. Bishops Office from earth and not from heaven They fall from Scripture to Eusebius c. And yet not Eusebius not the rest do conster those preceptes to Timothie and Titus as belonging only to Bishops much “ See before pag. â—24 â—â—5 lesse did the whole Church of Christ since the Apostles times without exception This is a strange Hyperbole But these writers acknowledged Timothie and Titus to have ben Bishops Nay not Diocesan L. Bishops they neither acknowledged nor knew any such in their times as before hath ben shewed Yet only of these our question is Againe they held Timothie Titus not to be Bishops at all properly but in a generall sense as “ Pag. 230. 238. before I observed If they meant otherwise they missed the truth saith D. Rainolds Conf. p. 267 Howbeit They suffred none but Bishops either to ordaine or degrade Presbyters Yet as I said before not absolutly with out the peoples consent as our L. Bishops do If any among them inclined to neglect the people herein they did contrary to the Canons of those times Lastly it is true these ancients to much rested on Custome Counsaills of men and humane policie in setting the Church governemeÌ„t they as Ierome inclined to much to approve Diocesan Provinciall and Patriarchall Bishops with too absolute power only grounding vpon the Custome of the Church though they knew they wanted Divine disposition Whence afterward Antichrist easily sprang vp Now then I pray with what colour can Doct. Bilson from those preceptes to Timothie and Titus plead for our Diocesan and Provinciall L. Bishops whom they nothing concerne and say The wordes be singular the charge is vehement the parties were Bishops * Perp. gov pag. 299. And how vainly doth he insult without reason charging vs that “ Pag. 30â— Fire will better agree with water then we with our selves Which is his familiar custome not ours After him let vs see what D. Downame saith for Timothie and Titus Bishoprikes Truly in effect he saith nothing more for he followeth D. Bilson most diligently Yet hee hath a Cart-load of words about this point which he knoweth well to bee his only refuge Wherein yet hee can finde no helpe First I will examine the pith of his discourse and theÌ„ I will set downe reasons of mine owne proving souÌ„dly that Timothie Titus were not proper Bishops First he saith “ Def. 4. p. 75 It is presupposed in the Epistles to Timothie and Titus that the Apostle committed to them Bishoply authoritie It is vntrue this is not presupposed Then the Epistles bee the very patternes and precedents of Bishoply function c Well what then Then Timothie and Titus were Bishops I deny this consequence There is no truth in this And T.C. answer to D. Whitgifts like argument is sounde and good though this great Logician calleth it “ Pag. 76. sleight and frivolous The directions to Timothie and Titus about Ordination and iurisdiction being not “ Pag. 77. peculiar to Bishops as hee vntruly addeth in the end For him selfe giveth this power and that rightly to other Christians †Pag. 99. in case of necessitie and the truth giveth it to Apostles and Evangelists the “ Eph 4.11 Superiors of Bishops His reason * Pag. 77. these are perpetuall directions is an excellent reason to prove that this power is indeed essentially seated by Christ in the Congregation of the people The power of Ecclesiasticall governement essenâ—ially in the people For it is certain that such Christian Congregations only are perpetuall Apostles
these are enough CHAP. IIII. The publike consent of many late yet excellent Churches heerein with vs. NEvertheles yet I will not spare to adde heerevnto also certain publike voyces of most famous Churches The CoÌ„sestion of the Bohemian Churches hath these words “ Bohemie Confess cap. 〈◊〉 AnimaruÌ„ Curatoribus singulis Ecclesiasticis CoÌ„munitatibus sive parvae sint sive magna Claves concreditae sunt concessae Sic Dominus dixit Ecclesiâ—s Amen dico vobis quacunque ligaveritis in teria erunt ligata in coelo quaecunque solveritis in terra erunt soluta in coelo Et mox Nam vbi duo aut tres congregati fuerint in nomine meo ibi in medio eorum sum The Keyes that is Ecclesiastical governement are given in trust and graunted to the Pastors and to every Ecclesiasticall Communaltie that is ordinarie Congregation whether they bee smal or great So the Lord said to the Churches Verily I say vnto you Whatsoever you binde in earth shal be bound in heaven and whatsoever you loose in earth shalbâ— loosed in heaven And by and by For where two or three shal be gathered togeather in my name there am I in the middest of them The Helvetian Confession saith Helvet confess .. prior Artic 17. Quae cùm vera Dei Electio sit Ecclesiae suffragio Sacerdotis manuum impositione rectè comprobatur Which when it is Gods true ElectioÌ„ it is rightly approoved by the Churches voyce-giving and the laying on of handes of the Minister The Genevian Liturgie setteth downe expreslie Genev. the peoples consent to be necessarie both in their Calling of Ministers and Excommunication of impenitent offenders Beza also witnesseth the same vse in the Elections at Geneva and likewise in other places where there are free Churches Saith he “ Bez. de grad Minist cap 11. Presbyters heere are chosen not without the knowledge and consent of the people So every where in other free Churches according to the condition of the place the like choice is made Elswhere also he saith of the same thus †Annotat in Act. â—4 2â— Habemus nos Dei beneficâ—o certas nostrae vocationis notas legitimo ab Ecclesijs nostris vita doctrinae testimonio ernati ab yÌ„sdemelects ac demurn etiaâ— in nostro ministerio confirmats Cus Domiaâ—â— vt spero eâ—ectis tum furibus tum mercenarijs benedicet Wee have by Gods goodnesâ— certain notes of our Calling having good testimoâ—e from our Churches both for our life and doctrine and being by them Chosen and Confirmed also in our Ministerie Which I hope the Lord will blesse when hee will caâ—â— out both theeves and hirelings According to this order out of question the Savoyan Churches Savey and the French also generally are constituted French Which the French Liturgie doth likewise prove The Churches of Scotland before the late wofull breaking off from their former consent did approove the same publike Order of the Churches of France and Geneva aforesaid Scottish Also the publike Order set forth in the Low countreis consenteth herewith Belgiâ— The Synod of Middelburgh Anno 15â—1 decreeth thus of the Chosing of Ministers “ Artiâ— Electio sit penes Ecclesiam fiat per suffiagium in templo publicè Let the Election of the Ministers bee in the power of the Church and let it be done by voyces publikely in the Temple Afterward they determine thus Nulla Ecclesia nullus Minister Nullus Senior nulluâ— Diaconus vllum â—abeat primatum super alterum No Church no Minister no Elder no Deacon may have any kinde of primacie above other Chap 4. The Synod of Tilleburgh in Nasovia Anno 1582 Nasson receaveth these Points for them selves also as Zepperus sheweth in the end of his Politia Ecclesiastica There is a publike Order publâ—â—ed in Middelburgh Anno 1602. agreeing withall the former which touching the Chosing of Ministers saith thus The partie as chosen with the free consent of the Ministers Elders and the whole Congregation to be ordayned is to frame his Sermon c. Touching Deposing of them thus By the like authoritie as he was elected he is to be Deposed Touching Excommunication thus It is ordayned that nothing be attempted in that behalfe without the determination of the whole Congregation Wherevnto the Churches vnder the Palsgrave do agree Palatin in whose publike Catechisme thus we read “ In the end of part â— The Church by the commandement of Christ his Apostles vsing the Keyes ought tâ—o drive the wicked from this Supper till they shall repent and change their maners Which Vrsinus the approved interpreter therof doth shew to be with the peoples free consent as “ pag. 41. before out of Vrsmus wee observed Finally Other churches this same is allowed by those Churches also which follow Luther according to Chemnicius testimonie of them “ pag. 47. before alleaged Chap. 5. where at least he signifieth that many of them do allow it Which many other churches besides do also whoÌ„ here I name not Hitherto I have truly and plainly declared as touching these later times who they are who have ben our Maister Teachers in this matter of the Church constitution governement viz. that it ought to bee alwayes with the peoples free consent Verily now it appeareth I hope that we neede not bee ashamed either of these noble lights of Religion or of this doctrine which manifestly wee have learned and receaved from such worthies CHAP. V. The Testimonies and practise of the best Antiquitie after the New Testament heerein likewise with vs. HOwbeit furthermore that it may not bee thought noveltie or vnbeseeming Christian Religion although no honest maÌ„ will once think so of any thing which such a vniforme coÌ„sent of so renowned late Christians doth iustifie yet I iudge it very coÌ„ venient to produce also some testimonies of the most ancient times of Christianitie after the Apostles downe-ward even while anie soundnes of the Gospell did openly shew it selfe in the world I say such testimonies I purpose heeâ—e to shew of famous Christians as have ben alwayes continually after the Apostles by which the practise of the peoples free consent in their Church governement is approoved yea in peace as well as in persecution till the tyrannie of Antichrist would beare it no longer in any publike state And this God willing I shall performe in this maner To begin therefore we will first observe the Church of Ierusalems practise in this point immediatly after the decease of the Apostle Iames that dyed there as Eusebius recordeth Saith â—ee Annâ— circôter 70. “ Euseb 3.10 After Iames was dead it is reported that the Apostles Disciples out of all places neare about Ierusalem came togeather into one and tooke counsaill togeather who might bee iudged worthy to suâ—ceed in Iames his plaâ—e Therefore all with one consent did thinke Simeon the sonne of Cleophas