but every man prayed according to his ability Secondly that in Ezra his time eighteene short forms of Prayers were composed for the scattered Iews which had lost the use of the holy language because they thought it best to continue their Prayers and Worship of God in that sacred tongue Thirdly but not a word of any set forms which the Priests or Levits were to use but only to helpe the ignorant Iews to expresse themselves in prayer to God in the holy language at the time or houres of prayer Which the men of the great Synagogue had appointed Peter and Iohn went up together to the Temple at the houre of prayer being the ninth houre Though we alleage not this of Maymonides as a testimony to command beliefe yet wee conceive it farre more to be regarded then any Samaritan Chronicle Secondly hee hath some scraps of Iewish Liturgies out of Capellus concerning which a short answer may serve first there is not one of the Iewish Liturgies now extant which was made before the Iews ceased to be the Church of God for besides the eighteene short formes before mentioned there were no other made till Rabbi Gamaliel his time who according to the judgment of learned Criticks is that Gamaliel mentioned in the Acts from whom Paul got such bitter principles against Christian Religion But whensoever they began Capellus would laugh should he heare what a strange conceit this Remonstrant had gotten from him that the Iewish Liturgies were as ancient as the time of Moses merely because he parallels some Iewish phrases which hee found in them with certaine phrases in the Gospell which the Iews retained by Tradition from their Fathers and put into their Liturgies But Buxtorfius would fal out with him that he should so much abuse him as to say he had affirmed that Maymonides took his Creed out of the Liturgie for the man is not guilty of any such grosse mistake he saith indeed that the Articles of the Iewish Creed are printed in the Liturgies but withall hee tels the Remonstrant that Maymonides was the first composer of them whence therefore the Iews put them into their Liturgie Thus wee leave his Iewish Liturgie which the Reader will easily see to be more Iewish then hee could justly suppose our instance of William Rufus was and that it affords him as little furtherance For Christian Liturgies which the Remonstrant had affirmed to have been the best improvement of the peace and happinesse of the Evangelicall Church ever since the Apostles times we challenged the Remonstrant setting aside those that are confessedly spurious to produce any Liturgie that was the issue of the first 300 yeers in answer to which he brings us forth the Liturgies which we have under the names of Iames Basil and Chrysostome to which our Reply may be the briefer because hee himselfe dares not vouch them for the genuine writings of those holy men Onely saith hee we have them under their names Secondly he confesseth there are some intersertions spurious in them Thirdly all that he affirmes is that the substance of them cannot be taxed for any other then holy and ancient what censure the learned Criticks both Protestants and Papists have pâ—st upon these Liturgies we hope the Remonstrant knows we will onely mind him of what the leâ—rned Rivetus speaks of the Liturgies of Iames Peter Matthew Mark has omnes profectas esse ab inimico homine qâ—i bonae semenii Domini nocte super seminavit zâ—zâ—nia solidis rationibus probavit Nobilisque illustris Philip Morneus lib. 1. de Missae partihus ejus Which because the Remonstrant so often finds fault with our misenglishing wee leave to him to see if hee can construe these Zizania to be any other then these Liturgies and this inimicus homo to be any other then the Devill Nor will his implication of the ancient Councell of Ancyra helpe him which forbade those Priests that had not sacrificed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Will the Restrant say that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was to serve in the holy Liturgies that is reading set Litnrgies he may as wel say that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is the reading of set Homilies Balsamon Zonaras Dionysius Isidore and Gentian Harvet doe all translate 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 aliquod munus sacerdotale subire And that the Remonstrant may not delude himself nor others with the ambiguitie of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as if every meÌ„tion of these did by implication prove such a Liturgie as for which he contends Let him know that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is variously used in Antiquity sometimes for all the Ministeriall Offices so Zonaras in Concil Antioch Can. 4. and so Concil 4. Ancyra Can. 1. quoted by himselfe if hee would either have observed or acknowledged it sometimes only for prayer so Balsamon in Can. 12. Concil Sardic 6. Sometimes singing of our Psalmes is tearmed by Chrysostome 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The same Father expounds 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Acts 13. by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Hom. 27. in Act. so that for the proof of such Liturgies as are the Subject of this question it is not enough to shew us the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in antiquity let him shew the thing before he so Dictator-like condemne those for giddy heads that will not take his word for proofs and believe it was the undeniable practice of antiquity to use Liturgies and formes of prayer because he saith so His supercillious censure upon our passage about conceived prayer is not worth the taking notice of he saith We are sullen and crabbed pieces tecchy and quarrelsome men and why because we said his large prayses of conceived prayer were but a vantage ground to advance publike forms the higher how truly judg what cause we had so to think wee declared from the cruell and ungodly practices of the late times which he will scarce take notice of Our arguing about the originall and confirmation of our Church Liturgie he calls wrangling For the originall the Remonstrant said it was taken out of the ancient Models not Roman but Christian here wee tooke notice of the opposition betweene Roman and Christian because by the Remonstrant made Termini sese muâ—uâ— removentes which we perceive now hee is not willing should passe for his meaning hee will not have it meant of an opposition but of a different modification Though his instances brought to exemplifie it are not all ad oppositum We will not make digressive excursions into new controversies though wee are not affraid of burning our fingers with his hot Iron Only wee tell him that the Suffrages of unquestionable Divines are not so unanimous but that from some of them wee could fetch sparks to fling in the face of him that desired their suffrages without burning our-own fingers Compare what the booke called the Old Religion speaks of the Church of Rome p.
For the persons that brought in this Imparity we tell you they were the Presbyters and prove this from Hierome ad Euagrium The Presbyters of Alexandria did call him their Bishop whom they had chosen from among themselves and placed in a higher degree This you call a faithlesse and a halved citation Good sir be not so harty it s neither false nor halved not false because it fully proves the thing for which wee brought it which was that the advancing of one to an eminency and superiority above the rest was not a divine but a humane act it was not God but man that was the authour of this imparity and doth not the place fully prove this Presbyteri unum ex se electum in excelsiori gradu collocatum Episcopum nominabant and say we any more Nor is it halved though hee saith this was done a Marco Evangelista usque ad Heraclam yet this concerned not the purpose for which the text was quoted and therefore might warrantably be omitted especially having proved before that which the Remonstrant would perswade his reader we are shie of here that Bishops were not in the Apostles times and if the leaving out a few words in a quotation not pertinent to the question be the halving of it how will the Remonstrant cleare himselfe of this sinne who citing the Councell of Laodicea p. 15. makes bold to leave out a great deale more then we did here where a most materiall passage was omitted as before we have observed Neither did we leave out a Marco Evangelista for feare it should prove that there were Bishops as earlie as the Corinthian schisme Nor did our hearts tell us that Marke died many yeeres within the Apostles time for Irenaeus tels us lib. 3. Contra Haeres that hee writ his Gospell after Peter and Pauls death That which wee quoted proves abundantly that the Presbyters both chose and placed one of the Presbytersin a higher degree by their own authority giving him both the degree and the name Doe you who brought in A Marco Evangelistâ to trouble your reader and to slander us reconcile if you can Authors about the time of his death But the last place he bringeth out of Hierom is a most rare place and may well make any man wonder with what face we can say Hiero me ever spake against Bishops and why so because Hierome saith Episcopacy is Gods owne worke where is it in Isa. 60. 17. what are the words Hierome reading that text according to the 72 translation saies Ponam inquit Principes tuos in pacem Episcopos tuos in justisiam in quo saith Hierome Scripturae sanctae admir anda Majestas quod Principes futuros Ecclesiae Episcopos nominavit quorum omnes visitatio in pace est c. herein the majesty of the Scripture is to be admired which hath named the future Princes of the Church Bishops all whose visitations are in peace Good reader consider this mighty mouth-stopping argument God hath promised the Princes of the Church shall be as Bishops Ergo Bishops in imparity are Gods owne worke good sir your Baculus in angulo take to your selfe against you walke to finde texts againe in Hierome to prove Bishops to be of divine institution The rest of your quotations out of Irenaeus Tertullian and Chrysostome they are places have beene oft alleaged and as oft answered wee will be briefe with you For if you had not lyen hid under the equivocation of the word Episcopi you might have spared your selfe and us a labour These Episcopi were Presbyteri you your selfe grant that their names were common in the daies of Linus Polycarpe and Ignatius which are the men you here cite for Bishops And therefore unlesse you can shew that they had a superiority of power over Presbyters such as ours have you doe bâ—t delude the Reader with a grosse Homonymie whom we referre to a passage in learned Iunius controv 3. lib. 2. c 5. not 18. In which he labours to remove the contradictions of Historians concerning the order of succession of the Romane Bishops Linus Clemens Anacletus c. And he saith That these or some of these were Presbyters or Bishops of Rome at the same time ruling the Church in common But the following writers fancying to themselves such Bishops as then had obtained in the Church fell into these snares of tradition because they supposed according to the custome of their owne times that there could be but one Bishop in one Church at the same time which is quite crosse to the Apostolicall times To that of Ambrose calling Iames Bishop of Ierusalem we gave a sufficient answer in our former Booke page 51. out of Doct. Raynolds and shall God willing adde more in due place Our slip as you tell us talkes of a councell No more ours then yours for your party can when hee speakes for them vouch him with much more confidence then we doe But what saith this slip he talkes of a councell as false as himselfe Why because the Nicene was the first generall Synod but yet there were provinciall Councels before And the Commentaries mentioned before doe not say it was done by a generall Councell but onely by a Councell though you by subtle coupling this Councell and Hieromes toto or be decretum erat would faine force him to this sence which toto orbe decretum est implies no Apostolicall act nor act of a generall Councell neither as we have shewed before And yet this we tell you the Nicene was the first Councell in which toto orbe decretum erat that there should be but one Bishop in a City As for Saint Austin his phrase that the originall of Episcopacy above Presbytery was onely secundum usum Ecclesiae you say it was but a modest word and it is a just wonder that we dare cite him Well let us put it to the triall Hierome having taken distate at Augustine writes two sharpe Epistles to him in both which Epistles be doth extoll Augustine ironically as a great man because hee was in pontificali culmine Constitutus advanced to Episcopall dignity and speakes of himselfe as a poore contemptible underling to which Augustine answering among other things saith thus Rogo ut me fidenter corrigas ubi mihi hoc opus esse perspexeris quanquam enim secundum honorum vocabula quae Ecclesiae usus obtinuit Episcopatus Presbyterio major est tamen in multis Augustinus Hieronymo minor This was Augustines modesty say you Well and had not Augustine beene as modest if he had left out that phrase quae Ecclesiae usus obtinuit his modesty appeares in these words tamen in multis Augustinus Hieronymo minor not in the former In the diminution of his person not of his calling S. Paul knew how to speake humbly of himselfe yet highly of his office and so might Austin and if he had known that the majority of Bishops above Presbyters had
Thyatira And he will not onely conâ—esse that though the 24. verse should faile yet the 23. would prove the same thing as effectually as the 24. but also will grant that from the coâ—â—erence it is evident that the old copies are better then that which this Remonstrant cals the better coppy of Tecla But besides this text let the Reader cast his eye upon what Christ saith to the Angell of the Church of Smyrna Revel 2. 10. feare none of those things which thou shalt suffer behold the divell shall cast some of you into prison of you in the plurall number that yee may be tryed yee in the plurall number and you in the plurall againe shall have tribulation ten daies be thou faithfull unto the death and I will give thee a Crowne of life Observe here how our Saviour Christ changeth the number Be thou faithfull And the divell shall cast some of you c. to shew unto us that the Angell is not meant of one singular person but of all the whole company of Presbyters that were in Smyrna So also Christ writing to the Angell of the Church of Pergamus saith verse 13. in the beginning of the verse I know thy workes in the singular number but in the latter end who was slaine among you in the plurall number We expect that the Remonstrant will when best at leasure bring tidings of another better coppy to avoyd the dint of these texts that doe as we thinke demonstratively prove the thing in question Our second argument is drawne from the like phrases even in this very booke of the Revelation where it is usuall to expresse a company under one singular person as the civill state of Rome as opposite to Christ is called a beast with ten hornes and the Ecclesiasticall state Antichristian is called the whore of Babylon To which you answer 1. That if it be thus in visions and Emblematicall representations must it needs be so in plaine narrations But good sir consider this very thing we are about was seene by Saint Iohn in a vision and you your selfe confesse in the next page that the word Angell is metaphoricall How then is it a plaine narration Secondly you say because it is so in one phrase of speech must it be so in all We answer that this argument was not brought to prove that the word Angell must needs be taken collectively but onely that it might be so taken and that it was the likeliest interpretation especially considering what was added out of Master Mede who was better skilled in the meaning of the Revelation then your selfe that the word Angell is commonly if not alwaies in the Revelation taken collectively Thus the seven Angels that blew the seven trumpets and the seven Angels that poured out the seven vials are not literally to be taken but Synecdochically you reply Perhaps so but then the Synecdoche lies in the seven not in the Angels and so you grant the word Angell to be metaphoricall but we are never a whit the neerer to our imagined Synecdoche But this is but a meere fallacy Let but the reader expect till we make good our fourth reason and then we shall see our imagined Synecdoche made reall For the present it is sufficient that it is the ordinary custome of the holy Ghost in the Revelation by Angell to meane Angels by seven Angels not seven individually but collectively But whether the Synecdoche be in the word seven or in the word Angel that is nothing to the purpose in hand Our third argument is drawne from the word Angell which is a common name to all the Ministers and messengers c. And surely had Christ intended to point out some one individuall person by the Angell he would have used some distinguishing name to set him out by he would have called him Rector or President or Superintendent but calling him by a name common to all Ministers why should we thinke that there should be any thing spoken to him that doth not asmuch concerne all the rest who are Angels as well as he All that you answer is that Christ knew this well enough and if he had meant it had it not beene as easie to have mentioned many as one But here wee humbly desire the Reader to consider two things 1. The unreasonablenesse of this answer we brought three reasons why Christ when he meant divers Angels spake in the singular number Angell not Angels These reasons the Remonstrant passeth over with a scorne the commonest safest surest way of answering the Remonstrant hath and yet he demands page 104. why should one be singled ouâ— above all if the interest be common And here why doth not Christ say to the Angels But let â—im first answer our Therefores and wee will quickly answer his Wherefores Secondly how justly we may retort this answer upon the Remonstrant and say If Christ had meant by the seven Angels seven Bishops how easie had it beene for him to have written to the Bishop of Ephesus as he was lately called at the Spittle by a Bishop to the Bish. of Smyrna instead of the Angell of Ephesus and the Angell of Smyrna But this Christ doth not doe and not onely so but Saint Iohn also in all his bookes makes not any mention of the name Bishop And therefore it seemeth strange to us that Episcopacy by divine right should be fetched out of his writings I but saith the Remonstrant it is written 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And therefore the denoted person must needs be singular For surely you cannot say that all the Presbyters at Ephâ—sus were one Angell Yes sir wee can say they were all one Angell collectively though not individually And we can shew you where Christ speaketh in the singular number and joyneth the Article with it also and yet meaneth Synecdochically more for one as Iohn 4. 37. Iohn 10. 11. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which must be all meant indefinitely not individually You suppose againe that if that Christ had said To the Starre of Ephesus no body would have construed it but of one eminent person But herein also you are much mistaken for the word Starre is as common a name to all Ministers as the word Angell as we have shewed in our answer The fourth argument you account ridiculous and in a proud scorne passe it over with a jeere But you will see in the conclusion you your selfe to be the ridiculum caput not we Our argument stands thus Our Saviour saith The seven Candlestickes which thou sawest are the seven Churches but he doth not say the seven starres are the seven Angels of the same Churches But the Angels of the seven Churches omitting not without mystery the number of the Angels least wee should understand by Angell one Minister alone and not a company To omit your scoffes you answer it is plaine that every Church hath his Angell mentioned and there being seven Chruches how many Angels I beseech you are there This
his Remonstrance hee made no mention of Diocesan Bishops whereas all know that he undertooke the defence of such Bishops which were petitioned against in Parliament whom none will deny to bee Diocesan Bishops In his 5. pag. speaking of the changing of Civill governement mentioned in the Remonstrance he professeth that he did not aime at our Civill Governement Let but the Reader survey the words of the Remonstance pag. 8. and it will appeare plainely ac si solaribus radijs descriptum esset That the comparison was purposely made betwixt the attempts of them that would have altered our Civill governement and those that indeavored the alteration of our Church governement And whereas he bids as pag. 135. to take our soleordination and sole jurisdiction to sole our next paire of shoes withall yet notwitstanding hee makes it his great worke to answer all our arguments against the sole power of Bishops and when all is done allowes the Presbyter onely an assistance but no power in Ordination nor jurisdiction Lastly in the stating of the question he distinguisheth betweene divine and Apostolicall authority and denyeth that Bishops are of Divine authority as ordained immediately by Christ. And yet he saith That Christ himselfe hath laid the ground of this imparitie in his first agents And that by the evidence of Timothy and Titus and the Asian Angels to whom Christ himselfe wrote he hath made good that just claime of the sacred Hierarchy This is the summe of that good Reader that we thought fit to praemonish thee of Wee now dismisse thee to the booke it selfe and commend thee and it to the blessing of God A Vindication of the ANSWER to the humble Remonstrance SECT I. IF wee thought our silence would onely prejudice our selves wee could contentedly sit downe and forbeare Replyes not doubting but intelligent men comparing cause with cause and reason with reason would easily see with whom the truth rests but wee fearing that many who have not either ability or leisure to search into the grounds of things themselves would fearce thinke it possible that so much confidence as the Remonstrant shewes should be severed from a good cause or so much contempt should bee powred upon us that are not the bad defenders of a cause much worse Wee must discharge our duty in cleering the cause and truth of God and that will cleer us from all the foule aspersions which the Remonstrant hath been nothing sparing to cast upon us Whose Defence in every Leafe terms us either ignorant lyers witlesse falsifiers malicious spightfull slanderous violent and subtill Machinators against the Church and disturbers of her peace c. and this not onely in a cursory way but in such a devout and religious form as we make question whether ever any man before him did so solemnly traduce speaking it in the presence of God that he never saw any Writer professing Christian sincerity so fouly to overlash To the presence of God before whom his protestation is made our accesse is equall and at that Tribunall wee doubt not through the grace of Christ but to approve both our selves our cause And had we the same accesse unto our Sovereigne wee should lesse regard those bitter invective accusations wherewith hee hath so profusely charged us in his Sacred eares But our meanesse forbids us to make immediate addresses to the throne which he hath made his refuge yet may it please that Royall Majesty whom God hath anointed over us to vouchsafe an eye unto these papers wee have that trust in the Justice of our Sovereigne the goodnesse of our Cause the integrity of our consciences in all our Quotations as we doubt not but his Majesty will cleerly see that our Persons cause and carriage have been misrepresented to him The cause our Remonstrant saith is Gods it is true of the cause agitated though not of the cause by him defended and we desire what ever he hath done to manage it in Gods way to love in the truth and speak the truth in love The charity of our Remonstrant wee will not question though in the first congresse hee doth as good as call us Devils because so often in his book he cals us Brethren But that which hee calls truth and the truth of God we must crave leave to doe more then bring in question notwithstanding the impregnable confidence of this Irrefragable Doctor Our Histories record of Harold Cupbearer to Edward the Confessor that wayting on the Cup he stumbled with one foot and almost fell but that hee recovered himself with the other at which his father smiling said Now one brother helps another The Remonstrant calls us Brethren and supposeth hee sees us stumbling in the very entrance of our answer and what help doth our Brother lend us Onely entertains us Sannis Cathinnis and tels us it is an ill signe to stumble at the threshold Yet not alwayes an ill signe Sir wee accept this stumbling for such an Omen as Caesar had at his Landing in Affrick and our William the Conquerour at his first landing in England which they tooke for the first signe of their victory and possession An what 's this Stumble The Answer mentions the Areopagi instead of the Areopagites Grande nefas Of such an impiety as this did Duraeus once accuse our Learned Whitakers from whom wee will in part borrow our answer It is well the good of the Church depends not upon a piece of Latine But can our Remonstrant perswade himselfe that his Answerers should have so much Clarklike ignorance as never to have heard of Areopagita If he can yet we are sure he can never perswade his ingenious Readers but some one at least of that Legion which hee fancies conjured up against his Remonstrance might have heard of Dionysius Areopagita that by a man that had not studied to cast contempt upon us it might have beene thought rather a stumble in the Transcribers or Printers then the Authours But what if there be no stumble here What if the fault be in the Remonstrants eyes and not in the Answerers words What if hee stumble and not they and what if it be but a straw he stumbles at For though Areopagus be the name of the place and Areopagitae the name of the persons yet it is no such impropriety in speech to signifie the persons by the place had wee said the Admired sonnes of Iustice the two Houses of Parliament had this been such a Soloecisme and will this Remonstrant deny us that liberty for which we have Natures Patent and the example of the best Authors in other Tongues To smooth or square to lengthen or cut off Exoticke words according as will best suit with our own Dialect If we were called to give an account of this Syllabicall Errour before a Deske of Grammarians wee could with ease produce presidents enough in approved Authors but we will onely give an instance in the word it self from Ioan. Sarisburi lib. 5. de Nugis
Curialibus cap. 9. Eum Senatum vero Athenienses Areopagum dicebant eo quod in illis totius populi virtus consisteret We hope our Remonstrant hath now recovered his stumble and next we find him leaping being as good at leaping over blocks as hee is at stumbling at straws it is his practice through his whole booke what ever objection made by us he finds too heavy to remove he over-leaps it This course hee begins here for wee having charged him with some words sounding to contempt in his Preface he falls a quarrellling with our Logick for calling that a Preface which hee intended as one of the main pieces of the substance of his book Which certainly if Captatio Benevolentiae be the work of a Preface he that reads the Remonstrance to the ninth page will find that the preceding pages have been but by way of insinuation and there he comes to the proposition and narration of his cause But if our Logick was bad hee knew his Ethicks were worse and therefore these misdemeanours which we justly charged upon him and he knew not how to excuse or answer his Politicks taught him to leap over Counting all to the fourth page as light froth that will sink alone which seems to us a strange piece of Physik and if we would cry quit with the Remonstrant make our Reader as merry with him as he would make his Readers with us wee could tell him a Tale in the margent But some thing it seems is of a little more solid substance it is as scum that will not so easily sink alone wherein you appeâ—l to indifferent eyes to judge whether we do not endevour to cast unjust envy upon you against the cleer evidence of any knowing mans conscience Content Onely put the case right you tell your Judges that you had said That if Antiquity may be the rule the Civill policie as in generall notion hath sometimes varied the Sacred never the Civill came from Arburary Imposâ—rs the Sacred from men inspired now these gracious Interpreters would draw your words to the present and particular government of our own Monarchie as if you implied that variable and arbitrary and are not ashamed to mention that deadly name of Treason Our charge upon this is that in the judgement of this Remonstrant if any had dared to attempt the alteration of Monarchicall Government they had been lesse culpable then in petitioning the alteration of Episcopall and conclude that if he had found such a passage in any of those whom he cals lewd Libellers all had rung with Treason Treason Now let the indifferent Reader let the most Honourable Parliament let the Sacred Majesty of our King Judge whether we doe the man wrong First this we know that one of the most confident Advocates of Episcopacie hath said it that where a Nationall Church is setled in the orderly regiment of certain grave Overseers to seek to abandon this forme and to bring in a forreigne Discipline is as unreasonable as to cast off the yoke of just anâ— hereditary Monarchy and to affect many headed Soveraignty which wee thinke is an assertion insolent enough that sets the Mitre as high as the Crowne God blesse our sacred Monarchie from such friends But this Remonstrant rises higher and sets the Mitre above the Crown Telling us that Civill Government comes from Arbitrarie Imposers this from men inspired and is in that respect by the Remonstrant challenged to be of divine right If Civill Government here include Monarchie as by the Remonstrants owne explication it doth certainly this is to advance Episcopacie above Monarchie and to make it more sinfull and dangerous to alter Episcopacy which according to the Remonstrant challenges God for the founder then Monarchie which saith this Remonstrant according to originall Authority had its foundation in the â—â—ee Arbitrement of men Yet did we never say that this was Treason knowing such crimes to be above our cognizance wee mentioned indeed the name of Treason but as from your mouth not our own We said If you had found any such in any c. the world would have rung with the loud cryes of treason treason it was our conjecture which you have now made good in this defence For you that are so full of charity to impute it to us as if that wee had vilified the judgement of King Iames as you do pag. 23. whom we mentioned not but as a most famous and ever admired Prince had any â—ord faln from us which through the grace of God we hope never shall tending to the disparagement either of the Royall Person or power What work would you have made with that Be sparing Sir of charging your poore Neighbours so impetuously with malice and uncharitablenesse till yee have taught your selfe to be more charitable and lesse maliâ—ious To what wee alleaged in the instance of William Rufus King and Pope Pius to shew that Episcopall Government which he calls sacred naturally tends not onely not to depend upon but to subdue the civill authority to it selfe His answer is first That William Rufus was a Prince noted for grosly irreligious That those were tyrannicall Popish Bishops That the Pope was Antichrist That he answered so because hee was unwilling they should shew as good cards for their standing as hee pretended for his own And lastly all this makes nothing against our Bishops who professe notwithstanding the divine right of their calling to hold their places and the exercise of their jurisdiction wholly from the King So then here is no Falsification all that was produced is granted true onely exception taken against the persons produced King William hee was irreligious Daniel observes that former times being unhappy in their compilers of History the Scepter which rules over the fames of Princes who for the most part were Monks had all their Princes personated either Religious or irreligious as they humoured or offended the Bishops Rochet and the Monks belly No wonder then if so small a friend to Bishops be condemned as irreligious But then those Bishops were Popish Tyrannous Bishops But it was not their Popery but their Episcopall dignity that made them tyrannize and it was their Tyranny and not their Popery that made them odious to their King who was Popish as well as they And it hath beene ever usuall to both former and latter Bishops to tyrannize over such as feare them and to flatter such as they feare The Pope hee is Antichrist wee are glad to heare you call him so some thought a yeere agoe you would scarce have given him such a nickname unlesse you meant to have falne out with the rest of your brethren and what if the Pope be Antichrist may wee not bring the testimony of Antichrist against Antichristian Bishops As Paul brought the witnesse of a Cretian Poet against Cretian Liers May not we alleage Beelzebub against Beliall without honouring him But the Pope so answered because he was unwilling they should shew as
good cards for their standing as he pretends for his own grant it so what will follow upon that but this That Bishops clayming the same grounds for their standing that the Pope doth aspire to be as independant from Princes as the Pope is and that they have no more Divine Right then the Pope But what 's this to our Bishops who professe notwithstanding their Divine Right to hold their places and exercise of Iurisdiction wholly from the King Surely ours have begun to affect the same Exemption from Secular power to make large and haughty strides towards an independant Hierarchie So that it is no envious upbraid to parallell ours with the former Bishops For it hath well appeared that the Hierarchicall Episcopacie is full of such high and large principles of Pride Ambition Tyranny as can be circumscribed in no moderate bounds But is always swelling to the affectation of an Absolute Ecclesiasticall Monarchie And it is worth the enquiring whether the three last books of Hookers Ecclesiasticall Politie be not suppressed by him that hath them because they give the Prince too much power in Ecclesiasticall matters and are not for the Divine Right of Bishops But we shall be chid anon and accused of spight for this as wee are for the observation formerly made upon his comparison between the attempts of Alteration in our Neighbour Church by the Episcopall faction and that which is now justly desired by the humble Petitioners to this Honourable House This saith the Remonstrant is a foule slander to charge the name of Episcopacie with a Faction For a fact imputed to some few Were they but a few that did attempt and prosecute that alteration the more is our misery that a few Bishops can put both Kingdomes into so dangerous a combustion what stirre would they all make if they should unite their powers And were they but a few that were the Factors for that Attempt how then was it that one of the Episcopall Tribe in publike Court called the Scotch designe Bellum Episcopale and where were the rest of the peaceable Orthodox Bishops the while that might in love to peace truth have opposed those bold attempts not have suffered a few upon whom you now leave the guilt of faction to expose the deare and precious name of Episcopacie to that obloquie Let the Remonstrant never cry fie upon his brethren that dare challenge Episcopacie of Faction but fie upon his Fathers the bishops that have subjected it to that challenge had bishops done so in Cyprians time we doubt not but theâ—e would have bin fonnd Presbyters who would have said as much and need never have feared Gaoles nor Pillories nor high Commissions the holy Discipline wherewith the Fathers of the sacred Hierarchie have of late yeers visited such offences SECT II. WEE are in this and the following Sections not to contend for words but things things precious to the Remonstrant Liturgie and Episcopacie for which he fights tanquam pro aris focis The subject of this Section is the Liturgie where first he fals upon us for the Alterations and Additions mentioned by us which hee calls such an envious and groundlesse suggestion as must needs cover our faces with a blush Truly Sir If we were able to produce no fuller evidence of this then you have done of your Iewish Liturgie ever since Mosestime we should blush indeed but if wee can bring forth instances of such Alterations as shall prove this present Liturgie to be none of that which hath beene confirmed by Parliamentary Acts keep your blushes to make Liveries for yourself and friends The Liturgie confirmed by our Parliamentary Acts is the same which was made and confirmed in the fifth and sixth of Edward the sixth with one alteration and additions of certaine Lessons to be used upon every Sunday and the forme of the Letany altered and amended and two sentences onely added in the delivery of the Sacrament And none other or otherwise But this booke is so altered from that that in it is left out First a clause in the Letany From the tyranny of the Bishop of Rome and all his detestable enormities good Lord deliver us c. 32. Chapters of the Old Testament a Prayer against death a Rubrick or declaration of the manner of the presence of Christs body and bloud in the Sacrament Besides some other things of lesse moment Secondly added 26 Apocryphall Chapters more to be read 47 Proper Lessons The Prayers for Bishops and Curats many Collects after the Communion A Rubrick in the examination of private Baptisme In the Calendar Fish dayes are now called Fasting days A Catalogue of Holidays Thirdly many things changed in the title of Confirmation the words for imposition of hands are added In the Epistle for Palm-sunday in the Name of Jesus turned into at the Name of Jesus besides such smaller alterations which himselfe acknowledges These are sufficient to evince that the Liturgie now in use is not that Liturgie that was established by Act of Parliament and therefore that Act binds not to the use of this Liturgie as we conceive Now if to these we should adde the late alterations in the use of the Liturgie Bringing in loud Musique uncouth and unedifying Anthems a pompous superstitious Altar-service wee thinke any indifferent eye will say this is not the Liturgie established by Parliament wee hope that these alterations are so visible as any that will not fully shut their eys will say it is with this misaltered Liturgie as with the disguised Dames mentioned of old by Doctor Hall And we hope nay we know wee have some Bishops of our minde in this as well as you have some of yours how ever you slight the words of one of them not inferiour to any of them that wee know with an effutâ—it labiis yet it is a subtile shift you have to pervert the Bishops words For whereas hee said that the Service of the Church of England was now so drest that if the Pope should come and see it he would claim it as his own but that it is in English The Remonstrant would seeme to understand by this onely such an inoffensivenesse in the devotion of it as the Pope himself could find no fault in it whereas the Bishop meant such a symmetry and correspondency of our present devotion and service with the Popish as was in his esteem just matter of Humiliation to al the Bishops in the Kingdom in a day of solemn national Fasting Instead of bringing out those great applauses that forreigne Divines and Churches have given to our Liturgie hee falls though more gently then hee is wont upon Master Calvin for his Tolerabiles ineptiae as if that hee did 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It seemes the Remonstrant did not either consider the occasion of that Censure or else his not Omniscient eyes never saw the Epistle that the Learned Calvin wrote to the dispersed at Frankfort which would tell him that the occasion of
purpose to bring the Papist to our Churches which wee finde to bee with so little successe c. In answer to which the Remonstrant first commends the project as charitable and gracious The nature of the project wee never intended to dispute onely wee produced this to shew that there was not the same reason for the retaining of this forme that there was for the first introducing of it because experience tels us it hath not prevailed to that end to which it was at first designed Yes it did saith the Remonstrant for Sir Edward Coke tels us till the eleventh yeere of Queene Elizabeth all came to Church those times knew no recusant Pardon us Sir If we tell you that it was not the converting power of the Liturgie but the constraining power of the Law that brought them thither which afterwards not being pressed with that life and vigour that it had bin gave incouragemeÌ„t to the Popish fact oÌ„ to take heart adde also that at the same time the Pope negotiated to have her Liturgie to be allowed by his authority so as the Queene would acknowledge his Supremacie which when it grew hopelesse then the Jesuitish Casuists begun to draw on the Papists to a Recusancie But might the complying of our Papists be attributed soly to the inoffensivenesse of our Liturgie Yet what credit is this to our Church to have such a forme of publike worship as Papists may without offence joyne with us in and yet their Popish principles live in their hearts still How shall that reclayme an erring soule that brings their bodies to Church leaves their hearts stil in error And wheras the Remonstrant would impute the not winning of Papists rather to the want or weaknesse in preaching Be it so in the mean time let the Bishops see how they will cleere their souls of this sinne who having the sole power of admitting Ministers into the Church have admitted so many weak ones and have rejected so many faithfull able Preachers for not conforming to their beggerly rudiments And when we said that this our Liturgie hath lost us many rather then wonne any Wee meant not onely of such as are lost to the Popish part But let the Remonstrant take it so it is neither paradox nor slander For let an acute Jesuite have but this argument to weild against a Protestant not well grounded in our Religion as too many such there are in England It is evident that the Church of Rome is the ancient and true Church and not yours for you see your Service is wholly taken out of ours How would a weake Christian expedite himselfe here To the third reason this quaere was grounded upon the many stumbling blocks the Liturgie lays before the feet of many He tels us that these stumbling blocks are removâ—d by many We confesse indeed endeavours used by many whether effected or no that we question wee know it is no easie thing when a scruple hath once taken possession of the conscience to cast it out again Among the many the Remonstrant is pleased to refer us to Master Fisher for himself will not vouchsafe to foule his fingers with the removing of one of those blocks we mentioned whose book among all that have travelled in that way we think that any intâ—lligent Reader will judge most unable to give solid satisfaction to a scrupling conscience Tell us wee beseech you is it enough for a conscience that scruples the Surplice to say That it is as lawfull for you to enjoyn the Surplice and punish the omitting of it as it was for Solomon to enjoin Shimei not to goe out of Jerusalem and to punish him for the breach of that injunction or That the Surplice is a significative of divine alacritie and integritie and the expectation of glory Is it possible that a man that reads this should stuÌ„ble at the Surplice after The Cross is not onely lawfull in the use of it but the removall of it would be scandalous and perillous to the State Baptisme is necessary to salvation Children dying unbaptized are in a forlorne condition therefore Midwives may baptize c. Let the Reader judge whether this be to remove stumbling blocks from before the feet of men or to lay more But if this Remonstrant think Master Fisher so able and happy a remover of those occasions of offence wee wonder how his quick sight could see cause of any alteration so much as in the manner of the expression knowing Master Fisher undertakes the defence not onely of the Substance but of the very Circumstances and Syllables in the whole Book But his last put off is this that if there be ought in it that may danger scandall it is under carefull hands to remove it The Lord be praysed it is so it is under carefull hands and hearts more mercifull then this Remonstrant is to remit troubled Consciences to No Better Cure then Master Fishers Book who we hope will do by those as the Helvetians did by some things that were stumbled at among them though they were none but Anabaptists that stumbled at them yet the State did by Authority remove them and Zwinglius their professed adversary gives them thanks for occasioning the removall To the fourth which was that it is Idolized and accounted as the onely worship of God in England c. At Amsterdame saith hee but hee knew wee spoke of such as adore it as an Idoll not such as abhorre it as an Idoll though it pleaseth him to put it off with a scoffe retorting upon us others say rather too many doe injuriously make an Idoll of preaching shall wee therefore consider of abandoning it We hope Sir you are not serious if you be that not a little your self is guilty of Idolizing the Liturgy Dare you in cool bloodequalize this very individuall Liturgy with Gods Ordinance of preaching and say there is as little sinne or danger in considering of the utter abandoning of preaching as there is in the abandoning of this present established Liturgie Cave dixeris The fift Argument was from the great distaste it meets with in many This hee imputes to nothing but their ill teaching and betakes himselfe to his old shifts of diversion and saith By the same reason multitudes of people distasting the truth of wholsome doctrine shall we to humour them abandon both It is a griefe to see this distast grow to such a height as tends to a separation and it is as strange to us that this Remonstrant should have a heart so void of pity as that the yielding to the altering or removing of a thing indifferent which stands as a wall of separation betwixt us and our brethren should be presented to publike view under no better notion then the humouring of a company of ill taught men or as the Remonstrant elsewhere calls them brainsick men or as another Booke men that have need of dark roomes and Ellebore For that ill teaching to which hee imputes this generall
of ordination challenge also sole power of confirmation If any man object that confirmation is not so appropriated to Bishops as ordination is because as some of you say confirmation is onely reserved to them honoris gratiâ ordination they have necessitatis gratiâ this objection we have satisfied in our answer page 38. wherein we have shewed not onely from Loo that the power of ordination was reserved to them onely authoritate canonum but also that it was appropriated to them for their credit and authority Augustine speakes almost in the same words Nam in Alexandria per totum Aegyptum si desit Episcopus consecrat Presbyter that which in Ambrose is called consignat is here called consecrat and albeit the authors of both these bookes be questioned yet both of them are acknowledged ancient yea Doctor Raynolds affirmes the last of them from the 44. question was written above 300. yeeres after Christ this is enough to us that in antiquity consignat is expounded by consecrat which cleares us of that imagined guilt of a solaecisme that hee would fasten upon us and this may satisfie if this man be satisfiable that bold challenge of the former page shew us but one instance of a Presbyters regular and practized ordaining without a Bishop and carry the cause Our third charge is double first of skill not too much secondly of lesse fidelity Our want of skill is in not distinguishing of Chorepiscopi whō we brought as instances of Presbyters ordaining without a Bishop some of whom saith the Remonstrant had the nature and power of Episcopacy to all purposes and therefore might well by the Bishops licence in his owne charge impose hands Now we may returne it to the Remonstrant that he discovers not too much skill in saying that some Chorepiscopi had both the nature and power of Episcopacy to all purposes and yet might not ordaine in his own charge without the Bishops license For what needs a Bishops licence to inable a Chorepiscopus in his owne charge to doe that for the doing of which hee had before the nature and power of Episcopacy to all purposes This is just as our Bishops are wont to do who give a full power to a Presbyter at his ordination to preach the Gospell with a charge also to do it and yet will not suffer him to preach no not in his own Cure without a licence But how doth the Remonstrant make good his distinction of his two sorts of Chorepiscopi from antiquity Here we have ipse dixit and no more The peremptorinesse of Pythagoras the master in affirming the silence of his schollars when he comes to prove Bellarmine indeed tels us that some Chorepiscopi were ordained by more Bishops then one and these had power to ordaine Others were ordained by one Bishop and those were meere Presbyters and might not ordaine But with how much fidelity Bellarmine and after him the Remonstrant doth thus distinguish let the Councell of Antioch determine 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Let the Chorepiscopus be ordained by the Bishop of the City to whom hee is subject From which Councell wee gather that the Chorepiscopi were meere Presbyters and that there were but one sort of them First because the Chorepiscopus was to be ordained by one Bishop ab Episcopo not ab Episcopis whereas by the Canons a Bishop was to be ordained by many or two at least As for Bellarmine his Chorepiscopus ordained by more Bishops then one wee leave it to him to make good indeed we finde in the same Canon the Chorepiscopi in the plurall number had the imposition of the hands of Bishops but when Chorepiscopus in the singular number is mentioned then onely one Bishop is said to ordaine him 2. Because the Chorepiscopus was to be subject to the Bishop of the City ab Episcopo civitatis cui subjicitur now we read no where of the subjection of one Bishop and his charge to another Cyprian pleads the freedome of Bishops telling us that each of them hath a portion of Christs flocke assigned to him for which he is to give account to God 3. Because he could not nay he durst not exercise the power of Ordination without the leave of the Bishop the Councell of Antioch sayes non audeat absque urbis Episcopo Conc. Ancyr sayes non licere nisi cum literis ab Episcopo permissum fuerit None of this would have beene said if he had beene a Bishop as we have in part shewed in our answer page 36. We deny not but that this power of ordaining was afterward taken away from the Chorepiscopi by the same authority of the Canons and Ecclesiasticall rules by which it was first appropriated to Bishops themselves as Leo. ep 88. witnesses which to us is a 4th argument to prove that they once had it and that they had it as Presbyters for if they had it as Bishops the taking of it away would have beene a degradation of them 5. We might bring an argument ad hominem to prove the Chorepiscopi to be but Presbyters because they are sayd Conc. Naeocaesar Can. 14. to be after the manner or in imitation of the seventy now according to the opinion of Hierarchicall men Bishops succeed the Apostles not the seventy To all that we have said in this point we might ad that not onely Damasus in that Epistle which goes under his name ep 4. but also Leo ep 88. proves them to be but meere Presbyters to whose sentence conc 2. Hispal can 7. subscribes Now leaving the Chorepiscopi we will give the reader a hint to prove that not onely the Presbyters of Alexandria and the Chorepiscopi but further the Presbyters of the City with the Bishops leave might ordaine which we prove from cenc Ancyr can 13. named before where it is said It is not lawfull for Chorepiscopi to ordaine Presbyters or Deacons nor for the Presbyters of the City without the Bishop his letters in an other parish from which it appeares that Presbyters of the City had the same power to ordaine which the rurall Bishops had Because the restraint is layed equally upon both this is not onely our construction of the Canon Bishop Bilson Doctor Downam def lib. 1. cap. 8. say the same and Doctor Downam gathers from thence that Presbyters in the City might doe more then rurall Presbyters So doth Spalatensis who endeavouring to elude the text hath no other way but by foisting in a passage which is not in the Greeke text And by this time we hope we have cleared our fidelity in quoting of the Councels of Antioch and Ancyra both which the Remonstrant thought his bare word enough to blast Now we appeale to equall judgements whether the labour of this section were meerely cast away or no. The Remonstrant grants sole ordination was in regard of the exercise not challenged by Bishops in the Primitive times Though he would perswade the reader we cannot but confesse