it save onely that their ambitious desires of ruling alone swayes them against their owne judgement and the determinations of the law But indeed if this communicating of all the important businesse of the Church with those grave assistants you speake of or with the Presbyters of the whole Diocesse if you will be onely an assuming them into the fellowship of consulting and deliberating without any decisive suffrage leaving the Bishop to follow or not to follow their advise this is but a meere cosenage of the reader and doth not hinder the sole power of Episcopall jurisdiction And this is all that Downam grants lib. 1. c. 7. p. 161. where he saith that Bishops doe assume Presbyters for advise and direction as a Prince doth his Counsellors not as a Consull doth his Senators who are cojudges with the Consul And this we perceive the Remonstrant well likes of as that which makes much for the honour of their function And now sir you see that we have not fished all night and caught nothing wee have caught your sole jurisdiction and might have caught your selfe were you not such a Proteus such a Polypus to shift your selfe into all formes and Colours Having proved that Bishops in all times succeeding the Apostles had Presbyters joyned with them in the exercise of their jurisdiction and that our Bishops have none is more evident then that it needs proofe This is more to you then Baculus in Angulo it cannot but be Spina in oculis Sagittain visceribus a thorne in your eye and an arrow in your heart convincing you to your griefe that the Bishops you plead for and the Bishops of former times are two SECT X. OUr next Section the Remonstrant saith runs yet wilder it is then because we prosecute a practice of the Bishops more extravagant then the former And that is the delegation of the power of their jurisdictiō to others which the Remonstrant would first excuse as an accidentall errour of some particular man not to be fastned upon all But we desire to know the man the Bishop in all England who hath not given power to Chancellors Commissaries Officials to suspend excommunicate absolve execute all censures but one and doth the Remonstrant thinke now to stoppe our mouthes with saying it is a particular error of some men whereas it is evident enough that our English Episcopacy cannot possibly be exercised without delegating of their power to a multitude of inferiour instruments Can one Bishop having 500. or a 1000. Parishes under him discharge all businesses belonging to testamentary and decimall causes and suites to preach Word and administer the Sacraments c. to take a due oversight also of all Ministers and people without the helpe of others Nor will that other excuse doe it That it is but an accidentall error and though granted concludes not that our Bishops challenge to themselves any other spirituall power then was delegated to Timothy and Titus Sir we abhorre it as an unworthy thing to compare our Bishops with Timothy or Titus the comparison is betweene our Bishops and Bishops of former times But to please you this once we will admit the comparison and shew howeven in this particular that you count so monstrous our Bishops challenge a power never delegated to Timothy nor Titus And we prove it thus Timothy and Titus never had a power delegated to them to devolve that power of governing the Church which God had intrusted into their hands upon persons incapable of it by Gods ordinance But our Bishops doe so Ergo. The Remonstrant thinkes by impleading other reformed Churches as guilty of the same crime to force us either to condemne them or to acquit him But the reformed Churches if they doe practise any such thing are of age to answer for themselves Our businesse is with the Remonstrant and the persons and practices which he hath taken the tuition of Whom we charging as in a generality with wholy intrusting the power of spirituall jurisdiction to their Chancellors and their Commissaries their good friend tels us we foulely overreach The assistance of these creatures they use indeed but they neither negligently or wilfully devest themselves of that and wholy put it into Laicke hands This is a meere slander that Bishops devest themselves of their power we never said That they doe either negligently or wilfully decline that office which they call theirs we need not say it is so apparent And as apparent it is that they doe intrust the power of jurisdiction wholly into Laicke hands for their Chancellors and Commissaries having power of jurisdiction by patent setled upon them and exercising that jurisdiction in all the parts of it conventing admonishing suspending excommunicating absolving without the presence or assistance of a Bishop or recourse to him we thinke impartiall Judges will say wee are neither slanderers nor over-reachers In our former answer we fully cleared from Cyprian how farre hee was from delegating his power to a Chancellour c. This he sleights as a negative authority yet it is sufficient to condemne a practice that never had being in the thoughts of primitive times And we beleeve it satisfies all others because the Remonstrant saith it is very like it was so Though according to his old way of diversion he tels us as Cyprian did not referre to a Chancellor so neither to the bench of a Laicke Presbytery yet he that is but meanly versed in Cyprian may easily see that it is no unusuall thing in that holy martyr to referre the determinations of causes ad Clerum Plebe◠But the Remonstrant thinkes to patronize the practice of our present Bishops by Silvanus the good Bishop of Troas And what did Silvanus to the countenancing of this practice perceiving that some of his Clergie did corruptly make gaine of causes civill causes causes of difference betweene party and party or as you phrase it page 91. unkind quarrels of dissenting neighbours he would no more appoint any of his Clergy to be Judge but made choice of some faithfull man of the Laity Now this is as much to the purpose good sir as Posthumus his pleading in Martiall We are confuting the practice of our Bishops in making over their spirituall jurisdiction to Laymen and he brings in a story of a good Bishop that having a bad Clergy intrusted honest men with civill judicature rather then them As full to the purpose is that of Ecclesiae ecdici or Episcoporum Ecdici to prove the Antiquity of Chancellors and Commissaries For their Ecdici were men appointed to be the advocates of the Church to plead the Churches cause before the Emperours against the tyranny of their potent adversaries But we never read that the Bishops did put over the government of the Church to them we could with all our hearts give this honour to Civilians to be the Churches advocates but not the Churches Judges which the Bishops give them leave to
the assertion of Episcopall men else what is the meaning of Doctor Halls semper and ubique and what is the meaning of that irrefragable proposition no man living no History can shew any well allowed and setled Nationall Church in the whole Christian World that hath been governed otherwise then by Bishops in a meet and moderate imparity ever since the times of Christ and his Apostles unto this present age And what means that other expression Turne over all Histories seeke the records of all times and places if ever it can be shown that any Orthodox Church in the whole Christian World since the time of Christ and his Apostles was governed otherwise then by a Bishop Superiour to his Clergie unlesse perhaps during the time of some persecution or short interregnum Let me forfeit my part of the cause The instances brought to prove the falsnesse of that Assertion that Episcopacie had never met with contradiction in any Christian Congregation The one hee turns off with the evasion of a personall quarrell whereas the Histories tell us it was an ancient custome and adds an odious Marginall ill becomming his so deeply protested loyalty to his Sovereigne as if it were no lesse crime to offer an affront to a Prelate then to the King The other instances of the Reformed Churches he puts off with this shift that if wee did not wilfully shut our eyes we might see he limited his time unto this present age Good Sir bethink you take up your Remonstrance read your own words Mark the Parenthesis Episcopall Government derives it self from the times of the Apostles without any interruption without the contradiction of any one Congregation in the Christian World to this present age The limitation of time here hath reference to the continuance of Episcopacie not the contradiction of Episcopacie that 's hedged in with your parenthesis which excludes your limitation Just such another is your next having said Episcopall Government continued in this Iland ever since the plantation of the Gospel without contradiction and being here taken in the manner to salve your credit you would here alter your words and sence and make it that it cannot be contradicted that the forme of this Government hath continued in the Island ever since the first plantation of the Gospel pray review your words and see how well they admit this sense Were this Ordinance meerly humane and Ecclesiasticall if there could no more be said for it but that it is exceeding ancient of more then fifteen hundred yeares standing and that it hath continued in this Island since the first Plantation of the Gospel to this present day without contradiction You would make the sense to goe thus this proposition is true without contradiction that Episcopall Government hath continued in this Island we say the sense must be thus that this Government hath continued without contradiction or hath received no contradiction during all the time it hath continued untill this present day If any impartiall Reader would not take the words in that sence we did rather then in the sence you have drawn them to let us be counted slanderers But in excusing the last mistake he would be a little more serious The Remonstrant had said Except all Histories all Authors faile us nothing can be more certain then this truth Wee cry out here of such a shamelesnesse as dares equall this opinion of his of Episcopall Government to an Article of our Creed This he doth seriously deny professing he spake it only as an ordinary phrase in hourly discourse and did Hee so too that in Episcopacie by divine Righ Part. 2. pag. 47. faith That for his part hee is so confident of the divine institution of the Majoritie of Bishops above Presbyters that hee dare boldly say there are weighty points of Faith which have not so strong evidence in Scripture And the same Author in the same place professeth that men may with much better colour cavill at those blessed Ordinances of God viz. consecration and distribution of the holy Eucharist and baptizing of Infants then quarrell at the divine institution of Bishops God give the man lesse confidence or more truth is not this to equalize this fancie to an Article of the Creed Wee would not have cast away so much time and paper upon this worthlesse businesse but onely to cleer our selves from that uncharitablenesse falshood lying and slandring wherewith the Remonstrant here bespatters us It is in his power to save himselfe and us this ungratefull labour if hee will give lesse scope to his luxuriant pen speak more cautiously let his words be more in weight and lesse in number SECT IV. IN the next Section the Remonstrant according to his Rhetorick saith Now I hope they wil strike it is a Trope sperare pro timere He had pleaded for the establishment of Episcopacie the long continuance of it in the world and in this Island this we called Argumentum galeatum quoting Hierom for that Epithite for which his great learning scoffs us Well wee must put it up an argument or if you will an Almanack for it is growing out of date apace and calculated for the Meridian of Episcopacie c. meaning the argument though applyed to Episcopacie might serve for any other Right Custome Order Religion that might plead antiquity which hee denies not but plainly grants saying it is calculated for whatsoever Government if so long time have given it peaceable possession in so much that could the Presbytery plead so long continuance hee should never yield his vote to alter it No should not to bring in that Episcopall Government which saith the Remonstrant hath such a divine institution as not only warrants it where it is but requires it where it may be had How can these things consist Surely if your grounds for the Divine Right of Episcopacie be Convictive and Irrefragable you must renounce that Government which is meerly humane and Ecclesiasticall be the Antiquity of it never so venerable if it stand in Competition with that which may plead a jus divinnm To divert that which he saw would overthrow this plea intitling the Pope to as much strength in this argument as the Bishops he will needs add this That long continuance may challenge an immunity from thoughts of alteration uulesse where the ground of the change is fully Convictive and Irrefragable But first Sir you must not make a limitation in your conclusion above what was in your premises but since you are at a dead lift wee will take it in and yet tell you that this helps you no more then the Pope still if he may judge hee will say there is no reason for his abolition may others judge the ground is fully Convictive and Irrefragable The Bishops being Judges and the Remonstrant they determine no reason in the world for the change of Episcopacie but what if others that must be Judges in this controversie see grounds Irrefragable and
because he knowes not what to say against it If he did intend to anger us he is much mistaken for it pleaseth us well to heare him give so full a testimony that secular imployments are unsuitable to the Ministers of the Gospell Vnlesse in those two excepted cases of the extraordinary occasions and services of a Prince or State And the composing of unkind quarrels of dissenting neighbours We take what he grants us here so kindly that we pardon his unfit comparison betweene S. Pauls Tent-making to supply his owne necessities that he might not be burthensome to the Church the State imployment of our Bishops And should in this Section fully have joyned hands with him but that we must needs tell him at the parting that had our Bishops never ingaged themselves in secular affaires but ex officio generali Charitatis and had beene so free from ambition as he would make the world beleeve they are neither should wee have beene so large in this Section nor so aboundant in our processe nor would the Parliament have made that provision against the secular imployment of Clergy men as they have lately done SECT XIII THe best Charter pleaded for Episcopacy in former times was Ecclesiasticall constitution and the favour of Princes But our latter Bishops suspecting this would prove too weake and sandie a foundation to support a building of that transcending loftinesse that they have studied to advance the Babell of Episcopacy unto have indeavoured to under-pinne it with some texts of Scripture that they might plead a Ius divinum for it that the consciences of all might be tyed up from attempting to pull down their proud Fabricke but none of them is more confident in this plea then this Remonstrant who is content that Bishops should for ever be hooted out of the Church and be disclaimed as usurpers if they claime any other power then what the Scripture gives them especially bearing his cause upon Timothy and Titus and the Angels of the 7. Churches Now because one grain of Scripture is of more efficacy esteeme to faith then whole volumes of humane testimonies we indeavoured to shew the impertinency of his allegations especially in those two instances And concerning Timothy and Titus we undertooke two things First that they were not Bishops in his sence but Evangelists the companions of the Apostles in founding of Churches or sent by them from place to place but never setled in any fixed pastorall charge and this wee shewed out of the story of the Acts and the Epistles The other was that granting ex abundanti they had beene Bishops yet they never exercised any such jurisdiction as ours doe But because the great hinge of the controversie depends upon the instances of Timothy and Titus before we come to answer our Remonstrant we will promise these few propositions granted by most of the patrons of Episcopacy First Evangelists properly so called were men extraordinarily imployed in preaching the Gospell without a setled residence upon any one charge They were Comites Vicarii Apostolorum Vice-Apostles who had Curam Vicariam omnium Ecclesiarum as the Apostles had Curam principalem And did as Ambrose speakes Evangelizare sine Cathedra Secondly It is granted by our Remonstrant and his appendant Scultetus and many others That Timothy was properly an Evangelist while he travelled up and downe with the Apostles Thirdly It is expressely granted that Timothy and Titus were no Bishops till after Pauls first being at Rome That is after the end of the Histories of the Acts of the Apostles Fourthly The first Epistle to Timothy and the Epistle to Titus from whence all their grounds for Episcopacy are fetcht were written by Paul before his first going to Rome And this is acknowledged by all interpreters and Chronologers that we have consulted with upon this point Baronius himselfe affirming it And the Remonstrants owne grounds will force him to acknowledge that the second Epistle to Timothy was also written at Pauls first being at Rome For that second Epistle orders him to bring Marke alone with him who by the Remonstrants account died five or six yeeres before Paul Which could not have beene if this Epistle were written at Pauls second comming to Rome Estius also following Baronius gives good reason that the second Epistle to Timothy was written at Pauls first being at Rome Fiftly If Timothy and Titus were not Bishops when these Epistles were written unto them then the maine grounds of Episcopacy by divine right sinke by their owne confession Bishop Hall in his Episcopacy by divine right part 2. sect 4. concludes thus peremptorily That that if the especiall power of ordination and power of ruling and censuring Presbyters be not cleare in the Apostles charge to these two Bishops the one of Creete the other of Ephesus I shall yeeld the cause and confesse to want my sences And it must needs be so for if Timothy were not then a Bishop the Bishops power of charging Presbyters of proving and examining Deacons of rebuking Elders and ruling over them and his imposition of hands to ordaine Presbyters c. doe all faile And Bishops in these can plead no succession to Timothy and Titus by these Scriptures more then other Presbyters may For if they were not Bishops then all these were done by them as extraordinary Officers to which there were no successors Sixtly By the confession of the patrons of Episcopacy It is not onely incongruous but sacrilegious for a Minister to descend from a superiour order to an inferiour according to the great Counsell of Chalcedon Seventhly In all that space of time from the end of the Acts of the Apostles untill the middle of Trajans raigne there is nothing certaine to be drawne out of Ecclesiasticall Authours about the affaires of the Church thus writeth Iosephus Scaliger Thus Tilenus when he was most Episcopall and Eusebius long before them both saith It cannot be easily shewed who were the true followers of the Apostles no further then it can be gathered out of the Epistles of Paul If the intelligent Reader weigh and consider these granted propositions he may with ease see how the life-blood of Episcopacy from Timothy and Titus is drayn'd out for if they were not Bishops till after Pauls first being at Rome then not when the Epistles were written to them according to the fourth proposition and then their cause failes if any shall say they were Bishops before Pauls first being at Rome contrary to the third proposition then they make them Bishops while by the story its apparent they were Evangelists and did Evangelizare sine cathedra and so clash against the second In a word the office of an Evangelist being a higher degree of Ministery then that of Bishops make them Bishops when you please you degrade them contrary to our sixt proposition whiles the Remonstrant tryes to reconcile these things we shall make further use of them
we say so too a foul imputation to charge the Reformed Churches of a secret inclination to Apostatize from their owne confessions which doe not onely maintain a justifiablenesse of their present government but a necessity of it as the only government appointed by GOD in his Church as wee shewed in five Corollaries drawn out of those confessions which the Remonstrant slides over wherein they doe not onely defend the condition they are in but tell us by consequence they would not change it for any other forme in the World Because they tell us Theirs is the form God hath set down in his Word the forme Christ hath appointed in his Church the forme by which the Church ought to be governed Can we think the Churches that thus professe and believe can ever look for a better form Or would accept another though propounded to them as better when they professe this is that form by which they ought to be governed The testimonies of particular Divines must not be put in the ballance against the confessions of whole Churches God forbid that all that hath flowed from the pens of Divines of great Learning and place in England should passe for the Doctrine of the English Church abroad Wee will beleeve you it is possible many eminent Divines of the Churches abroad have wished themselves in your condition that is in Episcopall Government not in our condition under Episcopall Government And as easily we believe they have magnified our Church as the most famous exemplary glorious Church in the whole Christian World It better a great deale becomes them then Laodicean like to say as you say pag. 26. their own is the most glorious and exemplary Church the rest are but a poore handfull and reason they should conforme to it not it to them But whether it be the beautie perfection and glory of Episcopall government or the powerfull and lively preaching of the World the powerfull and lively practice of piety which through the speciall grace of God are found in this Church then which there hath been nothing more hated or persecuted under Episco government that hath made them magnifie the Church of England there is the question which is not hard to determine To induce the Reader to believe the Reformed Churches would change theirs for our government the Remonstrant hath told us that there is little difference betweene their government and ours save in perpetuitie of moderatorship and exclusion of Lay-elders This saith the Remonstrant You say is a passage of admirable absurdity Sir wee said admirable the absurdity is your own To mend it you would perswade your selfe to feare wee know not what you speak of You speake not onely of the next Churches of France and the Netherlands Sir you spake if we remember of the Neighbour Churches and wee conceive between our Neighbour Churches the next Churches of France and the Netherlands there is not much distance sure any common understanding by Neighbour Churches would a great deal sooner understand the next Churches of France and the Netherlands then the Churches of Germany Weteraw Anhault c. Especially considering your instance in those Churches from whose Moderators our Bishops differ onely in perpetuitie of Moderatorship Which perpetuitie the Lutheran Superintendents have as well as our Bishops This made us instance in the Geneva forme as knowing no Churches whose 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is not fixed but such as follow their patterne between which 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and our episcopacie wee shewed a sixfold difference all which the Remonstrant wisely passeth that hee may not be forced to acknowledge the difference greater then hee pretended Onely tels us with what authority Master Calvin and the deputati Synodi carried the affairs of the Church which if the personall worth of the one or the other did procure what is that to carrying all the affairs of the Church ex officio by vertue of their own peculiarly demandated authority as our Bishops do and challenge right to doe You put us in minde that you said the difference between them was little and we need not put you in minde of what our answer was Manet aliâ mente repostum nor do we intend to change You tell us our note is the note of Babylon down with it downe with it Yet as long as neither we are Edomits nor speak of Sion but of Sions enemies the note is not Babylonish As Babylon had her time to cry against Sion downe with it down with it even to the ground so the time is comming when Sion shall shout with as strong a cry against her enemies and the God of Heaven whose promise is to arise for the sighing of the poore we doubt not will vindicate his Church from those proud adversaries that have so long time tyrannized over her and Judge betweene the Sheep and the Goats Even hee Judge whether wee that plead the truth against Bishops or the Bishops whose cause the Remonstrant pleâ—ds have by violent and subtill Machinations most disturbed Sions peace and advanced Babylons power SECT XV. THe Remonstrant had said that Lay Presbytery never had footing in the Christian Church untill this age Wherein said we hee concludes so fully with Doctor Hals irrefragrable propositions as if he had conspired to swear to what the Bishop had said The Remonstrant that it seems knows both better then wee will phrase it thus how like the man looks to Doctor Hall And answers As like him as wee are like our selves insolent and scornfull Truly Sir wee could scarce conceive this likenesse by the Remonstrance and we can lesse conceive it by this defence For besides the flat contradictions which this Defence gives to Episcopacie by Divine Right for which wee doubt the Doctor will give the Remonstrant little thanks the very language of the Defence inclines to the contrary For though we acknowledge the Defence for the substance of it wholly and for the phrase of it in a great part borrowed from episcopacie by Divine Right yet the extream disdainfulnesse that breaths in every page and line pleads with us to thinke that it is not his especially if he have made that vow of leaving his insolent and scornfull language which an ancient acquaintance of his hath put the world in hope hee would Your Errata bids us pag. 33. Read Invectives truly we may read in every page Invectives and if to be scornfull and insolent be to be unlike Doctor Hall you have done the Doctor exceeding wrong to say the Remonstrant looks like him But be the Remonstrant who hee will we hope hee will not take it ill if comming into publique nameless he receive par pari remembring especially the saying of Hierom concerning Domitius a Senator to his scornfull Consull si non vis me habere ut Senatorem cur ego te habeam ut Consulem Why should wee use him as a Father that doth not use us as Brethren Make sport with our poore wit
no record is found in Divine writings 6. Whether Master Beza have not heard soundly of his distinction of the three kinds of Episcopacy in the full and learned answer of Soravia Yes and Soravia and others that have borrowed from him have heard as foundly of their defences of Episcopacy both by domesticke and forreine Divines who have sufficiently declared how well our story of the Painter suits with your Discipline but iâ— that please you not we can â—it you with an other of the Painter mentioned in Plutarch who having drawne a cocke very unskilfully and rudely could not indure any cocke to stand within view for feare of discovering the deformity of his picture So our Bishops having drawne a forme and line of government which they propose to the world as divine will not indure the true divine government to come in view for feare of discovering the irregularity of theirs 7. Whether it were not fit that we also should speake as the ancient Fathers did Sir by your leave it is safe to speake in the language the Scripture speakes but you should have done well to have spoken to the reason upon which our Quere was grounded and what further reasons we then had and still have to make this Quere may appeare by what wee have sayd before in vindicating Timothy and Titus from such like objections 8. Whether Presbyters can without sinne arrogate unto themselves the exercise of the power of publike Church-government c. to say nothing what honour here you give to your deare Sister-Churches Our answer is Yes they may take the exercise of that power without sinne though not without danger if your High-Commission were standing For our Saviour Christ when he gave to Peter the promise of the keyes made in one undistinguishable act a donation of the power both of preaching and governing and therefore if Presbyters may without sin publickly exercise the one by vertue of that donation they may by the same charter as warrantably exercise the other The last branch of your quere Whether any Father or Doctor till this age held that Presbyters were successors to the Apostles c. We wonder that any man who hath but the repute of learning shouldâ— make such a quere And for the answer we refer you to what we have said before in this booke 9. Whether ever any Bishops assumed to themselves power temporall to be Barons c. Our answer is You shew better writts for your temporalties then you have done yet for your spiritualties And our quaere was directed to shew the spirituall power of Bishops to be of more dangerous consequence then their temporall to which purpose we produced five reasons which wee perswade our selves you scarcely read over for in the third there is a fault in the printing which had you seene your charity would scarce have let passe without an observation which remaining unanswered wee conclude as before it concernes all those that have spirituall eyes to endeavour to abrogate their spirituall usurpationsâ— as well as their temporall As for the latter part of this Quere it is a begging of the whole dispute Et eadem facilitate rejicitur quâ affirmatur 10. Whether the answerers have not just cause to be ashamed of patronizing a noted hereticke Aerius c. To this we answer That if Aerius was accounted an heretique for denying Bishops to be all one with Presbyters by divine right we are not ashamed to patronize him till you have answered our allegations for his defence which are brought in this quere and in divers places in this Booke But you could not be so ignorant but to know how Bellarmine and divers others doe say That Aerius was accounted an hereticke not for denying the inequality of Bishops and Presbyters by Scripture but by the Canons of the Church But wee wonder how we escaped the brand of the heresie of the Audiani who by the same Epiphanius are called heretiques though men of a blamelesse conversation because they did not without just cause freely and boldly reprove the vices of the Bishops of their daies 11. Whether the great apostacy of the Church of Rome doe or did consist in the maintaining the order of government set by the Apostles themselves c. Sure no wee never sayd nor thought it But that a great part of the Apostacy of the Church of Rome consisted in swarving from the discipline of Christ and hiâ— Apostles as well as from the doctrine and setting up and maintaining a new Hierarchicall forme which cannot enter into our hearts to thinke the Apostles did ever set up and which the most part of the Churches in the Christian World that are professedly opposite unto the Church of Rome doe oppose as much as they doe Rome it selfe though you beare the Reader in hand they all maintaine it no lesse constantly then Rome it selfe doth which no man but he that hath captivated reason modesty to his cause and will would have so confidently and untruly spoken Once againe let us aske you whether by this bould speech all the reformed Churches of Christ be not now shut out of the number of Churches 12. Whether if Episcopacy be through the mâ—nificence of good Princes honoured with a title of dignity c. it to be ever the more declined Since the time that Episcopacy has bin honored with dignity and revenues the office hath not bin declined but the Bishops themselves haue bin declining Yet our Quere was not whether this were a ground of declining the place but rather of desiring the place As for our crying up the Presbytery because wee hope to carry some sway in it We acknowledge our selves unworthy to beare any part in it but we heartily desire that Christ may rule and wee shall most willingly subject our selves to his government 13. Whether there bee no other apparent causes to be given for the encrease of popery and superstition in the Kingdome besides Episcopacy which hath strongly laboured to oppose it c. We deny not but there may have bin other causes but none so apparant as Episcopacy But whereas in a parenthesis which you might well have left out without any detriment either to your sense or the truth you say that Episcopacy hath strongly laboured to oppose popery we answer Quid verba audimus cum facta videmus you aske againe whether the multitude of Sects you should have added which the tyranny of Bishops hath made And professed â—lovenlinesse in Gods service have not bin guilty of the encrease of prophanenesse We answer againe not so much as the forbidding of preaching and Catechising as the countenancing of sports on the Lords day as the scandalous lives of too too many episcopall men and the libertinisme of the Bishops houses and Courts 14. Your 14. Quere consists of a Paradox and a Solâ—cisme A Paradox in saying That all Churches throughout the whole Christian world have ever observed and doe constantly and uniformely obserue and maintaine Episcopall
we render not the word but the person the instructor of the people because the same Father but a few lines before told us that was his proper work and why should the Remonstrant cal this a guilty translation Did he think we were affraid to use the word President or Bishop for fear of advantaging the adverse cause No such matter take it translate it you Bishop if you please make this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be the same with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Apocalyps what will you gain by it but this that such a President or Bishop there was in every Congregation whether in the City or Country But besides the supposed guilt we are charged with false Translation for turning 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 according to his ability if this be a false Translation let the crime lie upon Langius and not contradicted by Sylburgius in his notes who before us translated 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 quantum pro virili potest which wee know not how to conster better then according to his ability And this Remonstrant grants they did pray according to their ability and so saith he do ours and yet we have a publike Liturgie and so had they It followeth not that they had because we have we would fain see better proofe of it The Remonstrant thinks it is proof enough to picke a quarrell with what wee have spoken and therefore scorns to trouble himself any further then to tell the Reader it is Magisterially said by these men that set and imposed formes were not introduced till the Arrian and Pelagian Heresies did invade the Church and as Clerkly they confute themselves by their own testimony So then if wee cite testimony it is not Magisterially spoken and how is it Clerkly confuted Besides what wee have done our selves he vouchsafes us the honour to bestow a marginall confutation upon us out of Conc. Laod. cap. 19. we will doe the Canon and the Cause right and give you the full view of it Oportere seorsum primum post Episcoporum Homilias Catechumenorum Orationem peragi postquam exierunt Catechumeni eorum qui poenitentiam agunt fieri orationem cum iâ— sub manum accesserint recesserint fidelium preces sic ter fieri Vnam quidem scilicet primam silentio secundam autem tertiam per pronuntiationem impleri deinde sic pacem dari sic sanctam oblationem perfici solis licere sacratis ad altare accedere communicare We desire the Reader to remember that the question is not about a set Order or Rubrick as the Remonstrant calls it of administrations but about set and imposed forms of prayer Now what doth this Canon require that after Sermon Prayer should be made first for the Catechumeni Secondly for the penitents Thirdly for the faithfull But doth it binde to set forms of prayer in all these that the Reader sees it doth not for some of the prayers required in that Canon are mentall prayers therefore not stinted nor prescribed praiers as appears by that clause in the Canon which the Remonstrant shuffling up with much lesse fidelity then we have done the Milevitan Councell leaves out in his quotation But Clerklike wee confute our selves First in going about to prove that set and imposed formes were not introduced till the Arrian and Pelagian heresie did invade the Church by the testimony of a Councell that was before Arrianisme Hee that is so quicke to take others in their self coÌ„futations doth as Clerklike confute himselfe in granting that the Laodicean Councell was between the Neocesarian and the Nicene and yet so long before Arrtanisme as it seemes ridiculous to referre from the one to the other Now the Neocesarian Councell was as Binius from Baronius computes in the yeer 314 and the Nicene was 325 or according to Eusebius 320. And was the Arrian heresie just born at the period of the Nicene Councell if not why may not the Arrian Heresie invade the Church before the time of the Laodicean Councell especially considering that the heresie of Arrius did trouble the Church sometime before it borrowed Arrius his name and under his name some yeers doubtles before the Nicen Councell Yet our meaning was not to affix the introducing of set formes into the Church upon that Councell the Remonstrant if that he had pleased might have conceived that speaking of the bringing in such formes wee shew how it was done by degrees And first as a step the Laodicean Councell did forbid mens varying their prayers as they listed and did enjoyn all men to use the same prayers 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This Remonstrant saith we said was a forme of mans owne prescribing No we said of a mans own composing and how wil the Remonstrant disprove it from the words of the Canon To prove our assertion we brought the words of the Councel of Carthage which our Remonstrant derides as a grosse absurdity to explicate the Councel of Laodicea by that of Carthage which is yet no more then Zâ—naras did before us But as the Remonstrant relates it the Fathers of Carthage will afford us little help You shall heare themselves speak Reader and then judge Vt nemo in precibus velpatrem pro filio vel filium propatre nominet cum â—ltari assistitur semper ad patrem dirigatur Oratio quicunque sibi preces aliunde describit non iis utatur nisi prius eas cum fratribus instructoribus contulerit Where it appears first that this Canon was made for poore ignorant Priests that knew not the difference between the Father and the Sonne Secondly that when this Canon was made there was no set forme in use in the Church for it cannot come under the possibility of imagination that a man having a set form lying before him should so grosly mistake as to name the Father for the Son or the Son for the Father Thirdly that the limiting or circumscribing the liberty in prayer was such as did not tie him to a set Liturgie but hee might use the help of any other prayer so he did conferre with the more learned of his Brethren The Milevitan Councell went something further wherein hee challenges our fidelitie in shufling up the Councell our fidelity in citing of this Councell is nothing inferiour to his in this and far above his in the former Let the Reader consider how much difference there is between what we speak and what the Remonstrant reports from this Councell and judge of the fidelity of both If wee have for brevity sake given too short a representation of the Canon it will appeare upon are view to redound onely to our own prejudice The Canon is this Placuit etiam illud ut preces vel orationes c. quae probâ—tae fuerint in Concilio sive praefationes c. ab omnibus celebreÌ„tur Nec altae omnino dicantur in Ecclesia nisi quae à prudentioribus Tractatae vel Ã
who have laboured about the Reformation of the Church these five hundred yeeres of whom he names abundance have taught that all Pastors be they intitulated Bishops or Priests have equall authority and power by the Word of God and by this the Reader may know Doctor Reinolds his judgment concerning Episcopacie There is one thing more belongs to this Section as to the proper seat and that is the establishment which he seeks to Episcopacie froÌ„ the laws of the Kingdom to which we having answered that Laws are repealable the Parliament having a Nomotheticall power He answers though laws are repealable yet fundamentall laws are not subject to alteration upon personall abuses Secondly that he speaks not against an impossibility but an easinesse of change which our guiltinesse would willingly overlook But consider we beseech you how fitly is Episcopal Government made a piece of the fundamentall Laws of the Kingdome How did the Kingdome then once stand without Bishops as in the very page you had now to answer you might have seen once it did For doth not the Marginall tell you from Sir Edward Coke or rather from an Act reported by him in the 23 yeere of Edward the first that the holy Church was founded in the state of Prelacie within the Realme of England by the King and his progenitors which your guiltinesse will needs overlooke for feare you should see that there was a King of this Realme of England before there was a Prelacie And how then is Episcopacie one of the fundamentals of the Kingdome And whereas you say you spake onely against an easinesse of change read your words in the eighteenth page of your Remonstrance A man would thinke it were plea enough to challenge a reverend respect and an immunitie from all thoughts of alteration is this to speake against an easinesse or rather against a possibility of change For your conclusion that things indifferent or good having by continuance and generall approbation beene well rooted in Church and State may not upon light grounds be pulled up Good Sir never trouble your selfe about such an indifferent thing as Episcopacie is Never feare but if Episcopacie be rooted up it will be done by such hands as will not doe it upon light grounds SECT V. THey that would defend the Divine right of Episcopacie derive the pedigree of it from no lesse then Apostolicall and in that right divine institution so did this Remonstrant This we laboured in this Section to disprove and shew that it might be said of our Bishops as of those men Ezra 62. These men sought their Register among those that were reckoned by Genealogie but they were not found therefore were they as polluted put from the Priesthoâ—d For the Bishops whose pedigree is derived from the Apostles were no others then Presbyters this we evinced by foure mediums out of Scripture but insisted onely upon two the identitie of their name and office Before wee come to the Remonstrants answer wee will minde the Reader of what the Remonstrant saith That we have a better faculty at gathering then at strewing which if we have we shall here make good use of our faculty in gathering the choice flowers which himself hath scattered yielding unto us the mayn Scripture grounds whereby the Patrons of Episcopacie have endevoured to uphold their cause For himselfe confesseth the Bishops cause to be bad if it stand not by divine Right and compares the leaving of divine right and supporting themselves by the indulgence and munificence of religious Princes unto the evill condition of such men who when God hath withdrawn himselfe make flesh their arme And whether himselfe hath not surrendred up this divine right judge by that which followeth Our main argument was That Bishops and Presbyters in the originall authority of Scripture were the same Hee answers in the name of himselfe and his Party This is in expresse terms granted by us We argue it further That we never find in Scripture any other orders of Ministery but Bishops and Deacons He answers Brethren you might have spared to tell mee that which I have told you before And adds That when wee alleage the Apostles writings for the identity of Bishops and Presbytâ—rs we oppose not his assertion because he speaks of the monuments of immediate succession to the Apostolike times but we of the writing of the Apostles And for the two other arguments drawn from the identitie of the qualifications of Bishops and Presbyters for their Office and Ordination to their office hee answers Ne 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 quidem And yet notwithstanding that the Reader may not perceive how the Remonstrant betrayes his own cause he deals like the fish Sepia and casteth out a great deal of black inke before the eyes of the Reader that so hee may escape without observation But wee will trace him and finde him out where hee thinks himselfe most secure For first he falsly quotes our answer Whereas wee say That in originall authority Bishops Presbyters are the same he tels us we say That Bishops and Presbyters went originally for the same That is saith he There was at first a plain indentity in their denomination Which two answers differ Immane quantum And yet howsoever this very identity of denomination in Scripture is of no small consequence what ever the Remonstrant makes of it For the proper ends of Names being to distinguish things according to the difference of their natures and the supream wisdome of God being the imposer of these names who could neither be ignorant of the nature of these offices nor mistake the proper end of the imposition of names nor want variety to expresse himselfe the argument taken from the constant identity of denomination is not so contemptible as the Remonstrant pretends Especially considering that all the texts brought to prove the identity of names prove as intrinsecally the identity of Offices which we did cleerly manifest by that text Titus 1. 5 6 7. Where the Apostle requiring Presbyters to be thus and thus qualified renders the reason because Bishops must be so Which argument would no ways evince what the Apostle intended if there were onely an idenditie of names and not also of offices and qualifications When the names are the same and the Offices distinct who but one that cares not what hee affirmes would infer the same offices as a consequent from the identity of their names Who would say that the properties of the Constellation called Canis ought to be the same with the bruit creature so called because they have both one name And this we desire the Reader to take the more notice of because the Remonstrant passeth it over in silence Secondly the Remonstrant seemes to recant that which he had before granted tels us that though in the Apostolike Epistles there be no nominal distinction of the titles yet here is a reall distinction and specification of the duties as we shall see in due place
But this place is in Vtopia and wee shall finde it paulò post finem for wee finde it no where in this book but we hope in due place faithfully to performe the contrary to what hee hath deludingly promised and also to shew how these words of his doe contradict what himselfe saith in other places of his book The testimonies brought out of antiquities to shew that the names of Bishops and Presbyters were used 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hee calls trifling and challengeth us to name any one of his Writers that hath stood up in the cause of Episcopacy that hath not granted and proclaimed this which we contend for Wee answer first the better is our cause when our adversaries are forced to grant us thus much Secondly the Authours we alleage doe as well hold the offices of Bishops and Presbyters to be used in Scripture 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as well as the names Thirdly though we cannot name the man yet hee who names himselfe the humble Remonstrant in the 96 page of his Defence doth impropriate the name 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Acts 20. to Bishops in an imparity distinct from meere Presbyters saying If they were indeed Bishops and not mere Presbyters as the word it selfe imports c. And wee thinke you should know the name of this man We mentioned Anicetus Pius Higinus Telesphorus under the denomination of Presbyters You Answer we could not have brought a stronger argument against our selves Why They are called Presbyters as well as Bishops Ergo the names are used indifferently Doth it not fully prove as much as we intended But they are famously known say you to have been in a height of elevation above Presbyters It is yet to be proved they were so yet how ever no such elevation as did advance them into an order above Presbyterie For Irenaeus speaking of the Successors to the Apostles saith Cum Prebyterio ordine sermonem sanum conversationem sine offensâ praestant ad informationem correctionem reliquorum And our Remonstrant granting an identitie of names and yet thinking to maintain a distinction of offices out of Irenaeus comes neerer to the sence of the Popish Commentator Feuardentius then of the orthodox Father Irenaeus To Cyprian whom the Presbyters called frater Hee replyes that though the Presbyters were so familiar with him as to call him brother yet he did never so condiscend to them as to call them Bishops but stifly maintains the eminencie of his superiority and is sometimes honour â—dutth the stâ—le of Beatissimus Papa To all which wee answer first that as the Presbyters call Cyprian brother so he cals them Brethren Colleagues Fellow-Presbyters c. And Augustine a Bishop writing to Hierom a Presbyter disdains not to write in this style Domino dilectissimo in Christi vesceribus honorando sancto fratri Compresbytero Hieronymo So to Praesidius Domino beatissimo merito venerando fratri Consacerdoti Praesidio Yet was Praesidius but a Deacon as Hierome saith For Cyprians maintaining his Superiority stifly wee are sure he never maintained it so stifly as this Remonstrant and our Bishops doe for he as we fully shewed in our Answer never maintained any sole superiour power but disclaimed it wholly yet this is the thing our Bishops contend for as you may read Episcopacie by Divine Right part 2 pag. 16. As for the glorious Title of Beatissimus Papa Cyprianus we tell you in that age it was a title common to Presbyters as well as Bishops as appeares ex Bibliotheca Patrum Primum singulos habent Papas sic enim vocant Presbyteros vel Curiones in singulis Parochiis cum uno Diacono It is therefore but a meere false supposition of the Remonstrant that the title Papa was never given to a meer Presbyter And we hope the name Papa is as great and Rome will say as incommunicable as the Remonstrant would make the name Episcopus out of Cyprian In the next Paragraph the Remonstrant leaving the indentity of names addresseth himself to the great question about the distinction of the Offices of Bishops and Presbyters And here we demanded and now demand againe What these men that maintaine the office of a Bishop distinct from a Presbyter make the Bishops proper office Is it to edifie the Church by Word and Sacraments c. Here saith the Remonstrant They fall somewhat unhappily upon the very words of the branded Heretike Aerius Good Reader compare the expressions and see whether they be the very words but had we faln upon the very words how can that man that hath said so often the Liturgie is never the worse because the words of it are taken out of the Roman Portuise trâ—duce either our persons or cause for falling unhappily upon the words of Aerius But it seems he is very willing to take all advantages to involve us in the crime of Heresie For in this and severall other passages hee chargeth us with being the Disciples of that frantick Heretike Aerius which makes us almost suspect that great deserving Champion of Episcopacy Franciscus à Sancta Clara had a hand in this Remonstrance who hath driven the Divine right of Episcopacie so high as to charge all with heresie that deny it But how ever the Remonstrant should have done well to have given better satisfaction to our tenth Quere concerning Aerius and taken away what wee spake before hee cry out against him as a stigmatized Heretike But if hee scorn to answer us we would intreat him to lend Bellarmine a lift in answering the famous Doctor Whitakers Who sayes I answer Aerius was not accounted by all for an heretike Epiphanius indeed and Augustine following him reckon him among the heretikes but if he held nothing besides those things he was not an heretike for the Scriptures and Fathers themselves confirme all these and Theodoret in his booke of the Fables of the Jews doth not ranke him among heretikes nor the Ecclesiastical history but rather Eustathius that did oppose him c. If your greatnesse will not stoop to answer a single Doctor we will subjoyn a second Learned Doctour Willet Contr. Gen. 5. Quaest. 3. and a third Chemnitius in Exam. Concil Trid. parte 4. de Orig. Iejunii and a fourth Springlius de hodiernis haeresibus part 1. l. 3. c. 2. which have spoken as fully in the justification of Aerius his opinion as ever your answerers did But what saith the Remonstrant to this Aerian question Brethren God speed you with your question Sir if you speak this cordially and seriously wee are glad of your ingenuity that though you have called us Heretikes yet our heresie is not so damnable but you dare bestow an Ave upon us But if you speak this scoffingly as we are verify affraid you do then we beseech you in the feare of God consider how you will answer this taking of Gods Name in vain before that great
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
it out of Hierome and Chrysostome Yet let the reader consult the 37. page of our answer which the Remonstrant leaves unanswered and judge betweene us how farre we are from such confession his onely shift now is to say our Bishops neither challenge nor exercise any such power We have evidently proved they doe both manet ergo inconcussum our Bishops and the Bishops of former times are two SECT IX HEre saith the Remonstrant we beat the aire And yet not the aire but the Remonstrant too into the confession of that which would not be confest heretofore by such of theÌ„ especially as have contended for such a Bishop as exercised spirituall jurisdiction out of his owne peculiarly demandated authority If iurisdiction exercised from an authority peculiarly demandated how not solely Well now it is granted that this sole is cryed downe by store of antiquity So then here we doe not falsifie and it is granted that Presbyters have and ought to have and exercise a jurisdiction within their owne charge But here the Remonstrant will distinguish againe it is in foro conscientiae But consider Reader whether this be the jurisdiction here under dispute Whether that store of antiquity which he confesseth to cry downe sole jurisdiction speake of a jurisdiction in foro conscientiae as his false Margent saith Clem Alexan. whom we cited doth But indeed this distinction of the Remonstrant of a jurisdiction in foro interno and in foro externo is like that distinction of Reflexivè and Archipodialiter For all humane jurisdiction is in foro externo If preaching the word which is especially aim'd at by the Remonstrant be an exercise of jurisdiction Then he that hath the Bishops licence to preach in the Diocesse hath power to exercise jurisdiction through the Diocesse and an University preacher throughout the whole Kingdome Away with these toyes He grants againe that Presbyters ought to be consulted with in the great affaires of the Church but doe our quotations prove no more Bishops had their Ecclesiasticall Councell of Presbyters with whom they did consult in the greatest matters and was it onely in the greatest matters Is this all that Cyprian saith All that the Councell of Carthage saith when it determines ut Episcopus nullius causam audiat absque praesentia Clericorum alioquin irrita erit sententia Episcopi nisi Clericorum praesentia confirmetur Doth this speak onely of great matters when it saith Nullius causam audiat Is this onely of a jurisdiction the Presbyters had in foro conscientiae Were Bishops with their Consistory wont to sit to heare and judge causes in foro conscientiae good Reader judge of this mans truth and ingenuity who not being able to divert the stroke of that Antiquity we brought to manifest a difference betweene ours and the former Bishops in the exercise of their jurisdiction would cast a mist before his Readers eyes and perswade him he grants the whole section when indeed hee grants nothing onely seekes to slide away in the darke But our Bishops have their Deanes and Chapters say you and the lawes of our Church frequently make that use of them Yes you have Deanes and Chapters but who knowes not that they have a jurisdiction distinct from the Bishops in which the Bishop hath nothing to doe with theirs nor they with his And the Bishops also derive the exercise of jurisdiction to others we know it too well to Chancellours Commissaries Officials and other of their underlings even to the commanding of Christs Ministers to denounce their censures without any discerning what equity is in the cause And what advise or assistance of Ministers is required appeares by the very stile of your excommunications G. R. Doctor of Law Commissary c. to all Rectors c. For as much as we proceeding rightly c. have adjudged all and every one whose names are under-written to be excommunicated We doe therefore commit to you c. to denounce openly under paine and perill c. Given under our Seale such a day c. Let any footsteps of such a power be shewed in antiquity Presbyters he grants had their votes in Provinciall synods we from good authority say more they had their votes in all ordinary Iudicatures But after all these grants which are as good as nothing now he comes to plead his owne We justly say that the superiority of jurisdiction is so in the Bishop as that Presbyters neither may nor did exercise it without him to what purpose is this if the Remonstrant speake of Scripture times We have proved there was no superiority in them if of latter times it is not to the question wee are proving Bishops never exercised jurisdiction without their Presbyters as ours doe He puts us to prove Presbyters exercised jurisdiction without Bishops quam iniquè But the exercise of externall jurisdiction is derived from by and under the Bishop No neither from by nor under the Bishop but from God who hath made them overseers and rulers and by the same Ecclesiasticall authority that hath made you Bishops and under Bishops not in respect of divine power but if at all in respect of Ecclesiasticall Canons onely Your Timothy and Titus we shall meet in due place Your Ignatius and the rest of your testimonies you could produce would as you say truely but surfeit the readers eyes unlesse you could bring them to prove that Bishops did and might exercise sole jurisdiction Onely because you so triumph in our supposed scapes let us intreat you or the reader for you to looke upon your cited Councell of Antioch 24 25 Canon where you say the Bishop hath power of those things that belong to the Church and see whether that speakes one word of jurisdiction or be not wholy to be understood of the distribution of the goods of the Church as both the instance given in the Canon and Zonaras on that place manifest One shift yet the Remonstrant hath more and that is to tell us that this joynt government was but occasionall and temporary in times of persecution But when a generall peace had blessed them and they had a concurrence of soveraigne and subordinate authority with them they began so much to â—emit this care of conjoyning their forces as they supposed to finde lesse need of it Doctor Downham to whom hee referres in the page before assignes other reasons Namely Presbyters desiring their ease and Scholasticall quietnesse which he saith and proves not and also the Bishops desiring to rule alone which we finde to be the true cause by experience For if the Bishops be of the Remonstrants mind perswaded that the more frequent communicating of all the important businesse of the Church whether censures or determinations with those grave assistants which in the eye of the Law are designed to this purpose were a thing not onely unprejudiciall to the honour of Episcopacy but behovefull to the Church Why should not the Bishops doe
grant that these assembled persons were Presbyters or Bishops in a parity but neither in imparity neither under Timothy nor any other Bishop And to this purpose is our argument from the want of directions to them as inferiour yet notwithstanding the Remonstrant would be glad to picke what holes he can in our argument yet in part he grants what wee conclude That they were all Bishops onely with this addition they were not meere Presbyters but upon what ground The word it selfe imports they were Bishops 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And doth not the other word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 import as strongly they were Presbyters And the truth is they were Presbyters whom the holy Ghost had made Bishops Foreseeing how his owne words would snarle him if he should grant them all Bishops he must grant there were more Bishops then one in Ephesus he puts by that blow telling us that though they were sent for from Ephesus yet they were not said to be all of Ephesus Thither they were called from divers parts which seems to be implyed in these words ye all amongst whom c. This is but a poore evasion For first the holy Ghost tels us that Paul did now study expedition and did decline Ephesus of purpose because he would not spend time in Assia Now if Paul comming to Miletum had sent from thence to Ephesus for the Elders of that Church and they had sent for the rest of the Asian Churches Paul had stayed at Miletum till they could assemble to him this would have beene such an expence of time as Pauls haste to Ierusalem could not admit Secondly these Elders were all of one Church made by God Bishops over one flocke and therefore may with most probability be affirmed to be the Elders of the Church of Ephesus For the Apostles were alwaies exact in distinguishing Churches that of a City they alwaies called a Church those of a Province Churches Churches of Galatia Churches of Macedonia Churches of Iudea c. And that evasion which you use page 12â— that they might be all called one Church because united under one government makes your cause farre worse Because notwithstanding this union you speake of S. Iohn joyning them all together in one Epistle 〈◊〉 1. calls them the Churches of Asia and now here the Church Besides this the Syriack translation thought by some to be almost as ancient as the Church of Antioch reads it the Elders of the Church of Ephesus not onely the Elders of the Church Thirdly you say they were Bishops or Superintendents of other Churches as well as Ephesus But your selfe grants in this very page that Timothy was not yet Bishop of Ephesus and yet you all say that he was the first Bishop that ever Ephesus had And that Ephesus was the Metropolis of all Asia How then came the Daughter Churches to have Bishops before their mother as you call it Lastly that we may cut asunder the sinewes as your phrase is of your far-fetched answer borrowed from Bishop Barlow and Andrewes Whereas you lay the weight of it upon those words Ye all among whom I have gone preaching the Kingdome of God Collecting from thence that there must be some Superintendents present from all those places where he had travelled preaching Your selfe would quickly see the weakenesse of it were you not pleading your owne cause Should any man speaking with three or foure of the members of the late convocation say you all who had your hand in the late oath and Canons are in danger c. would it imply a presence of all the members of the Convocation because the speech concerned them all you know it would not But if this doe not suffice then tell us Why must his All be meant as such superintendents as you plead for except because they were called Bishops and so you would raise an argument from the name to the thing which kind of argument if it may prevaile you know your cause is lost But the Acumen of this answer by which he makes account to cut asunder the sinewes of all our proofes is this That it is more then probable that Timothy and Titus were made Bishops after Pauls first being at Rome Truely sir here you desert your old friend Episc. by Div. right out of whom you have hitherto borrowed a great part both of your matter and words He saith Timothy was at this time a Bishop and present and Pauls assessor You it seemes thinke otherwise Agree as well as you can we will not set you at variance We thinke hee was as much bishop before as after onely we desire to learne when where and by whom Timothy received his ordination to Episcopacy The first Epistle to Timothy tels us of an ordination which he had received to another office And Chronologers tell us that that Epistle was writ many yeeres before Timothy was made Bishop of Ephesus according to your computation and we leave to you to tell us when and where he received ordination to your Episcopall office we have perused the Chronologicall tables of Ludâ—vicus Capellus whom you call Iacob Cappellus and have compared him with Ba oniuâ— from thence have learned that the Epistle was writ to him before Pauls going to Rome but cannot learne from their Chronologie that ever he was made Bishops afterwards The same answer say you may serve you for Titus and the same reply serves us onely whereas you accuse us of guilt for our translating 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 every variation from the ordinary translation must be guilty know that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 will be translated things that remaine when you and we are dead and rotten And if our translators did not render 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so yet so they render 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Revil 3. 2. Your second quarrell is to these words for a while to which because our margent allots the space of betweene five or six yeeres you thinke you have us at a great advantage If wee had said he tarried there but a little while you might have had some what whereon to fasten but we spake of a while not in respect of the shortnesse of his residence at Creet but as it stands in opposition to residence for terme of life He was left there but for a while Ergo not fixed there during life The end why the Apostle left Titus at Creet was to ordaine Elders or Bishops in every City and not to be Bishop there himselfe For as Chrysostome saith Paul would not commit the whole Iland to one man but would have every man appointed to his charge and Cure For so he knew his labour would be the lighter and the people that were under him would be governed with the greater diligence For the Teacher should not be troubled with the government of many Churches but onely intend one and study for to adorne that Therefore this was Titus his worke not to be Bishop in Creet himselfe
that the Apostle Iohn sate many yeeres B. of Ephesus and was the Metropolitan of all Asia in which we suppose the Remonstrant will allow his readers a liberty of beleeving him and allow us a liberty to tell him that D Whitakers saith Patres cum Iacobum Episcopum vocant aut etiam Petrum non propriè sumunt Episcopi nomen sed vocant eos Episcopos illarum Ecclesiarum in quibus aliquamdin commorati sunt And in the same place Et si propriè de Episcopo loquatur absurdum est Apostolos suisse Episcopos Nam qui propriè Episcopus est is Apostolous non potest esse quia Episcopus est unius tantum Ecclesiae At Apostoli plurium Ecclesiarum fundatores inspectores erant And againe Hoc enim non mulâ—um distat ab insaniâ dicere Petrum fuisse propriè Episcopum out reliquos Apostolos Now we returne to our Remonstrant Our answer to his objection from the Angels was That the word Angell is to be taken collectively not individually which he cals pro more suo a shift and a conceit which no wise man can ever beleeve And yet he could not but take notice that we alleaged Austin Gregory Fulke Perkins Fox Brightman Mede and divers others for this interpretation which will make the world to accuse him for want of wisdome for calling the wisedome of such men into question Before he addresseth himself to answer our reasons he propounds two queres 1. If the interest be common and equally appertaining to all why should one be singled out above the rest A very dull question which is indeed a very begging of the cause For the question in agitation is whether when Christ writes to the 7. Angels he meant to single out 7. individuall persons above the rest or else writes to the 7. Angels collectively meaning all the Angels that were in all the Churches The second question is as dull as the first If you will yeeld the person to be such as had more then others a right in the administration of all it is that weseeke for But he knew we would not yield it And therefore we may justly use his owne words that those questions are tedious and might well have beene spared And so also the instances of a letter indorsed from the Lords of the Councell to the Bishop of Durham concerning some affaires of the whole Clergy of his Diocesse No man will deny but that the Bishop of Durham is an individuall Bishop This example supposeth the Angell about whom we dispute to be meant individually which you know is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 betweene you and us Quid haec ad Rhombum We will give you instances more suitable to the purpose Suppose one in Christs time or his Apostles had indorsed a letter to the Chiefe-priest concerning the affaires of the Sanhedrim and another letter to the chiefe Ruler of the Synagogue concerning the affaires of the Synagogue and another letter to the Captaine of the Temple concerning the businesse of the Temple could any man imagine but that these indorsments must necessarily be understood collectively considering there were more Chiefe-priests then one in Ierusalem Luke 22. 4. and more chiefe Rulers of the Synagogue then one Math. 19. 18. compared with Acts 18. 8. 17. And more Captaines of the Temple then one Acts 4 1. compared with Luke the â—2 4. and so also semblably more Angels and Ministers in the seven Churches then seven But stay sir we hope you are not of opinion that any of your Asian Bishops had as much spirituall and temporall power as the Lord Bishop of Salisbury and the Lord Bishop and Palatine of Durham Cave dixeris At last you come to our proofes which you scoffingly call invincible You should have done better to have called them irrefragable like your good friends irrefragable propositions Our first argument is drawne from the Epistle to Thyatira Revel 2. 24. But I say unto you in the plurall number not unto thee in the singular and unto the rest in Thyatira Here is a plaine distinction betweene the Governours and the governed And the Governours in the plurall number which apparently proves that the Angell is collective The Remonstrant hath no way to put this off but by a pittifull shift to use his owne words He tels us he hath found a better coppy which is a very unhappy and unbecoming expression apt to make ignorant people doubt of the originall text and so in time rather to deny the Divinity of the Scriptures then of Episcopacy But this better coppy is but lately searcht into for we finde that Bishop Hall in his Episcopacy by Divine right reads it as we doe But I say unto you and the rest in Thyatira But what is this better Coppy It is a Manuscript written by the hand of Teela which if it be no truer then Itinerarium Pauli Teclae it will have little credit among the Learned But that which makes you to magnifie it the more is that doughty argument which it helped you to against us concerning the same Church of â—hyatira in which the Angell is charged for suffering that woman Iezabel And now you say in that memorable copy of Tecla it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which you interpret thy wife Iczebel And just as Archimedes you come with an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And call upon us to blush for shame What say you in a different character shall we thinke she was wife to the whole company or to one Bishop alone But for our part we doe thinke you have more cause to blush for making such a Translation and rather then you will not prove the Angell of Thyatira to be an individuall Bishop you will un-Angell him and make him an other Ahab to marry a cursed Iezebel We wonder that never any protestant writer had the wit to bring this text against the papists to prove the lawfulnesse of Priests marriages no not Doctor Hall himselfe in his defence of the married Clergy Give us leave here to use your owne words page 108. Forbeare Reader if you can to smile at this curious subtilty what Cabalisme have we here judge Reader what to expect of so deepe speculations And also to repeate what you say page 110. If you please your selfe with this new subtilty it is well from us you have no cause to expect an answer it can neither draw our assent nor merit our confutation We beleeve it to be as true that Iezebel was the wife of the Bishop of Thyatira as that Tecla was the wife of Paul But to returne to the former text Let any judicious reader survey the latter part of the 23. verse which is the verse before that out of which we bring our reason there he shall finde Christ speaking to the Church of Thyatira saith And I will give to every one of you in the plurall number And then followes But I say unto you and the rest in
which they have made who have beene intoxicated with the Golden Chalice of the whore of Babylons abominations hath so alienated the affections of people from them as that what doome so ever they are sentenced unto it is no other then what they have brought upon themselves As for our part we are still of the same mind that honourable maintenance ought to be given to the Ministers of the Gospell not onely to live but to be hospitable Indeed we instanced in many that did abuse their large revenues But you are pleased to say That in this Ablative age the fault is rare and hardly instanceable We thinke the contrary is more hardly instanceable And as for your Ablative age if you meane it of poore Presbyters who have beene deprived of all their subsistance by the unmercifulnesse of Bishops whom they with teares have besought to pitty their wives and children we yeeld it to be too true Or if you meane in regard of the purity of the ordinances the frequency of preaching the freedome of conceived prayer We denie not but in this sence also it may be called the Ablative age But if you relate it to Episcopacy and their Cathedrals with whom it is now the Accusative age We hope that the yeere of recompense is come and that in due time for all their Ablations they may be made a gratefull ablation We have done with this section and feare not to appeale to the same judicious eyes the Remonstrant doth to judge to whose part that Vale of absurd inconsequences and bold ignorance which hee brands us withall doth most properly appertaine SECT XIV IN this Section hee comes to make good his anâ—wers formerly given to some objections by him propounded and by us further urged The first objection was from that prejudice which Episcopacy challenging a divine originall doth to Soveraignty which was wont to be acknowledged not onely as the conserving but as the creating cause of it in former times The Remonstrant thinks this objection is sufficiently removed by telling us there is a compatiblenesse in this case of Gods act and the Kings And what can wee say to this Sir you know what we have said already and not onely said but proved it and yet will confidently tell us you have made good by undeniable proofes that besides the ground which our Saviour layd of this imparity the blessed Apostles by inspiration from God made this difference c. Made good when where by what proofs Something you have told us about the Apostles but not a word in all the defence of any ground laid by our Saviour of this imparitie yet the man dreams of undeniable proofs of that whereof he never spake word Wee must therefore tell you againe take it as you please that if the Bishops disclaime the influence of Soveraignty into their creation and say that the King doth not make them Bishops they must have no being at all Nor can your questions stop our mouthes Where or when did the King ever create a Bishop Name the man and take the cause Wee grant you Sir that so much as there is of a Presbyter in a Bishop so much is Divine But that imparity and jurisdiction exercised out of his own demandated authority which are the very formalities of Episcopacie these had their first derivation from the Consent Customes Councell Constitution of the Church which did first demandate this Episcopall authority to one particular person afterwards the Pope having obtained a Monarchie over the Church did from himself demandate that authority that formerly the Church did and since the happy ejection of the Popes tyrannicall usurpations out of these Dominions our Princes being invested with all that Ecclesiasticall power which that Tyrant had usurped that same imparity and authority which was originally demandated from the Church successively from the Pope is now from the King Looke what influence the Church ever had into the creation of Bishops the same the Pope had after and looke what influence the Pope had heretofore the same our Laws have placed in the King which is so cleere that the Remonstrant dares not touch or answer There was a Statute made the first of Edward the sixth inabling the King to make Bishops by his Letters patents Onely Hence all the Bishops in King Edwards the sixt time were created Bishops by the Kings Letters patents ONELY in which all parts of Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction are granted them in precise words praeter ultra jus divinum Besides and beyond divine right to be executed onely nomine vice Authoritate nostri Regis in the Kings royall stead name and Authority as the patents of severall Bishops in the Rolls declare But besides the Kings Letters the Bishop is solemnly ordained by the imposition of the hands of the Metropolitan and other of his brethren these as from God invest him in his holy calling As from God Good sir prove that prove that the Metropolitan and Bishops in such imposition of hands are the instruments of God not the instruments of the King prove they doe it by Commission received from God and not by command of the King onely Produce one warrant from Scripture one president of a Bishop so ordained by a Metropolitan and fellow Bishops and without more dispute take all Shortly resolve us but this one thing what is it that takes a man out of the ordinary ranke of Presbyters and advanceth him to an imparity and power of jurisdiction is it humane authority testified in the Letters of the King or is it divine authority testified by the significative action of imposition of hands by the Metropolitan and fellow Bishops if the former you grant the cause if the latter consider with what good warrant you can make a form of Ordination by the hands of a Metropolitan and fellow Bishops which is a meer humane invention to be not onely a signe but a mean of conveying a peculiar and superiour power from Divine Authority and of making a Presbyter a Bishop Iuredivino Finally Sir make as much as you can of your Ordination by a Metropolitan slight as much as you please your unworthy comparison between the King and our Patrons yet did the Kings Conge d'eslire give you no more humane right to Episcopacie then the hands of the Metropolitan and fellow Bishops give you of right Divine you would be Bishops by neither It is not your confident re-inforcing of your comparison that shal call carry it till you have first proved it from Scripture that God never instituted an order of Presbyters or Ministers in his Church as wee have proved God never instituted an order of Bishops Secondly that by the Laws of the land as much of the Ministeriall power over a particular Congregation is in the patron as there is of Episcopall power in the King Till then wee beseech you let it rest undetermined whether your self or we may best be sent to Simons Cell We say no more
government When as you know all your deare sisters of whom you professe a tender care doe disclaime it Of a Bull and solâ—cisme in saying That all Christian Churches doe constantly and uniformely observe it And yet confessing that there are lesse noble Churches that conforme not unto it 15. In your next Quere you contradict your selfe and the truth as a selfe confounded man For here you say That the name of Bishop hath bin for this 1600 yeares appropriated in a plaine contradistinction to the governours of the Church But page 48 where we bring Irenâ—us calling Anicetus Pius Hyginus c. Bishops of Rome Presbyters And others also using the name 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 You cry out with a loud voyce Is this al that your trifling may appeare to all the World Name but any one of our writers who have hitherto stood up in the cause of Episcopacy that have not granted and proclaimed this which you contend for In the latter end of this quere you thinke to stop our mouthes with Balaams wages and demand Whether if we will allow you to be Bishops all will not be well Wee are scripture Bishops without your allowance As for to be Hierarchicall Bishops since God will not allow it we care not for your allowance But what Patent or Monopoly have you among all the multitude of late Projectors obtained that without your allowance a Presbyter may not be admitted into a Bishoprick 16. To your last Quere we answer That if God had set your episcopall government in his Church wee know it could not bee lawfull for us to deny subjection unto it But we have proved the contrary in this discourse Neither have the Lawes of this land so firmely established it but that it may be repealed by the same Lawes and suffer a just period for its matchlesse pride and insufferable oppressions Which for the present we perceive is out of feare a little abaâ—ed and that makes you aske Whether it were not most lawfull and just to punish our presumption and disobedience c. Time was when the High commission and other Episcopall Courts would have made both our eares more then tingle for such a question without enquiring either the lawfulnesse and justice of it Thus we have answered his 16. Queries but before we end our booke we cannot but take notice of what the Remonstrant addes in the concluâ—ion For there he tells us That he hopes he hath given a sufficient answer to our bold and unjust demands And yet notwithstanding he doth not vouchsafe to give any answer at all but only propounds new questions insteed of answers which if the Reader will conceive a sufficient way of answering we doubt not but we shall quickly give satisfaction to all that ever hath bin written for Episcopall government either by Bishop Bilson Bishop Downham Bishop Hall or any other whatsoever To all the Postscripts Wee will not create trouble to the Reader by a reiterated justification of our sincerity though it be againe prodigiously wounded Here is much cry and little wooll Hee cannot deny what in our Postscript we have proved to be the practises of Prelates ever since Austins erection of the See of Canterbury onely first hee salsely tells us that wee have borrowed a great part of it out of Sions plea. But if that Author hath collected any of the same Stories which yet wee know not out of the Chronicles why should we be thought to have borrowed them from him whom wee durst not for feare of the Prelates keepe in our studies rather then from the Chronicles themselves Secondly he answers That they were popish Bishops limmes of that body whose head we abjure c. But Sr you know that in Henry the eights time when this head abjured the Body of popery still remained This Body of popery comprehended in six Articles was called a whâ—p of six strings And you with all your Rhetoricke will hardly perswade the people but that they have bin lashed for these many yeares with a whip of six and twenty strings Have not most of these denied this Head to be Antichrist And that if wise men had the handling of it we might be reconciled unto it Hath not one of their abettors written that the Religion of the Church of Rome is not onely a possible but a safe way to Heaven What then will it availe to say that our Bishops and they have different heads Thirdly he answers That a charitable man might have made a longer Catalogue of the good fruites of our Episcopacy and reckons up a multitude of their good deeds many whereof â—hould â—ee wipe our eyes never so much wee feare wee should not see and the rest which are in any kind visible will not if weighed in a just ballancâ— beare any proportion to all those unnaturall fruits mentioned in our Postscrips In his close he tells us That the Bishops foote hath bin in our booke which is quite spoiled by his just confutation We confesse truly the Bishops â—o 〈◊〉 hath left much dirt behinde it but could many hundredâ— of godly Ministers have as easily got the Greene Wax and Red Wax of the Bishops out of their mouthes with which they have bin a long time stopped As we have wiped away the dirt that hath bin throwne upon our booke The Church of England had never made so many sad complaints and presented so many dolefull petitions unto the high and supreme Court of Justice 2. His second Postscript is an advertisement to the Reader for the vindication of the credit of the person of Doctor Hall and his Episcopacy by divine right from the censure which Doctor Voetius is reported to have passed upon them both True it is there was tendred to us a justification of what that angry Pamphlet as he calls it had published to the world But because wee found that it would deeply reflect upon the credit of Doctor Hall and that in a language more disgracefull then that was before said wee refused to insert it Our businesse is with a namelesse Remonstrant not with the undervaluation of any mans person in particular If hee please to call for it he may have it His third Postscript brings in the judgement of Scultetus to â—make the World believe that his new opinion of Episcopacy by divine right is not destitute of Patrons in the reformed Churches But what is one Scultetus to the many hundred learned men amongst them of a contrary judgement We might here retort upon our Remonstrant that he saith concerning the moderator of Geneva page 138. You tell me of the moderator of Geneva as if all the Church of God were included in those strait walls We could have translated Voetius his Theses for the justification of lay Elders both out of Scripture and antiquity But for brevity sake wee will content our selves with what that learned Rivet spake when these two Treatises of Scultetus were shewed to him by a great Prelate amongst us and his judgement