a Canon provides that they should not be in little Villages Ne vilesceret honos Episcopatus but these himselfe acknowledgeth are but the accessaries of Episcopacy by the donations of Magnificent Princes But what is the meaning of this where it may be had what doth he meane where it may be had with the favour of the Prince then the Primitive Church had never had any Or where it may be had with the willing subjection of the people then Episcopacy shall be an ordinance if the people will have it so Where it may be had what with quiet and conveniency then you make that which you call an ordinance of God subject to mans convenience Or what with possibility requiring that where Episcopacy may be had possibly it should what 's this lesse than a command yet saith the Remonstrant here is no expresse law of God requiring it Now we pray you review your worke and see how well you have stated the question To prove that Episcopacy was not a divine but a humane institution we produced out of antiquity some places that mention the occasion and authors of Episcopall imparity which are not as the Remonstrant absurdly the onely countenance of our cause Our first was that knowne text of Hiereme in the 1. Titus out of which we collected five things which the Remonstrant summes up thus First that a Bishop and a Presbyter are originally one Secondly that the imparity was grounded upon Ecclesiasticall custome That before this priority the Church was governed by the common Councell of Presbyters and that Bishops ought still so to governe And lastly that the occasion of this imparity was the division which through the divels instinct fell among Christians this the Remonstrant cals the summe of our collection But if his Arithmeticke be no honester then thus he shall summe no summes for us for he leaves out one Collection which is indeed principally considerable That this was not Hieromes owne opinion but the opinion of the scriptures This would have stopt the mouth of his satis imperitè Wel what saies the Remonstrant You look now that I should tell you the booke is of uncertaine credit No indeed sir we looked for no such matter because we know that booke is approved by men both of as great learning and of as little affection to Hieromes opinion as the Remonstrant is though his lesser commentaries on the epistles be questioned Or else you look that I should tell you Hierome was a Presbyter and not without some touch of envy to that higher dignity which he missed Truely sir this we looked for and the rather because Doct. Hall in his Episcopacy by Divine right part 2. page 122. saith that as he was naturally a waspish a hot good man so being now vexed with some crosse proceedings as he thought with Iohn of Ierusalem he flew out c. but what a slender answer is this Hierome was a Presbyter what then Hierome saith nothing here but what he saith from Scripture and is Scripture the lesse Scripture because produced by a Presbyter Hierome was a Presbyter and pleads for his owne order doth that make his argument the lesse creditable the author of Episcopacy by Divine right was a Bishop is it sufficient confutation of that booke to say hee was a Bishop that made it he must plead for his own honour and order Or you looke say you that I should tell you that wiser men then your selves have censured him in this point of Arrianisme No indeed for feare you should thereby comfort us against the same censure past so often upon our selves If Hierome suffer under the name of Aerian no wonder we doe but if wisermen than we have condemned him for Aerianisme wiser men then the Remonstant have quitted him of that crime But the Remonstrant thinkes to decline these common waies and set Hierome to answer Hierome which yet is no more then Bellarmine did before him and and puts us in mind that the same father passes a satis imperitè upon the same opinion in the Bishop of Hierusalem but a satis imperitè doth not condemne the opinion but the man for it may be truth which a man speakes though he speakes it imperitè yet to make sure worke the Remonstrant will set Hierome to answer himselfe what saith Hierome at first saith he Bishops and Presbyters had but one title No Hierome said not so nor did we Idem est ergo Presbyter qui Episcopus How doth the Remonstrant construe this Is this in English a Bishop and a Presbyter is the same or is it at first Bishops and Presbyters had but one title with what face can the Remonstrant charge us with infidelity in quotation and mis-englishing who useth no more fidelity himselfe that which Hierome speakes of the office he would restraine to the title that which Hierome speakes in the present tense as true in all the moments and fluxes of time he would remit to the time past They had but one title This the Remonstrant passeth from and slips from their Identity to their imparity inquiring the time and occasion of that and will needs force Hierome here to confesse Bishops in the Apostles daies because then they began to say I am of Paul c. but will take no notice at all of what our answer spake for the removing of this inference unlesse it be to slight it as a poore shift nor will take notice of that which Hierome himselfe speakes Haec propterea ut oftenderemus apud veteres eosdem fuisse Presbyteros quos Episcopos paulatim verò ut dissentionum plantaria evellerentur ad unum omnem solicitudinem esse delatam intimating that Episcopacy was not presently invented as a cure of schisme but paulatim so that should it be granted that the schismes spoken of here were those in the Apostles daies yet it doth not follow that Episcopacy should be coaetaneous to these schismes because Hierome saith Paulatim ad unum omnem solicitudinem esse delatam Let the Remonstrant now aske Hierome not us why the remedy should be so late after the disease and here we desire the reader to observe that the Remonstrant doth meerely abuse him in telling him that Clemens in his Epistle to the Corinthians taxeth the continuance of the distractions raised in the Apostles daies when it is apparent that Clement speakes of a new schisme different from that Paul speakes of raised against ther Presbyters and the former schisme mentioned in the Scripture was onely among the people As for those Bishops whom Hierome names as made by the Apostles at present we say no more but this Hierome as a Divine saith Bishops and Presbyters are the same and to prove this produceth Scripture but Hierome speaking as an Historian mentions Bishops made by the Apostles and brings no Scripture for the proofe of that but onely the testimony of Eusebius his history who alone had writ before him of that subject Now let the
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
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
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
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
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 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
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
Legions as men hee would meet them undismayed and say with holy David Though an host should encampe against mee my heart should not feare but with just confidence I gladly fly to the barre of this high and Honorable Court And yet by his leave hee thought it his best wisdome to fly from this barre and to dedicate his book to the Kings Majestie alone and not to the two houses And in another place hee saith the Apostles practise is so irrefragable for them that if wee doe but adde the unquestionable practise of their immediate successors hee knowes not what more light can bee desired for the manifestation of the truth of his opinion In his Epistle to the King hee saith That if hee doth not make it appeare that wee have abused our Reader with false shewes of misalleadged antiquities and meerely colourable pretences of proofes let the blemish of his reputation leade way to the sharpest censure upon his person Iust like the Authour of Episcopacie by Divine right who is so confident against Lay Elders That hee offers to forfeit his life to justice and his reputation to shame if any man living can shew that ever there was a Ruling Elder in the world till Farel and Viret first created them And yet hee could not but know that Arch-Bishop Whitgift as well seene in Antiquitie as himselfe confesseth that there were Ruling Elders in the Primitive Church Thus also doth Bishop King Saravia himselfe thinkes the governement of Ruling Elders to be good and profitable In his answer to our arguments sometimes hee tells us that wee prove nothing but our bold ignorance and absurd inconsequences Otherwhile hee saith Poore arguments scarce worthy of a passe These are trifling cavills not worth the answer Verball exceptions which will sinke like light froath Meere declamations worthie of no answer but contempt and scorne forbeare Reader if you can to smile at this curious subtilty What Cabalisme have wee here Our quaeries are made up of nothing but spight and slander His ordinarie answer toour Testimonies out of Antiquity is This Authour is misalledged That Father abused This Councell shuffled up with little fidelitie Away with your unproving illustrations and unregardable testimonies And this is all the answer hee gives Throughout the whole booke he endeavours to render us to the Reader as destitute of all learning as if our reading had never gone beyond a Polyanthea Hee calles us boldly ignorant And that wee would make the Reader beleeve that wee had seene a Father And that we would seeme to have seene the Canon Law And that it is enough wee can shew a little reading to no purpose But in all these and many more such like Sarcasmes and vaine Rhetorications hee doth but act the part of his Hierarchicall predecessors whose chiefe answers have beene scoffes and scornes and therefore what learned Rivetus saith of Bishop Mountague may with as much truth bee averred of this namelesse Author Montacutius vir certedoctus sed admodum praefidens tumidus aliorum contemptor suggillator And in another place Non potest vir ille sine convitijs quemquam a quo dissentit vel in levissimis nominare But what strength and weight there is in such kinde of arguments and answers let the wise Reader judge And yet not withstanding all this confidence Thrasonicall boasting we desire thee to observe Fourthly That if the whole booke were divided into foure parts there is one quarter of which he makes no mention but passeth it over either with scorne or silence And where our arguments are strongest there hee slides away without answering which cannot but make the judicious Reader beleeve that hee thought the yron to hot for him and therefore would not touch it least it should burne his owne fingers as himselfe saith pag. 21. And even in those things wherein hee undertakes to answere us we cannot but give notice that wee have confitentem reum and in effect the cause granted in those things which are most materiall For when wee prove from Scripture the Identity of Bishops and Presbyters both in name and office he tells us with a little varying of our words Wee idly loose our labour It neede bee no scruple to us It is in expresse termes granted when we prove that there are not three degrees of Ministery in the Scripture to wit Bishops Presbyters and Deacous hee answers it is granted you speake of the Apostles writings but I of their successors Hee granteth also that the Primitive Bishops were elected by the Clergie and people That Bishops ought not to have sole power in Ordination and Iurisdiction That they ought not to delegate their power to others That the ordinary managing of secular imployments is improper for them And hee doth almost grant that there were Lay-Elders in antiquity For whereas the Author of Episcopacy by Divine right affirmeth that the name of Elders of the Church in all antiquity comprehendeth none but Preachers and that therefore they onely may bee called Seniores Ecclesiae though some others may have the title of Seniores populi because of their civill authority This Author acknowledgeth that besides Pastors and besides the Magistrates and Elders of the City there are to bee found in antiquity Seniores Ecclesiastici Indeede hee saith that these were but as our Churchwardens or Vestry men But how true this is the Reader shall see in due place Lastly hee grants that all that wee say in the Postscripts about the Popish Prelates is true Celari non potuit negari non debuit And for what we say of the Protestant Bishops he denies not the truth of it only he chides for taxing all for the fault of some And in these things wherein hee doth diametrically oppose us hee doth frequently contradict himselfe and his best friends In his Epistle dedicatory hee professeth that he taxeth not our ability yet in the same Epistle hee calles us impotent assailants and afterwards Men of weake judgements and strong malice And Men that would seeme to have seene a Father And that all that we say is nothing but bold ignorance Pag. 94. he saith That to acknowledge an Ordinary Evangelist is a phancy and a dreame And yet elsewhere he makes every Preacher of the Gospell to be an Evangelist In his Remonstrant and in his defence he saith that Bishops had beene every where throughout all the Regions of the Christian world And that all Churches throughout the whole Christian world have uniformely and constantly maintained Episcopacy And yet elsewhere he denies that ever hee said That Bishops were every where and confesseth that there are lesse noble Churches that doe not conferre to Episcopall Governement Pag. 161. hee tells us that for 1600 yeares the name of Bishops hath bin appropriated in a plain contradistinction to the governors of the Church But in other places he often grants that the Name was confounded and ascribed to Presbyters are well as Bishops In his 36. pag. he saith That in
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
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
As for that tedious discourse that followeth in foure leaves about our overliberall concession that suppose the word Angell be meant Individually yet it made nothing for the upholding of a Dioce san Bishop with sole power of ordination and jurisdiction as a distinct order superiour to Presbyters we will be very briefe in our answer to it to prevent surfet and because it is more then we need have yeelded and also because so little is said of it to the purpose by this Remonstrant And here let the Reader observe 1. That of the foure Authors cited in the upholding of the individuall Angel Doctor Fulke is falsely alleged and the other three Master Beza Doctor Raynolds and Pareus though they interpret the word Angell 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for one singular person yet we are sure none of them held Episcopacy by divine right For D. Raynolds his letters to S. Francis Knowles now in print will witnesse and for Beza and Pareus it is well knowne that they were Presbyterians We expected many of the ancient Fathers to make good this interpretation but we see he is beholding to those for it who are none of the lest enemies to the Hierarchall preeminency and therefore we may be the more secure that no great prejudice can come to our cause by this interpretation if taken in the sence of these Authors 2. That the great question is what makes this interpretation for a Diocesan Bishop with sole power of ordination and jurisdiction as a distinct order above Presbyters But the Remonstrant cunningly conceales halfe the question and answers much every way And why so Because if there were many Angels in each Church and yet but one singled out and called The Angel of that Church it must needs follow that there was a superiority and inequality But what is this to the question in hand The thing to be proved is not onely that this Angell had a superiority but a superiority of jurisdiction over his fellow Angels but of this altum silentium Doctor Reynolds will tell you that this was onely a superiority of order and that all jurisdiction was exercised in common Beza will tell you that this Angell was onely 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and that he was Angelus Praeses not Angelus Princeps And that he was Praeses mutabilis and ambulatorius just as a Moderator in an assembly or as the Speaker in the House of Commons which is onely during the Parliament Both which interpretations may well stand with the superiority and inequality you speake of Our first argument to prove that though the word Angel be taken individually that yet nothing will hence follow to uphold a Diocesan Bishop with sole power of jurisdiction as a distinct order Superior to Presbyters was because it was never yet nor never will be proved that these Angels were Diocesan Bishops considering that parishes were not so numerous as to be divided into Diocesses in Saint Iohns daies And the seven Starres are sayd to be fixed in their seven Candlestickes not one Star over divers Candlesticks And Tindall together with the old translation calls them seven congregations And because we read that at Ephesus that was one of those Candlestickes there was but one flock for the answer of all which we expected a learned discourse to prove that the seven Churches were Diocesan and so consequently the Angels Diocesan Angels But the Remonstrant baulkes his worke as too great for his shoulders and instead of solid Divinity turnes criticke and playes upon words and syllables Domitian like catching at flies when he should have beene busied about greater matters First he tels us That if Parishes were not united into Diocesses or were not so many as to be divided into Diocesses which we thinke all one notwithstanding your parenthesis in Saint Iohns daies and therefore no Diocesan Bishop by the same reason we may as well argue that there were no parochiall Bishops neither since that then no parishes were as yet distinguished Which we grant to be very true But if there were no Parochiall Bishops in the Apostles daies much lesse Diocesan The Apostolicall Bishops were Bishops of one Church and not of one parish as we meane by parish till many yeeres after But not to quarrell at the word parish or diocesse let but the Remonstrant shewe us that these Angels were Bishops over divers setled Churches or divers fixed congregations nobis erit alter Apollo For our parts we are sure that at first the number of beleevers even in the greatest Cities were so few as that they might well meete 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in one and the same place and these were called the Church of the City and therefore to ordaine Elders 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are all one in Scripture And it cannot be demonstratively proved that they became so numerous in the Apostles daies in any great City so as that they could not meet in one and the same place But yet we confesse that it is very probable that it was so in Ierusalem if you compare Acts 2. 41. 4. 4. 5. 14. And whether it was so also in these severall Asian Churches we know not but however this is agreed upon on all parts That beleevers in great Cities were not divided into set and fixed congregations or parishes till long after the Apostles daies And that therefore if when they multiplied they had divers meeting places that yet notwithstanding these meeting places were frequented promiscuously and indistinctly and were taught and governed by all the Presbyters promiscuously and in common and were all called but one Church as is evident in Hierusalem Act. 8. 1. Act. 15. 6. 22. 16. 4. 21. 18. So also in these seven Churches where the beleevers of every City are called but one Church and were governed in common by divers Angels or Presbyters as we see plainely proved in the Church of Ephesus Acts 20. 28. Henâ—e it followeth that there were no sole-ruling Bishops nor one Bishop over divers Churches or set Congregations in Saint Iohns daies Secondly according to his wonted language he tels us of making Bulls and Solecismes because wee say that the seven Starres are said to be fixed in their seven Candlestickes whereas these Starres are said to be in the right hand of Christ as if these two were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Know sir That in regard of their protection they are said to be in Christs right hand but in regard of their â—unction and Office they may be truely said to be fixed in their seven Candlestickes But instead of picking quarrels at words you should have done well if you could to prove that these Candlestickes were diocesan Churches We say each Starre had its Candlesticke not one Starre over divers And wee thinke that this Candlesticke was but one particular Church or one set Congregation though happily when they multiplyed they might meete indistinctly in divers under divers Angels equally governing For this
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
the substance of those cares and offices which belong to Apostles and Evangelists is transmitted to the ordinary Church-governours as farre as is necessary for the edification of the Church else the Lord had not sufficiently provided for his Church all the question is whether these Church-governours are by way of Aristocracy the common Councell of Presbyters or by way of Monarchy Diocesan Bishops Now unlesse you prove that Timothy and Titus were ordinary officers or as Doctor Hall cals them Diocesan Bishops to whom as to individuall persons such care and offices were individually intrusted you will never out of Timothy and Titus defend Diocesan Bishops Thirdly though the substance of these cares and offices were to be transmitted to ordinary Church-governours yet they are not transmitted in that eminency or personall height in which they were in the Apostles and Evangelists an Apostle where ever he lived might governe and command all Evangelists all Presbyters c. an Evangelist might governe all Presbyters c. but no Presbyter or Bishop might command others onely the common Councel of Presbyters may charge any or many Presbyters as occasion shall require In a word these ordinary Church-governours succeed the extraordinary officers not in the same line and degree as one brother dying another succeeds him in the inheritance but as men of an other order and in a different line Let the Remonstrant therefore take Timothy and Titus as he findes them that is Evangelists men of extraordinary dignity and authority in the Church of Christ Let him with his first confidence maintaine that our Bishops challenge no other spirituall power then was delegated to them We shall upon better grounds maintaine with better confidence that if they chalenge the same they ought to be disclaimed for usurpers But much more challenging such a power as was never exercised by Timothy and Titus as we demonstrated in our former answer in severall instances which are so commonly knowne as our Remonstrant is ashamed to deny them onely plaies them off partly with his old shift the abuse of the person not of the Calling But we beseech you sir tell us whether these persons doe not perpetrate these abuses though by their owne vice yet by vertue of their place and Callings Partly by retorting questions upon us when or where did our Bishops challenge to ordaine alone or to governe alone we have shewed you when and where already when or where did our Bishops challenge power to passe a rough and unbeseeming rebuke upon an Elder Sure your owne conscience can tell that hath taught you to apply that to an Elder in office which we onely spake in Scripture phrase of an Elder in generall It was your guilt not our ignorance that turned it to an Elder in office Where did say you our Bishops give Commission to Chancellors Commissaries c. to rayle upon Presbyters to accuse them without just ground c. where have not Chancellors done so and what power have they but by Bishops Commission to meddle with any thing in Church affaires And where is the Bishop that hath forbid it them Qui non prohibet facit Onely there is one practice of our Bishops he is something more laborious to justifie That is their casting out unconforming brethren commonly knowne in their Court language by the name of schismatickes and heretickes which Timothy and Titus never did nor had any such power delegated to them heretickes indeed the Apostles gave them power to reject but wee had hoped the refusall of the use of a ceremony should never have beene equalized in the punishment either to heresie or schisme But the Remonstrant hath found Scripture for it Loth not the Apostle wish that they were cut off that trouble you but sure it is one thing to wish men cut off by God and another thing to cut them off by the censure of the Church Besides this was written to the Galatians and they that troubled them were such as maintained doctrines against the foundation i. Justification by workes of the Law c. which we thinke are very neere of kinne to heretickes I am sure farre above the crime of the Remonstrants unconforming brethren who are unsetled in points of a meane difference which their usuall language knowes by no better termes then of schismatickes and factious yet even such have fallen under the heaviest censures of suspension excommunication deprivation c. which the Remonstrant unable to deny would justifie which when he shall be able to doe he may do something towards the patronizing of Bishops But in the meane time let him not say they are our owne ill raised suggestions but their owne ill assumed and worse mannaged authority that makes them feare to be disclaimed as usurpers The second Scripture ground which the Remonstrant is ambitious to draw in for the support of his Episcopall cause is the instance of the Angels of the seven Churches which because it is locus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and cried up as argumentum verè Achilleum we did on purpose inlarge our selves about it And for our paines the Remonstrant as if all learning and acutenesse were lockt up in his breast Narcissus like in love with his owne shadow professeth that this peece of the taske fell unhappily upon some dull and tedious hand c. Which if it be so it will redound the more to the Remonstrants discredit when it shall appeare that he is so shamefully foiled and wounded by so dull an adversary He objects Colemorts oft sod when he cannot but know that the whole substance of his owne booke is borrowed from Bishop Bilson and Doctor Downham And that there is nothing in this discourse about the Angels but either it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of if 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But before we come to answer our Remonstrants particulars we will premise something in generall about these Asian Angels It may seeme strange that the defenders of Episcopacy lay so much weight of argument upon the word or appellation of Angell which themselves know to be a title not impropriated to the chiefe Ministers of the Church but common to all that bring the glad tidings of the Gospell yea to all the messengers of the Lord of Hosts We conceive there are 2. maine reasons that induce them to insist so much on this First they finde it the most easie way of avoyding the dint of all the Arguments brought against them out of the History of the Acts and Epistles by placing one above the rest of the Presbyters in the period of the Apostles times And so finding in the Revelation which was written the last of all the parts of the Scripture except peradventure the Gospell written by the same penne an expression which may seeme to favour their cause they improve it to the utmost Partly because hereby they evade all our arguments which we bring out of the Scripture Doe we prove out of the
20. of Acts Presbyters and Bishops to be all one Doe we prove the Bishops described in Timothy and Titus to be one and the same in name and office with a Presbyter Doe we prove that their Churches were all governed Communi Consilio Presbyterorum All shall be granted us and yet the Divine right of Episcopacy be still held up by this sleight by telling us that before the Apostles left the earth they made over their authority to some prime men Demand where this is extant The Angels of the seven Churches are pleaded presently And partly because we have no other Scripture of latter inspiration and edition whereby to prove the contrary Another inducement is because the writers neere the Apostles times make frequent mention of a Bishop and as they would have us beleeve some waies distinguished from a Presbyter Some of them mentioning the very men that were the Angels of these Churches as Polycarpus of Smyrna Ignatius who is said to have beene martyred within twelve yeeres after the Revelation was written wrote letters to the severall Churches wherein he mentioneth their Bishops distinct from their Presbyters Now saith the author of Episcopacy by divine right the Apostles immediate successors could best tell what they next before them did Who can better tell a mans pace then he that followes him close at heeles And this hath so plausibâ—e a shew that all are condemned as blind or wilfull who will either doubt that Episcopacy was of Apostolicall institution or thinke that the Church of Christ should in so short a time deviate from the institution of the Apostles But now how insufficient a ground this is for the raising up of so mighty a Fabricke as Episcopacy by Divine right or Apostolicall institution wee desire the Reader to judge by that that followes First the thing they lay as their foundation is a meere metaphoricall word and such as is ordinarily applied to Presbyters in common Secondly the Penman of those seven Epistles did never in them nor in any of his other writings so much as use the name of Bishop he names Presbyters frequently especially in this booke yea where he would set out the office of those that are neerest to the throne of Christ in his Church Revel 4. And whereas in Saint Iohns daies some new expressions were used in the Christian Church which were not in Scripture As the Christian Sabbath began to be called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Christ himselfe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Now both these are found in the writings of S. Iohn and it is strange to us that the Apostle should mention a new phrase and not mention a new office erected in the Church as you would make us beleeve Neither thirdly in any of his writings the least intimation of superiority of one Presbyter over another save onely where he names Diotrephes as one ambitiously affecting such a Primacy Nor is there any one word in these Epistles whence an Episcopall authority may be collected So that did not the testimonies that lived soone after make the argument plausible it would appeare ridiculous But alas the suffrage of all the writers in the world is infinitely unable to command an Act of Divine faith without which divine right cannot be apprehended Suppose we were as verily perswaded that Ignatius wrote the Epistles which goe under his name which yet we have just cause to doubt of as knowing that many learned men reject a great part of them and some all as we can be perswaded that Tully wrote his All this can perswade no further that the Apostles ordained and appointed Bishops as their successors but onely by a humane faith but neither is that so The most immediate and unquestionable successors of the Apostles give cleare evidence to the contrary It is granted on all sides that there is no peece of antiquity that deserves more esteeme then the Epistle of Clement lately brought to light by the industry and labour of that learned Gentleman Master Patricke Young And in that Epistle Bishops and Presbyters are all one as appeares by what followes The occasion of that Epistle seemes to be a new sedition raysed by the Corinthians against their Presbyters page 57. 58. not as Bishop Hall saies the continuation of the schismes amongst them in the Apostles daies Clemens to remove their present sedition tels them how God hath alwaies appointed severall orders in his Church which must not be confounded first telling them how it was in the Jewish Church then for the times of the Gospell tels them that Christ sent his Apostles through Countries and Cities in which they constituted the first fruits or the chiefe of them unto Bishops and Deacons for them who should beleeve afterward p. 54. 55. Those whom hee calls there Bishops afterwards throughout the Epistle he cals Presbyters pa. 58 62 69. All which places doe evidently convince that in Clement his judgement the Apostle appointed but two officers that is Bishops and Deacons to bring men to beleeve Because when he had reckoned up three orders appointed by God among the Jewes High-priests Priests and Levites comming to recite orders appointed by the Apostles under the Gospell hee doth mention onely Bishops and Deacons and those Bishops which at first he opposeth to Deacons ever after he cals Presbyters And here we cannot but wonder at the strange boldnesse of the author of Epis. by divine right who hath endevoured to wire-draw this Author so much magnified by him to maintaine his Prelaticall Episcopacy and that both by foysting in the word withall into this translation which is not in the Text that the Reader might be seduced to beleeve that the offices of Episcopacy and Presbytery were two different offices And also by willingly misunderstanding Clement his phrase 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for by the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he would have us understand Episcopacy as distinct from Presbyterie whereas the whole series of the Epistle evidently proves that the word Episcopus Presbyter are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And so also by the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hee would have us to understand that the contention then in Corinth was only about the name whereas it appeares by the Epistle it selfe that the controversie was not about the name but dignity of Episcopacy for it was about the deposition of their godly Presbyters p. 57 58. And the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is thus interpreted by Beza Eph. 1. 21. Phil. 2. 9. Heb. 1. 4. and Mead in Apoc. 11. p. 156. In which places 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is rendred by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so here 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is put for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 By all this we see that the most genuine and neerest successor of the Apostles knew no such difference Lastly it is worth our observation that the same writers who as they say testifie that these 7. Angels were in a superiour degree to Presbyters do likewise affirm