lest you should think we flout your modesty with an unbeseeming frumpe which whither our answer be guilty of as you here charge us let the Reader compare the 28 and 29 pages of your Remonstrance and our Answer to those pages and determine The second objection was from that imputation which this truth casts upon all Reformed Churches which want this government this the Remonstrant must needs endevour to satisfie that hee may decline the envie that attends this opinion But what needs the Remonstrant feare this envy Alasse the Reformed Churches are but a poore handfull Rumpantur ilia need the Remonstrant care Yet is it neither his large protestation of his honourable esteeme of those Sister Churches nor his solicitous cleering himselfe from the scandalous censures and disgracefull termes cast upon them by others under whose colours he now militares that will divert this envie unlesse he either desert his opinion or make a more just defence then he hath yet done The Defence is That from the opinion of the Di. right of Episc. no such consequence can be drawn as that those Churches that want Bishops are no Churches Episcopacy though reckoned among matters essential to the Church yet is not of the essence of a Church and this is no contradiction neither If you would have avoided the contradiction you should have expressed your selfe more distinctly knowing that things essentiall are of two sorts either such as are essentiall constitutivè or such as are essentiall consecutivè You had done well here had you declared whether you count Episcopacie essentiall to a Church constitutive or consecutivé if constitutivè then it is necessary to the being of a Church and it must follow where there is no Bishop there can be no Church If essentiall onely consecutivè wee would be glad to learne how those officers which by Divine institution have demandated to them peculiarly a power of ordaining all other officers in the Church without which the Church it selfe cannot be constituted and such a power as that those officers cannot be ordained without their hands should not bee essentiall to the Constitution of a Church or tend onely to the well being not to the being of it Either you must disclaim your own propositions or owne this inference and not think to put it off with telling your Reader It is enough for our friends to hold discipline of the being of a Church you dare not be so zealous If heat in an Episcopall cause may be called zeale you dare be as zealous as any man we know Your friends wee are sure are as zealous in the cause of their Episcopacie as any of ours have been in the defence of discipline Did ever any of our friends in their zeale rise higher then to frame an oath whereby to bind all men to maintaine their discipline You know some of yours have done as much but them wee know you will leave to their owne defence as you doe your learned Bishop of Norwich now he is dead It is work enough for you to defend your selfe and give satisfaction to the questions propounded First we demanded the reason why Popish Priests converted to our Religion are admitted without new ordination when some of our brethren flying in Queen Maries time and having received Ordination in the Reformed Churches were urged at their return to receive it again from our Bishops This shamelesse and partiall practice of our Prelats hee could not deny but frames two such answers of which the second confutes the first and neither second nor first justifies their practice In the first he denies a capability of admittance by our laws and yet in his second he confesseth many to be admitted without any legall exception which how well they consist let the Reader judge The second question was whether that office which by divine Right hath sole power of Ordination and ruling of all other officers in the Church belong not to the being but onely to the glory and perfection of a Church The Remonstrant is so angry at this question that before hee can finde leisure to answer it he must needs give a little vent to his choller Can we tell what these men would have saith he have they a mind to go beyond us in asserting that necessity and essentiall use of Episcopacie which we dare not avow What is that which you dare not avow is it that Episcopacy hath sole power of ordaining and ruling all other Officers in the Church But this wee are sure you will avow That imposition of hands in ordination and confirmation have ever been held so intrinsecall to Episcopacie that I would faine see where it can be shewed that ANY EXTREMITY OF NECESSITY was by the Catholike Church of Christ ever yet acknowledged for a warrant sufficient to diffuse them into other hands Is not this to say that the sole power of ordaining Officers is in the hands of the Bishop And dare not WE avow this now Blessed be they that have taken downe your confidence And where you are witty by the way you tell us we still talke of sole Ordination and sole Iurisdiction we may if we please keep that paire of soles for our next shooes Good Sir wee thanke you for your liberality but wee doubt you either part with them out of fear you shall no longer keep them or they will prove no longer worth the keeping But consider one thing we beseech you if you make this donation not onely in your own name but in the name of the whole Episcopall order you and they may turn Fratres Mendicantes and go bare foot if you part with these paire of soles and what will become of your Quid facit Episcopus quod non facit Presbyter exceptâ ordinatione You doe not contend say you for such a height of propriety c. that in what case soever of extremity and irresistable necessity this should be done onely by Episcopall hands You do not It is well you doe not but did you never meane to affirme it none of you Consider we beseech that forecited place Episcopacie Divine Right part 2. pag. 91. weigh the words and then speake and tell the Authour your judgement Our third question was There being in this mans thoughts the same jus divinum for Bishops that there is for Pastors and Elders whether if those reformed Churches wanted Pastors Elders too they should want nothing of the essence of a Church but onely of the glory and perfection of it The answer saith he is ready which is indeed no answer it is in sum but this that it would be better with them if they had Bishops too But how it would be if they wanted Bishops and Pastors and Elders too of that he saith nothing The Remonstrant had presumed to know so much of the mind of the Reformed Churches as to averre that if they might have their option they would gladly imbrace Episcopall government a foule imputation saith the Remonstrant
his Remonstrance hee made no mention of Diocesan Bishops whereas all know that he undertooke the defence of such Bishops which were petitioned against in Parliament whom none will deny to bee Diocesan Bishops In his 5. pag. speaking of the changing of Civill governement mentioned in the Remonstrance he professeth that he did not aime at our Civill Governement Let but the Reader survey the words of the Remonstance pag. 8. and it will appeare plainely ac si solaribus radijs descriptum esset That the comparison was purposely made betwixt the attempts of them that would have altered our Civill governement and those that indeavored the alteration of our Church governement And whereas he bids as pag. 135. to take our soleordination and sole jurisdiction to sole our next paire of shoes withall yet notwitstanding hee makes it his great worke to answer all our arguments against the sole power of Bishops and when all is done allowes the Presbyter onely an assistance but no power in Ordination nor jurisdiction Lastly in the stating of the question he distinguisheth betweene divine and Apostolicall authority and denyeth that Bishops are of Divine authority as ordained immediately by Christ. And yet he saith That Christ himselfe hath laid the ground of this imparitie in his first agents And that by the evidence of Timothy and Titus and the Asian Angels to whom Christ himselfe wrote he hath made good that just claime of the sacred Hierarchy This is the summe of that good Reader that we thought fit to praemonish thee of Wee now dismisse thee to the booke it selfe and commend thee and it to the blessing of God A Vindication of the ANSWER to the humble Remonstrance SECT I. IF wee thought our silence would onely prejudice our selves wee could contentedly sit downe and forbeare Replyes not doubting but intelligent men comparing cause with cause and reason with reason would easily see with whom the truth rests but wee fearing that many who have not either ability or leisure to search into the grounds of things themselves would fearce thinke it possible that so much confidence as the Remonstrant shewes should be severed from a good cause or so much contempt should bee powred upon us that are not the bad defenders of a cause much worse Wee must discharge our duty in cleering the cause and truth of God and that will cleer us from all the foule aspersions which the Remonstrant hath been nothing sparing to cast upon us Whose Defence in every Leafe terms us either ignorant lyers witlesse falsifiers malicious spightfull slanderous violent and subtill Machinators against the Church and disturbers of her peace c. and this not onely in a cursory way but in such a devout and religious form as we make question whether ever any man before him did so solemnly traduce speaking it in the presence of God that he never saw any Writer professing Christian sincerity so fouly to overlash To the presence of God before whom his protestation is made our accesse is equall and at that Tribunall wee doubt not through the grace of Christ but to approve both our selves our cause And had we the same accesse unto our Sovereigne wee should lesse regard those bitter invective accusations wherewith hee hath so profusely charged us in his Sacred eares But our meanesse forbids us to make immediate addresses to the throne which he hath made his refuge yet may it please that Royall Majesty whom God hath anointed over us to vouchsafe an eye unto these papers wee have that trust in the Justice of our Sovereigne the goodnesse of our Cause the integrity of our consciences in all our Quotations as we doubt not but his Majesty will cleerly see that our Persons cause and carriage have been misrepresented to him The cause our Remonstrant saith is Gods it is true of the cause agitated though not of the cause by him defended and we desire what ever he hath done to manage it in Gods way to love in the truth and speak the truth in love The charity of our Remonstrant wee will not question though in the first congresse hee doth as good as call us Devils because so often in his book he cals us Brethren But that which hee calls truth and the truth of God we must crave leave to doe more then bring in question notwithstanding the impregnable confidence of this Irrefragable Doctor Our Histories record of Harold Cupbearer to Edward the Confessor that wayting on the Cup he stumbled with one foot and almost fell but that hee recovered himself with the other at which his father smiling said Now one brother helps another The Remonstrant calls us Brethren and supposeth hee sees us stumbling in the very entrance of our answer and what help doth our Brother lend us Onely entertains us Sannis Cathinnis and tels us it is an ill signe to stumble at the threshold Yet not alwayes an ill signe Sir wee accept this stumbling for such an Omen as Caesar had at his Landing in Affrick and our William the Conquerour at his first landing in England which they tooke for the first signe of their victory and possession An what 's this Stumble The Answer mentions the Areopagi instead of the Areopagites Grande nefas Of such an impiety as this did Duraeus once accuse our Learned Whitakers from whom wee will in part borrow our answer It is well the good of the Church depends not upon a piece of Latine But can our Remonstrant perswade himselfe that his Answerers should have so much Clarklike ignorance as never to have heard of Areopagita If he can yet we are sure he can never perswade his ingenious Readers but some one at least of that Legion which hee fancies conjured up against his Remonstrance might have heard of Dionysius Areopagita that by a man that had not studied to cast contempt upon us it might have beene thought rather a stumble in the Transcribers or Printers then the Authours But what if there be no stumble here What if the fault be in the Remonstrants eyes and not in the Answerers words What if hee stumble and not they and what if it be but a straw he stumbles at For though Areopagus be the name of the place and Areopagitae the name of the persons yet it is no such impropriety in speech to signifie the persons by the place had wee said the Admired sonnes of Iustice the two Houses of Parliament had this been such a Soloecisme and will this Remonstrant deny us that liberty for which we have Natures Patent and the example of the best Authors in other Tongues To smooth or square to lengthen or cut off Exoticke words according as will best suit with our own Dialect If we were called to give an account of this Syllabicall Errour before a Deske of Grammarians wee could with ease produce presidents enough in approved Authors but we will onely give an instance in the word it self from Ioan. Sarisburi lib. 5. de Nugis
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
Synodo comprobatae fuerint ne forte aliquid contra fidem velper ignorantiam vel per minus stuâ—ium â—it compositum Where wee observe that this is the first mention of prayers to bee approved or ratified in a Synod and the restraining to the use of them Secondly that the restriction was not such but there was a toleration of such Prayers as were tractatae à prudentioribus used by the wise and prudent men in the Church as well as of those Prayers that were approved by the Synod Thirdly that the occasion of this restriction was the prevention of Errour in the Church ne aliquid contrae fidem c. So that here the Remonstrant may see how that we have made it good that liberty in Prayer was not taken away and set formes imposed till the Arian and Pelagian Heresie invaded the Church his owne quotations would have told him this Next to these Testimonies as a strong inducement to us to think that there were no Liturgies of the first and most venerable antiquity producible wee added this consideration that the great admirers of and searchers after ancient Liturgies either Iewish or Christian could never yet shew any to the World And now we verely thought that if the Sun did this day behold them the Remonstrant whose eys are acquainted with those secrets and rarities that wee cannot bee blest with the sight of would have brought them to publique view for the defence of his owne Cause but wee feare if there ever were any such the World hath wholy lost them he cannot serve you with a whole Liturgie such fragments as hee found served in wee shall anon tast off His miserable mistake in saying that part of the Lords Prayers was taken out of the Iewish formes we pardon because hee doth halfe acknowledge it So do wee his prudent passing by in silence what wee objected against his confident assertion of Peter and Iohns praying by a forme and that which wee brought of the Publican and Pharise to make good what we objected because we know he cannot answere it Three things hee speaks of The Lords Prayer the Iewish Liturgies and Christian Liturgies for the Lords Prayer hee saith nothing can bee more plain then that our Saviour prescribed to his Disciples besides the Rules a direct forme of Prayer we grant indeed nothing can be more plaine then that both our blessed Saviour and Iohn taught their new Converts to pray yet the Remonstrant will have a hard task to prove from Scripture that either Iohn or our Saviour gave to their Disciples publique Liturgies or that the Disciples were tied to the use of this forme But though his proofe fall short in the Lords Prayer yet it is sure he saith that Christ was pleased to make use in the Celebration of his last and heavenly Banquet both of the fashions and words which were usually in the Iewish Feasts as Cassander hath shewed in his Liturgica Yet Cassander who is his sure proof saith but this observasse videtur seemes to have observed Secondly the evidence of all this comes from no better authour then Maymonides who wrote not till above a 1000 yeers after Christ. Thirdly though it were granted that our Saviour did pro arbitrio or ex occasione use the fashion or words usually in the Jewish feast it doth not at all follow that he did assume these words and fashions out of Iewish Liturgies an Arbitrary custome is one thing a prescribed Liturgie is an other Yet to prove such a Liturgie that he might as far as he can stand to his assertion he brings something out of Capellus the Samaritan Chronicle and Buxtorfius his Synagoga Iudaica We begin with what he brings out of a Samaritan Chronicle sometimes in the hands of the famously learned Ioseph Scaliger out of which hee tels us of an imbezel'd book wherein were contained the Songs Prayers used before the Sacrifices which although we might let passe without danger to our cause and answer that they were onely divine Hymnes wherein there was alwayes some thing of prayer because the Remonstrant himselfe in his second mentioning of them names onely Songs and were there any thing for set prayers it is like hee would have put down some thing of them in the Authors own words as well as hee hath burthened his margent with some thing which is nothing to the purpose But we shall make bold under correction to examine the authority of his Samaritan Chronicle Ioseph Scaliger had certainly but two Samaritan Chronicles had he had any other he would certainly have mentioned it when hee undertooke to speake of all accounts Chronicles whereof that shorter is printed in his Emendat Temporum lib. 7. which is so fond and absurd a thing that hee calls it ineptissimum and there gives this censure of the Samaritans in point of antiquity Gens est totius vetustatis etiam quae ad ipsos pertinet ignarissima They are a people most ignorant of all antiquity even of that which doth most concerne themselves And more he would have said against it if he had lived to know how much it varied from the Samaritans owne Pentateuch as it is since discovered by that learned Antiquarie Master Selden in his Preface ad Marmora Arundeliana This wee know is not the Chronicle the Remonstrant means there is another which Scaliger had of which himself thus Habemus eorum magnum Chronicon ex Hebraica lingua in Arabicam conversum sed charactere Samaritano descriptum is liber incipit ab excessu Mosis desinit infra tempora Imperatoris Adriani c. Wee have also their great Chronicle translated out of the Hebrew into the Arabick tongâ—e but written in a Samaritan character which Book begins from Moses departure and ends beneath the times of Adrian the Emperour c. Of which Book Scaliger his own censure is that though it hath many things worthy of knowledge Yet they are crusted â—ver with Samaritan devices and judge how much credit wee are to give to this Book for antiquity as farre as Moses which makes no mention of their own originall any other ways then that they came out of Egypt by Moses doth not so much as speak of any of the ancient Kings of Samaria nor the defection of the ten Tribes under Rehoboam and doth onely touch the names of Samson Samuel David c. as Scaliger speaks in the beginning of his notes and so will let your Samaritan Chronâ—cle passe and give you leave to make the best of it But to this testimony what ever it be wee oppose the testimony of a learned Iew who is rather to be heard then a Samaritan The famous Rabbi Moses Maymonides who pleaseth to read part of his first second and eleventh Chapters in his Mishneh of the Law Halachah Tephillah shall evidently finde that from Moses his time to Ezra above a 1000 yeeres there were no stinted forms of prayers heard of in the Iewish Church
purpose to bring the Papist to our Churches which wee finde to bee with so little successe c. In answer to which the Remonstrant first commends the project as charitable and gracious The nature of the project wee never intended to dispute onely wee produced this to shew that there was not the same reason for the retaining of this forme that there was for the first introducing of it because experience tels us it hath not prevailed to that end to which it was at first designed Yes it did saith the Remonstrant for Sir Edward Coke tels us till the eleventh yeere of Queene Elizabeth all came to Church those times knew no recusant Pardon us Sir If we tell you that it was not the converting power of the Liturgie but the constraining power of the Law that brought them thither which afterwards not being pressed with that life and vigour that it had bin gave incouragemeÌ„t to the Popish fact oÌ„ to take heart adde also that at the same time the Pope negotiated to have her Liturgie to be allowed by his authority so as the Queene would acknowledge his Supremacie which when it grew hopelesse then the Jesuitish Casuists begun to draw on the Papists to a Recusancie But might the complying of our Papists be attributed soly to the inoffensivenesse of our Liturgie Yet what credit is this to our Church to have such a forme of publike worship as Papists may without offence joyne with us in and yet their Popish principles live in their hearts still How shall that reclayme an erring soule that brings their bodies to Church leaves their hearts stil in error And wheras the Remonstrant would impute the not winning of Papists rather to the want or weaknesse in preaching Be it so in the mean time let the Bishops see how they will cleere their souls of this sinne who having the sole power of admitting Ministers into the Church have admitted so many weak ones and have rejected so many faithfull able Preachers for not conforming to their beggerly rudiments And when we said that this our Liturgie hath lost us many rather then wonne any Wee meant not onely of such as are lost to the Popish part But let the Remonstrant take it so it is neither paradox nor slander For let an acute Jesuite have but this argument to weild against a Protestant not well grounded in our Religion as too many such there are in England It is evident that the Church of Rome is the ancient and true Church and not yours for you see your Service is wholly taken out of ours How would a weake Christian expedite himselfe here To the third reason this quaere was grounded upon the many stumbling blocks the Liturgie lays before the feet of many He tels us that these stumbling blocks are removâ—d by many We confesse indeed endeavours used by many whether effected or no that we question wee know it is no easie thing when a scruple hath once taken possession of the conscience to cast it out again Among the many the Remonstrant is pleased to refer us to Master Fisher for himself will not vouchsafe to foule his fingers with the removing of one of those blocks we mentioned whose book among all that have travelled in that way we think that any intâ—lligent Reader will judge most unable to give solid satisfaction to a scrupling conscience Tell us wee beseech you is it enough for a conscience that scruples the Surplice to say That it is as lawfull for you to enjoyn the Surplice and punish the omitting of it as it was for Solomon to enjoin Shimei not to goe out of Jerusalem and to punish him for the breach of that injunction or That the Surplice is a significative of divine alacritie and integritie and the expectation of glory Is it possible that a man that reads this should stuÌ„ble at the Surplice after The Cross is not onely lawfull in the use of it but the removall of it would be scandalous and perillous to the State Baptisme is necessary to salvation Children dying unbaptized are in a forlorne condition therefore Midwives may baptize c. Let the Reader judge whether this be to remove stumbling blocks from before the feet of men or to lay more But if this Remonstrant think Master Fisher so able and happy a remover of those occasions of offence wee wonder how his quick sight could see cause of any alteration so much as in the manner of the expression knowing Master Fisher undertakes the defence not onely of the Substance but of the very Circumstances and Syllables in the whole Book But his last put off is this that if there be ought in it that may danger scandall it is under carefull hands to remove it The Lord be praysed it is so it is under carefull hands and hearts more mercifull then this Remonstrant is to remit troubled Consciences to No Better Cure then Master Fishers Book who we hope will do by those as the Helvetians did by some things that were stumbled at among them though they were none but Anabaptists that stumbled at them yet the State did by Authority remove them and Zwinglius their professed adversary gives them thanks for occasioning the removall To the fourth which was that it is Idolized and accounted as the onely worship of God in England c. At Amsterdame saith hee but hee knew wee spoke of such as adore it as an Idoll not such as abhorre it as an Idoll though it pleaseth him to put it off with a scoffe retorting upon us others say rather too many doe injuriously make an Idoll of preaching shall wee therefore consider of abandoning it We hope Sir you are not serious if you be that not a little your self is guilty of Idolizing the Liturgy Dare you in cool bloodequalize this very individuall Liturgy with Gods Ordinance of preaching and say there is as little sinne or danger in considering of the utter abandoning of preaching as there is in the abandoning of this present established Liturgie Cave dixeris The fift Argument was from the great distaste it meets with in many This hee imputes to nothing but their ill teaching and betakes himselfe to his old shifts of diversion and saith By the same reason multitudes of people distasting the truth of wholsome doctrine shall we to humour them abandon both It is a griefe to see this distast grow to such a height as tends to a separation and it is as strange to us that this Remonstrant should have a heart so void of pity as that the yielding to the altering or removing of a thing indifferent which stands as a wall of separation betwixt us and our brethren should be presented to publike view under no better notion then the humouring of a company of ill taught men or as the Remonstrant elsewhere calls them brainsick men or as another Booke men that have need of dark roomes and Ellebore For that ill teaching to which hee imputes this generall
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
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
wit of Fideles and punctually of such who had attained such a measure of grace as they were able to expresse endevours to do that which is right and were fit and able by their acquaintance to better others and therefore these could not be Novices For the second to wit over whom they had power they were not onely such as were lately admitted for Origen speakes generally of all wicked or scandalous livers among them who were to be inhibited their assemblies For the third the power they had which saith hee was onely to be Monitors it appeares from the text that they had power either to keepe back from their assemblies or to receive into their assemblies according as the lives of men were good or bad and were of that ability as that they could better them daily with their good counsell And if any were froward or contumacious what course was further to be taken with them the following words declare and although it is true the acts of casting such out of the Church is attributed primarily to the teachers yet who dare exclude those former 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from all interest in this act when Origen himselfe saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. the like custome they have about offenders and chiefely such as are incorrigible But this great Corrector of Translations cannot let us passe here without a castigation for translating 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Praepositi sunt Vnfaithfully deceitfully saith he Sir it would have become you to spare your censure till you considered better if you had but looked in your Lexicon you might have found that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies not onely constituor but praeficior and betweene Praefecti and praepâ—siti certainly there is no such great difference as might deserve the censure of unfaithfulnesse for using the one instead of the other besides Turrianus translated it thus before us who we perswade our selves was as able to understand the language of Origen as our Criticall Remonstranâ— if wee may judge of him as hee here discovers himselfe would any man so confidently charge unfaithfulnesse upon the translation of others and himselfe go translate 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 They do privatly examine such as are bewitched with Paganisme it is true 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies incantâ— as well as frequenter admoneo to inchaunt as well as to instruct or admonish but heer it must of necessity be rendred in the latter signification because it is here the participle of the active voice and the case agrees nâ—t with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Wch is put in the beginning of that clause so again 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he tâ—anslates the rest that are like themselves they may gladly Receive whereas it should be thus but receiving those that are not such that is as those wicked persons last spoke of These are poore Grammarpec adillio's not worth tâ—e taking notice of but that our Remonstrant is so busie with his Ferula that no sooner can he thinke we trip but he is presently upon us Corrigâ— Magn ficat The rest of our testimonies produced in this cause hee thus answers First he could double our files and produce many more But secondly in sadierms we do nothing herein but abuse our Reader For all the places are nothing at all to the purpose in hand For the first The numbers he could adde to our forces are no more then our own except one onely place out of Gregory Turonen is all the rest were urged by us Even that which he saith is more pregnant then any we have brought Did ever poore man make so great a brag of nothing Truly Sir you have much enriched us by paying us with our owne colne Onely here wee are beholding to you for your testimony of the pregnancie of some of them when as you said before All of them were nothing to the purpose in hand it seemes your second thoughts correct your former For his second answer hee tels us all these places are nothing to the purpose And why because those Seniors are Civill Magistrates such as wee call Aldermen whose advice and assistance was used in all great occasions of the Church To prove this he brings the African Canons Can. 100. where 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are mentioned and expounds it by the 91 Canon of the African which he cals a Commentary upon this point Debere unumquemque no strum in civitate sua coÌ„venire Donatistarum Praepositos aut adjungere sibi vicinum collegam ut pariter eos in singulis qnibusque civitatibus per Magistratus vel Seniores locorum conveniant To which we answer That this his Commentary corrupts the text For in this 91 Canon there is no mention of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The words are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 By the Magistrate or those that are of chief authority in those places these wee grant were as it were our Aldermen men of civill power and authority but they were not as those Elders mentioned in the 100 Canon And why should the Remonstrant choose rather to follow Iustellus in reading 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Seniores locorum then Balsamon and Zonaras who read it Quiprimas ferant unlesse it were to deceive his credulous Reader and induce him to thinke there were no other Elders in the Church then such as were Civill Magistrates whereas his own Iustellus in his exposition of the 100 Canon saith Erant Seniores Laici extra Ecclesiam de quibus supra ad Can. 91. Erant Seniores Ecclesiastici There were Lay-elders out of the Church of whom wee spake Can. 91 and there are Ecclesiastick or Church-elders To prove which hee brings forth the very testimonies which wee produced from Baronius and others And certainly he that compares the two Canons quoted by the Remonstrant will see how absurdly the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the one Canon are drawn to expound the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the other For the former were the Magistrates who having a coercive power might compell the Donatists to meet for conference and disputations if they did refuse it The other were not Magistrates but Seniores sent by the Church to accuse their Bishop Now how well is the one expounded by the other But if the Seniors were not Aldermen yet they were say you but as our Churchwardens and Vestry-men onely trusted with the Viensils Stocks and outward affaires of the Church businesse of seats and rates c. This the Remonstrant will if you will believe him evince out of our owne testimonies and yet meddles not with that which is the most pregnant testimony to prove that the power of these elders did reach to things of a higher nature then seats and rates and that is the Letter of Puâ—purius which gives to the Seniors a concurrent power with the Clergie to enquire about the dissentions which troubled the Church that by their wisdome and care peace