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
we alledged Obiter Tindals translating the seven Churches seven Congregations All you answer is onely to shew that in other places of the Scripture by Congregation in Tindals sence cannot be meant a parishionall meeting But what if it be not so in other places how doe you make it appeare that it is not so in this place We are sure it is so taken in twenty other places of Tindals translation and may very properly be taken here also We alledge also that in Ephesus which was one of these Candlestickes there was but one flocke You demand whether this flocke were Nationall Provinciall or Diocesan And why doe you not demand whether it were not Oecumenicall also that so the Pope may in time come to challenge his flocke universall But you are sure you say that this flocke was not a parochiall flocke because it cannot be proved that all the Elders to whom Paul spake were onely belonging to Ephesus But can this Remonstant prove that there were more Elders or Bishops then those of Ephesus This is to answer Socratically and in answering not to answer Howsoever it is not so much materiall You your selfe confesse that the Elders or Bishops of Ephesus had but one flocke And if divers Bishops were over one flocke in the Apostles daies where is your individuall Bishops over divers flockes in the Apostles daies Our second argument is also drawne from the Church of Ephesus which was one of the seven Candlestickes in which we are sure in Saint Pauls daies there were many Angels and those called Bishops Acts 20. 28. And to one of those in all likelyhood was the Epistle to Ephesus directed if the direction be meant individually But yet wee read not a word of any superiority or superintendency of one Bishop over another To them the Church in generall is committed without any respect to Timothy who stood at his elbow But to all this ne 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 quideuâ— onely he tels us it is answered in answering the first But how true this is let any Reader judge At the end of this reason wee produce Epiphanlus affirming that in ancient time it was peculiar to Alexandria that it had but one Bishop whereas other Cities had two Here our Remonstrant takes a great deale of paines not to confute us but to confute Epiphanius All that we will reply is this to desire the Reader to consider that this Epiphanius was the first that out of his owne private opinion accused Aerius of madnesse and as this Authour saith of heresie for denying the superiority of Bishops over Presbyters And if this Remonstrant thinke it no disparagement to himselfe to be a confuter of Epiphanius why should we be cryed downe so heavily for not agreeing with Epiphanius in his judgement concerning Aerius The third argument the Remonstrant cuts off in the midst For whereas wee say that there is nothing sayd in the seven Epistles that implyeth any superiority or majority of rule or power that those Angels had over the other Angels that were joyned with them in their Churches the answerer makes it runne thus That there is nothing said in the seven Epistles that implies a superiority which indeed is to spoile the argument For wee grant there is something said to imply a superiority of the Ministers over the people but the question is of a superiority of power of one Angell over the other Angels which were joyned with him in his Church But this he conceales because hee knew it was unanswerable Onely he tels us First that the Epistles are superscribed to the Angell not Angels This is crambe millies cocta But what is this to a majority of rule or power Secondly he tels us it will appeare from the matter of the severall Epistles For hee askes Why should an ordinary Presbyter be taxed for that which hee hath no power to redresse That the Angell of Pergamus should be blamed for having those which hold the doctrine of Balaam or the Nicolaâ—tans when he had no power to proceed against them Or the Angell of the Church of Thyatira for suffering the woman Iezebel if it must be so read to teach and seduce when he had no power of publique censure to restraine her This discourse is very loose and wild Vt nihil pejus dicamus Doth not the Remonstrant plead here for sole power of jurisdiction which hee doth so much disclaime in other places of his booke when hee would have the singular Angel of Pergamus and Thyatira to have power to proceed against offendors either he doth this or nothing For our parts we answer without lisping That it was in the power not of one Angell but of all the Angels of Pergamus and Thyatira to proceed against those that held the doctrine of Balaam and the Nicolaitans To restraine that woman Iezebel or the Bishop of Thyatira his wife if it must needs be so read wee doe not thinke that one ordinary Presbyter as you call him was to exercise censures alone nor one extraordinary Bishop neither We find the contrary Matth. 8. 1 Corinth 5. And therefore we referre it to the Minister or Ministers of each Congregation with the advice and consent of the Presbyters adjoyning which we are sure is more consonant to the word then to leave it to the Hierarchicall Bishop and his Chancellor Commissary or Officiall In the next paragraph wee challenge you to shew us what kind of superiority this Angell had if he had any at all We require you to prove that he had any more then a superiority in parts and abilities or of order Where is it said that the Angell was a superiour degree or order of Ministery above Presbyters Or that he had solepower of ordination and jurisdiction But you flie from those questions as farre as from a Snake that would sting you and disdaining all that we say which is your accustomed way of answering you tell us that you are able to shâ—w who were the parties to whom some of these Epistles were directed and to evince the high degree of their superiority Parturiunt montes nascetur ridiculus mus Alas sir you tell us but what we told you before and what others have ingeminated 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 You say That Ignatius and Tertullian tell us that Onesimus was now the Angell or Bishop of Ephesus and Polycarpus of Smyrna But marke what we answer First we doubt of the truth of the story For others tell us that Timothy was Bishop as they call him of Ephesus when Christ wrote this Epistle and this opinion Ribera Lyra and Pererius follow Others leave it in medio and say it is uncertaine But suppose the story were true we answer Secondly it doth not follow because Onesimus was Bishop of Ephesus in Saint Iohns daies that therefore he was the onely party to whom Christ wrote his Epistle For Saint Paul tels us that there were many Bishops at Ephesus besides Onesimus and he
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
in our scanning his allegations in this section to which we now proceed Where first the Reader may please to observe that the Remonstrant slideth by our marginall wherein we shewed the delineation that Eusebius makes of an Evangelist and desired the Reader to judge thereby whether Timothy and Titus were not Evangelists Onely he chargeth us with boldnesse for calling them so though himselfe afterward confesseth it page 98 p. 100. But why must this be boldnesse Forsooth because though Timothy be expressely called an Evangelist yet there is no text no not the least intimation no not so much as the least ground of a conjecture that Titus was an Evangelist And if so why doe you afterwards grant it But whether you doe or no that it was so we have proved sufficiently in our answer But let any indifferent man here consider the iniquity of the Remonstrant that challengeth us for calling Titus an Evangelist without a text for his name and yet thinks himselfe much wronged if wee grant him not that Timothy and Titus and the Angels of the Church were Bishops though he hath no text for the name nor for the office Secondly To our text 2. Tim. 4. 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doe the worke of an Evangelist saith he rather intimates he was no Evangelist then that he was as if it were no more then for the Remonstrant to desire his friend to doe the worke of a Secretary or Sollicitor for him this implies he is neither A very cleare glosse Paul doth not here intreat as we conceive but charge He speakes Imperative not Impetrative Compare this not with the phrases of the Remonstrant but with the phrases of the sam Apostle and then judge In the same Epistle 2 Chapt. 3. The same Apostle saith to the same person endure hardnesse as a good souldier of Christ doth that imply Timothy was no souldier of Christ but onely so imployed for the time So againe in the 15. verse of the same Chapter when the Apostle saith study to approve thy selfe a workman that needs not to be ashamed doth this prove that Timothy was not a workeman but onely for the time When Paul saith 1 Cor. 16. 13. quite your selves like men doth that shew they were not men but onely so imployed for the time How would the Remonstrant have triumphed over such a high peece of ridiculous learning in our answer had we turned off all these texts which use to be produced as proofes of Episcopall authority in Timothy and Titus with such a shift as this this doth not shew it was their worke but onely they were so imployed for the time Wee adde further That when you acknowledge Timothy was to doe the office of an Evangelist for so your comparison of your friends doings the office of a Secretary warrants us to interpret you you must necessarily meane the extraordinary Evangelist for you scoffe page 94. at an ordinary Evangelist as a new fiction which if so then consider how absurd a thing it is to bid the inferior doe the worke of a superior Superiours may be intreated to doe the worke of inferiours because they come within the spheare of their activity and comprehend either virtually or formally what the inferiours are to doe As Apostles have power to doe all that Evangelists Presbyters and Deacons can doe and Evangelists all that Presbyters c. but not è converso Would it not be absurd to bid a Curate doe the office of a Bishop Or a Presbyter the office of an Apostle From all this we conclude That when Paul bids Timothy Doe the worke of an Evangelist he bids him goe on with speed to execute his Vice-Apostolicall office in watering the severall Churches in Asia c. But saith he if he were an Evangelist he may be that and a Bishop too For wee doe but dreame when we distinguish of Evangelists Truely sir this dreame was the fruit of our reading the fancy of the Authour of Episcopacies divine right and there we finde our ordinary guifted Evangelist under which name indeed we comprise all preachers The other branch of that distinction Evangelists of extraordinary guifts and employments we finde in Scripture and in this defence too Truth is their ordinary Evangelists are a new fiction True if we speake of the office of the Evangelists but to give the title of Evangelist according to the naturall signification of the word to ordinary preachers of the Gospell is neither new nor fiction Well our argument we raise upon this ground is slight Paul besought Timothy to abide still at Ephesus 1. Tim. 1. 3. which had beene a needlesse importunity if he had had the Episcopal charge of Ephesus for then necessarily he must have resided there But what 's his answer to this argument Nothing onely saith it is slight And that other argument brought from Timothies perpetuall moving from place to place to prove that he was never fixed in an Episcopall station is of as little force with him The necessities of those times were such as made even the most fixed Starres planetary calling them frequently from the places of their abode to those Services that were of most use for the successe of that great worke yet so that after their errâ—nds fully dome they returned to their owne charge Let us once professe as much confidence in our cause as the Remonstrant doth in his We challenge him to shew in all the new Testament any one that was appointed overseer of a particular Church whose motion was as planetary as wee have shewed that of Timothy and Titus to have beene Or if that faile let him but shew that after Timothy or Titus went abroad upon the Service of the Churches they did constantly or ordinarily returne either to Ephesus or Creet and not to the places either of the Apostles present abode or appointment And let them take Timothy and Titus as theirs the patrons and presidents of Episcopacy But till they can shew this we must beleeve and affirme Timothy and Titus are Evangelists and no Bishops Our next argument from Act. 20. is but a Reed Happy Remonstrant that deales with such impotent adversaries our first argument is slight our second is of no force our third is but a reed Yet let us tell you Haeret Lateri Lethalis Arundo We affirmed upon certaine grounds Acts 20. 4 though the Remonstrant know it not that Timothy was with Paul at the meeting at Miletum and from thence argued that had Timothy been B. of Ephesus Paul would have given him a charge of feeding the flocke and not the Elders but would have given them direction for their carriage at least would not so have forgot himselfe as to call the Elders Bishops before their Bishops face In all which the Remonstrant saith we goe upon a wrong ground But sure sir you are not so ignorant of our meaning as by your questions you would seeme to be We
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
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
answer is as easily blowne away as the wind blowes away chaffe It is true every Church hath his Angell mentioned but whether Angell individually or Angell collectively that is still the question and therefore for ought you say though there were but seven Churches there might be seven and seven times seven Angels in those Churches But you intimate that Christ saith the 7. starres though he doth not say the seven Angels Now here give us leave to put our Remonstrant in mind of the imagined Syneedoche For we justly conceive that these words The seven Starres are the Angels are figurative and that there are two figures in them a metaphor in the word Starre and Angell and a Synecdoche in the word seven For we doe not thinke that the seven Starres signifie seven individuall Angels for then indeed the reader might have justly smiled at our curious speculation but we thinke them to be taken collectively Thus Revil 8. 2. Iohn saw seven Angels which stood before God by which seven Angels Doctor Reynolds doth not understand seven individuall Angels but by a Synecdoche all the Angels For there are no seven particular Angels that doe stand before God but all doe so Dan. 7. The words of Doctor Reynolds are these Quare cum commune sit omnibus electis Angelis Dei stare coram throno videtur nomine septem Angelorum significari universos Angelos Dei Item Ita numero septenario saepe significari omnes numeruni saltem infinitum numero finito docent septem columnae Pro. 9. septem pastores Math. 5. septem oculi Zach. 3. sed imprimis in istis mysteriis Apocalypseos septem Candelabra septem lampades septem phyaelae septem plagae And now let the Reader judge whether this argument be so ridiculous as the mocking Remonstrant would make it But that you may see how dull the answerer himselfe is whilst he accuseth others of dulnesse let us a little consider what pittifull shifts he useth in his answer to our last reason Our last argument is Though but one Angell be mentioned in the forefront yet it is evident the Epistles themselves are dedicated to all the Angels and Ministers in every Church and to the Churches themselves and if unto the whole Church much more unto the Presbyters of that Church To this you answer 1. By granting the argument which is to grant the cause as will appeare to any judicious Reader For the reason doth not onely say that the whole Church is concerned in the Epistles and spoken unto in them but that they are dedicated to all the Ministers as well as one to all the Churches as well as to the Angels as appeares Reuel 1. 11. send it to the seven Churches and also by the Epiphonema of every Epistle he that hath an eare to heare let him heare what the Spirit saith to the Churches not onely concerning the Churches but to the Churches But then you argue secondly if every Epistle be written to all the Churches then we must say that every of these seven Angels must be the whole company of all the seven Churches which were a foule nonsence But you must understand that though every Epistle be written to all the Churches yet not eodem modo As for example the Epistle to Ephesus was written primariò proprie formaliter to the Church of Ephesus but to the other Churches onely reflèxive per modum exempli And therefore we returne your nonsence upon your selfe For we doe not confound the Angels and the Churches we know there is a distinction betweene the Starres and the Candlestickes but we affirme that the Epistles are written to the Churches as well as to the Angels and to all the Angels as well as to any one Thirdly you say we might have saved the labour both of Ausbertus and the rest of our Authours and our owne But surely unlesse you meant to yeeld the cause you would never say so For we proved out of Ausbertus that according to his judgement by Angell is meant the whole Church And out of Perkins Brightman Fulke Fox Austin Gregory Primasius Hamo Beda Richard Thomas c. That the word Angell is to be taken not individually but collectively And further we shewed that in these seven Epistles where one person is singled out and spoken unto in particular either by way of praise or dispraise that such places are not to be understood of one individuall person but of the whole company of the Ministers in all things equall with that our Angell which are proved by such reasons which because you knew not how to answer you say we might have saved our labour and in that indeed we should have saved your credit but have done the cause much prejudice Lastly you say satis Magisterialiter for you prove it not That there are such particularities both of commendations and exceptions in the body of the severall Epistles as cannot but have relation to those severall overseers to whom they were indorsed as you have elsewhere specified But whom you are and where this is specified you refuse to tell us Onely you put us to answer Had all the Presbyters of Ephesus lost their first love Had each of them tried the false Apostles Had all those of Sardis a name to live and were dead Were all the Laodicean Ministers of one temper You say no doubt it was otherwise But this is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 We say No doubt that not onely the Presbyters of Ephesus Sardis Laodicea but that the whole Church had lost their first love and were become lukewarme and had a name to live and were dead wee say all that is genera singulorum not singula generum and this wee prove Because the punishment threatned by Christ is threatned not onely against that one Angell but against all the Church Reuel 2. 5. I will remove thy Candlesticke Revel 2. 16. 24. Now we have no warrant in the word of God to thinke that God would remove his Gospell from a Church because one Angell in that Church hath lost his first love when all the other and the whole Church also are â—ervent and zealous in their love to Christ. Or that God would spue out a whole Church out of his mouth for the lukewarmenesse of one man when the Church it selfe and all the other Ministers are zealous This is the reason that makes us beleeve that though one Angell be sometimes spoken unto in particular yet it must necessarily be understood in a collective sence not in an individuall sence which we hinted in our answer But the Remonstrant comes with his Index expurgatorius and answereth us onely with a Deleatur And thus he serves us also in the following reasons why Christ did not write To the Angels in the plurall number but To the Angell in the singular And this he doth throughout the whole booke passing by unanswered those things which are most materiall Vas vitreum lambens pultem non attingens
but to ordaine Elders in every City which was an office above that of a Bishop For Creet was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Now you know sir that iâ— is above the worke of an ordinary Bishop to plant and erect Churches to their due frame in an hundred Citties Bishops are given to particular Churches when they are framed to keepe them in the Apostolicall truth not to lay foundations or to exaessifie some imperfect beginnings This service Titus did in Creet the same worke which the Apostle did when he visited the Churches of Asia Acts 14. 23. which being finished the same Apostolicall power which sent him thither removed him thence againe for the service of other Churches as we have formerly shewed from Scripture And though the Remonstrant tels us this calling away could no whit have impeached the truth of his Episcopacy We must crave leave to tell him that though it may be one journey upon some extraordinary Church service might consist with such a fixed station as Episcopacy is Yet an ordinary frequent course of jornying such as Titus his was cannot unlesse he will grant that Timothy might be a Bishop and an Evangelist at the same time But this is contrary to the Remonstrants one definition of an Evangelist page 94. And therefore he chusâ—th rather to say Timothy was first an Evangelist when he travelled abroad and afterward a Bishop when he setled at home This is more absurd then the former For if ever Titus were a Bishop it was then when Paul left him in Creet to ordaine Elders in every City And after that time was the greatest part of his travels as we have shewed in our answer All these journeys did Titus make after he was left in Creet nor doe we finde any where record of his returne thither Therefore according to this rule Titus should be first a Bishop and afterwards an Evangelist Or if the greatest part of Titus his travels had beene before his delegation to Creet yet it had beene no lesse absurd to say that afterwards he did descend from the degree of an Evangelist to the station of Episcopacy We hope the Remonstrant will not deny but an Evangelist was as farre above a Bishop as any Bishop can fancy himselfe to be above a Presbyter And if for a Bishop to quit his Episcopacy and suffer himselfe to be reduced to the ranke of a meere Presbyter be a crime so hainous so odious that it had beene much better to have beene unborne then to live to give so hainous a scandall to Gods Church and so deepe a wound to his holy truth and ordinances a river an ocean can neither drowne nor wash off the offence What is it to reduce an Evangelist to the forme of a Bishop We had granted that some Fathers call Timothy and Titus Bishops the Remonstrant replies some nay all Be it so as long as himselfe hath granted the Fathers did use the titles of Bishops and Presbyters 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But there is a Cloud of witnesses of much antiquity which avers Timothy and Titus to have livâ—d and died Bishop of Ephesus Creet But this cloud will soone blow over The Magdeburgenses tell us That there is nothing expressely or certainely delivered by any approved writer to shew how or how long Timothy was Doctour or Governour of the Church of Ephesus Therefore we cannot certainely affirme that he suffered martyrdome at Ephesus being stoned to death for reproving the idolatry of the Ephesians at the porch of Dianâ—s Temple which yet the most have reported Let the Reader further know that his cloud of witnesses who averre Timothy and Titus to be Bishops have borrowed their testimonies from Eusebius of whom Scaliger saith and Doctor Raynolds approves of it That he read ancient Histories parum attente which they prove by many instances And all that Eusebius saith is onely sic scribitur It is so reported But from whence had he this History even from Clemens fabulous and Hegesippus not exstant And therefore that which is answered by our learned Divines concerning Peters being at Rome and dying there which is also recorded by Eusebius That because Eusebiuâ— had it from Papias an Author of little esteeme hence they thinke it a sufficient argument to deny the truth of the History though asserted by never so many Authours relying upon one of so little credit The same answer will fully serve to all the authorities produced for Timothies and Titus being Bishops from antiquity And that which Thucidides saith of the ancient Greeke Historiaâ—s may as truely be said of Eusebius Irenaeus and others Quae a majoribus acceperant Posteri 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 securi examinis suis item posteris tradiderunt We further shewed how the Fathers called Timothy and Titus Bishops viz. in the same sence which learned D. Raynolds saies they also used to call the Apostles Bishops even in a generall signification because they did attend that Chuâ—ch for a time c. This the Remonstrant will not give us leave to doe but without his leave we shall make it good We say therefore further That when the Apostles or Evangelists perhaps Iames at Hierusalem Timothy at Ephesus Titus at Creet did stay longer at one Church and exercised such a power as the Bishops in succeeding ages did aspire unto when the Fathers would set forth this power of an Apostle or Evangelists long residing in one Church they labouring to doe it in a familâ—ar way did similitudinarily call them Bishops and sometimes Archbishops or Patriarcks which all confesse were offices not heard of in the Apostles times not meaning they were so formally but eminently neither could they call them so properly for the power they exercised was in them formally Apostolicall or Evangelicall reaching not only to the Church where then they resided but to all neighbouring and bordering Churches as farre as was possible for them to oversee or the occasions of the Church did require they having no bounded Diocesses but had the care of all the Churches In this sence they might call them so but for either an Apostle or Evangelist to be ordained a Bishop or Presbyter had beene both unnecessary and absurd unnecessary because the higher degree includes the inferiour eminently though not formally and absurd to descend lower that after they had been Apostolically or Evangelically employed in taking care of all the Churches they should be ordained to a worke which should so limit them as to make them lesse usefull to the Church of God But saith he all this discourse is needlesse whether Timothy or Titus were Evangelists or no sure we are here they stand for persons charged with those offices and cares which are delivered to the ordinary Church-governours in all succeeding generations Here first you give us no ground of your surenesse nor can give us any other then what may be said of the Apostles for they also stand as persons charged c. Secondly it is true
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
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
Thyatira And he will not onely conâ—esse that though the 24. verse should faile yet the 23. would prove the same thing as effectually as the 24. but also will grant that from the coâ—â—erence it is evident that the old copies are better then that which this Remonstrant cals the better coppy of Tecla But besides this text let the Reader cast his eye upon what Christ saith to the Angell of the Church of Smyrna Revel 2. 10. feare none of those things which thou shalt suffer behold the divell shall cast some of you into prison of you in the plurall number that yee may be tryed yee in the plurall number and you in the plurall againe shall have tribulation ten daies be thou faithfull unto the death and I will give thee a Crowne of life Observe here how our Saviour Christ changeth the number Be thou faithfull And the divell shall cast some of you c. to shew unto us that the Angell is not meant of one singular person but of all the whole company of Presbyters that were in Smyrna So also Christ writing to the Angell of the Church of Pergamus saith verse 13. in the beginning of the verse I know thy workes in the singular number but in the latter end who was slaine among you in the plurall number We expect that the Remonstrant will when best at leasure bring tidings of another better coppy to avoyd the dint of these texts that doe as we thinke demonstratively prove the thing in question Our second argument is drawne from the like phrases even in this very booke of the Revelation where it is usuall to expresse a company under one singular person as the civill state of Rome as opposite to Christ is called a beast with ten hornes and the Ecclesiasticall state Antichristian is called the whore of Babylon To which you answer 1. That if it be thus in visions and Emblematicall representations must it needs be so in plaine narrations But good sir consider this very thing we are about was seene by Saint Iohn in a vision and you your selfe confesse in the next page that the word Angell is metaphoricall How then is it a plaine narration Secondly you say because it is so in one phrase of speech must it be so in all We answer that this argument was not brought to prove that the word Angell must needs be taken collectively but onely that it might be so taken and that it was the likeliest interpretation especially considering what was added out of Master Mede who was better skilled in the meaning of the Revelation then your selfe that the word Angell is commonly if not alwaies in the Revelation taken collectively Thus the seven Angels that blew the seven trumpets and the seven Angels that poured out the seven vials are not literally to be taken but Synecdochically you reply Perhaps so but then the Synecdoche lies in the seven not in the Angels and so you grant the word Angell to be metaphoricall but we are never a whit the neerer to our imagined Synecdoche But this is but a meere fallacy Let but the reader expect till we make good our fourth reason and then we shall see our imagined Synecdoche made reall For the present it is sufficient that it is the ordinary custome of the holy Ghost in the Revelation by Angell to meane Angels by seven Angels not seven individually but collectively But whether the Synecdoche be in the word seven or in the word Angel that is nothing to the purpose in hand Our third argument is drawne from the word Angell which is a common name to all the Ministers and messengers c. And surely had Christ intended to point out some one individuall person by the Angell he would have used some distinguishing name to set him out by he would have called him Rector or President or Superintendent but calling him by a name common to all Ministers why should we thinke that there should be any thing spoken to him that doth not asmuch concerne all the rest who are Angels as well as he All that you answer is that Christ knew this well enough and if he had meant it had it not beene as easie to have mentioned many as one But here wee humbly desire the Reader to consider two things 1. The unreasonablenesse of this answer we brought three reasons why Christ when he meant divers Angels spake in the singular number Angell not Angels These reasons the Remonstrant passeth over with a scorne the commonest safest surest way of answering the Remonstrant hath and yet he demands page 104. why should one be singled ouâ— above all if the interest be common And here why doth not Christ say to the Angels But let â—im first answer our Therefores and wee will quickly answer his Wherefores Secondly how justly we may retort this answer upon the Remonstrant and say If Christ had meant by the seven Angels seven Bishops how easie had it beene for him to have written to the Bishop of Ephesus as he was lately called at the Spittle by a Bishop to the Bish. of Smyrna instead of the Angell of Ephesus and the Angell of Smyrna But this Christ doth not doe and not onely so but Saint Iohn also in all his bookes makes not any mention of the name Bishop And therefore it seemeth strange to us that Episcopacy by divine right should be fetched out of his writings I but saith the Remonstrant it is written 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And therefore the denoted person must needs be singular For surely you cannot say that all the Presbyters at Ephâ—sus were one Angell Yes sir wee can say they were all one Angell collectively though not individually And we can shew you where Christ speaketh in the singular number and joyneth the Article with it also and yet meaneth Synecdochically more for one as Iohn 4. 37. Iohn 10. 11. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which must be all meant indefinitely not individually You suppose againe that if that Christ had said To the Starre of Ephesus no body would have construed it but of one eminent person But herein also you are much mistaken for the word Starre is as common a name to all Ministers as the word Angell as we have shewed in our answer The fourth argument you account ridiculous and in a proud scorne passe it over with a jeere But you will see in the conclusion you your selfe to be the ridiculum caput not we Our argument stands thus Our Saviour saith The seven Candlestickes which thou sawest are the seven Churches but he doth not say the seven starres are the seven Angels of the same Churches But the Angels of the seven Churches omitting not without mystery the number of the Angels least wee should understand by Angell one Minister alone and not a company To omit your scoffes you answer it is plaine that every Church hath his Angell mentioned and there being seven Chruches how many Angels I beseech you are there This
may very well write to him and to all the rest as well as him That Christ wrote not onely to Polycarpus if hee were Angell of Smyrna but to all the other Angels that were at Smyrna appeares by what we said before out of Revelation 2. 10. Thirdly you know sir that by your owne confession Bishops and Presbyters had all one name in the Apostles daies and long after even in Irenaeus his time And therfore what though Polycarpus be called the Bishop of Smyrna and Onesimus Bishop of Ephesus still the question remaines whether they were Bishops phrasi Apostolica that is Presbyters or phrasi Pontificiâ Whether Bishops Antonomasticè and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so called or whether Bishops in a generall sence as all Presbyters are called Bishops And suppose they were Bishops properly so called which we beleeve not yet still it lies upon you to prove that these were Hierarchicall Bishops That they had such power as our Bishops assume to themselves That they were a distinct order superior to Presbyters And that they had sole power of ordination and jurisdiction We are confident that you are so farre from being able to prove that they had a sole power as that you cannot prove they had any superiority of power over their fellow Angels For ought of any thing said by you in this large discourse This individuall Angell may be nothing else then a Moderator of a company of Presbyters having onely a superiority of order and this also mutable and changeable according as Paraeus and Beza hold whom you follow in this interpretation In the shutting up of this discourse concerning the Angels the Remonstrant as if he were very angry spits out nothing but scorne and contempt against his adversaries We bring one example and two testimonies to prove that the Angels of the seven Churches were not superior one to another and he cries out as one much displeased Away then with these your unproving illustrations and unregardable testimonies which you as destitute of all antiquity shut up the Scene withall But though you fling them away in your anger and fury yet we trust the ingenious Reader will gather them up and consider also that this Remonstrant that like another Champion against Doctor Whitaker bragges that all the Fathers and all the Councels are of his side and yet he brings neither Fathers nor Councels for to prove that these Angels are to be understood vidually and so wee take our leave of this discourse In the next place we come to the two postscripts which indeed were post-scripta after the booke was made and inserted to avoyd an hiatus which all the defenders of Hierarchy cite for the averring of Episcopacy by divine right To this you reply First That you are no waies ingaged to defend these postscripts It is true not as you are a Remonstrant but as you are juratus in verba Magistri sworne to maintaine any thing that may uphold Hierarchicall Episcopacy Secondly you confesse ingeniously they are not canonicall yet you say they are of great antiquity but you durst not set downe how ancient For wee have good reason and authority to thinke that they are not ancienter then Theodoret who lived 435. yeeres after Christ. We brought many arguments to prove not onely the Apocryphalnes but the falsenesse of these subscriptions To all which you subscribe by your silence Onely you would faine if you could justifie that clause in the subscription to Titus written from Nicopolis and the rather because you finde it so in that famous ancient Manuscript of Tecla sent by the late Patriarch of Constantinople It seemes then you have seene that Manuscript And if so why doe you not deale faithfully with your Reader and discover what you finde in it for we are credibly informed in that copy there is no mention of Titus his being Bishop of Creet or of Timothy his being Bishop of Ephesus But this is your constant course to conceale whatsoever makes against you and to magnifie whatsoever hath but a shadow of appearance for you that all men may perceive you seeke victory rather then truth But before we leave the Postscripts we will answer to your two questions First you would faine see any pretence of so much age against the matter of these subscriptions the averred Episcopacy of Timothy and Titus For reply we referre you to what is said before at large in answer to this demand Onely we will put you in minde of a speech of Bishop Barlows We are not unwilling to be judged by antiquity so it be such an antiquitie to which Ignatius appeales 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Nothing more acceptable to us then Histories if such as are written by him who stiles himselfe The ancient of daies And for the Fathers none more welcome to us then him whom Iustin Martyr cals Pater Patriae and that is Saint Paul Now Saint Paul when he wrote his first Epistle to Timothy and purposely undertooke in his third Chapter to set out the Office of a Bishop mentioneth nothing in that Office which is not competent to a Presbyter and therefore omits the Office of a Presbyter including it in the Office of a Bishop which hee would never have done if hee had at the same time made Timothy an Hierarchicall Bishop with a power to doe that formally which was unlawfull for a Presbyter to doe And besides we have proved that this Epistle was written before Pauls first being at Rome and so before the time that you say Paul made him Bishop As for his Epistle to Titus he directly confounds the Offices of Presbyters and Bishops and makes them one and the same Chapter 1. Verses 5 6 7. Which he certainely would not have done if he had made them at that time distinct Orders with distinct Offices The ancient Fathers indeed some of them call Timothy and Titus Bishops in an improper sense because they staid longer in Ephesus and Creet then Evangelists ordinarily did And did preach and ordaine and doe those things which Bishops in their time used to doe which notwithstanding they did not formally doe as Bishops but virtually and eminently as Officers of an higher degree Hence Salmeron himselfe saith in his first disputation upon Timothy Videtur ergo quod fuerit plusquam Episcopus etiâ—â—si ad tempus in ea civitate ut pastor praedicaverit sacros ordines promoverit Vnde quidam vocant eum Episcopum Ambrose saith one while he was a Deacon another while a Prethyter Others a Primate and others a Bishop Lyra proveth him to have beene an Archbishop and Titus a Priest Beda calleth him an Apostle Aquinas thinkes that Titus was Bishop of Dalmatia because when Paul wrote his second Epistle to Timothy hee was at Dalmatia 2 Tim. 4. 10. Thus you see the Fathers agree not amongst themselves and therefore helpe you little in this point Your second question is Whether ever we have beene urged to subscribe to any other ceremâ—nies then
Sermon once a yeere or a quarter or a month that will bee sufficient to merit and maintain that name Some indeed have taken some paines heretofore But there are so few of them now that sure the Remonstrant intended this booke for posterity The present Age will never beleeve that England is so full of preaching Bishops that there is not an unpreaching Bishop to bee found But what if we should challenge the Remonstrant to shew any preaching Bishop in England such a preaching Bishop as Chrysostome Augustine and the rest of those ancient worthies were 〈◊〉 who if they had preached no oftner then our Bishops Chrysostome had never mentioned his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so often nor his Nudiâ—tertius Nor his cras and perendie Nor Austin his Nudius tertiani hesâ—erni Sermones Nor Cyprian his Quotidiani Tractatus Indeed of old one saith Bishops gloried of their chaire and teaching as the flowre of their garland preferring it far before government but when they were faln from spirituall felicity and infâ—cted with Secular smoake then they commended the labour of teaching to Presbyters then the Iurisdiction and Consistory did carry all the credit Every Office in the Church being counted a dignity as it had more or lesse jurisdiction annexed to it this dignity hath almost crowded out the duty The scandall of inferiour Ministers hee professeth to bleed for but saith we blazon No Sir as we told you before and tell you again they have beene the trumpets of their own shame that like Hophne and Phineas made the sacrifices of the Lord to be abhorred But wee beseech you what is the English of your desires to have had the faults made lesse publike Doe you mean you would not have had them medled withall in open Parliament or that you would have had the Parliament doe by all Petitions brought in against such seandalous persons as Constantine did by those Papers that the proud contentious Bishops gave one against another commit them to the fire if so then as you are Christian tels us whether you doe not think this had been the onely way to involve the whole Parliament and Nation in the guilt of those sins and expose them to that wrath and vengeance that would from heaven pursue them Bethink your self how you will answer this at that great Tribunall to which you make so many rash and bold appeals as also your prophaning the glorious title of the God of peace that you might under the sweet name of peace perswade an impunity for sin Sir we nothing feare but wee shall answer our opposing the unerring rule of the Word of God which texts you never went about to answer against that example of Constantine who as a man though good was subject to errour ten thousand times better then you will doe either of these In our next Section saith our Remonstrant we spit in the face of our Mother Good Reader please to review our Answer Section 17. and judge The Remonstrant will deny presently that hee and the Bishops are the Church of England and yet here that which is spoken against them and their Perseus-like practices is spoken against our Mother the Church Well be what you please Fathers and Mothers and Sonnes and all Onely we desire the Remonstrant if hee can to tell us what the Church of England is For it doth not please him here that we should call the Convocation the Church of England much lesse the Bishops or Archbishops Yet if we be not mistaken you your self call the Convocation the Church of England pag. 122. And the Canons and Constitutions made in the Convocation are called the Canons and Constitutions of the Church of England which the Convocation alone excluding the Parliament cannot be so much as a representative of unlesse you will count the whole Laity of the Nation represented in Parliament none of the Church of England Yet this is the Church so cryed up These Canons are the commands of the Church so rigorously urged Who ever breaks a Canon especially in point of Ceremony is no dutifull sonne of the Church Indeed in point of Morality Drinking Swearing Gaming there is more indulgence Nay how many Bishops in England are there that have urged their owne private paper-injunctions as the commands of the Church and proceeded against such as would not observe them as disobedient or refractory against their Mother the Church That Sir upon the point there will appeare to be more Churches in England then one For tell us we beseech you when the Church of England at Norwich forbade all prayer before and after Sermon but onely in the words of the 55 Canon forbad all preaching in the afternoons all expounding of Catechisme or Scriptures the Church of England in London forbad none of these things when the Church of England in London enjoyned rayling in Communion Tables and all communicants to make their approaches thither the Church of another Diocesse went further and enjoyned setting of them Altarwise And all these were the commands of the church of England The transgression of any one of these the omission of any other thing enjoyned was condemned as disobedience to the church Now how many churches of England were there at this time But you will play off all this as merriment with a Ridiculum caput To deal with you therefore seriously Because you make so strange a thing of hearing of more churches of England then one and distinguish so deeply between Churches of England and Churches in England wee beseech you consider whither the Scripture doe not speak as properly when it speaks of the Churches of Iudea and of Galatia as if it had said the churches in Iudea and in Galatia And what difference between Saint Iohn when hoe writes to the Church of Ephesus of Laodicea and the church in Sardis in Thyatira Yet we are not ridiculous enough therefore the Remonstrant will help the matter and to make his jeere will corrupt our words For whereas we had said if the bounds of a Kingdome must needs be the limits of a Churth Why are not England Scotland and Ireland all one church to make it non-sence hee adds of England are not England Scotland and Ireland all one Church of England Hee that made it let him take it This discourse of Churches of England cannot end without a descent into the Prelaticall and Anti-prelaticall Church We said We acknowledge no Anti-prelaticall Church The Remonstrant tels us if wee make and condemne the Prelaticall Church what shall be the other part of the contradistinction Our reply must be that not we but themselves make the Prelaticall Church wee doe but shew it and we shew also the other part of the contradistinction which the Remonstrant pleaseth to call the Antiprelaticall Church The Remonstrant had upbrayded the Divisions of that part wee made our just defence and therein declared that the Prelaticall party were the chiefe Authours and Fomentors of those divisions