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
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
might be setled in the same These dissentions were not about seats or rates but a contention betweene Silvanus the Bishop and Nundinarius the Deacon in a matter of a high nature too high for our Church Wardens or Vestrymen to meddle in The Bishop being accused that hee was Traditor fur rerum pauperum Did ever Church-wardens or Vestry men among us heare inquire judge compose such differences as these are What should John a Nokes and John a Stiles and Smug the Smith meddle with a businesse of Bishops saith Episcopacie by Divine Right part 3. pag. 32. But how doth hee prove they were but as our Churchwardens or Vestrymen First because Deacons are named before these Seniors where ever they are mentioned Secondly because Optatus reckoning up quatuor genera capitum mentions not Elders For the first though the order of reckoning them be not so much to be insisted upon yet wee can tell you if here your confidence had not beene greater then your consideration that you might have observed that in some places they are mentioned not onely before Deacons but the whole cleargie For so Gregories letter cited by us Tabellarium cum consensu Seniorum Cleri memineris ordinandum Are not Seniors here mentioned before the cleargie His second proofe that these Elders were no better then meere Churchmardens and Vestry men was because Optatus mentioning foure sorts of men in the Church mentions not these Elders But is this the man that hath with such height of scorne vilified poore negative arguments though drawn from sacred Scripture And will he now lay such weight upon a negative argument Surely if all the truth and practice of the primitive times were bound up in one Optatus as all Divine truth is lodged in the sacred Volume of the Scriptures the Remonstrant might have made much of his negative argument yet hee scornes to heare us reasoning that because we do not read that the holy Ghost did by the Apostles appoint Bishops in remedium Schismatis therefore we cannot believe Bishops are of Divine or Apostolicall institution but of humane Away saith he with this poore negative argument And because the Apostle Ephesians the fourth reckoning the Officers whom Christ hath given and gifted for the edification of his Church reckons up onely Apostles Prophets Evangelists Pastors Teachers if wee should conclude Ergo there were no Bishops The Remonstrant would cry out again Away with these negative arguments yet such an argument froÌ„ Scripture may be valid though from no other authority As for Optatus First though in these places he mentions not Elders yet that other place which wee brought out of the same Author doth which the learned Antiquary Albaspinaeus though a Papist with us acknowledgeth Secondly these places produced by the Remonstrant crosse one another as much as they crosse us for Ministri are left out in one as well as Seniores in both Thirdly these Seniores are included in turba fidelium as the Apostle Rom. 10. 14. comprehends all the Church under these two hearers and teachers and so again Heb. 13. 24. Rulers and Saints Yet the Remonstrant is resolved to hold the conclusion Elders in a ranke above Deacons in a setled power of government with the Pastors shall be damned by him for a new and unjustifiable opinion Yet this is the man that would by no meanes be thought to condemne the Reformed Churches Though hee fall as unhappily neere the very words of their profest enemies the Netherland Remonstants as ever we did the words of Aerius Quod attinet Praxin antiquitatis ex â—â videlicet id demonstrari posse idoneis argumentis ut Censor asserit audaciae temeritatis est and again Tota antiquitatis Praxis ei repugnat but oh that our Remonstrant would once learn to take the counsell he gives And he that adviseth us to give glory to God in yielding to undoubted and cleere truth would do so himselfe For if it be not more cleere that there were elders anciently in the Church then that there were none and that these elders were not civill Aldermen but ecclesiasticall Officers Not meere Churchwardens and Vestry men busied about inferiour things of seats and rates but employed in matters of higher nature let the Remonstrant never renounce episcopacy But if it be let him take heed he do not renounce his word which he utters pag. 147. I doe here solemnely professe that if any one such instance can be brought I will renounce episcopacy for ever SECT XVI XVII XVIII THe rest of our Answer you say is but a meere declamation And good Sir what was your whole Remonstrance but a declamation And what is your Defence but a Satyre But ours is worthy of no other answer then contempt and silence You are very dextrous and happy in those kind of Answers your whole Defence is full of them It is true you say The religious Bishops of all times have strongly upheld the truth of God against Satan and against his Antichrist And it is as true that we told you that others have upheld the truth as strongly as Bishops ever did Yea at sometimes when there was never a Bishop in the world to appeare for the truth And therefore never impropriate all the glory to Episcopacie It is also true that wee told you that some irreligious Bishops have upheld Satan and his Antichrist against the truth of God and what can you say to this What is this to their calling Sir their upholding Antichrist makes as much against their calling as their upholding the truth makes for their calling If you fetch an argument from the one for their calling we may as Logically fetch an argument from the other against their calling with as much concluding strength but you can tell us of Presbyters wicked and irreligious shall the function it self therefore suffer Like enough And we could tell you that they find more coâ—ntenance from Bishops then the painfullest Ministers But if Presbyters should be as generally corrupted as Bishops now are have as much strength to suppresse the Gospell and promote Popery as the Bishops by their supreame power have if they can bring no more evidence of Divine institution then Bishops can and are of no more necessity to the Church then Bishops are let the Function suffer We told you what an unpreaching Bishop said of a preaching Bishop this say you is our slander not their just Epithite and challenge us to shew any unpreaching Bishop in the Church of England this day Sir pardon us if we tell you that you put us in minde of a poore Sir Iohn that because he had made one Sermon in 40. yeeres would needs be counted a preaching minister if you speake of preaching after that rate then indeed you may call all the Bishops in England preaching Bishops But the people of England can so well tell who deserves the name of a preaching Bishop that it is not the preaching of a
the assertion of Episcopall men else what is the meaning of Doctor Halls semper and ubique and what is the meaning of that irrefragable proposition no man living no History can shew any well allowed and setled Nationall Church in the whole Christian World that hath been governed otherwise then by Bishops in a meet and moderate imparity ever since the times of Christ and his Apostles unto this present age And what means that other expression Turne over all Histories seeke the records of all times and places if ever it can be shown that any Orthodox Church in the whole Christian World since the time of Christ and his Apostles was governed otherwise then by a Bishop Superiour to his Clergie unlesse perhaps during the time of some persecution or short interregnum Let me forfeit my part of the cause The instances brought to prove the falsnesse of that Assertion that Episcopacie had never met with contradiction in any Christian Congregation The one hee turns off with the evasion of a personall quarrell whereas the Histories tell us it was an ancient custome and adds an odious Marginall ill becomming his so deeply protested loyalty to his Sovereigne as if it were no lesse crime to offer an affront to a Prelate then to the King The other instances of the Reformed Churches he puts off with this shift that if wee did not wilfully shut our eyes we might see he limited his time unto this present age Good Sir bethink you take up your Remonstrance read your own words Mark the Parenthesis Episcopall Government derives it self from the times of the Apostles without any interruption without the contradiction of any one Congregation in the Christian World to this present age The limitation of time here hath reference to the continuance of Episcopacie not the contradiction of Episcopacie that 's hedged in with your parenthesis which excludes your limitation Just such another is your next having said Episcopall Government continued in this Iland ever since the plantation of the Gospel without contradiction and being here taken in the manner to salve your credit you would here alter your words and sence and make it that it cannot be contradicted that the forme of this Government hath continued in the Island ever since the first plantation of the Gospel pray review your words and see how well they admit this sense Were this Ordinance meerly humane and Ecclesiasticall if there could no more be said for it but that it is exceeding ancient of more then fifteen hundred yeares standing and that it hath continued in this Island since the first Plantation of the Gospel to this present day without contradiction You would make the sense to goe thus this proposition is true without contradiction that Episcopall Government hath continued in this Island we say the sense must be thus that this Government hath continued without contradiction or hath received no contradiction during all the time it hath continued untill this present day If any impartiall Reader would not take the words in that sence we did rather then in the sence you have drawn them to let us be counted slanderers But in excusing the last mistake he would be a little more serious The Remonstrant had said Except all Histories all Authors faile us nothing can be more certain then this truth Wee cry out here of such a shamelesnesse as dares equall this opinion of his of Episcopall Government to an Article of our Creed This he doth seriously deny professing he spake it only as an ordinary phrase in hourly discourse and did Hee so too that in Episcopacie by divine Righ Part. 2. pag. 47. faith That for his part hee is so confident of the divine institution of the Majoritie of Bishops above Presbyters that hee dare boldly say there are weighty points of Faith which have not so strong evidence in Scripture And the same Author in the same place professeth that men may with much better colour cavill at those blessed Ordinances of God viz. consecration and distribution of the holy Eucharist and baptizing of Infants then quarrell at the divine institution of Bishops God give the man lesse confidence or more truth is not this to equalize this fancie to an Article of the Creed Wee would not have cast away so much time and paper upon this worthlesse businesse but onely to cleer our selves from that uncharitablenesse falshood lying and slandring wherewith the Remonstrant here bespatters us It is in his power to save himselfe and us this ungratefull labour if hee will give lesse scope to his luxuriant pen speak more cautiously let his words be more in weight and lesse in number SECT IV. IN the next Section the Remonstrant according to his Rhetorick saith Now I hope they wil strike it is a Trope sperare pro timere He had pleaded for the establishment of Episcopacie the long continuance of it in the world and in this Island this we called Argumentum galeatum quoting Hierom for that Epithite for which his great learning scoffs us Well wee must put it up an argument or if you will an Almanack for it is growing out of date apace and calculated for the Meridian of Episcopacie c. meaning the argument though applyed to Episcopacie might serve for any other Right Custome Order Religion that might plead antiquity which hee denies not but plainly grants saying it is calculated for whatsoever Government if so long time have given it peaceable possession in so much that could the Presbytery plead so long continuance hee should never yield his vote to alter it No should not to bring in that Episcopall Government which saith the Remonstrant hath such a divine institution as not only warrants it where it is but requires it where it may be had How can these things consist Surely if your grounds for the Divine Right of Episcopacie be Convictive and Irrefragable you must renounce that Government which is meerly humane and Ecclesiasticall be the Antiquity of it never so venerable if it stand in Competition with that which may plead a jus divinnm To divert that which he saw would overthrow this plea intitling the Pope to as much strength in this argument as the Bishops he will needs add this That long continuance may challenge an immunity from thoughts of alteration uulesse where the ground of the change is fully Convictive and Irrefragable But first Sir you must not make a limitation in your conclusion above what was in your premises but since you are at a dead lift wee will take it in and yet tell you that this helps you no more then the Pope still if he may judge hee will say there is no reason for his abolition may others judge the ground is fully Convictive and Irrefragable The Bishops being Judges and the Remonstrant they determine no reason in the world for the change of Episcopacie but what if others that must be Judges in this controversie see grounds Irrefragable and
meant and if we ever did use the word Communicated it was onely to note a Community in that power not a derivation of it as for his authors which he alleages for sole Ordination let the Reader please to view our answer pag. 37. 38. wherein hee may receive full satisfaction and the rather because the Remonstrant passeth over it The third part of that office which the Bishops call theirs is ruling To prove this to belong to Presbyters as well as Bishops we cite Heb. 13. 17. Here the Remonstrant cryes out Oh injurious imputation do wee not give you the title of Rectores Ecclesiarum And doe we not commit to you regimen Animarum So then you grant this place is rightly both interpreted and applied but you give us say you the title of rectores Animarum regimen Animarum You give us No it is the Scripture gives it us yet you would assume it to your selves and perswad that as the Pope communicates to his Bishops partem solicitudinis so you to us Presbyters but if the Scriptures gave us no more then you do it would prove 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 You make your selves the sole Pastors us but the Curates your selves Chancellours Officials the sole Iudges us but the executioners of your and their sentences whether just or unjust The other Text 1 Thes. 5. 12. and those four things observed from thence for the confirming of this assertion the Remonstrant passeth over so hee doth our argument which was this They which have the same name the same Ordination to their office the same qualification for their office the same work to feed the flock of God to ordain Pastors and Elders to rule and governe they are one and the same But such are Bishops and Presbyters ergo And thus deals hee also with the two quotations the one of the Councell of Aquisgra the other out of the writing of Smalcald all which being to hard for the Remonstrant to evade hee leaps over to a conclusion of such strange things as hee never went about to prove in his Section SECT VI. HAving from Scripture manifested the Identity of Bishops and Presbyters in their originall institution we applied our selves in this section to finde out the authors and occasion of this imparity which now appeares between them To expedite our selves from needlesse controversies we laid downe three particulars as consented to by both sides First that the first and best antiquity used the names of Bishops and Presbyters promiscuously this the Remonstrant subscribes to Secondly that in processe of time some one was honoured with the name of Bishop the rest were called Presbyters this the Remonstrant quarrels and desires to know what was this processe of time chargeth us either with error or fraud confidently defends this time had no processe at all but was in the very 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the living Apostles and undertakes to make this good in the sequell And how he doth that you shall find in this very section page 59. where to that of Hierom The Presbyters governed the Church by their common Councel he answers So they did doubtlesse altogether till Episcopacy was setled who dare deny it Here the Remonstrant grants a processe of time betweene the planting of the Church by the Apostles and the setling of Episcopacy in the Churches Shall we say now this is the Remonstrants either errour or fraud not to set downe how long it was before Episcopacy was setled in the Church let him take heed another time how he charge men with error or fraud for affirming that which himselfe cannot but give his Suffrage to The third thing agreed upon was that this was not nomen inane an idle title but attended upon with some kind of imparity the question was digested into these tearmes Whether the impropriation of the name and the imparity of the place and power of a Bishop be of divine right The Remonstrant for feare of mistaking desires to explicate the tearmes of the question and therefore tels how fetching the pedegree of Episcopacy from Apostolicall and therefore in that right divine institution he interprets himselfe to understand by divine right not any expresse Law of God requiring it as of absolute necessity to the being of a Church but an institution of the Apostles inspired by the holy Ghost warranting it where it is and requiring it where it may be had but Nihil infelicius Retorico definiente the Remonstrant if he would avoyd mistaking or at least would not say that he was mistaken should have dealt a little more clearely and punctually in the stateing of the Question For first he tels us that it is an institution of the Apostles inspired by the Holy ghost if the Remonstrant be not here mistaken why doth he page 47. in expresse terms grant us that in originall authority of Scripture Bishops and Presbyters were originally the same For so were our words not as the Remonstrant reports them went for the same and why againe when we tell him we never finde in Scripture these three orders Bishops Presbyters Deacons we say not the names but orders why doth he grant that in the same page and flie from the writings of the Apostles to the monuments of their immediate successers can we imagine that the Apostles did by inspiration from the holy Ghost ordaine any thing in the Church of God as of perpetuall use the record where of is not found in sacred Scripture which was given by the same inspiration to the same men if we may imagine it sure we cannot beleeve it And if it be an institution of the Apostles inspired by the holy Ghost why must it be distinguished from the expresse law of God doth he make it but an evangelicall counsell not requiring it as necessary to the being of a Church sure this is some opinion of a newer cut for the last defendant of Episcopacy before this Remonstrant saies thus The power of Ordination hath beene ever held so intrinsecall to Episcopacy that I would faine see where it can be shewed that any extremity of necessity was ever acknowledged a warrant sufficient for others to ordaine So that in his judgement where there is no Bishop there can be no lawfull ordination let it be in the case of extreamest necessity and where no ordination no ministery and so consequently no Word and Sacraments and no Church and how then in the judgement of these men is Episcopacy not required to the being of a Church And if not requiring it to the being of a Church how then requiring it onely where it may be had what a strange limitation is this where is it that Episcopacy may not must not be had if it be an ordinance of Christ where is it that the Churches of Christ may not have Word Sacraments Pastors and Bishops too if they be his ordinance It is true indeed some there are that cannot have Lord Bishops pompous Bishops and once
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
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
have beene established by the Lawes of this Realme and Church And why these Ceremonies are the Bishops more then Ours We answer First That to our knowledge some have beene urged to subscribe to other ceremonies then have beene established by the Lawes of this Realme and Church and to promise obedience editis â—dendis Secondly that this very urging of us to subscribe to the ceremonies established is more then the Lawes require For the Lawes require to subscription onely to the thirty nine Articles Thirdly We cannot but justly dislike your distinction of The Lawes of this Realme and Church For we know no Lawes of the Church obligatory but such as are established by the Lawes of the Realme as both Houses of Parliament have lately determined And whereas you aske Why these Ceremonies are the Bishops more then ours We answer First because it is ordinarily said No Ceremony no Bishop But it was never said No Ceremony no Presbyter Secondly because in the Convocation which you here terme the Church the Bishops or rather the Archbishop swayes all And there are five or six which are there Ex mâ—ero Officio and for the most part are the Bishops creatures and hang their suffrages upon his lippes and but two Clerkes for the Presbyters which also for the most part are forced upon them by the Bishop and his Officers Thirdly because they are ours if ours as a burden But theirs as their crowne and glory for which they fight as for a second Purgatory to uphold their Courts and Kitchins In the next place we propounded an objection framed by Bishop Andrewes and divers others from the inequality in the Ministery appointed by Christ himselfe betweene the twelve Apostles and the seventy Disciples To which wee answered First that it cannot be proved that the Apostles had any superiority over the seventy either of ordination or jurisdiction Sâ—condly suppose it could yet That superiority and inferiority betweene Officers of different kindes will not prove that there should be a superiority and inferiority betweene Officers of the same kinde To which you reply first That the Apostles ordained the Deacons that Paul laid hands on Timothy But this is no solution of the objection unlesse you can prove the Deacons and Timothy to have beene amongst the number of the seventy Disciples or Paul to have beene one of the twelve Apostles Secondly you answer That Bishops and Presbyters differ toto genere and are Offieers of different kind as much as the Apostles and the seventy Disciples Which is an assertion not onely contrary to the Fathers who accounted the Bishop to be but Primus Presbyter and as Hierome saith Vnum ex se electum celsiori gradu collocatum But also more unsound then most of the Papists who freely acknowledge that Presbyteratus is the highest order in the ministry and that Episcopacy is but a different degree of the same order and not a superior order from Presbyters An order may be reputed higher either because it hath intrinsecally an higher vertue or because it hath an higher degree of honour and dignity Now we deny not but the latter antiquity did by their Canons make Episcopacy an higher Order in regard of dignity and honour 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as a Councell speakes but did never account it an higher power by divine right This last branch the Remonstrant would faine prove if he could by an argument drawne from succession because saith he the Bishops succeed the Apostles and the Presbyters the seventy Disciples And we are challenged page 158. to shew whether ever any Father or Doctor of the Church till this present age held that Presbyters were the successors to the Apostles and not to the seventy Disciples rather But here is nothing in which the Remonstrant shewes more wilfull ignorance then in this For the ancient Fathers doe make the Presbyters successors of the Apostles as well as Bishops Thus Irenaeus liber 4. cap. 43 44. Quapropter eis qui in Ecclesiâ sunt Presbyteris obedire oportet his qui successionem habent ab Apostolis sicut ostendimus qui eum Episcopatus successione charisma veritatis certum secundum placitum patris acceperunt So also cap 44. and lib. 3. cap. 2. Thus also our Ierome as you call him in his Epistle ad Heliodorum Clerici dicuntur Apostolico gradâ—i successisse So Origen in Matth. 16. saith all Presbyters succeeded the Apostles in the power of the keyes And Ignatius ad Smyâ—nonses saith the same Yet still like as you say you have heard page 125. some beaten cocke you dare erow and tell your Reader that all antiquity hath acknowledged 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 three severall rankes in the Church Hierarchie But where will you begin your antiquity We say with the Father iâ— verum quod antiquissimum Shew us your three degrees in Scripture You confesse page 47. that these three orders are not there to be found We read in Scripture the Deacon to be a step to a Presbyter but not a Presbyter to a Bishop And wee deny that ever it was accounted in antiquity that a Bishop did ever differ from a Presbyter as a Presbyter from a Deacon For these differ Genere proximo No â—erint Diaconi se ad ministerium non ad sacerdotium vocari But a Bishop differs from a Presbyter as from one who hath that power of Priesthood no lesse than himselfe and therefore the difference betweene these Priests be circumstantiall and not so essentiall as betwixt the other Thus Bishops and Archbishops are divers orders of Bishops according to some Canons of the Church not that one excelled the other as a power of higher vertue but of higher dignity then the other Indeed of late yeeres Episcopacy hath beene a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to preferment and a ladder for all pious and conscientious men to be suspended upon as Mordecai upon Hamans gallowes but now is in danger to become like Hamans ladder their owne ruine and downe-fall Iam sumus ergo pares In your transition to your next Paragraph that you might disparage the opposets of the Hierarchicall Episcopacy by divine right you endeavour to make them the Disciples of none but Ierome But here in you cannot but know how injuriously you deale with them considering the numberlesse number of Authors both ancient and moderne that assert that which you would fasten upon him alone In the Paragraph it selfe you confesse what we undertooke to prove That the ancient Bishops and others differ in regard of their Accessories dignities titles and maintenance But onely whereas among other instances we told you of golden Chalices and wooden Priests You tell us That if in time we should see wooden Chalicer and wooden Priests we may thanke our selves Truely sir we may thanke you and not our selves for the Lordlinesse and in solent carriages of some Bishops under the great revenues and the multitude of wooden Priests
long agoe surely the bitternesse of death is past For when he was brought forth to be stoned hee was rescued by Prelaticall power and his Sermon for which he was questioned printed with licence and in print presented to the Consistory We know a third that in a Commencement did openly affirme Absolution by a Priest to be absolutely necessary to salvation Their Heaven we said was a receptacle of drunkards swearers adulterers and surely justly wee might say so for when did your Consistories that pretend to have the keyes that open and shut Heaven so shut the gates of Heaven against such sinners as that a silver key could not open them againe and though your charity keepe them in Heaven while they live such yet our charity shuts them not out of Heaven if they did not die such But it may be you thinke confession to a Priest when they lie a dying shall infallibly save them what ever their lives have beene and that 's the reason you slide by that prelaticall opinion and doe not question us who hold it We professe still wee had rather goe on in our owne waies then theirs and thinke it our duty to separate from these waies and opinions rather then embrace them yet farre we are from any thoughts of separating from the Church of England nor did we ever intend to affixe those exoticall positions of unsound teachers as you call them upon her but on the faction who hath held promoted countenanced them and sheltred themselves all the while under the name of the Church But if the Remonstrant hate these opinions as much as our selves we are glad if he know others doe because he speakes in the plurall it is well But wee would be glad to know in what Pallace that Prelate lives that hath drawne out his assumed sword of discipline against these unsound teachers Or if he hath drawne hath strucke or if strucke hath not strucke with the backe while the poore Non conformists hath beene slaine with the edge or where hee lives that hath opposed these exoticke positions so farre as to hazzard the Archprelates froune in the opposition Having given sufficient answer to the Remonstrant wee thought it not unfit to subjoyne some Quaeres about Episcopacy for the Remonstrant if he pleased to answer Which though he saith are made up of nothing but spite and slaunder yet surely his owne conscience tels him there is much truth and strength in them else why doth he conclude we put so much trust in them when we never told him so And why doth he not else apply himselfe to answer but like a Socraticall disputant put off the question with question knowing it is safer and easier to propound new questions then to answer ours 1. Your first Quere is who ever held the Lordships of Bishops to be jure Divivo if no body whether this be not to falsifie and slander you might have considered that we spake not of the Lordships of Bishops in abstracto but of Lordbishops in concreto And who holds them to be jure Divino is sufficiently knowne But you aske why it is a greater fault in one of our Doctours to hold the Lords day to stand by humane right and is there but one of our Doctors of that opinion then it is for Master Calvine whom for honours sake no doubt you name here as else where seldome through your whole defence mentioning that worthy but in some disgracefull passage But did Master Calvin ever hold Bishops to be jure Divino or did Master Calvine ever as one of our Lord-bishops who having received a letter from a Gentleman of his City against the publication of the Booke of sports returned no other answer then a sharpe censure of his zeale as giddy and indiscreet Or did Master Calvin ever cry up Altars instead of Communion Tables or Priests instead of Ministers yet in these termes our Quere was propounded and what ever Master Calvin doth in his institution yet in his Comment upon Deuteronomy hee stands for the strict observation of the Lords day 2. Whether it were any other than King Iames himselfe of blessed memory that said No Bishop no King c. King Iames of blessed memory never spake this of Bishops by divine right which are the Bishops now contended for And if King Iames of blessed memory said no Bishop no King it was not hee but others that added no Ceremony no Bishop nay some have risen higher and said if neither Bishop nor a King how a God 3. Whether since it is proved that Bishops are of more then meere humane ordinance and have so long continued in the Christian Church to the great good of Church and State it be not fit to establish them for ever and to avoyd a dangerous motion of innovation sure if the Remonstrants words may goe for proofe it is proved else not that Bishops are of more then humane ordinance and so long continuance and how advantagious to the good of Church and State Acta probant and though motions of innovation may be dangerous yet motions of Renovation are not Non est pudor ad meliora transire it s no shame to amend 4. Whether these Answerers have the wit or grace to understand the true meaning of the Divine right of Episcopacy We will not impute it to want of wit or grace in the Remonstrant but sure himselfe doth not clearely understand it hee is so unconstant to his opinions but whether the Remonstrant or his answerers understand the right of Episcopacy better let the Readers to whose censure both in this controversie must stand or fall determine for our parts wee hope wee understand what jus divinum meanes but doe ingenuously confesse we have neither wit nor grace to understand the jus divinum of Episcopacy 5. Whether there be any question at all in the fifth question yes certainely if the Remonstrant would not have baulked that which he knew not how to take away the distinction of Apostolicall right which say we is either such as is founded upon the Acts or Epistles of the Apostles and is we grant divine or such as is not recorded in their writings and is onely of things reported to be introduced into the Church the Apostles yet living Now if the Remonstrant hold Episcopacy to be of Apostolicall right in the first sence why doth he then grant us in expresse tearmes that in originall authority of Scripture Bishops and Presbyters are originally the samâ— and why doth he in the same page make his retreat from the writings of the Apostles to the monuments of succeeding times If he hold it in the latter sence these two things yet remaine to be done First he is to prove that Bishops in a superiority of power over Presbyters were introduced into the Church the Apostles yet living and answer his friend Cassander and our other testimonies produced to the contrary Secondly to prove that such things may be of Divine right whereof
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
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
no record is found in Divine writings 6. Whether Master Beza have not heard soundly of his distinction of the three kinds of Episcopacy in the full and learned answer of Soravia Yes and Soravia and others that have borrowed from him have heard as foundly of their defences of Episcopacy both by domesticke and forreine Divines who have sufficiently declared how well our story of the Painter suits with your Discipline but iâ— that please you not we can â—it you with an other of the Painter mentioned in Plutarch who having drawne a cocke very unskilfully and rudely could not indure any cocke to stand within view for feare of discovering the deformity of his picture So our Bishops having drawne a forme and line of government which they propose to the world as divine will not indure the true divine government to come in view for feare of discovering the irregularity of theirs 7. Whether it were not fit that we also should speake as the ancient Fathers did Sir by your leave it is safe to speake in the language the Scripture speakes but you should have done well to have spoken to the reason upon which our Quere was grounded and what further reasons we then had and still have to make this Quere may appeare by what wee have sayd before in vindicating Timothy and Titus from such like objections 8. Whether Presbyters can without sinne arrogate unto themselves the exercise of the power of publike Church-government c. to say nothing what honour here you give to your deare Sister-Churches Our answer is Yes they may take the exercise of that power without sinne though not without danger if your High-Commission were standing For our Saviour Christ when he gave to Peter the promise of the keyes made in one undistinguishable act a donation of the power both of preaching and governing and therefore if Presbyters may without sin publickly exercise the one by vertue of that donation they may by the same charter as warrantably exercise the other The last branch of your quere Whether any Father or Doctor till this age held that Presbyters were successors to the Apostles c. We wonder that any man who hath but the repute of learning shouldâ— make such a quere And for the answer we refer you to what we have said before in this booke 9. Whether ever any Bishops assumed to themselves power temporall to be Barons c. Our answer is You shew better writts for your temporalties then you have done yet for your spiritualties And our quaere was directed to shew the spirituall power of Bishops to be of more dangerous consequence then their temporall to which purpose we produced five reasons which wee perswade our selves you scarcely read over for in the third there is a fault in the printing which had you seene your charity would scarce have let passe without an observation which remaining unanswered wee conclude as before it concernes all those that have spirituall eyes to endeavour to abrogate their spirituall usurpationsâ— as well as their temporall As for the latter part of this Quere it is a begging of the whole dispute Et eadem facilitate rejicitur quâ affirmatur 10. Whether the answerers have not just cause to be ashamed of patronizing a noted hereticke Aerius c. To this we answer That if Aerius was accounted an heretique for denying Bishops to be all one with Presbyters by divine right we are not ashamed to patronize him till you have answered our allegations for his defence which are brought in this quere and in divers places in this Booke But you could not be so ignorant but to know how Bellarmine and divers others doe say That Aerius was accounted an hereticke not for denying the inequality of Bishops and Presbyters by Scripture but by the Canons of the Church But wee wonder how we escaped the brand of the heresie of the Audiani who by the same Epiphanius are called heretiques though men of a blamelesse conversation because they did not without just cause freely and boldly reprove the vices of the Bishops of their daies 11. Whether the great apostacy of the Church of Rome doe or did consist in the maintaining the order of government set by the Apostles themselves c. Sure no wee never sayd nor thought it But that a great part of the Apostacy of the Church of Rome consisted in swarving from the discipline of Christ and hiâ— Apostles as well as from the doctrine and setting up and maintaining a new Hierarchicall forme which cannot enter into our hearts to thinke the Apostles did ever set up and which the most part of the Churches in the Christian World that are professedly opposite unto the Church of Rome doe oppose as much as they doe Rome it selfe though you beare the Reader in hand they all maintaine it no lesse constantly then Rome it selfe doth which no man but he that hath captivated reason modesty to his cause and will would have so confidently and untruly spoken Once againe let us aske you whether by this bould speech all the reformed Churches of Christ be not now shut out of the number of Churches 12. Whether if Episcopacy be through the mâ—nificence of good Princes honoured with a title of dignity c. it to be ever the more declined Since the time that Episcopacy has bin honored with dignity and revenues the office hath not bin declined but the Bishops themselves haue bin declining Yet our Quere was not whether this were a ground of declining the place but rather of desiring the place As for our crying up the Presbytery because wee hope to carry some sway in it We acknowledge our selves unworthy to beare any part in it but we heartily desire that Christ may rule and wee shall most willingly subject our selves to his government 13. Whether there bee no other apparent causes to be given for the encrease of popery and superstition in the Kingdome besides Episcopacy which hath strongly laboured to oppose it c. We deny not but there may have bin other causes but none so apparant as Episcopacy But whereas in a parenthesis which you might well have left out without any detriment either to your sense or the truth you say that Episcopacy hath strongly laboured to oppose popery we answer Quid verba audimus cum facta videmus you aske againe whether the multitude of Sects you should have added which the tyranny of Bishops hath made And professed â—lovenlinesse in Gods service have not bin guilty of the encrease of prophanenesse We answer againe not so much as the forbidding of preaching and Catechising as the countenancing of sports on the Lords day as the scandalous lives of too too many episcopall men and the libertinisme of the Bishops houses and Courts 14. Your 14. Quere consists of a Paradox and a Solâ—cisme A Paradox in saying That all Churches throughout the whole Christian world have ever observed and doe constantly and uniformely obserue and maintaine Episcopall
required Haec omnia jamdudum sunt protrita profligata This was related to us by Doctor Twisse who had it from Doctor Rivet himselfe FINIS The Printer to the Reader Courteous Reader WE cannot but confesse that the crouding in of many little Pamphlets into the Presse hath for many weeks detained this Book to the great grief of the Authors Wee desire thee to correct with thy pen these following Errata and to cover the lesser faults with thy Charity PAge 12 line 11 dele more to be readâ—line 18 read â—r p 14 l 5 deest Although l 30 r obtain p 18 d Zanchy and Cassander out of the margeâ—t p 21 l 6 r â—nstructâ—oribus p 26 l 17 next appointed adde a hint thereof we have Acts 3. 1. p 18 l 17 r Presbâ—ters for Priests l 18 for not r once p 29 l 27 d because p 38 l 12 d for our part l 31 r time p 42 l pen. r Reformed Protestant Churches p 36 l 18 r Their. p 64 l 24 r Prebyterii p 74 l 30 At That make a comma p 81 l ult r Common p 84 r hasty p 86 l 15 r Contradiction p 92 l 25 for are r have been p 93 l 16 r admisimus p 96 l 14 r Leoâ— p 111 l 31 r proved p 112 l 27 r please p 113 l 18 r proofs for processe p 114 l â—6 for promise r. premâ—se p 115 l 21 for alone r along p 118 18 r office for worke p 126 l 24 make a comma at of p 127 l 21 r of for asâ— p 129 l 14 r Cappâ—llus p 132 l 29 to Dowahâ—m adde Episâ—opacie by Divine Right p 135 l 11 next to Thirdly adde is there p 136 l 26 adde The in the beginning of the line p 159 l 27 r Campian p 160 l 31 for we r you and for you r we p 174 l 11 dele particular p 176 l 6 dele Call Apol. pro Sancta Manic pag. 77. 95. Pag. 1â—3 Bone habet his inâ—â—bus non veâ—tuntur fortune Ecclesiae * A Gentleman student in Philosophy that was by chance present at the reading of this passage tooke such a fancy to this rare mystery of light froath sinking aloan that he would take no nay till he had entreated us to obtain so much of the Remonstrant as to publish his receit of making light froath sinke alone that it may be added to the Secrets of Alexis or the rare experiments of Baptista Porta 〈◊〉 25. Iust. Mart. Apolog 2. Tertull. Apol. cap. 39. 1 Cor. 14. Dictatas â—sacrificulo preces non concipimus sed ex ipsa sede Animi Spiritusque nostri cum suspiriis gemituque c. Nicholl Rigaâ—â— 1. C. in Tertull. Animad Apud Ethunicos Monitor praeibat preces ac de script quidem ne quid verborum praeteâ—iretur art praeposterum diceretur rursusque alius custâ—s erat qui attenderet alius qui linguis favere juberet The changing of orationes suaâ— in the text into orationes nostras in his margin is not over-much faithfulnesse 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 â—â—ssander Vnâ—m quidem scilicet primam silentio Quamvi 〈◊〉 haec precum aliaruÌ„ orationum conscribendarum privata â—bido imperitos homines usque adeo invasâ—rit ut necessum fuerit in Conciliis modum aliquem huic rei constitui ne temere quaeâ—is orationes in usum praesertim Ecclâ—siasticum admitteâ—â—tur Castand p. 30â— ubi cit Concâ— Carth. Milâ— Concil Milevit cont Caelest Pelag. The Seder Tephâ—llâ—th to which hee now refers being 700 yeers after Christ. Answ. pag. 8. De Emend Temâ— Commentis Samaritanis incrustatâ— Synag Iudaiea lib. 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Chrysost. Psal. 41 Quis tulerâ—s Gracâ—â—os We know the Apostles groâ—â—d this 〈◊〉 tolerate the Iewish Ceremonies a while but whâ—â— thâ—y saw the Iâ—ws remayning haâ—dâ—ed still they quickly purged the Church of them Among the rest Master Abbot whom we quoted â—n out answer but by a mistake it is referred to the fourth 〈◊〉 instead of this Har. Synod Belg. cap. 11. Caâ— 21. Minister preces vel dictante spiritu vel certa sibi proposâ—â—â forâ—ula concipiet Peracta coena haec gratiarum aut aliqua ei similis adhibetur This speech was spoken in the Lords house by a Noble Peere and had the approbation of many others Greg. l. 6. epist. 6 ep 64. Cam. 2. 17. Bether in Heb. is division Pocem Ecclesie Martyrio praeferimâ—â— Cypr. Pax sine veritate est execrabile adulterium Cyp. Pag. 35. Episc. by divine Right part 2. p. 6. Pag. 35. Pag 36. Bishop Hall saith expresly in Episcopacie by divine right p. 29. that Timothy was a Diocesan Bishop and Ephesus a Diocesan Church it seems you dare â—ot say so Episc. div Right 2 part p. 113. Episc. div Right part 2. p. 110 111. Pag. 39. Pag. 39. Pag. 40. Pag. 41. Pag. 42. Pag. 45. Catolog Test. verit Tom. 2. Tantum duos ordines ministrerum esse debere judicavit viz. Presbyteros Diaconos Wals. Hist. Aug. Rich. 2. p. 205. Fox Martyreâ— Catal. Test. T. 2. Silvest Giâ—ald in specim Eccles. li. 3. c. 1. 14. Balcent 3. c. 61. Math. Paris l. 4. Anno 960. Quod in novo Testamento nulla mentio facta est ullorum graduuÌ„ aut distâ—ncti onum in Ordinibus sed tantum Diaconorum vel Ministrorum PresbyteroruÌ„ sive EpiscoporuÌ„ Pag. 46. Pag. 128. Pag. 125. The Author of Episc. by divine Right affirmes the same part 2. pag. 49. Pag. 47. Pag 47. 48. Pag. 48. Pag. 48. Pag. 49. Irenaeus lib 4. cap. 44. Pag. 49. Ep. 19. Ep. 16. Answ. p 38. Bibl. Pat. Tâ—m 15â— 170 de Gcraeâ—o 〈◊〉 ratâ—r Liturgica Pag. 49. Pag. 49. So said Sâ—â—via of Hierom before Pag. 24. Fran. Sancta Clara. Apol. Epis. pag. 67. 68. Whit. Contr. aâ— Quaest. 5. 2 Iohn 10. 11. Pag. 50. Pag. 51. Pag. 51. Pag. 53. This Text is brought by a late Writer for Episcopacy to prove that as yet there were no bishops over Presbyters in the Church of the Apostles And for this purpose he brings Hirome upon the same text affirming the same thing Page 55. Page 55. Def. p. 56. Episcop by divine right part 2. p. 91. Can. Sardic can 6. Page 56. Beliar. de Script Eccles. Page 57. Def. 58. Ierom de Scriptoribus Eccles. Page 59. In his defence p. 125. Page 59. Iob 33. 23. Page 60. Def. p. 61. Down def 3. lib. cap. 4. pa. 80. Page 62. Page 62. Page 63. * Page 77. Page 64. Page 64. Epist. 11. 13. Rom. 11. 13. August contra Maxim Arian Episc. Lib. 3. August de verbo Ap. sec. 29. Page 65. Suidas tels us 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was a principall place 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 aliis studio est princeps locus he cals him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 qui primam tenet sedemet 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 est sedibus primis vel