his own intentions and satisfaction unto others he had exprest himself more fully as to this particular viz. whether the Superiority of such persons over such Presbyters in the Church Apostolique was fixed in them during life or that passed from one to another in their severall turns like the Mâ—deratorship in the generall Assembly of the Kirk of Scotland or the Chair-man in the Conferences and debates of Councell in the rest of the Calvinian Churches For if he mean in this last sense as I hope he doth not Episcopacy is no more beholding to him then it was to Beza who notwithstanding he maintained a party of Ministers without any fixed Superiority which one may claim above another yet he allows a moveable Presidency to be not unusuall nor unfrequent in the very times of the Apostles And yet that some such secret meaning may be gathered from him by such as have a minde to interpret all things to their own advantage will be made not improbable by his standing to this Proposition That there is no place in Holy Text wherein Presbyters import not Bishops and Bishops Presbyters Considering therefore that he still stands to his former Principle that Bishops and Presbyters in Scripture phrase are of equivalent import and denote the self same persons without the least distinction and requireth it of the Observator or of any man else 36. to tell him where such persons in Holy Text are distinguished so really that a Bishop doth not import a Presbyter and a Presbyter doth not import a Bishop I think my self as much concerned as the Observator to make answer to it First then say I that though those words may be sometimes though but rarely used promiscuously the word Presbyter denoting a Bishop and the word Bishop importing nothing but a Presbyter yet that more frequently and in other places they are used in a more limited and distinct sense as in times succeeding And 2. I say that the word Episcopus 1 Timothy 3. 2. and the description of a Bishop which is therein made is meant of a Bishop truly and properly so called according as the word was used and appropriated by the Antient writers and not appliable to the Presbyters or inferior Ministers For proof whereof I shall offer some few considerations out of the Text it self leaving them to the judgement of the sober and intelligent Reader And first St. Paul speaks of a Bishop in the singular number but of inferiour Ministers in the Plurall One Church or City though it had many Presbyters had one Bishop only And therefore we may reasonably conceive that the Apostle speaking of a Bishop in the singular number speaks of him in his proper and true capacity as one distinguished from and above the Presbyters 2. The Apostle seemeth to require in him an Act of Government as being a man that is to take care of the Church of God and thereupon gives order for an Inquisition to be had upon him whether he hath ruled his house well c. A charge of too transcendent and sublime a nature to be entrusted unto every common Presbyter or discharged by him who as our Hooker well observeth though he be somewhat better able to speak is as little able to judge as another man And if not fit to judge no fit man to govern 3. St. Paul requireth in a Bishop that he be given to Hospitality i. e. that he receive the Stranger entertain the Native and in a word admit all Comers Hierom doth so expound it saying that if a Lay-man entertain but two or three Hospitalitatis officium implebit he hath exceeding well complyed with all the Rules of Hospitality Episcopus nist omnes receperit inhumanus est but that the Bâ—shop is accounted a Churle or Niggard if his House be not open unto all Which howsoever it might possibly agree in those antient times to the Condition of a Bishop who had the keeping and disposing of the Churches Treasures yet I can see no possibility how it could be expected from the Presbyters that out of his poor pittance from the sportula he should be able to perform it For I believe not that the Lord intended to work miracles daily as in the lengthning and increasing the poor womans oyle Fourthly and lastly it is required by St Paul that his Bishop must not be neophytus a novice as our English reads it and exceeding rightly that is as Chrysostom and out of him Theophylact expound the word one newly Catechized as it were lately instructed in the Faith Now who knoweth not but that in the beginnings of the Church some of these new plants these Neophyti must of necessity be taken into holy orders for the increase and propagation of the Gospel The Presbyters were many but the Bishops few And therefore howsoever there must be found sufficient Standards upon the which to graffe a Bishop yet I can hardly finde a possibility of furnishing the Garden of the Church with a fit number of Presbyters unless we take them from the Nurserie It then it be demanded whether St. Paul hath utterly omitted to speak of Presbyters I answer no but that we have them in the next Paragraphe Diacones similiter which why it should not comprehend the Presbyters and all inferior Ministers under the degree of Bishops I can see no reason there being no qualification requisite in or to the Presbyter which is not found in the Apostles Character of these Diaconi And though the word in our last translation be rendred Deacons yet in our old translation and in that of Coverdale we read it Ministers according to the generall and native meaning of the same An exposition neither new nor forced Not new for Calvin doth acknowledge alios ad Presbyteros referre Episcopo inferiores that some referred those words to Presbyters subordinate or inferiour to the Bishop Not forced for if we search the Scriptures we shall there perceive that generally Diaconus is rendred Ministers and that not only in the Gospel before that Deacons had been instituted in the Church of God but also in St. Pauls Epistles after the planting of the Church when all the Officers therein had their bounds and limits Thus Tychicus is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a faithful Minister Eph. 6. 26. and Col. 4. 7. and so is Epaphras entituled Col. 1. 7 c. And hereunto I shall further add that I can see no convincing reason why the Episcopi and Deacons or the Bishops and Deacons mentioned in the first words of St. Pauls Epistle to the Philippians may not be understood of the Bishops properly so called of Philippi and the bordering Cities and of the Presbyters or inferiour Ministers under their authority Not to say any thing of the Subscription of the Epistle to Titus and the 2. to Timothy in which the word Bishop is taken in this proper and limited sense because whatsoever opinion I have of them the Pamphleter perhaps may not think them to be authentick
necessary which some say he doth either they must accuse him of much inconstancy and forgetfulnesse or else interpret him with Rivet In Decalog as speaking of an Ecclesiastical custome not to be neglected non de necessitate legis divinae and not of any obligation layed upon us by the Law of God Neither is he the only one that hath so determined Simler in Exod. 20. hath said it more expresly Quod dies una cultui divino consecratur ex lege naturae est quod autem haec sit septima non octava nona aut decima juris est divini sed ceremonialis That one day should be set apart for Gods publick worship is the Law of nature but that this day should be the seventh and not the eighth ninth or tenth was not of divine appointment but ceremonial Aretius Loc. 55 also in his common places distinguished between the substance of the Sabbath and the time thereof The substance of it which was rest and the works of piety being in all times to continue tempus autem ut septimo die observetur hoc non fuit necessarium in Ecclesia Christi but for the time to keep it on the seventh day alwaies that was not necessary in the Church of Christ So also Francisc Gomarus that great undertaker against Arminius in a book written purposely De origine institutione Sabbati affirms for certain that it can neither be made good by the Law of Nature or Text of Scripture or any solid argument drawn from thence unum è septem diebus ex vi praecepti quarti ad cultum Dei necessario observandum that by the fourth Commandement one day in seven is of necessity to be dedicated to Gods service And Rivet as profest an enemy of the Remonstrants though for the antiquity of the Sabbath he differeth from the said Gomarus yet he agreeth with him in this not only making the observance of one day in seven to be meerly positive as in our first part we observed but laies it down for the received opinion of most of the reformed Divines Vnum ex septem diebus non esse necessario eligendum ex vi praecâ—pti ad sacros conventus celebrandos in Exod. 20. p. 190. the very same with what Gomarus affirmed before So lastly for the Lutheran Churches Chemnitius makes it part of our Christian Liberty quod nec sint allegati nec debeant alligari ad certorum vel dierum vel temporum observationes opinione necessitatis in Novo Testamento c. That men are neither bound nor ought to be unto the observation of any daies or times as matters necessary under the Gospel of our Saviour Though otherwise he account it for a barbarous folly not to observe that day with all due solemnity which hath for so long time been kept by the Church of God Therefore in his opinion also the keeping of one day in seven is neither any moral part of the fourth Commandement or parcel of the Law of Nature As for the subtle shift of Amesius Medull Theolog l. 2. 15. finding that keeping holy one day in seven is positive indeed sed immutabilis plane institutionis but such a positive Law as is absolutely immutable doth as much oblige as those which in themselves are plainly natural and moral it may then serve when there is nothing else to help us For that a positive Law should be immutable in it self and in its own nature be as universally binding as the moral Law is such a piece of learning and of contradiction as never was put up to shew in these latter times But he had learnt his lirry in England here and durst not broach it but by halves amongst the Hollanders 7 For the next Thesis that the Lords day is not founded on divine Commandement but the Authority of the Church it is a point so universally resolved on as no one thing more And first we will begin with Calvin who tels us Institut l. 2. c. 8. n. 3. how it was not without good reason that those of old appointed the Lords day as we call â—it to supply the place of the Jewish Sabbath Non sine delectu Dominicum quem vocamus diem veteres in locum Sabbati subrogarunt as his words there are Where none I hope will think that he would give our Saviour Christ or his Apostles such a short come off as to include them in the name of Veteres only which makes it plain that he conceived it not to be their appointment Bucer resolves the point more clearly in Mat. 12. Communi Christianorum consensu Dominicum diem publicis Ecclesiae conventibus ac requieti publicae dicatum esse ipso statim Apostolorum tempore viz. That in the Apostles times the Lords day by the common consent of Christian people was dedicated unto publick rest and the Assemblies of the Church And Peter Martyr upon a question asked why the old seventh day was not kept in the Christian Church makes answer That upon that day and on all the rest we ought to rest from our own works the works of sin Sed quod is magis quam ille eligatur ad externum Dei cultum liberum fuit Ecclesiae per Christum ut id consuleret quod ex re magis judicaret nec illa pessime judicavit c. in Gen. 2. That this was rather chose then that for Gods publick service that saith he Christ left totally unto the liberty of the Church to do therein what should seem most expedient and that the Church did very well in that she did prefer the memory of the Resurrection before the memory of the Creation These two I have the rather thus joyned together as being sent for into England in King Edwards time and placed by the Protector in the Universities the better to establish Reformation at that time begun and doubt we not but that they taught the self-same Doctrine if at the least they touched at all upon that point with that now extant in their writings At the same time with them lived Bullinger and Gualter two great learned men Of these the first informs us Hunc diem loco Sabbaâ—i in memoriam resurgentis Domini delegisse sibi Ecclesias in Apoc. 1. That in memorial of our Saviours Resurrection the Church set apart this day in the Sabbaths stead whereon to hold their solemn and religious meetings And after Sponte receperunt Ecclesiae illam diem non legimus eam ullibi praeceptam That of their own accord and by their own authority the Church made choice thereof for the use aforesaid it being no where to be found that it was commanded Gualter in Act. Apost Hom. 13 more generally that the Christians first assembled on the Sabbath day as being then most famous and so most in use But when the Churches were augmented Proximus à Sabbato dies rebus sacris destinatus the next day after the Sabbath was designed to those holy uses If not before then
certainly not so commanded by our Saviour Christ and if designed only then not enjoyned by the Apostles Yea Beza though herein he differ from his Master Calvin and makes the Lords day meetings Apostolicae verae divinae traditionis Apoc. 1. 10. to be indeed of Apostolical and divine tradition yet being a tradition only although Apostolical it is no commandement And more then that he tels us in another place in Act 20. that from St. Pauls preaching at Troas and from the Text 1 Cor. 16. 2. Non inepte colligi it may be gathered not unfitly that then the Christians were accustomed to meet that day the ceremony of the Jewish Sabbath beginning by degrees to vanish But sure the custome of the people makes no divine traditions and such conclusions as not unfitly may be gathered from the Text are not Text it self Others there be who attribute the changing of the day to the Apostles not to their precept but their practise So Mercer in Gen. Apostoli in Dominicum converterunt the Apostles changed the Sabbath to the Lords day Paraeus attributes the same Apostolicae Ecclesiae unto the Apostolical Church or Church in the Apostles times Quomodo autem facta sit haec mutatio in Sacris literis expressum non habemus but how by what authority such a change was made is not delivered as he confesseth in the Scripture And John Cuchlinus in Thesib pag. 733. though he call it consuetudinem Apostolicam an Apostolical custome yet he is peremptory that the Apostles gave no such commandment Apostolos praeceptum reliquisse constanter negamus S. Simler de Festis Chr. p. 24 cals it only consuetudinem tempore Apostolorum recâ—ptam a custome taken up in the Apostles time And so Hospinian Although saith he it be apparent that the Lords day was celebrated in the place of the Jewish Sabbath even in the times of the Apostles Non invenitur tamen vel Apostolos vel alios Lege aliqua Praecepto observationem ejus instituisse yet finde we not that either they or any other did institute the keeping of the same by any Law or Precept but left it free Thus Zanchius in 4. praecept Nullibi legimus Apostolos c. We do not read saith he that the Apostles commanded any to observe this Day we only read what they and others did upon it Liberum ergo reliquerunt which is an argument that they left it to the Churches power To those adde Vrsin in his Exposition on the fourth Commandment in Catech. Palat. Liberum Ecclesiae reliquit alios dies eligere that it is left unto the Church to make choice of any day and that the Church made choice of this in honour of our Saviours Resurrection and so Aretius in his common places Christiani in Dominicum transtulerunt that by the Christian people the Sabbath was translated to the Lords day Gomarus and Ryvet in the Tracts before remembred have determined further viz. That in the choosing of this day the Church did exercise as well her wisdome as her freedome her freedome being not obligâ—d to any day by the Law of God her wisdome Ne majori mutatione Judaeos offenderet that by so small an alteration she might the lesse offend the Jewes who were then considerable As for the Lutheran Divines it is affirmed by Dr. Bound That for the most part they ascribe too much unto the liberty of the Church in appointing daies for the assembly of the people which is plain confession But for particulars Brentius as Dr. Prideaux tels us cals it Civilem institutionem a civil institutionem and no Commandement of the Gospel which is no more indeed then what is elsewhere said by Calvin when he accounts no otherwise thereof then ut remedium retinendo ordini necessarium as a fit way to retain order in the Church And sure I am Chemnitius tels us that the Apostles did not impose the keeping of this day as necessary upon the consciences of Gods people by any Law or Precept whatsoever sed libera fuit observatio ordinis gratia but that for orders sake it had been voluntarily used amongst them of their own accord 8 Thus have we proved by the Doctrine of the Protestants of what side soeever and those of greatest credit in their several Churches eighteen by name and all the Lutherans in general of the same opinion That the Lords day is of no other institution then the Authority of the Church which proved the last of the three Theses That still the Church hath power to change the day and to transfer it to some other will follow of it self on the former grounds the Protestant Doctors before remembred in saying that the Church did institute the Lords day as we see they do confessing tacitely that still the Church hath power to change it Nor do they tacitely confesse it as if they were affraid to speak it out but some of them in plain terms affirm it as a certain truth Zuinglius the first reformer of the Switzers hath resolved it so in his discourse against one Valentine Gentilis a new Arrian Heretick Tom. 1. p. 254. a. Audi mi Valentine quibus modis rationibus Sabbatum Ceremoniale reddatur Hearken now Valentine by what waies and means the Sabbath may be made a Ceremony if either we observe that day which the Jewes once did or think the Lords day so affixed to any time ut nefas sit illum in aliud tempus transferre that we conceive it an impiety it should be changed unto another on which as well as upon that we may not rest from labour and hearken to the word of God if perhaps such necessity should be this would indeed make it become a Ceremony Nothing can be more plain then this yet Calvin is as plain when he professeth That he regarded not so much the number of seven ut ejus servituti Ecclesias astringeret as to enthral the Church unto it Sure I am Doctor Prideaux in Orat. de Sab. reckoneth him as one of them who teach us that the Church hath power to change the day and to transfer it to some other And that John Barclaie makes report how once he had a consultation de transferenda Dominica in Feriam quintam of altering the Lords day unto the Thursday Bucer affirmes as much as touching the Authority And so doth Bullinger and Brentius Vrsine and Chemnitius as Doctor Prideaux hath observed Of Bullinger Bucer Brentius I have nought to say because the places are not cited but take it as I think I may upon his credit But for Chemnitius he saith often that it is libera observatio a voluntary observation that it is an especial part of our Christian liberty not to be tyed to daies and times in matters which concern Gods service and that the Apostles made it manifest by their example Singulis diebus vel quocunque die That every day or any day may by the Church be set apart for Religious Exercises And
as for Vrsine he makes this difference between the Lords day and the Sabbath Catech qu. 103. 2. That it was utterly unlawful to the Jewes either to neglect or change the Sabbath without expresse commandment from God himself as being a ceremonial part of divine worship but for the Christian Church that may design the first or second or any other day to Gods publick service so that our Christian liberty be not thereby infringed or any opinion of necessity or holinesse affixt unto them Ecolesia vero Christiana primum vel alium diem tribuit Ministerio salva sua libertate sine opinione cultus vel necessitatis as his words there are To these adde Dietericus a Lutheran Divine who though he makes the keeping of one day in seven to be the Moral part of the fourth Commandment yet for that day it may be Dies Sabbati or Dies Solis or Quicunque alius Sunday or Saturday or any other be it one in seven Som. 17. post Trinit And so Hospinian is perswaded Dominicum diem mutare in alium transferre licet c. That if the occasions of the Church do so require the Lords day may be changed unto any other provided it be one of seven and that the change be so transacted that it produce no scandal or confusion in the Church of God Nay by the Doctrine of the Helvetian Churches every particular Church may destinate what day they please to Religious Meetings to publick prayers Preaching the Word and Ministring the Sacraments For so they gave it up in their confession cap. 2. Deligit ergo quaevis Ecclesia sibi certum tempus ad preces publicas Evangelii praedicationem nec non Sacramentorum celebrationem And howsoever for their own parts they kept that day which had been set apart for those holy uses even from the time of the Apostles yet that they conceived it free to keep the Lords day or the Sabbath Sed Dominicum non Sabbatum libera observatione celebramus Some Sectaries since the Reformation have gone further yet and would have had all daies alike as unto their use all equally to be regarded And reckoned that the Lords day as the Church continued it was a Jewish Ordinance thwarting the Doctrine of S. Paul who seemed to them to abrogate the difference of daies which the Church retained This was the fancie or the frenzie rather of the Anabaptist taking the hint perhaps from something which had formerly been delivered by some wiser men and after them of the Swinckfieldian and the Familist as in the times before of the Petro-Brusians and if Waldensis wrong him not of Wicklef also By this it will appear that the Doctor had no reason to forge and falsifie Pareus as the Pamphleter saith he did when the whole current of Protestant and reformed Divines do affirm that point for which Paraeus is produced A greater vindication needs not in a case so clear and sooner had this vindication been made if this foul charge had sooner come unto his ears The Pamphleter findes fault with the Observator in that he did not viva voâ—e by conference or by letters hint those mistakes to him which were found in his History as fit considerations for a second impression Fol. 44. The Dr. findes the same fault in him by whom he stands accused of forging and falsifying a Record and thinks it would have represented him to be a man of more Christian yea moral principles to have given him a private admonition touching that mistake if it prove such upon the search of all Editions then lay so soul a charge upon him in so great a controversie By this it also will appear 1. That in the judgement of the Protestant Divines the sanctifying one day in seven is not the moral part of the 4. Commandement 2. That the Lords day hath no other ground on which to stand then the Authority of the Church And 3. That the Church hath power to change the day and to transfer it to some other Crack me these nuts my most learned sir and when you have broke your teeth about them as I doubt you will throw me your never-yet-answered piece of 640. and if the Doctors eyes and leisure will not serve to do it 't is ten to one but I will finde some friend or other that shall kick you an Answer CHAP. V. Our Authors opinion touching the Divine right of Episcopacy and his intention doubted in it Bishops and Presbyters not alwayes of equivalent import in Holy Scripture Proofs that the word Bishop in the first of Tim. c. 3. is taken properly and restrictively drawn 1. From the word there used in the singular number 2. From his fitness for Government 3. From the Hospitality required in him And 4. From his being no Novice but of longer standing in the Church Presbyters there included under the name Diaconi more properly in that place to be rendred Ministers The like acceptions of the word in other places Proofs that the Author speakes his own opinion under that of others 1. From the word Asserted which is here explained 2. From some passages in the published and unpublished sheets 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not rendred Senior as the Pamphleter would fain have it in all learned Authors The word Presbyter fitter to be used then Elder in our English Translations Mr. Selden no good friend to Bishops and the reason why The reason why King Charles his Testimony in behalf of Episcopacy was not produced by the Observator The Pamphleters rage for being said to make Episcopacy but a thing of indifferency That so he must be understood proved from the History it self and the weak arguments brought by the Pamphleter to the contrary An Answer to those Arguments HAving thus vindicated the Declarations of the two Kings about lawfull Sports satisfied the objections of the Pamphleter and cleared the Dr. from the forgings and falsifyings so maliciously imputed to him and therewithall layed down the true state of the Controversie touching the Lords day out of the writings of the most learned men of the Protestant and reformed Churches it is high time we should proceed to the rest that follows and free the Bishops and their Actions from those odious Calumnies which are charged upon them Our Author fol. 36. and 37. hath not unhandsomely stated the whole point of Episcopacy ascribing a Divine Right to it and thinks it as demonstrable out of Scriptures as any thing whatsoever not fundamentall That there was a Prelacy or Superiority of some one over other Presbyters within some certain Walks and Precincts that this Superiority was appointed by the very Apostles to be exemplary and to give law to succeeding times Concerning which and many other good expressions which follow after I may justly say as Bellarmine did of Calvin in another Case viz. Vtinam sic semper errasset would he had never erred otherwise then he doth in this Only I could have wished that for the better clearing of
Next that the word Presbyter is used sometimes in the same strict and limited sense as it denotes a person inferiour to the Bishop and subject unto his authority aud jurisdiction appeareth plainly by that Text in the first of Timothy c. 5. v. 19 20. where it is said Adversus Presbyterum accusationem noli recipere c. Against a Presbyter and Elder as our English reads it receive not an accusation but before two or three witnesses But if they be convicted them that sin rebuke before all that others also may fear In the declaring of which power I take for granted that the Apostle here by Elder doth mean a Presbyter according to the Ecclesiastical notion of that word though I know that Chrysostom and aâ—ter him Theopbylact and Oecumenius do take it only â—or a man well grown in years And then the meaning of St. Paul will be briefly this that partly in regard of the Devils malice apt to calumniate men of that holy â—unction and partly to avoid the scandal which may thence arise Timothy and in him all other Bishops should be very cautious in their proceedings against men of that Profession But if they finde them guilty on examination then not to smother or conceal the matter but censure and rebuke them openly that others may take heed of the like offences The Commentaries under the name of Ambrose do expound it so Quoniam non facile credi debet Presbytero crimen c. because a crime or accusation is not to be credited against a Presbyter yet if the same prove manifest and undeniable St. Paul commandeth that in regard of his irregular conversation he be rebuked and censured publiquely that others may be thereby terrified And saith he non solum ordinatis sed plebi proficit will not be only profitable unto men in Orders but to Lay people alâ—o Herewith agreeth as to the making of these Elders to be men in Orders the Comment upon that Epistle aâ—cribed to Jerome Presbyters then are subject unto censure but to whose censure are they subject not unto one another surely that would breed conâ—usion but to the censure of their Bishop See to the same purpose also Epiphanius adversus Haeres 75. n. 5. and Theophylact upon the place not to say any thing of Lyra and some others of a later standing And in this limited sense I understand those Presbyters ordained by St. Paul in many of the Churches of his Plantations whom we finde mentioned in the Acts some of which he afterwards made Bishops and over other placed such Bishops as he thought most fit Thus having satisfied our Author in telling him where Presbyters import not Bishops and Bishops Presbyters we next proceed to answer those objections which are made against the Observator And first it is objected that our Author doth not at all deliver his own opinion in this particular but what many did then assert fol. 35. To which I answer First that our Author puts the opinion down so savourly and with such advantages as any man would easily take it for his own or at the least that he himself was also of the same opinion This not improbably to be gathered from the word assered which plainly intimates that those many whom he speaks of did not only affirm or say that Bishops and Presbyters in Scripture phrase were of equivalent import c. but had proved it too For thus be understands the word in another place where speaking of the Bishop of Lincolne he telleth us that he published a Book asserting positively that the holy Table was to stand in Gremio or Nave of the Quire fol. 137. By which if he means only a bare affirming of the thing it then signifies nothing and concludes as little to his purpose For the word Assero if he be critick enough to understand the true meaning of it not only signifieth simply to affirm or say but to confirm that affirmation and make good that saying Once for all take this out of Ovid in his Metamor lib. 1. At tu si modo sum coelesti stirpe creatus Ede notam tanti generis meque assere Coele That is to say But if I be descended from above By some known signe make good my birth from Jove 2. Though he tells us that if the Observator had not been an ill looking fellow he might with half an eye have discerned that he doth not at all deliver his own opinion in this particular But I have a bird in a corner which singeth the contrary For fol. 137. of the printed but unpublished papers it is said expresly that the truth contended for touching the right on which the Hierarchy was founded was as his late Majesty hath no man better sufficiently demonstrated to be awarded to the Prelates which speaks more plainly for Episcopacy then the reservedness of your last expressions which in your Pamphlet you have given us for your full sense in this Controversie enough you say to satisfie Spirits of the most modest and sober temper Fol. 37. But in the Book as it comes published to our hands these words are totally left out which shews as plainly that you have either altered your opinion if you ever were of that opinion or else for fear of offending the weak Brethren dare not own it now What meaneth else this bleating of the Sheep in mine ears and the lowing of the Oxe which I hear as you know who said that is to say your placing Episcopacy amongst those things of indifferency for the establishing whereof to exact an Oath was as you say Hist fol. 185. an affâ—ont to the very fundamentals of Government your positive declration that the truth contended for between the Bishops and those of the Puritans party lay then so deep as few had perspicacity enough to discern ti f. 185. adding in your unpublished sheets that in the generality of votes the Bishops were much worsted in that Contest which layes a greater prejudice upon them then you found them in your quarrels with the Observator for disproving the Identity or sameness of Name of Ordination of Office c. which is affirmed to be in Presbyters and Bishops without any distinction telling him that his Arguments are nothing ad rem and clear besides the cushion fol. 36. which layed together make up a clearer and fuller evidence that you are but half Episcopall and the worst half too then all the fine flourishes you have given us in the present Pamphlet can perswade to the contrary Your next quarrel with the Observator is a meer 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a strife and quarrell about words because forsooth he doth not like that the word Presbyter when it signifieth one in Holy Orders should be rendred Elder To which the Pamphleter objects that all Latine Expositors and Greek Lexicons translate 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Senior fol. 25. What all Expositors all without exception so I hear you say and so you must be thought to mean too