by the name of one Angel then of many We often finde the name of one Prophet or Priest to be put for the general body of the Ministery or whole multitude or Prophets or Priests in the Church of Israel or Iudah when the Spirit of God intendeth to reprove threaten or admonish them Thus it is Iere. 6.13.18.19 Isa. 3.2 Hos. 9.8 Ezek. 7.26 Hos. 4 6. Mal. 2.7 Neither should it seem strange that a multitude or company of Ministers should be understood under the name of one Angel seeing a multitude of Heavenly Angels imployed in one service for the good of Gods Saints is sometimes in the Scripture shut up under one Angel in the singular number as may be gathered from Gen. 14.7 2 Kings 19.35 Psal 34.7 compared with Psal. 91.11 Gen. 32.1 2. Kings 6.16 17. And also a multitude of Devils or evil Angels jointly labouring in any one work is set forth under the name of one evil or unclean spirit 1 Kings 22.21 22. Mark 1.23 24. Mark 5.2.9 Luke 4.33.34 Luk. 8.27.30 1 Pet. 5.8 Heb. 2.14 Ephes. 6.11.12 But now let us suppose which yet notwithstanding we will not grant that the word Angel is taken individually for one particular person as Doctor Reynolds seems to interpret it together with Master Beza yet neverthelessâ— there will nothing follow out of this acception that will any ways make for the upholding of a Diocesan Bishop with sole power of Ordination and Jurisdiction as a distinct Superior to Presbyters And this appears First because it never was yet proved nor ever will as we conceive that these Angels were Diocesan Bishops considering that Parishes were not divided into Diocesses in S. Iohns days And the seven Stars are said to be fixed in their seven Candlesticks or Churches not one Star over divers Candlesticks Neither can those Churches be thought to be Diocesan when not onely Tindal and the old translation calls them seven Congregations but we read also Acts 20. that at Ephesus which was one of those Candlesticks there was but one flock And secondly we further finde that in Ephesus one of those seven Churches there were many Presbyters which are all called Bishops Acts 20.28 and we finde no colour of any superintendency or superiority of one Bishop over another To them in general the Church is committed to be fed by them without any respect had to Timothy who stood at his Elbow and had been with him in Macedonia and was now waiting upon him to Jerusalem This is also confirmed by Epiphanius who writing of the Heresies of the Miletians saith that in ancient times this was peculiar to Alexandria that it had but one Bishop whereas other Cities had two And he being Bishop of Cypres might well be acquainted with the condition of the Churches of Asia which were so nigh unto him Thirdly there is nothing said in the seven Epistles that implyeth any superiority or majority of rule or power that these Angels had over the other Angels that were joyned with them in their Churches It is written indeed in commendation of the Angel of the Church of Ephesus that he could not beare them that were evil and that he had tryed them which say they were Apostles and are not and had found them lyers And it is spoken in dispraise of the Angel of Pergamus that he suffered them which hâ—ld the Doctrine of Balaam c. But these things are common duties requirable at the hands of all Ministers who have the charge of souls But suppose that there were some superiority and prehemenency insinuated by this individual Angel yet who knoweth not that there are diverse kinds of superiority to wit of Order of Dignity of Gifts and Parts or in degree of Ministery or in charge of power and jurisdiction And how will it be proved that this Angel if he had a superiority had any more then a superiority of Order or of Gifts and Parts Where it is said that this Angel was a superior degree or order of Ministery above Presbyters In which Epistle is it said that this Angel had sole power of Ordination and Jurisdiction And therefore as our learned Protestants prove against the Papists that where Christ directed his speech to Peter in particular and said I will give unto thee the Keys of the kingdom of Heaven c. That this particularization of Peter did not import any singular preheminence or majority of power to Peter more then to the other Apostles But that though the promise was made to Peter yet it was made to him in the name of all the rest and given to all as well as one And that therefore it was spoken to one person and not to all that so Christ might fore-signifie the unity of his Church as Cyprian Austin Hierome Optatus and others say So when Christ directs an Epistle to one Angel it doth not imply a superior power over his fellow-Angels but at most only a presidency for order sake And that which is written to him is written to the rest as well as to him And therefore written to one not to exclude the rest but to denote the unity that ought to be between the Ministers of the same Church in their common care and diligence to their flock And this is all that Doctor Reynolds saith as you may read in his conference with Hart cap. 4. divis 3. ad finem For it is evident that Doctor Reynolds was an utter enemy to the Ius Divinum of the Episcopal preheminency over Presbyters by his Letter to Sir Francis Knolls And learned Master Beza also saith something to the same purpose in his Annotations upon Revel 2.1 Angelo i. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 quem nimirum oporuit imprimis de his rebus admoneri ac per eum caeteros collegas totamque adeo Ecclesiam Sed hinc statui Episcopalis ille gradus postea humanitus in Ecclesiam Dei invectus certe nec potest nec debet imo ne perpetuum quidem istud 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 munus esse necessario oportuisse sicut exorta inde Tyrannis Oligarchica cujus apex est Antichristiana bestia certissima cum totius non Ecclesiae modo sed etiam orbis pernicie nunc tandem declarat If therefore our Remonstrant can produce no better evidence for his Hierarchy then Timothy and Titus and the Angels of the Asian Churches Let not this Remonstrant and his party cry out of wrong if this claimed Hierarchy be for ever booted out of the church seeing it is his owne Option And yet we cannot conceale one refuge more out of Scripture to which the Hierarchy betake themselves for shelter And that is the two Postscripts in the end of Pauls second Epistle to Timothy and of that to Titus where in the one Timothy is said to be the first Bishop of Ephesus and in the other Titus is said to be the first Bishop of the Church of the Cretians to both which places wee answer That these two Postscrips and so
and publique punishment they have deserved But what if pious Constantine in his tender care to prevent the Divisions that the emulation of the Bishops of that age enraged with a spirit of envie and faction were kindling in the Church leâ—t by that meanes the Christian Faith should be derided among the Heathens did suppresse their mutuall accusations many of whiâ—h might be but upon surmises and that â—ot in a Court of Iustice bâ—t in an Ecclesiasticall Synode shall this be urged before the highest Court of Iustice upon earth to the patronizing of Nâ—toriouâ— scandallâ— and hatefull enâ—rmities that are already proved by evidence of cleâ—â—e witnesse But â—o forbid it to tell it in Gaâ—h c. What the sin â—as that is done already Do we not know the drukennesse profanenesse superstition Popishnesse of the English Clergie rings at Rome already yes undoubtedly and there is no way to vindicate the Honour of our Nation Ministery Parliaments Sovereigne Religion God but by causing the punishment to ring as farre as the sin hath done that our adversaries that have triumphed in their sin may be confounded at their punishments Do not your Honours know that the plaistring or palliating of these rotten members will be a greater dishonour to the Nation and Church then their cutting off and that the personall acts of these sonnes of Belial being connived at become Nationall sins But for this one fact of Constantine we humbly crave your Honours leave to present to your wisdome three Texts of Scripture Ezek 44.12.13 Because they ministred unto them before their â—dolâ— and caused the house of Israel to fall into iniquity therefore have I lift up my hand unto them saith the Lord and they shall beare their iniquity And they shall not come neere unto me to do the Office of a Priest unto me nor to come neere unto any of mine holy things in the most holy place c. The second is Ierâ—m 48.10 Cursed be he that doth the work of the Lord negligently and the third is Iudges 6.31 He that will plead for Baal let him be put to death while it is yet morning We have no more to say in this whether it be best to walk after the President of Man or the Prescript of God your Hunours can easily judge SECT XVII BUt stay saith this Remonstrant and indeed he might well have stayed and spared the labour of his ensuing discourse about the Church of England the Prelaticall and the Antiprelaticall Church but these Episcopall Men deale as the Papists that dazle the eyes and astonish the senses of poor people with the glorious name of the Church the Church The holy Mother the Church This is the Gorgons head as Doctor White saith that hath inchanted them held them in bondage to theâ—r Errors All their speech is of the Church the Church no mention of the Scriptures of God the Father but all of the Mother the Church Much like as they write of certain Aethiopians that by reason they use no marriage but promiscuously company together the children only follow the Mother the Father and his name is in no request but the mother hath all the reputation So is it with the Author of this Remonstrance he stiles himself a Dutifull son of the Church And it hath beene a Custome of late times to cry up the holy Mother the Church of England to call for absolute obedience to holy Church full conformity to the orders of holy Church Neglecting in the meane time God the Father and the holy Scripture But if we should now demand of them what they meane by the Church of England this Author seemes to be thunder-stricken at this Question and calls the very Question a new Divinity where he deales like such as holding great revenues by unjust Titles will not suffer their Titles to be called in Question For it is apparent Ac si solaribus radiis descriptum esset to use Tertullians phrase that the word Church is an Equivocall word and hath as many severall acceptions as letters and that Dolus latet in universalibus And that by the Church of England first by some of these men is meant onely the Bishops or rather the two Archbishops or more properly the Archbishop of Canterbury Just as the Iesuited Papists resolve the Church and all the glorious Titles of it into the Pope so do these into the Archbishop or at fullest they understand it of the Bishops and their party met in Convocation as the more ingenuous of the Papists make the Pope and his Cardinals to be their Church thus excluding all the Christian people and Presbyters of the Kingdome as not worthy to be reckoned in the number of the Church And which is more strange this Author in his Simplicity as he truly saith never heard nor thought of any more Churches of England then one and what then shall become of his Diocesan Churches and Diocesan Bishops And what shall we think of England when it was an Heptarchy had it not then seven Churches when seven Kings Or if the Bounds of a Kingdome must constitute the Limits and Bounds of a Church why are not â—ngland Scotland and Ireland all one Church when they are happily united under one gracious Monarch into one Kingdom We read in Scripture of the Churches of Iudea and the Churches of Galatia and why not the Churches of England not that we denie the Consâ—ciatiâ—n or Combination of Churches into a Provinciall or Nationall Synod for the right ordering of them But that there should be no Church in England but a Nationall Church this is that which thâ—s â—mbâ—r â—o his simplicity affirmes of which the very rehearsall is a 〈◊〉 SECT XVIII THere are yet two things with which this Remonstrance shuts up it self which must not be past without our Obelisks First he scoffs at the Antiprelatical Church and the Antiprelatical Divisions for our parts we acknowledge no Antiprelatical Church But there are a company of men in the Kingdom of no mean rank or quality for Piety Nobility Learning that stand up to bear witness against the Hierarchie as it now stands their usurpations over Gods Church and Ministers their cruel using of Gods people by their tyrannical government this we acknowledge and if he call these the Antiprelatical Church we doubt not but your Honours will consider that there are many thousands in this Kingdom and those pious and worthy persons that thus do and upon most just cause It was a speech of Erasmus of Luther Vt quisque vir est optimus it is illius Scriptis minimè offendi The better any man was the less offence he took at Luthers Writings but we may say the contrary of the Prelates Ut quisque vir est optimus it à illorum factis magis offendi The better any man is the more he is offended at their dealings And all that can be objected against this party will be like that in Tertullian Bonus vir Cajus Sejus
SMECTYMNUUS REDIVIVUS BEING An Answer to a Book entituled AN HUMBLE REMONSTRANCE In which The Originall of LITURGY EPISCOPACY is discussed And Quaeres propounded concerning both The PARITY of Bishops and Presbyters in Scripture Demonstrated The occasion of their IMPARITY in Antiquity discovered The DISPARITY of the Ancient and our Moderne Bishops manifested The ANTIQUITY of ruling Elders in the Church vindicated The PRELATICALL Church Bounded JEREMY 6.16 Thus saith the Lord stand in the wayes and behold and aske for the Old way which is the way and walk therein Tertul. de praescr adv haeres Id Dominicum verum quod prius traditum id autem extraneum falsum quod sit posterius LONDON Printed by T. C. for Iohn Rothwell at the Fountaine and Beare in Goldsmiths-row in Cheapside 1654. TO THE READER Good Reader SOlomon told us long since that there is no end of many books Eccles. 12.12 Scripturiency it seemeth is no novell humour but abounded then even when the means of transmitting knowledge was more difficult if there were cause for the complaint then there is much more now since the Presse hath helped the Penne every one will be scribling and so better bookes are neglected and lie like a few grains of Corn under an heap of Chaffe and dust usually books are received as fashions the newest not the best and most profitable are most in esteem in so much that really learned and sober men have been afraid to publish their labours lest they should divert the world from reading the usefull works of others that wrote before them I remember Dr. Altingius a terse and neat spirit stood out the battery of twenty years importunity and would not yield to divulge any thing upon this fear Certainly Reader 't is for thy profit sometimes to look back and consult with them that first laboured in the mines of knowledge and not alwaies to take up with what commeth next to hand In this controversie of Discipline many have written but not all with a like judgement and strength which I believe hath been no small rock of offence and stone of stumbling to the adversaries who are hardned with nothing so much as a weak defence of the truth as Austin complaineth that when he was a Manichee he had had too too often the victory put into his hands by the defences of weak and unskilfull Christians This work which the Stationer hath now revived that it may not be forgotten and like a Jewel after once shewing shut up in the Cabinet of private studies only was penned by severall worthy Divines of great note and fame in the Churches of Christ under the borrowed and covert name of SMECTYMNUUS which was some matter of scorn and exception to the adversaries as the Papists objected to Calvin his printing his Institutions under the name of Alcuinus and to Bucer his naming himself Aretius Felinus though all this without ground and reason the affixion of the name to any work being a thing indifferent for there we should not consider so much the Author as the matter and not who said it but what and the assumption of another name not being infamous but where it is done out of deceit and to anothers prejudice or out of shame because of guilt or feare to own the truths which they should establish I suppose the reverend Authours were willing to lie hid under this ONOMASTICK partly that their work might not be received with prejudice the faction against which they dealt arrogating to themselves a Monopoly of Learning and condemning all others as ignorants and novices not worthy to be heard and partly that they might not burden their Frontispiece with a voluminous nomenclature it not being usuall to affix so many names at length to one Treatise For the work it self it speaketh its own praise and is now once more subjected to thy censure and judgement This second publication of it was occasioned by another book for vindication of the Ministery by the Provinciall Assembly of London wherein there are frequent appeals to Smectymnuus though otherwise I should have judged the reprinting seasonable for the Lord hath now returned us to such a juncture of time wherein there is greater freedom of debate without noyse and vulgar prejudice and certainly if the quarrell of Episcopacy were once cleared and brought to an issue we should not be so much in the dark in other parts of Discipline the conviction of an errour by solid grounds being the best way to finde out the truth reformations carried on with popular tumult rather then rationall conviction seldom end well though the judgement of God be to be observed in powring contempt upon those which are partiall in his law yet the improvident leapes which a people are wont to make upon such occasions lay the foundation of a lasting mischiefe I hope that by the review of these matters we shall come to know more of the Lords counsell for the ordering of his house or at least that by weighing what may be said on all sides we shall learn more to truth it in love which is the unfeined desire of him who is Thine in the Lord THO. MANTON Newington June 23. 1653. Most Honourable Lords And ye the Knights Citizens and Burgesses of the Honourable House of COMMONS ALthough we doubt not but that book which was lately directed to your Honours bearing the name of an Humble Remonstrance hath had accesse unto your presence and is in the first approaches of it discovered by your discerning spirits to be neither Humble nor a Remonstrance but a heap of confident and ungrounded assertions so that to your Honours a Reply may seem superfluous Yet left the Authour should glory in our silence as a granting of the cause we humbly crave your Honours leave to present not so much to your selves as to the world by your hands a view of this Remonstrance in which the Authour after too large a Preface undertakes the support of two things which seem to him to be threatned with danger of a present precipice the Liturgie and the Hierarchy It was a constitution of those admired sons of Justice the Areopagi that such as pleaded before them should plead without prefacing and without passion had your Honours made such a constitution this Remonstrance must have been banished from the face of your Assembly for the Preface fils almost a fourth part of the book and the rest swels with so many passionate Rhetorications as it is harder for us in the multitude of his words to finde what his argument is that we have to answer then to answer it when it is found We would not trace him in his words but close immediately with his arguments did we not finde in him a sad exemplification of that divine Axiome in Multitudine verbâ—rum non deest peccatum in the multitude of words there wants not sin for though the Author is bold to call upon your Honours to heare the
words of truth and confidence yet how little truth there is in his great confidence the ensuing discourse shall discover His very words are confident enough and yet as false as confident wherein he Impropriates all honesty unto these his Papers and brands all others with the name of Libellers and yet himselfe sinnes deeply against the rule of honesty and lies naked to the scourge of his own censure First in setting a brand upon all writings that have lately issued from the presse as if they had forgotten to speak any other language then Libellous it seems himselfe had forgotten that some things had issued by authority of the King and Parliament Secondly in taxing implicitely all such as wil not own this Remonstrance for theirs as none of the peaceable and wel-affected Sons of the Church of England Thirdly in censuring the way of petitioning your Honours the ancient and ordinary free way of seeking redresse of our evils for a Tumultuary under-hand way Fourthly in condemning all such as are not fautors of this Episcopal Cause as none of his Majesties good Subjects engrossing that praise onely to his own party saying The eyes of us the good Subjects of this whole Realme are fixed upon your Successe c. Fifthly in Impropriating to the same party the praise of Orthodox pag. 6. as if to speak a word or think a thought against Episcopacy were no lesse Heresie then it was in former time to speak against the Popes supremacy or the monkes fat belly whereas whether the Episcopall part be the Orthodox peaceable wel-affected part and his Majesties only good Subjects we leave to your Honours to Judge upon the numerous informations that flow in unto you from the several parts of this Kingdome Nor can they decline your Judgement seeing now you are through Gods blessing happily met in a much longed for Parliament but whither so much longed for by him and his accomplices as by those against whom he whets his Style the prayers that have obtained this happy meeting and the praises that doe attend it will decide in that great day The Helena whose Champion this Remonstrant chiefely is is that Government which he calls Sacred viz. that Government by Arch-Bishops Bishops Deanes Archdeacons c. which saith he through the sides of some misliked persons some have endeavoured to wound Misliked Persons and why not offending persons why not guilty persons when this Honourable house hath found just cause to charge some of them with crimes of the highest nature Our zeale for your Honours makes us feare lest your assembly should suffer in this word as if your proceedings against such persons should be grounded upon compliance with such as doe mislike them rather then upon their own demerits or the Justice of this Court But whatever those Persons be the Government it self is Sacred which by the joynt confession of all reformed Divines derives it self from the times of the blessed Apostles without any interruption without contradiction of any one congregation in the world unto this present age This is but an Episcopall Bravado therefore we let it passe till we come to close and contend with him in the point where we shall demonstrate that in the compasse of three lines he hath packt up as many untruths as could be smoothly couched in so few words as any man of common understanding that lookes upon the face of the Government of almost all reformed Churches in the Christian world may at first view discover But before we come to this there are yet two things in this Preface which we count not unworthy observation The First is the comparison which he makes between the two Governments the Civil which with us is Monarchy and the sacred which with him is Episcopaey Of the first he saith if Antiquity may be the Rule as he pleades it for Episcopacy or if Scripture as he interprets Scripture it is VARIABLE and ARBITRARY but the other DIVINE and VNALTERABLE so that had men petitioned for the altering of Monarchicall Government they had in his Judgement been lesse culpable both by Scripture and Antiquity then in petitioning the alteration of the Hierarchicall Had he found but any such passage in any of his Lewd Libellers as his modesty is alwayes pleased to terme them certainly if we may borrow his own phrase the eares of the three Interessed Kingdomes yea all the neigbbour Churches and if we may say the whole Christian world and no small part beyond it had run with the loud cryes of no lesse then Treason Treason Truth is in his Antiquity we finde that this his uninterrupted sacred Government hath so farre invaded the Civil and so yoked Monarchy even in this Kingdome as Malmesbury reports That William Rufus oppressed by Bishops perswaded the Jewes to confute them promising thereupon to turne England to their Religion that he might be free of Bishops And this is so natural an effect of unalterable Episcopacy that Pius the fourth to the Spanish Embassador importuning him to permit Bishops to be declared by the Councel of Trent to be Iure Divino gave this answer That his King knew not what he did desire for if Bishops should be so declared they would be all exempted from his Power and as independent as the Pope himself The second thing observable is the comparison he makes between the late Alterations attempted in our Neighbour Church by his Episcopal faction and that Alteration that is now justly desired by the humble Petitioners to this Honourable House The one being attempted by strangers endeavoring violently to obtrude Innovations upon a setled Church and State The other humbly petitioned to the Heads and Princes of our State by Multitudes therein almost ruined by an Innovating Faction yet doth not this Remonstrant blush to say if these be branded so he calls the just censures of this Honourable House for Incendiaries how shall these Boutefeux escape c. thus cunningly indeavouring either to justifie the former by the practise of the latter or to render the latter more odious then the former The attempts of these men whom he would thus render odious he craves leave to present to your Honours in two things which are the subjects of this quarrel The Liturgy and Episcopacy and we humbly crave your Honours leave in both to answer SECT II. FIrst the Liturgy of the Church of England saith he hath been hitherto esteemed sacred reverently used by holy Martyrs daily frequented by devout Protestants as that which more then once hath been confirmed by the Edicts of religious Princes and your own Parliamentary Acts c. And hath it so whence then proceed these many Additions and Alterations that have so changed the face and fabrick of the Liturgy that as Dr. Hall spake once of the pride of England if our fore-fathers should revive and see their daughters walking in Cheapside with their fannes and farthingales c. they would wonder what
kinde of creatures they were and say Nature had forgot her self and brought forth a monster so if these holy Martyrs that once so reverently used the Liturgy should revive and look for their Letany stampt by Authority of Parliament they would be amazed and wondering say England had forgotten her self and brought forth c. Martyrs what doe we speak of Martyrs when we know Sir that one of your own Bishops said it in the hearing of many not so long since but you may well remember it That the Service of the Church of England was now so drest that if the Pope should come and see it he would claime it as his own but that it is in English It is little then to the advantage of your cause that you tell us it is translated into other languages and as little service have they done to the Church of England who have taught our Prayers to speak Latine again For if it be their Language chiefly that overthrows the Popes claime take away that and what hinders then but the Pope may say these are mine As for other Translations and the great applause it hath obtained from forraigne Divines which are the fumes this Remonstrant venditates what late dayes have produced we know not but the great lights of Former ages have been farre from this applauding we are sure judicious Calvin saith that in the Liturgy there are sundry Tolerabiles Ineptiae which we think is no very great applause To vindicate this Liturgy from scorne as he calls it at home or by your Honours aide to reinforce it upon the Nation is the work of his Remonstrance for the effecting whereof he falls into an unparallell'd discourse about the Antiquity of Liturgies we call it unparalleld because no man that we have seen ever drew the line of Liturgy so high as he hath done Concerning which if by Liturgy this Remonstrant understand an Order observed in Church assemblies of Praying reading and expounding the Scriptures Administring Sacraments c Such a Liturgy we know and doe acknowledge both Iews and Christians have used But if by Liturgy he understand prescribed and stinted formes of Administration Composed by some particular men in the Church and imposed upon all the rest as this he must understand or else all he saith is nothing we desire and expect that those formes which he saith are yet extant and ready to be produced might once appeare Liturgy of this former sort we finde in Iustine Martyr and Tertullian But that there were not such stinted Liturgies as this Remonstrant disputes for appeares by Tertullian in his Apol. Cap. 30. where he saith the Christians of those times did in their publike assemblies pray sinâ— monitore quia de pectore without any Prompter but their own hearts And that so it should be the same Father proves in his Treatise de Oratione Sunt quae petantar c. There are some things to be asked according to the occasions of every man the lawfull and ordinary prayer that is the Lords prayer being laid as a foundation It is lawfull to build upon that foundation other prayers according to every ones occasions And to the same purpose St. Austin in his 121. Ep. liberum est c. it is free to aske the same things that are desired in the Lords Prayer aliis atque aliis verbis sometimes one way and sometimes another And before this in that famous place of Iust. Mar. Apo. 2. He who instructed the peeple prayed according to his ability Nor was this liberty in prayer taken away and set and imposed formes introduced untill the time that the Arian and Pelagian Heresies did invade the Church and then because those Hereticks did convey and spread their poyson in their formes of Prayer and Hymnes the Church thought it convenient to restraine the liberty of making and using publique forms And first it ordained that none should pray pro Arbitrio sed semper eaedem preces that none should use liberty to vary in prayer but use alwaies the same forme Conc. Laod. Can. 18. yet this was a forme of his own composing as appears by another Canon wherein it was ordered thus None should use any forme unlesse he had first conferred Cum fratribus instructioribus with the more learned of his brethren Conc. Carth. 3â— Can. 23. and lastly that none should use set prayers but such as were approved of in a Synode which was not determined till the yeare 416. Conc. Milev 2. Can. 12. And had there been any Liturgies of Times of the first and most venerable antiquity producible the great admirers of them and enquirers after them would have presented them to the world ere this We know that Bishop Andrewes in his zeale for Liturgies pursued the enquiry after the Iewish Liturgy so far that he thought he had found it and one there was which he sent to Cambridge to be translated but there it was soon discovered to have been made long after the Jewes ceased to be the Church of God and so himself supprest it that it never saw the light under a translation We wonder therefore what this Remonstrant meant to affirm so confidently that part of the forme of prayer which was composed by our blessed Saviour was borrowed from the formes of prayer formerly used by Gods people An opinion we never met before indeed we have read that the Rabbines since the dayes of our Saviour have borrowed some expressions from that Prayer and from other Evangelical passages But we never read till now that the Lord Christ the wisdome of the Father borrowed from the Wisdome of the Rabines expressions to use in Prayer And as much we wonder by what Revelation or Tradition Scripture being silent in the thing he knew that Peter and Iohn when they went up to the Temple to pray their Prayer was not of a sudden and extemporary conception but of a Regular prescription Sure we are some as well read in Iewish antiquity as this Remonstrant shewes himself to be have told us that the houre of Prayer was the time when the Priest burnt Incense and the people were at their private prayers without as appeares Luke 1.9 where we read that while Zachary the Priest went in to offer Incense all the people stood with out praying in the time of the Oblation Which Prayers were so far from being Prescript Formes or Liturgies that they were not vocal but mental Prayers as Master Meade tells us in his exposition upon the eighth of the Revelations And whatever Peter and Iohn did this we know that when the Publican and the Pharisee went up to the Temple to pray as the Apostle did at the houre of prayer their prayer was not of Regular prescription but of a present Conception But if this Remonstrant be in the right concerning the Jewish Liturgies then the Evangelical Church might better have improved her peace and happinesse then in composing Models of
book prescribes Responsories to be said by the people some of which are unsutable to what the Minister pronounceth some of them seem to savour of Tautology some are made to be so essential to the prayer as that all which the Minister saith is no prayer without them as in the Letany Because it is so much Idolized as that it is accounted the only worship of God in England and is now made the upholder of a non-preaching Ministry and is cryed up to that height as that some are not ashamed to say that the wit of men and Angels cannot mend it and that it is a sufficient discharge of the Ministers duty to read this Book There are such multitudes of people that distaste this book that unlesse it be altered there is no hope of any mutual agreement between Gods Ministers and their people There is such a vast difference between it and the Liturgies of all other reformed Churches as that it keepes them at a distance from us and us from full Communion with them QUERE II. Whether the first reformers of Religion did ever intend the use of a Liturgy further then to be an help in the want or to the weaknesse of a Minister All other reformed Churches though they use Liturgies yet doe no binde their Ministers to the use of them A Rubrick in King Edwards book left it unto the discretion of the Minister what and how much to read when there was a Sermon The Homilies which are appointed to be read are left free either to be read or not by preaching Ministers and why not then theLiturgy especially considering that the ability to offer up the peoples wants to God in prayer is part of the Ministerial office as well as preaching And if it can be thought no lesse then sacriledge to rob the people of the Ministers gift in preaching and to tye them to Homilies it can be no lesse to deprive them of their gift in prayer The ground of the first binding of it upon all to use was not to tye godly men from exercising their gift in prayer but the old Popish Priests that by a seeming returne to our Religion did through indulgence retaine their places from returning to the old Masse That which makes many refuse to be present at our Church service is not onely the Liturgy it self but the imposing of it upon Ministers And we finde no way to recover our people to a stinted prayer but by leaving it free to use or not to use If it be objected that this will breed divisions and disturbances in Churches unlesse there be a uniformity and that there are many unable It hath not bred any disturbance in other reformed Churches Why should the free liberty of using or not using a Liturgy breed more confusion then the free liberty of reading or not reading Homilies especially when Ministers shall teach people not to condemne one another in things indifferent If there be a care taken in those that have the power to make Ministers to choose men gifted as well for prayer as preaching there cannot be conceived how any inconvenience should follow Or if afterwards it should appeare that any Minister should prove insufficient to discharge the duty of prayer in a conceived way it may be imposed on him as a punishment to use set forms and no other But why any Minister that hath the gift of prayer in an abundant measure as well as of preaching should be hindered from exercising his gift well because another useth it ill is a new Divinity never heard of in Gods Church till Bishop Wrens dayes who forbad all use of conceived prayer in the Church SECT III. WE come now with your Honours favour to the second point disputed in this Remonstrance Episcopacy it selfe against which whatsoever hath been either spoken or written by any either learned Divines or well-reformed Churches as his conscience knows there are of both that have writ against it is Taxed by him as no other then the unjust Clamors either of weak or factious persons Sure the man thinkes he hath obtained a Monopoly of learning and all Knowledge is lockt up in his bosome and not onely Knowledge but piety and peaceablenesse too for all that are not of his opinion must suffer either as weak or factious if he may be their Judge We know not what this Arrogancy might attempt to fasten upon your Honours should the bowels of your compassion be enlarged to weigh in the Ballance of your wisedomes the multitude of Humble petitions presented to you from several parts of this Kingdome that hath long groaned under the Iron and Insupportable yoake of this Episcopal Government which yet we doubt not but your Honours will please to take into your prudent and pious consideration Especially knowing it is their continual practise to loade with the odious names of Faction all that justly complaine of their unjust oppression In his addresse to his defence of Episcopacy he makes an unhappy confession that he is confounded in himselfe Your Honours may in this believe him for he that reades this remonstrance may easily observe so many falsities and contradictions though presented to publike view with a face of confident boldnesse as could not fall from the Pen of any but self-confounded man which though we doubt not but your Honours have descryed yet because they are hid from an errant and unobserving eye under the Embroyderies of a silken Language we Humbly crave your Honours leave to put them one by one upon the file that the world may see what credit is to be given to the bold assertions of this confident Remonstrant First in his second page he dubs his book the faithful messenger of all the peaceable and right affected sons of the Church of England which words besides that unchristian Theta which as we already observed they set upon all that are not of his party carry in the bowels of them a notorious falsity and contradiction to the phrase of the book for how could this book be the mâ—ssâ—nger of all his own party in England when it is not to be imagined that all could know of the coming forth of this book before it was published and how can that book crave admittance in all their names that speakes in the singular number and as in the person of one man almost tht whole book thorow But it may be some will say this is but a small slip well be it so but in the seventh page he layes it on in four lines asserting these four things First that Episcopall Government that very same Episcopal Government which some he saith seeke to wound that is Government by Diocesan Bishops derives it self from the Apostles times which though we shall 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 more fully confute anon yet we cannot here but rank it among his notorious for how could there be such Government of a Diocesse by a Bishop derived from the Apostles times when
in the Apostles times there were no Bishops distinct from Presbyters as we shall shew and if there had been Bishops yet they were no Diocesans for it was a hundred yeares after Christ or as most agree 260. before Parishes were distinguished and there must be a distinction of Parishes before there could be an union of them into Diocesses Secondly it is by the joynt confession of all reformed Divines granted that this sacred Government is derived from the Apostles What all reformed Divines was Calvin Beza Iunius c. of that minde Are the reformed Churches of France Scotland Netherlands of that Judgement we shall shew anon that there is no more truth in this Assertion then if he had said with Anaxagoras snow is black or with Copernicus tho Earth moves and the Heavens stand stil. Thirdly he saith this Government hath continued without any interruption What doth he meane at Rome for we reade in some places of the world this Government was never known for many yeares together as in Scotland we read that in Ancient times the Scots were instructed in the Christian faith by Priests and Monkes and were without Bishops 290. yeares yea to come to England we would desire to know of this Remonstrant whether God had a Church in England in Q. Maries dayes or no and if so who were then the Bishops of this Church for some there must be if it be true that this man saith this Government hath continued without any interruption unto this day and Bishops then we know not where to finde but in the line of Popish succession Fourthly he saith it hath thus continued without the contradiction of any one Congregation in the Christian world It seemes he hath forgotten what their own darling Heylin hath written of the people of Biscay in Spaine that they admit of no Bishops to come among them for when Ferdinand the Catholike came in progresse accompanied among others with the Bishop of Pampelone the people rose up in Armes drove back the Bishop and gathering up all the dust which they thought he had trode on flung it into the Sea Which story had it been recorded onely by him would have been of lighter Credit But we reade the same in the Spanish Chronicle who saith more then the Doctor for he tels us that the People threw that dust that the Bishop or his Mule had trode on into the Sea with Curses and Imprecations which certainly saith he was not done without some Mystery those people not being voide of Religion but superstitiously devout as the rest of the Spaniards are so that there is one Congregation in the Christian world in which this Government hath met with contradiction And are not the French Scottish and Belgick Churches worthy to be counted Christian Congregations and who knowes not that amongst these this Government hath met not onely with verbal but reall contradiction Yet he cannot leave his But within two pages is at it againe and tels us of an unquestionable clearenesse wherein it hath been from the Apostles derived to us how unquestionable when the many volumes written about it witnesse to the world and to his conscience it hath been as much questioned as any point almost in our Religion And that assertion of his that tels us that the people of God had a forme of prayer as ancient as Moses which was constantly practised to the Apostles dayes and by the Apostles c. though we have shewed how bold and false this assertion is yet we mention it here as deserving to be put into the Catalogue And that he may not seem Contra mentem ire but to be of the same minde still p. 18. he saith Episcopal Government hath continued in this Island ever since the first plantation of the Gospel without contradiction Had he taken a lesse space of time and said but since the resuscitation of the Gospel we can prove it to him and shall that since the reformation Episcopacy hath been more contradicted then ever the Papacy was before the extirpation of it Yet still the man runs on thinking to get credit to his untruths by their multiplications for pag. 21. he saith Certainly except all Histories all Authors faile us nothing can be more certaine then this truth Os Durum Nothing more certaine what is it not more certain that there is a God is it not more certain that Christ is God and man is it not more certain that Christ is the only Saviour of the world Nothing more certain must this thâ—n be an Article of our Creed the corner stone of our Religion must this be of necessity to Salvation Nothing more certain O that men should not onely forget themselves but God also and in their zeale for their own Honour utter words bordering upon Blasphemy Indignation will not suffer us to prosecute these falsities of his any further we will leave this displeasing service onely retorting the words of this Remonstrant upon himself Surely could he look with our eyes or any eyes that were not partial he would see cause to be throughly ashamed of these his grosse injurious miscarriages and should be forced to confesse that never good cause if cause be good had more reason to complaine of a sinful prosecution SECT IV. WE will now come with your Honours patience to weigh whether there be any more strength in his arguments then there is truth in his assertions His Plea for Episcopacy consists of two parts In the first he brings arguments for the supporting of it In the second he undertakes to answer the objections that may be made against it His first argument for it is couched in these words Were this Ordinance meerly Humane or Ecclesiastical if there câ—uld no more be said for it but that it is exceeding Ancient of more then 15. hundred years c. The strength of which argument lies in this that they have been in peaceable possession of this government fifteen hundered years and upwards and in this Island ever since the Gospel without contradiction In which words he speaks two things which deserve just câ—nsure First that the Hierarchical Government hath continued for fifteen hundred years therefore should not now be altered which may well be called as Hierom in another Case Argumentum Galeatum an Argument calculated for the Meridian of Episcopacy and may indifferently serve for all Religions in the World For thus the Jews might have pleaded against Christ the Antiquity of more then so many hundred years and thus the Heathens did plead against the Christian Religion which Iustin Martyr in his Apology answers And by this Argument the Pope sits as fast rivetted in his chayre at Rome as ours in theirs whose Plea for Antiquity runs parallel with theirs It is a good observation of Cyprian that Christ said Ego sum via veritas vita not Ego sum consuetudo and that Consuetudo sine veritate est vetustas erroris Christ is
Truth and not Custome and Custome withou Truth is a mouldy error and as Sir Francis Bacon saith Antiquity without Truth is a Cypher without a Figure Yet had this Remonstrant been as well versed in Antiquity as he would bear the world in hand he hath he might have found Learned Ancients affirming there was a Time when the Church was not governed by Bishops but by Presbyters And when by Bishops he might further have seen more affinity between our Bishops and the Pope of Rome then between the Primitive Bishops and them And that as King Iames of famous memory said of the Religion of England that it differed no more from Rome then Rome did from what it was at first may as truly be said of Bishops that we differ no more from them then they do from what Bishops were when first they were raised unto this eminency which difference we shall shew in our ensuing Discourse to be so great that as he said of Rome he did Roman in Roma quaerere he sought Rome in Rome so wee Episcopatum in Episcopatu may go seek for a Bishop among all our Bishops And whereas in his application of this Argument to the Bishops of this Nation he saith It hath continued in this Island ever since the first plantation of the Gospel without contradiction which is his Second in this Argument How false this is we have declared already and we all know and himselfe cannot but know that there is no one thing since the râ—formation that hath met with so much Contradiction as Episcopacy hath done witness the several Books written in the Reigns of our several Princes and the many Petitions exhibited to our several Parliaments and the many speeches made therein againg Episcopal Government many of which are yet extant As for that supply of Accessory strength which he begs to this Argument from the light of nature and the rules of just policy which saith he teacheth us not easily to give way to the change of those things which long use and many Laws have firmly established as Necessary and Beneficial it is evident that those things which to former Ages have seemed Necessary and Beneficial may to succeeding Generations prove not Necessary but Noxious not Beneficial but Burthensome And then the same light of nature and the same just policy that did at the first command the establishment of them may and will perswade their Abolishment if not either our Parliaments must never Repeale any of their former Acts which yet they have justly and wisely done or else in so doing must run Counter to the light of nature and the Rules of just policy which to think were an impiety to be punished by the Judge SECT V. THe Second Argument for the defence of Episcopal Government is from the Pedigree of this holy Calling which he derives from no less then an Apostolical and in that right divine institution and assayes to prove it from the practice of the Apostles and as he saith the clear practice of their Successors continued i' Christs Church to this very day And to this Argument he so much confides that he concludes it with this Triumphant Epiphonema What scruple can remain in any ingenuous heart And determins if any continue yet unsatisfied it is in despight of reason and all evidence of History and because he wilfully shuts his eyes with a purpose not to see the light Bona verba By your favour Sir we will tell you notwithstanding the supposed strength of your argumentation there is one scruple yet remaining and if you would know upon what ground it is this because we find in Scripture which by your own confession is Oâ—iginal Authority that Bishops and Presbyters were Originally the same though afterwards they came to be distinguished and in process of time Episcopacy did swallow up all the honor and power of the Presbytery as Pharaoh's lean Kine did the fat Their Identity is discernable first from the same names given unto both secondly from the same office designed unto both in Scripture As for the names are not the same names given unto both in Sacred Writ Let the fifth sixth and seventh verses of the first Chapter to Titus testifie in the fifth verse the Apostle shews that he left Titus in Creet to ordain Elders in every City in the sixth verse he gives a delineation of the persons that are capable of such Ordination and in the seventh the Reason why the person to be ordained must be so qualified for a Bishop c. Now if the Bishop and Elder be not here the same but names of distinct office and order the Apostles reason rendred in the seventh verse of his direction in the fifth and sixth verses is with reverence be it spoken inconsequential and his demand unjust If a Chancellor in one of the Universities should give order to his Vice-Chancellor to admit none to the degree of Batchelour in Arts but such as were able to preach or keep a Divinity Act For Batchelours in Divinity must be so what reason or equity were in this So if Paul leaving Titus as his Lecum tenens as it were in Creet for a season should give order to him not to admit any to be an Elder but one thus and thus qualified because a Bishop must be so had a Bishop been an Order or Calling distinct from or superior to a Presbyteâ— and not the same this had been no more rational or equal then the former therefore under the name of Bishop in the seventh verse the Apostle intends the Elder mentioned in the fifth verse Consonant to this is the Language of the same Apostle Acts. 20. v. 17.18 where such as in 17. verse he calls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Elders in the 18. he calls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in ordinary English Bishops though our Translation there we know not for what reason reads it Overseers not so rendring the word in any other Text. And though this Remonstrant undertakes to shew a clear and received distinction of Bishops Presbyters Deacons as three distinct subordinate Callings in Gods Church with an evident specification of the duty charge belonging to each of them or else let this claimed Hierarchy be for ever hooted out of the Church Yet let us tell him that we never find in Scripture these three Orders Bishops Presbyters and Deacons mentioned together but onely Bishops and Deacons as Phil. 1. and 1. Tim. Nor do we find in Scripture any Ordination to the office of a Bishop differing from the Ordination of an Elder Nor do we find in Scripture the specification of any Duty charged upon a Bishop that Elders are secluded from Nor any qualification required in a Bishop that is not requisite in every Presbyter some of whâ—ch if not all would be found were they not the same But if this Remonstrant think to help himselfe by taking Sanctuary in Antiquity though we would gladly rest in Scripture the Sanctuary of
the Lord yet we will follow him thither and there shew him that Hierome from the Scriptures proves more then once Presbyters and Bishops to be the same And Chrysostome in Philip. 1. Homil. 2. with his admirer Theophilact in Philip. 1. affirms that while the Apostles lived the names of Bishops and Presbyters were not distinguished and not onely while the Apostles lived but in after ages Doth not Irenaeus use the name of Bishops and Presbyters 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in a promiscuous sense Are not Anicetus Pius Hyginus Telesphorus Sixtus whom the Papists call Bishops and the Popes predecessors termed by Eusebius Presbyters Nor was it strange in the Primitive times to hear Bishops called Presbyters when Presbyters writing to their Bishop have called him Frater So Cyprian Epist. 26. in the beginning is stiled by his Presbyters Deacons and Confessors nor was that holy Martyr offended with that title nor they condemned of insolency that used it But what should we burthen your patience with more testimonies when the evidence of this truth hath shined with so strong a beam that even our Adversaries have stooped to it and confessed that their Names were the same in the Apostles time But yet say they the Offices were distinct Now here we would gladly know what these men make the distinct Office of a Bishop Is it to edifie the Church by Word and Sacrament is it to ordain others to that work is it to rule to govern by admonition and other censures if any of these if all these make up the proper worke of a Bishop we can prove from Scripture that all these belong unto the Presbytery which is no more then was granted by a Councel For the first Edifying of the Church by word and Sacraments though we feare they will some of them at least scarce own this as their proper worke for some have been cited into the High Commissision for saying it belongs to them yet Sir we are sure Scripture makes it a part a chiefe of the Episcopal office for so in the 1 Pet. 5.2 they are said to doe the work of a Bishop when they do feed the flock of God And this is such a work as we hope their Lordships will give the poor Presbyters leave to share with them in or if not we will tell them that the Apostle Peter in that forecited place and the Apostle Paul Acts. 20. binds this work upon our hands and Woe unto us if we preach not the Gospel But this branch of Episcopal and Presbyterial office we passe with brevity because in this there lies not so much controversie as in the next which they doe more wholly Impropriate to themselves the power of Ordination Which power that it was in former times in the hands of Presbyters appeares 1 Tim. 4.14 Neglect not the gift which was given thee by Prophesie and by the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery The gift here spoken of is the Ministerial gift the exercise whereof the Apostle exhorts Timothy not to neglect which saith he he had received not by the laying on of the hands of one single man whether Apostle or Bishop or Presbyter but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Presbytery that is the whole company of Presbyters for in that sense onely we finde 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 taken in Scripture as in Luke 22. vers 66. Act. 22. vers 5. which the Christian Church called the Ecclesiastical Senate as Ierom in Isay 3. Nos habemus in Ecclesia Senatum nostrum Coetum Presbyterorum an Apostolical Senate 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ignatius Epis ad Magnes and some times 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Concil Ancyr Can. 18. And though the Apostle in his second Epistle to Tim. 1.6 makes mention of the laying on of his hands yet to maintaine the Harmony of Scripture it must not be denied but there was imposition of hands by the Presbytery as wel as by himself and so it was a joynt act So that in this there is no more difference then in the former And if there be no difference between Presbyters in feeding or ordaining let us see if there be any in the third part of their office of Ruling which though our Bishops assume wholly to themselves yet we shall discover that it hath been committed to and exercised by Presbyteriall hands For who are they of whom the Scripture speakes Heb. 13.17 Obey them that have the Rule over you for they watch for your soules as they that must give an account c. Here all such as watch over the souls of Gods people are intituled to rule over them So that unlesse Bishops will say that they onâ—ly watch over the souls of Gods people and are only to give an account for them they cannot challenge to themselves the sole rule over them And if the Bishopâ— can give us good security that they will acquit us from giving up our account to God for the souls of his people we will quit our plea and resigne to them the sole rule over thâ—m So againe in the 1 Thessa. 5.12 Know them which labour amongst you and are over you in the Lord and admonish you In which words are contained these truthes First that in one Church for the Thessalonions were but one Church 1 Ca. there was not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not one chiefe Bishop or President but the Presidency was in many Secondly that this Presidency was of such as laboured in the word and Doctrine Thirdly that the Censures of the Church were managed not by one but by them all in Communi Them that admonish you Fourthly that there was among them a Parity for the Apostle bids know them in an indifferency not discriminating one from another yea such was the rule that Elders had that S. Peter thought it needful to make an exhortation to them to use their power with Moderation not Lording it over Gods Heritage 1 Pet. 5.3 By this time we have sufficiently proved from Scripture that Bishops and Presbyters are the same in name in Office in Edifying the Church in power of Ordination and Jurisdiction we sum up all that hath been spoken in one argument They which have the same Name the same Ordination to their Office the same qualification for their Office the same worke to feed the flock of God to ordaine pastors and Elders to Rule and Governe they are one and the same Office but such are Bishops and Presbyters Ergo. SECT VI. BUt the dint of all this Scripture the Remonstrant would elude by obtruding upon his reader a commentary as he calls it of the Apostles own practise which he would force to contradict their own rules to which he superadds the unquestionable glosse of the cleare practise of their immediate successors in this administration For the Apostles practice we have already discovered it from the Apostles own writings and for his Glosse he superadds if it corrupts
not the Text we shall admit it but if it doe we must answer with Tertullian Id verum quodcunque primum id adulterum quod posterius whatsoever is first is true but that which is latter is adulterous In the examination of this Glosse to avoyd needlesse Controversie First we take for granted by both sides that the first and best Antiquity used the names of Bishops and Presbyters promiscuously Secondly that in processe of time some one was honoured with the name of Bishop and the rest were called Presbyters or Cleri Thirdly that this was not Nomen inane but there was some kinde of Imparity between him and the rest of the Presbyters Yet in this we differ that they say this Impropriation of name and Imparity of place is of Divine Right and Apostolical Institution we affirme both to be occasional and of humane Invention and undertake to shew out of Antiquity both the occasion upon which and â—he Persons by whom this Imparity was brought into the Church On our parts stands Ierome and Ambrose and others whom we doubt not but our Remonstrant will grant a place among his Glossators Saint Ierome tells us in 1 Tit. Idem est ergo Presbytâ—r qui Episcopus antequam Diaboli instinctu studia in Religione fierent diceretur in populis eco sum Pauli ego Apollo ego Cephae Communi PresbyteroruÌ„ Consilio ecclesiae gubernabantur Postquam vero unusquisque eos quos bapâ—izaverat suos putabat esse non Christi in toto Orbe decretum est ut unus de Presbyteris electus superponeretur caeteris ad quem omnis Ecclesiae Cura pertineret schismatum semina tollerentur Putat aliquis non Scripturarum sed nostram esse sententiam Episcopum Presbyterum unum esse aliud aetatis aliud esse nomen ofâ—icâ—i relegat Apostoli ad Philippenses verba dicentis Paulus Timothaeus servi Iesu Christi qui sunt Philippis cum Episcopis Diaconis c. Philippi una est urbs Macedoniae certè in una Civitate non poterant plures esse ut nuncupantur Episcopi c. sicut ergo Presbyteri sciant se ex Ecclesiae consuetudine ei qui sibi praepositus fuerit esse subjectos Ita Episcopi noverint se magis consuetudine quam dispositionis Dominicae veritate Presbyteris esse majores in Communi debere Ecclesiam regere A Presbyter and a Bishop is the same and before there were through the Devils instinct divisions in Religion and the people began to say I am of Paul and I of Apollo and I oâ— Cephas the Churches were governed by the Common-councell of the Presbyters But after that each man began to account those whom he had baptized his own and not Christs it was decreed thorow the whole world that one of the Presbyters should be set over the rest to whom the care of all the Church should belong that the seeds of schisme might be taken away Thinks any that this is my opinion and not the opinion of the Scripture that a Bishop and an Elder is the same let him read the words of the Apostle to the Philippians saying Paul and Timothy the servants of Jesus Christ to them that are at Philippi with the Bishops and Deacons Philippi is one city of Macedonia and certainly in one city there could not be many Bishops as they are now called c. and after the allegations of many other Scriptures he concludes thus as the Elders therefore may know that they are to be subject to him that is set over them by the custome of the Church so let the Bishops know that it is more from custome then from any true dispensation from the Lord that they are above the Presbyters that they ought to rule the Church in common In which words of Ierome these five things present themselves to the Readers view First that Bishops and Presbyters are originally the same Idem ergo est Presbyter qui Episcopus Secondly that that Imparity that was in his time between Bishops and Elders was grounded upon Ecclesiastical custome and not upon devine Institution Episcopi noverint c. Thirdly that this was not his private judgement but the judgement of Scripture Putat aliquis c. Fourthly that before this Priority was upon this occasion started the Church was governed Communi Presbyterorum Consilio by the Counsel of the Presbyters in common and that even after this imparity it ought to be so governed Sciant Episcopi se Ecclesiam debere in communi regere Fifthly that the occasion of this Imparity and Superiority of Bishops above Elders was the divisions which through the Devils instinct fell among the Churches Postquam verò Diaboli instinctu Saravia would take advantage of this place to deduce this Imparity as high as from the Apostles times because even then they began to say I am of Paul and I of Apollos but sure S. Ierome was not so weake as this man would make him to speak Inconsistencies and when he propounds it to himself to prove that Bishops and Presbyters are in Scripture the same to let fall words that should confute his own proposition whereas therefore S. Ierome saith that after men began to say I am of Paul and I of Apollos c. it was decreed that one of the Presbyters should be set over the rest c. This is spoken indeed in the Apostles phrase but not of the Apostles times else to what purpose is that coacervation of texts that followes But suppose it should be granted to be of Apostolical antiquity which yet we grant not having proved the contrary yet it appeares it was not of Apostolical intention but of Diabolical occasion And though the Devil by kindling Divisions in the Church did minister Occasion to the invention of the primacy or prelacy or one for the suppressing of Schisme yet there is just cause to think that the Spirit of God in his Apostles was never the author of this invention First because we read in the Apostles dayes there were Divisions Rom. 16.7 and Schismes 1 Cor. 3.3 and 11.18 yet the Apostle was not directed by the holy Ghost to ordaine Bishops for the taking away of those Divisions Neither in the rules he prescribes for the healing of those breaches doth he mention Bishops for that end Nor in the Directions given to Timothy and Titus for the Ordination of Bishops or Elders doth he mention this as one end of their Ordination or one peculiar duty of their office And though the Apostle saith Oportet haereses inter vos esse ut qui probati sunt manifesti fiant inter vos yet the Apostle no where saith Oportet Episcopos esse ut tollantur haereses quae manifestae fiunt Secondly because as Doctor Whitaker saith the remedy devised hath proved worse then the disease which doth never happen to that remedy whereof the holy Ghost is the author Thirdly because the holy Ghost who could foresee what would
ensue thereupon would never ordaine that for a remedy which would not onely be ineffectual to the cutting off of evil but become a stirrup for Antichrist to get into his saddle For if there be a necessity of setting up one Bishop over many Presbyters for preventing schismes there is as great a necessity of setting up one Archbishop over many Bishops and one Patriarch over many Archbishops and one Pope over all unlesse men will imagine that there is a danger of schisme onely among Presbyters and not among Bishops and Archbishops which is contrary to reason truth History and our own Experience And lest our adversaries should appeale from Hierome as an incompetent Judge in this case because a Presbyter and so a party we will therefore subjoyne the judgments of other ancient Fathers who were themselves Bishops The Commentaries that go under the name of Saint Ambrose upon Ephes. 4. mention another occasion of this Discrimination or priority and that was the increase and dilatation of the Church upon occasion whereof they did ordaine Rectors or Governours and other officers in the Church yet this he grants that this did differ from the former orders of the Church and from apostolical Writ And this Rectorship or Priority was devolved at first from one Elder to another by Succession when he who was in the place was removed the next in order among the Elders Succeeded But this was afterwards changed and that unworthy men might not be preferred it was made a matter of Election and not a matter of Succession Thus much we finde concerning the occasion of this imparity enough to shew it is not of Divine Authority For the second thing the persons who brought in this Imparity the same Authors tells us the Presbyters themselves brought it in witnesse Hierome ad Evag. Alexandriae Presbyteri unum ex se electum in Excelsiori gradu collacatum Episcopum nominabant quomodo si exercitus Imperatorem faceret aut Diaconi de se Archidiaconum The Presbyters of Alexandria did call him their Bishop whom they had chosen from among themselves placed in a higher degree as if an army should make an Emperour or the Deacons an Archdeacon Ambrose upon the fourth of the Ephesians tells us it was done by a Councell and although he neither name the time nor place of the Councel yet ascribing it to a Councell he grants it not to be Apostolical this gave occasion to others to sixe it upon Custome as Hieronym in Tit. and August Epist. 19. secundùm honorum vocabula quae Ecclesiae usus obtinuit Episcopatus Presbyterio major est And had that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Prelacy had the Seal and confirmation of Divine or Apostolical Authority Gregory Nazianzene would never in such a Pathetick manner have wished the Abolition of it as he doth in his 28. Oration And now where is that acknowledgement and conveyance of Imparity and Iurisdiction which saith this Remonstrant was derived from the Apostles hands and deduced in an uninterupted lâ—ne unto this day where is it we finde no such Imparity delivered from Apostolical hands nor acknowledged in Apostolical writings yet had there been such an acknowledgement and conveyance of imparity how this should have been deduced to us in an uninterrupted Line we know not unlesse our Bishops will draw the Line of their Pedigree through the â—oynes of Antichrist and joyne issue and mingle blood with Rome which it seemes they will rather doe then lose this plea for their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 their tyrannical prerogative as Nazianzen calls it Suffer us therefore humbly to appeale to your Honours whether this Remonstrant hath not given sentence against himself who is so confident of the Evidence of his cause that he doth not feare to say if there can be better Evidence under Heaven for any matter of fact then there is for his Episcopacy Let EPISCOPACY BE FOR EVER ABANDONED OUT OF THE CHURCH OF GOD. SECT VII YEt it seems himselfe in the height of his confidence was not without Jelousies of some thing might be spoken against his cause therefore he seems to heare what is spoken against it That the Apostles Bishops and ours are two there was no other then a Parochial Pastor a Preaching Presbyter without inequallity without any Rule over his brethren Ours claime an eminent Superiority and a power of Ordination and Iurisdiction unknowne to the Primitive times That this which he supposeth he heares us say is Scripture Truth we have shewed already c. that there was a parity between Presbyters and Bishops and that eminent superiority and power of Ordination and Iurisdiction which our Bishops claime was unknown to Scripture and are now prepared by Gods assistance to prove it was unknown to primitive times But how doth this Remonstrant meete with this Reply ALAS ALAS HOW GOOD PEOPLE may be abused by misinformation It seemes the man Judged this Reply so poor as in his thoughts it was more worthy of his pitty then of his paines to answer or rather knew there was more in this Reply then he knew how to answer and therefore waves it with his Rhetoricke And this we rather think because he knowes but little in Antiquity that knowes not that there is so vast a difference between our Bishops and those that were not onely in the Apostles dayes whom we have proved to be undistinguished from Presbyters But those Bishops that were in the Church 400. yeares after when there began to be some discrimination that Episcopacy may well be likened to the Ship Argo that was so often repaired as there was nothing left of the First Materials yet still it challenged the first Name Which difference we spread before your Honours in three particulars first in point of Election to their office secondly in point of Execution of their office thirdly in point of State-Imployment First having discovered already upon what occasion this priority began to have existence in the Church and from whom it first received its being not from God but from Consent and Custome of the Churches according to Ambrose Ierome Augustine c. We come now to Declare what was the manner of Election unto this Priority in these times and to shew first how therein these Bishops did differ from ours for all their Elections were ordered by the privity consent and approbation of the people where the Bishops was to serve Were there no other Authors to make this good Cyprian alone would doe it among other places let his 68. Epistle witnâ—sse where he saith plebs Maxime habet potestatem c. The people specially have power either of chusing worthy Priests or rejecting the unworthy for this is derived from Divine Authority that the Priests should be chosen in the presence of the people before all their eyes and approved as fit and worthy by their publike vote and Testimony This he proves by the Testimony of Sacred writ both Old and
New Where we observe first that the special power of Judging of the worthinesse or unworthinesse of a man for the Prelacy was in the breast of the Peogle Secondly the special power of choosing or rejecting eo his place according as they Judged him worthy or unworthy resided in the People Plebs maximè Habet potestatem c. Thirdly that this power did descend upon the People De Divina Authoritate Nor was this the Judgement of one Sole man but of an Affrican Synod consulted by the Spanish Churches in point of Election as the inscription of the Epistle shewes The Obtrusion of a Bishop upon the Church of Alexandria without the Presence desire and vote of the Clergy or People is condemned by Athanasius not onely as a breach of Canon but as a Transgression of Apostolical prescript and that it did compel or necessitate the heathen to blaspheme Nor did onely Christian Bishops but Christian Princes acknowledge the Right and power of Election of Bishops to be in the People so that admired Constantine the great Promover and Patron of the peace of the Christian Church writing to the Church of Nicomedia against Eusebius and Theognius tells them the ready way to lay asleep the Tumults that did then disturbe the Church about the Election of a Bishop was si modo Episcopum fidelem integrum nacti fuerint quod quidem in praesentia in vestrâ situm est potestate quodque etiam dudùm penes vestrum Iudicium fuerat nisi Eusebius de quo dixi pravo corum qui cum juverunt Consilio hac praeceps ruisset rectum Eligendi Ordinem impudenter conturbasset Gelas in Act Concil Nicen. part 3. if they would get a faithful and upright Bishop which saith he is in your power presently to doe and was long agoe if Eusebius with the aide of his faction had not rushed in upon you and impudently disturbed the right Order of Election That which this sacred Emperour calls the right order of Election what is it but the Election by the people in whose power he saith it then was and long had been to choose a Bishop and by whose power the next Bishop was chosen So the same Author tells us that after Eusebius and Theognius were cast out of their several seats for Arianisme by the Councel of Nice others were appointed in their roomes by the Clergy and people of each Diocesse To this Election in Nicomedia we could if it were needful in so cleare a Truth adde many the like Presidents of popular Elections which for brevities sake we passe over Not questioning but that which hath been spoken is sufficient to informe the intelligent Reader that our Bishops and the Bishops of former times are TWO in point of Election SECT VIII A Second thing wherein we have undertaken to shew that our Bishops and the Bishops of former times are TWO is in the Execution of their Office and here there are three things wherein he that will not wilfully shut his eyes against all light may see a Latitude of difference between ours and former Bishops First in that Sole Iurisdiction which our Bishops assume to themselves Secondly in the Delagation they make of the power of exercising this Jurisdiction unto others Thirdly in the way of the exercise of that power For the first of these Their sole Iurisdiction That our Bishops assume this to themselves it is known and felt and that this Sole Iurisdiction was a stranger a Monster to former times we shall now prove and make cleare that the power of Ordination Admonition Excommunication Absolution was not in the hands of any sole man First for Ordination Cyprian in his exile writing to his Charge certifies them that Aurelius was ordained by him and his Colleagues who were present with him who were these Colleagues but his Presbyters as he himself expounds it writing to Lucius in his own name and the name of his Clergy and people Ego Collegae fraternitas omnis c. I and my Colleagues and my whole people send these Letters to you c. So that it is cleare in Cyprians time Presbyters had a hand in Ordination and Bishops did not Ordaine alone Firmilianus saith of them that rule in the Church Quod baptizandi MANVM IMPONENDI ET ORDINANDI poffident potestatem And who those he he expresseth a little before SENIORES Prapositi by whom the Presbyters as well as the Bishops are understood And as these places prove that Bishops in the Primitive time could not ordain alone without the Presbyters so there are that give us light to understand that the Presbyters might ordain without the Bishop The Author of the Comment upon the Ephesians that goes under the name of of Ambrose saith Apud Egyptum Presbyteri consignant si praesens non sit Episcopus In Egypt the Presbyters ordain if the Bishop be not present so saith Augustine in the same words and the Corepiscopus who was but a Presbyter had power to impose hands and to ordaine within his precincts with the Bishops Licence Now Licences confer not a power to him that hath it not but onely a faculty to exercise that power he hath The iniquity of our times hath been such that a Minister may not Preach to his own flock without a Licence doth this Licence make a man a Minister and give him power to preach or only a faculty and liberty to exercise that power Should a Bishop give a Laike a Licence to preach or to ordain doth that Licence make him a Minister or a Bishop Sure all will say no why because in the Laike there is not Actus primus the root and principle of that power which Licence onely opens a way to the exercise of and therefore that must be concluded to be in those Chorepiscopi or Presbyters by vertue of their place and calling and not by vertue of a Licence So that the power of Ordination was so farre from residing in the Bishop alone as that the Presbyters and Corepiscopi had power to ordain as well as he Neither was this onely a matter of Ecclesiastical custome but of Ecclesiastical constitution which bids the Bishop First in all his Ordinations to consult with his Clergy Vt Episcopus sine Concilio Clericorum suorum Clericos non ordinet That the Bishop shall not ordain a Clergy man without the counsel of the Clergy this was Cyprians practice Epist. 33. Secondly in his Ordinations to take the â—oncurrent assistance of his Presbyters Cum ordinatur Presbyter Episcopo eum benedicente manum super caput ejus tenente etiam omnes Presbyteri qui praesentes sunt manus suas juxta manum Episcopi sut er caput illius teneant When a Presbyter is ordained the Bishop blessing him and holding his hand upon his head all the Presbyters that are present shall likewise lay their hands upon his head with the hands of the Bishop In which
Canon we have the unanimous vote of two hundred and fourteen Bishops declaring that the power of Ordination is in the hands of Presbyters as well as Bishops And whereas it may be objected that Hierome and Chrysostome affirming Bishops to differ from Presbyters in the power of Ordination seem to imply that that power is soly theirs Here wee desire it may be observed First that these Fathers put all the difference that lies betweene Bishops and Presbyters to be in point of Ordination Quid facit Episcopus quod non facit Presbyter exceptá Ordinatione And therefore Chrysostome himselfe confesseth that in his days there was litle or no difference between a Bishop and a Presbyter Inter Episcopum presbyterum interest fermè nihil c. Secondly That this difference is not so to he understood as if these Fathers did hold it to be by divine right as Bellarmin and our Episcopal men would make us beleeve but by a humane constitution And therefore they do not speak De jure but de facto Quid facit c. not quid debet facere And this Hierom confesseth So Leo prim ep 88. upon complaints of unlawful Ordinations writing to the Germane and French Bishops reckons up what things are reserved to the Bishops among which he set down Presbyterorum Diaconorum consecratio and then addes Quae omnia solis deberi summis Pontificibus Authoritate Canonam praecipitur So that for this power of Ordination they are more beholden to the Canon of the Church then to the Canon of Gods Word Thirdly we answer that this very humane difference was not in the Primitive Antiquity It was not so in Cyprians time as we even now shewed And when it did prevaile it was but a particular custome and sometimes usurpation of some Churches For it was otherwise appointed in the Councel of Carthage and in Egypt and other places as is declared in the former part of this Section and even in Chrysostomes time it was so little approved of that it was one great accusation against Chrysostome himselfe That he made Ordinations without the Presbytery and without the consent of his Clergy this is quoted by Bishop Downam lib. 1. cap. 8. pag. 176. SECT IX NOâ— had the Bishops of former times more right to the power of sole Iurisdiction then of sole Ordination And here we have Confitentem reum our very Adversaries confess the Votes of Antiquity are with us Cyprian professeth that he would do nothing without the Clergy nay he could do nothing without them nay he durst not take upon him alone to determine that which of right did belong to all and had he or any other done so the fourth Councel of Carthage condemns the Sentence of the Bishop as Irritanisi Clericorum sententiâ confirmetur Would ye know the particulars wherein the Bishops had no power of Judicature without their Presbyters First in judging and censuring Presbyters themselves and their Doctrine For this the Canon Law in Gratian is full and cleare Episcopus non potest Iudicare Presbyterum vel Diaconum sine Synodo Senioribus Thus Basill counselled and practised epist. 75. So Ambr. lib. 10. epist. 80. Cyril in epist. ad Iohannem Antiochen Thus Gregory ad Iohan. Panor mitan lib. 11. epist. 49. Secondly in judging of the conversation or crimes of any of the members of the Church Penes Presbyteros est Disciplina quae facit homines meliores That Discipline that workes emendation in men is in the power of the Elders And therefore when any was questioned in point of conversation he was brought saith Tertullian into the Congregation where were Exhortations Castigations and Divine censures And who had the chiefe stroke in these Censures he tells us after President probati quique seniores All the approved Elders sit as Presidents And those censures that passed by the whole Presbytery were more approved by the Church in ancient times then such as were passed by one man for we finde that when Syagrius and Ambrose passed Sentence in the same case the Church was unsatisfied in the Sentence of Syagrius because he past it sine alicujus fratris consilio without the counsel or consent of any of his Brethren But were pacified with the sentence of Saint Ambrose because saith he Hoc Iudicium Nostrum cum fratribus consacerdotibus participatum processerit Nor was there any kinde of censures that the Bishops did administer alone Admonitions were given by the Elders Augustine tells us the Elders did admonish such as were offenders to the same purpose speakes Origen contra Celsum Lib. 3. So excommunication though that being the dreadfullest thunder of the Church and as Tertullian calls it sumntum praejudicium futuri Iudicij the great fore-runner of the Judgement of God was never vibrated but by the hand of those that laboured in the Word and Doctrine yet was no one man in the Church invested with this power more then another Therefore saith Hierom Presbytero si peccavero licet me tradere satanae in interitum carnis If I sinne a Presbyter not a Bishop only may deliver me to Satan to the destruction c. where the Reader may please to take notice that Saint Hierom speakes not of one particular Presbyter but of the Order of Presbyters The same S. Hierom saith againe Sunt quos Ecclesia reprehendit quos interdum abijcit in quos non nunquam Episcoporum Clericorum censura desaevit There be some whom the Church reproves and some which she casts out against whom the censures of Bishops and Presbyters sharply proceed where we see the Censures whereby wicked men were cast out of the Church were not in the sole hands of the Bishops but likewise in the hands of Presbyters Syricius Bishop of Rome signifies to the Church of Millaine that Iovinianus Auxentius c. were cast out of the Church for ever and he sets down how they did it Omnium Nostrum tam Presbyterorum quam Diaconâ—rum quam totius etiam cleri sciscitata fuit sententia There was a concurrence of all Presbyters Deacons and the whole Clergy in that sentence of Excommunication The truth herein may be further evidenced by this because the whole Clergy as well as the Bishops imposed hands upon such as repenting were absolved Nec ad communicationem saith Cyprian venire quis possit nisi prius ab Episcopo Clero Manus illi fuerit imposita No man that hath been excommunicated might returne to Church-Communion before hands had been laid upon him by the Bishop and Clergy Also writing to his Clergy concerning lapsed Christians he tells them Exomologesi facta manu eis à vobis in poenitentiam impositâ c. that after confession and the laying on their hands they might be commended unto God so when certaine returning from their heresie were to be received into the Church at Rome in the time
of Cornelius they came before the Presbytery and therefore confessed their sinnes and so were admitted But though the sentence of Excommunication was managed onely by the hand of those that laboured in the Word and Doctrine yet we will not conceale from you that neither Excommunication not absolution did passe without the knowledge and approbation of the body of the Church to which the Delinquent did belong So we have learned out of Tertullian that their censures were ordered in their publike assemblies and good reason because the people were to forbeare communion with such 2 Thes. 3.6 14 15. and publike censures of the Church were inflictâ—d not onely for the Emendation of delinquents but for the admonition of others and therefore ought to be admistrâ—d in publike that others might feare 1 Tim. 5.20 Origen speaking of the Duty and Power of the Church in cutting off a scandalous Person though a Presbyter making the case his own he saith thus In uno consensu Ecclesia universa conspirans excidat me dâ—xtram suam projiciat a se He would have the consent of the whole Church in that Act. And when the lapsed Christians were received againe into the Church the Peoples consent was required therein else why should Cyprian say Vix plebi per suadeo imò extorqueo ut tales patiantur admitti I can scarce perswade the people to suffer such to be admitted and in another Epistle written to his people in his Banishment he promiseth to examine all things they being present and judging Examinabuntur singula praesentibus judicantibus vobis But of this power of the People we shall have a further occasion to speak afterwards when we come to discourse of Governing Elders Onely may it please your Honours from hence to take notice how unjustly our Bishops have invaded this right and power of Presbyters and people in Church censures and devesting both of it have girt it wholly upon themselves and how herein they and the Bishops of former times are TWO SECT X. ANd as our Bishops and the Bishops of former times are TWO in point of Sole Iurisdiction so also in the Delegation of this power of Iurisdiction unto others to their Chancellours Commissaries Officers c. Was ever such a thing as this heard of in the best primitive Times that men that never received imposition of hands should not only be received into assistance but be wholly intrusted with the power of Spiritual Iurisdiction Even then when it is to be exercised over such persons as have had hands laid upon them We may observe in Cyprian whilst persecution separated him from his Church when questions did arise among his people he doth not send them to his Chancellour or Commissary No he was so far from substituting any man much lesse a lay man to determene or give Judgement in such cases that he would not assume that power wholly to himself but suspends his Judgement till the hand of God should restore him to his Church againe that with the advice and Counsel of the Presbyters he might give sentence as may appeare to any that shall peruse his Epistles Sure if God had ever led his Church to such a way of deputation it would have been in such a case of Necessity as this was or had any footsteps of such a course as this been visible by this holy Martyr in the goings of former ages he needed not have deferred the determination of the question about the receiving of some penitent lapsed ones into the bosome of the Church again till his returne and the returne of his Clergy as he doth We will instance in his 28 Epistle wherein giving direction for the excommunicating of such as would rashly communicate with lapsed Christians he gives this charge not to his Chancellor or Commissary or any other man upon whom he had devolved his power and set him as his Deputy or Viccar generall in his absence but ad clerum to the whole Presbytery This Truth is so cleare that Bishop Downam the great Advocate of Episcopacy confesseth that in Ambrose his time and a good while after which was about 400 years till the Presbyters were in a manner 〈…〉 SECT XI A Third branch wherein the difference between our Bishops and the Bishops of former times in point of Exercising their Jurisdiction is visible is the way or manner of exercising that power For brevities sake we will onely instance in their proceedings in causes criminal where let them tell us whether any good Antiquity can yeild them one President for THEIR OATH EX OFFICIO which hath been to their COURTS as Purgatory fire to the Popes Kitchin they have forgotten that old Maxime in the Civil Law Nemo tenetur prodere seipsum which as it is grounded upon natural equity so it is confirmed by a Law enacted by Dioclesian and Maximilian Nimis grave est quod petitis c. It is too grievous that the adverse part should be required to the exhibition of such things as should create trouble to themselves Vnderstand therefore that you ought to bring proofes of your intentions and not to extort them from your adversaries against themselves Shall the Lamp of Nature in the night of Ethnicisme enable Heathen Princes yea Persecutors to see and enact thus much and shall not the glorious Sunne of the Gospel convince these of their iniquities in transgressing this Law that call themselves the Fathers of the Church If neither the light of Nature nor Gospel light can yet the custome of the Church to which they so oft appeal may both convince them of this iniquity and discovâ—r to all the world the contrariety of their proceedings to the proceedings of former times in this particular For of Old both the Plantiffe and Defendant were brought face to face before the parties in whose power it was to judge which way of proceeding Athanasius affirmes to be according to Scripture the Law of God And because those that condemned Macarius did not thus proceed he condemnes their Sentence as malicious and unjust Of old no Sentence passed against any man but upon the Testimony of other witnesses besides the Accusers after complaint exhibited the first thing they applyed themselves to was to consider the person and quality of the Accuser Concil prim Constant. Can. 6 Then they heard the witnesses who were two at least Can. Apost Can. 75. And these witnesses must be such as might not be imagined to be partiall nor to beare enmity nor malice against the party accused Ambros. Epist. 64. so Gratian Caus. 3. quae 5. cap. Quod suspecti Of old None might be party witnesse and Iudge which Gratian proves at large Caus. 4. qu. 4. cap. Nullus unquam praesumat accusator simul esse Iudex testis We grant indeed the Canon Law permits in some cases Tryal without witnesses Si crimen ita publicum est ut meritò debeat appellari notorium If
the crime be so publike that it may deservedly be called Notorious Which Law further determines what is notorious saying Offensam illam nos intelligimus manifestam quae vel per confessionem vel probationem legitime nota fuerit aut evidentiâ Rei quae nulla possit tergiversatione celari We count that offence manifest which eithâ—r by confession or by lawful proofe comes to be known or by evidence of fact so as it can be hid by no tergiversations So that all was done in former times with mature deliberation upon examination and evidence produced and proved by such witnesses as against whom the Defendant could lay in no just exception And not as now an Accusation whispered against a man he knowes not by whom to which he must take his oath to answer before he knows what his Accusation is Which Oath if he takes without further witnesse he is censured upon the witnesse of his own Oath If he takes it not he is sent presently to prison there to lye without Bayle or Mainprize till the insupportable miseries of his long durance compel him to take on Oath against Nature Scripture Conscience and the just Defence of his own innocency That our Bishops therefore and former Bishops are Two in the point of executing their Judicatory power we need spend no more time to prove But come to the third thing in which the difference betweene ours and former Bishops is to be evidenced SECT XII ANd that is State Imployment or attendance upon Civil and Secular affaires c. which both Christ and Saint Paul prohibits which prohibition reacheth every Bishop to speake in Chrysostomes words as well as Timothy to whom it is directed Nullus ergo Episcopatu praeditus haec audire detrectet sed agere ea omnia detrectet Let no man that is a Bishop refuse to hear what the Apostle saith but to doe what the Apostle forbids We deny not but that Bishops were in the Primitive times often incumbred with secular business but these were put upon them sometimes by Emperors who sought the ruine of the Church as Iulian of whom Niceph. lib. 10. cap. 13. doth report that in Clerum coaptatos Senatorum munere ministerio perverse fungi jussit Sometimes the gracious disposition of Princes toward Christian Religion made them thus to honour Bishops thinking thereby to advance Religion as Constantine the Great enacted that such as were to be tryed before Civil Magistrates might have leave to appeale ad Iudicium Episcoporum atque eorum sententiam ratam esse tanquam ab ipso Imperatore prolatum And this the Historian reckoneth as one argument of his reverend respect to Religion Sometimes the excellency of their singular parts cast civil dignities upon them Tiberius granted a Questors dignity unto a Bishop for his eloquence Chrysostome for his notable stoutness and freedome of speech was sent as the fittest man to Gainas with the Emperors command Sometimes the people observing the Bishops to be much honoured by the Emperour would sollicit them to present their greivances to the Emperour And sometimes the aspiring humour of the Bishops raised them to such places as appears by Cyrill who was the first Bishop in Alexandria who had civil dignities conferred upon him as Socrates relates it from whom civil authority did descend upon succeeding Bishops 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of whom Nicephorus therefore recorded Episcopatum majoricum fastu prophanorum Magistratuum more quam praedecessores ejus Episcopi ingressus est unde adeo initium sumptum est in Ecclesia Alexandrina ut Episcopi etiam profana negotia curarent He entred upon his Episcopacy with more pomp then his predecessors with a pomp conformable to the Heathen Magistrates Both these Historians relate the sad consequence that followed upon this that Orestes the Roman Governour seeing his power much weakened by the Bishops interposing in secular affairs hated the Bishop and this as the Historian calls it his usurped power This president of the Alexandrian Bishop the Bishop of Rome did soon follow Et Romanus Episcopatus non aliter quam Alexandrinus quasi EXTRA SACERDOTII FINES egressus ad secularem principatum erat jam delapsus The Bishop of Rome as well as the Bishop of Alexandria breaking the limits of the Priestly function did degenerate into a secular Principality which purchased no lesse envie to him then that to the other And though these two Bishops went at first abreast in this point yet in a short time the Roman had out stripped the Alexandrian in that power till the Church degenerating more and more that Roman Priest advanced his power not onely above all the Bishops but all the Monarchs in the Christian Orbe Yet notwithstanding he that shall look into the Ancients shall finde first that the best of them held that they were not to be molested with the handling of worldly affaires Cyprian Epist. 66.1 Singuli divino Sacerdotio honorati non nisi altari sacrificiis deservire precibus atque orationibus vacare debent Molestiis secularibus non sunt obligandi qui divinis rebus spiritualibus occupantur Secondly that they complained of them as of heavy burthens Aug. calls it Angaria yea Austin himselfe in his 81. Epistle complaines that worldly business hindered his praying and so pressed him that vix respirare potuit and Gregory the great non sine dolore in secularibus versabatur praefat in Dial. Thirdly Cyprian construed it as one great cause of persecutions raised against the Church de lapsis Sect. 4. Fourthly it was much cryed down as unlawful by the holy Fathers many Canons forbidding it and that under pain of being removed from their places Can. Apost Can. 6. Can. 81. hee that did presume to administer 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Roman command or Administration of Military affaires or civil place as Zonaras there he should be desposed Can. Apo. Can. 83. hiring of ground medling with worldly affaires is to be laid aside by them Otherwise they are threatned to be liable to Ecclesiastical censures Conc. Cal. Can. 3. Conc. Carth. Can. 16. We will adde this for a conclusion in this point it is observed by Athanasius Sulpitius Severus and other Ecclesiastical Historians that the Arians were very expedite in worldly affaires which experience they gained by their constant following and attendance upon the Emperours Court and what troubles they occasioned to the Church thereby is notoriously known to any that have seen the Histories of their times And in this our Bishops have approved themselves more like to the Arian Bishops then the purer Bishops of purer times but how ever cleare it is that our Bishops and the Bishops of former times are Two Two in election to their office Two in the discharge of their office Two in their Ordination Iurisdiction Processes Censures Administrations and the difference between our Bishops and those of former times is greater then between the great Bishop of Rome and
them SECT XIII But it seemes our Remonstrant soared above these times even as high as the Apostles dayes for so he saith If our Bishops challenge any other spiritual power then was by Apostolike Authority delegated to and required of Timothy and Titus and the Angels of the seven Asian Churches let them be DISCLAIMED as VSVRPERS And the truth is so they deserve to be if they doe but challenge the same power that the Apostle did delegate to Timothy and Titus for Timothy and Titus were Evangelists and so moved in a Sphere above Bishops or Presbyters For Timothy it is cleare from the letter of the Text 2 Tim. 4.5 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Doe the work of an Evangelist if Timothy had been but a Presbyter or Bishop Paul had here put him upon imployment Vltra Sphaeram Activitatis And to any man that will but understand and consider what the Office of an Evangelist was and wherein it differed from the Office of a Presbyter or Bishop it will be manifest that Timothy and Titus were Evangelists and no Bishops for the title of Evangelist is taken but two wayes either for such as wrote the Gospel and so we doe not affirme Timothy and Titus to be Evangelists or else for such as taught the Gospel and those were of two sorts either such as had ordinary places and ordinary gifts or such whose places and gifts were extraordinary and such Evangelists were Timothy and Titus and not Bishops as will appeare if we consider what was the Difference between the Evangelists and Bishops Bishops or Presbyters were tyed to the particular care and tuition of that flock over which God had made them Overseers Acts 20.28 But Evangelists were not tyed to reside in one particular place but did attend upon the Apostles by whose appointment they are sent from place to place as the necessity of the Churches did require As appeares first in Timothy whom Saint Paul besought to abide at Ephesus 1. Tim. 1.3 which had beene needlesse importunity if Timothy had the Episcopall that is the Pastorall charge of Ephesus committed to him by the Apostles for then he might have laid as dreadful a Charge upon him to abide at Ephesus as he doth to Preach the Gospel But so far was Paul from setling Timothy in Cathedrâ in Ephesus that he rather continually sends him up and down upon all Church-services for we finde Acts. 17.14 that when Paul fled from the tumults of Berea to Athens he left Silas and Timothy behinde him who afterwards comming to Paul to Athens Paul sends Timothy from Athens to Thessalonica to confirm the Thessalonians in the faith as appears 1 Thes. 3.1.2 from whence returning to Paul to Athens again the Apostle Paul before he left Athens and went to Corinth sent him and Silas into Macedonia who returned to him again to Corinth Act. 18.5 afterwards they travelled to Ephesus from whence we read Paul sent Timothy and Erastus into Macedonia Act. 19.22 wither Paul went after them and from whence they and divers other Breathren journied into Asia Acts 20.4 All which Breathren Paul calls as it is probable 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the messengers of the Churches 2. Cor. 8.23 And being thus accompanied with Timothy and the rest of the Bretheren he comes to Miletum and calls the Elders of the Church of Ephesus thither to him of which Church had Timothy been Bishop the Apostle in stead of giving the Elders a charge to feed the flock of Christ would have given that charge to Timothy and not to them And secondly the Apostle would not so have forgotten himself as to call the Elders 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 before their Bishops face Thirdly It is to be conceived the Apostles would have given them some directions how to carry themselves towards their Bishop but not a word of this though Timothy were then in Pauls presence and in the presence of the Elders The cleare evidence of which Text demonstrates that Paul did not leave Timothy at this time as Bishop of Ephesus But it is rather evident that he took him along with him in his journey to Hierusalem and so to Rome for we find that those Epistles Paul wrote while he a prisoner bear either in their inscription or some other passage of them the name of Timothy as Pauls companion viz. The Epistle to the Philippians Câ—lossians Hebrewes Philemon which Epistles he wrote in bonds as the contexture which those two learned professors the one at Heydelburg the other at Saulmur make of Saint Pauls Epistles doth declare So that it appears that Timothy was no Bishop but a Minister an Evangelist a fellow labourer of the Apostles 1 Thes. 3.1 an Apostle a Messenger of the Church 2 Cor. 8.3 a Minister of God 1 Thes. 3.2 these titles the Holy Ghost gives him but never the title of a Bishop The like we finde in Scripture concerning Titus whom Paul as it is conceived by learned men did first assume into the fellowship of his Labors in the place of Iohn and made him his companion in his journy through Antioch to Hierusalem so we find Gal. 2.1 from thence returning to Antioch againe from thence he passed through Syria and Cilicia confirming the Churches and from Cilicia he passed to Creet where having Preached the Gospel and plainted Churches he left Titus there for a while to set in order things that remaine Yet it was but for a while he left him there for in his Epistle which he wrote to him not many yeares after he injoynes him to come to him to Nicopolis where he did intend to winter but changing that purpose sends for him to Ephesus where it seemes his Hyemal station was and from thence sends him before him to Corinth to enquire the state of the Corinthians His returne from thence Paul expects at Troas and because comming thither he found not his expectation there he was so grieved in his spirit 2 Cor. 2.12 that he passed presently from thence into Macedonia where Titus met him and in the midst of his afflictions joyed his spirits with the glad tydings of the powerful and gracious effects his first Epistle had among the Corinthians 2 Cor. 7 5 6 7. Paul having there collected the Liberalities of the Saints sends Titus againe to the Corinthians to prepare them for the same service of Ministring to the necessities of the Saints 2 Cor. 8.6 And makes him with some others the Conveyers of that second Epistle to the Corinthians All these journey es to and fro did Titus make at the designment of the Apostle even after he was left in Creet Nor doe we finde that after his first removal from Creet he did ever returne thither We read indeed 2 Tim. 4.10 he was with Paul at Rome and from thence returned not to Creet but into Dalmatia All which doth more then probably shew it never was the Intendment of the Apostle to
fix Titus in Creet as a Bishop but onely to leave him there for a season for the good of that Church and to call him from thence and send him abroad to other Churches for their good as their necessities might require Now who that will acknowledge a Distinction between the Offices of Bishops and Evangelists and knows wherein that Distinction lyes will not upon these premisses conclude that Timothy and Titus were Evangelists and NOT Bishops I but some of the Fathers have called Timothy and Titus Bishops We grant it true and it is as true that some of the Fathers have called them Archbishops and Patriarks yet it doth not follow they were so We adde secondly that when the Fathers did call them so it was not in a proper but in an improper sense which we expresse in the words of our Learned Orthodox Raynolds You may learne by the Fathers themselves saith he that when they termed any Apostle a Bishop of this or that City as namely S. Peter of Antioch or Rome they meant it in a general sort and signification because they did attend that Church for a time and supply that roome in preaching the Gospel which Bishops did after but as the name of Bishop is commonly taken for the Overseer of a particular Church and Pastor of a several flock so Peter was not Bishop of any one place therefore not of Rome And this is true by Analogy of all extraordinary Bishops and the same may be said of Timothy and Titus that he saith of Peter But were it true that Timothy and Titus were Bishops will this Remonstrant undertake that all his party shall stand to his Conditions If our Bishops challenge any other power then was by Apostolick Authority delegated to and required of Timothy and Titus and the Angels of the seaven Asian Churches let them be disclaimed as usurpers Will our Bishops indeed stand to this then actum est Did ever Apostolick Authority delegate power to Timothy or Titus to ordain alone to governe alone and do not our Bishops challenge that power Did ever Apostolique Authority delegate power to Timothy and Titus to rebuke an Elder no but to entreat him as a Father and do not our Bishops challenge themselves and permit to their Chancellors Commissaries and Officials power not only to Rebuke an Elder but to rayle upon an Elder to reproach him with the most opprobrious termes of foole knave jack-sauce c. which our paper blushes to present to your Honors view Did ever Apostolick Authority delegate to Timothy and Titus power to receive an accusation against an Elder but before two or three witnesses and do not our Bishops challenge power to proceed Ex Officio and make Elders their own Accusers Did ever Apostolick Authority delegate power to Timothy or Titus to reject any after twice admonition but an Heretick and do not our Bishops challenge power to reject and eject the most sound and Orthodox of our Ministers for refusing the use of a Ceremony as if Non-conformity were Heresie So that either our Bishops must disclaime this Remonstrance or else themselves must be disclaimed as usurpers But if Timothy and Titus were no Bishops or had not this power it may be the Angels of the seven Asian Churches had and our Remonstrant is so subtile as to twist these two together that if one faile the other may hold To which we answer first that Angel in those Epistles is put Collectively not Individually as appears by the Epistle to Thyatira cap. 2. vers 25. where we read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. But I say unto you in the plural number not unto thee in the singular and unto the rest in Thyatira c. Here is a plain distinction between the members of that Church By you is signified those to whom he spake under the name of the Angel By the rest the residue of the people The people governed and the Governours in the plural number What can be more evident to prove that by Angel is meant not one singular person but the whole company of Presbyters that were in Thyatira This also further appears because it is usual with the holy Ghost not only in other Books of the Scripture but also in this very Book of the Revelation to express a company under one singular person Thus the Civil State of Rome as opposite to Christ is called A beast with ten horns and the Ecclesiastical State Antichristian is called the whore of Babylon and the false Prophet and the Devil and all his family is called An old red Dragon Thus also the seven Angels that blew the seven trumpets Revel 8.2 and the seven Angels that poured out the seven Vials are not literally to be taken but Synecdochically as all know And why not then the seven Angels in those Epistles Mr. Mede in his Commentaries upon the Revelation pag. 265 hath these words Denique ut jam femel iterumquemonuimus quoniam Deus adhibet angelos providentiae suae in rerū humanarū motibus conversionibus ciendis gubernandisque administris idcirco quae multorum manibus peraguntur Angelo tamen tanquam rei gerendae praesidi Duci pro communi loquendi modo tribuuntur Adde thirdly that the very name Angel is sufficient to prove that it is not meant of one person alone because the word Angel doth not import any peculiar jurisdiction or preheminence but is a common name to all Ministers and is so used in Scripture For all Ministers are Gods Messengers and Embassadours sent for the good of the Elect. And therefore the name being common to all Ministers why should wee think that there should be any thing spoken to one Minister that doth not belong to all The like argument we draw from the word Stars used Revel 1.20 The seven Stars are the Angels of the seven Churches Now it is evident that all faithful Ministers are called Stars in Scripture whose duty is to shine as lights unto the Churches in all purity of doctrine and holiness of conversation And in this sense the word is used when it is said that the third part of the stars were darkned Revel 8.12 and that the Dragons taile drew the third part of the stars of Heaven and cast them to the Earth Revel 12.4 Which is meant not only of Bishops but of other Ministers unlesse the Bishops will appropriate all corruption and Apostacy unto themselves Adde fourthly out of the Text it selfe it is very observable that our Saviour in opening the mystery of the Vision Revel 1.20 saith The seven Candlesticks which thou sawest are the seven Churches but he doth not say The seven Stars are the seven Angels of the same Churches But the Angels of the seven Churches wherein not without some mystery the number of the Angels is omitted least we should understand by Angel one Minister alone and not a company And yet the Septenary number of Churches is twice set down Lastly though but one Angel be mentioned in
the fore-front yet it is evident that the Epistles themselves are dedicated to all the Angels and Ministers in every Church and to the Churches themselves And if to the whole Church much more to the Presbyters of that Church This is proved Revel 1.11 What thou seest write in a Book and send it to the seven Churches which are in Asia And also by the Epiphonema of every Epistle He that hath an care to hear let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the Churches Upon which words Ambrosius Ausbertus in his second book upon the Revelation saith thus Vnâ eademque locutione Angelos Ecclesias unum esse designat Nam cum in principio locutionum quae ad septem fiunt Angelos dicat Angelo illius Ecclesiae scribe in fine tamen earundem non dicit Qui habet aurem audiat quod spiritus dicat Angelo sed quid Ecclesiae dicat By one and the same phrase of speech he sheweth the Angels and the Churches to be one and the same For whereas in the beginning of his speech which he makes to the seven Churches he saith And write to the Angel of the Churches yet in the close of the same he doth not say He that hath an Eare let him heare what the Spirit saith to the Angel but what he saith to the Church And this is further proved by the whole argument of those Epistles wherein the admonitions threatnings commendations and reproofes are directed to all the Ministers of all the Churches Revel 2.10 The Devil shall cast some of you into prison c. Revel 2.16 I will fight against them with the sword of my mouth Revel 2.24 I will put upon you no other burthen c. I say unto you and the rest of Thyatira as many as have not this Doctrine and which have not known the depths of Satan c. And when it is said in the singular Number as it is often I know thy works and labour c. vers 2. and vers 4. Repent and do thy first works and vers 13. Thou hast not denyed my Faith c. and cap. 3.26 Because thou art neither hot nor cold c. All these and the like places are not to be understood as meant of one individual person but of the whole company of Ministers and also of the whole Church because that the punishment threatned is to the whole Church Revel 2.5 Repent and do thy first works or else I will come unto thee quickly and remove thy Candlestick out of his place Rev. 2.16 Repent or else I will come unto thee quickly and will fight against thee with the sword of my mouth Revel 2.24 I will not put upon you any other burthen Now we have no warrant in the Word to think that Christ would remove his Gospel from a Church for the sin of one Bishop when all the other Ministers and the Churches themselves are free from those sins And if God should take this course in what woeful miserable condition should the Church of England be which groaneth under so many corrupt Prelates By all this it appears that the word Angel is not to be taken 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not properly but figuratively And this is the judgment of Master Perkins upon the second Chapter of the Revelation and of Master Brightman and of Doctor Fulke who in answer to the Rhemists in Apoc. 1.20 hath these words S. Iohn by the Angels of the Churches meaneth not all that should wear on their heads Myters and hold crosier staves in their hands like dead Idols but them that are the faithful messengers of Gods word and utter and declare the same Again they are called the Angels of the Churches because they be Gods messengers Master Fox likewise in his Meditation upon the Revelation pag. 7.9.17 is of this opinion and hath gathered to our hands the opinions of all Interpreters he could meet and saith that they all consent in this that under the person of an Angel the Pastors Ministers of the Churches were understood S. Austin in his 132. Epistle saith thus Sic enim in Apocalypsi legitur Angelus c. Quod si de Angelo superiorum colorum non de Praepositis Ecclesiarum vellet intelligi non consequenter diceret Habeo adversum te c. And so in his second Homily upon the Revelation if that book be his Quod autem dicit Angelo Thyatirae Habeo adversum te panca dicit Praepositis Ecclesiarum c This also Gregory the Great lib. 34. Moral in Iob. cap. 4. Saepe sacram scripturam praedicatores Ecclesiae pro eo quod patris gloriam annunciant angelorum nomine solere designare hinc esse quod Iohannes in Apocalypsi septem Ecclesiis scribens angelis Ecclesiarum loquitur id est Praedicatoribus populorum Master Box citeth Primasius Haymo Beda Richard Thomas and others to whom we refer you If it be here demanded as it is much by the Hierarchical side that if by Angel be meant the whole company of Presbyters why Christ did not say to the Angels in the plural number but to the Angel in the singular We answer that though this question may savor of a litle too much curiosity yet we will make bold to subjoyn three conjectural reasons of this phrase of speech First it is so used in this place because it is the common language of other Scriptures in types and visions to set down a certain number for an uncertain the singular number for the plural Thus the Ram Dan. 8.3 is interpred vers 20. to be the Kings of Media and Persia. And the enemies of Gods Church are set out by four horns And the deliverers by four Carpenters Zach. 1.18.20 And the wise and foolish Virgins are said to be five wise and five foolish And many such like And therefore as we answer the Papists when they demand why Christ if he meant figuratively when he saith this is my body did not speak in plain language this is the sign of my body We say that this phrase of speech is proper to all Sacraments So we also answer here this phrase of speech Angel for Angels is common to all types and visions Secondly Angel is put though more be meant that so it may hold proportion with the vision which Iohn saw Chap. 1.12.20 He saw seven golden Candlesticks and seven Stars And therefore to hold proportion the Epistles are directed to seven Angels and to seven Churches And this is called a mystery Revel 1.20 The Mystery of the seven Stars c. Now a mystery is a secret which comprehends more thâ—n is expressed and therefore though but one Angel be expressed yet the mystery implyes all the Angels of that Church Thirdly to signifie their unity in the Ministerial function and joynt commission to attend upon the feeding and governing of one Church with one common care as it were with one hand and heart And this iâ— more fitly declared
all the rest are no part of Canonical Scripture And therefore our former and ancienter English translations though they have these Postscripts yet they are put in a small character different from that of the Text. Although our Episcopal men of late in newer impressions have inlarged their Phylacteries in putting those Postscripts in the same full character with that of the Text that the simple might beleeve they are Canonical Scripture The Papists themselves Baronius Serrarius and the Rhemists confesse that there is much falsity in them The first Epistle to Timothy is thus subscribed the first to Timothy was written from Laodicea whoch is the chiefest City of Phrygia Pacatiana Here wee demand whether Paul when hee writ the first Epistle to Timothy was assured he should live to write a second which was written long after And if not How comes it to bee subscribed the first to Timothy which hath relation to a second Besides the Epistle is said to bee writ from Laodicea whereas Beza in his Annotations proves apparently that it was written from Macedonia to which Opinion Baronius and Serrarius subscribe It is added Which is the chiefest City of Phrygia Pacatiana But this Epithet is nowhere read in the Writers of those ages saith Beza Sed apud recentiores illoâ— qui Romani imperii jam inclinantis provincias descripserunt So that by this place it is evident that the subscription was added a long while after the writing of the Epistles by some men for the most part vel indoctis saith Beza vel certe non satis attentis Either by a Learned or negligent man The second Epistle is thus subscribed The second Epistle unto Timothy ordained the first Bishop of the Church of the Ephesians was written from Rome when Paul was brought before Nero the second time Now these words Ordained the first Bishop is wanting saith Beza in quibusdam vetustis codicibus in veteri vulgatâ editione apud Syrum interpreâ—â—m If Saint Paul had written this Postscript he would not have said To Timothy the first Bishop c. whereas it was not yet certain whether ever there should bee a second Neither would it bee said when Paul was brought c. But when I was the second time brought before Nero. The Syriack Interpreter reads it Here ends the second Epistle to Timothy written from Rome The Epistle to Titus is thus subscribed Written to Titus Ordained first Bishop of the Church of the Cretians from Nicopolis of Macedonia Here it is said that this Epistle was written from Nicopolis whereas it is cleare that Paul was not at Nicopolis when he wrote it Tit. 3.12 Be diligent to come to me at Nicopolis for I have determined there to winter Hee doth not say Here to winter but There Where note for the present he was not there And besides it is said that Titus was Ordained the first Bishop c. And who was the second or was there ever a second And also He is said to be Bishop not onely of a Diocess but of all Creet Was there ever such a second Bishop Adde lastly that it is said Bishop of the Church of the Cretians Whereas it would bee said of the Churches of the Cretians For the Christian Churches of any Nation are called Churches by Luke and Paul not Church Therefore Codex Claremontanus subscribes Here ends the Epistle to Titus and no more So the Syriack Finitur Epistola ad Titum quae scripta fuit è Nicopoli The old Vulgar Edition hath nothing of the Episcopacy of Titus By all this it appears that if the Bishops had no more authority to urge us to subscribe to their Ceremonies then they have authority for their Episcopal Dignity by these Subscriptions there would be no more subscription to Ceremonies in the Churches of England But some will say that there is one objection out of Scripture yet unanswered and that is from the inequality that was betweene the twelve Apostles and the seventy Disciples To which we answer First that it cannot be proved that the twelve Apostles had any superiority over the seventy either of Ordination or Jurisdiction or that there was any subordination of the seventy unto the twelve but suppose it was yet we answer Secondly that a superiority and inferiority betweene Officers of different kindes will not prove that there should be a superiority and inferiority between Officers of the same kinde No man will deny but that in Christs time there were Apostles Evangelists Prophets Pastors and Teachers and that the Apostles were superior to Evangelists and Pastors But it cannot be proved that one Apostle had any superiority over another Apostle or one Evangelist over an other And why then should one Presbyter be over another Hence it followeth that though we should grant a superiority between the twelve and the seventy yet this will not prove the question in hand Because the question is concerning Officers of the same kind and the instance is of Officers of different kinds amongst whom no man will deny but there may be a superiority and inferiority as there is amongst us between Presbyters and Deacons And now let your Honours judge considering the premisses how far this Episcopal government is from any Divine right or Apostolical Institution And how true that speech of Hierome is that a Bishop as it is a superiour Order to a Presbyter is an Humane presumption not a Divine Ordinance But though Scripture fails them yet the indulgence and Munificence of Religious Princes may support them and to this the Remonstrant makes his next recourse yet so as he acknowledgeth here Ingagements to Princes onely for their accessory dignities titles and Maintenance not at all for their stations and functions wherein yet the author plainly acknowledgeth a difference between our Bishops and the Bishops of old by such accessions For our parts we are so farre from envying the gracious Munificence of pious Princes in collating honourable maintenance upon the Ministers of Christ that we beleeve that even by Gods own Ordinance double Honour is due unto them And that by how much the Ministery of the Gospell is more honourable then that of the Law by so much the more ought all that embrace the Gospell to be carefull to provide that the Ministers of the Gospell might not onely live but maintain Hospitalitie according to the Rule of the Gospell And that worthy Gentleman spake as an Oracle that said That scandalous Maintenance is a great caues of a scandelous Ministery Yet we are not ignorant that when the Ministery came to have Agros dâ—mos lecationes vehicula â—ques laâ—ifâ—ndia as Chrysost Hom. 86 in Matth. That then Religio peperit divitias filia devoravit Matrem Religion brought forth riches and the Daughter devoured the Mother and then there was a voice of Angels heard from Heaven Hodie venenum in Ecclesiam Christi cecidit This day is poison shed into the Church of Christ. And then it was that Ierom complained
Christi Ecclesia post quam ad Christianos principes venit potentiâ quidem divitiis major sed virtutibus minor facta est Then also was that Conjunction found true That when they had wooden Chalices they had golden Priests but when their Chalices were golden their Priests were wooden And though we do not think there is any such incompossibility but that large Revenues may be happily managed with an humble sociablnesse yet is very rare to finde History tells us that the superfluous revenues of the Bishops not onely made them neglect their Ministery but further ushered in their stately and pompous attendance which did so elevate their spirits that they insulted over their brethren both Clergy and People and gave occasion to others to hate and abhorre the Christian Faith Which Eusebius sets forth fully in the pride of Paulus Samosatenus vvho notwithstanding the meannesse and obscurity of his birth aftervvards grew to that height of insolency and pride in all his carriage especially in that numerous traine that attended him in the streets and in his stately throne raised after the manner of Kings and Princes that Fides nostra invidiae odio propter fastam superbiam cordis illius facta fuerit obnoxia The Christian Faith vvas exposed to envy and hatred through his pride And as their ambition fed vvith the largenesse of their revenues discovered it self in great attendance stately dvvellings and all Lordly pomp so Hierom complaines of their pride in their stately seates qui velut in aliqua sublimi specula constituti vix dignantur videre mortales alloqui conservos suâ—s who fitting aloft as it were in a vvatch-tovver vvill scarce deigne to looke upon poore mortalls or speake to their fellovv-servants Here vve might be large in multipying several testimonies against the pride of Ecclesiasticall persons that the largenesse of their revenues raysed them to but we will conclude with that grave complaint of Sulpitius Severus Ille qui antè pâ—dibus aut asâ—lloire consueverat spumante equâ— superbus invâ—hitur parvâ priùs ac vili cellula contentus habitare erigit celsa Laquearia construit multa conclavia sculpit pâ—stes pingit aâ—maria vestem respuit gâ—ossiorem indumentum molle desiderat c. Which because the practice of our times hath already turned into English we spare the labour to translate Onely suffer us being now to give a Vale to our Remonstrants arguments to recollect some few things First whereas this Remonstrant saith If we do not shew out of the true genuine writings of those holy men that lived in the Apostles dayes a clear received distinction of Bishops Presbyters and Deacons as three distinct subordinate callings with an evident specification of the duty belonging to each of them Let this claimed Hierarchy be for ever routed out of the Church We beseech you let it be remembred how we have proved out of the genuine and undeniable writings of the Apostles themselves that these are not three distinct callings Bishops are Presbyters being with them all one Name and Office and that the distinction of Bishops and Presbyters was not of Divine Institution but Humane and that these Bishops in their first Institution did not differ so much from Presbyters as our present Bishops differ from them Secondly Whereas this Remonstant saith If our Bishops challenge any other power then was by Apostolike authority delegated to and required of Timothy and Titus and the Angâ—ls of the Asian Churches Lâ—t them be disclaimed as usurpers Wee desire it may be remembred how we have proved first that Timothy and Titus and the Angels who are Diocesan Bishops and secondly that our Bishops challenge if not in their Polemickes yet in their Practicks a power that Timothy and Titus and those Angels never did Thirdly Whereas this Remonstrant saith If there can be better evidence under Heaven for any matter of fact let Episcopacy be for ever abandoned out of Gods Church We beseech you remember how weake we have discovered his Evidence to be and then the Inference upon all these we humbly leave to your Honours Wisdom and Iustice. SECT XIV HAving thus considered the validity of those arguments whereby this Remonstrant would suffult Episcâ—pacy we descend now to inquire what satisfaction he gives to those objections which himself frames as the main if not the â—ole arguments that Episcopacy is assaultable by and they are two First that pleading the Divine right of Episcopacy is to the prejudiâ—e of Sovereignty Secondly that it casts a dangerous imputation upon all those Reformed Churches that want this Government To the first the prejudice of Sovereignty he answers there is a compatibleness in this case of Gods Act and the Kings it is God that makes the Bishop the King that gives the Bishoprick But we have proved already that God never made a Bishop as he stands in his Superiority over al other Presbyters he never had Gods Fiat and if they disclaim the influence of sovereignty unto their creation to a Priority and assert that the King doth not make them Bishops they must have no being at all Sure we are the Laws of the Land proclaim that not only Bishopricks but Bishâ—ps and all the Iurisdiction they have is from the King whereas the Remonstrant acknowledgeth no more but the bare place and excercise to be from Regall donation which cannot be affirmed without apparent prejudice of that Sovereigntie which the Lawes of the Land have invested our Princes with And for his unworthy comparison of Kings in order to Bishops and Patrons in order to their Clerkes when he shall prove that the Patron gives ministerial power to his Clerke as the King according to our Laws gives Episcopall power to the Bishop it may be of some conducement to his cause but till then we leave the unfitnesse of this comparison and the unthankfulnesse of those men to the indulgence of their Sovereigne to their deserved recompence His learned answer to such men as borrowing Saint Ieroms phrase speake Saint Pauls truth is in summe this That he knowes not how to prescribe to mens thoughts but for all his Rhetoricke they will think what they list but if they will grant him the question they shall soon be at an end of the quarrell which one answer if satisfactory would silence all controversies to as good purpose as he did Bellarmine who said Bellarmine saith it is thus and I say it is not and where is Bellarmine now To the second objection that Episcopacie thus asserted casts an imputation upon all the reformed Churches that want that Government he saith that the objection is intended to raise envie against them who if they may be beleeved love and honour those sister-Churches and 〈◊〉 God for them But do they out pluck all this envie upon themselves who in their Conferences Writings Pulpits Vniversities Disputes High Commissiâ—n Declamations have disclaimed them as no Churches that 〈◊〉
disclaimed the Prelates and have honoured the most glorious Lights of those Reformed Churches Calvin Beza and others with no better titles then of Rascals Blasphemers c. But the pith of his answer after a few good words is this that no such consequent can be drawn from their opinion for their Ius divinum pleads only for a Iustifiablenesse of this holy calling not for an absolute necessity of it warranting it where it is and requiring it where it may be had but not fixing upon the Church that wants it the defect of any thing of the Essence of a Church but only of the glory and perfection of it neither is it their sin but their misery And is it so doth not this Ius divinum argue a Necessitie but only a Iustifiablenesse of this calling nor is the want of it a want of any thing of Essence but onely of perfection we had thought that page the 20th where this Remonstrant strives to fetch the pedegree of Episcopacie from no lesse than Apostolicall and in that right Divine institution he had reckoned it among those things which the Apostles ordained for the succeeding administration of the Church in essentiall matters but here it seemes he is willing to retract what there fell from him there it was to his advantage to say this Government was a thing essentiall to the Church and here it is no lesse advantage to say it is not essentiall But if it be not Essentiall then what is the reason that when a Priest who hath received Orders at Rome turnes to us they urge not him to receive ordination among us again but when some of our brethren who flying in Queene Maries dayes had received Imposition of hands in the Reformed Churches beyond the Seas returned again in the dayes of Queene Elizabeth they were urged to receive Imposition of hands againe from our Bishops and some did receivâ— it If those Churches that want Bishops want nothing essentiall to a Church then what Essentiall want was there in the Ordination of those Ministers that received Imposition of hands in those Churches that might deserve a Re-ordination more than if they had first received their Ordination at Rome And what is the reason that Bishop Mountague so confidently affirmes that Ordination by Episcopall hands is so necessary as that the Church is no true Church without it and the Ministery no true Ministery and ordinarily no salvation to be obtainâ—d without it And if this Remonstrant should leave Bishop Mountague to answer for himself yet notwithstanding he stands bound to give us satisfaction to these two questions which arise from his own Book First whether that Office which by divine right hath the sole power of Ordaining and Ruling all other Officers in the Church as he saith Episcopacie hath belong not to the being but onely to the glory and perfection of a Church Secondly there being in this mans thoughts the same Ius divinum for Bishops that there is for Pastors and Elders whether if those Reformed Churches wanted Pastors and Elders too they should want nothing of the Essence of a Church but of the perfection and glory of it But this Remonstrant seemes to know so much of the minde of those Churches that if they might have their option they would most gladly embrace Episcopall Government as little differing from their own Moderatorship save onely in the perpetuitie of it and the new Invention as he odiously calls it of lay-Elders But no question those learned Worthies that were intrusted by the Churches to compile their Confessions did comprise their Iudgements better than the Composer of this Remonstrance And to his presumtion we oppose their Confession We will begin with the French Church who in their Confession speake thus Credimus veram Ecclesiam gubernari debere eâ politiâ quam Dominus noster Iesus Christus sancivit ità videlicet ut fint in ea Pastores Presbyteri sive Seniores Diaconi ut doctrinae puritas retineatur c. Art 29. Credimus omnes Pastores ubicunque collocati sunt eâdem aequali potestate inter se esse praeditos sub uno illo capite summóque solo universali Episcopo Iesu Christo. Art 30. Gallicae Confessionis Credimus veram hanc Ecclesiam aebere regi ac gubernari spirituali illâ politiâ quà m nos Deus ipse in verbo suo edocuit ità ut sint in ea Pastores ac Ministri qui purè concionentur Sacramenta administrent sint quoque Seniores Diaconi qui Ecclesiae Senatum constituant ut his veluti mediis vera Religio conservari Hominésque vitiis dediti spiritualiter corripi emendari possint Tunc enim ritè ordinatè omniae fiunt in Ecclesiâ cùm viri fideles pii ad ejus gubernationem deliguntur juxta Divi Pauli praescriptum 1 Tim. 3. Confes. Belgic Art 30. Caeterùm ubicuuque locorum sunt verbi Dei Ministri candem atque aequalem Omnes habent tum Potestatem tum Authoritatem ut qui sunt aequè Omnes Christi unici illius universalis Episcopi capit is Ecclesiae Ministri We believe that the true Church ought to be governed by that policy which Christ Jesus our Lord established viz. that there be Pastors Presbyters or Elders and Deacons And again We believe that all true Pastors whereever they be are endued with equal and the same power under one chief Head and Bishop Christ Jesus Consonant to this the Dutch Churches We believe say they the true Church ought to be ruled with that spiritual policy which God hath taught us in his Word to wit that there be in it Pastors to preach the Word purely Elders and Deacons to constitute the Ecclesiastical Senate that by these means Religion may be preserved and manners corrected And so again We believe where-ever the Ministers of God are placed they All have the same equal Power and Authority as being All equally the Ministers of Christ. In which Harmony of these Confessions see how both Churches agree in these five points First That there is in the Word of God an exact form of Government set down Deus in verbo suo edocuit Secondly That this form of Government Christ established in his Church Iesus Christus in Ecclesiâ sancivit Thirdly That this form of Government is by Pastors Elders and Deacons Fourthly That the true Church of Christ ought to be thus governed Veram Ecclesiam debere regi Fifthly That all true Ministers of the Gospel are of equal power and authority For the reason he assigns why those Churches should make this Option we cannot enough admire that such a passage should fall from his pen as to say There is little difference between their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and our Episcopacy save onely in perpetuity and lay-Elders for who knows not that between these two there is a vast a difference as between the Duke of Venice and an absolute Monarch For 1 the Moderator in Geneva is not of a
superiour order to his Brethren nor 2 hath an Ordination differing from them nor 3 assumes power of sole Ordination or Jurisdiction nor hath he 4 maintenance for that Office above his Brethren nor 5 a Negative voice in what is agreed by the rest nor 6 any further power then any of his Brethren So that the difference between our Bishops and their Moderators is more then Little But if it be so little as this Remonstrant here pretends then the Alteration and Abrogation of Episcopacy will be with the lesse difficulty and occasion the less disturbance SECT XV. BUt there is another thing wherein our Episcopacy differs from the Geneva Moderatorship besides the perpetuity and that is the exclusion of the Lay-Presbytery which if we may believe this Remonstrant never till this age had footing in the Christian Church In which assertion this Remonstrant concludes so fully with Bishop Halls Irrefragable Propositions and his other Book of Episcopacie by Divine right as if he had conspired to swear to what the Bishop had said Now though we will not enter the Lists with a man of that learning and fame that Bishop Hall is yet we dare tell this Remonstrant that this his assertion hath no more truth in it then the rest that we have already noted We will to avoid prolixity not urge those three known Texts of Scripture produced by some for the establishing of Governing Elders in the Church not yet vindicated by the Adversaries Nor will we urge that famous Text of Ambrose in 1 Tim. 5. But if there were no Lay-Elders in the Church till this present age we would be glad to learn who they were of whom Origen speaks when he tells us it was the Custome of Christian Teachers first to examine such as desired to heare them of whom there were two orders the first were Catechumeni or beginners the other was of such as were more perfect among whom 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Nonnulli praepositi sunt qui in vitam mores eorum qui admittuntur inquirant ut qui turpia committant eos communi Caetu interdicant qui verò ab istis abhorrent ex anima complexi meliores quotidie reddant There are some ordained to inquire into the life and manners of such as are admitted into the Church that they may banish such from the publique Assembly that perpetrate scandalous Acts which place tells us plainly First that there were some in the higher forme of hearers not Teachers who were Censores morum over the rest Secondly that they were designed or constituted to this work 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Thirdly that they had such Authority intrusted into their hands as that they might interdict such as were scandalous from the publique Assemblies We would gladly know whether these were not as it were Lay-Eelders That there were such in the Church distinguished from others that were called to teach appeares Augustine writing to his Charge directs his Epistle Dilectissimis fratribus Clero Senioribus universae Plebi Ecclesiae Hipponensis where first there is the general compellation Fratribus Brethren Then there is a distribution of these Brethren into the Clergie the Elders and the whole People so that there were in that Church Elders distinguished both from the Clergie and the rest of the People So again Contra Cresconium Grammaticum Omnes vos Episcopi Presbyteri Diaconi and Seniores scitis All you Bishops Elders Deacons and Elders do know What were those two sorts of Elders there mentioned in one comma and ibidem cap. 56. Peregrinus Presbyter Seniores Ecclesiae Musticanae Regionis tale desiderium prosequuntur where again we read of Elder and Elders Presbyter and Seniors in one Church Both those passages are upon record in the publick acts which are more fully set down by Baronius Anno 303. Num. 15 16 17. As also by Albaspineus in his Edition of Optatus in which Acts the Seniors are often mentioned In that famous relation of the purging of Caecilianus and Felix there is a copie of a Letter Fratribus filiis Clero Senioribus Fratribus in Domino aeternam salutem Another Letter is mentioned a little before Clericis Senioribus Cirthensium in Domino aeternam Salutem These Seniors were interessed in affaires concerning the Church as being the men by whose advice they were managed The Letter of Purpurius to Silvanus saith Adhibete conclericos seniores plebis Ecclesiasticos Viros inquirant quae sint iste Dissensiones ut ea quae sunt secundum fidâ—i Praecepta fiant Where we see the joynt power of these Seniors with the Clergie in ordering Ecclesiasticall affairs that by their wisdom and care peace might be setled in the Church for which cause these Seniors are called Ecclesiastical men and yet they are distinguished from Clergie men They are mentioned again afterwards by Maximus saying Loquor nomine SENIORUM Populi Christiani Greg. Mag. distinguisheth them also from the Clergie Tabellarium cum consensu SENIORUM Cleri memineris Ordinandum These Seniors had power to reprove offenders otherwise why should Augustine say Cùm ob errorem aliquem à Senioribus arguuntur imputatur alicui cur aebrius fuerit cur res alienas pervaserit c. when they were by the Elders reproved for their errours and drunkenness is laid to a mans charge c. So that it was proper to the Seniors to have the cognizance of Delinqents and to reprove them The same Augustine in Psal. 36. Necesse nos fuerat Primiani causam quem c. Seniorum literis ejusdem Ecclesiae poâ—tulantibus audire Being requested by Letters from the Seniors of that Church it was needful for me to hear the cause of Primian c. So again Optatus who mentioning a persecution that did for a while scatter the Church saith Erant Ecclesiae ex auro argento quà m plurima Ornamenta quae nec defodere terrae nec secum portare poterat quare fidelibus Senioribus commendavit Albaspineus that learned Antiquary on that place acknowledges that Besides the Clergie there were certain of the Elders of the people men of approved life that did tend the affairs of the Church of whom this place is to be understood By all these testimonies it is apparent first that in the ancient Church there were some called Seniors Secondly that these Seniors were not Clergie men Thirdly that they had a stroke in governing the Church and managing the affairs thereof Fourthly that Seniors were distinguished from the rest of the people Neither would we desire to chuse any other Iudges in this whole controversie then whom himself constituted Forreign Divines taking the general Suffrage and practice of the Churches and not of particular men As for the learned Spanhemius whom he produceth though we give him the deserved honour of a worthy man yet we think it too much to speak of him as if the judgment of the whole Church
a generall word signifying a day of rest which is common as well to the Christian Sabbath as to the Jewish Sabbath and was also used by the Ancients Ruffinus in Psal. 47. Origâ—n Hom. 23. in Num. Gregory Nazian Whether that assertion No Bishop No King and no Ceremonie no Bishop be not very prejudiciall to Kingly Authority For it seemes to imply that the Civill power depends upon the Spiritual and is supported by Ceremonies and Bishops Whether seeing it hath been proved that Bishops as they are novv asserted are a meere humane Ordinance it may not by the same Authority be abrogated by vvhich it vvas first established especially considering the long experience of the hurt they have done to Church and State Whether the advancing of Episcopacie into Ius Divinum doth not make it a thing simply unlavvfull to submit to that Government Because that many consciencious men that have hitherto conformed to Ceremonies and Episcopacy have done it upon this ground as supposing that Authority did not make them matters of vvorship but of Order and Decencie c. And thus they satisfied their consciences in ansvvering those Texts Colos. 2.20 21 22. Matth. 15.9 But novv since Episcopacy comes to be challenged as a Divine Ordinance hovv shall vve be responsible to those Texts And is it not as it is novv asserted become an Idoll and like the Brazen Serpent to be ground to povvder Whether there be any difference in the point of Episcopacy betweene Ius Divinum and Ius Apostolicum Because we finde some claiming their standing by Ius Divinum others by Ius Apostolicum But we conceive that Ius Apostolicum properly taken is all one with Ius Divinum For Ius Apostolicum is such a Ius which is founded upon the Acts and Epistles of the Apostles written by them so as to be a perpetuall Rule for the succeeding Administration of the Church as this Author saith Pag. 20. And this Ius is Ius Divinum as well as Apostolicum But if by Ius Apostolicum they mean improperly as some do such things which are not recorded in the Writings of the Apostles but introduced the Apostles being living 〈…〉 be rightly said to be Iure Apostolico nor such things which the Apostles did intend the Churches should be bound unto Neither is Episcopacie as it imports a superioritie of power over a Preâ—byter no not in this sense Iure Apostolico as hath beene already proved and might further be manifested by divers Testimonies if need did require We will only instance in Cassander a man famous for his immoderate moderation in controverted Points of Religion who in his Consultat Articul 14. hath this saying An Episâ—opatus inter ordines Ecclesiasticâ—s ponendus sit inter Theologos Canonistas non convenit Convenit autem inter omnes Apostolorum aetate inter Presbyterum Episcopum nullum discrimen fuisse c. Wether the distinction of Beza between Episcopus Divinus Humâ—nuâ— Diabolicus be not worthy your Honours consideration By the Divine Bishop he meanes the Bishop as he is taken in Scripture which is one and the same with a Presbyter By the humane Bishop he meanes the Bishop chosen by the Presbyters to be President over them and to rule with them by fixed Lawes and Canons By the Diabolical Bishop he means a Bishop with sole power of Ordination and Jurisdiction Lording it over Gods heritage and governing by his owne will and authority Which puts us in minde of the Painter that Limned two pictures to the same proportion and figure The one he reserved in secret the other he exposed to common view And as the phansie of beholders led them to censure any line or proportion as not done to the life he mends it after direction If any fault be found with the eye hand foot c. He corrects it till at last the addition of every mans fancy had defaced the first figure and made that which was the Picture of a man swell into a monster Then bringing forth this and his other Picture which hee had reserved he presented both to the people And they abhorring the former and applauding the latter he cried Hunc populus fecit This deformed one the People made This lovely one I made As the Painter of his Painting so in Beza's sense it may be said of Bishops God at first instituted Bishops such as are all one with Presbyters and such are amiable honourable in all the Churches of God But when men would be adding to Gods institution what power preheminence Jurisdiction Lordliness their phansie suggested unto them this divine Bishop lost his Original beauty and became to be Humanus And in conclusion by these and other aditions swelling into a Pope Diabolicus Whether the Ancient Fathers when they call Peter Marke Iames Timothy and Titus Bishops did not speak according to the Language of the times wherein they lived rather then according to the true acception of the word Bishop and whether it be not true which is here said iâ— this Book that they are called Bishops of Alexandâ—iae Ephesâ—s Hierusâ—lem c in a very improper sense because they abode at those pâ—acâ—s a longer time then at other places For suâ—e it is if 〈…〉 and and Iâ—mes Apostles which are Bishops over the whol◠〈◊〉 and the Apostles made Markâ— â—imothy and Titus 〈…〉 c. it seemes to us that it would have been a great sin in them to limit themselves to one particular Diocesse and to â—eave that calling in which Christ had placed them Whether Presbyters in Scripture are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and that it is an office required at their hands to rule and to govern as hath bin proved in this Book The Bishops can without sin arrogate the exercise of this power to themselves alone and why they may not with the same lawfulness impropriate to themselves alone the Key of Doctrine which yet notwithstanding al would condemn as well as the Key of Discipline seeing that the whole power of the Keys is given to Presbyters in Scripture as well as to Bishops as appears Mat. 16.19 where the power of the Keys is promised to Peter in the name of the rest of the Apostles and their successors given to all the Apostles and their successors Mat. 18.19 Iohn 20.23 And that Presbyters succeed the Apostles appears not onely Mat. 28.20 but also Acts. 20.28 where the Apostle ready to leave the Church of Ephesus commends the care of ruling and feeding it to the Elders of that Church To this Irenaeus witnesseth lib 4 cap. 43.44 This Bishop Iewell against Harding Artic. 4. Sect. 5 6. saith that all Pastors have equall power of binding and loosing with â—eter Whether since that Bishops assume to themselves power temporall to be Barons and to sit in Parliament as Judges and in Court of Star-Chamber High Commission and other Courts of Justice and also power spirituall over Ministers and People to ordain silence suspend
deprive excommunicate c. their spiritual power be not as dangerous though both be dangerous and as much to be opposed as their temporal 1 Because the spiritual is over our consciences the temporal but over our purses 2 Because the spiritual have more influence into Gods Ordinances to defile them then the temporal 3 Because spiritual judgements and evils are greater than other 4 Because the Pope was Antichrist before he did assume any temporal power 5 Because the Spiritual is more inward and lesse discerned and therefore it concerns all those that have Spiritual eyes and desire to worshâ—y God in spirit and truth to consider and endeavour to 〈…〉 Spiritual usurpations as well as their Temporal Whether Aâ—rius be justly branded by Epiphanius and Austin for a Hereâ—â—cke as some report sor affirming Bishops and Presbyters to be of an equal power Wee say as some report for the truth is he is charged with heresie meerly and onely because he was an Arrian As for his opinian of the parity of a Presbyter with a Bishop this indeed is called by Austin proprium dogma Aerii the proper opinion of Aerius And by Epiphanius it is called Dogma suriosum stolidum a mad and foolish opinion but not an heresie neither by the one nor the other But let us suppose as is commonly thought that he was accounted an Heretick for this opinion yet notwithstanding that this was but the private opinion of Epiphanius and borrowed out of him by Austin and an opinion not to be allowed appeares First because the same Authors condemne Aerius as much for reprehending and censuring the mentioning of the dead in the publâ—que prayers and the performing of good works for the benefit of the dead And also for the reprehending stata jejunia and the keeping of the week before Easter as a solemne Fast which if worthy of condemnation would bring in most of the reformed Churches into the censure of Heresie Secondly because not onely Saint Hierome but Austin himself Sedulius Primasius Chrysostome Theodoret Oâ—cumenius Theophilact were of the same opinion with Aerius as Michael Medina observes in the Council of Trent and hath writen Lib. 1. de sacr hom origine and yet none of these deserving the name of Fools much lesse to be branded for Hereticks Thirdly because no Councell did ever condemne this for Heresie but on the contrary Concilium Aquisgranens sub Ludovico â—io Imp. 1. anno 816. hath approved it for true Divinity out of the Scriture That Bishops and Presbyters are equal bringing the same texts that Aerius doth and which Epiphanius indeed undertakes to answer but how slightly let any indifferent Reader judge Whether the great Apostasie of the Church of Rome hath not been in swerving from the Discipline of Christ as well as from the doctrine For so it seems by that text 2. Thess. 2.4 And also Revel 18.7 and divers others And if so then it much concernes all those that desire the purity of the Church to consider how neere the Discipline of the Church of England borders upon Antichrist lest while they endeavour to keep out Antichrist from entring by the door of doctrine they should suffer him secretly to creep in by the door of Discipline especially considering what is here said in this Booke That by their own confession the Discipline of the Church of England is the same with the Church of Rome Whether Episcopacie be not made a place of Dignity rather then Duty and desired onely for the great revenues of the place And whether if the largenesse of their revenues were taken away Bishops would not decline the great burthen and charge of soules necessarily annexed to their places as much as the ancient Bishops did who hid themselves that they might not be made Bishops and cut off their cares rather then they would be made Bishops whereas now Bishops cut off the eares of those that speak against their Bishopricks How it comes to pass that in England there is such increase of Popery Superstition Arminianism and prophaneness more then in other Reformed Churches Doth not the root of these Disorders proceed from the Bishops and their adherents being forced to hold correspondencie with Rome to uphold their greatness and their Courts and Canons wherein they symbolize with Rome And whether it be not to be feared that they will rather consent to the bringing in of Popery for the upholding of their dignities then part with their dignities for the upholding of Religion Why should England that is one of the chiefest Kingdomes in Europe that separates from Antichrist maintain and defend a Discipline different from all other Reformed Churches which stand in the like Separation And whether the continuance in this Discipline will not at last bring us to communion with Rome from which we are separated and to separation from the other Reformed Churches unto which we are united Whether it be fit that the name Bishop which in Scripture is common to the Presbyters with the Bishops and not only in Scripture but also in Antiquity for some hundreds of yeers should still be appropriated to Bishops and ingrossed by them and not rather to be made common to all Presbyters and the rather because First we finde by woful experience that the great Equivocatithat lieth in the name Bishop hath been and is at this day a great prop and pillar to uphold Lordly Prelacy for this is the great Goliah the master-piece and indeed the onely argument with which they think to silence all opposers to wit the Antiquity of Episcopacie that it hath continued in the Church of Christ for 1500 yeers c. which argument is cited by this Remonstrant ad nauseam usque usque Now it is evident thaâ— this â—râ—ument is a Paralogism depending upon the Equivocation of the 〈◊〉 â—â—shop For Bishops in the Apostles time were the sâ—me with Preâ—byters in name and office and so for a good whâ—le after Anâ— when afterwards they came to be distingâ—â—shed the â—iâ—hops of thâ—â—rimitive times differed as much from oâ—â—s now as Rome anciâ—nt â—rom Rome at this day as hath been suâ—fiâ—ieâ—â—ly declâ—â—ed in this Book And the best way to confute this â—rgumenâ— iâ—â—y hâ—nging in a Community of the name Bishop to a Presbyâ—er aâ— wâ—ll 〈…〉 a â—â—shop Secondly becauâ—â— we â—inâ—e 〈…〉 late Innovators which have so much disturbed 〈…〉 pâ—râ—ty of our Church did first begin wâ—â—h the alâ—â—ratio◠〈…〉 and by changing the word Table into the word Altar and the word Minister into the word Priest and the woâ—d Sacrâ—ment into the word â—acrifice have endeavoured to bring in the Popish Mass. And the Apostâ—e exhorts us 2 Tim. 1.13 Tâ— hold fast the form of sound words and 1 Tim. 6.20 To avoid the prophane novelties of words Upon which text we will only mention what the Rhemists have commented which we conceive to be worthy consideration Nam instruunt nos non solùm docentes sâ—d etiâ—m errantes The Church
Prelacie the unhappy instrument of pulling the young Duke of York out of Sanctuary into his cruel Uncles hands Things being setled in such a peace as after the bloody brawls was to the afflicted Realm howsoever acceptable though not such as might be wished Morton Bishop of Ely enticing the Duke of Buckingham to take the Crown which ruin'd him opened the veins of the poor subjects to bleed afresh The intolerable pride extortion bribery luxury of Wolsey Archbishop of York who can be ignorant of selling Dispensatitions by his power Legantine for all offences insulting over the Dukes and Peers of whom some he brought to destruction by bloody policie playing with State-affairs according to his humour or benefit causing Tournay got with the blood of many a good Souldier to be rendred at the French Kings secret request to him not without bribes with whom one while siding another while with the Emperour he sold the honour and peace of England at what rates he pleased and other crimes to be seen in the Articles against him Holinshed 912. and against all the Bishops in general 911 which when the Parliament sought to remedie being most excâ—ssive extortion in the Ecclesiastical Courts the Bishops cry out Sacriledge the Church goes to ruine as it did in Bohemia with the Schisme of the Hussites Ibid. After this though the Bishops ceased to be Papists for they preached against the Popes Supremacie to please the King yet they ceased not to oppugne the Gospel causing Tindals Translation to be burnt yea they agreed to the suppressing of Monasteries leaving their revenues to the King to make vvay for the six bloudy Articles which proceedings with all cruelty of inquisition are set down Holinsh. pag. 946. till they were repealed the second of Edward the Sixth stopping in the mean while the cause of Reformation well begun by the Lord Cromwel And this mischief was wrought by Steven Gardiner Bishop of Winchester The six Articles are set down in Speed pag. 792. The Archbishop of Saint Andrews his hindring of England and Scotlands Union for fear of Reformation Speed 794. As for the dayes of King Edward the Sixth we cannot but acknowledge to the glory of the rich mercy of God that there was a great Reformation of Religion made even to admiration And yet notwithstanding we do much dislike the humour of those that cry up those dayes as a compleat pattern of Reformation and that endevour to reduce our Religion to the first times of King Edward which we conceive were comparatively very imperfect there being foure impediments which did much hinder that blessed work The three Rebellions One in Henry the Eighths time by the Priests of Lincoln and Yorkeshire for that Reformation which Cromwel had made The other two in King Edwards dayes One in Cornwal the other in Yorkâ—shire The strife that arose suddenly amongst the Peers emulating one anothers honour Speed pag. 837. The violent opposition of the Popish Bishops which made Martin Bucer write to King Edward in his Book de Regno Christi lib. 2 cap. 1. and say Your Majesty doth see that this restoring again the Kingdom of Christ which we require yea which the salvation of us all requireth may in no wise be expected to come from the Bishops seeing there be so few among them which do understand the power and proper Offices of this Kingdom and very many of them by all means which possibly they can and dare either oppose themselves against it or defer and hinder The deficiency of zeal and courage even in those Bishops who afterwards proved Martyrs witness the sharp contention of Ridley against Hooper for the ceremonies And the importunate suit of Cranmer and Ridley for toleration of the Mass for the Kings sister which was rejected by the Kings not only reasons but tears whereby the young King shewed more zeal then his best Bishops 839. The inhumane butcheries blood-sheddings and cruelties of Gardiner Bonner and the rest of the Bishops in Queen Maries dayes are so fresh in every mans memory as that we conceive it a thing altogether unnecessary to make mention of them Onâ—ly we fear lest the guilt of the blood then shed should yet remain to be required at the hands of this Nation because it hath not publickly endeavoured to appease the wrath of God by a general and solemn humiliation for it What the practâ—ces of the Prelates have been ever since from the begininning of Queene Elizabeth to this present day would fill a volume like Ezekiels Roll with lamentation mourning and wo to record For it hath been their great designe to hinder all further Reformation to bring in doctrines of Popery Arminianisme and Libertinisme to maintain propagate and much encrease the burden of hâ—mane ceremonies to keep out and beat down the Preaching of the Word to silence the faithfull Preachers of it to oppose and persecute the most zealous professours and to turn all Religâ—on into a pompous out-side and to tread down the power of godliness Insomuch as it is come to an ordinary Proverb thaâ— when any thing is spoiled we use to say The Bishop's foot hath been in it And in this and much more which might be said fulfilling Bishop 〈◊〉 Prophecie who when he saw that in King Edwards reformation there was a reservation of Ceremonies and Hierarchy is credibly reported to have used these words Since they have begun to taste of our Broath it will not be long ere they will eat of our Beef FINIS * Videbat eninâ— passim laborari mole copiâ variorum in hoc genere commenâ—â—tiorum novis editionibus ancipitem reddi corum delectuÌ„ sed meliores etiam id est veteres illos et probatos Authores è studiosorum manibus excuti c Praefat. Scriptorum Theolog. Henric Alting * Quaedam noxia victoria paenè mihi semper in disputationibus proveniebat cum Christianis imperitis August contra Manich. cap. 19. * Mr. Stephen Marshall Mr. Edm. Calamy Dr. Th. Young Mr. Matthew Newcomen Dr. William Spurstowe * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Eph. 4.15 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Pag. 23. Pag. â— Pag. 2. Pag. 3. Pag. 6. Pag. 2. Pag. 7. Untruths Remon pag. 8. Malmsbury lib. 4. Hist. Concil Trid. Pag. 9. Liturgie Pag. 10. a Ad hoc maâ—orum devoluta est Ecclesia Dei sponsa Christi ut haereticorum exempla Sectentur ad celebranda Sacramenta coelestia disciplinam Lux mutuetur de tenebris id faciant christiani quod Antichristi faciunt Cypr. Ep. 74. Pag. 13. Just. Mar. Apost 2. Tert. Ap. ad Gen. c. 39. Just. Mar. Apost 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Concil Laod. Can. 18. Conc. Carth. 3. Can. 23. Anno 397. Conc. Milev 2. Can. 12. An. 416. Pag. 10. Pag. 11. Pag. 18. Pag. 11. Euseb. de vit Con. li. 4. Cap. 18. Pag. 11. Pag. 12. Pag. 12. Pag. 13. D. Corbet M. Nevel Pag. 13. Pag. 13. Abbot against Church-forsakers Obâ— Ans.