Truly no who ever said that one Angel was over all the seven Churches but that each of these famous Churches were under their own Star or Angel but those churches you say were not Diocesan How doth that appeare Because first Tindall and the old translation calls them seven congregations for answer who knows not that Tindall and the old Translation are still wont to translate the word church wheresoever they finde it by Congregation which some Papists have laid in our dish Learned Doctor Fulk hath well cleared our intentions herein from their censure Tindall himselfe professes to doe it out of this reason because the Popish Clergy had appropriated to themselves the name of the Church but however they rather made use of the Word yet not so as that hereby they intend onely to signifie Parishionall meetings So Ephesians 3. To the intent that now to the Rulers and Powers in heavenly places might bee knowne by the Congregation the manifold Wisedome of GOD Doe wee thinke this blessed Revelation confined to a Parish or common to the whole Church of God So 1. Corinthians 15. they turne I am not worthy to bee called an Apostle because I persecuted the Congregation of GOD Doe we thinke his cruelty was confined to a Parish So Matthew 6.16 Vpon this Rocke will I build my Congregation was this a Parish onely So Acts 11. Herod the King stretched out his hands to vexe certaine of the Congregation Was his malice onely Parochiall but secondly ye tell us that in Ephesus which was one of those Candlesticks there was but one flock Acts 20.28 Yea but can you tell us what kind of Flock it was whether Nationall or Provinciall or Diocesan Parochiall I am sure it could not be you have heard before that those Elders or Bishops were sent for from Ephesus But that they were all of Ephesus it cannot be proved when all of them then are bidden to take heede to the Flocke of Christ whereof they are made over-seers each is herein charged to look to his owne and all are in the next words required to feed the Church of GOD which he hath purchased with his owne blood So as your second argument is fully answered in the solution of the first and in the former passages of this Section The advantage that you take from Epiphanius affirming that divers Cities of that time might have two Bishops whereas Alexandria held close to one can availe you little when it shall bee well weighed first that your Tenet supposeth and requireth that every Presbyter should bee a Bishop and therefore if your cause speed there should be no fewer Bishops than parishes Secondly that the practise of the whole Church both before and after Epiphanius is by such cleare testimonies convinced to be contrary famous and irrefragable is that Canon of Nicen Councell 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. that in one City there might not bee two Bishops so before this Cornelius writing to the Bishop of Antioch objects it scornfully to Novatian that hee did not know 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. that in a Catholike Church there ought to be but one Bishop And it is a knowne word of the Confessors of old in Cyprians time one GOD one Lord one Bishop Make much if you please of this conceit of yours that Epiphanius his Neighbour-hood might acquaint him well with the Condition of the Asian Churches But let mee adde that you shall approve your selves meere strangers to all the rules and practises of antiquity if you shall stand upon the generall plurality of Bishops in the same City or Dioces And last of all remember that Epiphanius reckons up Aerius as an Hereticke for holding Presbyters equall with Bishops Your third argument that there is nothing said in these seven Epistles that implyes a superiority is answered by the very Superscription of each Letter which is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 To the Angel and much more by the matter of the severall Epistles For what reason were it for an ordinary Presbyter to bee taxed for that which hee hath no power to redresse That the Angel of Pergamus should bee blamed for the having of those which hold the Doctrine of Balaam or the Nicolaitans when hee had no power to proceed against them or the Angel of the Church of Thyatira for suffering the Woman Jezabel if it must bee so read to teach and seduce when hee had no power of publick censure to restraine her But what need wee stand upon conjecturall answers to convince you in this plea as likewise in the supposed Decision of the kinde of superiority which you urge in the next paragraph when wee are able to shew both who the parties were to whom some of these Epistles were directed and to evince the high degree of their superiority Ignatius the Martyr besides Tertullian is witnesse for both who tells us that Onesimus was now the Angel or Bishop of Ephesus Polycarpus of Smyrna and as commenting upon this very subject oft ingeminates the duty of subjection owing to the Bishop and the divers degrees of those 3 several stations in the Church as we already instanced away then with those your unproving illustrations and unregardable testimonies which you as destitute of all Antiquity shut up the Scene withall And let the wise Reader judge whether the Remonstrant hath not from the evidence of Timothy and Titus and the Angels of the Asian Churches made good that just claime of this sacred Hierarchy against all your weak and frivolous pretentions From the Remonstrant least your discourse should not be tedious enough you fly upon some other Defenders of the Hierarchy and fall upon the two post-scripts of Saint Pauls Epistles to Timothy and Titus wherein Timothy Titus are stiled the first bishops of Ephesus and creet which I am no way engaged to defend You say they are not of canonical authority so say I too but I say they are of great antiquity so you must confesse also Faine would I see but any pretence of so much age against the matter of those Subscriptions the averred Episcopacy of Timothy and Titus cited by these confident antiquaries surely he were senceles that would imagine the Post-scripts as old as the Text or as authenticke but we may boldly say they are older then any Records of the gain-sayers Where these Subscriptions are not seconded by authority of the ancient Church there I leave them but where they are so wel backed there is no reason to forsake them The Exception therefore which you take at the Post-script of the Epistle to Titus is not more stale than unjust You say peremptorily it was not written from Nicopolis neither was Paul then there how appeares it Because hee sayes in the body of the Epistle come to mee to Nicopolis for I am determined there to winter Hee saith not Heere to Winter but there as speaking of a third place but how slight this ground is will bee easily apparent to any man that
but you shall give me leave to take you tripping in your own Tale from Cilicia you say Paul passed to Creet where he left Titus for a while to set in order things that remain this for a while you put into a different Character as if it were part of the Text and guiltily translate 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 things that remaine whereas ours turne it in a more full expression of an Episcopall power things that are wanting or left undone but this is not the matter you do yet again repeat the for a while urging the short time that Titus could bee left at Creet and yet in your own marginall computation there is no lesse distance of time betwixt this placing in Creet and sending for him to his next remove unto Nicopolis thā betwixt the year 46 51. the space of five years which was a large gap of time in that unsetled condition and manifold distractive occasions of the Church If afterwards hee were by Apostolicall command called away to tend the more concerning services of the Church this could no whit have impeacht the truth of his Episcopacy but the truth is he was ordained by St. Paul after all those journeys mentioned in the Acts and as Baronius with great consent of Antiquity computes it a year after Timothy so as you may well put up your conclusion as rather begged than inforced and cast it upon the Readers courtesie to beleeve you against al antiquity that Titus was an Evangelist and no Bishop where as these two may well agree together he was an Evangelist when he travelled abroad he was a bishop afterwards when hee stayed and setled at home You object to your selfe the authority of some Fathers that have called Timothy and Titus Bishops Some name if you can that Father that hath called them otherwise away with these envious diminutions when yea have a cloud of witnesses of much antiquity which averre Timothy and Titus to have both lived and dyed Bishops the one of Ephesus of Creet the other yea but so some Fathers have called them Arch-bishops and Patriarchs too What of that therein they have then acknowledged them bishops paramount and if Titus were Bishop of Creet which was of old 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the hundred-cityed Island and Timothy of Ephesus the Metropolis of Asia the multitude of the territories under them whiles it inlargeth their charge doth detract nothing from the use of their office Secondly you tell us from learned D. Raynolds that the Fathers when they called any Apostle Bishop they meant it in a generall sort aad signification because they did attend that church for a time and supply that roome in preaching the Gospell which Bishops did after not intending it as it is commonly taken for the over-seer of a particular Church and Pastor of a severall flocke but what is this to Timothy and Titus you say the same may be said of them but the Doctor gave you no leave so to apply it neither do we Although to say truth all this discourse of yours is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 needlesse and extravagant whether Timothy or Titus were Evangelists or no sure we are that heere they stand for persons charged with those Offices and cares which are delivered to the ordinary Church governours in all succeeding generations And we do most justly take them as we finde them and with our first confidence maintain that we challenge no other spirituall power then was delegated unto them and unto the Angels of the Asian Churches you meane to confute us by questions and those so poore and frivolous as are not worth answer fastning that upon some particular abuse which wee disclaime from our calling as if under this claime wee were bound to justifie every act of a Bishop To answer you in your own kind when or where did our bishops challenge power to ordaine alone to govern alone when though you ignorantly turne an Elder in age to an Elder in Office did our Bishops challenge power to passe a rough and unbeseeming rebuke upon an Elder Where did our Bishops give Commission to Chancellors Commissaries Officials to rayle upon Presbyters or to accuse them without just grounds and without legall proceedings As for your last question I must tell you it is no better raised then upon an ignorant negative Did the Apostle say reject none but an Heretick Did he not wish would to God they were cut off that trouble you Is it not certainly proved true that some Scismaticke may be worse then some Hereticke which I speak not so as to traduce any of our unconforming brethren whose consciences are unsetled in the point of this mean difference as guilty of that hatefull crime but to convince the absurdity of our questionists after whose ill raised cavills thus fully answered we have no cause to feare upon their suggestions to bee disclaimed as usurpers From Timothy and Titus you descend to the Angels of the seven Asian Churches which no subtilty at all but the common interest of their condition hath twisted together in our defence In the generality whereof I must premonish my Reader that this Piece of the task fell unhappily upon some dull and tedious hand that cared not how oft sod Coleworts he dished out to his credulous guests I shall what I may prevent their surfet Your shift is that the Angel is here taken collectively not individually A conceit which if your selves certainly no other wise man can ever believe for if the interest be common and equally appertayning to all why should one be singled out above the rest If you will yeeld the person to be such as had more than others a right in the administration of all it is that we seeke for Surely it did in some sort concerne all that was spoken to him because he had the charge of al but the direction is individuall as Beza himselfe takes it as if a Letter be indorsed from the Lords of the Counsaile to the Bishop of Durham or Salisbury concerning some affaires of the whole Clergy of their Diocesse can we say that the name Bishop is there no other then a collective because the businesse may import many verily I do not believe that the Authors of this sence can believe it themselves To your invincible proofes In the Epistle to Thyatira you say it is written 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I say to you and to the rest where by you must as you imagine be signified the Governours by the rest the people but what if the better Copyes read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I say to you the rest in Thyatira without the copulative as is confessed by your good friends where then is your doughty Argument Here are no divisions of parties but the Pastor and Flock And truly thus it is and my own eyes have seen it in that noble Manuscript written by the hand of Tecla as is probably supposed some 1300. years agoe as Cyrill the late renowned Patriarch of Constantinople
desires to goe a Mid-way in this difference holding it too low to derive Episcopacy from a merely humane and Ecclesiasticall Ordinance holding it too high to deduce it from an immediate command from God and therefore pitching upon an Apostolicall institution rests there but because those Apostles were divinely inspired had the directiōs of Gods spirit for those things which they did for the common administration of the Church therefore and in that onely name is Episcopacie said to lay claime to a Divine right howsoever also it cannot be gainsaid that the grounds were formerly laid by our Saviour in a knowne imparity of his first agents Now surely this truth hath so little reason to distaste them that even learned Chamier himselfe can say Res ipsa coepit tempore Apostolorum vel potius ab ipsis profecta est And why should that seeme harsh in us which soundeth well in the mouthes of lesse-interessed Divines but because the very title of that book hath raised more dust then the treatise it selfe Bee pleased Readers to see that this very question is in the very same termes determined by that eminent light of the Palatinate Dr. Abrah Scultetus whose tract to this purpose I have thought fit to annex Peruse it and judge whether of those two writers have gone further in this determination And if you shall not meet with convincing reasons to bring you home to this opinion yet at least-wise find cause enough to retaine a charitable and favourable conceit of those who are as they think upon good grounds otherwise minded and whilest it is on all parts agreed by wise and unprejudiced Christians that the calling is thus ancient and sacred let it not violate the peace of the Church to scan the originall whether Ecclesiasticall Apostolicall or divine Shortly let all good men humbly submit to the Ordinance and heartily wish the Reformation of any abuses And so many as are of this mind Peace be upon them and the whole Israell of GOD. AMEN THE DETERMINATION of the question Concerning the Divine Right of EPISCOPACY By the famous and learn'd Divine Dr. Abrahamus Scultetus late Professour of divinity in the Vniversity of HEIDELBERG Faithfully translated out of his Observations upon the Epistles to Timothy and Titus LONDON Printed for NATHANIELL BVTTER 1641 The Question Whether Episcopacie be of Divine right That is whether the Apostles ordained this Government of the Church that not onely one should be placed over the people but over Presbyters and Deacons who should have the power of Imposition of Hands or Ordination and the direction of Ecclesiasticall Counsels THis was anciently denyed by Aerius as is related by Epiphanius in his 75 Heresie and by Iohn of Hierusalem as appears by Hierome in his Epistle to Pammachius And there are not wanting in these dayes many learned and pious men who although they acknowledge Aerius to have erred in that he should disallow of that manner of Ecclesiasticall government which had beene received by the whol World yet in this they agree with him that Episcopall government is not of Divine Right From whose opinion why I should sever my judgement I am moved by these strong reasons famous examples and evident authorities My judgement is this First in the Apostles Epistles the name of Bishop did never signifie any thing different from the office of a Presbyter For a Bishop Presbyter and an Apostle were common names as you may see Act. 20. Phil. 1. v. 1. Tit. 1. 1. Pet. v. 12. Act. 1.20 Next In the chiefe Apostolicall Church the Church was governed by the common advice of Presbyters and that for some yeers in the time of the preaching of the Apostles For first of all companies must bee gathered together before we can define any thing concerning their perpetuall government Then the Apostles as long as they were present or neere their Churches did not place any Bishop over them properly so called but only Presbyters reserving Episcopall authority to themselves alone Lastly after the Gospell was farre and neere propagated and that out of equality of Presbyters by the instinct of the Devill Schismes were made in Religion then the Apostles especially in the more remote places placed some over the Pastors or Presbyters which shortly after by the Disciples of the Apostles Ignatius and others were onely called bishops by this appellation they were distinguished from Presbyters Deacons Reasons moving me to this opinion First Hierome upon the 1. Chapter of the Epistle to Titus writeth that a Presbyter is the same with a Bishop and before that by the instinct of the Devill factions were made in Religion and it was said among the people I am of Paul I of Apollo but I of Cephas the Churches were governed by the common counsell of Presbyters afterwards it was decreed in the whol world that one chosen out of the Presbyters should be placed over the rest From whence I thus argue When it began to be said among the people I am of Paul I of Apollo but I of Cephas then one chosen out of the Presbyters was placed over the rest But whiles the Apostles lived it was so said among the people As the first Epistle to the Corinthians besides other of St. Pauls Epistles puts it out of doubt Therefore while the Apostles lived one chosen out of the Presbyters was placed over the rest Againe There can be no other terme assigned in which Bishops were first made then the time of the Apostles for all the prime successors of the Apostles were Bishops witnesse the successions of Bishops in the most famous Churches of Hierusalem Alexandria Antioch and Rome as it is in Eusebius therefore either the next successors of the Apostles changed the force of Ecclesiasticall government received from the Apostles according to their owne pleasure which is very unlikely or the Episcopall government came from the Apostles themselves Besides even then in the time of the Apostles there were many Presbyters but one Bishop even then in the time of the Apostles 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hee that was placed over the rest which afterwards was called Bishop did impose hands or ordaine Ministers of the Word which Presbyters alone did not presume to doe Even then therefore the calling of Bishops was distinct from the Office of Presbyters If any desire the examples of Apostolicall Bishops the books of the antient are full of the Episcopal authority of Timothy and Titus either of which howsoever first performed the office of an Evangelist yet notwithstanding ceased to be an Evangelist after that Timothy was placed over the Church of Ephesus and Titus over the Church of Crete For Evangelists did only lay the foundations of faith in forraign places then did commend the rest of the care to certaine Pastors but they themselves went to other Countries and Nations as Eusebius writes in his third Booke of Ecclesiasticall History and 34. Chap. But Paul taught sometimes in Ephesus and Crete and laid the foundations of
Faith there therefore he commandeth Timothy to stay at Ephesus Titus at Crete not as Evangelists but as governors of the Churches And indeed the Epistles written to either of them doe evince the same for in these he doth not prescribe the manner of gathering together a Church which was the duty of an Evangelist but the manner of governing a Church being already gathered together which is the duty of a Bishop and all the precepts in those Epistles are so conformable hereunto as that they are not refer'd in especiall to Timothy and Titus but in general to all Bishops and therefore in no wise they suit with the temporary power of Evangelists Besides that Timothy and Titus had Episcopall jurisdiction not onely Eusebius Chrysostome Theodoret Ambrosius Hierome Epiphanius Oecumenius Primasius Theophylact but also the most ancient writers of any that write the History of the new Testament whose writings are now lost do sufficiently declare Eusebius without doubt appealing unto those in his third book of Ecclesiasticall History and 4. chapter Timothy saith hee in Histories is written to bee the first which was made Bishop of the Church of Ephesus as Titus was the first that was made Bishop of the Church of Crete But if John the Apostle and not any antient Disciple of the Apostles bee the authour of the Revelation hee suggests unto us those seven new Examples of Apostolicall Bishops For all the most learned Interpreters interpret the seven Angels of the Churches to be the seven Bishops of the Churches neither can they doe otherwise unlesse they should offer violence to the text What should I speake of James not the Apostles but the Brother of our Saviour the Sonne in law of the Mother of our Lord who by the Apostles was ordained Bishop of Hierusalem as Eusebius in his 2d. book of Ecclesiasticall History 1 chap. out of the 6. of the Hypotyposes of Clement Hierome concerning Ecclesiasticall writers out of the 1. of the Comments of Egesippus relate Ambrose upon the 1. chap. unto the Galatians Chrysostome in his 23 Homily upon the 15 of the Acts Augustine in his 2d. book and 37 chap. against Cresconius Epiphanius in his 65 Heresie The 6. Synod in Tullo and 32 Canon all assenting thereunto For indeed this is that James that had his first residence at Jerusalem as an ordinary Bishop whom Paul in his first and last coming to Hierusalem found in the City almost all the Apostles preaching in other places Gal. 1.19 and that concluded those things which were decreed in the assembly of the Apostles Act. 21. For hee was with Chrysostome Bishop of the Church of Hierusalem from whom when certaine came Peter would not eate with the Gentiles Galat. 2.12 From examples I passe to authorities which Ignatius confirmes by his own authority Whose axiomes are these The Bishop is he which is superiour in all chiefty and power The Presbytery is a holy company of counsellours and assessours to the Bishop The deacons are the imitators of angelicall vertues which shew forth their pure and unblameable ministry He which doth not obey these is without God impure and contemnes Christ and derogates from his order and constitution in his Epistle to the Trallians In an other place I exhort that ye study to doe all things with concord The Bishop being president in the place of God The Presbyters in place of the Apostolick Senate the Deacons as those to whom was committed the Ministry of Jesus Christ in his Epistle to the Magnesians And againe Let the Presbyters be subject to the Bishop the Deacons to the Presbyters the people to the Presbyters and Deacons in his Epistle to those of Tarsus But Ignatius was the Disciple of the Apostles from whence then had he this Hierarchie but from the Apostles Let us now heare Epiphanius in his 75. Heresie The Apostles could not presently appoint all things Presbyters and Deacons were necessary for by these two Ecclesiasticall affaires might bee dispatch Where there was not found any fâ—t for the Episeopacie that place remained without a Bishop but where there was need and there were any fit for Episcopacy they were made Bishops All things were not compleat from the beginning but in tract of time all things were provided which were required for the perfection of those things which were necessary the Church by this means receiving the fulnesse of dispensation But Eusebius comes neerer to the matter more strongly handles the cause who in his third booke of Ecclesiasticall History and 22 chapter as also in his Chronicle affirmeth that Erodius was ordained the 1. Bishop of Antioch in the yeere of our Lord. 45. in the 3. yeere of Claudius the Emperor at which time many of the Apostles were alive Now Hierome writeth to Evagrius that at Alexandria from Mark the Evangelist unto Heraclius and Dionisius the Bishop the Presbyters called one chosen out of themselvs and placed in a higher degree the Bishop But Marke dyed as Eusebius and Bucholcerus testifie in the yeere of our Lord 64. Peter Paul and John the Apostles being then alive therefore it is cleere that Episcopacie was instituted in the time of the Apostles and good Hierome suffered some frailty when he wrote that Bishops were greater then Presbyters rather by the custome of the Church then the truth of the Lords disposing unlesse perhaps by the custome of the Church hee understands the custome of the Apostles and by the truth of the Lords disposing hee understands the apointment of Christ yet not so hee satisfies the truth of History For it appears out of the 1.2 and 3. Chapters of the Revelation that the forme of governing the Church by Angels or Bishops was not only ratified and established in the time of the Apostles but it was coÌ„firmed by the very Son of God And Ignatius called that form the order of Christ And when Hierome writes that it was decreed in the whole World that one chosen out of the Presbyters should bee placed over the rest And when I have demonstrated that in the life-time of the Apostles Bishops were superior to Presbyters in Ordination and that each Church had one placed over it doe wee not without cause demand where when and by whom Episcopacie was ordained Episcopacie therefore is of divine right Which how the Prelates of the Church of Rome for almost 300. yeers did adorne with the truth of Doctrine innocency of life constancy in afflictions and suffering Death it selfe for the honour of Christ and on the other side how in succeding times first by their ambition next by their excessive pragmaticall covetousnesse scraping up to themselves the goods of this world then by their heresie last of all by their tyranny they corrupted it that the Roman Hierarchy at this day hath nothing else left but a vizard of the Apostolicall Ecclesiasticall Hierarchy and the lively image of the whore of Babylon our Histories both antient and moderne doe abundantly testifie Wherefore all Bishops are
Were it so pleasing to his Majesty and the State to decree it we should be well content to submit to this ancient forme of Election the forbearance whereof is neither our fault nor our prejudice so as you might well have bestowed this breath to a better purpose and rather conclude that notwithstanding this forme of different choice our Bishops and those of former times are not two SECT VIII WEE follow you into the execution of our Episcopall Office wherein you will show ours and the Apostles to be two so clearely that he who will not wilfully shut his eyes may see a latitude of differences and that in three points The first in sole jurisdiction which you say was a stranger yea a monster to former times and will make it good by the power of that which in all wise writers was wont to be contra-distinguished Ordination For this maine point let my Answerers know that the Ordination is the Bishops but the sole in their sense is their own neither did our Bishops ever challenge it as theirs alone without the Presbyters but as principally theirs with them so as if the power be in the Bishop the assistance is from them the practise in both so is it in the Bishops that ordinarily and regularly it may not be done without them and yet ordinately it may not be done without them by the Bishop which hath bin so constantly and carefully ever observed that I challenge them to shew any one instance in the Church of England to the contrary Say Brethren I beseech you after all this noyse what Bishop ever took upon him to ordain a Presbyter alone or without the concurrent imposition of many hands They no lesse then Cyprian can say Ego collegae Although I must tell you this was in the case of Aurelius made a Lector And in that other testimony which you cite out of his Epistle 58. he speaks onely of the fraternities consent and approbation not of their concurrence in their act this is small game with you Neither is it lesse the order of the Church of England then of the Councell of Carthage Cum ordinatur Presbyter c. 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 With what conscience can ye alledge this as to choak us in our contrary practise when you know this is perpetually and unfailably done by us But now that the Readers may see how you shuffle shew us but one instance of a Presbyters regular and practised ordaining without a Bishop and carry the cause else you do but abuse the Reader with an ostentation of proving what was never denied But here by the way brethren you must give me leave to pull you by the sleeve and to tell you of two or three foul scapes which will trie whether you can blush First that you abuse Firmilianus in casting upon him an opinion of Presbyters ordaining which he never held He in his Epistle to Stephen Bishop of Rome speaking of the true Church in opposition to heresies describes it thus Vbi praesident majores natu qui baptizandi manum imponendi et ordinandi possident potestatem under this name expressing those Bishops who presiding in the Church possesse the power of Baptizing Confirming Ordaining you injuriously Wire-draw him to Presbyters and foist in Seniores et Praepositos which are farre from the clause and matter Be convinced with the more cleare words of the same Epistle Apostolis et Episcopis qui illis vicariâ Ordinatione successerunt Secondly that you bewray grosse ignorance in translating Ambroses Presbyteri consignant by Presbyters ordaining Who that ever knew what belonged to antiquity would have beene guilty of such a solecisme when every novice knowes that consigning signifies confirmation and not ordaining Thirdly you discover not too much skill in not distinguishing of the Chorepiscopi some whereof had both the nature and power of Episcopacy to all purposes and therefore might well by the Bishops licence in his owne charge impose hands others not And lesse fidelity in citing the Councell of Antioch can 10. and the 13. of the Councell of Ancyra if it were not out of our way to fetch them into tryall Lastly I cannot but tell you that you have meerly cast away all this labour and fought with your owne shadow for how ever it were not hard to prove that in the first times of the Church it was appropriated to the Bishop to Ordaine which you cannot but cōfesse out of Ierome and Chrysostom yet since we speaking of our owne time and Church doe both professe and practise an association of Presbyters with us in the act of Ordination whom have you all this while opposed It is enough that you have seemed to say somthing and have showne some little reading to no purpose SECT IX YEt still you will needs beat the ayre very furiously and fight pitifully with your selves Alas brethren why will ye take so much paines to goe wilfully out of your way and to mis-lead the reader with you Who ever challenged in that sense which you faine to your selves a sole Jurisdiction Why will you with some show of learning confute that which you yeeld us to confesse we confesse this sole cryed downe by store of Antiquity we doe willingly grant that Presbyters have and ought to have and exercise a jurisdiction within their owne charge in foro conscientiae we grant that in all the great affayres of the Church the Presbyters whether in Synodes or otherwise ought to be consulted with we grant that the Bishops had of old their Ecclesiasticall Councell of Presbyters with whose advise they were wont to manage the greatest matters and we still have so for to that purpose serve the Deanes and Chapters and the Lawes of our Church frequently make that use of them we grant that Presbyters have their votes in provinciall Synods But we justly say that the superiority of jurisdiction is so in the Bishop as that Presbyters neither did nor may exercise it without him and that the exercise of externall jurisdiction is derived from by under him to those which execute it within his Dioces Thus it is to Timothy that S. Paul gives the charge concerning the rebuke of an Elder or not receiving an accusation against him It is to Titus that S. Paul leaves the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 correction of his Cretians Thus the Canons of the Apostles 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Thus the blessed Martyr Ignatius in his undoubted Epistle to those of Smyrna 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Let no man doe any thing in matters belonging to the Church without the Bishop Thus the Councell of Antioch orders that whatsoever belongs to the Church is to be governed managed and disposed by the judgement and authority of the Bishop who hath 〈◊〉
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the power of those things which belong to the Church It were easie to surfet the readers eyes with the cleare testimonies of Fathers and Councells to this purpose Our learned Bishop Downam hath given a world of instances of the severall acts of jurisdiction appropriated to Bishops by antiquity exercised upon both Laicks and Clergy to him I remit my reader So as you may easily set antiquity together by the eares in this point if you please but surely the advantage will be so farre on our side that if you have not ten for one against you I will yeeld my cause There is great difference of times and in them of fashions In those persecuted times when the Church was backed with no Christian Magistrate it was no boot to bid the guides of the Church to combine their Councels and to give strength to their mutuall actions when a generall peace once blessed them and they had the concurrence both of soveraigne and subordinate authority with them they began so much to remit of this care of conjoyning their forces as they supposed to find lesse need of it From hence grew a devolution of all lesse weighty affairs to the weilding of single hands For my part I perswade my selfe that the more frequent communicating of all the important businesse of the Church whether censures or determinations with those grave assistents which in the eye of the Law are designed to this purpose were a thing not onely unprejudiciall to the honour of our function but very behovefull to the happy administration of the Church In the mean while see brethren how you have with Simon fished all night and caught nothing My word was that ours were the same with the Apostles Bishops in this that they challenge no other spirituall power then was by Apostolique authority delegated to Timothy and Titus You run out upon the following times of the Church and have with some wast quotations laboured to prove that In after ages Bishops called in Presbyters to the assistance of their jurisdiction which is as much to me as Baculus stat in angulo SECT X. YOur next Section runs yet wilder I speak of the no-difference of our Bishops from the first in the challenge of any spirituall power to themselves other then delegated to Timothy and Titus You tell mee of delegating their power to others What is this to the nature of the calling Doth any man claime this as essentiall to his Episcopacie Doth any man stand upon it as a piece of his spirituall power If this be granted to be an accidentall error of some particular man for it cannot be fastned upon all what difference doth it make in the substance of the function As if some monster suddenly presented it selfe to you you aske Was ever such a thing heard of in the best primitive times that men which never received imposition of hands should not only be received into assistance but be wholly intrusted with the power of spirituall jurisdiction Let me ask you again Was ever such a thing heard of either in the Primitive or following times that Lay-men should be so far admitted to the managing of spirituall jurisdiction as to lay their hands upon their Ministers in their Ordination Yet this is both done and challenged by too many of your good friends Why do you object that to us wherewith the Presbyterian part may be more justly choaked But herein Brethren you do foulely over-reach in that you charge our Bishops as in a generality with wholly-intrusting the power of spirituall jurisdiction to their Chancellors and Commissaries The assistance of those which are learned in the Law wee gladly use neither can well want in the necessary occasions of our judicature but that wee doe either wilfully or negligently devest our selves absolutely of that power and wholly put it into Laick hands it is a meere sclander For want of better proofs of the illegality of this course you bring a negative authority from Cyprian telling us what that holy Martyr did not That he did not send Complainants to his Chancellour or Commissarie It is very like he did not nor yet to the Bench of a Lay Presbyterie But if he did not commit the hearing of his Causes to a Lay-man we find that some others did Socrates can tell you of Silvanus the good Bishop of Troas 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. perceiving that some of his Clergie did corruptly make gaine of Causes would no more appoint any of his Clergie 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be a Judge but made choise of some faithfull man of the Laity to whom he committed that audience and was much honoured for it What Bishop Downam yeelds concerning the Ordinaries Vicars and Chancellors of former times till Ambrose's daies that they were onely Clergie-men you reject witn scorne and challenge any man to produce the names of any Clergie-man that was Vicar to Ambrose or Chancellour to Augustine c. What a poore brave is this I challenge you to produce the name of any Secretary or Actuary that Ambrose or Austin had because you cannot shall I conclude they had none such That instance of Sylvanus not long after Ambrose is evidence enough But the antiquity of Chancellors which were the same with Ecclesiecdici or Episcoporum ecdici is proveable enough if it were for this place and their necessary use beyond the power of your confutation But I had rather refer my reader to S. Thomas Ridley and others that have laboured in that argument and appeale to all mens judgement how soundly you have upon this ground proved that our Bishops and the former were two SECT XI HOw justly may I say Readers of these men as the King of Israel said of the King of Syria See I beseech you how they seeke a quarrell against me My just defence was that our Bishops are the same in substance and effect with those which were ordained by the Apostles they come now and tell me of an oath ex officio used in the high Commission and in our Consistories as if every particular manner of Proceeding in our Courts and judicatures must either be patterned by the Apostolike or els they are utterly unjustifiable why do they not as wel chalenge us that we give men the book to touch and kisse in taking an oath Why doe they not aske how wee can prove that those Apostolicall Bishops had Notaries Registers Advocates Consistories what frivolous and delusory exceptions are these to all wise men and how strangely savouring of a weak judgement and strong malice As for your cavil at the oth ex officio since you wil needs draw it in by head and shoulders how little soever it concernes us I returne you this answer That if any of our profession have in the pressing of it exceeded the lawfull bounds I excuse him not I defend him not let him bear away his own load but in these surely there is more to bee said for
Bishops and ours are two We do again professe that if our Bishops challenge any other power then was delegated to and required of Timothy and Titus wee shall yeeld them usurpers you kindely tell us so we deserve to be if we doe but challenge the same power and why so I beseech you brethren because Timothy and Titus yee say were Evangelists and so moved in an higher sphere Liberally and boldly spoken but where is your proofe For Timothy ye say the Text is cleare but what Text what the least intimation have you for Titus surely not so much as the least ground of a conjecture yet how confidently you avow for both and even for Timothy your glosse is clear not your text St. Paul bids him do the worke of an Euangelist what then that rather intimates that he was none for he doth not say do thine own worke but the worke of an Evangelist when I tell my friend that I must desire him to do the office of a Soliciter or a Secretary for me I do herein intimate that he is neither but so for the time employed why is it not so here And what I beseech you is the worke of an Evangelist but to preach the Evangell or good tydings of peace So as St. Paul herein gives no other charge to his Timothy then in 2. Tim. 4.2 Preach the Word be instant in season and out of season And this you say and urge to be the worke of a Bishop too well therefore may Timothy notwithstanding this charge be no other then a Bishop what need these words to be contradistinguished St. Paul sayes of himselfe Whereto I am appoynted a Preacher and an Apostle and a teacher of the Gentiles what shall we say St. Paul was an Apostle he was not a Preacher or not a Doctor but an Apostle You distinguish of Evangelists the word is taken either for the writers of the Gospell or for the teachers of it and why then was not St. Paul an Evangelist who professed to be a teacher of the Gospell unto the Gentiles These teaching Evangelists you dreame to be of two sorts the one those that had ordinary places and gifts the other extraordinary but tell me sirs for my learning where do you finde those ordinary-placed and ordinary-gifted Evangelists unlesse you mean to comprse all Preachers under this name and then a Bishop may be an Evangelist also so as the difference of a Bishop and an Evangelist vanisheth The truth is these ordinary Evangelists are a new fiction their true imployment was to be sent by the Apostles from place to place for the preaching of the Gospell without a setled residence upon any one charge upon this advantage you raise a slight argument that St. Paul besought Timothy to abide at Ephesus 1. Tim. 1.3 which had been a needlesse importunity if he had the Episcopall charge of Ephesus for then he must have necessarily resided there whereas you recite severall proofes and occasions of his absence which will appear to be of little force if a man doe duly consider the state of those times the necessity wherof in that first plantation of the Gospell made even the most sixed Sars planetary calling them frequently from the places of their abode to those services which were of most use for the successe of that great worke yet so as that either after their errands fully-done or upon all opportune intermissions they returned to their own Chaire The story therefore of those journal computations might well have been spared Your argument from Pauls calling the Elders of Ephesus to Miletus how ever you lean upon it it will prove but a Reed Your selves confesse I know not upon what certaine ground that Timothy was at the meeting Acts 20. with St. Paul Had he been Bishop there the Apostle you say in stead of giving the Elders a charge to feede the flocke of Christ would have given that charge to Timothy and not to them Besides the Apostle would not have so forgotten himselfe as to call the Elders Bishops before the Bishops face and would have given them some directions how to carry themselves to their Bishops In all which brethren you goe upon wrong ground wil ye grant that these assembled persons were Presbyters and not Bishops under some Bishop though not under Timothy otherwise why doe you argue from the want of directions to them as inferiours but if they were indeed Bishops and not mere Presbyters as the word it selfe imports your argument is lost For then the charge is equally given to Timothy and all the rest and it was no forgetfulnesse to call them as they were you are straight ready to reply how unpossible it is according to us there should be many Bishops in one City and here were many Presbyters from Ephesus but let me mind you that though these Presbyters were sent for from Ephesus yet they were not said to be all of Ephesus Thither they were called to meet St. Paul in all likelihood from divers parts which he seemes to imply when he saith Ye all amongst whom I have gone preaching the Kingdome of God intimating the super-intendents of severall places so as notwithstanding these urged probabilities Timothy might have beene both before this time and at that present Bishop of Ephesus after which if Paul tooke him along with him to Hierusalem this is no derogation to his Episcopacy And if Timothy were yet after this prisoner with St. Paul at Rome as you argue from Hebr. 13.23 this is no derogation from his Episcopacy at Ephesus but to cut the sinewes of all this strong proofe of your computation it is more than probable that whereas the whole history of the Acts ends with Pauls first beeing at Rome that Apostle survived divers years and passed many travells and did many great matters for the plantation and setling of churches whereof we can looke for no account from Scripture save by some glances in his following Epistles into which time these occurrents concerning Timothy and Titus his ordination did fall as may be justly proved out of the Chronologicall table of the experienced Jacob Cappellus compared with Baronius Now then the Reader may take his choyse whether he will believe all antiquity that have medled with this subject affirming Timothy to have been bishop of Ephesus or whether he wil believe a new hatched contradiction of yesterday raised out of imaginary probabilities Shortly it is far enough from appearing that Timothy was no Bishop but a Minister an Evangelist a fellow-labourer of the Apostles an Apostle a Messenger of the Church it rather appeares that he was al these in divers sences and upon severall occasions The like yea say of Titus whom you are pleased to create an Evangelist not being able to shew that ever God made him so save in that generall sence that might well stand with Episcopacy you tel us a story of his perigrination in the attendance of Paul wherein you shall not expect any contradiction
avoweth your goodly proof therefore is in the suds But to meete with you in your own kinde if you will goe upon divers Readings what will you say to that vers 20 where the Angel of Thyatira is encharged Thou sufferest 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 thy wife Iezebell for so it is in very good Copies to teach and seduce yea so it is in that memorable Copy of Tecla forementioned which is to be seene in the Princes Library under the custody of the industrious and learned Mr· Patrick Young as my owne eyes can witnesse and thus St. Cyprian reads it of olde What shall wee thinke shee was wife to the whole company or to one Bishop alone I leave you to blush for the shame this very proofe alone casts upon your opinion Secondly you tell us it is usuall with the Holy Ghost even in this very booke to expresse a company under one singular person as the Beast is the Civill state the Whore and the false Prophet the Ecclesiasticall state of Rome But what if it be thus in visions or emblematicall representations must it needs be so in plaine narrations where it is limited by just Praedicates or because it is so in one phrase of speech must it bee so in all Why doe you not as well say where the Lambe is named or the Lion of Juda this is a collective of many not an individuall subject The seven Angels you say that blew the seven trumpets and poured out the seven phialls are not to bee taken literally but synecdochically perhaps so but then the synecdoche lyes in the seven and not in the Angels so I grant you the word Angel is here metaphoricall but you are no whit nearer to your imagined synecdoche The very name Angell you say is sufficient proofe that it is not meant of one person alone as being a common name to all Gods Ministers and Messengers As if he did not well know this that directed these Epistles and if hee had so meant it had it not been as easie to have mentioned more as one Had he said the Angels of the Church of Ephesus or Thyatira the cause had been cleare now hee sayes the Angell 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the denoted person must be singular for surely you cannot say that all the Presbyters at Ephesus were one Angel The same reason holds for the Stars had he said to the Star of Ephesus I suppose no body would have construed it of many but of one eminent person Now he speaks of so many Stars as Angels to wit seven in those seven Churches Your fourth Argument from the Text it selfe is no better then ridiculous poorely drawn from what it doth not say Lo hee saith the 7. Candlesticks which thou sawest are the 7. Churches but he doth not say the 7. Stars are the 7. Angels of the seven Churches but the Angels of the 7. Churches Forbear if you can Readers to smile at this curious subtilty because the seven is not twice repeated in mentioning the Angels there is a deep mystery in the omission what Cabalisme have we here Had he said the seven Stars are the seven Angels of the seven churches now all had been sure but he saith not so but onely thus the seven Stars are the Angels of the seven Churches It is plaine that every Church hath his Angell mentioned and there being seven Churches how many Angels I beseech you are there now because he doth not say expressely in termes seven Angels of the seven Churches we are foyled in our proofe judge Reader what to expect of so deep speculations Lastly it is evident you say though but one Angell be mentioned in the front yet the Epistles themselves be dedicated to all the Angels and Ministers and to the Churches themselves who ever doubted it the foot of every Epistle runs what the spirit saith unto the Churches not to one Church but to all seven If therfore you argue that the name Angel is collective say also that every of these seaven Angels is the whole company of all the seaven Churches which were a foule non-sence you might have saved the labour both of Ausbertus and the rest of your Authors and your own we never thought otherwise but that the whole Church is spoken to but so as that the Governour or Bishop is singled out as one that hath the maine stroke in ordering the affairs thereof and is therefore either praised or challenged according to his carriage therein although also there are such particularities both of commendations and exceptions in the body of the severall Epistles as cannot but have relation to those severall Over-seers to whom they were endorsed as I have else where specified Had all the Presbyters of Ephesus lost their first love had each of them tryed the false Apostles Had all those of Sardis a name to live and were dead Were all the Laodicean Ministers of one temper these taxations were no doubt of individuall persons but such as in whom the whole Churches were interessed As for those conjecturall reasons which you frame to your selves why the whole company of Presbyters should be written to under the singular name of an Angel if yee please your selves with them it is well from me they have no cause to expect an answer they neither can draw my assent nor merit my confutation Take heed of yeelding that which ye cannot but yield to be granted by D. Raynolds Mr. Beza Doctor Fulke Pareus and others that the Angel is here taken individually but still if you be wise hold your own that our cause is no whit advanced nor yours impaired by this yieldance Let him have been an Angell yet what makes this for a Diocesan Bishop much every way For if the Church of Ephesus for example had many Ministers or Presbyters in it to instruct the people in their severall charges as it is manifest they had and yet but one prime Over-seer which is singled out by the Spirit of God and stiled by a title of eminence the Angel of that Church it must needs follow that in St. Johns time there was an acknowledged superiority in the government of the Church if there were many Angels in each and yet but one that was the Angel who can make doubt of an inequality It is but a pittifull shift that you make in pleading that these Angels if Bishops yet were not Diocesan Bishops for that Parishes were not divided into Diocesses I had thought Dioceses should have been divided into Parishes rather in S. Iohns dayes for by the same reason I may as well argue that they were not Parochial Bishops neither since that then no Parishes were as yet distinguished As if you had resolved to speak nothing but Bulls and Soloecismes you tell me that the seven Stars are said to be fixed in their seven Candlesticks whereas those Stars are said to bee in the right hand of the Son of God But say you still not one Star was over divers Candlesticks