hated the Bishop and this as the Historian calls it his usurped power This president of the Alexandrian Bishop the Bishop of Rome did soone 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 Principalitie 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 outstripped 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. calles it Angaria yea Austin himselfe in his 81. Epistle Complaines that worldly businesse 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 downe as unlawfull by the holy Fathers many Canons forbidding it and that under paine 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 civill place as Zonaras there he should be deposed Can. Apo. Can. 83. hiring of ground medling with worldly affaires is to be laid asid by them Otherwise they are threatned to be liable to Ecclesiasticall censures Conc. Cal. Cano. 3. Conc. Carth. Can. 16. We will ad this for a conclusion in this point it is observed by Athanasius Sulpitius Severus and other Ecclesiasticall 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 knowne to any that have seene 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 betweene 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 those times even as high as the Apostles dayes for so hee saith If our Bishops challenge any other spirituall 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 do 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 worke of an Evangelist if Timothy had beene but a Presbyter or Bishop Paul had here put him upon imployment Vltra Sphara 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 bee 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 Gospell and so wee doe not affirme Timothy and Titus to bee Evangelists or else for such as taught the Gospell 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 wee consider what was the Difference betweene the Evangelists and Bishopsâ— Bishops or Presbyters were tyed to the particular care and tuiâ—ion 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 appoyntment they were sent from place to place as the necessity of the Churches did require As appeares first in Timothy â— whom S. Paul besought to abide at Ephesus 1 Tim. 1.3 which had been a needlesse importunity if Timothy had had the Episcopall that is the Pastorall charge of Ephesus committed to him by the Apostles for then hee might have laid as dreadfull a Charge upon him to abide at Ephesus as he doth to Preach the Gospell But so far was Paul from setling Timothy in Cathedrâ in Ephesus that he rather continually sends him up and downe upon all Church services for we â—inde 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 confirme the Thessalonians in the faith as appeares 1 Thes. 3.1.2 from whence returning to Paul to Athens againe the Apostle Paul before hee left Athens and went to Corinth sent him Silas into Macedonia who returned to him againe to Corinth Act. 18.5 afterwards they travelled to Ephesus from whence we read Paul sent Timothy and Erastus into Macedonia Act. 19 22. whither Paul went after them from whence they divers other Brethren journied into Asia Acts 20.4 All which Brethren Paul calles as it is probable 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the messengers of the Churches 2 Cor. 8.23 And being thus accompanied with Timothy and the rest of the Brethren he comes to Miletum and calls the Elders of the Church of Ephesus thither to him of which Church had Timothy beene Bishop the Apostle in stead of giving the Elders a charge to feede the flock of Christ would have given that charge to Timothy and not to them And secondly the Apostle would not so have forgotten himselfe 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 hee tooke him along with him in his journey to Hiâ—rusalem and so to Rome for wee finde that those Epistles Paul wrote while hee was a prisoner beare either in their inscription or some other passage of them the name of Timothy as Pauls companion viz. The Epistle to the Philippians Colossians Hebreâ—es Philemon which Epistles he wrote in bonds as the contexture which those two learned professors the one at Heydelberge the other at Saulmur make of Saint Pauls Epistles doth declare So that it appeares that Timothy was no Bishop but a Minister an Evangelist a fellow labourer of the Apostles 1 Thess. 3.1 an Apostle a Messenger of the Church 2. Cor. 8.3 a Minister of God 1 Thess. 3.2 these titles the Holy Ghost gives him but never the title of a Bishop The like we find in Scripture concerning Titus whom Paul as it is conceived by learned men did first assume into the fellowship of his Labours in the place of Iohn and made him his companion in his journey through Antioch to Herusalem so we find Gal. 2.1 from thence returning to Antioch againe from thence hee passed through Syria and Cilicia confirming the Churches from Cilicia he passed to Creet where having Preached the Gospell and planted 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 hee 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 Hyemall 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 hee passed presently from thenâ—e into Macedonia where Titus met him and in the midst of his afflictions joyed his spirits with the glad tydings of the powerfull 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 journeyes to and fro did Titus make at the designement of the Apostle even after hee was left in Creet Nor doe we finde that after his first removall from Creet he did ever returne thither Wee reade indeed 2 Tim. 4.10 hee 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 six 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 betweene the Offices of Bishops and Evangelists and knowes 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 Wee 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 hee that when they tearmed any Apostle a Bishop of thiâ— or that City as namely Saint Peter of Antioch or Rome they meant it in a generall sort and signification because they did attend that Church for a time and supply that roome in preaching the Gospell which Bishops did after but as the name of Bishop is commonly taken for the Overseer of a particular Church and Pastor of a severall flocke 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 Apostolique Authority delegated to and required of Timothy and Titus and the Angells of the seaven Asian Churches let them be disclaimed as usurpers Will our Bishops indeed stand to this then actum est Did ever Apostolique authority delegate power to Timothy or Titus to ordaine alone to governe alone and doe not our Bishops challenge that power Did ever Apostolique authority delegate power to Timothy and Titus to rebuke an Elder no but to entreate him as a Father and doe not our Bishops challenge to themselvesâ— and permit to their Chancellours Commissaries and Officialls power not only to rebuke an Elder but to rayle upon an Elder to reproach him with the most opprobrious tearmes of foole knave jack-sauce c. which our paper blushes to present to your Honours view Did ever Apostolique authority delegate to Timothy and Titus power to receave an accusation against an Elder but before two or three witnesses and doe not our Bishops challenge power to proceed Ex officio and make Elders their owne Accusers Did ever Apostolique authority delegate power to Timothy or Titus to reject any after twice admonition but an Heretick and doe 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 bee the Angells of the seven Asian Churches had and our Remonstrant is so subtile as to twist these two together that if one fayle the other may hold To which we answer first that Angell in those Epistles is put Collectively not Individually as appeares by the Epistle to Thyatira cap. 2. vers 24. where wee reade 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. But I say unto you in the plurall number not unto thee in the singular and unto the rest in Thyatira c. Here is a plaine distinction betweene the members of that Church By you is signified those to whom hee spake under the name of the Angell By
this angell if he had a superiority had any more then a superiority of order or of gifts and parts Where is it said that this angell was a superior degree or order of Ministery above Presbyters In which Epistle it is said that this angell had sole power of Ordination and Jurisdiction and therefore as our learned Protestants prove against the Papists that when Christ directed his speech to Peter in particular and said I will give unto thee the keyes 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 aâ— Epistle to one angell it doth not imply a superior power over his fellow angels but at most onely 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 bee betweene the Ministers of the same Church in their common care and diligence to their flocke And this is all that Doctor Reynolds saith as you may reade in his conference with Hart cap. 4. divis 3. ad finem For it is evident that Doctor Reynolds was an utter enemy to the Iâ—â— Divinum of the Episcopall preheminency over Presbyters by his Letter to Sir Francis Krolls And learned Master Beza also saith something to the same purpose in his annotations upon Revel 2.1 Angelo i. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 quem nimirum oportuit 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 necessariò oportuisse sicut exorta inde Tyrannis oligarchica cujus apex est Antichristana bestia certissima cum totius non Ecclesia 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 hooted oâ—t of the Church seeing it is his owne Option And yet we cannot coÌ„ceale 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 Postscripts and so all the rest are no part of Canonicall 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 that all men might take notice they were no parts of the text Although our Episcopall 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 Canonicall 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 which is the chiefest City of Phrygia Pacatiana Here we demand whether Paul when he 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 be subscribed thâ— first to Timothy which hath relation to a second Besides the Epistle is said to be writ from Loadicea 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 Epithete is no where read in the Writers of those ages saith Beza Sed apud recentiores illos 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 ordeined the first Bishop of the Church of the EphesiaÌ„s 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 interpretem If Saint Paul had written this Postscript he would not have said to Timothy the first Bishop c. whereas it was not yet certaine whether ever there should be 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 to Nicopolis for I have determined there to winter He doth not say Here to winter but there Where note for the present hee 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 Diocesse 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 appeares that if the Bishops had no more authority to urge us to subscribe to their Ceremonies then they have authority for their Episcopall dignity by these
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 soules of Gods people are intituled to rule over them So that unlesse Bishops will say that they only watch over the soules 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 Bishops can give us good security that they will acquit us from giving up our account to God for the soules of his people we will quit our plea and resigne to them the sole rule over them 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 Thessalonians were but one Church 1 Ca. there was not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 â— 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 Apostles bids know them in an Indifferency not discriminating one from another yea such was the rule that Elders had that S. Peter thought it needfull 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 Iurisdiction we summe up all that hath beene 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 feede 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 hee would force to contradict their own rules to which he superadds the unquestioÌ„able glosse of the cleare practise of their immediate successors in this administration For the Apostles practise 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 wee take for granted by both sides that the first and best Antiquitie 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 Imparitie betweene 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 Apostolicall Institution we affirme both to be occasionall and of humane Invention and undertake to shew out of Antiquitie both the occasion upon which and the 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 wil grant a place among his Glossators Saint Ierome tells us in 1 Tit. Idem est ergo Presbyter qui Episcopus antequam Diaboli instinctu studia in Religione â—ierent diceretur in populis ego sum Pauli ego Apollo ego Cephae Communi Presbyterorum Consilio ecclesiae gubernabantur Postquam verò unusquisque eos quos baptizaverat 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 â—olicrentur Putat aliquts non Scripturarum sed nostram esse sentâ—ntiam Episcopum Presbyterum unum esse aliud aetatis aliud esse nomen officii relâ—gat Apostoli ad Philippenses verba dicentis Paulus Timotheus servi Iesis Christi qui sunt Philippis cum Episcopis Diaconis c. Philippi una est urbs Macedoniae certè in unâ 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 of Cephas The Churches were governed by the Common Counsell of the Presbyters But after that each man began to account those whom hee had baptized his owne 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 Thinkes any that this is my opinion and not the opinion of the Scripture that a Bishop and an Elder is the same let him reade 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 Deacons Philippi is one City of Macedonia and certainly in one Citie 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 and 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 Imparitie that was in his time betweene Bishops and Elders was grounded upon Ecclesiasticall Custome and not upon divine Institution Episcopi noverint c. Thirdly that this was not his private judgement but the judgement of Scripture Putat aliquis c. Fourthly that before this Prioritie was upon this occasion started
opinion and hath gathered to our hands the opinions of all Interpreters hee could meete and saith that they all consent in this that under the person of an Angell the Pastors and Ministers of the Churches were understood Saint Austin in his 132. Epistle saith thus Sic enim in Apocalypsi legitur Angelus c. Quod si de angelo superioruÌ„ coelorum non de Praepositis ecclesiarum vellet intelligi non consequenter diceret habeo adversum te c. And so in his second Homily upon the Revelation if that booke be his Quod autem dicit angelo Thyatirae â— habeo adversum te pauca dicit Praepositis Ecclesiarum c. This also Gregory the Great lib. 34. Moralâ— in Iob cap. 4. Saepè sacrum scripturam prâ—dicatores Ecclesiae pro eo quod patris gloriam annunciant angelorum nomine solere de signare hinc esse quod Iohannes in Apocalypsi septem Ecclesiis scribens angelis Ecclesiaâ—um loquitur id â—st Praedicatoribus populorum Master Fox citeth Primasius Haymo Beda Richard Thomas and others to whom we referre you If it be here demanded as it is much by the Hierarchicall side that if by angell bee meant the whole company oâ— Presbyters why Christ did not say to the angels in the plurall number but to the angell in the singular Wee answer that though this question may savour of a little too much curiosity yet wee will make bold to subjoyn three conjecturall reasoÌ„s 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 certaine number for an uncertaine and the singular number for the purall Thus the Ramme Dan. 8.3 is interpreted vers 20. to be the Kings of Media and Persia And the enemies of Gods Church are set out by foure hoâ—nes And the deliverers by foure 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 speake in plaine language this is the signe of my body We say that this phrase of speech is proper to all Sacraments So we also answer here this phrase of speech Angell for Angels is common to all types and visions Secondly angell is put though more be meant that so it may hold proportion with the Vision which Iohn sawâ— Chap 1.12.20 He saw seven golden Candlestickes and seven Starres 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 Starres c. Now a mystery is a secret which comprehends more then is expressed and therefore though but one angell be expressed yet the mystery implyes all the angels of that Church Thirdly to signifie their unity in the Ministeriall 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 is more fitly declared by the name of one angell then of many Wee often finde the name of one Prophet or Priest to be put for the generall body of the Ministery or whole multitude of 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. 6.13.18.18 Isa. 3.2 Hos. 9.8 Ezek. 7.26 Hos. 4.6 Mal. 2.7 Neither should it seeme strange that a multitude or company of Ministers should bee understood under the name of one angell seeing a multitude of Heavenly angels implyed in one service for the good of Gods Saints is sometimes in the Scripture shut up under one angell in the singular number as may be gathered from Gen. â—4 7 2 Kings 19.35 Psal. 34.7 compared with Psalme 91.11 Gen. 32.1.2 Kings 6.16 17. And also a multitude of devils or evill angels joyntly labouring in any one worke is set forth under the name of one evill or uncleane spirit 1 Kings 22.21 22. Mark 1 23 24. Markâ— 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 Angell is taken individually for one particular person as Doctor Reynolds seemes to interpret it together with Master Beza yet neverthelesse there will nothing follow out of this acception that will any wayes make for the upholding of a Diocesan Bishop with sole power of Ordination and Jurisdiction as a distinct superior to Presbyters And this appeares 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 dayes And the seven starres are said to bee fixed in their seven Candlestickes or Churches not one starre over divers Candlestickes Neither can those Churches be thought to be Diocesan when not only Tindall and the old translation calls them seven Congregations but we reade 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 generall the Church is committed to be fed by them without any respect had to Timothy who stood at his elbow and had beene with him in Macedonia and was now waiting upon him to Ierusalem This is also confirmed by Epiphanius who writing of the Heresies of the Meletians saith that in ancient times this was peculiar to Alexandria that it had but one bishop whereas other Cities had two And hee 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 angell of the Church of Ephesus that he could not beare them that were evill and that he had tryed them which say they were Apostles and are not had found them lyars And it is spoken in dispraise of the angell of Pergamus that he suffred them which held the doctrine of Balaam c. But these things are common duties requirable at the hands of all Ministers who have the Charge of Soules But suppose that there were some superiority and preheminency insinuated by this individuall angell yet who knoweth not that there are divers 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
inequality 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 hee supposeth hee heares us say is Scripture Truth we have shewed already c. that there was a parity between Presbyters and Bishops and that eminent superioritie and power of Ordination and Iurisdiction which our Bishops claime was unknowne to Scripture and are now prepared by Gods assistance to prove it was unknowne to primitive times But how doth this Remonstrant meete with this Reply ALAS ALAS HOVV GOOD PEOPLE may be abused by misinformation It seemes the man Judged this Reply so poore 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 hee knew how to answer and therefore waves it with his Rethoricke And this we rather thinke because hee knowes but little in Antiquity that knowes not that there is so vast a difference betweene our Bishops and those that were not onely in the Apostles dayes whom wee have proved to be undistinguished from Presbyters But those Bishops that were in the Church 400 yeares after when there began to bee some discrimination that Episcopacy may well be likened to the Shippe Argo that was so often repaired as there was nothing left of the First Materialls yet stil 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 Ierom Augustine c. Wee come now to Declare what was the manner of Election unto this Prioritie 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 Authours to make this good Cyprian alone would doe it among other places let his 68. Epistle witnesse 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 bee chosen in the presence of the people before all their eyes and approved as fit and worthy by their publike vote and Testimony This hee proves by the Testimonie of Sacred writ both Old and New Where wee observe first that the speciall power of Judging of the worthinesse or unworthinesse of a man for the Prelacy was in the breast of the People Secondly the speciall power of choosing or rejecting to his place according as they Judged him worthy or unworthy resided in the People Plebs maximé 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 Clergie or People is Condemned by Athanasius not onely as a breach of Canon but as a Transgression of Apostolicall prescript and that it did compell 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 asleepe 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 eorum qui cum juverunt Consilio hâc praeceps ruisset rectum Eligendi Ordinem impudenter conturbasset Gelas in Act. Concil Nicen. part 3. if they would get a faithfull and upright Bishop which saith he is in your power presently to doe and was long agoe if Eusebius with the ayd 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 beene 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 severall seats for Arianisme by the Councell of Nice others were appointed in their roomes by the Clergy and people of each Diocesse To this Election in Nicomedia wee could if it were needfull 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 beene spoken is sufficient to informe the intelligent Reader that our Bishops and the Bishops of former times are Tvvo 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 Tvvo 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 betweene ours and former Bishops First in that Sole Iurisdiction which our Bishops assume to themselves Secondly in the Delegation they make of the power of exercising this Iurisdiction 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 knowne and felt and that this Sole Iurisdiction was a stranger a Monster to former times wee 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 himselfe expounds it writing to Lucius in his owne name and the name of his Clergie 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
sentence of Saint Ambrose because saith hee 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 summum 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 onely 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 nonnunquam Episcoporum Clericorum censura desaevit There be some whom the Church reprooves and some which shee 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 the sole hands of the Bishops but likewise in the hands of Presbyters Syricius Bishop of Rome signifies to the Church of Mâ—llaine that Iovinianus Auxentius c. were cast out of the Church for ever and he sets downe how they did it Omnium Nostrum tam Presbyterorum quam Diaconorum quam totius etiam clerisciscitata fuit sententia There was a concurrence of all Presbyters Deacons and the whole Clergie in that sentence of Excommunication The truth herein may be further evidencâ—d by this because the whole Clergie as well as the Bishops imposed hands uâ—on such as repâ—nting were aâ—solved Nec ad communicationem saith Cyprâ—an venire quis possit nisi prius ab Episcopo Clero Manus illi fuerit imposita No man that hath beene excommunicated might returne to Church-Communion before hands had been laid upon him by the Bishop and Clergie Also writing to his Clergie concerning lapsed Christians he tells them Exomologe si facta manu eis a 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 Presbyterie and therefore confessed their sinnes and so were admitted But though the sentence of Excommunication was managed oneâ—y by the hand of those that laboured in the Word and Doctrine yet we will not conceale from you that neither Excommunication nor absolution did passe wâ—thout the knowledge and approbation of the body of the Church to which the Deliquent 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 publick Censures of the Church were inflicted not onely for the Emendation of delinquents but for the admonition of others and therefore ought to be administred in publick 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 owne he saith thus In uno consensu Ecclâ—sia universa conspirans excidat me dextram 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 persuadeo 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 wee 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 onely be received into assistance but be wholly intrusted with the power of Spirituall 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 Commissarie No he was so farre from suâ—stituting any man much lesse a lay man to determine or give Judgement in such cases that hee would not assume that power wholly to himselfe but suspends his Judgement till the hand of God should restore him to his Church againe that with the advice and Counsell 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 beene visible by this holy Martyr in the goings of former ages hee needed not have deferred the determination of the question about the receiving of some penitent lapsed ones into the bosome of the Church againe till his returne and the returne of his Clergie 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 Commissarie or any other man upon whom he had devolved his power and set him as his Deputie or Vicar generall in his absence but ad clerum to the whole Presbyterie This Truth is so cleare that Bishop Downam the great Adâ—ocate of Episcopacie confesseth that in Ambrose his time a good while after which was about 400 yeers til the Presbyters were in a manner wholly neglected the Bishops had no Ordinaries Vicars Chancellors or Commissaries that were not Clergie-men
the rest the residue of the people The people governned and the governours in the plurall number What can be more evident to prove that by Angell is meant not one singular person but the whole company of Presbyters that were in Thyatira This also further appeares because it is usuall with the holy Ghost not only in other books of the Scripture but also in this very booke of the Revelation to expresse a company under one singular person Thus the Civill state of Rome as opposite to Christ is called A beast with ten hornes and the Ecclesiasticall state Antichristian is called the whore of Babylon and the false Prophet and the devill 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 Vialls are not literally to be taken but Synecdoâ—hically as all know And why not then the seven Angels in those Epistles Master Meedâ— in his Commentaries upon the Revelation pag. 265 hath these words Denique ut jam semel iterumque monuimus quoniam Deus adhibet angelos providentiae sitae in reruÌ„ humanarum motibus conversionibus ciendis gubernandisque administros idcirco quae multorum manibus peraguntur Angelo tamen tanquam rei gerendae praesidi Duci pro communi loquendi modo tribuuntur Adde thirdly that the very name Angell is sufficient to prove that it is not meant of one person alone because the word Angell 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 thinke that there should bee any thing spoken to one Minister that doth not belong to all The like argument wee draw from the word Starres used Revel 1.20 The seven Starres are the Angels of the seven Churches Now it is evident that all faithfull Ministers are called Starres in Scripture whose duty is to shine as lights unto the Churches in all purity of doctrine and holinesse of conversation And in this sence the word is used when it is said that the third part of the starres were darkened Revel 8.12 and that the Dragons taile drew the third part of the starres of Heaven cast them to the Earth Revel 12.4 Which is meant not onely 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 Candlestickes which thou sawest are the seven Churches but hee doth not say The seven starres 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 in omitted least we should understand by Angell one Minister alone and not a company And yet the septenary number of Churches is twice set down Lastly though but one Angell bee mentioned in the forefront 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 eare to heare let him heare what the Spirit saith to the Churches Upon which words Ambrosius Ausbertus in his second booke upon the Revelation saith thus Vnâ eadâ—mque locutione Angelos Ecclesias â—num esse designat Nam cum in principio locutionuÌ„ quae ad sepâ—em fiunt Angelos dicat Angelo illius Ecclesiae scribe in â—ine tamen carundem non dicit qui habet aurem audiat quod spiritus dicat Angelo sed quid Ecclesiae dicat By one and the same phrase of speech hee sheweth the Angels and the Churches to bee 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 Angell of the Churches yet in the close of the same he doth not say Hee 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 admonitionâ— threatnings commendations and reproofes are directed to all the Ministers of all the Churches Revel 2.10 The devill shall cast some of you into prison c. Rev. 2.16 I will fight against them with the sword of my mouth Rev. 2.24 I will put upon you no other burden 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 thy labour c. vers 2. vers 4. Repent and doe thy first works and verse 13. Thou hast not denied my Faith c. and cap. 3.26 Because thou art neither hot nor cold c. All these and the like places are not to bee understood as meant of one individuall 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 doe 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 them with the sword of my mouth Revel 2.24 I will not put upon you any other burden Now wee have no warrant in the Word to thinke that Christ would remove his Gospell from a Church for the sinne of one Bishop when all the other Ministers and the Churches themselves are free from those sinnes And if God should take this course in what wofull and miserable condition should the Church of England be which groaneth under so many corrupt Prelates By all this it appeares that the word angell is not to be taken 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not properly but figuratively And this is the judgement 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 weare on their heads myters and hold crosier staves in their hands like dead Idolls but them that are the faithfull messengers of Gods Word and utter and declare the same Againe they are called the angels of the Churches because they be Gods messengers Master Fox likewise in his Meditation upon the Revelation pag. 7 9.17â— is of this
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 bee 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 were 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 betweene 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 bee proved that one apostle had any superiority over another apostle or one Evangelist over another And why then should one Presbyter be over another Hence it followeth that though we should grant a superiority betweene the twelve and the seventy yet this will not prove the question in hand Because the question is concerning Officers of the same kinde 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 farre this Episcopall government is from any Divine right or Apostolicall institution And how true that speech of Hierome is that a bishop as it is a superior Order to a Presbyter is an Humane praesumption not a divine Ordinance But though Scripture failes 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 plainely acknowledgeth a difference betweene 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 owne 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 bee carefull to provide that the Ministers of the Gospell might not onely live but maintaine Hospitalitie according to the Rule of the Gospell And that worthy Gentleman spake as an Oracle that said That scandalous Maintenance is a great cause of a scandalous Ministery Yet wee are not ignorant that when the Ministery came to have Agros domos locationes vehicula equos latifundia 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 voyce of Angels heard from Heaven Hodie venenum in Ecclesiam Christi cecidit this Day is poyson shed into the Church of Christ. And then it was that Ierome complained Christi Ecclesia postquam ad Christianos principes venit potentiâ quidem divitiis major sed virtutibus minor facta est Then also was that Conjunction found true That when they had woodden Chalices they had golden Priests but when their Chalices were golden their Priests were wooden And though we doe not thinke there is any such incompossibility but that large Revenues may be happily managed with an humble sociablenesse yet it 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 who notwithstanding the meannesse and obscurity of his birth afterwards grew to that height of Insolâ—ncâ— and pride in all his carriage especially in that numerous traine that attended him in the streetes and in his stately throne raised after the manner of Kings and Princes that Fides nostra inviâ—â—ia odiâ— propter fostum superbiâ—m cordis illius facta fuerit obnexia the Christian faith was exposed to envy and hatred through his pride And as their ambition fed with the largenesse of their revenewes discovered it selfe in great attendance stately dwellings and all Lordly pompe so Hierom complaines of their pride in their stately seates qui velut in aliqua sublimi specula constituti vix dignantur vidâ—re mortales alloqui conservos suos who sitting aloft as it were in a watch tower will scarce deigne to looke upon poore mortalis or speake to their fellow servants Here we might bee large in multiplying severall 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 ante pedibus aut asello ire consueverat spumante equo superbus invebitur parvá prius ac vili cellula contentus habitare erigit celsa Laquearia construit multa conclaviu sculpit postes pingit armaria vestem respuit gressiorem indumentum molle desiderat c. Which because the practise of our times hath already turned into English wee 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 remonstâ—ant saith If we doe not shew out of the true genuine writings of those holy men that lived in the Apostles dayes a cleare and received distinction of Bishopsâ— Presbyters and Deacons as three distinct subordinate callings with an evident specification of the duty belonging to each of them Let this claimed Hierarchie be for ever rooted out of the Church We beseech you let it be rememred 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 Angells of the Asian Churches Let them bee disclaimed as usurpers Wee desire it may be remembred how wee have proved first that Timothy and Titus and the Angels were no Diocesan bishops and secondly that our bishops challenge if not
the French Church who in their Confession speake thus Credimus veram Ecclesiam gubernari debere ea politia quam Dominus noster Iesus Christus sancivit ita videlicet ut sint in ea Pastores Presbyteri sive Seniores Diaconi ut doctrinae puritas retineatur c. Ar. 29. Credimus omnes Pastores ubicunque collocati sunt cádem aequali potestate inter se esse praeditos sub uno illo capite summoque solo universali Episcopo Iesu Christo Art 30. Gallicae confessionis Credimus veram hanc Ecclesiam debere regi ac gubernari spirituali illâ politiâ quam nos Deus ipse in verbo suo edocuit it a ut sint in ea Pastores ac ministri qui pure concionentur Sacramenta administrent sint quoque Seniores Diaconi qui Ecclesiae senatum constituant ut his veluti mediis vera Râ—ligio conservari Hominesque vitiis dediti spiritualiter corripi emendari possint Tunc enim ritè ordinate omnia siunt in Ecclesia cum viri fidâ—les pii ad ejus gubernationem deliguÌ„tur juxta Divi Pauli praescriptum 1 Tim. 3. Confes. Belgic Art 30. Caeterum ubicunque locorum sunt verbi Dei Ministri eandem atque aequalem Omnes habent tum Potestatem tum AUTHORITATEM ut qui sunt aeque Omnes Christi unici illius universalis Episcopi capitis Ecclesiae Ministri We beleeve that the true Church ought to be governed by that policie which Christ Jesus our Lord established viz. that there bee Pastors Presbyters or Elders and Deacons And againe Wee beleeve that all true Pastors where ever they be are endued with equall and the same power under one chiefe Head and bishop Christ Jesus Consonant to this the Dutch Churches We beleeve say they the true Church ought to be ruled with that spirituall policie which God hath taught us in his Word to wit that there bee in it Pastours to preach the Word purely Elders and Deacons to constitute the Ecclesiasticall Senate that by these meanes Religion may be preserved and manners corrected And so again We beleeve where ever the Ministers of God are placed they All have the same equall power and authoritie 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 forme of Governement set downe Deus in verbo suo edocuit Secondly That this forme of Governement Christ established in his Church Iesus Christus in Ecclesiâ sancivit Thirdly That this forme 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 Gospell are of equall power and Authority For the reason he assignes why those Churches should make this Option wee cannot enough admire that such a passage should fall from his pen as to say there is Little difference betweene their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and our Episcopacie save onely in perpetuity and lay Elders for who knowes not that between these two there is as 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 voyce in what is agreed by the rest nor 6. any further power then any of his Brethren So that the difference betweene 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 Episcopacie will be with the lesse difficultie and occasion the lesse disturbance SECT XV. BUt there is another thing wherein our Episcopacie differs from the Geneva Moderatorship besides the perpetuity and that is the exclusion of the Lay Presbytery which if we may beleeve 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 sweare 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 wee have alreadie noted Wee will to avoyd prolixity not urge those three knowne Texts of Scripture produced by some for the establishing of Governing Elders in the Church not yet vindicated by the adversaries Nor will wee urge that famous Text of Ambrose in 1 Tim. 5. But if there were no Lay Elders in the Church till this present age wee would be glad to learne who they were of whom Origen speakes when he tels 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 câ— Nonnulli praepositi sunt quì in vitam mores eorum qui admittuntur inquirant ut qui turpia committant iis communi Caetu Interdicant qui vero ab istis abhorrent ex anima complexi meliores quotidiè reddant There are some ordained to enquire 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 plainely First that there were some in the higher forme of heares 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 instrusted 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 Elders 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 generall 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 againe Contra Cresconium Grammaticum Omnes vos Episcopi Presbyteri Diaconi Seniores scitis All you Bishops Elders Deacons and Elders doe know What were those two sorts of Elders there mentioned in one comma ibidem cap. 56. Peregrinus Presbyter seniores Ecclesiae Musticanae Regiones tale desiderium prosequuntur where
foreseene the influence of works into Iustification falling from grace c. If what Scripture we answer the Apocrypha and unwritten Traditions If what Baptisme a Baptisme of absolute Necessity unto salvation and yet insufficient unto salvation as not sealing grace to the taking away of sinne after Baptisme If what Eucharist an Eucharist that must be administred upon an Altar or a Table set Altar-wise rayled in an Eucharist in which there is such a presence of Christ though Modum nesciunt as makes the place of its Administration the throne of God the place of the Residence of the Almighty and impresseth such a holinesse upon it as makes it not onely capable but worthy of Adoration If what Christ a Christ who hath given the same power of absolution to a Priest that himselfe hath If what Heaven a heaven that hath a broad way leading thither and is receptive of Drunkards Swearers Adulterers c. such a heaven as we may say of it as the the Indians said of the heaven of the Spaniards Unto that heaven which some of the Prelaticall Church living and dying in their scandalous sinnes and hatefull enormities goe to let our soules never enter If what meanes of salvation we answer confession of sinnes to a Priest as the most absolute undoubted necessary infallible meanes of Salvation Farre be it from us to say with this Remonstrant we do fully agree in all these and all other Doctrinall and practicall points of Religion and preach one and the same saving truths Nay we must rather say as that holy Martyr did We thank God we are none of you Nor doe we because of this dissension feare the censure of uncharitablenesse from any but uncharitable men But it is no unusuall thing with the Prelats and their party to charge such as protest against their corrupt opinions and wayes with uncharitablenesse and Schisme as the Papists do the Protestants and as the Protestants doe justly recriminate and charge that Schisme upon the Papists which they object to us So may we upon the Prelats And if Austin may be Judge the Prelats are more Schismaticks then we Quicunque saith he invident bonis ut quaerant occasiones excludendieos aut degradandi vel crimina sua sic defondâ—re parati sunt si objecta vel prodita fuerint ut etiam conventiculorum congregationes vel Ecclesiae perturbationes cogitent excitare jam schismatici sunt Whosoever envie those that are good and seeke occasions to exclude and degrade them and are so ready to defend their faults that rather then they will leave them they will devise how to raise up troubles in the Church and drive men into Conventicles and corners they are the Schismaticks And that all the world may take notice what just cause wee have to complaine of Episcopacie as it now stands wee humbly crave leave to propound these Quaeries Quaeries about Episcopacie VVHether it be tolerable in a Christian Church that Lord Bishops should be held to be Iure Divino And yet the Lords day by the same men to be but Iure Humano And that the same persons should cry up Altars in stead of Communion Tables and Priests in stead of Ministers and yet not Iudaize when they will not suffer the Lords day to be called the Sabbath day for feare of Iudaizing Whereas the word Sabbath is 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 Russinus in Psal. 47. Origen Hom. 23. in Num. Gregory Nazian Whether that assertion No Bishop No King and no Ceremonie no Bishop be not very prejudiciall to Kingly Authoritie For it seemes to imply that the Civill power depends upon the Spirituall and is supported by Ceremonies and Bishops Whether seeing it hath beene proved that Bishops as they are now asserted are a meere humane Ordinance it may not by the same Authoritie be abrogated by which it was 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 unlawfull to submit to that Government Because that many consciencious men that have hitherto conformed to Ceremonies and Episcopacie have done it upon this ground as supposing that Authoritie did not make them matters of worship but of Order and Decencie c. And thus they satisfied their consciences in answering those Texts Colos. 2.20 21 22. Math. 15.9 But now since Episcopacy comes to be challenged as a Divine Ordinance how shall wee be responsable to those Texts And is it not as it is now asserted become an Idoll and like the Brazen Serpent to be ground to powder Whether there be any difference in the point of Episcopacie between Ius Divinum and Ius Apostolicum Because we finde some claiming their standing by Ius Divinum others by Ius Apostolicum But wee 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 meane improperly as some doe such things which are not recorded in the writings of the Apostles but introduced the Apostles being living they cannot be rightly said to be jure 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 Presbyter no not in this sense jure 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 Episcopatus inter ordines Ecclesiasticos ponendus sit inter Theologos Canonistas non convenit Convenit autem inter omnes in Apostolorum aetate Presbyterum Episcopum nullum discrimen fuisse c. Whether the distinction of Beza betweene Episcopus Divinus Humanus 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 Diabolicall Bishop he meanes 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 Limmed two pictures to the same proportion and figure The one hee reserved in secret the other he exposed to common view And as the phansie