them SECT XIII But it seemes our Remonstrant soared above these times even as high as the Apostles dayes for so he saith If our Bishops challenge any other spiritual power then was by Apostolike Authority delegated to and required of Timothy and Titus and the Angels of the seven Asian Churches let them be DISCLAIMED as VSVRPERS And the truth is so they deserve to be if they doe but challenge the same power that the Apostle did delegate to Timothy and Titus for Timothy and Titus were Evangelists and so moved in a Sphere above Bishops or Presbyters For Timothy it is cleare from the letter of the Text 2 Tim. 4.5 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Doe the work of an Evangelist if Timothy had been but a Presbyter or Bishop Paul had here put him upon imployment Vltra Sphaeram Activitatis And to any man that will but understand and consider what the Office of an Evangelist was and wherein it differed from the Office of a Presbyter or Bishop it will be manifest that Timothy and Titus were Evangelists and no Bishops for the title of Evangelist is taken but two wayes either for such as wrote the Gospel and so we doe not affirme Timothy and Titus to be Evangelists or else for such as taught the Gospel and those were of two sorts either such as had ordinary places and ordinary gifts or such whose places and gifts were extraordinary and such Evangelists were Timothy and Titus and not Bishops as will appeare if we consider what was the Difference between the Evangelists and Bishops Bishops or Presbyters were tyed to the particular care and tuition of that flock over which God had made them Overseers Acts 20.28 But Evangelists were not tyed to reside in one particular place but did attend upon the Apostles by whose appointment they are sent from place to place as the necessity of the Churches did require As appeares first in Timothy whom Saint Paul besought to abide at Ephesus 1. Tim. 1.3 which had beene needlesse importunity if Timothy had the Episcopall that is the Pastorall charge of Ephesus committed to him by the Apostles for then he might have laid as dreadful a Charge upon him to abide at Ephesus as he doth to Preach the Gospel But so far was Paul from setling Timothy in Cathedrâ in Ephesus that he rather continually sends him up and down upon all Church-services for we finde Acts. 17.14 that when Paul fled from the tumults of Berea to Athens he left Silas and Timothy behinde him who afterwards comming to Paul to Athens Paul sends Timothy from Athens to Thessalonica to confirm the Thessalonians in the faith as appears 1 Thes. 3.1.2 from whence returning to Paul to Athens again the Apostle Paul before he left Athens and went to Corinth sent him and Silas into Macedonia who returned to him again to Corinth Act. 18.5 afterwards they travelled to Ephesus from whence we read Paul sent Timothy and Erastus into Macedonia Act. 19.22 wither Paul went after them and from whence they and divers other Breathren journied into Asia Acts 20.4 All which Breathren Paul calls as it is probable 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the messengers of the Churches 2. Cor. 8.23 And being thus accompanied with Timothy and the rest of the Bretheren he comes to Miletum and calls the Elders of the Church of Ephesus thither to him of which Church had Timothy been Bishop the Apostle in stead of giving the Elders a charge to feed the flock of Christ would have given that charge to Timothy and not to them And secondly the Apostle would not so have forgotten himself as to call the Elders 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 before their Bishops face Thirdly It is to be conceived the Apostles would have given them some directions how to carry themselves towards their Bishop but not a word of this though Timothy were then in Pauls presence and in the presence of the Elders The cleare evidence of which Text demonstrates that Paul did not leave Timothy at this time as Bishop of Ephesus But it is rather evident that he took him along with him in his journey to Hierusalem and so to Rome for we find that those Epistles Paul wrote while he a prisoner bear either in their inscription or some other passage of them the name of Timothy as Pauls companion viz. The Epistle to the Philippians Câ—lossians Hebrewes Philemon which Epistles he wrote in bonds as the contexture which those two learned professors the one at Heydelburg the other at Saulmur make of Saint Pauls Epistles doth declare So that it appears that Timothy was no Bishop but a Minister an Evangelist a fellow labourer of the Apostles 1 Thes. 3.1 an Apostle a Messenger of the Church 2 Cor. 8.3 a Minister of God 1 Thes. 3.2 these titles the Holy Ghost gives him but never the title of a Bishop The like we finde in Scripture concerning Titus whom Paul as it is conceived by learned men did first assume into the fellowship of his Labors in the place of Iohn and made him his companion in his journy through Antioch to Hierusalem so we find Gal. 2.1 from thence returning to Antioch againe from thence he passed through Syria and Cilicia confirming the Churches and from Cilicia he passed to Creet where having Preached the Gospel and plainted Churches he left Titus there for a while to set in order things that remaine Yet it was but for a while he left him there for in his Epistle which he wrote to him not many yeares after he injoynes him to come to him to Nicopolis where he did intend to winter but changing that purpose sends for him to Ephesus where it seemes his Hyemal station was and from thence sends him before him to Corinth to enquire the state of the Corinthians His returne from thence Paul expects at Troas and because comming thither he found not his expectation there he was so grieved in his spirit 2 Cor. 2.12 that he passed presently from thence into Macedonia where Titus met him and in the midst of his afflictions joyed his spirits with the glad tydings of the powerful and gracious effects his first Epistle had among the Corinthians 2 Cor. 7 5 6 7. Paul having there collected the Liberalities of the Saints sends Titus againe to the Corinthians to prepare them for the same service of Ministring to the necessities of the Saints 2 Cor. 8.6 And makes him with some others the Conveyers of that second Epistle to the Corinthians All these journey es to and fro did Titus make at the designment of the Apostle even after he was left in Creet Nor doe we finde that after his first removal from Creet he did ever returne thither We read indeed 2 Tim. 4.10 he was with Paul at Rome and from thence returned not to Creet but into Dalmatia All which doth more then probably shew it never was the Intendment of the Apostle to
by the name of one Angel then of many We often finde the name of one Prophet or Priest to be put for the general body of the Ministery or whole multitude or Prophets or Priests in the Church of Israel or Iudah when the Spirit of God intendeth to reprove threaten or admonish them Thus it is Iere. 6.13.18.19 Isa. 3.2 Hos. 9.8 Ezek. 7.26 Hos. 4 6. Mal. 2.7 Neither should it seem strange that a multitude or company of Ministers should be understood under the name of one Angel seeing a multitude of Heavenly Angels imployed in one service for the good of Gods Saints is sometimes in the Scripture shut up under one Angel in the singular number as may be gathered from Gen. 14.7 2 Kings 19.35 Psal 34.7 compared with Psal. 91.11 Gen. 32.1 2. Kings 6.16 17. And also a multitude of Devils or evil Angels jointly labouring in any one work is set forth under the name of one evil or unclean spirit 1 Kings 22.21 22. Mark 1.23 24. Mark 5.2.9 Luke 4.33.34 Luk. 8.27.30 1 Pet. 5.8 Heb. 2.14 Ephes. 6.11.12 But now let us suppose which yet notwithstanding we will not grant that the word Angel is taken individually for one particular person as Doctor Reynolds seems to interpret it together with Master Beza yet neverthelessâ— there will nothing follow out of this acception that will any ways make for the upholding of a Diocesan Bishop with sole power of Ordination and Jurisdiction as a distinct Superior to Presbyters And this appears First because it never was yet proved nor ever will as we conceive that these Angels were Diocesan Bishops considering that Parishes were not divided into Diocesses in S. Iohns days And the seven Stars are said to be fixed in their seven Candlesticks or Churches not one Star over divers Candlesticks Neither can those Churches be thought to be Diocesan when not onely Tindal and the old translation calls them seven Congregations but we read also Acts 20. that at Ephesus which was one of those Candlesticks there was but one flock And secondly we further finde that in Ephesus one of those seven Churches there were many Presbyters which are all called Bishops Acts 20.28 and we finde no colour of any superintendency or superiority of one Bishop over another To them in general the Church is committed to be fed by them without any respect had to Timothy who stood at his Elbow and had been with him in Macedonia and was now waiting upon him to Jerusalem This is also confirmed by Epiphanius who writing of the Heresies of the Miletians saith that in ancient times this was peculiar to Alexandria that it had but one Bishop whereas other Cities had two And he being Bishop of Cypres might well be acquainted with the condition of the Churches of Asia which were so nigh unto him Thirdly there is nothing said in the seven Epistles that implyeth any superiority or majority of rule or power that these Angels had over the other Angels that were joyned with them in their Churches It is written indeed in commendation of the Angel of the Church of Ephesus that he could not beare them that were evil and that he had tryed them which say they were Apostles and are not and had found them lyers And it is spoken in dispraise of the Angel of Pergamus that he suffered them which hâ—ld the Doctrine of Balaam c. But these things are common duties requirable at the hands of all Ministers who have the charge of souls But suppose that there were some superiority and prehemenency insinuated by this individual Angel yet who knoweth not that there are diverse kinds of superiority to wit of Order of Dignity of Gifts and Parts or in degree of Ministery or in charge of power and jurisdiction And how will it be proved that this Angel if he had a superiority had any more then a superiority of Order or of Gifts and Parts Where it is said that this Angel was a superior degree or order of Ministery above Presbyters In which Epistle is it said that this Angel had sole power of Ordination and Jurisdiction And therefore as our learned Protestants prove against the Papists that where Christ directed his speech to Peter in particular and said I will give unto thee the Keys of the kingdom of Heaven c. That this particularization of Peter did not import any singular preheminence or majority of power to Peter more then to the other Apostles But that though the promise was made to Peter yet it was made to him in the name of all the rest and given to all as well as one And that therefore it was spoken to one person and not to all that so Christ might fore-signifie the unity of his Church as Cyprian Austin Hierome Optatus and others say So when Christ directs an Epistle to one Angel it doth not imply a superior power over his fellow-Angels but at most only a presidency for order sake And that which is written to him is written to the rest as well as to him And therefore written to one not to exclude the rest but to denote the unity that ought to be between the Ministers of the same Church in their common care and diligence to their flock And this is all that Doctor Reynolds saith as you may read in his conference with Hart cap. 4. divis 3. ad finem For it is evident that Doctor Reynolds was an utter enemy to the Ius Divinum of the Episcopal preheminency over Presbyters by his Letter to Sir Francis Knolls And learned Master Beza also saith something to the same purpose in his Annotations upon Revel 2.1 Angelo i. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 quem nimirum oporuit imprimis de his rebus admoneri ac per eum caeteros collegas totamque adeo Ecclesiam Sed hinc statui Episcopalis ille gradus postea humanitus in Ecclesiam Dei invectus certe nec potest nec debet imo ne perpetuum quidem istud 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 munus esse necessario oportuisse sicut exorta inde Tyrannis Oligarchica cujus apex est Antichristiana bestia certissima cum totius non Ecclesiae modo sed etiam orbis pernicie nunc tandem declarat If therefore our Remonstrant can produce no better evidence for his Hierarchy then Timothy and Titus and the Angels of the Asian Churches Let not this Remonstrant and his party cry out of wrong if this claimed Hierarchy be for ever booted out of the church seeing it is his owne Option And yet we cannot conceale one refuge more out of Scripture to which the Hierarchy betake themselves for shelter And that is the two Postscripts in the end of Pauls second Epistle to Timothy and of that to Titus where in the one Timothy is said to be the first Bishop of Ephesus and in the other Titus is said to be the first Bishop of the Church of the Cretians to both which places wee answer That these two Postscrips and so
all the rest are no part of Canonical Scripture And therefore our former and ancienter English translations though they have these Postscripts yet they are put in a small character different from that of the Text. Although our Episcopal men of late in newer impressions have inlarged their Phylacteries in putting those Postscripts in the same full character with that of the Text that the simple might beleeve they are Canonical Scripture The Papists themselves Baronius Serrarius and the Rhemists confesse that there is much falsity in them The first Epistle to Timothy is thus subscribed the first to Timothy was written from Laodicea whoch is the chiefest City of Phrygia Pacatiana Here wee demand whether Paul when hee writ the first Epistle to Timothy was assured he should live to write a second which was written long after And if not How comes it to bee subscribed the first to Timothy which hath relation to a second Besides the Epistle is said to bee writ from Laodicea whereas Beza in his Annotations proves apparently that it was written from Macedonia to which Opinion Baronius and Serrarius subscribe It is added Which is the chiefest City of Phrygia Pacatiana But this Epithet is nowhere read in the Writers of those ages saith Beza Sed apud recentiores illoâ— qui Romani imperii jam inclinantis provincias descripserunt So that by this place it is evident that the subscription was added a long while after the writing of the Epistles by some men for the most part vel indoctis saith Beza vel certe non satis attentis Either by a Learned or negligent man The second Epistle is thus subscribed The second Epistle unto Timothy ordained the first Bishop of the Church of the Ephesians was written from Rome when Paul was brought before Nero the second time Now these words Ordained the first Bishop is wanting saith Beza in quibusdam vetustis codicibus in veteri vulgatâ editione apud Syrum interpreâ—â—m If Saint Paul had written this Postscript he would not have said To Timothy the first Bishop c. whereas it was not yet certain whether ever there should bee a second Neither would it bee said when Paul was brought c. But when I was the second time brought before Nero. The Syriack Interpreter reads it Here ends the second Epistle to Timothy written from Rome The Epistle to Titus is thus subscribed Written to Titus Ordained first Bishop of the Church of the Cretians from Nicopolis of Macedonia Here it is said that this Epistle was written from Nicopolis whereas it is cleare that Paul was not at Nicopolis when he wrote it Tit. 3.12 Be diligent to come to me at Nicopolis for I have determined there to winter Hee doth not say Here to winter but There Where note for the present he was not there And besides it is said that Titus was Ordained the first Bishop c. And who was the second or was there ever a second And also He is said to be Bishop not onely of a Diocess but of all Creet Was there ever such a second Bishop Adde lastly that it is said Bishop of the Church of the Cretians Whereas it would bee said of the Churches of the Cretians For the Christian Churches of any Nation are called Churches by Luke and Paul not Church Therefore Codex Claremontanus subscribes Here ends the Epistle to Titus and no more So the Syriack Finitur Epistola ad Titum quae scripta fuit è Nicopoli The old Vulgar Edition hath nothing of the Episcopacy of Titus By all this it appears that if the Bishops had no more authority to urge us to subscribe to their Ceremonies then they have authority for their Episcopal Dignity by these Subscriptions there would be no more subscription to Ceremonies in the Churches of England But some will say that there is one objection out of Scripture yet unanswered and that is from the inequality that was betweene the twelve Apostles and the seventy Disciples To which we answer First that it cannot be proved that the twelve Apostles had any superiority over the seventy either of Ordination or Jurisdiction or that there was any subordination of the seventy unto the twelve but suppose it was yet we answer Secondly that a superiority and inferiority betweene Officers of different kindes will not prove that there should be a superiority and inferiority between Officers of the same kinde No man will deny but that in Christs time there were Apostles Evangelists Prophets Pastors and Teachers and that the Apostles were superior to Evangelists and Pastors But it cannot be proved that one Apostle had any superiority over another Apostle or one Evangelist over an other And why then should one Presbyter be over another Hence it followeth that though we should grant a superiority between the twelve and the seventy yet this will not prove the question in hand Because the question is concerning Officers of the same kind and the instance is of Officers of different kinds amongst whom no man will deny but there may be a superiority and inferiority as there is amongst us between Presbyters and Deacons And now let your Honours judge considering the premisses how far this Episcopal government is from any Divine right or Apostolical Institution And how true that speech of Hierome is that a Bishop as it is a superiour Order to a Presbyter is an Humane presumption not a Divine Ordinance But though Scripture fails them yet the indulgence and Munificence of Religious Princes may support them and to this the Remonstrant makes his next recourse yet so as he acknowledgeth here Ingagements to Princes onely for their accessory dignities titles and Maintenance not at all for their stations and functions wherein yet the author plainly acknowledgeth a difference between our Bishops and the Bishops of old by such accessions For our parts we are so farre from envying the gracious Munificence of pious Princes in collating honourable maintenance upon the Ministers of Christ that we beleeve that even by Gods own Ordinance double Honour is due unto them And that by how much the Ministery of the Gospell is more honourable then that of the Law by so much the more ought all that embrace the Gospell to be carefull to provide that the Ministers of the Gospell might not onely live but maintain Hospitalitie according to the Rule of the Gospell And that worthy Gentleman spake as an Oracle that said That scandalous Maintenance is a great caues of a scandelous Ministery Yet we are not ignorant that when the Ministery came to have Agros dâ—mos lecationes vehicula â—ques laâ—ifâ—ndia as Chrysost Hom. 86 in Matth. That then Religio peperit divitias filia devoravit Matrem Religion brought forth riches and the Daughter devoured the Mother and then there was a voice of Angels heard from Heaven Hodie venenum in Ecclesiam Christi cecidit This day is poison shed into the Church of Christ. And then it was that Ierom complained
not the Text we shall admit it but if it doe we must answer with Tertullian Id verum quodcunque primum id adulterum quod posterius whatsoever is first is true but that which is latter is adulterous In the examination of this Glosse to avoyd needlesse Controversie First we take for granted by both sides that the first and best Antiquity used the names of Bishops and Presbyters promiscuously Secondly that in processe of time some one was honoured with the name of Bishop and the rest were called Presbyters or Cleri Thirdly that this was not Nomen inane but there was some kinde of Imparity between him and the rest of the Presbyters Yet in this we differ that they say this Impropriation of name and Imparity of place is of Divine Right and Apostolical Institution we affirme both to be occasional and of humane Invention and undertake to shew out of Antiquity both the occasion upon which and â—he Persons by whom this Imparity was brought into the Church On our parts stands Ierome and Ambrose and others whom we doubt not but our Remonstrant will grant a place among his Glossators Saint Ierome tells us in 1 Tit. Idem est ergo Presbytâ—r qui Episcopus antequam Diaboli instinctu studia in Religione fierent diceretur in populis eco sum Pauli ego Apollo ego Cephae Communi PresbyteroruÌ„ Consilio ecclesiae gubernabantur Postquam vero unusquisque eos quos bapâ—izaverat suos putabat esse non Christi in toto Orbe decretum est ut unus de Presbyteris electus superponeretur caeteris ad quem omnis Ecclesiae Cura pertineret schismatum semina tollerentur Putat aliquis non Scripturarum sed nostram esse sententiam Episcopum Presbyterum unum esse aliud aetatis aliud esse nomen ofâ—icâ—i relegat Apostoli ad Philippenses verba dicentis Paulus Timothaeus servi Iesu Christi qui sunt Philippis cum Episcopis Diaconis c. Philippi una est urbs Macedoniae certè in una Civitate non poterant plures esse ut nuncupantur Episcopi c. sicut ergo Presbyteri sciant se ex Ecclesiae consuetudine ei qui sibi praepositus fuerit esse subjectos Ita Episcopi noverint se magis consuetudine quam dispositionis Dominicae veritate Presbyteris esse majores in Communi debere Ecclesiam regere A Presbyter and a Bishop is the same and before there were through the Devils instinct divisions in Religion and the people began to say I am of Paul and I of Apollo and I oâ— Cephas the Churches were governed by the Common-councell of the Presbyters But after that each man began to account those whom he had baptized his own and not Christs it was decreed thorow the whole world that one of the Presbyters should be set over the rest to whom the care of all the Church should belong that the seeds of schisme might be taken away Thinks any that this is my opinion and not the opinion of the Scripture that a Bishop and an Elder is the same let him read the words of the Apostle to the Philippians saying Paul and Timothy the servants of Jesus Christ to them that are at Philippi with the Bishops and Deacons Philippi is one city of Macedonia and certainly in one city there could not be many Bishops as they are now called c. and after the allegations of many other Scriptures he concludes thus as the Elders therefore may know that they are to be subject to him that is set over them by the custome of the Church so let the Bishops know that it is more from custome then from any true dispensation from the Lord that they are above the Presbyters that they ought to rule the Church in common In which words of Ierome these five things present themselves to the Readers view First that Bishops and Presbyters are originally the same Idem ergo est Presbyter qui Episcopus Secondly that that Imparity that was in his time between Bishops and Elders was grounded upon Ecclesiastical custome and not upon devine Institution Episcopi noverint c. Thirdly that this was not his private judgement but the judgement of Scripture Putat aliquis c. Fourthly that before this Priority was upon this occasion started the Church was governed Communi Presbyterorum Consilio by the Counsel of the Presbyters in common and that even after this imparity it ought to be so governed Sciant Episcopi se Ecclesiam debere in communi regere Fifthly that the occasion of this Imparity and Superiority of Bishops above Elders was the divisions which through the Devils instinct fell among the Churches Postquam verò Diaboli instinctu Saravia would take advantage of this place to deduce this Imparity as high as from the Apostles times because even then they began to say I am of Paul and I of Apollos but sure S. Ierome was not so weake as this man would make him to speak Inconsistencies and when he propounds it to himself to prove that Bishops and Presbyters are in Scripture the same to let fall words that should confute his own proposition whereas therefore S. Ierome saith that after men began to say I am of Paul and I of Apollos c. it was decreed that one of the Presbyters should be set over the rest c. This is spoken indeed in the Apostles phrase but not of the Apostles times else to what purpose is that coacervation of texts that followes But suppose it should be granted to be of Apostolical antiquity which yet we grant not having proved the contrary yet it appeares it was not of Apostolical intention but of Diabolical occasion And though the Devil by kindling Divisions in the Church did minister Occasion to the invention of the primacy or prelacy or one for the suppressing of Schisme yet there is just cause to think that the Spirit of God in his Apostles was never the author of this invention First because we read in the Apostles dayes there were Divisions Rom. 16.7 and Schismes 1 Cor. 3.3 and 11.18 yet the Apostle was not directed by the holy Ghost to ordaine Bishops for the taking away of those Divisions Neither in the rules he prescribes for the healing of those breaches doth he mention Bishops for that end Nor in the Directions given to Timothy and Titus for the Ordination of Bishops or Elders doth he mention this as one end of their Ordination or one peculiar duty of their office And though the Apostle saith Oportet haereses inter vos esse ut qui probati sunt manifesti fiant inter vos yet the Apostle no where saith Oportet Episcopos esse ut tollantur haereses quae manifestae fiunt Secondly because as Doctor Whitaker saith the remedy devised hath proved worse then the disease which doth never happen to that remedy whereof the holy Ghost is the author Thirdly because the holy Ghost who could foresee what would
New Where we observe first that the special power of Judging of the worthinesse or unworthinesse of a man for the Prelacy was in the breast of the Peogle Secondly the special power of choosing or rejecting eo his place according as they Judged him worthy or unworthy resided in the People Plebs maximè Habet potestatem c. Thirdly that this power did descend upon the People De Divina Authoritate Nor was this the Judgement of one Sole man but of an Affrican Synod consulted by the Spanish Churches in point of Election as the inscription of the Epistle shewes The Obtrusion of a Bishop upon the Church of Alexandria without the Presence desire and vote of the Clergy or People is condemned by Athanasius not onely as a breach of Canon but as a Transgression of Apostolical prescript and that it did compel or necessitate the heathen to blaspheme Nor did onely Christian Bishops but Christian Princes acknowledge the Right and power of Election of Bishops to be in the People so that admired Constantine the great Promover and Patron of the peace of the Christian Church writing to the Church of Nicomedia against Eusebius and Theognius tells them the ready way to lay asleep the Tumults that did then disturbe the Church about the Election of a Bishop was si modo Episcopum fidelem integrum nacti fuerint quod quidem in praesentia in vestrâ situm est potestate quodque etiam dudùm penes vestrum Iudicium fuerat nisi Eusebius de quo dixi pravo corum qui cum juverunt Consilio hac praeceps ruisset rectum Eligendi Ordinem impudenter conturbasset Gelas in Act Concil Nicen. part 3. if they would get a faithful and upright Bishop which saith he is in your power presently to doe and was long agoe if Eusebius with the aide of his faction had not rushed in upon you and impudently disturbed the right Order of Election That which this sacred Emperour calls the right order of Election what is it but the Election by the people in whose power he saith it then was and long had been to choose a Bishop and by whose power the next Bishop was chosen So the same Author tells us that after Eusebius and Theognius were cast out of their several seats for Arianisme by the Councel of Nice others were appointed in their roomes by the Clergy and people of each Diocesse To this Election in Nicomedia we could if it were needful in so cleare a Truth adde many the like Presidents of popular Elections which for brevities sake we passe over Not questioning but that which hath been spoken is sufficient to informe the intelligent Reader that our Bishops and the Bishops of former times are TWO in point of Election SECT VIII A Second thing wherein we have undertaken to shew that our Bishops and the Bishops of former times are TWO is in the Execution of their Office and here there are three things wherein he that will not wilfully shut his eyes against all light may see a Latitude of difference between ours and former Bishops First in that Sole Iurisdiction which our Bishops assume to themselves Secondly in the Delagation they make of the power of exercising this Jurisdiction unto others Thirdly in the way of the exercise of that power For the first of these Their sole Iurisdiction That our Bishops assume this to themselves it is known and felt and that this Sole Iurisdiction was a stranger a Monster to former times we shall now prove and make cleare that the power of Ordination Admonition Excommunication Absolution was not in the hands of any sole man First for Ordination Cyprian in his exile writing to his Charge certifies them that Aurelius was ordained by him and his Colleagues who were present with him who were these Colleagues but his Presbyters as he himself expounds it writing to Lucius in his own name and the name of his Clergy and people Ego Collegae fraternitas omnis c. I and my Colleagues and my whole people send these Letters to you c. So that it is cleare in Cyprians time Presbyters had a hand in Ordination and Bishops did not Ordaine alone Firmilianus saith of them that rule in the Church Quod baptizandi MANVM IMPONENDI ET ORDINANDI poffident potestatem And who those he he expresseth a little before SENIORES Prapositi by whom the Presbyters as well as the Bishops are understood And as these places prove that Bishops in the Primitive time could not ordain alone without the Presbyters so there are that give us light to understand that the Presbyters might ordain without the Bishop The Author of the Comment upon the Ephesians that goes under the name of of Ambrose saith Apud Egyptum Presbyteri consignant si praesens non sit Episcopus In Egypt the Presbyters ordain if the Bishop be not present so saith Augustine in the same words and the Corepiscopus who was but a Presbyter had power to impose hands and to ordaine within his precincts with the Bishops Licence Now Licences confer not a power to him that hath it not but onely a faculty to exercise that power he hath The iniquity of our times hath been such that a Minister may not Preach to his own flock without a Licence doth this Licence make a man a Minister and give him power to preach or only a faculty and liberty to exercise that power Should a Bishop give a Laike a Licence to preach or to ordain doth that Licence make him a Minister or a Bishop Sure all will say no why because in the Laike there is not Actus primus the root and principle of that power which Licence onely opens a way to the exercise of and therefore that must be concluded to be in those Chorepiscopi or Presbyters by vertue of their place and calling and not by vertue of a Licence So that the power of Ordination was so farre from residing in the Bishop alone as that the Presbyters and Corepiscopi had power to ordain as well as he Neither was this onely a matter of Ecclesiastical custome but of Ecclesiastical constitution which bids the Bishop First in all his Ordinations to consult with his Clergy Vt Episcopus sine Concilio Clericorum suorum Clericos non ordinet That the Bishop shall not ordain a Clergy man without the counsel of the Clergy this was Cyprians practice Epist. 33. Secondly in his Ordinations to take the â—oncurrent assistance of his Presbyters Cum ordinatur Presbyter Episcopo eum benedicente manum super caput ejus tenente etiam omnes Presbyteri qui praesentes sunt manus suas juxta manum Episcopi sut er caput illius teneant When a Presbyter is ordained the Bishop blessing him and holding his hand upon his head all the Presbyters that are present shall likewise lay their hands upon his head with the hands of the Bishop In which
of Cornelius they came before the Presbytery and therefore confessed their sinnes and so were admitted But though the sentence of Excommunication was managed onely by the hand of those that laboured in the Word and Doctrine yet we will not conceale from you that neither Excommunication not absolution did passe without the knowledge and approbation of the body of the Church to which the Delinquent did belong So we have learned out of Tertullian that their censures were ordered in their publike assemblies and good reason because the people were to forbeare communion with such 2 Thes. 3.6 14 15. and publike censures of the Church were inflictâ—d not onely for the Emendation of delinquents but for the admonition of others and therefore ought to be admistrâ—d in publike that others might feare 1 Tim. 5.20 Origen speaking of the Duty and Power of the Church in cutting off a scandalous Person though a Presbyter making the case his own he saith thus In uno consensu Ecclesia universa conspirans excidat me dâ—xtram suam projiciat a se He would have the consent of the whole Church in that Act. And when the lapsed Christians were received againe into the Church the Peoples consent was required therein else why should Cyprian say Vix plebi per suadeo imò extorqueo ut tales patiantur admitti I can scarce perswade the people to suffer such to be admitted and in another Epistle written to his people in his Banishment he promiseth to examine all things they being present and judging Examinabuntur singula praesentibus judicantibus vobis But of this power of the People we shall have a further occasion to speak afterwards when we come to discourse of Governing Elders Onely may it please your Honours from hence to take notice how unjustly our Bishops have invaded this right and power of Presbyters and people in Church censures and devesting both of it have girt it wholly upon themselves and how herein they and the Bishops of former times are TWO SECT X. ANd as our Bishops and the Bishops of former times are TWO in point of Sole Iurisdiction so also in the Delegation of this power of Iurisdiction unto others to their Chancellours Commissaries Officers c. Was ever such a thing as this heard of in the best primitive Times that men that never received imposition of hands should not only be received into assistance but be wholly intrusted with the power of Spiritual Iurisdiction Even then when it is to be exercised over such persons as have had hands laid upon them We may observe in Cyprian whilst persecution separated him from his Church when questions did arise among his people he doth not send them to his Chancellour or Commissary No he was so far from substituting any man much lesse a lay man to determene or give Judgement in such cases that he would not assume that power wholly to himself but suspends his Judgement till the hand of God should restore him to his Church againe that with the advice and Counsel of the Presbyters he might give sentence as may appeare to any that shall peruse his Epistles Sure if God had ever led his Church to such a way of deputation it would have been in such a case of Necessity as this was or had any footsteps of such a course as this been visible by this holy Martyr in the goings of former ages he needed not have deferred the determination of the question about the receiving of some penitent lapsed ones into the bosome of the Church again till his returne and the returne of his Clergy as he doth We will instance in his 28 Epistle wherein giving direction for the excommunicating of such as would rashly communicate with lapsed Christians he gives this charge not to his Chancellor or Commissary or any other man upon whom he had devolved his power and set him as his Deputy or Viccar generall in his absence but ad clerum to the whole Presbytery This Truth is so cleare that Bishop Downam the great Advocate of Episcopacy confesseth that in Ambrose his time and a good while after which was about 400 years till the Presbyters were in a manner 〈…〉 SECT XI A Third branch wherein the difference between our Bishops and the Bishops of former times in point of Exercising their Jurisdiction is visible is the way or manner of exercising that power For brevities sake we will onely instance in their proceedings in causes criminal where let them tell us whether any good Antiquity can yeild them one President for THEIR OATH EX OFFICIO which hath been to their COURTS as Purgatory fire to the Popes Kitchin they have forgotten that old Maxime in the Civil Law Nemo tenetur prodere seipsum which as it is grounded upon natural equity so it is confirmed by a Law enacted by Dioclesian and Maximilian Nimis grave est quod petitis c. It is too grievous that the adverse part should be required to the exhibition of such things as should create trouble to themselves Vnderstand therefore that you ought to bring proofes of your intentions and not to extort them from your adversaries against themselves Shall the Lamp of Nature in the night of Ethnicisme enable Heathen Princes yea Persecutors to see and enact thus much and shall not the glorious Sunne of the Gospel convince these of their iniquities in transgressing this Law that call themselves the Fathers of the Church If neither the light of Nature nor Gospel light can yet the custome of the Church to which they so oft appeal may both convince them of this iniquity and discovâ—r to all the world the contrariety of their proceedings to the proceedings of former times in this particular For of Old both the Plantiffe and Defendant were brought face to face before the parties in whose power it was to judge which way of proceeding Athanasius affirmes to be according to Scripture the Law of God And because those that condemned Macarius did not thus proceed he condemnes their Sentence as malicious and unjust Of old no Sentence passed against any man but upon the Testimony of other witnesses besides the Accusers after complaint exhibited the first thing they applyed themselves to was to consider the person and quality of the Accuser Concil prim Constant. Can. 6 Then they heard the witnesses who were two at least Can. Apost Can. 75. And these witnesses must be such as might not be imagined to be partiall nor to beare enmity nor malice against the party accused Ambros. Epist. 64. so Gratian Caus. 3. quae 5. cap. Quod suspecti Of old None might be party witnesse and Iudge which Gratian proves at large Caus. 4. qu. 4. cap. Nullus unquam praesumat accusator simul esse Iudex testis We grant indeed the Canon Law permits in some cases Tryal without witnesses Si crimen ita publicum est ut meritò debeat appellari notorium If
fix Titus in Creet as a Bishop but onely to leave him there for a season for the good of that Church and to call him from thence and send him abroad to other Churches for their good as their necessities might require Now who that will acknowledge a Distinction between the Offices of Bishops and Evangelists and knows wherein that Distinction lyes will not upon these premisses conclude that Timothy and Titus were Evangelists and NOT Bishops I but some of the Fathers have called Timothy and Titus Bishops We grant it true and it is as true that some of the Fathers have called them Archbishops and Patriarks yet it doth not follow they were so We adde secondly that when the Fathers did call them so it was not in a proper but in an improper sense which we expresse in the words of our Learned Orthodox Raynolds You may learne by the Fathers themselves saith he that when they termed any Apostle a Bishop of this or that City as namely S. Peter of Antioch or Rome they meant it in a general sort and signification because they did attend that Church for a time and supply that roome in preaching the Gospel which Bishops did after but as the name of Bishop is commonly taken for the Overseer of a particular Church and Pastor of a several flock so Peter was not Bishop of any one place therefore not of Rome And this is true by Analogy of all extraordinary Bishops and the same may be said of Timothy and Titus that he saith of Peter But were it true that Timothy and Titus were Bishops will this Remonstrant undertake that all his party shall stand to his Conditions If our Bishops challenge any other power then was by Apostolick Authority delegated to and required of Timothy and Titus and the Angels of the seaven Asian Churches let them be disclaimed as usurpers Will our Bishops indeed stand to this then actum est Did ever Apostolick Authority delegate power to Timothy or Titus to ordain alone to governe alone and do not our Bishops challenge that power Did ever Apostolique Authority delegate power to Timothy and Titus to rebuke an Elder no but to entreat him as a Father and do not our Bishops challenge themselves and permit to their Chancellors Commissaries and Officials power not only to Rebuke an Elder but to rayle upon an Elder to reproach him with the most opprobrious termes of foole knave jack-sauce c. which our paper blushes to present to your Honors view Did ever Apostolick Authority delegate to Timothy and Titus power to receive an accusation against an Elder but before two or three witnesses and do not our Bishops challenge power to proceed Ex Officio and make Elders their own Accusers Did ever Apostolick Authority delegate power to Timothy or Titus to reject any after twice admonition but an Heretick and do not our Bishops challenge power to reject and eject the most sound and Orthodox of our Ministers for refusing the use of a Ceremony as if Non-conformity were Heresie So that either our Bishops must disclaime this Remonstrance or else themselves must be disclaimed as usurpers But if Timothy and Titus were no Bishops or had not this power it may be the Angels of the seven Asian Churches had and our Remonstrant is so subtile as to twist these two together that if one faile the other may hold To which we answer first that Angel in those Epistles is put Collectively not Individually as appears by the Epistle to Thyatira cap. 2. vers 25. where we read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. But I say unto you in the plural number not unto thee in the singular and unto the rest in Thyatira c. Here is a plain distinction between the members of that Church By you is signified those to whom he spake under the name of the Angel By the rest the residue of the people The people governed and the Governours in the plural number What can be more evident to prove that by Angel is meant not one singular person but the whole company of Presbyters that were in Thyatira This also further appears because it is usual with the holy Ghost not only in other Books of the Scripture but also in this very Book of the Revelation to express a company under one singular person Thus the Civil State of Rome as opposite to Christ is called A beast with ten horns and the Ecclesiastical State Antichristian is called the whore of Babylon and the false Prophet and the Devil and all his family is called An old red Dragon Thus also the seven Angels that blew the seven trumpets Revel 8.2 and the seven Angels that poured out the seven Vials are not literally to be taken but Synecdochically as all know And why not then the seven Angels in those Epistles Mr. Mede in his Commentaries upon the Revelation pag. 265 hath these words Denique ut jam femel iterumquemonuimus quoniam Deus adhibet angelos providentiae suae in rerū humanarū motibus conversionibus ciendis gubernandisque administris idcirco quae multorum manibus peraguntur Angelo tamen tanquam rei gerendae praesidi Duci pro communi loquendi modo tribuuntur Adde thirdly that the very name Angel is sufficient to prove that it is not meant of one person alone because the word Angel doth not import any peculiar jurisdiction or preheminence but is a common name to all Ministers and is so used in Scripture For all Ministers are Gods Messengers and Embassadours sent for the good of the Elect. And therefore the name being common to all Ministers why should wee think that there should be any thing spoken to one Minister that doth not belong to all The like argument we draw from the word Stars used Revel 1.20 The seven Stars are the Angels of the seven Churches Now it is evident that all faithful Ministers are called Stars in Scripture whose duty is to shine as lights unto the Churches in all purity of doctrine and holiness of conversation And in this sense the word is used when it is said that the third part of the stars were darkned Revel 8.12 and that the Dragons taile drew the third part of the stars of Heaven and cast them to the Earth Revel 12.4 Which is meant not only of Bishops but of other Ministers unlesse the Bishops will appropriate all corruption and Apostacy unto themselves Adde fourthly out of the Text it selfe it is very observable that our Saviour in opening the mystery of the Vision Revel 1.20 saith The seven Candlesticks which thou sawest are the seven Churches but he doth not say The seven Stars are the seven Angels of the same Churches But the Angels of the seven Churches wherein not without some mystery the number of the Angels is omitted least we should understand by Angel one Minister alone and not a company And yet the Septenary number of Churches is twice set down Lastly though but one Angel be mentioned in
the fore-front yet it is evident that the Epistles themselves are dedicated to all the Angels and Ministers in every Church and to the Churches themselves And if to the whole Church much more to the Presbyters of that Church This is proved Revel 1.11 What thou seest write in a Book and send it to the seven Churches which are in Asia And also by the Epiphonema of every Epistle He that hath an care to hear let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the Churches Upon which words Ambrosius Ausbertus in his second book upon the Revelation saith thus Vnâ eademque locutione Angelos Ecclesias unum esse designat Nam cum in principio locutionum quae ad septem fiunt Angelos dicat Angelo illius Ecclesiae scribe in fine tamen earundem non dicit Qui habet aurem audiat quod spiritus dicat Angelo sed quid Ecclesiae dicat By one and the same phrase of speech he sheweth the Angels and the Churches to be one and the same For whereas in the beginning of his speech which he makes to the seven Churches he saith And write to the Angel of the Churches yet in the close of the same he doth not say He that hath an Eare let him heare what the Spirit saith to the Angel but what he saith to the Church And this is further proved by the whole argument of those Epistles wherein the admonitions threatnings commendations and reproofes are directed to all the Ministers of all the Churches Revel 2.10 The Devil shall cast some of you into prison c. Revel 2.16 I will fight against them with the sword of my mouth Revel 2.24 I will put upon you no other burthen c. I say unto you and the rest of Thyatira as many as have not this Doctrine and which have not known the depths of Satan c. And when it is said in the singular Number as it is often I know thy works and labour c. vers 2. and vers 4. Repent and do thy first works and vers 13. Thou hast not denyed my Faith c. and cap. 3.26 Because thou art neither hot nor cold c. All these and the like places are not to be understood as meant of one individual person but of the whole company of Ministers and also of the whole Church because that the punishment threatned is to the whole Church Revel 2.5 Repent and do thy first works or else I will come unto thee quickly and remove thy Candlestick out of his place Rev. 2.16 Repent or else I will come unto thee quickly and will fight against thee with the sword of my mouth Revel 2.24 I will not put upon you any other burthen Now we have no warrant in the Word to think that Christ would remove his Gospel from a Church for the sin of one Bishop when all the other Ministers and the Churches themselves are free from those sins And if God should take this course in what woeful miserable condition should the Church of England be which groaneth under so many corrupt Prelates By all this it appears that the word Angel is not to be taken 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not properly but figuratively And this is the judgment of Master Perkins upon the second Chapter of the Revelation and of Master Brightman and of Doctor Fulke who in answer to the Rhemists in Apoc. 1.20 hath these words S. Iohn by the Angels of the Churches meaneth not all that should wear on their heads Myters and hold crosier staves in their hands like dead Idols but them that are the faithful messengers of Gods word and utter and declare the same Again they are called the Angels of the Churches because they be Gods messengers Master Fox likewise in his Meditation upon the Revelation pag. 7.9.17 is of this opinion and hath gathered to our hands the opinions of all Interpreters he could meet and saith that they all consent in this that under the person of an Angel the Pastors Ministers of the Churches were understood S. Austin in his 132. Epistle saith thus Sic enim in Apocalypsi legitur Angelus c. Quod si de Angelo superiorum colorum non de Praepositis Ecclesiarum vellet intelligi non consequenter diceret Habeo adversum te c. And so in his second Homily upon the Revelation if that book be his Quod autem dicit Angelo Thyatirae Habeo adversum te panca dicit Praepositis Ecclesiarum c This also Gregory the Great lib. 34. Moral in Iob. cap. 4. Saepe sacram scripturam praedicatores Ecclesiae pro eo quod patris gloriam annunciant angelorum nomine solere designare hinc esse quod Iohannes in Apocalypsi septem Ecclesiis scribens angelis Ecclesiarum loquitur id est Praedicatoribus populorum Master Box citeth Primasius Haymo Beda Richard Thomas and others to whom we refer you If it be here demanded as it is much by the Hierarchical side that if by Angel be meant the whole company of Presbyters why Christ did not say to the Angels in the plural number but to the Angel in the singular We answer that though this question may savor of a litle too much curiosity yet we will make bold to subjoyn three conjectural reasons of this phrase of speech First it is so used in this place because it is the common language of other Scriptures in types and visions to set down a certain number for an uncertain the singular number for the plural Thus the Ram Dan. 8.3 is interpred vers 20. to be the Kings of Media and Persia. And the enemies of Gods Church are set out by four horns And the deliverers by four Carpenters Zach. 1.18.20 And the wise and foolish Virgins are said to be five wise and five foolish And many such like And therefore as we answer the Papists when they demand why Christ if he meant figuratively when he saith this is my body did not speak in plain language this is the sign of my body We say that this phrase of speech is proper to all Sacraments So we also answer here this phrase of speech Angel for Angels is common to all types and visions Secondly Angel is put though more be meant that so it may hold proportion with the vision which Iohn saw Chap. 1.12.20 He saw seven golden Candlesticks and seven Stars And therefore to hold proportion the Epistles are directed to seven Angels and to seven Churches And this is called a mystery Revel 1.20 The Mystery of the seven Stars c. Now a mystery is a secret which comprehends more thâ—n is expressed and therefore though but one Angel be expressed yet the mystery implyes all the Angels of that Church Thirdly to signifie their unity in the Ministerial function and joynt commission to attend upon the feeding and governing of one Church with one common care as it were with one hand and heart And this iâ— more fitly declared
Christi Ecclesia post quam ad Christianos principes venit potentiâ quidem divitiis major sed virtutibus minor facta est Then also was that Conjunction found true That when they had wooden Chalices they had golden Priests but when their Chalices were golden their Priests were wooden And though we do not think there is any such incompossibility but that large Revenues may be happily managed with an humble sociablnesse yet is very rare to finde History tells us that the superfluous revenues of the Bishops not onely made them neglect their Ministery but further ushered in their stately and pompous attendance which did so elevate their spirits that they insulted over their brethren both Clergy and People and gave occasion to others to hate and abhorre the Christian Faith Which Eusebius sets forth fully in the pride of Paulus Samosatenus vvho notwithstanding the meannesse and obscurity of his birth aftervvards grew to that height of insolency and pride in all his carriage especially in that numerous traine that attended him in the streets and in his stately throne raised after the manner of Kings and Princes that Fides nostra invidiae odio propter fastam superbiam cordis illius facta fuerit obnoxia The Christian Faith vvas exposed to envy and hatred through his pride And as their ambition fed vvith the largenesse of their revenues discovered it self in great attendance stately dvvellings and all Lordly pomp so Hierom complaines of their pride in their stately seates qui velut in aliqua sublimi specula constituti vix dignantur videre mortales alloqui conservos suâ—s who fitting aloft as it were in a vvatch-tovver vvill scarce deigne to looke upon poore mortalls or speake to their fellovv-servants Here vve might be large in multipying several testimonies against the pride of Ecclesiasticall persons that the largenesse of their revenues raysed them to but we will conclude with that grave complaint of Sulpitius Severus Ille qui antè pâ—dibus aut asâ—lloire consueverat spumante equâ— superbus invâ—hitur parvâ priùs ac vili cellula contentus habitare erigit celsa Laquearia construit multa conclavia sculpit pâ—stes pingit aâ—maria vestem respuit gâ—ossiorem indumentum molle desiderat c. Which because the practice of our times hath already turned into English we spare the labour to translate Onely suffer us being now to give a Vale to our Remonstrants arguments to recollect some few things First whereas this Remonstrant saith If we do not shew out of the true genuine writings of those holy men that lived in the Apostles dayes a clear received distinction of Bishops Presbyters and Deacons as three distinct subordinate callings with an evident specification of the duty belonging to each of them Let this claimed Hierarchy be for ever routed out of the Church We beseech you let it be remembred how we have proved out of the genuine and undeniable writings of the Apostles themselves that these are not three distinct callings Bishops are Presbyters being with them all one Name and Office and that the distinction of Bishops and Presbyters was not of Divine Institution but Humane and that these Bishops in their first Institution did not differ so much from Presbyters as our present Bishops differ from them Secondly Whereas this Remonstant saith If our Bishops challenge any other power then was by Apostolike authority delegated to and required of Timothy and Titus and the Angâ—ls of the Asian Churches Lâ—t them be disclaimed as usurpers Wee desire it may be remembred how we have proved first that Timothy and Titus and the Angels who are Diocesan Bishops and secondly that our Bishops challenge if not in their Polemickes yet in their Practicks a power that Timothy and Titus and those Angels never did Thirdly Whereas this Remonstrant saith If there can be better evidence under Heaven for any matter of fact let Episcopacy be for ever abandoned out of Gods Church We beseech you remember how weake we have discovered his Evidence to be and then the Inference upon all these we humbly leave to your Honours Wisdom and Iustice. SECT XIV HAving thus considered the validity of those arguments whereby this Remonstrant would suffult Episcâ—pacy we descend now to inquire what satisfaction he gives to those objections which himself frames as the main if not the â—ole arguments that Episcopacy is assaultable by and they are two First that pleading the Divine right of Episcopacy is to the prejudiâ—e of Sovereignty Secondly that it casts a dangerous imputation upon all those Reformed Churches that want this Government To the first the prejudice of Sovereignty he answers there is a compatibleness in this case of Gods Act and the Kings it is God that makes the Bishop the King that gives the Bishoprick But we have proved already that God never made a Bishop as he stands in his Superiority over al other Presbyters he never had Gods Fiat and if they disclaim the influence of sovereignty unto their creation to a Priority and assert that the King doth not make them Bishops they must have no being at all Sure we are the Laws of the Land proclaim that not only Bishopricks but Bishâ—ps and all the Iurisdiction they have is from the King whereas the Remonstrant acknowledgeth no more but the bare place and excercise to be from Regall donation which cannot be affirmed without apparent prejudice of that Sovereigntie which the Lawes of the Land have invested our Princes with And for his unworthy comparison of Kings in order to Bishops and Patrons in order to their Clerkes when he shall prove that the Patron gives ministerial power to his Clerke as the King according to our Laws gives Episcopall power to the Bishop it may be of some conducement to his cause but till then we leave the unfitnesse of this comparison and the unthankfulnesse of those men to the indulgence of their Sovereigne to their deserved recompence His learned answer to such men as borrowing Saint Ieroms phrase speake Saint Pauls truth is in summe this That he knowes not how to prescribe to mens thoughts but for all his Rhetoricke they will think what they list but if they will grant him the question they shall soon be at an end of the quarrell which one answer if satisfactory would silence all controversies to as good purpose as he did Bellarmine who said Bellarmine saith it is thus and I say it is not and where is Bellarmine now To the second objection that Episcopacie thus asserted casts an imputation upon all the reformed Churches that want that Government he saith that the objection is intended to raise envie against them who if they may be beleeved love and honour those sister-Churches and 〈◊〉 God for them But do they out pluck all this envie upon themselves who in their Conferences Writings Pulpits Vniversities Disputes High Commissiâ—n Declamations have disclaimed them as no Churches that 〈◊〉
superiour order to his Brethren nor 2 hath an Ordination differing from them nor 3 assumes power of sole Ordination or Jurisdiction nor hath he 4 maintenance for that Office above his Brethren nor 5 a Negative voice in what is agreed by the rest nor 6 any further power then any of his Brethren So that the difference between our Bishops and their Moderators is more then Little But if it be so little as this Remonstrant here pretends then the Alteration and Abrogation of Episcopacy will be with the lesse difficulty and occasion the less disturbance SECT XV. BUt there is another thing wherein our Episcopacy differs from the Geneva Moderatorship besides the perpetuity and that is the exclusion of the Lay-Presbytery which if we may believe this Remonstrant never till this age had footing in the Christian Church In which assertion this Remonstrant concludes so fully with Bishop Halls Irrefragable Propositions and his other Book of Episcopacie by Divine right as if he had conspired to swear to what the Bishop had said Now though we will not enter the Lists with a man of that learning and fame that Bishop Hall is yet we dare tell this Remonstrant that this his assertion hath no more truth in it then the rest that we have already noted We will to avoid prolixity not urge those three known Texts of Scripture produced by some for the establishing of Governing Elders in the Church not yet vindicated by the Adversaries Nor will we urge that famous Text of Ambrose in 1 Tim. 5. But if there were no Lay-Elders in the Church till this present age we would be glad to learn who they were of whom Origen speaks when he tells us it was the Custome of Christian Teachers first to examine such as desired to heare them of whom there were two orders the first were Catechumeni or beginners the other was of such as were more perfect among whom 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Nonnulli praepositi sunt qui in vitam mores eorum qui admittuntur inquirant ut qui turpia committant eos communi Caetu interdicant qui verò ab istis abhorrent ex anima complexi meliores quotidie reddant There are some ordained to inquire into the life and manners of such as are admitted into the Church that they may banish such from the publique Assembly that perpetrate scandalous Acts which place tells us plainly First that there were some in the higher forme of hearers not Teachers who were Censores morum over the rest Secondly that they were designed or constituted to this work 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Thirdly that they had such Authority intrusted into their hands as that they might interdict such as were scandalous from the publique Assemblies We would gladly know whether these were not as it were Lay-Eelders That there were such in the Church distinguished from others that were called to teach appeares Augustine writing to his Charge directs his Epistle Dilectissimis fratribus Clero Senioribus universae Plebi Ecclesiae Hipponensis where first there is the general compellation Fratribus Brethren Then there is a distribution of these Brethren into the Clergie the Elders and the whole People so that there were in that Church Elders distinguished both from the Clergie and the rest of the People So again Contra Cresconium Grammaticum Omnes vos Episcopi Presbyteri Diaconi and Seniores scitis All you Bishops Elders Deacons and Elders do know What were those two sorts of Elders there mentioned in one comma and ibidem cap. 56. Peregrinus Presbyter Seniores Ecclesiae Musticanae Regionis tale desiderium prosequuntur where again we read of Elder and Elders Presbyter and Seniors in one Church Both those passages are upon record in the publick acts which are more fully set down by Baronius Anno 303. Num. 15 16 17. As also by Albaspineus in his Edition of Optatus in which Acts the Seniors are often mentioned In that famous relation of the purging of Caecilianus and Felix there is a copie of a Letter Fratribus filiis Clero Senioribus Fratribus in Domino aeternam salutem Another Letter is mentioned a little before Clericis Senioribus Cirthensium in Domino aeternam Salutem These Seniors were interessed in affaires concerning the Church as being the men by whose advice they were managed The Letter of Purpurius to Silvanus saith Adhibete conclericos seniores plebis Ecclesiasticos Viros inquirant quae sint iste Dissensiones ut ea quae sunt secundum fidâ—i Praecepta fiant Where we see the joynt power of these Seniors with the Clergie in ordering Ecclesiasticall affairs that by their wisdom and care peace might be setled in the Church for which cause these Seniors are called Ecclesiastical men and yet they are distinguished from Clergie men They are mentioned again afterwards by Maximus saying Loquor nomine SENIORUM Populi Christiani Greg. Mag. distinguisheth them also from the Clergie Tabellarium cum consensu SENIORUM Cleri memineris Ordinandum These Seniors had power to reprove offenders otherwise why should Augustine say Cùm ob errorem aliquem à Senioribus arguuntur imputatur alicui cur aebrius fuerit cur res alienas pervaserit c. when they were by the Elders reproved for their errours and drunkenness is laid to a mans charge c. So that it was proper to the Seniors to have the cognizance of Delinqents and to reprove them The same Augustine in Psal. 36. Necesse nos fuerat Primiani causam quem c. Seniorum literis ejusdem Ecclesiae poâ—tulantibus audire Being requested by Letters from the Seniors of that Church it was needful for me to hear the cause of Primian c. So again Optatus who mentioning a persecution that did for a while scatter the Church saith Erant Ecclesiae ex auro argento quà m plurima Ornamenta quae nec defodere terrae nec secum portare poterat quare fidelibus Senioribus commendavit Albaspineus that learned Antiquary on that place acknowledges that Besides the Clergie there were certain of the Elders of the people men of approved life that did tend the affairs of the Church of whom this place is to be understood By all these testimonies it is apparent first that in the ancient Church there were some called Seniors Secondly that these Seniors were not Clergie men Thirdly that they had a stroke in governing the Church and managing the affairs thereof Fourthly that Seniors were distinguished from the rest of the people Neither would we desire to chuse any other Iudges in this whole controversie then whom himself constituted Forreign Divines taking the general Suffrage and practice of the Churches and not of particular men As for the learned Spanhemius whom he produceth though we give him the deserved honour of a worthy man yet we think it too much to speak of him as if the judgment of the whole Church
a generall word signifying a day of rest which is common as well to the Christian Sabbath as to the Jewish Sabbath and was also used by the Ancients Ruffinus in Psal. 47. Origâ—n Hom. 23. in Num. Gregory Nazian Whether that assertion No Bishop No King and no Ceremonie no Bishop be not very prejudiciall to Kingly Authority For it seemes to imply that the Civill power depends upon the Spiritual and is supported by Ceremonies and Bishops Whether seeing it hath been proved that Bishops as they are novv asserted are a meere humane Ordinance it may not by the same Authority be abrogated by vvhich it vvas first established especially considering the long experience of the hurt they have done to Church and State Whether the advancing of Episcopacie into Ius Divinum doth not make it a thing simply unlavvfull to submit to that Government Because that many consciencious men that have hitherto conformed to Ceremonies and Episcopacy have done it upon this ground as supposing that Authority did not make them matters of vvorship but of Order and Decencie c. And thus they satisfied their consciences in ansvvering those Texts Colos. 2.20 21 22. Matth. 15.9 But novv since Episcopacy comes to be challenged as a Divine Ordinance hovv shall vve be responsible to those Texts And is it not as it is novv asserted become an Idoll and like the Brazen Serpent to be ground to povvder Whether there be any difference in the point of Episcopacy betweene Ius Divinum and Ius Apostolicum Because we finde some claiming their standing by Ius Divinum others by Ius Apostolicum But we conceive that Ius Apostolicum properly taken is all one with Ius Divinum For Ius Apostolicum is such a Ius which is founded upon the Acts and Epistles of the Apostles written by them so as to be a perpetuall Rule for the succeeding Administration of the Church as this Author saith Pag. 20. And this Ius is Ius Divinum as well as Apostolicum But if by Ius Apostolicum they mean improperly as some do such things which are not recorded in the Writings of the Apostles but introduced the Apostles being living 〈…〉 be rightly said to be Iure Apostolico nor such things which the Apostles did intend the Churches should be bound unto Neither is Episcopacie as it imports a superioritie of power over a Preâ—byter no not in this sense Iure Apostolico as hath beene already proved and might further be manifested by divers Testimonies if need did require We will only instance in Cassander a man famous for his immoderate moderation in controverted Points of Religion who in his Consultat Articul 14. hath this saying An Episâ—opatus inter ordines Ecclesiasticâ—s ponendus sit inter Theologos Canonistas non convenit Convenit autem inter omnes Apostolorum aetate inter Presbyterum Episcopum nullum discrimen fuisse c. Wether the distinction of Beza between Episcopus Divinus Humâ—nuâ— Diabolicus be not worthy your Honours consideration By the Divine Bishop he meanes the Bishop as he is taken in Scripture which is one and the same with a Presbyter By the humane Bishop he meanes the Bishop chosen by the Presbyters to be President over them and to rule with them by fixed Lawes and Canons By the Diabolical Bishop he means a Bishop with sole power of Ordination and Jurisdiction Lording it over Gods heritage and governing by his owne will and authority Which puts us in minde of the Painter that Limned two pictures to the same proportion and figure The one he reserved in secret the other he exposed to common view And as the phansie of beholders led them to censure any line or proportion as not done to the life he mends it after direction If any fault be found with the eye hand foot c. He corrects it till at last the addition of every mans fancy had defaced the first figure and made that which was the Picture of a man swell into a monster Then bringing forth this and his other Picture which hee had reserved he presented both to the people And they abhorring the former and applauding the latter he cried Hunc populus fecit This deformed one the People made This lovely one I made As the Painter of his Painting so in Beza's sense it may be said of Bishops God at first instituted Bishops such as are all one with Presbyters and such are amiable honourable in all the Churches of God But when men would be adding to Gods institution what power preheminence Jurisdiction Lordliness their phansie suggested unto them this divine Bishop lost his Original beauty and became to be Humanus And in conclusion by these and other aditions swelling into a Pope Diabolicus Whether the Ancient Fathers when they call Peter Marke Iames Timothy and Titus Bishops did not speak according to the Language of the times wherein they lived rather then according to the true acception of the word Bishop and whether it be not true which is here said iâ— this Book that they are called Bishops of Alexandâ—iae Ephesâ—s Hierusâ—lem c in a very improper sense because they abode at those pâ—acâ—s a longer time then at other places For suâ—e it is if 〈…〉 and and Iâ—mes Apostles which are Bishops over the whol◠〈◊〉 and the Apostles made Markâ— â—imothy and Titus 〈…〉 c. it seemes to us that it would have been a great sin in them to limit themselves to one particular Diocesse and to â—eave that calling in which Christ had placed them Whether Presbyters in Scripture are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and that it is an office required at their hands to rule and to govern as hath bin proved in this Book The Bishops can without sin arrogate the exercise of this power to themselves alone and why they may not with the same lawfulness impropriate to themselves alone the Key of Doctrine which yet notwithstanding al would condemn as well as the Key of Discipline seeing that the whole power of the Keys is given to Presbyters in Scripture as well as to Bishops as appears Mat. 16.19 where the power of the Keys is promised to Peter in the name of the rest of the Apostles and their successors given to all the Apostles and their successors Mat. 18.19 Iohn 20.23 And that Presbyters succeed the Apostles appears not onely Mat. 28.20 but also Acts. 20.28 where the Apostle ready to leave the Church of Ephesus commends the care of ruling and feeding it to the Elders of that Church To this Irenaeus witnesseth lib 4 cap. 43.44 This Bishop Iewell against Harding Artic. 4. Sect. 5 6. saith that all Pastors have equall power of binding and loosing with â—eter Whether since that Bishops assume to themselves power temporall to be Barons and to sit in Parliament as Judges and in Court of Star-Chamber High Commission and other Courts of Justice and also power spirituall over Ministers and People to ordain silence suspend