sed malus tantùm quia Antiprelaticus But he upbraids us with our Divisions Subdivisions so do the Papists upbraid the Protestants with their Lutheranisme Calvinisme and Zuinglianisme And this is that the Heathens objected to the Christians their Fractures were so many they knew not which Religion to chuse if they should turn Christians And can it be expected that the Church in any age should be free from Divisions when the times of the Apostles were not free and the Apostle tells us It must needs be that there be divisions in Greg. Naz. dayes there were 600 Errours in the Church do these any wayes derogate from the truth and worth of Christian Religion But as for the Divisions of the Antiprelatical party so odiously exaggerated by this Remonstrant Let us assure your Honours they have been much fomented by the Prelates whose practice hath been according to that rule of Machiavil Divide Impera and they have made these divisions afterwards complain'd of that which their Tyranny and Policy hath made It is no wonder considering the paths our Prelates have trod that there are Divisions in the Nation The wonder is our divisions are no more no greater and we doubt not but if they were of that gracious spirit and so intirely affected to the peace of the Church as Greg Naz. was they would say as he did in the tumults of the people Mitte nos in mare non erit tempest as rather then they would hinder that sweet Concordance and conspiration of minde unto a Government that shall be every way agreeable to the rule of Gods Word and profitable for the edification and flourishing of the Church A second thing we cannot but take notice of is the pains this Author takes to advance his Prelaticall Church and forgetting what he had said in the beginning that this party was so numerous it could not be summed tells us now these severall thousands are punctually calculated But we doubt not but your Honours will consider that there may be multi homines pauci viri and that there are more against them then for them And whereas they pretend that they differ from us onely in a Ceremony or an Organ-pipe which however is no contemptible difference yet it will appeare that our differences are in point of a superiour Alloy Though this Remonstrant braves it in his multiplied Queries What are the bounds of this Church what the distinction of the prefessours and Religion what grounds of faith what new Creed do they hold differenc from their Neighbours what Scriptures what Baptisme what meanes of Salvation other then the rest yet if he pleased he might have silenced his owne Queries but if he will needs put us to the answer we will resolve them one by one First if he ask what are the bounds of this Church we answer him out of the sixt of their late founded Canons where we finde the limits of this Prelatical Church extend as farre as from the high lofty Promontory of Archbishops to the â—erra incognita of an c. If what Distinction of professors and Religion we answer their worshipping towards the East and bowing towards the Altar prostrating themselves in their approches into Churches placing all Religion in outward formalities are visible differences of these professours and their Religion If what new Creed they have or what grounds of Faith differing from their Neighbours we answer Episcopacy by divine right is the first Article of their Creed Absolute and blinde obedience to all the Commandements of the Church that is the Bishop and his Emissaries election upon faith foreseen the influence of works into Iustification â—alling from grace c. If what Scripture we answer the Apocrypha and unwritten Traditions If what Baptism a Baptism of absolute Necessity unto salvation and yet unsufficient unto salvation as not sealing grace to the taking away of sinne after Baptisme If what â—uâ—harist an Eucharist that must be administred upon an Altar or a Table set Altar-wise railed in an Eucharist in which there is such a presence of â—hrist though Modum nesciunt as makes the place of its Administration the throne of God the place of the Residence â—f the Almighty and impresseth such a holinesse upon it as makes it not only 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 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 go 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 do we because of this dissension feare the censure of uncharitableness from any but uncharitable men But it is no unusuall thing with the Prelates 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 do justly recriminate and charge that Schisme upon the Papists which they object to us So may we upon the Prelates And if Austin may be judge the Prelates are more Schismaticks then we Quicunque saith he invident bonis ut quaerant occasiones excludendi eos aut degradandi vel crimina sua sic defendere 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 we have to complain of Episcopacie as it now stands we humbly crave leave to propound these Queries Queries about Episcopacie WHether it be tolerable in a Christian Church that Lord Bishops should be held to be Iure Divino And yet the Lords day by the some 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
SMECTYMNUUS REDIVIVUS BEING An Answer to a Book entituled AN HUMBLE REMONSTRANCE In which The Originall of LITURGY EPISCOPACY is discussed And Quaeres propounded concerning both The PARITY of Bishops and Presbyters in Scripture Demonstrated The occasion of their IMPARITY in Antiquity discovered The DISPARITY of the Ancient and our Moderne Bishops manifested The ANTIQUITY of ruling Elders in the Church vindicated The PRELATICALL Church Bounded JEREMY 6.16 Thus saith the Lord stand in the wayes and behold and aske for the Old way which is the way and walk therein Tertul. de praescr adv haeres Id Dominicum verum quod prius traditum id autem extraneum falsum quod sit posterius LONDON Printed by T. C. for Iohn Rothwell at the Fountaine and Beare in Goldsmiths-row in Cheapside 1654. TO THE READER Good Reader SOlomon told us long since that there is no end of many books Eccles. 12.12 Scripturiency it seemeth is no novell humour but abounded then even when the means of transmitting knowledge was more difficult if there were cause for the complaint then there is much more now since the Presse hath helped the Penne every one will be scribling and so better bookes are neglected and lie like a few grains of Corn under an heap of Chaffe and dust usually books are received as fashions the newest not the best and most profitable are most in esteem in so much that really learned and sober men have been afraid to publish their labours lest they should divert the world from reading the usefull works of others that wrote before them I remember Dr. Altingius a terse and neat spirit stood out the battery of twenty years importunity and would not yield to divulge any thing upon this fear Certainly Reader 't is for thy profit sometimes to look back and consult with them that first laboured in the mines of knowledge and not alwaies to take up with what commeth next to hand In this controversie of Discipline many have written but not all with a like judgement and strength which I believe hath been no small rock of offence and stone of stumbling to the adversaries who are hardned with nothing so much as a weak defence of the truth as Austin complaineth that when he was a Manichee he had had too too often the victory put into his hands by the defences of weak and unskilfull Christians This work which the Stationer hath now revived that it may not be forgotten and like a Jewel after once shewing shut up in the Cabinet of private studies only was penned by severall worthy Divines of great note and fame in the Churches of Christ under the borrowed and covert name of SMECTYMNUUS which was some matter of scorn and exception to the adversaries as the Papists objected to Calvin his printing his Institutions under the name of Alcuinus and to Bucer his naming himself Aretius Felinus though all this without ground and reason the affixion of the name to any work being a thing indifferent for there we should not consider so much the Author as the matter and not who said it but what and the assumption of another name not being infamous but where it is done out of deceit and to anothers prejudice or out of shame because of guilt or feare to own the truths which they should establish I suppose the reverend Authours were willing to lie hid under this ONOMASTICK partly that their work might not be received with prejudice the faction against which they dealt arrogating to themselves a Monopoly of Learning and condemning all others as ignorants and novices not worthy to be heard and partly that they might not burden their Frontispiece with a voluminous nomenclature it not being usuall to affix so many names at length to one Treatise For the work it self it speaketh its own praise and is now once more subjected to thy censure and judgement This second publication of it was occasioned by another book for vindication of the Ministery by the Provinciall Assembly of London wherein there are frequent appeals to Smectymnuus though otherwise I should have judged the reprinting seasonable for the Lord hath now returned us to such a juncture of time wherein there is greater freedom of debate without noyse and vulgar prejudice and certainly if the quarrell of Episcopacy were once cleared and brought to an issue we should not be so much in the dark in other parts of Discipline the conviction of an errour by solid grounds being the best way to finde out the truth reformations carried on with popular tumult rather then rationall conviction seldom end well though the judgement of God be to be observed in powring contempt upon those which are partiall in his law yet the improvident leapes which a people are wont to make upon such occasions lay the foundation of a lasting mischiefe I hope that by the review of these matters we shall come to know more of the Lords counsell for the ordering of his house or at least that by weighing what may be said on all sides we shall learn more to truth it in love which is the unfeined desire of him who is Thine in the Lord THO. MANTON Newington June 23. 1653. Most Honourable Lords And ye the Knights Citizens and Burgesses of the Honourable House of COMMONS ALthough we doubt not but that book which was lately directed to your Honours bearing the name of an Humble Remonstrance hath had accesse unto your presence and is in the first approaches of it discovered by your discerning spirits to be neither Humble nor a Remonstrance but a heap of confident and ungrounded assertions so that to your Honours a Reply may seem superfluous Yet left the Authour should glory in our silence as a granting of the cause we humbly crave your Honours leave to present not so much to your selves as to the world by your hands a view of this Remonstrance in which the Authour after too large a Preface undertakes the support of two things which seem to him to be threatned with danger of a present precipice the Liturgie and the Hierarchy It was a constitution of those admired sons of Justice the Areopagi that such as pleaded before them should plead without prefacing and without passion had your Honours made such a constitution this Remonstrance must have been banished from the face of your Assembly for the Preface fils almost a fourth part of the book and the rest swels with so many passionate Rhetorications as it is harder for us in the multitude of his words to finde what his argument is that we have to answer then to answer it when it is found We would not trace him in his words but close immediately with his arguments did we not finde in him a sad exemplification of that divine Axiome in Multitudine verbâ—rum non deest peccatum in the multitude of words there wants not sin for though the Author is bold to call upon your Honours to heare the
words of truth and confidence yet how little truth there is in his great confidence the ensuing discourse shall discover His very words are confident enough and yet as false as confident wherein he Impropriates all honesty unto these his Papers and brands all others with the name of Libellers and yet himselfe sinnes deeply against the rule of honesty and lies naked to the scourge of his own censure First in setting a brand upon all writings that have lately issued from the presse as if they had forgotten to speak any other language then Libellous it seems himselfe had forgotten that some things had issued by authority of the King and Parliament Secondly in taxing implicitely all such as wil not own this Remonstrance for theirs as none of the peaceable and wel-affected Sons of the Church of England Thirdly in censuring the way of petitioning your Honours the ancient and ordinary free way of seeking redresse of our evils for a Tumultuary under-hand way Fourthly in condemning all such as are not fautors of this Episcopal Cause as none of his Majesties good Subjects engrossing that praise onely to his own party saying The eyes of us the good Subjects of this whole Realme are fixed upon your Successe c. Fifthly in Impropriating to the same party the praise of Orthodox pag. 6. as if to speak a word or think a thought against Episcopacy were no lesse Heresie then it was in former time to speak against the Popes supremacy or the monkes fat belly whereas whether the Episcopall part be the Orthodox peaceable wel-affected part and his Majesties only good Subjects we leave to your Honours to Judge upon the numerous informations that flow in unto you from the several parts of this Kingdome Nor can they decline your Judgement seeing now you are through Gods blessing happily met in a much longed for Parliament but whither so much longed for by him and his accomplices as by those against whom he whets his Style the prayers that have obtained this happy meeting and the praises that doe attend it will decide in that great day The Helena whose Champion this Remonstrant chiefely is is that Government which he calls Sacred viz. that Government by Arch-Bishops Bishops Deanes Archdeacons c. which saith he through the sides of some misliked persons some have endeavoured to wound Misliked Persons and why not offending persons why not guilty persons when this Honourable house hath found just cause to charge some of them with crimes of the highest nature Our zeale for your Honours makes us feare lest your assembly should suffer in this word as if your proceedings against such persons should be grounded upon compliance with such as doe mislike them rather then upon their own demerits or the Justice of this Court But whatever those Persons be the Government it self is Sacred which by the joynt confession of all reformed Divines derives it self from the times of the blessed Apostles without any interruption without contradiction of any one congregation in the world unto this present age This is but an Episcopall Bravado therefore we let it passe till we come to close and contend with him in the point where we shall demonstrate that in the compasse of three lines he hath packt up as many untruths as could be smoothly couched in so few words as any man of common understanding that lookes upon the face of the Government of almost all reformed Churches in the Christian world may at first view discover But before we come to this there are yet two things in this Preface which we count not unworthy observation The First is the comparison which he makes between the two Governments the Civil which with us is Monarchy and the sacred which with him is Episcopaey Of the first he saith if Antiquity may be the Rule as he pleades it for Episcopacy or if Scripture as he interprets Scripture it is VARIABLE and ARBITRARY but the other DIVINE and VNALTERABLE so that had men petitioned for the altering of Monarchicall Government they had in his Judgement been lesse culpable both by Scripture and Antiquity then in petitioning the alteration of the Hierarchicall Had he found but any such passage in any of his Lewd Libellers as his modesty is alwayes pleased to terme them certainly if we may borrow his own phrase the eares of the three Interessed Kingdomes yea all the neigbbour Churches and if we may say the whole Christian world and no small part beyond it had run with the loud cryes of no lesse then Treason Treason Truth is in his Antiquity we finde that this his uninterrupted sacred Government hath so farre invaded the Civil and so yoked Monarchy even in this Kingdome as Malmesbury reports That William Rufus oppressed by Bishops perswaded the Jewes to confute them promising thereupon to turne England to their Religion that he might be free of Bishops And this is so natural an effect of unalterable Episcopacy that Pius the fourth to the Spanish Embassador importuning him to permit Bishops to be declared by the Councel of Trent to be Iure Divino gave this answer That his King knew not what he did desire for if Bishops should be so declared they would be all exempted from his Power and as independent as the Pope himself The second thing observable is the comparison he makes between the late Alterations attempted in our Neighbour Church by his Episcopal faction and that Alteration that is now justly desired by the humble Petitioners to this Honourable House The one being attempted by strangers endeavoring violently to obtrude Innovations upon a setled Church and State The other humbly petitioned to the Heads and Princes of our State by Multitudes therein almost ruined by an Innovating Faction yet doth not this Remonstrant blush to say if these be branded so he calls the just censures of this Honourable House for Incendiaries how shall these Boutefeux escape c. thus cunningly indeavouring either to justifie the former by the practise of the latter or to render the latter more odious then the former The attempts of these men whom he would thus render odious he craves leave to present to your Honours in two things which are the subjects of this quarrel The Liturgy and Episcopacy and we humbly crave your Honours leave in both to answer SECT II. FIrst the Liturgy of the Church of England saith he hath been hitherto esteemed sacred reverently used by holy Martyrs daily frequented by devout Protestants as that which more then once hath been confirmed by the Edicts of religious Princes and your own Parliamentary Acts c. And hath it so whence then proceed these many Additions and Alterations that have so changed the face and fabrick of the Liturgy that as Dr. Hall spake once of the pride of England if our fore-fathers should revive and see their daughters walking in Cheapside with their fannes and farthingales c. they would wonder what
kinde of creatures they were and say Nature had forgot her self and brought forth a monster so if these holy Martyrs that once so reverently used the Liturgy should revive and look for their Letany stampt by Authority of Parliament they would be amazed and wondering say England had forgotten her self and brought forth c. Martyrs what doe we speak of Martyrs when we know Sir that one of your own Bishops said it in the hearing of many not so long since but you may well remember it That the Service of the Church of England was now so drest that if the Pope should come and see it he would claime it as his own but that it is in English It is little then to the advantage of your cause that you tell us it is translated into other languages and as little service have they done to the Church of England who have taught our Prayers to speak Latine again For if it be their Language chiefly that overthrows the Popes claime take away that and what hinders then but the Pope may say these are mine As for other Translations and the great applause it hath obtained from forraigne Divines which are the fumes this Remonstrant venditates what late dayes have produced we know not but the great lights of Former ages have been farre from this applauding we are sure judicious Calvin saith that in the Liturgy there are sundry Tolerabiles Ineptiae which we think is no very great applause To vindicate this Liturgy from scorne as he calls it at home or by your Honours aide to reinforce it upon the Nation is the work of his Remonstrance for the effecting whereof he falls into an unparallell'd discourse about the Antiquity of Liturgies we call it unparalleld because no man that we have seen ever drew the line of Liturgy so high as he hath done Concerning which if by Liturgy this Remonstrant understand an Order observed in Church assemblies of Praying reading and expounding the Scriptures Administring Sacraments c Such a Liturgy we know and doe acknowledge both Iews and Christians have used But if by Liturgy he understand prescribed and stinted formes of Administration Composed by some particular men in the Church and imposed upon all the rest as this he must understand or else all he saith is nothing we desire and expect that those formes which he saith are yet extant and ready to be produced might once appeare Liturgy of this former sort we finde in Iustine Martyr and Tertullian But that there were not such stinted Liturgies as this Remonstrant disputes for appeares by Tertullian in his Apol. Cap. 30. where he saith the Christians of those times did in their publike assemblies pray sinâ— monitore quia de pectore without any Prompter but their own hearts And that so it should be the same Father proves in his Treatise de Oratione Sunt quae petantar c. There are some things to be asked according to the occasions of every man the lawfull and ordinary prayer that is the Lords prayer being laid as a foundation It is lawfull to build upon that foundation other prayers according to every ones occasions And to the same purpose St. Austin in his 121. Ep. liberum est c. it is free to aske the same things that are desired in the Lords Prayer aliis atque aliis verbis sometimes one way and sometimes another And before this in that famous place of Iust. Mar. Apo. 2. He who instructed the peeple prayed according to his ability Nor was this liberty in prayer taken away and set and imposed formes introduced untill the time that the Arian and Pelagian Heresies did invade the Church and then because those Hereticks did convey and spread their poyson in their formes of Prayer and Hymnes the Church thought it convenient to restraine the liberty of making and using publique forms And first it ordained that none should pray pro Arbitrio sed semper eaedem preces that none should use liberty to vary in prayer but use alwaies the same forme Conc. Laod. Can. 18. yet this was a forme of his own composing as appears by another Canon wherein it was ordered thus None should use any forme unlesse he had first conferred Cum fratribus instructioribus with the more learned of his brethren Conc. Carth. 3â— Can. 23. and lastly that none should use set prayers but such as were approved of in a Synode which was not determined till the yeare 416. Conc. Milev 2. Can. 12. And had there been any Liturgies of Times of the first and most venerable antiquity producible the great admirers of them and enquirers after them would have presented them to the world ere this We know that Bishop Andrewes in his zeale for Liturgies pursued the enquiry after the Iewish Liturgy so far that he thought he had found it and one there was which he sent to Cambridge to be translated but there it was soon discovered to have been made long after the Jewes ceased to be the Church of God and so himself supprest it that it never saw the light under a translation We wonder therefore what this Remonstrant meant to affirm so confidently that part of the forme of prayer which was composed by our blessed Saviour was borrowed from the formes of prayer formerly used by Gods people An opinion we never met before indeed we have read that the Rabbines since the dayes of our Saviour have borrowed some expressions from that Prayer and from other Evangelical passages But we never read till now that the Lord Christ the wisdome of the Father borrowed from the Wisdome of the Rabines expressions to use in Prayer And as much we wonder by what Revelation or Tradition Scripture being silent in the thing he knew that Peter and Iohn when they went up to the Temple to pray their Prayer was not of a sudden and extemporary conception but of a Regular prescription Sure we are some as well read in Iewish antiquity as this Remonstrant shewes himself to be have told us that the houre of Prayer was the time when the Priest burnt Incense and the people were at their private prayers without as appeares Luke 1.9 where we read that while Zachary the Priest went in to offer Incense all the people stood with out praying in the time of the Oblation Which Prayers were so far from being Prescript Formes or Liturgies that they were not vocal but mental Prayers as Master Meade tells us in his exposition upon the eighth of the Revelations And whatever Peter and Iohn did this we know that when the Publican and the Pharisee went up to the Temple to pray as the Apostle did at the houre of prayer their prayer was not of Regular prescription but of a present Conception But if this Remonstrant be in the right concerning the Jewish Liturgies then the Evangelical Church might better have improved her peace and happinesse then in composing Models of
the Lord yet we will follow him thither and there shew him that Hierome from the Scriptures proves more then once Presbyters and Bishops to be the same And Chrysostome in Philip. 1. Homil. 2. with his admirer Theophilact in Philip. 1. affirms that while the Apostles lived the names of Bishops and Presbyters were not distinguished and not onely while the Apostles lived but in after ages Doth not Irenaeus use the name of Bishops and Presbyters 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in a promiscuous sense Are not Anicetus Pius Hyginus Telesphorus Sixtus whom the Papists call Bishops and the Popes predecessors termed by Eusebius Presbyters Nor was it strange in the Primitive times to hear Bishops called Presbyters when Presbyters writing to their Bishop have called him Frater So Cyprian Epist. 26. in the beginning is stiled by his Presbyters Deacons and Confessors nor was that holy Martyr offended with that title nor they condemned of insolency that used it But what should we burthen your patience with more testimonies when the evidence of this truth hath shined with so strong a beam that even our Adversaries have stooped to it and confessed that their Names were the same in the Apostles time But yet say they the Offices were distinct Now here we would gladly know what these men make the distinct Office of a Bishop Is it to edifie the Church by Word and Sacrament is it to ordain others to that work is it to rule to govern by admonition and other censures if any of these if all these make up the proper worke of a Bishop we can prove from Scripture that all these belong unto the Presbytery which is no more then was granted by a Councel For the first Edifying of the Church by word and Sacraments though we feare they will some of them at least scarce own this as their proper worke for some have been cited into the High Commissision for saying it belongs to them yet Sir we are sure Scripture makes it a part a chiefe of the Episcopal office for so in the 1 Pet. 5.2 they are said to doe the work of a Bishop when they do feed the flock of God And this is such a work as we hope their Lordships will give the poor Presbyters leave to share with them in or if not we will tell them that the Apostle Peter in that forecited place and the Apostle Paul Acts. 20. binds this work upon our hands and Woe unto us if we preach not the Gospel But this branch of Episcopal and Presbyterial office we passe with brevity because in this there lies not so much controversie as in the next which they doe more wholly Impropriate to themselves the power of Ordination Which power that it was in former times in the hands of Presbyters appeares 1 Tim. 4.14 Neglect not the gift which was given thee by Prophesie and by the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery The gift here spoken of is the Ministerial gift the exercise whereof the Apostle exhorts Timothy not to neglect which saith he he had received not by the laying on of the hands of one single man whether Apostle or Bishop or Presbyter but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Presbytery that is the whole company of Presbyters for in that sense onely we finde 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 taken in Scripture as in Luke 22. vers 66. Act. 22. vers 5. which the Christian Church called the Ecclesiastical Senate as Ierom in Isay 3. Nos habemus in Ecclesia Senatum nostrum Coetum Presbyterorum an Apostolical Senate 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ignatius Epis ad Magnes and some times 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Concil Ancyr Can. 18. And though the Apostle in his second Epistle to Tim. 1.6 makes mention of the laying on of his hands yet to maintaine the Harmony of Scripture it must not be denied but there was imposition of hands by the Presbytery as wel as by himself and so it was a joynt act So that in this there is no more difference then in the former And if there be no difference between Presbyters in feeding or ordaining let us see if there be any in the third part of their office of Ruling which though our Bishops assume wholly to themselves yet we shall discover that it hath been committed to and exercised by Presbyteriall hands For who are they of whom the Scripture speakes Heb. 13.17 Obey them that have the Rule over you for they watch for your soules as they that must give an account c. Here all such as watch over the souls of Gods people are intituled to rule over them So that unlesse Bishops will say that they onâ—ly watch over the souls of Gods people and are only to give an account for them they cannot challenge to themselves the sole rule over them And if the Bishopâ— can give us good security that they will acquit us from giving up our account to God for the souls of his people we will quit our plea and resigne to them the sole rule over thâ—m So againe in the 1 Thessa. 5.12 Know them which labour amongst you and are over you in the Lord and admonish you In which words are contained these truthes First that in one Church for the Thessalonions were but one Church 1 Ca. there was not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not one chiefe Bishop or President but the Presidency was in many Secondly that this Presidency was of such as laboured in the word and Doctrine Thirdly that the Censures of the Church were managed not by one but by them all in Communi Them that admonish you Fourthly that there was among them a Parity for the Apostle bids know them in an indifferency not discriminating one from another yea such was the rule that Elders had that S. Peter thought it needful to make an exhortation to them to use their power with Moderation not Lording it over Gods Heritage 1 Pet. 5.3 By this time we have sufficiently proved from Scripture that Bishops and Presbyters are the same in name in Office in Edifying the Church in power of Ordination and Jurisdiction we sum up all that hath been spoken in one argument They which have the same Name the same Ordination to their Office the same qualification for their Office the same worke to feed the flock of God to ordaine pastors and Elders to Rule and Governe they are one and the same Office but such are Bishops and Presbyters Ergo. SECT VI. BUt the dint of all this Scripture the Remonstrant would elude by obtruding upon his reader a commentary as he calls it of the Apostles own practise which he would force to contradict their own rules to which he superadds the unquestionable glosse of the cleare practise of their immediate successors in this administration For the Apostles practice we have already discovered it from the Apostles own writings and for his Glosse he superadds if it corrupts
not the Text we shall admit it but if it doe we must answer with Tertullian Id verum quodcunque primum id adulterum quod posterius whatsoever is first is true but that which is latter is adulterous In the examination of this Glosse to avoyd needlesse Controversie First we take for granted by both sides that the first and best Antiquity used the names of Bishops and Presbyters promiscuously Secondly that in processe of time some one was honoured with the name of Bishop and the rest were called Presbyters or Cleri Thirdly that this was not Nomen inane but there was some kinde of Imparity between him and the rest of the Presbyters Yet in this we differ that they say this Impropriation of name and Imparity of place is of Divine Right and Apostolical Institution we affirme both to be occasional and of humane Invention and undertake to shew out of Antiquity both the occasion upon which and â—he Persons by whom this Imparity was brought into the Church On our parts stands Ierome and Ambrose and others whom we doubt not but our Remonstrant will grant a place among his Glossators Saint Ierome tells us in 1 Tit. Idem est ergo Presbytâ—r qui Episcopus antequam Diaboli instinctu studia in Religione fierent diceretur in populis eco sum Pauli ego Apollo ego Cephae Communi PresbyteroruÌ„ Consilio ecclesiae gubernabantur Postquam vero unusquisque eos quos bapâ—izaverat suos putabat esse non Christi in toto Orbe decretum est ut unus de Presbyteris electus superponeretur caeteris ad quem omnis Ecclesiae Cura pertineret schismatum semina tollerentur Putat aliquis non Scripturarum sed nostram esse sententiam Episcopum Presbyterum unum esse aliud aetatis aliud esse nomen ofâ—icâ—i relegat Apostoli ad Philippenses verba dicentis Paulus Timothaeus servi Iesu Christi qui sunt Philippis cum Episcopis Diaconis c. Philippi una est urbs Macedoniae certè in una Civitate non poterant plures esse ut nuncupantur Episcopi c. sicut ergo Presbyteri sciant se ex Ecclesiae consuetudine ei qui sibi praepositus fuerit esse subjectos Ita Episcopi noverint se magis consuetudine quam dispositionis Dominicae veritate Presbyteris esse majores in Communi debere Ecclesiam regere A Presbyter and a Bishop is the same and before there were through the Devils instinct divisions in Religion and the people began to say I am of Paul and I of Apollo and I oâ— Cephas the Churches were governed by the Common-councell of the Presbyters But after that each man began to account those whom he had baptized his own and not Christs it was decreed thorow the whole world that one of the Presbyters should be set over the rest to whom the care of all the Church should belong that the seeds of schisme might be taken away Thinks any that this is my opinion and not the opinion of the Scripture that a Bishop and an Elder is the same let him read the words of the Apostle to the Philippians saying Paul and Timothy the servants of Jesus Christ to them that are at Philippi with the Bishops and Deacons Philippi is one city of Macedonia and certainly in one city there could not be many Bishops as they are now called c. and after the allegations of many other Scriptures he concludes thus as the Elders therefore may know that they are to be subject to him that is set over them by the custome of the Church so let the Bishops know that it is more from custome then from any true dispensation from the Lord that they are above the Presbyters that they ought to rule the Church in common In which words of Ierome these five things present themselves to the Readers view First that Bishops and Presbyters are originally the same Idem ergo est Presbyter qui Episcopus Secondly that that Imparity that was in his time between Bishops and Elders was grounded upon Ecclesiastical custome and not upon devine Institution Episcopi noverint c. Thirdly that this was not his private judgement but the judgement of Scripture Putat aliquis c. Fourthly that before this Priority was upon this occasion started the Church was governed Communi Presbyterorum Consilio by the Counsel of the Presbyters in common and that even after this imparity it ought to be so governed Sciant Episcopi se Ecclesiam debere in communi regere Fifthly that the occasion of this Imparity and Superiority of Bishops above Elders was the divisions which through the Devils instinct fell among the Churches Postquam verò Diaboli instinctu Saravia would take advantage of this place to deduce this Imparity as high as from the Apostles times because even then they began to say I am of Paul and I of Apollos but sure S. Ierome was not so weake as this man would make him to speak Inconsistencies and when he propounds it to himself to prove that Bishops and Presbyters are in Scripture the same to let fall words that should confute his own proposition whereas therefore S. Ierome saith that after men began to say I am of Paul and I of Apollos c. it was decreed that one of the Presbyters should be set over the rest c. This is spoken indeed in the Apostles phrase but not of the Apostles times else to what purpose is that coacervation of texts that followes But suppose it should be granted to be of Apostolical antiquity which yet we grant not having proved the contrary yet it appeares it was not of Apostolical intention but of Diabolical occasion And though the Devil by kindling Divisions in the Church did minister Occasion to the invention of the primacy or prelacy or one for the suppressing of Schisme yet there is just cause to think that the Spirit of God in his Apostles was never the author of this invention First because we read in the Apostles dayes there were Divisions Rom. 16.7 and Schismes 1 Cor. 3.3 and 11.18 yet the Apostle was not directed by the holy Ghost to ordaine Bishops for the taking away of those Divisions Neither in the rules he prescribes for the healing of those breaches doth he mention Bishops for that end Nor in the Directions given to Timothy and Titus for the Ordination of Bishops or Elders doth he mention this as one end of their Ordination or one peculiar duty of their office And though the Apostle saith Oportet haereses inter vos esse ut qui probati sunt manifesti fiant inter vos yet the Apostle no where saith Oportet Episcopos esse ut tollantur haereses quae manifestae fiunt Secondly because as Doctor Whitaker saith the remedy devised hath proved worse then the disease which doth never happen to that remedy whereof the holy Ghost is the author Thirdly because the holy Ghost who could foresee what would
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
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
and publique punishment they have deserved But what if pious Constantine in his tender care to prevent the Divisions that the emulation of the Bishops of that age enraged with a spirit of envie and faction were kindling in the Church leâ—t by that meanes the Christian Faith should be derided among the Heathens did suppresse their mutuall accusations many of whiâ—h might be but upon surmises and that â—ot in a Court of Iustice bâ—t in an Ecclesiasticall Synode shall this be urged before the highest Court of Iustice upon earth to the patronizing of Nâ—toriouâ— scandallâ— and hatefull enâ—rmities that are already proved by evidence of cleâ—â—e witnesse But â—o forbid it to tell it in Gaâ—h c. What the sin â—as that is done already Do we not know the drukennesse profanenesse superstition Popishnesse of the English Clergie rings at Rome already yes undoubtedly and there is no way to vindicate the Honour of our Nation Ministery Parliaments Sovereigne Religion God but by causing the punishment to ring as farre as the sin hath done that our adversaries that have triumphed in their sin may be confounded at their punishments Do not your Honours know that the plaistring or palliating of these rotten members will be a greater dishonour to the Nation and Church then their cutting off and that the personall acts of these sonnes of Belial being connived at become Nationall sins But for this one fact of Constantine we humbly crave your Honours leave to present to your wisdome three Texts of Scripture Ezek 44.12.13 Because they ministred unto them before their â—dolâ— and caused the house of Israel to fall into iniquity therefore have I lift up my hand unto them saith the Lord and they shall beare their iniquity And they shall not come neere unto me to do the Office of a Priest unto me nor to come neere unto any of mine holy things in the most holy place c. The second is Ierâ—m 48.10 Cursed be he that doth the work of the Lord negligently and the third is Iudges 6.31 He that will plead for Baal let him be put to death while it is yet morning We have no more to say in this whether it be best to walk after the President of Man or the Prescript of God your Hunours can easily judge SECT XVII BUt stay saith this Remonstrant and indeed he might well have stayed and spared the labour of his ensuing discourse about the Church of England the Prelaticall and the Antiprelaticall Church but these Episcopall Men deale as the Papists that dazle the eyes and astonish the senses of poor people with the glorious name of the Church the Church The holy Mother the Church This is the Gorgons head as Doctor White saith that hath inchanted them held them in bondage to theâ—r Errors All their speech is of the Church the Church no mention of the Scriptures of God the Father but all of the Mother the Church Much like as they write of certain Aethiopians that by reason they use no marriage but promiscuously company together the children only follow the Mother the Father and his name is in no request but the mother hath all the reputation So is it with the Author of this Remonstrance he stiles himself a Dutifull son of the Church And it hath beene a Custome of late times to cry up the holy Mother the Church of England to call for absolute obedience to holy Church full conformity to the orders of holy Church Neglecting in the meane time God the Father and the holy Scripture But if we should now demand of them what they meane by the Church of England this Author seemes to be thunder-stricken at this Question and calls the very Question a new Divinity where he deales like such as holding great revenues by unjust Titles will not suffer their Titles to be called in Question For it is apparent Ac si solaribus radiis descriptum esset to use Tertullians phrase that the word Church is an Equivocall word and hath as many severall acceptions as letters and that Dolus latet in universalibus And that by the Church of England first by some of these men is meant onely the Bishops or rather the two Archbishops or more properly the Archbishop of Canterbury Just as the Iesuited Papists resolve the Church and all the glorious Titles of it into the Pope so do these into the Archbishop or at fullest they understand it of the Bishops and their party met in Convocation as the more ingenuous of the Papists make the Pope and his Cardinals to be their Church thus excluding all the Christian people and Presbyters of the Kingdome as not worthy to be reckoned in the number of the Church And which is more strange this Author in his Simplicity as he truly saith never heard nor thought of any more Churches of England then one and what then shall become of his Diocesan Churches and Diocesan Bishops And what shall we think of England when it was an Heptarchy had it not then seven Churches when seven Kings Or if the Bounds of a Kingdome must constitute the Limits and Bounds of a Church why are not â—ngland Scotland and Ireland all one Church when they are happily united under one gracious Monarch into one Kingdom We read in Scripture of the Churches of Iudea and the Churches of Galatia and why not the Churches of England not that we denie the Consâ—ciatiâ—n or Combination of Churches into a Provinciall or Nationall Synod for the right ordering of them But that there should be no Church in England but a Nationall Church this is that which thâ—s â—mbâ—r â—o his simplicity affirmes of which the very rehearsall is a 〈◊〉 SECT XVIII THere are yet two things with which this Remonstrance shuts up it self which must not be past without our Obelisks First he scoffs at the Antiprelatical Church and the Antiprelatical Divisions for our parts we acknowledge no Antiprelatical Church But there are a company of men in the Kingdom of no mean rank or quality for Piety Nobility Learning that stand up to bear witness against the Hierarchie as it now stands their usurpations over Gods Church and Ministers their cruel using of Gods people by their tyrannical government this we acknowledge and if he call these the Antiprelatical Church we doubt not but your Honours will consider that there are many thousands in this Kingdom and those pious and worthy persons that thus do and upon most just cause It was a speech of Erasmus of Luther Vt quisque vir est optimus it is illius Scriptis minimè offendi The better any man was the less offence he took at Luthers Writings but we may say the contrary of the Prelates Ut quisque vir est optimus it à illorum factis magis offendi The better any man is the more he is offended at their dealings And all that can be objected against this party will be like that in Tertullian Bonus vir Cajus Sejus