authoritie and yet authoritie experience reason are worthy to sway with us in all matters of question and withall Hee that said I am the way said that the old way was the good way and if Custome without Truth as that Father said well be nothing but a gray-hair'd Error or as Sir Francis Bacon wittily Antiquitie without Truth is a Cipher without a Figure yet where Custom Antiquitie are backed with Truth there they are Figures multiplied with many Ciphers As for the time wherein their learned Ancients affirme The Church not to have beene governed by Bishops but by Presbyters and for the difference pretended to be betwixt the Primitive Bishops and ours wee shall meet with it in such due time and place as shall be justly occasioned What needs this frivolous waste of unseasonable words wherewith unlesse these men desired to swell up this their windy bulke why doe they tell us yet againe of that already answered and groundlesse exception against both their owne eyes and conscience where I say that this government hath continued in this Iland ever since the plantation of the Gospel without contradiction when as they cannot name any man in this Nation that ever contradicted Episcopacie till this present age or that ever contradicted this truth that Episcopacy hath so long continued in this Iland which is the only drift of my words For alas could I be so simple as not to know that this age hath bred opposition enough to the present government could I doubt whether these very men oppose it Yet let the boldest forehead of them all denie that it hath continued thus long in this our Iland or say that any till this age contradicted it so as that my assertion is just their exception false and vain As for that supplie of accessory strength which I did not beg but raise evince from the light of nature and rules of just policie for the continuance of those things which long use and many laws have firmly established as necessary and beneficiall it will stand long enough against the battery of their Paper-pellets If some statute Laws which seemed once necessary and beneficiall proving afterwards in processe of time noxious and burthensome have been justly and wisely repealed Let them tell mee whether the fundamentall Lawes of the Kingdome upon any mans abuse may be subject to alteration or whether rather their Wisdomes would not think fit to determine that the Laws must stand and the abuses be removed such is the cause we have now in hand and if we shall goe lesse I speak not against an impossibility but an easinesse of change the question being so stated which their guiltinesse would willingly over-look that things indifferent or good having been by continuance and generall approbation well rooted in Church and State may not upon light grounds be pulled up SECT V. I Justly fetch the pedegree of our holy calling from no lesse then Apostolicall and in that right Divine institution and prove it from the clear practise of their immediate successors and justly triumph in that confidence They tell me of one scruple yet remaining It is well if there be no more And what may that be That in Originall authority of Scripture Bishops and Presbyters went originally for the same Alas brethren what needed this to be a scruple in your thoughts or your words when it is in expresse termes granted by us That there was at first a plain Identity in their denomination here is one page and that not without some labour of proofs idly lost It is true that the Remonstrant undertakes to shew a cleare and received distinction of Bishops Presbyters and Deacons out of the undeniable writings of those holy men which lived in the times of the Apostles and after them with an evident specification of their severall duties And what say my Answerers to this Yet say they Let us tell him that we never finde in Scripture these three Orders Bishops Presbyters Deacons Brethren ye might have spared to tell me that which I had told you before I speak of the monuments of immediate succession to the Apostolique times Ye of the writings of the Apostles themselves How then doe you either answer or oppose my assertion Although I must also tell you that though in the Apostolique Epistles there be no nominall distinction of the titles yet there is a reall distinction and specification of the duties as we shall see in due place That ye may seem not to say nothing and may make your Readers beleeve you are not quite forsaken of Antiquity ye call Hierome Chrysostome Theophylact Irenaeus and Cyprian to the Book And what evidence will they give for you That the names of Bishops and Presbyters were not at first distinguished but used 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in a promiscuous sense and that some succeeding Bishops of Rome were styled Presbyters This is all but that your trifling may appeare to all the World Name but any one of our Writers who have hitherto stood up in the cause of Episcopacie that hath not granted and proclaimed this which you contend for Although withall let me tel you that you could not have brought a stronger argument against your selves for hence the world shall see how little force can be drawne from the name to the thing since the mentioned Anicetus Pius Hyginus Telesphorus Bishops of Rome are so famously known to have been in an height of elevation above Presbyters And since Cyprian who is styled by his Presbyters Frater is never found to style his Presbyters Bishops And being an holy Bishop himselfe in many Epistles stifly maintaines the eminence of his superiority And is some-whiles honored with the title of Beatissimus Papa Cyprianus which I suppose was never given to a meere Presbyter But what do I here follow them who confesse themselves out of the way At last acknowledging that their adversaries confesse that which they would needs spend time to prove let the names passe All the question is of the distinction of their offices which they wil follow as tediously as loosly And first they would faine know what we make the distinct office of a Bishop wherein they fall somewhat unhappily upon the very words of that branded Aerius Is it say they to edifie the Church by Word Sacraments Is it to ordaine others to that worked Is it to rule to governe by admonition and by other censures any or all of these belong unto the Presbytery Compare now the words of Aerius as they are related by Epiphanius whom that Father brings in speaking thus concerning Episcopacy and Presbytery There is one order of both one honor one dignity the Bishop imposeth hands so doth the Presbyter the Bishop doth administer Gods worship or service so doth the Presbyter the Bishop sitteth on the throne so doth also the Presbyter See reader and acknowledge the very phrases of that man whom holy antiquity censured even in this point both for a frantick man and an
hereticke Brethren God speed you well with your Question As for the first which is edifying the Church by Word and Sacraments we make no difference your distance may we both hold it our worke and make it so and if any one have beene slack herein the fault is personall we neither defend nor excuse it The maine quarrell you grant to be in the second which is the power of Ordination impropriated as you enviously and untruly speake to our selves This you say was in former times in the hands of the Presbyters and undertake to prove it from 1 Tim. 4.14 Neglect not the gift which was given thee by Prophesie and by laying on the hands of Presbytery a place that hath received answer 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which I wonder ye can so presse when Calvin himselfe as you well know in his learned Institutions even in his last and ripest judgement construes it quite otherwise taking it of the office and not of the men however elsewhere otherwise wherein he also followes the judgement of Ierome Primasius Anselme Haymo Liranus Erasmus and others as our learned Bishop Downam hath largely shewed To countenance this sense of yours you tel us you find 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so taken in Scripture and cite Luc. 22.66 and Act. 22.5 Wherein you do meerly delude the reader you find indeed the Elders of the people so called but the Elders of the Church never to make good your own construction therefore you must maintaine that Lay-men did and must lay on hands in Ordination which Calvin himself utterly abominates Neither need we to give any other satisfaction to the point thē that which we have from S. Paul himselfe 1 Tim. 3.6 Stirre up the gift of God which is in thee by the imposition of my hands mine not others I aske then Was Timothy ordained more then once once surely S. Pauls hands were laid upon him when therefore the Presbyters Yes you say this was a joynt act of both else the Harmony of Scripture is not maintained Pardon me Brethren if I think Mr. Calvin was more skilled in the harmony of Scripture then our selves yet in his eare it sounded well that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 should be the Office to which Timothy was ordained by Paul and not a company of men that ordained him Yet give me leave to marvell how you can have the boldnesse to say This power is communicated to Presbyters when you know that not onely other Antiquity but even Hierome himself and that Councell of Aquisgrane which you cite doe still except Ordination which yet we doe not so appropriate as to lay our hands alone upon the head of any Presbyter The third part of our office consists in Ruling which though our Bishops you say assumed to themselves you will discover to have bin committed to and exercised by Presbyteriall hands For evidence whereof you cite Heb. 13.17 Obey them that have the Rule over you for they watch for your souls Brethren what an injurious imputation is this Do we not give you the title of Rectores Ecclesiarum Doe we not in your institution commit to you regimen animarum Why will ye therefore bear your Readers in hand that we herein rob you of your right It is true that here is a just distinction to be made betwixt the government of soules in severall Congregations and the government of the Church consisting of many Congregations that task is yours this is the Bishops wherein their rule yet is not Lordly but brotherly or paternall your argument reacheth not home to this and yet you strain that place of 1 Thes 5.12 beyond the due breadth whiles you tenter it out to either a paritie or communitie of censure Injoy now what you have so victoriously purchased but give me leave to summe up my reckonings also Since then how ever the name was at first promiscuously used yet the Office of Bishops and Presbyters differed even by Apostolike Institution and the Acts pertaining thereto of Ordination and power of ordinary government and censures were in that very first age of the Church manifestly differenced therefore Bishops and Presbyters were not one SECT VI. THE practise of the Apostles is so farre from contradicting their rules which your brotherly charity would fasten upon my assertion as that it is a most cleare proof and illustration of it Their practise is irrefragable in the charge which they gave to Timothy and Titus as we shall prove in due place Now if to this we shall adde the unquestionable glosse of the more cleare practise of their immediate successors I know not what more light can be desired for the manifestation of this truth Whereto ye boldly answer If this gloss corrupt not the text we shall admit it implying therein too presumptuously that the universall practise of the whole Primitive Church succeeding the Apostles may prove a Burdeaux-glosse to marre the Text. Brethren goe you your owne way let me erre with such guides But ye are disposed to be liberall somewhat ye will grant us besides that which we grant you It is agreed that the name of Bishops and Presbyters were at first promiscuously used It is yeelded by you That in process of time some one was honoured with the name of Bishop and the rest were called Presbyters But what I beseech you was this process of time Here lies your either error or fraud We doe justly and confidently defend that this time had no processe at all it was in the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the living Apostles which we shall plainly make good in the sequell It is also yeelded that this was not nomen inane but seconded with some kind of imparity What then is the difference All the question you say is of divine right and Apostolicall institution of this imparity Let me beseech the Reader to consider seriously of the state of this difference in the mistaking whereof I have not a little unjustly suffered And to remember how I have expressed it in my Remonstrance fetching the pedegree of Episcopacy from Apostolicall and therefore in that right Divine institution And interpreting my self not to understand by divine right any expresse Law of God requiring it upon the absolute necessity of the being of a Church but an institution of Apostles inspired by the holy Ghost warranting it where it is and requiring it where it may be had Now whether it may be thus Apostolicall or a meerly humane and Ecclesiasticall invention is the question in hand On your part you say stand Ierome and Ambrose Two stiffe champions indeed And surely I must needs confesse this is the onely countenance of your cause which yet hath been blanked more then once Ierome tels us you say right down in Tit. 1. Idē est ergo Presbyter c. Out of whose testimony you in summe collect That A Presbyter and a Bishop were originally one That the imparity was grounded upon Ecclesiasticall custome That before this priority the Church was governed by
Were it so pleasing to his Majesty and the State to decree it we should be well content to submit to this ancient forme of Election the forbearance whereof is neither our fault nor our prejudice so as you might well have bestowed this breath to a better purpose and rather conclude that notwithstanding this forme of different choice our Bishops and those of former times are not two SECT VIII WEE follow you into the execution of our Episcopall Office wherein you will show ours and the Apostles to be two so clearely that he who will not wilfully shut his eyes may see a latitude of differences and that in three points The first in sole jurisdiction which you say was a stranger yea a monster to former times and will make it good by the power of that which in all wise writers was wont to be contra-distinguished Ordination For this maine point let my Answerers know that the Ordination is the Bishops but the sole in their sense is their own neither did our Bishops ever challenge it as theirs alone without the Presbyters but as principally theirs with them so as if the power be in the Bishop the assistance is from them the practise in both so is it in the Bishops that ordinarily and regularly it may not be done without them and yet ordinately it may not be done without them by the Bishop which hath bin so constantly and carefully ever observed that I challenge them to shew any one instance in the Church of England to the contrary Say Brethren I beseech you after all this noyse what Bishop ever took upon him to ordain a Presbyter alone or without the concurrent imposition of many hands They no lesse then Cyprian can say Ego collegae Although I must tell you this was in the case of Aurelius made a Lector And in that other testimony which you cite out of his Epistle 58. he speaks onely of the fraternities consent and approbation not of their concurrence in their act this is small game with you Neither is it lesse the order of the Church of England then of the Councell of Carthage Cum ordinatur Presbyter c. When a Presbyter is ordained the Bishop blessing him and holding his hand upon his head all the Presbyters that are present shall likewise lay their hands upon his head with the hands of the Bishop With what conscience can ye alledge this as to choak us in our contrary practise when you know this is perpetually and unfailably done by us But now that the Readers may see how you shuffle shew us but one instance of a Presbyters regular and practised ordaining without a Bishop and carry the cause else you do but abuse the Reader with an ostentation of proving what was never denied But here by the way brethren you must give me leave to pull you by the sleeve and to tell you of two or three foul scapes which will trie whether you can blush First that you abuse Firmilianus in casting upon him an opinion of Presbyters ordaining which he never held He in his Epistle to Stephen Bishop of Rome speaking of the true Church in opposition to heresies describes it thus Vbi praesident majores natu qui baptizandi manum imponendi et ordinandi possident potestatem under this name expressing those Bishops who presiding in the Church possesse the power of Baptizing Confirming Ordaining you injuriously Wire-draw him to Presbyters and foist in Seniores et Praepositos which are farre from the clause and matter Be convinced with the more cleare words of the same Epistle Apostolis et Episcopis qui illis vicariâ Ordinatione successerunt Secondly that you bewray grosse ignorance in translating Ambroses Presbyteri consignant by Presbyters ordaining Who that ever knew what belonged to antiquity would have beene guilty of such a solecisme when every novice knowes that consigning signifies confirmation and not ordaining Thirdly you discover not too much skill in not distinguishing of the Chorepiscopi some whereof had both the nature and power of Episcopacy to all purposes and therefore might well by the Bishops licence in his owne charge impose hands others not And lesse fidelity in citing the Councell of Antioch can 10. and the 13. of the Councell of Ancyra if it were not out of our way to fetch them into tryall Lastly I cannot but tell you that you have meerly cast away all this labour and fought with your owne shadow for how ever it were not hard to prove that in the first times of the Church it was appropriated to the Bishop to Ordaine which you cannot but cōfesse out of Ierome and Chrysostom yet since we speaking of our owne time and Church doe both professe and practise an association of Presbyters with us in the act of Ordination whom have you all this while opposed It is enough that you have seemed to say somthing and have showne some little reading to no purpose SECT IX YEt still you will needs beat the ayre very furiously and fight pitifully with your selves Alas brethren why will ye take so much paines to goe wilfully out of your way and to mis-lead the reader with you Who ever challenged in that sense which you faine to your selves a sole Jurisdiction Why will you with some show of learning confute that which you yeeld us to confesse we confesse this sole cryed downe by store of Antiquity we doe willingly grant that Presbyters have and ought to have and exercise a jurisdiction within their owne charge in foro conscientiae we grant that in all the great affayres of the Church the Presbyters whether in Synodes or otherwise ought to be consulted with we grant that the Bishops had of old their Ecclesiasticall Councell of Presbyters with whose advise they were wont to manage the greatest matters and we still have so for to that purpose serve the Deanes and Chapters and the Lawes of our Church frequently make that use of them we grant that Presbyters have their votes in provinciall Synods But we justly say that the superiority of jurisdiction is so in the Bishop as that Presbyters neither did nor may exercise it without him and that the exercise of externall jurisdiction is derived from by under him to those which execute it within his Dioces Thus it is to Timothy that S. Paul gives the charge concerning the rebuke of an Elder or not receiving an accusation against him It is to Titus that S. Paul leaves the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 correction of his Cretians Thus the Canons of the Apostles 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Thus the blessed Martyr Ignatius in his undoubted Epistle to those of Smyrna 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Let no man doe any thing in matters belonging to the Church without the Bishop Thus the Councell of Antioch orders that whatsoever belongs to the Church is to be governed managed and disposed by the judgement and authority of the Bishop who hath 〈◊〉
desires to goe a Mid-way in this difference holding it too low to derive Episcopacy from a merely humane and Ecclesiasticall Ordinance holding it too high to deduce it from an immediate command from God and therefore pitching upon an Apostolicall institution rests there but because those Apostles were divinely inspired had the directiōs of Gods spirit for those things which they did for the common administration of the Church therefore and in that onely name is Episcopacie said to lay claime to a Divine right howsoever also it cannot be gainsaid that the grounds were formerly laid by our Saviour in a knowne imparity of his first agents Now surely this truth hath so little reason to distaste them that even learned Chamier himselfe can say Res ipsa coepit tempore Apostolorum vel potius ab ipsis profecta est And why should that seeme harsh in us which soundeth well in the mouthes of lesse-interessed Divines but because the very title of that book hath raised more dust then the treatise it selfe Bee pleased Readers to see that this very question is in the very same termes determined by that eminent light of the Palatinate Dr. Abrah Scultetus whose tract to this purpose I have thought fit to annex Peruse it and judge whether of those two writers have gone further in this determination And if you shall not meet with convincing reasons to bring you home to this opinion yet at least-wise find cause enough to retaine a charitable and favourable conceit of those who are as they think upon good grounds otherwise minded and whilest it is on all parts agreed by wise and unprejudiced Christians that the calling is thus ancient and sacred let it not violate the peace of the Church to scan the originall whether Ecclesiasticall Apostolicall or divine Shortly let all good men humbly submit to the Ordinance and heartily wish the Reformation of any abuses And so many as are of this mind Peace be upon them and the whole Israell of GOD. AMEN THE DETERMINATION of the question Concerning the Divine Right of EPISCOPACY By the famous and learn'd Divine Dr. Abrahamus Scultetus late Professour of divinity in the Vniversity of HEIDELBERG Faithfully translated out of his Observations upon the Epistles to Timothy and Titus LONDON Printed for NATHANIELL BVTTER 1641 The Question Whether Episcopacie be of Divine right That is whether the Apostles ordained this Government of the Church that not onely one should be placed over the people but over Presbyters and Deacons who should have the power of Imposition of Hands or Ordination and the direction of Ecclesiasticall Counsels THis was anciently denyed by Aerius as is related by Epiphanius in his 75 Heresie and by Iohn of Hierusalem as appears by Hierome in his Epistle to Pammachius And there are not wanting in these dayes many learned and pious men who although they acknowledge Aerius to have erred in that he should disallow of that manner of Ecclesiasticall government which had beene received by the whol World yet in this they agree with him that Episcopall government is not of Divine Right From whose opinion why I should sever my judgement I am moved by these strong reasons famous examples and evident authorities My judgement is this First in the Apostles Epistles the name of Bishop did never signifie any thing different from the office of a Presbyter For a Bishop Presbyter and an Apostle were common names as you may see Act. 20. Phil. 1. v. 1. Tit. 1. 1. Pet. v. 12. Act. 1.20 Next In the chiefe Apostolicall Church the Church was governed by the common advice of Presbyters and that for some yeers in the time of the preaching of the Apostles For first of all companies must bee gathered together before we can define any thing concerning their perpetuall government Then the Apostles as long as they were present or neere their Churches did not place any Bishop over them properly so called but only Presbyters reserving Episcopall authority to themselves alone Lastly after the Gospell was farre and neere propagated and that out of equality of Presbyters by the instinct of the Devill Schismes were made in Religion then the Apostles especially in the more remote places placed some over the Pastors or Presbyters which shortly after by the Disciples of the Apostles Ignatius and others were onely called bishops by this appellation they were distinguished from Presbyters Deacons Reasons moving me to this opinion First Hierome upon the 1. Chapter of the Epistle to Titus writeth that a Presbyter is the same with a Bishop and before that by the instinct of the Devill factions were made in Religion and it was said among the people I am of Paul I of Apollo but I of Cephas the Churches were governed by the common counsell of Presbyters afterwards it was decreed in the whol world that one chosen out of the Presbyters should be placed over the rest From whence I thus argue When it began to be said among the people I am of Paul I of Apollo but I of Cephas then one chosen out of the Presbyters was placed over the rest But whiles the Apostles lived it was so said among the people As the first Epistle to the Corinthians besides other of St. Pauls Epistles puts it out of doubt Therefore while the Apostles lived one chosen out of the Presbyters was placed over the rest Againe There can be no other terme assigned in which Bishops were first made then the time of the Apostles for all the prime successors of the Apostles were Bishops witnesse the successions of Bishops in the most famous Churches of Hierusalem Alexandria Antioch and Rome as it is in Eusebius therefore either the next successors of the Apostles changed the force of Ecclesiasticall government received from the Apostles according to their owne pleasure which is very unlikely or the Episcopall government came from the Apostles themselves Besides even then in the time of the Apostles there were many Presbyters but one Bishop even then in the time of the Apostles 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hee that was placed over the rest which afterwards was called Bishop did impose hands or ordaine Ministers of the Word which Presbyters alone did not presume to doe Even then therefore the calling of Bishops was distinct from the Office of Presbyters If any desire the examples of Apostolicall Bishops the books of the antient are full of the Episcopal authority of Timothy and Titus either of which howsoever first performed the office of an Evangelist yet notwithstanding ceased to be an Evangelist after that Timothy was placed over the Church of Ephesus and Titus over the Church of Crete For Evangelists did only lay the foundations of faith in forraign places then did commend the rest of the care to certaine Pastors but they themselves went to other Countries and Nations as Eusebius writes in his third Booke of Ecclesiasticall History and 34. Chap. But Paul taught sometimes in Ephesus and Crete and laid the foundations of
knowledge and approbation The Presbyters then chose their Bishops who doubts it But upon whose order and Institution save that which S. Paul to the Superintendents met at Miletus Acts 20. Spiritus sanctus vos constituit Episcopos I marvell Brethren with what face you can make Ierome say that the Presbyters themselves were the Authors of this imparity when as himself hath plainly ascribed this to Gods own work when reading that Esay 60.17 I will make thy Officers peace according to the Septuagint 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. I will give thy Princes in peace and thy Bishops in righteousnesse he applies this to the Governours of the Evangelicall Church and the blessed Martyr and Bishop S. Cyprian to the same purpose The Deacons saith he must remember that the Lord himselfe chose Apostles that is Bishops but Deacons were chosen by the Apostles themselves And when ye cannot but know that the Apostles themselves were the immediate actors in this businesse if at least ye will beleeve the Histories and Fathers of the Church Irenaeus tels you plainly that the Apostles Peter and Paul delivered the Episcopacy of that Church to Linus and that Polycarpus was by the Apostles made Bishop in Asia of the Church of Smyrna and Tertullian particularly that Polycarpus was there placed by S. Iohn And S. Chrysostome clearly sayes that Ignatius was not onely trained up with the Apostles but that he received his Bishoprick from them and emphatically that the hands of the blessed Apostles touched his holy head And lastly the true Ambrose to the shameing of that Counterfeit whom you bring forth under that name tels you that Paul saw Iames at Ierusalem because he was made Bishop of that place by the Apostles your slip may talk of a Councell wherein this was done but this is as false as himselfe It is well known there never was any such Councell in the Christian world since the first generall Synod was the Nicene And Ieroms toto orbe Decretum as we have shewed could import no other then an Apostolicall act As for S. Augustine Is it not a just wonder Reader that these men dare cite him for their opinion upon occasion of a modest word concerning the honourable title of Episcopacy when as they cannot but know and grant that he hath blazoned Aerius for an heretick meerly for holding the same Tenet which they defend Lastly if Gregory Nazianzen in a pathetick manner have wished the abolition of Episcopacie as he never did what more dislike had he shown to it then he did to Synods when he said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. that he never knew good come of them But reader it will be worth the while to inquire into the fidelity of these mens allegations Doe but consult the place of Nazianzen thou shalt â—â—nd that he speaks not particularly of Episcopacie but of all 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or precedencie and of all quarrelsome challenges of place all tyrannicall carriage of one man towards another wishing that there were no standing upon points of precedency but every man might be respected according to his vertue and adding at last Nunc autem dextrum hoc et sinistrum et medium latus c. But now saith he the right hand and the left and the middle place and the higher and lower degree and going before and going cheeke by jole what a world of troubles have they brought upon us Thus he See then Reader what a testimony here is for the utter abolition of Episcopacy from a man who was so interessed in the calling that he was wont to be styled by his adversaries 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Bishop of three Sees By this judge reader of the rest So then after all the clamours and colourable pretences of these men this imparity and jurisdiction was conveyed from the Apostles hands and deduced in an uninterrupted Line through all following ages to this present day How can this be say they unlesse our Bishops will draw the Line of their pedegree through the lines of Antichrist and joyne issue and mingle blood with Rome For shame Brethren eate this word What are there no Bishops but at Rome Is the whole Church all the world over Antichristian even those which are no lesse angry at Rome then your selves Hath not Episcopall imparitie continued in them all this while Is there no distinction to be had betwixt the calling and the abuse If the Antichristian Church have had Bishops so it hath had Churches Scriptures Baptisme Learning Creeds Because we have all these with them will ye say we deduce them from the loines of Antichrist Away with this impotent spight and uncharitablenesse and learne to be more modest true in your assertions and lesse confident in your appeals SECT VII LEt me balk your idle words the question is of the difference betwixt our present Bishops and the ancient this you will spread forth in three particulars The first is the manner of Election to these places of eminence which was of old ordered by the privity consent and approbation of the people which you eagerly seeke to prove out of Cyprian neither can it be denied that he is full and punctuall in this point Holy Athanasius seconds it And the old rule was Electio clericorum consensus Principis petitio plebis that a Bishop came in by the suite of the people the Election of the Clergy the consent of the Prince Ye might well have in this case spared the fetching in of the good Emperour Constantine doubtlesse this was the manner of old what variations followed afterward in these proceedings our learned Dr. Field hath well showed but sure this interest of the people continued so long even in the Roman Church that Platina can tell us Gregory the seventh was elected by Cardinalls Clerks Acoluthites Subdeacons Priests Abbots Bishops Clergie and Laitie The inconveniences that were found in those tumultuarie elections and the seditious issue of them which Nazianzen and Eusebius have laid before us in some particulars were I suppose the cause why they were in a sort laid downe But an imitation of this practise we have still continuing in our Church wherein upon the vacancy of every See there is a Conge-d'eslire that is a leave to elect sent down from the King to the Presbyters viz. the Deane and Chapter of that Church for an ensuing election of their Bishop and if this were yet more free we should not like it the lesse But in the meane time Brethren how are you quite beside the Cushion Where the objection was That the Apostles Bishops and ours were two in respect of managing their function And my defence is that our Bishops challenge not any other Spirituall power then the Apostles delegated to Timothy and Titus you now tell us of the different manner of our Elections What is this ad Rhombum we speake of their actions and exercise of power you talke of others actions to them
be scanned Objections which would to God they were onely of my own framing In the first That Episcopacy is no prejudice of Soveraigntie I justly prove for that there is a compatiblenesse in this case of Gods act and the Kings It is God that makes the Bishop the King that gives the Bishoprick what can you say to this You tell us you have already proved that God never made a bishop as hee stands in superiority over Presbyters so you told us and that is enough we were hard hearted if wee would not believe you When as wee have made good by undeniable proofes that besides the grounds which our Saviour laid of this imparity the blessed Apostles by inspiration from God made this difference in a personall ordaining of some above the rest and giving expresse charge of Ordination and Iurisdiction to those select persons in Church government the Bishops have ever since succeeded Tell us not therefore that if wee disclaim the influence of Soveraignty into our Creation and assert that the King doth not make us Bishops wee must have no beeing at all For that the Reader may see you stop your owne mouth answer me I beseech you Where or when ever did the King create a Bishop name the man and take the cause It pleases his Majestie to give his Congedelier for a Bishops Election to his See to signifie his Royall assent thereunto upon which the Bishop is solemnly ordained by the imposition of the hands of the Metropolitan and other his Brethren and these doe as from God invest him in his holy Calling which he exercises in that place which is designed and given by his Majestie What can be more plaine then this truth As for that unworthy censure which you passe upon the just comparison of Kings in order to Bishops and Patrons in order to their Clerks it shall be acknowledged well deserved if you shall be able to make good the disparity When hee shall prove you say that the Patron gives Ministeriall power to his Clerke as the King gives Episcopall power to the Bishop it may bee of some conducement to his cause Shortly brethren the same day that you shall shew mee that the King ordained a bishop the same day will I shew you that a Patron ordained a Presbyter The Patron gives the benefice to the one The King gives the bishopricke to the other neither of them do give the Office or Calling to either Goe you therefore with your Frier Simon to your Cell and consult with your Covent for more reason and wit then you shew in this and the next scornfull Paragraph wherein whiles you flout at my modest concession with an unbeseeming frump you are content silently to balke that my second answer which you know was too hot or too heavie for your satisfaction In the second the Imputation pretended to bee cast by this Tenet upon al the reformed Churches which want this governement I indevoured so to satisfie that I might justly decline the envy which is intended to be thereby raised against us For which cause I professed that wee doe love and honour those our sister Churches as the dear spouse of Christ and give zealous testimonies of my well wishing to them Your uncharitablenesse offers to choake me with those scandalous censures and disgracefull terms which some of ours have let fall upon those Churches and their eminent professors which I confesse it is more easie to be sorry for then on some hands to excuse The errour of a few may not bee imputed to all My just defence is that no such consequent can be drawne from our opinion for as much as the Divine or Apostolicall right which wee hold goes not so high as if there were an expresse command that upon an absolute necessity there must bee either Episcopacy or no Church but so far only that it both may and ought to be How fain would you heere finde mee in a contradiction Whiles I one-where reckon Episcopacy amongst matters essential to the Church another where deny it to be of the essence thereof Wherein you willingly hide your eys that you may not see the distinction that I make expresly betwixt the Being Well-beeing of a Church Affirming that those Churches to whom this power and faculty is denied lose nothing of the true essence of a Church though they misse something of their glory and perfection No Brethren it is enough for some of your friends to hold their Discipline altogether essentiall to the very being of a Church We dare not be so zealous The question which you aske concerning the reason of the different intertainment given in our Church to priests converted to us from Rome and to Ministers who in Qu. Maries dayes had received Imposition of hands in Reformed Churches abroad is meerely personall neither can challenge my decision Onely I give you these two answers that what fault soever may bee in the easie admittance of those who have received Romish Orders the sticking at the admission of our brethren returning from Reformed Churches was not in case of Ordination but of Institution they had beene acknowledged Ministers of Christ without any other hands layed upon them but according to the Lawes of our Land they were not perhaps capable of institution to a benefice unlesse they were so qualified as the Statutes of this Realme doe require And secondly I know those more then one that by vertue onely of that Ordination which they have brought with them from other Reformed Churches have enjoyed Spirituall Promotions and Livings without any exception against the lawfulnesse of their calling The confident affirmation which you alleage of the learned bishop of Norwich is no rule to us I leave him to his owne defence You think I have too much work on my hand to give satisfaction for myselfe in these two main Questions which arise from my book What high points shall wee now expect trow wee First whether that Office which by divine right hath sole power of Ordination and ruling all other Officers of the Church which hee sayth Episcopacy hath belong not to the being but onely to the glorie and perfection of a Church Can wee tell what these men would have Have they a minde to goe beyond us in asserting that necessity and essentiall use of Episcopacy which we dare not avow Do they not care to lose their cause so they may crosse an Adversary For your Question you stil talke of sole Ordination and sole jurisdiction you may if you please keepe that paire of soles for your next shooes VVee contend not for such an height of Propriety neither do we practise it they are so ours that they should not bee without us as we have formerly shewed That therefore there should bee a power of lawfull Ordination and government in every setled Church it is no lesse then necessary but that in what case soever of extremity and irresistible necessitie this should be only done by Episcopall hands we never meant
avoweth your goodly proof therefore is in the suds But to meete with you in your own kinde if you will goe upon divers Readings what will you say to that vers 20 where the Angel of Thyatira is encharged Thou sufferest 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 thy wife Iezebell for so it is in very good Copies to teach and seduce yea so it is in that memorable Copy of Tecla forementioned which is to be seene in the Princes Library under the custody of the industrious and learned Mr· Patrick Young as my owne eyes can witnesse and thus St. Cyprian reads it of olde What shall wee thinke shee was wife to the whole company or to one Bishop alone I leave you to blush for the shame this very proofe alone casts upon your opinion Secondly you tell us it is usuall with the Holy Ghost even in this very booke to expresse a company under one singular person as the Beast is the Civill state the Whore and the false Prophet the Ecclesiasticall state of Rome But what if it be thus in visions or emblematicall representations must it needs be so in plaine narrations where it is limited by just Praedicates or because it is so in one phrase of speech must it bee so in all Why doe you not as well say where the Lambe is named or the Lion of Juda this is a collective of many not an individuall subject The seven Angels you say that blew the seven trumpets and poured out the seven phialls are not to bee taken literally but synecdochically perhaps so but then the synecdoche lyes in the seven and not in the Angels so I grant you the word Angel is here metaphoricall but you are no whit nearer to your imagined synecdoche The very name Angell you say is sufficient proofe that it is not meant of one person alone as being a common name to all Gods Ministers and Messengers As if he did not well know this that directed these Epistles and if hee had so meant it had it not been as easie to have mentioned more as one Had he said the Angels of the Church of Ephesus or Thyatira the cause had been cleare now hee sayes the Angell 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the denoted person must be singular for surely you cannot say that all the Presbyters at Ephesus were one Angel The same reason holds for the Stars had he said to the Star of Ephesus I suppose no body would have construed it of many but of one eminent person Now he speaks of so many Stars as Angels to wit seven in those seven Churches Your fourth Argument from the Text it selfe is no better then ridiculous poorely drawn from what it doth not say Lo hee saith the 7. Candlesticks which thou sawest are the 7. Churches but he doth not say the 7. Stars are the 7. Angels of the seven Churches but the Angels of the 7. Churches Forbear if you can Readers to smile at this curious subtilty because the seven is not twice repeated in mentioning the Angels there is a deep mystery in the omission what Cabalisme have we here Had he said the seven Stars are the seven Angels of the seven churches now all had been sure but he saith not so but onely thus the seven Stars are the Angels of the seven Churches It is plaine that every Church hath his Angell mentioned and there being seven Churches how many Angels I beseech you are there now because he doth not say expressely in termes seven Angels of the seven Churches we are foyled in our proofe judge Reader what to expect of so deep speculations Lastly it is evident you say though but one Angell be mentioned in the front yet the Epistles themselves be dedicated to all the Angels and Ministers and to the Churches themselves who ever doubted it the foot of every Epistle runs what the spirit saith unto the Churches not to one Church but to all seven If therfore you argue that the name Angel is collective say also that every of these seaven Angels is the whole company of all the seaven Churches which were a foule non-sence you might have saved the labour both of Ausbertus and the rest of your Authors and your own we never thought otherwise but that the whole Church is spoken to but so as that the Governour or Bishop is singled out as one that hath the maine stroke in ordering the affairs thereof and is therefore either praised or challenged according to his carriage therein although also there are such particularities both of commendations and exceptions in the body of the severall Epistles as cannot but have relation to those severall Over-seers to whom they were endorsed as I have else where specified Had all the Presbyters of Ephesus lost their first love had each of them tryed the false Apostles Had all those of Sardis a name to live and were dead Were all the Laodicean Ministers of one temper these taxations were no doubt of individuall persons but such as in whom the whole Churches were interessed As for those conjecturall reasons which you frame to your selves why the whole company of Presbyters should be written to under the singular name of an Angel if yee please your selves with them it is well from me they have no cause to expect an answer they neither can draw my assent nor merit my confutation Take heed of yeelding that which ye cannot but yield to be granted by D. Raynolds Mr. Beza Doctor Fulke Pareus and others that the Angel is here taken individually but still if you be wise hold your own that our cause is no whit advanced nor yours impaired by this yieldance Let him have been an Angell yet what makes this for a Diocesan Bishop much every way For if the Church of Ephesus for example had many Ministers or Presbyters in it to instruct the people in their severall charges as it is manifest they had and yet but one prime Over-seer which is singled out by the Spirit of God and stiled by a title of eminence the Angel of that Church it must needs follow that in St. Johns time there was an acknowledged superiority in the government of the Church if there were many Angels in each and yet but one that was the Angel who can make doubt of an inequality It is but a pittifull shift that you make in pleading that these Angels if Bishops yet were not Diocesan Bishops for that Parishes were not divided into Diocesses I had thought Dioceses should have been divided into Parishes rather in S. Iohns dayes for by the same reason I may as well argue that they were not Parochial Bishops neither since that then no Parishes were as yet distinguished As if you had resolved to speak nothing but Bulls and Soloecismes you tell me that the seven Stars are said to be fixed in their seven Candlesticks whereas those Stars are said to bee in the right hand of the Son of God But say you still not one Star was over divers Candlesticks