that there is a God is it not more certain that Christ is God and man is it not more certaine that Christ is the onely Saviour of the world Nothing more certaine must this then be an Article of our Creede the corner stone of our Religion must this be of necessity to Salvation Nothing more certaine O that men should not onely forget themselves but God also And in their zeale for their owne Honour utter words bordering upon Blasphemy Indignation will not suffer us to prosecute these falsities of his any further wee will leave this displeasing service onely retorting the words of this Remonstrant upon himselfe Surely could he looke with our eyes or any eyes that were not partiall he would see cause to bee throughly ashamed of these his grosse injurious miscarriages and should be forced to confesse that never good cause if cause be good had more reason to complaine of a sinfull prosecution SECT IV. VVE will now come with your Honours patience to weigh whether there be any more strength in his arguments then there is truth in his assertionâ— His Plea for Episcopacy consists of two parts In the â—irst he brings arguments for the supporting of it In the second he undertakes to answer the objections that may be made against it His first argument for it is couched in these words Were this Ordinance merely humane or Ecclesiasticall if there could no more be said for it but that it is exceeding Ancient of more then 15 hundred yeeres c. The strength of which argument lies in this that they have beene in peaceable possession of this government fifteene hundred yeares and upwards and in this Island ever since the Gospell without contradiction In which words he speakes two things which deserve just censure First that the Hierarchicall Government hath continued for fifteene hundred yeares therefore should not now be altered which may well be called as Hierome in another Case ArgumentuÌ„ Galeatum an argument calculated for the Meridian of Episcopacy and may indifferently serve for all Religions in the world For thus the Iewes might have pleaded against Christ the Antiquity of more then so many hundred years and thus the Heathens did plead against the Christian Religion which Iustin Martyr in his Apology answers And by this Argument the Pope sits as fast rivetted in his chayre at Rome as ours in theirs whose plea for Antiquity runs parallell with theirs It is a good observation of Cyprian that Christ said Ego sum via veritas vita not Ego sum consuetudo and that Consuetudo sine veritate est vetustas erroris Christ is Truth and not Custome and Custome without Truth is a mouldy errour and as Sir Francis Bacon saith Antiquity without Truth is a Cypher without a Figure Yet had this Remonstrant been as well versed in Antiquity as he would beare the world in hand he hath hee might have found Learned Ancients affirming there was a Time when the Church was not governed by Bishops but by Presbyters And when by Bishops he might further have seene more affinity betweene our Bishops and the Pope of Rome then betweene the Primitive Bishops and them And that as King Iames of famous memory said of the Religion of England that it differed no more from Rome than Rome did from what it was at first may as truly be said of Bishops that we differ no more from them then they doe from what Bishops were when first they were raised unto this eminency which difference we shall shew in our ensuing Discourse to be so great that as he said of Rome he did Romam in Roma quaerere he sought Rome in Rome so we Episcopatum in Episcopatu may go seek for a Bishop among all our Bishops And whereas in his application of this Argument to the Bishops of this Nation he saith It hath continued in this Island ever since the first plantation of the Gospel without contradiction which is his Second in this Argument How false this is we have declared already and we all know and himselfe cannot but know that there is no one thing since the reformation that hath met with so much Contradiction as Episcopacy hath done witness the severall Bookes written in the Reignes of our severall Princes and the many Petitions exhibited to our severall Parliaments and the many speeches made therein against Episcopall Government many of which are yet extant As for that supply of Accessory strength which he begs to this Argument from the light of nature and the rules of iust policy which saith he teacheth us not easily to give way to the change of those things which long use and many Lawes have firmly established as Necessary and Beneficiall it is evident that those things which to former Ages have seemed Necessary and Beneficiall may to succeeding Generations prove not Necessary but Noxious not Beneficiall but Burthensome And then the same light of nature and the same iust policy that did at the first command the establishment of them may and will perswade their abolishment if not either our Parliaments must never Repeale any of their former Acts which yet they have justly and wisely done or else in so doing must run Counter to the light of nature and the Rules of iust policy which to think were an impiety to be punished by the Iudge SECT V. THe Second Argument for the defence of Episcopall government is from the Pedigree of this holy Calling which he derives from no lesse than an Apostolicall and in that right divine institution and assayes to prove it from the practice of the Apostles and as he saith the cleare practice of their Successors continued in Christs Church to this very day and to this Argument he so much confides that he concludes it with this Triumphant Epiphonema What scruple can remain in any ingenuous heart And determines if any continue yet unsatisfied it is in despight of reason and all evidence of History and because he wilfully shuts his eyes with a purpose not to see the light Bona verba By your favour Sir we will tell you notwithstanding the supposed strength of your argumentation there is one scruple yet remaining and if you would know upon what ground it is this because we finde in Scripture which by your own Confession is Originall Authority that Bishops and Presbyters were Originally the same though afterwards they came to be distinguished and in processe of time Episcopacy did swallow up all the honor and power of the Presbytery as Pharaohs lean Kine did the fat Their Identity is discernable first from the same names given unto both secondly from the same office designed unto both in Scripture As for the names are not the same names given unto both in sacred Writ Let the fifth sixth and seventh verses of the first Chapter to Titus testifie in the fifth verse the Apostle shews that he left Titus in Creet to ordaine Elders in every City in the
inequality without any Rule over his brethren Ours claime an eminent Superiority and a power of Ordination and Iurisdiction unknowne to the Primitive times That this which hee supposeth hee heares us say is Scripture Truth we have shewed already c. that there was a parity between Presbyters and Bishops and that eminent superioritie and power of Ordination and Iurisdiction which our Bishops claime was unknowne to Scripture and are now prepared by Gods assistance to prove it was unknowne to primitive times But how doth this Remonstrant meete with this Reply ALAS ALAS HOVV GOOD PEOPLE may be abused by misinformation It seemes the man Judged this Reply so poore as in his thoughts it was more worthy of his pitty then of his paines to answer or rather knew there was more in this Reply then hee knew how to answer and therefore waves it with his Rethoricke And this we rather thinke because hee knowes but little in Antiquity that knowes not that there is so vast a difference betweene our Bishops and those that were not onely in the Apostles dayes whom wee have proved to be undistinguished from Presbyters But those Bishops that were in the Church 400 yeares after when there began to bee some discrimination that Episcopacy may well be likened to the Shippe Argo that was so often repaired as there was nothing left of the First Materialls yet stil it challenged the first Name Which difference we spread before your Honours in three particulars first in point of Election to their office secondly in point of Execution of their office thirdly in point of state-Imployment First having discovered already upon what occasion this priority began to have existence in the Church and from whom it first received its being not from God but from Consent and Custome of the Churches according to Ambrose Ierom Augustine c. Wee come now to Declare what was the manner of Election unto this Prioritie in these times and to shew first how therein these Bishops did differ from ours for all their Elections were ordered by the privity consent and approbation of the people where the Bishops was to serve Were there no other Authours to make this good Cyprian alone would doe it among other places let his 68. Epistle witnesse where he saith plebs Maxime habet potestatem c. The people specially have power either of chusing worthy Priests or rejecting the unworthy for this is derived from Divine Authority that the Priests should bee chosen in the presence of the people before all their eyes and approved as fit and worthy by their publike vote and Testimony This hee proves by the Testimonie of Sacred writ both Old and New Where wee observe first that the speciall power of Judging of the worthinesse or unworthinesse of a man for the Prelacy was in the breast of the People Secondly the speciall power of choosing or rejecting to his place according as they Judged him worthy or unworthy resided in the People Plebs maximé Habet potestatem c. Thirdly that this power did descend upon the People De Divina Authoritate Nor was this the Judgement of one Sole man but of an Affrican Synod consulted by the Spanish Churches in point of Election as the inscription of the Epistle shewes The Obtrusion of a Bishop upon the Church of Alexandria without the Presence desire and vote of the Clergie or People is Condemned by Athanasius not onely as a breach of Canon but as a Transgression of Apostolicall prescript and that it did compell or necessitate the heathen to blaspheme Nor did onely Christian Bishops but Christian Princes acknowledge the Right and power of Election of Bishops to be in the People so that admired Constantine the great Promover and Patron of the peace of the Christian Church writing to the Church of Nicomedia against Eusebius and Theognius tells them the ready way to lay asleepe the Tumults that did then disturbe the Church about the Election of a Bishop was si modo Episcopum fidelem integrum nacti fuerint quod quidem in praesentia in vestrâ situm est potestate quodque etiam dudùm penes vestrum Iudicium fuerat nisi Eusebius de quo dixi pravo eorum qui cum juverunt Consilio hâc praeceps ruisset rectum Eligendi Ordinem impudenter conturbasset Gelas in Act. Concil Nicen. part 3. if they would get a faithfull and upright Bishop which saith he is in your power presently to doe and was long agoe if Eusebius with the ayd of his faction had not rushed in upon you and impudently disturbed the right Order of Election That which this sacred Emperour calls the right order of Election what is it but the Election by the people in whose power he saith it then was and long had beene to choose a Bishop and by whose power the next Bishop was chosen So the same Author tells us that after Eusebius and Theognius were cast out of their severall seats for Arianisme by the Councell of Nice others were appointed in their roomes by the Clergy and people of each Diocesse To this Election in Nicomedia wee could if it were needfull in so cleare a Truth adde many the like Presidents of popular Elections which for brevities sake we passe over Not questioning but that which hath beene spoken is sufficient to informe the intelligent Reader that our Bishops and the Bishops of former times are Tvvo in point of Election SECT VIII A Second thing wherein we have undertaken to shew that our Bishops and the Bishops of former times are Tvvo is in the Execution of their Office and here there are three things wherein he that will not wilfully shut his eyes against all light may see a Latitude of difference betweene ours and former Bishops First in that Sole Iurisdiction which our Bishops assume to themselves Secondly in the Delegation they make of the power of exercising this Iurisdiction unto others Thirdly in the way of the exercise of that power For the first of these Their sole Iurisdiction That our Bishops assume this to themselves it is knowne and felt and that this Sole Iurisdiction was a stranger a Monster to former times wee shall now prove and make cleare that the power of Ordination Admonition Excommunication Absolution was not in the hands of any sole man First for Ordination Cyprian in his exile writing to his Charge certifies them that Aurelius was ordained by him and his Colleagues who were present with him who were these Colleagues but his Presbyters as he himselfe expounds it writing to Lucius in his owne name and the name of his Clergie and people Ego Collegae fraternitas omnis c. I and my Colleagues and my whole people send these Letters to you c. So that it is cleare in Cyprians time Presbyters had a hand in Ordination and Bishops did not Ordaine alone Firmilianus saith of them that rule in the Church Quod baptizandi MANVM
sentence of Saint Ambrose because saith hee Hoc Iudicium Nostrum cum fratribus consacerdotibus participatum processerit Nor was there any kinde of censures that the Bishops did administer alone Admonitions were given by the Elders Augustine tells us the Elders did admonish such as were offenders to the same purpose speakes Origen contra Celsum Lib. 3. So excommunication though that being the dreadfullest thunder of the Church and as Tertullian calls it summum praejudicium futuri Iudicij the great fore-runner of the Judgement of God was never vibrated but by the hand of those that laboured in the Word and Doctrine yet was no one man in the Church invested with this power more then another Therefore saith Hierom Presbytero si peccavero licet me tradere satanae in interitum carnis If I sinne a Presbyter not a Bishop onely may deliver me to Satan to the destruction c. where the Reader may please to take notice that Saint Hierom speakes not of one particular Presbyter but of the Order of Presbyters The same S. Hierom saith againe Sunt quos Ecclesia reprehendit quos interdum abijcit in quos nonnunquam Episcoporum Clericorum censura desaevit There be some whom the Church reprooves and some which shee casts out against whom the censures of Bishops and Presbyters sharply proceed where we see the Censures whereby wicked men were cast out of the Church were not the sole hands of the Bishops but likewise in the hands of Presbyters Syricius Bishop of Rome signifies to the Church of Mâ—llaine that Iovinianus Auxentius c. were cast out of the Church for ever and he sets downe how they did it Omnium Nostrum tam Presbyterorum quam Diaconorum quam totius etiam clerisciscitata fuit sententia There was a concurrence of all Presbyters Deacons and the whole Clergie in that sentence of Excommunication The truth herein may be further evidencâ—d by this because the whole Clergie as well as the Bishops imposed hands uâ—on such as repâ—nting were aâ—solved Nec ad communicationem saith Cyprâ—an venire quis possit nisi prius ab Episcopo Clero Manus illi fuerit imposita No man that hath beene excommunicated might returne to Church-Communion before hands had been laid upon him by the Bishop and Clergie Also writing to his Clergie concerning lapsed Christians he tells them Exomologe si facta manu eis a vobis in poenitentiam impositâ c. that after confession and the laying on their hands they might be commended unto God so when certaine returning from their heresie were to be received into the Church at Rome in the time of Cornelius they came before the Presbyterie and therefore confessed their sinnes and so were admitted But though the sentence of Excommunication was managed oneâ—y by the hand of those that laboured in the Word and Doctrine yet we will not conceale from you that neither Excommunication nor absolution did passe wâ—thout the knowledge and approbation of the body of the Church to which the Deliquent did belong So we have learned out of Tertullian that their censures were ordered in their publike assemblies and good reason because the people were to forbeare communion with such 2 Thes. 3.6 14 15. and publick Censures of the Church were inflicted not onely for the Emendation of delinquents but for the admonition of others and therefore ought to be administred in publick that others might feare 1 Tim. 5.20 Origen speaking of the Duty and Power of the Church in cutting off a scandalous Person though a Presbyter making the case his owne he saith thus In uno consensu Ecclâ—sia universa conspirans excidat me dextram suam projiciat a se He would have the consent of the whole Church in that Act. And when the lapsed Christians were received againe into the Church the Peoples consent was required therein else why should Cyprian say Vix plebi persuadeo imò extorqueo ut tales patiantur admitti I can scarce perswade the people to suffer such to be admitted and in another Epistle written to his people in his Banishment he promiseth to examine all things they being present and judging Examinabuntur singula praesentibus judicantibus vobis But of this power of the People wee shall have a further occasion to speak afterwards when we come to discourse of Governing Elders Onely may it please your Honours from hence to take notice how unjustly our Bishops have invaded this right and power of Presbyters and people in Church censures and devesting both of it have girt it wholly upon themselves and how herein they and the Bishops of former times are TWO SECT X. ANd as our Bishops and the Bishops of former times are TWO in point of Sole Iurisdiction so also in the Delegation of this power of Iurisdiction unto others to their Chancellours Commissaries Officers c. Was ever such a thing as this heard of in the best primitive Times that men that never received Imposition of hands should not onely be received into assistance but be wholly intrusted with the power of Spirituall Iurisdiction Even then when it is to be exercised over such persons as have had hands laid upon them We may observe in Cyprian whilst persecution separated him from his Church when questions did arise among his people he doth not send them to his Chancellour or Commissarie No he was so farre from suâ—stituting any man much lesse a lay man to determine or give Judgement in such cases that hee would not assume that power wholly to himselfe but suspends his Judgement till the hand of God should restore him to his Church againe that with the advice and Counsell of the Presbyters he might give sentence as may appeare to any that shall peruse his Epistles Sure if God had ever led his Church to such a way of deputation it would have been in such a case of Necessity as this was or had any footsteps of such a course as this beene visible by this holy Martyr in the goings of former ages hee needed not have deferred the determination of the question about the receiving of some penitent lapsed ones into the bosome of the Church againe till his returne and the returne of his Clergie as he doth We will instance in his 28 Epistle wherein giving direction for the excommunicating of such as would rashly communicate with lapsed Christians he gives this charge not to his Chancellor or Commissarie or any other man upon whom he had devolved his power and set him as his Deputie or Vicar generall in his absence but ad clerum to the whole Presbyterie This Truth is so cleare that Bishop Downam the great Adâ—ocate of Episcopacie confesseth that in Ambrose his time a good while after which was about 400 yeers til the Presbyters were in a manner wholly neglected the Bishops had no Ordinaries Vicars Chancellors or Commissaries that were not Clergie-men
sixth verse he gives a delineation of the persons that are capable of such Ordination and in the seventh the Reason why the person to be ordained must be so qualified for a Bishop c. Now if the Bishop and Elder be not here the same but names of distinct office and order the Apostles reason rendred in the seventh verse of his direction in the fift and sixt verses is with reverence be it spoken inconsequentiall and his demand unjust If a Chancellor in one of the Vniversities should give Order to his Vice-chancellour to admit none to the decree of Batchelour in Arts but such as were able to preach or keepe a Divinity Act For Batchelours in Divinity must be so what reason or equity were in this So if Paul leaving Titus as his Locum teneus as it were in Creet for a season should give order to him not to admit any to be an Elder but one thus and thus qualified because a Bishop must be so Had a Bishop been an Order or Calling distinct from or superiour to a Presbyter and not the same this had been no more rationall or equall then the former therfore under the name of Bishop in the seventh verse the Apostle intends the Elder mentioned in the fift verse Consonant to this is the Language of the same blessed Apostle Acts 20. verse 17.18 where such as in 17 verse he calls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Elders in the 28. he calls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in ordinary English Bishops though our Translation there we know not for what reason reads it Overseers not so rendring the word in any other Text. And though this Remonstrant undertakes to shew a cleare and received distinction of Bishops Presbyters and Deacons as three distinct subordinate Callings in Gods Church with an evident specification of the duty charge belonging to each of them or els let this claimed Hierarchy be for ever hooted out of the Church Yet let us tell him that we never find in Scripture these 3 Orders Bishops Presbyters Deacons mentioned together but onely Bishops Deacons as Phil. 1. and 1 Tim. Nor do we finde in Scripture any Ordination to the office of a Bishop differing froÌ„ the Ordination of an Elder Nor do we finde in Scripture the specification of any Duty charged upon a Bishop that Elders are secluded from Nor any qualification required in a Bishop that is not requisite in every Presbyter some of which if not all would be found were they not the same But if this Remonstrant thinke to helpe himselfe by taking Sanctuary in Antiquity though we would gladly â—est in Scripture the Sanctuary 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. affirmes that while the Apostles lived the Names of Bishops and Presbyters were not distinguished and not only while the Apostles lived but in after ages Doth not Irenaeus use the name of Bishops and Presbyters 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in a promiscuous sence 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 heare Bishops called presbyters when Presbyters writing to their Bishops 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 beame 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 wee 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 ordaine others to that worke is it to rule to governe 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 Councell For the first Edifying of the Church by word and Sacraments though we feare they will some of them at least scarce owne this as their proper worke for some have beene citeâ— into the High Commission for saying it belongs to them yet Sir we are sure Scripture makes it a part a chiefe of the Episcopall office for so in the 1 Pet 5.2 they are said to doe the worke of a Bishop when they doe feede the flocke of God And this is such a worke as we hope their Lordships will give the poore 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 worke upon our hands and Woe unto us if we preach not the Gospell But this branch of Episcopall and Presbyteriall 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 Ministeriall 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 wee â—inde 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 taken in Scripture as in Luke 22. vers 66. Act. 22. vers 5. which the Christian Church called the Ecclesiasticall Senate as Ierom in Isay 3. Nos habemus in Ecclesia Senatum nostrum Coetum Presbyterorum an Apostolicall 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 well as by himselfe 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 betweene 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 wholy to themselves yet we shall discover that it hath beene
IMPONENDI ET ORDINANDI possident potestatem And who those be he expresseth a little before SENIORES Praepositi by whom the Presbyters as well as the Bishops are understood And as these places prove that Bishops in the Primitive time could not ordaine alone without the Presbyters so there are that give us light to understand that the Presbyters might ordaine without the Bishop The Author of the Comment upon the Ephesians that goes under the name of Ambrose saith Apud Aegyptum Presbyteri consignant si praesens non sit Episcopus In Egypt the Presbyters ordaine if the Bishop be not present so saith Augustine in the same words and the Chorepiscopus who was but a Presbyter had power to impose hands and to ordaine within his precincts with the Bishops Licence Now Licences conferre not a power to him that hath it not but onely a facultie to exercise that power he hath The Iniquitie of our times hath beene such that a Minister may not Preach to his owne flocke without a Licence doth this Licence make a man a Minister and give him power to preach or onely a facultie and libertie to exercise that power Should a Bishop give a Laike a Licence to preach or to ordaine doth that Licence make him a Minister or a Bishop Sure all will say no why because in the Laike there is not Actus primus the roote and principle of that power which Licence onely opens a way to the exercise of and therefore that must bee concluded to be in those Chorepiscopi or Presbyters by vertue of their place and calling and not by vertue of a Licence So that the power of Ordination was so farre from residing in the Bishop alone as that the Presbyters and Chorepiscopi had power to ordaine as well as he Neither was this onely a matter of Ecclesiasticall Custome but of Ecclesiasticall Constitution which binds the Bishop First in all his Ordinations to consult with his Clergy Vt Episcopus sine Consilio Clericorum suorum Clericos non ordinet That the Bishop shall not ordaine a Clergy man without the counsel of the Clergy this was Cyprians practice Epist. 33. Secondly in his Ordinations to take the concurrent assistance of his Presbyters Cum ordinatur Presbyter Episcopo cum benedicent◠manum super caput ejus tenente etiam omnes Presbyteri qui praesentes sunt manu◠suas juxta manum Episcopi super caput illius teneant When a Presbyter is ordained the Bishop blessing him and holding his hand upon his head all the Presbyters that are present shall likewise lay their hands upon his head with the hands of the Bishop In which Canon we have the unanimous vote of two hundred and fourteene Bishops declaring that the power of Ordination is in the hands of Presbyters as well as Bishops And whereas it may be objected that Hiorome and Chrysostome affirming Bishops to differ from Presbyters in the power of Ordination seeme to imply that that power is soly theirs Here we desire it may be observed First that these Fathers put all the difference that lyes betweene Bishops and Presbyters to be in point of Ordination Quid facit Episcopus quod non facit Presbyter exceptâ Ordinatione And therefore Chrysostome himselfe confesseth that in his dayes there was little or no difference between a Bishop and a Presbyter Inter Episcopū et Presbyterū interest fermè nihil c. Secondly That this difference is not so to be understood as if these Fathers did hold it to be by divine right as Bellarmine and our Episcopall men would make us beleeve but by a humane constitution And therefore they doe not speak De jure but de facto Quid facit c. not quid debet facere And this Hierom confesseth So Leo prim ep 88. upon complaints of unlawfull Ordinations writing to the Germane and French Bishops reckons up what things are reserved to the Bishops Among which he set down Presbyterorum Diaconorum consecratio and then adds Quae omnia solis deberi summis Pontificibus Authoritate Canonam praecipitur So that for this power of Ordination they are more beholden to the Canon of the Church then to the Canon of Gods Word Thirdly we answer that this very humane difference was not in the Primitive Antiquity It was not so in Cyprians time as we even now shewed And when it did prevaile it was but a particular custome and sometimes usurpation of some Churches For it was otherwise appointed in the Councell of Carthage and in Egypt and other places as is declared in the former part of this Section And even in Chrysostomes time it was so little approved of that it was one great accusation against Chrysostome himselfe That hee made Ordinations without the Presbytery and without the consent of his Clergie This is quoted by Bishop Downam lib. 1. cap. 8. pag. 176. SECT IX NOr had the Bishop of former times more right to the power of sole Iurisdiction then of sole Ordination And here we have Confitentem reum our very Adversaries confesse the Votes of Antiquity are with us Cyprian professeth that hee would doe nothing without the Clergie nay he could doe nothing without them nay hee durst not take upon him alone to determine that which of right did belong to all and had hee or any other done so the fourth Councell of Carthage condemnes the Sentence of the Bishop as Irrita nisi Clericorum sententiâ confirmetur Would yee know the particulars wherein the Bishops had no power of Judicature without their Presbyters First in judging and censuring Presbyters themselves and their Doctrine For this the Canon Law in Gratian is full and cleare Episcopus non potest Iudicare Presbyterum vel Diaconum sine Synodo Senioribus Thus Basill counselled and practised epist. 75. So Ambr. lib. 10. epist. 80 Cyrill in epist. ad Iohannem Antiochen Thus Gregory ad Iohan. Panormitan lib. 11. epist 49. Secondly in judging of the Conversation or Crimes of any of the members of the Church Penes Presbyteros est Disciplina quae facit hom ines meliores That Discipline that workes emendaion in men is in the power of the Elders And therefore when any was questioned in point of conversation hee was brought saith Tertullian into the Congregation where were Exhortations Castigations and Divine censures And who had the chiefe stroke in these Censures he tells us after Praesident probati quique seniores All the approved Elders sit as Presidents And those censures that passed by the whole Presbytery were more approved by the Church in Ancient times then such as were passed by one man for wee finde that when Syagrius and Ambrose passed Sentence in the same case the Church was unsatisfied in the Sentence of Syagrius because he past it sine alicujus fratris consilio without the counsell or consent of any of his Brethren But were pacified with the
in their Polemicks yet in their Practicks a power that Timothy and Titus and those angels never did Thirdly Whereas this remonstrant saith If there can be better evidence under Heaven for any matter of fact let Episcopacy be for ever abandoned out of Gods Church We beseech you remember how weake we have discovered his Evidence to be and then the Inference upon all these we humbly leave to your Honours Wisedome and Iustice. SECT XIIII HAving thus considered the validity of those arguments whereby this remonstrant would suffult Episcopacy we descend now to inquire what satisfaction he gives to those objections which himselfe frames as the maine if not the sole arguments that Episcopacy is asfaultable by and they are two First that pleading the Divine right of Episcopacy is to the prejudice of Soveraignty Secondly that it casts a dangerous imputation upon all those reformed Churches that want this Government To the first the prejudice of Soveraignty he answers 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 Bishopricke But we have proved already that God never made a Bishop as he stands in his Superioritie over all other Presbyters he never had Gods Fiat and if they disclaime the influence of soveraignty unto their creation to a priority and assert that the King doth not make them Bishops they must have no being at all Sure we are the Lawes of the Land proclaime that not onely Bishopricks but Bishops and all the Iurisdiction they have is from the King whereas the Remonstrant acknowledgeth no more but the bare place and exercise to be from Regall donation which cannot bee affirmed without apparent prejudice of that Soveraigntie which the Lawes of the Land have invested our Princes with And for his unworthy comparison of Kings in order to Bishops and Patrons in order to their Clerkes when he shall prove that the patron gives ministeriall power to his Clerke as the Kâ—nâ— according to our Laws gives Episcopall power to the Bishop â— it may be of some conducement to his cause but till then we leave the unfitnesse of this comparison and the unthankfulnesse of those men to the indulgence of their Soveraigne to their deserved recompence His learned answer to such men as borrowing Saint Ieroms phrase speake Saint Pauls truth is in summe this That he knâ—wâ—s not how to prescribe to mens thoughts but for all his Rhetoricke they will thinke what they list but if they will grant him the question they shall soone be at an end of the quarrell which one answer if Satisfactory would silence all controversies to as good purpose as he did Bellarmine who said Bellarmine saith it is thus and I say it is not and where is Bellarmine now To the second objection that Episcopacie thus asserted casts an imputation upon all the reformed Churches that want that Government hee saith that the objection is intended to raise envie against them who if they may be beleeved love and honour those sister Churches and blesse God for them But doe they not plucke all this envie upon themselves who in their Conferences Writings Pulpits Vniversities Disputes High Commission Declamations have disclaimed them us no Churches that have disclaimed the Prelats and have honoured the most glorious Lights of those Reformed Churches Calvin Beza and others with no better titles than of Rascalls Blasphemers c. But the pith of his answer after a few good words is this that no such consequent can be drawne from their opinion for their Ius divinum pleads only for a Iustifiablenesse of this holy calling Not for an absolute necessity of it warranting it where it is and requiring it where it may be had but not fixing upon the Church that wants it the defect of any thing of the Essence of a Church but only of the glory and perfection of it neither is it their sin but their misery And is it so doth not this Ius divinum argue a Necessitie but onely a Iustifiablenesse of this calling nor is the want of it a want of any thing of Essence but onely of perfection wee had thought that page the twentieth where this Remonstrant strives to fetch the pedegree of Episcopacie from no lesse than Apostolicall and in that right Divine institution he had reckoned it among those things which the Apostles ordained for the succeeding administration of the Church in essentiall matters but here it seemes he is willing to retract what there fell from him there it was to his advantage to say this government was a thing essentiall to the Church and here it is no lesse advantage to say it is not essentiall But if it be not Essentiall then what is the reason that when a Priest who hath received orders at Rome turnes to us they urge not him to receive ordination among us againe but when some of our brethren who flying in Queene 〈◊〉 dayes had received Imposition of hands in the Reformed Churches beyond the Seas returned againe in the dayes of Queene Elizabeth they were urged to receive Imposition of hands againe from our Bishops and some did receive it If those Churches that want Bishops want nothing essentiall to a Church then what Essentiall want was there in the ordination of those Ministers that received Imposition of hands in those Churches that might deserve a Re-ordination more than if they had first received their ordination at Rome And what is the reason that Bishop Mountague so confidently affirmes that Ordination by Episcopall hands is so necessary as that thâ— Church is no true Church without it and the Ministery no true Ministery and ordinarily no salvation to be obtained without it And if this Remonstrant should leave Bishop Mountague to answer for himselfe yet notwithstanding he stands bound to give us satisfaction to these two questions which arise from his owne Booke First whether that Office which by divine right hath the sole power of Ordaining and Ruling all other Officers in the Church as he saith Episcopacy hath belong not to the being but onely to the glory and perfection of a Church Secondly there being in this mans thoughts the same Ius divinum for Bishops that there is for Pastors and Elders whether if those Reformed Churches wanted Pastors and Elders too they should want nothing of the Essence of a Church but of the perfection and glory of it But this Remonstrant seemes to know so much of the minde of those Churches that if they might have their option they would most gladly embrace Episcopall Government as littlâ— differing from their owne Moderatorship save onely in the perpetuitie of it and the new Invention as hee odiously calls it of Lay Elders But no question those learned Worthies that were entrusted by the Churches to compile their confessions did comprise their Iudgements better than the Composer of this Remonstrance And to his presumption wee oppose their Confession Wee will begin with
Subscriptions there would be no more Subscription to Ceremonies in the Churches of England But some will say that there is one objection out of Scripture yet unanswered and that is from the inequality that was betweene the twelve Apostles and the seventy Disciples To which we answer First that it cannot bee proved that the twelve Apostles had any superiority over the seventy either of Ordination or Jurisdiction Or that there was any subordination of the seventy unto the twelve But suppose it were yet we answer Secondly that a superiority and inferiority betweene Officers of different kindes will not prove that there should be a superiority and inferiority betweene Officers of the same kinde No man will deny but that in Christs time there were Apostles Evangelists Prophets Pastors and teachers and that the apostles were superior to Evangelists and Pastors But it cannot bee proved that one apostle had any superiority over another apostle or one Evangelist over another And why then should one Presbyter be over another Hence it followeth that though we should grant a superiority betweene the twelve and the seventy yet this will not prove the question in hand Because the question is concerning Officers of the same kinde and the instance is of Officers of different kinds amongst whom no man will deny but there may be a superiority and inferiority as there is amongst us between Presbyters and Deacons And now let your Honours judge considering the premisses how farre this Episcopall government is from any Divine right or Apostolicall institution And how true that speech of Hierome is that a bishop as it is a superior Order to a Presbyter is an Humane praesumption not a divine Ordinance But though Scripture failes them yet the indulgence and Munificence of Religious Princes may support them and to this the Remonstrant makes his next recourse yet so as he acknowledgeth here Ingagements to Princes onely for their accessory dignities titles and Maintenance not at all for their stations and functions wherein yet the author plainely acknowledgeth a difference betweene our Bishops and the Bishops of old by such accessions For our parts we are so farre from envying the gracious Munificence of pious Princes in collating honourable maintenance upon the Ministers of Christ that we beleeve that even by Gods owne Ordinance double Honour is due unto them And that by how much the Ministery of the Gospell is more honourable then that of the Law by so much the more ought all that embrace the Gospell to bee carefull to provide that the Ministers of the Gospell might not onely live but maintaine Hospitalitie according to the Rule of the Gospell And that worthy Gentleman spake as an Oracle that said That scandalous Maintenance is a great cause of a scandalous Ministery Yet wee are not ignorant that when the Ministery came to have Agros domos locationes vehicula equos latifundia as Chrysost. Hom. 86. in Matth. That then Religio peperit divitias filia devoravit Matrem religion brought forth riches and the Daughter devoured the Mother and then there was a voyce of Angels heard from Heaven Hodie venenum in Ecclesiam Christi cecidit this Day is poyson shed into the Church of Christ. And then it was that Ierome complained Christi Ecclesia postquam ad Christianos principes venit potentiâ quidem divitiis major sed virtutibus minor facta est Then also was that Conjunction found true That when they had woodden Chalices they had golden Priests but when their Chalices were golden their Priests were wooden And though we doe not thinke there is any such incompossibility but that large Revenues may be happily managed with an humble sociablenesse yet it is very rare to finde History tells us that the superfluous revenues of the Bishops not onely made them neglect their Ministery but further ushered in their stately and pompous attendance which did so elevate their Spirits that they insulted over their brethren both Clergy and People and gave occasion to others to hate and abhorre the Christian Faith Which Eusebius sets forth fully in the pride of Paulus Samosatenus who notwithstanding the meannesse and obscurity of his birth afterwards grew to that height of Insolâ—ncâ— and pride in all his carriage especially in that numerous traine that attended him in the streetes and in his stately throne raised after the manner of Kings and Princes that Fides nostra inviâ—â—ia odiâ— propter fostum superbiâ—m cordis illius facta fuerit obnexia the Christian faith was exposed to envy and hatred through his pride And as their ambition fed with the largenesse of their revenewes discovered it selfe in great attendance stately dwellings and all Lordly pompe so Hierom complaines of their pride in their stately seates qui velut in aliqua sublimi specula constituti vix dignantur vidâ—re mortales alloqui conservos suos who sitting aloft as it were in a watch tower will scarce deigne to looke upon poore mortalis or speake to their fellow servants Here we might bee large in multiplying severall testimonies against the pride of Ecclesiasticall persons that the largenesse of their revenues raysed them to but we will conclude with that grave complaint of Sulpitius Severus Ille qui ante pedibus aut asello ire consueverat spumante equo superbus invebitur parvá prius ac vili cellula contentus habitare erigit celsa Laquearia construit multa conclaviu sculpit postes pingit armaria vestem respuit gressiorem indumentum molle desiderat c. Which because the practise of our times hath already turned into English wee spare the labour to translate Onely suffer us being now to give a Vale to our remonstrants arguments to recollect some few things First whereas this remonstâ—ant saith If we doe not shew out of the true genuine writings of those holy men that lived in the Apostles dayes a cleare and received distinction of Bishopsâ— Presbyters and Deacons as three distinct subordinate callings with an evident specification of the duty belonging to each of them Let this claimed Hierarchie be for ever rooted out of the Church We beseech you let it be rememred how we have proved out of the genuine and undeniable writings of the Apostles themselves that these are not three distinct callings Bishops are Presbyters being with them all one Name and Office and that the distinction of Bishops and Presbyters was not of Divine Institution but Humane and that these Bishops in their first Institution did not differ so much from Presbyters as our present Bishops differ from them Secondly Whereas this remonstant saith If our Bishops challenge any other power then was by Apostolike authority delegated to and required of Timothy and Titus and the Angells of the Asian Churches Let them bee disclaimed as usurpers Wee desire it may be remembred how wee have proved first that Timothy and Titus and the Angels were no Diocesan bishops and secondly that our bishops challenge if not
firebrand to the civill warres that followed In this time Peckam Archbishop of Can. in a Synod was tempering with the Kings liberties but being threatned desisted But his successor Winchelsey on occasion of Subsidies demanded of the Clergie made answer That having two Lords one Spirituall the other Temporall he ought rather to obey the Spirituall governour the Pope but that he would send to the Pope to know his pleasure and so persisted even to beggerie The Bishop of Durham also cited by the King flies to Rome In the deposing of this King who more forward then the Bishop of Hereford witnesse his Sermon at Oxford My head my head aketh concluding that an aking and sick head of a King was to be taken off without further Physick Iohn the Archbishop of Canterbury suspected to hinder the Kings glorious victories in Flanders and France by stopping the conâ—eyance of moneys committed to his charge conspiring therein with the Pope But not long after was constituted that fatall praemunire which was the first nipping of their courage to seeke aide at Rome And next to that the wide wounds that Wickleffe made in their sides From which time they have beene falling and thenceforth all the smoke that they could vomit was turned against the rising light of pure doctrine Yet could not their pride misse occasion to set other mischief on foot For the Citizens of London rising to apprehend a riotous servant of the Bishop of Salisbury then Lord Treasurer who with his fellowes stood on his guard in the Bishops house were by the Bishop who maintained the riot of his servant so complained of that the King therewith seized on their liberties and set a Governour over the Citie And who knowes not that Thomas Arundell Archbishop of Canterbury was a chiefe instrument and agent in deposing King Richard as his actions and Sermon well declares The like intended the Abbot of Westminster to Henry the fourth who for no other reason but because hee suspected that the King did not favour the wealth of the Church drew into a most horrible conspiracie the Earles of Kent Rutland and Salisbury to kill the King in a turnament at Oxford who yet notwithstanding was a man that professed to leave the Church in better state then hee found it For all this soone after is Richard Scroop Archbishop of York in the field against him the chiefe attractor of the rebellious party In these times Thomas Arundell a great persecutor of the Gospel preached by Wifclefs followers dies a fearefull death his tongue so swelling within his mouth that hee must of necessity starve His successor Chickeley nothing milder diverts the King that was looking too neerely into the superfluous revenewes of the Church to a bloody warre All the famous conquests which Henry the fifth had made in France were lost by a civill dissension in England which sprung first from the haughty pride of Beaufort Bishop and Cardinall of Winchester and the Archbishop of York against the Protector Speed 674. In the civill warres the Archbishop sides with the Earle of Warwick and March in Kent Speed 682. Edward the fourth Mountacute Archbishop of Yorke one of the chiefe conspirators with Warwicke against Edward the fourth and afterwards his Jaylor being by Warwickes treason committed to this Bishop In Edward the fifths time the Archbishop of York was though perhaps unwittingly yet by a certaine fate of of Prelacie the unhappy instrument of pulling the young Duke of Yorke out of Sanctuary into his cruell Unckles hands Things being setled in such a peace as after the bloodie brawles was to the afâ—licted Realme howsoever acceptable though not such as might bee wished Morton Bishop of Ely enticing the Duke of Buckingham to take the Crowne which ruin'd him opened the vaines of the poore subjects to bleede afresh The intollerable pride extortion bribery luxurie of Wolsey Archbishop of Yorke who can bee ignorant of selling dispensations by his power Legantine for all offences insulting over the Dukes and Peeres of whom some hee brought to destruction by bloodie policie playing with State affâ—ires according to his humour or benefit causing Turnay got with the blood of many a good Souldier to be rendred at the French Kings secret request to him not without bribes with whom one while siding another while with the Emperour hee sold the honour and peace of England at what rates hee pleased and other crimes to bee seene in the Articles against him Hol. 912. and against all the Bishops in generallâ— 911. which when the Parliament sought to remedie being most excessive extortion in the Ecclesiasticall Courts the Bishops cry out sacriledge the Church goes to ruine as it did in Bohem with the Schisme of the Hussites Ibid. After this though the Bishops ceased to bee Papists for they preached against the Popes Supremacie to please the King yet they ceased not to oppugne the Gospel causing Tindals translation to be burnt yet they agreed to the suppressing of Monasteries leaving their revenewes to the King to make way for the six bloodie Articles which proceedings with all crueltie of inquisition are set downe Holinsh. pag. 946. till they were repealed the second of Edward the sixth stopping in the meane while the cause of reformation well begunne by the Lord Cromwell And this mischiefe was wrought by Steven Gardiner Bishop of Winchester The sixe Articles are set downe in Speed pag. 792. The Archbishop of Saint Andrewes his hindring of Englands and Scotlands Union for feare of reformation Speed 794. As for the dayes of King Edward the sixth we cannot but acknowledge to the glorie of the rich mercie of God tâ—at there was a great reformation of Religion made even to admiration And yet notwithstanding we doe much dislike the humour of those that crie up those dayes as a compleat patterne of reformation and that endeavour to reduce our Religion to the first times of King Edward which wee conceive were comparatively very imperfect there being foure impediments which did much hinder that blessed work The three rebellions One in Henry the eighths time by the Priests of Lincolne and Yorkeshire for that reformation which Cromwell had made The other two in King Edwards dayes One in Cornewall the other in Yorkeshire The strife that arose suddenly amongst the Peeres emulating one anothers honour Speed pag 837. The violent opposition of the Popish Bishops which made Martin Bucer write to King Edward in his booke de Regno Christi Lib. 2. cap. 1. and say your Majestie doth see that this restoring againe the Kingdome of Christ which wee require yea which the salvation of us all requireth may in no wise bee expected to come from the Bishops seeing there be so few among them which doe understand the power and proper Offices of this Kingdome and very many of them by all meanes
which possibly they can and dare either oppose themselves against it or deferre and hinder it The deficiencie of zeale and courage even in those Bishops who afterwards proved Martyrs witnesse the sharp contention of Ridley against Hooper for the ceremonies And the importunate suit of Cranmer and Ridley for tolleration of the Masse for the Kings sister which was rejected by the Kings not only reasons but teares whereby the young King shewed more zeale then his best Bishops 839. The inhumane butcheries blood-sheddings and cruelties of Gardiner Bonner and the rest of the Bishops in Queene Maries dayes are so fresh in every mans memory as that we conceive it a thing altogether unnecessary to make mention of them Onely wee feare least the guilt of the blood then shed should yet remaine to be required at the hands of this Nation because it hath not publikely endeavoured to appease the wrath of God by a generall and solemne humiliation for it What the practises of the Prelats have beene ever since from the beginning of Queene Elizabeth to this present day would fill a volume like Ezekiels roule with lamentation mourning and woe to record For it hath beene their great designe to hinder all further reformation to bring in doctrines of Popery Arminianisme and Libertinisme to maintaine propagate and much encrease the burden of humane ceremonies to keepe out and beate downe the Preaching of the Word to silence the faithfull Preachers of it to oppose and persecute the most zealous professours and to turne all Religion into a pompous out-side And to tread downe the power of godlinesse Insomuch as it is come to an ordinary Proverb that when any thing is spoyled wee use to say The Bishops foot hath beene in it And in all this and much more which might be said fulfilling Bishop Bonners Prophesie who when hee saw that in King Edwards reformation there was a reservation of ceremonies and Hierarchy is credibly reported to have used these words Since they have begun to tast of our Broath it will not be long ere they will eat of our Beefe FINIS 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Pag. 23. Pag. 1. Pag. 2. Pag. 3. Pag. 6. Pag. 2. Pag 7. Vntruths Râ—moâ—â— pag 8. Malmesbury lib. 4. Hist. Concil Trid. Pag. 9. Liturgie Pag. 10. a Ad hoc malarum devâ—lutae est Ecclesia Dei sponâ—a Christi ut haereticorum exempla Sectentuâ— ad celebranda Sacramenta coelestia disciplinam Lux muâ—uetur de tenebâ—â—â— â—d faciant christiani quod Antichristi faciunt Cypr. Ep. 74. Page 13. Iust. Mar. Apost 2. Tert. Ap. ad Gen. c. 39. Iust. Mar. Apost 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Concil La. Can. 18. Conc. Carth. 3. Can. 23. Anno 397. Conc. Milev 2. Can. 12. An. 416. Pag. 10. Pag. 12. Pag. 18. Pag. 11. Euseb. de vit Con. li 4. cap. 18. Pag. 11. Pag. 12. Pag. 12. Pag. 13. D. Corbet M. Novel Pag. 13. Pag. 13. Pag. 13 14. Abbot against Church â—oâ—sakers Ob. Answ. Pag. 17. Pag. 17. Pag. 17. * Pag. 2. a One of these Sonnes of the Church of England whose messenger this Remonstrance is was he who swore by the Eternall God he would be the death of those that did appeare to move against the grievances of Episcopacy and if the rest of these Millions mentioned pag. 2. whos 's thousands are so punctually calculated p. 41 be of his spirit they are an army of very peaceable right-affected men Pag. 7. Evaristus 100. Dionysius 260. Some say 267. as Pol. Virg. Ioh. Maior l. 2. Hist. de gest Scot. Cap. 2. Heylins Geog. p. 55. Gener. Hist. of Spain l. 22 Pag. 9. Pag. 18. Pag. 18. Pag. 18. a Frustra consuetudineÌ„ nobis opponunt quasi consuetudo major sit vâ—riâ—tate aut non id sit in spiritualibus sâ—quenduâ— quod in melius â—uerit à Spiritu Sancto Râ—velatum Cypr Ep. 73. b It is well observed by Gerhaâ—d that a Bishop â—hrasi Apostolicâ that is a Bishop that is the same with a Presbyter is of fifteene hundred yeares standing but a Bishop â—hrosi Ponâ— siâ—iâ that is a distinct order superiour to a Presbyter invested with sole power of Ordination and Iurisdiction is but a Novell Inventionâ— Pag. 19. Pag. 19. a What the establishment of Episcopacy by the Lawes iâ— and upon what grounded the learned Sir Edward Cooke informes us who reports That in an Act of Parliament holden at Carlile in the 25. yeare of Edw. 1. it is deâ—lared that the holy Church of England was founded in the state of Prelacy within the Realme of England by the King and hâ—s Progenitours c. for them to infoâ—me the people in the Law of God and to keep â—ospitality and give almeâ— and do other workes of charity And the said Kings in times past were wont to have their advise and counsell for the safe-guard of the Realme when they had need of such Prelates and Clarkes so advanced Cooke de jure Regis Ecclesiastâ—co But whether Bishops have observed the Orders of their first foundation c. Pag. 19 20. Pag. 21. Pag. 8. Pag. 24. Hierony Ep. ad Euag. ad Ocea Iren. adver haer l. 4. cap. 43.44 Hist. Lib. 5. Cap. 23. Bellarm. de Cleric Lib. 1. cap. 15. a Presbyte 〈◊〉 secut Epâ—sâ—â—pis 〈…〉 Dâ—icommissa est Presunt eum Ecclesiae Christi in Consecratâ—one Domiâ—ici 〈…〉 consâ—râ—es 〈…〉 Eâ—iâ—copis 〈◊〉 in Doctrina Populorum in 〈…〉 proptâ—r autoritâ—tem summo Sacerdott Clericorum Ordinaâ—io reservâ—â—a â—st Coâ—â—â— 1 〈◊〉 priâ— m Can. 8. Eâ—â—ngeliâ—m â—â—but his qui praeâ—unt Ecclesie Maâ—â—atum docendi Evangâ—lii remâ—ttâ—â—di pecâ—â—â—â— admâ—â—â—straâ—di Saâ—ramenta praeâ—erea jurisdictionem videlicet Maâ—datum Excommâ—nâ—andi cos qâ—â—rum 〈◊〉 sunt crimina Resipiscen es rursum absolvendi Ac Omaâ—◠〈◊〉 etiam adversâ—rioru◠〈◊〉 hinc potestaâ—em Jare Divino commâ—◠〈…〉 qui presant Ecclesiae sive Pastores voâ—â—atur sive Presbyteri Sive Eâ—isâ—opi Sâ—ripâ—â—â— Philip. Melanch in Conventu Smalcald Anno. 1540. a precipuis illarâ—m Ecclesiarum Dictoribus commani Consensu comprobatum de potestate jurisdictione Episcâ—porum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ierom. Isa. 3. Igna. Epis. ad Magnes Conc. Ancyr Can. 18. Pag. 20. Tertull. a At ubi omnia â—oca Circumplexa est Ecclesia â—Conventicula conâ—itula sunt caeperunt Râ—ctores Caetera Ossiâ—â—a in Ecclesia sunt ordinata Caepit aliot ordine Providentia gâ—bernari Ecclesia Ideo non per omnia conveniunt Scâ—ipta Apostoli ordinationi quae nunc in Ecclesia est quia haec inter iâ—sa primordia scripta sunt Naâ— Timotheâ—m à se Presbyterum Creatum Episcopam vâ—caâ— c. Sed quia caeâ—erunt sequentes Presbyteri indigns inventri ad pruratus tâ—nendos immuâ—ata est 〈◊〉 c. Hierom ad Evag. Ambros. ubi prius Grego Naz. Orat. 28. Pag. 21.22 Greg. Nazi vbi prius Pag. 22. Pag. 23. Pag. 23. a Plebs ipsa Maximè habet potestatem vel Eligendi Dignos Sacerdotes vel indignos
committed to and exercised by Presbyteriall hands For who are they of whom the Scripture speakes Heb. 13.17 Obey them that have the Rule over you for they watch for your soules as they that must give an account c. Here all such as watch over the soules of Gods people are intituled to rule over them So that unlesse Bishops will say that they only watch over the soules of Gods people and are only to give an account for them they cannot challenge to themselves the sole rule over them And if the Bishops can give us good security that they will acquit us from giving up our account to God for the soules of his people we will quit our plea and resigne to them the sole rule over them So againe in the 1 Thessa. 5.12 Know them which labour amongst you and are over you in the Lord and admonish you In which words are contained these truthes First that in one Church for the Thessalonians were but one Church 1 Ca. there was not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 â— but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not one chiefe Bishop or President but the Presidency was in many Secondly that this presidency was of such as laboured in the word and Doctrine Thirdly that the Censures of the Church were managed not by one but by them all in Communi Them that admonish you Fourthly that there was among them a Parity for the Apostles bids know them in an Indifferency not discriminating one from another yea such was the rule that Elders had that S. Peter thought it needfull to make an exhortation to them to use their power with Moderation not Lording it over Gods Heritage 1 Pet. 5.3 By this time we have sufficiently proved from Scripture that Bishops and Presbyters are the same in name in Office in Edifying the Church in power of Ordination and Iurisdiction we summe up all that hath beene spoken in one argument They which have the same Name the same Ordination to their Office the same qualification for their Office the same worke to feede the flock of God to ordaine pastors and Elders to Rule and Governe they are one and the same Office but such are Bishops and presbyters Ergo. SECT VI. BUt the dint of all this Scripture the Remonstrant would elude by obtruding upon his reader a commentary as he calls it of the Apostles own practise which hee would force to contradict their own rules to which he superadds the unquestioÌ„able glosse of the cleare practise of their immediate successors in this administration For the Apostles practise we have already discovered it from the Apostles own writings and for his Glosse he superadds if it corrupts not the Text we shall admit it but if it doe we must answer with Tertullian Id verum quodcunque primum id adulterum quod posterius whatsoever is first is true but that which is latter is adulterous In the examination of this Glosse to avoyd needlesse Controversie First wee take for granted by both sides that the first and best Antiquitie used the names of Bishops and Presbyters promiscuously Secondly that in processe of time some one was honoured with the name of Bishop and the rest were called Presbyters or Cleri Thirdly that this was not Nomen inane but there was some kinde of Imparitie betweene him and the rest of the Presbyters Yet in this we differ that they say this Impropriation of name and Imparity of place is of Divine Right and Apostolicall Institution we affirme both to be occasionall and of humane Invention and undertake to shew out of Antiquitie both the occasion upon which and the Persons by whom this Imparity was brought into the Church On our parts stands Ierome and Ambrose and others whom we doubt not but our Remonstrant wil grant a place among his Glossators Saint Ierome tells us in 1 Tit. Idem est ergo Presbyter qui Episcopus antequam Diaboli instinctu studia in Religione â—ierent diceretur in populis ego sum Pauli ego Apollo ego Cephae Communi Presbyterorum Consilio ecclesiae gubernabantur Postquam verò unusquisque eos quos baptizaverat suos putabat esse non Christi in toto Orbe decretum est ut unus de Presbyteris electus superponeretur caeteris ad quem omnis Ecclesiae Cura pertineret schismatum semina â—olicrentur Putat aliquts non Scripturarum sed nostram esse sentâ—ntiam Episcopum Presbyterum unum esse aliud aetatis aliud esse nomen officii relâ—gat Apostoli ad Philippenses verba dicentis Paulus Timotheus servi Iesis Christi qui sunt Philippis cum Episcopis Diaconis c. Philippi una est urbs Macedoniae certè in unâ Civitate non poterant plures esse ut nuncupantur Episcopi c. sicut ergo Presbyteri sciant se ex Ecclesiae consuetudine ei qui sibi praepositus fuerit esse subjectos Ita Episcopi noverint se magis consuetudine quam dispositionis Dominicae veritate Presbyteris esse majores in Communi debere Ecclesiam regere A Presbyter and a Bishop is the same and before there were through the Devils instinct divisions in Religion and the people began to say I am of Paul and I of Apollo and I of Cephas The Churches were governed by the Common Counsell of the Presbyters But after that each man began to account those whom hee had baptized his owne and not Christs it was decreed thorow the whole world that one of the Presbyters should be set over the rest to whom the Care of all the Church should belong that the seeds of schisme might be taken away Thinkes any that this is my opinion and not the opinion of the Scripture that a Bishop and an Elder is the same let him reade the words of the Apostle to the Philippians saying Paul and Timothy the servants of Jesus Christ to them that are at Philippi with the Bishops Deacons Philippi is one City of Macedonia and certainly in one Citie there could not be many Bishops as they are now called c. and after the allegations of many other Scriptures he concludes thus as the Elders therefore may know that they are to be subject to him that is set over them by the Custome of the Church so let the Bishops know that it is more from custome then from any true dispensation from the Lord that they are above the Presbyters and that they ought to rule the Church in common In which words of Ierome these five things present themselves to the Readers view First that Bishops and Presbyters are originally the same Idem ergo est Presbyter qui Episcopus Secondly that that Imparitie that was in his time betweene Bishops and Elders was grounded upon Ecclesiasticall Custome and not upon divine Institution Episcopi noverint c. Thirdly that this was not his private judgement but the judgement of Scripture Putat aliquis c. Fourthly that before this Prioritie was upon this occasion started