in the beginning of the Section he saith This was one of the Acts that was APPROPRIATED to Bishops ALONE and is not this to challenge sole power of ordination afterwards in the same Section he saith Ordination is one of the things so Intrinsecall to Episcopacy that in the judgement of the Church no extremity of Necessity was sufficient warrant to diffuse it into other hands The same power of ordination doe Bishop Bilson Andrewes Davenant Mountague c. challenge to Episcopacy Now Reader judge is the sole theirs by challenge or no And what they challenge that they practise we doubt not but the Remonstrants conscience can tell him there are many instances in England to be produced of men ordained in England without the hands of any Presbyter The Remonstrant is as unhappy as peremptory in his challenge he makes I challenge them to shew any one instance in the Church of England Sir the instances are without number Some of us are ocular witnesses of many scores at severall ordinations ordained by a Bishop in his private Chappell without the presence of any Presbyter but his owne domesticke Chaplaine and without any assistance from him save onely in reading prayers But alasse what should we fall to instances Put case an Irish or Welsh Bishop ordaines one at London in his chamber or some Chappell and admits him which commends the person to him to joyne for fashion sake in the gesture of imposition of hands be hee of what place or Diocesse he will how little doth this differ from sole ordination and how much from that Regular and ordinate ordination of former times Sir these are poore toyes to mocke the Church withall if not God himselfe too Could such a Bishop say as well as Cyprian Ego Collegae You tell us our Bishops may say no lesse then Cyprian did But doth the stile of your Letters of orders speake any such thing Let the Reader judge by a copy Tenore praesentium nos N. N. Providentiâ Divinâ Episc. notum facimus universis quod die mensis Anno in Capella Nos praefatus Episcopus sacros ordines dei praesidio celebrantes dilectum nobis c. E. B. de vitâ sua laudabili c. a nobis examinat approbat ad sacro sanct Presbyt ordinem ad misimus rite Canonicè ordinavimus promovimus In cujus rei testimonium sigillum nostrum Episcopale praesentibus apponi fecimus Construe you this Ego Collegae brethren But you tell us Cyprians phrase Ego Collegae was in the case of Aurelius made a Lector much to your advantage If a Reader could not be ordained by a Bishop alone doe we thinke a Presbyter could As for Cyprians 58. Epist. we produced it not as a proofe of ordination in the hands of Presbyters much lesse for the concurrent act of the people as the Remonstrant would intimate but onely for the explication of the word Collegae But it seemes the Remonstrant was resolved to picke some quarrell and rather to play at small game then stand out And if it be the order of the Church of England as well as of the Councell of Carthage that when a Presbyter is ordained all the Presbyters that are present shall lay hands c. if there be such an order the more blame worthy the Bishops who being such severe censurers of the breach of Church orders in others are themselves in the same crime for though you set a stout face upon the businesse and tell us that this order is perpetually and infallibly kept by you Yet the world knowes it is no such matter unlesse you meane that all the Presbyters present doe infallibly and perpetually lay on hands in ordination because our ordinations are so carried that for the most part there is but one sometimes not one Presbyter there besides the Bishop But why doe you take notice here of one Canon of the Councell of Carthage and not of the other ut Episcopus sine c. that a Bishop should ordaine none of the Clergie without the Counsell of his Clergie unlesse it be because here is such a manifest deflexion in the practise of ours from former times as all the wit and Rhetoricke the Remonstrant hath cannot cover Your next evasion is a plaine leaving the question we are to prove that Bishops in ancient times did not ordaine without Presbyters You challenge us to prove a Presbyters Regular ordaining without a Bishop which is not the point in question Who doth here most abuse the Reader let himselfe judge but wee are accused not onely of abusing our Readers but our Authours too And the Remonstrant hopes he hath us here at such a vantage as shall try what modesty is in us Three foule scapes are laid to our charge First we abuse Firmilianus in casting upon him an opinion of Presbyters ordaining which he never held let us once againe view the place Firmilianus speaking of the true Church saith ubi Praesident Majores natu qui Baptizandi manum imponendi ordinandi possident potestatem the controversie is who these Majores natu be Bishops saith he Bishops and Elders say we To prove it we explicate Firmilian by Firmilian calling a little before those whom here he cals Majores natu Seniores praepositi Which are not so farre from that clause but that they may be brought without wire drawing or foysting and are not so remote from that place as those words which himselfe produceth which we desire the courteous Reader to consider because we are charged by him for foysting in and wyre drawing the words of the Authour and also because the very words there cited by the Remonstrant speake of a power of remitting sinnes which we hope he will not ingrosse to Bishops excluding Presbyters Pamelius himselfe is with us who understands by Seniores prepositi the Presbyters and Bishops Our next scape is but grosse ignorance in translating Ambroses Presbyteri consignant by Presbyters ordaining Every Novice knowes consigning signifies confirmation and not ordaining Sir we appeale from your Novices to judicious Readers and intreat them to peruse the text and wee doubt not but upon due consideration they will conclude for our sence let us then plead the case and tell you first That your Desiderius Heraldus shewes both the word signare or consignare in the phrase of antiquity to be as much as consecrare and so doth Cyprian Epist. 2. and therefore it is not incapable of such a sence as we have put upon it 2. If the Reader please to view the place in Ambrose he shall finde that Ambrose there is speaking of ordaining men to publique offices in the Church and not of confirmation 3. Though it should be taken for confirmation yet you gaine nothing for the same Canon that put power of ordination into the hands of Bishops places the power of confirmation also in their hands And they among us that challenge the sole power
because he knowes not what to say against it If he did intend to anger us he is much mistaken for it pleaseth us well to heare him give so full a testimony that secular imployments are unsuitable to the Ministers of the Gospell Vnlesse in those two excepted cases of the extraordinary occasions and services of a Prince or State And the composing of unkind quarrels of dissenting neighbours We take what he grants us here so kindly that we pardon his unfit comparison betweene S. Pauls Tent-making to supply his owne necessities that he might not be burthensome to the Church the State imployment of our Bishops And should in this Section fully have joyned hands with him but that we must needs tell him at the parting that had our Bishops never ingaged themselves in secular affaires but ex officio generali Charitatis and had beene so free from ambition as he would make the world beleeve they are neither should wee have beene so large in this Section nor so aboundant in our processe nor would the Parliament have made that provision against the secular imployment of Clergy men as they have lately done SECT XIII THe best Charter pleaded for Episcopacy in former times was Ecclesiasticall constitution and the favour of Princes But our latter Bishops suspecting this would prove too weake and sandie a foundation to support a building of that transcending loftinesse that they have studied to advance the Babell of Episcopacy unto have indeavoured to under-pinne it with some texts of Scripture that they might plead a Ius divinum for it that the consciences of all might be tyed up from attempting to pull down their proud Fabricke but none of them is more confident in this plea then this Remonstrant who is content that Bishops should for ever be hooted out of the Church and be disclaimed as usurpers if they claime any other power then what the Scripture gives them especially bearing his cause upon Timothy and Titus and the Angels of the 7. Churches Now because one grain of Scripture is of more efficacy esteeme to faith then whole volumes of humane testimonies we indeavoured to shew the impertinency of his allegations especially in those two instances And concerning Timothy and Titus we undertooke two things First that they were not Bishops in his sence but Evangelists the companions of the Apostles in founding of Churches or sent by them from place to place but never setled in any fixed pastorall charge and this wee shewed out of the story of the Acts and the Epistles The other was that granting ex abundanti they had beene Bishops yet they never exercised any such jurisdiction as ours doe But because the great hinge of the controversie depends upon the instances of Timothy and Titus before we come to answer our Remonstrant we will promise these few propositions granted by most of the patrons of Episcopacy First Evangelists properly so called were men extraordinarily imployed in preaching the Gospell without a setled residence upon any one charge They were Comites Vicarii Apostolorum Vice-Apostles who had Curam Vicariam omnium Ecclesiarum as the Apostles had Curam principalem And did as Ambrose speakes Evangelizare sine Cathedra Secondly It is granted by our Remonstrant and his appendant Scultetus and many others That Timothy was properly an Evangelist while he travelled up and downe with the Apostles Thirdly It is expressely granted that Timothy and Titus were no Bishops till after Pauls first being at Rome That is after the end of the Histories of the Acts of the Apostles Fourthly The first Epistle to Timothy and the Epistle to Titus from whence all their grounds for Episcopacy are fetcht were written by Paul before his first going to Rome And this is acknowledged by all interpreters and Chronologers that we have consulted with upon this point Baronius himselfe affirming it And the Remonstrants owne grounds will force him to acknowledge that the second Epistle to Timothy was also written at Pauls first being at Rome For that second Epistle orders him to bring Marke alone with him who by the Remonstrants account died five or six yeeres before Paul Which could not have beene if this Epistle were written at Pauls second comming to Rome Estius also following Baronius gives good reason that the second Epistle to Timothy was written at Pauls first being at Rome Fiftly If Timothy and Titus were not Bishops when these Epistles were written unto them then the maine grounds of Episcopacy by divine right sinke by their owne confession Bishop Hall in his Episcopacy by divine right part 2. sect 4. concludes thus peremptorily That that if the especiall power of ordination and power of ruling and censuring Presbyters be not cleare in the Apostles charge to these two Bishops the one of Creete the other of Ephesus I shall yeeld the cause and confesse to want my sences And it must needs be so for if Timothy were not then a Bishop the Bishops power of charging Presbyters of proving and examining Deacons of rebuking Elders and ruling over them and his imposition of hands to ordaine Presbyters c. doe all faile And Bishops in these can plead no succession to Timothy and Titus by these Scriptures more then other Presbyters may For if they were not Bishops then all these were done by them as extraordinary Officers to which there were no successors Sixtly By the confession of the patrons of Episcopacy It is not onely incongruous but sacrilegious for a Minister to descend from a superiour order to an inferiour according to the great Counsell of Chalcedon Seventhly In all that space of time from the end of the Acts of the Apostles untill the middle of Trajans raigne there is nothing certaine to be drawne out of Ecclesiasticall Authours about the affaires of the Church thus writeth Iosephus Scaliger Thus Tilenus when he was most Episcopall and Eusebius long before them both saith It cannot be easily shewed who were the true followers of the Apostles no further then it can be gathered out of the Epistles of Paul If the intelligent Reader weigh and consider these granted propositions he may with ease see how the life-blood of Episcopacy from Timothy and Titus is drayn'd out for if they were not Bishops till after Pauls first being at Rome then not when the Epistles were written to them according to the fourth proposition and then their cause failes if any shall say they were Bishops before Pauls first being at Rome contrary to the third proposition then they make them Bishops while by the story its apparent they were Evangelists and did Evangelizare sine cathedra and so clash against the second In a word the office of an Evangelist being a higher degree of Ministery then that of Bishops make them Bishops when you please you degrade them contrary to our sixt proposition whiles the Remonstrant tryes to reconcile these things we shall make further use of them
which they have made who have beene intoxicated with the Golden Chalice of the whore of Babylons abominations hath so alienated the affections of people from them as that what doome so ever they are sentenced unto it is no other then what they have brought upon themselves As for our part we are still of the same mind that honourable maintenance ought to be given to the Ministers of the Gospell not onely to live but to be hospitable Indeed we instanced in many that did abuse their large revenues But you are pleased to say That in this Ablative age the fault is rare and hardly instanceable We thinke the contrary is more hardly instanceable And as for your Ablative age if you meane it of poore Presbyters who have beene deprived of all their subsistance by the unmercifulnesse of Bishops whom they with teares have besought to pitty their wives and children we yeeld it to be too true Or if you meane in regard of the purity of the ordinances the frequency of preaching the freedome of conceived prayer We denie not but in this sence also it may be called the Ablative age But if you relate it to Episcopacy and their Cathedrals with whom it is now the Accusative age We hope that the yeere of recompense is come and that in due time for all their Ablations they may be made a gratefull ablation We have done with this section and feare not to appeale to the same judicious eyes the Remonstrant doth to judge to whose part that Vale of absurd inconsequences and bold ignorance which hee brands us withall doth most properly appertaine SECT XIV IN this Section hee comes to make good his anâ—wers formerly given to some objections by him propounded and by us further urged The first objection was from that prejudice which Episcopacy challenging a divine originall doth to Soveraignty which was wont to be acknowledged not onely as the conserving but as the creating cause of it in former times The Remonstrant thinks this objection is sufficiently removed by telling us there is a compatiblenesse in this case of Gods act and the Kings And what can wee say to this Sir you know what we have said already and not onely said but proved it and yet will confidently tell us you have made good by undeniable proofes that besides the ground which our Saviour layd of this imparity the blessed Apostles by inspiration from God made this difference c. Made good when where by what proofs Something you have told us about the Apostles but not a word in all the defence of any ground laid by our Saviour of this imparitie yet the man dreams of undeniable proofs of that whereof he never spake word Wee must therefore tell you againe take it as you please that if the Bishops disclaime the influence of Soveraignty into their creation and say that the King doth not make them Bishops they must have no being at all Nor can your questions stop our mouthes Where or when did the King ever create a Bishop Name the man and take the cause Wee grant you Sir that so much as there is of a Presbyter in a Bishop so much is Divine But that imparity and jurisdiction exercised out of his own demandated authority which are the very formalities of Episcopacie these had their first derivation from the Consent Customes Councell Constitution of the Church which did first demandate this Episcopall authority to one particular person afterwards the Pope having obtained a Monarchie over the Church did from himself demandate that authority that formerly the Church did and since the happy ejection of the Popes tyrannicall usurpations out of these Dominions our Princes being invested with all that Ecclesiasticall power which that Tyrant had usurped that same imparity and authority which was originally demandated from the Church successively from the Pope is now from the King Looke what influence the Church ever had into the creation of Bishops the same the Pope had after and looke what influence the Pope had heretofore the same our Laws have placed in the King which is so cleere that the Remonstrant dares not touch or answer There was a Statute made the first of Edward the sixth inabling the King to make Bishops by his Letters patents Onely Hence all the Bishops in King Edwards the sixt time were created Bishops by the Kings Letters patents ONELY in which all parts of Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction are granted them in precise words praeter ultra jus divinum Besides and beyond divine right to be executed onely nomine vice Authoritate nostri Regis in the Kings royall stead name and Authority as the patents of severall Bishops in the Rolls declare But besides the Kings Letters the Bishop is solemnly ordained by the imposition of the hands of the Metropolitan and other of his brethren these as from God invest him in his holy calling As from God Good sir prove that prove that the Metropolitan and Bishops in such imposition of hands are the instruments of God not the instruments of the King prove they doe it by Commission received from God and not by command of the King onely Produce one warrant from Scripture one president of a Bishop so ordained by a Metropolitan and fellow Bishops and without more dispute take all Shortly resolve us but this one thing what is it that takes a man out of the ordinary ranke of Presbyters and advanceth him to an imparity and power of jurisdiction is it humane authority testified in the Letters of the King or is it divine authority testified by the significative action of imposition of hands by the Metropolitan and fellow Bishops if the former you grant the cause if the latter consider with what good warrant you can make a form of Ordination by the hands of a Metropolitan and fellow Bishops which is a meer humane invention to be not onely a signe but a mean of conveying a peculiar and superiour power from Divine Authority and of making a Presbyter a Bishop Iuredivino Finally Sir make as much as you can of your Ordination by a Metropolitan slight as much as you please your unworthy comparison between the King and our Patrons yet did the Kings Conge d'eslire give you no more humane right to Episcopacie then the hands of the Metropolitan and fellow Bishops give you of right Divine you would be Bishops by neither It is not your confident re-inforcing of your comparison that shal call carry it till you have first proved it from Scripture that God never instituted an order of Presbyters or Ministers in his Church as wee have proved God never instituted an order of Bishops Secondly that by the Laws of the land as much of the Ministeriall power over a particular Congregation is in the patron as there is of Episcopall power in the King Till then wee beseech you let it rest undetermined whether your self or we may best be sent to Simons Cell We say no more
tribunall to which you make such bold appeals The office wee distributed into administring Word and Sacraments Orders and Discipline For the first administring the Word and Sacraments this the Remonstrant grants in common to Bishops and Presbyters without any difference but what our distance makes Which exception wee understand not unlesse your meaning be that Bishops may preach as often and as seldome as they please and wee must preach no oftner then they give us leave The quarrell as he makes it we called it controversie lies especially in the power of Ordination and Iurisdiction which say wee by divine Authoritie is common to all Presbyters which yet our Bishops have impropriated to themselves To prove that the power of Ordination was in the hands of Presbyters wee produced the 1 Tim. 4. 14. to this he answers nothing of his own onely tels us in an Hyperbole it hath received answer 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and he gives but one and that borrowed too from Calvine who takes Presbyterium of the office not of the persons Wherein saith the Remonstrant he follows the judgment of Hierome Primasius Anselme Haymo Lyranus Erasmus and others as Bishop Downham hath shewed Wee doe believe that this is borrowed of Bishop Downham for had he consulted with those Authours hee might easily have seen how little they favour that exposition For what saith Hierome whom Primasius follows in his very words Prophetiae gratiam habebat cum ordinatione Episcopatus Doth this prove that Presbyterium is there the name of the office If so You must grant Episcopacie and Presbyterie to be the same office which is the verie question But wee would faine know why cum ordinatione Presbyterii or Episcopatus should bee understood rather of the office then of the person when in proprietie of phrase if they had meant it of the office they would rather have said ordinatio ad Episcopatum then Episcopatus For Anselme what saith hee Impositionem manuum eam dicit quae in ordinatione ejus facta est quae manuum impositio fuit presbyterii quia per hanc impositionem accepit presbyterium id est Episcopatum vel haec impositio manuum fuit presbyterii qui Latinis dicitur Senior quia ipse Apostolus qui juxta hunc sensum presbyter intelligitur imposuit manus suas capâ—â— ejus dum illum consecraret Episcopum The comment is a sufficient confutation of it selfe for the first exposition wracks the text with a violent and unusuall hyperbaâ—on And therefore hee recedes from that and falls upon a second Presbyterii qui dicitur Senior quia Apostolus ipse c. Now what an unlikely exposition is this What Authour can these followers of Anselme produce wherein Presbyterium is called Senior For those other Lira Haymo and Erasmus we will oppose to them the Fathers of the Greek Church who are likely to know best the genuine sence of the Greek Text. The same Doctor Doâ—nham from whom the defendant hath borrowed these interpretations tels him that Chrysostome Theodoret and other Greek Fathers understand it of the persons and not of the office As for learned Calvin in his Institutions we grant he understands it of the office yet in his Comments wherein wee may more justly expect the full sense of the Text he compares these two interpretations together and let any Reader judge which he prefers Presbyterium qui hic Collectâ—vum Nomen esse putant pro Collegio Presbyterorum posiâ—um RECTE SENTIUNT MEO JUDICIO Tametsi omnibus expensis diversum sensum non malè quadrare fateor ut sit nomen officii Ceremoniam pro ipso actu ordinationis posuit Itaque sensus Timotheum cum prophetarum voce ascitus fuit in Ministerium deinde solemni ritu ordinatut simul gratiâ Spiritus Sancti instructum fuisse ad functionem suam exequendam Now which sence doth Calvin preferre Of that which we give hee speaks positively Recte sentiunt Of the other he onely saith Non malè quadrat And that this Text must needs be understood of the persons ordaining and not of the office Timothy was ordained too will appeare by these reasons For first it cannot stand with the signification of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The office or dignitie as leâ—rned Criticks observe is rather called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 then 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Nor can it well stand with the sence and construction of the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 What shall it be governed of Would not any Grammarian refer it to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 immediatly preceding rather then to the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from which it is so farre dis-joyned The words in the Greek lye thus Neglect not the gift that is in thee which was given thee by prophâ—cie and the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery Now according to the sence the Remonstrant strives for it is thus Neglect not the gift of the office of the Presbytery which was given thee by the laying on of hands Bishop Downham himselfe without the bold foysting in to use the Remonstrants words of a Parenthesis into the Text cannot make this interpretation good We thought we had sufficiently proved this interpretation in our answer by producing all the Texts in the new Testament in which the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used and shewing that in them it signifies the persons and not the office and severall Texts out of Hierom Ignatius Concil Ancyr to the same purpose The Fathers and Councels hee is willing to passe by in silence The Scripture hee pecks at and tels us wee doe meerly delude the Reader For there it is meant of Elders of the people not of the Church Good Sir do not you delude your self your reader too out of a desire to traduce us Be they Elders of the people or of the Church it is sufficient to prove that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies not the office of Presbyterie but the persons in that office And this also may answer that objection which he makes from the 2 Tim. 1. 6. For though we grant indeed Master Calvin was more skilled in the harmony then our selves the Remonstrant might have let it passe so without putting it among his Errata turning it to themselves yet wee must crave leave herein to dissent from Master Calvin as well as Beza Cameron Chameir and others since him have done before us And let not the Remonstrant call it boldnes in us to say that power of Ordination is communicated to Presbyters because Hierome and Concil Aquisgr still except Ordination we must rather marvell at his boldnesse in putting that upon us which we spake not wee say indeed pag. 24. of our answer it was in the hands of Presbyters The Remonstrant would have us say Communicated to Presbyters that wee might seeme to acknowledge the power of Ordination to be originally in Bishops and in Presbyters onely by derivation from them which we never
it save onely that their ambitious desires of ruling alone swayes them against their owne judgement and the determinations of the law But indeed if this communicating of all the important businesse of the Church with those grave assistants you speake of or with the Presbyters of the whole Diocesse if you will be onely an assuming them into the fellowship of consulting and deliberating without any decisive suffrage leaving the Bishop to follow or not to follow their advise this is but a meere cosenage of the reader and doth not hinder the sole power of Episcopall jurisdiction And this is all that Downam grants lib. 1. c. 7. p. 161. where he saith that Bishops doe assume Presbyters for advise and direction as a Prince doth his Counsellors not as a Consull doth his Senators who are cojudges with the Consul And this we perceive the Remonstrant well likes of as that which makes much for the honour of their function And now sir you see that we have not fished all night and caught nothing wee have caught your sole jurisdiction and might have caught your selfe were you not such a Proteus such a Polypus to shift your selfe into all formes and Colours Having proved that Bishops in all times succeeding the Apostles had Presbyters joyned with them in the exercise of their jurisdiction and that our Bishops have none is more evident then that it needs proofe This is more to you then Baculus in Angulo it cannot but be Spina in oculis Sagittain visceribus a thorne in your eye and an arrow in your heart convincing you to your griefe that the Bishops you plead for and the Bishops of former times are two SECT X. OUr next Section the Remonstrant saith runs yet wilder it is then because we prosecute a practice of the Bishops more extravagant then the former And that is the delegation of the power of their jurisdictiō to others which the Remonstrant would first excuse as an accidentall errour of some particular man not to be fastned upon all But we desire to know the man the Bishop in all England who hath not given power to Chancellors Commissaries Officials to suspend excommunicate absolve execute all censures but one and doth the Remonstrant thinke now to stoppe our mouthes with saying it is a particular error of some men whereas it is evident enough that our English Episcopacy cannot possibly be exercised without delegating of their power to a multitude of inferiour instruments Can one Bishop having 500. or a 1000. Parishes under him discharge all businesses belonging to testamentary and decimall causes and suites to preach Word and administer the Sacraments c. to take a due oversight also of all Ministers and people without the helpe of others Nor will that other excuse doe it That it is but an accidentall error and though granted concludes not that our Bishops challenge to themselves any other spirituall power then was delegated to Timothy and Titus Sir we abhorre it as an unworthy thing to compare our Bishops with Timothy or Titus the comparison is betweene our Bishops and Bishops of former times But to please you this once we will admit the comparison and shew howeven in this particular that you count so monstrous our Bishops challenge a power never delegated to Timothy nor Titus And we prove it thus Timothy and Titus never had a power delegated to them to devolve that power of governing the Church which God had intrusted into their hands upon persons incapable of it by Gods ordinance But our Bishops doe so Ergo. The Remonstrant thinkes by impleading other reformed Churches as guilty of the same crime to force us either to condemne them or to acquit him But the reformed Churches if they doe practise any such thing are of age to answer for themselves Our businesse is with the Remonstrant and the persons and practices which he hath taken the tuition of Whom we charging as in a generality with wholy intrusting the power of spirituall jurisdiction to their Chancellors and their Commissaries their good friend tels us we foulely overreach The assistance of these creatures they use indeed but they neither negligently or wilfully devest themselves of that and wholy put it into Laicke hands This is a meere slander that Bishops devest themselves of their power we never said That they doe either negligently or wilfully decline that office which they call theirs we need not say it is so apparent And as apparent it is that they doe intrust the power of jurisdiction wholly into Laicke hands for their Chancellors and Commissaries having power of jurisdiction by patent setled upon them and exercising that jurisdiction in all the parts of it conventing admonishing suspending excommunicating absolving without the presence or assistance of a Bishop or recourse to him we thinke impartiall Judges will say wee are neither slanderers nor over-reachers In our former answer we fully cleared from Cyprian how farre hee was from delegating his power to a Chancellour c. This he sleights as a negative authority yet it is sufficient to condemne a practice that never had being in the thoughts of primitive times And we beleeve it satisfies all others because the Remonstrant saith it is very like it was so Though according to his old way of diversion he tels us as Cyprian did not referre to a Chancellor so neither to the bench of a Laicke Presbytery yet he that is but meanly versed in Cyprian may easily see that it is no unusuall thing in that holy martyr to referre the determinations of causes ad Clerum Plebe◠But the Remonstrant thinkes to patronize the practice of our present Bishops by Silvanus the good Bishop of Troas And what did Silvanus to the countenancing of this practice perceiving that some of his Clergie did corruptly make gaine of causes civill causes causes of difference betweene party and party or as you phrase it page 91. unkind quarrels of dissenting neighbours he would no more appoint any of his Clergy to be Judge but made choice of some faithfull man of the Laity Now this is as much to the purpose good sir as Posthumus his pleading in Martiall We are confuting the practice of our Bishops in making over their spirituall jurisdiction to Laymen and he brings in a story of a good Bishop that having a bad Clergy intrusted honest men with civill judicature rather then them As full to the purpose is that of Ecclesiae ecdici or Episcoporum Ecdici to prove the Antiquity of Chancellors and Commissaries For their Ecdici were men appointed to be the advocates of the Church to plead the Churches cause before the Emperours against the tyranny of their potent adversaries But we never read that the Bishops did put over the government of the Church to them we could with all our hearts give this honour to Civilians to be the Churches advocates but not the Churches Judges which the Bishops give them leave to
As for that tedious discourse that followeth in foure leaves about our overliberall concession that suppose the word Angell be meant Individually yet it made nothing for the upholding of a Dioce san Bishop with sole power of ordination and jurisdiction as a distinct order superiour to Presbyters we will be very briefe in our answer to it to prevent surfet and because it is more then we need have yeelded and also because so little is said of it to the purpose by this Remonstrant And here let the Reader observe 1. That of the foure Authors cited in the upholding of the individuall Angel Doctor Fulke is falsely alleged and the other three Master Beza Doctor Raynolds and Pareus though they interpret the word Angell 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for one singular person yet we are sure none of them held Episcopacy by divine right For D. Raynolds his letters to S. Francis Knowles now in print will witnesse and for Beza and Pareus it is well knowne that they were Presbyterians We expected many of the ancient Fathers to make good this interpretation but we see he is beholding to those for it who are none of the lest enemies to the Hierarchall preeminency and therefore we may be the more secure that no great prejudice can come to our cause by this interpretation if taken in the sence of these Authors 2. That the great question is what makes this interpretation for a Diocesan Bishop with sole power of ordination and jurisdiction as a distinct order above Presbyters But the Remonstrant cunningly conceales halfe the question and answers much every way And why so Because if there were many Angels in each Church and yet but one singled out and called The Angel of that Church it must needs follow that there was a superiority and inequality But what is this to the question in hand The thing to be proved is not onely that this Angell had a superiority but a superiority of jurisdiction over his fellow Angels but of this altum silentium Doctor Reynolds will tell you that this was onely a superiority of order and that all jurisdiction was exercised in common Beza will tell you that this Angell was onely 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and that he was Angelus Praeses not Angelus Princeps And that he was Praeses mutabilis and ambulatorius just as a Moderator in an assembly or as the Speaker in the House of Commons which is onely during the Parliament Both which interpretations may well stand with the superiority and inequality you speake of Our first argument to prove that though the word Angel be taken individually that yet nothing will hence follow to uphold a Diocesan Bishop with sole power of jurisdiction as a distinct order Superior to Presbyters was because it was never yet nor never will be proved that these Angels were Diocesan Bishops considering that parishes were not so numerous as to be divided into Diocesses in Saint Iohns daies And the seven Starres are sayd to be fixed in their seven Candlestickes not one Star over divers Candlesticks And Tindall together with the old translation calls them seven congregations And because we read that at Ephesus that was one of those Candlestickes there was but one flock for the answer of all which we expected a learned discourse to prove that the seven Churches were Diocesan and so consequently the Angels Diocesan Angels But the Remonstrant baulkes his worke as too great for his shoulders and instead of solid Divinity turnes criticke and playes upon words and syllables Domitian like catching at flies when he should have beene busied about greater matters First he tels us That if Parishes were not united into Diocesses or were not so many as to be divided into Diocesses which we thinke all one notwithstanding your parenthesis in Saint Iohns daies and therefore no Diocesan Bishop by the same reason we may as well argue that there were no parochiall Bishops neither since that then no parishes were as yet distinguished Which we grant to be very true But if there were no Parochiall Bishops in the Apostles daies much lesse Diocesan The Apostolicall Bishops were Bishops of one Church and not of one parish as we meane by parish till many yeeres after But not to quarrell at the word parish or diocesse let but the Remonstrant shewe us that these Angels were Bishops over divers setled Churches or divers fixed congregations nobis erit alter Apollo For our parts we are sure that at first the number of beleevers even in the greatest Cities were so few as that they might well meete 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in one and the same place and these were called the Church of the City and therefore to ordaine Elders 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are all one in Scripture And it cannot be demonstratively proved that they became so numerous in the Apostles daies in any great City so as that they could not meet in one and the same place But yet we confesse that it is very probable that it was so in Ierusalem if you compare Acts 2. 41. 4. 4. 5. 14. And whether it was so also in these severall Asian Churches we know not but however this is agreed upon on all parts That beleevers in great Cities were not divided into set and fixed congregations or parishes till long after the Apostles daies And that therefore if when they multiplied they had divers meeting places that yet notwithstanding these meeting places were frequented promiscuously and indistinctly and were taught and governed by all the Presbyters promiscuously and in common and were all called but one Church as is evident in Hierusalem Act. 8. 1. Act. 15. 6. 22. 16. 4. 21. 18. So also in these seven Churches where the beleevers of every City are called but one Church and were governed in common by divers Angels or Presbyters as we see plainely proved in the Church of Ephesus Acts 20. 28. Henâ—e it followeth that there were no sole-ruling Bishops nor one Bishop over divers Churches or set Congregations in Saint Iohns daies Secondly according to his wonted language he tels us of making Bulls and Solecismes because wee say that the seven Starres are said to be fixed in their seven Candlestickes whereas these Starres are said to be in the right hand of Christ as if these two were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Know sir That in regard of their protection they are said to be in Christs right hand but in regard of their â—unction and Office they may be truely said to be fixed in their seven Candlestickes But instead of picking quarrels at words you should have done well if you could to prove that these Candlestickes were diocesan Churches We say each Starre had its Candlesticke not one Starre over divers And wee thinke that this Candlesticke was but one particular Church or one set Congregation though happily when they multiplyed they might meete indistinctly in divers under divers Angels equally governing For this
lest you should think we flout your modesty with an unbeseeming frumpe which whither our answer be guilty of as you here charge us let the Reader compare the 28 and 29 pages of your Remonstrance and our Answer to those pages and determine The second objection was from that imputation which this truth casts upon all Reformed Churches which want this government this the Remonstrant must needs endevour to satisfie that hee may decline the envie that attends this opinion But what needs the Remonstrant feare this envy Alasse the Reformed Churches are but a poore handfull Rumpantur ilia need the Remonstrant care Yet is it neither his large protestation of his honourable esteeme of those Sister Churches nor his solicitous cleering himselfe from the scandalous censures and disgracefull termes cast upon them by others under whose colours he now militares that will divert this envie unlesse he either desert his opinion or make a more just defence then he hath yet done The Defence is That from the opinion of the Di. right of Episc. no such consequence can be drawn as that those Churches that want Bishops are no Churches Episcopacy though reckoned among matters essential to the Church yet is not of the essence of a Church and this is no contradiction neither If you would have avoided the contradiction you should have expressed your selfe more distinctly knowing that things essentiall are of two sorts either such as are essentiall constitutivè or such as are essentiall consecutivè You had done well here had you declared whether you count Episcopacie essentiall to a Church constitutive or consecutivé if constitutivè then it is necessary to the being of a Church and it must follow where there is no Bishop there can be no Church If essentiall onely consecutivè wee would be glad to learne how those officers which by Divine institution have demandated to them peculiarly a power of ordaining all other officers in the Church without which the Church it selfe cannot be constituted and such a power as that those officers cannot be ordained without their hands should not bee essentiall to the Constitution of a Church or tend onely to the well being not to the being of it Either you must disclaim your own propositions or owne this inference and not think to put it off with telling your Reader It is enough for our friends to hold discipline of the being of a Church you dare not be so zealous If heat in an Episcopall cause may be called zeale you dare be as zealous as any man we know Your friends wee are sure are as zealous in the cause of their Episcopacie as any of ours have been in the defence of discipline Did ever any of our friends in their zeale rise higher then to frame an oath whereby to bind all men to maintaine their discipline You know some of yours have done as much but them wee know you will leave to their owne defence as you doe your learned Bishop of Norwich now he is dead It is work enough for you to defend your selfe and give satisfaction to the questions propounded First we demanded the reason why Popish Priests converted to our Religion are admitted without new ordination when some of our brethren flying in Queen Maries time and having received Ordination in the Reformed Churches were urged at their return to receive it again from our Bishops This shamelesse and partiall practice of our Prelats hee could not deny but frames two such answers of which the second confutes the first and neither second nor first justifies their practice In the first he denies a capability of admittance by our laws and yet in his second he confesseth many to be admitted without any legall exception which how well they consist let the Reader judge The second question was whether that office which by divine Right hath sole power of Ordination and ruling of all other officers in the Church belong not to the being but onely to the glory and perfection of a Church The Remonstrant is so angry at this question that before hee can finde leisure to answer it he must needs give a little vent to his choller Can we tell what these men would have saith he have they a mind to go beyond us in asserting that necessity and essentiall use of Episcopacie which we dare not avow What is that which you dare not avow is it that Episcopacy hath sole power of ordaining and ruling all other Officers in the Church But this wee are sure you will avow That imposition of hands in ordination and confirmation have ever been held so intrinsecall to Episcopacie that I would faine see where it can be shewed that ANY EXTREMITY OF NECESSITY was by the Catholike Church of Christ ever yet acknowledged for a warrant sufficient to diffuse them into other hands Is not this to say that the sole power of ordaining Officers is in the hands of the Bishop And dare not WE avow this now Blessed be they that have taken downe your confidence And where you are witty by the way you tell us we still talke of sole Ordination and sole Iurisdiction we may if we please keep that paire of soles for our next shooes Good Sir wee thanke you for your liberality but wee doubt you either part with them out of fear you shall no longer keep them or they will prove no longer worth the keeping But consider one thing we beseech you if you make this donation not onely in your own name but in the name of the whole Episcopall order you and they may turn Fratres Mendicantes and go bare foot if you part with these paire of soles and what will become of your Quid facit Episcopus quod non facit Presbyter exceptâ ordinatione You doe not contend say you for such a height of propriety c. that in what case soever of extremity and irresistable necessity this should be done onely by Episcopall hands You do not It is well you doe not but did you never meane to affirme it none of you Consider we beseech that forecited place Episcopacie Divine Right part 2. pag. 91. weigh the words and then speake and tell the Authour your judgement Our third question was There being in this mans thoughts the same jus divinum for Bishops that there is for Pastors and Elders whether if those reformed Churches wanted Pastors Elders too they should want nothing of the essence of a Church but onely of the glory and perfection of it The answer saith he is ready which is indeed no answer it is in sum but this that it would be better with them if they had Bishops too But how it would be if they wanted Bishops and Pastors and Elders too of that he saith nothing The Remonstrant had presumed to know so much of the mind of the Reformed Churches as to averre that if they might have their option they would gladly imbrace Episcopall government a foule imputation saith the Remonstrant
good cards for their standing as he pretends for his own grant it so what will follow upon that but this That Bishops clayming the same grounds for their standing that the Pope doth aspire to be as independant from Princes as the Pope is and that they have no more Divine Right then the Pope But what 's this to our Bishops who professe notwithstanding their Divine Right to hold their places and exercise of Iurisdiction wholly from the King Surely ours have begun to affect the same Exemption from Secular power to make large and haughty strides towards an independant Hierarchie So that it is no envious upbraid to parallell ours with the former Bishops For it hath well appeared that the Hierarchicall Episcopacie is full of such high and large principles of Pride Ambition Tyranny as can be circumscribed in no moderate bounds But is always swelling to the affectation of an Absolute Ecclesiasticall Monarchie And it is worth the enquiring whether the three last books of Hookers Ecclesiasticall Politie be not suppressed by him that hath them because they give the Prince too much power in Ecclesiasticall matters and are not for the Divine Right of Bishops But we shall be chid anon and accused of spight for this as wee are for the observation formerly made upon his comparison between the attempts of Alteration in our Neighbour Church by the Episcopall faction and that which is now justly desired by the humble Petitioners to this Honourable House This saith the Remonstrant is a foule slander to charge the name of Episcopacie with a Faction For a fact imputed to some few Were they but a few that did attempt and prosecute that alteration the more is our misery that a few Bishops can put both Kingdomes into so dangerous a combustion what stirre would they all make if they should unite their powers And were they but a few that were the Factors for that Attempt how then was it that one of the Episcopall Tribe in publike Court called the Scotch designe Bellum Episcopale and where were the rest of the peaceable Orthodox Bishops the while that might in love to peace truth have opposed those bold attempts not have suffered a few upon whom you now leave the guilt of faction to expose the deare and precious name of Episcopacie to that obloquie Let the Remonstrant never cry fie upon his brethren that dare challenge Episcopacie of Faction but fie upon his Fathers the bishops that have subjected it to that challenge had bishops done so in Cyprians time we doubt not but theâ—e would have bin fonnd Presbyters who would have said as much and need never have feared Gaoles nor Pillories nor high Commissions the holy Discipline wherewith the Fathers of the sacred Hierarchie have of late yeers visited such offences SECT II. WEE are in this and the following Sections not to contend for words but things things precious to the Remonstrant Liturgie and Episcopacie for which he fights tanquam pro aris focis The subject of this Section is the Liturgie where first he fals upon us for the Alterations and Additions mentioned by us which hee calls such an envious and groundlesse suggestion as must needs cover our faces with a blush Truly Sir If we were able to produce no fuller evidence of this then you have done of your Iewish Liturgie ever since Mosestime we should blush indeed but if wee can bring forth instances of such Alterations as shall prove this present Liturgie to be none of that which hath beene confirmed by Parliamentary Acts keep your blushes to make Liveries for yourself and friends The Liturgie confirmed by our Parliamentary Acts is the same which was made and confirmed in the fifth and sixth of Edward the sixth with one alteration and additions of certaine Lessons to be used upon every Sunday and the forme of the Letany altered and amended and two sentences onely added in the delivery of the Sacrament And none other or otherwise But this booke is so altered from that that in it is left out First a clause in the Letany From the tyranny of the Bishop of Rome and all his detestable enormities good Lord deliver us c. 32. Chapters of the Old Testament a Prayer against death a Rubrick or declaration of the manner of the presence of Christs body and bloud in the Sacrament Besides some other things of lesse moment Secondly added 26 Apocryphall Chapters more to be read 47 Proper Lessons The Prayers for Bishops and Curats many Collects after the Communion A Rubrick in the examination of private Baptisme In the Calendar Fish dayes are now called Fasting days A Catalogue of Holidays Thirdly many things changed in the title of Confirmation the words for imposition of hands are added In the Epistle for Palm-sunday in the Name of Jesus turned into at the Name of Jesus besides such smaller alterations which himselfe acknowledges These are sufficient to evince that the Liturgie now in use is not that Liturgie that was established by Act of Parliament and therefore that Act binds not to the use of this Liturgie as we conceive Now if to these we should adde the late alterations in the use of the Liturgie Bringing in loud Musique uncouth and unedifying Anthems a pompous superstitious Altar-service wee thinke any indifferent eye will say this is not the Liturgie established by Parliament wee hope that these alterations are so visible as any that will not fully shut their eys will say it is with this misaltered Liturgie as with the disguised Dames mentioned of old by Doctor Hall And we hope nay we know wee have some Bishops of our minde in this as well as you have some of yours how ever you slight the words of one of them not inferiour to any of them that wee know with an effutâ—it labiis yet it is a subtile shift you have to pervert the Bishops words For whereas hee said that the Service of the Church of England was now so drest that if the Pope should come and see it he would claim it as his own but that it is in English The Remonstrant would seeme to understand by this onely such an inoffensivenesse in the devotion of it as the Pope himself could find no fault in it whereas the Bishop meant such a symmetry and correspondency of our present devotion and service with the Popish as was in his esteem just matter of Humiliation to al the Bishops in the Kingdom in a day of solemn national Fasting Instead of bringing out those great applauses that forreigne Divines and Churches have given to our Liturgie hee falls though more gently then hee is wont upon Master Calvin for his Tolerabiles ineptiae as if that hee did 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It seemes the Remonstrant did not either consider the occasion of that Censure or else his not Omniscient eyes never saw the Epistle that the Learned Calvin wrote to the dispersed at Frankfort which would tell him that the occasion of
of ordination challenge also sole power of confirmation If any man object that confirmation is not so appropriated to Bishops as ordination is because as some of you say confirmation is onely reserved to them honoris gratiâ ordination they have necessitatis gratiâ this objection we have satisfied in our answer page 38. wherein we have shewed not onely from Loo that the power of ordination was reserved to them onely authoritate canonum but also that it was appropriated to them for their credit and authority Augustine speakes almost in the same words Nam in Alexandria per totum Aegyptum si desit Episcopus consecrat Presbyter that which in Ambrose is called consignat is here called consecrat and albeit the authors of both these bookes be questioned yet both of them are acknowledged ancient yea Doctor Raynolds affirmes the last of them from the 44. question was written above 300. yeeres after Christ this is enough to us that in antiquity consignat is expounded by consecrat which cleares us of that imagined guilt of a solaecisme that hee would fasten upon us and this may satisfie if this man be satisfiable that bold challenge of the former page shew us but one instance of a Presbyters regular and practized ordaining without a Bishop and carry the cause Our third charge is double first of skill not too much secondly of lesse fidelity Our want of skill is in not distinguishing of Chorepiscopi whō we brought as instances of Presbyters ordaining without a Bishop some of whom saith the Remonstrant had the nature and power of Episcopacy to all purposes and therefore might well by the Bishops licence in his owne charge impose hands Now we may returne it to the Remonstrant that he discovers not too much skill in saying that some Chorepiscopi had both the nature and power of Episcopacy to all purposes and yet might not ordaine in his own charge without the Bishops license For what needs a Bishops licence to inable a Chorepiscopus in his owne charge to doe that for the doing of which hee had before the nature and power of Episcopacy to all purposes This is just as our Bishops are wont to do who give a full power to a Presbyter at his ordination to preach the Gospell with a charge also to do it and yet will not suffer him to preach no not in his own Cure without a licence But how doth the Remonstrant make good his distinction of his two sorts of Chorepiscopi from antiquity Here we have ipse dixit and no more The peremptorinesse of Pythagoras the master in affirming the silence of his schollars when he comes to prove Bellarmine indeed tels us that some Chorepiscopi were ordained by more Bishops then one and these had power to ordaine Others were ordained by one Bishop and those were meere Presbyters and might not ordaine But with how much fidelity Bellarmine and after him the Remonstrant doth thus distinguish let the Councell of Antioch determine 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Let the Chorepiscopus be ordained by the Bishop of the City to whom hee is subject From which Councell wee gather that the Chorepiscopi were meere Presbyters and that there were but one sort of them First because the Chorepiscopus was to be ordained by one Bishop ab Episcopo not ab Episcopis whereas by the Canons a Bishop was to be ordained by many or two at least As for Bellarmine his Chorepiscopus ordained by more Bishops then one wee leave it to him to make good indeed we finde in the same Canon the Chorepiscopi in the plurall number had the imposition of the hands of Bishops but when Chorepiscopus in the singular number is mentioned then onely one Bishop is said to ordaine him 2. Because the Chorepiscopus was to be subject to the Bishop of the City ab Episcopo civitatis cui subjicitur now we read no where of the subjection of one Bishop and his charge to another Cyprian pleads the freedome of Bishops telling us that each of them hath a portion of Christs flocke assigned to him for which he is to give account to God 3. Because he could not nay he durst not exercise the power of Ordination without the leave of the Bishop the Councell of Antioch sayes non audeat absque urbis Episcopo Conc. Ancyr sayes non licere nisi cum literis ab Episcopo permissum fuerit None of this would have beene said if he had beene a Bishop as we have in part shewed in our answer page 36. We deny not but that this power of ordaining was afterward taken away from the Chorepiscopi by the same authority of the Canons and Ecclesiasticall rules by which it was first appropriated to Bishops themselves as Leo. ep 88. witnesses which to us is a 4th argument to prove that they once had it and that they had it as Presbyters for if they had it as Bishops the taking of it away would have beene a degradation of them 5. We might bring an argument ad hominem to prove the Chorepiscopi to be but Presbyters because they are sayd Conc. Naeocaesar Can. 14. to be after the manner or in imitation of the seventy now according to the opinion of Hierarchicall men Bishops succeed the Apostles not the seventy To all that we have said in this point we might ad that not onely Damasus in that Epistle which goes under his name ep 4. but also Leo ep 88. proves them to be but meere Presbyters to whose sentence conc 2. Hispal can 7. subscribes Now leaving the Chorepiscopi we will give the reader a hint to prove that not onely the Presbyters of Alexandria and the Chorepiscopi but further the Presbyters of the City with the Bishops leave might ordaine which we prove from cenc Ancyr can 13. named before where it is said It is not lawfull for Chorepiscopi to ordaine Presbyters or Deacons nor for the Presbyters of the City without the Bishop his letters in an other parish from which it appeares that Presbyters of the City had the same power to ordaine which the rurall Bishops had Because the restraint is layed equally upon both this is not onely our construction of the Canon Bishop Bilson Doctor Downam def lib. 1. cap. 8. say the same and Doctor Downam gathers from thence that Presbyters in the City might doe more then rurall Presbyters So doth Spalatensis who endeavouring to elude the text hath no other way but by foisting in a passage which is not in the Greeke text And by this time we hope we have cleared our fidelity in quoting of the Councels of Antioch and Ancyra both which the Remonstrant thought his bare word enough to blast Now we appeale to equall judgements whether the labour of this section were meerely cast away or no. The Remonstrant grants sole ordination was in regard of the exercise not challenged by Bishops in the Primitive times Though he would perswade the reader we cannot but confesse
that the Apostle Iohn sate many yeeres B. of Ephesus and was the Metropolitan of all Asia in which we suppose the Remonstrant will allow his readers a liberty of beleeving him and allow us a liberty to tell him that D Whitakers saith Patres cum Iacobum Episcopum vocant aut etiam Petrum non propriè sumunt Episcopi nomen sed vocant eos Episcopos illarum Ecclesiarum in quibus aliquamdin commorati sunt And in the same place Et si propriè de Episcopo loquatur absurdum est Apostolos suisse Episcopos Nam qui propriè Episcopus est is Apostolous non potest esse quia Episcopus est unius tantum Ecclesiae At Apostoli plurium Ecclesiarum fundatores inspectores erant And againe Hoc enim non mulâ—um distat ab insaniâ dicere Petrum fuisse propriè Episcopum out reliquos Apostolos Now we returne to our Remonstrant Our answer to his objection from the Angels was That the word Angell is to be taken collectively not individually which he cals pro more suo a shift and a conceit which no wise man can ever beleeve And yet he could not but take notice that we alleaged Austin Gregory Fulke Perkins Fox Brightman Mede and divers others for this interpretation which will make the world to accuse him for want of wisdome for calling the wisedome of such men into question Before he addresseth himself to answer our reasons he propounds two queres 1. If the interest be common and equally appertaining to all why should one be singled out above the rest A very dull question which is indeed a very begging of the cause For the question in agitation is whether when Christ writes to the 7. Angels he meant to single out 7. individuall persons above the rest or else writes to the 7. Angels collectively meaning all the Angels that were in all the Churches The second question is as dull as the first If you will yeeld the person to be such as had more then others a right in the administration of all it is that weseeke for But he knew we would not yield it And therefore we may justly use his owne words that those questions are tedious and might well have beene spared And so also the instances of a letter indorsed from the Lords of the Councell to the Bishop of Durham concerning some affaires of the whole Clergy of his Diocesse No man will deny but that the Bishop of Durham is an individuall Bishop This example supposeth the Angell about whom we dispute to be meant individually which you know is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 betweene you and us Quid haec ad Rhombum We will give you instances more suitable to the purpose Suppose one in Christs time or his Apostles had indorsed a letter to the Chiefe-priest concerning the affaires of the Sanhedrim and another letter to the chiefe Ruler of the Synagogue concerning the affaires of the Synagogue and another letter to the Captaine of the Temple concerning the businesse of the Temple could any man imagine but that these indorsments must necessarily be understood collectively considering there were more Chiefe-priests then one in Ierusalem Luke 22. 4. and more chiefe Rulers of the Synagogue then one Math. 19. 18. compared with Acts 18. 8. 17. And more Captaines of the Temple then one Acts 4 1. compared with Luke the â—2 4. and so also semblably more Angels and Ministers in the seven Churches then seven But stay sir we hope you are not of opinion that any of your Asian Bishops had as much spirituall and temporall power as the Lord Bishop of Salisbury and the Lord Bishop and Palatine of Durham Cave dixeris At last you come to our proofes which you scoffingly call invincible You should have done better to have called them irrefragable like your good friends irrefragable propositions Our first argument is drawne from the Epistle to Thyatira Revel 2. 24. But I say unto you in the plurall number not unto thee in the singular and unto the rest in Thyatira Here is a plaine distinction betweene the Governours and the governed And the Governours in the plurall number which apparently proves that the Angell is collective The Remonstrant hath no way to put this off but by a pittifull shift to use his owne words He tels us he hath found a better coppy which is a very unhappy and unbecoming expression apt to make ignorant people doubt of the originall text and so in time rather to deny the Divinity of the Scriptures then of Episcopacy But this better coppy is but lately searcht into for we finde that Bishop Hall in his Episcopacy by Divine right reads it as we doe But I say unto you and the rest in Thyatira But what is this better Coppy It is a Manuscript written by the hand of Teela which if it be no truer then Itinerarium Pauli Teclae it will have little credit among the Learned But that which makes you to magnifie it the more is that doughty argument which it helped you to against us concerning the same Church of â—hyatira in which the Angell is charged for suffering that woman Iezabel And now you say in that memorable copy of Tecla it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which you interpret thy wife Iczebel And just as Archimedes you come with an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And call upon us to blush for shame What say you in a different character shall we thinke she was wife to the whole company or to one Bishop alone But for our part we doe thinke you have more cause to blush for making such a Translation and rather then you will not prove the Angell of Thyatira to be an individuall Bishop you will un-Angell him and make him an other Ahab to marry a cursed Iezebel We wonder that never any protestant writer had the wit to bring this text against the papists to prove the lawfulnesse of Priests marriages no not Doctor Hall himselfe in his defence of the married Clergy Give us leave here to use your owne words page 108. Forbeare Reader if you can to smile at this curious subtilty what Cabalisme have we here judge Reader what to expect of so deepe speculations And also to repeate what you say page 110. If you please your selfe with this new subtilty it is well from us you have no cause to expect an answer it can neither draw our assent nor merit our confutation We beleeve it to be as true that Iezebel was the wife of the Bishop of Thyatira as that Tecla was the wife of Paul But to returne to the former text Let any judicious reader survey the latter part of the 23. verse which is the verse before that out of which we bring our reason there he shall finde Christ speaking to the Church of Thyatira saith And I will give to every one of you in the plurall number And then followes But I say unto you and the rest in
have beene established by the Lawes of this Realme and Church And why these Ceremonies are the Bishops more then Ours We answer First That to our knowledge some have beene urged to subscribe to other ceremonies then have beene established by the Lawes of this Realme and Church and to promise obedience editis â—dendis Secondly that this very urging of us to subscribe to the ceremonies established is more then the Lawes require For the Lawes require to subscription onely to the thirty nine Articles Thirdly We cannot but justly dislike your distinction of The Lawes of this Realme and Church For we know no Lawes of the Church obligatory but such as are established by the Lawes of the Realme as both Houses of Parliament have lately determined And whereas you aske Why these Ceremonies are the Bishops more then ours We answer First because it is ordinarily said No Ceremony no Bishop But it was never said No Ceremony no Presbyter Secondly because in the Convocation which you here terme the Church the Bishops or rather the Archbishop swayes all And there are five or six which are there Ex mâ—ero Officio and for the most part are the Bishops creatures and hang their suffrages upon his lippes and but two Clerkes for the Presbyters which also for the most part are forced upon them by the Bishop and his Officers Thirdly because they are ours if ours as a burden But theirs as their crowne and glory for which they fight as for a second Purgatory to uphold their Courts and Kitchins In the next place we propounded an objection framed by Bishop Andrewes and divers others from the inequality in the Ministery appointed by Christ himselfe betweene the twelve Apostles and the seventy Disciples To which wee answered First that it cannot be proved that the Apostles had any superiority over the seventy either of ordination or jurisdiction Sâ—condly suppose it could yet That 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 To which you reply first That the Apostles ordained the Deacons that Paul laid hands on Timothy But this is no solution of the objection unlesse you can prove the Deacons and Timothy to have beene amongst the number of the seventy Disciples or Paul to have beene one of the twelve Apostles Secondly you answer That Bishops and Presbyters differ toto genere and are Offieers of different kind as much as the Apostles and the seventy Disciples Which is an assertion not onely contrary to the Fathers who accounted the Bishop to be but Primus Presbyter and as Hierome saith Vnum ex se electum celsiori gradu collocatum But also more unsound then most of the Papists who freely acknowledge that Presbyteratus is the highest order in the ministry and that Episcopacy is but a different degree of the same order and not a superior order from Presbyters An order may be reputed higher either because it hath intrinsecally an higher vertue or because it hath an higher degree of honour and dignity Now we deny not but the latter antiquity did by their Canons make Episcopacy an higher Order in regard of dignity and honour 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as a Councell speakes but did never account it an higher power by divine right This last branch the Remonstrant would faine prove if he could by an argument drawne from succession because saith he the Bishops succeed the Apostles and the Presbyters the seventy Disciples And we are challenged page 158. to shew whether ever any Father or Doctor of the Church till this present age held that Presbyters were the successors to the Apostles and not to the seventy Disciples rather But here is nothing in which the Remonstrant shewes more wilfull ignorance then in this For the ancient Fathers doe make the Presbyters successors of the Apostles as well as Bishops Thus Irenaeus liber 4. cap. 43 44. Quapropter eis qui in Ecclesiâ sunt Presbyteris obedire oportet his qui successionem habent ab Apostolis sicut ostendimus qui eum Episcopatus successione charisma veritatis certum secundum placitum patris acceperunt So also cap 44. and lib. 3. cap. 2. Thus also our Ierome as you call him in his Epistle ad Heliodorum Clerici dicuntur Apostolico gradâ—i successisse So Origen in Matth. 16. saith all Presbyters succeeded the Apostles in the power of the keyes And Ignatius ad Smyâ—nonses saith the same Yet still like as you say you have heard page 125. some beaten cocke you dare erow and tell your Reader that all antiquity hath acknowledged 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 three severall rankes in the Church Hierarchie But where will you begin your antiquity We say with the Father iâ— verum quod antiquissimum Shew us your three degrees in Scripture You confesse page 47. that these three orders are not there to be found We read in Scripture the Deacon to be a step to a Presbyter but not a Presbyter to a Bishop And wee deny that ever it was accounted in antiquity that a Bishop did ever differ from a Presbyter as a Presbyter from a Deacon For these differ Genere proximo No â—erint Diaconi se ad ministerium non ad sacerdotium vocari But a Bishop differs from a Presbyter as from one who hath that power of Priesthood no lesse than himselfe and therefore the difference betweene these Priests be circumstantiall and not so essentiall as betwixt the other Thus Bishops and Archbishops are divers orders of Bishops according to some Canons of the Church not that one excelled the other as a power of higher vertue but of higher dignity then the other Indeed of late yeeres Episcopacy hath beene a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to preferment and a ladder for all pious and conscientious men to be suspended upon as Mordecai upon Hamans gallowes but now is in danger to become like Hamans ladder their owne ruine and downe-fall Iam sumus ergo pares In your transition to your next Paragraph that you might disparage the opposets of the Hierarchicall Episcopacy by divine right you endeavour to make them the Disciples of none but Ierome But here in you cannot but know how injuriously you deale with them considering the numberlesse number of Authors both ancient and moderne that assert that which you would fasten upon him alone In the Paragraph it selfe you confesse what we undertooke to prove That the ancient Bishops and others differ in regard of their Accessories dignities titles and maintenance But onely whereas among other instances we told you of golden Chalices and wooden Priests You tell us That if in time we should see wooden Chalicer and wooden Priests we may thanke our selves Truely sir we may thanke you and not our selves for the Lordlinesse and in solent carriages of some Bishops under the great revenues and the multitude of wooden Priests