who have laboured about the Reformation of the Church these five hundred yeeres of whom he names abundance have taught that all Pastors be they intitulated Bishops or Priests have equall authority and power by the Word of God and by this the Reader may know Doctor Reinolds his judgment concerning Episcopacie There is one thing more belongs to this Section as to the proper seat and that is the establishment which he seeks to Episcopacie froÌ„ the laws of the Kingdom to which we having answered that Laws are repealable the Parliament having a Nomotheticall power He answers though laws are repealable yet fundamentall laws are not subject to alteration upon personall abuses Secondly that he speaks not against an impossibility but an easinesse of change which our guiltinesse would willingly overlook But consider we beseech you how fitly is Episcopal Government made a piece of the fundamentall Laws of the Kingdome How did the Kingdome then once stand without Bishops as in the very page you had now to answer you might have seen once it did For doth not the Marginall tell you from Sir Edward Coke or rather from an Act reported by him in the 23 yeere of Edward the first that the holy Church was founded in the state of Prelacie within the Realme of England by the King and his progenitors which your guiltinesse will needs overlooke for feare you should see that there was a King of this Realme of England before there was a Prelacie And how then is Episcopacie one of the fundamentals of the Kingdome And whereas you say you spake onely against an easinesse of change read your words in the eighteenth page of your Remonstrance A man would thinke it were plea enough to challenge a reverend respect and an immunitie from all thoughts of alteration is this to speake against an easinesse or rather against a possibility of change For your conclusion that things indifferent or good having by continuance and generall approbation beene well rooted in Church and State may not upon light grounds be pulled up Good Sir never trouble your selfe about such an indifferent thing as Episcopacie is Never feare but if Episcopacie be rooted up it will be done by such hands as will not doe it upon light grounds SECT V. THey that would defend the Divine right of Episcopacie derive the pedigree of it from no lesse then Apostolicall and in that right divine institution so did this Remonstrant This we laboured in this Section to disprove and shew that it might be said of our Bishops as of those men Ezra 62. These men sought their Register among those that were reckoned by Genealogie but they were not found therefore were they as polluted put from the Priesthoâ—d For the Bishops whose pedigree is derived from the Apostles were no others then Presbyters this we evinced by foure mediums out of Scripture but insisted onely upon two the identitie of their name and office Before wee come to the Remonstrants answer wee will minde the Reader of what the Remonstrant saith That we have a better faculty at gathering then at strewing which if we have we shall here make good use of our faculty in gathering the choice flowers which himself hath scattered yielding unto us the mayn Scripture grounds whereby the Patrons of Episcopacie have endevoured to uphold their cause For himselfe confesseth the Bishops cause to be bad if it stand not by divine Right and compares the leaving of divine right and supporting themselves by the indulgence and munificence of religious Princes unto the evill condition of such men who when God hath withdrawn himselfe make flesh their arme And whether himselfe hath not surrendred up this divine right judge by that which followeth Our main argument was That Bishops and Presbyters in the originall authority of Scripture were the same Hee answers in the name of himselfe and his Party This is in expresse terms granted by us We argue it further That we never find in Scripture any other orders of Ministery but Bishops and Deacons He answers Brethren you might have spared to tell mee that which I have told you before And adds That when wee alleage the Apostles writings for the identity of Bishops and Presbytâ—rs we oppose not his assertion because he speaks of the monuments of immediate succession to the Apostolike times but we of the writing of the Apostles And for the two other arguments drawn from the identitie of the qualifications of Bishops and Presbyters for their Office and Ordination to their office hee answers Ne 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 quidem And yet notwithstanding that the Reader may not perceive how the Remonstrant betrayes his own cause he deals like the fish Sepia and casteth out a great deal of black inke before the eyes of the Reader that so hee may escape without observation But wee will trace him and finde him out where hee thinks himselfe most secure For first he falsly quotes our answer Whereas wee say That in originall authority Bishops Presbyters are the same he tels us we say That Bishops and Presbyters went originally for the same That is saith he There was at first a plain indentity in their denomination Which two answers differ Immane quantum And yet howsoever this very identity of denomination in Scripture is of no small consequence what ever the Remonstrant makes of it For the proper ends of Names being to distinguish things according to the difference of their natures and the supream wisdome of God being the imposer of these names who could neither be ignorant of the nature of these offices nor mistake the proper end of the imposition of names nor want variety to expresse himselfe the argument taken from the constant identity of denomination is not so contemptible as the Remonstrant pretends Especially considering that all the texts brought to prove the identity of names prove as intrinsecally the identity of Offices which we did cleerly manifest by that text Titus 1. 5 6 7. Where the Apostle requiring Presbyters to be thus and thus qualified renders the reason because Bishops must be so Which argument would no ways evince what the Apostle intended if there were onely an idenditie of names and not also of offices and qualifications When the names are the same and the Offices distinct who but one that cares not what hee affirmes would infer the same offices as a consequent from the identity of their names Who would say that the properties of the Constellation called Canis ought to be the same with the bruit creature so called because they have both one name And this we desire the Reader to take the more notice of because the Remonstrant passeth it over in silence Secondly the Remonstrant seemes to recant that which he had before granted tels us that though in the Apostolike Epistles there be no nominal distinction of the titles yet here is a reall distinction and specification of the duties as we shall see in due place
meant and if we ever did use the word Communicated it was onely to note a Community in that power not a derivation of it as for his authors which he alleages for sole Ordination let the Reader please to view our answer pag. 37. 38. wherein hee may receive full satisfaction and the rather because the Remonstrant passeth over it The third part of that office which the Bishops call theirs is ruling To prove this to belong to Presbyters as well as Bishops we cite Heb. 13. 17. Here the Remonstrant cryes out Oh injurious imputation do wee not give you the title of Rectores Ecclesiarum And doe we not commit to you regimen Animarum So then you grant this place is rightly both interpreted and applied but you give us say you the title of rectores Animarum regimen Animarum You give us No it is the Scripture gives it us yet you would assume it to your selves and perswad that as the Pope communicates to his Bishops partem solicitudinis so you to us Presbyters but if the Scriptures gave us no more then you do it would prove 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 You make your selves the sole Pastors us but the Curates your selves Chancellours Officials the sole Iudges us but the executioners of your and their sentences whether just or unjust The other Text 1 Thes. 5. 12. and those four things observed from thence for the confirming of this assertion the Remonstrant passeth over so hee doth our argument which was this They which have the same name the same Ordination to their office the same qualification for their office the same work to feed the flock of God to ordain Pastors and Elders to rule and governe they are one and the same But such are Bishops and Presbyters ergo And thus deals hee also with the two quotations the one of the Councell of Aquisgra the other out of the writing of Smalcald all which being to hard for the Remonstrant to evade hee leaps over to a conclusion of such strange things as hee never went about to prove in his Section SECT VI. HAving from Scripture manifested the Identity of Bishops and Presbyters in their originall institution we applied our selves in this section to finde out the authors and occasion of this imparity which now appeares between them To expedite our selves from needlesse controversies we laid downe three particulars as consented to by both sides First that the first and best antiquity used the names of Bishops and Presbyters promiscuously this the Remonstrant subscribes to Secondly that in processe of time some one was honoured with the name of Bishop the rest were called Presbyters this the Remonstrant quarrels and desires to know what was this processe of time chargeth us either with error or fraud confidently defends this time had no processe at all but was in the very 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the living Apostles and undertakes to make this good in the sequell And how he doth that you shall find in this very section page 59. where to that of Hierom The Presbyters governed the Church by their common Councel he answers So they did doubtlesse altogether till Episcopacy was setled who dare deny it Here the Remonstrant grants a processe of time betweene the planting of the Church by the Apostles and the setling of Episcopacy in the Churches Shall we say now this is the Remonstrants either errour or fraud not to set downe how long it was before Episcopacy was setled in the Church let him take heed another time how he charge men with error or fraud for affirming that which himselfe cannot but give his Suffrage to The third thing agreed upon was that this was not nomen inane an idle title but attended upon with some kind of imparity the question was digested into these tearmes Whether the impropriation of the name and the imparity of the place and power of a Bishop be of divine right The Remonstrant for feare of mistaking desires to explicate the tearmes of the question and therefore tels how fetching the pedegree of Episcopacy from Apostolicall and therefore in that right divine institution he interprets himselfe to understand by divine right not any expresse Law of God requiring it as of absolute necessity to the being of a Church but an institution of the Apostles inspired by the holy Ghost warranting it where it is and requiring it where it may be had but Nihil infelicius Retorico definiente the Remonstrant if he would avoyd mistaking or at least would not say that he was mistaken should have dealt a little more clearely and punctually in the stateing of the Question For first he tels us that it is an institution of the Apostles inspired by the Holy ghost if the Remonstrant be not here mistaken why doth he page 47. in expresse terms grant us that in originall authority of Scripture Bishops and Presbyters were originally the same For so were our words not as the Remonstrant reports them went for the same and why againe when we tell him we never finde in Scripture these three orders Bishops Presbyters Deacons we say not the names but orders why doth he grant that in the same page and flie from the writings of the Apostles to the monuments of their immediate successers can we imagine that the Apostles did by inspiration from the holy Ghost ordaine any thing in the Church of God as of perpetuall use the record where of is not found in sacred Scripture which was given by the same inspiration to the same men if we may imagine it sure we cannot beleeve it And if it be an institution of the Apostles inspired by the holy Ghost why must it be distinguished from the expresse law of God doth he make it but an evangelicall counsell not requiring it as necessary to the being of a Church sure this is some opinion of a newer cut for the last defendant of Episcopacy before this Remonstrant saies thus The power of Ordination hath beene ever held so intrinsecall to Episcopacy that I would faine see where it can be shewed that any extremity of necessity was ever acknowledged a warrant sufficient for others to ordaine So that in his judgement where there is no Bishop there can be no lawfull ordination let it be in the case of extreamest necessity and where no ordination no ministery and so consequently no Word and Sacraments and no Church and how then in the judgement of these men is Episcopacy not required to the being of a Church And if not requiring it to the being of a Church how then requiring it onely where it may be had what a strange limitation is this where is it that Episcopacy may not must not be had if it be an ordinance of Christ where is it that the Churches of Christ may not have Word Sacraments Pastors and Bishops too if they be his ordinance It is true indeed some there are that cannot have Lord Bishops pompous Bishops and once
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
Christian Reader judge whether more credit be to be given to Hierome as an Historian quoting humane History or to Hierome as a Divine quoting Scriptures And yet what can be brought to prove that those Bishops were not the same with Presbyters For the diabolicall occasion of bringing in Episcopacy into the Church if there be any fault in the phrase it is Hieromes not ours therefore the weaknes and absurdity is slung in the face of that waspish hot good man Hierome not in ours The institution of Episcopacy Hierome saith was rather by the custome of the Church then by the truth of the Lords disposition to avoyd the stroke of which the Remonstrant would faine perswade Hierome to owne that which in the judgement of Belarm Spalato and almost as many as have writ before the Remonstrant never entered into his thoughts nor can be the proper meaning of his words That by the custome of the Church the father meanes the Church Apostolique and by the Lords disposition Christs immediate institution This were to make Hierome of their mind How well this may be done let their sworne friend Spalato give his verdict Sunt qui Hieronymum in rect am sententiam vel invitum velint trahere one of these must this Remonstrant be As for that passage of Hierome ad Euagrium where he saies this superiority of Bishops above Presbyters is by Apostolicall tradition Hierome in that Epistle sharpens his reproofe against some Deacons that would equallize themselves to Presbyters an opinion which the Remonstrant thinks more reasonable then that Presbyters should be equall to Bishops to make this reproofe the stronger he saith Presbyteris ad est Episcopisâ— and a little after he doth out of the Scripture most manifestly prove eundem esse Presbyterum at que Episcopum and carries this proofe by Paul by Peter and by Iohn the longest surviver of the Apostles then adde quod autem postea unus electus qui caeteris praeponeretur in schismatis remedium factum The reason why afterwards one was elected and set over the rest was the cure of schisme It is hard to conceive how this imparity can be properly called an Apostolicall tradition when Hierome having mentioned Iohn the last of the Apostles saith it was postea afterwards that one was set over the rest yet should we grant it an Apostolicall tradition in Hieromes sense it would be no prejudice to our cause seeing with him Apostolicall tradition and Ecclesiasticall custome are the same witnesse that instance of the observation of Lent which he writing ad Marcellum saith is Apostolica traditio yet writing adversus Luciferianos faith it is Ecclesiae consuetudo whereby it fully appeares that Hierome by Apostolicall tradition meant not an Apostlicall institution but an ecclesiasticall custome and so much we granted Episcopacie to have Hierome saith toto orbe decretum est and it was decreed all the world over say you in the time of the first divisions Hierome said not so say we but after these divisions not in the time of these first divisions Is this faithfull translating By what power say you besides Apostolicall could it be decreed so soone and so universally But how if it were decreed neither soone nor universally If we may believe Hierome it was neither soone nor at once but paulatim by little and little not by Apostolicall decree but by the custome of the Church Hierome saith the Presbyters governed the Church by their Canon Councell So they did saith the Remonstrant altogether till Episcopacy was setled who dare deny it sure hee dares deny it who in the 55. page of his defence chargeth us with errour and fraud for saying that though at first the name and office of a Bishop and Presbyter was the same yet in processe of time some one was honoured with the name of Bishop and confidently defends that this time had no processe but was the very 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the living Apostles but how his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 there without any processe of time can stand with his donec hereâ— and with Hieromes paulatim postquam postea let him see to that Hierome saith they ought so to governe still so saith the Remonstrant say we also and so in some cases they do Good sir and why not in all cases Church government you say is Aristocraticall True when it is in the hands of the best men then it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But when the men in whose hands the government of the Church is are bad then it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Kakistocraticall But our present Church government is not Aristocraticall but Monarchicall because not onely one Bishop Lords it over his Diocesse but also one Primate appoints to all other Bishops Besides if it were Aristocraticall then ought every Minister to be a member of that Aristocracy for certainely no man will account the Minister de plebe in the judgement not onely of the ancient Fathers but of reason it selfe none can be accounted plebs but the Laicks seing every Minister is elected optimatim and is as one of a thousand Next you tell us there is no Bishop so absolute as not to be subject to the judgement of a Synod It is much he should not when all the fixed members of our Synod are the Bishops meere dependants such packing used in the choice of the rest as perhaps worse was not at the Councell of Trent Thus all the art the Remonstrant hath cannot perswade Hierome to befriend our Bishops in his judgement and is it not strange boldnesse to perswade the Reader that Hierome should against his judgement befriend them in his history After the allegation we produced some reasons to shew that though it should be granted these were in the times of the Apostles yet the Invention of Bishops for the taking away of thâ—se schismes is not Apostolicall our arguments the Remonstrant according to his greatnesse cals poore negative arguments which yet we entreat the Reader to view for his further satisfaction and remember that in Sacrâ Spripturâ locus tenet ab authoriâ—ate negativè And good sir how doe we in them gâ—e about to Confute our owne Authors what doe these reasons conclude more but that Bishops were neither of Divine nor Apostolicall institution and what doth Hierome say lesse Tell not us of striking our own friend let him suffer as an Hieronymomastix that when Hierome crosses his opinion cals him a waspish hot good man In the next place you look'd for Ambrose yet you might have taken notice that we spake but of the CoÌ„mentaries that goe under the name of Ambrose which if you call a foyst all your owne side are as guilty as our selves that cite him as well as we and some for Ambrose how ever this is much lesse then your selfe did in point of Liturgie Where we desiring to see some Liturgies not Spurious you produced the Liturgy of Iames c.
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
it out of Hierome and Chrysostome Yet let the reader consult the 37. page of our answer which the Remonstrant leaves unanswered and judge betweene us how farre we are from such confession his onely shift now is to say our Bishops neither challenge nor exercise any such power We have evidently proved they doe both manet ergo inconcussum our Bishops and the Bishops of former times are two SECT IX HEre saith the Remonstrant we beat the aire And yet not the aire but the Remonstrant too into the confession of that which would not be confest heretofore by such of theÌ„ especially as have contended for such a Bishop as exercised spirituall jurisdiction out of his owne peculiarly demandated authority If iurisdiction exercised from an authority peculiarly demandated how not solely Well now it is granted that this sole is cryed downe by store of antiquity So then here we doe not falsifie and it is granted that Presbyters have and ought to have and exercise a jurisdiction within their owne charge But here the Remonstrant will distinguish againe it is in foro conscientiae But consider Reader whether this be the jurisdiction here under dispute Whether that store of antiquity which he confesseth to cry downe sole jurisdiction speake of a jurisdiction in foro conscientiae as his false Margent saith Clem Alexan. whom we cited doth But indeed this distinction of the Remonstrant of a jurisdiction in foro interno and in foro externo is like that distinction of Reflexivè and Archipodialiter For all humane jurisdiction is in foro externo If preaching the word which is especially aim'd at by the Remonstrant be an exercise of jurisdiction Then he that hath the Bishops licence to preach in the Diocesse hath power to exercise jurisdiction through the Diocesse and an University preacher throughout the whole Kingdome Away with these toyes He grants againe that Presbyters ought to be consulted with in the great affaires of the Church but doe our quotations prove no more Bishops had their Ecclesiasticall Councell of Presbyters with whom they did consult in the greatest matters and was it onely in the greatest matters Is this all that Cyprian saith All that the Councell of Carthage saith when it determines ut Episcopus nullius causam audiat absque praesentia Clericorum alioquin irrita erit sententia Episcopi nisi Clericorum praesentia confirmetur Doth this speak onely of great matters when it saith Nullius causam audiat Is this onely of a jurisdiction the Presbyters had in foro conscientiae Were Bishops with their Consistory wont to sit to heare and judge causes in foro conscientiae good Reader judge of this mans truth and ingenuity who not being able to divert the stroke of that Antiquity we brought to manifest a difference betweene ours and the former Bishops in the exercise of their jurisdiction would cast a mist before his Readers eyes and perswade him he grants the whole section when indeed hee grants nothing onely seekes to slide away in the darke But our Bishops have their Deanes and Chapters say you and the lawes of our Church frequently make that use of them Yes you have Deanes and Chapters but who knowes not that they have a jurisdiction distinct from the Bishops in which the Bishop hath nothing to doe with theirs nor they with his And the Bishops also derive the exercise of jurisdiction to others we know it too well to Chancellours Commissaries Officials and other of their underlings even to the commanding of Christs Ministers to denounce their censures without any discerning what equity is in the cause And what advise or assistance of Ministers is required appeares by the very stile of your excommunications G. R. Doctor of Law Commissary c. to all Rectors c. For as much as we proceeding rightly c. have adjudged all and every one whose names are under-written to be excommunicated We doe therefore commit to you c. to denounce openly under paine and perill c. Given under our Seale such a day c. Let any footsteps of such a power be shewed in antiquity Presbyters he grants had their votes in Provinciall synods we from good authority say more they had their votes in all ordinary Iudicatures But after all these grants which are as good as nothing now he comes to plead his owne We justly say that the superiority of jurisdiction is so in the Bishop as that Presbyters neither may nor did exercise it without him to what purpose is this if the Remonstrant speake of Scripture times We have proved there was no superiority in them if of latter times it is not to the question wee are proving Bishops never exercised jurisdiction without their Presbyters as ours doe He puts us to prove Presbyters exercised jurisdiction without Bishops quam iniquè But the exercise of externall jurisdiction is derived from by and under the Bishop No neither from by nor under the Bishop but from God who hath made them overseers and rulers and by the same Ecclesiasticall authority that hath made you Bishops and under Bishops not in respect of divine power but if at all in respect of Ecclesiasticall Canons onely Your Timothy and Titus we shall meet in due place Your Ignatius and the rest of your testimonies you could produce would as you say truely but surfeit the readers eyes unlesse you could bring them to prove that Bishops did and might exercise sole jurisdiction Onely because you so triumph in our supposed scapes let us intreat you or the reader for you to looke upon your cited Councell of Antioch 24 25 Canon where you say the Bishop hath power of those things that belong to the Church and see whether that speakes one word of jurisdiction or be not wholy to be understood of the distribution of the goods of the Church as both the instance given in the Canon and Zonaras on that place manifest One shift yet the Remonstrant hath more and that is to tell us that this joynt government was but occasionall and temporary in times of persecution But when a generall peace had blessed them and they had a concurrence of soveraigne and subordinate authority with them they began so much to â—emit this care of conjoyning their forces as they supposed to finde lesse need of it Doctor Downham to whom hee referres in the page before assignes other reasons Namely Presbyters desiring their ease and Scholasticall quietnesse which he saith and proves not and also the Bishops desiring to rule alone which we finde to be the true cause by experience For if the Bishops be of the Remonstrants mind perswaded that the more frequent communicating of all the important businesse of the Church whether censures or determinations with those grave assistants which in the eye of the Law are designed to this purpose were a thing not onely unprejudiciall to the honour of Episcopacy but behovefull to the Church Why should not the Bishops doe
20. of Acts Presbyters and Bishops to be all one Doe we prove the Bishops described in Timothy and Titus to be one and the same in name and office with a Presbyter Doe we prove that their Churches were all governed Communi Consilio Presbyterorum All shall be granted us and yet the Divine right of Episcopacy be still held up by this sleight by telling us that before the Apostles left the earth they made over their authority to some prime men Demand where this is extant The Angels of the seven Churches are pleaded presently And partly because we have no other Scripture of latter inspiration and edition whereby to prove the contrary Another inducement is because the writers neere the Apostles times make frequent mention of a Bishop and as they would have us beleeve some waies distinguished from a Presbyter Some of them mentioning the very men that were the Angels of these Churches as Polycarpus of Smyrna Ignatius who is said to have beene martyred within twelve yeeres after the Revelation was written wrote letters to the severall Churches wherein he mentioneth their Bishops distinct from their Presbyters Now saith the author of Episcopacy by divine right the Apostles immediate successors could best tell what they next before them did Who can better tell a mans pace then he that followes him close at heeles And this hath so plausibâ—e a shew that all are condemned as blind or wilfull who will either doubt that Episcopacy was of Apostolicall institution or thinke that the Church of Christ should in so short a time deviate from the institution of the Apostles But now how insufficient a ground this is for the raising up of so mighty a Fabricke as Episcopacy by Divine right or Apostolicall institution wee desire the Reader to judge by that that followes First the thing they lay as their foundation is a meere metaphoricall word and such as is ordinarily applied to Presbyters in common Secondly the Penman of those seven Epistles did never in them nor in any of his other writings so much as use the name of Bishop he names Presbyters frequently especially in this booke yea where he would set out the office of those that are neerest to the throne of Christ in his Church Revel 4. And whereas in Saint Iohns daies some new expressions were used in the Christian Church which were not in Scripture As the Christian Sabbath began to be called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Christ himselfe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Now both these are found in the writings of S. Iohn and it is strange to us that the Apostle should mention a new phrase and not mention a new office erected in the Church as you would make us beleeve Neither thirdly in any of his writings the least intimation of superiority of one Presbyter over another save onely where he names Diotrephes as one ambitiously affecting such a Primacy Nor is there any one word in these Epistles whence an Episcopall authority may be collected So that did not the testimonies that lived soone after make the argument plausible it would appeare ridiculous But alas the suffrage of all the writers in the world is infinitely unable to command an Act of Divine faith without which divine right cannot be apprehended Suppose we were as verily perswaded that Ignatius wrote the Epistles which goe under his name which yet we have just cause to doubt of as knowing that many learned men reject a great part of them and some all as we can be perswaded that Tully wrote his All this can perswade no further that the Apostles ordained and appointed Bishops as their successors but onely by a humane faith but neither is that so The most immediate and unquestionable successors of the Apostles give cleare evidence to the contrary It is granted on all sides that there is no peece of antiquity that deserves more esteeme then the Epistle of Clement lately brought to light by the industry and labour of that learned Gentleman Master Patricke Young And in that Epistle Bishops and Presbyters are all one as appeares by what followes The occasion of that Epistle seemes to be a new sedition raysed by the Corinthians against their Presbyters page 57. 58. not as Bishop Hall saies the continuation of the schismes amongst them in the Apostles daies Clemens to remove their present sedition tels them how God hath alwaies appointed severall orders in his Church which must not be confounded first telling them how it was in the Jewish Church then for the times of the Gospell tels them that Christ sent his Apostles through Countries and Cities in which they constituted the first fruits or the chiefe of them unto Bishops and Deacons for them who should beleeve afterward p. 54. 55. Those whom hee calls there Bishops afterwards throughout the Epistle he cals Presbyters pa. 58 62 69. All which places doe evidently convince that in Clement his judgement the Apostle appointed but two officers that is Bishops and Deacons to bring men to beleeve Because when he had reckoned up three orders appointed by God among the Jewes High-priests Priests and Levites comming to recite orders appointed by the Apostles under the Gospell hee doth mention onely Bishops and Deacons and those Bishops which at first he opposeth to Deacons ever after he cals Presbyters And here we cannot but wonder at the strange boldnesse of the author of Epis. by divine right who hath endevoured to wire-draw this Author so much magnified by him to maintaine his Prelaticall Episcopacy and that both by foysting in the word withall into this translation which is not in the Text that the Reader might be seduced to beleeve that the offices of Episcopacy and Presbytery were two different offices And also by willingly misunderstanding Clement his phrase 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for by the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he would have us understand Episcopacy as distinct from Presbyterie whereas the whole series of the Epistle evidently proves that the word Episcopus Presbyter are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And so also by the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hee would have us to understand that the contention then in Corinth was only about the name whereas it appeares by the Epistle it selfe that the controversie was not about the name but dignity of Episcopacy for it was about the deposition of their godly Presbyters p. 57 58. And the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is thus interpreted by Beza Eph. 1. 21. Phil. 2. 9. Heb. 1. 4. and Mead in Apoc. 11. p. 156. In which places 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is rendred by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so here 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is put for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 By all this we see that the most genuine and neerest successor of the Apostles knew no such difference Lastly it is worth our observation that the same writers who as they say testifie that these 7. Angels were in a superiour degree to Presbyters do likewise affirm
we alledged Obiter Tindals translating the seven Churches seven Congregations All you answer is onely to shew that in other places of the Scripture by Congregation in Tindals sence cannot be meant a parishionall meeting But what if it be not so in other places how doe you make it appeare that it is not so in this place We are sure it is so taken in twenty other places of Tindals translation and may very properly be taken here also We alledge also that in Ephesus which was one of these Candlestickes there was but one flocke You demand whether this flocke were Nationall Provinciall or Diocesan And why doe you not demand whether it were not Oecumenicall also that so the Pope may in time come to challenge his flocke universall But you are sure you say that this flocke was not a parochiall flocke because it cannot be proved that all the Elders to whom Paul spake were onely belonging to Ephesus But can this Remonstant prove that there were more Elders or Bishops then those of Ephesus This is to answer Socratically and in answering not to answer Howsoever it is not so much materiall You your selfe confesse that the Elders or Bishops of Ephesus had but one flocke And if divers Bishops were over one flocke in the Apostles daies where is your individuall Bishops over divers flockes in the Apostles daies Our second argument is also drawne from the Church of Ephesus which was one of the seven Candlestickes in which we are sure in Saint Pauls daies there were many Angels and those called Bishops Acts 20. 28. And to one of those in all likelyhood was the Epistle to Ephesus directed if the direction be meant individually But yet wee read not a word of any superiority or superintendency of one Bishop over another To them the Church in generall is committed without any respect to Timothy who stood at his elbow But to all this ne 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 quideuâ— onely he tels us it is answered in answering the first But how true this is let any Reader judge At the end of this reason wee produce Epiphanlus affirming that in ancient time it was peculiar to Alexandria that it had but one Bishop whereas other Cities had two Here our Remonstrant takes a great deale of paines not to confute us but to confute Epiphanius All that we will reply is this to desire the Reader to consider that this Epiphanius was the first that out of his owne private opinion accused Aerius of madnesse and as this Authour saith of heresie for denying the superiority of Bishops over Presbyters And if this Remonstrant thinke it no disparagement to himselfe to be a confuter of Epiphanius why should we be cryed downe so heavily for not agreeing with Epiphanius in his judgement concerning Aerius The third argument the Remonstrant cuts off in the midst For whereas wee say that there is nothing sayd in the seven Epistles that implyeth any superiority or majority of rule or power that those Angels had over the other Angels that were joyned with them in their Churches the answerer makes it runne thus That there is nothing said in the seven Epistles that implies a superiority which indeed is to spoile the argument For wee grant there is something said to imply a superiority of the Ministers over the people but the question is of a superiority of power of one Angell over the other Angels which were joyned with him in his Church But this he conceales because hee knew it was unanswerable Onely he tels us First that the Epistles are superscribed to the Angell not Angels This is crambe millies cocta But what is this to a majority of rule or power Secondly he tels us it will appeare from the matter of the severall Epistles For hee askes Why should an ordinary Presbyter be taxed for that which hee hath no power to redresse That the Angell of Pergamus should be blamed for having those which hold the doctrine of Balaam or the Nicolaâ—tans when he had no power to proceed against them Or the Angell of the Church of Thyatira for suffering the woman Iezebel if it must be so read to teach and seduce when he had no power of publique censure to restraine her This discourse is very loose and wild Vt nihil pejus dicamus Doth not the Remonstrant plead here for sole power of jurisdiction which hee doth so much disclaime in other places of his booke when hee would have the singular Angel of Pergamus and Thyatira to have power to proceed against offendors either he doth this or nothing For our parts we answer without lisping That it was in the power not of one Angell but of all the Angels of Pergamus and Thyatira to proceed against those that held the doctrine of Balaam and the Nicolaitans To restraine that woman Iezebel or the Bishop of Thyatira his wife if it must needs be so read wee doe not thinke that one ordinary Presbyter as you call him was to exercise censures alone nor one extraordinary Bishop neither We find the contrary Matth. 8. 1 Corinth 5. And therefore we referre it to the Minister or Ministers of each Congregation with the advice and consent of the Presbyters adjoyning which we are sure is more consonant to the word then to leave it to the Hierarchicall Bishop and his Chancellor Commissary or Officiall In the next paragraph wee challenge you to shew us what kind of superiority this Angell had if he had any at all We require you to prove that he had any more then a superiority in parts and abilities or of order Where is it said that the Angell was a superiour degree or order of Ministery above Presbyters Or that he had solepower of ordination and jurisdiction But you flie from those questions as farre as from a Snake that would sting you and disdaining all that we say which is your accustomed way of answering you tell us that you are able to shâ—w who were the parties to whom some of these Epistles were directed and to evince the high degree of their superiority Parturiunt montes nascetur ridiculus mus Alas sir you tell us but what we told you before and what others have ingeminated 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 You say That Ignatius and Tertullian tell us that Onesimus was now the Angell or Bishop of Ephesus and Polycarpus of Smyrna But marke what we answer First we doubt of the truth of the story For others tell us that Timothy was Bishop as they call him of Ephesus when Christ wrote this Epistle and this opinion Ribera Lyra and Pererius follow Others leave it in medio and say it is uncertaine But suppose the story were true we answer Secondly it doth not follow because Onesimus was Bishop of Ephesus in Saint Iohns daies that therefore he was the onely party to whom Christ wrote his Epistle For Saint Paul tels us that there were many Bishops at Ephesus besides Onesimus and he
beene of Divine or Apostolicall institution he might have said so much and not have beene the lesse modest but the more nay hee would have said so much Quis enim est humilitatis fructus ubi detrimentum est veritatis What profit is there in humility with the losse of truth And he that could tell another non accipiet Deus mendacem humilitatem tuam God will not accept of your lying humility could tell himselfe as much So then though it be in humilitate personae that he saith Augustinus Hieronymo minor est yet it is in veritate rei that hee saith Secundum honourm vocabula quae Ecclesiae usus obtinuit Ep. scopatus Presbyterio Major est Thus much for Augustines modesty And as for the Herauldry in blazoning Aerius for an heretick falsely objected ad nauseam usque usque We referre to former answeres The Remonstrant will put us and the Readers to more trouble in the next place because he calles our fidelity into so deepe question about the quotation of Gregory Nazianzen Orat. 28. Where the father is mustering up the armies of evils that might seeme to threaten him shewing the invincible magnanimity of his Spirit more then conquering contemning all Among those evils he reckons his ejection out of his Episcopacy which what ever others would esteeme he counts as nothing and held it a principall part of wisedome in that age to shunne it and then wishes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 utinam nulla sit princeps dignitas that there were no principall dignity to wit in the Church of which he is speaking Secondly he wishes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that there were no dignity or tyrannicall prerogative of place that they might be knowne onely by vertue to which belongs that Dextrum sinistrum those challenges of places of which the Remonstrant speaks All which he speaks upon supposall of the losse of his Episcopacy And for that Dextrū sinistrum Balsamon saith it was the manner of their distinguishing of the place of Bishops according to their seniority and this occasioned those competitions among Bishops of which he speakes The Series of this discourse is long we must not insert it all but let the learned reader vouchsafe to view it at larg and if it doe not appeare that wee have alledged the place according to the genuine sence of the Authour let us in his thoughts lie under all the reproaches which our virulent Remonstrant labours to cast upon us in his whole book However the Remonstrant hath little cause to reproach Nazianzen with that scoffe of his Egyptian adversaries 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as if he had out of an ambitious humour changed his seat when he that peruseth his life shall finde it would be an easier matter to remove an English Bishop from one Bishopricke to another till hee come to Canturbury then it was to remove Nazianzen from one place to another And as little reason with open mouth to fall upon us and bid us eate our words for saying that if our Bishops will deduce their pedegree from the Apostles time in an uninterrupted line unto this day they must draw the line of their pedigree through the loynes of Antichrist we tell him againe let him take it never so angerly What ever Bishops have beene in other places besides Rome if our Bishops will draw their pedegree from the Apostles they must draw it through Antichrists loynes SECT VII VIII IN this seventh Section the Remonstrant hath cut us out little worke so much of our answer as he is loth to meddle with he balkes under the tearmes of idle words The rest concerning the election of former Bishops hee seemes to consent to in opinion and option onely that the shortest Section may not be closed without more frumps then one he tels us we are besides the Cushion The objection was that the Apostles Bishops and ours were two in respect of mannaging their functions The Remonstrant will give us leave we hope to forme our owne objection He makes it indeed of the Apostles Bishops We having proved no Bishops ut nuncupantur as they are now tearmed Apostolicall Bring it downe to the Bishops of inferiour times He as here he tels us spake onely of the difference betweene the one and the other in managing of their function We intending to present the differences betweene ours and former Bishops fully to view instance not onely in the managing of their function but in their election and accessories and is this to be beside the Cushion This first point of difference our Remonstrant grants that our Bishops and former differ in their election And he makes halfe from hence to follow us into the execution of their Episcopall office We make as much haste to meet him and make good what we formerly layed downe that our Bishops and the Bishops of former times are two First in the sole jurisdiction they assume to themselves which former Bishops never did nor durst which jurisdiction being taken here in a large sense for the execution of all Episcopall power we distributed into the administration of orders and censures which saith the Remonstrant in all wise writers were wont to be contradistinguished Distinguished they are we grant and so did we distinguish them page 24 25. of our answer which the wisedome of the Remonstrant might have taken notice of and forborne this scorne Yet not so contradistinguished but that the power of ordination may be reckoned as a part of Episcopall jurisdiction taking that word jurisdiction which was unknowne to first antiquity for the whole execution of Episcopall power as the Remonstrant here takes it The first of these the sole power of ordination and the sole exercise of that power which was a stranger and a monster to former times This our Bishops assume to themselves and herein differ from the former Bishops The latter of these he grants That Bishops of former times did not assume to themselves the sole exercise of ordination Onely he cannot let us passe without his usuall curtesie But the former he denies the ordination is he saith the Bishops but the sole in that sence we use it is ours Bishops did never challenge it nor practice it we will wash off all this and shew first that our English Bishops have challenged to themselves this sole power and have practised this power and then make good our quotation and when this is done let it be tryed not who can blush but who hath more reason to blush the Remonstrant or his answerers For the first that Bishops challenge to themselves sole power of ordination We did never thinke that in these knowing times we should have beene put to prove the Snow is white or the Crow blacke But seeing the Remonstrant will have it so we will shew first out of Episcopacy by Divine right part 2. Sect. 15. the title of which Section is this power of ordination is ONELY in Bishops and