the Lord yet we will follow him thither and there shew him that Hierome from the Scriptures proves more then once Presbyters and Bishops to be the same And Chrysostome in Philip. 1. Homil. 2. with his admirer Theophilact in Philip. 1. affirms that while the Apostles lived the names of Bishops and Presbyters were not distinguished and not onely while the Apostles lived but in after ages Doth not Irenaeus use the name of Bishops and Presbyters 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in a promiscuous sense Are not Anicetus Pius Hyginus Telesphorus Sixtus whom the Papists call Bishops and the Popes predecessors termed by Eusebius Presbyters Nor was it strange in the Primitive times to hear Bishops called Presbyters when Presbyters writing to their Bishop have called him Frater So Cyprian Epist. 26. in the beginning is stiled by his Presbyters Deacons and Confessors nor was that holy Martyr offended with that title nor they condemned of insolency that used it But what should we burthen your patience with more testimonies when the evidence of this truth hath shined with so strong a beam that even our Adversaries have stooped to it and confessed that their Names were the same in the Apostles time But yet say they the Offices were distinct Now here we would gladly know what these men make the distinct Office of a Bishop Is it to edifie the Church by Word and Sacrament is it to ordain others to that work is it to rule to govern by admonition and other censures if any of these if all these make up the proper worke of a Bishop we can prove from Scripture that all these belong unto the Presbytery which is no more then was granted by a Councel For the first Edifying of the Church by word and Sacraments though we feare they will some of them at least scarce own this as their proper worke for some have been cited into the High Commissision for saying it belongs to them yet Sir we are sure Scripture makes it a part a chiefe of the Episcopal office for so in the 1 Pet. 5.2 they are said to doe the work of a Bishop when they do feed the flock of God And this is such a work as we hope their Lordships will give the poor Presbyters leave to share with them in or if not we will tell them that the Apostle Peter in that forecited place and the Apostle Paul Acts. 20. binds this work upon our hands and Woe unto us if we preach not the Gospel But this branch of Episcopal and Presbyterial office we passe with brevity because in this there lies not so much controversie as in the next which they doe more wholly Impropriate to themselves the power of Ordination Which power that it was in former times in the hands of Presbyters appeares 1 Tim. 4.14 Neglect not the gift which was given thee by Prophesie and by the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery The gift here spoken of is the Ministerial gift the exercise whereof the Apostle exhorts Timothy not to neglect which saith he he had received not by the laying on of the hands of one single man whether Apostle or Bishop or Presbyter but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Presbytery that is the whole company of Presbyters for in that sense onely we finde 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 taken in Scripture as in Luke 22. vers 66. Act. 22. vers 5. which the Christian Church called the Ecclesiastical Senate as Ierom in Isay 3. Nos habemus in Ecclesia Senatum nostrum Coetum Presbyterorum an Apostolical Senate 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ignatius Epis ad Magnes and some times 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Concil Ancyr Can. 18. And though the Apostle in his second Epistle to Tim. 1.6 makes mention of the laying on of his hands yet to maintaine the Harmony of Scripture it must not be denied but there was imposition of hands by the Presbytery as wel as by himself and so it was a joynt act So that in this there is no more difference then in the former And if there be no difference between Presbyters in feeding or ordaining let us see if there be any in the third part of their office of Ruling which though our Bishops assume wholly to themselves yet we shall discover that it hath been committed to and exercised by Presbyteriall hands For who are they of whom the Scripture speakes Heb. 13.17 Obey them that have the Rule over you for they watch for your soules as they that must give an account c. Here all such as watch over the souls of Gods people are intituled to rule over them So that unlesse Bishops will say that they onâ—ly watch over the souls of Gods people and are only to give an account for them they cannot challenge to themselves the sole rule over them And if the Bishopâ— can give us good security that they will acquit us from giving up our account to God for the souls of his people we will quit our plea and resigne to them the sole rule over thâ—m So againe in the 1 Thessa. 5.12 Know them which labour amongst you and are over you in the Lord and admonish you In which words are contained these truthes First that in one Church for the Thessalonions were but one Church 1 Ca. there was not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not one chiefe Bishop or President but the Presidency was in many Secondly that this Presidency was of such as laboured in the word and Doctrine Thirdly that the Censures of the Church were managed not by one but by them all in Communi Them that admonish you Fourthly that there was among them a Parity for the Apostle bids know them in an indifferency not discriminating one from another yea such was the rule that Elders had that S. Peter thought it needful to make an exhortation to them to use their power with Moderation not Lording it over Gods Heritage 1 Pet. 5.3 By this time we have sufficiently proved from Scripture that Bishops and Presbyters are the same in name in Office in Edifying the Church in power of Ordination and Jurisdiction we sum up all that hath been spoken in one argument They which have the same Name the same Ordination to their Office the same qualification for their Office the same worke to feed the flock of God to ordaine pastors and Elders to Rule and Governe they are one and the same Office but such are Bishops and Presbyters Ergo. SECT VI. BUt the dint of all this Scripture the Remonstrant would elude by obtruding upon his reader a commentary as he calls it of the Apostles own practise which he would force to contradict their own rules to which he superadds the unquestionable glosse of the cleare practise of their immediate successors in this administration For the Apostles practice we have already discovered it from the Apostles own writings and for his Glosse he superadds if it corrupts
ensue thereupon would never ordaine that for a remedy which would not onely be ineffectual to the cutting off of evil but become a stirrup for Antichrist to get into his saddle For if there be a necessity of setting up one Bishop over many Presbyters for preventing schismes there is as great a necessity of setting up one Archbishop over many Bishops and one Patriarch over many Archbishops and one Pope over all unlesse men will imagine that there is a danger of schisme onely among Presbyters and not among Bishops and Archbishops which is contrary to reason truth History and our own Experience And lest our adversaries should appeale from Hierome as an incompetent Judge in this case because a Presbyter and so a party we will therefore subjoyne the judgments of other ancient Fathers who were themselves Bishops The Commentaries that go under the name of Saint Ambrose upon Ephes. 4. mention another occasion of this Discrimination or priority and that was the increase and dilatation of the Church upon occasion whereof they did ordaine Rectors or Governours and other officers in the Church yet this he grants that this did differ from the former orders of the Church and from apostolical Writ And this Rectorship or Priority was devolved at first from one Elder to another by Succession when he who was in the place was removed the next in order among the Elders Succeeded But this was afterwards changed and that unworthy men might not be preferred it was made a matter of Election and not a matter of Succession Thus much we finde concerning the occasion of this imparity enough to shew it is not of Divine Authority For the second thing the persons who brought in this Imparity the same Authors tells us the Presbyters themselves brought it in witnesse Hierome ad Evag. Alexandriae Presbyteri unum ex se electum in Excelsiori gradu collacatum Episcopum nominabant quomodo si exercitus Imperatorem faceret aut Diaconi de se Archidiaconum The Presbyters of Alexandria did call him their Bishop whom they had chosen from among themselves placed in a higher degree as if an army should make an Emperour or the Deacons an Archdeacon Ambrose upon the fourth of the Ephesians tells us it was done by a Councell and although he neither name the time nor place of the Councel yet ascribing it to a Councell he grants it not to be Apostolical this gave occasion to others to sixe it upon Custome as Hieronym in Tit. and August Epist. 19. secundùm honorum vocabula quae Ecclesiae usus obtinuit Episcopatus Presbyterio major est And had that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Prelacy had the Seal and confirmation of Divine or Apostolical Authority Gregory Nazianzene would never in such a Pathetick manner have wished the Abolition of it as he doth in his 28. Oration And now where is that acknowledgement and conveyance of Imparity and Iurisdiction which saith this Remonstrant was derived from the Apostles hands and deduced in an uninterupted lâ—ne unto this day where is it we finde no such Imparity delivered from Apostolical hands nor acknowledged in Apostolical writings yet had there been such an acknowledgement and conveyance of imparity how this should have been deduced to us in an uninterrupted Line we know not unlesse our Bishops will draw the Line of their Pedigree through the â—oynes of Antichrist and joyne issue and mingle blood with Rome which it seemes they will rather doe then lose this plea for their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 their tyrannical prerogative as Nazianzen calls it Suffer us therefore humbly to appeale to your Honours whether this Remonstrant hath not given sentence against himself who is so confident of the Evidence of his cause that he doth not feare to say if there can be better Evidence under Heaven for any matter of fact then there is for his Episcopacy Let EPISCOPACY BE FOR EVER ABANDONED OUT OF THE CHURCH OF GOD. SECT VII YEt it seems himselfe in the height of his confidence was not without Jelousies of some thing might be spoken against his cause therefore he seems to heare what is spoken against it That the Apostles Bishops and ours are two there was no other then a Parochial Pastor a Preaching Presbyter without inequallity without any Rule over his brethren Ours claime an eminent Superiority and a power of Ordination and Iurisdiction unknowne to the Primitive times That this which he supposeth he heares us say is Scripture Truth we have shewed already c. that there was a parity between Presbyters and Bishops and that eminent superiority and power of Ordination and Iurisdiction which our Bishops claime was unknown to Scripture and are now prepared by Gods assistance to prove it was unknown to primitive times But how doth this Remonstrant meete with this Reply ALAS ALAS HOW GOOD PEOPLE may be abused by misinformation It seemes the man Judged this Reply so poor as in his thoughts it was more worthy of his pitty then of his paines to answer or rather knew there was more in this Reply then he knew how to answer and therefore waves it with his Rhetoricke And this we rather think because he knowes but little in Antiquity that knowes not that there is so vast a difference between our Bishops and those that were not onely in the Apostles dayes whom we have proved to be undistinguished from Presbyters But those Bishops that were in the Church 400. yeares after when there began to be some discrimination that Episcopacy may well be likened to the Ship Argo that was so often repaired as there was nothing left of the First Materials yet still it challenged the first Name Which difference we spread before your Honours in three particulars first in point of Election to their office secondly in point of Execution of their office thirdly in point of State-Imployment First having discovered already upon what occasion this priority began to have existence in the Church and from whom it first received its being not from God but from Consent and Custome of the Churches according to Ambrose Ierome Augustine c. We come now to Declare what was the manner of Election unto this Priority in these times and to shew first how therein these Bishops did differ from ours for all their Elections were ordered by the privity consent and approbation of the people where the Bishops was to serve Were there no other Authors to make this good Cyprian alone would doe it among other places let his 68. Epistle witnâ—sse where he saith plebs Maxime habet potestatem c. The people specially have power either of chusing worthy Priests or rejecting the unworthy for this is derived from Divine Authority that the Priests should be chosen in the presence of the people before all their eyes and approved as fit and worthy by their publike vote and Testimony This he proves by the Testimony of Sacred writ both Old and
them SECT XIII But it seemes our Remonstrant soared above these times even as high as the Apostles dayes for so he saith If our Bishops challenge any other spiritual power then was by Apostolike Authority delegated to and required of Timothy and Titus and the Angels of the seven Asian Churches let them be DISCLAIMED as VSVRPERS And the truth is so they deserve to be if they doe but challenge the same power that the Apostle did delegate to Timothy and Titus for Timothy and Titus were Evangelists and so moved in a Sphere above Bishops or Presbyters For Timothy it is cleare from the letter of the Text 2 Tim. 4.5 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Doe the work of an Evangelist if Timothy had been but a Presbyter or Bishop Paul had here put him upon imployment Vltra Sphaeram Activitatis And to any man that will but understand and consider what the Office of an Evangelist was and wherein it differed from the Office of a Presbyter or Bishop it will be manifest that Timothy and Titus were Evangelists and no Bishops for the title of Evangelist is taken but two wayes either for such as wrote the Gospel and so we doe not affirme Timothy and Titus to be Evangelists or else for such as taught the Gospel and those were of two sorts either such as had ordinary places and ordinary gifts or such whose places and gifts were extraordinary and such Evangelists were Timothy and Titus and not Bishops as will appeare if we consider what was the Difference between the Evangelists and Bishops Bishops or Presbyters were tyed to the particular care and tuition of that flock over which God had made them Overseers Acts 20.28 But Evangelists were not tyed to reside in one particular place but did attend upon the Apostles by whose appointment they are sent from place to place as the necessity of the Churches did require As appeares first in Timothy whom Saint Paul besought to abide at Ephesus 1. Tim. 1.3 which had beene needlesse importunity if Timothy had the Episcopall that is the Pastorall charge of Ephesus committed to him by the Apostles for then he might have laid as dreadful a Charge upon him to abide at Ephesus as he doth to Preach the Gospel But so far was Paul from setling Timothy in Cathedrâ in Ephesus that he rather continually sends him up and down upon all Church-services for we finde Acts. 17.14 that when Paul fled from the tumults of Berea to Athens he left Silas and Timothy behinde him who afterwards comming to Paul to Athens Paul sends Timothy from Athens to Thessalonica to confirm the Thessalonians in the faith as appears 1 Thes. 3.1.2 from whence returning to Paul to Athens again the Apostle Paul before he left Athens and went to Corinth sent him and Silas into Macedonia who returned to him again to Corinth Act. 18.5 afterwards they travelled to Ephesus from whence we read Paul sent Timothy and Erastus into Macedonia Act. 19.22 wither Paul went after them and from whence they and divers other Breathren journied into Asia Acts 20.4 All which Breathren Paul calls as it is probable 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the messengers of the Churches 2. Cor. 8.23 And being thus accompanied with Timothy and the rest of the Bretheren he comes to Miletum and calls the Elders of the Church of Ephesus thither to him of which Church had Timothy been Bishop the Apostle in stead of giving the Elders a charge to feed the flock of Christ would have given that charge to Timothy and not to them And secondly the Apostle would not so have forgotten himself as to call the Elders 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 before their Bishops face Thirdly It is to be conceived the Apostles would have given them some directions how to carry themselves towards their Bishop but not a word of this though Timothy were then in Pauls presence and in the presence of the Elders The cleare evidence of which Text demonstrates that Paul did not leave Timothy at this time as Bishop of Ephesus But it is rather evident that he took him along with him in his journey to Hierusalem and so to Rome for we find that those Epistles Paul wrote while he a prisoner bear either in their inscription or some other passage of them the name of Timothy as Pauls companion viz. The Epistle to the Philippians Câ—lossians Hebrewes Philemon which Epistles he wrote in bonds as the contexture which those two learned professors the one at Heydelburg the other at Saulmur make of Saint Pauls Epistles doth declare So that it appears that Timothy was no Bishop but a Minister an Evangelist a fellow labourer of the Apostles 1 Thes. 3.1 an Apostle a Messenger of the Church 2 Cor. 8.3 a Minister of God 1 Thes. 3.2 these titles the Holy Ghost gives him but never the title of a Bishop The like we finde in Scripture concerning Titus whom Paul as it is conceived by learned men did first assume into the fellowship of his Labors in the place of Iohn and made him his companion in his journy through Antioch to Hierusalem so we find Gal. 2.1 from thence returning to Antioch againe from thence he passed through Syria and Cilicia confirming the Churches and from Cilicia he passed to Creet where having Preached the Gospel and plainted Churches he left Titus there for a while to set in order things that remaine Yet it was but for a while he left him there for in his Epistle which he wrote to him not many yeares after he injoynes him to come to him to Nicopolis where he did intend to winter but changing that purpose sends for him to Ephesus where it seemes his Hyemal station was and from thence sends him before him to Corinth to enquire the state of the Corinthians His returne from thence Paul expects at Troas and because comming thither he found not his expectation there he was so grieved in his spirit 2 Cor. 2.12 that he passed presently from thence into Macedonia where Titus met him and in the midst of his afflictions joyed his spirits with the glad tydings of the powerful and gracious effects his first Epistle had among the Corinthians 2 Cor. 7 5 6 7. Paul having there collected the Liberalities of the Saints sends Titus againe to the Corinthians to prepare them for the same service of Ministring to the necessities of the Saints 2 Cor. 8.6 And makes him with some others the Conveyers of that second Epistle to the Corinthians All these journey es to and fro did Titus make at the designment of the Apostle even after he was left in Creet Nor doe we finde that after his first removal from Creet he did ever returne thither We read indeed 2 Tim. 4.10 he was with Paul at Rome and from thence returned not to Creet but into Dalmatia All which doth more then probably shew it never was the Intendment of the Apostle to
a generall word signifying a day of rest which is common as well to the Christian Sabbath as to the Jewish Sabbath and was also used by the Ancients Ruffinus in Psal. 47. Origâ—n Hom. 23. in Num. Gregory Nazian Whether that assertion No Bishop No King and no Ceremonie no Bishop be not very prejudiciall to Kingly Authority For it seemes to imply that the Civill power depends upon the Spiritual and is supported by Ceremonies and Bishops Whether seeing it hath been proved that Bishops as they are novv asserted are a meere humane Ordinance it may not by the same Authority be abrogated by vvhich it vvas first established especially considering the long experience of the hurt they have done to Church and State Whether the advancing of Episcopacie into Ius Divinum doth not make it a thing simply unlavvfull to submit to that Government Because that many consciencious men that have hitherto conformed to Ceremonies and Episcopacy have done it upon this ground as supposing that Authority did not make them matters of vvorship but of Order and Decencie c. And thus they satisfied their consciences in ansvvering those Texts Colos. 2.20 21 22. Matth. 15.9 But novv since Episcopacy comes to be challenged as a Divine Ordinance hovv shall vve be responsible to those Texts And is it not as it is novv asserted become an Idoll and like the Brazen Serpent to be ground to povvder Whether there be any difference in the point of Episcopacy betweene Ius Divinum and Ius Apostolicum Because we finde some claiming their standing by Ius Divinum others by Ius Apostolicum But we conceive that Ius Apostolicum properly taken is all one with Ius Divinum For Ius Apostolicum is such a Ius which is founded upon the Acts and Epistles of the Apostles written by them so as to be a perpetuall Rule for the succeeding Administration of the Church as this Author saith Pag. 20. And this Ius is Ius Divinum as well as Apostolicum But if by Ius Apostolicum they mean improperly as some do such things which are not recorded in the Writings of the Apostles but introduced the Apostles being living 〈…〉 be rightly said to be Iure Apostolico nor such things which the Apostles did intend the Churches should be bound unto Neither is Episcopacie as it imports a superioritie of power over a Preâ—byter no not in this sense Iure Apostolico as hath beene already proved and might further be manifested by divers Testimonies if need did require We will only instance in Cassander a man famous for his immoderate moderation in controverted Points of Religion who in his Consultat Articul 14. hath this saying An Episâ—opatus inter ordines Ecclesiasticâ—s ponendus sit inter Theologos Canonistas non convenit Convenit autem inter omnes Apostolorum aetate inter Presbyterum Episcopum nullum discrimen fuisse c. Wether the distinction of Beza between Episcopus Divinus Humâ—nuâ— Diabolicus be not worthy your Honours consideration By the Divine Bishop he meanes the Bishop as he is taken in Scripture which is one and the same with a Presbyter By the humane Bishop he meanes the Bishop chosen by the Presbyters to be President over them and to rule with them by fixed Lawes and Canons By the Diabolical Bishop he means a Bishop with sole power of Ordination and Jurisdiction Lording it over Gods heritage and governing by his owne will and authority Which puts us in minde of the Painter that Limned two pictures to the same proportion and figure The one he reserved in secret the other he exposed to common view And as the phansie of beholders led them to censure any line or proportion as not done to the life he mends it after direction If any fault be found with the eye hand foot c. He corrects it till at last the addition of every mans fancy had defaced the first figure and made that which was the Picture of a man swell into a monster Then bringing forth this and his other Picture which hee had reserved he presented both to the people And they abhorring the former and applauding the latter he cried Hunc populus fecit This deformed one the People made This lovely one I made As the Painter of his Painting so in Beza's sense it may be said of Bishops God at first instituted Bishops such as are all one with Presbyters and such are amiable honourable in all the Churches of God But when men would be adding to Gods institution what power preheminence Jurisdiction Lordliness their phansie suggested unto them this divine Bishop lost his Original beauty and became to be Humanus And in conclusion by these and other aditions swelling into a Pope Diabolicus Whether the Ancient Fathers when they call Peter Marke Iames Timothy and Titus Bishops did not speak according to the Language of the times wherein they lived rather then according to the true acception of the word Bishop and whether it be not true which is here said iâ— this Book that they are called Bishops of Alexandâ—iae Ephesâ—s Hierusâ—lem c in a very improper sense because they abode at those pâ—acâ—s a longer time then at other places For suâ—e it is if 〈…〉 and and Iâ—mes Apostles which are Bishops over the whol◠〈◊〉 and the Apostles made Markâ— â—imothy and Titus 〈…〉 c. it seemes to us that it would have been a great sin in them to limit themselves to one particular Diocesse and to â—eave that calling in which Christ had placed them Whether Presbyters in Scripture are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and that it is an office required at their hands to rule and to govern as hath bin proved in this Book The Bishops can without sin arrogate the exercise of this power to themselves alone and why they may not with the same lawfulness impropriate to themselves alone the Key of Doctrine which yet notwithstanding al would condemn as well as the Key of Discipline seeing that the whole power of the Keys is given to Presbyters in Scripture as well as to Bishops as appears Mat. 16.19 where the power of the Keys is promised to Peter in the name of the rest of the Apostles and their successors given to all the Apostles and their successors Mat. 18.19 Iohn 20.23 And that Presbyters succeed the Apostles appears not onely Mat. 28.20 but also Acts. 20.28 where the Apostle ready to leave the Church of Ephesus commends the care of ruling and feeding it to the Elders of that Church To this Irenaeus witnesseth lib 4 cap. 43.44 This Bishop Iewell against Harding Artic. 4. Sect. 5 6. saith that all Pastors have equall power of binding and loosing with â—eter Whether since that Bishops assume to themselves power temporall to be Barons and to sit in Parliament as Judges and in Court of Star-Chamber High Commission and other Courts of Justice and also power spirituall over Ministers and People to ordain silence suspend
New Where we observe first that the special power of Judging of the worthinesse or unworthinesse of a man for the Prelacy was in the breast of the Peogle Secondly the special power of choosing or rejecting eo his place according as they Judged him worthy or unworthy resided in the People Plebs maximè Habet potestatem c. Thirdly that this power did descend upon the People De Divina Authoritate Nor was this the Judgement of one Sole man but of an Affrican Synod consulted by the Spanish Churches in point of Election as the inscription of the Epistle shewes The Obtrusion of a Bishop upon the Church of Alexandria without the Presence desire and vote of the Clergy or People is condemned by Athanasius not onely as a breach of Canon but as a Transgression of Apostolical prescript and that it did compel or necessitate the heathen to blaspheme Nor did onely Christian Bishops but Christian Princes acknowledge the Right and power of Election of Bishops to be in the People so that admired Constantine the great Promover and Patron of the peace of the Christian Church writing to the Church of Nicomedia against Eusebius and Theognius tells them the ready way to lay asleep the Tumults that did then disturbe the Church about the Election of a Bishop was si modo Episcopum fidelem integrum nacti fuerint quod quidem in praesentia in vestrâ situm est potestate quodque etiam dudùm penes vestrum Iudicium fuerat nisi Eusebius de quo dixi pravo corum qui cum juverunt Consilio hac praeceps ruisset rectum Eligendi Ordinem impudenter conturbasset Gelas in Act Concil Nicen. part 3. if they would get a faithful and upright Bishop which saith he is in your power presently to doe and was long agoe if Eusebius with the aide of his faction had not rushed in upon you and impudently disturbed the right Order of Election That which this sacred Emperour calls the right order of Election what is it but the Election by the people in whose power he saith it then was and long had been to choose a Bishop and by whose power the next Bishop was chosen So the same Author tells us that after Eusebius and Theognius were cast out of their several seats for Arianisme by the Councel of Nice others were appointed in their roomes by the Clergy and people of each Diocesse To this Election in Nicomedia we could if it were needful in so cleare a Truth adde many the like Presidents of popular Elections which for brevities sake we passe over Not questioning but that which hath been spoken is sufficient to informe the intelligent Reader that our Bishops and the Bishops of former times are TWO in point of Election SECT VIII A Second thing wherein we have undertaken to shew that our Bishops and the Bishops of former times are TWO is in the Execution of their Office and here there are three things wherein he that will not wilfully shut his eyes against all light may see a Latitude of difference between ours and former Bishops First in that Sole Iurisdiction which our Bishops assume to themselves Secondly in the Delagation they make of the power of exercising this Jurisdiction unto others Thirdly in the way of the exercise of that power For the first of these Their sole Iurisdiction That our Bishops assume this to themselves it is known and felt and that this Sole Iurisdiction was a stranger a Monster to former times we shall now prove and make cleare that the power of Ordination Admonition Excommunication Absolution was not in the hands of any sole man First for Ordination Cyprian in his exile writing to his Charge certifies them that Aurelius was ordained by him and his Colleagues who were present with him who were these Colleagues but his Presbyters as he himself expounds it writing to Lucius in his own name and the name of his Clergy and people Ego Collegae fraternitas omnis c. I and my Colleagues and my whole people send these Letters to you c. So that it is cleare in Cyprians time Presbyters had a hand in Ordination and Bishops did not Ordaine alone Firmilianus saith of them that rule in the Church Quod baptizandi MANVM IMPONENDI ET ORDINANDI poffident potestatem And who those he he expresseth a little before SENIORES Prapositi by whom the Presbyters as well as the Bishops are understood And as these places prove that Bishops in the Primitive time could not ordain alone without the Presbyters so there are that give us light to understand that the Presbyters might ordain without the Bishop The Author of the Comment upon the Ephesians that goes under the name of of Ambrose saith Apud Egyptum Presbyteri consignant si praesens non sit Episcopus In Egypt the Presbyters ordain if the Bishop be not present so saith Augustine in the same words and the Corepiscopus who was but a Presbyter had power to impose hands and to ordaine within his precincts with the Bishops Licence Now Licences confer not a power to him that hath it not but onely a faculty to exercise that power he hath The iniquity of our times hath been such that a Minister may not Preach to his own flock without a Licence doth this Licence make a man a Minister and give him power to preach or only a faculty and liberty to exercise that power Should a Bishop give a Laike a Licence to preach or to ordain doth that Licence make him a Minister or a Bishop Sure all will say no why because in the Laike there is not Actus primus the root and principle of that power which Licence onely opens a way to the exercise of and therefore that must be concluded to be in those Chorepiscopi or Presbyters by vertue of their place and calling and not by vertue of a Licence So that the power of Ordination was so farre from residing in the Bishop alone as that the Presbyters and Corepiscopi had power to ordain as well as he Neither was this onely a matter of Ecclesiastical custome but of Ecclesiastical constitution which bids the Bishop First in all his Ordinations to consult with his Clergy Vt Episcopus sine Concilio Clericorum suorum Clericos non ordinet That the Bishop shall not ordain a Clergy man without the counsel of the Clergy this was Cyprians practice Epist. 33. Secondly in his Ordinations to take the â—oncurrent assistance of his Presbyters Cum ordinatur Presbyter Episcopo eum benedicente manum super caput ejus tenente etiam omnes Presbyteri qui praesentes sunt manus suas juxta manum Episcopi sut er caput illius teneant When a Presbyter is ordained the Bishop blessing him and holding his hand upon his head all the Presbyters that are present shall likewise lay their hands upon his head with the hands of the Bishop In which
Canon we have the unanimous vote of two hundred and fourteen Bishops declaring that the power of Ordination is in the hands of Presbyters as well as Bishops And whereas it may be objected that Hierome and Chrysostome affirming Bishops to differ from Presbyters in the power of Ordination seem to imply that that power is soly theirs Here wee desire it may be observed First that these Fathers put all the difference that lies betweene Bishops and Presbyters to be in point of Ordination Quid facit Episcopus quod non facit Presbyter exceptá Ordinatione And therefore Chrysostome himselfe confesseth that in his days there was litle or no difference between a Bishop and a Presbyter Inter Episcopum presbyterum interest fermè nihil c. Secondly That this difference is not so to he understood as if these Fathers did hold it to be by divine right as Bellarmin and our Episcopal men would make us beleeve but by a humane constitution And therefore they do not speak De jure but de facto Quid facit c. not quid debet facere And this Hierom confesseth So Leo prim ep 88. upon complaints of unlawful Ordinations writing to the Germane and French Bishops reckons up what things are reserved to the Bishops among which he set down Presbyterorum Diaconorum consecratio and then addes Quae omnia solis deberi summis Pontificibus Authoritate Canonam praecipitur So that for this power of Ordination they are more beholden to the Canon of the Church then to the Canon of Gods Word Thirdly we answer that this very humane difference was not in the Primitive Antiquity It was not so in Cyprians time as we even now shewed And when it did prevaile it was but a particular custome and sometimes usurpation of some Churches For it was otherwise appointed in the Councel of Carthage and in Egypt and other places as is declared in the former part of this Section and even in Chrysostomes time it was so little approved of that it was one great accusation against Chrysostome himselfe That he made Ordinations without the Presbytery and without the consent of his Clergy this is quoted by Bishop Downam lib. 1. cap. 8. pag. 176. SECT IX NOâ— had the Bishops of former times more right to the power of sole Iurisdiction then of sole Ordination And here we have Confitentem reum our very Adversaries confess the Votes of Antiquity are with us Cyprian professeth that he would do nothing without the Clergy nay he could do nothing without them nay he durst not take upon him alone to determine that which of right did belong to all and had he or any other done so the fourth Councel of Carthage condemns the Sentence of the Bishop as Irritanisi Clericorum sententiâ confirmetur Would ye know the particulars wherein the Bishops had no power of Judicature without their Presbyters First in judging and censuring Presbyters themselves and their Doctrine For this the Canon Law in Gratian is full and cleare Episcopus non potest Iudicare Presbyterum vel Diaconum sine Synodo Senioribus Thus Basill counselled and practised epist. 75. So Ambr. lib. 10. epist. 80. Cyril in epist. ad Iohannem Antiochen Thus Gregory ad Iohan. Panor mitan lib. 11. epist. 49. Secondly in judging of the conversation or crimes of any of the members of the Church Penes Presbyteros est Disciplina quae facit homines meliores That Discipline that workes emendation in men is in the power of the Elders And therefore when any was questioned in point of conversation he was brought saith Tertullian into the Congregation where were Exhortations Castigations and Divine censures And who had the chiefe stroke in these Censures he tells us after President probati quique seniores All the approved Elders sit as Presidents And those censures that passed by the whole Presbytery were more approved by the Church in ancient times then such as were passed by one man for we finde that when Syagrius and Ambrose passed Sentence in the same case the Church was unsatisfied in the Sentence of Syagrius because he past it sine alicujus fratris consilio without the counsel or consent of any of his Brethren But were pacified with the sentence of Saint Ambrose because saith he Hoc Iudicium Nostrum cum fratribus consacerdotibus participatum processerit Nor was there any kinde of censures that the Bishops did administer alone Admonitions were given by the Elders Augustine tells us the Elders did admonish such as were offenders to the same purpose speakes Origen contra Celsum Lib. 3. So excommunication though that being the dreadfullest thunder of the Church and as Tertullian calls it sumntum praejudicium futuri Iudicij the great fore-runner of the Judgement of God was never vibrated but by the hand of those that laboured in the Word and Doctrine yet was no one man in the Church invested with this power more then another Therefore saith Hierom Presbytero si peccavero licet me tradere satanae in interitum carnis If I sinne a Presbyter not a Bishop only may deliver me to Satan to the destruction c. where the Reader may please to take notice that Saint Hierom speakes not of one particular Presbyter but of the Order of Presbyters The same S. Hierom saith againe Sunt quos Ecclesia reprehendit quos interdum abijcit in quos non nunquam Episcoporum Clericorum censura desaevit There be some whom the Church reproves and some which she casts out against whom the censures of Bishops and Presbyters sharply proceed where we see the Censures whereby wicked men were cast out of the Church were not in the sole hands of the Bishops but likewise in the hands of Presbyters Syricius Bishop of Rome signifies to the Church of Millaine that Iovinianus Auxentius c. were cast out of the Church for ever and he sets down how they did it Omnium Nostrum tam Presbyterorum quam Diaconâ—rum quam totius etiam cleri sciscitata fuit sententia There was a concurrence of all Presbyters Deacons and the whole Clergy in that sentence of Excommunication The truth herein may be further evidenced by this because the whole Clergy as well as the Bishops imposed hands upon such as repenting were absolved Nec ad communicationem saith Cyprian venire quis possit nisi prius ab Episcopo Clero Manus illi fuerit imposita No man that hath been excommunicated might returne to Church-Communion before hands had been laid upon him by the Bishop and Clergy Also writing to his Clergy concerning lapsed Christians he tells them Exomologesi facta manu eis à vobis in poenitentiam impositâ c. that after confession and the laying on their hands they might be commended unto God so when certaine returning from their heresie were to be received into the Church at Rome in the time
of Cornelius they came before the Presbytery and therefore confessed their sinnes and so were admitted But though the sentence of Excommunication was managed onely by the hand of those that laboured in the Word and Doctrine yet we will not conceale from you that neither Excommunication not absolution did passe without the knowledge and approbation of the body of the Church to which the Delinquent did belong So we have learned out of Tertullian that their censures were ordered in their publike assemblies and good reason because the people were to forbeare communion with such 2 Thes. 3.6 14 15. and publike censures of the Church were inflictâ—d not onely for the Emendation of delinquents but for the admonition of others and therefore ought to be admistrâ—d in publike that others might feare 1 Tim. 5.20 Origen speaking of the Duty and Power of the Church in cutting off a scandalous Person though a Presbyter making the case his own he saith thus In uno consensu Ecclesia universa conspirans excidat me dâ—xtram suam projiciat a se He would have the consent of the whole Church in that Act. And when the lapsed Christians were received againe into the Church the Peoples consent was required therein else why should Cyprian say Vix plebi per suadeo imò extorqueo ut tales patiantur admitti I can scarce perswade the people to suffer such to be admitted and in another Epistle written to his people in his Banishment he promiseth to examine all things they being present and judging Examinabuntur singula praesentibus judicantibus vobis But of this power of the People we shall have a further occasion to speak afterwards when we come to discourse of Governing Elders Onely may it please your Honours from hence to take notice how unjustly our Bishops have invaded this right and power of Presbyters and people in Church censures and devesting both of it have girt it wholly upon themselves and how herein they and the Bishops of former times are TWO SECT X. ANd as our Bishops and the Bishops of former times are TWO in point of Sole Iurisdiction so also in the Delegation of this power of Iurisdiction unto others to their Chancellours Commissaries Officers c. Was ever such a thing as this heard of in the best primitive Times that men that never received imposition of hands should not only be received into assistance but be wholly intrusted with the power of Spiritual Iurisdiction Even then when it is to be exercised over such persons as have had hands laid upon them We may observe in Cyprian whilst persecution separated him from his Church when questions did arise among his people he doth not send them to his Chancellour or Commissary No he was so far from substituting any man much lesse a lay man to determene or give Judgement in such cases that he would not assume that power wholly to himself but suspends his Judgement till the hand of God should restore him to his Church againe that with the advice and Counsel of the Presbyters he might give sentence as may appeare to any that shall peruse his Epistles Sure if God had ever led his Church to such a way of deputation it would have been in such a case of Necessity as this was or had any footsteps of such a course as this been visible by this holy Martyr in the goings of former ages he needed not have deferred the determination of the question about the receiving of some penitent lapsed ones into the bosome of the Church again till his returne and the returne of his Clergy as he doth We will instance in his 28 Epistle wherein giving direction for the excommunicating of such as would rashly communicate with lapsed Christians he gives this charge not to his Chancellor or Commissary or any other man upon whom he had devolved his power and set him as his Deputy or Viccar generall in his absence but ad clerum to the whole Presbytery This Truth is so cleare that Bishop Downam the great Advocate of Episcopacy confesseth that in Ambrose his time and a good while after which was about 400 years till the Presbyters were in a manner 〈…〉 SECT XI A Third branch wherein the difference between our Bishops and the Bishops of former times in point of Exercising their Jurisdiction is visible is the way or manner of exercising that power For brevities sake we will onely instance in their proceedings in causes criminal where let them tell us whether any good Antiquity can yeild them one President for THEIR OATH EX OFFICIO which hath been to their COURTS as Purgatory fire to the Popes Kitchin they have forgotten that old Maxime in the Civil Law Nemo tenetur prodere seipsum which as it is grounded upon natural equity so it is confirmed by a Law enacted by Dioclesian and Maximilian Nimis grave est quod petitis c. It is too grievous that the adverse part should be required to the exhibition of such things as should create trouble to themselves Vnderstand therefore that you ought to bring proofes of your intentions and not to extort them from your adversaries against themselves Shall the Lamp of Nature in the night of Ethnicisme enable Heathen Princes yea Persecutors to see and enact thus much and shall not the glorious Sunne of the Gospel convince these of their iniquities in transgressing this Law that call themselves the Fathers of the Church If neither the light of Nature nor Gospel light can yet the custome of the Church to which they so oft appeal may both convince them of this iniquity and discovâ—r to all the world the contrariety of their proceedings to the proceedings of former times in this particular For of Old both the Plantiffe and Defendant were brought face to face before the parties in whose power it was to judge which way of proceeding Athanasius affirmes to be according to Scripture the Law of God And because those that condemned Macarius did not thus proceed he condemnes their Sentence as malicious and unjust Of old no Sentence passed against any man but upon the Testimony of other witnesses besides the Accusers after complaint exhibited the first thing they applyed themselves to was to consider the person and quality of the Accuser Concil prim Constant. Can. 6 Then they heard the witnesses who were two at least Can. Apost Can. 75. And these witnesses must be such as might not be imagined to be partiall nor to beare enmity nor malice against the party accused Ambros. Epist. 64. so Gratian Caus. 3. quae 5. cap. Quod suspecti Of old None might be party witnesse and Iudge which Gratian proves at large Caus. 4. qu. 4. cap. Nullus unquam praesumat accusator simul esse Iudex testis We grant indeed the Canon Law permits in some cases Tryal without witnesses Si crimen ita publicum est ut meritò debeat appellari notorium If
by the name of one Angel then of many We often finde the name of one Prophet or Priest to be put for the general body of the Ministery or whole multitude or Prophets or Priests in the Church of Israel or Iudah when the Spirit of God intendeth to reprove threaten or admonish them Thus it is Iere. 6.13.18.19 Isa. 3.2 Hos. 9.8 Ezek. 7.26 Hos. 4 6. Mal. 2.7 Neither should it seem strange that a multitude or company of Ministers should be understood under the name of one Angel seeing a multitude of Heavenly Angels imployed in one service for the good of Gods Saints is sometimes in the Scripture shut up under one Angel in the singular number as may be gathered from Gen. 14.7 2 Kings 19.35 Psal 34.7 compared with Psal. 91.11 Gen. 32.1 2. Kings 6.16 17. And also a multitude of Devils or evil Angels jointly labouring in any one work is set forth under the name of one evil or unclean spirit 1 Kings 22.21 22. Mark 1.23 24. Mark 5.2.9 Luke 4.33.34 Luk. 8.27.30 1 Pet. 5.8 Heb. 2.14 Ephes. 6.11.12 But now let us suppose which yet notwithstanding we will not grant that the word Angel is taken individually for one particular person as Doctor Reynolds seems to interpret it together with Master Beza yet neverthelessâ— there will nothing follow out of this acception that will any ways make for the upholding of a Diocesan Bishop with sole power of Ordination and Jurisdiction as a distinct Superior to Presbyters And this appears First because it never was yet proved nor ever will as we conceive that these Angels were Diocesan Bishops considering that Parishes were not divided into Diocesses in S. Iohns days And the seven Stars are said to be fixed in their seven Candlesticks or Churches not one Star over divers Candlesticks Neither can those Churches be thought to be Diocesan when not onely Tindal and the old translation calls them seven Congregations but we read also Acts 20. that at Ephesus which was one of those Candlesticks there was but one flock And secondly we further finde that in Ephesus one of those seven Churches there were many Presbyters which are all called Bishops Acts 20.28 and we finde no colour of any superintendency or superiority of one Bishop over another To them in general the Church is committed to be fed by them without any respect had to Timothy who stood at his Elbow and had been with him in Macedonia and was now waiting upon him to Jerusalem This is also confirmed by Epiphanius who writing of the Heresies of the Miletians saith that in ancient times this was peculiar to Alexandria that it had but one Bishop whereas other Cities had two And he being Bishop of Cypres might well be acquainted with the condition of the Churches of Asia which were so nigh unto him Thirdly there is nothing said in the seven Epistles that implyeth any superiority or majority of rule or power that these Angels had over the other Angels that were joyned with them in their Churches It is written indeed in commendation of the Angel of the Church of Ephesus that he could not beare them that were evil and that he had tryed them which say they were Apostles and are not and had found them lyers And it is spoken in dispraise of the Angel of Pergamus that he suffered them which hâ—ld the Doctrine of Balaam c. But these things are common duties requirable at the hands of all Ministers who have the charge of souls But suppose that there were some superiority and prehemenency insinuated by this individual Angel yet who knoweth not that there are diverse kinds of superiority to wit of Order of Dignity of Gifts and Parts or in degree of Ministery or in charge of power and jurisdiction And how will it be proved that this Angel if he had a superiority had any more then a superiority of Order or of Gifts and Parts Where it is said that this Angel was a superior degree or order of Ministery above Presbyters In which Epistle is it said that this Angel had sole power of Ordination and Jurisdiction And therefore as our learned Protestants prove against the Papists that where Christ directed his speech to Peter in particular and said I will give unto thee the Keys of the kingdom of Heaven c. That this particularization of Peter did not import any singular preheminence or majority of power to Peter more then to the other Apostles But that though the promise was made to Peter yet it was made to him in the name of all the rest and given to all as well as one And that therefore it was spoken to one person and not to all that so Christ might fore-signifie the unity of his Church as Cyprian Austin Hierome Optatus and others say So when Christ directs an Epistle to one Angel it doth not imply a superior power over his fellow-Angels but at most only a presidency for order sake And that which is written to him is written to the rest as well as to him And therefore written to one not to exclude the rest but to denote the unity that ought to be between the Ministers of the same Church in their common care and diligence to their flock And this is all that Doctor Reynolds saith as you may read in his conference with Hart cap. 4. divis 3. ad finem For it is evident that Doctor Reynolds was an utter enemy to the Ius Divinum of the Episcopal preheminency over Presbyters by his Letter to Sir Francis Knolls And learned Master Beza also saith something to the same purpose in his Annotations upon Revel 2.1 Angelo i. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 quem nimirum oporuit imprimis de his rebus admoneri ac per eum caeteros collegas totamque adeo Ecclesiam Sed hinc statui Episcopalis ille gradus postea humanitus in Ecclesiam Dei invectus certe nec potest nec debet imo ne perpetuum quidem istud 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 munus esse necessario oportuisse sicut exorta inde Tyrannis Oligarchica cujus apex est Antichristiana bestia certissima cum totius non Ecclesiae modo sed etiam orbis pernicie nunc tandem declarat If therefore our Remonstrant can produce no better evidence for his Hierarchy then Timothy and Titus and the Angels of the Asian Churches Let not this Remonstrant and his party cry out of wrong if this claimed Hierarchy be for ever booted out of the church seeing it is his owne Option And yet we cannot conceale one refuge more out of Scripture to which the Hierarchy betake themselves for shelter And that is the two Postscripts in the end of Pauls second Epistle to Timothy and of that to Titus where in the one Timothy is said to be the first Bishop of Ephesus and in the other Titus is said to be the first Bishop of the Church of the Cretians to both which places wee answer That these two Postscrips and so
deprive excommunicate c. their spiritual power be not as dangerous though both be dangerous and as much to be opposed as their temporal 1 Because the spiritual is over our consciences the temporal but over our purses 2 Because the spiritual have more influence into Gods Ordinances to defile them then the temporal 3 Because spiritual judgements and evils are greater than other 4 Because the Pope was Antichrist before he did assume any temporal power 5 Because the Spiritual is more inward and lesse discerned and therefore it concerns all those that have Spiritual eyes and desire to worshâ—y God in spirit and truth to consider and endeavour to 〈…〉 Spiritual usurpations as well as their Temporal Whether Aâ—rius be justly branded by Epiphanius and Austin for a Hereâ—â—cke as some report sor affirming Bishops and Presbyters to be of an equal power Wee say as some report for the truth is he is charged with heresie meerly and onely because he was an Arrian As for his opinian of the parity of a Presbyter with a Bishop this indeed is called by Austin proprium dogma Aerii the proper opinion of Aerius And by Epiphanius it is called Dogma suriosum stolidum a mad and foolish opinion but not an heresie neither by the one nor the other But let us suppose as is commonly thought that he was accounted an Heretick for this opinion yet notwithstanding that this was but the private opinion of Epiphanius and borrowed out of him by Austin and an opinion not to be allowed appeares First because the same Authors condemne Aerius as much for reprehending and censuring the mentioning of the dead in the publâ—que prayers and the performing of good works for the benefit of the dead And also for the reprehending stata jejunia and the keeping of the week before Easter as a solemne Fast which if worthy of condemnation would bring in most of the reformed Churches into the censure of Heresie Secondly because not onely Saint Hierome but Austin himself Sedulius Primasius Chrysostome Theodoret Oâ—cumenius Theophilact were of the same opinion with Aerius as Michael Medina observes in the Council of Trent and hath writen Lib. 1. de sacr hom origine and yet none of these deserving the name of Fools much lesse to be branded for Hereticks Thirdly because no Councell did ever condemne this for Heresie but on the contrary Concilium Aquisgranens sub Ludovico â—io Imp. 1. anno 816. hath approved it for true Divinity out of the Scriture That Bishops and Presbyters are equal bringing the same texts that Aerius doth and which Epiphanius indeed undertakes to answer but how slightly let any indifferent Reader judge Whether the great Apostasie of the Church of Rome hath not been in swerving from the Discipline of Christ as well as from the doctrine For so it seems by that text 2. Thess. 2.4 And also Revel 18.7 and divers others And if so then it much concernes all those that desire the purity of the Church to consider how neere the Discipline of the Church of England borders upon Antichrist lest while they endeavour to keep out Antichrist from entring by the door of doctrine they should suffer him secretly to creep in by the door of Discipline especially considering what is here said in this Booke That by their own confession the Discipline of the Church of England is the same with the Church of Rome Whether Episcopacie be not made a place of Dignity rather then Duty and desired onely for the great revenues of the place And whether if the largenesse of their revenues were taken away Bishops would not decline the great burthen and charge of soules necessarily annexed to their places as much as the ancient Bishops did who hid themselves that they might not be made Bishops and cut off their cares rather then they would be made Bishops whereas now Bishops cut off the eares of those that speak against their Bishopricks How it comes to pass that in England there is such increase of Popery Superstition Arminianism and prophaneness more then in other Reformed Churches Doth not the root of these Disorders proceed from the Bishops and their adherents being forced to hold correspondencie with Rome to uphold their greatness and their Courts and Canons wherein they symbolize with Rome And whether it be not to be feared that they will rather consent to the bringing in of Popery for the upholding of their dignities then part with their dignities for the upholding of Religion Why should England that is one of the chiefest Kingdomes in Europe that separates from Antichrist maintain and defend a Discipline different from all other Reformed Churches which stand in the like Separation And whether the continuance in this Discipline will not at last bring us to communion with Rome from which we are separated and to separation from the other Reformed Churches unto which we are united Whether it be fit that the name Bishop which in Scripture is common to the Presbyters with the Bishops and not only in Scripture but also in Antiquity for some hundreds of yeers should still be appropriated to Bishops and ingrossed by them and not rather to be made common to all Presbyters and the rather because First we finde by woful experience that the great Equivocatithat lieth in the name Bishop hath been and is at this day a great prop and pillar to uphold Lordly Prelacy for this is the great Goliah the master-piece and indeed the onely argument with which they think to silence all opposers to wit the Antiquity of Episcopacie that it hath continued in the Church of Christ for 1500 yeers c. which argument is cited by this Remonstrant ad nauseam usque usque Now it is evident thaâ— this â—râ—ument is a Paralogism depending upon the Equivocation of the 〈◊〉 â—â—shop For Bishops in the Apostles time were the sâ—me with Preâ—byters in name and office and so for a good whâ—le after Anâ— when afterwards they came to be distingâ—â—shed the â—iâ—hops of thâ—â—rimitive times differed as much from oâ—â—s now as Rome anciâ—nt â—rom Rome at this day as hath been suâ—fiâ—ieâ—â—ly declâ—â—ed in this Book And the best way to confute this â—rgumenâ— iâ—â—y hâ—nging in a Community of the name Bishop to a Presbyâ—er aâ— wâ—ll 〈…〉 a â—â—shop Secondly becauâ—â— we â—inâ—e 〈…〉 late Innovators which have so much disturbed 〈…〉 pâ—râ—ty of our Church did first begin wâ—â—h the alâ—â—ratio◠〈…〉 and by changing the word Table into the word Altar and the word Minister into the word Priest and the woâ—d Sacrâ—ment into the word â—acrifice have endeavoured to bring in the Popish Mass. And the Apostâ—e exhorts us 2 Tim. 1.13 Tâ— hold fast the form of sound words and 1 Tim. 6.20 To avoid the prophane novelties of words Upon which text we will only mention what the Rhemists have commented which we conceive to be worthy consideration Nam instruunt nos non solùm docentes sâ—d etiâ—m errantes The Church
the crime be so publike that it may deservedly be called Notorious Which Law further determines what is notorious saying Offensam illam nos intelligimus manifestam quae vel per confessionem vel probationem legitime nota fuerit aut evidentiâ Rei quae nulla possit tergiversatione celari We count that offence manifest which eithâ—r by confession or by lawful proofe comes to be known or by evidence of fact so as it can be hid by no tergiversations So that all was done in former times with mature deliberation upon examination and evidence produced and proved by such witnesses as against whom the Defendant could lay in no just exception And not as now an Accusation whispered against a man he knowes not by whom to which he must take his oath to answer before he knows what his Accusation is Which Oath if he takes without further witnesse he is censured upon the witnesse of his own Oath If he takes it not he is sent presently to prison there to lye without Bayle or Mainprize till the insupportable miseries of his long durance compel him to take on Oath against Nature Scripture Conscience and the just Defence of his own innocency That our Bishops therefore and former Bishops are Two in the point of executing their Judicatory power we need spend no more time to prove But come to the third thing in which the difference betweene ours and former Bishops is to be evidenced SECT XII ANd that is State Imployment or attendance upon Civil and Secular affaires c. which both Christ and Saint Paul prohibits which prohibition reacheth every Bishop to speake in Chrysostomes words as well as Timothy to whom it is directed Nullus ergo Episcopatu praeditus haec audire detrectet sed agere ea omnia detrectet Let no man that is a Bishop refuse to hear what the Apostle saith but to doe what the Apostle forbids We deny not but that Bishops were in the Primitive times often incumbred with secular business but these were put upon them sometimes by Emperors who sought the ruine of the Church as Iulian of whom Niceph. lib. 10. cap. 13. doth report that in Clerum coaptatos Senatorum munere ministerio perverse fungi jussit Sometimes the gracious disposition of Princes toward Christian Religion made them thus to honour Bishops thinking thereby to advance Religion as Constantine the Great enacted that such as were to be tryed before Civil Magistrates might have leave to appeale ad Iudicium Episcoporum atque eorum sententiam ratam esse tanquam ab ipso Imperatore prolatum And this the Historian reckoneth as one argument of his reverend respect to Religion Sometimes the excellency of their singular parts cast civil dignities upon them Tiberius granted a Questors dignity unto a Bishop for his eloquence Chrysostome for his notable stoutness and freedome of speech was sent as the fittest man to Gainas with the Emperors command Sometimes the people observing the Bishops to be much honoured by the Emperour would sollicit them to present their greivances to the Emperour And sometimes the aspiring humour of the Bishops raised them to such places as appears by Cyrill who was the first Bishop in Alexandria who had civil dignities conferred upon him as Socrates relates it from whom civil authority did descend upon succeeding Bishops 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of whom Nicephorus therefore recorded Episcopatum majoricum fastu prophanorum Magistratuum more quam praedecessores ejus Episcopi ingressus est unde adeo initium sumptum est in Ecclesia Alexandrina ut Episcopi etiam profana negotia curarent He entred upon his Episcopacy with more pomp then his predecessors with a pomp conformable to the Heathen Magistrates Both these Historians relate the sad consequence that followed upon this that Orestes the Roman Governour seeing his power much weakened by the Bishops interposing in secular affairs hated the Bishop and this as the Historian calls it his usurped power This president of the Alexandrian Bishop the Bishop of Rome did soon follow Et Romanus Episcopatus non aliter quam Alexandrinus quasi EXTRA SACERDOTII FINES egressus ad secularem principatum erat jam delapsus The Bishop of Rome as well as the Bishop of Alexandria breaking the limits of the Priestly function did degenerate into a secular Principality which purchased no lesse envie to him then that to the other And though these two Bishops went at first abreast in this point yet in a short time the Roman had out stripped the Alexandrian in that power till the Church degenerating more and more that Roman Priest advanced his power not onely above all the Bishops but all the Monarchs in the Christian Orbe Yet notwithstanding he that shall look into the Ancients shall finde first that the best of them held that they were not to be molested with the handling of worldly affaires Cyprian Epist. 66.1 Singuli divino Sacerdotio honorati non nisi altari sacrificiis deservire precibus atque orationibus vacare debent Molestiis secularibus non sunt obligandi qui divinis rebus spiritualibus occupantur Secondly that they complained of them as of heavy burthens Aug. calls it Angaria yea Austin himselfe in his 81. Epistle complaines that worldly business hindered his praying and so pressed him that vix respirare potuit and Gregory the great non sine dolore in secularibus versabatur praefat in Dial. Thirdly Cyprian construed it as one great cause of persecutions raised against the Church de lapsis Sect. 4. Fourthly it was much cryed down as unlawful by the holy Fathers many Canons forbidding it and that under pain of being removed from their places Can. Apost Can. 6. Can. 81. hee that did presume to administer 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Roman command or Administration of Military affaires or civil place as Zonaras there he should be desposed Can. Apo. Can. 83. hiring of ground medling with worldly affaires is to be laid aside by them Otherwise they are threatned to be liable to Ecclesiastical censures Conc. Cal. Can. 3. Conc. Carth. Can. 16. We will adde this for a conclusion in this point it is observed by Athanasius Sulpitius Severus and other Ecclesiastical Historians that the Arians were very expedite in worldly affaires which experience they gained by their constant following and attendance upon the Emperours Court and what troubles they occasioned to the Church thereby is notoriously known to any that have seen the Histories of their times And in this our Bishops have approved themselves more like to the Arian Bishops then the purer Bishops of purer times but how ever cleare it is that our Bishops and the Bishops of former times are Two Two in election to their office Two in the discharge of their office Two in their Ordination Iurisdiction Processes Censures Administrations and the difference between our Bishops and those of former times is greater then between the great Bishop of Rome and