of beholders led them to censure any line or proportion as not done to the life he mends it after direction If any fault bee found with the eye hand foot c. he corrects it till at last the addition of every mans fancie 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 cryed Hunc populus fecit This the deformed one the People made This lovely one I made As the Painter of his Painting so in Bezaes sence 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 bee adding to Gods institution what power preheminence Iurisdiction Lordlynes their phansie suggested unto them this divine Bishop lost his Originali beauty and became to be Humanus And in conclusion by these and other additions swelling into a Pâ—pe 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 bee not true which is here said in this Booke that they are called Bishops of Alexandria Ephesus Hierusalem c. in a very improper sense because they abode at those places a longer time then at other places For sure it is if Christ made Peter and Iames Apostles which are Bishops over the whole world and the Apostles made Marke Timothy and Titus Evangelists c. It seemes to us that it wonld have beene a great sinne in them to limit themselves to one particular Diocesse and to leave that calling in which Christ had placed them Whether Presbyters in Scripture are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and that it is an office required at their hands to rule and to governe as hath beene proved in this Booke The Bishops can without sinne arrogate the exercise of this power to themselves alone And why may they not with the same lawfulnesse impropriate to themselves alone the Key of Doctrine which yet notwithstanding all would condemne as wel as the Key of Discipline seeing that the whole power of the Keyes is given to Presbyters in Scâ—ipture as well as to Bishops as appears Mat. 16.19 where the power of the Keyes is promised to Peter in the name of the rest of the Apostles and their successors and given to all the Apostles and their successors Mat. 18.19 Iohn 20.23 And that Presbyters succeed the Apostles appeares 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 Peeter 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 ordaine silence suspend deprive excommunicate c. their spirituall power be not as dangerous though both bee dangerous and as much to be opposed as their temporall 1. Because the spiritual is over our consciences the temporall but over our purses 2. Because the spirituall have more influence into Gods Ordinances to defile them then the temporall 3. Because spirituall Judgements and evills are greater then other 4. because the Pope was Anticstrist before he did assume any temporall power 5. Because the Spirituall is more inward and lesse discerned and therefore it concernes all those that have Spirituall eyes and desire to worship God in spirit and truth to consider and and endeavour to abrogate their Spirituall usurpations as well as their Temporall Whether Acrius bee justly branded by Epiphanius and Austin for a Hereticke as some report for affirming Bishops and presbyters to be of an equall power Wee say as some report for the truth is he is charged with heresie meerely and onely because he was an a Arian As for his opinion of the parity of a presbyter with a Bishop this indeede is called by Austin proprium dogma Aerii the proper opinion of Aerius And by Epiphanius it is called Dogma furiosum 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 Heretike for this opinion yet notwithstanding that this was but the private opinion of Epiphanius and borrowed out of him by Austin an opinion not to be allowed appeares First because the same Authors condemne Aërius as much for reprehending and censuring the mentioning of the dead in the publique prayers and the performing of good works for the benefit of the dead And also for the reprehending statu 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 Anstin himselfe Sedulius Primasius Chrysostome Theodoret Oecumenius Theophilact were of the same opinion with Aërius as Michael Medina observes in the Councell of Trent and hath written 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 Counsell did ever condemne this for Heresie but on the contrary Concilium Aquisgranens sub Ludovico Pio Imp. 1. anno 816. hath approved it for true Divinitie out of the Scripture That Bishops Presbyters are equall 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 Apostacie of the Church of Rome hath not been in swarving 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 least while they indeavour to keepe out Antichrist from entring by the doore of doctrine they should suffer him secretly to creep in by the doore of discipline especially considering what is heere said in this Booke That by their owne confession the discipline of the Church of England is the same with the Church of Rome Whether Episcopacy 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
committed to and exercised by Presbyteriall hands For who are they of whom the Scripture speakes Heb. 13.17 Obey them that have the Rule over you for they watch for your soules as they that must give an account c. Here all such as watch over the soules of Gods people are intituled to rule over them So that unlesse Bishops will say that they only watch over the soules of Gods people and are only to give an account for them they cannot challenge to themselves the sole rule over them And if the Bishops can give us good security that they will acquit us from giving up our account to God for the soules of his people we will quit our plea and resigne to them the sole rule over them So againe in the 1 Thessa. 5.12 Know them which labour amongst you and are over you in the Lord and admonish you In which words are contained these truthes First that in one Church for the Thessalonians were but one Church 1 Ca. there was not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 â— but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not one chiefe Bishop or President but the Presidency was in many Secondly that this presidency was of such as laboured in the word and Doctrine Thirdly that the Censures of the Church were managed not by one but by them all in Communi Them that admonish you Fourthly that there was among them a Parity for the Apostles bids know them in an Indifferency not discriminating one from another yea such was the rule that Elders had that S. Peter thought it needfull to make an exhortation to them to use their power with Moderation not Lording it over Gods Heritage 1 Pet. 5.3 By this time we have sufficiently proved from Scripture that Bishops and Presbyters are the same in name in Office in Edifying the Church in power of Ordination and Iurisdiction we summe up all that hath beene spoken in one argument They which have the same Name the same Ordination to their Office the same qualification for their Office the same worke to feede the flock of God to ordaine pastors and Elders to Rule and Governe they are one and the same Office but such are Bishops and presbyters Ergo. SECT VI. BUt the dint of all this Scripture the Remonstrant would elude by obtruding upon his reader a commentary as he calls it of the Apostles own practise which hee would force to contradict their own rules to which he superadds the unquestioÌ„able glosse of the cleare practise of their immediate successors in this administration For the Apostles practise we have already discovered it from the Apostles own writings and for his Glosse he superadds if it corrupts not the Text we shall admit it but if it doe we must answer with Tertullian Id verum quodcunque primum id adulterum quod posterius whatsoever is first is true but that which is latter is adulterous In the examination of this Glosse to avoyd needlesse Controversie First wee take for granted by both sides that the first and best Antiquitie used the names of Bishops and Presbyters promiscuously Secondly that in processe of time some one was honoured with the name of Bishop and the rest were called Presbyters or Cleri Thirdly that this was not Nomen inane but there was some kinde of Imparitie betweene him and the rest of the Presbyters Yet in this we differ that they say this Impropriation of name and Imparity of place is of Divine Right and Apostolicall Institution we affirme both to be occasionall and of humane Invention and undertake to shew out of Antiquitie both the occasion upon which and the Persons by whom this Imparity was brought into the Church On our parts stands Ierome and Ambrose and others whom we doubt not but our Remonstrant wil grant a place among his Glossators Saint Ierome tells us in 1 Tit. Idem est ergo Presbyter qui Episcopus antequam Diaboli instinctu studia in Religione â—ierent diceretur in populis ego sum Pauli ego Apollo ego Cephae Communi Presbyterorum Consilio ecclesiae gubernabantur Postquam verò unusquisque eos quos baptizaverat suos putabat esse non Christi in toto Orbe decretum est ut unus de Presbyteris electus superponeretur caeteris ad quem omnis Ecclesiae Cura pertineret schismatum semina â—olicrentur Putat aliquts non Scripturarum sed nostram esse sentâ—ntiam Episcopum Presbyterum unum esse aliud aetatis aliud esse nomen officii relâ—gat Apostoli ad Philippenses verba dicentis Paulus Timotheus servi Iesis Christi qui sunt Philippis cum Episcopis Diaconis c. Philippi una est urbs Macedoniae certè in unâ Civitate non poterant plures esse ut nuncupantur Episcopi c. sicut ergo Presbyteri sciant se ex Ecclesiae consuetudine ei qui sibi praepositus fuerit esse subjectos Ita Episcopi noverint se magis consuetudine quam dispositionis Dominicae veritate Presbyteris esse majores in Communi debere Ecclesiam regere A Presbyter and a Bishop is the same and before there were through the Devils instinct divisions in Religion and the people began to say I am of Paul and I of Apollo and I of Cephas The Churches were governed by the Common Counsell of the Presbyters But after that each man began to account those whom hee had baptized his owne and not Christs it was decreed thorow the whole world that one of the Presbyters should be set over the rest to whom the Care of all the Church should belong that the seeds of schisme might be taken away Thinkes any that this is my opinion and not the opinion of the Scripture that a Bishop and an Elder is the same let him reade the words of the Apostle to the Philippians saying Paul and Timothy the servants of Jesus Christ to them that are at Philippi with the Bishops Deacons Philippi is one City of Macedonia and certainly in one Citie there could not be many Bishops as they are now called c. and after the allegations of many other Scriptures he concludes thus as the Elders therefore may know that they are to be subject to him that is set over them by the Custome of the Church so let the Bishops know that it is more from custome then from any true dispensation from the Lord that they are above the Presbyters and that they ought to rule the Church in common In which words of Ierome these five things present themselves to the Readers view First that Bishops and Presbyters are originally the same Idem ergo est Presbyter qui Episcopus Secondly that that Imparitie that was in his time betweene Bishops and Elders was grounded upon Ecclesiasticall Custome and not upon divine Institution Episcopi noverint c. Thirdly that this was not his private judgement but the judgement of Scripture Putat aliquis c. Fourthly that before this Prioritie was upon this occasion started
hated the Bishop and this as the Historian calls it his usurped power This president of the Alexandrian Bishop the Bishop of Rome did soone 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 Principalitie 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 outstripped 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. calles it Angaria yea Austin himselfe in his 81. Epistle Complaines that worldly businesse 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 downe as unlawfull by the holy Fathers many Canons forbidding it and that under paine 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 civill place as Zonaras there he should be deposed Can. Apo. Can. 83. hiring of ground medling with worldly affaires is to be laid asid by them Otherwise they are threatned to be liable to Ecclesiasticall censures Conc. Cal. Cano. 3. Conc. Carth. Can. 16. We will ad this for a conclusion in this point it is observed by Athanasius Sulpitius Severus and other Ecclesiasticall 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 knowne to any that have seene 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 betweene our Bishops and those of former times is greater then between the great Bishop of Rome and them SECT XIII BUt it seemes our Remonstrant soared above those times even as high as the Apostles dayes for so hee saith If our Bishops challenge any other spirituall 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 do 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 worke of an Evangelist if Timothy had beene but a Presbyter or Bishop Paul had here put him upon imployment Vltra Sphara 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 bee 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 Gospell and so wee doe not affirme Timothy and Titus to bee Evangelists or else for such as taught the Gospell 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 wee consider what was the Difference betweene the Evangelists and Bishopsâ— Bishops or Presbyters were tyed to the particular care and tuiâ—ion 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 appoyntment they were sent from place to place as the necessity of the Churches did require As appeares first in Timothy â— whom S. Paul besought to abide at Ephesus 1 Tim. 1.3 which had been a needlesse importunity if Timothy had had the Episcopall that is the Pastorall charge of Ephesus committed to him by the Apostles for then hee might have laid as dreadfull a Charge upon him to abide at Ephesus as he doth to Preach the Gospell But so far was Paul from setling Timothy in Cathedrâ in Ephesus that he rather continually sends him up and downe upon all Church services for we â—inde 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 confirme the Thessalonians in the faith as appeares 1 Thes. 3.1.2 from whence returning to Paul to Athens againe the Apostle Paul before hee left Athens and went to Corinth sent him Silas into Macedonia who returned to him againe to Corinth Act. 18.5 afterwards they travelled to Ephesus from whence we read Paul sent Timothy and Erastus into Macedonia Act. 19 22. whither Paul went after them from whence they divers other Brethren journied into Asia Acts 20.4 All which Brethren Paul calles as it is probable 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the messengers of the Churches 2 Cor. 8.23 And being thus accompanied with Timothy and the rest of the Brethren he comes to Miletum and calls the Elders of the Church of Ephesus thither to him of which Church had Timothy beene Bishop the Apostle in stead of giving the Elders a charge to feede the flock of Christ would have given that charge to Timothy and not to them And secondly the Apostle would not so have forgotten himselfe 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
foreseene the influence of works into Iustification falling from grace c. If what Scripture we answer the Apocrypha and unwritten Traditions If what Baptisme a Baptisme of absolute Necessity unto salvation and yet insufficient unto salvation as not sealing grace to the taking away of sinne after Baptisme If what Eucharist an Eucharist that must be administred upon an Altar or a Table set Altar-wise rayled in an Eucharist in which there is such a presence of Christ though Modum nesciunt as makes the place of its Administration the throne of God the place of the Residence of the Almighty and impresseth such a holinesse upon it as makes it not onely capable but worthy of Adoration If what Christ a Christ who hath given the same power of absolution to a Priest that himselfe hath If what Heaven a heaven that hath a broad way leading thither and is receptive of Drunkards Swearers Adulterers c. such a heaven as we may say of it as the the Indians said of the heaven of the Spaniards Unto that heaven which some of the Prelaticall Church living and dying in their scandalous sinnes and hatefull enormities goe to let our soules never enter If what meanes of salvation we answer confession of sinnes to a Priest as the most absolute undoubted necessary infallible meanes of Salvation Farre be it from us to say with this Remonstrant we do fully agree in all these and all other Doctrinall and practicall points of Religion and preach one and the same saving truths Nay we must rather say as that holy Martyr did We thank God we are none of you Nor doe we because of this dissension feare the censure of uncharitablenesse from any but uncharitable men But it is no unusuall thing with the Prelats and their party to charge such as protest against their corrupt opinions and wayes with uncharitablenesse and Schisme as the Papists do the Protestants and as the Protestants doe justly recriminate and charge that Schisme upon the Papists which they object to us So may we upon the Prelats And if Austin may be Judge the Prelats are more Schismaticks then we Quicunque saith he invident bonis ut quaerant occasiones excludendieos aut degradandi vel crimina sua sic defondâ—re parati sunt si objecta vel prodita fuerint ut etiam conventiculorum congregationes vel Ecclesiae perturbationes cogitent excitare jam schismatici sunt Whosoever envie those that are good and seeke occasions to exclude and degrade them and are so ready to defend their faults that rather then they will leave them they will devise how to raise up troubles in the Church and drive men into Conventicles and corners they are the Schismaticks And that all the world may take notice what just cause wee have to complaine of Episcopacie as it now stands wee humbly crave leave to propound these Quaeries Quaeries about Episcopacie VVHether it be tolerable in a Christian Church that Lord Bishops should be held to be Iure Divino And yet the Lords day by the same men to be but Iure Humano And that the same persons should cry up Altars in stead of Communion Tables and Priests in stead of Ministers and yet not Iudaize when they will not suffer the Lords day to be called the Sabbath day for feare of Iudaizing Whereas the word Sabbath is 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 Russinus in Psal. 47. Origen Hom. 23. in Num. Gregory Nazian Whether that assertion No Bishop No King and no Ceremonie no Bishop be not very prejudiciall to Kingly Authoritie For it seemes to imply that the Civill power depends upon the Spirituall and is supported by Ceremonies and Bishops Whether seeing it hath beene proved that Bishops as they are now asserted are a meere humane Ordinance it may not by the same Authoritie be abrogated by which it was 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 unlawfull to submit to that Government Because that many consciencious men that have hitherto conformed to Ceremonies and Episcopacie have done it upon this ground as supposing that Authoritie did not make them matters of worship but of Order and Decencie c. And thus they satisfied their consciences in answering those Texts Colos. 2.20 21 22. Math. 15.9 But now since Episcopacy comes to be challenged as a Divine Ordinance how shall wee be responsable to those Texts And is it not as it is now asserted become an Idoll and like the Brazen Serpent to be ground to powder Whether there be any difference in the point of Episcopacie between Ius Divinum and Ius Apostolicum Because we finde some claiming their standing by Ius Divinum others by Ius Apostolicum But wee 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 meane improperly as some doe such things which are not recorded in the writings of the Apostles but introduced the Apostles being living they cannot be rightly said to be jure 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 Presbyter no not in this sense jure 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 Episcopatus inter ordines Ecclesiasticos ponendus sit inter Theologos Canonistas non convenit Convenit autem inter omnes in Apostolorum aetate Presbyterum Episcopum nullum discrimen fuisse c. Whether the distinction of Beza betweene Episcopus Divinus Humanus 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 Diabolicall Bishop he meanes 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 Limmed two pictures to the same proportion and figure The one hee reserved in secret the other he exposed to common view And as the phansie
the Church was governed Communi Presbyterorum Consilio by the Counsell of the presbyters in common and that even after this imparity it ought to be so governed Sciant Episcopi se Ecclesiam debere in communi regere Fifthly that the occasion of this Imparity and Superiority of Bishops above Elders was the divisions which through the Devils instinct fell among the Churches Post quam verò Diaboli instinctu Saravia would take advantage of this place to deduce this Imparity as high as from the Apostles times because even then they began to say I am of Paul and I of Apollos but sure S. Ierome was not so weake as this man would make him to speake Inconsistencies and when he propounds it to himselfe to prove that Bishops and Presbyters are in Scripture the same to let fall words that should confute his own proposition whereas therefore S. Ierome saith that after men began to say I am of Paul and I of Apollos c. it was decreed that one of the Presbyters should be set over the rest c. This is spoken indeed in the Apostles phrase but not of the Apostles times else to what purpose is that coacervation of texts that followes But suppose it should be granted to be of Apostolicall antiquity which yet we grant not having proved the contrary yet it appeares it was not of Apostolicall intention but of Diabolicall occasion And though the Divell by kindling Divisions in the Church did minister Occasion to the invention of the primacy or prelacy or one for the suppressing of Schisme yet there is just cause to thinke that the Spirit of God in his Apostles was never the author of this Invention First because we reade in the Apostles dayes there were Divisions Rom 16.7 and Schismes 1 Cor. 3.3 11.18 yet the Apostle was not directed by the holy Ghost to ordâ—ine Bishops for the taking away of those Divisions Neither in the rules hee prescribes for the healing of those breaches doth hee mention Bishops for that end Nor in the Directions given to Timothy and Titus for the Ordination of Bishops or Elders doth he mention this as one end of their Ordination or one peculiar duty of their office And though the Apostle saith O portet haereses inter vos esse ut qui probati sunt manifesti fiant inter vos yet the apostle no where saith Oportet Episcopos esse ut tollantur haereses quae mainifestae fiunt Secondly because as Doctor Whitaker saith the remedy devised hath proved worse then the disease which doth never happen to that remedy whereof the holy Ghost is the author Thirdly because the holy Ghost who could foresee what would ensue thereupon would never ordaine that for a remedy which would not onely be ineffectuall to the cutting off of evill but become a stirrup for Antichrist to get into his â—addle 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 only 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 wil therefore subjoyne the judgements of other ancient Fathers who were themselves bishops The Commentaries that goe 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 apostolicall Writ And this Rectorship or Priority was devolved at first from one Elder to another by Succession when hee 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 bee 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 Authours tells us the Presbyters themselves brought it in witnesse Hierome ad Evag. Alexandriae Presbyteri unum ex se electum in Excelsiori gradu collocatum 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 and 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 Councell yet ascribing it to a Councell hee grants it not to be Apostolicall this gave occasion to others to fixe 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 Prelacie had the Seale and confirmation of Divine or Apostolicall Authority Gregory Nazianzene would never in such a Patheticke manner have wished the Abolition of it as hee doth in his 28. Oration And now where is that acknowledgement and conveyance of Imparitie and Iurisdiction which saith this Remonstrant was derived from the Apostles hands and deduced in an uninterrupted line unto this day where is it we find no such Imparity delivered from Apostolicall hands nor acknowledged in Apostolicall writings yet had there beene such an acknowledgement and conveyance of imparity how this should have beene deduced to us in an uninterrupted Line wee know not unlesse our Bishops will draw the Line of their Pedigree through the loynes of Antichrist and joyne issue and mingle blood with Rome which it seemes they will rather doe then lose this plea for their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 their tyrannicall prerogative as Nazianzen calls it Suffer us therefore humbly to appeale to your Honours whether this Remonstrant hath not given sentence against himselfe 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 BEFOR EVER ABANDONED OVT OF THE CHVRCH OF GOD. SECT VII YEt it seemes himselfe in the height of his confidence was not without Jelousies of some thing might be spoken against his Cause therefore he seemes to heare what is spoken against it That the Apostles Bishops and ours are two there was no other then a Parochiall Pastor a Preaching Presbyter without
inequality without any Rule over his brethren Ours claime an eminent Superiority and a power of Ordination and Iurisdiction unknowne to the Primitive times That this which hee supposeth hee heares us say is Scripture Truth we have shewed already c. that there was a parity between Presbyters and Bishops and that eminent superioritie and power of Ordination and Iurisdiction which our Bishops claime was unknowne to Scripture and are now prepared by Gods assistance to prove it was unknowne to primitive times But how doth this Remonstrant meete with this Reply ALAS ALAS HOVV GOOD PEOPLE may be abused by misinformation It seemes the man Judged this Reply so poore as in his thoughts it was more worthy of his pitty then of his paines to answer or rather knew there was more in this Reply then hee knew how to answer and therefore waves it with his Rethoricke And this we rather thinke because hee knowes but little in Antiquity that knowes not that there is so vast a difference betweene our Bishops and those that were not onely in the Apostles dayes whom wee have proved to be undistinguished from Presbyters But those Bishops that were in the Church 400 yeares after when there began to bee some discrimination that Episcopacy may well be likened to the Shippe Argo that was so often repaired as there was nothing left of the First Materialls yet stil it challenged the first Name Which difference we spread before your Honours in three particulars first in point of Election to their office secondly in point of Execution of their office thirdly in point of state-Imployment First having discovered already upon what occasion this priority began to have existence in the Church and from whom it first received its being not from God but from Consent and Custome of the Churches according to Ambrose Ierom Augustine c. Wee come now to Declare what was the manner of Election unto this Prioritie in these times and to shew first how therein these Bishops did differ from ours for all their Elections were ordered by the privity consent and approbation of the people where the Bishops was to serve Were there no other Authours to make this good Cyprian alone would doe it among other places let his 68. Epistle witnesse where he saith plebs Maxime habet potestatem c. The people specially have power either of chusing worthy Priests or rejecting the unworthy for this is derived from Divine Authority that the Priests should bee chosen in the presence of the people before all their eyes and approved as fit and worthy by their publike vote and Testimony This hee proves by the Testimonie of Sacred writ both Old and New Where wee observe first that the speciall power of Judging of the worthinesse or unworthinesse of a man for the Prelacy was in the breast of the People Secondly the speciall power of choosing or rejecting to his place according as they Judged him worthy or unworthy resided in the People Plebs maximé Habet potestatem c. Thirdly that this power did descend upon the People De Divina Authoritate Nor was this the Judgement of one Sole man but of an Affrican Synod consulted by the Spanish Churches in point of Election as the inscription of the Epistle shewes The Obtrusion of a Bishop upon the Church of Alexandria without the Presence desire and vote of the Clergie or People is Condemned by Athanasius not onely as a breach of Canon but as a Transgression of Apostolicall prescript and that it did compell or necessitate the heathen to blaspheme Nor did onely Christian Bishops but Christian Princes acknowledge the Right and power of Election of Bishops to be in the People so that admired Constantine the great Promover and Patron of the peace of the Christian Church writing to the Church of Nicomedia against Eusebius and Theognius tells them the ready way to lay asleepe the Tumults that did then disturbe the Church about the Election of a Bishop was si modo Episcopum fidelem integrum nacti fuerint quod quidem in praesentia in vestrâ situm est potestate quodque etiam dudùm penes vestrum Iudicium fuerat nisi Eusebius de quo dixi pravo eorum qui cum juverunt Consilio hâc praeceps ruisset rectum Eligendi Ordinem impudenter conturbasset Gelas in Act. Concil Nicen. part 3. if they would get a faithfull and upright Bishop which saith he is in your power presently to doe and was long agoe if Eusebius with the ayd of his faction had not rushed in upon you and impudently disturbed the right Order of Election That which this sacred Emperour calls the right order of Election what is it but the Election by the people in whose power he saith it then was and long had beene to choose a Bishop and by whose power the next Bishop was chosen So the same Author tells us that after Eusebius and Theognius were cast out of their severall seats for Arianisme by the Councell of Nice others were appointed in their roomes by the Clergy and people of each Diocesse To this Election in Nicomedia wee could if it were needfull in so cleare a Truth adde many the like Presidents of popular Elections which for brevities sake we passe over Not questioning but that which hath beene spoken is sufficient to informe the intelligent Reader that our Bishops and the Bishops of former times are Tvvo in point of Election SECT VIII A Second thing wherein we have undertaken to shew that our Bishops and the Bishops of former times are Tvvo is in the Execution of their Office and here there are three things wherein he that will not wilfully shut his eyes against all light may see a Latitude of difference betweene ours and former Bishops First in that Sole Iurisdiction which our Bishops assume to themselves Secondly in the Delegation they make of the power of exercising this Iurisdiction unto others Thirdly in the way of the exercise of that power For the first of these Their sole Iurisdiction That our Bishops assume this to themselves it is knowne and felt and that this Sole Iurisdiction was a stranger a Monster to former times wee shall now prove and make cleare that the power of Ordination Admonition Excommunication Absolution was not in the hands of any sole man First for Ordination Cyprian in his exile writing to his Charge certifies them that Aurelius was ordained by him and his Colleagues who were present with him who were these Colleagues but his Presbyters as he himselfe expounds it writing to Lucius in his owne name and the name of his Clergie and people Ego Collegae fraternitas omnis c. I and my Colleagues and my whole people send these Letters to you c. So that it is cleare in Cyprians time Presbyters had a hand in Ordination and Bishops did not Ordaine alone Firmilianus saith of them that rule in the Church Quod baptizandi MANVM