sentence of Saint Ambrose because saith hee Hoc Iudicium Nostrum cum fratribus consacerdotibus participatum processerit Nor was there any kinde of censures that the Bishops did administer alone Admonitions were given by the Elders Augustine tells us the Elders did admonish such as were offenders to the same purpose speakes Origen contra Celsum Lib. 3. So excommunication though that being the dreadfullest thunder of the Church and as Tertullian calls it summum praejudicium futuri Iudicij the great fore-runner of the Judgement of God was never vibrated but by the hand of those that laboured in the Word and Doctrine yet was no one man in the Church invested with this power more then another Therefore saith Hierom Presbytero si peccavero licet me tradere satanae in interitum carnis If I sinne a Presbyter not a Bishop onely may deliver me to Satan to the destruction c. where the Reader may please to take notice that Saint Hierom speakes not of one particular Presbyter but of the Order of Presbyters The same S. Hierom saith againe Sunt quos Ecclesia reprehendit quos interdum abijcit in quos nonnunquam Episcoporum Clericorum censura desaevit There be some whom the Church reprooves and some which shee casts out against whom the censures of Bishops and Presbyters sharply proceed where we see the Censures whereby wicked men were cast out of the Church were not the sole hands of the Bishops but likewise in the hands of Presbyters Syricius Bishop of Rome signifies to the Church of Mâ—llaine that Iovinianus Auxentius c. were cast out of the Church for ever and he sets downe how they did it Omnium Nostrum tam Presbyterorum quam Diaconorum quam totius etiam clerisciscitata fuit sententia There was a concurrence of all Presbyters Deacons and the whole Clergie in that sentence of Excommunication The truth herein may be further evidencâ—d by this because the whole Clergie as well as the Bishops imposed hands uâ—on such as repâ—nting were aâ—solved Nec ad communicationem saith Cyprâ—an venire quis possit nisi prius ab Episcopo Clero Manus illi fuerit imposita No man that hath beene excommunicated might returne to Church-Communion before hands had been laid upon him by the Bishop and Clergie Also writing to his Clergie concerning lapsed Christians he tells them Exomologe si facta manu eis a vobis in poenitentiam impositâ c. that after confession and the laying on their hands they might be commended unto God so when certaine returning from their heresie were to be received into the Church at Rome in the time of Cornelius they came before the Presbyterie and therefore confessed their sinnes and so were admitted But though the sentence of Excommunication was managed oneâ—y by the hand of those that laboured in the Word and Doctrine yet we will not conceale from you that neither Excommunication nor absolution did passe wâ—thout the knowledge and approbation of the body of the Church to which the Deliquent did belong So we have learned out of Tertullian that their censures were ordered in their publike assemblies and good reason because the people were to forbeare communion with such 2 Thes. 3.6 14 15. and publick Censures of the Church were inflicted not onely for the Emendation of delinquents but for the admonition of others and therefore ought to be administred in publick that others might feare 1 Tim. 5.20 Origen speaking of the Duty and Power of the Church in cutting off a scandalous Person though a Presbyter making the case his owne he saith thus In uno consensu Ecclâ—sia universa conspirans excidat me dextram suam projiciat a se He would have the consent of the whole Church in that Act. And when the lapsed Christians were received againe into the Church the Peoples consent was required therein else why should Cyprian say Vix plebi persuadeo imò extorqueo ut tales patiantur admitti I can scarce perswade the people to suffer such to be admitted and in another Epistle written to his people in his Banishment he promiseth to examine all things they being present and judging Examinabuntur singula praesentibus judicantibus vobis But of this power of the People wee shall have a further occasion to speak afterwards when we come to discourse of Governing Elders Onely may it please your Honours from hence to take notice how unjustly our Bishops have invaded this right and power of Presbyters and people in Church censures and devesting both of it have girt it wholly upon themselves and how herein they and the Bishops of former times are TWO SECT X. ANd as our Bishops and the Bishops of former times are TWO in point of Sole Iurisdiction so also in the Delegation of this power of Iurisdiction unto others to their Chancellours Commissaries Officers c. Was ever such a thing as this heard of in the best primitive Times that men that never received Imposition of hands should not onely be received into assistance but be wholly intrusted with the power of Spirituall Iurisdiction Even then when it is to be exercised over such persons as have had hands laid upon them We may observe in Cyprian whilst persecution separated him from his Church when questions did arise among his people he doth not send them to his Chancellour or Commissarie No he was so farre from suâ—stituting any man much lesse a lay man to determine or give Judgement in such cases that hee would not assume that power wholly to himselfe but suspends his Judgement till the hand of God should restore him to his Church againe that with the advice and Counsell of the Presbyters he might give sentence as may appeare to any that shall peruse his Epistles Sure if God had ever led his Church to such a way of deputation it would have been in such a case of Necessity as this was or had any footsteps of such a course as this beene visible by this holy Martyr in the goings of former ages hee needed not have deferred the determination of the question about the receiving of some penitent lapsed ones into the bosome of the Church againe till his returne and the returne of his Clergie as he doth We will instance in his 28 Epistle wherein giving direction for the excommunicating of such as would rashly communicate with lapsed Christians he gives this charge not to his Chancellor or Commissarie or any other man upon whom he had devolved his power and set him as his Deputie or Vicar generall in his absence but ad clerum to the whole Presbyterie This Truth is so cleare that Bishop Downam the great Adâ—ocate of Episcopacie confesseth that in Ambrose his time a good while after which was about 400 yeers til the Presbyters were in a manner wholly neglected the Bishops had no Ordinaries Vicars Chancellors or Commissaries that were not Clergie-men
prayers but such as were approved of in a Synode which was not determined till the yeare 416. Conc. Milev 2. Can. 12. And had there been any Liturgies of Times of the first and most venerable antiquity producible the great admirers of them and inquirers after them would have presented them to the world ere this we know that Bishop Andrews in his zeale for Liturgies pursued the inquiry after the Iewish Liturgie so far that he thought he had found it and one there was which he sent to Cambridge to be translated but there it was soone discovered to have beene made long after the Iewes ceased to be the Church of God and so himselfe supprest it that it never saw the light under a translation We wonder therefore what this Remonstrant meant to affirme so confidently that part of the forme of prayer which was composed by our blessed Saviour was borrowed from the formes of prayer formerly used by Gods people An opinion we never met before indeed we have read that the Rabbines since the daies of our Saviour have borrowed some expressions from that Prayer and from other Evangelicall passages But we never read till now that the Lord Christ the wisdome of the Father borrowed from the wisdome of the Rabbines expressions to use in Prayer And as much we wonder by what Revelation or Tradition Scripture being silent in the thing he knew that Peter and Iohn when they went up to the Temple to pray their Prayer was not of a sudden and extemporary conception but of a Regular prescription Sure we are some as well read in Iewish antiquity as this Remonstrant shewes himselfe to be have told us that the houre of Prayer was the time when the Priest burnt Incense and the people were at their private prayers without as appeares Luke 1.9 where we reade that while Zachary the Priest went in to offer Incense all the people stood with out praying in the time of the Oblation Which Prayers were so far from being Prescript Formes or Liturgies that they were not vocall but mentall Prayers as Master Meade tels us in his exposition upon the eighth of the Revelations And what ever Peter and Iohn did this we know that when the Publican and the Pharisee went up to the Temple to pray as the Apostles did at the houre of prayer their prayer was not of Regular prescription but of a present Conception But if this Remonstrant be in the right concerning the Iewish Liturgies then the Evangelicall Church might better have improved her peace and happinesse then in composing Models of Invocation and Thanksgiving when there is one extant and ready to be produced that was constantly used by Gods people ever since Moses daies and put over to the times of the Gospel and confirmed by Apostolicall practise or else great is our losse who are so unhappily deprived of the best improvement the Church made of her peace and happinesse in the first 300. yeares for rejecting those Liturgies that are confest by the Learned to bee Spurious We challenge this Remonstrant to produce any one Liturgie that was the issue of those times And blessed Constantine was herein as unhappy as we who needed not have composed formes of prayer for his Guard to use upon the Lords day but might and would have taken them out of former Liturgies if there had been any And can ye with patience think that any ingenuous Christian should be so transported as upon such weak and unproved premises to build such a Confident conclusion as this Remonstrant doth and in that Conclusion forget the state of the controversie sliding from the question of a prescribed and imposed Liturgie to an arbitrary book of prayer In his Rhetoricall Encomium of conceived prayer wee shall more willingly bear a part with him then they whose cause he pleads for had that been in their hearts which is in this book to hate to be guilty of powring water upon the Spirit and gladly to adde oyle rather so many learned able Conscientious Preachers had not been molested and suspended for letting the constant flames of their fixed conceptions mount up from the altar of their zealous heart unto the throne of grace nor had there been so many advantages watched from some stops and seeming solecismes in some mens prayers to blaspheme the spirit of prayer which though now confest to be so far from being offensive that they are as pleasing Musick in the eares of the Almighty yet time hath been when they have â—ounded as meere Battologies nay no better then meere Blasphemies in the â—ares of some Bishops And if this conceived prayer be not to be opposed in another by any man that hath found the true operation of this grace in himselfe with that spirit then are those possest that have not only thus raged with their tongues against this way of prayer but by sealing up the mouthes of Ministers for praying thus in publike and imposing penances upon private Christians for praying thus in their Families and compelling them to abiure this practise have endeavoured with raging violence to banish this divine ordinance from our Churches and dwellings and profest in open Court it was fitter for Amsterdam than for our Churches But howsoever this applause of conceived prayer may seeme to be Cordiall yet he makes it but a vantage ground to lift up publike formes of sacred Church Liturgie as hee calls it the higher that they may have the greater honour that by the power of your authority they be reinforced which worke there would have beene no need to call your Honors to had not Episcopall zeale broke forth into such flames of indignation against conceived prayers that we have more just cause to implore the propitious aide of the same Authority to reestablish the Liberty of this then they to re-inforce the necessity of that Yet there are two specious Arguments which this Remonstrant brings to perswade this desired re-inforcement the Originall and Confirmation of our Liturgie For the first he tels your Honours it was selected out of ancient Models not ROMAN but CHRISTIAN contrived by the holy Martyrs and Confessors of the blessed reformation of Religion where we beseech your Honours to consider how we may trust these men who sometimes speaking and writing of the ROMAN Church proclaime it a true Church of CHRIST and yet here ROMAN and CHRISTIAN stand in opposition sometimes they tell men their Liturgie is wholly taken out of the Romane Missall only with some little alteration and here they would perswade your Honours there is nothing Romane in it But it is wholly selected out of pure Ancient Models as the Quintessence of them all Whereas alas the originall of it is published to the world in that Proclamation of Edward the sixt And though here they please to stile the Composers of it holy Martyrs and contrivers of the blessed Reformation yet there are of the Tribe for whom
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
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
IMPONENDI ET ORDINANDI possident potestatem And who those be he expresseth a little before SENIORES Praepositi by whom the Presbyters as well as the Bishops are understood And as these places prove that Bishops in the Primitive time could not ordaine alone without the Presbyters so there are that give us light to understand that the Presbyters might ordaine without the Bishop The Author of the Comment upon the Ephesians that goes under the name of Ambrose saith Apud Aegyptum Presbyteri consignant si praesens non sit Episcopus In Egypt the Presbyters ordaine if the Bishop be not present so saith Augustine in the same words and the Chorepiscopus who was but a Presbyter had power to impose hands and to ordaine within his precincts with the Bishops Licence Now Licences conferre not a power to him that hath it not but onely a facultie to exercise that power he hath The Iniquitie of our times hath beene such that a Minister may not Preach to his owne flocke without a Licence doth this Licence make a man a Minister and give him power to preach or onely a facultie and libertie to exercise that power Should a Bishop give a Laike a Licence to preach or to ordaine doth that Licence make him a Minister or a Bishop Sure all will say no why because in the Laike there is not Actus primus the roote and principle of that power which Licence onely opens a way to the exercise of and therefore that must bee concluded to be in those Chorepiscopi or Presbyters by vertue of their place and calling and not by vertue of a Licence So that the power of Ordination was so farre from residing in the Bishop alone as that the Presbyters and Chorepiscopi had power to ordaine as well as he Neither was this onely a matter of Ecclesiasticall Custome but of Ecclesiasticall Constitution which binds the Bishop First in all his Ordinations to consult with his Clergy Vt Episcopus sine Consilio Clericorum suorum Clericos non ordinet That the Bishop shall not ordaine a Clergy man without the counsel of the Clergy this was Cyprians practice Epist. 33. Secondly in his Ordinations to take the concurrent assistance of his Presbyters Cum ordinatur Presbyter Episcopo cum benedicent◠manum super caput ejus tenente etiam omnes Presbyteri qui praesentes sunt manu◠suas juxta manum Episcopi super caput illius teneant When a Presbyter is ordained the Bishop blessing him and holding his hand upon his head all the Presbyters that are present shall likewise lay their hands upon his head with the hands of the Bishop In which Canon we have the unanimous vote of two hundred and fourteene Bishops declaring that the power of Ordination is in the hands of Presbyters as well as Bishops And whereas it may be objected that Hiorome and Chrysostome affirming Bishops to differ from Presbyters in the power of Ordination seeme to imply that that power is soly theirs Here we desire it may be observed First that these Fathers put all the difference that lyes betweene Bishops and Presbyters to be in point of Ordination Quid facit Episcopus quod non facit Presbyter exceptâ Ordinatione And therefore Chrysostome himselfe confesseth that in his dayes there was little or no difference between a Bishop and a Presbyter Inter Episcopū et Presbyterū interest fermè nihil c. Secondly That this difference is not so to be understood as if these Fathers did hold it to be by divine right as Bellarmine and our Episcopall men would make us beleeve but by a humane constitution And therefore they doe not speak De jure but de facto Quid facit c. not quid debet facere And this Hierom confesseth So Leo prim ep 88. upon complaints of unlawfull Ordinations writing to the Germane and French Bishops reckons up what things are reserved to the Bishops Among which he set down Presbyterorum Diaconorum consecratio and then adds Quae omnia solis deberi summis Pontificibus Authoritate Canonam praecipitur So that for this power of Ordination they are more beholden to the Canon of the Church then to the Canon of Gods Word Thirdly we answer that this very humane difference was not in the Primitive Antiquity It was not so in Cyprians time as we even now shewed And when it did prevaile it was but a particular custome and sometimes usurpation of some Churches For it was otherwise appointed in the Councell of Carthage and in Egypt and other places as is declared in the former part of this Section And even in Chrysostomes time it was so little approved of that it was one great accusation against Chrysostome himselfe That hee made Ordinations without the Presbytery and without the consent of his Clergie This is quoted by Bishop Downam lib. 1. cap. 8. pag. 176. SECT IX NOr had the Bishop of former times more right to the power of sole Iurisdiction then of sole Ordination And here we have Confitentem reum our very Adversaries confesse the Votes of Antiquity are with us Cyprian professeth that hee would doe nothing without the Clergie nay he could doe nothing without them nay hee durst not take upon him alone to determine that which of right did belong to all and had hee or any other done so the fourth Councell of Carthage condemnes the Sentence of the Bishop as Irrita nisi Clericorum sententiâ confirmetur Would yee know the particulars wherein the Bishops had no power of Judicature without their Presbyters First in judging and censuring Presbyters themselves and their Doctrine For this the Canon Law in Gratian is full and cleare Episcopus non potest Iudicare Presbyterum vel Diaconum sine Synodo Senioribus Thus Basill counselled and practised epist. 75. So Ambr. lib. 10. epist. 80 Cyrill in epist. ad Iohannem Antiochen Thus Gregory ad Iohan. Panormitan lib. 11. epist 49. Secondly in judging of the Conversation or Crimes of any of the members of the Church Penes Presbyteros est Disciplina quae facit hom ines meliores That Discipline that workes emendaion in men is in the power of the Elders And therefore when any was questioned in point of conversation hee was brought saith Tertullian into the Congregation where were Exhortations Castigations and Divine censures And who had the chiefe stroke in these Censures he tells us after Praesident probati quique seniores All the approved Elders sit as Presidents And those censures that passed by the whole Presbytery were more approved by the Church in Ancient times then such as were passed by one man for wee finde that when Syagrius and Ambrose passed Sentence in the same case the Church was unsatisfied in the Sentence of Syagrius because he past it sine alicujus fratris consilio without the counsell or consent of any of his Brethren But were pacified with the
but this is but a blind wherewith the Bishop would Dorre his Reader for wee challenge any man to produce the names of any Clergie-man that was Vicar to Ambrose or Chancellour to Augustine or any other of the Bishops of these times so that herein our Bishops and theirs are TWO SECT XI A Third branch wherein the difference betweene our Bishops and the Bishops of former times inpoint 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 Criminall where let them tell us whether any good Antiquity can yeeld 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 Civill Law Nemo tenetur prodere seipsum which as it is grounded upon naturall 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 Gospell convince these of their iniquities in transgressing this Law that call themselves the Fathers of the Church If neither the light of Nature nor Gospell light can yet the Custome of the Church to which they so oft appeale may both convince them of this iniquitie and discover to all the world the contrarietie of their proceedings to the proceedings of former times in this particular For of Old both the Plaintiffe 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 qualitâ—e of the Accuser Concilâ— 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 Tryall without witnesses Si crimen ita publicum est ut meritò debeat appellari notorium If the crime be so publique that it may deservedly be called Notorious Which Law further determines what is notorious saâ—ing 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 either by confession or by lawfull proofe comes to be knowne 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 dâ—fendant 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 knowes what his accusation is Which Oath if he takes without further witnesse he is censured upon the witnesâ—e of his owne Oath If he takes it not he is sent presently to prison there to lie without Bayle or Mainprize till the insupportable miseries of his long durance compel him to take an Oath against Nature Scripture Conscience and the just Defence of his owne innocencie 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 Civill 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 heare 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 businesse but these were put upon them sometimes by Emperours 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 perversè fungi jussit Sometimes the gracious disposition of Princes towards 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 Civill Magisâ—rates might have leave to appeale ad Iudicium Episcoporum atque eorum sententiani ratam esse tanquam ab ipso Imperatore prolatam And this the Historian reckoneth as one argument of his reverend respect to Religion Sometimes the excellency of their singular parts cast Civill dignities upon them Tiberius granted a Questors dignitie unto a Bishop for his eloquence Chrysostome for his notable stoutnesse and freedome of speech was sent as the fittest man to Gainas with the Emperours command Sometimes the people observing the Bishops to be much honoured by the Emperour would sollicite them to present their grievances to the Emperour And sometimes the aspiring humour of the Bishops raised them to such places as appeares by Cyrill who was the first Bishop in Alexandria who had civill dignities conferred upon him as Socrates relates it from whom Civill 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 Episcopietiam profana negotia curarent He entred upon his Episcopacie 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 weakned by the Bishops interposing in secular affaires
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
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 hee tooke him along with him in his journey to Hiâ—rusalem and so to Rome for wee finde that those Epistles Paul wrote while hee was a prisoner beare either in their inscription or some other passage of them the name of Timothy as Pauls companion viz. The Epistle to the Philippians Colossians Hebreâ—es Philemon which Epistles he wrote in bonds as the contexture which those two learned professors the one at Heydelberge the other at Saulmur make of Saint Pauls Epistles doth declare So that it appeares that Timothy was no Bishop but a Minister an Evangelist a fellow labourer of the Apostles 1 Thess. 3.1 an Apostle a Messenger of the Church 2. Cor. 8.3 a Minister of God 1 Thess. 3.2 these titles the Holy Ghost gives him but never the title of a Bishop The like we find in Scripture concerning Titus whom Paul as it is conceived by learned men did first assume into the fellowship of his Labours in the place of Iohn and made him his companion in his journey through Antioch to Herusalem so we find Gal. 2.1 from thence returning to Antioch againe from thence hee passed through Syria and Cilicia confirming the Churches from Cilicia he passed to Creet where having Preached the Gospell and planted 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 hee 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 Hyemall 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 hee passed presently from thenâ—e into Macedonia where Titus met him and in the midst of his afflictions joyed his spirits with the glad tydings of the powerfull 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 journeyes to and fro did Titus make at the designement of the Apostle even after hee was left in Creet Nor doe we finde that after his first removall from Creet he did ever returne thither Wee reade indeed 2 Tim. 4.10 hee 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 six Titus in Creet as a Bishop but onely to leave him there for a season for the good of that Church and to call him from thence and send him abroad to other Churches for their good as their necessities might require Now who that will acknowledge a Distinction betweene the Offices of Bishops and Evangelists and knowes wherein that Distinction lyes will not upon these premisses conclude that Timothy and Titus were Evangelists and NOT Bishops I but some of the Fathers have called Timothy and Titus Bishops We grant it true and it is as true that some of the Fathers have called them Archbishops and Patriarks yet it doth not follow they were so Wee adde secondly that when the Fathers did call them so it was not in a proper but in an improper sense which we expresse in the words of our Learned Orthodox Raynolds You may learne by the Fathers themselves saith hee that when they tearmed any Apostle a Bishop of thiâ— or that City as namely Saint Peter of Antioch or Rome they meant it in a generall sort and signification because they did attend that Church for a time and supply that roome in preaching the Gospell which Bishops did after but as the name of Bishop is commonly taken for the Overseer of a particular Church and Pastor of a severall flocke so Peter was not Bishop of any one place therefore not of Rome And this is true by Analogy of all extraordinary Bishops and the same may be said of Timothy and Titus that he saith of Peter But were it true that Timothy and Titus were Bishops will this remonstrant undertake that all his party shall stand to his Conditions If our Bishops challenge any other power then was by Apostolique Authority delegated to and required of Timothy and Titus and the Angells of the seaven Asian Churches let them be disclaimed as usurpers Will our Bishops indeed stand to this then actum est Did ever Apostolique authority delegate power to Timothy or Titus to ordaine alone to governe alone and doe not our Bishops challenge that power Did ever Apostolique authority delegate power to Timothy and Titus to rebuke an Elder no but to entreate him as a Father and doe not our Bishops challenge to themselvesâ— and permit to their Chancellours Commissaries and Officialls power not only to rebuke an Elder but to rayle upon an Elder to reproach him with the most opprobrious tearmes of foole knave jack-sauce c. which our paper blushes to present to your Honours view Did ever Apostolique authority delegate to Timothy and Titus power to receave an accusation against an Elder but before two or three witnesses and doe not our Bishops challenge power to proceed Ex officio and make Elders their owne Accusers Did ever Apostolique authority delegate power to Timothy or Titus to reject any after twice admonition but an Heretick and doe not our Bishops challenge power to reject and eject the most sound and orthodox of our Ministers for refusing the use of a Ceremony as if Non-conformity were Heresie So that either our Bishops must disclaime this remonstrance or else themselves must be disclaimed as usurpers But if Timothy and Titus were no Bishops or had not this power it may bee the Angells of the seven Asian Churches had and our Remonstrant is so subtile as to twist these two together that if one fayle the other may hold To which we answer first that Angell in those Epistles is put Collectively not Individually as appeares by the Epistle to Thyatira cap. 2. vers 24. where wee reade 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. But I say unto you in the plurall number not unto thee in the singular and unto the rest in Thyatira c. Here is a plaine distinction betweene the members of that Church By you is signified those to whom hee spake under the name of the Angell By
opinion and hath gathered to our hands the opinions of all Interpreters hee could meete and saith that they all consent in this that under the person of an Angell the Pastors and Ministers of the Churches were understood Saint Austin in his 132. Epistle saith thus Sic enim in Apocalypsi legitur Angelus c. Quod si de angelo superioruÌ„ coelorum non de Praepositis ecclesiarum vellet intelligi non consequenter diceret habeo adversum te c. And so in his second Homily upon the Revelation if that booke be his Quod autem dicit angelo Thyatirae â— habeo adversum te pauca dicit Praepositis Ecclesiarum c. This also Gregory the Great lib. 34. Moralâ— in Iob cap. 4. Saepè sacrum scripturam prâ—dicatores Ecclesiae pro eo quod patris gloriam annunciant angelorum nomine solere de signare hinc esse quod Iohannes in Apocalypsi septem Ecclesiis scribens angelis Ecclesiaâ—um loquitur id â—st Praedicatoribus populorum Master Fox citeth Primasius Haymo Beda Richard Thomas and others to whom we referre you If it be here demanded as it is much by the Hierarchicall side that if by angell bee meant the whole company oâ— Presbyters why Christ did not say to the angels in the plurall number but to the angell in the singular Wee answer that though this question may savour of a little too much curiosity yet wee will make bold to subjoyn three conjecturall reasoÌ„s of this phrase of speech First It is so used in this place because it is the common language of other Scriptures in types and visions to set down a certaine number for an uncertaine and the singular number for the purall Thus the Ramme Dan. 8.3 is interpreted vers 20. to be the Kings of Media and Persia And the enemies of Gods Church are set out by foure hoâ—nes And the deliverers by foure Carpenters Zach. 1.18 20. And the wise and foolish Virgins are said to be five wise and five foolish And many such like And therefore as we answer the Papists when they demand why Christ if he meant figuratively when he saith this is my body did not speake in plaine language this is the signe of my body We say that this phrase of speech is proper to all Sacraments So we also answer here this phrase of speech Angell for Angels is common to all types and visions Secondly angell is put though more be meant that so it may hold proportion with the Vision which Iohn sawâ— Chap 1.12.20 He saw seven golden Candlestickes and seven Starres And therefore to hold proportion the Epistles are directed to seven angels and to seven Churches And this is called a mystery Revel 1.20 The mystery of the seven Starres c. Now a mystery is a secret which comprehends more then is expressed and therefore though but one angell be expressed yet the mystery implyes all the angels of that Church Thirdly to signifie their unity in the Ministeriall function and joynt commission to attend upon the feeding and governing of one Church with one common care as it were with one hand and heart And this is more fitly declared by the name of one angell then of many Wee often finde the name of one Prophet or Priest to be put for the generall body of the Ministery or whole multitude of 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. 6.13.18.18 Isa. 3.2 Hos. 9.8 Ezek. 7.26 Hos. 4.6 Mal. 2.7 Neither should it seeme strange that a multitude or company of Ministers should bee understood under the name of one angell seeing a multitude of Heavenly angels implyed in one service for the good of Gods Saints is sometimes in the Scripture shut up under one angell in the singular number as may be gathered from Gen. â—4 7 2 Kings 19.35 Psal. 34.7 compared with Psalme 91.11 Gen. 32.1.2 Kings 6.16 17. And also a multitude of devils or evill angels joyntly labouring in any one worke is set forth under the name of one evill or uncleane spirit 1 Kings 22.21 22. Mark 1 23 24. Markâ— 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 Angell is taken individually for one particular person as Doctor Reynolds seemes to interpret it together with Master Beza yet neverthelesse there will nothing follow out of this acception that will any wayes make for the upholding of a Diocesan Bishop with sole power of Ordination and Jurisdiction as a distinct superior to Presbyters And this appeares 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 dayes And the seven starres are said to bee fixed in their seven Candlestickes or Churches not one starre over divers Candlestickes Neither can those Churches be thought to be Diocesan when not only Tindall and the old translation calls them seven Congregations but we reade 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 generall the Church is committed to be fed by them without any respect had to Timothy who stood at his elbow and had beene with him in Macedonia and was now waiting upon him to Ierusalem This is also confirmed by Epiphanius who writing of the Heresies of the Meletians saith that in ancient times this was peculiar to Alexandria that it had but one bishop whereas other Cities had two And hee 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 angell of the Church of Ephesus that he could not beare them that were evill and that he had tryed them which say they were Apostles and are not had found them lyars And it is spoken in dispraise of the angell of Pergamus that he suffred them which held the doctrine of Balaam c. But these things are common duties requirable at the hands of all Ministers who have the Charge of Soules But suppose that there were some superiority and preheminency insinuated by this individuall angell yet who knoweth not that there are divers 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 angell if he had a superiority had any more then a superiority of order or of gifts and parts Where is it said that this angell was a superior degree or order of Ministery above Presbyters In which Epistle it is said that this angell had sole power of Ordination and Jurisdiction and therefore as our learned Protestants prove against the Papists that when Christ directed his speech to Peter in particular and said I will give unto thee the keyes 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 aâ— Epistle to one angell it doth not imply a superior power over his fellow angels but at most onely 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 bee betweene the Ministers of the same Church in their common care and diligence to their flocke And this is all that Doctor Reynolds saith as you may reade in his conference with Hart cap. 4. divis 3. ad finem For it is evident that Doctor Reynolds was an utter enemy to the Iâ—â— Divinum of the Episcopall preheminency over Presbyters by his Letter to Sir Francis Krolls And learned Master Beza also saith something to the same purpose in his annotations upon Revel 2.1 Angelo i. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 quem nimirum oportuit 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 necessariò oportuisse sicut exorta inde Tyrannis oligarchica cujus apex est Antichristana bestia certissima cum totius non Ecclesia 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 hooted oâ—t of the Church seeing it is his owne Option And yet we cannot coÌ„ceale 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 Postscripts and so all the rest are no part of Canonicall Scripture And therefore our former and ancienter English translations though they have these Postscripts yet they are put in a small character different from that of the text that all men might take notice they were no parts of the text Although our Episcopall men of late in newer impressions have inlarged their Phylacteries in putting those Postscripts in the same full character with that of the text that the simple might beleeve they are Canonicall Scripture The Papists themselves Baronius Serrarius and the Rhemists confesse that there is much falsity in them The first Epistle to Timothy is thus subscribed the first to Timothy was written from Laodicea which is the chiefest City of Phrygia Pacatiana Here we demand whether Paul when he writ the first Epistle to Timothy was assured he should live to write a second which was written long after And if not How comes it to be subscribed thâ— first to Timothy which hath relation to a second Besides the Epistle is said to be writ from Loadicea whereas Beza in his Annotations proves apparently that it was written from Macedonia to which opinion Baronius and Serrarius subscribe It is added Which is the chiefest City of Phrygia Pacatiana But this Epithete is no where read in the Writers of those ages saith Beza Sed apud recentiores illos qui Romani imperii jam inclinantis provincias descripserunt So that by this place it is evident that the subscription was added a long while after the writing of the Epistles by some men for the most part vel indoctis saith Beza vel certe non satis attentis Either by a learned or negligent man The second Epistle is thus subscribed the second Epistle unto Timothy ordeined the first Bishop of the Church of the EphesiaÌ„s was written from Rome when Paul was brought before Nero the second time Now these words Ordained the first Bishop is wanting saith Beza in quibusdam vetustis codicibus in veteri vulgatâ— editione apud Syrum interpretem If Saint Paul had written this Postscript he would not have said to Timothy the first Bishop c. whereas it was not yet certaine whether ever there should be a second Neither would it bee said when Paul was brought c. But when I was the second time brought before Nero. The Syriack Interpreter reads it Here ends the second epistle to Timothy written from Rome The Epistle to Titus is thus subscribed Written to Titus ordained first Bishop of the Church of the Cretians from Nicopolis of Macedonia Here it is said that this Epistle was written from Nicopolis whereas it is cleare that Paul was not at Nicopolis when he wrote it Tit 3.12 Be diligent to come to me to Nicopolis for I have determined there to winter He doth not say Here to winter but there Where note for the present hee was not there And besides it is said that Titus was ordained the first Bishop c. And who was the second or was there ever a second And also He is said to be Bishop not onely of a Diocesse but of all Creet Was there ever such a second Bishop Adde lastly that it is said Bishop of the Church of the Cretians Whereas it would bee said of the Churches of the Cretians For the Christian Churches of any Nation are called Churches by Luke and Paul not Church Therefore Codex Claremontanus subscribes Here ends the Epistle to Titus and no more So the Syriack Finitur Epistola ad Titum quae scripta fuit è Nicopoli The old Vulgar Edition hath nothing of the Episcopacy of Titus By all this it appeares that if the Bishops had no more authority to urge us to subscribe to their Ceremonies then they have authority for their Episcopall dignity by these
the French Church who in their Confession speake thus Credimus veram Ecclesiam gubernari debere ea politia quam Dominus noster Iesus Christus sancivit ita videlicet ut sint in ea Pastores Presbyteri sive Seniores Diaconi ut doctrinae puritas retineatur c. Ar. 29. Credimus omnes Pastores ubicunque collocati sunt cádem aequali potestate inter se esse praeditos sub uno illo capite summoque solo universali Episcopo Iesu Christo Art 30. Gallicae confessionis Credimus veram hanc Ecclesiam debere regi ac gubernari spirituali illâ politiâ quam nos Deus ipse in verbo suo edocuit it a ut sint in ea Pastores ac ministri qui pure concionentur Sacramenta administrent sint quoque Seniores Diaconi qui Ecclesiae senatum constituant ut his veluti mediis vera Râ—ligio conservari Hominesque vitiis dediti spiritualiter corripi emendari possint Tunc enim ritè ordinate omnia siunt in Ecclesia cum viri fidâ—les pii ad ejus gubernationem deliguÌ„tur juxta Divi Pauli praescriptum 1 Tim. 3. Confes. Belgic Art 30. Caeterum ubicunque locorum sunt verbi Dei Ministri eandem atque aequalem Omnes habent tum Potestatem tum AUTHORITATEM ut qui sunt aeque Omnes Christi unici illius universalis Episcopi capitis Ecclesiae Ministri We beleeve that the true Church ought to be governed by that policie which Christ Jesus our Lord established viz. that there bee Pastors Presbyters or Elders and Deacons And againe Wee beleeve that all true Pastors where ever they be are endued with equall and the same power under one chiefe Head and bishop Christ Jesus Consonant to this the Dutch Churches We beleeve say they the true Church ought to be ruled with that spirituall policie which God hath taught us in his Word to wit that there bee in it Pastours to preach the Word purely Elders and Deacons to constitute the Ecclesiasticall Senate that by these meanes Religion may be preserved and manners corrected And so again We beleeve where ever the Ministers of God are placed they All have the same equall power and authoritie as being All equally the Ministers of Christ. In which harmony of these Confessions see how both Churches agree in these five points First That there is in the Word of God an exact forme of Governement set downe Deus in verbo suo edocuit Secondly That this forme of Governement Christ established in his Church Iesus Christus in Ecclesiâ sancivit Thirdly That this forme of Government is by Pastors Elders and Deacons Fourthly That the true Church of Christ ought to be thus governed Veram Ecclesiam debere regi Fifthly That all true Ministers of the Gospell are of equall power and Authority For the reason he assignes why those Churches should make this Option wee cannot enough admire that such a passage should fall from his pen as to say there is Little difference betweene their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and our Episcopacie save onely in perpetuity and lay Elders for who knowes not that between these two there is as vast a difference as between the Duke of Venice and an absolute Monarch For 1. the Moderator in Geneva is not of a superiour order to his Brethren nor 2. hath an ordination differing from them nor 3. assumes power of sole Ordination or Jurisdiction nor hath he 4. maintenance for that office above his Brethren nor 5. a Negative voyce in what is agreed by the rest nor 6. any further power then any of his Brethren So that the difference betweene our Bishops and their Moderators is more then Little But if it be so little as this Remonstrant here pretends then the Alteration and Abrogation of Episcopacie will be with the lesse difficultie and occasion the lesse disturbance SECT XV. BUt there is another thing wherein our Episcopacie differs from the Geneva Moderatorship besides the perpetuity and that is the exclusion of the Lay Presbytery which if we may beleeve this Remonstrant never till this age had footing in the Christian Church In which assertion this Remonstrant concludes so fully with Bishop Halls Irrefragable Propositions and his other book of Episcopacie by divine right as if he had conspired to sweare to what the Bishop had said Now though we will not enter the Lists with a man of that learning and fame that Bishop Hall is yet we dare tell this Remonstrant that this his assertion hath no more truth in it then the rest that wee have alreadie noted Wee will to avoyd prolixity not urge those three knowne Texts of Scripture produced by some for the establishing of Governing Elders in the Church not yet vindicated by the adversaries Nor will wee urge that famous Text of Ambrose in 1 Tim. 5. But if there were no Lay Elders in the Church till this present age wee would be glad to learne who they were of whom Origen speakes when he tels us it was the Custome of Christian Teachers first to examine such as desired to heare them of whom there were two orders the first were Catechumeni or beginners the other was of such as were more perfect among whom 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 câ— Nonnulli praepositi sunt quì in vitam mores eorum qui admittuntur inquirant ut qui turpia committant iis communi Caetu Interdicant qui vero ab istis abhorrent ex anima complexi meliores quotidiè reddant There are some ordained to enquire into the life and manners of such as are admitted into the Church that they may banish such from the publique Assembly that perpetrate scandalous Acts which place tells us plainely First that there were some in the higher forme of heares not Teachers who were Censores morum over the rest Secondly that they were designed or constituted to this work 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Thirdly that they had such Authority instrusted into their hands as that they might interdict such as were scandalous from the publique Assemblies We would gladly know whether these were not as it were Lay Elders That there were such in the Church distinguished from others that were called to teach appeares Augustine writing to his Charge directs his Epistle Dilectissimis fratribus clero senioribus universae Plebi Ecclesiae Hipponensis where first there is the generall compellation Fratribus Brethren then there is a distribution of these Brethren into the Clergie the Elders and the whole People so that there were in that Church Elders distinguished both from the Clergie and the rest of the People So againe Contra Cresconium Grammaticum Omnes vos Episcopi Presbyteri Diaconi Seniores scitis All you Bishops Elders Deacons and Elders doe know What were those two sorts of Elders there mentioned in one comma ibidem cap. 56. Peregrinus Presbyter seniores Ecclesiae Musticanae Regiones tale desiderium prosequuntur where
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
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
Subscriptions there would be no more Subscription to Ceremonies in the Churches of England But some will say that there is one objection out of Scripture yet unanswered and that is from the inequality that was betweene the twelve Apostles and the seventy Disciples To which we answer First that it cannot bee proved that the twelve Apostles had any superiority over the seventy either of Ordination or Jurisdiction Or that there was any subordination of the seventy unto the twelve But suppose it were yet we answer Secondly that a superiority and inferiority betweene Officers of different kindes will not prove that there should be a superiority and inferiority betweene Officers of the same kinde No man will deny but that in Christs time there were Apostles Evangelists Prophets Pastors and teachers and that the apostles were superior to Evangelists and Pastors But it cannot bee proved that one apostle had any superiority over another apostle or one Evangelist over another And why then should one Presbyter be over another Hence it followeth that though we should grant a superiority betweene the twelve and the seventy yet this will not prove the question in hand Because the question is concerning Officers of the same kinde and the instance is of Officers of different kinds amongst whom no man will deny but there may be a superiority and inferiority as there is amongst us between Presbyters and Deacons And now let your Honours judge considering the premisses how farre this Episcopall government is from any Divine right or Apostolicall institution And how true that speech of Hierome is that a bishop as it is a superior Order to a Presbyter is an Humane praesumption not a divine Ordinance But though Scripture failes them yet the indulgence and Munificence of Religious Princes may support them and to this the Remonstrant makes his next recourse yet so as he acknowledgeth here Ingagements to Princes onely for their accessory dignities titles and Maintenance not at all for their stations and functions wherein yet the author plainely acknowledgeth a difference betweene our Bishops and the Bishops of old by such accessions For our parts we are so farre from envying the gracious Munificence of pious Princes in collating honourable maintenance upon the Ministers of Christ that we beleeve that even by Gods owne Ordinance double Honour is due unto them And that by how much the Ministery of the Gospell is more honourable then that of the Law by so much the more ought all that embrace the Gospell to bee carefull to provide that the Ministers of the Gospell might not onely live but maintaine Hospitalitie according to the Rule of the Gospell And that worthy Gentleman spake as an Oracle that said That scandalous Maintenance is a great cause of a scandalous Ministery Yet wee are not ignorant that when the Ministery came to have Agros domos locationes vehicula equos latifundia as Chrysost. Hom. 86. in Matth. That then Religio peperit divitias filia devoravit Matrem religion brought forth riches and the Daughter devoured the Mother and then there was a voyce of Angels heard from Heaven Hodie venenum in Ecclesiam Christi cecidit this Day is poyson shed into the Church of Christ. And then it was that Ierome complained Christi Ecclesia postquam ad Christianos principes venit potentiâ quidem divitiis major sed virtutibus minor facta est Then also was that Conjunction found true That when they had woodden Chalices they had golden Priests but when their Chalices were golden their Priests were wooden And though we doe not thinke there is any such incompossibility but that large Revenues may be happily managed with an humble sociablenesse yet it is very rare to finde History tells us that the superfluous revenues of the Bishops not onely made them neglect their Ministery but further ushered in their stately and pompous attendance which did so elevate their Spirits that they insulted over their brethren both Clergy and People and gave occasion to others to hate and abhorre the Christian Faith Which Eusebius sets forth fully in the pride of Paulus Samosatenus who notwithstanding the meannesse and obscurity of his birth afterwards grew to that height of Insolâ—ncâ— and pride in all his carriage especially in that numerous traine that attended him in the streetes and in his stately throne raised after the manner of Kings and Princes that Fides nostra inviâ—â—ia odiâ— propter fostum superbiâ—m cordis illius facta fuerit obnexia the Christian faith was exposed to envy and hatred through his pride And as their ambition fed with the largenesse of their revenewes discovered it selfe in great attendance stately dwellings and all Lordly pompe so Hierom complaines of their pride in their stately seates qui velut in aliqua sublimi specula constituti vix dignantur vidâ—re mortales alloqui conservos suos who sitting aloft as it were in a watch tower will scarce deigne to looke upon poore mortalis or speake to their fellow servants Here we might bee large in multiplying severall testimonies against the pride of Ecclesiasticall persons that the largenesse of their revenues raysed them to but we will conclude with that grave complaint of Sulpitius Severus Ille qui ante pedibus aut asello ire consueverat spumante equo superbus invebitur parvá prius ac vili cellula contentus habitare erigit celsa Laquearia construit multa conclaviu sculpit postes pingit armaria vestem respuit gressiorem indumentum molle desiderat c. Which because the practise of our times hath already turned into English wee spare the labour to translate Onely suffer us being now to give a Vale to our remonstrants arguments to recollect some few things First whereas this remonstâ—ant saith If we doe not shew out of the true genuine writings of those holy men that lived in the Apostles dayes a cleare and received distinction of Bishopsâ— Presbyters and Deacons as three distinct subordinate callings with an evident specification of the duty belonging to each of them Let this claimed Hierarchie be for ever rooted out of the Church We beseech you let it be rememred how we have proved out of the genuine and undeniable writings of the Apostles themselves that these are not three distinct callings Bishops are Presbyters being with them all one Name and Office and that the distinction of Bishops and Presbyters was not of Divine Institution but Humane and that these Bishops in their first Institution did not differ so much from Presbyters as our present Bishops differ from them Secondly Whereas this remonstant saith If our Bishops challenge any other power then was by Apostolike authority delegated to and required of Timothy and Titus and the Angells of the Asian Churches Let them bee disclaimed as usurpers Wee desire it may be remembred how wee have proved first that Timothy and Titus and the Angels were no Diocesan bishops and secondly that our bishops challenge if not
in their Polemicks yet in their Practicks a power that Timothy and Titus and those angels never did Thirdly Whereas this remonstrant saith If there can be better evidence under Heaven for any matter of fact let Episcopacy be for ever abandoned out of Gods Church We beseech you remember how weake we have discovered his Evidence to be and then the Inference upon all these we humbly leave to your Honours Wisedome and Iustice. SECT XIIII HAving thus considered the validity of those arguments whereby this remonstrant would suffult Episcopacy we descend now to inquire what satisfaction he gives to those objections which himselfe frames as the maine if not the sole arguments that Episcopacy is asfaultable by and they are two First that pleading the Divine right of Episcopacy is to the prejudice of Soveraignty Secondly that it casts a dangerous imputation upon all those reformed Churches that want this Government To the first the prejudice of Soveraignty he answers there is a compatiblenesse in this case of Gods Act and the Kings it is God that makes the Bishop the King that gives the Bishopricke But we have proved already that God never made a Bishop as he stands in his Superioritie over all other Presbyters he never had Gods Fiat and if they disclaime the influence of soveraignty unto their creation to a priority and assert that the King doth not make them Bishops they must have no being at all Sure we are the Lawes of the Land proclaime that not onely Bishopricks but Bishops and all the Iurisdiction they have is from the King whereas the Remonstrant acknowledgeth no more but the bare place and exercise to be from Regall donation which cannot bee affirmed without apparent prejudice of that Soveraigntie which the Lawes of the Land have invested our Princes with And for his unworthy comparison of Kings in order to Bishops and Patrons in order to their Clerkes when he shall prove that the patron gives ministeriall power to his Clerke as the Kâ—nâ— according to our Laws gives Episcopall power to the Bishop â— it may be of some conducement to his cause but till then we leave the unfitnesse of this comparison and the unthankfulnesse of those men to the indulgence of their Soveraigne to their deserved recompence His learned answer to such men as borrowing Saint Ieroms phrase speake Saint Pauls truth is in summe this That he knâ—wâ—s not how to prescribe to mens thoughts but for all his Rhetoricke they will thinke what they list but if they will grant him the question they shall soone be at an end of the quarrell which one answer if Satisfactory would silence all controversies to as good purpose as he did Bellarmine who said Bellarmine saith it is thus and I say it is not and where is Bellarmine now To the second objection that Episcopacie thus asserted casts an imputation upon all the reformed Churches that want that Government hee saith that the objection is intended to raise envie against them who if they may be beleeved love and honour those sister Churches and blesse God for them But doe they not plucke all this envie upon themselves who in their Conferences Writings Pulpits Vniversities Disputes High Commission Declamations have disclaimed them us no Churches that have disclaimed the Prelats and have honoured the most glorious Lights of those Reformed Churches Calvin Beza and others with no better titles than of Rascalls Blasphemers c. But the pith of his answer after a few good words is this that no such consequent can be drawne from their opinion for their Ius divinum pleads only for a Iustifiablenesse of this holy calling Not for an absolute necessity of it warranting it where it is and requiring it where it may be had but not fixing upon the Church that wants it the defect of any thing of the Essence of a Church but only of the glory and perfection of it neither is it their sin but their misery And is it so doth not this Ius divinum argue a Necessitie but onely a Iustifiablenesse of this calling nor is the want of it a want of any thing of Essence but onely of perfection wee had thought that page the twentieth where this Remonstrant strives to fetch the pedegree of Episcopacie from no lesse than Apostolicall and in that right Divine institution he had reckoned it among those things which the Apostles ordained for the succeeding administration of the Church in essentiall matters but here it seemes he is willing to retract what there fell from him there it was to his advantage to say this government was a thing essentiall to the Church and here it is no lesse advantage to say it is not essentiall But if it be not Essentiall then what is the reason that when a Priest who hath received orders at Rome turnes to us they urge not him to receive ordination among us againe but when some of our brethren who flying in Queene 〈◊〉 dayes had received Imposition of hands in the Reformed Churches beyond the Seas returned againe in the dayes of Queene Elizabeth they were urged to receive Imposition of hands againe from our Bishops and some did receive it If those Churches that want Bishops want nothing essentiall to a Church then what Essentiall want was there in the ordination of those Ministers that received Imposition of hands in those Churches that might deserve a Re-ordination more than if they had first received their ordination at Rome And what is the reason that Bishop Mountague so confidently affirmes that Ordination by Episcopall hands is so necessary as that thâ— Church is no true Church without it and the Ministery no true Ministery and ordinarily no salvation to be obtained without it And if this Remonstrant should leave Bishop Mountague to answer for himselfe yet notwithstanding he stands bound to give us satisfaction to these two questions which arise from his owne Booke First whether that Office which by divine right hath the sole power of Ordaining and Ruling all other Officers in the Church as he saith Episcopacy hath belong not to the being but onely to the glory and perfection of a Church Secondly there being in this mans thoughts the same Ius divinum for Bishops that there is for Pastors and Elders whether if those Reformed Churches wanted Pastors and Elders too they should want nothing of the Essence of a Church but of the perfection and glory of it But this Remonstrant seemes to know so much of the minde of those Churches that if they might have their option they would most gladly embrace Episcopall Government as littlâ— differing from their owne Moderatorship save onely in the perpetuitie of it and the new Invention as hee odiously calls it of Lay Elders But no question those learned Worthies that were entrusted by the Churches to compile their confessions did comprise their Iudgements better than the Composer of this Remonstrance And to his presumption wee oppose their Confession Wee will begin with