hereticke Brethren God speed you well with your Question As for the first which is edifying the Church by Word and Sacraments we make no difference your distance may we both hold it our worke and make it so and if any one have beene slack herein the fault is personall we neither defend nor excuse it The maine quarrell you grant to be in the second which is the power of Ordination impropriated as you enviously and untruly speake to our selves This you say was in former times in the hands of the Presbyters and undertake to prove it from 1 Tim. 4.14 Neglect not the gift which was given thee by Prophesie and by laying on the hands of Presbytery a place that hath received answer 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which I wonder ye can so presse when Calvin himselfe as you well know in his learned Institutions even in his last and ripest judgement construes it quite otherwise taking it of the office and not of the men however elsewhere otherwise wherein he also followes the judgement of Ierome Primasius Anselme Haymo Liranus Erasmus and others as our learned Bishop Downam hath largely shewed To countenance this sense of yours you tel us you find 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so taken in Scripture and cite Luc. 22.66 and Act. 22.5 Wherein you do meerly delude the reader you find indeed the Elders of the people so called but the Elders of the Church never to make good your own construction therefore you must maintaine that Lay-men did and must lay on hands in Ordination which Calvin himself utterly abominates Neither need we to give any other satisfaction to the point thē that which we have from S. Paul himselfe 1 Tim. 3.6 Stirre up the gift of God which is in thee by the imposition of my hands mine not others I aske then Was Timothy ordained more then once once surely S. Pauls hands were laid upon him when therefore the Presbyters Yes you say this was a joynt act of both else the Harmony of Scripture is not maintained Pardon me Brethren if I think Mr. Calvin was more skilled in the harmony of Scripture then our selves yet in his eare it sounded well that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 should be the Office to which Timothy was ordained by Paul and not a company of men that ordained him Yet give me leave to marvell how you can have the boldnesse to say This power is communicated to Presbyters when you know that not onely other Antiquity but even Hierome himself and that Councell of Aquisgrane which you cite doe still except Ordination which yet we doe not so appropriate as to lay our hands alone upon the head of any Presbyter The third part of our office consists in Ruling which though our Bishops you say assumed to themselves you will discover to have bin committed to and exercised by Presbyteriall hands For evidence whereof you cite Heb. 13.17 Obey them that have the Rule over you for they watch for your souls Brethren what an injurious imputation is this Do we not give you the title of Rectores Ecclesiarum Doe we not in your institution commit to you regimen animarum Why will ye therefore bear your Readers in hand that we herein rob you of your right It is true that here is a just distinction to be made betwixt the government of soules in severall Congregations and the government of the Church consisting of many Congregations that task is yours this is the Bishops wherein their rule yet is not Lordly but brotherly or paternall your argument reacheth not home to this and yet you strain that place of 1 Thes 5.12 beyond the due breadth whiles you tenter it out to either a paritie or communitie of censure Injoy now what you have so victoriously purchased but give me leave to summe up my reckonings also Since then how ever the name was at first promiscuously used yet the Office of Bishops and Presbyters differed even by Apostolike Institution and the Acts pertaining thereto of Ordination and power of ordinary government and censures were in that very first age of the Church manifestly differenced therefore Bishops and Presbyters were not one SECT VI. THE practise of the Apostles is so farre from contradicting their rules which your brotherly charity would fasten upon my assertion as that it is a most cleare proof and illustration of it Their practise is irrefragable in the charge which they gave to Timothy and Titus as we shall prove in due place Now if to this we shall adde the unquestionable glosse of the more cleare practise of their immediate successors I know not what more light can be desired for the manifestation of this truth Whereto ye boldly answer If this gloss corrupt not the text we shall admit it implying therein too presumptuously that the universall practise of the whole Primitive Church succeeding the Apostles may prove a Burdeaux-glosse to marre the Text. Brethren goe you your owne way let me erre with such guides But ye are disposed to be liberall somewhat ye will grant us besides that which we grant you It is agreed that the name of Bishops and Presbyters were at first promiscuously used It is yeelded by you That in process of time some one was honoured with the name of Bishop and the rest were called Presbyters But what I beseech you was this process of time Here lies your either error or fraud We doe justly and confidently defend that this time had no processe at all it was in the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the living Apostles which we shall plainly make good in the sequell It is also yeelded that this was not nomen inane but seconded with some kind of imparity What then is the difference All the question you say is of divine right and Apostolicall institution of this imparity Let me beseech the Reader to consider seriously of the state of this difference in the mistaking whereof I have not a little unjustly suffered And to remember how I have expressed it in my Remonstrance fetching the pedegree of Episcopacy from Apostolicall and therefore in that right Divine institution And interpreting my self not to understand by divine right any expresse Law of God requiring it upon the absolute necessity of the being of a Church but an institution of Apostles inspired by the holy Ghost warranting it where it is and requiring it where it may be had Now whether it may be thus Apostolicall or a meerly humane and Ecclesiasticall invention is the question in hand On your part you say stand Ierome and Ambrose Two stiffe champions indeed And surely I must needs confesse this is the onely countenance of your cause which yet hath been blanked more then once Ierome tels us you say right down in Tit. 1. Idē est ergo Presbyter c. Out of whose testimony you in summe collect That A Presbyter and a Bishop were originally one That the imparity was grounded upon Ecclesiasticall custome That before this priority the Church was governed by
Were it so pleasing to his Majesty and the State to decree it we should be well content to submit to this ancient forme of Election the forbearance whereof is neither our fault nor our prejudice so as you might well have bestowed this breath to a better purpose and rather conclude that notwithstanding this forme of different choice our Bishops and those of former times are not two SECT VIII WEE follow you into the execution of our Episcopall Office wherein you will show ours and the Apostles to be two so clearely that he who will not wilfully shut his eyes may see a latitude of differences and that in three points The first in sole jurisdiction which you say was a stranger yea a monster to former times and will make it good by the power of that which in all wise writers was wont to be contra-distinguished Ordination For this maine point let my Answerers know that the Ordination is the Bishops but the sole in their sense is their own neither did our Bishops ever challenge it as theirs alone without the Presbyters but as principally theirs with them so as if the power be in the Bishop the assistance is from them the practise in both so is it in the Bishops that ordinarily and regularly it may not be done without them and yet ordinately it may not be done without them by the Bishop which hath bin so constantly and carefully ever observed that I challenge them to shew any one instance in the Church of England to the contrary Say Brethren I beseech you after all this noyse what Bishop ever took upon him to ordain a Presbyter alone or without the concurrent imposition of many hands They no lesse then Cyprian can say Ego collegae Although I must tell you this was in the case of Aurelius made a Lector And in that other testimony which you cite out of his Epistle 58. he speaks onely of the fraternities consent and approbation not of their concurrence in their act this is small game with you Neither is it lesse the order of the Church of England then of the Councell of Carthage Cum ordinatur Presbyter c. 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 With what conscience can ye alledge this as to choak us in our contrary practise when you know this is perpetually and unfailably done by us But now that the Readers may see how you shuffle shew us but one instance of a Presbyters regular and practised ordaining without a Bishop and carry the cause else you do but abuse the Reader with an ostentation of proving what was never denied But here by the way brethren you must give me leave to pull you by the sleeve and to tell you of two or three foul scapes which will trie whether you can blush First that you abuse Firmilianus in casting upon him an opinion of Presbyters ordaining which he never held He in his Epistle to Stephen Bishop of Rome speaking of the true Church in opposition to heresies describes it thus Vbi praesident majores natu qui baptizandi manum imponendi et ordinandi possident potestatem under this name expressing those Bishops who presiding in the Church possesse the power of Baptizing Confirming Ordaining you injuriously Wire-draw him to Presbyters and foist in Seniores et Praepositos which are farre from the clause and matter Be convinced with the more cleare words of the same Epistle Apostolis et Episcopis qui illis vicariâ Ordinatione successerunt Secondly that you bewray grosse ignorance in translating Ambroses Presbyteri consignant by Presbyters ordaining Who that ever knew what belonged to antiquity would have beene guilty of such a solecisme when every novice knowes that consigning signifies confirmation and not ordaining Thirdly you discover not too much skill in not distinguishing of the Chorepiscopi some whereof had both the nature and power of Episcopacy to all purposes and therefore might well by the Bishops licence in his owne charge impose hands others not And lesse fidelity in citing the Councell of Antioch can 10. and the 13. of the Councell of Ancyra if it were not out of our way to fetch them into tryall Lastly I cannot but tell you that you have meerly cast away all this labour and fought with your owne shadow for how ever it were not hard to prove that in the first times of the Church it was appropriated to the Bishop to Ordaine which you cannot but cōfesse out of Ierome and Chrysostom yet since we speaking of our owne time and Church doe both professe and practise an association of Presbyters with us in the act of Ordination whom have you all this while opposed It is enough that you have seemed to say somthing and have showne some little reading to no purpose SECT IX YEt still you will needs beat the ayre very furiously and fight pitifully with your selves Alas brethren why will ye take so much paines to goe wilfully out of your way and to mis-lead the reader with you Who ever challenged in that sense which you faine to your selves a sole Jurisdiction Why will you with some show of learning confute that which you yeeld us to confesse we confesse this sole cryed downe by store of Antiquity we doe willingly grant that Presbyters have and ought to have and exercise a jurisdiction within their owne charge in foro conscientiae we grant that in all the great affayres of the Church the Presbyters whether in Synodes or otherwise ought to be consulted with we grant that the Bishops had of old their Ecclesiasticall Councell of Presbyters with whose advise they were wont to manage the greatest matters and we still have so for to that purpose serve the Deanes and Chapters and the Lawes of our Church frequently make that use of them we grant that Presbyters have their votes in provinciall Synods But we justly say that the superiority of jurisdiction is so in the Bishop as that Presbyters neither did nor may exercise it without him and that the exercise of externall jurisdiction is derived from by under him to those which execute it within his Dioces Thus it is to Timothy that S. Paul gives the charge concerning the rebuke of an Elder or not receiving an accusation against him It is to Titus that S. Paul leaves the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 correction of his Cretians Thus the Canons of the Apostles 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Thus the blessed Martyr Ignatius in his undoubted Epistle to those of Smyrna 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Let no man doe any thing in matters belonging to the Church without the Bishop Thus the Councell of Antioch orders that whatsoever belongs to the Church is to be governed managed and disposed by the judgement and authority of the Bishop who hath 〈◊〉
but you shall give me leave to take you tripping in your own Tale from Cilicia you say Paul passed to Creet where he left Titus for a while to set in order things that remain this for a while you put into a different Character as if it were part of the Text and guiltily translate 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 things that remaine whereas ours turne it in a more full expression of an Episcopall power things that are wanting or left undone but this is not the matter you do yet again repeat the for a while urging the short time that Titus could bee left at Creet and yet in your own marginall computation there is no lesse distance of time betwixt this placing in Creet and sending for him to his next remove unto Nicopolis thā betwixt the year 46 51. the space of five years which was a large gap of time in that unsetled condition and manifold distractive occasions of the Church If afterwards hee were by Apostolicall command called away to tend the more concerning services of the Church this could no whit have impeacht the truth of his Episcopacy but the truth is he was ordained by St. Paul after all those journeys mentioned in the Acts and as Baronius with great consent of Antiquity computes it a year after Timothy so as you may well put up your conclusion as rather begged than inforced and cast it upon the Readers courtesie to beleeve you against al antiquity that Titus was an Evangelist and no Bishop where as these two may well agree together he was an Evangelist when he travelled abroad he was a bishop afterwards when hee stayed and setled at home You object to your selfe the authority of some Fathers that have called Timothy and Titus Bishops Some name if you can that Father that hath called them otherwise away with these envious diminutions when yea have a cloud of witnesses of much antiquity which averre Timothy and Titus to have both lived and dyed Bishops the one of Ephesus of Creet the other yea but so some Fathers have called them Arch-bishops and Patriarchs too What of that therein they have then acknowledged them bishops paramount and if Titus were Bishop of Creet which was of old 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the hundred-cityed Island and Timothy of Ephesus the Metropolis of Asia the multitude of the territories under them whiles it inlargeth their charge doth detract nothing from the use of their office Secondly you tell us from learned D. Raynolds that the Fathers when they called any Apostle Bishop they meant it in a generall sort aad signification because they did attend that church for a time and supply that roome in preaching the Gospell which Bishops did after not intending it as it is commonly taken for the over-seer of a particular Church and Pastor of a severall flocke but what is this to Timothy and Titus you say the same may be said of them but the Doctor gave you no leave so to apply it neither do we Although to say truth all this discourse of yours is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 needlesse and extravagant whether Timothy or Titus were Evangelists or no sure we are that heere they stand for persons charged with those Offices and cares which are delivered to the ordinary Church governours in all succeeding generations And we do most justly take them as we finde them and with our first confidence maintain that we challenge no other spirituall power then was delegated unto them and unto the Angels of the Asian Churches you meane to confute us by questions and those so poore and frivolous as are not worth answer fastning that upon some particular abuse which wee disclaime from our calling as if under this claime wee were bound to justifie every act of a Bishop To answer you in your own kind when or where did our bishops challenge power to ordaine alone to govern alone when though you ignorantly turne an Elder in age to an Elder in Office did our Bishops challenge power to passe a rough and unbeseeming rebuke upon an Elder Where did our Bishops give Commission to Chancellors Commissaries Officials to rayle upon Presbyters or to accuse them without just grounds and without legall proceedings As for your last question I must tell you it is no better raised then upon an ignorant negative Did the Apostle say reject none but an Heretick Did he not wish would to God they were cut off that trouble you Is it not certainly proved true that some Scismaticke may be worse then some Hereticke which I speak not so as to traduce any of our unconforming brethren whose consciences are unsetled in the point of this mean difference as guilty of that hatefull crime but to convince the absurdity of our questionists after whose ill raised cavills thus fully answered we have no cause to feare upon their suggestions to bee disclaimed as usurpers From Timothy and Titus you descend to the Angels of the seven Asian Churches which no subtilty at all but the common interest of their condition hath twisted together in our defence In the generality whereof I must premonish my Reader that this Piece of the task fell unhappily upon some dull and tedious hand that cared not how oft sod Coleworts he dished out to his credulous guests I shall what I may prevent their surfet Your shift is that the Angel is here taken collectively not individually A conceit which if your selves certainly no other wise man can ever believe for if the interest be common and equally appertayning to all why should one be singled out above the rest If you will yeeld the person to be such as had more than others a right in the administration of all it is that we seeke for Surely it did in some sort concerne all that was spoken to him because he had the charge of al but the direction is individuall as Beza himselfe takes it as if a Letter be indorsed from the Lords of the Counsaile to the Bishop of Durham or Salisbury concerning some affaires of the whole Clergy of their Diocesse can we say that the name Bishop is there no other then a collective because the businesse may import many verily I do not believe that the Authors of this sence can believe it themselves To your invincible proofes In the Epistle to Thyatira you say it is written 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I say to you and to the rest where by you must as you imagine be signified the Governours by the rest the people but what if the better Copyes read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I say to you the rest in Thyatira without the copulative as is confessed by your good friends where then is your doughty Argument Here are no divisions of parties but the Pastor and Flock And truly thus it is and my own eyes have seen it in that noble Manuscript written by the hand of Tecla as is probably supposed some 1300. years agoe as Cyrill the late renowned Patriarch of Constantinople
the common Councell of Presbyters and that Bishops ought still so to govern And lastly that The occasion of this imparity was the division which through the Devils instinct fell among Christians You look now that I should tell you that the Book is of uncertain credit or that Ierome was a Presbyter and not without some touch of envie to that higher dignity he missed or that wiser men then your selves have censured him in this point for Aerianisme I plead none of these but whiles you expect that I should answer to Ierome I shall set Ierome to answer for himselfe For the first I cannot but put you in mind that the same Father citing the words of the Bishop of Jerusalem That there is no difference betwixt a Bishop and a Presbyter passeth a Satis imperitè upon it but let it be so At first he sayes Bishops and Presbyters had but one title So say we too But when began the distinction Ye need not learne it of Saravia he himselfe tels you When divisions began And when that When they began to say I am Pauls I am Apollo's I am Cephas which was I think well and high in the Apostles time But this you would cleanly put of as spoken by Ierome in the Apostles phrase not of the time of the Apostle This is but a generall intimation of contentions arisen though later in the Church Excuse me Brethren this shift will not serve your turne Then belike there should have been no distinct Bishops till after-ages upon this ground that till then there were no divisions Or if so why should the remedie be so late after the disease Or how comes he elsewhere to name Bishops made by the Apostles and to confesse that before his time there had been many successions Besides he instanceth in the peculiar mis-challenging of Baptisme which only S. Paul specifieth in his owne time And Clemens seconds him in his Epistle to the Corinthians in taxing the continuance of those distractions so as by Ieroms own confession Episcopacy was ordained early within the Apostles times But then say you It was not of Apostolicall intention but of Diabolicall occasion Weakly and absurdly As if the occasion might not be devilish and the institution divine As if the best Lawes did not rise from the worst manners Were not the quarrels betwixt the Grecians and Hebrews for the maintenance of their widows an evill occurrence yet from the occasion thereof was raised the Ordination of Deacons in the Church Yea but Ierome saith This was rather by the custome of the Church then by the truth of the Lords disposition True it was by the Custome of the Church but that Church was Apostolicall not by the Lords disposition immediately for Christ gave no expresse rule for it but mediately it was from Christ as from his inspired Apostles Let Ierome himselfe interpret himselfe who tels us expresly in his Epistle to Euagrius this superiority of Bishops above Presbyters is by Apostolicall tradition which is as much as we affirme And whiles he saith toto orbe decretum est that in the time of those first divisions it was decreed all the world over that Bishops should be set up I would faine know by what power besides Apostolicall such a Decree could be so soon and so universally enacted But Ierome saith The Presbyters governed the Church by their common Counsell So they did doubtlesse altogether till Episcopacy was setled who dares deny it Yea but he saith They ought to doe still So say we also and so in some cases we do Church-government is Aristocraticall Neither is any Bishop so absolute as not to be subject to the judgement of a Synode Yea in many matters it is determined by our Laws that hee must take the advise and assistance of his Ecclesiasticall Presbytery So then S. Ierome is in his judgement no back friend of ours but in his History he is our Patron With what forehead can they perswade their Reader the Originall of Episcopacie was not in Ieroms opinion so early when they cannot but confesse that the same Father hath in flat termes told us that Iames was Bishop of Jerusalem Timothy of Ephesus Titus of Crete that ever since the time of Mark the Euangelist who died five or sixe yeares before Peter and Paul and almost forty years before S. Iohn at Alexandria till the dayes of Heraclas and Dionysius the Presbyters have alwayes chosen one to be their Bishop As for those poore negative arguments which follow palpably begging the question they are scarce worthie of a passe were it not that by them they goe about to confute their own Author affirming That upon occasion of divisions Episcopacie was constituted but he stands so close to his owne grounds as that contrary to their mis-allegation of D r Whitakers he plainly tels them Episcopacie is so proper a remedy for this evill that unlesse the Bishop have a peerlesse power there will be as many Schismes as Priests the wofull experience whereof we finde in the miserable varieties of Separatisme at this day Goe on Brethren since you are so resolved to strike that friend whom you bring in to speak for you teach your advocate S. Ierome how unlikely it is that the Apostles should give way as he professes they did to such a remedie as might prove both ineffectuall and dangerous and that their holinesse should make a stirrup for Antichrist We lookt for Ambrose to come in next and behold you bring in a foisted Commenter a man by the convictions of Whitakers Spalatensis Cocus Rivetus Bellarmine Possevine Maldonate as hath beene elsewhere shewed of not a suspected onely but a crackt credit If it mattered much what he said I could out of his testimonie picke more advantage then you prejudice to my cause But if you will heare the true Ambrose speake he tells you There is one thing which God requireth of a Bishop another of a Presbyter another of a Deacon As for the persons who brought in this imparitie you tell us out of the same Authors The Presbyters themselves brought it in Witnesse Ierome ad Euagrium The Presbyters of Alexandria did call him their Bishop whom they had chosen from among themselves and placed in an higher degree But brethren what meanes this faithlesse and halved citation Had you said all the place would have answered for it selfe the words are Nam Alexandriae à Marco Evangelista c. For at Alexandria ever since Mark the Evangelist untill the times of Heraclas and Dionysius Bishops the Presbyters have alwayes called one chosen out of themselves and placed in an higher degree Bishop as if an army should chuse their Generall Why did you avoid the name of Mark the Evangelist but that your hearts told you that he dying many yeares within the time of the Apostles this election and appellation and distinction of degrees of Bishops and Presbyters must needs have been in the life time of the Apostles and not without their
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the power of those things which belong to the Church It were easie to surfet the readers eyes with the cleare testimonies of Fathers and Councells to this purpose Our learned Bishop Downam hath given a world of instances of the severall acts of jurisdiction appropriated to Bishops by antiquity exercised upon both Laicks and Clergy to him I remit my reader So as you may easily set antiquity together by the eares in this point if you please but surely the advantage will be so farre on our side that if you have not ten for one against you I will yeeld my cause There is great difference of times and in them of fashions In those persecuted times when the Church was backed with no Christian Magistrate it was no boot to bid the guides of the Church to combine their Councels and to give strength to their mutuall actions when a generall peace once blessed them and they had the concurrence both of soveraigne and subordinate authority with them they began so much to remit of this care of conjoyning their forces as they supposed to find lesse need of it From hence grew a devolution of all lesse weighty affairs to the weilding of single hands For my part I perswade my selfe that the more frequent communicating of all the important businesse of the Church whether censures or determinations with those grave assistents which in the eye of the Law are designed to this purpose were a thing not onely unprejudiciall to the honour of our function but very behovefull to the happy administration of the Church In the mean while see brethren how you have with Simon fished all night and caught nothing My word was that ours were the same with the Apostles Bishops in this that they challenge no other spirituall power then was by Apostolique authority delegated to Timothy and Titus You run out upon the following times of the Church and have with some wast quotations laboured to prove that In after ages Bishops called in Presbyters to the assistance of their jurisdiction which is as much to me as Baculus stat in angulo SECT X. YOur next Section runs yet wilder I speak of the no-difference of our Bishops from the first in the challenge of any spirituall power to themselves other then delegated to Timothy and Titus You tell mee of delegating their power to others What is this to the nature of the calling Doth any man claime this as essentiall to his Episcopacie Doth any man stand upon it as a piece of his spirituall power If this be granted to be an accidentall error of some particular man for it cannot be fastned upon all what difference doth it make in the substance of the function As if some monster suddenly presented it selfe to you you aske Was ever such a thing heard of in the best primitive times that men which never received imposition of hands should not only be received into assistance but be wholly intrusted with the power of spirituall jurisdiction Let me ask you again Was ever such a thing heard of either in the Primitive or following times that Lay-men should be so far admitted to the managing of spirituall jurisdiction as to lay their hands upon their Ministers in their Ordination Yet this is both done and challenged by too many of your good friends Why do you object that to us wherewith the Presbyterian part may be more justly choaked But herein Brethren you do foulely over-reach in that you charge our Bishops as in a generality with wholly-intrusting the power of spirituall jurisdiction to their Chancellors and Commissaries The assistance of those which are learned in the Law wee gladly use neither can well want in the necessary occasions of our judicature but that wee doe either wilfully or negligently devest our selves absolutely of that power and wholly put it into Laick hands it is a meere sclander For want of better proofs of the illegality of this course you bring a negative authority from Cyprian telling us what that holy Martyr did not That he did not send Complainants to his Chancellour or Commissarie It is very like he did not nor yet to the Bench of a Lay Presbyterie But if he did not commit the hearing of his Causes to a Lay-man we find that some others did Socrates can tell you of Silvanus the good Bishop of Troas 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. perceiving that some of his Clergie did corruptly make gaine of Causes would no more appoint any of his Clergie 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be a Judge but made choise of some faithfull man of the Laity to whom he committed that audience and was much honoured for it What Bishop Downam yeelds concerning the Ordinaries Vicars and Chancellors of former times till Ambrose's daies that they were onely Clergie-men you reject witn scorne and challenge any man to produce the names of any Clergie-man that was Vicar to Ambrose or Chancellour to Augustine c. What a poore brave is this I challenge you to produce the name of any Secretary or Actuary that Ambrose or Austin had because you cannot shall I conclude they had none such That instance of Sylvanus not long after Ambrose is evidence enough But the antiquity of Chancellors which were the same with Ecclesiecdici or Episcoporum ecdici is proveable enough if it were for this place and their necessary use beyond the power of your confutation But I had rather refer my reader to S. Thomas Ridley and others that have laboured in that argument and appeale to all mens judgement how soundly you have upon this ground proved that our Bishops and the former were two SECT XI HOw justly may I say Readers of these men as the King of Israel said of the King of Syria See I beseech you how they seeke a quarrell against me My just defence was that our Bishops are the same in substance and effect with those which were ordained by the Apostles they come now and tell me of an oath ex officio used in the high Commission and in our Consistories as if every particular manner of Proceeding in our Courts and judicatures must either be patterned by the Apostolike or els they are utterly unjustifiable why do they not as wel chalenge us that we give men the book to touch and kisse in taking an oath Why doe they not aske how wee can prove that those Apostolicall Bishops had Notaries Registers Advocates Consistories what frivolous and delusory exceptions are these to all wise men and how strangely savouring of a weak judgement and strong malice As for your cavil at the oth ex officio since you wil needs draw it in by head and shoulders how little soever it concernes us I returne you this answer That if any of our profession have in the pressing of it exceeded the lawfull bounds I excuse him not I defend him not let him bear away his own load but in these surely there is more to bee said for
be scanned Objections which would to God they were onely of my own framing In the first That Episcopacy is no prejudice of Soveraigntie I justly prove for that 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 Bishoprick what can you say to this You tell us you have already proved that God never made a bishop as hee stands in superiority over Presbyters so you told us and that is enough we were hard hearted if wee would not believe you When as wee have made good by undeniable proofes that besides the grounds which our Saviour laid of this imparity the blessed Apostles by inspiration from God made this difference in a personall ordaining of some above the rest and giving expresse charge of Ordination and Iurisdiction to those select persons in Church government the Bishops have ever since succeeded Tell us not therefore that if wee disclaim the influence of Soveraignty into our Creation and assert that the King doth not make us Bishops wee must have no beeing at all For that the Reader may see you stop your owne mouth answer me I beseech you Where or when ever did the King create a Bishop name the man and take the cause It pleases his Majestie to give his Congedelier for a Bishops Election to his See to signifie his Royall assent thereunto upon which the Bishop is solemnly ordained by the imposition of the hands of the Metropolitan and other his Brethren and these doe as from God invest him in his holy Calling which he exercises in that place which is designed and given by his Majestie What can be more plaine then this truth As for that unworthy censure which you passe upon the just comparison of Kings in order to Bishops and Patrons in order to their Clerks it shall be acknowledged well deserved if you shall be able to make good the disparity When hee shall prove you say that the Patron gives Ministeriall power to his Clerke as the King gives Episcopall power to the Bishop it may bee of some conducement to his cause Shortly brethren the same day that you shall shew mee that the King ordained a bishop the same day will I shew you that a Patron ordained a Presbyter The Patron gives the benefice to the one The King gives the bishopricke to the other neither of them do give the Office or Calling to either Goe you therefore with your Frier Simon to your Cell and consult with your Covent for more reason and wit then you shew in this and the next scornfull Paragraph wherein whiles you flout at my modest concession with an unbeseeming frump you are content silently to balke that my second answer which you know was too hot or too heavie for your satisfaction In the second the Imputation pretended to bee cast by this Tenet upon al the reformed Churches which want this governement I indevoured so to satisfie that I might justly decline the envy which is intended to be thereby raised against us For which cause I professed that wee doe love and honour those our sister Churches as the dear spouse of Christ and give zealous testimonies of my well wishing to them Your uncharitablenesse offers to choake me with those scandalous censures and disgracefull terms which some of ours have let fall upon those Churches and their eminent professors which I confesse it is more easie to be sorry for then on some hands to excuse The errour of a few may not bee imputed to all My just defence is that no such consequent can be drawne from our opinion for as much as the Divine or Apostolicall right which wee hold goes not so high as if there were an expresse command that upon an absolute necessity there must bee either Episcopacy or no Church but so far only that it both may and ought to be How fain would you heere finde mee in a contradiction Whiles I one-where reckon Episcopacy amongst matters essential to the Church another where deny it to be of the essence thereof Wherein you willingly hide your eys that you may not see the distinction that I make expresly betwixt the Being Well-beeing of a Church Affirming that those Churches to whom this power and faculty is denied lose nothing of the true essence of a Church though they misse something of their glory and perfection No Brethren it is enough for some of your friends to hold their Discipline altogether essentiall to the very being of a Church We dare not be so zealous The question which you aske concerning the reason of the different intertainment given in our Church to priests converted to us from Rome and to Ministers who in Qu. Maries dayes had received Imposition of hands in Reformed Churches abroad is meerely personall neither can challenge my decision Onely I give you these two answers that what fault soever may bee in the easie admittance of those who have received Romish Orders the sticking at the admission of our brethren returning from Reformed Churches was not in case of Ordination but of Institution they had beene acknowledged Ministers of Christ without any other hands layed upon them but according to the Lawes of our Land they were not perhaps capable of institution to a benefice unlesse they were so qualified as the Statutes of this Realme doe require And secondly I know those more then one that by vertue onely of that Ordination which they have brought with them from other Reformed Churches have enjoyed Spirituall Promotions and Livings without any exception against the lawfulnesse of their calling The confident affirmation which you alleage of the learned bishop of Norwich is no rule to us I leave him to his owne defence You think I have too much work on my hand to give satisfaction for myselfe in these two main Questions which arise from my book What high points shall wee now expect trow wee First whether that Office which by divine right hath sole power of Ordination and ruling all other Officers of the Church which hee sayth Episcopacy hath belong not to the being but onely to the glorie and perfection of a Church Can wee tell what these men would have Have they a minde to goe beyond us in asserting that necessity and essentiall use of Episcopacy which we dare not avow Do they not care to lose their cause so they may crosse an Adversary For your Question you stil talke of sole Ordination and sole jurisdiction you may if you please keepe that paire of soles for your next shooes VVee contend not for such an height of Propriety neither do we practise it they are so ours that they should not bee without us as we have formerly shewed That therefore there should bee a power of lawfull Ordination and government in every setled Church it is no lesse then necessary but that in what case soever of extremity and irresistible necessitie this should be only done by Episcopall hands we never meant
exoticall positions of unsound teachers which it selfe hath in terminis condemned and say as you are not ashamed to do We thank God we are none of you we forgive you and pray for your repentance Your Quaeres wherein I see you trust much are made up of nothing but spight and slander If I answere you with questions shorter then your own and more charitable you will excuse mee In answer then to your first I ask Who ever held the Lordships of Bishops to stand by divine right If no body whether hee that intimates it doth not falsifie and slander Why is it a greater fault in one of our Doctors to hold the Lords day to stand Iure bumano then it was in Master Calvin I aske whether it were any other then K. Iames himselfe of blessed memory that said No Bishop no King and if it were he whether that wise King did not meane to prejudice his own authoritie Whether since it hath beene proved that Bishops are of more then meerely humane Ordinance and have so long continued in the Christian Church to the great good of Church and State it be not most fit to establish them for ever and to avoid all dangerous motions of innovation Whether these answerers have the wit or grace to understand the true meaning of the Ius Divinum of Episcopacie or if they did whether they could possibly be so absurd as to raise so sensless and inconsequent inferences upon it Whether there bee any question at all in the fifth question since the Remonstrant himselfe hath so fully cleered this point professing to hold Episcopacie to bee of Apostolicall and in that right Divine Institution Whether Master Beza have not heard foundly of his distinction of the three kinds of Episcopacie in the full and learned answere of Saravia and whether hee might not have beene better advised then in that conceit of his to crosse all reverend antiquity and whether the Painter that drest up his Picture after the fancy of every passenger doe not more fitly resemble those that frame their discipline according to the humour of their people varying their projects every day then those which hold them constantly to the only ancient and Apostolicall forme Whether it were not fit that wee also should speake as the ancient Fathers did according to the language of their times and whether those Fathers could not better understand and interpret their owne meaning in the title of Episcopacie then these partiall and not over-judicious answerers and whether they have not cleerely explicated themselves in their writings to have spoken properly and plainly to the sense now enforced Whether Presbyters can with out sin arrogate unto themselves the exercise of the power of publique Church government where Bishops are set over them to rule and order the affaires both of them and the Church and whether our Saviour when he gave to Peter the promisse of the Keyes did therein intend to give it in respect of the power of publike jurisdiction to any other save the Apostles and their Successours the Bishops and whether ever any Father or Doctour of the Church till this present age held that Presbyters were the Successours to the Apostles and not to the seventy Disciples rather Whether ever any Bishops assumed to themselves power Temporall to bee Barons and to sit in Parliament as Iudges and in Court of Star-chamber c. or whether they bee not called by his Majesties writ and royall authority to these services and whether the spirituall power which they exercise in ordaining silencing c. bee any other then was by the Apostles delegated to the first Bishops of the Church constantly exercised by their holy successors in all ages especially by Cyprian Ambrose Augustine and the rest of that sacred order men which had as little to do with Antichrist as our answerers have with charity Whether the answerers have not just cause to be ashamed of patronizing a noted Heretick Aerius in that for which hee was censured of the ancient Saints and Fathers of the Church and whether the whole Church of Christ ever since his time till this age have not abandoned those very errours concerning the equality of Bishops and Presbyters which they now presume to maintain Whether the great Apostacy of the Church of Rome do or did consist in maintayning the order of government set by the Apostles themselves and whether all the Churches in the whole Christian World even those that are professedly opposite to the Church of Rome doe let in Antichrist by the doore of their Discipline since they all maintain Episcopacie no lesse constantly then Rome it selfe Whether if Episcopacie be through the munificence of good Princes honoured with a title of dignity and largnesse of revenues it ought to be ere the more declined and whether themselves if they did no hope to carry some sway in the Presbytery would be so eager in crying up that government and whether if there were not â— maintenance annexed they would not hid themselves and jeopard their eares ratheâ— then mancipate themselves to the charge oâ— souls Whether there bee no other apparenâ— causes to be given for the increase of Poperâ— and superstition in the Kingdome besideâ— Episcopacie which hath laboured strongly to oppose it and whether the multitudes of Sects and professed slovenlynesse in Gods service in too many have not bin guilty of the increase of profanesse amongst us Why should England one of the most famous Churches of Christendome seperate it selfe from that forme of government which all Churches through the whole Christian World have ever observed and do constantly and uniformely observe and maintain and why should not rather other less noble Churches conform to that universall government which all other Christians besides do gladly submit unto Why should the name of Bishops which hath beene for this 1600. yeers appropriated in a plain contradistinction to the governours of the Church come now to be communicated to Presbyters which never did all this while so much as pretend to it and if in ancient times they should have done it could not have escaped a most severe censure And shortly whether if wee will allow you to bee Bishops all will not bee well Whether since both God hath set such a government in his Church as Episcopacie and the Lawes of this Land have firmly established it it can bee lawfull for you to deny your subjection unto it and whether it were not most lawfull and just to punish your presumption and disobedience in framing so factious a question And thus I hope you have a sufficient answere to your bold and unjust demands and to those vain cavills which you have raised against the humble Remonstrance God give you Wisdome to see the Truth and Grace to follow it Amen To the Poscript THe best beauty that you could have added to your discourse brethren had been honesty and truth both in your allegations of Testimonies and inferences of argumentation In both which
desires to goe a Mid-way in this difference holding it too low to derive Episcopacy from a merely humane and Ecclesiasticall Ordinance holding it too high to deduce it from an immediate command from God and therefore pitching upon an Apostolicall institution rests there but because those Apostles were divinely inspired had the directiōs of Gods spirit for those things which they did for the common administration of the Church therefore and in that onely name is Episcopacie said to lay claime to a Divine right howsoever also it cannot be gainsaid that the grounds were formerly laid by our Saviour in a knowne imparity of his first agents Now surely this truth hath so little reason to distaste them that even learned Chamier himselfe can say Res ipsa coepit tempore Apostolorum vel potius ab ipsis profecta est And why should that seeme harsh in us which soundeth well in the mouthes of lesse-interessed Divines but because the very title of that book hath raised more dust then the treatise it selfe Bee pleased Readers to see that this very question is in the very same termes determined by that eminent light of the Palatinate Dr. Abrah Scultetus whose tract to this purpose I have thought fit to annex Peruse it and judge whether of those two writers have gone further in this determination And if you shall not meet with convincing reasons to bring you home to this opinion yet at least-wise find cause enough to retaine a charitable and favourable conceit of those who are as they think upon good grounds otherwise minded and whilest it is on all parts agreed by wise and unprejudiced Christians that the calling is thus ancient and sacred let it not violate the peace of the Church to scan the originall whether Ecclesiasticall Apostolicall or divine Shortly let all good men humbly submit to the Ordinance and heartily wish the Reformation of any abuses And so many as are of this mind Peace be upon them and the whole Israell of GOD. AMEN THE DETERMINATION of the question Concerning the Divine Right of EPISCOPACY By the famous and learn'd Divine Dr. Abrahamus Scultetus late Professour of divinity in the Vniversity of HEIDELBERG Faithfully translated out of his Observations upon the Epistles to Timothy and Titus LONDON Printed for NATHANIELL BVTTER 1641 The Question Whether Episcopacie be of Divine right That is whether the Apostles ordained this Government of the Church that not onely one should be placed over the people but over Presbyters and Deacons who should have the power of Imposition of Hands or Ordination and the direction of Ecclesiasticall Counsels THis was anciently denyed by Aerius as is related by Epiphanius in his 75 Heresie and by Iohn of Hierusalem as appears by Hierome in his Epistle to Pammachius And there are not wanting in these dayes many learned and pious men who although they acknowledge Aerius to have erred in that he should disallow of that manner of Ecclesiasticall government which had beene received by the whol World yet in this they agree with him that Episcopall government is not of Divine Right From whose opinion why I should sever my judgement I am moved by these strong reasons famous examples and evident authorities My judgement is this First in the Apostles Epistles the name of Bishop did never signifie any thing different from the office of a Presbyter For a Bishop Presbyter and an Apostle were common names as you may see Act. 20. Phil. 1. v. 1. Tit. 1. 1. Pet. v. 12. Act. 1.20 Next In the chiefe Apostolicall Church the Church was governed by the common advice of Presbyters and that for some yeers in the time of the preaching of the Apostles For first of all companies must bee gathered together before we can define any thing concerning their perpetuall government Then the Apostles as long as they were present or neere their Churches did not place any Bishop over them properly so called but only Presbyters reserving Episcopall authority to themselves alone Lastly after the Gospell was farre and neere propagated and that out of equality of Presbyters by the instinct of the Devill Schismes were made in Religion then the Apostles especially in the more remote places placed some over the Pastors or Presbyters which shortly after by the Disciples of the Apostles Ignatius and others were onely called bishops by this appellation they were distinguished from Presbyters Deacons Reasons moving me to this opinion First Hierome upon the 1. Chapter of the Epistle to Titus writeth that a Presbyter is the same with a Bishop and before that by the instinct of the Devill factions were made in Religion and it was said among the people I am of Paul I of Apollo but I of Cephas the Churches were governed by the common counsell of Presbyters afterwards it was decreed in the whol world that one chosen out of the Presbyters should be placed over the rest From whence I thus argue When it began to be said among the people I am of Paul I of Apollo but I of Cephas then one chosen out of the Presbyters was placed over the rest But whiles the Apostles lived it was so said among the people As the first Epistle to the Corinthians besides other of St. Pauls Epistles puts it out of doubt Therefore while the Apostles lived one chosen out of the Presbyters was placed over the rest Againe There can be no other terme assigned in which Bishops were first made then the time of the Apostles for all the prime successors of the Apostles were Bishops witnesse the successions of Bishops in the most famous Churches of Hierusalem Alexandria Antioch and Rome as it is in Eusebius therefore either the next successors of the Apostles changed the force of Ecclesiasticall government received from the Apostles according to their owne pleasure which is very unlikely or the Episcopall government came from the Apostles themselves Besides even then in the time of the Apostles there were many Presbyters but one Bishop even then in the time of the Apostles 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hee that was placed over the rest which afterwards was called Bishop did impose hands or ordaine Ministers of the Word which Presbyters alone did not presume to doe Even then therefore the calling of Bishops was distinct from the Office of Presbyters If any desire the examples of Apostolicall Bishops the books of the antient are full of the Episcopal authority of Timothy and Titus either of which howsoever first performed the office of an Evangelist yet notwithstanding ceased to be an Evangelist after that Timothy was placed over the Church of Ephesus and Titus over the Church of Crete For Evangelists did only lay the foundations of faith in forraign places then did commend the rest of the care to certaine Pastors but they themselves went to other Countries and Nations as Eusebius writes in his third Booke of Ecclesiasticall History and 34. Chap. But Paul taught sometimes in Ephesus and Crete and laid the foundations of