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 we take for granted by both sides that the first and best Antiquity 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 Imparity between 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 Apostolical Institution we affirme both to be occasional and of humane Invention and undertake to shew out of Antiquity both the occasion upon which and â—he 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 will grant a place among his Glossators Saint Ierome tells us in 1 Tit. Idem est ergo Presbytâ—r qui Episcopus antequam Diaboli instinctu studia in Religione fierent diceretur in populis eco sum Pauli ego Apollo ego Cephae Communi PresbyteroruÌ„ Consilio ecclesiae gubernabantur Postquam vero unusquisque eos quos bapâ—izaverat 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 tollerentur Putat aliquis non Scripturarum sed nostram esse sententiam Episcopum Presbyterum unum esse aliud aetatis aliud esse nomen ofâ—icâ—i relegat Apostoli ad Philippenses verba dicentis Paulus Timothaeus servi Iesu Christi qui sunt Philippis cum Episcopis Diaconis c. Philippi una est urbs Macedoniae certè in una 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 oâ— Cephas the Churches were governed by the Common-councell of the Presbyters But after that each man began to account those whom he had baptized his own 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 Thinks any that this is my opinion and not the opinion of the Scripture that a Bishop and an Elder is the same let him read 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 and Deacons Philippi is one city of Macedonia and certainly in one city 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 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 Imparity that was in his time between Bishops and Elders was grounded upon Ecclesiastical custome and not upon devine Institution Episcopi noverint c. Thirdly that this was not his private judgement but the judgement of Scripture Putat aliquis c. Fourthly that before this Priority was upon this occasion started the Church was governed Communi Presbyterorum Consilio by the Counsel of the Presbyters in common and that even after this imparity it ought to be so governed Sciant Episcopi se Ecclesiam debere in communi regere Fifthly that the occasion of this Imparity and Superiority of Bishops above Elders was the divisions which through the Devils instinct fell among the Churches Postquam verò Diaboli instinctu Saravia would take advantage of this place to deduce this Imparity as high as from the Apostles times because even then they began to say I am of Paul and I of Apollos but sure S. Ierome was not so weake as this man would make him to speak Inconsistencies and when he propounds it to himself to prove that Bishops and Presbyters are in Scripture the same to let fall words that should confute his own proposition whereas therefore S. Ierome saith that after men began to say I am of Paul and I of Apollos c. it was decreed that one of the Presbyters should be set over the rest c. This is spoken indeed in the Apostles phrase but not of the Apostles times else to what purpose is that coacervation of texts that followes But suppose it should be granted to be of Apostolical antiquity which yet we grant not having proved the contrary yet it appeares it was not of Apostolical intention but of Diabolical occasion And though the Devil by kindling Divisions in the Church did minister Occasion to the invention of the primacy or prelacy or one for the suppressing of Schisme yet there is just cause to think that the Spirit of God in his Apostles was never the author of this invention First because we read in the Apostles dayes there were Divisions Rom. 16.7 and Schismes 1 Cor. 3.3 and 11.18 yet the Apostle was not directed by the holy Ghost to ordaine Bishops for the taking away of those Divisions Neither in the rules he prescribes for the healing of those breaches doth he mention Bishops for that end Nor in the Directions given to Timothy and Titus for the Ordination of Bishops or Elders doth he mention this as one end of their Ordination or one peculiar duty of their office And though the Apostle saith Oportet haereses inter vos esse ut qui probati sunt manifesti fiant inter vos yet the Apostle no where saith Oportet Episcopos esse ut tollantur haereses quae manifestae fiunt Secondly because as Doctor Whitaker saith the remedy devised hath proved worse then the disease which doth never happen to that remedy whereof the holy Ghost is the author Thirdly because the holy Ghost who could foresee what would
a generall word signifying a day of rest which is common as well to the Christian Sabbath as to the Jewish Sabbath and was also used by the Ancients Ruffinus in Psal. 47. Origâ—n Hom. 23. in Num. Gregory Nazian Whether that assertion No Bishop No King and no Ceremonie no Bishop be not very prejudiciall to Kingly Authority For it seemes to imply that the Civill power depends upon the Spiritual and is supported by Ceremonies and Bishops Whether seeing it hath been proved that Bishops as they are novv asserted are a meere humane Ordinance it may not by the same Authority be abrogated by vvhich it vvas first established especially considering the long experience of the hurt they have done to Church and State Whether the advancing of Episcopacie into Ius Divinum doth not make it a thing simply unlavvfull to submit to that Government Because that many consciencious men that have hitherto conformed to Ceremonies and Episcopacy have done it upon this ground as supposing that Authority did not make them matters of vvorship but of Order and Decencie c. And thus they satisfied their consciences in ansvvering those Texts Colos. 2.20 21 22. Matth. 15.9 But novv since Episcopacy comes to be challenged as a Divine Ordinance hovv shall vve be responsible to those Texts And is it not as it is novv asserted become an Idoll and like the Brazen Serpent to be ground to povvder Whether there be any difference in the point of Episcopacy betweene Ius Divinum and Ius Apostolicum Because we finde some claiming their standing by Ius Divinum others by Ius Apostolicum But we conceive that Ius Apostolicum properly taken is all one with Ius Divinum For Ius Apostolicum is such a Ius which is founded upon the Acts and Epistles of the Apostles written by them so as to be a perpetuall Rule for the succeeding Administration of the Church as this Author saith Pag. 20. And this Ius is Ius Divinum as well as Apostolicum But if by Ius Apostolicum they mean improperly as some do such things which are not recorded in the Writings of the Apostles but introduced the Apostles being living 〈…〉 be rightly said to be Iure Apostolico nor such things which the Apostles did intend the Churches should be bound unto Neither is Episcopacie as it imports a superioritie of power over a Preâ—byter no not in this sense Iure Apostolico as hath beene already proved and might further be manifested by divers Testimonies if need did require We will only instance in Cassander a man famous for his immoderate moderation in controverted Points of Religion who in his Consultat Articul 14. hath this saying An Episâ—opatus inter ordines Ecclesiasticâ—s ponendus sit inter Theologos Canonistas non convenit Convenit autem inter omnes Apostolorum aetate inter Presbyterum Episcopum nullum discrimen fuisse c. Wether the distinction of Beza between Episcopus Divinus Humâ—nuâ— Diabolicus be not worthy your Honours consideration By the Divine Bishop he meanes the Bishop as he is taken in Scripture which is one and the same with a Presbyter By the humane Bishop he meanes the Bishop chosen by the Presbyters to be President over them and to rule with them by fixed Lawes and Canons By the Diabolical Bishop he means a Bishop with sole power of Ordination and Jurisdiction Lording it over Gods heritage and governing by his owne will and authority Which puts us in minde of the Painter that Limned two pictures to the same proportion and figure The one he reserved in secret the other he exposed to common view And as the phansie of beholders led them to censure any line or proportion as not done to the life he mends it after direction If any fault be found with the eye hand foot c. He corrects it till at last the addition of every mans fancy had defaced the first figure and made that which was the Picture of a man swell into a monster Then bringing forth this and his other Picture which hee had reserved he presented both to the people And they abhorring the former and applauding the latter he cried Hunc populus fecit This deformed one the People made This lovely one I made As the Painter of his Painting so in Beza's sense it may be said of Bishops God at first instituted Bishops such as are all one with Presbyters and such are amiable honourable in all the Churches of God But when men would be adding to Gods institution what power preheminence Jurisdiction Lordliness their phansie suggested unto them this divine Bishop lost his Original beauty and became to be Humanus And in conclusion by these and other aditions swelling into a Pope Diabolicus Whether the Ancient Fathers when they call Peter Marke Iames Timothy and Titus Bishops did not speak according to the Language of the times wherein they lived rather then according to the true acception of the word Bishop and whether it be not true which is here said iâ— this Book that they are called Bishops of Alexandâ—iae Ephesâ—s Hierusâ—lem c in a very improper sense because they abode at those pâ—acâ—s a longer time then at other places For suâ—e it is if 〈…〉 and and Iâ—mes Apostles which are Bishops over the whol◠〈◊〉 and the Apostles made Markâ— â—imothy and Titus 〈…〉 c. it seemes to us that it would have been a great sin in them to limit themselves to one particular Diocesse and to â—eave that calling in which Christ had placed them Whether Presbyters in Scripture are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and that it is an office required at their hands to rule and to govern as hath bin proved in this Book The Bishops can without sin arrogate the exercise of this power to themselves alone and why they may not with the same lawfulness impropriate to themselves alone the Key of Doctrine which yet notwithstanding al would condemn as well as the Key of Discipline seeing that the whole power of the Keys is given to Presbyters in Scripture as well as to Bishops as appears Mat. 16.19 where the power of the Keys is promised to Peter in the name of the rest of the Apostles and their successors given to all the Apostles and their successors Mat. 18.19 Iohn 20.23 And that Presbyters succeed the Apostles appears not onely Mat. 28.20 but also Acts. 20.28 where the Apostle ready to leave the Church of Ephesus commends the care of ruling and feeding it to the Elders of that Church To this Irenaeus witnesseth lib 4 cap. 43.44 This Bishop Iewell against Harding Artic. 4. Sect. 5 6. saith that all Pastors have equall power of binding and loosing with â—eter Whether since that Bishops assume to themselves power temporall to be Barons and to sit in Parliament as Judges and in Court of Star-Chamber High Commission and other Courts of Justice and also power spirituall over Ministers and People to ordain silence suspend
in the Apostles times there were no Bishops distinct from Presbyters as we shall shew and if there had been Bishops yet they were no Diocesans for it was a hundred yeares after Christ or as most agree 260. before Parishes were distinguished and there must be a distinction of Parishes before there could be an union of them into Diocesses Secondly it is by the joynt confession of all reformed Divines granted that this sacred Government is derived from the Apostles What all reformed Divines was Calvin Beza Iunius c. of that minde Are the reformed Churches of France Scotland Netherlands of that Judgement we shall shew anon that there is no more truth in this Assertion then if he had said with Anaxagoras snow is black or with Copernicus tho Earth moves and the Heavens stand stil. Thirdly he saith this Government hath continued without any interruption What doth he meane at Rome for we reade in some places of the world this Government was never known for many yeares together as in Scotland we read that in Ancient times the Scots were instructed in the Christian faith by Priests and Monkes and were without Bishops 290. yeares yea to come to England we would desire to know of this Remonstrant whether God had a Church in England in Q. Maries dayes or no and if so who were then the Bishops of this Church for some there must be if it be true that this man saith this Government hath continued without any interruption unto this day and Bishops then we know not where to finde but in the line of Popish succession Fourthly he saith it hath thus continued without the contradiction of any one Congregation in the Christian world It seemes he hath forgotten what their own darling Heylin hath written of the people of Biscay in Spaine that they admit of no Bishops to come among them for when Ferdinand the Catholike came in progresse accompanied among others with the Bishop of Pampelone the people rose up in Armes drove back the Bishop and gathering up all the dust which they thought he had trode on flung it into the Sea Which story had it been recorded onely by him would have been of lighter Credit But we reade the same in the Spanish Chronicle who saith more then the Doctor for he tels us that the People threw that dust that the Bishop or his Mule had trode on into the Sea with Curses and Imprecations which certainly saith he was not done without some Mystery those people not being voide of Religion but superstitiously devout as the rest of the Spaniards are so that there is one Congregation in the Christian world in which this Government hath met with contradiction And are not the French Scottish and Belgick Churches worthy to be counted Christian Congregations and who knowes not that amongst these this Government hath met not onely with verbal but reall contradiction Yet he cannot leave his But within two pages is at it againe and tels us of an unquestionable clearenesse wherein it hath been from the Apostles derived to us how unquestionable when the many volumes written about it witnesse to the world and to his conscience it hath been as much questioned as any point almost in our Religion And that assertion of his that tels us that the people of God had a forme of prayer as ancient as Moses which was constantly practised to the Apostles dayes and by the Apostles c. though we have shewed how bold and false this assertion is yet we mention it here as deserving to be put into the Catalogue And that he may not seem Contra mentem ire but to be of the same minde still p. 18. he saith Episcopal Government hath continued in this Island ever since the first plantation of the Gospel without contradiction Had he taken a lesse space of time and said but since the resuscitation of the Gospel we can prove it to him and shall that since the reformation Episcopacy hath been more contradicted then ever the Papacy was before the extirpation of it Yet still the man runs on thinking to get credit to his untruths by their multiplications for pag. 21. he saith Certainly except all Histories all Authors faile us nothing can be more certaine then this truth Os Durum Nothing more certaine what is it not more certain that there is a God is it not more certain that Christ is God and man is it not more certain that Christ is the only Saviour of the world Nothing more certain must this thâ—n be an Article of our Creed the corner stone of our Religion must this be of necessity to Salvation Nothing more certain O that men should not onely forget themselves but God also and in their zeale for their own Honour utter words bordering upon Blasphemy Indignation will not suffer us to prosecute these falsities of his any further we will leave this displeasing service onely retorting the words of this Remonstrant upon himself Surely could he look with our eyes or any eyes that were not partial he would see cause to be throughly ashamed of these his grosse injurious miscarriages and should be forced to confesse that never good cause if cause be good had more reason to complaine of a sinful prosecution SECT IV. WE will now come with your Honours patience to weigh whether there be any more strength in his arguments then there is truth in his assertions His Plea for Episcopacy consists of two parts In the first he brings arguments for the supporting of it In the second he undertakes to answer the objections that may be made against it His first argument for it is couched in these words Were this Ordinance meerly Humane or Ecclesiastical if there câ—uld no more be said for it but that it is exceeding Ancient of more then 15. hundred years c. The strength of which argument lies in this that they have been in peaceable possession of this government fifteen hundered years and upwards and in this Island ever since the Gospel without contradiction In which words he speaks two things which deserve just câ—nsure First that the Hierarchical Government hath continued for fifteen hundred years therefore should not now be altered which may well be called as Hierom in another Case Argumentum Galeatum an Argument calculated for the Meridian of Episcopacy and may indifferently serve for all Religions in the World For thus the Jews might have pleaded against Christ the Antiquity of more then so many hundred years and thus the Heathens did plead against the Christian Religion which Iustin Martyr in his Apology answers And by this Argument the Pope sits as fast rivetted in his chayre at Rome as ours in theirs whose Plea for Antiquity runs parallel with theirs It is a good observation of Cyprian that Christ said Ego sum via veritas vita not Ego sum consuetudo and that Consuetudo sine veritate est vetustas erroris Christ is
fix 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 between the Offices of Bishops and Evangelists and knows 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 We 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 he that when they termed any Apostle a Bishop of this or that City as namely S. Peter of Antioch or Rome they meant it in a general sort and signification because they did attend that Church for a time and supply that roome in preaching the Gospel which Bishops did after but as the name of Bishop is commonly taken for the Overseer of a particular Church and Pastor of a several flock 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 Apostolick Authority delegated to and required of Timothy and Titus and the Angels of the seaven Asian Churches let them be disclaimed as usurpers Will our Bishops indeed stand to this then actum est Did ever Apostolick Authority delegate power to Timothy or Titus to ordain alone to governe alone and do not our Bishops challenge that power Did ever Apostolique Authority delegate power to Timothy and Titus to rebuke an Elder no but to entreat him as a Father and do not our Bishops challenge themselves and permit to their Chancellors Commissaries and Officials power not only to Rebuke an Elder but to rayle upon an Elder to reproach him with the most opprobrious termes of foole knave jack-sauce c. which our paper blushes to present to your Honors view Did ever Apostolick Authority delegate to Timothy and Titus power to receive an accusation against an Elder but before two or three witnesses and do not our Bishops challenge power to proceed Ex Officio and make Elders their own Accusers Did ever Apostolick Authority delegate power to Timothy or Titus to reject any after twice admonition but an Heretick and do 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 be the Angels of the seven Asian Churches had and our Remonstrant is so subtile as to twist these two together that if one faile the other may hold To which we answer first that Angel in those Epistles is put Collectively not Individually as appears by the Epistle to Thyatira cap. 2. vers 25. where we read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. But I say unto you in the plural number not unto thee in the singular and unto the rest in Thyatira c. Here is a plain distinction between the members of that Church By you is signified those to whom he spake under the name of the Angel By the rest the residue of the people The people governed and the Governours in the plural number What can be more evident to prove that by Angel is meant not one singular person but the whole company of Presbyters that were in Thyatira This also further appears because it is usual with the holy Ghost not only in other Books of the Scripture but also in this very Book of the Revelation to express a company under one singular person Thus the Civil State of Rome as opposite to Christ is called A beast with ten horns and the Ecclesiastical State Antichristian is called the whore of Babylon and the false Prophet and the Devil and all his family is called An old red Dragon Thus also the seven Angels that blew the seven trumpets Revel 8.2 and the seven Angels that poured out the seven Vials are not literally to be taken but Synecdochically as all know And why not then the seven Angels in those Epistles Mr. Mede in his Commentaries upon the Revelation pag. 265 hath these words Denique ut jam femel iterumquemonuimus quoniam Deus adhibet angelos providentiae suae in rerū humanarū motibus conversionibus ciendis gubernandisque administris idcirco quae multorum manibus peraguntur Angelo tamen tanquam rei gerendae praesidi Duci pro communi loquendi modo tribuuntur Adde thirdly that the very name Angel is sufficient to prove that it is not meant of one person alone because the word Angel doth not import any peculiar jurisdiction or preheminence but is a common name to all Ministers and is so used in Scripture For all Ministers are Gods Messengers and Embassadours sent for the good of the Elect. And therefore the name being common to all Ministers why should wee think that there should be any thing spoken to one Minister that doth not belong to all The like argument we draw from the word Stars used Revel 1.20 The seven Stars are the Angels of the seven Churches Now it is evident that all faithful Ministers are called Stars in Scripture whose duty is to shine as lights unto the Churches in all purity of doctrine and holiness of conversation And in this sense the word is used when it is said that the third part of the stars were darkned Revel 8.12 and that the Dragons taile drew the third part of the stars of Heaven and cast them to the Earth Revel 12.4 Which is meant not only of Bishops but of other Ministers unlesse the Bishops will appropriate all corruption and Apostacy unto themselves Adde fourthly out of the Text it selfe it is very observable that our Saviour in opening the mystery of the Vision Revel 1.20 saith The seven Candlesticks which thou sawest are the seven Churches but he doth not say The seven Stars are the seven Angels of the same Churches But the Angels of the seven Churches wherein not without some mystery the number of the Angels is omitted least we should understand by Angel one Minister alone and not a company And yet the Septenary number of Churches is twice set down Lastly though but one Angel be mentioned in
by the name of one Angel then of many We often finde the name of one Prophet or Priest to be put for the general body of the Ministery or whole multitude or Prophets or Priests in the Church of Israel or Iudah when the Spirit of God intendeth to reprove threaten or admonish them Thus it is Iere. 6.13.18.19 Isa. 3.2 Hos. 9.8 Ezek. 7.26 Hos. 4 6. Mal. 2.7 Neither should it seem strange that a multitude or company of Ministers should be understood under the name of one Angel seeing a multitude of Heavenly Angels imployed in one service for the good of Gods Saints is sometimes in the Scripture shut up under one Angel in the singular number as may be gathered from Gen. 14.7 2 Kings 19.35 Psal 34.7 compared with Psal. 91.11 Gen. 32.1 2. Kings 6.16 17. And also a multitude of Devils or evil Angels jointly labouring in any one work is set forth under the name of one evil or unclean spirit 1 Kings 22.21 22. Mark 1.23 24. Mark 5.2.9 Luke 4.33.34 Luk. 8.27.30 1 Pet. 5.8 Heb. 2.14 Ephes. 6.11.12 But now let us suppose which yet notwithstanding we will not grant that the word Angel is taken individually for one particular person as Doctor Reynolds seems to interpret it together with Master Beza yet neverthelessâ— there will nothing follow out of this acception that will any ways make for the upholding of a Diocesan Bishop with sole power of Ordination and Jurisdiction as a distinct Superior to Presbyters And this appears First because it never was yet proved nor ever will as we conceive that these Angels were Diocesan Bishops considering that Parishes were not divided into Diocesses in S. Iohns days And the seven Stars are said to be fixed in their seven Candlesticks or Churches not one Star over divers Candlesticks Neither can those Churches be thought to be Diocesan when not onely Tindal and the old translation calls them seven Congregations but we read also Acts 20. that at Ephesus which was one of those Candlesticks there was but one flock And secondly we further finde that in Ephesus one of those seven Churches there were many Presbyters which are all called Bishops Acts 20.28 and we finde no colour of any superintendency or superiority of one Bishop over another To them in general the Church is committed to be fed by them without any respect had to Timothy who stood at his Elbow and had been with him in Macedonia and was now waiting upon him to Jerusalem This is also confirmed by Epiphanius who writing of the Heresies of the Miletians saith that in ancient times this was peculiar to Alexandria that it had but one Bishop whereas other Cities had two And he being Bishop of Cypres might well be acquainted with the condition of the Churches of Asia which were so nigh unto him Thirdly there is nothing said in the seven Epistles that implyeth any superiority or majority of rule or power that these Angels had over the other Angels that were joyned with them in their Churches It is written indeed in commendation of the Angel of the Church of Ephesus that he could not beare them that were evil and that he had tryed them which say they were Apostles and are not and had found them lyers And it is spoken in dispraise of the Angel of Pergamus that he suffered them which hâ—ld the Doctrine of Balaam c. But these things are common duties requirable at the hands of all Ministers who have the charge of souls But suppose that there were some superiority and prehemenency insinuated by this individual Angel yet who knoweth not that there are diverse kinds of superiority to wit of Order of Dignity of Gifts and Parts or in degree of Ministery or in charge of power and jurisdiction And how will it be proved that this Angel if he had a superiority had any more then a superiority of Order or of Gifts and Parts Where it is said that this Angel was a superior degree or order of Ministery above Presbyters In which Epistle is it said that this Angel had sole power of Ordination and Jurisdiction And therefore as our learned Protestants prove against the Papists that where Christ directed his speech to Peter in particular and said I will give unto thee the Keys of the kingdom of Heaven c. That this particularization of Peter did not import any singular preheminence or majority of power to Peter more then to the other Apostles But that though the promise was made to Peter yet it was made to him in the name of all the rest and given to all as well as one And that therefore it was spoken to one person and not to all that so Christ might fore-signifie the unity of his Church as Cyprian Austin Hierome Optatus and others say So when Christ directs an Epistle to one Angel it doth not imply a superior power over his fellow-Angels but at most only a presidency for order sake And that which is written to him is written to the rest as well as to him And therefore written to one not to exclude the rest but to denote the unity that ought to be between the Ministers of the same Church in their common care and diligence to their flock And this is all that Doctor Reynolds saith as you may read in his conference with Hart cap. 4. divis 3. ad finem For it is evident that Doctor Reynolds was an utter enemy to the Ius Divinum of the Episcopal preheminency over Presbyters by his Letter to Sir Francis Knolls And learned Master Beza also saith something to the same purpose in his Annotations upon Revel 2.1 Angelo i. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 quem nimirum oporuit imprimis de his rebus admoneri ac per eum caeteros collegas totamque adeo Ecclesiam Sed hinc statui Episcopalis ille gradus postea humanitus in Ecclesiam Dei invectus certe nec potest nec debet imo ne perpetuum quidem istud 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 munus esse necessario oportuisse sicut exorta inde Tyrannis Oligarchica cujus apex est Antichristiana bestia certissima cum totius non Ecclesiae modo sed etiam orbis pernicie nunc tandem declarat If therefore our Remonstrant can produce no better evidence for his Hierarchy then Timothy and Titus and the Angels of the Asian Churches Let not this Remonstrant and his party cry out of wrong if this claimed Hierarchy be for ever booted out of the church seeing it is his owne Option And yet we cannot conceale one refuge more out of Scripture to which the Hierarchy betake themselves for shelter And that is the two Postscripts in the end of Pauls second Epistle to Timothy and of that to Titus where in the one Timothy is said to be the first Bishop of Ephesus and in the other Titus is said to be the first Bishop of the Church of the Cretians to both which places wee answer That these two Postscrips and so
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 voice in what is agreed by the rest nor 6 any further power then any of his Brethren So that the difference between 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 Episcopacy will be with the lesse difficulty and occasion the less disturbance SECT XV. BUt there is another thing wherein our Episcopacy differs from the Geneva Moderatorship besides the perpetuity and that is the exclusion of the Lay-Presbytery which if we may believe 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 swear 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 we have already noted We will to avoid prolixity not urge those three known Texts of Scripture produced by some for the establishing of Governing Elders in the Church not yet vindicated by the Adversaries Nor will we urge that famous Text of Ambrose in 1 Tim. 5. But if there were no Lay-Elders in the Church till this present age we would be glad to learn who they were of whom Origen speaks when he tells 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Nonnulli praepositi sunt qui in vitam mores eorum qui admittuntur inquirant ut qui turpia committant eos communi Caetu interdicant qui verò ab istis abhorrent ex anima complexi meliores quotidie reddant There are some ordained to inquire 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 plainly First that there were some in the higher forme of hearers 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 intrusted 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-Eelders 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 general 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 again Contra Cresconium Grammaticum Omnes vos Episcopi Presbyteri Diaconi and Seniores scitis All you Bishops Elders Deacons and Elders do know What were those two sorts of Elders there mentioned in one comma and ibidem cap. 56. Peregrinus Presbyter Seniores Ecclesiae Musticanae Regionis tale desiderium prosequuntur where again we read of Elder and Elders Presbyter and Seniors in one Church Both those passages are upon record in the publick acts which are more fully set down by Baronius Anno 303. Num. 15 16 17. As also by Albaspineus in his Edition of Optatus in which Acts the Seniors are often mentioned In that famous relation of the purging of Caecilianus and Felix there is a copie of a Letter Fratribus filiis Clero Senioribus Fratribus in Domino aeternam salutem Another Letter is mentioned a little before Clericis Senioribus Cirthensium in Domino aeternam Salutem These Seniors were interessed in affaires concerning the Church as being the men by whose advice they were managed The Letter of Purpurius to Silvanus saith Adhibete conclericos seniores plebis Ecclesiasticos Viros inquirant quae sint iste Dissensiones ut ea quae sunt secundum fidâ—i Praecepta fiant Where we see the joynt power of these Seniors with the Clergie in ordering Ecclesiasticall affairs that by their wisdom and care peace might be setled in the Church for which cause these Seniors are called Ecclesiastical men and yet they are distinguished from Clergie men They are mentioned again afterwards by Maximus saying Loquor nomine SENIORUM Populi Christiani Greg. Mag. distinguisheth them also from the Clergie Tabellarium cum consensu SENIORUM Cleri memineris Ordinandum These Seniors had power to reprove offenders otherwise why should Augustine say Cùm ob errorem aliquem à Senioribus arguuntur imputatur alicui cur aebrius fuerit cur res alienas pervaserit c. when they were by the Elders reproved for their errours and drunkenness is laid to a mans charge c. So that it was proper to the Seniors to have the cognizance of Delinqents and to reprove them The same Augustine in Psal. 36. Necesse nos fuerat Primiani causam quem c. Seniorum literis ejusdem Ecclesiae poâ—tulantibus audire Being requested by Letters from the Seniors of that Church it was needful for me to hear the cause of Primian c. So again Optatus who mentioning a persecution that did for a while scatter the Church saith Erant Ecclesiae ex auro argento quà m plurima Ornamenta quae nec defodere terrae nec secum portare poterat quare fidelibus Senioribus commendavit Albaspineus that learned Antiquary on that place acknowledges that Besides the Clergie there were certain of the Elders of the people men of approved life that did tend the affairs of the Church of whom this place is to be understood By all these testimonies it is apparent first that in the ancient Church there were some called Seniors Secondly that these Seniors were not Clergie men Thirdly that they had a stroke in governing the Church and managing the affairs thereof Fourthly that Seniors were distinguished from the rest of the people Neither would we desire to chuse any other Iudges in this whole controversie then whom himself constituted Forreign Divines taking the general Suffrage and practice of the Churches and not of particular men As for the learned Spanhemius whom he produceth though we give him the deserved honour of a worthy man yet we think it too much to speak of him as if the judgment of the whole Church
Prelacie the unhappy instrument of pulling the young Duke of York out of Sanctuary into his cruel Uncles hands Things being setled in such a peace as after the bloody brawls was to the afflicted Realm howsoever acceptable though not such as might be wished Morton Bishop of Ely enticing the Duke of Buckingham to take the Crown which ruin'd him opened the veins of the poor subjects to bleed afresh The intolerable pride extortion bribery luxury of Wolsey Archbishop of York who can be ignorant of selling Dispensatitions by his power Legantine for all offences insulting over the Dukes and Peers of whom some he brought to destruction by bloody policie playing with State-affairs according to his humour or benefit causing Tournay got with the blood of many a good Souldier to be rendred at the French Kings secret request to him not without bribes with whom one while siding another while with the Emperour he sold the honour and peace of England at what rates he pleased and other crimes to be seen in the Articles against him Holinshed 912. and against all the Bishops in general 911 which when the Parliament sought to remedie being most excâ—ssive extortion in the Ecclesiastical Courts the Bishops cry out Sacriledge the Church goes to ruine as it did in Bohemia with the Schisme of the Hussites Ibid. After this though the Bishops ceased to be Papists for they preached against the Popes Supremacie to please the King yet they ceased not to oppugne the Gospel causing Tindals Translation to be burnt yea they agreed to the suppressing of Monasteries leaving their revenues to the King to make vvay for the six bloudy Articles which proceedings with all cruelty of inquisition are set down Holinsh. pag. 946. till they were repealed the second of Edward the Sixth stopping in the mean while the cause of Reformation well begun by the Lord Cromwel And this mischief was wrought by Steven Gardiner Bishop of Winchester The six Articles are set down in Speed pag. 792. The Archbishop of Saint Andrews his hindring of England and Scotlands Union for fear of Reformation Speed 794. As for the dayes of King Edward the Sixth we cannot but acknowledge to the glory of the rich mercy of God that there was a great Reformation of Religion made even to admiration And yet notwithstanding we do much dislike the humour of those that cry up those dayes as a compleat pattern of Reformation and that endevour to reduce our Religion to the first times of King Edward which we conceive were comparatively very imperfect there being foure impediments which did much hinder that blessed work The three Rebellions One in Henry the Eighths time by the Priests of Lincoln and Yorkeshire for that Reformation which Cromwel had made The other two in King Edwards dayes One in Cornwal the other in Yorkâ—shire The strife that arose suddenly amongst the Peers emulating one anothers honour Speed pag. 837. The violent opposition of the Popish Bishops which made Martin Bucer write to King Edward in his Book de Regno Christi lib. 2 cap. 1. and say Your Majesty doth see that this restoring again the Kingdom of Christ which we require yea which the salvation of us all requireth may in no wise be expected to come from the Bishops seeing there be so few among them which do understand the power and proper Offices of this Kingdom and very many of them by all means which possibly they can and dare either oppose themselves against it or defer and hinder The deficiency of zeal and courage even in those Bishops who afterwards proved Martyrs witness the sharp contention of Ridley against Hooper for the ceremonies And the importunate suit of Cranmer and Ridley for toleration of the Mass for the Kings sister which was rejected by the Kings not only reasons but tears whereby the young King shewed more zeal then his best Bishops 839. The inhumane butcheries blood-sheddings and cruelties of Gardiner Bonner and the rest of the Bishops in Queen Maries dayes are so fresh in every mans memory as that we conceive it a thing altogether unnecessary to make mention of them Onâ—ly we fear lest the guilt of the blood then shed should yet remain to be required at the hands of this Nation because it hath not publickly endeavoured to appease the wrath of God by a general and solemn humiliation for it What the practâ—ces of the Prelates have been ever since from the begininning of Queene Elizabeth to this present day would fill a volume like Ezekiels Roll with lamentation mourning and wo to record For it hath been their great designe to hinder all further Reformation to bring in doctrines of Popery Arminianisme and Libertinisme to maintain propagate and much encrease the burden of hâ—mane ceremonies to keep out and beat down the Preaching of the Word to silence the faithfull Preachers of it to oppose and persecute the most zealous professours and to turn all Religâ—on into a pompous out-side and to tread down the power of godliness Insomuch as it is come to an ordinary Proverb thaâ— when any thing is spoiled we use to say The Bishop's foot hath been in it And in this and much more which might be said fulfilling Bishop 〈◊〉 Prophecie who when he saw that in King Edwards reformation there was a reservation of Ceremonies and Hierarchy is credibly reported to have used these words Since they have begun to taste of our Broath it will not be long ere they will eat of our Beef FINIS * Videbat eninâ— passim laborari mole copiâ variorum in hoc genere commenâ—â—tiorum novis editionibus ancipitem reddi corum delectuÌ„ sed meliores etiam id est veteres illos et probatos Authores è studiosorum manibus excuti c Praefat. Scriptorum Theolog. Henric Alting * Quaedam noxia victoria paenè mihi semper in disputationibus proveniebat cum Christianis imperitis August contra Manich. cap. 19. * Mr. Stephen Marshall Mr. Edm. Calamy Dr. Th. Young Mr. Matthew Newcomen Dr. William Spurstowe * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Eph. 4.15 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Pag. 23. Pag. â— Pag. 2. Pag. 3. Pag. 6. Pag. 2. Pag. 7. Untruths Remon pag. 8. Malmsbury lib. 4. Hist. Concil Trid. Pag. 9. Liturgie Pag. 10. a Ad hoc maâ—orum devoluta est Ecclesia Dei sponsa Christi ut haereticorum exempla Sectentur ad celebranda Sacramenta coelestia disciplinam Lux mutuetur de tenebris id faciant christiani quod Antichristi faciunt Cypr. Ep. 74. Pag. 13. Just. Mar. Apost 2. Tert. Ap. ad Gen. c. 39. Just. Mar. Apost 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Concil Laod. Can. 18. Conc. Carth. 3. Can. 23. Anno 397. Conc. Milev 2. Can. 12. An. 416. Pag. 10. Pag. 11. Pag. 18. Pag. 11. Euseb. de vit Con. li. 4. Cap. 18. Pag. 11. Pag. 12. Pag. 12. Pag. 13. D. Corbet M. Nevel Pag. 13. Pag. 13. Abbot against Church-forsakers Obâ— Ans.
all the rest are no part of Canonical 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. Although our Episcopal 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 Canonical 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 whoch is the chiefest City of Phrygia Pacatiana Here wee demand whether Paul when hee 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 bee subscribed the first to Timothy which hath relation to a second Besides the Epistle is said to bee writ from Laodicea 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 Epithet is nowhere read in the Writers of those ages saith Beza Sed apud recentiores illoâ— 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 ordained the first Bishop of the Church of the Ephesians 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 interpreâ—â—m If Saint Paul had written this Postscript he would not have said To Timothy the first Bishop c. whereas it was not yet certain whether ever there should bee 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 at Nicopolis for I have determined there to winter Hee doth not say Here to winter but There Where note for the present he 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 Diocess 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 appears that if the Bishops had no more authority to urge us to subscribe to their Ceremonies then they have authority for their Episcopal Dignity by these 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 be 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 was 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 between 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 be proved that one Apostle had any superiority over another Apostle or one Evangelist over an other And why then should one Presbyter be over another Hence it followeth that though we should grant a superiority between the twelve and the seventy yet this will not prove the question in hand Because the question is concerning Officers of the same kind 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 far this Episcopal government is from any Divine right or Apostolical Institution And how true that speech of Hierome is that a Bishop as it is a superiour Order to a Presbyter is an Humane presumption not a Divine Ordinance But though Scripture fails 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 plainly acknowledgeth a difference between 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 own 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 be carefull to provide that the Ministers of the Gospell might not onely live but maintain Hospitalitie according to the Rule of the Gospell And that worthy Gentleman spake as an Oracle that said That scandalous Maintenance is a great caues of a scandelous Ministery Yet we are not ignorant that when the Ministery came to have Agros dâ—mos lecationes vehicula â—ques laâ—ifâ—ndia 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 voice of Angels heard from Heaven Hodie venenum in Ecclesiam Christi cecidit This day is poison shed into the Church of Christ. And then it was that Ierom complained