Selected quad for the lemma: rest_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
rest_n	call_v	day_n	sabbath_n	12,878	5	10.6052	5	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A52055	Smectymnuus redivivus Being an answer to a book, entituled, An humble remonstrance. In which, the original of liturgy episcopacy is discussed, and quæries propounded concerning both. The parity of bishops and presbyters in scripture demonstrated. The occasion of the imparity in antiquity discovered. The disparity of the ancient and our moderne bishops manifested. The antiquity of ruling elders in the church vindicated. The prelaticall church bounded.	Smectymnuus.; Marshall, Stephen, 1594?-1655.; Calamy, Edmund, 1600-1666.; Young, Thomas, 1587-1655.; Newcomen, Matthew, 1610?-1669.; Spurstowe, William, 1605?-1666.	1654 (1654)	Wing M784; ESTC R223740	77,642	91

sed malus tantùm quia Antiprelaticus But he upbraids us with our Divisions Subdivisions so do the Papists upbraid the Protestants with their Lutheranisme Calvinisme and Zuinglianisme And this is that the Heathens objected to the Christians their Fractures were so many they knew not which Religion to chuse if they should turn Christians And can it be expected that the Church in any age should be free from Divisions when the times of the Apostles were not free and the Apostle tells us It must needs be that there be divisions in Greg. Naz. dayes there were 600 Errours in the Church do these any wayes derogate from the truth and worth of Christian Religion But as for the Divisions of the Antiprelatical party so odiously exaggerated by this Remonstrant Let us assure your Honours they have been much fomented by the Prelates whose practice hath been according to that rule of Machiavil Divide Impera and they have made these divisions afterwards complain'd of that which their Tyranny and Policy hath made It is no wonder considering the paths our Prelates have trod that there are Divisions in the Nation The wonder is our divisions are no more no greater and we doubt not but if they were of that gracious spirit and so intirely affected to the peace of the Church as Greg Naz. was they would say as he did in the tumults of the people Mitte nos in mare non erit tempest as rather then they would hinder that sweet Concordance and conspiration of minde unto a Government that shall be every way agreeable to the rule of Gods Word and profitable for the edification and flourishing of the Church A second thing we cannot but take notice of is the pains this Author takes to advance his Prelaticall Church and forgetting what he had said in the beginning that this party was so numerous it could not be summed tells us now these severall thousands are punctually calculated But we doubt not but your Honours will consider that there may be multi homines pauci viri and that there are more against them then for them And whereas they pretend that they differ from us onely in a Ceremony or an Organ-pipe which however is no contemptible difference yet it will appeare that our differences are in point of a superiour Alloy Though this Remonstrant braves it in his multiplied Queries What are the bounds of this Church what the distinction of the prefessours and Religion what grounds of faith what new Creed do they hold differenc from their Neighbours what Scriptures what Baptisme what meanes of Salvation other then the rest yet if he pleased he might have silenced his owne Queries but if he will needs put us to the answer we will resolve them one by one First if he ask what are the bounds of this Church we answer him out of the sixt of their late founded Canons where we finde the limits of this Prelatical Church extend as farre as from the high lofty Promontory of Archbishops to the ●erra incognita of an c. If what Distinction of professors and Religion we answer their worshipping towards the East and bowing towards the Altar prostrating themselves in their approches into Churches placing all Religion in outward formalities are visible differences of these professours and their Religion If what new Creed they have or what grounds of Faith differing from their Neighbours we answer Episcopacy by divine right is the first Article of their Creed Absolute and blinde obedience to all the Commandements of the Church that is the Bishop and his Emissaries election upon faith foreseen the influence of works into Iustification ●alling from grace c. If what Scripture we answer the Apocrypha and unwritten Traditions If what Baptism a Baptism of absolute Necessity unto salvation and yet unsufficient unto salvation as not sealing grace to the taking away of sinne after Baptisme If what ●u●harist an Eucharist that must be administred upon an Altar or a Table set Altar-wise railed in an Eucharist in which there is such a presence of ●hrist though Modum nesciunt as makes the place of its Administration the throne of God the place of the Residence ●f the Almighty and impresseth such a holinesse upon it as makes it not only capable but worthy of Adoration If what Christ a Christ who hath given the same power of absolution to a Priest that himselfe hath If what Heaven a Heaven that hath a broad way leading thither and is receptive of Drunkards Swearers Adulterers c. such a heaven as we may say of it as the Indians said of the heaven of the Spaniards Unto that heaven which some of the Prelaticall Church living and dying in their scandalous sinnes and hatefull enormities go to let our soules never enter If what meanes of Salvation we answer confession of sinnes to a Priest as the most absolute undoubted necessary infallible meanes of Salvation Farre be it from us to say with this Remonstrant We do fully agree in all these and all other Doctrinall and practicall points of Religion and preach one and the same saving truths Nay we must rather say as that holy Martyr did We thank God we are none of you Nor do we because of this dissension feare the censure of uncharitableness from any but uncharitable men But it is no unusuall thing with the Prelates and their party to charge such as protest against their corrupt opinions and wayes with uncharitablenesse and Schisme as the Papists do the Protestants and as the protestants do justly recriminate and charge that Schisme upon the Papists which they object to us So may we upon the Prelates And if Austin may be judge the Prelates are more Schismaticks then we Quicunque saith he invident bonis ut quaerant occasiones excludendi eos aut degradandi vel crimina sua sic defendere parati sunt si objecta vel prodita fuerint ut etiam conventiculorum congregationes vel Ecclesiae perturbationes cogitent excitare jam schismatici sunt Whosoever envie those that are good and seeke occasions to exclude and degrade them and are so ready to defend their faults that rather then they will leave them they will devise how to raise up troubles in the Church and drive men into conventicles and corners they are the Schismaticks And that all the world may take notice what just cause we have to complain of Episcopacie as it now stands we humbly crave leave to propound these Queries Queries about Episcopacie WHether it be tolerable in a Christian Church that Lord Bishops should be held to be Iure Divino And yet the Lords day by the some men to be but Iure Humano And that the same persons should cry up Altars in stead of Communion-Tables and Priests in stead of Ministers and yet not Iudaize when they will not suffer the Lords Day to be called the sabbath-Sabbath-day for feare of Iudaizing Whereas the word Sabbath is

a generall word signifying a day of rest which is common as well to the Christian Sabbath as to the Jewish Sabbath and was also used by the Ancients Ruffinus in Psal. 47. Orig●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 Pre●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 Epis●opatus inter ordines Ecclesiastic●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 Hum●nu● 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 i● this Book that they are called Bishops of Alexand●iae Ephes●s Hierus●lem c in a very improper sense because they abode at those p●ac●s a longer time then at other places For su●e it is if 〈…〉 and and I●mes Apostles which are Bishops over the whol● 〈◊〉 and the Apostles made Mark● ●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 ●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 ●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

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 ●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 Presbyt●r qui Episcopus antequam Diaboli instinctu studia in Religione fierent diceretur in populis eco sum Pauli ego Apollo ego Cephae Communi Presbyterorū Consilio ecclesiae gubernabantur Postquam vero unusquisque eos quos bap●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 of●ic●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 o● 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

them SECT XIII But it seemes our Remonstrant soared above these times even as high as the Apostles dayes for so he saith If our Bishops challenge any other spiritual power then was by Apostolike Authority delegated to and required of Timothy and Titus and the Angels of the seven Asian Churches let them be DISCLAIMED as VSVRPERS And the truth is so they deserve to be if they doe but challenge the same power that the Apostle did delegate to Timothy and Titus for Timothy and Titus were Evangelists and so moved in a Sphere above Bishops or Presbyters For Timothy it is cleare from the letter of the Text 2 Tim. 4.5 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Doe the work of an Evangelist if Timothy had been but a Presbyter or Bishop Paul had here put him upon imployment Vltra Sphaeram Activitatis And to any man that will but understand and consider what the Office of an Evangelist was and wherein it differed from the Office of a Presbyter or Bishop it will be manifest that Timothy and Titus were Evangelists and no Bishops for the title of Evangelist is taken but two wayes either for such as wrote the Gospel and so we doe not affirme Timothy and Titus to be Evangelists or else for such as taught the Gospel and those were of two sorts either such as had ordinary places and ordinary gifts or such whose places and gifts were extraordinary and such Evangelists were Timothy and Titus and not Bishops as will appeare if we consider what was the Difference between the Evangelists and Bishops Bishops or Presbyters were tyed to the particular care and tuition of that flock over which God had made them Overseers Acts 20.28 But Evangelists were not tyed to reside in one particular place but did attend upon the Apostles by whose appointment they are sent from place to place as the necessity of the Churches did require As appeares first in Timothy whom Saint Paul besought to abide at Ephesus 1. Tim. 1.3 which had beene needlesse importunity if Timothy had the Episcopall that is the Pastorall charge of Ephesus committed to him by the Apostles for then he might have laid as dreadful a Charge upon him to abide at Ephesus as he doth to Preach the Gospel But so far was Paul from setling Timothy in Cathedrâ in Ephesus that he rather continually sends him up and down upon all Church-services for we finde Acts. 17.14 that when Paul fled from the tumults of Berea to Athens he left Silas and Timothy behinde him who afterwards comming to Paul to Athens Paul sends Timothy from Athens to Thessalonica to confirm the Thessalonians in the faith as appears 1 Thes. 3.1.2 from whence returning to Paul to Athens again the Apostle Paul before he left Athens and went to Corinth sent him and Silas into Macedonia who returned to him again to Corinth Act. 18.5 afterwards they travelled to Ephesus from whence we read Paul sent Timothy and Erastus into Macedonia Act. 19.22 wither Paul went after them and from whence they and divers other Breathren journied into Asia Acts 20.4 All which Breathren Paul calls as it is probable 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the messengers of the Churches 2. Cor. 8.23 And being thus accompanied with Timothy and the rest of the Bretheren he comes to Miletum and calls the Elders of the Church of Ephesus thither to him of which Church had Timothy been Bishop the Apostle in stead of giving the Elders a charge to feed the flock of Christ would have given that charge to Timothy and not to them And secondly the Apostle would not so have forgotten himself as to call the Elders 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 before their Bishops face Thirdly It is to be conceived the Apostles would have given them some directions how to carry themselves towards their Bishop but not a word of this though Timothy were then in Pauls presence and in the presence of the Elders The cleare evidence of which Text demonstrates that Paul did not leave Timothy at this time as Bishop of Ephesus But it is rather evident that he took him along with him in his journey to Hierusalem and so to Rome for we find that those Epistles Paul wrote while he a prisoner bear either in their inscription or some other passage of them the name of Timothy as Pauls companion viz. The Epistle to the Philippians C●lossians Hebrewes Philemon which Epistles he wrote in bonds as the contexture which those two learned professors the one at Heydelburg the other at Saulmur make of Saint Pauls Epistles doth declare So that it appears that Timothy was no Bishop but a Minister an Evangelist a fellow labourer of the Apostles 1 Thes. 3.1 an Apostle a Messenger of the Church 2 Cor. 8.3 a Minister of God 1 Thes. 3.2 these titles the Holy Ghost gives him but never the title of a Bishop The like we finde in Scripture concerning Titus whom Paul as it is conceived by learned men did first assume into the fellowship of his Labors in the place of Iohn and made him his companion in his journy through Antioch to Hierusalem so we find Gal. 2.1 from thence returning to Antioch againe from thence he passed through Syria and Cilicia confirming the Churches and from Cilicia he passed to Creet where having Preached the Gospel and plainted Churches he left Titus there for a while to set in order things that remaine Yet it was but for a while he left him there for in his Epistle which he wrote to him not many yeares after he injoynes him to come to him to Nicopolis where he did intend to winter but changing that purpose sends for him to Ephesus where it seemes his Hyemal station was and from thence sends him before him to Corinth to enquire the state of the Corinthians His returne from thence Paul expects at Troas and because comming thither he found not his expectation there he was so grieved in his spirit 2 Cor. 2.12 that he passed presently from thence into Macedonia where Titus met him and in the midst of his afflictions joyed his spirits with the glad tydings of the powerful and gracious effects his first Epistle had among the Corinthians 2 Cor. 7 5 6 7. Paul having there collected the Liberalities of the Saints sends Titus againe to the Corinthians to prepare them for the same service of Ministring to the necessities of the Saints 2 Cor. 8.6 And makes him with some others the Conveyers of that second Epistle to the Corinthians All these journey es to and fro did Titus make at the designment of the Apostle even after he was left in Creet Nor doe we finde that after his first removal from Creet he did ever returne thither We read indeed 2 Tim. 4.10 he was with Paul at Rome and from thence returned not to Creet but into Dalmatia All which doth more then probably shew it never was the Intendment of the Apostle to

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 fid●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 po●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 quàm 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