As for that tedious discourse that followeth in foure leaves about our overliberall concession that suppose the word Angell be meant Individually yet it made nothing for the upholding of a Dioce san Bishop with sole power of ordination and jurisdiction as a distinct order superiour to Presbyters we will be very briefe in our answer to it to prevent surfet and because it is more then we need have yeelded and also because so little is said of it to the purpose by this Remonstrant And here let the Reader observe 1. That of the foure Authors cited in the upholding of the individuall Angel Doctor Fulke is falsely alleged and the other three Master Beza Doctor Raynolds and Pareus though they interpret the word Angell 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for one singular person yet we are sure none of them held Episcopacy by divine right For D. Raynolds his letters to S. Francis Knowles now in print will witnesse and for Beza and Pareus it is well knowne that they were Presbyterians We expected many of the ancient Fathers to make good this interpretation but we see he is beholding to those for it who are none of the lest enemies to the Hierarchall preeminency and therefore we may be the more secure that no great prejudice can come to our cause by this interpretation if taken in the sence of these Authors 2. That the great question is what makes this interpretation for a Diocesan Bishop with sole power of ordination and jurisdiction as a distinct order above Presbyters But the Remonstrant cunningly conceales halfe the question and answers much every way And why so Because if there were many Angels in each Church and yet but one singled out and called The Angel of that Church it must needs follow that there was a superiority and inequality But what is this to the question in hand The thing to be proved is not onely that this Angell had a superiority but a superiority of jurisdiction over his fellow Angels but of this altum silentium Doctor Reynolds will tell you that this was onely a superiority of order and that all jurisdiction was exercised in common Beza will tell you that this Angell was onely 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and that he was Angelus Praeses not Angelus Princeps And that he was Praeses mutabilis and ambulatorius just as a Moderator in an assembly or as the Speaker in the House of Commons which is onely during the Parliament Both which interpretations may well stand with the superiority and inequality you speake of Our first argument to prove that though the word Angel be taken individually that yet nothing will hence follow to uphold a Diocesan Bishop with sole power of jurisdiction as a distinct order Superior to Presbyters was because it was never yet nor never will be proved that these Angels were Diocesan Bishops considering that parishes were not so numerous as to be divided into Diocesses in Saint Iohns daies And the seven Starres are sayd to be fixed in their seven Candlestickes not one Star over divers Candlesticks And Tindall together with the old translation calls them seven congregations And because we read that at Ephesus that was one of those Candlestickes there was but one flock for the answer of all which we expected a learned discourse to prove that the seven Churches were Diocesan and so consequently the Angels Diocesan Angels But the Remonstrant baulkes his worke as too great for his shoulders and instead of solid Divinity turnes criticke and playes upon words and syllables Domitian like catching at flies when he should have beene busied about greater matters First he tels us That if Parishes were not united into Diocesses or were not so many as to be divided into Diocesses which we thinke all one notwithstanding your parenthesis in Saint Iohns daies and therefore no Diocesan Bishop by the same reason we may as well argue that there were no parochiall Bishops neither since that then no parishes were as yet distinguished Which we grant to be very true But if there were no Parochiall Bishops in the Apostles daies much lesse Diocesan The Apostolicall Bishops were Bishops of one Church and not of one parish as we meane by parish till many yeeres after But not to quarrell at the word parish or diocesse let but the Remonstrant shewe us that these Angels were Bishops over divers setled Churches or divers fixed congregations nobis erit alter Apollo For our parts we are sure that at first the number of beleevers even in the greatest Cities were so few as that they might well meete 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in one and the same place and these were called the Church of the City and therefore to ordaine Elders 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are all one in Scripture And it cannot be demonstratively proved that they became so numerous in the Apostles daies in any great City so as that they could not meet in one and the same place But yet we confesse that it is very probable that it was so in Ierusalem if you compare Acts 2. 41. 4. 4. 5. 14. And whether it was so also in these severall Asian Churches we know not but however this is agreed upon on all parts That beleevers in great Cities were not divided into set and fixed congregations or parishes till long after the Apostles daies And that therefore if when they multiplied they had divers meeting places that yet notwithstanding these meeting places were frequented promiscuously and indistinctly and were taught and governed by all the Presbyters promiscuously and in common and were all called but one Church as is evident in Hierusalem Act. 8. 1. Act. 15. 6. 22. 16. 4. 21. 18. So also in these seven Churches where the beleevers of every City are called but one Church and were governed in common by divers Angels or Presbyters as we see plainely proved in the Church of Ephesus Acts 20. 28. Henâ—e it followeth that there were no sole-ruling Bishops nor one Bishop over divers Churches or set Congregations in Saint Iohns daies Secondly according to his wonted language he tels us of making Bulls and Solecismes because wee say that the seven Starres are said to be fixed in their seven Candlestickes whereas these Starres are said to be in the right hand of Christ as if these two were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Know sir That in regard of their protection they are said to be in Christs right hand but in regard of their â—unction and Office they may be truely said to be fixed in their seven Candlestickes But instead of picking quarrels at words you should have done well if you could to prove that these Candlestickes were diocesan Churches We say each Starre had its Candlesticke not one Starre over divers And wee thinke that this Candlesticke was but one particular Church or one set Congregation though happily when they multiplyed they might meete indistinctly in divers under divers Angels equally governing For this
we alledged Obiter Tindals translating the seven Churches seven Congregations All you answer is onely to shew that in other places of the Scripture by Congregation in Tindals sence cannot be meant a parishionall meeting But what if it be not so in other places how doe you make it appeare that it is not so in this place We are sure it is so taken in twenty other places of Tindals translation and may very properly be taken here also We alledge also that in Ephesus which was one of these Candlestickes there was but one flocke You demand whether this flocke were Nationall Provinciall or Diocesan And why doe you not demand whether it were not Oecumenicall also that so the Pope may in time come to challenge his flocke universall But you are sure you say that this flocke was not a parochiall flocke because it cannot be proved that all the Elders to whom Paul spake were onely belonging to Ephesus But can this Remonstant prove that there were more Elders or Bishops then those of Ephesus This is to answer Socratically and in answering not to answer Howsoever it is not so much materiall You your selfe confesse that the Elders or Bishops of Ephesus had but one flocke And if divers Bishops were over one flocke in the Apostles daies where is your individuall Bishops over divers flockes in the Apostles daies Our second argument is also drawne from the Church of Ephesus which was one of the seven Candlestickes in which we are sure in Saint Pauls daies there were many Angels and those called Bishops Acts 20. 28. And to one of those in all likelyhood was the Epistle to Ephesus directed if the direction be meant individually But yet wee read not a word of any superiority or superintendency of one Bishop over another To them the Church in generall is committed without any respect to Timothy who stood at his elbow But to all this ne 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 quideuâ— onely he tels us it is answered in answering the first But how true this is let any Reader judge At the end of this reason wee produce Epiphanlus affirming that in ancient time it was peculiar to Alexandria that it had but one Bishop whereas other Cities had two Here our Remonstrant takes a great deale of paines not to confute us but to confute Epiphanius All that we will reply is this to desire the Reader to consider that this Epiphanius was the first that out of his owne private opinion accused Aerius of madnesse and as this Authour saith of heresie for denying the superiority of Bishops over Presbyters And if this Remonstrant thinke it no disparagement to himselfe to be a confuter of Epiphanius why should we be cryed downe so heavily for not agreeing with Epiphanius in his judgement concerning Aerius The third argument the Remonstrant cuts off in the midst For whereas wee say that there is nothing sayd in the seven Epistles that implyeth any superiority or majority of rule or power that those Angels had over the other Angels that were joyned with them in their Churches the answerer makes it runne thus That there is nothing said in the seven Epistles that implies a superiority which indeed is to spoile the argument For wee grant there is something said to imply a superiority of the Ministers over the people but the question is of a superiority of power of one Angell over the other Angels which were joyned with him in his Church But this he conceales because hee knew it was unanswerable Onely he tels us First that the Epistles are superscribed to the Angell not Angels This is crambe millies cocta But what is this to a majority of rule or power Secondly he tels us it will appeare from the matter of the severall Epistles For hee askes Why should an ordinary Presbyter be taxed for that which hee hath no power to redresse That the Angell of Pergamus should be blamed for having those which hold the doctrine of Balaam or the Nicolaâ—tans when he had no power to proceed against them Or the Angell of the Church of Thyatira for suffering the woman Iezebel if it must be so read to teach and seduce when he had no power of publique censure to restraine her This discourse is very loose and wild Vt nihil pejus dicamus Doth not the Remonstrant plead here for sole power of jurisdiction which hee doth so much disclaime in other places of his booke when hee would have the singular Angel of Pergamus and Thyatira to have power to proceed against offendors either he doth this or nothing For our parts we answer without lisping That it was in the power not of one Angell but of all the Angels of Pergamus and Thyatira to proceed against those that held the doctrine of Balaam and the Nicolaitans To restraine that woman Iezebel or the Bishop of Thyatira his wife if it must needs be so read wee doe not thinke that one ordinary Presbyter as you call him was to exercise censures alone nor one extraordinary Bishop neither We find the contrary Matth. 8. 1 Corinth 5. And therefore we referre it to the Minister or Ministers of each Congregation with the advice and consent of the Presbyters adjoyning which we are sure is more consonant to the word then to leave it to the Hierarchicall Bishop and his Chancellor Commissary or Officiall In the next paragraph wee challenge you to shew us what kind of superiority this Angell had if he had any at all We require you to prove that he had any more then a superiority in parts and abilities or of order Where is it said that the Angell was a superiour degree or order of Ministery above Presbyters Or that he had solepower of ordination and jurisdiction But you flie from those questions as farre as from a Snake that would sting you and disdaining all that we say which is your accustomed way of answering you tell us that you are able to shâ—w who were the parties to whom some of these Epistles were directed and to evince the high degree of their superiority Parturiunt montes nascetur ridiculus mus Alas sir you tell us but what we told you before and what others have ingeminated 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 You say That Ignatius and Tertullian tell us that Onesimus was now the Angell or Bishop of Ephesus and Polycarpus of Smyrna But marke what we answer First we doubt of the truth of the story For others tell us that Timothy was Bishop as they call him of Ephesus when Christ wrote this Epistle and this opinion Ribera Lyra and Pererius follow Others leave it in medio and say it is uncertaine But suppose the story were true we answer Secondly it doth not follow because Onesimus was Bishop of Ephesus in Saint Iohns daies that therefore he was the onely party to whom Christ wrote his Epistle For Saint Paul tels us that there were many Bishops at Ephesus besides Onesimus and he
20. of Acts Presbyters and Bishops to be all one Doe we prove the Bishops described in Timothy and Titus to be one and the same in name and office with a Presbyter Doe we prove that their Churches were all governed Communi Consilio Presbyterorum All shall be granted us and yet the Divine right of Episcopacy be still held up by this sleight by telling us that before the Apostles left the earth they made over their authority to some prime men Demand where this is extant The Angels of the seven Churches are pleaded presently And partly because we have no other Scripture of latter inspiration and edition whereby to prove the contrary Another inducement is because the writers neere the Apostles times make frequent mention of a Bishop and as they would have us beleeve some waies distinguished from a Presbyter Some of them mentioning the very men that were the Angels of these Churches as Polycarpus of Smyrna Ignatius who is said to have beene martyred within twelve yeeres after the Revelation was written wrote letters to the severall Churches wherein he mentioneth their Bishops distinct from their Presbyters Now saith the author of Episcopacy by divine right the Apostles immediate successors could best tell what they next before them did Who can better tell a mans pace then he that followes him close at heeles And this hath so plausibâ—e a shew that all are condemned as blind or wilfull who will either doubt that Episcopacy was of Apostolicall institution or thinke that the Church of Christ should in so short a time deviate from the institution of the Apostles But now how insufficient a ground this is for the raising up of so mighty a Fabricke as Episcopacy by Divine right or Apostolicall institution wee desire the Reader to judge by that that followes First the thing they lay as their foundation is a meere metaphoricall word and such as is ordinarily applied to Presbyters in common Secondly the Penman of those seven Epistles did never in them nor in any of his other writings so much as use the name of Bishop he names Presbyters frequently especially in this booke yea where he would set out the office of those that are neerest to the throne of Christ in his Church Revel 4. And whereas in Saint Iohns daies some new expressions were used in the Christian Church which were not in Scripture As the Christian Sabbath began to be called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Christ himselfe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Now both these are found in the writings of S. Iohn and it is strange to us that the Apostle should mention a new phrase and not mention a new office erected in the Church as you would make us beleeve Neither thirdly in any of his writings the least intimation of superiority of one Presbyter over another save onely where he names Diotrephes as one ambitiously affecting such a Primacy Nor is there any one word in these Epistles whence an Episcopall authority may be collected So that did not the testimonies that lived soone after make the argument plausible it would appeare ridiculous But alas the suffrage of all the writers in the world is infinitely unable to command an Act of Divine faith without which divine right cannot be apprehended Suppose we were as verily perswaded that Ignatius wrote the Epistles which goe under his name which yet we have just cause to doubt of as knowing that many learned men reject a great part of them and some all as we can be perswaded that Tully wrote his All this can perswade no further that the Apostles ordained and appointed Bishops as their successors but onely by a humane faith but neither is that so The most immediate and unquestionable successors of the Apostles give cleare evidence to the contrary It is granted on all sides that there is no peece of antiquity that deserves more esteeme then the Epistle of Clement lately brought to light by the industry and labour of that learned Gentleman Master Patricke Young And in that Epistle Bishops and Presbyters are all one as appeares by what followes The occasion of that Epistle seemes to be a new sedition raysed by the Corinthians against their Presbyters page 57. 58. not as Bishop Hall saies the continuation of the schismes amongst them in the Apostles daies Clemens to remove their present sedition tels them how God hath alwaies appointed severall orders in his Church which must not be confounded first telling them how it was in the Jewish Church then for the times of the Gospell tels them that Christ sent his Apostles through Countries and Cities in which they constituted the first fruits or the chiefe of them unto Bishops and Deacons for them who should beleeve afterward p. 54. 55. Those whom hee calls there Bishops afterwards throughout the Epistle he cals Presbyters pa. 58 62 69. All which places doe evidently convince that in Clement his judgement the Apostle appointed but two officers that is Bishops and Deacons to bring men to beleeve Because when he had reckoned up three orders appointed by God among the Jewes High-priests Priests and Levites comming to recite orders appointed by the Apostles under the Gospell hee doth mention onely Bishops and Deacons and those Bishops which at first he opposeth to Deacons ever after he cals Presbyters And here we cannot but wonder at the strange boldnesse of the author of Epis. by divine right who hath endevoured to wire-draw this Author so much magnified by him to maintaine his Prelaticall Episcopacy and that both by foysting in the word withall into this translation which is not in the Text that the Reader might be seduced to beleeve that the offices of Episcopacy and Presbytery were two different offices And also by willingly misunderstanding Clement his phrase 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for by the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he would have us understand Episcopacy as distinct from Presbyterie whereas the whole series of the Epistle evidently proves that the word Episcopus Presbyter are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And so also by the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hee would have us to understand that the contention then in Corinth was only about the name whereas it appeares by the Epistle it selfe that the controversie was not about the name but dignity of Episcopacy for it was about the deposition of their godly Presbyters p. 57 58. And the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is thus interpreted by Beza Eph. 1. 21. Phil. 2. 9. Heb. 1. 4. and Mead in Apoc. 11. p. 156. In which places 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is rendred by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so here 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is put for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 By all this we see that the most genuine and neerest successor of the Apostles knew no such difference Lastly it is worth our observation that the same writers who as they say testifie that these 7. Angels were in a superiour degree to Presbyters do likewise affirm
Sermon once a yeere or a quarter or a month that will bee sufficient to merit and maintain that name Some indeed have taken some paines heretofore But there are so few of them now that sure the Remonstrant intended this booke for posterity The present Age will never beleeve that England is so full of preaching Bishops that there is not an unpreaching Bishop to bee found But what if we should challenge the Remonstrant to shew any preaching Bishop in England such a preaching Bishop as Chrysostome Augustine and the rest of those ancient worthies were 〈◊〉 who if they had preached no oftner then our Bishops Chrysostome had never mentioned his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so often nor his Nudiâ—tertius Nor his cras and perendie Nor Austin his Nudius tertiani hesâ—erni Sermones Nor Cyprian his Quotidiani Tractatus Indeed of old one saith Bishops gloried of their chaire and teaching as the flowre of their garland preferring it far before government but when they were faln from spirituall felicity and infâ—cted with Secular smoake then they commended the labour of teaching to Presbyters then the Iurisdiction and Consistory did carry all the credit Every Office in the Church being counted a dignity as it had more or lesse jurisdiction annexed to it this dignity hath almost crowded out the duty The scandall of inferiour Ministers hee professeth to bleed for but saith we blazon No Sir as we told you before and tell you again they have beene the trumpets of their own shame that like Hophne and Phineas made the sacrifices of the Lord to be abhorred But wee beseech you what is the English of your desires to have had the faults made lesse publike Doe you mean you would not have had them medled withall in open Parliament or that you would have had the Parliament doe by all Petitions brought in against such seandalous persons as Constantine did by those Papers that the proud contentious Bishops gave one against another commit them to the fire if so then as you are Christian tels us whether you doe not think this had been the onely way to involve the whole Parliament and Nation in the guilt of those sins and expose them to that wrath and vengeance that would from heaven pursue them Bethink your self how you will answer this at that great Tribunall to which you make so many rash and bold appeals as also your prophaning the glorious title of the God of peace that you might under the sweet name of peace perswade an impunity for sin Sir we nothing feare but wee shall answer our opposing the unerring rule of the Word of God which texts you never went about to answer against that example of Constantine who as a man though good was subject to errour ten thousand times better then you will doe either of these In our next Section saith our Remonstrant we spit in the face of our Mother Good Reader please to review our Answer Section 17. and judge The Remonstrant will deny presently that hee and the Bishops are the Church of England and yet here that which is spoken against them and their Perseus-like practices is spoken against our Mother the Church Well be what you please Fathers and Mothers and Sonnes and all Onely we desire the Remonstrant if hee can to tell us what the Church of England is For it doth not please him here that we should call the Convocation the Church of England much lesse the Bishops or Archbishops Yet if we be not mistaken you your self call the Convocation the Church of England pag. 122. And the Canons and Constitutions made in the Convocation are called the Canons and Constitutions of the Church of England which the Convocation alone excluding the Parliament cannot be so much as a representative of unlesse you will count the whole Laity of the Nation represented in Parliament none of the Church of England Yet this is the Church so cryed up These Canons are the commands of the Church so rigorously urged Who ever breaks a Canon especially in point of Ceremony is no dutifull sonne of the Church Indeed in point of Morality Drinking Swearing Gaming there is more indulgence Nay how many Bishops in England are there that have urged their owne private paper-injunctions as the commands of the Church and proceeded against such as would not observe them as disobedient or refractory against their Mother the Church That Sir upon the point there will appeare to be more Churches in England then one For tell us we beseech you when the Church of England at Norwich forbade all prayer before and after Sermon but onely in the words of the 55 Canon forbad all preaching in the afternoons all expounding of Catechisme or Scriptures the Church of England in London forbad none of these things when the Church of England in London enjoyned rayling in Communion Tables and all communicants to make their approaches thither the Church of another Diocesse went further and enjoyned setting of them Altarwise And all these were the commands of the church of England The transgression of any one of these the omission of any other thing enjoyned was condemned as disobedience to the church Now how many churches of England were there at this time But you will play off all this as merriment with a Ridiculum caput To deal with you therefore seriously Because you make so strange a thing of hearing of more churches of England then one and distinguish so deeply between Churches of England and Churches in England wee beseech you consider whither the Scripture doe not speak as properly when it speaks of the Churches of Iudea and of Galatia as if it had said the churches in Iudea and in Galatia And what difference between Saint Iohn when hoe writes to the Church of Ephesus of Laodicea and the church in Sardis in Thyatira Yet we are not ridiculous enough therefore the Remonstrant will help the matter and to make his jeere will corrupt our words For whereas we had said if the bounds of a Kingdome must needs be the limits of a Churth Why are not England Scotland and Ireland all one church to make it non-sence hee adds of England are not England Scotland and Ireland all one Church of England Hee that made it let him take it This discourse of Churches of England cannot end without a descent into the Prelaticall and Anti-prelaticall Church We said We acknowledge no Anti-prelaticall Church The Remonstrant tels us if wee make and condemne the Prelaticall Church what shall be the other part of the contradistinction Our reply must be that not we but themselves make the Prelaticall Church wee doe but shew it and we shew also the other part of the contradistinction which the Remonstrant pleaseth to call the Antiprelaticall Church The Remonstrant had upbrayded the Divisions of that part wee made our just defence and therein declared that the Prelaticall party were the chiefe Authours and Fomentors of those divisions
For the persons that brought in this Imparity we tell you they were the Presbyters and prove this from Hierome ad Euagrium The Presbyters of Alexandria did call him their Bishop whom they had chosen from among themselves and placed in a higher degree This you call a faithlesse and a halved citation Good sir be not so harty it s neither false nor halved not false because it fully proves the thing for which wee brought it which was that the advancing of one to an eminency and superiority above the rest was not a divine but a humane act it was not God but man that was the authour of this imparity and doth not the place fully prove this Presbyteri unum ex se electum in excelsiori gradu collocatum Episcopum nominabant and say we any more Nor is it halved though hee saith this was done a Marco Evangelista usque ad Heraclam yet this concerned not the purpose for which the text was quoted and therefore might warrantably be omitted especially having proved before that which the Remonstrant would perswade his reader we are shie of here that Bishops were not in the Apostles times and if the leaving out a few words in a quotation not pertinent to the question be the halving of it how will the Remonstrant cleare himselfe of this sinne who citing the Councell of Laodicea p. 15. makes bold to leave out a great deale more then we did here where a most materiall passage was omitted as before we have observed Neither did we leave out a Marco Evangelista for feare it should prove that there were Bishops as earlie as the Corinthian schisme Nor did our hearts tell us that Marke died many yeeres within the Apostles time for Irenaeus tels us lib. 3. Contra Haeres that hee writ his Gospell after Peter and Pauls death That which wee quoted proves abundantly that the Presbyters both chose and placed one of the Presbytersin a higher degree by their own authority giving him both the degree and the name Doe you who brought in A Marco Evangelistâ to trouble your reader and to slander us reconcile if you can Authors about the time of his death But the last place he bringeth out of Hierom is a most rare place and may well make any man wonder with what face we can say Hiero me ever spake against Bishops and why so because Hierome saith Episcopacy is Gods owne worke where is it in Isa. 60. 17. what are the words Hierome reading that text according to the 72 translation saies Ponam inquit Principes tuos in pacem Episcopos tuos in justisiam in quo saith Hierome Scripturae sanctae admir anda Majestas quod Principes futuros Ecclesiae Episcopos nominavit quorum omnes visitatio in pace est c. herein the majesty of the Scripture is to be admired which hath named the future Princes of the Church Bishops all whose visitations are in peace Good reader consider this mighty mouth-stopping argument God hath promised the Princes of the Church shall be as Bishops Ergo Bishops in imparity are Gods owne worke good sir your Baculus in angulo take to your selfe against you walke to finde texts againe in Hierome to prove Bishops to be of divine institution The rest of your quotations out of Irenaeus Tertullian and Chrysostome they are places have beene oft alleaged and as oft answered wee will be briefe with you For if you had not lyen hid under the equivocation of the word Episcopi you might have spared your selfe and us a labour These Episcopi were Presbyteri you your selfe grant that their names were common in the daies of Linus Polycarpe and Ignatius which are the men you here cite for Bishops And therefore unlesse you can shew that they had a superiority of power over Presbyters such as ours have you doe bâ—t delude the Reader with a grosse Homonymie whom we referre to a passage in learned Iunius controv 3. lib. 2. c 5. not 18. In which he labours to remove the contradictions of Historians concerning the order of succession of the Romane Bishops Linus Clemens Anacletus c. And he saith That these or some of these were Presbyters or Bishops of Rome at the same time ruling the Church in common But the following writers fancying to themselves such Bishops as then had obtained in the Church fell into these snares of tradition because they supposed according to the custome of their owne times that there could be but one Bishop in one Church at the same time which is quite crosse to the Apostolicall times To that of Ambrose calling Iames Bishop of Ierusalem we gave a sufficient answer in our former Booke page 51. out of Doct. Raynolds and shall God willing adde more in due place Our slip as you tell us talkes of a councell No more ours then yours for your party can when hee speakes for them vouch him with much more confidence then we doe But what saith this slip he talkes of a councell as false as himselfe Why because the Nicene was the first generall Synod but yet there were provinciall Councels before And the Commentaries mentioned before doe not say it was done by a generall Councell but onely by a Councell though you by subtle coupling this Councell and Hieromes toto or be decretum erat would faine force him to this sence which toto orbe decretum est implies no Apostolicall act nor act of a generall Councell neither as we have shewed before And yet this we tell you the Nicene was the first Councell in which toto orbe decretum erat that there should be but one Bishop in a City As for Saint Austin his phrase that the originall of Episcopacy above Presbytery was onely secundum usum Ecclesiae you say it was but a modest word and it is a just wonder that we dare cite him Well let us put it to the triall Hierome having taken distate at Augustine writes two sharpe Epistles to him in both which Epistles be doth extoll Augustine ironically as a great man because hee was in pontificali culmine Constitutus advanced to Episcopall dignity and speakes of himselfe as a poore contemptible underling to which Augustine answering among other things saith thus Rogo ut me fidenter corrigas ubi mihi hoc opus esse perspexeris quanquam enim secundum honorum vocabula quae Ecclesiae usus obtinuit Episcopatus Presbyterio major est tamen in multis Augustinus Hieronymo minor This was Augustines modesty say you Well and had not Augustine beene as modest if he had left out that phrase quae Ecclesiae usus obtinuit his modesty appeares in these words tamen in multis Augustinus Hieronymo minor not in the former In the diminution of his person not of his calling S. Paul knew how to speake humbly of himselfe yet highly of his office and so might Austin and if he had known that the majority of Bishops above Presbyters had
Thyatira And he will not onely conâ—esse that though the 24. verse should faile yet the 23. would prove the same thing as effectually as the 24. but also will grant that from the coâ—â—erence it is evident that the old copies are better then that which this Remonstrant cals the better coppy of Tecla But besides this text let the Reader cast his eye upon what Christ saith to the Angell of the Church of Smyrna Revel 2. 10. feare none of those things which thou shalt suffer behold the divell shall cast some of you into prison of you in the plurall number that yee may be tryed yee in the plurall number and you in the plurall againe shall have tribulation ten daies be thou faithfull unto the death and I will give thee a Crowne of life Observe here how our Saviour Christ changeth the number Be thou faithfull And the divell shall cast some of you c. to shew unto us that the Angell is not meant of one singular person but of all the whole company of Presbyters that were in Smyrna So also Christ writing to the Angell of the Church of Pergamus saith verse 13. in the beginning of the verse I know thy workes in the singular number but in the latter end who was slaine among you in the plurall number We expect that the Remonstrant will when best at leasure bring tidings of another better coppy to avoyd the dint of these texts that doe as we thinke demonstratively prove the thing in question Our second argument is drawne from the like phrases even in this very booke of the Revelation where it is usuall to expresse a company under one singular person as the civill state of Rome as opposite to Christ is called a beast with ten hornes and the Ecclesiasticall state Antichristian is called the whore of Babylon To which you answer 1. That if it be thus in visions and Emblematicall representations must it needs be so in plaine narrations But good sir consider this very thing we are about was seene by Saint Iohn in a vision and you your selfe confesse in the next page that the word Angell is metaphoricall How then is it a plaine narration Secondly you say because it is so in one phrase of speech must it be so in all We answer that this argument was not brought to prove that the word Angell must needs be taken collectively but onely that it might be so taken and that it was the likeliest interpretation especially considering what was added out of Master Mede who was better skilled in the meaning of the Revelation then your selfe that the word Angell is commonly if not alwaies in the Revelation taken collectively Thus the seven Angels that blew the seven trumpets and the seven Angels that poured out the seven vials are not literally to be taken but Synecdochically you reply Perhaps so but then the Synecdoche lies in the seven not in the Angels and so you grant the word Angell to be metaphoricall but we are never a whit the neerer to our imagined Synecdoche But this is but a meere fallacy Let but the reader expect till we make good our fourth reason and then we shall see our imagined Synecdoche made reall For the present it is sufficient that it is the ordinary custome of the holy Ghost in the Revelation by Angell to meane Angels by seven Angels not seven individually but collectively But whether the Synecdoche be in the word seven or in the word Angel that is nothing to the purpose in hand Our third argument is drawne from the word Angell which is a common name to all the Ministers and messengers c. And surely had Christ intended to point out some one individuall person by the Angell he would have used some distinguishing name to set him out by he would have called him Rector or President or Superintendent but calling him by a name common to all Ministers why should we thinke that there should be any thing spoken to him that doth not asmuch concerne all the rest who are Angels as well as he All that you answer is that Christ knew this well enough and if he had meant it had it not beene as easie to have mentioned many as one But here wee humbly desire the Reader to consider two things 1. The unreasonablenesse of this answer we brought three reasons why Christ when he meant divers Angels spake in the singular number Angell not Angels These reasons the Remonstrant passeth over with a scorne the commonest safest surest way of answering the Remonstrant hath and yet he demands page 104. why should one be singled ouâ— above all if the interest be common And here why doth not Christ say to the Angels But let â—im first answer our Therefores and wee will quickly answer his Wherefores Secondly how justly we may retort this answer upon the Remonstrant and say If Christ had meant by the seven Angels seven Bishops how easie had it beene for him to have written to the Bishop of Ephesus as he was lately called at the Spittle by a Bishop to the Bish. of Smyrna instead of the Angell of Ephesus and the Angell of Smyrna But this Christ doth not doe and not onely so but Saint Iohn also in all his bookes makes not any mention of the name Bishop And therefore it seemeth strange to us that Episcopacy by divine right should be fetched out of his writings I but saith the Remonstrant it is written 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And therefore the denoted person must needs be singular For surely you cannot say that all the Presbyters at Ephâ—sus were one Angell Yes sir wee can say they were all one Angell collectively though not individually And we can shew you where Christ speaketh in the singular number and joyneth the Article with it also and yet meaneth Synecdochically more for one as Iohn 4. 37. Iohn 10. 11. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which must be all meant indefinitely not individually You suppose againe that if that Christ had said To the Starre of Ephesus no body would have construed it but of one eminent person But herein also you are much mistaken for the word Starre is as common a name to all Ministers as the word Angell as we have shewed in our answer The fourth argument you account ridiculous and in a proud scorne passe it over with a jeere But you will see in the conclusion you your selfe to be the ridiculum caput not we Our argument stands thus Our Saviour saith The seven Candlestickes which thou sawest are the seven Churches but he doth not say the seven starres are the seven Angels of the same Churches But the Angels of the seven Churches omitting not without mystery the number of the Angels least wee should understand by Angell one Minister alone and not a company To omit your scoffes you answer it is plaine that every Church hath his Angell mentioned and there being seven Chruches how many Angels I beseech you are there This