sentence of Saint Ambrose because saith hee Hoc Iudicium Nostrum cum fratribus consacerdotibus participatum processerit Nor was there any kinde of censures that the Bishops did administer alone Admonitions were given by the Elders Augustine tells us the Elders did admonish such as were offenders to the same purpose speakes Origen contra Celsum Lib. 3. So excommunication though that being the dreadfullest thunder of the Church and as Tertullian calls it summum praejudicium futuri Iudicij the great fore-runner of the Judgement of God was never vibrated but by the hand of those that laboured in the Word and Doctrine yet was no one man in the Church invested with this power more then another Therefore saith Hierom Presbytero si peccavero licet me tradere satanae in interitum carnis If I sinne a Presbyter not a Bishop onely may deliver me to Satan to the destruction c. where the Reader may please to take notice that Saint Hierom speakes not of one particular Presbyter but of the Order of Presbyters The same S. Hierom saith againe Sunt quos Ecclesia reprehendit quos interdum abijcit in quos nonnunquam Episcoporum Clericorum censura desaevit There be some whom the Church reprooves and some which shee casts out against whom the censures of Bishops and Presbyters sharply proceed where we see the Censures whereby wicked men were cast out of the Church were not the sole hands of the Bishops but likewise in the hands of Presbyters Syricius Bishop of Rome signifies to the Church of Mâ—llaine that Iovinianus Auxentius c. were cast out of the Church for ever and he sets downe how they did it Omnium Nostrum tam Presbyterorum quam Diaconorum quam totius etiam clerisciscitata fuit sententia There was a concurrence of all Presbyters Deacons and the whole Clergie in that sentence of Excommunication The truth herein may be further evidencâ—d by this because the whole Clergie as well as the Bishops imposed hands uâ—on such as repâ—nting were aâ—solved Nec ad communicationem saith Cyprâ—an venire quis possit nisi prius ab Episcopo Clero Manus illi fuerit imposita No man that hath beene excommunicated might returne to Church-Communion before hands had been laid upon him by the Bishop and Clergie Also writing to his Clergie concerning lapsed Christians he tells them Exomologe si facta manu eis a vobis in poenitentiam impositâ c. that after confession and the laying on their hands they might be commended unto God so when certaine returning from their heresie were to be received into the Church at Rome in the time of Cornelius they came before the Presbyterie and therefore confessed their sinnes and so were admitted But though the sentence of Excommunication was managed oneâ—y by the hand of those that laboured in the Word and Doctrine yet we will not conceale from you that neither Excommunication nor absolution did passe wâ—thout the knowledge and approbation of the body of the Church to which the Deliquent did belong So we have learned out of Tertullian that their censures were ordered in their publike assemblies and good reason because the people were to forbeare communion with such 2 Thes. 3.6 14 15. and publick Censures of the Church were inflicted not onely for the Emendation of delinquents but for the admonition of others and therefore ought to be administred in publick that others might feare 1 Tim. 5.20 Origen speaking of the Duty and Power of the Church in cutting off a scandalous Person though a Presbyter making the case his owne he saith thus In uno consensu Ecclâ—sia universa conspirans excidat me dextram suam projiciat a se He would have the consent of the whole Church in that Act. And when the lapsed Christians were received againe into the Church the Peoples consent was required therein else why should Cyprian say Vix plebi persuadeo imò extorqueo ut tales patiantur admitti I can scarce perswade the people to suffer such to be admitted and in another Epistle written to his people in his Banishment he promiseth to examine all things they being present and judging Examinabuntur singula praesentibus judicantibus vobis But of this power of the People wee shall have a further occasion to speak afterwards when we come to discourse of Governing Elders Onely may it please your Honours from hence to take notice how unjustly our Bishops have invaded this right and power of Presbyters and people in Church censures and devesting both of it have girt it wholly upon themselves and how herein they and the Bishops of former times are TWO SECT X. ANd as our Bishops and the Bishops of former times are TWO in point of Sole Iurisdiction so also in the Delegation of this power of Iurisdiction unto others to their Chancellours Commissaries Officers c. Was ever such a thing as this heard of in the best primitive Times that men that never received Imposition of hands should not onely be received into assistance but be wholly intrusted with the power of Spirituall Iurisdiction Even then when it is to be exercised over such persons as have had hands laid upon them We may observe in Cyprian whilst persecution separated him from his Church when questions did arise among his people he doth not send them to his Chancellour or Commissarie No he was so farre from suâ—stituting any man much lesse a lay man to determine or give Judgement in such cases that hee would not assume that power wholly to himselfe but suspends his Judgement till the hand of God should restore him to his Church againe that with the advice and Counsell of the Presbyters he might give sentence as may appeare to any that shall peruse his Epistles Sure if God had ever led his Church to such a way of deputation it would have been in such a case of Necessity as this was or had any footsteps of such a course as this beene visible by this holy Martyr in the goings of former ages hee needed not have deferred the determination of the question about the receiving of some penitent lapsed ones into the bosome of the Church againe till his returne and the returne of his Clergie as he doth We will instance in his 28 Epistle wherein giving direction for the excommunicating of such as would rashly communicate with lapsed Christians he gives this charge not to his Chancellor or Commissarie or any other man upon whom he had devolved his power and set him as his Deputie or Vicar generall in his absence but ad clerum to the whole Presbyterie This Truth is so cleare that Bishop Downam the great Adâ—ocate of Episcopacie confesseth that in Ambrose his time a good while after which was about 400 yeers til the Presbyters were in a manner wholly neglected the Bishops had no Ordinaries Vicars Chancellors or Commissaries that were not Clergie-men
this angell if he had a superiority had any more then a superiority of order or of gifts and parts Where is it said that this angell was a superior degree or order of Ministery above Presbyters In which Epistle it is said that this angell had sole power of Ordination and Jurisdiction and therefore as our learned Protestants prove against the Papists that when Christ directed his speech to Peter in particular and said I will give unto thee the keyes of the kingdom of Heaven c. That this particularization of Peter did not import any singular preheminence or majority of power to Peter more then to the other apostles But that though the promise was made to Peter yet it was made to him in the name of all the rest and given to all as well as one And that therefore it was spoken to one person and not to all that so Christ might fore signifie the unity of his Church as Cyprian Austin Hierome Optatus and others say So when Christ directs aâ— Epistle to one angell it doth not imply a superior power over his fellow angels but at most onely a presidency for order sake And that which is written to him is written to the rest as well as to him And therefore written to one not to exclude the rest but to denote the unity that ought to bee betweene the Ministers of the same Church in their common care and diligence to their flocke And this is all that Doctor Reynolds saith as you may reade in his conference with Hart cap. 4. divis 3. ad finem For it is evident that Doctor Reynolds was an utter enemy to the Iâ—â— Divinum of the Episcopall preheminency over Presbyters by his Letter to Sir Francis Krolls And learned Master Beza also saith something to the same purpose in his annotations upon Revel 2.1 Angelo i. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 quem nimirum oportuit imprimis de his rebus admoneri ac per eum caeteros collegas totamque adeo Ecclesiam Sed hinc statui Episcopalis ille gradus postea humanitus in Ecclesiam Dei invectus certe nec potest nec debet imo ne perpetuum quidem istud 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 munus esse necessariò oportuisse sicut exorta inde Tyrannis oligarchica cujus apex est Antichristana bestia certissima cum totius non Ecclesia modo sed etiam orbis pernicie nunc tandem declarat If therefore our Remonstrant can produce no better evidence for his Hierarchy then Timothy and Titus and the Angels of the Asian Churches Let not this Remonstrant and his party cry out of wrong if this claimed Hierarchy be for ever hooted oâ—t of the Church seeing it is his owne Option And yet we cannot coÌ„ceale one refuge more out of Scripture to which the Hierarchy betake themselves for shelter And that is the two Postscripts in the end of Pauls second Epistle to Timothy and of that to Titus where in the one Timothy is said to be the first bishop of Ephesus and in the other Titus is said to be the first Bishop of the Church of the Cretians to both which places wee answer That these two Postscripts and so all the rest are no part of Canonicall Scripture And therefore our former and ancienter English translations though they have these Postscripts yet they are put in a small character different from that of the text that all men might take notice they were no parts of the text Although our Episcopall men of late in newer impressions have inlarged their Phylacteries in putting those Postscripts in the same full character with that of the text that the simple might beleeve they are Canonicall Scripture The Papists themselves Baronius Serrarius and the Rhemists confesse that there is much falsity in them The first Epistle to Timothy is thus subscribed the first to Timothy was written from Laodicea which is the chiefest City of Phrygia Pacatiana Here we demand whether Paul when he writ the first Epistle to Timothy was assured he should live to write a second which was written long after And if not How comes it to be subscribed thâ— first to Timothy which hath relation to a second Besides the Epistle is said to be writ from Loadicea whereas Beza in his Annotations proves apparently that it was written from Macedonia to which opinion Baronius and Serrarius subscribe It is added Which is the chiefest City of Phrygia Pacatiana But this Epithete is no where read in the Writers of those ages saith Beza Sed apud recentiores illos qui Romani imperii jam inclinantis provincias descripserunt So that by this place it is evident that the subscription was added a long while after the writing of the Epistles by some men for the most part vel indoctis saith Beza vel certe non satis attentis Either by a learned or negligent man The second Epistle is thus subscribed the second Epistle unto Timothy ordeined the first Bishop of the Church of the EphesiaÌ„s was written from Rome when Paul was brought before Nero the second time Now these words Ordained the first Bishop is wanting saith Beza in quibusdam vetustis codicibus in veteri vulgatâ— editione apud Syrum interpretem If Saint Paul had written this Postscript he would not have said to Timothy the first Bishop c. whereas it was not yet certaine whether ever there should be a second Neither would it bee said when Paul was brought c. But when I was the second time brought before Nero. The Syriack Interpreter reads it Here ends the second epistle to Timothy written from Rome The Epistle to Titus is thus subscribed Written to Titus ordained first Bishop of the Church of the Cretians from Nicopolis of Macedonia Here it is said that this Epistle was written from Nicopolis whereas it is cleare that Paul was not at Nicopolis when he wrote it Tit 3.12 Be diligent to come to me to Nicopolis for I have determined there to winter He doth not say Here to winter but there Where note for the present hee was not there And besides it is said that Titus was ordained the first Bishop c. And who was the second or was there ever a second And also He is said to be Bishop not onely of a Diocesse but of all Creet Was there ever such a second Bishop Adde lastly that it is said Bishop of the Church of the Cretians Whereas it would bee said of the Churches of the Cretians For the Christian Churches of any Nation are called Churches by Luke and Paul not Church Therefore Codex Claremontanus subscribes Here ends the Epistle to Titus and no more So the Syriack Finitur Epistola ad Titum quae scripta fuit è Nicopoli The old Vulgar Edition hath nothing of the Episcopacy of Titus By all this it appeares that if the Bishops had no more authority to urge us to subscribe to their Ceremonies then they have authority for their Episcopall dignity by these
committed to and exercised by Presbyteriall hands For who are they of whom the Scripture speakes Heb. 13.17 Obey them that have the Rule over you for they watch for your soules as they that must give an account c. Here all such as watch over the soules of Gods people are intituled to rule over them So that unlesse Bishops will say that they only watch over the soules of Gods people and are only to give an account for them they cannot challenge to themselves the sole rule over them And if the Bishops can give us good security that they will acquit us from giving up our account to God for the soules of his people we will quit our plea and resigne to them the sole rule over them So againe in the 1 Thessa. 5.12 Know them which labour amongst you and are over you in the Lord and admonish you In which words are contained these truthes First that in one Church for the Thessalonians were but one Church 1 Ca. there was not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 â— but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not one chiefe Bishop or President but the Presidency was in many Secondly that this presidency was of such as laboured in the word and Doctrine Thirdly that the Censures of the Church were managed not by one but by them all in Communi Them that admonish you Fourthly that there was among them a Parity for the Apostles bids know them in an Indifferency not discriminating one from another yea such was the rule that Elders had that S. Peter thought it needfull to make an exhortation to them to use their power with Moderation not Lording it over Gods Heritage 1 Pet. 5.3 By this time we have sufficiently proved from Scripture that Bishops and Presbyters are the same in name in Office in Edifying the Church in power of Ordination and Iurisdiction we summe up all that hath beene spoken in one argument They which have the same Name the same Ordination to their Office the same qualification for their Office the same worke to feede the flock of God to ordaine pastors and Elders to Rule and Governe they are one and the same Office but such are Bishops and presbyters Ergo. SECT VI. BUt the dint of all this Scripture the Remonstrant would elude by obtruding upon his reader a commentary as he calls it of the Apostles own practise which hee would force to contradict their own rules to which he superadds the unquestioÌ„able glosse of the cleare practise of their immediate successors in this administration For the Apostles practise we have already discovered it from the Apostles own writings and for his Glosse he superadds if it corrupts not the Text we shall admit it but if it doe we must answer with Tertullian Id verum quodcunque primum id adulterum quod posterius whatsoever is first is true but that which is latter is adulterous In the examination of this Glosse to avoyd needlesse Controversie First wee take for granted by both sides that the first and best Antiquitie used the names of Bishops and Presbyters promiscuously Secondly that in processe of time some one was honoured with the name of Bishop and the rest were called Presbyters or Cleri Thirdly that this was not Nomen inane but there was some kinde of Imparitie betweene him and the rest of the Presbyters Yet in this we differ that they say this Impropriation of name and Imparity of place is of Divine Right and Apostolicall Institution we affirme both to be occasionall and of humane Invention and undertake to shew out of Antiquitie both the occasion upon which and the Persons by whom this Imparity was brought into the Church On our parts stands Ierome and Ambrose and others whom we doubt not but our Remonstrant wil grant a place among his Glossators Saint Ierome tells us in 1 Tit. Idem est ergo Presbyter qui Episcopus antequam Diaboli instinctu studia in Religione â—ierent diceretur in populis ego sum Pauli ego Apollo ego Cephae Communi Presbyterorum Consilio ecclesiae gubernabantur Postquam verò unusquisque eos quos baptizaverat suos putabat esse non Christi in toto Orbe decretum est ut unus de Presbyteris electus superponeretur caeteris ad quem omnis Ecclesiae Cura pertineret schismatum semina â—olicrentur Putat aliquts non Scripturarum sed nostram esse sentâ—ntiam Episcopum Presbyterum unum esse aliud aetatis aliud esse nomen officii relâ—gat Apostoli ad Philippenses verba dicentis Paulus Timotheus servi Iesis Christi qui sunt Philippis cum Episcopis Diaconis c. Philippi una est urbs Macedoniae certè in unâ Civitate non poterant plures esse ut nuncupantur Episcopi c. sicut ergo Presbyteri sciant se ex Ecclesiae consuetudine ei qui sibi praepositus fuerit esse subjectos Ita Episcopi noverint se magis consuetudine quam dispositionis Dominicae veritate Presbyteris esse majores in Communi debere Ecclesiam regere A Presbyter and a Bishop is the same and before there were through the Devils instinct divisions in Religion and the people began to say I am of Paul and I of Apollo and I of Cephas The Churches were governed by the Common Counsell of the Presbyters But after that each man began to account those whom hee had baptized his owne and not Christs it was decreed thorow the whole world that one of the Presbyters should be set over the rest to whom the Care of all the Church should belong that the seeds of schisme might be taken away Thinkes any that this is my opinion and not the opinion of the Scripture that a Bishop and an Elder is the same let him reade the words of the Apostle to the Philippians saying Paul and Timothy the servants of Jesus Christ to them that are at Philippi with the Bishops Deacons Philippi is one City of Macedonia and certainly in one Citie there could not be many Bishops as they are now called c. and after the allegations of many other Scriptures he concludes thus as the Elders therefore may know that they are to be subject to him that is set over them by the Custome of the Church so let the Bishops know that it is more from custome then from any true dispensation from the Lord that they are above the Presbyters and that they ought to rule the Church in common In which words of Ierome these five things present themselves to the Readers view First that Bishops and Presbyters are originally the same Idem ergo est Presbyter qui Episcopus Secondly that that Imparitie that was in his time betweene Bishops and Elders was grounded upon Ecclesiasticall Custome and not upon divine Institution Episcopi noverint c. Thirdly that this was not his private judgement but the judgement of Scripture Putat aliquis c. Fourthly that before this Prioritie was upon this occasion started
the Church was governed Communi Presbyterorum Consilio by the Counsell 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 Post quam 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 speake Inconsistencies and when he propounds it to himselfe 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 Apostolicall antiquity which yet we grant not having proved the contrary yet it appeares it was not of Apostolicall intention but of Diabolicall occasion And though the Divell 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 thinke that the Spirit of God in his Apostles was never the author of this Invention First because we reade in the Apostles dayes there were Divisions Rom 16.7 and Schismes 1 Cor. 3.3 11.18 yet the Apostle was not directed by the holy Ghost to ordâ—ine Bishops for the taking away of those Divisions Neither in the rules hee prescribes for the healing of those breaches doth hee 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 O portet 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 mainifestae 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 ensue thereupon would never ordaine that for a remedy which would not onely be ineffectuall to the cutting off of evill but become a stirrup for Antichrist to get into his â—addle For if there be a necessity of setting up one Bishop over many presbyters for preventing schismes there is as great a necessity of setting up one Archbishop over many Bishops and one patriarch over many Archbishops and one pope over all unlesse men will imagine that there is a danger of schisme only among presbyters and not among Bishops and Archbishops which is contrary to reason truth History and our own Experience And lest our adversaries should appeale from Hierome as an incompetent Judge in this case because a Presbyter and so a party we wil therefore subjoyne the judgements of other ancient Fathers who were themselves bishops The Commentaries that goe under the name of Saint Ambrose upon Ephes. 4. mention another occasion of this Discrimination or priority and that was the increase and dilatation of the Church upon occasion whereof they did ordaine rectors or Governours and other officers in the Church yet this he grants that this did differ from the former orders of the Church and from apostolicall Writ And this Rectorship or Priority was devolved at first from one Elder to another by Succession when hee who was in the place was removed the next in order among the Elders Succeeded But this was afterwards changed and that unworthy men might not bee preferred it was made a matter of election and not a matter of Succession Thus much we finde concerning the occasion of this imparity enough to shew it is not of Divine Authority For the second thing the persons who brought in this Imparity the same Authours tells us the Presbyters themselves brought it in witnesse Hierome ad Evag. Alexandriae Presbyteri unum ex se electum in Excelsiori gradu collocatum Episcopum nominabant quomodo si exercitus Imperatorem faceret aut Diaconi de se Archidiaconum The Presbyters of Alexandria did call him their Bishop whom they had chosen from among themselves and placed in a higher degree as if an army should make an Emperour or the Deacons an Archdeacon Ambrose upon the fourth of the Ephesians tells us it was done by a Councell and although he neither name the Time nor place of the Councell yet ascribing it to a Councell hee grants it not to be Apostolicall this gave occasion to others to fixe it upon Custome as Hieronym in Tit. and August Epist. 19. secundùm honorum vocabula quae Ecclesiae usus obtinuit Episcopatus Presbyterio major est And had that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Prelacie had the Seale and confirmation of Divine or Apostolicall Authority Gregory Nazianzene would never in such a Patheticke manner have wished the Abolition of it as hee doth in his 28. Oration And now where is that acknowledgement and conveyance of Imparitie and Iurisdiction which saith this Remonstrant was derived from the Apostles hands and deduced in an uninterrupted line unto this day where is it we find no such Imparity delivered from Apostolicall hands nor acknowledged in Apostolicall writings yet had there beene such an acknowledgement and conveyance of imparity how this should have beene deduced to us in an uninterrupted Line wee know not unlesse our Bishops will draw the Line of their Pedigree through the loynes of Antichrist and joyne issue and mingle blood with Rome which it seemes they will rather doe then lose this plea for their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 their tyrannicall prerogative as Nazianzen calls it Suffer us therefore humbly to appeale to your Honours whether this Remonstrant hath not given sentence against himselfe who is so confident of the Evidence of his cause that he doth not feare to say if there can be better Evidence under Heaven for any matter of fact then there is for his Episcopacy Let EPISCOPACY BEFOR EVER ABANDONED OVT OF THE CHVRCH OF GOD. SECT VII YEt it seemes himselfe in the height of his confidence was not without Jelousies of some thing might be spoken against his Cause therefore he seemes to heare what is spoken against it That the Apostles Bishops and ours are two there was no other then a Parochiall Pastor a Preaching Presbyter without
but this is but a blind wherewith the Bishop would Dorre his Reader for wee challenge any man to produce the names of any Clergie-man that was Vicar to Ambrose or Chancellour to Augustine or any other of the Bishops of these times so that herein our Bishops and theirs are TWO SECT XI A Third branch wherein the difference betweene our Bishops and the Bishops of former times inpoint of Exercising their Jurisdiction is visible is the way or manner of exercising that power For brevities sake we will onely instance in their proceedings in Causes Criminall where let them tell us whether any good Antiquity can yeeld them one President for THEIR OATH EX OFFICIO which hath been to their COURTS as Purgatory fire to the Popes Kitchin they have forgotten that old Maxime in the Civill Law Nemo tenetur prodere seipsum which as it is grounded upon naturall equity so it is confirmed by a Law enacted by Dioclesian and Maximilian Nimis grave est quod petitis c. It is too grievous that the adverse part should be required to the exhibition of such things as should create trouble to themselves Vnderstand therefore that you ought to bring proofes of your intentions and not to extort them from your adversaries against themselves Shall the Lamp of Nature in the night of Ethnicisme enable Heathen Princes yea Persecutors to see and enact thus much and shall not the glorious Sunne of the Gospell convince these of their iniquities in transgressing this Law that call themselves the Fathers of the Church If neither the light of Nature nor Gospell light can yet the Custome of the Church to which they so oft appeale may both convince them of this iniquitie and discover to all the world the contrarietie of their proceedings to the proceedings of former times in this particular For of Old both the Plaintiffe and Defendant were brought face to face before the parties in whose power it was to judge which way of proceeding Athanasius affirmes to be according to Scripture the Law of God And because those that condemned Macarius did not thus proceed he condemnes their Sentence as malicious and unjust Of old no Sentence passed against any man but upon the Testimony of other witnesses besides the Accusers after Complaint exhibited the first thing they applyed themselves to was to consider the person and qualitâ—e of the Accuser Concilâ— prim Constant. Can. 6 Then they heard the Witnesses who were two at least Can. Apost Can. 75. And these witnesses must be such as might not be imagined to be partiall nor to beare enmity nor malice against the party accused Ambros. Epist. 64. so Gratian Caus. 3. quae 5. cap. Quod suspecti Of old None might be party witnesse and Iudge which Gratian proves at large Caus. 4. qu 4. cap. Nullus unquam praesumat accusator simul esse Iudex testis We grant indeed the Canon Law permits in some cases Tryall without witnesses Si crimen ita publicum est ut meritò debeat appellari notorium If the crime be so publique that it may deservedly be called Notorious Which Law further determines what is notorious saâ—ing Offensam illam nos intelligimus manifestam quae vel per confessionem vel probationem legitime nota fuerit aut evidentiâ Rei quae nulla possit tergiversatione celari We count that offence manifest which either by confession or by lawfull proofe comes to be knowne or by evidence of fact so as it can be hid by no tergiversations So that all was done in former times with mature deliberation upon examination and evidence produced and proved by such witnesses as against whom the dâ—fendant could lay in no just exception And not as now an accusation whispered against a man he knowes not by whom to which he must take his Oath to answer before he knowes what his accusation is Which Oath if he takes without further witnesse he is censured upon the witnesâ—e of his owne Oath If he takes it not he is sent presently to prison there to lie without Bayle or Mainprize till the insupportable miseries of his long durance compel him to take an Oath against Nature Scripture Conscience and the just Defence of his owne innocencie That our Bishops therefore and former Bishops are Two in the point of executing their Judicatory power we need spend no more time to prove But come to the third thing in which the difference betweene ours and former Bishops is to be evidenced SECT XII ANd that is State Imployment or attendance upon Civill and Secular affaires c. which both Christ and Saint Paul prohibits which prohibition reacheth every Bishop to speake in Chrysostomes words as well as Timothy to whom it is directed Nullus ergo Episcopatu praeditus haec audire detrectet sed agere ea omnia detrectet Let no man that is a Bishop refuse to heare what the Apostle saith but to doe what the Apostle forbids We deny not but that Bishops were in the Primitive times often incumbred with secular businesse but these were put upon them sometimes by Emperours who sought the ruine of the Church as Iulian of whom Niceph lib. 10. cap. 13. doth report that in Clerum coaptatos Senatorum munere ministerio perversè fungi jussit Sometimes the gracious disposition of Princes towards Christian Religion made them thus to honour Bishops thinking thereby to advance Religion as Constantine the Great enacted that such as were to be tryed before Civill Magisâ—rates might have leave to appeale ad Iudicium Episcoporum atque eorum sententiani ratam esse tanquam ab ipso Imperatore prolatam And this the Historian reckoneth as one argument of his reverend respect to Religion Sometimes the excellency of their singular parts cast Civill dignities upon them Tiberius granted a Questors dignitie unto a Bishop for his eloquence Chrysostome for his notable stoutnesse and freedome of speech was sent as the fittest man to Gainas with the Emperours command Sometimes the people observing the Bishops to be much honoured by the Emperour would sollicite them to present their grievances to the Emperour And sometimes the aspiring humour of the Bishops raised them to such places as appeares by Cyrill who was the first Bishop in Alexandria who had civill dignities conferred upon him as Socrates relates it from whom Civill authority did descend upon succeeding Bishops 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of whom Nicephorus therefore recorded Episcopatum majoricum fastu prophanorum Magistratuum more quam praedecessores ejus Episcopi ingressus est unde adeo initium sumptum est in Ecclesia Alexandrina ut Episcopietiam profana negotia curarent He entred upon his Episcopacie with more pomp then his predecessors with a pomp conformable to the Heathen Magistrates Both these Historians relate the sad consequence that followed upon this that Orestes the Roman Governour seeing his power much weakned by the Bishops interposing in secular affaires
Pauls presence and in the presence of the Elders The cleare evidence of which text demonstrates that Paul did not leave Timothy at this time as Bishop of Ephesus But it is rather evident that hee tooke him along with him in his journey to Hiâ—rusalem and so to Rome for wee finde that those Epistles Paul wrote while hee was a prisoner beare either in their inscription or some other passage of them the name of Timothy as Pauls companion viz. The Epistle to the Philippians Colossians Hebreâ—es Philemon which Epistles he wrote in bonds as the contexture which those two learned professors the one at Heydelberge the other at Saulmur make of Saint Pauls Epistles doth declare So that it appeares that Timothy was no Bishop but a Minister an Evangelist a fellow labourer of the Apostles 1 Thess. 3.1 an Apostle a Messenger of the Church 2. Cor. 8.3 a Minister of God 1 Thess. 3.2 these titles the Holy Ghost gives him but never the title of a Bishop The like we find in Scripture concerning Titus whom Paul as it is conceived by learned men did first assume into the fellowship of his Labours in the place of Iohn and made him his companion in his journey through Antioch to Herusalem so we find Gal. 2.1 from thence returning to Antioch againe from thence hee passed through Syria and Cilicia confirming the Churches from Cilicia he passed to Creet where having Preached the Gospell and planted Churches he left Titus there for a while to set in order things that remaine Yet it was but for a while he left him there for in his Epistle which he wrote to him not many yeares after hee injoynes him to come to him to Nicopolis where he did intend to winter but changing that purpose sends for him to Ephesus where it seemes his Hyemall station was and from thence sends him before him to Corinth to enquire the state of the Corinthians His returne from thence Paul expects at Troas and because comming thither he found not his expectation there he was so grieved in his spirit 2 Cor. 2.12 that hee passed presently from thenâ—e into Macedonia where Titus met him and in the midst of his afflictions joyed his spirits with the glad tydings of the powerfull and gracious effects his first Epistle had among the Corinthians 2 Cor. 7 5 6 7. Paul having there collected the Liberalities of the Saints sends Titus againe to the Corinthians to prepare them for the same service of Ministring to the necessities of the Saints 2 Cor. 8.6 And makes him with some others the Conveyers of that second Epistle to the Corinthians All these journeyes to and fro did Titus make at the designement of the Apostle even after hee was left in Creet Nor doe we finde that after his first removall from Creet he did ever returne thither Wee reade indeed 2 Tim. 4.10 hee was with Paul at Rome and from thence returned not to Creet but into Dalmatia All which doth more then probably shew it never was the Intendment of the Apostle to six Titus in Creet as a Bishop but onely to leave him there for a season for the good of that Church and to call him from thence and send him abroad to other Churches for their good as their necessities might require Now who that will acknowledge a Distinction betweene the Offices of Bishops and Evangelists and knowes wherein that Distinction lyes will not upon these premisses conclude that Timothy and Titus were Evangelists and NOT Bishops I but some of the Fathers have called Timothy and Titus Bishops We grant it true and it is as true that some of the Fathers have called them Archbishops and Patriarks yet it doth not follow they were so Wee adde secondly that when the Fathers did call them so it was not in a proper but in an improper sense which we expresse in the words of our Learned Orthodox Raynolds You may learne by the Fathers themselves saith hee that when they tearmed any Apostle a Bishop of thiâ— or that City as namely Saint Peter of Antioch or Rome they meant it in a generall sort and signification because they did attend that Church for a time and supply that roome in preaching the Gospell which Bishops did after but as the name of Bishop is commonly taken for the Overseer of a particular Church and Pastor of a severall flocke so Peter was not Bishop of any one place therefore not of Rome And this is true by Analogy of all extraordinary Bishops and the same may be said of Timothy and Titus that he saith of Peter But were it true that Timothy and Titus were Bishops will this remonstrant undertake that all his party shall stand to his Conditions If our Bishops challenge any other power then was by Apostolique Authority delegated to and required of Timothy and Titus and the Angells of the seaven Asian Churches let them be disclaimed as usurpers Will our Bishops indeed stand to this then actum est Did ever Apostolique authority delegate power to Timothy or Titus to ordaine alone to governe alone and doe not our Bishops challenge that power Did ever Apostolique authority delegate power to Timothy and Titus to rebuke an Elder no but to entreate him as a Father and doe not our Bishops challenge to themselvesâ— and permit to their Chancellours Commissaries and Officialls power not only to rebuke an Elder but to rayle upon an Elder to reproach him with the most opprobrious tearmes of foole knave jack-sauce c. which our paper blushes to present to your Honours view Did ever Apostolique authority delegate to Timothy and Titus power to receave an accusation against an Elder but before two or three witnesses and doe not our Bishops challenge power to proceed Ex officio and make Elders their owne Accusers Did ever Apostolique authority delegate power to Timothy or Titus to reject any after twice admonition but an Heretick and doe not our Bishops challenge power to reject and eject the most sound and orthodox of our Ministers for refusing the use of a Ceremony as if Non-conformity were Heresie So that either our Bishops must disclaime this remonstrance or else themselves must be disclaimed as usurpers But if Timothy and Titus were no Bishops or had not this power it may bee the Angells of the seven Asian Churches had and our Remonstrant is so subtile as to twist these two together that if one fayle the other may hold To which we answer first that Angell in those Epistles is put Collectively not Individually as appeares by the Epistle to Thyatira cap. 2. vers 24. where wee reade 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. But I say unto you in the plurall number not unto thee in the singular and unto the rest in Thyatira c. Here is a plaine distinction betweene the members of that Church By you is signified those to whom hee spake under the name of the Angell By
firebrand to the civill warres that followed In this time Peckam Archbishop of Can. in a Synod was tempering with the Kings liberties but being threatned desisted But his successor Winchelsey on occasion of Subsidies demanded of the Clergie made answer That having two Lords one Spirituall the other Temporall he ought rather to obey the Spirituall governour the Pope but that he would send to the Pope to know his pleasure and so persisted even to beggerie The Bishop of Durham also cited by the King flies to Rome In the deposing of this King who more forward then the Bishop of Hereford witnesse his Sermon at Oxford My head my head aketh concluding that an aking and sick head of a King was to be taken off without further Physick Iohn the Archbishop of Canterbury suspected to hinder the Kings glorious victories in Flanders and France by stopping the conâ—eyance of moneys committed to his charge conspiring therein with the Pope But not long after was constituted that fatall praemunire which was the first nipping of their courage to seeke aide at Rome And next to that the wide wounds that Wickleffe made in their sides From which time they have beene falling and thenceforth all the smoke that they could vomit was turned against the rising light of pure doctrine Yet could not their pride misse occasion to set other mischief on foot For the Citizens of London rising to apprehend a riotous servant of the Bishop of Salisbury then Lord Treasurer who with his fellowes stood on his guard in the Bishops house were by the Bishop who maintained the riot of his servant so complained of that the King therewith seized on their liberties and set a Governour over the Citie And who knowes not that Thomas Arundell Archbishop of Canterbury was a chiefe instrument and agent in deposing King Richard as his actions and Sermon well declares The like intended the Abbot of Westminster to Henry the fourth who for no other reason but because hee suspected that the King did not favour the wealth of the Church drew into a most horrible conspiracie the Earles of Kent Rutland and Salisbury to kill the King in a turnament at Oxford who yet notwithstanding was a man that professed to leave the Church in better state then hee found it For all this soone after is Richard Scroop Archbishop of York in the field against him the chiefe attractor of the rebellious party In these times Thomas Arundell a great persecutor of the Gospel preached by Wifclefs followers dies a fearefull death his tongue so swelling within his mouth that hee must of necessity starve His successor Chickeley nothing milder diverts the King that was looking too neerely into the superfluous revenewes of the Church to a bloody warre All the famous conquests which Henry the fifth had made in France were lost by a civill dissension in England which sprung first from the haughty pride of Beaufort Bishop and Cardinall of Winchester and the Archbishop of York against the Protector Speed 674. In the civill warres the Archbishop sides with the Earle of Warwick and March in Kent Speed 682. Edward the fourth Mountacute Archbishop of Yorke one of the chiefe conspirators with Warwicke against Edward the fourth and afterwards his Jaylor being by Warwickes treason committed to this Bishop In Edward the fifths time the Archbishop of York was though perhaps unwittingly yet by a certaine fate of of Prelacie the unhappy instrument of pulling the young Duke of Yorke out of Sanctuary into his cruell Unckles hands Things being setled in such a peace as after the bloodie brawles was to the afâ—licted Realme howsoever acceptable though not such as might bee wished Morton Bishop of Ely enticing the Duke of Buckingham to take the Crowne which ruin'd him opened the vaines of the poore subjects to bleede afresh The intollerable pride extortion bribery luxurie of Wolsey Archbishop of Yorke who can bee ignorant of selling dispensations by his power Legantine for all offences insulting over the Dukes and Peeres of whom some hee brought to destruction by bloodie policie playing with State affâ—ires according to his humour or benefit causing Turnay 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 hee sold the honour and peace of England at what rates hee pleased and other crimes to bee seene in the Articles against him Hol. 912. and against all the Bishops in generallâ— 911. which when the Parliament sought to remedie being most excessive extortion in the Ecclesiasticall Courts the Bishops cry out sacriledge the Church goes to ruine as it did in Bohem with the Schisme of the Hussites Ibid. After this though the Bishops ceased to bee 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 yet they agreed to the suppressing of Monasteries leaving their revenewes to the King to make way for the six bloodie Articles which proceedings with all crueltie of inquisition are set downe Holinsh. pag. 946. till they were repealed the second of Edward the sixth stopping in the meane while the cause of reformation well begunne by the Lord Cromwell And this mischiefe was wrought by Steven Gardiner Bishop of Winchester The sixe Articles are set downe in Speed pag. 792. The Archbishop of Saint Andrewes his hindring of Englands and Scotlands Union for feare of reformation Speed 794. As for the dayes of King Edward the sixth we cannot but acknowledge to the glorie of the rich mercie of God tâ—at there was a great reformation of Religion made even to admiration And yet notwithstanding we doe much dislike the humour of those that crie up those dayes as a compleat patterne of reformation and that endeavour to reduce our Religion to the first times of King Edward which wee 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 Lincolne and Yorkeshire for that reformation which Cromwell had made The other two in King Edwards dayes One in Cornewall the other in Yorkeshire The strife that arose suddenly amongst the Peeres emulating one anothers honour Speed pag 837. The violent opposition of the Popish Bishops which made Martin Bucer write to King Edward in his booke de Regno Christi Lib. 2. cap. 1. and say your Majestie doth see that this restoring againe the Kingdome of Christ which wee require yea which the salvation of us all requireth may in no wise bee expected to come from the Bishops seeing there be so few among them which doe understand the power and proper Offices of this Kingdome and very many of them by all meanes