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 â—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 â—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 â—uâ—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 â—hrist though Modum nesciunt as makes the place of its Administration the throne of God the place of the Residence â—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-day for feare of Iudaizing Whereas the word Sabbath is
kinde of creatures they were and say Nature had forgot her self and brought forth a monster so if these holy Martyrs that once so reverently used the Liturgy should revive and look for their Letany stampt by Authority of Parliament they would be amazed and wondering say England had forgotten her self and brought forth c. Martyrs what doe we speak of Martyrs when we know Sir that one of your own Bishops said it in the hearing of many not so long since but you may well remember it That the Service of the Church of England was now so drest that if the Pope should come and see it he would claime it as his own but that it is in English It is little then to the advantage of your cause that you tell us it is translated into other languages and as little service have they done to the Church of England who have taught our Prayers to speak Latine again For if it be their Language chiefly that overthrows the Popes claime take away that and what hinders then but the Pope may say these are mine As for other Translations and the great applause it hath obtained from forraigne Divines which are the fumes this Remonstrant venditates what late dayes have produced we know not but the great lights of Former ages have been farre from this applauding we are sure judicious Calvin saith that in the Liturgy there are sundry Tolerabiles Ineptiae which we think is no very great applause To vindicate this Liturgy from scorne as he calls it at home or by your Honours aide to reinforce it upon the Nation is the work of his Remonstrance for the effecting whereof he falls into an unparallell'd discourse about the Antiquity of Liturgies we call it unparalleld because no man that we have seen ever drew the line of Liturgy so high as he hath done Concerning which if by Liturgy this Remonstrant understand an Order observed in Church assemblies of Praying reading and expounding the Scriptures Administring Sacraments c Such a Liturgy we know and doe acknowledge both Iews and Christians have used But if by Liturgy he understand prescribed and stinted formes of Administration Composed by some particular men in the Church and imposed upon all the rest as this he must understand or else all he saith is nothing we desire and expect that those formes which he saith are yet extant and ready to be produced might once appeare Liturgy of this former sort we finde in Iustine Martyr and Tertullian But that there were not such stinted Liturgies as this Remonstrant disputes for appeares by Tertullian in his Apol. Cap. 30. where he saith the Christians of those times did in their publike assemblies pray sinâ— monitore quia de pectore without any Prompter but their own hearts And that so it should be the same Father proves in his Treatise de Oratione Sunt quae petantar c. There are some things to be asked according to the occasions of every man the lawfull and ordinary prayer that is the Lords prayer being laid as a foundation It is lawfull to build upon that foundation other prayers according to every ones occasions And to the same purpose St. Austin in his 121. Ep. liberum est c. it is free to aske the same things that are desired in the Lords Prayer aliis atque aliis verbis sometimes one way and sometimes another And before this in that famous place of Iust. Mar. Apo. 2. He who instructed the peeple prayed according to his ability Nor was this liberty in prayer taken away and set and imposed formes introduced untill the time that the Arian and Pelagian Heresies did invade the Church and then because those Hereticks did convey and spread their poyson in their formes of Prayer and Hymnes the Church thought it convenient to restraine the liberty of making and using publique forms And first it ordained that none should pray pro Arbitrio sed semper eaedem preces that none should use liberty to vary in prayer but use alwaies the same forme Conc. Laod. Can. 18. yet this was a forme of his own composing as appears by another Canon wherein it was ordered thus None should use any forme unlesse he had first conferred Cum fratribus instructioribus with the more learned of his brethren Conc. Carth. 3â— Can. 23. and lastly that none should use set prayers but such as were approved of in a Synode which was not determined till the yeare 416. Conc. Milev 2. Can. 12. And had there been any Liturgies of Times of the first and most venerable antiquity producible the great admirers of them and enquirers after them would have presented them to the world ere this We know that Bishop Andrewes in his zeale for Liturgies pursued the enquiry after the Iewish Liturgy so far that he thought he had found it and one there was which he sent to Cambridge to be translated but there it was soon discovered to have been made long after the Jewes ceased to be the Church of God and so himself supprest it that it never saw the light under a translation We wonder therefore what this Remonstrant meant to affirm so confidently that part of the forme of prayer which was composed by our blessed Saviour was borrowed from the formes of prayer formerly used by Gods people An opinion we never met before indeed we have read that the Rabbines since the dayes of our Saviour have borrowed some expressions from that Prayer and from other Evangelical passages But we never read till now that the Lord Christ the wisdome of the Father borrowed from the Wisdome of the Rabines expressions to use in Prayer And as much we wonder by what Revelation or Tradition Scripture being silent in the thing he knew that Peter and Iohn when they went up to the Temple to pray their Prayer was not of a sudden and extemporary conception but of a Regular prescription Sure we are some as well read in Iewish antiquity as this Remonstrant shewes himself to be have told us that the houre of Prayer was the time when the Priest burnt Incense and the people were at their private prayers without as appeares Luke 1.9 where we read that while Zachary the Priest went in to offer Incense all the people stood with out praying in the time of the Oblation Which Prayers were so far from being Prescript Formes or Liturgies that they were not vocal but mental Prayers as Master Meade tells us in his exposition upon the eighth of the Revelations And whatever Peter and Iohn did this we know that when the Publican and the Pharisee went up to the Temple to pray as the Apostle did at the houre of prayer their prayer was not of Regular prescription but of a present Conception But if this Remonstrant be in the right concerning the Jewish Liturgies then the Evangelical Church might better have improved her peace and happinesse then in composing Models of
Truth and not Custome and Custome withou Truth is a mouldy error and as Sir Francis Bacon saith Antiquity without Truth is a Cypher without a Figure Yet had this Remonstrant been as well versed in Antiquity as he would bear the world in hand he hath he might have found Learned Ancients affirming there was a Time when the Church was not governed by Bishops but by Presbyters And when by Bishops he might further have seen more affinity between our Bishops and the Pope of Rome then between the Primitive Bishops and them And that as King Iames of famous memory said of the Religion of England that it differed no more from Rome then Rome did from what it was at first may as truly be said of Bishops that we differ no more from them then they do from what Bishops were when first they were raised unto this eminency which difference we shall shew in our ensuing Discourse to be so great that as he said of Rome he did Roman in Roma quaerere he sought Rome in Rome so wee Episcopatum in Episcopatu may go seek for a Bishop among all our Bishops And whereas in his application of this Argument to the Bishops of this Nation he saith It hath continued in this Island ever since the first plantation of the Gospel without contradiction which is his Second in this Argument How false this is we have declared already and we all know and himselfe cannot but know that there is no one thing since the râ—formation that hath met with so much Contradiction as Episcopacy hath done witness the several Books written in the Reigns of our several Princes and the many Petitions exhibited to our several Parliaments and the many speeches made therein againg Episcopal Government many of which are yet extant As for that supply of Accessory strength which he begs to this Argument from the light of nature and the rules of just policy which saith he teacheth us not easily to give way to the change of those things which long use and many Laws have firmly established as Necessary and Beneficial it is evident that those things which to former Ages have seemed Necessary and Beneficial may to succeeding Generations prove not Necessary but Noxious not Beneficial but Burthensome And then the same light of nature and the same just policy that did at the first command the establishment of them may and will perswade their Abolishment if not either our Parliaments must never Repeale any of their former Acts which yet they have justly and wisely done or else in so doing must run Counter to the light of nature and the Rules of just policy which to think were an impiety to be punished by the Judge SECT V. THe Second Argument for the defence of Episcopal Government is from the Pedigree of this holy Calling which he derives from no less then an Apostolical and in that right divine institution and assayes to prove it from the practice of the Apostles and as he saith the clear practice of their Successors continued i' Christs Church to this very day And to this Argument he so much confides that he concludes it with this Triumphant Epiphonema What scruple can remain in any ingenuous heart And determins if any continue yet unsatisfied it is in despight of reason and all evidence of History and because he wilfully shuts his eyes with a purpose not to see the light Bona verba By your favour Sir we will tell you notwithstanding the supposed strength of your argumentation there is one scruple yet remaining and if you would know upon what ground it is this because we find in Scripture which by your own confession is Oâ—iginal Authority that Bishops and Presbyters were Originally the same though afterwards they came to be distinguished and in process of time Episcopacy did swallow up all the honor and power of the Presbytery as Pharaoh's lean Kine did the fat Their Identity is discernable first from the same names given unto both secondly from the same office designed unto both in Scripture As for the names are not the same names given unto both in Sacred Writ Let the fifth sixth and seventh verses of the first Chapter to Titus testifie in the fifth verse the Apostle shews that he left Titus in Creet to ordain Elders in every City in the sixth verse he gives a delineation of the persons that are capable of such Ordination and in the seventh the Reason why the person to be ordained must be so qualified for a Bishop c. Now if the Bishop and Elder be not here the same but names of distinct office and order the Apostles reason rendred in the seventh verse of his direction in the fifth and sixth verses is with reverence be it spoken inconsequential and his demand unjust If a Chancellor in one of the Universities should give order to his Vice-Chancellor to admit none to the degree of Batchelour in Arts but such as were able to preach or keep a Divinity Act For Batchelours in Divinity must be so what reason or equity were in this So if Paul leaving Titus as his Lecum tenens as it were in Creet for a season should give order to him not to admit any to be an Elder but one thus and thus qualified because a Bishop must be so had a Bishop been an Order or Calling distinct from or superior to a Presbyteâ— and not the same this had been no more rational or equal then the former therefore under the name of Bishop in the seventh verse the Apostle intends the Elder mentioned in the fifth verse Consonant to this is the Language of the same Apostle Acts. 20. v. 17.18 where such as in 17. verse he calls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Elders in the 18. he calls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in ordinary English Bishops though our Translation there we know not for what reason reads it Overseers not so rendring the word in any other Text. And though this Remonstrant undertakes to shew a clear and received distinction of Bishops Presbyters Deacons as three distinct subordinate Callings in Gods Church with an evident specification of the duty charge belonging to each of them or else let this claimed Hierarchy be for ever hooted out of the Church Yet let us tell him that we never find in Scripture these three Orders Bishops Presbyters and Deacons mentioned together but onely Bishops and Deacons as Phil. 1. and 1. Tim. Nor do we find in Scripture any Ordination to the office of a Bishop differing from the Ordination of an Elder Nor do we find in Scripture the specification of any Duty charged upon a Bishop that Elders are secluded from Nor any qualification required in a Bishop that is not requisite in every Presbyter some of whâ—ch if not all would be found were they not the same But if this Remonstrant think to help himselfe by taking Sanctuary in Antiquity though we would gladly rest in Scripture the Sanctuary of
the Lord yet we will follow him thither and there shew him that Hierome from the Scriptures proves more then once Presbyters and Bishops to be the same And Chrysostome in Philip. 1. Homil. 2. with his admirer Theophilact in Philip. 1. affirms that while the Apostles lived the names of Bishops and Presbyters were not distinguished and not onely while the Apostles lived but in after ages Doth not Irenaeus use the name of Bishops and Presbyters 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in a promiscuous sense Are not Anicetus Pius Hyginus Telesphorus Sixtus whom the Papists call Bishops and the Popes predecessors termed by Eusebius Presbyters Nor was it strange in the Primitive times to hear Bishops called Presbyters when Presbyters writing to their Bishop have called him Frater So Cyprian Epist. 26. in the beginning is stiled by his Presbyters Deacons and Confessors nor was that holy Martyr offended with that title nor they condemned of insolency that used it But what should we burthen your patience with more testimonies when the evidence of this truth hath shined with so strong a beam that even our Adversaries have stooped to it and confessed that their Names were the same in the Apostles time But yet say they the Offices were distinct Now here we would gladly know what these men make the distinct Office of a Bishop Is it to edifie the Church by Word and Sacrament is it to ordain others to that work is it to rule to govern by admonition and other censures if any of these if all these make up the proper worke of a Bishop we can prove from Scripture that all these belong unto the Presbytery which is no more then was granted by a Councel For the first Edifying of the Church by word and Sacraments though we feare they will some of them at least scarce own this as their proper worke for some have been cited into the High Commissision for saying it belongs to them yet Sir we are sure Scripture makes it a part a chiefe of the Episcopal office for so in the 1 Pet. 5.2 they are said to doe the work of a Bishop when they do feed the flock of God And this is such a work as we hope their Lordships will give the poor Presbyters leave to share with them in or if not we will tell them that the Apostle Peter in that forecited place and the Apostle Paul Acts. 20. binds this work upon our hands and Woe unto us if we preach not the Gospel But this branch of Episcopal and Presbyterial office we passe with brevity because in this there lies not so much controversie as in the next which they doe more wholly Impropriate to themselves the power of Ordination Which power that it was in former times in the hands of Presbyters appeares 1 Tim. 4.14 Neglect not the gift which was given thee by Prophesie and by the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery The gift here spoken of is the Ministerial gift the exercise whereof the Apostle exhorts Timothy not to neglect which saith he he had received not by the laying on of the hands of one single man whether Apostle or Bishop or Presbyter but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Presbytery that is the whole company of Presbyters for in that sense onely we finde 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 taken in Scripture as in Luke 22. vers 66. Act. 22. vers 5. which the Christian Church called the Ecclesiastical Senate as Ierom in Isay 3. Nos habemus in Ecclesia Senatum nostrum Coetum Presbyterorum an Apostolical Senate 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ignatius Epis ad Magnes and some times 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Concil Ancyr Can. 18. And though the Apostle in his second Epistle to Tim. 1.6 makes mention of the laying on of his hands yet to maintaine the Harmony of Scripture it must not be denied but there was imposition of hands by the Presbytery as wel as by himself and so it was a joynt act So that in this there is no more difference then in the former And if there be no difference between Presbyters in feeding or ordaining let us see if there be any in the third part of their office of Ruling which though our Bishops assume wholly to themselves yet we shall discover that it hath been 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 souls of Gods people are intituled to rule over them So that unlesse Bishops will say that they onâ—ly watch over the souls 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 Bishopâ— can give us good security that they will acquit us from giving up our account to God for the souls of his people we will quit our plea and resigne to them the sole rule over thâ—m 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 Thessalonions were but one Church 1 Ca. there was not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 Apostle bids know them in an indifferency not discriminating one from another yea such was the rule that Elders had that S. Peter thought it needful 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 Jurisdiction we sum up all that hath been 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 feed 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 he would force to contradict their own rules to which he superadds the unquestionable glosse of the cleare practise of their immediate successors in this administration For the Apostles practice 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 we take for granted by both sides that the first and best Antiquity used the names of Bishops and Presbyters promiscuously Secondly that in processe of time some one was honoured with the name of Bishop and the rest were called Presbyters or Cleri Thirdly that this was not Nomen inane but there was some kinde of Imparity between him and the rest of the Presbyters Yet in this we differ that they say this Impropriation of name and Imparity of place is of Divine Right and Apostolical Institution we affirme both to be occasional and of humane Invention and undertake to shew out of Antiquity both the occasion upon which and â—he Persons by whom this Imparity was brought into the Church On our parts stands Ierome and Ambrose and others whom we doubt not but our Remonstrant will grant a place among his Glossators Saint Ierome tells us in 1 Tit. Idem est ergo Presbytâ—r qui Episcopus antequam Diaboli instinctu studia in Religione fierent diceretur in populis eco sum Pauli ego Apollo ego Cephae Communi PresbyteroruÌ„ Consilio ecclesiae gubernabantur Postquam vero unusquisque eos quos bapâ—izaverat suos putabat esse non Christi in toto Orbe decretum est ut unus de Presbyteris electus superponeretur caeteris ad quem omnis Ecclesiae Cura pertineret schismatum semina tollerentur Putat aliquis non Scripturarum sed nostram esse sententiam Episcopum Presbyterum unum esse aliud aetatis aliud esse nomen ofâ—icâ—i relegat Apostoli ad Philippenses verba dicentis Paulus Timothaeus servi Iesu Christi qui sunt Philippis cum Episcopis Diaconis c. Philippi una est urbs Macedoniae certè in una Civitate non poterant plures esse ut nuncupantur Episcopi c. sicut ergo Presbyteri sciant se ex Ecclesiae consuetudine ei qui sibi praepositus fuerit esse subjectos Ita Episcopi noverint se magis consuetudine quam dispositionis Dominicae veritate Presbyteris esse majores in Communi debere Ecclesiam regere A Presbyter and a Bishop is the same and before there were through the Devils instinct divisions in Religion and the people began to say I am of Paul and I of Apollo and I oâ— Cephas the Churches were governed by the Common-councell of the Presbyters But after that each man began to account those whom he had baptized his own and not Christs it was decreed thorow the whole world that one of the Presbyters should be set over the rest to whom the care of all the Church should belong that the seeds of schisme might be taken away Thinks any that this is my opinion and not the opinion of the Scripture that a Bishop and an Elder is the same let him read the words of the Apostle to the Philippians saying Paul and Timothy the servants of Jesus Christ to them that are at Philippi with the Bishops and Deacons Philippi is one city of Macedonia and certainly in one city there could not be many Bishops as they are now called c. and after the allegations of many other Scriptures he concludes thus as the Elders therefore may know that they are to be subject to him that is set over them by the custome of the Church so let the Bishops know that it is more from custome then from any true dispensation from the Lord that they are above the Presbyters that they ought to rule the Church in common In which words of Ierome these five things present themselves to the Readers view First that Bishops and Presbyters are originally the same Idem ergo est Presbyter qui Episcopus Secondly that that Imparity that was in his time between Bishops and Elders was grounded upon Ecclesiastical custome and not upon devine Institution Episcopi noverint c. Thirdly that this was not his private judgement but the judgement of Scripture Putat aliquis c. Fourthly that before this Priority was upon this occasion started the Church was governed Communi Presbyterorum Consilio by the Counsel of the Presbyters in common and that even after this imparity it ought to be so governed Sciant Episcopi se Ecclesiam debere in communi regere Fifthly that the occasion of this Imparity and Superiority of Bishops above Elders was the divisions which through the Devils instinct fell among the Churches Postquam verò Diaboli instinctu Saravia would take advantage of this place to deduce this Imparity as high as from the Apostles times because even then they began to say I am of Paul and I of Apollos but sure S. Ierome was not so weake as this man would make him to speak Inconsistencies and when he propounds it to himself to prove that Bishops and Presbyters are in Scripture the same to let fall words that should confute his own proposition whereas therefore S. Ierome saith that after men began to say I am of Paul and I of Apollos c. it was decreed that one of the Presbyters should be set over the rest c. This is spoken indeed in the Apostles phrase but not of the Apostles times else to what purpose is that coacervation of texts that followes But suppose it should be granted to be of Apostolical antiquity which yet we grant not having proved the contrary yet it appeares it was not of Apostolical intention but of Diabolical occasion And though the Devil by kindling Divisions in the Church did minister Occasion to the invention of the primacy or prelacy or one for the suppressing of Schisme yet there is just cause to think that the Spirit of God in his Apostles was never the author of this invention First because we read in the Apostles dayes there were Divisions Rom. 16.7 and Schismes 1 Cor. 3.3 and 11.18 yet the Apostle was not directed by the holy Ghost to ordaine Bishops for the taking away of those Divisions Neither in the rules he prescribes for the healing of those breaches doth he mention Bishops for that end Nor in the Directions given to Timothy and Titus for the Ordination of Bishops or Elders doth he mention this as one end of their Ordination or one peculiar duty of their office And though the Apostle saith Oportet haereses inter vos esse ut qui probati sunt manifesti fiant inter vos yet the Apostle no where saith Oportet Episcopos esse ut tollantur haereses quae manifestae fiunt Secondly because as Doctor Whitaker saith the remedy devised hath proved worse then the disease which doth never happen to that remedy whereof the holy Ghost is the author Thirdly because the holy Ghost who could foresee what would
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 Câ—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
fix Titus in Creet as a Bishop but onely to leave him there for a season for the good of that Church and to call him from thence and send him abroad to other Churches for their good as their necessities might require Now who that will acknowledge a Distinction between the Offices of Bishops and Evangelists and knows wherein that Distinction lyes will not upon these premisses conclude that Timothy and Titus were Evangelists and NOT Bishops I but some of the Fathers have called Timothy and Titus Bishops We grant it true and it is as true that some of the Fathers have called them Archbishops and Patriarks yet it doth not follow they were so We adde secondly that when the Fathers did call them so it was not in a proper but in an improper sense which we expresse in the words of our Learned Orthodox Raynolds You may learne by the Fathers themselves saith he that when they termed any Apostle a Bishop of this or that City as namely S. Peter of Antioch or Rome they meant it in a general sort and signification because they did attend that Church for a time and supply that roome in preaching the Gospel which Bishops did after but as the name of Bishop is commonly taken for the Overseer of a particular Church and Pastor of a several flock so Peter was not Bishop of any one place therefore not of Rome And this is true by Analogy of all extraordinary Bishops and the same may be said of Timothy and Titus that he saith of Peter But were it true that Timothy and Titus were Bishops will this Remonstrant undertake that all his party shall stand to his Conditions If our Bishops challenge any other power then was by Apostolick Authority delegated to and required of Timothy and Titus and the Angels of the seaven Asian Churches let them be disclaimed as usurpers Will our Bishops indeed stand to this then actum est Did ever Apostolick Authority delegate power to Timothy or Titus to ordain alone to governe alone and do not our Bishops challenge that power Did ever Apostolique Authority delegate power to Timothy and Titus to rebuke an Elder no but to entreat him as a Father and do not our Bishops challenge themselves and permit to their Chancellors Commissaries and Officials power not only to Rebuke an Elder but to rayle upon an Elder to reproach him with the most opprobrious termes of foole knave jack-sauce c. which our paper blushes to present to your Honors view Did ever Apostolick Authority delegate to Timothy and Titus power to receive an accusation against an Elder but before two or three witnesses and do not our Bishops challenge power to proceed Ex Officio and make Elders their own Accusers Did ever Apostolick Authority delegate power to Timothy or Titus to reject any after twice admonition but an Heretick and do not our Bishops challenge power to reject and eject the most sound and Orthodox of our Ministers for refusing the use of a Ceremony as if Non-conformity were Heresie So that either our Bishops must disclaime this Remonstrance or else themselves must be disclaimed as usurpers But if Timothy and Titus were no Bishops or had not this power it may be the Angels of the seven Asian Churches had and our Remonstrant is so subtile as to twist these two together that if one faile the other may hold To which we answer first that Angel in those Epistles is put Collectively not Individually as appears by the Epistle to Thyatira cap. 2. vers 25. where we read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. But I say unto you in the plural number not unto thee in the singular and unto the rest in Thyatira c. Here is a plain distinction between the members of that Church By you is signified those to whom he spake under the name of the Angel By the rest the residue of the people The people governed and the Governours in the plural number What can be more evident to prove that by Angel is meant not one singular person but the whole company of Presbyters that were in Thyatira This also further appears because it is usual with the holy Ghost not only in other Books of the Scripture but also in this very Book of the Revelation to express a company under one singular person Thus the Civil State of Rome as opposite to Christ is called A beast with ten horns and the Ecclesiastical State Antichristian is called the whore of Babylon and the false Prophet and the Devil and all his family is called An old red Dragon Thus also the seven Angels that blew the seven trumpets Revel 8.2 and the seven Angels that poured out the seven Vials are not literally to be taken but Synecdochically as all know And why not then the seven Angels in those Epistles Mr. Mede in his Commentaries upon the Revelation pag. 265 hath these words Denique ut jam femel iterumquemonuimus quoniam Deus adhibet angelos providentiae suae in rerū humanarū motibus conversionibus ciendis gubernandisque administris idcirco quae multorum manibus peraguntur Angelo tamen tanquam rei gerendae praesidi Duci pro communi loquendi modo tribuuntur Adde thirdly that the very name Angel is sufficient to prove that it is not meant of one person alone because the word Angel doth not import any peculiar jurisdiction or preheminence but is a common name to all Ministers and is so used in Scripture For all Ministers are Gods Messengers and Embassadours sent for the good of the Elect. And therefore the name being common to all Ministers why should wee think that there should be any thing spoken to one Minister that doth not belong to all The like argument we draw from the word Stars used Revel 1.20 The seven Stars are the Angels of the seven Churches Now it is evident that all faithful Ministers are called Stars in Scripture whose duty is to shine as lights unto the Churches in all purity of doctrine and holiness of conversation And in this sense the word is used when it is said that the third part of the stars were darkned Revel 8.12 and that the Dragons taile drew the third part of the stars of Heaven and cast them to the Earth Revel 12.4 Which is meant not only of Bishops but of other Ministers unlesse the Bishops will appropriate all corruption and Apostacy unto themselves Adde fourthly out of the Text it selfe it is very observable that our Saviour in opening the mystery of the Vision Revel 1.20 saith The seven Candlesticks which thou sawest are the seven Churches but he doth not say The seven Stars are the seven Angels of the same Churches But the Angels of the seven Churches wherein not without some mystery the number of the Angels is omitted least we should understand by Angel one Minister alone and not a company And yet the Septenary number of Churches is twice set down Lastly though but one Angel be mentioned in
by the name of one Angel then of many We often finde the name of one Prophet or Priest to be put for the general body of the Ministery or whole multitude or Prophets or Priests in the Church of Israel or Iudah when the Spirit of God intendeth to reprove threaten or admonish them Thus it is Iere. 6.13.18.19 Isa. 3.2 Hos. 9.8 Ezek. 7.26 Hos. 4 6. Mal. 2.7 Neither should it seem strange that a multitude or company of Ministers should be understood under the name of one Angel seeing a multitude of Heavenly Angels imployed in one service for the good of Gods Saints is sometimes in the Scripture shut up under one Angel in the singular number as may be gathered from Gen. 14.7 2 Kings 19.35 Psal 34.7 compared with Psal. 91.11 Gen. 32.1 2. Kings 6.16 17. And also a multitude of Devils or evil Angels jointly labouring in any one work is set forth under the name of one evil or unclean spirit 1 Kings 22.21 22. Mark 1.23 24. Mark 5.2.9 Luke 4.33.34 Luk. 8.27.30 1 Pet. 5.8 Heb. 2.14 Ephes. 6.11.12 But now let us suppose which yet notwithstanding we will not grant that the word Angel is taken individually for one particular person as Doctor Reynolds seems to interpret it together with Master Beza yet neverthelessâ— there will nothing follow out of this acception that will any ways make for the upholding of a Diocesan Bishop with sole power of Ordination and Jurisdiction as a distinct Superior to Presbyters And this appears First because it never was yet proved nor ever will as we conceive that these Angels were Diocesan Bishops considering that Parishes were not divided into Diocesses in S. Iohns days And the seven Stars are said to be fixed in their seven Candlesticks or Churches not one Star over divers Candlesticks Neither can those Churches be thought to be Diocesan when not onely Tindal and the old translation calls them seven Congregations but we read also Acts 20. that at Ephesus which was one of those Candlesticks there was but one flock And secondly we further finde that in Ephesus one of those seven Churches there were many Presbyters which are all called Bishops Acts 20.28 and we finde no colour of any superintendency or superiority of one Bishop over another To them in general the Church is committed to be fed by them without any respect had to Timothy who stood at his Elbow and had been with him in Macedonia and was now waiting upon him to Jerusalem This is also confirmed by Epiphanius who writing of the Heresies of the Miletians saith that in ancient times this was peculiar to Alexandria that it had but one Bishop whereas other Cities had two And he being Bishop of Cypres might well be acquainted with the condition of the Churches of Asia which were so nigh unto him Thirdly there is nothing said in the seven Epistles that implyeth any superiority or majority of rule or power that these Angels had over the other Angels that were joyned with them in their Churches It is written indeed in commendation of the Angel of the Church of Ephesus that he could not beare them that were evil and that he had tryed them which say they were Apostles and are not and had found them lyers And it is spoken in dispraise of the Angel of Pergamus that he suffered them which hâ—ld the Doctrine of Balaam c. But these things are common duties requirable at the hands of all Ministers who have the charge of souls But suppose that there were some superiority and prehemenency insinuated by this individual Angel yet who knoweth not that there are diverse kinds of superiority to wit of Order of Dignity of Gifts and Parts or in degree of Ministery or in charge of power and jurisdiction And how will it be proved that this Angel if he had a superiority had any more then a superiority of Order or of Gifts and Parts Where it is said that this Angel was a superior degree or order of Ministery above Presbyters In which Epistle is it said that this Angel had sole power of Ordination and Jurisdiction And therefore as our learned Protestants prove against the Papists that where Christ directed his speech to Peter in particular and said I will give unto thee the Keys of the kingdom of Heaven c. That this particularization of Peter did not import any singular preheminence or majority of power to Peter more then to the other Apostles But that though the promise was made to Peter yet it was made to him in the name of all the rest and given to all as well as one And that therefore it was spoken to one person and not to all that so Christ might fore-signifie the unity of his Church as Cyprian Austin Hierome Optatus and others say So when Christ directs an Epistle to one Angel it doth not imply a superior power over his fellow-Angels but at most only a presidency for order sake And that which is written to him is written to the rest as well as to him And therefore written to one not to exclude the rest but to denote the unity that ought to be between the Ministers of the same Church in their common care and diligence to their flock And this is all that Doctor Reynolds saith as you may read in his conference with Hart cap. 4. divis 3. ad finem For it is evident that Doctor Reynolds was an utter enemy to the Ius Divinum of the Episcopal preheminency over Presbyters by his Letter to Sir Francis Knolls And learned Master Beza also saith something to the same purpose in his Annotations upon Revel 2.1 Angelo i. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 quem nimirum oporuit imprimis de his rebus admoneri ac per eum caeteros collegas totamque adeo Ecclesiam Sed hinc statui Episcopalis ille gradus postea humanitus in Ecclesiam Dei invectus certe nec potest nec debet imo ne perpetuum quidem istud 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 munus esse necessario oportuisse sicut exorta inde Tyrannis Oligarchica cujus apex est Antichristiana bestia certissima cum totius non Ecclesiae modo sed etiam orbis pernicie nunc tandem declarat If therefore our Remonstrant can produce no better evidence for his Hierarchy then Timothy and Titus and the Angels of the Asian Churches Let not this Remonstrant and his party cry out of wrong if this claimed Hierarchy be for ever booted out of the church seeing it is his owne Option And yet we cannot conceale one refuge more out of Scripture to which the Hierarchy betake themselves for shelter And that is the two Postscripts in the end of Pauls second Epistle to Timothy and of that to Titus where in the one Timothy is said to be the first Bishop of Ephesus and in the other Titus is said to be the first Bishop of the Church of the Cretians to both which places wee answer That these two Postscrips and so
all the rest are no part of Canonical Scripture And therefore our former and ancienter English translations though they have these Postscripts yet they are put in a small character different from that of the Text. Although our Episcopal men of late in newer impressions have inlarged their Phylacteries in putting those Postscripts in the same full character with that of the Text that the simple might beleeve they are Canonical Scripture The Papists themselves Baronius Serrarius and the Rhemists confesse that there is much falsity in them The first Epistle to Timothy is thus subscribed the first to Timothy was written from Laodicea whoch is the chiefest City of Phrygia Pacatiana Here wee demand whether Paul when hee writ the first Epistle to Timothy was assured he should live to write a second which was written long after And if not How comes it to bee subscribed the first to Timothy which hath relation to a second Besides the Epistle is said to bee writ from Laodicea whereas Beza in his Annotations proves apparently that it was written from Macedonia to which Opinion Baronius and Serrarius subscribe It is added Which is the chiefest City of Phrygia Pacatiana But this Epithet is nowhere read in the Writers of those ages saith Beza Sed apud recentiores illoâ— qui Romani imperii jam inclinantis provincias descripserunt So that by this place it is evident that the subscription was added a long while after the writing of the Epistles by some men for the most part vel indoctis saith Beza vel certe non satis attentis Either by a Learned or negligent man The second Epistle is thus subscribed The second Epistle unto Timothy ordained the first Bishop of the Church of the Ephesians was written from Rome when Paul was brought before Nero the second time Now these words Ordained the first Bishop is wanting saith Beza in quibusdam vetustis codicibus in veteri vulgatâ editione apud Syrum interpreâ—â—m If Saint Paul had written this Postscript he would not have said To Timothy the first Bishop c. whereas it was not yet certain whether ever there should bee a second Neither would it bee said when Paul was brought c. But when I was the second time brought before Nero. The Syriack Interpreter reads it Here ends the second Epistle to Timothy written from Rome The Epistle to Titus is thus subscribed Written to Titus Ordained first Bishop of the Church of the Cretians from Nicopolis of Macedonia Here it is said that this Epistle was written from Nicopolis whereas it is cleare that Paul was not at Nicopolis when he wrote it Tit. 3.12 Be diligent to come to me at Nicopolis for I have determined there to winter Hee doth not say Here to winter but There Where note for the present he was not there And besides it is said that Titus was Ordained the first Bishop c. And who was the second or was there ever a second And also He is said to be Bishop not onely of a Diocess but of all Creet Was there ever such a second Bishop Adde lastly that it is said Bishop of the Church of the Cretians Whereas it would bee said of the Churches of the Cretians For the Christian Churches of any Nation are called Churches by Luke and Paul not Church Therefore Codex Claremontanus subscribes Here ends the Epistle to Titus and no more So the Syriack Finitur Epistola ad Titum quae scripta fuit è Nicopoli The old Vulgar Edition hath nothing of the Episcopacy of Titus By all this it appears that if the Bishops had no more authority to urge us to subscribe to their Ceremonies then they have authority for their Episcopal Dignity by these Subscriptions there would be no more subscription to Ceremonies in the Churches of England But some will say that there is one objection out of Scripture yet unanswered and that is from the inequality that was betweene the twelve Apostles and the seventy Disciples To which we answer First that it cannot be proved that the twelve Apostles had any superiority over the seventy either of Ordination or Jurisdiction or that there was any subordination of the seventy unto the twelve but suppose it was yet we answer Secondly that a superiority and inferiority betweene Officers of different kindes will not prove that there should be a superiority and inferiority between Officers of the same kinde No man will deny but that in Christs time there were Apostles Evangelists Prophets Pastors and Teachers and that the Apostles were superior to Evangelists and Pastors But it cannot be proved that one Apostle had any superiority over another Apostle or one Evangelist over an other And why then should one Presbyter be over another Hence it followeth that though we should grant a superiority between the twelve and the seventy yet this will not prove the question in hand Because the question is concerning Officers of the same kind and the instance is of Officers of different kinds amongst whom no man will deny but there may be a superiority and inferiority as there is amongst us between Presbyters and Deacons And now let your Honours judge considering the premisses how far this Episcopal government is from any Divine right or Apostolical Institution And how true that speech of Hierome is that a Bishop as it is a superiour Order to a Presbyter is an Humane presumption not a Divine Ordinance But though Scripture fails them yet the indulgence and Munificence of Religious Princes may support them and to this the Remonstrant makes his next recourse yet so as he acknowledgeth here Ingagements to Princes onely for their accessory dignities titles and Maintenance not at all for their stations and functions wherein yet the author plainly acknowledgeth a difference between our Bishops and the Bishops of old by such accessions For our parts we are so farre from envying the gracious Munificence of pious Princes in collating honourable maintenance upon the Ministers of Christ that we beleeve that even by Gods own Ordinance double Honour is due unto them And that by how much the Ministery of the Gospell is more honourable then that of the Law by so much the more ought all that embrace the Gospell to be carefull to provide that the Ministers of the Gospell might not onely live but maintain Hospitalitie according to the Rule of the Gospell And that worthy Gentleman spake as an Oracle that said That scandalous Maintenance is a great caues of a scandelous Ministery Yet we are not ignorant that when the Ministery came to have Agros dâ—mos lecationes vehicula â—ques laâ—ifâ—ndia as Chrysost Hom. 86 in Matth. That then Religio peperit divitias filia devoravit Matrem Religion brought forth riches and the Daughter devoured the Mother and then there was a voice of Angels heard from Heaven Hodie venenum in Ecclesiam Christi cecidit This day is poison shed into the Church of Christ. And then it was that Ierom complained
and publique punishment they have deserved But what if pious Constantine in his tender care to prevent the Divisions that the emulation of the Bishops of that age enraged with a spirit of envie and faction were kindling in the Church leâ—t by that meanes the Christian Faith should be derided among the Heathens did suppresse their mutuall accusations many of whiâ—h might be but upon surmises and that â—ot in a Court of Iustice bâ—t in an Ecclesiasticall Synode shall this be urged before the highest Court of Iustice upon earth to the patronizing of Nâ—toriouâ— scandallâ— and hatefull enâ—rmities that are already proved by evidence of cleâ—â—e witnesse But â—o forbid it to tell it in Gaâ—h c. What the sin â—as that is done already Do we not know the drukennesse profanenesse superstition Popishnesse of the English Clergie rings at Rome already yes undoubtedly and there is no way to vindicate the Honour of our Nation Ministery Parliaments Sovereigne Religion God but by causing the punishment to ring as farre as the sin hath done that our adversaries that have triumphed in their sin may be confounded at their punishments Do not your Honours know that the plaistring or palliating of these rotten members will be a greater dishonour to the Nation and Church then their cutting off and that the personall acts of these sonnes of Belial being connived at become Nationall sins But for this one fact of Constantine we humbly crave your Honours leave to present to your wisdome three Texts of Scripture Ezek 44.12.13 Because they ministred unto them before their â—dolâ— and caused the house of Israel to fall into iniquity therefore have I lift up my hand unto them saith the Lord and they shall beare their iniquity And they shall not come neere unto me to do the Office of a Priest unto me nor to come neere unto any of mine holy things in the most holy place c. The second is Ierâ—m 48.10 Cursed be he that doth the work of the Lord negligently and the third is Iudges 6.31 He that will plead for Baal let him be put to death while it is yet morning We have no more to say in this whether it be best to walk after the President of Man or the Prescript of God your Hunours can easily judge SECT XVII BUt stay saith this Remonstrant and indeed he might well have stayed and spared the labour of his ensuing discourse about the Church of England the Prelaticall and the Antiprelaticall Church but these Episcopall Men deale as the Papists that dazle the eyes and astonish the senses of poor people with the glorious name of the Church the Church The holy Mother the Church This is the Gorgons head as Doctor White saith that hath inchanted them held them in bondage to theâ—r Errors All their speech is of the Church the Church no mention of the Scriptures of God the Father but all of the Mother the Church Much like as they write of certain Aethiopians that by reason they use no marriage but promiscuously company together the children only follow the Mother the Father and his name is in no request but the mother hath all the reputation So is it with the Author of this Remonstrance he stiles himself a Dutifull son of the Church And it hath beene a Custome of late times to cry up the holy Mother the Church of England to call for absolute obedience to holy Church full conformity to the orders of holy Church Neglecting in the meane time God the Father and the holy Scripture But if we should now demand of them what they meane by the Church of England this Author seemes to be thunder-stricken at this Question and calls the very Question a new Divinity where he deales like such as holding great revenues by unjust Titles will not suffer their Titles to be called in Question For it is apparent Ac si solaribus radiis descriptum esset to use Tertullians phrase that the word Church is an Equivocall word and hath as many severall acceptions as letters and that Dolus latet in universalibus And that by the Church of England first by some of these men is meant onely the Bishops or rather the two Archbishops or more properly the Archbishop of Canterbury Just as the Iesuited Papists resolve the Church and all the glorious Titles of it into the Pope so do these into the Archbishop or at fullest they understand it of the Bishops and their party met in Convocation as the more ingenuous of the Papists make the Pope and his Cardinals to be their Church thus excluding all the Christian people and Presbyters of the Kingdome as not worthy to be reckoned in the number of the Church And which is more strange this Author in his Simplicity as he truly saith never heard nor thought of any more Churches of England then one and what then shall become of his Diocesan Churches and Diocesan Bishops And what shall we think of England when it was an Heptarchy had it not then seven Churches when seven Kings Or if the Bounds of a Kingdome must constitute the Limits and Bounds of a Church why are not â—ngland Scotland and Ireland all one Church when they are happily united under one gracious Monarch into one Kingdom We read in Scripture of the Churches of Iudea and the Churches of Galatia and why not the Churches of England not that we denie the Consâ—ciatiâ—n or Combination of Churches into a Provinciall or Nationall Synod for the right ordering of them But that there should be no Church in England but a Nationall Church this is that which thâ—s â—mbâ—r â—o his simplicity affirmes of which the very rehearsall is a 〈◊〉 SECT XVIII THere are yet two things with which this Remonstrance shuts up it self which must not be past without our Obelisks First he scoffs at the Antiprelatical Church and the Antiprelatical Divisions for our parts we acknowledge no Antiprelatical Church But there are a company of men in the Kingdom of no mean rank or quality for Piety Nobility Learning that stand up to bear witness against the Hierarchie as it now stands their usurpations over Gods Church and Ministers their cruel using of Gods people by their tyrannical government this we acknowledge and if he call these the Antiprelatical Church we doubt not but your Honours will consider that there are many thousands in this Kingdom and those pious and worthy persons that thus do and upon most just cause It was a speech of Erasmus of Luther Vt quisque vir est optimus it is illius Scriptis minimè offendi The better any man was the less offence he took at Luthers Writings but we may say the contrary of the Prelates Ut quisque vir est optimus it à illorum factis magis offendi The better any man is the more he is offended at their dealings And all that can be objected against this party will be like that in Tertullian Bonus vir Cajus Sejus
deprive excommunicate c. their spiritual power be not as dangerous though both be dangerous and as much to be opposed as their temporal 1 Because the spiritual is over our consciences the temporal but over our purses 2 Because the spiritual have more influence into Gods Ordinances to defile them then the temporal 3 Because spiritual judgements and evils are greater than other 4 Because the Pope was Antichrist before he did assume any temporal power 5 Because the Spiritual is more inward and lesse discerned and therefore it concerns all those that have Spiritual eyes and desire to worshâ—y God in spirit and truth to consider and endeavour to 〈…〉 Spiritual usurpations as well as their Temporal Whether Aâ—rius be justly branded by Epiphanius and Austin for a Hereâ—â—cke as some report sor affirming Bishops and Presbyters to be of an equal power Wee say as some report for the truth is he is charged with heresie meerly and onely because he was an Arrian As for his opinian of the parity of a Presbyter with a Bishop this indeed is called by Austin proprium dogma Aerii the proper opinion of Aerius And by Epiphanius it is called Dogma suriosum stolidum a mad and foolish opinion but not an heresie neither by the one nor the other But let us suppose as is commonly thought that he was accounted an Heretick for this opinion yet notwithstanding that this was but the private opinion of Epiphanius and borrowed out of him by Austin and an opinion not to be allowed appeares First because the same Authors condemne Aerius as much for reprehending and censuring the mentioning of the dead in the publâ—que prayers and the performing of good works for the benefit of the dead And also for the reprehending stata jejunia and the keeping of the week before Easter as a solemne Fast which if worthy of condemnation would bring in most of the reformed Churches into the censure of Heresie Secondly because not onely Saint Hierome but Austin himself Sedulius Primasius Chrysostome Theodoret Oâ—cumenius Theophilact were of the same opinion with Aerius as Michael Medina observes in the Council of Trent and hath writen Lib. 1. de sacr hom origine and yet none of these deserving the name of Fools much lesse to be branded for Hereticks Thirdly because no Councell did ever condemne this for Heresie but on the contrary Concilium Aquisgranens sub Ludovico â—io Imp. 1. anno 816. hath approved it for true Divinity out of the Scriture That Bishops and Presbyters are equal bringing the same texts that Aerius doth and which Epiphanius indeed undertakes to answer but how slightly let any indifferent Reader judge Whether the great Apostasie of the Church of Rome hath not been in swerving from the Discipline of Christ as well as from the doctrine For so it seems by that text 2. Thess. 2.4 And also Revel 18.7 and divers others And if so then it much concernes all those that desire the purity of the Church to consider how neere the Discipline of the Church of England borders upon Antichrist lest while they endeavour to keep out Antichrist from entring by the door of doctrine they should suffer him secretly to creep in by the door of Discipline especially considering what is here said in this Booke That by their own confession the Discipline of the Church of England is the same with the Church of Rome Whether Episcopacie be not made a place of Dignity rather then Duty and desired onely for the great revenues of the place And whether if the largenesse of their revenues were taken away Bishops would not decline the great burthen and charge of soules necessarily annexed to their places as much as the ancient Bishops did who hid themselves that they might not be made Bishops and cut off their cares rather then they would be made Bishops whereas now Bishops cut off the eares of those that speak against their Bishopricks How it comes to pass that in England there is such increase of Popery Superstition Arminianism and prophaneness more then in other Reformed Churches Doth not the root of these Disorders proceed from the Bishops and their adherents being forced to hold correspondencie with Rome to uphold their greatness and their Courts and Canons wherein they symbolize with Rome And whether it be not to be feared that they will rather consent to the bringing in of Popery for the upholding of their dignities then part with their dignities for the upholding of Religion Why should England that is one of the chiefest Kingdomes in Europe that separates from Antichrist maintain and defend a Discipline different from all other Reformed Churches which stand in the like Separation And whether the continuance in this Discipline will not at last bring us to communion with Rome from which we are separated and to separation from the other Reformed Churches unto which we are united Whether it be fit that the name Bishop which in Scripture is common to the Presbyters with the Bishops and not only in Scripture but also in Antiquity for some hundreds of yeers should still be appropriated to Bishops and ingrossed by them and not rather to be made common to all Presbyters and the rather because First we finde by woful experience that the great Equivocatithat lieth in the name Bishop hath been and is at this day a great prop and pillar to uphold Lordly Prelacy for this is the great Goliah the master-piece and indeed the onely argument with which they think to silence all opposers to wit the Antiquity of Episcopacie that it hath continued in the Church of Christ for 1500 yeers c. which argument is cited by this Remonstrant ad nauseam usque usque Now it is evident thaâ— this â—râ—ument is a Paralogism depending upon the Equivocation of the 〈◊〉 â—â—shop For Bishops in the Apostles time were the sâ—me with Preâ—byters in name and office and so for a good whâ—le after Anâ— when afterwards they came to be distingâ—â—shed the â—iâ—hops of thâ—â—rimitive times differed as much from oâ—â—s now as Rome anciâ—nt â—rom Rome at this day as hath been suâ—fiâ—ieâ—â—ly declâ—â—ed in this Book And the best way to confute this â—rgumenâ— iâ—â—y hâ—nging in a Community of the name Bishop to a Presbyâ—er aâ— wâ—ll 〈…〉 a â—â—shop Secondly becauâ—â— we â—inâ—e 〈…〉 late Innovators which have so much disturbed 〈…〉 pâ—râ—ty of our Church did first begin wâ—â—h the alâ—â—ratio◠〈…〉 and by changing the word Table into the word Altar and the word Minister into the word Priest and the woâ—d Sacrâ—ment into the word â—acrifice have endeavoured to bring in the Popish Mass. And the Apostâ—e exhorts us 2 Tim. 1.13 Tâ— hold fast the form of sound words and 1 Tim. 6.20 To avoid the prophane novelties of words Upon which text we will only mention what the Rhemists have commented which we conceive to be worthy consideration Nam instruunt nos non solùm docentes sâ—d etiâ—m errantes The Church