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 fift and sixt verses is with reverence be it spoken inconsequentiall and his demand unjust If a Chancellor in one of the Vniversities should give Order to his Vice-chancellour to admit none to the decree of Batchelour in Arts but such as were able to preach or keepe a Divinity Act For Batchelours in Divinity must be so what reason or equity were in this So if Paul leaving Titus as his Locum teneus 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 superiour to a Presbyter and not the same this had been no more rationall or equall then the former therfore under the name of Bishop in the seventh verse the Apostle intends the Elder mentioned in the fift verse Consonant to this is the Language of the same blessed Apostle Acts 20. verse 17.18 where such as in 17 verse he calls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Elders in the 28. 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 cleare and received distinction of Bishops Presbyters and Deacons as three distinct subordinate Callings in Gods Church with an evident specification of the duty charge belonging to each of them or els let this claimed Hierarchy be for ever hooted out of the Church Yet let us tell him that we never find in Scripture these 3 Orders Bishops Presbyters Deacons mentioned together but onely Bishops Deacons as Phil. 1. and 1 Tim. Nor do we finde in Scripture any Ordination to the office of a Bishop differing froÌ„ the Ordination of an Elder Nor do we finde 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 which if not all would be found were they not the same But if this Remonstrant thinke to helpe himselfe by taking Sanctuary in Antiquity though we would gladly â—est 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. affirmes that while the Apostles lived the Names of Bishops and Presbyters were not distinguished and not only while the Apostles lived but in after ages Doth not Irenaeus use the name of Bishops and Presbyters 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in a promiscuous sence 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 heare Bishops called presbyters when Presbyters writing to their Bishops 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 beame 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 wee 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 ordaine others to that worke is it to rule to governe 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 Councell For the first Edifying of the Church by word and Sacraments though we feare they will some of them at least scarce owne this as their proper worke for some have beene citeâ— into the High Commission for saying it belongs to them yet Sir we are sure Scripture makes it a part a chiefe of the Episcopall office for so in the 1 Pet 5.2 they are said to doe the worke of a Bishop when they doe feede the flocke of God And this is such a worke as we hope their Lordships will give the poore 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 worke upon our hands and Woe unto us if we preach not the Gospell But this branch of Episcopall and Presbyteriall 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 Ministeriall 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 wee â—inde 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 taken in Scripture as in Luke 22. vers 66. Act. 22. vers 5. which the Christian Church called the Ecclesiasticall Senate as Ierom in Isay 3. Nos habemus in Ecclesia Senatum nostrum Coetum Presbyterorum an Apostolicall 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 well as by himselfe 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 betweene 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 wholy to themselves yet we shall discover that it hath beene
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
IMPONENDI ET ORDINANDI possident potestatem And who those be he expresseth a little before SENIORES Praepositi by whom the Presbyters as well as the Bishops are understood And as these places prove that Bishops in the Primitive time could not ordaine alone without the Presbyters so there are that give us light to understand that the Presbyters might ordaine without the Bishop The Author of the Comment upon the Ephesians that goes under the name of Ambrose saith Apud Aegyptum Presbyteri consignant si praesens non sit Episcopus In Egypt the Presbyters ordaine if the Bishop be not present so saith Augustine in the same words and the Chorepiscopus who was but a Presbyter had power to impose hands and to ordaine within his precincts with the Bishops Licence Now Licences conferre not a power to him that hath it not but onely a facultie to exercise that power he hath The Iniquitie of our times hath beene such that a Minister may not Preach to his owne flocke without a Licence doth this Licence make a man a Minister and give him power to preach or onely a facultie and libertie to exercise that power Should a Bishop give a Laike a Licence to preach or to ordaine doth that Licence make him a Minister or a Bishop Sure all will say no why because in the Laike there is not Actus primus the roote and principle of that power which Licence onely opens a way to the exercise of and therefore that must bee concluded to be in those Chorepiscopi or Presbyters by vertue of their place and calling and not by vertue of a Licence So that the power of Ordination was so farre from residing in the Bishop alone as that the Presbyters and Chorepiscopi had power to ordaine as well as he Neither was this onely a matter of Ecclesiasticall Custome but of Ecclesiasticall Constitution which binds the Bishop First in all his Ordinations to consult with his Clergy Vt Episcopus sine Consilio Clericorum suorum Clericos non ordinet That the Bishop shall not ordaine a Clergy man without the counsel of the Clergy this was Cyprians practice Epist. 33. Secondly in his Ordinations to take the concurrent assistance of his Presbyters Cum ordinatur Presbyter Episcopo cum benedicent◠manum super caput ejus tenente etiam omnes Presbyteri qui praesentes sunt manu◠suas juxta manum Episcopi super caput illius teneant When a Presbyter is ordained the Bishop blessing him and holding his hand upon his head all the Presbyters that are present shall likewise lay their hands upon his head with the hands of the Bishop In which Canon we have the unanimous vote of two hundred and fourteene Bishops declaring that the power of Ordination is in the hands of Presbyters as well as Bishops And whereas it may be objected that Hiorome and Chrysostome affirming Bishops to differ from Presbyters in the power of Ordination seeme to imply that that power is soly theirs Here we desire it may be observed First that these Fathers put all the difference that lyes betweene Bishops and Presbyters to be in point of Ordination Quid facit Episcopus quod non facit Presbyter exceptâ Ordinatione And therefore Chrysostome himselfe confesseth that in his dayes there was little or no difference between a Bishop and a Presbyter Inter Episcopū et Presbyterū interest fermè nihil c. Secondly That this difference is not so to be understood as if these Fathers did hold it to be by divine right as Bellarmine and our Episcopall men would make us beleeve but by a humane constitution And therefore they doe not speak De jure but de facto Quid facit c. not quid debet facere And this Hierom confesseth So Leo prim ep 88. upon complaints of unlawfull Ordinations writing to the Germane and French Bishops reckons up what things are reserved to the Bishops Among which he set down Presbyterorum Diaconorum consecratio and then adds Quae omnia solis deberi summis Pontificibus Authoritate Canonam praecipitur So that for this power of Ordination they are more beholden to the Canon of the Church then to the Canon of Gods Word Thirdly we answer that this very humane difference was not in the Primitive Antiquity It was not so in Cyprians time as we even now shewed And when it did prevaile it was but a particular custome and sometimes usurpation of some Churches For it was otherwise appointed in the Councell of Carthage and in Egypt and other places as is declared in the former part of this Section And even in Chrysostomes time it was so little approved of that it was one great accusation against Chrysostome himselfe That hee made Ordinations without the Presbytery and without the consent of his Clergie This is quoted by Bishop Downam lib. 1. cap. 8. pag. 176. SECT IX NOr had the Bishop of former times more right to the power of sole Iurisdiction then of sole Ordination And here we have Confitentem reum our very Adversaries confesse the Votes of Antiquity are with us Cyprian professeth that hee would doe nothing without the Clergie nay he could doe nothing without them nay hee durst not take upon him alone to determine that which of right did belong to all and had hee or any other done so the fourth Councell of Carthage condemnes the Sentence of the Bishop as Irrita nisi Clericorum sententiâ confirmetur Would yee know the particulars wherein the Bishops had no power of Judicature without their Presbyters First in judging and censuring Presbyters themselves and their Doctrine For this the Canon Law in Gratian is full and cleare Episcopus non potest Iudicare Presbyterum vel Diaconum sine Synodo Senioribus Thus Basill counselled and practised epist. 75. So Ambr. lib. 10. epist. 80 Cyrill in epist. ad Iohannem Antiochen Thus Gregory ad Iohan. Panormitan lib. 11. epist 49. Secondly in judging of the Conversation or Crimes of any of the members of the Church Penes Presbyteros est Disciplina quae facit hom ines meliores That Discipline that workes emendaion in men is in the power of the Elders And therefore when any was questioned in point of conversation hee was brought saith Tertullian into the Congregation where were Exhortations Castigations and Divine censures And who had the chiefe stroke in these Censures he tells us after Praesident probati quique seniores All the approved Elders sit as Presidents And those censures that passed by the whole Presbytery were more approved by the Church in Ancient times then such as were passed by one man for wee finde that when Syagrius and Ambrose passed Sentence in the same case the Church was unsatisfied in the Sentence of Syagrius because he past it sine alicujus fratris consilio without the counsell or consent of any of his Brethren But were pacified with the
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
hated the Bishop and this as the Historian calls it his usurped power This president of the Alexandrian Bishop the Bishop of Rome did soone follow Et Romanus Episcopatus non aliter quam Alexandrinus quasi EXTRA SACERDOTII FINES egressus ad secularem principatum erat jam delapsus The Bishop of Rome as well as the Bishop of Alexandria breaking the limits of the Priestly function did degenerate into a secular Principalitie which purchased no lesse envie to him then that to the other And though these two Bishops went at first abreast in this point yet in a short time the Roman had outstripped the Alexandrian in that power till the Church degenerating more and more that Roman Priest advanced his power not onely above all the Bishops but all the Monarchs in the Christian Orbe Yet notwithstanding he that shall look into the Ancients shall finde first that the best of them held that they were not to be molested with the handling of worldly affaires Cyprian Epist. 66.1 Singuli divino Sacerdotio honorati non nisi altari sacrificiis deservire precibus atque orationibus vacare debent Molestiis secularibus non sunt obligandi qui divinis rebus spiritualibus occupantur Secondly that they complained of them as of heavy burthens Aug. calles it Angaria yea Austin himselfe in his 81. Epistle Complaines that worldly businesse hindered his praying and so pressed him that vix respirare potuit and Gregory the great non sine dolore in secularibus versabatur praefat in Dial. Thirdly Cyprian construed it as one great cause of persecutions raised against the Church de lapsis Sect. 4. Fourthly it was much cryed downe as unlawfull by the holy Fathers many Canons forbidding it and that under paine of being removed from their places Can. Apost Can. 6. Can. 81. hee that did presume to administer 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Roman command or Administration of Military affaires or civill place as Zonaras there he should be deposed Can. Apo. Can. 83. hiring of ground medling with worldly affaires is to be laid asid by them Otherwise they are threatned to be liable to Ecclesiasticall censures Conc. Cal. Cano. 3. Conc. Carth. Can. 16. We will ad this for a conclusion in this point it is observed by Athanasius Sulpitius Severus and other Ecclesiasticall Historians that the Arians were very expedite in worldly affaires which experience they gained by their constant following and attendance upon the Emperours Court and what troubles they occasioned to the Church thereby is notoriously knowne to any that have seene the Histories of their times And in this our Bishops have approved themselves more like to the Arian Bishops then the purer Bishops of purer times but how ever cleare it is that our Bishops and the Bishops of former times are Two Two in election to their office Two in the discharge of their office Two in their Ordination Iurisdiction processes Censures Administrations and the difference betweene our Bishops and those of former times is greater then between the great Bishop of Rome and them SECT XIII BUt it seemes our Remonstrant soared above those times even as high as the Apostles dayes for so hee saith If our Bishops challenge any other spirituall 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 do 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 worke of an Evangelist if Timothy had beene but a Presbyter or Bishop Paul had here put him upon imployment Vltra Sphara 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 bee 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 Gospell and so wee doe not affirme Timothy and Titus to bee Evangelists or else for such as taught the Gospell 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 wee consider what was the Difference betweene the Evangelists and Bishopsâ— Bishops or Presbyters were tyed to the particular care and tuiâ—ion 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 appoyntment they were sent from place to place as the necessity of the Churches did require As appeares first in Timothy â— whom S. Paul besought to abide at Ephesus 1 Tim. 1.3 which had been a needlesse importunity if Timothy had had the Episcopall that is the Pastorall charge of Ephesus committed to him by the Apostles for then hee might have laid as dreadfull a Charge upon him to abide at Ephesus as he doth to Preach the Gospell But so far was Paul from setling Timothy in Cathedrâ in Ephesus that he rather continually sends him up and downe upon all Church services for we â—inde 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 confirme the Thessalonians in the faith as appeares 1 Thes. 3.1.2 from whence returning to Paul to Athens againe the Apostle Paul before hee left Athens and went to Corinth sent him Silas into Macedonia who returned to him againe to Corinth Act. 18.5 afterwards they travelled to Ephesus from whence we read Paul sent Timothy and Erastus into Macedonia Act. 19 22. whither Paul went after them from whence they divers other Brethren journied into Asia Acts 20.4 All which Brethren Paul calles as it is probable 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the messengers of the Churches 2 Cor. 8.23 And being thus accompanied with Timothy and the rest of the Brethren he comes to Miletum and calls the Elders of the Church of Ephesus thither to him of which Church had Timothy beene Bishop the Apostle in stead of giving the Elders a charge to feede the flock of Christ would have given that charge to Timothy and not to them And secondly the Apostle would not so have forgotten himselfe 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
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 eares rather then they would bee made Bishops wheras now Bishops cut off the eares of those that speak against their Bishopricks How it comes to passe that in England there is such increase of Popery superstâ—tion Arminianisme and profanenesse more then in other reformed Churches Doth not the root of these disorders proceed from the Bishops anâ— their adherents being forced to hold correspondence with Rome to uphold their greatnesse and their Courts and Canons wherein they symbolize with Rome And whether it bee 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 seperates from Antichrist maintaine 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 wee are separated and to separation from the other reformed Churches unto which wee are united Whether it bee fit that the name Bishop which in Scripture is common to the Presbyters with the Bishops and not onely in in Scripture but also in Antiquitie for some hundreds of yeeres should still bee appropriated to Bishops and ingrossed by them and not rather to bee made common to all Presbyters and the rather because First we finde by wofull experience that the great Equivocation that lyeth in the name Bishop hath beene and is at this day a great prop pillar to uphold Lordly Prelacy for this is the great Goliah the master-peece and indeed the onely argument with which they thinke to silence all opposers To wit the antiquity of Episcopacie that it hath continued in the Church of Christ for 1500 yeeres c which argument is cited by this Remonstrant ad nauseam usque usque Now it is evident that this argument is a Paralogisme depending upon the Equivocation of the name Bishop For Bishops in the Apostles time were the same with Presbyters in name and office and so for a good while after And when afterwards they came to bee distinguished The Bishops of the primitive times differed as much from ours now as Rome ancient from Rome at this day as hath beene sufficiently declared in this Booke And the best way to confute this argument is by bringing in a Community of the Name Bishop to a Presbyter as well as to a Bishop Secondly because wee finde that the late Innovators which have so much disturbed the peace purity of our Church did first begin with the alteration of words and by changing the word Table into the word Altar and the word Minister into the word Priest and the word Sacrament into the word Sacrifice have endevoured to bring in the Popish Masse And the Apostle exhorts us 2 Tim. 1.13 To hold fast the forme of sound words and 1 Tim 6.20 to avoid the prophane novelties of words Upon which text we will onely mention what the Rhemists have commented which wee conceive to be worthy consideration Nam instruunt nos non solum docentes sed etiam errantes The Church of God hath alwayes been as diligent to resist novelties of words as her adversaries are busie to invent them for which cause shee will not have us communicate with them nor follow their fashions and phrase newly invented though in the nature of the words sometimes there bee no harme Let us keepe our forefathers words and wee shall easily keepe our old and true faith that wee had of the first Christians let them say Amendment Abstinence the Lords Supper the Communion Table Elders Ministers Superintendent Congregation so be it praise yee the Lord Morning Prayer Evening Prayer and the rest as they will Let us avoide those novelties of words according to the Apostles prescript and keepe the ole termes Penance Fast Priests Church Bishop Masse Matâ—in Evensong the B. Sacrament Altar Oblation Host Sacrifice Halleluja Amen Lent Palme-Sunday Christmasse and the words will bring us to the faith of our first Apostles and condemne these new Apostates new faith and phrase Whether having proved that God never set such a government in his Church as our Episcopall Government is wee may lawfully any longer be subject unto it bee present at their Courts obey their injunctions and especially bee instruments in publishing and executing their Excommunications and Absolutions And thus we have given as wee hope a sufficient answer and as briefe as the matter would permit to The Remonstrant With whom though we agree not in opinion touching Episcopacie and Liturgie yet we fully consent with him to pray unto Almighty God Who is great in power and infinite in wisdome to powre downe upon the whole Honourabe Assembly the Spirit of wisdome and understanding the spirit of Councell and might the spirit of knowledge and of the feare of the Lord. That you may be able to discerne betwixt things that differ separate betweene the precious and the vile purely purge away our drosse and take away all our tinne root out every plant that is not of our heavenly Fathers planting That so you may raise up the foundations of many generations and be called The Repairers of breaches and Restorers of paths to dwell in Even so Amen FINIS A POSTSCRIPT THough we might have added much light and beauty to our Discourse by inserting variety of Histories upon severall occasions given us in the Remonstrance the answer whereof wee have undertaken especially where it speaks of the bounty and gracious Munificence of Religious Princes toward the Bishops yet unwilling to break the thread of our discourse and its connexion with the Remonstrance by so large a digression as the whole series of History producible to our purpose would extend unto Wee have chosen rather to subjoyne by way of appendix an historicall Narration of those bitter fruits Pride Rebellion Treason Vnthankefulnes c. which have issued from Episcopacy while it hath stood under the continued influences of Soveraigne goodnesse Which Narration would fill a volume but we wil bound our selves unto the Stories of this Kingdome and that revolution of time which hath passed over us since the erection of the Sea of Canterbury And because in most things the beginning is observed to be a presage of that which followes let their Founder Austin the Monk come first to be considered Whom wee may justly account to have beene such to the English as the Arrian Bishops were of old to the Goths and the Jesuits now among the Indians who of Pagans have made but Arrians and Papists His ignorance in the Gospell which he preached is seene in his idle
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
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