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
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
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
New Where we observe first that the special power of Judging of the worthinesse or unworthinesse of a man for the Prelacy was in the breast of the Peogle Secondly the special power of choosing or rejecting eo his place according as they Judged him worthy or unworthy resided in the People Plebs maximè Habet potestatem c. Thirdly that this power did descend upon the People De Divina Authoritate Nor was this the Judgement of one Sole man but of an Affrican Synod consulted by the Spanish Churches in point of Election as the inscription of the Epistle shewes The Obtrusion of a Bishop upon the Church of Alexandria without the Presence desire and vote of the Clergy or People is condemned by Athanasius not onely as a breach of Canon but as a Transgression of Apostolical prescript and that it did compel or necessitate the heathen to blaspheme Nor did onely Christian Bishops but Christian Princes acknowledge the Right and power of Election of Bishops to be in the People so that admired Constantine the great Promover and Patron of the peace of the Christian Church writing to the Church of Nicomedia against Eusebius and Theognius tells them the ready way to lay asleep the Tumults that did then disturbe the Church about the Election of a Bishop was si modo Episcopum fidelem integrum nacti fuerint quod quidem in praesentia in vestrâ situm est potestate quodque etiam dudùm penes vestrum Iudicium fuerat nisi Eusebius de quo dixi pravo corum qui cum juverunt Consilio hac praeceps ruisset rectum Eligendi Ordinem impudenter conturbasset Gelas in Act Concil Nicen. part 3. if they would get a faithful and upright Bishop which saith he is in your power presently to doe and was long agoe if Eusebius with the aide of his faction had not rushed in upon you and impudently disturbed the right Order of Election That which this sacred Emperour calls the right order of Election what is it but the Election by the people in whose power he saith it then was and long had been to choose a Bishop and by whose power the next Bishop was chosen So the same Author tells us that after Eusebius and Theognius were cast out of their several seats for Arianisme by the Councel of Nice others were appointed in their roomes by the Clergy and people of each Diocesse To this Election in Nicomedia we could if it were needful in so cleare a Truth adde many the like Presidents of popular Elections which for brevities sake we passe over Not questioning but that which hath been spoken is sufficient to informe the intelligent Reader that our Bishops and the Bishops of former times are TWO in point of Election SECT VIII A Second thing wherein we have undertaken to shew that our Bishops and the Bishops of former times are TWO is in the Execution of their Office and here there are three things wherein he that will not wilfully shut his eyes against all light may see a Latitude of difference between ours and former Bishops First in that Sole Iurisdiction which our Bishops assume to themselves Secondly in the Delagation they make of the power of exercising this Jurisdiction unto others Thirdly in the way of the exercise of that power For the first of these Their sole Iurisdiction That our Bishops assume this to themselves it is known and felt and that this Sole Iurisdiction was a stranger a Monster to former times we shall now prove and make cleare that the power of Ordination Admonition Excommunication Absolution was not in the hands of any sole man First for Ordination Cyprian in his exile writing to his Charge certifies them that Aurelius was ordained by him and his Colleagues who were present with him who were these Colleagues but his Presbyters as he himself expounds it writing to Lucius in his own name and the name of his Clergy and people Ego Collegae fraternitas omnis c. I and my Colleagues and my whole people send these Letters to you c. So that it is cleare in Cyprians time Presbyters had a hand in Ordination and Bishops did not Ordaine alone Firmilianus saith of them that rule in the Church Quod baptizandi MANVM IMPONENDI ET ORDINANDI poffident potestatem And who those he he expresseth a little before SENIORES Prapositi by whom the Presbyters as well as the Bishops are understood And as these places prove that Bishops in the Primitive time could not ordain alone without the Presbyters so there are that give us light to understand that the Presbyters might ordain without the Bishop The Author of the Comment upon the Ephesians that goes under the name of of Ambrose saith Apud Egyptum Presbyteri consignant si praesens non sit Episcopus In Egypt the Presbyters ordain if the Bishop be not present so saith Augustine in the same words and the Corepiscopus who was but a Presbyter had power to impose hands and to ordaine within his precincts with the Bishops Licence Now Licences confer not a power to him that hath it not but onely a faculty to exercise that power he hath The iniquity of our times hath been such that a Minister may not Preach to his own flock without a Licence doth this Licence make a man a Minister and give him power to preach or only a faculty and liberty to exercise that power Should a Bishop give a Laike a Licence to preach or to ordain 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 root and principle of that power which Licence onely opens a way to the exercise of and therefore that must be 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 Corepiscopi had power to ordain as well as he Neither was this onely a matter of Ecclesiastical custome but of Ecclesiastical constitution which bids the Bishop First in all his Ordinations to consult with his Clergy Vt Episcopus sine Concilio Clericorum suorum Clericos non ordinet That the Bishop shall not ordain a Clergy man without the counsel of the Clergy this was Cyprians practice Epist. 33. Secondly in his Ordinations to take the â—oncurrent assistance of his Presbyters Cum ordinatur Presbyter Episcopo eum benedicente manum super caput ejus tenente etiam omnes Presbyteri qui praesentes sunt manus suas juxta manum Episcopi sut er 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 fourteen Bishops declaring that the power of Ordination is in the hands of Presbyters as well as Bishops And whereas it may be objected that Hierome and Chrysostome affirming Bishops to differ from Presbyters in the power of Ordination seem to imply that that power is soly theirs Here wee desire it may be observed First that these Fathers put all the difference that lies betweene Bishops and Presbyters to be in point of Ordination Quid facit Episcopus quod non facit Presbyter exceptá Ordinatione And therefore Chrysostome himselfe confesseth that in his days there was litle or no difference between a Bishop and a Presbyter Inter Episcopum presbyterum interest fermè nihil c. Secondly That this difference is not so to he understood as if these Fathers did hold it to be by divine right as Bellarmin and our Episcopal men would make us beleeve but by a humane constitution And therefore they do 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 unlawful 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 addes 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 Councel 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 he made Ordinations without the Presbytery and without the consent of his Clergy this is quoted by Bishop Downam lib. 1. cap. 8. pag. 176. SECT IX NOâ— had the Bishops of former times more right to the power of sole Iurisdiction then of sole Ordination And here we have Confitentem reum our very Adversaries confess the Votes of Antiquity are with us Cyprian professeth that he would do nothing without the Clergy nay he could do nothing without them nay he durst not take upon him alone to determine that which of right did belong to all and had he or any other done so the fourth Councel of Carthage condemns the Sentence of the Bishop as Irritanisi Clericorum sententiâ confirmetur Would ye 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. Cyril in epist. ad Iohannem Antiochen Thus Gregory ad Iohan. Panor mitan 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 homines meliores That Discipline that workes emendation in men is in the power of the Elders And therefore when any was questioned in point of conversation he 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 President 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 we 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 counsel or consent of any of his Brethren But were pacified with the sentence of Saint Ambrose because saith he 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 sumntum 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 only 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 non nunquam Episcoporum Clericorum censura desaevit There be some whom the Church reproves and some which she 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 in the sole hands of the Bishops but likewise in the hands of Presbyters Syricius Bishop of Rome signifies to the Church of Millaine that Iovinianus Auxentius c. were cast out of the Church for ever and he sets down how they did it Omnium Nostrum tam Presbyterorum quam Diaconâ—rum quam totius etiam cleri sciscitata fuit sententia There was a concurrence of all Presbyters Deacons and the whole Clergy in that sentence of Excommunication The truth herein may be further evidenced by this because the whole Clergy as well as the Bishops imposed hands upon such as repenting were absolved Nec ad communicationem saith Cyprian venire quis possit nisi prius ab Episcopo Clero Manus illi fuerit imposita No man that hath been excommunicated might returne to Church-Communion before hands had been laid upon him by the Bishop and Clergy Also writing to his Clergy concerning lapsed Christians he tells them Exomologesi facta manu eis à 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
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
of God hath alwayes been as diligent to resist novelties of words as her adversaries are busie to invent them for which cause she will not have us communicate with them noâ— follow their fashions and phrase newlâ— invented though in the nature of the words â—ometimes there be no harm Leâ— us keep our forefathers words and we shall easily keep our old and true saith that we had of the first Christians let them say Amendment Aâ—stiâ—ence the Lords Supper the Communion-Table Elders Ministers â—uper-intenâ—â—nt Congregation So be it Praise ye the Lord Morning Prayer Evening Prayer and the rest as they will Let us avoid those novelties of words according to the Apostles prescript and keep the old terms â—enance â—ast Priests Church â—ishop Masâ— Maâ—â—in â—ven-Song the B. Sacrament Altar Oblation Host Sacifice Halâ—elujah Amen Lent Palm-â—unday Christmass and the words will brâ—ng us to the faith of our first â—postles and condemn thâ—â—â— new Apostates new faith and phrase Whether having proved that God never set such a Government in hiâ— Church as our Episcopal Government is we may lawâ—ulâ—â— any lâ—â—ger be subject unto it be present at their Courts obeâ— thâ—ir Injuâ—ctioâ—s and especiaâ—ly be instruments in publishing and exâ—câ—ting their Excommunications and Absâ—ustions â—nd â—hus we have given as we hope a sufficient answâ—r anâ— brief as the matter world permit to tâ—e Remonâ—â—rant With 〈◊〉 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 wisdom to poure down upon the whole Honourable Assembly the spirit of wisdom and understanding the spirit of Counsel might the spirit of knowledge and of the fear of the Lord That you may be able to discern betwixt things that differ seperate between the precious and the vile purely purge away our dross and take away all our tin 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 A POSCRIPT THough we might have added much light and beauty to our Discourse by inserting variety of Histories upon several occasions given us in the Remonstrance the answer whereof we have undertaken especially where it speaks of the bounty and gracious Munificence of Religious Princes toward the Bishops yet unwilling to break the threed of our discourse and its connexion with the Remonstrance by so large a digression as the whole series of Historie producible to our purpose would extend unto We have chosen rather to subjoyn by way of Appendix an historical Narration of those bitter fruits Pride Rebellion Treason Unthankfulness c. which have issued from Episcopacy while it hath stood under the continued influences of Sovereigne goodness Which Narration would fill a Volume but we will bound our selves unto the Stories of this Kingdom and that revolution of time which hath passed over us since the erection of the See of Canterbury And because in most things the beginning is observed to be a presage of that which follows let their Founder Austin the Monk come first to be considered Whom we may justly account to have been 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 Gospel which he preached is seen in his idle Judaical consultations with the Pope about things clean and unclean his proud demeanour toward the British Clergy appears in his Council called about no solid point of faith but celebration of Easter where having troubled and threatened the Churches of Wales and afterwards of Scotland about Romish Ceremonies he is said in fine to have been the stirrer up of Ethelbers by means of the Northumbrian King to the slaughter of twelve hundred of those poor laborious Monks of Bangor His Successors busied in nothing but urging and instituting Ceremonies and maintaining Precedency we pass over Till Dunstâ—n the Saâ—nted Prelate who of a frantick Necromaacer and suspected fornicatour was shorn a Monk and afterwards made a Bishop His worthy deeds are noted by Speed to have been the cheating King Eldred of the treasure committed to his keeping the prohibiting of marriage to the increasing of all filthiness in the Clergy oâ— those times as the long Oration of King Edgar in Stow well testifies In Edward the Confessors dayes Robert the Norman no sooner Archbishop of Canterbury but setting the King and Earl Godwine at variance for private revenge broach't a Civil War till the Archbishop was banisht Now William the Conquerour had set up Lankefrank Bishop of Canterbury who to requite him spent his faithful service to the Pope Gregory in perswading the King to subject himself and his State to the Papacy as himself writes to the Pope Suasi sed non persuasi The treason of Anselm to Rufus was notorious who not content to withstand the King obstinately in money-matters made suit to fetch his Pall or Investiture of Archiepiscopacy from Rome which the King denying as flat against his Regal Sovereignty he went without his leave and for his Romish good service received great honour from the Pope by being seated at his right foot in a Synod with these words Includamus hunc in orbe nostro tanquam alterius orbis Papam Whence perhaps it is that the See of Canterbury hath affected a Patriarchy in our dayes This Anselm also condemned the married Clergy Henry the First reigning the same Anselm deprived those Prelates that had been Invested by the King and all the Kingdom is vext with one Prelate who the second time betakes himself to his old fortress at Rome till the King was fain to yield Which done and the Archbishop returned spends the rest of his dayes in a long contention and unchristian jangling with York about Primacie Which ended not so but grew hot between York and London as Dean to Canterbury striving for the upper seat at Dinner till the King seeing their odious pride put them both out of doors To speak of Ralph and Thurstan the next Archbishops pursuing the same quarrel were tedious as it was no small molestation to the King and Kingdom Thurstan refusing to stand to the Kings doom and wins the day or else the King must be accurs'd by the Pope which further animates him to try the mastery with William next Archbishop of Canterbury and no man can end it but their Father the Pope for which they travel to Rome In the mean vvhile marriage is sharply decreed against Speed 448. and the Legate Cremonensis the Declamour against Matrimony taken with a Strumpet the same night In King Stephens Reign the haughty Bishops of Canterbury and Winchester bandy about Precedency and to Rome to end the Duel Theobald goes to Rome against