sed malus tantùm quia Antiprelaticus But he upbraids us with our Divisions Subdivisions so do the Papists upbraid the Protestants with their Lutheranisme Calvinisme and Zuinglianisme And this is that the Heathens objected to the Christians their Fractures were so many they knew not which Religion to chuse if they should turn Christians And can it be expected that the Church in any age should be free from Divisions when the times of the Apostles were not free and the Apostle tells us It must needs be that there be divisions in Greg. Naz. dayes there were 600 Errours in the Church do these any wayes derogate from the truth and worth of Christian Religion But as for the Divisions of the Antiprelatical party so odiously exaggerated by this Remonstrant Let us assure your Honours they have been much fomented by the Prelates whose practice hath been according to that rule of Machiavil Divide Impera and they have made these divisions afterwards complain'd of that which their Tyranny and Policy hath made It is no wonder considering the paths our Prelates have trod that there are Divisions in the Nation The wonder is our divisions are no more no greater and we doubt not but if they were of that gracious spirit and so intirely affected to the peace of the Church as Greg Naz. was they would say as he did in the tumults of the people Mitte nos in mare non erit tempest as rather then they would hinder that sweet Concordance and conspiration of minde unto a Government that shall be every way agreeable to the rule of Gods Word and profitable for the edification and flourishing of the Church A second thing we cannot but take notice of is the pains this Author takes to advance his Prelaticall Church and forgetting what he had said in the beginning that this party was so numerous it could not be summed tells us now these severall thousands are punctually calculated But we doubt not but your Honours will consider that there may be multi homines pauci viri and that there are more against them then for them And whereas they pretend that they differ from us onely in a Ceremony or an Organ-pipe which however is no contemptible difference yet it will appeare that our differences are in point of a superiour Alloy Though this Remonstrant braves it in his multiplied Queries What are the bounds of this Church what the distinction of the prefessours and Religion what grounds of faith what new Creed do they hold differenc from their Neighbours what Scriptures what Baptisme what meanes of Salvation other then the rest yet if he pleased he might have silenced his owne Queries but if he will needs put us to the answer we will resolve them one by one First if he ask what are the bounds of this Church we answer him out of the sixt of their late founded Canons where we finde the limits of this Prelatical Church extend as farre as from the high lofty Promontory of Archbishops to the â—erra incognita of an c. If what Distinction of professors and Religion we answer their worshipping towards the East and bowing towards the Altar prostrating themselves in their approches into Churches placing all Religion in outward formalities are visible differences of these professours and their Religion If what new Creed they have or what grounds of Faith differing from their Neighbours we answer Episcopacy by divine right is the first Article of their Creed Absolute and blinde obedience to all the Commandements of the Church that is the Bishop and his Emissaries election upon faith foreseen the influence of works into Iustification â—alling from grace c. If what Scripture we answer the Apocrypha and unwritten Traditions If what Baptism a Baptism of absolute Necessity unto salvation and yet unsufficient unto salvation as not sealing grace to the taking away of sinne after Baptisme If what â—uâ—harist an Eucharist that must be administred upon an Altar or a Table set Altar-wise railed in an Eucharist in which there is such a presence of â—hrist though Modum nesciunt as makes the place of its Administration the throne of God the place of the Residence â—f the Almighty and impresseth such a holinesse upon it as makes it not only capable but worthy of Adoration If what Christ a Christ who hath given the same power of absolution to a Priest that himselfe hath If what Heaven a Heaven that hath a broad way leading thither and is receptive of Drunkards Swearers Adulterers c. such a heaven as we may say of it as the Indians said of the heaven of the Spaniards Unto that heaven which some of the Prelaticall Church living and dying in their scandalous sinnes and hatefull enormities go to let our soules never enter If what meanes of Salvation we answer confession of sinnes to a Priest as the most absolute undoubted necessary infallible meanes of Salvation Farre be it from us to say with this Remonstrant We do fully agree in all these and all other Doctrinall and practicall points of Religion and preach one and the same saving truths Nay we must rather say as that holy Martyr did We thank God we are none of you Nor do we because of this dissension feare the censure of uncharitableness from any but uncharitable men But it is no unusuall thing with the Prelates and their party to charge such as protest against their corrupt opinions and wayes with uncharitablenesse and Schisme as the Papists do the Protestants and as the protestants do justly recriminate and charge that Schisme upon the Papists which they object to us So may we upon the Prelates And if Austin may be judge the Prelates are more Schismaticks then we Quicunque saith he invident bonis ut quaerant occasiones excludendi eos aut degradandi vel crimina sua sic defendere parati sunt si objecta vel prodita fuerint ut etiam conventiculorum congregationes vel Ecclesiae perturbationes cogitent excitare jam schismatici sunt Whosoever envie those that are good and seeke occasions to exclude and degrade them and are so ready to defend their faults that rather then they will leave them they will devise how to raise up troubles in the Church and drive men into conventicles and corners they are the Schismaticks And that all the world may take notice what just cause we have to complain of Episcopacie as it now stands we humbly crave leave to propound these Queries Queries about Episcopacie WHether it be tolerable in a Christian Church that Lord Bishops should be held to be Iure Divino And yet the Lords day by the some men to be but Iure Humano And that the same persons should cry up Altars in stead of Communion-Tables and Priests in stead of Ministers and yet not Iudaize when they will not suffer the Lords Day to be called the sabbath-Sabbath-day for feare of Iudaizing Whereas the word Sabbath is a generall word signifying a day of rest which is common as well to the Christian Sabbath as
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
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
fix Titus in Creet as a Bishop but onely to leave him there for a season for the good of that Church and to call him from thence and send him abroad to other Churches for their good as their necessities might require Now who that will acknowledge a Distinction between the Offices of Bishops and Evangelists and knows wherein that Distinction lyes will not upon these premisses conclude that Timothy and Titus were Evangelists and NOT Bishops I but some of the Fathers have called Timothy and Titus Bishops We grant it true and it is as true that some of the Fathers have called them Archbishops and Patriarks yet it doth not follow they were so We adde secondly that when the Fathers did call them so it was not in a proper but in an improper sense which we expresse in the words of our Learned Orthodox Raynolds You may learne by the Fathers themselves saith he that when they termed any Apostle a Bishop of this or that City as namely S. Peter of Antioch or Rome they meant it in a general sort and signification because they did attend that Church for a time and supply that roome in preaching the Gospel which Bishops did after but as the name of Bishop is commonly taken for the Overseer of a particular Church and Pastor of a several flock so Peter was not Bishop of any one place therefore not of Rome And this is true by Analogy of all extraordinary Bishops and the same may be said of Timothy and Titus that he saith of Peter But were it true that Timothy and Titus were Bishops will this Remonstrant undertake that all his party shall stand to his Conditions If our Bishops challenge any other power then was by Apostolick Authority delegated to and required of Timothy and Titus and the Angels of the seaven Asian Churches let them be disclaimed as usurpers Will our Bishops indeed stand to this then actum est Did ever Apostolick Authority delegate power to Timothy or Titus to ordain alone to governe alone and do not our Bishops challenge that power Did ever Apostolique Authority delegate power to Timothy and Titus to rebuke an Elder no but to entreat him as a Father and do not our Bishops challenge themselves and permit to their Chancellors Commissaries and Officials power not only to Rebuke an Elder but to rayle upon an Elder to reproach him with the most opprobrious termes of foole knave jack-sauce c. which our paper blushes to present to your Honors view Did ever Apostolick Authority delegate to Timothy and Titus power to receive an accusation against an Elder but before two or three witnesses and do not our Bishops challenge power to proceed Ex Officio and make Elders their own Accusers Did ever Apostolick Authority delegate power to Timothy or Titus to reject any after twice admonition but an Heretick and do not our Bishops challenge power to reject and eject the most sound and Orthodox of our Ministers for refusing the use of a Ceremony as if Non-conformity were Heresie So that either our Bishops must disclaime this Remonstrance or else themselves must be disclaimed as usurpers But if Timothy and Titus were no Bishops or had not this power it may be the Angels of the seven Asian Churches had and our Remonstrant is so subtile as to twist these two together that if one faile the other may hold To which we answer first that Angel in those Epistles is put Collectively not Individually as appears by the Epistle to Thyatira cap. 2. vers 25. where we read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. But I say unto you in the plural number not unto thee in the singular and unto the rest in Thyatira c. Here is a plain distinction between the members of that Church By you is signified those to whom he spake under the name of the Angel By the rest the residue of the people The people governed and the Governours in the plural number What can be more evident to prove that by Angel is meant not one singular person but the whole company of Presbyters that were in Thyatira This also further appears because it is usual with the holy Ghost not only in other Books of the Scripture but also in this very Book of the Revelation to express a company under one singular person Thus the Civil State of Rome as opposite to Christ is called A beast with ten horns and the Ecclesiastical State Antichristian is called the whore of Babylon and the false Prophet and the Devil and all his family is called An old red Dragon Thus also the seven Angels that blew the seven trumpets Revel 8.2 and the seven Angels that poured out the seven Vials are not literally to be taken but Synecdochically as all know And why not then the seven Angels in those Epistles Mr. Mede in his Commentaries upon the Revelation pag. 265 hath these words Denique ut jam femel iterumquemonuimus quoniam Deus adhibet angelos providentiae suae in rerū humanarū motibus conversionibus ciendis gubernandisque administris idcirco quae multorum manibus peraguntur Angelo tamen tanquam rei gerendae praesidi Duci pro communi loquendi modo tribuuntur Adde thirdly that the very name Angel is sufficient to prove that it is not meant of one person alone because the word Angel doth not import any peculiar jurisdiction or preheminence but is a common name to all Ministers and is so used in Scripture For all Ministers are Gods Messengers and Embassadours sent for the good of the Elect. And therefore the name being common to all Ministers why should wee think that there should be any thing spoken to one Minister that doth not belong to all The like argument we draw from the word Stars used Revel 1.20 The seven Stars are the Angels of the seven Churches Now it is evident that all faithful Ministers are called Stars in Scripture whose duty is to shine as lights unto the Churches in all purity of doctrine and holiness of conversation And in this sense the word is used when it is said that the third part of the stars were darkned Revel 8.12 and that the Dragons taile drew the third part of the stars of Heaven and cast them to the Earth Revel 12.4 Which is meant not only of Bishops but of other Ministers unlesse the Bishops will appropriate all corruption and Apostacy unto themselves Adde fourthly out of the Text it selfe it is very observable that our Saviour in opening the mystery of the Vision Revel 1.20 saith The seven Candlesticks which thou sawest are the seven Churches but he doth not say The seven Stars are the seven Angels of the same Churches But the Angels of the seven Churches wherein not without some mystery the number of the Angels is omitted least we should understand by Angel one Minister alone and not a company And yet the Septenary number of Churches is twice set down Lastly though but one Angel be mentioned in
and publique punishment they have deserved But what if pious Constantine in his tender care to prevent the Divisions that the emulation of the Bishops of that age enraged with a spirit of envie and faction were kindling in the Church leâ—t by that meanes the Christian Faith should be derided among the Heathens did suppresse their mutuall accusations many of whiâ—h might be but upon surmises and that â—ot in a Court of Iustice bâ—t in an Ecclesiasticall Synode shall this be urged before the highest Court of Iustice upon earth to the patronizing of Nâ—toriouâ— scandallâ— and hatefull enâ—rmities that are already proved by evidence of cleâ—â—e witnesse But â—o forbid it to tell it in Gaâ—h c. What the sin â—as that is done already Do we not know the drukennesse profanenesse superstition Popishnesse of the English Clergie rings at Rome already yes undoubtedly and there is no way to vindicate the Honour of our Nation Ministery Parliaments Sovereigne Religion God but by causing the punishment to ring as farre as the sin hath done that our adversaries that have triumphed in their sin may be confounded at their punishments Do not your Honours know that the plaistring or palliating of these rotten members will be a greater dishonour to the Nation and Church then their cutting off and that the personall acts of these sonnes of Belial being connived at become Nationall sins But for this one fact of Constantine we humbly crave your Honours leave to present to your wisdome three Texts of Scripture Ezek 44.12.13 Because they ministred unto them before their â—dolâ— and caused the house of Israel to fall into iniquity therefore have I lift up my hand unto them saith the Lord and they shall beare their iniquity And they shall not come neere unto me to do the Office of a Priest unto me nor to come neere unto any of mine holy things in the most holy place c. The second is Ierâ—m 48.10 Cursed be he that doth the work of the Lord negligently and the third is Iudges 6.31 He that will plead for Baal let him be put to death while it is yet morning We have no more to say in this whether it be best to walk after the President of Man or the Prescript of God your Hunours can easily judge SECT XVII BUt stay saith this Remonstrant and indeed he might well have stayed and spared the labour of his ensuing discourse about the Church of England the Prelaticall and the Antiprelaticall Church but these Episcopall Men deale as the Papists that dazle the eyes and astonish the senses of poor people with the glorious name of the Church the Church The holy Mother the Church This is the Gorgons head as Doctor White saith that hath inchanted them held them in bondage to theâ—r Errors All their speech is of the Church the Church no mention of the Scriptures of God the Father but all of the Mother the Church Much like as they write of certain Aethiopians that by reason they use no marriage but promiscuously company together the children only follow the Mother the Father and his name is in no request but the mother hath all the reputation So is it with the Author of this Remonstrance he stiles himself a Dutifull son of the Church And it hath beene a Custome of late times to cry up the holy Mother the Church of England to call for absolute obedience to holy Church full conformity to the orders of holy Church Neglecting in the meane time God the Father and the holy Scripture But if we should now demand of them what they meane by the Church of England this Author seemes to be thunder-stricken at this Question and calls the very Question a new Divinity where he deales like such as holding great revenues by unjust Titles will not suffer their Titles to be called in Question For it is apparent Ac si solaribus radiis descriptum esset to use Tertullians phrase that the word Church is an Equivocall word and hath as many severall acceptions as letters and that Dolus latet in universalibus And that by the Church of England first by some of these men is meant onely the Bishops or rather the two Archbishops or more properly the Archbishop of Canterbury Just as the Iesuited Papists resolve the Church and all the glorious Titles of it into the Pope so do these into the Archbishop or at fullest they understand it of the Bishops and their party met in Convocation as the more ingenuous of the Papists make the Pope and his Cardinals to be their Church thus excluding all the Christian people and Presbyters of the Kingdome as not worthy to be reckoned in the number of the Church And which is more strange this Author in his Simplicity as he truly saith never heard nor thought of any more Churches of England then one and what then shall become of his Diocesan Churches and Diocesan Bishops And what shall we think of England when it was an Heptarchy had it not then seven Churches when seven Kings Or if the Bounds of a Kingdome must constitute the Limits and Bounds of a Church why are not â—ngland Scotland and Ireland all one Church when they are happily united under one gracious Monarch into one Kingdom We read in Scripture of the Churches of Iudea and the Churches of Galatia and why not the Churches of England not that we denie the Consâ—ciatiâ—n or Combination of Churches into a Provinciall or Nationall Synod for the right ordering of them But that there should be no Church in England but a Nationall Church this is that which thâ—s â—mbâ—r â—o his simplicity affirmes of which the very rehearsall is a 〈◊〉 SECT XVIII THere are yet two things with which this Remonstrance shuts up it self which must not be past without our Obelisks First he scoffs at the Antiprelatical Church and the Antiprelatical Divisions for our parts we acknowledge no Antiprelatical Church But there are a company of men in the Kingdom of no mean rank or quality for Piety Nobility Learning that stand up to bear witness against the Hierarchie as it now stands their usurpations over Gods Church and Ministers their cruel using of Gods people by their tyrannical government this we acknowledge and if he call these the Antiprelatical Church we doubt not but your Honours will consider that there are many thousands in this Kingdom and those pious and worthy persons that thus do and upon most just cause It was a speech of Erasmus of Luther Vt quisque vir est optimus it is illius Scriptis minimè offendi The better any man was the less offence he took at Luthers Writings but we may say the contrary of the Prelates Ut quisque vir est optimus it à illorum factis magis offendi The better any man is the more he is offended at their dealings And all that can be objected against this party will be like that in Tertullian Bonus vir Cajus Sejus
to the Jewish Sabbath and was also used by the Ancients Ruffinus in Psal. 47. Origâ—n Hom. 23. in Num. Gregory Nazian Whether that assertion No Bishop No King and no Ceremonie no Bishop be not very prejudiciall to Kingly Authority For it seemes to imply that the Civill power depends upon the Spiritual and is supported by Ceremonies and Bishops Whether seeing it hath been proved that Bishops as they are novv asserted are a meere humane Ordinance it may not by the same Authority be abrogated by vvhich it vvas first established especially considering the long experience of the hurt they have done to Church and State Whether the advancing of Episcopacie into Ius Divinum doth not make it a thing simply unlavvfull to submit to that Government Because that many consciencious men that have hitherto conformed to Ceremonies and Episcopacy have done it upon this ground as supposing that Authority did not make them matters of vvorship but of Order and Decencie c. And thus they satisfied their consciences in ansvvering those Texts Colos. 2.20 21 22. Matth. 15.9 But novv since Episcopacy comes to be challenged as a Divine Ordinance hovv shall vve be responsible to those Texts And is it not as it is novv asserted become an Idoll and like the Brazen Serpent to be ground to povvder Whether there be any difference in the point of Episcopacy betweene Ius Divinum and Ius Apostolicum Because we finde some claiming their standing by Ius Divinum others by Ius Apostolicum But we conceive that Ius Apostolicum properly taken is all one with Ius Divinum For Ius Apostolicum is such a Ius which is founded upon the Acts and Epistles of the Apostles written by them so as to be a perpetuall Rule for the succeeding Administration of the Church as this Author saith Pag. 20. And this Ius is Ius Divinum as well as Apostolicum But if by Ius Apostolicum they mean improperly as some do such things which are not recorded in the Writings of the Apostles but introduced the Apostles being living 〈…〉 be rightly said to be Iure Apostolico nor such things which the Apostles did intend the Churches should be bound unto Neither is Episcopacie as it imports a superioritie of power over a Preâ—byter no not in this sense Iure Apostolico as hath beene already proved and might further be manifested by divers Testimonies if need did require We will only instance in Cassander a man famous for his immoderate moderation in controverted Points of Religion who in his Consultat Articul 14. hath this saying An Episâ—opatus inter ordines Ecclesiasticâ—s ponendus sit inter Theologos Canonistas non convenit Convenit autem inter omnes Apostolorum aetate inter Presbyterum Episcopum nullum discrimen fuisse c. Wether the distinction of Beza between Episcopus Divinus Humâ—nuâ— Diabolicus be not worthy your Honours consideration By the Divine Bishop he meanes the Bishop as he is taken in Scripture which is one and the same with a Presbyter By the humane Bishop he meanes the Bishop chosen by the Presbyters to be President over them and to rule with them by fixed Lawes and Canons By the Diabolical Bishop he means a Bishop with sole power of Ordination and Jurisdiction Lording it over Gods heritage and governing by his owne will and authority Which puts us in minde of the Painter that Limned two pictures to the same proportion and figure The one he reserved in secret the other he exposed to common view And as the phansie of beholders led them to censure any line or proportion as not done to the life he mends it after direction If any fault be found with the eye hand foot c. He corrects it till at last the addition of every mans fancy had defaced the first figure and made that which was the Picture of a man swell into a monster Then bringing forth this and his other Picture which hee had reserved he presented both to the people And they abhorring the former and applauding the latter he cried Hunc populus fecit This deformed one the People made This lovely one I made As the Painter of his Painting so in Beza's sense it may be said of Bishops God at first instituted Bishops such as are all one with Presbyters and such are amiable honourable in all the Churches of God But when men would be adding to Gods institution what power preheminence Jurisdiction Lordliness their phansie suggested unto them this divine Bishop lost his Original beauty and became to be Humanus And in conclusion by these and other aditions swelling into a Pope Diabolicus Whether the Ancient Fathers when they call Peter Marke Iames Timothy and Titus Bishops did not speak according to the Language of the times wherein they lived rather then according to the true acception of the word Bishop and whether it be not true which is here said iâ— this Book that they are called Bishops of Alexandâ—iae Ephesâ—s Hierusâ—lem c in a very improper sense because they abode at those pâ—acâ—s a longer time then at other places For suâ—e it is if 〈…〉 and and Iâ—mes Apostles which are Bishops over the whol◠〈◊〉 and the Apostles made Markâ— â—imothy and Titus 〈…〉 c. it seemes to us that it would have been a great sin in them to limit themselves to one particular Diocesse and to â—eave that calling in which Christ had placed them Whether Presbyters in Scripture are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and that it is an office required at their hands to rule and to govern as hath bin proved in this Book The Bishops can without sin arrogate the exercise of this power to themselves alone and why they may not with the same lawfulness impropriate to themselves alone the Key of Doctrine which yet notwithstanding al would condemn as well as the Key of Discipline seeing that the whole power of the Keys is given to Presbyters in Scripture as well as to Bishops as appears Mat. 16.19 where the power of the Keys is promised to Peter in the name of the rest of the Apostles and their successors given to all the Apostles and their successors Mat. 18.19 Iohn 20.23 And that Presbyters succeed the Apostles appears not onely Mat. 28.20 but also Acts. 20.28 where the Apostle ready to leave the Church of Ephesus commends the care of ruling and feeding it to the Elders of that Church To this Irenaeus witnesseth lib 4 cap. 43.44 This Bishop Iewell against Harding Artic. 4. Sect. 5 6. saith that all Pastors have equall power of binding and loosing with â—eter Whether since that Bishops assume to themselves power temporall to be Barons and to sit in Parliament as Judges and in Court of Star-Chamber High Commission and other Courts of Justice and also power spirituall over Ministers and People to ordain silence suspend
SMECTYMNUUS REDIVIVUS BEING An Answer to a Book entituled AN HUMBLE REMONSTRANCE In which The Originall of LITURGY EPISCOPACY is discussed And Quaeres propounded concerning both The PARITY of Bishops and Presbyters in Scripture Demonstrated The occasion of their IMPARITY in Antiquity discovered The DISPARITY of the Ancient and our Moderne Bishops manifested The ANTIQUITY of ruling Elders in the Church vindicated The PRELATICALL Church Bounded JEREMY 6.16 Thus saith the Lord stand in the wayes and behold and aske for the Old way which is the way and walk therein Tertul. de praescr adv haeres Id Dominicum verum quod prius traditum id autem extraneum falsum quod sit posterius LONDON Printed by T. C. for Iohn Rothwell at the Fountaine and Beare in Goldsmiths-row in Cheapside 1654. TO THE READER Good Reader SOlomon told us long since that there is no end of many books Eccles. 12.12 Scripturiency it seemeth is no novell humour but abounded then even when the means of transmitting knowledge was more difficult if there were cause for the complaint then there is much more now since the Presse hath helped the Penne every one will be scribling and so better bookes are neglected and lie like a few grains of Corn under an heap of Chaffe and dust usually books are received as fashions the newest not the best and most profitable are most in esteem in so much that really learned and sober men have been afraid to publish their labours lest they should divert the world from reading the usefull works of others that wrote before them I remember Dr. Altingius a terse and neat spirit stood out the battery of twenty years importunity and would not yield to divulge any thing upon this fear Certainly Reader 't is for thy profit sometimes to look back and consult with them that first laboured in the mines of knowledge and not alwaies to take up with what commeth next to hand In this controversie of Discipline many have written but not all with a like judgement and strength which I believe hath been no small rock of offence and stone of stumbling to the adversaries who are hardned with nothing so much as a weak defence of the truth as Austin complaineth that when he was a Manichee he had had too too often the victory put into his hands by the defences of weak and unskilfull Christians This work which the Stationer hath now revived that it may not be forgotten and like a Jewel after once shewing shut up in the Cabinet of private studies only was penned by severall worthy Divines of great note and fame in the Churches of Christ under the borrowed and covert name of SMECTYMNUUS which was some matter of scorn and exception to the adversaries as the Papists objected to Calvin his printing his Institutions under the name of Alcuinus and to Bucer his naming himself Aretius Felinus though all this without ground and reason the affixion of the name to any work being a thing indifferent for there we should not consider so much the Author as the matter and not who said it but what and the assumption of another name not being infamous but where it is done out of deceit and to anothers prejudice or out of shame because of guilt or feare to own the truths which they should establish I suppose the reverend Authours were willing to lie hid under this ONOMASTICK partly that their work might not be received with prejudice the faction against which they dealt arrogating to themselves a Monopoly of Learning and condemning all others as ignorants and novices not worthy to be heard and partly that they might not burden their Frontispiece with a voluminous nomenclature it not being usuall to affix so many names at length to one Treatise For the work it self it speaketh its own praise and is now once more subjected to thy censure and judgement This second publication of it was occasioned by another book for vindication of the Ministery by the Provinciall Assembly of London wherein there are frequent appeals to Smectymnuus though otherwise I should have judged the reprinting seasonable for the Lord hath now returned us to such a juncture of time wherein there is greater freedom of debate without noyse and vulgar prejudice and certainly if the quarrell of Episcopacy were once cleared and brought to an issue we should not be so much in the dark in other parts of Discipline the conviction of an errour by solid grounds being the best way to finde out the truth reformations carried on with popular tumult rather then rationall conviction seldom end well though the judgement of God be to be observed in powring contempt upon those which are partiall in his law yet the improvident leapes which a people are wont to make upon such occasions lay the foundation of a lasting mischiefe I hope that by the review of these matters we shall come to know more of the Lords counsell for the ordering of his house or at least that by weighing what may be said on all sides we shall learn more to truth it in love which is the unfeined desire of him who is Thine in the Lord THO. MANTON Newington June 23. 1653. Most Honourable Lords And ye the Knights Citizens and Burgesses of the Honourable House of COMMONS ALthough we doubt not but that book which was lately directed to your Honours bearing the name of an Humble Remonstrance hath had accesse unto your presence and is in the first approaches of it discovered by your discerning spirits to be neither Humble nor a Remonstrance but a heap of confident and ungrounded assertions so that to your Honours a Reply may seem superfluous Yet left the Authour should glory in our silence as a granting of the cause we humbly crave your Honours leave to present not so much to your selves as to the world by your hands a view of this Remonstrance in which the Authour after too large a Preface undertakes the support of two things which seem to him to be threatned with danger of a present precipice the Liturgie and the Hierarchy It was a constitution of those admired sons of Justice the Areopagi that such as pleaded before them should plead without prefacing and without passion had your Honours made such a constitution this Remonstrance must have been banished from the face of your Assembly for the Preface fils almost a fourth part of the book and the rest swels with so many passionate Rhetorications as it is harder for us in the multitude of his words to finde what his argument is that we have to answer then to answer it when it is found We would not trace him in his words but close immediately with his arguments did we not finde in him a sad exemplification of that divine Axiome in Multitudine verbâ—rum non deest peccatum in the multitude of words there wants not sin for though the Author is bold to call upon your Honours to heare the
words of truth and confidence yet how little truth there is in his great confidence the ensuing discourse shall discover His very words are confident enough and yet as false as confident wherein he Impropriates all honesty unto these his Papers and brands all others with the name of Libellers and yet himselfe sinnes deeply against the rule of honesty and lies naked to the scourge of his own censure First in setting a brand upon all writings that have lately issued from the presse as if they had forgotten to speak any other language then Libellous it seems himselfe had forgotten that some things had issued by authority of the King and Parliament Secondly in taxing implicitely all such as wil not own this Remonstrance for theirs as none of the peaceable and wel-affected Sons of the Church of England Thirdly in censuring the way of petitioning your Honours the ancient and ordinary free way of seeking redresse of our evils for a Tumultuary under-hand way Fourthly in condemning all such as are not fautors of this Episcopal Cause as none of his Majesties good Subjects engrossing that praise onely to his own party saying The eyes of us the good Subjects of this whole Realme are fixed upon your Successe c. Fifthly in Impropriating to the same party the praise of Orthodox pag. 6. as if to speak a word or think a thought against Episcopacy were no lesse Heresie then it was in former time to speak against the Popes supremacy or the monkes fat belly whereas whether the Episcopall part be the Orthodox peaceable wel-affected part and his Majesties only good Subjects we leave to your Honours to Judge upon the numerous informations that flow in unto you from the several parts of this Kingdome Nor can they decline your Judgement seeing now you are through Gods blessing happily met in a much longed for Parliament but whither so much longed for by him and his accomplices as by those against whom he whets his Style the prayers that have obtained this happy meeting and the praises that doe attend it will decide in that great day The Helena whose Champion this Remonstrant chiefely is is that Government which he calls Sacred viz. that Government by Arch-Bishops Bishops Deanes Archdeacons c. which saith he through the sides of some misliked persons some have endeavoured to wound Misliked Persons and why not offending persons why not guilty persons when this Honourable house hath found just cause to charge some of them with crimes of the highest nature Our zeale for your Honours makes us feare lest your assembly should suffer in this word as if your proceedings against such persons should be grounded upon compliance with such as doe mislike them rather then upon their own demerits or the Justice of this Court But whatever those Persons be the Government it self is Sacred which by the joynt confession of all reformed Divines derives it self from the times of the blessed Apostles without any interruption without contradiction of any one congregation in the world unto this present age This is but an Episcopall Bravado therefore we let it passe till we come to close and contend with him in the point where we shall demonstrate that in the compasse of three lines he hath packt up as many untruths as could be smoothly couched in so few words as any man of common understanding that lookes upon the face of the Government of almost all reformed Churches in the Christian world may at first view discover But before we come to this there are yet two things in this Preface which we count not unworthy observation The First is the comparison which he makes between the two Governments the Civil which with us is Monarchy and the sacred which with him is Episcopaey Of the first he saith if Antiquity may be the Rule as he pleades it for Episcopacy or if Scripture as he interprets Scripture it is VARIABLE and ARBITRARY but the other DIVINE and VNALTERABLE so that had men petitioned for the altering of Monarchicall Government they had in his Judgement been lesse culpable both by Scripture and Antiquity then in petitioning the alteration of the Hierarchicall Had he found but any such passage in any of his Lewd Libellers as his modesty is alwayes pleased to terme them certainly if we may borrow his own phrase the eares of the three Interessed Kingdomes yea all the neigbbour Churches and if we may say the whole Christian world and no small part beyond it had run with the loud cryes of no lesse then Treason Treason Truth is in his Antiquity we finde that this his uninterrupted sacred Government hath so farre invaded the Civil and so yoked Monarchy even in this Kingdome as Malmesbury reports That William Rufus oppressed by Bishops perswaded the Jewes to confute them promising thereupon to turne England to their Religion that he might be free of Bishops And this is so natural an effect of unalterable Episcopacy that Pius the fourth to the Spanish Embassador importuning him to permit Bishops to be declared by the Councel of Trent to be Iure Divino gave this answer That his King knew not what he did desire for if Bishops should be so declared they would be all exempted from his Power and as independent as the Pope himself The second thing observable is the comparison he makes between the late Alterations attempted in our Neighbour Church by his Episcopal faction and that Alteration that is now justly desired by the humble Petitioners to this Honourable House The one being attempted by strangers endeavoring violently to obtrude Innovations upon a setled Church and State The other humbly petitioned to the Heads and Princes of our State by Multitudes therein almost ruined by an Innovating Faction yet doth not this Remonstrant blush to say if these be branded so he calls the just censures of this Honourable House for Incendiaries how shall these Boutefeux escape c. thus cunningly indeavouring either to justifie the former by the practise of the latter or to render the latter more odious then the former The attempts of these men whom he would thus render odious he craves leave to present to your Honours in two things which are the subjects of this quarrel The Liturgy and Episcopacy and we humbly crave your Honours leave in both to answer SECT II. FIrst the Liturgy of the Church of England saith he hath been hitherto esteemed sacred reverently used by holy Martyrs daily frequented by devout Protestants as that which more then once hath been confirmed by the Edicts of religious Princes and your own Parliamentary Acts c. And hath it so whence then proceed these many Additions and Alterations that have so changed the face and fabrick of the Liturgy that as Dr. Hall spake once of the pride of England if our fore-fathers should revive and see their daughters walking in Cheapside with their fannes and farthingales c. they would wonder what