Selected quad for the lemma: authority_n

Word A Word B Word C Word D Occurrence Frequency Band MI MI Band Prominent
authority_n bishop_n law_n power_n 3,346 5 4.9385 4 true
View all documents for the selected quad

Text snippets containing the quad

ID Title Author Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication) STC Words Pages
A52055 Smectymnuus redivivus Being an answer to a book, entituled, An humble remonstrance. In which, the original of liturgy episcopacy is discussed, and quæries propounded concerning both. The parity of bishops and presbyters in scripture demonstrated. The occasion of the 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. Smectymnuus.; Marshall, Stephen, 1594?-1655.; Calamy, Edmund, 1600-1666.; Young, Thomas, 1587-1655.; Newcomen, Matthew, 1610?-1669.; Spurstowe, William, 1605?-1666. 1654 (1654) Wing M784; ESTC R223740 77,642 91

There are 10 snippets containing the selected quad. | View lemmatised text

a generall word signifying a day of rest which is common as well to the Christian Sabbath as to the Jewish Sabbath and was also used by the Ancients Ruffinus in Psal. 47. Orig●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 Pre●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 Epis●opatus inter ordines Ecclesiastic●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 Hum●nu● 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 i● this Book that they are called Bishops of Alexand●iae Ephes●s Hierus●lem c in a very improper sense because they abode at those p●ac●s a longer time then at other places For su●e it is if 〈…〉 and and I●mes Apostles which are Bishops over the whol● 〈◊〉 and the Apostles made Mark● ●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 ●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 ●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
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 C●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
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 r●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 O●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 Presbyte● 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 wh●ch if not all would be found were they not the same But if this Remonstrant think to help himselfe by taking Sanctuary in Antiquity though we would gladly rest in Scripture the Sanctuary of
the crime be so publike that it may deservedly be called Notorious Which Law further determines what is notorious saying Offensam illam nos intelligimus manifestam quae vel per confessionem vel probationem legitime nota fuerit aut evidentiâ Rei quae nulla possit tergiversatione celari We count that offence manifest which eith●r by confession or by lawful proofe comes to be known or by evidence of fact so as it can be hid by no tergiversations So that all was done in former times with mature deliberation upon examination and evidence produced and proved by such witnesses as against whom the Defendant could lay in no just exception And not as now an Accusation whispered against a man he knowes not by whom to which he must take his oath to answer before he knows what his Accusation is Which Oath if he takes without further witnesse he is censured upon the witnesse of his own Oath If he takes it not he is sent presently to prison there to lye without Bayle or Mainprize till the insupportable miseries of his long durance compel him to take on Oath against Nature Scripture Conscience and the just Defence of his own innocency That our Bishops therefore and former Bishops are Two in the point of executing their Judicatory power we need spend no more time to prove But come to the third thing in which the difference betweene ours and former Bishops is to be evidenced SECT XII ANd that is State Imployment or attendance upon Civil and Secular affaires c. which both Christ and Saint Paul prohibits which prohibition reacheth every Bishop to speake in Chrysostomes words as well as Timothy to whom it is directed Nullus ergo Episcopatu praeditus haec audire detrectet sed agere ea omnia detrectet Let no man that is a Bishop refuse to hear what the Apostle saith but to doe what the Apostle forbids We deny not but that Bishops were in the Primitive times often incumbred with secular business but these were put upon them sometimes by Emperors who sought the ruine of the Church as Iulian of whom Niceph. lib. 10. cap. 13. doth report that in Clerum coaptatos Senatorum munere ministerio perverse fungi jussit Sometimes the gracious disposition of Princes toward Christian Religion made them thus to honour Bishops thinking thereby to advance Religion as Constantine the Great enacted that such as were to be tryed before Civil Magistrates might have leave to appeale ad Iudicium Episcoporum atque eorum sententiam ratam esse tanquam ab ipso Imperatore prolatum And this the Historian reckoneth as one argument of his reverend respect to Religion Sometimes the excellency of their singular parts cast civil dignities upon them Tiberius granted a Questors dignity unto a Bishop for his eloquence Chrysostome for his notable stoutness and freedome of speech was sent as the fittest man to Gainas with the Emperors command Sometimes the people observing the Bishops to be much honoured by the Emperour would sollicit them to present their greivances to the Emperour And sometimes the aspiring humour of the Bishops raised them to such places as appears by Cyrill who was the first Bishop in Alexandria who had civil dignities conferred upon him as Socrates relates it from whom civil authority did descend upon succeeding Bishops 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of whom Nicephorus therefore recorded Episcopatum majoricum fastu prophanorum Magistratuum more quam praedecessores ejus Episcopi ingressus est unde adeo initium sumptum est in Ecclesia Alexandrina ut Episcopi etiam profana negotia curarent He entred upon his Episcopacy with more pomp then his predecessors with a pomp conformable to the Heathen Magistrates Both these Historians relate the sad consequence that followed upon this that Orestes the Roman Governour seeing his power much weakened by the Bishops interposing in secular affairs hated the Bishop and this as the Historian calls it his usurped power This president of the Alexandrian Bishop the Bishop of Rome did soon follow Et Romanus Episcopatus non aliter quam Alexandrinus quasi EXTRA SACERDOTII FINES egressus ad secularem principatum erat jam delapsus The Bishop of Rome as well as the Bishop of Alexandria breaking the limits of the Priestly function did degenerate into a secular Principality which purchased no lesse envie to him then that to the other And though these two Bishops went at first abreast in this point yet in a short time the Roman had out stripped the Alexandrian in that power till the Church degenerating more and more that Roman Priest advanced his power not onely above all the Bishops but all the Monarchs in the Christian Orbe Yet notwithstanding he that shall look into the Ancients shall finde first that the best of them held that they were not to be molested with the handling of worldly affaires Cyprian Epist. 66.1 Singuli divino Sacerdotio honorati non nisi altari sacrificiis deservire precibus atque orationibus vacare debent Molestiis secularibus non sunt obligandi qui divinis rebus spiritualibus occupantur Secondly that they complained of them as of heavy burthens Aug. calls it Angaria yea Austin himselfe in his 81. Epistle complaines that worldly business hindered his praying and so pressed him that vix respirare potuit and Gregory the great non sine dolore in secularibus versabatur praefat in Dial. Thirdly Cyprian construed it as one great cause of persecutions raised against the Church de lapsis Sect. 4. Fourthly it was much cryed down as unlawful by the holy Fathers many Canons forbidding it and that under pain of being removed from their places Can. Apost Can. 6. Can. 81. hee that did presume to administer 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Roman command or Administration of Military affaires or civil place as Zonaras there he should be desposed Can. Apo. Can. 83. hiring of ground medling with worldly affaires is to be laid aside by them Otherwise they are threatned to be liable to Ecclesiastical censures Conc. Cal. Can. 3. Conc. Carth. Can. 16. We will adde this for a conclusion in this point it is observed by Athanasius Sulpitius Severus and other Ecclesiastical Historians that the Arians were very expedite in worldly affaires which experience they gained by their constant following and attendance upon the Emperours Court and what troubles they occasioned to the Church thereby is notoriously known to any that have seen the Histories of their times And in this our Bishops have approved themselves more like to the Arian Bishops then the purer Bishops of purer times but how ever cleare it is that our Bishops and the Bishops of former times are Two Two in election to their office Two in the discharge of their office Two in their Ordination Iurisdiction Processes Censures Administrations and the difference between our Bishops and those of former times is greater then between the great Bishop of Rome and
all the rest are no part of Canonical Scripture And therefore our former and ancienter English translations though they have these Postscripts yet they are put in a small character different from that of the Text. Although our Episcopal men of late in newer impressions have inlarged their Phylacteries in putting those Postscripts in the same full character with that of the Text that the simple might beleeve they are Canonical Scripture The Papists themselves Baronius Serrarius and the Rhemists confesse that there is much falsity in them The first Epistle to Timothy is thus subscribed the first to Timothy was written from Laodicea whoch is the chiefest City of Phrygia Pacatiana Here wee demand whether Paul when hee writ the first Epistle to Timothy was assured he should live to write a second which was written long after And if not How comes it to bee subscribed the first to Timothy which hath relation to a second Besides the Epistle is said to bee writ from Laodicea whereas Beza in his Annotations proves apparently that it was written from Macedonia to which Opinion Baronius and Serrarius subscribe It is added Which is the chiefest City of Phrygia Pacatiana But this Epithet is nowhere read in the Writers of those ages saith Beza Sed apud recentiores illo● qui Romani imperii jam inclinantis provincias descripserunt So that by this place it is evident that the subscription was added a long while after the writing of the Epistles by some men for the most part vel indoctis saith Beza vel certe non satis attentis Either by a Learned or negligent man The second Epistle is thus subscribed The second Epistle unto Timothy ordained the first Bishop of the Church of the Ephesians was written from Rome when Paul was brought before Nero the second time Now these words Ordained the first Bishop is wanting saith Beza in quibusdam vetustis codicibus in veteri vulgatâ editione apud Syrum interpre●●m If Saint Paul had written this Postscript he would not have said To Timothy the first Bishop c. whereas it was not yet certain whether ever there should bee a second Neither would it bee said when Paul was brought c. But when I was the second time brought before Nero. The Syriack Interpreter reads it Here ends the second Epistle to Timothy written from Rome The Epistle to Titus is thus subscribed Written to Titus Ordained first Bishop of the Church of the Cretians from Nicopolis of Macedonia Here it is said that this Epistle was written from Nicopolis whereas it is cleare that Paul was not at Nicopolis when he wrote it Tit. 3.12 Be diligent to come to me at Nicopolis for I have determined there to winter Hee doth not say Here to winter but There Where note for the present he was not there And besides it is said that Titus was Ordained the first Bishop c. And who was the second or was there ever a second And also He is said to be Bishop not onely of a Diocess but of all Creet Was there ever such a second Bishop Adde lastly that it is said Bishop of the Church of the Cretians Whereas it would bee said of the Churches of the Cretians For the Christian Churches of any Nation are called Churches by Luke and Paul not Church Therefore Codex Claremontanus subscribes Here ends the Epistle to Titus and no more So the Syriack Finitur Epistola ad Titum quae scripta fuit è Nicopoli The old Vulgar Edition hath nothing of the Episcopacy of Titus By all this it appears that if the Bishops had no more authority to urge us to subscribe to their Ceremonies then they have authority for their Episcopal Dignity by these Subscriptions there would be no more subscription to Ceremonies in the Churches of England But some will say that there is one objection out of Scripture yet unanswered and that is from the inequality that was betweene the twelve Apostles and the seventy Disciples To which we answer First that it cannot be proved that the twelve Apostles had any superiority over the seventy either of Ordination or Jurisdiction or that there was any subordination of the seventy unto the twelve but suppose it was yet we answer Secondly that a superiority and inferiority betweene Officers of different kindes will not prove that there should be a superiority and inferiority between Officers of the same kinde No man will deny but that in Christs time there were Apostles Evangelists Prophets Pastors and Teachers and that the Apostles were superior to Evangelists and Pastors But it cannot be proved that one Apostle had any superiority over another Apostle or one Evangelist over an other And why then should one Presbyter be over another Hence it followeth that though we should grant a superiority between the twelve and the seventy yet this will not prove the question in hand Because the question is concerning Officers of the same kind and the instance is of Officers of different kinds amongst whom no man will deny but there may be a superiority and inferiority as there is amongst us between Presbyters and Deacons And now let your Honours judge considering the premisses how far this Episcopal government is from any Divine right or Apostolical Institution And how true that speech of Hierome is that a Bishop as it is a superiour Order to a Presbyter is an Humane presumption not a Divine Ordinance But though Scripture fails them yet the indulgence and Munificence of Religious Princes may support them and to this the Remonstrant makes his next recourse yet so as he acknowledgeth here Ingagements to Princes onely for their accessory dignities titles and Maintenance not at all for their stations and functions wherein yet the author plainly acknowledgeth a difference between our Bishops and the Bishops of old by such accessions For our parts we are so farre from envying the gracious Munificence of pious Princes in collating honourable maintenance upon the Ministers of Christ that we beleeve that even by Gods own Ordinance double Honour is due unto them And that by how much the Ministery of the Gospell is more honourable then that of the Law by so much the more ought all that embrace the Gospell to be carefull to provide that the Ministers of the Gospell might not onely live but maintain Hospitalitie according to the Rule of the Gospell And that worthy Gentleman spake as an Oracle that said That scandalous Maintenance is a great caues of a scandelous Ministery Yet we are not ignorant that when the Ministery came to have Agros d●mos lecationes vehicula ●ques la●if●ndia as Chrysost Hom. 86 in Matth. That then Religio peperit divitias filia devoravit Matrem Religion brought forth riches and the Daughter devoured the Mother and then there was a voice of Angels heard from Heaven Hodie venenum in Ecclesiam Christi cecidit This day is poison shed into the Church of Christ. And then it was that Ierom complained
Christi Ecclesia post quam ad Christianos principes venit potentiâ quidem divitiis major sed virtutibus minor facta est Then also was that Conjunction found true That when they had wooden Chalices they had golden Priests but when their Chalices were golden their Priests were wooden And though we do not think there is any such incompossibility but that large Revenues may be happily managed with an humble sociablnesse yet is very rare to finde History tells us that the superfluous revenues of the Bishops not onely made them neglect their Ministery but further ushered in their stately and pompous attendance which did so elevate their spirits that they insulted over their brethren both Clergy and People and gave occasion to others to hate and abhorre the Christian Faith Which Eusebius sets forth fully in the pride of Paulus Samosatenus vvho notwithstanding the meannesse and obscurity of his birth aftervvards grew to that height of insolency and pride in all his carriage especially in that numerous traine that attended him in the streets and in his stately throne raised after the manner of Kings and Princes that Fides nostra invidiae odio propter fastam superbiam cordis illius facta fuerit obnoxia The Christian Faith vvas exposed to envy and hatred through his pride And as their ambition fed vvith the largenesse of their revenues discovered it self in great attendance stately dvvellings and all Lordly pomp so Hierom complaines of their pride in their stately seates qui velut in aliqua sublimi specula constituti vix dignantur videre mortales alloqui conservos su●s who fitting aloft as it were in a vvatch-tovver vvill scarce deigne to looke upon poore mortalls or speake to their fellovv-servants Here vve might be large in multipying several testimonies against the pride of Ecclesiasticall persons that the largenesse of their revenues raysed them to but we will conclude with that grave complaint of Sulpitius Severus Ille qui antè p●dibus aut as●lloire consueverat spumante equ● superbus inv●hitur parvâ priùs ac vili cellula contentus habitare erigit celsa Laquearia construit multa conclavia sculpit p●stes pingit a●maria vestem respuit g●ossiorem indumentum molle desiderat c. Which because the practice of our times hath already turned into English we spare the labour to translate Onely suffer us being now to give a Vale to our Remonstrants arguments to recollect some few things First whereas this Remonstrant saith If we do not shew out of the true genuine writings of those holy men that lived in the Apostles dayes a clear received distinction of Bishops Presbyters and Deacons as three distinct subordinate callings with an evident specification of the duty belonging to each of them Let this claimed Hierarchy be for ever routed out of the Church We beseech you let it be remembred how we have proved out of the genuine and undeniable writings of the Apostles themselves that these are not three distinct callings Bishops are Presbyters being with them all one Name and Office and that the distinction of Bishops and Presbyters was not of Divine Institution but Humane and that these Bishops in their first Institution did not differ so much from Presbyters as our present Bishops differ from them Secondly Whereas this Remonstant saith If our Bishops challenge any other power then was by Apostolike authority delegated to and required of Timothy and Titus and the Ang●ls of the Asian Churches L●t them be disclaimed as usurpers Wee desire it may be remembred how we have proved first that Timothy and Titus and the Angels who are Diocesan Bishops and secondly that our Bishops challenge if not in their Polemickes yet in their Practicks a power that Timothy and Titus and those Angels never did Thirdly Whereas this Remonstrant saith If there can be better evidence under Heaven for any matter of fact let Episcopacy be for ever abandoned out of Gods Church We beseech you remember how weake we have discovered his Evidence to be and then the Inference upon all these we humbly leave to your Honours Wisdom and Iustice. SECT XIV HAving thus considered the validity of those arguments whereby this Remonstrant would suffult Episc●pacy we descend now to inquire what satisfaction he gives to those objections which himself frames as the main if not the ●ole arguments that Episcopacy is assaultable by and they are two First that pleading the Divine right of Episcopacy is to the prejudi●e of Sovereignty Secondly that it casts a dangerous imputation upon all those Reformed Churches that want this Government To the first the prejudice of Sovereignty he answers there is a compatibleness in this case of Gods Act and the Kings it is God that makes the Bishop the King that gives the Bishoprick But we have proved already that God never made a Bishop as he stands in his Superiority over al other Presbyters he never had Gods Fiat and if they disclaim the influence of sovereignty unto their creation to a Priority and assert that the King doth not make them Bishops they must have no being at all Sure we are the Laws of the Land proclaim that not only Bishopricks but Bish●ps and all the Iurisdiction they have is from the King whereas the Remonstrant acknowledgeth no more but the bare place and excercise to be from Regall donation which cannot be affirmed without apparent prejudice of that Sovereigntie which the Lawes of the Land have invested our Princes with And for his unworthy comparison of Kings in order to Bishops and Patrons in order to their Clerkes when he shall prove that the Patron gives ministerial power to his Clerke as the King according to our Laws gives Episcopall power to the Bishop it may be of some conducement to his cause but till then we leave the unfitnesse of this comparison and the unthankfulnesse of those men to the indulgence of their Sovereigne to their deserved recompence His learned answer to such men as borrowing Saint Ieroms phrase speake Saint Pauls truth is in summe this That he knowes not how to prescribe to mens thoughts but for all his Rhetoricke they will think what they list but if they will grant him the question they shall soon be at an end of the quarrell which one answer if satisfactory would silence all controversies to as good purpose as he did Bellarmine who said Bellarmine saith it is thus and I say it is not and where is Bellarmine now To the second objection that Episcopacie thus asserted casts an imputation upon all the reformed Churches that want that Government he saith that the objection is intended to raise envie against them who if they may be beleeved love and honour those sister-Churches and 〈◊〉 God for them But do they out pluck all this envie upon themselves who in their Conferences Writings Pulpits Vniversities Disputes High Commissi●n Declamations have disclaimed them as no Churches that 〈◊〉
the Kings will interdicts the Realm and the King forc't to suffer it till refusing to Crown Eustace the Kings Son because the Pope had so commanded he flies again Becket's pride and out-ragious treasons are too manifest resigning the Kings gift of his Archbishoprick to receive it of the Pope requiring the Custody of Rochester-castle and the Tower of London as belonging to his Seignorie Protects murthering Priests from Temporal Sword standing stifly for the Liberties and Dignities of Clerks but little to chastise their vices vvhich besides other erying sins vvere above a hundred murthers since Henry the Seconds crowning till that time to maintain vvhich most of the Bishops conspire till the terrour of the King made them shrink but Becket obdures denies that the King of Englands Courts have authority to judge him And thus was this noble King disquieted by an insolent Traitour in habit of a Bishop a great part of his Reigne the Land in uproar many Excommunicate and accursed France and England set to War and the King himself curbed and controlled and lastly disciplin'd by the Bishops and Monks first vvith a bare-foot penance that drevv blood from his feet and lastly with fourscore lashes on his anointed body vvith Rods. In the same Kings time it vvas that the Archbishop of York striving to sit above Canterbury squats him down on his lap vvhence vvith many a cuff he vvas throvvn dovvn Next the pride of W. Longchamp Bishop of Elie was notorious vvho vvould ride vvith a thousand horse and of a Governour in the Kings absence became a Tyrant for vvhich flying in Womans apparel he vvas taken To this succeeds contention betvveen Canterbury and York about carriage of their Crosses and Rome appeal'd to the Bishop of Durham buyes an Earldom No sooner another King but Hubert another Archbishop to vex him and lest that were not enough made Chancellour of England And besides him Ieffery of York who refusing to pay a Subsidy within his Precincts and therefore all his temporalities seaz'd excommunicates the Sheriff beats the Kings Officers and interdicts his whole Province Hubert outbraves the King in Christmass hous-keeping hinders King Iohn by his Legantine power from recovering Normandy After him Stephen Langton set up by the Pope in spite of the King who opposing such an affront falls under an interdict with his whole Land and at the suit of his Archbishop to the Pope is depos'd by Papal Sentence his Kingdom given to Philip the French King Langtons friend and lastly resignes and enfeuds his Crown to the Pope After this tragical Stephen the fray which Boniface the next Archbishop but one had with the Canons of Saint Bartholmews is as pleasant the tearing of Hoods and Cowles the miring of Copes the flying about of Wax Candles and Censors in the scuffle cannot be imagined without mirth as his oathswere loud in this bickering so his curses were as vehement in the contention with the Bishop of Winchester for a slight occasion But now the Bishops had turned their contesting into base and servile flatteries to advance themselves on the ruine of the subjects For Peter de Rupibus Bishop of Winchester persvvading the King to displace English Officers and substitute Poictivines and telling the Lords to their faces that there vvere no Peeres in England as in France but that the King might do what he would and by whom he would became a firebrand to the civill wars that followed In this time Peckam Archbishop of Can. in a Synod was tampering vvith the Kings liberties but being threatened desisted But his successor Winchelsey on occasion of Subsidies demanded of the Clergie made ansvver That having tvvo Lords one Spirituall the other Temporall he ought rather to obey the Spirituall governour the Pope but that he vvould send to the Pope to knovv his pleasure and so persisted even to beggerie The Bishop of Durham also cited by the King flies to Rome In the deposing of this King vvho more forvvard then the Bishop of Hereford vvitnesse his Sermon at Oxford My head my head aketh concluding that an aking and sick head of a King vvas to be taken off vvithout further Physick Iohn the Archbishop of Canterbury suspected to hinder the Kings glorious victories in Flanders and France by stopping the conveyance of monies committed to his charge conspiring therein vvith vvish ●he Pope But not long after vvas constituted that fatall praemunire vvhich vvas the first nipping of their courage to seek aide at Rome And next to that the wide wounds that Wickleffe made in their sides From which time they have been falling and thenceforth all the smoak that they could vomit was turned against the rising light of pure doctrine Yet could not their Pride misse occasion to set other mischief on foot For the Citizens of London rising to apprehend a riotous fervant of the Bishop of Salisbury then Lord Treasurer who with his fellowes stood on his guard in the Bishops house were by the Bishop who maintained the riot of his servant so complained of that the King therewith seized on their liberties and set a Governour over the Citie And who knowes not that Thomas Arundell Archbishop of Canterbury was a chief instrument and agent in deposing King Richard as his actions and Sermon well declares The like intended the Abbot of Westminster to Henry the fourth who for no other reason but because he suspected that the King did not favour the wealth of the Church drew into a most horrible conspiracie the Earles of Kent Rutland and Salisbury to kill the King in a turnament at Oxford who yet notwithstanding was a man that professed to leave the Church in better state then he found it For all this soone after is Richard Scroop Archbishop of York in the field against him the chiefe attractor of the rebellious party In these times Thomas Arundell a great persecutor of the Gospel preached by Wikclefs followers dies a fearfull death his tongue so swelling vvithin his mouth that he must of necessity starve His successor Chickeley nothing milder diverts the King that vvas looking too neerly into the superfluous revenues of the Church to a bloody warre All the famous conquests vvhich Henry the fifth had made in France vvere lost by a civil dissension in England vvhich sprung first from the haughty pride of Beaufort Bishop and Cardinall of Winchester and the Archbishop of York against the Protector Speed 674. In the civill warres the Archbishop sides with the Earle of Warwick and March in Kent Speed 682. Edward the Fourth Mountacute Archbishop of York one of the chiefe conspirators with Warwick against Edward the fourth and afterwards his Jaylor being by Warwicks treason committed to this Bishop In Edward the Fifths time the Archbishop of York was though perhaps unwittingly yet by a certain fate of
ensue thereupon would never ordaine that for a remedy which would not onely be ineffectual to the cutting off of evil but become a stirrup for Antichrist to get into his saddle For if there be a necessity of setting up one Bishop over many Presbyters for preventing schismes there is as great a necessity of setting up one Archbishop over many Bishops and one Patriarch over many Archbishops and one Pope over all unlesse men will imagine that there is a danger of schisme onely among Presbyters and not among Bishops and Archbishops which is contrary to reason truth History and our own Experience And lest our adversaries should appeale from Hierome as an incompetent Judge in this case because a Presbyter and so a party we will therefore subjoyne the judgments of other ancient Fathers who were themselves Bishops The Commentaries that go under the name of Saint Ambrose upon Ephes. 4. mention another occasion of this Discrimination or priority and that was the increase and dilatation of the Church upon occasion whereof they did ordaine Rectors or Governours and other officers in the Church yet this he grants that this did differ from the former orders of the Church and from apostolical Writ And this Rectorship or Priority was devolved at first from one Elder to another by Succession when he who was in the place was removed the next in order among the Elders Succeeded But this was afterwards changed and that unworthy men might not be preferred it was made a matter of Election and not a matter of Succession Thus much we finde concerning the occasion of this imparity enough to shew it is not of Divine Authority For the second thing the persons who brought in this Imparity the same Authors tells us the Presbyters themselves brought it in witnesse Hierome ad Evag. Alexandriae Presbyteri unum ex se electum in Excelsiori gradu collacatum Episcopum nominabant quomodo si exercitus Imperatorem faceret aut Diaconi de se Archidiaconum The Presbyters of Alexandria did call him their Bishop whom they had chosen from among themselves placed in a higher degree as if an army should make an Emperour or the Deacons an Archdeacon Ambrose upon the fourth of the Ephesians tells us it was done by a Councell and although he neither name the time nor place of the Councel yet ascribing it to a Councell he grants it not to be Apostolical this gave occasion to others to sixe it upon Custome as Hieronym in Tit. and August Epist. 19. secundùm honorum vocabula quae Ecclesiae usus obtinuit Episcopatus Presbyterio major est And had that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Prelacy had the Seal and confirmation of Divine or Apostolical Authority Gregory Nazianzene would never in such a Pathetick manner have wished the Abolition of it as he doth in his 28. Oration And now where is that acknowledgement and conveyance of Imparity and Iurisdiction which saith this Remonstrant was derived from the Apostles hands and deduced in an uninterupted l●ne unto this day where is it we finde no such Imparity delivered from Apostolical hands nor acknowledged in Apostolical writings yet had there been such an acknowledgement and conveyance of imparity how this should have been deduced to us in an uninterrupted Line we know not unlesse our Bishops will draw the Line of their Pedigree through the ●oynes of Antichrist and joyne issue and mingle blood with Rome which it seemes they will rather doe then lose this plea for their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 their tyrannical prerogative as Nazianzen calls it Suffer us therefore humbly to appeale to your Honours whether this Remonstrant hath not given sentence against himself who is so confident of the Evidence of his cause that he doth not feare to say if there can be better Evidence under Heaven for any matter of fact then there is for his Episcopacy Let EPISCOPACY BE FOR EVER ABANDONED OUT OF THE CHURCH OF GOD. SECT VII YEt it seems himselfe in the height of his confidence was not without Jelousies of some thing might be spoken against his cause therefore he seems to heare what is spoken against it That the Apostles Bishops and ours are two there was no other then a Parochial Pastor a Preaching Presbyter without inequallity without any Rule over his brethren Ours claime an eminent Superiority and a power of Ordination and Iurisdiction unknowne to the Primitive times That this which he supposeth he heares us say is Scripture Truth we have shewed already c. that there was a parity between Presbyters and Bishops and that eminent superiority and power of Ordination and Iurisdiction which our Bishops claime was unknown to Scripture and are now prepared by Gods assistance to prove it was unknown to primitive times But how doth this Remonstrant meete with this Reply ALAS ALAS HOW GOOD PEOPLE may be abused by misinformation It seemes the man Judged this Reply so poor as in his thoughts it was more worthy of his pitty then of his paines to answer or rather knew there was more in this Reply then he knew how to answer and therefore waves it with his Rhetoricke And this we rather think because he knowes but little in Antiquity that knowes not that there is so vast a difference between our Bishops and those that were not onely in the Apostles dayes whom we have proved to be undistinguished from Presbyters But those Bishops that were in the Church 400. yeares after when there began to be some discrimination that Episcopacy may well be likened to the Ship Argo that was so often repaired as there was nothing left of the First Materials yet still it challenged the first Name Which difference we spread before your Honours in three particulars first in point of Election to their office secondly in point of Execution of their office thirdly in point of State-Imployment First having discovered already upon what occasion this priority began to have existence in the Church and from whom it first received its being not from God but from Consent and Custome of the Churches according to Ambrose Ierome Augustine c. We come now to Declare what was the manner of Election unto this Priority in these times and to shew first how therein these Bishops did differ from ours for all their Elections were ordered by the privity consent and approbation of the people where the Bishops was to serve Were there no other Authors to make this good Cyprian alone would doe it among other places let his 68. Epistle witn●sse where he saith plebs Maxime habet potestatem c. The people specially have power either of chusing worthy Priests or rejecting the unworthy for this is derived from Divine Authority that the Priests should be chosen in the presence of the people before all their eyes and approved as fit and worthy by their publike vote and Testimony This he proves by the Testimony of Sacred writ both Old and
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 ●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