distast if there be any such wee for our parts are innocent our care for our part hath beene to informe our people that such stumbling blocks as these are not sufficient causes of Separation But wee thinke nay we know that some few Prelats by their over-rigorous pressing of the Service-book and Ceremonies have made more Separatists than all the Preachers disaffected to the Ceremonies in England Our last reason was from the difference betweene this and all other Churches To which he answers that difference in Liturgies will breed no dis-union between Churches Secondly if it be requisite to seeke conformity our is the more ancient Liturgie and our the more noble Church Therefore fit for them to conforme to us rather then we to them It is true every difference in Liturgies doth not necessitate a dis-union of Churches but here the difference is too large to be covered with a few fig-leaves It is too well known our Ceremonies and other things in our Liturgies will not downe with other reformed Churches to the second it is not the precedencie in times that gains the Glory but the exactnesse of the work Our first Reformation was onely in doctrine theirs in doctrine and discipline too For the third that ours is the more noble Church We desire not to ecclipse the glory of this Church but rather to intreat the Lord to increase it a thousand fold how great soever it be and to ennoble it in this particular in removing what ever is a stumbling block out of the way of his people But why saith the Remonstrant should we rather conforme to the Liturgies of the Reformed Churches then those of all other Christians Grecians Armenians Copths c. should we set down what wee have read in the Liturgies of those Churches wee believe the Remonstrant would blush for intimating there is as much reason to conform to their Liturgies as those of the Reformed Churches Our second quaere is not so weak as this Remonstrant supposeth it is this whether the first Reformers of Religion did ever intend the use of a Liturgie further then to be a help in the want and to the weaknes of the Ministers In way of Answer he asketh Whether we can think that our Reformers had any other intentions then all other the founders of Liturgies No indeed wee thinke no other and howsoever the Remonstrant according to his confidence tels us that the least part of their eare was the helpe of the Ministers weaknesse yet their words tell us it was the main drift of those that first brought prescribed forms of prayer into the Church and therefore wee conceived it might possibly be the intention of our Reformers also witnesse the 23 Canon of the fourth Councell of Carthage ut nemo patrem nominet profilio c. So the Composers of the Liturgie for the French Church in in Frankfort He formulae serviunt tantum rudioribus nullius liberiati praescribitur These formes serve onely for the ignorant not prescribing to any mans liberty And were it so that the mayn drift of the Composers of Liturgies were to helpe the dâ—votion of the people yet what a help to devotion many find it though we dispute not it will be hard fâ—r this Remonstrant to perswade many thousands who desire with devout hearts to worship God that the being constantly bound to the same formes though in themselves neither for matter nor composure subject to just exception will prove such a great help to their devotion But this wee are sure that if the knowing before hand the matter and the words wherewith it should be clothed make people the more intent upon devotion if this be an infallible argument it pleads against the use of present conception either in praying or preaching or any other administration either publike or private and how contradictory this is to what the Remonstrant hath professed of his reverent and pious esteem of conceived prayer let himselfe see It is neither boldly nor untruly said that all other reformed Churches though they use Liturgies do not bind Ministers to the use of them If we may trust the Canons and the Rubricks of those Churches we may both boldly and truly say it In the Canons of the Dutch Churches agreed upon in their Synod we find a Canon enjoyning some days in every week to be set apart for preaching and praying and the very next Canon saith the Minister shall conceive prayers either by the Dictate of the Spirit or by a set forme So in the first Rubricke of the Liturgie of Geneva the Minister is to exhort the people to pray quibus ei visum fuerit verbis in what words he shall think fit and though that Liturgie containe formes of prayer for publike use yet we doe not finde in all that Liturgie where they are tyed to the use of those forms and no other we finde where they are left free as in one place in Dominico die mane haec ut plurimum adhibetur formula Upon the Lords Day in the morning for the most part this prayer is used for the most part then not alwayes So in another after the Lords Super this thanksgiving or some other like it is used then they are not absolutely tied to the use of that and by this wee have learned how to construe what he hath quoted out of Master Calvine And indeed any man that reads that Epistle may easily construe what was Master Calvines judgement about Liturgies not that men should be so tied to words and forms as to have no liberty to recede from them For in the same Epistle hee doth advise to have a summary collection of doctrine which all should follow and to the observing of which all both Bishops and Ministers should be bound by Oath Yet we hope the Remonstrant will not say that Calvine did advise that Bishops and Ministers should be bound by oath not to vary from that forme of doctrine Calvine advises a set form of Catechisme will the Remonstrant say that Calvine meant the Ministers should never vary from the syllables of that forme provided they did dictate pro captu populi in quibus situs sit verus Christianismus The very words by himself quoted shew what Calvins end was in advising a set Liturgie viz. to helpe the simplicity and unskilfulnesse of some to prevent the innovation of others that the consort of all Churches among themselves might more certainly appeare all which ends may be obtained without limiting all Ministers to the words and syllables of a set forme provided they pray to that effect Which is all that is required in the Liturgies of other Churches Wee could name you many other Liturgies wherein there are not further bounds laid upon the Minister then thus Hae sunt formulae quas tamen sequitur Minister pro suo arbitrio These are forms which the Minister follows according to his liking And again Spiritus sanctus non est alligandus formulis The Holy
wrangling against our Queres be not as like Bellarmines tutissimum tamen c. as if it had beene cast â—n the same Scull How this way that the Remonstrant hath chosen would speed let the Reader judge In the meane time we blesse God who hath put it into the hearts of others into whose hands hee hath concredited the work to judge more wisely and consider more mercifully and to professe in the hearing of some of us that they would willingly part with that which was indifferent to themselves if they were but truly informed it was offensive to others According to that of Gregory Those customes which are knowne to bring any burthens upon the Churches it becomes us to consider of the removing of them Thus we have vindicated the first part of our answer concerning Liturgie Wherein we professe as in the presence of God that wee have written nothing out of a spirit of contention and faction but onely as lovers of the Truth and the peace of the Church which is now miserably divided in judgement and affections and like a young Hart upon the mountains of Bether which rents and distractions wee are so far from fomenting that wee would willingly goe over divers Seas as Calvin once said to finde out one uniforme way of worshipping of God in which all Christians might happily agree We well know that peace is the Helena that all are suiters unto and wee know as well that peace without truth is as a painted Iezabell and to be thrown downe by all those who are on the Lords side And therefore it hath and alwayes shall be our chiefe care and prayer that peace and truth may kisse greet each other And we hope that the Worthies of that Honourable Assembly who are the great Patrons of peace and truth will give a candid interpretation to these our endeavours and will doe that for which present and succeeding generations may justly record them as the Nehemiah's Ezrae's and Zorobabels of our decayed Ierusalem SECT III. THe businesse of the third Section is to extricate himselfe from those snares in which his owne words have entangled him his affection to his cause had transported him to use some over-reaching expressions lifting up the Antiquitie and extending the Universalitie of Episcopall Government beyond truth vilifying as wee know his custome is vvhatsoever hath been spoken or vvritten to the contrary Those things we laid to his charge Now see how miserably he excuseth himself read the Remonstrance our câ—llections from it in this Section and judge whether he hath sufficiently redeemed his credit who hath neither made any one ingenious confession of an oversight nor yet made good what he had spoken yet hee enters with his wonted confidence perswading himself he hath blown away all the arguments of the former Section and lays on us unmercifully calling us Cavellers Leasers Slanderers Calumniators worthy to be spit upon c. Such let us be esteemed if we be found deserving His first care and almost his greatest is to cleere himself from that which we spake of but by the way His condemning all that either writ or spoke against Episcopacy as weak or factious The God of heaven knows this saith hee never came within the verge of my thoughts Sir wee cannot parly with your thoughts but certainly if it were not in your thoughts your words mistake their errand For this proposition Episcopacie is cryed downe abroad either by weake or factious persons We beseech you let your Logick the want whereof you upbraid us vvith tell us quae quanta qualis if any man should say it grieves his heart to heare how the pure Protestant Religion is cryed downe abroad by either weake or factious persons would this have been interpreted to concerne onely such as cry downe the Protestant Religion here in England Certainly abroad not being limited as it was not in your Remonstrance though now you would limit it in your Defence is a vvord of such vast extent as reacheth not onely beyond the bounds of the Parliament but of the Kingdome too But see how justly you deale with us where you personate us as saying Sure the man is not in his right wits hear how he raves sure hee is in a deep phrensie vvho ever spake of the Remonstrant so contumeliously It is language more like his vvho sends men to darke rooms and to Ellebore Wee said indeed the Remonstrant was self-confounded and vvee know as vvell as you can tell us there is a self-confusion that is the effect of extream sorrow such a sorrow as makes men speak they knovv not vvhat and so did this Remonstrant some of vvhich expressions hee yet justifies some he minces This he justifies and saith hee ever will that hee is no peaceable nor wel-affected sonne of the Church of England that doth not wish well to Liturgie and Episcopacie What tell us novv once for all whither the Parliament doe not here come under the verge of your Proposition Whom before you vvere so carefull to exempt by one vvord abroad For this is vvell knowne if all those of the Nobilitie Gentrie and Communaltie that at this time stand not vvell affected to the present Liturgie and Hierarchie are to bee counted factious and ill affected the Reverend Fathers will have multitudes of disobedient sons to disple In the next page he endevours to make good vvhat he had spoken in the Remonstrance that Episcopall government by the joynt confession of all Reformed Divines derived it selfe from the times of the Apostles vvithout the contradiction of any one Congregation gregation in the Christian World unto this present Age. His Defence is first he said nothing of Diocesan Bishops then as good have said nothing at all but spake onely of Episcopall Government But vvas it not that Sacred Government vvhich some seek to wound and vvhat is that but Government by Diocesan Bishops vvhich he must prove to derive it selfe from the Apostles times or else eat his vvords Nay more then so hee must prove that the joynt Confession of all Reformed Divines acknowledge it and not think to put the Reader and us off with telling us no true Divines ever questioned whether Bishops were derived from the Apostles or no but what kind of Bishops they were Wee know what kinde of Bishops the Remonstrant pleads for and of them he said by the joynt confession of all Reformed Divines they were derived from the Apostles prove this or acknowledge your errour It is this kind of Bishops you must prove hath continued in the Christian World unto this age without the contradiction of any one Congregation We tell you of Scotland without Bishops you would put us off with China and Brasile c. but are they parts of the Christian World as Scotland is You never meant that every place through the whole World hath had a continued line of Bishops ever since the Apostles we thought you had for we are sure it is
Convictive where 's your argument from the long standing of Episcopacie The other things which hee refers to their more proper place we shall expect there Onely for his confident challenge he makes to us to name any man in this Nation that hath contradicted Episcopacie till this present age We must put him in remembrance that in his Remonstrance his words were unto this present day Which unlesse hee will have recourse to his Trope is more then this Age if by this age hee mean this last Century but let it be this age we can produce instances of some and that long before this Age in this Kingdome that have contradicted Episcopacie and our instances shall not be mean That blessed man Wickliffe ages ago did judge there ought onely to be two Orders of Ministers and who these be hee expresseth in the following words viz. Presbyters and Deacons if there be but two Orders of Ministers in the Church Presbyters and Deacons then where is your Sacred Order of Episcopacie And if Wickliffe deny the being of that Order doth hee not contradict it In the following page he saith Pauli c. That in the time of Paul two distinct Orders of Clergie men were sufficient Priests and Deacons Neither was there in the time of the Apostles any distinction of Popes Patriarchs Archbishops it was enough that there were Presbyters and Deacons So there is one in this Nation who before this age contradicts Episcopacie Of him also Walsingham saith That this was one of Wickliffs errours that every Priest rightly ordained hath sufficient power to administer all Sacraments and consequently Orders and Penance for they were then esteemed Sacraments Consonant to this of Wickliffe was the judgment of Iohn Lambert who in his answer to Articles objected against him saith thus As touching Priesthood in the Primitive Church when vertue bare as Ancient Doctors doe deem and Scripture in mine opinion recordeth the same most room there were no more officers in the Churches of God then Bishops and Deacons that it Ministers as witnesses besides Scripture Hierome full apertly in his Commentaries upon the Epistles of Paul Though these were but single men yet they were Martyrs therefore wee hope their words will beare some weight Wee could tell you further that Richardus de media Valla in 4. Sent. Dist. 24. quaest 2. Non ordo qui est Sacramentum sed potius quaedam ordinis dignitas Episcopatus dicendus est Episcopacie is not to be called order but a kind of a dignity of an order Guli Occam Anno 1330 Quod Sacerdotes omnes cujuscunque gradus existant sunt aequalis autoritatis potestatis jurisdictionis institutione Christi sed Caesaris institutione Papam esse Superiorem qui etiam potest hoc revocare That all Priests of whatsoever degree they be are of equall authority power and jurisdiction by the institution of Christ but by Caesars institution the Pope is the Superiour who may also recall this We could tell you further of one Gualter Mapes a man whom History records famous for Learning who flourisht in the yeere 1210 that wrote many books among the rest one called A Complaint against Bishops Another against the Pope and his Court. Another to the wicked Prelats In which he cals the Pope Plutonem Asinum Prelats Animalia bruta stercora Whether this man did contradict Episcopacie or no let themselves judge But we are sure if any man a few yeers agoe should have so written or spoken it had been a crime next Lâ—sae Majestatis we could tell them of many more but the Remonstrant desired but to name any one we hope we shall indifferently well satisfie his desire by that time we have mentioned one more Robert Longland a Scholer of Wickliffs who put forth a Book in English called the Ploughmans Dream which ends thus God save the King and speed the plough And send the Prelates care enough Enough enough enough enough If single instances will not serve the turn wee can give instance of a combination of learned and godly men in Oxford who being called in question before the King and the Bishops of the Kingdome were condemned to be stigmatized and banished the Kingdome the fatall punishment of the Adversaries of Episcopacie for saying that the Church of Rome was the Whore of Babylon the barren fig-tree that God had cursed and for saying non obediendum esse Papae Episcopis that neither Pope nor Bishops are to be obeyed If this be not enough wee can produce the combination of the whole Kingdome Anno 1537 somewhat above an age ago out of a Book called The institution of a Christian Man made by the whole Clergie in their Provinciall Synod set forth by the authoritie of the Kings Majesty and approved by the whole Parliament and commanded to be preach't to the whole Kingdome wherein speaking of the Sacrament of Orders it is said expresly that although the Fathers of the succeeding Church after the Apostles instituted certain inferiour degrees of Ministery yet the truth is that in the New Testament there is no mention made of any other degrees or distinction in Orders but onely of Deacons or Ministers and Presbyters or Bishops and throughout the whole discourse makes Presbyters Bishops the same from whence it is evident that in that age the whole Clergy knew not any difference made by the Scriptures between Presbyters and Bishops and by this time we hope you have more then one in this Kingdome who have contradicted your Episcopacie before this age And if we should expatiate beyond the bounds of this Kingdome wee might with ease produce not onely testimonies of Schoolmen but of others who acknowledge but two Orders in the Ministery but seeing you required onely home-born witnesses wee ll trouble you with no other and intreat you to make much of them Onely we shall intreat the Reader to view to his abundant satisfaction Doctor Reinolds his Epistle to Sir Francis Knowls who shews out of Chrysostome Hierom Ambrose Augustine Theod. Primasius Sedulius Theophilact that Bishops and Presbyters are all one in Scripture and that Aerius could be no more justly condemned for heresie for holding Bishops and Presbyters to be all one then all those Fathers with whom agree saith he Oecumenius and Anselme Archbishop of Canterbury and another Anselme and Gregory and Gratian and affirms that it was once enrolled in the Canon Law for sound and Catholike doctrine and thereupon taught by learned men he adds further that it is unlikely that Anselme should have beene Canonized for a Saint by the Pope of Rome and the other Anselme and Gregory so esteemed in the Popes Library that Gratians Works should be allowed so long time by so many Popes for the golden fountain of the Canon law if they had taught that for sound doctrine which by the whole Church in her most flourishing time was condemned for heresie and concludes that they
who have laboured about the Reformation of the Church these five hundred yeeres of whom he names abundance have taught that all Pastors be they intitulated Bishops or Priests have equall authority and power by the Word of God and by this the Reader may know Doctor Reinolds his judgment concerning Episcopacie There is one thing more belongs to this Section as to the proper seat and that is the establishment which he seeks to Episcopacie froÌ„ the laws of the Kingdom to which we having answered that Laws are repealable the Parliament having a Nomotheticall power He answers though laws are repealable yet fundamentall laws are not subject to alteration upon personall abuses Secondly that he speaks not against an impossibility but an easinesse of change which our guiltinesse would willingly overlook But consider we beseech you how fitly is Episcopal Government made a piece of the fundamentall Laws of the Kingdome How did the Kingdome then once stand without Bishops as in the very page you had now to answer you might have seen once it did For doth not the Marginall tell you from Sir Edward Coke or rather from an Act reported by him in the 23 yeere of Edward the first that the holy Church was founded in the state of Prelacie within the Realme of England by the King and his progenitors which your guiltinesse will needs overlooke for feare you should see that there was a King of this Realme of England before there was a Prelacie And how then is Episcopacie one of the fundamentals of the Kingdome And whereas you say you spake onely against an easinesse of change read your words in the eighteenth page of your Remonstrance A man would thinke it were plea enough to challenge a reverend respect and an immunitie from all thoughts of alteration is this to speake against an easinesse or rather against a possibility of change For your conclusion that things indifferent or good having by continuance and generall approbation beene well rooted in Church and State may not upon light grounds be pulled up Good Sir never trouble your selfe about such an indifferent thing as Episcopacie is Never feare but if Episcopacie be rooted up it will be done by such hands as will not doe it upon light grounds SECT V. THey that would defend the Divine right of Episcopacie derive the pedigree of it from no lesse then Apostolicall and in that right divine institution so did this Remonstrant This we laboured in this Section to disprove and shew that it might be said of our Bishops as of those men Ezra 62. These men sought their Register among those that were reckoned by Genealogie but they were not found therefore were they as polluted put from the Priesthoâ—d For the Bishops whose pedigree is derived from the Apostles were no others then Presbyters this we evinced by foure mediums out of Scripture but insisted onely upon two the identitie of their name and office Before wee come to the Remonstrants answer wee will minde the Reader of what the Remonstrant saith That we have a better faculty at gathering then at strewing which if we have we shall here make good use of our faculty in gathering the choice flowers which himself hath scattered yielding unto us the mayn Scripture grounds whereby the Patrons of Episcopacie have endevoured to uphold their cause For himselfe confesseth the Bishops cause to be bad if it stand not by divine Right and compares the leaving of divine right and supporting themselves by the indulgence and munificence of religious Princes unto the evill condition of such men who when God hath withdrawn himselfe make flesh their arme And whether himselfe hath not surrendred up this divine right judge by that which followeth Our main argument was That Bishops and Presbyters in the originall authority of Scripture were the same Hee answers in the name of himselfe and his Party This is in expresse terms granted by us We argue it further That we never find in Scripture any other orders of Ministery but Bishops and Deacons He answers Brethren you might have spared to tell mee that which I have told you before And adds That when wee alleage the Apostles writings for the identity of Bishops and Presbytâ—rs we oppose not his assertion because he speaks of the monuments of immediate succession to the Apostolike times but we of the writing of the Apostles And for the two other arguments drawn from the identitie of the qualifications of Bishops and Presbyters for their Office and Ordination to their office hee answers Ne 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 quidem And yet notwithstanding that the Reader may not perceive how the Remonstrant betrayes his own cause he deals like the fish Sepia and casteth out a great deal of black inke before the eyes of the Reader that so hee may escape without observation But wee will trace him and finde him out where hee thinks himselfe most secure For first he falsly quotes our answer Whereas wee say That in originall authority Bishops Presbyters are the same he tels us we say That Bishops and Presbyters went originally for the same That is saith he There was at first a plain indentity in their denomination Which two answers differ Immane quantum And yet howsoever this very identity of denomination in Scripture is of no small consequence what ever the Remonstrant makes of it For the proper ends of Names being to distinguish things according to the difference of their natures and the supream wisdome of God being the imposer of these names who could neither be ignorant of the nature of these offices nor mistake the proper end of the imposition of names nor want variety to expresse himselfe the argument taken from the constant identity of denomination is not so contemptible as the Remonstrant pretends Especially considering that all the texts brought to prove the identity of names prove as intrinsecally the identity of Offices which we did cleerly manifest by that text Titus 1. 5 6 7. Where the Apostle requiring Presbyters to be thus and thus qualified renders the reason because Bishops must be so Which argument would no ways evince what the Apostle intended if there were onely an idenditie of names and not also of offices and qualifications When the names are the same and the Offices distinct who but one that cares not what hee affirmes would infer the same offices as a consequent from the identity of their names Who would say that the properties of the Constellation called Canis ought to be the same with the bruit creature so called because they have both one name And this we desire the Reader to take the more notice of because the Remonstrant passeth it over in silence Secondly the Remonstrant seemes to recant that which he had before granted tels us that though in the Apostolike Epistles there be no nominal distinction of the titles yet here is a reall distinction and specification of the duties as we shall see in due place
meant and if we ever did use the word Communicated it was onely to note a Community in that power not a derivation of it as for his authors which he alleages for sole Ordination let the Reader please to view our answer pag. 37. 38. wherein hee may receive full satisfaction and the rather because the Remonstrant passeth over it The third part of that office which the Bishops call theirs is ruling To prove this to belong to Presbyters as well as Bishops we cite Heb. 13. 17. Here the Remonstrant cryes out Oh injurious imputation do wee not give you the title of Rectores Ecclesiarum And doe we not commit to you regimen Animarum So then you grant this place is rightly both interpreted and applied but you give us say you the title of rectores Animarum regimen Animarum You give us No it is the Scripture gives it us yet you would assume it to your selves and perswad that as the Pope communicates to his Bishops partem solicitudinis so you to us Presbyters but if the Scriptures gave us no more then you do it would prove 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 You make your selves the sole Pastors us but the Curates your selves Chancellours Officials the sole Iudges us but the executioners of your and their sentences whether just or unjust The other Text 1 Thes. 5. 12. and those four things observed from thence for the confirming of this assertion the Remonstrant passeth over so hee doth our argument which was this They which have the same name the same Ordination to their office the same qualification for their office the same work to feed the flock of God to ordain Pastors and Elders to rule and governe they are one and the same But such are Bishops and Presbyters ergo And thus deals hee also with the two quotations the one of the Councell of Aquisgra the other out of the writing of Smalcald all which being to hard for the Remonstrant to evade hee leaps over to a conclusion of such strange things as hee never went about to prove in his Section SECT VI. HAving from Scripture manifested the Identity of Bishops and Presbyters in their originall institution we applied our selves in this section to finde out the authors and occasion of this imparity which now appeares between them To expedite our selves from needlesse controversies we laid downe three particulars as consented to by both sides First that the first and best antiquity used the names of Bishops and Presbyters promiscuously this the Remonstrant subscribes to Secondly that in processe of time some one was honoured with the name of Bishop the rest were called Presbyters this the Remonstrant quarrels and desires to know what was this processe of time chargeth us either with error or fraud confidently defends this time had no processe at all but was in the very 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the living Apostles and undertakes to make this good in the sequell And how he doth that you shall find in this very section page 59. where to that of Hierom The Presbyters governed the Church by their common Councel he answers So they did doubtlesse altogether till Episcopacy was setled who dare deny it Here the Remonstrant grants a processe of time betweene the planting of the Church by the Apostles and the setling of Episcopacy in the Churches Shall we say now this is the Remonstrants either errour or fraud not to set downe how long it was before Episcopacy was setled in the Church let him take heed another time how he charge men with error or fraud for affirming that which himselfe cannot but give his Suffrage to The third thing agreed upon was that this was not nomen inane an idle title but attended upon with some kind of imparity the question was digested into these tearmes Whether the impropriation of the name and the imparity of the place and power of a Bishop be of divine right The Remonstrant for feare of mistaking desires to explicate the tearmes of the question and therefore tels how fetching the pedegree of Episcopacy from Apostolicall and therefore in that right divine institution he interprets himselfe to understand by divine right not any expresse Law of God requiring it as of absolute necessity to the being of a Church but an institution of the Apostles inspired by the holy Ghost warranting it where it is and requiring it where it may be had but Nihil infelicius Retorico definiente the Remonstrant if he would avoyd mistaking or at least would not say that he was mistaken should have dealt a little more clearely and punctually in the stateing of the Question For first he tels us that it is an institution of the Apostles inspired by the Holy ghost if the Remonstrant be not here mistaken why doth he page 47. in expresse terms grant us that in originall authority of Scripture Bishops and Presbyters were originally the same For so were our words not as the Remonstrant reports them went for the same and why againe when we tell him we never finde in Scripture these three orders Bishops Presbyters Deacons we say not the names but orders why doth he grant that in the same page and flie from the writings of the Apostles to the monuments of their immediate successers can we imagine that the Apostles did by inspiration from the holy Ghost ordaine any thing in the Church of God as of perpetuall use the record where of is not found in sacred Scripture which was given by the same inspiration to the same men if we may imagine it sure we cannot beleeve it And if it be an institution of the Apostles inspired by the holy Ghost why must it be distinguished from the expresse law of God doth he make it but an evangelicall counsell not requiring it as necessary to the being of a Church sure this is some opinion of a newer cut for the last defendant of Episcopacy before this Remonstrant saies thus The power of Ordination hath beene ever held so intrinsecall to Episcopacy that I would faine see where it can be shewed that any extremity of necessity was ever acknowledged a warrant sufficient for others to ordaine So that in his judgement where there is no Bishop there can be no lawfull ordination let it be in the case of extreamest necessity and where no ordination no ministery and so consequently no Word and Sacraments and no Church and how then in the judgement of these men is Episcopacy not required to the being of a Church And if not requiring it to the being of a Church how then requiring it onely where it may be had what a strange limitation is this where is it that Episcopacy may not must not be had if it be an ordinance of Christ where is it that the Churches of Christ may not have Word Sacraments Pastors and Bishops too if they be his ordinance It is true indeed some there are that cannot have Lord Bishops pompous Bishops and once
For the persons that brought in this Imparity we tell you they were the Presbyters and prove this from Hierome ad Euagrium The Presbyters of Alexandria did call him their Bishop whom they had chosen from among themselves and placed in a higher degree This you call a faithlesse and a halved citation Good sir be not so harty it s neither false nor halved not false because it fully proves the thing for which wee brought it which was that the advancing of one to an eminency and superiority above the rest was not a divine but a humane act it was not God but man that was the authour of this imparity and doth not the place fully prove this Presbyteri unum ex se electum in excelsiori gradu collocatum Episcopum nominabant and say we any more Nor is it halved though hee saith this was done a Marco Evangelista usque ad Heraclam yet this concerned not the purpose for which the text was quoted and therefore might warrantably be omitted especially having proved before that which the Remonstrant would perswade his reader we are shie of here that Bishops were not in the Apostles times and if the leaving out a few words in a quotation not pertinent to the question be the halving of it how will the Remonstrant cleare himselfe of this sinne who citing the Councell of Laodicea p. 15. makes bold to leave out a great deale more then we did here where a most materiall passage was omitted as before we have observed Neither did we leave out a Marco Evangelista for feare it should prove that there were Bishops as earlie as the Corinthian schisme Nor did our hearts tell us that Marke died many yeeres within the Apostles time for Irenaeus tels us lib. 3. Contra Haeres that hee writ his Gospell after Peter and Pauls death That which wee quoted proves abundantly that the Presbyters both chose and placed one of the Presbytersin a higher degree by their own authority giving him both the degree and the name Doe you who brought in A Marco Evangelistâ to trouble your reader and to slander us reconcile if you can Authors about the time of his death But the last place he bringeth out of Hierom is a most rare place and may well make any man wonder with what face we can say Hiero me ever spake against Bishops and why so because Hierome saith Episcopacy is Gods owne worke where is it in Isa. 60. 17. what are the words Hierome reading that text according to the 72 translation saies Ponam inquit Principes tuos in pacem Episcopos tuos in justisiam in quo saith Hierome Scripturae sanctae admir anda Majestas quod Principes futuros Ecclesiae Episcopos nominavit quorum omnes visitatio in pace est c. herein the majesty of the Scripture is to be admired which hath named the future Princes of the Church Bishops all whose visitations are in peace Good reader consider this mighty mouth-stopping argument God hath promised the Princes of the Church shall be as Bishops Ergo Bishops in imparity are Gods owne worke good sir your Baculus in angulo take to your selfe against you walke to finde texts againe in Hierome to prove Bishops to be of divine institution The rest of your quotations out of Irenaeus Tertullian and Chrysostome they are places have beene oft alleaged and as oft answered wee will be briefe with you For if you had not lyen hid under the equivocation of the word Episcopi you might have spared your selfe and us a labour These Episcopi were Presbyteri you your selfe grant that their names were common in the daies of Linus Polycarpe and Ignatius which are the men you here cite for Bishops And therefore unlesse you can shew that they had a superiority of power over Presbyters such as ours have you doe bâ—t delude the Reader with a grosse Homonymie whom we referre to a passage in learned Iunius controv 3. lib. 2. c 5. not 18. In which he labours to remove the contradictions of Historians concerning the order of succession of the Romane Bishops Linus Clemens Anacletus c. And he saith That these or some of these were Presbyters or Bishops of Rome at the same time ruling the Church in common But the following writers fancying to themselves such Bishops as then had obtained in the Church fell into these snares of tradition because they supposed according to the custome of their owne times that there could be but one Bishop in one Church at the same time which is quite crosse to the Apostolicall times To that of Ambrose calling Iames Bishop of Ierusalem we gave a sufficient answer in our former Booke page 51. out of Doct. Raynolds and shall God willing adde more in due place Our slip as you tell us talkes of a councell No more ours then yours for your party can when hee speakes for them vouch him with much more confidence then we doe But what saith this slip he talkes of a councell as false as himselfe Why because the Nicene was the first generall Synod but yet there were provinciall Councels before And the Commentaries mentioned before doe not say it was done by a generall Councell but onely by a Councell though you by subtle coupling this Councell and Hieromes toto or be decretum erat would faine force him to this sence which toto orbe decretum est implies no Apostolicall act nor act of a generall Councell neither as we have shewed before And yet this we tell you the Nicene was the first Councell in which toto orbe decretum erat that there should be but one Bishop in a City As for Saint Austin his phrase that the originall of Episcopacy above Presbytery was onely secundum usum Ecclesiae you say it was but a modest word and it is a just wonder that we dare cite him Well let us put it to the triall Hierome having taken distate at Augustine writes two sharpe Epistles to him in both which Epistles be doth extoll Augustine ironically as a great man because hee was in pontificali culmine Constitutus advanced to Episcopall dignity and speakes of himselfe as a poore contemptible underling to which Augustine answering among other things saith thus Rogo ut me fidenter corrigas ubi mihi hoc opus esse perspexeris quanquam enim secundum honorum vocabula quae Ecclesiae usus obtinuit Episcopatus Presbyterio major est tamen in multis Augustinus Hieronymo minor This was Augustines modesty say you Well and had not Augustine beene as modest if he had left out that phrase quae Ecclesiae usus obtinuit his modesty appeares in these words tamen in multis Augustinus Hieronymo minor not in the former In the diminution of his person not of his calling S. Paul knew how to speake humbly of himselfe yet highly of his office and so might Austin and if he had known that the majority of Bishops above Presbyters had
grant that these assembled persons were Presbyters or Bishops in a parity but neither in imparity neither under Timothy nor any other Bishop And to this purpose is our argument from the want of directions to them as inferiour yet notwithstanding the Remonstrant would be glad to picke what holes he can in our argument yet in part he grants what wee conclude That they were all Bishops onely with this addition they were not meere Presbyters but upon what ground The word it selfe imports they were Bishops 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And doth not the other word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 import as strongly they were Presbyters And the truth is they were Presbyters whom the holy Ghost had made Bishops Foreseeing how his owne words would snarle him if he should grant them all Bishops he must grant there were more Bishops then one in Ephesus he puts by that blow telling us that though they were sent for from Ephesus yet they were not said to be all of Ephesus Thither they were called from divers parts which seems to be implyed in these words ye all amongst whom c. This is but a poore evasion For first the holy Ghost tels us that Paul did now study expedition and did decline Ephesus of purpose because he would not spend time in Assia Now if Paul comming to Miletum had sent from thence to Ephesus for the Elders of that Church and they had sent for the rest of the Asian Churches Paul had stayed at Miletum till they could assemble to him this would have beene such an expence of time as Pauls haste to Ierusalem could not admit Secondly these Elders were all of one Church made by God Bishops over one flocke and therefore may with most probability be affirmed to be the Elders of the Church of Ephesus For the Apostles were alwaies exact in distinguishing Churches that of a City they alwaies called a Church those of a Province Churches Churches of Galatia Churches of Macedonia Churches of Iudea c. And that evasion which you use page 12â— that they might be all called one Church because united under one government makes your cause farre worse Because notwithstanding this union you speake of S. Iohn joyning them all together in one Epistle 〈◊〉 1. calls them the Churches of Asia and now here the Church Besides this the Syriack translation thought by some to be almost as ancient as the Church of Antioch reads it the Elders of the Church of Ephesus not onely the Elders of the Church Thirdly you say they were Bishops or Superintendents of other Churches as well as Ephesus But your selfe grants in this very page that Timothy was not yet Bishop of Ephesus and yet you all say that he was the first Bishop that ever Ephesus had And that Ephesus was the Metropolis of all Asia How then came the Daughter Churches to have Bishops before their mother as you call it Lastly that we may cut asunder the sinewes as your phrase is of your far-fetched answer borrowed from Bishop Barlow and Andrewes Whereas you lay the weight of it upon those words Ye all among whom I have gone preaching the Kingdome of God Collecting from thence that there must be some Superintendents present from all those places where he had travelled preaching Your selfe would quickly see the weakenesse of it were you not pleading your owne cause Should any man speaking with three or foure of the members of the late convocation say you all who had your hand in the late oath and Canons are in danger c. would it imply a presence of all the members of the Convocation because the speech concerned them all you know it would not But if this doe not suffice then tell us Why must his All be meant as such superintendents as you plead for except because they were called Bishops and so you would raise an argument from the name to the thing which kind of argument if it may prevaile you know your cause is lost But the Acumen of this answer by which he makes account to cut asunder the sinewes of all our proofes is this That it is more then probable that Timothy and Titus were made Bishops after Pauls first being at Rome Truely sir here you desert your old friend Episc. by Div. right out of whom you have hitherto borrowed a great part both of your matter and words He saith Timothy was at this time a Bishop and present and Pauls assessor You it seemes thinke otherwise Agree as well as you can we will not set you at variance We thinke hee was as much bishop before as after onely we desire to learne when where and by whom Timothy received his ordination to Episcopacy The first Epistle to Timothy tels us of an ordination which he had received to another office And Chronologers tell us that that Epistle was writ many yeeres before Timothy was made Bishop of Ephesus according to your computation and we leave to you to tell us when and where he received ordination to your Episcopall office we have perused the Chronologicall tables of Ludâ—vicus Capellus whom you call Iacob Cappellus and have compared him with Ba oniuâ— from thence have learned that the Epistle was writ to him before Pauls going to Rome but cannot learne from their Chronologie that ever he was made Bishops afterwards The same answer say you may serve you for Titus and the same reply serves us onely whereas you accuse us of guilt for our translating 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 every variation from the ordinary translation must be guilty know that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 will be translated things that remaine when you and we are dead and rotten And if our translators did not render 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so yet so they render 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Revil 3. 2. Your second quarrell is to these words for a while to which because our margent allots the space of betweene five or six yeeres you thinke you have us at a great advantage If wee had said he tarried there but a little while you might have had some what whereon to fasten but we spake of a while not in respect of the shortnesse of his residence at Creet but as it stands in opposition to residence for terme of life He was left there but for a while Ergo not fixed there during life The end why the Apostle left Titus at Creet was to ordaine Elders or Bishops in every City and not to be Bishop there himselfe For as Chrysostome saith Paul would not commit the whole Iland to one man but would have every man appointed to his charge and Cure For so he knew his labour would be the lighter and the people that were under him would be governed with the greater diligence For the Teacher should not be troubled with the government of many Churches but onely intend one and study for to adorne that Therefore this was Titus his worke not to be Bishop in Creet himselfe
answer is as easily blowne away as the wind blowes away chaffe It is true every Church hath his Angell mentioned but whether Angell individually or Angell collectively that is still the question and therefore for ought you say though there were but seven Churches there might be seven and seven times seven Angels in those Churches But you intimate that Christ saith the 7. starres though he doth not say the seven Angels Now here give us leave to put our Remonstrant in mind of the imagined Syneedoche For we justly conceive that these words The seven Starres are the Angels are figurative and that there are two figures in them a metaphor in the word Starre and Angell and a Synecdoche in the word seven For we doe not thinke that the seven Starres signifie seven individuall Angels for then indeed the reader might have justly smiled at our curious speculation but we thinke them to be taken collectively Thus Revil 8. 2. Iohn saw seven Angels which stood before God by which seven Angels Doctor Reynolds doth not understand seven individuall Angels but by a Synecdoche all the Angels For there are no seven particular Angels that doe stand before God but all doe so Dan. 7. The words of Doctor Reynolds are these Quare cum commune sit omnibus electis Angelis Dei stare coram throno videtur nomine septem Angelorum significari universos Angelos Dei Item Ita numero septenario saepe significari omnes numeruni saltem infinitum numero finito docent septem columnae Pro. 9. septem pastores Math. 5. septem oculi Zach. 3. sed imprimis in istis mysteriis Apocalypseos septem Candelabra septem lampades septem phyaelae septem plagae And now let the Reader judge whether this argument be so ridiculous as the mocking Remonstrant would make it But that you may see how dull the answerer himselfe is whilst he accuseth others of dulnesse let us a little consider what pittifull shifts he useth in his answer to our last reason Our last argument is Though but one Angell be mentioned in the forefront yet it is evident the Epistles themselves are dedicated to all the Angels and Ministers in every Church and to the Churches themselves and if unto the whole Church much more unto the Presbyters of that Church To this you answer 1. By granting the argument which is to grant the cause as will appeare to any judicious Reader For the reason doth not onely say that the whole Church is concerned in the Epistles and spoken unto in them but that they are dedicated to all the Ministers as well as one to all the Churches as well as to the Angels as appeares Reuel 1. 11. send it to the seven Churches and also by the Epiphonema of every Epistle he that hath an eare to heare let him heare what the Spirit saith to the Churches not onely concerning the Churches but to the Churches But then you argue secondly if every Epistle be written to all the Churches then we must say that every of these seven Angels must be the whole company of all the seven Churches which were a foule nonsence But you must understand that though every Epistle be written to all the Churches yet not eodem modo As for example the Epistle to Ephesus was written primariò proprie formaliter to the Church of Ephesus but to the other Churches onely reflèxive per modum exempli And therefore we returne your nonsence upon your selfe For we doe not confound the Angels and the Churches we know there is a distinction betweene the Starres and the Candlestickes but we affirme that the Epistles are written to the Churches as well as to the Angels and to all the Angels as well as to any one Thirdly you say we might have saved the labour both of Ausbertus and the rest of our Authours and our owne But surely unlesse you meant to yeeld the cause you would never say so For we proved out of Ausbertus that according to his judgement by Angell is meant the whole Church And out of Perkins Brightman Fulke Fox Austin Gregory Primasius Hamo Beda Richard Thomas c. That the word Angell is to be taken not individually but collectively And further we shewed that in these seven Epistles where one person is singled out and spoken unto in particular either by way of praise or dispraise that such places are not to be understood of one individuall person but of the whole company of the Ministers in all things equall with that our Angell which are proved by such reasons which because you knew not how to answer you say we might have saved our labour and in that indeed we should have saved your credit but have done the cause much prejudice Lastly you say satis Magisterialiter for you prove it not That there are such particularities both of commendations and exceptions in the body of the severall Epistles as cannot but have relation to those severall overseers to whom they were indorsed as you have elsewhere specified But whom you are and where this is specified you refuse to tell us Onely you put us to answer Had all the Presbyters of Ephesus lost their first love Had each of them tried the false Apostles Had all those of Sardis a name to live and were dead Were all the Laodicean Ministers of one temper You say no doubt it was otherwise But this is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 We say No doubt that not onely the Presbyters of Ephesus Sardis Laodicea but that the whole Church had lost their first love and were become lukewarme and had a name to live and were dead wee say all that is genera singulorum not singula generum and this wee prove Because the punishment threatned by Christ is threatned not onely against that one Angell but against all the Church Reuel 2. 5. I will remove thy Candlesticke Revel 2. 16. 24. Now we have no warrant in the word of God to thinke that God would remove his Gospell from a Church because one Angell in that Church hath lost his first love when all the other and the whole Church also are â—ervent and zealous in their love to Christ. Or that God would spue out a whole Church out of his mouth for the lukewarmenesse of one man when the Church it selfe and all the other Ministers are zealous This is the reason that makes us beleeve that though one Angell be sometimes spoken unto in particular yet it must necessarily be understood in a collective sence not in an individuall sence which we hinted in our answer But the Remonstrant comes with his Index expurgatorius and answereth us onely with a Deleatur And thus he serves us also in the following reasons why Christ did not write To the Angels in the plurall number but To the Angell in the singular And this he doth throughout the whole booke passing by unanswered those things which are most materiall Vas vitreum lambens pultem non attingens
As for that tedious discourse that followeth in foure leaves about our overliberall concession that suppose the word Angell be meant Individually yet it made nothing for the upholding of a Dioce san Bishop with sole power of ordination and jurisdiction as a distinct order superiour to Presbyters we will be very briefe in our answer to it to prevent surfet and because it is more then we need have yeelded and also because so little is said of it to the purpose by this Remonstrant And here let the Reader observe 1. That of the foure Authors cited in the upholding of the individuall Angel Doctor Fulke is falsely alleged and the other three Master Beza Doctor Raynolds and Pareus though they interpret the word Angell 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for one singular person yet we are sure none of them held Episcopacy by divine right For D. Raynolds his letters to S. Francis Knowles now in print will witnesse and for Beza and Pareus it is well knowne that they were Presbyterians We expected many of the ancient Fathers to make good this interpretation but we see he is beholding to those for it who are none of the lest enemies to the Hierarchall preeminency and therefore we may be the more secure that no great prejudice can come to our cause by this interpretation if taken in the sence of these Authors 2. That the great question is what makes this interpretation for a Diocesan Bishop with sole power of ordination and jurisdiction as a distinct order above Presbyters But the Remonstrant cunningly conceales halfe the question and answers much every way And why so Because if there were many Angels in each Church and yet but one singled out and called The Angel of that Church it must needs follow that there was a superiority and inequality But what is this to the question in hand The thing to be proved is not onely that this Angell had a superiority but a superiority of jurisdiction over his fellow Angels but of this altum silentium Doctor Reynolds will tell you that this was onely a superiority of order and that all jurisdiction was exercised in common Beza will tell you that this Angell was onely 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and that he was Angelus Praeses not Angelus Princeps And that he was Praeses mutabilis and ambulatorius just as a Moderator in an assembly or as the Speaker in the House of Commons which is onely during the Parliament Both which interpretations may well stand with the superiority and inequality you speake of Our first argument to prove that though the word Angel be taken individually that yet nothing will hence follow to uphold a Diocesan Bishop with sole power of jurisdiction as a distinct order Superior to Presbyters was because it was never yet nor never will be proved that these Angels were Diocesan Bishops considering that parishes were not so numerous as to be divided into Diocesses in Saint Iohns daies And the seven Starres are sayd to be fixed in their seven Candlestickes not one Star over divers Candlesticks And Tindall together with the old translation calls them seven congregations And because we read that at Ephesus that was one of those Candlestickes there was but one flock for the answer of all which we expected a learned discourse to prove that the seven Churches were Diocesan and so consequently the Angels Diocesan Angels But the Remonstrant baulkes his worke as too great for his shoulders and instead of solid Divinity turnes criticke and playes upon words and syllables Domitian like catching at flies when he should have beene busied about greater matters First he tels us That if Parishes were not united into Diocesses or were not so many as to be divided into Diocesses which we thinke all one notwithstanding your parenthesis in Saint Iohns daies and therefore no Diocesan Bishop by the same reason we may as well argue that there were no parochiall Bishops neither since that then no parishes were as yet distinguished Which we grant to be very true But if there were no Parochiall Bishops in the Apostles daies much lesse Diocesan The Apostolicall Bishops were Bishops of one Church and not of one parish as we meane by parish till many yeeres after But not to quarrell at the word parish or diocesse let but the Remonstrant shewe us that these Angels were Bishops over divers setled Churches or divers fixed congregations nobis erit alter Apollo For our parts we are sure that at first the number of beleevers even in the greatest Cities were so few as that they might well meete 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in one and the same place and these were called the Church of the City and therefore to ordaine Elders 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are all one in Scripture And it cannot be demonstratively proved that they became so numerous in the Apostles daies in any great City so as that they could not meet in one and the same place But yet we confesse that it is very probable that it was so in Ierusalem if you compare Acts 2. 41. 4. 4. 5. 14. And whether it was so also in these severall Asian Churches we know not but however this is agreed upon on all parts That beleevers in great Cities were not divided into set and fixed congregations or parishes till long after the Apostles daies And that therefore if when they multiplied they had divers meeting places that yet notwithstanding these meeting places were frequented promiscuously and indistinctly and were taught and governed by all the Presbyters promiscuously and in common and were all called but one Church as is evident in Hierusalem Act. 8. 1. Act. 15. 6. 22. 16. 4. 21. 18. So also in these seven Churches where the beleevers of every City are called but one Church and were governed in common by divers Angels or Presbyters as we see plainely proved in the Church of Ephesus Acts 20. 28. Henâ—e it followeth that there were no sole-ruling Bishops nor one Bishop over divers Churches or set Congregations in Saint Iohns daies Secondly according to his wonted language he tels us of making Bulls and Solecismes because wee say that the seven Starres are said to be fixed in their seven Candlestickes whereas these Starres are said to be in the right hand of Christ as if these two were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Know sir That in regard of their protection they are said to be in Christs right hand but in regard of their â—unction and Office they may be truely said to be fixed in their seven Candlestickes But instead of picking quarrels at words you should have done well if you could to prove that these Candlestickes were diocesan Churches We say each Starre had its Candlesticke not one Starre over divers And wee thinke that this Candlesticke was but one particular Church or one set Congregation though happily when they multiplyed they might meete indistinctly in divers under divers Angels equally governing For this
have beene established by the Lawes of this Realme and Church And why these Ceremonies are the Bishops more then Ours We answer First That to our knowledge some have beene urged to subscribe to other ceremonies then have beene established by the Lawes of this Realme and Church and to promise obedience editis â—dendis Secondly that this very urging of us to subscribe to the ceremonies established is more then the Lawes require For the Lawes require to subscription onely to the thirty nine Articles Thirdly We cannot but justly dislike your distinction of The Lawes of this Realme and Church For we know no Lawes of the Church obligatory but such as are established by the Lawes of the Realme as both Houses of Parliament have lately determined And whereas you aske Why these Ceremonies are the Bishops more then ours We answer First because it is ordinarily said No Ceremony no Bishop But it was never said No Ceremony no Presbyter Secondly because in the Convocation which you here terme the Church the Bishops or rather the Archbishop swayes all And there are five or six which are there Ex mâ—ero Officio and for the most part are the Bishops creatures and hang their suffrages upon his lippes and but two Clerkes for the Presbyters which also for the most part are forced upon them by the Bishop and his Officers Thirdly because they are ours if ours as a burden But theirs as their crowne and glory for which they fight as for a second Purgatory to uphold their Courts and Kitchins In the next place we propounded an objection framed by Bishop Andrewes and divers others from the inequality in the Ministery appointed by Christ himselfe betweene the twelve Apostles and the seventy Disciples To which wee answered First that it cannot be proved that the Apostles had any superiority over the seventy either of ordination or jurisdiction Sâ—condly suppose it could yet That superiority and inferiority betweene Officers of different kindes will not prove that there should be a superiority and inferiority betweene Officers of the same kinde To which you reply first That the Apostles ordained the Deacons that Paul laid hands on Timothy But this is no solution of the objection unlesse you can prove the Deacons and Timothy to have beene amongst the number of the seventy Disciples or Paul to have beene one of the twelve Apostles Secondly you answer That Bishops and Presbyters differ toto genere and are Offieers of different kind as much as the Apostles and the seventy Disciples Which is an assertion not onely contrary to the Fathers who accounted the Bishop to be but Primus Presbyter and as Hierome saith Vnum ex se electum celsiori gradu collocatum But also more unsound then most of the Papists who freely acknowledge that Presbyteratus is the highest order in the ministry and that Episcopacy is but a different degree of the same order and not a superior order from Presbyters An order may be reputed higher either because it hath intrinsecally an higher vertue or because it hath an higher degree of honour and dignity Now we deny not but the latter antiquity did by their Canons make Episcopacy an higher Order in regard of dignity and honour 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as a Councell speakes but did never account it an higher power by divine right This last branch the Remonstrant would faine prove if he could by an argument drawne from succession because saith he the Bishops succeed the Apostles and the Presbyters the seventy Disciples And we are challenged page 158. to shew whether ever any Father or Doctor of the Church till this present age held that Presbyters were the successors to the Apostles and not to the seventy Disciples rather But here is nothing in which the Remonstrant shewes more wilfull ignorance then in this For the ancient Fathers doe make the Presbyters successors of the Apostles as well as Bishops Thus Irenaeus liber 4. cap. 43 44. Quapropter eis qui in Ecclesiâ sunt Presbyteris obedire oportet his qui successionem habent ab Apostolis sicut ostendimus qui eum Episcopatus successione charisma veritatis certum secundum placitum patris acceperunt So also cap 44. and lib. 3. cap. 2. Thus also our Ierome as you call him in his Epistle ad Heliodorum Clerici dicuntur Apostolico gradâ—i successisse So Origen in Matth. 16. saith all Presbyters succeeded the Apostles in the power of the keyes And Ignatius ad Smyâ—nonses saith the same Yet still like as you say you have heard page 125. some beaten cocke you dare erow and tell your Reader that all antiquity hath acknowledged 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 three severall rankes in the Church Hierarchie But where will you begin your antiquity We say with the Father iâ— verum quod antiquissimum Shew us your three degrees in Scripture You confesse page 47. that these three orders are not there to be found We read in Scripture the Deacon to be a step to a Presbyter but not a Presbyter to a Bishop And wee deny that ever it was accounted in antiquity that a Bishop did ever differ from a Presbyter as a Presbyter from a Deacon For these differ Genere proximo No â—erint Diaconi se ad ministerium non ad sacerdotium vocari But a Bishop differs from a Presbyter as from one who hath that power of Priesthood no lesse than himselfe and therefore the difference betweene these Priests be circumstantiall and not so essentiall as betwixt the other Thus Bishops and Archbishops are divers orders of Bishops according to some Canons of the Church not that one excelled the other as a power of higher vertue but of higher dignity then the other Indeed of late yeeres Episcopacy hath beene a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to preferment and a ladder for all pious and conscientious men to be suspended upon as Mordecai upon Hamans gallowes but now is in danger to become like Hamans ladder their owne ruine and downe-fall Iam sumus ergo pares In your transition to your next Paragraph that you might disparage the opposets of the Hierarchicall Episcopacy by divine right you endeavour to make them the Disciples of none but Ierome But here in you cannot but know how injuriously you deale with them considering the numberlesse number of Authors both ancient and moderne that assert that which you would fasten upon him alone In the Paragraph it selfe you confesse what we undertooke to prove That the ancient Bishops and others differ in regard of their Accessories dignities titles and maintenance But onely whereas among other instances we told you of golden Chalices and wooden Priests You tell us That if in time we should see wooden Chalicer and wooden Priests we may thanke our selves Truely sir we may thanke you and not our selves for the Lordlinesse and in solent carriages of some Bishops under the great revenues and the multitude of wooden Priests
long agoe surely the bitternesse of death is past For when he was brought forth to be stoned hee was rescued by Prelaticall power and his Sermon for which he was questioned printed with licence and in print presented to the Consistory We know a third that in a Commencement did openly affirme Absolution by a Priest to be absolutely necessary to salvation Their Heaven we said was a receptacle of drunkards swearers adulterers and surely justly wee might say so for when did your Consistories that pretend to have the keyes that open and shut Heaven so shut the gates of Heaven against such sinners as that a silver key could not open them againe and though your charity keepe them in Heaven while they live such yet our charity shuts them not out of Heaven if they did not die such But it may be you thinke confession to a Priest when they lie a dying shall infallibly save them what ever their lives have beene and that 's the reason you slide by that prelaticall opinion and doe not question us who hold it We professe still wee had rather goe on in our owne waies then theirs and thinke it our duty to separate from these waies and opinions rather then embrace them yet farre we are from any thoughts of separating from the Church of England nor did we ever intend to affixe those exoticall positions of unsound teachers as you call them upon her but on the faction who hath held promoted countenanced them and sheltred themselves all the while under the name of the Church But if the Remonstrant hate these opinions as much as our selves we are glad if he know others doe because he speakes in the plurall it is well But wee would be glad to know in what Pallace that Prelate lives that hath drawne out his assumed sword of discipline against these unsound teachers Or if he hath drawne hath strucke or if strucke hath not strucke with the backe while the poore Non conformists hath beene slaine with the edge or where hee lives that hath opposed these exoticke positions so farre as to hazzard the Archprelates froune in the opposition Having given sufficient answer to the Remonstrant wee thought it not unfit to subjoyne some Quaeres about Episcopacy for the Remonstrant if he pleased to answer Which though he saith are made up of nothing but spite and slaunder yet surely his owne conscience tels him there is much truth and strength in them else why doth he conclude we put so much trust in them when we never told him so And why doth he not else apply himselfe to answer but like a Socraticall disputant put off the question with question knowing it is safer and easier to propound new questions then to answer ours 1. Your first Quere is who ever held the Lordships of Bishops to be jure Divivo if no body whether this be not to falsifie and slander you might have considered that we spake not of the Lordships of Bishops in abstracto but of Lordbishops in concreto And who holds them to be jure Divino is sufficiently knowne But you aske why it is a greater fault in one of our Doctours to hold the Lords day to stand by humane right and is there but one of our Doctors of that opinion then it is for Master Calvine whom for honours sake no doubt you name here as else where seldome through your whole defence mentioning that worthy but in some disgracefull passage But did Master Calvin ever hold Bishops to be jure Divino or did Master Calvine ever as one of our Lord-bishops who having received a letter from a Gentleman of his City against the publication of the Booke of sports returned no other answer then a sharpe censure of his zeale as giddy and indiscreet Or did Master Calvin ever cry up Altars instead of Communion Tables or Priests instead of Ministers yet in these termes our Quere was propounded and what ever Master Calvin doth in his institution yet in his Comment upon Deuteronomy hee stands for the strict observation of the Lords day 2. Whether it were any other than King Iames himselfe of blessed memory that said No Bishop no King c. King Iames of blessed memory never spake this of Bishops by divine right which are the Bishops now contended for And if King Iames of blessed memory said no Bishop no King it was not hee but others that added no Ceremony no Bishop nay some have risen higher and said if neither Bishop nor a King how a God 3. Whether since it is proved that Bishops are of more then meere humane ordinance and have so long continued in the Christian Church to the great good of Church and State it be not fit to establish them for ever and to avoyd a dangerous motion of innovation sure if the Remonstrants words may goe for proofe it is proved else not that Bishops are of more then humane ordinance and so long continuance and how advantagious to the good of Church and State Acta probant and though motions of innovation may be dangerous yet motions of Renovation are not Non est pudor ad meliora transire it s no shame to amend 4. Whether these Answerers have the wit or grace to understand the true meaning of the Divine right of Episcopacy We will not impute it to want of wit or grace in the Remonstrant but sure himselfe doth not clearely understand it hee is so unconstant to his opinions but whether the Remonstrant or his answerers understand the right of Episcopacy better let the Readers to whose censure both in this controversie must stand or fall determine for our parts wee hope wee understand what jus divinum meanes but doe ingenuously confesse we have neither wit nor grace to understand the jus divinum of Episcopacy 5. Whether there be any question at all in the fifth question yes certainely if the Remonstrant would not have baulked that which he knew not how to take away the distinction of Apostolicall right which say we is either such as is founded upon the Acts or Epistles of the Apostles and is we grant divine or such as is not recorded in their writings and is onely of things reported to be introduced into the Church the Apostles yet living Now if the Remonstrant hold Episcopacy to be of Apostolicall right in the first sence why doth he then grant us in expresse tearmes that in originall authority of Scripture Bishops and Presbyters are originally the samâ— and why doth he in the same page make his retreat from the writings of the Apostles to the monuments of succeeding times If he hold it in the latter sence these two things yet remaine to be done First he is to prove that Bishops in a superiority of power over Presbyters were introduced into the Church the Apostles yet living and answer his friend Cassander and our other testimonies produced to the contrary Secondly to prove that such things may be of Divine right whereof
this Censure was the troubles raised up among the English Exiles then at Frankford about the booke of Liturgie which was then as since a spring of unhappy contentions in the Church hereupon he writes a Letter to them wherein hee useth that phrase of tolerable fooleries and in a Christian way perswades both disagreeing sides to accord which he puts not upon them by way of authority but Christian advise nay he says more that these fooleries were tolerable then yet he doubted not if Religion flourished in England many of these would be removed and other things amended and though they might begin with such weak rudiments yet it was behovefull for the grave and pious Ministers of Christ to rise to a higher pitch c. So that here Master Calvin did not unwarrantably intrude in alienam rempublicam Nor did any other then would become any of our grave and learned Divines in the case of the Wafers or Lords Day Markets of his Charge if called unto that service as Master Calvin was to this The Remonstrant leads us from the English Liturgie to a Discourse of Liturgies in generall which wee call unparalleld because no man that ever wee have seene drew the line of Liturgie so high as hee hath done even as high as Moses time to which his answer is Perhaps there are some things our not omniscient eyes have not seene and perhaps this may be one of them and perhaps there are some things which hee hath confidently avouched that his Lincean eys have not seen and perhaps this is one of them or else we should see it too But that needs not saith the Remonstrant for wee almost yield the question before wee argue it the happier man hee to obain that by concession that hee never could by argumentation but how doe wee yield the question in granting an order of divine administrations observed in Church Assemblies but denying an imposition of set forms We find in antiquity that when the Church met together upon the Lords day first the Scriptures were read of the old and new Testament after the reading followed an Exhortation to the practice and imitation of what was read then they all rose and joyned in Prayer Prayer being ended they went to the Sacrament in the beginning whereof the President of the Assembly powred out Prayers and Thanksgiving according to his ability and the people said Amen then followed the distribution of the Sacrament After that the collection of Almes c. this was Iustine Martyrs Liturgie Will you now see Tertullians First the Congregation meets and doe as it were besiege God with their prayers wherein they pray for the Emperors for their servāts officers c then they went to repeating the Scriptures according to the time and occasion then they edified themselves in faith and hope by holy exhortations There they had also the exercise of Discipline there they had their Love-feasts which began and ended with prayers and were celebrated with singing of Psalmes This was Tertullians Liturgie From these two Writers of the purest times it is evident that it was the custome or order of the Church in their Assemblies to pray read and expound the Scriptures administer the Sacraments but that there were set formes of Prayer prescribed and imposed upon the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that they were tyed to read such and such Scriptures that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 had words of exhortation put into his mouth that hee must use without adding or altering or diminishing all which are in a stinted Liturgy this doth not appear but rather the contrary Tertullian saith Coimus ad sacrarum literarum commemorationem si quid praesentium temporum qualitas aut praemonere cogit aut recognoscere And now we hope our Remonstrant wil see how we will avoid our own contradiction To say there was an order of administrations although there were no set and prescribed formes is no contradiction You see it in the Churches practice To say there was an order of prophecying given to the Church of Corinth by the Apostle Paul and yet no stinted forms of prophecying imposed upon them wee hope the Remonstrant himselfe will say is not contradictory But these quotations are blasted already it is but a silly ostentation of antiquity that these men bring against the Liturgie so is all wee bring if the Remonstrant may be judge but wee appeale to the learned Reader And what can our Remonstrant accuse us of First in our quotation of Tertullian Wee mis-english it Sine Monitore quia depectore without any prompter but their own heart Is this a mistranslation what then will you say to that approved Glossator Zephirus who thus expounds this place Our Prayers are not dictated to us as are the Prayers of the Heathens by their Priests but proceed from the bottome of our hearts c. Is not this to pray without any other prompter but their own hearts Nor doth Heraldus contradict this sence If Zephirus his Glosse like not you your English likes us as well as our owne and proves what wee desire Sine Monitore not being urged by any superiour injunction though wee thinke Monitor may as well be translated prompter as injunction but if no injunction how could it be a Liturgy a commanded imposed forme and if neither of these neither Zephirus nor your own please you then take Nicholas Rigaltius The Heathens had a Monitor that led them along in their prayers out of a writing that they might misse nor mistake no words c. yet what is this to a prescribed forme yes if they prayed sine Monitore it overthrows a prescribed forme read it as you will if you read it without a prompter it overthrowes a forme if it be as you read it without any Superiour injunction it overthrows a prescribed forme But why may not we saith the Remonstrant as well argue that because our Ministers doe ordinarily in their pulpits pray for the King in their own expressions therefore there is no forme of Liturgie enjoyned quite from the purpose we shew you in Tertullian where there were prayers that were not stinted and prescribed forms shew us if you can in Tertullian any such there were Our other testimony out of Terullian and Austine is full to the purpose we intended wee brought them to prove that it was free for Christians to pray as their occasions did require without being limited to prescribed formes and though we will not say peremptorily there were no publique Liturgies in Augustines time yet we dare say the place hee brings proves it not in which there is not one word of prescribed or publike forms The next place he quarrels with is Iustin Martyr the fault there is in the Translation 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is guiltily translated the instructer of the people 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 falsly turned according to his ability We must quit our selves of both these crimes First 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉
we render not the word but the person the instructor of the people because the same Father but a few lines before told us that was his proper work and why should the Remonstrant cal this a guilty translation Did he think we were affraid to use the word President or Bishop for fear of advantaging the adverse cause No such matter take it translate it you Bishop if you please make this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be the same with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Apocalyps what will you gain by it but this that such a President or Bishop there was in every Congregation whether in the City or Country But besides the supposed guilt we are charged with false Translation for turning 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 according to his ability if this be a false Translation let the crime lie upon Langius and not contradicted by Sylburgius in his notes who before us translated 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 quantum pro virili potest which wee know not how to conster better then according to his ability And this Remonstrant grants they did pray according to their ability and so saith he do ours and yet we have a publike Liturgie and so had they It followeth not that they had because we have we would fain see better proofe of it The Remonstrant thinks it is proof enough to picke a quarrell with what wee have spoken and therefore scorns to trouble himself any further then to tell the Reader it is Magisterially said by these men that set and imposed formes were not introduced till the Arrian and Pelagian Heresies did invade the Church and as Clerkly they confute themselves by their own testimony So then if wee cite testimony it is not Magisterially spoken and how is it Clerkly confuted Besides what wee have done our selves he vouchsafes us the honour to bestow a marginall confutation upon us out of Conc. Laod. cap. 19. we will doe the Canon and the Cause right and give you the full view of it Oportere seorsum primum post Episcoporum Homilias Catechumenorum Orationem peragi postquam exierunt Catechumeni eorum qui poenitentiam agunt fieri orationem cum iâ— sub manum accesserint recesserint fidelium preces sic ter fieri Vnam quidem scilicet primam silentio secundam autem tertiam per pronuntiationem impleri deinde sic pacem dari sic sanctam oblationem perfici solis licere sacratis ad altare accedere communicare We desire the Reader to remember that the question is not about a set Order or Rubrick as the Remonstrant calls it of administrations but about set and imposed forms of prayer Now what doth this Canon require that after Sermon Prayer should be made first for the Catechumeni Secondly for the penitents Thirdly for the faithfull But doth it binde to set forms of prayer in all these that the Reader sees it doth not for some of the prayers required in that Canon are mentall prayers therefore not stinted nor prescribed praiers as appears by that clause in the Canon which the Remonstrant shuffling up with much lesse fidelity then we have done the Milevitan Councell leaves out in his quotation But Clerklike wee confute our selves First in going about to prove that set and imposed formes were not introduced till the Arrian and Pelagian heresie did invade the Church by the testimony of a Councell that was before Arrianisme Hee that is so quicke to take others in their self coÌ„futations doth as Clerklike confute himselfe in granting that the Laodicean Councell was between the Neocesarian and the Nicene and yet so long before Arrtanisme as it seemes ridiculous to referre from the one to the other Now the Neocesarian Councell was as Binius from Baronius computes in the yeer 314 and the Nicene was 325 or according to Eusebius 320. And was the Arrian heresie just born at the period of the Nicene Councell if not why may not the Arrian Heresie invade the Church before the time of the Laodicean Councell especially considering that the heresie of Arrius did trouble the Church sometime before it borrowed Arrius his name and under his name some yeers doubtles before the Nicen Councell Yet our meaning was not to affix the introducing of set formes into the Church upon that Councell the Remonstrant if that he had pleased might have conceived that speaking of the bringing in such formes wee shew how it was done by degrees And first as a step the Laodicean Councell did forbid mens varying their prayers as they listed and did enjoyn all men to use the same prayers 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This Remonstrant saith we said was a forme of mans owne prescribing No we said of a mans own composing and how wil the Remonstrant disprove it from the words of the Canon To prove our assertion we brought the words of the Councel of Carthage which our Remonstrant derides as a grosse absurdity to explicate the Councel of Laodicea by that of Carthage which is yet no more then Zâ—naras did before us But as the Remonstrant relates it the Fathers of Carthage will afford us little help You shall heare themselves speak Reader and then judge Vt nemo in precibus velpatrem pro filio vel filium propatre nominet cum â—ltari assistitur semper ad patrem dirigatur Oratio quicunque sibi preces aliunde describit non iis utatur nisi prius eas cum fratribus instructoribus contulerit Where it appears first that this Canon was made for poore ignorant Priests that knew not the difference between the Father and the Sonne Secondly that when this Canon was made there was no set forme in use in the Church for it cannot come under the possibility of imagination that a man having a set form lying before him should so grosly mistake as to name the Father for the Son or the Son for the Father Thirdly that the limiting or circumscribing the liberty in prayer was such as did not tie him to a set Liturgie but hee might use the help of any other prayer so he did conferre with the more learned of his Brethren The Milevitan Councell went something further wherein hee challenges our fidelitie in shufling up the Councell our fidelity in citing of this Councell is nothing inferiour to his in this and far above his in the former Let the Reader consider how much difference there is between what we speak and what the Remonstrant reports from this Councell and judge of the fidelity of both If wee have for brevity sake given too short a representation of the Canon it will appeare upon are view to redound onely to our own prejudice The Canon is this Placuit etiam illud ut preces vel orationes c. quae probâ—tae fuerint in Concilio sive praefationes c. ab omnibus celebreÌ„tur Nec altae omnino dicantur in Ecclesia nisi quae à prudentioribus Tractatae vel Ã
the assertion of Episcopall men else what is the meaning of Doctor Halls semper and ubique and what is the meaning of that irrefragable proposition no man living no History can shew any well allowed and setled Nationall Church in the whole Christian World that hath been governed otherwise then by Bishops in a meet and moderate imparity ever since the times of Christ and his Apostles unto this present age And what means that other expression Turne over all Histories seeke the records of all times and places if ever it can be shown that any Orthodox Church in the whole Christian World since the time of Christ and his Apostles was governed otherwise then by a Bishop Superiour to his Clergie unlesse perhaps during the time of some persecution or short interregnum Let me forfeit my part of the cause The instances brought to prove the falsnesse of that Assertion that Episcopacie had never met with contradiction in any Christian Congregation The one hee turns off with the evasion of a personall quarrell whereas the Histories tell us it was an ancient custome and adds an odious Marginall ill becomming his so deeply protested loyalty to his Sovereigne as if it were no lesse crime to offer an affront to a Prelate then to the King The other instances of the Reformed Churches he puts off with this shift that if wee did not wilfully shut our eyes we might see he limited his time unto this present age Good Sir bethink you take up your Remonstrance read your own words Mark the Parenthesis Episcopall Government derives it self from the times of the Apostles without any interruption without the contradiction of any one Congregation in the Christian World to this present age The limitation of time here hath reference to the continuance of Episcopacie not the contradiction of Episcopacie that 's hedged in with your parenthesis which excludes your limitation Just such another is your next having said Episcopall Government continued in this Iland ever since the plantation of the Gospel without contradiction and being here taken in the manner to salve your credit you would here alter your words and sence and make it that it cannot be contradicted that the forme of this Government hath continued in the Island ever since the first plantation of the Gospel pray review your words and see how well they admit this sense Were this Ordinance meerly humane and Ecclesiasticall if there could no more be said for it but that it is exceeding ancient of more then fifteen hundred yeares standing and that it hath continued in this Island since the first Plantation of the Gospel to this present day without contradiction You would make the sense to goe thus this proposition is true without contradiction that Episcopall Government hath continued in this Island we say the sense must be thus that this Government hath continued without contradiction or hath received no contradiction during all the time it hath continued untill this present day If any impartiall Reader would not take the words in that sence we did rather then in the sence you have drawn them to let us be counted slanderers But in excusing the last mistake he would be a little more serious The Remonstrant had said Except all Histories all Authors faile us nothing can be more certain then this truth Wee cry out here of such a shamelesnesse as dares equall this opinion of his of Episcopall Government to an Article of our Creed This he doth seriously deny professing he spake it only as an ordinary phrase in hourly discourse and did Hee so too that in Episcopacie by divine Righ Part. 2. pag. 47. faith That for his part hee is so confident of the divine institution of the Majoritie of Bishops above Presbyters that hee dare boldly say there are weighty points of Faith which have not so strong evidence in Scripture And the same Author in the same place professeth that men may with much better colour cavill at those blessed Ordinances of God viz. consecration and distribution of the holy Eucharist and baptizing of Infants then quarrell at the divine institution of Bishops God give the man lesse confidence or more truth is not this to equalize this fancie to an Article of the Creed Wee would not have cast away so much time and paper upon this worthlesse businesse but onely to cleer our selves from that uncharitablenesse falshood lying and slandring wherewith the Remonstrant here bespatters us It is in his power to save himselfe and us this ungratefull labour if hee will give lesse scope to his luxuriant pen speak more cautiously let his words be more in weight and lesse in number SECT IV. IN the next Section the Remonstrant according to his Rhetorick saith Now I hope they wil strike it is a Trope sperare pro timere He had pleaded for the establishment of Episcopacie the long continuance of it in the world and in this Island this we called Argumentum galeatum quoting Hierom for that Epithite for which his great learning scoffs us Well wee must put it up an argument or if you will an Almanack for it is growing out of date apace and calculated for the Meridian of Episcopacie c. meaning the argument though applyed to Episcopacie might serve for any other Right Custome Order Religion that might plead antiquity which hee denies not but plainly grants saying it is calculated for whatsoever Government if so long time have given it peaceable possession in so much that could the Presbytery plead so long continuance hee should never yield his vote to alter it No should not to bring in that Episcopall Government which saith the Remonstrant hath such a divine institution as not only warrants it where it is but requires it where it may be had How can these things consist Surely if your grounds for the Divine Right of Episcopacie be Convictive and Irrefragable you must renounce that Government which is meerly humane and Ecclesiasticall be the Antiquity of it never so venerable if it stand in Competition with that which may plead a jus divinnm To divert that which he saw would overthrow this plea intitling the Pope to as much strength in this argument as the Bishops he will needs add this That long continuance may challenge an immunity from thoughts of alteration uulesse where the ground of the change is fully Convictive and Irrefragable But first Sir you must not make a limitation in your conclusion above what was in your premises but since you are at a dead lift wee will take it in and yet tell you that this helps you no more then the Pope still if he may judge hee will say there is no reason for his abolition may others judge the ground is fully Convictive and Irrefragable The Bishops being Judges and the Remonstrant they determine no reason in the world for the change of Episcopacie but what if others that must be Judges in this controversie see grounds Irrefragable and
But this place is in Vtopia and wee shall finde it paulò post finem for wee finde it no where in this book but we hope in due place faithfully to performe the contrary to what hee hath deludingly promised and also to shew how these words of his doe contradict what himselfe saith in other places of his book The testimonies brought out of antiquities to shew that the names of Bishops and Presbyters were used 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hee calls trifling and challengeth us to name any one of his Writers that hath stood up in the cause of Episcopacy that hath not granted and proclaimed this which we contend for Wee answer first the better is our cause when our adversaries are forced to grant us thus much Secondly the Authours we alleage doe as well hold the offices of Bishops and Presbyters to be used in Scripture 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as well as the names Thirdly though we cannot name the man yet hee who names himselfe the humble Remonstrant in the 96 page of his Defence doth impropriate the name 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Acts 20. to Bishops in an imparity distinct from meere Presbyters saying If they were indeed Bishops and not mere Presbyters as the word it selfe imports c. And wee thinke you should know the name of this man We mentioned Anicetus Pius Higinus Telesphorus under the denomination of Presbyters You Answer we could not have brought a stronger argument against our selves Why They are called Presbyters as well as Bishops Ergo the names are used indifferently Doth it not fully prove as much as we intended But they are famously known say you to have been in a height of elevation above Presbyters It is yet to be proved they were so yet how ever no such elevation as did advance them into an order above Presbyterie For Irenaeus speaking of the Successors to the Apostles saith Cum Prebyterio ordine sermonem sanum conversationem sine offensâ praestant ad informationem correctionem reliquorum And our Remonstrant granting an identitie of names and yet thinking to maintain a distinction of offices out of Irenaeus comes neerer to the sence of the Popish Commentator Feuardentius then of the orthodox Father Irenaeus To Cyprian whom the Presbyters called frater Hee replyes that though the Presbyters were so familiar with him as to call him brother yet he did never so condiscend to them as to call them Bishops but stifly maintains the eminencie of his superiority and is sometimes honour â—dutth the stâ—le of Beatissimus Papa To all which wee answer first that as the Presbyters call Cyprian brother so he cals them Brethren Colleagues Fellow-Presbyters c. And Augustine a Bishop writing to Hierom a Presbyter disdains not to write in this style Domino dilectissimo in Christi vesceribus honorando sancto fratri Compresbytero Hieronymo So to Praesidius Domino beatissimo merito venerando fratri Consacerdoti Praesidio Yet was Praesidius but a Deacon as Hierome saith For Cyprians maintaining his Superiority stifly wee are sure he never maintained it so stifly as this Remonstrant and our Bishops doe for he as we fully shewed in our Answer never maintained any sole superiour power but disclaimed it wholly yet this is the thing our Bishops contend for as you may read Episcopacie by Divine Right part 2 pag. 16. As for the glorious Title of Beatissimus Papa Cyprianus we tell you in that age it was a title common to Presbyters as well as Bishops as appeares ex Bibliotheca Patrum Primum singulos habent Papas sic enim vocant Presbyteros vel Curiones in singulis Parochiis cum uno Diacono It is therefore but a meere false supposition of the Remonstrant that the title Papa was never given to a meer Presbyter And we hope the name Papa is as great and Rome will say as incommunicable as the Remonstrant would make the name Episcopus out of Cyprian In the next Paragraph the Remonstrant leaving the indentity of names addresseth himself to the great question about the distinction of the Offices of Bishops and Presbyters And here we demanded and now demand againe What these men that maintaine the office of a Bishop distinct from a Presbyter make the Bishops proper office Is it to edifie the Church by Word and Sacraments c. Here saith the Remonstrant They fall somewhat unhappily upon the very words of the branded Heretike Aerius Good Reader compare the expressions and see whether they be the very words but had we faln upon the very words how can that man that hath said so often the Liturgie is never the worse because the words of it are taken out of the Roman Portuise trâ—duce either our persons or cause for falling unhappily upon the words of Aerius But it seems he is very willing to take all advantages to involve us in the crime of Heresie For in this and severall other passages hee chargeth us with being the Disciples of that frantick Heretike Aerius which makes us almost suspect that great deserving Champion of Episcopacy Franciscus à Sancta Clara had a hand in this Remonstrance who hath driven the Divine right of Episcopacie so high as to charge all with heresie that deny it But how ever the Remonstrant should have done well to have given better satisfaction to our tenth Quere concerning Aerius and taken away what wee spake before hee cry out against him as a stigmatized Heretike But if hee scorn to answer us we would intreat him to lend Bellarmine a lift in answering the famous Doctor Whitakers Who sayes I answer Aerius was not accounted by all for an heretike Epiphanius indeed and Augustine following him reckon him among the heretikes but if he held nothing besides those things he was not an heretike for the Scriptures and Fathers themselves confirme all these and Theodoret in his booke of the Fables of the Jews doth not ranke him among heretikes nor the Ecclesiastical history but rather Eustathius that did oppose him c. If your greatnesse will not stoop to answer a single Doctor we will subjoyn a second Learned Doctour Willet Contr. Gen. 5. Quaest. 3. and a third Chemnitius in Exam. Concil Trid. parte 4. de Orig. Iejunii and a fourth Springlius de hodiernis haeresibus part 1. l. 3. c. 2. which have spoken as fully in the justification of Aerius his opinion as ever your answerers did But what saith the Remonstrant to this Aerian question Brethren God speed you with your question Sir if you speak this cordially and seriously wee are glad of your ingenuity that though you have called us Heretikes yet our heresie is not so damnable but you dare bestow an Ave upon us But if you speak this scoffingly as we are verify affraid you do then we beseech you in the feare of God consider how you will answer this taking of Gods Name in vain before that great
it out of Hierome and Chrysostome Yet let the reader consult the 37. page of our answer which the Remonstrant leaves unanswered and judge betweene us how farre we are from such confession his onely shift now is to say our Bishops neither challenge nor exercise any such power We have evidently proved they doe both manet ergo inconcussum our Bishops and the Bishops of former times are two SECT IX HEre saith the Remonstrant we beat the aire And yet not the aire but the Remonstrant too into the confession of that which would not be confest heretofore by such of theÌ„ especially as have contended for such a Bishop as exercised spirituall jurisdiction out of his owne peculiarly demandated authority If iurisdiction exercised from an authority peculiarly demandated how not solely Well now it is granted that this sole is cryed downe by store of antiquity So then here we doe not falsifie and it is granted that Presbyters have and ought to have and exercise a jurisdiction within their owne charge But here the Remonstrant will distinguish againe it is in foro conscientiae But consider Reader whether this be the jurisdiction here under dispute Whether that store of antiquity which he confesseth to cry downe sole jurisdiction speake of a jurisdiction in foro conscientiae as his false Margent saith Clem Alexan. whom we cited doth But indeed this distinction of the Remonstrant of a jurisdiction in foro interno and in foro externo is like that distinction of Reflexivè and Archipodialiter For all humane jurisdiction is in foro externo If preaching the word which is especially aim'd at by the Remonstrant be an exercise of jurisdiction Then he that hath the Bishops licence to preach in the Diocesse hath power to exercise jurisdiction through the Diocesse and an University preacher throughout the whole Kingdome Away with these toyes He grants againe that Presbyters ought to be consulted with in the great affaires of the Church but doe our quotations prove no more Bishops had their Ecclesiasticall Councell of Presbyters with whom they did consult in the greatest matters and was it onely in the greatest matters Is this all that Cyprian saith All that the Councell of Carthage saith when it determines ut Episcopus nullius causam audiat absque praesentia Clericorum alioquin irrita erit sententia Episcopi nisi Clericorum praesentia confirmetur Doth this speak onely of great matters when it saith Nullius causam audiat Is this onely of a jurisdiction the Presbyters had in foro conscientiae Were Bishops with their Consistory wont to sit to heare and judge causes in foro conscientiae good Reader judge of this mans truth and ingenuity who not being able to divert the stroke of that Antiquity we brought to manifest a difference betweene ours and the former Bishops in the exercise of their jurisdiction would cast a mist before his Readers eyes and perswade him he grants the whole section when indeed hee grants nothing onely seekes to slide away in the darke But our Bishops have their Deanes and Chapters say you and the lawes of our Church frequently make that use of them Yes you have Deanes and Chapters but who knowes not that they have a jurisdiction distinct from the Bishops in which the Bishop hath nothing to doe with theirs nor they with his And the Bishops also derive the exercise of jurisdiction to others we know it too well to Chancellours Commissaries Officials and other of their underlings even to the commanding of Christs Ministers to denounce their censures without any discerning what equity is in the cause And what advise or assistance of Ministers is required appeares by the very stile of your excommunications G. R. Doctor of Law Commissary c. to all Rectors c. For as much as we proceeding rightly c. have adjudged all and every one whose names are under-written to be excommunicated We doe therefore commit to you c. to denounce openly under paine and perill c. Given under our Seale such a day c. Let any footsteps of such a power be shewed in antiquity Presbyters he grants had their votes in Provinciall synods we from good authority say more they had their votes in all ordinary Iudicatures But after all these grants which are as good as nothing now he comes to plead his owne We justly say that the superiority of jurisdiction is so in the Bishop as that Presbyters neither may nor did exercise it without him to what purpose is this if the Remonstrant speake of Scripture times We have proved there was no superiority in them if of latter times it is not to the question wee are proving Bishops never exercised jurisdiction without their Presbyters as ours doe He puts us to prove Presbyters exercised jurisdiction without Bishops quam iniquè But the exercise of externall jurisdiction is derived from by and under the Bishop No neither from by nor under the Bishop but from God who hath made them overseers and rulers and by the same Ecclesiasticall authority that hath made you Bishops and under Bishops not in respect of divine power but if at all in respect of Ecclesiasticall Canons onely Your Timothy and Titus we shall meet in due place Your Ignatius and the rest of your testimonies you could produce would as you say truely but surfeit the readers eyes unlesse you could bring them to prove that Bishops did and might exercise sole jurisdiction Onely because you so triumph in our supposed scapes let us intreat you or the reader for you to looke upon your cited Councell of Antioch 24 25 Canon where you say the Bishop hath power of those things that belong to the Church and see whether that speakes one word of jurisdiction or be not wholy to be understood of the distribution of the goods of the Church as both the instance given in the Canon and Zonaras on that place manifest One shift yet the Remonstrant hath more and that is to tell us that this joynt government was but occasionall and temporary in times of persecution But when a generall peace had blessed them and they had a concurrence of soveraigne and subordinate authority with them they began so much to â—emit this care of conjoyning their forces as they supposed to finde lesse need of it Doctor Downham to whom hee referres in the page before assignes other reasons Namely Presbyters desiring their ease and Scholasticall quietnesse which he saith and proves not and also the Bishops desiring to rule alone which we finde to be the true cause by experience For if the Bishops be of the Remonstrants mind perswaded that the more frequent communicating of all the important businesse of the Church whether censures or determinations with those grave assistants which in the eye of the Law are designed to this purpose were a thing not onely unprejudiciall to the honour of Episcopacy but behovefull to the Church Why should not the Bishops doe
because he knowes not what to say against it If he did intend to anger us he is much mistaken for it pleaseth us well to heare him give so full a testimony that secular imployments are unsuitable to the Ministers of the Gospell Vnlesse in those two excepted cases of the extraordinary occasions and services of a Prince or State And the composing of unkind quarrels of dissenting neighbours We take what he grants us here so kindly that we pardon his unfit comparison betweene S. Pauls Tent-making to supply his owne necessities that he might not be burthensome to the Church the State imployment of our Bishops And should in this Section fully have joyned hands with him but that we must needs tell him at the parting that had our Bishops never ingaged themselves in secular affaires but ex officio generali Charitatis and had beene so free from ambition as he would make the world beleeve they are neither should wee have beene so large in this Section nor so aboundant in our processe nor would the Parliament have made that provision against the secular imployment of Clergy men as they have lately done SECT XIII THe best Charter pleaded for Episcopacy in former times was Ecclesiasticall constitution and the favour of Princes But our latter Bishops suspecting this would prove too weake and sandie a foundation to support a building of that transcending loftinesse that they have studied to advance the Babell of Episcopacy unto have indeavoured to under-pinne it with some texts of Scripture that they might plead a Ius divinum for it that the consciences of all might be tyed up from attempting to pull down their proud Fabricke but none of them is more confident in this plea then this Remonstrant who is content that Bishops should for ever be hooted out of the Church and be disclaimed as usurpers if they claime any other power then what the Scripture gives them especially bearing his cause upon Timothy and Titus and the Angels of the 7. Churches Now because one grain of Scripture is of more efficacy esteeme to faith then whole volumes of humane testimonies we indeavoured to shew the impertinency of his allegations especially in those two instances And concerning Timothy and Titus we undertooke two things First that they were not Bishops in his sence but Evangelists the companions of the Apostles in founding of Churches or sent by them from place to place but never setled in any fixed pastorall charge and this wee shewed out of the story of the Acts and the Epistles The other was that granting ex abundanti they had beene Bishops yet they never exercised any such jurisdiction as ours doe But because the great hinge of the controversie depends upon the instances of Timothy and Titus before we come to answer our Remonstrant we will promise these few propositions granted by most of the patrons of Episcopacy First Evangelists properly so called were men extraordinarily imployed in preaching the Gospell without a setled residence upon any one charge They were Comites Vicarii Apostolorum Vice-Apostles who had Curam Vicariam omnium Ecclesiarum as the Apostles had Curam principalem And did as Ambrose speakes Evangelizare sine Cathedra Secondly It is granted by our Remonstrant and his appendant Scultetus and many others That Timothy was properly an Evangelist while he travelled up and downe with the Apostles Thirdly It is expressely granted that Timothy and Titus were no Bishops till after Pauls first being at Rome That is after the end of the Histories of the Acts of the Apostles Fourthly The first Epistle to Timothy and the Epistle to Titus from whence all their grounds for Episcopacy are fetcht were written by Paul before his first going to Rome And this is acknowledged by all interpreters and Chronologers that we have consulted with upon this point Baronius himselfe affirming it And the Remonstrants owne grounds will force him to acknowledge that the second Epistle to Timothy was also written at Pauls first being at Rome For that second Epistle orders him to bring Marke alone with him who by the Remonstrants account died five or six yeeres before Paul Which could not have beene if this Epistle were written at Pauls second comming to Rome Estius also following Baronius gives good reason that the second Epistle to Timothy was written at Pauls first being at Rome Fiftly If Timothy and Titus were not Bishops when these Epistles were written unto them then the maine grounds of Episcopacy by divine right sinke by their owne confession Bishop Hall in his Episcopacy by divine right part 2. sect 4. concludes thus peremptorily That that if the especiall power of ordination and power of ruling and censuring Presbyters be not cleare in the Apostles charge to these two Bishops the one of Creete the other of Ephesus I shall yeeld the cause and confesse to want my sences And it must needs be so for if Timothy were not then a Bishop the Bishops power of charging Presbyters of proving and examining Deacons of rebuking Elders and ruling over them and his imposition of hands to ordaine Presbyters c. doe all faile And Bishops in these can plead no succession to Timothy and Titus by these Scriptures more then other Presbyters may For if they were not Bishops then all these were done by them as extraordinary Officers to which there were no successors Sixtly By the confession of the patrons of Episcopacy It is not onely incongruous but sacrilegious for a Minister to descend from a superiour order to an inferiour according to the great Counsell of Chalcedon Seventhly In all that space of time from the end of the Acts of the Apostles untill the middle of Trajans raigne there is nothing certaine to be drawne out of Ecclesiasticall Authours about the affaires of the Church thus writeth Iosephus Scaliger Thus Tilenus when he was most Episcopall and Eusebius long before them both saith It cannot be easily shewed who were the true followers of the Apostles no further then it can be gathered out of the Epistles of Paul If the intelligent Reader weigh and consider these granted propositions he may with ease see how the life-blood of Episcopacy from Timothy and Titus is drayn'd out for if they were not Bishops till after Pauls first being at Rome then not when the Epistles were written to them according to the fourth proposition and then their cause failes if any shall say they were Bishops before Pauls first being at Rome contrary to the third proposition then they make them Bishops while by the story its apparent they were Evangelists and did Evangelizare sine cathedra and so clash against the second In a word the office of an Evangelist being a higher degree of Ministery then that of Bishops make them Bishops when you please you degrade them contrary to our sixt proposition whiles the Remonstrant tryes to reconcile these things we shall make further use of them
20. of Acts Presbyters and Bishops to be all one Doe we prove the Bishops described in Timothy and Titus to be one and the same in name and office with a Presbyter Doe we prove that their Churches were all governed Communi Consilio Presbyterorum All shall be granted us and yet the Divine right of Episcopacy be still held up by this sleight by telling us that before the Apostles left the earth they made over their authority to some prime men Demand where this is extant The Angels of the seven Churches are pleaded presently And partly because we have no other Scripture of latter inspiration and edition whereby to prove the contrary Another inducement is because the writers neere the Apostles times make frequent mention of a Bishop and as they would have us beleeve some waies distinguished from a Presbyter Some of them mentioning the very men that were the Angels of these Churches as Polycarpus of Smyrna Ignatius who is said to have beene martyred within twelve yeeres after the Revelation was written wrote letters to the severall Churches wherein he mentioneth their Bishops distinct from their Presbyters Now saith the author of Episcopacy by divine right the Apostles immediate successors could best tell what they next before them did Who can better tell a mans pace then he that followes him close at heeles And this hath so plausibâ—e a shew that all are condemned as blind or wilfull who will either doubt that Episcopacy was of Apostolicall institution or thinke that the Church of Christ should in so short a time deviate from the institution of the Apostles But now how insufficient a ground this is for the raising up of so mighty a Fabricke as Episcopacy by Divine right or Apostolicall institution wee desire the Reader to judge by that that followes First the thing they lay as their foundation is a meere metaphoricall word and such as is ordinarily applied to Presbyters in common Secondly the Penman of those seven Epistles did never in them nor in any of his other writings so much as use the name of Bishop he names Presbyters frequently especially in this booke yea where he would set out the office of those that are neerest to the throne of Christ in his Church Revel 4. And whereas in Saint Iohns daies some new expressions were used in the Christian Church which were not in Scripture As the Christian Sabbath began to be called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Christ himselfe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Now both these are found in the writings of S. Iohn and it is strange to us that the Apostle should mention a new phrase and not mention a new office erected in the Church as you would make us beleeve Neither thirdly in any of his writings the least intimation of superiority of one Presbyter over another save onely where he names Diotrephes as one ambitiously affecting such a Primacy Nor is there any one word in these Epistles whence an Episcopall authority may be collected So that did not the testimonies that lived soone after make the argument plausible it would appeare ridiculous But alas the suffrage of all the writers in the world is infinitely unable to command an Act of Divine faith without which divine right cannot be apprehended Suppose we were as verily perswaded that Ignatius wrote the Epistles which goe under his name which yet we have just cause to doubt of as knowing that many learned men reject a great part of them and some all as we can be perswaded that Tully wrote his All this can perswade no further that the Apostles ordained and appointed Bishops as their successors but onely by a humane faith but neither is that so The most immediate and unquestionable successors of the Apostles give cleare evidence to the contrary It is granted on all sides that there is no peece of antiquity that deserves more esteeme then the Epistle of Clement lately brought to light by the industry and labour of that learned Gentleman Master Patricke Young And in that Epistle Bishops and Presbyters are all one as appeares by what followes The occasion of that Epistle seemes to be a new sedition raysed by the Corinthians against their Presbyters page 57. 58. not as Bishop Hall saies the continuation of the schismes amongst them in the Apostles daies Clemens to remove their present sedition tels them how God hath alwaies appointed severall orders in his Church which must not be confounded first telling them how it was in the Jewish Church then for the times of the Gospell tels them that Christ sent his Apostles through Countries and Cities in which they constituted the first fruits or the chiefe of them unto Bishops and Deacons for them who should beleeve afterward p. 54. 55. Those whom hee calls there Bishops afterwards throughout the Epistle he cals Presbyters pa. 58 62 69. All which places doe evidently convince that in Clement his judgement the Apostle appointed but two officers that is Bishops and Deacons to bring men to beleeve Because when he had reckoned up three orders appointed by God among the Jewes High-priests Priests and Levites comming to recite orders appointed by the Apostles under the Gospell hee doth mention onely Bishops and Deacons and those Bishops which at first he opposeth to Deacons ever after he cals Presbyters And here we cannot but wonder at the strange boldnesse of the author of Epis. by divine right who hath endevoured to wire-draw this Author so much magnified by him to maintaine his Prelaticall Episcopacy and that both by foysting in the word withall into this translation which is not in the Text that the Reader might be seduced to beleeve that the offices of Episcopacy and Presbytery were two different offices And also by willingly misunderstanding Clement his phrase 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for by the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he would have us understand Episcopacy as distinct from Presbyterie whereas the whole series of the Epistle evidently proves that the word Episcopus Presbyter are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And so also by the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hee would have us to understand that the contention then in Corinth was only about the name whereas it appeares by the Epistle it selfe that the controversie was not about the name but dignity of Episcopacy for it was about the deposition of their godly Presbyters p. 57 58. And the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is thus interpreted by Beza Eph. 1. 21. Phil. 2. 9. Heb. 1. 4. and Mead in Apoc. 11. p. 156. In which places 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is rendred by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so here 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is put for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 By all this we see that the most genuine and neerest successor of the Apostles knew no such difference Lastly it is worth our observation that the same writers who as they say testifie that these 7. Angels were in a superiour degree to Presbyters do likewise affirm
that the Apostle Iohn sate many yeeres B. of Ephesus and was the Metropolitan of all Asia in which we suppose the Remonstrant will allow his readers a liberty of beleeving him and allow us a liberty to tell him that D Whitakers saith Patres cum Iacobum Episcopum vocant aut etiam Petrum non propriè sumunt Episcopi nomen sed vocant eos Episcopos illarum Ecclesiarum in quibus aliquamdin commorati sunt And in the same place Et si propriè de Episcopo loquatur absurdum est Apostolos suisse Episcopos Nam qui propriè Episcopus est is Apostolous non potest esse quia Episcopus est unius tantum Ecclesiae At Apostoli plurium Ecclesiarum fundatores inspectores erant And againe Hoc enim non mulâ—um distat ab insaniâ dicere Petrum fuisse propriè Episcopum out reliquos Apostolos Now we returne to our Remonstrant Our answer to his objection from the Angels was That the word Angell is to be taken collectively not individually which he cals pro more suo a shift and a conceit which no wise man can ever beleeve And yet he could not but take notice that we alleaged Austin Gregory Fulke Perkins Fox Brightman Mede and divers others for this interpretation which will make the world to accuse him for want of wisdome for calling the wisedome of such men into question Before he addresseth himself to answer our reasons he propounds two queres 1. If the interest be common and equally appertaining to all why should one be singled out above the rest A very dull question which is indeed a very begging of the cause For the question in agitation is whether when Christ writes to the 7. Angels he meant to single out 7. individuall persons above the rest or else writes to the 7. Angels collectively meaning all the Angels that were in all the Churches The second question is as dull as the first If you will yeeld the person to be such as had more then others a right in the administration of all it is that weseeke for But he knew we would not yield it And therefore we may justly use his owne words that those questions are tedious and might well have beene spared And so also the instances of a letter indorsed from the Lords of the Councell to the Bishop of Durham concerning some affaires of the whole Clergy of his Diocesse No man will deny but that the Bishop of Durham is an individuall Bishop This example supposeth the Angell about whom we dispute to be meant individually which you know is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 betweene you and us Quid haec ad Rhombum We will give you instances more suitable to the purpose Suppose one in Christs time or his Apostles had indorsed a letter to the Chiefe-priest concerning the affaires of the Sanhedrim and another letter to the chiefe Ruler of the Synagogue concerning the affaires of the Synagogue and another letter to the Captaine of the Temple concerning the businesse of the Temple could any man imagine but that these indorsments must necessarily be understood collectively considering there were more Chiefe-priests then one in Ierusalem Luke 22. 4. and more chiefe Rulers of the Synagogue then one Math. 19. 18. compared with Acts 18. 8. 17. And more Captaines of the Temple then one Acts 4 1. compared with Luke the â—2 4. and so also semblably more Angels and Ministers in the seven Churches then seven But stay sir we hope you are not of opinion that any of your Asian Bishops had as much spirituall and temporall power as the Lord Bishop of Salisbury and the Lord Bishop and Palatine of Durham Cave dixeris At last you come to our proofes which you scoffingly call invincible You should have done better to have called them irrefragable like your good friends irrefragable propositions Our first argument is drawne from the Epistle to Thyatira Revel 2. 24. But I say unto you in the plurall number not unto thee in the singular and unto the rest in Thyatira Here is a plaine distinction betweene the Governours and the governed And the Governours in the plurall number which apparently proves that the Angell is collective The Remonstrant hath no way to put this off but by a pittifull shift to use his owne words He tels us he hath found a better coppy which is a very unhappy and unbecoming expression apt to make ignorant people doubt of the originall text and so in time rather to deny the Divinity of the Scriptures then of Episcopacy But this better coppy is but lately searcht into for we finde that Bishop Hall in his Episcopacy by Divine right reads it as we doe But I say unto you and the rest in Thyatira But what is this better Coppy It is a Manuscript written by the hand of Teela which if it be no truer then Itinerarium Pauli Teclae it will have little credit among the Learned But that which makes you to magnifie it the more is that doughty argument which it helped you to against us concerning the same Church of â—hyatira in which the Angell is charged for suffering that woman Iezabel And now you say in that memorable copy of Tecla it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which you interpret thy wife Iczebel And just as Archimedes you come with an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And call upon us to blush for shame What say you in a different character shall we thinke she was wife to the whole company or to one Bishop alone But for our part we doe thinke you have more cause to blush for making such a Translation and rather then you will not prove the Angell of Thyatira to be an individuall Bishop you will un-Angell him and make him an other Ahab to marry a cursed Iezebel We wonder that never any protestant writer had the wit to bring this text against the papists to prove the lawfulnesse of Priests marriages no not Doctor Hall himselfe in his defence of the married Clergy Give us leave here to use your owne words page 108. Forbeare Reader if you can to smile at this curious subtilty what Cabalisme have we here judge Reader what to expect of so deepe speculations And also to repeate what you say page 110. If you please your selfe with this new subtilty it is well from us you have no cause to expect an answer it can neither draw our assent nor merit our confutation We beleeve it to be as true that Iezebel was the wife of the Bishop of Thyatira as that Tecla was the wife of Paul But to returne to the former text Let any judicious reader survey the latter part of the 23. verse which is the verse before that out of which we bring our reason there he shall finde Christ speaking to the Church of Thyatira saith And I will give to every one of you in the plurall number And then followes But I say unto you and the rest in
might be setled in the same These dissentions were not about seats or rates but a contention betweene Silvanus the Bishop and Nundinarius the Deacon in a matter of a high nature too high for our Church Wardens or Vestrymen to meddle in The Bishop being accused that hee was Traditor fur rerum pauperum Did ever Church-wardens or Vestry men among us heare inquire judge compose such differences as these are What should John a Nokes and John a Stiles and Smug the Smith meddle with a businesse of Bishops saith Episcopacie by Divine Right part 3. pag. 32. But how doth hee prove they were but as our Churchwardens or Vestrymen First because Deacons are named before these Seniors where ever they are mentioned Secondly because Optatus reckoning up quatuor genera capitum mentions not Elders For the first though the order of reckoning them be not so much to be insisted upon yet wee can tell you if here your confidence had not beene greater then your consideration that you might have observed that in some places they are mentioned not onely before Deacons but the whole cleargie For so Gregories letter cited by us Tabellarium cum consensu Seniorum Cleri memineris ordinandum Are not Seniors here mentioned before the cleargie His second proofe that these Elders were no better then meere Churchmardens and Vestry men was because Optatus mentioning foure sorts of men in the Church mentions not these Elders But is this the man that hath with such height of scorne vilified poore negative arguments though drawn from sacred Scripture And will he now lay such weight upon a negative argument Surely if all the truth and practice of the primitive times were bound up in one Optatus as all Divine truth is lodged in the sacred Volume of the Scriptures the Remonstrant might have made much of his negative argument yet hee scornes to heare us reasoning that because we do not read that the holy Ghost did by the Apostles appoint Bishops in remedium Schismatis therefore we cannot believe Bishops are of Divine or Apostolicall institution but of humane Away saith he with this poore negative argument And because the Apostle Ephesians the fourth reckoning the Officers whom Christ hath given and gifted for the edification of his Church reckons up onely Apostles Prophets Evangelists Pastors Teachers if wee should conclude Ergo there were no Bishops The Remonstrant would cry out again Away with these negative arguments yet such an argument froÌ„ Scripture may be valid though from no other authority As for Optatus First though in these places he mentions not Elders yet that other place which wee brought out of the same Author doth which the learned Antiquary Albaspinaeus though a Papist with us acknowledgeth Secondly these places produced by the Remonstrant crosse one another as much as they crosse us for Ministri are left out in one as well as Seniores in both Thirdly these Seniores are included in turba fidelium as the Apostle Rom. 10. 14. comprehends all the Church under these two hearers and teachers and so again Heb. 13. 24. Rulers and Saints Yet the Remonstrant is resolved to hold the conclusion Elders in a ranke above Deacons in a setled power of government with the Pastors shall be damned by him for a new and unjustifiable opinion Yet this is the man that would by no meanes be thought to condemne the Reformed Churches Though hee fall as unhappily neere the very words of their profest enemies the Netherland Remonstants as ever we did the words of Aerius Quod attinet Praxin antiquitatis ex â—â videlicet id demonstrari posse idoneis argumentis ut Censor asserit audaciae temeritatis est and again Tota antiquitatis Praxis ei repugnat but oh that our Remonstrant would once learn to take the counsell he gives And he that adviseth us to give glory to God in yielding to undoubted and cleere truth would do so himselfe For if it be not more cleere that there were elders anciently in the Church then that there were none and that these elders were not civill Aldermen but ecclesiasticall Officers Not meere Churchwardens and Vestry men busied about inferiour things of seats and rates but employed in matters of higher nature let the Remonstrant never renounce episcopacy But if it be let him take heed he do not renounce his word which he utters pag. 147. I doe here solemnely professe that if any one such instance can be brought I will renounce episcopacy for ever SECT XVI XVII XVIII THe rest of our Answer you say is but a meere declamation And good Sir what was your whole Remonstrance but a declamation And what is your Defence but a Satyre But ours is worthy of no other answer then contempt and silence You are very dextrous and happy in those kind of Answers your whole Defence is full of them It is true you say The religious Bishops of all times have strongly upheld the truth of God against Satan and against his Antichrist And it is as true that we told you that others have upheld the truth as strongly as Bishops ever did Yea at sometimes when there was never a Bishop in the world to appeare for the truth And therefore never impropriate all the glory to Episcopacie It is also true that wee told you that some irreligious Bishops have upheld Satan and his Antichrist against the truth of God and what can you say to this What is this to their calling Sir their upholding Antichrist makes as much against their calling as their upholding the truth makes for their calling If you fetch an argument from the one for their calling we may as Logically fetch an argument from the other against their calling with as much concluding strength but you can tell us of Presbyters wicked and irreligious shall the function it self therefore suffer Like enough And we could tell you that they find more coâ—ntenance from Bishops then the painfullest Ministers But if Presbyters should be as generally corrupted as Bishops now are have as much strength to suppresse the Gospell and promote Popery as the Bishops by their supreame power have if they can bring no more evidence of Divine institution then Bishops can and are of no more necessity to the Church then Bishops are let the Function suffer We told you what an unpreaching Bishop said of a preaching Bishop this say you is our slander not their just Epithite and challenge us to shew any unpreaching Bishop in the Church of England this day Sir pardon us if we tell you that you put us in minde of a poore Sir Iohn that because he had made one Sermon in 40. yeeres would needs be counted a preaching minister if you speake of preaching after that rate then indeed you may call all the Bishops in England preaching Bishops But the people of England can so well tell who deserves the name of a preaching Bishop that it is not the preaching of a
Sermon once a yeere or a quarter or a month that will bee sufficient to merit and maintain that name Some indeed have taken some paines heretofore But there are so few of them now that sure the Remonstrant intended this booke for posterity The present Age will never beleeve that England is so full of preaching Bishops that there is not an unpreaching Bishop to bee found But what if we should challenge the Remonstrant to shew any preaching Bishop in England such a preaching Bishop as Chrysostome Augustine and the rest of those ancient worthies were 〈◊〉 who if they had preached no oftner then our Bishops Chrysostome had never mentioned his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so often nor his Nudiâ—tertius Nor his cras and perendie Nor Austin his Nudius tertiani hesâ—erni Sermones Nor Cyprian his Quotidiani Tractatus Indeed of old one saith Bishops gloried of their chaire and teaching as the flowre of their garland preferring it far before government but when they were faln from spirituall felicity and infâ—cted with Secular smoake then they commended the labour of teaching to Presbyters then the Iurisdiction and Consistory did carry all the credit Every Office in the Church being counted a dignity as it had more or lesse jurisdiction annexed to it this dignity hath almost crowded out the duty The scandall of inferiour Ministers hee professeth to bleed for but saith we blazon No Sir as we told you before and tell you again they have beene the trumpets of their own shame that like Hophne and Phineas made the sacrifices of the Lord to be abhorred But wee beseech you what is the English of your desires to have had the faults made lesse publike Doe you mean you would not have had them medled withall in open Parliament or that you would have had the Parliament doe by all Petitions brought in against such seandalous persons as Constantine did by those Papers that the proud contentious Bishops gave one against another commit them to the fire if so then as you are Christian tels us whether you doe not think this had been the onely way to involve the whole Parliament and Nation in the guilt of those sins and expose them to that wrath and vengeance that would from heaven pursue them Bethink your self how you will answer this at that great Tribunall to which you make so many rash and bold appeals as also your prophaning the glorious title of the God of peace that you might under the sweet name of peace perswade an impunity for sin Sir we nothing feare but wee shall answer our opposing the unerring rule of the Word of God which texts you never went about to answer against that example of Constantine who as a man though good was subject to errour ten thousand times better then you will doe either of these In our next Section saith our Remonstrant we spit in the face of our Mother Good Reader please to review our Answer Section 17. and judge The Remonstrant will deny presently that hee and the Bishops are the Church of England and yet here that which is spoken against them and their Perseus-like practices is spoken against our Mother the Church Well be what you please Fathers and Mothers and Sonnes and all Onely we desire the Remonstrant if hee can to tell us what the Church of England is For it doth not please him here that we should call the Convocation the Church of England much lesse the Bishops or Archbishops Yet if we be not mistaken you your self call the Convocation the Church of England pag. 122. And the Canons and Constitutions made in the Convocation are called the Canons and Constitutions of the Church of England which the Convocation alone excluding the Parliament cannot be so much as a representative of unlesse you will count the whole Laity of the Nation represented in Parliament none of the Church of England Yet this is the Church so cryed up These Canons are the commands of the Church so rigorously urged Who ever breaks a Canon especially in point of Ceremony is no dutifull sonne of the Church Indeed in point of Morality Drinking Swearing Gaming there is more indulgence Nay how many Bishops in England are there that have urged their owne private paper-injunctions as the commands of the Church and proceeded against such as would not observe them as disobedient or refractory against their Mother the Church That Sir upon the point there will appeare to be more Churches in England then one For tell us we beseech you when the Church of England at Norwich forbade all prayer before and after Sermon but onely in the words of the 55 Canon forbad all preaching in the afternoons all expounding of Catechisme or Scriptures the Church of England in London forbad none of these things when the Church of England in London enjoyned rayling in Communion Tables and all communicants to make their approaches thither the Church of another Diocesse went further and enjoyned setting of them Altarwise And all these were the commands of the church of England The transgression of any one of these the omission of any other thing enjoyned was condemned as disobedience to the church Now how many churches of England were there at this time But you will play off all this as merriment with a Ridiculum caput To deal with you therefore seriously Because you make so strange a thing of hearing of more churches of England then one and distinguish so deeply between Churches of England and Churches in England wee beseech you consider whither the Scripture doe not speak as properly when it speaks of the Churches of Iudea and of Galatia as if it had said the churches in Iudea and in Galatia And what difference between Saint Iohn when hoe writes to the Church of Ephesus of Laodicea and the church in Sardis in Thyatira Yet we are not ridiculous enough therefore the Remonstrant will help the matter and to make his jeere will corrupt our words For whereas we had said if the bounds of a Kingdome must needs be the limits of a Churth Why are not England Scotland and Ireland all one church to make it non-sence hee adds of England are not England Scotland and Ireland all one Church of England Hee that made it let him take it This discourse of Churches of England cannot end without a descent into the Prelaticall and Anti-prelaticall Church We said We acknowledge no Anti-prelaticall Church The Remonstrant tels us if wee make and condemne the Prelaticall Church what shall be the other part of the contradistinction Our reply must be that not we but themselves make the Prelaticall Church wee doe but shew it and we shew also the other part of the contradistinction which the Remonstrant pleaseth to call the Antiprelaticall Church The Remonstrant had upbrayded the Divisions of that part wee made our just defence and therein declared that the Prelaticall party were the chiefe Authours and Fomentors of those divisions