in their Polemicks yet in their Practicks a power that Timothy and Titus and those angels never did Thirdly Whereas this remonstrant saith If there can be better evidence under Heaven for any matter of fact let Episcopacy be for ever abandoned out of Gods Church We beseech you remember how weake we have discovered his Evidence to be and then the Inference upon all these we humbly leave to your Honours Wisedome and Iustice. SECT XIIII HAving thus considered the validity of those arguments whereby this remonstrant would suffult Episcopacy we descend now to inquire what satisfaction he gives to those objections which himselfe frames as the maine if not the sole arguments that Episcopacy is asfaultable by and they are two First that pleading the Divine right of Episcopacy is to the prejudice of Soveraignty Secondly that it casts a dangerous imputation upon all those reformed Churches that want this Government To the first the prejudice of Soveraignty he answers there is a compatiblenesse in this case of Gods Act and the Kings it is God that makes the Bishop the King that gives the Bishopricke But we have proved already that God never made a Bishop as he stands in his Superioritie over all other Presbyters he never had Gods Fiat and if they disclaime the influence of soveraignty unto their creation to a priority and assert that the King doth not make them Bishops they must have no being at all Sure we are the Lawes of the Land proclaime that not onely Bishopricks but Bishops and all the Iurisdiction they have is from the King whereas the Remonstrant acknowledgeth no more but the bare place and exercise to be from Regall donation which cannot bee affirmed without apparent prejudice of that Soveraigntie which the Lawes of the Land have invested our Princes with And for his unworthy comparison of Kings in order to Bishops and Patrons in order to their Clerkes when he shall prove that the patron gives ministeriall power to his Clerke as the Kâ—nâ— according to our Laws gives Episcopall power to the Bishop â— it may be of some conducement to his cause but till then we leave the unfitnesse of this comparison and the unthankfulnesse of those men to the indulgence of their Soveraigne to their deserved recompence His learned answer to such men as borrowing Saint Ieroms phrase speake Saint Pauls truth is in summe this That he knâ—wâ—s not how to prescribe to mens thoughts but for all his Rhetoricke they will thinke what they list but if they will grant him the question they shall soone be at an end of the quarrell which one answer if Satisfactory would silence all controversies to as good purpose as he did Bellarmine who said Bellarmine saith it is thus and I say it is not and where is Bellarmine now To the second objection that Episcopacie thus asserted casts an imputation upon all the reformed Churches that want that Government hee saith that the objection is intended to raise envie against them who if they may be beleeved love and honour those sister Churches and blesse God for them But doe they not plucke all this envie upon themselves who in their Conferences Writings Pulpits Vniversities Disputes High Commission Declamations have disclaimed them us no Churches that have disclaimed the Prelats and have honoured the most glorious Lights of those Reformed Churches Calvin Beza and others with no better titles than of Rascalls Blasphemers c. But the pith of his answer after a few good words is this that no such consequent can be drawne from their opinion for their Ius divinum pleads only for a Iustifiablenesse of this holy calling Not for an absolute necessity of it warranting it where it is and requiring it where it may be had but not fixing upon the Church that wants it the defect of any thing of the Essence of a Church but only of the glory and perfection of it neither is it their sin but their misery And is it so doth not this Ius divinum argue a Necessitie but onely a Iustifiablenesse of this calling nor is the want of it a want of any thing of Essence but onely of perfection wee had thought that page the twentieth where this Remonstrant strives to fetch the pedegree of Episcopacie from no lesse than Apostolicall and in that right Divine institution he had reckoned it among those things which the Apostles ordained for the succeeding administration of the Church in essentiall matters but here it seemes he is willing to retract what there fell from him there it was to his advantage to say this government was a thing essentiall to the Church and here it is no lesse advantage to say it is not essentiall But if it be not Essentiall then what is the reason that when a Priest who hath received orders at Rome turnes to us they urge not him to receive ordination among us againe but when some of our brethren who flying in Queene 〈◊〉 dayes had received Imposition of hands in the Reformed Churches beyond the Seas returned againe in the dayes of Queene Elizabeth they were urged to receive Imposition of hands againe from our Bishops and some did receive it If those Churches that want Bishops want nothing essentiall to a Church then what Essentiall want was there in the ordination of those Ministers that received Imposition of hands in those Churches that might deserve a Re-ordination more than if they had first received their ordination at Rome And what is the reason that Bishop Mountague so confidently affirmes that Ordination by Episcopall hands is so necessary as that thâ— Church is no true Church without it and the Ministery no true Ministery and ordinarily no salvation to be obtained without it And if this Remonstrant should leave Bishop Mountague to answer for himselfe yet notwithstanding he stands bound to give us satisfaction to these two questions which arise from his owne Booke First whether that Office which by divine right hath the sole power of Ordaining and Ruling all other Officers in the Church as he saith Episcopacy hath belong not to the being but onely to the glory and perfection of a Church Secondly there being in this mans thoughts the same Ius divinum for Bishops that there is for Pastors and Elders whether if those Reformed Churches wanted Pastors and Elders too they should want nothing of the Essence of a Church but of the perfection and glory of it But this Remonstrant seemes to know so much of the minde of those Churches that if they might have their option they would most gladly embrace Episcopall Government as littlâ— differing from their owne Moderatorship save onely in the perpetuitie of it and the new Invention as hee odiously calls it of Lay Elders But no question those learned Worthies that were entrusted by the Churches to compile their confessions did comprise their Iudgements better than the Composer of this Remonstrance And to his presumption wee oppose their Confession Wee will begin with
Kingdomes yea all the neighbour Churches and if we may say the whole Christian world and no small part beyond it had rung with the lowd cryes of no lesse then Treason Treason Truth is in his Antiquity we find that this his uninterrupted sacred Government hath so far invaded the Civill and so yoked Monarchy even in this Kingdome as Malmesbury reports That William Rufus oppressed by Bishops perswaded the Iewes to confute them promising thereupon to turne England to their Religion that he might be free of Bishops And this is so naturall an effect of unalterable Episcopacy that Pius â—he fourth to the Spanish Embassadour importuning him to permit Bishops to bee declared by the Councell of Trent to be Iure Divino gave this answer That his King knew not what he did desire for if Bishops should be so declared they would be all exempted from his Power and as indepedent as the Pope himselfe The second thing observable is the comparison hee makes betweene the late Alterations attempted in our Neighbour Church by his Episcopall faction and that Alteration that is now justly desired by the humble petitioners to this Honourable House The one being attempted by strangers endevouring violently to obtrude Innovations upon a setled Church and State The other humbly petitioned to the Heads and Princes of our State by Multitudes therein almost ruined by an Innovating Faction yet doth not this Remonstrant blush to say if these be branded so he cals the just censures of this Honorable House For Incendiaries how shall these Boutefeux escape c. thus cunningly indeavouring either to justifie the former by the practise of the latter or to render the latter more odious then the former The attempts of these men whom he would thus render odious hee craves leave to present to your Honours in two things which are the subjects of this quarrell The Liturgie and Episcopacy and we humbly crave your Honours leave in both to answer SECT II. FIrst the Liturgie of the Church of England saith he hath bin hitherto esteemed sacred reverently used by holy Martyrs daily frequented by devout Protestants as that which more then once hath been confirmed by the Edicts of religious Princes and your own Parliamentary Acts c. And hath it so whence then proceed these many Additions and Alterations that have so changed the face and fabrick of the Liturgie that as Dr. Hall spake once of the pride of England if our fore-fathers should revive and see their daughters walking in Cheapside with their fannes and farthingales c. they would wonder what kinde of creatures they were and say Nature had forgot her selfe and brought forth a monster so if these holy Martyrs that once so reverently used the Liturgy should revive and looke for their Letany stampt by Authority of Parliament they would be amased and wondering say England had forgotten her selfe and brought forth c. Martyrs what doe we speake of Martyrs when we know Sir that one of your owne Bishops said it in the hearing of many not so long since but you may well remember it That the service of the Church of England was now so drest that if the Pope should come and see it he would claime it as his owne but that it is in English It is little then to the advantage of your cause that you tell us it is translated into other languages and as little service have they done to the Church of England who have taught our Prayers to speake Latine againe For if it be their Language chiefly that overthrowes the Popes claime take away that and what hinders then but the Pope may say these are mine As for other Translations and the great applause it hath obtained from Forraigne Divines which are the fumes this Remonstrant venditates what late dayes have produced we know not but the great lights of Former ages have beene farre from this applauding we are sure judicious Calvine saith that in the Liturgy there are sundry Tolerabiles Ineptiae which we thinke is no very great applause To vindicate this Liturgy from scorne as he calles it at home or by your Honours aide to reinforce it upon the Nation is the worke of his Remonstrance for the effecting whereof he falls into an unparallell'd discourse about the Antiquity of Liturgies we call it unparalleld because no man that we have seene ever drew the line of Liturgy so high as he hath done Concerning which if by Liturgy this Remonstrant understand an Order observed in Church assemblies of Praying reading and expounding the Scriptures Administring Sacraments c. Such a Liturgy we know and do acknowledge both Iewes and Christians have used But if by Liturgy hee understand prescribed and stinted formes of Administration Composed by some particular men in the Church and imposed upon all the rest as this he must understand or else all hee saith is nothing wee desire and expect that those formes which he saith are yet extant and ready to be produced might once appeare Liturgy of this former sort we finde in Iustine Martyr and Tertullian But that there were not such stinted Liturgies as this Remonstrant disputes for appeares by Tertullian in his Apol. Cap. 30. where he saith the Christians of those times did in their publique assemblies pray sine monitore quiâ— de pectore without any Prompter but their own hearts And that so it should be the same Father proves in his Treatise de Oratione Sâ—â—nt quae petantur c. There are some things to be asked according to the occasions of every man the lawfull ordinary prayer thaâ— is the Lords Prayer being laid as a foundation It is lawfull to build upon that foundation other prayers according to every ones occasions And to the same purpose S. Austin in his 121. Ep. Liberum est c. it is free to aske the same things that are desired in the Lords Prayer aliis atque aliis verbis sometimes one way and sometimes another And before this in that famous place of Iust. Mar. Apo. 2. He who instructed the people prayed according to his ability Nor was this liberty in prayer taken away and set and imposed formes introduced untill the time that the Arian and Pelagian Heresies did invade the Church and then because those Hereticks did convey and spreade their poyson in their formes of Prayer and Hymnes the Church thought it convenient to restraine the liberty of making and using publike formes And first it ordained that none should pray pro Arbitrio sed semper eaedem preces that none should use liberty to vary in prayer but use alwaies the same forme Conc. Laod. Can. 18. yet this was a forme of his owne composing as appeares by another Canon wherein it was ordered thus None should use any forme unlesse he had first conferred Cum fratribus instructioribus with the more learned of his brethren Conc. Carth. 3. Can. 23. and lastly that none should use set
prayers but such as were approved of in a Synode which was not determined till the yeare 416. Conc. Milev 2. Can. 12. And had there been any Liturgies of Times of the first and most venerable antiquity producible the great admirers of them and inquirers after them would have presented them to the world ere this we know that Bishop Andrews in his zeale for Liturgies pursued the inquiry after the Iewish Liturgie so far that he thought he had found it and one there was which he sent to Cambridge to be translated but there it was soone discovered to have beene made long after the Iewes ceased to be the Church of God and so himselfe supprest it that it never saw the light under a translation We wonder therefore what this Remonstrant meant to affirme so confidently that part of the forme of prayer which was composed by our blessed Saviour was borrowed from the formes of prayer formerly used by Gods people An opinion we never met before indeed we have read that the Rabbines since the daies of our Saviour have borrowed some expressions from that Prayer and from other Evangelicall passages But we never read till now that the Lord Christ the wisdome of the Father borrowed from the wisdome of the Rabbines expressions to use in Prayer And as much we wonder by what Revelation or Tradition Scripture being silent in the thing he knew that Peter and Iohn when they went up to the Temple to pray their Prayer was not of a sudden and extemporary conception but of a Regular prescription Sure we are some as well read in Iewish antiquity as this Remonstrant shewes himselfe to be have told us that the houre of Prayer was the time when the Priest burnt Incense and the people were at their private prayers without as appeares Luke 1.9 where we reade that while Zachary the Priest went in to offer Incense all the people stood with out praying in the time of the Oblation Which Prayers were so far from being Prescript Formes or Liturgies that they were not vocall but mentall Prayers as Master Meade tels us in his exposition upon the eighth of the Revelations And what ever Peter and Iohn did this we know that when the Publican and the Pharisee went up to the Temple to pray as the Apostles did at the houre of prayer their prayer was not of Regular prescription but of a present Conception But if this Remonstrant be in the right concerning the Iewish Liturgies then the Evangelicall Church might better have improved her peace and happinesse then in composing Models of Invocation and Thanksgiving when there is one extant and ready to be produced that was constantly used by Gods people ever since Moses daies and put over to the times of the Gospel and confirmed by Apostolicall practise or else great is our losse who are so unhappily deprived of the best improvement the Church made of her peace and happinesse in the first 300. yeares for rejecting those Liturgies that are confest by the Learned to bee Spurious We challenge this Remonstrant to produce any one Liturgie that was the issue of those times And blessed Constantine was herein as unhappy as we who needed not have composed formes of prayer for his Guard to use upon the Lords day but might and would have taken them out of former Liturgies if there had been any And can ye with patience think that any ingenuous Christian should be so transported as upon such weak and unproved premises to build such a Confident conclusion as this Remonstrant doth and in that Conclusion forget the state of the controversie sliding from the question of a prescribed and imposed Liturgie to an arbitrary book of prayer In his Rhetoricall Encomium of conceived prayer wee shall more willingly bear a part with him then they whose cause he pleads for had that been in their hearts which is in this book to hate to be guilty of powring water upon the Spirit and gladly to adde oyle rather so many learned able Conscientious Preachers had not been molested and suspended for letting the constant flames of their fixed conceptions mount up from the altar of their zealous heart unto the throne of grace nor had there been so many advantages watched from some stops and seeming solecismes in some mens prayers to blaspheme the spirit of prayer which though now confest to be so far from being offensive that they are as pleasing Musick in the eares of the Almighty yet time hath been when they have â—ounded as meere Battologies nay no better then meere Blasphemies in the â—ares of some Bishops And if this conceived prayer be not to be opposed in another by any man that hath found the true operation of this grace in himselfe with that spirit then are those possest that have not only thus raged with their tongues against this way of prayer but by sealing up the mouthes of Ministers for praying thus in publike and imposing penances upon private Christians for praying thus in their Families and compelling them to abiure this practise have endeavoured with raging violence to banish this divine ordinance from our Churches and dwellings and profest in open Court it was fitter for Amsterdam than for our Churches But howsoever this applause of conceived prayer may seeme to be Cordiall yet he makes it but a vantage ground to lift up publike formes of sacred Church Liturgie as hee calls it the higher that they may have the greater honour that by the power of your authority they be reinforced which worke there would have beene no need to call your Honors to had not Episcopall zeale broke forth into such flames of indignation against conceived prayers that we have more just cause to implore the propitious aide of the same Authority to reestablish the Liberty of this then they to re-inforce the necessity of that Yet there are two specious Arguments which this Remonstrant brings to perswade this desired re-inforcement the Originall and Confirmation of our Liturgie For the first he tels your Honours it was selected out of ancient Models not ROMAN but CHRISTIAN contrived by the holy Martyrs and Confessors of the blessed reformation of Religion where we beseech your Honours to consider how we may trust these men who sometimes speaking and writing of the ROMAN Church proclaime it a true Church of CHRIST and yet here ROMAN and CHRISTIAN stand in opposition sometimes they tell men their Liturgie is wholly taken out of the Romane Missall only with some little alteration and here they would perswade your Honours there is nothing Romane in it But it is wholly selected out of pure Ancient Models as the Quintessence of them all Whereas alas the originall of it is published to the world in that Proclamation of Edward the sixt And though here they please to stile the Composers of it holy Martyrs and contrivers of the blessed Reformation yet there are of the Tribe for whom
not what this Arrogancy might attempt to fasten upon your Honors should the bowels of your compassion bee enlarged to weigh in the Ballance of your wisdomes the multitude of Humble petitions presented to you from severall parts of this Kingdome that hath long groaned under the Iron aâ—d Insupportable yoake of this Episcopall Government which yet we doubt not but your Honours will please to take into your prudent and pious consideration Especially knowing it is their continuall practise to loade with the odious names of Faction all that justly complain of their unjust oppression In his addresse to his defence of Episcopacy he makes an unhappy confession that he is confounded in himselfe Your Honours may in this beleeve him for hee that reades this Remonstrance may easily observe so many falsities and contradictions though presented to publike view with a face of confident boldnesse as could not fall from the Pen of any but selfe-confounded man which though we doubt not but your Honours have descryed yet because they are hid from an errant and unobserving eye under the Embroyderies of a silken Language wee Humbly crave your Honours leave to put them one by one upon the file that the world may see what credit is to be given to the bold assertions of this confident Remonstrant First in his second page he dubs his Book the faithfull messenger of all the peaceable and right affected sons of the Church of England which words besides that unchristian Theta which as we already observed they set upon all that are not of his party carry in the bowels of them a notorious falsity and contradiction to the phrase of the booke for how could this booke be the messenger of all his owne party in England when it is not to be imagined that all could know of the comming forth of this booke before it was published and how can that booke crave admittance in all their names that speakes in the singular number and as in the person of one man almost the whole booke thorow But it may besome will say this is but a small slippe well be it so but in the seventh page hee layes it on in foure lines asserting these foure things First that Episcopall Government that very same Episcopall Government which some he saith seekes to wound that is Government by Diocesan Bishops derives it selfe from the Apostles times which though we shall 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 more fully confute anon yet we cannot here but ranke it among his notorious for how could there be such Government of a Diocesse by a Bishop derived from the Apostles times when in the Apostles times there were no Bishops distinct from Pâ—esbyters as we shall shew and if there had beene Bishops yet they were no Diocesans for it was a hundred yeares after Christ or as most agree 260. before Parishes were distinguished and there must be a distinction of Parishes before there could be an union of them into Diocesses Secondly it is by the joynt confession of all reformed Divines granted that this sacred Government is derived from the Apostles What all reformed Divines was Calvin Beza Iunius c. of that minde Are the reformed Churches of France Scotland Netherlands of that Iudgement we shall shew anon that there is no more Truth in this Assertion then if he had said with Anaxagoras snow is black or with Copernicus the Earth moves and the heavens stand still Thirdly he saith this Government hath continued without any interruption What doth he meane at Rome for we reade in some places of the world this Government was never known for many yeares together as in Scotland â— we reade that in Ancient times the Scots were instructed in the Christian faith by Priests and Monkes and were without Bishops 290. yeares yea to come to England we would desire to know of this Remonstrant whether God had a Church in England in Q. Mariâ—s daies or no and if so who were then the Bishops of this Church for some there must be if it be true that this man saith this Government hath continued without any interruption unto this day and Bishops then we know not where to finde but in the â—ine of Popish succession Fourthly he saith it hath thus continued without the contradiction of any one Congregation in the Christian world It seemes he hath forgotten what their own darling Heylin hath written of the people of Biscay in Spaine that they admit of no Bishops to come among them for when Ferdinand the Catholike came in progresse accompanied among others with the Bishop of Pampelone the people rose up in Armes drove back the Bishop and gathering up all the dust which they thought he had trode on flung it into the Sea Which story had it been recorded only by him would have been of lighter Credit But we reade the same in the Spanish Chronicle who saith more then the Doctor for he tels us that the People threw that dust that the Bishop or his Mule had trode on into the Sea with Curses and Imprecations which certainly saith he was not done without some Mysterie those people not being voide of Religion but superstitiously devout as the rest of the Spaniards are so that they is one Congregation in the Christian world in which this Government hath met with contradiction And are not the French Scottish and Belgicke Churches worthy to be counted Christian Congregations and who knows not that amongst these this Government hath met not only with verball but reall contradiction Yet he cannot leave his But within two pages is at it again and tels us of an unquestionable clearnesse wherein it hath been from the Apostles derived to us how unquestionable when the many volumes written about it witnesse to the world and to his conscience it hath been as much questioned as any point almost in our Religion And that assertion of his that tels us that the people of God had a forme of prayer as ancient as Moses which was constantly practised to the Apostles dayes and by the Apostles c. though we have shewed how bold and false this assertion is yet we mention it here as deserving to be put into the Catalogue And that he may not seeme Contra Mentem ire but to be of the same minde still p. 18. he saith Episcopall Government hath continued in this Island ever since the first plantation of the Gospell without contradiction Had he taken a lesse space of time and said but since the resuscitation of the Gospel we can prove it to him and shall that since the reformation Episcopacy hath been more contradicted then ever the Papacy was before the extirpation of it Yet still the man runs on thinking to get credit to his untruthes by their multiplications for pag. 21. hee saith Certainly except all Histories all Authors faile us nothing can be more certain then this truth Oâ— Durum Nothing more certain what is it not more certain
committed to and exercised by Presbyteriall hands For who are they of whom the Scripture speakes Heb. 13.17 Obey them that have the Rule over you for they watch for your soules as they that must give an account c. Here all such as watch over the soules of Gods people are intituled to rule over them So that unlesse Bishops will say that they only watch over the soules of Gods people and are only to give an account for them they cannot challenge to themselves the sole rule over them And if the Bishops can give us good security that they will acquit us from giving up our account to God for the soules of his people we will quit our plea and resigne to them the sole rule over them So againe in the 1 Thessa. 5.12 Know them which labour amongst you and are over you in the Lord and admonish you In which words are contained these truthes First that in one Church for the Thessalonians were but one Church 1 Ca. there was not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 â— but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not one chiefe Bishop or President but the Presidency was in many Secondly that this presidency was of such as laboured in the word and Doctrine Thirdly that the Censures of the Church were managed not by one but by them all in Communi Them that admonish you Fourthly that there was among them a Parity for the Apostles bids know them in an Indifferency not discriminating one from another yea such was the rule that Elders had that S. Peter thought it needfull to make an exhortation to them to use their power with Moderation not Lording it over Gods Heritage 1 Pet. 5.3 By this time we have sufficiently proved from Scripture that Bishops and Presbyters are the same in name in Office in Edifying the Church in power of Ordination and Iurisdiction we summe up all that hath beene spoken in one argument They which have the same Name the same Ordination to their Office the same qualification for their Office the same worke to feede the flock of God to ordaine pastors and Elders to Rule and Governe they are one and the same Office but such are Bishops and presbyters Ergo. SECT VI. BUt the dint of all this Scripture the Remonstrant would elude by obtruding upon his reader a commentary as he calls it of the Apostles own practise which hee would force to contradict their own rules to which he superadds the unquestioÌ„able glosse of the cleare practise of their immediate successors in this administration For the Apostles practise we have already discovered it from the Apostles own writings and for his Glosse he superadds if it corrupts not the Text we shall admit it but if it doe we must answer with Tertullian Id verum quodcunque primum id adulterum quod posterius whatsoever is first is true but that which is latter is adulterous In the examination of this Glosse to avoyd needlesse Controversie First wee take for granted by both sides that the first and best Antiquitie used the names of Bishops and Presbyters promiscuously Secondly that in processe of time some one was honoured with the name of Bishop and the rest were called Presbyters or Cleri Thirdly that this was not Nomen inane but there was some kinde of Imparitie betweene him and the rest of the Presbyters Yet in this we differ that they say this Impropriation of name and Imparity of place is of Divine Right and Apostolicall Institution we affirme both to be occasionall and of humane Invention and undertake to shew out of Antiquitie both the occasion upon which and the Persons by whom this Imparity was brought into the Church On our parts stands Ierome and Ambrose and others whom we doubt not but our Remonstrant wil grant a place among his Glossators Saint Ierome tells us in 1 Tit. Idem est ergo Presbyter qui Episcopus antequam Diaboli instinctu studia in Religione â—ierent diceretur in populis ego sum Pauli ego Apollo ego Cephae Communi Presbyterorum Consilio ecclesiae gubernabantur Postquam verò unusquisque eos quos baptizaverat suos putabat esse non Christi in toto Orbe decretum est ut unus de Presbyteris electus superponeretur caeteris ad quem omnis Ecclesiae Cura pertineret schismatum semina â—olicrentur Putat aliquts non Scripturarum sed nostram esse sentâ—ntiam Episcopum Presbyterum unum esse aliud aetatis aliud esse nomen officii relâ—gat Apostoli ad Philippenses verba dicentis Paulus Timotheus servi Iesis Christi qui sunt Philippis cum Episcopis Diaconis c. Philippi una est urbs Macedoniae certè in unâ Civitate non poterant plures esse ut nuncupantur Episcopi c. sicut ergo Presbyteri sciant se ex Ecclesiae consuetudine ei qui sibi praepositus fuerit esse subjectos Ita Episcopi noverint se magis consuetudine quam dispositionis Dominicae veritate Presbyteris esse majores in Communi debere Ecclesiam regere A Presbyter and a Bishop is the same and before there were through the Devils instinct divisions in Religion and the people began to say I am of Paul and I of Apollo and I of Cephas The Churches were governed by the Common Counsell of the Presbyters But after that each man began to account those whom hee had baptized his owne and not Christs it was decreed thorow the whole world that one of the Presbyters should be set over the rest to whom the Care of all the Church should belong that the seeds of schisme might be taken away Thinkes any that this is my opinion and not the opinion of the Scripture that a Bishop and an Elder is the same let him reade the words of the Apostle to the Philippians saying Paul and Timothy the servants of Jesus Christ to them that are at Philippi with the Bishops Deacons Philippi is one City of Macedonia and certainly in one Citie there could not be many Bishops as they are now called c. and after the allegations of many other Scriptures he concludes thus as the Elders therefore may know that they are to be subject to him that is set over them by the Custome of the Church so let the Bishops know that it is more from custome then from any true dispensation from the Lord that they are above the Presbyters and that they ought to rule the Church in common In which words of Ierome these five things present themselves to the Readers view First that Bishops and Presbyters are originally the same Idem ergo est Presbyter qui Episcopus Secondly that that Imparitie that was in his time betweene Bishops and Elders was grounded upon Ecclesiasticall Custome and not upon divine Institution Episcopi noverint c. Thirdly that this was not his private judgement but the judgement of Scripture Putat aliquis c. Fourthly that before this Prioritie was upon this occasion started
IMPONENDI ET ORDINANDI possident potestatem And who those be he expresseth a little before SENIORES Praepositi by whom the Presbyters as well as the Bishops are understood And as these places prove that Bishops in the Primitive time could not ordaine alone without the Presbyters so there are that give us light to understand that the Presbyters might ordaine without the Bishop The Author of the Comment upon the Ephesians that goes under the name of Ambrose saith Apud Aegyptum Presbyteri consignant si praesens non sit Episcopus In Egypt the Presbyters ordaine if the Bishop be not present so saith Augustine in the same words and the Chorepiscopus who was but a Presbyter had power to impose hands and to ordaine within his precincts with the Bishops Licence Now Licences conferre not a power to him that hath it not but onely a facultie to exercise that power he hath The Iniquitie of our times hath beene such that a Minister may not Preach to his owne flocke without a Licence doth this Licence make a man a Minister and give him power to preach or onely a facultie and libertie to exercise that power Should a Bishop give a Laike a Licence to preach or to ordaine doth that Licence make him a Minister or a Bishop Sure all will say no why because in the Laike there is not Actus primus the roote and principle of that power which Licence onely opens a way to the exercise of and therefore that must bee concluded to be in those Chorepiscopi or Presbyters by vertue of their place and calling and not by vertue of a Licence So that the power of Ordination was so farre from residing in the Bishop alone as that the Presbyters and Chorepiscopi had power to ordaine as well as he Neither was this onely a matter of Ecclesiasticall Custome but of Ecclesiasticall Constitution which binds the Bishop First in all his Ordinations to consult with his Clergy Vt Episcopus sine Consilio Clericorum suorum Clericos non ordinet That the Bishop shall not ordaine a Clergy man without the counsel of the Clergy this was Cyprians practice Epist. 33. Secondly in his Ordinations to take the concurrent assistance of his Presbyters Cum ordinatur Presbyter Episcopo cum benedicent◠manum super caput ejus tenente etiam omnes Presbyteri qui praesentes sunt manu◠suas juxta manum Episcopi super caput illius teneant When a Presbyter is ordained the Bishop blessing him and holding his hand upon his head all the Presbyters that are present shall likewise lay their hands upon his head with the hands of the Bishop In which Canon we have the unanimous vote of two hundred and fourteene Bishops declaring that the power of Ordination is in the hands of Presbyters as well as Bishops And whereas it may be objected that Hiorome and Chrysostome affirming Bishops to differ from Presbyters in the power of Ordination seeme to imply that that power is soly theirs Here we desire it may be observed First that these Fathers put all the difference that lyes betweene Bishops and Presbyters to be in point of Ordination Quid facit Episcopus quod non facit Presbyter exceptâ Ordinatione And therefore Chrysostome himselfe confesseth that in his dayes there was little or no difference between a Bishop and a Presbyter Inter Episcopū et Presbyterū interest fermè nihil c. Secondly That this difference is not so to be understood as if these Fathers did hold it to be by divine right as Bellarmine and our Episcopall men would make us beleeve but by a humane constitution And therefore they doe not speak De jure but de facto Quid facit c. not quid debet facere And this Hierom confesseth So Leo prim ep 88. upon complaints of unlawfull Ordinations writing to the Germane and French Bishops reckons up what things are reserved to the Bishops Among which he set down Presbyterorum Diaconorum consecratio and then adds Quae omnia solis deberi summis Pontificibus Authoritate Canonam praecipitur So that for this power of Ordination they are more beholden to the Canon of the Church then to the Canon of Gods Word Thirdly we answer that this very humane difference was not in the Primitive Antiquity It was not so in Cyprians time as we even now shewed And when it did prevaile it was but a particular custome and sometimes usurpation of some Churches For it was otherwise appointed in the Councell of Carthage and in Egypt and other places as is declared in the former part of this Section And even in Chrysostomes time it was so little approved of that it was one great accusation against Chrysostome himselfe That hee made Ordinations without the Presbytery and without the consent of his Clergie This is quoted by Bishop Downam lib. 1. cap. 8. pag. 176. SECT IX NOr had the Bishop of former times more right to the power of sole Iurisdiction then of sole Ordination And here we have Confitentem reum our very Adversaries confesse the Votes of Antiquity are with us Cyprian professeth that hee would doe nothing without the Clergie nay he could doe nothing without them nay hee durst not take upon him alone to determine that which of right did belong to all and had hee or any other done so the fourth Councell of Carthage condemnes the Sentence of the Bishop as Irrita nisi Clericorum sententiâ confirmetur Would yee know the particulars wherein the Bishops had no power of Judicature without their Presbyters First in judging and censuring Presbyters themselves and their Doctrine For this the Canon Law in Gratian is full and cleare Episcopus non potest Iudicare Presbyterum vel Diaconum sine Synodo Senioribus Thus Basill counselled and practised epist. 75. So Ambr. lib. 10. epist. 80 Cyrill in epist. ad Iohannem Antiochen Thus Gregory ad Iohan. Panormitan lib. 11. epist 49. Secondly in judging of the Conversation or Crimes of any of the members of the Church Penes Presbyteros est Disciplina quae facit hom ines meliores That Discipline that workes emendaion in men is in the power of the Elders And therefore when any was questioned in point of conversation hee was brought saith Tertullian into the Congregation where were Exhortations Castigations and Divine censures And who had the chiefe stroke in these Censures he tells us after Praesident probati quique seniores All the approved Elders sit as Presidents And those censures that passed by the whole Presbytery were more approved by the Church in Ancient times then such as were passed by one man for wee finde that when Syagrius and Ambrose passed Sentence in the same case the Church was unsatisfied in the Sentence of Syagrius because he past it sine alicujus fratris consilio without the counsell or consent of any of his Brethren But were pacified with the
Pauls presence and in the presence of the Elders The cleare evidence of which text demonstrates that Paul did not leave Timothy at this time as Bishop of Ephesus But it is rather evident that hee tooke him along with him in his journey to Hiâ—rusalem and so to Rome for wee finde that those Epistles Paul wrote while hee was a prisoner beare either in their inscription or some other passage of them the name of Timothy as Pauls companion viz. The Epistle to the Philippians Colossians Hebreâ—es Philemon which Epistles he wrote in bonds as the contexture which those two learned professors the one at Heydelberge the other at Saulmur make of Saint Pauls Epistles doth declare So that it appeares that Timothy was no Bishop but a Minister an Evangelist a fellow labourer of the Apostles 1 Thess. 3.1 an Apostle a Messenger of the Church 2. Cor. 8.3 a Minister of God 1 Thess. 3.2 these titles the Holy Ghost gives him but never the title of a Bishop The like we find in Scripture concerning Titus whom Paul as it is conceived by learned men did first assume into the fellowship of his Labours in the place of Iohn and made him his companion in his journey through Antioch to Herusalem so we find Gal. 2.1 from thence returning to Antioch againe from thence hee passed through Syria and Cilicia confirming the Churches from Cilicia he passed to Creet where having Preached the Gospell and planted Churches he left Titus there for a while to set in order things that remaine Yet it was but for a while he left him there for in his Epistle which he wrote to him not many yeares after hee injoynes him to come to him to Nicopolis where he did intend to winter but changing that purpose sends for him to Ephesus where it seemes his Hyemall station was and from thence sends him before him to Corinth to enquire the state of the Corinthians His returne from thence Paul expects at Troas and because comming thither he found not his expectation there he was so grieved in his spirit 2 Cor. 2.12 that hee passed presently from thenâ—e into Macedonia where Titus met him and in the midst of his afflictions joyed his spirits with the glad tydings of the powerfull and gracious effects his first Epistle had among the Corinthians 2 Cor. 7 5 6 7. Paul having there collected the Liberalities of the Saints sends Titus againe to the Corinthians to prepare them for the same service of Ministring to the necessities of the Saints 2 Cor. 8.6 And makes him with some others the Conveyers of that second Epistle to the Corinthians All these journeyes to and fro did Titus make at the designement of the Apostle even after hee was left in Creet Nor doe we finde that after his first removall from Creet he did ever returne thither Wee reade indeed 2 Tim. 4.10 hee was with Paul at Rome and from thence returned not to Creet but into Dalmatia All which doth more then probably shew it never was the Intendment of the Apostle to six Titus in Creet as a Bishop but onely to leave him there for a season for the good of that Church and to call him from thence and send him abroad to other Churches for their good as their necessities might require Now who that will acknowledge a Distinction betweene the Offices of Bishops and Evangelists and knowes wherein that Distinction lyes will not upon these premisses conclude that Timothy and Titus were Evangelists and NOT Bishops I but some of the Fathers have called Timothy and Titus Bishops We grant it true and it is as true that some of the Fathers have called them Archbishops and Patriarks yet it doth not follow they were so Wee adde secondly that when the Fathers did call them so it was not in a proper but in an improper sense which we expresse in the words of our Learned Orthodox Raynolds You may learne by the Fathers themselves saith hee that when they tearmed any Apostle a Bishop of thiâ— or that City as namely Saint Peter of Antioch or Rome they meant it in a generall sort and signification because they did attend that Church for a time and supply that roome in preaching the Gospell which Bishops did after but as the name of Bishop is commonly taken for the Overseer of a particular Church and Pastor of a severall flocke so Peter was not Bishop of any one place therefore not of Rome And this is true by Analogy of all extraordinary Bishops and the same may be said of Timothy and Titus that he saith of Peter But were it true that Timothy and Titus were Bishops will this remonstrant undertake that all his party shall stand to his Conditions If our Bishops challenge any other power then was by Apostolique Authority delegated to and required of Timothy and Titus and the Angells of the seaven Asian Churches let them be disclaimed as usurpers Will our Bishops indeed stand to this then actum est Did ever Apostolique authority delegate power to Timothy or Titus to ordaine alone to governe alone and doe not our Bishops challenge that power Did ever Apostolique authority delegate power to Timothy and Titus to rebuke an Elder no but to entreate him as a Father and doe not our Bishops challenge to themselvesâ— and permit to their Chancellours Commissaries and Officialls power not only to rebuke an Elder but to rayle upon an Elder to reproach him with the most opprobrious tearmes of foole knave jack-sauce c. which our paper blushes to present to your Honours view Did ever Apostolique authority delegate to Timothy and Titus power to receave an accusation against an Elder but before two or three witnesses and doe not our Bishops challenge power to proceed Ex officio and make Elders their owne Accusers Did ever Apostolique authority delegate power to Timothy or Titus to reject any after twice admonition but an Heretick and doe not our Bishops challenge power to reject and eject the most sound and orthodox of our Ministers for refusing the use of a Ceremony as if Non-conformity were Heresie So that either our Bishops must disclaime this remonstrance or else themselves must be disclaimed as usurpers But if Timothy and Titus were no Bishops or had not this power it may bee the Angells of the seven Asian Churches had and our Remonstrant is so subtile as to twist these two together that if one fayle the other may hold To which we answer first that Angell in those Epistles is put Collectively not Individually as appeares by the Epistle to Thyatira cap. 2. vers 24. where wee reade 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. But I say unto you in the plurall number not unto thee in the singular and unto the rest in Thyatira c. Here is a plaine distinction betweene the members of that Church By you is signified those to whom hee spake under the name of the Angell By
Subscriptions there would be no more Subscription to Ceremonies in the Churches of England But some will say that there is one objection out of Scripture yet unanswered and that is from the inequality that was betweene the twelve Apostles and the seventy Disciples To which we answer First that it cannot bee proved that the twelve Apostles had any superiority over the seventy either of Ordination or Jurisdiction Or that there was any subordination of the seventy unto the twelve But suppose it were yet we answer Secondly that a superiority and inferiority betweene Officers of different kindes will not prove that there should be a superiority and inferiority betweene Officers of the same kinde No man will deny but that in Christs time there were Apostles Evangelists Prophets Pastors and teachers and that the apostles were superior to Evangelists and Pastors But it cannot bee proved that one apostle had any superiority over another apostle or one Evangelist over another And why then should one Presbyter be over another Hence it followeth that though we should grant a superiority betweene the twelve and the seventy yet this will not prove the question in hand Because the question is concerning Officers of the same kinde and the instance is of Officers of different kinds amongst whom no man will deny but there may be a superiority and inferiority as there is amongst us between Presbyters and Deacons And now let your Honours judge considering the premisses how farre this Episcopall government is from any Divine right or Apostolicall institution And how true that speech of Hierome is that a bishop as it is a superior Order to a Presbyter is an Humane praesumption not a divine Ordinance But though Scripture failes them yet the indulgence and Munificence of Religious Princes may support them and to this the Remonstrant makes his next recourse yet so as he acknowledgeth here Ingagements to Princes onely for their accessory dignities titles and Maintenance not at all for their stations and functions wherein yet the author plainely acknowledgeth a difference betweene our Bishops and the Bishops of old by such accessions For our parts we are so farre from envying the gracious Munificence of pious Princes in collating honourable maintenance upon the Ministers of Christ that we beleeve that even by Gods owne Ordinance double Honour is due unto them And that by how much the Ministery of the Gospell is more honourable then that of the Law by so much the more ought all that embrace the Gospell to bee carefull to provide that the Ministers of the Gospell might not onely live but maintaine Hospitalitie according to the Rule of the Gospell And that worthy Gentleman spake as an Oracle that said That scandalous Maintenance is a great cause of a scandalous Ministery Yet wee are not ignorant that when the Ministery came to have Agros domos locationes vehicula equos latifundia as Chrysost. Hom. 86. in Matth. That then Religio peperit divitias filia devoravit Matrem religion brought forth riches and the Daughter devoured the Mother and then there was a voyce of Angels heard from Heaven Hodie venenum in Ecclesiam Christi cecidit this Day is poyson shed into the Church of Christ. And then it was that Ierome complained Christi Ecclesia postquam ad Christianos principes venit potentiâ quidem divitiis major sed virtutibus minor facta est Then also was that Conjunction found true That when they had woodden Chalices they had golden Priests but when their Chalices were golden their Priests were wooden And though we doe not thinke there is any such incompossibility but that large Revenues may be happily managed with an humble sociablenesse yet it is very rare to finde History tells us that the superfluous revenues of the Bishops not onely made them neglect their Ministery but further ushered in their stately and pompous attendance which did so elevate their Spirits that they insulted over their brethren both Clergy and People and gave occasion to others to hate and abhorre the Christian Faith Which Eusebius sets forth fully in the pride of Paulus Samosatenus who notwithstanding the meannesse and obscurity of his birth afterwards grew to that height of Insolâ—ncâ— and pride in all his carriage especially in that numerous traine that attended him in the streetes and in his stately throne raised after the manner of Kings and Princes that Fides nostra inviâ—â—ia odiâ— propter fostum superbiâ—m cordis illius facta fuerit obnexia the Christian faith was exposed to envy and hatred through his pride And as their ambition fed with the largenesse of their revenewes discovered it selfe in great attendance stately dwellings and all Lordly pompe so Hierom complaines of their pride in their stately seates qui velut in aliqua sublimi specula constituti vix dignantur vidâ—re mortales alloqui conservos suos who sitting aloft as it were in a watch tower will scarce deigne to looke upon poore mortalis or speake to their fellow servants Here we might bee large in multiplying severall testimonies against the pride of Ecclesiasticall persons that the largenesse of their revenues raysed them to but we will conclude with that grave complaint of Sulpitius Severus Ille qui ante pedibus aut asello ire consueverat spumante equo superbus invebitur parvá prius ac vili cellula contentus habitare erigit celsa Laquearia construit multa conclaviu sculpit postes pingit armaria vestem respuit gressiorem indumentum molle desiderat c. Which because the practise of our times hath already turned into English wee spare the labour to translate Onely suffer us being now to give a Vale to our remonstrants arguments to recollect some few things First whereas this remonstâ—ant saith If we doe not shew out of the true genuine writings of those holy men that lived in the Apostles dayes a cleare and received distinction of Bishopsâ— Presbyters and Deacons as three distinct subordinate callings with an evident specification of the duty belonging to each of them Let this claimed Hierarchie be for ever rooted out of the Church We beseech you let it be rememred how we have proved out of the genuine and undeniable writings of the Apostles themselves that these are not three distinct callings Bishops are Presbyters being with them all one Name and Office and that the distinction of Bishops and Presbyters was not of Divine Institution but Humane and that these Bishops in their first Institution did not differ so much from Presbyters as our present Bishops differ from them Secondly Whereas this remonstant saith If our Bishops challenge any other power then was by Apostolike authority delegated to and required of Timothy and Titus and the Angells of the Asian Churches Let them bee disclaimed as usurpers Wee desire it may be remembred how wee have proved first that Timothy and Titus and the Angels were no Diocesan bishops and secondly that our bishops challenge if not
the French Church who in their Confession speake thus Credimus veram Ecclesiam gubernari debere ea politia quam Dominus noster Iesus Christus sancivit ita videlicet ut sint in ea Pastores Presbyteri sive Seniores Diaconi ut doctrinae puritas retineatur c. Ar. 29. Credimus omnes Pastores ubicunque collocati sunt cádem aequali potestate inter se esse praeditos sub uno illo capite summoque solo universali Episcopo Iesu Christo Art 30. Gallicae confessionis Credimus veram hanc Ecclesiam debere regi ac gubernari spirituali illâ politiâ quam nos Deus ipse in verbo suo edocuit it a ut sint in ea Pastores ac ministri qui pure concionentur Sacramenta administrent sint quoque Seniores Diaconi qui Ecclesiae senatum constituant ut his veluti mediis vera Râ—ligio conservari Hominesque vitiis dediti spiritualiter corripi emendari possint Tunc enim ritè ordinate omnia siunt in Ecclesia cum viri fidâ—les pii ad ejus gubernationem deliguÌ„tur juxta Divi Pauli praescriptum 1 Tim. 3. Confes. Belgic Art 30. Caeterum ubicunque locorum sunt verbi Dei Ministri eandem atque aequalem Omnes habent tum Potestatem tum AUTHORITATEM ut qui sunt aeque Omnes Christi unici illius universalis Episcopi capitis Ecclesiae Ministri We beleeve that the true Church ought to be governed by that policie which Christ Jesus our Lord established viz. that there bee Pastors Presbyters or Elders and Deacons And againe Wee beleeve that all true Pastors where ever they be are endued with equall and the same power under one chiefe Head and bishop Christ Jesus Consonant to this the Dutch Churches We beleeve say they the true Church ought to be ruled with that spirituall policie which God hath taught us in his Word to wit that there bee in it Pastours to preach the Word purely Elders and Deacons to constitute the Ecclesiasticall Senate that by these meanes Religion may be preserved and manners corrected And so again We beleeve where ever the Ministers of God are placed they All have the same equall power and authoritie as being All equally the Ministers of Christ. In which harmony of these Confessions see how both Churches agree in these five points First That there is in the Word of God an exact forme of Governement set downe Deus in verbo suo edocuit Secondly That this forme of Governement Christ established in his Church Iesus Christus in Ecclesiâ sancivit Thirdly That this forme of Government is by Pastors Elders and Deacons Fourthly That the true Church of Christ ought to be thus governed Veram Ecclesiam debere regi Fifthly That all true Ministers of the Gospell are of equall power and Authority For the reason he assignes why those Churches should make this Option wee cannot enough admire that such a passage should fall from his pen as to say there is Little difference betweene their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and our Episcopacie save onely in perpetuity and lay Elders for who knowes not that between these two there is as vast a difference as between the Duke of Venice and an absolute Monarch For 1. the Moderator in Geneva is not of a superiour order to his Brethren nor 2. hath an ordination differing from them nor 3. assumes power of sole Ordination or Jurisdiction nor hath he 4. maintenance for that office above his Brethren nor 5. a Negative voyce in what is agreed by the rest nor 6. any further power then any of his Brethren So that the difference betweene our Bishops and their Moderators is more then Little But if it be so little as this Remonstrant here pretends then the Alteration and Abrogation of Episcopacie will be with the lesse difficultie and occasion the lesse disturbance SECT XV. BUt there is another thing wherein our Episcopacie differs from the Geneva Moderatorship besides the perpetuity and that is the exclusion of the Lay Presbytery which if we may beleeve this Remonstrant never till this age had footing in the Christian Church In which assertion this Remonstrant concludes so fully with Bishop Halls Irrefragable Propositions and his other book of Episcopacie by divine right as if he had conspired to sweare to what the Bishop had said Now though we will not enter the Lists with a man of that learning and fame that Bishop Hall is yet we dare tell this Remonstrant that this his assertion hath no more truth in it then the rest that wee have alreadie noted Wee will to avoyd prolixity not urge those three knowne Texts of Scripture produced by some for the establishing of Governing Elders in the Church not yet vindicated by the adversaries Nor will wee urge that famous Text of Ambrose in 1 Tim. 5. But if there were no Lay Elders in the Church till this present age wee would be glad to learne who they were of whom Origen speakes when he tels us it was the Custome of Christian Teachers first to examine such as desired to heare them of whom there were two orders the first were Catechumeni or beginners the other was of such as were more perfect among whom 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 câ— Nonnulli praepositi sunt quì in vitam mores eorum qui admittuntur inquirant ut qui turpia committant iis communi Caetu Interdicant qui vero ab istis abhorrent ex anima complexi meliores quotidiè reddant There are some ordained to enquire into the life and manners of such as are admitted into the Church that they may banish such from the publique Assembly that perpetrate scandalous Acts which place tells us plainely First that there were some in the higher forme of heares not Teachers who were Censores morum over the rest Secondly that they were designed or constituted to this work 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Thirdly that they had such Authority instrusted into their hands as that they might interdict such as were scandalous from the publique Assemblies We would gladly know whether these were not as it were Lay Elders That there were such in the Church distinguished from others that were called to teach appeares Augustine writing to his Charge directs his Epistle Dilectissimis fratribus clero senioribus universae Plebi Ecclesiae Hipponensis where first there is the generall compellation Fratribus Brethren then there is a distribution of these Brethren into the Clergie the Elders and the whole People so that there were in that Church Elders distinguished both from the Clergie and the rest of the People So againe Contra Cresconium Grammaticum Omnes vos Episcopi Presbyteri Diaconi Seniores scitis All you Bishops Elders Deacons and Elders doe know What were those two sorts of Elders there mentioned in one comma ibidem cap. 56. Peregrinus Presbyter seniores Ecclesiae Musticanae Regiones tale desiderium prosequuntur where
to be thunder-stricken at this Question and cals the very Question a new Divinity where he deales like such as holding great revenues by unjust Titles will not suffer their Titles to be called in Question For it is apparent Ac si solaribus radiis descriptum esset to use Tertullians phrase that the word Church is an Equivocall word and hath as many severall acceptions as letters and that Dolus latet in universalibus And that by the Church of England first by some of these men is meant onely the Bishops or rather the two Archbishops or more properly the Archbishop of Canterbury Just as the Iesuited Papists resolve the Church and all the glorious Titles of it into the Pope so do these into the Archbishop or at fullest they understand it of the Bishops and their party met in Convocation as the more ingenuous of the Papists make the Pope and his Cardinals to be their Church thus excluding all the Christian people and Presbyters of the Kingdome as not worthy to be reckoned in the number of the Church And which is more strange this Author in his Simplicitie as he truly saith never heard nor thought of any more Churches of England then one and what then shal become of his Diocesan Churches and Diocesan Bishops And what shall wee think of England when it was an Heptarchy had it not then seven Churches when seven Kings Or if the Bounds of a Kingdome must constitute the Limits and Bounds of a Church why are not England Scotland and Ireland all one Church when they are happily united under one gracious Monarch into one Kingdome Wee reade in Scripture of the Churches of Iudea and the Churches of Galatia and why not the Churches of England not that we denie the Consociation or Combination of Churches into a Provinciall or Nationall Synod for the right ordering of them But that there should be no Church in England but a Nationall Church this is that which this Author in his simplicity affirmes of which the very rehearsall is a refutation SECT XVIII THere are yet two things with which this Remonstrance shuts up it selfe which must not be past without our Obeliskes First he scoffes at the Antiprelaticall Church and the Antiprelaticall Divisions â— for our parts we acknowledge no Antiprelaticall Church But there are a company of men in the Kingdome of no meane ranke or quality for Piety Nobility Learning that stand up to beare witnesse against the Hierarchie as it now stands their usurpations over Gods Church and Ministers their cruell using of Gods people by their tyrannicall Governement this we acknowledge and if hee call these the Antiprelaticall Church we doubt not but your Honours wil consider that there are many Thousands in this Kingdome and those pious and worthy persons that thus doe and upon most just cause It was a speech of Erasinus of Luther Vt quisque vir est optimus ita illius Scriptis minimè offendi The better any man was the lesse offence he tooke at Luthers writings but we may say the contrary of the Prelates Vt quisque vir est optimus ita illorum factis magis offendi The better any man is the more he is offended at their dealings And all that can be objected against this party will be like that in Tertullian Bonus vir Cajus Sejus sed malus tantum quia Antiprelaticus But he upbraides us with our Divisions and Subdivisions and so doe the Papists upbraid the Protestants with their Lutheranisme Calvinisme and Zuinglianisme And this is that the Heathens objected to the Christians their Fractures were so many they knew not which Religion to chuse if they should turn Christians And can it be expected that the Church in any age should be free froÌ„ divisions when the times of the Apostles were not free and the Apostle tells us it must needs be that there be divisions in Greg. Naz. dayes there were 600 Errours in the Church doe these any wayes derogate from the truth and worth of Christian Religion But as for the Divisions of the Antiprelaticall party so odiously exaggerated by this Remonstrant Let us assure your Honours they have beene much fomented by the Prelates whose practâ—se hath beene according to that rule of Machiavill Divide Impera and they have made these divisions and afterwards complained of that which their Tyranny and Policie hath made It is no wonder considering the pathes our Prelates have trod that there are Divisions in the Nation The wonder is our Divisions are no more no greater and wee doubt not but if they were of that gracious spirit and so intirely affected to the peace of the Church as Greg. Naz. was they would say as he did in the tumults of the people Mitte nos in mare non erit tempestas rather then they would hinder that sweet Conâ—ordance and conspiration of minde unto a Governement that shall be every way agreeable to the rule of Gods word and proâ—itable for the edification and flourishing of the Church A second thing wee cannot but take notice of is the pains this Author takes to advance his Prelaticall Church and forgetting what he had said in the beginning that their party was so numerous it could not be summed tells us now these severall thousands are punctually calculated But we doubt not but your Honours will consider that there may be mulâ—i homines pauci viri And that there are more against them then for them And whereas they pretend that they differ from us onely in a Ceremony or an Organ pipe which however is no contemptible difference yet it will appeare that our differences are in point of a superiour Alloy Though this Remonstrant braves it in his multiplyed Quere's What are the bounds of this Church what the distinction of the professours and Religion what grounds of faith what new Creed doe they hold different from their Neighbours what Scriptures what Baptisme what meanes of Salvation other then the rest yet if hee pleased hee might have silenced his owne Queres but if hee will needs put us to the answer wee will resolve them one by one First if he ask what are the bounds of this Church we answer him out of the sixt of their late founded Canons where we find the limits of this Prelaticall Church extend as farre as from the high and lofty Promontory of Archbishops to the Terra incognita of an c. If what Distinction of professors and Religion we answer their worshipping towards the East and bowing towards the Altar prostrating themselves in their approaches into Churches placing all Religion in outward formalities are visible differences of these professours and their Religion If what new Creed they have or what grounds of Faith differing from their Neighbours we answer Episcopacy by divine right is the first Article of their Creed Absolute and blinde obedience to all the commandements of the Church that is the Bishop and his Emissaries election upon faith
of beholders led them to censure any line or proportion as not done to the life he mends it after direction If any fault bee found with the eye hand foot c. he corrects it till at last the addition of every mans fancie had defaced the first figure and made that which was the Picture of a man swell into a monster Then bringing forth this and his other Picture which hee had reserved he presented both to the people and they abhorring the former and applauding the latter he cryed Hunc populus fecit This the deformed one the People made This lovely one I made As the Painter of his Painting so in Bezaes sence it may be said of Bishops God at first instituted Bishops such as are all one with presbyters and such are amiable honourable in all the Churches of God But when men would bee adding to Gods institution what power preheminence Iurisdiction Lordlynes their phansie suggested unto them this divine Bishop lost his Originali beauty and became to be Humanus And in conclusion by these and other additions swelling into a Pâ—pe Diabolicus Whether the Ancient Fathers when they call Peter Marke Iames Timothy and Titus Bishops did not speak according to the Language of the times wherein they lived rather then according to the true acception of the word Bishop and whether it bee not true which is here said in this Booke that they are called Bishops of Alexandria Ephesus Hierusalem c. in a very improper sense because they abode at those places a longer time then at other places For sure it is if Christ made Peter and Iames Apostles which are Bishops over the whole world and the Apostles made Marke Timothy and Titus Evangelists c. It seemes to us that it wonld have beene a great sinne in them to limit themselves to one particular Diocesse and to leave that calling in which Christ had placed them Whether Presbyters in Scripture are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and that it is an office required at their hands to rule and to governe as hath beene proved in this Booke The Bishops can without sinne arrogate the exercise of this power to themselves alone And why may they not with the same lawfulnesse impropriate to themselves alone the Key of Doctrine which yet notwithstanding all would condemne as wel as the Key of Discipline seeing that the whole power of the Keyes is given to Presbyters in Scâ—ipture as well as to Bishops as appears Mat. 16.19 where the power of the Keyes is promised to Peter in the name of the rest of the Apostles and their successors and given to all the Apostles and their successors Mat. 18.19 Iohn 20.23 And that Presbyters succeed the Apostles appeares not onely Mat. 28.20 but also Acts 20 28. where the Apostle ready to leave the Church of Ephesus commends the care of ruling and feeding it to the Elders of that Church To this Irenaeus witnesseth lib. 4. cap. 43.44 This Bishop Iewell against Harding Artic. 4. sect 5.6 saith that all Pastors have equall power of binding and loosing with Peeter Whether since that Bishops assume to themselves power temporall to be Barons and to sit in Parliament as Judges and in Court of Star-Chamber High Commission and other Courts of Justice and also power spirituall over Ministers and People to ordaine silence suspend deprive excommunicate c. their spirituall power be not as dangerous though both bee dangerous and as much to be opposed as their temporall 1. Because the spiritual is over our consciences the temporall but over our purses 2. Because the spirituall have more influence into Gods Ordinances to defile them then the temporall 3. Because spirituall Judgements and evills are greater then other 4. because the Pope was Anticstrist before he did assume any temporall power 5. Because the Spirituall is more inward and lesse discerned and therefore it concernes all those that have Spirituall eyes and desire to worship God in spirit and truth to consider and and endeavour to abrogate their Spirituall usurpations as well as their Temporall Whether Acrius bee justly branded by Epiphanius and Austin for a Hereticke as some report for affirming Bishops and presbyters to be of an equall power Wee say as some report for the truth is he is charged with heresie meerely and onely because he was an a Arian As for his opinion of the parity of a presbyter with a Bishop this indeede is called by Austin proprium dogma Aerii the proper opinion of Aerius And by Epiphanius it is called Dogma furiosum stolidum a mad and foolish opinion but not an heresie neither by the one nor the other But let us suppose as is commonly thought that he was accounted an Heretike for this opinion yet notwithstanding that this was but the private opinion of Epiphanius and borrowed out of him by Austin an opinion not to be allowed appeares First because the same Authors condemne Aërius as much for reprehending and censuring the mentioning of the dead in the publique prayers and the performing of good works for the benefit of the dead And also for the reprehending statu jejunia and the keeping of the week before Easter as a solemne Fast which if worthy of condemnation would bring in most of the reformed Churches into the censure of Heresie Secondly because not onely Saint Hierome but Anstin himselfe Sedulius Primasius Chrysostome Theodoret Oecumenius Theophilact were of the same opinion with Aërius as Michael Medina observes in the Councell of Trent and hath written Lib. 1. de sacr hom Origine and yet none of these deserving the name of Fools much lesse to be branded for Hereticks Thirdly because no Counsell did ever condemne this for Heresie but on the contrary Concilium Aquisgranens sub Ludovico Pio Imp. 1. anno 816. hath approved it for true Divinitie out of the Scripture That Bishops Presbyters are equall bringing the same texts that Aerius doth and which Epiphanius indeed undertakes to answer but how slightly let any indifferent Reader judge Whether the great Apostacie of the Church of Rome hath not been in swarving from the Discipline of Christ as well as from the doctrine For so it seems by that text 2. Thess. 2.4 And also Revel 18.7 and divers others And if so then it much concernes all those that desire the purity of the Church to consider how neere the discipline of the Church of England borders upon Antichrist least while they indeavour to keepe out Antichrist from entring by the doore of doctrine they should suffer him secretly to creep in by the doore of discipline especially considering what is heere said in this Booke That by their owne confession the discipline of the Church of England is the same with the Church of Rome Whether Episcopacy be not made a place of Dignity rather then Duty and desired onely for the great revenues of the place And whether if the largenesse