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
Legions as men hee would meet them undismayed and say with holy David Though an host should encampe against mee my heart should not feare but with just confidence I gladly fly to the barre of this high and Honorable Court And yet by his leave hee thought it his best wisdome to fly from this barre and to dedicate his book to the Kings Majestie alone and not to the two houses And in another place hee saith the Apostles practise is so irrefragable for them that if wee doe but adde the unquestionable practise of their immediate successors hee knowes not what more light can bee desired for the manifestation of the truth of his opinion In his Epistle to the King hee saith That if hee doth not make it appeare that wee have abused our Reader with false shewes of misalleadged antiquities and meerely colourable pretences of proofes let the blemish of his reputation leade way to the sharpest censure upon his person Iust like the Authour of Episcopacie by Divine right who is so confident against Lay Elders That hee offers to forfeit his life to justice and his reputation to shame if any man living can shew that ever there was a Ruling Elder in the world till Farel and Viret first created them And yet hee could not but know that Arch-Bishop Whitgift as well seene in Antiquitie as himselfe confesseth that there were Ruling Elders in the Primitive Church Thus also doth Bishop King Saravia himselfe thinkes the governement of Ruling Elders to be good and profitable In his answer to our arguments sometimes hee tells us that wee prove nothing but our bold ignorance and absurd inconsequences Otherwhile hee saith Poore arguments scarce worthy of a passe These are trifling cavills not worth the answer Verball exceptions which will sinke like light froath Meere declamations worthie of no answer but contempt and scorne forbeare Reader if you can to smile at this curious subtilty What Cabalisme have wee here Our quaeries are made up of nothing but spight and slander His ordinarie answer toour Testimonies out of Antiquity is This Authour is misalledged That Father abused This Councell shuffled up with little fidelitie Away with your unproving illustrations and unregardable testimonies And this is all the answer hee gives Throughout the whole booke he endeavours to render us to the Reader as destitute of all learning as if our reading had never gone beyond a Polyanthea Hee calles us boldly ignorant And that wee would make the Reader beleeve that wee had seene a Father And that we would seeme to have seene the Canon Law And that it is enough wee can shew a little reading to no purpose But in all these and many more such like Sarcasmes and vaine Rhetorications hee doth but act the part of his Hierarchicall predecessors whose chiefe answers have beene scoffes and scornes and therefore what learned Rivetus saith of Bishop Mountague may with as much truth bee averred of this namelesse Author Montacutius vir certedoctus sed admodum praefidens tumidus aliorum contemptor suggillator And in another place Non potest vir ille sine convitijs quemquam a quo dissentit vel in levissimis nominare But what strength and weight there is in such kinde of arguments and answers let the wise Reader judge And yet not withstanding all this confidence Thrasonicall boasting we desire thee to observe Fourthly That if the whole booke were divided into foure parts there is one quarter of which he makes no mention but passeth it over either with scorne or silence And where our arguments are strongest there hee slides away without answering which cannot but make the judicious Reader beleeve that hee thought the yron to hot for him and therefore would not touch it least it should burne his owne fingers as himselfe saith pag. 21. And even in those things wherein hee undertakes to answere us we cannot but give notice that wee have confitentem reum and in effect the cause granted in those things which are most materiall For when wee prove from Scripture the Identity of Bishops and Presbyters both in name and office he tells us with a little varying of our words Wee idly loose our labour It neede bee no scruple to us It is in expresse termes granted when we prove that there are not three degrees of Ministery in the Scripture to wit Bishops Presbyters and Deacous hee answers it is granted you speake of the Apostles writings but I of their successors Hee granteth also that the Primitive Bishops were elected by the Clergie and people That Bishops ought not to have sole power in Ordination and Iurisdiction That they ought not to delegate their power to others That the ordinary managing of secular imployments is improper for them And hee doth almost grant that there were Lay-Elders in antiquity For whereas the Author of Episcopacy by Divine right affirmeth that the name of Elders of the Church in all antiquity comprehendeth none but Preachers and that therefore they onely may bee called Seniores Ecclesiae though some others may have the title of Seniores populi because of their civill authority This Author acknowledgeth that besides Pastors and besides the Magistrates and Elders of the City there are to bee found in antiquity Seniores Ecclesiastici Indeede hee saith that these were but as our Churchwardens or Vestry men But how true this is the Reader shall see in due place Lastly hee grants that all that wee say in the Postscripts about the Popish Prelates is true Celari non potuit negari non debuit And for what we say of the Protestant Bishops he denies not the truth of it only he chides for taxing all for the fault of some And in these things wherein hee doth diametrically oppose us hee doth frequently contradict himselfe and his best friends In his Epistle dedicatory hee professeth that he taxeth not our ability yet in the same Epistle hee calles us impotent assailants and afterwards Men of weake judgements and strong malice And Men that would seeme to have seene a Father And that all that we say is nothing but bold ignorance Pag. 94. he saith That to acknowledge an Ordinary Evangelist is a phancy and a dreame And yet elsewhere he makes every Preacher of the Gospell to be an Evangelist In his Remonstrant and in his defence he saith that Bishops had beene every where throughout all the Regions of the Christian world And that all Churches throughout the whole Christian world have uniformely and constantly maintained Episcopacy And yet elsewhere he denies that ever hee said That Bishops were every where and confesseth that there are lesse noble Churches that doe not conferre to Episcopall Governement Pag. 161. hee tells us that for 1600 yeares the name of Bishops hath bin appropriated in a plain contradistinction to the governors of the Church But in other places he often grants that the Name was confounded and ascribed to Presbyters are well as Bishops In his 36. pag. he saith That in
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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉
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
a Canon provides that they should not be in little Villages Ne vilesceret honos Episcopatus but these himselfe acknowledgeth are but the accessaries of Episcopacy by the donations of Magnificent Princes But what is the meaning of this where it may be had what doth he meane where it may be had with the favour of the Prince then the Primitive Church had never had any Or where it may be had with the willing subjection of the people then Episcopacy shall be an ordinance if the people will have it so Where it may be had what with quiet and conveniency then you make that which you call an ordinance of God subject to mans convenience Or what with possibility requiring that where Episcopacy may be had possibly it should what 's this lesse than a command yet saith the Remonstrant here is no expresse law of God requiring it Now we pray you review your worke and see how well you have stated the question To prove that Episcopacy was not a divine but a humane institution we produced out of antiquity some places that mention the occasion and authors of Episcopall imparity which are not as the Remonstrant absurdly the onely countenance of our cause Our first was that knowne text of Hiereme in the 1. Titus out of which we collected five things which the Remonstrant summes up thus First that a Bishop and a Presbyter are originally one Secondly that the imparity was grounded upon Ecclesiasticall custome That before this priority the Church was governed by the common Councell of Presbyters and that Bishops ought still so to governe And lastly that the occasion of this imparity was the division which through the divels instinct fell among Christians this the Remonstrant cals the summe of our collection But if his Arithmeticke be no honester then thus he shall summe no summes for us for he leaves out one Collection which is indeed principally considerable That this was not Hieromes owne opinion but the opinion of the scriptures This would have stopt the mouth of his satis imperitè Wel what saies the Remonstrant You look now that I should tell you the booke is of uncertaine credit No indeed sir we looked for no such matter because we know that booke is approved by men both of as great learning and of as little affection to Hieromes opinion as the Remonstrant is though his lesser commentaries on the epistles be questioned Or else you look that I should tell you Hierome was a Presbyter and not without some touch of envy to that higher dignity which he missed Truely sir this we looked for and the rather because Doct. Hall in his Episcopacy by Divine right part 2. page 122. saith that as he was naturally a waspish a hot good man so being now vexed with some crosse proceedings as he thought with Iohn of Ierusalem he flew out c. but what a slender answer is this Hierome was a Presbyter what then Hierome saith nothing here but what he saith from Scripture and is Scripture the lesse Scripture because produced by a Presbyter Hierome was a Presbyter and pleads for his owne order doth that make his argument the lesse creditable the author of Episcopacy by Divine right was a Bishop is it sufficient confutation of that booke to say hee was a Bishop that made it he must plead for his own honour and order Or you looke say you that I should tell you that wiser men then your selves have censured him in this point of Arrianisme No indeed for feare you should thereby comfort us against the same censure past so often upon our selves If Hierome suffer under the name of Aerian no wonder we doe but if wisermen than we have condemned him for Aerianisme wiser men then the Remonstant have quitted him of that crime But the Remonstrant thinkes to decline these common waies and set Hierome to answer Hierome which yet is no more then Bellarmine did before him and and puts us in mind that the same father passes a satis imperitè upon the same opinion in the Bishop of Hierusalem but a satis imperitè doth not condemne the opinion but the man for it may be truth which a man speakes though he speakes it imperitè yet to make sure worke the Remonstrant will set Hierome to answer himselfe what saith Hierome at first saith he Bishops and Presbyters had but one title No Hierome said not so nor did we Idem est ergo Presbyter qui Episcopus How doth the Remonstrant construe this Is this in English a Bishop and a Presbyter is the same or is it at first Bishops and Presbyters had but one title with what face can the Remonstrant charge us with infidelity in quotation and mis-englishing who useth no more fidelity himselfe that which Hierome speakes of the office he would restraine to the title that which Hierome speakes in the present tense as true in all the moments and fluxes of time he would remit to the time past They had but one title This the Remonstrant passeth from and slips from their Identity to their imparity inquiring the time and occasion of that and will needs force Hierome here to confesse Bishops in the Apostles daies because then they began to say I am of Paul c. but will take no notice at all of what our answer spake for the removing of this inference unlesse it be to slight it as a poore shift nor will take notice of that which Hierome himselfe speakes Haec propterea ut oftenderemus apud veteres eosdem fuisse Presbyteros quos Episcopos paulatim verò ut dissentionum plantaria evellerentur ad unum omnem solicitudinem esse delatam intimating that Episcopacy was not presently invented as a cure of schisme but paulatim so that should it be granted that the schismes spoken of here were those in the Apostles daies yet it doth not follow that Episcopacy should be coaetaneous to these schismes because Hierome saith Paulatim ad unum omnem solicitudinem esse delatam Let the Remonstrant now aske Hierome not us why the remedy should be so late after the disease and here we desire the reader to observe that the Remonstrant doth meerely abuse him in telling him that Clemens in his Epistle to the Corinthians taxeth the continuance of the distractions raised in the Apostles daies when it is apparent that Clement speakes of a new schisme different from that Paul speakes of raised against ther Presbyters and the former schisme mentioned in the Scripture was onely among the people As for those Bishops whom Hierome names as made by the Apostles at present we say no more but this Hierome as a Divine saith Bishops and Presbyters are the same and to prove this produceth Scripture but Hierome speaking as an Historian mentions Bishops made by the Apostles and brings no Scripture for the proofe of that but onely the testimony of Eusebius his history who alone had writ before him of that subject Now let the
in our scanning his allegations in this section to which we now proceed Where first the Reader may please to observe that the Remonstrant slideth by our marginall wherein we shewed the delineation that Eusebius makes of an Evangelist and desired the Reader to judge thereby whether Timothy and Titus were not Evangelists Onely he chargeth us with boldnesse for calling them so though himselfe afterward confesseth it page 98 p. 100. But why must this be boldnesse Forsooth because though Timothy be expressely called an Evangelist yet there is no text no not the least intimation no not so much as the least ground of a conjecture that Titus was an Evangelist And if so why doe you afterwards grant it But whether you doe or no that it was so we have proved sufficiently in our answer But let any indifferent man here consider the iniquity of the Remonstrant that challengeth us for calling Titus an Evangelist without a text for his name and yet thinks himselfe much wronged if wee grant him not that Timothy and Titus and the Angels of the Church were Bishops though he hath no text for the name nor for the office Secondly To our text 2. Tim. 4. 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doe the worke of an Evangelist saith he rather intimates he was no Evangelist then that he was as if it were no more then for the Remonstrant to desire his friend to doe the worke of a Secretary or Sollicitor for him this implies he is neither A very cleare glosse Paul doth not here intreat as we conceive but charge He speakes Imperative not Impetrative Compare this not with the phrases of the Remonstrant but with the phrases of the sam Apostle and then judge In the same Epistle 2 Chapt. 3. The same Apostle saith to the same person endure hardnesse as a good souldier of Christ doth that imply Timothy was no souldier of Christ but onely so imployed for the time So againe in the 15. verse of the same Chapter when the Apostle saith study to approve thy selfe a workman that needs not to be ashamed doth this prove that Timothy was not a workeman but onely for the time When Paul saith 1 Cor. 16. 13. quite your selves like men doth that shew they were not men but onely so imployed for the time How would the Remonstrant have triumphed over such a high peece of ridiculous learning in our answer had we turned off all these texts which use to be produced as proofes of Episcopall authority in Timothy and Titus with such a shift as this this doth not shew it was their worke but onely they were so imployed for the time Wee adde further That when you acknowledge Timothy was to doe the office of an Evangelist for so your comparison of your friends doings the office of a Secretary warrants us to interpret you you must necessarily meane the extraordinary Evangelist for you scoffe page 94. at an ordinary Evangelist as a new fiction which if so then consider how absurd a thing it is to bid the inferior doe the worke of a superior Superiours may be intreated to doe the worke of inferiours because they come within the spheare of their activity and comprehend either virtually or formally what the inferiours are to doe As Apostles have power to doe all that Evangelists Presbyters and Deacons can doe and Evangelists all that Presbyters c. but not è converso Would it not be absurd to bid a Curate doe the office of a Bishop Or a Presbyter the office of an Apostle From all this we conclude That when Paul bids Timothy Doe the worke of an Evangelist he bids him goe on with speed to execute his Vice-Apostolicall office in watering the severall Churches in Asia c. But saith he if he were an Evangelist he may be that and a Bishop too For wee doe but dreame when we distinguish of Evangelists Truely sir this dreame was the fruit of our reading the fancy of the Authour of Episcopacies divine right and there we finde our ordinary guifted Evangelist under which name indeed we comprise all preachers The other branch of that distinction Evangelists of extraordinary guifts and employments we finde in Scripture and in this defence too Truth is their ordinary Evangelists are a new fiction True if we speake of the office of the Evangelists but to give the title of Evangelist according to the naturall signification of the word to ordinary preachers of the Gospell is neither new nor fiction Well our argument we raise upon this ground is slight Paul besought Timothy to abide still at Ephesus 1. Tim. 1. 3. which had beene a needlesse importunity if he had had the Episcopal charge of Ephesus for then necessarily he must have resided there But what 's his answer to this argument Nothing onely saith it is slight And that other argument brought from Timothies perpetuall moving from place to place to prove that he was never fixed in an Episcopall station is of as little force with him The necessities of those times were such as made even the most fixed Starres planetary calling them frequently from the places of their abode to those Services that were of most use for the successe of that great worke yet so that after their errâ—nds fully dome they returned to their owne charge Let us once professe as much confidence in our cause as the Remonstrant doth in his We challenge him to shew in all the new Testament any one that was appointed overseer of a particular Church whose motion was as planetary as wee have shewed that of Timothy and Titus to have beene Or if that faile let him but shew that after Timothy or Titus went abroad upon the Service of the Churches they did constantly or ordinarily returne either to Ephesus or Creet and not to the places either of the Apostles present abode or appointment And let them take Timothy and Titus as theirs the patrons and presidents of Episcopacy But till they can shew this we must beleeve and affirme Timothy and Titus are Evangelists and no Bishops Our next argument from Act. 20. is but a Reed Happy Remonstrant that deales with such impotent adversaries our first argument is slight our second is of no force our third is but a reed Yet let us tell you Haeret Lateri Lethalis Arundo We affirmed upon certaine grounds Acts 20. 4 though the Remonstrant know it not that Timothy was with Paul at the meeting at Miletum and from thence argued that had Timothy been B. of Ephesus Paul would have given him a charge of feeding the flocke and not the Elders but would have given them direction for their carriage at least would not so have forgot himselfe as to call the Elders Bishops before their Bishops face In all which the Remonstrant saith we goe upon a wrong ground But sure sir you are not so ignorant of our meaning as by your questions you would seeme to be We