Selected quad for the lemma: scripture_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
scripture_n	apostle_n	church_n	let_v	2,627	5	4.5197	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

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

the Lord yet we will follow him thither and there shew him that Hierome from the Scriptures proves more then once Presbyters and Bishops to be the same And Chrysostome in Philip. 1. Homil. 2. with his admirer Theophilact in Philip. 1. affirms that while the Apostles lived the names of Bishops and Presbyters were not distinguished and not onely while the Apostles lived but in after ages Doth not Irenaeus use the name of Bishops and Presbyters 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in a promiscuous sense Are not Anicetus Pius Hyginus Telesphorus Sixtus whom the Papists call Bishops and the Popes predecessors termed by Eusebius Presbyters Nor was it strange in the Primitive times to hear Bishops called Presbyters when Presbyters writing to their Bishop have called him Frater So Cyprian Epist. 26. in the beginning is stiled by his Presbyters Deacons and Confessors nor was that holy Martyr offended with that title nor they condemned of insolency that used it But what should we burthen your patience with more testimonies when the evidence of this truth hath shined with so strong a beam that even our Adversaries have stooped to it and confessed that their Names were the same in the Apostles time But yet say they the Offices were distinct Now here we would gladly know what these men make the distinct Office of a Bishop Is it to edifie the Church by Word and Sacrament is it to ordain others to that work is it to rule to govern by admonition and other censures if any of these if all these make up the proper worke of a Bishop we can prove from Scripture that all these belong unto the Presbytery which is no more then was granted by a Councel For the first Edifying of the Church by word and Sacraments though we feare they will some of them at least scarce own this as their proper worke for some have been cited into the High Commissision for saying it belongs to them yet Sir we are sure Scripture makes it a part a chiefe of the Episcopal office for so in the 1 Pet. 5.2 they are said to doe the work of a Bishop when they do feed the flock of God And this is such a work as we hope their Lordships will give the poor Presbyters leave to share with them in or if not we will tell them that the Apostle Peter in that forecited place and the Apostle Paul Acts. 20. binds this work upon our hands and Woe unto us if we preach not the Gospel But this branch of Episcopal and Presbyterial office we passe with brevity because in this there lies not so much controversie as in the next which they doe more wholly Impropriate to themselves the power of Ordination Which power that it was in former times in the hands of Presbyters appeares 1 Tim. 4.14 Neglect not the gift which was given thee by Prophesie and by the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery The gift here spoken of is the Ministerial gift the exercise whereof the Apostle exhorts Timothy not to neglect which saith he he had received not by the laying on of the hands of one single man whether Apostle or Bishop or Presbyter but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Presbytery that is the whole company of Presbyters for in that sense onely we finde 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 taken in Scripture as in Luke 22. vers 66. Act. 22. vers 5. which the Christian Church called the Ecclesiastical Senate as Ierom in Isay 3. Nos habemus in Ecclesia Senatum nostrum Coetum Presbyterorum an Apostolical Senate 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ignatius Epis ad Magnes and some times 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Concil Ancyr Can. 18. And though the Apostle in his second Epistle to Tim. 1.6 makes mention of the laying on of his hands yet to maintaine the Harmony of Scripture it must not be denied but there was imposition of hands by the Presbytery as wel as by himself and so it was a joynt act So that in this there is no more difference then in the former And if there be no difference between Presbyters in feeding or ordaining let us see if there be any in the third part of their office of Ruling which though our Bishops assume wholly to themselves yet we shall discover that it hath been 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 souls of Gods people are intituled to rule over them So that unlesse Bishops will say that they on●ly watch over the souls 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 Bishop● can give us good security that they will acquit us from giving up our account to God for the souls of his people we will quit our plea and resigne to them the sole rule over th●m 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 Thessalonions were but one Church 1 Ca. there was not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 Apostle bids know them in an indifferency not discriminating one from another yea such was the rule that Elders had that S. Peter thought it needful 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 Jurisdiction we sum up all that hath been 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 feed 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 he would force to contradict their own rules to which he superadds the unquestionable glosse of the cleare practise of their immediate successors in this administration For the Apostles practice 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 we take for granted by both sides that the first and best Antiquity 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 Imparity between 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 Apostolical Institution we affirme both to be occasional and of humane Invention and undertake to shew out of Antiquity both the occasion upon which and ●he 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 will grant a place among his Glossators Saint Ierome tells us in 1 Tit. Idem est ergo Presbyt●r qui Episcopus antequam Diaboli instinctu studia in Religione fierent diceretur in populis eco sum Pauli ego Apollo ego Cephae Communi Presbyterorū Consilio ecclesiae gubernabantur Postquam vero unusquisque eos quos bap●izaverat 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 tollerentur Putat aliquis non Scripturarum sed nostram esse sententiam Episcopum Presbyterum unum esse aliud aetatis aliud esse nomen of●ic●i relegat Apostoli ad Philippenses verba dicentis Paulus Timothaeus servi Iesu Christi qui sunt Philippis cum Episcopis Diaconis c. Philippi una est urbs Macedoniae certè in una 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 o● Cephas the Churches were governed by the Common-councell of the Presbyters But after that each man began to account those whom he had baptized his own 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 Thinks any that this is my opinion and not the opinion of the Scripture that a Bishop and an Elder is the same let him read 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 and Deacons Philippi is one city of Macedonia and certainly in one city 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 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 Imparity that was in his time between Bishops and Elders was grounded upon Ecclesiastical custome and not upon devine Institution Episcopi noverint c. Thirdly that this was not his private judgement but the judgement of Scripture Putat aliquis c. Fourthly that before this Priority was upon this occasion started the Church was governed Communi Presbyterorum Consilio by the Counsel of the Presbyters in common and that even after this imparity it ought to be so governed Sciant Episcopi se Ecclesiam debere in communi regere Fifthly that the occasion of this Imparity and Superiority of Bishops above Elders was the divisions which through the Devils instinct fell among the Churches Postquam verò Diaboli instinctu Saravia would take advantage of this place to deduce this Imparity as high as from the Apostles times because even then they began to say I am of Paul and I of Apollos but sure S. Ierome was not so weake as this man would make him to speak Inconsistencies and when he propounds it to himself to prove that Bishops and Presbyters are in Scripture the same to let fall words that should confute his own proposition whereas therefore S. Ierome saith that after men began to say I am of Paul and I of Apollos c. it was decreed that one of the Presbyters should be set over the rest c. This is spoken indeed in the Apostles phrase but not of the Apostles times else to what purpose is that coacervation of texts that followes But suppose it should be granted to be of Apostolical antiquity which yet we grant not having proved the contrary yet it appeares it was not of Apostolical intention but of Diabolical occasion And though the Devil by kindling Divisions in the Church did minister Occasion to the invention of the primacy or prelacy or one for the suppressing of Schisme yet there is just cause to think that the Spirit of God in his Apostles was never the author of this invention First because we read in the Apostles dayes there were Divisions Rom. 16.7 and Schismes 1 Cor. 3.3 and 11.18 yet the Apostle was not directed by the holy Ghost to ordaine Bishops for the taking away of those Divisions Neither in the rules he prescribes for the healing of those breaches doth he mention Bishops for that end Nor in the Directions given to Timothy and Titus for the Ordination of Bishops or Elders doth he mention this as one end of their Ordination or one peculiar duty of their office And though the Apostle saith Oportet haereses inter vos esse ut qui probati sunt manifesti fiant inter vos yet the Apostle no where saith Oportet Episcopos esse ut tollantur haereses quae manifestae fiunt Secondly because as Doctor Whitaker saith the remedy devised hath proved worse then the disease which doth never happen to that remedy whereof the holy Ghost is the author Thirdly because the holy Ghost who could foresee what would

them SECT XIII But it seemes our Remonstrant soared above these times even as high as the Apostles dayes for so he saith If our Bishops challenge any other spiritual power then was by Apostolike Authority delegated to and required of Timothy and Titus and the Angels of the seven Asian Churches let them be DISCLAIMED as VSVRPERS And the truth is so they deserve to be if they doe but challenge the same power that the Apostle did delegate to Timothy and Titus for Timothy and Titus were Evangelists and so moved in a Sphere above Bishops or Presbyters For Timothy it is cleare from the letter of the Text 2 Tim. 4.5 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Doe the work of an Evangelist if Timothy had been but a Presbyter or Bishop Paul had here put him upon imployment Vltra Sphaeram Activitatis And to any man that will but understand and consider what the Office of an Evangelist was and wherein it differed from the Office of a Presbyter or Bishop it will be manifest that Timothy and Titus were Evangelists and no Bishops for the title of Evangelist is taken but two wayes either for such as wrote the Gospel and so we doe not affirme Timothy and Titus to be Evangelists or else for such as taught the Gospel and those were of two sorts either such as had ordinary places and ordinary gifts or such whose places and gifts were extraordinary and such Evangelists were Timothy and Titus and not Bishops as will appeare if we consider what was the Difference between the Evangelists and Bishops Bishops or Presbyters were tyed to the particular care and tuition of that flock over which God had made them Overseers Acts 20.28 But Evangelists were not tyed to reside in one particular place but did attend upon the Apostles by whose appointment they are sent from place to place as the necessity of the Churches did require As appeares first in Timothy whom Saint Paul besought to abide at Ephesus 1. Tim. 1.3 which had beene needlesse importunity if Timothy had the Episcopall that is the Pastorall charge of Ephesus committed to him by the Apostles for then he might have laid as dreadful a Charge upon him to abide at Ephesus as he doth to Preach the Gospel But so far was Paul from setling Timothy in Cathedrâ in Ephesus that he rather continually sends him up and down upon all Church-services for we finde Acts. 17.14 that when Paul fled from the tumults of Berea to Athens he left Silas and Timothy behinde him who afterwards comming to Paul to Athens Paul sends Timothy from Athens to Thessalonica to confirm the Thessalonians in the faith as appears 1 Thes. 3.1.2 from whence returning to Paul to Athens again the Apostle Paul before he left Athens and went to Corinth sent him and Silas into Macedonia who returned to him again to Corinth Act. 18.5 afterwards they travelled to Ephesus from whence we read Paul sent Timothy and Erastus into Macedonia Act. 19.22 wither Paul went after them and from whence they and divers other Breathren journied into Asia Acts 20.4 All which Breathren Paul calls as it is probable 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the messengers of the Churches 2. Cor. 8.23 And being thus accompanied with Timothy and the rest of the Bretheren he comes to Miletum and calls the Elders of the Church of Ephesus thither to him of which Church had Timothy been Bishop the Apostle in stead of giving the Elders a charge to feed the flock of Christ would have given that charge to Timothy and not to them And secondly the Apostle would not so have forgotten himself as to call the Elders 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 before their Bishops face Thirdly It is to be conceived the Apostles would have given them some directions how to carry themselves towards their Bishop but not a word of this though Timothy were then in Pauls presence and in the presence of the Elders The cleare evidence of which Text demonstrates that Paul did not leave Timothy at this time as Bishop of Ephesus But it is rather evident that he took him along with him in his journey to Hierusalem and so to Rome for we find that those Epistles Paul wrote while he a prisoner bear either in their inscription or some other passage of them the name of Timothy as Pauls companion viz. The Epistle to the Philippians C●lossians Hebrewes Philemon which Epistles he wrote in bonds as the contexture which those two learned professors the one at Heydelburg the other at Saulmur make of Saint Pauls Epistles doth declare So that it appears that Timothy was no Bishop but a Minister an Evangelist a fellow labourer of the Apostles 1 Thes. 3.1 an Apostle a Messenger of the Church 2 Cor. 8.3 a Minister of God 1 Thes. 3.2 these titles the Holy Ghost gives him but never the title of a Bishop The like we finde in Scripture concerning Titus whom Paul as it is conceived by learned men did first assume into the fellowship of his Labors in the place of Iohn and made him his companion in his journy through Antioch to Hierusalem so we find Gal. 2.1 from thence returning to Antioch againe from thence he passed through Syria and Cilicia confirming the Churches and from Cilicia he passed to Creet where having Preached the Gospel and plainted Churches he left Titus there for a while to set in order things that remaine Yet it was but for a while he left him there for in his Epistle which he wrote to him not many yeares after he injoynes him to come to him to Nicopolis where he did intend to winter but changing that purpose sends for him to Ephesus where it seemes his Hyemal station was and from thence sends him before him to Corinth to enquire the state of the Corinthians His returne from thence Paul expects at Troas and because comming thither he found not his expectation there he was so grieved in his spirit 2 Cor. 2.12 that he passed presently from thence into Macedonia where Titus met him and in the midst of his afflictions joyed his spirits with the glad tydings of the powerful and gracious effects his first Epistle had among the Corinthians 2 Cor. 7 5 6 7. Paul having there collected the Liberalities of the Saints sends Titus againe to the Corinthians to prepare them for the same service of Ministring to the necessities of the Saints 2 Cor. 8.6 And makes him with some others the Conveyers of that second Epistle to the Corinthians All these journey es to and fro did Titus make at the designment of the Apostle even after he was left in Creet Nor doe we finde that after his first removal from Creet he did ever returne thither We read indeed 2 Tim. 4.10 he was with Paul at Rome and from thence returned not to Creet but into Dalmatia All which doth more then probably shew it never was the Intendment of the Apostle to

Truth and not Custome and Custome withou Truth is a mouldy error and as Sir Francis Bacon saith Antiquity without Truth is a Cypher without a Figure Yet had this Remonstrant been as well versed in Antiquity as he would bear the world in hand he hath he might have found Learned Ancients affirming there was a Time when the Church was not governed by Bishops but by Presbyters And when by Bishops he might further have seen more affinity between our Bishops and the Pope of Rome then between the Primitive Bishops and them And that as King Iames of famous memory said of the Religion of England that it differed no more from Rome then Rome did from what it was at first may as truly be said of Bishops that we differ no more from them then they do from what Bishops were when first they were raised unto this eminency which difference we shall shew in our ensuing Discourse to be so great that as he said of Rome he did Roman in Roma quaerere he sought Rome in Rome so wee Episcopatum in Episcopatu may go seek for a Bishop among all our Bishops And whereas in his application of this Argument to the Bishops of this Nation he saith It hath continued in this Island ever since the first plantation of the Gospel without contradiction which is his Second in this Argument How false this is we have declared already and we all know and himselfe cannot but know that there is no one thing since the r●formation that hath met with so much Contradiction as Episcopacy hath done witness the several Books written in the Reigns of our several Princes and the many Petitions exhibited to our several Parliaments and the many speeches made therein againg Episcopal Government many of which are yet extant As for that supply of Accessory strength which he begs to this Argument from the light of nature and the rules of just policy which saith he teacheth us not easily to give way to the change of those things which long use and many Laws have firmly established as Necessary and Beneficial it is evident that those things which to former Ages have seemed Necessary and Beneficial may to succeeding Generations prove not Necessary but Noxious not Beneficial but Burthensome And then the same light of nature and the same just policy that did at the first command the establishment of them may and will perswade their Abolishment if not either our Parliaments must never Repeale any of their former Acts which yet they have justly and wisely done or else in so doing must run Counter to the light of nature and the Rules of just policy which to think were an impiety to be punished by the Judge SECT V. THe Second Argument for the defence of Episcopal Government is from the Pedigree of this holy Calling which he derives from no less then an Apostolical and in that right divine institution and assayes to prove it from the practice of the Apostles and as he saith the clear practice of their Successors continued i' Christs Church to this very day And to this Argument he so much confides that he concludes it with this Triumphant Epiphonema What scruple can remain in any ingenuous heart And determins if any continue yet unsatisfied it is in despight of reason and all evidence of History and because he wilfully shuts his eyes with a purpose not to see the light Bona verba By your favour Sir we will tell you notwithstanding the supposed strength of your argumentation there is one scruple yet remaining and if you would know upon what ground it is this because we find in Scripture which by your own confession is O●iginal Authority that Bishops and Presbyters were Originally the same though afterwards they came to be distinguished and in process of time Episcopacy did swallow up all the honor and power of the Presbytery as Pharaoh's lean Kine did the fat Their Identity is discernable first from the same names given unto both secondly from the same office designed unto both in Scripture As for the names are not the same names given unto both in Sacred Writ Let the fifth sixth and seventh verses of the first Chapter to Titus testifie in the fifth verse the Apostle shews that he left Titus in Creet to ordain Elders in every City in the sixth verse he gives a delineation of the persons that are capable of such Ordination and in the seventh the Reason why the person to be ordained must be so qualified for a Bishop c. Now if the Bishop and Elder be not here the same but names of distinct office and order the Apostles reason rendred in the seventh verse of his direction in the fifth and sixth verses is with reverence be it spoken inconsequential and his demand unjust If a Chancellor in one of the Universities should give order to his Vice-Chancellor to admit none to the degree of Batchelour in Arts but such as were able to preach or keep a Divinity Act For Batchelours in Divinity must be so what reason or equity were in this So if Paul leaving Titus as his Lecum tenens as it were in Creet for a season should give order to him not to admit any to be an Elder but one thus and thus qualified because a Bishop must be so had a Bishop been an Order or Calling distinct from or superior to a Presbyte● and not the same this had been no more rational or equal then the former therefore under the name of Bishop in the seventh verse the Apostle intends the Elder mentioned in the fifth verse Consonant to this is the Language of the same Apostle Acts. 20. v. 17.18 where such as in 17. verse he calls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Elders in the 18. he calls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in ordinary English Bishops though our Translation there we know not for what reason reads it Overseers not so rendring the word in any other Text. And though this Remonstrant undertakes to shew a clear and received distinction of Bishops Presbyters Deacons as three distinct subordinate Callings in Gods Church with an evident specification of the duty charge belonging to each of them or else let this claimed Hierarchy be for ever hooted out of the Church Yet let us tell him that we never find in Scripture these three Orders Bishops Presbyters and Deacons mentioned together but onely Bishops and Deacons as Phil. 1. and 1. Tim. Nor do we find in Scripture any Ordination to the office of a Bishop differing from the Ordination of an Elder Nor do we find in Scripture the specification of any Duty charged upon a Bishop that Elders are secluded from Nor any qualification required in a Bishop that is not requisite in every Presbyter some of wh●ch if not all would be found were they not the same But if this Remonstrant think to help himselfe by taking Sanctuary in Antiquity though we would gladly rest in Scripture the Sanctuary of

a generall word signifying a day of rest which is common as well to the Christian Sabbath as to the Jewish Sabbath and was also used by the Ancients Ruffinus in Psal. 47. Orig●n Hom. 23. in Num. Gregory Nazian Whether that assertion No Bishop No King and no Ceremonie no Bishop be not very prejudiciall to Kingly Authority For it seemes to imply that the Civill power depends upon the Spiritual and is supported by Ceremonies and Bishops Whether seeing it hath been proved that Bishops as they are novv asserted are a meere humane Ordinance it may not by the same Authority be abrogated by vvhich it vvas first established especially considering the long experience of the hurt they have done to Church and State Whether the advancing of Episcopacie into Ius Divinum doth not make it a thing simply unlavvfull to submit to that Government Because that many consciencious men that have hitherto conformed to Ceremonies and Episcopacy have done it upon this ground as supposing that Authority did not make them matters of vvorship but of Order and Decencie c. And thus they satisfied their consciences in ansvvering those Texts Colos. 2.20 21 22. Matth. 15.9 But novv since Episcopacy comes to be challenged as a Divine Ordinance hovv shall vve be responsible to those Texts And is it not as it is novv asserted become an Idoll and like the Brazen Serpent to be ground to povvder Whether there be any difference in the point of Episcopacy betweene Ius Divinum and Ius Apostolicum Because we finde some claiming their standing by Ius Divinum others by Ius Apostolicum But we conceive that Ius Apostolicum properly taken is all one with Ius Divinum For Ius Apostolicum is such a Ius which is founded upon the Acts and Epistles of the Apostles written by them so as to be a perpetuall Rule for the succeeding Administration of the Church as this Author saith Pag. 20. And this Ius is Ius Divinum as well as Apostolicum But if by Ius Apostolicum they mean improperly as some do such things which are not recorded in the Writings of the Apostles but introduced the Apostles being living 〈…〉 be rightly said to be Iure Apostolico nor such things which the Apostles did intend the Churches should be bound unto Neither is Episcopacie as it imports a superioritie of power over a Pre●byter no not in this sense Iure Apostolico as hath beene already proved and might further be manifested by divers Testimonies if need did require We will only instance in Cassander a man famous for his immoderate moderation in controverted Points of Religion who in his Consultat Articul 14. hath this saying An Epis●opatus inter ordines Ecclesiastic●s ponendus sit inter Theologos Canonistas non convenit Convenit autem inter omnes Apostolorum aetate inter Presbyterum Episcopum nullum discrimen fuisse c. Wether the distinction of Beza between Episcopus Divinus Hum●nu● Diabolicus be not worthy your Honours consideration By the Divine Bishop he meanes the Bishop as he is taken in Scripture which is one and the same with a Presbyter By the humane Bishop he meanes the Bishop chosen by the Presbyters to be President over them and to rule with them by fixed Lawes and Canons By the Diabolical Bishop he means a Bishop with sole power of Ordination and Jurisdiction Lording it over Gods heritage and governing by his owne will and authority Which puts us in minde of the Painter that Limned two pictures to the same proportion and figure The one he reserved in secret the other he exposed to common view And as the phansie of beholders led them to censure any line or proportion as not done to the life he mends it after direction If any fault be found with the eye hand foot c. He corrects it till at last the addition of every mans fancy had defaced the first figure and made that which was the Picture of a man swell into a monster Then bringing forth this and his other Picture which hee had reserved he presented both to the people And they abhorring the former and applauding the latter he cried Hunc populus fecit This deformed one the People made This lovely one I made As the Painter of his Painting so in Beza's sense it may be said of Bishops God at first instituted Bishops such as are all one with Presbyters and such are amiable honourable in all the Churches of God But when men would be adding to Gods institution what power preheminence Jurisdiction Lordliness their phansie suggested unto them this divine Bishop lost his Original beauty and became to be Humanus And in conclusion by these and other aditions swelling into a Pope Diabolicus Whether the Ancient Fathers when they call Peter Marke Iames Timothy and Titus Bishops did not speak according to the Language of the times wherein they lived rather then according to the true acception of the word Bishop and whether it be not true which is here said i● this Book that they are called Bishops of Alexand●iae Ephes●s Hierus●lem c in a very improper sense because they abode at those p●ac●s a longer time then at other places For su●e it is if 〈…〉 and and I●mes Apostles which are Bishops over the whol● 〈◊〉 and the Apostles made Mark● ●imothy and Titus 〈…〉 c. it seemes to us that it would have been a great sin in them to limit themselves to one particular Diocesse and to ●eave that calling in which Christ had placed them Whether Presbyters in Scripture are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and that it is an office required at their hands to rule and to govern as hath bin proved in this Book The Bishops can without sin arrogate the exercise of this power to themselves alone and why they may not with the same lawfulness impropriate to themselves alone the Key of Doctrine which yet notwithstanding al would condemn as well as the Key of Discipline seeing that the whole power of the Keys is given to Presbyters in Scripture as well as to Bishops as appears Mat. 16.19 where the power of the Keys is promised to Peter in the name of the rest of the Apostles and their successors given to all the Apostles and their successors Mat. 18.19 Iohn 20.23 And that Presbyters succeed the Apostles appears not onely Mat. 28.20 but also Acts. 20.28 where the Apostle ready to leave the Church of Ephesus commends the care of ruling and feeding it to the Elders of that Church To this Irenaeus witnesseth lib 4 cap. 43.44 This Bishop Iewell against Harding Artic. 4. Sect. 5 6. saith that all Pastors have equall power of binding and loosing with ●eter Whether since that Bishops assume to themselves power temporall to be Barons and to sit in Parliament as Judges and in Court of Star-Chamber High Commission and other Courts of Justice and also power spirituall over Ministers and People to ordain silence suspend