A DEFENCE OF THE Humble Remonstrance, Against the frivolous and false exceptions of SMECTYMNVVS.

WHEREIN The right of Leiturgie and Episcopacie is clearly vindicated from the vaine cavils, and challenges of the ANSWERERS.

By the Author of the said Humble Remonstrance.

Seconded (in way of appendance) with the judgement of the famous Divine of the Palatinate, D. ABRAHAMVS SCVLTETVS, Late Professor of DIVINITIE in the UNIVERSITIE of HEIDELBERG: Concerning the Divine Right of EPISCOPACIE, and the No-right of LAY-ELDERSHIP.

Faithfully Translated out of his Latine.

LONDON, Printed for NATHANIEL BUTTER in Pauls Church-yard at the pyde-Bull neare St. Austins gate. 1641.

TO THE KINGS MOST SACRED MAIESTIE.

Most dread Soveraigne,

YOur Majesty was pleased to cast a gra­cious eye upon a late Humble Remon­strance, made to the High Court of Par­liament, bemoaning the lawelesse fre­quence of scandalous Libels, and mo­destly asserting the true right of Li­turgie and Episcopacie. I little thought that so meek and gall-lesse a Discourse could have irritated any the least opposition; But now, I find to my griefe, that even to move for Peace, is [Page] quarrell enough; and feele many fists about my eares, ere I could imagine to have offended. Occasion is taken from those quiet lines, to combine forces a­gainst the Cause I maintained. The quarrell is insolently managed by many unknowne hands; Yet, the riot of these impotent Assailants should not easily have drawn me forth, had I not percei­ved that their confident ostentation and proud carriage in this affray, hath won them some (how undeserved soe­ver) opinion of skill, with their credu­lous Abettors; and thereby, some dis­advantage to my just cause. As one therefore that hates to betray the truth by an unfaithfull silence, I doe cheer­fully enter these lists; rejoycing to hope that Your Majesties Eye may be the Judge and VVitnesse of my successe. Neither shall it be displeasing to Your [Page] Majestie, that Your most honourable Peeres, and most faithfull Commons, now assembled, shall see the injustice, and ungroundednesse of that bold Ap­peale, which was made to them, by my daring Answerers; whose Abilities I taxe not, but their Fidelity I must; as those who have sought foulely to abuse their implored Judges with false shews of mis-alledged Antiquity, and meerly colourable pretences of proofs: VVhich if I doe not make good to them and the world in this ensuing Discourse, let the blemish of reputation lead way to the sharpest censure upon the person of

Your Majesties zealously-loyall Subject, The most humble Remonstrant.
A DEFENCE OF THE Hum …

A DEFENCE OF THE Humble Remostrance.

SECT. I.

MY single Remonstrance is encoun­tred with a plurall Adversary that talkes in the style of We, and Vs: Their names, persons, qualities, numbers, I care not to know; But, could they say, My name is Legion, for we are many; or were they as many Legions as men, my cause, yea Gods, would bid me to meet them undismaid, and to say with holy David, Though an hoast should incamp against me, Psal. 27.3. my heart shall not feare: The truth of God, which I [Page 2] maintaine, shall beare me up against the dis­couragements of my confessed weaknesse; In which just confidence I doe gladly fly to the Bar of this high and honourable Court, craving no favour but justice.

Besides number, these men think perhaps to carry it by bulk; for those that spare not to condemne the multitude of my few words, lash out into so tedious an Answer, that if I should return them a Reply in the same pro­portion, the Readers eye would be tired with the very prospect, and his tongue could not but say, Quis leget haec? But, though they have had so little mercy on him, as to put him to the penance of their long-some Volume, I dare not abuse his leasure in following them in every step of their loose and superfluous discourse; but shall so contract their lavish sheets, as that whiles I save time, I shall not lose ought of truth.

Acts 17▪ 22. Areopagus Mars-hill, or The C [...]urt of Areopagites.And first, these briefe men complaine of the length of my Preface; and fetch their grounds afar off, from the admired sons of Justice, the Areopagi: The Areopagi? who were those? Truly my masters, I had thought this had been the name of the place, not of [Page 3] the men. It is an ill signe, they say, to stum­ble at the threshold. And what say the ad­mired Areopagi, the grave Judges of Athens? They condemne Prefaces, and Passion; nei­ther of which can be justly charged upon the Remonstrance: For the Passion, let any Reader judge, whether ought can be more calmly, more mildly written; and for the Preface, brethren, your censure is palpably mistaken; for that which you mis-call the Preface, is one of the maine pieces of the substance of that intended Discourse, which was a too just complaint of the shamefull number of Libels, lately dropped from our lawlesse Presses; A point no lesse considerable, nor lesse essentiall to that proposed Remonstrance, then those, which your peremptory Analysis makes the only subject thereof. I beseech you brethren, spend your Logique upon your own Works, let mine be such as I con­trive them.

Branded, and mislik't, &c.Those trifling cavils which you are pleased to make at some phrases of this mis-named Preface, are not worth notice; It is not for us to run after the spending of every mouth: Belike, it angers you, to heare of the honesty [Page 4] of my moderate Paper, out of the conscience of your own guiltinesse. Faine would you excuse that which the world cries shame on, the multitude of the late seditious Pamphlets; whereat you might well blush in silence; when an honourable person in open Parlia­ment could reckon up no lesse then seven­score, that had passed the Presse since the be­ginning of this Session.

Pag. 4.Those other verball exceptions are but light froth, and will sink alone; that scum may be worth taking off, which followes; wherein I shall desire all indifferent eyes to judge, whether these men doe not endea­vour to cast unjust envie upon me, against the clear verdict of any knowing mans con­science: In comparing of Governments of Churches and States, I had said, that if Anti­quity may be the rule, the Civill Politie (as in generall notion) hath sometimes varied, (as that of the state of Rome had done to seven severall formes) the Sacred, never; The Civill came from arbitrary imposers, the Sa­cred from men inspired: these gracious In­terpreters would needs draw my words to the present, & particular Government of our [Page 5] owne Monarchie, as if I implyed that to be variable and arbitrary; and are not ashamed to mention that deadly name of Treason; Whereas no man that is not wilfully blinde, but sees that I speak of the common forms of Government, that are in the severall States and Dominions in the world; whereof some are ruled by an Aristocracie, others by a De­mocracie, others by a Monarchie, whether limited, or absolute, others by a mixed form of all these; which were in the first begin­nings, in the free arbitrement of their Foun­ders; not aiming at the setled Government of any one Kingdome, much lesse of our owne.

Brethren, whiles you desire to seem godly, learne to be lesse malicious. In the meane time, God blesse all good men from such charity, and our sacred Monarchy from such friends. The forme of the Episcopall Go­vernment of the Church hath, contrarily, been ever one and the same, without any considerable variation; and if it have any­where invaded the Civil administration and yoked Monarchy, it is the insolence of the persons, not the fault of the Calling: And [Page 6] if William Rufus, a Prince noted for grosly ir­religious, oppressed by tyrannicall Popish Prelates, did let fall this cholerick word, that he would have the Jews confute them, and that rather then faile, England should turne Jewish, on this condition; Is this an argu­ment for any Christian to use, for the confu­ting of godly, and loyall Protestant Bishops? which are ready to be censured rather for too great observance of Soveraignty? Let any but a Jew judge, whether this be a fit instance for a Christian. Any thing serves against Episco­pacie; The testimony of a Pope, (whom these men honour highly) Pius 4. is also brought in as irrefragable, against the Divine right of Bishops. And what sayes Antichrist? He tels the Spanish Ambassador, that his Ma­ster, suing for the Councels declaration of this truth, knew not what he demanded; for Bishops so declared, would be exempted frō his Regall power, and as independent as the Pope himselfe. Tell me, brethren, Do ye like, or beleeve this assertion, because a Pope said it? Or can ye blame him (who would have all Episcopall Jurisdiction derived meerly from himselfe) to be unwilling that their [Page 7] right should be yeelded to have the same grounds which he pretends for his owne? And if there might be this danger in those Kingdomes where the Clergy challengeth an exemption from the power of all Secularity; why is this enviously upbraided to those of ours, who doe gladly professe, notwithstan­ding the Apostolicall, that is, Divine right of their calling, to hold their places and exer­cise of their Jurisdiction wholly from His Majesty?

Not lesse spitefull, nor more true, is your observation of the comparison made be­tweene the indeavours of alteration in our neighbour Church, by our Episcopall facti­on, and that which is now justly desired by the humble Petitioners to the honourable House. It is a foule sclander to charge the name of Episcopacy with a faction, for the fact imputed to some few. Fie brethren, are ye Presbyters of the Church of England, and dare challenge Episcopacie of faction? Had you spoken but such a word in the time of holy Cyprian, whom you frequently cite, as a patterne of good discipline, what had be­come of you? Neither is the wrong lesse, to [Page 8] make application of that which was most justly charged upon the practises, and combi­nations of libelling Separatists, to humble and peaceable Petitioners; the one railing down-right upon an established and holy Government, whom I deservedly censured, the other modestly suing for a reformation of the abuses of Government: Surely, whiles the worst are thus patronized by our indul­gent answerers, it is an hard question, Whe­ther the Libellers themselves, or these their mis-zealous Advocates, are more justly to be branded for Incendiaries.

SECT. II.

AFter this overflowing of your gall, you descend to the two maine subjects of this quarrell, Liturgy, and Episcopacy. I had truly said that our Liturgy hath been hither to esteemed sacred, reverently used by holy Martyrs, frequented by devout Protestants, as that which hath been confirmed by Edicts of religious Princes, and our owne Parlia­mentary Acts. And hath it so? say you; [Page 9] Whence then proceed so many▪ Additions and Altera­tions, that have changed the face, and fabrick thereof? Additions and Alterations? What in the present Liturgie? where or what? tell me, I beseech you brethren, are they visible, or are they not? If not, how come ye to see them? if so, why cannot we? perhaps somewhere in stead of Priest, there is Minister; perhaps Absolution is interpreted by a Remission; perhaps in private baptisme, there is mention of a lawfull Mini­ster; perhaps in stead of Purification of women, there is Thanksgiving; And can ye know the Book when ye see it again, after these Altera­tions, these Additions? Is it not now with this mis-altered Liturgie, as with the disguised Dames, men­tioned of old by D. Hall, (whom you name, I dare say, for honors sake) so mis-shapen by their monstrous fashions, that their redivived Grandsires could not now know them? Can ye but blush at this envious and groundlesse suggestion?

And why should not I speake of Martyrs, as the Authors and users of this holy Litur­gie? why should not we glory in their name and Authority? sleight you them as you please, we blesse God for such Patrons of our good cause: What a poore returne is [Page 10] this? Whiles I tell you what our holy Mar­tyrs did, You tell me what one of our Bi­shops said; As if we were bound to make good every word that falls from the mouth of every Bishop: Even of the best man we may say as the Psalmist doth of Moses, effutiit labiis, he spake unadvisedly with his lips; As for the words themselves; If a Bishop have said, that our Liturgy hath been so wisely and charitably framed, as that the Devotion of it yeeldeth no cause of offence to a very Popes eare, as onely aiming at an uncontro­versory Piety, I see not what hainous fault can herein be imputed to the speech, or the Author: Would you think it requisite that we should chide, and quarrell when we speak to the God of Peace?

It is no little advantage therefore both to our cause and Piety, that our Liturgie is taught to speak severall Languages, both for use and example; and thereby our Church hath gained much justification and honour: As for that sharp censure of learned Mr Cal­vins, Tolerabiles ineptiae, how ever it might well have been forborne by him, In alienâ republicâ; and by you, to presse it upon our owne; [Page 11] we honor the name of that noble instrument of Gods glory in his Church, yet withall, we fear not to say, without any disparagement to his worth, That our Liturgie both in the frame, and survay of it, passed the judgement of no lesse reverend heads then his owne: Neither would you think it could become any of our greatest Divines, to meddle with the wafers, or Lords-day markets of his charge; let every Church take care of their own affaires.

As for that unparalleld discourse of mine, concerning the Antiquity of Liturgies; Vn­paralleld, you say, because no man, that you have seene, ever drew the line of Liturgie so high as I have done; I must tell you, that perhaps there may bee some things in the world, that may have escaped your not-omniscient eies, and perhaps this may bee one; I cannot help your wonder, but I shall justifie my own Assertion. In the meane while, ye doe almost yeeld the question, ere you argue it; If by Liturgie (you say) this Remonstrant understand an Order observed in Church assemblies, of praying, reading, and expounding the Scriptures, admini­stration of Sacraments, &c. Such a Liturgie wee [Page 12] know, and acknowledge, both Iews and Christians have used; This yeelded, what stick you at? That there were prescribed, and stinted formes composed by particular men in the Church, and imposed upon the rest, this will not down with you; Wherein I cannot see, how ye will avoid your own contradiction; For I demand; Is this order of praying and administration set, or no? If it be not set, how is it an order? and if it be a set order both for matter and form (for you cannot, I suppose, under the name of an order, intend a meere Table, or Rabrick) how can it be other, then prescribed? if the formes were meerly ar­bitrary, to what use was the prescription of an Order? and, if they were not arbitrary, certainly they were in some sort stinted and imposed.

But what a poore exception is this? that they were composed by some particular men; Was it ever heard that a whole Church together framed a forme of prayer? Can one uni­forme expression bee the originall act of many thousand braines, and tongues? Cer­tainly, some one, or few, must mold that, which all shall both own and use. It is a [Page 13] silly ostentation of Antiquity, that these men bring against these prescribed formes of Li­turgie.

Tertullian in his Apol. Chap. 30. sayes, The Christians of those times did in their Assemblies pray for the Emperour, If we may not rather take it to allude to the manner of the Hea­thens, who because their gods were multinomines, according to their severall powers and vertues, had certain monitors to put the suppliants in mind of the appella­tions of their Deities, as Desideri­us Heraldus thinks; and to this purpose brings that of S. Augu­stine, cited out of Seneca; as he reads it, Alius numina Dei subji­cit; or as Lipsius, nomina; how­ever it cannot give the least co­lour to the sense intended by the Answerers. Sine moni­tore, quia de pectore; that is, not being urged by any superiour injunction, but freely out of the loyall inclination of their owne hearts: (You mis-english it, Without any prompter but their own hearts.) What is this to a prescribed forme? Or if they will needs so take it, why do they not 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 injoyned? As for their other testimony, it is lesse to the purpose; Who ever denied that some things are to be asked according to every mans oc­casion? Doe we abridge this liberty by or­daining a publique forme? And if the Lords Prayer be yeelded for an ordinary and stinted [Page 14] forme, why not others? Since the opposers of stinted forms, do, upon the same grounds, decrie that also.Aug. Ep. 121 S. Austin sayes, it is free to ask the same things that are desired in the Lords Prayer, aliis atque aliis verbis, (in other wayes of expression) who ever doubted of it? Aug. de bon. persever. c. 22. Ʋti­nam tardi corde sic audirent disputa­tiones nostras ut magis intuerentur orationes nostras, quas semper ha­buit, & habebit Ecclesia ab exordiis suis, us (que) dum finiatur seculum. Yet themselves will not dare to hold, that in S. Austins time, there was no publike Liturgy; this is but to mock the Reader.

Just. Mart. Apol. 2. The words are, [...]: That is, with all intention; and implied in that of the same Justin Martyr, [...].If Iustin Martyr said, that [ [...]] (whom they somewhat guiltily tran­slate, The Instructer of the people) prayed (as they falsly turne it) according to his ability: It is true; So doe ours, and yet God bee thanked wee have a Liturgie, and so had they. Neither is this liberty of pouring out our selves in our prayers ever the more impeached by a publique forme, since both those may, and doe well stand to­gether.

It is somewhat magisterially said by these men, that Set and imposed formes were not intro­duced, [Page 15] till the Arrian and Pe­lagian heresies did invade the Church;Conc. Laod. c. 19. First the prayers of the Catechumeni preceded, then those of the Penitents fol­lowed, then those of the Faith­full concluded. And as Clerkly doe they immediately con­fute themselves, by their owne testi­monies cited out of the Councell of Lao­dicea, which was before their limited time, as being before the Nicene: and betwixt that and the Neocesarean. Nothing can be more full then the Canon of that ancient Synode, [...]. Con. Laod. c. 8 That the same Liturgie of prayers should be alwaies used both in morning and evening. Yet to mend the matter, This (say they) was a forme of a mans owne prescribing: Were it so, wherein is that the better? But how appears it? By another Canon in a following Coun­cell, which was the third Councell of Car­thage, cap. 23. As if Carthage meant to tell what was before done at Laodicea. And what say the Fathers at Carthage? That in as­sisting at the Altar (so are their words) the Prayer should be directed to the Father, & quicun (que) sibi preces aliunde describit: That is, who­soever shall offer to make use of any other form then is prescribed, should first conferre with his more learned brethren: Plainly [Page 16] implying the contrary to that, for which the Answerers alledge it, That the usuall and al­lowed forme was not of his own compo­sing; and his own must not be at his own choise.Concil. Mi­lev. 2. cont. Celest. & Pelag. That of the Milevitane Councell is shuffled up by the Answerers, not with too much fidelity, for where they pretend the onely drift of the Councell to be, That none should use set prayers, but such as were ap­proved of in the Synode, The words of the Councell are full and affirmative, Placuit ut preces, It is ordered that the prayers or orisons which are allowed in the Synod, &c. shall be used or celebrated by all men; nec aliae omnino dicantur, and that no other shall be used in the Church, then those, &c. approved in a Sy­nod; adding a sound reason, ne fortè aliquid, &c. Lest perhaps something may be compo­sed by them, through ignorance, or want of care, contrary to the Faith.

Nothing can be more plain then that our Saviour prescribed to his Disciples (besides the rules) a direct form of Prayer, whiles he saith, Pray thus: Much of which form I find cited, as of ancient use, out of the Seder Tephil­loth of the Jews of Portugall, the Antiquity [Page 17] wherof, as not knowing how I might avow, I expressed my selfe (within three dayes of the first impression) in the safe termes of the immediate edition; which these men wil not be pleased to take notice of, lest they should find their mouths to be stopt before-hand; and so they should have lost their deare quarrell. Howsoever, that it may not seeme too strange, that our Saviour should take up the formes, and usages, that had formerly obtained; surely, that he was pleased to make use, in the Celebration of his last, and heaven-by banquet, of both the fashions, and words which were usuall in the Jewish feasts, Cas­sander hath well shewed in his Liturgica.

The set formes of prayer, that were used at the Mincha, and other the severall occasions of the Jewish sacrifices, I find specified by learned Capellus in his Spicilegium, to whom I referre the reader.

In the mean while, since they make such wonder of a set forme, used by Gods people, ever since Moses his time, I shall give them such a hint thereof, as perhaps they have not heard of before: In the Samaritane Chro­nicle, now in the hands of the incomparable [Page 18] Primate of Ireland, the Lord Archbishop of Armach, by him procured out of the Library of the famously learned Ios. Scaliger, thus they shall find,Poste à mor­tuus est A­drianus (Cu­jus Deus non misereatur) obiitque cum luctu mag­no, &c. After relation of the death of Adrian the Emperour (whom these Jewes curse with a Deus conterat ejus ossa) which in their computation falls upon the yeare 4513. from Adam; Quo tempore abstulit, &c. At which time say they, (viz. the high Priest then living) he tooke away that most ex­cellent book which was in their hands, ever since the calme and peaceable times of the Israelites, which contained those songs, and prayers, which were ever used before their sacrifices; For before every of their severall sacrifices; they had their severall songs, still used in those times of peace; all which accu­rately written, were transmitted to the subse­quent generations, from the time of Moses, (the Legat) unto this day, by the ministe­ry of the high Priest; This Book, did that high Priest embezell, wherein was con­tained their Genealogies, to the dayes ofPhineas, together with an historicall enarra­tion of the yeares of their generation, and life; Then which book, there is no history besides the Bookes of Moses, found more [Page 19] ancient; Thus that ancient Record.

Buxtorfius tells us that the Creed of R. Ben Mai­mon was ta­ken out of the Jews Liturgy.That there were such forms in the Jewish Church we doubt not, but that they should be deduced to the use of the Church Evan­gelicall, to save the labour of their devotions, is but a poore and groundlesse requisition.

Those formes which we have under the names of St. Iames, (who was, as Egesippus tells us, the first Bishop and Leiturgus of Hie­rusalem) of Basil, and Chrysostome, though they have some intersertions which are plainly spurious, yet the substance of them cannot be taxed for other then holy, and ancient: And the implication of the ancient Councell of Ancyra is worthy of observation, which forbids those Presbyters that had once sacri­ficed, [...] to offer, or to preach, or to serve in the holy Liturgies, or administrations; Howsoever, I perswade my selfe every inge­nuous reader finds reason and authority e­nough in this undeniable practise of antiqui­ty, to out-face an upstart conceit, of some giddie heads, that condemne all formes of prayer, (be they never so holy) because such.

Now what should a man doe with such [Page 20] sullen and crabbed pieces as these? If he crosse them in plaine termes, he is false? If he comply with them in good words, he Rhe­toricates? What have I professed concerning conceived prayers, but that which I ever al­lowed, ever practised, both in private, and publike? God is a free Spirit, and so should; ours be▪ in powring out our voluntary de­votions, upon all occasions; Nothing hin­ders, but that this liberty, and a publique Liturgie should be good friends, and may goe hand in hand together; and whosoever would forcibly sever them, let them beare their owne blame; I perceive, this is it which these techy men quarrell, and dislike, that I make the applause of conceived prayer, but a vantage-ground to lift up the publique forme of our sacred Church-Liturgy the higher; which they are indeed loth should stand upon even termes, yea above ground, professedly wrangling, first, at the Originall, then the confirmation of it: For the first, I had said our Liturgy was selected out of ancient modells; including in a parenthesis, [not Roman, but Christian] and thereby signifying (as any ingenuous reader would construe it) [Page 21] that our said Liturgie had no relation either to the place, or religion of Rome, but only to the Christian and holy matter of those godly prayers. Now these charitable men fly out into high termes, and beseech your Ho­nours to consider, How ye 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 ▪ Ig­norantly, or maliciously? when any man may see here is not an opposition meant, but a different modification: As when the Pro­phet sayes, I am a worme, and no man, Or; the Apostle, It is no more I, but sin, Or; I live, yet not I but Christ liveth in me: Neither is any phrase more common in our usuall speech. In what sense we hold the Roman, a true Church, is so cleared by the unanimous Suffrages of unquestionable Divines, that this iron is too hot for their fingers. Being then thus quali­fied, our Liturgie needs not be either asha­med of its originall, (published in King Ed­wards proclamation) or blankt with their unjust aggravation.

The composers of it we still glory to say, were holy Martyrs, and Confessors of the [Page 22] blessed Reformation of Religion; and if any rude hand have dared to cast a foul aspersion on any of them, he is none of the Tribe I plead for, I leave him to the reward of his owne merits: Thus composed, and thus confirmed by the recommendation of foure most religious Princes, and our owne Parli­amentary Acts, they dare not absolutely dis­charge it; but they doe as they may, nibble at it in a double exception, The one of the over-ri­gorous pressing of it, to the justling out of Preaching, and conceived Prayer, which was never inten­ded either by the Law-makers, or moderate Governours of the Church; The other, that nei­ther our owne Lawes, nor K. James his proclama­tion are so unalterable as the Lawes of the Medes & Persians. Which bold flout, how well it be­comes their gravity, and pretended obedi­ence, we leave at either Bar.

After an over-comprehensive recapitulati­on of their exploits in this mighty Section, they descend to two main Quaere's, whereof the first is, Whether it be not fit to consider of the alteration of the present Liturgie; Intimating herein, not an alteration in some few expres­sions, excepted against, but a totall alteration [Page 23] in the very frame of it, as their reasons im­port. Yes doubtlesse, Sirs, ye may consider of it; it is none of the Lawes of the Medes and Persians. What if the weak judgement of K. Iames, upon some pretended reasons, de­creed all forbearance of any farther change? What if that silly and ignorant Martyr, Dr Taylor, could magnifie it to B. Gardner, and others, as complete? What if great Elogies and Apologies have been cast away upon it, by learned men, since that time? What if In­novations in Religion be cryed out of, as not to be indured? yet consider of the alteration▪ Neither need ye to doubt but that this will be considered by wiser heads then your own▪ and whatsoever shall be found in the man­ner of the expressions sit to be changed, will doubtlesse be altered accordingly; but the maine fabrick of it, which your reasons drive at, my hope is we shall never see to undergo an alteration: Yet still do you consider of this your projected alteration, whiles I consi­der shortly of the great reasons of your con­sideration.

First, it symboliseth much with the Popish Masse▪ Surely neither as Masse, nor as Popish: If an [Page 24] holy Prayer be found in a Roman Portuise, shall I hate it for the place? If I find gold in the Channell, shall I throw it away because it was ill laid? If the Devills confessed Christ the Son of God, shall I disclaime that truth, because it passed through a damned mouth? Why should we not rather allow those good prayers, which symbolize with all Christian piety, then reject those which dwel amongst some superstitious neighbours?

2 It was composed, you say, into this frame, on pur­pose to bring Papists to our Churches. Well, had it been so, the project had been charitable, and gracious. What can be more thank-worthy, then to reclaime erring soules? But it failed in the successe. Pardon me, brethren; if it had done so, it was neither the fault of the matter, or of the men; but it did not: In his speech at Norwich Assizes, pub­lished.Sir Edward Coke can tell you, that till the eleventh year of Qu. Elizabeth, all came to Church: Those times knew no Recusant then: At last, the Jesuitish Casuists, finding their great disadvantage by the inoffensive use of our Liturgie, determi­ned it utterly unlawfull to joyne in Church-service with Heretiques. Hence came this ali­enation, hence this distraction, that we have [Page 25] not won more; it is not the fault of our pub­lique devotion, why do you not impute it to the want, or weaknesse in preaching rather? But that our Liturgy hath lost any to the Popish part, it is not more paradoxe then sclander.

3 Those stumbling blocks which you say our Liturgie laies before the feet of many, are by many removed, and amongst the rest, by a blind man,M. Fisher. whose eie-lesse head directed how to avoid those blocks, which these quick-sights will needs see how to stumble at. But if there be found ought that may in­danger a scandall, it is under carefull hands to remove it.

4 It is Idoliz'd, they say, in England; they meane at Amsterdam; some Separists have made it such; never any just Protestant: Others say rather that too many doe inju­riously make an Idoll of preaching; shall we therefore consider of abandoning it? and if some one have passed an hyperbolicall praise of it, must it therefore be marred in mending?

5 Multitudes of people (they say) distast it; more shame for those that have so mistaught [Page 26] them; (would God too much multitude did not, (through ill teaching) distast the truth of wholsome doctrine, and abhorre Communion with the true Church of Christ) shall we to humour them, abandon both?

6 There is a vast difference, (they say) betweene it and the Liturgies of all other reformed Churches. A difference? wherein? not in the essentiall points, but in some accidents, and outward formalities; Whose fault is that? ours was be­fore theirs; why did not they conforme to us; rather, then we come back to them? I may boldly say, ours was, and is the more noble Church; and therefore more fit to lead, then to follow: But indeede since our Languages, and Regions are different; what neede is there, our Liturgies should be one? and why should we be more tyed to their formes, then those of all other Christians, Grecians, Armenians, Cophs, Abassine, Arabian, Egyptian? all which differ in no lesse from each other, then we from them: Consider now, brethren, whe­ther these reasons of a change be worthy of any consideration.

[Page 27]The second Quaere is so weak, that I wonder it could fall from the pens of wise men; Whether the first reformer of religion did ever intend the use of a Liturgie, further then to be an helpe in the want, and to the weaknesse of the Minister; Bre­thren, can ye thinke that our Reformers had any other intentions then all other the foun­ders of Liturgies, through the whole Christi­an, yea and Jewish Church? the least part of whose care was the help of the Ministers weaknesse, and their main drift the helpe of the peoples devotion, that they knowing before-hand, the matter, that should be sued for, and the words wherewith it should be clothed, might be the more prepared to joyn their hearts to the Ministers tongue, and be so much more intent upon their devotion, as they had lesse need to be distracted with the doubtfull expectation of the matter, or words to be delivered.

It is no lesse boldly then untruly said, that all other Churches reformed, though they use Litur­gies, doe not bind their Ministers to the use of them; [Binding] is an ambiguous word;I beseech you tell me brethren, how you construe those words of Calvin which he wrote to the Pro­tector of England. Anno 1548. Oct. 22. Quod ad formulam precum & rituū Ecclesiasticorum, valde prob [...] ut certa illa extet à qua pastoribus dis­cedere non liceat infunctione sua; tam ut consulatur quorundam simplicitati & imperitiae, quam ut certius ita con­stet omnium inter se ecclesiarum con­sensus; postremo etiam, &c. That is, As for a forme of prayers, and of rites Ecclesiasticall; I do greatly ap­prove that there be a certain one extant, from which it should not be lawfull for the Ministers in their function to depart: both that by this meanes provision may bee made for the simplicity, and un­skilfulnesse of some, and the con­sent of all Churches amongst thē ­selves may more certainly ap­peare; Lastly, that thus there may be a remedy for the desultory levi­ty of some men that affect still cer­tain innovations; as I have shewed that the Catechisme it selfe serves for this purpose. So therefore there ought to be a set forme of Cate­chisme, a set form of administrati­on of Sacraments, and of publique Prayers. I am sure both the French, and Dutch, [Page 28] Churches (in both which I have been present) re­quire their prescribed formes, to be used both in Baptisme, and in Cele­bration of the Lords Sup­per, and in solemnization of Matrimony: And in what rank will they place the Lutheran Churches? And if the Reformed Churches use this liberty, what a poore handfull are they to that world of Chri­stian Churches abroad, which do both use and in­joyn their Liturgie, in that first forme we have seen urged in the Melevitane Councell?

2 The Rubrick in King Edwards booke is mis-construed, which only out of respect to the peoples ease, and their more willing addiction to the hearing of Sermons, (which were then so much more long as they were more rare) gave that liber­ty [Page 29] to Ministers in the use of the Liturgie, which divers Ordinaries at this day (upon my certain knowledge) have often yeelded unto: That Rubrick imports no more then our practise; neither of them disparages our Liturgie.

3 The Homilies are left free (they say) to be read or not, by preaching Ministers; why not then the Li­turgie? And if it can be thought no lesse then sacri­ledge to rob the people of the Ministers gift in preach­ing, and to tie him to Homilies, it can be no lesse to deprive them of their gift in Prayer. Did we ut­terly abridge all Ministers of the publique use of any conceived Prayer, on what occasion soever, the argument might hold force against us; but, that being yeelded▪ our Litur­gie is untouched: Neither were it a lesser sa­criledge to rob the people of a set forme, by the liberty of a free expression: And how doth this argument more strike us then all the Churches of the Christian world, whose preaching is out of their conception, whiles their Liturgie is injoyned?

4 It is a false ground, that the imposing of the Book ties godly men from exercising their gift in Prayer: An enjoyned Liturgie [Page 30] may well stand with the freedome of a Prayer conceived: The Desk is no hinde­rance to the Pulpit: He is wanting to his du­ty, that slackneth either service.

5 Much lesse can this be any reason to keep men from their presence at our Church-ser­vice, that a Liturgie is imposed. Tell me, Is this Liturgie good or evill? If it be evill, it is unlawfull to be used; If good, it is not un­lawfull to be imposed: And were the impo­sition amisse, what is that to the people? It is imposed upon the Minister; that whether act, or passion rests in him, the people are no more concerned in it, then if a Minister should tye himselfe to the use of a Prayer of his owne making, (as I have knowne some of the most famous Divines of this King­dome constantly do:) If then there be no way left to recover the people to a stinted Prayer but by leaving it free to use, or not to use, O [...] miserably mis-led people, whom nothing belike, can reclaime, (after such doctrine in­stilled) but a professed confusion! Well may they object to themselves in this way, divisi­ons and disturbances, following upon a per­fect deformity; and sooner may they object [Page 31] then avoid them. But why more here (they say) then in other Reformed Churches? The difference is evident, Our Churches have never been but used to a setled Liturgie, which the eares and hearts of our people look for; Theirs, per­haps, began without it: Yet so, as I doubt not but if any man should now refuse to conforme to their estabilished formes, hee should soon feele the dint of their censures. The like answer serves for their objected Homilies; Surely were they enjoyned to all, by lawfull authority, and made so familiar to the eares of every congregation, as the Li­turgie is, some few could not forbeare them without offence; whiles withall, they should be allowed the helps of preaching: As in this case it is done, the use of the set Liturgie be­ing seconded by prayers conceived. But the project is singular, That if any Ministers should prove insufficient to discharge the duty of Prayer in a conceived way, it may be imposed upon him as a pu­nishment to use set formes, and no other. Never Confessor injoyned such a penance; Never Law-maker imposed such a mulct: Certain­ly it were a more just and needfull motion, that many who take upon them to preach, [Page 32] (with so small abuse of Gods sacred Word) might (as in way of correction) be injoyned onely to reade Homilies: But who sees not in this overture, an utter cassation of that Li­turgie which is pretended to be left free? For if the freedome of a sole conceived prayer shall depend upon the supposed sufficiency of the Minister, shew me the man amongst five hundred of the forward Artizans, that Will confesse, or think himselfe insufficient for the act, or unfurnished with the gifts of Prayer. Away then with the Book, whiles it may be supplied with a more profitable non­sense. Surely, where God hath bestowed gifts, it is fit they should be imployed, and improved to the best advantage of his people: But where there is nothing but an empty over-weening, and proud ignorance, there is great reason for a just restraint.

SECT. III.

THus their cavils concerning the Litur­gie are vanished, we descend to the lon­ger quarrell of Episcopacie: Where it is their [Page 33] ill hap to stumble again at the entring into these Lists: beginning their answer (pardon good Reader) with a manifest leasing; whiles they dare say, that whatsoever hath been either spoken, or written by any, either learned Divines, or well reformed Churches, is taxed by me, as no other then the unjust clamours of weak, or factious persons: Certainly, had I done so, I had been no lesse worthy to be spit upon, for my saucy uncharitablenesse, then they are now for their uncharitable falshood: After my com­plaints of the many railing invectives, and scandalous Libels published of late, I came now to bemoane my self to that high Court of Justice, in these words; ‘As for that forme of Episcopall government which hath hitherto obtained in the Church of God, I confesse I am confounded in my selfe to heare with what unjust clamours it is cried down abroad, by either weak or factious persons;’ Abroad (I say) in relati­on to both Houses, lest any malicious per­son should have traduced my words, as re­flecting upon any free speech, made in either of them, against some of that calling; allu­ding to that impious licentiousnesse of our [Page 34] frequent Libellers, both in the City and Countrey, which shamefully revile Epi­scopacy, as wicked and Antichristian; Now come these brotherly slanderers (sure the termes can be no better) and would needs Wier-draw my words as farre as France, Germany, or Geneva it self; and cry out of my Arrogancy; as condemning all Divines, all Churches; which the God of heaven knowes never came within the verge of my thoughts; Yea, if I could have been so abominably presumptuous as to inlarge my [abroad] to other Nations; yet I beseech you, readers, see how well this follows; Episcopall Government is with unjust clamours cryed down abroad, by either weake or factious persons, therefore, whosoever speaks or writes against Episcopacy, is either weake or factious: Brethren, if you have any remain­ders of modesty, or truth, left in you, cry God mercy for this egregious and palpable calumnie.

Quanquam descessu ve­teris confusus amici,, Juve­nal.Of the same straine is their witty descant upon my confoundednesse; I made use of the phrase, as that which is taken up by the most elegant Greek and Latine Authors, to ex­presse [Page 35] extreame sorrow, these deep Philolo­gers, (as not seeming to know other sense) take it of a confoundednesse, through di­straction; sure the man is not in his rightwits [...]; And how so, trow we? Heare how he raves; He talks of all peaceable and right affected sons of the Church, and craves an admit­tance in all their names, whereas all could not take notice of his book; doubtlesse a deep phrensie; Bre­thren, I am still, and shall ever be thus selfe-confounded, as confidently to say, that he is no peaceable, and right affected Son of the Church of England, that doth not both hate Libels, and wish well to Liturgy and Epi­scopacy; both which summe up my humble Remonstrance.

But this flip, they confesse, is small, that other is worthy of a large Dos of Elle­bore; that I say, Episcopall govermnent, that is, government by Diocesan Bishops, derives it selfe from the Apostles times; this (they say) they cannot but rank amongst my notorious—speake out Masters; I would not have that word stick in your teeth, or in your throat; And why is this truth so notorious; Because there were no Diocesans of above an hundred yeares after Christ. [Page 36] Now Readers, I beseech you, cast back your eies upon those, Lines of mine, and see, whether I make any mention at all of Dioce­sans, but onely of the sacred government by Episcopacy; Wanton wits must have leave to play with their owne stern; Brethren, what needs this importunity? Even selfe-confounded men doe not alwaies speake false; What the joynt-confession of all refor­med Divines is concerning the derivation of Episcopacy from the Apostolique times, I have elsewhere shewed from some, in the name of all; and shall doe again in the due place; to what purpose were this unseasona­ble anticipation? Indeed no true Divine did ever hold otherwise: The question never was, Whether Bishops were derived from the Apostles, But what kinde of Bishops they were: For us, if we not deduce ours from them in respect of all the essentialls of our calling, let the shame be ours. Whereas I say the government hath continued without any interruption, they aske jeeringly, What at Rome? and tell me of some places of the world, as Scotland for example, wherein this government was never known for many [Page 37] years together. Brethren, what means this, whether simplicity, or scorne? Could yee imagine me to meane, that every place through the whole world hath had a conti­nued Line of Bishops ever since the Apostles? sure you cannot so wrong your own judge­ments; Alas, we could tell you of China, Ia­pan, Peru, Brasil, New-England, Virginia, and a thousand others, that never had any Bi­shops to this day: Yet it is never the lesse safe to say, that the form of Government by Bishops in the Christian world, derives it selfe (without interruption) from the Apo­stles times; for as much as there hath been no time or age since them, wherein there hath not been this forme of Episcopall Govern­ment continued. You tell me, that In ancient times the Scots were instructed by Priests, and Monks, and were without Bishops two hundred and ninety years. I acknowledge the words of Io­hannes Major, I wish they had not been with­out, either before, or since; but what is this to my assertion? There could be no interrup­tion of that, which had as yet no being▪ nei­ther did I ever say that Bishops were every where.

[Page 38]You come to England, there you think to have me sure; you desire to know of the Re­monstrant, Whether God had a Church in Eng­land in Q. Maries dayes or no? And if so, who were then Bishops? Sure, brethren, you cannot be so ignorant as you make your selves; Have you not seen Mr Foxes Acts and Monuments? Have you not seen Mr Fr: Masons Vindication of our succession? Or doe ye make no diffe­rence betwixt an intermission and an inter­ruption? Doe ye not know that even the See of Rome, (which would faine boast of a known succession) hath yet been without a Bishop longer then the whole raigne of Qu. Mary; if we may beleeve Damasus himselfe, after Marcellinus, for 7. years, 6. moneths, and 25. daies? And if after the Martyrdome of our Orthodoxe Bishops, revolted, or Popish governors held those Sees, they were corrupt in their places, judgement, and practise; there was not an utter abolition of their cal­ling, which their repentance restored to its first vigour. Where I justly aver this continu­ance to have been without the contradiction of any one congregation in the Christian world, you vainly think to choak me with a [Page 39] story from our own darling, Heylin, which tels us of the furious violence of the people of Biscay against the Bishop of Pampelona, re­ported also by the Spanish history: to which you referre us; concealing yet, that which the same history relates, that this was done upon some attempts and wrong conceived to be offered them by the Clergy.

A goodly instance, and fit for the gall of your inke, and as good a consequence. The Biscainers upon a private quarrell are enra­ged against the person of their Bishop,You might as well have told us out of the same Author, of the strange conditions that are in use amongst them, which they im­pose upon their King, if ever he come into their coast; of his ri­ding with one leg bare, and their mocking of him with their Ma­ravedis. & for his sake (for the time) against his fellowes; therefore some Christian Congregation de­nies the succession of Epi­scopall Government, from the times of the Apostles. Of the like validity and judgement is your instance of French, Scotish, and Belgick Churches: Who doubts of either their Christianity, or their contra­diction to Episcopacy? But if you did not wilfully both shut your own eies, and en­deavour to blind the eies of your Reader, you could not but see, that I limit the time untill [Page 40] this present age. Good brethren, whiles you object bold falshood to me, learn to make some conscience of truths. To let passe your untrue suggestions concerning my assertion, of one and the same forme of Prayer conti­nued from Moses to the Apostles, and by the Apostles, &c. I cannot but wonder with what face you can reckon it amongst my un­truths, that Episcopall Government hath continued in this Iland, ever since the first plantation of the Gospel. I challenge you be­fore that awfull Bar, to which you have ap­pealed, name but one yeare ever since Chri­stianity had footing in England, (which was under the British o [...] Roman Government) wherein there were no Bishops in this Land; If you can name neither yeare nor Author, be ashamed to say this truth hath had any contradiction, or else I hope the Readers will be ashamed of you. What a poore shift is it to tell me of the contradiction that Episcopa­cie hath had since the Reformation? I can tell the world that your selves oppose it; what of that? You mislike the Government, you cannot deny that it hath so long conti­nued; so as my assertion continues inviola­ble, [Page 41] that the form of this government hath, without contradiction, continued here ever since the first plantation of the Gospel.

The man runs on still, you say, and as think­ing to get credit to his untruths by their multiplica­tion, dares boldly say, that except all Histories, all Au­thors, faile them, nothing can be more certaine then this truth: and here you cry out, Os durum! and aggravate the matter enviously, by the in­stance of Divine truths, concerning the maine points of our holy Creede: But, good sirs, doe ye bethink whom you speake to? Could you suppose to meete with so meane readers, as should not know that no phrase is more ordinary in our hourly discourse,Yet the words of the Remon­strance are not, nothing can be a more certain truth, but, nothing can be more plain then this truth. then this; when we would cōfidently affirme any truth, to say, It is so true as nothing can be truer? Not to enter into any metaphysicall di­scourse concerning the being, or degrees of truth, (wherein some that would be wise, may perhaps have lost themselves) would any man think it reasonable, that upon such an ordinary and familiar assertion he should be called to account for the articles of his Creede, and be urged to compare his truth with Gods? Away with this witlesse and [Page 42] malicious intimation: Pardon me Readers, that I have spent so much time and paper, in following these triflers so close; their uncha­ritable suggestions drew me on, Judge yee now whether of us have more just cause of indignation.

SECT. IIII.

HItherto they have flourished, now I hope they will strike; against the Libel­lers importune projects of innovations, I ur­ged that were this Ordinance meerly hu­mane, or Ecclesiasticall, if there could be no more said for it, but that it is exceeding anci­ent, of more then 1500. years standing, and in this Iland of the same age with the Gospell it self, this might be a just reason to make men tender of admitting a change; an argument which I seconded with so rationall inforce­ment, as will I doubt not prevaile with all unpartiall judgements: Now my witty An­swerers tell me this is an argumentum Galeatum (and that the Reader may know they have seen a Father, cite Hierome, who gave that [Page 43] title to a Prologue, but never to an argu­ment) and as if arguments were Almanacks, tell us, It was Calculated for the Meridian of Epis­copacy, and may indifferently serve for all Religions. Truly brethren, you have not well taken the height of the Pole, nor observed a just zenith; for could you say so much for the Presbyte­riall government, had it continued here so long, I should never yeeld my vote to alter it; an uninterrupted course of so many years should settle it still: So as you are plainly de­ceived, the argument is not calculated for the Meridian of Episcopacy; but for whatso­ever government; if so long time have given it peaceable possession, there had need to be strong reasons of Law, for an ejection; But that it may serve for all Religions, it is but an envious suggestion; unlesse you adde this withall, save where the ground of the change is fully convictive, and irrefragable; in which cause both the mouthes of Jews, and Hea­thens, and Papists, and your own may be justly stopped.

As for that overworne observation of Cyprian, that our Saviour sayes, I am the way, the truth, and the life; but doth not say, I am custome, [Page 44] it is no lesse plausible then usefull, but if wee regard soundnesse of ratiocination, it is an Illustration meerly negative: so we may say, hee saith not, I am reason, I am experience, I am authoritie; and yet authoritie, experience, reason are worthy to sway with us, in all matters of question: and withall, Hee that said, I am the way, said, that the old way was the good way: and if Custome without Truth (as that Father said well) be nothing but a gray-hair'd Error; or, as Sir Francis Bacon wittily, Antiquitie without Truth is a Cipher with­out a Figure; yet where Custom & Antiqui­tie are backed with Truth, there they are Fi­gures multiplied with many Ciphers.

As for the time wherein their learned An­cients affirme, The Church not to have beene governed by Bishops, but by Presbyters, and for the difference pretended to be betwixt the Primitive Bishops and ours, wee shall meet with it in such due time and place, as shall be justly occasioned: What needs this frivo­lous waste of unseasonable words? where­with unlesse these men desired to swell up this their windy bulke, why doe they tell us yet againe, of that already answered, and [Page 45] groundlesse exception; against both their owne eyes, and conscience; where I say, that this government hath continued in this I­land; ever since the plantation of the Gospel without contradiction; when as they cannot name any man in this Nation that ever con­tradicted Episcopacie, till this present age, or that ever contradicted this truth, that Episco­pacy hath so long continued in this Iland; which is the only drift of my words; For alas, could I be so simple as not to know that this age hath bred opposition enough to the pre­sent government? could I doubt whether these very men oppose it? Yet, let the boldest forehead of them all denie that it hath conti­nued thus long in this our Iland, or say that any till this age contradicted it; so as that my assertion is just, their exception false; and vain: As for that supplie of accessory strength, which I did not beg, but raise & evince from the light of nature and rules of just policie, for the continuance of those things, which long use and many laws have firmly establi­shed, as necessary, and beneficiall; it will stand long enough, against the battery of their Paper-pellets; If some statute Laws, [Page 46] which seemed once necessary, and benefici­all, proving afterwards, in processe of time, noxious and burthensome, have been justly, and wisely repealed; Let them tell mee, whether the fundamentall Lawes of the Kingdome, upon any mans abuse, may be subject to alteration, or whether rather their Wisdomes would not think fit to determine that the Laws must stand, and the abuses be removed; such is the cause we have now in hand, and if we shall goe lesse: I speak not against an impossibility, but an easinesse of change, the question being so stated (which their guiltinesse would willingly over-look) that things indifferent, or good, having been by continuance and generall approbation well rooted in Church and State, may not upon light grounds be pulled up.

SECT. V.

I Justly fetch the pedegree of our holy cal­ling from no lesse then Apostolicall (and in that right, Divine) institution, and prove it from the clear practise of their immediate [Page 47] successors, and justly triumph in that confi­dence. They tell me of one scruple yet remai­ning; It is well, if there be no more: And what may that be? That in Originall authority of Scrip­ture, Bishops and Presbyters went originally for the same. Alas, brethren, what needed this to be a scruple in your thoughts, or your words, when it is in expresse termes granted by us? That there was at first a plain Identity in their denomination; here is one page, and that not without some labour of proofs, idly lost.

It is true, that the Remonstrant under­takes to shew a cleare and received distincti­on of Bishops, Presbyters, and Deacons, (out of the undeniable writings of those holy men, which lived in the times of the Apo­stles, and after them) with an evident specifi­cation of their severall duties: And what say my Answerers to this? Yet, say they, Let us tell him, that we never finde in Scripture these three Orders, Bishops, Presbyters, Deacons. Brethren, ye might have spared to tell me that which I had told you before: I speak of the monu­ments of immediate succession to the Apo­stolique times; Ye, of the writings of the [Page 48] Apostles themselves: How then doe you ei­ther answer, or oppose my assertion? Al­though I must also tell you, that though in the Apostolique Epistles there be no nomi­nall distinction of the titles, yet there is a reall distinction and specification of the duties, as we shall see in due place.

That ye may seem not to say nothing, and may make your Readers beleeve you are not quite forsaken of Antiquity, ye call Hierome, Chrysostome, Theophylact, Irenaeus, and Cyprian, to the Book: And what evidence will they give for you? That the names of Bishops and Presbyters were not at first distinguished, but used [...], in a promiscuous sense, and that some succeeding Bishops of Rome were styled Presbyters; This is all: but that your trifling may appeare to all the World, Name but any one of our Writers, who have hither­to stood up in the cause of Episcopacie, that hath not granted and proclaimed this which you contend for: Although withall, let me tel you, that you could not have brought a stron­ger argument against your selves: for hence the world shall see how little force can be drawne from the name to the thing, since [Page 49] the mentioned Anicetus, Pius, Hyginus, Teles­phorus, Bishops of Rome, are so famously known to have been in an height of eleva­tion above Presbyters; And since Cyprian, who is styled by his Presbyters, Frater, is ne­ver found to style his Presbyters, Bishops; And being an holy Bishop himselfe, in many Epistles, stifly maintaines the eminence of his superiority; And is some-whiles honored with the title of Beatissimus Papa Cyprianus, which I suppose was never given to a meere Presbyter: But what do I here follow them who confesse themselves out of the way? At last acknowledging, that their adversaries confesse, that which they would needs spend time to prove; let the names passe; All the question is of the distinction of their offices, which they wil follow as tediously as loosly.

And first they would faine know what we make the distinct office of a Bishop, wherein they fall somewhat unhappily, up­on the very words of that branded Aerius; Is it, say they, to edifie the Church by Word & Sacra­ments? Is it to ordaine others to that worked? Is it to rule, to governe by admonition, and by other cen­sures? any, or all of these belong unto the Presbytery. [Page 50] Compare now the words of Aerius, as they are related by Epiphanius, whom that Father brings in speaking thus, concerning Episco­pacy and Presbytery, There is one order of both, one honor, one dignity; the Bishop imposeth hands, so doth the Presbyter; the Bishop doth administer Gods worship or service, so doth the Presbyter; the Bishop sitteth on the throne, so doth also the Presbyter: See reader and acknowledge the very phrases of that man, whom holy antiquity censured even in this point both for a frantick man, [...]. Epiph. and an hereticke; Brethren, God speed you well with your Question; As for the first, which is edifying the Church by Word, and Sacraments, we make no difference, your distance may; we both hold it our worke and make it so; and if any one have beene slack herein, the fault is personall, we nei­ther defend, nor excuse it. The maine quar­rell you grant to be in the second, which is the power of Ordination; impropriated (as you enviously and untruly speake) to our selves: This you say was in former times in the hands of the Presbyters, and undertake to prove it from 1 Tim. 4.14. Neglect not the gift which was given thee by Prophesie, and by laying on [Page 51] the hands of Presbytery, a place that hath received answer [...]; which I wonder ye can so presse, when Calvin himselfe, (as you well know) in his learned Institutions, even in his last, and ripest judgement, construes it quite otherwise; taking it of the office, and not of the men; (however elsewhere other­wise) wherein he also followes the judge­ment of Ierome, Primasius, Anselme, Haymo, Liranus, Erasmus, and others; as our learned Bishop Downam hath largely shewed.

To countenance this sense of yours, you tel us, you find [...], so taken in Scripture; and cite Luc. 22.66. and Act. 22.5. Wherein you do meerly delude the reader; you find indeed the Elders of the people so called, but the Elders of the Church never; to make good your own construction therefore, you must maintaine that Lay-men did and must lay on hands in Ordina­tion, which Calvin himself utterly abominates.

Neither need we to give any other satis­faction to the point, thē that which we have from S. Paul himselfe, 1 Tim. 3.6. Stirre up the gift of God which is in thee by the imposition of my hands; mine, not others: I aske then, Was Timothy ordained more then once? once sure­ly [Page 52] S. Pauls hands were laid upon him, when therefore the Presbyters? Yes, you say, this was a joynt act of both, else the Harmony of Scripture is not maintained; Pardon me Brethren, if I think Mr. Calvin was more skilled in the harmony of Scripture then our selves, yet in his eare it sounded well, that [...], should be the Office to which Timothy was ordained by Paul, and not a company of men that ordai­ned him; Yet give me leave to marvell how you can have the boldnesse to say, This power is communicated to Presbyters, when you know that not onely other Antiquity, but even Hierome himself and that Councell of Aquis­grane which you cite, doe still except Ordina­tion, which yet we doe not so appropriate, as to lay our hands alone upon the head of any Presbyter.

The third part of our office consists in Ru­ling; which though our Bishops (you say) assumed to themselves, you will discover to have bin committed to, and exercised by Presbyteriall hands. For evi­dence whereof you cite Heb. 13.17. Obey them that have the Rule over you, for they watch for your souls. Brethren, what an injurious imputation is this? Do we not give you the title of Recto­res [Page 53] Ecclesiarum? Doe we not in your instituti­on commit to you regimen animarum? Why will ye therefore bear your Readers in hand, that we herein rob you of your right? It is true, that here is a just distinction to be made, betwixt the government of soules, in seve­rall Congregations, and the government of the Church, consisting of many Congrega­tions; that task is yours, this is the Bishops, wherein their rule yet, is not Lordly, but bro­therly, or paternall; your argument reacheth not home to this, and yet you strain that place of 1 Thes. 5.12. beyond the due breadth, whiles you tenter it out to either a paritie, or communitie of censure.

Injoy now what you have so victoriously purchased, but give me leave to summe up my reckonings also. Since then (how ever the name was at first promiscuously used, yet) the Office of Bishops, and Presbyters differed, even by Apostolike Institution: and the Acts pertaining thereto, of Ordination, and power of ordinary government and cen­sures, were in that very first age of the Church manifestly differenced; therefore Bishops and Presbyters were not one.

SECT. VI.

THE practise of the Apostles is so farre from contradicting their rules, (which your brotherly charity would fasten upon my assertion) as that it is a most cleare proof, and illustration of it; Their practise is irre­fragable in the charge, which they gave to Timothy, and Titus, as we shall prove in due place: Now if to this we shall adde the unquestionable glosse of the more cleare practise of their immediate successors, I know not what more light can be desired for the manifestation of this truth. Whereto ye boldly answer, If this gloss corrupt not the text, we shall admit it; implying therein, too presumptuously, that the universall practise of the whole Primitive Church succeeding the Apostles, may prove a Burdeaux-glosse to marre the Text.

Brethren, goe you your owne way, let me erre with such guides: But ye are disposed to be liberall; somewhat ye will grant us, be­sides that which we grant you. It is agreed, [Page 55] that the name of Bishops and Presbyters were at first promiscuously used; It is yeelded by you, That in process of time, some one was ho­noured with the name of Bishop, and the rest were called Presbyters. But what, I beseech you, was this process of time? Here lies your either error, or fraud: We doe justly and confidently de­fend, that this time had no processe at all; it was in the [...] of the living Apostles, which we shall plainly make good in the sequell. It is also yeelded, that this was not [nomen in­ane,] but seconded with some kind of impa­rity. What then is the difference? All the que­stion, you say, is of divine right, and Apostolicall in­stitution of this imparity. Let me beseech the Reader to consider seriously of the state of this difference, in the mistaking whereof I have, not a little, unjustly suffered; And to remember how I have expressed it in my Remonstrance, fetching the pedegree of Epi­scopacy from Apostolicall (and therefore, in that right, Divine) institution: And interpre­ting my self not to understand by [divine right] any expresse Law of God requiring it, upon the absolute necessity of the being of a Church, but an institution of Apostles, [Page 56] inspired by the holy Ghost, warranting it where it is, and requiring it where it may be had. Now whether it may be thus Apostoli­call, or a meerly humane and Ecclesiasticall invention, is the question in hand.

On your part, you say, stand Ierome, and Am­brose. Two stiffe champions indeed. And sure­ly I must needs confesse, this is the onely countenance of your cause, which yet hath been blanked more then once. Ierome tels us, you say, right down in Tit. 1. Idē est ergo Presbyter, &c. Out of whose testimony you in summe collect, That A Presbyter and a Bishop were ori­ginally one: 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 govern: And lastly, that The occasion of this imparity, was the division, which through the Devils instinct fell among Christians. You look now that I should tell you that the Book is of uncertain credit, or that Ierome was a Presbyter, and not with­out some touch of envie to that higher dig­nity he missed; or that wiser men then your selves have censured him in this point, for Aerianisme: I plead none of these, but whiles [Page 57] you expect that I should answer to Ierome, I shall set Ierome to answer for himselfe. For the first, I cannot but put you in mind, that the same Father citing the words of the Bishop of Jerusalem, That there is no difference be­twixt a Bishop and a Presbyter, passeth a Satis imperitè upon it: but let it be so.

At first, he sayes, Bishops and Presbyters had but one title. So say we too; But when began the distinction? Ye need not learne it of Sa­ravia, he himselfe tels you, When divisions began: And when that? When they began to say, I am Pauls, I am Apollo's, I am Cephas; which was (I think) well and high in the Apostles time: But this you would cleanly put of, as spoken by Ierome in the Apostles phrase, not of the time of the Apostle: This is but a generall in­timation of contentions arisen (though later) in the Church. Excuse me Brethren, this shift will not serve your turne: Then, belike, there should have been no distinct Bishops till after-ages, upon this ground, that till then there were no divisions: Or if so, why should the remedie be so late after the disease? Or how comes he elsewhere to name Bishops made by the Apostles, and to confesse that [Page 58] before his time there had been many succes­sions? Besides, he instanceth in the peculiar mis-challenging of Baptisme, which only S. Paul specifieth in his owne time: And Clemens seconds him in his Epistle to the Corinthi­ans, in taxing the continuance of those distra­ctions; so as by Ieroms own confession, Epi­scopacy was ordained early within the Apo­stles times.

But then, say you, It was not of Apostolicall in­tention, but of Diabolicall occasion: Weakly and absurdly; As if the occasion might not be devilish, and the institution divine: As if the best Lawes did not rise from the worst man­ners. Were not the quarrels betwixt the Gre­cians and Hebrews for the maintenance of their widows, an evill occurrence? yet from the occasion thereof was raised the Ordinati­on of Deacons in the Church.

Yea but Ierome saith, This was rather by the custome of the Church, then by the truth of the Lords disposition. True, it was by the Custome of the Church, but that Church was Apostolicall; not by the Lords disposition immediately: for Christ gave no expresse rule for it, but me­diately it was from Christ, as from his inspi­red [Page 59] Apostles. Let Ierome himselfe interpret himselfe, who tels us expresly in his Epistle to Euagrius, this superiority of Bishops above Presbyters, is by Apostolicall tradition; which is as much as we affirme. And whiles he saith, (toto orbe decretum est) that in the time of those first divisions, it was decreed all the world over, that Bishops should be set up; I would faine know, by what power (besides Apostolicall) such a Decree could be so soon and so universally enacted. But Ierome saith, The Presbyters governed the Church by their common Counsell: So they did doubtlesse altogether, till Episcopacy was setled; who dares deny it? Yea, but he saith, They ought to doe still: So say we also, and so in some cases we do: Church-government is Aristocraticall. Neither is any Bishop so absolute, as not to be subject to the judgement of a Synode: Yea in many mat­ters it is determined by our Laws, that hee must take the advise and assistance of his Ec­clesiasticall Presbytery.

So then, S. Ierome is in his judgement no back friend of ours, but in his History he is our Patron. With what forehead can they perswade their Reader, the Originall of Epi­scopacie [Page 60] was not in Ieroms opinion so early, when they cannot but confesse that the same Father hath, in flat termes, told us, that Iames was Bishop of Jerusalem, Timothy of Ephe­sus, Titus of Crete, that ever since the time of Mark the Euangelist, (who died five or sixe yeares before Peter and Paul, and almost forty years before S. Iohn) at Alexandria, (till the dayes of Heraclas and Dionysius) the Presby­ters have alwayes chosen one to be their Bi­shop.

As for those poore negative arguments which follow, palpably begging the questi­on, they are scarce worthie of a passe; were it not, that by them they goe about to confute their own Author, affirming, That upon oc­casion of divisions, Episcopacie was consti­tuted: but he stands so close to his owne grounds, as that (contrary to their mis-allega­tion of Dr Whitakers) he plainly tels them, Episcopacie is so proper a remedy for this evill, that unlesse the Bishop have a peerlesse power, there will be as many Schismes as Priests; the wofull experience whereof we finde in the miserable varieties of Separa­tisme, at this day. Goe on, Brethren, since [Page 61] you are so resolved, to strike that friend, whom you bring in to speak for you; teach your advocate S. Ierome, how unlikely it is, that the Apostles should give way (as he pro­fesses they did) to such a remedie, as might prove both ineffectuall, and dangerous; and that their holinesse should make a stirrup for Antichrist.

We lookt for Ambrose to come in next; and, behold, you bring in a foisted Commen­ter; a man by the convictions of Whitakers, Spalatensis, Cocus, Rivetus, Bellarmine, Possevine, Maldonate, (as hath beene elsewhere shewed) of not a suspected onely, but a crackt credit: If it mattered much, what he said, I could out of his testimonie picke more advantage then you prejudice to my cause: But, if you will heare the true Ambrose speake;Amb. de dignit [...] Sacerd. c. 3. he tells you; There is one thing which God requireth of a Bishop, another of a Presbyter, another of a Deacon; As for the persons who brought in this imparitie, you tell us out of the same Authors, The Presbyters themselves brought it in? Witnesse Ierome ad Euagrium. The Presbyters of Alexandria did call him their Bishop, whom they had chosen from among themselves, and placed in an [Page 62] higher degree: But, brethren, what meanes this faithlesse and halved citation? Had you said all, the place would have answered for it selfe; the words are, Nam & Alexandriae à Marco Evangelistaus (que) ad Heraclam & Di­onysium Episcopos, Pr [...]sbyteri semper unum ex se electū, in excel siori gradu collocatum, Episcopum nominabant, quomodo si exercitus Imperatorem faciat, &c. Nam & Alexandriae à Marco Evangelista, &c. For at Alexandria ever since Mark the Evangelist, untill the times of Heraclas and Dionysius, Bishops, the Pres­byters have alwayes called one (chosen out of themselves, and placed in an higher de­gree) Bishop, as if an army should chuse their Generall. Why did you avoid the name of [Mark the Evangelist] but that your hearts told you, that he dying many yeares within the time of the Apostles, this election, and appel­lation, and distinction of degrees of Bishops and Presbyters, must needs have been in the life time of the Apostles; and not without their knowledge and approbation? The Pres­byters then chose their Bishops: who doubts it? The holy Ghost made you Bi­shops, or Over-seers.But upon whose order, and Institution save that which S. Paul to the Superinten­dents met at Miletus, Acts 20. Spiritus sanctus vos constituit Episcopos? I marvell Brethren, with what face you can make Ierome say, that the [Page 63] Presbyters themselves were the Authors of this imparity, when as himself hath plainly ascribed this to Gods own work; when reading that, Esay 60.17. I will make thy Officers peace, (according to the Septuagint) [...], &c. I will give thy Princes in peace, and thy Bishops in righteousnesse, he applies this to the Governours of the Evangelicall Church: and the blessed Martyr and Bishop S. Cyprian, to the same purpose; The Deacons (saith he) must remember that the Lord him­selfe chose Apostles, that is, Bishops, but Deacons were chosen by the Apostles them­selves.

And when ye cannot but know, that the Apostles themselves were the immediate actors in this businesse; if at least ye will beleeve the Histories, and Fathers of the Church; Irenaeus tels you plainly, that the A­postles Peter and Paul, delivered the Episco­pacy of that Church to Linus: and, that Poly­carpus was by the Apostles made Bishop, in Asia, of the Church of Smyrna: and Ter­tullian particularly, that Polycarpus was there placed by S. Iohn.

And S. Chrysostome clearly sayes, that Ignatius [Page 64] was not onely trained up with the Apostles, [...]. but that he received his Bishoprick from them; [...]. Chrysost. Tom. 5. Edition. Savil. p. 499. and emphatically, that the hands of the blessed Apostles touched his holy head.

And lastly, the true Ambrose, (to the shame­ing of that Counterfeit, whom you bring forth under that name) tels you, that Paul saw Iames at Ierusalem, because he was made Bishop of that place, by the Apostles: your slip may talk of a Councell, wherein this was done: but this is as false, as himselfe: It is well known there never was any such Councell in the Christian world: since, the first generall Synod was the Nicene. And Ieroms [toto orbe Decretum] as we have shew­ed, could import no other, then an Apostoli­call act:Aug. F p. 19. As for S. Augustine, Is it not a just wonder, Reader, that these men dare cite him for their opinion, (upon occasion of a mo­dest word concerning the honourable title of Episcopacy) when as they cannot but know, and grant, that he hath blazoned Aerius for an heretick, meerly for holding the same Te­net which they defend?

Lastly, if Gregory Nazianzen in a pathetick [Page 65] manner have wished the abolition of Episco­pacie, (as he never did) what more dislike had he shown to it, then he did to Synods, when he said ( [...], &c.) that he never knew good come of them? But reader, it will be worth the while, to inquire into the fideli­ty of these mens allegations; Doe but consult the place of Nazianzen, & thou shalt [...]nd that he speaks not particularly of Episcopacie, but of all [...], or precedencie, and of all quar­relsome challenges of place, & all tyrannicall carriage of one man towards another,Greg. Naz. Orat. 28. [...], &c. [...], &c. wish­ing that there were no standing upon points of precedency, but every man might be re­spected according to his vertue: and adding at last (Nunc autem dextrum hoc, et sinistrum, et medium latus, &c.) But now (saith he) the right hand, and the left, and the middle place, and the higher and lower degree, and going be­fore, and going cheeke by jole, what a world of troubles have they brought upon us? Thus he. See then, Reader, what a testimony, here is for the utter abolition of Episcopacy, from a man who was so interessed in the cal­ling, that he was wont to be styled by his ad­versaries [...], The Bishop of three [Page 66] Sees: By this judge, reader, of the rest. So then, after all the clamours, and colourable pre­tences of these men, this imparity and juris­diction was conveyed from the Apostles hands, and deduced in an uninterrupted Line, through all following ages to this pre­sent day.

How can this be (say they) unlesse our Bishops will draw the Line of their pedegree, through the lines of Antichrist, and joyne issue, and mingle blood with Rome? For shame, Brethren, eate this word; What? are there no Bishops but at Rome? Is the whole Church all the world over Antichristian, even those, which are no lesse angry at Rome then your selves? Hath not Episcopall imparitie continued in them, all this while? Is there no distinction to be had betwixt the calling, and the abuse? If the Antichristian Church have had Bishops; so it hath had Churches, Scriptures, Bap­tisme, Learning, Creeds; Because we have all these with them, will ye say we deduce them from the loines of Antichrist? Away with this impotent spight, and uncharitablenesse; and learne to be more modest & true in your assertions, and lesse confident in your appeals.

SECT. VII.

LEt me balk your idle words; the questi­on is of the difference betwixt our pre­sent Bishops, and the ancient, this you will spread forth in three particulars; The first is the manner of Election, to these places of e­minence; which was, of old, ordered, by the privity, consent, and approbation of the people, which you eagerly seeke to prove out of Cyprian: neither can it be denied that he is full, and pun­ctuall in this point: Holy Athanasius se­conds it; And the old rule was: Electio clerico­rum, consensus Principis, petitio plebis; that a Bi­shop came in by the suite of the people, the Election of the Clergy, the consent of the Prince. Ye might well have in this case spared the fetching in of the good Emperour Con­stantine: doubtlesse this was the manner of old; what variations followed afterward in these proceedings, our learned Dr. Field hath well showed; but sure, this interest of the people continued so long, even in the Roman Church, that Platina can tell us,Platina in vita Greg. 7. Gre­gory the seventh was elected by Cardinalls, [Page 68] Clerks, Acoluthites, Subdeacons, Priests, Abbots, Bishops, Clergie, and Laitie: The inconveniences that were found in those tu­multuarie elections, and the seditious issue of them (which Nazianzen and Eusebius have laid before us in some particulars) were, I suppose, the cause why they were (in a sort) laid downe; But an imitation of this practise, we have still continuing in our Church, wherein upon the vacancy of every See, there is a Conge-d'eslire (that is, a leave to elect) sent down from the King, to the Pres­byters (viz. the Deane and Chapter of that Church) for an ensuing election of their Bi­shop; and, if this were yet more free, we should not like it the lesse: But, in the meane time, Brethren, how are you quite beside the Cushion? Where the objection was, That the Apostles Bishops, and ours were two, in respect of managing their function; And my defence is, that our Bishops challenge not any other Spi­rituall power, then the Apostles delegated to Timothy and Titus, you now tell us, of the dif­ferent manner of our Elections; What is this ad Rhombum? we speake of their actions, and ex­ercise of power, you talke of others actions [Page 69] to them; Were it so pleasing to his Majesty and the State, to decree it, we should be well content to submit to this ancient forme of Election; the forbearance whereof, is neither our fault, nor our prejudice: so as you might well have bestowed this breath to a better purpose, and rather conclude, that notwith­standing this forme of different choice, our Bishops and those of former times are not two.

SECT. VIII.

WEE follow you into the execution of our Episcopall Office, wherein you will show ours, and the Apostles to be two; so clearely, that he who will not wil­fully shut his eyes, may see a latitude of dif­ferences, and that in three points: The first, in sole jurisdiction, which you say, was a stran­ger, yea a monster to former times, and will make it good by the power of (that, which in all wise writers was wont to be contra-distin­guished) Ordination.

For this maine point, let my Answerers [Page 70] know, that the Ordination is the Bishops, but the sole (in their sense) is their own: neither did our Bishops ever challenge it, as theirs alone, without the Presbyters, but as princi­pally theirs, with them: so, as if the power be in the Bishop, the assistance is from them, the practise in both: so is it in the Bishops, that ordinarily and regularly it may not be done without them, and yet ordinately, it may not be done without them by the Bishop: which hath bin so constantly, and carefully ever ob­served, that I challenge them to shew any one instance in the Church of England to the contrary; Say Brethren, I beseech you, after all this noyse, what Bishop ever took upon him to ordain a Presbyter alone, or without the concurrent imposition of many hands? Cypr. Ep. 33.They, no lesse then Cyprian, can say, Ego & col­legae; Although I must tell you this was in the case of Aurelius, made a Lector; And in that other testimony, which you cite out of his Epistle 58. he speaks onely of the frater­nities consent, and approbation, not of their concurrence in their act; this is small game with you.

Neither is it lesse the order of the Church of [Page 71] England then of the Councell of Carthage, Cum ordinatur Presbyter, &c. 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: With what conscience can ye alledge this, as to choak us in our contrary practise; when you know this is perpetually, and un­failably done by us? But now, that the Rea­ders may see how you shuffle, shew us but one instance of a Presbyters regular and pra­ctised ordaining without a Bishop, and carry the cause; else you do but abuse the Reader with an ostentation of proving what was never denied.

But here, by the way, brethren, you must give me leave to pull you by the sleeve, and to tell you of two or three foul scapes, which will trie whether you can blush. First,Fi [...]mil Cyp [...]ian. Epist. 75. that you abuse Firmilianus in casting upon him an opinion of Presbyters ordaining, which he never held; He, in his Epistle to Stephen Bi­shop of Rome, speaking of the true Church in opposition to heresies, describes it thus, (Vbi praesident majores natu, qui & baptizandi, & [Page 72] manum imponendi, et ordinandi possident potestatem: under this name expressing those Bishops; who presiding in the Church, possesse the power of Baptizing, Confirming, Ordain­ing; you injuriously Wire-draw him to Pres­byters, and foist in [Seniores et Praepositos] which are farre from the clause and matter. Be con­vinced with the more cleare words of the same Epistle, Apostolis, et Episcopis, qui illis vicariâ Ordinatione successerunt.

Secondly, that you bewray grosse igno­rance in translating Ambroses [Presbyteri con­signant] by Presbyters ordaining; Who, that ever knew what belonged to antiquity, would have beene guilty of such a solecisme: when every novice knowes, that, consigning, signifies confirmation, and not ordaining?

Thirdly, you discover not too much skill in not distinguishing of the Chorepiscopi: some whereof had both the nature and power of Episcopacy to all purposes, and therefore might well by the Bishops licence in his owne charge impose hands, others not; And lesse fidelity, in citing the Councell of Antioch, can. 10. and the 13. of the Councell of Ancyra, if it were not out of our way, to fetch them into tryall.

[Page 73]Lastly, I cannot but tell you that you have meerly cast away all this labour, and fought with your owne shadow; for, how ever it were not hard to prove, that in the first times of the Church it was appropriated to the Bi­shop, to Ordaine, (which you cannot but cō ­fesse out of Ierome, and Chrysostom) yet, since we speaking of our owne time and Church, doe both professe and practise an association of Presbyters with us, in the act of Ordination, whom have you all this while opposed? It is enough that you have seemed to say som­thing, and have showne some little reading, to no purpose.

SECT. IX.

YEt still, you will needs beat the ayre ve­ry furiously, and fight pitifully with your selves; Alas, brethren, why will ye take so much paines to goe wilfully out of your way, and to mis-lead the reader with you? Who ever challenged (in that sense which you faine to your selves) a sole Jurisdiction? Why will you with some show of learning [Page 74] confute that, which you yeeld us to confesse? we confesse this [sole] cryed downe by store of Antiquity; we doe willingly grant that Presbyters have,To this pur­pose is that which you cite out of Clemens A­lex. Strom. l. 5. and ought to have, and ex­ercise a jurisdiction within their owne charge, in foro conscientiae; we grant that in all the great affayres of the Church, the Presby­ters, whether in Synodes, or otherwise, ought to be consulted with;Alluded to in that usu­all allegati­on of Am­brose. we grant that the Bi­shops had of old their Ecclesiasticall Coun­cell of Presbyters, with whose advise they were wont to manage the greatest matters, and we still have so; for to that purpose serve the Deanes and Chapters; and the Lawes of our Church frequently make that use of them; we grant, that Presbyters have their votes in provinciall Synods: But we justly say that the superiority of jurisdiction is so in the Bishop, as that Presbyters neither did, nor may exercise it without him; and that the exercise of externall jurisdiction is derived, from, by, under him to those which execute it within his Dioces. Thus, it is to Timothy that S. Paul gives the charge concerning the rebuke of an Elder, or not receiving an accu­sation against him; It is to Titus that S. Paul [Page 75] leaves the ( [...]) correction of his Cre­tians; Thus, the Canons of the Apostles; [...], &c. Thus the blessed Martyr Ignatius in his undoubted Epistle to those of Smyrna, [...], &c. Let no man doe any thing, [...]. in matters belonging to the Church, without the Bishop. Thus the Councell of Antioch orders, that whatsoever belongs to the Church, is to be governed, managed, and disposed, by the judgement and authority of the Bishop,Concil. Anti­och. c. 24, 25. who hath [...], the power of those things which be­long to the Church.

It were easie to surfet the readers eyes, with the cleare testimonies of Fathers, and Councells, to this purpose. Our lear­ned Bishop Downam hath given a world of instances of the severall acts of jurisdicti­on, appropriated to Bishops by antiquity,B. Down. def. l. 3. ch. 5. exercised upon both Laicks, and Clergy: to him I remit my reader; So as, you may easily set antiquity together by the eares, in this point, if you please; but surely, the advantage will be so farre on our side, that if you have not ten for one against you, I will yeeld my cause.

[Page 76]There is great difference of times, and in them of fashions: In those persecuted times, when the Church was backed with no Chri­stian Magistrate, it was no boot to bid the guides of the Church to combine their Councels, and to give strength to their mu­tuall actions: when a generall peace once blessed them, and they had the concurrence both of soveraigne and subordinate authori­ty with them, they began so much to remit of this care of conjoyning their forces, as they supposed to find lesse need of it. From hence grew a devolution of all lesse weighty affairs to the weilding of single hands. For my part, I perswade my selfe, that the more frequent communicating of all the important busi­nesse of the Church, whether censures or de­terminations, with those grave assistents, which in the eye of the Law are designed to this purpose, were a thing not onely unpre­judiciall to the honour of our function, but very behovefull to the happy administra­tion of the Church.

In the mean while, see brethren, how you have with Simon fished all night, and caught nothing. My word was, that ours were the [Page 77] same with the Apostles Bishops, in this, that they challenge no other spirituall power then was by Apostolique authority delegated to Timothy and Titus: You run out upon the fol­lowing times of the Church, and have with some wast quotations laboured to prove, that In after ages, Bishops called in Presbyters to the as­sistance of their jurisdiction; which is as much to me, as Baculus stat in angulo.

SECT. X.

YOur next Section runs yet wilder: I speak of the no-difference of our Bi­shops from the first, in the challenge of any spirituall power to themselves, other then delegated to Timothy and Titus; You tell mee of delegating their power to others. What is this to the nature of the calling? Doth any man claime this as essentiall to his Episcopa­cie? Doth any man stand upon it, as a piece of his spirituall power? If this be granted to be an accidentall error of some particular man, (for it cannot be fastned upon all) what difference doth it make in the substance of [Page 78] the function? As if some monster suddenly presented it selfe to you, you aske, Was ever such a thing heard of in the best primitive times? that men which never received imposition of hands, should not only be received into assistance, but be whol­ly intrusted with the power of spirituall jurisdiction? Let me ask you again, Was ever such a thing heard of, either in the Primitive, or follow­ing times, that Lay-men should be so far admitted to the managing of spirituall juris­diction, as to lay their hands upon their Mi­nisters in their Ordination?Howsoever it is now in some Refor­med Chur­ches laid down. Yet this is both done and challenged by too many of your good friends. Why do you object that to us, wherewith the Presbyterian part may be more justly choaked? But herein, Brethren, you do foulely over-reach, in that you charge our Bishops, as in a generality, with wholly-intrusting the power of spirituall jurisdiction to their Chancellors, and Commissaries: The assistance of those which are learned in the Law, wee gladly use, neither can well want in the necessary occasions of our judi­cature; but that wee doe either wilfully or negligently devest our selves absolute­ly of that power, and wholly put it in­to [Page 79] Laick hands, it is a meere sclander.

For want of better proofs of the illegality of this course, you bring a negative authority from Cyprian, telling us, what that holy Mar­tyr did not, That he did not send Complainants to his Chancellour or Commissarie: It is very like he did not, nor yet to the Bench of a Lay Pres­byterie▪ But if he did not commit the hea­ring of his Causes to a Lay-man, we find that some others did: Socrates can tell you of Sil­vanus the good Bishop of Troas,Socrat. l. 7. c. 37. [...], &c. perceiving that some of his Clergie did corruptly make gaine of Causes, would no more appoint any of his Clergie ( [...]) to be a Judge, but made choise of some faithfull man of the Laity to whom he committed that audience, and was much honoured for it.

What Bishop Downam yeelds concerning the Ordinaries, Vicars, and Chancellors of former times, (till Ambrose's daies) that they were onely Clergie-men, you reject witn scorne, and challenge any man to produce the names of any Clergie-man that was Vicar to Am­brose, or Chancellour to Augustine, &c. What a poore brave is this? I challenge you to pro­duce [Page 80] the name of any Secretary, or Actuary that Ambrose, or Austin had: because you can­not, shall I conclude they had none such? That instance of Sylvanus, not long after Am­brose, is evidence enough: But the antiquity of Chancellors, which were the same with Ecclesiecdici, or Episcoporum ecdici, is proveable enough, (if it were for this place) and their necessary use, beyond the power of your con­futation; But I had rather refer my reader to S. Thomas Ridley, and others that have labou­red in that argument; and appeale to all mens judgement how soundly you have (upon this ground) proved that our Bishops and the former were two.

SECT. XI.

HOw justly may I say, Readers, of these men as the King of Israel said of the King of Syria: 2 King. 5.7. See I beseech you, how they seeke a quarrell against me? My just defence was, that our Bishops are the same in substance, and effect, with those which were ordained by the Apostles: they come now, and tell me, of [Page 81] an oath ex officio, used in the high Commissi­on, and in our Consistories; as if every parti­cular manner of Proceeding in our Courts, and judicatures must either be patterned by the Apostolike, or els they are utterly un­justifiable; why do they not as wel chalenge us, that we give men the book to touch, and kisse, in taking an oath? Why doe they not aske, how wee can prove that those Apo­stolicall Bishops had Notaries, Registers, Advocates, Consistories? what frivolous and delusory exceptions are these to all wise men; and how strangely savouring of a weak judgement, and strong malice? As for your cavil at the oth ex officio, since you wil needs draw it in by head and shoulders; how little soever it concernes us, I returne you this an­swer▪ That, if any of our profession have in the pressing of it exceeded the lawfull bounds, I excuse him not, I defend him not; let him bear away his own load; but in these, surely there is more to bee said for it, then you wil seem to take notice of. You ask for any precedent of it, in good antiquity: I give a pre­cedent as ancient as Moses, Exod. [...]2.10, 11. and that other oath and real imprecation, [Page 82] in the cause of jelousie, Num. 5.19. But per­haps it wil fit you better,Calvin E­pist f 421. that I instance in M. Calvins case, who together with the Con­sistory of Elders, appointed the said oath to be given to Camperell a Minister of Geneva, and to the other parties accused of an offen­sive dancing in the house of widow Baltha­sar, in which corporal oath three interroga­tories being put to the deponents, two of them are said to be concerning their purpo­ses and intentions. If yet you cal for other precedents, I cal your eys home, and wil you to look into our Courts of Kings Bench, Common Pleas, Exchequer, Star-chamber, wherein the defendant is ordinarily put to answer the bill, and interrogatories, upon oath. As for that old Maxime of Nemo tene­tur prodere seipsum, you may (if it please you) object it as well to Moses, to Calvin, to our Courts; it is easily thus satisfied, that no man is bound at the suit of a party, so to answer criminous Articles, or such as are Propinqui actus, (as Lawyers interpret it;) But as Petrus de Ferrariis well determins it, Proditus per fa­mam; tenetur seipsum ostendere, & purgare; when a fame accuses him he may clear himselfe by [Page 83] an oath; it is to be presupposed, that a man is brought into question by some of those Lawfull meanes, which open a way to a fur­ther inquiry;Aquin. and then (as Aquinas well) if there be a Semi-plena probatio, or a strong fame, or evident tokens, an oath is seasona­bly imposed: But sure, the intention of the oath is quite mistaken, for it is meant to ac­quit and justifie, not to accuse; neither is any man pressed to answer further, then he is bound in law: neither are the Compulsions simple and absolute, but onely Causative, as the learned Apologist hath fully declared. If then a Dioclesian or Maximilian (as you cal him) shall enact, that the adverse party shall not be required to exhibite such evidences as should create troubles to themselves, it is no other then is every where practised in all Courts of Iudicature, and may well stand with the oath ex officio, as it is formerly limi­ted. Be advised therfore (til you understand the case better) to forbear to talke of the Lamp of nature, in the night of Eth nicisme but know, that the light of the law of God, and rigt reason & common practise, give suf­ficient alowance to that which your mispri­sion [Page 84] cavills at, in those, whom ye ought to acknowledge the Fathers of the Church. You tell us of the custome of the Church, & pro­ceedings in the time of Athanasius, and the rule of Gratian; as if we disallowed those just cour­ses, where there is a direct & manifest accu­sation and evident proofes to bee had; but what doth this hinder, that in case of a just­ly grounded suspition, and a complaint of a halfe-proved offence, a man should manifest his innocence by oath? That ye might seem to have seene the Canon-law, you tell us that in some cases, it allowes tryall without witnesses, namely, where the crime may be justly called notori­ous & then deeply expound notorium, by ma­nifestum, therein plainly contradicting your selves; for, if that be manifest which is lawful­ly known, by confession, or by probation, or by the evidence of the thing; what proba­tion can there be, (besides confession and evidence) without witnesses? But this errour is as trifling, as your accusation; and after all this wast of words, notwithstanding some personall abuses of Officers in undue processes of their Courts, our Bishops and the former are not two.

SECT. 12.

YOur next Section hath more pompe of reading in it, then the rest, but to as lit­tle purpose, I shall trouble you with ne­glecting it; we cannot anger a gay man more then in passing by him unseene; my ground was, that our Bishops differ not in respect of any spirituall power, from that, which was delegated from Apostolike au­thority, to Timothy & Titus; you spend your time, in proving that they differ in their imploy­ment, in secular and state affaires; but, I aske, is this difference, or fault universall, or not; sure, you cannot say they are all thus misim­ployed; and if not, why is this blame cast up­on al? why should the calling, & others inno­cence suffer? My cause shall yeeld you your postulate herein, and be no whit the worse, it is true the ordinary managing of secular affaires, is not proper for a Bishop: Chrysostoms counsell, Julians practise▪ Constatines bounty, Cyr [...]lls insolent pompe, the Romane Bishops degenerating, into a secular principality, [Page 86] Cyprians grave limitation, the just inhibiti­ons of many Canons, are of an undoubted truth; and we could easily (if need were) ad many more to these, and tell you of those [...] that must upon the Apostolike Canons be avoyded by sacred persons, and the rigorous charge of Cyprian, Pro dormi­t [...]one victioris non fi­at blatio, a uto depre, catio aliqua­nomine e­jus in Ec­clesia fre­quentetur. Cypr. Ro­gatiano fratri l. 3. Ep. 9. against Ge­minius victor, for ordaining Geminius Fausti­nus, a Presbyter, but the Executor of his last will; with many other the like instances; but what are these to the work in hand? Two exceptions must necessarily bee admitted; the one of extraordinary ocsicaons, and ser­vices, as, when a Prince, or state, having had good proofe of the abilities of an Ecclesia­sticall person, shall thinke fit, (as now it is done in this great Northerne negotiation) to call for his Counsaile, or to employ his present agency, for a time, in some main bu­sinesse that may import the publike good, and safety of the Church, or Common­wealth, so St. Chrysostome once; so St. Ambrose twice, was imployed in Embassie, from the Emperours: The very trade of Tent-making did as much take up St. Paul for the time, as a state-imployment might have done; [Page 87] and how many have we knowne, that have (not unprofitably) professed Physicke both for soule and body; and done much good in both? The other, of a charitable interpositi­on in matters of difference for peace and re­conciliation; and composing of the unkinde quarrels of dissenting neighbours,, where­with St. Ambrose and St. Austine were so ex­treamly taken up,Aug. Ep. 110. that the latter makes no little complaint of the importunity of those continuall interpellations; such, as both his morning studies were distracted by them, and the afternoon wholly spent in them: and professeth, he could not have the opportunity of opening his estate, and heart to Bishop Ambrose, by reason of that conti­nuall audience of causes, daily brought be­fore that great Prelate: surely, if the charity of more of ours have not rendered them more guilty of secularity, in this kind, than the supposed ambition of others, there will be no cause why our Bishops, and the Bish­ops of former times should be two.

SECT. 13.

IT is true the Remonstrant soares above these af­ter-times, even as high as the Apostles: As if you knew not this before; when as all this while, you have indeavoured to shew that the Apostles Bishops, and ours are two. We do again professe, that if our Bishops chal­lenge any other power, then was delegated to, and required of Timothy and Titus, wee shall yeeld them usurpers: you kindely tell us, so we deserve to be, if we doe but challenge the same power; and why so, I beseech you bre­thren? because Timothy and Titus (yee say) were Evangelists, and so moved in an higher sphere; Liberally and boldly spoken; but where is your proofe? For Timothy, ye say the Text is cleare: but what Text, what the least inti­mation have you for Titus? surely not so much as the least ground of a conjecture; yet how confidently you avow for both: and even for Timothy your glosse is clear, not your text: St. Paul bids him do the worke of an Euangelist, what then, that rather in­timates [Page 89] that he was none: for he doth not say, do thine own worke: but the worke of an Evangelist: when I tell my friend, that I must desire him to do the office of a Solici­ter, or a Secretary for me; I do herein inti­mate, that he is neither; but so for the time employed; why is it not so here? And what I beseech you is the worke of an Evangelist, but to preach the Evangell, or good tydings of peace? So, as St. Paul herein gives no o­ther charge to his Timothy, then in 2. Tim. 4.2. Preach the Word, be instant in season and out of season: And this you say and urge, to be the worke of a Bishop too; well, therefore may Timothy, notwithstanding this charge, be no other then a Bishop: what need these words to be contradistinguished? St.2· Tim 1.11. Paul sayes of himselfe, Whereto I am appoynted a Preacher, and an Apostle, and a teacher of the Gentiles; what shall we say St. Paul was an Apostle, he was not a Preacher, or not a Doctor, but an A­postle? You distinguish of Evangelists; the word is taken either for the writers of the Gospell, or for the teachers of it, and why then was not St. Paul an Evangelist, who professed to be a teacher of the Gospell unto the Gentiles, [Page 90] These teaching Evangelists, you dreame to be of two sorts; the one, those that had ordinary places and gifts; the other extraordinary: but tell me sirs, for my learning; where do you finde those ordinary-placed, and ordinary-gifted Evangelists? unlesse you mean to comprse all Preachers under this name? and then a Bishop may be an Evangelist also; so, as the difference of a Bishop and an Evangelist va­nisheth. The truth is, these ordinary Evan­gelists are a new fiction; their true imploy­ment was to be sent by the Apostles, from place to place, for the preaching of the Go­spell, without a setled residence upon any one charge: upon this advantage, you raise a slight argument, that St. Paul besought Ti­mothy to abide at Ephesus. 1. Tim. 1.3. which had been a needlesse importunity if he had the Epis­copall charge of Ephesus; for then he must have ne­cessarily resided there: whereas you recite seve­rall proofes and occasions of his absence, which will appear to be of little force, if a man doe duly consider the state of those times: the necessity wherof in that first plan­tation of the Gospell, made even the most sixed Sars planetary, calling them, frequent­ly, [Page 91] from the places of their abode, to those services which were of most use for the suc­cesse of that great worke: yet so, as that ei­ther after their errands fully-done, or upon all opportune intermissions, they returned to their own Chaire: The story therefore of those journal computations might well have been spared.

Your argument from Pauls calling the El­ders of Ephesus to Miletus, how ever you lean upon it, it will prove but a Reed.

Your selves confesse (I know not upon what certaine ground) that Timothy was at the meeting, Acts 20. with St. Paul: Had he been Bishop there, the Apostle (you say) in stead of giving the Elders a charge to feede the flocke of Christ, would have given that charge to Timothy, and not to them: Besides, the Apostle would not have so forgotten himselfe, as to call the Elders Bishops, before the Bishops face; and would have given them some directions, how to carry themselves to their Bishops: In all which, brethren, you goe upon wrong ground; wil ye grant that these assembled persons were Presbyters, and not Bishops? under some Bishop, though not un­der Timothy? otherwise, why doe you argue [Page 92] from the want of directions to them, as infe­riours? but if they were indeed Bishops, and not mere Presbyters, (as the word it selfe imports) your argument is lost: [...]: For then the charge is equally given to Timothy, and all the rest; and it was no forgetfulnesse to call them as they were, you are straight ready to reply, how unpossible it is (according to us) there should be many Bishops in one City; and here were many Presbyters from Ephesus: but let me mind you, that though these Presbyters were sent for from Ephesus, yet they were not said to be all of Ephesus: Thither they were called to meet St. Paul in all likelihood, from di­vers parts, which he seemes to imply, when he saith; Ye all amongst whom I have gone prea­ching the Kingdome of God; intimating the su­per-intendents of severall places; so as, not­withstanding these urged probabilities, Ti­mothy might have beene, both before this time and at that present Bishop of Ephesus; after which, if Paul tooke him along with him to Hierusalem, this is no derogation to his Episcopacy: And if Timothy were yet, af­ter this, prisoner with St. Paul at Rome, (as you argue from Hebr. 13.23.) this is no de­rogation [Page 93] from his Episcopacy at Ephesus; but to cut the sinewes of all this strong proofe of your computation; it is more than proba­ble, that, whereas the whole history of the Acts ends with Pauls first beeing at Rome, that Apostle survived divers years, and pas­sed many travells, and did many great mat­ters, for the plantation, and setling of chur­ches, whereof we can looke for no account from Scripture, save by some glances in his following Epistles; into which time these occurrents concerning Timothy and Titus, his ordination did fall, as may be justly pro­ved out of the Chronologicall table of the experienced Jacob Cappellus, compared with Baronius: Now then, the Reader may take his choyse, whether he will believe all anti­quity, (that have medled with this subject) affirming Timothy to have been bishop of E­phesus, or whether he wil believe a new hat­ched contradiction of yesterday, raised out of imaginary probabilities: Shortly, it is far enough from appearing, that Timothy was no Bishop, but a Minister, an Evangelist a fel­low-labourer of the Apostles, an Apostle, a Messenger of the Church; it rather appeares that he was al these in divers sences, and up­on [Page 94] severall occasions.

The like yea say of Titus, whom you are pleased to create an Evangelist, not being a­ble to shew, that ever God made him so; save in that generall sence that might well stand with Episcopacy; you tel us a story of his perigrination in the attendance of Paul, wherein you shall not expect any contradi­ction; but you shall give me leave to take you tripping in your own Tale: from Cilicia, you say, Paul passed to Creet, where he left Titus for a while to set in order things that remain: this (for a while) you put into a different Chara­cter, as if it were part of the Text; and guilti­ly translate ( [...]) things that remaine, whereas ours turne it (in a more full expres­sion of an Episcopall power) things that are wanting, or left undone; but this is not the mat­ter, you do yet again repeat the (for a while) urging the short time that Titus could bee left at Creet, and yet, in your own marginall computation there is no lesse distance of time, betwixt this placing in Creet, and sen­ding for him to his next remove, unto Nico­polis, thā betwixt the year 46 & 51. the space of five years, which was a large gap of time, [Page 95] in that unsetled condition, and manifold di­stractive occasions of the Church; If after­wards hee were by Apostolicall command called away to tend the more concerning services of the Church; this could no whit have impeacht the truth of his Episcopacy; but the truth is, he was ordained by St. Paul after all those journeys mentioned in the Acts, (and as Baronius with great consent of Antiquity computes it) a year after Timothy; so, as you may well put up your conclusion, as rather begged than inforced, and cast it upon the Readers courtesie to beleeve you against al antiquity, that Titus was an Evange­list and no Bishop; where as these two may well agree together, he was an Evangelist when he travelled abroad; he was a bishop afterwards, when hee stayed and setled at home.

You object to your selfe the authority of some Fathers, that have called Timothy and Ti­tus Bishops: Some? name, if you can, that Fa­ther that hath called them otherwise: away with these envious diminutions, when yea have a cloud of witnesses of much antiqui­ty, which averre Timothy and Titus to have [Page 96] both lived, and dyed Bishops, the one of E­phesus, of Creet the other: yea but so some Fa­thers have called them Arch-bishops and Patri­archs too: What of that? therein they have then acknowledged them bishops, para­mount; and if Titus were Bishop of Creet, which was of old ( [...]) the hundred-ci­tyed Island, and Timothy of Ephesus, the Me­tropolis of Asia, the multitude of the terri­tories under them, whiles it inlargeth their charge, doth detract nothing from the use of their office.

Secondly you tell us from learned D. Ray­nolds, that the Fathers, when they called any Apo­stle Bishop, they meant it in a generall sort, aad sig­nification; because they did attend that church for a time, and supply that roome in preaching the Gos­pell, which Bishops did after not intending it, as it is commonly taken for the over-seer of a particular Church, and Pastor of a severall flocke: but, what is this to Timothy and Titus? you say, the same may be said of them, but the Doctor gave you no leave so to apply it; neither do we. Although to say truth, all this discourse of yours is ( [...]) needlesse and extrava­gant: whether Timothy or Titus were Evan­gelists, [Page 97] or no, sure we are, that heere they stand for persons charged with those Offi­ces, and cares which are delivered to the or­dinary Church governours, in all succee­ding generations: And we do most justly take them, as we finde them; and with our first confidence maintain, that we challenge no other spirituall power, then was delega­ted unto them, and unto the Angels of the Asian Churches; you meane to confute us by questions; and those so poore and frivolous, as are not worth answer; fastning that upon some particular abuse, which wee disclaime from our calling; as if under this claime, wee were bound to justifie every act of a Bishop. To answer you in your own kind: when, or where did our bishops challenge power to ordaine alone, to govern alone? when (though you ignorantly turne an Elder in age, to an Elder in Office) did our Bishops challenge power to passe a rough and unbe­seeming rebuke upon an Elder? Where did our Bishops give Commission to Chancel­lors, Commissaries, Officials, to rayle upon Presbyters, or to accuse them without just grounds, and without legall proceedings? [Page 98] As for your last question, I must, tell you it is no better raised then upon an ignorant ne­gative. Did the Apostle say, reject none but an Heretick? Did he not wish would to God they were cut off that trouble you? Is it not certainly proved true, that some Scis­maticke may be worse then some Hereticke; which I speak not so, as to traduce any of our unconforming brethren, whose consci­ences are unsetled in the point of this mean difference, as guilty of that hatefull crime: but to convince the absurdity of our questi­onists; after whose ill raised cavills, thus ful­ly answered, we have no cause to feare, up­on their suggestions, to bee disclaimed as usurpers.

From Timothy and Titus you descend to the Angels of the seven Asian Churches; which no subtilty at all, but the common inte­rest of their condition, hath twisted toge­ther in our defence.

In the generality whereof I must premo­nish my Reader, that this Piece of the task fell unhappily upon some dull and tedious hand, that cared not how oft sod Cole­worts he dished out to his credulous guests; [Page 99] I shall (what I may) prevent their surfet.

Your shift is, that the Angel is here taken col­lectively, not individually: A conceit, which if your selves, certainly no other wise man can ever believe; for if the interest be com­mon and equally appertayning to all, why should one be singled out above the rest? If you will yeeld the person to be such, as had more than others, a right in the administra­tion of all, it is that we seeke for: Surely, it did in some sort concerne all that was spo­ken to him, because he had the charge of al: but the direction is individuall, as Beza himselfe takes it; as if a Letter be indorsed from the Lords of the Counsaile to the Bish­op of Durham or Salisbury, concerning some affaires of the whole Clergy of their Dio­cesse, can we say that the name Bishop, is there no other then a collective; because the businesse may import many? verily I do not believe that the Authors of this sence can believe it themselves. To your invinci­ble proofes; In the Epistle to Thyatira you say it is written ( [...]) I say to you, and to the rest: where (by you) must (as you imagine) be signified, the Governours;Rev. 2.24 [Page 100] by the rest, the people: but what if the better Copyes read, ( [...]) I say to you, the rest in Thyatira, without the copu­lative, as is confessed by your good friends; where then is your doughty Argument? Here are no divisions of parties, but the Pa­stor and Flock. And truly thus it is; and my own eyes have seen it, in that noble Manuscript, written by the hand of Tecla (as is probably supposed) some 1300. years a­goe, as Cyrill, the late renowned Patriarch of Constantinople avoweth; your goodly proof therefore is in the suds. But to meete with you in your own kinde, if you will goe up­on divers Readings; what will you say to that vers 20 where the Angel of Thyatira is encharged: Thou sufferest [...] (thy wife Iezebell) (for so it is in very good Copies) to teach and seduce; yea so it is in that memorable Copy of Tecla, forementioned, which is to be seene in the Princes Library, under the custody of the industrious and learned Mr· Patrick Young, as my owne eyes can witnesse: and thus St. Cyprian reads it of olde: Cypr. l. 4. ad Anto­nianum Epist. What? shall wee thinke shee was wife to the whole company, or to one Bishop a­lone? [Page 101] I leave you to blush, for the shame this very proofe alone casts upon your opinion: Secondly, you tell us, it is usuall with the Holy Ghost, even in this very booke, to expresse a company under one singular person: as, the Beast is the Civill state; the Whore, and the false Prophet, the Ecclesiasticall state of Rome: But what if it be thus in visions, or em­blematicall representations? must it needs be so in plaine narrations, where it is li­mited by just Praedicates? or because it is so in one phrase of speech, must it bee so in all? Why doe you not as well say, where the Lambe is named, or the Lion of Juda, this is a collective of many; not an individuall subject: The seven Angels, you say, that blew the seven trumpets, and poured out the seven phialls, are not to bee taken literally, but synecdochically; perhaps so, but then the synecdoche lyes in the seven, and not in the Angels, so I grant you the word Angel, is here metaphoricall; but you are no whit nearer to your imagined sy­necdoche.

The very name Angell, (you say) is sufficient [Page 102] proofe, that it is not meant of one person alone, as being a common name to all Gods Ministers, and Messengers: As if he did not well know this that directed these Epistles▪ and if hee had so meant it, had it not been as easie to have mentioned more as one? Had he said, the Angels of the Church of Ephesus, or Thyatira, the cause had been cleare: now, hee sayes the Angell [...] the denoted person must be singular; for surely you cannot say that all the Presbyters at Ephesus were one An­gel: The same reason holds for the Stars: had he said, to the Star of Ephesus, I suppose no body would have construed it of many, but of one eminent person: Now he speaks of so many Stars, as Angels, to wit, seven in those seven Churches.

Your fourth Argument from the Text it selfe, is no better then ridiculous: poorely drawn from what it doth not say: Lo, hee saith,Revel. 1.20. the 7. Candlesticks which thou sawest are the 7. Churches: but he doth not say, the 7. Stars are the 7. Angels of the seven Chur­ches: but, the Angels of the 7. Churches. For­bear, if you can, Readers, to smile at this cu­rious subtilty: because, the seven is not [Page 103] twice repeated, in mentioning the Angels, there is a deep mystery in the omission: what Cabalisme have we here? Had he said, the seven Stars are the seven Angels of the seven chur­ches, now, all had been sure; but he saith not so, but onely thus; the seven Stars are the An­gels of the seven Churches, It is plaine, that e­very Church hath his Angell mentioned; and there being seven Churches how many Angels, I beseech you, are there? now be­cause he doth not say expressely in termes, seven Angels of the seven Churches, we are foy­led in our proofe; judge Reader, what to expect of so deep speculations.

Lastly, it is evident (you say) though but one Angell be mentioned in the front, yet the Epistles themselves be dedicated to all the Angels and Mi­nisters, and to the Churches themselves; who e­ver doubted it? the foot of every Epistle runs (what the spirit saith unto the Churches) not to one Church, but to all seven: If therfore you argue, that the name Angel is collective, say also that every of these seaven An­gels, is the whole company of all the sea­ven Churches; which were a foule non-sence; you might have saved the labour [Page 104] both of Ausbertus, and the rest of your Au­thors, and your own; we never thought o­therwise, but that the whole Church is spo­ken to; but so, as that the Governour or Bishop is singled out, as one that hath the maine stroke in ordering the affairs thereof, and is therefore either praised, or challen­ged, according to his carriage therein; al­though also there are such particularities both of commendations, and exceptions, in the body of the severall Epistles, as can­not but have relation to those severall O­ver-seers, to whom they were endorsed, as I have else where specified; Had all the Presbyters of Ephesus lost their first love; had each of them tryed the false Apostles? Had all those of Sardis a name to live, and were dead? Were all the Laodicean Ministers of one temper? these taxations were no doubt of individuall persons, but such as in whom the whole Churches were interes­sed.

As for those conjecturall reasons, which you frame to your selves, why the whole company of Presbyters should be written to under the singular name of an Angel, if yee [Page 105] please your selves with them, it is well, from me they have no cause to expect an answer: they neither can draw my assent, nor merit my confutation.

Take heed of yeelding that, which ye can­not but yield to be granted by D. Raynolds, & Mr. Beza, Doctor Fulke, Pareus, and others, that the Angel is here taken individually; but still if you be wise, hold your own; that our cause is no whit advanced, nor yours im­paired by this yieldance: Let him have been an Angell, yet what makes this for a Diocesan Bishop? much every way: For if the Church of Ephesus (for example) had many Ministers or Presbyters in it to in­struct the people in their severall charges, (as it is manifest they had) and yet but one prime Over-seer, which is singled out by the Spirit of God, and stiled by a title of emi­nence, the Angel of that Church, it must needs follow, that in St. Johns time there was an acknowledged superiority in the govern­ment of the Church: if there were many Angels in each, and yet but one that was the Angel, who can make doubt of an inequa­lity?

[Page 106]It is but a pittifull shift that you make, in pleading that these Angels (if Bishops) yet were not Diocesan Bishops; for that Parishes were not divided into Diocesses (I had thought Dioce­ses should have been divided into Parishes rather) in S. Iohns dayes: for by the same reason, I may as well argue, that they were not Parochial Bishops neither, since that then no Parishes were as yet distinguished: As if you had resolved to speak nothing but Bulls, and Soloecismes; you tell me, that the seven Stars are said to be fixed in their seven Can­dlesticks; whereas those Stars are said to bee in the right hand of the Son of God: But (say you still) not one Star was over divers Can­dlesticks: Truly no; who ever said, that one Angel was over all the seven Churches? but that each of these famous Churches were under their own Star, or Angel; but those churches (you say) were not Diocesan: How doth that appeare? Because first Tindall, and the old translation calls them seven congregations: for answer, who knows not that Tindall, and the old Translation are still wont to trans­late the word church, wheresoever they finde it, by Congregation, which some Papists have [Page 105] laid in our dish: Learned Doctor Fulk hath well cleared our intentions herein from their censure: Tindall himselfe professes to doe it out of this reason, because the Popish Clergy had appropriated to themselves the name of the Church; but however, they rather made use of the Word; yet not so as that hereby they intend onely to signi­fie Parishionall meetings. So Ephesians 3. To the intent that now to the Rulers and Powers in heavenly places, might bee knowne by the Congregation, the manifold Wisedome of GOD; Doe wee thinke this blessed Revelation confined to a Parish, or common to the whole Church of God? So 1. Corinthians 15. they turne, I am not worthy to bee called an Apostle, because I persecuted the Congregation of GOD: Doe we thinke his cruelty was confined to a Parish? So Matthew 6.16. Vpon this Rocke will I build my Congregation: was this a Parish onely? So Acts 11. Herod the King stretched out his hands to vexe certaine of the Congregation: Was his malice onely Parochiall? but secondly, ye tell us, that in Ephesus, which was one of those [Page 108] Candlesticks, there was but one flock. Acts 20.28. Yea, but can you tell us what kind of Flock it was, whether Nationall, or Pro­vinciall, or Diocesan? Parochiall (I am sure) it could not be: you have heard before, that those Elders or Bishops were sent for from Ephesus: But that they were all of Ephesus it cannot be proved; when all of them then are bidden to take heede to the Flocke of Christ, whereof they are made over-seers, each is herein charged to look to his owne; and all are in the next words required to feed the Church of GOD, which he hath purchased with his owne blood. So as your second argument is fully answered in the so­lution of the first, and in the former passages of this Section. The advantage that you take from Epiphanius, affirming that divers Cities of that time might have two Bishops, whereas Alexandria held close to one, can availe you little, when it shall bee well weighed; first, that your Tenet supposeth and requireth that every Pres­byter should bee a Bishop, and therefore (if your cause speed) there should be no few­er [Page 109] Bishops than parishes. Secondly, that the practise of the whole Church, both before and after Epiphanius, is by such cleare testimonies convinced to be contrary: fa­mous, and irrefragable, is that Canon of Nicen Councell, [...], &c.Conc. Nic. can. 8 that in one City there might not bee two Bishops: so before this, Cornelius writing to the Bishop of Anti­och objects it scornfully to Novatian, that hee did not know [...], &c. that in a Catholike Church there ought to be but one Bishop; And it is a knowne word of the Confessors of old, in Cyprians time, one GOD, one Lord, one Bishop: Make much (if you please) of this conceit of yours, that Epiphanius his Neighbour-hood might acquaint him well with the Condition of the Asian Churches: But let mee adde, that you shall approve your selves meere strangers to all the rules and practises of antiquity: if you shall stand upon the generall plurality of Bishops in the same City, or Dioces: And last of all, re­member, that Epiphanius reckons up Ae­rius as an Hereticke, for holding Presby­ters equall with Bishops.

[Page 110]Your third argument, that there is nothing said in these seven Epistles, that implyes a superiority, is answered by the very Su­perscription of each Letter, which is, [...] To the Angel: and much more by the matter of the severall Epistles: For what reason were it for an ordinary Presbyter to bee taxed for that, which hee hath no power to redresse? That the Angel of Perga­mus should bee blamed for the having of those which hold the Doctrine of Ba­laam or the Nicolaitans, when hee had no power to proceed against them? or the Angel of the Church of Thyatira, for suffering the Woman Jezabel, (if it must bee so read) to teach, and seduce, when hee had no power of publick censure to restraine her? But what need wee stand upon con­jecturall answers, to convince you in this plea, as likewise in the supposed Decision of the kinde of superiority, which you urge in the next paragraph; when wee are able to shew both who the parties were, to whom some of these Epistles were directed, and to evince the high degree of their superiority; Ignatius the [Page 111] Martyr (besides Tertullian) is witnesse for both,Ignat. ad Ephes [...] &c. who tells us that Onesimus was now the Angel or Bishop of Ephesus, Polycarpus of Smyrna; and as commenting upon this very subject, oft ingeminates the duty of sub­jection owing to the Bishop; and the divers degrees of those 3 several stations in the Church; as we already instanced; away then with those your unproving illustrations, and unregardable testimonies, which you (as destitute of all Antiquity) shut up the Scene withall: And let the wise Reader judge, whether the Remonstrant hath not from the evidence of Timothy and Titus, and the An­gels, of the Asian Churches, made good that just claime of this sacred Hierarchy, against all your weak and frivolous pretentions. From the Remonstrant (least your discourse should not be tedious enough) you fly upon some other Defenders of the Hierarchy, and fall upon the two post-scripts of Saint Pauls Epistles (to Timothy and Titus, wherein Timo­thy & Titus are stiled the first bishops of E­phesus, and creet) which I am no way enga­ged to defend: You say they are not of canonical authority; so say I too; but I say they are of [Page 112] great antiquity, & so you must confesse also.

Faine would I see but any pretence of so much age against the matter of those Sub­scriptions: the averred Episcopacy of Timo­thy and Titus, cited by these confident anti­quaries: surely he were senceles, that would imagine the Post-scripts as old as the Text, or as authenticke; but we may boldly say they are older then any Records of the gain-sayers.

Where these Subscriptions are not se­conded by authority of the ancient Church, there I leave them; but where they are so wel backed, there is no reason to forsake them. The Exception therefore which you take at the Post-script of the E­pistle to Titus, is not more stale than unjust. You say peremptorily, it was not written from Nicopolis; neither was Paul then there: how appeares it? Be­cause hee sayes in the body of the Epi­stle, come to mee to Nicopolis, for I am determined there to winter: Hee saith not, Heere to Winter, but there: as speaking of a third place: but how slight this ground is, will bee easily apparent [Page 115] to any man that shall consider, that Saint Paul was in perpetuall journying from place to place: And therfore, though now at that instant at Nicopolis, yet how soone, occasions might call him away, and how long, hee knew not: There­fore it was most fit that he should pitch upon a certaine place, whither Titus should direct his way toward him: Not­withstanding your ghesse therefore, since holy Athanasius plainely tells us, that S. Paul wrote this Epistle from Nicopolis; and is therein followed by Oecumenius, and Theophylact, and in that famous an­cient Manuscript, sent by the late Pa­triarch of Constantinople; I finde it plainly dated [...] It must needes follow, that either this Subscription was before Athanasius and Teclaes time; or else that they went upon some other good ground of their assertion.

Lastly, it may well goe for a reason of your owne making, that the Post-script stiles Titus Bishop of the Church of the [Page 116] Cretians; whereas it would be said of the Churches of the Cretians; for the Chri­stian Churches, of any Nation, are cal­led by Luke and Paul Churches, and not Church: Who would not yeelde you this truth, that the Christian Churches are called Churches? What can they bee cal­led else, when they are mentioned in their severall diversities; but when they are upon some intire Relation, conjoyned & united, as these of Creet, under one Go­vernment, they may well bee called not the Churches, but the Church. That flash of Wit might well have beene forborne, wherein you make an envious Comparison Betwixt the Authority of these Subscriptions, and Episcopall authority, of urging Subscription to their Ceremonies: And why theirs, I beseech you? Have you beene urged to subscribe to any other Ceremonies, than have been established by the Lawes of this Realme & Church? Was it Episcopall power that en­acted them? Had you beene but as obedi­ent, these Ceremonies had beene equally [Page 117] yours: Now out of pure Love you impose that upon us, which you re­pined that the Lawes should impose upon you: Goe on thus Charitably & prosper.

Because you wanted Worke from the Remonstrance, you will cut out some for your selves: An Obje­ction of your owne must be answe­red; That is, From the inequalitie that was betweene the Twelve Apostles, and the seaventy Disciples: And wel may you shape and fashion your owne Answere unto your owne Ob­jection: It cannot bee prooved, (you say) that the Twelve had any Superio­rity over the Seaventy, eyther of Ordi­nation, or Jurisdiction. What? have you forgotten, brethren, that the A­postles ordained the Decons, Acts 6.6. by Praier and imposition of hands? That the Apostle Paul laid his hands on Ti­mothy? Have you forgotten how by vertue of his Apostleshippe hee char­ges, [Page 120] Commands, Controllers, Cen­sures? What is, if this bee not Or­dination and Jurisdiction? But (say you) suppose it were so; yet a supe­riority and inferiority betweene Offi­cers of different kindes, will not prove a superiority and inferiority betweene Officers of the same kinde. Deeply argued; Surely hence you may inferre, that one Bishop is not su­periour to another; nor one Pres­byter above another; but that a Bi­shop should not bee superiour to a Presbyter, were an uncouth conse­quence: If the twelve Apostles there­fore were superiours to the 70. Dis­ciples,So Cyprian, Epicopis loquens, &c. Qui Apostolis vicaria or­dinatione succedunt. Ep. 69. Ʋnitas per Apostolos novis suc­cessoribus tradita. Ep. 41 Meminisse debent Diaconi quo­niam Apostolos i. e. Episcopos & prapae­sitos Dominus cle­git. Ep. 65. and Bishops (as your owne Je­rome tells you) succeed those Apostles, and Presbyters come in the roome of the seventy, where is that identity or samenesse of kind which you pretend? All Antiquity hath acknowledged, [...] three severall rankes in the Church-Hierarchy; and if you have [Page 121] a minde to jumble them together, take away the difference betwixt Presbyters, and Deacons, as well as that betwixt Bishops and Presbyters, Jam sumus ergo pares.

And now wee appeale to the same Barre, how farre you have beene from disproving the Divine right, or Apostolicall institution of Episcopa­cy; and whether your relyance upon Hieromes Authority in this poynt hath beene grounded upon any other rea­son, but your owne weak presumpti­on. Yet still like (as I have heard) some beaten Cocks, you dare crow; and tell your Reader, that though Scriptures faile us, yet wee support our selves by the indulgence and mu­nificence of religious Princes: surely, if GOD should have withdrawne himselfe, in vaine should wee make flesh our armes: Our calling we chal­lenge from God: some accessory Titles, Dignities, Maintenance, we [Page 120] thankfully professe to have received from the bountie of Royall Benefa­ctors: What of this? Herein, you say, the Author acknowledgeth a difference, betweene our Bishops, and the Bishops of old. Yes verily, so hee glad­ly doth, with all humble thanke­fulnesse to God, and good Princes: make your best of this concession. Sud­dainly you fall faire, and professe your well-pleasednesse, with the liberall maintenance of the Church, although somewhat yet sticks with you: When the Ministery came to have agros, domos, locationes, vehicula, as you say from Chrysostome, then Religio peperit di­vitias, Religion brought forth riches, and the Daughter devoured the Mo­ther; and a voice was heard from hea­ven Hodie venenum: and then You tell us of woodden Priests, and golden challices But, Brethren, take no care for this danger; our last age hath be­gun to take sufficient order for the re­dresse [Page 121] of this Evill: and if in time You shall see Wooden Chalices, and Woo­den Priests, thanke your selves.

However, you grant there is not an incompossibility betwixt large Revenues, and an humble Sociable­nesse; yet You say, it is rare; and tell us, That the rich Provision of Bishops hath ushered in, both neglect of their Ministery, and Pompous attendance, and insultation over their Brethren: And You instance in the pride of Paulus Samosatenus, and shut up with the grave complaint of Sulpitius Severus. It is not to be denied, Brethren, that some such ill use hath beene made, by some, of their abundance: but surely, in this ablative age, the fault is rare, and hardly instanceable; both the Wings and train of many of ours have beene so Clipped, that there is no great feare of flying high. But if it bee so, the fault is fixed to the person, who with more grace might otherwise im­prove [Page 124] the blessing. Cast your eyes upon others, even your owne great Patrons, and tell mee if you doe not espie the same ill use of large meanes, and flat­tering prosperity; yet you desire not to abridge their store, but to rectifie the imployment of it: Learne to be so charitable to your spirituall superiors.

And now at last you give a vale to your Remonstrants Arguments, and shut up with a bold recollection, concer­ning which, let mee say thus much; Truely, Brethren, had you as good a faculty in strewing, as you have in ga­thering, there were no dealing with you: but it is your ill hap to tell the reader in your recapitulation of great feates that you have done in your for­mer discourse, when as he must needs professe that he sees no such matter. I appeal to his judicious eies, whether in all this tedious passage, you have pro­ved any thing but your owne bold ig­norance, and absurd inconsequences.

SECT. XIV.

MY satisfaction to objections comes next to be scanned; Objections, which would to God they were onely of my own framing.

In the first, That Episcopacy is no pre­judice of Soveraigntie, I justly prove, for that 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 Bishoprick: what can you say to this?

You tell us you have already proved that God never made a bishop, as hee stands in superiority over Presbyters, so you told us; and that is enough, we were hard hearted if wee would not believe you: When as wee have made good by undeniable proofes, that (besides the grounds which our Saviour laid of this imparity) the blessed Apostles by inspiration from God, made this diffe­rence in a personall ordaining of some a­bove the rest, and giving expresse charge of Ordination and Iurisdiction to those [Page 126] select persons, in Church government, the Bishops have ever since succeeded.

Tell us not therefore, that if wee disclaim the influence of Soveraignty into our Crea­tion, and assert that the King doth not make us Bishops, wee must have no beeing at all; For, that the Reader may see you stop your owne mouth; answer me, I beseech you, Where, or when ever did the King create a Bishop? name the man, and take the cause. It pleases his Majestie to give his Congedelier for a Bishops Election to his See, to signifie his Royall assent thereunto; upon which the Bishop is solemnly ordained by the im­position of the hands of the Metropolitan, and other his Brethren; and these doe, as from God, invest him in his holy Calling, which he exercises in that place, which is designed and given by his Majestie: What can be more plaine then this truth? As for that unworthy censure which you passe upon the just comparison of Kings in or­der to Bishops, and Patrons in order to their Clerks, it shall be acknowledged, well de­served, if you shall be able to make good the disparity; When hee shall prove (you say) [Page 127] that the Patron gives Ministeriall power to his Clerke, as the King gives Episcopall power to the Bishop, it may bee of some conducement to his cause: Shortly, brethren, the same day that you shall shew mee that the King ordained a bishop, the same day will I shew you that a Patron ordained a Presbyter: The Patron gives the benefice to the one, The King gives the bishopricke to the other: neither of them do give the Office, or Calling to either. Goe you therefore with your Frier Simon, to your Cell, and consult with your Covent for more reason and wit, then you shew in this, and the next scornfull Para­graph; wherein whiles you flout at my mo­dest concession with an unbeseeming frump, you are content silently to balke that my se­cond answer, which you know was too hot, or too heavie for your satisfaction.

In the second; the Imputation pretended to bee cast by this Tenet upon al the refor­med Churches, which want this governe­ment, I indevoured so to satisfie, that I might justly decline the envy, which is in­tended to be thereby raised against us: For which cause, I professed that wee doe love [Page 128] and honour those our sister Churches, as the dear spouse of Christ, and give zealous testimonies of my well wishing to them.

Your uncharitablenesse offers to choake me with those scandalous censures, and dis­gracefull terms which some of ours have let fall upon those Churches, and their e­minent professors, which I confesse, it is more easie to be sorry for, then (on some hands) to excuse; The errour of a few may not bee imputed to all.

My just defence is that no such conse­quent can be drawne from our opinion; for as much as the Divine or Apostolicall right, which wee hold, goes not so high, as if there were an expresse command, that upon an absolute necessity there must bee either Episcopacy, or no Church; but so far only, that it both may and ought to be; How fain would you heere finde mee in a contradicti­on? Whiles I one-where reckon Episcopa­cy amongst matters essential to the Church, another where, deny it to be of the essence thereof; Wherein you willingly hide your eys that you may not see the distinction that I make expresly betwixt the Being & Well-beeing [Page 129] of a Church: Affirming that those Churches, to whom this power and faculty is denied, lose nothing of the true essence of a Church, though they misse something of their glory, and perfection.

No, Brethren, it is enough for some of your friends to hold their Discipline altogether essentiall to the very being of a Church; We dare not be so zealous.

The question which you aske concerning the reason of the different intertainment, given in our Church to priests converted to us from Rome, and to Ministers, who in Qu. Maries dayes had received Imposition of hands in Reformed Churches abroad, is meerely personall; neither can challenge my decision; Onely I give you these two answers; that what fault soever may bee in the easie admittance of those, who have received Romish Orders, the sticking at the admission of our brethren returning from Reformed Churches, was not in case of Ordination; but of Institution: they had beene acknowledged Mini­sters of Christ, without any other hands layed upon them, but according to [Page 130] the Lawes of our Land they were not, per­haps, capable of institution to a benefice, unlesse they were so qualified, as the Statutes of this Realme doe require; And secondly I know those, more then one, that by ver­tue onely of that Ordination, which they have brought with them from other Re­formed Churches, have enjoyed Spirituall Promotions and Livings without any ex­ception against the lawfulnesse of their cal­ling.

The confident affirmation which you alleage of the learned bishop of Norwich is no rule to us;B. Mon­tague I leave him to his owne de­fence; You think I have too much work on my hand to give satisfaction for myselfe in these two main Questions which arise from my book.

What high points shall wee now expect trow wee?

First, whether that Office, which by divine right hath sole power of Ordination, and ruling all other Officers of the Church (which hee sayth Episcopacy hath) belong not to the being, but onely to the glorie, and perfection of a Church: Can wee tell what these men would have? [Page 131] Have they a minde to goe beyond us in as­serting that necessity, and essentiall use of Episcopacy, which we dare not avow? Do they not care to lose their cause, so they may crosse an Adversary? For your Question, you stil talke of sole Ordination, and sole juris­diction; you may (if you please) keepe that paire of soles for your next shooes: VVee contend not for such an height of Propriety, neither do we practise it; they are so ours, that they should not bee without us, as we have formerly shewed; That therefore there should bee a power of lawfull Ordination and government in every setled Church, it is no lesse then necessary, but that in what case soever of extremity, and irresistible ne­cessitie, this should be only done by Episco­pall hands, we never meant to affirme: It is enough that regularly it should be their Act.

Your second Question is, There being (in this mans thoughts) the same jus 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: The answere is ready: If [Page 132] those Reformed Churches, wanting those whom you call pastors and Elders, did yet injoy the government, by Bishops, Priests & Deacons, they should be so far from wan­ting ought of the essence of a Church, that they should herein attain to much glory and perfection: And so much for your deepe questions.

The presumptuous Remonstrant would seeme to know so much of the minde of those Churches, that hee saith, if they might have their option, he doubts not but they would gladly embrace Episcopall government; a foule imputation which your Zeale must needes wipe off; for which purpose you bring the confessions of the French, and Dutch Chur­ches, averring the truth, and justifiablenesse of their owne government; For which they have good reason: neither shall you herein expect my contradiction; nor yet my pre­sent labour of reconciling their governe­ment, and ours in the maine and materiall points of both, This condition they are in, and they doe well to defend it, but they did not tell you they would not (if oportunity were offered) be content with a better; I am [Page 133] deceived if their own publicke Constitu­tions be not still concluded with the pow­er of a Change; and I have elsewhere shew­ed out of Fregevillaeus, that this Order of Government was in their Churches at first only provisionall; and instanced in those testimonies of approbation, which their learned Divines have freely given to our forme of Administration; which I shal not now stand either to repeate, or multiply: Let it be enough for the present to say, that upon my certain knowledg, many eminent Divines of the Churches abroad have ear­nestly wished themselves in our condition, and have applauded and magnified our Church, as the most Famous, Exempla­ry and glorious Church in the whole Chri­stian World: So as I wanted not good reason, for that which you are pleased to stile presumptuous assertion.

But the reason of my Assertion is yet so more offensive, that you Wonder how it could fall from my Pen:

That there is little difference in the governe­ment of other Protestant Churches and our owne, save in the perpetuity of their Moderator­ship, [Page 134] and the exclusion of Lay Elders; A passage, belike, as you say, of admirable absurdity. But soft, brethren, I am afraid, first, least you speake of what you know not; I speak not onely of the next Churches of Fraunce, and the Netherland, I speake of them in a gene­ralitie, as one that (if this place would bear it) could give a particular account of them all: Neither can your cavills worke my re­pentance. You tell me of the Moderatour in Geneva (as if all the Church of God were included in those strait walls) I could tell you of the superintendents of the Chur­ches of Germany, of the Prepositi in the Churches of Weteraw, Hessia, Anhalt, of the Seniores, in Transylvania, Polonia, Bohemia; But what of the Moderator in Geneva? Hee is not of a Superiour Order to his Brethren; But let mee tell you, when Master Calvin was Moderatour there, as hee constant­ly was for many yeeres, no Bishop in England swayed more, then he did in that Church: And even in the Low Countries how much the Deputati Synodi, after they had beene frequently imployed in those ser­vices, (as for instance, my ancient and tru­ly [Page 135] reverend friend Mr. Bogermannus) prevai­led) & with what authority they carrie the affaires of the Church, it is not hard to un­derstand; for those other circumstances, which you are pleased to mention, were the moderatorship perpetuall; they would soon accordingly vary; and if not so, yet you may remember, that I said not, no difference at all, but, little, whereof your well affectednes to our Government can make this use, that then the Abrogation of Episcopacy will be wrought with the lesse difficulty, and occasion the lesse di­sturbance; The old word is; welfare a friend in a corner; still you are for the destructive; none but the Babylonian note sounds well in your eare, Downe with it, downe with it, even to the ground: But the God of Heaven whose cause it is, will, we hope, vindicate his owne ordinance, so long perpetuated to his Church, from all your violent and sub­tile machinations, and prevent the utmost danger of your already sufficiently raised disturbance.

SECT. XV.

COncerning the Lay Presbitery I said, and say still most justly, that it never had footing in the Church of God till this present age: These wits cry out in great sport, See, see, how like the man lookes to Doctor Hall, in his irrefragable Propositions? Truely, brethren, as like him, as yee are like your selves: who are still scornfull and insolent: but though yee be commonly spightful, yet you are so seldome witty, that we may well bear with you for once: be he like whom hee will; Dr. Hall will sufficiently defend both those Propositions, and this Remonstrance against all your impotent cavils: For this, concerning the questioned Lay presbitery, You make a faire flourish to little purpose: You do wisely to omit those three knowne Texts, which the world knows have beene so throughly canvased and eluded, and that famous Text of an acknowledged counter­feit, Ambrose, so often exploded: wee shall have now new stuffe from You, but of as [Page 137] little worth: Surely had the fore-going Patrons of your Lay-Eldership found that they could have received any colour of pro­tection from these places of Antiquity, al­leaged by you, they had not, after the raking of all the channels of time, forborn the ut­most urging of these Your Testimonies, in their favour and defence; but they well saw how little reason there was, to presse those unproving evidences, which you will needs urge as convictive.

Your testimony from Origen cannot but shame you, if yet you can blush;Orig. con­tra Celsum c. 14. you feared to cite the Chapter, that in so long a book, you might not be discovered.

But the scope of the place is clearly thus, Origen is upon comparison of the Philoso­phers and Christians in their care of teach­ing; Nam illi (scil. Philosophi) propalam apud vulgus disserentes non sunt curiosi in descernen­dis auditoribus, &c. For the Philosophers, saith hee, in their publick discourses to the people are not curious in the differences of their Auditors, but every one that lists, comes and heares them at pleasure: But the Chri­stians doe, what they may, carefully pre-examine [Page 138] the mindes of those that desire to heare them: and first they doe privately so to those which are bewitched (with Paga­nisme) before they bee received into the Congregation; And when they seeme to have come on so farre, as to be desirous to live honestly, then doe they bring them in; but in distinct degrees; the one of those which are newly admitted, but have not yet attained (the cognizance of their Puri­fication,) Baptisme; the other of those which are now come on so farre as to pro­fesse the Christian Religion; in this latter ranke are appointed some, which do inquire into the lives and manners of those that come; that they may be a meanes to keepe off such Candidates of Religion as doe car­ry themselves amisse, from their Assem­blies: And the rest that are like themselves, they may gladly receive: In which passage it is most evident that Origen speakes of those which are newly admitted into the Church, who by reason of their late know­ledge and acquaintance with those which they left behinde them in Pagan supersti­tion, might bee fit Monitours to knowe, [Page 139] and notifie the condition of such Candi­dates as did offer to come into the Church; Now these trusty Answerers would make the World believe, that this is spoken of some Sage Elders, that were to go­verne the Church; and (to deceive the Reader) unfaithfully turne the words, Nonnulli Praepositi sunt, as if they were some ruling Elders indeed; [...] Whereas the word signifies, and intends onely a de­signation of such Novices as were well approved, to an Office of Monitorship concerning those which would professe to bee Converts. And now to return your owne words, wee would gladly knowe whether these were not, as it were, Lay El­ders.

As for those other testimonies, which you have drawne hither out of Augustine, Optatus, and the Letters of Fortis, and Purpurius out of Baronius; I could, if neede were, double your files in this kinde, might that doe you any service,Vide Ju­stellum, in notis ad Canon. A­frican. I could tell you out of the acts of the Pur­gation of Foelix and Caecilianus, of Epis­copi, Presbyteri, Diaconi, Seniores; out of [Page 140] the Synodal Epistle of the Cabarsussitan coun­cell (as mentioned by Saint Augustine in his Enarration upon the Psalmes) Necesse nos fuerat Primiani causam Seniorum literis ejus­dem Ecclesiae postulantibus, audire atque discutere; which is a more pregnant place then any you have brought; and could reckon You up yet more, out of the Code of the African Canons, Can. 91. Out of Gre­gory Turonensis, who speaking of the Bishop of Marselles brings him in to say, Nihil per me feci, &c. I did nothing of my selfe, but that which was commaunded me à Dominis nostris, & Senioribus: Out of Gregory the great in his Epistles more then once, I could weary you with supply of such authorities: But, Brethren, I shal sadly tel you, that you do herein nothing but abuse your Reader, with a colourable pretence: For all those places you alleage, are nothing at all to the purpose in hand. VVho can make question but that Carthage and Hippo, and other Afri­can Cities, had old and grave men in them? VVho can doubt that they had Magistrates and men in authority? Such, as we stil are wont out of the ancient appellation, to [Page 141] style Aldermen? Who can doubt that they did in all great occasions of the Church take the advise, and assistance of these prime men? But wil it hence follow that in the sense you contend for, they had a Setled Lay Presby­tery? Was their Church ere the more (ac­cording to your construction) governed by Pastors, Elders, Deacons? That these foreci­ted were such, as we have intimated, is most evident; in the Affrican Canons (Can 100) they are called [...] the old men; And in the 91 Canon, we find as a Commentary upon this point, Debere unumquemque nostrum in civitate sua convenire Donatistarum Praeposi­tos, aut adjungere sibi vicinum Collegam, ut pa­riter eos in singulis quibusque Civitatibus per Magistratus, vel Seniores locorum conveniant That is, That every one of us should in our own Cities meet with the chiefe Gover­nours of the Donatists, and take with him some neighbour as his Colleague or Assi­stant, that they together may give them a meeting by the Magistrates or Elders of the places.

But you will say, there were those which [Page 142] were called Seniores Ecclesiastici; eccle­siasticall Elders also; [...]. Can. Afr. 91 True, there were such, Iustellus confesses so much, and lear­ned Isaacus Causabonus (whose manuscript notes I have seene,) and his worthy Sonne, Mericus Causabonus in his notes upon Opta­tus, yield no lesse, but these they do truly say, were but as our Church-wardens; men that were trusted with the utensils, stock, and outward affairs of the Church; or, as I may more fully compare them, our vestry­men: who are commonly and of old de­signed under the name of the eight men, or twelve men, in every great parish (as I am sure it is in the Western parts) to order the businesses of Seats,Aug. contra Crescon. l. 3. Omnes vos Episcopi, Presbyteri, Diaconi, & Seniores sci­tis, &c. where against your own knowledge you translate Presbyteri (Elders) to bleare the Readers eys, with a shew of a double sort of Elders, whereas Presbyteri are there manifestly di­stinguished from Seniores. and rates, and such like externall occasions; now that those places which you have cited intend no other El­ders, then these, you shall he convinced out of your own testimonies.

The place which you bring out of Saint Austen cōtra Cresconium Grāmaticum, runs thus; Omnes vos, &c. All you Bishops, Presbyters, Deacons, and Elders, do know, &c. where [Page 143] you see plainly that the Elders which hee means are below Deacons, and so you shall find them, wheresoever they are mentioned; now those that you contend for, are by your own claime, in a Key above them. Optatus whom you cite is cleer against your sense; whiles he makes only quatuor genera capitum only four sorts of mē in the Church; Bishops, Presbyters, Deacons, & the faithful (Laity) And in his first book against Parmenian, Quid com­memorē Laicos, &c. he reckons up, meer Laicks, Ministers, Deacons; Presbyteros secundo sacerdotio constitutos, Presbyters in the second degree of Priesthood, & principes omnium Episcopos, and the chiefe of all Bishops. Shortly, brethren, that there were in the Church of old ruling Elders, which were in a rank above Deacōs, and had together with the pastors a setled power of governmēt, in the Church, it is an opinion no lesse new, then unjustifiable; & I do here solemnly professe, that if any one such instance can be brought, I wil renoūce Episcopacie for ever. Do not thē, against the light of your own knowledge set a face on proofs of those things, which never were, but give glory to God in yielding to so un­doubted and cleer a truth.

SECT. XVI.XVII.XVIII.

THe rest that remaines is but mere De­clamation, not worthy of any answere, but contempt and silence; It is most true that the religious Bishops of all times have strongly upheld the truth of God against Sa­tan and his Antichrist.

What can you say to this? You tell mee of some irreligious ones, that have as strong­ly upheld Satan and his Antichrist against the truth of GOD; What is this to the cal­ling? can not I tell you of some wicked and irreligious Presbyters, shall the functi­on it selfe therefore suffer? You tel us What an unpreaching Bishop once said of a Preacher; I challeng you to shew any unpreaching Bi­shop in the Church of England this day? it is your slander, this, not their just Epi­thete: the scandalls of our inferiour Mini­sters, I professe I could not but bleed to see, but withall desired to have had them lesse publique; your charity accuseth mee of [Page 145] excusing them, and blaming my humble motion of Constantines example, professe to desire the blazoning of them to the World; Whether of us shall give a better account of our charity to the God of peace, I appeale to that great Tribunall.

In your next Section, like ill-bred sonns, you spit in the face of your mother; A Mo­ther too good for such sonnes; The Church of England; and tell us of Papists that dazle the eyes of poore people with the glorious name of the holy Mother the Church; If they bee too fond of their Mother, I am sure your Mother hath little cause to be fond of you; Who can and dare compare her to those Aethiopian strumpets, which were common to all commers; For your whole undutifull carriage towards her, take heed of the Ra­vens of the valley: As if wee were no lesse strangers, then you enemies to the Church of England, you tell the World that wee know not who she is; and that we wonder when wee are askt the question; and run descant upon the two Archbishops, Bishops, Convocation; Even what your luxuriant wit shall please▪ [Page 146] and at last you make up your mouth with a merry jest, telling your Reader that the Re­monstrant, out of his simplicity, never heard, nor thought of any more Churches of England then one Ridiculum caput! Sit you merry, Bre­thren but truly after all your sport, still my simplicity tells mee there is but one Church of England; There are many Chur­ches in England; but many Churches of England, were never till now heard of; You had need fetch it as farre as the Heptar­chie; And to shew how far you are from the objected simplicity, yee tell us in the shut­ting up▪ that England, Scotland, and Ireland, are all one Church. Nullum magnum ingenium sine mixtura dementiae.

But now take heed of Obelisks: You professe, you for your parts do acknowledge no Antiprelaticall Church: I am glad to heare it; nor I neither; but I beseech you, if you make and condemne a Prelaticall Church of Eng­land, what shall bee the other part of the Contradistinction?

The Remonstrant tels you of further di­visions, [Page 147] and subdivisions, which upon this ground you must necessarily make of the Church, your deepe wisdomes take this, as of his upbrading of the divisions in the Church, in meer matter of Opinion, and fly out into the censures of the Prelaticall party, as the cause thereof; and would have them say, Mitte nos in Mare, & non erit tempestas; The truth is, the severalties of Sects, and their separate Congregations about this Ci­tie are many and lamentable; I doe not upbraid, but bewaile them; The God of Heaven be Iudge where the fault rests, and (if it bee his holy will) finde some speedy redresse, but in the mean time, one casts it upon faction, an­other upon ungrounded rigour, wheresoe­ver it bee, Woe bee to those by whom the offence commeth; Lay you your hands on your hearts onwards, and consider well Whether your fomenting of so unjust and deep dis­likes of lawfull government have not been too much guilty of these wofull breaches.

As one that love that peace of the Church [Page 148] which you are willing to trouble, I perswa­ding an unity, ask what bounders you set, what distinction of Professors you make, what grounds of Faith, what new Creed, what different Scriptures, Baptisme, means of salvation are held by that part which you mis-call the Prelaticall Church; You answer according to your wonted Cha­rity, and Truth.

What bounds? Those (you say) of the sixth Canon▪ from the high and lofty Promontory of Archbishops, to the Terra incognita of an &c. Witty again. Alas, brethren, if this bee all, the Lists are too narrow. Here are but four ranks of Dignities, and few in each; put if that inclusive, [&c.] reach far, yet what will you make of all this?

Doe you exclude Bishops, Deans, Arch­deacons, &c. from being members of the Church of England? sure you dare not bee so shamefully unjust: If therefore, that they have an interest in the Prelacy, cannot ex­clude them for their interest in the Church: What becomes of your bounders? This is fit work for your Obelisk.

[Page 149]What distinction? you say, worshiping to the East, bowing to the Altar, prostituting (perhaps you meane prostrating) themselvs in their approches into Churches: and are these fit distinctions, brethren, whereupon to ground different churches? if they diffe­rence men, doe they difference Christi­ans?

What new Creed? you say, Episcopacie by divine right is the first article of their Creed. For shame brethren, did ever man make this an article of faith? who will thinke you worthy to have any faith given you in the rest of your assertions? you adde; absolute and blind obedience to all the comman­dements of Bishops; Blush yet again, Brethe­ren, blush to affirme this, when you well know that the words of the oath of Cano­nicall obedience run only, In omnibus licitis & honestis mandatis, in all lawfull and honest commands.

You adde, Election upon faith foreseene; What? nothing but grosse untruths? Is this the doctrine of the Bishops of England, have they not strongly confuted it in Pa­pists, [Page 150] in Arminians; have they not cry'd it downe to the pit of Hell? What means this wickedly false suggestion? judge Reader, if here bee not work for Obelisks.

What Scripture? you say, Apocrypha, and Traditions unwritten; Mark I beseech you, unwritten Traditions are Scriptures, first: then Apocrypha; and why, I pray you, is it more our Apocrypha, then yours? Are all our Bibles Prelaticall too? Shortly all those Churches and houses, and persons that have the Apocrypha in their Bibles belong to the Church Prelaticall, what have wee lost by the match.

What Baptisme? What Eucharist? You tell us of the absolute necessity which some Popish fooles have ascribed to the one; and of an Altar and table set Altarwise in the other What are these to the Church of England? doth the errour of every addle head? or the sight or posture of a Boord make a different Church?

What Christ? You answere, (near to a blasphemy;) A Christ who hath given the same power of absolution to a Priest that himselfe [Page 151] hath: This can be nothing but a slanderous fiction; No Christian Divine ever held that a Priests power of absolution was any other then ministeriall; Christs Soveraign and ab­solute. If you know the man bring him forth that he may be stoned.

What Heaven? you say, such as is receptive of Drunkards, Swearers, Adulterers. Brethren, take heed of an Hel, whiles you fain such an Heaven▪ and feare lest your uncharitableness will no lesse bar you out of the true Heaven above, then you bar Prelaticall sinners from their accesse thereinto: but, if you had rather, goe on still in your owne way, separate your selves from us that professe wee are one with you; Charge upon us those doctrines and opinions which wee hate no whit lesse then your selves, fasten upon the Church of England those exoticall positions of unsound teachers, which it selfe hath in terminis condemned; and say as you are not ashamed to do, We thank God we are none of you; we forgive you, and pray for your repentance.

[Page 152]Your Quaeres, wherein I see you trust much, are made up of nothing but spight and slander: If I answere you with questions shorter then your own, and more charita­ble, you will excuse mee. In answer then to your first, I ask,

1 Who ever held the Lordships of Bishops to stand by divine right. If no body, whether hee that intimates it doth not falsifie and slander? Why is it a greater fault in one of our Doctors to hold the Lords day to stand Iure bumano, then it was in Master Calvin?

2 I aske whether it were any other then K. Iames himselfe of blessed memory that said, No Bishop, no King; and if it were he, whether that wise King did not meane to prejudice his own authoritie?

3 Whether since it hath beene proved that Bishops are of more then meerely humane Ordinance, and have so long continued in the Christian Church to the great good of Church, and State, it be not most fit to esta­blish them for ever: and to avoid all dange­rous motions of innovation?

4 Whether these answerers have the wit [Page 153] or grace to understand the true meaning of the Ius Divinum of Episcopacie? or if they did, whether they could possibly be so ab­surd, as to raise so sensless and inconsequent inferences upon it?

5 Whether there bee any question at all in the fifth question? since the Remonstrant himselfe hath so fully cleered this point, professing to hold Episcopacie to bee of A­postolicall, and, in that right, Divine Insti­tution?

6 Whether Master Beza have not heard foundly of his distinction of the three kinds of Episcopacie, in the full and learned an­swere of Saravia: and whether hee might not have beene better advised then in that conceit of his, to crosse all reverend antiqui­ty: and whether the Painter that drest up his Picture after the fancy of every passen­ger, doe not more fitly resemble those, that frame their discipline according to the hu­mour of their people, varying their projects every day, then those which hold them con­stantly to the only ancient and Apostolicall forme.

[Page 154] 7 Whether it were not fit that wee also should speake as the ancient Fathers did, ac­cording to the language of their times; and whether those Fathers could not better un­derstand and interpret their owne meaning in the title of Episcopacie, then these partiall, and not over-judicious answerers; and whe­ther they have not cleerely explicated them­selves in their writings, to have spoken pro­perly and plainly to the sense now enforced.

8 Whether Presbyters can with out sin ar­rogate unto themselves the exercise of the power of publique Church government, where Bishops are set over them to rule and order the affaires both of them, and the Church; and whether our Saviour when he gave to Peter the promisse of the Keyes, did therein intend to give it (in respect of the power of publike jurisdiction) to any other save the Apostles; and their Succes­sours the Bishops; and whether ever any Fa­ther or Doctour of the Church till this pre­sent age, held that Presbyters were the Suc­cessours to the Apostles, and not to the se­venty Disciples rather.

[Page 155] 9 Whether ever any Bishops assumed to themselves power Temporall to bee Ba­rons, and to sit in Parliament, as Iudges, and in Court of Star-chamber, &c. or whether they bee not called by his Majesties writ, and royall authority to these services; and whe­ther the spirituall power which they exer­cise, in ordaining, silencing, &c. bee any o­ther then was by the Apostles delegated to the first Bishops of the Church, & constantly exercised by their holy successors in all ages, especially by Cyprian, Ambrose, Augustine, and the rest of that sacred order; men which had as little to do with Antichrist, as our answe­rers have with charity.

10 Whether the answerers have not just cause to be ashamed of patronizing a noted Heretick, Aerius, in that for which hee was censured of the ancient Saints, and Fathers of the Church; and whether the whole Church of Christ ever since his time till this age have not abandoned those very errours concerning the equality of Bishops and Presbyters which they now presume to maintain.

[Page 156] 11 Whether the great Apostacy of the Church of Rome do, or did consist in main­tayning the order of government set by the Apostles themselves; and whether all the Churches in the whole Christian World (even those that are professedly opposite to the Church of Rome) doe let in Antichrist by the doore of their Discipline, since they all maintain Episcopacie no lesse constantly then Rome it selfe;

12 Whether if Episcopacie be (through the munificence of good Princes) honoured with a title of dignity, and largnesse of re­venues, it ought to be, ere the more declined and whether themselves, if they did no hope to carry some sway in the Presbytery would be so eager in crying up that govern­ment; and whether if there were not [...] maintenance annexed, they would not hid themselves, and jeopard their eares rathe [...] then mancipate themselves to the charge o [...] souls.

13 Whether there bee no other apparen [...] causes to be given for the increase of Poper [...] and superstition in the Kingdome, beside [...] [Page 157] Episcopacie (which hath laboured strong­ly to oppose it) and whether the multi­tudes of Sects, and professed slovenlynesse in Gods service, (in too many) have not bin guilty of the increase of profanesse amongst us.

14 Why should England one of the most fa­mous Churches of Christendome, seperate it selfe from that forme of government, which all Churches through the whole Christian World have ever observed, and do constantly and uniformely observe and maintain; and why should not rather other less noble Churches conform to that univer­sall government which all other Christians besides do gladly submit unto.

15 Why should the name of Bishops, which hath beene for this 1600. yeers appropria­ted (in a plain contradistinction) to the governours of the Church, come now to be communicated to Presbyters, which never did all this while so much as pretend to it; and if in ancient times they should have done it could not have escaped a most severe censure. And shortly whether if wee will [Page 158] allow you to bee Bishops all will not bee well.

Whether since both God hath set such a go­vernment in his Church, as Episcopacie, and the Lawes of this Land have firmly establi­shed it, it can bee lawfull for you to deny your subjection unto it; and whether it were not most lawfull and just to punish your presumption and disobedience in framing so factious a question?

And thus I hope you have a sufficient answere to your bold and unjust demands, and to those vain cavills which you have raised against the humble Remonstrance.

God give you Wisdome to see the Truth, and Grace to follow it, Amen,

To the Poscript.

THe best beauty that you could have ad­ded to your discourse, brethren, had been honesty and truth both in your allega­tions of Testimonies, and inferences of ar­gumentation; In both which I must needs say (and I speake it in the presence of God to whom I must shortly give an account) that I never saw any Writer that would dare to profess Christian syncerity, so fouly to over­lash; as if yee made no conscience by what means you uphold a side, or win a proselyte; God touch your hearts with a true sense of that whereof you cannot be but in this dis­course convinced.

Now you thinke to garnish your worke with a goodly Pasquin borrowed (for a great part) out of Sion's Plea, and the Brevi­ate consisting of a rhapsodye of Histories, concerning the pride, insolence, treachery, cruelty, and all other the deadlie sins of popish prelates, but especially of those, who swayed the See of Can­terbury, in those days of Darknesse and Re­nish [Page 160] Tyranny. Whereto I suppose you expect no answere as being a thing utterly uncon­cerning us; and that, whereof I might say (setting aside the ill intention of an appli­cation) as Huntingdoniensis said of the Cardi­nals adultery, Celari non potuit, negari non debuit. But tell me brethren what can be your drift in this your tedious relatiō? Is there any man that offers to undertake their patrocination? or is it any advantage to you to make their memory yet more odious? Let them have beene as foule as ill will can make them; Let them have been in their times Devills incar­nate; what is that to us? They were Bishops you say. True, but they were popish bishops; limmes of that body, whose head wee ab­jure; the fault of their wickednesse was in the Popery, not in the Episcopacie, in the men, not the calling, why should you think to choake us with these hatefull instances If I should goe about to rake together all the insolences, murthers, incests, treasons, and villainies, that have beene done by Popish Presbyters in the time of that lawlesse igno­rance, & superstition, would you think these [Page 161] could bee any blemish to you? why will you then bee so miserably uncharitable, as to cast upon us the crimes of those whom we equally condemne, and to feoffe their faults upon their chaires? what one profession is there in all mankind, which if wee should go about to ransack, would not yield some persons extreamely vicious, shall the vocati­on bee condemned, for the crimes of the men? At last to make up the mouth of your admirable charity, You tell us of the gracious practices of the Prelates from the beginning of Queene Elizabets Raigne to this present day; whose great designe, you say, still hath beene to hinder reformation, to further Popery and Ar­minianisme, to beat downe preaching, to persecute zealous Professors, and some such other noble projects of Episcopall pietie: Tell me Brethren, as you will answere it before the just Iudge of all the World; Have these beene the main designes of Bishops? Are they all guilty of these wofull enormities, or are they not; If yee say they are, the World will cry shame on your falshood; If they are not, the World will cry no lesse [Page 162] shame on your injustice, in taxing all for the fault of some: What? are these the onely re­markable works that your eyes could dis­cover to fall from the hands of Bishops? could you see no Colledges, no Hospitalls built? no Churches re-edified? no learned Volumes written? no heresies confuted? no seduced persons reclaimed? no hospitality kept? no great offenders punished? no dis­orders corrected? no good offices done for the publique? no care of the peace of the Church? No diligence in preaching? No holinesse in living? Truly, brethren, I can say no more, but that the fault is in your eys, and not in your object: Wipe them, and looke better; Yea, I beseech God to open them rather, that they may see good, as well, as evill.

As for that base and scurrilous Proverb, to which you say it is now comne (where­as the World knowes it is elder then your Grandsires, and was taken up, in the popish times) it were more fit for a Scurra in trivio, or some Ribald upon an Ale-bench, then for grave Divines.

[Page 163]How easie were it for mee to reckon up an hundred of such spightfull Adages which vulgar envy hath beene wont to cast upon the rest of the Clergie, worthy of nothing but scorne? and so had this bin, if your wit and charity had not bin alike; But surely, Brethren, if whatsoever is spoiled, they say, The Bishops foot hath beene in it; I doubt not but they wil say, The Bishops foote hath been in your Book, for I am sure it is quite spoiled by this just confutation. Afier your own pot­tage (for your Proverb sapit ollam) you tell us of Boner's broath; I should have too much wondred at this conclusion, but that I hear it is the fashion in some Countries, to send in their Keal in the last service, and this, it seems, is the manner amongst our Smectym­nuans.

Well; to shut up all, let them of their Boners beef and broath, make what Brewesse they please for their credulous guests: Lear­ned and worthy Doctor Moulin shall tell them, that the restauration of the English Church, and eversion of Popery,P. Moulin. Epist. 3. ad Episcop. Win­ton, &c. next under God, and our King, is chiefely to be ascribed [Page 164] and owed to the learning and industry of our Bishops; some whereof being crowned with Martyrdome, subscribed the Gospell with their blood; Thus hee; Neither doubt I but that many of them (if occasion were offered) would be ready to imitate them in those red Characters.

In the mean time I beseech the God of Heaven to humble you in the sight and sense of your own grievous uncharita­blenesse, and to put (at last) into your hearts and tongues, the Counsels of Peace.

FINIS.

An Advertisement to the READER.

KNow Reader, that whereas in one of those many angry Pamphlets, which have beene lately published, there is an intimation given of some disgracefull language that fell from Dr. Voetius, the learned professor of Vtrecht, concerning the person of Doct. Hall B. of Exeter; there hath been serious inquisition made into the truth of that report; and that the said D. Voetius disavowes (to the party that in­quired of it) any such words of under-valuation, by him spoken, as it is testified under the hand of Sir William Boswell Knight, his Majesties Lieger with the states: And, if, upon the sight of a displeasing title of a Booke (contrary to his own [Page 166] judgement) any learned Divine, should have pas­sed a censure upon the worke; there was small rea­son for the reporters to reflect upon the person of the authour. Yea, I am confident that many of our worthy brethren at home, who are differently min­ded concerning this tenet of the right of Episco­pacie, if they would be pleased to informe them­selves throughly of the state of the question, as it is defended by the Authour of that treatise, would find small cause of scruple in this opinion. For whereas there are three degrees of truths, and holy institutions (as they are commonly distingui­shed) Humane, Apostolike, Divine; The first from mere men; The second from men Apostolical; The third from God himselfe immediately; The Authour desires to goe a Mid-way in this diffe­rence; holding it too low to derive Episcopacy from a merely humane, and Ecclesiasticall Ordi­nance; holding it too high to deduce it from an immediate command from God; and therefore pitching upon an Apostolicall institution; rests there: but because those Apostles were divinely in­spired, & had the directiōs of Gods spirit for those things which they did for the common admini­stration of the Church, therefore, and in that onely [Page 167] name is Episcopacie said to lay claime to a Di­vine right; howsoever also it cannot be gainsaid that the grounds were formerly laid by our Sa­viour in a knowne imparity of his first agents; Now surely this truth hath so little reason to distaste them, that, even learned Chamier himselfe can say; Res ipsa coepit tempore Apostolorum, vel potius ab ipsis profecta est. And why should that seeme harsh in us, which soundeth well in the mouthes of lesse-interessed Divines? but because the very title of that book hath raised more dust then the treatise it selfe; Bee pleased, Readers, to see, that this very question is in the very same termes determined by that eminent light of the Palatinate; Dr. Abrah. Scultetus; whose tract to this purpose I have thought fit to annex.

Peruse it, and judge whether of those two wri­ters have gone further in this determination; And if you shall not meet with convincing reasons to bring you home to this opinion; yet, at least-wise find cause enough to retaine a charitable and fa­vourable conceit of those, who are (as they think, upon good grounds) otherwise minded; and whilest it is on all parts agreed by wise and unprejudiced Christians, that the calling is thus ancient and [Page 168] sacred; let it not violate the peace of the Church to scan the originall, whether Ecclesiasticall, Apo­stolicall, or divine. Shortly, let all good men hum­bly submit to the Ordinance, and heartily wish the Reformation of any abuses.

And so many as are of this mind, Peace be upon them, and the whole Israell of GOD.

AMEN.

THE DETERMINATION of …

THE DETERMINATION of the question, Concerning the Divine Right of EPISCOPACY.

By the famous and learn'd Divine Dr. Abrahamus Scultetus, late Professour of divinity in the Vniversity of HEIDELBERG.

Faithfully translated out of his Observa­tions upon the Epistles to Ti­mothy and Titus.

LONDON Printed for NATHANIELL BVTTER. 1641,

The Question.

Whether Episcopacie be of Divine right? That is, whether the Apostles ordained this Govern­ment of the Church, that not onely one should be placed over the people, but over Presbyters and Deacons, who should have the power of Imposition of Hands, or Ordination, and the di­rection of Ecclesiasticall Counsels.

THis was anciently denyed by Aerius, as is related by Epipha­nius, in his 75 Heresie, and by Iohn of Hierusalem, as appears by Hierome, in his Epistle to Pammachius. And there are not wanting in these dayes many learned and pious men, who, although they acknowledge Aerius to have [Page 172] erred, in that he should disallow of that manner of Ecclesiasticall government, which had beene re­ceived by the whol World; yet in this they agree with him, that Episcopall government is not of Divine Right. From whose opinion why I should sever my judgement, I am moved by these strong reasons, famous examples, and evident authori­ties.

My judgement is this;

First, in the Apostles Epistles the name of Bishop did never signifie any thing different from the of­fice of a Presbyter. For a Bishop, Presbyter, and an A­postle, were common names, as you may see Act. 20. Phil. 1. v. 1. Tit. 1. 1. Pet. v. 12. Act. 1.20.

Next. In the chiefe Apostolicall Church, the Church was governed by the common advice of Presbyters; and that for some yeers in the time of the preaching of the Apostles. For first of all, com­panies must bee gathered together, before we can define any thing concerning their perpetuall go­vernment.

Then, the Apostles, as long as they were present or neere their Churches, did not place any Bishop over them, properly so called, but only Presbyters, reserving Episcopall authority to themselves alone.

Lastly, after the Gospell was farre and neere propagated, and that out of equality of Presbyters, by the instinct of the Devill, Schismes were made in Religion, then the Apostles (especially in [Page 173] the more remote places) placed some over the Pa­stors, or Presbyters, which shortly after, by the Disciples of the Apostles, Ignatius, and others, were onely called bishops, & by this appellation, they were distinguished from Presbyters & Dea­cons.

Reasons moving me to this opinion? First, Hie­rome upon the 1. Chapter of the Epistle to Titus, writeth, that a Presbyter is the same with a Bishop, and before that, by the instinct of the Devill, factions were made in Religion, and it was said among the people, I am of Paul, I of Apollo, but I of Cephas, the Churches were governed by the common counsell of Presbyters: af­terwards it was decreed in the whol world, that one cho­sen out of the Presbyters, should be placed over the rest.

From whence I thus argue.

When it began to be said among the people, I am of Paul, I of Apollo, but I of Cephas, then one chosen out of the Presbyters, was placed over the rest.

But whiles the Apostles lived, it was so said among the people. As the first Epistle to the Corinthians, besides other of St. Pauls Epistles, puts it out of doubt. Therefore, while the Apostles lived, one chosen out of the Presbyters was placed over the rest.

Againe, There can be no other terme assigned, in which Bishops were first made, then the time of the Apostles; for all the prime successors of the Apostles were Bishops: witnesse the succes­sions of Bishops in the most famous Churches of Hierusalem, Alexandria, Antioch, and Rome, as it is in Eusebius, therefore, either the next suc­cessors [Page 174] of the Apostles, changed the force of Ec­clesiasticall government, received from the Apo­stles, according to their owne pleasure, which is very unlikely, or the Episcopall government came from the Apostles themselves.

Besides, even then in the time of the Apostles, there were many Presbyters, but one Bishop, e­ven then in the time of the Apostles, [...], hee that was placed over the rest, which after­wards was called Bishop, did impose hands, or ordaine Ministers of the Word, which Presby­ters alone did not presume to doe. Even then, therefore, the calling of Bishops was distinct from the Office of Presbyters.

If any desire the examples of Apostolicall Bi­shops, the books of the antient are full of the E­piscopal authority, of Timothy and Titus, either of which, howsoever, first performed the office of an Evangelist, yet notwithstanding, ceased to be an Evangelist, after that Timothy was placed over the Church of Ephesus, and Titus over the Church of Crete; For Evangelists did only lay the foundations of faith in forraign places, & then did commend the rest of the care to certaine Pa­stors, but they themselves went to other Coun­tries, and Nations, as Eusebius writes in his third Booke of Ecclesiasticall History, and 34. Chap. But Paul taught sometimes in Ephesus and Crete and laid the foundations of Faith there; there­fore he commandeth Timothy to stay at Ephesus, & Titus at Crete, not as Evangelists but as governors of the Churches.

[Page 175]And indeed, the Epistles, written to either of them, doe evince the same; for in these, he doth not prescribe the manner of gathering together a Church, which was the duty of an Evangelist, but the manner of governing a Church, being already gathered together, which is the duty of a Bishop; and all the precepts in those Epistles, are so con­formable hereunto, as that they are not refer'd in especiall to Timothy, and Titus, but in general to all Bishops, and therefore in no wise, they suit with the temporary power of Evangelists.

Besides, that Timothy and Titus, had Episco­pall jurisdiction, not onely Eusebius, Chryso­stome, Theodoret, Ambrosius, Hierome, Epiphanius, Oecumenius, Primasius, Theophylact, but also the most ancient writers, of any that write the Histo­ry of the new Testament, whose writings are now lost, do sufficiently declare: Eusebius without doubt appealing unto those, in his third book of Ecclesiasticall History and 4. chapter, Timothy (saith hee) in Histories is written to bee the first which was made Bishop of the Church of Ephe­sus, as Titus was the first, that was made Bishop of the Church of Crete.

But if John the Apostle, and not any antient Disciple of the Apostles, bee the authour of the Revelation, hee suggests unto us, those seven new Examples of Apostolicall Bishops: For all the most learned Interpreters interpret the seven Angels of the Churches, to be the seven Bishops of the Churches; neither can they doe otherwise, [Page 176] unlesse they should offer violence to the text.

What should I speake of James, not the Apo­stles but the Brother of our Saviour, the Sonne in law of the Mother of our Lord: who by the Apo­stles, was ordained Bishop of Hierusalem, as Eu­sebius, in his 2d. book of Ecclesiasticall History, & 1 chap. out of the 6. of the Hypotyposes of Clement, Hierome concerning Ecclesiasticall writers, out of the 1. of the Comments of Egesippus, relate, Am­brose upon the 1. chap. unto the Galatians, Chryso­stome in his 23 Homily upon the 15 of the Acts, Augustine in his 2d. book and 37 chap. against Cres­conius, Epiphanius in his 65, Heresie, The 6. Synod in Tullo, and 32 Canon, all assenting thereunto. For indeed, this is that James that had his first re­sidence at Jerusalem, as an ordinary Bishop, whom Paul in his first, and last coming to Hierusalem, found in the City; almost all the Apostles prea­ching in other places, Gal. 1.19. and that conclu­ded those things, which were decreed in the as­sembly of the Apostles, Act. 21. For hee was with Chrysostome Bishop of the Church of Hierusalem, from whom when certaine came, Peter would not eate with the Gentiles. Galat. 2.12.

From examples, I passe to authorities, which Ignatius confirmes by his own authority,

Whose axiomes are these. ‘The Bishop is he, which is superiour in all chiefty, and power. The Presbytery, is a holy company of counsellours, and assessours to the Bishop. The deacons are the imitators of angelicall vertues, which shew forth their pure, and un­blameable ministry. He which doth not obey these, is without [Page 177] God, impure, and contemnes Christ, and derogates from his order, and constitution,’ in his Epistle to theTrallians.

In an other place, ‘I exhort that ye study to doe all things with concord. The Bishop being president in the place of God. The Presbyters in place of the Apostolick Senate, the Deacons as those to whom was committed the Mini­stry of Jesus Christ,’ in his Epistle to theMagnesians.

And againe, ‘Let the Presbyters be subject to the Bishop, the Deacons to the Presbyters, the people to the Presby­ters and Deacons,’ in his Epistle to those ofTarsus.

But Ignatius was the Disciple of the Apostles, from whence then had he this Hierarchie but from the A­postles?

Let us now heare Epiphanius in his 75. Heresie. ‘The Apostles could not presently appoint all things: Presbyters and Deacons were necessary; for by these two, Ecclesiasticall affaires might bee dispatch. Where there was not found any f [...]t for the Episeopacie, that place remained without a Bishop, but where there was need, and there were any fit for Epis­copacy, they were made Bishops. All things were not compleat from the beginning, but in tract of time all things were pro­vided which were required for the perfection of those things which were necessary, the Church by this means receiving the fulnesse of dispensation.’

But Eusebius comes neerer to the matter, & more strongly handles the cause, who in his third booke of Ecclesiasticall History, and 22: chapter, as also in his Chronicle affirmeth that Erodius was ordai­ned the 1. Bishop of Antioch in the yeere of our Lord. 45. in the 3. yeere of Claudius the Empe­ror: [Page 178] at which time, many of the Apostles were a­live. Now Hierome writeth to Evagrius, that at A­lexandria, from Mark the Evangelist, unto Heraclius and Dionisius the Bishop, the Presbyters called one, chosen out of themselvs, and placed in a higher degree, the Bishop. But Marke dyed, as Eusebius, and Bu­cholcerus testifie, in the yeere of our Lord 64. Peter, Paul, and John, the Apostles, being then a­live: therefore, it is cleere, that Episcopacie was instituted in the time of the Apostles, and good Hierome suffered some frailty, when he wrote, that Bishops were greater then Presbyters, rather by the custome of the Church, then the truth of the Lords dis­posing; unlesse perhaps, by the custome of the Church, hee understands the custome of the Apostles, and by the truth of the Lords dis­posing, hee understands the apointment of Christ, yet not so, hee satisfies the truth of Hi­story. For it appears out of the 1.2. and 3. Chap­ters of the Revelation, that the forme of governing the Church by Angels or Bishops, was not only ratified, and established, in the time of the Apo­stles, but it was cōfirmed by the very Son of God. And Ignatius called that form the order of Christ.

And when Hierome writes, that it was decreed in the whole World, that one chosen out of the Presbyters should bee placed over the rest. And when I have de­monstrated, that in the life-time of the Apostles, Bishops were superior to Presbyters in Ordinati­on: and that each Church had one placed over it, doe wee not without cause demand; where, when, [Page 179] and by whom Episcopacie was ordained? Episco­pacie therefore is of divine right. Which, how the Prelates of the Church of Rome, for almost 300. yeers, did adorne with the truth of Doctrine, in­nocency of life, constancy in afflictions, and suf­fering Death it selfe for the honour of Christ; and on the other side, how in succeding times, first by their ambition, next by their excessive pragmati­call covetousnesse, scraping up to themselves the goods of this world, then by their heresie, last of all by their tyranny they corrupted it, that the Ro­man Hierarchy, at this day, hath nothing else left but a vizard of the Apostolicall Ecclesiasticall Hie­rarchy, and the lively image of the whore of Baby­lon, our Histories both antient and moderne doe abundantly testifie.

Wherefore all Bishops are warned from hence, that they throughly weigh with themselves the nature of Apostolicall Episcopacie, of which they glory that they are the successors.

That Episcopacie had two things peculiar to it, the privilege of succeeding, & the prerogative of ordaining: all other things were common to them with the Presbyters. Therefore both Bi­shops and Presbyters, should so exercise them­selves in godlinesse, should so free themselves from contempt by their conversation, and so make themselves examples to their flock; not neglecting especially the gift of prophecying, re­ceived from above, but being wholly intent, to reading, consolation, and teaching: to meditate [Page 180] on these things, to be wholly conversant in them; and so perpetually imployed in this holy functi­on, and divine affairs, with this promise, that if they shall doe these things, they shall both save themselves, and their Auditors, but if after the custome of some great ones, they fol­low the pride and luxury of this World, they shall both de­stroy themselves, and them that heare them.(*)

FINIS.

THE JUDGMENT OF The learned Divine, Doctor Abrahamus Scultetus, prime professor of Divinity at HEIDELBERGE, Concerning Lay-Elders.
OBSERVATIONS Vpon 1 Timothy, by Abraham Scultetus. Cap. 27. Concerning 1. Tim. 5.17.

THere are some that thinke this place of Scripture is of force enough to make good a Lay-Presbytery▪ for their eyes and judgements are da­zled wth. that distinction of Elders, which they suppose, to be cleerly intimated here by S. Paul: But, if they shall have diligently scanned [Page 182] the place, & compared it with other Texts of Scri­pture, they shall soone finde that the defence of Lay Elders out of this place, is both contrary to the signification of the Word ( [...]) i e. those that rule, and contrary to the signification of the Word Presbyter; and that it is quite against St. Pauls per­petuall Doctrine, and it is against the judgement of all the Fathers, that have expounded this speech of Saint Paul.

It is contrary to the signification of the Word ( [...]) for ( [...]) or Ecclesiasticall rule or government is an honour wherewith onely Mini­sters of Gods word are invested in the new Testa­ment, and not any Lay Persons: We beseech you brethren saith the Apostle, 1 Thes. v. 12. That you know those that labour amongst you, and are over you in the Lord, and that admonish you, and to esteeme them very highly in love for their workes sake: upon which words, saith Calvin, it is worthy to bee observed; what titles he gives to Pastors. First he saith, that they labor, and then he sets them forth, by the name of rule, or governance. And Beza upon the place it appeares from hence, that the Church was governed by Pastors in common, and that the degree of a Bishop was not thought of, and therefore ( [...]) to rule, is the same with ( [...]) to leade, because the shepheards are wont to goe before their flock. But the Apostle Heb. 13.7. and 17. calls the Ministers of the Word Leaders. Therefore, according to Beza, we must ac­knowledge those that are over the people, are the Ministers of the word: neither doth Iustin Martyr [Page 83] in his Apology to Antonius call the ( [...]) any other then the pastor and teacher of the Con­gregation.

Moreover, the defence of Lay-Elders out of this present text of St. Paul, is contrary to the significa­tion of the word Presbyter, which when it is used, concerning the polity of the new Testament, doth always signifie the Ministers of the word: Acts 11.30. They sent their collection to the Elders by the hands of Barnabas, and Saul, that is to the Mini­sters, of whom it is said, Acts 14.13. [...] They ordained them Elders in every Church: And Acts 15.2. A main question of faith is propoun­ded to the Apostles and Elders of Hierusalem; but what? to be decided by Lay-Men? for the Elders met with the Apostles to consider of this matter, Acts 15.6.

And the Presbyters are joyned together with the Apostles Verse 22. and are distinguished from the whole Church, as also v. 23. and chap. 16.4. Again in the 20. of the Acts the Elders of Ephesus verse 17. are said to be made Bishops to feede the flocke of Christ, ver. 18. and in Acts 21.18. and the ver­ses following, the Presbyters or Elders of Jerusa­lem instruct the Apostle Paul what he is to doe; and therefore were no Lay-men. In this very Chapter, when Timothy is commanded to receive no accusa­tion against an Elder, the Elder there is a teacher, as shall be shewed in the next chapter. Titus 1.5. that thou maist ordain Elders in every City▪ what kind of Elders? surely, teachers; for hee adds, if [Page 184] any be blamelesse. &c. for a Bishop must be unre­proveable, &c.

And James 5.14. The sick are bidden to send for the Elders of the Church, that they may pray over, and anoint the sick with oyle in the name of the Lord, which is no Lay-mans duty: 1 Peter 5.1. The Elders I exhort who am also a fellow-Elder, feede the flock; How is hee a fellow-Elder, but be­cause he is a teacher as they?

And they are charged to feed the flook, therefore Pastors, 2, Ioh· 1. & 3 Ioh. 1. Iohn the Apostle with­out all question is called an Elder. Ignatius makes often mention of Elders, or Presbyters in his Epistles, but never of Lay-Elders. And in his E­pistle to those of Tarsus describing the Ecclesia­sticall Hierarchy of his time, he saith ( [...]) Let the Presbyters bee subject to the Bishops, and the Deacons to the Presbyters, and the Lay-men to both Deacons, and Presbyters: and to the Mag­nesians As the Lord saith hee doth nothing with­out the Father: so neither do you without your Bishop, neither Presbyter, nor deacon, nor Laick. Where observe that the very Deacons did not sit in the Presbytery Apostoli (que), much lesse Lay-men.

Thirdly, the defence of Lay-Elders out of the 17. verse of Chap. 5. of the 1. Tim. is against the Perpetuall doctrine of St. Paul: for to give honour to the Presbyters, or Elders, is to honour them with maintenance, out of the publique stock of the Church; for so the Apostle, before, commands these that are indeed Widowes to be honoured, [Page 185] that is to be designed to publique attendances and allowances; And the reason which the Apostle gives, confirmes this explication of the honour re­quired; When he saith thou shalt not muzzle the Oxe that treadeth out the corne. And in Matthew the honor of Parents is chiefely to be taken of meat and maintenance, which signification is very fami­liar and proper to the word (Kabud) used in the fifth commandement, and so the word is expoun­ded by Marke 7.12. But maintenance, out of the stock of the Church, the Apostle would not have to be given even to such poore widdows, as could be otherwise provided for; as before verse 16. And he himselfe laboured with his owne hands, that he might not bee burdensome to others, much lesse would he have the chiefe of the Laity who abound with wealth to bee maintained of the common store; and that more liberally then others: For, if by those that rule well, you shall understand both Lay-Elders and sacred also, you must needs conclude, that they are all worthy of double honour, both those which rule, and those which labour in Doctrine: which conclusion the Apostle is against elsewhere; whilest hee saith, those which serve at the Altar, must partake of the Altar. And the Lord himselfe who hath appointed that those which preach the Gospell should live of the Gospell, 1. Corinthians 9.13.14. Wher­upon Hierome in the same place; hee would saith hee, have them to yeeld carnall things to those [Page 186] of whom they receive spiritual things, because they being taken up in teaching, cannot provide necessa­ry things for themselves. Yea, I say yet more, if St. Paul had, by those that rule, understood Lay-elders, certainly hee would some-where have put them in minde of their duty, or, at least have made mention of them, 1 Tim. 3. where he doth not omit to give charge even of Deacons, and Deaconesses: But he doth neither of the two, but presently after the mention of Bishops, or Presbyters that were Pa­stors, he falls into the speech concerning Deacons, and their wives; so as it is a plaine proofe that Lay-Elders were utterly unknown to him.

Fourthly, the defence of Lay-Elders out of this place is utterly against the judgment of the fathers, so many as ever have expounded this text of the A­postle: Neither indeed is there any necessity at all, that because the Apostle saith, those especially that labour in Word and Doctrine, therefore we should devise new Elders to bee taken out of the common people: For it was well knowne, that those of the Clergie, which are over the Lords flock, have their distinct Offices, and employments. There are of them, which administer Sacraments, make publike prayers, privately admonish faithfull people, and with-hold them from sinning; there are others, which being indued with excellent guifts of spea­king, imploy themselves in being teachers & guids to mens soules in the way to heaven, and the labors of these men, which are taken by them, in word and [Page 187] Doctrine, are justly preferred before the service of them, which administer the sacraments, and make prayers for the Church; even by the testimony of the Apostle himselfe, who saith; Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the Gospell, 1. Cor. 1.17. He was sent for both purposes, but the chief end of his mission, was, the preaching of the Gospell.

Whosoever therefore, thus rule the people, whe­ther they doe administer the Sacrament, or onely preach the word, or whether they doe both, are worthy of double Honour; where a certain number is put for an uncertain, double honour, that is greater and more then others; although some are of opinion, that here by Apostoli (que) autho­rity there is a greater portion assigned to the Go­vernors, then to others that appertain to the Church, others interpret it of that double Honour which is fit for governours to have; one, of an aw­full reverence and command, the other of more largenesse of maintenarce; that they be, both, ob­served, and respected above others, and, that they have a more liberall provision of necessaries for their livelyhood; but the first of them is the more simple exposition of the words. He therefore holds those, that are set over the people worthy of double honour; And why double? A little before he had given them order about the honoring, that is main­taining of their Widowes, at the charge of the Church: from the Widows, hee passeth to the Elders, or Presbyters; whom, if they rule well, hee would have honoured with a double alowance, [Page 188] that is greater then that of the Widowes, both by reason of their office, and by reason of their fami­ly; and amongst those that rule, yet againe, hee would have those most regarded, who are im­ployed not so much in administring the Sa­craments, as in preaching the Word. I doubt not but this is the most true Explication of this place

FINIS.

This keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the Text Creation Partnership. This Phase I text is available for reuse, according to the terms of Creative Commons 0 1.0 Universal. The text can be copied, modified, distributed and performed, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission.