In which, The Originall of LITURGY, EPISCOPACY is discussed. And Quaeres propounded concerning both.

The PARITY of Bishops and Presbyters in Scrip­ture Demonstrated. The occasion of their IMPARITY in Antiquity discovered. The DISPARITY of the Ancient and our Moderne Bishops manifested. The ANTIQUITY of Ruling Elders in the Church vindicated. The PRELATICALL Church Bownded.

IEREMY 6.16.

Thus saith the Lord, stand in the wayes, and Behold, and aske for the Old Way, which is the Way, and walke therein.

Tertul. de praescr. adv. haeres.

Id Dominicum & verum, quod prius traditum: id autem extraaeum & falsum quod sit posterius.


LONDON, Printed for I. Rothwell, and are to be sold by T. N. at the Bible in Popes-Head-Alley. 1641.


ALthough we doubt not, but that book which was lately directed to your Honours, bear­ing the name of an Humble Remonstrance, hath had accesse unto your presence: and is in the first approaches of it, discovered by your discerning spirits, to be neither Humble, nor a Re­monstrance; but a heape of confident, and ungrounded assertions; so that to your Honours a Reply may seeme superfluous: Yet lest the Authour should glory in our si­lence, as a granting of the cause; we humbly crave your Honours leave, to present, not so much to your selves, as to the world by your hands, a review of this Remonstrance; in which the Authour after too large a Preface, undertakes the support of two things, which seeme to him to bee threatned with danger of a present precipice, the Liturgy, and the Hierarchie.

It was a constitution of those admired sonnes of Iustice the Areopagi; [...]. that such as pleaded before them should pleade without prefacing and without Passion: had your Honours made such a constitution, this Remonstance must have beene banished from the face of your Assembly: for [Page 2] the Preface fils almost a fourth part of the Booke, and the rest swels with so many passionate Rhetorications, as it is harder for us in the multitude of his words to finde what his argument is, that we have to answer, then to an­swer it when it is found.

We would not trace him in his words, but close imme­diately with his argments; did wee not finde in him a sad exemplification of that Divine Axiome, in Multitudi­ne verborum non deest peccatum, in the multitude of words there wants no sinne: Pag. 23. for though the Authour is bold to call upon your Honours to heare the words of truth and confidence, yet how little truth there is in this great confi­dence, the ensuing discourse shall discover.

His very first word [...] are confident enough, and yet as false as confident; wherein he Impropriates all honesty unto these his Papers, and brands all others with the name of Libellers, and yet himselfe sins deeply against the rule of honesty, and lies naked to the scourge of his owne cen­sure.

1 First, in setting a brand upon all writings that have lately issued from the presse,Pag. 1. as if they had all forgotten to speake any other language then Libellous: it seemes him­selfe had forgotten, that some things had issued by Autho­rity of the King and Parliament.

2 Secondly, in taxing (implicitely) all such as will not owne this Remonstrance for theirs: as, none of the peace­able and well-affected Sons of the Church of England.

3 Thirdly, in censuring the way of petitioning your Ho­nours, the Ancient and ordinary free way of seeking re­dresse of our evils,Pag. 2. for a Tumultuary under-band way.

4 Fourthly, in condemning all such as are not fautors of this Episcopall Cause, Pag. 3. as none of his Majesties good Sub­jects, engrossing that praise onely to his owne party, say­ing, The eyes of us the good Subjects of this whole Realm [...] are fixed upon your Successe, &c.

5 Fiftly, in Impropriating to the same party the praise of Orthodox, Pag. 6. pag. 6. as if to speak a word, or think a thought [Page 3] against Episcopacy, were no lesse Heresie, then it was in forme [...] time to speake against the Popes supremacy, or the monkes fat Belly; whereas whether the Episcopall part be the Orthodox, peaceable, well affected part, and his Majesties onely good Subjects, wee leave to your Honours to Iudge, upon the numerous Informations that flow in unto you from the severall parts of this Kingdome.

Nor can they decline your Iudgment,Pag. 2. seeing now you are (through Gods blessing) happily met in a much longed for Parliament: but whether so much longed for by him and his accomplices; as by those against whom he wh [...]s his Style, the Prayers that have obtained this happy mee­ting, and the prayses that doe attend it, will decide in [...]hat great day.

The Helena, whose Champion this Remonstrant chiefely is: is that Government which hee calles Sacred, viz. that Governement by Arch-Bishops, Bishops, Deanes, Archdeacons, &c. which, saith he, through the sides of some misliked persons some have endeavoured to wound. Misliked Persons? and why not offending persons? why not guilty persons? when this Honourable house hath [...]ound just cause to charge some of them, with crimes of the highest nature. Our zeale for your Honours make us feare, lest your assembly shold suffer in this word; as if your pro­ceedings against such persons should be grounded upon compliance with such as doe mislike them, rather then up­on their owne demerits, or the Iustice of this Court.

But what ever those Persons be,Pag 7. the Government it self is Sacred; which by the [...]oynt confession of all reformed Di­vines, derives it selfe from the times of the [...]lessed Apostles, Vntruths. without any interruption, without contradiction of any one congregation in the world unto this present age. This is but an Episcopall Bravado, therefore we let it passe, till we come to close and contend with him in the point; where we shall demonstrate, that in the compasse of three lines hee hath packt up as many untruths, as could be smoothly couched in so few words, as any man of common under­standing, that lookes upon the face of the Governement [Page 4] of almost all reformed Churches in the Christian world, may at first view discover.

But before we come to this, there are yet two things in this Preface which we count not unworthy observation. The First is, the comparison which he makes between the two Governments, the Civill which with us is Monar­chie: and the sacred which with him is Episcopacy. Of the first he saith,R [...]mo [...] pag 8. if Antiquity may be the Rule; (as he pleades it for Episcopacy) or i [...] Scripture (as he interprets Scrip­ture) it is VARIABLE, and ARBITRARY: but the other DI­VINE and VNALTERABLE, so that had men petitioned for the altering of Monarchicall Government, they had (in his Iudgement) beene lesse culpable, [...]oth by Scrip­ture and Antiquity, then in petitioning the alteration of the Hierarchicall: Had he found but any such passage in any of his Lewd Libellers (as his modesty is alwayes plea­sed to tearme them) certainly if we may borrow his owne phrase, the eares of the three Interessed Kingdomes, yea, all the neighbour Churches, and if we may say, the whole Chri­stian world, and no small part beyond it, had rung with the lowd cryes of no lesse then Treason, Treason.

Truth is, in his Antiquity we find that this his uninter­rupted sacred Government, hath so far invaded the Civill, and so yoked Monarchy, even in this Kingdome, as Mal­mesbury reports: That William Rufus oppressed by Bishops, perswaded the Iewes to confute them;Malmes­bury lib. 4. promising there­upon to turne England to their Religion, that he might be free of Bishops. And this is so naturall an effect of un­alterable Episcopacy, that Pius [...]he fourth to the Spanish Embassadour, importuning him to permit Bishops to bee declared by the Councell of Trent, Hist. Con­cil. Trid. to be Iure Divino, gave this answer: That his King knew not what he did desire, for if Bishops should be so declared, they would be all ex­empted from his Power, and as indepedent as the Pope himselfe.

The second thing observable is the comparison hee makes betweene the late Alterations attempted in our Neighbour Church by his Episcopall faction, and that [Page 5] Alteration that is now justly desired by the humble petiti­oners to this Honourable House. The one being attempted by strangers, endevouring violently to obtrude Innovati­ons upon a setled Church and State, The other humbly pe­titioned to the Heads and Princes of our State by Multi­tudes therein almost ruined by an Innovating Faction: yet doth not this Remonstrant blush to say; if these be bran­ded, (so he cals the just censures of this Honorable House) For Incendiaries, Pag. 9. how shall these Boutefeux escape, &c. thus cunningly indeavouring either to justifie the former by the practise of the latter, or to render the latter more odi­ous then the former.

The attempts of these men whom he would thus ren­der odious, hee craves leave to present to your Honours in two things, which are the subjects of this quarrell: The Liturgie and Episcopacy, and we humbly crave your Ho­nours leave in both to answer.


FIrst, the Liturgie of the Church of England (saith he) hath bin hitherto esteemed sacred, Liturgie. reverently used by ho­ly Martyrs, Pag. 10. daily frequented by devout Protestants, as that which more then once hath been confirmed by the Edicts of religious Princes, and your own Parliamentary Acts, &c. And hath it so? whence then proceed these many Additi­ons and Alterations? that have so changed the face and fa­brick of the Liturgie, that as Dr. Hall spake once of the pride of England: if our fore-fathers should revive and see their daughters walking in Cheapside with their fannes and farthingales, &c. they would wonder what kinde of creatures they were, and say Nature had forgot her selfe and brought forth a monster: so if these holy Martyrs that once so reverently used the Liturgy should re­vive and looke for their Letany stampt by Authority of Parliament, they would be amased, and wonde­ring say; England had forgotten her selfe and brought forth, &c. Martyrs? what doe we speake of Martyrs when we know Sir, that one of your owne Ad hoc ma­larum dev [...]lu­tae est Ecclesia Dei & spon [...]a Christi ut hae­reticorum ex­empla Secten­tu [...] & ad cele­branda Sacra­menta coelestia, discipli­nam. Lux mu­ [...]uetur de te­neb [...] & [...]d faciant chri­stiani quod Antichristi faciunt. Cypr. Ep. 74. Bishops said [Page 6] it in the hearing of many not so long since, but you may well remember it. That the service of the Church of Eng­land was now so drest, that if the Pope should come and see it, he would claime it as his owne, but that it is in English.

It is little then to the advantage of your cause, that you tell us, it is translated into other languages, and as little ser­vice have they done to the Church of England, who have taught our Prayers to speake Latine againe: For if it be their Language chiefly that overthrowes the Popes claime, take away that, and what hinders then, but the Pope may say, these are mine.

As for other Translations and the great applause it hath obtained from Forraigne Divines, which are the fumes this Remonstrant venditates; what late dayes have produ­ced we know not, but the great lights of Former ages have beene farre from this applauding: we are sure judici­ous Calvine saith, that in the Liturgy there are sundry Tolerabiles Ineptiae, which we thinke is no very great ap­plause.

To vindicate this Liturgy from scorne (as he calles it) at home, or by your Honours aide to reinforce it upon the Na­tion, is the worke of his Remonstrance; for the effecting whereof he falls into an unparallell'd discourse about the Antiquity of Liturgies;Page 13. we call it unparalleld, because no man that we have seene ever drew the line of Liturgy so high as he hath done.

Concerning which, if by Liturgy this Remonstrant understand an Order observed in Church assemblies of Praying, reading, and expounding the Scriptures, Admini­string Sacraments, &c. Such a Liturgy we know and do ac­knowledge both Iewes and Christians have used. But if by Liturgy hee understand prescribed and stinted formes of Administration Composed by some particular men in the Church, and imposed upon all the rest (as this he must understand, or else all hee saith is nothing) wee desire and expect that those formes, which he saith are yet extant, and ready to be produced, might once appeare.

Iust. Mar. Apost. 2.Liturgy of this former sort we finde in Iustine Martyr [Page 7] and Tertullian. Tert. Ap. ad Gen. c. 39. But that there were not such stinted Li­turgies as this Remonstrant disputes for, appeares by Ter­tullian, in his Apol. Cap. 30. where he saith the Christians of those times did in their publique assemblies pray sine monitore qui [...] de pectore, without any Prompter but their own hearts. And that so it should be the same Father proves in his Treatise, de Oratione: S [...]nt quae petantur, &c. There are some things to be asked according to the occasions of e­very man: the lawfull & ordinary prayer (tha [...] is the Lords Prayer) being laid as a foundation; It is lawfull to build up­on that foundation other prayers according to every ones oc­casions. And to the same purpose S. Austin in his 121. Ep. Liberum est, &c. it is free to aske the same things that are desired in the Lords Prayer,Iust. Mar. Apost. 2. [...]. aliis atque aliis verbis, some­times one way and sometimes another: And before this in that famous place of Iust. Mar. Apo. 2. He, who in­structed the people, prayed according to his ability, Nor was this liberty in prayer taken away, and set and imposed formes introduced, untill the time that the Arian and Pelagian Heresies did invade the Church, and then be­cause those Hereticks did convey and spreade their poy­son in their formes of Prayer and Hymnes, the Church thought it convenient to restraine the liberty of making and using publike formes: And first it ordained that 1 none should pray pro Arbitrio, sed semper eaedem preces, that none should use liberty to vary in prayer; but use al­waies the same forme,Concil. La. Can. 18. Conc. Laod. Can. 18. yet this was a forme of his owne composing, as appeares by another Canon, wherein it was ordered thus: None should use any forme, unlesse he had first conferred Cum fratribus in­structioribus: with the more learned of his brethren. Conc. Carth. 3. Can. 23. and lastly that none should use set pray­ers,Conc. Carth. 3. Can. 23. Anno 397. but such as were approved of in a Synode, which was not determined till the yeare 416. Conc. Milev. 2. Can. 12. And had there been any Liturgies of Times of the first and most venerable antiquity producible,Conc. Mi­lev. 2. the great ad­mirers of them, and inquirers after them would have pre­sented them to the world ere this.Can. 12. An. 416. [Page 8] we know that Bishop Andrews in his zeale for Liturgies pursued the inquiry after the Iewish Liturgie so far, that he thought he had found it; and one there was which he sent to Cambridge to be translated: but there it was soone discovered, to have beene made long after the Iewes ceased to be the Church of God; and so himselfe supprest it, that it never saw the light under a transla­tion.

We wonder therefore, what this Remonstrant meant to affirme so confidently,Pag. 10. that part of the forme of prayer which was composed by our blessed Saviour, was borrowed from the formes of prayer formerly used by Gods people. An opinion we never met before; indeed, we have read that the Rabbines since the daies of our Saviour have borrow­ed some expressions from that Prayer, and from other Evangelicall passages: But we never read till now, that the Lord Christ the wisdome of the Father borrowed from the wisdome of the Rabbines expressions to use in Prayer.

Pag. 12.And as much we wonder by what Revelation or Tra­dition (Scripture being silent in the thing) he knew, that Peter and Iohn, when they went up to the Temple to pray, their Prayer was not of a sudden and extemporary concep­tion, but of a Regular prescription. Sure we are some as well read in Iewish antiquity, as this Remonstrant shewes him­selfe to be; have told us that the houre of Prayer was the time when the Priest burnt Incense; and the people were at their private prayers without, as appeares, Luke 1.9. where we reade, that while Zachary the Priest went in to offer Incense, all the people stood with out praying in the time of the Oblation. Which Prayers were so far from being Prescript Formes or Liturgies that they were not vocall but mentall Prayers, as Master Meade tels us in his exposition upon the eighth of the Revelations.

And what ever Peter and Iohn did, this we know, that when the Publican and the Pharisee went up to the Tem­ple to pray (as the Apostles did at the houre of prayer) their prayer was not of Regular prescription, Pag. 18. but of a pre­sent Conception.

[Page 9]But if this Remonstrant be in the right, concerning the Iewish Liturgies, then the Evangelicall Church might better have improved her peace and happinesse, Pag. 11. then in com­posing Models of Invocation and Thanksgiving, when there is one extant and ready to be produced, that was con­stantly used by Gods people ever since Moses daies, and put over to the times of the Gospel and confirmed by Apostoli­call practise: or else great is our losse, who are so unhappi­ly deprived of the best improvement, the Church made of her peace and happinesse in the first 300. yeares: for reject­ing those Liturgies that are confest by the Learned to bee Spurious;Euseb. de vit. Con. li 4. cap. 18. We challenge this Remonstrant to produce any one Liturgie that was the issue of those times. And blessed Constantine was herein as unhappy as we, who needed not have composed formes of prayer for his Guard to use up­on the Lords day, but might and would have taken them out of former Liturgies, if there had been any; And can ye with patience think that any ingenuous Christian should be so transported, Pag. 11. as upon such weak and unproved premises to build such a Confident conclusion, as this Remonstrant doth? and in that Conclusion forget the state of the con­troversie sliding from the question of a prescribed and im­posed Liturgie to an arbitrary book of prayer.

In his Rhetoricall Encomium of conceived prayer wee shall more willingly bear a part with him, then they whose cause he pleads; for had that been in their hearts, which is in this book: Pag. 12. to hate, to be guilty of powring water upon the Spirit, and gladly to adde oyle rather: so many learned, able, Conscientious Preachers had not been molested and suspended, for letting the constant flames of their fixed con­ceptions mount up from the altar of their zealous heart un­to the throne of grace: nor had there been so many advan­tages watched from some stops and seeming solecismes in some mens prayers,Pag. 12. to blaspheme the spirit of prayer, which though now confest to be so far from being offensive, that they are as pleasing Musick in the eares of the Almighty: yet time hath been, when they have [...]ounded as meere Bat­tologies; nay no better then meere Blasphemies in the [...]ares of some Bishops.

[Page 10] Pag. 13.And if this conceived prayer be not to be opposed in another, by any man that hath found the true operation of this grace in himselfe: with that spirit then are those possest, that have not only thus raged with their tongues against this way of prayer: but by sealing up the mouthes of Ministers for praying thus in publike, and imposing penances upon private Christians for praying thus in their Families: and compelling them to abiure this pra­ctise, have endeavoured with raging violence to banish this divine ordinance from our Churches and dwellings,D. Corbet. M. Novel. and profest in open Court: it was fitter for Amsterdam than for our Churches.

But howsoever this applause of conceived prayer may seeme to be Cordiall, yet he makes it but a vantage ground to lift up publike formes of sacred Church Liturgie (as hee calls it) the higher, that they may have the greater ho­nour, that by the power of your authority they be reinforced, which worke there would have beene no need to call your Honors to,Pag. 13. had not Episcopall zeale broke forth into such flames of indignation against conceived prayers, that we have more just cause to implore the propitious aide of the same Authority to reestablish the Liberty of this, then they to re-inforce the necessity of that.

Yet there are two specious Arguments which this Remonstrant brings to perswade this desired re-inforce­ment, the Originall and Confirmation of our Li­turgie.

For the first, he tels your Honours, it was selected out of ancient Models not ROMAN but CHRISTIAN,Pag. 13. contrived by the holy Martyrs and Confessors of the blessed reformati­on of Religion; where we beseech your Honours to consi­der how we may trust these men, who sometimes speak­ing and writing of the ROMAN Church, proclaime it a true Church of CHRIST, and yet here ROMAN and CHRISTIAN stand in opposition: sometimes they tell men, their Liturgie is wholly taken out of the Romane Missall, only with some little alteration: and here they would perswade your Honours there is nothing Romane [Page 11] in it. But it is wholly selected out of pure Ancient Mo­dels, as the Quintessence of them all. Whereas alas the originall of it, is published to the world, in that Procla­mation of Edward the sixt.

And though here they please to stile the Composers of it, holy Martyrs, and contrivers of the blessed Reformation: yet there are of the Tribe for whom he pleads, not a few that have called them Traitors rather then Martyrs, and D [...] ­formers rather then Reformers of our Religion.

His other Argument for the Liturgie is taken from that supply of strength, it hath received from the recommendati­on of foure most Religious Princes, & your own Parliamen­tary establishments: Pag. 13, 14. and more especially from the Procla­mation of King Iames of famous memory: the validity of which plea, your Honors are best able to judge, and there­fore we leave it at your Bar; yet these two things we know: first, that this form was never established to be so punctual­ly observed, so rigorously pressed, to the casting out of all that scruple it, or any thing in it (as many of his Majesties Subjects now doe) to the (almost) justling out of the prea­ching of the Word, and Conceived Prayer altogether.

And secondly, as sure we are, that your Honors thinke neither your own Lawes, nor the Proclamation of that most famous and ever admired Prince, to be as unalterable as the Lawes of the Medes and Persians.

And now having briefly shewed, that Liturgies are not of that antiquity that this Remonstrant pretends, but that conceived prayer was in use in the Church of God before Liturgies, and is iustified from their own mouthes, and not to be found fault with by any but a gracelesse man: and ha­ving likewise shewed that our Liturgie was taken out of Models, not only Christian but Romane, and hath since the first compiling of it suffered alteration to the worse; and though established by Law, and confirmed by Pro­clamation, was never intended to the justling ou [...], either of preaching or conceived prayer; these things declared, we humbly crave your Honors leave to propound these two Queries.


Whether it be not fit to consider of the alteration of the present Liturgie.

1 First, because it symbolizeth so much with the Popish Masse, as that the Pope himselfe was willing to have it used, if he might but confirme it.

2 It was made and composed into this frame, on purpose to bring the Papists to our Churches, which we finde to be with so little successe, as that it hath rather brought ma­ny of us to them, then any of them to us, and hath lost many of ours from us.

3 Because many things therein contained are stumbling blocks before the feet of many: such as these, the clog­ging it with Ceremonies, and the often and impertinent reiterating of the Lords Prayer, the ill translation of the Psalmes, and other Scriptures, the many phrases in the very prayers, which are liable to just exception. And whereas the Minister by the Scripture is the peoples mouth to God, this booke prescribes Responsories to bee said by the people, some of which are unsutable to what the Minister pronounceth, some of them seeme to savour of Tautologie, some are made to be so essentiall to the prayer, as that all which the Minister saith, is no prayer without them; as in the Letany.

4 Because it is so much Idolized, as that it is accounted the only worship of God in England, and is now made the upholder of a non-preaching Ministery, and is cryed up to that height, as that some are not ashamed to say, that the wit of men and Angels cannot mend it:Abbot against Church [...]o [...] ­sakers. and that it is a sufficient discharge of the Ministers duty to reade this Booke.

5 There are such multitudes of people, that distaste this booke, that unlesse it be altered, there is no hope of any mutuall agreement between Gods Ministers and their people.

There is such a vaste difference betweene it, and the Liturgies [Page 13] of all other reformed Churches, as that it keepes them at a distance from us, and us from full Communion with them.


Whether the first reformers of Religion did ever in­tend the use of a Liturgie further, then to be an help, in the want, or to the weaknesse of a Minister.

All other reformed Churches, though they use Litur­gies,1 yet doe not binde their Ministers to the use of them.

A Rubrick in King Edwards booke left it unto the dis­cretion 2 of the Minister, what and how much to reade, when there was a Sermon.

The Homilies which are appointed to be read, are left 3 free either to be read or not, by preaching Ministers, and why not then the Liturgie? especially considering that the ability to offer up the peoples wants to God in prayer is part of the Ministeriall office, as well as preaching. And if it can be thought no lesse than sacriledge, to rob the people of the Ministers gift in preaching, and to tie them to Homilies, it can be no lesse, to deprive them of their gift in prayer.

The ground of the first binding of it upon all to use,4 was not to tie godly men from exercising their gift in prayer; but the old popish Priests, that by a seeming re­turne to our Religion, did through indulgence retaine their places; from returning to the old Mas [...]e.

That which makes many refuse to be present at our 5 Church service, is not only the Liturgie it selfe, but the imposing of it upon Ministers. And we finde no way to recover our people to a stinted prayer, but by leaving it free to use or not to use.

If it be objected,Ob. that this will breed divisions and di­sturbances in Churches, unlesse there be a uniformity, and that there are many unable.

It hath not bred any disturbance in other reformed Churches.Answ.

[Page 14] 2 Why should the free liberty of using or not using a Liturgie, breed more confusion than the free liberty of reading or not reading Homilies, especially when Mini­sters shall t [...]ach people, not to condemne one another in things indifferent.

3 If there be a care taken in those that have the power to make Ministers, to choose men gifted as well for prayer as preaching, there cannot be conceived how any incon­venience should follow. Or if afterwards it should ap­peare, that any Minister should prove insufficient to dis­charge the duty of prayer in a conceived way, it may bee imposed on him as a punishment, to use set formes and no other. But why any Minister that hath the gift of prayer, in an abundant measure, as well as of preaching, should be hindered from exercising his gift well, because another useth it ill, is a new Divinity never heard of in Gods Church, till Bishop Wrens daies, who forbad all use of conceived prayer in the Church.


VVE come now with your Honours favour, to the second point disputed in this Remonstrance; Episcopacy it selfe: against which, whatsoever hath been either spoken or written by any, either learned Divines, or well reformed Churches (as his conscience knowes,Pag. 17. there are of both that have writ against it) is Taxed by him as no other then the uniust Clamors either of weak or factious persons. Sure the man thinkes he hath obtained a Mono­poly of learning,Pag. 17. and all Knowledge is lockt up in his bo­some; and not o [...]ly Knowledge but piety and peaceableness too; for all that are not of his opinion, must suffer either as weake or factious, if he may be their Iudge. We know not what this Arrogancy might attempt to fasten upon your Honors, should the bowels of your compassion bee enlarged, to weigh in the Ballance of your wisdomes, the multitude of Humble petitions, presented to you from seve­rall parts of this Kingdome, that hath long groaned under [Page 15] the Iron a [...]d Insupportable yoake of this Episcopall Go­vernment, which yet we doubt not, but your Honours will please to take into your prudent and pious consideration: Especially knowing it is their continuall practise to loade with the odious names of Faction all that justly complain of their unjust oppression.

In his addresse to his defence of Episcopacy,Pag. 17. he makes an unhappy confession that he is confounded in himselfe. Your Honours may in this beleeve him, for hee that 1 reades this Remonstrance, may easily observe so many falsities and contradictions, (though presented to publike view, with a face of confident boldnesse,) as could not fall from the Pen of any, but selfe-confounded man: which though we doubt not but your Honours have descryed; yet because they are hid from an errant, and unobserving eye, under the Embroyderies of a silken Language, wee Humbly crave your Honours leave to put them one by one upon the file, that the world may see what credit is to be given to the bold assertions of this confident Remon­strant.

First, in his second page, he dubs his Book Pag. 2. the faith­full messenger of all One of these Sonnes of the Church of England whose messen­ger this Re­monstrance is, was he who swore by the Eternall God, he would be the death of those that did appeare to move against the grievances of Episcopacy, and if the rest of these Milli­ons mentio­ned pag. 2. whose thou­sands are so punctually calculated p. 41 be of his spirit: they are an army of very peace­able & right-affected men. the peaceable and right affected sons of the Church of England: which words (besides that unchri­stian Theta, which as we already observed, they set upon all that are not of his party,) carry in the bowels of them a notorious falsity and contradiction to the phrase of the booke; for how could this booke be the messenger of all his owne party in England, when it is not to be imagined, that all could know of the comming forth of this booke before it was published: and how can that booke crave admittance in all their names, that speakes in the singular number, and as in the person of one man almost the whole booke thorow.

But it may besome will say this is but a small slippe; well be it so: but in the seventh page hee layes it on in foure lines, asserting these foure things: First, that 2 Episcopall Government, Pag. 7. (that very same Episco­pall Government, which some he saith seekes to wound, [Page 16] that is Government by Diocesan Bishops) derives it selfe from the Apostles times, which though we shall [...] more fully confute anon, yet we cannot here but ranke it among his notorious—: for how could there be such Government of a Diocesse by a Bishop derived from the Apostles times: when in the Apostles times there were no Bishops distinct from P [...]esbyters, as we shall shew, and if there had beene Bishops, yet they were no Diocesans, for it was a hundred yeares after Christ, or as most agree 260. before Parishes were distinguished,Evaristus. 100. and there must be a distinction of Parishes before there could be an uni­on of them into Diocesses.Dionysius. 260.

Secondly, it is by the joynt confession of all reformed Di­vines granted, Some say 267. as Pol. Virg. that this sacred Government is derived from the Apostles: What all reformed Divines? was Calvin, Beza, Iunius, &c. of that minde? Are the reformed 2 Churches of France, Scotland, Netherlands, of that Iudge­ment? we shall shew anon that there is no more Truth in this Assertion then if he had said with Anaxagoras, snow is black, or with Copernicus, the Earth moves, and the heavens stand still.

3 Thirdly, he saith this Government hath continued with­out any interruption: What doth he meane, at Rome? for we reade in some places of the world this Govern­ment was never known for many yeares together: as in Scotland [...] we reade that in Ancient times the Scots were instructed in the Christian faith by Priests and Monkes,Ioh. Maior l. 2. Hist. de gest. Scot. Cap. 2. and were without Bishops 290. yeares: yea to come to England, we would desire to know of this Remonstrant whether God had a Church in England in Q. Mari [...]s daies or no? and if so, who were then the Bishops of this Church, for some there must be, if it be true that this man saith, this Government hath continued without any in­terruption unto this day; and Bishops then we know not where to finde but in the [...]ine of Popish succession.

Fourthly, he saith it hath thus continued without the contradiction of any one Congregation in the Christian world. It seemes he hath forgotten, what their own darling [Page 17] Heylin hath written of the people of Biscay in Spaine, that they admit of no Bishops to come among them, for when Ferdinand the Catholike came in progresse accompanied among others with the Bishop of Pampelone, Heylins Geog. p. 55. the people rose up in Armes, drove back the Bishop, and gathering up all the dust which they thought he had trode on, flung it into the Sea.

Which story had it been recorded only by him,Gener. Hist. of Spain l. 22 would have been of lighter Credit. But we reade the same in the Spanish Chronicle, who saith more then the Doctor, for he tels us that the People threw that dust that the Bishop or his Mule had trode on, into the Sea with Curses and Imprecations: which certainly saith he was not done without some Mysterie, those people not being voide of Religion, but superstitiously devout as the rest of the Spaniards are: so that they is one Congregation in the Christian world in which this Government hath met with contradiction.

And are not the French, Scottish, and Belgicke Chur­ches worthy to be counted Christian Congregations, and who knows not that amongst these this Government hath met not only with verball, but reall contradiction?

Yet he cannot leave his—: But within two pages is at 6 it again;Pag. 9. and tels us of an unquestionable clearnesse where­in it hath been from the Apostles derived to us, how un­questionable? when the many volumes written about it, witnesse to the world, and to his conscience, it hath been as much questioned as any point (almost) in our Reli­gion.

And that assertion of his that tels us that the people of 7 God had a forme of prayer as ancient as Moses, which was constantly practised to the Apostles dayes, and by the Apostles, &c. though we have shewed how bold and false this assertion is, yet we mention it here as deserving to be put into the Catalogue.

And that he may not seeme Contra Mentem ire: but 8 to be of the same minde still,Pag. 18. p. 18. he saith Episcopall Go­vernment hath continued in this Island ever since the first [Page 18] plantation of the Gospell without contradiction. Had he ta­ken a lesse space of time, and said but since the resuscitation of the Gospel: we can prove it to him and shall, that since the reformation, Episcopacy hath been more contradicted, then ever the Papacy was before the extirpation of it.

9 Yet still the man runs on, thinking to get credit to his untruthes by their multiplications, for pag. 21. hee saith; Certainly except all Histories, all Authors faile us, nothing can be more certain then this truth: O [...] Durum! Nothing more certain: what is it not more certain that there is a God? is it not more certain that Christ is God and man? is it not more certaine that Christ is the onely Saviour of the world? Nothing more certaine: must this then be an Article of our Creede, the corner stone of our Religion: must this be of necessity to Salvation? Nothing more certaine. O that men should not onely forget themselves, but God also: And in their zeale for their owne Honour utter words bordering upon Blasphemy.

Indignation will not suffer us to prosecute these falsi­ties of his any further; wee will leave this displeasing service, onely retorting the words of this Remonstrant upon himselfe; Surely could he looke with our eyes (or any eyes that were not partiall) he would see cause to bee throughly ashamed of these his grosse injurious miscarria­ges, Pag. 18. and should be forced to confesse, that never good cause (if cause be good) had more reason to complaine of a sin­full prosecution.


VVE will now come with your Honours patience to weigh, whether there be any more strength in his arguments, then there is truth in his assertion [...].

His Plea for Episcopacy consists of two parts. In the [...]irst he brings arguments for the supporting of it. In the second he undertakes to answer the objections that may be made against it.

His first argument for it, is couched in these words; [Page 19] Were this Ordinance merely humane or Ecclesiasticall, Pag. 18. if there could no more be said for it, but that it is exceeding Ancient, of more then 15 hundred yeeres, &c. The strength of which argument lies in this, that they have beene in peaceable possession of this government fifteene hundred yeares and upwards; and in this Island ever since the Go­spell, without contradiction.

In which words he speakes two things, which deserve just censure. First, that the Hierarchicall Government hath continued for fifteene hundred yeares, therefore should not now be altered, which may well be called, as Hierome in another Case; Argumentū Galeatum, an argu­ment calculated for the Meridian of Episcopacy, and may indifferently serve for all Religions in the world: For thus the Iewes might have pleaded against Christ the Antiqui­ty of more then so many hundred years; and thus the Hea­thens did plead against the Christian Religion, which Iu­stin Martyr in his Apology answers. And by this Argu­ment the Pope sits as fast rivetted in his chayre at Rome, as ours in theirs: whose plea for Antiquity runs parallell with theirs. It is a good observation of Cyprian, that Christ said, Ego sum via, veritas & vita, not Ego sum con­suetudo; and Frustra con­suetudinē nobis opponunt, qua­si consuetudo major sit v [...]ri [...] ­tate, aut non id sit in spirituali­bus s [...]quendu [...], quod in melius [...]uerit à Spiri­tu Sancto R [...] ­velatum, Cy­pr Ep. 73. that Consuetudo sine veritate est vetustas erroris, Christ is Truth, and not Custome, and Custome without Truth, is a mouldy errour: and as Sir Francis Bacon saith, Antiquity without Truth, is a Cypher without a Figure.

Yet had this It is well ob­served by Ger­ha [...]d, that a Bishop [...]hrasi Apostolicâ, that is, a Bishop that is the same with a Presbyter, is of fifteene hun­dred yeares standing; but a Bishop, [...]hrosi Pon [...] si [...]iâ, that is, a distinct order supe­riour to a Presbyter invested with sole power of Ordination and Iurisdiction, is but a Novell Invention [...] Remonstrant been as well versed in An­tiquity, as he would beare the world in hand he hath, hee might have found Learned Ancients affirming, there was a Time when the Church was not governed by Bishops, but by Presbyters. And when by Bishops, he might fur­ther have seene more affinity betweene our Bishops and the Pope of Rome, then betweene the Primitive Bishops [Page 20] and them. And that as King Iames, of famous memory, said of the Religion of England, that it differed no more from Rome, than Rome did from what it was at first; may as truly be said of Bishops, that we differ no more from them, then they doe from what Bishops were, when first they were raised unto this eminency: which diffe­rence we shall shew in our ensuing Discourse, to be so great, that as he said of Rome, he did Romam in Roma quaerere, he sought Rome in Rome; so we Episcopatum in Episcopatu, may go seek for a Bishop among all our Bishops.

And whereas in his application of this Argument to the Bishops of this Nation,Pag. 19. he saith, It hath continued in this Island ever since the first plantation of the Gospel, with­out contradiction; which is his Second in this Argument: How false this is we have declared already, and we all know, and himselfe cannot but know, that there is no one thing since the reformation, that hath met with so much Contradiction as Episcopacy hath done; witness the severall Bookes, written in the Reignes of our severall Princes, and the many Petitions exhibited to our severall Parliaments, and the many speeches made therein against Episcopall Government: many of which are yet extant.

As for that supply of Accessory strength, which he begs to this Argument,Pag. 19. from the light of nature, and the rules of iust policy, which (saith he) teacheth us not easily to give way to the change of those things, which long use and many What the e­stablishment of Episcopacy by the Lawes i [...], and upon what ground­ed, the learned Sir Edward Cooke informes us, who reports, That in an Act of Parliament holden at Carlile in the 25. yeare of Edw. 1. it is de [...]lared that the holy Church of England was founded in the state of Prelacy within the Realme of England, by the King and h [...]s Progenitours, &c. for them to info [...]me the people in the Law of God, and to keep [...]ospitality, and give alme [...], and do other workes of charity. And the said Kings in times past were wont to have their advise and counsell for the safe-guard of the Realme, when they had need of such Prelates and Clarkes so advanced. Cooke de jure Re­gis Ecclesiast [...]co. But whether Bishops have observed the Orders of their first foundation, &c. Lawes have firmly established, as Necessary and Benefici­all; it is evident, that those things which to former Ages have seemed Necessary and Beneficiall, may to succeeding Generations, prove not Necessary but Noxious, not Bene­ficiall but Burthensome. And then the same light of nature, [Page 21] and the same iust policy, that did at the first command the establishment of them, may and will perswade their abo­lishment; if not, either our Parliaments must never Re­peale any of their former Acts (which yet they have justly and wisely done) or else in so doing must run Counter to the light of nature, and the Rules of iust policy; which to think were an impiety to be punished by the Iudge.


THe Second Argument for the defence of Episcopall government,Pag. 19, 20. is from the Pedigree of this holy Calling, which he derives from no lesse than an Apostolicall, and in that, right divine institution; and assayes to prove it from the practice of the Apostles; and as he saith, the cleare practice of their Successors, continued in Christs Church to this very day: and to this Argument he so much confides, that he concludes it with this Triumphant Epiphonema, What scruple can remain in any ingenuous heart? Pag. 21. And de­termines, if any continue yet unsatisfied, it is in despight of reason, and all evidence of History, and because he wilfully shuts his eyes, with a purpose not to see the light. Bona verba.

By your favour Sir, we will tell you notwithstanding the supposed strength of your argumentation, there is one scruple yet remaining, and if you would know upon what ground, it is this, because we finde in Scripture (which by your own Confession is Originall Authority) that Bishops and Presbyters were Originally the same,Pag. 8. though after­wards they came to be distinguished: and in processe of time, Episcopacy did swallow up all the honor and power of the Presbytery; as Pharaohs lean Kine did the fat.

Their Identity is discernable; first, from the same names given unto both; secondly from the same office, designed unto both in Scripture. As for the names, are not the same names given unto both in sacred Writ? Let the fifth, sixth, and seventh verses of the first Chapter to Ti­tus testifie: in the fifth verse, the Apostle shews that he left Titus in Creet to ordaine Elders in every City: in the [Page 22] sixth verse, he gives a delineation of the persons that are capable of such Ordination: and in the seventh, the Rea­son, why the person to be ordained, must be so qualified; for a Bishop, &c. Now if the Bishop and Elder be not here the same, but names of distinct office and order, the Apo­stles reason rendred in the seventh verse of his direction in the fift and sixt verses, is (with reverence be it spoken) inconsequentiall, and his demand unjust. If a Chancellor in one of the Vniversities should give Order to his Vice-chancellour to admit none to the decree of Batchelour in Arts, but such as were able to preach, or keepe a Divinity Act; For Batchelours in Divinity must be so; what reason or equity were in this? So if Paul leaving Titus as his Locum teneus, as it were in Creet for a season, should give order to him not to admit any to be an Elder but one thus and thus qualified, because a Bishop must be so: Had a Bi­shop been an Order or Calling distinct from, or superiour to a Presbyter, and not the same, this had been no more ra­tionall or equall then the former; therfore under the name of Bishop in the seventh verse the Apostle intends the El­der, mentioned in the fift verse. Consonant to this is the Language of the same blessed Apostle, Acts 20. verse 17.18. where such as in 17 verse he calls [...], Elders in the 28. he calls [...], in ordinary English, Bishops, though our Translation there, (we know not for what reason) reads it Overseers; not so rendring the word in any other Text.

And though this Remonstrant undertakes to shew a cleare and received distinction, of Bishops, Presbyters, and Deacons, Pag. 24. as three distinct subordinate Callings in Gods Church, with an evident specification of the duty & charge belonging to each of them; or els let this claimed Hierarchy be for ever hooted out of the Church: Yet let us tell him, that 1 we never find in Scripture these 3 Orders, Bishops, Presby­ters & Deacons, mentioned together: but onely Bishops & 2 Deacons, as Phil. 1. and 1 Tim. Nor do we finde in Scrip­ture 3 any Ordination to the office of a Bishop, differing frō the Ordination of an Elder: Nor do we finde in Scripture, [Page 23] the specification of any Duty charged upon a Bishop, that Elders are secluded from: Nor any qualification required in a Bishop, that is not requisite in every Presbyter; some of which, if not all, would be found, were they not the same.

But if this Remonstrant thinke to helpe himselfe by ta­king Sanctuary in Antiquity (though we would gladly [...]est in Scripture, the Sanctuary of the Lord) yet we will follow him thither, and there shew him that Hierome from the Scriptures proves more then once, Presbyters and Bishops to be the same.Hierony. Ep. ad Euag. & ad Ocea. And Chrysostome in Philip. 1. Homil. 2. with his admirer Theophilact in Philip. 1. affirmes that while the Apostles lived, the Names of Bishops and Presbyters were not distinguished: and not only while the Apostles lived,Iren. adver. haer. l. 4. cap. 43.44. but in after ages. Doth not Irenaeus use the name of Bishops and Presbyters [...], in a pro­miscuous sence. Are not Anicetus, Pius, Hyginus, Teles­phorus, Sixtus, whom the Papists call Bishops, and the popes predecessors, Hist. Lib. 5. Cap. 23. termed by Eusebius presbyters? Nor was it strange in the primitive times to heare Bishops called presbyters, when Presbyters writing to their Bishops have called him Frater. So Cyprian (Epist. 26. in the beginning) is stiled by his Presbyters, Deacons and confessors, nor was that holy Martyr offended with that title, nor they condemned of insolency that used it.

But what should we burthen your patience with more testimonies? when the evidence of this truth hath shined with so strong a beame,Bellarm. de Cleric. Lib. 1. cap. 15. that even our Adversaries have stooped to it, and confessed that their Names were the same in the Apostles time. But yet say they, the Offices were distinct.

Now here wee would gladly know, what these men make the distinct Office of a Bishop.

Is it to edifie the Church by word and Sacrament? is it to ordaine others to that worke? is it to rule, to go­verne, by admonition and other censures? if any of these, if all these make up the proper worke of a Bi­shop; we can prove from Scripture that all these belong [Page 24] unto the Presbytery, which is no more then was granted by a Councell Presbyte [...] secut Ep [...]s [...]pis [...] D [...]icommissa est: Presunt eum Ecclesiae Christi: in Consecrat [...]one Domi [...]ici [...] cons [...]r [...]es [...] E [...]i [...]copis: & [...] in Doctrina Populorum & in [...] propt [...]r autorit [...]tem, summo Sacerdott Clericorum Ordina [...]io reser­v [...]a [...]st: Co [...]. 1 [...]. pri [...]. m, Can. 8. E [...]ngeli [...]m [...]but his qui prae [...]unt Ecclesie Ma [...]atum docendi Evang [...]lii, rem [...]tt [...]di pec [...], adm [...]stra [...]di Sa [...]ramenta: prae [...]erea jurisdictionem; videlicet Ma [...]datum Ex­comm [...]n [...]andi cos q [...]rum [...] sunt crimina, & Resipiscen es rursum absolvendi: Ac Oma [...] [...], etiam advers [...]rioru [...] [...], hinc potesta [...]em Jare Divino com­m [...] [...] qui presant Ecclesiae, sive Pastores vo [...]atur, sive Presbyteri, Sive E [...]is [...]opi. S [...]rip [...] Philip. Melanch. in Conventu Smalcald. Anno. 1540. a precipuis illar [...]m Ecclesiarum Dictoribus commani Consensu comprobatum de potestate & jurisdictione Episc [...]porum..

1 For the first, Edifying of the Church by word and Sa­craments, though we feare they will some of them at least scarce owne this as their proper worke (for some have beene cite [...] into the High Commission for saying, it belongs to them) yet Sir we are sure, Scripture makes it a part, a chiefe of the Episcopall office; [...]. for so in the 1 Pet 5.2. they are said to doe the worke of a Bishop, when they doe feede the flocke of God. And this is such a worke as we hope their Lordships will give the poore Presbyters leave to share with them in: or if not, we will tell them that the Apostle Peter in that forecited place, and the Apostle Paul, Acts. 20. binds this worke upon our hands, and Woe unto us if we preach not the Gospell.

But this branch of Episcopall and Presbyteriall office we passe with brevity, because in this there lies not so much controversie as in the next; which they doe more wholly Impropriate to themselves: the power of Ordi­nation.

Which power, that it was in former times in the hands of Presbyters appeares 1 Tim. 4.14. Neglect not the gift which was given thee by Prophesie, and by the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery. The gift here spoken of is the Mi­nisteriall gift, the exercise whereof, the Apostle exhorts Timothy not to neglect, which saith he, he had received, [Page 25] not by the laying on of the hands of one single man, whe­ther Apostle, or Bishop, or Presbyter; But [...] the Presbytery, that is, the whole company of Presbyters, for in that sense onely wee [...]inde [...] taken in Scrip­ture, as in Luke 22. vers. 66. Act. 22. vers. 5. which the Christian Church called the Ecclesiasticall Senate, as Ierom in Isay 3. Nos habemus in Ecclesia Senatum nostrum, Ierom. Isa. 3. Coetum Presbyterorum, & an Apostolicall Senate: [...] Ignatius Epis. ad Magnes:Igna. Epis. ad Magnes. and some times [...], Con­cil. Ancyr. Can. 18.

And though the Apostle in his second Epistle to Tim. 1.6. makes mention of the laying on of his hands;Conc. Ancyr. Can. 18. yet to maintaine the Harmony of Scripture, it must not be denied, but there was imposition of hands by the Presby­tery, as well as by himselfe, & so it was a joynt act; So that in this there is no more difference then in the former.

And if there be no difference betweene Presbyters in feeding or ordaining, let us see if there be any in the third part of their office of Ruling, which though our Bi­shops assume wholy to themselves, yet we shall discover, that it hath beene committed to and exercised by Presby­teriall hands.

For who are they of whom the Scripture speakes, Heb. 13.17. Obey them that have the Rule over you, for they watch for your soules, as they that must give an account, &c.

Here all such as watch over the soules of Gods peo­ple, are intituled to rule over them. So that unlesse Bishops will say, that they only watch over the soules of Gods people, and are only to give an account for them: they can­not challenge to themselves the sole rule over them. And if the Bishops can give us good security, that they will acquit us from giving up our account to God for the soules of his people, we will quit our plea, and resigne to them the sole rule over them.

So againe in the 1 Thessa. 5.12. Know them which la­bour amongst you, and are over you in the Lord, and admonish you.

In which words are contained these truthes; First that [Page 26] in one Church (for the Thessalonians were but one Church, 1 Ca.) there was not [...] [...] but [...]; not one chiefe Bishop or President, but the Presidency was in many.

2 Secondly, that this presidency was of such as laboured in the word and Doctrine.

3 Thirdly, that the Censures of the Church were mana­ged not by one, but by them all in Communi. Them that admonish you.

4 Fourthly, that there was among them a Parity, for the Apostles bids know them in an Indifferency, not discrimina­ting one from another: yea such was the rule that Elders had, that S. Peter thought it needfull to make an exhorta­tion to them to use their power with Moderation, not Lording it over Gods Heritage, 1 Pet. 5.3.

By this time we have sufficiently proved from Scrip­ture, that Bishops and Presbyters are the same in name, in Office, in Edifying the Church, in power of Ordination and Iurisdiction; we summe up all that hath beene spoken in one argument.

They which have the same Name, the same Ordination to their Office, the same qualification for their Office, the same worke to feede the flock of God, to ordaine pastors and Elders, to Rule, and Governe; they are one and the same Office: but such are Bishops and presbyters, Ergo.


BUt the dint of all this Scripture, the Remonstrant would elude, by obtruding upon his reader a commen­tary Pag. 20.(as he calls it) of the Apostles own practise (which hee would force to contradict their own rules) to which he superadds the unquestiōable glosse of the cleare practise of their immediate successors in this administration. For the Apo­stles practise, we have already discovered it, from the A­postles own writings; and for his Glosse he superadds, if it corrupts not the Text we shall admit it; but if it doe, we must answer with Tertullian, Tertull. Id verum quodcun (que) pri­mum: [Page 27] id adulterum quod posterius, whatsoever is first is true; but that which is latter is adulterous.

In the examination of this Glosse, to avoyd need­lesse Controversie. First, wee take for granted by both sides, that the first and best Antiquitie, used the names of Bishops and Presbyters promiscuously. Secondly, that in processe of time, some one was honoured with the name of Bishop and the rest were called Presbyters or Cleri. Third­ly, that this was not Nomen inane, but there was some kinde of Imparitie betweene him and the rest of the Pres­byters.

Yet in this we differ; that they say, this Impropriation of name, and Imparity of place, is of Divine Right and Apostoli­call Institution: we affirme both to be occasionall, and of hu­mane Invention; and undertake to shew out of Antiquitie, both the occasion upon which, and the Persons by whom this Imparity was brought into the Church.

On our parts stands Ierome and Ambrose, and others, whom we doubt not but our Remonstrant wil grant a place among his Glossators: Saint Ierome tells us in 1 Tit.

Idem est ergo Presbyter qui Episcopus: & antequam Diaboli instinctu, studia in Religione [...]ierent, & dicere­tur in populis, ego sum Pau­li, ego Apollo, ego Cephae, Communi Presbyterorum Consilio ecclesiae guberna­bantur. Postquam verò u­nusquis (que) eos quos baptiza­verat suos putabat esse, non Christi; in toto Orbe de­cretum est, ut unus de Pres­byteris electus superpone­retur caeteris, ad quem om­nis Ecclesiae Cura pertine­ret, & schismatum semina [Page 28] [...]olicrentur. Putat aliquts non Scripturarum, sed no­stram esse sent [...]ntiam, Epi­scopum & Presbyterum u­num esse, & aliud aetatis, aliud esse nomen officii, re­l [...]gat Apostoli ad Philip­penses verba, dicentis, Pau­lus & Timotheus servi Ie­sis Christi qui sunt Phi­lippis, cum Episcopis & Diaconis, &c. Philippi u­na est urbs Macedoniae, & certè in unâ Civitate non poterant plures esse (ut nun­cupantur) Episcopi, &c. si­cut ergo Presbyteri sciant se ex Ecclesiae consuetudine ei qui sibi praepositus fuerit esse subjectos; Ita Episcopi noverint se magis consuetu­dine, quam dispositionis Do­minicae veritate Presbyte­ris esse majores, & in Com­muni debere Ecclesiam re­gere.

A Presbyter and a Bishop is the same: and before there were through the Devils instinct, di­visions in Religion, and the peo­ple began to say, I am of Paul, and I of Apollo, and I of Cephas, The Churches were governed by the Common Counsell of the Presbyters: But after that each man began to account those whom hee had baptized his owne, and not Christs; it was decreed thorow the whole world, that one of the Presby­ters should be set over the rest; to whom the Care of all the Church should belong, that the [Page 28] seeds of schisme might be taken away. Thinkes any, that this is my opinion, and not the opini­on of the Scripture, that a Bi­shop and an Elder is the same, let him reade the words of the Apostle to the Philippians, say­ing, Paul and Timothy, the ser­vants of Jesus Christ, to them that are at Philippi, with the Bi­shops & Deacons. Philippi is one City of Macedonia, and certain­ly in one Citie there could not be many Bishops (as they are now called, &c.) and after the allega­tions of many other Scriptures, he concludes thus; as the Elders therefore may know, that they are to be subject to him that is set over them by the Custome of the Church; so let the Bishops know, that it is more from custome, then from any true dispensation from the Lord, that they are above the Presbyters, and that they ought to rule the Church in common.

In which words of Ierome, these five things present them­selves to the Readers view;

1 First, that Bishops and Presbyters are originally the same; Idem ergo est Presbyter qui Episcopus.

2 Secondly, that that Imparitie that was in his time be­tweene Bishops and Elders, was grounded upon Ecclesia­sticall Custome, and not upon divine Institution; Episcopi noverint, &c.

3 Thirdly, that this was not his private judgement, but the judgement of Scripture; Putat aliquis, &c.

4 Fourthly, that before this Prioritie was upon this occa­sion [Page 29] started, the Church was governed Communi Presby­terorum Consilio, by the Counsell of the presbyters in common, and that even after this imparity, it ought to be so governed; Sciant Episcopi se Ecclesiam debere in com­muni regere.

Fifthly, that the occasion of this Imparity and Superio­rity 5 of Bishops above Elders, was the divisions which through the Devils instinct fell among the Churches; Post quam verò Diaboli instinctu.

Saravia would take advantage of this place, to deduce this Imparity as high as from the Apostles times, because even then they began to say, I am of Paul, and I of Apollos: but sure S. Ierome was not so weake as this man would make him, to speake Inconsistencies; and when he pro­pounds it to himselfe, to prove that Bishops and Presbyters are in Scripture the same, to let fall words that should con­fute his own proposition: whereas therefore S. Ierome saith, that after men began to say, I am of Paul, and I of Apol­los, &c. it was decreed that one of the Presbyters should be set over the rest, &c. This is spoken indeed in the Apostles phrase, but not of the Apostles times, else to what purpose is that coacervation of texts that followes?

But suppose it should be granted to be of Apostolicall antiquity (which yet we grant not, having proved the contrary) yet it appeares: it was not of Apostolicall inten­tion, but of Diabolicall occasion: And though the Divell by kindling Divisions in the Church, did minister Occa­sion to the invention of the primacy or prelacy or one for the suppressing of Schisme; yet there is just cause to thinke, that the Spirit of God in his Apostles was never the author of this Invention.

First, because we reade in the Apostles dayes there 1 were Divisions, Rom 16.7. and Schismes, 1 Cor. 3.3. & 11.18. yet the Apostle was not directed by the holy Ghost to ord [...]ine Bishops for the taking away of those Divisions; Neither in the rules hee prescribes for the healing of those breaches, doth hee mention Bishops for that end: Nor in the Directions given to Timothy and Ti­tus [Page 30] for the Ordination of Bishops or Elders, doth he mention this as one end of their Ordination, or one peculiar duty of their office. And though the Apostle saith, O portet haereses inter vos esse, ut qui probati sunt manifesti fiant inter vos; yet the apostle no where saith, Oportet Episcopos esse, ut tollantur haereses, quae mainifestae fiunt.

2 Secondly, because as Doctor Whitaker saith, the reme­dy devised hath proved worse then the disease, which doth never happen to that remedy whereof the holy Ghost is the author.

3 Thirdly, because the holy Ghost, who could foresee what would ensue thereupon, would never ordaine that for a remedy, which would not onely be ineffectuall to the cutting off of evill, but become a stirrup for Antichrist to get into his [...]addle. For if there be a necessity of set­ting up one Bishop over many presbyters for preventing schismes, there is as great a necessity of setting up one Archbishop over many Bishops, and one patriarch over ma­ny Archbishops, and one pope over all, unlesse men will ima­gine, that there is a danger of schisme only among pres­byters, and not among Bishops and Archbishops, which is contrary to reason, truth, History, and our own Experience.

And lest our adversaries should appeale from Hierome as an incompetent Judge in this case, because a Presbyter, and so a party, we wil therefore subjoyne the judgements of other ancient Fathers who were themselves bishops.

The Commentaries that goe under the name of Saint Ambrose upon Ephes. 4. mention another occasion of this Discrimination or priority; and that was At ubi omnia [...]oca Circum­plexa est Ec­clesia, [...]Conven­ticula con [...]i­tula sunt: & caeperunt R [...]c­tores: & Cae­tera Ossi [...]a in Ecclesia sunt ordinata. Caepit aliot ordine & Providentia g [...]bernari Ecclesia. Ideo non per omnia conveniunt Sc [...]ipta Apostoli ordinationi quae nunc in Ecclesia est, quia haec inter i [...]sa primordia scripta sunt. Na [...] & Timothe [...]m à se Presbyterum Creatum Epis­copam v [...]ca [...], &c. Sed quia cae [...]erunt sequentes Presbyteri indigns inventri ad pruratus t [...]nendos, immu [...]ata est [...], &c. the increase and dilatation of the Church, upon occasion whereof they did ordaine rectors or Governours, and other offi­cers in the Church; yet this he grants, that this did differ from the former orders of the Church, and from aposto­licall Writ.

[Page 31]And this Rectorship or Priority was devolved at first from one Elder to another by Succession, when hee who was in the place was removed, the next in order among the Elders Succeeded. But this was afterwards changed, and that unworthy men might not bee preferred, it was made a matter of election, and not a matter of Suc­cession. Thus much we finde concerning the occasion of this imparity, enough to shew, it is not of Divine Autho­rity.

For the second thing, the persons who brought in this Imparity, the same Authours tells us: the Presbyters themselves brought it in; witnesse Hierome ad Evag. Alexandriae Presbyteri unum ex se electum in Excelsiori gra­du collocatum, Hierom ad Evag. Episcopum nominabant, quomodo si exercitus Imperatorem faceret, aut Diaconi de se Archidiaconum. The Presbyters of Alexandria did call him their Bishop, whom they had chosen from among themselves, and placed in a higher degree, as if an army should make an Emperour, or the Deacons an Archdeacon.

Ambrose upon the fourth of the Ephesians tells us,Ambros. ubi prius. it was done by a Councell, and although he neither name the Time nor place of the Councell, yet ascribing it to a Councell hee grants it not to be Apostolicall: this gave occasion to others to fixe it upon Custome as Hieronym. in Tit. and August. Epist. 19. secundùm honorum vo­cabula quae Ecclesiae usus obtinuit Episcopatus Presbyterio major est. And had that [...] or Prelacie had the Seale and confirmation of Divine or Apostolicall Authority, Gre­gory Nazianzene would never in such a Patheticke man­ner have wished the Abolition of it,Grego. Naz. Orat. 28. as hee doth in his 28. Oration.

And now where is that acknowledgement, Pag. 21.22. and conveyance of Imparitie and Iurisdiction which saith this Remonstrant was derived from the Apostles hands, and deduced in an uninter­rupted line, unto this day: where is it? we find no such Impa­rity delivered from Apostolicall hands, nor acknowledged in A­postolicall writings; yet had there beene such an acknow­ledgement and conveyance of imparity: how this should have [Page 32] beene deduced to us in an uninterrupted Line, wee know not, unlesse our Bishops will draw the Line of their Pedi­gree through the loynes of Antichrist, and joyne issue, and mingle blood with Rome:Greg. Nazi. vbi prius. which it seemes they will rather doe then lose this plea for their [...]: their ty­rannicall prerogative, as Nazianzen calls it.

Suffer us therefore humbly to appeale to your Ho­nours, whether this Remonstrant hath not given sentence against himselfe, who is so confident of the Evidence of his cause, that he doth not feare to say, if there can be bet­ter Evidence under Heaven for any matter of fact then there is for his Episcopacy:Pag. 22. Let EPISCOPACY BEFOR EVER ABANDONED OVT OF THE CHVRCH OF GOD.


YEt it seemes himselfe in the height of his confidence was not without Jelousies, of some thing might be spoken against his Cause, therefore he seemes to heare, what is spoken against it.

Pag. 23. That the Apostles Bishops and ours are two: there was no other then a Parochiall Pastor, a Preaching Presbyter with­out inequality, without any Rule over his brethren. Ours claime an eminent Superiority, and a power of Ordination and Iurisdiction unknowne to the Primitive times.

That this which hee supposeth hee heares us say is Scripture Truth we have shewed already, &c. that there was a parity between Presbyters and Bishops: and that eminent superioritie and power of Ordination and Iurisdiction which our Bishops claime, was unknowne to Scripture, and are now prepared by Gods assistance to prove, it was unknowne to primitive times.

But how doth this Remonstrant meete with this Re­ply:Pag. 23. ALAS ALAS HOVV GOOD PEOPLE may be abused by misinformation! It seemes the man Judged this Reply so poore as in his thoughts it was more wor­thy of his pitty, then of his paines to answer, or rather knew [Page 33] there was more in this Reply, then hee knew how to an­swer, and therefore waves it with his Rethoricke.

And this we rather thinke, because hee knowes but lit­tle in Antiquity, that knowes not, that there is so vast a difference betweene our Bishops, and those that were not onely in the Apostles dayes (whom wee have proved to be undistinguished from Presbyters) But those Bishops that were in the Church 400 yeares after, when there began to bee some discrimination, that Episcopacy may well be likened to the Shippe Argo, that was so often repaired, as there was nothing left of the First Materialls; yet stil it challenged the first Name.

Which difference we spread before your Honours in three particulars: first in point of Election to their office; secondly, in point of Execution of their office; thirdly, in point of state-Imployment.

First (having discovered already upon what occasion this priority began to have existence in the Church, and from whom it first received its being, not from God but from Consent and Custome of the Churches, according to Ambrose, Ierom, Augustine, &c.) Wee come now to De­clare what was the manner of Election unto this Priori­tie in these times, and to shew first, how therein these Bi­shops did differ from ours: for all their Elections were ordered by the privity, consent, and approbation of the people, where the Bishops was to serve. Were there no o­ther Authours to make this good, Cyprian alone would doe it, among other places let his 68. Epistle witnesse, where he saith Plebs ipsa Maximè ha­bet potestatem vel Eligendi. Dignos Sacer­dotes, vel in­dignos recu­sandi, quod & ipsum Videmus de Divina Authoritate descendere: ut sacerdos plebe praesente sub omnium oculis deligatur, & dignus atque Idoneus publico Iudicio ac testimonio comprobetur. By Priests the Author here understands Bishopps, as the whole Series of the Epistle shewes. plebs Maxime habet potestatem, &c. The people specially have power either of chusing worthy Priests, or rejecting the unworthy: for this is derived from Divine Authority, that the Priests should bee chosen in the presence of the people, before all their eyes and [Page 34] approved as fit and worthy by their publike vote and Testimony. This hee proves by the Testimonie of Sa­cred writ both Old and New. Where wee observe first, 1 that the speciall power of Judging of the worthinesse or unworthinesse of a man for the Prelacy was in the breast 2 of the People. Secondly, the speciall power of choosing or rejecting to his place according as they Judged him worthy or unworthy resided in the People. Plebs maxi­mé 3 Habet potestatem, &c. Thirdly, that this power did des­cend upon the People De Divina Authoritate.

Nor was this the Judgement of one Sole man, but of an Affrican Synod consulted by the Spanish Churches in point of Election, as the inscription of the Epistle shewes.

[...]. Athanas. Epist. ad Othodoxos. The Obtrusion of a Bishop upon the Church of Alex­andria without the Presence, desire and vote of the Cler­gie or People is Condemned by Athanasius not onely as a breach of Canon, but as a Transgression of Apostolicall prescript, and that it did compell or necessitate the heathen to blaspheme.

Nor did onely Christian Bishops, but Christian Princes acknowledge the Right and power of Election of Bi­shops to be in the People; so that admired Constantine the great Promover and Patron of the peace of the Christian Church writing to the Church of Nicomedia against Eu­sebius and Theognius, tells them the ready way to lay a­sleepe the Tumults that did then disturbe the Church a­bout the Election of a Bishop was, si modo Episcopum fide­lem & integrum nacti fuerint, quod quidem in praesentia in ve­strâ situm est potestate, quodque etiam dudùm penes vestrum Iudicium fuerat, nisi Eusebius de quo dixi pravo eorum, qui cum juverunt Consilio hâc praeceps ruisset & rectum Eligendi Ordinem impudenter conturbasset. Gelas in Act. Concil. Nicen. part. 3. if they would get a faithfull and upright Bishop [Page 35] which saith he, is in your power presently to doe; and was long agoe, if Eusebius with the ayd of his faction, had not rushed in upon you, and impudently disturbed the right Order of Election.

That which this sacred Emperour calls the right order of Election; what is it but the Election by the people? in whose power, he saith, it then was and long had beene to choose a Bishop: and by whose power the next Bishop was chosen.Idem ubi su­pra. So the same Author tells us, that after Eu­sebius and Theognius were cast out of their severall seats for Arianisme, by the Councell of Nice, others were ap­pointed in their roomes by the Clergy and people of each Diocesse.

To this Election in Nicomedia, Cyprian, Cor­nelius, Atha­nasius, and o­thers. wee could (if it were needfull in so cleare a Truth) adde many the like Presi­dents of popular Elections; which for brevities sake, we passe over. Not questioning, but that which hath beene spoken, is sufficient to informe the intelligent Reader, that our Bishops and the Bishops of former times, are Tvvo in point of Election.


A Second thing wherein we have undertaken to shew, that our Bishops and the Bishops of former times, are Tvvo, is in the Execution of their Office: and here there are three things, wherein he that will not wilfully shut his eyes against all light, may see a Latitude of difference betweene ours and former Bishops. First, in that Sole Iu­risdiction which our Bishops assume to themselves. Se­condly, in the Delegation they make of the power of exerci­sing this Iurisdiction unto others. Thirdly, in the way of the exercise of that power.

For the first of these, Their sole Iurisdiction; That our Bishops assume this to themselves, it is knowne and felt, and that this Sole Iurisdiction was a stranger, a Monster to for­mer times, wee shall now prove, and make cleare, that the power of Ordination, Admonition, Excommunication, [Page 36] Absolution, was not in the hands of any sole man.

Cypr. Epist. 33.First, for Ordination, Cyprian in his exile writing to his Charge, certifies them, that Aurelius was ordained by him and his Colleagues, who were present with him; who were these Colleagues, but his Presbyters? as he himselfe ex­pounds it, writing to Lucius in his owne name, and the name of his Clergie and people,Epist. 58. Ego & Collegae & frater­nitas omnis, &c. I and my Colleagues, and my whole people send these Letters to you, &c. So that it is cleare in Cy­prians time, Presbyters had a hand in Ordination, and Bi­shops did not Ordaine alone. Firmilianus saith of them that rule in the Church,apud Cypr. Epist. 75. Quod baptizandi, MANVM IMPONENDI ET ORDINANDI, possident potesta­tem. And who those be, he expresseth a little before, SENIORES & Praepositi: by whom the Presbyters as well as the Bishops are understood.

And as these places prove, that Bishops in the Primitive time, could not ordaine alone without the Presbyters; so there are that give us light to understand, that the Presbyters might ordaine without the Bishop. Cumjure divi­no non sint di­versi gradus Episcopi et Pa­stores: Mani­festum est or­dinationem in suâ Ecclesiâ fa­ctam IVRE DIVINO RATAM esse. Itaque cum E­piscopi ordina­rii fiant hostes Ecclesiae aut nolunt ordina­tionē impert [...] ­re, Ecclesia re­tinet jus su­um. Melanch. ubi supra, pag. Concil. Antioc. Can. 10. & Aneyr. Can. 13. The Au­thor of the Comment upon the Ephesians, that goes under the name of Ambrose, saith, Apud Aegyptum Presbyteri consignant, si praesens non sit Episcopus, In Egypt the Presbyters ordaine, if the Bishop be not present, so saith Augustine in the same words; and the Chorepiscopus, who was but a Presbyter, had power to impose hands, and to ordaine within his precincts, with the Bishops Licence. Now Li­cences conferre not a power to him that hath it not, but onely a facultie to exercise that power he hath.

The Iniquitie of our times hath beene such, that a Minister may not Preach to his owne flocke, without a Licence: doth this Licence make a man a Minister, and give him power to preach, or onely a facultie and libertie to exercise that power? Should a Bishop give a Laike a Licence to preach, or to ordaine, doth that Licence make him a Minister, or a Bishop? Sure all will say, no: why? because in the Laike there is not Actus primus, the roote and principle of that power, which Licence onely opens [Page 37] a way to the exercise of; and therefore that must bee con­cluded to be in those Chorepiscopi, or Presbyters, by ver­tue of their place and calling, and not by vertue of a Li­cence. So that the power of Ordination was so farre from re­siding in the Bishop alone, as that the Presbyters and Cho­repiscopi had power to ordaine as well as he.

Neither was this onely a matter of Ecclesiasticall Custome, but of Ecclesiasticall Constitution, which binds the Bishop;

First,Concil 4. Car­thag. in all his Ordinations to consult with his Clergy; Vt Episcopus sine Consilio Clericorum suorum Clericos non or­dinet; That the Bishop shall not ordaine a Clergy man without the counsel of the Clergy;Can. 2 [...]. this was Cyprians practice, Epist. 33.

Secondly, in his Ordinations to take the concurrent assi­stance 2 of his Presbyters;Ibid. C [...]n 3. Cum ordinatur Presbyter, Episcopo cum benedicent [...], & manum super caput ejus tenente, etiam omnes Pres­byteri qui praesentes sunt, manu [...] suas juxta manum Episcopi super caput illius teneant; When a Presbyter is ordained, the Bishop blessing him, and holding his hand upon his head, all the Pres­byters that are present, shall likewise lay their hands upon his head, with the hands of the Bishop. In which Canon, we have the unanimous vote of two hundred and fourteene Bishops, declaring that the power of Ordination is in the hands of Pres­byters as well as Bishops.

And whereas it may be objected, that Hiorome and Chry­sostome, Hicronym. in Epist. ad Evag. Chrysost. Hom. 1 [...]. in 1 ad Tim affirming Bishops to differ from Presbyters in the power of Ordination; seeme to imply, that that power is soly theirs: Here we desire it may be observed;

First, that these Fathers put all the difference that lyes be­tweene Bishops and Presbyters, to be in point of Ordination. Quid facit Episcopus, quod non facit Presbyter exceptâ Ordinatio­ne. And therefore Chrysostome himselfe confesseth, that in his dayes there was little or no difference between a Bishop and a Presbyter.Chrysost. upon the 1 Tim. Inter Episcopū et Presbyterū interest fermè nihil, &c.

Secondly, That this difference is not so to be understood, as if these Fathers did hold it to be by divine right (as Bellarmine and our Episcopall men would make us beleeve) but by a hu­mane constitution. And therefore they doe not speak De jure, but de facto, Quid facit, &c. not quid debet facere. And this Hierom confesseth.Libro d [...] set­tem Ordinabus. So Leo prim. ep. 88. upon complaints of un­lawfull Ordinations, writing to the Germane and French Bi­shops, [Page 38] reckons up what things are reserved to the Bishops, Among which he set down Presbyterorum & Diaconorum con­secratio, Concil. Aquis­gra. 1. Can 8. Solum propter author [...]tatem Clericorum or­dinatio et con­secratio reser­vata est sum­mo Sacerdoti. and then adds, Quae omnia solis deberi summis Pontifi­cibus Authoritate Canonam praecipitur: So that for this power of Ordination, they are more beholden to the Canon of the Church, then to the Canon of Gods Word.

Thirdly, we answer that this very humane difference was not in the Primitive Antiquity. It was not so in Cyprians time, as we even now shewed. And when it did prevaile, it was but a particular custome (and sometimes usurpation) of some Churches. For it was otherwise appointed in the Coun­cell of Carthage, and in Egypt, and other places, as is declared in the former part of this Section; And even in Chrysostomes time, it was so little approved of, that it was one great accu­sation against Chrysostome himselfe, That hee made Ordinations without the Presbytery, and without the consent of his Clergie. This is quoted by Bishop Downam, lib. 1. cap. 8. pag. 176.


NOr had the Bishop of former times more right to the power of sole Iurisdiction, Bilson. Spalat. Franc. à Sancta Clara. then of sole Ordination: And here we have Confitentem reum, our very Adversaries confesse the Votes of Antiquity are with us.Cyp. Epist. 6. & 28.

Cyprian professeth, that hee would doe nothing without the 18 Clergie; Concil. 4. Car­thag. Can. 23. Vid Russ Hist. lib. 10. cap 9. Soz [...]. li. 2. c 23. Possidon. de vita [...] Aug. c. 4. Orig. Hom. 11. in Exo. pag 97. nay, he could doe nothing without them; nay, hee durst not take upon him alone to determine that which of right did belong to all: and had hee or any other done so, the fourth Councell of Carthage condemnes the Sentence of the Bishop, as Irrita nisi Clericorum sententiâ confirmetur.

Would yee know the particulars, wherein the Bishops had no power of Judicature without their Presbyters.

First, in judging and censuring Presbyters themselves, and 1 their Doctrine; For this the Canon Law in Gratian is full and cleare:Decret. part. 2. Can. 15 quae. 7. Per totum & parte [...] Dis. 93. cap. 5.6. Episcopus non potest Iudicare Presbyterum vel Diaconum sine Synodo & Senioribus: Thus Basill counselled and practised, epist. 75. So Ambr. lib. 10. epist. 80 Cyrill in epist. ad Iohannem Antiochen. Thus Gregory ad Iohan. Panormitan. lib. 11. epist, 49.

2 Secondly, in judging of the Conversation or Crimes of any of the members of the Church:Clem. Alex. Stroma [...]. lib. [...]. Penes Presbyteros est Disciplina quae facit hom ines meliores; That Discipline that workes emendaion in men, is in the power of the [Page 39] Elders. Tertull. Apol. advers. Gent. And therefore when any was questioned in point of conversation, hee was brought, saith Tertullian, into the Congregation where were Exhortations, Castigations, and Divine censures: And who had the chiefe stroke in these Censures, he tells us after: Praesident probati quique seniores; All the approved Elders sit as Presidents.

And those censures that passed by the whole Presby­tery were more approved by the Church in Ancient times, then such as were passed by one man; for wee finde that when Syagrius and Ambrose passed Sentence in the same case, the Church was unsatisfied in the Sentence of Sya­grius, because he past it sine alicujus fratris consilio, with­out the counsell or consent of any of his Brethren. But were pacified with the sentence of Saint Ambrose: Ambros. Epist. ad Syagrium. be­cause, saith hee, Hoc Iudicium Nostrum cum fratribus & consacerdotibus participatum processerit.

Nor was there any kinde of censures that the Bishops did administer alone: Admonitions were given by the Elders; Aug. de verb. Apost. Ser. 19. Augustine tells us the Elders did admonish such as were offenders; to the same purpose speakes Origen contra Celsum. Lib. 3.

Constat, Iu­risdictionem il­lam excommu­nicandi reos ma­nifestorum cri­minum pertinere ad omnes Pasto­res, hanc ad se solos tyrannicé transtulerunt, & ad quaestum contulerunt Epi­scopi, Melanc. ubi sup. So excommunication, though that being the dreadful­lest thunder of the Church, and as Tertullian calls it, sum­mum praejudicium futuri Iudicij, the great fore-runner of the Judgement of God, was never vibrated but by the hand of those that laboured in the Word and Doctrine: yet was no one man in the Church invested with this power more then another.

Therefore saith Hieron. Epist. ad Heliodor. Hierom; Presbytero si peccavero licet me tradere satanae in interitum carnis. If I sinne, a Presbyter (not a Bishop onely) may deliver me to Satan, to the de­struction, &c. where the Reader may please to take no­tice that Saint Hierom speakes not of one particular Pres­byter, but of the Order of Presbyters.

The same S. Hierom saith againe, Sunt quos Ecclesia re­prehendit, quos interdum abijcit, Ep. ad Demet. in quos nonnunquam Episco­porum & Clericorum censura desaevit. There be some whom the Church reprooves, and some which shee casts out; [Page 40] against whom the censures of Bishops and Presbyters sharp­ly proceed; where we see, the Censures whereby wic­ked men were cast out of the Church, were not the sole hands of the Bishops, but likewise in the hands of Pres­byters.

Syricius Bishop of Rome signifies to the Church of M [...]llaine, that Iovinianus, Auxentius, &c. were cast out of the Church for ever, and he sets downe how they did it, Omnium Nostrum tam Presbyterorum quam Diaconorum, quam totius etiam clerisciscitata fuit sententia. There was a concurrence of all Presbyters,Ambros. lib 10 Epist. 80. Deacons, and the whole Clergie in that sentence of Excommunication.

The truth herein may be further evidenc [...]d by this, be­cause the whole Clergie as well as the Bishops imposed hands u [...]on such, as rep [...]nting were a [...]solved: Nec ad communicationem (saith Cypr [...]an) venire quis possit, Cypr. Epist. 12. Ana this was the custome saith Cyprian in minoribus delictis. nisi prius ab Episcopo & Clero Manus illi fuerit imposita: No man that hath beene excommunicated might returne to Church-Communion, before hands had been laid upon him by the Bi­shop and Clergie.

Also writing to his Clergie concerning lapsed Christians, he tells them, Exomologe si facta & manu eis a vobis in poe­nitentiam impositâ, &c. that after confession and the laying on their hands, they might be commended unto God: so when certaine returning from their heresie were to be re­ceived into the Church at Rome in the time of Cornelius, Cypr. Epist 46 vide etiam Cypr Epist. 6. they came before the Presbyterie, and therefore confessed their sinnes, and so were admitted.

But though the sentence of Excommunication was managed one [...]y by the hand of those that laboured in the Word and Doctrine, yet we will not conceale from you, that neither Excommunication nor absolution did passe w [...]thout the knowledge and approbation of the body of the Church, to which the Deliquent did belong.

Tertul. Apol. adver Gent. cap. 39.So we have learned out of Tertullian, that their cen­sures were ordered in their publike assemblies; and good reason, because the people were to forbeare communion with such. 2 Thes. 3.6, 14, 15. and publick Censures of [Page 41] the Church were inflicted not onely for the Emendation of delinquents, but for the admonition of others, and therefore ought to be administred in publick that others might feare. 1 Tim. 5.20. Origen speaking of the Duty and Power of the Church in cutting off a scandalous Person though a Presbyter:Origen. Hom. 7. in J [...]sh. making the case his owne he saith thus: In uno consensu Eccl [...]sia universa conspirans excidat me dextram suam & projiciat a se, He would have the con­sent of the whole Church in that Act.

And when the lapsed Christians were received againe into the Church, the Peoples consent was required there­in; else why should Cyprian say,Cypr. Epist 55. Vix plebi persuadeo imò extorqueo ut tales patiantur admitti: I can scarce per­swade the people to suffer such to be admitted: and in another Epistle written to his people in his Banishment, he promiseth to examine all things, they being present and judging.Cypr. Epist. 11. ad plebem. Examinabuntur singula praesentibus & judi­cantibus vobis.

But of this power of the People wee shall have a fur­ther occasion to speak afterwards, when we come to dis­course of Governing Elders.

Onely may it please your Honours from hence to take notice, how unjustly our Bishops have invaded this right and power of Presbyters and people in Church censures, and devesting both of it, have girt it wholly upon them­selves, and how herein they and the Bishops of former times are TWO.


ANd as our Bishops, and the Bishops of former times are TWO in point of Sole Iurisdiction, so also in the Delegation of this power of Iurisdiction unto others:Indecarum est Laicum vicari­um esse Episcopi, & seculares in Eccl [...]sia judi­care: in uno [...]nim eod [...]mque o [...]er [...] non decet d [...]sp [...]r prosessio quod etiam in lege Divina prohibetur dicen [...] Mose, Non [...]rabis in [...]ove & asino simul, Concil. Hispal. 2. to their Chancellours, Commissaries, Officers, &c. Was ever such a thing as this heard of in the best primitive Times? that men that never received Imposition of hands, should not onely be received into assistance, but be wholly intrusted with the power of Spirituall Iurisdiction: Even [Page 42] then when it is to be exercised over such persons as have had hands laid upon them.

We may observe in Cyprian, whilst persecution sepa­rated him from his Church, when questions did arise among his people, he doth not send them to his Chancel­lour or Commissarie; No, he was so farre from su [...]stitu­ting any man (much lesse a lay man) to determine or give Judgement in such cases, that hee would not assume that power wholly to himselfe, but suspends his Judgement, till the hand of God should restore him to his Church againe, that with the advice and Counsell of the Presby­ters, he might give sentence: as may appeare to any that shall peruse his Epistles.

Sure if God had ever led his Church to such a way of deputation, it would have been in such a case of Necessity as this was: or had any footsteps of such a course as this beene visible by this holy Martyr in the goings of former ages, hee needed not have deferred the determination of the question about the receiving of some penitent lapsed ones into the bosome of the Church againe, till his returne and the returne of his Clergie, as he doth.

Cyp. Epist. 28.We will instance in his 28 Epistle, wherein giving di­rection for the excommunicating of such as would rashly communicate with lapsed Christians, he gives this charge not to his Chancellor or Commissarie, or any other man up­on whom he had devolved his power, and set him as his Deputie or Vicar generall in his absence, but ad clerum, to the whole Presbyterie.

Downam in the defence of his Sermon. lib. 1. cap. 8.This Truth is so cleare, that Bishop Downam the great Ad [...]ocate of Episcopacie confesseth, that in Ambrose his time, & a good while after (which was about 400 yeers) til the Presbyters were in a manner wholly neglected, the Bishops had no Ordinaries, Vicars, Chancellors, or Com­missaries, that were not Clergie-men: but this is but a blind, wherewith the Bishop would Dorre his Reader, for wee challenge any man to produce the names of any Clergie-man that was Vicar to Ambrose, or Chancellour to Augustine, or any other of the Bishops of these times; [Page 43] so that herein our Bishops and theirs are TWO.


A Third branch wherein the difference betweene our Bishops, and the Bishops of former times, inpoint of Exercising their Jurisdiction, is visible, is the way or manner of exercising that power.

For brevities sake we will onely instance in their pro­ceedings in Causes Criminall; where let them tell us, whether any good Antiquity can yeeld them one President for THEIR OATH EX OFFICIO, which hath been to their COURTS, as Purgatory fire to the Popes Kitchin: they have forgotten that old Maxime in the Civill Law, Nemo tenetur prodere seipsum, which as it is grounded up­on naturall equity, so it is confirmed by a Law enacted by Dioclesian and Maximilian, Nimis grave est quod petitis, &c. Cod. li. 4. Tit. 20. L. 7. It is too grievous that the adverse part should be requi­red to the exhibition of such things as should create trouble to themselves. Vnderstand therefore that you ought to bring proofes of your intentions, and not to extort them from your adversaries against themselves.

Shall the Lamp of Nature in the night of Ethnicisme enable Heathen Princes, (yea Persecutors) to see and enact thus much, and shall not the glorious Sunne of the Go­spell convince these of their iniquities in transgressing this Law, that call themselves the Fathers of the Church?

If neither the light of Nature, nor Gospell light can, yet the Custome of the Church, to which they so oft ap­peale, may both convince them of this iniquitie, and discover to all the world the contrarietie of their pro­ceedings, to the proceedings of former times, in this par­ticular.

For of Old, both the Plaintiffe and Defendant were brought face to face, before the parties, in whose power it was to judge: which way of proceeding, Athanasius affirmes to be according to Scripture, the Law of God. And because those that condemned Macarius, Athan. Aso. 2. did not [Page 44] thus proceed, he condemnes their Sentence as malicious and unjust.

Of old, no Sentence passed against any man, but upon the Testimony of other witnesses besides the Accusers: after Complaint exhibited, the first thing they applyed themselves to, was to consider the person and qualit [...]e of the Accuser, Apud Zona­ram. Concil [...] prim Constant. Can. 6 Then they heard the Witnesses, who were two at least, Can. Apost. Can. 75. And these witnesses must be such, as might not be imagi­ned to be partiall, nor to beare enmity nor malice against the party accused. Ambros. Epist. 64. so Gratian, Caus. 3. quae 5. cap. Quod suspecti.

Of old, None might be party, witnesse, and Iudge, which Gratian proves at large, Caus. 4. qu 4. cap. Nullus unquam praesumat accusator simul esse, & Iudex & testis.

We grant indeed the Canon Law permits in some cases Tryall without witnesses: Greg. Decret. lib. 3. Tit. 2. cap. 8 q [...] vos. Si crimen ita publicum est, ut meritò debeat appellari notorium; If the crime be so pub­lique, that it may deservedly be called Notorious. Which Law further determines what is notorious, sa [...]ing, Offen­sam illam nos intelligimus manifestam, Decret. Greg. [...]ib. 5. Tit. 4. cap. 24. quae vel per confessio­nem vel probationem legitime nota fuerit, aut evidentiâ Rei, quae nulla possit tergiversatione celari; We count that of­fence manifest, which either by confession, or by lawfull proofe comes to be knowne, or by evidence of fact, so as it can be hid by no tergiversations.

So that all was done in former times with mature de­liberation, upon examination and evidence produced, and proved by such witnesses, as against whom the d [...]fendant could lay in no just exception. And not as now an accusation whispered against a man, he knowes not by whom, to which he must take his Oath to answer, before he knowes what his accusation is. Which Oath, if he takes, without further wit­nesse, he is censured upon the witnes [...]e of his owne Oath. If he takes it not, he is sent presently to prison, there to lie with­out Bayle or Mainprize, till the insupportable miseries of his long durance, compel him to take an Oath against Na­ture, Scripture, Conscience, and the just Defence of his owne innocencie.

[Page 45]That our Bishops therefore and former Bishops are Two, in the point of executing their Judicatory power, we need spend no more time to prove. But come to the third thing, in which the difference betweene ours and former Bishops is to be evidenced.


ANd that is State Imployment, or attendance upon Civill and Secular affaires, &c. which both Christ and Saint Paul prohibits, which prohibition reacheth every Bishop (to speake in Chrysostomes words) as well as Ti­mothy, to whom it is directed;Chrysost. Hom. 40 [...] in 2 in Ti. Nullus ergo Episcopatu praeditus haec audire detrectet, sed agere ea omnia detrectet; Let no man that is a Bishop, refuse to heare what the Apostle saith, but to doe what the Apostle forbids.

We deny not but that Bishops were in the Primitive times often incumbred with secular businesse; but these were put upon them, sometimes by Emperours, who sought the ruine of the Church, as Iulian, of whom Ni­ceph. lib. 10. cap. 13. doth report,Recording this among those things that hee did Dolo malo du­cere. that in Clerum coaptatos Senatorum munere & ministerio perversè fungi jussit Some­times the gracious disposition of Princes towards Christi­an Religion, made them thus to honour Bishops, think­ing thereby to advance Religion; as Constantine the Great enacted, [...]. Sozom. 1.9. that such as were to be tryed before Civill Ma­gis [...]rates, might have leave to appeale ad Iudicium Episco­porum, atque eorum sententiani ratam esse tanquam ab ipso Imperatore prolatam: And this the Historian reckoneth as one argument of his reverend respect to Religion. Some­times the excellency of their singular parts cast Civill dignities upon them.Niceph. 18.5. Tiberius granted a Questors digni­tie unto a Bishop for his eloquence. Chrysostome for his nota­ble stoutnesse and freedome of speech, was sent as the fittest man to Gainas, with the Emperours command. Sometimes the people observing the Bishops to be much honoured by the Emperour, would sollicite them to pre­sent their grievances to the Emperour. And sometimes [Page 46] the aspiring humour of the Bishops raised them to such places, as appeares by Cyrill, who was the first Bishop in Alexandria, Socra. 7.7. who had civill dignities conferred upon him, as Socrates relates it, from whom Civill authority did de­scend upon succeeding Bishops. [...]: of whom Nicephorus therefore recorded, Episcopa­tum majoricum fastu, prophanorum Magistratuum more, quam praedecessores ejus Episcopi, ingressus est, unde adeo ini­tium sumptum est in Ecclesia Alexandrina ut Episcopietiam profana negotia curarent;Lib. 14. c. 14. He entred upon his Episcopacie with more pomp then his predecessors, with a pomp con­formable to the Heathen Magistrates.

Both these Historians relate the sad consequence that followed upon this, that Orestes the Roman Governour seeing his power much weakned by the Bishops interpo­sing in secular affaires,Soc. Li. 7. c. 19. hated the Bishop; and this (as the Historian calls it) his usurped power. Niceph. [...]. 14. cap. 14.

This president of the Alexandrian Bishop, the Bishop of Rome did soone follow; Et Romanus Episcopatus non aliter quam Alexandrinus, quasi EXTRA SACER­DOTII FINES egressus ad secularem principatum erat jam delapsus; The Bishop of Rome as well as the Bi­shop of Alexandria breaking the limits of the Priestly function, did degenerate into a secular Principalitie: which purchased no lesse envie to him then that to the other.

And though these two Bishops went at first abreast in this point, yet in a short time the Roman had outstripped the Alexandrian in that power, till the Church degene­rating more and more, that Roman Priest advanced his power not onely above all the Bishops, but all the Mo­narchs in the Christian Orbe.

Yet notwithstanding, he that shall look into the Anci­ents, shall finde; first, that the best of them held, that they were not to be molested with the handling of worldly affaires, Cyprian Epist. 66.1. Singuli divino Sacerdotio ho­norati non nisi altari & sacrificiis deservire & precibus at (que) [Page 47] orationibus vacare debent, Molestiis secularibus non sunt ob­ligandi, qui divinis rebus & spiritualibus occupantur.

Secondly,Possidon. in vita August. that they complained of them as of heavy burthens, Aug. calles it Angaria, yea Austin himselfe in his 81. Epistle Complaines, that worldly businesse hinde­red his praying, and so pressed him, that vix respirare po­tuit: and Gregory the great, non sine dolore in secularibus ver­sabatur, praefat. in Dial.

Thirdly, Cyprian construed it as one great cause of per­secutions raised against the Church, de lapsis, Sect. 4.

Fourthly, it was much cryed downe as unlawfull by the holy Fathers, many Canons forbidding it, and that under paine of being removed from their places. Can. Apost. Can. 6. Can. 81. hee that did presume to administer [...], a Roman command or Administration of Military affaires or civill place (as Zo­naras there) he should be deposed, Can. Apo. Can. 83. hiring of ground, medling with worldly affaires is to be laid asid by them: Otherwise they are threatned to be liable to Ecclesiasticall censures, Conc. Cal. Cano. 3. Conc. Carth. Can. 16.

We will ad this for a conclusion in this point, it is ob­served by Athanasius, Sulpitius, Severus, and other Ec­clesiasticall Historians, that the Arians were very expedite in worldly affaires, which experience they gained by their constant following and attendance upon the Em­perours Court; and what troubles they occasioned to the Church thereby, is notoriously knowne to any that have seene the Histories of their times. And in this our Bishops have approved themselves more like to the Arian Bishops then the purer Bishops of purer times: but how e­ver cleare it is, that our Bishops and the Bishops of former times are Two: Two in election to their office; Two in the dis­charge of their office; Two in their Ordination, Iurisdiction, processes, Censures, Administrations, and the difference be­tweene our Bishops and those of former times, is greater then between the great Bishop of Rome and them.


BUt it seemes our Remonstrant soared above those times even as high as the Apostles dayes, for so hee saith, If our Bishops challenge any other spirituall power, then was by Apostolike Authority delegated to, and required of Timothy and Titus, and the Angels of the seven Asian Churches, let them be DISCLAIMED as VSVRPERS. And the truth is, so they deserve to be, if they do but chal­lenge the same power that the Apostle did delegate to Ti­mothy and Titus; for Timothy and Titus were Evangelists, and so moved in a Sphere above Bishops or Presbyters. For Timothy, it is cleare from the letter of the Text, 2 Tim. 4.5. [...]: Doe the worke of an Evangelist: if Timothy had beene but a Presbyter or Bishop, Paul had here put him upon imployment, Vltra Sphara Activitatis.

And to any man, that will but understand and consider what the Office of an Let the Rea­der plea [...]e to consult Euseb. Hist. lib. 3. cap. 33 according to some, after others. cap. 37. and view the description, he there makes of an Evangelist, and then judge of what wee speake. Evangelist was, and wherein it dif­fered from the Office of a Presbyter or Bishop, it will bee manifest that Timothy and Titus were Evangelists, and no Bishops: for the title of Evangelist is taken but two wayes; either for such as wrote the Gospell, and so wee doe not af­firme Timothy and Titus to bee Evangelists: or else for such as taught the Gospell; and those were of two sorts, either such as had ordinary places and ordinary gifts, or such whose places and gifts were extraordinary; and such Evangelists were Timothy and Titus, and not Bi­shops, as will appeare if wee consider, what was the Dif­ference betweene the Evangelists and Bishops [...] Bishops or Presbyters were tyed to the particular care and tui [...]ion of that flock over which God had made them Overseers, Acts 20.28. But Evangelists were not tyed to reside in one particular place, but did attend upon the Apostles by whose appoyntment they were sent from place to place, as the necessity of the Churches did require. As appeares first in Timothy [...] whom S. Paul besought to abide at Ephesus. 1 Tim. 1.3 which had been a needlesse importunity, if Timothy had had the Episcopall (that is the Pastorall) charge of [Page 49] Ephesus committed to him by the Apostles, for then hee might have laid as dreadfull a Charge upon him to abide at Ephesus, as he doth to Preach the Gospell. But so far was Paul from setling Timothy in Cathedrâ in Ephesus, that he rather continually sends him up and downe upon all Church services, for we [...]inde Acts. 17.14. That when Paul fled from the tumults of Berea to Athens, he left Silas and Timothy behinde him,Anno. Aera Christi re­ceptae, 47. who afterwards comming to Paul to Athens, Paul sends Timothy from Athens to Thes­salonica, to confirme the Thessalonians in the faith, as ap­peares 1 Thes. 3.1.2. from whence returning to Paul to Athens againe, the Apostle Paul before hee left Athens and went to Corinth, sent him & Silas into Macedonia, who returned to him againe to Corinth, Anno 48. Act. 18.5. afterwards they travelled to Ephesus, from whence we read Paul sent Timothy and Erastus into Macedonia, Anno 51. Act. 19 22. whither Paul went after them, & from whence they & divers other Brethren journied into Asia, Anno. 53. Acts 20.4. All which Bre­thren Paul calles, as it is probable, [...], the messengers of the Churches, 2 Cor. 8.23. And being thus accompanied with Timothy, and the rest of the Brethren he comes to Miletum, Anno 53. and calls the Elders of the Church of Ephesus thither to him, of which Church had Timothy beene Bishop, the Apostle in stead of giving the Elders a charge to feede the flock of Christ, would have given that charge to Timothy, and not to them.

And secondly, the Apostle would not so have forgotten himselfe, as to call the Elders [...], before their Bi­shops face.

Thirdly, It is to be conceived, the Apostles would have given them some directions, how to carry themselves to­wards their Bishop, but not a word of this, though Ti­mothy were then in Pauls presence, and in the presence of the Elders. The cleare evidence of which text demon­strates, that Paul did not leave Timothy at this time as Bi­shop of Ephesus. But it is rather evident that hee tooke him along with him in his journey to Hi [...]rusalem, and so to Rome; for wee finde that those Epistles Paul wrote while [Page 50] hee was a prisoner, beare either in their inscription or some other passage of them, the name of Timothy, as Pauls com­panion, viz. The Epistle to the Philippians, Colossians, He­bre [...]es, Philemon, which Epistles he wrote in bonds as the contexture, which those two learned professors, the one at Heydelberge, Paraeus. the other at Saulmur, make of Saint Pauls Epistles,Capellus. doth declare.

Heb. 13.23. Wee finde not only that Timothy was with Paul at Rome, but a Prisoner with him there.So that it appeares that Timothy was no Bishop, but a Minister, an Evangelist, a fellow labourer of the Apostles, 1 Thess. 3.1. an Apostle, a Messenger of the Church, 2. Cor. 8.3. a Minister of God, 1 Thess. 3.2. these titles the Holy Ghost gives him, but never the title of a Bi­shop.

The like we find in Scripture concerning Titus, whom Paul as it is conceived by learned men, did first assume into the fellowship of his Labours in the place of Iohn, and made him his companion in his journey through Anno 43. Anti­och to Herusalem, Anno. 45. so we find Gal. 2.1, from thence retur­ning to Antioch againe; from thence hee passed through Syria and Cilicia, confirming the Churches, & from Cilicia, he passed to Creet, where having Preached the Gospell, and planted Churches, he left Titus Anno 46. there for a while, to set in order things that remaine.

Yet it was but for a while he left him there, for in his E­pistle which he wrote to him not many yeares after, hee injoynes him to come to him to Nicopolis Anno 51. where he did intend to winter, but changing that purpose sends for him to Ephesus, where it seemes his Hyemall station was, and from thence sends him before him to Corinth, to enquire the state of the Corinthians Anno 51.. His returne from thence Paul expects at Troas Anno 52., and because comming thither he found not his expectation there, he was so grieved in his spirit, 2 Cor. 2.12. that hee passed presently from then [...]e into Macedonia, where Titus met him; and in the midst of his afflictions joyed his spirits with the glad tydings of the powerfull and gracious effects, his first Epistle had among the Corinthians, 2 Cor. 7, 5, 6, 7. Paul having there collected the Liberalities of the Saints, sends Titus [Page 51] againe to the Anno 53. Corinthians, to prepare them for the same service of Ministring to the necessities of the Saints, 2 Cor. 8.6. And makes him with some others the Conveyers of that second Epistle to the Corinthians.

All these journeyes to and fro did Titus make at the de­signement of the Apostle, even after hee was left in Creet. Nor doe we finde,Anno 64. that after his first removall from Creet, he did ever returne thither. Wee reade indeed, 2 Tim. 4.10. hee was with Paul at Rome; and from thence returned not to Creet, but into Dalmatia. All which doth more then probably shew, it never was the Intendment of the Apostle to six Titus in Creet as a Bishop, but onely to leave him there for a season for the good of that Church, and to call him from thence, and send him abroad to other Churches for their good, as their necessities might re­quire. Now who that will acknowledge a Distinction be­tweene the Offices of Bishops and Evangelists, and knowes wherein that Distinction lyes, will not upon these premis­ses conclude that, Timothy and Titus were Evangelists and NOT Bishops.

I but some of the Fathers have called Timothy and Ti­tus Bishops. We grant it true; and it is as true, that some of the Fathers have called them Archbishops, and Patri­arks; yet it doth not follow, they were so. Wee adde, secondly, that when the Fathers did call them so, it was not in a proper but in an improper sense; which we expresse in the words of our Learned Orthodox Ray­nolds;

You may learne by the Fathers themselves,Raynolds contra Hart. Ca. 6. saith hee, that when they tearmed any Apostle a Bishop of thi [...] or that City (as namely Saint Peter of Antioch or Rome) they meant it in a generall sort and signification, because they did attend that Church for a time, and supply that roome in preaching the Gospell, which Bishops did after; but as the name of Bishop is commonly taken for the O­verseer of a particular Church, and Pastor of a severall flocke; so Peter was not Bishop of any one place; there­fore not of Rome. And this is true by Analogy of all extra­ordinary [Page 52] Bishops, and the same may be said of Timothy and Titus, that he saith of Peter.

But were it true that Timothy and Titus were Bishops; will this remonstrant undertake, that all his party shall stand to his Conditions? If our Bishops challenge any other power then was by Apostolique Authority delegated to, and required of Timothy and Titus, and the Angells of the seaven Asian Churches, Pag. 23. let them be disclaimed as usurpers. Will our Bishops indeed stand to this? then actum est. Did e­ver Apostolique authority delegate power to Timothy or Titus, to ordaine alone? to governe alone? and doe not our Bishops challenge that power? Did ever Apostolique authority delegate power to Timothy and Titus, to rebuke an Elder? no; but to entreate him as a Father: and doe not our Bishops challenge to themselves [...] and permit to their Chancellours, Commissaries, and Officialls power not only to rebuke an Elder, but to rayle upon an Elder? to reproach him with the most opprobrious tearmes of foole, knave, jack-sauce, &c. which our paper blushes to present to your Honours view. Did ever Apostolique authority delegate to Timothy and Titus power to receave an accusation against an Elder, but before two or three witnesses? and doe not our Bishops challenge power to proceed Ex officio, and make Elders their owne Accusers? Did ever Apostolique authority delegate power to Timothy or Titus, to reject any after twice admonition, but an Heretick? and doe not our Bishops challenge power to reject and eject the most sound and orthodox of our Ministers, for refusing the use of a Ceremony; as if Non-conformity were Heresie. So that either our Bishops must disclaime this remonstrance, or else themselves must be disclaimed as usurpers.

But if Timothy and Titus were no Bishops, or had not this power, it may bee the Angells of the seven Asian Churches had; and our Remonstrant is so subtile as to twist these two together, that if one fayle, the other may hold.

1 To which we answer; first, that Angell in those Epi­stles is put Collectively, not Individually; as appeares by the Epistle to Thyatira, cap. 2. vers. 24. where wee [Page 53] reade [...], &c. But I say unto you (in the plurall number, not unto thee in the singular) and unto the rest in Thyatira, &c. Here is a plaine distinction be­tweene the members of that Church. By you, is signified those to whom hee spake under the name of the Angell. By the rest, the residue of the people. The people govern­ned, and the governours in the plurall number. What can be more evident to prove, that by Angell is meant not one singular person, but the whole company of Presbyters that were in Thyatira.

This also further appeares, because it is usuall with the holy Ghost, not only in other books of the Scripture, but also in this very booke of the Revelation, to expresse a company under one singular person. Thus the Civill state of Rome, as opposite to Christ, is called, A beast with ten hornes: and the Ecclesiasticall state Antichristian is called the whore of Babylon, and, the false Prophet: and the devill and all his family is called An old red Dragon. Thus also the seven Angels that blew the seven trum­pets, Revel. 8.2. And the seven Angels that poured out the seven Vialls, are not literally to be taken, but Synec­do [...]hically, as all know. And why not then the seven An­gels in those Epistles? Master Meed [...] in his Commentaries upon the Revelation, pag. 265, hath these words; Denique (ut jam semel iterum (que) monuimus) quoniam Deus adhibet angelos providentiae sitae in rerū humanarum motibus & con­versionibus ciendis, gubernandisque administros: idcirco, quae multorum manibus peraguntur, Angelo tamen tanquam rei gerendae praesidi & Duci pro communi loquendi modo tri­buuntur.

Adde, thirdly, that the very name Angell is sufficient to prove, that it is not meant of one person alone, because the word Angell doth not import any peculiar jurisdicti­on or preheminence, but is a common name to all Mini­sters, and is so used in Scripture. For all Ministers are Gods Messengers and Embassadours, sent for the good of the Elect. And therefore the name being common to all Ministers, why should wee thinke that there should bee [Page 54] any thing spoken to one Minister, that doth not belong to all? The like argument wee draw from the word Starres, used Revel. 1.20. The seven Starres are the An­gels of the seven Churches. Now it is evident, that all faith­full Ministers are called Starres in Scripture, whose duty is to shine as lights unto the Churches, in all purity of doctrine and holinesse of conversation. And in this sence, the word is used, when it is said, that the third part of the starres were darkened, Revel. 8.12. and that the Dragons taile drew the third part of the starres of Heaven, & cast them to the Earth, Revel. 12.4. Which is meant not onely of Bishops, but of other Ministers, unlesse the Bishops will appropriate all corruption and Apostacy unto them­selves.

Adde, fourthly, out of the Text it selfe, It is very ob­servable, that our Saviour in opening the mystery of the Vision, Revel. 1.20. saith; The seven Candlestickes which thou sawest, are the seven Churches, but hee doth not say. The seven starres are the seven Angels of the same Chur­ches, But the Angels of the seven Churches; wherein not without some mystery the number of the Angels in o­mitted, least we should understand by Angell, one Minister alone, and not a company. And yet the septenary number of Churches is twice set down.

Lastly, though but one Angell bee mentioned in the forefront, yet it is evident, that the Epistles themselves are dedicated to all the Angels and Ministers in every Church, and to the Churches themselves. And if to the whole Church, much more to the Presbyters of that Church. This is proved Revel. 1.11. What thou seest write in a Book and send it to the seven Churches which are in Asia. And also by the Epiphonema of every Epistle; He that hath an eare to heare, let him heare what the Spirit saith to the Churches. Upon which words, Ambrosius Ausbertus in his second booke upon the Revelation, saith thus; Vnâ ea­d [...]mque locutione & Angelos & Ecclesias [...]num esse designat. Nam cum in principio locutionū quae ad sep [...]em fiunt Angelos dicat, & Angelo illius Ecclesiae scribe; in [...]ine tamen carundem [Page 55] non dicit, qui habet aurem audiat quod spiritus dicat Angelo, sed quid Ecclesiae dicat. By one and the same phrase of speech hee sheweth, the Angels and the Churches to bee one and the same. For whereas in the beginning of his speech, which he makes to the seven Churches, he saith; And write to the Angell of the Churches; yet in the close of the same, he doth not say, Hee that hath an Eare, let him heare what the Spirit saith to the Angel, but what he saith to the Church. And this is further proved by the whole argument of those Epistles, wherein the admonition [...], threatnings, commendations, and reproofes, are directed to all the Ministers of all the Churches. Revel. 2.10. The devill shall cast some of you into prison, &c. Rev. 2.16. I will fight against them with the sword of my mouth, Rev. 2.24. I will put upon you no other burden, &c. I say unto you and the rest of Thyatira, as many as have not this doctrine, and which have not known the depths of Satan, &c. And when it is said in the singular Number (as it is often) I know thy works and thy labour, &c. vers. 2. & vers. 4. Repent and doe thy first works; and verse 13. Thou hast not denied my Faith, &c. and cap. 3.26. Because thou art neither hot nor cold, &c. All these and the like places, are not to bee understood as meant of one individuall person, but of the whole com­pany of Ministers, and also of the whole Church, because that the punishment threatned, is to the whole Church; Revel. 2.5. Repent and doe thy first works, or else I will come unto thee quickly, and remove thy Candlestick out of his place; Rev. 2.16. Repent, or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will fight against them with the sword of my mouth; Revel. 2.24. I will not put upon you any other burden. Now wee have no warrant in the Word to thinke that Christ would re­move his Gospell from a Church for the sinne of one Bi­shop, when all the other Ministers and the Churches themselves are free from those sinnes. And if God should take this course, in what wofull and miserable condition should the Church of England be, which groaneth under so many corrupt Prelates? By all this it appeares, that the word angell, is not to be taken, [...], but [...], [Page 56] not properly, but figuratively. And this is the judgement of Master Perkins upon the second Chapter of the Reve­lation; and of Master Brightman; and of Doctor Fulke, who in answer to the Rhemists in Apoc. 1.20. hath these words; S. Iohn by the angels of the Churches meaneth not all, that should weare on their heads myters, and hold crosier staves in their hands, like dead Idolls, but them that are the faithfull messengers of Gods Word, and utter and declare the same. Againe, they are called the angels of the Churches, because they be Gods messengers.

Master Fox likewise in his Meditation upon the Reve­lation (pag. 7.9.17 [...].) is of this opinion, and hath gathered to our hands the opinions of all Interpreters hee could meete, and saith that they all consent in this, that under the person of an Angell, the Pastors and Ministers of the Churches were understood. Saint Austin in his 132. E­pistle, saith thus; Sic enim in Apocalypsi legitur Angelus, &c. Quod si de angelo superiorū coelorum, & non de Praeposi­tis ecclesiarum vellet intelligi, non consequenter diceret, habeo adversum te, &c. And so in his second Homily upon the Revelation (if that booke be his) Quod autem dicit angelo Thyatirae [...] habeo adversum te pauca, dicit Praepositis Eccle­siarum, &c. This also Gregory the Great, lib. 34. Moral [...] in Iob cap. 4. Saepè sacrum scripturam pr [...]dicatores Ecclesiae, pro eo quod patris gloriam annunciant, angelorum nomine so­lere de signare: & hinc esse, quod Iohannes in Apocalypsi sep­tem Ecclesiis scribens, angelis Ecclesia [...]um loquitur, id [...]st, Praedicatoribus populorum. Master Fox citeth Primasius, Haymo, Beda, Richard, Thomas, and others, to whom we referre you.

If it be here demanded (as it is much by the Hierar­chicall side) that if by angell bee meant the whole com­pany o [...] Presbyters, why Christ did not say, to the an­gels in the plurall number, but to the angell in the sin­gular?

Wee answer, that though this question may savour of a little too much curiosity, yet wee will make bold to subjoyn three conjecturall reasōs of this phrase of speech.

[Page 57]First, It is so used in this place, because it is the com­mon language of other Scriptures in types and visions to set down a certaine number for an uncertaine, and the singular number for the purall. Thus the Ramme, Dan. 8.3. is interpreted vers. 20. to be the Kings of Media and Persia And the enemies of Gods Church are set out by foure ho [...]nes. And the deliverers by foure Carpenters, Zach. 1.18 20. And the wise and foolish Virgins are said to be five wise and five foolish. And many such like. And therefore as we answer the Papists, when they de­mand why Christ if he meant figuratively when he saith, this is my body, did not speake in plaine language, this is the signe of my body? We say, that this phrase of speech is proper to all Sacraments: So we also answer here, this phrase of speech, Angell for Angels, is common to all types and visions.

Secondly, angell is put, though more be meant, that so it may hold proportion with the Vision which Iohn saw [...] Chap, 1.12.20. He saw seven golden Candlestickes, and se­ven Starres. And therefore to hold proportion, the Epi­stles are directed to seven angels, and to seven Churches. And this is called a mystery, Revel. 1.20, The mystery of the seven Starres, &c. Now a mystery is a secret, which comprehends more then is expressed; and therefore though but one angell be expressed, yet the mystery im­plyes all the angels of that Church.

Thirdly, to signifie their unity in the Ministeriall function, and joynt commission to attend upon the feed­ing and governing of one Church, with one common care, as it were with one hand and heart. And this is more fitly declared by the name of one angell, then of many. Wee often finde the name of (one) Prophet or Priest to be put for the generall body of the Ministery, or whole multitude of Prophets or Priests, in the Church of Israel or Iudah, when the Spirit of God intendeth to re­prove, threaten, or admonish them. Thus it is Iere. Isa. 3.2. Hos. 9.8. Ezek. 7.26. Hos. 4.6. Mal. 2.7. Neither should it seeme strange, that a multitude or [Page 58] company of Ministers should bee understood under the name of one angell, seeing a multitude of Heavenly an­gels (implyed in one service for the good of Gods Saints) is sometimes in the Scripture shut up under one angell in the singular number, as may be gathered from Gen. [...]4.7. 2 Kings 19.35. Psal. 34.7. compared with Psalme 91.11. Gen. 32.1.2. Kings 6.16, 17. And also a multitude of de­vils or evill angels, joyntly labouring in any one worke, is set forth under the name of one evill or uncleane spirit, 1 Kings 22.21, 22. Mark. 1 23, 24. Mark [...] 5.2.9. Luke 4.33, 34. Luk. 8.27.30. 1 Pet. 5.8. Heb. 2.14. Ephes. 6.11.12.

But now let us suppose (which yet notwithstanding we will not grant) that the word Angell is taken individually for one particular person, as Doctor Reynolds seemes to interpret it, together with Master Beza, yet neverthe­lesse, there will nothing follow out of this acception, that will any wayes make for the upholding of a Dio­cesan Bishop, with sole power of Ordination and Juris­diction, as a distinct superior to Presbyters. And this ap­peares.

First, because it never was yet proved nor ever will (as we conceive) that these angels were Diocesan Bishops, considering that Parishes were not divided into Diocesses in S. Iohns dayes. And the seven starres are said to bee fixed in their seven Candlestickes or Churches, not one starre over divers Candlestickes. Neither can those Chur­ches be thought to be Diocesan, when not only Tindall and the old translation, calls them seven Congregations, but we reade also Acts 20. that at Ephesus which was one of those Candlesticks, there was but one flock.

And secondly, we further finde that in Ephesus one of those seven Churches, there were many Presbyters, which are all called Bishops, Acts 20.28. and we finde no co­lour of any superintendency or superiority of one Bishop over another. To them in generall the Church is com­mitted to be fed by them without any respect had to Ti­mothy, who stood at his elbow and had beene with him in Macedonia, and was now waiting upon him to Ierusa­lem. [Page 59] This is also confirmed by Epiphanius, who writing of the Heresies of the Meletians, saith, that in ancient times this was peculiar to Alexandria, that it had but one bishop, whereas other Cities had two. And hee being bi­shop of Cypres, might well be acquainted with the con­dition of the Churches of Asia, which were so nigh unto him.

Thirdly, there is nothing said in the seven Epistles that implyeth any superiority or majority of rule or power that these angels had over the other angels that were joyned with them in their Churches. It is written indeed, in commendation of the angell of the Church of Ephesus, that he could not beare them that were evill, and that he had tryed them which say they were Apostles and are not, & had found them lyars. And it is spoken in dispraise of the angell of Pergamus, that he suffred them which held the doctrine of Balaam, &c. But these things are common du­ties, requirable at the hands of all Ministers, who have the Charge of Soules.

But suppose that there were some superiority and pre­heminency insinuated by this individuall angell, yet who knoweth not that there are divers kinds of superiority; to wit, of Order, of dignity, of gifts and parts, or in de­gree of Ministery, or in charge of power and jurisdiction. And how will it be proved that this angell if he had a su­periority, had any more then a superiority of order, or of gifts and parts? Where is it said, that this angell was a superior degree or order of Ministery above Presbyters? In which Epistle it is said that this angell had sole power of Ordination and Jurisdiction? and therefore as our learned Protestants prove against the Papists, that when Christ directed his speech to Peter in particular and said, I will give unto thee the keyes of the kingdom of Heaven, &c. That this particularization of Peter did not import any singular preheminence or majority of power to Peter more then to the other apostles. But that though the promise was made to Peter, yet it was made to him in the name of all the rest, and given to all as well as one. And [Page 60] that therefore it was spoken to one person, and not to all, that so Christ might fore signifie the unity of his Church, as Hoc erant uti­que & cateri Apostoli quod fuerat Pe [...]rus, par [...] consort [...]o pr [...]di [...]i & hono­ris & potesta­tis, sed exordium ab [...] pro­ [...]icistitur, ut Ecclesia una men­stretur. Cyprian, Austin, Hierome, Optatus, and others say. So when Christ directs a [...] Epistle to one angell, it doth not imply a superior power over his fellow angels, but at most onely a presidency for order sake. And that which is written to him, is written to the rest as well as to him. And therefore written to one, not to exclude the rest, but to denote the unity that ought to bee betweene the Ministers of the same Church in their common care and diligence to their flocke. And this is all that Doctor Rey­nolds saith, as you may reade in his conference with Hart, cap. 4. divis. 3. ad finem. For it is evident that Doctor Rey­nolds was an utter enemy to the I [...] Divinum of the Epis­copall preheminency over Presbyters by his Letter to Sir Francis Krolls. And learned Master Beza also saith some­thing to the same purpose in his annotations upon Revel. 2.1. Angelo. i. [...] quem nimirum oportuit imprimis de his rebus admoneri, ac per eum caeteros collegas, totam (que) adeo Ecclesiam. Sed hinc statui Episcopalis ille gradus postea hu­manitus in Ecclesiam Dei invectus certe nec potest nec debet, imo ne perpetuum quidem istud [...] munus esse necessariò oportuisse, sicut exorta inde Tyrannis oligarchica (cujus apex est Antichristana bestia) certissima cum totius non Ecclesia modo, sed etiam orbis pernicie, nunc tandem declarat.

If therefore our Remonstrant can produce no better evi­dence for his Hierarchy then Timothy, and Titus, and the Angels of the Asian Churches, Let not this Remonstrant and his party, cry out of wrong, if this claimed Hierarchy be for ever hooted o [...]t of the Church, seeing it is his owne Option. And yet we cannot cōceale one refuge more out of Scrip­ture, to which the Hierarchy betake themselves for shel­ter. And that is the two Postscripts in the end of Pauls second Epistle to Timothy, and of that to Titus; where in the one, Timothy is said to be the first bishop of Ephesus, and in the other, Titus is said to be the first Bishop of the Church of the Cretians: to both which places wee an­swer.

[Page 61]That these two Postscripts (and so all the rest) are no part of Canonicall Scripture. And therefore our former and ancienter English translations, though they have these Postscripts, yet they are put in a small character different from that of the text, that all men might take notice they were no parts of the text. Although our Episcopall men of late in newer impressions have inlarged their Phylacteries, in putting those Postscripts in the same full character with that of the text, that the simple might beleeve they are Canonicall Scripture. The Papists them­selves (Baronius, Serrarius, and the Rhemists) confesse that there is much falsity in them. The first Epistle to Timothy, is thus subscribed: the first to Timothy was writ­ten from Laodicea, which is the chiefest City of Phrygia Pa­catiana. Here we demand, whether Paul when he writ the first Epistle to Timothy, was assured he should live to write a second, which was written long after? And if not; How comes it to be subscribed, th [...] first to Timothy, which hath relation to a second? Besides, the Epistle is said to be writ from Loadicea, whereas Beza in his Anno­tations proves apparently, that it was written from Ma­cedonia; to which opinion Baronius and Serrarius sub­scribe. It is added, Which is the chiefest City of Phrygia Pa­catiana. But this Epithete is no where read in the Writers of those ages, saith Beza, Sed apud recentiores illos, qui Romani imperii jam inclinantis provincias descripserunt. So that by this place it is evident, that the subscription was added a long while after the writing of the Epistles by some men, for the most part vel indoctis, saith Beza, vel certe non satis attentis, Either by a learned, or negligent man.

The second Epistle is thus subscribed; the second E­pistle unto Timothy ordeined the first Bishop of the Church of the Ephesiās, was written from Rome, when Paul was brought before Nero the second time. Now these words Ordained the first Bishop, is wanting, saith Beza, in quibusdam vetu­stis codicibus, in veteri vulgat [...] editione, & apud Syrum in­terpretem. If Saint Paul had written this Postscript, he [Page 62] would not have said, to Timothy the first Bishop, &c. whereas it was not yet certaine whether ever there should be a second. Neither would it bee said when Paul was brought, &c. But when I was the second time brought be­fore Nero. The Syriack Interpreter reads it, Here ends the second epistle to Timothy written from Rome.

The Epistle to Titus is thus subscribed: Written to Titus, ordained first Bishop of the Church of the Cretians, from Nicopolis of Macedonia. Here it is said that this E­pistle was written from Nicopolis, whereas it is cleare that Paul was not at Nicopolis when he wrote it, Tit, 3.12. Be diligent to come to me to Nicopolis, for I have deter­mined there to winter. He doth not say, Here to winter, but there; Where note, for the present hee was not there. And besides, it is said, that Titus was ordained the first Bishop, &c. And who was the second? or was there ever a second? And also He is said to be Bishop, not onely of a Diocesse, but of all Creet. Was there ever such a second Bishop? Adde, lastly, that it is said, Bishop of the Church of the Cretians; Whereas it would bee said of the Churches of the Cretians. For the Christian Churches of any Nation are called Churches by Luke and Paul, not Church. There­fore Codex Claremontanus subscribes; Here ends the E­pistle to Titus, and no more. So the Syriack; Finitur Epistola ad Titum quae scripta fuit è Nicopoli. The old Vul­gar Edition hath nothing of the Episcopacy of Titus. By all this it appeares, that if the Bishops had no more authority to urge us to subscribe to their Ceremonies, then they have authority for their Episcopall dignity by these Subscriptions, there would be no more Subscripti­on to Ceremonies in the Churches of England.

But some will say, that there is one objection out of Scripture yet unanswered, and that is from the inequa­lity that was betweene the twelve Apostles, and the seven­ty Disciples.

To which we answer;

First, that it cannot bee proved that the twelve Apo­stles had any superiority over the seventy, either of Or­dination, [Page 63] or Jurisdiction. Or that there was any subor­dination of the seventy unto the twelve. But suppose it were yet we answer.

Secondly, that a superiority and inferiority betweene Officers of different kindes, will not prove that there should be a superiority and inferiority betweene Officers of the same kinde. No man will deny but that in Christs time, there were Apostles, Evangelists, Prophets, Pa­stors, and teachers, and that the apostles were superior to Evangelists and Pastors. But it cannot bee proved, that one apostle had any superiority over another a­postle, or one Evangelist over another. And why then should one Presbyter be over another? Hence it follow­eth, that though we should grant a superiority betweene the twelve and the seventy, yet this will not prove the question in hand. Because the question is concerning Of­ficers of the same kinde, and the instance is of Officers of different kinds, amongst whom no man will deny but there may be a superiority and inferiority, as there is a­mongst us between Presbyters and Deacons.

And now let your Honours judge (considering the pre­misses) how farre this Episcopall government is from any Divine right, or Apostolicall institution. And how true that speech of Hierome is, that a bishop as it is a superior Order to a Presbyter, is an Humane praesumption, not a di­vine Ordinance.

But though Scripture failes them, yet the indulgence and Munificence of Religious Princes may support them, and to this the Remonstrant makes his next recourse, yet so as he acknowledgeth here, Ingagements to Prin­ces onely for their accessory dignities, titles, and Mainte­nance; not at all for their stations and functions, (where­in yet the author plainely acknowledgeth a difference betweene our Bishops and the Bishops of old by such ac­cessions.)

For our parts, we are so farre from envying the gra­cious Munificence of pious Princes, in collating honourable maintenance upon the Ministers of Christ, that we beleeve, [Page 64] that even by Gods owne Ordinance, double Honour is due unto them.

And that by how much the Ministery of the Go­spell is more honourable then that of the Law; by so much the more ought all that embrace the Gospell, to bee carefull to provide, that the Ministers of the Go­spell might not onely live, but maintaine Hospitalitie, according to the Rule of the Gospell. And that wor­thy Gentleman spake as an Oracle, that said; That scan­dalous Maintenance is a great cause of a scandalous Mi­nistery.

Yet wee are not ignorant, that when the Ministe­ry came to have Agros, domos, locationes, vehicula, e­quos, latifundia, as Chrysost. Hom. 86. in Matth. That then Religio peperit divitias, & filia devoravit Matrem, religion brought forth riches, and the Daughter de­voured the Mother; and then there was a voyce of An­gels heard from Heaven; Hodie venenum in Ecclesiam Christi cecidit, this Day is poyson shed into the Church of Christ.

And then it was that Ierome complained, Christi Ec­clesia postquam ad Christianos principes venit, potentiâ qui­dem & divitiis major, sed virtutibus minor facta est. Then also was that Conjunction found true; That when they had woodden Chalices, they had golden Priests; but when their Chalices were golden, their Priests were wooden.

And though we doe not thinke, there is any such in­compossibility, but that large Revenues may be happily mana­ged with an humble sociablenesse, yet it is very rare to finde. History tells us, that the superfluous revenues of the Bi­shops not onely made them neglect their Ministery, but further ushered in their stately and pompous attendance; which did so elevate their Spirits, that they insulted over their brethren, both Clergy and People, and gave occa­sion to others to hate and abhorre the Christian Faith, Which Eusebius sets forth fully in the pride of Paulus Sa­mosatenus, who notwithstanding the meannesse and ob­scurity [Page 65] of his birth, afterwards grew to that height of In­sol [...]nc [...] and pride in all his carriage; especially in that nu­merous traine that attended him in the streetes,Euseb. lib. 7. cap. 29. and in his stately throne raised after the manner of Kings and Prin­ces, that Fides nostra invi [...]ia, & odi [...], propter fostum & super­bi [...]m cordis illius, facta fuerit obnexia; the Christian faith was exposed to envy and hatred through his pride.

And as their ambition (fed with the largenesse of their revenewes) discovered it selfe in great attendance, stately dwellings, and all Lordly pompe, so Hierom complaines of their pride in their stately seates, qui velut in aliqua sub­limi specula constituti, vix dignantur vid [...]re mortales & allo­qui conservos suos: who sitting aloft as it were in a watch tower, will scarce deigne to looke upon poore mortalis, or speake to their fellow servants.

Here we might bee large, in multiplying severall testi­monies against the pride of Ecclesiasticall persons, that the largenesse of their revenues raysed them to: but we will conclude with that grave complaint of Sulpitius Severus.

Ille qui ante pedibus aut asello ire consueverat, spumante equo superbus invebitur: parvá prius ac vili cellula contentus habitare, erigit celsa Laquearia, construit multa conclaviu, sculpit postes, pingit armaria, vestem respuit gressiorem, indu­mentum molle desiderat, &c. Which because the practise of our times hath already turned into English, wee spare the labour to translate.

Onely suffer us (being now to give a Vale to our re­monstrants arguments) to recollect some few things.

First, whereas this remonst [...]ant saith; If we doe not shew out of the true & genuine writings of those holy men, that lived in the Apostles dayes a cleare and received distinction of Bishops [...] Pag. 24. Presbyters, and Deacons, as three distinct subordi­nate callings, with an evident specification of the duty belong­ing to each of them: Let this claimed Hierarchie be for ever rooted out of the Church: We beseech you let it be remem­red how we have proved, out of the genuine and unde­niable writings of the Apostles themselves: that these [Page 66] are not three distinct callings: Bishops are Presbyters, being with them all one, Name and Office, and that the distinction of Bishops and Presbyters was not of Divine Institution, but Humane: and that these Bishops, in their first Institution did not differ so much from Pres­byters, as our present Bishops differ from them.

Pag. 23. Secondly, Whereas this remonstant saith, If our Bi­shops challenge any other power then was by Apostolike autho­rity delegated to, and required of Timothy and Titus, and the Angells of the Asian Churches: Let them bee disclaimed as usurpers. Wee desire it may be remembred, how wee have proved first; that Timothy and Titus and the Angels were no Diocesan bishops; and secondly, that our bishops challenge (if not in their Polemicks, yet in their Practicks) a power that Timothy and Titus, and those angels ne­ver did.

Pag. 22.Thirdly, Whereas this remonstrant saith, If there can be better evidence under Heaven for any matter of fact, let Episcopacy be for ever abandoned out of Gods Church: We beseech you remember how weake we have disco­vered his Evidence to be; and then the Inference upon all these we humbly leave to your Honours Wisedome and Iustice.


HAving thus considered the validity of those argu­ments, whereby this remonstrant would suffult Episcopacy, we descend now to inquire what satisfaction he gives to those objections, which himselfe, frames as the maine, if not the sole arguments, that Episcopacy is as­faultable by, and they are two.

First, that pleading the Divine right of Episcopacy, is to the prejudice of Soveraignty: Secondly, that it casts a dange­rous imputation upon all those reformed Churches that want this Government.

To the first, the prejudice of Soveraignty; he answers there is a compatiblenesse in this case of Gods Act, and [Page 67] the Kings: it is God that makes the Bishop, the King that gives the Bishopricke.

But we have proved already, that God never made a Bishop, as he stands in his Superioritie over all other Pres­byters, he never had Gods Fiat: and if they disclaime the influence of soveraignty unto their creation to a priority, and assert, that the King doth not make them Bishops, they must have no being at all. Sure we are, the Lawes of the Land proclaime,37. Hen. 8. cap. 17. that not onely Bishopricks, but Bishops and all the Iurisdiction they have is from the King: where­as the Remonstrant acknowledgeth no more, but the bare The Remon­strant here ac­knowledges the same of the King, that Frier Simon, a Florentine, did of the Pope, who affirmed the degree of a Bishop was de jure divino, but every particu­lar Bishop de jure Pontificio. Hist. con. Trid. place and exercise to be from Regall donation, which can­not bee affirmed without apparent prejudice of that So­veraigntie which the Lawes of the Land have invested our Princes with.

And for his unworthy comparison of Kings in order to Bishops and Patrons in order to their Clerkes, when he shall prove that the patron gives ministeriall power to his Clerke, as the K [...]n [...] according to our Laws gives Episcopall power to the Bishop [...] it may be of some conducement to his cause, but till then, we leave the unfitnesse of this compari­son, and the unthankfulnesse of those men to the indul­gence of their Soveraigne, to their deserved recompence.

His learned answer to such men as borrowing Saint Ieroms phrase,Pag. 28, 29. speake Saint Pauls truth, is in summe this: That he kn [...]w [...]s not how to prescribe to mens thoughts, but for all his Rhetoricke, they will thinke what they list; but if they will grant him the question, they shall soone be at an end of the quarrell: which one answer if Satisfactory, would silence all controversies to as good purpose as he did Bellarmine, who said, Bellarmine saith it is thus, and I say it is not, and where is Bellarmine now?

To the second objection, that Episcopacie thus asserted casts an imputation upon all the reformed Churches, Pag. 29. that want that Government, hee saith; that the objection is inten­ded to raise envie against them; who (if they may be belee­ved) love and honour those sister Churches, and blesse God for them.

[Page 68]But doe they not plucke all this envie upon themselves, who in their Conferences, Writings, Pulpits, Vniversities, Disputes, High Commission, Declamations, have disclaimed them us no Churches, that have disclaimed the Prelats? and have honoured the most glorious Lights of those Reformed Churches, Calvin, Beza, and others with no better titles than of Rascalls, Blasphemers, &c.

But the pith of his answer after a few good words is this: that no such consequent can be drawne from their opini­on, for their Ius divinum pleads only for a Iustifiablenesse of this holy calling: Not for an absolute necessity of it, war­ranting it where it is, and requiring it where it may be had; but not fixing upon the Church that wants it, the defect of any thing of the Essence of a Church, but only of the glory and per­fection of it; neither is it their sin, but their misery.

And is it so, doth not this Ius divinum argue a Necessi­tie, but onely a Iustifiablenesse of this calling; nor is the want of it a want of any thing of Essence, but onely of perfection? wee had thought, that page the twentieth, where this Remonstrant strives to fetch the pedegree of Epis­copacie from no lesse than Apostolicall, and in that right Divine institution he had reckoned it among those things, which the Apostles ordained for the succeeding admini­stration of the Church in essentiall matters: but here it seemes he is willing to retract what there fell from him: there it was to his advantage to say, this government was a thing essentiall to the Church, and here it is no lesse advantage to say, it is not essentiall.

But if it be not Essentiall, then what is the reason that when a Priest who hath received orders at Rome turnes to us, they urge not him to receive ordination among us a­gaine: but when some of our brethren, who flying in Queene [...] dayes, had received Imposition of hands in the Reformed Churches beyond the Seas returned a­gaine in the dayes of Queene Elizabeth, they were urged to receive Imposition of hands againe from our Bishops, and some did receive it. If those Churches that want Bishops want nothing essentiall to a Church; then what [Page 69] Essentiall want was there in the ordination of those Mini­sters that received Imposition of hands in those Churches, that might deserve a Re-ordination, more than if they had first received their ordination at Rome?

And what is the reason that Bishop Mountague so con­fidently affirmes,Originum Eccle­si [...]st. car [...]m [...] prioris pars po­sterior 463, 464 that Ordination by Episcopall hands is so necessary, as that th [...] Church is no true Church with­out it, and the Ministery no true Ministery, and ordi­narily no salvation to be obtained without it? And if this Remonstrant should leave Bishop Mountague to answer for himselfe, yet notwithstanding he stands bound to give us satisfaction to these two questions, which arise from his owne Booke.

First, whether that Office, which by divine right hath the sole power of Ordaining, and Ruling all other Officers in the Church, (as he saith Episcopacy hath) belong not to the being, but onely to the glory and perfection of a Church. Secondly, there being (in this mans thoughts) the same Ius divinum for Bishops, that there is for Pastors and Elders, Pag. 32. whether if those Reformed Churches wanted Pastors and Elders too, they should want nothing of the Essence of a Church, but of the perfection and glory of it?

But this Remonstrant seemes to know so much of the minde of those Churches, that if they might have their option, they would most gladly embrace Episcopall Govern­ment, as littl [...] differing from their owne Moderatorship, save onely in the perpetuitie of it, and the new Invention (as hee odiously calls it) of Lay Elders. But no question those learned Worthies that were entrusted by the Churches to compile their confessions, did comprise their Iudgements bet­ter than the Composer of this Remonstrance. And to his presumption, wee oppose their Confession. Wee will be­gin with the French Church, who in their Confession speake thus.

Credimus veram Ecclesiam gubernari debere ea politia, quam Dominus noster Iesus [Page 70] Christus sancivit, ita videli­cet, ut sint in ea Pastores, Pres­byteri, sive Seniores, & Diaco­ni, ut doctrinae puritas retinea­tur, &c. Ar. 29. Credimus om­nes Pastores ubicun (que) collocati sunt, cádem & aequali potesta­te inter se esse praeditos sub uno illo capite summoque & solo universali Episcopo Iesu Chri­sto. Art. 30. Gallicae confessio­nis. Credimus veram hanc Ec­clesiam debere regi, ac guber­nari, spirituali illâ politiâ quam nos Deus ipse in verbo suo edo­cuit; it a ut sint in ea Pastores ac ministri qui pure & concio­nentur, & Sacramenta admi­nistrent; sint quo (que) Seniores, & Diaconi qui Ecclesiae senatum constituant, ut his veluti me­diis vera R [...]ligio conservari, Homines (que) vitiis dediti spiri­tualiter corripi & emendari possint. Tunc enim ritè & or­dinate omnia siunt in Ecclesia, cum viri fid [...]les, & pii ad ejus gubernationem deligūtur jux­ta Divi Pauli praescriptum, 1 Tim. 3. Confes. Belgic. Art. 30. Caeterum ubicun (que) locorum sunt verbi Dei Ministri eandem at (que) aequalem Omnes habent tum Potestatem tum AUTHORITATEM, ut qui sunt aeque Omnes Christi unici illius universalis Episcopi & capitis Ecclesiae Ministri.

We beleeve that the true Church ought to be gover­ned by that policie which [Page 70] Christ Jesus our Lord esta­blished, viz. that there bee Pastors, Presbyters, or El­ders and Deacons. And a­gaine, Wee beleeve that all true Pastors where ever they be, are endued with equall and the same power, under one chiefe Head and bishop Christ Jesus. Consonant to this the Dutch Churches. We beleeve (say they) the true Church ought to be ru­led with that spirituall poli­cie which God hath taught us in his Word, to wit, that there bee in it Pastours to preach the Word purely; Elders and Deacons to con­stitute the Ecclesiasticall Se­nate, that by these meanes Religion may be preserved, and manners corrected. And so again, We beleeve where ever the Ministers of God are placed, they All have the same equall power and autho­ritie, as being All equally the Ministers of Christ.

In which harmony of these Confessions, see how both Churches agree in these five points:

1 First, That there is in the Word of God, an exact forme [Page 71] of Governement set downe, Deus in verbo suo edocuit.

Secondly, That this forme of Governement Christ established in his Church; Iesus Christus in Ecclesiâ san­civit.

Thirdly, That this forme of Government is by Pastors,3 Elders, and Deacons.

Fourthly, That the true Church of Christ ought to be 4 thus governed; Veram Ecclesiam debere regi.

Fifthly, That all true Ministers of the Gospell are of 5 equall power and Authority.

For the reason he assignes, why those Churches should make this Option, wee cannot enough admire that such a passage should fall from his pen, as to say, there is Little difference betweene their [...], and our Episcopacie, save onely in perpetuity and lay Elders, for who knowes not that between these two, there is as vast a difference as between the Duke of Venice and an absolute Monarch. For, 1. the Moderator in Geneva is not of a superiour order to his Brethren; nor 2. hath an ordination differing from them; nor 3. assumes power of sole Ordination or Jurisdiction; nor hath he 4. maintenance for that office above his Bre­thren; nor 5. a Negative voyce in what is agreed by the rest; nor 6. any further power then any of his Brethren. So that the difference betweene our Bishops and their Moderators is more then Little: But if it be so little as this Remonstrant here pretends; then the Alteration and Abrogation of Episcopacie will be with the lesse difficultie, and occasion the lesse disturbance.


BUt there is another thing, wherein our Episcopacie differs from the Geneva Moderatorship, besides the perpetuity; and that is the exclusion of the Lay Presbytery, (which if we may beleeve this Remonstrant) never till this age had footing in the Christian Church.

In which assertion, this Remonstrant concludes so fully with Bishop Halls Irrefragable Propositions, and his [Page 72] other book of Episcopacie by divine right; as if he had con­spired to sweare to what the Bishop had said.

Now, though we will not enter the Lists with a man of that learning and fame that Bishop Hall is, yet we dare tell this Remonstrant, that this his assertion hath no more truth in it, then the rest that wee have alreadie noted. Wee will (to avoyd prolixity) not urge those 1 [...]. [...].17 1 Cor. 12.28. Rom. 12.8. three knowne Texts of Scripture, produced by some for the establishing of Governing Elders in the Church, not yet vindicated by the adversaries.

Nor will wee urge that famous Text of Vnde & Sy­n [...]goga, & po­stea Ecclesia seniores habuit, quorum sine Con [...]il [...]o n [...]hil agebatur in [...]c. [...]lisi [...]i. Quod qua negligent [...]i ob­so verit nescio, nisi forte Do­ctorum desid â, aut magis super­bia, dumsoli volunt aliq [...]id videri. Ambrose in 1 Tim. 5. But if there were no Lay Elders in the Church till this present age, wee would be glad to learne, who they were of whom Origen speakes, when he tels us, it was the Custome of Christian Teachers, first to examine such as desired to heare them, of whom there were two orders; the first were Catechumeni, or beginners; the other was of such as were more perfect: among whom [...], &c [...] Nonnulli praepositi sunt quì in vitam & mores eorum qui ad­mittuntur inquirant, ut qui turpia committant iis communi Caetu Interdicant, qui vero ab istis abhorrent, ex anima com­plexi, meliores quotidiè reddant: There are some ordained to enquire into the life and manners of such as are admit­ted into the Church,Origen. Lib. 3. contra Ceisum. that they may banish such from the publique Assembly, that perpetrate scandalous Acts; which place tells us plainely:

First, that there were some in the higher forme of heares (not Teachers) who were Censores morum over the rest. Secondly, that they were designed or constitu­ted to this work, [...]. Thirdly, that they had such Authority instrusted into their hands, as that they might interdict such as were scandalous from the publique As­semblies. We would gladly know, whether these were not, as it were, Lay Elders.

That there were such in the Church (distinguished from others that were called to teach) appeares.Ep. 137. Au­gustine writing to his Charge directs his Epistle, Dilectis­simis [Page 73] fratribus, clero, senioribus & universae Plebi Ecclesiae Hipponensis: where first there is the generall compella­tion. Fratribus, Brethren, then there is a distribution of these Brethren into the Clergie, the Elders, and the whole People; so that there were in that Church Elders distin­guished both from the Clergie, and the rest of the People.

So againe, Contra Cresconium Grammaticum: Omnes vos Episcopi, Lib. 3. cap. Presbyteri, Diaconi, & Seniores scitis; All you Bishops, Elders, Deacons, and Elders, doe know. What were those two sorts of Elders there mentioned in one comma, & ibidem cap. 56. Peregrinus Presbyter & seniores Ecclesiae Musticanae Regiones tale desiderium prosequuntur; where againe we reade of Elder and Elders, Presbyter, and Seniors in one Church.

Both those passages are upon record in the publike acts, which are more fully set downe by Baronius, ao. 303. Num. 15.16, 17. As also by Albaspineus, in his Edition of Optatus: in which Acts the Seniors are often mentioned. In that famous relation of the purging of Cecilianus and Felix, there is a copie of a Letter; Fratribus & filiis: Clero & Senioribus, Fortis in Domino aeternam salutem: Another Letter is mentioned a little before Clericis & Se­nioribus Cirthensium in Domino aeternum Salutem. These Seniors were interessed in affaires concerning the Church as being the men, by whose advise they were mana­ged.

The Letter of Purpurius to Silvanus saith, adhibete concl [...]ricos, & seniores plebis, Ecclesiasticos Viros, & inqui­rant quae sunt ista Dissensiones: ut ea quae sunt secundum fidei Praecepta fiant, Where wee see the joynt power of these Seniors, with the Clergie in ordering Ecclesiasticall affaires; that by their wisedome and care peace might be setled in the Church; for which cause, these Seniors are called Ecclesiasticall men; and yet they are distinguished from Clergie men.

They are mentioned againe afterwards by Maximus, saying; Loquor Nomine SENIORVM Populi Christiani. Greg. Mag. distinguisheth them also from the Clergie: [Page 74] Tabellarium cum consensu SENIORVM & Cleri me­mineris Ordinandum.

These Seniors had power to reprove offenders, other­wise why should Augustine say, Cum ob errorem aliquem à Senioribus arguuntur & imputatur alicui cur ebrius fuerit, August. Ser. 19. de Verb. Dom. cur res alienas pervaserit, &c. when they were by the El­ders reproved for their errors, and drunkennes is laid to a mans charge &c. So that it was proper to the Seniors to have the cognizance of delinquents, and to reprove them.

August. in Psal. 38. Conc. 2.The same Augustine in Psalme 36. Necesse nos fuerat Primianicausam, quem, &c. Seniorū literis ejusdem Ecclesiae postulantibus audire. Being requested by letters from the Seniors of that Church, it was needfull for me to heare the the cause of Primian, &c.

So againe, Optatus, who mentioning a persecution that did for a while scatter the Church, saith, Erant Ecclesiae ex auro & argento quàm plurima Ornamenta, quae nec defodere terrae, nec secum portare poterat, quare fidelibus senioribus commendavit. Albaspin [...]us, that learned Antiquarie, on that place acknowledges, that Besides the Clergie, there were certaine of the Elders of the people, men of approved life, that did tend the affaires of the Church, of whom this place is to be understood.

By all these testimonies it is apparent; first, that in the ancient Church there were some called Seniors. Secondly, that these Seniors were not Clergie men. Thirdly, that they had a stroke in governing the Church, and managing the affaires thereof. Fourthly, that Seniors were distinguished from the rest of the people.

Pag. 32.Neither wou [...]d we desire to chuse any other Iudges in this whole controversie; then whom himselfe constituted; For­raine Divines, taking the generall Suffrage and practise of the Churches, and not of particular men.

As for the learned Spanhemius whom hee produceth, though wee give him the deserved honour of a worthy man: yet wee think it too much to speake of him, as if the judgement of the whole Church of Geneva were incor­porated [Page 75] into him, as this Remonstrant doth. And for Spanhemius himselfe, we may truly say, in the place cited, he delivered a complement, rather then his judgment, which in Dedicatorie Epistles is not unusuall. Wee know that reverend Calvin and learned Beza have said as much upon occasion in their Epistles, and yet the Christian world knowes their Judgement was to the contrary.

Little reason therefore hath this Remonstrant,Pag. 33. to de­claime against all such as speake against this Governe­ment as unlawfull,Pag. 33. with the termes of Ignorant and spite­full Sectaries, because they call the Governement unlaw­full: had they proceeded further to call it Antichristian, (which he charges upon them) they had said no more, then what our eares have heard some of their principall Agents, their Legati à Latere speake publikely in their visitations: That how ever the Church of England be as sound, and Orthodox in her Doctrine as any Church in the world, D. Ducke. yet in our Discipline and Governement, wee are the same with the Church of Rome, which amounts to asmuch as to say, the Governement is Antichristi [...]n, unlesse they will say the Governement of Rome is not so, nor the Pope Antichrist.


NOw our Remonstrant begins to leave his dispute for the Office, and flowes into the large pra [...]ses of the Persons, and what is wanting in his Arguments for the Place, thinks to make up in his Encomiasticks of the Per­sons, that have possest that place in the Church of God and tels us, that the Religious Bishops of all times are and have been they, that have strongly upheld the truth of God against Satan and his Antichrist. It is well he sets this crown only upon the heads of Religious Bishops, as knowing that there are and have been some Irreligious ones, Pag. 34. that have as strongly upheld Satan and his Antichrist against the truth of God. But the Religious Bishops are they that have all times upheld the truth. What? they, and only they? did never any uphold [Page 76] the truth, but a Religious Bishop? did never any Religi­ous Minister or Professor preach, or write, or die, to uphold the truth, but a Religious Bishop? if so then there is some perswasive strength in that hee saith; and a credulous man might bee induced [...]o thinke, If Bishops goe downe, truth will goe downe too: But if wee can produce for one Bishop many others that gave beene valiant for the truth, this Rhethoricall insinuation will contribute no great help to their establishment. Nor indeed any at all; unles he were able to make this good of our times, as well as of all others,Pag. 35. which he assaies; for saith he, even amongst our own how many of the reverend & learned Fathers of the Church now living, Wee may [...]ather thinke that they would have done [...]o [...]e. Remembring what Marti [...]us was wont to say to his friend Su [...]i­tius, N [...]qua­qaum sib [...]m E­pis [...]op [...]tu c [...]m [...]tulum Gra­ [...]i [...]m suppe [...]sse, quam p [...] se [...]. Sulpitius Severus Dial 2 have spent their spirits, & worne out their lives in the powerfull opposition of that man of sinne; how many? I sir; wee would faine know how many: that there are some that have stood up to beare witnesse against that Man of sin, we acknowledge with all due respect, to the Learning and worth of their Persons. But that their E­piscopall dignity hath added either any flame to their zeal, or any Nerves to their ability: we cannot believe, nor can we thinke they would have done lesse in that cause, though they had beene no Bishops.

But what if this be true of some Bishops in the King­dome, Is it true of all? are there not some that have spent their spirits in the opposition of Christ, as others have in the opposition of Antichrist? & are there none but Zealous, Religious Prelates in the Kingdom? are there none upon whom the guilt of that may meritoriously bee charged, Pag. 35. which others have convincingly and meritoriously opposed? And are there not some Bishops in the Kingdome, that are so far from opposing the Man of sin, that even this Remonstrant is in danger of suffering under the name of P [...]ritan for daring to call him by that name, we doubt not but this R [...]monstrant knowes there are.

Pag. 35. But if he will against the light of his own Conscience, bear up a known errour out of private repects, (wee will not say these papers) but his own conscience, shall owne day be an e­vidence against him before the dreadfull Tribunall of the Almighty.

[Page 77]But there is yet a second thing that should endeare Episcopacie, Pag. 36. and that is the carefull, peaceable, painefull, conscionable mannaging of their Charges; to the great glory of God, and the comfort of his faithful people. Which (in not seeming to urge) hee urgeth to the full and beyond. This care, conscience, paines of our Bishops, is exercised and evidenced, either in their Preaching or in their Ru­ling; for their preaching, it is true, some few there are that Labour in the Word and Doctrine; whose persons in that respect wee honour: but the most are so farre from Preaching, that they rather discountenance, discourage, oppose, blaspheme Preaching.

It was a Non-preaching Bishop, that said of a preaching Bishop, He was a preaching Coxcomb. As for the discharge of their office of ruling, their entrusting their Chancellors, and other Officers, with their visitations, and Courts (as ordinarily they doe, whiles themselves attend the Court) doth abundantly witnesse their care in it. The many and loud cryes of the intolerable oppressions and tyrannies of their Court-proceedings witnesse their peaceablenesse, their unjust sees, exactions, commutations; witnesse their conscionablenesse in mannaging their Charges, to the great glory of God, and the comfort of his faithfull people.

And hence it is that so many at this day here ill;Pag. 36. (how deservedly, saith this Remonstrant, God knows) and doe not your Honours know, and doth not this Remon­strant know? and doth not all the nation (that will know any thing) know how deservedly Some, nay, Most, nay, All the Bishops of this nation heare ill, were it but onely for the late Canons and Oath?Pag. 36. But why should the faults of some, diffuse the blame to all? Why? by your owne argument, that would extend the deserts of some; to the patronage of All; and if it bee a fault in the impetuous and undistinguishing Vulgar, so to involve all, as to make Innocency it selfe a sinne; what is it in a Man able to distinguish, by the same implication, to shrowd sinne un­der Innocencie, the sinne of many, under the Innocencie of a few.

[Page 78] Pag. 37.But have our Bishops indeed beene so carefull, painfull, conscionable, in managing their Charges? how is it then that there are such manifold scandalls of the inferiour Clergy presented to your Honours view, which he cannot mention without a bleeding heart; and yet could finde in his heart (if he knew how) to excuse them, and though hee con­fesse them to be the shame and misery of our Church, yet is hee not ashamed to plead their cause at your Honours BARRE, Onuphrius-like, that was the Advocate of every bad cause; and to excite you by Constantines ex­ample (in a different Cause alleadged) if not to suffer those Crimes, which himself calls hatefull, to passe unpunished, yet not to bring them to that open and publique punishment they have deserved.

But what, if pious Constantine (in his tender care to prevent the Divisions that the emulation of the Bi­shops of that age, enraged with a spirit of envie and faction, were kindling in the Church, lest by that meanes the Christian faith should be derided among the Hea­thens) did suppresse their mutuall accusations, many of which might be but upon surmises; and that not in a Court of Iustice, but in an Ecclesiasticall Synode; shall this bee urged before the highest Court of Iustice upon earth, to the patronizing of Notorious scandalls, and hatefull enor­mities, that are already proved by evidence of cleare witnesse.

Pag. 37. But oh forbid it to tell it in Gath, &c. What? the sinne; alas, that is done already; Doe wee not know, the drun­kennesse, profanenesse, superstition, Popishnesse of the English Clergie rings at Rome already? yes undoubtedly; and there is no way to vindicate the Honour of our Na­tion, Ministry, Parliaments, Soveraigne, Religion, God; but by causing the punishment to ring as farre as the sinne hath done; that our adversaries that have triumphed in their sinne, may be confounded at their punishments. Doe not your Honours know, that the plaistring or pallia­ting of these rotten members, will be a greater dishonour to the Nation and Church, then their cutting off; and [Page 89] that the personall acts of these sonnes of Beliall, being con­nived at, become Nationall sinnes?

But for this one fact of Constantine, wee humbly crave your Honours leave to present to your wisedome three Texts of Scripture, Ezek. 44.12, 13. Because they mini­stred unto them before their Idolls, and caused the house of Israel to fall into iniquity, therefore have I lift up my hand unto them, saith the Lord, and they shall beare their iniquity. And they shall not come neere unto mee, to doe the office of a Priest unto me, nor to come neere unto any of mine holy things in the most holy place, &c.

The second is Ierem. 48.10. Cursed be hee that doth the work of the Lord negligently: and the third is, Iudges 6.31. He that will plead for Baal, let him be put to death while it is yet morning. We have no more to say in this; whether it be best to walk after the President of Man, or the Prescript of God, your Honours can easily judge.


BUt stay saith this Remonstrant;Pag. 39. and indeed he might well have stayed and spared the labour of his ensuing discourse, about the Church of England, the Prelaticall and the Antiprelaticall Church: but these Episcopall Men deale as the Papists that dazle the eyes, and astonish the senses of poore people, with the glorious Name of the Church, the Church; The holy Mother the Church. This is the Gorgons head, as In his Pre­face to his Booke called The way to the True Church. Doctor White saith, that hath inchan­ted them, and held them in bondage to their Errors: All their speech is of the Church, the Church; no mention of the Scriptures, of God the Father; but all of the Mother the Church. Much like as they write of certaine Aethio­pians, that by reason they use no marriage,Solinus. but promis­cuously company together, the children only follow the Mother; the Father and his name is in no request, but the Mother hath all the reputation. So is it with the Author of this R [...]monstrance, he stiles himselfe, a Dutifull sonne of the Church. And it hath beene a Custome of late times, [Page 80] to cry up the holy Mother the Church of England, to call for absolute obedience to holy Church; full conformity to the orders of holy Church; Neglecting in the meane time, God the Father, and the holy Scripture.

Pag. 39.But if wee should now demand of them, what they meane by the Church of England, this Author seemes to be thunder-stricken at this Question; and cals the very Que­stion, a new Divinity; where he deales like such as holding great revenues by unjust Titles, will not suffer their Titles to be called in Question.

For it is apparent, Ac si solaribus radiis descriptum esset (to use Tertullians phrase) that the word Church is an Equivocall word, and hath as many severall acceptions as letters; and that Dolus latet in universalibus. And that by the Church of England; first by some of these men is meant onely the Bishops; or rather the two Archbishops; or more properly the Archbishop of Canterbury: Just as the Iesuited Papists resolve the Church and all the glorious Titles of it into the Pope; so do these into the Archbishop, or at fullest, they understand it of the Bishops and their party met in Convocation; as the more ingenuous of the Papists, make the Pope and his Cardinals to be their Church: thus excluding all the Christian people and Presbyters of the Kingdome; as not worthy to be reckoned in the number of the Church.

And which is more strange, this Author in his Sim­plicitie (as he truly saith) never heard, nor thought of any more Churches of England then one; and what then shal be­come of his Diocesan Churches, and Diocesan Bishops? And what shall wee think of England, when it was an Heptarchy? had it not then seven Churches when seven Kings? Or if the Bounds of a Kingdome must constitute the Limits and Bounds of a Church, why are not England, Scotland, and Ireland, all one Church? when they are hap­pily united under one gracious Monarch, into one King­dome. Wee reade in Scripture, of the Churches of Iudea, and the Churches of Galatia; and why not the Churches of England? not that we denie the Consociation, or Combi­nation [Page 81] of Churches into a Provinciall or Nationall Synod for the right ordering of them. But that there should be no Church in England, but a Nationall Church: this is that which this Author in his simplicity affirmes, of which the very rehearsall is a refutation.


THere are yet two things with which this Remon­strance shuts up it selfe, which must not be past with­out our Obeliskes.

First, he scoffes at the Antiprelaticall Church, and the Antiprelaticall Divisions [...] for our parts we acknowledge no Antiprelaticall Church. But there are a company of men in the Kingdome, of no meane ranke or quality, for Piety, Nobility, Learning, that stand up to beare witnesse against the Hierarchie (as it now stands:) their usurpations over Gods Church and Ministers, their cruell using of Gods people by their tyrannicall Governement: this we acknowledge; and if hee call these the Antiprelaticall Church, we doubt not but your Honours wil consider, that there are many Thousands in this Kingdome, and those pious and worthy persons, that thus doe, and upon most just cause.

It was a speech of Erasinus, of Luther, Vt quisque vir est optimus, ita illius Scriptis minimè offendi, The better any man was, the lesse offence he tooke at Luthers writings: but we may say the contrary of the Prelates, Vt quisque vir est optimus, ita illorum factis magis offendi, The better any man is, the more he is offended at their dealings. And all that can be objected against this party, will be like that in Tertullian, Tertull. ad­verb. Gent. Bonus vir Cajus Sejus, sed malus tantum quia Antiprelaticus.

But he upbraides us with our Divisions and Subdivisions, and so doe the Papists upbraid the Protestants with their Lutheranisme, Calvinisme, and Zuinglianisme. And this is that the Heathens objected to the Christians, their Fractures were so many, they knew not which Religion [Page 82] to chuse if they should turn Christians: And can it be ex­pected that the Church in any age should be free frō divi­sions, when the times of the Apostles were not free? and the Apostle tells us, it must needs be that there be divisi­ons: in Greg. Naz. dayes there were 600 Errours in the Church; doe these any wayes derogate from the truth and worth of Christian Religion?

But as for the Divisions of the Antiprelaticall party, so odiously exaggerated by this Remonstrant: Let us as­sure your Honours, they have beene much fomented by the Prelates, whose pract [...]se hath beene according to that rule of Machiavill: Divide & Impera, and they have made these divisions, and afterwards complained of that which their Tyranny and Policie hath made. It is no wonder considering the pathes our Prelates have trod, that there are Divisions in the Nation. The wonder is our Divisions are no more, no greater; and wee doubt not but if they were of that gracious spirit, and so intirely affected to the peace of the Church as Greg. Naz. was, they would say as he did in the tumults of the people, Mitte nos in mare, & non erit tempestas; rather then they would hinder that sweet Con [...]ordance, and conspiration of minde unto a Go­vernement that shall be every way agreeable to the rule of Gods word, and pro [...]itable for the edification and flou­rishing of the Church.

A second thing, wee cannot but take notice of, is the pains this Author takes to advance his Prelaticall Church: Pag. 2. and forgetting what he had said in the beginning: that their party was so numerous, it could not be summed; tells us now,Pag. 41. these severall thousands are punctually calculated. But we doubt not but your Honours will consider that there may be mul [...]i homines & pauci viri. And that there are more against them then for them.

And whereas they pretend, that they differ from us onely in a Ceremony or an Organ pipe, (which however is no contemptible difference) yet it will appeare that our differences are in point of a superiour Alloy. Though this Remonstrant braves it in his multiplyed Quere's. [Page 83] What are the bounds of this Church? Pag. [...]1. what the distinction of the professours and Religion? what grounds of faith? what new Creed doe they hold different from their Neigh­bours? what Scriptures? what Baptisme? what meanes of Salvation other then the rest? yet if hee pleased hee might have silenced his owne Queres: but if hee will needs put us to the answer, wee will resolve them one by one.

First, if he ask what are the bounds of this Church, we answer him out of the sixt of their late founded Canons: where we find the limits of this Prelaticall Church ex­tend as farre as from the high and lofty Promontory of Archbishops, to the Terra incognita of an, &c.

If what Distinction of professors and Religion; we an­swer their worshipping towards the East, and bowing towards the Altar, prostrating themselves in their ap­proaches into Churches, placing all Religion in outward formalities, are visible differences of these professours and their Religion.

If what new Creed they have, or what grounds of Faith differing from their Neighbours, we answer; Episcopacy by divine right is the first Article of their Creed Absolute and blinde obedience to all the commandements of the Church (that is the Bishop and his Emissaries) election upon faith foreseene, the influence of works into Iustifi­cation, falling from grace, &c.

If what Scripture, we answer; the Apocrypha and un­written Traditions.

If what Baptisme? a Baptisme of absolute Necessity unto salvation; and yet insufficient unto salvation: as not sealing grace to the taking away of sinne after Bap­tisme.

If what Eucharist? an Eucharist that must be admi­nistred upon an Altar or a Table set Altar-wise, rayled in an Eucharist in which there is such a presence of Christ, (though Modum nesciunt) as makes the place of its Ad­ministration the throne of God, the place of the Residence of the Almighty; and impresseth such a holinesse upon it as [Page 84] makes it not onely capable, but worthy of Adora­tion.

If what Christ? a Christ who hath given the same power of absolution to a Priest that himselfe hath.

If what Heaven? a heaven that hath a broad way lea­ding thither, and is receptive of Drunkards, Swearers, Adulterers, &c. such a heaven as we may say of it, as the the Indians said of the heaven of the Spaniards: Unto that heaven which some of the Prelaticall Church living and dying in their scandalous sinnes, and hatefull enormities goe to, let our soules never enter.

If what meanes of salvation? we answer, confession of sinnes to a Priest as the most absolute, undoubted, necessary, infallible meanes of Salvation.

Pag. 41.Farre be it from us to say with this Remonstrant, we do fully agree in all these and all other Doctrinall, and pra­cticall points of Religion, and preach one and the same saving truths. Nay, we must rather say as that holy Mar­tyr did, We thank God we are none of you.

Nor doe we because of this dissension feare the censure of uncharitablenesse from any but uncharitable men.Pag. 42. But it is no unusuall thing with the Prelats and their party, to charge such as protest against their corrupt opinions and wayes, with uncharitablenesse and Schisme, as the Papists do the Protestants: and as the Protestants doe justly recri­minate, and charge that Schisme upon the Papists, which they object to us; So may we upon the Prelats: And if Au­stin may be Judge, the Prelats are more Schismaticks then we. Quicunque (saith he) invident bonis, ut quaerant occa­siones excludendieos, aut degradandi, vel crimina sua sic de­fond [...]re parati sunt (si objecta vel prodita fuerint) ut etiam conventiculorum congregationes vel Ecclesiae perturbationes cogitent excitare, jam schismatici sunt. Whosoever envie those that are good, and seeke occasions to exclude and de­grade them, and are so ready to defend their faults, that ra­ther then they will leave them, they will devise how to raise up troubles in the Church, and drive men into Con­venticles and corners, they are the Schismaticks.

[Page 85]And that all the world may take notice what just cause wee have to complaine of Episcopacie, as it now stands, wee humbly crave leave to propound these Quaeries.

Quaeries about Episcopacie.

VVHether it be tolerable in a Christian Church,1 that Lord Bishops should be held to be Iure Divino; And yet the Lords day by the same men to be but Iure Humano. And that the same persons should cry up Altars in stead of Communion Tables, and Priests in stead of Ministers, and yet not Iudaize, when they will not suffer the Lords day to be called the Sabbath day, for feare of Iudaizing. Whereas the word Sabbath is a generall word, signifying a day of rest, which is common as well to the Christian Sabbath, as to the Jewish Sabbath, and was also used by the Ancients, Russinus in Psal. 47. Origen Hom. 23. in Num. Gregory Nazian.

Whether that assertion, No Bishop, No King, and no 2 Ceremonie, no Bishop, be not very prejudiciall to Kingly Authoritie? For it seemes to imply, that the Civill power depends upon the Spirituall, and is supported by Ceremo­nies and Bishops.

Whether seeing it hath beene proved that Bishops 3 (as they are now asserted) are a meere humane Ordi­nance, it may not by the same Authoritie be abrogated, by which it was first established; especially, considering the long experience of the hurt they have done to Church and State.

Whether the advancing of Episcopacie into Ius Divi­num, 4 doth not make it a thing simply unlawfull to submit to that Government? Because that many consciencious men that have hitherto conformed to Ceremonies and Episcopacie, have done it upon this ground, as supposing that Authoritie did not make them matters of worship, but of Order and Decencie, &c. And thus they satisfied their consciences in answering those Texts, Colos. 2.20. [Page 86] 21, 22. Math. 15.9. But now since Episcopacy comes to be challenged as a Divine Ordinance, how shall wee be responsable to those Texts. And is it not, as it is now as­serted, become an Idoll, and like the Brazen Serpent to be ground to powder?

5 Whether there be any difference in the point of Epis­copacie between Ius Divinum and Ius Apostolicum. Be­cause we finde some claiming their standing by Ius Divi­num; others by Ius Apostolicum. But wee conceive that Ius Apostolicum properly taken, is all one with Ius Divi­num. For Ius Apostolicum is such a Ius, which is founded upon the Acts and Epistles of the Apostles, written by them so as to be a perpetuall Rule for the succeeding Ad­ministration of the Church, as this Author saith pag. 20. And this Ius is Ius Divinum, as well as Apostolicum. But if by Ius Apostolicum, they meane improperly (as some doe) such things which are not recorded in the writings of the Apostles, but introduced, the Apostles being living, they cannot be rightly said to be jure Apostolico, nor such things which the Apostles did intend the Churches should be bound unto. Neither is Episcopacie as it imports a su­perioritie of power over a Presbyter, no not in this sense jure Apostolico, as hath beene already proved, and might further be manifested by divers Testimonies, if need did require. We will only instance in Cassander, a man famous for his immoderate moderation in controverted Points of Religion, who in his Consultat. Articul. 14. hath this say­ing; An Episcopatus inter ordines Ecclesiasticos ponendus sit, inter Theologos & Canonistas non convenit. Convenit autem inter omnes, in Apostolorum aetate Presbyterum & Episcopum nullum discrimen fuisse, &c.

6 Whether the distinction of Beza, betweene Episcopus Divinus, Humanus, & Diabolicus, be not worthy your Ho­nours consideration. By the Divine Bishop, he meanes the Bishop as he is taken in Scripture, which is one and the same with a Presbyter; By the humane Bishop he meanes the Bishop chosen by the Presbyters to be Presi­dent over them, and to rule with them by fixed Lawes [Page 87] and Canons. By the Diabolicall Bishop he meanes a Bi­shop with sole power of Ordination and Jurisdiction, Lording it over Gods heritage, and governing by his owne will and authority. Which puts us in minde of the Painter that Limmed two pictures to the same pro­portion and figure; The one hee reserved in secret, the other he exposed to common view. And as the phansie of beholders led them to censure any line or proportion, as not done to the life, he mends it after direction. If any fault bee found with the eye, hand, foot, &c. he corrects it, till at last the addition of every mans fancie had de­faced the first figure, and made that which was the Pi­cture of a man, swell into a monster: Then bringing forth this and his other Picture which hee had reserved, he presented both to the people. and they abhorring the former, and applauding the latter, he cryed, Hunc populus fecit: This the deformed one the People made: This lovely one I made. As the Painter of his Painting, so (in Bezaes sence) it may be said of Bishops, God at first insti­tuted Bishops such as are all one with presbyters; and such are amiable, honourable in all the Churches of God. But when men would bee adding to Gods institution, what power,Hunc popu­lus fecit. preheminence, Iurisdiction; Lordlynes their phansie suggested unto them, this divine Bishop lost his Originali beauty, and became to be Humanus. And in conclusion (by these and other additions swelling into a P [...]pe.) Diabolicus.

Whether the Ancient Fathers, when they call Peter 7 Marke, Iames, Timothy, and Titus Bishops, did not speak according to the Language of the times wherein they li­ved, rather then according to the true acception of the word Bishop; and whether it bee not true which is here said in this Booke, that they are called Bishops of Alex­andria, Ephesus, Hierusalem, &c. in a very improper sense, because they abode at those places a longer time then at other places? For sure it is, if Christ made Peter and Iames Apostles (which are Bishops over the whole world) and the Apostles made Marke, Timothy and Titus Evange­lists, [Page 88] &c. It seemes to us that it wonld have beene a great sinne in them to limit themselves to one particular Dio­cesse, and to leave that calling in which Christ had placed them.

8 Whether Presbyters in Scripture are called [...] and [...], and that it is an office, required at their hands, to rule and to governe, as hath beene proved in this Booke; The Bishops can without sinne arrogate the exercise of this power to themselves alone; And why may they not with the same lawfulnesse, impropriate to themselves alone the Key of Doctrine (which yet not­withstanding all would condemne) as wel as the Key of Discipline, seeing that the whole power of the Keyes is given to Presbyters in Sc [...]ipture as well as to Bishops; as appears, Mat. 16.19. where the power of the Keyes is promised to Peter, in the name of the rest of the Apo­stles, and their successors; and given to all the Apostles, and their successors, Mat. 18.19. Iohn 20.23. And that Presbyters succeed the Apostles, appeares not onely Mat. 28.20. but also Acts 20 28. where the Apostle ready to leave the Church of Ephesus commends the care of ru­ling and feeding it to the Elders of that Church. To this Irenaeus witnesseth, lib. 4. cap. 43.44. This Bishop Iewell against Harding, Artic. 4. sect. 5.6. saith, that all Pastors have equall power of binding and loosing with Peeter.

9 Whether since that Bishops assume to themselves power temporall (to be Barons and to sit in Parliament, as Judges, and in Court of Star-Chamber, High Com­mission, and other Courts of Justice) and also power spi­rituall over Ministers and People to ordaine, silence, sus­pend, deprive, excommunicate, &c. their spirituall pow­er be not as dangerous (though both bee dangerous) and as much to be opposed as their temporall? 1. Because the spiritual is over our consciences, the temporall, but over our purses, 2. Because the spirituall have more influence into Gods Ordinances to defile them, then the temporall. 3. Because spirituall Judgements and evills are greater [Page 89] then other, 4. because the Pope was Anticstrist, before he did assume any temporall power. 5. Because the Spi­rituall is more inward and lesse discerned: and therefore it concernes all those that have Spirituall eyes, and de­sire to worship God in spirit and truth to consider, and and endeavour to abrogate their Spirituall usurpations as well as their Temporall.

Whether Acrius bee justly branded by Epiphanius and 10 Austin for a Hereticke (as some report) for affirming Bishops, and presbyters to be of an equall power?

Wee say,Epiphanius saith he did Arrium ip [...]um dogmatum novi­tate superare. Austin saith in Ar [...]anorum haeresin lapsum. as some report, for the truth is, he is char­ged with heresie meerely and onely because he was an a Arian. As for his opinion of the parity of a presby­ter with a Bishop; this indeede is called by Austin, pro­prium dogma Aerii, the proper opinion of Aerius. And by Epiphanius it is called Dogma furiosum & stolidum, a mad and foolish opinion, but not an heresie neither by the one nor the other. But let us suppose (as is commonly thought) that he was accounted an Heretike for this opi­nion: yet notwithstanding, that this was but the private opinion of Epiphanius, and borrowed out of him by Austin, & an opinion not to be allowed appeares;

First,Epiphall. accu­sed him be­cause he said that super [...]m preces did not opitulari eis q [...]i ex hac vita dis­cesserint. And Austin accused Aerius because he said, Non li­c [...]t orare, vel of­ferre pro mor­tuis oblationem. because the same Authors condemne Aërius, as much for reprehending and censuring the mentioning of the dead in the publique prayers, and the performing of good works for the benefit of the dead. And also for the reprehending statu jejunia, and the keeping of the week before Easter as a solemne Fast; which if worthy of condemnation, would bring in most of the reformed Churches into the censure of Heresie.

Secondly, because not onely Saint Hierome, but Anstin himselfe, Sedulius, Primasius, Chrysostome, Theodoret, Oecumenius, Theophilact, were of the same opinion with Aërius (as Michael Medina, observes in the Councell of Trent, and hath written, Lib. 1. de sacr. hom. Origine) and yet none of these deserving the name of Fools, much lesse to be branded for Hereticks.

Thirdly, because no Counsell did ever condemne this [Page 90] for Heresie;Whitaker re­spons. ad Cam­pian rat. 10. hath these words: A [...]um Esi [...] & Au­gustinus in [...]aere [...], & praeter eo an qui pa [...] [...] E [...]iscopo aequa [...]e [...]it [...]ae [...]ticum, nihil Catholicum essi potest. Cum Aerio Hierony­mus de Presby­teris omnino s [...]n­sit. Illos enim jure divino E­pis [...] aequales esse [...]lat [...]t. but on the contrary, Concilium Aquisgra­nens. sub Ludovico Pio Imp. 1. anno 816. hath approved it for true Divinitie out of the Scripture: That Bishops & Presbyters are equall, bringing the same texts that Aerius doth, and which Epiphanius indeed undertakes to an­swer; but how slightly let any indifferent Reader judge.

Whether the great Apostacie of the Church of Rome hath not been, in swarving from the Discipline of Christ, as well as from the doctrine. For so it seems by that text. 2. Thess. 2.4. And also Revel. 18.7. and divers others. And if so, then it much concernes all those that desire the purity of the Church to consider, how neere the disci­pline of the Church of England borders upon Antichrist; least, while they indeavour to keepe out Antichrist from entring by the doore of doctrine, they should suffer him secretly to creep in by the doore of discipline, especi­ally considering, what is heere said in this Booke. That by their owne confession, the discipline of the Church of 11 England is the same with the Church of Rome.

12 Whether Episcopacy be not made a place of Dignity, rather then Duty, and desired onely for the great revenues of the place: And whether, if the largenesse of their re­venues were taken away, Bishops would not decline the great burthen and charge of soules necessarily annexed to their places,Sozomen. hist. lib. 6. c [...]p. 10. as much as the ancient Bishops did, who hid themselves that they might not be made Bishops and cut off their eares rather then they would bee made Bishops: wheras now Bishops cut off the eares of those that speak against their Bishopricks.

13 How it comes to passe, that in England there is such increase of Popery, superst [...]tion, Arminianisme; and pro­fanenesse more then in other reformed Churches; Doth not the root of these disorders proceed from the Bishops an [...] their adherents, being forced to hold correspondence with Rome, to uphold their greatnesse, and their Courts and Canons, wherein they symbolize with Rome; And whether it bee not to be feared, that they will rather con­sent [Page 91] to the bringing in of Popery, for the upholding of their dignities, then part with their dignities for the up­holding of Religion.

Why should England that is one of the chiefest King­domes 14 in Europe, that seperates from Antichrist, main­taine and defend a discipline different from all other re­formed Churches, which stand in the like Separation? And whether the continuance in this discipline will not at last bring us to communion with Rome from which wee are separated, and to separation from the other re­formed Churches, unto which wee are united.

Whether it bee fit that the name Bishop, which in 15 Scripture is common to the Presbyters with the Bishops (and not onely in in Scripture, but also in Antiquitie for some hundreds of yeeres) should still bee appropriated to Bishops, and ingrossed by them, and not rather to bee made common to all Presbyters; and the rather be­cause:

First we finde by wofull experience, that the great Equivocation that lyeth in the name Bishop hath beene and is at this day a great prop & pillar to uphold Lordly Prelacy, for this is the great Goliah, the master-peece, and indeed the onely argument with which they thinke to silence all opposers. To wit, the antiquity of Episcopa­cie, that it hath continued in the Church of Christ for 1500 yeeres, &c, which argument is cited by this Re­monstrant ad nauseam usque & usque. Now it is evident that this, argument is a Paralogisme, depending upon the Equivocation of the name Bishop. For Bishops in the Apostles time were the same with Presbyters in name and office and so for a good while after. And when af­terwards they came to bee distinguished. The Bishops of the primitive times differed as much from ours now, as Rome ancient from Rome at this day, as hath beene sufficiently declared in this Booke. And the best way to confute this argument is by bringing in a Community of the Name Bishop to a Presbyter as well as to a Bi­shop.

[Page 92]Secondly, because wee finde that the late Innovators which have so much disturbed the peace & purity of our Church, did first begin with the alteration of words; and by changing the word Table into the word Altar; and the word Minister, into the word Priest; and the word Sacrament into the word Sacrifice, have endevoured to bring in the Popish Masse. And the Apostle exhorts us, 2 Tim. 1.13. To hold fast the forme of sound words: and 1 Tim 6.20. to avoid the prophane novelties of words. Upon which text we will onely mention what the Rhe­mists have commented, which wee conceive to be wor­thy consideration. (Nam instruunt nos non solum docentes, sed etiam errantes) The Church of God hath alwayes been as diligent to resist novelties, of words, as her ad­versaries are busie to invent them, for which cause shee will not have us communicate with them, nor follow their fashions and phrase newly invented, though in the nature of the words sometimes there bee no harme. Let us keepe our forefathers words, and wee shall easily keepe our old and true faith, that wee had of the first Christians; let them say Amendment, Abstinence, the Lords Supper, the Communion Table, Elders, Ministers, Superintendent, Congregation, so be it, praise yee the Lord, Morning Prayer, Evening Prayer and the rest, as they will, Let us avoide those novelties of words, accor­ding to the Apostles prescript and keepe the ole termes, Penance, Fast, Priests, Church, Bishop, Masse, Mat [...]in, Evensong, the B. Sacrament, Altar, Oblation. Host, Sa­crifice, Halleluja, Amen; Lent, Palme-Sunday, Christ­masse, and the words will bring us to the faith of our first Apostles, and condemne these new Apostates, new faith and phrase.

Quest. 16.Whether having proved that God never set such a government in his Church as our Episcopall Govern­ment is wee may lawfully any longer be subject unto it, bee present at their Courts, obey their injunctions and especially bee instruments in publishing, and executing their Excommunications and Absolutions.

[Page 93]And thus we have given (as wee hope) a sufficient an­swer, and as briefe as the matter would permit, to The Remonstrant. With whom, though we agree not in opi­nion touching Episcopacie and Liturgie; yet we fully con­sent with him, to pray unto Almighty God, Who is great in power, and infinite in wisdome, to powre downe upon the whole Honourabe Assembly, the Spirit of wisdome and un­derstanding, the spirit of Councell and might, the spirit of knowledge and of the feare of the Lord. That you may be a­ble to discerne betwixt things that differ; separate betweene the precious and the vile, purely purge away our drosse, and take away all our tinne; root out every plant that is not of our heavenly Fathers planting. That so you may raise up the foundations of many generations, and be called The Repairers of breaches, and Restorers of paths to dwell in. Even so, Amen.



THough we might have added much light and beauty to our Discourse, by inserting variety of Histories upon severall occa­sions given us in the Remonstrance, the answer whereof wee have undertaken; especially where it speaks of the bounty and gracious Munificence of Religious Princes toward the Bishops, yet unwilling to break the thread of our discourse, and its connexion with the Remonstrance, by so large a di­gression, as the whole series of History producible to our purpose, would extend unto: Wee have chosen rather to subjoyne by way of appendix, an historicall Narration of those bitter fruits, Pride, Rebellion, Treason, Vnthankefulnes, &c. which have issued from Episcopacy, while it hath stood under the continued influences of Soveraigne goodnesse. Which Narration would fill a volume, but we wil bound our selves unto the Stories of this Kingdome, and that re­volution of time which hath passed over us since the ere­ction of the Sea of Canterbury. And because in most things the beginning is observed to be a presage of that which followes, let their Founder Austin the Monk come first to be considered. Whom wee may justly account to have beene such to the English, as the Arrian Bishops were of old to the Goths,Bed. Holinsh. Speed. and the Jesuits now among the Indians, who of Pagans have made but Arrians and Papists. His ignorance in the Gospell which he preached is seene in his idle and Judaicall Consultations with the Pope, about things cleane and uncleane; his proud de­meanour toward the British Clergy, appeares in his coun­sell [Page 96] called about no solid point of faith, but celebration of Easter, where having troubled & threatned the Churches of Wales, and afterwards of Scotland, about Romish Ce­remonies, hee is said in fine to have beene the stirrer up of Ethelbert, by meanes of the Northumbrian King, to the slaughter of twelve hundred of those poore laborious Monks of Bangor. His Successors busied in nothing but urging and instituting Ceremonies, and maintaining pre­cedency we passe over.

Holinsh. out of Capgrave. Osborn, Hig­den.Till Dunstan, the Sainted Prelate, who of a frantick Necromancer, and suspected fornicatour, was shorne a Monk, and afterwards made a Bishop. His worthy deeds are noted by Speed to have beene the cheating King Edred of the treasure committed to his keeping; the prohibiting of marriage, to the encreasing of all filthinesse in the Cler­gie of those times; as the long Oration of King Edgar in Stow well testifies.

Edw. Conf.In Edward the Confessors dayes, Robert the Norman no sooner Archbishop of Canterbury, but setting the King and Earle Godwine at variance for private revenge broa­ched a civill warre,Holinsh. 191 Will. Conq. till the Archbishop was banisht.

Now William the Conquerour had set up Lanfrank Bi­shop of Canterbury, who to requite him, spent his faith­full service to the Pope Gregorie, Speed. pag. 442. in perswading the King to subject himselfe and his state to the Papacy as himselfe writes to the Pope, Suasi, sed non persuasi.

Will. Ruf.The treason of Anselm to Rufus was notorious, who not content to withstand the King, obstinately in money matters made suit to fetch his Pall or investiture of Ar­chiepiscopacie from Rome, which the King denying as flat against his regall Soveraigntie, he went without his leave [...] and for his Romish good service received great ho­nour from the Pope, by being seated at his right foot in a Synod, with these words, Includamus hunc in orbe nostro tanquam alterius orbis Papam. Whence perhaps it is that the Sea of Canterbury hath affected a Patriarchy in our dayes. This Anselm also condemned the married Cler­gie.

[Page 97] Henry the first reigning,Henry 1 the same Anselm deprived those Prelats that had beene invested by the King, and all the Kingdome is vext with one Prelat, who the second time betakes himselfe to his old fortresse at Rome, till the King was faine to yeeld. Which done, and the Archbishop returned, spends the rest of his dayes in a long conten­tion and unchristian jangling with York about Primacie.Holinsh. 3 [...] Which ended not so, but grew as hot betweene York and London, as Dean to Canterbury, striving for the upper seat at dinner, till the King seeing their odious pride put them both out of dores.

To speak of Ralf. and Thurstan, Holinsh. 3 [...] the next Archbishops, pursuing the same quarrell, were tedious as it was no smal molestation to the King and Kingdome, Thurstan refusing to stand to the Kings doome, and wins the day, or else the king must be accurs't by the Pope;Holinsh. 42. which further ani­mates him to try the mastry with William next Archbishop of Canterbury,43. and no man can end it but their Father the Pope, for which they travel to Rome. In the mean while, marriage is sharply decreed against, Speed 448. and the Legate Cremonensis, the declamor against matrimony ta­ken with a strumpet the same night.

In King Stephens Reigne,K. Stephen. the haughty Bishops of Canterbury and Winchester bandy about precedencie; and to Rome to end the duell.Holinsh. 57. Theobald goes to Rome against the Kings will;58. interdicts the Realme, and the King forc't to suffer it; till refusing to Crowne Eustace the Kings sonne,59. because the Pope had so commanded, he flies againe.

Beckets pride and outragious treasons are too manifest;Henry 2. resigning the Kings gift of his Archbishoprick to receive it of the Pope; requiring the Custody of Rochester Ca­stle, and the Tower of London, as belonging to his Seig­norie. Protects murthering Priests from the temporall sword;Speed 467. out of Nu­brigens. standing stifly for the liberties and dignities of Clerkes, but little to chastise their vices, which besides other crying sinnes, were above a hundred murthers since Henry the seconds crowning, till that time to maintaine [...] [Page] [...] [Page] [Page 88] which,Yet this mans life is lately printed in En­glish as a thing to be imitate [...] most of the Bishops conspire, till terror of the King made them shrink; but Becket obdures, denies that the King of Englands Courts have authority to judge him. And thus was this noble King disquieted by an insolent traytor,Holinsh. 70. in habit of a Bishop, a great part of his Reigne; the land in uproar; many excommunicate, and accursed. France and England set to warre,Speed. 469. and the King himselfe curbed, and controlled; and lastly, disciplin'd by the Bi­shops and Monks, first with a bare foot penance, that drew blood from his feet, and lastly, with fourescore lashes on his anointed body with rods.

In the same Kings time it was that the Archbishop of York, striving to sit above Canterbury, squatts him down on his lap,Hol. pag. 98. whence with many a cuffe hee was throwne downe.

Richard 1. Pag. 129.Next the pride of W. Longchamp, Bishop of Elie was notorious, who would ride with a thousand horse, and of a Governour in the Kings absence, became a Tyrant; for which [...]lying in womans apparell he was taken.130.

132.To this succeeds contention betweene Canterbury and York, about carriage of their crosses, and Rome appeal'd to:144. the Bishop of Durham buyes an Earldome.

K. Iohn.No sooner another King, but Hubert another Archbi­shop to vex him, and lest that were not enough, made Chancellor of England. And besides him, Geffry of York, who refusing to pay a Subsidy within his Precincts, and therefore all his temporalities seaz'd; excommunicates the Sheriffe, beats the Kings Officers, and interdicts his whole Province. Hubert outbraves the King in Christ­masse house-keeping: hinders King Iohn by his Legan­tine power from recovering Normandy.Speed. 503 After him Stephen-Langton, set up by the Pope in spight of the King, who opposing such an affront, falls under an interdict, with his whole Land; and at the suit of his Archbishop to the Pope,Speed. 509 is depos'd by Papall Sentence; his King­dome given to Philip the French King, Langtons friend, and lastly resignes and [...]nfe [...]ds his Crowne to the Pope.

[Page 89]After this tragicall Stephen, Hen. 3. the fray which Boniface the next Archbishop but one had with the Canons of Saint Bartholmews is as pleasant;Stow 188. the tearing of Hoods and Cowles, the miring of Copes, the flying about of wax Candles, and Censors in the scuffle, cannot be ima­gined without mirth; as his oathes were lowd in this bickering,Hol. 247. so his curles were as vehement in the conten­tion with the Bishop of Winchester for a slight occasion. But now the Bishops had turned their contesting into base and servile f [...]atteries, to advance themselves on the ruine of the Subjects. For Peter de Rupibus Bishop of Win­chester perswading the King to displace English Officers and substitute Poictivines,Speed 529.530. and telling the Lords to their ces, that there were no Peeres in England, as in France, but that the King might do what he would, and by whom he would, became a firebrand to the civill warres that followed.

In this time Peckam Archbishop of Can. in a Synod was tempering with the Kings liberties,Edward 1. Hol. 280. but being threatned desisted. But his successor Winchelsey on occasion of Subsi­dies demanded of the Clergie,Hol. 301. made answer, That having two Lords, one Spirituall, the other Temporall, he ought rather to obey the Spirituall governour the Pope,Hol. 315. but that he would send to the Pope, to know his pleasure, and so persisted even to beggerie. The Bishop of Durham also cited by the King flies to Rome.

In the deposing of this King who more forward,Edward 2. then the Bishop of Hereford? Speed 574. witnesse his Sermon at Oxford, My head, my head aketh concluding that an aking, and sick head of a King was to be taken off without further Physick.

Iohn the Archbishop of Canterbury, Edward 3. suspected to hinder the Kings glorious victories in Flanders, Speed 586. and France, by stopping the con [...]eyance of moneys committed to his charge, conspiring therein with the Pope. But not long after was constituted that fatall praemunire, which was the first nipping of their courage, to seeke aide at Rome. And next to that,Hol. 409. the wide wounds, that Wickleffe made in [Page 100] their sides. From which time they have beene falling, and thenceforth all the smoke, that they could vomit, was turned against the rising light of pure doctrine.

Richard 2.Yet could not their pride misse occasion to set other mischief on foot. For the Citizens of London rising to ap­prehend a riotous servant of the Bishop of Salisbury then Lord Treasurer, who with his fellowes stood on his guard in the Bishops house,Hol. 478. were by the Bishop, who main­tained the riot of his servant, so complained of, that the King therewith seized on their liberties, and set a Gover­nour over the Citie. And who knowes not, that Thomas Arundell Archbishop of Canterbury was a chiefe instru­ment, and agent in deposing King Richard, Pag. 506. as his actions and Sermon well declares.

Henry 4.The like intended the Abbot of Westminster to Henry the fourth, who for no other reason, but because hee sus­pected, that the King did not favour the wealth of the Church, drew into a most horrible conspiracie the Earles of Kent, Pag. 514. Rutland, and Salisbury, to kill the King in a tur­nament at Oxford, who yet notwithstanding was a man that professed to leave the Church in better state then hee found it.Speed 631. For all this, soone after is Richard Scroop Arch­bishop of York in the field against him, the chiefe attractor of the rebellious party.Hol. 529.

Henry 5.In these times Thomas Arundell a great persecutor of the Gospel preached by Wifclefs followers, dies a feare­full death, his tongue so swelling within his mouth, that hee must of necessity starve. His successor Chickeley no­thing milder diverts the King, that was looking too neerely into the superfluous revenewes of the Church,Speed 638. to a bloody warre.

Henry 6.All the famous conquests which Henry the fifth had made in France, were lost by a civill dissension in England, which sprung first from the haughty pride of Beaufort Bishop and Cardinall of Winchester, Hol. 596. and the Archbishop of York against the Protector, Speed 674. In the civill warres the Archbishop sides with the Earle of Warwick, Pag. 620. and March in Kent, Speed 682.

[Page 101] Edward the fourth,Edward 4. Mountacute Archbishop of Yorke, Speed 699. one of the chiefe conspirators with Warwicke against Edward the fourth, and afterwards his Jay­lor, being by Warwickes treason committed to this Bishop.

In Edward the fifths time,Edward 5. the Archbishop of York was, though perhaps unwittingly (yet by a certaine fate of of Prelacie) the unhappy instrument of pulling the young Duke of Yorke out of Sanctuary, into his cruell Unckles hands.

Things being setled in such a peace,Richard 3. as after the bloodie brawles was to the af [...]licted Realme howso­ever acceptable, though not such, as might bee wi­shed: Morton Bishop of Ely, enticing the Duke of Buckingham to take the Crowne, which ruin'd him, opened the vaines of the poore subjects to bleede afresh.

The intollerable pride,Henry 8. extortion, bribery, luxurie of Wolsey Archbishop of Yorke who can bee ignorant of?Hol. 845. 462. selling dispensations by his power Legantine for all offences, insulting over the Dukes and Peeres, of whom some hee brought to destruction by bloodie policie, playing with State aff [...]ires according to his humour, or benefit: causing Turnay got with the blood of many a good Souldier, to be rendred at the French Kings secret request to him, not without bribes; with whom one while siding, another while with the Emperour, hee sold the honour and peace of England at what rates hee pleased; and other crimes to bee seene in the Articles against him, Hol. 912. and against all the Bishops in generall [...] 911. which when the Parliament sought to remedie, being most excessive extortion in the Ecclesiasticall Courts, the Bishops cry out; sacriledge, the Church goes to ru­ine, as it did in Bohem, Speed 784. with the Schisme of the Hussites, Ibid. After this, though the Bishops ceased to bee Papists; for they preached against the Popes Supre­macie, [Page 92] to please the King, yet they ceased not to oppugne the Gospel, causing Tindals translation to be burnt, yet they agreed to the suppressing of Monasteries, leaving their revenewes to the King, to make way for the six bloodie Articles, which proceedings with all crueltie of in­quisition are set downe Holinsh. pag. 946. till they were repealed the second of Edward the sixth,Hol. 992. stopping in the meane while the cause of reformation well be­gunne by the Lord Cromwell. And this mischiefe was wrought by Steven Gardiner, Speed 792. Bishop of Win­chester. The sixe Articles are set downe in Speed, Speed. pag. 792.Statut. Hen. 8. Anno. 35. cap 5.

The Archbishop of Saint Andrewes, his hindring of Englands and Scotlands Union, for feare of reformation, Speed 794.Edward 6.

As for the dayes of King Edward the sixth, we cannot but acknowledge to the glorie of the rich mercie of God, t [...]at there was a great reformation of Religion made even to admiration. And yet notwithstanding we doe much dislike the humour of those, that crie up those dayes as a compleat patterne of reformation, and that endeavour to reduce our Religion to the first times of King Edward, which wee conceive were comparatively very imperfect, there being foure impediments which did much hinder that blessed work.

1 The three rebellions. One in Henry the eighths time, by the Priests of Lincolne and Yorkeshire, for that refor­mation which Cromwell had made. The other two in King Edwards dayes. One in Cornewall, the other in Yorkeshire.

2 The strife that arose suddenly amongst the Peeres emu­lating one anothers honour. Speed pag 837.

3 The violent opposition of the Popish Bishops, which made Martin Bucer write to King Edward in his booke de Regno Christi. Lib. 2. cap. 1. and say, your Majestie doth see, that this restoring againe the Kingdome of [Page 103] Christ, which wee require, yea, which the salvation of us all requireth, may in no wise bee expected to come from the Bishops, seeing there be so few among them which doe understand the power and proper Offices of this Kingdome; and very many of them by all meanes (which possibly they can and dare) either oppose themselves against it, or deferre and hinder it.

The deficiencie of zeale and courage even in those Bi­shops 4 who afterwards proved Martyrs, witnesse the sharp contention of Ridley against Hooper, for the ceremonies. And the importunate suit of Cranmer and Ridley for tol­leration of the Masse for the Kings sister, which was re­jected by the Kings, not only reasons, but teares; where­by the young King shewed more zeale then his best Bi­shops. 839.

The inhumane butcheries, blood-sheddings, and cruelties of Gardiner, Bonner, and the rest of the Bi­shops in Queene Maries dayes, are so fresh in every mans memory, as that we conceive it a thing altogether unnecessary to make mention of them. Onely wee feare least the guilt of the blood then shed, should yet remaine to be required at the hands of this Nation, because it hath not publikely endeavoured to appease the wrath of God by a generall and solemne humiliation for it.

What the practises of the Prelats have beene ever since, from the beginning of Queene Elizabeth to this present day, would fill a volume (like Ezekiels roule) with lamentation, mourning, and woe to record. For it hath beene their great designe to hinder all further reformation; to bring in doctrines of Popery, Armi­nianisme, and Libertinisme, to maintaine, propagate and much encrease the burden of humane ceremonies: to keepe out, and beate downe the Preaching of the Word, to silence the faithfull Preachers of it, to oppose and persecute the most zealous professours, and to turne [Page 104] all Religion into a pompous out-side. And to tread downe the power of godlinesse. Insomuch as it is come to an ordinary Proverb, that when any thing is spoyled wee use to say, The Bishops foot hath beene in it. And in all this (and much more which might be said) ful­filling Bishop Bonners Prophesie, who when hee saw that in King Edwards reformation, there was a reser­vation of ceremonies and Hierarchy, is credibly re­ported to have used these words; Since they have begun to tast of our Broath, it will not be long ere they will eat of our Beefe.


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.