Smectymnuus redivivus Being an answer to a book, entituled, An humble remonstrance. In which, the original of liturgy episcopacy is discussed, and quæries propounded concerning both. The parity of bishops and presbyters in scripture demonstrated. The occasion of the imparity in antiquity discovered. The disparity of the ancient and our moderne bishops manifested. The antiquity of ruling elders in the church vindicated. The prelaticall church bounded.

Most Honourable Lords, And ye the Knights, Citizens, and Burgesses of the Honourable House of COMMONS.

ALthough we doubt not, but that book which was lately directed to your Honours, bearing the name of an Hum∣ble Remonstrance, hath had accesse unto your presence: and is in the first approaches of it, discovered by your discer∣ning spirits, to be neither Humble, nor a Remonstrance; but a heap of confident and ungrounded assertions; so that to your Honours a Reply may seem superfluous: Yet left 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 view of this Remonstrance; in which the Authour after too large a Preface, undertakes the support of two things, which seem to him to be threatned with danger of a present precipice, the Liturgie, and the Hierarchy.

It was a constitution of those admired sons of Justice the Areo∣pagi; that such as pleaded before them should plead without pre∣facing and without passion: had your Honours made such a con∣stitution, this Remonstrance must have been banished from the face of your Assembly; for the Preface fils almost a fourth part of the book, and the rest swels with so many passionate Rhetorica∣tions, 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 arguments, did we not finde in him a sad exemplificati∣on of that divine Axiome, in Multitudine verb••rum non deest pec∣catum, in the multitude of words, there wants not sin: for though the Author is bold to call upon your Honours to heare the words of truth and confidence, yet how little truth there is in his great con∣fidence, the ensuing discourse shall discover.

His very words are confident enough, and yet as false as con∣fident; wherein he Impropriates all honesty unto these his Papers, and brands all others with the name of Libellers, and yet himselfe sinnes deeply against the rule of honesty, and lies naked to the scourge of his own censure.

First, in setting a brand upon all writings that have lately [ 1]

issued from the presse, as if they had forgotten to speak any other language then Libellous: it seems himselfe had forgotten that some things had issued by authority of the King and Parliament.

[ 2] Secondly, in taxing (implicitely) all such as wil not own this Remonstrance for theirs, as none of the peaceable and wel-affected Sons of the Church of England.

Thirdly, in censuring the way of petitioning your Honours, the ancient and ordinary free way of seeking redresse of our evils, for a Tumultuary under-hand way.

[ 4] Fourthly, in condemning all such as are not fautors of this Episcopal Cause, as none of his Majesties good Subjects, engros∣sing that praise onely to his own party, saying, The eyes of us the good Subjects of this whole Realme are fixed upon your Successe, &c.

[ 5] Fifthly, in Impropriating to the same party the praise of Orthodox, pag. 6. as if to speak a word, or think a thought against Episcopacy, were no lesse Heresie, then it was in former time to speak against the Popes supremacy, or the monkes fat belly; whereas whether the Episcopall part be the Orthodox, peaceable, wel-affected part, and his Majesties only good Subjects, we leave to your Honours to Judge, upon the numerous informations that flow in unto you from the several parts of this Kingdome.

Nor can they decline your Judgement, seeing now you are (through Gods blessing) happily met in a much longed for Parlia∣ment: but whither so much longed for by him and his accom∣plices, as by those against whom he whets his Style, the prayers that have obtained this happy meeting, and the praises that doe attend it, will decide in that great day.

The Helena, whose Champion this Remonstrant chiefely is, is that Government which he calls Sacred, viz. that Government 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 found just cause to charge some of them with crimes of the highest nature, Our zeale for your Honours makes us feare, lest your assembly should 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 own demerits or the Justice of this Court.

But whatever those Persons be, the Government it self is Sa∣cred; which by the joynt confession of all reformed Divines, derives it self from the times of the blessed Apostles, 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 he 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 Government 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 Govern∣ments, the Civil which with us is Monarchy: and the sacred which with him is Episcopaey. Of the first he saith, if Antiquity may be the Rule (as he pleades it for Episcopacy) or if Scripture (as he interprets Scripture) it is VARIABLE, and ARBITRA∣RY: but the other DIVINE and VNALTERABLE: so that had men petitioned for the altering of Monarchicall Government, they had (in his Judgement) been lesse culpable, both by Scrip∣ture 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 terme them) certainly if we may borrow his own phrase, the eares of the three Interessed Kingdomes, yea all the neigbbour Churches, and if we may say, the whole Christian world, and no small part beyond it, had run with the loud cryes of no lesse then Treason, Treason.

Truth is, in his Antiquity we finde that this his uninterrupted sacred Government hath so farre invaded the Civil, and so yoked Monarchy, even in this Kingdome, as Malmesbury reports: That William Rufus oppressed by Bishops, perswaded the Jewes to con∣fute them; promising thereupon to turne England to their Re∣ligion, that he might be free of Bishops. And this is so natural an effect of unalterable Episcopacy, that Pius the fourth to the Spanish Embassador, importuning him to permit Bishops to be decla∣red by the Councel of Trent to be Iure Divino, gave this answer: That his King knew not what he did desire; for if Bishops should be so declared, they would be all exempted from his Power, and as independent as the Pope himself.

The second thing observable is the comparison he makes be∣tween the late Alterations attempted in our Neighbour Church by his Episcopal faction, and that Alteration that is now justly desired by the humble Petitioners to this Honourable House. The one being attempted by strangers, endeavoring violently to ob∣trude

Innovations upon a setled Church and State, The other hum∣bly 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 calls the just censures of this Honourable House) for Incendiaries, how shall these Boutefeux escape, &c. thus cunningly indeavouring either to justifie the former by the practise of the latter, or to render the latter more odious then the former.

The attempts of these men whom he would thus render o∣dious, he craves leave to present to your Honours in two things, which are the subjects of this quarrel: The Liturgy and Episcopacy; and we humbly crave your Honours leave in both to answer.

SECT. II.

FIrst, the Liturgy of the Church of England (saith he) hath been hitherto esteemed sacred, reverently used by holy Martyrs, daily frequented by devout Protestants, as that which more then once hath been confirmed by the Edicts of religious Princes, and your own Par∣liamentary Acts, &c. And hath it so? whence then proceed these many Additions and Alterations? that have so changed the face and fabrick of the Liturgy, 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 farthin∣gales, &c. they would wonder what kinde of creatures they were; and say Nature had forgot her self and brought forth a monster: so if these holy Martyrs that once so reverently used the Liturgy should revive and look for their Letany stampt by Authority of Parliament, they would be amazed, and wonde∣ring say; England had forgotten her self and brought forth, &c. Martyrs? what doe we speak of Martyrs, when we know Sir, that one of your own a Bishops said it in the hearing of many not so long since, but you may well remember it, That the Service of the Church of England was now so drest, that if the Pope should come and see it, he would claime it as his own, 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 Pray∣ers to speak Latine again: For if it be their Language chiefly that overthrows 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 been farre from this applau∣ding: we are sure judicious Calvin saith, that in the Liturgy there are sundry Tolerabiles Ineptiae, which we think is no very great applause.

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

Concerning which, if by Liturgy this Remonstrant under∣stand an Order observed in Church assemblies of Praying, reading, and expounding the Scriptures, Administring Sacraments, &c: Such a Liturgy we know and doe acknowledge both Iews and Christians have used. But if by Liturgy he understand prescribed and stin∣ted 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 he saith is nothing) we desire and expect that those formes, which he saith are yet extant, and ready to be produced, might once appeare.

Liturgy of this former sort we finde in Iustine Martyr and Tertullian. But that there were not such stinted Liturgies as this Remonstrant disputes for, appeares by Tertullian, in his Apol. Cap. 30. where he saith the Christians of those times did in their pub∣like assemblies pray sin•• monitore quia de pectore, without any Promp∣ter but their own hearts. And that so it should be, the same Father proves in his Treatise de Oratione: Sunt quae petantar, &c. There are some things to be asked according to the occasions of every man: the lawfull and ordinary prayer (that 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 St. Austin in his 121. Ep. liberum est; &c. it is free to aske the same things that are desired in the Lords Prayer, aliis atque aliis verbis, sometimes one way and sometimes another: And before this, in that famous place of Iust. Mar. Apo. 2. He, who instructed the peeple, 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 spread their poyson in their formes of Prayer and Hymnes, the Church thought it convenient to restraine the liberty of making

[ 1] and using publique forms: And first it ordained that none should pray pro Arbitrio, sed semper eaedem preces, that none should use liberty to vary in prayer, but use alwaies the same forme, Conc. Laod. Can. 18. yet this was a forme of his own composing, as appears by another Canon, wherein it was ordered thus: None should use any forme, unlesse he had first conferred Cum fratribus instructioribus: with the more learned of his brethren. Conc. Carth. 3•• Can. 23. and lastly that none should use set prayers, but such as were approved of in a Synode, which was not determined till the yeare 416. Conc. Milev. 2. Can. 12. And had there been any Li∣turgies of Times of the first and most venerable antiquity pro∣ducible, the great admirers of them, and enquirers after them would have presented them to the world ere this.

We know that Bishop Andrewes in his zeale for Liturgies pur∣sued the enquiry after the Iewish Liturgy 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 soon discovered to have been made long after the Jewes ceased to be the Church of God; and so himself supprest it, that it never saw the light under a tran∣slation.

We wonder therefore what this Remonstrant meant to affirm so confidently, that part of the forme of prayer which was composed by our blessed Saviour, was borrowed from the formes of prayer former∣ly used by Gods people. An opinion we never met before; indeed, we have read that the Rabbines since the dayes of our Saviour have borrowed some expressions from that Prayer, and from o∣ther Evangelical passages: But we never read till now, that the Lord Christ the wisdome of the Father borrowed from the Wisdome of the Rabines expressions to use in Prayer.

And as much we wonder by what Revelation or Tradition (Scripture being silent in the thing) he knew, that Peter and Iohn, when they went up to the Temple to pray, their Prayer was not of a sudden and extemporary conception, but of a Regular prescription. Sure we are, some as well read in Iewish antiquity, as this Remonstrant shewes himself 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 read, 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 vocal but mental Prayers, as Master Meade tells us in his exposition upon the eighth of the Revelations.

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

But if this Remonstrant be in the right, concerning the Jewish Liturgies, then the Evangelical Church might better have impro∣ved her peace and happinesse, then in composing Models of Invocation and Thanksgiving, when there is one extant and ready to be produ∣ced, that was constantly used by Gods people ever since Moses dayes, and put over to the times of the Gospel, and confirmed by Apostolical practise: or else great is our losse, who are so unhappily depri∣ved of the best improvement, the Church made of her peace and hap∣pinesse in the first 300. years: for rejecting those Liturgies that are confessed by the Learned to bee Spurious: we challenge this Remonstrant to produce any one Liturgie that was the issue of those times. And blessed Constantine was herein as unhappy as wee, who needed not have composed forms of prayer for his Guard to use upon the Lords day, but might and would have taken them out of former Liturgies, if there had been any; And can ye with patience think that any ingenuous Christian should be so transported, as upon such weak and unproved premises to build such a Confident conclusi••n, as this Remonstrant doth? and in that Conclusion forget the state of the controversie, sliding from the question of a prescribed and imposed Liturgy to an arbitrary book of prayer.

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

And if this conceived prayer be not to be opposed in another, by any man that hath found the true operation of this grace in himself: with that spirit then are those possest, that have not

onely 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 abjure this practise, have endeavoured with raging violence to banish this divine ordinance from our Churches and dwellings, and profest in open Court, it was fitter for Amsterdam then for our Churches.

But howsoever this applause of conceived prayer may seem to be Cordial, yet he makes it but a vantage ground to lift up pub∣like formes of sacred Church Liturgy (as he calls it) the higher, that they may have the greater honour, that by the power of your autho∣rity they be reinforced, which work there would have been no need to call your Honours to, had not Episcopal zeal 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 re-establish the Liberty of this, then they to re-inforce the necessity of that.

Yet there are two specious Arguments which this Remon∣strant brings to perswade this desired re-inforcement, the Ori∣ginal and Confirmation of our Liturgy.

For the first, he tels your Honours, it was selected out of ancient. Models not Roman but Christian, contrived by the holy Martyrs and Confessors of the blessed reformation of Religion; where we be∣seech your Honours to consider how we may trust these men, who sometimes speaking and writing of the Roman Church, pro∣claime it a true Church of Christ, and yet here Roman and Christi∣an stand in opposition: sometimes they tell men, their Liturgy is wholly taken out of the Romane Missal, onely with some little alteration: and here they would perswade your Honours there is nothing Romane in it. But it is wholly selected out of pure Ancient Models, as the Quintessence of them all. Whereas alas the original 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 Trai∣tors rather then Martyrs, and Deformers rather then Reformers of our Religion.

[ 2] His other Argument for the Liturgy is taken from that supply of strength it hath received from the recommendation of foure most Re∣ligious Princes, and your own Parliamentary establishments: and more

especially from the Proclamation of King James of famous memory: the validity of which plea, your Honours are best able to judge, and therefore we leave it at your Bar; yet these two things we know: first, that this forme was never established to be so punctu∣ally 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 Con∣ceived Prayer altogether.

And secondly, as sure we are, that your Honours think 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 justified from their own mouthes, and not to be found fault with by any but a gracelesse man: and having likewise shewed that our Liturgy was taken out of Models, not onely Christian but Romane, and had 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 out, either of preaching or concei∣ved prayer; these things declared, we humbly crave your Ho∣nours leave to propound these two Queries.

QUERE. I.

Whether it be not fit to consider of the alteration of the pre∣sent Liturgy.

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

It was made and composed into this frame, on purpose to [ 2] 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.

Because many things therein contained are stumbling blocks [ 3] 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 Scrip∣tures, 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 book prescribes Responsories to be said by the people, some of which are unsutable to what the Minister pronounceth, some of them seem to savour of Tautolo∣gy,

some are made to be so essential 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 Ministry, 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: and that it is a sufficient discharge of the Mi∣nisters [ 5] duty to read this Book.

There are such multitudes of people, that distaste this book, that unlesse it be altered, there is no hope of any mutual agree∣ment between Gods Ministers and their people.

[ 6] There is such a vast difference between it, and the Liturgies of all other reformed Churches, as that it keepes them at a di∣stance from us, and us from full Communion with them.

QUERE II.

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

[ 1] All other reformed Churches, though they use Liturgies, yet doe no binde their Ministers to the use of them.

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

[ 3] The Homilies which are appointed to be read, are left free ei∣ther to be read or not, by preaching Ministers; and why not then theLiturgy? especially considering that the ability to offer up the peoples wants to God in prayer is part of the Ministerial office, as well as preaching. And if it can be thought no lesse then sa∣criledge to rob the people of the Ministers gift in preaching, and to tye 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, was not [ 4] to tye 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 Masse.

That which makes many refuse to be present at our Church service, is not onely the Liturgy it self, 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, that this will breed divisions and disturban∣ces

in Churches, unlesse there be a uniformity, and that there are many unable.

It hath not bred any disturbance in other reformed Churches.

Why should the free liberty of using or not using a Liturgy, [ 2] breed more confusion then the free liberty of reading or not rea∣ding Homilies? especially when Ministers shall teach people, not to condemne one another in things indifferent.

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

SECT. III.

WE 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 knows, there are of both that have writ against it) is Taxed by him as no other then the unjust Clamors either of weak or factious persons. Sure the man thinkes he hath obtained a Mo∣nopoly of learning, and all Knowledge is lockt up in his bosome; and not onely Knowledge but piety and peaceablenesse too; for all that are not of his opinion, must suffer either as weak or factious, if he may be their Judge. We know not what this Ar∣rogancy might attempt to fasten upon your Honours, should the bowels of your compassion be enlarged, to weigh in the Ballance of your wisedomes, the multitude of Humble petitions, presented to you from several parts of this Kingdome, that hath long groaned under the Iron and Insupportable yoake of this Episco∣pal Government, which yet we doubt not, but your Honours will please to take into your prudent and pious consideration: Espe∣cially knowing it is their continual practise to loade with the odious names of Faction all that justly complaine of their unjust oppression.

In his addresse to his defence of Episcopacy, he makes an un∣happy confession that he is confounded in himselfe. Your Honours may in this believe him; for he that reades this remonstrance, may easily observe so many falsities and contradictions, (though presented to publike view, with a face of confident boldnesse,) [ 1] as could not fall from the Pen of any, but self-confounded man▪ which though we doubt not but your Honours have descryed; yet because they are hid from an errant and unobserving eye, un∣der the Embroyderies of a silken Language, we 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 asserti∣ons of this confident Remonstrant.

First, in his second page, he dubs his book the faithful mes∣senger of all a 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 par∣ty,) carry in the bowels of them a notorious falsity and contra∣diction to the phrase of the book; for how could this book be the m••ss••nger of all his own party in England, when it is not to be imagined, that all could know of the coming forth of this book before it was published? and how can that book crave ad∣mittance in all their names, that speakes in the singular number, and as in the person of one man almost tht whole book thorow.

But it may be some will say, this is but a small slip; well be it so: but in the seventh page he layes it on in four lines, asserting these four things: First, that Episcopall Government, (that very same Episcopal Government, which some he saith seeke to wound, that is Government by Diocesan Bishops) derives it self from the Apostles times; which though we shall 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 more fully confute anon, yet we cannot here but rank it among his notorious—: for how could there be such Government of a Diocesse by a Bi∣shop derived from the Apostles times, when in the Apostles times there were no Bishops distinct from Presbyters, as we shall shew? [ 2] and if there had been Bishops, yet they were no Diocesans; for it was a hundred yeares after Christ, or as most agree 260. before Parishes were distinguished, and there must be a distinction of Parishes before there could be an union of them into Diocesses.

Secondly, it is by the joynt confession of all reformed Divines gran∣ted, that this sacred Government is derived from the Apostles: What all reformed Divines? was Calvin, Beza, Iunius, &c. of that minde? Are the reformed Churches of France, Scotland, Nether∣lands, of that Judgement? 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, tho Earth moves, and the Heavens stand stil.

Thirdly, he saith this Government hath continued without any [ 3] 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 read that in Ancient times the Scots were instructed in the Christian faith by Priests and Monkes, and were without Bishops 290. yeares: yea to come to England, we would desire to know of this Remonstrant whether God had a Church in England in Q. Maries dayes 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 line of Popish suc∣cession.

Fourthly, he saith it hath thus continued without the contra∣diction of any one Congregation in the Christian world. It seemes he hath forgotten, what their own darling Heylin hath written of the people of Biscay in Spaine, that they admit of no Bishops to come among them; for when Ferdinand the Catholike came in progresse accompanied among others with the Bishop of Pampe∣lone, the people rose up in Armes, drove back the Bishop, and ga∣thering up all the dust which they thought he had trode on, flung it into the Sea.

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

And are not the French, Scottish, and Belgick Churches worthy to be counted Christian Congregations? and who knowes not that amongst these this Government hath met not onely with verbal but reall contradiction?

Yet he cannot leave his—: But within two pages is at it a∣gaine; and tels us of an unquestionable clearenesse wherein it hath [ 6] 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.

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

[ 8] And that he may not seem Contra mentem ire, but to be of the same minde still, p. 18. he saith, Episcopal Government hath conti∣nued in this Island ever since the first plantation of the Gospel 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 un∣truths by their multiplications; for pag. 21. he saith; Certainly, except all Histories, all Authors faile us, nothing can be more certaine then this truth: Os Durum! Nothing more certaine! 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 certain that Christ is the only Saviour of the world? Nothing more certain! must this th••n be an Article of our Creed, the corner stone of our Religion? must this be of necessity to Salvation? Nothing more certain! O that men should not onely forget themselves, but God also: and in their zeale for their own Honour utter words bordering upon Blasphemy.

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

SECT. IV.

WE will now come with your Honours patience, to weigh whether there be any more strength in his arguments, then there is truth in his assertions.

His Plea for Episcopacy consists of two parts. In the first he

brings arguments for the supporting of it. In the second he un∣dertakes to answer the objections that may be made against it.

His first argument for it, is couched in these words; Were this Ordinance meerly Humane or Ecclesiastical, if there c••uld no more be said for it, but that it is exceeding Ancient, of more then 15. hun∣dred years, &c. The strength of which argument lies in this, that they have been in peaceable possession of this government fifteen hundered years and upwards; and in this Island ever since the Gospel, without contradiction.

In which words he speaks two things which deserve just c••n∣sure. First, that the Hierarchical Government hath continued for fifteen hundred years; therefore should not now be altered; which may well be called, as Hierom in another Case, Argumen∣tum Galeatum, an Argument calculated for the Meridian of Episco∣pacy, and may indifferently serve for all Religions in the World: For thus the Jews 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 parallel with theirs. It is a good obser∣vation of Cyprian, that Christ said, Ego sum via, veritas & vita; not Ego sum consuetudo; and that Consuetudo sine veritate est ve∣tustas erroris, Christ is Truth, and not Custome; and Custome withou Truth, is a mouldy error: and as Sir Francis Bacon saith, Antiquity without Truth, is a Cypher without a Figure.

Yet had this b Remonstrant been as well versed in Antiquity, as he would bear the world in hand he hath, he might have found Learned Ancients affirming, there was a Time when the Church was not governed by Bishops, but by Presbyters. And when by Bishops, he might further have seen more affinity be∣tween our Bishops and the Pope of Rome, then between the Primitive Bishops and them. And that as King Iames of famous memory, said of the Religion of England, that it differed no more from Rome, then Rome did from what it was at first; may as truly be said of Bishops, that we differ no more from them then they do from what Bishops were, when first they were rai∣sed

unto this eminency: which difference we shall shew in our ensuing Discourse, to be so great, that as he said of Rome, he did Roman in Roma quaerere, he sought Rome in Rome; so wee Episcopatum in Episcopatu, may go seek for a Bishop among all our Bishops.

And whereas in his application of this Argument to the Bi∣shops of this Nation, he saith, It hath continued in this Island e∣ver since the first plantation of the Gospel, without contradiction; which is his Second in this Argument: How false this is, we have declared already; and we all know, and himselfe cannot but know, that there is no one thing since the r••formation, that hath met with so much Contradiction as Episcopacy hath done; witness the several Books written in the Reigns of our several Princes, and the many Petitions exhibited to our several Parlia∣ments, and the many speeches made therein againg Episcopal Go∣vernment: many of which are yet extant.

As for that supply of Accessory strength, which he begs to this Argument, from the light of nature, and the rules of just policy, which (saith he) teacheth us not easily to give way to the change of those things which long use and many Laws have firmly established, as Necessary and Beneficial; it is evident, that those things which to former Ages have seemed Necessary and Beneficial, may to suc∣ceeding Generations, prove not Necessary but Noxious, not Bene∣ficial, but Burthensome; And then the same light of nature, and the same just policy, that did at the first command the establish∣ment of them, may and will perswade their Abolishment; if not, either our Parliaments must never Repeale any of their former Acts (which yet they have justly and wisely done) or else in so doing must run Counter to the light of nature, and the Rules of just policy; which to think were an impiety to be punished by the Judge.

SECT. V.

THe Second Argument for the defence of Episcopal Govern∣ment, is from the Pedigree of this holy Calling, which he de∣rives from no less then an Apostolical, and in that right divine insti∣tution;

and assayes to prove it from the practice of the Apostles and as he saith, the clear practice of their Successors, continued i' Christs Church to this very day: And to this Argument he so much confides, that he concludes it with this Triumphant Epiphonema, What scruple can remain in any ingenuous heart? And determins, if any con∣tinue yet unsatisfied, it is in despight of reason, and all evidence of Hi∣story, 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 sup∣posed strength of your argumentation, there is one scruple yet re∣maining; and if you would know upon what ground, it is this; be∣cause we find in Scripture (which by your own confession is O••i∣ginal Authority) that Bishops and Presbyters were Originally the same, though afterwards they came to be distinguished: and in process of time, Episcopacy did swallow up all the honor and pow∣er of the Presbytery, as Pharaoh's lean Kine did the fat.

Their Identity is discernable: first, from the same names given unto both: secondly, from the same office designed unto both in Scripture. As for the names, are not the same names given unto both in Sacred Writ? Let the fifth, sixth, and seventh verses of the first Chapter to Titus testifie: in the fifth verse, the Apostle shews that he left Titus in Creet to ordain Elders in every City; in the sixth verse, he gives a delineation of the persons that are capable of such Ordination: and in the seventh, the Reason, why the per∣son 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 of∣fice and order, the Apostles reason rendred in the seventh verse of his direction in the fifth and sixth verses, is (with reverence be it spoken) inconsequential, and his demand unjust. If a Chancellor in one of the Universities should give order to his Vice-Chancellor to admit none to the degree of Batchelour in Arts, but such as were able to preach, or keep a Divinity Act: For Batchelours in Divinity must be so: what reason or equity were in this? So if Paul leaving Titus as his Lecum tenens, as it were in Creet for a season, should give order to him not to admit any to be an Elder but one thus and thus qualified, because a Bishop must be so: had a Bishop been an Order or Calling distinct from, or superior to a Presbyte••, and not the same, this had been no more rational or equal then the former: therefore under the name of Bishop in the seventh verse the Apostle intends the Elder mentioned in the fifth verse. Consonant to this is the Language of the same Apostle, Acts. 20. v. 17.18. where such as in 17. verse he calls 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Elders, in the 18. he calls 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, in ordinary English, Bishops, though our Trans∣lation

there, (we know not for what reason) reads it Overseers: not so rendring the word in any other Text.

And though this Remonstrant undertakes to shew a clear and re∣ceived distinction of Bishops, Presbyters, & Deacons, as three distinct subordinate Callings in Gods Church, with an evident specification of the duty & charge belonging to each of them, or else let this claimed Hie∣rarchy be for ever hooted out of the Church: Yet let us tell him, that we never find in Scripture these three Orders, Bishops, Presbyters, and Deacons, mentioned together: but onely Bishops and Dea∣cons, as Phil. 1. and 1. Tim. Nor do we find in Scripture any Ordi∣nation to the office of a Bishop, differing from the Ordination of an Elder: Nor do we find in Scripture, the specification of any Du∣ty charged upon a Bishop, that Elders are secluded from: Nor a∣ny qualification required in a Bishop, that is not requisite in every Presbyter; some of wh••ch, if not all, would be found, were they not the same.

But if this Remonstrant think to help himselfe by taking Sanctu∣ary in Antiquity (though we would gladly rest 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. And Chrysostome in Philip. 1. Homil. 2. with his admirer Theophilact in Philip. 1. affirms that while the Apostles lived, the names of Bishops and Presbyters were not di∣stinguished: and not onely while the Apostles lived, but in after ages. Doth not Irenaeus use the name of Bishops and Presbyters 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, in a promiscuous sense? Are not Anicetus, Pius, Hyginus, Telesphorus, Sixtus, whom the Papists call Bishops, and the Popes predecessors, termed by Eusebius Presbyters? Nor was it strange in the Primitive times to hear Bishops called Presbyters, when Presbyters writing to their Bishop have called him Frater. So Cyprian (Epist. 26. in the beginning) is stiled by his Presbyters, Deacons and Confessors; nor was that holy Martyr offended with that title, nor they condemned of insolency that used it.

But what should we burthen your patience with more testimo∣nies, when the evidence of this truth hath shined with so strong a beam that even our Adversaries have stooped to it, and confes∣sed that their Names were the same in the Apostles time? But yet say they, the Offices were distinct.

Now here we would gladly know, what these men make the di∣stinct Office of a Bishop.

Is it to edifie the Church by Word and Sacrament? is it to or∣dain others to that work? is it to rule, to govern, by admonition and other censures? if any of these, if all these make up the pro∣per

worke of a Bishop; we can prove from Scripture that all these belong unto the Presbytery,a which is no more then was granted by a Councel.

For the first, Edifying of the Church by word and Sacraments, [ 1] though we feare they will some of them at least scarce own this as their proper worke (for some have been cited into the High Commissi∣sion for saying, it belongs to them) yet Sir we are sure, Scripture makes it a part, a chiefe of the Episcopal office; for so in the 1 Pet. 5.2. they are said to doe the work of a Bishop, when they do feed the flock of God. And this is such a work as we hope their Lord∣ships will give the poor Presbyters leave to share with them in: or if not, we will tell them that the Apostle Peter in that forecited place, and the Apostle Paul, Acts. 20. binds this work upon our hands, and Woe unto us if we preach not the Gospel.

But this branch of Episcopal and Presbyterial office we passe with brevity, because in this there lies not so much controversie as in the next, which they doe more wholly Impropriate to them∣selves: the power of Ordination.

Which power, that it was in former times in the hands of Pres∣byters, appeares 1 Tim. 4.14. Neglect not the gift which was given thee by Prophesie, and by the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery. The gift here spoken of is the Ministerial gift, the exercise whereof, the Apostle exhorts Timothy not to neglect, which saith he, he had re∣ceived, not by the laying on of the hands of one single man, whe∣ther Apostle, or Bishop, or Presbyter, but 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the Presbytery, that is, the whole company of Presbyters, for in that sense onely we finde 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 taken in Scripture, as in Luke 22. vers. 66. Act. 22. vers. 5. which the Christian Church called the Ecclesiastical Senate as Ierom in Isay 3. Nos habemus in Ecclesia Senatum nostrum, Coetum Presbyterorum, & an Apostolical Senate: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Ignatius E∣pis. ad Magnes. and some times 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Concil. Ancyr. Can. 18.

And though the Apostle in his second Epistle to Tim. 1.6. makes mention of the laying on of his hands: yet to maintaine the Har∣mony of Scripture, it must not be denied but there was impositi∣on of hands by the Presbytery as wel as by himself, and so it was a joynt act; So that in this there is no more difference then in the former.

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

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

Here all such as watch over the souls of Gods people, are inti∣tuled to rule over them. So that unlesse Bishops will say, that they on••ly watch over the souls of Gods people, and are only to give an account for them, they cannot challenge to themselves the sole rule over them. And if the Bishop•• can give us good security, that they will acquit us from giving up our account to God for the souls of his people, we will quit our plea, and resigne to them the sole rule o∣ver th••m.

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

In which words are contained these truthes; First that in one Church (for the Thessalonions were but one Church, 1, Ca.) there was not 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 but 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; not one chiefe Bishop or Presi∣dent, but the Presidency was in many.

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

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

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

By this time we have sufficiently proved from Scripture, that Bishops and Presbyters are the same in name, in Office, in Edifying the Church, in power of Ordination and Jurisdiction: we sum up all that hath been spoken in one argument:

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

SECT. VI.

BUt the dint of all this Scripture, the Remonstrant would elude, by obtruding upon his reader a commentary (as he calls it) of

the Apostles own practise (which he would force to contradict their own rules) to which he superadds the unquestionable glosse of the cleare practise of their immediate successors in this administration. For the Apostles practice, we have already discovered it, from the Apostles own writings; and for his Glosse he superadds, if it corrupts not the Text, we shall admit it; but if it doe, we must answer with Ter∣tullian; Id verum quodcun{que} primum: id adulterum quod posterius, what∣soever is first is true; but that which is latter is adulterous.

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

Yet in this we differ; that they say, this Impropriation of name, and Imparity of place, is of Divine Right and Apostolical Institution: we affirme both to be occasional, and of humane Invention; and un∣dertake to shew out of Antiquity, both the occasion upon which, and ••he Persons by whom this Imparity was brought into the Church.

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

Idem est ergo Presbyt••r qui Episcopus: & antequam Diabo∣li instinctu, studia in Religione fierent, & diceretur in populis, eco sum Pauli, ego Apollo, ego Cephae, Communi Presbyterorū Consilio ecclesiae gubernaban∣tur. Postquam vero unusquisque eos quos bap••izaverat suos pu∣tabat esse, non Christi; in toto Orbe decretum est, ut unus de Presbyteris electus superpone∣retur caeteris, ad quem om∣nis Ecclesiae Cura pertineret, & schismatum semina tollerentur. Putat aliquis non Scriptura∣rum, sed nostram esse sententi∣am, Episcopum & Presbyterum unum esse, & aliud aetatis, aliud

esse nomen of••ic••i, relegat Apo∣stoli ad Philippenses verba, di∣centis, Paulus & Timothaeus servi Iesu Christi qui sunt Phi∣lippis, cum Episcopis & Dia∣conis, &c. Philippi una est urbs Macedoniae, & certè in una Ci∣vitate non poterant plures esse (ut nuncupantur) Episcopi, &c. sicut ergo Presbyteri sciant se ex Ecclesiae consuetudine ei qui sibi praepositus fuerit esse subje∣ctos; Ita Episcopi noverint se magis consuetudine, quam dis∣positionis Dominicae veritate Presbyteris esse majores, & in Communi debere Ecclesiam re∣gere.

A Presbyter and a Bishop is the same: and before there were through the Devils instinct, divisions in Reli∣gion, and the people began to say, I am of Paul, and I of Apollo, and I o•• Cephas, the Churches were governed by the Common-councell of the Presbyters. But after that each man began to account those whom he had baptized his own, and not Christs; it was decreed thorow the whole world, that one of the Presbyters should be set over the rest; to whom the care of all the Church should belong, that the seeds of schisme might be taken away. Thinks any, that this is my opinion, and not the opinion of the Scripture, that a Bishop and an Elder is the same? let him read the words

of the Apostle to the Philippians, say∣ing, Paul and Timothy, the servants of Jesus Christ, to them that are at Phi∣lippi, with the Bishops and Deacons, Philippi is one city of Macedonia, and certainly in one city there could not be many Bishops (as they are now called &c.) and after the allegations of many other Scriptures, he concludes thus; as the Elders therefore may know, that they are to be subject to him that is set over them by the custome of the Church; so let the Bishops know, that it is more from custome, then from any true dispensation from the Lord, that they are above the Presbyters, & that they ought to rule the Church in common.

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

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

Secondly, that that Imparity that was in his time between Bi∣shops and Elders, was grounded upon Ecclesiastical custome, and not upon devine Institution; Episcopi noverint, &c.

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

Fourthly, that before this Priority was upon this occasion star∣ted, the Church was governed Communi Presbyterorum Consilio, by the Counsel of the Presbyters in common, and that even after this imparity, it ought to be so governed; Sciant Episcopi se Ecclesiam debere in communi regere.

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

Saravia would take advantage of this place, to deduce this Im∣parity as high as from the Apostles times, because even then they began to say, I am of Paul, and I of Apollos: but sure S. Ierome was not so weake as this man would make him, to speak Inconsistencies; and when he propounds it to himself, to prove that Bishops and Pres∣byters are in Scripture the same, to let fall words that should con∣fute 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 de∣creed that one of the Presbyters should be set over the rest, &c. This is spoken indeed in the Apostles phrase, but not of the Apostles times, else to what purpose, is that coacervation of texts that followes?

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

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

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

Thirdly, because the holy Ghost, who could foresee what would ensue thereupon, would never ordaine that for a remedy, which would not onely be ineffectual to the cutting off of evil, but be∣come a stirrup for Antichrist to get into his saddle. For if there be a necessity of setting up one Bishop over many Presbyters for preven∣ting schismes, there is as great a necessity of setting up one Arch∣bishop over many Bishops, and one Patriarch over many Archbishops, and one Pope over all, unlesse men will imagine, that there is a dan∣ger of schisme onely 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 in∣competent Judge in this case, because a Presbyter, and so a party, we will therefore subjoyne the judgments of other ancient Fathers who were themselves Bishops.

The Commentaries that go under the name of Saint Ambrose up∣on Ephes. 4. mention another occasion of this Discrimination or

priority; and that was 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 apostoli∣cal Writ.

And this Rectorship or Priority was devolved at first from one Elder to another by Succession, when he 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 be 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 Impari∣ty: the same Authors tells us, the Presbyters themselves brought it in; witnesse Hierome ad Evag. Alexandriae Presbyteri unum ex se electum in Excelsiori gradu collacatum, 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, & 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, it was done by a Councell, and although he neither name the time nor place of the Councel, yet ascribing it to a Councell he grants it not to be A∣postolical: this gave occasion to others to sixe 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or Prelacy had the Seal and confirmation of Divine or Apostolical Authority, Gregory Nazianzene would never in such a Pa∣thetick manner have wished the Abolition of it, as he doth in his 28. Oration.

And now where is that acknowledgement, and conveyance of Impa∣rity and Iurisdiction which saith this Remonstrant was derived from the Apostles hands, and deduced in an uninterupted l••ne, unto this day: where is it? we finde no such Imparity delivered from Apostolical hands, nor acknowledged in Apostolical writings; yet had there been such an acknowledgement and conveyance of imparity: how this should have been deduced to us in an uninterrupted Line, we know not, unlesse our Bishops will draw the Line of their Pedigree through the ••oynes of Antichrist, and joyne issue, and mingle blood with Rome: which

it seemes they will rather doe then lose this plea for their 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 their tyrannical prerogative, as Nazianzen calls it,

Suffer us therefore humbly to appeale to your Honours, whe∣ther this Remonstrant hath not given sentence against himself, 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: Let EPISCOPACY BE FOR EVER ABANDONED OUT OF THE CHURCH OF GOD.

SECT. VII.

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

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

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

But how doth this Remonstrant meete with this Reply: ALAS, ALAS, HOW GOOD PEOPLE may be abused by misinformati∣on! It seemes the man Judged this Reply so poor as in his thoughts it was more worthy of his pitty, then of his paines to answer, or ra∣ther knew there was more in this Reply, then he knew how to an∣swer, and therefore waves it with his Rhetoricke.

And this we rather think, because he knowes but little in Anti∣quity, that knowes not, that there is so vast a difference between our Bishops, and those that were not onely in the Apostles dayes (whom we have proved to be undistinguished from Presbyters) But those Bishops that were in the Church 400. yeares after, when there began to be some discrimination, that Episcopacy may well be likened to the Ship Argo, that was so often repaired, as there was nothing left of the First Materials; yet still it challenged the first Name.

Which difference we spread before your Honours in three parti∣culars: 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 priori∣ty 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, Ierome, Augustine, &c.) We come now to Declare what was the manner of Election unto this Priority 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 Authors to make this good, Cy∣prian alone would doe it, among other places let his 68. Epistle witn••sse, where he saith 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 be chosen in the presence of the people, be∣fore all their eyes and approved as fit and worthy by their publike vote and Testimony. This he proves by the Testimony of Sacred writ both Old and New. Where we observe first, that the special power of Judging of the worthinesse or unworthinesse of a man for the Prelacy was in the breast of the Peogle. Secondly, the special power of choosing or rejecting eo his place according as they Judged him worthy or unworthy resided in the People, Plebs maximè Habet potestatem, &c. Thirdly, that this power did de∣scend 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.

aThe Obtrusion of a Bishop upon the Church of Alexandria without the Presence, desire and vote of the Clergy or People is condemned by Athanasius not onely as a breach of Canon, but as a Transgression of Apostolical prescript, and that it did compel or necessitate the heathen to blaspheme.

Nor did onely Christian Bishops, but Christian Princes acknow∣ledge the Right and power of Election of Bishops to be in the Peo∣ple, so that admired Constantine the great Promover and Patron of the peace of the Christian Church writing to the Church of Nicome∣dia against Eusebius, and Theognius, tells them the ready way to lay asleep 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 corum, qui cum juverunt Consilio hac praeceps ruisset & rectum Eligendi Ordinem impudenter conturbasset. Gelas in Act, Concil. Nicen. part. 3. if they would get a faithful and upright Bishop which saith he, is in your power presently to doe; and was long agoe, if Eusebius with the aide 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 been to choose a Bishop; and by whose power the next Bishop was chosen. So the same Author tells us, that after Eusebius and Theognius were cast out of their several seats for Arianisme, by the Councel of Nice, others were appointed in their roomes by the Clergy and people of each Diocesse.

To this Election in Nicomedia, we could (if it were needful in so cleare a Truth) adde many the like Presidents of popular Electi∣ons; which for brevities sake, we passe over. Not questioning, but that which hath been spoken, is sufficient to informe the intelli∣gent Reader, that our Bishops and the Bishops of former times, are TWO in point of Election.

SECT. VIII.

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

For the first of these, Their sole Iurisdiction; That our Bishops as∣sume this to themselves, it is known and felt, and that this Sole Iu∣risdiction was a stranger, a Monster to former times, we shall now prove, and make cleare; that the power of Ordination, Admonition, Excommunication, Absolution, was not in the hands of any sole man.

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 himself expounds it, writing to Lucius in his own name, and the name of his Clergy and people, Ego & Collegae & fraternitas omnis, &c. I and my Colleagues and my whole peo∣ple send these Letters to you, &c. So that it is cleare in Cyprians time, Presbyters had a hand in Ordination, and Bishops did not Or∣daine alone. Firmilianus saith of them that rule in the Church, Quod baptizandi, MANVM IMPONENDI ET ORDI∣NANDI, poffident potestatem. And who those he, he expresseth a little before, SENIORES & Prapositi: by whom the Presbyters as well as the Bishops are understood.

And as these places prove, that Bishops in the Primitive time, could not ordain alone without the Presbyters; so there are that give us light to understand, that the Presbyters might ordain without the Bishop. The Author of the Comment upon the E∣phesians, that goes under the name of of Ambrose, saith, Apud Egyp∣tum Presbyteri consignant, si praesens non sit Episcopus, In Egypt the Presbyters ordain, if the Bishop be not present; so saith Augustine in the same words; and the Corepiscopus, who was but a Presby∣ter, had power to impose hands, and to ordaine within his pre∣cincts, with the Bishops Licence. Now Licences confer not a power to him that hath it not, but onely a faculty to exercise that pow∣er he hath.

The iniquity of our times hath been such, that a Minister may not Preach to his own flock, without a Licence: doth this Li∣cence make a man a Minister, and give him power to preach, or on∣ly a faculty and liberty to exercise that power? Should a Bishop give a Laike a Licence to preach, or to ordain, 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 root and prin∣ciple of that power, which Licence onely opens a way to the exer∣cise of; and therefore that must be concluded to be in those Cho∣repiscopi; 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 Corepiscopi had power to ordain as well as he.

Neither was this onely a matter of Ecclesiastical custome, but of Ecclesiastical constitution, which bids the Bishop;

First, in all his Ordinations to consult with his Clergy; Vt E∣piscopus sine Concilio Clericorum suorum Clericos non ordinet: That the Bishop shall not ordain a Clergy man without the counsel of the Clergy: this was Cyprians practice, Epist. 33.

[ 2] Secondly, in his Ordinations to take the ••oncurrent assistance of his Presbyters; Cum ordinatur Presbyter, Episcopo eum benedicen∣te, & manum super caput ejus tenente, etiam omnes Presbyteri qui prae∣sentes sunt, manus suas juxta manum Episcopi sut er caput illius teneant. When a Presbyter is ordained, the Bishop blessing him, and hold∣ing 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 fourteen Bishops, declaring that the power of Ordi∣nation is in the hands of Presbyters as well as Bishops.

And whereas it may be objected, that Hierome and Chrysostome, affirming Bishops to differ from Presbyters in the power of Ordi∣nation,

seem to imply, that that power is soly theirs: Here wee desire it may be observed.

First, that these Fathers put all the difference that lies betweene Bishops and Presbyters, to be in point of Ordination. Quid facit Episcopus, quod non facit Presbyter exceptá Ordinatione. And there∣fore Chrysostome himselfe confesseth, that in his days there was li∣tle or no difference between a Bishop and a Presbyter. Inter Epis∣copum & presbyterum interest fermè nihil, &c.

Secondly, That this difference is not so to he understood, as if these Fathers did hold it to be by divine right (as Bellarmin and our Episcopal men would make us beleeve) but by a humane con∣stitution. And therefore they do not speak De jure but de facto, Quid facit, &c. not quid debet facere. And this Hierom confesseth. So Leo prim. ep. 88. upon complaints of unlawful Ordinations, writing to the Germane and French Bishops, reckons up what things are reserved to the Bishops, among which he set down Presbyterorum & Diaconorum consecratio, and then addes, Quae omnia solis deberi sum∣mis 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 e∣ven now shewed. And when it did prevaile, it was but a particu∣lar custome (and sometimes usurpation) of some Churches. For it was otherwise appointed in the Councel 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 he made Ordinations without the Presbytery, and without the con∣sent of his Clergy, this is quoted by Bishop Downam, lib. 1. cap. 8. pag. 176.

SECT. IX.

NO•• had the Bishops of former times more right to the power of sole Iurisdiction, then of sole Ordination: And here we have Confitentem reum, our very Adversaries confess the Votes of Anti∣quity are with us. [ 18]

Cyprian professeth, that he would do nothing without the Clergy; nay, he could do nothing without them; nay, he durst not take upon him alone to determine that which of right did belong to all; and had he or any other done so, the fourth Councel of Carthage condemns the Sentence of the Bishop, as Irritanisi Clericorum sententiâ confir∣metur.

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

[ 1] First, in judging and censuring Presbyters themselves, and their Doctrine; For this the Canon Law in Gratian is full and cleare: Episcopus non potest Iudicare Presbyterum vel Diaconum sine Synodo & Senioribus: Thus Basill counselled and practised, epist. 75. So Ambr. lib. 10. epist. 80. Cyril in epist. ad Iohannem Antiochen. Thus Gregory ad Iohan. Panor mitan. lib. 11. epist. 49.

[ 2] Secondly, in judging of the conversation or crimes of any of the members of the Church: Penes Presbyteros est Disciplina quae fa∣cit homines meliores; That Discipline that workes emendation in men, is in the power of the Elders. And therefore when any was questioned in point of conversation, he was brought, saith Tertul∣lian, into the Congregation where were Exhortations, Castigations, and Divine censures: And who had the chiefe stroke in these Censures, he tells us after: President 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 we 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 counsel or consent of any of his Brethren. But were pa∣cified with the sentence of Saint Ambrose: because, saith he, Hoc Iudicium Nostrum cum fratribus & consacerdotibus participatum pro∣cesserit.

Nor was there any kinde of censures that the Bishops did admi∣nister alone: Admonitions were given by the Elders; Augustine tells us the Elders did admonish such as were offenders▪ to the same pur∣pose speakes. Origen. contra Celsum. Lib. 3.

So excommunication, though that being the dreadfullest thun∣der of the Church, and as Tertullian calls it, sumntum 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 b Hierom; Presbytero si peccavero licet me tradere satanae in interitum carnis. If I sinne, a Presbyter (not a Bishop on∣ly) 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, in quos non nunquam Episcoporum & Clericorum censura desaevit. There be some whom the Church reproves, and some which she casts out; 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 in the sole hands of the Bishops, but likewise in the hands of Presbyters.

Syricius Bishop of Rome signifies to the Church of Millaine, that Io∣vinianus, Auxentius, &c. were cast out of the Church for ever, and he sets down how they did it, Omnium Nostrum tam Presbyterorum quam Diacon••rum, quam totius etiam cleri sciscitata fuit sententia. There was a concurrence of all Presbyters, Deacons, and the whole Clergy in that sentence of Excommunication.

The truth herein may be further evidenced by this, because the whole Clergy as well as the Bishops imposed hands upon such, as re∣penting were absolved: Nec ad communicationem (saith Cyprian) venire quis possit, nisi prius ab Episcopo & Clero Manus illi fuerit imposita: No man that hath been excommunicated might returne to Church-Communion, be∣fore hands had been laid upon him by the Bishop and Clergy.

Also writing to his Clergy concerning lapsed Christians, he tells them, Exomologesi facta & manu eis à vobis in poenitentiam impositâ, &c. that af∣ter 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, they came before the Presbytery, and therefore confessed their sinnes, and so were admitted.

But though the sentence of Excommunication was managed onely by the hand of those that laboured in the Word and Doctrine, yet we will not conceale from you, that neither Excommunication not abso∣lution did passe without the knowledge and approbation of the body of the Church, to which the Delinquent did belong.

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 publike cen∣sures of the Church were inflict••d not onely for the Emendation of delinquents, but for the admonition of others, and therefore ought to be admistr••d in publike that others might feare, 1 Tim. 5.20. Origen speaking of the Duty and Power of the Church in cutting off a scan∣dalous Person though a Presbyter, making the case his own, he saith thus: In uno consensu Ecclesia universa conspirans excidat me d••xtram 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, Vix plebi per suadeo 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. Examinabuntur singula praesentibus & judicantibus vobis.

But of this power of the People we 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 for∣mer times are TWO.

SECT. X.

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: to their Chancellours, Commissaries, Of∣ficers, &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 only be received into assistance, but be wholly intrusted with the power of Spiri∣tual Iurisdiction: Even 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 Commissary; No, he was so far from substituting any man (much lesse a lay man) to determene or give Judgement in such cases, that he would not assume that power wholly to himself, but suspends his Judgement, till the hand of God should restore him to his Church againe, that with the advice and Counsel 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 been visible by this holy Martyr in the goings of former ages, he needed not have deferred the determination of the question about the receiving of some penitent lapsed ones into the bosome of the Church again, till his returne and the returne of his Clergy, as he doth.

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 Commissary, or any other man upon whom he had devolved his power, and set him as his Deputy or Viccar generall in his absence, but ad clerum, to the whole Presbytery.

This Truth is so cleare, that Bishop Downam the great Advocate of Episcopacy confesseth, that in Ambrose his time, and a good while after (which was about 400 years) till the Presbyters were in a manner 〈…〉〈…〉

SECT. XI.

A Third branch wherein the difference between our Bishops, and the Bishops of former times, in point of Exercising their Juris∣diction, is visible, is the way or manner of exercising that power.

For brevities sake we will onely instance in their proceedings in causes criminal; where let them tell us, whether any good Antiquity can yeild them one President for THEIR OATH EX OFFI∣CIO, which hath been to their COURTS, as Purgatory fire to the Popes Kitchin: they have forgotten that old Maxime in the Civil Law, Nemo tenetur prodere seipsum, which as it is grounded upon natural e∣quity, so it is confirmed by a Law enacted by Dioclesian and Maximili∣an, Nimis grave est quod petitis, &c. 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 in∣tentions, and not to extort them from your adversaries against themselves.

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

If neither the light of Nature, nor Gospel light can, yet the custome of the Church, to which they so oft appeal, may both convince them of this iniquity, and discov••r to all the world the contrariety of their proceedings, to the proceedings of former times, in this particular.

For of Old, both the Plantiffe 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, did not 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 quality of the Accuser, 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 en∣mity 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 si∣mul esse, & Iudex & testis,

We grant indeed the Canon Law permits in some cases Tryal with∣out witnesses; Si crimen ita publicum est, ut meritò debeat appellari noto∣rium; If the crime be so publike, that it may deservedly be called Notorious. Which Law further determines what is notorious, saying, Offensam illam nos intelligimus manifestam, quae vel per confessionem vel pro∣bationem

legitime nota fuerit, aut evidentiâ Rei, quae nulla possit tergiver∣satione celari; We count that offence manifest, which eith••r by confes∣sion, or by lawful proofe comes to be known, 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, up∣on examination and evidence produced, and proved by such witnes∣ses, as against whom the Defendant 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 knows what his Accusation is. Which Oath, if he takes, without further witnesse, he is censured upon the witnesse of his own Oath. If he takes it not, he is sent presently to prison, there to lye without Bayle or Mainprize, till the insupportable miseries of his long durance, compel him to take on Oath against Nature, Scripture, Conscience, and the just Defence of his own innocency.

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.

SECT. XII.

ANd that is State Imployment, or attendance upon Civil and Se∣cular 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; Nullus ergo Episco∣patu praeditus haec audire detrectet, sed agere ea omnia detrectet, Let no man that is a Bishop, refuse to hear what the Apostle saith, but to doe what the Apostle forbids.

We deny not but that Bishops were in the Primitive times often in∣cumbred with secular business: but these were put upon them, some∣times by Emperors, who sought the ruine of the Church, as Iulian, of whom Niceph. lib. 10. cap. 13. doth report, that in Clerum coaptatos Senatorum munere & ministerio perverse fungi jussit. Sometimes the gra∣cious disposition of Princes toward Christian Religion, made them thus to honour Bishops, thinking thereby to advance Religion: as Constantine the Great enacted, that such as were to be tryed before Civil Magistrates, might have leave to appeale ad Iudicium Episcoporum, atque eorum sententiam ratam esse tanquam ab ipso Imperatore prolatum, And this the Historian reckoneth as one argument of his reverend re∣spect to Religion. Sometimes the excellency of their singular parts cast civil dignities upon them. Tiberius granted a Questors dignity unto a Bishop for his eloquence: Chrysostome for his notable stoutness and free∣dome of speech, was sent as the fittest man to Gainas, with the Emperors command. Sometimes the people observing the Bishops to be much honoured by the Emperour, would sollicit them to present their grei∣vances

to the Emperour. And sometimes the aspiring humour of the Bishops raised them to such places, as appears by Cyrill, who was the first Bishop in Alexandria, who had civil dignities conferred upon him, as Socrates relates it, from whom civil authority did descend upon suc∣ceeding Bishops. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: of whom Nicephorus therefore recorded, Episcopatum majoricum fastu, prophanorum Magistra∣tuum more, quam praedecessores ejus Episcopi, ingressus est, unde adeo initi∣um sumptum est in Ecclesia Alexandrina ut Episcopi etiam, profana negotia curarent: He entred upon his Episcopacy 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 weaken∣ed by the Bishops interposing in secular affairs, hated the Bishop: and this (as the Historian calls it) his usurped power.

This president of the Alexandrian Bishop, the Bishop of Rome did soon follow; Et Romanus Episcopatus non aliter quam Alexandrinus, quasi EXTRA SACERDOTII FINES egressus ad secularem princi∣patum erat jam delapsus; The Bishop of Rome as well as the Bishop of Alexandria breaking the limits of the Priestly function, did degene∣rate into a secular Principality: 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 out stripped 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 di∣vino Sacerdotio honorati non nisi altari & sacrificiis deservire & precibus at{que} orationibus vacare debent, Molestiis secularibus non sunt obligandi, qui divinis rebus & spiritualibus occupantur.

Secondly, that they complained of them as of heavy burthens, Aug. calls it Angaria, yea Austin himselfe in his 81. Epistle complaines, that worldly business hindered his praying and so pressed him, that vix respirare potuit: and Gregory the great, non sine dolore in secularibus ver∣sabatur, praefat. in Dial.

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

Fourthly, it was much cryed down as unlawful by the holy Fa∣thers, many Canons forbidding it, and that under pain of being remo∣ved from their places. Can. Apost. Can. 6. Can. 81. hee that did presume to administer 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, a Roman

command or Administration of Military affaires or civil place (as Zo∣naras there) he should be desposed, Can. Apo. Can. 83. hiring of ground, medling with worldly affaires is to be laid aside by them. Otherwise they are threatned to be liable to Ecclesiastical censures, Conc. Cal. Can. 3. Conc. Carth. Can. 16.

We will adde this for a conclusion in this point, it is observed by Athanasius, Sulpitius, Severus, and other Ecclesiastical Historians, that the Arians were very expedite in worldly affaires, which experience they gained by their constant following and attendance upon the Em∣perours Court; and what troubles they occasioned to the Church thereby, is notoriously known to any that have seen 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 dif∣ference between our Bishops and those of former times, is greater then be∣tween the great Bishop of Rome and them.

SECT. XIII.

But it seemes our Remonstrant soared above these times even as high as the Apostles dayes, for so he saith, If our Bishops challenge any o∣ther spiritual power, then was by Apostolike Authority delegated to, and re∣quired of Timothy and Titus, and the Angels of the seven Asian Churches, let them be DISCLAIMED as VSVRPERS. And the truth is, so they deserve to be, if they doe but challenge the same power that the Apostle did delegate to Timothy and Titus; for Timothy and Titus were Evange∣lists, and so moved in a Sphere above Bishops or Presbyters. For Timo∣thy, it is cleare from the letter of the Text, 2 Tim. 4.5. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: Doe the work of an Evangelist: if Timothy had been but a Presbyter or Bishop, Paul had here put him upon imployment, Vltra Sphaeram Activitatis.

And to any man, that will but understand and consider what the Office of an a Evangelist was; and wherein it differed from the Office of a Presbyter or Bishop, it will be manifest that Timothy and Titus were E∣vangelists, and no Bishops: for the title of Evangelist is taken but two wayes; either for such as wrote the Gospel, and so we doe not affirme Ti∣mothy and Titus, to be Evangelists: or else for such as taught the Gospel; and those were of two sorts, either such as had ordinary places and ordi∣nary gifts, or such whose places and gifts were extraordinary; and such Evangelists were Timothy and Titus, and not Bishops, as will appeare if we consider, what was the Difference between the Evangelists and Bi∣shops. Bishops or Presbyters were tyed to the particular care and tuition of that flock over which God had made them Overseers, Acts 20.28. But Evangelists were not tyed to reside in one particular place, but did at∣tend

upon the Apostles by whose appointment they are sent from place to place, as the necessity of the Churches did require. As appeares first in Timothy whom Saint Paul besought to abide at Ephesus, 1. Tim. 1.3. which had beene needlesse importunity, if Ti∣mothy had the Episcopall (that is the Pastorall) charge of Ephesus committed to him by the Apostles, for then he might have laid as dreadful a Charge upon him to abide at Ephesus, as he doth to. Preach the Gospel. But so far was Paul from setling Timothy in Cathe∣drâ in Ephesus, that he rather continually sends him up and down up∣on all Church-services, for we finde Acts. 17.14. that when Paul fled from the tumults of Berea to Athens, he left Silas and Timothy behinde him, who afterwards comming to Paul to Athens, Paul sends Timothy from Athens to Thessalonica, to confirm the Thessalonians in the faith, as appears 1 Thes. 3.1.2. from whence returning to Paul to Athens again, the Apostle Paul before he left Athens and went to Corinth, sent him and Silas into Macedonia, who returned to him again to Corinth, Act. 18.5. afterwards they travelled to Ephesus, from whence we read Paul sent Timothy and Erastus into Macedonia, Act. 19.22. wither Paul went after them, and from whence they and divers other Breathren jour∣nied into Asia, Acts 20.4. All which Breathren Paul calls, as it is pro∣bable, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the messengers of the Churches, 2. Cor. 8.23. And being thus accompanied with Timothy, and the rest of the Bre∣theren he comes to Miletum, and calls the Elders of the Church of E∣phesus thither to him, of which Church had Timothy been Bishop, the Apostle in stead of giving the Elders a charge to feed the flock of Christ, would have given that charge to Timothy, and not to them.

And secondly, the Apostle would not so have forgotten himself, as to call the Elders 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, 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 demon∣strates, that Paul did not leave Timothy at this time as Bishop of Ephesus. But it is rather evident that he took him along with him in his journey to Hierusalem, and so to Rome; for we find that those Epistles Paul wrote while he a prisoner, bear either in their inscription or some other pas∣sage of them, the name of Timothy as Pauls companion, viz. The Epistle to the Philippians, C••lossians, Hebrewes, Philemon, which Epistles he wrote in bonds as the contexture, which those two learned professors; the one at Heydelburg, the other at Saulmur, make of Saint Pauls Epistles, doth declare.

So that it appears that Timothy was no Bishop, but a Minister, an Evangelist, a fellow labourer of the Apostles, 1 Thes. 3.1. an Apostle, a Messenger of the Church, 2 Cor. 8.3. a Minister of God, 1 Thes. 3.2. these

titles the Holy Ghost gives him, but never the title of a Bishop.

The like we finde in Scripture concerning Titus, whom Paul as it is conceived by learned men, did first assume into the fellowship of his Labors in the place of Iohn, and made him his companion in his jour∣ny through Antioch a to Hierusalem,b so we find Gal. 2.1. from thence returning to Antioch againe; from thence he passed through Syria and Cilicia, confirming the Churches; and from Cilicia, he passed to Creet, where having Preached the Gospel, and plainted Churches, he left Ti∣tus there for a while, to set in order things that remaine,

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

All these journey es to and fro did Titus make at the designment of the Apostle, even after he was left in Creet. Nor doe we finde, that after his first removal from Creet ; he did ever returne thither. We read in∣deed, 2 Tim. 4.10. he was with Paul at Rome, and from thence returned not to Creet, but into Dalmatia. All which doth more then probably shew, it never was the Intendment of the Apostle to fix 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 between the Offices of Bishops and Evangelists, and knows 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. We adde, secondly, that when the Fathers did call them so, it was not in a proper but in an improper sense; which we expresse in the words of our Learned Orthodox Raynolds;

You may learne by the Fathers themselves, saith he, that when they

termed any Apostle a Bishop of this or that City (as namely S. Peter of Antioch or Rome) they meant it in a general sort and signifi∣cation, because they did attend that Church for a time, and supply that roome in preaching the Gospel, which Bishops did after; but as the name of Bishop is commonly taken for the Overseer of a particular Church, and Pastor of a several flock; so Peter was not Bishop of any one place; therefore not of Rome. And this is true by Analogy of all extraordinary Bishops, and the same may be said of Timothy and Titus, that he saith of Peter.

But were it true that Timothy and Titus were Bishops: will this Re∣monstrant undertake, that all his party shall stand to his Conditions▪ If our Bishops challenge any other power then was by Apostolick Authority de∣legated to, and required of Timothy and Titus, and the Angels of the seaven Asian Churches, let them be disclaimed as usurpers. Will our Bishops in∣deed stand to this? then actum est. Did ever Apostolick Authority delegate power to Timothy or Titus, to ordain alone? to governe alone? and do not our Bishops challenge that power? Did ever Apostolique Authority delegate power to Timothy and Titus, to rebuke an Elder? no; but to entreat him as a Father: and do not our Bishops challenge themselves and permit to their Chancellors, Commissaries, and Officials power not on∣ly to Rebuke an Elder▪ but to rayle upon an Elder? to reproach him with the most opprobrious termes of foole, knave, jack-sauce, &c. which our paper blushes to present to your Honors view? Did ever Apostolick Au∣thority delegate to Timothy and Titus power to receive an accusation a∣gainst an Elder, but before two or three witnesses? and do not our Bi∣shops challenge power to proceed Ex Officio, and make Elders their own Accusers? Did ever Apostolick Authority delegate power to Timo∣thy or Titus, to reject any after twice admonition, but an Heretick? and do 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 be the Angels of the seven Asian Churches had; and our Remon∣strant is so subtile as to twist these two together, that if one faile, the o∣ther may hold.

To which we answer; first, that Angel in those Epistles is put Col∣lectively, not Individually; as appears by the Epistle to Thyatira, cap. 2. vers. 25. where we read 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. But I say unto you (in the plural number, not unto thee in the singular) and unto the rest in Thyatira, &c. Here is a plain distinction between the members of that Church. By you, is signified those to whom he spake under the name of the Angel. By the rest, the residue of the people. The people governed, and the Governours in the plural number. What can be more evident

to prove, that by Angel is meant not one singular person, but the whole company of Presbyters that were in Thyatira.

This also further appears, because it is usual with the holy Ghost, not only in other Books of the Scripture, but also in this very Book of the Revelation, to express a company under one singular person. Thus the Civil State of Rome, as opposite to Christ, is called A beast with ten horns: and the Ecclesiastical State Antichristian is called the whore of Babylon, and, the false Prophet; and the Devil and all his family is called An old red Dragon. Thus also the seven Angels that blew the se∣ven trumpets, Revel. 8.2. and the seven Angels that poured out the seven Vials, are not literally to be taken, but Synecdochically, as all know. And why not then the seven Angels in those Epistles? Mr. Mede in his Commentaries upon the Revelation, pag. 265, hath these words; Denique (ut jam femel iterum{que}monuimus) quoniam Deus adhibet angelos pro∣videntiae suae in rerū humanarū motibus & conversionibus ciendis, gubernan∣dis{que} administris: idcirco, quae multorum manibus peraguntur, Angelo tamen tanquam rei gerendae praesidi & Duci pro communi loquendi modo tribuuntur.

Adde, thirdly, that the very name Angel is sufficient to prove, that it is not meant of one person alone, because the word Angel doth not im∣port 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 think that there should be any thing spoken to one Minister, that doth not belong to all? The like argument we draw from the word Stars used Revel, 1.20. The seven Stars are the Angels of the seven Churches. Now it is evident, that all faithful Ministers are called Stars in Scrip∣ture, whose duty is to shine as lights unto the Churches, in all purity of doctrine and holiness of conversation. And in this sense, the word is used, when it is said, that the third part of the stars were darkned, Revel. 8.12. and that the Dragons taile drew the third part of the stars of Heaven, and cast them to the Earth, Revel. 12.4. Which is meant not only 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 Candlesticks which thou sawest, are the seven Churches, but he doth not say, The seven Stars 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 is omitted, least we should understand by Angel, one Minister alone, and not a company. And yet the Septenary number of Churches is twice set down.

Lastly, though but one Angel be mentioned in the fore-front, 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 care to hear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the Churches. Upon which words, Ambrosius Ausbertus in his second book upon the Revelation, saith thus; Vnâ eadem{que} locutione & Angelos & Ecclesias unum esse designat. Nam cum in principio locutionum quae ad septem fiunt Angelos dicat, & Angelo illius Ecclesiae scribe; in fine tamen earundem non dicit, Qui habet aurem audiat quod spiritus dicat An∣gelo, sed quid Ecclesiae dicat. By one and the same phrase of speech he sheweth, the Angels and the Churches to be 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 Angel of the Churches; yet in the close of the same, he doth not say, He 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, where∣in the admonitions, threatnings, commendations, and reproofes, are directed to all the Ministers of all the Churches. Revel. 2.10. The De∣vil shall cast some of you into prison, &c. Revel. 2.16. I will fight against them with the sword of my mouth, Revel. 2.24. I will put upon you no other burthen, &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 labour, &c. vers. 2. and vers. 4. Repent and do thy first works; and vers. 13. Thou hast not denyed my Faith, &c. and cap. 3.26. Because thou art neither hot nor cold, &c. All these and the like places, are not to be un∣derstood as meant of one individual person, but of the whole compa∣ny of Ministers, and also of the whole Church, because that the pu∣nishment threatned, is to the whole Church; Revel. 2.5. Repent and do thy first works, or else I will come unto thee quickly and remove thy Can∣dlestick out of his place; Rev. 2.16. Repent, or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will fight against thee with the sword of my mouth; Revel. 2.24. I will not put upon you any other burthen. Now we have no warrant in the Word to think that Christ would remove his Gospel from a Church for the sin of one Bishop, when all the other Ministers, and the Churches themselves are free from those sins. And if God should take this course, in what woeful & miserable condition should the Church of England be, which groaneth under so many corrupt Prelates? By all this it appears, that the word Angel, is not to be taken, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, but 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; not properly, but figuratively. And this is the judgment 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 wear on their heads Myters, and hold crosier staves in their hands, like dead Idols, but them that are the faithful messengers of Gods word, and utter and declare the same. A∣gain, 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 he could meet, and saith that they all consent in this that under the person of an Angel, the Pastors & Ministers of the Chur∣ches were understood. S. Austin in his 132. Epistle, saith thus, Sic enim in Apocalypsi legitur Angelus, &c. Quod si de Angelo superiorum colorum, & non de Praepositis Ecclesiarum vellet intelligi, non consequenter diceret, Habeo adversum te, &c. And so in his second Homily upon the Revelation (if that book be his) Quod autem dicit Angelo Thyatirae. Habeo adversum te panca, dicit Praepositis Ecclesiarum, &c, This also Gregory the Great, lib. 34. Moral. in Iob. cap. 4. Saepe sacram scripturam praedicatores Ecclesiae pro eo quod patris gloriam annunciant, angelorum nomine solere designare: & hinc esse, quod Iohannes in Apocalypsi septem Ecclesiis scribens, angelis Ecclesiarum loquitur, id est, Praedicatoribus populorum. Master Box citeth Primasius, Haymo, Beda, Richard, Thomas, and others, to whom we refer you.

If it be here demanded (as it is much by the Hierarchical side) that if by Angel be meant the whole company of Presbyters, why Christ did not say, to the Angels in the plural number, but to the Angel in the singular?

We answer, that though this question may savor of a litle too much curiosity, yet we will make bold to subjoyn three conjectural reasons of this phrase of speech.

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 certain number for an uncertain, & the singular number for the plural. Thus the Ram, Dan. 8.3. is interpred vers. 20. to be the Kings of Media, and Persia. And the enemies of Gods Church are set out by four horns. And the deliverers by four 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 speak in plain language, this is the sign of my body? We say, that this phrase of speech is proper to all Sacraments: So we also answer here, this phrase of speech, Angel for Angels, is common to all types and visions.

Secondly Angel is put, though more be meant, that so it may hold proportion with the vision which Iohn saw, Chap. 1.12.20. He saw se∣ven golden Candlesticks, and seven Stars. And therefore to hold propor∣tion, 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 Stars. &c. Now a mystery is a secret which comprehends more th••n is ex∣pressed; and therefore though but one Angel be expressed, yet the my∣stery implyes all the Angels of that Church.

Thirdly, to signifie their unity in the Ministerial 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 i•• more fitly declared by the name of one Angel, then of many. We of∣ten finde the name of (one) Prophet or Priest to be put for the general body of the Ministery, or whole multitude or 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. 6.13.18.19. Isa. 3.2. Hos. 9.8. Ezek. 7.26. Hos. 4, 6. Mal. 2.7. Neither should it seem strange, that a multitude or company of Ministers should be understood under the name of one Angel, seeing a multitude of Heavenly Angels (imployed in one service for the good of Gods Saints) is sometimes in the Scripture shut up under one Angel in the singular number, as may be gathered from Gen. 14.7. 2 Kings 19.35. Psal 34.7. compa∣red with Psal. 91.11. Gen. 32.1. 2. Kings 6.16, 17. And also a multi∣tude of Devils or evil Angels, jointly labouring in any one work, is set forth under the name of one evil or unclean 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 Angel is taken individually for one particular per∣son, as Doctor Reynolds seems to interpret it, together with Master Be∣za, yet nevertheless••, there will nothing follow out of this acception▪ that will any ways make for the upholding of a Diocesan Bishop, with sole power of Ordination and Jurisdiction, as a distinct Superior to Presbyters. And this appears,

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 days. And the seven Stars are said to be fixed in their seven Candlesticks or Churches, not one Star over divers Candlesticks. Neither can those Churches be thought to be Diocesan, when not onely Tindal and the old translation, calls them seven Congregations, but we read 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 superi∣ority of one Bishop over another. To them in general the Church is committed to be fed by them without any respect had to Timothy, who stood at his Elbow, and had been with him in Macedonia, and was now

waiting upon him to Jerusalem. This is also confirmed by Epiphanius who writing of the Heresies of the Miletians, saith, that in ancient times this was peculiar to Alexandria, that it had but one Bishop, whereas other Cities had two. And he 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 Angel of the Church of Ephesus, that he could not beare them that were evil, and that he had tryed them which say they were Apostles and are not, and had found them lyers. And it is spoken in dispraise of the Angel of Pergamus, that he suffered them which h••ld the Doctrine of Balaam, &c. But these things are common duties requirable at the hands of all Ministers, who have the charge of souls.

But suppose that there were some superiority and prehemenency in∣sinuated by this individual Angel, yet who knoweth not that there are diverse kinds of superiority? to wit, of Order, of Dignity, of Gifts and Parts, or in degree of Ministery, or in charge of power and juris∣diction. And how will it be proved that this Angel if he had a supe∣riority, had any more then a superiority of Order, or of Gifts and Parts? Where it is said, that this Angel was a superior degree or or∣der of Ministery above Presbyters? In which Epistle is it said that this Angel had sole power of Ordination and Jurisdiction? And therefore as our learned Protestants prove against the Papists, that where Christ directed his speech to Peter in particular and said, I will give unto thee the Keys of the kingdom of Heaven; &c. That this particularization of Pe∣ter 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 that therefore it was spoken to one person, and not to all; that so Christ might fore-signifie the uni∣ty of his Church, as Cyprian, Austin, Hierome, Optatus, and others say. So when Christ directs an Epistle to one Angel, it doth not im∣ply a superior power over his fellow-Angels, but at most only a pre∣sidency 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 ex∣clude the rest, but to denote the unity that ought to be between the Ministers of the same Church in their common care and diligence to their flock. And this is all that Doctor Reynolds saith, as you may read in his conference with Hart, cap. 4. divis. 3. ad finem. For it is evident that Doctor Reynolds was an utter enemy to the Ius Divinum of the E∣piscopal preheminency over Presbyters, by his Letter to Sir Francis

Knolls. And learned Master Beza also saith something to the same purpose in his Annotations upon Revel. 2.1. Angelo. i. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 quem ni∣mirum oporuit imprimis de his rebus admoneri, ac per eum caeteros collegas totamque adeo Ecclesiam. Sed hinc statui Episcopalis ille gradus postea hu∣manitus in Ecclesiam Dei invectus certe nec potest nec debet, imo ne perpe∣tuum quidem istud 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 munus esse necessario oportuisse, sicut exorta inde Tyrannis Oligarchica (cujus apex est Antichristiana bestia) certissima cum totius non Ecclesiae modo, sed etiam orbis pernicie, nunc tandem de∣clarat.

If therefore our Remonstrant can produce no better evidence for his Hierarchy then Timothy and Titus, and the Angels of the Asian Chur∣ches, Let not this Remonstrant and his party, cry out of wrong, if this claimed Hierarchy be for ever booted out of the church, seeing it is his owne Option. And yet we cannot conceale 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 an∣swer.

That these two Postscrips (and so all the rest) are no part of Ca∣nonical 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. Although our Episcopal men of late in newer impressions have inlarged their Phylacteries, in putting those Postscripts in the same full cha∣racter with that of the Text, that the simple might beleeve they are Canonical 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, whoch is the chiefest City of Phrygia Pacatiana. Here wee demand, whether Paul when hee 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 bee subscribed, the first to Timothy, which hath re∣lation to a second? Besides, the Epistle is said to bee writ from Laodicea, 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 Phry∣gia Pacatiana. But this Epithet is nowhere read in the Writers of those ages, saith Beza, Sed apud recentiores illo••, qui Romani imperii jam inclinantis provincias descripserunt. So that by this place it is e∣vident, 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, ordained the first Bishop of the Church of the Ephesians, 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 vulgatâ editione, & apud Syrum interpre••••m. If Saint Paul had written this Postscript, he would not have said, To Timothy the first Bishop, &c. whereas it was not yet certain whether ever there should bee 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 at Nicopolis, for I have determined there to win∣ter. Hee doth not say, Here to winter, but There; Where note, for the present he 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 Diocess, 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 E∣piscopacy of Titus. By all this it appears, that if the Bishops had no more authority to urge us to subscribe to their Ceremonies, then they have authority for their Episcopal 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 be proved that the twelve Apostles had any su∣periority over the seventy, either of Ordination, or Jurisdiction, or that there was any subordination of the seventy unto the twelve: but suppose it was, yet we answer

Secondly, that a superiority and inferiority betweene Officers of different kindes, will not prove that there should be a superio∣rity and inferiority between Officers of the same kinde. No man will deny but that in Christs time, there were Apostles, Evange∣lists, Prophets, Pastors, and Teachers, and that the Apostles were superior to Evangelists and Pastors But it cannot be proved, that one Apostle had any superiority over another Apostle, or one E∣vangelist over an other. And why then should one Presbyter be o∣ver another? Hence it followeth, that though we should grant a superiority between the twelve and the seventy, yet this will not prove the question in hand. Because the question is concerning Officers of the same kind, and the instance is of Officers of different kinds, amongst whom no man will deny but there may be a supe∣riority and inferiority, as there is amongst us between Presbyters and Deacons.

And now let your Honours judge (considering the premisses) how far this Episcopal government is from any Divine right, or Apostolical Institution: And how true that speech of Hierome is, that a Bishop as it is a superiour Order to a Presbyter, is an Hu∣mane presumption, not a Divine Ordinance.

But though Scripture fails them, yet the indulgence and Muni∣ficence of Religious Princes may support them, and to this the Re∣monstrant 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 plainly acknowledgeth a difference between our Bishops and the Bishops of old by such accessions.)

For our parts, we are so farre from envying the gracious Muni∣ficence of pious Princes, in collating honourable maintenance upon the Ministers of Christ, that we beleeve, that even by Gods own Ordi∣nance, double Honour is due unto them.

And that by how much the Ministery of the Gospell is more ho∣nourable then that of the Law, by so much the more ought all that embrace the Gospell, to be carefull to provide, that the Ministers of the Gospell might not onely live, but maintain Hospitalitie, ac∣cording to the Rule of the Gospell. And that worthy Gentleman spake as an Oracle, that said, That scandalous Maintenance is a great caues of a scandelous Ministery.

Yet we are not ignorant, that when the Ministery came to have Agros, d••mos, lecationes, vehicula ••ques, la••if••ndia, as Chry∣sost.

Hom. 86 in Matth. That then Religio peperit divitias, & filia devoravit Matrem, Religion brought forth riches, and the Daugh∣ter devoured the Mother; and then there was a voice of Angels heard from Heaven; Hodie venenum in Ecclesiam Christi cecidit. This day is poison shed into the Church of Christ.

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

And though we do not think, there is any such incompossibili∣ty, but that large Revenues may be happily managed with an humble sociablnesse, yet is very rare to finde History tells us, that the su∣perfluous 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 o∣ver 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, vvho notwith∣standing the meannesse and obscurity of his birth, aftervvards grew to that height of insolency and pride in all his carriage, especially in that numerous traine that attended him in the streets, and in his stately throne raised after the manner of Kings and Princes, that Fides nostra invidiae, & odio, propter fastam & superbiam cordis illius, facta fuerit obnoxia; The Christian Faith vvas exposed to envy and hatred through his pride.

And as their ambition (fed vvith the largenesse of their reve∣nues) discovered it self in great attendance, stately dvvellings, and all Lordly pomp, so Hierom complaines of their pride in their stately seates, qui velut in aliqua sublimi specula constituti, vix dig∣nantur videre mortales & alloqui conservos su••s: who fitting aloft as it were in a vvatch-tovver, vvill scarce deigne to looke upon poore mortalls, or speake to their fellovv-servants.

Here vve might be large in multipying several testimonies a∣gainst 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 antè p••dibus aut as••lloire consueverat, spumante equ•• superbus inv••hitur; parvâ priùs ac vili cellula contentus habitare, erigit celsa Laquearia, construit multa conclavia, sculpit p••stes, pingit a••maria,

vestem respuit g••ossiorem, indumentum molle desiderat, &c. Which because the practice of our times hath already turned into English, we 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 Remonstrant saith; If we do not shew out of the true & genuine writings of those holy men, that lived in the Apostles dayes a clear & received distinction of Bishops, Presbyters, and Deacons, as three distinct subordinate callings, with an evident specification of the duty be∣longing to each of them: Let this claimed Hierarchy be for ever routed out of the Church: We beseech you, let it be remembred how we have proved out of the genuine and undeniable writings of the Apostles themselves, that these are not three distinct callings: Bishops are Presbyters, being with them all one, Name and Office, and that the distinction of Bishops and Presbyters was not of Divine Instituti∣on, but Humane: and that these Bishops, in their first Institution did not differ so much from Presbyters, as our present Bishops differ from them.

Secondly, Whereas this Remonstant saith, If our Bishops challenge any other power then was by Apostolike authority delegated to, and re∣quired of Timothy and Titus, and the Ang••ls of the Asian Churches: L••t them be disclaimed as usurpers. Wee desire it may be remem∣bred, how we have proved first; that Timothy and Titus and the Angels who are Diocesan Bishops; and secondly, that our Bi∣shops challenge (if not in their Polemickes, yet in their Prac∣ticks) a power that Timothy and Titus, and those Angels never did.

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

SECT. XIV.

HAving thus considered the validity of those arguments, whereby this Remonstrant would suffult Episc••pacy, we de∣scend now to inquire, what satisfaction he gives to those objecti∣ons, which himself frames as the main, if not the ••ole arguments, that Episcopacy is assaultable by, and they are two▪

First, that pleading the Divine right of Episcopacy is to the preju∣di••e of Sovereignty. Secondly, that it casts a dangerous imputation upon all those Reformed Churches that want this Government.

To the first, the prejudice of Sovereignty; he answers there is a compatibleness in this case of Gods Act, and the Kings: it is God that makes the Bishop, the King that gives the Bishoprick.

But we have proved already, that God never made a Bishop, as he stands in his Superiority over al other Presbyters, he never had Gods Fiat: and if they disclaim the influence of sovereignty 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 Laws of the Land proclaim, that not only Bishopricks, but Bi∣sh••ps and all the Iurisdiction they have, is from the King: whereas the Remonstrant acknowledgeth no more, but the bare place and excercise to be from Regall donation, which cannot be affirm∣ed without apparent prejudice of that Sovereigntie 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 ministerial power to his Clerke, as the King 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 in∣dulgence of their Sovereigne, to their deserved recompence.

His learned answer to such men as borrowing Saint Ieroms phrase, speake Saint Pauls truth, is in summe this:

That he knowes not how to prescribe to mens thoughts, but for all his Rhetoricke, they will think what they list; but if they will grant him the question, they shall soon be at an end of the quarrell: which one answer if satisfactory, would silence all controversies to as good purpose as he did Bellarmine, who said, Bellarmine saith it is thus, and I say it is not, and where is Bellarmine now?

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

But do they out pluck all this envie upon themselves, who in their Conferences, Writings Pulpits, Vniversities, Disputes, High Com∣missi••n, Declamations, have disclaimed them as no Churches, that 〈◊〉〈◊〉

disclaimed the Prelates and have honoured the most glorious Lights of those Reformed Churches, Calvin, Beza, and others with no bet∣ter titles then of Rascals, Blasphemers? &c.

But the pith of his answer after a few good words is this, that no such consequent can be drawn from their opinion; for their Ius di∣vinum 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 on∣ly a Iustifiablenesse of this calling? nor is the want of it a want of a∣ny thing of Essence, but onely of perfection? we had thought, that page the 20th, where this Remonstrant strives to fetch the pedegree of Episcopacie from no lesse than Apostolicall, and in that right Di∣vine 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 re∣tract 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 again: but when some of our brethren, who flying in Queene Maries dayes, had received Imposition of hands in the Reformed Churches beyond the Seas, re∣turned again in the dayes of Queene Elizabeth, they were urged to receive Imposition of hands againe from our Bishops, and some did receiv•• it. If those Churches that want Bishops, want nothing essentiall to a Church; then what Essentiall want was there in the Ordination of those Ministers that received Imposition of hands in those Churches, that might deserve a Re-ordination, more than if they had first received their Ordination at Rome?

And what is the reason that Bishop Mountague so confidently affirmes, that Ordination by Episcopall hands is so necessary, as that the Church is no true Church without it, and the Ministery no true Ministery, and ordinarily no salvation to be obtain••d with∣out it? And if this Remonstrant should leave Bishop Mountague to answer for himself, yet notwithstanding he stands bound to give us satisfaction to these two questions, which arise from his own Book.

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 Episcopacie hath) belong not to the being, but onely to the glory and perfection of a Church? Secondly, there being (in this mans thoughts) the same Ius divinum for Bishops, that there is for Pastors and Elders, whether if those Reformed Churches want∣ed 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 little differing from their own Moderatorship, save onely in the perpetuitie of it, and the new Inven∣tion (as he odiously calls it) of lay-Elders. But no question those learned Worthies that were intrusted by the Churches to compile their Confessions, did comprise their Iudgements better than the Composer of this Remonstrance. And to his presumtion, we oppose their Con∣fession. We will begin with the French Church, who in their Confession speake thus:

Credimus veram Ecclesiam gubernari debere eâ politiâ, quam Dominus noster Iesus Christus sancivit, ità videli∣cet, ut fint in ea Pastores, Pres∣byteri, sive Seniores, & Dia∣coni, ut doctrinae puritas reti∣neatur, &c. Art. 29. Credi∣mus omnes Pastores ubicunque collocati sunt, eâdem & aequali potestate inter se esse praeditos sub uno illo capite summóque & solo universali Episcopo Iesu Christo. Art. 30. Gallicae Confessionis Credimus veram hanc Ecclesiam aebere regi, ac gubernari, spirituali illâ po∣litiâ, quàm nos Deus ipse in

verbo suo edocuit; ità ut sint in ea Pastores ac Ministri, qui purè & concionentur, & Sa∣cramenta administrent; sint quoque Seniores & Diaconi, qui Ecclesiae Senatum consti∣tuant, ut his veluti mediis ve∣ra Religio conservari, Homi∣nésque vitiis dediti spirituali∣ter corripi & emendari pos∣sint. Tunc enim ritè & ordi∣natè omniae fiunt in Ecclesiâ, cùm viri fideles, & pii ad e∣jus gubernationem deliguntur juxta Divi Pauli praescrip∣tum, 1 Tim. 3. Confes. Belgic. Art. 30. Caeterùm ubicuuque locorum sunt verbi Dei Ministri, candem atque aequalem Omnes habent tum Potestatem tum Authoritatem, ut qui sunt aequè Omnes Christi unici illius universalis Episcopi & capit is Ecclesiae Ministri.

We believe that the true Church ought to be govern∣ed by that policy which Christ Jesus our Lord esta∣blished, viz. that there be Pastors, Presbyters, or El∣ders, and Deacons. And a∣gain, We believe that all true Pastors whereever they be, are endued with equal and the same power, under one chief Head and Bishop Christ Jesus. Consonant to this the Dutch Churches: We believe (say they) the true Church ought to be ru∣led with that spiritual policy which God hath taught us

in his Word, to wit, that there be in it Pastors to preach the Word purely, Elders and Deacons to con∣stitute the Ecclesiastical Se∣nate, that by these means Religion may be preserved, and manners corrected. And so again, We believe where∣ever the Ministers of God are placed, they All have the same equal Power and Au∣thority, as being All equally the Ministers of Christ.

In which Harmony of these Confessions, see how both Chur∣ches agree in these five points:

First, That there is in the Word of God, an exact form of [ 1] Government set down; Deus in verbo suo edocuit.

Secondly, That this form of Government Christ established [ 2] in his Church; Iesus Christus in Ecclesiâ sancivit.

Thirdly, That this form of Government is by Pastors, Elders, [ 3] and Deacons.

Fourthly, That the true Church of Christ ought to be thus go∣verned; [ 4] Veram Ecclesiam debere regi.

Fifthly, That all true Ministers of the Gospel are of equal [ 5] power and authority.

For the reason he assigns, why those Churches should make this Option, we cannot enough admire that such a passage should fall from his pen, as to say, There is little difference between their 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and our Episcopacy, save onely in perpetuity and lay-Elders; for who knows not that between these two there is a 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 Bre∣thren; nor 2, hath an Ordination differing from them; nor 3, as∣sumes power of sole Ordination or Jurisdiction; nor hath he 4, maintenance for that Office above his Brethren; nor 5, a Nega∣tive voice in what is agreed by the rest; nor 6, any further power then any of his Brethren. So that the difference between our Bi∣shops and their Moderators is more then Little: But if it be so little as this Remonstrant here pretends; then the Alteration and Abrogation of Episcopacy will be with the lesse difficulty, and occa∣sion the less disturbance.

SECT. XV.

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

In which assertion, this Remonstrant concludes so fully, with Bi∣shop Halls Irrefragable Propositions, and his other Book of Episco∣pacie by Divine right, as if he had conspired to swear 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 Remon∣strant, that this his assertion hath no more truth in it, then the rest that we have already noted. We will (to avoid prolixity) not urge those three known Texts of Scripture, produced by some for the establishing of Governing Elders in the Church, not yet vindica∣ted by the Adversaries,

Nor will we urge that famous Text of Ambrose in 1 Tim. 5.

But if there were no Lay-Elders in the Church till this present age, we would be glad to learn, who they were of whom Origen speaks, when he tells us, it was the Custome of Christian Teach∣ers, 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. Nonnulli praepositi sunt qui in vitam & mores eorum qui admittuntur inquirant, ut qui turpia committant eos communi Caetu interdicant qui verò ab istis abhorrent, ex anima complexi, meliores quotidie reddant:

There are some ordained to inquire into the life and manners of such as are admitted into the Church, that they may banish such from the publique Assembly, that perpetrate scandalous Acts; which place tells us plainly:

First, that there were some in the higher forme of hearers (not Teachers) who were Censores morum over the rest. Secondly, that they were designed or constituted to this work, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Third∣ly, that they had such Authority intrusted 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-Eelders?

That there were such in the Church (distinguished from others that were called to teach) appeares. Augustine writing to his Charge, directs his Epistle, Dilectissimis fratribus, Clero, Senioribus, & universae Plebi Ecclesiae Hipponensis: where first there is the ge∣neral compellation, Fratribus, Brethren; Then there is a distributi∣on of these Brethren into the Clergie, the Elders, and the whole Peo∣ple; so that there were in that Church Elders distinguished both from the Clergie, and the rest of the People.

So again, Contra Cresconium Grammaticum: Omnes vos Episcopi, Presbyteri, Diaconi, and Seniores scitis; All you Bishops, Elders, Dea∣cons, and Elders do know. What were those two sorts of Elders there mentioned in one comma, and ibidem cap. 56. Peregrinus Presbyter & Seniores Ecclesiae Musticanae Regionis tale desiderium prosequuntur; where again we read of Elder and Elders, Presbyter, and Seniors in one Church.

Both those passages are upon record in the publick acts, which are more fully set down by Baronius, Anno 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 Caecilianus and Felix, there is a copie of a Letter; Fra∣tribus & filiis: Clero & Senioribus, Fratribus in Domino aeternam salutem: Another Letter is mentioned a little before, Clericis & Se∣nioribus Cirthensium in Domino aeternam Salutem. These Seniors were interessed in affaires concerning the Church as being the men, by whose advice they were managed.

The Letter of Purpurius to Silvanus saith, Adhibete conclericos, & seniores plebis, Ecclesiasticos Viros, & inquirant quae sint iste Dissensi∣ones: ut ea quae sunt secundum fid••i Praecepta fiant, Where we see the joynt power of these Seniors, with the Clergie in ordering Eccle∣siasticall

affairs; that by their wisdom and care peace might be set∣led in the Church; for which cause, these Seniors are called Eccle∣siastical men; and yet they are distinguished from Clergie men.

They are mentioned again afterwards by Maximus, saying, Loquor nomine SENIORUM Populi Christiani. Greg. Mag. di∣stinguisheth them also from the Clergie: Tabellarium cum consen∣su SENIORUM & Cleri memineris Ordinandum.

These Seniors had power to reprove offenders, otherwise why should Augustine say, Cùm ob errorem aliquem à Senioribus argu∣untur, & imputatur alicui cur aebrius fuerit, cur res alienas pervase∣rit, &c. when they were by the Elders reproved for their er∣rours, and drunkenness is laid to a mans charge, &c. So that it was proper to the Seniors to have the cognizance of Delinqents, and to reprove them.

The same Augustine in Psal. 36. Necesse nos fuerat Primiani cau∣sam, quem, &c. Seniorum literis ejusdem Ecclesiae po••tulantibus audi∣re. Being requested by Letters from the Seniors of that Church, it was needful for me to hear the cause of Primian, &c.

So again, 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 Albaspineus, that learned Antiquary, on that place acknowledges, that Besides the Clergie there were certain of the Elders of the people, men of approved life, that did tend the affairs 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 Se∣niors were not Clergie men. Thirdly, that they had a stroke in governing the Church, and managing the affairs thereof Fourthly, that Seniors were distinguished from the rest of the people.

Neither would we desire to chuse any other Iudges in this whole controversie; then whom himself constituted; Forreign Divines, taking the general Suffrage and practice of the Churches, and not of particular men.

As for the learned Spanhemius whom he produceth, though we give him the deserved honour of a worthy man: yet we think it too much to speak of him, as if the judgment of the whole Church ••f Geneva were incorporated into him, as this Remonstrant doth. And for Spanhemius himselfe, we may truly say, in the place cited,

he dilivered a complement, rather then his judgement, which in De∣dicatorie Epistles is not unusuall. We know that reverend Calvins and learned Beza have said as much upon occasion in their Epi∣stles, and yet the Christian world knowes their Judgement was to the contrary

Little reason therefore hath this Remonstrant, to declaime a∣gainst all such as speake against this Government as unlawfull, with the termes of Ignorance and spitefull Sectaries, because they call the Government 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 A∣gents, their L••gat•• à Latere speake publikely in their visitations: That howeve•• th•• Chu••ch of ••ngland be as sound, and Orthodox in her Doctrine as any Church in the World yet in our Discipline and Govern∣ment we are the same with the Church of Rome, which amounts to as much as to say the Government is Antichristian, unless they will say, the Government of Rome is not so, nor the Pope Anti∣christ.

SECT. XVI.

NOw our Remonstrant begins to leave his dispute for the Office, and flowes into the large praises 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 tells us, that the Religious Bishops of all times are and have been they that have strongly upheld the truth of God a∣gainst 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, that have as strongly uph••ld 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 onely they? did never any uphold the truth, but a Religious Bishop? did never any Religious Minister or Professour preach, or write, or die, to uphold the truth, but a Religious Bishop? if so, then there is some perswasive strength in that he saith; and a credulous man might be induced to think, If Bishops go down, truth will go down to••: But if we can produce for one Bishop many others that have been valiant for the truth, this Rhethoricall insinuation will contribute no great help to their establishment. Nor indeed any at all;

unlesse he were able to make this good of our times, as well as of all others, which he assaies; for saith he, Even amongst our own how ma∣ny of the reverend & learned Fathers of the Church now living, have spent their spirits, & worne out their lives in the powerfull opposition of that man of sin? how many? I Sir, we would fain know how many: that there are some that have stood up to beare witnesse a∣gainst 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 think 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? and are there none bu Zealous, Religious Prelates in the Kingdom? are there none upon whom the guilt of that may meritoriously be charged, which others have convincingly and meritoriously opposed? And are there not some Bishops in the Kingdome, that are so far from op∣posing the Man of sin, that even this Remonstrant is in danger of suffering under the name of Puritan for daring to call him by that name? we doubt not but this Remonstrant knowes there are.

But if he will against the light of his own Conscience, beare up a known errour out of private respects, (we will not say these papers) but his own Conscience, shall one day be an evidence against him before the dreadfull Tribunall of the Almighty.

But there is yet a second thing that should endeare Episcopacie, and that is the careful, peaceable, painfull, conscionable mannaging of their Charges; to the great glory of God, and the comfort of his faithfull people. Which (in not seeming to urge) he 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 we Honour: but the most are so far 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 do, whiles them∣selves attend the Court) doth abundantly witnesse their care in it.

The many and loud cries of the intolerable oppressions and tyran∣nies of their Court-proceedings; witnesse their peaceablenesse, their unjust fees, exactions, commutations; witnesse their conscionablenesse in managing 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 hear ill; (how deser∣vedly, saith this Remonstrant, God knows;) and do not your Ho∣nours 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 hear ill, were it but onely for the late Canons and Oath? 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 be a fault in the impetuous and undistinguishing Vulgar, so to involve all, as to make Innocency it self a sin; what is it in a Man able to distin∣guish, by the same implication, to shrowd sinne under Innocencie, the sin of many under the Innocency of a few?

But have our Bishops indeed beene so carefull, painfull, conscion∣able, 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 he confesse them to be the shame and misery of our Church, yet is he 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 differ••nt Cause alledged) if not to suffer those Crimes, which himselfe calls hatefull, to passe unpunished, yet not to bring them to tha•• 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, le••t by that meanes the Christian Faith should be derided among the Heathens) did suppresse their mutuall accusations, many of whi••h might be but upon surmises; and that ••ot in a Court of Iustice, b••t in an Ecclesiasticall Synode; shall this be urged before the highest Court of Iustice upon earth, to the patronizing of N••toriou•• scandall••, and hatefull en••rmities, that are already proved by evidence of cle••••e witnesse?

But ••o forbid it to tell it in Ga••h, &c. What the sin▪ ••as, that is

done already; Do we not know, the drukennesse, profanenesse superstition, Popishnesse of the English Clergie rings at Rome al∣ready? yes undoubtedly; and there is no way to vindicate the Ho∣nour of our Nation, Ministery, Parliaments, Sovereigne, Religion, God; but by causing the punishment to ring as farre as the sin hath done; that our adversaries that have triumphed in their sin, may be confounded at their punishments. Do 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 that the personall acts of these sonnes of Belial, being con∣nived at, become Nationall sins?

But for this one fact of Constantine, we humbly crave your Ho∣nours leave to present to your wisdome three Texts of Scripture, Ezek 44.12.13. Because they ministred unto them before their ••dol••, 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 me, to do 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 Ier••m. 48.10. Cursed be he 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 Hunours can easily judge.

SECT. XVII.

BUt stay, saith this Remonstrant; 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 poor people, with the glorious name of the Church, the Church; The holy Mother the Church. This is the Gor∣gons head, as DoctorWhite saith, that hath inchanted them, & held them in bondage to the••r 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 certain Ae∣thiopians, that by reason they use no marriage, but promiscuously company together, the children only follow the Mother; the Fa∣ther and his name is in no request, but the mother hath all the re∣putation.

So is it with the Author of this Remonstrance, he stiles himself, a Dutifull son of the Church. And it hath beene a Cu∣stome of late times to cry up the holy Mother the Church of Eng∣land, 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.

But if we should now demand of them, what they meane by the Church of England? this Author seemes to be thunder-stricken at this Question; and calls 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 inge∣nuous 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 Simplicity (as he truly saith) never heard, nor thought of any more Churches of Eng∣land then one; and what then shall become of his Diocesan Churches, and Diocesan Bishops? And what shall we 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 ••ngland, Scotland, and Ireland, all one Church? when they are happily united under one gracious Monarch, into one Kingdom? We read in Scripture, of the Churches of Iudea, and the Churches of Galatia: and why not the Churches of England? not that we denie the Cons••ciati••n or Com∣bination 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 th••s ••mb••r ••o his simplicity affirmes, of which the very rehearsall is a 〈◊〉〈◊〉

SECT. XVIII.

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

First, he scoffs at the Antiprelatical Church, and the Antiprela∣tical Divisions; for our parts, we acknowledge no Antiprelatical Church. But there are a company of men in the Kingdom, of no mean rank or quality, for Piety, Nobility, Learning, that stand up to bear witness against the Hierarchie (as it now stands:) their u∣surpations over Gods Church and Ministers, their cruel using of Gods people by their tyrannical government: this we acknow∣ledge; and if he call these the Antiprelatical Church, we doubt not but your Honours will consider, that there are many thou∣sands in this Kingdom, and those pious and worthy persons, that thus do, and upon most just cause.

It was a speech of Erasmus of Luther, Vt quisque vir est optimus, it is illius Scriptis minimè offendi; The better any man was, the less offence he took at Luthers Writings: but we may say the contra∣ry of the Prelates, Ut quisque vir est optimus, it à illorum factis magis offendi; The better any man is, the more he is offended at their dea∣lings. And all that can be objected against this party, will be like that in Tertullian. Bonus vir Cajus Sejus, sed malus tantùm, quia An∣tiprelaticus. But he upbraids us with our Divisions & Subdivisions, so do the Papists upbraid the Protestants with their Lutheranisme, Calvinisme, and Zuinglianisme. And this is that the Heathens ob∣jected to the Christians, their Fractures were so many, they knew not which Religion to chuse if they should turn Christians: And can it be expected that the Church in any age should be free from 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; do these any wayes derogate from the truth and worth of Christian Religion?

But as for the Divisions of the Antiprelatical party, so odiously exaggerated by this Remonstrant: Let us assure your Honours, they have been much fomented by the Prelates, whose practice hath been according to that rule of Machiavil: Divide & Im∣pera, and they have made these divisions, & afterwards complain'd of that which their Tyranny and Policy hath made. It is no won∣der, considering the paths our Prelates have trod, that there are Divisions in the Nation. The wonder is our divisions are no more,

no greater; and we 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 tempest as; rather then they would hin∣der that sweet Concordance, and conspiration of minde unto a Go∣vernment that shall be every way agreeable to the rule of Gods Word, and profitable for the edification and flourishing of the Church,

A second thing we cannot but take notice of, is the pains this Author takes to advance his Prelaticall Church: and forgetting what he had said in the beginning: that this party was so numerous, it could not be summed; tells us now, these severall thousands are punctually calculated. But we doubt not but your Honours will consider that there may be multi homines, & pauci viri; and that there are more a∣gainst 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 multi∣plied Queries What are the bounds of this Church? what the distinction of the prefessours and Religion? what grounds of faith? what new Creed do they hold differenc from their Neighbours? what Scriptures? what Baptisme? what meanes of Salvation other then the rest? yet if he pleased he might have silenced his owne Queries: but if he will needs put us to the answer, we 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 finde the limits of this Prelatical Church extend as farre as from the high & lofty Promontory of Archbishops, to the ••erra incognita of an, &c.

If what Distinction of professors and Religion; we answer, their wor∣shipping towards the East, and bowing towards the Altar prostra∣ting themselves in their approches into Churches, placing all Reli∣gion in outward formalities, are visible differences of these profes∣sours 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 foreseen, the influence of works in∣to Iustification, ••alling from grace, &c.

If what Scripture? we answer, the Apocrypha and unwritten Tra∣ditions.

If what Baptism? a Baptism of absolute Necessity unto salvation; and yet unsufficient unto salvation: as not sealing grace to the ta∣king away of sinne after Baptisme.

If what ••u••harist? an Eucharist that must be administred upon an Altar or a Table set Altar-wise, railed in an Eucharist, in which there is such a presence of ••hrist, (though Modum nesciunt) as makes the place of its Administration the throne of God, the place of the Resi∣dence ••f the Almighty; and impresseth such a holinesse upon it as makes it not only capable, but worthy of Adoration.

If what Christ? a Christ who hath given the same power of abso∣lution 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 Indians said of the heaven of the Spaniards: Unto that heaven which some of the Prelaticall Church li∣ving and dying in their scandalous sinnes, and hatefull enormities go 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.

Farre be it from us to say with this Remonstrant, We do fully a∣gree 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 do we because of this dissension feare the censure of un∣charitableness from any but uncharitable men. But it is no unusuall thing with the Prelates and their party, to charge such as protest a∣gainst their corrupt opinions and wayes, with uncharitablenesse and Schisme, as the Papists do the Protestants: and as the protestants do justly recriminate, and charge that Schisme upon the Papists, which they object to us; So may we upon the Prelates: And if Au∣stin may be judge, the Prelates are more Schismaticks then we. Qui∣cunque (saith he) invident bonis, ut quaerant occasiones excludendi eos, aut degradandi, vel crimina sua sic defendere parati sunt (si objecta vel prodita fuerint) ut etiam conventiculorum congregationes vel Ecclesiae perturbationes cogitent excitare, jam schismatici sunt. Whosoever en∣vie those that are good, and seeke occasions to exclude and de∣grade 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.

And that all the world may take notice what just cause we have

to complain of Episcopacie, as it now stands, we humbly crave leave to propound these Queries.

Queries about Episcopacie,

WHether it be tolerable in a Christian Church, that Lord Bi∣shops [ 1] should be held to be Iure Divino; And yet the Lords day by the some 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, Ruffinus in Psal. 47. Orig••n. Hom. 23. in Num. Gregory Nazian.

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

Whether seeing it hath been proved, that Bishops (as they are [ 3] novv asserted) are a meere humane Ordinance, it may not by the same Authority be abrogated, by vvhich it vvas first established; especially, considering the long experience of the hurt they have done to Church and State?

Whether the advancing of Episcopacie into Ius Divinum, doth [ 4] not make it a thing simply unlavvfull to submit to that Govern∣ment? Because that many consciencious men that have hitherto con∣formed to Ceremonies and Episcopacy, have done it upon this ground, as supposing that Authority did not make them matters of vvorship, but of Order and Decencie, &c. And thus they satisfied their consciences in ansvvering those Texts, Colos. 2.20, 21, 22. Matth. 15.9. But novv since Episcopacy comes to be challenged as a Di∣vine Ordinance, hovv shall vve be responsible to those Texts? And is it not, as it is novv asserted, become an Idoll, and like the Bra∣zen Serpent to be ground to povvder?

Whether there be any difference in the point of Episcopacy be∣tweene Ius Divinum and Ius Apostolicum? Because we finde some [ 5] claiming their standing by Ius Divinum; others by Ius Apostolicum. But we conceive that Ius Apostolicum properly taken, is all one with Ius Divinum. For Ius Apostolicum is such a Ius, which is founded upon the Acts and Epistles of the Apostles, written by them so as to be a perpetuall Rule for the succeeding Administration of the Church, as this Author saith, Pag. 20. And this Ius is Ius Divinum, as well as Apostolicum. But if by Ius Apostolicum they mean impro∣perly

(as some do) such things which are not recorded in the Wri∣tings of the Apostles, but introduced, the Apostles being living, 〈…〉〈…〉 be rightly said to be Iure Apostolico, nor such things which the Apostles did intend the Churches should be bound unto. Neither is Episcopacie as it imports a superioritie of power over a Pre••byter, no not in this sense Iure Apostolico, as hath beene already proved, and might further be manifested by divers Testimonies, if need did require. We will only instance in Cassander a man famous for his immoderate moderation in controverted Points of Religion, who in his Consultat. Articul. 14. hath this saying, An Epis••opatus inter ordines Ecclesiastic••s ponendus sit, inter Theologos & Canonistas non convenit? Convenit autem inter omnes, Apostolorum aetate inter Pres∣byterum & Episcopum nullum discrimen fuisse, &c.

[ 6] Wether the distinction of Beza, between Episcopus Divinus Hum••nu••, & Diabolicus, be not worthy your Honours considerati∣on? 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 hu∣mane Bishop he meanes the Bishop chosen by the Presbyters to be President over them, and to rule with them by fixed Lawes and Ca∣nons. By the Diabolical Bishop, he means a Bishop with sole pow∣er of Ordination and Jurisdiction, Lording it over Gods heritage, and governing by his owne will and authority. Which puts us in minde of the Painter that Limned two pictures to the same pro∣portion and figure; The one he reserved in secret, the other he ex∣posed to common view. And as the phansie of beholders led them to censure any line or proportion, as not done to the life, he mends it after direction: If any fault be found with the eye, hand, foot, &c. He corrects it, till at last the addition of every mans fancy had de∣faced the first figure, and made that which was the Picture of a man, swell into a monster: Then bringing forth this and his other Picture which hee had reserved, he presented both to the people. And they abhorring the former, and applauding the latter, he cried, Hunc populus fecit: This deformed one the People made: This lovely one I made. As the Painter of his Painting, so (in Beza's sense) it may be said of Bishops, God at first instituted Bishops, such as are all one with Presbyters; and such are amiable, honourable in all the Churches of God. But when men would be adding to Gods institution, what power, preheminence, Jurisdiction, Lord∣liness their phansie suggested unto them, this divine Bishop lost his Original beauty, and became to be Humanus. And in conclusion (by these and other aditions swelling into a Pope) Diabolicus.

[ 7] Whether the Ancient Fathers, when they call Peter Marke,

Iames, Timothy, and Titus Bishops, did not speak according to the Language of the times wherein they lived, rather then according to the true acception of the word Bishop? and whether it be not true which is here said i•• this Book, that they are called Bishops of A∣lexand••iae, Ephes••s, Hierus••lem, &c in a very improper sense, because they abode at those p••ac••s a longer time then at other places? For su••e it is, if 〈…〉〈…〉and and I••mes Apostles (which are Bishops; over the whol•• 〈◊〉〈◊〉) and the Apostles made Mark••, ••imothy and Titus 〈…〉〈…〉, &c. it seemes to us that it would have been a great sin in them to limit themselves to one particular Diocesse, and to ••eave that calling in which Christ had placed them.

Whether Presbyters in Scripture are called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 & 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, [ 8] and that it is an office, required at their hands, to rule and to govern, as hath bin proved in this Book; The Bishops can without sin arro∣gate the exercise of this power to themselves alone, and why they may not with the same lawfulness, impropriate to themselves alone the Key of Doctrine (which yet notwithstanding al would condemn) as well as the Key of Discipline, seeing that the whole power of the Keys is given to Presbyters in Scripture as well as to Bishops; as ap∣pears, Mat. 16.19. where the power of the Keys is promised to Peter, in the name of the rest of the Apostles, and their successors; & given to all the Apostles, and their successors, Mat. 18.19. Iohn. 20.23. And that Presbyters succeed the Apostles, appears not onely, Mat. 28.20. but also, Acts. 20.28. where the Apostle ready to leave the Church of Ephesus commends the care of ruling and feeding it to the Elders of that Church▪ To this Irenaeus witnesseth, lib 4 cap. 43.44. This Bishop Iewell against Harding, Artic. 4. Sect. 5, 6. saith, that all Pastors have equall power of binding and loosing with ••eter.

Whether since that Bishops assume to themselves power tempo∣rall [ 9] (to be Barons, and to sit in Parliament, as Judges, and in Court of Star-Chamber, High Commission, and other Courts of Justice) and also power spirituall over Ministers and People, to ordain, si∣lence, suspend, deprive, excommunicate, &c. their spiritual power be not as dangerous (though both be dangerous) and as much to be opposed as their temporal? 1 Because the spiritual is over our con∣sciences, the temporal, but over our purses. 2 Because the spiritual have more influence into Gods Ordinances to defile them, then the temporal. 3 Because spiritual judgements and evils are greater than other. 4 Because the Pope was Antichrist, before he did assume a∣ny temporal power. 5 Because the Spiritual is more inward and lesse discerned: and therefore it concerns all those that have Spiritual eyes, and desire to worsh••y God in spirit and truth, to consider, and

endeavour to 〈…〉〈…〉 Spiritual usurpations as well as their Temporal.

[ 10] Whether A••rius be justly branded by Epiphanius and Austin for a Here••••cke (as some report) sor affirming Bishops, and Presbyters to be of an equal power?

Wee say, as some report, for the truth is, he is charged with he∣resie meerly and onely because he was an Arrian. As for his opini∣an of the parity of a Presbyter with a Bishop; this indeed is called by Austin, proprium dogma Aerii, the proper opinion of Aerius. And by Epiphanius it is called Dogma suriosum & stolidum, a mad and fool∣ish 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 Heretick for this opinion: yet notwithstanding, that this was but the private opinion of Epiphanius, and borrowed out of him by Austin and an opinion not to be allowed, appeares:

First, because the same Authors condemne Aerius, as much for reprehending and censuring the mentioning of the dead in the pub∣l••que prayers, and the performing of good works for the benefit of the dead. And also for the reprehending stata jejunia, and the keep∣ing of the week before Easter as a solemne Fast, which if worthy of condemnation, would bring in most of the reformed Churches in∣to the censure of Heresie.

Secondly, because not onely Saint Hierome, but Austin himself, Sedulius, Primasius, Chrysostome, Theodoret, O••cumenius, Theophilact▪ were of the same opinion with Aerius (as Michael Medina observes in the Council of Trent, and hath writen, 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 Councell did ever condemne this for Here∣sie; but on the contrary, Concilium Aquisgranens. sub Ludovico ••io Imp. 1. anno 816. hath approved it for true Divinity out of the Scri∣ture, That Bishops and Presbyters are equal, bringing the same texts that Aerius doth, and which Epiphanius indeed undertakes to an∣swer; but how slightly let any indifferent Reader judge.

[ 11] Whether the great Apostasie of the Church of Rome hath not been, in swerving 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;

lest, while they endeavour to keep out Antichrist from entring by the door of doctrine, they should suffer him secretly to creep in by the door of Discipline, especially considering, what is here said in this Booke, That by their own confession the Discipline of the Church of England is the same with the Church of Rome.

Whether Episcopacie be not made a place of Dignity, rather then [ 12] Duty, and desired onely for the great revenues of the place? And whether, if the largenesse of their revenues were taken away, Bi∣shops would not decline the great burthen and charge of soules necessarily annexed to their places, as much as the ancient Bishops did, who hid themselves, that they might not be made Bishops and cut off their cares, rather then they would be made Bishops: whereas now Bishops cut off the eares of those that speak against their Bishopricks?

How it comes to pass, that in England there is such increase of [ 13] Popery, Superstition, Arminianism, and prophaneness, more then in other Reformed Churches? Doth not the root of these Disor∣ders proceed from the Bishops and their adherents, being forced to hold correspondencie with Rome, to uphold their greatness, and their Courts and Canons, wherein they symbolize with Rome? And whe∣ther it be not to be feared, that they will rather consent to the bring∣ing 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 King∣domes [ 14] in Europe, that separates from Antichrist, maintain and defend a Discipline different from all other Reformed Church∣es, which stand in the like Separation? And whether the conti∣nuance in this Discipline will not at last bring us to communion with Rome, from which we are separated, and to separation from the other Reformed Churches, unto which we are united?

Whether it be fit that the name Bishop, which in Scripture is [ 15] common to the Presbyters with the Bishops (and not only in Scri∣pture, but also in Antiquity for some hundreds of yeers) should still be appropriated to Bishops, and ingrossed by them, and not rather to be made common to all Presbyters; and the rather because?

First, we finde by woful experience, that the great Equivocati∣that lieth in the name Bishop, hath been, and is at this day a great prop and pillar to uphold Lordly Prelacy; for this is the great Go∣liah, the master-piece, and indeed the onely argument with which they think to silence all opposers; to wit, the Antiquity of Episco∣pacie, that it hath continued in the Church of Christ for 1500 yeers, &c. which argument is cited by this Remonstrant ad nauseam

usque & usque. Now it is evident tha•• this ••r••ument is a Paralogism, depending upon the Equivocation of the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 ••••shop. For Bishops in the Apostles time were the s••me with Pre••byters in name and office, and so for a good wh••le after. An•• when afterwards they came to be disting••••shed, the ••i••hops of th•• ••rimitive times differ∣ed as much from o••••s now, as Rome anci••nt ••rom Rome at this day, as hath been su••fi••ie••••ly decl••••ed in this Book. And the best way to confute this ••rgumen•• i•• ••y h••nging in a Community of the name Bishop to a Presby••er a•• w••ll 〈…〉〈…〉 a ••••shop.

Secondly, becau•••• we ••in••e 〈…〉〈…〉 late Innovators which have so much disturbed 〈…〉〈…〉 p••r••ty of our Church, did first be∣gin w••••h the al••••ratio•• 〈…〉〈…〉; and by changing the word Table into the word Altar, and the word Minister into the word Priest, and the wo••d Sacr••ment into the word ••acrifice, have endeavoured to bring in the Popish Mass. And the Apost••e exhorts us, 2 Tim. 1.13. T•• hold fast the form of sound words: and 1 Tim. 6.20. To avoid the prophane novelties of words. Upon which text we will only men∣tion what the Rhemists have commented, which we conceive to be worthy consideration. (Nam instruunt nos non solùm docentes, s••d eti••m errantes.) The Church of God hath alwayes been as di∣ligent to resist novelties of words, as her adversaries are busie to invent them, for which cause she will not have us communicate with them▪ no•• follow their fashions and phrase newl•• invented, though in the nature of the words ••ometimes there be no harm. Le•• us keep our forefathers words, and we shall easily keep our old and true saith, that we had of the first Christians; let them say, Amend∣ment, A••sti••ence, the Lords Supper, the Communion-Table, Elders, Ministers, ••uper-inten••••nt, Congregation, So be it, Praise ye the Lord, Morning Prayer, Evening Prayer, and the rest as they will; Let us avoid those novelties of words, according to the Apostles prescript, and keep the old terms, ••enance, ••ast, Priests, Church, ••ishop, Mas••, Ma••••in, ••ven-Song, the B. Sacrament, Altar, Oblation, Host, Sacifice. Hal••elujah, Amen; Lent, Palm-••unday, Christmass, and the words will br••ng us to the faith of our first ••postles, and condemn th•••••• new Apostates, new faith and phrase.

Whether having proved that God never set such a Government in hi•• Church as our Episcopal Government is, we may law••ul•••• any l••••ger be subject unto it, be present at their Courts, obe•• th••ir Inju••ctio••s, and especia••ly be instruments in publishing, and ex••c••∣ting their Excommunications and Abs••ustions?

••nd ••hus we have given (as we hope) a sufficient answ••r, an•• brief as the matter world permit, to t••e Remon••••rant. With 〈◊〉〈◊〉

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 wisdom, to poure down upon the whole Honou∣rable Assembly, the spirit of wisdom, and understanding, the spirit of Coun∣sel & might, the spirit of knowledge and of the fear of the Lord: That you may be able to discern betwixt things that differ, seperate between the precious and the vile, purely purge away our dross, and take away all our tin, 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.

Notes

• 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• Pag. 23.
• Pag. ••
• Pag. 2.
• Pag. 3.
• Pag. 6.
• Pag. 2.
• Pag. 7.
• Untruths.
• Remon. pag. 8.
• Malmsbury lib. 4.
• Hist. Concil. Trid.
• Pag. 9.
• Liturgie.
• Pag. 10.
• a

  Ad hoc ma••o∣rum devoluta est Ecclesia Dei & sponsa Chri∣sti, ut haeretico∣rum exempla Sectentur, & ad celebranda Sacramenta coelestia, discipli∣nam, Lux mu∣tuetur de tene∣bris, & id fa∣ciant christiani quod Antichristi faciunt. Cypr. Ep. 74.
• Pag. 13.
• Just. Mar. Apost. 2.
• Tert. Ap. ad. Gen. c. 39.
• Just. Mar. Apost. 2. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• Concil. Laod. Can. 18.
• Conc. Carth. 3. Can. 23. Anno 397.
• Conc. Milev. 2. Can. 12. An. 416.
• Pag. 10.
• Pag. 11.
• Pag. 18.
• Pag. 11.
• Euseb. de vit. Con. li. 4. Cap. 18.
• Pag. 11.
• Pag. 12.
• Pag. 12.
• Pag. 13.
• D. Corbet. M. Nevel.
• Pag. 13.
• Pag. 13.
• Abbot against Church-for∣sakers.
• Ob••
• Ans.
• Pag. 17.
• Pag. 17.
• Pag. 17.
• Pag. 2.
• a

  One of these Sonnes of the Church of England whose messen∣ger this Re∣monstrant is, was he who swore by the Eternal God, he would be the death of those that did appeare to move against the grievances of Episcopacy; and if the rest of these Milli∣ons mentio∣ned pag, 2. whose thou∣sands are so punctually calculated p. 41. be of his spirit, they are an army of very peace∣able & right-affected men.
• Pag. 7.
• Evaristus. 100.
• Dionysius. 260.
• Some say 267. as P••l. Virg.
• Pag. 13, 14.
• Iohn Maior l. 2. Hist. de gest: Scot. Cap. 2.
• Heylins Geog. p. 55.
• Gener. Hist. of Spain l. 22
• Pag. 9.
• Pag. 18.
• Pag. 18.
• Frustra co••∣saetudinem no∣bis opponunt, quasi consuetu∣do major sit ve∣ritate, aut nonid sit in spirituali∣bus sequendum, quod in melius fuerit à Spiri∣tu Sancto Re∣velation: Cy••r▪ Ep. 73.
• b

  It is wel ob∣served by Ger∣hard, that a Bishop Phrasi Apostolicâ, that is, the Bishop that is the same with a Presbyter, is of fifteen hundred years standing; but a Bishop Phrasi Pontificiâ, that is, a distinct order superiour to a Pres∣byter, invested with sole power of Ordination and Iurisdiction, is but a Novell In∣vention.
• Pag. 19.
• Pag. 19.
• What the e∣stablishment of Episcopacy by the Lawes is, and upon what ground∣ed, the learn∣ed Sir Edward 〈◊〉〈◊〉 informes us, who re∣ports, That in an Act of Par∣liament hol∣den at C••••••ile in the 25. year of Edw. 1. it is declared that the holy Church of England was founded in the state of Prelacy within the Realm of England, by the King and his Pregenitors, &c. for them to inform the people in the Law of God, and to keep hospitality, and give almes, and do other works of charity. And the said Kings in times past were wo••t to have their advice and counsel for the safe-guard of the Realme, when they had need of such Prelates and Clerks so advanced. Cook de jure Regis Ecclesiastico. But whe∣ther Bishops have observed the Orders of their first foundation, &c.
• Pag. 19.20.
• Pag. 21.
• Pag. 8.
• Hierony. Ep. ad Evag. & ad Ocea.
• Iren. a••ver. ••aer. l. 4. c••p. 43.44.
• Hist. Lib. 5. Cap. 23.
• Bellarm. de Cleric. Lib. 1. cap. 15.
• a

  Presbyterie sicut Episcopis, Dispensatio Mysteriorum Dei commissa est: Praesunt enim Ecclesiae Christi: in Consecratione Dominici corporis & sanguinis▪ consor∣tes sunt cum Episcopis: & similiter in Doctrina Populorum & in officio praedicandi: ac solum propter au∣teritatem, summo Sacerdoti Clericorum Ordinatio reservata est: Concil. Aquisgran. primum, Can. 8.

  Euangelium tribuit his qui praesunt Ecclesiae Mandatum docendi Evangeli, remittendi peccata, admi∣nistrandi Sacramenta: praeterea jurisdictionem; videlicet Mandatum Excommunicandi eos quorum notae sunt crimina, & Resipiscentes rursum absolvendi: Ac Omnium Consessione, etiam adversariorum liquet, hanc potestatem Jure Divino communem esse Omnibus qui praesunt Ecclesiae, sive Pastores vocentur, sive Presbyteri, Sive Episcopi. Scriptum Philip. Melanch. in conventu Smalcald. Anno. 1540. a praecipuis illarum Ecclesiarum Doctoribus communi Consensu comprobatū de potestate & jurisdictione Episcoporum,
• 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• Ierom. Isa. 3.
• Igna. Epis. ad Magnes. Conc. Ancyr. Can. 18.
• Pag. 20.
• Tertul.
• At ubi omnia Loca Circum∣plexa est Eccle∣sia, Conventi∣cula constituta sunt: & caepe∣runt Rectores: & Caetera Offi∣cia in Ecclesiis sunt ordinata. Caepit ali••t or∣dine & Provi∣dentia guber∣nari Ecclesia. Ideo non per omnia conveniunt Scripta Apostoli ordinationi quae nune in Ecclesia est, quia haec inter ipsa primordia scripta sunt. Nam & Timotheum à se Presbytorium Creatum Episcopum vocat, &c. Sed quia experuli•• sequentes Presbyteri indigni inveniri ad primatus tenendos, immutata est ratis, &c.
• Hierom ad Evag.
• Ambros, ubi prius.
• Grego, Naz. Orat. 28.
• Pag. 21, 22.
• Greg. Nazi. ubi priu••.
• Pag. 22.
• Pag. 23.
• Pag. 23.
• Plebs ipsa Maximè babet potesiatem vel Eligend••. Dig∣nos Sacerdotes, vel indignos ve∣cusandi, qu••d & ipsum Vide∣mus de Divina Authoritate de scendere: ut sacerdos plebe praesente sub om∣nium oculis de∣ligatu••, & dig∣nus atque Ido∣neus publico Iu∣dicio ac testimo∣nio comprobetur. By Priests the Authour here understands Bishops, as the whole Series of the Epistle shews.
• a

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, — 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 — 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• Athanas. Epist. ad Orthodoxos.
• Idem ubi supra.
• Cyprian, Corne∣lius, Athanasi∣us and others.
• Cypr. Epist. 33.
• Epist. 58.
• Apud Cypr. Epist. 75.
• Cum jure Divi∣no non sint di∣versi gradus Episcopi & Pa∣stores: Mani∣festum est ordi∣nationem in suâ Ecclesiâ factam IVRE DI∣VINO RA∣TAM esse. Itaque cum E∣piscopi ordina∣rii fiant hostes Ecclesiae aut no∣lunt ordinatio∣nem impertire, Ecclesia retinet jus suum. Me∣lanch. ubi su∣pra, pag. Concil. Antios. Can. 10. & Aneyr. Can. 13.
• Concil. 4. Ca∣thag. Can. 22.
• Ibid. Can. 3.
• Hieronym. in Epist. ad Evag. Chrysost. Hom. II. in I. ad Tim.
• Chrysost. upon the 1. Tim,
• Libro de sep∣tem Ordinibus.
• Concil. Aquis∣gra. 1. Can. 8. Solum propter authoritatem Clericorum or∣dinatio & con∣secratio reser∣vata est summo Sacerdoti▪
• Bilson. Spalat. Franc. à Sancta Clara. Cyp. Epist. 6. & 28.
• Concil. 4. Car∣th••g. Can. 23. Vid Ruff. Hist. lib. 10. cap. 9. Sozo. l. 2. c. 23. Possiden. de vi∣ta. Aug. c. 4. Orig. Ham. 11. in Exo. pag. 97.
• Decret. part. 2. Can. 15. quae. 7. Per totum & partes Dist. 93. cap. 5, 6.
• Clem. Alex. Stromat. lib. 7.
• Tertul. Apol. advers. Gent.
• Ambros. Epist. ad Syagrium.
• Aug. de verb. Apost. Ser. 19.
• Constat. Iuris∣dictionem illam excommunican∣di reos manife∣storum crimi∣num pertinere ad onnes Pasto∣res, hanc ad se solos tyrannicè transtulerunt, & ad questum contulerunt E∣piscopi, Melanc. ubi sup.
• b

  Hieron. Epist. ad Heliodor. Ep. ad Demet.
• Ambros. lib. 10. Epist. 80.
• Cypr. Epist. 12.
• And this was the custome, saith Cy∣prian in minoribus delictis.
• Cypr. Epist. 46. vide etiam Cypr Epist. 6.
• Tertul. A∣pol. adver. Gent. cap. 59.
• Origen. Ham. 7. in Iosh.
• Cypr. Epist. 55.
• Cypr. Epist 11. ad plebem.
• Indecorū est Laicum vicarium esse Episco∣pi, & se∣culares in Ecclesiâ judicare: in uno enim eodemque opere non decetdispar professio quod etiam in lege Di∣vina pro∣bibetur di∣cente Mo∣se, Non ara∣bis in bove & asino simul, Con∣cil. Hispal. 2.
• Cypr. Epist 28.
• Downham in the de∣fence of his Son
• Cod. li. 4. Tit. 20. l. 7.
• Athan. Apol. 2.
• Apud ••∣naram.
• Greg. De∣ceet. lib. 3. Tit. 2. cap. 8. quâ vos. Decret. Greg. lib. 5 Tit. 4. cap. 24.
• Chrysost: Hom. 40. in. 8▪ Tim
• Record∣ing▪ this among those things that he did Dolo modo du∣cere, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Sozo. 1.9. Nicep. 18.••1
• Socra. 7.7.
• Lib. 14. c. 14,
• Soc. l. 7. c. 19.
• Niceph. l.
• Possidou•• in vini August.
• a

  Let the Reader please to consult Euseb. Hist lib. 3: cap. 33. accor∣ding to some, af∣ter others cap. 37. and view the de∣scription, he there makes of an Evan∣gelist, and then judg of what we speak▪
• Anno, Aerae. Christi receptae, 47.
• Anno 48
• Anno 51
• Anno 53
• Anno 53
• Paraeus. Capellus. Heb. 13.23.
• We finde not onely that Timo∣thy was with Paul at Rome, but a pri∣soner with him there.
• a

  Anno 43
• b

  Anno 45
• Anno 46
• Anno 51
• Anno 51
• Anno 52
• Anno 53
• Anno 64
• Raynolds contra Ha••t ••a: 6:
• Hoc erant tique & eteri A∣stoli quod erat Pe∣us, pari usortio editi & noris & estatis, exordi∣ab uni∣e profi∣••itur, ut clesia u∣mon∣tur.
• Euseb. lib. 7. cap. 29.
• Pag. 22.
• Pag. 23.
• Pag. 2••.
• 37. H••n. S. cap. 1••.
• The Remon∣strant here ac∣knowledges the same of the K••ng, that Frier Simon a Floren••ine did of the Pope, who affirmed the degree of a Bishop was de jure divino, but every particu∣lar Bishop de jure Pontificio. Hist. con Trid.
• Pag. 28, 29.
• Pag. 29.
• ••spara••
• 1 Tim. 5.17. 1 Cor. 12.28. Rom. 12.8.
• Vnde & Sy∣nagoga, & pa∣stea Ecclesia seniores habuit, quorum sine Consilio nihit agebatur in Ec∣clesiâ. Quod quâ negligentiâ ob∣so••verit nescio, nisi forte Do∣ctorum desidi••, aut magis super∣bia, dum soli ••olunt aliquid videri.
• Origen. Lib. 3. contra Celsum.
• Epist. 137.
• Lib. 3. cap. 1.
• Aug. Serm. 19. de Verb. Dom.
• August. in Psal 38. Conc. 2.
• Pag. 32.
• Pag. 33
• Pag. 33
• Doct. Duck.
• Pag. 34
• Pag. 35.
• We may ra∣ther think that they would have done more. Remem∣bring what Martinus was wont to say to his friend Sul¦pitius, Nequa∣quam sibi in Episcopatu eam virtutum Gra∣tiam suppetisse, quàm priùs se habuisse momi∣nisset. Sulpitius Severus Dial. 2.
• Pag. 35.
• Pag. 35.
• Pag. 35.
• Pag. 36.
• Pag. 36.
• Pag. ••7.
• Pag. ••••
• Pag. 39.
• In his Pre∣face to his Book called, The way to the True Church. S••linus.
• Pag. 39.
• Tertull. ad∣vers. Gent.
• Pag. 2.
• Pag. 4••.
• Pag. 41
• Pag. 41.
• Pag. 42.
• H••nc populus ••ecit.
• E••i••han••••s saith he did, 〈…〉〈…〉 sa••th in 〈…〉〈…〉 accu∣s••d 〈◊〉〈◊〉, ••e∣cause he s••id tha•• 〈…〉〈…〉 d••d n•••• 〈…〉〈…〉. And Au∣st••n accused Arrius, because he said, Non li∣cet orare, vel offc••re pro mor∣tu••s oblationem.
• Whitaker. Re∣spons. ad Cam∣pian. rat. 10. hath these words:
• Aerium Epipha∣nius & Augu∣••tinus in haereti∣cis numerant, & praeter cos antiqui panci. E•• si Presby∣terum E••iscapo aequare sit haereticum, nihil Catholicum esse pot••st. Cun. AErio Hicronymus de Pres∣••y•••• is 〈◊〉〈◊〉 sensit Illos enim jure divino Episcopis aequales esse statuit.
• Sozomen. hist. lib. 6. cap. 10.
• Qu••st•• 6.