Lord Bishops None of the Lords Bishops, Chapter 8
CHAP. IX.
Wherein the Prelates usuall Allegations out of the Scriptures, by them perverted, or other by them pretended, are answered.
AS there hath been no Heresie, nor Hereticke, so grosse, but he could alledge some Scripture or other for the maintenance of his Heresie, if his own carnall sense might be the Intepreter and Iudge: So our Prelates, though their pretended Title of Iurisdiction be in some cleare Scriptures so expresly condemned both by Christ and his Apostles (as hath been shewed) as were sufficient to confound them, and put them to perpetuall silence: yet they leave no Stone unturned, under which they might find but some worme for a baite to deceive the Simple Fish. And therfore where they find but the least shadow, or appearance or resemblance, which may present to their fancy and imagination some aëry Image of their Hierarchie, that they set up for all men to adore. Now let us see what starting holes they find out for themselves in the holy Scripture. First, they alledge those Postscripts in the end of Pauls Second Epistle to Timothy, and of that to Titus: where in the one, Timothy is said to be first Bishop of Ephesus: and in the other, Titus first Bishop of the Church of the Cretians. These (say they) were Diocesan Bishops, ordained by the Apostle. And here (say they) we have Scripture for it. Ergo we Bishops have our Authority Iure Divin… To both which places, I answere: First, That those two Postscripts are no part of Canonicall Scripture, or of the holy Text. For (as the learned Beza hath well observed) they were not found in the most ancient Greek Copies: nor yet in the vulgar Latin Translation, no not to this day. These were additions of some Monks, that were made some hundred yeares after the Apostles. So as in Ieromes time they were not extant, as the Translation that goes in his Name can testifie, which hath no such Postscrips. Secondy, our former and ancienter English Translations, though they have those Postscripts, yet they are put in a small character, different from that of the Text, that all men may take notice they are no part of the Text. Although our All-Innovating Prelates of late, have in the newer Impressions inlarged their Phylacteries, in putting those Postscripts in the same full character with that of the Text, that the Simple might beleeve they are Canonicall Scripture. Thirdly, Timothy and Titus, are no where in Scripture called Bishops. Fourthly, Suppose they were such Bishops, as the Scriptures approve of, as before is shewed: doth it therefore follow, that they were Diocesan Bishops, Lording over the Presbyters, as our Lord Prelates doe? Let them shew us that. But fiftly, it is cleare by Scripture, that Timothy and Titus were neither Dioce…an Bishops; nor yet Bishops of a particular Congregation, such as the Scripture commends unto us. Not Diocesan Bishops: for first, as yet there was no distribution of Diocese; that came in afterward. And secondly, they were not tyed to any Residence either Diocesan, or Parochiall. And neither as yet was the Church divided into Parishes. Now the reason why Timothy and Titus were no such Bishops, is, because they were*2 Tim. 4. 5. Euangelists, whose Office was to attend upon the Apostles, and to be sent by them now to one Church, now to another, and that in remote Countries, and farre distant one from another, where they stayed no longer, then the Apostles thought expedient, having occasion to imploy them in other places; as we may read Tit. 1. 5. and 3. 12. Phil. 2. 19. 23. 2 Cor. 8. 16. 18, 19. and 12. 17, 18. Col. 4. 7, 8: 1 Thess. 3. 2. 5 and in sundry other places. So as Timothy and Titus, and other Euangelists, their Office was to water those Churches, which the Apostles had planted, to comfort, confirme, establish the hearts of Christians newly converted to the faith of Christ. So as if Timothy and Titus had been Bishops, either Diocesan, or Parochiall, then the Apostle in sending them to this and that Countrey, to this and that Church in farre distant Countries, should have been an Author of Non-residence, a thing much controverted in the‡Hist. Concil. Councel of Trent, and the best learned did maintaine, that Residence of Bishops was de jure divino. They were no Bishops therefore, but Euangelists. And thus the Scripture it selfe shews plainly, that those foresaid Postscripts are meere forgeries, and counterfeit stuffe; though our Prelates are glad of any shred to patch up their Pyde Motley Coat withall.
But they alledge againe for themselves, that Titus was left in Creet to ordaine Bishops in every City. Ergo, Ordination of Ministers belongs properly and solely to Bishops. For Answere: Is this a good Argument: Titus Ordained Ministers in Creet: Ergo Ordination of Ministers pertaines to the Office of every Diocesan Bishop? But they must bring better proofe, that Titus was a Diocesan Bishop: otherwise, I deny their Argument. Secondly, Suppose, that Titus did alone ordaine: yet this being a case of necessity, and in the infancy of the Church, is it therfore to be made a Generall Rule? Thirdly, if they were Diocesan Bishops, whom Titus ordained in every City in Creta, then Titus was an Arch-bishop at least, and no small one neither, for there being an hundred Cities in Creet, called therefore e katómpolis, the hundred-City-Ile. But for Arch-bishops our Arch-prelate confesseth they are not Iure Divino. Or els, for Titus to ordaine such Bishops, as the Prelate meaneth he could according to ancient Canons of Councels, have had 2 or 3 other Bishops joyned with him. But if they had been Bishops, whom he is sayd to Ordaine, the word should rather have been teleiosai, or so to Consecrate, then katastesai, to ordaine: because a Diocesan Bishop is not ordained, but consecrated, as they call it; so as such a Bishop is not an Order, or Calling, as before is shewed. But to shut up this: Titus was no Bishop, and therfore our Prelates Argument from Titus his Ordaining of Ministers, is too weake a foundation, to build their high Towring Hierarchie upon.
Againe, they alledge the power that Timothy and Titus had to Censure delinquents: Ergo Prelates Courts are Iure Divino. This Argument is like the former, and concluds nothing for them. Nor had Timothy and Titus their Courts and Consistories, their Apparitors, and Pursuivants, their dumb Priests to sit in Court to Excommunicate, and the like. Nor were their Censures like to those of our Prelates; as before we have shewed about Excommunication, either for the matter, or manner, or end.
But Titus had a Commission tà leíponta, epidiorthosai, to set in order the things that are wanting. What then? Ergo it is an Office of Prelates to set the Church in Order, by adding such Ceremenies or Canons, as are wanting. As the Prelate saith in his said Booke, that he had*Epist. Dedi. pag. 20. taken all that paines for an Orderly Settlement in the Church. But besides the reasons aforesaid, that Titus was no Diocesan Bishop, for our Prelates to make their pattern by: they must consider, that the full latitude of the sense of epidiorthosa… (which our English turnes, to set in Order,) is, to set those things in Order, or in integrum restituere, to restore and reduce them to their former estate, wherein at the first they were ordered. Now Titus had received his rule from the Apostle for whatsoever he was to set in Order, which rule comprehended such things as were wanting. The Apostle left it not to Titus to doe what he would, but o'… ego soi dietaxamen, as I had appointed thee. Thus nothing will frame well, the Scripture will not speak one good word for our Prelates.
But they take their wings, and flie to the Revelation, where the Bishops are called Angels, as Rev. 1. 20. and 2. 1, &c. The Angel of the Church of Ephesus (say they) was the Bishop, to wit, the Diocesan Bishop. But first they must prove that Ephesus had a Diocesan Bishop. before they can conclude he was that Angel. For every Angel is not a Diocesan Bishop. For then All Ministers being called Angels, because Gods Messengers, should be Diocesan Bishops, which our Prelates cry out against: but if they be false Ministers, or counterfeit Bishops, though they be Angels, yet they are of those Angels of darknesse, which transforme themselves into Angels of light, 2 Cor. 11. 13. 14.as the Apostle speakes, and which we mentioned before. But hath Ephesus now gotten a Dioces…n Bishop? What's then become of all those Bishops of Eph…sus, whom the Apostle called together, …. 20. 17. 28? Of which we spake before. How come they now all to be moulded up into one Angel, one Diocesan Bishop? But our Prelates must bring us better proofe from Scripture, then so, for their Diocesan Bishop, unlesse they will have him some Angel dropt from the Clowds. Gal. 1.And (saith the Apostle) if an Angel from heaven preach otherwise, then what the Scripture teacheth, let him be accursed.
But they imagine this Angel is the Diocesan Lord Bishop, because he stands single, and alone, To the Angel of the Church of Ephesus, not To the Angels, as many. But doe the… no… know, that it is familiar with the Scripture to use the singular number for the plural? Doth not every one of the ten Commandements run thus, Thou shalt not, &c. when every Mothers Sonne is meant? And why not so here? Nay it is so here: for though he write as to one, v. 1. yet v. 7. he concludes the Epistle thus, He that hath an eare, let him heare what the Spirit saith to the Churches. And such is the style and manner of every one of those 7. Epistles to the seven Churches: so as under one is meant every one, yea all the Churches. Now will our Prelates hence conclude, that because an Angel herd is named, and that which is written particularly to one, concerneth all the Churches: that therefore this Angel was the Diocesan Bishop? Surely then, he must be an Arch-bishop, as comprehending all the Churches. And so also must every one of the other Angels of the Churches: which would make a confusion. But if the Prelates were not selfe-blinded, they might discerne the reason, why the Holy-Ghost puts an Angel for many. For thus it holds proportion with the Vision shewed to Iohn, Chap. 1. 12. 20. This Vision of the Seven Starres, and Seven Candlesticks, and Seven Angels, and Seven Churches, is called a Mystery. And a Mystery is a Secret, which comprehends more, then is expressed. And so here, when one Angel is named, we are to understand all the Angels of that Church, to whom, in the name of one, the Epistle is written: nor …onelyonly to all the Angels, but to the Churches, under the name of one Angel. So as in one are comprehended many, for it is a Mystery: yet one is mentioned (Chap. 2. 1.) because (I say) it holds proportion with the vision. Againe, if by the Angel here, they would have to be understood a Diocesan Bishop, then they must prove, that this Diocesan hath a lawfull Calling, as Sent of God. Otherwise he is no Angel, that is, no Messenger, no Angel sent of God. Or if they say, This Angel was sent of God, let them prove him to be a Diocesan Bishop. And thus they are brought into a Circle, and cannot find the way out.
But they alledge againe, That one here notes unity, which cannot be without a Diocesan Bishop. And therefore a Diocesan Bishop was set up for that end, to be a Head of unity, for the conservation of Order and Peace, in Schismatis remedium, for a remedy of Schisme. Insomuch as our Arch-prelate (as is before noted) holds a necessity of one Ordine Primus, for the unity and peace of his Catholicke Church. Now for answere briefly (this being partly touched before) true it is, that one here is a mysticall note of unity, so as in the Angel of the Church of Ephesus, is comprehended the whole Church of Ephesus, both Ministers and People. But one here doth not signifie one Diocesan Bishop. Neither is one Diocesan Bishop in a Diocese, nor one Metropolitan in a Province or Kingdome, nor one Ordine Primus in the whole Catholicke Church, of necessity to preserve unity in the Church. 'Tis true indeed, that the Prelates new Catholicke-Church, which is Prelaticall, may need such a Head as one Ordine Primus, to preserve it in unity and peace: this being also very usefull for the inlarging of the Tower of Babel, for which the Prelate hath so laboured for Peace in the Church of England under the Headship of his Primacy: so as had he none to oppose or contradict his wicked practises, for the setting up of Popery, but all did quietly submit and conforme to his Canon, his Babylon would goe up apace, and prosper: even as*Gen. 11. when the old world was all of one language, the Tower of Babel went up a maine, till God confounded their worke in the division of tongues: but the true Catholicke Church of Iesus Christ hath one Bishop of there Soules, which is Christ, who is that Ordine Primus, that‡Ephes. …. 15, 16. unites the whole body, every joynt, and every member, that is, not onelyonly every particular beleever, but every particular Christian Congregation is knit to the whole, in and under that one Head And so this Body groweth, and this building goeth up, notwithstanding all the mouths of contradiction, and of malicious Sandballets, that seek to hinder it. Whereas it is not so with the building of Babel. For one small breath of the mouth of God in his word, breathed by one poore Minister, is able to blast the building; and therefore the builders cry out against such Fellows, as troublers of the State, and movers of Sedition. And they cannot be in quiet, nor their building goe up, untill such make-bates be silenced, or made our of the way. And therefore they labour with the Prince (when themselves want power and Law) to d…e with such as Constantine did with Athanasius. Socrat. Hist. Eccl. lib. 1. c. 35.Athanasius was the onelyonly man, that refused to hold Communion with a sort of Arian Bishops; which caused a great gappe in that unity and peace in the Church, which Constantine so much desired. Well, what's the remedy? He thereupon was easily moved to send Athanasius away into banishment, and then he thought all would be quiet and in peace. But by the way, Truth must be looked unto in the first place: otherwise what peace? For that a false peace, and the moeher of farther discord, for the which truth is lost. And even our Prelate himselfe in his said Booke doth often harpe upon these two strings together, Truth and Peace: a good harmony, were they rightly meant, and that his Truth were not made of a Wolfes gut, which will never agree with a string made of a Sheeps gut, as he pretends his Peace to be. But this by the way. And whereas they alledge the Prelacie to be a remedy of Schisme (Heare ô heavens, and hearken ô earth) is not the Prelacy the grand Schismaticke? I mean, not onelyonly in being the most busie and usuall make-bate in all Civil States, dividing Prince and People, but in setting up a new and false Catholicke Church, altogether seperate from, and holding no communion with, yea excluding all Reformed Churches not Prelaticall, as no members of the Catholicke (as indeed they be not of the false Catholicke) all Prelacie drawing to one Head of the Papacy, and that by a necessity of one Ordine Primus; as before is noted.
But to draw to a Conclusion. The last Allegation which I note they make, is, that S. Marke was Bishop of Alexandria. Ergo Episcopall Iurisdiction, is an Apostolicall Tradition, and so jure divino. And for this they alledge the Testimony of Ierome where he saith,Confer pa. 176. At Alexandria from Marke the Evangelist, the Presbyters alwayes chusing one from among them, and placing him in a more eminent degree, called him Bishop. Whereupon the Prelate thus inferres. So even according to S. Jerome, Bishops had a very ancient and honourable Discent in the Church from St. Marke the Euangelist: and this (saith Ierome,) was a Tradition Apostolicke. So the Prelate. But first for Ierome, we noted his words before of such Bishops, saying, They were set up by humane presumption, and not by divine Institution, and consequently not by Apostolike Tradition. For Apostolicke Tradition is farre from …um…ne presumption; So as it is humane presumption to make that Apostolicke Tradition. And for S. Marke, *Euseb. Hist. Eccl. lib. 2. c. 15Ecclesiasticall Story tells us, that Marke was the first, that preached the Gospell (which also he writ) at Alexandria. But the Story saith not, that Marke was Bishop of Alexandria. And the Prelate must marke, that he was an Euangelist (as also Iereme saith) for he wrote the Gospel. And the History saith, he was ‡Ibid, c. 14.a follower of Peter the Apostle. Which if true, it makes it more probable, that it was that Babylon in Egypt, whence Peter wrote his Epistle, where he saith, The Church that is at Babylon saluteth you, and so doth Marcus my Son: then that Peter was then at Rome, which the Papists (to make Peter to have been at Rome) are content should be that Babylon, from whence he writ. And if they will needs have it so, let them have it, with the whore of Babylon to boot. But this by the way. But be it, that Marke was at Alexandria, he was there onelyonly as an Euangelist, and to doe the Office of an Euangelist, of which we have Spoken before: Bishop he was not, as the Prelates would have him; for that we have already proved to be in their sense condemned both by Christ, and by his Apostles, and therfore is neither an Institution of Christ, nor a Tradition Apostolicke. And therefore what ever the Presbyters at Alexandria began to practise after Marke the Euangelist, in chusing and exalting one over them, whom they called a Bishop, whence our Prelates derive their Ancieut and Honourable descent: sure we are, they can never prove, that ever either any Apostle delivered this to Marke, or Marke from the Apostles to the Presbyters, to make it a Tradition Apostolicke. Yea this is a sure and infallible Rule in Divinity, That whatever the Apostles expresly set down in their Sacred writing, they never delivered the contrary by word of mouth. As the Apostle writes to the Corinthians, saying‡Ibid, c. 14. As God is true, our word towards you, was not yea and any. Now (as we have sufficiently proved before) the Apostles, as Christ their Masters forbad them) forbid Prelacy to others, they exercised it not themselves, they disclaimed dominion over the saith of Christians, they brand it for Antichristian: therfore Prelaticall Iurisdiction is no Apostolick Tradition: and so no w…y of divine Institution. And thus the Truth and Title agreeing together, I end, as I began, Lord Bishops, are none of the LORDS Bishops.
FINIS.