A Treatise of Episcopacy, Part 2 · Chapter 22
CHAP. XXII. An Anſwer to the Objections. 1. No Biſhops no King. 2. And of the Rebellions and Seditions of thoſe, that have been againſt Biſhops.
I Come not for your own ſake to meddle with ſuch matters as theſe, but you put a neceſſity on us, by making us odious by ſuch pretences. 1. To the firſt I anſwer, 1. Were not all the very Heathen Emperors heretofore, and are not all the Heathen Kings ſtill, Kings, and as great as others, without Biſhops? And may not Chriſtian Kings much more? 2. If the Presbyterians had ſaid, no Presbyters, no King, you would have taken it for treaſonable; as if they had threatned that the King ſhall not be King, unleſs they may have their way, and ſhall not the King be King unleſs you may be Biſhops? 3. What is in the nature of the thing to warrant this aſſertion? Presbyterians own every text and Article for Monarchy as the Prelatiſts do, even as ever any Chriſtian Council or Confeſſion aſſerted, as far as we can learn. They plead no other divine right for their offices, than our Prelates do. And (ſave what ſome of them have held by the Magiſtrates own gift) they pretend to no power over any mans body or purſe. Many of them and the Independants, meddle no further than their own Congregations. What is in all this againſt Kings? That an Ariſtocratical Church Government may not live quietly under Monarchy, or a Monarchial Church Government under Ariſtocracy, is an aſſerted fiction, without all proof. Otherwiſe by the ſame reaſon you would perſwade Venice, Holland and all ſuch Governments, that Prelacy may not be endured under them.
4. But what if it were all as true as it is falſe? What is it to thoſe Nonconformiſts that craved Biſhop Uſhers Epiſcopacy? The queſtion is but whether a humble Biſhop in a Pariſh or Market Town, without any Lordſhip or great revenews, or intereſt in the ſword, may not live as ſafely and obediently under Kings, as our Lord Biſhops? Yea in very deed moſt of the Independant Churches themſelves have a kind of Epiſcopacy, whether they own the name or not: For uſually one ſingle Paſtor hath as much as a Negative voice in the management of all diſciplinary affairs.
II. But the anſwer to the ſecond will fuller anſwer this. 1. Do you not know that where Prelacy is at the higheſt, there Kings and Emperours have been at the loweſt? Do you not know how the Papal Prelacy at the preſent uſurpeth one part of their Government: and is ready to take away the other when they can, when ever Kings diſpleaſe them? Can any thing be ſaid to hide this by him that readeth, but the two forenamed Councils (Later. & Rom. ſub Gregor. 7.) Did Prelacy preſerve thoſe Emperors of the Eaſt that ſuffered by it? Doth it now preſerve the Emperour of Moſcovy, where the Patriarks intereſt is pretended in the rebellion? Did it preſerve Frederick, and the two Henries of Germany? or Henry 3. and 4th. of France? Did it preſerve the Kings of England, Will. 2. Hen. 2. and 3. John, &c. from their wars and troubles? Did it preſerve the Kingdome of Navar to the right Lord? What ſhould, I ſay, more of this after the copious inſtances of H. Fowlis? and after that volume of W. Prin. of the Engliſh Prelates Treaſons? Read it and judge.
2. What people more peaceable and obedient to their ſuperiors, for inſtance than the Helvetian Miniſters have been? who yet have no ſuch thing as Biſhops.
3. Dr. Pet. Moulin Junior, one of your ſelves in his anſwer to Philanax Angl. hath ſaid enough to confute moſt of the Calumnies againſt the Reformed Churches in this point.
4. Who knoweth not, that even in the ancient Churches, and that when Epiſcopacy was thriving apace, yea and by and among the Biſhops themſelves, yea ſome that were good men and are now Sainted, yet tumults, ſeditions, rebellions, and contentions troubled the Churches, and the Emperours and Magiſtrates, as frequently as of later times, which I mention not to abate the honour of thoſe better Chriſtians, but 1. To ſhew you, that all this was done under Prelacy, and therefore it was not want of Prelacy, or averſneſs to it that is to be taken for the cauſe. 2. That theſe diſtempers were found in the beſt times, and among the pureſt Churches, and therefore are not to be now thought ſtrange, or taken for a mark of a bad religion.
I will not repeate what I ſaid but even now of the horrid tumults and blood ſhed at Alexandria, their cruel Murdering of Hypatia, and the inſurrection and ſedition even of the Holy Monks, and Saint Cyrils Sainting of the executed actor of violence on the Governour.
What work his Predeceſſor Saint Theophilus made againſt Saint Chryſoſtome, how Epiphanius acted his part; how Saint Hierome was of their party; how even the Orthodox Biſhops in ſeveral Synods oppoſed and depoſed thoſe two excellent Biſhops of Conſtantinople Gregory Theol. and Chryſoſtome, hath been ſaid before.
Even at the Election of Chryſoſtome Theophilus went about by all means to diſcredit him, and to preferr to the place one Iſidore a Prieſt of his own Church. And that you may know how Loyalty prevailed againſt the owning of Tyrants when they got the better you ſhall further hear why Theophilus ſet ſo much by this Iſidore, becauſe he undertook for him a perillous piece of ſervice (ſaith Socrates li. 6. c. 2.) viz, [When the Emporour Theod…ſius waged War with Maximus the Tyrant, Theophilus ſent Preſents directed to the Emperour with two Letters (one to Theodoſius and one to Maximus) charging Iſidorus to preſent him that got the better with the gift and one of the Letters. Iſidore being careful of his buſineſs, went diligently about this feat, got him to Rome, and hearkeneth after the Victory: But his fetch was not long ere it was found out; for his Reader, that accompanyed him ſtole away his Letters. Whereupon Iſidore being afraid to be taken with the manner, took his heeles in all haſt to Alexandria: This was it that made Theophilus labour ſo carneſtly for Iſidore: But all that were of the Emperours Court preferred John to the Biſhopprick: And afterwards when as many charged Theophilus with heynous crimes, and preſented to the Biſhops (then preſent) libells and Articles againſt him, ſome for this thing and ſome for that; Eutropius one of the Emporours Chamber having gotten the Articles and Inditements, ſhewed them to Theophilus, bad him chooſe whether he would Create John Biſhop, or ſtand at the Barr and anſwer to the Crimes that were laid to his charge. Theophilus was ſo afraid with this that preſently he conſented to the inſtalling of John].
What would have been ſaid of one of us now, if we had not only complyed with a victorious Tyrant, but alſo ſo jugled with preſents and double Letters before hand. I did my ſelf diſowne Oliver Cromwel openly to his death; and yet becauſe after twelve years poſſeſſion of the Uſurpers, I did but Dedicate two Bookes to his Son Richard, whom I never ſaw nor heard from, only to encourage him to befriend truth and unity againſt Papiſts and Sectaries, who then threatened all, (and this when the Royaliſts themſelves gave out that he was Really for the reſtoration of the King) this is made the odious Crime in me, as a thing deſerving greateſt Infamy.
Do I need to recite how great Leo himſelf and other Roman and Italian Biſhops owned the Barbarian Conquerours? No wonder than if they too early took Theodoricus for their King ſet over them by God, who was a better man than the reſt, and had at laſt a better Tittle.
Saith Socrates further li. 6. c. 7. [When the Common-wealth of the Roman Empire, was toſſed with theſe troubleſome ſtormes of Rebellion ſuch as were promoted to the reverend function of Prieſt hood were at diſtraction among themſelves, to the great ſlander of Chriſtian Religion: Then was one ſet againſt the other; the original of which peſtilent Schiſm came from Egypt, and the occaſion was as followeth. There was a queſtion broached a little before, whether God were a body, made after the likeneſs and forme of man? Or whether he were without body, and void of all Corporal ſhape. *What ſhould ſuch Religious men be now called, that had no more knowledge, ſo great errour and ſo great fury and tumultuating … …e…lion.Hereof there aroſe ſundry contertions and quarrels: While ſome affirmed this and others that: Some of the rudeſt and unlearned ſort of Religious men thought that God was Corporeal, and of the forme and figure of man: But the greater part condemned them with their Heretical opinion, affirming that God had no bodily ſubſtance or ſhape. Of which opinion was Theophilus Biſhop of Alexandria; ſo that in the hearing of the whole Congregation he inveighed bitterly againſt the Contrary—The worſhippers of Egypt underſtanding this, left their Religious houſes, came to Alexandria, flocked about Theophilus; condemned him for a wicked perſon, and ſought to bereave him of his Life. Theophilus being made privy to their Conſpiracy, was wonderful penſive, deviſed how he might ſcape their hands and ſave his life. As ſoon as he came into their preſence he ſaluted them Courteouſly, and ſaid thus to them: When I faſten mine eyes on you, methinks I ſee the lively face of God. With theſe words the raſh heat of the unruly Monkes was delayed, and they ſaid, If that be true that thou ſayeſt, that the Countenance of God is no otherwiſe than ours, accurſe then the works of Oregen: For divers of his books do impugne our opinion: But if thou refuſe to do this, aſſure thy ſelf to receive at our hands the puniſhment due to the impious and open Enemies of God: Nay, ſaith Theoph. I will do that which ſeemeth good in your eyes] Thus you ſee what the Monks were. But will you ſee what Theophilus was.
It followeth [The Religious, houſes in Egypt were overſeen of four worthy men, Bretheren, Dioſcorus, Ammonius, Euſebius, and Eutburmus, Their great fame and excellency made Theophilus force them out of their beloved ſolitude, and make Dioſcorus, a Biſhop, and two other to live with himſelf—At laſt, their Conſciences were pricked, perceiving that the Biſhop was ſet upon heaping and hoarding of mony. *Saith Dr. Hanmer in his Margin, [This …iſh…p hath more fellows in the world].and that all their labour tended to gathering, they would no longer dwel with him but got them into the deſert—As ſoon as Theophilus underſtood that they abhorred his manner of living, he was wonderfully incenſed, and promiſed to work them a diſpleaſure—and being prone to anger and revenge, beſtirred himſelf againſt them and endeavoured by all means to work them miſchief. And he began to deſpight Dioſcorus, the Biſhop, for it grieved him to the gutts that the Worſhippers made ſo much of Dioſcorus and reverenced him ſo highly (To beshorter than Socrates) Theophilus not knowing elſe how to be revenged, ſet the Monks againſt him and his Brethren, and accuſeth them of holding contrary to the Scripture, that God had no body, hands, or feet, and ſo taketh on him to be of their opinion▪ till he had ſet them altogether by the cars: And the ignoranter Monks being the greater number he took their ſide, and ſo they went firſt to it by zealous reproaches, one part calling the other Origineſts, and the other part calling them Anthropomorphites, and at laſt it came to a deadly Battel. And, ſaith Socrates, Theophilus perceiving, that his fetches framed after his will went with great power towards the Mount Nitria, where there religious houſes ſtood, and aided the Monks againſt Dioſcorus and his Brethren: And the Religious men thus beſet with great danger had much ado to ſave their lives.] Socr. l. 6. c. 7.
Did ever Presbyterians commit ſuch an unchriſtian and inhumane vilany as this, by ſuch falſe diſſimulation and malice? And here we ſee how the quarrel began againſt Origens Works, not for the paſſages that are truely culpable, but for the ſounder parts; and how it came to paſs that Chryſoſtome was not ſo forward to condemn them as his Condemners did require him to be.
Theodoret. lib. 4. Hiſt Eccl. c. 13. Tells us that when the Emperour Valens his order was brought to Euſebius Samoſatenus for his removal and baniſhment, Euſebius tels the Officer, That if the People ſhould know it, they would drown him in the River (Euphrates) and therefore contrived to ſlip away by night.] What would they ſay, if our Churches were ſuch as this orthodox Epiſcopal Church was?
Theodor. lib. 3. c. 13. The Virgins openly ſung in reproach of Julian the Emperour [Ratae illum conſceleratum tyrannum contemnendum eſſe & omnium irriſione ludendum] judging that wicked Tyrant to be contemned and made a mocking ſtock by all. And yet he was a lawful Emperour and none of the cruelleſt Perſecutors.
Theodor. l. 3. c. 13. When the People of his Church had found out Euſebius their baniſhed Biſhop, they earneſtly perſwaded him to return, contrary to the Emperors Edict, and not to ſuffer his flock to be left to the Wolves (which were the Biſhops ſet over them by the Emperour). And is not this more than the people are now condemned for, who only hear the Miniſters privately?
Cap. 14. When the Emperors Arrian Biſhop was ſet over them, not one of all the People rich or poor, ſervant or labourer, husbandman or Artificer, man or woman, young or old, would come as they uſed to the Church, nor come in ſight of the Biſhop, nor ſpeak with him: But though he lived very modeſtly, he came to the Church (place) alone. They would not bathe with him nor bathe in the ſame water, but throw it firſt into the Channel; when he left the City (this was Eunomius). Do our hearers deal as harsſhly as this?
Afterward when Lucius was ſet over them, the Children in the ſtreets did burn their ball, becauſe his Aſſes feet had touched it.
Id. ib. c. 16. When the Biſhop of Edeſſa was removed and another ſet over them, the people frequented private meetings in the Suburbs. And when the Emperour commanded his Prefect, Modeſtus, to take Souldiers and diſturb them, and drive them away, the women ran with their Children hoping to die with them. And Eulogius the Presbyter asked, Was the Emperour made Prieſt when he was made Emperour?
And how the Presbiters and People of Antioch continued their meeting whether the Emperour would or not, though he diſturbed them by Soldiers.
Theodor c. 17. Baſils anſwer to the Prefect, when he offered him the Emperours favour, was, that Children were to be ſo talk'd to, but Men bread up in divine ſtudies, would ſuffer any death rather than ſuffer one ſyllable of divine Truth to be blemiſhed. Quod autem ad Imperatoris amicitiam, &c. But as for the Emperors friendſhip I much value it (ſaith he) joyned with godlineſs, but if it want that, I ſay, it is pernicious. In one of us this anſwer would have been enough to make us ſeem as bad as it made Baſil eſteemed good.
Id. 11. c. 19. When the forenamed Lucius was made Biſhop of Alexandria, and Peter their Biſhop put out, the People would come to the Church place, though he perſecuted them as he had done the other, & omnes pariter ceperunt Lucium convitiis lacer…re, they all began to tear Lucius with revilings, becauſe he perſecuted the Monks of Egypt.
Id. l. c. 38. Audas a Biſhop in Perſia demoliſhed their Temple (or Pyreum) by violence: For which the Emperour of Perſia killed him, and deſtroyed all the Chriſtian Churches.
Id. l. 4. c. 21. When Moſes was deſired by Queen Mavia to be her Biſhop among the Saracens, he would not let Lucius ordain him, becauſe he had perſecuted good men, But ſaid to him (Quis impius non tua cauſâ conventus Eccleſiaſticos petulanter inſectatus eſt? Quis e laudatorum virorum numero non parte exulavit? Quam immanitatem barbaram, malefici abs te in dies ſingulos admiſſa non ſuperarunt?) Do Nonconformiſts ſpeak more harſhly to our Biſhops?
Theodoret himſelf frequently calleth Julian a Tyrant. cap. 22. The Heathens kept their Feaſts openly; Telis autem Apoſtolicae doctrinae propugnatoribus, tyrannus iſte ſe hoſtem praebuit. And when he was dead, they openly rejoyced at his death.
Id. cap. 30. l. 4. With what bold language doth Izaak tell Valens of his fighting againſt God, and caſting out his Miniſters, and Gods fighting againſt him and what he would be ſure to meet with at the end, if he kicked againſt the pricks.
Lib. 5. c. 17. The Chriſtian people of Theſſalonica roſe, and killed ſome of Theodoſius his Officers, which provoked him by his Souldiers to kill ſeven thouſand of them, for which Ambroſe brought him to do open pennane.
To mention all the blood ſhed at Rome (as at Damaſcus election and elſe) and Conſtantinople, and Alexandria would be tedious, even that which was ſhed on the account of Biſhops.
Lucius Calaritanus was a pious Biſhop; but ſo hot for ſeparation from thoſe that had been Arrians, that he is numbered for it with the Hereticks, though an orthodox Biſhop.
The Novatians were Epiſcopal, and ſo were the Donatiſts, and yet how have they been judged of for their Schiſm I need not tell: Apollinarius father and ſon, Paulus Samoſatenus, Neſtorius, Dioſcorus, Euſebius, Nicomed, Theodorus Mopſueſt, and how many more Biſhops have been Arch-hereticks and the cauſe of tumults and diſſenſions. The very reading over the acts of the General Councils, eſpecialy Eph. 1. and 2. & Calced. is tremendous. It was to be a Biſhop, that Maximus made ſo peſtilent a ſtir at Conſtantinople and Alexandria againſt Gregory Theolog. Yea they tell us themſelves, that it was becauſe he could not be a Biſhop that Aerius ſpake againſt Biſhops, ſo peſtilent a thing hath the deſire of ſuch Biſhopricks been.
Theodotus the Biſhop would not ſo much as joyn in Prayer with Baſil morning or evening, becauſe he had but communicated with Biſhop Euſtathius upon his fair profeſſions, Baſil. Epiſt. 43. Admir: ad Terentium Comit.
The contention between ſuch excellent perſons as Euſebius Caeſar while Biſhop, and Baſil: while Presbyter, was very ſad and ſcandalous.
The contention between Baſil and Euthemius about the extent of their Dioceſs was no leſs.
The People of Caeſarea would have torn in peices, Euſebius the Preſident, the Emperors own Unkle, for Baſils ſake, if he had not hindred them.
The Church of Neo-Caeſarea wrangled with Baſil for his Pſalmodie, and even avoided him as if he had been an Heretick, ſee Baſils Epiſt. ad mer. 4. to Julian, what language he there ufeth to the Emperour: Not that I judge him, but wiſh you to judge equally of the actions of thoſe times and ours. See Baſil Ep. 82. Theodor. l. 5 c. 19.
The Antiochians for a Tax under Theodoſius the great, did tumultuate and kill the Magiſtrates, and deſtroyed the Statue of Placilla the good Empreſs.
In the Weſt good Ambroſe at Milan (was not ſilenced as we are, but) by an Orthodox Emperour deſired and commanded to deliver the Arrians poſſeſſion but of one Church: and he refuſed to do it, and to forſake that Church (or Temple) or deliver the Veſſels till they ſhould be taken by force. Vit. Ambroſ. per Baron. p. 6. whereas we all left our Churches at a word. Nay though he would not reſiſt the Emperour, he would rather die than deliver up the Church.
When he was celebrating Gods Worſhip he was fain to break off, to reſcue an Arrian Prieſt out of the hands of the Orthodox people, who had laid hold on him: For which multitudes were laid in priſon and Irons, and accuſed of Sedition, and great Calamity followed to the Church, and this from Valentinian an Orthodox Emperour.
Ambroſe ſaith when he refuſed to deliver up the Temple, E…qua ſunt Divina Imperatoriae poteſtati non eſſe ſubjecta (If Baronius ſay true); but mine I ſhall yield to him]. But we hold that even Temples (as well as Biſhops) though dedicated to God, are under the Civil power of the Empour.
When Ambroſe was deſired but to quiet the people, he anſwered It is in my power not to ſtir them up; but it is God that muſt quiet them] So great was his intereſt in the people that the Emperour ſaid he was a Tyrant, and that the people would deliver himſelf bound to him, if Ambroſe did but bid them. Yet had Ambroſe been the man that had gone on his Embaſſie to Maximus, and kept him from coming into Italy in purſute of Valentinian which made Ambroſe ſay [Non hoc Maximum dicere quod Tyranus go ſum Valentiniani: qui ſe meae legationis objectum queritur ad Italiam non potuiſſe pervenire.]
And becauſe the late revolutions in England are made by ſome Prelates the pretence for the ſilencing of the 1800 Miniſters, of whom one of ten never medled with Warrs, being fallen again on this caſe of Maximus, let it be noted how like he was to Cromwel, ſaving that it was not the Sectaries, but the Biſhops that he ſtudyed to pleaſe and riſe by. When Gratian the Emperour befriended the Priſcillianiſts, Maximus to pleaſe the Biſhops perſecuted them to the death. When Valantinian by Juſtina the Empreſſe meanes did perſecute or trouble Ambroſe for refuſing to deliver a Church to the Arrians, and alſo other Orthodox Biſhops as well as Ambroſe, Maximus gave to Ambroſe and the Biſhops the Honour of keeping him out of Italy, and letting Valentinian ſcape: Yea, wrote his Letters to Valentinian for the Orthodox Biſhops, telling him how grievous a thing it is to perſecute the Miniſters of God, and when under his father they went for faithful Miniſters. Quae tanta mutatio, ut qui antea ſacerdotes, nunc ſacrilegi judicantur! Iiſdem certe praeceptis, Iiſdem Sacramentis dilatis; Eadem fide credunt, qua antea crediderunt. An put at Venerabilis mihi ſerenitas tua conceptam ſemel in animis religionem quam Deus ipſe conſtituit poſſe evelli? And proceedeth to ſhew what diſorders and contentions muſt needs follow when there be a ſhew of perſecuting Chriſtians and Miniſters] Upon this meſſage of Maximus, Valentinian being afraid of him, the perſecution ceaſed; and Ambroſe muſt be ſent again on the Embaſſage to Maximus to ſtop him: But when as the Biſhops of France and Germany owned him, and Ambroſe would not communicate with thoſe Biſhops (no more than Martin) ſaith he, cum videret me abſtinere ab Epiſcopis qui communicabant ei, vel qui aliquos devios licet a ſide (that is the Preſcillianiſts) ad necem petebant, juſſit me ſine mora regredi. See here that Ambroſe as well as Martin ſeparated from the Communion of the multitude of Biſhops for owning Maximus, and for ſeeking to the Magiſtrate to draw his ſword againſt the Priſcillianiſts, whom Sulp. Severus calleth Gnoſticks: When as many among us, have by words and writing provoked Rulers to draw the ſword againſt us that differ, in no one point of doctrine from the Articles of the Engliſh Church.
And the ſaid Maximus and the Biſhops did ſo cloſe that only one Hyginus a Biſhop is mentioned, and Theognoſtus beſides Ambroſe and Martin that rejected Maximus, and refuſed Communion with the Synod and Biſhops, and was baniſhed alſo for ſo doing. By which you may ſee, 1. That Biſhops can comply with uſurpers that will be for them as much as Presbyters, 2. And that all is not unwarrantable ſeparation or ſchiſm, which Biſhops call ſo, when theſe three ſhall ſeparate from ſo many.
And ſaith Baron. in vita Ambroſ. Maximus ut Tyranni nomen vitaret, perinde atque fidei Catholicae tuendae cauſa bellum illud ſuſcepiſſet, in hereticos pugnam convertit & Catholicos ſacerdotes quibus valuit honoribus & officiis eſt proſecutus, p. 24. Maximus raiſeth that war for the Orthodox Biſhops to ſave them from the perſecution of their lawful Prince, and ſets himſelf to do them all the honor he could, and to pull down the hereticks.
And theſe were the Halcionian daies which Ambroſe himſelf declareth and magnifieth, even when Maximus had ſuppreſt the Arrians [En tempus acceptabile! quo non hiemalibus perfidiae caligantis pruinas annus riget, nec altis nivis, &c. ibid. Reader was not that time more ſtrange than ours? that Ambroſe muſt be ſo loyal as to ſave his Prince and Country from a uſurper; and yet ſo pious as to be perſecuted by his Prince, and he and his brethren ſaved by that ſame uſurper▪ and openly give praiſe to God for the great felicity of the Church which it received by that ſame uſurper whom he ſo reſiſted? I… it not pity that things ſhould be ſo ſtrangely carried?
And that yet you may ſee more into this buſineſs, Paulinus in vit. Ambroſ. p. 40. tells us, that Maximus took juſt a name to himſelf as Cromwel the Protector did. [Maximus Procuratorem ſe reipublicae nomine praefuiſſe confiteretur.] He would rule as the Procurator of the Common-wealth.
Well! But this is not all the Uſurpers that roſe up in thoſe daies. Eugenius ſoon becometh more terrible than he (who once was but a Schoolmaſter). And how doth this loyal S. Ambroſe carry it? when he had got of Theodoſius a pardon for all that took part with Maximus, even his Army except two or three, yea and benefits too, yet did not this holy loyal man think it ſinful to write thus to the Tyrant Eugenius, [Epiſtol. l. 2. p. 103. Clementiſſimo Imperatori Eugenio, Ambroſius Epiſcopus; Biſhop Ambroſe to the moſt Clement Emperour Eugenius. And thus concludeth, [In his vero in quibus vos rogari decet, etiam exhibere ſedulitatem poteſtati debitam▪ ſicut & ſcriptum eſt, cui honorem, honorem, cui tributum, tributum: Nam cum privato detulerim corde intimo, quomodo non deferrem Imperatori?] i. e. But in theſe matters where it becometh us to petition you, we muſt alſo give the diligence due to power: as it is written, honor to whom honor, tribute to whom tribute: For when I honored you, when you were a private man from the inwards of my heart, how ſhould I not honor you an Emperour?]
Reader do not only judge of my two Epiſtles to Rich. Cromwell by theſe paſſages, but even of theirs that ſubmitted to Oliver himſelf: and yet Judge of the inferences that are raiſed by our accuſers.
Should I but recite the words of ſubmiſſion of Biſhops to uſurpers, yea of Gregory the Great and ſuch of the higheſt note, it would be over tedious to the Reader, who I doubt will think that I have been too long in this unpleaſant Hiſtory already.
2. But this I muſt need add ad homines, 1. That it hath been the Biſhops themſelves that have been the grand cauſe of our Church diviſions and ſeparations: what advantage they have given the ſeparatiſts I ſhewed before. I am ſure in the Congregation where I once was teacher, and the Countrey about, nothing that ever came to paſs hath ſo inclined the people to avoid the Prelates, as their own doing, eſpecially the ſilencing and reproaching their ancient teachers whom they knew longer and better than the Prelates did.
2. That it was a Parliament of Epiſcopals and Eraſtians, and not of Presbyterians, who firſt took up Armes in England againſt the King.
3. That the General, and chief Officers of the Parliaments firſt Army were ſcarce any of them at all Presbyterians, but Epiſcopal by profeſſion, ſaving ſome few Independants.
4. That the Lord Lieutenants of the ſeveral Counties, were almoſt all Epiſcopal, ſave three Independents.
5. The Major Generals of the ſeveral By-armies in the Counties were almoſt all Epiſcopal.
6. The Aſſembly of Divines at Weſtminſter were all ſave eight or nine Conformable.
7. Moſt of the Epiſcopal men of my acquaintance took the Covenant, that could keep their places by it, or at their compoſition.
8. I knew few of them that took not the engagement it ſelf, againſt King and houſe of Lords, meerly for liberty to travail about their buſineſs, when we that ran a greater hazard by refuſing, never took it; but many were caſt out of their Churches, and their government in the Univerſity Colledges for refuſing it. Theſe and many more ſuch unpleaſant things, I have fully proved elſewhere, being conſtrained by the falſe accuſations of implacable men, to mention that which I had far rather ſilence.
9. And what hand the Londoners, the Presbyterian Miniſters, and Gentlemen, and people had in bringing in the King was once known and acknowledged.
And General Monks Colonels and Captains were ſo many of them Preſbyterians, when they caſt out the Anabaptiſts, from among them in Scotland and marcht into England and reſtored the King, that as I knew divers of them to be ſuch, ſo far as I could learn from others, the chief ſtrength of them were ſuch or ſo inclined.
10. And though many of the Parliament were ſuppoſed Presbyterians long after, who were Epiſcopal at the raiſing of the Army, yet could not the late King Charles I. be rejected and judged and put to death, till moſt of the Parliament were violently ſecluded and impriſoned by the Army. And as ſoon as they were but called together again, it was they (in Parliament and Council of State) that opened the door for the Kings reſtitution.
But while the matters of the Church of Chriſt, and the deciſion of religious controverſies, and the liberty of Chriſts Miniſters to preach his Goſpel, muſt be laid upon ſtate revolutions, and where Biſhops that can neither accuſe Chriſts Miniſters of hereſie, ignorance, negligence, covetuouſneſs, pride, nor ſcandalous immoralities, ſhall run to the old methods, and perſwade Kings that theſe men are not for their profit, that they are peſtilent fellows and movers of ſedition among the people, that they prophecy not good of Kings but evil, and that they would ſet up another King, one Jeſus, and therefore are not Caeſars friends, theſe malicious projects may ſilence Miniſters, and proſper, while our ſins are to be puniſhed, and the peoples, contempt of the Goſpel and their ingratitude are to be chaſtiſed. But the wicked ſervant that ſaith, my Lord delayeth his coming, and beateth his fellow ſervants, and eateth and drinketh with the drunken, will ſee that his Lord will come in a day, that he looked not for him, and will cut him a ſunder and give him his portion, with hypocrites (for their dead Image of Religion will not ſave them) there ſhall be weeping and gnaſhing of teeth, Matth. 24. 48, 49, 50, 51.