Sections 16, 17, and 18
The rest that remains is but mere declamation, not worthy of any answer, but contempt and silence; it is most true that the religious bishops of all times have strongly upheld the truth of God against Satan and his Antichrist.
What can you say to this? You tell me of some irreligious ones, that have as strongly upheld Satan and his Antichrist against the truth of GOD; what is this to the calling? Can I not tell you of some wicked and irreligious presbyters — shall the function itself therefore suffer? You tell us what an unpreaching bishop once said of a preacher; I challenge you to show any unpreaching bishop in the Church of England this day? It is your slander, this, not their just epithet: the scandals of our inferior ministers, I profess I could not but bleed to see, but withal desired to have had them less public; your charity accuses me of excusing them, and blaming my humble motion of Constantine's example, profess to desire the blazoning of them to the world; whether of us shall give a better account of our charity to the God of peace, I appeal to that great tribunal.
In your next section, like ill-bred sons, you spit in the face of your mother — a mother too good for such sons — the Church of England; and tell us of papists that dazzle the eyes of poor people with the glorious name of the holy mother the Church. If they be too fond of their mother, I am sure your mother has little cause to be fond of you; who can and dare compare her to those Ethiopian strumpets, which were common to all comers. For your whole undutiful carriage towards her, take heed of the ravens of the valley: as if we were no less strangers than you enemies to the Church of England, you tell the world that we know not who she is; and that we wonder when we are asked the question; and run descant upon the two archbishops, bishops, convocation — even what your luxuriant wit shall please — and at last you make up your mouth with a merry jest, telling your reader that the Remonstrant, out of his simplicity, never heard, nor thought of any more churches of England than one. Ridiculum caput! Sit you merry, brethren, but truly after all your sport, still my simplicity tells me there is but one Church of England. There are many churches in England; but many churches of England, were never till now heard of. You had need fetch it as far as the Heptarchy. And to show how far you are from the objected simplicity, you tell us in the shutting up that England, Scotland, and Ireland, are all one Church. Nullum magnum ingenium sine mixtura dementiae.
But now take heed of obelisks: you profess, you for your parts do acknowledge no anti-prelatical church — I am glad to hear it; nor I neither. But I beseech you, if you make and condemn a prelatical Church of England, what shall be the other part of the contradistinction?
The Remonstrant tells you of further divisions, and subdivisions, which upon this ground you must necessarily make of the Church; your deep wisdoms take this as his upbraiding of the divisions in the Church in mere matter of opinion, and fly out into the censures of the prelatical party as the cause thereof; and would have them say, Mitte nos in Mare, & non erit tempestas. The truth is, the severalties of sects, and their separate congregations about this city are many and lamentable; I do not upbraid, but bewail them. The God of Heaven be judge where the fault rests, and (if it be his holy will) find some speedy redress, but in the mean time, one casts it upon faction, another upon ungrounded rigor — wherever it be, woe be to those by whom the offense comes. Lay you your hands on your hearts onwards, and consider well whether your fomenting of so unjust and deep dislikes of lawful government has not been too much guilty of these woeful breaches.
As one that loves that peace of the Church which you are willing to trouble, I persuading a unity, ask what boundaries you set, what distinction of professors you make, what grounds of faith, what new creed, what different scriptures, baptism, means of salvation are held by that part which you mis-call the prelatical Church. You answer according to your wonted charity, and truth.
What bounds? Those (you say) of the sixth Canon — from the high and lofty promontory of archbishops, to the Terra incognita of an &c. Witty again. Alas, brethren, if this be all, the lists are too narrow. Here are but four ranks of dignities, and few in each; but if that inclusive [&c.] reach far, yet what will you make of all this?
Do you exclude bishops, deans, archdeacons, &c. from being members of the Church of England? Surely you dare not be so shamefully unjust: if therefore, that they have an interest in the prelacy cannot exclude them for their interest in the Church — what becomes of your boundaries? This is fit work for your obelisk.
What distinction? You say, worshiping to the east, bowing to the altar, prostrating themselves in their approaches into churches: and are these fit distinctions, brethren, whereupon to ground different churches? If they difference men, do they difference Christians?
What new creed? You say, Episcopacy by divine right is the first article of their creed. For shame, brethren, did ever man make this an article of faith? Who will think you worthy to have any faith given you in the rest of your assertions? You add: absolute and blind obedience to all the commandments of bishops. Blush yet again, brethren, blush to affirm this, when you well know that the words of the oath of canonical obedience run only, In omnibus licitis & honestis mandatis — in all lawful and honest commands.
You add, Election upon faith foreseen; what? Nothing but gross untruths? Is this the doctrine of the bishops of England — have they not strongly confuted it in papists, in Arminians; have they not cried it down to the pit of Hell? What means this wickedly false suggestion? Judge, reader, if here be not work for obelisks.
What Scripture? You say, Apocrypha, and traditions unwritten. Mark, I beseech you, unwritten traditions are scriptures, first: then Apocrypha; and why, I pray you, is it more our Apocrypha than yours? Are all our Bibles prelatical too? Shortly all those churches and houses, and persons that have the Apocrypha in their Bibles belong to the Church Prelatical — what have we lost by the match.
What Baptism? What Eucharist? You tell us of the absolute necessity which some Popish fools have ascribed to the one; and of an altar and table set altarwise in the other. What are these to the Church of England? Does the error of every addled head, or the sight or posture of a board make a different church?
What Christ? You answer, (near to a blasphemy;) A Christ who has given the same power of absolution to a Priest that himself has: This can be nothing but a slanderous fiction; No Christian Divine ever held that a Priest's power of absolution was any other than ministerial; Christ's Sovereign and absolute. If you know the man bring him forth that he may be stoned.
What Heaven? You say, such as is receptive of Drunkards, Swearers, Adulterers. Brethren, take heed of a Hell, while you feign such a Heaven — and fear lest your uncharitableness will no less bar you out of the true Heaven above, than you bar Prelatical sinners from their access into it: but, if you would rather, go on still in your own way, separate yourselves from us that profess we are one with you; Charge upon us those doctrines and opinions which we hate no less than yourselves, fasten upon the Church of England those exotic positions of unsound teachers, which it itself has in terminis condemned; and say as you are not ashamed to do, We thank God we are none of you; we forgive you, and pray for your repentance.
Your Queries, wherein I see you trust much, are made up of nothing but spite and slander: If I answer you with questions shorter than your own, and more charitable, you will excuse me. In answer then to your first, I ask,
Who ever held the Lordships of Bishops to stand by divine right. If no body, whether he that intimates it does not falsify and slander? Why is it a greater fault in one of our Doctors to hold the Lord's day to stand Iure humano, than it was in Master Calvin?
I ask whether it were any other than King James himself of blessed memory that said, No Bishop, no King; and if it were he, whether that wise King did not mean to prejudice his own authority?
Whether since it has been proved that Bishops are of more than merely human Ordinance, and have so long continued in the Christian Church to the great good of Church, and State, it be not most fit to establish them forever: and to avoid all dangerous motions of innovation?
Whether these answerers have the wit or grace to understand the true meaning of the Jus Divinum of Episcopacy? Or if they did, whether they could possibly be so absurd, as to raise such senseless and inconsequent inferences upon it?
Whether there be any question at all in the fifth question? Since the Remonstrant himself has so fully cleared this point, professing to hold Episcopacy to be of Apostolical, and, in that right, Divine Institution?
Whether Master Beza have not heard soundly of his distinction of the three kinds of Episcopacy, in the full and learned answer of Saravia: and whether he might not have been better advised than in that conceit of his, to cross all reverend antiquity: and whether the Painter that dressed up his Picture after the fancy of every passenger, does not more fitly resemble those, that frame their discipline according to the humor of their people, varying their projects every day, than those which hold them constantly to the only ancient and Apostolical form.
Whether it were not fit that we also should speak as the ancient Fathers did, according to the language of their times; and whether those Fathers could not better understand and interpret their own meaning in the title of Episcopacy, than these partial, and not over-judicious answerers; and whether they have not clearly explained themselves in their writings, to have spoken properly and plainly to the sense now enforced.
Whether Presbyters can without sin arrogate to themselves the exercise of the power of public Church government, where Bishops are set over them to rule and order the affairs both of them, and the Church; and whether our Saviour when he gave to Peter the promise of the Keys, did therein intend to give it (in respect of the power of public jurisdiction) to any other save the Apostles; and their Successors the Bishops; and whether ever any Father or Doctor of the Church till this present age, held that Presbyters were the Successors to the Apostles, and not to the seventy Disciples rather.
Whether ever any Bishops assumed to themselves power Temporal to be Barons, and to sit in Parliament, as Judges, and in Court of Star-chamber, etc. or whether they be not called by his Majesty's writ, and royal authority to these services; and whether the spiritual power which they exercise, in ordaining, silencing, etc. be any other than was by the Apostles delegated to the first Bishops of the Church, and constantly exercised by their holy successors in all ages, especially by Cyprian, Ambrose, Augustine, and the rest of that sacred order; men which had as little to do with Antichrist, as our answerers have with charity.
Whether the answerers have not just cause to be ashamed of patronizing a noted Heretic, Aerius, in that for which he was censured by the ancient Saints, and Fathers of the Church; and whether the whole Church of Christ ever since his time till this age has not abandoned those very errors concerning the equality of Bishops and Presbyters which they now presume to maintain.
Whether the great Apostasy of the Church of Rome does, or did consist in maintaining the order of government set by the Apostles themselves; and whether all the Churches in the whole Christian World (even those that are professedly opposite to the Church of Rome) do let in Antichrist by the door of their Discipline, since they all maintain Episcopacy no less constantly than Rome itself;
Whether if Episcopacy be (through the munificence of good Princes) honored with a title of dignity, and largeness of revenues, it ought to be [reconstructed: all the more] declined and whether themselves, if they did not hope to carry some sway in the Presbytery would be so eager in crying up that government; and whether if there were not [reconstructed: any] maintenance annexed, they would not hide themselves, and risk their ears rather than subject themselves to the charge of souls.
Whether there be no other apparent causes to be given for the increase of Popery and superstition in the Kingdom, besides Episcopacy (which has labored strongly to oppose it) and whether the multitudes of Sects, and professed slovenliness in God's service, (in too many) have not been guilty of the increase of profaneness among us.
Why should England one of the most famous Churches of Christendom, separate itself from that form of government, which all Churches through the whole Christian World have ever observed, and do constantly and uniformly observe and maintain; and why should not rather other less noble Churches conform to that universal government which all other Christians besides do gladly submit to.
Why should the name of Bishops, which has been for this 1,600 years appropriated (in a plain contradistinction) to the governors of the Church, come now to be communicated to Presbyters, which never did all this while so much as pretend to it; and if in ancient times they should have done it could not have escaped a most severe censure. And shortly whether if we will allow you to be Bishops all will not be well.
Whether since both God has set such a government in his Church, as Episcopacy, and the laws of this Land have firmly established it, it can be lawful for you to deny your subjection to it; and whether it were not most lawful and just to punish your presumption and disobedience in framing so factious a question?
And thus I hope you have a sufficient answer to your bold and unjust demands, and to those vain cavils which you have raised against the humble Remonstrance.
God give you wisdom to see the truth, and grace to follow it, Amen,