cleer by Acts 10 2â—Phil 1. 1. Tit. 1 5 7. that in Ignatius his daies Bishops Presbiters were all one both in Title office and jurisdiction that there were many Bishops in every chiefe City and Church not any sole â—ishop paramount the Presbiters over one or many Churches and that Diocâ—san Bishops were instituted long after the Apostles and therefore after Ignatius his dayes who lived in the Apostles age as all Authors forecited accord and the whole Clergie of England in their Institution of a Christian man dedicated to King Henry the 8 resolue in direct termes These Epistles therefore of Ignatius which speâ—k of one Bishop in a â—hurch distinct â—rom and superior to Presbyters must needs be â—orged Thiâ—dly Ignatius in these Epistles makes Bishops successors to Christ and to sâ—and in his stead and Presbyters to succeed the Apostles whereas all others maâ—es them successors to the Apostles only not to Christ who z leâ—t no successor or Vicar generall behind him bâ—t a remains himselfe for ever the High-Priest chiefe Shepheard and Bishop of our Sâ—ules and hath promised b to â—e with us alwaies even to the end of the world This therefore maâ—es his Authority but suspiciâ—us and coâ—teâ—ptible Fourthly Ignatius hath not oâ—e word in him that Bishops are superior to â—â—eâ—biters â—y any divine lâ—w or iâ—stitutionâ— the thing in question therefore his Authority if geâ—uine proves nothing for the oposites Fifthly Ignaâ—ius equals Bishops and Presbyters both in jurisdiction rule and Authority for â—pist â— ad â—ralâ—â—anus he writes thus â—ut be ye subject to the Presbyters as to the Apostles of Christ for the Presbyters are a certaine conjoyned Sessions and â—ssembly of Apostles Epist. 6. ad Magnesianes â—rebyteri president â—oco Sinatus Apostolis The â—resbyters rule in the place of the Senate of the Apostles Epist. 10. ad Symenses Do ye al â—ollow the Colledge of the presbiters as Apostles Now if Presbyters succeed the Apostles in the government oâ— the Church al are to be Subject to them to follow them as Christs Apostles then certainely â—hey are equall at least to Bishops who at the highest are by Gods institution only to be obeyed and followed but as Christs Apostles not to be preâ—erred before them if equalized with them as the proudest Prelate of them must acknowledge and and the c Fathers witnesse Sixthly d Ignatius confesseth that the Churches in those dayes were not ruled by the Bishops as they are now but by the Colledge Senate and Synod of the Elders communi Praesbytâ—oum concilio as Hierome e and all other after him affirme the Presbiters therefore had then equall and joynt authority with the Bishops even in point of Iurisdiction governments and did râ—le and govern the Church in common with them therefore the Bishops were not then Lords Paramount as now they maâ—e themselves but equall and one with them yea their Colleagues companions as Ignatius and the g â—ourâ—h counsel oâ— Caâ—â—hâ—ge stile theÌ„ Seventhly his words h that they shâ—uld â—e sâ—bject to the Bishop as to God and Christ if rightly understood maâ—e nothing for the Prelates Hieraâ—chieâ—â—or Saint Paul Ephes. 6 5.6 7. coâ—mands servants to be obedient unto them that are their Masters according to the flesh with â—eare and â—â—embling in singlenesâ—e of heart as unto Christ not with eye-service as â—en pleasers but as the servants of Christ doing the will of God from his heart with good will doing service unto the Lord and not to men c. Is therefore every Master a Bishop equall unto Christ and superior in inrisdiction and degree to Presbyters No So Polycarpus in his Epistle to the â—hilippians chargeth them i to be subiect to their Elders as unto God and Christ using the same words of Elders as Ignatius doth of Bishops Are Preâ—byters therefore Paramount Bishops and succesâ—oâ—s to Christ himselfe I trow not Ignatius his meaning therefore is not that Bishops are as high above Presbyters and the people as God and Christ are above the Apostles as some k ambitious Prelates fansie but only that we must obey Bishops in all things that they command and prescribe us out of Gods word as farre â—orth as we would obey God or Christ himselfe for he that heareth them heareth Christ himselfe and hee that despiseth them despiseth God and Châ—ist himselfe Luke 10.16 1 Thes. 4â— 8. In this manner likewise are we to be subject to every Minister whatsoeverâ—Heb 13.17.7.1 Thes. 2.13 This therefore proves nothing for the Prelates superiority over other Bishops especially since this Ignaâ—â—us himselfe Epist. 5 chargeth the Trallians to reverence Deâ—cons inâ—eâ—â—or to â—resbyters as Christ himselfe whose Vicars they are As for those extravagail expressions of Ignatius l Episcopus typum Dei Patris â—mnium geâ—ut quid enim aliud est Episcopus quam is qui â—mni â—â—incipatu protestate Superior est quod homini licet pro viribus imitator Christi Dei factus and the m like on n which same ground both the Popes and Prelates Monarchie they are so ridiâ—ulous â—alse ambitious and hyperbolical as favor neither of Ignatius or any Christian but rather of a meere papall and Anti-christian spiritâ— discovering these Epistles to be none of his and those â—relaâ—ts who assâ—me these speeches to themselues to be o none of Christs Mat. 11.29 All which consideredâ— this forged Aâ—tiquity will stand theÌ„ in no stead at all to prove them superior or distinct from Presbyters by any diuine institution and other Antiquity making for them I find not extant That Presbyters and Bishops by Gods law and Ordination are both one and the same of equall authority and jurisdiction as all these authorities resolve I shall undeniable manifest by this one Argument Presqyters by the expresse resolution of the Scripture have the very name and not so onely but the very office of Bishops Act. 20.17 28. Pâ—â—l 1 1 1. Tim. 3 1â— to 5. Tit. 1 5. to 1â— the same mission and commission the same function charge Ordination and quallification Matth. 28.19.20 1 Tim. 3 1. to 7. c. 4.14 c. 5 17. 2 Tim. 4.1 2 1 Pet. 5 1 2 3. Tit. 1 5. to 12. neither doth the Scripture in any place make any differeÌ„ce distinction or superiority between them or attribute any power to the one that it doth not to the other â—s the premises evidence and Matth. 20 25.26 27 28. Mar. 10 42 43 44 Luk. 22.25.26 Therefore by Gods law and institution they are one and the same and of equall authority power and jurisdiction in all things As for that distinction in power precedency and jurisdiction whiâ—â— hath since been made between them it hath proceeded partly from Canons and constitutions made by Bishops themselves p partly by meer usurpation and encrochment but principally from the grant and largenesse of Christian Princes who as they erected Bishoprickes and Diocesse
A CATALOGVE OF SVCH TESTIMONIES IN ALL AGES AS PLAINLY EVIDENCE BISHOPS AND PRESBYTERS TO BE BOTH ONE EQUALL AND THE SAME IN IURISDICTION Office Dignity Order and degree by divine Law and institution and their disparity to be a meere humane ordinance long after the Apostles times And that the name of a Bishop is onely a Title of Ministration not Dominion of Labour not of Honour of Humility not of Prelacy of painfullnesse not of Lordlinesse with a Briefe Answer to the Objections out of Antiquity that seeme to the contrary Printed in the Yeere 1641. The EPISTLE to the READER Christian Reader THere is nothing more frâ—quent in the mouthes of our Lording Prelates and their Flatterers then to vaunt That their Hierarchie and Episcopall Sâ—periority over other Ministers is by divine Right and Institution and that all Antiquity from Christs till Calvins dayes and all learned men except a despicable small number of Factious Puritans as they term them suffragate to this Conclusion This was the more then thrasonicall bâ—ast of Dr. Laâ—d Arch-prelate of Canterbury and some others not onely at the Censure of Dr. Layton in the Star-chamber and Dr. Bastwicke in the High-Commission some few yeares past but likewise at the late Censure of Dr. Bastwicke Mr. Burton and Mr. Prynne in the Star-chamber Iune 14. 1637. where in his learned Speech since Printed by speciall command through his own underhand procurement he thus magisterially determines pag. 6 7. This I will say he might have done well to have proved it first but that his Ipse dixit only is now an Oâ—acle and abide by it That the calling of Bishops to wit Archbishops and Dâ—ocaesans superiour to and distinct from Presâ—yters else his Speech is not onely idle but impertinent is Iure divino though not all adjuncts to their callings he should have done well to have specifieâ— what adjuncts in particularâ— And I say further that from the Apostles times in all ages in all places the Church of Christ was governed by Bishops to wit Diocaesan Bishops like to our Prelates now which he will prove at Graecas Calendas And Lay-Elders never heard of till Calvins new-fangled devise at Geneva To disprove which fabulous assertion I have not only particularly encountred it in the Unbishoping of Timothy and Titus to which no Answere yet hath been returned by this Over-confident Boaster or his Champions though specially challenged to Answer it but likewise by way ef Supplement to that Treaâ—ise drawn up this ensuing Catalogue which I challenge his Arch-grace with his brother Prelates Doctors Proctors Parasites to encounter with as many contrary Authorities if they can â— wherby both learned and illiterate may with ease discern that both by divine Institution the suffrages of Fathers Councels forraigne and domestick writers of all sorts aswell Papists as Protestants and the resolution of the Church and State of England in Convocation and Parliament Bishops and Presbyters are but one and the samâ— in point of Office and Iurisdiction and that the Superiority of Bishops over other Ministers is a meer humane Institution long after the Apostles dayes introduced partly by custome partly by the Bishops owne insensible incroachmeâ—ts upon their fellow brethren but principally by the grants connivances or indowments of Christian Princes destitute of any divine foundation to support it I confesse in the * Councel of Trent it was much debated among the Popish Prelates and Divines there present Whether Bishops were by divine Ordination Superiour to Priests But the Councel being divided in opinion left the Controversie undetermined Those Bishops and Divines who held the affirmative produced nothing out of Scripture or solid Antiquity to justifie their opinions worthy answere but that Aerius was deemed an Heretick for affirming the contrary which I have â—ere disproved yeâ— * Michael of Medina who alleageth this of Aerius was so ingenious to confâ—sse that Hierome Austin and some others of the Fathers as Ambrose Sedulius Primasius Chrysostomus Theodoret Oecumenius did fall into Aërius heresie in this point it being no wonder that they did so because the matter was not cleare in all points This his boldnesse to say that Hierome and Austin did savour of Haeresie gave great scandall but hâ— insisted the more upon it The Doctors saith the History were equally divided into two opinions in this point And when this * Article was propounded in this Romish Councel That the Bishops are instituted by Christ and are Superiour to Priests de Iure divino The Legates with others answered that the Lutherans and Heretiques having affirmed that a Bishop and a Priest is the samâ— thing * putting no difference between a Bishop a Priest but by humane constitution and affirming that the Superiority of Bishops was first by custom and afterwards by Ecclesiasticall constitution for which they ciâ—e the Augustane Confession made by the German Churches it was fit to declare that a Bishop is Superiour but that it was not necessary to say quâ— jure nor by whom a Bishop is instituted From whence it appeares clearly That halfe or more of these Trent Fathers with all the Lutherans and Protestant Churches at that time were cleare of opinion That Prelates Episcopacy is not Iure divino and those who peruse that History and * Bâ—llarmine may at â—irst discerne that all our Prelates arguments and Authorities now produced to maintaine their Episcopall Iurisdiction to be divine are taken verbatim from these Popish Fathers of Trent who maintain their assertion and Bellarmine de Clericis the stoutest Champion for their cause Alas to what miserable Shifts are our Prelates driven when they must thus fly to Trent to Bellarmine for ayd to support their tottering Thrones And yet these will stand them in no stead all the Trent Prelates confessing with S. Hierom. * That in the first beginnings of Christianity the Churches were governed by a kind of Aristocracy by the common Councel of the Presbytery and that the Monarchicall government and Superiority of Bishops and Archbishops crept in by custome as the (a) History of the Councel of Trent relates at large where you may read the originall of their Courts and Iurisdictions with the steps and meanes of their exorbitant growth and encroachments upon the temporall Iurisdiction and Prerogative of Princes well worthy the greatest Statesmens consideration Besides Dionysius Cathusianus and Cardinal Contarenus in their Commentaries on Phil. 1.1 confesse that in Pauls time Bishops and Presbyters were both one and that either Order was conferred on the Presbyter That Presbyters are there meant by Bishops whence it is usually said That in the Primitive times Bishops were not distinguished from Priests Azorisus the Iesuite Moral part 2. l. 3. c. 16. confesseth that in the Apostles times every where those who were ordained Elders in Cities were Bishops Cardinal Cusanus De Concordia Cathol. l. 2. c. 13. writes the same in effâ—ct All Bishops and perchance also Presbyters are of equall power
in him passing it over in silence and expresly averrâ—ing it theÌ„selves as a truth Wherefore no ancient Counsell or Author whatsoever but Epiphanius branding it either for an heresie or Error I see not well how it should be so esteemed Secondly this hath been the constant received Doctrine both of Christ and his Apostles of all the Fathers and learned Orthodoxe writers in all ages as the precedent Catalogue witnesseth therefore no Heresie or Error as Epiphanius and some few of late out of him alone have rashly deemed it Thirdly it cannot properly be called an Heresie because the superiority of Bishops over other Ministers by a dâ—vine institution as no fundamentall point of faith neither hath it any foundation at all in Scripture as I have elsewhere manifested Therefoâ—e it is most absurd to call it an heresie Fourthly Epiphaâ—ius there condemnes Aerius as much for reprehending and censuring Prayer for the dead as for affirming Bishops and Presbiters to bee equall But this our Prelates must confesse unlesse they renounce this Doctrine of our Church was no Error or Heresie in Aerius but rather in Epiphanius why not therefore the other Fifthly Epiphanius himselfe doth not condeâ—ne Aâ—rius his opinion in this particular for an Hereticko but onely as a fond opinion as his words Eâ— quod tota res stuâ—titiae plena est apud prudentes manifestum est Sixthly St. Hieromâ— Naziaâ—zen Basill Sedulius Ambrose Chrisostome and Augustine taught the same Doctrine that Aerius did at or about the same time but they were never taxed of Heresie or Error for it either then or since why then should Aâ—rius only be blamed who argues just as Hierome doth producing the same Scâ—ipture to prove his assertion as Hieromâ— hath done in his Epistle to Evagrius on Tit. 1. Seventhly Epiphanius his refutations of Aerius his Arguments and opinion is very ridiculous false and absurd For first he saith that Presbiters then had not the power of ordination neither did they use to lay on hands in the election and Ordination of Ministers which is a meere falshood as Hierom in Soph. c. â— with the â—th Counsell of Carthage witnes and I have elsewhere manifested at large Secondly he saith that Presbiters had no voice in the Election of Bishops and Ministers which is (s) contrary to all Antiquities extant and a most palpable untruth Thirdly he saith that there were then more Bishops then Presbiters and men sufficient worthy enough to be made Bishops but noâ— Presbyters and therfore the Apostle writing to the Philippians and others makes mention only of Bishops not of Presbyters because they had then Bishops but not Presbyters A miserable ridiculous answer which subverts that he contends for and constitutes Bishops without any Ministers under their command or jurisdictionâ— whence it will necessarily follow That seeing the Apostles instituted Bishops without Ministers under them aâ—d more Bishops then Presbiters there ought now to bee no Presbiters subject to Bishops but Bishops to be plâ—ced in every churchâ— without any Ministers under â—hem but Deacons only and more Biâ—hops then Ministers which I presume the Lordly Prelates will not grant for this would over-turne not only their Lordships but their â—iocesâ—e and Episcopalities Fourthly he saith that the Apoâ—â—les first constituted Bishops onely in the Church withâ—ut Elders and then they afterwards elected Elders as they fâ—und them worthy which is contrary to Stâ— t Ierome and â—ll antiquity averring that Elders were first ordained in euery Church 〈◊〉 14â— 23 Tit. 1 5 and that they afterward elected a Bishop out of themselves Fifthly he saith that the Apostles used to write to the Bishops of one Church in the plurall number when there was but one Bishop there which is very improbâ—ble yea contrary of all other expositors on â—hil â— 1. Tit. 1 5 7 Act. 20 17 2â— Sixthly he peremptorily determines Timothy to be a Bishop which I have elsewhere proved false and fâ—om this false ground would prove Bishops and Presbiters distinct Seventhly he interprets an Elder in the 1 Tim. 5.1 to be a Presbiter which most Fathers else expound only to be an ancient man Eightly he would prove Timothy a Bishop and Bishops to be Superior too and distinct from Presbiters because Paul exhorts him not to rebuke an Elder but to exhort him as a Father and not to receive an accusation against an Elder but under two or three witnesses which are grosse inconsequence as I have else where manifested so that Epiphanius whilst he goes about to prove Aerius his assertion still of folly steps into many Errors follies and absurdities himselfe as Bellarmine is inforced to confesse though desirous to make the best of it In a word then as all the forecited Authors in generall â—o in speciall Chemnitius examen Concilij Tridentini part 4. de Ordinis â—acramento Danaus in Augustium de haresibus c. 53 Theodorus Bibliander in Chronagr Bucanus lâ—corum com c 32 Magdeburgenses cent â— c. 5. de haresibus Beza de diversis ministorum gradibus c 22. Bersomus Bucerus de Gubernationâ— Ecclesia p 2â—â— to 29â— Bishop Ioâ—â—ll defence of the Apologie part 2 c. 9. divis 1. p 196 202. Doctor Humphry confâ—tat Puritanâ— Papismi ad Rat 3 p 261.262 Doctor VVâ—itakeâ— câ—ntr Duraum l 6. sect â—â— ad ratio 10 Campiani Resp. Contr. lib. â— qu. 5. c. 7. Doctor Fulke and Mr. Cartwright confutation of the Remish Testament Phil. 1.1 Bishop Bridges in his defence of the Princes Supremacy p. 359. Doctor VVillâ—t Synopsis Papismi contr. 8. qu. 3. part 2. Dr. Reynolds in his Letter to Sir Francis Knolls and to Michael Medina a Papistâ—de Sacr. hom Orig. l. 1â— c. 5. Doctor Armes in his Bellarminnus enarvatus Tom. 2. l 3 c 4. to omit others do all joyntly acquit Aâ—â—ius both â—roÌ„ the guilt of Heresie or Error in thiâ— very point and taxe Epiphanius for censuring him without the judgement of a Synod or of the Church condemning his answers to Aerius his reasons as notoriously absurd impertinent yea as foolish Childisâ— worthy to be hissed and derided I shall therfore conclude as doth our learned w Whittaker in this case verily if to condemne prayers for the dead and to equâ—ll Presbitersâ— with Bishops be hereticall Nihil Catholicum esse potest Nothing can be Catholicke so farre as it from being either an Heresie or Error as oâ—r absurd Prelates and their Sycophants Pretend If they object the Authority of x Ignatius that he advanceth Bishops above Presbyters commanding them to obey the Bishops as the Apostles obeyed Christ and willing the people to be subject to their Bishops as to God and Christ and to their Elders as to Christs Apostlâ—s therfore in his daies Bishops were Superior to Presbiters To this I answer that these Epistles of Ignatius are false and spurious as many y of our learned men have proved at large therefore of no Authority Secondly it is