Parisiis 1631. Petrus Paludanus Panormitarms 1527. Ruewardus Tapperus Coloniae 1577. Registrum Cantuariense in libris pergamenis in officina Registrarii principalis Archiepiscopi Cantuariensis in vico vocato Doctors Comous Lon Sleidonnis Argeotorari 1558. A DISCOVERY OF A notable Fraude and Deceit committed by R. B. a Seminarie Priest upon Two of the Articles of the Church of England SECT. I. Num. 1 THis Romish Adversary R. B. raises his Engines for undermining of our Church upon these two severall Articles of ours to wit the Three and twentieth Articles and the sixe and thirtieth Article following It is not lawfull for any man to take upon him the office of publike preaching in the Congregation before he be lawfully called and sent to execute the same and those wee ought to judge lawfully called and sent which be chosen and called to this worke by men who have publike authority given them in the Congregation to call and send Ministors in the Lords Vineyard The booke of Consecration of Archbishops and ordering of Priests and Deacons lately set forth in the time of K. Edward the sixt and confirmed the same time by authority of Parliament doth containe all things necessary to such Consecration and ordering neither had it any thing that of it selfe is superstitious or ungodly and therefore whosoever are consecrated or ordered according to the Rites of that Booke since the second yeare of the aforenamed King Edward unto this time or shall be hereafter consecrated or Ordered according to the same Rites we decree all such to be rightly and lawfully consecrated and ordered Upon these Two Articles are Three such Engines devised by R. B. for overthrow of the Foundation of the visible and outward Entity of our Church of England in point of Consecration and Ordination here delivered in his owne words as are novell and consequently unconfuted The particulars whereof are as followeth R. B. OBIECTION I. Num. 2 This new Protestant Queene Elizabeth her Raigne beginning here in the yeare 1558. and 1559. in her first Parliament never had any knowne publike allowed square Rule forme maner order or fashion whatsoever for any to have publicke authority to call make send or set forth any pretended Minister untill the yeare 1562. when their Religion was foure yeares old and these Articles were made and in them the Booke of King Edward the sixt about ten or eleven yeares old when he set it forth by Parliament was first called from Death wherewith it perished in the first yeare of Queene Mary It hath beene pretended that Mathew Parker was made a Bishop on the seventeenth day of December But alas they had then no forme or Order to doe such a businesse untill foure yeares after this pretended admittance alleaged to have beene the seventeenth of December 1559. Here I have proved demonstratively that they neither have any lawfull Iurisdiction or Ordination among them But to doe a worke of Supererogation in this so much concerning the standing or overthrow of our Frotestants whole Religion quite overthrowne by this one dispute if they have no rightly orderly and lawfully consecrated Bishops Priests or Deacons I thus further demonstrate First then if the Decree of this later Article as they terme it were to be accepted and received for a just and law full Decree yet the first Protestant Bishops Priests and Deacons in Queene Elizabeths time from which all that now be in England or have beene since then cannot be said to be rightly orderly and lawfully consecrated by this very Article it selfe For that supposed Booke of King Edward the sixt being abrogated and taken away by Queene Maries Lawes and not afterwards revived by the Protestant Lawes of Queene Elizabeth untill in those Articles in the yeare of Christ 1562. as their date is Queene Elizabeth beginning her Raigne the 17 of November 1558 all their first pretended Bishops Priests and Deacons must needs be unrightly unorderly and unlawfully made though by that Booke of King Edward because there was no Protestant right order or Law to make or admit any into such places by that Booke not approved or allowed by any Protestant right order or Law all that time P. H. ANSWER Num. 4 This objection more then once repeated is nothing but a litigious and impertinent quarrell for want of matter For posito That Archbishop Parker wanted in his consecration some Punctilioes of outward Order for me or fashion according to the prescript tenor of our Lawes or Rules or that there was not any law or publike Rule of our Common-meale prescribing an outward for me of Consecration then in â—cre yet such want or Fayler did not nor could vitiate destroy or annibilate his Consecration celebrated in a sufficient Church manner in esse and substance good and valide in regard regall Lawes and Ecclesiasticall Canons are but circumstantiall and ad bene â—sse fitting and directing quatenùs ad nos the Ceremony and outward forme thereof which Order and forme if it hap at any time upon just or reasonable occasion not to be pursued the same is not destructive to such Consecration to make it invalide or fruitlesse But of all others this objection becomes not R. B. nor any Romanist First because the (a) Pontificians do exclude all civill and municipall Lawes of Princes and Republikes from Intermedling with those Ecclesiasticall Affaires wherein your Romish rote is like the bold (b) Protest of the Donatists against Insperiall authority in Church businesse Quid Imperatori cum Ecclesia What have Emperours Kings and Princes to dowith Ecclesiasticall affaires whereas seeing Kingsare both (c) Custodes utriusque Tabulae Nutritii Ecclesiae Keepers of both Tables and Nursing Fathers and Nursing Mothers of the Christian Church it belongs unto and is a Duty of Regality to constitute and ordeine lawes concerning Ecclesiasticall Hierarchy and the Regiment of the Church and per potestatem coactivam by power coactive to enforce the due execution of the duties of Religion and to cause punishments to be inflicted on the Delinquents to succour the oppressed and to cherish the good both among Priests and Laikes as well in Church as Common-weale But indeed the immediate Actes of the Episcopall Priestly and ministeriall office as Preaching Administration of Sacraments and the Actuall consecration of Bishops and ordination of Priests Ministers and Deacons belongs properly to the Pastorall charge Numb. 5 Secondly because the Romish Church is guilty of violation both of Canons and it's owne Pontificall being content to derive succession from many incanonicall and irregular Consecrations For contrary to the tenor of the first generall (d) Councell of Nice and their owne Iurists and (e) Doctors determining that Consecration of a Bishop ought to be by Three Bishops at the least the Romish Church hath not onely consecrated some Bishops by (f) one onely Bishop and two mitred Abots but hath permitted Boy (g) Priests Boy Bishops Boy Cardinals and
raigne Ergo the Episcopall Acts of Coverdale Hodskins though once consecrated Bishops were ipso facto meâ—re Nullities and of no validity If R.B. or his vindicatour will grant the Major then I know what will become of the Romish Church in England and of all Episcopall and Sacerdotall Acts by Romish Bishops and Priests in Consecrations Ordinations Marriages Sacrifices absolutions c. even to be here in England meere nullities Againe I perceive R. B. did faint in his Assertion not adventuring to say that Coverdale and Hodskins were either no Bishops at that time de factor Num. 17 or were disallowed to exercise Episcopacy which for to doe he ought to maintaine that they were never at all consecrated to be Eishops and if he allow them to be once consecrated Bishops then hee ought to produce some Act or Sentence for unbishoping of them or for discharge of their exercise of Episcopacy which he doe's not goe about to doe But I say it was neither the one not the other but it proceeded from themselves whatsoever was wanting therein they beingin truth long before consecrated lawfull Bishop neither they themselves nor the State of the Realme holding or judging them to be no Bishops here quoad officium or passing any Sentence against exercise of it but they did not exercise of themselves at that time Episcopacy here quoad Beneficium But posito these two had beene excommunicate deprived deposed or degraded had they not neverthelesse by your owne Doctrine continued Bishops quoad characterem quoad officium as well as Priests having such a Character by Consecration and ordination imprinted as is indelible your Councell of Trent determines it for you Siquis dixerit per sacram Ordinationem non imprimi Characterem vel cum qui Sacerdos semel fuit Laicum rursùs fieri posse Anathema sit if any one shall say that a Character is not imprinted by holy Orders or that He which once was a Priest can be made Lay againe let him be accursed And such also is the Character of Episcopacy as according to the Romish Doctrine neither by Schisme heresie excommunication suspension deposition or degradation it can be obliterated as your (a) Gregory de Valentia (b) Gabriel Biel (c) Dominicus à Soto (d) Capreohis say And also your great (e) Cardinall Bellarmine sayes Observandum est Characterem Episcopalem esse absolutam perfectam independentem potestatem conferendi Sacramenta Confirmationis Ordinis ideo non solum posse Episcopum sine aliâ Dispensatione confirmare Ordinare sed etiam non potest impediri ab ullâ superiori potestate quin re verâ Sacramenta ista conferat si velit licet peccâ—t si id faciat prohibente Summo Pontifice It is to be observed that the Episcopall Character is an absolute perfect and independant Power to conferre the Sacraments of confirmation and Orders therefore a Bishop may without any Dispensation constitute ordaine and not onely He cannot be hindred by any superiour power but also hee may conferre those Sacraments if hee will though he offend if he doe it the high Bishop prohibiting it And likewise your Petrus de Palnde sayes Si non omnis Episcopus potest Ordines conferre hoc esset vel propter Demeritum'vitae quia esset malus vel propter defectum Fidei quia Haereticus vel propter Sententiam Ecclesiae quia esset excommunicatus vel suspensus vel alias praecisus vel propter Depositionem ab Ordine vel quia esset Degradatus sed nihil istorum impedit quin omnis Episcopus possit veros Ordines conferre if every Bishop cannot conferre Orders it would be either by reason of Demerit of life because he is wicked or by defect of faith because be is an Hereticke or else by reason of the Sentence of the Church because he is excommunicated or suspended or otherwise cut off or because hee is deposed from Orders or because he is degraded but none of these doe hinder but that every Bishop may conferre true orders So as if Coverdale and Hodskins had beene deposed in Queene Elizabeths time yet might they consecrate an other And if you say Fieri non debet it ought not to be done then I say Factum valet dissolvi non potest being done it availeth and cannot be undone But here the Consecration of Archbishop Parker by Imposition of their hands was so farre from doing ought therein in Contempt of or against Authority as that it was done by Regall Assent and Command comprised in the Queenes Letters Patents directed to them and others to Consecrate Doctor Parker to be Archbishop of Conterbury The Letters Patents are thus Elizabetha Dei gratiâ c. Reverendis in Christo Patribus Miloni Cover dale quondam Exoniensi Episcopo Iohanni Suffraganeo Bedd c. Elizabeth by the Grace of God c. To the Reverend Fathers Miles Coverdale late Bishop of Exeter Iohn Suffragan of Bedford c. whereby it is manifest they were allowed and also imployed as consecrate Bishops in the beginning of Queene Elizabeths raigne Num. 18 But posito they had not beene allowed Bishops yet if Deposition or Degradation cannot obliterate the Character of Episcopacy but it is still in force quatenus ad officium as concerning the office notwithstanding the benefits profits and all that pertaines ad exeroitium jurisdictionis as concerning the exercise of jurisdiction be taken away how little hurt can not-allowance or disallowance doe But if I may speake my mind freely I conceive that when R. B. said that Coverdale and Hodskins were not allowed for Bishops in all Queene Elizabeths time he did intend that his Vulgar Reader should beleeve that they were never Consecrated Bishops at all For I cannot easily be perswaded but that this old Student did well know that Coverdsle and Hodskins had beene long before Consecrated Bishops and still continued Bishops de jure For the Records declare it plaincly that Hodskins was 9. Decembris 29. Hen. 8. Anno Domini 1537. Consecrated and so continued till his death from whom the principall Bishops in Queene Maries raigne descended By him was Consecrated Thomas Thurlby who was one of the Consecrators of your Cardinall Poole Archbishop of Canterbury and as for Coverdale he was 30. August 1551. An. 2 Edw. 6. Consecrated Bishop of Exeter who being displaced and imprisoned by Queene Mary was at the desire of the King of Denmarke sent to his Majesty by the same Queene And returning backe in the beginning of the raigne of Queene Elizabeth he being aged cared not to returne to his Bishopricke but retired to a private life not allowing himselfe Episcopacy quoad Beneficium et jurisdictionem yet he still continued true and perfect Bishop de jure quoad esse et Titulum which two Coverdale and Hodskins did joyne with the other two Barlow and Scory in the Episcopall Act of Consecrating of Doctor Parker to
allowed and received for Bishops in the moneth of August before in publike Sâ—emnitiâ—s None can say these were onely Bishops Elect and not perfectly allowed or admitted for the true Bishops For by the Statute of Hen. 8. Anno 25. revived by Queene Elizabeth in her first Parliament Anno 1. cap. 1. it is ordained that Consecration must be within twenty dayes of Election P. H. ANSWER Numb. 12 It is readily yeelded unto that Doctor Parker not our first Protestant Arch-bishop seeing Arch-bishop Cranmer was his Predecessor but our first in Queene Elizabeths time was allowed Arch-bishop of Canterbury five or sixe moneths before the 17 of December 1559 which is the time ascribed for his Consecration And also Barlow Scory and Grindall were allowed and acknowledged Bishops before But what use you would make of it I know not unlesse it be to the end that the Regâ—ster which Records the Consecration of Archbishop Parker on the 17 of December 1559. should be thereby conceived to be fictitious and untrue such I thinke is your meaning because you elsewhere call that Register a new-borne Register which is contraryed by the outhenticke Register of Canterbury whereby it so appeares to be a true and faithfull Register as nothing needs to be said for it But be your meaning there in what it will I had upon the first reading of the former part of this Objection this ready Answer That Doctor Parker might be Bishop elect all that time But R. B. well foreseeing the readines of that kind of Answer did immediatly take that help from me as he thought by trumping in my way his Statute of Consecration within twenty dayes after election so as it cannot as he sayes be alleadged that He stood Bishop onely elect for the space of five or six moneths together But shall R. B. be so gently used As to say He in mistaken If I should so deale with him I shall in good sooth be mistaken then too For I cannot conceive that an old Student can be so mistaken in such a matter as ordinary Schoole-boyes may easily know by meere reading without helpe of Tutor or Expositor I pray God it was not wilfully done contra dictamen conscientia suae against his owne particular knowledge per bypocrism Here are the words of the Statute Num. 13 Be it enacted that if any Archbishop or Bishop within the Kings Dominions after Election shall be signified unto them by the Kings Letters Patents shall refuse and doe not confirme invest and consecrate with all due circumstance such person as shall be elected-and to them signified within twentie dayes next after the Kings Letters of such signification shall come to their hands That then every Archbishop Bishop and other persons so offending shall runne into the dangers paines and penalties of the Estatute of provision Praemunire It it not most evidently obvious to every Reader that This Act doth not ordaine that Consecration shall be within Twentie dayes next after Election but within twentie dayes next after the Kings Letters signifying such Election shall come to those who are by his Majestie appointed to be Consecrators of the New-Bishop And the very troth is That Matthew Parker was elected to be Archbishop of Canterbury on the first day of August 1559. But the Queenes Letters Patents signifying his Election were dated not before the sixt of December following and bee was confirmed the ninth and Consecrated the seventeenth of December aforesaid So as his consecration was celebrated within the time limited by the Law And on the 21 of the same December was Edmond Grindall consecrated Bishop of London and from the time of their Elections they stood all the while Lord Bishop elect And Barlow and Scory were Bishops consecrated long before Q Elizabeth came to the Crowne as in Answer to the subsequent objection shall evidently appeare But in the meane time let it be observed that where he sayes in this place that Barlow and Scory were allowed Bishops in August 1559 Hee elsewhere sayes the said Barlow and Scory were not allowed for Bishops till the 20 of December following And is not that a direct contradiction But what cares bee or the Iesuited partie for contradictions or false-hoods so as beliefe be gained from the simply credulous SECT. III. R. B. OBJECTION III. Numb. 14 NEither was there any One of the pretended Consecratours of Matthew Parker from whom all the rest doe claime Ordination a true and lawfull Bishop by Protestant proceedings These they name unto us William Barlow Iohn Scory Mikes Coverdale Iohn Hodikins By these was Matthew Parker consecrated Archbishop of Canterbury the seventeenth of December in the yeare 1559. Two of these fower namely Coverdale and Hodskins were never allowed for Bishops inall Queene Elizabeths time as the pretended Register the printed Antiquitates Britamicae Godwyn Mason and others of them confesse confessing also That the other Two were but Bishops elect Barlow elect Bishop of Chichester Scory elect of Heresord But all men grant both Catholikes and Protestants that Men onely elect Bishops not consecratedor admitted cannot consecrate Bishops much lesse an Archbishop Metropolitan And William Barlow and Iohn Scory were not allowed by these Protestants for Bishops or such men untill Matthew Parker was as they pretend by their Register consecrated by them William Barlow stiled before Doctor of Divinity or a Priest Regular And Iohn Scory then stiled onely Bachelour of Divinity and Priest Regular were first allowed for Bishops or such men the 20 of December 1559 even three dayes after Matthew Parker's pretended * Ordination by them P. H. ANSWER Num. 15 The two former objections were purposely framed for the undermining of the Consecration of Archbishop Parker and all his Successors as done without any Protestant Order rule forme or fashion which is as you see vindicated to be regular and formall according to Protestant-publike right square forme and Order notwithstanding any thing urged by R. B. to the contrary Now the last Objection tends to the destraction of all Episcopall abilities in the Consecration of Archbishop Parker First R.B. sayes That two of them were never allowed for Bishops in Queene Elizabeths Raigne And secondly the other two were but Bishops elect and consequently uncapable to Consecrate any other unto both which I returne this Answer Num. 16 First as the two supposed not to be allowed by Queene Elizabeth to wit Coverdale and Hodskins Hee sayes not that they were not Bishops de facto but not allowed to be Bishops what strength is there in that Proposition Examine it thus and you shall find nothing in it Whosoever though once Consecrated for Bishops were not by Protestants in Queene Elizabeths raigne allowed for Bishops did become in such sort no Bishops as that their Episcopall Acts were ipso facto meere Nullities and of no validity But Coverdale and Hodgkins though both once consecrated Bishops were not allowed for Bishops by Protestants in Queene Elizaboths
Episcopacy to shew forth It's Evidence and to prove it's Title to be Ex Iure Divino or else to be ejected out of the Church I Causidically say in Defence of it That Episcopacy ought not under favour by leg all proceedings to be compelled thereto because Episcopacy hath possession in the Church of God And so hath had many hundred yeares Some for it say sixteene hundred yeares and upwards ever since Christianity was imbraced in the World And it's Adyersaries doe either acknowledge or cannot fairely deny it to be so for the space of thirteen or foureteene hundred yeares and not in a corner of the Church but universally in Christendome And in such a Case Possidenti conceditur without Prescription Possession is a good right and title a gainst all men saving him onely that can make a good and better title first to appeare And untill the Pretender doe make his Right and Title to appeare the Possessour should not be enforced either to prove or shew forth his Right and Title Let then the Consistoriall Presbytery both shew and prove that A standing Ecclesiasticall Court consisting of Presbyters and of twice so many Laikes to be annually elected to beare Rule to Governe Hooker Eccles. Polity preface page 5. and to be Iudges in the Church were by Christ or his Apostles ordained or established and this Consistoriall Power and it onely and no other should for ever beare away this Government Ecclesiasticall which proofe ought to be made not by Texts stretcht from the genuine sence or by words of equivecall and double sence or severall significations but by cleare and manifest Record of Scripture which I beleeve is a taske unperformable I am sure it wanteth that prosperous Successe and blessing which accompanies Divine Institutions according to that divine Axiome truly delivered by Gamaliel Act. 5.38 39. Si est ex hominibus hoc opus dissolvetur Sin ex Deo est non potest dissolvi what is of humane invention may perish or come to nothing what is of divne Ordination cannot perish though at some time and in some place be resisted and persecuted and so become clouded and eclipsed yet it will be resident somewhere or other and it will in time convenient be disclouded and become conspicuous and transplendent againe apply to the present Case The Blessing hath ever gone in an eminent and conspicuous manner with Episcopacie But Presbyterie Consistoriall is at the best supposed to have had buta little entrance in some narrow part of the Church once in the first hundred yeares and againe in this last hundred yeares but hath beene at an inter-regnum at a losse and vacation for many hundred years How can wee then judge your Presbytery to be of God and our Episcopacy to be of Antichrist Presbytery non surted it this be the Evidence on the behalfe of Consistoriall Presbytery as such it is as I conceive clearely then must it become non suite and Episcopacy must keepe it's Possession still amending it selfe or else be caused to amend what is amisse in it by personall defects or by bad Customes Num. 24 Episcopacies Title Although Episcopacy thus prevaile upon this Nonsuite yet nevert helesse ex abundante I will produce such evidence as I have found and collected for it out of divine Records to prove Episeopacy to be ex Iure divino assuring my selfe that others as well those of ablest parts as those whom it more concernes are provided of other evidence and also of a way to apply the same better than I can But for making good my undertaking I offer these three particulars to be considered concerning Episcopacy Num. 25 1. An office or power Ministeriall 2. An office or power meerely Episcopall 3. Exercise of jurisdiction Title of Honour and Dignity and competency of Revenewes First the office or power Ministeriall or Sacerdotall is Authority to preach the Gospell and to distribute and give the Sacraments this power ex Iure divino it is Christs owne Ordination as is agreed on both sides without Contradiction Wherein there is indeed a Parity in the Ministery in so much as such ministeriall-Ministeriall-acts done by an inferiour-Minister or Priest are as valid and effectuall as if the same were done by the highest Prelate in the Church Secondly the office or power meerely and truly Episcopall is to ordeine and to admit Ministers into the Clergie To suspend or punish such of the Priest-hood as become delinquent or neglect their Cure or charge to make use of the Keyes in binding and loosing by judiciall sentence out of and into the Assemblies of the Church both Clerkis and Laicks upon just and weighty causes and generally to governe the Churches for the prevention of the creeping in and growth of Heresie and Error for support and maintenance of Unity without Schisme or Division And for to Rule Governe and Command and to be ruled governed and to obey in such sort as Church affaires may be duly and rightly performed and done in the Churches whereof they are Superintendent Thirdly Exercise of jurisdiction bic non illic sic et non sic in this and not in that Dioces or province in this and not in that manner or other than is allowed prescribed and authorized Title of Honour and Dignity to be Lords and Piers of Parliament and to be endowed with faire Estates and Revenewes annexed as adjuncts unto Bishopricks in this Kingdome to wit to be Lords and Peers of Parliament and to possesse and enjoy Lands and Tenements of value correspondent which are called Temporalities c. These are ex gratiâ Principis et Reipublica So as of the first and the last there is no controversie or doubt as I take it And therefore the first being ex Iure divino may not be abolished out of the Church it being de esse of the essence of the Church and the last being ex Iure humano and de bene esse of accommodation may be corrected restrained and limited in such Moderation as shall by Superiours be found and adjudged most meet and convenient for the welfare of the Church and Common-weale of England Num. 26 But the Controversie is I thinke onely concerning the second particular Episcopacy not de jure humano whether it be de Iure divino or humano of Christs Institution Invention and if it be divine or of mans whether it was conferred upon all the then Clergie equally or to some conjunctim or divisim as Superiour over the rest I assume in the first place that this office is not de Iure humano Reasons of mans ordination for these two Reasons The one because this office was in the Church long before Emperours and Princes became Christians so as the Temporal power could not be the Parent or Founder of this office in the Church but when the Emperour Const intine became Christian he indeed advanced Bishops both with honours and Revenewes and so other good Emperours and Christian Kings
2 7. laying Apostolicall hands on them and being afterwards met in Councill they made a Decrce or Canon for the present deportment of the Churches and according as the present number of the Apostles was either more or lesse so they executed the same power and authority by sewer in number Act. 8.14.17 for Peter and Iohn being come to Samaria they two onely executed the same office by Ordination of others with imposition of hands and with Prayer which makes it appeare that this Commission was committed to the Apostles Conjunction et divisim and it was necessary to be so seeing they were to be dispersed the one from the other for Conversion of the Nations of the world In so much as the same office which was executed Conjunction by all joyntly whiles they were together was shortly after onely executed by two of them but it must be reduced to one alone or else peradventure it will not satisfie though for my owne part this President of executing it by two is sufficient to make it appeare that this Commission and office was given Divisim to be executed by any one as well as by any two of the Twelve there being no expresse direction to authorize two more than any one but it being naturally included and so the Apostles rightly understood it it was sufficient Nam expressio eorum quae tacite insunt nibil operatur What is included need not be expressed Num. 29 But to make it full it shall God willing be here made apparent that both before the Apostles were severed and dispersed among the Gentiles and afterwards Execution by one Episcopally this Office and Commission was executed by one of the Apostles alone whilest the company of the Apostles were at Hierusalem it pleased God that Samaria received the word and there one Simon Magus seeing the holy Ghost was given by Imposition of hands by Peter and Iohn Hee would have purchased the Holy-Ghost with money whereupon Saint Peter alone making use of the Keyes Acts 8.18 9 20 21 binds Him with this Malediction That he had no part nor portion in that matter and his money perish with him And how fast it stucke to him both Scripture and Ecclesiasticall story doe relate And Ananias and Saphyra dissembling and lying were so bound by Saint Peters sole Act of binding as divine Iustice smiting at the Cue thereof both fell downe dead to the great amazement and wonder of the Spectators Acts 5.1.1010 wherein he exercised this Office of Binding And Saint Peter being come to Casarea at the request of Cornelius Hee commanded that Cornelius and the company should be baptized which was done accordingly by which Act Saint Peter did exercise his Office of Commanding Acts. 10 44 4S and obedience was yeelded upon his sole Câ—mmand and Saint Paul reasoning in the Synagagnes of the lowes and finding them to be opposers of his Dâ—ctrine and Blesphemers of Christ He sbooke his raiment and by the Power of the Keyes exercised by himself alone Acts 18.2.5.6 He did bind them to heare their blood upon their â—wne hâ—ads and so it afterwards succeeded accordingly And be having summoned at Milet us the Elders the Spirituall Governours and Superintendants of the Church saves Spiritus Sanctus so Act. 10.17.18 constituit Episcopos ye are by the Holy Ghost made Bishops And rebuking the Church of Corinth for their Sedition and Division He tels them He was a Master-builder whose Office is to direct how and in what manor the fabricke shall be framed and erected i Cor. â— 3.10 10. and to superview the worke and to command the workefolkes to do e their worke and to place and displace whom he thinkes good for the better ordering of the Businesse And then Saint Faul after some reprooses does give them warning 1 Cor. 4.14,15 which carryes in it the Sence of Authority telling them that though they had ten thousand Teachers yet hee was their Father which imports awe reverence and Power And for that cause Hee sent unto them Timothy Ib. ver. 17. which manifests Saint Paul to be Superiour Mittendo by the Act of Mission and Timothie to be Inferiour and under obedience cundo by Going And moreover Saint Paul reproving them about the Inecstuous person doth behave himselfe therein as their chiefe Bishop exercising this Office both of Government and Ruling and also of Iudgement Doome and censure by Power of the Keyes in binding and loosing For concerning that Offendour 1 Cor. 5. per totum hee sayes I have judged already and then He commands them That in their Assembly they should In the Name of Iesus Christ and Saint Pauls spirit to wit of binding Power Deliver him unto Satan by casting him out of the Communion of that Church for castigation of the flesh that the spirit might be saved And then Hee gives them command Not to associate themselves with Fornicatours covetous persons extortioners or Idolatours and this he did doe in the Spirit or Power of judging For à minore ad majus hee sayes They themselves did passe judgement on them within as for those without the Pale of the Church Hee sayes Hee judged not but leaves them to the judgement of God and then in the power of that Office of Iudging and Commanding Hee requires them to put from among themselves or excommunicate that wicked incestuous person Cor. 2.6 to 10. And as Saint Paul had by the power of the Keyes caused that incestuous person to be excommunicated So be afterwards absolves him saying I forgive him and willed the Corinthians to forgive him too and to restore him his punishment being sufficient and to confirme their love to him and so he tryed An in omunibus obedientes their obedience by it And those Corinthians having had suits in Law one against another in the Courts of Iustiâ—e among Pagans 1 Cor. 6.1 to 9. how does Saint Paul handle them for it even as a man of authority and awfull power Audet aliquis vestrum Dare any of you doe it And concerning the matter of Marriage and single life he gives Rules or Canons as a Supreme Governour To azoyd Fornication Let every man have his owne wife and every woman her owne husband the unmarried and widowes if they could not abstaine to marry And to the married He gave command let not the wife depart from her husband And putting them in mind of his Ordinances or Canons in these and other things Hee praise them for keeping his Ordinances and then He makes more Canons 1 Cor. 11.2 to 15. and 28.1 Cor. 14.34 39. lawes and Ecelesiasticall Ordinances for receiving the Communion in both kinds For uncovering Mens heads and covering woment heads in the Church And for silence to be kept by women in Church assemblies and all things to be done with Decency and Order And as concerning Collections for the Saints hee commands them that looke what Order he had given at
Galatia even so they should doe and repeates it to them 1 Cor. 16.1.2 what that Order was were it not a folly thinke you that Saint Paul should take on him to make Orders Rules and Canons it he did not know He had Power and authority both to create them and also to put them in execution in those severall Churches And the same Saint Paul writing to the Church of Galatia complaines that some had endeavoured to pervert them from the Gospell He by the Power of the Keyes doth accurse with Anathema such False Teachers Si quis whis evangel zazerit praterid quod accepistis Gal. 1.7 8 9. Anathema sit And to the Church of Thessalonica Hee gives his Commands to withdraw themselves from such as walke disorderly and not after the Traditions or Ordinances by them received from Him 2 Thes. 3.6.10 12.14 commanding that he that would not worke should not eate and that with quietnesse they should worke and eate their owne bread and requiring that they which obeyed not his word they should not associate or keepe company with them And as for Hymenaeus and Alexander who were retrograde in the Faith Saint Paul by power of the Keyes did deliver to Satan and in particular Hee binds Alexander the Copper-smith who had done him much Evill to be rewarded by the Lord according to his workes Thus it is manifest that Saint Paul alone as Metropolitan and Superintendent of severall Churches or Diocesses did exercise this Office of Government of making Canons Rules and Ordinances of Mission and Ordination and of censures by Binding and Leosing which He did doe without Conjunction with or assistance of any Consistory or Presbytery or any other with Him as I conceive Num. 30 Episcopacy delegated unto successors And now finally least it should be alledged that though this office was in the Apostles as well divisim as anjunction equally yet it ended with them as to the execution of it by one alone and then it fell into the Church promiscuously or into the Consistory which if any shall say Let it be proved and take it But the contrary appeares evidently for Saint Paul delegated it unto Timothy and Titus the one instituted Bishop of Ephesus and the other Bishop of Crete as is evidenced by these Scripture-particulars Saint Paul tells Timothy that he had disposed of him for Ephesus to the end he should charge others that they should teach no other Doctrine 1 Tim. 1 3â— which carries in it matter of power and Authority not to permit false Doctrine And the Apostle as Metropolitan giveth Timothy his charge and rules how he should governe and order the Ephesian Church willing and appointing how men should pray with hands erected 1 Tim. 1.18 2 Tim. 2.8.0 and women to be adorned with modest apparell with shamefastnesse and modesty learning in silence with subjection nottaking on them to teach or to usurpe authority ower the man And then the Apostle declares as an undoubted truth 2 Tim. 3.1.4.9.11 that the desire of the office of a Bishop is a good worke whose care ought to be to rule his owne Family wel that he may rule the Church the better and he having given Timothy severall instructions he appoints him to command and teach them not onely teach them as a Presbyter but also command as a Superintendent and Superiour otherwise he might command and doe it himselfe and concerning Elders Widdowes and Children hee appoints Timothy to give them in charge to be blamelesse and gives him powor of receiving and rejecting of Widdowes into and out of the care of the Church which is a parcell of authority surely and as for the Elders he appoints Timothy to let them be couâ—ted worthy of double honour 1 Tim. 5.17.19.22 surely then Timothy was a person of greater honour authority other wife he could not conferre honour on others and as for the power of Ecclesiasticall-judicâ—ture Timothy must not receive an accusation against an Eâ—der but before two or three witnesses Which informes me that Timothy had power as an Ecclesiasticall Iudge to heare and determine complaints and to examine witnesses and to give Sentence and Elder being Presbyter sheweth that he was Iudge of Presbyters and Teachers And as for Mission and Ordination it is cleere as the Sunne that Timothy had that power to Execute it alone for he is exhorted suddainly to lay hands on no man and Timothy himselfe was ordained and consecrated to this Office per prophetion aforehand eum impositione manuum presbytery 1 Tim 1.18 and 4.14 with imposition of hands by the Presbyterie non per Presbiteros not by the Presbyters but by the office of the Presbytery which may be done by one as if I say I receive Baptisme at the bands of Priesthood I say true though it be alwayes done by one Minister onely 2. Tim. 1.8 and so it appeares this was For Saint Paul sayes it was perimpositionem Manuum mearum by imposition of my hands which addes confirmation to the former point that one Apostle did and might execute this office of Episcopacy and so a Bishop might then be consecraeted by one as Timothy then was Council Nicen. 1. can. 4. Bin 10. pâ— 161. col 1. P. though afterwards when the stock of Bishops was stored it was Decreed that Conseeration should be done by three at the least And never thelesse for the point in hand our Apostle here appointeth Timothie that what he had heard from Saint Paul he should commit to faithfull men able to teach which is the Power of Ordination of Ephesus 2 Tim. 2.2.14 which Ministers hee was to charge that they should not strive about words tending to the subversion of the Auditory which comprises in it matter of Episcopall Authority And as for Titus the Apostle tells him Tit. 1.5 that he also left him in Creet aini corrigea qua desunt to the end that he should set in Order things wanting constituat per Civitates Presbyteros and ordaine Elders in every City which plainely declareth that Titus was ordained Bishop of Crete by Saint Paul alone and that Titus had power delegated to him to rule and governe otherwise he could not set things in Order and had power to ordaine teaching Elders to wit Presbyters and Ministers which Iurisdiction and power was not to be Exercised in one Parish onely but the Text sayes in every Citty whereby Titus had a large Dixes or Territory And at the end of these Epistles of Saint Paul to Timothy and Titus it is recorded though peradventure not Scripture yet exceeding ancient and next Scripture the Church of the Ephesians and Titus ordained the first Bishop of the Cretians I shall conclude with that of the Spirit of God to the Angels of the seven Churches in Asia Reve. 2. These were not indeed Angels or spirituall Essences for reall Angels are not partly'good and partly evill nor to be chargedwith good