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 frâquent in the mouthes of our Lording Prelates and their Flatterers then to vaunt That their Hierarchie and Episcopall Sâperiority 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 bâast of Dr. Laâd 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 Oâacle and abide by it That the calling of Bishops to wit Archbishops and Dâocaesans superiour to and distinct from Presâyters 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 Treaâise 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 incroachmeâts 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 âere disproved yeâ * Michael of Medina who alleageth this of Aerius was so ingenious to confâsse 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 ciâe 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 * Bâllarmine may at âirst 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 effâct All Bishops and perchance also Presbyters are of equall power
3 Doctor Thomas Bilson after Bishop of VVinchester in his true difference betweene Christian Subjection and unchristian Rebellion Oxon 159â p 125 126. Iohn Bridges Bishop of Oxford his defence of the Princes Supremacy p. 359. The Petition to Queen Elizabeth p 7 20 21 Discursus de Gubernatione Ecclesiastica Anno 1584 Thomaâ VVheteâsall his discourse of the corruptions now in question London 1607 Doctor Richaâd Field of the Church l. 5 c 27 Master Richard Hooker his Ecclesiasticall Polity ââ 5 sect 7. â Tho Wilson his Christian Dictionary Title Bishop Doctor Henry Airay Sermon 2. on Phil 1 1 Doctor Thomas Tailor in his Commentary upon Titus 1 v 5 7 p 121 122 Mr: Robert Parker De Politia Ecclesiastica Christi Hiorarchia apposita 1614 a learned discourse Paul Bayne his answer to Bishop Downâham his consecration Sermon Doctor William Ames in his Bellarminus enervatus Printed by License at Oxford Anno 1629. Tom 2 l 3 c 3 4âIamss Peregrin his Letters Patents of the Presbitery Anno 1632. Doctor Iohn Bastwicke his Flagollum Pontificis Episcoporum Laâialum his Apologeticus with above 40 Anonymous Tâeatises that I have seene All these unamiously testifie that Bishops and Presbiters by Gods law and divine institution are all one equall and the same That the superiority of Bishops over other Ministers is only of humane and canonicall institution long afteâ the Apostles most of them coÌdemning it as Anti-christian unlawfull Diabolical pernicious to Religion the Church of God the cause of all the tyranny schismes corruptions disorders errors abuses that now infest the Church or hinder the power the purity of Religion and progresse of the Gospell To these I might accumulate the Statute of 25 H. 8 c 19 20 21 26 H 8. c 1 27 Hâ 8 c 15 31 H. 8 c 9.10 37 H 8 c 17 1 Ed. 6 c 21 2 Phil Marie c 8 1 Eliz c. 1 5 Eliz. c 1 8 Eliz. c. 1. The Patents of 31 H 8 pars 4. to enable Bishops to consecrate Churches Chappels and Church-yards with the Kings License first obtained of 36 H. 8 pars 13. to Robert Holgaâe Arch-Bishop of Yorke to enable and authorize him to keep a Metropolicall visitation the Patents for the creation of the Bishoârickâ of Oxford Glocester Bristol Peterâârougâ and VVestminster An. 34 35 H â the Patents of Miles Goverdake Bishop of Exeter Iohn Povet once Bishop of VVinchester and Iohn Story Bishop of Rochester 5 E. 6 pars Prima and of all the other Bishops made in his Raigne by vertue of the Statute of 1 E. 6 c 2. wiih all the High-Commission Patents grounded on 1 Eliz c. 1. all which expresly resolves That all manner of Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction wherby Bishops are extinguished from and elivated above ordinary Ministers is wholy vested in and for ever inseperably united and annexed to the imperiall Crowne of this Realme that our Arch-Bishops Bishops Arch-Deaconsâ and other âcclesiâsticall Persons have no manner of jurisdiction Ecclesiasticall but only by under and from the Kings Majesty that they ought to have the jurisdiction delegated and devided to theÌ by speciall Letters Patents and Commissions under the Kings great Seale to execute the same not in their owne names and right but only Nominâ vice Authoritate nostris Regijs as King Edwards Patents run in the Kings owne name right and Authority as his Officers and subsâitutes making out all their Proces Citations Excommunications Commissions oâ Administration Probate of wills and writs of Iurâ Patronââus c in the Kings name only and under his Seale of Armes not their owne under paine of imprisonment and a premunire for the neglect and wilfull contempt whereof all our Bishops and their Officers have encurred severall Premunires to the forfiture of all their temporalities goods estates and liberties to his Majesty who may much enrich his Exchequer thereby All which Acts and Patents judicially condemne and overturn our Bishops pretended superiority over their fellow Brethren by a divine right the very claime whereof alone makes them all liable to a Premunire and meer perjur'd persons both to God and the King beeing directly contrary to the very oath of Supremacy prescribed by 1 Eliz c 1 which every Bishop oft times takes and every graduate and Clergie man whatsoever who must either abjure this pretended Ius Divinum with which they would support the Hierarchie or prove perjur'd disloyall Subjects to their Soveraigne Having thus presented you with this large Catalogue of Authorities proving the parity âquality and identity of Bishops and Presbiters by divine right and institution I shall now challenge all our great swelling ârelates and their sâattereâs joyntly and severally âsâecially the two Arch-Bishops who have made so many throsonicall braggâs of the proofe of their divine Title in open Court befoâe thousands of people to produce a contrary Catalogue of Authârities of thesâ severall kinds evidenâing theiâ divine pretended right supeâioâity and jurisdiction over other Minisâeâs âf they are able to do it and to give a satisfactory answer to this Treatise I shall suâsâibâ to their opinion and recant what I have written But if they cannot performe ât as I am certaine they are altogether unable then let them retract their former vaine glorious vauntsâ and abjure their pretended Ius Divinum by subscribing to that truth which they are unable to contradict and laying downe their Bishoprickes at least their Rochestsâ as they have oft-times solemnly protested they would doe If they can or will doe neither they must give all the world leave to passe this censure on them That they have neither that learning truth or honesty in them as hitherto they would make the world beleeve they hadâ And that they may have no starting hole to evade I shall in as few words as may be answer what ever they can Object for themselves out of any undoubted Aâtiquity which is but thisâ That Acceâs was branâed for an Hereticke by Epiphaâiâs and Auguâtine for affirming Bishops and Presbiters to bee equall one to the other by divine instiâution This is all that either the (o) Papists or (p) our Prelates do or can alleage for their Hierarchie out of the Fathers or Antiquity and this in truth is a good as nothing For first this opinion of Aerius was never condemned as Hereticall by any Counsell or Father whatsoever but only by Epiphanius who alone is unsufficient to brand or make any man an Hereticke Saint Augustine indeed if the Booke be his cites this opinion of his out of Epiphanius in his Book de haeresibus c 53 yet he brands it not as an Heresie but stiles it Proprium Dogma in expresse termes to wit his proper assertion and his owne too taxing him only of Heresie forâsiding with the Arrians in their branded heresie (q) Isiodor Hispalensis Gratian reciting the Heresie of Arrius makes no mention a all either of this as an Heresie or error
in him passing it over in silence and expresly averrâing it theÌselves 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 dâvine institution as no fundamentall point of faith neither hath it any foundation at all in Scripture as I have elsewhere manifested Therefoâe it is most absurd to call it an heresie Fourthly Epiphaâius 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 condeâne Aârius his opinion in this particular for an Hereticko but onely as a fond opinion as his words Eâ quod tota res stuâtitiae plena est apud prudentes manifestum est Sixthly St. Hieromâ Naziaâzen 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 Aârius only be blamed who argues just as Hierome doth producing the same Scâipture 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 âth 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 aâd more Bishops then Presbiters there ought now to bee no Presbiters subject to Bishops but Bishops to be plâced in every churchâ without any Ministers under âhem but Deacons only and more Biâhops then Ministers which I presume the Lordly Prelates will not grant for this would over-turne not only their Lordships but their âiocesâe and Episcopalities Fourthly he saith that the Apoââles first constituted Bishops onely in the Church withâut Elders and then they afterwards elected Elders as they fâund them worthy which is contrary to Stâ t Ierome and âll antiquity averring that Elders were first ordained in euery Church ãâã 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 improbâble yea contrary of all other expositors on âhil 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 fâom 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 âo in speciall Chemnitius examen Concilij Tridentini part 4. de Ordinis âacramento Danaus in Augustium de haresibus c. 53 Theodorus Bibliander in Chronagr Bucanus lâcorum com c 32 Magdeburgenses cent â c. 5. de haresibus Beza de diversis ministorum gradibus c 22. Bersomus Bucerus de Gubernationâ Ecclesia p 2ââ to 29â Bishop Ioââll defence of the Apologie part 2 c. 9. divis 1. p 196 202. Doctor Humphry confâtat Puritanâ Papismi ad Rat 3 p 261.262 Doctor VVâitakeâ cântr Duraum l 6. sect ââ 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 VVillât Synopsis Papismi contr. 8. qu. 3. part 2. Dr. Reynolds in his Letter to Sir Francis Knolls and to Michael Medina a Papistâde 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 Aââius both âroÌ 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 equâll 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 oâr 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 Apostlâs 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
cleer by Acts 10 2âPhil 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 âishop paramount the Presbiters over one or many Churches and that Diocâsan 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 speâk of one Bishop in a âhurch distinct ârom and superior to Presbyters must needs be âorged Thiâdly Ignatius in these Epistles makes Bishops successors to Christ and to sâand in his stead and Presbyters to succeed the Apostles whereas all others maâes them successors to the Apostles only not to Christ who z leât no successor or Vicar generall behind him bât a remains himselfe for ever the High-Priest chiefe Shepheard and Bishop of our Sâules and hath promised b to âe with us alwaies even to the end of the world This therefore maâes his Authority but suspiciâus and coâteâptible Fourthly Ignatius hath not oâe word in him that Bishops are superior to ââeâbiters ây any divine lâw or iâstitutionâ the thing in question therefore his Authority if geâuine proves nothing for the oposites Fifthly Ignaâius equals Bishops and Presbyters both in jurisdiction rule and Authority for âpist â ad âralââanus he writes thus âut be ye subject to the Presbyters as to the Apostles of Christ for the Presbyters are a certaine conjoyned Sessions and âssembly of Apostles Epist. 6. ad Magnesianes ârebyteri president âoco Sinatus Apostolis The âresbyters rule in the place of the Senate of the Apostles Epist. 10. ad Symenses Do ye al âollow 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 âhey 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 preâerred 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 Praesbytâoum 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 râle and govern the Church in common with them therefore the Bishops were not then Lords Paramount as now they maâe themselves but equall and one with them yea their Colleagues companions as Ignatius and the g âourâh counsel oâ Caââhâge stile theÌ Seventhly his words h that they shâuld âe sâbject to the Bishop as to God and Christ if rightly understood maâe nothing for the Prelates Hieraâchieââor Saint Paul Ephes. 6 5.6 7. coâmands servants to be obedient unto them that are their Masters according to the flesh with âeare and ââembling in singlenesâe of heart as unto Christ not with eye-service as âen 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 âhilippians 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 Preâbyters therefore Paramount Bishops and succesâoâs 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 âorth as we would obey God or Christ himselfe for he that heareth them heareth Christ himselfe and hee that despiseth them despiseth God and Châist himselfe Luke 10.16 1 Thes. 4â 8. In this manner likewise are we to be subject to every Minister whatsoeverâHeb 13.17.7.1 Thes. 2.13 This therefore proves nothing for the Prelates superiority over other Bishops especially since this Ignaââus himselfe Epist. 5 chargeth the Trallians to reverence Deâcons inâeââor to âresbyters as Christ himselfe whose Vicars they are As for those extravagail expressions of Ignatius l Episcopus typum Dei Patris âmnium geâut quid enim aliud est Episcopus quam is qui âmni ââincipatu 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 ridiâulous âalse 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 ârelaâts who assâme these speeches to themselues to be o none of Christs Mat. 11.29 All which consideredâ this forged Aâtiquity 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. Pââl 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 differeÌce distinction or superiority between them or attribute any power to the one that it doth not to the other âs 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 whiââ 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
as to Jurisdiction although not of execution which executive exercise is restrained by certaine positive Laws not Divine but Canonicall whence the cause of these Laws ceasing (b) the Laws themselvs determine And Johannes Semeca a Popish Canonist avers That in the first primitive Church the Office of Priests and Bishops was the same but in the second primitive Church to wit some space after the Apostles times both their names and Offices began to be distinguished The same Doctrine together with the Identity and Parity of Bishops and Presbyters is professedly averred not only by those hereafter cited in the Catalogue but also by * Huldrick Bishop of Ausburg about the year of Christ 860. in his Epistle to Pope Nicholas in defence of Priests Marriage by John Crespin L'estate de L'eglise printed 15â2 fol. 14.97 by Phippe de Mornax Tableaâ des Differens par 2. c. 6. p. 67 68 69. c. and by Mornay Lord Plessie in his Mystery of Iniquity in the French Edition p. 7.9 10.72.80 to 87 9â 92.95 to 123.125.128.152 to 155.159.160.172.179.197.210 to 218 234.2â4 266 267.281.293.304.307.319 320 366â 389 395.397.404.410.412â 418.424 to 427 452â 464.467 468.469.503.518.519.520.524 to 528 533.535.545 546 547.567.568 569.603 Yea * Iohn Maâjor de Gestis Scotorum l. 2. c. 3. wâites that in ancient times the Scots were instructed in the Christian faith by Priests and Monks and were then without Bishops And Iohn Fordon Scotichronicon l. 3. c. 8. before him records That before the coming of Palladius the Scots had only Presbyters or Monks to instruct them in the Faith and administer the Sacraments following the custome of the primitive Church And * from Palladius dayes till the reigne of Malcolm the 3d the Bishops of Scotland had no Diocesse at all and so were no Diocesan Prelates but every Bishop whom holinesse had made reverend in that age exercised his Episcopall function without distinction in every place he came If then Bishops and Presbyters were all one and the same in the first Primitive Church which church âogether with that of Scotland was anciently governed only by Presbyters not by any Lordly Prelaâes or Diocesan Bishops which Dr. William Fulke in his Answer of a true Christian c. p. 20.50 professeth âo be Antichristian Paâall and no divine institution why the Churches of Scotland and England may not now be governed by Presbyters only without Bishops aswell as at first I cannoâ conceiveâ their regiment of late having been so tyrannicall unchristian antichristian and exorbitant that they have almost wholly ruined our Religion Church State and lefâ them in a most perplexed if not desperate condition which proves their Hierarchy to be rather Antichristian and Diabolicall then Divine And how can it be otherwise if we rightly consider the Persons or Condition of our Hierarchyâ and their Antichristian Attendants I remember a merry Sâory in * Giraldus Cambrensis and out of him related by Mr. Camden in his Britannia p. 604. It hapned that a certaine Iew travelling towards Shrewsbury with the Archdeacon of Malpas in Ches-shire whose surname was Peche that is Sinne and a Deane named Devill when he heard by chance the Archdeacon telling that his Archdeaconry began at a place called Ill-street and reached as farre as to Malpas towards Chester he considering and understanding withall aswell the Arch-deacons Surname as the Deans came out with this merry and pleasant conceit Would it not be a wonder quoth he and my fortune very good if ever I get safe againe out of this Countrey where Sinne is the Arch-deacon and the Devill is the Dean where the entry into the Archdeaconry is Illstreet and the going forth of it Malpas It was * St. Bernards complaint in his age that Iesus Christ elected many Devils to be Bishops as he chose Iudas to be an Apostle Since then there be so many Archbishops Deanes and Bishops Devills so many Archdeacons Sinners if not Sinne and the entrance into these Offices by reason of Symony Ambition and the like a meer Illstreet and their going forth of them by reason of their wicked lives and exorbitant actions occâsioned by their very Office Malpas it is almost a wonder and very good fortune if any âonest godly Minister or Professor ever get safe againe out of their Courts and Diocesse or escape drowning in their Seas Hence is it that the devoutest men in all ages since Prelates became Lords paramount to Ministers have either utterly refused to accept of Bishâpricks or resigned them after acceptance as I have * elswhere manifested by sundry examples and shall here furâher exemplifie by âther evidences (a) Ribadenerra a Iesuite records it to the great praise of Bernardine of Sennes canonized at Rome for a Saint that out of his humility he refused the 3. Bishopricks of Sennes Ferrara and Vrban which severall Popes offred to him and though one Pope put a Bishops Miâer on his head with his own hands yet he put it off againe humbly beseeching him not to impose the charge of any Bishoprick upon him and to change that estate of Poverty to which God had called him because he should bring more advantage to the Church by preaching the Word of God and ayding the Soules of many Bishopricks then by being a Bishop in one Church The Pope hearing his reasons confessed them true and left him to his own liberty (b) Vincent Ferrier another Popish Saint is highly magnified for that ' being urged by the Pope to accept the Bishopricke of Leride the Archbishopricke of Valence and a Cardinalship it was impossible to move him to accept of any of these charges deeming it a greater advantage to free one Soule from the chaines of Sinne then to gain all the great preferments of the world For he perceived that these honourable dignities seemed like so many golden chaines whereby he should be detained at the Court and deprived of liberty to goe and preach the Gospell with poverty as God had commanded him So Thomas of * Aquin canonised for a Saint is highly applauded for refusing the Archbishopricke of Naples with other great dignities offered unto him by the Pope In like sort * Raimond of Rocheâort another Roman Saint is extolled for refusing to accept the Archbishopricke of Arragon which the Pope himselfe conferred upon him and commanded him to accept within few dayes at which news he was very sad and most humbly and instantly intreated his Holinesse not to lay such a burthen upon him which he knew not how to beare and seeing that the Pope was resolved to enforce him to accept it he fell sicke with indignation a âieuere continuing upon him till he died of regret and so discharged him of this care * Antoninus another âate Romish Saint being elected Archbishop oâFlorence by Pope Eugenius the 4th refused to accept thereof because being retired out of the tempests of the world he should therby return into âhem to the
tâe manner of Ordination without any Bishops assistance which power of Ordination and imposition of hands hath ever since been prâctised by Ministers in all reformed Chuâches which have abandoned Bishops such as ours are and maâe themselves as contrary to Gods word âatrick Adamsoâ Arâh-Bishop of St. Andrews in Scotland in his recantation publickly made in the Synod of Fiââe Aprill 8 1591 conâesâeth that this office of a Diocesan Bishop Omne âuthoritate verbi dei destituituâ solo politico hâminum cânâmento âuâdatur is destitute of of all authority from Gods word and is onely âounded in the politicke figment of men out of which the primacy of the âope or Antichrist âath sprung and is worthily to be condemned becâuse the asâembly of the ââesbytery penes quâm est jârisdictio inspectioââm in visitationibus tum in ordinationibus which having the jurisdiction and inspection both in visitations and in Ordinations will performe all these things with greater authority piety and zeale then any Bishop whatsoever whose caâe is for tâe most part intent not upon âod or his âââction but tâe world which he especially serves A ãâã blâw to our prelates Hieâachie For iâ Bishops be not Iure divino and have no âoundation in the word of âod theâ the power of OrdinatioÌ beloÌgs not âto them Iure divino as they aâe Bishops neither can do or âught they to conâeââe Orders as Bishops but ârely as they are Ministers And if so as is most certaine Then this power of Ordination belongs not at all to Bishops as Bisâops but only as Ministers and every Minister as he is a Minister âath as much right and authority to give oâders as any Bishop whatsoever the true reason why even among us at this day Ministers ought to joyn with the Bishop in the imposition of hands neither can our Bishops ordaine any one a Minister unlesse 3 or 4 Ministers at least joyne with him in the Ordination and laying on of hands This being an apparent ââuth I shal hence from the Bishops owne principles prove Presbyters Superior and greater then Bishops in jurisdiction dignity and degâee These say they to whom the power of Ordination belongs of Right are ââeater in jurisdiction dignity ââd degree then those who have not this power and the Ordainer higher in all these then the ordained But the power of Ordination belongs onely jure divino to âresbyters as presbyters not to Bishops as to Bishops themselves not as Bishops but Presbyters and Bishops when they ordaine in a lawfull manner do it onely as Presbyters not as Bishops Therefore Presbyters are Superior to Bishops in jurisdiction Order and degree and Bishops themselves âarre greater in all theseâ as they aâe Presbyters an office of divine âânction then as they are Lordly Prelates or Diocesan Bishops a meer humane institution Thus are our great Lord Bishops who vaunt of the weaknesse of puriââne principles whereas their Episcopall are farre more feeble and absurâ wounded to death with their own weapons and all their Domiâeering swelling authority overthrowne by that very principle and foundation on which they have presumed to erect it the ancient proverbe being here truly verified vis âânsilij ââpârs âolâ ruit sââ I shall close âp this with the words of acute Aâtââius Sâdââl who after a large proof of Biââops and presbyterâ to be both âne and the same by divine institution winds up all in this mânner We couclude therefore seeing that Superior Episcopall dignity is to be avouched onely humane institution Tantum essâ hâmâni iuris that it is only of humâne right On the contrary since it is evident by the expressâ testimonies of Scripture that in the Apostles times Bishops were the same with Presbyters jurâ diuinâ pâtâstâtââ ordinandi noâ minus presbytâriâ quâm Episcâpis convenirâ that by Godâ law and divine right the power of Ordination belongs as much to preâbiters as to Bishops I have now I hopâ sufficiently maâifested our Lordly prelates Arch-âishops Diocesân Bishops distinct from presbyters to be none of Gods institution being therefore none of Gods Bishopâ as they vainly pretend whose then must they be not the kingsâ for thân they are onely Iurâ humanâ which they have publikely ââsâlâimed iâ Courtâ therefore certainly eitheâ the Popes or the âevils or both as many of the recited writers stile theÌ for I know no other that can claime or own them wherfore being neither Gods nor the Kings but the Popeâ or Devillsâ or bothâ what remaines but that now at last they should be spâred out of our Churchâ as no members at all of Christs Church or bodyâ but of the Devill Pope or Antichrist of Rome whose limbs and creatures in tâuth they are as Mauritius dâ i Alââdâ Henry k Stâlbridââ and othersâ expresly resolves and their actions past all dispute discover many of them to be yea as meere Individuum vaginus and meere unnaturall monsters they being neithâr Pastors nor members of any particular Church or congregation as all other Christians are besideâ themselves I read in the l great Dutch Chronicle written by an Augustinâ Frier that in the year of our Lord 1033 beyond Poland there was a strange Fisâ taken of the quantity length and breadth and shape of a living man adorned with a Bishopâ Miterâ a pastorall Staff a Cassock a white Surplesse a Chessible Sandalsâ Glovesâ and all othes Robesâ and ornaments requisite to the Dignity of â Prelate like a Bishop solemnly attired and prepared to say divine Serviceâ his Cassocke might be well lifted up before and behind from the feet to the knees but not higherâ and he permitted himselfe to bee sufficiently âandled and touched by manyâ but especiâlly of the Bishops of that Countryâ which Fish being presented to the King and demanded in the Language of that Countryâ and of divers otherâ nations who hee was and answering âothing albeit he had opened hiâ mouth giving reverence and honoâr to the Bishopâ that were there in the Kings presence one Monster and dumbe unpreaching beastâ saluting and respecting another the King being aâgry when hee had determined to commit him to prisoÌâ or shut him up iâ soÌe stroÌg towâr the Fisâ being very sorrowfull at this newes thereupon closed his eyes and would by no meanes open them untill the Bishops of that Kingdome m kneeling downe before the king in the fishâs preseâce had with many prayers intreated and obtained of the King that he should be sent backe againe alive to the Seashoreâ where hee had been takenâ that God whose workes are incomprehensible might shew his nature and Acts least otherwise a plague should there ensue both to the King and his Subjects which their suit the King had no sooner granted but presently the âoresaid Monster opened his eyes giving great thankes as it were to the King and especially to those Bishops After with a Chariot being prepared to carry the Fish backe againe the Fish in presence of an infinite
that See was 8 yeares vacant An 1225 after Richard Poore 4 years An 1ââ0 4 years aââer Walter de la Wiâe An 1588 3 yeares aâter Iohn âierce An 1596 2 yeares aâter Iohn Coldwell a An 1166 the Bishopricke of Bath and Wels upon the death of Robert continued void 8 yeares 8 moneths and 15 dayes An 1242 after Ioceline 2 yeares Anno 1262 as long after William Buttân Anno 1503 as long after Oliver King An 1547. as long after William Knight An 1381 3 yeares after Gilbert Barkely An 1590 2 yeares aââer Thomas Godwin b An. 1103 the Bishoprick of Exeter after Osberâus decease was vacant 4 yeares Anno 1182 after Bartholmeus Iscartus 2 yeares An 1119 after William Herbert the last Bishop of Thelfords death that See now Norwich was vacant 2 Yeares An 1214 after Iohn de Grey it was vacant 7 yeares Anno 1222 afteâ Pandulfus 3 yeaâes Anno 1236 after Rodulphus almost 3 years and as long after William de Releigh An 1240 after Henry Spencer An. 1406 âlmost 2 yeares c An 1095 after the death of Wolstan Bishop of Worâhester that See was vacant 2 yeares An 1113 as long after Sampsons An 1123 almost as long after Theulphus An 1179. after Roger An 1184 after William de Northale 5 yeares An 1198 after Iohn de Constantijs 2 yeares An â1212 ãâã long after Mangere Anno 1373 as long after VVilliam de Lyn An 1417 as long after Thomas Pondrell An 1427 7 yeares after Thomas Polton Anno 1590 3 yeares after Ednica Freat d An 1556 the Bishopricke of Hereford after Leoneyards death continued 4. yeares vacant An 1127 after Richaâd above 4 yeares Anâ 1167 after Roâert de Melim above 6 yeares An 1539 after Iohn Skip above 13 yeeres An 1585 after Herbert West failing 17 yeares An 1526 the Bishopricke of Chichester was void almost 4 yeares after Iohn Reempale his death An 1006 after Richard Fitz-Iames 2 yeaâes An 1235 the Bishopricke of e Rochester after âenry de Sandâords death was vaâânt 3 yeares An 1277 2 yeares aââer Walter de Merton 1316 after Thomas de Waldham 3 yeares An 1401 as long after Iohn Bolteshamâ Anno 1535 after Iohn Fisher 2 yeares An 1557 the new created Bishopricke of Oxford after the decease of Iohn King first Bishop there was vacant 10 yeares An 1568 afâer Hugh Carrow the 2. Bishop it was voyd 21. yeares together An 1592 after Iohn Vnderhill the third Bishop it continued void 11. yeares so little want was there of a Bishop in that See Anâ 1559 the new created Bishopricke of Oxford after Iames Brookes the third Bishops death was vacant three yearesâ An 1578 as long after Edmond Cheyney An 1558 the new created Bishopricke of Bristoll after Paul Bush the first Bishop was vacant 4â yearesâ An 1578 3 yeares after Richard Cheyney which See continued void otherwise then by Commendani 31 yeares together Anno 1593 it continued vacant 10 yeares together So little need was there of a Bishop in this See f An 1397 the Bishopricke of St. Davids after Iohn Gilberts death was vacant 4. yeares An 1592 after Marmaduke Middleton almost 2 yeares An 1133 the Bishoprick of Landaââe upon Vrbans decease was void 6 yeares An 1183 after Nicholas ap Georgant 5 yeares An 1240 after Elias de Radnor above 4 yeares An 1287 after William de Brews 9 yeares An 1213 the Bishopricke of Bangor after Robert of Shrewsbury was vacant 2 yeares An. 1374 as long after Iohn Gilbert An 1378 after Iohn Swaffham 22 yearesâ An 1266 after ãâã the 1 of Bangor that See was vacant two yeares An 1313 after Lewelin 6 yeares Anno 1406 after Iohn Trevane 5 yeares An 1439 after Robert 5. yeares g An 1017 after Aldhunus of Durham that See continued void above 3 yeares An 1097 as long after William Carlaypho An 1140. after Geoffry Rufus above five yeares An 1207 after Philip of Poitiers above 10 yeares An 1226. above 2 yeares the King threatning the Covent that they should have no Bishop in 7. yeares An 1237 after Richard Poore 2 yeares An 1249 the King threatned to keep it vacant 8 or 9 yeares till Ethelmare his halfe Brother whom he commended to the Monkes election should be of age An 1505 after William Severus 2 yeares An 1587. after Riâ Baânâs almost 2 years An 1577 the Bishoprick of Chester was vacant two years If then all our Bishoprickes in severall ages have been void thus 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 15 17 20 and 30 yeares or more together at divers times to omit all annuall vacancies without any prejudice to the Church or State and with great benefit to the Kings of England who enjoyed the temporalities in the meane time tâen certainly Bishops are no such necessary creatures of divine institution but that we may spare them all together For if we may want them 2 3 5 9 10 15 20 30 yeares without prejudice Why not an Hundred why not 500. yeares yea why not altogâther as they doe in all reformed Churches who have quite cacashierd them long agoe when as no Church can spare or want their Pastors and Ministers that are of Gods institution above 6 moneths at most h After which if the Patron present not in the interim an able and sufficient Clerke the ordânary by the common Law may collate and may seqnester the profits in the meane time for the officiating of the cure which must be at no time intermitted or neglected because of divine institution and so absolutely necesâary which the Bishops are notâ I shall close up this discouâse with a mâmorable I resident of the Dânes An Dom 1537 Christian the third King of Denmaââe removed and suppressed by publike Edict all the Bishops of his Kingdome for their intolerable Treasons Rebellions abolishing their Bishopricks as contrary to our Saviours institutions the meanes that made them Idle proud ambitious unpreaching ârelates and seditious tâecherous Rebels to their ârinces and in stead of 7 Bishops of Deâmark he instituted 7 Superintendents to execute the office of Bishops to give orders to others and execute all Ecclesiasticall afâaiâes which 7 Superintendents Augâst 26 1537. âeceived âheir ordiâation from Iohn Bugenhagius â Pâotestant minisâer in the Cathedrall of Hâsina in the preseâce of the King and Seâate of the Kingdome Lo âeâe all Bishops cashiered as false rebellious Traytors to their Soveraigne as they have ever been in all States and ages theâe having been more notoâiâus Traitors Rebells and conspirâtors of Bishops then of all other ranks of men in the world as I âm able to maâe good as contrâry to divine institution and see not Iure divino as they now boâst and Superinteâdents ordained by a meere ââesâiter in their stead to conferre orders unto others in all the Danish Churches In the beginning of reformation in Germany and other places Luther and other Ministers usually ordained Deacons and Ministers and set out Bookes of