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
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— VVheteâ—sall his discourse of the corruptions now in question London 1607 Doctor Richaâ—d Field of the Church l. 5 c 27 Master Richard Hooker his Ecclesiasticall Polity â—â— 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 Downâ—ham his consecration Sermon Doctor William Ames in his Bellarminus enervatus Printed by License at Oxford Anno 1629. Tom 2 l 3 c 3 4â—Iamss Peregrin his Letters Patents of the Presbitery Anno 1632. Doctor Iohn Bastwicke his Flagollum Pontificis Episcoporum Laâ—ialum his Apologeticus with above 40 Anonymous Tâ—eatises 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 coÌ„demning 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 Holgaâ—e Arch-Bishop of Yorke to enable and authorize him to keep a Metropolicall visitation the Patents for the creation of the Bishoâ—rickâ— of Oxford Glocester Bristol Peterâ—â—rougâ— 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 â—cclesiâ—sticall 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 subsâ—itutes making out all their Proces Citations Excommunications Commissions oâ— Administration Probate of wills and writs of Iurâ— Patronâ—â—us 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 â—quality and identity of Bishops and Presbiters by divine right and institution I shall now challenge all our great swelling â—relates and their sâ—attereâ—s joyntly and severally â—sâ—ecially the two Arch-Bishops who have made so many throsonicall braggâ—s of the proofe of their divine Title in open Court befoâ—e thousands of people to produce a contrary Catalogue of Authâ—rities of thesâ— severall kinds evidenâ—ing theiâ— divine pretended right supeâ—ioâ—ity and jurisdiction over other Minisâ—eâ—s â—f they are able to do it and to give a satisfactory answer to this Treatise I shall suâ—sâ—ibâ— to their opinion and recant what I have written But if they cannot performe â—t 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 Aâ—tiquity which is but thisâ— That Acceâ—s was branâ—ed for an Hereticke by Epiphaâ—iâ—s and Auguâ—tine for affirming Bishops and Presbiters to bee equall one to the other by divine instiâ—ution 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 forâ—siding 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
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
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 15â—2 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 218 234.2â—4 266 267.281.293.304.307.319 320 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 Maâ—jor de Gestis Scotorum l. 2. c. 3. wâ—ites 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 â—ogether with that of Scotland was anciently governed only by Presbyters not by any Lordly Prelaâ—es or Diocesan Bishops which Dr. William Fulke in his Answer of a true Christian c. p. 20.50 professeth â—o be Antichristian Paâ—all 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 Sâ—ory 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 occâ—sioned by their very Office Malpas it is almost a wonder and very good fortune if any â—onest 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 Bishâ—pricks or resigned them after acceptance as I have * elswhere manifested by sundry examples and shall here furâ—her exemplifie by â—ther 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 Miâ—er 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 Rocheâ—ort 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 â—ieuere continuing upon him till he died of regret and so discharged him of this care * Antoninus another â—ate Romish Saint being elected Archbishop oâ—Florence by Pope Eugenius the 4th refused to accept thereof because being retired out of the tempests of the world he should therby return into â—hem to the