weapons and all their domineering swelling authority overthrowne by that very principle foundation on which they have presumed to erect it the ancient proverb being here truly verified Vis consilij expers moleruit sua I shall cloze up this with the words of acute Antonius Sadeel Who after a large proof of Bishops and Presbiters to be both one and the same by Divine institution Windes up all in this manner We conclude therefore seeing that superior Episcopall dignity is to be avowched onely by humane institution tantum esse humani Iuris that it is onely of humane right On the contrary Since it is evident by the expresse testimonies of Scripture that in the Apostles times Bishops were the same with Presbiters Iure Divino potestatem ordinandi non minus Presbiteris quam Episcopis convenire that by Gods law and Divine right the power of Ordination belongs as much to Presbiters as to Bishops Page 51. l. 17. betweene same and since this should have beene inscribed So Alexander Narcissus were both Bishops of Ierusalem at the same time Paulinus and Miletus both Bishops of Antioch together Theodosius and Agapetus were both Bishops of Synada at the same season Valerius and Augustine were both joynt Bishops of Hippotogether by the unanimous consent of the Clergie and people and when as Augustine was loath to be joyned a Bishop with Valerius alleaging it to be contrary to the Custome of the Church to have two Bishops in one City they repyled Non hoc esse inusitatum that this was no unusuallthing confirming this both by example of the African and other forraigne Churches Whereupon hee was satisfied In the Church of Rome wee know there have beene sometimes two sometimes three and once foure Popes and Bishops at one time Some adhering to the one some to the other but all of them conferring Orders making Cardinalls and exercising Papall jurisdiction In the Churches of Constantinople Alexandria Jerusalem Antioch and Affricke during the Arrian Macedonian Novatian heresies and Schisme of the Donatists there were successively two or three Bishops together in them and other Cities the one orthodox the other hereticall and schismaticall Yea the first Councell of Nice Canon 7. admitts the Novation Bishops which conformed themselves to the Church and renounced their Errors to enjoy the title and dignity of a Bishop and to be associated with the Orthodox Bishops if they thought fit And St. Augustine would have the Donatists Bishops where there was a Donatist Bishop and a Catholicke if the Donatists returned unto the unity of the Church that they should be received into the fellowship of the Bishops office with the Catholicke Bishops if the people would suffer it Poterit quippe unusquisque nostrum honoris sibi socio copulato vicissim sedere eminentius c. utroque alterum cum honore mutuo praeveniente Nec novum aliquid est c. As he there defines Therefore this was then reputed no novaltie Platina records of Rhotaris King of the Lombards who declined to the Arians that in all the Cities of his Kingdome hee permitted there should bee two Bishops of equall power the one a Catholicke the other an Arian and that hee placed two such Bishops in every City Danaeus proves out of Epiphanius that anciently in most Cities there were two or three Bishops Nicephorus writes That the Scythians neere Ister have many and great Cities all of them subject to one Bishop But among other people wee know there are Bishops not onely in every City but also in every Village especially among the Arabians in Phrygia and in Cyprus among the Novatians and Montanists Yea no longer since then the Councell of Later an under Innocent the 3d. there were divers Bishops in one Citie and Diocesse where there were divers Nations of divers languages and customes Which though his Councell disallowes where there is no necessity Yet it approves and Permitt where there is a necessity Nay those Canons Constitutions and Decretalls which prohibit that there should be many Bishops in one City or that there should be Bishops in Castles Villages or small Townes and Parishes least the dignity of Bishops should become common and contemptible Manifest that before these Canons and Constitutions there were many Bishops in one City and Diocesse and a Bishop in every little Castle Towne and Countrey Village And to come nearer home the Statute of 26. H. 8. c. 14. ordayneth that there shal be many suffragan Bishops exercising Episcopall jurisdiction in one and the same Diocesse of England with the Statutes of 31. H. 8. c 9. 33. H. 8. c. 31. 34. H. 8. c. 1. which erected divers new Bishopricks in England and divided one Diocesse into many both intimate and prove as much Why then there may not now bee divers Bishops in one City one Church aswell as there was in the Apostles time in the primitive Church and formes ages or as well as there are now divers Archbishops and Bishops in one Kingdome divers Ministers in one Cathedrall and Parish Church I cannot yet conceive unlesse Bishops will now make themselves such absolute Lordly Monarks and Kings as cannot admit of any equalls or corrivalls with them and bee more ambicious proud vayneglorious covetous unsociable then the Bishops in the Apostles and Primitive times whose successors they pretend themselves to bee in words though they disclay me them utterly in their manners lordlines pomp and supercilious deportment which they will not lay downe for the peace and unity of the Church of Christ I shall conclude this with that notable speech of Saint Augustine and those other almost 300. Bishops who were content to lay down their Bishopriks for the peace and unity of the Church Et non perdere sed Deo tutius comendare An vero Redemptor noster de caelis inhumana membra descendit ut membra eius esseâ—â—us et nos ne ipsa eius membra crudeli divisione lanientur de Cathedris descendere formidamus Episcopi propter Christianos populos ordinamur Quod ergo Christianis populis ad Christianam pacem prodest hoc de nostro Episcopatu faciamus Quod sum propter te sum si tibi prodest non sum si tibi obest Si Servi utiles sumus cur Domnini aeternis lucris pro nostris temporalibus sublimitatibus invidemus Episcopalis dignitas fructuosior nobis erit si gregem Christi deposita magis collegerit quam retenta disperserit Fratres mei si Dominum cogitamus locus ille altior specula vinitoris est non fastigium superbientis Sicum nolo retinere Episcopatum meum dispergo gregem Christi quomodo est damnum gregis honor Pastoris Nam qua fronte in futuro seculo promissum a Christo sperabimus honorem si Christianam in hoc seculo noster honor impedit unitatem To which I shall adde as a Corollary a like Speech of that holy devout man S. Bernard
sinne upon him Levit. 19. 17. Prov. 9 8. Eccles 9 5. and so is every Magistrate to doe Nehem. 13. 11. to 31. Psal 141. 5. This therefore is no argument of any Episcopall Jurisdiction the rather because this rebuke was to be publikely in the Church before all not in a private Chamber or Consistory Court as all Expositors accord in which our Bishops pronounce their Censures Obj. 5. The fift argument to proove Timothy a Bishop is the 1 Tim. 5 19. Against an Elder receive not an accusation but before two or three witnesses Hee had power to receive an accusation against Ministers that so hee might correct them therefore hee was a Bishop Answ 1. I answer first that this is a meere Non sequitur For 1. Hee might have this power to receive such accusations as an Euangelist and Paules Coadjutor Secondly As Paules Delegate or Officiall as our Bishops Officialls Vicars and Chauncellors now exercise Episcopall Iurisdiction under them as their substitutes onely not by any inherent Episcopall dignity or authority in themselves Thirdly Hee might doe it by the appointement and mutuall consent of the people who had power in all cases of difference to constitute any man a Iudge though no Bishop 1. Cor. 6 1 to 7. Fourthly Hee might doe it onely as an Elder Elders having power to rule well 1. Tim. 5. 17. and so by consequence to receive accusations and to correct delinquents by reproofes or Ecclesiasticall Censures with the consequent of the Congregation 1 Cor. 5 4 5. 11 12 c. 6 1 to 7. Gal. 6 1. 2. Thessal 3. 14 15. Fifthly I had almost added that hee might have done it as an Ecclesiasticall Commissioner but that I considered that hee was not so much as to receive an accusation against an Elder but under two or three witnesses at least first examined and our Ecclesiasticall Commissioners and Bishops are so farre from this divine Apostolicall precept by which they would proove Timothy and themselves to be Bishops Iure divino that they will pursevante silence suspend imprison Ministers and Elders and put them to selfe accusing one ex officio oathes and upon every jealosie suspition and private accusation of any drunkard rascall or without two or three witnesses or accusers first examined against them and brought face to face A direct proofe that neither they nor their proceedings are Iure divino Answ 2. Secondly I answer that by Elder in this text as many conceive is not meant a Presbyter or Minister but an ancient man as it is taken in the first verse of the chapter so as it prooves not that Timothy had any Ecclesiasticall Jurisdiction over the Elders that were Ministers of Ephesus who ruled that Church v. 17. and â—w 〈…〉 Bishops of it Acts. 20 28. Where Paul enjoynes them to take heed to themselves as having no Superintendent paramount them not giving Timothy any charge to take heed to them Thirdly Admit these Elders were Ministers yet Timothy had no judiciary pâ—wer over them to suspend or correct them since v. 〈◊〉 hee is expresly enjoyned not to rebuke an Elder but intreat him as a Father which is farre from giving him any such Episcopall Iurisdiction over them as our Bishops now exercise and usurpe using godly Ministers and raâ—ing them rather like dogs and scullions then Elders Fourthly The words are not that hee should not excommunicate suspend convent or censure an Elder but that hee should not receive an accusation against him but before two or three witnesses Now to condemne or censure is one thing to receive an accusation another The first not but a Iudge or cheife officer can doe the second every register clerke informer or under officer Yea every private Christian is capable to receive an accusation and every ordinary Minister too against another superior to him in age estate or place either privately to admonish him that is accused of his fault or to reproove him for it or to counsell him how to repent and redresse it or to comfort him if hee be dejected with it or to informe against him to the Magistrate or whole Congregation or to pray to God for his amendement Math. 18. 15. 16. 17. Levit. 19. 7. Gal. 6. 1. 2. Thess 3. 14. 15. 1. Tim. 5. 20. 24. Tit. 1. 10. to 14. 2. Iohan. 10. 11. Iud. 22. 23. which well expound this text Fifthly The true meaninge of this text is this that Timothy and other Christians of what quality soever especially Ministers should not lightly receive or beleeve any ill report cheifly of an Elder or Minister without sufficient testimony of the truth thereof by two of three able witnesses as will plainely appeare by paralelling it with Psal 15. 3. Numb 35. 30. Deut. 17. 6. c. 19. 15. Hebr. 10. 28. and with Math. 18. 15. 16. 17. where our Saviour saith thus Moreover if thy brother shall trespas against thee goe and tell him his fault betweene him and thee alone if hee shall heare thee thou hast gained thy brother But if hee will not heare thee then take with thee two or three more that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established and if hee shall neglect to heare them tell it to the Church and if hee neglect to heare the Church let him be unto thee as an beathen man and publican A perfect Commentary on this text of Paul and a direct censure of our Bishops ex officio oathes and proceedings by the parties owne selfe-accusing oath and answere without or before witnesses produced 6. This text admitt it gives power to Timothy to take accusations against an Elder before two or three witnesses yet it excludes not the other Elders of Ephesus from having like power with him it gives him not any sole power to heare and determine complaints without the other Elders assistance or consent but together with them Math. 18 19. 1 Tim. 5 17. Acts. 20 28. Hence the fourth Councell of Carthage Can. 23. and after it Gratian. Caus 15. Quaest 7. Cap. Nullus Decree That a Bishop should heare no mans cause without the presence of his Clerkes and that the sentence of the Bishop should be void unlesse it were confirmed with the presence of the Clergy yea Gratian in that place prooves out of the Councels of Hispalis Agatha the first Carthage the second and fourth Gregory whose words and Canons hee recites at large that a Minister Presbyter or Deacon cannot be punished or deprived by the Bishop alone but by a Synode or Councell and that the Bishop cannot heare or determine the causes of Cleargymen alone without associating the Elders of the Church or other adjoyning Bishops with him for which cause many ancient Councels denied that there should be two Councels kept in each Province every yeare to heare and determine all Ecclesiasticall causes and controversies This text therefore prooves nothing for Timothies Ecclesiasticall or Episcopall Jurisdiction being written rather for the Churches and Ministers future
to Troas Acts. 20. 4 5. and from thence to Italy Philippi and Rome Heb. 13 23. Phil. 1 1 c. 2. 19. Col. 1 1. 2 Tim. 4. 9 13. hee being never resident at Ephesus for ought appeares in Scripture or authentique story after Paules returne out of Macedonia His abode therefore at Ephesus being but for so short a time and hee so great a Nonresident from it afterward cannot possibly argue him to be a Diocaesan Bishop of that Church Answ 3. Thirdly Greeke word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to abide is oft applyed in Scripture to a short abode for a day or two or some little space as well as to a perpetuall fixed residence as Math. 15 32. Marke 8. 2. So it is in the objected text where it is put only in opposition to Paules journey into Macedonia in respect whereof Timothy continuing at Ephesus till his returne might be truely said to abide there though after his returne hee remooved thence to other Churches as Gersonius Bucerus De Gubernatione Ecclesiae p 502. to 518 observes Answ 4. Fourthly Paul did not injoyne but beseech Timothy to abide at Ephesus therefore his residence there was but arbitrary at his owne pleasure not coactive not injoyned by vertue of any Episcopall office this Text therefore cannot proove Timothy to be Bishop of Ephesus no more then his stay at Corinth and other places whether Paul sent him proove him to be Bishop of those Churches Answ 5. Finally Admit Timothy to be both the first and sole Bishop of Ephesus which is false yet this makes nothing for but against our Hierarchicall and Diocaesan Bishops for Ephesus was but one City one Parish one Church one flocke and Congregation as is evident by Acts. 20. 17 28 29 c. 18 24 25 26 c. 19 1. to 18 Ephes 1 1 c. 4 4 16 c. 6 21 22 23. 1 Tim. 1 3 c. 5 17 to 23. Rev. 1 20 c. 2. 1. So that the argument from this example is but this Timothy was onely Bishop of one City Parish Church Flock and Congregation not of many Therefore all Bishops ought to be so too as well as hee Obj. If any object that the City of Ephesus was a Dioces for it had many Elders therefore many Parishes and severall Congregations Acts. 20 17 28. 1 Tim. 5. 17. Answ 1. I answer that the argument followes not For first in the Apostles times and in the primitive Church every particular Church and Congregation had many Elders Ministers and Deaâ—ons in it who did joyntly teach and instruct it and likewise governe and order it by their common Counsell and consent as is evident by Acts 1. 14. to 26. c. 2. 1. to 47. c. 3. 1. c. 4. 3. 8. 9. 20. 21. 23 31. to 37. c. 5. 18. to 33. 42. c. 6. 1. to 9. c. 11. 29. 30. c. 14. 23. c. 15. 2. to 23. 25 32. c. 20. 17. to 30. c. 21. 18. Phil. 1. 1. 1. Tim. 5. 4. to 14. c. 5. 17 Tit. 1. 5. 7. Jam. 5. 14. 1. Cor. 14. 23. to 33. Ignatius Epist 5. 6 8. 9. 10. 11. 13. 14. Policarpus Epist. ad Philippenses Irenaeus contra Haeres l. 3. c. 2. l. 4. c. 43 44. Tertull. Adversus Gentes Apolog. c. 39. Hieronymus Sedulius Chrysostomus Primasius Remigius Haymo Kabanus Maurus Oecumenius Theophylact Anselmus Petrus Lombardus and sundry others in their Commentaries and expositions upon Philip. 1. 1. 1. Tit. 5. Acts. 15. and 20. 17. 28. The fourth Councell of Carthage Can. 22. 23. 24. 25. The Councell of A 〈…〉 en under Ludovicus Pius Can. 8. 10. 11. The 12. Councell of Toledo Can. 4. and all writers generally accord Secondly wee at this day have many Prebends Canons and Ministers in every Cathedrall and Collegiate Church yea in every Colledge in our Vniversities and elsewhere yet but one Church and Congregation Thirdly We have in many other Churches in the Country where the Parishes are large and there are divers Chappels of ease many Curates and Ministers yet but one Church one Parish not a Dioces neither is the cheife Minister either a Bishop or Diocaesan though hee have diverse Curates and Ministers under him to assist him in his Ministery yea in many places where there is but one Church no such Chappels of ease and the Parish great we have severall Ministers Lecturers and Curates in some 4 or 5 in most 2 or 3 yet no Dioces no Bishopricke Neither is this a Novelty but an ancient constitution not onely instituded by the Apostles and continued ever since but likewise enjoyned by the Councell of Oxford under Stephan Langhton Archbishop of Canterbury in the yeare of our Lord 12 22. which decreed that in all Parish Churches where the Parish is great there should be 2 or 3 Presbyters at the least according to the greatnes of the Parish and the value of the Benefice least that one onely Minister being sicke or otherwise debilitated Ecclesiasticall Benefits which God forbid should be either withdrawne or denied to the Parishioners that were sicke or willing to be present at divine offices The multitude or plurality therfore of the Elders in the Church of Ephesus is no argument at all to proove that is was a Dioces or that Timothy was a Diocaesan Bishop because hee had Ministers and Curates under him for then our Deacons Archdeacons and Pluralists who have many livings Chappels and so many Curates and Ministers under them should be Diocaesan Bishops too by this reason Secondly I answer that admit there were divers Churches and Congregations in Ephesus which is very improbable the greatest part of the Citizens being Idolaters and the Citty itselfe a worshipper of the great Goddesse Diana and of the Image which fell downe from Jupiter Acts. 19 21. to 41. yet it can not be prooved that Timothy was cheife Bishop and Superintendent over all these Churches but onely of one of them as every Minister and Bishop of England is a Minister and Bishop of the Church of England but not a Minister and Bishop in and over all the Curches of England but in and over his owne Parish Church and Dioces onely For Paul himselfe who planted that Church and resided in it for three yeares space during which time it is like there was no Diocaesan Bishop of it but himselfe expresly cals the Elders of the Church of Ephesus Bishops and Overseers of that Church and that by the Holy Ghostes owne institution and thereupon exhorts them to take heed to all the flocke and to feed and rule that Church of God which hee had purchased with his owne blood Acts. 20. 28. 1. Tim. 5. 17. Since therefore every one of these Elders by the Holy Ghostes institution and Paules resolution was no other but a Bishop over his owne flocke if severall both to instruct and rule it it is certaine that Timothy if hee were a Bishop of Ephesus and there were many Churches there was onely Bishop of one of them not of all and
are present shall lay their hands upon his head by the Bishops hand This Canon is incorporated by Gratian into the body of the Canon Law and hath been practised and put in ure in all ages since till now The very Glosse on Gratian yea and the Rhemists too assuring us that when a Preist is ordained all the Preists standing by doe lay their hands upon him neither is there any other forme of ordaining Ministers prescribed in the Canon Law or Councels but this alone which all Churches have observed and yet retaine Since therefore no Bishop may or ought of himselfe alone to ordaine Ministers without the assent and concurrence of the Clergy people and others there present as Gratian Illyricus and Gersome Bucerus proove at large and since all Ministers present ought joyne with the Bishop in the imposition of hands in all ordinations of Ministers and haue ever usually done it in all ages and Churches how this Prerogative of ordination should be peculiar to Bishops who may not doe it without Ministers concurrrence no more then Ministers without theirs I cannot yet conjecture True it is that the Councell of Ancyra about the yeare of our Lord 308. Can. 3. ordained That Chorall Bishops should not ordaine Presbyters or Deacons nor yet Presbyters of the Citty in another Parish but when the Bishop should permit them by his Letters And the Councell of Antioch under Pope Iulius Canon 10. decrees that Chorall Bishops should not ordaine Ministers and Deacons without the Bishops privity From whence I observe First That before these Councells restrained the power of Chorall Bishops and Presbyters that they did and might lawfully ordaine Ministers and Deacons without the Bishops privity or assent Secondly That by his assent and licence both the one and the other without the Bishops presence might lawfully ordaine Ministers and Deacons These Councels therefore plainly resolve that there is an inhaerent right and power of ordination in Presbyters and Chorall Bishops as they are Ministers and that with the Bishops consent and license they may lawfully execute it and conferre Orders therefore the right and power of ordination is not invested onely in Bishops as they are Bishops for then none else could ordaine but they alone The forged Constitutions of the Apostles fathered on Pope Clement prescribe That Presbyters and Deacons may not ordaine other Preists and Deacons but Bishops onely And the Councell of Hispalis or Spaw about the yeare 6 7. Canon 5. 7. out of Pope Leo Epist. 86. decrees that Presbyters and Chorall Bishops which are all one should not presume to ordaine Preistes or Deacons or to consecrate Altars or Churches For in holy writ by Gods Commaund Moses onely erected the Altar in the Tabernacle of the Lord hee onely annointed it because hee was the High Preist of God as it is written Moses and Aaron among his Preists Therefore that which was commaunded onely to the cheife Preists to doe of whom Moses and Aaron were a Type Presbyters who carry the figure of the sonnes of Aaron may not presume to enchroach upon For although they have in most things a common dispensation of Mysteries with Bishops yet they must know that some things are notwithstanding prohibited them by the authority of the old Law some things BY NEW ECCLESIASTICALL RVLES or CANONS as the CONSECRATION OF PRESBYTERS DEACONS and virgins as also the Constitution benediction or unction of the Altar Verily it is not lawfull for them to consecrate Churches or Altars not to give the Holy Ghost the comforter by imposition of hands to the faithfull who are to be baptized or to those who are converted from heresie nor to made Chrisme nor to signe the fore-head of those that are baptized with Chrisme nor yet publikely to reconcile any penitent person in the Masse nor to send formed Epistles to any All these things are unlawfull to Presbyters or Chorall Bishops because they have not Pontificatus apicem the highest degree of the High Preist-hood which by the AVTHORITY OF THE CANONS is commaunded to be due onely to Bishops that by this the distinction of the Degrees and the Hight of the dignity of the High Preist might be demonstrated Neither shall it be lawfull for the Presbyters to enter into the Baptistery before the Bishops presence not to baptize or signe an infant the Bishop being present nor to reconcile penitents without the Bishops commaund nor to consecrate the Sacrament of the body and blood of Christ hee being present nor in his presence to teach or blesse or salute the people no nor yet to exhort them all which things are knowne to be prohibited by the See Apostolicke These two last authorities are the cheife that the Papists Jesuites and our Prelates insist on to Proove that the power of ordination belongs onely to Bishops not to Presbyters But to remove these twoo obstacles consider First that there is not a word in either of these two Constitutions that the power of ordination belongs onely to Bishops by divine right and institution or that Presbyters by Gods Law have no power to ordaine Ministers and Deacons the thing onely in question Secondly That the Councell expresly resolves that the power and right of ordination is prohibited Presbyters and appropriated onely to Bishops not by any Law of God or ancient Constitutions of the Apostles or those who immediately succeeded them but onely by some Ecclesiasticall Canons and Constitutions then newly made and by the authority onely of the See of Rome which cannot deprive Ministers of that power of ordination which the Scripture and God himselfe hath given them Thirdly That before these late Canons and Constitutions Presbyters might lawfully ordaine Ministers and Deacons Fourthly That the cheife reason why the power of ordination was taken from Ministers and thus monopolized to Bishops even by their owne Constitutions wherein they have ever favoured themselves was onely to advance the power authority dignity ambition and pride of the Pope and Prelates and to distinguish them in degree and order from ordinary Ministers which of right are and otherwise would be their equalls both in Jurisdiction power and degree Fiftly That they bring not one syllable out of the new Testament to proove that the power of ordination belongs onely to Bishops not to Ministers which they would have certainly done had there beene any text to warrant it but that all they alleadge is out of the old Testament to wit that Moses onely consecrated the Tabernacle and the Altar Ergo none but Bishops must consecrate Ministers Altars Churches A learned argument ergo none but Kings and temporall Magistrates no not Bishops themselves may doe it had beene a better consequent For Moses was no Preist muchlesse a Bishop the High Preist which was Aarons office not his there being but one High Preist at once and hee a type of our High Preist Christ but a civill Magigistrate yet God commaund
by the Canons of 1571. and 1603. to sett in order and provide such bookes ornaments and necessaries as are wanting in Parish Churches and see them well repaired Ergo Churchwardens are Bishops For Titus was here left to sett in order the things that were wanting AS PAVL HAD APPOINTED HIM and no other wise Tit. 1. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. hee did all by his direction and authority not his owne There is nothing therefore in this of ordering things that were wanting in the Church of Creete which savours of Episcopall Iurisdiction And I may better argue hence Titus did nothing at all in Creet but by Paules speciall appointment and Cōmission Ergo hee was no Bishop or if a Bishop Ergo Bishops should order nothing in their Bishoprikes nor keepe any visitations but by speciall direction Commission from the Apostles King or State authorizing them Then the Objectors conclude Ergo hee was a Bishop and Bishops Archbishops yea Archdeacons too without any speciall commission from the Apostles King and State may make and institute what orders constitutions Articles and Ceremonies they please as now they doe in their illegall Courts and visitations kept in their owne names without any Patent from the King Obj. 3. If any object in the third place That Titus was lest to ordaine Elders in every Citty in Creete Tit. 1. 5. Ergo hee was a Bishop because none have power to ordaine Elders but Bishops since none ordained Elders in Creete but Titus who was a Bishop Answ 3. I answer first that this is as bad a consequence as the former and a meere circular argumentation For first they will needs proove Titus a Bishop because hee ordained Elders and none but Bishops can ordaine Elders and then next they proove that none but Bishops can ordaine because Titus foresooth was a Bishop and hee onely did ordaine Elders in Creete A meere Circle and Petitio Principij yet this is the Logicke of our great Rabbi Prelates Secondly I answer that this proposition whereon they ground themselves and their Prelacy that none have any right Ture divino to ordaine Elders or Ministers but Bishops and that quatenus Bishops too which they must adde or else their argument is unsound is a notorious falsehood and meere sandy foundation For first not to remember how Moses a Civill Magistrate consecrated Aaron and his sonnes by Gods owne appointement Levit. 8. 5. to 32. Exod. 29. 9. 35. First The Apostles themselves were ordained Apostles and consecrated Ministers by Christ himselfe Matth. 28. 19. 20. Marke 16. 15. 16. Iohn 20. 22. 23. 24. Acts. 1. 4. 5. Rom. 1. 5. 2. Cor. 3. 6. To whom the power of ordination principally appertaines Ephes 4. 11. 12. 1. Cor. 12. 28. Acts. 20. 28. 1. Pet. 1. 4. Secondly The Apostles and Euangelists ordained Elders in every Church Acts. 14. 23. c. 19. 1. 6. 7. c. 7. 6. yet they were properly no Bishops as all learned men acknowledge Thirdly The Disciples inferior to the Apostles and Euangelists as the objectors teach ordained Ministers and Elders too though they were no such Bishops as the objectors mean Acts. 14. 1. 2. 3. c. 9. 10. to 22. Fourthly Presbyters and ordinary Ministers ordainea Elders and Ministers yea Timothy himselfe was made a Minister by the imposition of the handes of the Presbytery 1. Tim. 4. 14. Thus did they in the primitive Church this doe they still in our owne Church as the booke of ordination it selfe confirmed by two Acts of Parliament the 35. Canon and experience witnesse this doe they in all the reformed Churches now which should have no lawfull Ministers and so no true Church if the power of ordination were Jure divino appropriated onely to Bishops and not common with them unto other Ministers Fiftly Patriarkes Metropolitanes Archbishops and Chorall Bishops neither of which are properly Bishops in the objectors sence ordaine Ministers If then all these have ordained Elders and Ministers though no Bishops by sufficient divine Authority as the objectors cannot deny of the 4. first and dare not contradict it in the last then it is most false that the power of ordination Jure divino belongs onely to Bishops as Bishops in the objectors sence for then none of those 5. being not properly such Bishops could lawfully have ordained Ministers or Presbyters as they did and doe Thirdly There is no one syllable in the Scripture to proove that the power of ordination belongs onely to Bishops quatenus Bishops neither is there any one example to warrant it We read of Apostles Euangelists Disciples Presbyters that layd hands on others to ordaine them Ministers but of Bishops I mean distinct from Presbyters we read not a word to this purpose how then can this be true that the power of ordination belongs onely to Bishops quatenus Bishops Jure divino Fourthly We read not a word to this purpose in Scripture of any Bishops distinct from or superior in order degree and dignity to Presbyters if therefore such Bishops themselves be not Jure divino the power of ordination cannot belong to them Jure divino the rather because we read of no man whom the Scripture cals a Bishop ordaining Ministers Admit there were such Bishops Jure divino yet that the power of ordination belongs to them Jure Divino quatenus such Bishops is most false but onely quatenus they are Ministers For it appertained to the Apostles to the Euangelists to Disciples and Presbyters Iure divino though no such Bishops and the objectors will acknowledge that it belongs to Popes Patriarkes Metropolitans and Archbishops though they neither were nor are properly such Bishops and are no divine but meere humane institutions therefore it must appertaine unto them onely as they are Ministers in which respect they all accord and are not differenced one from another not quatenus Bishops for then the Apostles Euangelists Disciples Presbyters Popes Patriarkes Metropolitanes and Arch-bishops being not properly such Bishops could not lawfully ordaine The power therefore of ordination belonging to the Apostles Euangelists Disciples Presbyters and others as well as to Bishops not to Bishops onely or to them as Bishops but as Ministers it being a meere Ministeriall act inferior to preaching administring the Sacrament and baptizing as all acknowledge it can be no good evidence to proove Titus a Bishop Now because this power of ordination which our Prelates would Monopolize unto themselves is the maine pillar whereon they now suspend their Episcopall Jurisdiction over ther Ministers I shall produce some humane authorities to proove the right the power of ordination and imposition of hands to be by Gods Law common to Presbyters as well as to Bishops I shall beginne with Councells The 4. Councell of Carthage Can. 3. about the yeare of our Lord 418. prescribes this forme of ordination of Ministers When a Minister is ordained the Bishop blessing him and holding his hand upon his head all the Presbyters or Ministers likewise that
Reformatione Can. 7. 8. it enjoynes that according to the ancient Canons when Ministers or Deacons are to be ordained that the Bishop calling to him the Preistes and other prudent men skilfull of the divine Law and exercised in Ecclesiasticall constitutions should diligently enquire and examine before them the stocke person age institution maners doctrine and faith of those that were to be ordained and that those orders should be publikely conferred and celebrated in the Cathedrall Church the Canons of the Church being called to and present at it or if in any other place or Church of the Diocesse Praesenti Clero Loci the Clergy of the place being present Pope Anacletus and the Canon Law having long before that time ordained That Preists and Deacons should be ordained by their owne Bishop Ita ut Cives Alij SACERDOTES assensum praebent So as the Citizens and other Preistes assented thereunto which they usually did and ought to doe as Gratian with others proove at large So that though this Councell and the other Canons and Constitutions debarre Presbyters and Ministers from the act and exercise of ordination which yet they ever use and practise as assistants to the Bishops who can ordaine none but by their assent since they ought to joyne with them in the imposition of hands yet they deprive them not of their inherent right nor yet of the exercise of it as assistants to the Bishop which they have ever used I passe now from these Councels and Constitutions to the Fathers who jumpe in judgment with them It is true that S. Hierome Epiphanius * Isidor Hispalensis Ambrose Augustine Leo and ‡ others affirme that Bishops onely in their time did use to ordaine Ministers and Deacons and that Presbyters might doe all things that Bishops did except the conferring of Orders and some other trifling toyes as consecrating of Altars Churches virgins Chrisme c. not warranted by Gods word yet none of them determine that the right and power of ordination belongs onely to Bishops by divine institution and appointment that Presbyters have no right at all by the word of God to conferre Orders or that they might not doe it in any case but they expresly averre the contrary For as they did joyne with the Bishop in the imposition of hands as appeares by the third Canon of the fourth Councell of Carthage forecited so in S. Ambrose his time in Egypt if the Bishop were absent the Presbyters use to consigne and conferre Orders as this Father testifieth and S. Augustine records That in Alexandria and throughout all Aegypt if the Bishop were wanting the Presbyter did consecrate and give orders Hence Aërius as Epiphanius reports his words reasoned in this maner What is a Bishop to a Presbyter one differs nothing from the other it is one order saith hee one honor and one dignity Imponit manus Episcopus ITA ETIAM PRESBYTER The Bishop imposeth his hands or ordaines Ministers so likewise doth the Presbyter The Bishop baptizeth so also doth the Presbyter The Bishop sitts in a throne so also doth the Presbyter And hee alleadged that the Apostle saith to a Bishop Neglect not the gift that is in thee which thou hast received by the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery Epiphanius there denieth not directly that Presbyters then did use to ordaine but demaunds how it is possible for a Presbyter to ordaine not having imposition of hands in the election of Ministers or to say that hee is equall with a Bishop A false and miserable shift since all Histories Fathers Authors Councels testifie that in that age Presbyters had alwayes their voyces in the Elelection yea their hands in the ordination of Ministers and Deacons S. Hierome in his Commentary on Zeph. c. 2. Tom. 5. p. 218. D. writes exprefly SACERDOTES and that Preists and Presbyters who give baptisme and imprecate the Lords advent to the Eucharist make also the oyle of Chrisme MANVS IMPONVNT impose hands instruct the catechumeny LEVIT AS ET ALIOS CONSTITVVNT SACERDOTES ordaine Levites and other Preists Therefore Presbyters in S. Hieronymus time ordained Ministers Deacons and layd on hands as well as Bishops Yea Anastatius in the life of Pope Pelagius the first recordes that this Pope An. Christi 555. for want of three Bishops to ordaine him was ordained Pope by John Bishop of Perusia and Bonus Bishop of Florence and Andreas Presbyter de Hostia and Andrew Elder or Minister of Hostia which Luitprandius de Vitis Pontificum p. 84. and Albo Floriacensis in his life p. 140. likewise testifie Loe here a Presbyter or ordinary Minister ordaining not onely another Elder but a Bishop yea a Pope and supplying the place of a Bishop the generall Councell of Nice Can. 4. the first Councell of Arelat Can. 21. the second Councell of Carthage Can. 12. the third Councell of Carthage Can. â—9 the Councell of Aphricke Can. 16. the Councell of Rhegium An. 472 the Councell of Arausica Can. 21. the Councell of Chalcedon Act. 13. p. 187. with sundry Popes Decrees ordaining that no man shall be consecrated a Bishop but by three Bishops at least and that a consecration made onely by two Bishops shall be voyd and so this Pope no lawfully ordained Pope rules this Presbyter supplyed the place of a Bishop in his consecration and his Ordination good and valid by the Law of God though invalid and a meere nullity by the Canons An. 1390. about Wicklifs time there arose in England certaine bold Clerkes who affirmed that it was lawfull for them to make new Presbyters and Clerkes and conferre orders like Bishops teaching likewise that they were endued with the same power in Ecclesiasticall affaires as Bishops were whereupon they layd hands on many and ordained divers Ministers who affirmed likewise that they had equall and the selfesame Ecclesiasticall power with Bishops which was the constant Doctrine of Wicklife and the Waldensis which Doctrine of theirs was true but their practise discommended yet the Ministers thus ordained by them their ordination held lawfull by Gods Law yea and their ordination of others in those times in darknesse and persecution when no Wickilvists Lollards or other orthodox professors of the Gospel could be admitted into orders by the Bishops of that age unlesse they would subscribe to their Popish assertions as some of our Prelates now will admit none to receive orders unlesse they will first subscribe to such private positions and Ceremonies as are directly contrary to the established Doctrine and discipline of the Church of England by meanes whereof many godly men are kept from the Ministery And though Chrysostome Primasius Theodoret Ambrose Rabanus Maurus Oecumenius Theophilact Haymo with some others interpret that of the 1. Tim. 4. 14. By the Laying on of the hands of che Presbytery to be meant either of Paul himselfe or of the Senate of the Apostles or
prooved by Scripture reason and Authors of all sorts that none which read these passages of his can ever hereafter call this into question more Having runne thus long abroade I now in the last place returne to our owne Church and writers The Booke of ordination of Ministers ratified by two severall Acts of Parliament namely 3. Ed. 6. c. 12. and 8. Eliz. c. 1. and subscribed to by all our Prelates and Ministers by vertue of the 36. Canon as containing nothing in it contrary to the word of God expresly orders that when Ministers are ordained ALL THE MINISTERS PRESENT AT THE ORDINATION SHALL LAY THEIR HANDS TOGETHER WITH THE BISHOP ON THOSE THAT ARE TO BE ORDAINED And the 35. Can. made in Convocation by the Bishops and Clergy An. 1603. prescribes that the Bishop before hee admit any person to holy Orders shall diligently examine him in the presence of those Ministers that shall ASSIST HIM AT THE IMPOSITION OF HANDS And if the said Bishop have any lawfull impediment hee shall cause the sayd Ministers carefully to examine every such person so to be ordered Provided that they who shall assist the Bishop in examining AND LAYING ON OF HANDS shall be of his Cathedrall Church if they may be conveniently had or other sufficient preachers of the same Diocesse to the number of three at the least And according to this Booke of Ordination and Canon when ever any Ministers are ordained all the Ministers there present joyne with and assist the Bishop in layng on of hands on every one that is ordained So that both by the established Doctrine and practise of the Church of England the power of laying on hands and right of ordination is common to every of our Ministers as well as to our Bishops who as they cannot ordaine or lay hands on any without the Bishop so the Bishop can ordaine or lay hands on no Ministers without them so that the power and right of ordination rests equally in them both With what face or shadowe then of truth our Prelates now can or dare to Monopolize this priviledge to themselves alone against this Booke of Ordination their owne Canons subscriptions yea their owne and their Predecessors common practise to the contrary which perchance their overgreat imployments in temporall businesses secular state affaires have caused them wholly to forgett at least not to consider let the indifferent judge But to passe from them to some of our learned writers Alcuvinus De Divinis Officiis c. 37. writes that Bishops Presbyters and Deacons were anciently and in his time too elected by the Clergy and people and that they were present at their Ordination and consenting to it That the Bishops consecration in his dayes used in the Church of Rome wherein two Bishops held the Gospell or New Testament over the head of the Bishop consecrated and a third uttered the blessing after which the other Bishops present layde their hands on his head was but a Novelty not found in the old or new Testament nor in the Roman tradition And then heâ— prooves out of Hieroms Epistle to Evagrius and his Commentary on the first to Titus that the ancient consecration of Bishops was nothing else but their election and inthronization by the Elders who chose out one of their company for a Bishop and placed him in a higher seat then the rest and called him a Bishop without further Ceremony just as an Army makes a Generall or as if the Deacons should choose one from among them and call him an Archdeacon having no other consecration but such as the other Deacons had being advaunced above others onely by the Election of his fellow-brethren without other solemnity By which it is plaine that in the primitive Church Presbyters did not onely ordaine Presbyters and Deacons before there were any Bishops elected and instituted but likewise that after Bishops were instituted they ordained and consecrated Bishops as well as Elders and Deacons and that the sole ordination and consecration of Bishops in the Primitive and purest times was nothing but the Presbyters bare election and inthronization of them without more solemnity So that the other Rites and Ceremonies now used are but Novelties Anselme Archbishop of Canterbury on the 1. Tim. 4. 14. expounds these words with the laying on of hands of the Presbytery in this maner Hee cals that the laying on of hands which was made in his ordination which imposition of hands was in the Presbytery because that by this imposition of hands hee received an Eldership that is a Bishopricke For a Bishop is oftentimes called a Presbyter by the Apostle and a Presbyter a Bishop which in his Commentary on the third Chapter on Phil. 1. 1. Tit. 1. 5. 7. hee prooves to be but one and the same in the Apostles time and in the Primitive Church So that by his resolution the imposition of hands and power of ordaining Elders and Bishops belongs to Presbyters as well as to Bishops Our English Apostle John Wickliffe and his Coaetanean Richard Fitzralphe otherwise called Richardus Armachanus Arch-bishop and Primate of Ardmagh in Ireland if we beleeve either their owne writings or Thomas Walden who recites their opinions arguments and takes a great deale of paines though in vaine to refute them affirmed and taught First that in the defect of Bishops any one that was but a meere Preist was sufficient to administer any Sacrament or Sacramentals whatsoever either found in Scripture or added since Secondly That one who was but a meere Preist might ordaine another and that hee who was ordained onely by a simple Preist ought not to doubt of his Presbytership or to be ordained againe so as hee rightly performed his clericall office because the ordination comes from God who supplies all defects Thirdly That meere Preists may ordaine Preists Deacons and Bishops too even as the inferior Preists among the Jewes did ordaine and consecrate the High Preist as Bishops consecrate Archbishops and the Cardinals the Pope Fourthly That the power of order is equall and the same in Bishops and Preists and that by their very ordination they have power given them by Christ to administer all Sacraments alike therefore to conferre orders and confirme children which is the lesse as well as to baptise administer the Sacrament of the Lords Supper and preach the Gospell which is the greater Fiftly That Christ sitting in heaven hath given the power of consecrating and ordaining Preists and Deacons of Confirmation and all other things which Bishops now challenge to themselves to just Presbyters and that these things were but of late times even above 300. yeares after Christ reserved and appropriated to Bishops onely by their owne Canons and Constitutions to increase their Caesarian Pompe and pride And Waldensis himselfe who undertakes to refute these propositions saith expresly That no man hitherto â—ath denied that God in an urgent case of necessity gave the power of ordination to any one that is
Ipswitch a reverend ancient conformable Minister whom hee hath suspended vpon no lawfull occasion to blott out this sacred Sentence of Scripture most proper for that Church and place it stonds in painted on this Church-wall over against the Pulpit which Scripture I wonder any Bishop or Minister can thinke off and yet forbeare to preach or put downe preaching For necessity is layd upon me yea Woe is me if I preach not the Gospell An insolency an impiety that no age can parallell Certainly he that would command this Scripture thus to be rased out of the Church-wall would as gladly obliterate and rend it out of the Church-Bible too and have neither preaching preachers and I feare neither reading nor readers of the Gospell nor yet the Gospell it selfe in being were it in his power utterly to suppresse them as this Prelate hath made a large beginning and progresse for this purpose This notable late fact of his makes me the lesse to wonder at the most insolent exploict of Henry Dade the Archbishop of Canterburies Surrogate for Ipswitch who about September last past solemnely excommunicated the Churchwardens of S. Maries of the Tower in that Towne in the Archbishops name I hope without his privity for not blotting out upon his commaund this Sentence of Scripture written on that Churches-wall over the place where hee keepes his spitefull I should say spirituall Court which Scripture is recorded by two Prophets and three Euangelists and most proper for the Church by our Saviours owne resolution It is written my house shall be called an house of prayer to all people but yee have made it a denne of theives Which excommunication hee is so farre fro disavowing or being ashamed off that hee not onely refuseth to absolve the Churchwardens but also hath most audaciously pleaded it in barre of an information brought against him by Ferdinando Adams one of the Church-wardens in the Court of Starre-Chamber for which presumption alone were hee guilty of and there charged with no other crimes as hee is with other foule ones against his Maiesty and the whole State severall extortions on the subiects that Court most iustly may and I presume will deeply fine and censure him for daring to grant out and plead such an impious execrable excommunication in any Court of Iustice to the very shame and obloquie of our Religion Church State and insufferable scandall of that great Arch-Prelate in whose name and colour of authority it is granted who should doe well for his owne justification to the world to hang up such a Surrogate for a president to all others and such a Suffragan Bishop too who beare such spleen to these holy parcells of Scripture as to rase them out of the Church it selfe though set vp by the expresse command of the Homilies of repairing and keeping cleane Churches and of the Right vse of the Church which recite and prescribe these latter text as most proper for it the Canons 1571. p. 19. 1603. Canon 82. And here I cannot but stand amazed at these proceedings For the Surrogate will not endure the Church neither to be or called an house of prayer but his Courthouse causing this Scripture to be actually dashed out of the Church and the other will not suffer it to be or reputed an house of preaching neither of them will admit these two textes of Scripture to appeare therein no not on the bare wall where they are no hinderance which intimate and declare it to be both an house of prayer and preaching too And if the Church must now be neither an Oratory nor an Auditory neither an house of prayer nor preaching though our Homilies and Postillers define it to be both I know not what they will make of it but what they begin to make their Church-houses in many places a direct denne of theives as our Saviour termes it or else an house of piping minstressie dauncing and revelling they having made the Lordsday sacred Sabbath such a day already justifying both in their visitation Articles and printed Bookes That dancing piping Morrisses Wakes Ales Sports and Bacchanals are meet exercises for this holy day and so no place fitter for them then the Church appointed principally for the dueties and publike exercises of the Sabbath day to the strict entire sanctification whereof by religious dueties our Prelates are such enemies that they not onely silence suspend and excommunicate such godly Ministers who out of conscience dare not joyne with them in encouraging their people to prophane it and punish those for Conventiclers who after divine prayer and Sermons ended meet together to repeat their Ministers Sermon read chapters sing Psalmes conferre or pray together as they are taught by S. Chrysostomes and Bishop Iewels doctrine but one of them D. Peirce the now Bishop of Bath and Wels by name enioyned the Church-wardens of Batcombe in Mr. Barnards Parish in Somersetshire vnder paine of excommunication to expunge this Scripture anciently painted on their Church-wall quite out of the Church Isa 58. 13. If thou turne away thy foote from the Sabbath from doing thy pleasure on my holy way and call the Sabbath a delight the holy of the Lord honorable and shalt honour him not doing thine owne wayes not finding thine owne pleasure not speaking thine owne words Then shalt thou delight thy selfe in the Lord c. stiling it a Iewish place of Scripture not fit to stand or be suffred in the Church and by the same reason not sufferable in the Bible for the correcting whereof our Prelates may doe well to joyne with the Papists in making an Index ex purgatorius as they intend and giue out publikely they intend to doe on all ancient English Writers which Scripture the Church-wardens refusing to blot out the Bishop like an Heroïcall Prelate râ—de thither 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with a plaisterer to see it wiped out himselfe such hideous Monsters of impiety blasphemy and irreligion that I say not Atheisme are this last generation of our holy domineering Prelates growen who must now for ever cease to affirme or boast their Episcopall Supremacy Authority and Iurisdiction to be Jure divino since by vertue thereof they thus presumptuously take upon them a straine beyond the Papists to blot Jus divinum the very Law of God and Gospell too out of the house of God it selfe And can wee then wonder at those immoderate droughts those watry seasons those devouring spredding Pests and Plagues with other publike and personall judgements of God which wee have lately felt and suffred and are like to tast of in a sharper maner when such monstrous impieties as these thus plublikely breake forth without either shame or reprehension in those who stile themselves the Pillars being in truth the Caterpillars and holy Fathers in verity the unholy step fathers of our Church from whom prophanesse is gone out and spread over all the Land Certainly if wee consider onely the
did in the Temple of Ierusalem and Jewish Synagogues I feare me they should be all silenced suspended and laid by the heeles for their paines by our Rare-preaching Lordly Prelates since they thus use our painefullest Ministers even for frequent preaching If I should demaund of them by what Law of God or the Realme by what Canon of the Church or by what speciall commission from his Majesty under his greate Seale without which their Lordships cannot by Law suspend or silence any Minister nor keepe any Visitation without the danger of a Praemunire which they have all incurred I feare me they would be as muâ—â— as any Minister they have put to silence And till they can shew such Law Canon and speciall Commission which not one of them can doe hee is not worthy the name of a faithfull Minister that will sit downe silent altogether as too many doe to their eternall infamy or slack downe their former frequency and diligence in preaching upon the proudest Prelates bare Mandate especially in these dayes of Pestilence and Mortality The second instance is the suppressing of Master John Rogers Lecture of Dedham in Essex about the same time continued so many yeares together with so good successe that he hath converted more soules to God and brought more to heaven then all the Lord Archbishops and Bishops Sermons from Queene Maries dayes till now many of which though they have lived long cannot I presume name so much as one Soule they have truly converted either by their life or doctrine though they have murthered and starved thousands The Pretence of suspending this our Lecturer is the great good will the Bishops beare to the Townesmen and Puritans so they tearme them of Dedham over whom they are jealous with a godly jealosie to wit least the continuance of this Lecture should draw the Plague to the Towne But is this thinke you the true cause If so why then let me propound but 6. or 7. questions to our Prelates who are so carefull of mens bodies that they are altogether carelesse of their Soules First Hath not the Lecture beene the greatest blessing that ever this Towne enjoyed the cheife meanes that hath enriched it and ever since its erection waâ—ded of the Pestilence from it yea in the last great Visitation when there was more danger If so as all the Towne and Country will averre why should it be pestiferous or infectious now Secondly Where did ever their Lordships read that powerfull preaching was a meanes to attract or draw the pestilence to any Towne or Parish or the suppressing of preaching and Lectures an Antidote or Preservative against it What Divine Physitian Philosopher or Historian yea what Epicure or Atheist ever taught such Doctrine till our present new Doctors and Lord Prelates Thirdly Whether the reading of Common prayer and Homilies be not as apt to bring and increase the Plague as preaching and Lectures and the one as pestiferous as the other If not then why doe they put downe and prohibit publike fasting and prayer as infectious in this pestilence used as a preservative medicine and cheife cure in all others as well as preaching yea how can they proove that one of these is more apt to attract and diffuse the Plague then the other If so then why doe they not put downe Common prayer and Homilies in all places infected or in danger of infection as well as preaching the one being as pestiferous as pestilentiall as the other and so make us all true Atheists or Infidels giving God no publike worship at all Fourthly Whether the putting downe of Lectures and preaching hath beene a meanes to stay keep off or spread the Plague or rather to increase and attract it Religion teacheth us that were there is * most sinne and wickednesse abounding least knowledge and service of God there is most danger of the plague and 〈◊〉 experience prooves it true for the most part it ever raging more in the disorderly suburbs of London where they have usually least and worst preaching more then in the City where is better governement life and preaching Powerfull preaching therefore being the cheife meanes to turne men from their sinnes and evill lives and winne them unto God and the suppression of it a meanes to continue and harden men in their evill wayes it must necessary follow that frequent powerfull preaching is an antidote and cure against it and the suppression of it the high way and meanes to bring it If reason be not sufficient let late experience instruct us thus much The Lectures of Christ Church S. Martins and others in London were put downe by the Bishops this Pestilence to prevent the bringing of it into these Parishes the very selfesame weeke God sends it unto them and now it spreads among them much But in S. Antholines Parish and some others where the Lectures yet continue in the first every morning no Pestilence blessed be God hath hitherto beene heard off The Lecture of Black friers on Wednesdayes at S. Cathrines in the same day with some other have beene suppressed to prevent the Plagues increase after its invasion of these Parishes to the intollerable greife both of Minister and people yet the plague in those parishes hath since every weeke increased and spread further At Westminster upon the first comming of the Plague they gave over all preaching even forenoone and after-noone on the Lords day thinking by this remedie to cease it a president hardly paralleld in any age but what followed thereupon the Bils since have beene doubled and trebled and more have there died every day since then did in a whole weeke before This therefore is but a Preposterous remedy and a vaine pretence to beguile little children and fooles with all Fifthly What place is there neere to Dedham from which that lecture should draw the infection were it in all or some of the neighbouring Parishes there might be some colour for such a pretext and yet not sufficient to put downe the Lecture since men of those Parishes might be prohibited onely from it and all else have accesse unto it But since it is not so neare that Town God be blessed for it as that there is any such feare of infection this pretext can be but a meere cloake of wickednes to countenance a worse designe Sixtly Whether they hold not great Banquetting Maskes Dauncing Playes and Enterludes as pestiferous and infectious as Preaching and Lectures and the famous Vniversity of Oxfords health and immunity from the Pestilence as much to be respected as the poore Towne of Dedhams If any scruple be made of the former part of this Question his Majesties and their owne Booke of Common prayer for the Fast the last great pestilence 1. Caroli which prohibits all Playes Maskes revellings Dauncing Pastimes and Banqueting as causes of the plagues both beginning spredding and continuance and the proper sinnes of our Nation which have made us a Proverbe and By-word to all other