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
tâ—e manner of Ordination without any Bishops assistance which power of Ordination and imposition of hands hath ever since been prâ—ctised by Ministers in all reformed Chuâ—ches which have abandoned Bishops such as ours are and maâ—e themselves as contrary to Gods word â—atrick Adamsoâ— Arâ—h-Bishop of St. Andrews in Scotland in his recantation publickly made in the Synod of Fiâ—â—e Aprill 8 1591 conâ—esâ—eth that this office of a Diocesan Bishop Omne â—uthoritate verbi dei destituituâ— solo politico hâ—minum câ—nâ—mento â—uâ—datur is destitute of of all authority from Gods word and is onely â—ounded in the politicke figment of men out of which the primacy of the â—ope or Antichrist â—ath sprung and is worthily to be condemned becâ—use the asâ—embly of the â—â—esbytery penes quâ—m est jâ—risdictio inspectioâ—â—m in visitationibus tum in ordinationibus which having the jurisdiction and inspection both in visitations and in Ordinations will performe all these things with greater authority piety and zeale then any Bishop whatsoever whose caâ—e is for tâ—e most part intent not upon â—od or his â—â—â—ction but tâ—e world which he especially serves A 〈◊〉 blâ—w to our prelates Hieâ—achie For iâ— Bishops be not Iure divino and have no â—oundation in the word of â—od theâ— the power of OrdinatioÌ„ beloÌ„gs not â—to them Iure divino as they aâ—e Bishops neither can do or â—ught they to conâ—eâ—â—e Orders as Bishops but â—rely as they are Ministers And if so as is most certaine Then this power of Ordination belongs not at all to Bishops as Bisâ—ops but only as Ministers and every Minister as he is a Minister â—ath as much right and authority to give oâ—ders as any Bishop whatsoever the true reason why even among us at this day Ministers ought to joyn with the Bishop in the imposition of hands neither can our Bishops ordaine any one a Minister unlesse 3 or 4 Ministers at least joyne with him in the Ordination and laying on of hands This being an apparent â—â—uth I shal hence from the Bishops owne principles prove Presbyters Superior and greater then Bishops in jurisdiction dignity and degâ—ee These say they to whom the power of Ordination belongs of Right are â—â—eater in jurisdiction dignity â—â—d degree then those who have not this power and the Ordainer higher in all these then the ordained But the power of Ordination belongs onely jure divino to â—resbyters as presbyters not to Bishops as to Bishops themselves not as Bishops but Presbyters and Bishops when they ordaine in a lawfull manner do it onely as Presbyters not as Bishops Therefore Presbyters are Superior to Bishops in jurisdiction Order and degree and Bishops themselves â—arre greater in all theseâ— as they aâ—e Presbyters an office of divine â—â—nction then as they are Lordly Prelates or Diocesan Bishops a meer humane institution Thus are our great Lord Bishops who vaunt of the weaknesse of puriâ—â—ne principles whereas their Episcopall are farre more feeble and absurâ— wounded to death with their own weapons and all their Domiâ—eering swelling authority overthrowne by that very principle and foundation on which they have presumed to erect it the ancient proverbe being here truly verified vis â—â—nsilij â—â—pâ—rs â—olâ— ruit sâ—â— I shall close â—p this with the words of acute Aâ—tâ—â—ius Sâ—dâ—â—l who after a large proof of Biâ—â—ops and presbyterâ— to be both â—ne and the same by divine institution winds up all in this mâ—nner We couclude therefore seeing that Superior Episcopall dignity is to be avouched onely humane institution Tantum essâ— hâ—mâ—ni iuris that it is only of humâ—ne right On the contrary since it is evident by the expressâ— testimonies of Scripture that in the Apostles times Bishops were the same with Presbyters jurâ— diuinâ— pâ—tâ—stâ—tâ—â— ordinandi noâ— minus presbytâ—riâ— quâ—m Episcâ—pis convenirâ— that by Godâ— law and divine right the power of Ordination belongs as much to preâ—biters as to Bishops I have now I hopâ— sufficiently maâ—ifested our Lordly prelates Arch-â—ishops Diocesâ—n Bishops distinct from presbyters to be none of Gods institution being therefore none of Gods Bishopâ— as they vainly pretend whose then must they be not the kingsâ— for thâ—n they are onely Iurâ— humanâ— which they have publikely â—â—sâ—lâ—imed iâ— Courtâ— therefore certainly eitheâ— the Popes or the â—evils or both as many of the recited writers stile theÌ„ for I know no other that can claime or own them wherfore being neither Gods nor the Kings but the Popeâ— or Devillsâ— or bothâ— what remaines but that now at last they should be spâ—red out of our Churchâ— as no members at all of Christs Church or bodyâ— but of the Devill Pope or Antichrist of Rome whose limbs and creatures in tâ—uth they are as Mauritius dâ— i Alâ—â—dâ— Henry k Stâ—lbridâ—â— and othersâ— expresly resolves and their actions past all dispute discover many of them to be yea as meere Individuum vaginus and meere unnaturall monsters they being neithâ—r Pastors nor members of any particular Church or congregation as all other Christians are besideâ— themselves I read in the l great Dutch Chronicle written by an Augustinâ— Frier that in the year of our Lord 1033 beyond Poland there was a strange Fisâ— taken of the quantity length and breadth and shape of a living man adorned with a Bishopâ— Miterâ— a pastorall Staff a Cassock a white Surplesse a Chessible Sandalsâ— Glovesâ— and all othes Robesâ— and ornaments requisite to the Dignity of â— Prelate like a Bishop solemnly attired and prepared to say divine Serviceâ— his Cassocke might be well lifted up before and behind from the feet to the knees but not higherâ— and he permitted himselfe to bee sufficiently â—andled and touched by manyâ— but especiâ—lly of the Bishops of that Countryâ— which Fish being presented to the King and demanded in the Language of that Countryâ— and of divers otherâ— nations who hee was and answering â—othing albeit he had opened hiâ— mouth giving reverence and honoâ—r to the Bishopâ— that were there in the Kings presence one Monster and dumbe unpreaching beastâ— saluting and respecting another the King being aâ—gry when hee had determined to commit him to prisoÌ„â— or shut him up iâ— soÌ„e stroÌ„g towâ—r the Fisâ— being very sorrowfull at this newes thereupon closed his eyes and would by no meanes open them untill the Bishops of that Kingdome m kneeling downe before the king in the fishâ—s preseâ—ce had with many prayers intreated and obtained of the King that he should be sent backe againe alive to the Seashoreâ— where hee had been takenâ— that God whose workes are incomprehensible might shew his nature and Acts least otherwise a plague should there ensue both to the King and his Subjects which their suit the King had no sooner granted but presently the â—oresaid Monster opened his eyes giving great thankes as it were to the King and especially to those Bishops After with a Chariot being prepared to carry the Fish backe againe the Fish in presence of an infinite
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
and multiplyed them or divided them as they saw occasion so they limitted q and granted them all that Episcopall power and jurisdiction whereby they were distinguished from or advanced above Ordinary Ministers as appeares by the Originall Charters of the foundations and erections of our own English Bishop-rickes the forecited Statutes and by our owne and forraigne Histories Now that jurisdiction and superlority thus acquired is but meere and humane not divine Againe Bishop-ricks are meer hâ—mane institutions directly contrary to the Holy Ghost who ordained many Bishops in every Church and City not one Bishop over many which he can never well instruct rule and oversee Acts 20. 17.28 1 Tim. 5.17 Pâ—il 1 1 Tit. 1â— 5 7. 1 Pet. 5 1 2 3. Now that Episcopal jurisdiction which distinguishetâ— Bishops â—rom Presbyters was r created with and annexed to their Bishâ—pricks yea it is delegated botâ— by the â—ing to Lay Commiâ—â—ioneâ—s and visitors and by Bishops themselves to Officials commiâ—â—aâ—ies and meere Lay men 26. H. 8. c. 1.31 H. 8 c 9 37. H. 8 c 17.1 â— 6 c. 2.1 Eliz c 1. Therefore it is meerely humane and belongs not to Bishops by any divine right neither is it peculiar unto them alone Moreover Bishoprickes with all Episcopall juâ—isdiction incident to them have been s usually granted hereâ—oâ—ore by our Kings of England to their Chancellours Treaâ—uâ—ers Secretaries Kinsmen and temporall Oâ—hcers being meere Lay-men as an advancement and augmentation onely of their temporall revenues and civill temporall things And in Germany at this day they are given to Dukes Earles and Nobles yea to Children and inâ—ants only as a temporall digâ—ity and revenue Thereâ—oâ—e they are â—nly tempâ—rall â—ffices and revenues and meere huâ—ane inâ—titutions which may well be spareâ— in the Church not divine oâ— Gods and Christs institution Moreover most of the t reâ—ormed â—â—otesâ—ant churches beâ—ond the 〈…〉 the Reâ—â—â—maâ—â—n 〈…〉 Bishopricks and Dioceâ—an Bishops as Anti-christian and humane inâ—â—â—tutions pernicious to the Church of Christ and to the power puâ—ity and progresâ—e of the Gospell making Biâ—â—ops proud Lordly idle Luxuâ—ious covetous Tyrannicall Symoniâ—call Seditious Schâ—smaticaâ— â—ppâ—essive vindictive prophane impious lascivious unchasâ— perâ—ideous rebellious â—recherous to their Soveraigns Therefore certainly they are no divine instiâ—ution useâ—ull or necessary for Gods Church and people oâ— which they have been the bane and ruine in all ages as our Acts and Monuments of Martyrs testifie they being the Authors of all perseâ—â—tions in our Church and of al our Martyrs Buchery bloodâ— shed And in truth our Kings in all former ages have â—eemeâ— Bishops not alâ—ogeâ—her so usefull or necessary in our Church as some now make them which may appeare by the long vacancies oâ—â—â—veâ—s Bishoprickes in sundry ages of which I shall give you a â—hoâ—â— taâ—â— and so conciâ—â—e u Anâ—â— 653 After the death of Honorius Arch-Bishop or Canâ—erbury that See continuâ—â— void 18 moneths Annâ— 669. After Adeotaâ—usâ—is death it remained voâ—d almost 4 yeares An 690. Afâ—eâ—Thâ—odorus his death it was void almoâ—t â—uâ—â— two yeâ—resâ— and as long aâ—ter â—aâ—â—yusâ—ecease An 734 After â—uâ—hberâ—s death An 758. â—t was vacant above one yeare Anno 762 two years aâ—ter â—regwins death An 790 3 years aâ—â—er Lambâ—râ—s death An 830 aâ—ove one Yeare after VVâ—â—reds decease An 958 almost 3 yeares after Odo his expiâ—ation An 1089. 4 yeâ—res after Laâ—â—â—akes departure An 1109 5 yeares after Anâ—elmes death Anâ— 36. 2 years after VViâ—liam Carkeâ— Aâ— 11 â— â—3 yeaâ—s aâ—ter Riâ—hard VVeâ—â—erâ—neâ— An 1242 2 yeares aâ—â—eâ— St. â—dmâ—nâ— An 1270 â—s long aâ—â—er â—oniâ—acâ— An 1502 2 yeares after 〈◊〉 Deane Aâ— 15â—8 oâ—e â—ear aâ—â—e◠〈…〉 v Aâ— 644 aâ—â—er Pauâ—â—nus the 〈◊〉 Aâ—â—h-Biâ—hâ—p 〈◊〉 â—oâ—keâ— that â—ee wâ—s vacant 20 â—â—me say 3â—â— yeeâ—es An 1114 sâ—â—ur yeares afâ—er â—â—â—mas the second An 1140 â—lmost 2 â—eares aâ—ter Tâ—â—â—stan An 〈◊〉 10 Years after Rogers deâ—thâ—An 1213. 4 Yeaâ—es after 〈◊〉 An 1255 13 â—loneths after VVâ—â—â—eâ— Gâ—ay Anâ— 13â—3 after â—homas de caâ—bridge above 2 yeares An 315 â— Years after â—illiamâ—â—Greenfielâ— Aâ—â— 1240â— 2 yeâ—res afâ—er VViâ—liam de Melâ—â—â— An 1405 2 years and an haâ—â—e aâ—te◠〈◊〉 Sâ—â—ope that Arch-traitor beneaâ—eâ— for his Treâ—son Anâ— 1423 2 Yeares after Henry Boweâ—â— An 14â—9 almost 4 Yeares after Iohn Kâ—mp An 1464 2 Yeares after VVilliam Bâ—â—th almost a â—ull yeaâ—â— both after Cardinall VVolpe and â—â—â—ard Lee Anâ— 1559 â—â—â—er â—â—câ—olas Heath 2 yeares Anâ— 1568 after Thomas â—oung above one yeare Thus long have both our Arch-Bishoprickes been void in severall ageâ— without any prejudice to Church or State w Anno 619 after Mellitus his translation from London to Canterbury that see continued void 31 Yeâ—res together An â—64 2 Yeares An 1133. 7 Yeares aâ—ter Guilbert An. 1187 alter Gilbert Folâ—oâ— above 2 yeares An 1279 above one yeare aâ—â—er Iohn de Chishul An 1303 almost 2 yeares after Richard de Granefâ—rd Anno 1501 after Thomas Saâ—age above two yeares An 1171 after the death of Henry de Bloyes the Bishopricke of Winchesteâ— was void above 3 yeares An 1238 after Peter de la Roch 5â— yearsâ— An 1243. after William de Rawley 16 Yeâ—res Ethelmanus holding it 9 yeares without consideration Anno 1259 after Henry de Wengham 6 yeares An 1492 after Peter Coventry aboue one Yeare An 1500 after Thomas Langton 2 yeares An 1528 aâ—ter Richard Fox 2 Yeares An 1530. after Cardinalâ— Woolsey almost 4 yeaâ—es w An 1131 after the death of Hâ—rnaus first Bishop oâ—Ely that See was void above 2 yeares An 1169 after Negellus the Second Bishop 5 yeares An 1197 afteâ— William Longchamp above one Yeare An 1214 after Eustachius above 5 yeares An 1256 after William de Kilâ—enny above one yeare An 1297 after William de Luda 2 Yeares An 1373 after Iohn Barnet 2 yeares An 1434 after â—hillip Morgan 3 yearesâ—An 1486 after Iâ—â—n â—oorion 3 yeares An 1500 aâ—â—er Iâ—hn Alcocke one whole yeare An 1533 as long after Nicholas West An 158â— after Richard Coxe almost 20 yeares together x â—n 11â—7 after the death of Roâ—ert de Chisney the 4 Bishâ—p oâ— Lincoln that See continued vâ—cant almost 17 yeares Ceâ—â—ry â—enâ—y the 2 his base Sâ—nne taâ—ing the â—rofits thereof without any consecration An 1184 afâ—er Walteâ— de Câ—â—stâ—rtiis 2 â—eares An 1200 after St. â—ugh almost â— years â—n 1206 after William de Blâ—yes 3 yeâ—res An 1490 after Iohn Rusâ—el 2 yeares An 1513 after William Smith one yeare y An 1086 the Bishoprick of Coventry and Lichfâ—eld was vacant 2 yeares after the death of â—eter and as long An 1â—27 after Robert â—each as long An 118 after Giâ—acdus Puella as long An 1208 â—fter Geofâ—ry de Muschamp An 1238 almost 3 yeares after Alexanderâ—e Saâ—ensby An 1243 after Hugh Pateshul 2 yeâ—es An 1386 as long after â—ichard Scroope An 1490 as long after Iohn Huâ—â—e z An 1099 after Osâ—ond his death the second Bishop of Salisbury
that See was 8 yeares vacant An 1225 after Richard Poore 4 years An 1â—â—0 4 years aâ—â—er Walter de la Wiâ—e An 1588 3 yeares aâ—ter Iohn â—ierce An 1596 2 yeares aâ—ter Iohn Coldwell a An 1166 the Bishopricke of Bath and Wels upon the death of Robert continued void 8 yeares 8 moneths and 15 dayes An 1242 after Ioceline 2 yeares Anno 1262 as long after William Buttâ—n Anno 1503 as long after Oliver King An 1547. as long after William Knight An 1381 3 yeares after Gilbert Barkely An 1590 2 yeares aâ—â—er Thomas Godwin b An. 1103 the Bishoprick of Exeter after Osberâ—us decease was vacant 4 yeares Anno 1182 after Bartholmeus Iscartus 2 yeares An 1119 after William Herbert the last Bishop of Thelfords death that See now Norwich was vacant 2 Yeares An 1214 after Iohn de Grey it was vacant 7 yeares Anno 1222 afteâ— Pandulfus 3 yeaâ—es Anno 1236 after Rodulphus almost 3 years and as long after William de Releigh An 1240 after Henry Spencer An. 1406 â—lmost 2 yeares c An 1095 after the death of Wolstan Bishop of Worâ—hester that See was vacant 2 yeares An 1113 as long after Sampsons An 1123 almost as long after Theulphus An 1179. after Roger An 1184 after William de Northale 5 yeares An 1198 after Iohn de Constantijs 2 yeares An â—1212 〈◊〉 long after Mangere Anno 1373 as long after VVilliam de Lyn An 1417 as long after Thomas Pondrell An 1427 7 yeares after Thomas Polton Anno 1590 3 yeares after Ednica Freat d An 1556 the Bishopricke of Hereford after Leoneyards death continued 4. yeares vacant An 1127 after Richaâ—d above 4 yeares Anâ— 1167 after Roâ—ert de Melim above 6 yeares An 1539 after Iohn Skip above 13 yeeres An 1585 after Herbert West failing 17 yeares An 1526 the Bishopricke of Chichester was void almost 4 yeares after Iohn Reempale his death An 1006 after Richard Fitz-Iames 2 yeaâ—es An 1235 the Bishopricke of e Rochester after â—enry de Sandâ—ords death was vaâ—â—nt 3 yeares An 1277 2 yeares aâ—â—er Walter de Merton 1316 after Thomas de Waldham 3 yeares An 1401 as long after Iohn Bolteshamâ— Anno 1535 after Iohn Fisher 2 yeares An 1557 the new created Bishopricke of Oxford after the decease of Iohn King first Bishop there was vacant 10 yeares An 1568 afâ—er Hugh Carrow the 2. Bishop it was voyd 21. yeares together An 1592 after Iohn Vnderhill the third Bishop it continued void 11. yeares so little want was there of a Bishop in that See Anâ— 1559 the new created Bishopricke of Oxford after Iames Brookes the third Bishops death was vacant three yearesâ— An 1578 as long after Edmond Cheyney An 1558 the new created Bishopricke of Bristoll after Paul Bush the first Bishop was vacant 4â— yearesâ— An 1578 3 yeares after Richard Cheyney which See continued void otherwise then by Commendani 31 yeares together Anno 1593 it continued vacant 10 yeares together So little need was there of a Bishop in this See f An 1397 the Bishopricke of St. Davids after Iohn Gilberts death was vacant 4. yeares An 1592 after Marmaduke Middleton almost 2 yeares An 1133 the Bishoprick of Landaâ—â—e upon Vrbans decease was void 6 yeares An 1183 after Nicholas ap Georgant 5 yeares An 1240 after Elias de Radnor above 4 yeares An 1287 after William de Brews 9 yeares An 1213 the Bishopricke of Bangor after Robert of Shrewsbury was vacant 2 yeares An. 1374 as long after Iohn Gilbert An 1378 after Iohn Swaffham 22 yearesâ— An 1266 after 〈◊〉 the 1 of Bangor that See was vacant two yeares An 1313 after Lewelin 6 yeares Anno 1406 after Iohn Trevane 5 yeares An 1439 after Robert 5. yeares g An 1017 after Aldhunus of Durham that See continued void above 3 yeares An 1097 as long after William Carlaypho An 1140. after Geoffry Rufus above five yeares An 1207 after Philip of Poitiers above 10 yeares An 1226. above 2 yeares the King threatning the Covent that they should have no Bishop in 7. yeares An 1237 after Richard Poore 2 yeares An 1249 the King threatned to keep it vacant 8 or 9 yeares till Ethelmare his halfe Brother whom he commended to the Monkes election should be of age An 1505 after William Severus 2 yeares An 1587. after Riâ— Baâ—nâ—s almost 2 years An 1577 the Bishoprick of Chester was vacant two years If then all our Bishoprickes in severall ages have been void thus 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 15 17 20 and 30 yeares or more together at divers times to omit all annuall vacancies without any prejudice to the Church or State and with great benefit to the Kings of England who enjoyed the temporalities in the meane time tâ—en certainly Bishops are no such necessary creatures of divine institution but that we may spare them all together For if we may want them 2 3 5 9 10 15 20 30 yeares without prejudice Why not an Hundred why not 500. yeares yea why not altogâ—ther as they doe in all reformed Churches who have quite cacashierd them long agoe when as no Church can spare or want their Pastors and Ministers that are of Gods institution above 6 moneths at most h After which if the Patron present not in the interim an able and sufficient Clerke the ordâ—nary by the common Law may collate and may seqnester the profits in the meane time for the officiating of the cure which must be at no time intermitted or neglected because of divine institution and so absolutely necesâ—ary which the Bishops are notâ— I shall close up this discouâ—se with a mâ—morable I resident of the Dâ—nes An Dom 1537 Christian the third King of Denmaâ—â—e removed and suppressed by publike Edict all the Bishops of his Kingdome for their intolerable Treasons Rebellions abolishing their Bishopricks as contrary to our Saviours institutions the meanes that made them Idle proud ambitious unpreaching â—relates and seditious tâ—echerous Rebels to their â—rinces and in stead of 7 Bishops of Deâ—mark he instituted 7 Superintendents to execute the office of Bishops to give orders to others and execute all Ecclesiasticall afâ—aiâ—es which 7 Superintendents Augâ—st 26 1537. â—eceived â—heir ordiâ—ation from Iohn Bugenhagius â— Pâ—otestant minisâ—er in the Cathedrall of Hâ—sina in the preseâ—ce of the King and Seâ—ate of the Kingdome Lo â—eâ—e all Bishops cashiered as false rebellious Traytors to their Soveraigne as they have ever been in all States and ages theâ—e having been more notoâ—iâ—us Traitors Rebells and conspirâ—tors of Bishops then of all other ranks of men in the world as I â—m able to maâ—e good as contrâ—ry to divine institution and see not Iure divino as they now boâ—st and Superinteâ—dents ordained by a meere â—â—esâ—iter in their stead to conferre orders unto others in all the Danish Churches In the beginning of reformation in Germany and other places Luther and other Ministers usually ordained Deacons and Ministers and set out Bookes of