Selected quad for the lemma: scripture_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
scripture_n	authority_n	church_n	primitive_a	2,508	5	9.0550	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A56127	The antipathie of the English lordly prelacie, both to regall monarchy, and civill unity: or, An historicall collection of the severall execrable treasons, conspiracies, rebellions, seditions, state-schismes, contumacies, oppressions, & anti-monarchicall practices, of our English, Brittish, French, Scottish, & Irish lordly prelates, against our kings, kingdomes, laws, liberties; and of the severall warres, and civill dissentions occasioned by them in, or against our realm, in former and latter ages Together with the judgement of our owne ancient writers, & most judicious authors, touching the pretended divine jurisdiction, the calling, lordlinesse, temporalities, wealth, secular imployments, trayterous practises, unprofitablenesse, and mischievousnesse of lordly prelates, both to King, state, Church; with an answer to the chiefe objections made for the divinity, or continuance of their lordly function. The first part. By William Prynne, late (and now againe) an utter-barester of Lincolnes Inne.	Prynne, William, 1600-1669.	1641 (1641)	Wing P3891A; Wing P3891_vol1; Wing P4074_vol2_CANCELLED; ESTC R18576	670,992	826

Oxford William Cliffe Geoffry Dowes Robert Oking Ralph Bradford Richard Smith Simon Mathew Iohn Pryn William Buckmaster William May Nicholas Wotton Richard Cox Iohn Edmunds Thomas Robertson Iohn Baker Thomas Barret Iohn Hase Iohn Tyson Doctors and Professors in Divinity and of the civill and Canon Law with the whole Convocation House and Clergy of Enland in their Booke intituled The Institution of a Christian man dedicated by them to King Henry the eight Printed Cum Privilegio subscribed with all their names and ratified by the Statute of 32. Henry the eight cap. 26. chap. Of the Sacrament of Order fol. 48. c. And King Henry 8. himselfe in his Booke inscribed A necessary erudition for any Christian man published with the advise and approbation of all the Prelates Clergy of England in their Convocation and of the Lords Spirituall and Temporall and nether House of Parliament with the Kings owne royall Epistle to all his loving Subjects before it Anno 1545. by vertue of the Satute of 32 Henry the eight c. 26. Chap. of the Sacrament of Order Doe all thus joyntly determine of the calling jurisdiction Lordlinesse and secular imployments of Bishops The truth is that in the New Testament there is no mention made of any degrees or distinctions in Orders but onely of Deacons and Ministers and of Priests or Bishop● And of these two Orders onely that is to say Priests and Deacons Scripture maketh expresse mention and how they were conferred of the Apostles by Prayer and imposition of their hands And to these two the Primitive Church did add and conjoyne certaine other inferior and lower degrees And as concerning the office and duty of the said Ecclesiasticall Ministers the same consisteth in true preaching and teaching the word of God unto the people i● dispensing and ministring the Sacraments of Christ in consecrating● and offering the blessed body and blood of Christ in the Sacrament of the Altar in loosing and assoyling from sinne such persons as be sorry and truely penitent for the same and excommunicating such as b● guilty in manifest crimes and will not be reformed otherwise and finally in praying for the whole Church of Christ● and specially for the flocke committed unto them And although the office and ministry of Priests and Bishops stand c●iefly in these things before rehearsed ye● neither they nor any of them may exercise and execute any of the same offices but with such sort and such limitation as the Ordinances and Lawes of every Christian Realme doe permit and ●uffer It is out of all doubt that there is no mention made neither in Scripture neither in the writings of any authentical Doct●r or Author of the Church being within the time of the ●postles that Christ did ever make or institute any distinction or difference to be in the preheminence of power order or jurisdiction between the Apostle● themselves or between the Bishops themselves but that they were all ●quall in power author●ty and jurisd●ct●on And that there is now and since the time of the Apostles any such diversity or difference among the Bishops It was devised by the ancient Fathers of the Primitive Church for the conservation of good order and unity of the Catholique Church and that either by the consent and authority or else at least by the perm●ssion and suff●rance of the Pr●nces and civill powers for the time ruling For the said Fathers considering the great and infinite multitude of Christian men so l●rgely encreased through the world and taking examples of the Old Testam●nt thought it expedient to make an order of degrees to be among Bishops and spirituall Governours of the Church and so ordained some to be Patriarks some to be Metropolitans● some to be Archbishops some to be Bishops and to them did limit severally not on●ly their certaine Diocesse and Provinces wherein they should exercise their power and not exceed the same but also certaine bounds and limits of their jurisdiction and power c. And lest peradventure it might be thought to some persons that such authorities powers and jurisdictions as Patriarks Primates Archbishops and Metropolitans now have or heretofore at any time have had justy and lawfully over any other Bishops were given them by God in holy Scripture We think it expedient and necessary that all men should be advertised and taught that all such lawfull powers and authority of one Bishop over another were and be given to them by the consent ordinance positive lawes of men only and not by any ordinance of God in holy Scripture and all other power and authority which any Bishop hath used or exercised over another which hath not been given to him by such consent and ordinance of men as is aforesaid is in very deed no lawful power but plaine usurpation and tyranny And therefore whereas the Bishop of Rome hath heretofore claimed and usurped to be head and governour over all Priests and Bishops of the holy catholique Church of Christ by the lawes of God It is evident that the same power is utterly fained and untrue VVee thinke it convenient that all Bishops and Pastors shall instruct and teach the people committed to their spirituall charge that Christ did by expresse words prohibit that none of his Apostles nor any of their successors should under the pretence of authority of the sword that is to say the authority of Kings or any civill power in this world yea or any authority to make Lawes or Ordinances in causes appertaining ●●to civill powers If any Bishop of what estate or dignity so●ver he be be he Bishop of Rome or of any other City Province or Diocesse doe presume to take upon him authority or jurisdiction in causes of matters which appertaine unto Kings and the civill pow●rs and ●heir Courts and will maintaine or thinke that he may so doe by the authority of Christ and his Gospel although the Kings and Princes would not permit and suffer him so to doe no doubt that Bishop is not worthy to be called a Bishop but rather a Tyrant and a usurper of other mens rights contrary to the Lawes of God and is worthy to be reputed none otherwise than he that goeth about to subvert the Kingdome of Christ for the Kingdome of Christ in his Church is spirituall and not a carnall kingdome of the world that is to say the very Kingdome that Christ by himselfe or by his Apostles and Disciples sought here in this world was to bring all Nations from the carnall kingdome of the Prince of darknesse unto the light of his spirituall Kingdome and so himselfe raigne in the hearts of the people by grace faith hope and charity And therefore sith Christ did never seeke nor exercise any worldly kingdome or dominion in this world but rather refusing and flying the same did leave the said worldly governance of kingdomes Realmes and Nations to be governed by Princes and Potentates in like manner as he did finde them and commanded also his

consent placed Bishops where there were Flamines and three Archbishops where there were Arch Flamines turning the three Arch●flamines Sees in the three chiefe Cities into Arch-bishoprickes and the 28. Flamines Sees into 28 Bishoprickes This is punctually averred for Truth by Geofry Monmoth Histor. Brit. l. 2. c. 1. Edit Ascent l. 4. c. 19. Edit Heidelb by Gild●s in his Booke De victoria Aurelii Ambrosii by Gervasius Tilburiensis de Otiis Imperialibus ad Othonem Imperatorem Historiolae Wintoniensis Ecclesiae Alphredus Beuer lacensis Radulphus de Diceto Bartholomaeus de Cotton Gerardus Cornubiensis Ranulphus Cestrensis the Authors of the History of Rochester of the Chronicles of Hales and Dunstaple of the Booke of Abingdon of the Geneologicall Chronicle of the Monastery of Hales and of the Abbreviated Chronicle of the Britaines Thomas Rudburne Thomas Stubs Thomas Harfield Ponticus Virunnius Polydor Virgil Martinus Polonus P●olomaeus Lucensis Tuscus cited by Ioannis Leydensis in Chronico Belgico l. 2. c. 1. Ioannis B●ptista Platina in vita Eleutherii Iacobus Philippus Bergomiensis Suppl Chron. l. 8. Nauclerus vol. 1. Chronograph gen 30. Vol. 2. Gen. 6. Tritemius compend l. 1. Pope Leo the ninth Epist. 4. Guilielmus Durandus Rationale● l. 2. c. 1. n. 21 22. Polydorus Virgilius de Jnvent● rerum● l. 4. c. 11. All quoted to my hand by that excellent learned Antiquary Bishop Vsher. De Britannicarum Ecclesiarum primordiis c. 5. p. 56 57 58 59.99.100 To whom I might adde Matthew Parker his Antiquitates Ecclesiae Brit. p. 7. Iohn F●x his Acts and Monuments Edit ult Vol. 1. p. 138 139. Iohn Speed in his History of Great Britaine p. 132. Richard Grafton in his Chronicle part 7. p. 83. William Harrison in his Description of England l. 2. c. 1 2. With many more of our owne Writers and generally all the Canonists and Glossers on Gratian Dictinctio 80. and the Schoolemen on Peter Lombard sent l. 4. distinct 24 who concu●re in this opinion For in Gratian distinct 80. f. 130. I find these two decrees cited the one of Pope Lucinus with this Rubricke prefixed In what places Primates and Patriarches ought to be ordained The Cities and places wherein Primates ought to preside were not ordained by moderne times but long before the comming of Christ to whose Primates even the Gentiles did appeale for their greater businesses In those very Cities after the comming of Christ the Apostles and their Successors placed Patriarches and Primates to whom the businesses of Bishops yet saving the Apostolicall authority in all things and the greater causes after the Apostolike See are to be referred On which Iohn Thierry and others make this glosse Primates are constituted there where heretofore the proto-Flamines of the Gentiles were placed Arch-Bishops where there were Arch-Flamines Bishops where their Flamines were and this for the most part if wee may credite them was done by Saint Peters appointment The second is this Decree of Pope Clemens which warrants this glosse In those Cities wherein heretofore among the Ethnickes their chiefe Flamines and prime Doctors of the Law were placed Saint Peter commanded but God knowes when and where Primates or Patriarches of Bishops to be placed who should agitate the causes of the rest of the Bishops and the greater businesses in Faith But in those Cities in which in times past among the foresaid Ethnickes their arch-Flamines were whom yet they held to be lesse than their foresaid Primates he commanded Arch-bishops to be iustituted but in every other particular City● he commanded one sole Bishop and not many to be ordained who should onely ●btaine the name of Bishops because among the Apostles themselves there was the like institution sed unus praefuit omnibus but one had authority over the rest which is most false On which the glosse thus descants The Gentiles had three Orders of Priests to wit proto-Flamines arch-Flamines and Flamines In the place of the proto-Flamines Peter commanded Patriarches to be placed who should take conusance of the greater causes of other Bishops in the place of arch-Flamines Arch-bishops in the place of Flamines Bishops of whom there ought to be but one in every City Which Grai●an himselfe thus backes in his 21 Distinction There is a certaine distinction observed among Priests whence others are called simply Priests others arch-Priests others chorall Bishops others Bishops oth●rs Arch-bishops or Metropolitanes others Primates others chiefe Priests Horum discretio a Gentibus maxime introducta est The distinction of these was principally int●oduced by the Gentiles who called their Flamines some simply Flamines others Arch-flamines others Proto-flamines All which Peter Lombard the Father of the Schoolemen affirming after Gratian in his lib. 4. Senten●iarum Dist. 24. made this to passe as an undubitable verity among all the Canonists and Schoolemen There is onely one thing needs explanation in these Popes d●crees and that is what is meant by Saint Peter who is made the Author of this Institution For this we need resort no further then to the Decree of Pope Nicholas recorded by the same Gratian Distinct 22. c. Omnes f. 33. Omnes sive Patriarchae cujuslibet apicem sive Metropoleon primatus Episcopatuum cathedras vel Ecclesiarum sive cujuscunque ordinis dignitatem instituit Romana Ecclesia By which it is evident that by Saint Peter is meant the Church and Popes of Rome who stile themselves oft times Peter in their bulls and writings as well as his successors By all these Authorities compared together it is evident that our Arch-bishops and Bishops had their Originall Institution from the Church and Popes of Rome and that not out of their imitation of any divine patterne or forme of government prescribed by Christ in Scripture and setled in those primitive Churches of the Gen●iles which the Apostles planted and to whom they directed their Epistles but out of an apish imitation of the Heathenish Hierarchicall government of the Idolatrous Proto-Flamines Arch Flamines and Flamines used among the Pagan Gentiles and Britaines before their conversion to the Christian Faith in whose very places Sees and forme of government they succeeded Eleuther●us instituting and ordaining that all or the most part of the Arch-Flamines which is to meane Arch-bishops and Bishops of the Pagan Law which at that day were in number three Arch Flamines and 28 Flamines should be made Arch bishops and Bishops of the Church of Christ as Graf●on and others write in positive termes which if it be true as this cloud of witnesses averre it will thence necessarily follow that our Arch●bishops and Bishops are not of divine and Apostolicall but rather of Papall and E●hnicall institution and a meere continuance of the Diabolicall heathenish Hierarchy exercised among the Idolatrous Priests in times of Paganisme within our I●land and so by necessary consequence they and their government are rather to be utterly extirpated then perpetuated in our Christian reformed Church which ought

of conscience he who hath learned nothing is made the teacher of others and like sounding brasse and a ●inkling Cymball usurpes the office of Preaching when as he is an unprofitable ●tock and a dumbe Idoll This is it which Ecclesiastes deploringly complaines of I have seene saith he an evill under the Sunne a foole placed in high dignity and wise men sitting in low places An illiterate Bishop is a dumbe preacher It is a Prelates duty to instruct the people under him to render a people acceptable to God by opening the mystery of the Scriptures But at this day such as the people are such is the Priest as hi● darknes is so also is light Blush O Sidon at the Sea a Prela●e may blush and grieve to rule over people not to profit them to have taken upon him the office of a Teacher and to be mute in instructing the people It is the word of the lamenting Prophet My people is become a lost flock their Pastors have seduced them they are dumb● dogges not able to barke● They ought to drive the Wolves from the flocks but they themselves are wolves to their owne taking care neither of their owne nor theirs salvation they preci●itate the●selves with their flocks into the pit of eternall death Thus and much more he Not to mention Grostheads booke de Ignavia Praelatorum Or Halredus de Praelatorum moribus Nigellus Wireker de Abusu rerum Ecclesiae Gualther Mapes his Complaint against the Pr●l●tes Ad mal●s Pastores ad ●mpios Praelatos● Robert Baston de sacerdotum Luxuriis or ●ohn Purvey de obliquo cleri statu all declaiming against the Lordlinesse pompe pride wealth and v●●es of Prelates the most of which bookes the Prelates have suppressed their titles onely being left upon record Nor yet to mention the passages of Robert Holkot our famous Clerke In lib. Sapientiae lect 77.163 and lect 1. in Proverbia Solomonis to like purpose Richardus Armachanus Archbishop of Armagh flourishi●g in the beginning of Wicklif● time about the yeare of Christ 1350. De Questionibus Armenorum l. 11. ● 1. determines thus That neither the Dominion nor Ministry of temporall things belongs to Ecclesiasticall dignity but rather deminishes i● For the Lord prohibited the Dominion of temporall things to his Apostles and Disciples saying Possesse neither gold nor moneys in your purses Mat. 10.19 If thou wilt be perfect go● and sell all thou hast give to the poore Now it cannot bee of Ecclesiasticall dignity which the Head of the Church hath prohibited to his members or at least would not have them to po●sess●● Whence it appeares that the dominion or possession of temporall things doth in no wise essentially appertaine to Ecclesiasticall dignity but rather diminisheth it In the second Chapter he averres that these states and degrees of Patri●rch Archbishop Bishop c. were invented onely out of the devotion of men not instituted by Christ and his Apostles That no Prelate of the Church how great soever hath any greater degree of the power of order then a simple Priest In the fourth Chapter hee proves that the power of confirmation and imposition of hands that the Holy Ghost may be given thereby appertains to the jurisdiction of th● Presbytery Which he manifesteth by Acts 7. 14. 1 Tim. 4. and by the practice of the Primitive Church after the Apostles time In the fourth and fifth Chapters he demonstrates That Priests are called Bishops by the Apostle Phil. 1.1 1 Tim. 3. Titus 1. and Acts 20.28 Et quod ordine succedant Apostolis and that they succeed the Apostles in order In the sixth Chapter he proves That all Priests and Bishops are equall as to the power of Order And in the fourth Chapter he punctually determines That there is no distinction found in the Evangelicall or Apostolicall Scriptures betweene Bishops and simple Priests called Presbyters Whence it follow●s Quod in omnibus est una potestas aequalis ex ordin● that in all of them there is one and equall power by reason of Order And that for ought he can find the Apostle Paul doth not in any of his Epistles distinguish between the Order of Presbyters that is of Apostles and Bishops That every one who hath the cure of others is a Bishop Which the name of a Bishop importeth and manifesteth For a Bishop is nothing else but a superintendent or watchman From whence it is evident● that besides the power of Order hee hath nothing but a Cure Our famous English Apostle John VVicklife as Master Fox oft stiles him delivers the selfesame doctrine of the Identity of Presbyters and Bishops Dialogorum l. 4. c. 14. De Sacramento ordinis f. 124 125. Some men saith he multiply the character in Orders But I consider whether their foundation or fruit be in the Scripture But one thing I confidently averre That in the Primitive Church and in Pauls time two Orders sufficed The Presbyter and the Deacon Likewise I say that in Pauls time a Presbyter and Bishop suit idem was the same This appeares by the first of Timothy chap 3. and T●tus chap. 1. And herein that profound Divine Hierome justifies the same as appeares Distinct. 74. Cap. Olim. For then was not invented that distinction of Pope and Cardinalls Patriarchs and Archbishops Bishops Archdeacons Officials and Deanes with other Officers and private Religions of which there is neither number nor Order Concerning the contentions about these things that every one of these is an Order and that in the reception thereof the grace of God and a character is imprinted with other difficulties which ours babble about it seeme● good to me to be silent because they neither establish nor prove what they affirme But out of the faith of Scripture it seeme●h to me to suffice if there be Presbyters and Deacons keeping the sta●e and office which Christ hath imposed on them Because it seemes certaine that Caesarian Pride invented these other degrees and Orders For if they had been necessary to the Church Christ and his Apostles had not been silent in the expression of them and description of their office as those blaspheme who magnifie the Popes Laws above Christ. But a Catholicke ought to receive the office of these Clergy-men out of the Scriptures authority out of the Epistles to Timothy and Titus Neither ought he under paine of sinne to admit these new Caesarian inventions Thomas Waldensis Wickliffes professed Antagonist Tom. 1. l. 3. Artic. 3. c. 29.30.31 32. Tom. 2. c. 117 118. and Tom. 3. c. 60.61 62 63. brings in Wickliff● proving by many arguments That Bishops and Presbyters are all one and the same by divine institution and Gods Law That the Ordination of Presbyters belongs not onely to Bishops sed etiam ad simplic●m Sacerdotem But even to a meere Priest as well as to them That one ordained a Minister by a meere Priest alone ought not to doubt of his Priesthood or to seeke

If hee had seene our Bishops that now bee hee would have said otherwise For now the Pope claimeth a power above all the powers in heaven and earth as it is written in the Councell of Lateran Againe ●rasmus in another place speaking hereof saith thus This holy man Saint Ierome saith plainly and freely and as hee thinketh that the Bishop of Rome is above other Bishops not by Bishopricke● but onely by riches By riches onely M. Harding Erasmus saith the Pope is above other Bishops By riches onely hee saith not by right of Gods word not by vertue not by learning not by diligence in preaching but onely by riches Now it may please you to follow your owne rule and to lay the one saying to the other But Saint Ieromes words are plaine of themselves and have no need of other expositor Thus he writeth What doth a Bishop saving onely the ordering of Ministers but a Priest may do the same Neither may wee thinke that the Chu●ch of Rome is one● and the Church of all the world beside is another France England Affrica Persia Levante India and all barbarous Nations worship one Christ and keepe one rule of the truth If wee seeke for Authority the whole world is greater than the City of Rome Wheresoever there be a Bishop be it at Eugu●ium be it at Rome be it at Constantinople be it at Rhegium Be it at Alexandria be it at Tanais they are all of one worthinesse they are all of one Bishopricke The power of riches and the basenesse of poverty maketh not a Bishop either higher or lower for they are all the Apostles successors What bring you mee the custome of Rome being but one City Here M. Harding findeth great fault for that I have translated these words Of one Bishopricke and not as hee would have it Of one Priesthood God wo● a very simple quarrell Let him take whether he liketh best if either other of these words shall serve his turne Erasmus saith Bishop P●iest and Presbyter at that time were all t●ree all one But M● Harding saith The Primates had Authority over other in●eriour Bishops I graunt they had so Howbeit they had it by agreement and custome but neither by Christ nor by Peter nor Paul nor by any right of Gods Word Saint● Ierome saith Let Bishops understand that they are above Priests rather of Custome than of any truth or right of Christs institution and that they ought to rule the Church altogether And againe Therefore a Priest and a Bishop are both one thing and before that by the inflaming of the Devill parts were taken in Religion and these words were uttered among the people I hold of Paul I hold of Apollo I hold of Peter the Churches were governed by the common advice of the Priests Saint Augustine saith The office of a Bi●hop is above the office of a Priest not by the authority of the Scrip●ures but after the names of honour which the custome of the Church hath now obtained So part 2. cap. 9. Divis. 1. p. 196 He brings in M. Harding the Papist writing thus Even so they which denyed the distinction of a Bishop and a Priest were condemned of heresie as we find in Saint Augustine in the Booke and Chapter aforesaid And in Epiphanius Lib. 3. cap. 75. In the Councell of Constance the same is to be found To whom he answers in the Margent Vnt●uth for hereby both Saint Paul and Saint Ierome and other good men are condemned of Heresie And p. 202. He gives this further answer But what meant M. Harding here to come in with the difference betweene Priests and Bishops thinkes hee that Priests and Bishops hold onely by Tradition or is it so horrible an heresie as hee maketh it to say that by the Scriptures of God a Bishop and a Priest are all one or knoweth hee how farre and unto whom he reacheth the name of an Hereticke Verily Chrysostome saith Betweene a Bishop and a Priest in a manner there is no difference Saint Hierome saith somewhat in rougher sort I heare say there is one become so peevish that hee setteth Deacons before Priests that is to say before Bishops Whereas the Apostle plainly teacheth us that Priests and Bishops he all one Saint Augustine saith What is a Bishop but the first Priest that is to say the highest Priest So saith Saint Ambrose There is but one cons●cration of a Priest and Bishop for both of them are Priests but the Bishop is the first In his Sermon upon Haggai 1 p. 176. he writes thus against the temporall possessions and secular Offices of Clergy men When Constantinus the Emperour endowed the Church with lands and possessions they say there was a voyce of Angels heard in the ayre saying This day poyson is powred into the Church If there were poyson powred into Church then I doubt there was nover Treacle powred into it since This wee see that from that time shee hath done worse and worse Augustine findeth fault with the multitude of Ceremonies and saith the Church in ●his time was in worse case by mans devises than was the Church of the Iewes Bernard said There is no part sound in the Clergie And againe They which chuse t●e first places in the Church are chiefest in persecuting Christ. And againe they be not Teachers but deceivers they are not feeders but beguilers they be not Prelates but Pilates Which hee thus further prosecutes in his Sermon on Matthew 9. p. 198. And what shall I speake of Bishops Their cloven Miter signifieth perfect knowledge of the new Testament and the old their Crosiers Staffe signifieth diligence in attending the flocke of Christ their purple Bootes and Sandals signifie that they should ever be booted and ready to goe abroad through thicke and thinne to teach the Gospell and thereto they applyed the words of the Prophet How beautifull are the feete of them which bring glad tydings of peace which bring glad tydings of good things But alas in what kind of things do they beare themselves for Bishops These mysticall titles and shewes are not enough to ●e●ch in the Lords Harvest they are garments more meete ●or Players than for good Labourers Saint Bernard writes thus to Eugenius the Bishop of Rome who sometime had beene his Scholler Thou which art the shepheard ●ettest up and downe shining in gold and gorgeously attired but what get thy sheepe If I durst speake it these things are not the fodder for Christs sheepe but for devils Whatsoever apparell they have upon them unlesse they will fall to worke Christ will not know them for labourers How then can the Bishop of Rome be taken for the chiefe Pastor of Christ which these 900. yeares hath not opened his mouth to feed the flocke These 900. yeares I say since Gregory the first of that name it can hardly be found that ever any Bishop of Rome was seene in a Pulpit One of

Privilegium meretur amittere qui abutitur potestate Now whereas some Object that if the Bishops were put out of the Upper House of Parliament the Clergie could not grant subsidies to the King I answere it is a most grosse mistake for the Clergie ever grant their subsidies in the Convocation not in the Lords house and if the Major part of the Clerkes in Convocation grant subsidies without the Bishops and then send their Bill by which they grant them to the Commons and Lords House to be confirmed as they usually doe if the Commons and Temporall Lords without the Bishops passe it this with the Kings Royall assent will binde all the Clergie and Bishops too So as their presence and votes in Parliament is no wayes necessary for the granting of Subsidies Wherefore they may be thence excluded without any prejudice to the King or Subject if not with great benefit unto both For the third clause of the Objection that the removall of them will breede a great confusion in the Common and Statute Law I answere first that the same Objection might have beene made for the continuance of the Pope and Popery yea against the severall Statutes for Creating estate Tayles levying of Fines Vses Devises Ioyntures and the like which bred greater alterations in the Common and former Statute Lawes than the removing of Bishops can doe Secondly that one Act of Parliament ●nabling certaine Commissioners to execute all those Legall Acts which Bishops usually did will prevent all this pretended confusion so that this part of the Objection is scarce worthy answere For the fourth clause that the King by his Coronation Oath is sworne to preserve to the Bishops and their Churches all their Canonicall priviledges and to protect and defend to his power the Bishops and Churches under his government I answere First that this Oath was at first cunningly devised and imposed on our Kings by our Bishops themselves out of a policy to engage our Princes to maintaine them in their usurped authority possessions and Jurisdictions which had no foundation in the Scripture and to captivate our Kings to their pleasures as the Popes by such a kind of Oath enthralled the Emperours to their Vassallage Secondly that this Oath was first invented by Popish Prelates and meant onely of them and their Popish Church and Priviledges and so cannot properly extend to our Prelates if Protestants Thirdly this Oath doth no way engage the King to defend and maintaine our Bishops if the Parliament see good cause to extirpate them For as the King and Judges who are obliged by their Oathes to maintaine and execute all the Lawes of the Realme are not bound by their Oath to continue former inconvenient Lawes from alteration or repeale or to execute them when repealed for then all ill Lawes should be unalterable and irrepealeable So the King by this his Oath is no wayes obleiged to defend protect and preserve the Bishops if there be good cause in point of piety and policy to suppresse them especially when any of them prove delinquents For as Bishops and other Subjects by their misdemeanours may put themselves out of the Kings Protection and forfeite both their goods lives and estates notwithstanding this Coronation Oath So by the same reason when Bishops and Bishoprickes by their misdemeanours prove intolerable grievances both to Church and State as now they have done they have thereby deprived themselves of the Kings Protection and de●ence specified in this Oath● and thereupon may be justly suppressed by the King and State without the least violation of this most solemne Oath as Abbots Monkes and Sanctuaries were Having thus removed all the principall Objections for the continuance of our Lordly Prelates I shall in the last place answere one Evasion whereby our present Lord Bishops thinke to shift off this Antipathy from themselves as having no relation at all to them They say that those Prelates whose Treasons Rebellions Seditions Oppressions and Antimonarchicall practises I have here collected were Popish Bishops Limbes of that body whose head they all abjure the fault of their wickednesse was in the Popery not in the Episcopacy in the men not the calling and so utterly unconcerneth them and haveth no reflection at all on them who are generally taxed for being excessive royalists and siding too much with the King and Court To this I answere first that most of all the premised rebellious disloyall seditious extravagant actions of our Bishops have proceeded from them onely as Lordly not Popish Prelates and issued from their Episcopacy not their Popery their Prelaticall functions not personall corruptions as the Histories themselves sufficiently demonstrate Secondly I answer that some of the recited Bishops were no Papists but Protestants who were no limbes of that body of Rome whose head our Bishops say they have abjured therefore it is evident that their Episcopall function not their Religion was the ground both of their disloyalties and extravagancies Thirdly I suppose our Prelates will not renounce Arch-Bishop Laud Bishop Wren Peirce Mountague and other of their fellow Bishops yet alive or lately dead as Popish Prelates and members of the Church of Rome as some account them yet their impious seditious oppressive prophane not trayterly Actions equall or exceede many of our Popish Arch-Bishops and Bishops as he that will but compare them may easily discerne It is not then the leaven of Popery but of the Lordly Prelacy it selfe which infected our Bishops and made them so treacherous and impious in all ages It is true indeed that Popery some of whose positions are treasonable and seditious and dependency upon the Pope hath made some of our Bishops more disloyall and Rebellious than otherwise they would have beene as is evident by the first proceeding of Stephen Langhton and his confederates against King Iohn but yet afterward when the Pope sided with King Iohn and Henry the third against Langton and the other Bishops who stirred up the Barons Warres these Bishops continued as trayterous and rebellious to these Kings as ever they were before whiles they adhered to the Pope and the Pope to them therefore their Hierarchy the cause of all these stirs not their Popery was the ground worke of their Treachery and enormities Now because our present Prelates boast so much of their loyalty to his Majestie whose absolute Civill Royall prerogative they have lately overmuch courted and endeavored to extend beyond due limits to the impeachment of the Lawes and Subjects hereditary liberties not out of any zeale to his Majesties service but onely to advance their owne Episcopall power and Jurisdiction and to usurpe a more than Royall or Papall authority over all his Majesties Subjects for the present and over himselfe at last I shall make bold to present them with some particular instances whereby I shall demonstrate that all or most of our present Lordly Bishops have beene more seditious contumacious disloyall and injurious to his

this purpose and not for the other have you received the keyes of the kingdome of Heaven why then doe you invade other mens bounds or borders The rest I will passe over for brevities cause The seventh Article Falsly and against the Honour State and reverence of the sacred Majesty of the King of Scots hee hath said holden and affirmed that our most noble King of Scots defender of the Christian faith would appropriate unto himselfe all the possessions lands and rents of the Church given and granted by his predecessors and also by himselfe and convert them unto his owne private use And for this end and purpose as hee hath many times written unto him so hath he with his whole endeavour perswaded our said noble Lord and King thereunto It is no marvell though these mad dogs doe so barke against mee whom they thinke to have counselled the Kings Majesty I would to God I had also throughly perswaded him that hee should take away from these unjust sacrilegious possessors the riches wherewith all they are fatted and ●ngreased like Swine For this is the nature of dogs if any man goe about to take away the bone out of their mouth by and by to snatch at him and teare him with their teeth It is out of all controversie unto such as have any wit at all that such men were very childish that is to say ignorant of all learning and judgement which did so fat and feed with their possessions these belly beasts For who would not judge it more then childish to bestow the Kings victuals or meate upon the bellies of the prophets of Baal and Iesabel But all they which at this present doe endowe such filthy sinks I will not call them dens of thieves with such revenues they doe follow the steps of Iesabel for what other thing doe they when as daily they are bleating and lowing before their Images burning of Incense and fall flat downe before their Altars but that which in times past the prophets of Baal did when as they transported the worship of God unto an Idoll Wherefore if Daniel and Elias were spotted with heresie when they would have destroyed the Priests of Baal I grant that I also must bee an Heretique But for so much as then hee did nothing but which was commanded him of the Lord that was able to kill the prophet which had allured the people to follow strange gods he could not truly and justly be accused of heresie so neither can my adversaries spot mee therewithall except peradventure they will condemne me that whereas Elias dealt more rigorously with the prophets of Baal for he cast them into the brooke Kidron I required or desired no more but that the riches which was wickedly bestowed upon them and their possessions might be taken from them The ninth Article He hath openly holden said and affirmed preached and taught that the Lawes of the Church that is to say the sacred Canons approved and allowed by the holy Catholique and Apostolique Church are of no force strength or effect alleadging therefore and affirming that they are made and intended contrary to the Law of God God forbid that I should say that those things which are approved by the holy Catholike Church should be of no effect or value For well I know that the holy Apostolique Church hath never been allowed ordained or taught any thing which shee hath not learned of the Lord the Apostles are witnesses therof Peter and Paul whereof the one of them dared not freely utter or speake of any of those things which Christ hath not wrought by himselfe for the obedience of the Gentiles The other exhorteth That if any man speake he should speake the praises of God but I condemne those lawes which the Bishops of Rome have made according to their owne will and mind and say that they are spirituall pertaining unto the salvation of the soule and necessarie unto everlasting life for so much as the writings of the Apostles doe evidently declare that there was no authority knowne amongst them to make or ordaine any ordinances or lawes Furthermore the Scriptures doe manife●tly shew the same how oftentimes even by the Lords owne mouth this foresaid authority is taken from the Ministers of the Church so that no excuse for them remaineth but that they be plaine rebels against the Word of God how many soever doe presume or take upon them to appoint or set any new lawes upon the people of God Which thing is more manifest and evident than the light it selfe in many places of the Scripture For in the three and twentieth chapter of Ioshua it is written You shall observe and doe all that is written in the Law of Moses neither shall you swarve from that either to the right hand or to the left hand But that which is written in the ●welfth chapter of Deuteronomy ought to move them somewhat the more What soever I command saith the Lord that shall you observe and doe thereunto you shall adde nothing neither shall you take any thing from it c. This point hee there excellently prosecutes at large where yo● may read more at your leisure M. William Tyndall our famous Martyr in his obedience of a Christian man Printed C●m Privilegio at London 1573. p. 98. writes thus of Bishops and their practises God promised David a Kingdome● and immediately stirred up King Saul against him to persecute him to hunt him as men do Hares with Greyhounds and to ferret him out of every hole and that for the space of many yeares to tame him to meere his lusts to make him feele other mens diseases to make him mercifull to make him understand that hee was made King to minister and to serve his brethren and that he should not thinke that his Subjects were made to minister unto his Lusts and that it were lawfull for him to take away from them life and goods at hi● pleasure Oh that our Kings were so nurtured nowadayes which our holy Bishops teach of a farre other manner saying your Grace shall take your pleasure yea take what pleasure you list spare nothing wee shall dispense with you wee have power wee are Gods Vicars and let us alone with the Realme wee shall take paine for them and see that nothing be well your Grace shall but defend the faith onely After which he proceeded thus Kings were ordained then as I before said and the sword put in their hands to take vengeance of evill doers that others might feare and were not ordeined to fight one against another or to rise against the Emperour to defend the false authority of the Pope that very Antichrist Bishops they onely can minister the temporall sword their office the preaching of Gods Word laid apart which they will neither do nor suffer any man to do but slay with the temporall sword which they have gotten out of the hand of all Princes them that would The preaching of

purely ●hat they see no contrary ensample in thee to whatsoever tho● teachest them in Christ that tho● put no stumbling blocke before them to make them ●aile while they be yet young and weake in the faith But that thou abstaine as Paul teacheth 1 Thes. 5. Ab omni specie mala from all t●at might seeme evill or whereof a man might ●urmise amisse and that thou so love them that whatsoever gift of God in them is thou thinke the same theirs and their food and for their sakes given unto thee as the ●ruth is and that all their infirmit●es be thine and that thou feele them and that with all thy power to helpe to amend them and cease not to cry to God for them neither day nor night and that thou let nothing be found in thee that any man may rebuke but whatsoever thou teachest them that be thou and that thou be not a Wolfe in a Lambes skin as our Holy Father the Pope is which commeth unto us in a name of hypocrisie and in the Title of cursed Cham o● Ham calling himselfe Serv●s servo●um the Servant of all ●ervants and is yet found tyrannus ●yrannorum of all tyrants the most cruell This is to receive young Children in Christs name and to receive young Children in Christs name is to beare rule in the Kingdome of Christ. Thu● ye see that Christs Kingdome is altogether spirituall and the bearing of rule in it is cleare contrary unto the bearing of rule temporally Wherefore none that be●reth rul● in it may have any temp●rall jurisdiction or minister any temporall Office that requireth violence to compell withall Thus and ●arre more Mr. Tyndall All whose passages are very remarkable and worthy serious consideration Iohn Fri●h our learned English Martyr in his Answere to the Prefac● of Mr. Moores Book pag. 116 writes thus of Bishops an● their great possessions This Canker then began to spread in the Congregation and did full sore annoy the body insomuch that within foure hundred yeares there were very many Sects scattered in every coast Notwithstanding there were faithfull Fathers that diligently subdued them with the sword of Gods Word But surely since Silvester received such possessions hath the Canker so crept in the Church that it hath almost left never a sound member And as Cistercensis writeth in the eighth booke that day that hee received revenues was a voyce heard in the ayre crying over the Court which sayd This day is venome shed into the Church of God Before that time there was no Bishop greedy to take a Cure For it is no honour and profit as it is now but onely a carefull charge which was like to cost him his life at one time or other And therefore no man would take it but he that bare such a love and zeale to God and his ●locke that hee could be content to shed his blood for them But after that it was made so honourable and profitable they that were worst both in learning and living most laboured for it For they that were vertuous would not entangle themselves with the vaine pride of this world and weare three Crownes of gold where Christ did weare one of thorne And in conclusion it came so farre● that whosoever would give most money for it or best could flatter the Prince which he knew well all good men to abhorre had the preheminence and got the best Bishopricke and then instead of Gods Word they published their owne Commandements and made Lawes to have all under them and made men beleeve they could not erre whatsoever they did or sayd and even as in the Roomes stead of Moses Aaron Eliazer Iosue Caleb and other Faithful folk came Herod Annas Caiphas Pilate and Iudas which put Christ to death● So now in the stead of Christ Peter Paul Iames and Iohn and the faithfull followers of Christ we have the Pope Cardinalls Arch-Bishops Bishops and proud Prelates with their Proctors● the malicious Ministers of their Master the Devill which notwithstanding transform●● themselves into a likenesse as though they were the Ministers of righteousnesse whose end shall bee according to their workes So that the body is cankered long agone and now are left but certaine small members which God of his puissant power hath rese●ved uncorrupted● and because they see that they cannot be cankered as their owne ●lesh is for pure anger they bu●●e them● lest if they continued there might seeme some deformity in their owne cankered carkasses by the comparing of these whole members to their scabbed body Our godly Martyr D. Barnes in his Articles pag. 210 211 212 213. writes thus of Bishops I will never beleeve nor yet I can never beleeve that one man may be by the Law of God a Bishop of two or three Cities yea of an whole Country for it is contrary to Saint Paul which saith I have left thee behind to set in every City a Bishop And if you find in one place of Scripture that they be called Episcopi you shall find in divers other places that they be called Presbyteri I was brought before my Lord Cardinall into his Gallery and there he read all my Articles till he came to this and there he stopped and said that this touched him and therefore he asked mee if I thought it wrong that one Bishop should have so many Citties underneath him unto whom I answered that I could no farther goe than to Saint Pauls text which set in every City a Bishop Then asked hee mee if I thought it now unright seeing the Ordinance of the Church that one Bishop should have so many Cities I answered that I knew none Ordinance of the Church as concerning this thing but Saint Pauls saying onely neverthelesse I did see a contrary custome and practice in the world but I know not the Originall thereof Then said hee that in the Apostles ●ime there were divers Citie● some seven miles some sixe mile● long and over them was there set but one Bishop and of their Suburbes also So likewise now ● bishop hath but one City to his Cathedrall Church and the country about is as Suburbs unto it Mee thought this was farre fetched but I durst not deny it because it was great Authority and of so holy a Father and of so great a Divine But this date I say tha● his Hollinesse could never prove it by Scripture nor yet by any authority of Doctors not yet by any practice of the Apostles and yet it must be tr●e because a pillar of the Church hath spoken it● But let us see what the Doctors say to my Article Athanasius doth declare this text of the Apostle I have left thee behind c. Hee would not commit unto one Bishop a whole Isle but hee did enjoyne th●t every City● should have his proper Pastor supposing that by this meanes they should more diligently oversee

by foolish men If Aerius was an Hereticke in this thing he had Ierome a companion of his Heresie and not onely him but also many other Ancient Fathers both Greeke and Latine as Medina confesseth Alphonsus de Castro saith that the Church was sarre enough off from the minde of Hierome and a certaine man hath written in the Margin that Ieromes opinion is to be dissembled not to be urged Pighius writes that Ierome is involved in such difficulties out of which he could not winde himselfe and that he fell into perplexed absurdities no wayes cohearing and fighting among themselves It is no wonder if they speake evill of us who thus petulantly insult over Ierome Marianus Victorius endeavours to excuse Ierome and writes that he speakes not of Bishops and Presbyters but o● Bishops onely and that verily all these are equall and that many did ill interpret Hierome otherwise But Ierome most manifestly compares Presbyters with Bishops and that Marianus had most easily seene unlesse he had beene miserably blinde yet at length by the opinion of Marianus all Bishops are equall Turrianus otherwise and more acutely answers Hieronymum non dicere Presbyterum idem sed eundem esse cum Episcopo What knots doth this Jesui●e here seeke in a Rush If a Presbyter be the same that a Bishop is and the Bishop the same that a Presbyter is what at last good Jesuite canst thou thinke to be between a Presbyter and a Bishop Thus verily our adversaries yea Bpp finde not how they may defend themselves from this sentence of Hierome and truely all of them sticke in the same mire albei● some of them are more foulely plunged than others The matter now returnes to Bellarmine as to the Triary he most confidently pronounceth that Ierome differeth as much from Aerius as a Catholick from an Hereticke I most firmely averre the contrary that their opinions concer●ing this thing can by no meanes be disjoyned nor distinguished Aerius thought that a Presbyter differed not ●rom a Bishop by Divine right and authority Hierome contends this very thing and defends it by the same testimonies of Scriptures as Aerius doth Now quam inepte pueriliter how foolishly and childishly Epiphanius answereth to those testimonies all may perceive For he saith that the Apostle was wont to write thus because that at that time there were not any Presbyters in many C●urches by reason of the paucity of Presbyters I admire so great a Theologue who tooke upon him to refute all Heretickes saw not how shamefully he was mistaken For what was the●● at that time greater plenty of Bishops than of Presbyters that whereas there were many Bishops in one City yet there were no presbyters there The notable absurdi●y of this an●were Bellarmine himselfe acknowledged And yet this is that Epiphanius who first of all proscribed Aerius as an Hereticke absque Synodi aut Ecclesiae judicio without the judgement of a Synod or of the Church But what saith Bellarmine he propoundeth a double difference betweene Aerius and Hierom. The first is that Ierom writes everywhere That a Bishop is greater than a Presbyter as to the power of Order I answere that it is most false Hierome never writ so neither doth he by any meanes acknowledg a Bishop to be greater than a Pre●byter unlesse it be by custome which he distinguisheth from divine disposition And if there were so great a difference wherefore doth Ierome that he may revok Deacons to modesty reduce them into order affirme that Presbyters are Bishops Whence doth he admonish that this contention taken up against Presbyters belongs to B ps themselves seeing Presbyters by the first institution of this order and Ministry are B ps Now if there were the greatest difference between these in the power of order had not Ierome bin very sottish in his argument Now whereas he saith What doth a B p except ordination which a Presbyter may not do He speaks of the custome of those times that not even the when by the custome of the Church a Bishop was greater then a Presbyter could a Bishop doe more then a Presbyter in any thing except in ordination yea elsewhere Hierom himselfe attributes ordination to Presbyters And indeed so he doth for in Zoph 1. 2. Tom. 5. pag. 218. D. he writes thus Sacerdotes c That Priests who baptize and consecrate the Lords Supper which is the greater MANVS IMPONVNT LEVITAS ET ALIOS CONSTITVVNT SACERDOTES lay on hands ordaine Levites and other Priests which is in truth but the lesse The second is that although Ierome doth not acknowledge any difference jure divino betweene the jurisdiction of a Bishop and Presbyter yet he grants that this was lawfully introduced by the Apostles and that necessarily to avoyd Schismes I answere first that Bellarmin hath resolved out of the opinion of Ierome that there is no difference in the Jurisdiction of a Bishop and Presbyter whence it is manifest what Ierome thought of the Jurisdiction and Primacy of the Pope For seeing the Primacy of the Pope consists in Jurisdiction Ierome thinks that Iure Divino the Jurisdiction of a Bishop is not greater than that of a Presbyter it followes from Ieromes opinion that the Papacy and Prelacy Divino mullo ju●● nitatur rests upon no divine Law Secondly ●●llarmine fights with himselfe and makes Ierome to speake contradictions For if Ierome thought that jurisdiction of a Bishop not to be Iuris Divini how the● was that difference introduced by the Apostles or how could Ierome prove out of the Apostles writings that there was not any difference betweene them Certainely that which the Apostles instituted and introduced hath the force of divine right Finally this profound Doctor in his ad●0 ●0 Rationem Campiani p. 51. concludes thus of Aerius●is ●is opinion And ●ruely if to condemne prayers for the dead● Et Episcopo Presbyteros aequare sit h●●reticum NIHIL CATHOLICVM ESSE POTEST and ●o equall Presbyters to a Bishop he Hereti●all nothing can be Catholike Thus this great Doctor William Whitaker with whom his Coaetaneans Doctor Willet in his Synopsi● Papismi Controversie Generall 5. part 2. in the Appendix p. 272. to 284. in the last Edition and Master William Perkins in his Reformed Catholicke Cont. 18. c. 21. concurre I wonder therefore with what impudency and shamelesse brow Bishop Hall and others dare condemne the defenders of the identity and Parity of Presbyters and Bishops by Divine right for Aerian Heretickes Schismatickes Novillers and oppugners of the received Doctrine of the Church of England when as the learnedest Prelates Martyrs and writers of our Church as appeares by the premises have pro●essedly justified this opinon as Apostolicall Orthodox Ancient and Catholike warranted by the unanimous consent both of Scriptures and Fathers ●s will further appear● by the next Authority with which I shall conclude And that is our incomparably learned Doctor Iohn Rainolds once professor of Divinity

though I thinke untrue then it is cleare that this Angel of Ephesus who lost his first love was famous and zealous Timothy not dead when this Epistle was written as Pererius and Alcazar both Jesuites with Lyra Ribera P. Halloix and others confesse And who dare be so presumptuous as to thinke Timothy a man so eminent famous zealous and so much applauded in Scripture would prove an Apostate or backeslider and lose his first love Either therefore you must deny Timothy or this Angell to be the Bishop of this Church Ninthly grant this Angell to be a Bishop yet it was onely such a Bishop as was all one and the same with Presbyters and of which there were many in one Church no● one over many Churches according to the holy Ghosts and the Apostles owne institution as appeares by Act. 20.17.28 Phil. 1.1 Tit. 1.5.7 compared with the 1 Pet. 5.2.3 Iam. 5.14 Act. 14.23 1 Tim. 5.17 which maketh nothing for but directly against that Episcopacy you contend for Tenthly and finally grant him such a Bishop as you would make him yet at the best he was an Apostate who had fallen from and lost his first love by being made a Lord Bp And it will be but little credit for our Prelates to found their Hierarchy upon an Apostate And if I conjecture not amisse this may bee one probable reason why so many Ministers prove turne-coates and Apostates losing their first love and zeale to God when they are made Lord Bishops because they have an Apostate Angel both for their foundation and imitation Happy man be their dole let them make the best of this Apostate I will not hinder but rather pitty them in this folly The second Allegation for the divine right of Episcopacy is that Timothy and Titus were Bishops such as our Lordly Prelates now are the one of Ephesus the other of Crete which Bishop White and others endevour to prove especially by the Post-script of the second Epistle to Timothy The second Epistle unto Timotheus ordained the first Bishop of the Church of the Ephesians was written from Rome when Paul was brought before Nero the second time And by this Postscript to the Epistle to Titus It was wri●ten to Titus ordained the first Bishop of the Church of the Cretians f●om Nicopolis of Macedonia which Post-scripts they say are very ancient if not Canonicall and irrefragable I shall not here enter into a large discourse to prove Timothy neither a Bishop● nor first nor sole nor any Bishop at all of Ephesus who as some say preached the Gospell in our Island of Britaine whiles our Prelates would crea●e him the Apost●ate Angel residing in the Church of Ephesus to whom Christ writ an Epistle by S. Iohn Rev. 2.1.2 or to disprove Titus to be Lord Bishop or rather Lord Arch-bishop of Crete which had an hundred Cities in it in Homers dayes and no lesse than 4. Arch-bishops and 21. Bishops in former times since I have sufficiently manifested this long since in The Vnbishopping of Timothy and Titus not hitherto answered And indeede were there no other Arguments but two First that though Paul in his Epistles mentions Timothy and Titus more frequently than any other persons yet we never finde him so much as once stiling them Bishops no not in the Epistles to them Secondly that Paul doth never write to them in the Ordinary stile of our Lordly Prelates which it seemes he was not then acquainted with and so not with their Office viz. To the Right Reverend Father in God Timothy Lord Bishop of Ephesus To the Most Reverend Father in God Titus Lord Arch-bishop of Crete his Grace Primate and Metropolitan of all that Island which doubtlesse he would have done had they beene such Bishops as ours are and this stile had beene due or fitting for them but onely To Timothy my owne sonne or dearely beloved sonne in the faith To Titus mine owne sonne after ●he common ●aith c. these were sufficient to satisfie any indifferent man that neither of them was a Bishop or Arch-bishop of these places or at least that they were no such Lordly Prelates as ours now are who may well be ashamed of these pompous swelling Titles which no Apostle nor Apostolicall Bishop ever usurped But the onely thing I shall here insist on shall be to take away ●he grounds of this false Allegation to wit the pretended Authority and Antiquity of these two Post-scripts wi●h which the world hath beene much abused For their Authority It is confessed by all First that they are no part of the Text or Canonicall Scripture Secondly that they are not of infallible truth many of them being dubious others directly false as Baronius the Rhemists Estius Mr. Beza Mr. Perkins and sundry others prove Thirdly that they were not added to the Epistles Paul b● himself when he writ the Epistles as some have dreamed but by some third pe●son since as the whole frame of the words running on●ly in the third person imports For their Antiquity when and by whom they were first added will be the sole question To cleare this doubt I shall have recourse to the Post-script of the first Epistle to Timothy which runnes thus The first to Timothy was written from Laodicea which is the chiefe City of Phrygia Pacatiana This Post-script of the first Epistle no doubt was written either before or at the same time when the Post-script of the Second Epistle was penned and that must needes be after Phrygia was commonly stiled Pacatiana since it is thus named in this Post-script Now we shall not finde Phrygia so stiled in any Authors till about 340. yeares after Christ in the reigne of Constantine the great at which time it begun to be called Pacatiana and that as some conjecture from Pacatianus who as the Code of Theodosius M. Cambden and Speede affirme was Vicegerent of Brittaine some 330. yeares a●ter Christ. Who it was who first annexed these Post-scripts to Pauls Epistles onely ●or the other Apostles Epistles have none will be the greatest question For resolution whereof I take it somewhat cleare that Theodoret was the man who flourished about the y●are of our Lord .430 For I finde these Post-scripts added to his Commentarie upon Pauls Epistles and in no other Commentator before nor in any after him till Oecumenius his Ape and transcriber who lived about the yeare 1050. Theodoret then being the first in whom Post-scripts are extant and Oecumenius his follower the next it is probable that he was the first Author of them And that which puts it out of doubt is this that Theodoret in his Preface to his Commentaries on Pauls Epistles is the first who doth modestly undertake with scriptum esse existimo onely to shew both the time when and the place from whence Paul writ his severall Epistles which Preface fully accords with the Post-scripts placed not after the text it selfe but after the end of his