by the Canons of 1571. and 1603. to sett in order and provide such bookes ornaments and necessaries as are wanting in Parish Churches and see them well repaired Ergo Churchwardens are Bishops For Titus was here left to sett in order the things that were wanting AS PAVL HAD APPOINTED HIM and no other wise Tit. 1. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. hee did all by his direction and authority not his owne There is nothing therefore in this of ordering things that were wanting in the Church of Creete which savours of Episcopall Iurisdiction And I may better argue hence Titus did nothing at all in Creet but by Paules speciall appointment and Cōmission Ergo hee was no Bishop or if a Bishop Ergo Bishops should order nothing in their Bishoprikes nor keepe any visitations but by speciall direction Commission from the Apostles King or State authorizing them Then the Objectors conclude Ergo hee was a Bishop and Bishops Archbishops yea Archdeacons too without any speciall commission from the Apostles King and State may make and institute what orders constitutions Articles and Ceremonies they please as now they doe in their illegall Courts and visitations kept in their owne names without any Patent from the King Obj. 3. If any object in the third place That Titus was lest to ordaine Elders in every Citty in Creete Tit. 1. 5. Ergo hee was a Bishop because none have power to ordaine Elders but Bishops since none ordained Elders in Creete but Titus who was a Bishop Answ 3. I answer first that this is as bad a consequence as the former and a meere circular argumentation For first they will needs proove Titus a Bishop because hee ordained Elders and none but Bishops can ordaine Elders and then next they proove that none but Bishops can ordaine because Titus foresooth was a Bishop and hee onely did ordaine Elders in Creete A meere Circle and Petitio Principij yet this is the Logicke of our great Rabbi Prelates Secondly I answer that this proposition whereon they ground themselves and their Prelacy that none have any right Ture divino to ordaine Elders or Ministers but Bishops and that quatenus Bishops too which they must adde or else their argument is unsound is a notorious falsehood and meere sandy foundation For first not to remember how Moses a Civill Magistrate consecrated Aaron and his sonnes by Gods owne appointement Levit. 8. 5. to 32. Exod. 29. 9. 35. First The Apostles themselves were ordained Apostles and consecrated Ministers by Christ himselfe Matth. 28. 19. 20. Marke 16. 15. 16. Iohn 20. 22. 23. 24. Acts. 1. 4. 5. Rom. 1. 5. 2. Cor. 3. 6. To whom the power of ordination principally appertaines Ephes 4. 11. 12. 1. Cor. 12. 28. Acts. 20. 28. 1. Pet. 1. 4. Secondly The Apostles and Euangelists ordained Elders in every Church Acts. 14. 23. c. 19. 1. 6. 7. c. 7. 6. yet they were properly no Bishops as all learned men acknowledge Thirdly The Disciples inferior to the Apostles and Euangelists as the objectors teach ordained Ministers and Elders too though they were no such Bishops as the objectors mean Acts. 14. 1. 2. 3. c. 9. 10. to 22. Fourthly Presbyters and ordinary Ministers ordainea Elders and Ministers yea Timothy himselfe was made a Minister by the imposition of the handes of the Presbytery 1. Tim. 4. 14. Thus did they in the primitive Church this doe they still in our owne Church as the booke of ordination it selfe confirmed by two Acts of Parliament the 35. Canon and experience witnesse this doe they in all the reformed Churches now which should have no lawfull Ministers and so no true Church if the power of ordination were Jure divino appropriated onely to Bishops and not common with them unto other Ministers Fiftly Patriarkes Metropolitanes Archbishops and Chorall Bishops neither of which are properly Bishops in the objectors sence ordaine Ministers If then all these have ordained Elders and Ministers though no Bishops by sufficient divine Authority as the objectors cannot deny of the 4. first and dare not contradict it in the last then it is most false that the power of ordination Jure divino belongs onely to Bishops as Bishops in the objectors sence for then none of those 5. being not properly such Bishops could lawfully have ordained Ministers or Presbyters as they did and doe Thirdly There is no one syllable in the Scripture to proove that the power of ordination belongs onely to Bishops quatenus Bishops neither is there any one example to warrant it We read of Apostles Euangelists Disciples Presbyters that layd hands on others to ordaine them Ministers but of Bishops I mean distinct from Presbyters we read not a word to this purpose how then can this be true that the power of ordination belongs onely to Bishops quatenus Bishops Jure divino Fourthly We read not a word to this purpose in Scripture of any Bishops distinct from or superior in order degree and dignity to Presbyters if therefore such Bishops themselves be not Jure divino the power of ordination cannot belong to them Jure divino the rather because we read of no man whom the Scripture cals a Bishop ordaining Ministers Admit there were such Bishops Jure divino yet that the power of ordination belongs to them Jure Divino quatenus such Bishops is most false but onely quatenus they are Ministers For it appertained to the Apostles to the Euangelists to Disciples and Presbyters Iure divino though no such Bishops and the objectors will acknowledge that it belongs to Popes Patriarkes Metropolitans and Archbishops though they neither were nor are properly such Bishops and are no divine but meere humane institutions therefore it must appertaine unto them onely as they are Ministers in which respect they all accord and are not differenced one from another not quatenus Bishops for then the Apostles Euangelists Disciples Presbyters Popes Patriarkes Metropolitanes and Arch-bishops being not properly such Bishops could not lawfully ordaine The power therefore of ordination belonging to the Apostles Euangelists Disciples Presbyters and others as well as to Bishops not to Bishops onely or to them as Bishops but as Ministers it being a meere Ministeriall act inferior to preaching administring the Sacrament and baptizing as all acknowledge it can be no good evidence to proove Titus a Bishop Now because this power of ordination which our Prelates would Monopolize unto themselves is the maine pillar whereon they now suspend their Episcopall Jurisdiction over ther Ministers I shall produce some humane authorities to proove the right the power of ordination and imposition of hands to be by Gods Law common to Presbyters as well as to Bishops I shall beginne with Councells The 4. Councell of Carthage Can. 3. about the yeare of our Lord 418. prescribes this forme of ordination of Ministers When a Minister is ordained the Bishop blessing him and holding his hand upon his head all the Presbyters or Ministers likewise that
of such who had Apostolicall authority or of Bishops and not of the bare Presbyters because say they Presbyters to wit according to the practise of their though not of former times could not ordaine a Bishop but onely Apostles or Bishops yet none of them so much as once asffirme that they cannot by the Law of God ordaine Deacons ordinary Ministers or that they ought by Gods Law and divine institution to be ordained onely by Bishops yea Theophilact on that text writes thus Behold a wonderfull thing See how much the imposition SACERDOTALIVM MANVVM of Sacerdotall or Preists hands can doe A cleare demonstration that Preists as well as Bishops and Bishops onely as they are Preists not Bishops have power of laying on hands And Theodoret thus glosseth the text here hee cals those the Presbytery who had attained Apostolicall grace For saith hee divine Scripture hath called those who were honored in Israell Elders The Fathers therefore confessing that Presbyters and Elders might and did in some cases and places ordaine and consecrate Ministers without the Bishop and likewise joyne with the Bishop in all places in the imposition of hands grant that the right of ordination and imposing hands belongeth to them by the word of God as well as to Bishops the rather because this is the constant doctrine of the Fathers that Bishops and Presbyters by Gods Law and institution are both one and the same and so continued till long after the Apostles times Therefore their power of ordination the same with theirs Neither doe the Papists dissent from this Aquinas writes That the imposition of hands belongs onely to those who are the Ministers of Christ which was double one which was made by Deacons the other by Ministers and because hee adds not the third by Bishops hee plainly intimates that the ordination made by Ministers and Bishops is one and the same and that Bishops ordaine onely as Bishops not as Ministers Caâ—etan on that text saith That Paul relates that the imposition of hands S ACERDOTALIS OFFICII is a part of the Sacerdotall or Preists office not the Bishops and Faber in 1. Tim. 4. 14. writes that Presbyters did use to lay their hands on the heads of those who were to be ordained purged or made compleate Ministers powring forth holy prayers I know indeed that Aquinas and other Schoolemen hold that it belongs onely to Bishops to conferre holy orders yet hee and Durandus grant that this is not by vertue of any divine right orinstitution but onely by humane Constitutions and Canons by reason of the more excellent power and Jurisdiction that the Bishop hath over and above Ministers and for order sake yea they both affirme that Presbyters doe and ought to joyne with the Bishop in the imposition of hands in the ordination of Ministers The Rhemists in their annotations on the 1. Tim. 4. 14. confesse that when a Preist is ordained the rest of the Preists and Elders present doe together with the Bishop even at this day among them and have anciently used heretofore to lay hands on those that are to be ordained citing the fourth Councell of Carthage Can. 3. for proofe thereof And the Canonists with some Schoolemen grant that Preists and Ministers by the Popes dispensation and License may without a Bishops concurrents ordaine Deacons and Ministers but a meere Layman or one that is no Minister cannot doe it A cleare proofe that the imposition of hands appertained to Presbyters as well as Bishops and that the power of ordination rests more in the Ministers person then in the Popes grant or License else why might not a Lay man as well as a Minister grant Orders by vertue of the Popes License or why should Ministers joyne with Bishops in the imposition of hands But to passe from these to the reformed Churches beyond the Seas We know that most of them have no Bishops that all their Ministers and Deacons are ordained by the Common election of the people and Magistrates and imposition of the Senate or Colledge of Ministers hands yet none of our Prelates have beene so impudently shamelesse as to deny their ordination and Ministers to be lawfull or their practise to be dissonant from the Scriptures or them to be true Churches What their writers have determined concerning the power of ordination incident to Ministers as well as Bishops and to Bishops onely as Ministers and servants to the Church not Lords these ensuing passages will declare Ioannes Lukawitz in his Confession of the â—aborites against Rokenzana c. 13. of the Sacrament of order writes thus They confesse that the conferring of Orders onely by Bishops and that they have more effectuall authority of his nature then other Ministers is not from any faith or authority of the Scriptures Sed ex consuetudine habetur Ecclesiae but from the Custome of the Church This being the constant doctrine of the Waldenses and Toborites that the power of giving orders and imposing handes belonged to Presbyters as well as Bishops and that Bishops and Ministers by Gods Law where both one and no Bishop greater then any Presbyter in honor or Iurisdiction Melanchton writes That if Bishops and Ordinaries are enemies of the Church or will not give orders yet the Churches retaine their right For wheresoever there is a Church there is a right of administring the Gospell wherefore there is a necessity that the Church should retaine the right of calling electing and ordaining Ministers And this right is a guift given to the Church which no humane authority can take from the Church as Paul witnesseth in the fourth of the Ephesians where hee saith When hee ascended upon High hee gave guifts unto men and hee reckons Doctors and Pastors among the proper guifts of the Church and adds that such are given for the Worke of the Ministery for the edifying of the body of Christ where therefore there is a true Church there must needs be a right of Electing and ordaining Ministers One thing hath made a difference of Bishops and Pastors to wit ordination because it is instituted that one Bishop might ordaine in many Churches but seeing that by Gods Law there are not divers degrees of a Bishop and Pastor it is evident that an ordination made by a Pastorin his Church is ratified by Gods Law Marsilius Patavinus in his Defensoris Pacis pars 2. 〈◊〉 15. 17. affirmes that the power of ordaining Ministers belongs not to Preists and Bishops but to the Magistrates and people where hee is to be a Minister That every Preist by divine authority may conferre all Sacraments and give orders as well as any Bishop and that every Preists hath power to ordaine and promote any beleever that is willing to the Preisthood hee preparing him Ministerially but God simply and immediately impressing the Sacerdotall power or character the originall property of ordaining Ministers being onely in Christ the head of the Church
deale treacherously with his people yet consider now that the times are drawing neare wherein you may be recompenced with the like usage as the Prophet Isai threatens †Wo to thee that spoylest and thou that wast not spoyled and dealest treacherouslly and they dealt not treacherously with thee when thou shalt cease to spoyle thou shalt be spoyled and when thou shalt make an end to deale treacherously they shall deale treacherously with thee Wherefore my Lords breake of your sinnes and sinnfull proceedings by sincere and timely repentance and of Lyons Beares Wolves Thieves and Robbers which many Bishops have degenerated into become Lambes and Shepheards to Gods people and now at last as the Elect of God holy and beloved put on bowels of mercies kindnesse humblenesse of minde meeknesse long suffering forbearing and forgiving all those against whom you have any quarrell even as Christ forgave you so also doe ye And above all things put on Charity which is the bond of perfectnesse and lett the peace of God rule in your hearts to which you are also called in one body and let the word of God dwell richly in you in all wisedome c. And if you will divert this Pest either from your selves or others then presently †beginne to turne to the Lord with all your hearts with fasting weeping and with mourning sanctify a fast call a solemne assembly gather the Elders c. and not by proxy but in proper person if ever you will either be reputed the Preists or Ministers of the Lord weepe betweene Porch and the Altar and say Spare thy people O Lord c. give not thine heritage to reproach Alas for the day of the Lord is at hand and as a destruction from the Allmighty shall it come and who shall escape it And that your fast may be acceptable beware that it be not a fast for strife and debate to smite with the fist of wickednesse or to make your voyce to be heard on high bewareleast it be only a hanging downe of your heads like a bulrish and aff licting of your soules onely for a day But let it be that true fast which God hath chosen to loose the bands of wickednesse to let the oppressed goe free to undoe the heavy burthens which you have lately layd on Ministers and people and to breake of every yoake wherewith you like Lordly †Barons have clogged the Consciences yea and bodies of Gods servants and brought them into a miserable bondage and captivity under you as if they were your vassals not Brethren to breake your bread to the hungry to bring the poore that are cast out yea the poore Ministers and Christians you have most unchristianly cast out of their livings houses and Gods house it selfe throwne into your nasty prisons where they must still be detained when others are set free to your houses yea to their owne houses livings and Gods house againe to cloath the naked to draw out your soule to the hungry to satisfie the afflicted soule to turne away your feet from the Sabbath from doing your pleasure on Gods holy day to call the Sabbath a delight the holy of the Lord honourable to honor God alone therein not doing your owne wayes not finding your owne pleasure nor speaking your owne words If thus you now fast and doe peradventure you may be spared in this day of the Lords great wrath and God will make our health to spring forth speedily But if you forbeare to doe it and proceed on as you have done be sure that God will visit you for these things and that his soule shall be avenged on such a Nation as you are He will no doubt bring evill upon you and you shall not be able to escape in this yeare both of yours and his visitation in which as you have most strangly visited others thrusting many of Gods best and painefullest Ministers from their Ministery in sundry places upon meere new fancies and Articles of your owne against Law and justice so God the supreame Visitor will in his justice visit you in one kinde or other with his most righteous judgments cut you off with his plagues as he hath done your forecited predecessors This you have cause to feare and seriously to expect unlesse you forthwith become New-Creatures Loe I have in few words admonished you If you amend there may be hope of mercy if you continue what ye are contemne alla dmonitions striving still as you have done against God his truth and people you shall be ashamed confounded and perish you shall become as nothing and as a thing of nought For God hath spoken it and he will make it good The transgressors shall be destroyed together the end of the wicked shall be cut off For yet a little while and the wicked shall not be thou shalt diligently consider their place and it shall not be found Consider what I have written and the Lord give you understanding in all things Farewell Whether Timothy were ever a Diocaesan Bishop or first or sole Bishop of Ephesus QVESTION I. IF the multitude or common received opinion might take place or our Prelates be the Iudges of this Controversy they would presently conclude affirmatively without dispute that Timothy was a Diocaesan Bishop yea the first and sole Bishop of the Ephesians But if the Scripture or verity may be umpire it will evidently appeare first that Timothy was no Bishop I meane no such Bishop as Iure divino or humano is different from an ordinary Presbyter in dignity and degree much lesse Bishop or first or sole Bishop of Ephesus as is generally conceived which I shall clearly evidence by these ensuing Scriptures and reasons That Timothy was no Bishop in this sence is apparant 1. First because S. Paul and Luke who were best acquainted with him and make frequent mention of him never stile him a Bishop neither is hee termed a Bishop in any text of Scripture S. Paul in his Epistles to him cals him his owne Sonne in the faith 1. Tim. 1. 2. A good MINISTER not a Bishop of Jesus Christ 1. Tim. 4. 6. His dearly beloved Sonne 2. Tim. 1. 2. A good Soldier of Jesus Christ. 2. Tim. 2 3. A 〈…〉 in that needed not to be ashamed rightly dividing the word of God 2. Tim. 2. 11 In his other Epistles hee tearmes him 1. Thes 3. 2. Rom. 16. 21. His Brother and beloved Sonne 1. Cor. 4. 17. 2. Cor. 1. 19. Col. 1. 1. A workeman of the Lord 1. Cor. 16 10. A servant of Jesus Christ Phil. 1 1. but never a Bishop S. Luke termes him Paules Companion Minister attendant and fellow-worker onely Acts 16 1 2 3 c. 17 14 15 c. 18 5 c. 19 22 c. 20 4. never so much as intimating him to be a Bishop The Scripture therefore never phrasing him a Bishop nor giving him that Title among all his other Epithites is an infallible
are present shall lay their hands upon his head by the Bishops hand This Canon is incorporated by Gratian into the body of the Canon Law and hath been practised and put in ure in all ages since till now The very Glosse on Gratian yea and the Rhemists too assuring us that when a Preist is ordained all the Preists standing by doe lay their hands upon him neither is there any other forme of ordaining Ministers prescribed in the Canon Law or Councels but this alone which all Churches have observed and yet retaine Since therefore no Bishop may or ought of himselfe alone to ordaine Ministers without the assent and concurrence of the Clergy people and others there present as Gratian Illyricus and Gersome Bucerus proove at large and since all Ministers present ought joyne with the Bishop in the imposition of hands in all ordinations of Ministers and haue ever usually done it in all ages and Churches how this Prerogative of ordination should be peculiar to Bishops who may not doe it without Ministers concurrrence no more then Ministers without theirs I cannot yet conjecture True it is that the Councell of Ancyra about the yeare of our Lord 308. Can. 3. ordained That Chorall Bishops should not ordaine Presbyters or Deacons nor yet Presbyters of the Citty in another Parish but when the Bishop should permit them by his Letters And the Councell of Antioch under Pope Iulius Canon 10. decrees that Chorall Bishops should not ordaine Ministers and Deacons without the Bishops privity From whence I observe First That before these Councells restrained the power of Chorall Bishops and Presbyters that they did and might lawfully ordaine Ministers and Deacons without the Bishops privity or assent Secondly That by his assent and licence both the one and the other without the Bishops presence might lawfully ordaine Ministers and Deacons These Councels therefore plainly resolve that there is an inhaerent right and power of ordination in Presbyters and Chorall Bishops as they are Ministers and that with the Bishops consent and license they may lawfully execute it and conferre Orders therefore the right and power of ordination is not invested onely in Bishops as they are Bishops for then none else could ordaine but they alone The forged Constitutions of the Apostles fathered on Pope Clement prescribe That Presbyters and Deacons may not ordaine other Preists and Deacons but Bishops onely And the Councell of Hispalis or Spaw about the yeare 6 7. Canon 5. 7. out of Pope Leo Epist. 86. decrees that Presbyters and Chorall Bishops which are all one should not presume to ordaine Preistes or Deacons or to consecrate Altars or Churches For in holy writ by Gods Commaund Moses onely erected the Altar in the Tabernacle of the Lord hee onely annointed it because hee was the High Preist of God as it is written Moses and Aaron among his Preists Therefore that which was commaunded onely to the cheife Preists to doe of whom Moses and Aaron were a Type Presbyters who carry the figure of the sonnes of Aaron may not presume to enchroach upon For although they have in most things a common dispensation of Mysteries with Bishops yet they must know that some things are notwithstanding prohibited them by the authority of the old Law some things BY NEW ECCLESIASTICALL RVLES or CANONS as the CONSECRATION OF PRESBYTERS DEACONS and virgins as also the Constitution benediction or unction of the Altar Verily it is not lawfull for them to consecrate Churches or Altars not to give the Holy Ghost the comforter by imposition of hands to the faithfull who are to be baptized or to those who are converted from heresie nor to made Chrisme nor to signe the fore-head of those that are baptized with Chrisme nor yet publikely to reconcile any penitent person in the Masse nor to send formed Epistles to any All these things are unlawfull to Presbyters or Chorall Bishops because they have not Pontificatus apicem the highest degree of the High Preist-hood which by the AVTHORITY OF THE CANONS is commaunded to be due onely to Bishops that by this the distinction of the Degrees and the Hight of the dignity of the High Preist might be demonstrated Neither shall it be lawfull for the Presbyters to enter into the Baptistery before the Bishops presence not to baptize or signe an infant the Bishop being present nor to reconcile penitents without the Bishops commaund nor to consecrate the Sacrament of the body and blood of Christ hee being present nor in his presence to teach or blesse or salute the people no nor yet to exhort them all which things are knowne to be prohibited by the See Apostolicke These two last authorities are the cheife that the Papists Jesuites and our Prelates insist on to Proove that the power of ordination belongs onely to Bishops not to Presbyters But to remove these twoo obstacles consider First that there is not a word in either of these two Constitutions that the power of ordination belongs onely to Bishops by divine right and institution or that Presbyters by Gods Law have no power to ordaine Ministers and Deacons the thing onely in question Secondly That the Councell expresly resolves that the power and right of ordination is prohibited Presbyters and appropriated onely to Bishops not by any Law of God or ancient Constitutions of the Apostles or those who immediately succeeded them but onely by some Ecclesiasticall Canons and Constitutions then newly made and by the authority onely of the See of Rome which cannot deprive Ministers of that power of ordination which the Scripture and God himselfe hath given them Thirdly That before these late Canons and Constitutions Presbyters might lawfully ordaine Ministers and Deacons Fourthly That the cheife reason why the power of ordination was taken from Ministers and thus monopolized to Bishops even by their owne Constitutions wherein they have ever favoured themselves was onely to advance the power authority dignity ambition and pride of the Pope and Prelates and to distinguish them in degree and order from ordinary Ministers which of right are and otherwise would be their equalls both in Jurisdiction power and degree Fiftly That they bring not one syllable out of the new Testament to proove that the power of ordination belongs onely to Bishops not to Ministers which they would have certainly done had there beene any text to warrant it but that all they alleadge is out of the old Testament to wit that Moses onely consecrated the Tabernacle and the Altar Ergo none but Bishops must consecrate Ministers Altars Churches A learned argument ergo none but Kings and temporall Magistrates no not Bishops themselves may doe it had beene a better consequent For Moses was no Preist muchlesse a Bishop the High Preist which was Aarons office not his there being but one High Preist at once and hee a type of our High Preist Christ but a civill Magigistrate yet God commaund
him to consecrate Aaron with his Sonnes the Tabernacle and Altar and after him King Salomon not the High Preist consecrated the Temple Altar Court and all the furniture of the Temple and Altar So that if these examples proove any thing it is but this That the power of ordination of consecrating Bishops Ministers Churches Altars c. appertaines not to Archbishops Bishops Popes Preistes Ministers but to the cheife temporall Magistrates But admit that Moses were a Preist and an High Preist and that the power of consecrating Preistes Temples Altars appertained to him in that regard yet this is no argument to proove that the right and power of ordination should belong to Bishops onely and that for these three reasons First because the Aaronicall Preisthood was utterly extinct and abolished by Christ as meerely typicall and ceremoniall and so al â—he appurtenances thereunto belonging Secondly Because the High Preist was no Emblem type or resemblance of Bishops which are many changeable mortall but onely of Christ our true High Preist who is but one and remaines an High Preist forever without succession or change So that this allusion prooves the power of ordaining Ministers to belong originally to none but Christ our High Preist cheife Shepheard and Bishop of our soules as the Scripture expresly resolves and ministerially secondarily to every Minister of Christ as his Embassador instrument and Vicegerent Thirdly Because the office and power of the High Preists and Bishops are different distinct yea incompatible one with the other and the maner of ordination of Ministers and Deacons under the Law different from that under the Gospell as the Scriptures and all Authors joyntly witnes the one of them therefore can be no solid or convincing argument to make good the authority Iurisdiction or practise of other So that this Councell and Constitution makes nothing at all against the divine right and Title of Presbyters to ordaine or for the Bishops sole Monopoly of imposition of hands by any divine charter from Christ or the Holy Ghost Finally Neither of these Councells or Constitutions simply debarre Ministers from the imposition of hands on others together with the Bishop which they ever practised and were authorized to doe both by God himselfe and the fourth Councell of Carthage Can. 3. But from laying on hands and ordaining Ministers of themselves alone without the Bishop who cannot ordaine or lay hands on any Ministers by vertue of these constitutions without them Since therfore the Bishop of himselfe alone cannot impose hands on any Minister without their assistance or consent nor they without the Bishops it is apparant that the right of ordination is not wholly and originally vested in the Bishop by any divine or humane right but in both The Councell of Aquisgran or Aken under Ludovicus Pius An. 816. c. 8. out of Isidor Hispalensis De Ecclesiasticis Officiis l. 2. c. 7. determines thus The dispensation of the Mysteries of God are committed to Presbyters as they are to Bishops for they are over the Church of Christ and are consorts with Bishops in the confection of the body and blood of Christ and likewise also in the instruction of the people and in the office of preaching and onely the ordination and Consecration of Clerkes is reserved to the High Preist or Bishop because of his authority lest the discipline of the Church challenged or exercised by many should dissolve concord and engender scandals For Paul the Apostle cals Elders and Preists by the name of Bishops Tit. 1. 5. 7. Acts. 20. 28. Phil. 1. 1. 1. Tim. 3. D. Rabanus Maurus De Instit Clericorum l. 1. c. 6. writes thus That Presbyters allthough they be Preistes yet they have not attained the top or Highest degree of Preisthood because they cannot signe the fore-head with Chrisme nor give the Holy Ghost neither can they ordaine Clerkes in sacred orders which is reserved to Bishops for unity and concords sake The Epistle de 7. Gradibus Ecclesiae in the neinth Tome of Ieromes workes avers in expresse tearmes that the ordination of Clerkes and consecration of Virgins was reserved onely to the High-Preist or Bishop for his greater honor And Tertullian de Baptismo c. 17. writes that the High Preist who is the Bishop hath the right of giving Baptisme after him Presbyters and Deacons yet not without the Bishops authority for the honor of the Church By all which it is evident that Bishops have not the sole executive power of ordination by any divine right or institution of which there is not one syllable either in these or other Councels or Fathers but onely by Canons and humane Constitutions made by Bishops themselves to advance their owne honor power and dignity yet notwithstanding the right of ordination remaines still in Ministers and belongs to Bishops onely as they are Ministers by divine right not as they are Bishops as is evident by the 9. Chapter of the same Councell of Aken taken out of Isidor De Eccles Officiis l. 2. c. 6. where writing of Bishops ordination by imposition of hands and the originall thereof they use this expression which H. Rabanus Maurus likewise hath But that Bishops are ordained by imposition of handes A PRAECESSORIBVS DEI SACERDOTIBVS by the Preistes of God their predecessors is an ancient constitution For the holy Patriarke Isaac laying his handes upon the head of Iacob blessed him and Iacob in like maner gave a benediction to his sonnes c. Where the Councell and Fathers both affirme that even Bishops themselves are ordained by Priestes or Presbyters not Bishops their predecessors therefore the right and power of ordaining Ministers and Bishops too belongs to Presbyters as well as Bishops and to Bishops onely as Presbyters not Bishops and so can no wayes advance them in Iurisdiction order or degree above Ministers The Popish Councell of Trent Sessio 23. De Sacramento ordinis c. 4. determines that Bishops are superior to Presbyters and that they can conferre the Sacrament of Confirmation ordaine Ministers of the Church and doe many other things which those inferior order have no power to doe And Can. 7. De Sacramento Ordinis If any shall say that Bishops are not superior to Preistes or that they have not the power of ordination or confirmation or that this power which they have is common to them with Presbyters or that the orders conferred by them without the consent or calling of the secular power are voyd let him be Anathema Loe here this Councell appropriates the power of ordination onely to Bishops by denying it to be common to them with Ministers and in this regard makes Bishops superior in degree to Ministers yet not by any divine right or institution of which there is not one word but onely by humane and Canonicall as the History of the Councell of Trent and Chemnitius well observe For in the same Session de
Hyperius thus seconds him The imposition of hands in the election of a Bishop or Deacon to approove the person to the multitude or people was made by THE ELDERS in whom this authority rested whence it is here added with the laying on of hands by the authority of the Preisthood or as it is more significantly and plainely expressed in the Greeke with the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery which signifieth the whole Congregation of Elders And they agreed that hee who was elected by the Consent of many should be commended and approoved as a fitt person by this externall signe Which is thus backed by Hemingius The imposition of the hands of the Presbytery is the right of ordination which the SENATE or Eldership of the Church or other Ministers of the Gospell did administer Pezelius thus jumpes in Iudgement with them Heretofore the authority of ordination was granted to Bishops at least by a humane institution yet so that the suffrages of the Church might not be excluded from the Election of Ministers and that the other Presbyters should be present at the examination and lay their hands together on him that was to be ordained For so Gratian Can. Presbyter Distinct. 23. when a Presbyter is ordained the Bishop blessing him and holding his hand upon his head all the Presbyters likewese that are present shall hold their hands upon his head close to the Bishops hands which tended to this purpose that the Presbyters likewise might retaine the right of conscerating or ordaining to themselves and that so they might manifest that what ever the Bishop should doe that hee did it not in his owne name alone but in the name of all Musculuâ— Harpes on the same string thus It must plainely be confessed that the Ministers of Christ heretofore were elected the people being present and consenting and they were ordained and confirmed OF THE ELDERS by the laying on of hands This forme of electing Ministers is Apostolicall and lawfull which hee there prooves at large The Noble Mornay Lord of Tlessis sings the same tune in these wordes These things being thus prooved we adde that the right of laying on of hands and ordaining Ministers is in the power of the Presbyters And this verily concerning the Apostles dayes is more apparent then that it can be so much as doubted of For saith Paul to Timothy Neglect not the gift that is in thee by the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery that is of the Presbyters or Elders Moreover Timothy himselfe ordained Elders and since a Bishop and a Presbyter are names of one and the same function if the Bishops challenge this right to themselves from the Scriptures the Presbyters also may doe the same but if they deny it to Presbyters in this very thing they aâ—rogate this right to themselves And verily this was a good forme of argument in the Church in Ancient times Hee can baptise hee can consecrate and administer the Sacrament of the Lords body which are the greater an more honourable Actions because Sacraments of undoubted truth of Highest note and use Therefore hee may lay on hands which is lesse Now in ordaining Elders the Bishop laying his hands on the head of those that were to be ordained the rest of the Elders likewise did lay on their hands as appeares out of many places of the Decrees The Centurie writers informe us That in the Apostles time the Apostles did not assume to themselves the power of electing and ordaining Elders and Deacons but they had the suffrage and consent of the whole Church and that they and the other Ministers of the Church with them did ordaine and lay hands on them which they proove by Acts. 6. and 13. and 14. and 19. and 1. Tim. 4. 14. And in the 2. and third Century following c. 6. they affirme that Bishops and Ministers were thus elected and ordained the Elders as well as the Bishops laying their hands on them The Confession of Saxonie c. 12. resolves expresly that it belongs to the Ministers of the word to ordaine Ministers lawfully elected and called The Synod of Petrocomia Artic. 6. in Poland decreed That no Patron should receive or admit any Minister to teach in his Church unlesse hee were lawfully ordained and sent by the Superintendents and the Elders and had a good and certaine testimoniall from them and the Synod of Wlodislania Artic. 8. and 12. determines thus The ordination and mission of Ministers into certaine places to worke in the Lords vineyard is committed to the Superintendents and to the Ministers and Elders their Colleagues not to Bishops Georgius Major in his Enar in Philip. 1. 1. writes thus That there is no difference betweene a Bishop and a Presbyter Paul witnesseth in the 1. Tim. 4. 14. where hee saith Neglect not the grace that is in thee c. by the laying on the hands of the Presbytery that is of the Order or Colleadge of the Presbyters by which it is shewed that Timothy was called and ordained to his Episcopall function by the Presbyters Therefore at that time PRESBYTERS HAD THE RIGHT OF ORDINATION as well as Bishops neither was there any difference betweene them To these I might adde Master John Calvin Piscator Marlorat and most other Protestant Commentators on the 1. Tim. 4. 14. Zanchius Destatu peccati Legal in quartum Praeceptum Chemnitius Loc. Com. pars 3. De Eccles c. 4. and Examen Concilij Tridentini pars 2. De Sacram. Ordinis pag. 224. 225. c. where hee prooves at large that the election and vocation of Ministers belongs to the whole Church to the people as well as the Clergy that the imposition of hands belongs to Presbyters as well as Bishops Wherefore the Apostle sâ—ith 1. Tim. 4. 14. that Timothy had a grace and a guift by the imposition of hands neither saith hee onely of my hands but hee addes also of the Presbytery that there should be thought no difference whether any one were ordained either by the Apostles or by the Elders Aâ—tonius Sadeel Respons ad Repetita Turriani Sophism pars 2. Locus 12. Beza de diversis Ministrorum Gradibus Iunius Contr. 5. l. c. 3. n. 3. Chamierus Paustratia Cathol Tom. 2. de Oecum Pontif. c. 6. with sundry other writers of the reformed Churches who averre and proove against the Papists and Iesuites that the power of election and ordination of Ministers by the word of God belonges to the whole Church and Congregation and the imposition of hands to Ministers Elders and Presbyters as well as to Bishops and to Bishops onely as they are Ministers But hee that hath handeled and prooved this most largely and fully of all others is Gersonius Bucerus de Gubernatione Ecclesiae being an answer to Bishop Downhams Sermon of Bishops p. 261. 262. 283. 287. 292. 294. 299. 310. 318. to 367. 464. 465. 493. 498. 499. 524. 618. where this point is so learnedly and substantially
but a meere Preist to wit in the want or defect of Bishops All the Archbishops Bishops Archdeacons and Clergy of England in their Booke intituled The institution of a Christian man subscribed with all their hands and dedicated to King Henry the 8. An. 1537. Chapter of Orders and King Henry the 8. himselfe in his Booke stiled A necessary â—rudition for any Christian man set out by authority of the Statute of 32. H. 8. c. 26. approoved by the Lords Spirituall and Temporall and Netherhowse of Parliament prefaced with the Kings owne Royall Epistle and published by his speciall commaund in the yeare 1543. in the chapter of Orders expresly resolve that â—reists and Bishops by Gods Law are one and the same and that the power of ordination and excommunication belongs equally to them both Learned Martin Bucer in his Booke of recalling and bringing into use againe the lawfull ordination of Ministers and of the office of Pastors in his Scripta Anglicana written here in England p. 254. 255. 259. 291. 292. 293. and on Math. 16. layes downe these Conclusions First That the power of ordination rests principally and originally in Christ himselfe Prince of Pastors Secondly That this power is secondarily and derivately in the whole Church whose consent is requisite in the election and ordination of Ministers Thirdly That the actuall power of Ordination and imposition of hands belongs as well to Presbyters as to Bishops that they ought to joyne with the Bishop in the laying on hands and that Timothy was ordained by the Presbyters Fourthly That Bishops and Ministers have the power of imposition of hands in them onely instrumentally not originally as servants to the whole Congregation Fifâ—ly That the examination and ordination of Ministers ought to be made publikely in the Church where they are elected to be Ministers before all the Congregation All which he prooves by sundry Scriptures and Histories Peter Martyr his coaetaman Regius professor in the â—niversity of Oxford in the dayes of King Edward the 6. in his Commentary upon the 2. Kings 2. 23. and in his Common places printed at London Cum Privilegio An. 1576. Class 4. Loc. 1. Sect. 23. p. 849. writes thus The Papists cannot object grievous sinnes against the Ministers of the Gospell but they oppose onely some slight that I say not ridiculous thinge they say that our Pastors have no imposition of hands and thence they indeavour to conclude that they are not to be reputed just Governours of the Church and that the Congregations which are taught and governed by them are no true Churches but Convenâ—â—cles of revâ—lters And this they say as if the imposition of hands were so necessary that without it there can be no ministry in the Church when notwithstanding Moses consecrated Aaron his Brother and his Children offering divers kindes of Sacrifices on which no man formerly had layd on hands Likâ—wâ—se Iohn the Baptist brought in a new right of Baptisme and administred it to the Iewes when as yet no hands had beene layd upon him and hee himselfe had beene baptised of no man Paul also called by Christ in his journey did not presently goe to the Apostles that they might lay hands upon him but hee taught in Arabia for 3. yeares space and ministred to the Churches before that hee went up to the Apostles his Antecessors as himselfe witnesseth in his Epistle to the Galathians We reject not the imposition of hands but retaine it in many Churches which if we receive not from their Bishops we are not to be blamed for it for they would not confâ—rre it on us unlesse wee would depart from sound Doctrine and likewise bind our selves by Oâ—th to the Roman Antichrist In which words hee resolves First That the imposition of hands is no such essentiall part of a Ministers ordination but that it may be omitted and that those who are elected and lawfully called to the Ministery by the suffrage of the whole Church and people are Ministers lawfully called and ordained without this Ceremony Secondly That the imposition of hands belongs to Ministers as well as Bishops and that those who are ordained Ministers in the reformed Churches where they have no Bishops onely by the laying on of hands of other Ministers are lawfully ordained Thirdly That this position that the power of ordination belongs onely to Bishops that those are no true Ministers who are ordained without a Bishop is but a vaine ridiculous Popish Cavill Our Prelates therefore should be ashamed to ground both their owne and Titus his Episcopall Hierarchie upon it Learned Doctor Whitaker writing against Bellarmine saith that this text of the 1. Tim. 4. 14. makes very much against the adversaries For from this place wee understand that Timâ—thy receiveth imposition of hands from the Elders who at that time governed the Church by a common Councell and against Duraeus hee argues thus Luther Zwinglius Oecolampadius Bucer and others were Presbyters and Presbyters by Gods Law are the same with Bishops therefore they might lawfully ordaine other Presâ—yters Doctor Fulke in his Confutation of the Rhemâ—sh Testament Annot. on Tit. 1. Sect. 2. and Doctor Willet in his Synopsis Papismi the 5. generall Controversie quaest 3. part 2. write thus Although in the Scripture a Bishop and an Elder is of one order and authority in preaching the word c. yet in government by ancient use of speech hee is onely called a Bishop which is in the Scripture called cheife in governement to whom the ordination or consecration by imposition of hands was allwayes principally committed Not that imposition of hands belongeth onely to him for the rest of the Elders that were present at ordination did lay on their hands or else the Bishop did lay on his hands in the name of the rest We differ from the Papists in this They affirme that not principally and cheifly but solely and wholly the right of consecrating and giving Orders appertaineth unto Bishops But concerning the power of giving Orders we say that though it were cheifly in the Apostles yet the Pastors and Elders together with them layd on their hands Acts. 13. 3. 4. and as S. Paul speaketh of his laying on of hands 2. Tim. 1. 6. so hee maketh mention of imposition of hands by the Eldership 1. Tim. 4. 14. And the Rhemists on that place mislike not the practise of their Church that their Preists doe lay on their hands together with the Bishop upon his head that is to be ordained What else doth this signifie but that they have some interest in ordaining together with the Bishop The 4. Councell of Carthage Can. 3. Decrees thus Let all the Preists that are present hold their hands next to the Bishops hand upon the head of him that is to be ordained Againe Can. 14. of the same Councell The Bishop must not give orders but in the presence and assembly of the Clergy By this then it is manifest that imposition of hands doth not wholly and
writes thus For this cause the Apostle saith Hee that desires a Bishopricke desires a good worke Hee would expound what a Bishopricke is it is a name of labour not of honor For it is a Greeke word and derived from hence that hee who is made an Overseer overseeth those over whom hee is set namely by taking care of them For 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is over but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is intention overseeing or care therefore if we will render 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Latine we may say it is to play the Superintendent that hee may understand that hee is not a Bishop who delights to be over others but not to profit them On which words Ludovicus Vives thus Comments The name of a Bishop is derived either from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifieth to consider or from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifieth the same and to visit Whence Sâ—idas saith there were some sent from the Athenians to the Cities under them who should looke into their affaires and these were called Bishops that is as it were Overseers or Visitors and Observers In Holy Scriptures a Bishop is commonly called a Watchman as in Ezekiel 3. 17. c. 33. 2. 6. 7. and in Hosea 5. 1. The Lord complaineth that the Bishops were made a snare on Mizpah or in the watch tower and a net spread upon Tabor as if hee had spoken of the Bishops of this age who lay snares in their Bishoprickes and large nets to catch many but not with thinne holes or threades least the gift should swim thorough yea now it is so provided by the diligence and wits of certaine men that without evasion of this Law a Bishopricke may not onely be lawfully desired but likewise bought and sold S. Chrysostome in his 10. Hom. upon the 1. Tim. S. Hierom in his Epistle to Evagrius Beda on the 1. Pet. 2. 25. Anselme on Phil. 1. 1. Aquinas secunda secundae Qu. 184. Art 6. Petrus de Palude de Potest Coll. Apostol Art 1. all cited by Bishop Iewell in the Defense of the Apologie of the Church of England part 6. c. 2. Divis 1. p. 523. and S. Bernard also de Consideratione ad Eugenium l. 2. 3. joyntly resolve that a Bishop is nothing else but a Superintendent Watchman or Overseer and that hee is called a Bishop from hence that hee overseeth survaieth or watcheth over others with which all other ancient and moderne writers whether forraigne or domestique Papists or Protestants accord Heare onely Doctor Iohn Ponet Bishop of Winchester in his Apology against Doctor Martin in defence of Preists mariage c. 4. 5. p. 44. 52. 53. 54. who as hee there expresly reckons up Popes Cardinals BISHOPS Preists Monkes Canons Friers c. to be the Orders of Antichrist taxing them likewise severely and comparing them with the Eustathian heretickes for refusing to weare usuall garments and putting upon them garments of strange fashions to vary from the common sort of people in apparell So hee thus determines of the name Bishop and Superintendent And further whereas it pleaseth Martin not onely in this place but also hereafter to est at the name of Superintendent hee sheweth himselfe bent to condemne all things that be good though in so doing â—ee cannot avoyd his open shame Who knoweth not that the name Bishop hath so beene abused that when it was spoken the people understood nothing else but a great Lord that went in a white Rochet with a wide shaven Crowne and that carrieth an oyle boxe with him where hee used once in 7. yeare riding about to confirme children c. Now to bring the people fâ—â—m this abuse what better meanes can be dâ—vâ—sâ—d then to teach the people their error by another word out of the Scriptures of the same signification which thing by the terme superintendent would in time have beene well brought to posse For the ordinary paines of such as were called superintendents should have taught the people to understand the duty of their Bishop which you Papists would faine have hidden from them And the word Superintendent being a very Latine word made English by use should in time have taught the people by the very Etymology and proper signification what things was meant when they heard that name which by this terme Bishop could not so well be done by reason that Bishops in the time of Popery were Overseers in name but not indeed So that their doings could not teach the people their names neither what they should looke for at their Bishops hands For the name Bishop spoken amongst the unlearned signified to them nothing lesse then a preacher of Gods word because there was not nor is any thing more rare in any order of Ecclesiasticall persons then to see a Bishop preach whereof the doings of the Popish Bishops of England can this day witnesse but the name superintendent should make him ashamed of his negligence and afraid of his idlenes knowing that S. Paul doth call upon him to attend to himselfe and to his whole flock of the which sentence our Bishops marke the first pecce right well that is to take heed to themselves but they be so deafe they cannot hearken to the second that is to looke to their flock I deny not but that the name Bishop may be well taken but because the evilnes of the abuse hath marrid the goodnesse of the word it cannot be denied but that it was not amisse to joyne for a time another word with it in his place wherby to restore that abused word to his right signification And the name superintendent is such a name that the Papists themselves saving such as lack both learning and wit cannot finde fault withall For Peresius the Spaniard and an Archpapist out of whom Martin hath stolen a great part of his Booke speaking of a Bishop saith Primum Episcopi munus nomen ipsum prae se fert quod est spperintendere Episcopus enim Superintendens interpreta 〈…〉 visitans aut supervidens c. That is to say The cheife office of a Bishop by interpretation signifieth a Superintendent a Visitor or an Overseer Why did not Martin as well steale this peece out of Peresius as hee did steale all the common places that hee hath for the proofe of the Canons of the Apostles and of Traditions in his second and third Chapters Martin in the 88. leafe is not ashamed in his Booke to divide the significations of the termes Bishop and Superintendent as though the one were not signified by the other But it may be that Martin as the rest of the Popish Sect would not have the name of Superintendent or Minister used least that name which did put the people in remembrance of sacrificing and bludsapping should be forgotten Since therefore this Title Bâ—shop is thus promiscuously used both in prophane and Christian writers and in the Scripture it selfe for any Officer Overseer Survayer Superintendent Watchman Guardian Pastor or Keeper
as well temporall and civill as Ecclesiasticall and all these their offices stiled in Greeke a Bishopricke since every Pastor Watchman Presbyter Minister Rector and Curate who takes care of watcheth feedeth overlooketh instructeth or keepeth the flock and people committed to his charge is even in the Scriptures Language called a Bishop and said to act to doe the office of a Bishop since those who out of charity love or freindship goe to visit others who are either sicke poore Fatherlesse or otherwise distressed and God himselfe when hee comes to punish or shew mercy unto others are in the Greeke and Scripture phrase said to visit and play the Bishops as appeareth by the forecited Scriptures and by Acts. 15. 36. Where Paul said to Barnabas 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which we translate Let us goe againe and visit our Brethren in every City where we have preached the word of the Lord and see how they doe From which text the Rhemists would make Bishops ordinary visitation to be Jure Divino but this was no Lordly Episcopall visitation such as our Bishops now keepe for we read of no visitation Articles oathes fees or presentmens in it neither were Paul and Barnabas Bishops but it was a meere visitation of love as one freind visits another not of Jurisdiction as the last words And see how they doe together with the Councell of Laodicea Can. 57. expound it and verse 14. Symon hath declared how God 〈◊〉 at the first 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 did visit the Gentiles to take out of them a people for his name And Acts. 7. 23. When Moses was full 40. yeares old it came into his heart 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to visit his brethren the children of Israell and since these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is to visit oversee or play the Bishop imply no Lordship Soveraingty Dominion Jurisdiction or Lordly Episcopall authority in them at least no such as our Bishops now claime and exercise but rather an Act of humility charity Service and inferiority to the persons visited as is evident by Mathew 25. 3. 6. 43. Acts. 7. 23. c. 15. 36. Iam. 1. 27. Heb. 2. 6. 1. Pet. 5. 2. 3. 5. It hence unanswerably followes that Bishops Episcopall Lordly visitations are not Iure Divino and that other Ministers are as much Visitors and may visit as well as they that every Presbyter Minister Curate who doth faithfully discharge his duty is as much as truly as properly a Bishop both in the Scriptures language and in Gods account as any Diocaesan Bishop or Prelate whatsoever That those Bishops who merge themselves in pleasures idlenesse or secular affaires and doe not diligently faithfully intirely give themselves to preach Gods word instruct and teach the people visit the Fatherlesse imprisoned sicke poore widdowes and flockes committed to them which few of our Prelates now deine to doe are in truth in Gods in Christs account and in the Scriptures language no Bishops at all what ever they pretend that the word Bishop is not a title of Dominion Soveraingty Jurisdiction Glory Power Preheminency Pompe State Authority and Commaund as our Bishops who now presume to monopolize it to themselves alone though common 〈…〉 God 's word and ancient writers to every Minister pretend but of humility office service labor care circumspection watchfulnesse meeknesse tender-heartednesse charity familiarity and brotherly kindnes which most Prelates have now quite shaken off The Fathers stiling therefore of Timothy Bishop of Ephesus or Titus Bishop of Crete or Bishops will neither proove them to be Diocaesan or sole Bishops of those Churches or that they had a superiority or Iurisdiction as they were Bishops over all other Ministers or Presbyters in those Churches or that Archbishops or Bishops are Iure Divino superior to or different in order or degree from Presbyters who have the selfesame Commission or authority given them by Christ as they and so have equall authority with them and are as much Bishops every way by Gods Law as they even as every High Commissioner of the Quorum is as much an High Commissioner as the Archbishop of Canterbury or Yorke and hath as much authority as an High Commissioner as they since they have all the selfesame Commission which gives no greater power to one of them then the other but the same to both Indeed had Christ given a different Commission to his Apostles and the seaventy Disciples or to Timothy and Titus then to other Elders and Bishops of the Churches of Ephesus and Crete or to Bishops then hee hath given to Presbyters and Ministers there might have beene some ground to have prooved the 12. Apostles Timothy Tytus and Bishops greater in Iurisdiction power authority and degree then the 70. Disciples Presbyters and other Ministers by divine institution But since it is apparant by the Scriptures that the 12. Apostles and 70. Disciples what ever some men have rashly determined to the contrary had but one and the selfe-same commission given unto them by Christ that Timothy Titus Archbishops Bishops and other Prelates have no other no larger Patent Commission or authority granted unto them by Christ then Presbyters and ordinary Ministers as the booke of Ordination manifests where the same words are used the same commission given from God to Ministers at the ordination of every Minister as there is to Bishops at the consecration of any Archbishop or Bishop since they are all joyned together in one and the selfesame divine Charter and all claime by one and the selfesame grant as is evident by Math. 28. 19. 20. Marke 6. 15 16. Iohn 20. 22. 23. Acts. 1. 8. c. 10. 47. c. 20. 17. 28. Col. 4. 17. 1. Tim. 3. 1. to 7. c. 4. 12. 13. c. 5. 17. 18. 20. 21. 22. c. 6. 11. 12. 17. 18. 19. 20. 2. Tim. 2. 14. 15. 16. c. 4. 1. to 16. Tit. 1. 5. to 14. c. 2. 1. to 15. c. 3. 1. 2. 8. 9. 10. 1. Pet. 5. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 2. Pet. 1. 12. 13. 1. Cor. 1. 12. 13. 17. c. 3. 4. 5. to 11. 21. 22. c. 4. 1. 6. 7. 17. c. 9. 16. 17. c. 13. 29. 30. 31. 32. Ephes 4. 11. 12. with other Scriptures it is most apparant and undeniable that by Gods word and institution they are all equall both in point of office power Iurisdiction and authority not one of them greater higher or superior then the other having the selfe-same divine ordination commission office and charge Finally Eusebius records onely that Timothy IS REPORTED to be the First Bishop of Ephesus and Titus of the Churches in Crete So that all the Fathers Authorities who follow Eusebius are grounded onely upon this bare report not upon any certainty therfore not to be granted or relyed on The rather because there have beene anciently in Crete no lesse then 4. Archbishops and 21. Bishops Suffâ—â—aganes now it is very improbable that Paul would
his but theirs and hee if hee should chance to chalenge and resume them as his owne might not henceforth owne or claime them to be his they have litle reason now to attempt and his Majesty farre lesse to suffer and so having neither God nor the King divine nor humaine Right to support them they must as the proverbe is between two stooles the arse goes to the ground now at last in the middest of their usurped greatnes fall flat upon the ground and this their fall q proove very great because they now of late are growen so not being content with the office of a Bishop but they must be also Kings temporall Lords and cheife state officers against Christs expresse commaund and Gods owne Law to sway both Church and state at pleasure so they may ingrosse into their sacred hands the sole rule and government of the world having great possessions and being great Lords also as they are Prelates and yet doing nothing therefore at all in point of preaching fecding and instructing the people committed to their spirituall charge but onely playing the part of a Bishop as a Christmas game-player doth of a King and as a Poppet which springeth up and downe and cryeth Peepe Peepe and goeth his way as Doctor Barnes writes wittily of the Bishops of his age Which swelling greatnesse 〈◊〉 ambition of theirs as it will make their downefall the greater so the speedier being a sure prognosticke of their approaching ruine as the greatnesse of any unnaturall swelling in the body is of its present ensuing rupture u Pride ever going before destruction and a lofty spirit before a fall and they usually dogging them at the heeles because God himselfe resisteth the proud but then most of all when they are at the highest according to that of the Psalmist Thou puttest away all the wicked of the earth like drosse which assoone as ever it hath gotten up to the top of the pot and elevated it selfe above the 〈◊〉 mettle is then scummed off and cast away Towards which their desired speedy downfall if these my unworthy labours shall through Gods blessing on and thy prayers for them contribute any assistance for the ease releife or comfort of Gods poore people who are every where most wrongfully without yea against all Law and reason oppressed and cast out of their benefices freeholds possessions imprisoned fined excommunicated silenced suspended vilified crushed and troden under feet by their intolerable tyrannie might and unbounded extravagant power I shall neither repent me of the penning nor thou thy selfe of the reading of it wherefore here humbly prostrating it to thy impartiall Censure and commending it to the blessing of that omnipotent God who to shew the infinitenes of his wisedome and power doth oft times choose the foolish things of the world to confound the wise the weake things of the world to confound the things that are mighty and base things of the world and things that are despised yea and things that are not to bring to nought things that are that no flesh should glory in his presence I shall take my leave of thee till some further occasion Farewell and pray for me To the Right Reverend Fathers in God William Lord Archbishop of Canterbury And Richard Lord Archbishop of Yorkes Primates and Metropolitanes of all England MY Lords I have sundry times heard both of you joyntly and severally protesting even in open Court not onely in the High-Commission but in Dr. Laytons and two other cases since Starchamber too whether seriously or vauntingly onely let the event determine That if you could not proove your Episcopall Iurisdiction and function which you now claime and exercise over other Ministers and your selves as you are Bishops to be superior in power dignity and degree to other Ministers Iure Divino a doctrine which Patricke Adamson Archbishop of S. Andrewes in Scotland publikely recanted in the Synod of Fiffe Anno 1591. as directly repugnant to and having no foundation at all in the word of God you would forthwith cast away your Rochets of your backes lay downe your Bishoprickes at his Majesties feet and not continue Bishops on ehower longer What your Lordships have so oft averred and publikely promised before many witnesses I hope bonâ fide because judicially in full Court upon goodadvise not rashly on some sodaine fitt of choler I shall make bold to challenge you to make good without more delay either by giving a solid satisfactorie speedy answere to this short Treatise consisting onely of 2. Questions which you may devide between you and so speedily reply to if your great secular occasions not your praying and frequent preaching which are onely truly Epicopall though you deeme them overmeane imployment for Arch-bishops interrupt you not which manifests all that Jus Divinum which hitherto both or either your Lordships have pretended for your Episcopalities to be but a meere absurd ridiculous faction having not the least shadow of Scripture to support it or in case you either cannot or faile to give such an Answer to it in convenient time by pulling off your Rochets and resingning up your Archbishoprikes which without all question are but a meere humaine and no divine Institution as I have evidenced into his Majesties hands from whom you dare not deny you onely and wholly received them with all your Episcopall Jurisdiction and Authority thereunto annexed whereby you difference your selves from or advance your selves above your Fellow-Ministers as their supreme Lords unlesse you will split your selves against the hard rocke of a Praemunire and the Statutes of 26. H. 8. c. 1. 31. H. 8. c. 9. 10. 37. H. c. 17. 1. Ed. 6. c. 2. 1. Eliz. c. 1. 5. Eliz. c. 1. 8. Eliz. c. 1. which Acts as they will informe your Lordships notwithstanding all your former vaunts and brags of divine right That the Archbishops Bishops Arch-deacons and other Ecclesiasticall persons of this Realme HAVE NO MANER OF IVRISDICTION ECCLESIASTICALL BVT BY VNDER AND FROM THE KINGS ROYALL MAJESTY to whom by holy Scripture ALL AVTHORITY AND POWER IS WHOLY GIVEN to heare and determine all maner causes Ecclesiasticall and to correct vice and sinne whatsoever and to all such persons as his Majesty shall appoint thereunto That all authority and Iurisdiction spirituall and temporall is derived and deducted from the Kings Majesty as supreme head of the Church and Realme of England and so justly acknowledged by the Cleargy thereof That all Courts Ecclesiasticall within the Realme were then and now ought to be though they are not kept by no other power or authority either forraigne or within the Realme but by the authority of his most excellent Majesty onely and that by vertue of some speciall commission or letters Patents under his Majesties great Seale and in his name and right alone That all power of Visitation of the Ecclesiasticall State and Persons much more then of our Vniversities
were to reside with those flockes over which the Holy Ghost had made them Bishops or Overseers to watch over and feed them with the bread of life and to goe in and out before them both in life and doctrine 14. Acts. 23 c. 20 28 29 c. 21 17 18. 1. Pet. 5 1 2 3. Col. 4 17. Rom. 12 6 7 8. 1 Tim. 5 17. 2 Tim. 4. 3. Tit. 1 5 6 7 8. Iohn 10 3 4 5 14 16 27 28. Ezeck 34 2. to 25. Ier. 23 3 4. c. 3 15. Isay 56 10 11 c. 40 11. Zech. 11 17. 4. Fourthly Because Paul who best knew Timothies condition expresly termes him A Minister of God not a Bishop 1. Thes 3 2. informing him that if he did put the Brethren in minde of these things he enjoynes him he should shew himselfe a good Minister not a Bishop of Iesus Christ 1 Tim. 4 6. Therefore certainly he was no Bishop but a Minister when this Epistle was written to him unlesse it be granted that every Minister is a Bishop as S. Paul doth phrase them Acts. 20 28. Tit. 1 5 7. Which the Opposites dare not grant though an undoubted truth Phil. 1 1. 1 Tim. 3 1 2 3. 5. Because when Paul wrote his first Epistle to Timothy hee was then very young in yeares 1. Tim. 4 12. and but newly entred into the Ministery whence hee charged him to give attendance to reading to exhortation to doctrine to meditate upon these things and to give himselfe wholy to them that his profiting might appeare unto all men 1. Tim. 4 13 15. Instructing him in that Epistle how and what to preach and how to demeane himselfe in his Ministry into which hee was then but freshly entred as most Expositors on this Epistle accord and the 1. Tim. 1 3. compared with Acts. 16 1 2 3 4 9 10. c. 18 19 20 21. c. 20. 1. to 13. clearly demonstrate Timothy therefore being but young in yeares and newly entred into the Ministry when this first Epistle was written to him was questionles not instituted sole Bishop of Ephefus by Paul who in his very Epistle to him 1. Tim. 3 6. among other qualifications of a Bishop enumerates this That he must not be a Novice as Timothy then was least being lifted up with pride he should fall into the condemnation of the Devill and so should have contradicted his owne instructions to Timothy that a Bishop must be no Novice in creating him a Bishop which questionles he would not doe being but then a Novice 6. Becaufe Paul in the 1. Tim. 5 1. chargeth Timothy Not to rebuke an Elder but to intreat him as a Father If Timothy then were not to reproove them as a Father over them but to intreat Elders as his Fathers he was certainly no Lord Bishop or Superintendent over Elders but they rather Superiours unto him being to entreat them onely as spirituall Fathers whereas Lord Bishops and their Chauncellours too in our dayes esteeme the very best and gravest Ministers under them not as Fathers but as underlings vicars and Curates to them not entreating them as Fathers but rating reviling and domineering over them as if they were their Curs and vasalls and they their Lords and Maisters 7. Because Timothy was to account those Elders that ruled well especially those who laboured in the word and Doctrine worthy of double honor 1 Tim. 5 17. Hee therefore being to render double honor to those Elders that ruled well and laboured in the word and doctrine and not to receive double honor from them could be no Bishop Father or Lord paramount over them Mal. 1 6. Math. 15 4. Rom. 13 7. 1 Tim. 6 1. Honor ever coming for the most part from the inferior to the superior 8. Because Paul exhorts Timothy not to neglect the gift that was in him which was given him by prophecy with the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery 1 Tim. 4 14. Now that gift which was given him by the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery was not his Episcopall function unlesse the opposites grant that he was consecrated Bishop of Ephesus by the Presbyters of Ephesus but his Ministeriall onely being therefore exhorted to exercise his Ministeriall function onely and to shew himselfe a good Minister of Iesus Christ 1 Tim. 4 6 14 not to exercise any Episcopall authority he was questionlesse then no Bishop but a Minister when this Epistle was compiâ—ed 9. Because though Timothy in the Postscript of the second Epistle to him be falsely stiled the first Bishop of the Ephesians as I shall hereafter manifest yet in the body and Postscript of the first Epistle hee is named Timothy onely without any mention of his Ephesian Bishopricke hee was therefore no Bishop either of Ephesus or any other place when Paul sent his first Epistle to him for otherwise hee would have beene stiled the first Bishop of Ephesus in the Postscript of the first Epistle as well as of the second as is probable 10. It would not stand with the Pompe and State of Bishop especially in our dayes to be commaunded and posted up and downe from place to place in such maner as Timothy was by Paul 1 Cor. 4 7. Acts. 17 14 15. 1 Thess 1 3 1 to 7. Acts. 19 22 Phil. 3 19. 2 Tim. 4 9 21 muchlesse to Minister to Paul as Timothy did Acts. 19 22 but least of all to carry Paules Cloake his Bookes and Parchments after him which Timothy is enjoyned to bring from Troas to Rome 2 Tim. 4 13. An office which our proud Prelates would scorne to execute though Paul himselfe should commaund them as being incompatible with their Episcopall dignity Timothy therefore being so much at Pauls beck as to be his Messenger his Minister his cloake carrier and booke-bearer even when some say hee was the great Monarchicall Prelate of all Ephesus and Asia was certainly no Bishop at leastwise no such Lordly Bishop as those of this age are 2. Secondly As all these severall reasons evidence Timothy to be no Bishop so in the next place I shall manifest him to be no Bishop at all of Ephesus at leastwise not the first or sole Diocaesan Bishop of that Citty and so by consequence no Bishop at all if not of Ephesus since no other Bishopricke is assigned to him The infallible verity whereof I shall thus demonstrate 1. First there is not one syllable in Scripture wherein the Titles and actions of Timothy are frequently mentioned which either directly or by way of necessary consequence imply Timothy to be either a Bishop or Bishop of Ephesus which Paul in his Epistles to Ephesus and Timothy and S. Luke in the Acts would never have pretermitted had Timothy beene a Bishop of that famous Citty 2. The Scripture makes no mention of Timothies being at Ephesus or of his preaching there save onely that Paul besought not commanded or ordered him to abide still to Ephesus whiles hee went into Macedonia that he
Timothy neither directed hee any part of his speech to him he being none of the Elders of Ephesus sent for to Miletus or any of that number whom the Holy-Ghost had made Bishops of that flock and Church hee coming along with Paul out of Macedonia into Asia to Troas and Miletus Acts. 20 3 4 5 c. and so none of the number of Elders sent for and called from Ephesus to Miletus to whom this speech of Paul was applyed Therefore questionles hee was not then Bishop muchlesse sole Bishop of Ephesus as some groundlesly affirme against this unanswerable text 9. Paul himselfe as hee sent Timothy to Philippi Troas and other Churches to instruct confirme comfort and inquire of their estates so hee expresly writes to Timothy 2 Tim. 4 12 that he had sent Tychicus unto Ephesus for the selfesame purpose Which Tychicus as hee did write the Epistle of Paul to the Ephesians from Rome so Paul in that very Epistle of his to the Ephesians c. 6 v. 21 22 acquaintes them That Tychicus a beloved brother and faithfull Minister in the Lord should make knowne to them all things whom saith he I have sent unto you for the same purpose that ye might know our affaires and that he might comfort your hearts So that if there were any particular Diocesan Bishop of Ephesus instituted by Paul this Tychicus whom Dorotheus makes one of the 70. Disciples and Bishop of Chalcedon in Bithinia was more like to be the man then Timothy as these two Scriptures evidence 10. Paul himselfe makes mention of Elders in the Church of Ephesus RVLINGWELL and laboring in the word and doctrine and so worthy of double Honor 1 Tim. 5 17. Which Elders hee expresly stiles Bishops of Ephesus Acts. 20 27 28. These therefore being instituted Bishops of Ephesus even by the Holy Ghost himselfe and ruling feeding and taking the care the oversight of that Church by his appointment questionlesse Timothy at the selfesame season would not be Bishop there 3. Thirdly As Timothy was neither a Bishop nor Bishop of Ephesus so muchlesse was hee the first or sole Bishop there as the Postscript of the second Epistle to him in some late Coppies tearmes him Not the first Bishop of Ephesus For as that Church was first planted by S. Paul who continued therefore a season Acts. 18 19 20 c. 19 1 to 41 c. 20 17 to 38. 1 Cor. 15 32 c. 16 8. 2 Tim. 1 18 and after that for two yeares and three moneths space together disputing dayly in the Schoole of one Tyrannus so that all they who where in Asia heard the Gospell Acts. 19 8 9 10 during which time of Paules residence there in all 3. Yeares Acts. 20 31 there needed no Bishop to governe and sway the Church neither is it probable that any Diocesan Bishop was there constituted So the two first that Paul left behinde him at Ephesus at his first comming thither to instruct that Church were Priscilla and Aquila Acts. 18 18 19 during whose abode there while Paul went from thence to Antioch and over all the Countrie of Galatia and Phrygia in order strengthning all the Disciples a certaine Iew named Apollos borne at Alexandria an eloquent man and mighty in the Scriptures came to Ephesus Who being instructed in the way of the Lord and servent in the spirit spake and taught diligently the things of the Lord and began to speake boldly in the Lord whom when Aquila and Priscilla had heard they tooke him unto them and expounded to him the way of God more perfectly Acts. 18 22 to 27. So that Aquila whom Paul left first at Ephesus before Timothy and Apollos who thus preached there may with greater reason be stiled the first Bishops of Ephesus then Timothy whom Paul intreated to stay there onely at his last going into Macedonia Acts. 20 1 as most accord Besides we read that Paul at his second comming to Ephesus before Timothy was constituted Bishop thereof finding certaine Disciples there al out 12. in number who were onely baptised into the baptisme of Iohn and had not received the Holy Ghost since they beleived baptized them in the name of the Lord Iesus and when hee had laid his hands upon them the Holy Ghost came on them and they spake with tongues and prophecied Acts. 19 1. to 18. Which 12. abiding at Ephesus as is most probable by Acts. 20 17 28 29 to rule and instruct the Lords flocke in that Citty may more properly be termed the first Bishops of the Ephesians then Timothy who as hee was not the first so muchlesse was hee the sole Bishop of that See as is infallibly evident by Acts. 20. 4 5 15 17 18 28 29. Where wee read that Paul returning through Macedonia in to Asia to goe to Ierusalem to the Feast of Pentecost there accompanied him Gajus ef Derbe and Timotheus with others where Timothy reckoned to be of Derbe not Ephesus All these going before to Troas accompanied Paul to Miletus who from thence sent to Ephesus and called to him the Elders of that Church to Miletus And when they were come thither hee said unto them Yee know from the first day that I came into Asia after what maner I have beene with you at all seasons c. Take heed therefore unto yourselves and to all the flock over which the Holy Ghost hath made YOV BISHOPS so the Greeke yea the Latine and ancient English Translations truly render it to feed the Church of Christ which hee hath purchased with his owne blood c. from whence it is apparant First That the Church of Ephesus at that time had not one but many Bishops and that by the very institution of the Holy Ghost Therefore Timothy could not be sole Bishop there by Pauls institution in opposition to the holy Ghost Secondly That these Bishops knew from the first day that Paul came into Asia after what maner he had been with them at all seasons and therefore in all likelyhood were appointed Bishops of Ephesus at the very first planting of that Church before Timothy was setled Bishop so that he was not the first Bishop there but these rather before or as soone as he Thirdly That Timothy was then neither Elder nor Bishop of that Church at this time when Paul tooke his farewell of it hee comming with Paul out of Macedonia to Miletus and being none of the Elders and Bishops sent for from Ephesus to whom alone Paul directed his speech who had hee then beene sole or prime Bishop of that See Paul would not have stiled the Elders which he sent for Bishops of that flocke at leastwise hee would have made some speciall mention of Timothy in this speech of his and given him some speciall instructions for the instructing and governing of that Church Or at least have honored Timothy so farre as to have made him give this Episcopall charge and instruction to the Elders and Bishops of his owne proper Church and Dioces
or to have enjoyned them in speciall maner to reverence honor and yeild him all Canonicall obedience as their supreame Diocaesan All which Paul utterly neglects or forgets to doe or particularly to charge Timothy to take heed to or feed this flocke hee being ofta Nonresident from it as I have prooved Yea making such hast to be at Hierusalem by the feast of Pentecost v. 16. that hee could not spare time to goe to Ephesus hee needed not to haue sent for the Elders of Ephesus to Miletus to give them these instructions since Timothy their Bishop was then present with him to whom hee might and would no doubt have imparted them without further trouble hath hee then in truth beene Bishop of that Church But this sending for these Elders in his hast and stiling them Bishops of that flocke c. without any mention at all of Timothy who was none of the Elders sent for to Ephesus is an infallible evidence that hee was neither Bishop nor first or sole Bishop of that Citty Adde wee to this that when Paul exhorted Timothy to abide at Ephesus there were then in that Citty Elders who did both rule well and labor in the word and doctrine and so were worthy double honor 〈◊〉 Tim. 5 1 17 19. Now these very Elders as Paul himselfe affirmes were made BISHOPS of the Church of Ephesus by the Holy Ghost Acts. 20 17 28. Therefore Timothy could not be the first the sole Bishop of the Ephesians as the false Postscript of the second Epistle to him stiles him Moreover it was the Apostles maner in those times to place many Bishops and Elders in every Church not to constitute one Monarchicall Bishop over many witnesse Acts. 11 30 c. 14 23 c. 15 2 4 6 22 13 c. 16 4 c. 20 17 28. c. 21 18 c. 22 5. Phil. 1 1. 1 Tim. 5 17. 1 Pet. 5 1 2 3 Tit. 1 5 7 Iam. 5 14. Hebr 13 17. Acts. 13 1 2. 1. Cor. 14 29 30 31 32. 1. Thes 5 12 15 Rom. 16 3 9 12. Col. 1 7 c. 4 9 12 17. which testify that there were many Bishops and Elders both at Ierusalem Corinth Philippi Rome Thessalonica Colosse Ephesus yea in all other Churches in Crete and elsewhere at one time by which the Church of God was taught and joyntly governed as by a common Councell of Bishops and Elders as Iraeneus Ignatius Ambrose Hierome and other ancients testifie Hence Epiphanius Eusebius testify that Paul and Peter were joynt Bishops of Rome at the same time Tertullian writing of the Church-governors in his age saith Praesident nobis probati Seniores c. that approoved Elders not one Diocaesan Bishop were Presidents over every severall Christian Congregation and in his booke de Corona Militis hee affirmes the same Since therefore the Apostles themselves ordained many Elders and Bishops in every Citty and in Ephesus too it is neither possible nor probable that Timothy alone should be constituted sole Bishop of Ephesus Finally it is recorded by Iraeneus Eusebius Nicephorus Metraphrastes Hierome Chytraeus Baronius and many others quoted to my hand by Gersonius Bucerus Dissertatio De Gubernatione Ecclesiae p. 520. to 526. That S. Iohn the beloved Apostle after the Councell held at Hierusalem Acts. 15. resorted to Ephesus residing governing and instructing that Church which Paul had planted after Pauls departure thence with the Churches in Asia thereunto adjoyning even till Trajanes dayes and that though he were banished thence by Domitian for a season yet after his exile hee returned thither againe writing an Epistle to that Church during the time of his banishment Revel 2. 1. which hee names before all the other Churches of Asia If S. Iohn then kept his residence at Ephesus and ruled that Church by his Apostolicall power even till Trajanes dayes how could Timothy be sole Bishop and Superintendent there there being no need of a Bishop where an Apostle was present and resident to governe by whose divine superior authority and presence all Episcopall Iurisdiction was suspended To close up this particular point Bucolcerus Fasciculus Temporum the Centuary writers and some others record that Timothy survived S. Iohn living till about the yeare of Christ 108. and was then martyred in the third persecution under Trajan or under Nero or Domitian If this were true and that Timothy continued Bishop of Ephesus till his death as the Patriotes of our Prelates affirme then by their owne doctrine it will necessarily follow that Timothy was the Angel of the Church of Ephesus which they interpret to be the Bishop of that Sea to whom S. Iohn writes Rev. 2. 1. 5. charging him that hee had left his first love and therefore admonished him to remember whence hee was fallen to repent and doe the first workes c. But it is not credible nor probable that Timothy a man so pious so laborious so vigilant and so much applauded by Paulin most of his Epistles should be this backsliding Angell of the Church of Ephesus which the contents of our authorized Bibles to omit all other Commentators of the last translation affirme to bee the Ministers not the Bishop of that Church as some Apostatizing Prelates glosse it therefore from thence and all other the premises I may now safely conclude that Timothy was not a Bishop nor yet the first sole Diocesan Bishop of Ephesus as our Prelates groundlesly affirme whose allegations to the contrary I shall next propose and refell that so the truth may be more perspicuous Object 〈◊〉 The first allegation to proove Timothy a Bishop when Paul writ the first Epistle to him is the Postscript of the second Epistle which runns thus the second Epistle unto Timothius ordained the first Bishop of the Church of the Ephesians was written from Rome when Paul was brought before Nero the second time Hence Bishop White and others conclude Timothy to be a Bishop Answer To which I answer First that this Postscript is no Scripture all others as in M. Perkins workes is prooved at large no part of the Epistle no Appendix of S. Paules but a private observation annexed to it by some Scribe or other after the Epistle written without any divine inspiration as the words themselves demonstrate 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 Where observe First that this Postscript is written not in the name of Paul but of some third person as the whole frame of it Demonstrates Secondly that this Postscript is no direction given by Paul to Timothy as the words the second Epistle unto Timotheus ordained the first Bishop of the Church of the Ephesians was written c. evidence but a direction of some Notary or Commentator to the Reader who here speakes both of Paul and Timothy
in the third person Thirdly The words WAS WRITTEN c. in the preter imperfect tense shewes this postscript to be a meere addition of some Scribe or Expositer some good space after the Epistle written not of Paul himselfe at the time when he writt it all the Postscripts of his other Epistles appearing manifestly not to bee his by the same reason Fourthly It is here called the second Epistle unto Timotheus in relation to the first and the first Epistle to him written many yeares before it is likewise stiled in the Postsript of it The first to Timothy with reference to the second As therefore the Postscript of the first Epistle was certainly added by some Notary after the second Epistle written since it is called the first in relation to it so no doubt the Postscript of the second Epistle was annexed to it after the first Epistle and it was transcribed and bound up together by the same party that added the Postscript to the first the Postscript stiling them thus the 1. and 2. in regard of their mutuall relation one to the other after they were both conjoyned and the New Testament and Paules Epistles digested into that order and method wherein now they are placed both in manuscripts and printed Coppies Fifthly It is very unlikely that Paul would make such a Postscript as this For as these words was written from Rome when Paul was brought before Nero the 2. time sound not of Paules language but some others so the second Epistle unto Timotheus ordained the first Bishop of the Church of the Ephesians savour not of his inditing who never in any of his Epistles to him or others stiles him a Bishop much lesse ordained the first Bishop of the Church of the Ephesians neither would he have made such a description of Timothy as this to Timothy himselfe Sixtly None of the other Apostles have any Postscripts added to any of their Epistles it is likely therefore that Paul guided by the same Spirit added none to all or any of his but that they were added by some other who either transscribed and collected his Epistles together or commented on them as were the severall Titles both before and over his severall Epistles and the contents before each Chapter both in manuscripts and printed Copyes Seaventhly It is apparant that the Postscripts of many of Paules Epistles are forged and false as M. Perkins workes prooves them and that the Postscript of the first Epistle was written not onely after the second penned but likewise three hundred yeares after Christ or more For it runns thus The first to Timothy was written from Laodicea which is the cheifest City of Phrygia Pacatiana For Phrygia was not surnamed Pacatiana as divers affirme by any Historians and Geographers till at least three hundred yeares after Christ from one Pacatius a Generall as is conceived who subdued it Since therefore it was not so stiled till 〈◊〉 hâ—undred yeares after Christ this Postscript must needs be added after that time and so in all likelyhood the Postscript of the second Epistle too being both made by the same author at the same time and the first first both in time and order as is most probable neither would Paul doubtlesse make such a Postscript to tell Timothy that Laodicea was the cheifest Citty of Phrygia Pacatiana it being so neere to Ephesus and as well knowne to Timothy as to Paul Who as the Rhemists and Baronius confesse was never at Laodicea which they proove by Gal. 2. 1. and so this Postscript is but a meere false Eightly This Postscript is directly contrary to the very preface and body of the Epistle written no doubt by Paul which as it expresly styles Timothy an Euangelist not a Bishop exhorting him to make full proofe of his Ministery not of his Bishopricke c. 4. v 5. So Paul therein and in the first Epistle ever termes him his dearly beloved Sonne 2. Tim. 1. 2. c. 2. 1. 1. Tim. 1. 2. 18. A man of God 1. Tim. 6. 11. 2. Tim. 3. 17. not a Bishop and in the 2. Tim. 4. 12. but a little above the Postscript Paul writes expresly to him that hee had sent Tychicus to Ephesus to know their affaires comfort their hearts and make knowne to them all things Hee being a beloved brother and faithfull Minister in the Lord Ephes 6. 21. 22. and neither Timothy his Curate and underling muchlesse his Successor at Ephesus as is probable Ninthly This Postscript is directly contradictory to many fore-alleadged Scriptures which proove Timothy to be no Bishop muchlesse the first or sole Bishop of the Church of the Ephesians therefore not to be beleeved See Acts. 20. 28. Tenthly The Postscript itselfe but especially the clause of it ordained the first Bishop of the Ephesians whereon this objection is grounded is but a late addition not extant in any of the Fathers workes who have commented on this Epistle except Occumenius who lived 1050. yeares after Christ the first in whom this clause of the Postscript is found nor in the most ancient best Greeke Latine Arabick English or other Copyes and Translations whither manuscript or printed therefore to be rejected as counterfeit coyne Eleventhly Eusebius writes that Timothy WAS REPORTED TO BE not that he verily was the first Bishop of Ephesus therefore this Postscript either was not in being in his age or else it had no more credit then a bare report not sufficient to resolve that Timothy was undoubtedly and of a truth Bishop of Ephesus The first who makes mention of any of these Postscripts is Theodoret 430. yeares after Christ who perchance then added them to Paules Epistles but in his Postscripts this clause ordained the the first Bishop of the Ephesians With that of Titus ordained the first Bishop of the Church of the Cretians cannot be found Secondly admit this Postscript true and authenticall that Timothy was Bishop of Ephesus when this second Epistle was written being but a little before Paules death yet this is no good proofe that hee was Bishop of Ephesus when the first Epistle was penned being some 10. or 12. yeares before as most conjecture for if it be a good argument that Timothy was Bishop of Ephesus when the second Epistle was written to him because the Postscript of it onely stiles him so it is as good or a better argument for me to say that Timothy was no Bishop of Ephesus when the first Epistle was directd to him because neither the body nor Postscript of that Epistle nor any other Scripture whatsoever stiles him either a Bishop or Bishop of Ephesus though hee was resident at Ephesus when the first Epistle was written to him but not when the second was sent him and so should much more have beene stiled a Bishop in the first Epistle and Postscript then in the second Now all the Prelates and Papists arguments by which they would proove Timothy a Bishop are drawen from his first Epistle
not his second the Postscript therefore of his second Epistle is no argument to proove that he was a Bishop when the first Epistle was written for why then should not the Postscript of the first Epistle stile him a Bishop as wel as the second yea rather then the second since the first hath much matter in it both concerning the offices and qualities of a Bishop the second very little or nothing save onely of diligent and constant preaching in season and out of season which belongs indifferently to all Bishops and Ministers and is so farre from being proper and peculiar to Bishops in these dayes that it is hardly common to or with any of them Rare to most of them and altogether improper to some of them who like the dunsticall Bishop of Dunkleden thinke it no part of their Episcopall office and that they were never so much as ordained to preach but rather to sit mute and domineere like Lords and that preaching belongs onely to Curats and inferior Ministers not to Lordly Prelates who seldome climbe now into a Pulpit above once a yeare whereas Chrysostome Augustine Ambrose Cyrill Hooper and other Bishops anciently preached once at least every day Obj. 2. The second allegation is this that Paul describes to Timothy the office qualities carriage and duties of a Bishop instructing him how to demeane himselfe in that office 1. Tim. 3 4. and 5. Therefore hee was a Bisshop Answ 1. To this I answer first that Paul by a Bishop in this Epistle meanes no Diocaesan Bishop in dignity and degree above a Preshyter but onely such a Bishop as was equall the same and no wayes different from an Elder as all the Fathers and most moderne Expositors on this and other texts accord Such a Bishop I acknowledge Timothy to be and so this instruction to him implyes but that hee was a Diocaesan Bishop superior in dignity to a Presbyter this text and argument cannot evince Secondly Admit it meant of a Diocaesan Bishop yet it followes not thence that Timothy was such a one this Epistle being written rather to instruct others then Timothy who was so well tutered before both by his grand mother Lois and Paul 1. Tim. 6. 12. 20. c. 4. 6. 14. 16. 2. Tim. 1. 5. 6. 13. 14. c. 2. 2. c. 3. 10. 14. 15. rather for a patterne of the qualification and duety of Ministers to direct the Church in all future ages then to informe Timothy at that time whence in both these Epistles there are some predictions of the Apostacy and degeneracy of the last times more necessary for others then Timothy to know 1. Tim. 5. 24. 25. c. 6. 15. c. 4. 1. to 7. 2. Tim. 3. 1. to 10. Thirdly there is in the same chapter instructions given concerning Deacons Widdowes and others yet Timothy was neither Deacon nor Widdow which being necessary for the Church of God and for Timothy also to know as hee was an Euangelist a fellow-helper and assistant of Paul in his Ministeriall and Apostolicall function and as his delegate to order and regulate the Church accordingly argue him to be no more a Bishop as is surmised then that every Minister and Christian for whose instruction and direction this Epistle was written as well as for Timothies are Bishops or then any Archbishops or Bishops instructions to their Archdeacons Vicars Generalls Chauncellers or Officials for Ecclesiasticall affaires or Visitations argue them to be Archbishops or Bishops Fourthly We read of divers bookes concerning the office and regiment of Kings of Magistrates and Captaines dedicated to young Princes and others who were neither Kings Magistrates nor Captaines of diverse tractates concerning Bishops inscribed to such who were no Bishops yet the dedicating of such Treatises to them did neither constitute or necessarily imply them to be Kings Magistrates Captaines Bishops Why then should this Epistle to Timothy wherein are some things concerning the office qualities and duties of a Bishop proove him convincingly to be such a one Obj. 3. The third evidence to proove Timothy a Bishop is taken from the 1. Tim. 5. 22. Where hee is enjoyned to lay hands suddenly on no man that is to ordaine no man suddenly a Minister Therefore certainly hee was a Bishop because none but Bishops have power to ordaine Ministers Answ 1. I answer first that the laying on of hands hath divers significations in Scripture Sometimes it is taken for an apprehension of another as a Mal factor to punish or bring him to judgement for his offences Exod. 24. 11. Esther 8. 7. Gen. 37. 22. Exod. 6. 13. Nehem. 13. 1. Luke 21. 22. in which sence it may be well taken here as the proceeding verses evidence Sometimes it is used for reconciliation of persons at variance Iob. 9. 33. Sometimes for benediction or blessing of another Matth. 9. 15. Sometimes for curing and healing Mark 5. 23. Math. 19. 18. Mark 6. 5. Luke 4. 40. Sometimes for confirmation as many affirme Acts 8. 17. 18. 19. Sometimes for ordination as Acts. 6 6 cap. 8 17. 11. cap. 13. 3. 1. Timoth. 4. 14. 2. Timoth. 1. 6. Acts. 19. 6. In which of these sences it is here meant is not certainely resolved and so no inference can be infallibly raised thence Secondly Admit it is meant of ordination as most conceive it yet that prooves not Timothy to be a Bishop since not onely Apostles Euangelists and the Apostles fellow-helpers had power of ordination as they were such Act. 1 22 25 26. c. 6 6 c. 8 17 18 c. 13 1 2 3. c. 14 23 c. 19 6. Tit. 1 5. 2 Tim. 1. 6. but even Presbyters themselves Acts. 9 17. c. 13 1 2 3. c. 14 23 1. Tim. 4 14. and Timothy might exercise this power in all or either of these respects not as a Bishop which for ought appeares hee never was neither read wee in Scripture that ordination belongs of right to Bishops as Bishops muchlesse that it is appropriated unto them Obj. 4. The fourth objection to proove Timothy a Bishop is this that hee is commaunded to rebuke such as sinned openly before all men that others might feare 1 Tim. 5 20. Therefore hee was a Bishop Answ 1. I answere that the argument is an inconsequent First Because hee might doe this as an Euangelist or as Paules associate or substitute by vertue of his Apostolicall authority not of his owne Episcopall Iurisdiction as Bishops Officials Chauncellors and Vicars Generall rebuke correct and visit others not in their owne names or by their owne authorities but their Lords Secondly Hee might doe this as a Minister every Minister having power sufficient in the publike Ministery of the word openly to rebuke all sinnes and sinners Isay 5 8. 1 2. Tim. 4 2 3. Tit. 1 13 c. 2 15. Marke 6 18 19 20. 2 Sam. 12 7. Thirdly Hee might doe this as a private Christian every Christian being enjoyned in any case to rebuke his neighbour and not to suffer
then Timothies present instruction as Gersonius Bucerus rightly observes Finally learned Doctor Whitaker hath long since assoyled this objection in these words That Timothy is commaunded not rashly to admit an accusation against an Elder this prooves not that Timothy had power or dominion over Elders For according to the Apostles minde to receive an accusation is to bring a crime to the Church to bring the guilty person into Iudgement openly to reproove which not onely Superiors may doe but also aequals and inferiors In the Roman Republike Knights did judge not onely the people but also the Senators and Patricij And certainly it seemes not that Timothy had such a Consistory or Court as was afterwards appointed to Bishops in the Church What this authority was may be understood by that which followes Those that sinne rebuke before all which aequals also may doe Thus Bishops heretofore if any Elder or Bishop had an ill report referred it to the Ecclesiasticall Senate or Synod and condemned him if hee seemed worthy by a publike judgement that is they did either suspend excommunicate or remoove him The Bishop condemned nocent Elders and Deacons not with his owne authority alone but with the judgement of the Church and Clergy Those who where thus condemned might lawfully appeale to the Metropolitan but hee could not presently alone determine what seemed good to him but permitted the Synod to give sentence and what the Synod decreed was ratified The same answer Martyn Bucer De vi usu S. Ministerij Doctor Andrew Willet Synopsis Papismi Cont. 5. Gen. Quest 3. part 3. in the Appendix and Gersonius Bucerus De Gubernat Ecclesiae pag. 300. to 398. where this objection is most fully cleared by Councels Fathers and other authors testimonies give unto this place so that it makes no proofe at all that Timothy was a Bishop So as from all these premises I may safely conclude that Timothy was neither a Bishop nor Bishop of Ephesus nor first nor sole Bishop of that See as many overconfidently and erroniously affirme Obj. 6. If any in the sixt place object that diverse of the ancient Fathers as Dionysius Areopagita Hierome Ambrose Dorothew Theodoret Chrysostome Epiphanius Eusebius Gregorie the great Policrates Occumenius Primasius Isidor Hispalensis Beda Anselme Rabanus Maurus with many moderne writers affirme Timothy to be Bishop and first Bishop of the Ephesians therefore hee was so Answ 1. I answer first that as some of these Fathers are spurious and not to be credited so many of their testimonies are ambiguous if not contradictory p Eusebius writes that Timothy IS REPORTED to be the first Bishop of Ephesus and Titus of the Churches of Creta which is rather a deniall then an affirmation that hee was Bishop there in truth Theodoret and Beda affirme him to be Bishop of all Asia not of Ephesus onely and so an Archbishop rather then a Bishop Their Testimonies therefore being so discrepant and dubious are of no validity Secondly Many of the Fathers affirme Peter to have beene Bishop of Rome and to have continued Bishop there for divers yeares yet Marsilius Patavinus Carolus Molinaeus with sundry other late Protestant writers both forraigne and domestique affirme and substantially proove by Scripture and reasons that Peter was never at Rome nor yet Bishop thereof As therefore their bare authorities are no sufficient argument to proove Peter Bishop of Rome so neither are they sufficient to evince Timothy Bishop of Ephesus Thirdly These Fathers affirme not Timothy to be sole Bishop of Ephesus or to be Diocaesan Bishop or such a Bishop as is superior to a Presbyter in Jurisdiction or degree the thing which ought to be prooved and if they affirmed any such thing yet seeing the fore-alleadged Scriptures contradict it in a most apparant maner they are not to be credited against the Scriptures testimony Fourthly The Fathers terme him Bishop of Ephesus not because hee was any sole Diocaesan domineering Bishopthere as the objections pretend but because hee was left by Paul to teach and instruct them for a space till hee returned from Macedonia and to order that Church together with the other Bishops and Elders thereof and being one of the eminentest Pastors of that Church next after Paul who planted it the Fathers terme him the Bishop of Ephesus in that sence onely as they stiled Peter Bishop of Rome and Antioch Iames Bishop of Ierusalem Marke Bishop of Alexandria and the like not that they were Bishops properly so called or such as ours are now but onely in a large and generall appellation because they first preached the Gospell to such Churches to no other purpose but to proove a perpetuall succession of Presbyters and doctrine in those particular Churches from the Apostles time till theirs naming the eminentest Minister for parts and gifts in each Church the Bishop of that Church all which appeares by Irenaeus Tertullian and others who call them Bishops onely for this purpose to derive a Succession of Ministers and doctrine from the Apostles Hee that would receive a larger answer to this objection let him read Gersonius Bucerus de Gubernatione Ecclesiae p. 518. to 524. 436. to 441. 498. usque 500. 538. 539. which will give him ample satisfaction Obj. 7. If any finally object that Paul desired Timothy to abide still at Ephesus when hee went into Macedonia 1 Tim. 1. 3. and that the Greeke verbe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies a constant residence or abiding in one place Therefore Timothy was Bishop of Ephesus which if it be a solid Argument prooves many of our Court Nonresident Prelates and Ministers to be no Bishops because they reside and abide not muchlesse preach and keepe hospitality on their Bishoprickes rather then Timothy to be Diocaesan Bishop of Ephesus Answ 1. To this I answer first that the argument is a grosse inconsequent For Timothy might abide thus at Ephesus as an Euangelist as an Elder as Paules assistant or substitute onely as an ordinary Minister not as a Bishop his abiding therefore at Ephesus is insufficient to constitute him a Diocaesan Bishop of that Sec. Secondly Paul and Titus ordained Elders in every Church to abide and continue with their flockes Acts. 14 23. Tit. 1 5 7. yet the Opposites deny these Elders to be Diocaesan Bishops Thirdly Every ordinary Minister is to reside and abide upon his Cure Rom. 12 7 8. 1 Cor. 7 20. Ier. 23 1 5. If this argument therefore where solid every Minister should be a Diocaesan Bishop Fourthly Paul left Aquila and Priscilla at Ephesus to abide there Will it therefore follow that they where Diocaesan Bishops of the Ephesians If not then the argument is invalid Answ 2. Secondly I answer That Timothy was to abide at Ephesus onely for a season till Paules returne out of Macedonia and no longer 1 Tim. 3. 14 15 c. 4 13 14. after which hee went with Paul from Macedonia into Asia
to Troas Acts. 20. 4 5. and from thence to Italy Philippi and Rome Heb. 13 23. Phil. 1 1 c. 2. 19. Col. 1 1. 2 Tim. 4. 9 13. hee being never resident at Ephesus for ought appeares in Scripture or authentique story after Paules returne out of Macedonia His abode therefore at Ephesus being but for so short a time and hee so great a Nonresident from it afterward cannot possibly argue him to be a Diocaesan Bishop of that Church Answ 3. Thirdly Greeke word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to abide is oft applyed in Scripture to a short abode for a day or two or some little space as well as to a perpetuall fixed residence as Math. 15 32. Marke 8. 2. So it is in the objected text where it is put only in opposition to Paules journey into Macedonia in respect whereof Timothy continuing at Ephesus till his returne might be truely said to abide there though after his returne hee remooved thence to other Churches as Gersonius Bucerus De Gubernatione Ecclesiae p 502. to 518 observes Answ 4. Fourthly Paul did not injoyne but beseech Timothy to abide at Ephesus therefore his residence there was but arbitrary at his owne pleasure not coactive not injoyned by vertue of any Episcopall office this Text therefore cannot proove Timothy to be Bishop of Ephesus no more then his stay at Corinth and other places whether Paul sent him proove him to be Bishop of those Churches Answ 5. Finally Admit Timothy to be both the first and sole Bishop of Ephesus which is false yet this makes nothing for but against our Hierarchicall and Diocaesan Bishops for Ephesus was but one City one Parish one Church one flocke and Congregation as is evident by Acts. 20. 17 28 29 c. 18 24 25 26 c. 19 1. to 18 Ephes 1 1 c. 4 4 16 c. 6 21 22 23. 1 Tim. 1 3 c. 5 17 to 23. Rev. 1 20 c. 2. 1. So that the argument from this example is but this Timothy was onely Bishop of one City Parish Church Flock and Congregation not of many Therefore all Bishops ought to be so too as well as hee Obj. If any object that the City of Ephesus was a Dioces for it had many Elders therefore many Parishes and severall Congregations Acts. 20 17 28. 1 Tim. 5. 17. Answ 1. I answer that the argument followes not For first in the Apostles times and in the primitive Church every particular Church and Congregation had many Elders Ministers and Deaâ—ons in it who did joyntly teach and instruct it and likewise governe and order it by their common Counsell and consent as is evident by Acts 1. 14. to 26. c. 2. 1. to 47. c. 3. 1. c. 4. 3. 8. 9. 20. 21. 23 31. to 37. c. 5. 18. to 33. 42. c. 6. 1. to 9. c. 11. 29. 30. c. 14. 23. c. 15. 2. to 23. 25 32. c. 20. 17. to 30. c. 21. 18. Phil. 1. 1. 1. Tim. 5. 4. to 14. c. 5. 17 Tit. 1. 5. 7. Jam. 5. 14. 1. Cor. 14. 23. to 33. Ignatius Epist 5. 6 8. 9. 10. 11. 13. 14. Policarpus Epist. ad Philippenses Irenaeus contra Haeres l. 3. c. 2. l. 4. c. 43 44. Tertull. Adversus Gentes Apolog. c. 39. Hieronymus Sedulius Chrysostomus Primasius Remigius Haymo Kabanus Maurus Oecumenius Theophylact Anselmus Petrus Lombardus and sundry others in their Commentaries and expositions upon Philip. 1. 1. 1. Tit. 5. Acts. 15. and 20. 17. 28. The fourth Councell of Carthage Can. 22. 23. 24. 25. The Councell of A 〈…〉 en under Ludovicus Pius Can. 8. 10. 11. The 12. Councell of Toledo Can. 4. and all writers generally accord Secondly wee at this day have many Prebends Canons and Ministers in every Cathedrall and Collegiate Church yea in every Colledge in our Vniversities and elsewhere yet but one Church and Congregation Thirdly We have in many other Churches in the Country where the Parishes are large and there are divers Chappels of ease many Curates and Ministers yet but one Church one Parish not a Dioces neither is the cheife Minister either a Bishop or Diocaesan though hee have diverse Curates and Ministers under him to assist him in his Ministery yea in many places where there is but one Church no such Chappels of ease and the Parish great we have severall Ministers Lecturers and Curates in some 4 or 5 in most 2 or 3 yet no Dioces no Bishopricke Neither is this a Novelty but an ancient constitution not onely instituded by the Apostles and continued ever since but likewise enjoyned by the Councell of Oxford under Stephan Langhton Archbishop of Canterbury in the yeare of our Lord 12 22. which decreed that in all Parish Churches where the Parish is great there should be 2 or 3 Presbyters at the least according to the greatnes of the Parish and the value of the Benefice least that one onely Minister being sicke or otherwise debilitated Ecclesiasticall Benefits which God forbid should be either withdrawne or denied to the Parishioners that were sicke or willing to be present at divine offices The multitude or plurality therfore of the Elders in the Church of Ephesus is no argument at all to proove that is was a Dioces or that Timothy was a Diocaesan Bishop because hee had Ministers and Curates under him for then our Deacons Archdeacons and Pluralists who have many livings Chappels and so many Curates and Ministers under them should be Diocaesan Bishops too by this reason Secondly I answer that admit there were divers Churches and Congregations in Ephesus which is very improbable the greatest part of the Citizens being Idolaters and the Citty itselfe a worshipper of the great Goddesse Diana and of the Image which fell downe from Jupiter Acts. 19 21. to 41. yet it can not be prooved that Timothy was cheife Bishop and Superintendent over all these Churches but onely of one of them as every Minister and Bishop of England is a Minister and Bishop of the Church of England but not a Minister and Bishop in and over all the Curches of England but in and over his owne Parish Church and Dioces onely For Paul himselfe who planted that Church and resided in it for three yeares space during which time it is like there was no Diocaesan Bishop of it but himselfe expresly cals the Elders of the Church of Ephesus Bishops and Overseers of that Church and that by the Holy Ghostes owne institution and thereupon exhorts them to take heed to all the flocke and to feed and rule that Church of God which hee had purchased with his owne blood Acts. 20. 28. 1. Tim. 5. 17. Since therefore every one of these Elders by the Holy Ghostes institution and Paules resolution was no other but a Bishop over his owne flocke if severall both to instruct and rule it it is certaine that Timothy if hee were a Bishop of Ephesus and there were many Churches there was onely Bishop of one of them not of all and
so no Diocaesan Bishop as our Prelates and their flatterers vainely pretend Timothy therefore being neither a Bishop nor first sole or any Bishop of Ephesus or of any other place or if a Bishop no Diocaesan Bishop but of one Church and congregation onely as these premises evidence all our Prelates inferences drawne from his example to proove their Episcopall Authority and Jurisdiction Iure Divino which for the most part hang upon his Episcopall rochet onely fall quite to ground and their Episcopall Authority together with it I now proceed to the next Question wherein I shall likewise discusse whether the power of ordination belongs onely to Bishops not to Presbyters And whether this Paradoxe of the Prelates be true that ordainers are greater in Iurisdiction and degree then those that are ordained to wit Whether Titus were ever Bishop or Archbishop of Crete What ever the common bruite and Error of these or former times conceive under correction I perswade my selfe that Titus was no Bishop nor Archbishop of Crete and that for these ensuing reasons First because the Scripture never stiles him a Bishop nor S. Paul who often stiles him his partner and fellow-helper concerning the Corinthians not Cretians the Messenger of the Churches not Bishop and the glory of Christ 2 Cor. 8 23 6 16. his Sonne Titus 1 6 his brother 2. Cor. 7. 6 13 14. never Bishop as some would make him Secondly Because his cheifest imployment was to the Church of Corinth after that hee had been left by Paul in Creet as Paules partner and fellow-helper in that Church 2. Cor. 2. 13. c. 7. 6. 13. c. 8. 6. 16. 23. c. 12 18. Thirdly Because hee was Paules companion attendant partner fellow-helper Messenger fixed to no setled place of residence as Bishops were 2. Cor. 2. 13. c. 7. 6. 13. c. 8. 6. 16. 23. c. 12. 18. Gal. 2 1. 3. 2. Tim. 4. 10. sent by him from Rome long after his being in Crete into Dalmatia 2. Tim. 4. 10. Fourthly Because Paul writes expresly to him Tit. 1. 5. not that hee ordained him Archbishop or Bishop of Crete but that hee left him in Creet for a season for this cause that hee should sett in order the things that were wanting and ordaine Elders in every Citty as hee had appointed him Therefore was hee there onely as Paules Vicar generall Commissary or substitute to order those things in such sort as hee had appointed him which Paul could not dispatch whiles hee was residing not as the Archbishop or Lord Bishop of Creet to order all things there by his owne Episcopall Jurisdiction and authority as hee listed himselfe Fifthly Hee expresly charged him to come to him diligently to Nicopolis when hee should sent Arthemas or Tychicus to him for there hee intended to winter Tit. 3. 12. By which it is evident that his stay in Creet by Paules appointement was very short not above halfe a yeare if so much after which wee never read hee returned thither though we finde hee was sent to Corinth and Dalmatia that hee went up to Hierusalem with Paul and came to him during his imprisonment at Rome Gal. 2. 1. 3. 2. Cor. 2. 13. c. 7. 13. 14. c. 8. 6 16. 23. c. 12. 8. 2. Tim. 4. 10. His short abode therefore in Creet without returning thither prooves him to be no Bishop Sixtly Paul chargeth him to bring Zenas the Lawyer and and Apollos diligently on their way that nothing might be wanting to them Tit. 3. 13. Now it is very unlikely that an Arch-bishop or Bishop of Creete wherein were 90. walled Cities would stoope so low as to waite thus upon Lawyer as Zenas or a Disciple as Apollos was unlesse hee were far more Humble then any Archbishops or Prelates in these our times who are commonly so insolently proud as to disdaine all familiar conversations with Lawyers or Ministers Seaventhly Paul left Titus Bishop of no one Citty in Creete and hee expresly enjoynes him to ordaine not one but many Elders in the plurall number in every Citty of Creete Tit. 1. 5. 7. where there were no lesse then 90. walled Citties in Homerus time which Elders were no other but Bishops and so tearmed by him v. 7. For a BISHOP must be blamelesse c. as Hierom. Chrysostome Ambrose Theodoret Sedulius Primasius Remigius Beda Raubanus Maurus Bruno Theophilact Oecumenius Anselme Lyra Hugo Cardinalis Aquinas with other moderne Commentators on this text accord If then Paul gives expresse directions to Titus to ordaine many Elders and Bishops in every Citty of Creete constituting him a Bishop in none of them that we read of an apparant argument that hee was no Bishop there because hee had there no Bishops See at all and was no sole Bishop of any one Citty it is not probable that hee constituted him sole Archbishop or Bishop of all Creet which had anciently no lesse then 4. Archbishops and 21. Bishops in it it being the Apostles practise to place many Bishops and Elders in one Church but never one Bishop or Archbishop over many Churches Phil. 1. 1. Acts. 20. 28. Hence Athanasius Chrysostome Oecumenius and Theophilact on Titus 1. 5. 7. write thus Here hee will have Bishops to be understood for Presbyters or Ministers as we have elsewhere often said neither verily would hee have the charge of the whole Iland to be permitted or granted to one man but that every one should have his owne proper cure charge allotted him for hee knew that the labour paines would be the lighter and that the people would be governed with greater diligence if that the Doctor or teacher should not be distracted with the government of many Churches but should onely give himselfe to the government of one and study to compose and adorne it with his maners So also Peter Lombard Alphonsus de Castro Doctor Barnes and others on and from this text determine Eightly All generally accord that Archbishops yea Metropolitanes BISHOPS themselves are not of divine or Apo stolicall but Papall and humane Constitution witnesse Pope Nicolas apud Gratianum Distinct 22. c. 1. Omnes sive Patriarchae cujuslibet apicem sive Metropolis primatus aut Episcopatuum Cathedras vel Ecclesiarum sive cujuscunque ordinis dignitatem INSTITVIT ROMANA ECCLESIA Which Pope Anacletus in his 3. Epist. c. 3. doth likewise averre and Pope Lucinus and Clement in Gratian Distinct 80. affirme as much informing us that Archbishops and Primates are the Successors of the Hathenish Arch-Flamens and to be placed onely in those Citties where the Arch-Flamens had their Sees with which Peter Lombard accords lib. 4. Distinct. 24. Hence our Historians record of King Lucius the first Christian Prince of this our Realme that hee instituted 3. Archbishoprickes and 25. Bishop-rickes and Bishops in stead of the 3. Arch-Flamens and 25. Flamens changing their Sees into Bishoprickes and Archbishop-rickes by which it is evident that Archbishops Patriarkes and Metropolitans
instituted onely at first by severall Councells and Princes are no divine or Apostolicall but onely a humane institution This all the Archbishops Bishops and Clergy of England in their institution of a Christian man dedicated to King Henry the 8. fol. 59. 60. resolve in these tearmes IT IS OVT OF ALL DOVBT that there is no mention made neither in Scripture neither in the writings of any authenticall Doctor or Auctor of the Church being within the time of the Apostles that Christ did ever make or institute any distinction or difference to be in the preeminence of power order or Jurisdiction betweene the Apostles themselves or between the Bishops themselves but that they WERE ALL EQVALL IN POWER AVTHORITY AND IVRISDICTION 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 Catholike Church and that either by the consent and authority or else at least BY THE PERMISSION AND SVFFRANCE OF THE PRINCES AND CIVILL POWERS for the time ruling For the sayd Fathers considering the great and infinite multitude of Christian men so largely increased through the world and taking examples of the old Testament 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 Patriarkes some to be Metropolitans some to be Archbishops some to be Bishops and to them did limit severally not onely 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. The same is averred by learned Bishop Hooper in his Exposition upon the 23. Psalme fol. 40. who sayth that Archbishops were first ordained in Constantines time yea Archbishop Whitgift himselfe confesseth as much that Archbishops are neither of divine or Apostolicall but humane institution since the Apostles times And Patricke Adamson Archbishop of S. Andrewes in Scotland in his publike recantation in the Synode of Fiffe in Scotland Anno 1591. professed sincerely ex animo that Bishops and Ministers by Gods word were all equall and the very same That the Hierarchy and superiority of Bishops over other Ministers NVLLO NITITVR VERBI DEI FVNDAMENTO had no foundation at all in the word of God but was a meere humane Institution long after the Apostles times from whence the Antichristian Papacis of the Bishop of Rome hath both its rise and progresse and that for 500. yeares last past it hath beene the cheifest instrument of persecuting and suppressing the truth and Saints of God in all Countries and Kingdomes as all Histories manifest Thus this Archbishop in his Palinody disclaiming not onely Archbishops but ever Diocaesan Bishops to be of divine but onely of humane institution long after the Apostles giving over his Archbishopricke thereupon and living a poore dejected life This being then granted on all hands it is cleare that Titus could not be Bishop of all Creete for then hee should be an Archbishop having divers Bishops under him those Elders which hee placed in every Citty of Creete being no other but Bishops Tit. 1. 7. as all acknowledge and Arch-bishops were not instituted till after the Apostles and Titus dayes For these reasons I conceive that Titus was not Bishop of Creete having no Episcopall or Archiepiscopall See there appointed to him which learned Gersonius Bucerus hath at large manifested to such who will take paines to peruse him Obj. 1. If any object 1. that the Postscript of the Epistle to Titus stiles him Titus ordained the first Bishop of the Church of the Cretians Ergo hee was Bishop or Archbishop of Creete Answ 1. I answer 1. that as this and all other Postscripts are no part of the Scripture or Epistles as Mr. Perkins workes proove at large but an addition of some private person since as is evident by the words themselves in the preterimperfect tense and third person IT WAS WRITTEN TO TITVS c. therefore no convincing authority so this clause ordained the first Bishop of the Church of the Cretians is no part of the Postscript but a late appendix to it not found in any of the Coppies of this Epistle which the Fathers follow in their Commentaries in few or no ancient Greeke Latine or English Coppies and Translations of this Epistle in few or no Testaments or late Commentators And had Titus been Bishop of Creete it is like Paul would have given him this Title in the Epistle where hee stiles him Titus his owne Sonne after the Common faith c. 1. v. 4. as well as in the Postscript which in truth is none of his but some others Perchance Oecumenius his addition the first that mentions it 1050. yeares after Christi since hee speakes of Bishops by name in that Epistle Tit. 1. 7. But of this see more in the answere to the Postscript of Timothy Secondly I answer that this Postscript is directly false for it saith that this Epistle was written from Nicopolls of Macedonia Now it is cleare by the 12. verse of the third chapter of this very Epistle that Paul was not at Nicopolis when hee writ it but at some other place for hee writes thus to Titus when I shall send Artemas unto thee or Tychicus be diligent â—ocome unto me to Nicopolis for THERE not here I have intended to winter Now had Paul then been at Nicopolis hee would have written thus for here not there I have intended to winter there being ever spoken of a place from which we are absent here only of a place present The Postscripâ— therfore being false as Mr. Perkins workes hence conclude can be no part of Canonicall scripture nor Epistle none of Paules penning but a meere ignorant Appendix of some scribe or comentator of after times and so no solid proofe to manifest Titus Bishop or Archbishop of Creete not at Nicopolis when this Epistle was written Obj. 2. If they secondly object that Paul left Titus in Creete to set in order the things that were wanting Tit. 1. 5. Ergo hee was a Bishop Answ 2. I answere that this is a meere inconsequent and I may argue in the like nature Our Archbishops and Bishops especially those who turne Courtiers Counsellers of State and Nonresidents leave their Archdeacons Chauncellers Commissaries Vicars generall and Officialls to visit order correct their Dioces and to set in order those Ceremonies Altars Images and Church ornaments which were well wanting now too much abounding in them Ergo Archdeacons Chauncellers Vicars generall and Officials are Archbishops and Bishops of those Dioces The King sends his Indges Commissioners and under Officers to some Counties or Citties to sett Causes Counties people Armes Forts Citties in good order and to see defects in these supplied Ergo Iudges Commissioners and Officers are Kings Churchwardens ought
prooved by Scripture reason and Authors of all sorts that none which read these passages of his can ever hereafter call this into question more Having runne thus long abroade I now in the last place returne to our owne Church and writers The Booke of ordination of Ministers ratified by two severall Acts of Parliament namely 3. Ed. 6. c. 12. and 8. Eliz. c. 1. and subscribed to by all our Prelates and Ministers by vertue of the 36. Canon as containing nothing in it contrary to the word of God expresly orders that when Ministers are ordained ALL THE MINISTERS PRESENT AT THE ORDINATION SHALL LAY THEIR HANDS TOGETHER WITH THE BISHOP ON THOSE THAT ARE TO BE ORDAINED And the 35. Can. made in Convocation by the Bishops and Clergy An. 1603. prescribes that the Bishop before hee admit any person to holy Orders shall diligently examine him in the presence of those Ministers that shall ASSIST HIM AT THE IMPOSITION OF HANDS And if the said Bishop have any lawfull impediment hee shall cause the sayd Ministers carefully to examine every such person so to be ordered Provided that they who shall assist the Bishop in examining AND LAYING ON OF HANDS shall be of his Cathedrall Church if they may be conveniently had or other sufficient preachers of the same Diocesse to the number of three at the least And according to this Booke of Ordination and Canon when ever any Ministers are ordained all the Ministers there present joyne with and assist the Bishop in layng on of hands on every one that is ordained So that both by the established Doctrine and practise of the Church of England the power of laying on hands and right of ordination is common to every of our Ministers as well as to our Bishops who as they cannot ordaine or lay hands on any without the Bishop so the Bishop can ordaine or lay hands on no Ministers without them so that the power and right of ordination rests equally in them both With what face or shadowe then of truth our Prelates now can or dare to Monopolize this priviledge to themselves alone against this Booke of Ordination their owne Canons subscriptions yea their owne and their Predecessors common practise to the contrary which perchance their overgreat imployments in temporall businesses secular state affaires have caused them wholly to forgett at least not to consider let the indifferent judge But to passe from them to some of our learned writers Alcuvinus De Divinis Officiis c. 37. writes that Bishops Presbyters and Deacons were anciently and in his time too elected by the Clergy and people and that they were present at their Ordination and consenting to it That the Bishops consecration in his dayes used in the Church of Rome wherein two Bishops held the Gospell or New Testament over the head of the Bishop consecrated and a third uttered the blessing after which the other Bishops present layde their hands on his head was but a Novelty not found in the old or new Testament nor in the Roman tradition And then heâ— prooves out of Hieroms Epistle to Evagrius and his Commentary on the first to Titus that the ancient consecration of Bishops was nothing else but their election and inthronization by the Elders who chose out one of their company for a Bishop and placed him in a higher seat then the rest and called him a Bishop without further Ceremony just as an Army makes a Generall or as if the Deacons should choose one from among them and call him an Archdeacon having no other consecration but such as the other Deacons had being advaunced above others onely by the Election of his fellow-brethren without other solemnity By which it is plaine that in the primitive Church Presbyters did not onely ordaine Presbyters and Deacons before there were any Bishops elected and instituted but likewise that after Bishops were instituted they ordained and consecrated Bishops as well as Elders and Deacons and that the sole ordination and consecration of Bishops in the Primitive and purest times was nothing but the Presbyters bare election and inthronization of them without more solemnity So that the other Rites and Ceremonies now used are but Novelties Anselme Archbishop of Canterbury on the 1. Tim. 4. 14. expounds these words with the laying on of hands of the Presbytery in this maner Hee cals that the laying on of hands which was made in his ordination which imposition of hands was in the Presbytery because that by this imposition of hands hee received an Eldership that is a Bishopricke For a Bishop is oftentimes called a Presbyter by the Apostle and a Presbyter a Bishop which in his Commentary on the third Chapter on Phil. 1. 1. Tit. 1. 5. 7. hee prooves to be but one and the same in the Apostles time and in the Primitive Church So that by his resolution the imposition of hands and power of ordaining Elders and Bishops belongs to Presbyters as well as to Bishops Our English Apostle John Wickliffe and his Coaetanean Richard Fitzralphe otherwise called Richardus Armachanus Arch-bishop and Primate of Ardmagh in Ireland if we beleeve either their owne writings or Thomas Walden who recites their opinions arguments and takes a great deale of paines though in vaine to refute them affirmed and taught First that in the defect of Bishops any one that was but a meere Preist was sufficient to administer any Sacrament or Sacramentals whatsoever either found in Scripture or added since Secondly That one who was but a meere Preist might ordaine another and that hee who was ordained onely by a simple Preist ought not to doubt of his Presbytership or to be ordained againe so as hee rightly performed his clericall office because the ordination comes from God who supplies all defects Thirdly That meere Preists may ordaine Preists Deacons and Bishops too even as the inferior Preists among the Jewes did ordaine and consecrate the High Preist as Bishops consecrate Archbishops and the Cardinals the Pope Fourthly That the power of order is equall and the same in Bishops and Preists and that by their very ordination they have power given them by Christ to administer all Sacraments alike therefore to conferre orders and confirme children which is the lesse as well as to baptise administer the Sacrament of the Lords Supper and preach the Gospell which is the greater Fiftly That Christ sitting in heaven hath given the power of consecrating and ordaining Preists and Deacons of Confirmation and all other things which Bishops now challenge to themselves to just Presbyters and that these things were but of late times even above 300. yeares after Christ reserved and appropriated to Bishops onely by their owne Canons and Constitutions to increase their Caesarian Pompe and pride And Waldensis himselfe who undertakes to refute these propositions saith expresly That no man hitherto â—ath denied that God in an urgent case of necessity gave the power of ordination to any one that is
soly belong to the Bishops seeing the rest of the Elders were wont to lay on their hands likewise or the Bishop in the name of the rest So that the Elders were not excluded Doctor Feild in his 5. Booke of the Church c. 27. is of the same opinion where hee prooves out of Durandus and other Papists that the power of consecration and order is not greater in Bishops then in any other Ministers that the power of ordination was reserved to Bishops not by any divine but humane Constitutions onely rather for to honor the Bishops preistly place then for that it might not be done by any other and for the avoyding of confusion and schisme in the Church Concluding that in cases of necessity as when Bishops are extinguished by death or fallen into haeresie or obstinately refuse to ordaine men to preach the Word and Gospell of Christ sincerely and the like then Ministers onely may ordaine other Ministers without any Bishops assistance And Master Cartwright in his Confutation of the Rhemâ—sh Testament on the 1. Tim. 1. 14. Sect. 18. and on Tit. 1. Sect. 2. prâ—oves both by the Rhemists owne practise and Confession by the 4. Councell of Carthage cited by them and the History of Eradius his ordination who succeeded Augustine to which sixe Elders as well as two Bishops were called and by the text of Timothy itselfe that the imposition of hands belongs to Elders as well as Bishops which hee manifests to be one and the same by divine institution Finally acute and learned Doctor Ames in his Bellarminus Enervatus Tom. 2. l. 3. c. 2. of the vocation and ordination of Ministers Sect. 4. c. De Ordinatione Concludes thus against Bellarmine who affirmes that the ordination vocation and election of Bishops and other Ministers of the Church belongeth onely to Bishops First That it cannot belong Iure Divino to Popish Bishops superior to Presbyters in degree because they themselves are onely vel juris vel injuriae humanae of humane right or rather injurie not of divine institution Secondly That the very act of ordination belongs to divine Bishops that is to Presbyters in a Church well ordered Thirdly That as to the right force and vertue which it hath in constituting the Minister of the Church it alwayes appertaines to the whole Church as the celebration of Matrimony receives all its force and vertue from the consent of the parties married Fourthly That in corrupted and collapsed State of the Church the Ministery and Order failing the very act of ordination so farre forth as it is necessary to the constitution of a Minister may in such a case be lawfully executed by the people Fiftly That the Act of ordination is attributed to Presbyters 1. Tim. 4. 14. And that the Apostles themselves did not ordaine ordinary Ministers but by the concurrence and consent of the people Acts. 14. 23. Sixtly That in the primitive Church which was governed by the common Counsell of the Presbyters before there were any Bishops the very first Bishops were not ordained by Bishops which then were not but by Ministers Seaventhly That all the Councels Degrees and Testimonies of Fathers objected to the contrary proove nothing else but that the Act and Right of Ordination partly by Custome and partly by humane Decrees was given to the cheife Presbyter or Bishop after the Apostles time not belonging to them by any divine right Eightly That the imposition of hands is not absolutely necessary to the essence of a Pastor no more then a Coronation to the essence of a King or the celebration of a mariage to the essence of a mariage Ninthly That the power of Ordination according to the Schoolemen and Canonists is not an Act of Iurisdiction but of simple office which Presbyters may performe without any Commaund or Iurisdiction Tenthly That the Papists themselves teach that baptisme conferred by any Christian though a lay man or woman is good by reason of the necessity of it that a simple Presbyter by the common consent of the Popish Doctors may administer the Sacrament of Confirmation or conferre any of the greater Orders and that all the Pontificians teach with unanimous consent that a Bishop once consecrated although hee be a Simoniack Heretick excommunicate person or the like may yet firmely ordaine others Therefore a fortiori Godly Presbyters or the people and Church of Christ may lawfully conferre orders without the helpe or concurrence of a Bishop Which authority of his ought not to be slighted as Schismaticall or Erronious it being consonant to the Doctrine both of our owne and other Protestant writers Churches and this booke of his printed by Authority in the university of Oxford no longer since then Anno 1629. It is evident then by this whole cloud of witnesses to omit others that the power and right of ordination and imposition of hands which sayth Gratian is nothing else but a prayer over a man and as Aquinas writes signifieth onely the conferring of grace which is given by Christ and not that Ministers not Bishops who are here but Ministers give this grace and so as proper for Ministers as Bishops both by divine and humane right and practise belongs to Presbyters and ordinary Ministers as well as Bishops therefore Bishops cannot be paramount Presbyters and ordinary Ministers in order and Iurisdiction in this regard neither will this power of ordination proove Timothy or Titus Bishops as they now vainely surmise Hence therefore I retort the objection in this maner against the opposites That power or authority which is common by divine right and institution to Ministers and Presbyters as well as Bishops can neither proove Timothy or Titus to be Bishops or Bishops to be superior to Presbyters or Ministers in Jurisdiction order dignity or degree Iure divino or humano But the power of authority of ordaining Presbyters Ministers and Deacons is such as the premises undeniably evidence Therefore it can neither proove Timothy or Titus to be Bishops nor Bishops to be superior to Presbyters or Ministers in Iurisdiction order dignity or degree Iure divino or humano Sixtly S. Paul in the 1. Tim. 3. and Titus 1. 6. c. makes a particular enumeration and recitall both of the qualifications and offices of a Bishop But among all these hee speakes not a word concerning the power of act of ordination neither doth hee make it a part of a Bishops qualification or duty to be apt and able discreetly to conferre orders as hee doth particularly require hee should be apt to teach How therefore this should be a cheife property or principall quality of a Bishop I cannot yet conjecture since the Scripture makes it none but rather a property an act of the Presbytery 1. Tim. 4. 14. Acts. 13. 3. 4. I shall desire Bishops therefore to produce some divine Charter or other for this pretended Monopoliâ—e of ordination which they would ingrosse unto themselves alone perchance to make the more advantage by it
hee that ordaineth or consecrateth Ministers is greater in Iurisdiction power order or degree then the parties consecrated and ordained is a notorious dotage and untruth broached at first by Epiphanius to confute Aërius his orthodox opinion of the parity of Bishops and Presbyters and since that taken up at second hand by Bellarmine and other Iesuites the Councell of Trent Bishop Downham with other Patriots of the Popes and Prelates Monarchy and last of all like Coleworts twice sodde usurped by all our Prelates in their high Commission at Lambeth in their Censure of Doctor Bastwicke who laid the whole weight and burthen of their Episcopall superiority and precedency over other Ministers upon this rotten counterfeit Pillar unable any wayes to support it as these ensuing demonstrations will evidence at large bejond all contradiction For first of all we know that Cardinals and Bishops at this day as the people and Clergy yea the Emperor heretofore doe elect and consecrate the Pope yet they are not greater in order dignity power or Iurisdiction then the Pope but inferior and hee farre superior to them in all these We read that Metropolitanes Patriarkes Primates and Archbishops are created consecrated and installed by ordinary Bishops as the Arch-bishops of Canterburry and Yorke have oftentimes beene by the Bishops of London Rochester Winchester Salisbury and the like yet are they not greater in dignity power authority place or order then they but subordinate and subject to them whom they thus ordaine in every of these We know by dayly experience that one Bishop consecrates and ordaines another and hee a second and that second a third yet all of them are of equall power and Iurisdiction not different or distinct in order or degree and sometimes the last of the three in respect of his Bishopricke takes precedency of the rest that ordained him as the Bishops of London Durham and Winchester doe here with us and other Bishops the like in forraigne parts So some Ministers joyne with the Bishop in the ordination and laying of hands on others yet one of them is not superior in Iurisdiction order or degree to the other Now were this our Prelates objected Paradoxe true the Cardinals should be greater in order power and degree then the Popes the Bishops then Patriarkes Metropolitanes Primates and Archbishops one Bishop one Minister then another yea there should be so many different degrees among Bishops and Ministers as there are successive subordinate ordinations which is both false and absurd S. Hierom in his Epistle to Evagrius and on Titus 1. with Alcuvinus De Divinis Officiis c. 37. affirme that in the primitive Church Bishops were both Elected and consecrated by Presbyters and the Scripture is expresse that both Paul and Timothy were ordained by the Presbytery Acts 13. 3. 4. 1. Tim. 4. 14. If the Bishops reason then be orthodoxe it followes inevitably that in the Apostles times and the primitive Church Pres byters were superior in Iurisdiction order and Degree to Bishops yea to Paul and Timothy the one an Apostle the other an Euangelist and not Bishops Lords paramount over them as they now pretend and then farewell their Hierarchy which they so much contend for The Archbishop of Canterbury who stood much upon this argument at Doctor Bastwicks Censure both crowned our Soveraigne Lord King Charles and baptised his sonne Prince Charles will hee therefore conclude that hee is greater in power authority place and Iurisdiction then they The Archbishops of Canterbury have usually crowned and baptized the Kings of England and the Archbishops of Rheemes the Kings of France will they therefore inferre Ergo they are greater in power dignity and authority then they as the Popes argue that they are greater then the Emperors because the Bishops of Rome have usually crowned the Emperors Are the Princes Electors in Germany greater then the Emperors or of Poland Bohemia and Sweden greater then their Kings because they elect and create them Emperors and Kings Are the Lord Major of London and Yorke or the Major of other Citties inferior to the Commons or the Lord Chauncellors of our Vniversities of Oxford and Cambridge lesse honorable potent and inferior to the Doctors Procters and Masters of Arts or the heades or Masters of the Colleadges and Halls in them subordinate or lesse worshipfull or eminent then the fellowes because they are elected constituted and created by them to be such Are the Knights Citizens and Burgesses of the Parliament not so good as those freeholders Cittizens and Burgesses who elect them or the Masters of Companies inferior to those that choose them If not as all must grant how is this maxime true that hee who constitutes ordaines or consecrates another is greater then the parties constituted ordained or consecrated and that in Iurisdiction place order and degree Our Popish Preists are not afraid to proclaime that in their consecration of the Sacrament they create their very Creator and make no lesse then Christ himselfe are they therefore greater and higher in order and degree then Christ the great and onely High Preist the * Cheife Shepheard and Bishop of our Soules whose Vicar and Substitute the Pope himselfe doth but claime to be Certainly if this their Popish proposition be true they must needs be one order and degree Higher in point of Preisthood then Christ himselfe who must then lose his titles of High Preist and cheife Shepheard because every Masse-Preist will be paramount him in that hee not onely consecrates but creates him too We read in Scripture that Kings Preists and Prophets were usually annointed and consecrated to be such with oyle was therefore the oyle that consecrated them greater or better then they Are the font and water better then the children baptized in or with them The Diadems better then Kings because they crowne them or the very hands of Bishops and Ministers worthier then Ministers ordained by them If not then are not Bishops greater then the Ministers which they ordaine or consecrate since both are but instruments Servants not prime originall agents Lords or Supreme absolute actors in these severall consecrations and actions If we cast our eyes either upon nature or policy we finde this proposition of our Prelates a meere â—alsehood In nature we â—ee that a man begets a man an horse an horse an asse an asse a dogge a dogge c. equall one to the other in nature quality species and degree the sonne being as much a man as the Father the colt as much an horse as the steed that begott him In Civill or Politique Constitutions wee see the like In our Vniversities Doctors and Professors of Divinity Phisicke Law Musicke create other Doctors of the same Professions equall to themselves and as much Doctors in these arts as they one Doctor in each of these being as much and no more a Doctor then another save onely in point of time or antiquity
without due examination or making Ministers without a title as many now doe for which the Canons prescribe they shall be suspended from giving Orders for two yeares space are inferior in order and degree to Bishops who may execute this power and ordaine and so one Bishop shall be superior in order and degree to another Bishop which none ever yet affirmed yea all our Bishops being prohibited and disabled by their owne Canons to ordaine Ministers or Deacons at any time but onely at the 4. solemne times appointed and that in the presence of the Deane Archdeaâ—on or two Prebends at the least or of 4. other grave Persons being Masters of Art at least and allowed for publike Preachers it will hereupon follow that Bishops onely at these 4. times of the yeare are greater in dignity and degree then Ministers because they may then ordaine but not at other seasons when they have no power or authority to conferre orders upon any being restrained by the Canon All which being layd together discovers the weakennes the absurdity of this our Prelates Theory on which they build both their owne Titus his hierarchy which now fall quite to ruine with this their sandy foundation which I have here 〈◊〉 ever dissipated subverted if I mistake not Obj. 5. If any finally object that the Fathers stile Titus the first Bishop of Crete and Timothy of Ephesus therefore they were Diocaesan Bishops and superior in Jurisdiction and degree to other Ministers and so by consequence are other Diocaesan Bishops as well as they Answ 1. I answer First that neither S. Paul nor S. Luke who lived in their times and knew them farre better then any Fathers or writers since ever so much as once terme or stile them Bishops much lesse the first or sole Diocaesan Bishops of Crete or Ephesus which no doubt they would have done had they beene in truth Diocaesan Bishops there and the name the office of a Bishop so honorable and sublime above that of Ministers even Iure Divino as our Prelates and their flatterers now pretend Their testimonies therefore who stile them onely Ministers or Euangelists never Bishops is to be preferred before all Fathers and writers who stile them Bishops being neither acquainted with their persons or functions nor living in their age Secondly No Father ever stiles them or either of them a Diocaesan or sole Bishop of Crete or Ephesus the thing which ought to be prooved but Bishops onely as they stiled other Ministers the name the office of Bishops and Presbyters being but one and the same and promiscuously used in the Apostles times all Presbyters being then called Bishops and all Bishops Presbyters as is evident by Acts. 14. 23. c. 20. 17. 28. Phil. 1. 1. 1. Pet. 5. 1. 2. 3. Tit. 1. 5. 7. 1. Tim. 3. 1. 2. 3. 2. Iohn 1. 3. Iohn 1. Philemon 9. with all ancient all moderne Commentators on these texts Whence the Translators of our last authorized English Bible affixe these Contents to Titus 1. 6. to 10. which treates of the quality of Bishops How they that are to be chosen MINISTERS ought to be qualified And the Booke of ordination of Ministers confirmed by two severall Acts of Parliament prescribes the 1. Tim. c. 3. Acts 20. and Titus 〈◊〉 to be read both at the ordination of Ministers and Consecration of Bishops and so intimates yea interpretes that Bishops and Ministers in the Scriptures language are both one in name and office and were so reputed in the Primitive Church Thirdly The Fathers use the word Elders and Bishops promiscuously calling Elders Bishops and Bishops Elders Hence Papias the Auditor of S. John and companion of Polycarpus writes thus in the Preface of his bookes It shall not seeme grievous untome if that I compile in writing and commit to memory the things which I learned of the Elders If any came in place which was a follower of the Apostles forthwith demaunded the words of the Elders what Andrew what Peter what Philip what Thomas or Iames or John or Mathew or any other of the Lords Disciples what Ariston and the Elder John Disciples of the Lord had sayd Here hee stiles not onely Bishops but even Apostles Elders Polycarpus his companion and Coaetanian writes thus in his Epistle to the Philippians Be ye subject to Presbyters and Deacons as to God let the Presbyters be simple and mercifull in all things Now those whom hee here stiles Presbyâ—ers S. Paul expresly termes Bishops Philip. 1. 1. Justine Martyr in his second Apology used neither the name Bishop nor Elder but termes the Minister onely Hee who is sett over the Brithren Hee who holds the first place in reference to the Deacon who held the second place not to any Elders of an inferior order to him And least any one should dreame that Iustine Martyr here speakes of a Bishop Tertullian who lived neere about that time or within few yeares in his Apology writes thus Praesident nobis probati quique Seniores c. Approoved Elders not Bishops are sett over us having obtained this honor not with any price but by a good testimony Whence it is evident that in his age every Christian Congregation had divers Elders not one Diocaesan Bishop over it to feede and rule it according to the practise of the Apostles times Acts. 14. 23. c. 20. 17. 28 c. 21. 18. Philip. 1. 1. 1. Tim. 5. 17. Tit. 1. 5. Iames 5. 14. 1. Pet. 5. 1. 2. Hence learned Apollinarius cals the Bishops and Elders of the Church of Ancyra in Galatia Presbyters And Clemens Alexandrinus relating the Story of the young man delivered by S. Iohn to a Bishop to traine up in the feare of God twice together cals him interchaingably both a Bishop and an Elder as Meridith Hamner a Bishop Englisheth it So Ireneus one of the ancientest of all the Fathers stiles Polycarpus Bishop of Smyrna That holy and Apostolike Elder yea hee termes the Bishops of Rome themselves Elders They saith hee that were Elders before Soter of the Church which now thou governest I meane Anacletus Pius Hyginus Thelesphorus and Xystus neither did so observe it themselves neither left they any such commaundement unto posterity And the same Father Adversus Haereses l. 3. c. 2. l. 4. c. 43. 44. oftentimes stiles Bishops Elders and Elders Bishops making Presbyters equall to Bishops in all respects and Successors to the Apostles as well as much as they So Dionysius Alexandrinus in his Epistle to Xystus Bishop of Rome about the yeare of Christ 240. writes thus There was a certaine Brother reputed to be of our Church and Faith very aged priusquam ego etiam creatus Episcopus and created a BISHOP before I was and as I thinke before blessed Heraclas was made a Bishop Where hee expresly termes this party who was but a Minister or Presbyter onely in that Church A BISHOP and saith hee was created a
Bishop when hee was but ordained a Minister And that famous Gregory Nazianzen three hundred and seventy yeares after Christ in his 9. 13. 15. 21. and 28. Orations p. 262. 357. 368. 479. as Elias Cretensis in his Commentary on those places testifieth useth the words Bishops and Presbyter reciprocally stiling Bishops Presbyters and Presbyters Bishops making them all one by divine institution and different onely by humane invention which difference hee heartily wisheth were abolished himselfe voluntarily resigning his Bishopricke of Constantinople to be take himselfe to a more private and retired life The Fathers therefore thus promiscuously using the name Bishop and Presbyter stiling Bishops Presbyters and Presbyters Bishops and making both of them one and the same by divine institution their stiling of Timothy and Titus Bishops of Ephesus and Crete is no argument or proofe at all that they were Diocaesan or sole Bishops of those places or that they had or any Bishops now have by divine institution any Episcopall Iurisdiction and preeminence over other Presbyters or Ministers or were superior to them in order dignity or degree Fourthly The Greeke word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which we English a Bishop signifies properly nothing else but an Overseer Survayor Superintendent or Administrator and is oft times applyed both by Greeke Authors and the Septuagint Greeke Translators to secular offices Hence †Homer stiles Hector the Bishop of the City In the Verses of Solon in Demostenes Pallas is called the Bishop of Athens Plutarch in the life of Numa stiles Venus the Bishop over the dead and hee there makes mention of a Bishop of the Vestall Virgins Suidas records that in the Athenian Republike those who are sent to the Cityes under their Jurisdiction to oversee the affaires of their Companions were called Bishops Cicero in his seaventh Booke to Atticus writes thus Pompey will have mee to be the Bishop of all Compagnia and the Maritine Coastes to whom the choise and summe of the businesse may be referred And in the Pandects the Clerkes of the Markets are called Bishops The Septuagint Numb 13. read the Bishops of the Army 4. Kings 11. they read the Bishops who are over the Army and the Bishops over the howse of the Lord. Where Watchmen Guardians and Overseers are called Bishops 2. Chron. 34. The Overlookers of the Workemen are stiled Bishops Iudges 9. Zebul is called Abimeleches Bishop in the Greeke which we now English his Officer So Num. 4. 16. The office of Eliazar in the Tabernacle of the Lord and the function of Judas Psalm 109. 8. is tormed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Bishopricke by the Septuagint and so expresly stiled by the Holy Ghost himselfe and Englished by us Acts. 1. 20. His Bishopricke let another take yea Constantine the greate as ‡ Eusebius records in his life inviting some Bishops to a Feast called himselfe a Bishop in their presence uttering these words You sayth hee are Bishops within the Church but I am constituted of God a Bishop without the Church Our New Translators Acts. 20. 28. render the Greeke word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the title which hee gives to the Elders of the Church of Ephesus Overseers Luke 19. 44. The time of Gods visitation and overthrow of Ierusalem is termed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Luke 1. 6. 7. 8. c. 7. 16. Heb. 2. 6. The Greeke word which we translate hath visited us is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Whence the day of Gods gracious visitation of his people to convert them to him in mercy is called by the Holy Ghost 1. Pet. 2. 12. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The day of visitation yea our very visiting of sick persons prisoners Orphanes and Widdowes is termed by Christ and the holy Ghost himselfe though a meere act of charity humility and Christian duty not of Jurisdiction and Lordly Prelacy 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Math. 25. 36. 43. and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Iam. 1. 27. to visit or to play the Bishops part and duty which the meanest Christian yea women though uncapeable of sacred orders may doe and ought to performe as well as any others So intermedling with other mens affaires or couetting of any other mens offices of what condition soever is termed by the Apostle 1. Pet. 4. 15. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the playing as it were the Bishop in another mans Dioces Yea every Ministers feeding and taking the oversight of his proper flock is stiled the doing of a Bishops office and those Presbyters who doe thus are not onely said to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1. Pet. 5. 21. that is men executing the office and duty of a Bishop but likewise stiled 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is true and proper Bishops a name given onely to Presbyters and none but they in holy Scripture Acts. 20. 28. Phil. 1. 1. Titus 1. 7. and to Christ himselfe who is stiled 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Bishop of our Soules 1. Pet. 2. 25. but not to any Apostle Euangelist Diocaesan or other Prelate none such being particularly termed a Bishop â—hroughout the whole New Testament The Fathers make Bishops and Overseers all one deriving the very name of a Bishop from a Greeke verbe which signifieth to overlooke watch ward or take care off Hence Augustine writes thus Hee did keepe hee was carefull hee did watch as much as hee could over those over whom hee was set And Bishops doe thus For therefore an higher place is set for Bishops that they may superintend and as it were keepe the people For that which in Greeke is called a Bishop that in Latine is interpreted a Superintendent because hee overseeth because hee seeth from above For like as an higher place is made for the vineyard keeper to keepe the vineyard so an higher place also is made for the Bishops And a perilous account is to be rendred of this high place unlesse we stand therein with such an heart that we may be under your feete in humility and pray for you that hee who knowes your mindes hee may keepe you because wee can see you entring and going out but yet we are so farre from seeing what you thinke in your heartes that we cannot so much as see what you doe in your howses How therefore doe we keepe you like men as much as we can as much as we have received We keepe you out of the office of dispensation but we will be kept together with you we are as Pastours to you but under that Pastor Christ we are sheep together with you we are as teachers to you out of this place but under that one Master wee are Schollers with you in this Schoole If we will be kept by him who was humbled for us and is exalted to keepe us let us be humble Those set themselves before Christ who will be high here where hee was humble Let them therefore be humble here if they will be exalted there where hee is exalted In another place hee
Ipswitch a reverend ancient conformable Minister whom hee hath suspended vpon no lawfull occasion to blott out this sacred Sentence of Scripture most proper for that Church and place it stonds in painted on this Church-wall over against the Pulpit which Scripture I wonder any Bishop or Minister can thinke off and yet forbeare to preach or put downe preaching For necessity is layd upon me yea Woe is me if I preach not the Gospell An insolency an impiety that no age can parallell Certainly he that would command this Scripture thus to be rased out of the Church-wall would as gladly obliterate and rend it out of the Church-Bible too and have neither preaching preachers and I feare neither reading nor readers of the Gospell nor yet the Gospell it selfe in being were it in his power utterly to suppresse them as this Prelate hath made a large beginning and progresse for this purpose This notable late fact of his makes me the lesse to wonder at the most insolent exploict of Henry Dade the Archbishop of Canterburies Surrogate for Ipswitch who about September last past solemnely excommunicated the Churchwardens of S. Maries of the Tower in that Towne in the Archbishops name I hope without his privity for not blotting out upon his commaund this Sentence of Scripture written on that Churches-wall over the place where hee keepes his spitefull I should say spirituall Court which Scripture is recorded by two Prophets and three Euangelists and most proper for the Church by our Saviours owne resolution It is written my house shall be called an house of prayer to all people but yee have made it a denne of theives Which excommunication hee is so farre fro disavowing or being ashamed off that hee not onely refuseth to absolve the Churchwardens but also hath most audaciously pleaded it in barre of an information brought against him by Ferdinando Adams one of the Church-wardens in the Court of Starre-Chamber for which presumption alone were hee guilty of and there charged with no other crimes as hee is with other foule ones against his Maiesty and the whole State severall extortions on the subiects that Court most iustly may and I presume will deeply fine and censure him for daring to grant out and plead such an impious execrable excommunication in any Court of Iustice to the very shame and obloquie of our Religion Church State and insufferable scandall of that great Arch-Prelate in whose name and colour of authority it is granted who should doe well for his owne justification to the world to hang up such a Surrogate for a president to all others and such a Suffragan Bishop too who beare such spleen to these holy parcells of Scripture as to rase them out of the Church it selfe though set vp by the expresse command of the Homilies of repairing and keeping cleane Churches and of the Right vse of the Church which recite and prescribe these latter text as most proper for it the Canons 1571. p. 19. 1603. Canon 82. And here I cannot but stand amazed at these proceedings For the Surrogate will not endure the Church neither to be or called an house of prayer but his Courthouse causing this Scripture to be actually dashed out of the Church and the other will not suffer it to be or reputed an house of preaching neither of them will admit these two textes of Scripture to appeare therein no not on the bare wall where they are no hinderance which intimate and declare it to be both an house of prayer and preaching too And if the Church must now be neither an Oratory nor an Auditory neither an house of prayer nor preaching though our Homilies and Postillers define it to be both I know not what they will make of it but what they begin to make their Church-houses in many places a direct denne of theives as our Saviour termes it or else an house of piping minstressie dauncing and revelling they having made the Lordsday sacred Sabbath such a day already justifying both in their visitation Articles and printed Bookes That dancing piping Morrisses Wakes Ales Sports and Bacchanals are meet exercises for this holy day and so no place fitter for them then the Church appointed principally for the dueties and publike exercises of the Sabbath day to the strict entire sanctification whereof by religious dueties our Prelates are such enemies that they not onely silence suspend and excommunicate such godly Ministers who out of conscience dare not joyne with them in encouraging their people to prophane it and punish those for Conventiclers who after divine prayer and Sermons ended meet together to repeat their Ministers Sermon read chapters sing Psalmes conferre or pray together as they are taught by S. Chrysostomes and Bishop Iewels doctrine but one of them D. Peirce the now Bishop of Bath and Wels by name enioyned the Church-wardens of Batcombe in Mr. Barnards Parish in Somersetshire vnder paine of excommunication to expunge this Scripture anciently painted on their Church-wall quite out of the Church Isa 58. 13. If thou turne away thy foote from the Sabbath from doing thy pleasure on my holy way and call the Sabbath a delight the holy of the Lord honorable and shalt honour him not doing thine owne wayes not finding thine owne pleasure not speaking thine owne words Then shalt thou delight thy selfe in the Lord c. stiling it a Iewish place of Scripture not fit to stand or be suffred in the Church and by the same reason not sufferable in the Bible for the correcting whereof our Prelates may doe well to joyne with the Papists in making an Index ex purgatorius as they intend and giue out publikely they intend to doe on all ancient English Writers which Scripture the Church-wardens refusing to blot out the Bishop like an Heroïcall Prelate râ—de thither 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with a plaisterer to see it wiped out himselfe such hideous Monsters of impiety blasphemy and irreligion that I say not Atheisme are this last generation of our holy domineering Prelates growen who must now for ever cease to affirme or boast their Episcopall Supremacy Authority and Iurisdiction to be Jure divino since by vertue thereof they thus presumptuously take upon them a straine beyond the Papists to blot Jus divinum the very Law of God and Gospell too out of the house of God it selfe And can wee then wonder at those immoderate droughts those watry seasons those devouring spredding Pests and Plagues with other publike and personall judgements of God which wee have lately felt and suffred and are like to tast of in a sharper maner when such monstrous impieties as these thus plublikely breake forth without either shame or reprehension in those who stile themselves the Pillars being in truth the Caterpillars and holy Fathers in verity the unholy step fathers of our Church from whom prophanesse is gone out and spread over all the Land Certainly if wee consider onely the
weapons and all their domineering swelling authority overthrowne by that very principle foundation on which they have presumed to erect it the ancient proverb being here truly verified Vis consilij expers moleruit sua I shall cloze up this with the words of acute Antonius Sadeel Who after a large proof of Bishops and Presbiters to be both one and the same by Divine institution Windes up all in this manner We conclude therefore seeing that superior Episcopall dignity is to be avowched onely by humane institution tantum esse humani Iuris that it is onely of humane right On the contrary Since it is evident by the expresse testimonies of Scripture that in the Apostles times Bishops were the same with Presbiters Iure Divino potestatem ordinandi non minus Presbiteris quam Episcopis convenire that by Gods law and Divine right the power of Ordination belongs as much to Presbiters as to Bishops Page 51. l. 17. betweene same and since this should have beene inscribed So Alexander Narcissus were both Bishops of Ierusalem at the same time Paulinus and Miletus both Bishops of Antioch together Theodosius and Agapetus were both Bishops of Synada at the same season Valerius and Augustine were both joynt Bishops of Hippotogether by the unanimous consent of the Clergie and people and when as Augustine was loath to be joyned a Bishop with Valerius alleaging it to be contrary to the Custome of the Church to have two Bishops in one City they repyled Non hoc esse inusitatum that this was no unusuallthing confirming this both by example of the African and other forraigne Churches Whereupon hee was satisfied In the Church of Rome wee know there have beene sometimes two sometimes three and once foure Popes and Bishops at one time Some adhering to the one some to the other but all of them conferring Orders making Cardinalls and exercising Papall jurisdiction In the Churches of Constantinople Alexandria Jerusalem Antioch and Affricke during the Arrian Macedonian Novatian heresies and Schisme of the Donatists there were successively two or three Bishops together in them and other Cities the one orthodox the other hereticall and schismaticall Yea the first Councell of Nice Canon 7. admitts the Novation Bishops which conformed themselves to the Church and renounced their Errors to enjoy the title and dignity of a Bishop and to be associated with the Orthodox Bishops if they thought fit And St. Augustine would have the Donatists Bishops where there was a Donatist Bishop and a Catholicke if the Donatists returned unto the unity of the Church that they should be received into the fellowship of the Bishops office with the Catholicke Bishops if the people would suffer it Poterit quippe unusquisque nostrum honoris sibi socio copulato vicissim sedere eminentius c. utroque alterum cum honore mutuo praeveniente Nec novum aliquid est c. As he there defines Therefore this was then reputed no novaltie Platina records of Rhotaris King of the Lombards who declined to the Arians that in all the Cities of his Kingdome hee permitted there should bee two Bishops of equall power the one a Catholicke the other an Arian and that hee placed two such Bishops in every City Danaeus proves out of Epiphanius that anciently in most Cities there were two or three Bishops Nicephorus writes That the Scythians neere Ister have many and great Cities all of them subject to one Bishop But among other people wee know there are Bishops not onely in every City but also in every Village especially among the Arabians in Phrygia and in Cyprus among the Novatians and Montanists Yea no longer since then the Councell of Later an under Innocent the 3d. there were divers Bishops in one Citie and Diocesse where there were divers Nations of divers languages and customes Which though his Councell disallowes where there is no necessity Yet it approves and Permitt where there is a necessity Nay those Canons Constitutions and Decretalls which prohibit that there should be many Bishops in one City or that there should be Bishops in Castles Villages or small Townes and Parishes least the dignity of Bishops should become common and contemptible Manifest that before these Canons and Constitutions there were many Bishops in one City and Diocesse and a Bishop in every little Castle Towne and Countrey Village And to come nearer home the Statute of 26. H. 8. c. 14. ordayneth that there shal be many suffragan Bishops exercising Episcopall jurisdiction in one and the same Diocesse of England with the Statutes of 31. H. 8. c 9. 33. H. 8. c. 31. 34. H. 8. c. 1. which erected divers new Bishopricks in England and divided one Diocesse into many both intimate and prove as much Why then there may not now bee divers Bishops in one City one Church aswell as there was in the Apostles time in the primitive Church and formes ages or as well as there are now divers Archbishops and Bishops in one Kingdome divers Ministers in one Cathedrall and Parish Church I cannot yet conceive unlesse Bishops will now make themselves such absolute Lordly Monarks and Kings as cannot admit of any equalls or corrivalls with them and bee more ambicious proud vayneglorious covetous unsociable then the Bishops in the Apostles and Primitive times whose successors they pretend themselves to bee in words though they disclay me them utterly in their manners lordlines pomp and supercilious deportment which they will not lay downe for the peace and unity of the Church of Christ I shall conclude this with that notable speech of Saint Augustine and those other almost 300. Bishops who were content to lay down their Bishopriks for the peace and unity of the Church Et non perdere sed Deo tutius comendare An vero Redemptor noster de caelis inhumana membra descendit ut membra eius esseâ—â—us et nos ne ipsa eius membra crudeli divisione lanientur de Cathedris descendere formidamus Episcopi propter Christianos populos ordinamur Quod ergo Christianis populis ad Christianam pacem prodest hoc de nostro Episcopatu faciamus Quod sum propter te sum si tibi prodest non sum si tibi obest Si Servi utiles sumus cur Domnini aeternis lucris pro nostris temporalibus sublimitatibus invidemus Episcopalis dignitas fructuosior nobis erit si gregem Christi deposita magis collegerit quam retenta disperserit Fratres mei si Dominum cogitamus locus ille altior specula vinitoris est non fastigium superbientis Sicum nolo retinere Episcopatum meum dispergo gregem Christi quomodo est damnum gregis honor Pastoris Nam qua fronte in futuro seculo promissum a Christo sperabimus honorem si Christianam in hoc seculo noster honor impedit unitatem To which I shall adde as a Corollary a like Speech of that holy devout man S. Bernard