THE VNBISHOPING OF TIMOTHY AND TITVS OR A briefe elaborate Discourse prooving Timothy to be no Bishop much lesse any sole or Diocaesan Bishop of Ephesus nor Titus of Crete and that the power of ordination or imposition of hands belongs Iure Divino to Presbyters as well as to Bishops and not to Bishops onely Wherein all Objections and Pretences to the contrary are fully answered and the pretended superiority of Bishops over other Ministers and Presbyters Iure Divino now much contended for utterly subverted in a most perspicuous maner By a Wellwisher to Gods truth and people Matthew 15. 13. Every plant which my heavenly Father hath not planted shall be rooted out Chrysostom Opus imperfectum in Matth. Hom. 35. Quicunque desideraverit Primatum in terra inveniet in Coelo confusionem ut jam in ter servos Christi non sit de Primatu certamen In the Yeare M.DC.XXXVI To the Reader CHristian Reader what that Oracle of wisedome hath registred Proverb 13. 10. Onely by pride cometh contention was never more really verified in any one particular then in the Prelates whose ambitious windy tumor and overswelling pride as in al former ages so in this hath filled the whole Christian world with warres with civill dissensions and the Church it selfe with endlesse schismes controversies contentions which else would never had existence The pretended primacy of the great Pontificall Bishop of Rome what tumults battles warres treasons rebellions murders martyrdomes hath it ingendred on the one hand what disputes bookes of controversie and paper-battles on the other What innumerable Schismes Treatises which the endoubted parity of Ministers and Bishops Iure Divino had prevented have the Prelates pretended superiority by divine institution over Presbyters and their fellow-Ministers produced in all ages Churches especially in our owne which from the first glimmerings of the Gospell in Iohn Wiclifes dayes till now hath beene more or lesse disquieted with this unhappy controversie which being raked up in the ashes for a space by reason of our Bishops waiving of their divine right which not onely Archbishop Anselme Richardus Armachanus and Bishop Peacocke of old but likewise Bishop Tonstall Bishop Stokesly Bishop Hooper Bishop Iewell Bishop Alley Bishop Pilkington yea Archbishop Whitgift himselfe and Bishop Bridges to omitt all others have since them publikely disclaimed confessing Bishops and Presbyters lure Divino to be allone equall and the same and the Statutes of 37. H. 8. c. 17. 1. Ed. 6. c. 2. 1. 2. Mariaec 8. 1. Eliz ab c. 1. for ever judicially in full Parliament resolved against yet our present ambitious Prelates studying to surmount their predecessors not onely in worldly pompe and power derived from their indulgent Soveraigne but likewise in spirituall Iurisdiction claimed from God himselfe though they have neither time nor care to preach pray or doe him any Episcopall service being wholly taken up with secular offices and affaires and unable to serve God for serving his incompacible enemies MamoÌ„n and the world have lately blowne abroade the coales and resuscitated the violent flames of this contention afresh by a new ambitious claime of all their Episcopall Soveraignity and Iurisdiction Iure Divino even in the High Commission Court it selfe in the late censure of Doctor Bastwicke for a Booke written onely against the Pope and Italian Bishops without any reflection upon them as all men then conceived and therefore wondred at till their magnifying of the Church of Rome as a true Church in that Censure of his and some late licensed Pamphlets their Antichristian and Papall proceedings against Gods truth Ministers Ordinances and the late authorizing of Doctor Pocklingtons Sunday no Sabbath by the Archbishop of Canterburies owne Chaplaine Master Bray which expressly avers that our Arch-bishops and Bishops can and doe lineally derive their Pedigree and Succession from Peter and the Popes of Rome hath since in structed the ignorant people that Popes Italian and English Bishops are in truth all members of the same body whelpesof the same litter branches of the same tree and our present Prelates the Pope of Romes owne lineally discended sonnes so as they could not but be sensible of and highly offended if not actually lashed wounded with their fathers scourge Flagellum Pontificis Episcoporum Latialium being a whip for them as well as for the Italian Prelates Now because in that late Censure of theirs they all founded the divine right of their Episcopall Superintendency and Dominion over their Fellow-Pres byters onely on the examples of Timothy and Titus whom they then new consecrated Diocaesan Bishops over Ephesus and Crete 1608. yearely after their decease though Christ and Paul himselfe had never done it in their life times and on a supposed divine Monopoly of conferring Orders and imposing hands appropriated by God himselfe to Diocaesan Bishops distinct in Iurisdiction power and degree from Ministers and Presbyters I have therefore here for the future quieâ—â—â—ing of this much agitated controversie confined my discourse within the lists of such questions not formerly fully debated by any in the English tongue that I have met with by the discussion whereof I have I suppose so shaken these rotten pillars and undermined these sandy foundations of their high-towring over-swelling Hierarchy as that I have left them no divine prop or groundworke to support it longer so as it must now certainly for any stay is left it in Scripture come tumbling downe headlong to the very ground and me thinkes I heare the fall of it allready sounding in my eares unlesse with speed they wholly quit these false foundations and bottom their Prelacy and Iurisdiction onely on his Majesties Princely favour not Gods or Christs divine institution which because they have so lately judicially disclaimed in open Court and even at this present execute all Acts of Episcopall Iurisdiction by their owne inherent power without any speciall Commission from his Majesty under his greate Seale keeping their Courts visitations and making out all their citations proces excommunications probate of wils Letters of administration c. in their owne names and under their owne Seales as if they were absolute Popes and Monarches contrary to the Statutes of 25. H. 8. c. 19. 26. H. 8. c. 1. 37. H. 8. c. 17. 1. Ed. 6. c. 2. 1. Eliz. c. 1. 8. Eliz. c. 1. their Oath of Supremacy and their High-Commission it selfe which might teach them another lesson as that it confines them to doe all things by his Majesties speciall Commission in his name and under his Seale when they are all there joyned together much more therefore when they are divided in their severall Dioces and because they have blotted out Caesars Image and superscription his Armes and royall Title out of their Courts proces and all ecclesiasticall proceedings and inserted onely their owne in leive thereof that so they may appeare to all the world to be no longer
lives and practises of our Bishops that I speake not of any others how they now openly fight against God his Word his Ministers Ordinances worship people grace holines yea morall vertue honesty civility and that with both hands both swords at once wee may rather wonder that the Lord himselfe doth not visiblie descend from heaven and raine downe fire and brimstone on us as hee once did on Sodome and Gomorrah and then tumble vs all headlong into hell yea our Archbishops Bishops and Prelates specially may justly feare hee will strike them all quite dead with Plague as hee did Pope Lucius the second who died of the pestilence Pope Caelestine the second swept away with the same disease both within the compasse of two yeares Wichardus Arch-bishop of Canterbury elect who going with great presents from King Oswy unto the Pope to Rome to fetch thence his pall and conse 〈…〉 ion hee and most of his company there perished with the Pest Thomas Bradwardin Archbishop of Canterbury An. 1348. The Bishop of Marselles and all his Chapter An. 1348. Daniel the 13 Bishop of Prague Anno 1116. The Bishope of Par 〈…〉 Rhegium and Millain Anno 1085. with many other Archbishops and Bishops forecited heretofore that they might no longer be an insufferable Plague and burthen to the earth or provocation and greivance even to heaven it selfe or else deale with them in that exemplary way of Iustice as hee did with Thomas Arundle Archbishop successively both of Yorke and Canterbury one of their predecessors a greivous persecutor of Gods people and great silencer and suspender of his Ministers who occupying both his tongue his braines and Episcopâ—ll power as too many of his successors have done since to stop the mouthes and tye vp the tongues of Gods Ministers and hinder the preaching course of Gods word was by Gods just judgmeÌ„t so stricken in his tongue with which hee had oft staundered the poore Ministers Saints of God as seditious factions people rebels Conventiclers to K. Henry the fourth as some of his Rochet doe now to his Maiesty that it swelled so bigge he could neither swallow nor speake for some dayes before his death much like after the example of the rich glutton and so hee was starved choked and killed by this strange tumor of his tongue This say all the marginall writers was thought of many to come upon him by the iust hand of God for that hee so bound and much stopped the word of the Lord that it might not be peached in his dayes Our Prelates now have farre greater cause then hee had then to feare Gods Iudgements in this or a more grievous nature and that in these regards First Because they have his Example with many other like Presidents of divine revenge upon persecuting truth-suppressing Prelates to wante and terrifie them which this Prelate never heard of and so are more inexcusable then hee Secondly Because his silencing of the Preachers and hindring the preaching of the Gospell proceeded rather from error ignorance of the truth and misguided zeale then malice or hatred against the Gospell Ministers and professors of it But our Bishops proceedings in this kinde proceeds from direct and willfull malice and emnity against the truth Gospell Ministers and Saints of God against inward conviction and the testimony of their owne consciences staring them in the face the very sinne against the holy Ghost himselfe or next degree thereto into which they are dangerously fallen Thirdly Because hee persecuted silenced or suspended none that professed the same truth faith and doctrine which hee and the Church of England then embraced but onely those whom hee and the Church of England then deemed both heretickes and Schismatickes But our Prelates now silence suspend excommunicate deprive imprison persecute those who professe and maintaine the established doctrine and discipline of the Church of England which themselves pretend to defend and strive for those who are members yea pillars of our owne Orthodoxe Church and neither seperate from it in point of doctrine nor discipline being likewise altogether spotles innocent undefiled in their lives even because they preach and defend Gods truth and the Doctrines the Articles of the Church of England against Papists Arminians and superstitious Romanizing Novellers A thing so strange that the like was never heard or read off in any age Church State but ours onely yea a thing so detestable as not found among the Savage b 〈…〉 ite beasts as Tygers Lyons Wolves Beares who ever hold together and prey not one upon the other Parâ—it cognatis maculis similis fera being as old as true and therefore most monstrous most detestable in our Christian Church and Prelates who must needs expect the extremity of Gods Judgements to light upon them for it Fourthly Because hee put downe preaching and silenced Gods Ministers in times of health and prosperity onely but our Prelates even now in this time of sicknesse and mortality when God in speciall maner cals upon them To crie aloude and spare not to lift up their voyces like a trumpet and shew the people their transgression and the howse of Jacob their sinnes yea which is the hight and upshot of all impiety they take advantage of this present pestilence and mortality to put downe all Lectures and preaching when as all former ages have set them up together with prayer and fasting to as a speciall anti 〈…〉 and preservative * against the Plague which they now pretend to be a meanes to spread it An impiety that heaven and earth may well stand amâ—azed at and future ages will hardly credit yea the very capitall sinne of which the Iewes were guilty f who both killed the Lord Jesus and their owne Prophets and persecuted and chased out as the margin renders it the Lords Ministers forbidding them to preach to the Gentiles that they might be saved to fill up their sinnes alway for the wrath is come upon them to the uttermost A text which should smite through the loynes and hearts of all persecuting Prelates and silencers of Gods Ministers who prohibit and put downe preaching the cheife and most principall office whereunto Preists or Bishops be called by the auehority of the Gospel as all the Bishops and whole Clergy of England have resolved in the Institution of a Christian man dedicated by them to King Henry the 8. and subscribed with all their names as the very Councell of Trent it selfe hath deemed in these words Praedicationis munus Episcoporum praecipuum est as the Church of England herselfe in the Homily of the right use of the Church p. 3. 4. 5. and before them all our Saviour Christ himselfe his Prophets and Apostles have past all dispute concluded I shall therefore desire these dumbe silencing and silent Prelates who would have all other Ministers as lasie mute and silent as themselves favouring all dumbe dogs that
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
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
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 not in respect of the profession or degree of Doctorship it selfe yea every Minister made by any Bishop is as much as truly and fully a Minister as the Bishop as all Protestants and Papists doe acknowledge therefore the same in specie with and equall to a Bishop Our Bishops pretend themselves Spirituall Fathers and they call the Ministers ordained by them Sonnes So Epiphanius long since argues against Aërius As therefore in naturall generations a man begets a man a beast a beast and in Civill respects a Gentleman begets a Gentleman a peasant a peasant c. but not a man a beast a beast a man a Gentleman a peasant nor a peasant a Gentleman So Bishops when they engender naturall children beget them as men not Bishops and their children are as much men as themselves when they spiritually ordaine or engender Ministers they doe it onely as they are Ministers not Bishops and those they thus beget and ordaine are as much Ministers as themselves when they beget and consecrate Bishops they doe it as they are Bishops and those thus begot and consecrated are as much Bishops as themselves Since therefore they ordaine Ministers onely as they are Ministers not as Bishops as is cleare else it were an unnaturall an incongruous yea a monstrous generation to beget one of a different kinde order quality and degree from themselves and as much as if a man should beget a beast an horse or an Asse and since every Minister is as much as compleatly a Minister every way as the Bishop and Ministers who ordaine him how this proposition can be true that the ordainer is higher in Jurisdiction or different Iure divino in order or degree from the ordained I cannot yet perceive neither can our Prelates ever make it good We know there are now divers Ministers living who not only baptized but likewise ordained some of our Bishops to be Ministers and layd hands upon them with the Bishop at the time of their ordination yea every of our Bishops and Archbishops were first ordained Ministers by Ministers before they were made Bishops or Arcbishops And the first Bishops that were ordained in the Church paramount Ministers were ordained Bishops by Ministers as Hierom writes in his Epistle to Evagrius and all since acknowlege out of him Are these Ministers therefore in point of order honor jurisdiction dignity and degree greater then our Archbishops or Bishops If so then the controversie is at end and the truth most apparant that our Ministers are greater and higher in degree then our Bishops and Arch-bishops not our Bishops and Archbishops higher greater then they as they vainely contend If not then the Prelates maxime on which they ground their Hierarchie is most false in that sence in which they urge it and so will yeild no supportation to their Hierarchie Thirdly I answer that this Proposition of theirs is warranted by no Scripture nor backed with any convincing reason drawen from Scripture therefore it prooves nothing either for Titus his Episcopall authority or for Bishops superiority above other Ministers by any divine right or institution As for that text of Hebr. 7. 7. And without all contradiction the lesser is blessed of the greater it is nothing to the putpose First Because it it not spoken concerning ordination or of one Ministers ordaining or blessing another but onely of Melchizedechs blessing of Abraham and Ministers blessing of the people as the words and all Commentators joyntly testifie Secondly Because it is not meant of Ministers who blesse others onely Ministerially instrumentally by way of duty and service as Bishops ordaine Ministers not inherent originall authority for then Ministers should be better and greater then God whom they blesse and praise but of Christ himselfe who by Melchisedech his type blessed Abraham by his owne inherent authority and power as the onely true High-Preist and châ—ife Shepheard of our soules If therefore our Prelates take their maxime in this sence hee that ordaines Ministers to wit originally by his owne inherent primitive authority and power is greater then those who are ordained in Jurisdiction power and degree then the proposition thus interpreted is true and warranted by this text but yet they gaine no advantage by it because no Bishops do or can ordaine Ministers thus but onely God and Christ alone whose Ministers and Servants both the ordainers and ordained are But if thâ—â—meane that they who ordaine Ministers onely instrumentally and Ministerially as servants to Christ his Church and the whole Congregation in whom the originall and primitive right of ordination is onely vested are greater in Iurisdiction order and degree then those who are ordained as they doe and must doe then the proposition is most false and not justified by this Scripture as the premised instances manifest Fourthly Admit this proposition true that those who are to ordaine others are greater in power and authority then the parties to be ordained before their ordination fully executed because they have an office a calling of Ministery which the others want in which sense the proposition may be true yet it is not true that the ordainers are greater in power office and authority then the parties actually ordained after the ordination past and finished because the very end of ordination is to conferre the selfe-fame office of Ministery on the parties ordained which the ordainers themselves have in as large and ample manner as they enjoye it and the parties once ordained are thereby made as compleate 〈◊〉 absolute Ministers every way in respect of their orders and office as any of those who ordained them though they were not so when they came to be ordained This appeares by the examples of Mathias and Paul before they were called and ordained to be Apostles they were inferior to the other Apostles but being once called and ordained Apostles they became equall with the other Apostles in Apostolicall power dignity and degree So that from all these premises I may conclude that this maxime of our Prelates whereon they build their Episcopall Hierarchie in that sence they take it is most false and neither prooves Titus to be a Diocaesan Bishop nor yet Bishops to be superior to other Ministers in dignity power order or degree by divine right and institution as they pretend they are Finally Admit the proposition true yet it prooves but this that Bishops are superior to those Ministers onely which themselves ordaine so that if they ordaine none they are superior to none not to those ordained by others which may be their equals notwithstanding this allegation seing they were not ordained by them this proposition extending onely to the act not to the power of ordination If any extend it further in this sort that they who have power to ordaine Ministers are greater in order Iurisdiction degree and dignity then those who want this power then it will follow that Bishops suspended from ordaining others either for advauncing unworthy Ministers
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
have been inserted p. 123. l. 27. after mistake not I shall close up this concerning the power and right of Ordination with these ensuing Authorities and memorable examples Anno Dom. 1389. the Lollards Wiclifs-disciples as Walsingham records winning very many to their Sect grow so audacious that their Presbiters like Bishops created and ordayned new Presbiters affirming that every Priest had received as much power to binde and loose and to minister other Ecclesiasticall things as the Pope himselfe giveth or could give This power of Ordination they exercised in the Diocesse of Salisbury And those who were ordayned by them thinking all things to be lawfull to them presumed to celebrate Masses and feared not to handle Divine things and administer the Sacraments This wickednes writes he was discovered by a certaine man Ordayned a Minister by them to the Bishop of Salisbury at his Mannor of Sunnyng By which it is apparent that the Lollards and Wiclenists the Prctestants of that age beleeved that the power of Ordination belonged as much to Presbiters by Gods Law as to Bishops that one of them might as well as lawfully ordayne Ministers as the other and that as they might lawfully preach the Gospell without the Bishops licence first prescribed by the forged Statute of 2. H 5. c. 15. made onely by the Bishops without the commons consent to suppresse the preaching of the Gospell so likewise ordayne Ministers without it and that Ministers ordayned onely by Presbyters without a Bishops privity or assistance were lawfull Ministers and might lawfully with a good conscience discharge all Ministeriall Offices This being not onely their received Doctrine but their practise too I find moreover that b Janruay 20. 1542. Nicholas Amsdorffius a noble and learned unmaried man was ordayned Bishop of Newbury by Martin Luther Doctor Nicholas Medler pastor of Newbury George Spalatine of Aldenburge and Wolffgaugus Steinius of Lucopeira joyning with him in the imposition of hands Which Ordination Luâ—her afterwards publikely maintained to be lawfull in a printed Treatise Loe here wee have Presbiters not onely ordayning a Presbiter but a Bishop If therefore the Prelates Paradox be true That hee that ordayens is greater in Jursdiction and degree then he that is ordayned It will hence inevitably follow that these Presbiters and those who ordayned the first Bishops were greater in Iurisdiction degree and order then Bishops And then farewell their pretended Hierarchie Anno Dom. 1537. Christian the 3 King of Denmarke removed and suppressed by a publique Edict all the Bishops of his Kingdome for their intollerable Treasons and rebellions abolishing their Lordly Bishopricks as contrary to our Saviours institution the meanes that made them idle proud ambicious unpreaching Prelates and sedicious treacherous Rebells to their Princes and instead of the 7. Bishops of Denmarke he instituted 7. Superintendents to exercise the Office of Bishops give Orders to others and execute all ecclesiasticall affayres which 7. Superintendents August 26. 1537. received their Ordination from John Bugenbagius a Protestant Minister in the Cathedrall of Hafnia in the presence of the King and Senate of Denmarke Loe here all Bishops casheired as false rebellious Ttaytors to their Soveraigne as they have ever beene in all States and ages there having beene more notorious Traytors Rebells and Conspirators of Bishops then of all other rankes of men in the world as I am able to make good as contrary to Divine institution and so not Jure Divins as they now boast and Superintendents ordayned by a meere Presbiter in their steed to conferre Orders unto others in all the Danish Churches In the beginning of reformation in Germany and other places Luther and other Ministers usually ordayned Deacons and Ministers and set out Bookes of the manner of Ordination without any Bishops assistance Which power of Ordination and imposition of hands hath ever since beene practised by Ministers in all reformed Churches which have abandoned Bishops Such as ours are and make themselves as contrary to GODS Word Patrick Adamson Archbishop of Saint Andrewes in Scotland in his Recantation publiquely made in the Synode of Fiffe Aprill 8. 1591. confesseth That the office of a Diocesan Bishop Omni authoritate verbi Dei destituitur et solopolitico hominum commento fundatur is destitute of all authority from Gods Word and onely founded in the politick figment of men out of which the Primacy of the Pope or Antichrist hath sprung and that it is worthily to be condemned because the assembly of the Presbitery penes quem est Iurisdictio et Inspectio tum in Visitationibus tum in Ordinationibus which hath the Jurisdiction and inspection both in Visitations and in Ordinations will performe all these things with greater authority piety and zeale then any Bishop whatsoever Whosecare is for the most partintent not upon God or his function but the World which he especially serves A fatall blow to our Prelates Hierarchie For if Lord Bishops be not Jure Divino and have no foundation in the Word of GOD then the power of Ordination beloÌ„gs not to them Iure Divino as they are Lord Bishops neither can do or ought they to conferre Orders as they are Bishops but onely as they are Ministers And if so as is most certaine then this power of Ordination belongs not at all to Bishops as they are Bishops but onely as they are Ministers and every Minister as hee is a Minister hath as much divine right and authority to give Orders as any Bishop whatsoever the true reason Why anciently among the Papists as Durandus confesseth now too as the Rhemists witnesse and even in our owne English Church among us at this day Ministers ought to joyne with the Bishop in the imposition of hands Neither can our Bishops ordayne any one a Minister unlesse Three or Foure Ministers at least joyne with him in the Ordination and laying on of hands This being an apparent truth I shall hence from the Bishops owne principles prove Presbiters Superior and greater then Bishops in jurisdiction dignity and degree Those say they to whom the power of Ordination belongs by divine right are greater in jurisdiction dignity and degree then those who have not this power and the Ordayner is higher superior in all these then the Ordayned But the power of Ordination belongs Iure Divine onely to Presbyters as Presbyters not to Lord Bishops and to Lord Bishops themselves not as Bishops but Presbyters and Bishops when they ordayne in a lawfull manner doe it onely as Presbiters not as Bishops Therefore Presbiters are superiour to Bishops in jurisdiction order and degree and Bishops themselves farre greater in all these as they are Presbiters an office of Divine invention then as they are Lordly Prelates or Diocesan Bishops a meere humane institution Thus are our great Lord Bishops who vaunt of the weakenes of Puritan principles Whereas their Episcopall are farre more feeble and absurd wounded to death with their owne