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
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
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
Reformatione Can. 7. 8. it enjoynes that according to the ancient Canons when Ministers or Deacons are to be ordained that the Bishop calling to him the Preistes and other prudent men skilfull of the divine Law and exercised in Ecclesiasticall constitutions should diligently enquire and examine before them the stocke person age institution maners doctrine and faith of those that were to be ordained and that those orders should be publikely conferred and celebrated in the Cathedrall Church the Canons of the Church being called to and present at it or if in any other place or Church of the Diocesse Praesenti Clero Loci the Clergy of the place being present Pope Anacletus and the Canon Law having long before that time ordained That Preists and Deacons should be ordained by their owne Bishop Ita ut Cives Alij SACERDOTES assensum praebent So as the Citizens and other Preistes assented thereunto which they usually did and ought to doe as Gratian with others proove at large So that though this Councell and the other Canons and Constitutions debarre Presbyters and Ministers from the act and exercise of ordination which yet they ever use and practise as assistants to the Bishops who can ordaine none but by their assent since they ought to joyne with them in the imposition of hands yet they deprive them not of their inherent right nor yet of the exercise of it as assistants to the Bishop which they have ever used I passe now from these Councels and Constitutions to the Fathers who jumpe in judgment with them It is true that S. Hierome Epiphanius * Isidor Hispalensis Ambrose Augustine Leo and ‡ others affirme that Bishops onely in their time did use to ordaine Ministers and Deacons and that Presbyters might doe all things that Bishops did except the conferring of Orders and some other trifling toyes as consecrating of Altars Churches virgins Chrisme c. not warranted by Gods word yet none of them determine that the right and power of ordination belongs onely to Bishops by divine institution and appointment that Presbyters have no right at all by the word of God to conferre Orders or that they might not doe it in any case but they expresly averre the contrary For as they did joyne with the Bishop in the imposition of hands as appeares by the third Canon of the fourth Councell of Carthage forecited so in S. Ambrose his time in Egypt if the Bishop were absent the Presbyters use to consigne and conferre Orders as this Father testifieth and S. Augustine records That in Alexandria and throughout all Aegypt if the Bishop were wanting the Presbyter did consecrate and give orders Hence Aërius as Epiphanius reports his words reasoned in this maner What is a Bishop to a Presbyter one differs nothing from the other it is one order saith hee one honor and one dignity Imponit manus Episcopus ITA ETIAM PRESBYTER The Bishop imposeth his hands or ordaines Ministers so likewise doth the Presbyter The Bishop baptizeth so also doth the Presbyter The Bishop sitts in a throne so also doth the Presbyter And hee alleadged that the Apostle saith to a Bishop Neglect not the gift that is in thee which thou hast received by the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery Epiphanius there denieth not directly that Presbyters then did use to ordaine but demaunds how it is possible for a Presbyter to ordaine not having imposition of hands in the election of Ministers or to say that hee is equall with a Bishop A false and miserable shift since all Histories Fathers Authors Councels testifie that in that age Presbyters had alwayes their voyces in the Elelection yea their hands in the ordination of Ministers and Deacons S. Hierome in his Commentary on Zeph. c. 2. Tom. 5. p. 218. D. writes exprefly SACERDOTES and that Preists and Presbyters who give baptisme and imprecate the Lords advent to the Eucharist make also the oyle of Chrisme MANVS IMPONVNT impose hands instruct the catechumeny LEVIT AS ET ALIOS CONSTITVVNT SACERDOTES ordaine Levites and other Preists Therefore Presbyters in S. Hieronymus time ordained Ministers Deacons and layd on hands as well as Bishops Yea Anastatius in the life of Pope Pelagius the first recordes that this Pope An. Christi 555. for want of three Bishops to ordaine him was ordained Pope by John Bishop of Perusia and Bonus Bishop of Florence and Andreas Presbyter de Hostia and Andrew Elder or Minister of Hostia which Luitprandius de Vitis Pontificum p. 84. and Albo Floriacensis in his life p. 140. likewise testifie Loe here a Presbyter or ordinary Minister ordaining not onely another Elder but a Bishop yea a Pope and supplying the place of a Bishop the generall Councell of Nice Can. 4. the first Councell of Arelat Can. 21. the second Councell of Carthage Can. 12. the third Councell of Carthage Can. â—9 the Councell of Aphricke Can. 16. the Councell of Rhegium An. 472 the Councell of Arausica Can. 21. the Councell of Chalcedon Act. 13. p. 187. with sundry Popes Decrees ordaining that no man shall be consecrated a Bishop but by three Bishops at least and that a consecration made onely by two Bishops shall be voyd and so this Pope no lawfully ordained Pope rules this Presbyter supplyed the place of a Bishop in his consecration and his Ordination good and valid by the Law of God though invalid and a meere nullity by the Canons An. 1390. about Wicklifs time there arose in England certaine bold Clerkes who affirmed that it was lawfull for them to make new Presbyters and Clerkes and conferre orders like Bishops teaching likewise that they were endued with the same power in Ecclesiasticall affaires as Bishops were whereupon they layd hands on many and ordained divers Ministers who affirmed likewise that they had equall and the selfesame Ecclesiasticall power with Bishops which was the constant Doctrine of Wicklife and the Waldensis which Doctrine of theirs was true but their practise discommended yet the Ministers thus ordained by them their ordination held lawfull by Gods Law yea and their ordination of others in those times in darknesse and persecution when no Wickilvists Lollards or other orthodox professors of the Gospel could be admitted into orders by the Bishops of that age unlesse they would subscribe to their Popish assertions as some of our Prelates now will admit none to receive orders unlesse they will first subscribe to such private positions and Ceremonies as are directly contrary to the established Doctrine and discipline of the Church of England by meanes whereof many godly men are kept from the Ministery And though Chrysostome Primasius Theodoret Ambrose Rabanus Maurus Oecumenius Theophilact Haymo with some others interpret that of the 1. Tim. 4. 14. By the Laying on of the hands of che Presbytery to be meant either of Paul himselfe or of the Senate of the Apostles or
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
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
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
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
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
institute Titus Archbishop or Superintendent generall of all Crete it being so large a circuit having so many Archbishops and Bishops Sees within it and hee so little resident in so often absent from it as I have manifested in the premises From all which I presume I may safely conclude this second question against the common received Errour that Titus was never Bishop or Archbishop of Crete what ever our Prelates and their favourites have written to the contrary And so Timothy being neither a Diocaesan Bishop of Ephesus nor Titus of Creet the pretended Hierarchy of our Prelates Iure divino built onely upon the sandy foundation of these two supposed Bishops Bishoprickes must needs now fall to ruine and they being now lifted up so High aboue their fellow Brethren their fall must certainly proove very great They have long since many of them forsaken God the teaching of his word the chiefe part of their spirituall functions banded themselues against his truth Ministers people and the preaching of his Gospel which they suppresse and put downe in all places yea such is their desperate impiety that whereas in all former times of Plages and Pestilence yea in 1. Iacobi and Caroli there hath beene by publike authority a speciall day of fasting prayer preaching and humiliation appointed every weeke especially in infected places to divert Gods heavy judgements as the chiefe antidote against all Plages and judgements prescribed by God himselfe yet now they are growen such open fighters against God Religion the spirituall the temporall good and safety of the people that to prevent the plague as they pretend but in truth to increase it more and to suppresse preaching piety and religion they begin to put downe all weekeday Lectures and Lords day sermons in the afternoone as if Gods publike ordinances and service the best remedie against were a meanes to increase and spread not stay the plague yea they debarre Ministers from using any prayers at all after their sermons or any other prayer before them then what the 55. Canon prescribes in which there is not a word of prayer against the plague drought famine sword or pestilence By meanes whereof inhibiting Ministers thus to reproove the people for their sinnes which provoke Gods wrath and judgements at this present so to bring them to repentance for them by their preaching or to pray against the plague and other judgements of God which now lie hard upon the Kingdome which these sinnes have occasioned and hindring that publike weekely fasting preaching prayer which God by his judgements now calls for at our hands they have made not onely the Kingdome but themselves especially ripe for ruine And being now for these their atheisticall godles practises their enmity to God his truth his faithfull Ministers and people their Lordlines tyranny pride oppression wordlines prophanes and irreligion fallen under the very execration of God himselfe and the curses of his people who day and night crie for vengeance against them as Gods sworne and most professed open enemies and having no divine foundation prop or pillar now left where with to support their tottering thrones and Miters needs muâ—â— they shortly like that High Preist Ely fall from their high-towring seates backward and so breake their neckes to the ioy of all Gods people whom they now by their persecutions and innovations so much oppresse Even so let all thine enemies perish O Lord but let them that love thee be as the sunne when it goeth forth in his might A POST-SCRIPT OUR famous Martyr Iohn Purvey in King Henry the fourth his raigne delivered this Position touching the preaching of the Gospel That whosoever receiveth or taketh upon him the office of a Preist or of a Bishop and dischargeth not the same by the example of his godly conversation and faithfull preaching of the Gospel is a theife excommunicated of God and of holy Church And further that if the Curates preach not the word of God they shal be damned and if they know not how to preach they ought to resigne their livings as Pope Celestine the fifth Adelbartus the second Bishop of Prague Daniel the 6. and Firthstane the 23. Bishop of Winchester John the 5. and Thurstan the 28. Archbishop of Yorke Thomas Spofford the 56. Bishop of Hareford besides sundry others before-cited resigned their Bishoprickes So that those Prelates which preach not the Gospell of Christ although they could excuse themselves from the doing of any other euill are dead in themselves are Antichrists and Satans transfigured into Angels of light night theives manquellers by daylight and betrayers of Christ his people What then shall wee thinke or judge of many of our present Lordly swaying English Prelates some of which never preached since they were made Bishops others not once in a dozen yeares others but once in a yeare or two that not in their Diocesse to their people where many of them never yet preached but at Court few of them above once a quarter or once a moneth at most Where as S. Ambrose S. Augustine S. Chrysostome Cyrill of Ierusalem with other Bishops heretofore and Bishop Hooper and Bishop Ridley in King Edward the 6. dayes preached once or twice every day of the weeke without faile or intermission Yea what shall wee say of those Bishops who now everywhere put downe Lectures and preaching both on weekedayes and Lordsdayes to suspending silencing excommunicating imprisoning depriving the most powerfull painfull faithfull Godly Ministers in all their Diocesse for no offence either in life or doctrine for no violation of any Ceremonies by Law established but meerely for not subscribing to their late Popish innovations illegall injunctions and commaunds warranted by no Law of God or man the sole pretended cause yet in truth out of their desperate hatred to the sincere frequent powerfull preaching and Preachers of Gods word which seemes to condemne their idle secular Lordly vitious lives and practises to the progresse power and growth of our Religion and salvation of the peoples soules Nay what shall we iudge of that proud insolent Regulus and imperious Prelate Mathew Wren Bishop of Norwich who hath not onely put down many famous worthy preachers and all Lectures throughout his Diocesse both on the weekedayes Lordsday Evenings yea and in the morning too in many places and silenced divers Ministers of cheifest note for not conforming to his strangâ—novell Magisteriall innovations and late visitation Articles printed and published like an absolute Monarch King and Pope in his owne name by his owne authority alone in affront of his Majesties Lawes and ‡ Declarations for which hee hath incurred a Praemunire but likewise very freshly since his late coming to Ipswitch where he hath silenced 7 Preachers and hath no Sermon at all oft times on the Lordsday in his owne Parish Church commaunded the Sexton of one Mr. Scots Church in
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
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
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
Lords flocke for whom hee shed his blood AND NEVER THEIR LABOVR CARE AND DILIGENCE HEREIN untill they had done all that lyeth in them according to their bounden duety to bring all such as were or should be committed to their charge unto that agreement of faith and knowledge of God and to that ripenes and perfectnes of age in Christ which none of them hath yet done that there should be no place left among them neither of errour in Religion or for viciousnes of life and that for the same cause they should and would forsake and sett aside as much as in them lyeth all worldly cares and studies and give themselves WHOLLY to this thing and draw all their cares and studies this way and to this end and that they should and would preach and be faithfull dispensers of Gods Word in their Congregations which charge being layd upon them by the Bishop at their ordination in the name of Christ by the whole Church and State of England and the Booke of Ordination confirmed by three severall Acts of Parliament the 8 Canon and their owne subscriptions to it and they particularly promising in a most solemne maner to performe it to the â—ttermost of their power How any Bishop can by Law suspend them from preaching as long as they continue Ministers and are not actually degraded or deprived of their livings for some just or lawfull cause warranted by an expresse Act of Parliament or how any godly Minister in point of Law or Conscience can give over his preaching or Ministry upon any unjust suspenâ—ion inhibition excommunication or commaund of any Bishop Visitor or Ordinary who cannot countermaund this charge or Booke of Ordination ratified by 3 Acts of Parliaments I cannot conjecture Finally That if Ministers will thus suffer every Bishop at his pleasure without any speciall Commission from his Maiesty vnder the great Seale of England or any just cause in point of Law upon every humor fancy or new minted Article of his owne which by the Statute of 25. H. 8. c. 19. and the 13. Canons resolution yea and his Maiesties too in his Declaration before the 39. Articles hee hath no power to make to suspend excommunicate and put them downe from preaching then it will be in the Bishops power to suppresse and alter Religion at their pleasure without his Maiesties or a Parliaments assent and so all shall hang vpon their wills who have no power at all either by the Lawes of God or the Realme to institute any new rites Ceremonies Articles Canons or Injunctions or to alter or innovate any thing in Religion much lesse to suspend or silence Ministers Wherefore in case our Prelates presently revoke not these their anti-christian illegall suspenâ—ions inhibitions injunctions or other Censures to hinder Ministers from preaching I hope every Godly Minister who hath any care either of his owne soule liberty people any love at all to God or Religion any zeale or courage for the truth or desire of the good either of Church or State taking these considerations into his thoughts and finding the Bishops Jurisdiction and proceedings to have no lawfull warrant either from the Lawes of God or man will readily protest both against their usurped authority and proceedings as meere nullities and vanities and proceed to preach pray and doe his duetie as the Apostles and Martyrs did of old without any feare or discouragement that so Gods judgements Plagues and punishments which the Prelates late practises with the Ministers silence and cowardize and all our sinnes have drawen downe upon us may be asswaged and remooved and wee may ever retaine the Ordinances and Word of God among vs in purity power sincerity and plenty both to our present and future happines I shall close all with this Syllogisme That calling authoritie and jurisdiction which obliterates persecutes suppresseth oppugneth the very Law Gospell and word of God with the frequent powerfull preaching preachers and professors thereof is doubtles not of divine right or institution but Anti-christian and Diabolicall 1. Thess 2. 14. 15. 16. Rom. 2. 13. 10. Iohn 8. 39. to 48. 1. Tim. 3. 1. to 7. Tit. 1. 5. to 10. But this doth the calling authority and jurisdiction of Lord Archbishops and Bishops as the premises and all stories witnes especially our Booke of Martyrs Therefore it is doubtles not of divine right or institution but Anti-christian and Diabolicall If the Minor be not sufficiently evidenced by the Premises by the silencing of many Ministers suppressing of so many Lectures throughout the Realme give me leave to instance but in two fresh examples more The first in Doctor Peirce Bishop of Bath and Wels who in his Visitation in the midst of August last expresly prohibited all Ministers in his Diocesse to preach on the Lords day afternoone threatning some Ministers to suspend them both from their office Benefice if they durst presume to preach any more on the Lords day afternoone without alleadging any Law or Canon which there is none or any danger of bringing or spreading the plague which there is not feared but onely out of his malice to preaching and to deprive poore people of the sprituall food of their soules to affront the Staâ—utes of 5. and 6. E. 6. c. 1. 3. and 1. Eli. c. 2. which require OFTEN PREACHING AND HEARING of the Gospell upon every Sunday and Holy day and prescribe preaching twice a day as well as much as Common-prayer coupling them together in the same words to oppugne the Homily of the right use of the Church p. 3. 4. 5. which prescribes and enforceth the dayly and continuall preaching of Gods word and specially on the Sabbath-dayes from our Saviours and his Apostles owne Precepts and Examples to make all Ministers perjured who at the time of their Ordination make a solemne promise and covenant before God diligently and painefully to instruct their people never to give over preaching c. as the Booke of Ordination and the Church and State of England both in and by it injoyne them and to spite S. Paulâ— himselse who as by the space of three yeares together hee ceased not to warne every one Night and Day therefore hee preached Evenings as well as mornings publikely from howse to howse Acts. 20. 20. 31. So hee chargeth Timothy and in him all Ministers To preach the word instantly in season out of season that is on Lords dayes and weekedayes Morning and Evening yea and at Midnight to if need be in times of prosperity and adversity of health and pestilence when preaching is most seasonable to raise men from their sinnes 2. Tim. 4. 2. which Apostle were hee in this Bishops and some other of his Brethrens Diocesse they would schoole him roundly for such good doctrine and stop his mouth to prevent the great mischeife of often preaching yea 〈◊〉 our Saviour Christ himselfe and his Apostles were now among our Prelates and should preach DAYLY in our temples as they
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
sinne upon him Levit. 19. 17. Prov. 9 8. Eccles 9 5. and so is every Magistrate to doe Nehem. 13. 11. to 31. Psal 141. 5. This therefore is no argument of any Episcopall Jurisdiction the rather because this rebuke was to be publikely in the Church before all not in a private Chamber or Consistory Court as all Expositors accord in which our Bishops pronounce their Censures Obj. 5. The fift argument to proove Timothy a Bishop is the 1 Tim. 5 19. Against an Elder receive not an accusation but before two or three witnesses Hee had power to receive an accusation against Ministers that so hee might correct them therefore hee was a Bishop Answ 1. I answer first that this is a meere Non sequitur For 1. Hee might have this power to receive such accusations as an Euangelist and Paules Coadjutor Secondly As Paules Delegate or Officiall as our Bishops Officialls Vicars and Chauncellors now exercise Episcopall Iurisdiction under them as their substitutes onely not by any inherent Episcopall dignity or authority in themselves Thirdly Hee might doe it by the appointement and mutuall consent of the people who had power in all cases of difference to constitute any man a Iudge though no Bishop 1. Cor. 6 1 to 7. Fourthly Hee might doe it onely as an Elder Elders having power to rule well 1. Tim. 5. 17. and so by consequence to receive accusations and to correct delinquents by reproofes or Ecclesiasticall Censures with the consequent of the Congregation 1 Cor. 5 4 5. 11 12 c. 6 1 to 7. Gal. 6 1. 2. Thessal 3. 14 15. Fifthly I had almost added that hee might have done it as an Ecclesiasticall Commissioner but that I considered that hee was not so much as to receive an accusation against an Elder but under two or three witnesses at least first examined and our Ecclesiasticall Commissioners and Bishops are so farre from this divine Apostolicall precept by which they would proove Timothy and themselves to be Bishops Iure divino that they will pursevante silence suspend imprison Ministers and Elders and put them to selfe accusing one ex officio oathes and upon every jealosie suspition and private accusation of any drunkard rascall or without two or three witnesses or accusers first examined against them and brought face to face A direct proofe that neither they nor their proceedings are Iure divino Answ 2. Secondly I answer that by Elder in this text as many conceive is not meant a Presbyter or Minister but an ancient man as it is taken in the first verse of the chapter so as it prooves not that Timothy had any Ecclesiasticall Jurisdiction over the Elders that were Ministers of Ephesus who ruled that Church v. 17. and â—w 〈…〉 Bishops of it Acts. 20 28. Where Paul enjoynes them to take heed to themselves as having no Superintendent paramount them not giving Timothy any charge to take heed to them Thirdly Admit these Elders were Ministers yet Timothy had no judiciary pâ—wer over them to suspend or correct them since v. 〈◊〉 hee is expresly enjoyned not to rebuke an Elder but intreat him as a Father which is farre from giving him any such Episcopall Iurisdiction over them as our Bishops now exercise and usurpe using godly Ministers and raâ—ing them rather like dogs and scullions then Elders Fourthly The words are not that hee should not excommunicate suspend convent or censure an Elder but that hee should not receive an accusation against him but before two or three witnesses Now to condemne or censure is one thing to receive an accusation another The first not but a Iudge or cheife officer can doe the second every register clerke informer or under officer Yea every private Christian is capable to receive an accusation and every ordinary Minister too against another superior to him in age estate or place either privately to admonish him that is accused of his fault or to reproove him for it or to counsell him how to repent and redresse it or to comfort him if hee be dejected with it or to informe against him to the Magistrate or whole Congregation or to pray to God for his amendement Math. 18. 15. 16. 17. Levit. 19. 7. Gal. 6. 1. 2. Thess 3. 14. 15. 1. Tim. 5. 20. 24. Tit. 1. 10. to 14. 2. Iohan. 10. 11. Iud. 22. 23. which well expound this text Fifthly The true meaninge of this text is this that Timothy and other Christians of what quality soever especially Ministers should not lightly receive or beleeve any ill report cheifly of an Elder or Minister without sufficient testimony of the truth thereof by two of three able witnesses as will plainely appeare by paralelling it with Psal 15. 3. Numb 35. 30. Deut. 17. 6. c. 19. 15. Hebr. 10. 28. and with Math. 18. 15. 16. 17. where our Saviour saith thus Moreover if thy brother shall trespas against thee goe and tell him his fault betweene him and thee alone if hee shall heare thee thou hast gained thy brother But if hee will not heare thee then take with thee two or three more that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established and if hee shall neglect to heare them tell it to the Church and if hee neglect to heare the Church let him be unto thee as an beathen man and publican A perfect Commentary on this text of Paul and a direct censure of our Bishops ex officio oathes and proceedings by the parties owne selfe-accusing oath and answere without or before witnesses produced 6. This text admitt it gives power to Timothy to take accusations against an Elder before two or three witnesses yet it excludes not the other Elders of Ephesus from having like power with him it gives him not any sole power to heare and determine complaints without the other Elders assistance or consent but together with them Math. 18 19. 1 Tim. 5 17. Acts. 20 28. Hence the fourth Councell of Carthage Can. 23. and after it Gratian. Caus 15. Quaest 7. Cap. Nullus Decree That a Bishop should heare no mans cause without the presence of his Clerkes and that the sentence of the Bishop should be void unlesse it were confirmed with the presence of the Clergy yea Gratian in that place prooves out of the Councels of Hispalis Agatha the first Carthage the second and fourth Gregory whose words and Canons hee recites at large that a Minister Presbyter or Deacon cannot be punished or deprived by the Bishop alone but by a Synode or Councell and that the Bishop cannot heare or determine the causes of Cleargymen alone without associating the Elders of the Church or other adjoyning Bishops with him for which cause many ancient Councels denied that there should be two Councels kept in each Province every yeare to heare and determine all Ecclesiasticall causes and controversies This text therefore prooves nothing for Timothies Ecclesiasticall or Episcopall Jurisdiction being written rather for the Churches and Ministers future
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