weapons and all their domineering swelling authority overthrowne by that very principle foundation on which they have presumed to erect it the ancient proverb being here truly verified Vis consilij expers moleruit sua I shall cloze up this with the words of acute Antonius Sadeel Who after a large proof of Bishops and Presbiters to be both one and the same by Divine institution Windes up all in this manner We conclude therefore seeing that superior Episcopall dignity is to be avowched onely by humane institution tantum esse humani Iuris that it is onely of humane right On the contrary Since it is evident by the expresse testimonies of Scripture that in the Apostles times Bishops were the same with Presbiters Iure Divino potestatem ordinandi non minus Presbiteris quam Episcopis convenire that by Gods law and Divine right the power of Ordination belongs as much to Presbiters as to Bishops Page 51. l. 17. betweene same and since this should have beene inscribed So Alexander Narcissus were both Bishops of Ierusalem at the same time Paulinus and Miletus both Bishops of Antioch together Theodosius and Agapetus were both Bishops of Synada at the same season Valerius and Augustine were both joynt Bishops of Hippotogether by the unanimous consent of the Clergie and people and when as Augustine was loath to be joyned a Bishop with Valerius alleaging it to be contrary to the Custome of the Church to have two Bishops in one City they repyled Non hoc esse inusitatum that this was no unusuallthing confirming this both by example of the African and other forraigne Churches Whereupon hee was satisfied In the Church of Rome wee know there have beene sometimes two sometimes three and once foure Popes and Bishops at one time Some adhering to the one some to the other but all of them conferring Orders making Cardinalls and exercising Papall jurisdiction In the Churches of Constantinople Alexandria Jerusalem Antioch and Affricke during the Arrian Macedonian Novatian heresies and Schisme of the Donatists there were successively two or three Bishops together in them and other Cities the one orthodox the other hereticall and schismaticall Yea the first Councell of Nice Canon 7. admitts the Novation Bishops which conformed themselves to the Church and renounced their Errors to enjoy the title and dignity of a Bishop and to be associated with the Orthodox Bishops if they thought fit And St. Augustine would have the Donatists Bishops where there was a Donatist Bishop and a Catholicke if the Donatists returned unto the unity of the Church that they should be received into the fellowship of the Bishops office with the Catholicke Bishops if the people would suffer it Poterit quippe unusquisque nostrum honoris sibi socio copulato vicissim sedere eminentius c. utroque alterum cum honore mutuo praeveniente Nec novum aliquid est c. As he there defines Therefore this was then reputed no novaltie Platina records of Rhotaris King of the Lombards who declined to the Arians that in all the Cities of his Kingdome hee permitted there should bee two Bishops of equall power the one a Catholicke the other an Arian and that hee placed two such Bishops in every City Danaeus proves out of Epiphanius that anciently in most Cities there were two or three Bishops Nicephorus writes That the Scythians neere Ister have many and great Cities all of them subject to one Bishop But among other people wee know there are Bishops not onely in every City but also in every Village especially among the Arabians in Phrygia and in Cyprus among the Novatians and Montanists Yea no longer since then the Councell of Later an under Innocent the 3d. there were divers Bishops in one Citie and Diocesse where there were divers Nations of divers languages and customes Which though his Councell disallowes where there is no necessity Yet it approves and Permitt where there is a necessity Nay those Canons Constitutions and Decretalls which prohibit that there should be many Bishops in one City or that there should be Bishops in Castles Villages or small Townes and Parishes least the dignity of Bishops should become common and contemptible Manifest that before these Canons and Constitutions there were many Bishops in one City and Diocesse and a Bishop in every little Castle Towne and Countrey Village And to come nearer home the Statute of 26. H. 8. c. 14. ordayneth that there shal be many suffragan Bishops exercising Episcopall jurisdiction in one and the same Diocesse of England with the Statutes of 31. H. 8. c 9. 33. H. 8. c. 31. 34. H. 8. c. 1. which erected divers new Bishopricks in England and divided one Diocesse into many both intimate and prove as much Why then there may not now bee divers Bishops in one City one Church aswell as there was in the Apostles time in the primitive Church and formes ages or as well as there are now divers Archbishops and Bishops in one Kingdome divers Ministers in one Cathedrall and Parish Church I cannot yet conceive unlesse Bishops will now make themselves such absolute Lordly Monarks and Kings as cannot admit of any equalls or corrivalls with them and bee more ambicious proud vayneglorious covetous unsociable then the Bishops in the Apostles and Primitive times whose successors they pretend themselves to bee in words though they disclay me them utterly in their manners lordlines pomp and supercilious deportment which they will not lay downe for the peace and unity of the Church of Christ I shall conclude this with that notable speech of Saint Augustine and those other almost 300. Bishops who were content to lay down their Bishopriks for the peace and unity of the Church Et non perdere sed Deo tutius comendare An vero Redemptor noster de caelis inhumana membra descendit ut membra eius esseâ—â—us et nos ne ipsa eius membra crudeli divisione lanientur de Cathedris descendere formidamus Episcopi propter Christianos populos ordinamur Quod ergo Christianis populis ad Christianam pacem prodest hoc de nostro Episcopatu faciamus Quod sum propter te sum si tibi prodest non sum si tibi obest Si Servi utiles sumus cur Domnini aeternis lucris pro nostris temporalibus sublimitatibus invidemus Episcopalis dignitas fructuosior nobis erit si gregem Christi deposita magis collegerit quam retenta disperserit Fratres mei si Dominum cogitamus locus ille altior specula vinitoris est non fastigium superbientis Sicum nolo retinere Episcopatum meum dispergo gregem Christi quomodo est damnum gregis honor Pastoris Nam qua fronte in futuro seculo promissum a Christo sperabimus honorem si Christianam in hoc seculo noster honor impedit unitatem To which I shall adde as a Corollary a like Speech of that holy devout man S. Bernard
THE VNBISHOPING OF TIMOTHY AND TITVS OR A briefe elaborate Discourse prooving Timothy to be no Bishop much lesse any sole or Diocaesan Bishop of Ephesus nor Titus of Crete and that the power of ordination or imposition of hands belongs Iure Divino to Presbyters as well as to Bishops and not to Bishops onely Wherein all Objections and Pretences to the contrary are fully answered and the pretended superiority of Bishops over other Ministers and Presbyters Iure Divino now much contended for utterly subverted in a most perspicuous maner By a Wellwisher to Gods truth and people Matthew 15. 13. Every plant which my heavenly Father hath not planted shall be rooted out Chrysostom Opus imperfectum in Matth. Hom. 35. Quicunque desideraverit Primatum in terra inveniet in Coelo confusionem ut jam in ter servos Christi non sit de Primatu certamen In the Yeare M.DC.XXXVI To the Reader CHristian Reader what that Oracle of wisedome hath registred Proverb 13. 10. Onely by pride cometh contention was never more really verified in any one particular then in the Prelates whose ambitious windy tumor and overswelling pride as in al former ages so in this hath filled the whole Christian world with warres with civill dissensions and the Church it selfe with endlesse schismes controversies contentions which else would never had existence The pretended primacy of the great Pontificall Bishop of Rome what tumults battles warres treasons rebellions murders martyrdomes hath it ingendred on the one hand what disputes bookes of controversie and paper-battles on the other What innumerable Schismes Treatises which the endoubted parity of Ministers and Bishops Iure Divino had prevented have the Prelates pretended superiority by divine institution over Presbyters and their fellow-Ministers produced in all ages Churches especially in our owne which from the first glimmerings of the Gospell in Iohn Wiclifes dayes till now hath beene more or lesse disquieted with this unhappy controversie which being raked up in the ashes for a space by reason of our Bishops waiving of their divine right which not onely Archbishop Anselme Richardus Armachanus and Bishop Peacocke of old but likewise Bishop Tonstall Bishop Stokesly Bishop Hooper Bishop Iewell Bishop Alley Bishop Pilkington yea Archbishop Whitgift himselfe and Bishop Bridges to omitt all others have since them publikely disclaimed confessing Bishops and Presbyters lure Divino to be allone equall and the same and the Statutes of 37. H. 8. c. 17. 1. Ed. 6. c. 2. 1. 2. Mariaec 8. 1. Eliz ab c. 1. for ever judicially in full Parliament resolved against yet our present ambitious Prelates studying to surmount their predecessors not onely in worldly pompe and power derived from their indulgent Soveraigne but likewise in spirituall Iurisdiction claimed from God himselfe though they have neither time nor care to preach pray or doe him any Episcopall service being wholly taken up with secular offices and affaires and unable to serve God for serving his incompacible enemies MamoÌ„n and the world have lately blowne abroade the coales and resuscitated the violent flames of this contention afresh by a new ambitious claime of all their Episcopall Soveraignity and Iurisdiction Iure Divino even in the High Commission Court it selfe in the late censure of Doctor Bastwicke for a Booke written onely against the Pope and Italian Bishops without any reflection upon them as all men then conceived and therefore wondred at till their magnifying of the Church of Rome as a true Church in that Censure of his and some late licensed Pamphlets their Antichristian and Papall proceedings against Gods truth Ministers Ordinances and the late authorizing of Doctor Pocklingtons Sunday no Sabbath by the Archbishop of Canterburies owne Chaplaine Master Bray which expressly avers that our Arch-bishops and Bishops can and doe lineally derive their Pedigree and Succession from Peter and the Popes of Rome hath since in structed the ignorant people that Popes Italian and English Bishops are in truth all members of the same body whelpesof the same litter branches of the same tree and our present Prelates the Pope of Romes owne lineally discended sonnes so as they could not but be sensible of and highly offended if not actually lashed wounded with their fathers scourge Flagellum Pontificis Episcoporum Latialium being a whip for them as well as for the Italian Prelates Now because in that late Censure of theirs they all founded the divine right of their Episcopall Superintendency and Dominion over their Fellow-Pres byters onely on the examples of Timothy and Titus whom they then new consecrated Diocaesan Bishops over Ephesus and Crete 1608. yearely after their decease though Christ and Paul himselfe had never done it in their life times and on a supposed divine Monopoly of conferring Orders and imposing hands appropriated by God himselfe to Diocaesan Bishops distinct in Iurisdiction power and degree from Ministers and Presbyters I have therefore here for the future quieâ—â—â—ing of this much agitated controversie confined my discourse within the lists of such questions not formerly fully debated by any in the English tongue that I have met with by the discussion whereof I have I suppose so shaken these rotten pillars and undermined these sandy foundations of their high-towring over-swelling Hierarchy as that I have left them no divine prop or groundworke to support it longer so as it must now certainly for any stay is left it in Scripture come tumbling downe headlong to the very ground and me thinkes I heare the fall of it allready sounding in my eares unlesse with speed they wholly quit these false foundations and bottom their Prelacy and Iurisdiction onely on his Majesties Princely favour not Gods or Christs divine institution which because they have so lately judicially disclaimed in open Court and even at this present execute all Acts of Episcopall Iurisdiction by their owne inherent power without any speciall Commission from his Majesty under his greate Seale keeping their Courts visitations and making out all their citations proces excommunications probate of wils Letters of administration c. in their owne names and under their owne Seales as if they were absolute Popes and Monarches contrary to the Statutes of 25. H. 8. c. 19. 26. H. 8. c. 1. 37. H. 8. c. 17. 1. Ed. 6. c. 2. 1. Eliz. c. 1. 8. Eliz. c. 1. their Oath of Supremacy and their High-Commission it selfe which might teach them another lesson as that it confines them to doe all things by his Majesties speciall Commission in his name and under his Seale when they are all there joyned together much more therefore when they are divided in their severall Dioces and because they have blotted out Caesars Image and superscription his Armes and royall Title out of their Courts proces and all ecclesiasticall proceedings and inserted onely their owne in leive thereof that so they may appeare to all the world to be no longer
exempt from Archiepiscopall Episcopall Iurisdiction is united and annexed as a royall prerogative to the Kings Imperiall Crowne and to be executed by none but by Patent under him And that all your Citations processe Excommunications Probates of Wils Commissions of Administration c. ought to be made onely in his Majesties name and sealed with his seale as they were in King Henry the 8. and King Edwards dayes witnesse the Bishops Registers Proces and Probates of wils in their two raignes and now are in your High-Commission that so both the Courts and processe migth be knowen to be his Majesties by leaving his Image stile and superscription ingraven on them and to be derived unto you not by any divine right but by his Princely grace alone who hath as absolute an Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction as any of his royall progenitors enjoyed both by the Lawes of God and of the Realme So they will inforce your Lordships to acknowledge unlesse you will renounce your Alegiance to your most gracious Soveraigne whose meere grace hath advanced you to what you now are that all your Episcopall Iurisdiction whereby you are distinguished from or elevated above any ordinary Presbyters and Ministers is not from any divine Charter or Commission from Christ but onely in by from and under his Majesty and so not Jure Divino as you have thus frequently craked and boasted to the world so as you must either now forthwith renounce your Bishoprikes according to your Protestations or else be guilty of breach of promise unlesse you can proove you enjoy them onely by a divine right and yet onely in by from and under his Majesty which is a contradiction If your Lords to maintaine your divine pretended Episcopall Iurisdiction shall flie to Doctor John Pocklington for ayd who by one of your Domesticke Chaplaines approbation hath verily published in print That you by Gods mercy to our Church are able lineally to set downe your Succession in your Episcopall dignity from S. Peters Chaire at Rome to S. Gregory and from him from our first Archbishop S. Augustine though we had many Archbishops before his comming our English Apostle so the Papists would have him stiled though Bishop lewel Fox and others renounce him downeward to his Giver that now sits in his chaire Primate and Metropolitane of all England I shall then desire your Lordships and this Doctor to proove First that S. Peter was a Bishop by divine Institution Secondly that he was Bishop of Rome of which this Doctor is so impatient that he breakes out unto these passionate words well worthy your Episcopall Censure Whereby their vanity may appeare that upon idle ghesses against all antiquity makes fooles beleeve that S. Peter w as never at Rome mking the Succession of Bishops and truth of the Latine Churches as questionable as the Centurists orders Thirdly Wheter Peter was sole Bishop of Rome or rather Paul also Bishop as well as hee at the same time and that by divine institution whence it will follow that there ought to be how Bishops of Rome and so of Canterbury at the same time not one alone as two severall persons at least to constitute one Bishop Fourthly Whether it will follow from Peters being Bishop of Rome Iure Divino that the Arch-bishops of Canterbury and Yorke most necessarily be Archbishops Iure divino Fifthly Whether if this Doctrine be true this Proposition can be denied that your Lordships being lineally descended from the Church and Popes of Rome are both the true and genuine sonnes and members of these two ghostly Parents If you deny this inference then you must renounce this divine Title to your Prelacies if you subscribe unto it as I presume you dare not then all his Majesties loyall subjects who have in their oath of allegiance and supremacy renounced all forraigne Iurisdiction with the Bishops and Church of Rome abandoned by severall Acts of Parliament must renounce both you and this your Episcopall Iurisdiction to thus claimed which since you can no wayes substantially proove to be Iure Divino I hope you will now lay downe your Bishopriches according to provise or else be thoughâ—never worthy faith or credit more in future time Neither may the seeming strangnes of the thing it selfe deterre you from it this being no new thing for Bishops to resigne and give over their Bishoprikes For not to mention that famous Gregory Nazianzen that great Patriarke of Constantinople or p Hiâ—rax Iohn of Antioch with sundry others in the primitive Church who either out of conscience or for quietnes sake voluntarily renounced or repudiated their Bishoprikes betaking themselves to a more retired private life wherein they might serve God better Nor yet to recite the History of Ammonius who when the Cleargy and people elected him for their Bishop and urged him to take a Bishopricke upon him fled away secretly and cut off his right eare that the deformity of his body might be a Canonicall impediment to his election and being yet deemed meet to be a Bishop by Timothius the Patriarke though his Nose and eares had beene both cut off by reason of his learning and vertues and the people drawning him against his will to accept that office hee replyed that hee would likewise cut off his tounge to which pleased them unlesse they would specdily let him goe Nor yet to remember Euagrius the Philosopher who when he was constrained to accept a Bishopricke by Theophilus Alexandrinus renounced his Ministery rather then hee would accept it such a dangerous and ill office did hee then repute it and many good men else who as Nicephorus records refused aunciently to accept thereof though nothing so dangerous and pernicious an office then as now Or Nicephorus Blemmides who being elected Patriarch of Constantinople absolutely refused to accept it upon any termes Or Werinbaldus unanimously elected Bishop of Spier who could by no meanes be induced to embrace it Or Theophilâ—us Archdeacon of Adaina who being chosen Bishop of that See refused to receive it and being forced both by the Ministers and people to take it against his will relinquished it shortly after though in an idle manner I find it recorded of Arsenius Germanus Paulus Cyprius Iosephus Becus Gregorius Cyprius Athanasius Iohn Ioannes Glicis Antonius Studites Cosmas and Theodosius all Patriarkes of Constantinople as likewise of Gildenutus Bishop of Malden Vlfranius Bishop of Shetne Arnulphus Bishop of Mets Addo-Bishop of Lyons Victerbus Bishop of Ratisbon Herigerus Bishop of Meniz Michael Bishop of Ephesus Adelberus Bishop of Wirtenburg Michael Opites Patriarch of Athens Desiderius Bishop of Flaunders Bruno the third Bishop of Colen Vlrious the second Bishop of Constance Walther Bishop of Augusta Gerhardus Bishof Herbipolis Vlricus Bishop of Rhesia Brincingus Bishop of Hildeshem Conrade the second Bishop of Lubecke Adam Bishop of Morini in Flaunders Christianus the second Bishop of
might charge some that they teach no other Doctrine neither give heed to fables and endlesse genealogies which Minister questions rather then edefying 1 Tim. 1 3 4 and to give attendance to reading to exhortation to doctrine till hee came thither himselfe which was but a short time after 1 Tim. 4 13 14 15. Paul therefore not instituting Timothy any Diocaesan Bishop of Ephesus but onely beseeching which was voluntary not commanding him to abide there till his owne returne from Macedonia both to instruct the people and to further himselfe in his owne Studies not to reside there during life it is an unanswerable argument that he did not constitute him Bishop of Ephesus 〈◊〉 some vainely hence inferre See 1 Tim. 3 14 15. 3. When Timothy was thus desired to abide at Ephesus by Paul hee was ‡ but newly entred into the Ministery as appeares by the 1 Tim. 1 3 c. 3 15 compared with Acts. 16 1 3 9 10 11 12 and by the 1 Tim. 4 6 10 12 13 14. Now it is not probable that Paul would constitute Timothy a Diocaesan Bishop of all Ephesus yea the very first Bishop of that famous See being but a youth so soone as hee had ordained him to be a Minister and before hee knew how to behave himselfe in the house and Church of God which then hee did not 1 Tim. 3 15. 4. Assoone as Paul returned againe from Macedonia to Ephesus hee sent Timothy into Achaja himselfe staying at Ephesus in Asia for a season Acts. 19 22 to 40 and from thence returned into Macedonia and through it into Asia accompanied with Timotheus and others Acts. 20 1 to 7 after which wee never read that Timothy writ came or returned to Ephesus Now if Timothy had beene Bishop of Ephesus it is not probable that Paul upon his returne from Macedonia would have sent him from Ephesus into Macedonia to Corinth Philippi other Churches there as he did Acts 19 22 c. 20 4 5. 1 Cor. 14. 17 2 Cor. 1 19. Phil. 2 19. 1 Thes 3 1 2 6 or that Timothy would have gone from his owne Episcopall See into another Bishops Dioces and never returned to his owne Cure of Ephesus which for ought we read hee never did after his first departure thence contrary to Pauls owne direction to the Bishops of Ephesus Acts. 20 28. 5. Wee read that Paul sent Timothy into Macedonia Acts. 19 22. to preach the Ghospell to the Church of God there that he sent him to the Church of Corinth to bring them in remembrance of his wayes which were in Christ as hee t 〈…〉 ught every-where in every Church and to worke the worke of the Lord 1 Cor. 4 17 c. 16 10 and that hee accordingly preached Iesus Christ the Sonne of God among them 2 Cor. 1 19. That hee likewise sent him to the Church of Thessalonica to establish and comfort◠them concerning their faith 1 Thess 3 1 2 3 4. and after that to Philippi from Rome that hee might know the Sate of the Philippians hee having no man like minded who would so naturally care for their state as Timothy Phil. 2 19 20. But wee never read that Paul sent him to Ephesus either to comfort exhort confirme instruct them or to know their State after his first departure thence which he would questionlesse have done had hee beene their Bishop rather then thus have imployed him to other Churches Timothy therefore was rather Bishop of these Cities and Churches then of Ephesus 6. As Timothy was sent by Paul to the Churches of corinth Philippi and Thessalonica so hee joynes with Paul in his Epistles written to those Churches directed to them in both their names witnesse 2 Cor. 1 1 Phil. 1 1. 1 Thes 1 1 2 Thes 1 1 in which Epistles Paul makes frequent of Timothy witnesse 1 Cor. 4 17 c. 16 10. Phil. 2 19. 1 Thes 3 2 6. Moreover hee joynes with Paul in writings to the Colossians Col. 1 1 and Paul in his Epistle to the Romans c. 16 21 remembers his salutation by name to the Church and Saints of Rome and in his Epistle to the Hebrewes written by Timothy as his Scribe hee makes mention of his delivery out of prison by name Hebr. 13 23. But in the Epistle to the Ephesians written from Rome long after Timothy was supposed to be made Bishop of Ephesus Timothy neither joynes with Paul in the inditement or salutation neither doth Paul so much as once name or mention him throughout that Epistle as he doth in all the other Epistles to the Churches whether hee sent him and in every of his Epistles else to any Church except in his Epistle to the Galathians Timothy therefore doubtlesse was not Bishop of Ephesus at this season else he would have vouchsafed to have joyned with Paul in his Epistle to the Ephesians as well as in his Epistles to other Churches or Paul being his speciall Friend and applauder would have made some honorable mention and commendation of him to the Church of Ephesus his owne peculiar Dioces as some affirme as he doth in his Epistles to most other Churches where he was never Bishop An unanswerable argument in my opinion that Timothy was never Bishop of Ephesus since there is no newes at all either from or of or to or concerning him in Pauls Epistle to the Ephesians of which hee is surmised to be the first sole and genuine Bishop 7. If Timothy were Bishop of Ephesus when Paul writ his first Epistle to him why then did Paul himselfe excommunicate Hymenus and Philetus and deliver them unto Satan and not write to Timothy to excommunicate these Heretickes and play the Bishop in his owne Dioces 〈◊〉 Tim. 1 20. yea why did Paul himselfe no Timothy lay hands upon the Disciples there ordained after such time as he was Bishop there Acts. 19 1 6 7 Was it because Timothy was a negligent or impotent Bishop unwilling or unable to excommunicate Heretickes or ordaine Ministers or in truth because he was no Bishop then and there Not the first of these since Timothy was neither negligent nor impotent in his function therefore the latter he being then no Bishop nor yet exercising his Episcopall Jurisdiction there 8. Had Timothy beene Bishop of Ephesus when Paul wrot his first Epistle to him no doubt Paul when hee sent for the Elders of the Church of Ephesus to Miletus to take his finall fare well of them and made a solemne speech unto them charging them To take heed unto themselves and to the flock over the which the Holy Ghost had made them Bishops to feed the Church of God which he had purchased with his owne blood and Acts. 20 17 to 38 would have made some speciall mention of Timothy and directed his speech more particularly to him by name as being the Prime Bishop of that Church to whom this charge did principally appertaine But Paul in that speech of his makes no particular mention at all of
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
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
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
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