instituted onely at first by severall Councells and Princes are no divine or Apostolicall but onely a humane institution This all the Archbishops Bishops and Clergy of England in their institution of a Christian man dedicated to King Henry the 8. fol. 59. 60. resolve in these tearmes IT IS OVT OF ALL DOVBT that there is no mention made neither in Scripture neither in the writings of any authenticall Doctor or Auctor of the Church being within the time of the Apostles that Christ did ever make or institute any distinction or difference to be in the preeminence of power order or Jurisdiction betweene the Apostles themselves or between the Bishops themselves but that they WERE ALL EQVALL IN POWER AVTHORITY AND IVRISDICTION And that there is now and since the time of the Apostles any such diversity or difference among the Bishops IT WAS DEVISED BY THE ANCIENT FATHERS of the primitive Church for the conservation of good order and unity of the Catholike Church and that either by the consent and authority or else at least BY THE PERMISSION AND SVFFRANCE OF THE PRINCES AND CIVILL POWERS for the time ruling For the sayd Fathers considering the great and infinite multitude of Christian men so largely increased through the world and taking examples of the old Testament thought it expedient to make an order of Degrees to be among Bishops and spirituall governours of the Church and so ordained some to be Patriarkes some to be Metropolitans some to be Archbishops some to be Bishops and to them did limit severally not onely their certaine Diocesse and Provinces wherein they should exercise their power and not exceed the same but also certaine bounds and limits of their Jurisdiction and power c. The same is averred by learned Bishop Hooper in his Exposition upon the 23. Psalme fol. 40. who sayth that Archbishops were first ordained in Constantines time yea Archbishop Whitgift himselfe confesseth as much that Archbishops are neither of divine or Apostolicall but humane institution since the Apostles times And Patricke Adamson Archbishop of S. Andrewes in Scotland in his publike recantation in the Synode of Fiffe in Scotland Anno 1591. professed sincerely ex animo that Bishops and Ministers by Gods word were all equall and the very same That the Hierarchy and superiority of Bishops over other Ministers NVLLO NITITVR VERBI DEI FVNDAMENTO had no foundation at all in the word of God but was a meere humane Institution long after the Apostles times from whence the Antichristian Papacis of the Bishop of Rome hath both its rise and progresse and that for 500. yeares last past it hath beene the cheifest instrument of persecuting and suppressing the truth and Saints of God in all Countries and Kingdomes as all Histories manifest Thus this Archbishop in his Palinody disclaiming not onely Archbishops but ever Diocaesan Bishops to be of divine but onely of humane institution long after the Apostles giving over his Archbishopricke thereupon and living a poore dejected life This being then granted on all hands it is cleare that Titus could not be Bishop of all Creete for then hee should be an Archbishop having divers Bishops under him those Elders which hee placed in every Citty of Creete being no other but Bishops Tit. 1. 7. as all acknowledge and Arch-bishops were not instituted till after the Apostles and Titus dayes For these reasons I conceive that Titus was not Bishop of Creete having no Episcopall or Archiepiscopall See there appointed to him which learned Gersonius Bucerus hath at large manifested to such who will take paines to peruse him Obj. 1. If any object 1. that the Postscript of the Epistle to Titus stiles him Titus ordained the first Bishop of the Church of the Cretians Ergo hee was Bishop or Archbishop of Creete Answ 1. I answer 1. that as this and all other Postscripts are no part of the Scripture or Epistles as Mr. Perkins workes proove at large but an addition of some private person since as is evident by the words themselves in the preterimperfect tense and third person IT WAS WRITTEN TO TITVS c. therefore no convincing authority so this clause ordained the first Bishop of the Church of the Cretians is no part of the Postscript but a late appendix to it not found in any of the Coppies of this Epistle which the Fathers follow in their Commentaries in few or no ancient Greeke Latine or English Coppies and Translations of this Epistle in few or no Testaments or late Commentators And had Titus been Bishop of Creete it is like Paul would have given him this Title in the Epistle where hee stiles him Titus his owne Sonne after the Common faith c. 1. v. 4. as well as in the Postscript which in truth is none of his but some others Perchance Oecumenius his addition the first that mentions it 1050. yeares after Christi since hee speakes of Bishops by name in that Epistle Tit. 1. 7. But of this see more in the answere to the Postscript of Timothy Secondly I answer that this Postscript is directly false for it saith that this Epistle was written from Nicopolls of Macedonia Now it is cleare by the 12. verse of the third chapter of this very Epistle that Paul was not at Nicopolis when hee writ it but at some other place for hee writes thus to Titus when I shall send Artemas unto thee or Tychicus be diligent â—ocome unto me to Nicopolis for THERE not here I have intended to winter Now had Paul then been at Nicopolis hee would have written thus for here not there I have intended to winter there being ever spoken of a place from which we are absent here only of a place present The Postscripâ— therfore being false as Mr. Perkins workes hence conclude can be no part of Canonicall scripture nor Epistle none of Paules penning but a meere ignorant Appendix of some scribe or comentator of after times and so no solid proofe to manifest Titus Bishop or Archbishop of Creete not at Nicopolis when this Epistle was written Obj. 2. If they secondly object that Paul left Titus in Creete to set in order the things that were wanting Tit. 1. 5. Ergo hee was a Bishop Answ 2. I answere that this is a meere inconsequent and I may argue in the like nature Our Archbishops and Bishops especially those who turne Courtiers Counsellers of State and Nonresidents leave their Archdeacons Chauncellers Commissaries Vicars generall and Officialls to visit order correct their Dioces and to set in order those Ceremonies Altars Images and Church ornaments which were well wanting now too much abounding in them Ergo Archdeacons Chauncellers Vicars generall and Officials are Archbishops and Bishops of those Dioces The King sends his Indges Commissioners and under Officers to some Counties or Citties to sett Causes Counties people Armes Forts Citties in good order and to see defects in these supplied Ergo Iudges Commissioners and Officers are Kings Churchwardens ought
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
by the Canons of 1571. and 1603. to sett in order and provide such bookes ornaments and necessaries as are wanting in Parish Churches and see them well repaired Ergo Churchwardens are Bishops For Titus was here left to sett in order the things that were wanting AS PAVL HAD APPOINTED HIM and no other wise Tit. 1. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. hee did all by his direction and authority not his owne There is nothing therefore in this of ordering things that were wanting in the Church of Creete which savours of Episcopall Iurisdiction And I may better argue hence Titus did nothing at all in Creet but by Paules speciall appointment and Cōmission Ergo hee was no Bishop or if a Bishop Ergo Bishops should order nothing in their Bishoprikes nor keepe any visitations but by speciall direction Commission from the Apostles King or State authorizing them Then the Objectors conclude Ergo hee was a Bishop and Bishops Archbishops yea Archdeacons too without any speciall commission from the Apostles King and State may make and institute what orders constitutions Articles and Ceremonies they please as now they doe in their illegall Courts and visitations kept in their owne names without any Patent from the King Obj. 3. If any object in the third place That Titus was lest to ordaine Elders in every Citty in Creete Tit. 1. 5. Ergo hee was a Bishop because none have power to ordaine Elders but Bishops since none ordained Elders in Creete but Titus who was a Bishop Answ 3. I answer first that this is as bad a consequence as the former and a meere circular argumentation For first they will needs proove Titus a Bishop because hee ordained Elders and none but Bishops can ordaine Elders and then next they proove that none but Bishops can ordaine because Titus foresooth was a Bishop and hee onely did ordaine Elders in Creete A meere Circle and Petitio Principij yet this is the Logicke of our great Rabbi Prelates Secondly I answer that this proposition whereon they ground themselves and their Prelacy that none have any right Ture divino to ordaine Elders or Ministers but Bishops and that quatenus Bishops too which they must adde or else their argument is unsound is a notorious falsehood and meere sandy foundation For first not to remember how Moses a Civill Magistrate consecrated Aaron and his sonnes by Gods owne appointement Levit. 8. 5. to 32. Exod. 29. 9. 35. First The Apostles themselves were ordained Apostles and consecrated Ministers by Christ himselfe Matth. 28. 19. 20. Marke 16. 15. 16. Iohn 20. 22. 23. 24. Acts. 1. 4. 5. Rom. 1. 5. 2. Cor. 3. 6. To whom the power of ordination principally appertaines Ephes 4. 11. 12. 1. Cor. 12. 28. Acts. 20. 28. 1. Pet. 1. 4. Secondly The Apostles and Euangelists ordained Elders in every Church Acts. 14. 23. c. 19. 1. 6. 7. c. 7. 6. yet they were properly no Bishops as all learned men acknowledge Thirdly The Disciples inferior to the Apostles and Euangelists as the objectors teach ordained Ministers and Elders too though they were no such Bishops as the objectors mean Acts. 14. 1. 2. 3. c. 9. 10. to 22. Fourthly Presbyters and ordinary Ministers ordainea Elders and Ministers yea Timothy himselfe was made a Minister by the imposition of the handes of the Presbytery 1. Tim. 4. 14. Thus did they in the primitive Church this doe they still in our owne Church as the booke of ordination it selfe confirmed by two Acts of Parliament the 35. Canon and experience witnesse this doe they in all the reformed Churches now which should have no lawfull Ministers and so no true Church if the power of ordination were Jure divino appropriated onely to Bishops and not common with them unto other Ministers Fiftly Patriarkes Metropolitanes Archbishops and Chorall Bishops neither of which are properly Bishops in the objectors sence ordaine Ministers If then all these have ordained Elders and Ministers though no Bishops by sufficient divine Authority as the objectors cannot deny of the 4. first and dare not contradict it in the last then it is most false that the power of ordination Jure divino belongs onely to Bishops as Bishops in the objectors sence for then none of those 5. being not properly such Bishops could lawfully have ordained Ministers or Presbyters as they did and doe Thirdly There is no one syllable in the Scripture to proove that the power of ordination belongs onely to Bishops quatenus Bishops neither is there any one example to warrant it We read of Apostles Euangelists Disciples Presbyters that layd hands on others to ordaine them Ministers but of Bishops I mean distinct from Presbyters we read not a word to this purpose how then can this be true that the power of ordination belongs onely to Bishops quatenus Bishops Jure divino Fourthly We read not a word to this purpose in Scripture of any Bishops distinct from or superior in order degree and dignity to Presbyters if therefore such Bishops themselves be not Jure divino the power of ordination cannot belong to them Jure divino the rather because we read of no man whom the Scripture cals a Bishop ordaining Ministers Admit there were such Bishops Jure divino yet that the power of ordination belongs to them Jure Divino quatenus such Bishops is most false but onely quatenus they are Ministers For it appertained to the Apostles to the Euangelists to Disciples and Presbyters Iure divino though no such Bishops and the objectors will acknowledge that it belongs to Popes Patriarkes Metropolitans and Archbishops though they neither were nor are properly such Bishops and are no divine but meere humane institutions therefore it must appertaine unto them onely as they are Ministers in which respect they all accord and are not differenced one from another not quatenus Bishops for then the Apostles Euangelists Disciples Presbyters Popes Patriarkes Metropolitanes and Arch-bishops being not properly such Bishops could not lawfully ordaine The power therefore of ordination belonging to the Apostles Euangelists Disciples Presbyters and others as well as to Bishops not to Bishops onely or to them as Bishops but as Ministers it being a meere Ministeriall act inferior to preaching administring the Sacrament and baptizing as all acknowledge it can be no good evidence to proove Titus a Bishop Now because this power of ordination which our Prelates would Monopolize unto themselves is the maine pillar whereon they now suspend their Episcopall Jurisdiction over ther Ministers I shall produce some humane authorities to proove the right the power of ordination and imposition of hands to be by Gods Law common to Presbyters as well as to Bishops I shall beginne with Councells The 4. Councell of Carthage Can. 3. about the yeare of our Lord 418. prescribes this forme of ordination of Ministers When a Minister is ordained the Bishop blessing him and holding his hand upon his head all the Presbyters or Ministers likewise that
him to consecrate Aaron with his Sonnes the Tabernacle and Altar and after him King Salomon not the High Preist consecrated the Temple Altar Court and all the furniture of the Temple and Altar So that if these examples proove any thing it is but this That the power of ordination of consecrating Bishops Ministers Churches Altars c. appertaines not to Archbishops Bishops Popes Preistes Ministers but to the cheife temporall Magistrates But admit that Moses were a Preist and an High Preist and that the power of consecrating Preistes Temples Altars appertained to him in that regard yet this is no argument to proove that the right and power of ordination should belong to Bishops onely and that for these three reasons First because the Aaronicall Preisthood was utterly extinct and abolished by Christ as meerely typicall and ceremoniall and so al â—he appurtenances thereunto belonging Secondly Because the High Preist was no Emblem type or resemblance of Bishops which are many changeable mortall but onely of Christ our true High Preist who is but one and remaines an High Preist forever without succession or change So that this allusion prooves the power of ordaining Ministers to belong originally to none but Christ our High Preist cheife Shepheard and Bishop of our soules as the Scripture expresly resolves and ministerially secondarily to every Minister of Christ as his Embassador instrument and Vicegerent Thirdly Because the office and power of the High Preists and Bishops are different distinct yea incompatible one with the other and the maner of ordination of Ministers and Deacons under the Law different from that under the Gospell as the Scriptures and all Authors joyntly witnes the one of them therefore can be no solid or convincing argument to make good the authority Iurisdiction or practise of other So that this Councell and Constitution makes nothing at all against the divine right and Title of Presbyters to ordaine or for the Bishops sole Monopoly of imposition of hands by any divine charter from Christ or the Holy Ghost Finally Neither of these Councells or Constitutions simply debarre Ministers from the imposition of hands on others together with the Bishop which they ever practised and were authorized to doe both by God himselfe and the fourth Councell of Carthage Can. 3. But from laying on hands and ordaining Ministers of themselves alone without the Bishop who cannot ordaine or lay hands on any Ministers by vertue of these constitutions without them Since therfore the Bishop of himselfe alone cannot impose hands on any Minister without their assistance or consent nor they without the Bishops it is apparant that the right of ordination is not wholly and originally vested in the Bishop by any divine or humane right but in both The Councell of Aquisgran or Aken under Ludovicus Pius An. 816. c. 8. out of Isidor Hispalensis De Ecclesiasticis Officiis l. 2. c. 7. determines thus The dispensation of the Mysteries of God are committed to Presbyters as they are to Bishops for they are over the Church of Christ and are consorts with Bishops in the confection of the body and blood of Christ and likewise also in the instruction of the people and in the office of preaching and onely the ordination and Consecration of Clerkes is reserved to the High Preist or Bishop because of his authority lest the discipline of the Church challenged or exercised by many should dissolve concord and engender scandals For Paul the Apostle cals Elders and Preists by the name of Bishops Tit. 1. 5. 7. Acts. 20. 28. Phil. 1. 1. 1. Tim. 3. D. Rabanus Maurus De Instit Clericorum l. 1. c. 6. writes thus That Presbyters allthough they be Preistes yet they have not attained the top or Highest degree of Preisthood because they cannot signe the fore-head with Chrisme nor give the Holy Ghost neither can they ordaine Clerkes in sacred orders which is reserved to Bishops for unity and concords sake The Epistle de 7. Gradibus Ecclesiae in the neinth Tome of Ieromes workes avers in expresse tearmes that the ordination of Clerkes and consecration of Virgins was reserved onely to the High-Preist or Bishop for his greater honor And Tertullian de Baptismo c. 17. writes that the High Preist who is the Bishop hath the right of giving Baptisme after him Presbyters and Deacons yet not without the Bishops authority for the honor of the Church By all which it is evident that Bishops have not the sole executive power of ordination by any divine right or institution of which there is not one syllable either in these or other Councels or Fathers but onely by Canons and humane Constitutions made by Bishops themselves to advance their owne honor power and dignity yet notwithstanding the right of ordination remaines still in Ministers and belongs to Bishops onely as they are Ministers by divine right not as they are Bishops as is evident by the 9. Chapter of the same Councell of Aken taken out of Isidor De Eccles Officiis l. 2. c. 6. where writing of Bishops ordination by imposition of hands and the originall thereof they use this expression which H. Rabanus Maurus likewise hath But that Bishops are ordained by imposition of handes A PRAECESSORIBVS DEI SACERDOTIBVS by the Preistes of God their predecessors is an ancient constitution For the holy Patriarke Isaac laying his handes upon the head of Iacob blessed him and Iacob in like maner gave a benediction to his sonnes c. Where the Councell and Fathers both affirme that even Bishops themselves are ordained by Priestes or Presbyters not Bishops their predecessors therefore the right and power of ordaining Ministers and Bishops too belongs to Presbyters as well as Bishops and to Bishops onely as Presbyters not Bishops and so can no wayes advance them in Iurisdiction order or degree above Ministers The Popish Councell of Trent Sessio 23. De Sacramento ordinis c. 4. determines that Bishops are superior to Presbyters and that they can conferre the Sacrament of Confirmation ordaine Ministers of the Church and doe many other things which those inferior order have no power to doe And Can. 7. De Sacramento Ordinis If any shall say that Bishops are not superior to Preistes or that they have not the power of ordination or confirmation or that this power which they have is common to them with Presbyters or that the orders conferred by them without the consent or calling of the secular power are voyd let him be Anathema Loe here this Councell appropriates the power of ordination onely to Bishops by denying it to be common to them with Ministers and in this regard makes Bishops superior in degree to Ministers yet not by any divine right or institution of which there is not one word but onely by humane and Canonicall as the History of the Councell of Trent and Chemnitius well observe For in the same Session de
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
of such who had Apostolicall authority or of Bishops and not of the bare Presbyters because say they Presbyters to wit according to the practise of their though not of former times could not ordaine a Bishop but onely Apostles or Bishops yet none of them so much as once asffirme that they cannot by the Law of God ordaine Deacons ordinary Ministers or that they ought by Gods Law and divine institution to be ordained onely by Bishops yea Theophilact on that text writes thus Behold a wonderfull thing See how much the imposition SACERDOTALIVM MANVVM of Sacerdotall or Preists hands can doe A cleare demonstration that Preists as well as Bishops and Bishops onely as they are Preists not Bishops have power of laying on hands And Theodoret thus glosseth the text here hee cals those the Presbytery who had attained Apostolicall grace For saith hee divine Scripture hath called those who were honored in Israell Elders The Fathers therefore confessing that Presbyters and Elders might and did in some cases and places ordaine and consecrate Ministers without the Bishop and likewise joyne with the Bishop in all places in the imposition of hands grant that the right of ordination and imposing hands belongeth to them by the word of God as well as to Bishops the rather because this is the constant doctrine of the Fathers that Bishops and Presbyters by Gods Law and institution are both one and the same and so continued till long after the Apostles times Therefore their power of ordination the same with theirs Neither doe the Papists dissent from this Aquinas writes That the imposition of hands belongs onely to those who are the Ministers of Christ which was double one which was made by Deacons the other by Ministers and because hee adds not the third by Bishops hee plainly intimates that the ordination made by Ministers and Bishops is one and the same and that Bishops ordaine onely as Bishops not as Ministers Caâ—etan on that text saith That Paul relates that the imposition of hands S ACERDOTALIS OFFICII is a part of the Sacerdotall or Preists office not the Bishops and Faber in 1. Tim. 4. 14. writes that Presbyters did use to lay their hands on the heads of those who were to be ordained purged or made compleate Ministers powring forth holy prayers I know indeed that Aquinas and other Schoolemen hold that it belongs onely to Bishops to conferre holy orders yet hee and Durandus grant that this is not by vertue of any divine right orinstitution but onely by humane Constitutions and Canons by reason of the more excellent power and Jurisdiction that the Bishop hath over and above Ministers and for order sake yea they both affirme that Presbyters doe and ought to joyne with the Bishop in the imposition of hands in the ordination of Ministers The Rhemists in their annotations on the 1. Tim. 4. 14. confesse that when a Preist is ordained the rest of the Preists and Elders present doe together with the Bishop even at this day among them and have anciently used heretofore to lay hands on those that are to be ordained citing the fourth Councell of Carthage Can. 3. for proofe thereof And the Canonists with some Schoolemen grant that Preists and Ministers by the Popes dispensation and License may without a Bishops concurrents ordaine Deacons and Ministers but a meere Layman or one that is no Minister cannot doe it A cleare proofe that the imposition of hands appertained to Presbyters as well as Bishops and that the power of ordination rests more in the Ministers person then in the Popes grant or License else why might not a Lay man as well as a Minister grant Orders by vertue of the Popes License or why should Ministers joyne with Bishops in the imposition of hands But to passe from these to the reformed Churches beyond the Seas We know that most of them have no Bishops that all their Ministers and Deacons are ordained by the Common election of the people and Magistrates and imposition of the Senate or Colledge of Ministers hands yet none of our Prelates have beene so impudently shamelesse as to deny their ordination and Ministers to be lawfull or their practise to be dissonant from the Scriptures or them to be true Churches What their writers have determined concerning the power of ordination incident to Ministers as well as Bishops and to Bishops onely as Ministers and servants to the Church not Lords these ensuing passages will declare Ioannes Lukawitz in his Confession of the â—aborites against Rokenzana c. 13. of the Sacrament of order writes thus They confesse that the conferring of Orders onely by Bishops and that they have more effectuall authority of his nature then other Ministers is not from any faith or authority of the Scriptures Sed ex consuetudine habetur Ecclesiae but from the Custome of the Church This being the constant doctrine of the Waldenses and Toborites that the power of giving orders and imposing handes belonged to Presbyters as well as Bishops and that Bishops and Ministers by Gods Law where both one and no Bishop greater then any Presbyter in honor or Iurisdiction Melanchton writes That if Bishops and Ordinaries are enemies of the Church or will not give orders yet the Churches retaine their right For wheresoever there is a Church there is a right of administring the Gospell wherefore there is a necessity that the Church should retaine the right of calling electing and ordaining Ministers And this right is a guift given to the Church which no humane authority can take from the Church as Paul witnesseth in the fourth of the Ephesians where hee saith When hee ascended upon High hee gave guifts unto men and hee reckons Doctors and Pastors among the proper guifts of the Church and adds that such are given for the Worke of the Ministery for the edifying of the body of Christ where therefore there is a true Church there must needs be a right of Electing and ordaining Ministers One thing hath made a difference of Bishops and Pastors to wit ordination because it is instituted that one Bishop might ordaine in many Churches but seeing that by Gods Law there are not divers degrees of a Bishop and Pastor it is evident that an ordination made by a Pastorin his Church is ratified by Gods Law Marsilius Patavinus in his Defensoris Pacis pars 2. 〈◊〉 15. 17. affirmes that the power of ordaining Ministers belongs not to Preists and Bishops but to the Magistrates and people where hee is to be a Minister That every Preist by divine authority may conferre all Sacraments and give orders as well as any Bishop and that every Preists hath power to ordaine and promote any beleever that is willing to the Preisthood hee preparing him Ministerially but God simply and immediately impressing the Sacerdotall power or character the originall property of ordaining Ministers being onely in Christ the head of the Church
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
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
lecture no wayes overburthen some to your memories which I shall here read unto you for your good if you please either so to interpret it or come with a sincere conscience for to heare it It may be that in regard of your sacred Episcopall Order you conceit your selves altogether plague-free and as wholly exempt from divine as you now strive to be from temporall Iurisdiction which makes you neither to dread the plague which hath seised upon sundry Kings and laid them in the dust nor as yet any way to endeavour by fasting and prayer to prevent either it or that famine likely to accompanie it But to instruct you how you are still but men and so exposed to all those mortall sicknesses which continually assault the crazy fortresses of our earthly Tabernacles Non obstante your Rochets Miters Crosiers and all other your Episcopall harnesse give me leave in a word or two to acquaint you That Pelagius the second though a Pope and Bishop of Rome notwithstanding his Pontificall Robes Exorcismes Pompe and Charmes was both seised upon and devoured of this impartiall disease Anno Dom. 591. as Platina Onuphrius Anastatius Stella Fasciculus Temporum Balaeus Luitprandius Vitelius and others testify in his life which Plague as Petrus Blesensis Archideacon of Bath records was sent by God as a just Judgement upon the Romans and Italians for giving themselves to drinking feasting DAVNCING sports and Pastimes even on Easter day and other following Holy-dayes after their participation of the blessed Sacrament of Christs body and blood many of them being consâ—med and dying of the plague in the very midst of their sports mirth ales ord posâ—â—mes and on this Pope himselfe for not restraining them from this prophanes A president which should make your Lordships feare and tremble this present Plague beginning here on Easterweeke last as that Plague then did no doubt for the selfesame prophanation of Gods owne day and Sacraments with those abuses sports sinnes pastimes for which they then were plagued which your Lordships have not onely not restrained but countenanced patronized and propagated all you could this Pope going not so farre Cantinus Bishop of Avernium Cato his Successor in the same See Rupertus Bishop of Triers Hermannus Bishop of Verdâ—num Rainold Bishop of Colen Conrade Bishop of Augusta Walricus Bishop of Spiers Ruggerus Bishop of Herbipolis and Sigsridus of the same Eberhardus Bishop of Ratisbon Gerion Bishop of Halberstat all died of the plague In the great Plague that happened in the Emperor Frederike Barbarossa his armie in Italy many Germane Prelates and some German Princes which came with him died of the Pestilence neither their consecration nor their function being any antidote against this disease In the great Councell of Basil Anno 1431. to name no more forraigne examples Lodovicus Patriarke of Aquilcia the Bishops of Ebron Lubecke Constance and others died of the Plague Aencas Silvius himselfe afterwards Pope being there stricken with this disease where of bee lay three dayes together at the point of death all men despairing of his life but yet by Gods helpe escaped If any of your Lordships should thinke these forraigne Presidents proove not that any English Prelates are obnoxious to the selfe-same disease to rectify this mistake I shall present you with some domesticke examples worthy your most serious consideration Ann. Dom. 664 on the 26. day of October Ceadda the second Bishop of London with all the Monkes of his new erected Monasterie at Lestinghen were taken away with the Plague The very next yeare following Anno 665. Tuda the fourth Bishop of Durham died of the Pestilence Anno 1258. Fulco Basset the 45. Bishop of London was smitten to death with the same fatall disease Michael Northbrooke his Successor the 57. Bishop of London Anno 1361. perished of the Plague and the same yeare Reginald Brian Bishop of S. Davids being translated to Ely deceased of the Plague before his translation could be perfected And to cite no more in so plaine a case Anno 1500. Thomas Langhton Bishop of Winchester then Archbishop of Canterbury elect but not enstalled and Thomas Rotheram Archbishop of Yorke were both in the selfe same yeare swept away together with this pestilentiall disease These severall Presidents to omit all others may be a good Memento and Monition to your Lordships being Bishops and Archbishops to put you in minde both of your mortality in generall which most feare you seldome seriously consider off being so over-much taken up with secular imployments not compatible with your spirituall functions that you though Bishops are subject to this disease this stroke of God as well as others as these your Predecessors therfore should now at length after so many weekes delay endeavour to appease Gods wrath and cease this plague begun among us which every day spreads it selfe more and more by publike fasting prayer preaching and humiliation the remedy not onely prescribed in Scripture by God himselfe but likewise by the whole Church and State of England in the two last great plagues both in 1. Iacobi and in the first yeare of our present Soveraignes raigne as the severall Bookes of common prayer and order of fasting then published by these noble Princes speciall commaund yet testifie on record both of these bookes joyntly confessing and bewayling that among other sinnes occasioning these two dreadfull man-eating Pests this was not the least That the SABBATH DAY was not kept holy but prophaned and therfore no wonder that these plagues breake in upon us And may not your Lordships and the whole Kingdome justly feare that this very Sinne of Sabbath-breaking and prophaning Gods owne sacred day by sports WAKES MAYGAMES DAVNCING drunkennesse chambering wantonnesse idlenesse travelling unnecessary labor and the like which drew on these two former plagues upon us hath been one maine cause of this present Pest which beginnes thus freshly to destroy us It being most apparant to our shame and I feare to all our smart that the Lords-day Sabbath for so our owne Homilies ten times stiled it before the Troubles of Frankfort Anno 15â—4 when Doctor Pocklington or Doctor Boundes Booke Anno 1595. when Doctor Heylynfables that the Lords day was first anabaptized a Sabbath day and Christned with this name by some Jewish Godfather to overthrowe the Liturgie and discipline of the Church of England who yet gave it this Title long before these ignorant Doctors dreame both in her Homilies and approoved writers workes hath of late beene more generally publikely audaciously prophaned in most places of the Realme by the fore named Pastimes abuses and disorders then beforethose two sweeping plagues not onely in point of practise which is ill but even in point of Doctrine which is worse many late authorized Histories Treatises and Discourses of the Sabbath not fearing publikely to maintaine the Lawfullnesse of dauncing morrises maygames dedication
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
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
it being a sweet and pleasant gaine as some handle it now before they lay any further Title thereunto even as they are Diocaesan Bishops Seaventhly I must informe our Bishops for their learning that An. 31. H. 8. in the Patent Rolls part 4. King Henry the 8. granted a Patent to all the Archbishops and Bishops of England to endble them to consecrate Churches Chapples and Churchyards by vertue of his speciall Patents and Commissions under his great Seale first obtained without which they could not doe it and that all the Bishops in King Edward the 6. time had speciall clauses in their Letters Patents authorizing them to ordaine and constitute Ministers and Deacons as Bishop Ponets Bishop Scoryes Bishop Coverdales Patents 5. Edw. 6. pars 1. 2. with others in his Raigne testifie at large Neither doe or can our Archbishops or Bps at this day consecrate any Bishop or Arch-bishop unlesse they have the Kings owne Letters Patents authorizing and commaunding them to doe it as the Patents directed to them uponevery Bishops consecration and experience witnesse It seemes therefore that their power to consecrate Churches Chapples Churchyards Ministers and Bishops belongs not to them as they are Bishops and that it is meerly humane not divine since they claime and execute it onely by vertue of the Kings Letters Patents therefore it cannot advance them above Pres byters by any divine right Eightly All accord that in cases of necessity when or where Bishops are wanting or when there are none but Simontacall or Hereticall Bishops who refuse to ordaine such as are Orthodoxe or will not subscribe to their heresies there Presbyters and ordinary Ministers may lawfully conferre orders confirme and doe other Acts which Bishops usually ingrosse to themselves so Ambrose Augustine Richardus Armachanus Wicliffe Thomas Waldensis Feild Ames with others in their forequoted places and generally all divines resolve without dispute Yea that learned Morney Lord of Plessis in his Booke De Ecclesia c. 11. Amesius with sundry others affirme that the people alone in case of necessity where there are no Bishops nor Ministers may lawfully elect and ordaine Ministers as well as baptise and preach both which Papists and Protestants affirme that Laymen may lawfully doe in cases of necessity the right of ordination and election of Ministers being originally in the whole Church and people Ministerially onely in Bishops and Ministers as servants to the Congregation and the imposition of hands no essentiall but a ceremoniall part of ordination which may be sufficiently made without it as Angelus de Clavasio Peter Martyr and others both Papists and Protestants affirme But when Paul left Titus in Crete to set in order the things that were wanting and to ordaine Elders in every City there where present no other Bishops or Elders to ordaine Ministers as is likely but Titus onely for we read of none else but Titus then in Creeâ—e which was then but newly converted to the faith and hee is enjoyned to ordaine Elders in every City which prooves there were none there before for what need then of any yea of many others to be newly ordained and that in every City Titus his example of ordination therefore in this exigent and necessity in a Church then newly planted is no argument to proove him a Diocaesan Bishop since other ordinary Ministers might ordaine in such a case as all acknowledge yea and the people too without either Minister or Bishop to assist them Ninthly I answer that it is most evident that Titus did not ordaine Elders in every City by vertue of any Episcopall inherent Iurisdiction of his owne but as Paules Substitute who appointed him to doe it and prescribed him what maner of persons hee should ordaine Tit. 1. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. This therefore cannot proove Titus to be a Bishop or that the sole right of ordination is appropriated unto Bishops as Bishops but rather the contrary Lastly Admit that the power of ordaining Pres byters belonged only to Bishops Iure Divino yet is no good consequent Ergo they are superior to Presbyters in order and degree Iure Divino since the conferring of orders an act of service of Ministry onely not of Authority and no more then an externall complement or Ceremony is farre inferior to the authority of preaching baptising consecrating and administring the Sacrament which every Minister may doe as well as a Bishop The Bishops and Ministers in the primitive Church had many of them the gift of tongues of prophecy of healing and working miracles which some Bishops then and all now want yet these extraordinary endowments made them not superior in Iurisdiction order or degree to those Bishops who then wanted those gifts or to ours now who take farre more state upon them then those Bishops did Many Bishops there are and have beene that could not at least would not preach though Bellarmine himselfe yea the Councell of Trent and all men acknowledge that it is the cheifest and most honourable part of their Episcopall function as making them Christs Ambassadors Are they then inferior in order dignity power and degree to Bishops yea to Ministers Vicars and poore Curates who are both able and willing to preach That which makes any man superior in order Iurisdiction or dignity to his equall must be an authority superior to that which his equall hath not the accession of any inferior dignity or power The making of an Earle a Knight or Country-Iustice addes nothing to his former honour in point of superiority or precedency If a Bishop be presented to an ordinary benefice prebendary or Deanery as some are and have beene by way of Commendam it accumulates nought to his Episcopall authority being inferior to the power of the Keyes preaching and administring the Sacraments which every enjoyes Iure divino as absolutely as any Archbishop or Bishop can no wayes advaunce Bishops in Iurisdiction or degree above Pres byters and ordinary Ministers no more then the Bishop of Durham his being a Count Palatine with his large temporall jurisdiction farre exceeding that of all our Archbishops and Bishops advaunceth him in order or degree above them all So that this grand objection to proove Titus a Bishop yea a Bishop superior in Jurisdiction order and degree to Ministers is both false and idle Obj. 4. If any object that it is a received maxime in the Schooles that hee which ordaines is greater then hee who is ordained and that the Apostle saith that the lesser is blessed of the greater Therefore Titus and so likewise Bishops who ordaine Ministers in point of Jurisdiction order dignity and degree Answ 1. I answer First that this objection takes that for granted which I formerly refuted and evidenced to be a falsehood to wit that the power of ordination belongs onely to Bishops not to Presbyters and so is build on a false sandy foundation Secondly I answer that this proposition
hee that ordaineth or consecrateth Ministers is greater in Iurisdiction power order or degree then the parties consecrated and ordained is a notorious dotage and untruth broached at first by Epiphanius to confute Aërius his orthodox opinion of the parity of Bishops and Presbyters and since that taken up at second hand by Bellarmine and other Iesuites the Councell of Trent Bishop Downham with other Patriots of the Popes and Prelates Monarchy and last of all like Coleworts twice sodde usurped by all our Prelates in their high Commission at Lambeth in their Censure of Doctor Bastwicke who laid the whole weight and burthen of their Episcopall superiority and precedency over other Ministers upon this rotten counterfeit Pillar unable any wayes to support it as these ensuing demonstrations will evidence at large bejond all contradiction For first of all we know that Cardinals and Bishops at this day as the people and Clergy yea the Emperor heretofore doe elect and consecrate the Pope yet they are not greater in order dignity power or Iurisdiction then the Pope but inferior and hee farre superior to them in all these We read that Metropolitanes Patriarkes Primates and Archbishops are created consecrated and installed by ordinary Bishops as the Arch-bishops of Canterburry and Yorke have oftentimes beene by the Bishops of London Rochester Winchester Salisbury and the like yet are they not greater in dignity power authority place or order then they but subordinate and subject to them whom they thus ordaine in every of these We know by dayly experience that one Bishop consecrates and ordaines another and hee a second and that second a third yet all of them are of equall power and Iurisdiction not different or distinct in order or degree and sometimes the last of the three in respect of his Bishopricke takes precedency of the rest that ordained him as the Bishops of London Durham and Winchester doe here with us and other Bishops the like in forraigne parts So some Ministers joyne with the Bishop in the ordination and laying of hands on others yet one of them is not superior in Iurisdiction order or degree to the other Now were this our Prelates objected Paradoxe true the Cardinals should be greater in order power and degree then the Popes the Bishops then Patriarkes Metropolitanes Primates and Archbishops one Bishop one Minister then another yea there should be so many different degrees among Bishops and Ministers as there are successive subordinate ordinations which is both false and absurd S. Hierom in his Epistle to Evagrius and on Titus 1. with Alcuvinus De Divinis Officiis c. 37. affirme that in the primitive Church Bishops were both Elected and consecrated by Presbyters and the Scripture is expresse that both Paul and Timothy were ordained by the Presbytery Acts 13. 3. 4. 1. Tim. 4. 14. If the Bishops reason then be orthodoxe it followes inevitably that in the Apostles times and the primitive Church Pres byters were superior in Iurisdiction order and Degree to Bishops yea to Paul and Timothy the one an Apostle the other an Euangelist and not Bishops Lords paramount over them as they now pretend and then farewell their Hierarchy which they so much contend for The Archbishop of Canterbury who stood much upon this argument at Doctor Bastwicks Censure both crowned our Soveraigne Lord King Charles and baptised his sonne Prince Charles will hee therefore conclude that hee is greater in power authority place and Iurisdiction then they The Archbishops of Canterbury have usually crowned and baptized the Kings of England and the Archbishops of Rheemes the Kings of France will they therefore inferre Ergo they are greater in power dignity and authority then they as the Popes argue that they are greater then the Emperors because the Bishops of Rome have usually crowned the Emperors Are the Princes Electors in Germany greater then the Emperors or of Poland Bohemia and Sweden greater then their Kings because they elect and create them Emperors and Kings Are the Lord Major of London and Yorke or the Major of other Citties inferior to the Commons or the Lord Chauncellors of our Vniversities of Oxford and Cambridge lesse honorable potent and inferior to the Doctors Procters and Masters of Arts or the heades or Masters of the Colleadges and Halls in them subordinate or lesse worshipfull or eminent then the fellowes because they are elected constituted and created by them to be such Are the Knights Citizens and Burgesses of the Parliament not so good as those freeholders Cittizens and Burgesses who elect them or the Masters of Companies inferior to those that choose them If not as all must grant how is this maxime true that hee who constitutes ordaines or consecrates another is greater then the parties constituted ordained or consecrated and that in Iurisdiction place order and degree Our Popish Preists are not afraid to proclaime that in their consecration of the Sacrament they create their very Creator and make no lesse then Christ himselfe are they therefore greater and higher in order and degree then Christ the great and onely High Preist the * Cheife Shepheard and Bishop of our Soules whose Vicar and Substitute the Pope himselfe doth but claime to be Certainly if this their Popish proposition be true they must needs be one order and degree Higher in point of Preisthood then Christ himselfe who must then lose his titles of High Preist and cheife Shepheard because every Masse-Preist will be paramount him in that hee not onely consecrates but creates him too We read in Scripture that Kings Preists and Prophets were usually annointed and consecrated to be such with oyle was therefore the oyle that consecrated them greater or better then they Are the font and water better then the children baptized in or with them The Diadems better then Kings because they crowne them or the very hands of Bishops and Ministers worthier then Ministers ordained by them If not then are not Bishops greater then the Ministers which they ordaine or consecrate since both are but instruments Servants not prime originall agents Lords or Supreme absolute actors in these severall consecrations and actions If we cast our eyes either upon nature or policy we finde this proposition of our Prelates a meere â—alsehood In nature we â—ee that a man begets a man an horse an horse an asse an asse a dogge a dogge c. equall one to the other in nature quality species and degree the sonne being as much a man as the Father the colt as much an horse as the steed that begott him In Civill or Politique Constitutions wee see the like In our Vniversities Doctors and Professors of Divinity Phisicke Law Musicke create other Doctors of the same Professions equall to themselves and as much Doctors in these arts as they one Doctor in each of these being as much and no more a Doctor then another save onely in point of time or antiquity
but not in respect of the profession or degree of Doctorship it selfe yea every Minister made by any Bishop is as much as truly and fully a Minister as the Bishop as all Protestants and Papists doe acknowledge therefore the same in specie with and equall to a Bishop Our Bishops pretend themselves Spirituall Fathers and they call the Ministers ordained by them Sonnes So Epiphanius long since argues against Aërius As therefore in naturall generations a man begets a man a beast a beast and in Civill respects a Gentleman begets a Gentleman a peasant a peasant c. but not a man a beast a beast a man a Gentleman a peasant nor a peasant a Gentleman So Bishops when they engender naturall children beget them as men not Bishops and their children are as much men as themselves when they spiritually ordaine or engender Ministers they doe it onely as they are Ministers not Bishops and those they thus beget and ordaine are as much Ministers as themselves when they beget and consecrate Bishops they doe it as they are Bishops and those thus begot and consecrated are as much Bishops as themselves Since therefore they ordaine Ministers onely as they are Ministers not as Bishops as is cleare else it were an unnaturall an incongruous yea a monstrous generation to beget one of a different kinde order quality and degree from themselves and as much as if a man should beget a beast an horse or an Asse and since every Minister is as much as compleatly a Minister every way as the Bishop and Ministers who ordaine him how this proposition can be true that the ordainer is higher in Jurisdiction or different Iure divino in order or degree from the ordained I cannot yet perceive neither can our Prelates ever make it good We know there are now divers Ministers living who not only baptized but likewise ordained some of our Bishops to be Ministers and layd hands upon them with the Bishop at the time of their ordination yea every of our Bishops and Archbishops were first ordained Ministers by Ministers before they were made Bishops or Arcbishops And the first Bishops that were ordained in the Church paramount Ministers were ordained Bishops by Ministers as Hierom writes in his Epistle to Evagrius and all since acknowlege out of him Are these Ministers therefore in point of order honor jurisdiction dignity and degree greater then our Archbishops or Bishops If so then the controversie is at end and the truth most apparant that our Ministers are greater and higher in degree then our Bishops and Arch-bishops not our Bishops and Archbishops higher greater then they as they vainely contend If not then the Prelates maxime on which they ground their Hierarchie is most false in that sence in which they urge it and so will yeild no supportation to their Hierarchie Thirdly I answer that this Proposition of theirs is warranted by no Scripture nor backed with any convincing reason drawen from Scripture therefore it prooves nothing either for Titus his Episcopall authority or for Bishops superiority above other Ministers by any divine right or institution As for that text of Hebr. 7. 7. And without all contradiction the lesser is blessed of the greater it is nothing to the putpose First Because it it not spoken concerning ordination or of one Ministers ordaining or blessing another but onely of Melchizedechs blessing of Abraham and Ministers blessing of the people as the words and all Commentators joyntly testifie Secondly Because it is not meant of Ministers who blesse others onely Ministerially instrumentally by way of duty and service as Bishops ordaine Ministers not inherent originall authority for then Ministers should be better and greater then God whom they blesse and praise but of Christ himselfe who by Melchisedech his type blessed Abraham by his owne inherent authority and power as the onely true High-Preist and châ—ife Shepheard of our soules If therefore our Prelates take their maxime in this sence hee that ordaines Ministers to wit originally by his owne inherent primitive authority and power is greater then those who are ordained in Jurisdiction power and degree then the proposition thus interpreted is true and warranted by this text but yet they gaine no advantage by it because no Bishops do or can ordaine Ministers thus but onely God and Christ alone whose Ministers and Servants both the ordainers and ordained are But if thâ—â—meane that they who ordaine Ministers onely instrumentally and Ministerially as servants to Christ his Church and the whole Congregation in whom the originall and primitive right of ordination is onely vested are greater in Iurisdiction order and degree then those who are ordained as they doe and must doe then the proposition is most false and not justified by this Scripture as the premised instances manifest Fourthly Admit this proposition true that those who are to ordaine others are greater in power and authority then the parties to be ordained before their ordination fully executed because they have an office a calling of Ministery which the others want in which sense the proposition may be true yet it is not true that the ordainers are greater in power office and authority then the parties actually ordained after the ordination past and finished because the very end of ordination is to conferre the selfe-fame office of Ministery on the parties ordained which the ordainers themselves have in as large and ample manner as they enjoye it and the parties once ordained are thereby made as compleate 〈◊〉 absolute Ministers every way in respect of their orders and office as any of those who ordained them though they were not so when they came to be ordained This appeares by the examples of Mathias and Paul before they were called and ordained to be Apostles they were inferior to the other Apostles but being once called and ordained Apostles they became equall with the other Apostles in Apostolicall power dignity and degree So that from all these premises I may conclude that this maxime of our Prelates whereon they build their Episcopall Hierarchie in that sence they take it is most false and neither prooves Titus to be a Diocaesan Bishop nor yet Bishops to be superior to other Ministers in dignity power order or degree by divine right and institution as they pretend they are Finally Admit the proposition true yet it prooves but this that Bishops are superior to those Ministers onely which themselves ordaine so that if they ordaine none they are superior to none not to those ordained by others which may be their equals notwithstanding this allegation seing they were not ordained by them this proposition extending onely to the act not to the power of ordination If any extend it further in this sort that they who have power to ordaine Ministers are greater in order Iurisdiction degree and dignity then those who want this power then it will follow that Bishops suspended from ordaining others either for advauncing unworthy Ministers
as well temporall and civill as Ecclesiasticall and all these their offices stiled in Greeke a Bishopricke since every Pastor Watchman Presbyter Minister Rector and Curate who takes care of watcheth feedeth overlooketh instructeth or keepeth the flock and people committed to his charge is even in the Scriptures Language called a Bishop and said to act to doe the office of a Bishop since those who out of charity love or freindship goe to visit others who are either sicke poore Fatherlesse or otherwise distressed and God himselfe when hee comes to punish or shew mercy unto others are in the Greeke and Scripture phrase said to visit and play the Bishops as appeareth by the forecited Scriptures and by Acts. 15. 36. Where Paul said to Barnabas 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which we translate Let us goe againe and visit our Brethren in every City where we have preached the word of the Lord and see how they doe From which text the Rhemists would make Bishops ordinary visitation to be Jure Divino but this was no Lordly Episcopall visitation such as our Bishops now keepe for we read of no visitation Articles oathes fees or presentmens in it neither were Paul and Barnabas Bishops but it was a meere visitation of love as one freind visits another not of Jurisdiction as the last words And see how they doe together with the Councell of Laodicea Can. 57. expound it and verse 14. Symon hath declared how God 〈◊〉 at the first 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 did visit the Gentiles to take out of them a people for his name And Acts. 7. 23. When Moses was full 40. yeares old it came into his heart 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to visit his brethren the children of Israell and since these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is to visit oversee or play the Bishop imply no Lordship Soveraingty Dominion Jurisdiction or Lordly Episcopall authority in them at least no such as our Bishops now claime and exercise but rather an Act of humility charity Service and inferiority to the persons visited as is evident by Mathew 25. 3. 6. 43. Acts. 7. 23. c. 15. 36. Iam. 1. 27. Heb. 2. 6. 1. Pet. 5. 2. 3. 5. It hence unanswerably followes that Bishops Episcopall Lordly visitations are not Iure Divino and that other Ministers are as much Visitors and may visit as well as they that every Presbyter Minister Curate who doth faithfully discharge his duty is as much as truly as properly a Bishop both in the Scriptures language and in Gods account as any Diocaesan Bishop or Prelate whatsoever That those Bishops who merge themselves in pleasures idlenesse or secular affaires and doe not diligently faithfully intirely give themselves to preach Gods word instruct and teach the people visit the Fatherlesse imprisoned sicke poore widdowes and flockes committed to them which few of our Prelates now deine to doe are in truth in Gods in Christs account and in the Scriptures language no Bishops at all what ever they pretend that the word Bishop is not a title of Dominion Soveraingty Jurisdiction Glory Power Preheminency Pompe State Authority and Commaund as our Bishops who now presume to monopolize it to themselves alone though common 〈…〉 God 's word and ancient writers to every Minister pretend but of humility office service labor care circumspection watchfulnesse meeknesse tender-heartednesse charity familiarity and brotherly kindnes which most Prelates have now quite shaken off The Fathers stiling therefore of Timothy Bishop of Ephesus or Titus Bishop of Crete or Bishops will neither proove them to be Diocaesan or sole Bishops of those Churches or that they had a superiority or Iurisdiction as they were Bishops over all other Ministers or Presbyters in those Churches or that Archbishops or Bishops are Iure Divino superior to or different in order or degree from Presbyters who have the selfesame Commission or authority given them by Christ as they and so have equall authority with them and are as much Bishops every way by Gods Law as they even as every High Commissioner of the Quorum is as much an High Commissioner as the Archbishop of Canterbury or Yorke and hath as much authority as an High Commissioner as they since they have all the selfesame Commission which gives no greater power to one of them then the other but the same to both Indeed had Christ given a different Commission to his Apostles and the seaventy Disciples or to Timothy and Titus then to other Elders and Bishops of the Churches of Ephesus and Crete or to Bishops then hee hath given to Presbyters and Ministers there might have beene some ground to have prooved the 12. Apostles Timothy Tytus and Bishops greater in Iurisdiction power authority and degree then the 70. Disciples Presbyters and other Ministers by divine institution But since it is apparant by the Scriptures that the 12. Apostles and 70. Disciples what ever some men have rashly determined to the contrary had but one and the selfe-same commission given unto them by Christ that Timothy Titus Archbishops Bishops and other Prelates have no other no larger Patent Commission or authority granted unto them by Christ then Presbyters and ordinary Ministers as the booke of Ordination manifests where the same words are used the same commission given from God to Ministers at the ordination of every Minister as there is to Bishops at the consecration of any Archbishop or Bishop since they are all joyned together in one and the selfesame divine Charter and all claime by one and the selfesame grant as is evident by Math. 28. 19. 20. Marke 6. 15 16. Iohn 20. 22. 23. Acts. 1. 8. c. 10. 47. c. 20. 17. 28. Col. 4. 17. 1. Tim. 3. 1. to 7. c. 4. 12. 13. c. 5. 17. 18. 20. 21. 22. c. 6. 11. 12. 17. 18. 19. 20. 2. Tim. 2. 14. 15. 16. c. 4. 1. to 16. Tit. 1. 5. to 14. c. 2. 1. to 15. c. 3. 1. 2. 8. 9. 10. 1. Pet. 5. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 2. Pet. 1. 12. 13. 1. Cor. 1. 12. 13. 17. c. 3. 4. 5. to 11. 21. 22. c. 4. 1. 6. 7. 17. c. 9. 16. 17. c. 13. 29. 30. 31. 32. Ephes 4. 11. 12. with other Scriptures it is most apparant and undeniable that by Gods word and institution they are all equall both in point of office power Iurisdiction and authority not one of them greater higher or superior then the other having the selfe-same divine ordination commission office and charge Finally Eusebius records onely that Timothy IS REPORTED to be the First Bishop of Ephesus and Titus of the Churches in Crete So that all the Fathers Authorities who follow Eusebius are grounded onely upon this bare report not upon any certainty therfore not to be granted or relyed on The rather because there have beene anciently in Crete no lesse then 4. Archbishops and 21. Bishops Suffâ—â—aganes now it is very improbable that Paul would
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