The Unbishoping of Timothy and Titus

To the Reader.

C Hristian Reader, what that Oracle of wisdom hath registered; Proverb. 13. 10. Only by pride cometh contention; was never more really verified in any one particular, then in the Prelates: whose ambitious windy tumor, and overswelling pride, as in all former ages, so in this, hath filled the whole Christian world with wars, with civil dissensions; and the Church it self, with endless schisms, controversies, contentions, which else would never had existence. The pretended primacy of the great Pontifical Bishop of Rome, what tumults, battles, wars, treasons, rebellions, murders, martyrdoms, hath it engendered on the one hand; what disputes, books of controversy, and paper-battles, on the other? What innumerable Schisms, Treatises (which the endoubted parity of Ministers and Bishops Iure Divino had prevented) have the Prelates pretended superiority by divine institution, over Presbyters and their fellow-Ministers, produced in all ages, Churches, especially in our own, (which from the first glimmerings of the Gospel in John Wiclifes days till now, hath been more or less disquieted with this unhappy controversy?) which being raked up in the ashes for a space, by reason of our Bishops waiving of their divine right, (which not only Archbishop Anselm, Richardus Armachanus, and Bishop Peacock of old, but likewise Bishop Tonstall, Bishop Stokesly, Bishop Hooper, Bishop Jewel, Bishop Alley, Bishop Pilkington, yea Archbishop Whitgift himself, and Bishop Bridges, to omit all others, have since them publicly disclaimed; confessing Bishops and Presbyters, lure Divino to be allone, equal, and the same; and the Statutes of 37. H. 8. c. 17. 1. Ed. 6. c. 2. 1. & 2. Mariaec. 8. & 1. Eliz ab. c. 1. forever judicially in full Parliament resolved against;) yet our present ambitious Prelates studying to surmount their predecessors, not only in worldly pomp and power, derived from their indulgent Sovereign, but likewise in spiritual Jurisdiction, claimed from God himself, (though they have neither time nor care to preach, pray, or do him any Episcopal service, being wholly taken up with secular offices and affairs, and unable to serve God for serving his incompacible enemies, Mamōn, and the world,) have lately blown abroad the coals, and resuscitated the violent flames of this contention afresh, by a new ambitious claim of all their Episcopal Sovereignty and Jurisdiction, Iure Divino, even in the High Commission Court it self, in the late censure of Doctor Bastwicke, for a Book written only against the Pope and Italian Bishops, without any reflection upon them, as all men then conceived, and therefore wondered at, till their magnifying of the Church of Rome as a true Church in that Censure of his, and some late licensed Pamphlets, their Antichristian and Papal proceedings against God's truth, Ministers, Ordinances, and the late authorizing of Doctor Pocklingtons Sunday no Sabbath, by the Archbishop of Canterburies own Chaplain, Master Bray; which expressly avers, that our Arch-bishops and Bishops can and do lineally derive their Pedigree and Succession from Peter and the Popes of Rome; hath since in structed the ignorant people, that Popes Italian and English Bishops, are in truth all members of the same body, whelpesof the same litter, branches of the same tree, and our present Prelates the Pope of Rome's own lineally descended sons, so as they could not but be sensible of, and highly offended, if not actually lashed, wounded with their fathers scourge; Flagellum Pontificis & Episcoporum Latialium, being a whip for them, as well as for the Italian Prelates.

Now because in that late Censure of theirs, they all founded the divine right of their Episcopal Superintendency and Dominion over their Fellow-Pres byters, only on the examples of Timothy and Titus, (whom they then new consecrated Diocesan Bishops over Ephesus and Crete 1608. yearly after their decease, though Christ and Paul himself had never done it in their life times:) and on a supposed divine Monopoly of conferring Orders and imposing hands, appropriated by God himself to Diocesan Bishops, distinct in Jurisdiction, power and degree from Ministers and Presbyters; I have therefore here for the future quie ••• ing of this much agitated controversy, confined my discourse within the lists of such questions, (not formerly fully debated by any in the English tongue, that I have met with) by the discussion whereof I have (I suppose) so shaken these rotten pillars, and undermined these sandy foundations of their high-towering, over-swelling Hierarchy, as that I have left them no divine prop or groundwork to support it longer; so as it must now certainly (for any stay is left it in Scripture) come tumbling down headlong to the very ground, (and me thinks I hear the fall of it already sounding in my ears) unless with speed they wholly quit these false foundations, and bottom their Prelacy and Jurisdiction only on his Majesty's Princely favor, (not God's or Christ's divine institution) which because they have so lately judicially disclaimed in open Court, and even at this present execute all Acts of Episcopal Jurisdiction by their own inherent power, without any special Commission from his Majesty under his great Seal, keeping their Courts, visitations, and making out all their citations, process, excommunications, probate of wills, Letters of administration &c. in their own names and under their own Seals, as if they were absolute Popes and Monarchs, contrary to the Statutes of 25. H. 8. c. 19. 26. H. 8. c. 1. 37. H. 8. c. 17. 1. Ed. 6. c. 2. 1. Eliz. c. 1. 8. Eliz. c. 1. their Oath of Supremacy, and their High-Commission it self, which might teach them another lesson (as that it confines them to do all things by his Majesty's special Commission, in his name and under his Seal, when they are all there joined together, much more therefore when they are divided in their several Dioces;) and because they have blotted out Caesar's Image and superscription, his Arms and royal Title out of their Courts, process and all ecclesiastical proceedings, and inserted only their own in leive thereof, that so they may appear to all the world to be no longer his but theirs, and he (if he should chance to challenge and resume them as his own) might not henceforth own or claim them to be his; they have little reason now to attempt, and his Majesty far less to suffer, and so having neither God nor the King, divine nor human Right to support them, they must (as the proverb is, between two stools the arse goes to the ground) now at last in the midst of their usurped greatness, fall flat upon the ground, and this their fall, q prove very great, because they now of late, are grown so, not being content with the office of a Bishop, but they must be also Kings, temporal Lord's and chief state officers, against Christ's express command and God's own Law, to sway both Church and state at pleasure so they may engross into their sacred hands the sole rule and government of the world, having great possessions; and being great Lord's also as they are Prelates, and yet doing nothing therefore at all in point of preaching, fecding, and instructing the people committed to their spiritual charge, but only playing the part of a Bishop, as a Christmas game-player doth of a King and as a Poppet, which springeth up and down, and crieth Peepe, Peepe, and goeth his way, as Doctor Barns writes wittily of the Bishops of his age. Which swelling greatness 〈◊〉 ambition of theirs as it will make their downfall the greater, so the speedier, being a sure prognosticke of their approaching ruin, as the greatness of any unnatural swelling in the body is of its present ensuing rupture. u Pride ever going before destruction, and a lofty spirit before a fall, and they usually dogging them at the heels; because God himself resisteth the proud, but then most of all when they are at the highest; according to that of the Psalmist, Thou puttest away all the wicked of the earth like dross, which as soon as ever it hath gotten up to the top of the pot, and elevated it self above the 〈◊〉 mettle, is then scummed off and cast away.

Towards which their desired speedy downfall, if these my unworthy labors shall through God's blessing on, and thy prayers for them, contribute any assistance, for the ease, relief or comfort of God's poor people, who are everywhere most wrongfully, without, yea against all Law and reason oppressed, and cast out of their benefices, freeholds, possessions, imprisoned, fined, excommunicated, silenced, suspended, vilified, crushed, and trodden under feet by their intolerable tyranny, might and unbounded extravagant power, I shall neither repent me of the penning, nor thou thyself of the reading of it, wherefore here humbly prostrating it to thy impartial Censure, and commending it to the blessing of that omnipotent God, who to show the infiniteness of his wisdom and power, doth oft times choose the foolish things of the world to confound the wise, the weak things of the world to confound the things that are mighty, and base things of the world, and things that are despised, yea and things that are not, to bring to naught things that are, that no flesh should glory in his presence. I shall take my leave of thee till some further occasion.

A brief Exhortation to the Archbishops and Bishops of England in respect of the present Pestilence.

M Y LORD'S, (for so you style yourselves, and will be intiteled by all men, notwithstanding the Lord's own inhibition to the contrary,) the Prophet Isaiah. c. 26. 9. hath informed me; that when God's Judgments are on the earth, the inhabitants of the world will learn righteousness: and who knows, whither your Lordships, (as properly inhabitants, if not servants and lovers to, of the world, as any of what ever profession, though you should not be so) may not now in this time of Pestilence, when God's Judgments are everywhere so rife among us, learn righteousness as well as others, (if you think not yourselves to wise to learn, to old to be instructed,) if any man will but take the pains to teach you. Hearken therefore, I beseech you, as you tender, either the preservation of your lives in this time of mortality, or the salvation of your souls in the great day of Judgment; or the lives and souls of his Majesty's Subjects, committed to your pastoral charge, to a short lecture, (no ways 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 hear it. It may be that in regard of your sacred Episcopal Order, you conceit yourselves altogether plague-free, and as wholly exempt from divine, as you now strive to be from temporal Jurisdiction; (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 endeavor by fasting and prayer, to prevent either it, or that famine likely to accompany it. But to instruct you, how you are still but men, (and so exposed to all those mortal sicknesses which continually assault the crazy fortresses of our earthly Tabernacles, Non obstante, your Rochets, Miters, Crosiers, and all other your Episcopal harness,) give me leave in a word or two to acquaint you; That Pelagius the second (though a Pope and Bishop of Rome) notwithstanding his Pontifical Robes, Exorcismes, Pomp and Charmes, was both seised upon and devoured of this impartial 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 Judgment upon the Romans and Italians, for giving themselves to drinking, feasting, DAVNCING, sports and Pastimes, even on Easter day, and other following Holy-days, after their participation of the blessed Sacrament of Christ's body and blood, (many of them being cons • med and dying of the plague in the very midst of their sports, mirth, ales ord pos •• mes,) and on this Pope himself for not restraining them from this profanes. A president which should make your Lordships fear and tremble, this present Plague beginning here on Easterweeke last, as that Plague then did; no doubt for the selfsame profanation of God's own day and Sacraments, with those abuses, sports, sins, pastimes for which they then were plagued; which your Lordships, have not only, not restrained, but countenanced, patronized, and propagated all you could, this Pope going not so far, Cantinus Bishop of Avernium, Cato his Successor in the same See, Rupertus Bishop of Triers, Hermannus Bishop of Verd • num, Reynold 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 army 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 Council of Basil. Anno 1431. (to name no more foreign examples) Lodovicus Patriarke of Aquilcia, the Bishops of Ebron, Lubecke, Constance, and others, died of the Plague; Aencas Silvius himself (afterwards Pope) being there stricken with this disease, where of be lay three days together at the point of death, all men despairing of his life, but yet by God's help escaped. If any of your Lordships should think these foreign Presidents prove not, that any English Prelates are obnoxious to the selfsame disease; to rectify this mistake, I shall present you with some domestic examples, worthy your most serious consideration. Ann. Dom. 664▪ on the 26. day of October. Ceadda the second Bishop of London, with all the Monks of his new erected Monastery at Lestinghen, were taken away with the Plague. The very next year 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 fatal disease. Michael Northbrooke his Successor the 57. Bishop of London Anno 1361. perished of the Plague; and the same year, Reginald Brian Bishop of S. David's, being translated to Eli, deceased of the Plague before his translation could be perfected. And to cite no more in so plain a case. Anno 1500. Thomas Langhton Bishop of Winchester, then Archbishop of Canterbury elect but not enstalled, and Thomas Rotheram Archbishop of York, were both in the self same year swept away together with this pestilential disease. These several Presidents, to omit all others, may be a good Memento and Monition to your Lordships (being Bishops and Archbishops) to put you in mind, both of your mortality in general (which most fear you seldom seriously consider off, being so over-much taken up with secular employments, not compatible with your spiritual functions,) & that you though Bishops are subject to this disease, this stroke of God as well as others, as these your Predecessors: & therefore should now at length, after so many weeks delay, endeavor to appease God's wrath and cease this plague begun among us, (which every day spreads it self more and more) by public fasting; prayer, preaching and humiliation the remedy, not only prescribed in Scripture by God himself, but likewise by the whole Church and State of England in the two last great plagues both in 1. Iacobi, and in the first year of our present Sovereigns reign, as the several Books of common prayer and order of fasting, then published by these noble Princes special command, yet testify on record: both of these books jointly confessing and bewailing, that among other sins occasioning these two dreadful maneating Pests, this was not the least; That the SABBATH DAY, was not kept holy, but profaned; and therefore no wonder that these plagues break in upon us. And may not your Lordships and the whole Kingdom justly fear, that this very Sin of Sabbath-breaking, and profaning God's own sacred day by sports, WAKES, MAYGAMES, DAVNCING, drunkenness, chambering, wantonness, idleness, travelling, unnecessary labor and the like, which drew on these two former plagues upon us, hath been one main cause of this present Pest, which begins thus freshly to destroy us? It being most apparent to our shame, (and I fear to all our smart) that the Lordsday Sabbath, (for so our own Homilies ten times styled it before the Troubles of Frankfort, Anno 15 • 4. when Doctor Pocklington, or Doctor Boundes Book Anno 1595. when Doctor Heylynfables; that the Lord's day was first anabaptized a Sabbath day and Christened with this name by some Jewish Godfather, to overthrow the Liturgy and discipline of the Church of England, who yet gave it this Title long before these ignorant Doctors dream, both in her Homilies and approved writers works,) hath of late been more generally, publicly, audaciously profaned in most places of the Realm by the fore named Pastimes, abuses and disorders, then beforethose two sweeping plagues, not only in point of practice, which is ill; but even in point of Doctrine, which is worse; many late authorized Histories, Treatises and Discourses of the Sabbath; not fearing publicly to maintain the Lawfullnesse of dancing, morrises, maygames, dedication Feasts, pastimes, sports and ordinary labor even in God's own day, as the Doctrine of the Church of England; when as acute Master John Sprint, in his proposition for the Christian Sabbath day, printed by license London, 1607. p. 4. (newly reprinted) and learned Doctor John White in his way to the true Church, 5. times printed by Authority (yea set forth and defended by Doctor Francis White now Bishop of Eli,) expressly brand it, not only as a Popish and Heathenish practice▪ but likewise as a point of Popish religion, which directly tends to the maintenance of open sin and liberty of life, and expressly allows most palpable wickedness, directly tending to the desolation of public government and private honesty; being that which hath made the Papists the most notorious Sabbath-breakers that live, Zanchius, and Musculus also branding this very Doctrine of liberty they now teach and the practice of 〈◊〉 , as Popish and all the Bishops, Clergy, King, Lord's, Commons, and Parliament of England in King Henry the S. his reign, condemning it in two several books, as merely Jewish; to check the dotage of those Novell Doctors who defi 〈…〉 the strict sanctification of the Lord's day by abstinence from dancing, sports, and pastimes, Judaizing; when as that they plead for, is truly such. This gross profanation therefore of the Lord's day both in Doctrine and practice, aggravated with the late suspending, silencing, excommunicating, pursevaning, vexing, persecuting, depriving, croushing of many learned, painful, godly conscionable Ministers, both against all the Rules of Canon Law, Common Law, Statute Law, conscience, reason, piety, charity, justice, and the Presidents of all former ages, merely for refusing out of conscience upon their Episcopal Mandates, to have any hand or finger in acting, in proclaiming anything which might animate their people to this pestiferous sin, (punished within these three years with many memorable particular judgments of God, immediately executed from heaven;) hath no doubt so far provoked our most gracious God, that now he can hold off his hands no longer from smiting us, with his dreadful Judgments, which some of us have already felt, and most of us now fear: who questionless will never take off his Pests and Judgments from us, till your Lordships shall take off your most unjust Suspensions and censures from those who have thus suffered in his quarrel, and all of us repented of this our crying sin of profaning God's own sacred day, both in point of Doctrine and practice: An abomination never more rife in any then this our present age, by reason of your Lordships patronizing propagating and defending of it, in such a public, shameless, violent manner, as no former age can ever parallel, to God's dishonor, your own eternal infamy, and the fitting of yourselves, and this whole Kingdom for those public judgments, (not only of a late extraordinary cold winter, and two successive dry summers, which threaten a famine of bread to recompense that Famine of God's word that you have lately caused, to omit all other miseries which we suffer,) but likewise of that plague which is now dispersed: In the pulling down whereof, as your Lordships have had, nodoubt, a deeper hand then others, so you have great cause to fear, you shall feel the irresistable mortiferous stroke thereof, as much, or more then others. The Plague, you well know, is God's own Arrow Psal. 91. 5. who ordaineth his arrows against the Persecutors. Psal. 7. 13. And are not some at least of your Lordships such. It is God's own hand, 2. Sam. 24. 14. 15. Ier. 21. 6. Now God's hand shall find out all his Enemies, his right hand shall find out those that hate him, Psal. 21. 8. And are not many of your Lordships in that number? It is, God's own brandished sword. Psal. 8. 6. And whom doth God wound and slay therewith but the † head of his Enemies, and the hayry scalp of those who go on still in their trespasses? And are not to many of your Lordships such; who even now in the very midst of God's Judgments; proceed on still in your malicious, violent, implacable hatred, enemities and persecutions against God's faithful Ministers, Saints, and the very power of holiness; in your Lordly Pomp, ambition, avarice, pride, envy, arrogance, cruelty, oppression, injustice, luxury, secularity, suppression of preaching, prayer, fasting, Communion of Saints, and what ever savors of piety; and in profaning of God's own sacred day, both in your doctrine & practice; which is seldom worse solemnized, or more profaned as Master Bucer long since observed, Quam in ipsis Episcoporum aulis, then in Bishops own Palaces, where neither Lord, nor Chaplain, nor servant, make any great conscience of profaning it sundry ways, to give the better example of piety and holiness unto others. How then (being heavy laden with these many sins, and having the prayers, the cries, the clamours, the tears, the sighs and groans of all God's people against you, if not of the whole Kingdom to, the daily imprecations of many distressed Ministers, people, whom you have most injuriously and inhumanely handled without any lawful cause,) can you but fear God's vengeance and expect his plagues, to sweep such Clods of sin and mischief, such Pests and Prodigies as you are, clean away? Be wise now therefore O ye Kings, (for such are you now become by giving absolute Laws, and prescribing what Ceremonies, Articles, Rites, Oaths and Novelties you please, even in your own names and rights alone, unto his Majesty's people, and executing all Lordly, Kingly Sovereignty and Dominion over men's bodies, and estates as well as souls, contrary to your Savior's express Inhibition. Math. 20. 25. 26.) be learned O ye Judges of the earth: (for such are you now in many temporal Courts, and would be gladly such in more, in steed of being preaching Bishops in our Pulpits and Pastors of men's souls: Serve the Lord in fear (for that is in truth your duty, not to be Lord's yourselves, or reverenced and served with fear as Lord's are wont to be:) and rejoice unto him (not with Organes, Choristers, Pipes, and Daunces, but) with trembling kiss the son (whom you have hitherto buffeted persecuted in his faithful Ministers and Servants) least he be angry, and ye perish in the way, even now when his wrath is kinded but a little, and his plagues but newly kinded; least if ye refuse to turn from all your former sins and wickednesses, he begin at last to bruise you with this his rod of Iron, and dash you in pieces like a Potters vessel, and there be none to deliver you from this his raging fury. Remember I beseech you that of the Prophet Nahum God is jealous, and the Lord revengeth, the Lord revengeth, and is furious; the Lord will take vengeance on his adversaries, and he reserveth wrath for his enemies. And though he hath a long time suffered you with much patience (as he doth other vessels of wrath fitted to destruction,) to spoil, oppress and deal treacherously with his people; yet consider now, that the times are drawing near wherein you may be recompensed with the like usage; as the Prophet Isai threatens. † Woe to thee that spoilest and thou that wast not spoiled, and dealest treacherouslly and they dealt not treacherously with thee: when thou shalt cease to spoil, thou shalt be spoiled, and when thou shalt make an end to deal treacherously, they shall deal treacherously with thee. Wherefore my Lord's break of your sins and sinnfull proceedings by sincere and timely repentance, and of Lions, Bears, Wolves, Thieves, and Robbers, (which many Bishops have degenerated into) become Lambes and Shepherds to God's people; and now at last, as the Elect of God, holy and beloved, put on bowels of mercies, kindness, humbleness of mind, meekness, long suffering, forbearing and forgiving all those against whom you have any quarrel, even as Christ forgave you so also do ye. And above all things, put on Charity, which is the bond of perfectness, and lett the peace of God rule in your hearts, to which you are also called in one body; and let the word of God dwell richly in you, in all wisdom &c. And if you will divert this Pest either from yourselves or others; then presently † begin to turn to the Lord with all your hearts, with fasting, weeping, and with mourning, sanctify a fast call a solemn assembly gather the Elders, &c. (and not by proxy but in proper person, if ever you will either be reputed the Priests or Ministers of the Lord,) weep between Porch and the Altar, and say Spare thy people O Lord &c. give not thine heritage to reproach. Alas for the day of the Lord is at hand, and as a destruction from the Almighty shall it come, and who shall escape it? And that your fast may be acceptable, beware that it be not a fast for strife and debate, to smite with the fist of wickedness, or to make your voice to be heard on high, bewareleast it be only a hanging down of your heads, like a bulrish and aff licting of your souls only for a day. But let it be that true fast, which God hath chosen, to loose the bands of wickedness, to let the oppressed go free, to undo the heavy burdens (which you have lately laid on Ministers and people) and to break of every yoke, (wherewith you like Lordly † Barons have clogged the Consciences (yea and bodies) of God's servants, and brought them into a miserable bondage and captivity under you, as if they were your vassals, not Brethren:) to break your bread to the hungry, to bring the poor that are cast out, (yea the poor Ministers and Christians you have most unchristianly cast out of their livings, houses and God's house it self, thrown into your nasty prisons, where they must still be detained, when others are set free) to your houses, (yea to their own houses, livings and God's house again,) to clothe the naked, to draw out your soul to the hungry, to satisfy the afflicted soul; to turn away your feet from the Sabbath from doing your pleasure on God's holy day to call the Sabbath a delight, the holy of the Lord honorable, to honor God alone therein, not doing your own ways, not finding your own pleasure, nor speaking your own words. If thus you now fast and do, peradventure you may be spared in this day of the Lord's great wrath, and God will make our health to spring forth speedily. But if you forbear to do it, and proceed on as you have done, be sure that God will visit you for these things, and that his soul shall be avenged on such a Nation as you are. He will no doubt bring evil upon you, and you shall not be able to escape, in this year both of yours and his visitation: in which as you have most strangely visited others, thrusting many of God's best and painefullest Ministers from their Ministry in sundry places, upon mere new fancies and Articles of your own, against Law and justice; so God the supreme Visitor, will in his justice visit you, in one kind or other, with his most righteous judgments, & cut you off with his plagues, as he hath done your forecited predecessors. This you have cause to fear, and seriously to expect, unless you forthwith become New-Creatures: Loe I have in few words admonished you; If you amend, there may be hope of mercy, if you continue, what ye are, contemn alla dmonitions, striving still as you have done, against God, his truth and people, you shall be ashamed, confounded and perish, you shall become as nothing and as a thing of naught, For God hath spoken it and he will make it good. The transgressors shall be destroyed together, the end of the wicked shall be cut off. For yet a little while, and the wicked shall not be, thou shalt diligently consider their place, and it shall not be found. Consider what I have written, and the Lord give you understanding in all things.

Whether Timothy were ever a Diocesan Bishop, or first, or sole Bishop of Ephesus?

QUESTION. I.

I F the multitude, or common received opinion might take place, or our Prelates be the Judges of this Controversy, they would presently conclude affirmatively without dispute; that Timothy was a Diocesan Bishop; yea, the first and sole Bishop of the Ephesians. But if the Scripture, or verity may be umpire, it will evidently appear, first, that Timothy was no Bishop (I mean no such Bishop as Iure divino or humano, is different from an ordinary Presbyter in dignity and degree) much less Bishop, or first or sole Bishop of Ephesus, as is generally conceived; which I shall clearly evidence by these ensuing Scriptures and reasons.

That Timothy was no Bishop in this sense, is apparent.

1. First, because S. Paul and Luke, who were best acquainted with him, and make frequent mention of him, never style him a Bishop, neither is he termed a Bishop in any text of Scripture. S. Paul in his Epistles to him, calls him, his own Son in the faith: 1. Tim. 1. 2. A good MINISTER (not a Bishop) of Jesus▪ Christ▪ 1. Tim. 4. 6. His dearly beloved Son. 2. Tim. 1. 2. A good Soldier of Jesus Christ. 2. Tim. 2▪ 3. A 〈…〉 in that needed not to be ashamed▪ rightly dividing the word of God, 2. Tim. 2. 11▪ In his other Epistles, he terms him▪ 〈1 line〉 1. Thes. 3. 2. 〈1 line〉 Rom. 16. 21. His Brother and beloved Son. 1. Cor. 4. 17. 2. Cor. 1. 19. Col. 1. 1. A workman of the Lord, 1. Cor. 16, 10. A servant of Jesus Christ, Phil. 1, 1. but never a Bishop. S. Luke terms him Paul's Companion, Minister, attendant, and fellow-worker only, Acts 16, 1, 2, 3, c. 17, 14, 15, c. 18, 5, c. 19, 22, c. 20, 4. never so much as intimating him to be a Bishop. The Scripture therefore never phrasing him a Bishop, nor giving him that Title, among all his other Epithites; is an infallible argument, that he was in truth no Bishop, but rather an Evangelist, as he is expressly styled, 2. Tim. 4, 5. Do the work of an Evangelist.

2. Secondly, Because he was S. Paul's Associate, Copartner, Brother and fellow-helper in his Apostolical function, whence he often stiles him, his Brother, his fellow-worker; and conjoins him with him in the Prologue▪ the inscription of most of his Epistles, which are written in both their names, witness▪ 2. Cor. 1, 1, c. 4, 17. 2. Cor. 1, 1, 19. Col. 1, 1, 1. Thes. 1, 1, c. 3, 2. 2. Thes. 1, 1. Phil. 1, 1, c. 2, 19. Rom. 16, 21. Heb. 13, 23. Timothy therefore being a Copartner with S. Paul in his Apostle-ship, or Apostolical function, superior in degree to the Episcopal office, (as is apparent by Ephes. 4. 11. 1. Cor. 12. 18. and the general consent of all men,) it is not probable that he would devest himself of his Apostolical Jurisdiction, to become an inferior Bishop, or relinquish a Superior to take up an inferior degree. Who ever saw of late any Archbishop or Bishop to deny himself of his Archiepiscopall or Episcopal preeminency, to be made a poor Country Vicar or Curate? And can we then conjecture, that Timothy would relinquish his Apostleship for an Ephesian Bishop-prick; or else, hold it by way of Commendam with his Apostleship? (Commendams being not of such antiquity, and a mere late Popish innovation) or descend from an Evangelist-ship to a Bishop-ricke?

3. Thirdly, because Timothy was ever either accompanying S. Paul in his Travels or bonds, as his fellow-helper, minister, and assistant; or else, sent by him from one Church to another, as his Messenger, Delegate, or College, to establish comfort, and instruct them; being never long resident in any one fixed place, or Church, as all Bishops were. We read Acts 16, 1, usque 12. That Timothy came first of all to Paul when he was at Derbe and Listra; Paul then taking him to go forth with him; and that they went both together through the Churches of Phrygia, Galatia, Asia, Mysia, and at last came to Philippy where he abode with Paul; and from thence wrote the first Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians, as the Postscript manifests. In which Epistle he writes thus unto them: 1, Cor. 16, 10. Now if Timothy come, see that he may be with you without fear; for he worketh the work of the Lord as I also do. And c. 4, 17. For this cause have I sent unto you Timothy, who is my beloved Son and faithful in the Lord, who shall bring you into remembrance of my ways which be in Christ, as I teach everywhere in every Church. By which it is apparent, that Timothy was sent by Paul from Philippi to Corinth (after this Epistle) to instruct them; Where he continuing a while, repaired again to Paul to Philippi; and there joins with Paul in the second Epistle to the Corinthians, written in both their names; 2. Cor. 1. 1. informing them in the 19. verse: That the Son of God Jesus Christ, who was preached among them by us, even by me, Sylvanus and Timothy, was not yea and nay, but in him was yea. By which it is evident, that Timothy had before this second Epistle written, preached Jesus Christ among the Corinthians by Paul's appointment. After which, Paul removing from Philippy, Timothy accompanied him to Thessalonica and B 〈…〉 a, where he abode, till Paul came to Athens; from whence he sent a command to Timothy to Berea, to come to him with all speed to Athens, where he stayed for him: Acts. 17, 13, 14, 15, 16. Which he did accordingly: joining with Paul in the first and second Epistle to the Thessalonians, written from Athens, in both their names. 1. Thess. 1. 1. 2. Thes. 1. 1. yea whiles Paul stayed at Athens, he sent Timothy from thence to the Thessalonians, to establish and comfort them concerning their faith; that they should not be moved by their afflictions, where he continuing for a space, came from them again to Paul to Athens, bringing him good tidings of their faith and charity: 1. Thes. 3, 1. to 7. After this, he remooveth with Paul to Corinth, from thence being sent into Macedonia he came again to Paul unto Corinth. Acts. 18, 5, from whence Paul writing his Epistle to the Romans, remembers the salutation of Timothy his Work-fellow to the Romans, among others: Rom. 16, 11. After this Paul removing to Ephesus, sent Timothy & Erastus (two of them who there ministered unto him) into Macedonia; himself staying in Asia for a season▪ Acts. 19, 20. From whence Paul afterwards passed into Macedonia & Grece, & then returning into Asia, Timothy & others accompanied him; and going before tarried for him at Troas, Acts 20, 4, 5. Whether Paul sent for the Elders and Bishops of the Church of Ephesus, giving them a strict and severe charge, to take heed to themselves, and to all the flock over which the holy Ghost had made them Bishops, to feed the Church of God which he had purchased with his own blood: v. 17. 28. &c. A task fitter for Timothy to enjoin them, had he been their Diocesan, then Paul; and a charge more meet for Timothy to receive, then they; had he then been Bishop of the See of Ephesus: who being so near Ephesus, should have accompanied these Elders of his Church to Ephesus, when Paul dismissed them, rather then have left his flock at random after so strict a charge to feed them. But yet though the Elders went back to their Cures from Miletus, Timothy did not so, for from thence he accompanied Paul to Jerusalem, Acts. 21, 15, 16, 17. and from thence to Rome. For the Epistle to the Colossians written from Rome, is penned in both their names, Col. 1, 1. and the Epistle to the Hebrewees, as the Postscript testifieth▪ was written to the Hebrews from Italy, by Timothy; where Timothy was for a while imprisoned, and then set at liberty, Heb. 13. 23. After which Paul writes his Epistle to the Philipptans from Rome, where he was in bonds; at which time Timothy was present with him joining in this Epistle: Philip. 1. 1. informing the Philippians, that he trusted to send Timothy shortly unto them, that he also might be of good comfort, when he should know their estate, Philip▪ 2, 19. whether Timothy being sent by him, as is most probable, Paul wrote his second Epistle to him, at his second appearing before Nero, charging him to do his diligence to come shortly to him before winter, 2. Tim. 4, 9, 21. he being then not at Ephesus, but at Troas or Philippi; as is apparent by 2. Tim. 4, 12, 13. and Philip. 2, 19. Timothy therefore thus ever accompanying Paul in his Travels and Bonds, and traveling from one Church to another by his appointment and mission, never keeping any fixed residence in any one place, much less at Ephesus, could not be Bishop or Presbyter of any particular Church; the Apostles instituting no non-resident Bishops or Elders, but such only as were to reside with those flocks, over which the Holy Ghost had made them Bishops, or Overseers, to watch over and feed them with the bread of life, and to go in and out before them both in life and doctrine. 14. Acts. 23, c. 20, 28, 29, c. 21, 17, 18. 1. Pet. 5, 1, 2, 3. Col. 4, 17. Rom. 12, 6, 7, 8. 1, Tim. 5, 17. 2, Tim. 4. 3. Tit. 1, 5, 6, 7, 8. John. 10, 3, 4, 5, 14, 16, 27, 28. Ezekiel. 34, 2. to 25. Ier. 23, 3, 4. c. 3, 15. Isaiah. 56, 10, 11, c. 40, 11. Zech. 11, 17.

4. Fourthly, Because Paul, who best knew Timothies condition, expressly terms him, A Minister of God (not a Bishop) 1. Thes. 3, 2. informing him, that if he did put the Brethren in mind of these things he enjoins him, he should show himself a good Minister (not a Bishop) of Jesus Christ, 1, Tim. 4▪ 6. Therefore certainly he was no Bishop, but a Minister, when this Epistle was written to him, unless it be granted, that every Minister is a Bishop, as S. Paul doth phrase them. Acts. 20, 28. Tit. 1, 5, 7. Which the Opposites dare not grant, though an undoubted truth: Phil. 1, 1. 1, Tim. 3, 1, 2, 3.

5. Because when Paul wrote his first Epistle to Timothy, he was then very young in years, 1. Tim. 4, 12. and but newly entered into the Ministry: whence he charged him, to give attendance to reading, to exhortation, to doctrine, to meditate upon these things, and to give himself wholly to them, that his profiting might appear unto all men. 1. Tim. 4, 13, 15. Instructing him in that Epistle, how and what to preach, and how to demean himself in his Ministry, into which he was then but freshly entered, as most Expositors on this Epistle accord; and the 1. Tim. 1, 3. compared with Acts. 16, 1, 2, 3, 4, 9, 10. c. 18, 19, 20, 21. c. 20. 1. to 13. clearly demonstrate. Timothy therefore being but young in years, and newly entered into the Ministry, when this first Epistle was written to him, was questionless not instituted sole Bishop of Ephefus, by Paul; who in his very Epistle to him 1. Tim. 3, 6. among other qualifications of a Bishop enumerates this, That he must not be a Novice (as Timothy then was) least being lifted up with pride, he should fall into the condemnation of the Devil: and so should have contradicted his own instructions to Timothy, that a Bishop must be no Novice, in creating him a Bishop; (which questionless he would not do) being but then a Novice.

6. Becaufe Paul in the 1. Tim. 5, 1. chargeth Timothy, Not to rebuke an Elder, but to entreat him as a Father. If Timothy then were not to reprove them as a Father over them, but to entreat Elders, as his Fathers, he was certainly no Lord Bishop or Superintendent over Elders, but they rather Superiors unto him, being to entreat them only as spiritual Fathers; whereas Lord Bishops and their Chauncellours too, in our days, esteem the very best and gravest Ministers under them, not as Fathers, but as underlings, vicars, and Curates to them; not entreating them as Fathers, but rating, reviling, and domineering over them as if they were their Curs and vasalls, and they their Lord's and Masters.

7. Because Timothy was to account those Elders that ruled well, especially those who labored in the word and Doctrine, worthy of double honor. 1, Tim. 5, 17. He therefore being to render double honor to those Elders that ruled well and labored in the word and doctrine; and not to receive double honor from them; could be no Bishop, Father, or Lord paramount over them. Mal. 1, 6. Math. 15, 4. Rom. 13, 7. 1, Tim. 6, 1. Honor ever coming for the most part, from the inferior to the superior.

8. Because Paul exhorts Timothy, not to neglect the gift that was in him, which was given him by prophecy with the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery, 1, Tim. 4, 14. Now that gift which was given him by the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery, was not his Episcopal function, (unless the opposites grant, that he was consecrated Bishop of Ephesus by the Presbyters of Ephesus:) but his Ministerial only: being therefore exhorted to exercise his Ministerial function only, and to show himself a good Minister of Jesus Christ, 1, Tim. 4, 6, 14, not to exercise any Episcopal authority; he was questionless then no Bishop, but a Minister when this Epistle was compi • ed.

9. Because though Timothy, in the Postscript of the second Epistle to him, be falsely styled, the first Bishop of the Ephesians, as I shall hereafter manifest, yet in the body and Postscript of the first Epistle, he is named Timothy only, without any mention of his Ephesian Bishopric; he was therefore no Bishop either of Ephesus or any other place, when Paul sent his first Epistle to him; for otherwise he would have been styled, the first Bishop of Ephesus in the Postscript of the first Epistle, as well as of the second, as is probable.

10. It would not stand with the Pomp and State of Bishop, (especially in our days) to be commanded and posted up and down, from place to place, in such manner as Timothy was by Paul, 1, Cor. 4, 7. Acts. 17, 14, 15. 1, Thess. 1, 3, 1, to 7. Acts. 19, 22, Phil. 3, 19. 2, Tim. 4, 9, 21, much less, to Minister, to Paul, as Timothy did, Acts. 19, 22, but least of all, to carry Paul's Cloake, his Books, and Parchments after him, which Timothy is enjoined to bring from Troas to Rome, 2, Tim. 4, 13. An office which our proud Prelates would scorn to execute, though Paul himself should command them, as being incompatible with their Episcopal dignity: Timothy therefore being so much at Paul's beck, as to be his Messenger, his Minister, his cloak carrier, and book-bearer (even when some say he was the great Monarchical Prelate of all Ephesus and Asia) was certainly no Bishop, at leastwise no such Lordly Bishop as those of this age are.

2. Secondly. As all these several reasons evidence Timothy to be no Bishop, so in the next place, I shall manifest him to be no Bishop at all of Ephesus, at leastwise not the first, or sole Diocesan Bishop of that Citty, and so by consequence, no Bishop at all, if not of Ephesus; since no other Bishopric is assigned to him. The infallible verity whereof I shall thus demonstrate.

1. First, there is not one syllable in Scripture (wherein the Titles and actions of Timothy are frequently mentioned) which either directly, or by way of necessary consequence, imply Timothy, to be either a Bishop, or Bishop of Ephesus; which Paul in his Epistles to Ephesus, and Timothy, and S. Luke in the Acts, would never have pretermitted, had Timothy been a Bishop of that famous Citty.

2. The Scripture makes no mention of Timothies being at Ephesus; or of his preaching there, save only that Paul besought (not commanded or ordered) him to abide still to Ephesus, whiles he went into Macedonia, that he might charge some that they teach no other Doctrine; neither give heed to fables, and endless genealogies, which Minister questions rather then edifying, 1, Tim. 1, 3, 4, and to give attendance to reading, to exhortation, to doctrine, till he came thither himself, which was but a short time after, 1, Tim. 4, 13, 14, 15. Paul therefore not instituting Timothy any Diocesan Bishop of Ephesus, but only beseeching (which was voluntary not commanding) him, to abide there ( till his own return from Macedonia,) both to instruct the people, and to further himself in his own Studies; not to reside there during life; it is an unanswerable argument, that he did not constitute him Bishop of Ephesus, 〈◊〉 some vainly hence infer: See 1, Tim. 3, 14, 15.

3. When Timothy was thus desired to abide at Ephesus by Paul, he was ‡ but newly entered into the Ministry, as appears by the 1, Tim. 1, 3, c. 3, 15, compared with Acts. 16, 1, 3, 9, 10, 11, 12, and by the 1, Tim. 4, 6, 10, 12, 13, 14. Now it is not probable, that Paul would constitute Timothy a Diocesan Bishop of all Ephesus, yea the very first Bishop of that famous See, being but a youth, so soon as he had ordained him to be a Minister: and before he knew how to behave himself, in the house and Church of God, which then he did not, 1, Tim. 3, 15.

4. As soon as Paul returned again from Macedonia to Ephesus, he sent Timothy into Achaja, himself staying at Ephesus in Asia for a season, Acts. 19, 22, to 40, and from thence returned into Macedonia; and through it into Asia, accompanied with Timothy, and others: Acts. 20, 1, to 7, after which we never read that Timothy writ, came or returned to Ephesus. Now if Timothy had been Bishop of Ephesus, it is not probable that Paul upon his return from Macedonia, would have sent him from Ephesus into Macedonia, to Corinth, Philippi, & other Churches there, as he did Acts 19, 22, c. 20, 4, 5. 1 Cor. 14. 17, 2 Cor. 1, 19. Phil. 2, 19. 1, Thes. 3, 1, 2 6, or that Timothy would have gone from his own Episcopal See, into another Bishops Dioces, and never returned to his own Cure of Ephesus, (which for ought we read he never did after his first departure thence) contrary to Paul's own direction to the Bishops of Ephesus, Acts. 20, 28.

5. We read, that Paul sent Timothy into Macedonia, Acts. 19, 22. to preach the Gospel to the Church of God there; that he sent him to the Church of Corinth to bring them in remembrance of his ways which were in Christ, as he t 〈…〉 ught everywhere, in every Church, and to work the work of the Lord, 1, Cor. 4, 17, c. 16, 10, and that he accordingly preached Jesus Christ the Son of God among them, 2, Cor. 1, 19. That he likewise sent him to the Church of Thessalonica, to establish and comfort • them, concerning their faith, 1, Thess. 3, 1, 2, 3, 4. and after that to Philippi from Rome, that he might know the Sate of the Philippians, he having no man like minded, who would so naturally care for their state as Timothy. Phil. 2, 19, 20. But we never read that Paul sent him to Ephesus either to comfort, exhort, confirm, instruct them, or to know their State after his first departure thence; which he would questionless have done, had he been their Bishop, rather then thus have employed him to other Churches. Timothy therefore was rather Bishop of these Cities and Churches then of Ephesus.

6. As Timothy was sent by Paul to the Churches of corinth, Philippi, and Thessalonica, so he joins with Paul in his Epistles written to those Churches, directed to them in both their names: witness 2, Cor. 1, 1, Phil. 1, 1. 1, Thes. 1, 1, 2, Thes. 1, 1, in which Epistles Paul makes frequent of Timothy: witness 1, Cor. 4, 17, c. 16, 10. Phil. 2, 19. 1, Thes. 3, 2, 6. Moreover he joins with Paul in writings to the Colossians: Col. 1, 1, and Paul in his Epistle to the Romans, c. 16, 21, remembers his salutation by name to the Church and Saints of Rome, and in his Epistle to the Hebrews written by Timothy as his Scribe, he makes mention of his delivery out of prison by name, Hebr. 13, 23. But in the Epistle to the Ephesians, written from Rome, long after Timothy was supposed to be made Bishop of Ephesus; Timothy neither joins with Paul in the inditement or salutation, neither doth Paul so much as once name or mention him throughout that Epistle, as he doth in all the other Epistles to the Churches whether he sent him, and in every of his Epistles else to any Church, except in his Epistle to the Galatians. Timothy therefore doubtless was not Bishop of Ephesus at this season; else he would have vouchsafed to have joined with Paul in his Epistle to the Ephesians, as well as in his Epistles to other Churches; or Paul being his special Friend and applauder, would have made some honorable mention and commendation of him to the Church of Ephesus, (his own peculiar Dioces as some affirm,) as he doth in his Epistles to most other Churches, where he was never Bishop. An unanswerable argument in my opinion, that Timothy was never Bishop of Ephesus, since there is no news at all either from, or of, or to, or concerning him in Paul's Epistle to the Ephesians, of which he is surmised, to be the first, sole and genuine Bishop.

7. If Timothy were Bishop of Ephesus when Paul writ his first Epistle to him why then did Paul himself excommunicate Hymenus and Philetus, and deliver them unto Satan, and not write to Timothy to excommunicate these Heretics, and play the Bishop in his own Dioces, 〈◊〉 , Tim. 1, 20. yea why did Paul himself, no Timothy, lay hands upon the Disciples, there ordained after such time as he was Bishop there, Acts. 19, 1, 6, 7? Was it because Timothy was a negligent, or impotent Bishop, unwilling or unable to excommunicate Heretics, or ordain Ministers? or in truth, because he was no Bishop then and there? Not the first of these, since Timothy was neither negligent, nor impotent in his function: therefore the latter, he being then, no Bishop, nor yet exercising his Episcopal Jurisdiction there.

8. Had Timothy been Bishop of Ephesus, when Paul wrote his first Epistle to him, no doubt Paul when he sent for the Elders of the Church of Ephesus, to Miletus to take his final fare well of them, and made a solemn speech unto them, charging them, To take heed unto themselves and to the flock over the, which the Holy Ghost had made them Bishops, to feed the Church of God, which he had purchased with his own blood, and Acts. 20, 17, to 38, would have made some special mention of Timothy, and directed his speech more particularly to him by name; as being the Prime Bishop of that Church, to whom this charge did principally appertain. But Paul in that speech of his, makes no particular mention at all of Timothy, neither directed he 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: he 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 applied. Therefore questionless he was not then Bishop, much less sole Bishop of Ephesus, as some groundlessly affirm, against this unanswerable text.

9. Paul himself, as he sent Timothy to Philippi, Troas, and other Churches, to instruct, confirm, comfort, and inquire of their estates; so he expressly writes to Timothy, 2, Tim. 4, 12, that he had sent Tychicus unto Ephesus, for the selfsame purpose. Which Tychicus as he 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 faithful Minister in the Lord, should make known to them all things: whom (saith he) I have sent unto you for the same purpose, that ye might know our affairs, 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 himself 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 he expressly stiles, Bishops of Ephesus, Acts. 20, 27, 28. These therefore being instituted Bishops of Ephesus even by the Holy Ghost himself, and ruling, feeding, and taking the care, the oversight of that Church by his appointment, questionless Timothy at the selfsame season would not be Bishop there.

3. Thirdly, As Timothy was neither a Bishop, nor Bishop of Ephesus; so much less was he the first, or sole Bishop there, as the Postscript of the second Epistle to him in some late Copies, terms 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 years and three months space together, disputing daily in the School of one Tyrannus, so that all they who where in Asia heard the Gospel, Acts. 19, 8, 9, 10, during which time of Paul's residence there (in all 3. Yeares, Acts. 20, 31,) there needed no Bishop to govern and sway the Church, neither is it probable that any Diocesan Bishop was there constituted: So the two first that Paul left behind him at Ephesus at his first coming 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 Country of Galatia and Phrygia, in order strengthening all the Disciples; a certain Jew, 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 servant in the spirit, spake and taught diligently the things of the Lord; and began to speak boldly in the Lord: whom when Aquila and Priscilla had heard, they took 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 styled, the first Bishops of Ephesus, then Timothy; whom Paul entreated to stay there only at his last going into Macedonia: Acts. 20, 1 as most accord. Besides, we read, that Paul at his second coming to Ephesus, before Timothy was constituted Bishop thereof, finding certain Disciples there, all out 12. in number, who were only baptized into the baptism of John, and had not received the Holy Ghost since they believed, baptized them in the name of the Lord Jesus, and when he had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them, and they spake with tongues, and prophesied: 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 Lord's flock in that Citty; may more properly be termed, the first Bishops of the Ephesians, then Timothy, who as he was not the first, so much less was he the sole Bishop of that See; as is infallibly evident by Acts. 20. 4, 5, 15, 17, 18, 28, 29. Where we read, that Paul returning through Macedonia in to Asia, to go to Jerusalem, to the Feast of Pentecost, there accompanied him, Gajus ef Derbe, and Timothy; 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, he said unto them. Ye know from the first day that I came into Asia, after what manner I have been with you at all seasons &c. Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock over which the Holy Ghost hath made YOU BISHOPS (so the Greek, yea the Latin and ancient English Translations truly render it) to feed the Church of Christ, which he hath purchased with his own blood. &c. from whence it is apparent.

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 Paul's institution, in opposition to the holy Ghost.

Secondly, That these Bishops knew from the first day that Paul came into Asia, after what manner he had been with them at all seasons: and therefore, in all likelihood, were appointed Bishops of Ephesus at the very first planting of that Church, before Timothy was settled Bishop: so that he was not the first Bishop there; but these rather, before, or as soon as he.

Thirdly, That Timothy was then neither Elder, nor Bishop of that Church at this time when Paul took his farewell of it; he coming 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 he then been sole or prime Bishop of that See, Paul would not have styled the Elders which he sent for, Bishops of that flock, at leastwise he would have made some special mention of Timothy in this speech of his, and given him some special instructions for the instructing and governing of that Church: Or at least have honored Timothy so far, as to have made him give this Episcopal charge. and instruction to the Elders and Bishops of his own proper Church and Dioces, or to have enjoined them in special manner to reverence, honor and yield him all Canonical obedience as their supreme Diocesan. All which Paul utterly neglects, or forgets to do; or particularly to charge Timothy to take heed to or feed this flock, he being ofta Nonresident from it, as I have proved. Yea, making such hast to be at Jerusalem by the feast of Pentecost, v. 16. that he could not spare time to go to Ephesus, he needed not to have sent for the Elders of Ephesus to Miletus to give them these instructions, since Timothy their Bishop was then present with him, to whom he might and would no doubt have imparted them, without further trouble, hath he then in truth been Bishop of that Church. But this sending for these Elders in his hast, and styling them Bishops of that flock, &c. without any mention at all of Timothy, who was none of the Elders sent for to Ephesus, is an infallible evidence, that he was neither Bishop, nor first or sole Bishop of that Citty. Add we to this, that when Paul exhorted Timothy to abide at Ephesus, there were then in that Citty Elders, who did both rule well, and labor in the word and doctrine, and so were worthy double honor, 〈◊〉 , Tim. 5, 1, 17, 19. Now these very Elders, as Paul himself affirms, were made BISHOPS of the Church of Ephesus by the Holy Ghost, Acts. 20, 17, 28. Therefore Timothy could not be the first, the sole Bishop of the Ephesians as the false Postscript of the second Epistle to him, stiles him. Moreover; it was the Apostles manner in those times to place many Bishops and Elders in every Church, not to constitute one Monarchical Bishop over many: witness Acts. 11, 30▪ c. 14, 23, c. 15, 2, 4, 6, 22, 13, c. 16, 4, c. 20, 17, 28. c. 21, 18, c. 22, 5. Phil. 1, 1. 1, Tim. 5, 17. 1, Pet. 5, 1, 2, 3, Tit. 1, 5, 7, I am. 5, 14. Hebr, 13, 17. Acts. 13, 1, 2. 1. Cor. 14, 29, 30, 31, 32. 1. Thes. 5, 12, 15, Rom. 16, 3, 9, 12. Col. 1, 7, c. 4, 9, 12, 17. which testify, that there were many Bishops and Elders both at Jerusalem, Corinth, Philippi, Rome, Thessalonica, Colossae, Ephesus, yea in all other Churches, in Crete and elsewhere, at one time, by which the Church of God was taught and jointly governed, as by a common Council of Bishops and Elders, as Iraeneus, Ignatius, Ambrose, Jerome, and other ancients testify. Hence Epiphanius & Eusebius testify, that Paul and Peter were joint Bishops of Rome at the same time; & Tertullian writing of the Church-governors in his age, saith; Praesident nobis probati Seniores, &c. that approved Elders (not one Diocesan Bishop) were Presidents over every several Christian Congregation; and in his book de Corona Militis, he affirms the same▪ Since therefore the Apostles themselves ordained many Elders and Bishops in every Citty and in Ephesus too, it is neither possible, nor probable, that Timothy alone should be constituted sole Bishop of Ephesus. Finally it is recorded by Iraeneus, Eusebius, Nicephorus Metraphrastes, Jerome, Chytraeus, Baronius, and many others quoted to my hand by Gersonius Bucerus: Dissertatio De Gubernatione Ecclesiae p. 520. to 526. That S. John the beloved Apostle after the Council held at Jerusalem Acts. 15. resorted to Ephesus residing, governing, and instructing that Church which Paul had planted, after Paul's departure thence, with the Churches in Asia thereunto adjoining, even till Trajanes days; and that though he were banished thence by Domitian for a season, yet after his exile he returned thither again, writing an Epistle to that Church during the time of his banishment, Revel. 2. 1. which he names before all the other Churches of Asia. If S. John then kept his residence at Ephesus, and ruled that Church by his Apostolical power, even till Trajanes days; how could Timothy be sole Bishop and Superintendent there? there being no need of a Bishop, where an Apostle was present and resident to govern, by whose divine superior authority and presence all Episcopal Jurisdiction was suspended. To close up this particular point; Bucolcerus, Fasciculus Temporum, the Centuary writers, and some others record that Timothy survived S. John, living till about the year of Christ 108. and was then martyred in the third persecution under Trajan, or under Nero, or Domitian. If this were true, and that Timothy continued Bishop of Ephesus till his death, as the Patriotes of our Prelates affirm, then by their own doctrine, it will necessarily follow, that Timothy was the Angel of the Church of Ephesus (which they interpret to be the Bishop of that Sea) to whom S. John writes. Rev. 2. 1. 5. charging him that he had left his first love; and therefore admonished him, to remember whence he was fallen, to repent, and do the first works &c. But it is not credible, nor probable, that Timothy a man so pious, so laborious, so vigilant, and so much applauded by Paulin most of his Epistles, should be this backsliding Angel of the Church of Ephesus, (which the contents of our authorized Bibles, to omit all other Commentators,) of the last translation, affirm, to be the Ministers (not the Bishop) of that Church, as some Apostatizing Prelates gloss it,) therefore from thence, and all other the premises, I may now safely conclude, that Timothy was not a Bishop, nor yet the first, sole, Diocesan Bishop of Ephesus, as our Prelates groundlessly affirm; whose allegations to the contrary I shall next propose and refell, that so the truth may be more perspicuous.

Object. 〈◊〉 . The first allegation to prove Timothy a Bishop, when Paul writ the first Epistle to him, is the Postscript of the second Epistle, which runs thus; the second Epistle unto Timothius, ordained the first Bishop of the Church of the Ephesians, was written from Rome, when Paul was brought before Nero the second time. Hence Bishop White and others, conclude Timothy to be a Bishop.

Answer. To which I answer; First, that this Postscript is no Scripture, (& all others as in M. Perkins works is proved at large) no part of the Epistle, no Appendix of S. Paul's, but a private observation, annexed to it, by some Scribe or other after the Epistle written without any divine inspiration; as the words themselves demonstrate; The SECOND Epistle unto Timothy ordained the first Bishop of the Church of the Ephesians, was written from Rome, when Paul was brought before Nero the second time. Where observe; First, that this Postscript is written not in the name of Paul, but of some third person as the whole frame of it Demonstrates.

Secondly, that this Postscript is no direction given by Paul to Timothy as the words (the second Epistle unto Timothy, ordained the first Bishop of the Church of the Ephesians, was written &c.) evidence, but a direction of some Notary or Commentator to the Reader, who here speaks both of Paul and Timothy in the third person.

Thirdly, The words WAS WRITTEN &c. in the preter imperfect tense, shows this postscript to be a mere addition of some Scribe or Expositer, some good space after the Epistle written; not of Paul himself, at the time when he writ it; all the Postscripts of his other Epistles, appearing manifestly not to be his, by the same reason.

Fourthly, It is here called, the second Epistle unto Timothy, in relation to the first; and the first Epistle to him, written many years before it, is likewise styled, in the Postsript of it, The first to Timothy with reference to the second. As therefore the Postscript of the first Epistle was certainly added by some Notary after the second Epistle written, since it is called the first in relation to it: so no doubt the Postscript of the second Epistle was annexed to it after the first Epistle, and it was transcribed and bound up together, by the same party that added the Postscript to the first; the Postscript styling them thus the 1. and 2. in regard of their mutual relation one to the other; after they were both conjoined, and the New Testament and Paul's Epistles, digested into that order and method, wherein now they are placed, both in manuscripts and printed Copies.

Fifthly, It is very unlikely, that Paul would make such a Postscript as this. For as these words (was written from Rome, when Paul was brought before Nero the 2. time) sound not of Paul's language but some others; so the second Epistle unto Timothy ordained the first Bishop of the Church of the Ephesians, savor not of his inditing; who never in any of his Epistles to him or others stiles him a Bishop, much less ordained the first Bishop of the Church of the Ephesians, neither would he have made such a description of Timothy as this, to Timothy himself.

Sixthly, None of the other Apostles have any Postscripts added to any of their Epistles; it is likely therefore that Paul guided by the same Spirit, added none to all, or any of his, but that they were added by some other, who either transscribed and collected his Epistles together, or commented on them; as were the several Titles both before and over his several Epistles, and the contents before each Chapter, both in manuscripts, and printed Copyes.

Seventhly, It is apparent, that the Postscripts of many, of Paul's Epistles are forged and false, as M. Perkins works proves them; and that the Postscript of the first Epistle was written not only after the second penned, but likewise three hundred years after Christ or more. For it runs thus. The first to Timothy was written from Laodicea, which is the chiefest City of Phrygia Pacatiana. For Phrygia was not surnamed Pacatiana (as divers affirm by any Historians and Geographers,) till at least three hundred years after Christ; from one Pacatius, a General, as is conceived, who subdued it. Since therefore it was not so styled till 〈◊〉 h • undred years after Christ, this Postscript must needs be added after that time; and so in all likelihood the Postscript of the second Epistle too, being both made by the same author, at the same time; and the first, first both in time and order, as is most probable, neither would Paul doubtless make such a Postscript to tell Timothy that Laodicea, was the chiefest Citty of Phrygia Pacatiana, it being so near to Ephesus, and as well known to Timothy as to Paul. Who as the Rhemists and Baronius confess was never at Laodicea, which they prove by Gal. 2. 1. and so this Postscript is but a mere false.

Eighthly, This Postscript is directly contrary to the very preface and body of the Epistle, written no doubt by Paul; which as it expressly styles Timothy an Evangelist, not a Bishop; exhorting him to make full proof of his Ministry; not of his Bishopric. c. 4. v, 5. So Paul therein, and in the first Epistle, ever terms him, his dearly beloved Son. 2. Tim. 1. 2. c. 2. 1. 1. Tim. 1. 2. 18. A man of God: 1. Tim. 6. 11. 2. Tim. 3. 17. not a Bishop: and in the 2. Tim. 4. 12. but a little above the Postscript, Paul writes expressly to him, that he had sent Tychicus to Ephesus to know their affairs, comfort their hearts, and make known to them all things. He being a beloved brother and faithful Minister in the Lord Ephes. 6. 21. 22. and neither Timothy his Curate and underling, much less his Successor at Ephesus, as is probable.

Ninthly, This Postscript is directly contradictory to many fore-alleged Scriptures, which prove Timothy to be no Bishop, much less the first or sole Bishop of the Church of the Ephesians; therefore not to be believed. See Acts. 20. 28.

Tenthly, The Postscript itself, but especially the clause of it, (ordained the first Bishop of the Ephesians) whereon this objection is grounded, is but a late addition, not extant in any of the Fathers works who have commented on this Epistle, (except Occumenius, who lived 1050. years after Christ; the first in whom this clause of the Postscript is found) nor in the most ancient best, Greek, Latin, Arabic, English, or other Copyes and Translations, whither manuscript, or printed; therefore to be rejected, as counterfeit coin.

Eleventhly, Eusebius, writes, that Timothy WAS REPORTED TO BE (not that he verily was) the first Bishop of Ephesus, therefore this Postscript either was not in being in his age, or else it had no more credit then a bare report, not sufficient to resolve that Timothy was undoubtedly and of a truth Bishop of Ephesus: The first who makes mention of any of these Postscripts is Theodoret 430. years after Christ, who perchance then added them to Paul's Epistles; but in his Postscripts this clause (ordained the the first Bishop of the Ephesians, With that of Titus, ordained the first Bishop of the Church of the Cretans) cannot be found.

Secondly, admit this Postscript true, and authentical, that Timothy was Bishop of Ephesus when this second Epistle was written, being but a little before Paul's death, yet this is no good proof. that he was Bishop of Ephesus, when the first Epistle was penned, being some 10. or 12. years before, as most conjecture; for if it be a good argument; that Timothy was Bishop of Ephesus, when the second Epistle was written to him, because the Postscript of it only stiles him so: it is as good or a better argument for me to say; that Timothy was no Bishop of Ephesus, when the first Epistle was directd to him, because neither the body nor Postscript of that Epistle; nor any other Scripture whatsoever, stiles him, either a Bishop, or Bishop of Ephesus, though he was resident at Ephesus, when the first Epistle was written to him; but not when the second was sent him; and so should much more have been styled a Bishop, in the first Epistle and Postscript, then in the second. Now all the Prelates and Papists arguments, by which they would prove Timothy a Bishop, are drawn from his first Epistle, not his second, the Postscript therefore of his second Epistle is no argument to prove, that he was a Bishop when the first Epistle was written: for why then should not the Postscript of the first Epistle style him a Bishop as well as the second? yea, rather then the second? since the first hath much matter in it, both concerning the offices and qualities of a Bishop, the second very little, or nothing, save only of diligent and constant preaching in season and out of season; which belongs indifferently to all Bishops and Ministers, and is so far from being proper and peculiar to Bishops in these days, that it is hardly common to or with any of them; Rare to most of them, and altogether improper to some of them, who like the dunsticall Bishop of Dunkleden, think it no part of their Episcopal office, and that they were never so much as ordained to preach, but rather to sit mute and domineer like Lord's, and that preaching belongs only to Curates, and inferior Ministers, not to Lordly Prelates, who seldom climb now into a Pulpit above once a year, whereas Chrysostom, Augustine, Ambrose, Cyril, Hooper and other Bishops anciently preached once at least every day.

Obj. 2. The second allegation is this; that Paul describes to Timothy the office, qualities, carriage, and duties of a Bishop, instructing him how to demean himself in that office, 1. Tim. 3, 4. and 5. Therefore he was a Bishop.

Answ. 1. To this I answer: first, that Paul by a Bishop in this Epistle means no Diocesan Bishop in dignity and degree above a Preshyter, but only such a Bishop as was equal, the same, and no ways different from an Elder; as all the Fathers and most moderne Expositors on this and other texts accord. Such a Bishop I acknowledge Timothy to be, and so this instruction to him implies; but that he was a Diocesan Bishop, superior in dignity to a Presbyter, this text and argument cannot evince.

Secondly, Admit it meant of a Diocesan Bishop, yet it follows not thence, that Timothy was such a one: this Epistle being written rather to instruct others then Timothy, who was so well tutered before, both by his grand mother, Lois and Paul, 1. Tim. 6. 12. 20. c. 4. 6. 14. 16. 2. Tim. 1. 5. 6. 13. 14. c. 2. 2. c. 3. 10. 14. 15. rather, for a pattern of the qualification and duty of Ministers; to direct the Church in all future ages, then to inform Timothy at that time: whence in both these Epistles there are some predictions of the Apostasy and degeneracy of the last times; more necessary for others then Timothy to know, 1. Tim. 5. 24. 25. c. 6. 15. c. 4. 1. to 7. 2. Tim. 3. 1. to 10.

Thirdly, there is in the same chapter instructions given, concerning Deacons, Widdowes, and others; yet Timothy was neither Deacon nor Widow; which being necessary for the Church of God, and for Timothy also to know, as he was an Evangelist, a fellow-helper and assistant of Paul in his Ministerial and Apostolical function, and as his delegate to order and regulate the Church accordingly, argue him to be no more a Bishop, as is surmised; then that every Minister and Christian for whose instruction and direction this Epistle was written as well as for Timothies are Bishops; or then any Archbishops, or Bishops instructions to their Archdeacons, Vicars Generalls, Chauncellers or Officials for Ecclesiastical affairs, or Visitations, argue them to be Archbishops or Bishops.

Fourthly, We read of divers books, concerning the office and regiment of Kings, of Magistrates, and Captains dedicated to young Princes, and others who were neither Kings, Magistrates, nor Captains; of diverse tractates concerning Bishops, inscribed to such who were no Bishops; yet the dedicating of such Treatises to them, did neither constitute or necessarily imply them to be Kings, Magistrates, Captains, Bishops. Why then should this Epistle to Timothy, wherein are some things concerning the office, qualities, and duties of a Bishop, prove him convincingly to be such a one.

Obj. 3. The third evidence to prove Timothy a Bishop, is taken from the 1. Tim. 5. 22. Where he is enjoined, to lay hands suddenly on no man; that is, to ordain no man suddenly, a Minister. Therefore certainly, he was a Bishop, because none but Bishops have power to ordain Ministers.

Answ. 1. I answer first, that the laying on of hands hath divers significations in Scripture. Sometimes, it is taken for an apprehension of another, as a Mal factor to punish, or bring him to judgment for his offenses, Exod. 24. 11. Esther 8. 7. Gen. 37. 22. Exod. 6. 13. Nehem. 13. 1. Luke. 21. 22. in which sense it may be well taken here, as the proceeding verses evidence. Sometimes it is used for reconciliation of persons at variance, Job. 9. 33. Sometimes for benediction or blessing of another, Matth. 9. 15. Sometimes for curing and healing, Mark. 5. 23. Math. 19. 18. Mark. 6. 5. Luke. 4. 40. Sometimes for confirmation, as many affirm, Acts, 8. 17. 18. 19. Sometimes for ordination, as Acts. 6, 6 cap. 8, 17. 11. cap. 13. 3. 1. Timoth. 4. 14. 2. Timoth. 1. 6. Acts. 19. 6. In which of these senses it is here meant is not certainly resolved, and so no inference can be infallibly raised thence.

Secondly, Admit it is meant of ordination▪ as most conceive it; yet that proves not Timothy to be a Bishop, since not only Apostles, Evangelists, and the Apostles fellow-helpers had power of ordination, as they were such, Act. 1, 22, 25, 26. c. 6, 6, c. 8, 17, 18, c. 13, 1, 2, 3. c. 14▪ 23, c. 19, 6. Tit. 1, 5. 2, Tim. 1. 6. but even Presbyters themselves: Acts. 9, 17. c. 13, 1, 2, 3. c. 14, 23▪ 1. Tim. 4, 14. and Timothy might exercise this power in all or either of these respects, not as a Bishop; which for ought appears he never was; neither read we in Scripture that ordination belongs of right to Bishops, as Bishops; much less, that it is appropriated unto them.

Obj. 4. The fourth objection to prove Timothy a Bishop▪ is this; that he is commanded to rebuke such as sinned openly before all men, that others might fear, 1, Tim. 5, 20. Therefore he was a Bishop.

Answ. 1. I answer, that the argument is an inconsequent.

First, Because he might do this as an Evangelist, or as Paul's associate or substitute, by virtue of his Apostolical authority, not of his own Episcopal Jurisdiction, as Bishops Officials, Chauncellors and Vicars General, rebuke, correct and visit others, not in their own names, or by their own authorities, but their Lord's.

Secondly, He might do this as a Minister, every Minister having power sufficient in the public Ministry of the word, openly to rebuke all sins and sinners, Isaiah. 5, 8. 1, 2. Tim. 4, 2, 3. Tit. 1, 13, c. 2, 15. Mark. 6, 18, 19, 20. 2, Sam. 12, 7.

Thirdly, He might do this as a private Christian; every Christian being enjoined in any case to rebuke his neighbor, and not to suffer sin upon him: Levite. 19. 17. Prov. 9, 8. Eccles. 9, 5. and so is every Magistrate to do, Nehem. 13. 11. to 31. Psal. 141. 5. This therefore is no argument of any Episcopal Jurisdiction; the rather, because this rebuke was to be publicly in the Church before all, not in a private Chamber or Consistory Court, (as all Expositors accord) in which our Bishops pronounce their Censures.

Obj. 5. The fifth argument to prove Timothy a Bishop, is the 1 Tim. 5, 19. Against an Elder receive not an accusation, but before two or three witnesses. He had power to receive an accusation against Ministers, that so he might correct them; therefore he was a Bishop.

Answ. 1. I answer first, that this is a mere Non sequitur.

For 1. He might have this power, to receive such accusations as an Evangelist, and Paul's Coadjutor.

Secondly, As Paul's Delegate or Officiall; as our Bishops Officials, Vicars and Chauncellors now exercise Episcopal Jurisdiction under them; as their substitutes only, not by any inherent Episcopal dignity or authority in themselves.

Thirdly, He might do it by the appointment and mutual consent of the people, who had power in all cases of difference, to constitute any man a Judge, though no Bishop, 1. Cor. 6, 1, to 7.

Fourthly, He might do it only as an Elder; Elders having power to rule well, 1. Tim. 5. 17. and so by consequence, to receive accusations, and to correct delinquents by reproofs or Ecclesiastical Censures, with the consequent of the Congregation, 1, Cor. 5, 4, 5. 11, 12, c. 6, 1, to 7. Gal. 6, 1. 2. Thessal. 3. 14, 15.

Fifthly, I had almost added, that he might have done it as an Ecclesiastical Commissioner, but that I considered▪ that he was, not so much as to receive an accusation, against an Elder but under two or three witnesses at least, first examined; and our Ecclesiastical Commissioners and Bishops are so far from this divine Apostolical precept, by which they would prove Timothy, and themselves to be Bishops Iure divino, that they will pursevante, silence, suspend, imprison Ministers and Elders and put them to self accusing one ex officio▪ oaths and upon every jealosie, suspicion, and private accusation of any drunkard, rascal or without two or three witnesses or accusers, first examined against them, and brought face to face. A direct proof, that neither they nor their proceedings are Iure divino.

Answ. 2. Secondly, I answer, that by Elder in this text, (as many conceive) is not meant a Presbyter, or Minister, but an ancient man, as it is taken in the first verse of the chapter: so as it proves not, that Timothy had any Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction over the Elders that were Ministers of Ephesus, who ruled that Church, v. 17. and • w 〈…〉 Bishops of it, Acts. 20▪ 28. Where Paul enjoins them, to take heed to themselves; as having no Superintendent paramount them; not giving Timothy any charge to take heed to them.

Thirdly, Admit these Elders were Ministers, yet Timothy had no judiciary p • wer over them, to suspend or correct them: since v. 〈◊〉 . he is expressly enjoined, not to rebuke an Elder, but entreat him as a Father: which is far from giving him any such Episcopal Jurisdiction over them as our Bishops now exercise and usurp; using godly Ministers and ra • ing them, rather like dogs and scullions, then Elders.

Fourthly, The words are not; that he should not excommunicate, suspend, convent or censure an Elder, but that he should not receive an accusation against him, but before two or three witnesses. Now to condemn or censure, is one thing, to receive an accusation, another. The first not but a Judge or chief officer can do; the second, every register, clerk, informer, or under officer; Yea, every private Christian is capable to receive an accusation, and every ordinary Minister too, against another superior to him in age, estate, or place, either privately to admonish him, that is accused, of his fault, or to reprove him for it; or to counsel him how to repent and redress it; or to comfort him if he be dejected with it, or to inform against him to the Magistrate, or whole Congregation, or to pray to God for his amendment. Math. 18. 15. 16. 17. Levite. 19. 7. Gal. 6. 1. 2. Thess. 3. 14. 15. 1. Tim. 5. 20. 24. Tit. 1. 10. to 14. 2. Johan. 10. 11. Iud. 22. 23. which well expound this text.

Fifthly, The true meaning of this text is this, that Timothy and other Christians of what quality soever, especially Ministers, should not lightly receive or believe any ill report, chiefly of an Elder or Minister, without sufficient testimony of the truth thereof by two of three able witnesses; as will plainly appear by paralelling it with Psal. 15. 3. Numb. 35. 30. Deut. 17. 6. c. 19. 15. Hebr. 10. 28. and with Math. 18. 15. 16. 17. where our Savior saith thus: Moreover, if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between him and thee alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother: But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee two or three more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses, every word may be established; and if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it to the Church, and if he neglect to hear the Church, let him be unto thee as an beathen man and publican. A perfect Commentary on this text of Paul, and a direct censure of our Bishops ex officio, oaths, and proceedings by the parties own self-accusing oath, and answer without or before witnesses produced.

6. This text (admit it gives power to Timothy to take accusations against an Elder before two or three witnesses;) yet it excludes not the other Elders of Ephesus from having like power with him; it gives him not any sole power to hear and determine complaints without the other Elders assistance or consent, but together with them, Math. 18, 19. 1, Tim. 5, 17. Acts. 20, 28. Hence the fourth Council of Carthage, Can. 23. and after it Gratian. Caus. 15. Quaest. 7. Cap. Nullus, Decree, That a Bishop should hear no man's cause without the presence of his Clerks; and that the sentence of the Bishop should be void, unless it were confirmed with the presence of the Clergy: yea, Gratian in that place proves out of the Councils of Hispalis, Agatha the first, Carthage the second and fourth. Gregory, (whose words and Canons he recites at large) that a Minister, Presbyter, or Deacon cannot be punished, or deprived by the Bishop alone, but by a Synod or Council, and that the Bishop cannot hear or determine the causes of Cleargymen alone, without associating the Elders, of the Church, or other adjoining Bishops, with him; for which cause many ancient Councils denied, that there should be two Councils kept, in each Province every year, to hear and determine all Ecclesiastical causes and controversies. This text therefore proves nothing for Timothies Ecclesiastical or Episcopal Jurisdiction, being written rather for the Churches, and Ministers future, then Timothies present instruction, as Gersonius Bucerus rightly observes. Finally learned Doctor Whitaker hath long since assoiled this objection in these words: That Timothy is commanded not rashly to admit an accusation against an Elder, this proves not that Timothy had power or dominion over Elders. For according to the Apostles mind, to receive an accusation, is to bring a crime to the Church, to bring the guilty person into Judgment, openly to reprove, which not only Superiors may do, but also aequals and inferiors. In the Roman Republic Knights did judge not only the people, but also the Senators, and Patricij. And certainly it seems not that Timothy had such a Consistory or Court, as was afterwards appointed to Bishops in the Church. What this authority was, may be understood by that which follows; Those that sin rebuke before all, which aequals also may do. Thus Bishops heretofore, if any Elder or Bishop had an ill report, referred it to the Ecclesiastical Senate or Synod, and condemned him, if he seemed worthy by a public judgment, that is, they did either suspend, excommunicate or remove him. The Bishop condemned nocent Elders and Deacons, not with his own authority alone, but with the judgment of the Church and Clergy. Those who where thus condemned, might lawfully appeal to the Metropolitan; but he could not presently alone determine, what seemed good to him, but permitted the Synod to give sentence, and what the Synod decreed was ratified. The same answer Martyn Bucer, De vi & usu. S. Ministerij, Doctor Andrew Willet Synopsis Papismi. Cont. 5. Gen. Quest. 3. part. 3. in the Appendix, and Gersonius Bucerus De Gubernat. Ecclesiae pag. 300. to 398. (where this objection is most fully cleared by Councils, Fathers, and other authors testimonies) give unto this place: so that it makes no proof at all, that Timothy was a Bishop. So as from all these premises I may safely conclude, that Timothy was neither a Bishop, nor Bishop of Ephesus, nor first, nor sole Bishop of that See, as many overconfidently, and erroneously affirm.

Obj. 6. If any in the sixth place object, that diverse of the ancient Fathers, as Dionysius Areopagita, Jerome, Ambrose, Dorothew, Theodoret, Chrysostom, Epiphanius, Eusebius, Gregory the great, Policrates, Occumenius, Primasius, Isidor Hispalensis, Beda, Anselm, Rabanus▪ Maurus, with many moderne writers affirm Timothy to be Bishop and first Bishop of the Ephesians, therefore he was so.

Answ. 1. I answer first, that as some of these Fathers are spurious, and not to be credited, so many of their testimonies are ambiguous, if not contradictory. p Eusebius writes, that Timothy IS REPORTED to be the first Bishop of Ephesus, and Titus of the Churches of Creta: which is rather a denial then an affirmation that he was Bishop there in truth. Theodoret, and Beda affirm him, to be Bishop of all Asia, not of Ephesus only, and so an Archbishop rather then a Bishop. Their Testimonies therefore being so discrepant and dubious, are of no validity.

Secondly, Many of the Fathers affirm Peter to have been Bishop of Rome, and to have continued Bishop there for divers years, yet Marsilius Patavinus, Carolus Molinaeus, with sundry other late Protestant writers, both foreign and domestic, affirm, and substantially prove by Scripture and reasons; that Peter was never at Rome, nor yet Bishop thereof. As therefore their bare authorities are no sufficient argument, to prove Peter Bishop of Rome, so neither are they sufficient to evince Timothy Bishop of Ephesus.

Thirdly, These Fathers affirm not Timothy to be sole Bishop of Ephesus, or to be Diocesan Bishop, or such a Bishop as is superior to a Presbyter in Jurisdiction or degree; the thing which ought to be proved; and if they affirmed any such thing, yet seeing the fore-alleged Scriptures contradict it in a most apparent manner, they are not to be credited against the Scriptures testimony.

Fourthly, The Fathers term him Bishop of Ephesus; not because he was any sole Diocesan domineering Bishopthere, as the objections pretend; but because he was left by Paul to teach and instruct them for a space, till he returned from Macedonia, and to order that Church together with the other Bishops and Elders thereof; and being one of the eminentest Pastors of that Church, next after Paul, who planted it, the Fathers term him, the Bishop of Ephesus, in that sense only as they styled Peter, Bishop of Rome and Antioch, James Bishop of Jerusalem, Mark Bishop of Alexandria, and the like; ( not that they were Bishops properly so called, or such as ours are now, but only in a large and general appellation, because they first preached the Gospel to such Churches) to no other purpose, but to prove a perpetual succession of Presbyters, and doctrine in those particular Churches, from the Apostles time till theirs, naming the eminentest Minister, for parts and gifts in each Church, the Bishop of that Church; all which appears, by Irenaeus, Tertullian, and others; who call them Bishops only for this purpose, to derive a Succession of Ministers, and doctrine from the Apostles. He that would receive a larger answer to this objection, let him read Gersonius Bucerus, de Gubernatione Ecclesiae, p. 518. to 524. 436. to 441. 498. usque 500. 538. 539. which will give him ample satisfaction.

Obj. 7. If any finally object, that Paul desired Timothy to abide still at Ephesus when he went into Macedonia: 1, Tim. 1. 3. and that the Greek verb 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifies a constant residence, or abiding in one place. Therefore Timothy was Bishop of Ephesus: which if it be a solid Argument, proves many of our Court Nonresident Prelates and Ministers, to be no Bishops (because they reside and abide, not much less preach and keep hospitality on their Bishoprics,) rather then Timothy to be Diocesan Bishop of Ephesus.

Answ. 1. To this I answer, first, that the argument is a gross inconsequent. For Timothy might abide thus at Ephesus as an Evangelist, as an Elder, as Paul's assistant, or substitute only; as an ordinary Minister, not as a Bishop; his abiding therefore at Ephesus is insufficient to constitute him a Diocesan Bishop of that Sec.

Secondly, Paul and Titus ordained Elders in every Church to abide and continue, with their flocks: Acts. 14, 23. Tit. 1, 5, 7. yet the Opposites deny these Elders to be Diocesan Bishops.

Thirdly, Every ordinary Minister is to reside and abide upon his Cure, Rom. 12, 7, 8. 1, Cor. 7, 20. Ier. 23, 1, 5. If this argument therefore where solid, every Minister should be a Diocesan Bishop.

Fourthly, Paul left Aquila and Priscilla at Ephesus to abide there; Will it therefore follow, that they where Diocesan Bishops of the Ephesians? If not, then the argument is invalid.

Answ. 2. Secondly, I answer, That Timothy was to abide at Ephesus only for a season, till Paul's return out of Macedonia and no longer, 1, Tim. 3. 14, 15, c. 4, 13, 14. after which he went with Paul from Macedonia into Asia to Troas, Acts. 20. 4, 5. and from thence to Italy, Philippi, and Rome, Heb. 13, 23. Phil. 1, 1, c. 2. 19. Col. 1, 1. 2, Tim. 4. 9, 13. he being never resident at Ephesus, (for ought appears in Scripture or authentic story,) after Paul's return out of Macedonia. His abode therefore at Ephesus being but for so short a time, and he so great a Nonresident from it afterward, cannot possibly argue him to be a Diocesan Bishop of that Church.

Answ. 3. Thirdly, Greek word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , to abide, is oft applied in Scripture to a short abode, for a day or two, or some little space, as well as to a perpetual fixed residence; as Math. 15, 32. Mark 8. 2. So it is in the objected text; where it is put only in opposition to Paul's journey into Macedonia; in respect whereof Timothy continuing at Ephesus till his return, might be truly said, to abide there, though after his return he removed thence to other Churches; as Gersonius Bucerus, De Gubernatione Ecclesiae. p, 502. to 518, observes.

Answ. 4. Fourthly, Paul did not enjoin, but beseech Timothy to abide at Ephesus: therefore his residence there was but arbitrary at his own pleasure, not coactive, not enjoined by virtue of any Episcopal office; this Text therefore cannot prove Timothy to be Bishop of Ephesus, no more then his stay at Corinth, and other places whether Paul sent him, prove him to be Bishop of those Churches.

Answ. 5. Finally, Admit Timothy to be both the first and sole Bishop of Ephesus, which is false; yet this makes nothing for, but against our Hierarchical and Diocesan Bishops: for Ephesus was but one City, one Parish, one Church, one flock and Congregation; as is evident by Acts. 20. 17, 28, 29, c. 18, 24, 25, 26, c. 19, 1. to 18, Ephes. 1, 1, c. 4, 4, 16, c. 6, 21, 22, 23. 1, Tim. 1, 3, c. 5, 17 to 23. Rev. 1, 20, c. 2. 1. So that the argument from this example is but this; Timothy was only Bishop of one City, Parish, Church, Flock and Congregation, not of many: Therefore all Bishops ought to be so too, as well as he.

Obj. If any object, that the City of Ephesus was a Dioces; for it had many Elders, therefore many Parishes, and several Congregations? Acts. 20, 17, 28. 1, Tim. 5. 17.

Answ. 1. I answer, that the argument follows not; For first, in the Apostles times, and in the primitive Church, every particular Church and Congregation had many Elders, Ministers, and Dea • ons in it, who did jointly teach, and instruct it, and likewise govern and order it by their common Counsel and consent; as is evident by Acts 1. 14. to 26. c. 2. 1. to 47. c. 3. 1. c. 4. 3. 8. 9. 20. 21. 23, 31. to 37. c. 5. 18. to 33. 42. c. 6. 1. to 9. c. 11. 29. 30. c. 14. 23. c. 15. 2. to 23. 25, 32. c. 20. 17. to 30. c. 21. 18. Phil. 1. 1. 1. Tim. 5. 4. to 14. c. 5. 17, Tit. 1. 5. 7. Jam. 5. 14. 1. Cor. 14. 23. to 33. Ignatius Epist. 5. 6, 8. 9. 10. 11. 13. 14. Polycarpus Epist. ad Philippenses, Irenaeus contra Haeres. l. 3. c. 2. l. 4. c. 43, 44. Tertull. Adversus Gentes, Apolog. c. 39. Hieronymus, Sedulius, Chrysostomus, Primasius, Remigius, Haymo, Kabanus Maurus, Oecumenius, Theophylact, Anselmus, Petrus Lombardus, and sundry others, in their Commentaries, and expositions upon Philip. 1. 1. 1. Tit. 5. Acts. 15. and 20. 17. 28. The fourth Council of Carthage, Can. 22. 23. 24. 25. The Council of A 〈…〉 en, under Ludovicus Pius, Can. 8. 10. 11. The 12. Council of Toledo, Can. 4. and all writers generally accord.

Secondly, we at this day, have many Prebends, Canons, and Ministers in every Cathedral and Collegiate Church, yea in every College in our Universities, and elsewhere; yet but one Church and Congregation.

Thirdly, We have in many other Churches in the Country where the Parishes are large, and there are divers Chapels of ease, many Curates and Ministers; yet but one Church, one Parish; not a Dioces; neither is the chief Minister either a Bishop or Diocesan, though he have diverse Curates and Ministers under him, to assist him in his Ministry: yea in many places where there is but one Church, no such Chapels of ease, and the Parish great, we have several Ministers, Lecturers, and Curates, in some 4, or 5, in most 2, or 3, yet no Dioces, no Bishopric. Neither is this a Novelty, but an ancient constitution, not only instituded by the Apostles, and continued ever since, but likewise enjoined by the Council of Oxford under Stephan Langhton Archbishop of Canterbury in the year of our Lord, 12 22. which decreed; that in all Parish Churches, where the Parish is great, there should be 2, or 3, Presbyters at the least, according to the greatness of the Parish, and the value of the Benefice; least that one only Minister being sick, or otherwise debilitated, Ecclesiastical Benefits (which God forbid) should be either withdrawn, or denied to the Parishioners that were sick, or willing to be present at divine offices. The multitude or plurality therefore of the Elders in the Church of Ephesus, is no argument at all to prove, that is was a Dioces; or that Timothy was a Diocesan Bishop, because he had Ministers and Curates under him; for then our Deacons, Archdeacons, and Pluralists, who have many livings, Chapels, (and so many Curates and Ministers) under them, should be Diocesan Bishops too by this reason.

Secondly, I answer, that admit there were divers Churches and Congregations in Ephesus, which is very improbable, the greatest part of the Citizens being Idolaters, and the Citty itself a worshipper of the great Goddess Diana, and of the Image which fell down from Jupiter, Acts. 19 21. to 41. yet it cannot be proved, that Timothy was chief Bishop and Superintendent over all these Churches, but only of one of them: as every Minister and Bishop of England is a Minister and Bishop of the Church of England, but not a Minister and Bishop in and over all the Curches of England, but in and over his own Parish Church, and Dioces only. For Paul himself (who planted that Church, and resided in it for three years space, during which time it is like there was no Diocesan Bishop of it but himself) expressly calls the Elders of the Church of Ephesus, Bishops and Overseers of that Church, and that by the Holy Ghostes own institution; and thereupon exhorts them, to take heed to all the flock; and to feed and rule that Church of God, which he had purchased with his own blood, Acts. 20. 28. 1. Tim. 5. 17. 〈1 page duplicate〉 〈1 page duplicate〉 〈1 page duplicate〉 〈1 page duplicate〉 〈1 page duplicate〉 〈1 page duplicate〉 Since therefore everyone of these Elders by the Holy Ghostes institution, and Paul's resolution was no other, but a Bishop over his own flock, (if several,) both to instruct and rule it; it is certain, that Timothy (if he were a Bishop of Ephesus and there were many Churches there,) was only Bishop of one of them, not of all; and so no Diocesan Bishop, as our Prelates and their flatterers vainly pretend. Timothy therefore being neither a Bishop, nor first, sole, or any Bishop of Ephesus, or of any other place, or if a Bishop, no Diocesan Bishop, but of one Church and congregation only, as these premises evidence, all our Prelates inferences drawn from his example to prove their Episcopal Authority and Jurisdiction Iure Divino, (which for the most part hang upon his Episcopal rochet only) fall quite to ground, and their Episcopal Authority together with it. I now proceed to the next Question (wherein I shall likewise discuss, whether the power of ordination belongs only to Bishops, not to Presbyters? And whether this Paradox of the Prelates be true, that ordainers are greater in Jurisdiction and degree then those that are ordained?) to wit;

Whether Titus were ever Bishop, or Archbishop of Crete?

What ever the common brute and Error of these or former times conceive, under correction, I persuade myself, that Titus was no Bishop nor Archbishop of Crete: and that for these ensuing reasons.

First, because the Scripture never stiles him a Bishop; nor S. Paul, who often stiles him, his partner and fellow-helper concerning the Corinthians, (not Cretans;) the Messenger of the Churches, (not Bishop) and the glory of Christ, 2, Cor. 8, 23, 6, 16. his Son, Titus 1, 6, his brother, 2. Cor. 7. 6, 13, 14. never Bishop, as some would make him.

Secondly, Because his chiefest employment was to the Church of Corinth, after that he had been left by Paul in Crete, as Paul's partner and fellow-helper in that Church, 2. Cor. 2. 13. c. 7. 6. 13. c. 8. 6. 16. 23. c. 12, 18.

Thirdly, Because he was Paul's companion, attendant, partner, fellow-helper, Messenger, fixed to no settled place of residence, as Bishops were, 2. Cor. 2. 13. c. 7. 6. 13. c. 8. 6. 16. 23. c. 12. 18. Gal. 2, 1. 3. 2. Tim. 4. 10. sent by him from Rome, long after his being in Crete, into Dalmatia, 2. Tim. 4. 10.

Fourthly, Because Paul writes expressly to him, Tit. 1. 5. not that he ordained him Archbishop or Bishop of Crete, but that he left him in Crete (for a season) for this cause, that he should set in order, the things that were wanting, and ordain Elders, in every Citty, as he had appointed him: Therefore was he there only as Paul's Vicar general, Commissary or substitute, to order those things, in such sort, as he had appointed him, which Paul could not dispatch, whiles he was residing, not as the Archbishop or Lord Bishop of Crete, to order all things there, by his own Episcopal Jurisdiction and authority as he listed himself.

Fifthly, He expressly charged him, to come to him diligently, to Nicopolis when he should sent Arthemas or Tychicus to him, for there he intended to winter, Tit. 3. 12. By which it is evident, that his stay in Crete by Paul's appointment, was very short, not above half a year, if so much; after which we never read he returned thither, though we find, he was sent to Corinth, and Dalmatia, that he went up to Jerusalem with Paul, and came to him during his imprisonment at Rome, Gal. 2. 1. 3. 2. Cor. 2. 13. c. 7. 13. 14. c. 8. 6, 16. 23. c. 12. 8. 2. Tim. 4. 10. His short abode therefore in Crete, without returning thither, proves him to be no Bishop.

Sixthly, Paul chargeth him, to bring Zenas the Lawyer and and Apollos diligently on their way, that nothing might be wanting to them, Tit. 3. 13. Now it is very unlikely, that an Arch-bishop or Bishop of Crete, wherein were 90. walled Cities, would stoop so low, as to wait thus upon Lawyer, as Zenas, or a Disciple, as Apollos was, unless he were far more Humble then any Archbishops or Prelates in these our times; who are commonly so insolently proud, as to disdain all familiar conversations with Lawyers, or Ministers.

Seventhly, Paul left Titus Bishop of no one Citty in Crete, and he expressly enjoins him, to ordain (not one but many) Elders (in the plural number) in every Citty of Crete, Tit. 1. 5. 7. where there were no less then 90. walled Cities in Homerus time; which Elders were no other but Bishops, and so termed by him v. 7. (For a BISHOP must be blameless, &c.) as Jerome. Chrysostom, Ambrose, Theodoret, Sedulius, Primasius, Remigius, Beda, Raubanus Maurus, Bruno, Theophilact, Oecumenius, Anselm, Lyra, Hugo Cardinalis, Aquinas, with other moderne Commentators on this text accord. If then Paul gives express directions to Titus, to ordain many Elders and Bishops in every Citty of Crete, constituting him a Bishop in none of them, that we read of, (an apparent argument, that he was no Bishop there, because he had there no Bishops See at all, and was no sole Bishop of any one Citty:) it is not probable that he constituted him sole Archbishop or Bishop of all Crete, (which had anciently no less then 4. Archbishops and 21. Bishops in it,) it being the Apostles practice to place many Bishops and Elders in one Church, but never one Bishop or Archbishop over many Churches, Phil. 1. 1. Acts. 20. 28. Hence Athanasius, Chrysostom, Oecumenius and Theophilact on Titus 1. 5. 7. write thus: Here he will have Bishops to be understood for Presbyters or Ministers, as we have elsewhere often said, neither verily would he have the charge of the whole Island to be permitted, or granted to one man, but that everyone should have his own proper cure & charge, allotted him: for he knew that the labor & pains would be the lighter and that the people would be governed with greater diligence, if that the Doctor or teacher should not be distracted with the government of many Churches, but should only give himself to the government of one, and study to compose and adorn it with his manners. So also Peter Lombard, Alphonsus de Castro, Doctor Barns, and others on, and from this text, determine.

Eighthly, All generally accord, that Archbishops, yea Metropolitans BISHOPS themselves are not of divine or Apo stolicall, but Papal and human Constitution; witness Pope Nicolas apud Gratianum Distinct. 22. c. 1. Omnes sive Patriarchy cujuslibet apicem, sive Metropolis primatus, aut Episcopatuum Cathedras, vel Ecclesiarum sive cujuscunque ordinis dignitatem INSTITVIT ROMANA ECCLESIA. Which Pope Anacletus in his 3. Epist. c. 3. doth likewise aver, and Pope Lucinus and Clement, in Gratian, Distinct. 80. affirm as much; informing us, that Archbishops and Primates are the Successors, of the Hathenish Arch-Flamens, and to be placed only in those Cities where the Arch-Flamens had their Sees: with which Peter Lombard accords, lib. 4. Distinct. 24. Hence our Historians record of King Lucius, the first Christian Prince of this our Realm, that he instituted 3. Archbishoprickes, and 25. Bishop-rickes and Bishops, instead of the 3. Arch-Flamens, and 25. Flamens, changing their Sees into Bishoprics, and Archbishop-rickes; by which it is evident, that Archbishops, Patriarchs, and Metropolitans (instituted only at first by several Councils and Princes) are no divine or Apostolical, but only a human 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 terms. IT IS OUT OF ALL DOVBT, that there is no mention made neither in Scripture, neither in the writings of any authentical 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 between 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 Catholic 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 said 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 spiritual governors of the Church, and so ordained some to be Patriarchs, some to be Metropolitans, some to be Archbishops, some to be Bishops; and to them did limit severally (not only) their certain Diocese and Provinces, wherein they should exercise their power and not exceed the same, but also certain bounds and limits of their Jurisdiction and power; &c. The same is averred by learned Bishop Hooper, in his Exposition upon the 23. Psalm fol. 40. who saith, that Archbishops were first ordained in Constantine's time, yea, Archbishop Whitgift himself confesseth as much, that Archbishops are neither of divine, or Apostolical, but human institution, since the Apostles times. And Patrick Adamson Archbishop of S. Andrew's in Scotland, in his public recantation, in the Synod of Fiffe in Scotland Anno 1591. professed sincerely, (ex animo) that Bishops and Ministers by God's word were all equal 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 mere human Institution long after the Apostles times, from whence the Antichristian Papacis of the Bishop of Rome hath both its rise and progress; and that for 500. years last past, it hath been the chiefest instrument of persecuting and suppressing the truth and Saints of God in all Countries and Kingdoms, as all Histories manifest. Thus this Archbishop in his Palinody, disclaiming not only Archbishops but ever Diocesan Bishops to be of divine, but only of human institution long after the Apostles, giving over his Archbishopric thereupon, and living a poor dejected life. This being then granted on all hands, it is clear, that Titus could not be Bishop of all Crete; for then he should be an Archbishop, having divers Bishops under him, those Elders which he placed in every Citty of Crete being no other but Bishops, Tit. 1. 7. as all acknowledge, and Arch-bishops were not instituted till after the Apostles and Titus days; For these reasons I conceive, that Titus was not Bishop of Crete, having no Episcopal or Archiepiscopall See there appointed to him; which learned Gersonius Bucerus hath at large manifested, to such who will take pains 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 Cretans: Ergo he was Bishop or Archbishop of Crete.

Answ. 1. I answer 1. that as this and all other Postscripts, are no part of the Scripture, or Epistles, as M ^r . Perkins works prove 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 Cretans) is no part of the Postscript, but a late appendix to it, not found in any of the Copies of this Epistle which the Fathers follow, in their Commentaries, in few or no ancient Greek, Latin or English Copies and Translations of this Epistle, in few or no Testaments or late Commentators: And had Titus been Bishop of Crete, it is like Paul would have given him this Title in the Epistle, (where he stiles him, Titus his own Son 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. years after Christi) since he speaks of Bishops by name in that Epistle, Tit. 1. 7. But of this, see more in the answer 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 clear by the 12. verse of the third chapter of this very Epistle, that Paul was not at Nicopolis when he writ it, but at some other place; for he writes thus to Titus, when I shall send Artemas unto thee or Tychicus, be diligent • ocome unto me to Nicopolis, for THERE (not here) I have intended to winter. Now had Paul then been at Nicopolis, he 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 Postscrip • therefore being false as Mr. Perkins works hence conclude, can be no part of Canonical scripture, nor Epistle, none of Paul's penning, but a mere ignorant Appendix of some scribe or comentator of after times, and so no solid proof to manifest Titus Bishop or Archbishop of Crete, not at Nicopolis when this Epistle was written.

Obj. 2. If they secondly object; that Paul left Titus in Crete to set in order the things that were wanting, Tit. 1. 5. Ergo he was a Bishop.

Answ. 2. I answer, that this is a mere inconsequent; and I may argue in the like nature; Our Archbishops and Bishops (especially those who turn Courtiers, Counsellers of State, and Nonresidents,) leave their Archdeacons, Chauncellers, Commissaries, Vicars general, and Officials, 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 general, and Officials, are Archbishops and Bishops of those Dioces: The King sends his Indges, Commissioners and under Officers to some Counties or Cities, to set Causes, Counties, people, Arms, Forts, Cities in good order, and to see defects in these supplied. Ergo Judges, Commissioners and Officers are Kings: Churchwardens ought by the Canons of 1571. and 1603. to set in order, and provide such books, ornaments, and necessaries as are wanting in Parish Churches, and see them well repaired: Ergo Churchwardens are Bishops: For Titus was here left, to set in order the things that were wanting, AS PAUL HAD APPOINTED HIM; and no other wise, Tit. 1. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. he did all by his direction and authority, not his own. There is nothing therefore in this, of ordering things that were wanting in the Church of Crete, which savors of Episcopal Jurisdiction. And I may better argue hence, Titus did nothing at all in Crete but by Paul's special appointment and Cōmission; Ergo he was no Bishop; or if a Bishop: Ergo Bishops should order nothing in their Bishoprikes, nor keep any visitations, but by special direction & Commission from the Apostles, King, or State, authorizing them; Then the Objectors conclude; Ergo, he was a Bishop; and Bishops, Archbishops, (yea Archdeacons too without any special commission from the Apostles, King and State) may make and institute what orders, constitutions, Articles, and Ceremonies they please, as now they do in their illegal Courts and visitations, kept in their own names, without any Patent from the King

Obj. 3. If any object in the third place, That Titus was lest to ordain Elders in every Citty in Crete; Tit. 1. 5. Ergo, he was a Bishop: because none have power to ordain Elders, but Bishops; since none ordained Elders in Crete but Titus, who was a Bishop.

Answ. 3. I answer first, that this is as bad a consequence as the former, and a mere circular argumentation: For first they will needs prove, Titus a Bishop, because he ordained Elders; and none but Bishops can ordain Elders; and then next they prove, that none but Bishops can ordain; because Titus foresooth was a Bishop, and he only did ordain Elders in Crete. A mere Circle, and Petitio Principij: yet this is the Logic 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 ordain Elders or Ministers, but Bishops; and that quatenus Bishops too, (which they must add, or else their argument is unsound,) is a notorious falsehood, and mere sandy foundation; For first, not to remember how Moses a Civil Magistrate, consecrated Aaron and his sons by God's own appointment, Levite. 8. 5. to 32. Exod. 29. 9. 35.

First, The Apostles themselves were ordained Apostles and consecrated Ministers by Christ himself, Matth. 28. 19. 20. Mark 16. 15. 16. John. 20. 22. 23. 24. Acts. 1. 4. 5. Rom. 1. 5. 2. Cor. 3. 6. To whom the power of ordination principally appertains, Ephes. 4. 11. 12. 1. Cor. 12. 28. Acts. 20. 28. 1. Pet. 1. 4.

Secondly, The Apostles and Evangelists 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 Evangelists 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 himself was made a Minister by the imposition of the hands of the Presbytery, 1. Tim. 4. 14. Thus did they in the primitive Church; this do they still in our own Church, as the book of ordination it self confirmed by two Acts of Parliament, the 35. Canon, and experience witness; this do they in all the reformed Churches now, which should have no lawful Ministers, and so no true Church, if the power of ordination were Jure divino appropriated only to Bishops, and not common with them unto other Ministers.

Fifthly, Patriarchs, Metropolitans, Archbishops and Chorall Bishops (neither of which are properly Bishops in the objectors sense) ordain 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 only to Bishops, as Bishops in the objectors sense; for then none of those 5. being not properly such Bishops, could lawfully have ordained Ministers or Presbyters, as they did and do.

Thirdly, There is no one syllable in the Scripture to prove, that the power of ordination belongs only to Bishops quatenus Bishops; neither is there any one example to warrant it. We read of Apostles, Evangelists, Disciples, Presbyters, that laid hands on others to ordain 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 only 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 calls 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 only quatenus they are Ministers: For it appertained to the Apostles, to the Evangelists, to Disciples and Presbyters Iure divino, though no such Bishops; and the objectors will acknowledge, that it belongs to Popes, Patriarchs, Metropolitans and Archbishops, though they neither were nor are properly such Bishops, and are no divine, but mere human institutions; therefore it must appertain unto them only, as they are Ministers, (in which respect they all accord, and are not differenced one from another;) not quatenus Bishops; for then the Apostles, Evangelists, Disciples, Presbyters, Popes, Patriarchs, Metropolitans, and Arch-bishops, being not properly such Bishops, could not lawfully ordain. The power therefore of ordination belonging to the Apostles, Evangelists, Disciples, Presbyters and others as well as to Bishops, not to Bishops only, or to them as Bishops, but as Ministers, (it being a mere Ministerial act, inferior to preaching, administering the Sacrament and baptizing, as all acknowledge) it can be no good evidence to prove Titus a Bishop. Now because this power of ordination which our Prelates would Monopolize unto themselves, is the main pillar whereon they now suspend their Episcopal Jurisdiction over there Ministers, I shall produce some human authorities, to prove the right, the power of ordination and imposition of hands to be by God's Law common to Presbyters as well as to Bishops; I shall begin with Councils. The 4. Council of Carthage, Can. 3. about the year of our Lord 418. prescribes this form 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 are present, shall lay their hands upon his head by the Bishops hand. This Canon is incorporated by Gratian, into the body of the Canon Law, and hath been practiced and put in ure in all ages since, till now; The very Gloss on Gratian, yea and the Rhemists too, assuring us, that when a Priest is ordained, all the Priests standing by, do lay their hands upon him; neither is there any other form of ordaining Ministers, prescribed in the Canon Law or Councils, but this alone, which all Churches have observed, and yet retain. Since therefore no Bishop may or ought of himself alone to ordain Ministers, without the assent and concurrence of the Clergy, people and others there present, as Gratian, Illyricus, and Gersome Bucerus, prove at large; and since all Ministers present ought join with the Bishop in the imposition of hands, in all ordinations of Ministers, and have ever usually done it in all ages and Churches; how this Prerogative of ordination should be peculiar to Bishops (who may not do it without Ministers concurrrence, no more then Ministers without theirs,) I cannot yet conjecture. True it is, that the Council of Ancyra, about the year of our Lord 308. Can. 3. ordained; That Chorall Bishops should not ordain Presbyters or Deacons; nor yet Presbyters of the Citty in another Parish; but when the Bishop should permit them by his Letters; And the Council of Antioch under Pope Julius, Canon. 10. decrees; that Chorall Bishops should not ordain Ministers and Deacons without the Bishops privity. From whence I observe.

First, That before these Councils restrained the power of Chorall Bishops and Presbyters, that they did and might lawfully ordain Ministers and Deacons without the Bishops privity or assent.

Secondly, That by his assent and license both the one and the other, without the Bishops presence, might lawfully ordain Ministers and Deacons. These Councils therefore plainly resolve, that there is an inherent right and power of ordination in Presbyters and Chorall Bishops, as they are Ministers, and that with the Bishops consent, and license they may lawfully execute it, and confer Orders, therefore the right and power of ordination is not invested only in Bishops, as they are Bishops, for then none else could ordain but they alone. The forged Constitutions of the Apostles, fathered on Pope Clement, prescribe; That Presbyters and Deacons, may not ordain other Priests and Deacons, but Bishops only. And the Council of Hispalis or Spaw, about the year 6, 7. Canon. 5. 7. out of Pope Leo, Epist. 86. decrees; that Presbyters and Chorall Bishops, which are all one, should not presume to ordain Preistes or Deacons, or to consecrate Altars or Churches; For in holy writ, by God's Commaund, Moses only erected the Altar in the Tabernacle of the Lord, he only anointed it, because he was the High Priest, of God, as it is written; Moses and Aaron among his Priests. Therefore, that which was commanded only to the chief Priests to do, of whom Moses and Aaron were a Type, Presbyters who carry the figure of the sons of Aaron, may not presume to enchroach upon. For although they have in most things a common dispensation of Mysteries with Bishops, yet they must know that some things are notwithstanding prohibited them by the authority of the old Law, some things BY NEW ECCLESIASTICALL RVLES (or CANONS) as the CONSECRATION OF PRESBYTERS, DEACONS, and virgins; as also the Constitution, benediction, or unction of the Altar. Verily it is not lawful for them to consecrate Churches or Altars, not to give the Holy Ghost the comforter by imposition of hands to the faithful who are to be baptized, or to those, who are converted from heresy, nor to made Chrism, nor to sign the fore-head of those that are baptized with Chrism, nor yet publicly to reconcile any penitent person in the Mass, nor to send formed Epistles to any. All these things are unlawful to Presbyters or Chorall Bishops, because they have not Pontificatus apicem, the highest degree of the High Priest-hood, which by the AVTHORITY OF THE CANONS, is commanded to be due only to Bishops, that by this the distinction of the Degrees, and the Hight of the dignity of the High Priest, might be demonstrated. Neither shall it be lawful for the Presbyters to enter into the Baptistery before the Bishops presence, not to baptize or sign an infant, the Bishop being present, nor to reconcile penitents without the Bishops command, nor to consecrate the Sacrament of the body and blood of Christ he being present, nor in his presence to teach, or bless, or salute the people, no nor yet to exhort them, all which things are known to be prohibited by the See Apostolic. These two last authorities are the chief that the Papists, Jesuits, and our Prelates insist on, to Proove, that the power of ordination belongs only to Bishops not to Presbyters.

But to remove these two obstacles: consider. First, that there is not a word in either of these two Constitutions, that the power of ordination, belongs only to Bishops by divine right and institution; or that Presbyters by God's Law have no power to ordain Ministers and Deacons, the thing only in question.

Secondly, That the Council expressly resolves, that the power and right of ordination is prohibited Presbyters, and appropriated only to Bishops, not by any Law of God, or ancient Constitutions of the Apostles, or those who immediately succeeded them, but only by some Ecclesiastical Canons and Constitutions then newly made, and by the authority only of the See of Rome; which cannot deprive Ministers of that power of ordination, which the Scripture and God himself hath given them.

Thirdly, That before these late Canons, and Constitutions, Presbyters might lawfully ordain Ministers, and Deacons.

Fourthly, That the chief reason why the power of ordination was taken from Ministers, and thus monopolized to Bishops, (even by their own Constitutions, wherein they have ever favored themselves,) was only to advance the power, authority, dignity, ambition and pride of the Pope and Prelates, and to distinguish them in degree and order from ordinary Ministers, which of right are, and otherwise would be their equals, both in Jurisdiction, power and degree.

Fifthly, That they bring not one syllable out of the New Testament to prove that the power of ordination belongs only to Bishops, not to Ministers which they would have certainly done, had there been any text to warrant it; but that all they allege is out of the Old Testament; to wit, that Moses only consecrated the Tabernacle and the Altar; Ergo none but Bishops must consecrate Ministers, Altars, Churches. A learned argument; ergo none but Kings, and temporal Magistrates, no not Bishops themselves, may do it, had been a better consequent. For Moses was no Priest, much less a Bishop; the High Priest, (which was Aaron's office, not his, there being but one High Priest, at once and he a type of our High Priest Christ) but a civil Magigistrate; yet God command him to consecrate Aaron with his Sons, the Tabernacle and Altar; and after him, King Solomon (not the High Priest) consecrated the Temple, Altar, Court, and all the furniture of the Temple and Altar: So that if these examples prove anything, it is, but this: That the power of ordination, of consecrating Bishops, Ministers, Churches, Altars, &c. appertains not to Archbishops, Bishops, Popes, Preistes, Ministers, but to the chief temporal Magistrates. But admit that Moses were a Priest, and an High Priest, and that the power of consecrating Preistes, Temples, Altars appertained to him in that regard; yet this is no argument to prove, that the right and power of ordination should belong to Bishops only; and that for these three reasons.

First, because the Aaronicall Priesthood was utterly extinct and abolished by Christ, as merely typical and ceremonial; and so all • he appurtenances thereunto belonging.

Secondly, Because the High Priest was no Emblem, type or resemblance of Bishops, which are many, changeable, mortal, but only of Christ our true High Priest, who is but one, and remains an High Priest forever without succession or change. So that this allusion proves the power of ordaining Ministers to belong originally to none but Christ, our High Priest, chief Shepherd, and Bishop of our souls, as the Scripture expressly resolves; and ministerially, secondarily, to every Minister of Christ, as his Embassador, instrument, and Vicegerent.

Thirdly, Because the office and power of the High Priests and Bishops are different, distinct, yea incompatible one with the other, and the manner of ordination, of Ministers, and Deacons under the Law, different from that under the Gospel, as the Scriptures, and all Authors jointly witness: the one of them therefore can be no solid, or convincing argument to make good the authority Jurisdiction or practice of other. So that this Council and Constitution, makes nothing at all against the divine right and Title of Presbyters to ordain, or for the Bishops sole Monopoly of imposition of hands, by any divine charter from Christ or the Holy Ghost.

Finally, Neither of these Councils or Constitutions simply debar Ministers from the imposition of hands on others together with the Bishop, which they ever practiced, and were authorized to do, both by God himself, and the fourth Council of Carthage, Can. 3. But from laying on hands and ordaining Ministers of themselves alone without the Bishop, who cannot ordain, or lay hands on any Ministers by virtue of these constitutions without them. Since therefore the Bishop of himself alone cannot impose hands on any Minister without their assistance or consent, nor they without the Bishops, it is apparent, that the right of ordination is not wholly and originally vested in the Bishop, by any divine or human right; but in both. The Council 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 only the ordination and Consecration of Clerks is reserved to the High Priest 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 calls Elders and Priests 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 although they be Preistes, yet they have not attained the top or Highest degree of Priesthood, because they cannot sign the fore-head with Chrism, nor give the Holy Ghost; neither can they ordain Clerks in sacred orders, which is reserved to Bishops for unity and concords sake. The Epistle de 7. Gradibus Ecclesiae in the neinth Tome of Jerome's works, avers in express terms; that the ordination of Clerks and consecration of Virgins was reserved only to the High-Priest or Bishop for his greater honor. And Tertullian de Baptismo c. 17. writes, that the High Priest, who is the Bishop, hath the right of giving Baptism, 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 Councils or Fathers) but only by Canons and human Constitutions, made by Bishops themselves, to advance their own honor, power and dignity; yet notwithstanding the right of ordination remains still in Ministers; and belongs to Bishops, only as they are Ministers by divine right, not as they are Bishops; as is evident by the 9. Chapter of the same Council of Aken, taken out of Isidor. De Eccles. Officiis l. 2. c. 6. where writing of Bishops ordination by imposition of hands, and the original thereof, they use this expression, (which H. Rabanus Maurus, likewise hath:) But that Bishops are ordained by imposition of hands, A PRAECESSORIBVS DEI SACERDOTIBVS, by the Preistes of God their predecessors, is an ancient constitution. For the holy Patriarke Isaac laying his hands upon the head of Jacob, blessed him, and Jacob in like manner gave a benediction to his sons: &c. Where the Council and Fathers both affirm; that even Bishops themselves are ordained by Priests 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, only as Presbyters, not Bishops; and so can no ways advance them in Jurisdiction, order or degree above Ministers. The Popish Council of Trent Sessio 23. De Sacramento ordinis c. 4. determines that Bishops are superior to Presbyters, and that they can confer the Sacrament of Confirmation, ordain Ministers of the Church, and do many other things, which those inferior order have no power to do. 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 void, let him be Anathema: Loe here this Council appropriates the power of ordination only 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 only by human and Canonical; (as the History of the Council of Trent, and Chemnitz well observe:) For in the same Session de Reformatione, Can. 7. 8. it enjoins; 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 skillful of the divine Law, and exercised in Ecclesiastical constitutions, should diligently inquire and examine before them the stock, person, age, institution, manners, doctrine, and faith of those that were to be ordained; and that those orders, should be publicly conferred and celebrated in the Cathedral Church; the Canons of the Church being called to, and present at it; or if in any other place, or Church of the Diocese, Praesenti Clero Loci, the Clergy of the place being present. Pope Anacletus, and the Canon Law, having long before that time ordained; That Priests and Deacons should be ordained by their own Bishop; Ita ut Cives & Alij SACERDOTES assensum praebent; So as the Citizens and other Preistes assented thereunto; which they usually did, and ought to do, as Gratian with others prove at large. So that though this Council, and the other Canons and Constitutions debar Presbyters and Ministers from the act and exercise of ordination, (which yet they ever use, and practice as assistants to the Bishops, who can ordain none but by their assent, since they ought to join 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 pass now from these Councils and Constitutions to the Fathers, who jump in judgment with them. It is true that S. Jerome, Epiphanius, * Isidor Hispalensis, Ambrose, Augustine, Leo, and ‡ others affirm, that Bishops only in their time did use to ordain Ministers and Deacons; and that Presbyters might do all things that Bishops did, except the conferring of Orders, and some other trifling toys, as consecrating of Altars, Churches, virgins, Chrism, &c. not warranted by God's word; yet none of them determine, that the right and power of ordination belongs only to Bishops, by divine institution and appointment; that Presbyters have no right at all, by the word of God to confer Orders; or that they might not do it in any case; but they expressly aver the contrary: For as they did join with the Bishop in the imposition of hands, as appears by the third Canon of the fourth Council of Carthage, forecited; so in S. Ambrose his time, in Egypt, if the Bishop were absent, the Presbyters use to consigne and confer Orders; as this Father testifieth: and S. Augustine records, That in Alexandria, and throughout all Egypt, if the Bishop were wanting, the Presbyter did consecrate and give orders. Hence Aërius (as Epiphanius reports his words) reasoned in this manner: What is a Bishop to a Presbyter? one differs nothing from the other; it is one order (saith he) one honor, and one dignity. Imponit manus Episcopus; ITA ETIAM PRESBYTER: The Bishop imposeth his hands, or ordains Ministers; so likewise doth the Presbyter; The Bishop baptizeth, so also doth the Presbyter; The Bishop sits in a throne; so also doth the Presbyter. And he alleged, 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 ordain; but demands, how it is possible for a Presbyter to ordain, not having imposition of hands in the election of Ministers, or to say that he is equal with a Bishop. A false and miserable shift: since all Histories, Fathers, Authors, Councils testify, that in that age, Presbyters had always their voices in the Elelection, yea their hands in the ordination of Ministers and Deacons. S. Jerome in his Commentary on Zeph. c. 2. Tom. 5. p. 218. D. writes exprefly: SACERDOTES. and that Priests and Presbyters who give baptism, and imprecate the Lord's advent, to the Eucharist, make also the oil of Chrism, MANVS IMPONVNT, impose hands, instruct the catechumeny, LEVIT AS ET ALIOS CONSTITWNT SACERDOTES; ordain Levites, and other Priests: Therefore Presbyters in S. Hieronymus time ordained Ministers, Deacons, and laid on hands as well as Bishops. Yea Anastatius, in the life of Pope Pelagius the first, records; that this Pope An. Christi 555. for want of three Bishops to ordain 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 testify: Loe here a Presbyter or ordinary Minister ordaining not only another Elder, but a Bishop, yea a Pope; and supplying the place of a Bishop the general Council of Nice. Can. 4. the first Council of Arelat. Can. 21. the second Council of Carthage, Can. 12. the third Council of Carthage, Can. • 9. the Council of Aphricke, Can. 16. the Council of Rhegium, An. 472, the Council of Arausica, Can. 21. the Council 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 only by two Bishops shall be void; and so this Pope no lawfully ordained Pope, rules this Presbyter supplied the place of a Bishop, in his consecration and his Ordination good and valid by the Law of God, though invalid and a mere nullity by the Canons An. 1390. about Wicklifs time there arose in England certain bold Clerks, who affirmed; that it was lawful for them to make new Presbyters and Clerks, and confer orders., like Bishops: teaching likewise, that they were endued with the same power in Ecclesiastical affairs as Bishops were, whereupon they laid hands on many, and ordained divers Ministers: who affirmed likewise, that they had equal and the selfsame Ecclesiastical power with Bishops: which was the constant Doctrine of Wicklife and the Waldensis which Doctrine of theirs was true, but their practice discommended, yet the Ministers thus ordained by them, their ordination held lawful by God's Law; yea and their ordination of others in those times in darkness and persecution, when no Wickilvists, Lollards or other orthodox professors of the Gospel could be admitted into orders by the Bishops of that age, unless they would subscribe to their Popish assertions, as some of our Prelates now will admit none to receive orders, unless 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 means whereof many godly men are kept from the Ministry. And though Chrysostom, 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 himself, or of the Senate of the Apostles, or of such who had Apostolical authority, or of Bishops, and not of the bare Presbyters; because (say they) Presbyters, (to wit according to the practice of their, though not of former times) could not ordain a Bishop, but only Apostles, or Bishops; yet none of them so much as once asffirme, that they cannot by the Law of God ordain Deacons & ordinary Ministers; or that they ought by God's Law and divine institution to be ordained only by Bishops: yea Theophilact on that text writes thus: Behold a wonderful thing, See how much the imposition SACERDOTALIVM MANWM, of Sacerdotal or Priests hands can do; A clear demonstration, that Priests as well as Bishops, and Bishops only as they are Priests not Bishops, have power of laying on hands. And Theodoret, thus glosseth the text, here he calls those the Presbytery who had attained Apostolical grace; For, saith he, divine Scripture hath called those who were honored in Israel, Elders. The Fathers therefore confessing, that Presbyters and Elders might and did in some cases and places ordain, and consecrate Ministers without the Bishop, and likewise join 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 God's 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 do the Papists dissent from this: Aquinas writes; That the imposition of hands belongs only to those who are the Ministers of Christ: which was double, one which was made by Deacons, the other by Ministers; and because he adds not the third by Bishops; he plainly intimates, that the ordination made by Ministers and Bishops, is one and the same, and that Bishops ordain only as Bishops, not as Ministers. Ca • etan on that text saith, That Paul relates, that the imposition of hands S ACERDOTALIS OFFICII, is a part of the Sacerdotal or Priests 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 complete Ministers, pouring forth holy prayers. I know indeed that Aquinas and other Schoolmen hold, that it belongs only to Bishops to confer holy orders; yet he and Durand grant, that this is not by virtue of any divine right, orinstitution, but only by human 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 affirm; that Presbyters do, and ought to join with the Bishop in the imposition of hands in the ordination of Ministers. The Rhemists in their annotations on the 1. Tim. 4. 14. confess; that when a Priest is ordained, the rest of the Priests and Elders present, do 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 Council of Carthage: Can. 3. for proof thereof. And the Canonists, with some Schoolmen, grant, that Priests and Ministers by the Popes dispensation and License, may without a Bishops concurrents, ordain Deacons and Ministers; but a mere Layman, or one that is no Minister, cannot do it. A clear proof, 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 virtue of the Popes License, or why should Ministers join with Bishops in the imposition of hands? But to pass 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 College of Ministers hands; yet none of our Prelates have been so impudently shameless, as to deny their ordination and Ministers to be lawful, or their practice 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 only as Ministers, and servants to the Church, not Lord's, these ensuing passages will declare: Johannes Lukawitz in his Confession of the • aborites against Rokenzana, c. 13. of the Sacrament of order, writes thus: They confess, that the conferring of Orders only by Bishops, and that they have more effectual 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 Custom of the Church. This being the constant doctrine of the Waldenses and Toborites, that the power of giving orders, and imposing hands, belonged to Presbyters as well as Bishops; and that Bishops and Ministers by God's Law where both one; and no Bishop greater then any Presbyter in honor, or Jurisdiction. Melanchthon writes, That if Bishops and Ordinaries are enemies of the Church, or will not give orders, yet the Churches retain their right; For wheresoever there is a Church, there is a right of administering the Gospel; wherefore there is a necessity that the Church should retain the right of calling, electing and ordaining Ministers. And this right is a gift given to the Church, which no human authority can take from the Church; as Paul witnesseth in the fourth of the Ephesians, where he saith, When he ascended upon High, he gave gifts unto men; and he reckons Doctors and Pastors among the proper gifts of the Church, and adds, that such are given for the Work of the Ministry, 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 ordain in many Churches; but seeing that by God's 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 God's Law. Marsilius Patavinus in his Defensoris Pacis, pars 2. 〈◊〉 . 15. 17. affirms: that the power of ordaining Ministers belongs not to Priests and Bishops, but to the Magistrates and people, where he is to be a Minister. That every Priest by divine authority, may confer all Sacraments, and give orders, as well as any Bishop: and that every Priests hath power to ordain and promote any believer that is willing to the Priesthood, he preparing him Ministerially, but God simply and immediately impressing the Sacerdotal power or character; the original property of ordaining Ministers being only in Christ, the head of the Church. Hyperius thus seconds him: The imposition of hands in the election of a Bishop, or Deacon to approve the person to the multitude or people, was made by THE ELDERS, in whom this authority rested, whence it is here added, with the laying on of hands by the authority of the Priesthood, or as it is more significantly and plainly expressed in the Greek, with the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery, which signifieth the whole Congregation of Elders. And they agreed, that he who was elected by the Consent of many, should be commended and approved as a fit person, by this external sign. Which is thus backed by Hemingius. The imposition of the hands of the Presbytery, is the right of ordination, which the SENATE (or Eldership) of the Church, or other Ministers of the Gospel did administer. Pezelius thus jumpes in Judgment with them: Heretofore the authority of ordination was granted to Bishops at least by a human institution, yet so that the suffrages of the Church might not be excluded from the Election of Ministers, and that the other Presbyters should be present at the examination, and lay their hands together on him, that was to be ordained: For so Gratian Can. Presbyter. Distinct. 23. when a Presbyter is ordained, the Bishop blessing him, and holding his hand upon his head, all the Presbyters likewese that are present, shall hold their hands upon his head close to the Bishops hands: which tended to this purpose, that the Presbyters, likewise might retain the right, of conscerating, or ordaining to themselves, and that so they might manifest, that what ever the Bishop should do, that he did it not in his own name alone, but in the name of all. Musculu • Harps on the same string thus. It must plainly be confessed, that the Ministers of Christ heretofore were elected, the people being present and consenting, and they were ordained and confirmed OF THE ELDERS, by the laying on of hands. This form of electing Ministers is Apostolical and lawful; which he there proves at large:

The Noble Mornay, Lord of Tlessis, sings the same tune in these words: These things being thus proved, we add, that the right of laying on of hands, and ordaining Ministers, is in the power of the Presbyters. And this verily concerning the Apostles days is more apparent, then that it can be so much as doubted of: For saith Paul to Timothy, Neglect not the gift that is in thee by the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery, that is, of the Presbyters or Elders. Moreover Timothy himself ordained Elders, and since a Bishop and a Presbyter are names of one and the same function; if the Bishops challenge this right to themselves from the Scriptures, the Presbyters also may do the same: but if they deny it to Presbyters, in this very thing they a • rogate this right to themselves, And verily this was a good form of argument in the Church in Ancient times. He can baptize, he can consecrate and administer the Sacrament of the Lord's body, (which are the greater an more honorable Actions, because Sacraments of undoubted truth, of Highest note and use,) Therefore he may lay on hands. (which is less;) Now in ordaining Elders, the Bishop laying his hands on the head of those that were to be ordained, the rest of the Elders likewise did lay on their hands, as appears out of many places of the Decrees. The Century writers inform us, That in the Apostles time, the Apostles did not assume to themselves the power of electing and ordaining Elders and Deacons, but they had the suffrage and consent of the whole Church; and that they, and the other Ministers of the Church with them, did ordain and lay hands on them; which they prove by Acts. 6. and 13. and 14. and 19. and 1. Tim. 4. 14. And in the 2. and third Century following, c. 6. they affirm, that Bishops and Ministers were thus elected and ordained, the Elders as well as the Bishops laying their hands on them. The Confession of Saxony c. 12. resolves expressly; that it belongs to the Ministers of the word to ordain Ministers lawfully elected and called. The Synod of Petrocomia, Artic. 6. (in Poland) decreed: That no Patron should receive or admit any Minister to teach in his Church, unless he were lawfully ordained and sent by the Superintendents, and the Elders, and had a good and certain testimonial from them; and the Synod of Wlodislania Artic. 8. and 12. determines thus: The ordination and mission of Ministers into certain places to work in the Lord's vineyard, is committed to the Superintendents, and to the Ministers and Elders their Colleagues; (not to Bishops:) Georgius Major in his Enar, in Philip. 1. 1. writes thus: That there is no difference between a Bishop and a Presbyter, Paul witnesseth in the 1. Tim. 4. 14. where he saith: Neglect not the grace that is in thee &c. by the laying on the hands of the Presbytery; that is, of the Order or Colleadge of the Presbyters, by which it is shown, that Timothy was called and ordained to his Episcopal function by the Presbyters. Therefore at that time PRESBYTERS HAD THE RIGHT OF ORDINATION, as well as Bishops, neither was there any difference between them. To these I might add, Master John Calvin, Piscator, Marlorat, and most other Protestant Commentators on the 1. Tim. 4. 14. Zanchius Destatu peccati & Legal. in quartum Praeceptum, Chemnitz Loc. Com. pars 3. De Eccles. c. 4. and Examen Concilij Tridentini pars 2. De Sacram. Ordinis, pag. 224. 225. &c. (where he proves at large,) that the election and vocation of Ministers belongs to the whole Church, to the people as well as the Clergy; that the imposition of hands belongs to Presbyters as well as Bishops. Wherefore the Apostle s • ith, 1. Tim. 4. 14. that Timothy had a grace and a gift by the imposition of hands, neither saith he only of my hands, but he adds also of the Presbytery, that there should be thought no difference, whether any one were ordained either by the Apostles, or by the Elders.) A • tonius Sadeel, Response. ad Repetita Turriani Sophism. pars 2. Locus 12. Beza de diversis Ministrorum Gradibus. Junius Contr. 5. l. c. 3. n. 3. Chamierus Paustratia Cathol. Tom. 2. de Oecum. Pontif. c. 6. with sundry other writers of the reformed Churches, who aver and prove against the Papists, and Jesuits; that the power of election and ordination of Ministers by the word of God, belongs to the whole Church and Congregation, and the imposition of hands to Ministers, Elders, and Presbyters as well as to Bishops, and to Bishops only, as they are Ministers. But he that hath handled and proved this most largely and fully of all others, is Gersonius Bucerus de Gubernatione Ecclesiae (being an answer to Bishop Downhams Sermon of Bishops) p. 261. 262. 283. 287. 292. 294. 299. 310. 318. to 367. 464. 465. 493. 498. 499. 524. 618. where this point is so learnedly and substantially proved by Scripture, reason, and Authors of all sorts, that none, which read these passages of his, can ever hereafter call this into question more.

Having run thus long abroad, I now in the last place return to our own Church and writers. The Book of ordination of Ministers, ratified by two several Acts of Parliament, namely 3. Ed. 6. c. 12. and 8. Eliz. c. 1. and subscribed to by all our Prelates and Ministers, by virtue of the 36. Canon as containing nothing in it contrary to the word of God, expressly orders, that when Ministers are ordained; ALL THE MINISTERS PRESENT AT THE ORDINATION SHALL LAY THEIR HANDS TOGETHER WITH THE BISHOP ON THOSE THAT ARE TO BE ORDAINED: And the 35. Can. made in Convocation by the Bishops and Clergy An. 1603. prescribes, that the Bishop before he admit any person to holy Orders, shall diligently examine him in the presence of those Ministers that shall ASSIST HIM AT THE IMPOSITION OF HANDS. And if the said Bishop have any lawful impediment, he shall cause the said Ministers carefully to examine every such person so to be ordered. Provided that they who shall assist the Bishop in examining AND LAYING ON OF HANDS, shall be of his Cathedral Church, if they may be conveniently had, or other sufficient preachers of the same Diocese, to the number of three at the least. And according to this Book of Ordination and Canon, when ever any Ministers are ordained, all the Ministers there present join with and assist the Bishop in layng on of hands, on everyone that is ordained. So that both by the established Doctrine and practice of the Church of England, the power of laying on hands, and right of ordination, is common to every of our Ministers, as well as to our Bishops; who as they cannot ordain or lay hands on any without the Bishop, so the Bishop can ordain or lay hands on no Ministers without them; so that the power and right of ordination rests equally in them both. With what face or shadow then of truth our Prelates now can or dare to Monopolize this privilege to themselves alone, against this Book of Ordination, their own Canons, subscriptions, yea their own and their Predecessors common practice to the contrary (which perchance their overgreat employments in temporal businesses & secular state affairs, have caused them wholly to forgett, at least not to consider:) let the indifferent judge. But to pass from them to some of our learned writers: Alcuvinus De Divinis Officiis c. 37. writes; that Bishops, Presbyters, and Deacons were anciently, and in his time too, elected by the Clergy and people, and that they were present at their Ordination and consenting to it. That the Bishops consecration in his days used in the Church of Rome, wherein two Bishops held the Gospel or New Testament over the head of the Bishop consecrated, and a third uttered the blessing, after which the other Bishops present laid their hands on his head, was but a Novelty, not found in the old or New Testament, nor in the Roman tradition. And then he • proves out of Jerome's Epistle to Evagrius, and his Commentary on the first to Titus, that the ancient consecration of Bishops, was nothing else but their election and inthronization by the Elders, who chose out one of their company for a Bishop, and placed him in a higher seat then the rest, and called him a Bishop, without further Ceremony; just as an Army makes a General, or as if the Deacons should choose one from among them and call him an Archdeacon, having no other consecration but such as the other Deacons had, being advaunced above others only by the Election of his fellow-brethren, without other solemnity.

By which it is plain, that in the primitive Church, Presbyters did not only ordain Presbyters and Deacons, before there were any Bishops elected and instituted; but likewise, that after Bishops were instituted, they ordained and consecrated Bishops (as well as Elders and Deacons,) and that the sole ordination and consecration of Bishops in the Primitive and purest times, was nothing but the Presbyters bare election and inthronization of them without more solemnity; So that the other Rites and Ceremonies now used, are but Novelties. Anselm Archbishop of Canterbury on the 1. Tim. 4. 14. expounds these words, with the laying on of hands of the Presbytery in this manner, He calls that the laying on of hands which was made in his ordination; which imposition of hands was in the Presbytery, because that by this imposition of hands, he received an Eldership, that is, a Bishopric. For a Bishop is oftentimes called a Presbyter by the Apostle, and a Presbyter a Bishop. (which in his Commentary on the third Chapter, on Phil. 1. 1. Tit. 1. 5. 7. he proves to be but one and the same in the Apostles time and in the Primitive Church.) So that by his resolution the imposition of hands and power of ordaining Elders and Bishops, belongs to Presbyters as well as to Bishops. Our English Apostle John Wycliffe, and his Coaetanean Richard Fitzralphe, otherwise called Richardus Armachanus Arch-bishop and Primate of Ardmagh in Ireland; if we believe either their own writings, or Thomas Walden, who recites their opinions, arguments, and takes a great deal of pains (though in vain) to refute them: affirmed and taught:

First, that in the defect of Bishops, any one that was but a mere Priest, was sufficient to administer any Sacrament or Sacramentals whatsoever either found in Scripture, or added since.

Secondly, That one who was but a mere Priest might ordain another, and that he, who was ordained only by a simple Priest, ought not to doubt of his Presbytership, or to be ordained again, so as he rightly performed his clericall office, because the ordination comes from God, who supplies all defects.

Thirdly, That mere Priests may ordain Priests, Deacons and Bishops too; even as the inferior Priests among the Jews did ordain and consecrate the High Priest, as Bishops consecrate Archbishops, and the Cardinals the Pope.

Fourthly, That the power of order is equal, and the same in Bishops and Priests, and that by their very ordination they have power given them by Christ to administer all Sacraments alike; therefore to confer orders and confirm children, which is the less, as well as to baptize, administer the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper and preach the Gospel, which is the greater.

Fifthly, That Christ sitting in heaven hath given the power of consecrating and ordaining Priests and Deacons, of Confirmation, and all other things, which Bishops now challenge to themselves, to just Presbyters; and that these things were but of late times, even above 300. years after Christ, reserved and appropriated to Bishops only by their own Canons and Constitutions, to increase their Caesarian Pomp and pride. And Waldensis himself (who undertakes to refute these propositions) saith expressly: That no man hitherto • ath denied, that God in an urgent case of necessity gave the power of ordination to any one that is but a mere Priest, to wit, in the want or defect of Bishops. All the Archbishops, Bishops, Archdeacons and Clergy of England in their Book, entitled 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. himself in his Book styled, A necessary • rudition for any Christian man, set out by authority of the Statute, of 32. H. 8. c. 26. approved by the Lord's Spiritual and Temporal, and Netherhowse of Parliament, prefaced with the Kings own Royal Epistle, and published by his special command in the year 1543. in the chapter of Orders; expressly resolve, that • reists and Bishops by God's Law are one and the same, and that the power of ordination and excommunication belongs equally to them both. Learned Martin Bucer in his Book of recalling and bringing into use again the lawful 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. lays down these Conclusions.

First, That the power of ordination rests principally and originally in Christ himself 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 actual power of Ordination and imposition of hands belongs as well to Presbyters as to Bishops, that they ought to join 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 only instrumentally not originally as servants to the whole Congregation.

Fif • lie; That the examination and ordination of Ministers ought to be made publicly in the Church where they are elected to be Ministers, before all the Congregation, All which he proves by sundry Scriptures and Histories. Peter Martyr his coaetaman, (Regius professor in the • niversity of Oxford, in the days 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 sins against the Ministers of the Gospel, but they oppose only some slight, that I say not ridiculous thing: they say that our Pastors have no imposition of hands, and thence they endeavor to conclude, that they are not to be reputed just Governors of the Church; and that the Congregations which are taught and governed by them, are no true Churches, but Conven •• cles of rev • 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 kinds of Sacrifices, on which no man formerly had laid on hands. Lik • w • se John the Baptist brought in a new right of Baptism, and administered it to the Jews, when as yet no hands had been laid upon him, and he himself had been baptized of no man. Paul also called by Christ in his journey, did not presently go to the Apostles that they might lay hands upon him, but he taught in Arabia for 3. years space, and ministered to the Churches, before that he went up to the Apostles his Antecessors, as himself witnesseth in his Epistle to the Galatians. We reject not the imposition of hands, but retain it in many Churches; which if we receive not from their Bishops, we are not to be blamed for it, for they would not conf • rre it on us, unless we would depart from sound Doctrine, and likewise bind ourselves by O • th to the Roman Antichrist. In which words he resolves:

First, That the imposition of hands is no such essential part of a Ministers ordination, but that it may be omitted; and that those who are elected and lawfully called to the Ministry 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, only by the laying on of hands of other Ministers, are lawfully ordained.

Thirdly, That this position, that the power of ordination belongs only to Bishops, that those are no true Ministers who are ordained without a Bishop, is but a vain ridiculous Popish Cavil. Our Prelates therefore should be ashamed to ground both their own, and Titus his Episcopal Hierarchy 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 we understand, that Tim • thy, receiveth imposition of hands from the Elders, who at that time governed the Church by a common Council; and against Duraeus, he argues thus; Luther, Zwinglius, Oecolampadius, Bucer and others were Presbyters; and Presbyters by God's Law are the same with Bishops; therefore they might lawfully ordain other Pres • yters; Doctor Fulke in his Confutation of the Rhem • sh Testament: Annot. on Tit. 1. Sect. 2. and Doctor Willet in his Synopsis Papismi, the 5. general Controversy 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, he is only called a Bishop, which is in the Scripture called chief in government, to whom the ordination or consecration by imposition of hands was always principally committed. Not that imposition of hands belongeth only 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 affirm; that not principally and chiefly, 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 chiefly in the Apostles, yet the Pastors and Elders together with them laid on their hands, Acts. 13. 3. 4. and as S. Paul speaketh of his laying on of hands, 2. Tim. 1. 6. so he maketh mention of imposition of hands by the Eldership, 1. Tim. 4. 14. And the Rhemists on that place mislike not the practice of their Church, that their Priests do lay on their hands together with the Bishop upon his head that is to be ordained. What else doth this signify, but that they have some interest in ordaining together with the Bishop? The 4. Council of Carthage Can. 3. Decrees thus: Let all the Priests that are present, hold their hands next to the Bishops hand, upon the head of him that is to be ordained. Again Can. 14. of the same Council: 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 solely 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. Book of the Church, c. 27. is of the same opinion; where he proves out of Durand 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 human Constitutions only, rather for to honor the Bishops preistly place, then for that it might not be done by any other, and for the avoiding of confusion and schism in the Church: Concluding, that in cases of necessity; as when Bishops are extinguished by death; or fallen into heresy, or obstinately refuse to ordain men to preach the Word and Gospel of Christ sincerely, and the like, then Ministers only may ordain other Ministers, without any Bishops assistance. And Master Cartwright in his Confutation of the Rhem • sh Testament, on the 1. Tim. 1. 14. Sect. 18. and on Tit. 1. Sect. 2. pr • oves, both by the Rhemists own practice and Confession, by the 4. Council of Carthage, cited by them, and the History of Eradius his ordination, who succeeded Augustine, to which six Elders, as well as two Bishops were called, and by the text of Timothy itself, that the imposition of hands belongs to Elders as well as Bishops, which he 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 affirms, that the ordination, vocation, and election of Bishops and other Ministers of the Church belongeth only to Bishops.

First, That it cannot belong Iure Divino to Popish Bishops, superior to Presbyters in degree, because they themselves are only, vel juris, vel injuriae humanae, of human right, or rather injury, 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 virtue which it hath in constituting the Minister of the Church, it always appertains to the whole Church; as the celebration of Matrimony receives all its force and virtue from the consent of the parties married.

Fourthly, That in corrupted and collapsed State of the Church, the Ministry and Order failing; the very act of ordination, so far forth as it is necessary to the constitution of a Minister, may in such a case be lawfully executed by the people.

Fifthly, That the Act of ordination is attributed to Presbyters, 1. Tim. 4. 14. And that the Apostles themselves did not ordain ordinary Ministers▪ but by the concurrence and consent of the people, Acts. 14. 23.

Sixthly, That in the primitive Church, which was governed by the common Counsel of the Presbyters, before there were any Bishops, the very first Bishops were not ordained by Bishops, which then were not, but by Ministers.

Seventhly, That all the Councils, Degrees and Testimonies of Fathers objected to the contrary; prove nothing else, but that the Act and Right of Ordination partly by Custom, and partly by human Decrees, was given to the chief Presbyter or Bishop after the Apostles time, not belonging to them by any divine right.

Eighthly, 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 marriage, to the essence of a marriage.

Ninthly, That the power of Ordination, according to the Schoolmen and Canonists, is not an Act of Jurisdiction, but of simple office, which Presbyters may perform without any Commaund or Jurisdiction.

Tenthly, That the Papists themselves teach, that baptism 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 confer any of the greater Orders, and that all the Pontificians teach with unanimous consent, that a Bishop once consecrated, although he be a Simoniack, Heretic, excommunicate person or the like, may yet firmly ordain others. Therefore a fortiori Godly Presbyters, or the people and Church of Christ, may lawfully confer orders without the help 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 own and other Protestant writers, Churches; and this book 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 saith Gratian, is nothing else but a prayer over a man; and as Aquinas writes, signifieth only 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 human right and practice) belongs to Presbyters and ordinary Ministers as well as Bishops; therefore Bishops cannot be paramount Presbyters and ordinary Ministers in order and Jurisdiction, in this regard; neither will this power of ordination prove Timothy or Titus Bishops, as they now vainly surmise. Hence therefore I retort the objection in this manner against the opposites.

Sixthly, S. Paul, in the 1. Tim. 3. and Titus 1. 6. &c. makes a particular enumeration and recital both of the qualifications, and offices of a Bishop; But among all these, he speaks not a word concerning the power of act of ordination; neither doth he make it a part of a Bishops qualification or duty to be apt and able discreetly to confer orders, as he doth particularly require, he should be apt to teach: How therefore this should be a chief property, or principal 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 Monopoli • e of ordination, which they would engross unto themselves alone (perchance to make the more advantage by it, it being a sweet and pleasant gain as some handle it now,) before they lay any further Title thereunto, even as they are Diocesan Bishops.

Seventhly, I must inform 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, Chapels, and Churchyards, by virtue of his special Patents and Commissions under his great Seal first obtained; without which they could not do it, and that all the Bishops in King Edward the 6. time, had special clauses in their Letters Patents, authorizing them to ordain and constitute Ministers and Deacons, as Bishop Ponets, Bishop Scoryes, Bishop Coverdales, Patents 5. Edw. 6. pars 1. & 2. with others in his Rain, testify at large. Neither do or can our Archbishops or Bps▪ at this day consecrate any Bishop or Arch-bishop, unless they have the Kings own Letters Patents, authorizing and commanding them to do it, as the Patents directed to them uponevery Bishops consecration and experience witness. It seems therefore that their power to consecrate Churches, Chapels, Churchyards, Ministers, and Bishops, belongs not to them as they are Bishops, and that it is merely human not divine, since they claim and execute it only by virtue of the Kings Letters Patents; therefore it cannot advance them above Pres byters, by any divine right.

Eighthly, All accord, that in cases of necessity, when or where Bishops are wanting, or when there are none but Simontacall or Heretical Bishops, who refuse to ordain such as are Orthodox, or will not subscribe to their heresies, there Presbyters and ordinary Ministers may lawfully confer orders, confirm, and do other Acts, which Bishops usually engross to themselves; so Ambrose, Augustine, Richardus Armachanus, Wycliffe, 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 Book De Ecclesia. c. 11. Ames, with sundry others affirm, that the people alone in case of necessity where there are no Bishops nor Ministers, may lawfully elect and ordain Ministers, as well as baptize and preach (both which Papists, and Protestants affirm, that Laymen may lawfully do in cases of necessity) the right of ordination and election of Ministers being originally in the whole Church and people, Ministerially only in Bishops and Ministers as servants to the Congregation, and the imposition of hands no essential, but a ceremonial part of ordination, which may be sufficiently made without it, as Angelus de Clavasio, Peter Martyr, and others, both Papists and Protestants, affirm. But when Paul left Titus in Crete, to set in order the things that were wanting, and to ordain Elders in every City, there where present no other Bishops or Elders to ordain Ministers, (as is likely) but Titus only; for we read of none else but Titus then in Cree • e, (which was then but newly converted to the faith;) and he is enjoined, to ordain Elders in every City; which proves 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 prove him a Diocesan Bishop; since other ordinary Ministers might ordain 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 ordain Elders in every City, by virtue of any Episcopal inherent Jurisdiction of his own, but as Paul's Substitute, who appointed him to do it, and prescribed him what manner of persons he should ordain: Tit. 1. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. This therefore cannot prove 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 only, not of Authority, and no more then an external complement or Ceremony) is far inferior to the authority of preaching, baptising, consecrating, and administering the Sacrament, which every Minister may do 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 Jurisdiction, order, or degree to those Bishops who then wanted those gifts, or to ours now, who take far more state upon them, then those Bishops did. Many Bishops there are and have been that could not, at least would not preach, though Bellarmine himself, yea the Council of Trent, and all men acknowledge, that it is the chiefest, and most honorable part of their Episcopal function, as making them Christ's Ambassadors: Are they then inferior in order, dignity, power, and degree to Bishops, yea to Ministers, Vicars, and poor Curates who are both able and willing to preach? That which makes any man superior in order Jurisdiction, or dignity to his equal, must be an authority superior to that which his equal hath, not the accession of any inferior dignity or power. The making of an Earl, a Knight, or Country-Justice, adds nothing to his former honor in point of superiority or precedency. If a Bishop be presented to an ordinary benefice, prebendary or Deanery, (as some are and have been by way of Commendam.) it accumulates naught to his Episcopal authority being inferior to the power of the Keys, preaching and administering the Sacraments, which every enjoys Iure divino, as absolutely as any Archbishop or Bishop, can no ways advaunce Bishops in Jurisdiction or degree above Pres byters and ordinary Ministers, no more then the Bishop of Durham his being a Count Palatine, with his large temporal jurisdiction, far exceeding that of all our Archbishops and Bishops, advaunceth him in order or degree above them all. So that this grand objection to prove 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 maxim in the Schools, that he which ordains is greater then he who is ordained; and that the Apostle saith, that the lesser is blessed of the greater: Therefore Titus, and so likewise Bishops, who ordain 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 only to Bishops, not to Presbyters; and so is build on a false sandy foundation.

Secondly, I answer; that this proposition, he that ordaineth or consecrateth Ministers is greater in Jurisdiction, 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 Jesuits, the Council 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 burden of their Episcopal superiority and precedency over other Ministers, upon this rotten counterfeit Pillar, unable any ways 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) do elect and consecrate the Pope; yet they are not greater in order, dignity, power or Jurisdiction then the Pope, but inferior, and he far superior to them in all these. We read, that Metropolitans, Patriarchs, Primates and Archbishops are created, consecrated and installed by ordinary Bishops, as the Arch-bishops of Canterburry and York, have oftentimes been 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 ordain, in every of these. We know by daily experience that one Bishop consecrates and ordains another, and he a second, and that second a third; yet all of them are of equal power, and Jurisdiction, not different or distinct in order or degree; and sometimes the last of the three in respect of his Bishopric, takes precedency of the rest, that ordained him, as the Bishops of London, Durham, and Winchester do here with us, and other Bishops the like in foreign parts. So some Ministers join with the Bishop in the ordination and laying of hands on others, yet one of them is not superior in Jurisdiction, order, or degree to the other; Now were this our Prelates objected Paradox true; the Cardinals should be greater in order, power, and degree, then the Popes, the Bishops, then Patriarchs, Metropolitans, 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. Jerome in his Epistle to Evagrius and on Titus, 1. with Alcuvinus, De Divinis Officiis c. 37. affirm, that in the primitive Church Bishops were both Elected and consecrated by Presbyters; and the Scripture is express, that both Paul and Timothy were ordained by the Presbytery: Acts 13. 3. 4. 1. Tim. 4. 14. If the Bishops reason then be orthodox; it follows inevitably, that in the Apostles times, and the primitive Church Pres byters were superior in Jurisdiction, order and Degree to Bishops, yea to Paul and Timothy, the one an Apostle, the other an Evangelist; and not Bishops, Lord's 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 Sovereign Lord King Charles, and baptized his son Prince Charles; will he therefore conclude, that he is greater in power, authority, place, and Jurisdiction 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 infer, 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 York, or the Major of other Cities inferior to the Commons; or the Lord Chauncellors of our Universities of Oxford and Cambridge, less honorable, potent, and inferior to the Doctors, Procters, and Masters of Arts; or the heads or Masters of the Colleadges and Halls in them, subordinate, or less worshipful or eminent then the fellows, 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, Citizens 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 maxim true; that he who constitutes, ordains, or consecrates another, is greater then the parties constituted, ordained, or consecrated, and that in Jurisdiction, place, order, and degree? Our Popish Priests are not afraid to proclaim that in their consecration of the Sacrament, they create their very Creator, and make no less then Christ himself: are they therefore greater and higher in order and degree then Christ, the great and only High Priest, the * Cheife Shepherd, and Bishop of our Souls, whose Vicar and Substitute the Pope himself doth but claim to be? Certainly if this their Popish proposition be true, they must needs be one order and degree Higher, in point of Priesthood, then Christ himself; who must then lose his titles of High Priest and chief Shepherd, because every Mass-Priest will be paramount him; in that he not only consecrates, but creates him too. We read in Scripture, that Kings, Priests and Prophets were usually anointed and consecrated to be such with oil; was therefore the oil 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 crown 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 ordain or consecrate, since both are but instruments, Servants not prime original agents, Lord's, or Supreme absolute actors in these several consecrations and actions. If we cast our eyes either upon nature or policy, we find this proposition of our Prelates a mere • alsehood. In nature we • ee, that a man begets a man; an horse an horse; an asse an asse; a dog a dog &c. equal one to the other in nature, quality, species, and degree; the son being as much a man as the Father, the colt as much an horse as the steed that begott him. In Civil or Politique Constitutions, we see the like; In our Universities, Doctors and Professors of Divinity, Physic, Law, Music, create other Doctors of the same Professions, equal 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 only in point of time or antiquity, but not in respect of the profession or degree of Doctorship it self; yea every Minister made by any Bishop, is as much as truly and fully a Minister as the Bishop, as all Protestants and Papists do acknowledge; therefore the same in specie with, and equal to a Bishop: Our Bishops pretend themselves Spiritual Fathers, and they call the Ministers ordained by them, Sons; So Epiphanius long since argues against Aërius: As therefore in natural generations, a man begets a man, a beast a beast; and in Civil 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 natural children, beget them as men, not Bishops, and their children are as much men as themselves; when they spiritually ordain or engender Ministers, they do it only as they are Ministers not Bishops, and those they thus beget and ordain, are as much Ministers as themselves; when they beget and consecrate Bishops, they do it as they are Bishops, and those thus begot and consecrated are as much Bishops as themselves. Since therefore they ordain Ministers only as they are Ministers, not as Bishops; as is clear (else it were an unnatural an incongruous, yea a monstrous generation, to beget one of a different kind, order, quality and degree from themselves, and as much as if a man should beget a beast, an horse, or an Ass,) and since every Minister is as much as completely a Minister every way as the Bishop, and Ministers who ordain 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 laid 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 Jerome writes in his Epistle to Evagrius, and all since acknowledge 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 controversy is at end; and the truth most apparent; 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 vainly contend. If not, then the Prelates maxim, on which they ground their Hierarchy, is most false, in that sense in which they urge it; and so will yield no supportation to their Hierarchy.

Thirdly, I answer, that this Proposition of theirs is warranted by no Scripture, nor backed with any convincing reason drawn from Scripture; therefore it proves nothing either for Titus his Episcopal 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 only of Melchizedechs blessing of Abraham, and Ministers blessing of the people, as the words and all Commentators jointly testify.

Secondly, Because it is not meant of Ministers, who bless others only Ministerially, instrumentally, by way of duty and service, as Bishops ordain Ministers; not inherent original authority, for then Ministers should be better and greater then God, whom they bless and praise, but of Christ himself; who by Melchizedek, his type, blessed Abraham by his own inherent authority and power; as the only true High-Priest, and ch • ife Shepherd of our souls. If therefore our Prelates take their maxim in this sense, he that ordains Ministers, to wit, originally by his own 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 gain no advantage by it, because no Bishops, do or can ordain Ministers thus, but only God and Christ alone, whose Ministers and Servants both the ordainers and ordained are. But if th •• mean, that they who ordain Ministers only instrumentally and Ministerially as servants to Christ, his Church and the whole Congregation, (in whom the original and primitive right of ordination is only vested) are greater in Jurisdiction, order and degree, then those who are ordained, as they do and must do; 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 ordain 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 Ministry 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 confer the selfefame office of Ministry 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 complete, 〈◊〉 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 appears 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 equal with the other Apostles in Apostolical power, dignity, and degree. So that from all these premises I may conclude, that this maxim of our Prelates, whereon they build their Episcopal Hierarchy, in that sense they take it, is most false; and neither proves Titus to be a Diocesan 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 proves but this; that Bishops are superior to those Ministers only which themselves ordain, (so that if they ordain none they are superior to none; not to those ordained by others, which may be their equals notwithstanding this allegation, seeing they were not ordained by them; this proposition extending only to the act, not to the power of ordination. If any extend it further, in this sort; that they who have power to ordain Ministers are greater in order, Jurisdiction, degree and dignity, then those who want this power; then it will follow, that Bishops suspended from ordaining others (either for advauncing unworthy Ministers, without due examination, or making Ministers without a title, as many now do, for which the Canons prescribe, they shall be suspended from giving Orders for two years space) are inferior in order and degree to Bishops, who may execute this power and ordain; and so one Bishop shall be superior in order and degree to another Bishop; which none ever yet affirmed; yea all our Bishops being prohibited and disabled by their own Canons to ordain Ministers or Deacons at any time, but only at the 4. solemn times appointed, and that in the presence of the Dean, Archdea • on or two Prebends at the least, or of 4. other grave Persons, being Masters of Art at least, and allowed for public Preachers: it will hereupon follow, that Bishops only at these 4. times of the year, are greater in dignity and degree then Ministers, because they may then ordain, but not at other seasons, when they have no power or authority to confer orders upon any being restrained by the Canon. All which being laid together, discovers the weakennes, the absurdity of this our Prelates Theory, on which they build both their own, & Titus his hierarchy, which now fall quite to ruin with this their sandy foundation, which I have here 〈◊〉 ever dissipated & subverted, if I mistake not.

Obj. 5. If any finally object; that the Fathers style Titus, the first Bishop of Crete, and Timothy of Ephesus, therefore they were Diocesan Bishops, and superior in Jurisdiction and degree to other Ministers, and so by consequence are other Diocesan Bishops as well as they.

Answ. 1. I answer: First, that neither S. Paul nor S. Luke, who lived in their times, and knew them far better then any Fathers or writers since, ever so much as once term or style them Bishops; much less, the first or sole Diocesan Bishops of Crete, or Ephesus; which no doubt they would have done, had they been in truth Diocesan Bishops there; and the name, the office of a Bishop so honorable and sublime, above that of Ministers, even Iure Divino, as our Prelates and their flatterers now pretend. Their testimonies therefore (who style them only Ministers or Evangelists, never Bishops) is to be preferred before all Fathers and writers, (who style them Bishops) being neither acquainted with their persons or functions, nor living in their age.

Secondly, No Father ever stiles them, or either of them a Diocesan or sole Bishop of Crete or Ephesus, (the thing which ought to be proved,) but Bishops only, as they styled other Ministers, the name, the office of Bishops and Presbyters being but one and the same, and promiscuously used in the Apostles times; all Presbyters being then called Bishops, and all Bishops Presbyters; as is evident by Acts. 14. 23. c. 20. 17. 28. Phil. 1. 1. 1. Pet. 5. 1. 2. 3. Tit. 1. 5. 7. 1. Tim. 3. 1. 2. 3. 2. John. 1. 3. John. 1. Philemon. 9. with all ancient, all moderne Commentators on these texts. Whence the Translators of our last authorized English Bible, affix these Contents to Titus, 1. 6. to 10. (which treats of the quality of Bishops) How they that are to be chosen MINISTERS ought to be qualified▪ And the Book of ordination of Ministers (confirmed by two several Acts of Parliament) prescribes the 1. Tim. c. 3. Acts 20. and Titus 〈◊〉 . to be read both at the ordination of Ministers, and Consecration of Bishops: and so intimates, yea interpretes, that Bishops and Ministers in the Scriptures language, are both one, in name, and office, and were so reputed in the Primitive Church.

Thirdly, The Fathers use the word, Elders and Bishops, promiscuously; calling Elders Bishops, and Bishops Elders; Hence Papias the Auditor of S. John, and companion of Polycarpus, writes thus in the Preface of his books; It shall not seem grievous untome, if that I compile in writing, and commit to memory, the things which I learned of the Elders. If any came in place which was a follower of the Apostles, forthwith demanded the words of the Elders: what Andrew, what Peter, what Philip, what Thomas, or James, or John, or Matthew, or any other of the Lord's Disciples; what Ariston, and the Elder John, Disciples of the Lord, had said. Here he stiles, not only Bishops, but even Apostles Elders. Polycarpus, his companion and Coaetanian, writes thus in his Epistle to the Philippians, Be ye subject to Presbyters and Deacons as to God: let the Presbyters be simple and merciful in all things. Now those whom he here stiles Presby • ers, S. Paul expressly terms Bishops, Philip. 1. 1. Justine Martyr in his second Apology, used neither the name Bishop nor Elder, but terms the Minister only, He who is set over the Brithren, He who holds the first place, in reference to the Deacon, who held the second place, not to any Elders of an inferior order to him. And least any one should dream that Justin Martyr here speaks of a Bishop, Tertullian, who lived near about that time, or within few years, in his Apology writes thus; Praesident nobis probati quique Seniores, &c. Approoved Elders (not Bishops) are set over us, having obtained this honor, not with any price, but by a good testimony. Whence it is evident, that in his age, every Christian Congregation had divers Elders, (not one Diocesan Bishop) over it to feed and rule it, according to the practice of the Apostles times, Acts. 14. 23. c. 20. 17. 28 c. 21. 18. Philip. 1. 1. 1. Tim. 5. 17. Tit. 1. 5. James, 5. 14. 1. Pet. 5. 1. 2. Hence learned Apollinarius, calls the Bishops and Elders of the Church of Ancyra in Galatia, Presbyters. And Clemens Alexandrinus, relating the Story of the young man delivered by S. John to a Bishop, to train up in the fear of God, twice together calls him, interchaingably, both a Bishop and an Elder; as Meridith Hamner (a Bishop) Englisheth it. So Irenaeus, one of the ancientest of all the Fathers, stiles Polycarpus Bishop of Smyrna. That holy and Apostolic Elder, yea he terms the Bishops of Rome themselves Elders, They (saith he) that were Elders before Soter, of the Church which now thou governest, I mean Anacletus, Pius, Hyginus, Thelesphorus, and Xystus, neither did so observe it themselves, neither left they any such commandment unto posterity. And the same Father Adversus Heresies. l. 3. c. 2. & l. 4. c. 43. 44. oftentimes stiles Bishops Elders; and Elders Bishops; making Presbyters equal to Bishops in all respects, and Successors to the Apostles as well, as much as they. So Dionysius Alexandrinus, in his Epistle to Xystus, Bishop of Rome, about the year of Christ, 240. writes thus: There was a certain Brother, reputed to be of our Church, and Faith, very aged, & priusquam ego etiam creatus Episcopus, and created a BISHOP before, I was, and as I think, before blessed Heraclas was made a Bishop. Where he expressly terms this party, who was but a Minister or Presbyter only in that Church, A BISHOP, and saith, he was created a Bishop: when he was but ordained a Minister. And that famous Gregory Nazianzen (three hundred and seventy years after Christ,) in his 9. 13. 15. 21. and 28. Orations, p. 262. 357. 368. 479. as Elias Cretensis, in his Commentary on those places testifieth, useth the words Bishops and Presbyter, reciprocally; styling Bishops Presbyters, and Presbyters Bishops; making them all one by divine institution, and different only by human invention, which difference he heartily wisheth, were abolished; himself voluntarily resigning his Bishopric of Constantinople, to be take himself to a more private and retired life. The Fathers therefore thus promiscuously using the name Bishop and Presbyter, styling Bishops Presbyters; and Presbyters Bishops, and making both of them one and the same by divine institution, their styling of Timothy and Titus, Bishops of Ephesus and Crete, is no argument or proof at all, that they were Diocesan, or sole Bishops of those places; or that they had, or any Bishops now have, by divine institution, any Episcopal Jurisdiction and preeminence over other Presbyters or Ministers, or were superior to them, in order, dignity or degree.

Fourthly, The Greek word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , which we English, a Bishop, signifies properly nothing else, but an Overseer, Survayor, Superintendent, or Administrator, and is oft times applied both by Greek Authors, and the Septuagint Greek Translators to secular offices Hence. † Homer, stiles Hector; the Bishop of the City: In the Verses of Solon in Demostenes, Pallas is called the Bishop of Athens: Plutarch in the life of Numa, stiles Venus the Bishop over the dead, and he there makes mention of a Bishop of the Vestall Virgins. Soudas records, that in the Athenian Republic; those who are sent to the Cities under their Jurisdiction, to oversee the affairs of their Companions; were called Bishops. Cicero in his seventh Book to Atticus, writes thus, Pompey will have me to be the Bishop of all Compagnia and the Maritine Coastes, to whom the choice and sum of the business may be referred. And in the Pandects, the Clerks of the Markets are called Bishops. The Septuagint Numb. 13. read the Bishops of the Army; 4. Kings 11. they read; the Bishops who are over the Army, and the Bishops over the house of the Lord. Where Watchmen, Guardians, and Overseers, are called Bishops, 2. Chron. 34. The Overlookers of the Workemen, are styled Bishops; Judges 9. Zebul is called Abimeleches Bishop, in the Greek; which we now English, his Officer: So Num. 4. 16. The office of Eliazar, in the Tabernacle of the Lord, and the function of Judas, Psalm. 109. 8. is tormed 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , a Bishopric, by the Septuagint; and so expressly styled by the Holy Ghost himself, and Englished by us, Acts. 1. 20. His Bishopric let another take, yea, Constantine the great (as ‡ Eusebius records in his life) inviting some Bishops to a Feast, called himself a Bishop in their presence, uttering these words, You saith he, are Bishops within the Church, but I am constituted of God a Bishop without the Church. Our New Translators, Acts. 20. 28. render the Greek word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (the title which he gives to the Elders of the Church of Ephesus) Overseers: Luke. 19. 44. The time of God's visitation and overthrow of Jerusalem, is termed 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 &c. Luke. 1. 6. 7. 8. c. 7. 16. Heb. 2. 6. The Greek word which we translate, hath visited us, is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Whence the day of God's gracious visitation of his people to convert them to him in mercy, is called by the Holy Ghost, 1. Pet. 2. 12. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 The day of visitation; yea our very visiting of sick persons, prisoners, Orphans and Widdowes, is termed by Christ and the holy Ghost himself (though a mere act of charity, humility, and Christian duty, not of Jurisdiction and Lordly Prelacy,) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Math. 25. 36. 43. and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 : I am. 1. 27. to visit or to play the Bishops part and duty; which the meanest Christian, yea women (though uncapeable, of sacred orders) may do and ought to perform, as well as any others. So intermeddling with other men's affairs or couetting of any other men's offices of what condition soever, is termed by the Apostle, 1. Pet. 4. 15. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the playing as it were the Bishop in another man's Dioces. Yea every Ministers feeding and taking the oversight of his proper flock, is styled, the doing of a Bishops office: and those Presbyters who do thus, are not only said to be 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . 1. Pet. 5. 21. that is, men executing the office and duty of a Bishop; but likewise styled, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ; that is, true and proper Bishops: a name given only to Presbyters (and none but they in holy Scripture: Acts. 20. 28. Phil. 1. 1. Titus. 1. 7. and to Christ himself, who is styled, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , the Bishop of our Souls, 1. Pet. 2. 25. but not to any Apostle, Evangelist, Diocesan, or other Prelate; none such being particularly termed, a Bishop, • hroughout the whole New Testament: The Fathers make Bishops and Overseers all one, deriving the very name of a Bishop, from a Greek verb, which signifieth to overlook, watch, ward, or take care off. Hence Augustine writes thus; He did keep, he was careful, he did watch, as much as he could, over those, over whom he was set. And Bishops do thus. For therefore an higher place is set for Bishops, that they may superintend, and as it were keep the people. For that which in Greek is called a Bishop, that in Latin is interpreted a Superintendent, because he overseeth, because he seeth from above. For like as an higher place is made for the vineyard keeper, to keep the vineyard, so an higher place also is made for the Bishops. And a perilous account is to be rendered of this high place, unless we stand therein with such an heart, that we may be under your feet in humility, and pray for you, that he who knows your minds, he may keep you; because we can see you entering and going out, but yet we are so far from seeing what you think in your hearts, that we cannot so much as see what you do in your houses. How therefore do we keep you like men, as much as we can, as much as we have received. We keep you out of the office of dispensation, but we will be kept together with you: we are as Pastors to you, but under that Pastor (Christ,) we are sheep together with you: we are as teachers to you out of this place, but under that one Master we are Scholars with you in this School. If we will be kept by him who was humbled for us, and is exalted to keep us, let us be humble. Those set themselves before Christ, who will be high here, where he was humble; Let them therefore be humble here, if they will be exalted there, where he is exalted. In another place he writes thus; For this cause the Apostle saith, He that desires a Bishopric, desires a good work. He would expound what a Bishopric is: it is a name of labor not of honor. For it is a Greek word, and derived from hence, that he who is made an Overseer, overseeth those, over whom he is set, namely by taking care of them. For 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is over, but 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is intention, overseeing or care: therefore if we will render 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in Latin, we may say it is to play the Superintendent; that he may understand, that he is not a Bishop, who delights to be over others, but not to profit them. On which words Ludovicus Vives thus Comments; The name of a Bishop is derived either from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , which signifieth to consider, or from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , which signifieth the same and to visit. Whence S • idas saith, there were some sent from the Athenians to the Cities under them, who should look into their affairs: and these were called Bishops, that is, as it were Overseers, or Visitors, and Observers. In Holy Scriptures, a Bishop is commonly called, a Watchman, as in Ezekiel. 3. 17. c. 33. 2. 6. 7. and in Hosea. 5. 1. The Lord complaineth that the Bishops were made a snare on Mizpah (or in the watch tower,) and a net spread upon Tabor; as if he had spoken of the Bishops of this age, who lay snares in their Bishoprics and large nets to catch many, but not with thin holes or threades, least the gift should swim thorough: yea now it is so provided by the diligence and wits of certain men, that without evasion of this Law, a Bishopric may not only be lawfully desired, but likewise bought and sold. S. Chrysostom in his 10. Hom. upon the 1. Tim. S. Jerome in his Epistle to Evagrius, Beda on the 1. Pet. 2. 25. Anselm on Phil. 1. 1. Aquinas secunda secundae: Qu. 184. Art. 6. Petrus de Palude. de Potest. Coll. Apostol. Art. 1. (all cited by Bishop Jewel in the Defense of the Apology of the Church of England, part. 6. c. 2. Divis. 1. p. 523.) and S. Bernard also, de Consideratione ad Eugenium, l. 2. & 3. jointly resolve; that a Bishop is nothing else, but a Superintendent, Watchman, or Overseer, and that he is called a Bishop from hence, that he overseeth, survaieth, or watcheth over others, with which all other ancient and moderne writers, whether foreign or domestic, Papists or Protestants accord. Hear only Doctor John Ponet Bishop of Winchester, in his Apology against Doctor Martin, in defense of Priests marriage, c. 4. 5. p. 44. 52. 53. 54. who as he there expressly reckons up Popes, Cardinals, BISHOPS, Priests, Monks, Canons, Friers, &c. to be the Orders of Antichrist; taxing them likewise severely and comparing them with the Eustathian heretics for refusing to wear usual garments, and putting upon them garments of strange fashions, to vary from the common sort of people in apparel: So he thus determines of the name Bishop and Superintendent: And further whereas it pleaseth Martin not only in this place, but also hereafter to est at the name of Superintendent, he showeth himself bent to condemn all things that be good, though in so doing • ee cannot avoid his open shame. Who knoweth not that the name Bishop hath so been abused, that when it was spoken, the people understood nothing else, but a great Lord, that went in a white Rochet, with a wide shaven Crown, and that carrieth an oil box with him, where he used once in 7. year riding about to confirm children, &c. Now to bring the people f •• m this abuse, what better means can be d • v • s • d then to teach the people their error by another word out of the Scriptures of the same signification: which thing by the term superintendent would in time have been well brought to posse. For the ordinary pains of such as were called superintendents, should have taught the people to understand the duty of their Bishop, which you Papists would fain have hidden from them. And the word Superintendent being a very Latin word made English by use, should in time have taught the people by the very Etymology and proper signification, what things was meant, when they heard that name which by this term Bishop, could not so well be done, by reason that Bishops in the time of Popery were Overseers in name, but not indeed. So that their doings could not teach the people their names, neither what they should look for at their Bishops hands. For the name Bishop, spoken amongst the unlearned, signified to them nothing less then a preacher of God's word, because there was not, nor is anything more rare in any order of Ecclesiastical persons, then to see a Bishop preach, whereof the doings of the Popish Bishops of England can this day witness; but the name superintendent should make him ashamed of his negligence, and afraid of his idleness, knowing that S. Paul doth call upon him to attend to himself and to his whole flock, of the which sentence our Bishops mark the first pecce right well, (that is, to take heed to themselves, but they be so deaf, they cannot hearken to the second) that is, to look to their flock. I deny not, but that the name Bishop may be well taken, but because the evilnes of the abuse hath marrid the goodness of the word, it cannot be denied, but that it was not amiss to join for a time another word with it in his place, whereby to restore that abused word to his right signification, And the name superintendent is such a name, that the Papists themselves (saving such as lack both learning and wit,) cannot find fault withal. For Peresius the Spaniard and an Archpapist, (out of whom Martin hath stolen a great part of his Book) speaking of a Bishop, saith: Primum Episcopy munus nomen ipsum prae se fert, quod est spperintendere, Episcopus enim Superintendens interpreta 〈…〉 visitans aut supervidens, &c. That is to say: The chief office of a Bishop by interpretation, signifieth a Superintendent, a Visitor, or an Overseer. Why did not Martin as well steal this piece out of Peresius, as he did steal all the common places that he hath for the proof of the Canons, of the Apostles, and of Traditions in his second and third Chapters? Martin in the 88. leaf is not ashamed in his Book to divide the significations of the terms, (Bishop and Superintendent,) as though the one were not signified by the other. But it may be that Martin as the rest of the Popish Sect would not have the name of (Superintendent) or Minister used, least that name which did put the people in remembrance of sacrificing and bludsapping, should be forgotten. Since therefore this Title B • shop, is thus promiscuously used, both in profane and Christian writers, and in the Scripture it self, for any Officer, Overseer, Survayer, Superintendent, Watchman, Guardian, Pastor, or Keeper, as well temporal and civil, as Ecclesiastical, and all these their offices styled in Greek, a Bishopric: 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 do the office of a Bishop: since those who out of charity, love, or friendship go to visit others, who are either sick, poor, Fatherless, or otherwise distressed, and God himself when he comes, to punish or show mercy unto others, are in the Greek 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , which we translate, Let us go again and visit our Brethren, in every City, where we have preached the word of the Lord, and see how they do. From which text the Rhemists would make Bishops, ordinary visitation, to be Jure Divino; but this was no Lordly Episcopal visitation such as our Bishops now keep, for we read of no visitation Articles, oaths, fees or presentmens in it; neither were Paul and Barnabas Bishops, but it was a mere visitation of love, as one friend visits another, not of Jurisdiction, as the last words: And see how they do, together with the Council of Laodicea, Can. 57. expound it, and verse 14. Simon hath declared how God 〈◊〉 at the first 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name. And Acts. 7. 23. When Moses was full 40. years old, it came into his heart 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , to visit his brethren, the children of Israel; and since these words 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , (that is) to visit, oversee, or play the Bishop, imply no Lordship; Soveraingty, Dominion, Jurisdiction, or Lordly Episcopal authority in them, (at least no such as our Bishops now claim and exercise:) but rather an Act of humility, charity, Service, and inferiority to the persons visited, as is evident by Matthew 25. 3. 6. 43. Acts. 7. 23. c. 15. 36. I am. 1. 27. Heb. 2. 6. 1. Pet. 5. 2. 3. 5. It hence unanswerably follows, that Bishops Episcopal 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 God's account, as any Diocesan Bishop or Prelate whatsoever; That those Bishops who merge themselves in pleasures, idleness, or secular affairs, and do not diligently, faithfully, entirely give themselves to preach God's word, instruct and teach the people, visit the Fatherless, imprisoned, sick, poor, widows, and flocks committed to them; (which few of our Prelates now deine to do) are in truth, in God's, in Christ's 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, Pomp, 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, watchfulness, meekness, tender-heartedness, charity, familiarity, and brotherly kindness, (which most Prelates have now quite shaken off.) The Fathers styling therefore of Timothy, Bishop of Ephesus, or Titus Bishop of Crete, or Bishops, will neither prove them to be Diocesan; or sole Bishops of those Churches, or that they had a superiority or Jurisdiction 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 selfsame Commission or authority, given them by Christ, as they; and so have equal authority with them, and are as much Bishops every way by God's Law, as they; even as every High Commissioner of the Quorum, is as much an High Commissioner as the Archbishop of Canterbury or York, and hath as much authority as an High Commissioner, as they; since they have all the selfsame 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 seventy Disciples, or to Timothy and Titus, then to other Elders and Bishops of the Churches of Ephesus and Crete, or to Bishops, then he hath given to Presbyters and Ministers, there might have been some ground to have proved the 12. Apostles, Timothy, Tytus, and Bishops, greater in Jurisdiction, power, authority, and degree then the 70. Disciples, Presbyters, and other Ministers, by divine institution. But since it is apparent 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 selfsame 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 book 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 joined together in one and the selfsame divine Charter, and all claim by one and the selfsame grant, (as is evident: by Math. 28. 19. 20. Mark. 6. 15, 16. John. 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 apparent, and undeniable, that by God's word and institution, they are all equal, both in point of office, power, Jurisdiction, and authority, not one of them greater, higher or superior then the other, having the selfsame divine ordination, commission, office, and charge.

Finally, Eusebius records only, 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 only upon this bare report, not upon any certainty; therefore not to be granted or relied on. The rather, because there have been anciently in Crete no less then 4. Archbishops, and 21. Bishops, Suff •• aganes: now it is very improbable that Paul would institute Titus Archbishop or Superintendent general of all Crete, it being so large a circuit, having so many Archbishops and Bishops Sees within it, and he so little resident in, so often absent from it, as I have manifested in the premises. From all which I presume, I may safely conclude this second question against the common received Error, that Titus was never Bishop or Archbishop of Crete, what ever our Prelates and their favorites have written to the contrary: And so Timothy being neither a Diocesan Bishop of Ephesus, nor Titus of Crete, the pretended Hierarchy of our Prelates Iure divino, built only upon the sandy foundation of these two supposed Bishops Bishoprics, must needs now fall to ruin; and they being now lifted up so High above their fellow Brethren, their fall must certainly prove very great. They have long since, (many of them) forsaken God, the teaching of his word, the chief part of their spiritual functions, banded themselves against his truth, Ministers, people, and the preaching of his Gospel, which they suppress and put down in all places; yea such is their desperate impiety, that whereas in all former times of Plages and Pestilence, (yea in 1. Iacobi and Caroli) there hath been by public authority a special day of fasting, prayer, preaching, and humiliation appointed every week (especially in infected places) to divert God's heavy judgments, as the chief antidote against all Plages and judgments, prescribed by God himself, yet now they are grown such open fighters against God, Religion, the spiritual, the temporal good and safety of the people, that to prevent the plague, (as they pretend, but in truth to increase it more, and to suppress preaching, piety and religion) they begin to put down all weekeday Lectures, and Lord's day sermons in the afternoon, (as if God's public ordinances and service, the best remedy against, were a means to increase and spread, not stay the plague) yea they debar Ministers from using any prayers at all after their sermons, or any other prayer before them, then what the 55. Canon prescribes, in which there is not a word of prayer against the plague, drought, famine, sword or pestilence. By means whereof, inhibiting Ministers thus to reprove the people for their sins, which provoke God's wrath and judgments at this present, & so to bring them to repentance for them by their preaching; or to pray against the plague and other judgments of God, which now lie hard upon the Kingdom, which these sins have occasioned; and hindering that public weekly fasting, preaching & prayer, which God by his judgments now calls for at our hands; they have made not only the Kingdom, but themselves especially, ripe for ruin. And being now for these their atheistical godless practices, their enmity to God, his truth, his faithful Ministers and people, their Lordlines, tyranny, pride, oppression, wordlines, profanes, and irreligion fallen under the very execration of God himself, and the curses of his people, who day and night cry for vengeance against them, as God's sworn and most professed open enemies; and having no divine foundation, prop, or pillar now left, where with to support their tottering thrones and Miters, needs mu •• they shortly, like that High Priest Eli, fall from their high-towering seats backward, and so break their necks, to the joy of all God's people, whom they now by their persecutions and innovations so much oppress; Even so let all thine enemies perish, O Lord; but let them that love thee, be as the sun, when it goeth forth in his might.

A POST-SCRIPT.

OUR famous Martyr John Purvey, in King Henry the fourth his reign, delivered this Position, touching the preaching of the Gospel; That whosoever receiveth or taketh upon him the office of a Priest, or of a Bishop, and dischargeth not the same by the example of his godly conversation and faithful preaching of the Gospel, is a thief, excommunicated of God and of holy Church. And further, that if the Curates preach not the word of God, they shall be damned, and if they know not how to preach, they ought to resign their livings, (as Pope Celestine the fifth, Adelbartus the second, Bishop of Prague, Daniel the 6. and Firthstane the 23. Bishop of Winchester, John the 5. and Thurstan the 28. Archbishop of York, Thomas Spofford the 56. Bishop of Hareford, besides sundry others before-cited, resigned their Bishoprics.) So that those Prelates, which preach not the Gospel of Christ (although they could excuse themselves from the doing of any other evil) are dead in themselves, are Antichrists and Satan's, transfigured into Angels of light, night thieves, manquellers by daylight, and betrayers of Christ his people. What then shall we think or judge of many of our present Lordly swaying English Prelates, some of which never preached since they were made Bishops; others, not once in a dozen years; others, but once in a year or two, & that not in their Diocese to their people (where many of them never yet preached,) but at Court; few of them above once a quarter, or once a month at most? Whereas S. Ambrose, S. Augustine, S. Chrysostom, Cyril of Jerusalem, with other Bishops heretofore, and Bishop Hooper, and Bishop Ridley in King Edward the 6. days, preached once or twice every day of the week without fail or intermission. Yea what shall we say of those Bishops, who now everywhere put down Lectures and preaching, both on weekedayes and Lordsdayes, to suspending, silencing, excommunicating, imprisoning, depriving the most powerful, painful, faithful Godly Ministers in all their Diocese; for no offense either in life or doctrine, for no violation of any Ceremonies by Law established, but merely for not subscribing to their late Popish innovations, illegal injunctions and commands, warranted by no Law of God or man, the sole pretended cause, yet in truth out of their desperate hatred to the sincere, frequent, powerful preaching and Preachers of God's word (which seems to condemn their idle, secular, Lordly, vicious lives and practices,) to the progress, power, and growth of our Religion, and salvation of the people's souls? Nay, what shall we judge of that proud insolent Regulus and imperious Prelate Matthew Wren, Bishop of Norwich, who hath not only put down many famous worthy preachers, and all Lectures throughout his Diocese, both on the weekedayes, Lordsday Evenings , yea and in the morning too in many places, and silenced divers Ministers of chiefest note, for not conforming to his strang • novel Magisterial innovations and late visitation Articles, printed and published (like an absolute Monarch, King and Pope) in his own name, & by his own authority alone, in affront of his Majesty's Laws and ‡ Declarations, for which he hath incurred a Praemunire; but likewise very freshly since his late coming to Ipswitch (where he hath silenced 7 Preachers, and hath no Sermon at all oft times on the Lordsday in his own Parish Church,) commanded the Sexton of one Mr. Scots Church in Ipswitch (a reverend ancient conformable Minister, whom he hath suspended upon no lawful occasion) to blott out this sacred Sentence of Scripture (most proper for that Church and place it stonds in) painted on this Church-wall over against the Pulpit, (which Scripture I wonder any Bishop or Minister can think off, and yet forbear to preach or put down preaching.) For necessity is laid upon me, yea, Woe is me if I preach not the Gospel? An insolency, an impiety, that no age can parallel. Certainly he that would command this Scripture thus to be rased out of the Church-wall, would as gladly obliterate and rend it out of the Church-Bible too, and have neither preaching, preachers (and I fear neither reading nor readers) of the Gospel, nor yet the Gospel it self in being, were it in his power utterly to suppress them; as this Prelate hath made a large beginning and progress for this purpose. This notable late fact of his, makes me the less to wonder, at the most insolent exploict of Henry Dade (the Archbishop of Canterburies Surrogate for Ipswitch) who about September last past solemnly excommunicated the Churchwardens of S. Mary's of the Tower in that Town, in the Archbishops name (I hope without his privity) for not blotting out upon his command this Sentence of Scripture written on that Churches-wall over the place where he keeps his spiteful (I should say spiritual) Court, (which Scripture is recorded by two Prophets and three Evangelists, and most proper for the Church by our Savior's own resolution.) It is written, my house shall be called an house of prayer to all people, but ye have made it a den of thieves. Which excommunication he is so far fro disavowing or being ashamed off, that he not only refuseth to absolve the Churchwardens, but also hath most audaciously pleaded it in bar of an information brought against him by Ferdinando Adams, one of the Church-wardens in the Court of Star-Chamber; for which presumption alone were he guilty of, and there charged with no other crimes (as he is with other foul ones, against his Majesty and the whole State, & several extortions on the subjects) that Court most justly may, and I presume will deeply fine and censure him, for daring to grant out and plead such an impious execrable excommunication in any Court of Justice, to the very shame and obloquy of our Religion, Church, State, and insufferable scandal of that great Arch-Prelate, in whose name and color of authority it is granted; who should do well (for his own justification to the world) to hang up such a Surrogate for a president to all others, and such a Suffragan Bishop too, who bear such spleen to these holy parcels of Scripture, as to rase them out of the Church it self, though set up by the express command of the Homilies, of repairing and keeping clean Churches, and of the Right▪ use of the Church (which recite and prescribe these latter text, as most proper for it) the Canons 1571. p. 19. & 1603. Canon 82. And here I cannot but stand amazed at these proceedings. For the Surrogate will not endure the Church, neither to be or called an house of prayer: but his Courthouse causing this Scripture to be actually dashed out of the Church; and the other will not suffer it to be or reputed an house of preaching; neither of them will admit these two texts of Scripture, to appear therein, (no not on the bare wall where they are no hindrance) which intimate and declare it to be both an house of prayer and preaching too. And if the Church must now be neither an Oratory, nor an Auditory, neither an house of prayer, nor preaching, though our Homilies and Postillers define it to be both, I know not what they will make of it, but (what they begin to make their Churchhouses in many places) a direct den of thieves, as our Savior terms it, or else an house of piping, minstressie, dancing and revelling: they having made the Lordsday sacred Sabbath, such a day already; justifying both in their visitation Articles and printed Books; That dancing, piping, Morrisses, Wakes, Ales, Sports and Bacchanals, are meet exercises for this holy day, and so no place fitter for them then the Church; appointed principally for the duties and public exercises of the Sabbath day; to the strict entire sanctification whereof by religious duties our Prelates are such enemies, that they not only silence, suspend and excommunicate such godly Ministers, who out of conscience dare not join with them in encouraging their people to profane it, and punish those for Conventiclers, who after divine prayer and Sermons ended, meet together to repeat their Ministers Sermon, read chapters, sing Psalms, confer or pray together, as they are taught by S. Chrysostom's and Bishop Jewels doctrine; but one of them (D. Peirce the now Bishop of Bath and Wels by name,) enjoined the Church-wardens of Batcombe (in Mr. Barnards Parish in Somersetshire) under pain of excommunication, to expunge this Scripture (anciently painted on their Church-wall) quite out of the Church (Isa. 58. 13. If thou turn away thy foot from the Sabbath from doing thy pleasure on my holy way, and call the Sabbath a delight the holy of the Lord, honorable and shalt honor him, not doing thine own ways, not finding thine own pleasure, not speaking thine own words. Then shalt thou delight thyself in the Lord, &c. styling it, a Jewish place of Scripture, not fit to stand or be suffered in the Church: (and by the same reason not sufferable in the Bible, for the correcting whereof our Prelates may do well to join with the Papists in making an Index ex purgatorius, as they intend and give out publicly they intend to do on all ancient English Writers) which Scripture the Church-wardens refusing to blot out, the Bishop like an Heroïcall Prelate, r • de thither 〈◊◊〉 with a plaisterer to see it wiped out himself; such hideous Monsters of impiety, blasphemy and irreligion, (that I say not Atheism) are this last generation of our holy domineering Prelates grown; who must now forever cease to affirm or boast their Episcopal Supremacy, Authority and Jurisdiction to be Jure divino, since by virtue thereof they thus presumptuously take upon them (a strain beyond the Papists) to blot Jus divinum, the very Law of God and Gospel too, out of the house of God it self. And can we then wonder at those immoderate droughts, those watery seasons, those devouring spredding Pests and Plagues, with other public and personal judgments of God, which we have lately felt and suffered, and are like to taste of in a sharper manner, when such monstrous impieties as these, thus plublikely break forth, without either shame or reprehension in those who style themselves the Pillars (being in truth the Caterpillars) and holy Fathers (in verity the unholy step fathers) of our Church, from whom profaneness is gone out and spread over all the Land? Certainly if we consider only the lives and practices of our Bishops (that I speak not of any others) how they now openly fight against God, his Word, his Ministers, Ordinances, worship, people, grace, holiness, yea moral virtue, honesty, civility, and that with both hands, both swords at once; we may rather wonder that the Lord himself doth not visibly descend from heaven, and rain down fire and brimstone on us, as he once did on Sodom and Gomorrah, and then tumble us all headlong into hell, yea our Archbishops, Bishops and Prelates specially, may justly fear he will strike them all quite dead with Plague, as he did Pope Lucius the second (who died of the pestilence,) Pope Caelestine the second (swept away with the same disease, both within the compass of two years,) Wichardus Arch-bishop of Canterbury elect, (who going with great presents from King Oswy unto the Pope to Rome, to fetch thence his pall and conse 〈…〉 ion, he and most of his company there perished with the Pest,) Thomas Bradwardine, Archbishop of Canterbury An. 1348. The Bishop of Marselles and all his Chapter An. 1348. Daniel the 13 Bishop of Prague Anno 1116. The Bishope of Par 〈…〉 , Rhegium and Milan, Anno 1085. with many other Archbishops and Bishops forecited, heretofore; that they might no longer be an insufferable Plague and burden to the earth, or provocation and grievance even to heaven it self; or else deal with them in that exemplary way of Justice, as he did with Thomas Arundle (Archbishop successively both of York and Canterbury) one of their predecessors, a grievous persecutor of God's people, and great silencer and suspender of his Ministers; who occupying both his tongue, his brains and Episcop • ll power (as too many of his successors have done since) to stop the mouths and tie up the tongues of God's Ministers, and hinder the preaching & course of God's word, was by God's just judgment, so stricken in his tongue (with which he had oft staundered the poor Ministers, & Saints of God, as seditious factions people, rebels & Conventiclers to K. Henry the fourth, (as some of his Rochet do now to his Majesty) that it swelled so big he could, neither swallow nor speak for some days before his death, much like after the example of the rich glutton, and so he was starved, choked and killed by this strange tumor of his tongue. This (say all the marginal writers) was thought of many to come upon him by the just hand of God, for that he so bound and much stopped the word of the Lord, that it might not be peached in his days. Our Prelates now have far greater cause then he had then, to fear God's Judgments in this, or a more grievous nature, and that in these regards.

First, Because they have his Example, with many other like Presidents of divine revenge upon persecuting, truth-suppressing Prelates, to want and terrify them, which this Prelate never heard of: and so are more inexcusable then he.

Secondly, Because his silencing of the Preachers and hindering the preaching of the Gospel, proceeded rather from error, ignorance of the truth, and misguided zeal; then malice or hatred against the Gospel, Ministers, and professors of it; But our Bishops proceedings in this kind, proceeds from direct and willful malice and enmity against the truth, Gospel, Ministers, and Saints of God, against inward conviction and the testimony of their own consciences staring them in the face; the very sin against the holy Ghost himself, or next degree thereto, into which they are dangerously fallen.

Thirdly, Because he persecuted, silenced, or suspended none that professed the same truth, faith and doctrine; which he and the Church of England then embraced; but only those whom he and the Church of England then deemed both heretics and Schismatics. But our Prelates now silence, suspend, excommunicate, deprive, imprison, persecute those, who profess and maintain the established doctrine and discipline of the Church of England, which themselves pretend to defend and strive for; those who are members, yea pillars of our own Orthodox Church and neither separate from it in point of doctrine nor discipline, being likewise altogether spotles, innocent, undefiled in their lives, even because they preach, and defend God's truth, and the Doctrines, the Articles of the Church of England against Papists, Arminians, and superstitious Romanizing Novellers: (A thing so strange, that the like was never heard or read off in any age, Church, State, but ours only; yea a thing so detestable, as not found among the Savage b 〈…〉 ite beasts, as Tigers, Lions, Wolves, Bears, whoever hold together and prey not one upon the other. Par • it cognatis maculis similis fera, being as old as true, and therefore most monstrous, most detestable in our Christian Church, and Prelates, who must needs expect the extremity of God's Judgments to light upon them for it.

Fourthly, Because he put down preaching, and silenced God's Ministers in times of health and prosperity only; but our Prelates even now in this time of sickness and mortality, when God in special manner calls upon them, To cry aloud and spare not, to lift up their voices like a trumpet, and show the people their transgression, and the house of Jacob their sins: yea which is the hight and upshot of all impiety, they take advantage of this present pestilence and mortality, to put down all Lectures and preaching, when as all former ages have set them up, together with prayer and fasting to, as a special anti 〈…〉 and preservative * against the Plague, which they now pretend to be a means to spread it. An impiety that heaven and earth may well stand am • azed at, and future ages will hardly credit; yea the very capital sin of which the Jews were guilty, f who both killed the Lord Jesus, and their own Prophets, and persecuted and chased out, (as the margin renders it) the Lord's Ministers, forbidding them to preach to the Gentiles that they might be saved, to fill up their sins always; for the wrath is come upon them to the uttermost: A text which should smite through the loins and hearts of all persecuting Prelates and silencers of God's Ministers, who prohibit and put down preaching, the chief and most principal office, whereunto Priests or Bishops be called by the auehority of the Gospel, as all the Bishops and whole Clergy of England have resolved in the Institution of a Christian man, dedicated by them to King Henry the 8. and subscribed with all their names, as the very Council of Trent it self hath deemed in these words: Praedicationis munus Episcoporum praecipuum est; as the Church of England herself in the Homily of the right use of the Church, p. 3. 4. 5. and before them all our Savior Christ himself his Prophets and Apostles have past all dispute concluded. I shall therefore desire these dumb silencing and silent Prelates, (who would have all other Ministers as lazy mute and silent as themselves, favoring all dumb dogs that neither will not, nor cannot preach, and persecuting none but the most painful Preachers, a thing well worthy noting, discovering their enmity to be directly against preaching and the Gospel; (to remember that of Master Tyndale our godly Martyr, That B • shops who persecute their own office of preaching (for and by which they hold their 〈◊〉 Bishoprics) are not worthy of it, nor sufferable in it: and that Bishops or Priests that preach not, or that preach ought save God's word, are none of Christ's nor of his anointing (therefore not Jure divino) but Servants of the Beast, whose mark they bear; whose word they preach, whose Law they maintain, clean against God's Law: and therefore both Ministers and people must and will henceforth call and deem them such. As for those Ministers most unjustly silenced, suspended and excommunicated by them, who now basely sit down silent under their Suspensions, when as they should go 〈◊〉 courageously in their Ministry in despite of them, I shall desire them only to consider.

First, the example and answer of the Apostles themselves, who when they were commanded by the High Priests, Elders and whole Council of the Jews (who had as much or more power over them then any Bishops have over Ministers at this day) not to speak at all or teach in the name of Jesus, gave this answer; We ought to obey God rather then men; whether it be right in the sight of God to hearken unto God more then unto you, judge ye? for we cannot but speak the things which we have seen and heard: and though they were thrice expressly inhibited from preaching, yea imprisoned and beaten for violating these prohibitions, yet they daily in the Temple IN EVERI HOWSE▪ (which now forsooth must be a Conventicle, I am sure an Apostolical one) they ceased not to preach and teach Jesus Christ, filling Jerusalem and every place with their doctrine, the very Angel of God himself commanding them to do it. If then the whole Senate of the High Priests and Elders, their terrible Prohibitions and Suspen • ions, yea their imprisonments and stripes could neither keep nor de • err the Apostles from preaching; why should our Bishops threats, suspentions, 〈◊〉 most unjust illegal Censures (warranted by no Statute, Law ot Commission from his Majesty) hinder our Ministers from their duty?

Secondly, The example of our own godly Martyrs, who both their Doctrine and example taught and professed, That Ministers ought not to give over preaching for any unjust suspension, excommunication, inhibition, Censure or persecution whatsoever, either of the Pope himself or of any other Prelate, going on boldly to preach the Gospel, maugre all inhibitions, menaces, imprisonments and penalties to the contrary, though fire and death it self. Whereupon they never would give over their preaching upon any Prelates inhibition, no not in their prisons, where Master Bradford and others preached twice every day. And shall our eminentest Ministers now in the Sun shine of the Gospel under a most gracious Prince, be more pusillanimous, base and cowardly then these godly Martyrs were even in times of darkness under Popish Princes, Prelates and Tyrants, when it was death to profess and preach the truth, which now (God be thanked) it neither is, nor can be? God forbid.

Thirdly, That position of our Godly Martyr, Master John Wicklife (excellently defended and notably proved by John Hus at large in the School of Prague, as all may read at leisure in Master Fox:) That they which lea 〈…〉 off preaching and hearing of the word of God for fear of any excommunication, threatening, persecution, or imprisonment, threatened, or inflicted by the Pope, or any other whatsoever, are already excommunicate by God himself, and in the day of Judgment shall be accounted the betrayers of Christ; which is so well proved and defended by Hus, that all Godly Ministers and people must subscribe thereto. And who of all our late suspended Ministers, would be either accounted here, or adjudged hereafter, a man excommunicated of God, and a betrayer of Christ, yea of the very Word of God, of Religion it self, and of the souls committed to his Cure, who are slain for lack of spiritual food, whiles they out of a slavish fear, of I know not what or whom, sit mute and silent, and become so many laughing stocks to our Prelates, who would be terrified, daunted and repulsed by their Godly courage.

Fourthly, That Popish Priests and Jesuits dare say Mass, and preach in a manner publicly, though a thing unlawful and expressly prohibited both by the Laws of God and the Realm, and no less then high treason, for which capital punishments are prescribed. If these Miscreants and generation of vipers then have so much courage, for their false and trayterly religion, that they will not be silenced, nor scared from preaching, neither by Laws, nor capital punishments; how much less then should zealous faithful Ministers of the Gospel, contrary to God's Laws and the Realms, give over their Ministry and preaching, upon the bare illegal suspension or excommunication of a Lordly Bishop, warranted by no Law nor Statute of the Realm, nor any Patent or Commission from the King, and so no color for any to obey or submit thereto?

Fifthly, What a great blow and wound they have given to religion, what great discouragement and ill example to their people and fellow Ministers; what loss and prejudice to their flocks, what encouragement to Jesuits, Seminaries, Papists and domineering Prelates, who get heart & head by their faintheartednes yielding, silence and submission, encroaching every day further on their liberties, consciences and Religion, so that they have brought themselves and others into a mere vassalage to the Bishops unruly lusts and pleasures; all which their opposition and contemning of these their suspen • ions and excommunications, being mere nullities in Law (for want of a Commission from his Majesty a lawful ground, a due manner of proceeding, and his Majesty's style and seal) had prevented, and may yet chance to remedy.

Sixthly, That a necessity is laid upon them, even by God and Christ himself, to preach the Gospel, and to be instant in season and out of season, and a temporal and eternal woe denounced against them, if they forbear or give over to do it upon any unjust inhibition whatsoever, which can neither nullify, control nor dispense with the commands of God. How then can they avoid or shun this woe, if the frown or unjust suspension of a profane unpreaching domineering Prelate, may restrain them from this duty, or dispense with this most serious task imposed on them from heaven it self.

Seventhly, That solemn charge that was given them in the name and behalf of Christ himself, yea of the whole Realm and Church of England, and that solemn promise they made before God and the Congregation, when they were first made Ministers; to wit, that as they would answer it before Christ's tribunal at the great day of judgment, they should and would teach, premonish, feed and provide for the Lord's flock, for whom he shed his blood, AND NEVER THEIR LABOVR CARE AND DILIGENCE HEREIN, until they had done all that lieth in them, according to their bounden duty, to bring all such as were or should be committed to their charge, unto that agreement of faith and knowledge of God, and to that ripeness and perfectness of age in Christ (which none of them hath yet done) that there should be no place left among them, neither of error in Religion, or for viciousnes of life; and that for the same cause they should and would forsake, and set aside (as much as in them lieth) all worldly cares and studies, and give themselves WHOLLY to this thing, and draw all their cares and studies this way and to this end, and that they should and would preach, and be faithful dispensers of God's Word in their Congregations; which charge being laid upon them by the Bishop at their ordination in the name of Christ, by the whole Church and State of England, and the Book of Ordination (confirmed by three several Acts of Parliament, the 8 Canon, and their own subscriptions to it;) and they particularly promising in a most solemn manner, to perform it to the • ttermost of their power. How any Bishop can by Law suspend them from preaching as long as they continue Ministers, and are not actually degraded or deprived of their livings, for some just or lawful cause, warranted by an express Act of Parliament; or how any godly Minister in point of Law or Conscience, can give over his preaching or Ministry upon any unjust suspen • ion, inhibition, excommunication or command of any Bishop, Visitor, or Ordinary (who cannot countermaund this charge or Book of Ordination, ratified by 3 Acts of Parliaments) I cannot conjecture.

Finally; That if Ministers will thus suffer, every Bishop at his pleasure, without any special Commission from his Majesty, under the great Seal of England, or any just cause in point of Law, upon every humor, fancy, or new minted Article of his own (which by the Statute of 25. H. 8. c. 19. and the 13. Canons resolution, yea and his Majesty's too, in his Declaration before the 39. Articles, he hath no power to make) to suspend, excommunicate, and put them down from preaching, then it will be in the Bishops power to suppress and alter Religion at their pleasure, without his Majesty's or a Parliaments assent, and so all shall hang upon their wills, who have no power at all, either by the Laws of God or the Realm, to institute any new rites, Ceremonies, Articles, Canons or Injunctions, or to alter or innovate anything in Religion, much less to suspend or silence Ministers? Wherefore in case our Prelates presently revoke not these their anti-Christian, illegal suspen • ions, inhibitions, injunctions, or other Censures, to hinder Ministers from preaching, I hope every Godly Minister, who hath any care; either of his own soul, liberty, people, any love at all to God or Religion, any zeal or courage for the truth, or desire of the good, either of Church or State, taking these considerations into his thoughts, and finding the Bishops Jurisdiction and proceedings to have no lawful warrant, either from the Laws of God or man, will readily protest both against their usurped authority and proceedings, as mere nullities and vanities, and proceed to preach, pray, and do his duty, as the Apostles and Martyrs did of old, without any fear or discouragement; that so God's judgments, Plagues and punishments, which the Prelates late practices, with the Ministers silence and cowardice, and all our sins have drawn down upon us, may be asswaged and removed, and we may ever retain the Ordinances and Word of God among us, in purity, power, sincerity and plenty, both to our present and future happiness. I shall close all with this Syllogism.

• That calling, authority and jurisdiction, which obliterates, persecutes, suppresseth, oppugneth the very Law, Gospel and word of God, with the frequent powerful preaching, preachers and professors thereof is doubtless, not of divine right or institution, but Anti-Christian and Diabolical, 1. Thess. 2. 14. 15. 16. Rom. 2. 13. 10. John 8. 39. to 48. 1. Tim. 3. 1. to 7. Tit. 1. 5. to 10.
• But this doth the calling, authority and jurisdiction of Lord Archbishops and Bishops, as the premises, and all stories witness, especially our Book of Martyrs.
• Therefore it is doubtless not of divine right or institution, but Anti-Christian and Diabolical.

If the Minor be not sufficiently evidenced by the Premises, by the silencing of many Ministers, suppressing of so many Lectures throughout the Realm, give me leave to instance but in two fresh examples more.

The first, in Doctor Peirce, Bishop of Bath and Wels; who in his Visitation in the midst of August last expressly prohibited all Ministers in his Diocese to preach on the Lord's day afternoon; threatening some Ministers to suspend them both from their office & Benefice, if they durst presume to preach anymore on the Lord's day afternoon; without alleging any Law or Canon, (which there is none) or any danger of bringing or spreading the plague, (which there is not feared,) but only out of his malice to preaching; and to deprive poor people of the spiritual food of their souls: to affront the Sta • utes of 5. and 6. E. 6. c. 1. 3. and 1. Eli. c. 2. which require OFTEN PREACHING AND HEARING of the Gospel, upon every Sunday and Holy day, and prescribe preaching twice a day, as well, as much, as Commonprayer, coupling them together in the same words to oppugn the Homily of the right use of the Church, p. 3. 4. 5. which prescribes and enforceth, the daily and continual preaching of God's word, and specially on the Sabbath-days, from our Savior's and his Apostles own Precepts and Examples; to make all Ministers perjured, who at the time of their Ordination make a solemn promise and covenant before God, diligently and painfully to instruct their people, & never to give over preaching, &c. (as the Book of Ordination, and the Church and State of England, both in and by it enjoin them,) and to spite S. Paul • himselse: who as by the space of three years together, he ceased not to warn everyone Night and Day (therefore he preached Evenings as well as mornings) publicly & from house to house. Acts. 20. 20. 31. So he chargeth Timothy, and in him all Ministers, To preach the word instantly in season, out of season (that is, on Lord's days, and weekedayes; Morning, and Evening, yea and at Midnight to if need be; in times of prosperity and adversity; of health and pestilence, when preaching is most seasonable to raise men from their sins;) 2. Tim. 4. 2. which Apostle were he in this Bishops and some other of his Brethren's Diocese, they would school him roundly for such good doctrine, and stop his mouth, to prevent the great mischief of often preaching, yea, 〈◊〉 our Savior Christ himself, and his Apostles, were now among our Prelates and should preach DAYLY in our temples, as they did in the Temple of Jerusalem and Jewish Synagogues, I fear me they should be all silenced, suspended, and laid by the heels for their pains, by our Rare-preaching Lordly Prelates, since they thus use our painefullest Ministers even for frequent preaching; If I should demand of them by what Law of God, or the Realm? by what Canon of the Church, or by what special commission from his Majesty, under his great Seal? (without which their Lordships cannot by Law suspend or silence any Minister, nor keep any Visitation without the danger of a Praemunire which they have all incurred;) I fear me they would be as mu •• , as any Minister they have put to silence: And till they can show such Law, Canon, and special Commission (which not one of them can do) he is not worthy the name of a faithful Minister, that will sit down silent altogether, as too many do, to their eternal infamy or slack down their former frequency and diligence in preaching, upon the proudest Prelates bare Mandate, especially in these days of Pestilence and Mortality.

The second instance is, the suppressing of Master John Rogers Lecture of Dedham in Essex about the same time, continued so many years together with so good success that he hath converted more souls to God, and brought more to heaven, then all the Lord Archbishops and Bishops Sermons from Queen Mary's days till now; many of which though they have lived long, cannot I presume name so much as one Soul they have truly converted, either by their life or doctrine, though they have murdered and starved thousands. The Pretence of suspending this our Lecturer is, the great good will the Bishops bear to the Townsmen and Puritans (so they term them) of Dedham, over whom they are jealous with a godly jealosie, to wit, least the continuance of this Lecture should draw the Plague to the Town. But is this think you the true cause? If so, why then let me propound but 6. or 7. questions to our Prelates who are so careful of men's bodies, that they are altogether careless of their Souls.

First, Hath not the Lecture been the greatest blessing that ever this Town enjoyed? the chief means that hath enriched it, and ever since its erection wa • ded of the Pestilence from it, yea in the last great Visitation when there was more danger? If so, as all the Town and Country will aver, why should it be pestiferous or infectious now?

Secondly, Where did ever their Lordships read, that powerful preaching was a means to attract or draw the pestilence to any Town or Parish? or the suppressing of preaching and Lectures an Antidote or Preservative against it? What Divine, Physician, Philosopher, or Historian, yea what Epicure or Atheist ever taught such Doctrine till our present new Doctors and Lord Prelates?

Thirdly, Whether the reading of Common prayer and Homilies be not as apt to bring and increase the Plague, as preaching and Lectures, and the one as pestiferous as the other? If not: then why do they put down and prohibit public fasting and prayer, as infectious in this pestilence, used as a preservative, medicine and chief cure in all others as well as preaching? yea how can they prove, that one of these is more apt to attract and diffuse the Plague then the other? If so then; why do they not put down Common prayer and Homilies in all places infected, or in danger of infection, as well as preaching, (the one being as pestiferous, as pestilential as the other,) and so make us all true Atheists or Infidels, giving God no public worship at all?

Fourthly, Whether the putting down of Lectures and preaching hath been a means to stay, keep off, or spread the Plague, or rather to increase and attract it? Religion teacheth us that were there is * most sin and wickedness abounding, least knowledge and service of God, there is most danger of the plague, and 〈◊〉 experience proves it true for the most part, it ever raging more in the disorderly suburbs of London, where they have usually least and worst preaching, more then in the City, where is better government, life and preaching. Powerful preaching therefore being the chief means to turn men from their sins and evil lives, and win them unto God, and the suppression of it a means to continue and harden men in their evil ways; it must necessary follow, that frequent powerful preaching, is an antidote and cure against it; and the suppression of it, the high way and means to bring it. If reason be not sufficient, let late experience instruct us thus much. The Lectures of Christ Church, S. Martins and others in London, were put down by the Bishops this Pestilence, to prevent the bringing of it into these Parishes: the very selfsame week God sends it unto them, and now it spreads among them much: But in S. Antholines Parish and some others, where the Lectures yet continue, (in the first every morning) no Pestilence (blessed be God) hath hitherto been heard off: The Lecture of Black friers on Wednesdays, at S. Cathrines in the same day, with some other have been suppressed to prevent the Plagues increase, after its invasion of these Parishes, to the intolerable grief both of Minister and people: yet the plague in those parishes hath since every week increased and spread further. At Westminster upon the first coming of the Plague, they gave over all preaching even forenoon and after-noon on the Lord's day, thinking by this remedy to cease it; (a president hardly paralleled in any age;) but what followed thereupon, the Bills since have been doubled and trebled, and more have there died every day since, then did in a whole week before. This therefore is but a Preposterous remedy, and a vain pretence to beguile little children, and fools with all.

Fifthly, What place is there near to Dedham from which that lecture should draw the infection? were it in all or some of the neighbouring Parishes, there might be some color for such a pretext, and yet not sufficient to put down the Lecture, since men of those Parishes might be prohibited only from it, and all else have access unto it: But since it is not so near that Town (God be blessed for it) as that there is any such fear of infection, this pretext can be but a mere cloak of wickedness to countenance a worse design.

Sixthly; Whether they hold not great Banquetting, Maskes, Dauncing, Plays and Interludes, as pestiferous and infectious, as Preaching and Lectures: and the famous University of Oxfords health and immunity from the Pestilence, as much to be respected as the poor Town of Dedhams? If any scruple be made of the former part of this Question, his Majesty's and their own Book of Common prayer for the Fast the last great pestilence 1. Caroli, (which prohibits all Plays, Maskes, revellings, Dauncing, Pastimes and Banqueting, as causes of the plagues, both beginning, spredding and continuance, and the proper▪ sins of our Nation, which have made us a Proverb and By-word to all other neighbor-Countries,) compared with Isaiah. 5, 12. 13. c. 22. 12. 13. 14. &c. 32. 13. 14 Amos 6. 1. to 12. Exod. 32. 19. to 35. 1. Cor. 10. 5. 6. 7. • am. 5. 1. 5. 6. Revel. 18. 7. 8. and many presidents cited in a late Tract against Stageplayes and interludes, will put it out of doubt. Of the latter part of this Quaere there can be no question, unless the Bishops be very unnatural, to love a stranger better then their own Foster-mother, and weavers, Clothiers, more then Scholars. If then excessive Feasting, Masking, Interludes, Dauncing and Epicureanpomp, the very works of the • lesh, (and therefore most unseemly of all others for those who term themselves spiritual men, yea works that shut men out of heaven, and therefore not fit for those who profess they have the keys to let men into heaven) be more pestiferous and apt to bring the Pestilence, then Preaching; and Oxford to be preferred before Dedham; what is the reason that our great Lordly Prelates in these dangerous times of mortality (when as they should be all in sable, fasting, praying, weeping and mourning with the people of their Diocese, and refreshing their starved bodies with that prodigal expense they have there cast away) have (to the great ill example of all other people, & grieving of the souls of all who are sensible of the Plagues we now groan under) been so lately setting up and practicing the one, at Oxford, to draw the Pestilence thither; and putting down the other at Dedham, to keep the Pest from thence? When as sundry Councils in all ages, have strictly inhibited Bishops and Ministers, neither to be Exhibiters, setters out, or spectators, but diligent suppressors, yea censurers of the one (especially in mournful times of Plague & Mortality which summon all men, but God's Ministers above others, to weeping, sackecloath and baldness, to turn their laughter into heaviness, and their joy into mourning,) and instant both by preaching and Ecclesiastical Censures, to draw all men from them; but furtherers and setters up of preaching, yea of preaching twice a day, (and that principally in times of humiliation) which they now suppress. Alast is the piety & zeal of those Lordly Pontificians, who will needs claim all their Episcopalities by a divine right, degenerated to this Epicurian resolution; let us eat and drink, let us Maske and Play, let us feast and keep Revell-route, for tomorrow we shall die? Are these the sermons, the good instructions they preach to King, Queen, Nobles, Ministers, Scholars, People in these pestilential times? Must they be feasting, banqueting, laughing, masking, playing, piping, dancing, when all others are weeping, fasting, mourning, at leastwise gladly would be so, and that in public (as they have reason) were it not for them? certainly if S. Bernard were now alive, and saw such Prelates, he would be so far from thinking them God's Bishops, that he would undoubtedly define them to be the Devils, yea and style them Devils too, and murderers of men's souls. Who having now taken the highest degree at the University, that ever the Schools of Bacchus, Venus, or Epicurus can afford them, may be rather deemed their professed Chaplains, then Christian Bishops. Yet mistake me not, as if I thought it unlawful for a Prelate or University, to entertain their Prince; far be it from me or any other to harbor such a thought: But to do it now at such a time, in such a Pontifical, Epicurian manner, with most profane and impious Interludes in contempt and derision of all purity, piety and religion, is the only thing, which not I alone, but the whole Kingdom generally cry shame on; banqueting, masking, feasting, Revelling, being altogether unsuitable, if not unlawful to a Christian, a Prelate, a University, in a time of such general weeping and mourning, when most hearts (but stony ones) are sad, and many poor men's faces gather blackness, even for very hunger, with which too many perish; whose lives this prodigality would have preserved.

Seventhly, If the Bishops have so much fatherly care to keep off the plague from our Precissians, and Puritans of Dedham (so they term us) as to put down our Lecture, (yea Sermons on the very-solemn Fast-day, where there is any infection, as if the sick needed least spiritual physic and instruction) to keep us from the Plague, what is the reason they have so little care of those of our Religion and profession, whom they have mewed up in several prisons in London? Why have the Priests and Jesuits in the Gatehouse and elsewhere (though Traitors to his Majesty and the Realm, and some of them condemned men,) with all other prisoners there, liberty granted them to go abroad this time of Pestilence, and yet D. Bastwicke, convicted and censured only for showing himself a true subject to his Sovereign, in defending his Majesty's Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction, against the Popes and your encrochements, (with other of your High-commission Prisoners,) no leave at all to retire himself into the fresh air for his safety; It being now, as it seems, a great deal better to be an open Traitor to his Majesty, or the State, then a mere opposite only to these our Lordly Prelates, even in their intolerable usurpations both upon his Majesty's Royal Prerogatives, and his subjects liberties? Why have you given special command, that Mr. Brewer, committed close prisoner by you to the Kings bench, for the same cause, should there be detained still, and not remove with the other prisoners, when as he had obtained license to go into Oxfordshire with his fellow prisoners, that so the plague, which environs both those prisons, might sweep away both these Prisoners and ease you of them? Why do you still detain others of your commitment in these and other prisons, of purpose to murder them as much as in you lieth with the pest, when all else that are willing, are set free and walk abroad into the Country for their health? Why detain you D. Layton in the Fleet, and Mr. Prinne in the Tower, notwithstanding some Nobles mediation for the enlargement of the one, and the Queens most gracious intercessions for the other, whose Princely clemency and pity, to those of a different religion, is an everlasting foil to your unchristian mercies and barbarous inhumanity, to those of your own faith and profession. Is this your Episcopal pity, mercy, grace, and goodness; that when all men else can find favor and relief, yet those whom you unjustly persecute, restrain or malice without cause, must find none at all, no not though King or Queen desire it? What, is your Pontifical malice now swollen greater then their Royal grace and goodness? Never therefore dissemble more with the world and us, that you have put down our Dedham, or other Lectures, out of any love to us, or care of our, or their safety, as you pretend, to keep the pestilence from us, or them; but confess you have done it out of the malice of your hearts, against preaching, if not to bring the plague and pestilence (as much as in you lies) even upon our souls and bodies, as you endeavor to do upon these poor prisoners thus detained by you, which these times of plague and fasting call upon you to set free. But take heed least whiles you se • ke to put down preaching and fasting, by such ungodly means and pretences, to keep off the plague from us and others, you draw it not down, both on us and yourselves. I have already informed you of many Bishops, who have perished of this disease, I could acquaint you yet with more, as The Bishops of Colen, Spire, Ratisbon, Prague, Verden and Leodium all swept away in An. 1169: 〈◊〉 Hildewardus Bishop of Hildesheim, An. 996. with many others; let their examples be your warnings; and if you will prove your calling to be of God, then henceforth learn to preach, not to suppress his word; to be merciful as he is merciful; else all will henceforth conclude, that you are of your father the devil, for his works you do: He was a murderer from the beginning of men's souls and bodies, and so are you.

Now if your Holinesses or any other deem this censure of mine over-ha • sh, one that was once of your own Rochet, and after that a Martyr, (Bishop Latimer) will assure you; that it was the very devil himself, not God, that set up the State of unpreaching Prelacy, and that it is he alone who stirs these Prelates up to persecute and suppress the preaching of the Gospel under the Title of Heresy, and schism, and ill Magistrates to do the like under the Title of sedition; and our learned Thomas Becon, as he affirms and proves at large, that the first and Principal point of a Bishop and spiritual Ministers office, is to teach and preach the word of God; so he resolves, that such a Bishop as either doth not, or cannot preach, is a Nicholas Bishop and an Idol, and indeed no better then a painted Bishop on a wall: yea, he is as the Prophet saith, a dumb dog, and as our Savior Christ saith unsavourie salt, • worth nothing but to be cast out, and to be trodden underfoot of men. Woe be to those Rulers that set such Idols and white-daubed walls over the Flock of Christ, whom he hath purchased with his precious blood. Horrible and great is their damnation. Our Savior Christ saith to his Disciples As my Father sent me, so send I you. Now who knoweth not, that Christ was sent of his Father to preach the Gospel, as we may see in divers places of the holy Scripture. It therefore followeth, that such as are sent of Christ are sent to preach the Gospel. If they preach not (the case of many of our Lord Prelates) it is an evident token, that Christ sent them not, BVT ANTICHIST and THE DEVIL. Thus and much more Becon, who tells these unpreaching Prelates in plain terms; that nothing abideth them but everlasting damnation. What then will become of our great Lord Pre • ates, who will neither preach to the people themselves, nor suffer others who are willing, to do it; stoping up our preachers mouths with their illegal, unchristian, anti-Christian suspenions and excommunications, yea, expressly prohibiting all preaching in these doleful mortiferous times of Plague and pestilence, and that on the very Fasting-days, for fear it should infect men's souls and bodies? when as the whole Council of Paris under Louis and Lotharius, Anno 829. l. 1, 2, 5. decreed the quite contrary, in these very remarkable terms. Statuimus pari voto, parique consensu, ut unusquisque nostrum dictis & exemplis, plebes parochiae suae attentius ad meli • ra incitare studeat, easque ut se a malis cohibeant, & ad Dominum ex totocorde convertant, solicit admoneant, Deumque quem peccando sibi iratum fecerunt, digna paenitentiae satisfaction & eleemosinarum largitione, sibi placabilem facere satagant &c. Cum itaque Praedicatores SINE CESSATIONE POPVLODEI PRAEDICARE NECESSE SIT, juxta illud Esaiae Clam▪ NEECSSES, quasi tuba exalt a vocem tuam, & annuncia popul • • eo, scelera • orum, & domui Jacob peccata corum: TVM MAXIME ID FACERE NECESSE EST, QVANDO IRAM DOMINI CONTRA POPVLVM DEI, meritis exigentibus, GRASSARI PERSEPXERINT, juxta illud quod Dominus per Ezechielem Prophetamloquitur. Ezech. 3. 17. 18. 19. &c. 33. 7, 8. 9. 10, &c. At which our silent and silencing Prelates and old doting Shelford Priest, may well blush for shame, especially if they peruse the 23, 24, 25. 28, 29. and 31. Chapters of the same Council following. And good reason, for the very Romish Prelates in the Concell of Trent, as lewd as they were, had so much ingenuity as to decree. That the preaching of God's word was the principal part of a Bishops Office, belonging especially unto them, and that it ought to be exercised as frequently as might be, for the salvation of the people; and thereupon enjoined all Bishops in proper person, or in case of inevitable occasions, by their sufficient substitutes, and all Ministers in every Parish, to preach every Lord's-day and Holy-day at the least; and in the time of Fasts, (as of Lent, Advent, and the like) QVOTIDIE, VEL SALTEM TRI • VS IN HEBDOMADE DIEBVS, to preach every day, or at least three days every week, and at other times also as often as opportunity would permit, and to Catechize the people besides. If this Popish Council then prescribes all Bishops and Ministers whatsoever, thus constantly and daily to preach God's word, (especially on Lord's-days, Holy-days and Fasting-days) without intermission; our Lordly, lazy, Loytering Prelates, who will neither thus preach themselves, and prohibit others to preach thus frequently and daily on these seasons, or in any infected Cities on our Solemn Fasting-days; are certainly not only far worse then these Trent Prelates, but even as bad or worse then the very Devil himself (as Bishop Latimer proves at large in his Sermon of the Plough, which I would wish them seriously to peruse:) yea, they are mere Rebels, Traitors and enemies to God, his Church, Religion and the people's souls. And can they then be ever true, loyal or faithful to their Prince? No verily. Not to mention all the conspiracies, Rebellions and Treasons of our own or foreign Prelates against their Sovereigns in all ages, enough to fill a volume as large as Baronius his Annals; I shall instance only in three late examples. Anno 1536. Christian the 3. King of Denmark, (our King Charles his great grand-father by the mothers side) imprisoned all the seven Bishops of Denmark, for their several Treasons, Rebellions conspiracies, and insurrections against him, the Kingdom and Christian Religion, and for usurping regal authority, with the rule of the Kingdom to themselves alone, and publishing Edicts in their own names as the Senate of that Realm (as our Prelates do now in their visitations & Consistories) against the Ministers and Professors of the Reformed Religion. All which this King caused to be drawn up into a Remonstrance, which lasted three hours reading, and on the 10. of August Anno 1537. (two days before his Coronation,) he caused a scaffold and Throne to be erected in the most public place of Hafnia the Metropolis of Denmark; where he sitting with all his Nobles and Senators in State; caused this remonstrance of these Prelates detestable Treasons, Conspiracies, Rebellions, and disloyal usurpations on the Crown, to be read publicly before them and all the people, declaring, that for them he had imprisoned the Bishops, and demanding the Nobles and people, whether they desired that these trayterly Prelates should anymore sway the Common weal of the Kingdom, or be restored to their former dignity and power? Whereupon they all cried out, No, and that they would be no longer molested with this. Antichristian trayterly generation of Vipers. Which ended, a public Decree or Act of State was made by their unanimous consents, that these Bishops should be removed, and that the political office and power of Bishops should be thenceforth wholly abolished out of the Realm, which was forthwith put in execution; the Bishops removed, their temporalities and revenues confiscated to the King and seven Superintendents, being but ordinary Ministers, ordained in their steed. And thus was Denmark freed from trayterly Prelates by our Kings great grand-father, after it had been long oppressed by them Anno Domini 1571. John Hamilton Archbishop of Saint Andrew's in Scotland, was apprehended, arraigned, condemned and hanged at Sterling, by Matthew Steward then Viceroy during King James his minority, for two notorious suocessive Treasons: the first, for conspiring and having a chief hand in the Murder of Henry Steward King of Scots, father to our late King James of famous memory, and grand-father to our present Sovereign King Charles. Anno 1565. & for causing James Earl of Murra, Viceroy of Scotland during King James his infancy, to be traitorously murdered likewise Anno 1567. For which Treasons, not long after all, Lord Bishops were thrust out of Scotland, by King James and the whole Parlements consent, (though since restored) as Traitors to their Princes, contrary to Christ's institution, as the chief suppressors of the preaching of the Gospel in all Countries. Gustavus Ericus that famous King of Sweden, banished, deprived, hanged up and beheaded some of his Archbishops and Bishops for their many execrable Treasons against himself, and the whole Realm, and refused to be crowned, before he and the whole State of Sweden had by public Act of Parleament, (though with much opposition of the Prelates) stripped the Prelates of Sweden of their excessive temporalities, revenues, wealth, and all temporal Offices and Jurisdiction, which made them oft times to rebel against their Princes, Kings and Magistrates, to stir up many seditions and to molest that Realm with almost continual and daily wars and schisms, for about an hundred years then last past, and had and did make them slow bellies, and unpreaching Prelates, serviceable neither to God nor man either in words or deeds, serving rather to entice them to riot, pride, idleness, and seditions, then to true piety, and having no Title in the word of God to warrant them. Since which the Prelates in Sweden, ever rebellious and seditious to their Princes before, have been more dutiful to their Sovereigns, and entermedled only with their spiritual functions▪ which they altogether neglected while they were Lord's. These three late examples of his Majesty's royal Progenitors, (to omit others) as they may instruct all Princes how false that idle Paradox of the Prelates is, No Bishop, no King, the contrary being an experimental truth, and how little trust and fidelity there is in Lordly Prelates (who have ever been treacherous to their Sovereigns when and where they have born greatest sway.) So they may move his Majesty to follow Father Latymers council to King Edward the 6, to unlord all our Lordly Bishops, and remove them from all their temporal offices and employments, that so they may follow their spiritual Plough-tail, (which they will scorn to do, as long as they are Lord's, it being an unseemly and dishonorable thing for Lord's to go to plough;) and no longer silence their fellow Brethren, oppress, molest and vex his faithful Subjects, and root out all powerful frequent Preaching and Preachers of God's word, as now they do: From which kind of Lordly Prelates with their Antichristian Romish practices and Innovations now on foot, Good Lord deliver us; since they have neither God's nor the Kings Law to authorize them, or support that usurped Papal tyrannical Jurisdiction which now they exercise, under which the whole Kingdom groans and languisheth, desiring to be unburthened of it, as an intolerable yoke of bondage, which it can no longer bear, as now it is aggrevated I shall therefore close up all, with the Canon of the Council of Paris under Louis and Lotharius, An. 829. l. 1. c. 23. worthy our domineering proud Prelates most serious rumination. Quia sunt pleri{que} qui non paternū affectū circa gregem sibi comissum sed quendam exercere videntur Dominatum eum{que} non ut Dominicum, sed flatibus vertosae arrogantiae inflati, ut suum proprium tractare non verentur. Quantum a paternitatis officijs aberrent▪ subter collecta documenta declarant. Dominus in Evangelio. Si diligis me, pasce oves meas: ME AS inquit, non TV AS. Item, qui major est vestrum, erit minister vester: Et non post multa. Non ita erit, inquit, inter vos. Sed qui voluerit inter vos major fieri erit vester servus. Petrus, Neque dominantes in clero sed forma facti gregis ex animo. Solomon, Principem te constituerunt? nolli extolli, sed esto in eis, quasi unus ex ipsis. Fulgentius in libro de veritate praedestinationis et gratiae; Non ideo, inquit, se solùm quilibet episcopus vas misericordiae putet in gloria praeparatum, quia pontificali militia fungitur, sed si progrege sibi redito solicitus SEMPER invigilet, et PRAEDICET VERBO, instet opportune, impertune, arguat, obsecret, increpet in omni patientia et doctrina. Nec sibi dominatum superbus usurpare contendat, sed Apostolicis informatus eloquijs et exemplis, servum se cunctis exhibeat, neque sedis illius altitudine, collatum sibi gaudeat temporale fastigium, sed humili cord fidelibus Praebeat bonae conversations exemplum. Quicun{que} igitur sacris officijs servituri, sub quolibet ordine applicantur, dignum est, ut illius dicantur, cujus servitio mancipantur, Quia ergo temeritate, immo PRAESVMPTVOSAVANITATE quilibet praelatorum dicere praesumit; Illa congregatio mea est, aut Ille praesbyter vel Clericus meus est, cum NONSITILLIVS SED ILLIVS CVI DICATVS EST? Proinde quia is inolitus sesus ecclesiasticae non concordat regulae, corrigatur NECESSE EST.

Christian Reader, this passage should 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 Presbyters like Bishops, created and ordained new Presbyters; affirming, that every Priest had received as much power to bind and loose, and to minister other Ecclesiastical things, as the Pope himself giveth or could give. This power of Ordination they exercised in the Diocese of Salisbury: And those who were ordained by them, thinking all things to be lawful to them, presumed to celebrate Masses, and feared not to handle Divine things, and administer the Sacraments. This wickedness (writes he) was discovered by a certain man Ordayned a Minister by them, to the Bishop of Salisbury at his Manor of Sunnyng: By which it is apparent, that the Lollards and Wiclenists, (the Prctestants of that age) believed, that the power of Ordination belonged as much to Presbyters by God's Law, as to Bishops; that one of them might as well, as lawfully ordain Ministers as the other; and that as they might lawfully preach the Gospel without the Bishops license (first prescribed by the forged Statute, of 2. H 5. c. 15. made only by the Bishops without the commons consent; to suppress the preaching of the Gospel,) so likewise ordain Ministers without it; and that Ministers ordained only by Presbyters without a Bishops privity or assistance, were lawful Ministers, and might lawfully with a good conscience discharge all Ministerial Offices; This being not only their received Doctrine, but their practice too. I find moreover that ^b Janruay 20. 1542. Nicholas Amsdorffius, a noble and learned unmaried man, was ordained Bishop of Newbury, by Martin Luther, Doctor Nicholas Medler pastor of Newbury, George Spalatine of Aldenburge and Wolffgaugus Steinius of Lucopeira, joining with him in the imposition of hands; Which Ordination Lu • her afterwards publicly maintained to be lawful in a printed Treatise. Loe here we have Presbyters not only ordaining a Presbiter, but a Bishop. If therefore the Prelates Paradox be true; That he that ordayens, is greater in Jursdiction and degree, then he that is ordained. It will hence inevitably follow, that these Presbyters (and those who ordained the first Bishops,) were greater in Jurisdiction, degree and order then Bishops; And then farewell their pretended Hierarchy: Anno Dom. 1537. Christian the 3, King of Denmark, removed and suppressed by a public Edict, all the Bishops of his Kingdom for their intolerable Treasons and rebellions; abolishing their Lordly Bishoprics, as contrary to our Savior's institution, the means that made them idle, proud, ambitious unpreaching Prelates, and seditious treacherous Rebells to their Princes; and instead of the 7. Bishops of Denmark, he instituted 7. Superintendents, to exercise the Office of Bishops, give Orders to others, and execute all ecclesiastical affairs; which 7. Superintendents August 26. 1537. received their Ordination from John Bugenbagius a Protestant Minister, in the Cathedral of Hafnia, in the presence of the King, and Senate of Denmark. Loe here all Bishops casheired, as false rebellious Ttaytors to their Sovereign, (as they have ever been in all States and ages, there having been more notorious Traitors, Rebells, and Conspirators of Bishops, then of all other ranks 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 ordained by a mere Presbiter in their steed, to confer Orders unto others in all the Danish Churches. In the beginning of reformation in Germany and other places, Luther and other Ministers, usually ordained Deacons and Ministers, and set out Books of the manner of Ordination, without any Bishops assistance; Which power of Ordination and imposition of hands, hath ever since been practiced by Ministers in all reformed Churches, which have abandoned Bishops, (Such as ours are, and make themselves) as contrary to GOD'S Word. Patrick Adamson Archbishop of Saint Andrew's in Scotland, in his Recantation publicly made in the Synod of Fiffe, April 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 God's Word, and only 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 Presbytery, 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 perform all these things with greater authority, piety and zeal, then any Bishop whatsoever; Whosecare is for the most partintent, not upon God, or his function, but the World, which he especially serves. A fatal blow to our Prelates Hierarchy; For if Lord Bishops be not Jure Divino, and have no foundation in the Word of GOD, then the power of Ordination belōgs not to them Iure Divino, as they are Lord Bishops, neither can, do, or ought they to confer Orders as they are Bishops, but only as they are Ministers. And if so (as is most certain) then this power of Ordination belongs not at all to Bishops as they are Bishops, but only as they are Ministers; and every Minister as he 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 Durand confesseth, & now too; as the Rhemists witness; and even in our own English Church among us at this day, Ministers ought to join with the Bishop in the imposition of hands; Neither can our Bishops ordain any one a Minister, unless Three or Four Ministers at least join with him in the Ordination and laying on of hands. This being an apparent truth, I shall hence, from the Bishops own principles, prove Presbyters 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 only to Presbyters, as Presbyters, not to Lord Bishops, and to Lord Bishops themselves, not as Bishops but Presbyters; and Bishops when they ordain in a lawful manner, do it only as Presbyters, not as Bishops; Therefore Presbyters are superior to Bishops in jurisdiction, order and degree; and Bishops themselves, far greater in all these as they are Presbyters (an office of Divine invention,) then as they are Lordly Prelates, or Diocesan Bishops, (a mere human institution.) Thus are our great Lord Bishops (who vaunt of the weakness of Puritan principles, Whereas their Episcopal are far more feeble and absurd,) wounded to death with their own weapons, and all their domineering swelling authority, overthrown 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 Presbyters to be both one and the same by Divine institution, Winds up all in this manner: We conclude therefore, seeing that superior Episcopal dignity is to be avowched only by human institution, tantum esse humani Iuris, that it is only of human right: On the contrary, Since it is evident by the express testimonies of Scripture, that in the Apostles times, Bishops were the same with Presbyters. Iure Divino potestatem ordinandi non minus Presbiteris quam Episcopis convenire; that by God's law, and Divine right, the power of Ordination belongs as much to Presbyters as to Bishops.

Page 51. l. 17. between same, and since; this should have been inscribed.

So Alexander & Narcissus were both Bishops of Jerusalem 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 joint Bishops of Hippotogether, by the unanimous consent of the Clergy and people; and when as Augustine, was loath to be joined a Bishop with Valerius, alleging it to be contrary to the Custom 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 foreign Churches; Whereupon he was satisfied. In the Church of Rome, we know, there have been sometimes two, sometimes three, and once four Popes and Bishops at one time, Some adhering to the one, some to the other; but all of them conferring Orders, making Cardinals, and exercising Papal jurisdiction. In the Churches of Constantinople, Alexandria, Jerusalem, Antioch, and Afric, during the Arian Macedonian, Novatian heresies and Schism of the Donatists, there were successively two or three Bishops together in them, and other Cities; the one orthodox, the other heretical and schismatical; Yea, the first Council 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 Catholic,) if the Donatists returned unto the unity of the Church, that they should be received into the fellowship of the Bishops office, with the Catholic Bishops; if the people would suffer it; Poterit quippe unusquisque nostrum honoris sibi socio copulato vicissim sedere eminentius, &c. utroque alterum cum honor 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 Kingdom, he permitted there should be two Bishops of equal power, the one a Catholic, the other an Arian; and that he placed two such Bishops in every City. Danaus proves out of Epiphanius, that anciently in most Cities there were two or three Bishops. Nicephorus writes; That the Scythians near Ister, have many and great Cities, all of them subject to one Bishop; But among other people, we know, there are Bishops not only 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 Council of Later an under Innocent the 3 ^d . there were divers Bishops in one City and Diocese, where there were divers Nations of divers languages and customs: Which though his Council disallowes where there is no necessity; Yet it approves and Permitt where there is a necessity. Nay, those Canons, Constitutions, and Decretals, which prohibit, that there should be many Bishops in one City, or that there should be Bishops in Castles, Villages, or small Towns 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 Diocese; and a Bishop in every little Castle, Town and Country Village: And to come nearer home, the Statute of 26. H. 8. c. 14. ordayneth, that there shall be many suffragan Bishops exercising Episcopal jurisdiction in one and the same Diocese 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 Bishoprics in England, and divided one Diocese into many, both intimate and prove as much. Why then there may not now be divers Bishops in one City, one Church, as well as there was in the Apostles time, in the primitive Church, and forms ages, or as well as there are now divers Archbishops and Bishops in one Kingdom; divers Ministers in one Cathedral and Parish Church, I cannot yet conceive; unless Bishops will now make themselves such absolute Lordly Monarks and Kings, as cannot admit of any equals or corrivalls with them, and be more ambitious, proud, vayneglorious, covetous, unsociable, then the Bishops in the Apostles and Primitive times, whose successors they pretend themselves to be in words, though they disclay me them utterly in their manners, lordlines, pomp, and supercilious deportment, which they will not lay down 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 esse •• us, et nos ne ipsa eius membra crudeli division lanientur, de Cathedris descendere formidamus? Episcopy 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 ill altior specula vinitoris est, non fastigium superbientis. Sicum nolo retinere Episcopatum meum dispergo gregem Christi, quomodo est damnum gregis honor Pastoris? Nam qua front in futuro seculo promissum a Christo sperabimus honorem, si Christianam in hoc seculo noster honor impedit unitatem? To which I shall add, as a Corollary, a like Speech of that holy devout man, S. Bernard, Who as he constantly refused (out of conscience) the Bishoprics both of Genoa and Millaine, though earnestly urged to accept of them; so he brake forth into these admirable speeches upon that occasion, (Homil. 1. De Laudibus Mariae Virginis: p. 18.) Worthy all Lordly Prelates most serious contemplation. Erubesce superbe cinis, Deus se humiliat, tu te exaltas? Deusse hominibus subdit, tu dominari gestiens, tuo te praeponis authori Vtinam tale me quid cogitantem Deus, uti suum olim Apostolum, increpare dignetur: Vade post me Satana; Non sapis quae Dei sunt: Quotiens hominibus praeesse desidero, totiens Deum meum praeire contendo, et tunc quae vere Dei sunt non sapio. Enough to cause all our Lordly Prelates, (have they any grace in their hearts) to cast off their Rochets, and lay down their Bishoprics, their Lordly jurisdiction, which have bred so many schisms, controversies, wars, and tumults in the Christian World, and rent the unity of Christ's Church in sunder; in all acts. Which thing if they now refuse to do, I shall conclude of them, as Hermagandus did of the Greek Bishop, who was like to starve him Sanctissimus est vester Pontifex quatenus ADVERSO DEO fieri licet. Literis sacris enim pingitur Deus est charitas, cujus istum Episcopum omnino expertem esse, nostro periculo sensimus.

Ne Savi Magna Sacerdos.

Courteous Reader, before thou peruse this Treatise, shall desire thee to correct these Errors and Omissions of the Printer, because many of them corrupt & pervert the sense▪ & so require thy Correction before thy Perusall; both to free the Author from causeless Censure, and thyself from needless Error. Other literal obvious scapes of less moment, thou mayest amend as thou meetest with them.

In the matter, p. 6. l. 5. for 1608 yearly, read▪ almost 1600 years. l. 12. quickening, quieting. p. 7. l. 8. as, in. l▪ 27. also l. 29. of, that: p. 8. l 9. of, and, l. 21. poor, pure▪ p. 10. l. 11. in Starchamber. p. 11. l. 16. faction, fiction▪ p. 19. l. 12. Egelrie. l. 13. offered: l. 22. Maleclerke. p. 20. l. 8. Alcunivus. Carthage: Council, Can. l. 10. Aquisgran: Carnotensis. p 21. l. 9. sins. schisms. p. 24. l. 13. Cautinus. l. 15. Verdunum. p. 25. l. 9. Durham: p. 26. l. 31. An. 1554. p. 28. l. 1. of it: l. 5. defile, define. p. 36▪ l. 32. deny▪ denude. p. 43. l. 12. and, as: p. 44 l. 10. thought, taught: l. 15. comfort. p. 45. l. 18. not: p. 46. l. 20. would, could: l. 26. therefore, there for▪ p. 49. l 7. Timothy is. p. 55. l. 3. two, three. l. 13. falseness, false forgery▪ p. 61. l. 25. consequent, consent. p. 62. l. 6. purseivant p. 7. blot out one: and, and that. l. 8. jealosie: l. 26. rating. p. 64. l. 21. denied. decreed. p. 70. l. 12. ca, in l. 14. Aken: p. 74. l. 5 a Lawyer p. 75. l. 5 and Bishops: p. 78. l. 31. Postscript. p. 79 l. 1. no, nor: l. 4. not. r. since Paul was not. l. 13. these, those. p. 85. l. 16. 5 lie: p. 83. l. 6. other. p. 87. l. 11. or the▪ p. 93. l. 32 r. who supplied the place of a Bishop, in his consecration to be a Bishop Iure divine, and &c. p 95. l. 1. were; to be. l. 13▪ and their▪ p. 95 l. 26. r. as Ministers not as Bishops. p 96. l. 12. concurrence l. 32. Taborites p. 100. l. 23. • etricw p. 111. l. 5 Decrees. p. 112. l 23. & 113. l. 3. of, or. l. 11. Monopolie p. 117. l. 27. in, do: p. 122. l. 11. they p. 123 l. 36. forever. p. 133. l. 6. interpretor p. 134. l. 18. blot out hath. p. 135. l. 11. commonly, common by. p. 137. l. 11. banded▪ p. 144. l. 20. predecessors. p. 145 l. 1. starved: l. 5. preached. l. 12. want, warn. p. 147. l. 14. fast, fat. l. 23. un, on. p. 148. l. 1. and in l. 8. defer, deter. l. 13. both by. l. 21. what, where. l. 22. here▪ twtch: p. 150. l. 21. never cease. p. 151. l. 23: 13. 12: p. 154, l. 5. of, if. l. 17. much, mute. p. 155. l. 9. warded. p. 156. l▪ 2 the, our.

In the Margin: p. 5. l. 34▪ page: p. 8. l. 12. Bccon: p. 11. l 27 deslire. p. 32. l. 7. animam, annum. p. 58. l. 6, when, where: p. 62. l. 4. Meluini. p. 64▪ l. 17. Meldense: p▪ 70. l. 2. Aton▪ p. 93. l. 2. Catalogo. p. 103. l. 14. lib. 7. p. 113. l. 8. Seva. p. 130. l. 4. Tim. 5. p. 149. l. 17. p. c. l. 25. 13. 12: p. 152. l. 5. favorers, fainthearted.

Kind Reader, ere thou peruse this Treatise, be pleased to correct those Errors in the last page; with these therein omitted. p. 14. l. 4. forverily: read, freshly. l. 12▪ Giver, Grace: p. 15. l. 6. how, two: l. 8. as, or l. 12: most, must: l. 17. gemmie, genuine. l. 29. provise; promise. p. 16. l. 5. Hidrax, Hicrax: l. 30. elected p. 17. Studies, l. 11. Shetne, Sennes. l. 20. Maucte. Mainz: l. 21. Augusta: Reformes. Rheemes: l. 22. Salisbury Saltzburg. l. 25. Visalis in Southland▪ Vpsal in Suethland. p. 18. l. 5. revived, resigned: l. 9. shows, shun. l. 11. express, expose, both 〈◊〉 , to the hazard. l. 18. Kylwarby, l. 25. Warwest. p. 115. l. 9. it is: p. 116. l 4. So the power of Ordination being inferior: l. 5. every. Minister. l. 19 are superior to them in point. p. 143. l. 13. rode thither; made his chaplain ride thither p. 162. l. 11. c. 5: l. 20. necessis. p. 166. l. 29. Quia, Qua. l. 33. sesus, usus. p. 167. l. 17. Wiclevists. l. 32. 33: Newbury, Naoburge. p. 173. l. 6. nolo, volo: l. 27. acts, ages: l. 31. pingitur, proditur. p 175. l. 7. pari: l. 8. fratres. In the Margin. p. 13. l. 18 19. by Characters any Charter: l. 34: any, out p. 14. l. 7. Godwins: l. 25. 26. people to standing: Reply to Harding. p. 15. l. 2. Eccles: hist: l. 5. Socr. l. 12 Rome. p. 163. l. 2. Uitis p. 164. l. 5. Scoticarum. p. 171. l. 5. Theodoricus: l. 8. Schismate: p. 172. l. 9. r. Caesarue, Pompeinsue. Page 1. 6. l. 10. This should have been inserted.

Nor yet to recite the examples of Clement, the 1 of Rome, Pope Cornelius, Ambrose, Augustine, Athanasius, Gregory Nazianzen his father, Pope Gregory the first, Alexander Patriarch of Jerusalem, Anatolius Bishop of Laodicea, Eustathius Bishop of Antioch, Antiochus, Theophilus Alexandrinus, Dioscorus, Chrysanthus, S. Martin Bishop of Towers, S. Nicholas, Paulinus of Nola, Eusebius Pamphilus, Flaiuanus of Antioch, or Marchus, who in ancient times were all enforced to accept of their Bishoprics full sore against their wills and judgments, by the overpressing importunity of other Bishops, Princes, Ministers and people. (With others quoted to my hands by Claudius Espencaeus:) Or, Eucherius Bishop of Lions, or Otto Bishop of Bamburge, enforced in the same manner to be Bishops, full sore against their liking; as was Cranmer Archbishop of Canterbury. Nor yet to mention Ephaaem Syrus, Nilammon, or S. Bernard, who all constantly refused divers great and wealthy Bishoprics, not only offered, but urged on them, with much importunity; or Adrian, who refused the Archbishopric of Canterbury, though called to it, and urged to accept it: or Bassianus elected Bishop of the Vangensi, whom furious Memnon whipped before the Altar for 3. hours space, till he bedewed the Altar and New Testament with his blood, because he refused to accept that Episcopal charge and office. Or Brune Seguinas, who rejected a Bishoprik offered to him, saying, A Bishopric▪ must be altogether forsaken of that man that would not be set at Christ's left hand; (answerable whereunto is that of Pope Marcellus the 2: who smiting his hand upon the Table, used these words: I do not see how those that possess this high place can besaved. Or John Bugenhagius▪ who of late times repudiated the Bishopric of Camine in Pomerland, to which he was freely chosen. Pope Celestine the 5: Athanasius Bishop of the Pareni, Eustathius Bishop of Pamphilia, Rusticus Bishop of Narbon, Remaclus Bishop of Virech, Otgerus Bishop of Spire, Lambert Bishop of Florence, Lutulphus Bishop of Callens, Hugh Bishop of Towres, Burchardus Bishop of Wertzburge, Michael Ephesinus Bishop of Antioch, Desiderius Bishop of the Morini, Geoffrey Bishop of Sylvanecta▪ Conrade Bishop of Batavia, Albertus Magnus Bishop of Ratisbon, of ancient times abroad, Simon Langham Archbishop of Canterbu y, Winifred Bishop of Coventry, Robert Sherborne Bishop of Chichester, Geoffrey Bishop of S. Asaph, with sundry others at home; Louis ab Eperstem, Bartholomew Suavenius and John Frederick Bishops of Camene in Pomerland, Isaurus Archbishop of Riga, Baldaser Bishop of Suerin, Ericus, John Duke of Saxony, and Otto Bishops of Heldesheim, Hugh the 47. Bishop of Constance▪ Fridericke a Weda and Salentine Archbishops of Colen, Augustus Bishop of Mersburge, Jodocus, a Reke Bishop of Derbat, Francis, Henry and Julius Bishops of Minda, Theodosius a Rheden Bishop of Lubecke, Christopher Bishop of Raceburge, Christopher Bishop of Breme, of later times beyond the Seas, with divers others here and else where cited, have all successively resigned, and voluntarily relinquished their Bishoprics and Episcopal dignities out of conscience, age, discontent; or otherpious considerations of the great danger and unlawfulness of this antichristian Lordly function, which all or most holy men have ever declined▪ or unwillingly accepted of, though our Lord Prelates now post and hunt after Bishoprics, and would rather die then part with them, or the least title of that Lordly Jurisdiction, which they now most antichristianly usurp, contrary to the Laws of God and the Realm. Giving over preaching, their chiefest spiritual employment, contrary to their sole mne vow and covenant made unto God and the people at their Ordination, to become great secular Lord's, and manage temporal affairs not compatible with their calling.