The unbishoping of Timothy and Titus. Or A briefe elaborate discourse, prooving Timothy to be no bishop (much lesse any sole, or diocæsan bishop) of Ephesus, nor Titus of Crete and that the power of ordination, or imposition of hands, belongs jure divino to presbyters, as well as to bishops, and not to bishops onely. Wherein all objections and pretences to the contrary are fully answered; and the pretended superiority of bishops over other ministers and presbyters jure divino, (now much contended for) utterly subverted in a most perspicuous maner. By a wellwisher to Gods truth and people.

Whether Timothy were ever a Dio∣caesan Bishop, or first, or sole Bis∣hop of Ephesus?

QVESTION. I.

IF the multitude, or common received opinion might take place, or our Prelates be the Iudges of this Controversy, they would presently conclude affirma∣tively without dispute; that Timothy was a Diocaesan Bishop; yea, the first and sole Bishop of the Ephesians. But if the Scripture, or verity may be umpire, it will evidently appeare, first, that Timothy was no Bishop (I meane no such Bishop as Iure divino or humano, is different from an ordinary Presbyter in dignity and degree) much lesse Bishop, or first or sole Bishop of Ephesus, as is generally conceived; which I shall clearly evi∣dence by these ensuing Scriptures and reasons.

That Timothy was no Bishop in this sence, is apparant.

1. First, because S. Paul and Luke, who were best acquain∣ted * 1.1 with him, and make frequent mention of him, never stile him a Bishop, neither is hee termed a Bishop in any text of Scripture. S. Paul in his Epistles to him, cals him, his owne

Sonne in the faith: 1. Tim. 1. 2. A good MINISTER (not a Bishop) of Jesus▪ Christ▪ 1. Tim. 4. 6. His dearly be∣loved Sonne. 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, hee tearmes him▪ 〈1 line〉〈1 line〉 1. Thes. 3. 2. 〈1 line〉〈1 line〉 Rom. 16. 21. His Brother and beloved Sonne. 1. Cor. 4. 17. 2. Cor. 1. 19. Col. 1. 1. A workeman of the Lord, 1. Cor. 16, 10. A servant of Jesus Christ, Phil. 1, 1. but never a Bishop. S. Luke termes him Paules Companion, Minister, attendant, and fellow-worker onely, 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 Euangelist, as hee is expresly stiled, 2. Tim. 4, 5. Doe the worke of an Euangelist.

2. Secondly, Because he was S. Paules Associate, Copart∣ner, Brother and fellow-helper in his Apostolicall function, whence he often stiles him, his Brother, his fellow-worker; and conjoynes him with him in the Prologue▪ the inscription of most of his Epistles, which are written in both their names, witnes▪ 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 Apostolicall function, superior in degree to the Episcopall office, (as is apparant by Ephes. 4. 11. 1. Cor. 12. 18. and the generall consent of all men,) it is not probable that hee would devest himselfe of his Apostolicall Iurisdiction, to be∣come an inferior Bishop, or relinquish a Superior to take up an inferior degree. Who ever saw of late any Archbishop or Bishop to deny himselfe of his Archiepiscopall or Episcopall pre∣eminency, to be made a poore Country Vicar or Curate? And can we then conjecture, that Timothy would relinquish his

Apostleship for an Ephesian Bishop-pricke; or else, hold it by way of Commendam with his Apostleship? (Commendams being not of such antiquity, and a meere late Popish innovation) or descend from an a 1.2 Evangelist-ship to a Bishop-ricke?

3. Thirdly, because Timothy was ever either accompa∣nying S. Paul in his Travels or bonds, as his fellow-helper, mi∣nister, 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. b 1.3 We read Acts 16, 1, usque 12. That Timothy came first of all to Paul when hee was at Derbe and Listra; Paul then taking him to goe forth with him; and that they went both together through the Churches of Phrygia, Galatia, Asia, Mysia, and at last came to Philippy where hee abode with Paul; and from thence wrote the first Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians, as the * 1.4 Postscript manifests. In which Epistle hee writes thus unto them: 1, Cor. 16, 10. Now if Timotheus come, see that hee may be with you without feare; for he worketh the worke of the Lord as I also doe. And c. 4, 17. For this cause have I sent unto you Timotheus, who is my beloved Sonne and faithfull in the Lord, who shall bring you into remembrance of my wayes which be in Christ, as I teach everywhere in every Church. By which it is apparant, that Timothy was sent by Paul from Philippi to Corinth (after this Epistle) to instruct them; Where he continuing a while, repaired againe to Paul to Philippi; and there joynes 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 Sonne of God Jesus Christ, who was preached among them by us, even by me, Sylvanus and Timotheus, was not yea and nay, but in him was yea. By which it is evident, that Timothy had before this second Epistle written, preached Iesus Christ among the Corinthians by Pauls appointment. After which, Paul remooving from Philippy, Timothy accompanied him to Thessalonica and B〈…〉〈…〉a, where hee abode, till Paul came to

Athens; from whence hee sent a commaund to Timothy to Berea, to come to him with all speed to Athens, where hee stayed for him: Acts. 17, 13, 14, 15, 16. Which he did accordingly: joyning 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, hee sent Timothy from thence to the Thessalonians, to establish and comfort them concer∣ning their faith; that they should not be mooved by their afflictions, where he continuing for a space, came from them againe to Paul to Athens, bringing him good tidings of their faith and charity: 1. Thes. 3, 1. to 7. After this, hee remooveth with Paul to Corinth, from thence being sent into Macedonia hee came againe to Paul unto Corinth. Acts. 18, 5, from whence Paul writing his Epistle to the Romans, remembers the salutation of Timotheus his Worke-fellow to the Romans, among others: Rom. 16, 11. After this Paul re∣mooving to * 1.5 Ephesus, sent Timotheus & Erastus (two of them who there ministred unto him) into Macedonia; himselfe staying in Asia for a season▪ Acts. 19, 20. From whence Paul afterwards passed into Macedonia & Grece, & then returning into Asia, Timotheus & others accompanied him; and going before taried 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 flocke over which the holy Ghost had made them Bishops, to feed the Church of God which he had purchased with his owne blood: v. 17. 28. &c. A taske fitter for Timothy to enjoyne them, had he beene their Diocaesan, then Paul; and a charge more meet for Timothy to receive, then they; had he then beene Bishop of the See of Ephesus: who being so neare Ephesus, should have accompanied these Elders of his Church to Ephesus, when Paul dismissed them, rather then have left his flocke at randome after so strict a charge to feed them. But yet though the Elders went backe to their Cures from Miletus, Timothy did not so, for from thence hee 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 He∣brewees, as the Postscript testifieth▪ was written to the Hebrewes 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 hee was in bondes; at which time Timothy was present with him joyning in this E∣pistle: Philip. 1. 1. informing the Philippians, that hee trusted to send Timotheus shortly unto them, that hee also might be of good comfort, when he should know their estate, Philip▪ 2, 19. whe∣ther 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 doe 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 apparant by 2. Tim. 4, 12, 13. and Philip. 2, 19. Timothy therefore thus ever accompanying Paul in his Travels and Bondes, and traveling from one Church to another by his appointment and mission, never keeping any fixed residence in any one place, much lesse at Ephesus, could not be Bishop or Presbyter of any particular Church; the Apostles instituting no non-resident Bishops or Elders, but such onely as were to reside with those flockes, over which the Holy Ghost had made them Bishops, or Overseers, to watch over and feed them with the bread of life, and to goe 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. Iohn. 10, 3, 4, 5, 14, 16, 27, 28. Ezeck. 34, 2. to 25. Ier. 23, 3, 4. c. 3, 15. Isay. 56, 10, 11, c. 40, 11. Zech. 11, 17.

4. Fourthly, Because Paul, who best knew Timothies con∣dition, expresly termes him, A Minister of God (not a Bishop) 1. Thes. 3, 2. informing him, that if he did put the Brethren in minde of these things he enjoynes him, he should shew himselfe a good Minister (not a Bishop) of Iesus Christ, 1, Tim. 4▪ 6. Therefore certainly he was no Bishop, but a Minister, when this Epistle was written to him, unlesse 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 un∣doubted truth: Phil. 1, 1. 1, Tim. 3, 1, 2, 3.

5. Because when Paul wrote his first Epistle to Timothy, hee was then very young in yeares, 1. Tim. 4, 12. and but * 1.6 newly entred into the Ministery: whence hee charged him, to give attendance to reading, to exhortation, to doctrine, to meditate upon these things, and to give himselfe wholy to them, that his profiting might appeare unto all men. 1. Tim. 4, 13, 15. In∣structing him in that Epistle, how and what to preach, and how to demeane himselfe in his Ministry, into which hee was then but freshly entred, 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 yeares, and newly entred into the Ministry, when this first Epistle was written to him, was questionles not instituted sole Bishop of Ephefus, by Paul; who in his very Epistle to him 1. Tim. 3, 6. among other qualifica∣tions 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 Devill: and so should have contradicted his owne instructions to Timothy, that a Bishop must be no Novice, in creating him a Bishop; (which question∣les he would not doe) being but then a Novice.

6. Becaufe Paul in the 1. Tim. 5, 1. chargeth Timothy, Not to rebuke an Elder, but to intreat him as a Father. If Timo∣thy then were not to reproove them as a Father over them, but to intreat Elders, as his Fathers, he was certainly no Lord Bishop or Superintendent over Elders, but they rather Superiours unto him, being to entreat them onely as spirituall Fathers; whereas Lord Bishops and their Chauncellours too, in our dayes, esteeme the very best and gravest Ministers under them, not as Fathers, but as underlings, vicars, and Curates to them; not en∣treating

them as Fathers, but rating, reviling, and domineering over them as if they were their Curs and vasalls, and they their Lords and Maisters.

7. Because Timothy was to account those Elders that ruled well, especially those who laboured in the word and Doctrine, worthy of double honor. 1, Tim. 5, 17. Hee therefore being to render double honor to those Elders that ruled well and laboured 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 Episcopall function, (unlesse the oppo∣sites grant, that he was consecrated Bishop of Ephesus by the Presbyters of Ephesus:) but his Ministeriall onely: being therefore exhorted to exercise his Ministeriall function onely, and to shew himselfe a good Minister of Iesus Christ, 1, Tim. 4, 6, 14, not to exercise any Episcopall authority; he was question∣lesse 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 stiled, the first Bishop of the Ephesians, as I shall hereafter manifest, yet in the body and Postscript of the first Epistle, hee is named Timothy onely, without any men∣tion of his Ephesian Bishopricke; hee was therefore no Bishop either of Ephesus or any other place, when Paul sent his first E∣pistle to him; for otherwise hee would have beene stiled, 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 Pompe and State of Bishop, (especially in our dayes) to be commaunded and posted up and downe, from place to place, in such maner 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, muchlesse, to Mi∣nister, to Paul, as Timothy did, Acts. 19, 22, but least of all, to carry Paules Cloake, his Bookes, and Parchments after him, which Timothy is enjoyned to bring from Troas to Rome, 2, Tim. 4, 13. An office which our proud Prelates would scorne to execute, though Paul himselfe should commaund them, as being incom∣patible with their Episcopall dignity: Timothy therefore being so much at Pauls beck, as to be his Messenger, his Minister, his cloake carrier, and booke-bearer (even when some say hee was the great Monarchicall Prelate of all Ephesus and Asia) was cer∣tainly no Bishop, at leastwise no such Lordly Bishop as those of this age are.

2. Secondly. As all these severall reasons evidence Timothy to * 1.7 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 Dio∣caesan Bishop of that Citty, and so by consequence, no Bishop at all, if not of Ephesus; since no other Bishopricke 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 Ti∣mothy, 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 beene a Bishop of that famous Citty.

2. The Scripture makes no mention of Timothies being at Ephesus; or of his preaching there, save onely that Paul besought (not commanded or ordered) him to abide still to Ephesus,

whiles hee went into Macedonia, that he might charge some that they teach no other Doctrine; neither give heed to fables, and end∣lesse genealogies, which Minister questions rather then edefying, 1, Tim. 1, 3, 4, and to give attendance to reading, to exhortation, to doctrine, till hee came thither himselfe, which was but a short time after, 1, Tim. 4, 13, 14, 15. Paul therefore not instituting Timothy any Diocaesan Bishop of Ephesus, but onely beseeching (which was voluntary not commanding) him, to abide there (* 1.8 till his owne returne from Macedonia,) both to instruct the people, and to further himselfe in his owne Studies; not to reside there during life; it is an unanswerable argument, that he did not constitute him Bishop of Ephesus, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 some vainely hence in∣ferre: See 1, Tim. 3, 14, 15.

3. When Timothy was thus desired to abide at Ephesus by Paul, hee was ‡ but newly entred into the Ministery, as ap∣peares * 1.9 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 Dio∣caesan Bishop of all Ephesus, yea the very first Bishop of that famous See, being but a youth, so soone as hee had ordained him to be a Minister: and before hee knew how to behave himselfe, in the house and Church of God, which then hee did not, 1, Tim. 3, 15.

4. Assoone as Paul returned againe from Macedonia to Ephesus, hee sent Timothy into Achaja, himselfe staying at Ephe∣sus in Asia for a season, Acts. 19, 22, to 40, and from thence re∣turned into Macedonia; and through it into Asia, accompanied with Timotheus, and others: Acts. 20, 1, to 7, after which wee never read that Timothy writ, came or returned to Ephesus. Now if Timothy had beene Bishop of Ephesus, it is not pro∣bable that Paul upon his returne from Macedonia, would have sent him from Ephesus into Macedonia, to Corinth, Philippi, & other Churches there, as he did Acts 19, 22, c. 20, 4, 5. 1 Cor. 14. 17, 2 Cor.

1, 19. Phil. 2, 19. 1, Thes. 3, 1, 2 6, or that Timothy would have gone from his owne Episcopall See, into another Bishops Dioces, and never returned to his owne Cure of Ephesus, (which for ought we read hee never did after his first departure thence) contrary to Pauls owne direction to the Bishops of Ephesus, Acts. 20, 28.

5. Wee read, that Paul sent Timothy into Macedonia, Acts. 19, 22. to preach the Ghospell to the Church of God there; that he sent him to the Church of Corinth to bring them in remem∣brance of his wayes which were in Christ, as hee t〈…〉〈…〉ught every∣where, in every Church, and to worke the worke of the Lord, 1, Cor. 4, 17, c. 16, 10, and that hee accordingly preached Iesus Christ the Sonne of God among them, 2, Cor. 1, 19. That hee likewise sent him to the Church of Thessalonica, to establish and comfort•• them, concerning their faith, 1, Thess. 3, 1, 2, 3, 4. and after that to Philippi from Rome, that hee might know the Sate of the Philippians, hee having no man like minded, who would so na∣turally care for their state as Timothy. Phil. 2, 19, 20. But wee never read that Paul sent him to Ephesus either to comfort, ex∣hort, confirme, instruct them, or to know their State after his first departure thence; which he would questionlesse have done, had hee beene their Bishop, rather then thus have imployed him to other Churches. Timothy therefore was rather Bishop of these Cities and Churches then of Ephesus.

6. As Timothy was sent by Paul to the Churches of co∣rinth, Philippi, and Thessalonica, so hee joynes with Paul in his Epistles written to those Churches, directed to them in both their names: witnesse 2, Cor. 1, 1, Phil. 1, 1. 1, Thes. 1, 1, 2, Thes. 1, 1, in which Epistles Paul makes frequent of Timothy: witnesse 1, Cor. 4, 17, c. 16, 10. Phil. 2, 19. 1, Thes. 3, 2, 6. Moreover hee joynes with Paul in writings to the Colossians: Col. 1, 1, and Paul in his Epistle to the Romans, c. 16, 21, re∣members his salutation by name to the Church and Saints of Rome,

and in his Epistle to the Hebrewes written by Timothy as his Scribe, hee makes mention of his delivery out of prison by name, Hebr. 13, 23. * 1.10 But in the Epistle to the Ephesians, written from Rome, long after Timothy was supposed to be made Bishop of Ephesus; Timothy neither joynes with Paul in the inditement or salutation, neither doth Paul so much as once name or mention him throughout that Epistle, as he doth in all the other Epistles to the Churches whether hee sent him, and in every of his Epistles else to any Church, except in his Epistle to the Galathians. Timothy therefore doubtlesse was not Bishop of Ephesus at this season; else he would have vouch∣safed to have joyned with Paul in his Epistle to the Ephesians, as well as in his Epistles to other Churches; or Paul being his spe∣ciall Friend and applauder, would have made some honorable mention and commendation of him to the Church of Ephesus, (his owne peculiar Dioces as some affirme,) as he doth in his Epistles to most other Churches, where he was never Bishop. An unanswerable argument in my opinion, that Timothy was never Bishop of Ephesus, since there is no newes at all either from, or of, or to, or concerning him in Pauls Epistle to the Ephesians, of which hee is surmised, to be the first, sole and genuine Bishop.

7. If Timothy were Bishop of Ephesus when Paul writ his first Epistle to him why then did Paul himselfe excommuni∣cate Hymenus and Philetus, and deliver them unto Satan, and not write to Timothy to excommunicate these Heretickes, and play the Bishop in his owne Dioces, 〈◊〉〈◊〉, Tim. 1, 20. yea why did Paul himselfe, no Timothy, lay hands upon the Disciples, there ordained after such time as he was Bishop there, Acts. 19, 1, 6, 7? Was it because Timothy was a ne∣gligent, or impotent Bishop, unwilling or unable to excommu∣nicate Heretickes, or ordaine Ministers? or in truth, because he was no Bishop then and there? Not the first of these, since

Timothy was neither negligent, nor impotent in his function: therefore the latter, he being then, no Bishop, nor yet exer∣cising his Episcopall Jurisdiction there.

8. Had Timothy beene Bishop of Ephesus, when Paul wrot his first Epistle to him, no doubt Paul when hee sent for the Elders of the Church of Ephesus, to Miletus to take his finall fare well of them, and made a solemne speech unto them, charging them, To take heed unto themselves and to the flock over the, which the Holy Ghost had made them Bis∣hops, to feed the Church of God, which he had purchased with his owne blood, and Acts. 20, 17, to 38, would have made some speciall mention of Timothy, and directed his speech more particularly to him by name; as being the Prime Bishop of that Church, to whom this charge did principally ap∣pertaine. But Paul in that speech of his, makes no particular mention at all of Timothy, neither directed hee any part of his speech to him, he being none of the Elders of Ephesus sent for to Miletus, or any of that number whom the Holy-Ghost had made Bishops of that flock and Church: hee coming along with Paul out of Macedonia into Asia to Troas and Miletus, Acts. 20, 3, 4, 5, &c. and so none of the number of Elders sent for and called from Ephesus to Mile∣tus, to whom this speech of Paul was applyed. Therefore questionles hee was not then Bishop, muchlesse sole Bishop of Ephesus, as some groundlesly affirme, against this unanswer∣able text.

9. Paul himselfe, as hee sent Timothy to Philippi, Troas, and other Churches, to instruct, confirme, comfort, and in∣quire of their estates; so hee expresly writes to Timothy, 2, Tim. 4, 12, that he had sent Tychicus unto Ephesus, for the selfesame purpose. Which Tychicus as hee did write the

Epistle of Paul to the Ephesians from Rome, so Paul in that very Epistle of his to the Ephesians, c. 6, v. 21, 22, acquaintes them; That Tychicus a beloved brother and faithfull Mi∣nister in the Lord, should make knowne to them all things: whom (saith he) I have sent unto you for the same pur∣pose, that ye might know our affaires, and that he might comfort your hearts. So that if there were any particular Dio∣cesan Bishop of Ephesus instituted by Paul, this Tychicus (whom Dorotheus makes one of the 70. Disciples and Bishop of Chalcedon in Bithinia) was more like to be the man, then Timothy, as these two Scriptures evidence.

10. Paul himselfe makes mention of Elders in the Church of Ephesus RVLINGWELL, and labo∣ring in the word and doctrine, and so worthy of double Honor, 1, Tim. 5, 17. Which Elders hee expresly stiles, Bishops of Ephesus, Acts. 20, 27, 28. These therefore being instituted Bishops of Ephesus even by the Holy Ghost himselfe, and ruling, feeding, and taking the care, the over∣sight of that Church by his appointment, questionlesse Timothy at the selfesame season would not be Bishop there.

3. Thirdly, As Timothy was neither a Bishop, nor Bis∣hop * 1.11 of Ephesus; so muchlesse was hee the first, or sole Bishop there, as the Postscript of the second Epistle to him in some late Coppies, tearmes him. Not the first Bishop of Ephesus: For, as that Church was first planted by S. Paul, who continued therefore a season: Acts. 18, 19, 20, c. 19, 1, to 41, c. 20, 17, to 38. 1, Cor. 15, 32, c. 16, 8. 2, Tim. 1, 18, and after that for two yeares and three moneths space together, disputing dayly in the Schoole of one Tyrannus, so that all they who where in Asia heard the Gospell, Acts. 19, 8, 9, 10,

during which time of Paules residence there (in all 3. Yeares, Acts. 20, 31,) there needed no Bishop to governe and sway the Church, neither is it probable that any Diocesan Bishop was there constituted: So the two first that Paul left behinde him at Ephesus at his first comming thither, to instruct that Church were Priscilla and Aquila, Acts. 18, 18, 19, during whose abode there, while Paul went from thence to Antioch, and over all the Countrie of Galatia and Phrygia, in order strengthning all the Disciples; a certaine Iew, na∣med Apollos, borne at Alexandria, an eloquent man and mighty in the Scriptures came to Ephesus; Who being in∣structed in the way of the Lord, and servent in the spirit, spake and taught diligently the things of the Lord; and be∣gan to speake boldly in the Lord: whom when Aquila and Priscilla had heard, they tooke him unto them, and expoun∣ded to him the way of God more perfectly: Acts. 18, 22, to 27. So that Aquila whom Paul left first at Ephesus before Ti∣mothy, and Apollos who thus preached there, may with grea∣ter reason be stiled, the first Bishops of Ephesus, then Timothy; whom Paul intreated to stay there onely at his last going into Macedonia: Acts. 20, 1 as † 1.12 most accord. Besides, we read, that Paul at his second comming to Ephesus, before Timothy was constituted Bishop thereof, finding certaine Disciples there, al out 12. in number, who were onely baptised into the baptisme of Iohn, and had not received the Holy Ghost since they beleived, baptized them in the name of the Lord Iesus, and when hee had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them, and they spake with tongues, and prophecied: Acts. 19, 1. to 18. Which 12. abiding at Ephesus, as is most probable, by Acts. 20, 17, 28, 29, to rule and instruct the Lords flocke in that Citty; may more

properly be termed, the first Bishops of the Ephesians, then Ti∣mothy, who as hee was not the first, so muchlesse was hee the sole Bishop of that See; as is infallibly evident by Acts. 20. 4, 5, 15, 17, 18, 28, 29. Where wee read, that Paul returning through Macedonia in to Asia, to goe to Ierusalem, to the Feast of Pentecost, there accompanied him, Gajus ef Derbe, and Timotheus; with others: (where Timothy reckoned to be of Derbe, not Ephesus) All these going before to Troas accompanied Paul to Mi∣letus; who from thence sent to Ephesus, and called to him the El∣ders of that Church to Miletus. And when they were come thi∣ther, hee said unto them. Yee know from the first day that I came into Asia, after what maner I have beene with you at all seasons &c. Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock over which the Holy Ghost hath made YOV BIS∣HOPS (so the Greeke, yea the Latine and ancient Eng∣lish Translations truly render it) to feed the Church of Christ, which hee hath purchased with his owne blood. &c. from whence it is apparant.

First, That the Church of Ephesus at that time, had not one but many Bishops, and that by the very institution of the Holy Ghost: Therefore Timothy could not be sole Bishop there, by Pauls institution, in opposition to the holy Ghost.

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

Thirdly, That Timothy was then neither Elder, nor Bishop of that Church at this time when Paul tooke his farewell of it; hee comming with Paul out of Macedonia to Miletus, and being none of the Elders and Bishops sent for, from Ephesus, to

whom alone Paul directed his speech: who had hee then beene sole or prime Bishop of that See, Paul would not have stiled the Elders which he sent for, Bishops of that flocke, at leastwise hee would have made some speciall mention of Timothy in this speech of his, and given him some speciall instructions for the instructing and governing of that Church: Or at least have ho∣nored Timothy so farre, as to have made him give this Episco∣pall charge. and instruction to the Elders and Bishops of his owne proper Church and Dioces, or to have enjoyned them in speciall maner to reverence, honor and yeild him all Canonicall obedience as their supreame Diocaesan. All which Paul utterly neglects, or forgets to doe; or particularly to charge Timothy to take heed to or feed this flocke, hee being ofta Nonresident from it, as I have prooved. Yea, making such hast to be at Hierusalem by the feast of Pentecost, v. 16. that hee could not spare time to goe to Ephesus, hee needed not to haue sent for the Elders of Ephesus to Miletus to give them these instructions, since Timothy their Bishop was then present with him, to whom hee might and would no doubt have imparted them, without further trouble, hath hee then in truth beene Bishop of that Church. But this sending for these Elders in his hast, and stiling them Bishops of that flocke, &c. without any mention at all of Timothy, who was none of the Elders sent for to Ephesus, is an infallible evidence, that hee was neither Bishop, nor first or sole Bishop of that Citty. Adde wee to this, that when Paul exhorted Timothy to abide at Ephesus, there were then in that Citty Elders, who did both rule well, and labor in the word and doctrine, and so were worthy double honor, 〈◊〉〈◊〉, Tim. 5, 1, 17, 19. Now these very Elders, as Paul himselfe affirmes, were made BIS∣HOPS of the Church of Ephesus by the Holy Ghost, Acts. 20, 17, 28. Therefore Timothy could not be the first, the sole Bishop of the Ephesians as the false Postscript of the second Epistle to him, stiles him. Moreover; it was the Apostles maner in those times to place ‡ 1.13 many Bishops and Elders in every Church, not to constitute one Monarchicall Bishop over many: witnesse Acts. 11,

30▪ c. 14, 23, c. 15, 2, 4, 6, 22, 13, c. 16, 4, c. 20, 17, 28. c. 21, 18, c. 22, 5. Phil. 1, 1. 1, Tim. 5, 17. 1, Pet. 5, 1, 2, 3, Tit. 1, 5, 7, Iam. 5, 14. Hebr, 13, 17. Acts. 13, 1, 2. 1. Cor. 14, 29, 30, 31, 32. 1. Thes. 5, 12, 15, Rom. 16, 3, 9, 12. Col. 1, 7, c. 4, 9, 12, 17. which testify, that there were many Bishops and Elders both at Ierusalem, Corinth, Philippi, Rome, Thessalonica, Colosse, Ephesus, yea in all other Churches, in Crete and elsewhere, at one time, by which the Church of God was taught and joyntly governed, as by a common Councell of Bishops and Elders, as g 1.14 Iraeneus, h 1.15 Ignatius, i 1.16 Ambrose, k 1.17 Hierome, and l 1.18 other ancients testifie. Hence m 1.19 Epiphanius & Eusebius testify, that Paul and Peter were joynt Bishops of Rome at the same time; & n 1.20 Tertullian writing of the Church-governors in his age, saith; Praesident nobis probati Seniores, &c. that approoved Elders (not one Diocaesan Bishop) were Presidents over every severall Christian Congregation; and in his booke de Corona Militis, hee affirmes the same▪ Since therefore the Apostles themselves ordained many Elders and Bishops in every Citty and in Ephesus too, it is nei∣ther possible, nor probable, that Timothy alone should be con∣stituted sole Bishop of Ephesus. Finally it is recorded by ‡ 1.21 Iraeneus, p 1.22 Eusebius, q 1.23 Nicephorus r 1.24 Metraphrastes, s 1.25 Hie∣rome, t 1.26 Chytraeus, u 1.27 Baronius, * 1.28 and many others quoted to my hand by Gersonius Bucerus: Dissertatio De Gubernatione Ecclesiae p. 520. to 526. That S. Iohn the beloved Apostle after the Councell held at Hierusalem Acts. 15. resorted to Ephe∣sus residing, governing, and instructing that Church which Paul had planted, after Pauls departure thence, with the Churches in Asia thereunto adjoyning, even till Trajanes dayes; and that though he were banished thence by Domitian for a season, yet after his exile hee returned thither againe, writing an Epistle to that Church du∣ring the time of his banishment, Revel. 2. 1. which hee names before all the other Churches of Asia. If S. Iohn then kept his re∣sidence at Ephesus, and ruled that Church by his Apostolicall power, even till Trajanes dayes; how could Timothy be sole Bishop and Superintendent there? there being no need of a Bishop, where an Apostle was present and resident to governe,

by whose divine superior authority and presence all Episcopall Iurisdiction was suspended. To close up this particular point; * 1.29 Bucolcerus, x 1.30 Fasciculus Temporum, the y 1.31 Centuary writers, and z 1.32 some others record that Timothy survived S. Iohn, living till about the yeare of Christ 108. and was then martyred in the third persecution under Trajan, or under Nero, or Domitian. If this were true, and that Timothy continued Bishop of Ephesus till his death, as the Patriotes of our Prelates affirme, then by their owne doctrine, it will necessarily follow, that Timothy was the Angel of the Church of Ephesus (which they interpret to be the Bishop of that Sea) to whom S. Iohn writes. Rev. 2. 1. 5. charging him that hee had left his first love; and therefore admo∣nished him, to remember whence hee was fallen, to repent, and doe the first workes &c. But it is not credible, nor probable, that Ti∣mothy a man so pious, so laborious, so vigilant, and so much applauded by Paulin most of his Epistles, should be this back∣sliding Angell of the Church of Ephesus, (which the contents of our authorized Bibles, to omit all b 1.33 other Commentators,) of the last translation, affirme, to bee the Ministers (not the Bishop) of that Church, as some Apostatizing Prelates glosse it,) therefore from thence, and all other the premises, I may now safely con∣clude, that Timothy was not a Bishop, nor yet the first, sole, Diocesan Bishop of Ephesus, as our Prelates groundlesly affirme; whose allegations to the contrary I shall next propose and refell, that so the truth may be more perspicuous.

Object. 〈◊〉〈◊〉. The first allegation to proove Timothy a Bishop, when Paul writ the first Epistle to him, is the Postscript of the second Epistle, which runns thus; the second Epistle unto Timothius, ordained the first Bishop of the Church of the Ephe∣sians, was written from Rome, when Paul was brought before Nero the second time. Hence c 1.34 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 ‡ 1.35 M. Perkins workes is prooved at large) no part of the Epistle, no Appendix of S. Paules, but a private observation, annexed to it, by some Scribe or other after the Epistle written without any divine inspiration; as the words themselves demonstrate; The SECOND Epistle unto Ti∣motheus ordained the first Bishop of the Church of the Ephesians, was written from Rome, when Paul was brought before Nero the second time. Where observe; First, that this Postscript is written not in the name of Paul, but of some third person as the whole frame of it Demonstrates.

Secondly, that this Postscript is no direction given by Paul to Timothy as the words (the second Epistle unto Timotheus, ordained the first Bishop of the Church of the Ephesians, was writ∣ten &c.) evidence, but a direction of some Notary or * 1.36 Com∣mentator to the Reader, who here speakes both of Paul and Ti∣mothy in the third person.

Thirdly, The words WAS WRITTEN &c. in the preter imperfect tense, shewes this postscript to be a meere addition of some Scribe or Expositer, some good space after the Epistle written; not of Paul himselfe, at the time when he writt it; all the Postscripts of his other Epistles, appearing mani∣festly not to bee his, by the same reason.

Fourthly, It is here called, the second Epistle unto Timo∣theus, in relation to the first; and the first Epistle to him, written many yeares before it, is likewise stiled, in the Postsript of it, The first to Timothy with reference to the second. As therefore the Postscript of the first Epistle was certainly added by some Notary after the second Epistle written, since it is called the first in relation to it: so no doubt the Postscript of the second Epistle was annexed to it after the first Epistle, and it was transcribed and bound up together, by the same party that added the Post∣script

to the first; the Postscript stiling them thus the 1. and 2. in regard of their mutuall relation one to the other; after they were both conjoyned, and the New Testament and Paules Epistles, digested into that order and method, wherein now they are pla∣ced, both in manuscripts and printed Coppies.

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

Sixtly, None of the other Apostles have any Postscripts added to any of their Epistles; it is likely therefore that Paul gui∣ded by the same Spirit, added none to all, or any of his, but that they * 1.37 were added by some other, who either transscribed and collected his Epistles together, or commented on them; as were the severall Titles both before and over his severall Epistles, and the contents before each Chapter, both in manuscripts, and printed Copyes.

Seaventhly, It is apparant, that the Postscripts of many, of Paules Epistles are forged and false, as * 1.38 M. Perkins workes prooves them; and that the Postscript of the first Epistle was written not onely after the second penned, but likewise three hundred yeares after Christ or more. For it runns thus. The first to Ti∣mothy was written from Laodicea, which is the cheifest City of Phrygia Pacatiana. For Phrygia was not surnamed Pacatiana (as † 1.39 divers affirme by any Historians and Geographers,) till at least

three hundred yeares after Christ; from one Pacatius, a Generall, as is conceived, who subdued it. Since therefore it was not so sti∣led till 〈◊〉〈◊〉 h••undred yeares after Christ, this Postscript must needs be added after that time; and so in all likelyhood the Post∣script of the second Epistle too, being both made by the same author, at the same time; and the first, first both in time and order, as is most probable, neither would Paul doubtlesse make such a Postscript to tell Timothy that Laodicea, was the cheifest Citty of Phrygia Pacatiana, it being so neere to Ephesus, and as well knowne to Timothy as to Paul. Who as * 1.40 the Rhe∣mists and Baronius confesse was never at Laodicea, which they proove by Gal. 2. 1. and so this Postscript is but a meere false.

Eightly, This Postscript is directly contrary to the very preface and body of the Epistle, written no doubt by Paul; which as it expresly styles Timothy an Euangelist, not a Bishop; exhorting him to make full proofe of his Ministery; not of his Bis∣hopricke. c. 4. v, 5. So Paul therein, and in the first Epistle, ever termes him, his dearly beloved Sonne. 2. Tim. 1. 2. c. 2. 1. 1. Tim. 1. 2. 18. A man of God: 1. Tim. 6. 11. 2. Tim. 3. 17. not a Bishop: and in the 2. Tim. 4. 12. but a little above the Postscript, Paul writes expresly to him, that hee had sent Tychicus to Ephesus to know their affaires, comfort their hearts, and make knowne to them all things. Hee being a beloved brother and faithfull Minister in the Lord Ephes. 6. 21. 22. and neither Timothy his Curate and underling, muchlesse his Succes∣sor at Ephesus, as is probable.

Ninthly, This Postscript is directly contradictory to many fore-alleadged Scriptures, which proove Timothy to be no Bis∣hop, muchlesse the first or sole Bishop of the Church of the Ephesians; therefore not to be beleeved. See Acts. 20. 28.

Tenthly, The Postscript itselfe, but especially the clause of it, (ordained the first Bishop of the Ephesians) whereon this objection is grounded, is but a late addition, not extant in any of the Fathers workes who have commented on this Epistle, (except Occumenius, who lived 1050. yeares after Christ; the first in whom this clause of the Postscript is found) nor in the most ancient best, Greeke, Latine, Arabick, English, or other Copyes and Translations, whither manu∣script, or printed; therefore to be rejected, as counterfeit coyne.

Eleventhly, d 1.41 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 Ti∣mothy was undoubtedly and of a truth Bishop of Ephesus: The first who makes mention of any of these Postscripts is Theodoret 430. yeares after Christ, who perchance then added them to Paules Epistles; but in his Postscripts this clause (ordained the the first Bishop of the Ephesians, With that of Titus, ordai∣ned the first Bishop of the Church of the Cretians) cannot be found.

Secondly, admit this Postscript true, and authenticall, that Timothy was Bishop of Ephesus when this second Epistle was written, being but a e 1.42 little before Paules death, yet this is no good proofe. that hee was Bishop of Ephesus, when the first Epistle was penned, being some 10. or 12. yeares before, as most conjecture; for if it be a good argument; that Timothy was Bishop of Ephesus, when the second Epistle was written to him, because the Postscript of it onely stiles him so: it is as good or a better argument for me to say; that Timothy was no Bis∣hop 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 Bis∣hop of Ephesus, though hee * 1.43 was resident at Ephesus, when the first Epistle was written to him; ‡ 1.44 but not when the second was sent him; and so should much more have beene stiled a Bis∣hop, in the first Epistle and Postscript, then in the second. Now all the Prelates and Papists arguments, by which they would proove Timothy a Bishop, are drawen from his first Epistle, not his second, the Postscript therefore of his second Epistle is no argument to proove, that he was a Bishop when the first Epistle was written: for why then should not the Postscript of the first Epistle stile him a Bishop as wel as the second? yea, rather then the second? since the first hath much matter in it, both con∣cerning the offices and qualities of a Bishop, the second very little, or nothing, save onely of f 1.45 diligent and constant preaching in season and out of season; which belongs indifferently to all Bis∣hops and Ministers, and is so farre from being proper and pecu∣liar to Bishops in these dayes, that it is hardly common to or with any of them; Rare to most of them, and altogether impro∣per to some of them, who g 1.46 like the dunsticall Bishop of Dunk∣leden, thinke it no part of their Episcopall office, and that they were never so much as ordained to preach, but rather to sit mute and domineere like Lords, and that preaching belongs onely to Curats, and inferior Ministers, not to Lordly Prelates, who seldome climbe now into a Pulpit above once a yeare, whereas Chryso∣stome, Augustine, Ambrose, Cyrill, Hooper and other Bishops anciently preached once at least every day.

Obj. 2. The second allegation is this; that Paul describes to * 1.47 Timothy the office, qualities, carriage, and duties of a Bishop, instructing him how to demeane himselfe in that office, 1. Tim. 3, 4. and 5. Therefore hee was a Bisshop.

Answ. 1. To this I answer: first, that Paul by a Bishop in this Epistle meanes no Diocaesan Bishop in dignity and

degree above a Preshyter, but onely such a Bishop as was equall, the same, and no wayes different from an Elder; as all the h 1.48 Fa∣thers and most moderne Expositors on this and other texts accord. Such a Bishop I acknowledge Timothy to be, and so this in∣struction to him implyes; but that hee was a Diocaesan Bishop, superior in dignity to a Presbyter, this text and argument cannot evince.

Secondly, Admit it meant of a Diocaesan Bishop, yet it followes 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 patterne of the qualifi∣cation and duety of Ministers; to direct the Church in all future ages, then to informe Timothy at that time: whence in both these Epistles there are some predictions of the Apostacy and degeneracy of the last times; more necessary for i 1.49 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 Widdow; which being necessary for the Church of God, and for Timothy also to know, as hee was an Euangelist, a fellow-helper and assistant of Paul in his Ministe∣riall and Apostolicall 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 k 1.50 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 Ecclesiasticall affaires, or Visita∣tions, argue them to be Archbishops or Bishops.

Fourthly, We read of divers bookes, concerning the office and regiment of Kings, of Magistrates, and Captaines dedicated to young Princes, and others who were neither Kings, Magi∣strates, nor Captaines; 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 im∣ply them to be Kings, Magistrates, Captaines, Bishops. Why then should this Epistle to Timothy, wherein are some things concerning the office, qualities, and duties of a Bishop, proove him convincingly to be such a one.

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

Answ. 1. I answer first, that the laying on of hands hath di∣vers significations in Scripture. Sometimes, it is taken for an ap∣prehension of another, as a Mal factor to punish, or bring him to judgement for his offences, Exod. 24. 11. Esther 8. 7. Gen. 37. 22. Exod. 6. 13. Nehem. 13. 1. Luke. 21. 22. in which sence it may be well taken here, as the proceeding verses evi∣dence. Sometimes it is used for reconciliation of persons at va∣riance, Iob. 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 affirme, 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 sences it is here meant is ‡ 1.51 not certainely resolved, and so no inference can be infalli∣bly raised thence.

Secondly, Admit it is meant of ordination▪ as most con∣ceive it; yet that prooves not Timothy to be a Bishop, since not onely Apostles, Euangelists, 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 exer∣cise this power in all or either of these respects, not as a Bishop; which for ought appeares hee never was; neither read wee in Scripture that ordination belongs of right to Bishops, as Bis∣hops; muchlesse, that it is appropriated unto them.

Obj. 4. The fourth objection to proove Timothy a Bishop▪ is this; that hee is commaunded to rebuke such as sinned openly be∣fore all men, that others might feare, 1, Tim. 5, 20. Therefore hee was a Bishop.

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

First, Because hee might doe this as an Euangelist, or as Paules associate or substitute, by vertue of his Apostolicall au∣thority, not of his owne Episcopall Iurisdiction, as Bishops Of∣ficials, Chauncellors and Vicars Generall, rebuke, correct and visit others, not in their owne names, or by their owne autho∣rities, but their Lords.

Secondly, Hee might doe this as a Minister, every Minister having power sufficient in the publike Ministery of the word, openly to rebuke all sinnes and sinners, Isay. 5, 8. 1, 2. Tim. 4, 2, 3. Tit. 1, 13, c. 2, 15. Marke. 6, 18, 19, 20. 2, Sam. 12, 7.

Thirdly, Hee might doe this as a private Christian; every Christian being enjoyned in any case to rebuke his neighbour, and not to suffer sinne upon him: Levit. 19. 17. Prov. 9, 8. Eccles. 9, 5. and so is every Magistrate to doe, Nehem. 13. 11. to 31.

Psal. 141. 5. This therefore is no argument of any Episcopall Jurisdiction; the rather, because this rebuke was to be publikely in the Church before all, not in a private Chamber or Consistory Court, (as all Expositors accord) in which our Bishops pro∣nounce their Censures.

Obj. 5. The fift argument to proove Timothy a Bishop, is the 1 Tim. 5, 19. Against an Elder receive not an accusation, but before two or three witnesses. Hee had power to receive an accu∣sation against Ministers, that so hee might correct them; there∣fore hee was a Bishop.

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

For 1. Hee might have this power, to receive such accu∣sations as an Euangelist, and Paules Coadjutor.

Secondly, As Paules Delegate or Officiall; as our Bishops Officialls, Vicars and Chauncellors now exercise Episcopall Iu∣risdiction under them; as their substitutes onely, not by any in∣herent Episcopall dignity or authority in themselves.

Thirdly, Hee might doe it by the appointement and mu∣tuall consent of the people, who had power in all cases of diffe∣rence, to constitute any man a Iudge, though no Bishop, 1. Cor. 6, 1, to 7.

Fourthly, Hee might doe it onely as an Elder; Elders ha∣ving power to rule well, 1. Tim. 5. 17. and so by consequence, to receive accusations, and to correct delinquents by reproofes or Ecclesiasticall Censures, with the consequent of the Congregation, 1, Cor. 5, 4, 5. 11, 12, c. 6, 1, to 7. Gal. 6, 1. 2. Thessal. 3. 14, 15.

Fifthly, I had almost added, that hee might have done it as an Ecclesiasticall Commissioner, but that I considered▪ that hee

was, not so much as to receive an accusation, against an Elder but under two or three witnesses at least, first examined; and our * 1.52 Ecclesiasticall Commissioners and Bishops are so farre from this divine Apostolicall precept, by which they would proove Ti∣mothy, and themselves to be Bishops Iure divino, that they will pursevante, silence, suspend, imprison Ministers and Elders and put them to selfe accusing one ex officio▪ oathes and upon every jealosie, suspition, and private accusation of any drunkard, rascall or without two or three witnesses or accusers, first examined against them, and brought face to face. A direct proofe, that neither they nor their proceedings are Iure divino.

Answ. 2. Secondly, I answer, that by Elder in this text, (as * 1.53 many conceive) is not meant a Presbyter, or Minister, but an an∣cient man, as it is taken in the first verse of the chapter: so as it prooves not, that Timothy had any Ecclesiasticall Jurisdiction over the Elders that were Ministers of Ephesus, who ruled that Church, v. 17. and ••w〈…〉〈…〉 Bishops of it, Acts. 20▪ 28. Where Paul enjoynes them, to take heed to themselves; as having no Su∣perintendent 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. 〈◊〉〈◊〉. hee is expresly enjoyned, not to rebuke an Elder, but intreat him as a Father: which is farre from giving him any such Episcopall Iurisdiction over them as our Bishops now ex∣ercise and usurpe; using godly Ministers and ra••ing them, rather like dogs and scullions, then Elders.

Fourthly, The words are not; that hee should not excom∣municate, suspend, convent or censure an Elder, but that hee should not receive an accusation against him, but before two or three witnesses. Now to condemne or censure, is one thing, to receive an accusation, another. The first not but a Iudge

or cheife officer can doe; the second, every register, clerke, informer, or under officer; Yea, every private Christian is capable to receive an accusation, and every ordinary Minister too, against another superior to him in age, estate, or place, ei∣ther privately to admonish him, that is accused, of his fault, or to reproove him for it; or to counsell him how to repent and redresse it; or to comfort him if hee be dejected with it, or to informe against him to the Magistrate, or whole Congregation, or to pray to God for his amendement. Math. 18. 15. 16. 17. Levit. 19. 7. Gal. 6. 1. 2. Thess. 3. 14. 15. 1. Tim. 5. 20. 24. Tit. 1. 10. to 14. 2. Iohan. 10. 11. Iud. 22. 23. which well expound this text.

Fifthly, The true meaninge of this text is this, that Timothy and other Christians of what quality soever, especial∣ly Ministers, should not lightly receive or beleeve any ill report, cheifly of an Elder or Minister, without sufficient testimony of the truth thereof by two of three able witnesses; as will plaine∣ly appeare by paralelling it with Psal. 15. 3. Numb. 35. 30. Deut. 17. 6. c. 19. 15. Hebr. 10. 28. and with Math. 18. 15. 16. 17. where our Saviour saith thus: Moreover, if thy brother shall trespas against thee, goe and tell him his fault betweene him and thee alone: if hee shall heare thee, thou hast gained thy brother: But if hee will not heare thee, then take with thee two or three more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses, every word may be established; and if hee shall neglect to heare them, tell it to the Church, and if hee neglect to heare the Church, let him be unto thee as an beathen man and publican. A perfect Commentary on this text of Paul, and a direct censure of our Bishops ex officio, oathes, and proceedings by the parties owne selfe-accusing oath, and answere without or before witnesses produced.

6. This text (admitt it gives power to Timothy to take ac∣cusations against an Elder before two or three witnesses;) yet it excludes not the other Elders of Ephesus from having like power with him; it gives him not any sole power to heare and deter∣mine complaints without the other Elders assistance or consent, but together with them, Math. 18, 19. 1, Tim. 5, 17. Acts. 20, 28. Hence the fourth Councell of Carthage, Can. 23. and after it Gratian. Caus. 15. Quaest. 7. Cap. Nullus, Decree, That a Bishop should heare no mans cause without the presence of his Clerkes; and that the sentence of the Bis∣hop should be void, unlesse it were confirmed with the pre∣sence of the Clergy: yea, Gratian in that place prooves out of the Councels of Hispalis, Agatha the first, Carthage the second and fourth. Gregory, (whose words and Canons hee recites at large) that a Minister, Presbyter, or Deacon cannot be punished, or deprived by the Bishop alone, but by a Synode or Councell, and that the Bishop cannot heare or determine the causes of Cleargymen alone, without associa∣ting the Elders, of the Church, or other adjoyning Bishops, with him; for which cause † 1.54 many ancient Councels denied, that there should be two Councels kept, in each Province every yeare, to heare and determine all Ecclesiasti∣call causes and controversies. This text therefore prooves no∣thing for Timothies Ecclesiasticall or Episcopall Jurisdiction, being written rather for the Churches, and Ministers fu∣ture, then Timothies present instruction, as n 1.55 Gersonius Bucerus rightly observes. Finally learned o 1.56 Doctor Whitaker hath long since assoyled this objection in these words: That Timothy is commaunded not rashly to admit an accusation against an Elder, this prooves not that Timothy had power or dominion over Elders. For according to the Apostles minde, to receive an accusation, is to bring a crime to the

Church, to bring the guilty person into Iudgement, openly to reproove, which not onely Superiors may doe, but also aequals and inferiors. In the Roman Republike Knights did judge not onely the people, but also the Senators, and Patricij. And certainly it seemes not that Timothy had such a Con∣sistory or Court, as was afterwards appointed to Bishops in the Church. What this authority was, may be under∣stood by that which followes; Those that sinne rebuke before all, which aequals also may doe. Thus Bishops heretofore, if any Elder or Bishop had an ill report, referred it to the Ecclesiasticall Senate or Synod, and condemned him, if hee seemed worthy by a publike judgement, that is, they did ei∣ther suspend, excommunicate or remoove him. The Bis∣hop condemned nocent Elders and Deacons, not with his owne authority alone, but with the judgement of the Church and Clergy. Those who where thus condemned, might lawfully appeale to the Metropolitan; but hee could not presently alone determine, what seemed good to him, but per∣mitted the Synod to give sentence, and what the Synod de∣creed 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 Appen∣dix, and Gersonius Bucerus De Gubernat. Ecclesiae * 1.57 pag. 300. to 398. (where this objection is most fully cleared by Councels, Fathers, and other authors testimonies) give unto this place: so that it makes no proofe at all, that Timothy was a Bishop. So as from all these premises I may safely conclude, that Timothy was neither a Bishop, nor Bishop of Ephesus, nor first, nor sole Bishop of that See, as many overconfidently, and erroniously affirme.

Obj. 6. If any in the sixt place object, that ‡ 1.58 diverse of the ancient Fathers, as Dionysius Areopagita, Hierome, Ambrose, Dorothew, Theodoret, Chrysostome, Epiphanius, Eusebius, Gre∣gorie the great, Policrates, Occumenius, Primasius, Isidor Hispa∣lensis, Beda, Anselme, Rabanus▪ Maurus, with many moderne writers affirme Timothy to be Bishop and first Bishop of the Ephe∣sians, therefore hee was so.

Answ. 1. I answer first, that as some of these Fathers are spu∣rious, and not to be credited, so many of their testimonies are ambiguous, if not contradictory. p Eusebius writes, that Ti∣mothy IS REPORTED to be the first Bishop of Ephesus, and Titus of the Churches of Creta: which is rather a deniall then an affirmation that hee was Bishop there in truth. * 1.59 Theodoret, and Beda affirme him, to be Bishop of all Asia, not of Ephesus onely, and so an Archbishop rather then a Bishop. Their Testi∣monies therefore being so discrepant and dubious, are of no va∣lidity.

Secondly, ‡ 1.60 Many of the Fathers affirme Peter to have beene Bishop of Rome, and to have continued Bishop there for di∣vers yeares, yet q 1.61 Marsilius Patavinus, r 1.62 Carolus Molinaeus, with sundry s 1.63 other late Protestant writers, both forraigne and domestique, affirme, and substantially proove by Scripture and reasons; that Peter was never at Rome, nor yet Bishop thereof. As therefore their bare authorities are no sufficient argument, to proove Peter Bishop of Rome, so neither are they sufficient to evince Timothy Bishop of Ephesus.

Thirdly, These Fathers affirme not Timothy to be sole Bishop of Ephesus, or to be Diocaesan Bishop, or such a Bishop as is superior to a Presbyter in Jurisdiction or degree; the thing which ought to be prooved; and if they affirmed any such thing, yet seeing the fore-alleadged Scriptures contradict it in a most

apparant maner, they are not to be credited against the Scriptures testimony.

Fourthly, The Fathers terme him Bishop of Ephesus; not because hee was any sole Diocaesan domineering Bishopthere, as the objections pretend; but because hee was left by Paul to teach and instruct them for a space, till hee returned from Macedo∣nia, and to order that Church together with the other Bishops and Elders thereof; and being one of the eminentest Pastors of that Church, next after Paul, who planted it, the Fathers terme him, the Bishop of Ephesus, in that sence onely as they stiled Pe∣ter, Bishop of Rome and Antioch, Iames Bishop of Ierusalem, Marke Bishop of Alexandria, and the like; (* 1.64 not that they were Bishops properly so called, or such as ours are now, but onely in a large and generall appellation, because they first preached the Gospell to such Churches) to no other purpose, but to proove a per∣petuall succession of Presbyters, and doctrine in those particular Churches, from the Apostles time till theirs, naming the eminen∣test Minister, for parts and gifts in each Church, the Bishop of that Church; all which appeares, by t 1.65 Irenaeus, u 1.66 Tertullian, and x 1.67 others; who call them Bishops onely for this purpose, to derive a Succession of Ministers, and doctrine from the A∣postles. Hee that would receive a larger answer to this objection, let him read Gersonius Bucerus, de Gubernatione Ecclesiae, p. 518. to 524. 436. to 441. 498. usque 500. 538. 539. which will give him ample satisfaction.

Obj. 7. If any finally object, that Paul desired Timothy to abide still at Ephesus when hee went into Macedonia: 1, Tim. 1. 3. and that the Greeke verbe 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifies a constant residence, or abiding in one place. Therefore Timothy was Bishop of Ephe¦sus: which if it be a solid Argument, prooves many of our Court Nonresident Prelates and Ministers, to be no Bishops (because they reside and abide, not muchlesse preach and keepe hospitality on their Bishoprickes,) rather then Timothy to be Diocaesan Bishop of Ephesus.

Answ. 1. To this I answer, first, that the argument is a grosse inconsequent. For Timothy might abide thus at Ephesus as an Euangelist, as an Elder, as Paules assistant, or substitute onely; as an ordinary Minister, not as a Bishop; his abiding therefore at Ephesus is insufficient to constitute him a Diocaesan Bishop of that Sec.

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

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

Fourthly, Paul left * 1.68 Aquila and Priscilla at Ephesus to abide there; Will it therefore follow, that they where Diocaesan Bishops of the Ephesians? If not, then the argument is invalid.

Answ. 2. Secondly, I answer, That Timothy was to abide at Ephesus onely for a season, till Paules returne out of Macedo∣nia and no longer, 1, Tim. 3. 14, 15, c. 4, 13, 14. after which hee 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. hee being never resident at Ephesus, (for ought appeares in Scripture or authentique story,) after Paules returne out of Macedonia. His abode therefore at Ephesus being but for so short a time, and hee so great a Nonresident from it afterward, cannot possibly argue him to be a Diocaesan Bishop of that Church.

Answ. 3. Thirdly, Greeke word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, to abide, is oft applyed in Scripture to a short abode, for a day or two, or some little space, as well as to a perpetuall fixed residence; as Math. 15,

32. Marke 8. 2. So it is in the objected text; where it is put on∣ly in opposition to Paules journey into Macedonia; in respect whereof Timothy continuing at Ephesus till his returne, might be truely said, to abide there, though after his returne hee re∣mooved thence to other Churches; as Gersonius Bucerus, De Gubernatione Ecclesiae. p, 502. to 518, observes.

Answ. 4. Fourthly, Paul did not injoyne, but beseech Ti∣mothy to abide at Ephesus: therefore his residence there was but arbitrary at his owne pleasure, not coactive, not injoyned by vertue of any Episcopall office; this Text therefore cannot proove Timothy to be Bishop of Ephesus, no more then his stay at Corinth, and other places whether Paul sent him, proove him to be Bishop of those Churches.

Answ. 5. Finally, Admit Timothy to be both the first and * 1.69 sole Bishop of Ephesus, which is false; yet this makes nothing for, but against our Hierarchicall and Diocaesan Bishops: for Ephesus was but one City, one Parish, one Church, one flocke and Congregation; as is evident by Acts. 20. 17, 28, 29, c. 18, 24, 25, 26, c. 19, 1. to 18, Ephes. 1, 1, c. 4, 4, 16, c. 6, 21, 22, 23. 1, Tim. 1, 3, c. 5, 17 to 23. Rev. 1, 20, c. 2. 1. So that the argument from this example is but this; Timothy was onely Bishop of one City, Parish, Church, Flock and Congregation, not of many: Therefore all Bishops ought to be so too, as well as hee.

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

Answ. 1. I answer, that the argument followes not; For first, in the Apostles times, and in the primitive Church, every particular Church and Congregation had * 1.70 many Elders, Mi∣nisters, and Dea••ons in it, who did joyntly teach, and instruct it,

and likewise governe and order it by their common Counsell and consent; as is evident by Acts 1. 14. to 26. c. 2. 1. to 47. c. 3. 1. c. 4. 3. 8. 9. 20. 21. 23, 31. to 37. c. 5. 18. to 33. 42. c. 6. 1. to 9. c. 11. 29. 30. c. 14. 23. c. 15. 2. to 23. 25, 32. c. 20. 17. to 30. c. 21. 18. Phil. 1. 1. 1. Tim. 5. 4. to 14. c. 5. 17, Tit. 1. 5. 7. Jam. 5. 14. 1. Cor. 14. 23. to 33. Ignatius E∣pist. 5. 6, 8. 9. 10. 11. 13. 14. Policarpus Epist. ad Philip∣penses, Irenaeus contra Haeres. l. 3. c. 2. l. 4. c. 43, 44. Tertull. Adversus Gentes, Apolog. c. 39. Hieronymus, Sedulius, Chry∣sostomus, Primasius, Remigius, Haymo, Kabanus Maurus, Oecu∣menius, Theophylact, Anselmus, Petrus Lombardus, and sundry others, in their Commentaries, and expositions upon Philip. 1. 1. 1. Tit. 5. Acts. 15. and 20. 17. 28. The fourth Councell of Car∣thage, Can. 22. 23. 24. 25. The Councell of A〈…〉〈…〉en, under Ludovicus Pius, Can. 8. 10. 11. The 12. Councell of Toledo, Can. 4. and all writers generally accord.

Secondly, wee at this day, have many Prebends, Canons, and Ministers in every Cathedrall and Collegiate Church, yea in eve∣ry Colledge in our Vniversities, and elsewhere; yet but one Church and Congregation.

Thirdly, We have in many other Churches in the Country where the Parishes are large, and there are divers Chappels of ease, many Curates and Ministers; yet but one Church, one Parish; not a Dioces; neither is the cheife Minister either a Bishop or Diocaesan, though hee have diverse Curates and Ministers under him, to assist him in his Ministery: yea in many places where there is but one Church, no such Chappels of ease, and the Parish great, we have severall Ministers, Lecturers, and Curates, in some 4, or 5, in most 2, or 3, yet no Dioces, no Bishopricke. Nei∣ther is this a Novelty, but an ancient constitution, not onely instituded by the Apostles, and continued ever since, but like∣wise enjoyned by the * 1.71 Councell of Oxford under Stephan Langhton Archbishop of Canterbury in the yeare of our Lord,

12 22. which decreed; that in all Parish Churches, where the Parish is great, there should be 2, or 3, Presbyters at the least, ac∣cording to the greatnes of the Parish, and the value of the Benefice; least that one onely Minister being sicke, or otherwise debilitated, Ecclesiasticall Benefits (which God forbid) should be either with∣drawne, or denied to the Parishioners that were sicke, or willing to be present at divine offices. The multitude or plurality therfore of the Elders in the Church of Ephesus, is no argument at all to proove, that is was a Dioces; or that Timothy was a Diocaesan Bishop, because hee had Ministers and Curates under him; for then our Deacons, Archdeacons, and Pluralists, who have many livings, Chappels, (and so many Curates and Ministers) under them, should be Diocaesan Bishops too by this reason.

Secondly, I answer, that admit there were divers Churches and Congregations in Ephesus, which is very improbable, the greatest part of the Citizens being Idolaters, and the Citty itselfe a worshipper of the great Goddesse Diana, and of the Image which fell downe from Jupiter, Acts. 19 21. to 41. yet it can not be prooved, that Timothy was cheife Bishop and Super∣intendent over all these Churches, but onely of one of them: as every Minister and Bishop of England is a Minister and Bis∣hop of the Church of England, but not a Minister and Bishop in and over all the Curches of England, but in and over his owne Parish Church, and Dioces onely. For Paul himselfe (who planted that Church, and * 1.72 resided in it for three yeares space, during which time it is like there was no Diocaesan Bishop of it but himselfe) expresly cals the Elders of the Church of Ephe∣sus, Bishops and Overseers of that Church, and that by the Holy Ghostes owne institution; and thereupon exhorts them, to take heed to all the flocke; and to feed and rule that Church of God, which hee had purchased with his owne blood, Acts. 20. 28. 1. Tim. 5. 17.

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

Since therefore every one of these Elders by the Holy Ghostes institution, and Paules resolution was no other, but a Bishop over his owne flocke, (if severall,) both to instruct and rule it; it is certaine, that Timothy (if hee were a Bishop of Ephesus and there were many Churches there,) was onely Bishop of one of them, not of all; and so no Diocaesan Bishop, as our Pre∣lates and their flatterers vainely pretend. Timothy therefore being neither a Bishop, nor first, sole, or any Bishop of Ephe∣sus, or of any other place, or if a Bishop, no Diocaesan Bishop, but of one Church and congregation onely, as these premises evidence, all our Prelates inferences drawne from his example to proove their Episcopall Authority and Jurisdiction Iure Divino, (which for the most part hang upon his Episcopall rochet onely) fall quite to ground, and their Episcopall Authority together with it. I now proceed to the next Question (wherein I shall likewise discusse, whether the power of ordination belongs onely to Bishops, not to Presbyters? And whether this Paradoxe of the Prelates be true, that ordainers are greater in Iurisdiction and degree then those that are ordained?) to wit;

Whether Titus were ever Bishop, or Archbishop of Crete? * 1.73

What ever the common bruite and Error of these or for∣mer times conceive, under correction, I perswade my selfe, 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 con∣cerning the Corinthians, (not Cretians;) the Messenger of the Churches, (not Bishop) and the glory of Christ, 2, Cor. 8, 23, 6, 16. his Sonne, Titus 1, 6, his brother, 2. Cor. 7. 6, 13, 14. never Bishop, as some would make him.

Secondly, Because his cheifest imployment was to the Church of Corinth, after that hee had been left by Paul in Creet, as Paules 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 hee was Paules companion, attendant, partner, fellow-helper, Messenger, fixed to no setled place of resi∣dence, 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 expresly to him, Tit. 1. 5. not that hee ordained him Archbishop or Bishop of Crete, but that hee left him in Creet (for a season) for this cause, that hee should sett in order, the things that were wanting, and ordaine El∣ders, in every Citty, as hee had appointed him: Therefore was hee there onely as Paules Vicar generall, Commissary or substitute, to order those things, in such sort, as hee had appointed him, which Paul could not dispatch, whiles hee was residing, not as the Archbishop or Lord Bishop of Creet, to order all things there, by his owne Episcopall Jurisdiction and authority as hee listed himselfe.

Fifthly, Hee expresly charged him, to come to him dili∣gently, to Nicopolis when hee should sent Arthemas or Tychicus to him, for there hee intended to winter, Tit. 3. 12. By which it is evident, that his stay in Creet by Paules appointement, was very short, not above halfe a yeare, if so much; after which wee ne∣ver read hee returned thither, though we finde, hee was sent to Corinth, and Dalmatia, that hee went up to Hierusalem 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 Creet, without re∣turning thither, prooves him to be no Bishop.

Sixtly, Paul chargeth him, to bring Zenas the Lawyer and and Apollos diligently on their way, that nothing might be wan∣ting to them, Tit. 3. 13. Now it is very unlikely, that an Arch-bishop or Bishop of Creete, wherein were * 1.74 90. walled Cities, would stoope so low, as to waite thus upon Lawyer, as Zenas, or a Disciple, as Apollos was, unlesse hee were far more Humble then any Archbishops or Prelates in these our times; who are commonly so insolently proud, as to disdaine all fa∣miliar conversations with Lawyers, or Ministers.

Seaventhly, Paul left Titus Bishop of no one Citty in Creete, and hee expresly enjoynes him, to ordaine (not one but many) Elders (in the plurall number) in every Citty of Creete, Tit. 1. 5. 7. where there were no lesse then 90. walled Citties in Homerus time; which Elders were no other but Bishops, and so tearmed by him v. 7. (For a BISHOP must be blamelesse, &c.) as Hierom. Chrysostome, Ambrose, Theodoret, Sedulius, Primasius, Remigius, Beda, Raubanus Maurus, Bruno, Theo∣philact, Oecumenius, Anselme, Lyra, Hugo Cardinalis, Aquinas, with other moderne Commentators on this text accord. If then Paul gives expresse directions to Titus, to ordaine many Elders and Bishops in every Citty of Creete, constituting him a Bishop in none of them, that we read of, (an apparant argument, that hee was no Bishop there, because hee had there no Bishops See at all, and was no sole Bishop of any one Citty:) it is not probable that hee constituted him sole Archbishop or Bishop of all Creet, (which had ‡ 1.75 anciently no lesse then 4. Archbishops and 21. Bishops in it,) it being the Apostles practise 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 * 1.76 Atha∣nasius, Chrysostome, Oecumenius and Theophilact on Titus 1. 5. 7. write thus: Here hee will have Bishops to be understood for Pres∣byters or Ministers, as we have elsewhere often said, neither verily would hee have the charge of the whole Iland to be permitted, or granted to one man, but that every one should have his owne proper cure & charge, allotted him: for hee knew that the labour & paines would be the lighter and that the people would be governed with

greater diligence, if that the Doctor or teacher should not be distra∣cted with the government of many Churches, but should onely give himselfe to the government of one, and study to compose and adorne it with his maners. So also Peter Lombard, * 1.77 Alphonsus de Castro, * 1.78 Doctor Barnes, and others on, and from this text, determine.

Eightly, All generally ‡ 1.79 accord, that Archbishops, yea Me∣tropolitanes BISHOPS themselves are not of divine or Apo stolicall, but Papall and humane Constitution; witnesse Pope Ni∣colas apud Gratianum Distinct. 22. c. 1. Omnes sive Patriarchae cujuslibet apicem, sive Metropolis primatus, aut Episcopatuum Ca∣thedras, vel Ecclesiarum sive cujuscunque ordinis dignitatem * 1.80 IN∣STITVIT ROMANA ECCLESIA. Which Pope Anacletus in his 3. Epist. c. 3. doth likewise averre, and Pope Lucinus and Clement, in Gratian, Distinct. 80. affirme as much; informing us, that Archbishops and Primates are the Successors, of the Hathenish Arch-Flamens, and to be placed onely in those Citties where the Arch-Flamens had their Sees: with which Peter Lombard accords, lib. 4. Distinct. 24. Hence our a 1.81 Historians record of King Lucius, the first Christian Prince of this our Re∣alme, that hee instituted 3. Archbishoprickes, and 25. Bishop-rickes and Bishops, in stead of the 3. Arch-Flamens, and 25. Flamens, changing their Sees into Bishoprickes, and Archbishop-rickes; by which it is evident, that Archbishops, Patriarkes, and Metropolitans (instituted onely at first by ‡ 1.82 severall Coun∣cells and Princes) are no divine or Apostolicall, but onely a hu∣mane institution; This all the Archbishops, Bishops and Clergy of England in their institution of a Christian man, dedicated to King Henry the 8. fol. 59. 60. resolve in these tearmes. IT IS OVT OF ALL DOVBT, that there is no mention made nei∣ther in Scripture, neither in the writings of any authenticall Doctor or Auctor of the Church being within the time of the Apostles, that Christ did ever make or institute any distinction or difference

to be in the preeminence of power, order or Jurisdiction betweene the Apostles themselves, or between the Bishops themselves, but that they WERE ALL EQVALL IN POWER, AV∣THORITY AND IVRIS∣DICTION; And that there is now and since the time of the Apostles any such diversity or difference among the Bishops, IT WAS DEVISED BY THE ANCIENT FATHERS, of the primitive Church, for the conservation of good order, and unity of the Catholike Church; and that, either by the consent and authority, or else at least BY THE PERMISSION AND SVFFRANCE OF THE PRINCES AND CI∣VILL POWERS for the time ruling. For the sayd Fathers, considering the great and infinite multi∣tude 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 Bis∣hops, and spirituall governours of the Church, and so ordai∣ned some to be Patriarkes, some to be Metropolitans, some to be Archbishops, some to be Bishops; and to them did li∣mit severally (not onely) their certaine Diocesse and Pro∣vinces, wherein they should exercise their power and not exceed the same, but also certaine bounds and limits of their Jurisdiction and power; &c. The same is averred by lear∣ned Bishop Hooper, in his Exposition upon the 23. Psalme fol. 40. who sayth, that Archbishops were first ordained in Constantines time, yea, * 1.83 Archbishop Whitgift him∣selfe confesseth as much, that Archbishops are neither of divine, or Apostolicall, but humane institution, since the

Apostles times. And * 1.84 Patricke Adamson Archbishop of S. Andrewes in Scotland, in his publike recantation, in the Synode of Fiffe in Scotland Anno 1591. professed since∣rely, (ex animo) that Bishops and Ministers by Gods word were all equall and the very same; That the Hierarchy and superiority of Bishops over other Ministers, NVL∣LO NITITVR VERBI DEI FVN∣DAMENTO, had no foundation at all in the word of God; but was a meere humane Institution long after the Apostles times, from whence the Antichristian Papacis of the Bishop of Rome hath both its rise and progresse; and that for 500. yeares last past, it hath beene the cheifest instru∣ment of persecuting and suppressing the truth and Saints of God in all Countries and Kingdomes, as all Histories mani∣fest. Thus this Archbishop in his Palinody, disclaiming not onely Archbishops but ever Diocaesan Bishops to be of divine, but onely of humane institution long after the A∣postles, giving over his Archbishopricke thereupon, and li∣ving a poore dejected life. This being then granted on all hands, it is cleare, that Titus could not be Bishop of all Creete; for then hee should be an Archbishop, having divers Bishops under him, those Elders which hee placed in every Citty of Creete being no other but Bishops, Tit. 1. 7. as all acknowledge, and Arch-bishops were not instituted till after the Apostles and Titus dayes; For these reasons I conceive, that Titus was not Bishop of Creete, having no Episcopall or Archiepiscopall See there ap∣pointed to him; which learned d 1.85 Gersonius Bucerus hath at large manifested, to such who will take paines to peruse him.

Obj. 1. If any object 1. that the Postscript of the Epistle to Titus, stiles him, Titus ordained the first Bishop of the Church of the Cretians: Ergo hee was Bishop or Archbishop of Creete.

Answ. 1. I answer 1. that as this and all other Postscripts, are * 1.86 no part of the Scripture, or Epistles, as † 1.87 M^r. Perkins workes proove at large, but an addition of some private per∣son since, as is evident by the words themselves in the preter∣imperfect tense and third person. IT WAS WRITTEN TO TITVS, &c. therefore no convincing authority: so this clause (ordained the first Bishop of the Church of the Cretians) is no part of the Postscript, but a late appendix to it, not found in any of the Coppies of this Epistle which the Fathers follow, in their Commentaries, in few or no ancient Greeke, Latine or Eng∣lish Coppies and Translations of this Epistle, in few or no Te∣staments or late Commentators: And had Titus been Bishop of Creete, it is like Paul would have given him this Title in the E∣pistle, (where hee stiles him, Titus his owne Sonne after the Common faith. c. 1. v. 4.) as well as in the Postscript; (which in truth is none of his, but some others, Perchance Oecumenius his addition, the first that mentions it, 1050. yeares after Christi) since hee speakes of Bishops by name in that Epistle, Tit. 1. 7. But of this, see more in the answere to the Postscript of Timothy.

Secondly, I answer, that this Postscript is directly false; for it saith, that this Epistle was written from Nicopolls of Ma∣cedonia. Now it is cleare by the 12. verse of the third chap∣ter of this very Epistle, that Paul was not at Nicopolis when hee writ it, but at some other place; for hee writes thus to Titus, when I shall send Artemas unto thee or Tychicus, be diligent ••ocome unto me to Nicopolis, for THERE (not here) I have intended to winter. Now had Paul then been at Nicopolis, hee would have written thus, for here (not there) I have intended to win∣ter; there being ever spoken of a place from which we are absent, here only of a place present. The Postscrip•• therfore being false as * 1.88 Mr. Perkins workes hence conclude, can be no part of Canoni∣call

scripture, nor Epistle, none of Paules penning, but a meere ignorant Appendix of some scribe or comentator of after times, and so no solid proofe to manifest Titus Bishop or Archbishop of Creete, not at Nicopolis when this Epistle was written.

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

Answ. 2. I answere, that this is a meere inconsequent; and I may argue in the like nature; Our Archbishops and Bishops (e∣specially those who turne Courtiers, Counsellers of State, and Nonresidents,) leave ‡ 1.89 their Archdeacons, Chauncellers, Com∣missaries, Vicars generall, and Officialls, to visit, order, correct their Dioces, and to set in order those Ceremonies, Altars, Ima∣ges, and Church ornaments, which were well wanting (now too much abounding) in them; Ergo Archdeacons, Chauncellers, Vicars generall, and Officials, are Archbishops and Bishops of those Dioces: The King sends his Indges, Commissioners and under Officers to some Counties or Citties, to sett Causes, Coun∣ties, people, Armes, Forts, Citties in good order, and to see defects in these supplied. Ergo Iudges, Commissioners and Of∣ficers are Kings: Churchwardens ought by the Canons of 1571. and 1603. to sett in order, and provide such bookes, ornaments, and necessaries as are wanting in Parish Churches, and see them well re∣paired: Ergo Churchwardens are Bishops: For Titus was here left, to sett in order the things that were wanting, AS PAVL HAD APPOINTED HIM; and no other wise, Tit. 1. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. hee did all by his direction and authority, not his owne. There is nothing therefore in this, of ordering things that were wanting in the Church of Creete, which savours of Episcopall Iurisdiction. And I may better argue hence, Titus did nothing at all in Creet but by Paules speciall appointment and Cōmission; Ergo hee was no Bishop; or if a Bishop: Ergo Bishops should order nothing in their Bishoprikes, nor keepe any visitations,

but by speciall direction & Commission from the Apostles, * 1.90 King, or State, authorizing them; Then the Objectors conclude; Ergo, hee was a Bishop; and Bishops, Archbishops, (yea Archdea∣cons too without any speciall commission from the Apostles, King and State) may make and institute what orders, constitu∣tions, Articles, and Ceremonies they please, as now they doe in their illegall Courts and visitations, kept in their owne names, without any Patent from the King

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

Answ. 3. I answer first, that this is as bad a consequence as the former, and a meere circular argumentation: For first they will needs proove, Titus a Bishop, because hee ordained Elders; and none but Bishops can ordaine Elders; and then next they proove, that none but Bishops can ordaine; because Titus foresooth was a Bishop, and hee onely did ordaine Elders in Creete. A meere Circle, and Petitio Principij: yet this is the Logicke of our great Rabbi Prelates.

Secondly, I answer, that this proposition whereon they ground themselves and their Prelacy, that none have any right Ture divino to ordaine Elders or Ministers, but Bishops; and that quatenus Bishops too, (which they must adde, or else their ar∣gument is unsound,) is a notorious falsehood, and meere sandy foundation; For first, not to remember how Moses a Civill Magistrate, consecrated Aaron and his sonnes by Gods owne appointement, Levit. 8. 5. to 32. Exod. 29. 9. 35.

First, The Apostles themselves were ordained Apostles and consecrated Ministers by Christ himselfe, Matth. 28. 19. 20.

Marke 16. 15. 16. Iohn. 20. 22. 23. 24. Acts. 1. 4. 5. Rom. 1. 5. 2. Cor. 3. 6. To whom the power of ordination princi∣pally appertaines, Ephes. 4. 11. 12. 1. Cor. 12. 28. Acts. 20. 28. 1. Pet. 1. 4.

Secondly, The Apostles and Euangelists ordained Elders in every Church, Acts. 14. 23. c. 19. 1. 6. 7. c. 7. 6. yet they were properly no Bishops as e 1.91 all learned men acknowledge.

Thirdly, The Disciples (inferior to the Apostles and Euan∣gelists 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, ‡ 1.92 Presbyters and ordinary Ministers ordainea Elders and Ministers, yea Timothy himselfe was made a Minister by the imposition of the handes of the Presbytery, 1. Tim. 4. 14. Thus did they in the primitive Church; this doe they still in our owne Church, as the booke of ordination it selfe confirmed by * 1.93 two Acts of Parliament, the 35. Canon, and experience witnesse; this doe they in all the reformed Churches now, which should have no lawfull Ministers, and so no true Church, if the power of ordination were Jure divino appropriated onely to Bishops, and not common with them unto other Ministers.

Fiftly, Patriarkes, Metropolitanes, Archbishops and Chorall Bishops (neither of which are properly Bishops in the objectors sence) ordaine Ministers: If then all these have ordained Elders and Ministers, though no Bishops, by sufficient divine Authority, (as the objectors cannot deny of the 4. first, and dare not contradict it in the last,) then it is most false; that the power of ordination Jure divino belongs onely to Bishops, as Bishops in the objectors sence; for then none of those 5. being not properly such Bishops, could lawfully have ordained Mini∣sters or Presbyters, as they did and doe.

Thirdly, There is no one syllable in the Scripture to proove, that the power of ordination belongs onely to Bis∣hops quatenus Bishops; neither is there any one example to warrant it. We read of Apostles, Euangelists, Disciples, Presbyters, that layd hands on others to ordaine them Mini∣sters; but of Bishops, (I mean distinct from Presbyters,) we read not a word to this purpose, how then can this be true, that the power of ordination belongs onely to Bishops quatenus Bis∣hops, Jure divino?

Fourthly, We read not a word to this purpose in Scripture of any Bishops distinct from, or superior, in order, degree and dignity to Presbyters; if therefore such Bishops themselves be not Jure divino, the power of ordination cannot belong to them Jure divino, the rather because we read of no man whom the Scripture cals a Bishop ordaining Ministers.

Admit there were such Bishops Jure divino; yet that the power of ordination belongs to them Jure Divino quatenus such Bishops, is most false, but onely quatenus they are Mini∣sters: For it appertained to the Apostles, to the Euangelists, to Disciples and Presbyters Iure divino, though no such Bishops; and the objectors will acknowledge, that it belongs to Popes, Patriarkes, Metropolitans and Archbishops, though they nei∣ther were nor are properly such Bishops, and are no divine, but meere humane institutions; therefore it must appertaine unto them onely, as they are Ministers, (in which respect they all accord, and are not differenced one from another;) not qua∣tenus Bishops; for then the Apostles, Euangelists, Disciples, Presbyters, Popes, Patriarkes, Metropolitanes, and Arch-bishops, being not properly such Bishops, could not lawfully ordaine. The power therefore of ordination belonging to the Apostles, Euangelists, Disciples, Presbyters and others as well as to Bishops, not to Bishops onely, or to them as Bishops, but as Ministers, (it being a g 1.94 meere Ministeriall act, inferior to

preaching, administring the Sacrament and baptizing, as all acknowledge) it can be no good evidence to proove Titus a Bishop. Now because this power of ordination which our Prelates would Monopolize unto themselves, is the maine pillar whereon they now suspend their Episcopall Jurisdiction over ther Ministers, I shall produce some humane authorities, to proove the right, the power of ordination and imposition of hands to be by Gods Law common to Presbyters as well as to Bishops; I shall beginne with Councells. The 4. h 1.95 Coun∣cell of Carthage, Can. 3. about the yeare of our Lord 418. pre∣scribes this forme of ordination of Ministers, When a Minister is ordained, the Bishop blessing him, and holding his hand upon his head, all the Presbyters or Ministers likewise that are present, shall lay their hands upon his head by the Bishops hand. This Ca∣non is incorporated by Gratian, into the body of the Canon Law, and hath been practised and put in ure in all ages since, till now; The very Glosse on * 1.96 Gratian, yea and k 1.97 the Rhemists too, assuring us, that when a Preist is ordained, all the Preists stan∣ding by, doe lay their hands upon him; neither is there any other forme of ordaining Ministers, prescribed in the Canon Law or Councels, but this alone, which all Churches have observed, and yet retaine. Since therefore no Bishop may or ought of him∣selfe alone to ordaine Ministers, without the assent and con∣currence of the Clergy, people and others there present, as l 1.98 Gratian, m 1.99 Illyricus, and n 1.100 Gersome Bucerus, proove at large; and since all Ministers present ought joyne with the Bishop in the imposition of hands, in all ordinations of Mi∣nisters, and haue ever usually done it in all ages and Churches; how this Prerogative of ordination should be peculiar to Bis∣hops (who may not doe it without Ministers concurrrence, no more then Ministers without theirs,) I cannot yet conjecture. True it is, that the o 1.101 Councell of Ancyra, about the yeare of our Lord 308. Can. 3. ordained; That Chorall Bishops should not ordaine Presbyters or Deacons; nor yet Presbyters of the Citty in another Parish; but when the Bishop should permit them by his

Letters; And the ‡ 1.102 Councell of Antioch under Pope Iulius, Ca∣non. 10. decrees; that Chorall Bishops should not ordaine Mi∣nisters and Deacons without the Bishops privity. From whence I observe.

First, That before these Councells restrained the power of Chorall Bishops and Presbyters, that they did and might law∣fully ordaine Ministers and Deacons without the Bishops pri∣vity or assent.

Secondly, That by his assent and licence both the one and the other, without the Bishops presence, might lawfully ordaine Ministers and Deacons. These Councels therefore plainly re∣solve, that there is an inhaerent 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 conferre Orders, therefore the right and power of ordi∣nation is not invested onely in Bishops, as they are Bishops, for then none else could ordaine but they alone. The forged Constitutions of the Apostles, fathered on Pope * 1.103 Clement, prescribe; That Presbyters and Deacons, may not ordaine other Preists and Deacons, but Bishops onely. And the † 1.104 Councell of Hispalis or Spaw, about the yeare 6, 7. Ca∣non. 5. 7. out of Pope Leo, Epist. 86. decrees; that Presby∣ters and Chorall Bishops, which are all one, should not pre∣sume to ordaine Preistes or Deacons, or to consecrate Altars or Churches; For in holy writ, by Gods Commaund, ‡ 1.105 Mo∣ses onely erected the Altar in the Tabernacle of the Lord, hee onely annointed it, because hee was the High Preist, of God, as it is written; * 1.106 Moses and Aaron among his Preists. Therefore, that which was commaunded onely to the cheife Preists to doe, of whom Moses and Aaron were a Type, Presbyters who carry the figure of the sonnes 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 ECCLESIAS∣TICALL RVLES (or CANONS) as the CONSECRATION OF PRESBYTERS, DEACONS, and virgins; as also the Constitution, be∣nediction, or unction of the Altar. Verily it is not law∣full for them to consecrate Churches or Altars, not to give the Holy Ghost the comforter by imposition of hands to the faithfull who are to be baptized, or to those, who are conver∣ted from heresie, nor to made Chrisme, nor to signe the fore-head of those that are baptized with Chrisme, ‡ 1.107 nor yet publikely to reconcile any penitent person in the Masse, nor to send formed Epistles to any. All these things are unlawfull to Presbyters or Chorall Bishops, because they have not Ponti∣ficatus apicem, the highest degree of the High Preist-hood, which by the AVTHORITY OF THE CA∣NONS, is commaunded to be due onely to Bishops, that by this the distinction of the Degrees, and the Hight of the dignity of the High Preist, might be demonstrated. Neither shall it be lawfull for the Presbyters to enter into the Bapti∣stery before the Bishops presence, not to baptize or signe an infant, the Bishop being present, nor to reconcile penitents without the Bishops commaund, nor to consecrate the Sacra∣ment of the body and blood of Christ hee being present, nor in his presence to teach, or blesse, or salute the people, no nor yet to exhort them, all which things are knowne to be prohibited by the * 1.108 See Apostolicke. These two last authorities are the cheife that the Papists, Jesuites, and our Prelates insist on, to

Proove, that the power of ordination belongs onely to Bishops not to Presbyters.

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

Secondly, That the Councell expresly resolves, that the power and right of ordination is prohibited Presbyters, and appro∣priated onely to Bishops, not by any Law of God, or ancient Con∣stitutions of the Apostles, or those who immediately succeeded them, but onely by some Ecclesiasticall Canons and Constitutions then newly made, and by the authority onely of the See of Rome; which cannot deprive Ministers of that power of ordi∣nation, which the Scripture and God himselfe hath given them.

Thirdly, That before these late Canons, and Constitu∣tions, Presbyters might lawfully ordaine Ministers, and Deacons.

Fourthly, That the cheife reason why the power of or∣dination was taken from Ministers, and thus monopolized to Bishops, (even by their owne Constitutions, wherein they have ever favoured themselves,) was onely 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 equalls, both in Jurisdiction, power and degree.

Fiftly, That they bring not one syllable out of the new Testament to proove that the power of ordination belongs onely to Bishops, not to Ministers which they would have certainly done, had there beene any text to warrant it; but that all they alleadge is out of the old Testament; to wit, that Moses one∣ly consecrated the Tabernacle and the Altar; Ergo none but Bishops must consecrate Ministers, Altars, Churches. A learned argument; ergo none but Kings, and temporall Ma∣gistrates, no not Bishops themselves, may doe it, had beene a better consequent. For Moses was no Preist, muchlesse a Bishop; the High Preist, (which was x 1.109 Aarons office, not his, there being but y 1.110 one High Preist, at once and hee a z 1.111 type of our High Preist Christ) but a civill Magi∣gistrate; yet God commaund him a 1.112 to consecrate Aaron with his Sonnes, the Tabernacle and Altar; and after him, b 1.113 King Salomon (not the High Preist) conse∣crated the Temple, Altar, Court, and all the furniture of the Temple and Altar: So that if these examples proove any thing, it is, but this: That the power of ordination, of consecrating Bishops, Ministers, Churches, Altars, &c. appertaines not to Archbishops, Bishops, Popes, Preistes, Ministers, but to the cheife temporall Magistrates. But ad∣mit that Moses were a Preist, and an High Preist, and that the power of consecrating Preistes, Temples, Altars appertai∣ned to him in that regard; yet this is no argument to proove, that the right and power of ordination should belong to Bis∣hops onely; and that for these three reasons.

First, because the Aaronicall Preisthood was c 1.114 utter∣ly extinct and abolished by Christ, as meerely typicall and ceremoniall; and so al ••he appurtenances thereunto belon∣ging.

Secondly, Because the High Preist was no Emblem, type or resemblance of Bishops, which are many, changeable, mortall, but * 1.115 onely of Christ our true High Preist, who is but one, and remaines an High Preist forever without suc∣cession or change. So that this allusion prooves the power of ordaining Ministers to belong originally to none but d 1.116 Christ, our e 1.117 High Preist, cheife Shepheard, and f 1.118 Bishop of our soules, as the g 1.119 Scripture expresly resolves; and ministerially, secondarily, to h 1.120 every Minister of Christ, as his Embassa∣dor, instrument, and Vicegerent.

Thirdly, Because the office and power of the High Preists and Bishops are different, distinct, yea incompatible one with the other, and the maner of ordination, of Ministers, and Dea∣cons under the Law, different from that under the Gospell, as the † 1.121 Scriptures, and * 1.122 all Authors joyntly witnes: the one of them therefore can be no solid, or convincing argument to make good the authority Iurisdiction or practise of other. So that this Councell and Constitution, makes nothing at all against the divine right and Title of Presbyters to ordaine, or for the Bishops sole Monopoly of imposition of hands, by any di∣vine charter from Christ or the Holy Ghost.

Finally, Neither of these Councells or Constitutions simply debarre Ministers from the imposition of hands on others together with the Bishop, which they k 1.123 ever practised, and were authorized to doe, both by God himselfe, and the fourth Councell of Carthage, Can. 3. But from laying on

hands and ordaining Ministers of themselves alone without the Bishop, who cannot ordaine, or lay hands on any Mini∣sters by vertue of these constitutions without them. Since therfore the Bishop of himselfe alone cannot impose hands on any Minister without their assistance or consent, nor they without the Bishops, it is apparant, that the right of ordination is not whol∣ly and originally vested in the Bishop, by any divine or humane right; but in both. The † 1.124 Councell of Aquisgran or Aken, under Ludovicus Pius An. 816. c. 8. out of Isidor. Hispalensis De Ecclesiasticis Officiis l. 2. c. 7. determines thus: The dispensation of the Mysteries of God are com∣mitted 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 like∣wise also in the instruction of the people, and in the office of preaching; and onely the ordination and Consecration of Clerkes is reserved to the High Preist or Bishop, because of his authority, lest the discipline of the Church, challenged or exercised by many, should dissolve, concord and engender scandals; For Paul the Apostle cals Elders and Preists by the name of Bishops, Tit. 1. 5. 7. Acts. 20. 28. Phil. 1. 1. 1. Tim. 3. D. Rabanus Maurus De Instit. Clericorum, l. 1. c. 6. writes thus; That Presbyters all∣though they be Preistes, yet they have not attained the top or Highest degree of Preisthood, because they cannot signe the fore-head with Chrisme, nor give the Holy Ghost; neither can they ordaine Clerkes in sacred orders, which is reserved to Bishops for unity and concords sake. The Epistle de 7. Gradibus Ecclesiae in the neinth Tome of Ieromes workes, avers in expresse tearmes; that the ordination of Clerkes and consecration of Virgins was reserved onely to the High-Preist or Bishop for his greater honor. And Tertullian

de Baptismo c. 17. writes, that the High Preist, who is the Bishop, hath the right of giving Baptisme, after him Pres∣byters and Deacons, yet not without the Bishops authority, for the honor of the Church; By all which it is evident, that Bishops have not the sole executive power of ordination by any divine right or institution (of which there is not one syllable, either in these or other Councels or Fathers) but onely by Ca∣nons and humane Constitutions, made by Bishops themselves, to advance their owne honor, power and dignity; yet notwith∣standing the right of ordination remaines still in Ministers; and belongs to Bishops, onely as they are Ministers by divine right, not as they are Bishops; as is evident by the m 1.125 9. Chapter of the same Councell of Aken, taken out of Isidor. De Eccles. Offi∣ciis l. 2. c. 6. where writing of Bishops ordination by imposi∣tion of hands, and the originall thereof, they use this expression, (which n 1.126 H. Rabanus Maurus, likewise hath:) But that Bis∣hops are ordained by imposition of handes, A PRAECES∣SORIBVS DEI SACERDOTIBVS, by the Preistes of God their predecessors, is an ancient constitution. For the holy * 1.127 Patriarke Isaac laying his handes upon the head of Ia∣cob, blessed him, and ‡ 1.128 Iacob in like maner gave a benediction to his sonnes: &c. Where the Councell and Fathers both af∣firme; that even Bishops themselves are ordained by Priestes or Presbyters (not Bishops) their predecessors, therefore the right and power of ordaining Ministers (and Bishops too) belongs to Presbyters as well as Bishops, and to Bishops, onely as Pres∣byters, not Bishops; and so can no wayes advance them in Iuris∣diction, order or degree above Ministers. The Popish q 1.129 Coun∣cell of Trent Sessio 23. De Sacramento ordinis c. 4. determines that Bishops are superior to Presbyters, and that they can conferre the Sacrament of Confirmation, ordaine Ministers of the Church, and doe many other things, which those inferior order have no power to doe. And Can. 7. De Sacramento Ordinis: If any shall say, that Bishops are not superior to Preistes, or that they have not the power of ordination, or confirmation, or that this power, which

they have, is common to them with Presbyters; or that the orders conferred by them without the consent or calling of the secular power are voyd, let him be Anathema: Loe here this Councell ap∣propriates the power of ordination onely to Bishops, by deny∣ing it to be common to them with Ministers, and in this regard, makes Bishops superior in degree to Ministers; yet not by any divine right or institution, (of which there is not one word;) but onely by humane and Canonicall; (as the r 1.130 History of the Councell of Trent, and s 1.131 Chemnitius well observe:) For in the same t 1.132 Session de Reformatione, Can. 7. 8. it enjoynes; that according to the ancient Canons, when Ministers or Deacons are to be ordained; that the Bishop calling to him the Preistes and other prudent men skilfull of the divine Law, and exercised in Eccle∣siasticall constitutions, should diligently enquire and examine be∣fore them the stocke, person, age, institution, maners, doctrine, and faith of those that were to be ordained; and that those orders, should be publikely conferred and celebrated in the Cathedrall Church; the Canons of the Church being called to, and present at it; or if in any other place, or Church of the Diocesse, Praesenti Clero Loci, the Clergy of the place being present. u 1.133 Pope Ana∣cletus, and the x 1.134 Canon Law, having long before that time or∣dained; That Preists and Deacons should be ordained by their owne Bishop; Ita ut Cives & Alij SACERDOTES assen∣sum praebent; So as the Citizens and other Preistes assented thereunto; which they usually did, and ought to doe, as Gratian with y 1.135 others proove at large. So that though this Councell, and the other Canons and Constitutions debarre Presbyters and Ministers from the act and exercise of ordination, (which yet they ever use, and practise as assistants to the Bishops, who can ordaine none but by their assent, since they ought to joyne with them in the imposition of hands,) yet they deprive them not of their inherent right, nor yet of the exercise of it as assistants to the Bishop, which they have ever used. I passe now from these

Councels and Constitutions to the Fathers, who jumpe in judg∣ment with them. It is true that z 1.136 S. Hierome, a 1.137 Epiphanius, * Isidor Hispalensis, c 1.138 Ambrose, d 1.139 Augustine, e 1.140 Leo, and ‡ others affirme, that Bishops onely in their time did use to ordaine Ministers and Deacons; and that Presbyters might doe all things that Bishops did, except the conferring of Orders, and some other * 1.141 trifling toyes, as consecrating of Altars, Churches, virgins, Chrisme, &c. not warranted by Gods word; yet none of them determine, that the right and power of ordination belongs onely to Bishops, by divine institution and appointment; that Presby∣ters have no right at all, by the word of God to conferre Or∣ders; or that they might not doe it in any case; but they expresly averre the contrary: For as they did joyne with the Bishop in the imposition of hands, as appeares by the third Canon of the fourth Councell of Carthage, forecited; so in S. Ambrose his time, in Egypt, if the Bishop were absent, the Presbyters use to consigne * 1.142 and conferre Orders; as this g 1.143 Father testifieth: and h 1.144 S. Au∣gustine records, That in Alexandria, and throughout all Ae∣gypt, if the Bishop were wanting, the Presbyter did consecrate and give orders. Hence Aërius (as i 1.145 Epiphanius reports his words) reasoned in this maner: What is a Bishop to a Presbyter? one differs nothing from the other; it is one order (saith hee) one honor, and one dignity. Imponit manus Episco∣pus; * 1.146 ITA ETIAM PRESBYTER: The Bishop imposeth his hands, or ordaines Ministers; so likewise doth the Presbyter; The Bishop baptizeth, so also doth the Presbyter; The Bishop sitts in a throne; so also doth the Presbyter. And hee alleadged, that the Apostle saith to a Bishop: k 1.147 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 di∣rectly, that Presbyters then did use to ordaine; but demaunds, how it is possible for a Presbyter to ordaine, not having imposition of hands in the election of Ministers, or to say that hee is equall with a Bishop. A false and miserable shift: since all

* 1.148 Histories, Fathers, Authors, Councels testifie, that in that age, Presbyters had alwayes their voyces in the Ele∣lection, yea their hands in the ordination of Ministers and Deacons. S. Hierome in his Commentary on Zeph. c. 2. Tom. 5. p. 218. D. writes exprefly: SACERDOTES. and that Preists and Presbyters who give baptisme, and im∣precate the Lords advent, to the Eucharist, make also the oyle of Chrisme, MANVS IMPONVNT, impose hands, instruct the catechumeny, LEVIT AS ET A∣LIOS CONSTITVVNT SACERDOTES; ordaine Levites, and other Preists: Therefore Presbyters in S. Hieronymus time ordained Ministers, Deacons, and layd on hands as well as Bishops. Yea * 1.149 Anastatius, in the life of Pope Pelagius the first, recordes; that this Pope An. Christi 555. for want of three Bishops to ordaine him; was ordained Pope, by John Bishop of Perusia and Bonus Bis∣hop of Florence, and Andreas Presbyter de Hostia, and An∣drew Elder or Minister of Hostia, which Luitprandius de Vitis Pontificum p. 84. and Albo Floriacensis in his life, p. 140. likewise testifie: Loe here a Presbyter or ordinary Minister ordaining not onely another Elder, but a Bishop, yea a Pope; and supplying the place of a Bishop ‡ 1.150 the generall Councell of Nice. Can. 4. the first Councell of Arelat. Can. 21. the second Councell of Carthage, Can. 12. the third Councell of Carthage, Can. ••9. the Councell of Aphricke, Can. 16. the Councell of Rhegium, An. 472, the Councell of Arausica, Can. 21. the Councell of Chalcedon, Act. 13. p. 187. with sundry Popes Decrees, ordaining, that no man shall be consecrated a Bishop, but by three Bishops at least and that a consecration made onely by two Bishops shall be voyd; and so this Pope no lawfully ordained Pope, rules this Presbyter supplyed the place of a Bishop, in his consecration and

his Ordination good and valid by the Law of God, though invalid and a meere nullity by the Canons * 1.151 An. 1390. about Wicklifs time there arose in England certaine bold Clerkes, who affirmed; that it was lawfull for them to make new Presbyters and Clerkes, and conferre orders., like Bishops: teaching likewise, that they were endued with the same power in Ecclesiasticall affaires as Bishops were, whereupon they layd hands on many, and ordained divers Ministers: who af∣firmed likewise, that they had equall and the selfesame Ec∣clesiasticall power with Bishops: which was the constant Doctrine of Wicklife and the Waldensis which Doctrine of theirs was true, but their practise discommended, yet the Ministers thus ordained by them, their ordination held lawfull by Gods Law; yea and their ordination of others in those times in dark∣nesse and persecution, when no Wickilvists, Lollards or other orthodox professors of the Gospel could be admitted into orders by the Bishops of that age, unlesse they would subscribe to their Popish assertions, as some of our Prelates now will admit none to receive orders, unlesse they will first, subscribe to such private positions and Ceremonies, as are directly contrary to the established Doctrine, and discipline of the Church of Eng∣land; by meanes whereof many godly men are kept from the Ministery. And though m 1.152 Chrysostome, Primasius, Theodoret, Ambrose, Rabanus Maurus, Oecumenius, Theophilact, Hay∣mo, with some others, interpret that of the 1. Tim. 4. 14. By the Laying on of the hands of che Presbytery; to be meant either of Paul himselfe, or of the Senate of the Apostles, or of such who had Apostolicall authority, or of Bishops, and not of the bare Presby∣ters; because (say they) Presbyters, (to wit according to the practise of their, though not of former times) could not ordaine a Bishop, but onely Apostles, or Bishops; yet none of them so much as once as∣ffirme, that they cannot by the Law of God ordaine Deacons & ordinary Ministers; or that they ought by Gods Law and divine institution to be ordained onely by Bishops: yea n 1.153 Theophilact

on that text writes thus: Behold a wonderfull thing, See how much the imposition SACERDOTALIVM MA∣NVVM, of Sacerdotall or Preists hands can doe; A cleare de∣monstration, that Preists as well as Bishops, and Bishops onely as they are Preists not Bishops, have power of laying on hands. And o 1.154 Theodoret, thus glosseth the text, here hee cals those the Presbytery who had attained Apostolicall grace; For, saith hee, divine Scripture hath called those who were honored in Israell, Elders. The Fathers therefore confessing, that Presbyters and Elders might and did in some cases and places ordaine, and consecrate Ministers without the Bishop, and likewise joyne with the Bis∣hop, (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 p 1.155 Fathers, that Bishops and Pres∣byters, by Gods Law and institution, are both one and the same, and so continued till long after the Apostles times; Therefore their power of ordination, the same with theirs. Neither doe the Papists dissent from this: q 1.156 Aquinas writes; That the impo∣sition of hands belongs onely to those who are the Ministers of Christ: which was double, one which was made by Deacons, the other by Ministers; and because hee adds not the third by Bis∣hops; hee plainly intimates, that the ordination made by Mi∣nisters and Bishops, is one and the same, and that Bishops or∣daine onely as Bishops, not as Ministers. r 1.157 Ca••etan on that text saith, That Paul relates, that the imposition of hands S A∣CERDOTALIS OFFICII, is a part of the Sa∣cerdotall or Preists office, (not the Bishops) and Faber in 1. Tim. 4. 14. writes, that Presbyters did use to lay their hands on the heads of those who were to be ordained, purged, or made com∣pleate Ministers, powring forth holy prayers. I know indeed that s 1.158 Aquinas and other Schoolemen hold, that it belongs onely to Bishops to conferre holy orders; yet hee and * 1.159 Durandus grant, that this is not by vertue of any divine right, orinstitution, but onely by humane Constitutions and Canons, by reason of the more excel∣lent

power and Jurisdiction that the Bishop hath over and above Ministers, and for order sake; yea they both affirme; that Pres∣byters doe, and ought to joyne with the Bishop in the imposition of hands in the ordination of Ministers. The Rhemists in their anno∣tations on the 1. Tim. 4. 14. confesse; that when a Preist is or∣dained, the rest of the Preists and Elders present, doe together with the Bishop, even at this day among them, (and have anciently used heretofore) to lay hands on those that are to be ordained; ci∣ting the fourth Councell of Carthage: Can. 3. for proofe thereof. And the u 1.160 Canonists, with some x 1.161 Schoolemen, grant, that Preists and Ministers by the Popes dispensation and License, may without a Bishops concurrents, ordaine Deacons and Ministers; but a meere Layman, or one that is no Minister, cannot doe it. A cleare proofe, that the imposition of hands appertained to Pres∣byters as well as Bishops, and that the power of ordination rests more in the Ministers person, then in the Popes grant or License; else why might not a Lay man as well as a Minister, grant Orders by vertue of the Popes License, or why should Ministers joyne with Bishops in the imposition of hands? But to passe from these to the reformed Churches beyond the Seas. We know that most of them have no Bishops; that all their Ministers and Deacons are ordained by the Common election of the people and Magistrates, and imposition of the Senate or Colledge of Ministers hands; yet none of our Prelates have beene so impudently shamelesse, as to deny their ordination and Mi∣nisters to be lawfull, or their practise to be dissonant from the Scriptures, or them to be true Churches. What their writers have determined concerning the power of ordination, incident to Ministers as well as Bishops, and to Bishops onely as Mi∣nisters, and servants to the Church, not Lords, these ensuing pas∣sages will declare: y 1.162 Ioannes Lukawitz in his Confession of the ••aborites against Rokenzana, c. 13. of the Sacrament of order, writes thus: They confesse, that the conferring of Orders onely by Bishops, and that they have more effectuall authority of his nature then other Ministers, is not from

any faith or authority of the Scriptures, Sed ex consuetu∣dine habetur Ecclesiae, but from the Custome of the Church. This being the constant doctrine of the z 1.163 Waldenses and Toborites, that the power of giving orders, and imposing handes, belonged to Presbyters as well as Bishops; and that Bishops and Ministers by Gods Law where both one; and no Bishop greater then any Presbyter in honor, or Iuris∣diction. a 1.164 Melanchton writes, That if Bishops and Ordi∣naries are enemies of the Church, or will not give orders, yet the Churches retaine their right; For wheresoever there is a Church, there is a right of administring the Gospell; wherefore there is a necessity that the Church should retaine the right of calling, electing and ordaining Ministers. And this right is a guift given to the Church, which no humane authority can take from the Church; as Paul witnesseth in the fourth of the Ephesians, where hee saith, When hee as∣cended upon High, hee gave guifts unto men; and hee reckons Doctors and Pastors among the proper guifts of the Church, and adds, that such are given for the Worke of the Mi∣nistery, for the edifying of the body of Christ, where there∣fore there is a true Church, there must needs be a right of E∣lecting and ordaining Ministers. One thing hath made a difference of Bishops and Pastors, to wit, ordination, be∣cause it is instituted that one Bishop might ordaine in many Churches; but seeing that by Gods Law there are not divers degrees of a Bishop and Pastor, it is evident, that an ordi∣nation made by a Pastorin his Church, is ratified by Gods Law. Marsilius Patavinus in his Defensoris Pacis, pars 2. 〈◊〉〈◊〉. 15. 17. affirmes: that the power of ordaining Ministers belongs not to Preists and Bishops, but to the Magistrates and people, where hee is to be a Minister. That every Preist

by divine authority, may conferre all Sacraments, and give orders, as well as any Bishop: and that every Preists hath power to ordaine and promote any beleever that is willing to the Preisthood, hee preparing him Ministerially, but God simply and immediately impressing the Sacerdotall power or character; the originall property of ordaining Mi∣nisters being onely in Christ, the head of the Church. ‡ 1.165 Hype∣rius thus seconds him: The imposition of hands in the election of a Bishop, or Deacon to approove the person to the multi∣tude or people, was made by THE ELDERS, in whom this authority rested, whence it is here added, with the laying on of hands by the authority of the Preisthood, or as it is more significantly and plainely expressed in the Greeke, with the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery, which signifieth the whole Congregation of Elders. And they agreed, that hee who was elected by the Consent of many, should be commen∣ded and approoved as a fitt person, by this externall signe. Which is thus backed by * 1.166 Hemingius. The imposition of the hands of the Presbytery, is the right of ordination, which the SENATE (or Eldership) of the Church, or other Ministers of the Gospell did administer. † 1.167 Pezelius thus jumpes in Iudgement with them: Heretofore the autho∣rity of ordination was granted to Bishops at least by a hu∣mane 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 exami∣nation, 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 re∣taine the right, of conscerating, or ordaining to them∣selves, and that so they might manifest, that what ever the Bishop should doe, that hee did it not in his owne name alone, but in the name of all. † 1.168 Musculu•• Harpes on the same string thus. It must plainely be con∣fessed, that the Ministers of Christ heretofore were elected, the people being present and consenting, and they were ordained and confirmed OF THE ELDERS, by the laying on of hands. This forme of electing Ministers is Apostolicall and lawfull; which hee there prooves at large:

The Noble * 1.169 Mornay, Lord of Tlessis, sings the same tune in these wordes: These things being thus prooved, we adde, that the right of laying on of hands, and ordaining Ministers, is in the power of the Presbyters. And this verily concerning the Apostles dayes is more apparent, then that it can be so much as doubted of: For saith Paul to Timothy, Neglect not the gift that is in thee by the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery, that is, of the Presbyters or Elders. Moreover Timothy himselfe ordai∣ned Elders, and since a Bishop and a Presbyter are names of one and the same function; if the Bishops challenge this right to themselves from the Scriptures, the Presbyters also may doe the same: but if they deny it to Presbyters, in this very thing they a••rogate this right to themselves,

And verily this was a good forme of argument in the Church in Ancient times. ‡ 1.170 Hee can baptise, hee can con∣secrate and administer the Sacrament of the Lords body, (which are the greater an more honourable Actions, because Sa∣craments of undoubted truth, of Highest note and use,) Therefore hee may lay on hands. (which is lesse;) Now in ordaining Elders, the Bishop laying his hands on the head of those that were to be ordained, the rest of the Elders likewise did lay on their hands, as appeares out of many places of the Decrees. The † 1.171 Centurie writers informe us, That in the Apostles time, the Apostles did not assume to themselves the power of electing and ordaining Elders and Deacons, but they had the suffrage and consent of the whole Church; and that they, and the other Ministers of the Church with them, did ordaine and lay hands on them; which they proove by Acts. 6. and 13. and 14. and 19. and 1. Tim. 4. 14. And in the 2. and third Century following, c. 6. they affirme, that Bishops and Ministers were thus elected and ordained, the Elders as well as the Bishops laying their hands on them. The * 1.172 Confession of Saxonie c. 12. resolves expresly; that it belongs to the Ministers of the word to ordaine Ministers lawfully elected and called. The † 1.173 Synod of Petrocomia, Artic. 6. (in Poland) decreed: That no Patron should receive or admit any Minister to teach in his Church, unlesse hee were lawfully ordained and sent by the Superintendents, and the Elders, and had a good and cer∣taine testimoniall from them; and the Synod of Wlodisla∣nia Artic. 8. and 12. determines thus: The ordina∣tion and mission of Ministers into certaine places to worke in the Lords vineyard, is committed to the Superinten∣dents, and to the Ministers and Elders their Colleagues;

(not to Bishops:) Georgius Major in his Enar, in Philip. 1. 1. writes thus: That there is no difference betweene a Bishop and a Presbyter, Paul witnesseth in the 1. Tim. 4. 14. where hee saith: Neglect not the grace that is in thee &c. by the laying on the hands of the Presbytery; that is, of the Order or Colleadge of the Presbyters, by which it is shewed, that Timothy was called and ordained to his Episcopall fun∣ction by the Presbyters. Therefore at that time PRES∣BYTERS HAD THE RIGHT OF OR∣DINATION, as well as Bishops, neither was there any difference betweene them. To these I might adde, Master John Calvin, Piscator, Marlorat, and most other Protestant Commentators on the 1. Tim. 4. 14. Zanchius Destatu peccati & Legal. in quartum Praeceptum, Chem∣nitius Loc. Com. pars 3. De Eccles. c. 4. and Examen Con∣cilij Tridentini pars 2. De Sacram. Ordinis, pag. 224. 225. &c. (where hee prooves at large,) that the election and voca∣tion 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 guift by the imposition of hands, neither saith hee onely of my hands, but hee addes also of the Presbytery, that there should be thought no difference, whether any one were or∣dained either by the Apostles, or by the Elders.) A••to∣nius Sadeel, Respons. ad Repetita Turriani Sophism. pars 2. Locus 12. Beza de diversis Ministrorum Gradibus. Iu∣nius Contr. 5. l. c. 3. n. 3. Chamierus Paustratia Cathol. Tom. 2. de Oecum. Pontif. c. 6. with sundry ‡ 1.174 other writers of the reformed Churches, who averre and proove against the Papists, and Iesuites; that the power of election and ordina∣tion

of Ministers by the word of God, belonges to the whole Church and Congregation, and the imposition of hands to Ministers, Elders, and Presbyters as well as to Bishops, and to Bishops onely, as they are Ministers. But hee that hath handeled and prooved this most largely and fully of all others, is Gersonius Bucerus de Gubernatione Ecclesiae (being an answer to Bishop Downhams Sermon of Bishops) p. 261. 262. 283. 287. 292. 294. 299. 310. 318. to 367. 464. 465. 493. 498. 499. 524. 618. where this point is so learnedly and substantially prooved by Scripture, reason, and Authors of all sorts, that none, which read these passages of his, can ever hereafter call this into que∣stion more.

Having runne thus long abroade, I now in the last place returne to our owne Church and writers. The Booke of ordi∣nation of Ministers, ratified by two severall Acts of Par∣liament, namely 3. Ed. 6. c. 12. and 8. Eliz. c. 1. and subscribed to by all our Prelates and Ministers, † 1.175 by ver∣tue of the 36. Canon as containing nothing in it contrary to the word of God, expresly orders, that when Ministers are ordained; ALL THE MINISTERS PRESENT AT THE ORDINATION SHALL LAY THEIR HANDS TOGETHER WITH THE BISHOP ON THOSE THAT ARE TO BE ORDAI∣NED: And the 35. Can. made in Convocation by the Bishops and Clergy An. 1603. prescribes, that the Bishop before hee admit any person to holy Orders, shall diligently examine him in the presence of those Ministers that shall ASSIST HIM AT THE IMPOSITION OF HANDS. And if the said Bishop have any lawfull impediment, hee shall cause the sayd Ministers carefully to examine every

such person so to be ordered. Provided that they who shall assist the Bishop in examining AND LAYING ON OF HANDS, shall be of his Cathedrall Church, if they may be conveniently had, or other sufficient preachers of the same Diocesse, to the number of three at the least. And according to this Booke of Ordination and Canon, when ever any Mini∣sters are ordained, all the Ministers there present joyne with and assist the Bishop in layng on of hands, on every one that is or∣dained. So that both by the established Doctrine and practise of the Church of England, the power of laying on hands, and right of ordination, is common to every of our Ministers, as well as to our Bishops; who as they cannot ordaine or lay hands on any without the Bishop, so the Bishop can ordaine or lay hands on no Ministers without them; so that the power and right of or∣dination rests equally in them both. With what face or shadowe then of truth our Prelates now can or dare to Mono∣polize this priviledge to themselves alone, against this Booke of Ordination, their owne Canons, subscriptions, yea their owne and their Predecessors common practise to the contrary (which perchance their overgreat imployments in temporall businesses & secular state affaires, have caused them wholly to forgett, at least not to consider:) let the indifferent judge. But to passe from them to some of our learned writers: Alcuvinus De Divinis Officiis c. 37. writes; that Bishops, Presby∣ters, and Deacons were anciently, and in his time too, * 1.176 elected by the Clergy and people, and that they were present at their Ordination and consenting to it. That the Bishops consecration in his dayes used in the Church of Rome, wherein two Bishops held the Gospell or New Testament over the head of the Bishop con∣secrated, and a third uttered the blessing, after which the other Bishops present layde their hands on

his head, was but a Novelty, not found in the old or new Testament, nor in the Roman tradition. And then he•• prooves out of Hieroms Epistle to Evagrius, and his Com∣mentary on the first to Titus, that the ancient consecration of Bishops, was nothing else but their election and inthro∣nization by the Elders, who chose out one of their company for a Bishop, and placed him in a higher seat then the rest, and called him a Bishop, without further Ceremony; just as an Army makes a Generall, or as if the Deacons should choose one from among them and call him an Archdeacon, having no other consecration but such as the other Deacons had, being advaunced above others onely by the Election of his fellow-brethren, without other solemnity.

By which it is plaine, that in the primitive Church, Presby∣ters did not onely ordaine Presbyters and Deacons, before there were any Bishops elected and instituted; but likewise, that after Bishops were instituted, they ordained and consecra∣ted 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 o∣ther Rites and Ceremonies now used, are but Novelties. An∣selme Archbishop of Canterbury on the 1. Tim. 4. 14. ex∣pounds these words, with the laying on of hands of the Pres∣bytery in this maner, Hee cals that the laying on of hands which was made in his ordination; which imposition of hands was in the Presbytery, because that by this imposition of hands, hee received an Eldership, that is, a Bishopricke. For a Bishop is oftentimes called a Presbyter by the Apostle, and a Presbyter a Bishop. (which in his Commentary on the third Chapter, on Phil. 1. 1. Tit. 1. 5. 7. hee prooves to be but one and the same in the Apostles time and in the Primitive Church.) So that by his resolution the imposition of hands and power of ordaining Elders and Bis∣hops,

belongs to Presbyters as well as to Bishops. Our Eng∣lish Apostle m 1.177 John Wickliffe, and his Coaetanean n 1.178 Richard Fitzralphe, otherwise called Richardus Armachanus Arch-bishop and Primate of Ardmagh in Ireland; if we beleeve ei∣ther their owne writings, or o 1.179 Thomas Walden, who recites their opinions, arguments, and takes a great deale of paines (though in vaine) to refute them: affirmed and taught:

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

Secondly, That one who was but a meere Preist might ordaine another, and that hee, who was ordained onely by a simple Preist, ought not to doubt of his Presbytership, or to be ordained againe, so as hee rightly performed his clericall office, because the ordination comes from God, who supplies all de∣fects.

Thirdly, That meere Preists may ordaine Preists, Deacons and Bishops too; even as the inferior Preists among the Jewes did ordaine and consecrate the High Preist, as Bishops consecrate Archbishops, and the Cardinals the Pope.

Fourthly, That the power of order is equall, and the same in Bishops and Preists, and that by their very ordination they have power given them by Christ to administer all Sacra∣ments alike; therefore to conferre orders and confirme children, which is the lesse, as well as to baptise, administer the Sacra∣ment of the Lords Supper and preach the Gospell, which is the greater.

Fiftly, That Christ sitting in heaven hath given the power of consecrating and ordaining Preists and Deacons, of Confir∣mation, and all other things, which Bishops now challenge to themselves, to just Presbyters; and that these things were but of late times, even above 300. yeares after Christ, reserved

and appropriated to Bishops onely by their owne Canons and Constitutions, to increase their Caesarian Pompe and pride. And * 1.180 Waldensis himselfe (who undertakes to refute these propositions) saith expresly: 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 meere Preist, to wit, in the want or defect of Bishops. All the Archbishops, Bishops, Archdeacons and Clergy of England in their Booke, intituled The institution of a Christian man, subscribed with all their hands, and dedicated to King Henry the 8. An. 1537. Chapter of Orders, and King Henry the 8. himselfe in his Booke stiled, A necessary ••rudition for any Christian man, set out by authority of the Statute, of 32. H. 8. c. 26. approoved by the Lords Spirituall and Temporall, and Netherhowse of Parliament, prefaced with the Kings owne Royall Epistle, and published by his speciall commaund in the yeare 1543. in the chapter of Orders; expresly resolve, that ••reists and Bishops by Gods Law are one and the same, and that the power of ordination and excommunication belongs equally to them both. Learned Martin Bucer in his Booke of recalling and bringing into use againe the lawfull ordination of Ministers, and of the office of Pastors, in his Scripta Anglicana, written here in England, p. 254. 255. 259. 291. 292. 293. and on Math. 16. layes downe these Conclusions.

First, That the power of ordination rests principally and originally in Christ himselfe Prince of Pastors.

Secondly, That this power is secondarily and derivately in the whole Church, whose consent is requisite in the election and ordination of Ministers.

Thirdly, That the actuall power of Ordination and impo∣sition of hands belongs as well to Presbyters as to Bishops, that they ought to joyne with the Bishop in the laying on hands; and that Timothy was ordained by the Presbyters.

Fourthly, That Bishops and Ministers have the power of imposition of hands in them onely instrumentally not originally as servants to the whole Congregation.

Fif••ly; That the examination and ordination of Ministers ought to be made publikely in the Church where they are elected to be Ministers, before all the Congregation, All which he prooves by sundry Scriptures and Histories. Peter Martyr his coaeta∣man, (Regius professor in the ••niversity of Oxford, in the dayes of King Edward the 6.) in his Commentary upon the 2. Kings. 2. 23. and in his Common places, printed at London, Cum Privile∣gio, An. 1576. Class. 4. Loc. 1. Sect. 23. p. 849. writes thus: The Papists cannot object grievous sinnes against the Ministers of the Gospell, but they oppose onely some slight, that I say not ridicu∣lous thinge: they say that our Pastors have no imposition of hands, and thence they indeavour to conclude, that they are not to be repu∣ted just Governours 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 Bro∣ther and his Children, offering divers kindes of Sacrifices, on which no man formerly had layd on hands. Lik••w••se Iohn the Baptist brought in a new right of Baptisme, and administred it to the Iewes, when as yet no hands had beene layd upon him, and hee himselfe had beene baptised of no man. Paul also called by Christ in his journey, did not presently goe to the Apostles that they might lay hands upon him, but hee taught in Arabia for 3. yeares space, and ministred to the Churches, before that hee went up to the Apostles his Ante∣cessors, as himselfe witnesseth in his Epistle to the Galathians. We reject not the imposition of hands, but retaine it in many Churches; which if we receive not from their Bishops, we are not to be blamed for it, for they would not conf••rre it on us, unlesse wee would depart from sound Doctrine, and likewise bind our selves by O••th to the Roman Antichrist. In which words hee resolves:

First, That the imposition of hands is no such essentiall part of a Ministers ordination, but that it may be omitted; and that those who are elected and lawfully called to the Ministery by the suffrage of the whole Church and people, are Ministers lawfully called and ordained without this Ceremony.

Secondly, That the imposition of hands belongs to Mini∣sters, as well as Bishops; and that those who are ordained Mi∣nisters in the reformed Churches, where they have no Bishops, onely by the laying on of hands of other Ministers, are lawfully ordained.

Thirdly, That this position, that the power of ordina∣tion belongs onely to Bishops, that those are no true Ministers who are ordained without a Bishop, is but a vaine ridiculous Popish Cavill. Our Prelates therefore should be ashamed to ground both their owne, and Titus his Episcopall Hierarchie upon it: Learned * 1.181 Doctor Whitaker, writing against Bellar∣mine, saith; that this text of the 1. Tim. 4. 14. makes very much against the adversaries; For from this place wee understand, that Tim••thy, receiveth imposition of hands from the Elders, who at that time governed the Church by a common Councell; and against † 1.182 Duraeus, hee argues thus; Luther, Zwinglius, Oecolampa∣dius, Bucer and others were Presbyters; and Presbyters by Gods Law are the same with Bishops; therefore they might lawfully or∣daine 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. generall Controversie quaest. 3. part. 2. write thus, Although in the Scripture a Bishop and an Elder is of one order and authority in preaching the word, &c. yet in government by ancient use of speech, hee is onely called a Bishop, which is in the Scripture called cheife in governement, to whom the ordination or consecration by imposition of hands was allwayes principally committed. Not that imposition of hands be∣longeth onely to him, for the rest of the Elders that were present at ordination did lay on their hands, or else the Bishop did lay on his

hands in the name of the rest. We differ from the Papists in this; They affirme; that not principally and cheifly, but solely and whol∣ly the right of consecrating and giving Orders appertaineth unto Bishops. But concerning the power of giving Orders we say; that though it were cheifly in the Apostles, yet the Pastors and Elders together with them layd on their hands, Acts. 13. 3. 4. and as S. Paul speaketh of his laying on of hands, 2. Tim. 1. 6. so hee maketh mention of imposition of hands by the Eldership, 1. Tim. 4. 14. And the Rhemists on that place mislike not the practise of their Church, that their Preists doe lay on their hands together with the Bishop upon his head that is to be ordained. What else doth this signifie, but that they have some interest in ordaining together with the Bishop? The 4. Councell of Carthage Can. 3. Decrees thus: Let all the Preists that are present, hold their hands next to the Bishops hand, upon the head of him that is to be ordained. Againe Can. 14. of the same Councell: The Bishop must not give orders, but in the presence and assembly of the Clergy. By this then it is manifest, that imposition of hands doth not wholly and soly belong to the Bishops, seeing the rest of the Elders were wont to lay on their hands likewise, or the Bishop in the name of the rest. So that the Elders were not excluded. Doctor Feild in his 5. Booke of the Church, c. 27. is of the same opinion; where hee prooves out of Durandus and other Papists, that the power of consecra∣tion and order is not greater in Bishops then in any other Ministers; that the power of ordination was reserved to Bishops, not by any di∣vine, but humane Constitutions onely, rather for to honor the Bishops preistly place, then for that it might not be done by any other, and for the avoyding of confusion and schisme in the Church: Conclu∣ding, that in cases of necessity; as when Bishops are extinguished by death; or fallen into haeresie, or obstinately refuse to ordaine men to preach the Word and Gospell of Christ sincerely, and the like, then Ministers onely may ordaine other Ministers, without any Bishops assistance. And Master Cartwright in his Confutation of the Rhem••sh Testament, on the 1. Tim. 1. 14. Sect. 18. and on Tit. 1. Sect. 2. pr••oves, both by the Rhemists owne

practise and Confession, by the 4. Councell of Carthage, cited by them, and the History of Eradius his ordination, who succeeded Au∣gustine, to which sixe Elders, as well as two Bishops were called, and by the text of Timothy itselfe, that the imposition of hands be∣longs to Elders as well as Bishops, which hee manifests to be one and the same by divine institution. Finally, acute and learned Doctor Ames in his Bellarminus Enervatus Tom. 2. l. 3. c. 2. of the vo∣cation and ordination of Ministers, Sect. 4. &c. De Ordinatione, Concludes thus against Bellarmine, who affirmes, that the ordi∣nation, vocation, and election of Bishops and other Ministers of the Church belongeth onely to Bishops.

First, That it cannot belong Iure Divino to Popish Bis∣hops, superior to Presbyters in degree, because they themselves are onely, vel juris, vel injuriae humanae, of humane right, or ra∣ther injurie, not of divine institution.

Secondly, That the very act of ordination belongs to di∣vine Bishops, that is, to Presbyters, in a Church well ordered.

Thirdly, That as to the right force and vertue which it hath in constituting the Minister of the Church, it alwayes apper∣taines to the whole Church; as the celebration of Matrimony re∣ceives all its force and vertue from the consent of the parties married.

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

Fiftly, That the Act of ordination is attributed to Pres∣byters, 1. Tim. 4. 14. And that the Apostles themselves did not ordaine ordinary Ministers▪ but by the concurrence and consent of the people, Acts. 14. 23.

Sixtly, That in the primitive Church, which was governed by the common Counsell of the Presbyters, before there were any Bishops, the very first Bishops were not ordained by Bis∣hops, which then were not, but by Ministers.

Seaventhly, That all the Councels, Degrees and Testimo∣nies of Fathers objected to the contrary; proove nothing else, but that the Act and Right of Ordination partly by Custome, and partly by humane Decrees, was given to the cheife Presbyter or Bishop after the Apostles time, not belonging to them by any divine right.

Eightly, That the imposition of hands is not absolutely necessary to the essence of a Pastor, no more then a Coronation to the essence of a King, or the celebration of a mariage, to the essence of a mariage.

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

Tenthly, That the Papists themselves teach, that baptisme conferred by any Christian, though a lay man or woman; is good by reason of the necessity of it, that a simple Presbyter by the common consent of the Popish Doctors, may administer the Sacrament of Confirmation, or conferre any of the greater Orders, and that all the Pontificians teach with unanimous con∣sent, that a Bishop once consecrated, although hee be a Simo∣niack, Heretick, excommunicate person or the like, may yet fir∣mely ordaine others. Therefore a fortiori Godly Presbyters, or the people and Church of Christ, may lawfully conferre or∣ders without the helpe or concurrence of a Bishop. Which au∣thority of his ought not to be slighted as Schismaticall or Erro∣nious, it being consonant to the Doctrine both of our owne and other Protestant writers, Churches; and this booke of his printed

by Authority, in the university of Oxford, no longer since, then Anno 1629. It is evident then by this whole cloud of witnesses (to omit others) that the power and right of ordi∣nation and imposition of hands, (which sayth * 1.183 Gratian, is nothing else but a prayer over a man; and as ‡ 1.184 Aquinas writes, signifieth onely the conferring of grace, which is given by Christ; and not that Ministers, (not Bishops, who are here but Ministers) give this grace,; and so as pro∣per for Ministers as Bishops both by divine and humane right and practise) belongs to Presbyters and ordinary Mi∣nisters as well as Bishops; therefore Bishops cannot be para∣mount Presbyters and ordinary Ministers in order and Iuris∣diction, in this regard; neither will this power of ordination proove Timothy or Titus Bishops, as they now vainely surmise. Hence therefore I retort the objection in this maner against the opposites.

That power or authority which is common by divine right and institution to Ministers and Presbyters as well as Bishops, can neither proove Timothy or Titus to be Bishops, or Bishops to be superior to Presbyters or Ministers in Jurisdiction, order, dignity or degree, Iure divino or humano.

But the power of authority of ordaining Presbyters, Mi∣nisters, and Deacons, is such; as the premises unde∣niably evidence.

Therefore it can neither proove Timothy or Titus to be Bishops, nor Bishops to be superior to Presbyters, or Ministers in Iurisdiction, order, dignity or degree, Iure divino or humano.

Sixtly, S. Paul, in the 1. Tim. 3. and Titus 1. 6. &c.

makes a particular enumeration and recitall both of the qualifica∣tions, and offices of a Bishop; But among all these, hee speakes not a word concerning the power of act of ordination; neither doth hee make it a part of a Bishops qualification or duty to be apt and able discreetly to conferre orders, as hee doth particular∣ly require, hee * 1.185 should be apt to teach: How therefore this should be a cheife property, or principall quality of a Bishop, I cannot yet conjecture, since the Scripture makes it none, but rather a property, an act of the Presbytery, 1. Tim. 4. 14. Acts. 13. 3. 4. I shall desire Bishops therefore, to produce some divine Charter or other for this pretended Monopoli••e of ordination, which they would ingrosse unto themselves alone (perchance to make the more advantage by it, it ‡ 1.186 being a sweet and pleasant gaine as some handle it now,) before they lay any further Title thereunto, even as they are Diocaesan Bishops.

Seaventhly, I must informe our Bishops for their lear∣ning, that An. 31. H. 8. in the Patent Rolls part. 4. King Hen∣ry the 8. granted a Patent to all the Archbishops, and Bishops of England, to endble them to consecrate Churches, Chapples, and Churchyards, by vertue of his speciall Patents and Commissions under his great Seale first obtained; without which they could not doe it, and that all the Bishops in King Edward the 6. time, had speciall clauses in their Letters Patents, authorizing them to ordaine and constitute Ministers and Deacons, as Bishop Ponets, Bishop Scoryes, Bishop Coverdales, Patents 5. Edw. 6. pars 1. & 2. with others in his Raigne, testifie at large. Neither doe or can our Archbishops or Bps▪ at this day consecrate any Bishop or Arch-bishop, unlesse they have the Kings owne * 1.187 Letters Patents, au∣thorizing and commaunding them to doe it, as the Patents di∣rected to them uponevery Bishops consecration and experience witnesse. It seemes therefore that their power to consecrate Churches, Chapples, Churchyards, Ministers, and Bishops, belongs not to them as they are Bishops, and that it is meerly humane not divine, since they claime and execute it onely by

vertue of the Kings Letters Patents; therefore it cannot advance them above Pres byters, by any divine right.

Eightly, All accord, that in cases of necessity, when or where Bishops are wanting, or when there are none but Simontacall or He∣reticall Bishops, who refuse to ordaine such as are Orthodoxe, or will not subscribe to their heresies, there Presbyters and ordinary Ministers may lawfully conferre orders, confirme, and doe other Acts, which Bishops usually ingrosse to themselves; so Ambrose, Au∣gustine, Richardus Armachanus, Wicliffe, Thomas Waldensis, Feild, Ames, with others in their forequoted places, and general∣ly all divines resolve without dispute. Yea that learned Morney Lord of Plessis, in his Booke De Ecclesia. c. 11. * 1.188 Amesius, with sundry others affirme, that the people alone in case of necessity where there are no Bishops nor Ministers, may lawfully elect and ordaine Ministers, as well as baptise and preach (both which ‡ 1.189 Papists, and * 1.190 Protestants affirme, that Laymen may law∣fully doe in cases of necessity) the right of ordination and election of Ministers being originally in the whole Church and people, Mi∣nisterially onely in Bishops and Ministers as servants to the Congre∣gation, and the imposition of hands no essentiall, but a ceremoniall part of ordination, which may be sufficiently made without it, as Angelus de Clavasio, Peter Martyr, and others, both Papists and Protestants, affirme. But when Paul left Titus in Crete, ‡ 1.191 to set in order the things that were wanting, and to ordaine El∣ders in every City, there where present no other Bishops or El∣ders to ordaine Ministers, (as is likely) but Titus onely; for we read of none else but Titus then in Cree••e, (which was then but newly converted to the faith;) and hee is enjoyned, to ordaine Elders in every City; which prooves there were none there before, for what need then of any, yea of many others to be newly ordained, and that in every City? Titus his example of ordination therefore in this exigent and necessity in a Church then newly planted, is no argument to proove him a Diocaesan Bishop; since other or∣dinary Ministers might ordaine in such a case, as all acknowledge, yea and the people too, without either Minister or Bishop to assist them.

Ninthly, I answer, that it is most evident, that Titus did not ordaine Elders in every City, by vertue of any Episcopall inhe∣rent Iurisdiction of his owne, but as Paules Substitute, who ap∣pointed him to doe it, and prescribed him what maner of persons hee should ordaine: Tit. 1. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. This therefore cannot proove Titus to be a Bishop; or that the sole right of ordination is appropriated unto Bishops, as Bishops, but rather the contrary.

Lastly, Admit, that the power of ordaining Pres byters belonged only to Bishops Iure Divino; yet is no good conse∣quent; Ergo, they are superior to Presbyters in order and degree Iure Divino; since the conferring of orders, (an * 1.192 act of service, of Ministry onely, not of Authority, and no more then an externall complement or Ceremony) is farre ‡ 1.193 inferior to the authority of preaching, baptising, consecrating, and administring the Sacrament, which every Minister may doe as well as a Bishop. The Bishops and Ministers in the primitive Church had * 1.194 many of them the gift of tongues, of prophecy, of healing and working miracles, which some Bishops, then and all now want; yet these extraordinary endowments made them not superior in Iurisdiction, order, or degree to those Bishops who then wanted those gifts, or to ours now, who take farre more state upon them, then those Bishops did. d 1.195 Many Bishops there are and have beene that could not, at least would not preach, though Bellarmine himselfe, yea the * 1.196 Coun∣cell of Trent, and f 1.197 all men acknowledge, that it is the cheifest, and most honourable part of their Episcopall function, as making them Christs Ambassadors: Are they then inferior in order, dignity, power, and degree to Bishops, yea to Ministers, Vicars, and poore Curates who are both able and willing to preach? That which makes any man superior in order Iurisdiction, or dignity to his equall, must be an authority superior to that which his equall hath, not the accession of any inferior dignity or power. The making of an Earle, a Knight, or Country-Iustice, addes nothing to his former honour in point of

superiority or precedency. If a Bishop be presented to an or∣dinary benefice, prebendary or Deanery, (as * 1.198 some are and have beene by way of Commendam.) it accumulates nought to his Episcopall authority being inferior to the power of the Keyes, preaching and administring the Sacraments, which every enjoyes Iure divino, as absolutely as any Archbishop or Bishop, can no wayes advaunce Bishops in Iurisdiction or degree above Pres by∣ters and ordinary Ministers, no more then the Bishop of Dur∣ham his being a † 1.199 Count Palatine, with his large temporall ju∣risdiction, farre exceeding that of all our Archbishops and Bishops, advaunceth him in order or degree above them all. So that this grand objection to proove Titus a Bishop; yea a Bishop supe∣rior in Jurisdiction, order, and degree to Ministers; is both false and idle.

Obj. 4. If any object, that it is a received maxime in the Schooles, ‡ 1.200 that hee which ordaines is greater then hee who is or∣dained; and that the Apostle saith, that the lesser is blessed of the greater: Therefore Titus, and so likewise Bishops, who ordaine Ministers in point of Jurisdiction, order, dignity and degree.

Answ. 1. I answer; First, that this objection takes that for granted which I formerly refuted and evidenced to be a false∣hood; to wit, that the power of ordination belongs onely to Bishops, not to Presbyters; and so is build on a false sandy foun∣dation.

Secondly, I answer; that this proposition, hee that ordai∣neth or consecrateth Ministers is greater in Iurisdiction, power, order, or degree, then the parties consecrated and ordai∣ned; is a notorious dotage and untruth, broached at first by * 1.201 Epiphanius, to confute Aërius his orthodox opinion, of the pa∣rity of Bishops and Presbyters; and since that taken up at second hand by ‡ 1.202 Bellarmine, and other Iesuites, the * 1.203 Councell of

Trent, ‡ 1.204 Bishop Downham, with other Patriots of the Popes and Prelates Monarchy; and last of all (like Coleworts twice sodde) usurped by all our Prelates in their high Commission at Lambeth in their Censure of Doctor Bastwicke, who laid the whole weight and burthen of their Episcopall superiority and precedency over other Ministers, upon this rotten counterfeit Pillar, unable any wayes to support it, as these ensuing demon∣strations will evidence at large bejond all contradiction.

For first of all we know, o 1.205 that Cardinals and Bishops at this day, (as the people and Clergy, yea the Emperor heretofore) doe elect and consecrate the Pope; yet they are not greater in order, dignity, power or Iurisdiction then the Pope, but inferior, and hee farre superior to them in all these. We p 1.206 read, that Me∣tropolitanes, Patriarkes, Primates and Archbishops are created, consecrated and installed by ordinary Bishops, as the * 1.207 Arch-bishops of Canterburry and Yorke, have oftentimes beene by the Bishops of London, Rochester, Winchester, Salisbury, and the like: yet are they not greater in dignity, power, authority, place, or order then they, but subordinate and subject to them whom they thus ordaine, in every of these. We know by dayly experience that one Bishop consecrates and ordaines an∣other, and hee a second, and that second a third; yet all of them are of equall power, and Iurisdiction, not different or distinct in order or degree; and sometimes the last of the three in re∣spect of his Bishopricke, takes precedency of the rest, that ordai∣ned him, as the ‡ 1.208 Bishops of London, Durham, and Winchester doe here with us, and other Bishops the like in forraigne parts. So some * 1.209 Ministers joyne with the Bishop in the ordination and laying of hands on others, yet one of them is not superior in Iu∣risdiction, order, or degree to the other; Now were this our Pre∣lates objected Paradoxe true; the Cardinals should be greater in order, power, and degree, then the Popes, the Bishops, then Patriarkes, Metropolitanes, Primates, and Archbishops; one Bishop, one Minister then another; yea there should be so many different degrees, among Bishops and Ministers, as there are

successive subordinate ordinations; which is both false and ab∣surd. S. Hierom in his Epistle to Evagrius and on Titus, 1. with Alcuvinus, De Divinis Officiis c. 37. affirme, that in the primitive Church Bishops were both Elected and consecrated by Presbyters; and the Scripture is expresse, that both Paul and Timothy were or∣dained by the Presbytery: Acts 13. 3. 4. 1. Tim. 4. 14. If the Bishops reason then be orthodoxe; it followes inevitably, that in the Apostles times, and the primitive Church Pres byters were superior in Iurisdiction, order and Degree to Bishops, yea to Paul and Timothy, the one an Apostle, the other an Euan∣gelist; and not Bishops, Lords paramount over them, as they now pretend; and then farewell their Hierarchy which they so much contend for. The Archbishop of Canterbury (who stood much upon this argument at Doctor Bastwicks Censure) both crowned our Soveraigne Lord King Charles, and baptised his sonne Prince Charles; will hee therefore conclude, that hee is greater in power, authority, place, and Iurisdiction then they? The * 1.210 Archbis∣hops of Canterbury, have usually crowned and baptized the Kings of England, and the Archbishops of Rheemes the Kings of France; will they therefore inferre, Ergo they are greater in power, dignity, and authority then they; as the † 1.211 Popes argue, that they are greater then the Emperors, because the Bishops of Rome have usually crowned the Emperors? Are the Princes Electors in Ger∣many greater then the Emperors; or of Poland, Bohemia, and Sweden greater then their Kings; because they elect and create them Emperors and Kings? Are the Lord Major of London and Yorke, or the Major of other Citties inferior to the Commons; or the Lord Chauncellors of our Vniversities of Oxford and Cam∣bridge, lesse honorable, potent, and inferior to the Doctors, Procters, and Masters of Arts; or the heades or Masters of the Colleadges and Halls in them, subordinate, or lesse worshipfull or eminent then the fellowes, because they are elected, consti∣tuted and created by them, to be such? Are the Knights, Ci∣tizens and Burgesses of the Parliament, not so good as those freeholders, Cittizens and Burgesses who elect them? or the

Masters of Companies inferior to those that choose them. If not, as all must grant, how is this maxime true; that hee who constitutes, ordaines, or consecrates another, is greater then the parties constituted, ordained, or consecrated, and that in Iuris∣diction, place, order, and degree? Our Popish Preists are not afraid to proclaime * 1.212 that in their consecration of the Sacra∣ment, they create their very Creator, and make no lesse then Christ himselfe: are they therefore greater and higher in order and degree then Christ, the † 1.213 great and onely High Preist, the * Cheife Shepheard, and Bishop of our Soules, whose ‡ 1.214 Vicar and Substitute the Pope himselfe doth but claime to be? Certain∣ly if this their Popish proposition be true, they must needs be one order and degree Higher, in point of Preisthood, then Christ himselfe; who must then lose his titles of High Preist and cheife Shepheard, because every Masse-Preist will be para∣mount him; in that hee not onely consecrates, but creates him too. We read in * 1.215 Scripture, that Kings, Preists and Pro∣phets were usually annointed and consecrated to be such with oyle; was therefore the oyle that consecrated them, greater or better then they? Are the font and water, better then the children * 1.216 baptized in or with them? The Diadems better then Kings, because they crowne them? or the very hands of Bishops and Ministers, worthier then Ministers ordained by them? If not, then are not Bishops greater then the Ministers which they or∣daine or consecrate, since both are but instruments, Servants not prime originall agents, Lords, or Supreme absolute actors in these severall consecrations and actions. If we cast our eyes either upon nature or policy, we finde this propo∣sition of our Prelates a meere ••alsehood. In nature we ••ee, that a man begets a man; an horse an horse; an asse an asse; a dogge a dogge &c. equall one to the other in nature, quality, species, and degree; the sonne being as much a man as the Father, the colt as much an horse as the steed that begott him. In Civill or Politique Con∣stitutions, wee see the like; In our Vniversities,

Doctors and Professors of Divinity, Phisicke, Law, Musicke, create other Doctors of the same Professions, equall to them∣selves, and as much Doctors in these arts as they; one Doctor in each of these, being as much and no more a Doctor then another, save onely in point of time or antiquity, but not in respect of the profession or degree of Doctorship it selfe; yea * 1.217 every Minister made by any Bishop, is as much as truly and ful∣ly a Minister as the Bishop, as all Protestants and Papists doe ac∣knowledge; therefore the same in specie with, and equall to a Bishop: Our Bishops pretend themselves Spirituall Fathers, and they call the Ministers ordained by them, Sonnes; So ‡ 1.218 Epi∣phanius long since argues against Aërius: As therefore in na∣turall generations, a man begets a man, a beast a beast; and in Civill respects; a Gentleman begets a Gentleman; a peasant a peasant &c. but not a man a beast; a beast a man, a Gentleman a peasant, nor a peasant a Gentleman; So Bishops when they engender naturall children, beget them as men, not Bishops, and their children are as much men as themselves; when they spiri∣tually ordaine or engender Ministers, they doe it onely as they are Ministers not Bishops, and those they thus beget and ordaine, are as much Ministers as themselves; when they beget and con∣secrate Bishops, they doe it as they are Bishops, and those thus begot and consecrated are as much Bishops as themselves. Since therefore they ordaine Ministers onely as they are Ministers, not as Bishops; as is cleare (else it were an unnaturall an incon∣gruous, yea a monstrous generation, to beget one of a different kinde, order, quality and degree from themselves, and as much as if a man should beget a beast, an horse, or an Asse,) and since every Minister is as much as compleatly a Minister every way as the Bishop, and Ministers who ordaine him; how this propo∣sition 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 bapti∣zed, but likewise ordained some of our Bishops to be Ministers,

and layd hands upon them with the Bishop at the time of their ordination; yea every of our Bishops, and Archbishops were first ordained Ministers by Ministers before they were made Bishops or Arcbishops. And the first Bishops that were ordained in the Church paramount Ministers, were ordained Bishops by Ministers, as Hierom writes in his Epistle to Evagrius, and all since acknowlege out of him. Are these Ministers there∣fore in point of order, honor, jurisdiction, dignity and degree, greater then our Archbishops or Bishops? If so, then the con∣troversie is at end; and the truth most apparant; that our Mini∣sters are greater and higher in degree then our Bishops and Arch-bishops, not our Bishops and Archbishops higher greater then they, as they vainely contend. If not, then the Prelates maxime, on which they ground their Hierarchie, is most false, in that sence in which they urge it; and so will yeild no supportation to their Hierarchie.

Thirdly, I answer, that this Proposition of theirs is war∣ranted by no Scripture, nor backed with any convincing rea∣son drawen from Scripture; therefore it prooves nothing either for Titus his Episcopall authority; or for Bishops superiority above other Ministers, by any divine right, or institution: As for that text of Hebr. 7. 7. (And without all contradiction the lesser is blessed of the greater;) it is nothing to the putpose.

First, Because it it not spoken concerning ordination, or of one Ministers ordaining or blessing another, but onely of Melchizedechs blessing of Abraham, and Ministers blessing of the people, as the words and ‡ 1.219 all Commentators joyntly testifie.

Secondly, Because it is not meant of Ministers, who blesse others onely Ministerially, instrumentally, by way of duty and service, as Bishops ordaine Ministers; not inherent originall au∣thority, for then Ministers should be better and greater then God, whom they blesse and praise, but of Christ himselfe; who by

Melchisedech, his type, blessed Abraham by his owne inherent authority and power; as the onely * 1.220 true High-Preist, and ‡ 1.221 ch••ife Shepheard of our soules. If therefore our Prelates take their maxime in this sence, hee that ordaines Ministers, to wit, originally by his owne inherent primitive authority and power, is greater then those who are ordained in Jurisdiction, power, and degree; then the proposition thus interpreted, is true and warranted by this text; but yet they gaine no advantage by it, because no Bishops, do or can ordaine Ministers thus, but * 1.222 onely God and Christ alone, whose Ministers and Servants both the or∣dainers and ordained are. But if th••••meane, that they who or∣daine Ministers onely instrumentally and Ministerially as servants to Christ, his Church and the whole Congregation, (in whom the originall and primitive right of ordination is onely vested) are greater in Iurisdiction, order and degree, then those who are or∣dained, as they doe and must doe; then the proposition is most false and not justified by this Scripture, as the premised instances manifest.

Fourthly, Admit this proposition true; that those who are to ordaine others are greater in power and authority then the parties to be ordained, before their ordination fully executed, be∣cause they have an office, a calling of Ministery which the others want; in which sense the proposition may be true, yet it is not true; that the ordainers are greater in power, office and authority then the parties actually ordained after the ordination past and fini∣shed; because the very end of ordination, is to conferre the selfe∣fame office of Ministery on the parties ordained; which the or∣dainers themselves have in as large and ample manner as they en∣joye it; and the parties once ordained, are thereby made as com∣pleate, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 absolute Ministers every way, in respect of their or∣ders and office, as any of those who ordained them: though they were not so when they came to be ordained. This appeares by the examples of ‡ 1.223 Mathias and Paul; before they were called and ordained to be Apostles, they were inferior to the other A∣postles; but being once called and ordained Apostles, they became equall with the other Apostles in Apostolicall power, dignity, and

degree. So that from all these premises I may conclude, that this maxime of our Prelates, whereon they build their Episcopall Hierarchie, in that sence they take it, is most false; and neither prooves Titus to be a Diocaesan Bishop, nor yet Bishops to be superior to other Ministers in dignity, power, order, or degree, by divine right and institution as they pretend they are.

Finally, Admit the proposition true, yet it prooves but this; that Bishops are superior to those Ministers onely which them∣selves ordaine, (so that if they ordaine none they are superior to none; not to those ordained by others, which may be their equals notwithstanding this allegation, seing they were not ordained by them; this proposition extending onely to the act, not to the power of ordination. If any extend it further, in this sort; that they who have power to ordaine Ministers are greater in order, Iuris∣diction, degree and dignity, then those who want this power; then it will follow, that Bishops suspended from ordaining o∣thers (either for advauncing unworthy Ministers, without due exa∣mination, or making Ministers without a title, as many now doe, for which the * 1.224 Canons prescribe, they shall be suspended from gi∣ving Orders for two yeares space) are inferior in order and degree to Bishops, who may execute this power and ordaine; and so one Bishop shall be superior in order and degree to another Bishop; which none ever yet affirmed; yea all our Bishops being prohibited and disabled by their owne ‡ 1.225 Canons to ordaine Ministers or Dea∣cons at any time, but onely at the 4. solemne times appointed, and that in the presence of the Deane, Archdea••on or two Prebends at the least, or of 4. other grave Persons, being Masters of Art at least, and allowed for publike Preachers: it will hereupon follow, that Bishops onely at these 4. times of the yeare, are greater in dignity and degree then Ministers, because they may then ordaine, but not at other seasons, when they have no power or authority to con∣ferre orders upon any being restrained by the Canon. All which being layd together, discovers the weakennes, the absurdity of this our Prelates Theory, on which they build both their owne, & Titus his hierarchy, which now fall quite to ruine with this their sandy foundation, which I have here 〈◊〉〈◊〉 ever dissipated & subverted, if I mistake not.

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

Answ. 1. I answer: First, that neither S. Paul nor S. Luke, who lived in their times, and knew them farre better then any Fathers or writers since, ever so much as once terme or stile them Bishops; much lesse, the first or sole Diocaesan Bishops of Crete, or Ephesus; which no doubt they would have done, had they beene in truth Diocaesan Bishops there; and the name, the office of a Bishop so honorable and sublime, above that of Mi∣nisters, even Iure Divino, as our Prelates and their flatterers now pretend. Their testimonies therefore (who stile them onely ‡ 1.226 Ministers or Euangelists, never Bishops) is to be preferred before all Fathers and writers, (who stile them Bis∣hops) being neither acquainted with their persons or functions, nor living in their age.

Secondly, No Father ever stiles them, or either of them a Diocaesan or sole Bishop of Crete or Ephesus, (the thing which ought to be prooved,) but Bishops onely, as they stiled other Ministers, the name, the office of Bishops and Presbyters being but one and the same, and promiscuously used in the Apostles times; all Presbyters being then called Bishops, and all Bishops Presby∣ters; as is evident by Acts. 14. 23. c. 20. 17. 28. Phil. 1. 1. 1. Pet. 5. 1. 2. 3. Tit. 1. 5. 7. 1. Tim. 3. 1. 2. 3. 2. Iohn. 1. 3. Iohn. 1. Philemon. 9. with all ancient, all moderne Commentators on these texts. Whence the Translators of our last authorized English Bible, affixe these Contents to Titus, 1. 6. to 10. (which treates of the quality of Bishops) How they that are to be chosen MINISTERS ought to be qualified▪ And the Booke of ordination of Ministers (confirmed by two * 1.227 severall Acts of Parliament) prescribes the 1. Tim. c. 3.

Acts 20. and Titus 〈◊〉〈◊〉. to be read both at the ordination of Mini∣sters, and Consecration of Bishops: and so intimates, yea inter∣pretes, 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 Poly∣carpus, writes thus in the Preface of his bookes; * 1.228 It shall not seeme grievous untome, if that I compile in writing, and com∣mit to memory, the things which I learned of the Elders. If any came in place which was a follower of the Apostles, forthwith demaunded the words of the Elders: what Andrew, what Peter, what Philip, what Thomas, or Iames, or John, or Mathew, or any other of the Lords Disciples; what Ariston, and the Elder John, Disciples of the Lord, had sayd. Here hee stiles, not onely Bis∣hops, but even Apostles Elders. Polycarpus, his companion and Coaetanian, writes thus in his Epistle to the Philippians, ‡ 1.229 Be ye subject to Presbyters and Deacons as to God: let the Presbyters be simple and mercifull in all things. Now those whom hee here stiles Presby••ers, S. Paul expresly termes Bishops, Philip. 1. 1. Justine Martyr in his second Apology, used neither the name Bishop nor Elder, but termes the Minister onely, Hee who is sett over the Brithren, Hee who holds the first place, in reference to the Deacon, who held the second place, not to any Elders of an inferior order to him. And least any one should dreame that Iustine Martyr here speakes of a Bishop, Tertullian, who lived neere about that time, or within few yeares, in his * 1.230 Apo∣logy writes thus; Praesident nobis probati quique Seniores, &c. Approoved Elders (not Bishops) are sett over us, having obtai∣ned this honor, not with any price, but by a good testimony. Whence it is evident, that in his age, every Christian Congrega∣tion had divers Elders, (not one Diocaesan Bishop) over it to feede and rule it, according to the practise of the Apostles times,

Acts. 14. 23. c. 20. 17. 28 c. 21. 18. Philip. 1. 1. 1. Tim. 5. 17. Tit. 1. 5. Iames, 5. 14. 1. Pet. 5. 1. 2. Hence lear∣ned * 1.231 Apollinarius, cals the Bishops and Elders of the Church of Ancyra in Galatia, Presbyters. And ‡ 1.232 Clemens Alexandrinus, relating the Story of the young man delivered by S. Iohn to a Bis∣hop, to traine up in the feare of God, twice together cals him, inter∣chaingably, both a Bishop and an Elder; as Meridith Hamner (a Bishop) Englisheth it. So * 1.233 Ireneus, one of the ancientest of all the Fathers, stiles Polycarpus Bishop of Smyrna. That holy and Apostolike Elder, yea hee termes the Bishops of Rome themselves Elders, o 1.234 They (saith hee) that were Elders before So∣ter, of the Church which now thou governest, I meane Anacle∣tus, Pius, Hyginus, Thelesphorus, and Xystus, neither did so observe it themselves, neither left they any such commaundement unto posterity. And the same Father Adversus Haereses. l. 3. c. 2. & l. 4. c. 43. 44. oftentimes * 1.235 stiles Bishops Elders; and Elders Bishops; making Presbyters equall to Bishops in all respects, and Successors to the Apostles as well, as much as they. So Dionysius Alexandrinus, in his Epistle to Xystus, Bishop of Rome, about the yeare of Christ, 240. writes thus: There was a certaine Brother, reputed to be of our Church, and Faith, very aged, & priusquam ego etiam creatus Episcopus, and created a BISHOP before, I was, and as I thinke, before blessed Heraclas was made a Bishop. Where hee expresly termes this party, who was but a Minister or Presbyter onely in that Church, A BISHOP, and saith, hee was created a Bishop: when hee was but ordained a Minister. And that famous Gregory Nazianzen (three hun∣dred and seventy yeares after Christ,) in his 9. 13. 15. 21. and 28. Orations, p. 262. 357. 368. 479. as Elias Cretensis, in his Commentary on those places testifieth, useth the words Bishops and Presbyter, reciprocally; stiling Bishops Presbyters, and Pres∣byters Bishops; making them all one by divine institution, and different onely by humane invention, which difference hee heartily wisheth, were abolished; himselfe p 1.236 voluntarily resigning his Bishopricke of Constantinople, to be take himselfe to a more private

and retired life. The Fathers therefore thus promiscuously using the name Bishop and Presbyter, stiling Bishops Presbyters; and Presbyters Bishops, and making both of them one and the same by divine institution, their stiling of Timothy and Titus, Bis∣hops of Ephesus and Crete, is no argument or proofe at all, that they were Diocaesan, or sole Bishops of those places; or that they had, or any Bishops now have, by divine institution, any Episcopall Iurisdiction and preeminence over other Presbyters or Ministers, or were superior to them, in order, dignity or degree.

Fourthly, The Greeke word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which we English, a Bishop, signifies properly nothing else, but an Overseer, Survayor, Superintendent, or Administrator, and is oft times applyed both by Greeke Authors, and the Septuagint Greeke Translators to secular offices * 1.237 Hence. † Homer, stiles Hector; the Bishop of the City: In the Verses of Solon in Demostenes, Pallas is called the Bishop of Athens: Plutarch in the life of Numa, stiles Venus the Bishop over the dead, and hee there makes mention of a Bishop of the Vestall Virgins. Suidas records, that in the Athenian Republike; those who are sent to the Cityes under their Jurisdiction, to oversee the affaires of their Companions; were called Bishops. Cicero in his seaventh Booke to Atticus, writes thus, Pompey will have mee to be the Bis∣hop of all Compagnia and the Maritine Coastes, to whom the choise and summe of the businesse may be referred. And in the Pandects, the Clerkes of the Markets are called Bishops. The Septuagint Numb. 13. read the Bishops of the Army; ‡ 1.238 4. Kings 11. they read; the Bishops who are over the Army, and the Bishops over the howse of the Lord. Where Watchmen, Guardians, and Overseers, are called Bishops, 2. Chron. 34. The Overlookers of the Workemen, are stiled Bishops; Iudges 9. Zebul is called Abimeleches Bishop, in the Greeke; which we now Eng∣lish, his Officer: So Num. 4. 16. The office of Eliazar, in the Ta∣bernacle of the Lord, and the function of Judas, Psalm. 109. 8.

is tormed 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, a Bishopricke, by the Septuagint; and so ex∣presly stiled by the Holy Ghost himselfe, and Englished by us, Acts. 1. 20. His Bishopricke let another take, yea, Constantine the greate (as ‡ Eusebius records in his life) inviting some Bishops * 1.239 to a Feast, called himselfe a Bishop in their presence, uttering these words, You sayth hee, are Bishops within the Church, but I am con∣stituted of God a Bishop without the Church. Our New Transla∣tors, Acts. 20. 28. render the Greeke word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (the title which hee gives to the Elders of the Church of Ephesus) Over∣seers: Luke. 19. 44. The time of Gods visitation and overthrow of Ierusalem, is termed 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 &c. Luke. 1. 6. 7. 8. c. 7. 16. Heb. 2. 6. The Greeke word which we translate, hath visited us, is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Whence the day of Gods gracious vi∣sitation of his people to convert them to him in mercy, is called by the Holy Ghost, 1. Pet. 2. 12. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 The day of vi∣sitation; yea our very visiting of sick persons, prisoners, Orphanes and Widdowes, is termed by Christ and the holy Ghost himselfe (though a meere act of charity, humility, and Christian duty, * 1.240 not of Jurisdiction and Lordly Prelacy,) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Math. 25. 36. 43. and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: Iam. 1. 27. to visit or to play the Bishops part and duty; which the meanest Christian, yea women (though uncapeable, of sacred orders) may doe and ought to performe, as well as any others. So intermedling with other mens affaires or couetting of any other mens offices of what condition soever, is termed by the Apostle, 1. Pet. 4. 15. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the playing as it were the Bishop in another mans Dioces. Yea every Mini∣sters feeding and taking the oversight of his proper flock, is sti∣led, the doing of a Bishops office: and those Presbyters who doe thus, are not onely said to be 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. 1. Pet. 5. 21. that is, men executing the office and duty of a Bishop; but likewise stiled, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; that is, true and proper Bishops: a name given onely to Presbyters (and none but they in holy Scripture: Acts. 20. 28. Phil. 1. 1. Titus. 1. 7. and to Christ himselfe, who is stiled, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the Bishop of our Soules, 1. Pet. 2. 25. but not to any Apostle, Euangelist, Diocaesan,

or other Prelate; none such being particularly termed, a Bishop, ••hroughout the whole New Testament: The Fathers make Bis∣hops and Overseers all one, deriving the very name of a Bishop, from a Greeke verbe, which signifieth to over∣looke, watch, ward, or take care off. Hence ‡ 1.241 Augu∣stine writes thus; Hee did keepe, hee was carefull, hee did watch, as much as hee could, over those, over whom hee was set. And Bishops doe thus. For therefore an higher place is set for Bishops, that they may superintend, and as it were keepe the people. For that which in Greeke is called a Bishop, that in Latine is interpreted a Superintendent, be∣cause hee overseeth, because hee seeth from above. For like as an higher place is made for the vineyard keeper, to keepe the vineyard, so an higher place also is made for the Bis∣hops. And a perilous account is to be rendred of this high place, unlesse we stand therein with such an heart, that we may be under your feete in humility, and pray for you, that hee who knowes your mindes, hee may keepe you; because wee can see you entring and going out, but yet we are so farre from seeing what you thinke in your heartes, that we cannot so much as see what you doe in your howses. How there∣fore doe we keepe you like men, as much as we can, as much as we have received. We keepe you out of the office of dispensation, but we will be kept together with you: we are as Pastours to you, but under that Pastor (Christ,) we are sheep together with you: we are as teachers to you out of this place, but under that one Master wee are Schollers with you in this Schoole. If we will be kept by him who was humbled for us, and is exalted to keepe us, let us be humble. * 1.242 Those set themselves before Christ, who will be high here, where hee was humble; Let them therefore be humble

here, if they will be exalted there, where hee is exalted. In another place hee writes thus; * 1.243 For this cause the Apostle saith, Hee that desires a Bishopricke, desires a good worke. Hee would expound what a Bishopricke is: it is a name of labour not of honor. For it is a Greeke word, and derived from hence, that hee who is made an Overseer, overseeth those, over whom hee is set, namely by taking care of them. For 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is over, but 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is intention, overseeing or care: therefore if we will render 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in Latine, we may say it is to play the Superintendent; that hee may under∣stand, that hee is not a Bishop, who delights to be over o∣thers, but not to profit them. On which words Ludovi∣cus Vives thus Comments; The name of a Bishop is de∣rived either from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which signifieth to consider, or from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which signifieth the same and to visit. Whence S••idas saith, there were some sent from the Athe∣nians to the Cities under them, who should looke into their affaires: 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 com∣plaineth that the Bishops were made a snare on Mizpah (or in the watch tower,) and a net spread upon Tabor; as if hee had spoken of the † 1.244 Bishops of this age, who lay snares in their Bishoprickes and large nets to catch many, but not with thinne holes or threades, least the gift should swim thorough: yea now it is so provided by the diligence and wits of certaine men, that without evasion of this Law, a Bishopricke may not onely be lawfully desired, but like∣wise bought and sold. S. Chrysostome in his 10. Hom. upon the 1. Tim. S. Hierom in his Epistle to Evagrius, Beda

on the 1. Pet. 2. 25. Anselme on Phil. 1. 1. Aquinas secun∣da secundae: Qu. 184. Art. 6. Petrus de Palude. de Potest. Coll. Apostol. Art. 1. (all cited by Bishop Iewell in the Defense of the Apologie of the Church of England, part. 6. c. 2. Divis. 1. p. 523.) and S. Bernard also, de Conside∣ratione ad Eugenium, l. 2. & 3. joyntly resolve; that a Bishop is nothing else, but a Superintendent, Watchman, or Overseer, and that hee is called a Bishop from hence, that hee overseeth, survaieth, or watcheth over others, with which all other ancient and moderne writers, whether for∣raigne or domestique, Papists or Protestants accord. Heare onely Doctor Iohn Ponet Bishop of Winchester, in his Apology against Doctor Martin, in defence of Preists mariage, c. 4. 5. p. 44. 52. 53. 54. who as hee there expresly reckons up Popes, Cardinals, BIS∣HOPS, Preists, Monkes, Canons, Friers, &c. to be the Orders of Antichrist; * 1.245 taxing them likewise severely and comparing them with the Eustathian heretickes for refu∣sing to weare usuall garments, and putting upon them gar∣ments of strange fashions, to vary from the common sort of people in apparell: So hee thus determines of the name Bishop and Superintendent: And further whereas it pleaseth Martin not onely in this place, but also hereafter to est at the name of Superintendent, hee sheweth himselfe bent to condemne all things that be good, though in so doing ••ee cannot avoyd his open shame. Who knoweth not that the name Bishop hath so beene abused, that when it was spo∣ken, the people understood nothing else, but a great Lord, that went in a white Rochet, with a wide shaven Crowne, and that carrieth an oyle boxe with him, where hee used once in 7. yeare riding about to confirme children, &c.

Now to bring the people f••••m this abuse, what better meanes 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 terme superintendent would in time have beene well brought to posse. For the ordinary paines of such as were called superintendents, should have taught the people to understand the duty of their Bishop, which you Papists would faine have hidden from them. And the word Superintendent being a very Latine word made English by use, should in time have taught the people by the very Ety∣mology and proper signification, what things was meant, when they heard that name which by this terme 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 looke for at their Bishops hands. For the name Bishop, spoken amongst the unlearned, signified to them nothing lesse then a preacher of Gods word, because there was not, nor is any thing more rare in any order of Ecclesiasticall persons, then to see a Bishop preach, whereof the doings of the Popish Bishops of England can this day witnesse; but the name superintendent should make him ashamed of his negligence, and afraid of his idlenes, know∣ing * 1.246 that S. Paul doth call upon him to attend to himselfe and to his whole flock, of the which sentence our Bishops marke the first pecce right well, (that is, to take heed to themselves, but they be so deafe, they cannot hearken to the second) that is, to looke 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 goodnesse of the word, it cannot be denied, but that it was not amisse to joyne for a time another

word with it in his place, wherby 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 finde fault withall. For Peresius the Spaniard and an Archpapist, (out of whom Martin hath stolen a great part of his Booke) speaking of a Bishop, saith: Primum Episcopi munus nomen ipsum prae se fert, quod est spperintendere, Episcopus enim Superintendens interpreta〈…〉〈…〉 visitans aut supervi∣dens, &c. That is to say: The cheife office of a Bis∣hop by interpretation, signifieth a Superintendent, a Visitor, or an Overseer. Why did not Martin as well steale this peece out of Peresius, as hee did steale all the common places that hee hath for the proofe of the Canons, of the Apostles, and of Traditions in his second and third Chapters? Mar∣tin in the 88. leafe is not ashamed in his Booke to divide the significations of the termes, (Bishop and Superinten∣dent,) 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 prophane and Christian writers, and in the Scripture it selfe, for any Officer, Overseer, Survayer, Superintendent, Watchman, Guardian, Pastor, or Keeper, as well temporall and civill, as Ecclesiasticall, and all these their offices stiled in Greeke, a Bishopricke: since every Pastor, Watchman, Pres∣byter, 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 Scri∣ptures Language called a Bishop, and said, to act, to doe the office

of a Bishop: since those who out of charity, love, or freind∣ship goe to visit others, who are either sicke, poore, Father∣lesse, or otherwise distressed, and God himselfe when hee comes, to punish or shew mercy unto others, are in the Greeke and Scripture phrase, said, to visit and play the Bishops; as ap∣peareth by the forecited Scriptures, and by Acts. 15. 36. Where Paul said to Barnabas 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which we translate, Let us goe againe and visit our Brethren, in every Ci∣ty, where we have preached the word of the Lord, and see how they doe. From which text the * 1.247 Rhemists would make Bishops, or∣dinary visitation, to be Jure Divino; but this was no Lordly E∣piscopall visitation such as our Bishops now keepe, for we read of no visitation Articles, oathes, fees or presentmens in it; nei∣ther were Paul and Barnabas Bishops, but it was a meere visi∣tation of love, as one freind visits another, not of Jurisdiction, as the last words: And see how they doe, together with the Coun∣cell of Laodicea, Can. 57. expound it, and verse 14. Symon hath declared how God 〈◊〉〈◊〉 at the first 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 did visit the Gen∣tiles, to take out of them a people for his name. And Acts. 7. 23. When Moses was full 40. yeares old, it came into his heart 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, to visit his brethren, the children of Israell; and since these words 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, (that is) to visit, over∣see, or play the Bishop, ‡ 1.248 imply no Lordship; Soveraingty, Do∣minion, Jurisdiction, or Lordly Episcopall authority in them, (at least no such as our Bishops now claime and exercise:) but rather an Act of humility, charity, Service, and inferiority to the persons visited, as is evident by Mathew 25. 3. 6. 43. Acts. 7. 23. c. 15. 36. Iam. 1. 27. Heb. 2. 6. 1. Pet. 5. 2. 3. 5. It hence unanswerably followes, that Bishops Episcopall Lordly visitations, are not Iure Divino, and that other Ministers are as much Visitors, and may visit as well as they, that every Presby∣ter, Minister, Curate who doth faithfully discharge his duty, * 1.249 is as much, as truly, as properly a Bishop, both in the Scri∣ptures language and in Gods account, as any Diocaesan Bishop or Prelate whatsoever; That those Bishops who merge themselves

in pleasures, idlenesse, or secular affaires, and doe not diligently, faithfully, intirely give themselves to preach Gods word, in∣struct and teach the people, visit the Fatherlesse, imprisoned, sicke, poore, widdowes, and flockes committed to them; (which few of our Prelates now deine to doe) are * 1.250 in truth, in Gods, in Christs account, and in the Scriptures language, no Bishops at all, what ever they pretend; that the word Bishop, is ‡ 1.251 not a title of Dominion, Soveraingty, Jurisdiction, Glory, Power, Preheminency, Pompe, State, Authority, and Com∣maund, (as our Bishops, who now presume to monopolize it to themselves alone, though common〈…〉〈…〉 Gods word and an∣cient writers to every Minister, pretend,) but of humility, office, service, labor, care, circumspection, watchfulnesse, meeknesse, tender-heartednesse, charity, familiarity, and brotherly kindnes, (which most Prelates have now quite shaken off.) The Fathers stiling therefore of Timothy, Bishop of Ephesus, or Titus Bishop of Crete, or Bishops, will neither proove them to be Diocaesan; or sole Bishops of those Churches, or that they had a superiori∣ty or Iurisdiction as they were Bishops over all other Ministers or Presbyters in those Churches; or that Archbishops or Bis∣hops are Iure Divino superior to, or different in order or degree from Presbyters, who have the selfesame Commission or authority, given them by Christ, as they; and so have equall authority with them, and are as much Bishops every way by Gods Law, as they; even as every High Commissioner of the Quorum, is as much an High Commissioner as the Archbishop of Canter∣bury or Yorke, and hath as much authority as an High Com∣missioner, as they; since they have all the selfesame Commis∣sion, which gives no greater power to one of them then the o∣ther, but the same to both. Indeed had Christ given a different Commission to his Apostles and the seaventy Disciples, or to Timothy and Titus, then to other Elders and Bishops of the Churches of Ephesus and Crete, or to Bishops, then hee hath given to Presbyters and Ministers, there might have beene some ground to have prooved the 12. Apostles, Timothy, Tytus,

and Bishops, greater in Iurisdiction, power, authority, and de∣gree then the 70. Disciples, Presbyters, and other Ministers, by divine institution. But since it is apparant by * 1.252 the Scriptures, that the 12. Apostles and 70. Disciples (what ever ‡ 1.253 some men have rashly determined to the contrary) had but one and the selfe∣same commission given unto them by Christ; that Timothy, Titus, Archbishops, Bishops, and other Prelates have no other, no larger Patent, Commission or authority granted unto them by Christ, then Presbyters and ordinary Ministers, (as the booke of Ordination manifests: where the same words are used, the same commission gi∣ven from God, to Ministers at the ordination of every Minister, as there is to Bishops at the consecration of any Archbishop or Bis∣hop) since they are all joyned together in one and the selfesame divine Charter, and all claime by one and the selfesame grant, (as is evident: by Math. 28. 19. 20. Marke. 6. 15, 16. Iohn. 20. 22. 23. Acts. 1. 8. c. 10. 47. c. 20. 17. 28. Col. 4. 17. 1. Tim. 3. 1. to 7. c. 4. 12. 13. c. 5. 17. 18. 20. 21. 22. c. 6. 11. 12. 17. 18. 19. 20. 2. Tim. 2. 14. 15. 16. c. 4. 1. to 16. Tit. 1. 5. to 14. c. 2. 1. to. 15. c. 3. 1. 2. 8. 9. 10. 1. Pet. 5. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 2. Pet. 1. 12. 13. 1. Cor. 1. 12. 13. 17. c. 3. 4. 5. to 11. 21. 22. c. 4. 1. 6. 7. 17. c. 9. 16. 17. c. 13. 29. 30. 31. 32. Ephes. 4. 11. 12. with other Scriptures) it is most apparant, and undeniable, that by Gods word and institution, they are all equall, both in point of office, power, Iurisdiction, and authority, not one of them greater, higher or superior then the other, having the selfe∣same divine ordination, commission, office, and charge.

Finally, * 1.254 Eusebius records onely, that Timothy IS RE∣PORTED to be the First Bishop of Ephesus, and Titus of the Churches in Crete: So that all the Fathers Authorities, (who follow Eusebius,) are grounded onely upon this bare report, not upon any certainty; therfore not to be granted or relyed on. The rather, ‡ 1.255 because there have beene anciently in Crete no lesse then 4. Archbishops, and 21. Bishops, Suff••••aganes: now it is very improbable that Paul would institute Titus Archbishop or

Superintendent generall of all Crete, it being so large a circuit, having so many Archbishops and Bishops Sees within it, and hee so little resident in, so often absent from it, as I have manifested in the premises. From all which I presume, I may safely conclude this second question against the common received Errour, that Titus was never Bishop or Archbishop of Crete, what ever our Prelates and their favourites have written to the contrary: And so Timothy being neither a Diocaesan Bishop of Ephesus, nor Titus of Creet, the pretended Hierarchy of our Prelates Iure divino, built onely upon the * 1.256 sandy foundation of these two sup∣posed Bishops Bishoprickes, must needs now fall to ruine; and they being now lifted up so High aboue their fellow Brethren, their fall must certainly proove very great. They have long since, (many of them) forsaken God, the teaching of his word, the chiefe part ‡ 1.257 of their spirituall functions, banded themselues against his truth, Ministers, people, and the preaching of his Gospel, which they suppresse and put downe in all places; yea such is their despe∣rate impiety, that whereas in all former times of Plages and Pesti∣lence, (yea in * 1.258 1. Iacobi and Caroli) there hath beene by pu∣blike authority a speciall day of fasting, prayer, preaching, and hu∣miliation appointed every weeke (especially in infected places) to divert Gods heavy judgements, as the chiefe antidote against all Plages and judgements, prescribed by God himselfe, * 1.259 yet now they are growen such open fighters against God, Religion, the spirituall, the temporall good and safety of the people, that to prevent the plague, (as they pretend, but in truth to increase it more, and to suppresse preaching, piety and religion) they begin to put downe all weekeday Lectures, and Lords day sermons in the afternoone, (as if Gods publike ordinances and service, the best re∣medie against, were a meanes to increase and spread, not stay the plague) yea they debarre † 1.260 Ministers from using any prayers at all after their sermons, or any other prayer before them, then what the 55. Canon prescribes, in which there is not a word of prayer against the plague, drought, famine, sword or pestilence. By meanes whereof, inhibiting Ministers thus to reproove the people

for their sinnes, which provoke Gods wrath and judgements at this present, & so to bring them to repentance for them f 1.261 by their preaching; or to pray against the plague and other judgements of God, which now lie hard upon the Kingdome, which these sinnes have occasioned; and hindring that publike weekely fasting, preaching & prayer, which God by his judgements * 1.262 now calls for at our hands; they have made not onely the Kingdome, but them∣selves especially, ripe for ruine. And being now for these their atheisticall godles practises, their enmity to God, his truth, his faithfull Ministers and people, their Lordlines, tyranny, pride, op∣pression, wordlines, prophanes, and irreligion fallen under the ve∣ry g 1.263 execration of God himselfe, and h 1.264 the curses of his people, who day and night crie for vengeance against them, as Gods sworne and most professed open enemies; and having no divine foundation, prop, or pillar now left, where with to support their tottering thrones and Miters, needs mu•••• they shortly, like that ‡ 1.265 High Preist Ely, fall from their high-towring seates backward, and so breake their neckes, to the ioy of all Gods people, whom they now by their persecutions and innovations so much oppresse; Even so let all thine enemies perish, O Lord; but let them that love thee, be as the sunne, when it goeth forth in his might.

Notes

• * 1.1

  That Timo∣thy was no Bishop.
• a 1.2

  See Gerso∣nius Bucerus De Guber∣natione Ec∣clesiae: p. 512. 513. usque 518.
• b 1.3

  See Cent. Magd l. 2. c. 10. Col. 625. 626.
• * 1.4

  If Post∣scripts be of Credit as the Bishops make them.
• * 1.5

  † If Timo∣theus were then Bishop of Ephesus, why did Paul thus send him from his Cure, and Bishops See?
• * 1.6

  See 1. Tim. 3. 14. 15.
• * 1.7

  That Timo∣thy was not Bishop of Ephesus.
• * 1.8

  1. Tim. 3. 14. c. 4. 13. Gersonius, Bucerus, De Gubernatio∣ne Ecclesiae. p. 502. us∣que 507.
• * 1.9

  † Vide Chy∣traeum On a mast. in Ti∣motheum, & Gersonium Bucerum: Dissertat. De Guber. Ec∣clesiae. p. 506. 507.
• * 1.10

  Note well.
• * 1.11

  That Timo∣thy was nei∣ther the sole, nor the first-Bishop of Ephesus.
• † 1.12

  Bucerus De Guber∣nat. ••ccles p. 506 usque 510. Cent. Magdeb. 1. l. 2. c. 10. Col. 626.
• ‡ 1.13

  See Gerso∣nius Bucerus, De Guber. Eccles. p. 302, 303, 304.
• g 1.14

  Contra hae∣res. l. 4. c. 43 44. and l. 3. c. 2.
• h 1.15

  Epist. 5. 6. 7. 8.
• i 1.16

  Com. in Phil. l. 1. 1. Tit. 1. 5. 7.
• k 1.17

  In Ephes. 4.
• l 1.18

  Sedulius in Tit. 1. 5.
• m 1.19

  Contra Haereses l. 1. Haeres. 27. col. 88. 89. Eccles. Hist. l. 3. c. 31.
• n 1.20

  Apologia contra Gentes c. 39.
• ‡ 1.21

  Advers. Haer. l. 3. c. 3
• p 1.22

  Eccl. Hist. l. 3, c. 23,
• q 1.23

  Eccl. Hist. l. 2. 42. 44. 46.
• r 1.24

  In Lipom. De vitis Sanct. l. 1. de Iohanne.
• s 1.25

  Catal. Script. Eccl. Iohannes.
• t 1.26

  Onomast. in Ioan.
• u 1.27

  Annal. Tom. 1.
• * 1.28

  August. E∣pist. 86.
• * 1.29

  Chronol. Isag.
• x 1.30

  De Tima∣theo.
• y 1.31

  Cent. 1. l 2. c. 10. col. 626.
• z 1.32

  Niceph l. 3. c. 71. Vin∣centius Spec. Hist. l. 38. c. 10.
• b 1.33

  Beda in A∣poc. 1. and 2. Aretas in A∣pocal. 2. & 3. Ambros. Ausbert in Apoc. l. 2. & Primasius in Apoc. 2. Brightman. Gersonius Bucerus De Guber. Eccl. p. 205. 393 408. 419. 422. 433. usque 466. 472. 484. 485,
• c 1.34

  Preface to the Treatise of the Sab∣bath. Bishop Downham in his conse∣cration ser∣mon.
• ‡ 1.35

  Comment. on Gal. 6. p. 497. 498. 499.
• * 1.36

  Perchance Theodoret. the first in whom I finde any Post∣scripts. 430. yeares after Christ.
• * 1.37

  See Master Perkins com∣ment. on Gal. 6. p. 497. 498. 499. when this is largely prooved.
• * 1.38

  Comment. on Gal. 6. p. 497. 498. 499.
• † 1.39

  See Tripart. Hist. l. 11. c. 3. Theodoret. Eccl. Hist. l. 4. c. 7. the Title of the Chapter. So∣crates. Eccles. Hist. l. 7. c. 3. Nicepho∣rus. Eccl. hist. l. 14. c. 11. (the first who stile it Pacatiana) and those who have la∣tely commē∣ted on, and written a∣gainst this Postscript. Surius Conc. Can. 1. p. 453. Tom. 2. 2. p. 11. 12. 221. 438. 461. 479. 480. 483. 488 413. 499. 503. 505. 520. 553. 580. 589. 599. 601. Carolin Sigonius de occidentali Imperio. l. 3. p. 90.
• * 1.40

  Master Perkins Commentar. on Gal. 6. p. 497. 499. 499.
• d 1.41

  Eccles. Hist. l. 3. c. 4. as Meredith Hammer an English Bishop, Eng∣lished it, in his English translation of Eusebius.
• e 1.42

  2. Tim. 4. 6. 7. 8. 9. with all Ex∣positors on this Epistle and the Post∣script of it if of any force or truth
• * 1.43

  1. Tim. 1. 3. 4.
• ‡ 1.44

  2. Tim. 4. 12. Ephes. 6. 21. 22.
• f 1.45

  2. Tim. 4. 1. 2.
• g 1.46

  Fox Acts & Monuments pag. 1153. Nicolaus De Clemangijs de corrupto Eccl. Statu c. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. Bishop Latymers Sermon of the plough.
• * 1.47

  See the Rhe∣mists in their Preface to this Episile.
• h 1.48

  Hierom, Ambrose, Chrysostome, Sedulius, Primasius, Theodoret, Theophylact, Remigius, Rabanus, Maurus, Anselmus, Occumenius, Alenfis, Lombard, Bruno with all late Ex∣positors on 1. Tim. 3. Phil. 1. 1. Tit. 1. 5. 7. Acts. 20. 17. 28. and Master Cart∣wright, in his Answer to the Rhemists Preface.
• i 1.49

  Non solum Timotheum sed & omnem per hoc ad∣monet Epis∣copum: Oe∣cumenius in 1. Tim. 5. 1.
• k 1.50

  2. Tim. 3. 16. 1. Tim. 6. 1. to 21.
• ‡ 1.51

  Div〈…〉〈…〉 Basilius it a interpretatus est, quasi ni∣hil hujus capitis ad ordinationem pertineat. Occumenius, in 1. Tim. 5. 22.
• * 1.52

  † Conference at Hampton Court. p. 89. 90. Me••ini Celsae Com∣missionis A∣natomia. Fullers argu∣ment. 1607 The Petition of Greivances 7. Iacobi.
• * 1.53

  m Chrysost. Theodoret. Theophilact. Oecumenius, and other on this text. The Brethren of London in King Henry the 8. his dayes in their Letter to Thomas Phi∣lips▪ Fox Acts and Monumens. p. 951.
• † 1.54

  Concilium Antiochenū, Can 20. Gratian. Distinct. 18. Conc. Aphri∣canum, Can. 18. Chalce∣donense. Can. 19. Nicaenū. Can. 5. Tole∣tanum, 3. Can. 18. Sy∣nodus Fran∣cica, Anno. 742. Conc. Meldense, Can. 32. with many more.
• n 1.55

  Dissertatio de Guber. Ecclesiae p. 506. 507. 508.
• o 1.56

  Controv. 4. Quest. 1 c. 2. Sect. 16.
• * 1.57

  Vide pag. 490. usque 524.
• ‡ 1.58

  See Gerso∣nius Bucerus p. 518. 519. p Eccles. hist. l. 3. c. 4. as Meredith Hamner, a Bishop Eng∣lisheth it.
• * 1.59

  In 1. Tim. 3.
• ‡ 1.60

  See Doctor Raynolds conference, with Hart. p. 213.
• q 1.61

  Defensor Pacis, pars. 2. c. 16. Vl∣ricus Velenus, Petrus non venisse Ro∣mam, neque illicpassus est.
• r 1.62

  Senatus Consulius Franciae con∣tra abusus Paparum. 162. to 172.
• s 1.63

  Doctor Ray∣nolds confe∣rence with Hart. c. 6. Divis. 3. p. 210. to 218. Balaeus in Act. Rom. Pontif. l. 1. Praefation. Christopher Carlile his S. Peters life and Peregrination, prooving that Peter was never at Rome. R. Bernard his fabulous foundation of the Popedome.
• * 1.64

  Fox Acts and Monu∣ments p. 1465. Ger∣sonius Buce∣rus De Gu∣bernat. Eccl. p. 432. us{que} 500. 519. 520. to 540.
• t 1.65

  Advers. Haereses. l. 3. c. 2. 3. l. 4. c. 43. 44. 45.
• u 1.66

  De Prae∣scriptionibus advers. Hae∣reticos.
• x 1.67

  Eusebius Eccles. Hist. l. 5. c. 12. 22 Fox Acts & Monuments p. 1465.
• * 1.68

  Acts. 18. 18. 19.
• * 1.69

  Timothy no Diocaesan Bishop of Ephesus.
• * 1.70

  See Gerso∣nius Bucerus Dissertatio De Gubern. Eccl. p. 213. 246. 282. 302. 303. 304. 307. 308. 416. 417. 461. accordingly.
• * 1.71

  Ioannes de At〈…〉〈…〉, Con∣stit. provin. fol. 122. Lynd. pro∣vin Constit. l: 3. Tit. De Parochiis. fol. 134.
• * 1.72

  Acts. 19. 10. c. 20. 31
• * 1.73

  Quaestion. 2.
• * 1.74

  Homer. Odys. 19.
• ‡ 1.75

  Mercators Atlas in English London. 1635. p. 812.
• * 1.76

  Quoted by Doctor Bar∣nes in his Workes. p. 210. See Gersonius Bucerus de Guberaat. Ecclesiae. p. 520, 621
• * 1.77

  Adversus Haereses. Tit. Episcopus.
• * 1.78

  p. 210.
• ‡ 1.79

  See Gerso∣nius Bucerus, p. 233. 261. 398. usque 402. 556. Th. Cartwright 2. Reply to Whitgift, p. 404. to 616.
• * 1.80

  See Ana∣cleti Epist. 3. c. 3. Surius Concil. Tom. 1. p. 165.
• a 1.81

  Galfridus Monumi∣tensis. histor. l. 5. c. 19. Ponticus Ve∣runnius Brit. hist. l. 4. p. 106. Poli∣chron. l. 4. c. 16. f. 163. Antiquit. Eccles. Brit. p. 7. with sundry others.
• ‡ 1.82

  Surius Concil. Tom. 1. p. 140. 163. 165. 342. 505: 392. Tom. 2. p. 1046. Tom. 3. p. 547. Socrates Eccles. Hist. l. 5. 6. 8. Euagirus Eccl. Hist. l. 2. c. 18.
• * 1.83

  In his Re-ply to Tho. Cartwright. See Cart∣wright his second Reply against Whit∣gift Tract. 8. fol. 414. to 616.
• * 1.84

  An, Mes∣uini Petri Adamsoni Palinodia printed An. 1620.
• d 1.85

  De Guber∣nat. Eccl. p. 233. to 238. 299. to 390. 394. 395. 396. 397. 490. to 423 580. 581.
• * 1.86

  David Dickson his short expla∣nation on the Epistle to the Hebrewes. p. 332. 333.
• † 1.87

  Master Per∣kins his Com∣mentary on Gal. 6. p. 496. 497 498. 499.
• * 1.88

  Commen∣tary on Gal. 6. Vol 2. p. 499.
• ‡ 1.89

  Bishop La∣timers fourth Sermon of the plough, Fox Acts & Monuments, p. 119. 120.
• * 1.90

  So the Sta∣tutes of 25. H. 8 c. 29. 37. H. 8. c. 17. 27. H. 8. c. 15. 1. E. 6. c. 2. 1 E∣liz c. 1. 2. 8. Eliz. c. 1. 25. H. 8. c. 21. 31. H. 8. c. 9. 14. 32. H. 8. 15. 16. 2. H. 5. c. 1. 14. Eliz. c. 5. expresly re∣solve. That the power of or∣dination of Ministers belongs not onely to Bis∣hops.
• e 1.91

  Fox Acts & Monuments. p. 1465.
• ‡ 1.92

  Acts. 13. 1. 2. 3.
• * 1.93

  3. Ed. 6. c. 32. 8. Eli∣zab. c. 1.
• g 1.94

  Gersonius Bucerus, p. 33. 158. to 162. 262. 499. 500. 517. 518. 540. 622. 623. 318. to 367.
• h 1.95

  Surius Tom. 1. p. 513.
• * 1.96

  Distinct. 23.
• k 1.97

  Notes on the 1. Tim. 4. 14.
• l 1.98

  Distinct. 23. 24. 25.
• m 1.99

  Appendix ad Catal. Testium Ve∣ritatis.
• n 1.100

  Dissertat. deGubernat. Eccles. p. 318. to 367. 464. 465. 493. 498. 499. 524. See Canon. 35.
• o 1.101

  Surius, Tom. 1. p. 296.
• ‡ 1.102

  Surius Ibid. p. 403. 404
• * 1.103

  Constit. A∣post. l. 3. c. 10. 11. 20.
• † 1.104

  Surius Tom. 2. p. 719. Tom. 1. p. 800.
• ‡ 1.105

  Exod. 40.
• * 1.106

  Psal. 98.
• ‡ 1.107

  See Concil. Carthag. 2. An. 428. c. 3. 4. Gra∣tian. Causa. 20. quest. 6. Concil. Car∣thag. 3. c. 36. Gratian. Caus 16. quest. 6.
• * 1.108

  Leo Epist. 86.
• x 1.109

  Exod. 28. 1. to 43. c. 29. 5. to 45. c. 30. 7. 10. 30. Heb. 5. 4. 5. c. 7. 11.
• y 1.110

  Numb. 25. 35.
• z 1.111

  Heb. 4. 14. 15. c. 5. 1. to 11. c. 6. 20. c. 7. 20. to 28. c 8. 1. to 7. c. 9. 1. to 28. c. 10. 11 to 23.
• a 1.112

  Exod. 29. 1. to 39. c. 30. 25, to 31 c. 40. 1. to 34.
• b 1.113

  1. King 8. 2. Cron. c. 6. 8.
• c 1.114

  Heb. 7. & 8. & 9. & 10.
• * 1.115

  Augustin. Serm. 99. de tempore. Whitekar. Contr. 4. qu. 1. c. 2. Wil∣let. Symopsis Papismi. Cont. 5. q. 3.
• d 1.116

  Heb. 9. 14. 15. c. 5. 1. to 11. c. 6. 20. c. 7. & 8. & 9. & 10.
• e 1.117

  Heb. 6. 20.
• f 1.118

  Heb. 13. 20. 1. Pet. 5. 4.
• g 1.119

  1. Pet. 2. 25.
• h 1.120

  Math. 18. 1. &c. c. 28. 19. Mark. 16. 15 Iohn. 15. 16. 4. Ephes. 8. 11. 12. 13. 1. Tim 4. 14. Acts. 13. 1. 2. 3.
• † 1.121

  Exod. c. 29 & 30. & 40. compared with Acts 6. 1. to 8. c. 14. 23. c. 13. 1. 2. 3. Tit. 1. 5. 1. Tim. 4. 14. c. 5. 12.
• * 1.122

  Gersonius Bucerus de Gubernat. Eccles. p. 264. 265. 269. 291. 269. 308. 309. 446. 501. 502.
• k 1.123

  Acts. 13. 3. 1. Tim. 4. 14. The Rhemists with all late Commentators, Ibidem, and some ancient too.
• † 1.124

  Surius Tom. 3 p. 299.
• m 1.125

  Surius Ib. p. 300.
• n 1.126

  De Instit. Clerico∣rum. l. 1. c. 4.
• * 1.127

  Gen. 27. & 28.
• ‡ 1.128

  Gen. 48.
• q 1.129

  Surius Tom. 4. p. 965.
• r 1.130

  Lib. 7.
• s 1.131

  Examen Concil. Tri∣dentini, pars 2. De Sacra∣mento Ord.
• t 1.132

  Ibid. p. 968.
• u 1.133

  Epist. 2. c. 2. apud Su∣rium. Tom. 1. p. 161. recited by Gratian. Distinct. 67.
• x 1.134

  Gratian. Distinct. 61. 62. 63. 64. &c.
• y 1.135

  Illyr. Cata∣logus Testium veritatis An. 1562. Appendix, p. 23. to 56. vera demon∣stratio, quod Electio Prae∣sulum & Episcoporum non ad Eccle∣siasticos so∣lum sed & ad Laicos, vocant, perti∣neat, quod{que} hi hoc jure Electionisinde usque à Christi temporibus annis: 1500. usisunt.
• z 1.136

  Epist. ad Evagrium. & in Tit. 1.
• a 1.137

  Cont. haeres l. 3. haer. 75.
• c 1.138

  In Ephes. 4. & 1 Tim 414
• d 1.139

  Quaestiones ex utroque Testamento mixtim. quaest 101.
• e 1.140

  Epist. 86.
• * 1.141

  b De Eccle∣siasticis Of∣ficiis, l. 2. c. 7.
• * 1.142

  f Aquinas Supplemen∣tum Quaest. 38. Artic. 1.
• g 1.143

  Ambros. in Ephes. 4.
• h 1.144

  Quaestiones ex utroque Testamento mixtim. quaest. 101.
• i 1.145

  C••nt. Hae∣res. l. 3. Tom. 1. Haer. 75.
• * 1.146

  See Cent. Magd. 3. De Ritibus circa vocationem & ordinatio∣nē Col. 135.
• k 1.147

  1. Tim. 4. 14.
• * 1.148

  Appendix Catalogo Testium ve∣ritatis p. 23. to 56. Ger∣sonius Buce∣rus De Gu∣bernat. Eccl. p. 25. 130. 131. 318. usque 334. 346. usque 354. 360. 361. 362. 363. 364. 414. 609.
• * 1.149

  De Vitis Pontificum p. 53.
• ‡ 1.150

  See Surius Concil. Can. 1. p. 188. 161. 163. 341. 369. 376. 406. 502. 506. 574. Tom. 2 p. 187. 656. Tom. 1. p. 699. 718 467. Tom. 2 p. 264. 267 268. 272. 638. 731.
• * 1.151

  Antiquit. Eccl. Brit. p. 302.
• m 1.152

  In 1. Tim. 4. 14.
• n 1.153

  In 1. Tim. 4. 14.
• o 1.154

  In 1. Tim. 4. 14.
• p 1.155

  Ambrose in Ephes. 4. & 1. Tim. 3. Hierome, Sedulius, Theodoret, Primasius, Rabanus Maurus, Re∣migius, Oecu∣menius, Theophila∣ctus, Alsel∣mus, Beda, Bruno &c. in Phil. 1. 1. 1. Tim. 3. Tit. 1. 5. 7. Acts. 20 17 28.
• q 1.156

  In 1. Tim. 4. 14. Lect. 3.
• r 1.157

  In 1. Tim. 4. 14.
• s 1.158

  Supplemen∣tum Quaest. 38. Arti. 1.
• * 1.159

  In 4. Sent. Dist. 24. quaest, 5. 6.
• u 1.160

  Summa Angelica Ordo Sect. 13. and In∣nocentius there cited.
• x 1.161

  Filiuc. Ic∣suita De Ca∣sibus Consc. pars 1. Tract. 9. c. 5.
• y 1.162

  Lydij Wal∣densia p. 23.
• z 1.163

  Fox Acts & Monuments p. 210. Ca∣tal. Testium Veritatis tit. Waldenses p. 445.
• a 1.164

  Argument. & Respons. pars 7. De potestat. Episc. Arg. 2
• ‡ 1.165

  In 1. Tim. 4. 14.
• * 1.166

  In 1. Tim. 4. 14.
• † 1.167

  Argum. & Resp. par•• 7. De Ordin. Minist. in Argum. 1.
• † 1.168

  Loci Com-De Ministr. Verbi Dei.
• * 1.169

  De Ecclesi•• Cap. 11.
• ‡ 1.170

  Magist. Sentent. l. 4 c. 25.
• † 1.171

  Cent. 1. l. 2 c. 6. Ritus vo∣cationis & Ordinationis Col. 502.
• * 1.172

  Harmon. Confess. pars 2.
• † 1.173

  See Gerso∣nius Bucerus DeGubern. Eccl. p. 618.
• ‡ 1.174

  Presbytery & Episcopi sunt Iure di∣vino pares, id est, admini∣strant idem officium, eo∣dem modo, & eadem au∣ctoritate, Vn∣de Presbyteri impositionis manuum in pastoribus or∣dinandis jus habent. 1. Tim. 4. 14. Can. Presbyter. Distinct. 23. Sir Aman∣dus Polanus Syntagm. Theol. l. 7. c. 11.
• † 1.175

  Canons 1603. 36. 37.
• * 1.176

  See Bishop Iewols Re-ply to Harding. Artic. 4. Di∣vis. 25. Eu∣sebius Eccles. Hist. l. 3. c. 11. l. 6. c. 29. l. 3. l. 7. c. 3. Socr. Ec∣cles. Hist. l. 2. c. 6. l. 5. c. 7. 8. 9. 15. 〈◊〉〈◊〉. 7. p 3. 12. 26. 28. 29. 34. 35. 36. 45. l. 4. c. 6. Euagrius Ec∣cles. Hist. l. 2. c. 8. 11. l. 3. c. 11. 12. l. 4. c. 6. 3••. Gratian Distinct. 63. 79. Appendix ad Catalogum Test. Veritatis.
• m 1.177

  Wicklif. De 4. Sectis Novellis. c. 6. De Papa. c. 11.
• n 1.178

  Richardus Armachanus. Ad Quaest. Armenorum. l. 11. c. 1. to 8.
• o 1.179

  Waldnsis Cont. Wicl. Tome 3. c. 60 61 62. 63. & Tom. 1. l 2. Artic. 3. c. 57.
• * 1.180

  Tom. 3. c. 36. Sect. 1.
• * 1.181

  Controv. 2. qu. est. 5. c. 5.
• † 1.182

  Contra Duraeum l. 9. Sect. 55.
• * 1.183

  Manus im∣positio quid est aliud quàm oratio super▪ homi∣nem? Caus. 1. qu. 1. c. Manus. Am∣br. in 1. Tim. 4.
• ‡ 1.184

  In 1. Tim. 4. Lect. 3. See Gersoni∣us Bucerus De Gubern. Eccl. p. 337.
• * 1.185

  1. Tim. 3. 2.
• ‡ 1.186

  Linde∣woods Con∣stit. Provinc. l. 3. de Cen∣sibus. cap. Sena f. 160. 161.
• * 1.187

  See Wests Presidents: Warranti Sect. 574.
• * 1.188

  Bellarmi∣nus Ener. Tom. 2. l. 3. c. 2.
• ‡ 1.189

  Summa Angelica, Baptismus 5. Sect. 12. Concil. Car∣thag 4. Can. 39. 99. Gratian. Di∣stinct. 23. cap. Mulier.
• * 1.190

  Fox Acts & Monuments 1610. p. 465. 485. 501. 599. 1015. 1016. 1795. 1796.
• ‡ 1.191

  Tit. 1. 5.
• * 1.192

  Amesuis, Bellarminus Enervatus Tom. 2. l. 3. c. 2. & others forequoted.
• ‡ 1.193

  See Gerso∣nius Bucerus de Gubernat. Eccles. p. 33. 158. to 162. 261. 262. 499. 500. 517.
• * 1.194

  1. Cor. 12. 9. 10. Acts 10. 46.
• d 1.195

  Marsilius Patavinus Defene. Pacis pars 2. c. 20. 24. Fox Acts and Monum. p. 1153. Bishop La∣tymers Serm. of the plough. Nicolaus de Clemangiis de corrupto Eccles. statu. c. 14. 15. 16. Avent. Annal. Bojo∣rum. l. 6. Proaemio.
• * 1.196

  De Cleric. c. 4.
• f 1.197

  Thomas Bec ons Catechisme. f. 499. 500 The Institution of a Christian man: Ch. of orders; Gersonius Bucerus De Gub. Eccles. p. 33. 158. usque 162. 261. 162. 499. 500. 517. 518. 540. 622. 623.
• * 1.198

  See God∣wins cata∣logue of Bishops. p. 70. 72. 1114. 123. 143. 164. 185. 214. 220. 247. 249. 275. 345. 382. 422. 436. 448. 484. 501. 502. 568. 569. 570. 571. 572. 620. 621. 622. 630.
• † 1.199

  Godwins Catalogue of Bishops. p. 644. 657 660 Brooke County Pala∣tine 14. 15. 16. 18. 19. 24.
• ‡ 1.200

  Bellarmin. De Clericis l. 3. quest. 2.
• * 1.201

  Contra hae∣reses l. 3. Tom. 1. Haer. 75. Col. 759. 760.
• ‡ 1.202

  De Cleri∣cis. l. 3. Quaest. 2.
• * 1.203

  Sessio 23. De Sacramento Ordinis cap. 3. & Canon. 7.
• ‡ 1.204

  His Sermon Aprill 17. An. 1608. in this de∣fence of the honorable Function of Bishops; and his de∣fence of that Sermon since.
• o 1.205

  Gratian Distinct. 79. 63.
• p 1.206

  Gratian Distinct. 79. 63.
• * 1.207

  See Anti∣quitates Ec∣clesiae Brit. Godwins Ca∣talogue of the Archbishops of Canterbury and Yorke, Malmesbury De Gestis Pontificum Angliae, with Mason his Consecration of Bishops; and the booke of consecra∣tion of Bps.
• ‡ 1.208

  31. H. 8. c. 10.
• * 1.209

  The booke of Ordination of Ministers: & Can. 35.
• * 1.210

  See Anti∣quitates Ec∣cles. Brit, & Godwins ••a∣talogue of Bishops.
• † 1.211

  Marsilius Patavinus Def••nsoris Pac〈…〉〈…〉: pars. 2. c. 25.
• * 1.212

  Discip. Ser∣mo. 111. Bishop ••ewels Reply to Har∣ding. Artic. 22. Div. 10. p. 452. 453
• † 1.213

  Hebr▪ 4. 14▪ 15. c. 8. 1. c. 9. 11. c. 10. 21.
• ‡ 1.214

  Hebr. 13. 20. 1. Pet. 2. 25 c. 5. 4. Iohn. 10. 1. &c.
• * 1.215

  Concil. Constantien. Sessio 24. Bellarm. De Pontifice R••∣mano.
• * 1.216

  ‡ Exod. 29. & 35. L〈…〉〈…〉. 4. 3. 16. 1. Sam. 10. 1. c. 26 6. 11. Ps. 92. 10. 1. Kings 1. 39. c. 19. 15. 16.
• * 1.217

  Bishop Iewell▪ Reply to Harding. Article 4. Divis. 5. 6. 18. Richa••dus Armachanu•• De Quaest. Armenorum l. 11. c. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.
• ‡ 1.218

  Contr. haer. l. 3. haer. 75.
• ‡ 1.219

  Anselmu••, Haymo, Ra∣banus, Pri∣masius, Cal∣vin, Deering, and David Dickson on this text.
• * 1.220

  Heb. 4. 14. 15. c 8. 1. c. 9. 11. c. 10. 21.
• ‡ 1.221

  Heb. 13. 20. 1. Pet. 5. 4.
• * 1.222

  Ephes. 4. 10. 11. 1. Cor. 12. 28. Math. 9. 37. 38.
• ‡ 1.223

  Acts. 1. 25 26. Gal. 2. 8. 9, 11. 14 1. Cor. 12. 28. 29. 2. Cor. 11. 5
• * 1.224

  Canon. 33. 35. An. 1603.
• ‡ 1.225

  Canon. 31.
• ‡ 1.226

  1. Tim. 4. 6. 2. Tim. 4. 5. 1. Thes. 3. 2.
• * 1.227

  3. Ed. 6. c. 12. 8. Eliz. c. 1.
• * 1.228

  Eusebius Eccles Hist. l. 3. c. 39. p. 55.
• ‡ 1.229

  Bibliotheca. Patrum. Tom. 1. p. 96.
• * 1.230

  Apolog. c. 39. Tom. 1. p. 692. 693. 694.
• * 1.231

  Eusebius Eccles. Hist. l. 5. c. 16.
• ‡ 1.232

  Eusebius Eccles Hist. l. 5. c. 23.
• * 1.233

  Eusebius Eccles. Hist. l. 5. c. 20.
• o 1.234

  Ibid. e. 26.
• * 1.235

  Eusebius Eccles Hist. l. 7. c. 8.
• p 1.236

  See his life before his workes.
• * 1.237

  Aretius. Theolog Pro∣blemata. Lo∣cus 62. De Officiis Eccl. Sex. 9. p. 184. 186 Chenmitius Examen Concilij Tri∣dentini pars, 2. De Sacra∣mento Ordi∣nis. c. 4. p. 223. 224.
• ‡ 1.238

  Iliad. 1. 10
• * 1.239

  * De Vita Constantini. l. 4. c. 24.
• * 1.240

  So is the Word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 used by Basil. Epist. 52. not to ride in vi∣sitation like a Lordly Pre∣late, but to consider of the miserable state of the Church & to be carefull for it, as Bishop Iewell wit∣nesseth in his Defence of the Apology of the Church of England, part. 2. c. 3. Divis 5. p. 107.
• ‡ 1.241

  Enarratio: in Psal. 126. Tom. 8. pars. 2. p. 726. 727.
• * 1.242

  Let our great Pre∣lates marke this well.
• * 1.243

  De Civita∣te Dei. l. 19. c. 19. Tom. pars 2. p. 516.
• † 1.244

  Note this.
• * 1.245

  fol. 116.
• * 1.246

  Act. 20.
• * 1.247

  See Fulke and Cart∣wright. Ibid. m.
• ‡ 1.248

  Bishop Iewel. De∣fence of the Apology. part 2. c. 3. Divis. 5. p. 107.
• * 1.249

  Marsilius Patavinus Defens. Pacis pars. 2. c. 15. 16. Richar∣dus Arma∣chanus. Resp. ad Quaest. Armenorum l. 11. c. 1. to 8. Fox Acts and Monum. p. 1009. 1116. 1465.
• * 1.250

  Bishop Iewell. De∣fence of the Apol. part. 2. c. 3. Divis. 7. part. 111. Thomas Bea∣con his Cate∣chism. Vol. 1. f. 499. 500. Chry∣sost. Opus Imperf. in Matth. Hom. 3. & 43. Ambros. de Dign. Sa∣cerd. c. 4.
• ‡ 1.251

  August. De Civ. Dei l. 19. c. 19. Hier. Ambr. Sedul. Pri∣mas. Haymo, Rab. Maur. Chrysostom. Theodoret. Theophylact. Oecumenius, Anselmus, Beda, in 1. Tim. 3. 1. 2. Bernard. De Consid. ad Eugen. 2. & 3.
• * 1.252

  Math. 10. 1. to 16. Marke. 6. 7. to 12. Luke. 9. 1. to 6. compa∣red with Luke. 10. 1. to 21.
• ‡ 1.253

  Clemens. Epist. apud Surium. Tom. 1. p. 141. and others, who have since followed this forgery of his.
• * 1.254

  L. 3. c. 4. Eccl. Hist.
• ‡ 1.255

  See Merca∣tor Atlas Minor. p. 812.
• * 1.256

  Math. 7. 26. 27.
• ‡ 1.257

  The Instit. of a Christian man. Ch. os Orders, and Thomas Bea∣cons Catech. f. 499. 500
• * 1.258

  See the Fastbookes then printed.
• * 1.259

  ‡ Ioel. 2. 14 to 20. 4. 2. 1. to 28. Isay. 22. 12. 13. 14. 2 Chron. 6. to 24. to 40. c. 7. 13. 14. 15 Zeph. 2. 1. 2. 3. Ionah. 3. 5: to 10. Ezech. 9. 4. Mal. 3. 16. 17. Ezra. 9. & 10.
• † 1.260

  See Bishop Wrens In∣junctions for Norwich, and his Visi∣tion Artiles, and yet this Can. bindes them not strictly to any forme as the Words, Or to this Effect; declare,
• f 1.261

  Ier. 7. 16. c. 11. 14. c. 14. 11. c. 29. 7. c. 37 3. 4. c. 42. 2. 4. 20. Ioel. 2. 17.
• * 1.262

  Isay. 22. 12. 13.
• g 1.263

  Ps. 119. 21. Iudg. 5. 23. Mal. 2. 2. c. 3. 9. 1. Cor. 16. 22.
• h 1.264

  Luke. 18. to 3. Rev. 6. 9. 10. Psal. 28. 4. 5.
• ‡ 1.265

  1. Sam. 4. 18.