The Unbishoping of Timothy and Titus, Part 2 (2 of 3)

The Unbishoping of Timothy and Titus · Part 2 (2 of 3)

p. 70Secondly, wee at this day, have many Prebends, Canons, and Miniſters in every Cathedrall and Collegiate Church, yea in every Colledge in our Vniverſities, and elſewhere; yet but one Church and Congregation.

Thirdly, We have in many other Churches in the Country where the Pariſhes are large, and there are divers Chappels of eaſe, many Curates and Miniſters; yet but one Church, one Pariſh; not a Dioces; neither is the cheife Miniſter either a Biſhop or Diocaeſan, though hee have diverſe Curates and Miniſters under him, to aſſiſt him in his Miniſtery: yea in many places where there is but one Church, no ſuch Chappels of eaſe, and the Pariſh great, we have ſeverall Miniſters, Lecturers, and Curates, in ſome 4, or 5, in moſt 2, or 3, yet no Dioces, no Biſhopricke. Neither is this a Novelty, but an ancient conſtitution, not onelyonly inſtituded by the Apoſtles, and continued ever ſince, but likewiſe enjoyned by the **Ioannes de At…, Conſtit. provin. fol. 122. Lynd. provin Conſtit. l: 3. Tit. De Parochiis. fol. 134.Councell of Oxford under Stephan Langhton Archbiſhop of Canterbury in the yeare of our Lord, p. 7112 22. which decreed; that in all Pariſh Churches, where the Pariſh is great, there ſhould be 2, or 3, Preſbyters at the leaſt, according to the greatnes of the Pariſh, and the value of the Benefice; leaſt that one onelyonly Minister being ſicke, or otherwiſe debilitated, Eccleſiaſticall Benefits (which God forbid) ſhould be either withdrawne, or denied to the Pariſhioners that were ſicke, or willing to be preſent at divine offices. The multitude or plurality therfore of the Elders in the Church of Epheſus, is no argument at all to proove, that is was a Dioces; or that Timothy was a Diocaeſan Biſhop, becauſe hee had Miniſters and Curates under him; for then our Deacons, Archdeacons, and Pluraliſts, who have many livings, Chappels, (and ſo many Curates and Miniſters) under them, ſhould be Diocaeſan Biſhops too by this reaſon.

Secondly, I anſwer, that admit there were divers Churches and Congregations in Epheſus, which is very improbable, the greatest part of the Citizens being Idolaters, and the Citty itſelfe a worſhipper of the great Goddeſſe Diana, and of the Image which fell downe from Jupiter, Acts. 19 21. to 41. yet it can not be prooved, that Timothy was cheife Biſhop and Superintendent over all theſe Churches, but onelyonly of one of them: as every Miniſter and Biſhop of England is a Miniſter and Biſhop of the Church of England, but not a Miniſter and Biſhop in and over all the Curches of England, but in and over his owne Pariſh Church, and Dioces onelyonly. For Paul himſelfe (who planted that Church, and **Acts. 19. 10. c. 20. 31Acts 19:10reſided in it for three yeares ſpace, during which time it is like there was no Diocaeſan Biſhop of it but himſelfe) expreſly cals the Elders of the Church of Epheſus, Biſhops and Overſeers of that Church, and that by the Holy Ghoſtes owne inſtitution; and thereupon exhorts them, to take heed to all the flocke; and to feed and rule that Church of God, which hee had purchaſed with his owne blood, Acts. 20. 28. 1. Tim. 5. 17. p. 74duplicate page p. 75duplicate page p. 68duplicate page p. 69duplicate page p. 70duplicate page p. 71duplicate page p. 72Since 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 onelyonly Biſhop of one of them, not of all; and ſo no Diocaeſan Biſhop, as our Prelates and their flatterers vainely pretend. Timothy therefore being neither a Biſhop, nor firſt, ſole, or any Biſhop of Epheſus, or of any other place, or if a Biſhop, no Diocaeſan Biſhop, but of one Church and congregation onelyonly, 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 onelyonly) 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 onelyonly 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?Quaestion. 2.

What ever the common bruite and Error of theſe or former 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 concerning 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.

p. 73Secondly, 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 reſidence, as Biſhops were, 2. Cor. 2. 13. c. 7. 6. 13. c. 8. 6. 16. 23. c. 12. 18. Gal. 2, 1. 3. 2. Tim. 4. 10. ſent by him from Rome, long after his being in Crete, into Dalmatia, 2. Tim. 4. 10.

Fourthly, Becauſe Paul writes 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 Elders, in every Citty, as hee had appointed him: Therefore was hee there onelyonly 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 diligently, 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 never 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 returning thither, prooves him to be no Biſhop.

p. 74Sixtly, Paul chargeth him, to bring Zenas the Lawyer and and Apollos diligently on their way, that nothing might be wanting to them, Tit. 3. 13. Now it is very unlikely, that an Arch-biſhop or Biſhop of Creete, wherein were **Homer. Odyſ. 19.90. 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 familiar 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, Theophilact, 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 ‡‡Mercators Atlas in Engliſh London. 1635. p. 812.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 **Quoted by Doctor Barnes in his Workes. p. 210. See Gerſonius Bucerus de Guberaat. Eccleſiae. p. 520, 621Athanaſius, Chryſostome, Oecumenius and Theophilact on Titus 1. 5. 7. write thus: Here hee will have Biſhops to be underſtood for Preſbyters 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 p. 75greater diligence, if that the Doctor or teacher ſhould not be diſtracted with the government of many Churches, but ſhould onelyonly give himſelfe to the government of one, and ſtudy to compoſe and adorne it with his maners. So alſo Peter Lombard, **Adverſus Haereſes. Tit. Epiſcopus.Alphonſus de Caſtro, **p. 210.Doctor Barnes, and others on, and from this text, determine.

Eightly, All generally ‡‡See Gerſonius Bucerus, p. 233. 261. 398. uſque 402. 556. Th. Cartwright 2. Reply to Whitgift, p. 404. to 616.accord, that Archbiſhops, yea Metropolitanes BISHOPS themſelves are not of divine or Apo ſtolicall, but Papall and humane Conſtitution; witneſſe Pope Nicolas apud Gratianum Diſtinct. 22. c. 1. Omnes ſive Patriarchae cujuſlibet apicem, ſive Metropolis primatus, aut Epiſcopatuum Cathedras, vel Eccleſiarum ſive cujuſcunque ordinis dignitatem **See Anacleti Epiſt. 3. c. 3. Surius Concil. Tom. 1. p. 165.INSTITVIT 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 onelyonly in thoſe Citties where the Arch-Flamens had their Sees: with which Peter Lombard accords, lib. 4. Distinct. 24. Hence our aaGalfridus Monumitenſis. hiſtor. l. 5. c. 19. Ponticus Verunnius Brit. hiſt. l. 4. p. 106. Polichron. l. 4. c. 16. f. 163. Antiquit. Eccleſ. Brit. p. 7. with ſundry others.Hiſtorians record of King Lucius, the firſt Chriſtian Prince of this our Realme, 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 onelyonly at first by ‡‡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.ſeverall Councells and Princes) are no divine or Apoſtolicall, but onelyonly a humane inſtitution; This all the Archbiſhops, Biſhops and Clergy of England in their inſtitution of a Christian man, dedicated to King Henry the 8. fol. 59. 60. reſolve in theſe tearmes. IT IS OVT OF ALL DOVBT, that there is no mention made neither in Scripture, neither in the writings of any authenticall Doctor or Auctor of the Church being within the time of the Apoſtles, that Christ did ever make or inſtitute any diſtinction or difference p. 76to be in the preeminence of power, order or Juriſdiction betweene the Apostles themſelves, or between the Biſhops themſelves, but that they WERE ALL EQVALL IN POWER, AVTHORITY AND IVRISDICTION; And that there is now and ſince the time of the Apoſtles any ſuch diverſity or difference among the Biſhops, IT WAS DEVISED BY THE ANCIENT FATHERS, of the primitive Church, for the conſervation of good order, and unity of the Catholike Church; and that, either by the conſent and authority, or elſe at leaſt BY THE PERMISSION AND SVFFRANCE OF THE PRINCES AND CIVILL POWERS for the time ruling. For the ſayd Fathers, conſidering the great and infinite multitude of Chriſtian men ſo largely increaſed through the world, and taking examples of the old Testament, thought it expedient to make an order of Degrees, to be among Biſhops, and ſpirituall governours of the Church, and ſo ordained ſome to be Patriarkes, ſome to be Metropolitans, ſome to be Archbiſhops, ſome to be Biſhops; and to them did limit ſeverally (not onelyonly) their certaine Dioceſſe and Provinces, wherein they ſhould exerciſe their power and not exceed the ſame, but alſo certaine bounds and limits of their Juriſdiction and power; &c. The ſame is averred by learned Biſhop Hooper, in his Expoſition upon the 23. Pſalme fol. 40. who ſayth, that Archbiſhops were firſt ordained in Conſtantines time, yea, **In his Re-ply to Tho. Cartwright. See Cartwright his ſecond Reply againſt Whitgift Tract. 8. fol. 414. to 616.Archbiſhop Whitgift himſelfe confeſseth as much, that Archbiſhops are neither of divine, or Apoſtolicall, but humane institution, ſince the p. 77Apoſtles times. And **An, Meſuini Petri Adamſoni Palinodia printed An. 1620.Patricke Adamſon Archbiſhop of S. Andrewes in Scotland, in his publike recantation, in the Synode of Fiffe in Scotland Anno 1591. profeſſed ſincerely, (ex animo) that Biſhops and Ministers by Gods word were all equall and the very ſame; That the Hierarchy and ſuperiority of Biſhops over other Ministers, NVLLO NITITVR VERBI DEI FVNDAMENTO, had no foundation at all in the word of God; but was a meere humane Inſtitution long after the Apoſtles times, from whence the Antichriſtian Papacis of the Biſhop of Rome hath both its riſe and progreſſe; and that for 500. yeares laſt past, it hath beene the cheifeſt inſtrument of perſecuting and ſuppreſsing the truth and Saints of God in all Countries and Kingdomes, as all Hiſtories manifeſt. Thus this Archbiſhop in his Palinody, diſclaiming not onelyonly Archbiſhops but ever Diocaeſan Biſhops to be of divine, but onelyonly of humane inſtitution long after the Apostles, giving over his Archbiſhopricke thereupon, and living a poore dejected life. This being then granted on all hands, it is cleare, that Titus could not be Biſhop of all Creete; for then hee ſhould be an Archbiſhop, having divers Biſhops under him, thoſe Elders which hee placed in every Citty of Creete being no other but Biſhops, Tit. 1. 7. as all acknowledge, and Arch-biſhops were not inſtituted till after the Apoſtles and Titus dayes; For theſe reaſons I conceive, that Titus was not Biſhop of Creete, having no Epiſcopall or Archiepiſcopall See there appointed to him; which learned ddDe Gubernat. Eccl. p. 233. to 238. 299. to 390. 394. 395. 396. 397. 490. to 423 580. 581.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.

p. 78Anſw. 1. I anſwer 1. that as this and all other Poſtſcripts, are **David Dickſon his ſhort explanation on the Epiſtle to the Hebrewes. p. 332. 333.no part of the Scripture, or Epiſtles, as ††Master Perkins his Commentary on Gal. 6. p. 496. 497 498. 499.Gal 6M^r. Perkins workes proove at large, but an addition of ſome private perſon ſince, as is evident by the words themſelves in the preterimperfect tenſe and third perſon. IT WAS WRITTEN TO TITVS, &c. therefore no convincing authority: ſo this clauſe (ordained the firſt Biſhop of the Church of the Cretians) is no part of the Poſtſcript, but a late appendix to it, not found in any of the Coppies of this Epiſtle which the Fathers follow, in their Commentaries, in few or no ancient Greeke, Latine or Engliſh Coppies and Tranſlations of this Epiſtle, in few or no Teſtaments or late Commentators: And had Titus been Biſhop of Creete, it is like Paul would have given him this Title in the Epiſtle, (where hee ſtiles him, Titus his owne Sonne after the Common faith. c. 1. v. 4.) as well as in the Poſtſcript; (which in truth is none of his, but ſome others, Perchance Oecumenius his addition, the firſt that mentions it, 1050. yeares after Chriſti) ſince hee ſpeakes of Biſhops by name in that Epiſtle, Tit. 1. 7. But of this, ſee more in the anſwere to the Poſtſcript of Timothy.

Secondly, I anſwer, that this Poſtſcript is directly falſe; for it ſaith, that this Epiſtle was written from Nicopolls of Macedonia. Now it is cleare by the 12. verſe of the third chapter of this very Epiſtle, that Paul was not at Nicopolis when hee writ it, but at ſome other place; for hee writes thus to Titus, when I ſhall ſend Artemas unto thee or Tychicus, be diligent …ocome unto me to Nicopolis, for THERE (not here) I have intended to winter. Now had Paul then been at Nicopolis, hee would have written thus, for here (not there) I have intended to winter; there being ever ſpoken of a place from which we are abſent, here only of a place preſent. The Poſtſcrip… therfore being falſe as **Commentary on Gal. 6. Vol 2. p. 499.Gal 6Mr. Perkins workes hence conclude, can be no part of Canonicall p. 79ſcripture, nor Epiſtle, none of Paules penning, but a meere ignorant Appendix of ſome ſcribe or comentator of after times, and ſo no ſolid proofe to manifeſt Titus Biſhop or Archbiſhop of Creete, not at Nicopolis when this Epiſtle was written.

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

Anſw. 2. I anſwere, that this is a meere inconſequent; and I may argue in the like nature; Our Archbiſhops and Biſhops (eſpecially thoſe who turne Courtiers, Counſellers of State, and Nonreſidents,) leave ‡‡Biſhop Latimers fourth Sermon of the plough, Fox Acts & Monuments, p. 119. 120.their Archdeacons, Chauncellers, Commiſſaries, Vicars generall, and Officialls, to viſit, order, correct their Dioces, and to ſet in order thoſe Ceremonies, Altars, Images, and Church ornaments, which were well wanting (now too much abounding) in them; Ergo Archdeacons, Chauncellers, Vicars generall, and Officials, are Archbiſhops and Biſhops of thoſe Dioces: The King ſends his Indges, Commiſſioners and under Officers to ſome Counties or Citties, to ſett Cauſes, Counties, people, Armes, Forts, Citties in good order, and to ſee defects in theſe ſupplied. Ergo Iudges, Commiſſioners and Officers are Kings: Churchwardens ought by the Canons of 1571. and 1603. to ſett in order, and provide ſuch bookes, ornaments, and neceſſaries as are wanting in Pariſh Churches, and ſee them well repaired: Ergo Churchwardens are Biſhops: For Titus was here left, to ſett in order the things that were wanting, AS PAVL HAD APPOINTED HIM; and no other wiſe, Tit. 1. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. hee did all by his direction and authority, not his owne. There is nothing therefore in this, of ordering things that were wanting in the Church of Creete, which ſavours of Epiſcopall Iuriſdiction. And I may better argue hence, Titus did nothing at all in Creet but by Paules ſpeciall appointment and Cōmiſſion; Ergo hee was no Biſhop; or if a Biſhop: Ergo Biſhops ſhould order nothing in their Biſhoprikes, nor keepe any viſitations, p. 80but by ſpeciall direction & Commiſſion from the Apostles, **So the Statutes of 25. H. 8 c. 29. 37. H. 8. c. 17. 27. H. 8. c. 15. 1. E. 6. c. 2. 1 Eliz 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 reſolve. That the power of ordination of Ministers belongs not onelyonly to Biſhops.King, or State, authorizing them; Then the Objectors conclude; Ergo, hee was a Biſhop; and Biſhops, Archbiſhops, (yea Archdeacons too without any ſpeciall commiſſion from the Apoſtles, King and State) may make and inſtitute what orders, conſtitutions, Articles, and Ceremonies they pleaſe, as now they doe in their illegall Courts and viſitations, kept in their owne names, without any Patent from the King

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

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

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

Firſt, The Apostles themſelves were ordained Apostles and conſecrated Miniſters by Christ himſelfe, Matth. 28. 19. 20. p. 81Marke 16. 15. 16. Iohn. 20. 22. 23. 24. Acts. 1. 4. 5. Rom. 1. 5. 2. Cor. 3. 6. To whom the power of ordination principally appertaines, Epheſ. 4. 11. 12. 1. Cor. 12. 28. Acts. 20. 28. 1. Pet. 1. 4.

Secondly, The Apostles and Euangeliſts ordained Elders in every Church, Acts. 14. 23. c. 19. 1. 6. 7. c. 7. 6. yet they were properly no Biſhops as eeFox Acts & Monuments. p. 1465.all learned men acknowledge.

Thirdly, The Diſciples (inferior to the Apoſtles and Euangeliſts as the objectors teach) ordained Ministers and Elders too, though they were no ſuch Biſhops as the objectors mean. Acts. 14. 1. 2. 3. c. 9. 10. to 22.

Fourthly, ‡‡Acts. 13. 1. 2. 3.Acts 13:1Acts 13:2Acts 13:3Preſbyters 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 **3. Ed. 6. c. 32. 8. Elizab. c. 1.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 onelyonly 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 onelyonly to Biſhops, as Biſhops in the objectors ſence; for then none of thoſe 5. being not properly ſuch Biſhops, could lawfully have ordained Miniſters or Presbyters, as they did and doe.

p. 82Thirdly, There is no one ſyllable in the Scripture to proove, that the power of ordination belongs onelyonly to Biſhops quatenus Biſhops; neither is there any one example to warrant it. We read of Apoſtles, Euangeliſts, Diſciples, Presbyters, that layd hands on others to ordaine them Miniſters; but of Biſhops, (I mean diſtinct from Presbyters,) we read not a word to this purpoſe, how then can this be true, that the power of ordination belongs onelyonly to Biſhops quatenus Biſhops, Jure divino?

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

Admit there were ſuch Biſhops Jure divino; yet that the power of ordination belongs to them Jure Divino quatenus ſuch Biſhops, is moſt falſe, but onelyonly quatenus they are Miniſters: For it appertained to the Apoſtles, to the Euangeliſts, to Diſciples and Presbyters Iure divino, though no ſuch Biſhops; and the objectors will acknowledge, that it belongs to Popes, Patriarkes, Metropolitans and Archbiſhops, though they neither were nor are properly ſuch Biſhops, and are no divine, but meere humane inſtitutions; therefore it muſt appertaine unto them onelyonly, as they are Miniſters, (in which reſpect they all accord, and are not differenced one from another;) not quatenus Biſhops; for then the Apoſtles, Euangeliſts, Diſciples, Presbyters, Popes, Patriarkes, Metropolitanes, and Arch-biſhops, being not properly ſuch Biſhops, could not lawfully ordaine. The power therefore of ordination belonging to the Apoſtles, Euangeliſts, Diſciples, Preſbyters and others as well as to Biſhops, not to Biſhops onelyonly, or to them as Biſhops, but as Miniſters, (it being a ggGerſonius Bucerus, p. 33. 158. to 162. 262. 499. 500. 517. 518. 540. 622. 623. 318. to 367.meere Miniſteriall act, inferior to p. 83preaching, 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. hhSurius Tom. 1. p. 513.Councell of Carthage, Can. 3. about the yeare of our Lord 418. preſcribes this forme of ordination of Miniſters, When a Miniſter is ordained, the Biſhop bleſſing him, and holding his hand upon his head, all the Presbyters or Miniſters likewiſe that are preſent, ſhall lay their hands upon his head by the Biſhops hand. This Canon is incorporated by Gratian, into the body of the Canon Law, and hath been practiſed and put in ure in all ages ſince, till now; The very Gloſſe on **Diſtinct. 23.Gratian, yea and kkNotes on the 1. Tim. 4. 14.1 Tim 4:14the Rhemiſts too, aſsuring us, that when a Preiſt is ordained, all the Preiſts ſtanding 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 himſelfe alone to ordaine Miniſters, without the aſſent and concurrence of the Clergy, people and others there preſent, as llDiſtinct. 23. 24. 25.Gratian, mmAppendix ad Catal. Testium Veritatis.Illyricus, and nnDiſſertat. deGubernat. Eccleſ. p. 318. to 367. 464. 465. 493. 498. 499. 524. See Canon. 35.Gerſome Bucerus, proove at large; and ſince all Ministers preſent ought joyne with the Biſhop in the impoſition of hands, in all ordinations of Ministers, and hauehave ever uſually done it in all ages and Churches; how this Prerogative of ordination ſhould be peculiar to Biſhops (who may not doe it without Miniſters concurrrence, no more then Miniſters without theirs,) I cannot yet conjecture. True it is, that the ooSurius, Tom. 1. p. 296.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 p. 84Letters; And the ‡‡Surius Ibid. p. 403. 404Councell of Antioch under Pope Iulius, Canon. 10. decrees; that Chorall Biſhops ſhould not ordaine Miniſters 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 lawfully ordaine Miniſters and Deacons without the Biſhops privity 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 reſolve, 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 ordination is not inveſted onelyonly in Biſhops, as they are Biſhops, for then none elſe could ordaine but they alone. The forged Conſtitutions of the Apoſtles, fathered on Pope **Conſtit. Apoſt. l. 3. c. 10. 11. 20.Clement, preſcribe; That Presbyters and Deacons, may not ordaine other Preists and Deacons, but Biſhops onelyonly. And the ††Surius Tom. 2. p. 719. Tom. 1. p. 800.Councell of Hiſpalis or Spaw, about the yeare 6, 7. Canon. 5. 7. out of Pope Leo, Epist. 86. decrees; that Presbyters and Chorall Biſhops, which are all one, ſhould not preſume to ordaine Preistes or Deacons, or to conſecrate Altars or Churches; For in holy writ, by Gods Commaund, ‡‡Exod. 40.Exod 40Moſes onelyonly erected the Altar in the Tabernacle of the Lord, hee onelyonly annointed it, becauſe hee was the High Preiſt, of God, as it is written; **Pſal. 98.Ps 98Moſes and Aaron among his Preiſts. Therefore, that which was commaunded onelyonly to the cheife Preiſts to doe, of whom Moſes and Aaron were a Type, Presbyters who carry the figure of the ſonnes of Aaron, p. 85may not preſume to enchroach upon. For although they have in moſt things a common diſpenſation of Myſteries with Biſhops, yet they must know that ſome things are notwithſtanding prohibited them by the authority of the old Law, ſome things BY NEW ECCLESIASTICALL RVLES (or CANONS) as the CONSECRATION OF PRESBYTERS, DEACONS, and virgins; as alſo the Constitution, benediction, or unction of the Altar. Verily it is not lawfull 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 converted from hereſie, nor to made Chriſme, nor to ſigne the fore-head of thoſe that are baptized with Chriſme, ‡‡See Concil. Carthag. 2. An. 428. c. 3. 4. Gratian. Cauſa. 20. queſt. 6. Concil. Carthag. 3. c. 36. Gratian. Cauſ 16. queſt. 6.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 Pontificatus apicem, the highest degree of the High Preiſt-hood, which by the AVTHORITY OF THE CANONS, is commaunded to be due onelyonly 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 Baptiſtery 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 Sacrament 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 **Leo Epist. 86.See Apoſtolicke. Theſe two laſt authorities are the cheife that the Papiſts, Jeſuites, and our Prelates inſiſt on, to p. 86Proove, that the power of ordination belongs onelyonly 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 onelyonly to Biſhops by divine right and inſtitution; or that Presbyters by Gods Law have no power to ordaine Miniſters and Deacons, the thing onelyonly in queſtion.

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

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

Fourthly, That the cheife reaſon why the power of ordination was taken from Miniſters, and thus monopolized to Biſhops, (even by their owne Conſtitutions, wherein they have ever favoured themſelves,) was onelyonly 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.

p. 87Fiftly, That they bring not one ſyllable out of the new Teſtament to proove that the power of ordination belongs onelyonly 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 onelyonly conſecrated the Tabernacle and the Altar; Ergo none but Biſhops must conſecrate Miniſters, Altars, Churches. A learned argument; ergo none but Kings, and temporall Magiſtrates, 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 xxExod. 28. 1. to 43. c. 29. 5. to 45. c. 30. 7. 10. 30. Heb. 5. 4. 5. c. 7. 11.Exod 28:1–43Heb 5:4Heb 5:5Aarons office, not his, there being but yyNumb. 25. 35.Num 25:35one High Preiſt, at once and hee a zzHeb. 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.Heb 4:14Heb 4:15type of our High Preiſt Chriſt) but a civill Magigiſtrate; yet God commaund him aaExod. 29. 1. to 39. c. 30. 25, to 31 c. 40. 1. to 34.Exod 29:1–39to conſecrate Aaron with his Sonnes, the Tabernacle and Altar; and after him, bb1. King 8. 2. Cron. c. 6. 8.1 Kgs 8:2King Salomon (not the High Preiſt) conſecrated the Temple, Altar, Court, and all the furniture of the Temple and Altar: So that if theſe examples proove any thing, it is, but this: That the power of ordination, of conſecrating Biſhops, Miniſters, Churches, Altars, &c. appertaines not to Archbiſhops, Biſhops, Popes, Preiſtes, Miniſters, but to the cheife temporall Magiſtrates. But admit that Moſes were a Preiſt, and an High Preiſt, and that the power of conſecrating Preiſtes, Temples, Altars appertained to him in that regard; yet this is no argument to proove, that the right and power of ordination ſhould belong to Biſhops onelyonly; and that for theſe three reaſons.

Firſt, becauſe the Aaronicall Preiſthood was ccHeb. 7. & 8. & 9. & 10.Heb 7utterly extinct and aboliſhed by Chriſt, as meerely typicall and ceremoniall; and ſo al …he appurtenances thereunto belonging.

p. 88Secondly, Becauſe the High Preiſt was no Emblem, type or reſemblance of Biſhops, which are many, changeable, mortall, but **Auguſtin. Serm. 99. de tempore. Whitekar. Contr. 4. qu. 1. c. 2. Willet. Symopſis Papiſmi. Cont. 5. q. 3.onelyonly of Chriſt our true High Preiſt, who is but one, and remaines an High Preiſt forever without ſucceſsion or change. So that this alluſion prooves the power of ordaining Miniſters to belong originally to none but ddHeb. 9. 14. 15. c. 5. 1. to 11. c. 6. 20. c. 7. & 8. & 9. & 10.Heb 9:14Heb 9:15Chriſt, our eeHeb. 6. 20.Heb 6:20High Preiſt, cheife Shepheard, and ffHeb. 13. 20. 1. Pet. 5. 4.Heb 13:201 Pet 5:4Biſhop of our ſoules, as the gg1. Pet. 2. 25.1 Pet 2:25Scripture expreſly reſolves; and miniſterially, ſecondarily, to hhMath. 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.Matt 18:1Mark 16:15John 15:16John 15:41 Tim 4:14Acts 13:1Acts 13:2Acts 13:3every Minister of Chriſt, as his Embaſſador, inſtrument, and Vicegerent.

Thirdly, Becauſe the office and power of the High Preiſts and Biſhops are different, diſtinct, yea incompatible one with the other, and the maner of ordination, of Miniſters, and Deacons under the Law, different from that under the Goſpell, as the ††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.Exod 29Acts 6:1–8Titus 1:51 Tim 4:14Scriptures, and **Gerſonius Bucerus de Gubernat. Eccleſ. p. 264. 265. 269. 291. 269. 308. 309. 446. 501. 502.all Authors joyntly witnes: the one of them therefore can be no ſolid, or convincing argument to make good the authority Iuriſdiction or practiſe of other. So that this Councell and Conſtitution, makes nothing at all againſt the divine right and Title of Presbyters to ordaine, or for the Biſhops ſole Monopoly of impoſition of hands, by any divine charter from Chriſt or the Holy Ghoſt.

Finally, Neither of theſe Councells or Conſtitutions ſimply debarre Miniſters from the impoſition of hands on others together with the Biſhop, which they kkActs. 13. 3. 1. Tim. 4. 14. The Rhemiſts with all late Commentators, Ibidem, and ſome ancient too.Acts 13:31 Tim 4:14ever practiſed, and were authorized to doe, both by God himſelfe, and the fourth Councell of Carthage, Can. 3. But from laying on p. 89hands and ordaining Miniſters of themſelves alone without the Biſhop, who cannot ordaine, or lay hands on any Miniſters by vertue of theſe constitutions without them. Since therfore the Biſhop of himſelfe alone cannot impoſe hands on any Miniſter without their aſſiſtance or conſent, nor they without the Biſhops, it is apparant, that the right of ordination is not wholly and originally veſted in the Biſhop, by any divine or humane right; but in both. The ††Surius Tom. 3 p. 299.Councell of Aquiſgran or Aken, under Ludovicus Pius An. 816. c. 8. out of Iſidor. Hiſpalenſis De Eccleſiaſticis Officiis l. 2. c. 7. determines thus: The diſpenſation of the Myſteries of God are committed to Presbyters as they are to Biſhops, for they are over the Church of Chriſt, and are conſorts with Biſhops in the confection of the body and blood of Chriſt, and likewiſe alſo in the inſtruction of the people, and in the office of preaching; and onelyonly the ordination and Conſecration of Clerkes is reſerved to the High Preiſt or Biſhop, becauſe of his authority, leſt the diſcipline of the Church, challenged or exerciſed by many, ſhould diſſolve, concord and engender ſcandals; For Paul the Apostle cals Elders and Preiſts by the name of Biſhops, Tit. 1. 5. 7. Acts. 20. 28. Phil. 1. 1. 1. Tim. 3. D. Rabanus Maurus De Inſtit. Clericorum, l. 1. c. 6. writes thus; That Presbyters allthough they be Preiſtes, yet they have not attained the top or Higheſt degree of Preiſthood, becauſe they cannot ſigne the fore-head with Chriſme, nor give the Holy Ghoſt; neither can they ordaine Clerkes in ſacred orders, which is reſerved to Biſhops for unity and concords ſake. The Epiſtle de 7. Gradibus Eccleſiae in the neinth Tome of Ieromes workes, avers in expreſſe tearmes; that the ordination of Clerkes and conſecration of Virgins was reſerved onelyonly to the High-Preiſt or Biſhop for his greater honor. And Tertullian p. 90de Baptiſmo c. 17. writes, that the High Preiſt, who is the Biſhop, hath the right of giving Baptiſme, after him Preſbyters and Deacons, yet not without the Biſhops authority, for the honor of the Church; By all which it is evident, that Biſhops have not the ſole executive power of ordination by any divine right or inſtitution (of which there is not one ſyllable, either in theſe or other Councels or Fathers) but onelyonly by Canons and humane Conſtitutions, made by Biſhops themſelves, to advance their owne honor, power and dignity; yet notwithſtanding the right of ordination remaines ſtill in Miniſters; and belongs to Biſhops, onelyonly as they are Miniſters by divine right, not as they are Biſhops; as is evident by the mmSurius Ib. p. 300.9. Chapter of the ſame Councell of Aken, taken out of Iſidor. De Eccleſ. Officiis l. 2. c. 6. where writing of Biſhops ordination by impoſition of hands, and the originall thereof, they uſe this expreſſion, (which nnDe Inſtit. Clericorum. l. 1. c. 4.H. Rabanus Maurus, likewiſe hath:) But that Biſhops are ordained by impoſition of handes, A PRAECESSORIBVS DEI SACERDOTIBVS, by the Preistes of God their predeceſſors, is an ancient conſtitution. For the holy **Gen. 27. & 28.Gen 27Patriarke Iſaac laying his handes upon the head of Iacob, bleſsed him, and ‡‡Gen. 48.Gen 48Iacob in like maner gave a benediction to his ſonnes: &c. Where the Councell and Fathers both affirme; that even Biſhops themſelves are ordained by Prieſtes or Preſbyters (not Biſhops) their predeceſſors, therefore the right and power of ordaining Miniſters (and Biſhops too) belongs to Preſbyters as well as Biſhops, and to Biſhops, onelyonly as Preſbyters, not Biſhops; and ſo can no wayes advance them in Iuriſdiction, order or degree above Miniſters. The Popiſh qqSurius Tom. 4. p. 965.Councell of Trent Seſſio 23. De Sacramento ordinis c. 4. determines that Biſhops are ſuperior to Preſbyters, and that they can conferre the Sacrament of Confirmation, ordaine Ministers of the Church, and doe many other things, which thoſe inferior order have no power to doe. And Can. 7. De Sacramento Ordinis: If any ſhall ſay, that Biſhops are not ſuperior to Preiſtes, or that they have not the power of ordination, or confirmation, or that this power, which p. 91they have, is common to them with Preſbyters; or that the orders conferred by them without the conſent or calling of the ſecular power are voyd, let him be Anathema: Loe here this Councell appropriates the power of ordination onelyonly to Biſhops, by denying it to be common to them with Miniſters, and in this regard, makes Biſhops ſuperior in degree to Miniſters; yet not by any divine right or inſtitution, (of which there is not one word;) but onelyonly by humane and Canonicall; (as the rrLib. 7.Hiſtory of the Councell of Trent, and ssExamen Concil. Tridentini, pars 2. De Sacramento Ord.Chemnitius well obſerve:) For in the ſame ttIbid. p. 968.Seſſion de Reformatione, Can. 7. 8. it enjoynes; that according to the ancient Canons, when Miniſters or Deacons are to be ordained; that the Biſhop calling to him the Preiſtes and other prudent men ſkilfull of the divine Law, and exerciſed in Eccleſiaſticall constitutions, ſhould diligently enquire and examine before them the ſtocke, perſon, age, institution, maners, doctrine, and faith of thoſe that were to be ordained; and that thoſe orders, ſhould be publikely conferred and celebrated in the Cathedrall Church; the Canons of the Church being called to, and preſent at it; or if in any other place, or Church of the Dioceſſe, Praeſenti Clero Loci, the Clergy of the place being preſent. uuEpiſt. 2. c. 2. apud Surium. Tom. 1. p. 161. recited by Gratian. Diſtinct. 67.Pope Anacletus, and the xxGratian. Distinct. 61. 62. 63. 64. &c.Canon Law, having long before that time ordained; That Preiſts and Deacons ſhould be ordained by their owne Biſhop; Ita ut Cives & Alij SACERDOTES aſſenſum praebent; So as the Citizens and other Preiſtes aſſented thereunto; which they uſually did, and ought to doe, as Gratian with yyIllyr. Catalogus Testium veritatis An. 1562. Appendix, p. 23. to 56. vera demonſtratio, quod Electio Praeſulum & Epiſcoporum non ad Eccleſiaſticos ſolum ſed & ad Laicos, vocant, pertineat, quod que hi hoc jure Electionisinde uſque à Chriſti temporibus annis: 1500. uſiſunt.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 p. 92Councels and Conſtitutions to the Fathers, who jumpe in judgment with them. It is true that zzEpiſt. ad Evagrium. & in Tit. 1.Titus 1S. Hierome, aaCont. haereſ l. 3. haer. 75.Epiphanius, * Iſidor Hiſpalenſis, ccIn Epheſ. 4. & 1 Tim 414Eph 4Ambroſe, ddQuaeſtiones ex utroque Teſtamento mixtim. quaeſt 101.Auguſtine, eeEpiſt. 86.Leo, and ‡ others affirme, that Biſhops onelyonly 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 b De Eccleſiaſticis Officiis, l. 2. c. 7.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 onelyonly to Biſhops, by divine inſtitution and appointment; that Preſbyters have no right at all, by the word of God to conferre Orders; or that they might not doe it in any caſe; but they expreſly averre the contrary: For as they did joyne with the Biſhop in the impoſition of hands, as appeares by the third Canon of the fourth Councell of Carthage, forecited; ſo in S. Ambroſe his time, in Egypt, if the Biſhop were abſent, the Preſbyters uſe to conſigne f Aquinas Supplementum Quaest. 38. Artic. 1.and conferre Orders; as this ggAmbroſ. in Epheſ. 4.Eph 4Father teſtifieth: and hhQuaeſtiones ex utroque Teſtamento mixtim. quaest. 101.S. Augustine records, That in Alexandria, and throughout all Aegypt, if the Biſhop were wanting, the Preſbyter did conſecrate and give orders. Hence Aërius (as iiC…nt. Haereſ. l. 3. Tom. 1. Haer. 75.Epiphanius reports his words) reaſoned in this maner: What is a Biſhop to a Preſbyter? one differs nothing from the other; it is one order (ſaith hee) one honor, and one dignity. Imponit manus Epiſcopus; **See Cent. Magd. 3. De Ritibus circa vocationem & ordinationē Col. 135.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: kk1. Tim. 4. 14.1 Tim 4:14Neglect not the gift that is in thee, which thou hast received by the laying on of the hands of the Preſbytery: Epiphanius there denieth not directly, that Preſbyters then did uſe to ordaine; but demaunds, how it is poſſible for a Preſbyter to ordaine, not having impoſition of hands in the election of Ministers, or to ſay that hee is equall with a Biſhop. A falſe and miſerable ſhift: ſince all p. 93**Appendix Catalogo Teſtium veritatis p. 23. to 56. Gerſonius Bucerus De Gubernat. Eccl. p. 25. 130. 131. 318. uſque 334. 346. uſque 354. 360. 361. 362. 363. 364. 414. 609.Hiſtories, Fathers, Authors, Councels teſtifie, that in that age, Preſbyters had alwayes their voyces in the Elelection, yea their hands in the ordination of Miniſters and Deacons. S. Hierome in his Commentary on Zeph. c. 2. Tom. 5. p. 218. D. writes exprefly: SACERDOTES. and that Preiſts and Preſbyters who give baptiſme, and imprecate the Lords advent, to the Eucharist, make alſo the oyle of Chriſme, MANVS IMPONVNT, impoſe hands, inſtruct the catechumeny, LEVIT AS ET ALIOS CONSTITVVNT SACERDOTES; ordaine Levites, and other Preists: Therefore Preſbyters in S. Hieronymus time ordained Miniſters, Deacons, and layd on hands as well as Biſhops. Yea **De Vitis Pontificum p. 53.Anaſtatius, in the life of Pope Pelagius the firſt, recordes; that this Pope An. Chriſti 555. for want of three Biſhops to ordaine him; was ordained Pope, by John Biſhop of Peruſia and Bonus Biſhop of Florence, and Andreas Preſbyter de Hoſtia, and Andrew Elder or Miniſter of Hoſtia, which Luitprandius de Vitis Pontificum p. 84. and Albo Floriacenſis in his life, p. 140. likewiſe teſtifie: Loe here a Preſbyter or ordinary Miniſter ordaining not onelyonly another Elder, but a Biſhop, yea a Pope; and ſupplying the place of a Biſhop ‡‡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.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 onelyonly 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 p. 94his Ordination good and valid by the Law of God, though invalid and a meere nullity by the Canons **Antiquit. Eccl. Brit. p. 302.An. 1390. about Wicklifs time there aroſe in England certaine bold Clerkes, who affirmed; that it was lawfull for them to make new Preſbyters and Clerkes, and conferre orders., like Biſhops: teaching likewiſe, that they were endued with the ſame power in Eccleſiaſticall affaires as Biſhops were, whereupon they layd hands on many, and ordained divers Miniſters: who affirmed likewiſe, that they had equall and the ſelfeſame Eccleſiaſticall power with Biſhops: which was the conſtant Doctrine of Wicklife and the Waldenſis which Doctrine of theirs was true, but their practiſe diſcommended, yet the Miniſters thus ordained by them, their ordination held lawfull by Gods Law; yea and their ordination of others in thoſe times in darkneſſe and perſecution, when no Wickilviſts, Lollards or other orthodox profeſſors of the Goſpel could be admitted into orders by the Biſhops of that age, unleſſe they would ſubſcribe to their Popiſh aſſertions, as ſome of our Prelates now will admit none to receive orders, unleſſe they will firſt, ſubſcribe to ſuch private poſitions and Ceremonies, as are directly contrary to the eſtabliſhed Doctrine, and diſcipline of the Church of England; by meanes whereof many godly men are kept from the Miniſtery. And though mmIn 1. Tim. 4. 14.1 Tim 4:14Chryſoſtome, Primaſius, Theodoret, Ambroſe, Rabanus Maurus, Oecumenius, Theophilact, Haymo, with ſome others, interpret that of the 1. Tim. 4. 14. By the Laying on of the hands of che Preſbytery; to be meant either of Paul himſelfe, or of the Senate of the Apostles, or of ſuch who had Apoſtolicall authority, or of Biſhops, and not of the bare Preſbyters; becauſe (ſay they) Preſbyters, (to wit according to the practiſe of their, though not of former times) could not ordaine a Biſhop, but onelyonly Apoſtles, or Biſhops; yet none of them ſo much as once aſffirme, that they cannot by the Law of God ordaine Deacons & ordinary Miniſters; or that they ought by Gods Law and divine inſtitution to be ordained onelyonly by Biſhops: yea nnIn 1. Tim. 4. 14.1 Tim 4:14Theophilact p. 95on that text writes thus: Behold a wonderfull thing, See how much the impoſition SACERDOTALIVM MANVVM, of Sacerdotall or Preists hands can doe; A cleare demonſtration, that Preiſts as well as Biſhops, and Biſhops onelyonly as they are Preiſts not Biſhops, have power of laying on hands. And ooIn 1. Tim. 4. 14.1 Tim 4:14Theodoret, thus gloſſeth the text, here hee cals thoſe the Preſbytery who had attained Apoſtolicall grace; For, ſaith hee, divine Scripture hath called thoſe who were honored in Iſraell, Elders. The Fathers therefore confeſſing, that Preſbyters and Elders might and did in ſome caſes and places ordaine, and conſecrate Miniſters without the Biſhop, and likewiſe joyne with the Biſhop, (in all places) in the impoſition of hands; grant that the right of ordination and impoſing hands, belongeth to them by the word of God, as well as to Biſhops; the rather, becauſe this is the conſtant doctrine of the ppAmbroſe in Epheſ. 4. & 1. Tim. 3. Hierome, Sedulius, Theodoret, Primaſius, Rabanus Maurus, Remigius, Oecumenius, Theophilactus, Alſelmus, Beda, Bruno &c. in Phil. 1. 1. 1. Tim. 3. Tit. 1. 5. 7. Acts. 20 17 28.Eph 41 Tim 3Phil 1:1Titus 1:5Titus 1:7Acts 20:17Fathers, that Biſhops and Preſbyters, by Gods Law and institution, are both one and the ſame, and ſo continued till long after the Apoſtles times; Therefore their power of ordination, the ſame with theirs. Neither doe the Papiſts diſſent from this: qqIn 1. Tim. 4. 14. Lect. 3.1 Tim 4:14Aquinas writes; That the impoſition of hands belongs onelyonly to thoſe who are the Ministers of Chriſt: which was double, one which was made by Deacons, the other by Miniſters; and becauſe hee adds not the third by Biſhops; hee plainly intimates, that the ordination made by Miniſters and Biſhops, is one and the ſame, and that Biſhops ordaine onelyonly as Biſhops, not as Miniſters. rrIn 1. Tim. 4. 14.1 Tim 4:14Ca…etan on that text ſaith, That Paul relates, that the impoſition of hands S ACERDOTALIS OFFICII, is a part of the Sacerdotall or Preists office, (not the Biſhops) and Faber in 1. Tim. 4. 14. writes, that Preſbyters did uſe to lay their hands on the heads of thoſe who were to be ordained, purged, or made compleate Miniſters, powring forth holy prayers. I know indeed that ssSupplementum Quaeſt. 38. Arti. 1.Aquinas and other Schoolemen hold, that it belongs onelyonly to Biſhops to conferre holy orders; yet hee and **In 4. Sent. Diſt. 24. quaest, 5. 6.Durandus grant, that this is not by vertue of any divine right, orinſtitution, but onelyonly by humane Conſtitutions and Canons, by reaſon of the more excellent p. 96power and Juriſdiction that the Biſhop hath over and above Ministers, and for order ſake; yea they both affirme; that Preſbyters doe, and ought to joyne with the Biſhop in the impoſition of hands in the ordination of Miniſters. The Rhemiſts in their annotations on the 1. Tim. 4. 14. confeſſe; that when a Preist is ordained, the rest of the Preiſts and Elders preſent, doe together with the Biſhop, even at this day among them, (and have anciently uſed heretofore) to lay hands on thoſe that are to be ordained; citing the fourth Councell of Carthage: Can. 3. for proofe thereof. And the uuSumma Angelica Ordo Sect. 13. and Innocentius there cited.Canoniſts, with ſome xxFiliuc. Icſuita De Caſibus Conſc. pars 1. Tract. 9. c. 5.Schoolemen, grant, that Preiſts and Ministers by the Popes dispenſation and Licenſe, may without a Biſhops concurrents, ordaine Deacons and Miniſters; but a meere Layman, or one that is no Miniſter, cannot doe it. A cleare proofe, that the impoſition of hands appertained to Preſbyters as well as Biſhops, and that the power of ordination reſts more in the Miniſters perſon, then in the Popes grant or Licenſe; elſe why might not a Lay man as well as a Miniſter, grant Orders by vertue of the Popes Licenſe, or why ſhould Miniſters joyne with Biſhops in the impoſition of hands? But to paſſe from theſe to the reformed Churches beyond the Seas. We know that moſt of them have no Biſhops; that all their Miniſters and Deacons are ordained by the Common election of the people and Magiſtrates, and impoſition of the Senate or Colledge of Miniſters hands; yet none of our Prelates have beene ſo impudently ſhameleſſe, as to deny their ordination and Miniſters to be lawfull, or their practiſe to be diſſonant from the Scriptures, or them to be true Churches. What their writers have determined concerning the power of ordination, incident to Miniſters as well as Biſhops, and to Biſhops onelyonly as Miniſters, and ſervants to the Church, not Lords, theſe enſuing paſſages will declare: yyLydij Waldenſia p. 23.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 onelyonly by Biſhops, and that they have more effectuall authority of his nature then other Miniſters, is not from p. 97any faith or authority of the Scriptures, Sed ex consuetudine habetur Eccleſiae, but from the Cuſtome of the Church. This being the conſtant doctrine of the zzFox Acts & Monuments p. 210. Catal. Teſtium Veritatis tit. Waldenſes p. 445.Waldenſes and Toborites, that the power of giving orders, and impoſing handes, belonged to Preſbyters as well as Biſhops; and that Biſhops and Miniſters by Gods Law where both one; and no Biſhop greater then any Preſbyter in honor, or Iuriſdiction. aaArgument. & Reſponſ. pars 7. De poteſtat. Epiſc. Arg. 2Melanchton writes, That if Biſhops and Ordinaries are enemies of the Church, or will not give orders, yet the Churches retaine their right; For whereſoever there is a Church, there is a right of administring the Goſpell; wherefore there is a neceſsity that the Church ſhould retaine the right of calling, electing and ordaining Miniſters. And this right is a guift given to the Church, which no humane authority can take from the Church; as Paul witneſſeth in the fourth of the Epheſians, where hee ſaith, When hee aſcended upon High, hee gave guifts unto men; and hee reckons Doctors and Paſtors among the proper guifts of the Church, and adds, that ſuch are given for the Worke of the Miniſtery, for the edifying of the body of Chriſt, where therefore there is a true Church, there muſt needs be a right of Electing and ordaining Ministers. One thing hath made a difference of Biſhops and Paſtors, to wit, ordination, becauſe it is instituted that one Biſhop might ordaine in many Churches; but ſeeing that by Gods Law there are not divers degrees of a Biſhop and Paſtor, it is evident, that an ordination made by a Paſtorin his Church, is ratified by Gods Law. Marſilius Patavinus in his Defenſoris Pacis, pars 2. …. 15. 17. affirmes: that the power of ordaining Miniſters belongs not to Preiſts and Biſhops, but to the Magiſtrates and people, where hee is to be a Miniſter. That every Preiſt p. 98by divine authority, may conferre all Sacraments, and give orders, as well as any Biſhop: and that every Preiſts hath power to ordaine and promote any beleever that is willing to the Preiſthood, hee preparing him Miniſterially, but God ſimply and immediately impreſsing the Sacerdotall power or character; the originall property of ordaining Miniſters being onelyonly in Christ, the head of the Church. ‡‡In 1. Tim. 4. 14.1 Tim 4:14Hyperius thus ſeconds him: The impoſition of hands in the election of a Biſhop, or Deacon to approove the perſon to the multitude or people, was made by THE ELDERS, in whom this authority rested, whence it is here added, with the laying on of hands by the authority of the Preiſthood, or as it is more ſignificantly and plainely expreſſed in the Greeke, with the laying on of the hands of the Preſbytery, which ſignifieth the whole Congregation of Elders. And they agreed, that hee who was elected by the Conſent of many, ſhould be commended and approoved as a fitt perſon, by this externall ſigne. Which is thus backed by **In 1. Tim. 4. 14.1 Tim 4:14Hemingius. 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. ††Argum. & Reſp. par… 7. De Ordin. Miniſt. in Argum. 1.Pezelius thus jumpes in Iudgement with them: Heretofore the authority of ordination was granted to Biſhops at least by a humane inſtitution, yet ſo that the ſuffrages of the Church might not be excluded from the Election of Ministers, and that the other Preſbyters ſhould be preſent at the examination, and lay their hands together on him, that was to be ordained: For ſo Gratian Can. Preſbyter. Distinct. 23. when a Preſbyter is ordained, the Biſhop bleſsing him, and holding his hand upon his head, all the Preſbyters p. 99likeweſe that are preſent, ſhall hold their hands upon his head cloſe to the Biſhops hands: which tended to this purpoſe, that the Preſbyters, likewiſe might retaine the right, of conſcerating, or ordaining to themſelves, and that ſo they might manifeſt, that what ever the Biſhop ſhould doe, that hee did it not in his owne name alone, but in the name of all. ††Loci Com-De Miniſtr. Verbi Dei.Muſculu… Harpes on the ſame ſtring thus. It muſt plainely be confeſſed, that the Miniſters of Chriſt heretofore were elected, the people being preſent and conſenting, and they were ordained and confirmed OF THE ELDERS, by the laying on of hands. This forme of electing Miniſters is Apoſtolicall and lawfull; which hee there prooves at large:

The Noble **De Eccleſi… Cap. 11.Mornay, Lord of Tleſsis, ſings the ſame tune in theſe wordes: Theſe things being thus prooved, we adde, that the right of laying on of hands, and ordaining Ministers, is in the power of the Preſbyters. And this verily concerning the Apoſtles dayes is more apparent, then that it can be ſo much as doubted of: For ſaith Paul to Timothy, Neglect not the gift that is in thee by the laying on of the hands of the Preſbytery, that is, of the Preſbyters or Elders. Moreover Timothy himſelfe ordained Elders, and ſince a Biſhop and a Preſbyter are names of one and the ſame function; if the Biſhops challenge this right to themſelves from the Scriptures, the Preſbyters alſo may doe the ſame: but if they deny it to Preſbyters, in this very thing they a…rogate this right to themſelves, p. 100And verily this was a good forme of argument in the Church in Ancient times. ‡‡Magiſt. Sentent. l. 4 c. 25.Hee can baptiſe, hee can conſecrate and administer the Sacrament of the Lords body, (which are the greater an more honourable Actions, becauſe Sacraments of undoubted truth, of Higheſt note and uſe,) Therefore hee may lay on hands. (which is leſſe;) Now in ordaining Elders, the Biſhop laying his hands on the head of thoſe that were to be ordained, the rest of the Elders likewiſe did lay on their hands, as appeares out of many places of the Decrees. The ††Cent. 1. l. 2 c. 6. Ritus vocationis & Ordinationis Col. 502.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 **Harmon. Confeſſ. pars 2.Confeſsion of Saxonie c. 12. reſolves expreſly; that it belongs to the Miniſters of the word to ordaine Miniſters lawfully elected and called. The ††See Gerſonius Bucerus DeGubern. Eccl. p. 618.Synod of Petrocomia, Artic. 6. (in Poland) decreed: That no Patron ſhould receive or admit any Miniſter to teach in his Church, unleſſe hee were lawfully ordained and ſent by the Superintendents, and the Elders, and had a good and certaine teſtimoniall from them; and the Synod of Wlodiſlania Artic. 8. and 12. determines thus: The ordination and miſsion of Miniſters into certaine places to worke in the Lords vineyard, is committed to the Superintendents, and to the Ministers and Elders their Colleagues; p. 101(not to Biſhops:) Georgius Major in his Enar, in Philip. 1. 1. writes thus: That there is no difference betweene a Biſhop and a Preſbyter, Paul witneſſeth in the 1. Tim. 4. 14. where hee ſaith: Neglect not the grace that is in thee &c. by the laying on the hands of the Preſbytery; that is, of the Order or Colleadge of the Preſbyters, by which it is ſhewed, that Timothy was called and ordained to his Epiſcopall function by the Preſbyters. Therefore at that time PRESBYTERS HAD THE RIGHT OF ORDINATION, as well as Biſhops, neither was there any difference betweene them. To theſe I might adde, Maſter John Calvin, Piſcator, Marlorat, and moſt other Proteſtant Commentators on the 1. Tim. 4. 14. Zanchius Deſtatu peccati & Legal. in quartum Praeceptum, Chemnitius Loc. Com. pars 3. De Eccleſ. c. 4. and Examen Concilij Tridentini pars 2. De Sacram. Ordinis, pag. 224. 225. &c. (where hee prooves at large,) that the election and vocation of Ministers belongs to the whole Church, to the people as well as the Clergy; that the impoſition of hands belongs to Preſbyters as well as Biſhops. Wherefore the Apostle ſ…ith, 1. Tim. 4. 14. that Timothy had a grace and a guift by the impoſition of hands, neither ſaith hee onelyonly of my hands, but hee addes alſo of the Preſbytery, that there ſhould be thought no difference, whether any one were ordained either by the Apostles, or by the Elders.) A…tonius Sadeel, Reſponſ. ad Repetita Turriani Sophiſm. pars 2. Locus 12. Beza de diverſis Miniſtrorum Gradibus. Iunius Contr. 5. l. c. 3. n. 3. Chamierus Paustratia Cathol. Tom. 2. de Oecum. Pontif. c. 6. with ſundry ‡‡Preſbytery & Epiſcopi ſunt Iure divino pares, id est, adminiſtrant idem officium, eodem modo, & eadem auctoritate, Vnde Preſbyteri impoſitionis manuum in pastoribus ordinandis jus habent. 1. Tim. 4. 14. Can. Preſbyter. Diſtinct. 23. Sir Amandus Polanus Syntagm. Theol. l. 7. c. 11.1 Tim 4:14other writers of the reformed Churches, who averre and proove againſt the Papiſts, and Ieſuites; that the power of election and ordination p. 102of 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 onelyonly, as they are Miniſters. But hee that hath handeled and prooved this moſt largely and fully of all others, is Gerſonius Bucerus de Gubernatione Eccleſiae (being an anſwer to Biſhop Downhams Sermon of Biſhops) p. 261. 262. 283. 287. 292. 294. 299. 310. 318. to 367. 464. 465. 493. 498. 499. 524. 618. where this point is ſo learnedly and ſubſtantially prooved by Scripture, reaſon, and Authors of all ſorts, that none, which read theſe paſſages of his, can ever hereafter call this into queſtion more.

Having runne thus long abroade, I now in the laſt place returne to our owne Church and writers. The Booke of ordination of Miniſters, ratified by two ſeverall Acts of Parliament, namely 3. Ed. 6. c. 12. and 8. Eliz. c. 1. and ſubſcribed to by all our Prelates and Ministers, ††Canons 1603. 36. 37.by vertue of the 36. Canon as containing nothing in it contrary to the word of God, expreſly orders, that when Miniſters are ordained; ALL THE MINISTERS PRESENT AT THE ORDINATION SHALL LAY THEIR HANDS TOGETHER WITH THE BISHOP ON THOSE THAT ARE TO BE ORDAINED: And the 35. Can. made in Convocation by the Biſhops and Clergy An. 1603. preſcribes, that the Biſhop before hee admit any perſon to holy Orders, ſhall diligently examine him in the preſence of thoſe Miniſters that ſhall ASSIST HIM AT THE IMPOSITION OF HANDS. And if the ſaid Biſhop have any lawfull impediment, hee ſhall cauſe the ſayd Miniſters carefully to examine every p. 103ſuch perſon ſo to be ordered. Provided that they who ſhall aſsiſt the Biſhop in examining AND LAYING ON OF HANDS, ſhall be of his Cathedrall Church, if they may be conveniently had, or other ſufficient preachers of the ſame Dioceſſe, to the number of three at the leaſt. And according to this Booke of Ordination and Canon, when ever any Miniſters are ordained, all the Miniſters there preſent joyne with and aſſiſt the Biſhop in layng on of hands, on every one that is ordained. So that both by the eſtabliſhed Doctrine and practiſe of the Church of England, the power of laying on hands, and right of ordination, is common to every of our Miniſters, as well as to our Biſhops; who as they cannot ordaine or lay hands on any without the Biſhop, ſo the Biſhop can ordaine or lay hands on no Miniſters without them; ſo that the power and right of ordination reſts equally in them both. With what face or ſhadowe then of truth our Prelates now can or dare to Monopolize this priviledge to themſelves alone, againſt this Booke of Ordination, their owne Canons, ſubſcriptions, yea their owne and their Predeceſſors common practiſe to the contrary (which perchance their overgreat imployments in temporall buſineſſes & ſecular ſtate affaires, have cauſed them wholly to forgett, at leaſt not to conſider:) let the indifferent judge. But to paſſe from them to ſome of our learned writers: Alcuvinus De Divinis Officiis c. 37. writes; that Biſhops, Preſbyters, and Deacons were anciently, and in his time too, **See Biſhop Iewols Re-ply to Harding. Artic. 4. Diviſ. 25. Euſebius Eccleſ. Hist. l. 3. c. 11. l. 6. c. 29. l. 3. l. 7. c. 3. Socr. Eccleſ. 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 Eccleſ. 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.elected by the Clergy and people, and that they were preſent at their Ordination and conſenting to it. That the Biſhops conſecration in his dayes uſed in the Church of Rome, wherein two Biſhops held the Goſpell or New Teſtament over the head of the Biſhop conſecrated, and a third uttered the bleſsing, after which the other Biſhops preſent layde their hands on p. 104his 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 Commentary on the firſt to Titus, that the ancient conſecration of Biſhops, was nothing elſe but their election and inthronization by the Elders, who choſe out one of their company for a Biſhop, and placed him in a higher ſeat then the reſt, and called him a Biſhop, without further Ceremony; juſt as an Army makes a Generall, or as if the Deacons ſhould chooſe one from among them and call him an Archdeacon, having no other conſecration but ſuch as the other Deacons had, being advaunced above others onelyonly by the Election of his fellow-brethren, without other ſolemnity.

By which it is plaine, that in the primitive Church, Preſbyters did not onelyonly ordaine Preſbyters and Deacons, before there were any Biſhops elected and inſtituted; but likewiſe, that after Biſhops were inſtituted, they ordained and conſecrated Biſhops (as well as Elders and Deacons,) and that the ſole ordination and conſecration of Biſhops in the Primitive and pureſt times, was nothing but the Preſbyters bare election and inthronization of them without more ſolemnity; So that the other Rites and Ceremonies now uſed, are but Novelties. Anſelme Archbiſhop of Canterbury on the 1. Tim. 4. 14. expounds theſe words, with the laying on of hands of the Preſbytery in this maner, Hee cals that the laying on of hands which was made in his ordination; which impoſition of hands was in the Preſbytery, becauſe that by this impoſition of hands, hee received an Elderſhip, that is, a Biſhopricke. For a Biſhop is oftentimes called a Preſbyter by the Apostle, and a Preſbyter a Biſhop. (which in his Commentary on the third Chapter, on Phil. 1. 1. Tit. 1. 5. 7. hee prooves to be but one and the ſame in the Apostles time and in the Primitive Church.) So that by his reſolution the impoſition of hands and power of ordaining Elders and Biſhops, p. 105belongs to Preſbyters as well as to Biſhops. Our Engliſh Apoſtle mmWicklif. De 4. Sectis Novellis. c. 6. De Papa. c. 11.John Wickliffe, and his Coaetanean nnRichardus Armachanus. Ad Quaeſt. Armenorum. l. 11. c. 1. to 8.Richard Fitzralphe, otherwiſe called Richardus Armachanus Arch-biſhop and Primate of Ardmagh in Ireland; if we beleeve either their owne writings, or ooWaldnſis Cont. Wicl. Tome 3. c. 60 61 62. 63. & Tom. 1. l 2. Artic. 3. c. 57.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 onelyonly by a ſimple Preiſt, ought not to doubt of his Preſbyterſhip, or to be ordained againe, ſo as hee rightly performed his clericall office, becauſe the ordination comes from God, who ſupplies all defects.

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

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

Fiftly, That Chriſt ſitting in heaven hath given the power of conſecrating and ordaining Preiſts and Deacons, of Confirmation, and all other things, which Biſhops now challenge to themſelves, to juſt Preſbyters; and that theſe things were but of late times, even above 300. yeares after Chriſt, reſerved p. 106and appropriated to Biſhops onelyonly by their owne Canons and Conſtitutions, to increaſe their Caeſarian Pompe and pride. And **Tom. 3. c. 36. Sect. 1.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.