Certain Brief TREATISES, WRITTEN BY DIVERS LEARNED MEN, concerning the ancient and Modern government of the CHURCH. Wherein, Both the Primitive Institution of EPISCOPACY IS MAINTAINED, AND THE LAWFULNESS OF THE Ordination of the Protestant MINISTERS beyond the Seas likewise defended. The particulars whereof are set down in the leaf following.  JOB. 8.8, 9 
Inquire, I pray thee, of the former age; and prepare thyself to the search of their Fathers:  
For we are but of yesterday, and know nothing.  
OXFORD, Printed by LEONARD LICHFIELD, Printer to the University. Anno Dom. 1641.   

THE SEVERAL TREATISES touching Church-government, gathered here together, are these.  

I. A Discovery of the causes of the continuance of these Contentions concerning Church-government: by RICHARD HOOKER. Pag. 1.  
II. A summary view of the Government both of the Old and New Testament: by LANCELOT ANDREW'S, late Bishop of Winchester. Wherein whatsoever is included within these marks [] hath been added, to supply the imperfection of the written copy. Pag. 7.  
III. The Original of Bishops and Metropolitans; briefly laid down by MARTIN BUCER, JOHN rainold, and JAMES Archbishop of Armagh. Pag. 45.  
iv A Geographical and Historical disquisition, touching the Lydian or Proconsular Asia, and the seven Metropolitical Churches contained therein by the said Archbishop of Armagh. Pag. 76.  
V A Declaration of the patriarchical Government of the ancient Church: by EDWARD BREREWOOD. Pag. 96.  
VI A brief Declaration of the several forms of Government, received in the Reformed Churches beyond the Seas: by JOHN DUREE. Pag. 123.  
VII. The lawfulness of the Ordination of the Ministers of those Churches, maintained against the Romanists: by FRANCIS MASON.    

A SUMMARIE VIEW OF THE GOVERNMENT BOTH OF THE OLD AND NEW TESTAMENT: WHEREBY The Episcopal Government of Christ's Church is vindicated: Out Of the rude Draughts of LANCELOT ANDREW'S, late Bishop of Winchester. Whereunto is prefixed (as a Preamble to the whole) a Discovery of the Causes of the continuance of these Contentions touching Church-government: out of the fragments of RICHARD HOOKER.  
OXFORD, Printed by LEON LICHFIELD, Anno Dom. 1641.   

The causes of the continuance of these Contentions concerning Church-Government.  
COntention ariseth, either through error in men's judgements, or else disorder in their affections.  
When contention doth grow by error in judgement; it ceaseth not till men by instruction come to see wherein they err, and what it is that did deceive them. Without this, there is neither policy nor punishment that can establish peace in the Church.  
The Moscovian Emperor, being weary of the infinite strifes and contentions amongst Preachers, and by their occasion amongst others, forbade preaching utterly throughout all his Dominions; and in stead there of commanded certain Sermons of the Greek and Latin Fathers to be translated, and them to be read in public assemblies, without adding a word of their own thereunto upon pain of death. He thought by this politic devise to bring them to agreement or at least to cover their disagreement. But so bad a policy was on fit salve for so great a sore.  
We may think perhaps, that punishment would have been more effectual to that purpose. For neither did Solomon speak without book in saying, that when folly, 
Prov. 22.15.  is bound up in the heart of a child, the rod of correction must drive it out; and experience doth show, that when error hath once disquieted the minds of men and made them restless, if they do not fear they will terrify. Neither hath it repent the Church at any time to have used the rod in moderate severity for the speedier reclaiming of men from error, and the reuniting such as by schism have sundered themselves. But we find by trial, that as being taught and not terrified, they shut their ears against the word of truth and sooth themselves in that wherewith custom or sinister persuasion hath enured them: so contrariwise, if they be terrified and not taught, their punishment doth not commonly work their amendment.  
As Moses therefore, so likewise Aaron; as Zerubabel, so jehoshua; as the Prince which hath laboured by the Sceptre of righteousness and sword of justice to end strife, so the Prophets which with the book and doctrine of salvation have sound and wisely endeavoured to instruct the ignorant in those litigious points wherewith the Church is now troubled: whether by preaching, as Apollo's among the jews; or by disputing, as Paul at Athens; or by writing, as the learned in their several times and ages heretofore; or by conferring in Synods and Counsels, as Peter, james, and others at jerusalem, or by any the like allowable and laudable means; 
2. Cor. 8.18.  their praise is worthily in the Gospel, and their portion in that promise which God hath made by his Prophets, 
Dan. 12.3.  They that turn many unto righteousness shall shine as the stars for ever and ever. I say, whosoever have sound and wisely endeavoured by those means to reclaim the ignorant from their error, and to make peace.  
Want of sound proceeding in Church controversies hath made many more stiff in error now then before.  
Want of wise and discreet dealing, hath much hindered the peace of the Church. It may be thought, and is, that Arius had never raised those tempestuous storms which we read he did; if Alexander, the first that withstood the Arrians heresy, had born himself with greater moderation, and been less eager in so good a cause. Sulpitius Severus doth note as much in the deal of Idacius against the favourers of Priscillian, when that heresy was but green and new sprung up. For by overmuch vehemency against jactantius and his mates, a spark was made a flame: insomuch that thereby the seditious waxed rather more fierce than less troublesome. In matters of so great moment, whereupon the peace or disturbance of the Church is known to depend, if there were in us that reverend care which should be; it is not possible we should either speak at any time without fear, or ever writ but with a trembling hand. Do they consider whereabout they go, or what it is they have in hand; who taking upon them the causes of God, deal only or chief against the persons of men?  
We cannot altogether excuse ourselves in this respect, whose home controversies and debates at this day, although I trust they be as the strife of Paul with Barnabas and not with Elymas; yet because there is a truth, which on the one side being unknown hath caused contention, I do wish it had pleased Almighty God, that in sifting it out, those offences had not grown, which I had rather bewail with secret tears then public speech.  
Nevertheless as some sort of people is reported to have bred a detestation of drunkenness in their children by presenting the deformity thereof in servants: so it may come to pass (I wish it might) that we beholding more foul deformity in the face and countenance of a common adversary, shall be induced to correct some smaller blemishes in our own. Ye are not ignorant of the Demands, Motives, Censures, Apologies, Defences, and other writings which our great enemies have published under colour of seeking peace; promising to bring nothing but reason and evident remonstrance of truth. But who seethe not how full gorged they are with virulent, slanderous and immodest speeches, tending much to the disgrace, to the disproof nothing of that cause which they endeavour to overthrow? 
job. 13.7.  Will you speak wickedly for God's defence? saith job. Will you dipp your tongues in gall and your pens in blood, when ye write and speak in his cause? Is the truth confirmed, are men convicted of their error when they are upbraided with the miseries of their condition and estate? When their understanding, wit and knowledge is depressed? When suspicions and rumours, without respect how true or how false, are objected to diminish their credit and estimation in the world? Is it likely that Invectives, Epigrams, Dialogues, Epistles, Libels, laden with contumelies and criminations, should be the means to procure peace? Surely they which do take this course, 
Rom 3.17.  the way of peace they have not known. If they did but once enter into a stayed consideration with themselves what they do; no doubt they would give over and resolve with job. Behold I am vile, what shall I answer? 
job. 40.4, 5.  I will lay my hand upon my mouth. If I have spoken once amiss, I will speak no more; or if twice, I will proceed no further.  
But how sober and how sound soever our proceed be in these causes; all is in vain which we do to abate the errors of men, except their unruly affections be bridled. Self-love, vainglory, impatience, pride, pertinacy, these are the bane of our peace. And these are not conquered or cast out, but by prayer. Pray for jerusalem; and your prayer shall cause the hills to bring forth peace: 
Psal. 72.3, 6.  peace shall distil and come down like the rain upon the mown grass, and as the showers that water the earth. We have used all other means, and behold we are frustrate, we have laboured in vain. In disputations; whether it be because men are ashamed to acknowledge their errors before many witnesses, or because extemporality doth exclude mature and ripe advice without which the truth cannot sound and throughly be demonstrated, or because the fervour of contention doth so disturb men's understanding, that they cannot sincerely and effectually judge: in Books and Sermons; whether it be because we do speak and write with too little advice, or because you do hear and read with too much prejudice: in all humane means which have hitherto been used to procure peace; whether it be because our deal have been too feeble, or the minds of men with whom we have dealt too too implacable, or whatsoever the cause or causes have been: for as much as we see that as yet we fail in our desires, yea the ways which we take to be most likely to make peace, do but move strife; O that we would now hold our tongues, leave contending with men, and have our talk and treaty of peace with God. We have spoken and written enough of peace: 
Psal. 122.6.  there is no way left but this one; Pray for the peace of jerusalem.  

THE FORM OF GOVERNMENT IN THE OLD TESTAMENT: And first, under MOSES.  
THE Commonwealth of ISRAEL was considered, either as Personal, containing all the whole people, not a man left: or Representative; in the 

Estate,  
Tribes,  
Cities; whose daughters the Towns adjacent are called.   

I. The Estate had ever one Governor, 

1. Moses.  
2. josua.  
3. judges.  
4. Kings.  
5. Tirshathaes', [or, Viceroys, Ezra. 2.63.] with whom were joined the LXX. Elders.    
II. The Tribes had every one their Prince, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Phylarcha. (Num. 2.) with whom were joined the chief of the families, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Patriarchae. (Num. 1.4.)  
III. The Cities had each likewise their Ruler. (jud. 9.30. 1. King. 22.26. 2. King. 23.8.) with whom were joined the Elders or Ancients. (Ruth. 4.2. Ezr. 10.14.)  
These last, not before they came into Canaan, [and were settled in their Cities.]  
It appeareth, that Moses sometime consulted only with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (the heads of the Tribes;) and then one Trumpet only sounded: (Num. 10.4.) in some other causes with the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (the Congregation;) and then both Trumpets called. (Num. 10.3.)  
The highest BENCH or judgement, for causes of greatest difficulty, was that of the LXX. who at the first, were the Fathers of each family that came down to Egypt. (Gen. 46.) which number did after that remain; (Exod. 24.1, 9) and was at last by God himself so appointed. (Num. 11.16.) See 2. Chron. 19.8.  
The inferior BENCHES, for matters of less importance, were erected by jethroes advice of Rulers of 

Thousands,  
Hundreds,  
Fifties,  
Tithings   Exod. 18.21, 26. and after established by God's approbation. (Deut. 16.18.)    
In every City (as 
* Antiquit. l. 4. c. 8.  josephus saith) were seven judges; and for each judge, two Levites: which made together the Bench of each City.   

The form of the Ecclesiastical government under MOSES.  
THe Priesthood was settled in the Tribe of Levi by God.  
Levi had three sons: Cohath, Gershon, and Merari.  
Of these, the line of Cohath was preferred before the rest.  
From him descended four Families: Amram, Izhar, Hebron, and Vzziel.  
Of these the stock of Amram was made chief.  
He had two sons: Aaron and Moses.  
Aaron was by God appointed High Priest.  
So that there came to be four distinctions of Levitst 

1. Aaron, as chief.  
2. Cohath.  
3. Gershon.  
4. Merari.    
The Commonwealth of Israel was at the beginning in the desert a Camp. In the midst whereof the Ark and Tabernacle were pitched: and according to the four Coasts whereof, they guartered themselves; on every side three Tribes.  

On the East side: judah. Issachar. Zabulon. Num. 2. v. 3.  
On the South side: Reuben. Simeon. Gad. Num. 2. v. 10.  
On the West side: Ephraim. Manasses. Benjamin. Num. 2. v. 18.  
On the North side: Dan. Aser. Napthali. Num. 2. v. 25.   
These four Quarters were committed to those four Divisions of Levits: 

The East quarter, to Aaron, and his family. Num. 3. vers. 38.  
The South quarter, to The Cohathites. Num. 3. vers. 29.  
The West quarter, to The Gershonits'. Num. 3. vers. 23.  
The North quarter, to The Merarits. Num. 3. vers. 35.    
Who lodged among them, and took charge of them, as of their several Wards.  
But there was not a parity in these four: for 

1. Aaron's family, which bore the Ark itself, was chief.  
2. Cohaths, which bore the Tabernacle and vessels, next.  
3. Gershons, which bore the veil and hang of the Court, third.  
4. Meraries, which bore the Pillars and Posts, last.    
Neither were all the Levits of each of these several houses equal; but God ordained a superiority among them: 

Over the Priests, Eleazar. Num. 3. v. 30.24.35.  
Over the Cohathits, Elizaphan. Num. 3. v. 30.24.35.  
Over the Gershenits, Eliasaph. Num. 3. v. 30.24.35.  
Over the Merarits, Zuriel. Num. 3. v. 30.24.35.    
Whom he termeth Nesiim, that is, Prelates or Superiors.  
No more did he permit these four to be equals among themselves: but appointed 

Ithamar (Exod. 38.21.) to command over 

Eliasaph, with his Gershonits'. (Num. 4.28.)  
Zuriel, with his Merarits. (Num. 4.33.)    
Eleazar (Num. 4.16.) to have jurisdictio over 

His own Family.  
Elizaphan, with his Cohathites.      
Yea he maketh not Eleazar and Ithamar to be absolute equals: but giveth Eleazar preeminence over Ithamar; and therefore termeth him Nasi Nesiim, Princeps Principum or Praelatus Praelatorum. (Num. 3.32.)  
And all these under Aaron the High Priest.  
So that, 

1. Aaron was the High Priest.  
2. Under him Eleazar: who, as he had his peculiar charge to look unto, so was he generally to rule both Ithamars' jurisdiction and his own.  
3. Under him Ithamar, over two families.  
4. Under him the three Prelates.  
5. Under each of them, their several chief Fathers (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as they are termed Exod. 6.25.) under Elizaphan four, under Eliasaph two, under Zuriel two. (Num. 3.18, etc.)  
6. Under these, the several persons of their kindreds.    
This is here worth the noting, that albeit it be granted that Aaron was the type of Christ, and so we forbear to take any argument from him: yet Eleazar (who was no type, nor ever so deemed by any writer) will serve sufficiently to show such superiority as is pleaded for; that is, a personal jurisdiction in one man restant over the heads or rulers of divers charges.   

The form of government under JOSHUA.  
THe Commonwealth being changed from the ambulatory form into a settled estate in the Cities of Canaan: as before, the Levits were divided according to the several Quarters of the Camp; so now were they sorted into the several territories of the Tribes. So God commanded; Num. 35.2, 8.  
The lot fell so, that the four partitions of the XII. Tribes were not the same, as when they camped before together; but after another sort. For the Tribes of 

1. juda, Simeon and Benjamin made the first Quarter.  
2. Ephraim, Dan, and half of Manasses the second.  
3. Issachar, Asher, Napthali, and the other half of Manasses the third.  
4. Zebulun, Reuben, and Gad the fourth.    
Now in these four; 

1. The charge or oversight of the first was committed to Aaron and his family: and they had therein assigned to them XIII. Cities. in judah and Simeon, IX. and in Benjamin, IU. (Ios. 21.9, 10, etc.)  
2. Of the second, the care was committed to the family of the Cohathits: and they had assigned to them X. Cities. in Ephraim, iv in Dan, IU. and in the half of Manasses, II. (Ios. 21.20.)  
3. The third was committed to the family of Gershon: and they had therein assigned to them XIII. Cities. in Issachar, iv in Asher, iv in Naphtali, III. in the other half of Manasses, II. (Ios. 21.27.)  
4. The oversight of the fourth partition was committed to the Merarits: and they had therein assigned to them XII. Cities. in Zebulun, iv in Reuben, iv in Gad, IU. (Ios. 21.34.)    
These were in all, XLVIII. Cities: whereof the chief (as may appear) were Cities set on Hills; and all so situate, in such proportion and distance, as that they most equally parted their Tribe among them, to perform unto them their duties of attendance and instruction.  
Further, there were in joshuahs' time added, by the decree of the Princes, the Nethinims of the people of Gibeon; for the lowest ministeries, and for the service of the Levits. (Ios. 9.27.)  
So that now the order was thus: 

1. Eleazar.  
2. Phineas.  
3. Abisua.  
4. The three Nesiims.  
5. The Raze Aboth, [or, Heads of the Families.]  
6. The Levits.  
7. The Nethinims.    
If this power and superiority was necessary, when all the People and Priests were within one Trench, even within the view of Aaron's eye: much more in Canaan, when they were scattered abroad in divers Cities fare distant, was the retaining of it more than necessary.   

The form of Government under DAVID.  
ALbeit in saul's government small regard was had to the Church: yet David found at his coming a superiority amongst them.  
For besides the Priests, he found six Princes or Rulers over six families of the Levits. (1. Chron. 15.5, 6, etc.)  

Vriel over Cohath.  
Asajah over Merari.  
joel over Gershon.  
Shemajah over Elizaphan.  
Eliel over Hebron.  
Amminadab over Vzziel.   
Likewise between the two Priests an inequality: one Abiathar, attending the Ark at jerusalem, the higher function; the other, Zadok, the Tabernacle at Gibeon. (2. Sam. 20.25. 1. Chron. 16.37, 39)  
But after the Ark was brought back; he set a most exquisite order among the Levits: and that by samuel's direction; 1. Chron. 9.22. So that he is there reckoned as a new Founder.  
Of them he made six orders: 1. Chron. 23.  

1. Priests, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 24000. vers. 4.  
2. Ministers of Priests 24000. vers. 4.  
3. judges, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 6000. vers. 4.  
4. Officers, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 6000. vers. 4.  
5. Singers, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 4000 verse. 5.  
6. Porters, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 4000 verse. 5.   
I. Of Priests, Zadok was the chief of the family of Eleazar; and Ahimelech the second, of the family of Ithamar. (1. Chron. 24.3.)  

Under these were XXIIII. other Courses.  
Of the posterity of Eleazar, XVI. 1. Chr. 24.4.  
Of the posterity of Ithamar, VIII. 1. Chr. 24.4.  
Which XXIIII. are called (in the 5. verse) Rulers of the Sanctuary and Rulers of the House of God: and to whom the learned Interpreters think the XXIIII. Elders, Apocal. 4.4. have relation.   
II. Of Levits that ministered to the Priests in their function, likewise XXIIII. Courses; out of the 
* IX.  VIII. families, the Heads of whom are set down in 1. Chron. 23.6. and 24.20.  
Over all which, Jehdeiah was chief.  
III. Of judges, that sat for causes aswell of God as the King, there were appointed: 

1. On this side jordan, upwards toward the River; Ashhabiah the Hebronite. (1. Chr. 26.30.)  
2. On this side jordan, downwards towards the Sea; Chenaniah the Isharite. (1. Chr. 26.29.)  
3. Beyond jordan, over the two Tribes and the half; jerijah the chief of the Hebronites. (1. Chron. 26.31.)    
FOUR Of Officers. 

Scribes. Shemaiah. (1. Chron. 24.6.)  
Scribes. Seraiah. (2. Sam. 8.17.)  
Scribes. Shevah. (2. Sam. 20.25.)  
Scribes of the Levits. (1. Chron. 24.6.)  
Scribes of the Temple. (2. King. 22.3. jer. 36.10)  
Scribes of the People. (Mat. 2.4.)  
Scribes of the King. (2. King. 12.10.)    
V Of the Singers likewise he set XXIV courses: over which he placed three chief, out of the three families. (1. Chron. 15.17. & 25.2, 3, 4.)  

Out of Cohath; Heman samuel's nephew. (1. Chr. 6.33)  
Out of Gershon; Asaph. (1. Chron. 6.39.)  
Out of Merari; Ethan or jeduthun. 1. Chron. 6.44.   
Of these, Heman was the Chief. (1. Ch. 25.5)  
Under these were divers others. (1. Chr. 15.18.  
VI Of Porters, who were divided into the 

Keepers of the watch of the Temple: (Mat. 27.65. Psal. 134.1.) who were placed on each quarter of the Tabernacle. (1. Chr. 26.13, 14, etc.) On the 

East side VI over whom was Shelemiah.  
South FOUR (for the Tabernaele II. and II. for Asuppim) over whom was Obed.  
West FOUR over whom was Hosa.  
North FOUR over whom was Zechariah.    
Over all these it seemeth Benajah, the son of jehoiada the Priest, was the chief. (1. Chron, 27.5.)  
Treasurer's: for the 

Revenues of the house of God (1. Ch. 26.20.) for 

Cohath; Shebuel of Moses offspring.  
Gershon; jehiel.  
Merare; Ahiah.    
Things dedicated by vow; Shelomith. 1. Chron. 26.26.    
Over all the Porters was Chenaniah. (1. Chr. 26.29. & 15.22, 27.)    
It is to be remembered that, beside Zadok the High Priest and Ahimelech (the second) we find mention of Hashabiah the son of Kemuel chief of the whole Tribe of Levi. (1. Chron. 27.17.) So that there was 

One over the Ark; Zadok.  
The second over the Tabernacle; Ahimelech.  
The third over the Tribe; Hashabiah.    
As over the 

Levits' Ministers; jehdeiah.  
judges; Chasabiah.  
Officers; Shemaiah.  
Singers; Heman.  
Porters; Chenaniah, or Benaiah.    
Agreeable to this form we read that under josias there were three: that is, Hilkiah, Zachariah, and jehiel: (2. Chron. 35.8.) and that the Levits had six over them. (2. Chron. 35.9.)  
Again under Zedekiah; that there were carried into Captivity Seraiah. [the chief Priest] and Zephaniah [the second Priest.] 2. King. 25.18.  
Likewise under Ezekiah, at the provision for the Levits' portions, there were ten of the Levits; over whom was Cononiah and Shimei: and so Kore over the voluntary offerings; and six Levits under him. (2. Chron. 31.12, 13. etc.)   

The form of government under NEHEMIAH.  
OF whom and Esdras it is recorded, that they did all according to Moses institution. (Ezr. 6.18. Nehem. 10.34, 36.)  
There was then 

Eliashib. Nehem. 3.1.  
Seraiah. 11.11.  
Zabdiel. 11.14.    
The Courses were then but XXII. (Neh. 12.12.)  
There was then 

Vzzi. (Neh. 11.22.)  
jezrahiah. (Neh. 12.42.)  
Shallum. (1. Chron. 9.17.)    
Under Zabdiel, at his hand 

Adaiah. Nehem. 11. ver. 12, 13.  
Amasai. Nehem. 11. ver. 12, 13.    
Under Vzzi 

Shemaiah. Neh. 11.15, 16.  
Shabbethai. Heh. 11.15, 16.  
jozabad. Neh. 11.15, 16.    
Under jezrahiah 

Mattaniah. Neh. 11.17.  
Bakbukiah. Neh. 11.17.  
Abda. Neh. 11.17.    
Under Shallum 

Akkub. 1. Chron. 9.17.  
Talmon. Nehem. 11.19.    
So that there was 

1. The High Priest.  
2. The second & third, Overseers of the Priests.  
3. The Princes of the Priests.  
4. The Priests.  
5. The Overseer of the Levits.  
6. The Princes of the Levits.  
7. The Levits.  
8. The Heads of the Nethinims.  
9 The Nethinims: of 

the Gibeonits'.  
Salomons servants.       

[A brief Recapitulation of the degrees observed under the government of the Old Testament: with an accommodation thereof unto the New.]  
Out of these we gather this Form to have been.  

I. Moses: [in whom was] the supreme jurisdiction, to visit Aaron. (Num. 3.10.)  
II. Aaron: the High Priest. (Levit. 21.20. Num. 35.28. Nehem. 3.1.) 

Head. (2. Chron. 19.11.)  
Prince of the house of God. (1. Chron. 9.11)    
III. Eleazar: the second. (2. King. 25.18.) 

Prelate of Prelates. (Num. 3.22.)  
Chief Overseer, or Bishop (jer. 20.1.)  
At his hand, It hamar.    
iv Prince of the Tribe. (1. Chron. 27.17.)  
V Elizaphan. Eliasaph. Zuriel. 

Prelates. (Num. 3.24, etc.)  
Overseers or Bishops. (Neh. 11.14, 22.)    
VI [In] the XXIV. Courses set by David; The Princes of the Priests. (Ezr. 8.29.) 

of God. 1. Chr. 24.5.  
of the Sanctuary. 1. Chr. 24.5. 

Elders of the Priests. (jerem. 19.1. King. 19.1.)  
Heads of the Families. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (Nehem. 12.12.)  
Chief Priests. (Act. 19.14.)      
VII. The Priests themselves: 

Whether at jerusalem; or in the Country towns. (2. Chron. 31.19.)    
VIII. The Overseer of the Levits. (Nehem. 11.22.)  
IX. The Princes of the Levits. (1. Chron. 15.5. 2. Chron. 35.9. Nehem. 12.22.)  
X. The Head of the Levits' Officers. The Scribe. 

The Singers. (1. Chro. 16.5. Neh. 12.42.)  
The Porters. (1. Chron. 9.17. & 15.22.)  
The Treasurers. (1. Chron. 26.24, 2. Chr. 31.12.)    
[XI. The Levits themselves.]  
XII. The Chief of the Nethinims. (Nehem. 11.21.)  
XIII. The Nethinims: of 

the Gibeonits'. (Ios. 9.21.)  
Salomons servants. (1. King. 9.21. Nehem. 7.60.)     
It is not only requisite that things be done, and that they be diligently done (against sloth;) but that they be done continually, and constantly.  
To this end it is, that God appoints Overseers: 

1. To urge others, if they be slack. (2. Chron. 24.5. & 34 13.)  
2 To keep them in course, if they be well. (2. Chr. 29.5. and 31.12. and 34.12.13.)  
3. To punish, if any be defective. (jerem. 29.26.)    
For which, 

A power of Commanding was in the High Priest. (1. Chron. 23.8, 18. and 24.6. and 31.13.)  
A power judicial, if they transgressed: (Deut: 17.9. Zach: 3.7. Ezech: 44.24. 

Under pain of death. (Deut: 17.12.)  
Punishment in Prison, and in the Stocks: (Ier: 29.26.) in the Gate of Benjamin. (Ier: 20.2.)    
Officers to Cite and Arrest: (joh. 7.32. Act: 5.18.) This Corporal.  
To suspend from the Function: (Ezr: 2.62.)  
To excommunicate. (Ezr: 10.8. joh. 9.22. and 12.) 42. and 16.2.) 

[This Spiritual.]      

Why may not the like be, [for the government of the Church:]  
There is alleged one only stop. That the High Priest was a figure of Christ: who being now come in the flesh, the figure ceaseth, & no argument thence to be drawn.  
[For Answer whereunto, we are to consider; that]  
I. This is the Anabaptists only shift. That we are to have no Wars: for the wars of the jews were but figures of our spiritual Battle. No Magistrate: for their Magistrates were but figures of our Ministers, Pastors, and Doctors. and, all by Christ's coming abolished.  
II. Christ, being as well King as Priest, was as well fore resembled by the Kings then, as by the High Priest. So that if his coming take away the one Type, it must also the other. If it be said, there was in the King somewhat else beside the representation: the like is and may be truly said of the High Priest. And that some such thing there was, it is plain by S. Paul, who yielded his obedience to the High Priest; appearing before him, and acknowledging him a Governor of the People (Act. 23.5.) & that, after the Type was expired. Which had been merely unlawful; if there had not remained in him somewhat besides the Figure.  
III. There is no necessity we should press Aaron. For Eleazar being Princeps Principum, that is, having a saperiour authority over the Superiors of the Levits [in Aaron's life time] was never by any [in this point] reputed a Type of Christ. So that though Aaron be accounted such; yet Eleazar will serve our purpose. As also, 2. Chron. 35.8. we read of three at once: one only of which was the High Priest, and a Type of Christ; the rest were not. Let them answer then to the other twain, who were Rulers or Chief over the House of God.   

Why it may be.  
I. Out of Dic Ecclesiae, [the New Reformers] tell us, we are to fetch our pattern from the jews: and therefore it seems they are of opinion, that one form may serve both us and them.  
II. Except there should be such a fashion of Government, consisting of inequality: I see not in the New Testament, how any could perish in that contradiction of Gore, which S. jude affirmeth. For his plea was for equality; and against the preferring of Aaron above the rest.  
III. The Ancient Fathers seem to be of mind, that the same Form should serve both.  

So thinketh S. Cyprian, l. 3. ep. 9 ad Rogatianum.  
So S. Hierom, ep. 85. ad Evagrium. Traditiones Apostolicae sumptae sunt de Veteri Testamento. & ad Nepotianum, de vitâ Clericorum.  
So St Leo. Ita veteris Testamenti sacramenta distinxit; ut quaedam ex iis, sicut erant condita, Evangelicae eruditioni profutura decerperet: ut quae dudùm fuerant consuetudines judaicae, fierent observantiae Christianae.  
So Rabanus, de Institutione Clericorum, l. 1. c. 6.   
They ground this their opinion upon that they see,  
1. That the Synagogue is called a Type or shadow, and the Church the very image of the thing. (Heb. 10.1.)  
2. That God himself saith of the Christian Church under the Gentiles; that he will take of the Gentiles, and make them Priests and Levits to himself. (Esai. 66.21.) there calling our Presbyters and Deacons by those Legal names.  
3. That there is an agreement, in the 

Numbers: 

XII. Num. 1.16. and Luk. 9.1.  
LXX. Num. 11.16. & Luk: 10.1.    
Names: Angel. Malach. 2.7. and Revel. 1.10.    
And their often interchange and indifferent using of Priest or Presbyter, Levite or Deacon, showeth they presumed a correspence & agreement between them.  
[Thus then]  

Aaron [should be answerable unto] Christ.  
Eleazar [should be answerable unto] Archbishop.  
Princes of Priests [should be answerable unto] Bishops.  
Priest's [should be answerable unto] Presbyters.  
Princes of Levits [should be answerable unto] Archdeacon's.  
Levits [should be answerable unto] Deacons.  
Nethinims [should be answerable unto] Clerks and Sextons.     

THE FORM OF CHURCH-GOVERNMENT in the New Testament: and first in the days of our Saviour CHRIST.  
I. THe whole ministry of the New Testament was at the first invested in Christ alone.  
He is termed our 

Apostle. (Hebr. 3.1.)  
Prophet. (Deut. 18.15. Act. 3.22.)  
Evangelist. (Esai. 41.27.)  
Bishop. (1. Pet. 2.25.)  
Doctor. (Mat. 23.10.)  
Diaconus. (Rom. 15.8.)    
II. When the Harvest was great, (Matth. 9.38.) that his personal presence could not attend all; he took unto him XII. Apostles: as the XII. Patriarches, or XII. 
* Exod. 15.27. Num. 33.9.  Fountains (as S. jerom) or the XII. Princes of the Tribes. (Num. 1.) 

Gathering his Disciples, (Matth. 10.1.)  
Choosing out of them (Luk. 6.13.)  
Whom he would; (Mark. 3.13.)  
Called them to him, (Luk. 6.13.)  
Made them, (Mark. 3.13.)  
Named them Apostles. (Luk. 6.13.)    
These he began to send: (Mark. 6.7.) 

Gave them in charge, (Mat. 10.1. and 11.1.) 

To preach the Gospel. (Luk. 9.2.)  
To Heal. (Matth. 10.1. Luk. 9.2.)  
To cast out Devils. (Matth. 10.1.)    
Gave them power, (Mat. 10.1. Luk. 9.2.) 

To take maintenance, (Matth. 10.10.)  
To shake of the dust for a witness. (Matth. 10.14.)      
So he sent them. (Matth. 10.5. Luk. 9.1.) 

They went and preached. (Luk. 9.6.)  
They returned, and made relation what they had 

done. Mark. 6.30.  
taught. Mark. 6.30.      
III. After this, when the Harvest grew jogreat as that the XII. sufficed not all; (Luk. 10.1, 2.) he took unto him other LXX. (as the 70. Palmtrees, Num. 33.9. the Fathers of Families, Gen. 46. the Elders. Num. 11)  
These he 

Declared: (Luk. 10.1.)  
Sent by two and two into every City and place, whither he himself would come. Ib.  
Gave them power, as to the Apost les, to 

Take maintenance. (Luk. 10.7.)  
Shake off the dust. (Luk. 10.11.)  
Heale the sick. Luk. 10.9.  
Preach. Luk. 10.9.  
Tread upon Serpents and Scorpions, and over all the power of the Enemy. (Luk. 10.19)      
These two Orders (as me thinketh) S. Paul, Ephes. 3.5. doth comprehend under the name of Apostles and Prophets; by the LXX. understanding Prophets: as usually next to the Apostles he placeth Prophets ever. (1. Cor. 12.28. Ephes. 4.11.)  
None of the Fathers ever doubted, that these two were two several Orders or Sorts: nor that the Apostles were superior to the LXX.  
It appeareth also, that [the Apostles] had in them power to forbid to preach: (Luk. 9.49.) and that Mathias was exalted from the other Order to the Apostleship.  

This was then the Order, while Christ was upon the Earth.  
I. Christ himself.  
II. The XII. (whose successors were Bishops.)  
III. The LXX. (whose successors were Priests.)  
iv The faithful people or Disciples: of whom 500 and more are mentioned, in 1. Corinth. 15.6. and CXX. in Act. 1.15.    

[The form of go vernment, used in the time of the APOSTLES.]  
Albeit Christ saith, the people were as Sheep without a Shepherd: (Matth. 9.38.) yet he termeth his Apostles Harvest. men, not Shepherds. For while he was in person on Earth; himself only was the Shepherd, and they but Arietes gregis. But at his departure he maketh them Shepherds: (john 21.15.) as they likewise at theirs. (1. Pet. 5.2. Act. 20.28)  

Of the APOSTLES themselves: and first, of their Name.  
Shelicha, which is the Syrian name, was the title of certain Legates or Commissioners sent from the High Priest, to visit the jews and their Synagogues which were dispersed in other Countries; with authority to redrese things amiss.  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, among the Greeks', were Officers of great credit: as by Herodotus and Demosthenes appeareth.   

Secondly, of their Form, what it is.  

Not to have been with Christ all his time, (Acts 1.21.) So were others moe.  
Not to be sent immediately of Christ. (Gal. 1.1.) So were the LXX. (Luk. 10.)  
Not to be limited to no one place. (Matth. 28.19.) So were others. (Luk. 24.33, 50.)  
And S. james went no whither.  
Not to be inspired of God; so that they did not err. So were Mark and Luke.  
Not to plant Churches. So did Philip the Evangelist. (Act. 8. 5.)  
Not to work signs and miracles. So did Stephen (Acts 6.8.) and Philip. (Acts 8.6.)   
But over and above these, and with these, that eminent Authority or jurisdiction which they had over all; not only jointly together, but every one by himself: 

I. Of imposing hands in 

Ordination. (Acts 6.6.)  
Confirmation. (Act 8.17, 18.)    
II. Of Commanding. (the word of the Bench. Acts 4.18. and 5.28.) 1. Thess. 4.11.2. Thess. 3.6, 12. Philem. 8. Coloss. 4.10. 1. Cor. 14.37. 2. Peter 3.2. Titus 1.5.1. Cor. 7.6, 17. and 11.34. & 16.1.  
III. Of Countermanding. (Luke 9.49. Acts 15.24. 1. Tim. 2.12.)  
iv Of Censuring. (1. Cor. 4.21.2. Cor. 13.10. Gal. 5.12. 1. Tim. 1.20. 1. Cor. 5.5, 11. 2. Thess. 3.14. Matth. 16.19. with 18.18. and john 20.23.)    
In this power it is, that the Bishops. succeed the Apostles. Irenaelig;. lib. 3. tap. 3. Tertull. de Praelig; script. Cyprian. ad Florent. 3.9. Epiphan. Haeres. 27. (Romaefuerunt fuerunt primi Petrus & Paulus, Apostoli ijdem ac (Episcopi.) Chrysost. in Act. 3. (jacobus Episcopus Hierosolymitanus.) Hieronym. epist. 85. & 54. ad Marcellam: & de scriptorib. Ecclesiast. in Petro & jacobo. Ambros: in 1. Corinth: 11. (de Angelis:) & in Ephes. 4. (Apostolis Angeli sunt.)    

OF DEACONS.  
AT the beginning, the whole weight of the Church's affairs lay upon the Apostles.  

The distribution as well of the Sacrament. (Act. 2.42.) as of the Oblations. (Act. 4.35.)  
The Ordination. (Acts 6.6.)  
The Government. (Acts 5.3.)   
[But] upon occasion of the Greeks complaint, whose widows were not duly regarded in the daily ministration (which was as well of the Sacrament, as of the Oblations: otherwise the Apostles would not have left out [the mention of] the Sacrament, in Acts 6.4.) they transferred that part upon the VII. [Deacons.] whom they had ordained for distribution [of the Sacrament,] not for Consecration. Act. 6. 1. Tim. 3.12, 13.  
justin. Apolog. 2. Ignatius ad Heronem. Tertull: de Baptismo. Cyprian de lapsis: & lib. 3. epist. 9 Chrysostom. hom. 83. in Matth. Hieron. ep: 48. ad Sabinianum: & contra Lucifer. Ambros. office. lib. 1. cap. 41. Gregor. 4.88. Concil. Nicaen. 1. can. 14.   

OF EVANGELISTS.  
THey grew upon occasion of the scattering of the Disciples by means of the persecution after the death of S. Stephen. (Acts 11.19.) Of which number S. Philip is reckoned: (Acts 21.8.) and divers others. (Acts 11.19.) of whom Eusebius maketh mention, lib. 3. cap. 37. and lib. 5. cap. 10.  
Upon these was transferred that part of the Apostles function, which consisted in preaching from place to place.   

OF PRIEST'S.  
When the Churches were in some sort planted by the preaching of the Apostles; Prophets, and Evangelists: that they might be continually watered, and have a standing attendance; the Apostles ordained Priests by imposition of hands in every Church. (Acts 14.23. and 11.30. and 21.18.)  
And they made choice of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, rather than of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (more in use with the Greeks:) because it includeth an Embassy, and that chief of Reconciliation. which is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, expressed by S. Paul, in 2. Corinth. 5.20. (with Luke 14.32.)   

OF BISHOPS.  
LAst of all, that the Churches thus planted and watered, might so continue, the Apostles ordained Overseers, to have a general care over the Churches, in stead of themselves who first had the same, which is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Acts 15.36. and containeth in it, as a strengthening or establishing that which is already well; (Acts 14.22. and 15.41. Revel: 3.2.) so a rectifying or redressing, if ought be defective or amiss. (Tit: 1.5.)  
These are called, Acts 20.28. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Syrian, that is, Episcopi. by S. john, Revel. 1.20. the Angels of the Churches.  
[These were set over others, both to rule and teach.] 1. Tim: 5.17. 1. Pet: 5.2.  
Upon these was transferred, the chief part of the Apostolic function:  
The Oversight of the Church, Power of 

Commanding,  
Correcting,  
Ordaining.    
The occasion which caused the Apostles to appoint Bishops, [besides the pattern in the time of the Law,] seemeth to have been schisms. Such as were in the Churches of 

Rome. Rom. 16.17.  
Corinth. 1. Cor. 1.11. [and 3.3, 4.]  
Galatia. Gal. 5.12.  
Ephesus. Ephes. 4.2, 3.  
Philippi. Phil. 4.2.  
Colossi. Coloss. 3.13.  
Thessalonica. 2. Thess. 3.11.  
The Hebrews. Hebr. 13.9. jam. 3.1.    
For which S. Cyprian, S. Hierome and all the Fathers, take the respect to one Governor to be an especial remedy. [for which also see] Calvin. Instit. lib. 4. cap. 4. §. 2.  
This power even in the Apostles time was necessary. 
Act. 5.5, 15.13.11.2.11.10.46.14.11.8.13.5.11, 13.  For God chargeth not his Church with superfluous burdens. Yet had they such graces (as power of healing, doing signs, sundry languages, etc.) that they of all other might seem best able to want it. For by these graces they purchased both admiration and terror sufficient for crediting their bare word in the whole Church.  
If necessary then in their times, that were so furnished: much more in the ages ensuing, when all those graces ceased, and no means but it to keep things in order. So that, were it not apparent to have been in the Apostles: yet the necessity of the times following, destitute of these helps, might enforce it.  
Seeing then God hath no less care for the propagation and continuance of his Church, then for the first settling or planting of it: (Eph. 4.13.) it must needs follow, that this power was not personal in the Apostles, as tied to them only, but a power given to the Church; and in them for their times resident (but not ending with them, as temporary) but common to the ages after and continuing (to whom it was more needful then to them) to repress schism and to remedy other abuses.  
So that the very same power at this day remaineth in the Church; and shall to the World's end.   

Of the PERSONS, [that executed these Offices.]  
I. ALbeit the Commission were general over all Nations; which was given to the XII. yet was that generality only by permission, not express mandatory. Else should they have sinned that went not through all Nations.  
Therefore howsoever the Commission was to all Nations: yet was it left to their discretion, how and in what sort they would dispose themselves, as the Holy Ghost should direct them.  
So that the partition, Gal. 2.9. betwixt S. Peter and S. Paul, was lawful and good, and no ways derogatory to Ite, praedicate. [Go, teach all nations.]  
Further, the Ecclesiastical History doth testify, that they parted the Coasts and Countries of the world among them by common advice: and so severed themselves;  

Peter, to Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia.  
john, to Asia, Parthia.  
Andrew, to Scythia, [Tontus] Euxinus and Byzantium.  
Philip, to upper Asia, and to Hierapolis.  
Thomas, to India, Persia and the Magi.  
Bartholomew, to Armenia, Lycaonia, Jndia citerior.  
Matthew, to Aethiopia.  
Simeon, to Mesopotamia, Persia, Egypt, Africa, Britain.  
Thaddaeus, to Arabia, Idumaea, Mesopotamia.  
Mathias, to Aethiopia:   
II. Again, albeit their preaching was for the most ambulatory: yet do the same Histories witness, that having settled Religion, and brought the Church to some stay; toward their end they betook themselves to residence in some one place, divers of them. as, 

S. james at jerusalem. (Euseb. lib. 2. cap. 1. Epiphan. haer. 66. Hierome.)  
S. john at Ephesus. (Euseb. lib. 3. cap. 26. Terturlian. lib. 4. contra Martion. Hierome.)  
S. Peter, first at Antioch; and after at Rome.    
Which places were more especially accounted their Sees: and the Churches themselves, after a more especial manner, were called Apostolic.  

Sedes Apostolorum. Augustin epist. 42.  
Ecclesiae Apostolicae. Tertullian.   
III. Thirdly, it is also plain, that the Apostles chose unto them as Helpers (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) divers, who were companions with them in their journeys, ministered unto them, & supplied their absence in divers Churches, when they themselves were occasioned to departed.  
Such were: 

Apollos. (Act. 19.1. 1. Cor. 3.6.  
Aquila. (Rom. 16.3.)  
Archippus. (Philem. 2. Colos. 4.17.)  
Aristarchus. (Act. 20.4.)  
Clemens. (Phil. 4.3.)  
Crescens. (2. Tim. 4.10.)  
Demetrius. (3. john. 12.)  
Epaphras. (Colos. 4.12. & 1.7. & Philem. 24.)  
Epaphroditus. (Ph. 2.23.)  
Epaenetus. (Rom. 16.5.)  
Erastus. (Act. 19.22.)  
Gaius. (Act. 20.4.)  
jesus justus. (Col. 4.11.)  
john Mark. (Act. 13.5. & 15.37. & Philem. 24.)  
Lucas. (Philem. 24. Col. 4.14.)  
Secundus. (Act. 20.4.)  
Silvanus. (1. Pet. 5.12. 1. Thess. 1.1. 2. Thess. 1.1.)  
Sopater. (Act. 20.4.)  
Sosthenes. (1. Cor. 1.1.)  
Stephanas. (1. Cor. 16.15.)  
Timotheus. (Act. 19.22. & 20.4.)  
Titus. (2. Cor. 8.23.)  
Trophimus. (Act. 20.4.)  
Tychicus. (Act. 20.4.)  
Vrbanus. (Rom. 16.9.)    
Of whom, Eusebius, lib. 3. Hist. cap. 4. Euthymius, in tertium johannis; Isidorus, de Patrib. and Dorothei Synopsis.  
To two of these, Timothy and Titus, the one at Ephesus the other at Crete, (Euseb. lib. 3. cap. 4.) the Apostles imparted their own Commission, while they yet lived, even the chief authority they had.  

To appoint Priests. (Tit. 1.5. & Hieron. in eum locum.  
To ordain them by imposition of hands. (1. Tim. 5.22. 2. Tim. 2.2.)  
To keep safe and preserve the Depositum. (1. Tim. 6.14, 20.2. Tim. 1.14.)  
To command not to teach other things. (1. Tim. 1.3. Tit. 3.9. 2. Tim. 2.16.)  
To receive Accusations. (1. Tim. 5.19, 21.)  
To redress or correct things amiss. (Tit. 1.5.)  
To reject young Widows. (1. Tim. 5.11.)  
[To censure Heretics and disordered persons. Tit. 1.11. and] 3.10. 1. Tim: 6.5. 2. Tim. 3.5.   
And these, after the Apostles deceased, succeeded them in their charge of Government, which was ordinary, successive and perpetual: their extraordinary gifts of miracles and tongues ceasing with them. [So] Irenaeus, lib. 3. cap. 3. Quos & successores relinquebant; suum ipsorum locum Magisterii tradentes.   

[Of the promiscuous use of their NAMES.]  
These were they whom posterity called Bishops. But in the beginning, regard was not had to distinction of Names. The authority and power was ever distinct: the name not restrained, either in This, or Other.  
The Apostles were called 

Priests or Seniors. (1. Pet. 5.1.)  
Deacons or Ministers. (1. Cor. 3.5.)  
Teachers or Doctors. (1. Tim. 2.7.)  
Bishops or Overseers. (Acts 1.20.)  
Prophets. (Acts 13.1. Revel. 22.9.)  
Evangelists. (1. Cor. 9.16.)    
The name of Apostle was enlarged, and made common to more than the XII.  

To Barnabas. (Act. 14.4, 14.)  
Andronicus. (Rom. 16.7.)  
Epaphroditus. (Phil. 2.25.)  
Titus and others. (2. Cor. 8.23.)  
Timothy (Hieron. in Cant. Chr. Euseb.)  
The Priests were called 

Prophets. (1. Cor. 14.32.)  
Bishops. (Philip. 1.1. Tit. 1.7.)    
So Chrysostom, in Philip. 1. [Quid hoc? an unius civitatis multi erant episcopi? Nequaquàm: sed Presbyteros isto nomine appellavit. Tunc enim nomina adhuc erant communia.]  
Hierome: Hîc episcopos Presbyteros intelligimus; non enim in unâ urbe plures Episcopi esse potuissent.  
Theodoret: Non fieri quidem poterat, ut multi Episcopi essent unius civitat is pastors; quo sit, ut essent soli Presbyteri, quos vocavit Episcopos.  
& in 1. Tim. 3. Eosdem olim vocabant Episcopos & Presbyteros: eos autem qui nunc vocantur Episcopi, nominabant Apostolos.  
Oecumenius: Non quòd in unâ civitate multi essent Episcopi, etc.  
For in the Apostles absence in Churches new planted, the oversight was in them; till the Apostles ordained and sent them a Bishop, either by reason of some schism or for other causes.  
The Bishops (as the Ecclesiastical History recounteth them) were called 

Apostles. (Philip. 2.25.)  
Evangelists. (2. Tim. 4.5.)  
Diaconi. (1. Tim. 4.6.)  
Priests. (1. Tim. 5.17.)     
[For it is plain by the epistle of Irenaeus to Victor, in] Eusebius, lib. 5. cap. 26. that they at the beginning were called Priests, that in very truth and propriety of speech were Bishops. And by Theodoret [in 1. Tim. 3.] that they which were Bishops, were at the first called Apostles.  
The name 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, saith Suidas, was given [by the Athenians to them which were sent to oversee the Cities that were under their jurisdiction. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.]  
The name Episcopus was given among the Romans to him, qui praeerat pani & vaenalibus ad victum quotidianum. ff. de munerib. & honorib.  
Cicere, ad Atticum lib. 7. epist. 10. Vult me Pompeius esse, quem tota haec Campania & maritima ora habeat Episcopum.  
The name in Hebrew 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Gen. 41.34. seemeth to have relation to the second use. for they were such as had charge of the grain laying up, and selling under joseph.   

[The necessary use of the BISHOP'S office, and the charge committed to him.]  
The party, who in the New Testament is called Episcopus, is in the Old called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (Psal. 109.8. with Act. 1.20.)  
In a house or family, it is first affirmed of joseph, Gen. 39.4. who had the oversight and government of the rest of the servants.  
In a house there may be many servants, which have places of charge: but there is one that hath the charge of all; that is, Oeconomus, the Steward.  

So do the Apostles term themselves. (1. Cor. 4.1.) and their office. (1. Cor. 9.17.) and their successors the Bishops. (Tit. 1.7.) Vid. Hilar. in Matth. 24.45.  
In a flock, 
Vid. Hierenym. epist. 4. ad Ruslicum (cap. 6.) & epist. 85. ad Evagrium.  the Pastor. (joh. 21.15. Act. 20.28. Mat. 25.32. 1. Pet. 5.2. Ephes. 4.11.)  
In a Camp, the Captain. (Matth. 2.6. Hebr. 13.7, 17, 24.)  
In a ship, the Governor: (1. Cor. 12.28.) under whom others. (Act. 13.5.)  
In the Commonwealth, they be such as are set over Officers, to hasten them forward, and see they do their duties. as in 2. Chron. 34.12. and 31.13. Nehem. 11.22. and 12.42.  
So that, what a Steward is in a house, 

a Pastor in a flock,  
a Captain in a Camp,  
a Master in a ship,  
a Surveiour in an office:    
That is a Bishop in the Ministry.   
Upon him lieth, [to take care of the Churches under him.] 2. Cor. 11.28. Philip. 2.20. 1. Pet. 5.2. Concil. Antiochen. can. 9 [and for that end to visit them.] Act. 9.32. and 15.36. [and to be observant]  
Of that which is 

Well and orderly; [to confirm it.] Act. 15.41. Revel. 3.2.  
Otherwise; [to redress it.] Tit. 1.5.   To him was committed;  
I. Authority of ordaining: (Tit. 1.5.) and so of begetting Fathers. (Epiph. haeres. 75.) See Ambrose, Theodoret and Oecumenius, in 1. Timoth. 3. Damasus, epist. 3. Hierome, epist. 85. ad Evagr. Leo, epist. 88 Concil. Ancyran. can. 12. al. 13.  
For though S. Paul should mention a Company with him at the ordaining of Timothy: (1. Tim. 4.14.) yet it followeth not, but that he only was the Ordeyner. No more, then that Christ is the only judge: although the XII. shall sit with him on Thrones. (Luc. 22.30.)  
II. Authority of enjoining or forbidding. (1. Tim. 1.3. Ignat. ad Magnesian. Cyprian. epist. 39)  
III. Authority of holding Courts, and receiving accusations. (1. Tim. 5.19. 1. Cor. 5.12. Revel. 2.2. Augustin. de opere monachor. cap. 29.)  
iv Authority of correcting. (1. Tim. 1.3. Tit. 1.5. Hieron. contra Lucifer. cap. 4. & epist. 53. ad Riparium. Cyprian. ep. 38. ad Rogatianum.)  
V Authority of appointing Fasts. (Tertullian advers. Psychicos.)   
FINIS.   

THE ORIGINAL OF BISHOPS AND METROPOLITANS; briefly laid down BY MARTIN BUCER; sometimes Professor of Divinity in the University of Cambridge. JOHN rainold; late Professor of Divinity in the University of Oxford. JAMES USHER; sometime Professor of Divinity in the University of Dublin; afterward Archbishop of Armagh and Primate of all IRELAND. Whereunto is annexed, A Geographical and Historical Disquisition, touching the Lydian or Proconsular Asia; and the seven Metropolitical Churches contained in it: by the said Archbishop of Armagh. Together with A Declaration of the patriarchical Government of the ancient Church; by Edward Brerewood.  
OXFORD, Printed by LEON. LICHFIELD, Anno Dom. 1641.   

THE JUDGEMENT OF M. BUCER, touching the Original of BISHOPS And METROPOLITANS.  
BY the perpetual observation of the Churches, 
M. Bucer, de Regno Christi (ad R. Edvardum VI.) lib. 2. cap. 12. (inter scripta ejusdem Anglicana, pag. 67.)  even from the Apostles themselves, we do see, that it seemed good to the holy Ghost, that among the Presbyters, to whom the ordering of the Churches was chief committed, some one should be appointed to have a singular charge of the Churches and the whole sacred Ministry: who by that care and solicitude had a presidency over all the rest. For which cause, the name of of Bishop was peculiarly attributed unto these chief governor's of Churches: although they ought to decree nothing without the counsel of the rest of the Presbyters; who themselves also, by reason of this common administration of the Churches, have the name of Bishops in the Scriptures given unto them.  
So we may see, 
Idem, de Animarum curâ officioque Pastor. Eccles. (ibid. pag. 280.)  Act. 20.28. that by the ordinance of the holy Ghost, the care of souls and the pastoral office ought to be imposed upon all the Presbyters of the Church in common. And from hence S. Hierome did rightly collect, that the Presbyters and Bishop's office and charge was one and the same. Hierome indeed writeth this withal: that in the beginning of the Church those Presbyters took care of the Church and governed it by common counsel; and that then at length one of the Presbyters was set over the rest, and peculiarly called a Bishop, when sects and heresies began to arise in the Church, and every one laboured to advance his own sect. But it is not credible, that this was so observed long, nor in all Churches neither. For (as we have clear testimonies out of the Fathers that were more ancient than Hierome) in all the chief Churches from the Apostles times thus it was observed, that the Episcopal office indeed was imposed upon all the Presbyters: yet so notwithstanding that always, even in the times of the Apostles themselves, one of the Presbyters was chosen and ordained to be a guide of this office and as it were a Prelate; who went before all the rest, and had the care of souls and administered the Episcopal office chief and in the highest degree.  
Hence also our Lord, 
Idem, de vi & usu S. ministerii; explicat. Cantabrigiae, ann. 1550. (ibid. pag. 581. 582.)  when he would have his to be conjoined and cohere one with another, as members do in the body, he subjecteth every one of his unto others; by whom, as by members of a more ample and large power and efficacy, he might be preserved, moved and directed. The same doth the holy Ghost command, Eph. 5.21. Submit yourselves one to another in the fear of God. The holy Fathers therefore of old considering these things, appointed such an order in the Clergy, that all the rest of that rank should be kept and governed by the singular care of the Presbytery: and that among the Presbyters, the Bishop (as the Consul among the Senators of the Commonwealth) should take upon him the chief care and custody, as of the whole Church, so specially of the whole order of the Clergy.  
Such Bishops did they ordain in all more populous Churches: and to each of those Churches they commended those others that were more near unto them in the smaller towns or villages. And to that purpose would have each of the Presbyters and overseers of those Churches, whom they called Chorepiscopi, to be obedient to the Bishop and Presbytery that was next unto them: whom those other prime Bishops did upon all occasions call together with the rest of their Clergy, and informed them in the skill and diligence which was to be used in the discharge of their function.  
Now seeing it was Gods will, that all his servants should mutually embrace and take care each of other, as fare and wide as their ability could reach unto (all Christians being but one body:) the holy Fathers did ordain, that the Bishops of every Province (for all the nations subject to the Romans were now distributed into Provinces) should meet together with the Presbyters and Deacons, as oft as the need of the Churches did so require, but constantly twice in the year: that they might inquire touching Christ's doctrine and discipline, how it was administered and maintained in every Church; and where they did find any thing faulty they might correct it, but such things as they did find were right they might confirm and further.  
And that these Synods might be administered rightly and in due order, they would have the Metropolitans take the charge both of congregating and moderating them; to wit the Bishops of every Metropolis: for so was the chief city of every Province called, wherein was the Court of the supreme Precedent. And to this end they imposed upon these Metropolitan Bishops a kind of charge and care of all the Churches within their Province: that if they did understand any thing were not rightly ordained or done, either by the ministers of the Churches or by the people, they might admonish them thereof in time, and if by their admonitions they could not amend it, they might call together a Synod of the Bishops to correct it.  

The Judgement of DOCTOR RAINOLDES, touching the same.  
When 
a Act. 14.23.  Elders were ordained by the Apostles in every Church, 
b Tit. 1.5.  through every City, 
D. Rainold. Conference with Hart; in the end of the 3. and beginning of the 5. division.  
c Act. 20.28.  to 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is, to do the duty of a Pastor to it.  feed the flock of Christ, whereof the holy Ghost had made them Overseers: they, to the intent they might the better do it by common counsel and consent, did use to assemble themselves and meet together. In the which meetings, for the more orderly handling and concluding of things pertaining to their charge; they chose one amongst them to be the Precedent of their company, and Moderator of their actions. As in the Church of Ephesus, though it had 
d Acts 20.17  sundry Elders and Pastors to guide it; yet amongst those sundry, was there one chief, whom our Saviour calleth 
e Rev. 2, 1.  the Angel of the Church, and writeth that to him which by him the rest should know.  
And this is he whom afterward in the Primitive Church the Fathers called Bishop. For as the name of Ministers, 
f 1. Cor. 4.1.  common to all them who serve Christ in 
* Luk. 12.42.  the stewardship of the mysteries of God, that is, in preaching of the Gospel, is now by the custom of our English speech restrained to Elders who are under a Bishop: 
g 1. Tim. 3.2. Tit. 1.7. Act. 20.28.  so the name of Bishop common to all Elders and Pastors of the Church, was then by the usual language of the Fathers appropriated to him who had the Presidentship over Elders.  
Thus are certain Elders reproved by 
h Epist. 12.  Cyprian, for receiving to the Communion them who had fallen (in time of persecution) before the Bishop had advised of it with them and others. And 
i Euseh. hist. Eccles. lib. 6. cap. 42.  Cornelius writeth that the Catholic Church committed to his charge had six and forty Elders, and aught to have but one Bishop. And both of them being Bishops, the one of Rome, the other of Carthage, 
k Cornelius Cypriano. Ep. 46. Cyprianus Presbyteris & Deaconis. Ep. 6.  do witness of themselves that they dealt in matters of their Church's government by the consent or counsel of the company of Elders or the Eldership, as they both (after S. Paul) do call it.  
In this sort then the Elders (as I said) ordained by the Apostles in every Church, 
l Cornelius Ep. 46. apud Cyprianum.  through every city, chose one amongst themselves, whom they called Bishop, 
m 1. Tim. 4.14.  to be the Precedent of their company; for the better handling and ordering of things in their assemblies and meetings, wherein they provided by common counsel and consent for the guiding of the flock of Christ committed to them. Which point of care and wisdom, the Bishops following also (knowing that 
n Prov. 11.14.  where counsels want, the people falleth; but in the ampleness of counsellors there is health) had their meetings likewise for conference together, when things of greater weight required more advice: and they chose to their Precedent therein the Bishop of the chiefest city in the Province, whom they called the Metropolitan.  
For 
o Notit. Provinciar. Imperii Romanl.  a Province, as they termed it, was the same with them, that a shire is with us: and the shire-town as you would say of the Province, was called 
p L. observare. D. de officio Proconsulis. Dio in Adria no.  Metropolis: that is, the Mother-city. In which, as the judges and justices with us, do hear at certain times the causes of the whole shire: so the ruler of the Province with them did minister justice, & made his abode there ordinarily. Whereupon, by reason that men for their business made great concourse thither: the Church was wont to furnish it (of godly policy) with the worthiest Bishop, endued with gifts above his brethren. And they reposed in him such affiance, that they did not only commit the 
q Concil. Antioch. can. 20. Chalced. can. 19  Presidentship of their Assemblies to him: but agreed also that 
r Concil. Nicen. can: 4. & 6.  none through all the Province should be made a Bishop without his consent, nor 
s Concil. Antiochen. can. 9  any weightier matter be done by them without him.    

The Original of BISHOPS and Metropolitans, set down By JAMES Archbishop of ARMAGH.  
THe ground of Episcopacy is fetched partly from the pattern prescribed by God in the Old Testament: and partly from the imitation thereof brought in by the Apostles and confirmed by Christ himself in the time of the New. The government of the Church of the Old Testament was committed to the Priests and Levits: unto whom the ministers of the New do now succeed; in like sort as our Lord's day hath done unto their Sabbath. that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the Prophet, touching the vocation of the Gentiles. 
a Esai. 66.21.  I will take of them for Priests, and for Levits, saith the Lord.  
That the Priests were superior to the Levites, no man doubteth: and that there was not a parity, either betwixt the Priests or betwixt the Levits themselves, is manifest by the word of God; wherein mention is made of the Heads and Rulers both of the one and of the other. 1. Chron. XXIV. 6, 31. and Ezr. VIII. 29.  
The Levits were distributed into the three families of the Gershonites, Cohathites, and Merarites: and over each of them God appointed one 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Ruler. Num. III. 24, 30, 35. The Priests were divided by David into four and twenty courses; 1. Chr. XXIV. who likewise had their Heads: who in the history of the New Testament are ordinarily called 
b Matth. 2.4. and 27.1. Acts 19.14. etc.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or chief of the Priests; and clearly distinguished from that singular one, who was the type of our 
c Hebr. 4.14.  great High Priest, that is passed into the Heavens, jesus the son of God. Yea in the XI. of Nehemy, we find two named Bishops; the one of the Priests, the other of the Levits that dwelled in jerusalem. The former so expressly termed by the Greek in the 14th. the latter both by the Greek and Latin Interpreter in the 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. LXX Episccopus Levitarum. Hieron.  22. verse: and not without approbation of the Scripture itself, which rendereth the 
d 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Psal. 109.8.  Hebrew word of the same original in the old, by the 
e Act. 1.20.  Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the new Testament.  
Of Levi it was said by Moses the man of God: 
f Deut. 33.10.  They shall teach jacob thy judgements, and Israel thy law; they shall put incense before thee, and whole  sacrifice upon thine Altar. Because this latter part of their office hath ceased with them, and the levitical Altar (the truth prefigured thereby being now exhibited) is quite taken away: may not we therefore conclude out of the former part (which hath no such typical relation in it) that our Bishops and Presbyters should be (as the Apostle would have them to be) 
g 1. Tim. 3.2.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 apt to teach; 
h Tit. 1.9.  able by sound doctrine both to exhort, and to convince the gainsayers? Nay and out of the latter part itself; where God had appointed, that 
i Deut. 28.1.  the Priests the Levits and all the Tribe of Levi should eat the offerings of the Lord made by fire: doth not the Apostle by just analogy infer from thence, that forasmuch as 
k 1. Cor. 9.13, 14.  they which waited at the altar, were partaker with the altar; even so had the Lord ordained, that they which preached the Gospel, should live of the Gospel?  
With what show of reason than can any man imagine, that what was instituted by God in the Law, for mere matter of government and preservation of good order (without all respect of type or ceremony:) should now be rejected in the Gospel, as a device of Antichrist? that what was by the Lord once 
l jorem. 2.21.  planted a noble vine, wholly a right seed, should now be so turned into the degenerate plant of a strange vine; that not purging or pruning of it will serve the turn, but it must be cut down root and branch, as 
m Matth. 15.13.  a plant which our heavenly Father had never planted? But nothing being so familiar now a days, as to father upon Antichrist, whatsoever in Church matters we do not find to suit with our own humours: the safest way will be, to consult with Christ himself herein, and hear what he delivereth in the cause.  
These things saith he, that hath the seven stars. Revel. III. 1. He owneth then, we see, these stars; whatsoever they be. and, the mystery of them he thus further openeth unto his beloved Disciple. The seven stars, which thou sawest in my right hand, are the Angels of the seven Churches. Revel. I. 20. From which words a learned man, very much devoted to the now so highly admired Discipline, deduceth this conclusion. 
n Quanta igitur dignitas verorum Pastorum, qui tum stellae sunt, non in alio firmamento quàm in dextrâ Chrisli fixae, tum Angeli? Tho. Brightman. in Apocalyps. 1.20.  How great therefore is the dignity of true Pastors, who are both STARS, fixed in no other firmament then in the right hand of Christ, and ANGELS?  
He had considered well, that in the Church of Ephesus (one of the seven here pointed at) there were many 
o Act. 20.17, 28.  PRESBYTERS, whom the holy, Ghost had made BISHOPS, or Overseers, over all that flock; to feed the Church of God, which he had purchased with his own blood. And withal he saw, that by admitting one Angel there above the rest (all, as well 
p judg. 2.1. Hagg. 1.13. Matth. 11.18.  extraordinary Prophets, as 
q Malach. 2.7.  ordinary Pastors, being in their own several stations accounted Angels or Messengers of the Lord of Hosts) he should be forced also to acknowledge the eminency of one Bishop above the other Bishops (that name being in those days 
r Philip. 1.1. 1. Tim. 1.2. Tit. 1.5, 7.  common unto all the Presbyters) and to yield withal, that such a one was to be esteemed as a star fixed in no other firmament then in the right hand of Christ.  
To salve this therefore; all the stars in every Church must be presupposed to be of one magnitude, and though those stars which typified these Angels are said to be but seven, yet the Angels themselves must be maintained to be fare more in number: and in fine, where our Saviour saith, 
s Revel. z. 1.  unto the Angel of the Church of Ephesus write; it must by no means be admitted, that 
t Nec uni alicut Angelo mittuntur, sed toti (ut ita dicam) Collegio Pastorum; quiomnes hâc communi voce comprchenduntur. Non enim un us erat Angelus Ephesi, sed plures: nec inter istos aliquls Princeos. Brigheman. in Apolyps'. 2 1.  any one Angel should be meant hereby, but the whole College of Pastors rather. And all upon pretence of a poor show of some shallow reasons; that there was not one Angel of Ephesus but many, and among them not any Principal.  
Which wresting of the plain words of our Saviour is so extreme violent; that M. Beza (though every way as zealously affected to the advancement of the new Discipline as was the other) could by no means digest it: but ingenuously acknowledgeth the meaning of our Lord's direction to have been this. 
u 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. id est, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Quem nimirùn opertuit inprimis de his rebus admoneri, ac per cum caereros Collegas, toranque ade● Ecclesiam. Bez. in Apocalyps. 2.1.  To the Angel, that is, to the Precedent: as whom it behoved specially to be admonished touching those matters; and by him, both the rest of his colleagues, and the whole Church likewise. And that there was then a standing Precedent over the rest of the Pastors of Ephesus, & he the very same (as learned 
x Conference with Hart, c. 8 divis. 3.  Doctor rainold addeth) with him whom afterward the Fathers called Bishop; may further be made manifest, not only by the succession of the first Bishops of that Church, but also by the clear testimony of Ignatius; who (within no greater compass of time then twelve years afterwards) distinguisheth the singular and constant Precedent thereof, from the rest of the number of the Presbyters, by appropriating the name of Bishop unto him.  
As for the former: we find it openly declared in the general Council of Chalvedon, by Leontius Bishop of Magnesia; that 
y 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Concil. Chalcedon. Act. 11.  from Timothy (& so from the days of the Apostles) there had been a continued succession of seven and twenty Bishops; all of them ordained in Ephesau. Of which number the Angel of the Church of Ephesus, mentioned in the Revelation, must needs be one: whether it were Timothy himself, as 
z Vid. Perer. in Apocalyps. cap. 2. disp. 2. Alcazar. Prooem, in cap. 2. & 3. Apocal. notar. 1. & Petr. Halloix. Notat in vit. Polycarp. c. 7.  some conceive, or one of his next Successors, as others rather do imagine.  
For that Timothy had been sometime 
a Notandum est ex boc loco, Timotheum in Ephesino Presbyterio tum fuisse 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (i.e., antistite) ut vocat justinus. Bez. Annotat. in 1. Tim. 5.19. Qui politiae causâ reliquis fratribus in coetu praeerat (quem Justinus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vocat) peculiariter dici Episcopus coepit. Id. in Philip. 1.1.  the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (which is the appellation that justin Martyr giveth unto him, whom other of the Fathers do peculiarly term a Bishop) or Antistes, or Precedent of the Ephesine Presbytery, is confessed by Beza himself: and that he was ordained the first Bishop of the Church of the Ephesians, we do not only read in the subscription of the second Epistle to Timothy, and the Ecclesiastical History of 
b Euseb. Hist. lib. 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Eusebius, but also in two ancient Treatises concerning the Martyrdom of Timothy; the one nameless in the Library of 
c 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Phot. Bicliot. num. 2.5 4.  Photius, the other bearing the name of 
d Polycrat. de Martyrio Timothei: inter Vitas Sanctorum, edit. Lovanil anno 1485.  Polycrates. even of that Polycrates, who was not only himself Bishop of this Church of Ephesus, but borne also within six or seven and thirty years after S. john wrote the forenamed Epistle unto the Angel of that Church: as it appeareth by the years he was of, when he wrote that Epistle unto Victor Bishop of Rome, wherein he maketh mention of 
e 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Polycrat. Epist. ad Victorem: apud Euseb. l. 5. Hist. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  seven kinsmen of his who had been Bishops; he himself being the eight.  
I come now to the testimony of Ignatius: whom 
f Theodoret. in Dialogo 1. sive 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Theodoret, and 
g Felix III. in Epist. ad Zenonem. Imp. recitat in V Synodo Constantinopol. Act. 1. (tomo 2. Concilior pag. 220 edit. Binii. anno. 1606)  Felix Bishop of Rome, and 
h johan. Malela Antiochinus, Chronic. lib. 10 M.S.  john the Chronographer of Antioch, report to have been ordained Bishop of Antioch by S. Peter in special, chrysostom (who was a Presbyter of the same Church) by 
i 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Io. Chrysost. in Ignatu Encomio.  the Apostles in general; and without all controversy did sit in that See, the very same time wherein that Epistle unto the Angel of the Church of Ephesus was commanded to be written.  
In the I'll of Patmos had S. john his Revelation manifested unto him, 
k 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Iren. advers. haeres. lib 5. cap. 30.  toward the end of the Empire of Domitian, as Irenaeus testifieth; or the fourteenth year of his government, as 
l Euseb. Chron. Hier. Catal. scriptor. Ecclesiast. in johanne.  Eusebius and Hierom specify it. From thence there are but twelve years reckoned unto the tenth of Trajan: wherein Ignatius, in that last journey which he made for the consummation of his glorious Martyrdom at Rome, wrote another Epistle unto the selfsame Church of Ephesus. In which he maketh mention of their then Bishop Onesimus: as it appears both by 
m Euseb. l. 3. hist. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Eusebius citing this out of it, and by the Epistle itself yet extant.  
In this Epistle to the Ephesians, Ignatius having acknowledged that their 
n 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Ignat. epist. ad Ephes.  numerous multitude was received by him in the person of their Bishop Onesimus, and 
o 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Ibid.  blessed God for granting unto them such a Bishop as he was: doth afterwards put them in mind of their 
p 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Ibid.  duty in concurring with him, as he showeth their worthy Presbytery did, being 
q 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Ibid.  so conjoined (as he saith) with their Bishop, as the strings are with the Harp: and toward the end exhorteth them to 
r 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Ibid.  obey both the Bishop and the Presbytery, with an undivided mind.  
In the same journey wrote Ignatius also an Epistle unto the Church of Smyrna; another of those seven unto whom those letters are directed in S. john's Revelation. wherein he also 
s 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Id. in epist. ad Smyrn.  saluteth their Bishop and Presbytery: exhorting all the people to 
t 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Ibid.  follow their Bishop, as Christ jesus did his Father, and the Presbytery, as the Apostles; and telling them that 
u 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. Ibid.  no man ought either to administer the Sacraments, or do any thing appertaining to the Church, without the consent of the Bishop. And that Polycarpus was then Bishop, when S. john wrote unto the Angel of the Church in Smyrna; who can better inform us then Irenaeus? who did not only know those worthy men, 
x 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Iren. advers. haeres. lib. 3. cap. 3.  who succeeded Polycarpus in his See; but also 
y Id. in epist. ad Florinum: (apud Euseb lib. 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.) & ad Victorem. (ibid. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.)  was present, when he himself did discourse of his conversation with S. john, and of those things which he heard from those who had seen our Lord jesus.  
Polycarpus, 
z 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Iren. lib. 3. cap. 3. Vid. & Euseb. lib. 3. hist. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  saith he, was not only taught by the Apostles and conversed with many of those that had seen Christ, but also was by the Apostles constituted in Asia Bishop of the Church which is in Smyrna: whom we ourselves also did see in our younger age. for he continued long and being very aged, he most gloriously and nobly suffering Martyrdom departed this life.  
Now being ordained Bishop of Smyrna by the Apostles; who had finished their course, and departed out of this life before S. john (the last survivor of them) did write his Revelation: who but he could there be meant by the Angel of the Church in Smyrna? in which that he still held his Episcopal office unto the time of his Martyrdom (which fell out LXXIV. years afterward) may sufficiently appear by this testimony, which the brethren of the Church of Smyrna, who were present at his suffering, gave unto him. 
a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Smyrnens. Eccles. epist. de martyrio Polycarpi. Euseb. lib. 4. bist. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  He was the most admirable man in our times, an Apostolical and Prophetical Doctor, and Bishop of the Catholic Church which is in Smyrna. Whereunto we may add the like of Polycrates Bishop of Ephesus, who lived also in his time and in his neighbourhood, affirming 
b 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Polycrat. epist. ad Victorem: apud Euseb. lib. 5. hist. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Polycarpus to have been both Bishop and Martyr in Smyrna. So saith he in his Synodical Epistle, directed unto Victor Bishop of Rome, about 27 years after the Martyrdom of Polycarpus; he himself being at that time 65 years of age.  
About the very same time wherein Polycrates wrote this Epistle unto Victor, did Tertullian publish his book of Prescriptions against Heretics: wherein he avoucheth against them, that 
c Sicut Smyrnaeorum Ecclesia Polycarpum ab johanne conlocatum resert; sicut Romanorum Clementem à Petro ordinatum edit: proinde (or, perinde) utique & caeterae exhibent quos, ab Apostolis in Episcopa tum constitutos, Apostolici seminis traduces habent. Tertul. de Prescript. cap. 32. Vid. & ejusd. lib 4. contra Martion. cap. 5.  as the Church of Smyrna had Polycarpus placed there by john, and the Church of Rome Clement ordained by Peter; so the rest of the Churches also did show, what Bishops they had received by the appointment of the Apostles, to traduce the Apostolical seed unto them. And so before him did Irenaeus urge against them 
d Successiones Episcoporum, quibus Apostolicam quae in unoqueque loco est Ecclesiam tradiderunt. Iren. lib. 4. advers. haeres. cap. 63.  the successions of Bishops, unto whom the Apostles committed the charge of the Church in every place. 
e Omnes enim two valde posteriores sunt quàm Episcopi, quibus Apostoli tradiderunt Ecclesias. Id. lib. 5. cap. 20.  For all the Heretics (faith he) are much later than those Bishops, unto whom the Apostles committed the Churches. And, 
f Habemus annumerare eos qui ab Apostolis instituti sunt Episcopé in Ecclestis, & sucaessores eorum usque ad nos; qui nihil tale docuerunt neque cognoverunt quale ab his deliratur. Id. lib. 3. cap. 3.  we are able to number those who by the Apostles were ordained Bishops in the Churches, and their Successors unto our days; who neither taught nor knew any such thing as these men dream of.  
For proof whereof, he bringeth in the succession of the Bishops of Rome, from 
g 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Id. ibid.  Linus (unto whom the blessed Apostles committed that Episcopacy) and Anacletus (by others called Cletus) and Clement (who did both see the Apostles, and conferred with them) unto 
h 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Ibid.  Eleutherius; who when Irenaeus wrote, had the charge of that Bishopric in the twelfth place after the Apostles. Concerning whom, and the integrity which then continued in each other succession from the Apostles days, Hegesippus, who at the same time published his History of the Church, saith thus. 
i 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Hegesip. apud Euseb. lib. 4. hist: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Soter succeeded Anicetus, and after him was Eleutherius. Now, in every succession, and in every City, all things so stand, as the Law and the Prophets, and our Lord do preach.  
When this 
k Cum Elcutherius vir sanctus Pontificatui Romanae Ecclesiae praeesset, misit ad eum Lucius Britanncrum Rex epistolam: obsecrans ut per ejus mandatum Christianus efficeretur. Et mox essectum piae poslulationis consecutus est: so sceptamque fidem Britanni usque in tempora Diocletiani Principis inviolatam integramque quietâ pace servabant. Bed. hist. ecclesiast. Anglor. lib 1. cap. 4.  Eleutherius (as our Bede relateth) was Bishop of the Church of Rome, Lucius King of the Britons sent an Epistle to him; desiring that by his means he might be made Christian. Who presently obtained the effect of his pious request: and the Britons kept the faith then received sound and undefiled in quiet peace, until the times of Dioclesian the Emperor. By whose bloody persecution the faith and discipline of our British Churches was not yet so quite extinguished; but that within ten years after (and eleven before the first general Council of Nice) three of our Bishops were present and subscribed unto the Council of Arles: 
l Tom. 1. Concilior. Gall i.e., à Sirmondo edit pag 9  Eborius of York, Restitutus of London, and Adelsius of Colchester, called there Colonia Londinensium. The first root of whose succession we must fetch beyond Elentherius, and as high as S. Peter himself: if it be true, that he 
m 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Metaphrast. Commentar. de Petro & Paulo; ad diem 29. lunii.  constituted Churches here, and ordained Bishops, Presbyters and Deacons in them; as simeon Metaphrastes relateth out of some part of 
n 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Ibid.  Eusebius (as it seemeth) that is not come unto our hands.  
But, to return unto the Angels of the seven Churches, mentioned in the Revelation of S. john: by what hath been said, it is apparent, that seven singular Bishops, who were the constant Precedents over those Churches, are pointed at under that name. For other sure they could not be; if all of them were cast into one mould, and were of the same quality with Polycarpus, the then Angel of the Church in Smyrna: who without all question was such, if any credit may be given herein unto those that saw him and were well acquainted with him.  
And as Tertullian in express terms affirmeth him to have been placed there by S. john himself (in the testimony before alleged out of his 
o Tertull. Prescript. c. 32. Similiter & Hieronymus in Catal. script. Ecclesiast. cap. 17. in Polycarpo; & Nicepherus, lib. 3. Hist. Ecclesiast. cap. 2.  Prescriptions:) so doth he elsewhere, from the order of the succeeding Bishops, not obscurely intimate, that the rest of that number were to be referred unto the same descent. 
p Habemus & joannis alumnas Ecclesias. Nam etsi Apocalypsim ejus Martion respuit: ordo tamen Episcoporum ad originem recensus, in joannem stabit auctorem. Sic & caeterarum generositas recognoscitur. Tertulsian. a lvers. Martion. lib. 4. c. 5.  We have, saith he, the Churches that were bred by john. For although Martion do reject his Revelation; yet the order of the Bishops reckoned up unto their original, will stand for john to be their Founder.  
Neither doth the ancient Writer of the Martyrdom of Timothy (mentioned by Photius) mean any other by those seven Bishops, whose assistance he saith S. john did use, after his return from Patmos, in the government of the Metropolis of the Ephesians. For 
q 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Phot. Bibliothec. num. 254.  being revoked from his exile, saith he, by the sentence of Nerva, he betook himself to the Metropolis of Ephesus; and being assisted with the presence of SEVEN Bishops, he took upon him the government of the Metropolis of the Ephesians: and continued, preaching the word of piety, until the Empire of Trajan.  
That he remained with the Ephesians and the rest of the brethren of Asia, until the days of Trajan, and that during the time of his abode with them, he published his Gospel; is sufficiently witnessed by 
r Irenae. advers heraes. lib 2 cap. 39 item, lib. 3. c. 1. & 3.  Irenaeus. That upon his return from the Island, after the death of Domitian, he applied himself to the government of the Churches of Asia, is confirmed likewise both by 
s Euseb. lib. 3. hist. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Hieronym. in Catal. scrip. Ecclesiast. cap. 9  Eusebius, and by ᵗ Hierom: who further addeth, that 
u Id. ibid. & Praefar. in Evangel. Matthaei.  at the earnest entreaty of the Bishops of Asia he wrote there his Gospel.  
And that he himself also, being free from his banishment, did ordain Bishops in divers Churches, is clearly testified by Clement of Alexandria; who lived in the next age after, and delivereth it as a certain truth, which he had received from those who went before him and could not be fare from the time wherein the thing itself was acted. 
x 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Clem. Alexandrin, in lib. de divite salvando. (qui falso Origenis nomine habeture editus, ad calcem tomis 3. Commentariorum Michaelis Ghislerii.) Euseb. hist. lib. 3 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  When S. john (saith he) Domitian the Tyrant being dead, removed from the Island of Patmos unto Ephesus, by the entreaty of some he went also unto the neighbouring nations; in some places constituting Bishops, in others founding whole Churches.  
Among these neighbouring Churches was that of Hierapolis: which had Papias placed 
y Euseb. lib. 3 hist. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Hieron. Catal. script. Ecclesiast. cap. 18. & Chronic. ad ann. Trajin● 2.  Bishop therein. That this man was 
z 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Irenae. advers. haetes. lib. 5. cap. 33.  a hearer of S. john, and a companion of Polycarpus, is testified by his own Scholar 
a Irenaeus, vir Apostolicorum temporum & Papiae auditcris Evangelistae Iohannis discipulus, Episcopus eccle sia Lugdunen sis. Hieronym. epist. 29. ad Theodoram.  Irenaeus: and that he conversed with 
b Hi sunt Presbyteri Apostolorum discipuli; quorum Irenaeus, lib. 5. cap. 36. meminit.  the disciples of the Apostles, and of Christ also; he himself doth thus declare, in the Proëme of the five books which he entitled, A declaration of the words of the lord 
c 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (ita enim ex Graecis MSS. & vetere Rufini version locus est restituendus.) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Papias, in Prooemio 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, apud Euseb. lib. 3. hist. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  If upon occasion any of the Presbyters which had accompanied the Apostles did come; I diligently enquired what were the speeches which the Apostles used. what Andrew or what Peter did say, or what Philip, or Thomas, or james, or john, or Matthew, or some other of the disciples of the Lord; and the things that Aristion and john the Elder, our Lords disciples, did speak. 
d 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Euseb. ibid.  The two last of whom he often cited by name in the process of the work; relating the passages in this kind which he had heard from them.  
And thus have we deduced Episcopacy from the Apostolical times: and declared withal, that the Angels of the seven Churches were no other, but such as in the next age after the Apostles were by the Fathers termed Bishops. It followeth now that we inquire, why these Churches are confined within the number of seven, in the superscription of that Apostolical Epistle prefixed before the book of the Revelation. 
e Revel. 1.4.  john to the seven Churches in Asia: Grace be unto you and peace. where S. john directing his setters unto them thus indefinitely, without any mention of their particular names; he cannot by common intendment be conceived to have understood any other thereby, but such as by some degree of eminency were distinguishable from all the rest of the Churches that were in Asia, and in some sort also did comprehend all the rest under them.  
For taking Asia here in the most strict sense, for the Lydian or (as the 
f Co. l. Theodos. lib. 16. tit. 1. de fide Cathol. leg. 3.  Imperial Constitutions call it) the Proconsular Asia: it is not to be imagined, that after so long pains taken by the Apostles and their disciples in the husbanding of that part of the Lords vineyard, there should be found no more but seven Churches therein. especially since S. Paul that 
g 1. Cor. 3.10.  wise master builder professeth, that he had here 
h 1. Cor. 16.8, 9  a great door and effectual opened unto him: and S. Luke testifieth accordingly, that 
i Act. 19.10, 20.  all they which dwelled in Asia heard the word of the Lord jesus, both jews and Greeks; so mightily grew the word of God and prevayled. Which extraordinary blessing of God upon his labours, moved the Apostle to make his residence 
k Act. 20.18, 31.  in those parts for the space of three years: wherein he ceased not to warn every one night and day with tears.  
And in particular; among the Epistles of Ignatius (written but twelve years, as hath been showed, after the mention of these seven Churches made in the Apocalypse) there is one directed to the Church in Trallis (which by 
l 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Stepped. an. de Urbib.  Stephanus Byzantinus is reckoned among the cities of the Lydian, and by 
m jul. Capitolin. in Antonio Pio.  julius Capitolinus of the Proconsular Asia:) wherein he maketh mention of Polybius their Bishop (or 
n 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Euseb. lib. 3. hist. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Governor, as Eusebius calleth him) whom they had sent to visit him at Smyrna; adding withal his usual admonitions. 
o 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Ignat. epist. ad Trallian.  Be subject to the Bishop, as to the Lord: and 
p 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Ibid.  to the Presbytery, as to the Apostles of jesus Christ our hope. 
q 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Ibid.  He that doth any thing without the Bishop and the Presbyters & the Deacons, such a one is defiled in conscience. 
r 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. etc. Ibid.  Far ye well in jesus Christ; being subject to the Bishop, and likewise to the Presbyters.  
That in 
s Plin. lib. 5. hist. nature. cap. 29.  Laodicea, Sardis, Smyrna, Ephesus and 
t Id. ibid. c. 30.  Pergamus, the Roman governor's held their Courts of justice, to which all the cities and towns about had recourse for the ending of their suits; is observed out of Pliny. In 
u Ptolem. Geograph. lib. 5. cap. 2.  Ptolemy likewise, Thyatira is expressly named a Metropolis: as Philadelphia also is, in the 
x Concil. Constantino. sub Mennâ, Act. 5.  Greek Acts of the Council of Constantinople held under Menna. Which giveth us good ground to conceive, that the seven Cities, in which these seven Churches had their seat, were all of them Metropolitical, and so had relation unto the rest of the towns and cities of Asia, as unto daughters rising under them.  
The Lydian Asia was separated from Caria by the river Maeander: upon the banks whereof were seated both Trallis and Magnesia; which in the 
y Hieroclis Notit. Orientalis Imperii; in Append. Geograph. sacr. Caroli à S. Paulo, edit. Paris. ann. 1641. pag. 27.  civil list of the Empire are placed under the peculiar regiment of the Proconsul of Asia, and in the 
z Ordo Metropolitar. ib. pag. 11. & in tomo 1, juris Graeco-Romani, à Io. Le unclavio edit. pag. 90.  Ecclesiastical register under the government of the Metropolitan of Ephesus. But whether this subordination were as ancient as the days of Ignatius (whose Epistles are extant unto these three Churches) and 
a Euseb. lib. 3. hist. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Damas' the than Bishop of Magnesia, with Polybius of Trallis, were at that time subject to Onesimus the Bishop of Ephesus, might well be doubted: but that the same Ignatius directeth one of his Epistles unto the Church 
b 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Ignat. epist. ad Roman.  which had presidency in the place of the Region of the Romans; and in the body thereof doth attribute unto himself the title of the Bishop of Syria. Whereby, as he intimateth himself to have been not only the Bishop of Antioch, but also of the rest of the province Syria, which was under that Metropolis: so doth he likewise not obscurely signify that the Bishop of Rome had at that time a presidency over the Churches that were in the 
c Ex Vrblca. riâ Regione. Cod. Theod. lib. 11. tit. 2. leg. 3.  Vrbicarian Region, as the Imperial Constitutions, or the 
d Ex Provincià Romanâ, civitate Portuen. etc. In nominibus quae Concilio Arelatensi I, praefixa leguntur.  Roman Province, as the Acts of the first Council of Arles call it.  
What that Vrbicarian Region was, I will not now stand to discuss: whether Tuscia only, wherein Rome itself was situated (which in the days of Ignatius was one entire region, but afterwards divided into Tuscia Suburbicaria and Annonaria) or the territory wherein the Praefectus Vrbis did exercise his jurisdiction (which was confined within the compass of a hundred miles about the City) or, with that, those other provinces also whereunto the authority of the Vicarius Vrbis did extend; or lastly the circuit within which those 69 Bishoprics were contained that 
e Insuper praeter septem collaterales Episcopos erant alii Episcopt, qui dicuntur suffraganci Romani Pontificis, nulli alii Primati vel Archiepiscopo subjectis qui frequenter ad Synodos vocarentur. MS. Vatican. apud Baron, ann. 1057. §. 23.  were immediately subject to the Bishop of Rome and frequently called to his Synods; the names whereof are found registered in the Records of that Church. The antiquity of which number as it may in some sort receive confirmation from the Roman Synod of seventy Bishops held under Gelasius: so for the distinction of the Bishops which belonged to the city of Rome, from those that appertained to Italy, we have a far more ancient testimony from the Edict of the Emperor Aurelian; who in the controversy that arose betwixt Paulus Samosatenus and Domnus for the house which belonged unto the Church of Antioch, commanded that it should be delivered to them, 
f 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: saith Niceophorus Callist. lib. 6. hist. cap. 29. but Eusebius lib. 7. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, more fully: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  to whom the Bishops of Italy and Rome should by their letters declare that it ought to be given. which distinction, aswell in the forecited 
g Ex provinciâ Italiae, civitate Mediolanen. etc. Ex provinciâ Romanâ civitate Portuen. ut suprà.  Acts of the Council of Arles, as in the Epistles of the 
h 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Synod. Sardic, epist. ad Alexandrino; in 2. Athanasii Apologiâ (tomo 1. Oper. edit. Commelin. pag. 588.)  Sardican Synod and 
i 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Athanas. epist. ad solitar. vit. agentes. (ibid. pag. 640.)  At hanasius, may likewise be observed: the name of Italy being in a more strict sense applied therein to the seven provinces, which were under the civil jurisdiction of the Vicarius or Lieutenant of Italy, and the Ecclesiastical of the Bishop of Milan.  
And it is well worth the observing, that the Fathers of the great Council of Nice afterwards confirming this kind of primacy, not only in the Bishops of Rome and Antioch, 
k 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Concil. Nicaen. 1. Can. 6.  but also in the Metropolitans of other Provinces; do make their entrance into that Canon, with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Let the ANCIENT customs continue. Which openeth unto us the meaning of that complaint which, some threescore and ten years before this, S. Cyprian made against Novatianus, for the confusion which by his schism he brought upon the Churches of God: that 
l Cùm jampridem per omnes provincias, & per urbes singulas, ordinati sint Episcopi in aetate antiqui, in fide integri, in pressurâ probati, in persecutione proscripti; ille super eos creare alios pseudoepiscopos audeat. Cyprian. epist. 52.  whereas long since in all Provinces, and in all Cities, Bishops had been ordained, in age ancient, sound in faith, tried in affliction, proscribed in persecution; yet took he the boldness, to create other false Bishops over their heads. namely, subordinate Bishops in every City, and Metropolitans in every Province.  
In afric at that time, although there were many civil Provinces, yet was there but one Ecclesiastical: whereof Cyprian himself was 
m 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Concil. Constantinopol. in Trullo, can 2.  Archbishop; as the Fathers of the Trullan Synod call him. It pleased, saith he in one of his Epistles, 
n Vniversis Episcopis, vel in nostrâ provinciâ vel trans nare constitutu. Cyprian. epist. 40.  all the Bishops constituted either in our province or beyond the sea: intimating thereby, that all the Bishops which were on his side the sea did belong unto one province. 
o Quoniam latiùs fusa est nostra provincia; habet etiam Numidiam & Mauritanias duas sibi cohaerentes. Id. epist, 45.  For our province, saith he in another place, is spread more largely; having Numidia also, and both the Mauritaniaes', annexed unto it. Whence that great Council assembled by him for determining the question touching the baptising of those that had been baptised by Heretics, is said to be gathered 
p Ex provinciâ Africâ, Numidià, Mauritaniâ. Council, Cypriam.  out of the province of Africa, Numidia and Mauritania. For howsoever in the civil government, the Proconsular Africa (wherein Carthage was seated) Numidia and both the Mauritanies (Sitifensis & Caesareensis) were accounted three distinct provinces: yet in the Ecclesiastical administration they were joined together and made but one province, immediately subject to the Metropolitical jurisdiction of the prime see of Carthage.  
Some threescore years before this African Council was held by Cyprian, those other Provincial Synods were assembled by the Metropolitans of sundry nations, for the composing of the Paschall controversy, then hotly pursued: and among the rest, that in our neighbour country, out of 
q 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Euseb. histor. lib. 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  the parishes (for so, in the ancient language of the Church, those precincts were named, which now we call dioceses) of which Irenaeus had the superintendency; whence also he wrote that free Epistle unto Victor Bishop of Rome, 
r 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Ibid. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  in the person of those brethren over whom he was precedent. at which time (and before) the 
s 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Ibid. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  most famous Metropoles of that country, and so the 
t 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Id. ibid.  most eminent Churches therein, were Lions & Vienna, in the one whereof Irenaeus was then no les renowned a Prelate, than Cyprian was afterwards in Africa.  
Dionysius the famous Bishop of Corinth, was elder than they: who among many other Epistles, directed one 
u 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Id. lib. 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  to the Church of Gortyna and all the rest of the Churches of Crete; wherein he saluted their Bishop Philip. whereby it appeareth, that at that time, aswell as in the ages following, Gortyna was the Metropolis, and the Bishop thereof the Metropolitan of all the rest of that whole Island. Which kind of superintendency there, Eusebius (the ancientest Ecclesiastical historian now extant) deriveth from the very times of Titus; whom, out of the histories that were before his time, he relateth to have held 
x 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Id. lib. 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  the Bishopric of the Churches in Crete. With whom the Grecians of after times do fully concur, as appeareth both by the subscription annexed by them unto the Epistle of S. Paul 
y 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  to Titus, ordained (as there they say) the first Bishop of the Church of the Cretians; and by the argument, out of Theodoret, prefixed by them before the same, speaking of him to the same effect. that 
z 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Theodoret. argument. epist. ad Tit. in Occumenio.  he was by Paul ordained Bishop of that great country, and had commission to ordain the Bishops that were under him. which they gather out of those words of S. Paul unto him. 
a Tit. 1.5.  For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain Elders in every city, as I had appointed thee. Out of which M. Calvin collecteth this doctrine unto us for the general. 
b Discimus ex hoc loco, non eam fuisse tunc aequalitatem inter Ecclesiae ministros, quin unus aliquis autoritate & consilio praeesset. Calvin. in Tit. 1.5.  We learn out of this place, that there was not then such an equality betwixt the ministers of the Church, but that there was some one who was precedent over the rest both in authority and in counsel. and S. Chrysostom, for the particular of Titus. 
c 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Chrysost. in Tit. 1. homil. 1.  Had he not been an approved man, he would not have committed that whole Island unto him: he would not have commanded him to supply the things that were defective; he would not have committed unto him the judgement of so many Bishops, if he had not had very great confidence in the man. and B. jewel upon him again. Having the government of many Bishops; what may we call him but an Archbishop?  
Which is not so much to be wondered at, when we see that the Bishops of another Island stick not (and that without any control) to deduce the ordination of their Metropolitan from the Apostolic times, in the face of the whole general Council of Ephesus. For whereas the Patriarch of Antioch did claim an interest in the ordaining of the Metropolitan of Cyprus: the Bishops of that Island prescribed to the contrary, that 
d A sanctis Apostolis nunquam possunt ostendere, quòd adfuerit Antiochenus & ordinaverit, vel communicaverit unquàm insulae ordinationis gratiam, neque alius quisquam. Concil. Ephcsin. Act. 7.  from the time of the holy Apostles it could never be showed, that the Bishop of Antioch was ever present at any such ordination, or did ever communicate the grace of ordination to that Island; and that the former Bishops of Constantia (the Metropolis of Cyprus) Troilus, Sabinus, Epiphanius, 
e Et nunc memorati Episcopi, & qui ante illos sanctissimi Episcopi, & qui à sanctis Aposlolis erant omnes ortho loxi, ab his qui in Cypro conslituti sunt. Ibid.  and all the holy and orthodox Bishops which were before them, ever since the holy Apostles, were constituted by those which were in Cyprus. and therefore desired, that 
f Sicut initio à temporibus Apostolorum, & constitutionibus. & canonibus sanctissime & magnae Synodi Nicaenae, illaesa & superior insidiis & potentiâ permansit nostra Cypriorum synodus. Ibid.  as in the beginning from the times of the Apostles, and by the constitutions and canons of the most holy and great Synod of Nice, the Synod of the Cyprian Bishops remained untouched and superior to privy undermine and open power; so they might still be continued in the possession of their ancient right. Whereupon the Council, condemning the attempt of the Bishop of Antioch, as 
g 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Ibid.  an innovation brought in against the Ecclesiastical laws and the canons of the holy Fathers; did not only order, that 
h 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ibid.  the governor's of the Churches which were in Cyprus should keep their own right entire and inviolable, according to the Canons of the holy Fathers and their ancient custom: but also 
i 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 & pauIo pòst. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Ibid.  for all other dioceses and provinces wheresoever; that no Bishop should intrude himself into any other province, which had not formerly and from the beginning been under him or his predecessors.  
The beginning of which kind of subordination of many Bishops unto one chief, if it were not to be derived from Apostolical right: yet it is by Beza fetched 
k Neque verò magis existimandum est, hunc externum ordinem fuisse initio humani generis. Pagi enim ex familiis, & ex pagis urbes, & ex urbibus civitates ipsae, suadente naturâ & necessitate flagitante, senfim coierunt; aliis aliorum exemplum secutis. Bez. de divers. gradib. ministr. contr. Sarav. cap. 24. § 4.  from the same light of Nature and enforcement of Necessity, whereby men were at first induced to enter into consociations, subjected one unto another; and by Bucer acknowledged to have 
l Atque hoc consentiebat legi Christi, siebatque ex jure corporis Christi. M. Bucer. de vi & usu S. Ministerii. (inter scripta ejus Anglicana pag. 565.)  been consentaneous to the law of Christ, and to have been done by the right of the body of Christ; and by all men must be confessed to be conformable to the pattern delivered by God unto Moses. For having set apart the three families of the Levits for his own service, and constituted a chief (as we have heard) over every of them: he placed immediately over them all, not Aaron the High Priest, but Eleazar his son, saying. 
m Num. 3.32.  Eleazar, the son of Aaron the Priest, shall be chief over the chief of the Levites; and have the oversight of them that keep the charge of the Sanctuary.  
In respect of which oversight, as he hath by the Septuagint (warrantably enough by the word of God) given unto him the name of 
n 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 LXX. Num. 4.16.  a Bishop: so the holy Ghost having vouchsafed to honour him with the title of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 
o jid. Num. 3.32.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Precedent of the Precedents of the Levites; none, that without prejudice did take the matter into consideration, would much stick to afford unto him the name of an Archbishop. at least he would be taught hereby, to retain that reverend opinion of the primitive Bishops of the Christian Church (who so willingly submitted themselves, not only to the archiepiscopal, but also to a patriarchical government) which Calvin professed he did: that in all this, they were fare from having a thought, 
p Reperiemus veteres Episcopos non aliam regendae Ecclesiae formam voluisse fingere ab eam quam Deus verbo suo praescripsit. Calvin. Institut. lib. 4. cap. 4. §. 4.  to devise another form of Church-government, then that which God had prescribed in his Word.   

A GEOGRAPHICAL AND Historical disquifition, touching the Lydian or Proconsular Asia; and the seven Metropolitical Churches contained therein.  
AS the lesser Asia (now called Anatolia or Anatolia) was a part of the great, and Asia properly so called a part of that lesser; so the Lydian or Proconsular Asia was a parcel of that Asia which was properly so called. For the fuller understanding whereof, we are to call to mind, that the Romans having possessed themselves of the countries which had formerly belonged unto the Pergamen Kings, reduced them into the form of a province; which they called, 
a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Strabo, Geograph. lib. 13. pag. 624. (edit. Graecolatin. ann. 1620.)  by the name of the great continent, Asia.  
This is by Cicero 
b Namque, ut opinor, Asia vestra constat ex Phrygiâ, Mysiâ, Cariâ, Lydiâ. Cicer. orat. pro L. Flacco.  distinguished into four regions: Phrygia, Mysia, Caria, Lydia. although the southern part of the greater Phrygia was in his time a member of the province of Cilicia: namely that, which in after ages was known by the name of Phrygia Pacatiana; as the northern part thereof, by the name of Phrygia Salutaris.  
The inland Mysia bordered on the north upon the mountain Olympus, from whence 
c Herodot. lib. 7. § 74. Strab. lib. 12. pag. 571. 574. 576.  Mysia Olympena took the name; which by the interposition of the river Rhyndacus was separated from the province that in the division of the Empire made by Constantine the great was called 
d C. l. 1. de offic. come. sacr. patrim. cum Notitiâ utriusque Imperii; & Graecâ alterâ Orientalis Imperii, in Appendice Geographiae sacrae Caroli à Sancto Paulo, edit. Paris. ann. 1641. pag. 27.  Hellespontus Consularis.  
The northern part of this Hellespont, named Epictetus, was heretofore called the lesser or the Hellespontian Phrygia, 
e Strab. lib. 2. pag. 29. & lib. 12. pag. 563. 571.  as Strabo informeth us: the southern, called Troas, is by 
f Galen. de sunitat. tuend. lib. 5.  Galen named the Helle. spontian Mysia. although 
g Ptolem. Geograph. lib. 5. cap. 2.  Ptolemy doth give unto Troas the title of the lesser Phrygia; and to the other the name of the lesser Mysia. So hard it is to distinguish the bounds of the Mysians and the Phrygians: as by 
h Strab. lib. 12. pag. 571. 572.  Strabo also is here observed.  
Caria was parted from Lydia by the winding currents of Maeander: from the receiving of the river Lycus into it, unto the emptying of itself into the Myrtoan sea. For howsoever Ptolemy taketh all that lieth betwixt this and the river Cayster from Lydia, and addeth it unto Caria: yet 
i 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Strab. lib. 12 pag. 577.  Strabo maketh Maeander to be the limit betwixt those provinces; and aswell by Scylax Caryandensis in his Periplus, as by 
k Lydia perfusa flexuosi amnis Maeandri recursibus, super joniam procedit. Plin. lib. 5, cap. 29.  Pliny and 
l 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Maxim. Tyr. dissert. 38.  Maximus Tyrius, it is expressly reckoned among the rivers of Lydia.  
Lydia contained, beside the inland region commonly known by that name, the adjoining countries also, aswell of jonia, lying on the sea side between the mouths of the river Hermus and Maeander, as of AEolis, 
m 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Strab. lib. 13. pag. 586.  reaching up from Hermus unto Lecton; 
n Promontorium Lecton disterminans Aeolida & Treada. Plinius l. 5. cap. 30. & Damasses, apud Strabon. lib. 13. pag. 583.  which did disterminate it from Troas. For here we do not with Ptolemy take AEolis in the stricter sense for the maritime coast only, which lieth by south of the river Caîcus; but also for the land situated northward thereof, unto which 
o Herodet. lib. 6. § 28. & lib. 7 § 42.  Herodotus giveth the name of Mysia, and is by Strabo described to be that Mysia which is 
p 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Strab. lib. 12. pag. 571. Ipsam quoque urbem Pergamenam dictam fuisse olim Teuthraniam; testis est Pausanias in Atticis, pag. 4. & 10.  about Caicus and Pergamena, until Teuthrania and the mouth of the river.  
Galen indeed writeth, that 
q 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Galen de sanit. tuend. lib. 5.  the Hellespontian Mysia was conterminous to Pergamus. by which Mysia as we must conceive Troas to have been meant, which lay upon the Hellespont: so upon the like ground, we may not take Pergamus for the bare city itself, so far distant from thence, but for the whole Pergamen territory or Mysia Pergamena, reaching up from Caîcus unto Troas. And that all this also was reckoned for a parcel appendent unto Lydia, may easily be gathered out of Xenophon: 
r 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Xenoph. de exped. Cyri, lib. 7.  who counteth that a part of the Lydian sea, which runneth by Antandrus and Adramyttium; from whencence he saith, he and his company took their journey, through the plain that lay by the river Caîcus, unto Pergamus a city of Lydia. Yea and in Adramyttium itself, 
s 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Strab. lib. 13 pag. 613.  Strabe doth testify that in his time the name of the Lydian gates was still preserved, as a memorial of the building of that city by the Lydians. Neither is there any reason to be given, why Cicero in the catalogue of the countries of Asia properly so called, should wholly pretermit the mention of AEolis and jonia; but that he comprehended the one under the name of 
t AEolis proxima est, quondam Mysia appellata, & quae Hellesponto adjacet Troas. Plin. lib. 5. cap. 30.  Mysia and the other of Lydia: in both which we see Adramyttium and all the other cities downward unto Ephesus to be placed by Scylax in his Periplus.  
That heretofore Lydia was called Meonia, we read in 
u Herodot. lib. 1. § 7. & lib 7. §. 74.  Herodotus, 
x Plin. lib. 5. cap. 29.  Pliny, and others: and that 
y 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Strabo, lib. 13. pag. 627.  Meonia was in the days of Homer named Asia, and the inhabitants thereof by Callinus (another Poet, 
z Id. lib. 14 pag. 648.  elder than Archilochus) in the Ionian dialect termed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Asians; we find to have been the opinion of Demetrius Scepsius, 
a Id. lib. 13. pag. 609.  who was equal in time unto Crates and Aristarchus the Grammarian. Whereunto we may also add that of Euripides, in his Bacchaes; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 together with that which is related by 
b 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Stephan. de Vibib. in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Stephanus Byzantinus, 
c 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Studan 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, & Erymologic, in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Suidas, and the great Etymologist; that upon this Tmolus there was a city of Lydia seated, which had the name of Asia: and by Strabo, 
d 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. (leg. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Strabo, lib. 13. pag. 629. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Id. lib 14. pag. 650. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Vet. Scholiast. Aristophanis, in Acharnens.  that betwixt the two Lydian mountains of Tmolus and Messógis lay the great Caystrian plain, which Homer calleth the Asian field, in that verse of the second of the Iliads; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. to which Virgil also hath relation in that of the first of his Georgics; 
— & quae Asia circum  
Dulcibus in stagnis rimantur prata Caystri:  and in the seventh of the Aeneids; 
mdash; sonat amnis, & Asia longè  
Pulsa palus.  It is further also reported by Strabo, that 
e 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Strab. lib. 14. pag. 650. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Eustath. in Iliad. ss. pag. 254. edit. Roman.  in this field, near unto the banks of the river Cayster, the inhabitants used to show the Chapels dedicated to the honour of Caystrius, and of one Asias; whom the Etymologist 
f 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Etymologic. magn. in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  noteth to have been sometime King of Lydia; and to have given the name unto this Asian field. or, 
g 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Herodet. lib. 4. §. 45.  as the Lydians themselves would have it, to the whole land of Asia: alleging further, that from this Asias, the son of Cotys, the son of Maneus, they had a tribe in their head-city Sardis, which they called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as is recorded by Herodotus.  
Whether 
h 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Stephan. de Vrbib. in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  from this Asias the continent of Asia did take his denomination, or from the forementioned city of Lydia, or from Asia the wife of Prometheus, or from some other original; Stephanus Byzantinus leaveth us to inquire. But beside that the first vowel in Homer's Asia is long, and in the greater Asia (which 
i 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Id. ibid.  Stephanus acknowledgeth him to have been ignorant of) is of a short quantity: no man can doubt, but the derivation of the name of Asia from a Lydian city, or from a Lydian King and Heros, is fare more properly appliable to Lydia itself, then to the whole continent either of the greater or the lesser Asia. For that Lydia, comprised within the bounds before described, had in a peculiar acception the name of Asia ascribed unto it; may further be made clear, both out of the New Testament, and the distinction made by the Roman Emperors betwixt the Proconsular Asia (which we will show was the same with this) and the rest of the Asian Diocese.  
In the 16. chapter of the Acts of the Apostles, the journey of S. Paul and his company is by S. Luke thus described. When they had gone throughout Phrygia and the region of Galatia, and were forbidden of the holy Ghost to preach the word in ASIA; After they were come to Mysia, they assayed to go into Bythinia: but the Spirit suffered them not. And they passing by Mysia, came down to Troas. Where it may be observed, that the greater Phrygia, (through which they passed into Galatia) and Mysia Olympena (which was next adjoining unto Bythinia) and Hellespont, wherein Troas was situated, being all of them parcels of that Asia which at first was by the Romans properly so called, and afterwards of the Asian Diocese also; are yet expressly distinguished from Asia, in a more strict sense so denominated. as Caria likewise, wherein Miletus stood, seemeth to be by what we read in Acts 20.16, 17.  
And as these are thus exempted by S. Luke, so the rest that remain of the proper Asia, together with the seven Churches of Asia mentioned in the Revelation of S. john, are all of them comprehended within the limits of that Lydian Asia, whereof we have spoken. For, that Pergamus was accounted a city of Lydia, we have heard before confirmed out of Xenophon: to whom Aristotle also may be added, in his book 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, where he speaketh of a war sometime raised 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Sardis, Philadelphia and Thyatira are by Ptolemy, Smyrna and Epheus by Scylax Caryandensis, and 
k 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Steph. de Vrbib. in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Laodicea by Stephanus Byzantinus, placed therein.  
Yet is Laodicea by Ptolemy referred unto Caria, and by others unto Phrygia. The reason of which difference we may learn from Strabo: 
l 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Strab. lib. 13. pag. 628.  who showeth that the confines of Phrygia, Lydia and Caria were so coincident, that they were hardly to be discerned the one from the other. which is the cause, that though he himself 
m Id. lib. 12. pag. 576. & lib. 14. pag. 663.  doth reckon Laodicea among the cities of Phrygia; yet Hierapolis, which was 
n 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Id. lib. 13. pag 629.  opposite to it (toward the East) is by Stephanus 
p 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Stephan. de Vrbib.  said to be seated betwixt Phrygia and Lydia: it by that means being placed in, and Laodicea without the borders of Phrygia.  
This also doth Strabo assign for another reason, 
q 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Strab. lib. 13. pag. 629.  why the bounds of the Provinces hereabout were confounded: because that the Romans did not divide these places by the nations; but ordered them after another manner, according to the circuits wherein they kept their Courts and exercised judicature. Five of these tribunals were seated in the cities of 
r Plin lib. 5. cap. 29. & 30.  Laodicea, Sardis, Smyrna, Ephesus, and Pergamus: Philadelphia was subject to the Sardian, and Thyatira to the Pergamen jurisdiction. Thus was it, when Pliny wrote, toward the beginning of the empire of Vespasian: although afterward 
s 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Ptolem lib. 5. c. 2.  Thyatira was a Metropolis of itself, as Ptolemy declareth in his Geography; and in all likelihood Philadelphia also, the only city remaining of those seven famous ones singled out, as the seats of the most eminent Churches of all Asia, in the book of the Revelation.  
For that Philadelphia was herein no whit inferior unto Thyatira; may easily be gathered by the respect which it still retained, after that Lydia (as we shall hear) was separated from the Proconsular Asia, and each Province ordinarily permitted to have but one Metropolis. For Sardis being then the prime city of Lydia; the next in account after it was Philadelphia, another also being placed betwixt it and Thyatira: as appeareth by the order of them constantly observed aswell in the 
t Hieroclis Notit, Orientalis Imperii; in Append. Geograph. sacr. edit. Paris. an. 1641. pag. 29.  Civil as in the 
u Ordo Metiopolit, ibid. pag. 13. &. 45. & in tomo 1. juris Graeco-Romani. pag. 90.  Ecclesiastical Catalogues of the cities belonging to that Province. Whereupon in the Acts of the Constantinopolitan Council held under Menna, we see that Eustathius subscribeth himself, in express terms, 
x 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Concil. Constantinop. sub Mennâ, Act. 5.  Bishop of the METROPOLIS of the Philadelphians, of the province of the Lydians.  
The addition of these two mother-cities seemeth to have been then made, when Vespasian added those many new Provinces to the old government, which 
y Sueton. in Vespasian. cap. 8.  Suetonius speaketh off: at what time (as it is most probable) he separated this Proconsular Asia, from the rest of that Asia which (together with this) was 
z Strabo, in sin. lib. 17. pag. 840.  by Augustus Caesar formerly made one entire Consular Province. For the Proconsul of Asia having but two Provinces under his jurisdiction (before that of Hellespont was cast upon him by Theodosius the elder) the one in the continent which he governed by himself, the other in the Lands which he ruled by a Precedent; it is known, 
a Sub Vespasiano principe Insularum provincia facta est. Sexr. Rufus, in Breviario.  that the Rhodes and the rest of those Lands were first made a Province by Vespasian; and from his time downward, long before the distribution of the Empire made by Constantine, there remaineth a continued memory of the Proconsul's of Asia.  
For in his son's days, we find 
b Plin. lib. 4. epist. 3. & 5. Vid. jul. Capitolin. in Antonino Pio; cum notis Casauboni.  Arrius Antoninus to have been Proconsul of Asia: and 
c Acta Graeca Timothei: apud P. Halloix, Notat. in Vit. Polycarpi, cap. 7.  Peregrinus in the reign of Nerva, under whom Timothy suffered at Ephesus. 
d jul. Capitolin in Antonino Pio.  Antoninus Pius, 
e justin. Martyr, in Apologiâad Antonin, & ex eo Euseb. lib. 4. hist. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. & Chronic-ann. Christ. 128.  Serenius Grannianus and Minucius Fundanus boar the same office under the Emperor Hadrian: and in the days of Marcus Aurelius, 
f Fasti Sicult ad ann. 4. O. lymp. 235.  Tatius Quadratus, under whom Polycarpus suffered martyrdom at Smyrna; as Pionius also did afterwards in the same place, under 
g Ibid. ad ann 4. Olymp. 257.  Proclus Quintianus. There is mention also made by Aelius Lampridius of the Proconsulship of another 
h Lamprid. in Commo. do.  Arrius Antoninus, under Commodus. And Ulpian, in his first book of the Proconsul's office, allegeth 
i Imperator noster Antoninus Augustus ad de sideria Asianorum rescripsit; Proconsuli necessitatem imposit am, per mare Asiam applicare. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 pri mam attingere. Ulpian. in L. Observare. D. de ossic. Procons.  a Rescript of the Emperor Antoninus; whereby a necessity was imposed upon the Proconsul, to pass into Asiaby sea, and among the other Metropoles (whereof we heard there were many) to arrive first at Ephesus.  
But after the days of Constantine, the distinction of the offices of the Vicarius Dioecesis Asianae and the Proconsul Asiae, doth more evidently occur: especially in Eunapius, where he telleth, how in his time, Valens being then Emperor of the East, Clearchus was preferred unto them both. For first he declareth, that he was made 
k 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Eunap. in vitâ Maximi.  governor of all that Asia, the jurisdiction whereof did extend from Hellespont, through Lydia and Pisidia, unto Pamphylia. where, in stead of Lydia, which at that time (as we will show) did belong unto the Proconsular Asia, we are to put Phrygia; which appertained to this, and aswell in the 
l Act. 2.9, 10. & 16.6.  Acts of the Apostles, as in the Epistle of the Church of Vienna and Lions (recited by Eusebius) is expressly excluded from that other Asia. 
m 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Euseb. lib. 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Then touching the advancement of Clearchus to the other government, Eunapius writeth thus. 
n 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Id. ibid.  Things prosperously succeeding, Valens was wonderfully well pleased with Clearchus, and was so fare from depriving him of his former charge, that he advanced him unto a greater government; appointing him to be Proconsul of Asia now properly so called. This from Pergamus downward taking the sea-coast into it, toward the adjacent continent reacheth unto Caria; the mountain Tmolus circumscribing that of it which belongeth unto Lydia. Of the governments it is the most honourable; and is not subject to the Praefectus Praetorio. saving that now, by reason of these late commotions, all things are again confounded and disturbed.  
In which words, touching this Proconsular Asia we may observe; first, the name which he giveth unto it, of Asia NOW properly so called. then, the limits wherewith he circumscribeth it, as it yet stood in the days of the Emperor Valens. and lastly, the changes which afterwards did happen therein. In the first of which we are to consider, that the Asia now properly so called was but a parcel of that which in former times the Romans called their proper Asia: and that as the title of Asia then properly so called was used by them as a term to distinguish it from Asia minor; so now it had a like relation unto the Asian diocese, from which (as a member from the whole) by this specification of the name it was discriminared.  
Secondly, touching the limits thereof, it may be noted; that as Galen (in the place before alleged) maketh the Hellespontian Mysia (which in the old distribution of the Empire was within the precinct of the jurisdiction of the Vicarius dioecesis Asianae) to be conterminous unto Pergamus, where he himself was borne: so Eunapius from the same Pergamus, or the Pergamen Mysia rather, beginneth the bounds of the Proconsular Asia; extending the length thereof from thence downward unto Caria, and the breadth from the Sea unto Tmolus, 
o 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Strabo, lib. 13. pag. 629.  a mountain placed in the Eastern border of Lydia. which is by Euripides, in his Bacchaes, called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the fortress of Lydia; and on the side whereof Sardis (a chief city of that province, and Eunapius his own country) is not only by him, 
p 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Euripid. in Bacchis.  but also by 
q Herodot. lib. 1. § 84. & lib. 5. §. 101.  Herodotus, 
r 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Strab. l. 13. pag. 625.  Strabo and 
s Lydia celebratur maxime Sardibus, in latere Tmoli montis, qui antè Timolus appellabatur. Plin. lib. 5. c. 29.  Pliny (howsoever Ptolemy misplaceth it) sufficiently proved to have been situated. By which description it appeareth, that the Proconsular Asia was the same with the old Lydian Asia; within the compass whereof all those seven Churches were comprehended, which are mentioned in the book of the Revelation.  
Thirdly, for the changes which followed afterward; we find that by Theodosius the elder (who succeeded Valens in the Eastern Empire) the 
t L. Offic. Hestesponti. C. de offic. commit. sacri potrimon. (vel pouùs, proconsalis & leg.)  Consular Hellespont (wherein that Hellespontian Mysia was contained, which bordered upon Pergamena) was taken from the jurisdiction of the Vicarius of the Asian diocese, and put under the power of the Proconsul of Asia: and either by him or his son Arcadius, the inland province of Lydia on the other side taken from the Proconsul of Asia, and subjected to the Vicarius of the Asian diocese. Which is the cause, why Palladius, 
u Palladius, in Vitâ Chrysostomi: & ex eo Georgius Alexandrinus, tomo 8. edit. Graec. oper. Chrysost. pag. 202. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  speaking of the Asian Synod of seventy Bishops held by Chrysostom in the four hundreth year of our Lord, doth expressly distinguish the Bishops of Lydia from the Bishops of Asia. for as for the subscriptions of the first Council of Nice, which are to be found in some Latin copies: they are of latter times, and deserve little or no regard.  
Yet in this distraction of Lydia from the Proconsular Asia, it is to be observed, that the Southern part thereof, lying betwixt the rivers of Maeander and Cayster, which we noted to have been attributed by Ptolemy unto Caria, and wherein were the cities of Priene, Magnesia, Trallis and Nysa, was still reserved unto Asia; together with all that lay upon the sea-coast from Ephesus up unto Assos (mentioned in Acts 20.13.) as doth appear aswell 
x Append. Geograph. sacr. edit. Paris. ann. 1641. pag. 27. & 43. cum tomo 1. juris Graeco-Romani, pag. 90.  by the Civil and Ecclesiastical lists of the Provinces of the Eastern Empire, recorded by the Grecians; as by the 
y Subscript. Concil. Chalced. Act. 6. Concil. Constantinop. sub. Mennâ, Act. 5. Concil. Constantinop. VI Act. 18. etc.  subscriptions of the Council of Chalcedon and other of the Eastern Synods. And so 
z Sub dispositione viri Spectabilis Proconsulis Asiae, Provinciae infrascriptae: Asia, Insulae, Hellespontus. Notitia Provinciar. & dignitat. urriusque Imperii.  Asia (thus restrained, and disjointed from Lydia) together with the two other Provinces, of the Lands (called Cyclades) and Hellespontus, continued under the government of the Proconsul of Asia: as these eight were 
a Sub dispositione viri Spectabilis Vicarii Dioeceseos Asianae, Provinciae infrascriptae: Pamphylia, etc. Ibid.  under the disposal of the Vicarius of the Asian diocese; Pamphylia, Lycia, Lycaonia, Pisidia, (which four were not contained within the Asia propriè dicta of the ancient Romans) Lydia, Caria, Phrygia Pacatiana and Phrygia Salutaris.  
This distribution is to be seen in the Latin list of the Provinces and Dignities of both the Empires; calby 
b Alciat. Parerg. lib. 5. cap. 13.  Alciat the Breviary of Theodosius the younger. 
c 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Io. Malel. Antiochen. Chronic, MS. lib. 14.  by whom Lycia was first divided from Lycaonia and made a Province by itself; Myra being appointed the Metropolis and place of the residence of the Precedent thereof: as johannes Malela setteth down in his Chronicle. Which report of his if we admit for authentic; we must withal say, that Theodoret had relation to the state of his own time, when speaking of the care which Chrysostom had 
d 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Theodoret. histor. Ecclesiastic. lib. 5. cap 28.  of the whole diocese of Asia, he saith that it was governed by eleven Precedents. counting the three Provinces which were under the Proconsul of Asia, with the other eighth that were under the Vicarius of the Asian diocese; which otherwise, if Lycia and Lycaonia had been conjoined, would have been but seven Provinces.  
Indeed, 
c Asianae X. Pamphylia, Hellespontus, Lydia, etc. Notit. utriusque Imperii.  in the general enumeration of the Provinces of the Eastern Empire, which we meet withal toward the beginning of the foresaid Theodosian Breviary, there are but ten Provinces numbered of the whole Asian diocese: the first and principal of them all, to wit Asia itself, by some error (wherewith 
f Onuph Panuin. Reipubls. Roman. lib. 3. (( pag. 424. edit. Francofurt. ann. 1597.)  Onuphrius also was misledd) being omitted. Which was nothing amended by Isidorus Mercator, but increased rather; when he reckoneth up 
g Asiae Provinciae XII. Asia ipsa, in quâ est Ilium, id est Troia. Lydia. Galatia. Lycia. Caria. Hellespontus. etc. Provinciar. Romanar. libel. ab Ant. Sconhovio & Andr. Schotto edit. ex Isidori Collect. Epistolar. Decretal. MS.  twelve Provinces in this Asia: the first where of is Asia itself (saith he) in which is Ilium, or Troy; the second Lydia, the third Galatia. Whereas Ilium was situated not in this, but in the province of Hellespont: and Galatia appertained to the Pontican, and not to the Asian Diocese. Whence, by the way, we may correct an error that hath crept into the Greek edition of the subscriptions of the 6. Action of the Council of Chalcedon: wherein, though Theosebius Bishop of Ilium had put to his name, yet Stephen the Metropolitan of the Ephesians, among those absent Bishops that were under his jurisdiction, doth nominate Rufinus Bishop, not Timi (as the Latin books have it) but Ilij.  
And here it is further to be observed, that howsoever in former times the Proconsular Asia had divers metropolitical cities in it (as, by that which hath been already said, and specially by the Rescript of the Emperor Antoninus, vouched by Ulpian, is manifestly proved:) yet in the disposition of the Empire made by Constantine it was ordered, that aswell there, as in all other provinces respectively, there should be but one chief city held for the Metropolis; wherein the Roman Deputy was to make his principal residence, and to which the provincials might have recourse for the administration of public justice.  
Now Ephesus, being held to be 
h 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Aristid. orat. de concordiâ, ad civitates Asiaticas.  the common treasury of Asia (as Aristides calleth it) was appointed to be the Metropolis thereof: as may appear by the testimonies, aswell of 
i 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Chrysost. in argument, epist ad Ephes.  Chrysostom and others of the ancient who wrote upon the Epistle of S. Paul to the Ephesians; as by the Emperor 
k 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Theodos. jun. epist. ad Dioscor. Alexandrin. insert. Actioni 1. Concil. Chalcedon.  Theodosius, in the letters whereby he summoneth Dioscorus and other Bishops to appear at the second Council of Ephesus, assembled by him in the year of our Lord CCCCXLIX. And he that wrote the book of the places mentioned in the Acts of the Apostles (falsely fathered upon S. Hierom) saying, that 
l Specialiter ubi Ephesus civet as est, Asia vocatur. Lib. de locis Act. Apostol. inter Hieronymi & Bedae opera.  where the city of Ephesus is, there is the Asia specially so called; could mean no other thing thereby, but that the province which hath Ephesus for its Metropolis, is that which hath the name of Asia in a singular manner appropriated unto it. if therein he looked any further than to the bare words of the text; wherein it is said, that Paul 
m Act. 19.10.  continuing at Ephesus by the space of two years, all they which dwelled in Asia heard the word of the Lord. and that afterward 
n Act. 20.16, 18.  he determined to sail by Ephesus, because he would not spend the time in Asia: and thereupon sending for the Elders of the Church of Ephesus, he said unto them; Ye know from the first day that I came into Asia, after what manner I have been with you at all seasons. Out of all which it was no hard matter for him to gather at large, as 
o Erasm Annot. in Act. 16 & Rom. 16.  Erasmus did after him; that Asia in the New Testament denoteth that part of Asia minor in which Ephesus standeth.  
It is here also further to be noted, that as in the state of the civil government, the jurisdiction of the annual Precedents (by Aristides styled 
p 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Aristid. in orat. citat. quum antea dixisset. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Bishops) was extended unto all the cities that were contained within the limits of their several provinces so, in the Eastern empire especially, the Ecclesiastical regiment was herein conformed unto the civil; there being but one Metropolitan Bishop settled in every Province, unto whom the Bishops of all the rest of the cities were subordinated. By which means it came to pass, that of the seven Churches in Asia, spoken of in the book of the Revelation, Ephesus alone in the days of Constantine had the Metropolitical dignity lest unto it. Then after the days of Valens the Emperor, Lydia being separated from Asia, the Bishop of Sardis (which had been the 
q 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Strabo, lib. 13. pag. 625.  ancient seat of the Lydian Kings) became the Metropolitan of that province: the sees of Philadelphia and 
* In the Latin edition of the subscriptions adjoined unto the 6 Action of the Council of Chalcedon, Thyatira is made subject to Synnada. but the Greek readeth there, not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 rather; a see well known to be suffragan to Synnada, which Synnada in Socratis histor Ecclesiast. lib. 7. cap. 3. is by another error made to be a city of Phrygia Pacatiana: whereas it was without all controverfy the Metropolis of Phrygia Salutaris. See the subscript. of the V general Council, Collat. 8.  Thyatira being made subject to him; as Smyrna and Pergamus were to the Bishop of Ephesus.  
There remained then of the seven, only Laedicea: which got the honour of being the Metropolis of Phrygia Pacatiana; as we read in the Greek subscription of the first epistle unto Timothy: the lateness whereof is thence rightly collected by the learned 
q Vnde satis liquere potest, de subscriptione primae epistolae ad Timotheum, recentiorem eam esse. Cujac. in exposit. Novel. 145.  Cujacius. For as the distinction of Phrygia Pacatiana and Salutaris is not where to be found before the distribution of the provinces made by Constantine: so at that time also, when but one Metropolis was allotted unto every Province; it is a question, whether of those two 
* Laodicea and Hierapolis as they: were near one another (and so conjoined by the Apostle, in Coloss. 4.13.) so have they the first place also assigned unto them among the cities of Phrygia Pacariana, by Hierocles in the civil list of the Provinces; Append. Geogr. sacr. pag. 21.  prime cities that were so near together, Hierapolis, which without all controversy was acknowledged to belong unto Phrygia, was not rather chosen to be the mother city therein, then Laodicea, which by reason of the doubtful situation thereof (as we have heard) was indifferently challenged to appertain unto Phrygia, Garia and Lydia.  
In the days of the succeeding Emperors indeed, 
r 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Concil. Chalcedon. Can. 12.  who yielded so fare to the ambition of some Bishops, that they were content there should be two Metropolitans in one Province, both these cities were accounted for the Metropoles of Phrygia Pacatiana, which is the cause, why in the fourth general Council, assembled at Chalcedon; aswell 
s Concil. Chalced. Act. 6.  Nunechius Bishop of the Metropolis of Laodicea, as Stephen Bishop of the Metropolis of Hierapolis, do subscribe for themselves and the absent Bishops which were under them. as also in the fifth general Council held at Constantinople, there is mention made at the same time 
t Concil. V Collat. 8.  of john Bishop of the Metropolis of the Laodiceans, and Auxanon Bishop of the Metropolis of the Hierapolitans: and in the sixth, of Tiberius' Bishop of the Laodiceans and Sisinnius of the Hierapolitans; either of them giving unto his seat the title 
u 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Concil. VI Constantinop. Act. 18.  of the Metropolis of the Pacatian Phrygians.  
And although by a Canon of the said Council of Chalcedon it was provided, that any Bishop which afterward 
x 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Concil. Chalced. can. 12.  would attempt to make such divisions, to the derogation of the rights of his own Metropolitan, should be deprived of his dignity; and that 
y 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. etc. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Ibid.  the new Metropoles formerly constitured by the Imperial Charters should so content themselves with this honour, that the proper rights should still be preserved unto that which was the Metropolis indeed: yet we see for all this, that 
z Notit. Graec. in Appendic. Geograph. sacr. pag. 16. & 18. item 48. & 52. jur. Graeco Roman. tom. 1. pag. 94. & 98.  in the lists of the Bishoprics of the East made in the succeeding times, there are still distinct suffragans reckoned under these two Metropolitans of Laodicea and Hierapolis; and that divers other private Bishops were not hereby restrained from aspiring unto a Metropolitical dignity. among whom (to speak only of those who are within our compass) was the Bishop of Smyrna; who found the means to be made first 
a Notir. Graec. in Append. Geograph, sacr. pag. 8. & 40.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or independent, and then 
b jur. Graeco-Roman. tom. 1. pag. 88 & 45.  a Metropolitan with 
c Ibid. pag. 100  seven suffragans depending upon him. 
d Georg. Codin. Curopalat. de Offic. Constantinop. pag. 221. & 237. edit. Fr. junii.  the Bishop of Pergamus; who was exempted likewise from his subordination to Ephesus, and made a Metropolitan by himself. and the Bishop of Philadelphia: 
e Ibid. pag. 219. & 231.  who by Andronicus Palaeologus the elder was substituted into the place of the Bishop of Sardis, and made Metropolitan of all Lydia. So as of the Bishops of the seven Churches mentioned in the book of the Revelation, he of Thyatira only excepted, all at the last became Metropolitans, as they were at the first.  
But among all these, the See of Ephesus had evermore the preeminence. And as it was the mother city of the Proconsular Asia: so was that Asia likewise the prime Province of all the Asian Diocese; and had in such esteem, that the Proconsul thereof was exempted from the jurisdiction of the Praefectus Praetorio Orientis, (as before we have heard out of Eunapius) unto which the Vicarius or Lieutenant of the rest of the Asian diocese was subject. Gonformably whereunto in the Ecclesiastical government, the Bishop of Ephesus was not only held to be the Metropolitan of the Proconsular Asia, but also the Primate of all the provinces that were contained within the compass of the whole Asian Diocese. Upon which ground it was, that among those Bishops which Palladius (in the life of Chrysostom) mentioneth to have been ordained by Antoninus' Bishop of Ephesus; 
f 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Sozomen. hist. lib. 8. cap. 6.  some were of Lycia and Phrygia, as well as others of Asia: the ordination of these latter being challenged by virtue of his Metropolitical, of the others by his patriarchical jurisdiction. Which patriarchical right of ordination being taken afterwards from that See by the Council of Chalcedon, was by 
g 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Euagr. Instor. lib. 3. cap. 6.  Timothy of Alexandria (the deadly enemy of that Council) restored again.  
So we see, that as Metropolitan of the Asian province he thus subscribeth unto the Constantinopolitan Synod held under Menna. 
h 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (vel 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 potiùs) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Concil. CP. sub Mennâ Act. 5.  I Hypatius, by the mercy of God Bishop of the Metropolis of the Ephesians of the Asian Province, have defined and subscribed. and as Patriarch of the Asian diocese, to the letters sent by the sixth Council of Constantinople unto Pope Agatho, thus. 
i 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Synod. VI Constantinop. Act. 18.  I Theodorus, by the mercy of God Bishop of the Metropolis of the Ephesians, and Primate of the Asian Diocese, both for myself and the Synod that is under me, have subscribed.  
And of the Proconsular Asia and, by occasion thereof, of the Asian Diocese also (whereof it was a member) thus much may suffice.   

THE patriarchical Government of the ancient Church; declared by way of Answer unto four Questions, proposed unto EDWARD BREREWOOD.  

The first Question. Whether every Church or Bishop, at the time of the Nicene Council, were subject to one of the three Patriarches, of Rome, of Alexandria, and of Antiochia, mentioned in the 6. Canon of that Council?  
Answer.  
NO. They were not. the Canon itself puts it out of question. For when as the former part of that Canon had reserved to those three, the accustomed prerogative and power over their neighbour Regions; there is immediately added, that the dignities or privileges, belonging to the Churches of other Provinces, should in like sort be maintained. And the second Canon also of the first General Council of Constantinople will enforce as much. But for the better declaring of this point, two things would be considered. First; what the Extent or Bounds of those three Patriarches jurisdiction was? Secondly; to whose jurisdiction the rest of the Provinces belonged, without those precincts?  
Touching the first. 
Concil. Nicen. can. 6.  To the Patriarch of Alexandria, are attributed in the Nicene Council, the Regions of Egypt, Lybia, and Pentapolis. 
Epiphan. contr. haeres. sect. 68 prope princip  Epiphanius. addeth Thebais, Maraeotica, and Ammoniaca, and yet he addeth nothing: for Thebais and Maraeotica were provinces of Egypt, and Ammoniaca was part of Lybia. The utmost cities of which Patriarches jurisdiction were, toward the East Rhinocorura not fare from Anthedon and Gaza) where he confined with the jurisdiction of Antiochia: and toward the West Berenice, near the greater Syrtis. that was (I say) the utmost city of his jurisdiction that way: but the utmost bound of it was at the town of Phileni, in the bottom of the greater Syrtis; where the jurisdiction of Egypt confined with that of Africa. Within which large bounds, at the time of the Nicene Council, were 
a Notitia Provinciar.  six Provinces of the Roman division: but afterward in the time of the 
b Action. 1. Concil. Chalced in epist. ad Dioscorum.  Council of Chalcedon, it seems there were ten (the greater Provinces being then divided into lesse) for so many Metropolitan Bishops do the Emperors Theodosius and Valentinian call to that Council out of the Diocese of Egypt.  
To the Patriarch of Antiochia belonged all 
c Concil. Constantinop. 1. can. 2.  the Provinces of the Orient. which name taken properly in the Roman writers (not for the Eastern Empire, whereof Constantinople was the Metropolis, but) for the East Diocese of the Empire, whereof Antiochia was, containeth all the Provinces of the Roman Empire lying at the East end of the Mediterrane Sea, as fare as their Empire extended Eastward; together with Cilicia and Isauria; confining with the former, but yet being on the North side of the midland Sea: all together being in number 
d Notitia Provinc. prope princip.  15. Provinces.  
Now lastly touching the jurisdiction of the Patriarch of Rome: although I will not take on me resolutely to determine the precincts of it, yet I will tell you my opinion. Which is, that it contained all those Provinces of the Diocese of Italy, which the old Lawyers and others term Suburbicarias. There were ten of them: whereof three were the three Islands, Sicily; Corsica, and Sardinia; and the other seven were in the firm land of Italy, and took up in a manner all the narrow part of it. for all Italy East ward belonged to it: but on the West the river Magra (which was and still is the limit of Tuscany) toward the Tyrrhene Sea, and the River Esino (Asius it was called) not fare to the West of the city Ancona toward the Adriatic Sea, were the bounds of it. for at that River Esino, if I be not mistaken, the Province of Picenum Suburbicarium confined with that, which was termed Picenum Annonarium: whereof the former belonged to the Praefecture of Rome, whereof the city of Rome was Metropolis; and the later, together with all the other provinces in the broader part of Italy, (there were seven of them in all) pertained to the Diocese of Italy, properly so termed, whereof the Metropolis was the city of Milan.  
And that this, and no other, was the ancient jurisdiction of the Roman Patriarch; I am not without reason to persuade me. for first, 
Ruffin. hist. Eccles. lib. 1. cap. 6.  Ruffinus in his Ecclesiastical history registering the Canon of the Nicene Council above alleged; setteth it down thus. Apud Alexandriam, ut in Vrbe Româ, vetusta consuetudo servetur: ut ille Aegypti, & hic Suburbicariarum Ecclesiarum solicitudinem gerat. whose translation (if he meant but to translate the Canon out of the Greek) as I will not approve; so his declaration, if he meant that, I cannot reprove: because living so shortly, as he did, after the Nicene Council, and being of Italy, as he was; he might well know the bounds of that Patriarch's jurisdiction, as it was then practised.  
Secondly, so many Provinces, and no more, belonged to the Prefecture of the city of Rome, that was, to the civil Jurisdiction of him that was Vicarius Vrbis; 
Notitia Provinciar. Imper. Occidental.  as in the book of Provinces is manifest. And of all the other Ecclesiastical jurisdictions, whether of Patriarches or Primates, it is certain that they extended no farther, than the Temporal Regiment of the Lieutenants did; that is, to the bounds of those Dioceses whereof the cities of their Residence were the Metropoles: 
Concil. Constantinop. 1. can, 2.  which also the second Canon of the second general Council afore mentioned doth clearly import.  
But I shall not thus satisfy you perhaps, except the second point also be declared: namely, to whose Government, the Churches of all other Provinces did belong. Touching which I will tell you briefly, what, searching the best I could into the ancient Ordination and government, both Civil and Ecclesiastical, of the Empire of Rome, I have observed. The whole Empire of Rome was divided into XIII. Dioceses: whereof VII. belonged to the East Empire and VI (beside the Prefecture of the city of Rome, before mentioned) to the West. Those XIII. Dioceses (together with that Prefecture) contained among them CXX. Provinces, or thereabout: so that to e-every Diocese belonged the administration of sundry Provinces. Lastly every Province contained many Cities, within their territories.  
The Cities had for their Rulers, those inferior judges which in the Law are termed Defensores civitatum: and their seats were the cities themselves; to which all the Towns and Villages in their several territories were to resort for justice. The Provinces had for theirs either Proconsules or Consulares, or Praesides or Correctores; four sundry appellations, but almost all of equal authority: and their seats were the chiefest cities or Metropoles of the Provinces; of which in every Province there was one, to which all the inferior cities, for judgement in matters of importance, did resort. Lastly the Dioceses had for theirs, the Lieutenants, called Vicarij: and their seats, were the Metropoles or principal cities of the Diocese, whence the edicts of the Emperor or other Laws were published and sent abroad into all the Provinces of the Diocese; and where the Praetorium and chief Tribunal for judgement was placed, to determine the Appeals, and minister justice (as might be occasion) to all the Provinces belonging to that jurisdiction. And this was the disposition of the Roman Governors: for to speak of the several properties of these subordinate Ruler's government, were tedious and for our purpose needless.  
And truly it is wonderful, how nearly and exactly the Church in her Government did imitate this civil Ordination of the Roman Magistrates. For first, in every city, as there was a Defensor civitatis, for secular government, so was there placed a Bishop for spiritual regiment (in every city of the East and in every city of the West almost, a several Bishop) whose jurisdiction extended but to the city, and the places within the Territory of it. for which cause, the jurisdiction of a Bishop was anciently known by no other name but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, signifying not (as many ignorant Novelists think) a parish, as now the word is taken, that is the places or habitations near a Church, but the Towns and Villages near a city; all which, together with the City, the Bishop had in charge. Secondly, in every Province, as there was a Precedent, so was there an Archbishop: and because his Seat was the principal City of the Province, he was commonly known by the name of Metropolitan. Lastly, in every Diocese, as there was a Lievetenant-Generall, so was there a Primate, seated also in the principal city of the Diocese, as the Lieutenant was: to whom the last determining of Appeals from all the Provinces in differences of the Clergy, and the sovereign care of all the Diocese, for sundry points of spiritual government did belong.  
So that by this discourse it appeareth, that 1. a Bishop, in the ancient acception, was the chief spiritual governor of a City. 2. A Metropolitan, chief of a Province. 3. a Primate chief of a whole Diocese. which was anciently a fare greater matter than a Province, as containing the joint administration of many Provinces: although now it import a fare less jurisdiction, even that Precinct which anciently 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 did. Now of what Cities these Primates of the Dioceses were Bishops, and what Provinces belonged to the jurisdiction of every one, I could set down: but I should be long, which I am loath to be; loving a great deal better sparingness than prolixity of discourse, and specially at this present when I have no leisure to spare. But by this that I have already said, of the number of the Dioceses, you may see; that there were XI. Primates besides the III. Patriarches. for of the XIII. Dioceses (besides the Praefecture of the city of Rome; which as before I said, was administered by the Patriarch of Rome) that of Egypt, was governed by the Patriarch of Alexandria, and that of the Orient by the Patriarch of Antiochia, and all the rest by the Primates. Yet I must confess that in Africa (as it is to be seen in sundry of the African Counsels) the name of Primates and Metropolitans was promiscuously used for the superintendents of single Provinces; although the just power and dignity of Primate belonged but to one among them all.  
Now touching the power and jurisdiction of these Primates, although it was no less than that of the Patriarches, the office being the same (as you may see in Anacletus his epistles, 
Anaclet. epistol. ad Episcop. Ital. Gratian. Dist. 99  and in Gratian) and the name also of Patriarches of the Dioceses being commonly given unto them by justinian: yet the honour was somewhat less. the Patriarches ever having precedence and priority of place in Counsels, and that in a certain order; first Rome, than Alexandria, and then Antiochia. But if you should ask me the reason, why all these sovereign Bishops being equal in power, only three of them (till the ambition of the Bishops of Constantinople and jerusalem had obtained that title) had the name of Patriarches: 
Gelas. in Concil. 1. Romano. Gregor. lib. 6. Ep. 37. ad Eulog.  I can yield no better (although I know some Bishops of Rome have pretended other) then either because from these three cities above all others, the Christian Religion was dispersed abroad among many nations; in acknowledgement whereof, Christians reverenced them as mother-Churches above all the rest: or else for the great dignity of the cities themselves, exceeding all other of the Roman Empire. For first, of Rome (the Lady of the world) there is no question, 
Dio Chrysost. in orat. 32. add Alexandrinos'. Aristid. in orat. de Romae laudib.  but she surpassed all the rest: and of Alexandria, Dion Chrysostomus and Aristides have recorded it to be the second; as josephus also hath registered Antiochia for the third city of all the Empire.  
And as for the Unity of the Church; the preservation whereof you suppose might be the final cause of reducing all Christian countries under the Regiment of those three Patriarches: it was otherwise singularly provided for. partly by the excellent subordination before touched, of inferior Clerks to Bishops in every City, of Bishops to Metropolitans in every Province, and of Metropolitans to Patriarches or Primates in every Diocese: and partly, if the wounds and rents of the Church by heresy or schism were grown more wide and dangerous, by the congregation of Counsels; either Provincial by the Metropolitan, or patriarchal by the Patriarch or Primate, or General, by the Emperor, according to the several necessities of the Church.   

The second Question. To what Patriarch was the Church and Bishop of Carthage subject? To Alexandria, or Rome?  
Answer.  
TO neither of both. But he himself was Primate, and consequently had patriarchical jurisdiction in all the provinces (there were VI of them) of the Diocese of Africa. for of the XIII. Dioceses of the Empire before mentioned, that of Africa was one. So that all the Region of Africa, excepting the most Aesterly part of it, called Mauritania Tingitana (for that Province belonged to the jurisdiction or Diocese of Spain; as it is in Notitiâ Provinciarum) and the Easterly part, beyond the greater Syrtis (for that belonged to the jurisdiction of Egypt) all the rest of Africa (I say) was subject to Carthage, as their chief Primate. Chief Primate I must term him, speaking now of Africa; because (as before I observed) the Africans usually called all their Metropolitans, Primates; contrary to the custom of the rest of Christendom. But yet, as I said, the principal power of Primate in Africa, belonged to the Archbishop of Carthage alone. 
Novel. 131. cap. 1.  For justinian doth plainly give him the same jurisdiction and prerogative in the Diocese of Africa, that he did to the Bishop of justiniana prima, in the Diocese of Dacia; that is to say (as you shall understand by mine answer to your last Question) of an absolute Primate. Which assignment or donation of justinian's notwithstanding, you must not conceive to be the first erecting of it to that dignity, but the restoring of it, when as by the service of Belisarius he had recovered it with Africa out of the Vandals hands (who had held the dominion and possession of it many years) to the state of Primacy, wherein it had been before they surprised it. 
Stephan. de Vrbib. in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Leo. 9 Epist. 4. Salvian. lib. 7. de gubernation Dei.  Stephanus Byzantius also, I remember, calleth it the Metropolis of Africa; and Leo the IX. a Pope, acknowledgeth it to have been the Metropolis of all Afrique: and that which Salvianus writeth of it in the 7. book, importeth no less. But above all, the erecting of it by justinian into a Praetorian Praefecture, doth most evidently assure it; assigning it not a Lieutenant, Vicarium (as it had before it came into the Vandals hands; when it was under the jurisdiction of the Praefectus Praetorij Italiae) but (as I said) à Praefectus Praetorio, 
Cod. lib. 1. tit. 27. de offic. Praefect. Praetor. Africx, leg. 1.  as it is in the Code; and annexing to his jurisdiction two Provinces more than anciently pertained to it. For even the principal Cities of Dioceses wherein the Vicarij kept residence, were cities of Primacies: much rather therefore those that were the seats of the Praefecti Praetorio; whose places the Vicarij did but supply.  
Now for your first doubt of Lybia in the Nicene Canon attributed to the Patriarch of Alexandia; you must understand, that it is there taken properly for that region of Africa which retained peculiarly the name of Lybia: of which you may read in S. Hierome, in his Questions on Genesis, where he entreateth of the progeny of Noah's sons. The situation of it, 
Prosem. lib. 4. Geograph. in initio; & in tab. 3 Africa. Procop lib. 6 Aedificior.  you may find in Ptolemy; to be that region of Africa that lieth next to Egypt: and for the amplitude, Procopius may direct you, that it anciently contained all that was betwixt Egypt and Cyrenaica. Yet true it is, that the name of Lybia in a general acception contained all the regions of Africa: and the very like was the fortune of the name Africa itself; which properly signifying the region about Carthage, yet became common to all the Countries from Spain to Egypt. And may we not observe the same in the names of the other grand Regions of the Continent, Asia and Europe? for Europa properly was but one of the Provinces of Thrace, whereof Heraclea was the Metropolis: and Asia properly taken but one of the Provinces of Anatolia, whereof the Metropolis was Ephesus. And that the name of Lybia in the Nicene Canon is to be taken in this peculiar sense; the Canon itself will enforce: not only because it is ordered in the Canon in such sort, as indeed the Country's lie, betwixt Egypt & Pentapolis (Pentapolis is the same that is otherwise termed Cyrenaica:) but much more effectually (for the former reason perhaps is but light) because it had been vain to have added Pentapolis after Lybia, if they had meant by Lybia all the great Region of Africa; whereof Pentapolis was but a small part.  
As for the point of Appeals: certain it is, that the last appeals of the Clergy in any Diocese were regularly to be made to the Patriarch of that Diocese, and that from the sentence of the Patriarch was no appeal; as it is evident by the Constitutions of justinian, 
Novel. 123. cap. 22. Cod. lib. 1. Tit. 4. leg. 29.  both in the Novels and in the Code, in the title de Episcopali Audientiâ, L. Sancimus. But you must understand, that those whom justinian calls the patriarchs of the Diocese; were not only the five Patriarches (for in justinian's time there were so many) commonly termed by that Name, but (as I before noted) the Primates of the Dioceses, who had Patriarchichall jurisdiction. For justinian, in the place of the Code now alleged, acknowledgeth the order of appealing there set down, from the Bishop to the Metropolitan, and from him to the Patriarch of the Diocese, to have been an old decree. And that very decree we find in the Council of Chalcedon: 
Concil. Chalced. Act. 15. can. 9 Bellar. l. 2. de Pontif. Rom. cap. 22.  but not under the name of Patriarch of the Diocese, but of Primate (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) of the Diocese. for as for Bellarmin's interpreting the Bishop of Rome to be the Exarch of the Diocese in that Canon mentioned; although he follow 
* Nicol, I. in epist. ad Michael. Imp.  a Pope therein, it is (by his leave) but an unskilful shift, and bewrayeth in him some ignorance of the ancient Ordination and government of the Church.  
And with these Constitutions of the Empire, and of the Church, those decrees of the Counsels of Melevis, and of Africa, which you allege, 
Concil. M levit. can. 22. Concil. African. cap. 105.  do perfectly agree. for by them are forbidden (if you mark them well) not only Transmarine Appeals, meaning those to Rome (although in the Milevitan Canon there be a special clause to exclude them, because the Bishop of Rome had specially claimed that privilege) but all foreign Appeals, any whether out of Africa: so that by these Canons, the Bishop of Alexandria was no less excluded, than the Bishop of Rome. For that by Africa, in those Counsels, is understood the jurisdiction or Diocese of Africa, containing the six Provinces, Tripolitana, Byzacena, Zeugitana or Proconsularis (which was that, where Carthage stood) Numidia, Mauritania Caesareensis and Mauritania Sitiphensis, I make no question: and that of these Provinces the Counsels of Africa did consist, may in the book of Counsels be easily observed. Or if that were not clear enough but yet the second Canon of the first general Council of Constantinople would put all out of question: where it is precisely decreed, that the Bishop of Alexandria should intermeddle only with the affairs of the Diocese of Egypt; which was altogether another Diocese from that of Africa, confining only with it (as I before noted) at the bottom of the greater Syrtis.  
So may also the other reasons, for the superiority of Rome in respect of Africa, be well satisfied. For first to the proposition of Augustine (in Epist. 162.) that Caecilianus might have reserved his cause to the Transmarine Bishops, it is (I take it) to be understood, that he might so do, not by way of ordinary Appeal, but of extraordinary complaint; and that not to any one Bishop alone (as him of Rome) but to the Counsels of Bishops. for Augustine saith plainly in the same Epistle, that there were thousands of those Colleagues, where the differences might have been determined. So that Augustine's meaning is not, that any of those Trans. marine Bishops could directly by way of injunction, as superior, command the ordering of the controversy betwixt Caecilianus and Donatus à Casis nigris, but only by way of Communion with the one allow of him, and by Excommunicating the other (if he would not yield to the judgement and determination of the Church) condemn him, whereby the Churches of Africa might have known whom to accept and whom to reject. In this sort I say might Caecilianus have reserved his cause to the Transmarine Bishops: neither could be justly restrained from seeking such remedy, both because himself, that was in question, was the chief Primate of Africa (for he was Bishop of Carthage) and specially because the Canons of Milevis and Africa, which should have restrained him, were not then in force; nor yet the Counsels, wherein they were decreed, called within an hundred years after.  
And as for the other place, in the 48. Epistle; Augustine saith not absolutely, that the partakers of Donatus should have convicted Caecilianus before his Transmarine Colleagues, but respectively, that they should so have done before they had complained to the Emperor: namely because that proceeding had been more charitable, and orderly (that Bishops of the Church should determine the controversies of the Church) and less scandalous. And yet further, if he had said absolutely that they should have convicted him before the Transmarine Bishops: I should understand it spoken, not in respect of any due jurisdiction over Africa, belonging to any Bishop beyond the Seas, but in respect of the present case and necessity of the Church of Africa; because the Bishops of Africa being in a horrible schism about that controversy, it was impossible in any good sort to be determined among them.  
Now for Leo his decree touching Lupicinus: as it proves indeed a challenge of jurisdiction; so the Africans excommunicating of him, notwithstanding his appeal to Rome, seems likewise to prove that they acknowledged it not. But this matter of Appeals, was but an extraordinary prerogative: for which Leo might have either a just title, or at least a fair pretence; because the receiving and determining of Appeals was in the great Council of Sardica (Can. 3.) granted to the Bishop of Rome. But for his practising of ordinary jurisdiction in Africa (and uncalled) which as appeareth by the alleged Epistle Leo then began to do: (whereas his predecessors had received the repulse about the challenge of Appeals in Africa, within the remembrance of them which were then no very old men:) for that, I say, I see no reason why Leo should do it; but yet, seeing he would do it, I see some reason why he should do it then. For the year before Leo came to the Papacy, Carthage was taken, and Africa conquered by Gensericus King of the Vandals, and all the Catholic Bishops either banished out of Africa, or living (if they stayed) under heavy persecution; and by reason of the straight edict of Gensericus not any new Bishops suffered in place of the former to be ordained: although, contrary to the edict, some were ordained secretly. This was a fit time, I say, for Leo not only to renew the old claim about Appeals, but to practise a new jurisdiction: when Africa was utterly distressed and the Bishops almost all destroyed by persecution; and the minds of those that were anew ordained (simple ones it seems they were by that Epistle of Leo) humbled with adversity. A fit time it was (I say) for his purpose; and a good occasion and advantage he took to raise himself amidst these miserable ruins of the Church of Africa.   

The third Question. To what Patriarch Britain belonged? to Rome, or what other?  
Answer.  
BRITAIN was subject neither to the Patriarch of Rome (which your Reasons touching the observing of Easter and rejecting of Augustine sent by Gregory might well prove) nor to any other foreign jurisdiction of the Church: but being of itself (as it was) 
* Notitia Provinc Occident.  one of the VI Dioceses of the West Empire, had a Primate of its own; which (as I take) was the Archbishop of York. For three Metropolitans there were in Britain (as there were then but three Provinces) in the time of Constantine the great and of the Nicene Council. One of Maxima Caesariensis, the Bishop of York; another of Britannia prima, the Bishop of London; the third of Britannia secunda, 
Antiq. Britan. pag. 11.  the Bishop of (Isca) Caeruske in Monmouth-shire: which till King Arthur's time continued there, and was then translated to S. David's, where it remained also in the form of an Archbishopric (having the Bishops of Wales for his suffragans) till King Henry the first his time; by whom it was brought under the obedience of Canterbury.  
And although Britain were after divided into five Provinces, 
Notitia Provinciar. Occident. fol. 117.  Valentia and Flavia Caesariensis being added to the former; yet these being erected and taken out of the others after the time of the Nicene Council, the ancient Metropolitan Churches by the decree of that Council retained their ancient prerogatives: which they should have lost, 
Canon 6.  if any of their Suffragans had become Metropolitans, and so had been withdrawn from their jurisdiction.  
The Archbishop of York, I say, was Primate of Britain, while the Romans held the government, and after while the Britaines held the possession of England. For although London was anciently a city of great trade (as Tacitus recordeth of it) yet wanted it the prerogatives that York then had. 
Tacitus l. 14. Annal.  For first, York was the principal Colony of the Romans in Britain. Secondly, the Emperor's Palace was there. there died Septimius Severus: and thence his sons, Bassianus and Geta, departed as Emperors, there died Constantius Chlorus the Emperor: and there was his son Constantine the Great first proclaimed Emperor, there was also the Praetorium of the Diocese of Britain; and the Lieutenant there kept residence: therefore it was the Metropolis of the whole Diocese of Britain (and not only of one Province, as London was) and consequently it was the Primats seat. For so it was usual in all other Dioceses of the Empire: namely, that where the Praetorium was, and the Lieutenant (Vicarius) held his residence for administration of justice to the Provinces, there the Primate of the Diocese was seated also. And therefore Spartianus in the life of Severus, calleth it the City 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Veniens (saith he) in Civitatem (speaking of York) primùm ad Bellonae Templum (that Temple stood where now St Peter's Church doth) ductus est. And therefore it was not without cause, 
Gregor. l. 12. Epist. 15. ad Augustinum.  that Gregory, at the first conversion of the English, was so careful to erect an Archbishopric as well at York as at London (although it never came to London, but was established at Canterbury) and that with such equal terms of honour; that the Arch-Bishops should have precedence each before other, according to the antiquity of their Ordination.   

The fourth Question. In what Patriarchate Justiniana prima was?  
Answer.  
IN none: but had itself the Primacy of the Diocese of Dacia. For that Diocese being erected long after all the rest by justinian, (as the place wherein himself was borne) and by him named justiniana prima (Acridus it was afore called, 
Procop. lib. 4. Aedific. Just.  as Nicephorus saith; being in Dardania, as Procopius hath registered) was made the head thereof: and both a Praefectus Praetorii there established for civil government, and an Episcopal Primacy for Ecclesiastical. And for jurisdiction, Dacia Mediterranea, Dacia Ripensis, Mysiasecunda, Dardania, Praevalitana, and part both of Macedonia secunda, and Pannonia secunda; that is, all the Diocese of Dacia was assigned to it. Which yet, by the way, (lest the mention of Dacia breed some error) must not be understood of the ancient Dacia, on the north side of Danubius (which contained Transsylvania, Wallachia and Moldavia, as now they are called) but of the new Dacia on the south side of Danubius, and betwixt the said river and the mountain Haemus. For the Emperor Aurelianus translating the Inhabitants of the old Dacia (being sore afflicted and overcharged by the wars of the barbarous nations) to the other side of Danubius, placed them betwixt the two provinces of Moesia, 
Europe. lib. 9 Suidas in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  taking up part of either, and some part of Dardania; and, of the inhabitants, gave it the name of Dacia: as Vopiscus, Eutropius, Suidas, and others, have left recorded.  
Of this Dacia, I say, and other provinces of the same Diocese, was the Arch bishop of justiniana made Primate by justinian: and that with the highest prerogatives and honours that could be given. For he was to be ordained by his own Metropolitans, and they, and the other Bishops of those provinces were not to acknowledge, or appeal to any other; but he was 
* To be not only Metropolitan but Archbishop. Where by the way you may note, that in these ancient times the name of Archbishop was given only to Patriarches & Primates: which in after times Metropolitans also took on them. But of late many invaded the title, that were not so much us Metropolitans; and had 〈◊〉 one suffragan Bishop under their jurisdiction.  to have Omnem censuram Ecclesiasticam, summum Sacerdotium, summum fastigium, primam dignitatem. If you read the Constitution (Novel. XI.) it will satisfy you. And to that in another Law (Novel. CXXXI. c. 3.) is added, that he was in all those Provinces to have the place (Locum he saith, not Vicem; lest there should be any ambiguity) of the Apostolical Sea. In so much that Nicephorus, speaking of the erection of that City and Church by justinian, saith of it, that justinian made it Ecclesiam liberam, & quae sibi Caput esset, cum plenâ potestate, etc. And this same height of prerogative and honour that justinian gave to the Bishop of justiniana prima, he gives also to the Bishop of Carthage: as is manifest in the fourth Chapter of the last mentioned (CXXXI.) Novel. And therefore in very truth, neither of them both (if the Emperor might endow them with these privileges) was subject to the jurisdiction of the Patriarch of Rome.  
Wherefore (to confess freely my ignorance) I see no reason, why the Bishop of Thebes should appeal from the Bishop of justiniana prima to the Bishop of Rome. First, because of the prerogative of that seat, exempted from all foreign jurisdiction. Secondly, because the Bishop of justiniana sentenced not the matter by virtue of ordinary jurisdiction (for so he belonged to the Archbishop of Thessalonica Primate of all Greece, wherein Thebes stood) but by special 
* Gregor. l. 2. Epistol. Indict. 11. Epist. 6.  delegation from the Emperor. Thirdly, because if notwithstanding all this he might appeal; he should, both by Ecclesiastical Canon and Imperial Constitution, have made it to the Patriarch of Gonstantinople. For in the Canon before mentioned of the Chalcedon Council, 
Concil. Chalced. Can. 9  all manner of Clerks are directly enjoined to make their last Appeals either to the Primate of the Diocese where the controversy should hap to fall, or else to the Bishop of Constantinople. And besides, the Emperor's Honorius and Thendosius made a special Law (as it is in the Code, in the Title de Sacrosanctis Ecclesiis. L. 
Cod. lib 1. Tit. 2. leg. 6.  Omni.) that all the controversies and Appeals of the provinces of Illyricum (of which the Diocese of Dacia long after erected was at that time a part: as appeareth in the old Index of the Provinces, 
Index Provinciar. edit. à Schonhovio. Fest. Ruf.  and by the Breviary of Rufus) should be reserved to the judgement of the Bishop of Constantinople. So that, although the Bishop of Rome had not been excluded from these Appeals by justinian's. Constitution, endowing justiniana prima with the prerogatives aforementioned: yet were he barred nevertheless by that other law of the ancient Emperors, by whom those Appeals were restrained to Constantinople.  
And as I know no reason why the Bishop of Thebes should make his appeal to Rome from the Bishop of justiniana (except perhaps one would say, that he was not of the ordinary jurisdiction of the Bishop of justiniana, and that it was about a matter done not in Illyricum, but in Greece, which was not under the jurisdiction of the Patriarch of Constantinople:) so know I no good reason, why Gregory on the other side should give that appeal any entertainment, considering the allegations afore mentioned; except he should pretend the old Canon of Sardica for liberty of Appeals to the Roman Bishops (no Provinces being by the Canon excepted:) or think that the Bishop of justiniana prima was subject to him, because at the first erection of that primacy by justinian, he was perhaps consecrated by Vigilius Bishop of Rome. But as this act was performed by the appointment of the Emperor: so that Canon of Sardica, so much stood on, seemeth by the later and greater Council of Chalcedon again to be revoked, and the order of Appealing otherwise restrained; as you may read in the ninth Canon of that Council.  
And thus, confessing my ignorance of the reasons of other men's irregular actions, I end: having wearied myself and dulled my pen, perhaps to trouble you more then to satisfy you. Yet this latter was my purpose, and to take the trouble myself for your satisfaction. Howsoever it fall out: I doubt not but you will accept what is well written, for my good wills sake to pleasure you (who am not wont to write discourses of this kind to many men) and pardon the imperfections and errors which may perhaps escape me, because it was my intention to write the truth (whereof I have not where wittingly failed) and because my little leisure and little learning would not allow me on the sudden to do better.   
FINIS.   

THE VALIDITY OF THE ORDINATION Of the MINISERS of the REFORMED CHURCHES BEYOND THE SEAS, MAINtained against the Romanists, BY FRANCIS MASON. With A brief Declaration premised thereunto, of the several Forms of Government received in those CHURCHES. By JOHN DUREE.  
OXFORD, Printed by LEONARD LICHFIELD. Anno Dom. 1641.   

The several forms of Government, received in the Reformed Churches beyond the Seas.  
IN the Church of Sweden, the Government is committed to one Archbishop and seven Bishops: whom formerly the King, & now the Regent's of the kingdom do appoint. Yet some kind and form of Election used by the Clergy, doth go along with that appointment.  
The Bishops, as Bishops, have voice in Parliament: and with them so many of the inferior Clergy, as are from every Socken (that is the name of a certain number of Parishes) deputed to appear in Parliament, together with such husbandmen as are usually sent thither in the name of a Socken.  
The Bishop's authority over the rest of the Clergy, is to direct and order aswell in as out of public meetings all Ecclesiastical assayres, according to the received constitutions of the Church. And as they use not without counsel and knowledge of their Consistorialls to do any thing of moment: so, if they think it expedient, they may call a Synod of their Diocese, and therein make such particular Constitutions as they shall think fit for their own edification.  
Their means and maintenance is answerable in some proportion to the place wherein they are set above others, and so are by all respected and honoured as Fathers of the Church.  
In Denmarck their authority is not so great: yet they keep the name and place of Bishops; and have maintenance somewhat answerable to their place.  
They are appointed by the King, for the ordering of Ecclesiastical affairs, with the consent of their Brethren: in Confistory, as Directours of Meetings; and out of Meetings, as peculiar Inspectors over the Church, to receive complaints and provide that scandals may be taken out of the way.  
In other Lutherane Churches, as in Holstein, Pomeren, Mekelenburgh, Brunswick, Luneburgh, Bremen, Oldenburg, East Friesland, Hessen, Saxony, and all the upper part of Germany, where Lutherans bear rule, as also in most of the great Imperial Cities, the Government of the Church belongeth to Superintendents: who are called and put in place by the Princes in their own Dominions, and by the Magistrates in the great Cities. They have a Priority over the rest of the Ministry: and commonly in the Dominions of Princes, there is an Ecclesiastical Consistory made up of Clergy men and Counselors of the state, to oversee and direct the Superintendents in things which may be expedient. To which Consistory also the Decision of hard matters incident, when strife ariseth, doth belong.  
In the Diocese of Bremen the Archbishop his Chancellor & Court doth direct & order all things in the name of his Highness. But in Brunswick and Luneburgh, besides the General Consistory and the particular Superintendents, which are ordinarily amongst all the rest of the Lutherans, there be others who are named Generales and Generalissimi Superintendentes: whereof the former is subordinate unto the latter, and both unto the Supreme Ecclesiastical Consistory; whereof the Generalissimus Superintendens, and such others as the Prince doth appoint, are members.  
All these Superintendents are in place during life; and are allowed maintenance in some proportion answerable to their priority of place above others.  
In the Reformed Churches heretofore in the Palatinate, the Government was administered by those whom they called Inspectores and Praepositi: whose power was the same with that of the particular Superintendents amongst the Lutherans. And above these Inspectores was the Ecclesiastical Consistory; made up of three Clergy men and three Counselors of state, with their Precedent. These the Prince named; and to them in his name the ordering of all matters did belong.  
In like manner, in the Wetteraw, in Hessen and in Anhalt, they have still their Praepositos, and Superintendentes: with the same power and form of Government, which is already mentioned.  
Now in Holland, although their Presbyterial or, as they call it, their Classical Meetings are very frequent, videlicèt every month, and their Classical Synods every year: yet they have of late found a necessity of erecting some officers, to whom a more universal charge is committed, than others have. These they call Deputatos Synodi: and are only temporary, for some few years, with a limited power.  
These Deputies of the Synod have their peculiar Meetings by themselves, upon several incident occasions; but chief at the time of every Provincial Synod; wherein they consult before hand, how matters ought to be laid and proposed unto the Assemblies: and then in the Meeting they have a peculiar place by themselves where they sit, and concerning every thing which is to be determined the Praeses of the Synod doth require of them first, that they should open the matter unto the Assembly and declare their judgements of it, before it be put to the Votes of the Multitude.  
In Geneva and Helvetia, the Eldest Ministers have the place before others: and for the most part that authority and respect, which in other Churches the Superintendents receive by special order and constitution, these have by custom and  consent of their Brethren; although at particular occasions of Meetings they choose several Precedents of the action.  
The like is also in France: where the Ministry of Paris (party by reason of the Eminency of the place, partly by reason of the gifts and endowments of the men ordinarily appointed to that place) doth bear a great sway before all others.  
But in Transylvania, Polonia and Bohemia, the authority which is deferred unto those whom they call, choose, and ordain (by particular imposition of hands of other more ancient Seniors) to be their Seniors, is the very same which the Bishops in ancient time had over other Ministers: as may appear to the full by a Description thereof, and of all the ordinances of that Church; which are put forth in a Book printed Anno 1633. with this title, Ratio Disciplinae Ordinisque Ecclesiastici, in Vnitate Fratrum Bohemorum. Whereunto I desire to remit those who would know particulars.   

THE ADDITION OF FRANCIS MASON unto his Defence of the Ministry of the Church of England: wherein the Ordination of the Ministers of the Reformed Churches beyond the Seas is maintained by him against the ROMANISTS.  PHILODOX. 
THough somewhat may be said for the Ministers of England, yet for Luther and Calvin, and their Disciples, you can bring no show nor shadow of probability.  ORTHODOX. 
That point is without the circle of our present subject, which concerneth only the Ministry of England.  PHILOD. 
I perceive you are afraid, and would fain fly the field: indeed I cannot blame you, it is a dangerous point. Latet anguis in herbâ.  ORTHOD. 
The handling of a question of this nature requireth the particular knowledge of the estate of those Churches, with the occurrences and occasions, out of which their proceed and actions did grow; and that according to the several circumstances of time, persons, and places, appearing by Records. In which respect I would willingly refer this point to the learned men living in the same Churches; which are best acquainted with the particulars of their own estate. Notwithstanding lest you should insult and triumph over our Brethren; I am content to skirmish a little with you: using for my chiefest target your own testimonies; as judas Macchabeus protected Israel with the sword of Apollonius. 
1. Maccab. 3.12.   
But the trumpets have already sounded to the encounter: behold we enter the field; expecting your fiery darts, against the host of Israel.  PHIL. 
Until Protestants show the lawful vocation of their first head and spring Martin Luther; they all, being derived of him, may be counted amongst the Acephali, those ancient Heretics: even as the branch of an honourable house being stained, the whole posterity after remaineth spotted.  ORTHOD. 
Are all the protestants derived from Martin Luther? you know the contrary; in the Churches of England, Scotland, Helvetia, France, and Flanders. Neither can any of the Protestants be counted Acephali. For those blaspheinous Heretics, opposing themselves against the Council of Chalcedon, maintained this damnable Heresy; 
a Niceph. lib. 18. cap. 45.  that there is but one nature in Christ: whereas all we do most steadfastly believe, and steadfastly profess; that Christ is God truly and Man perfectly, one person inseparably, and yet two natures distinctly. God truly, against the Arrians, condemned in the first general Council: Man perfectly, against the Apolinarians, condemned in the second general Council. One person inseparably, against the Nestorians, condemned in the third general Council. Two natures distinctly, against the Eutychians, condemned in the fourth general Council. From which Heresies, and all other, the Protestants may be justified to be clear; and much clearer than yourselves.  PHILOD. 
THe Acephali were so called, according to 
b Isid. Origin. lib. 8. cap. 5.  Isidor, because there could be found no head nor author from whence they did spring. Such are the Protestants: therefore they may be all called Acephali.  ORTHOD. 
You said even now, that our first head and spring was Martin Luther. If you have found our head: how can you call us Acephali?  PHILOD. 
But who was Luther's head? or whence did he spring? he was a body without a head, and a river without a spring.  ORTHOD. 
Did you not resemble him to a branch of an honourable house? therefore if we may believe you, this branch hath a root, this body a head, and this river a spring.  PHILOD. 
Indeed he did spring from the Church of Rome, as he was a Priest: but he was never Bishop; and yet he took upon him to ordain Ministers, as though he had been a Bishop. Wherefore if you will grant that all ministerial power must of necessity be derived from a Bishop as from a head; then seeing Luther was no Bishop, he was no head, & so all his offspring are Acephali. But if you deny this pre-eminence of Bishops: then flying Scylla, you fall into Charybdis; and shunning the name of Acephali, you become Aerians.  ORTHOD. 
Or rather; if ministerial power may be derived from a Presbyter in case of necessity, then are they not Acephali: if they acknowledge the pre-eminence of Bishops, then are they not Aërians.  PHIL. 
What was the heresy of the Aërians? 
c Ad Quodvult Deum. Haeres. 53.  S. Austen declareth, how Aenrius being prevented of a Bishopric, for grief thereof falling from the Church, became an Arrian, and broached new opinions. One whereof was, that there ought to be no difference, between a Bishop and a Priest. And do not almost all the Lut herans and Calvinists teach the same? For wherein doth a Bishop excel a Presbyter so much, as in his Order? and what is so proper to the excellent order, as the power of Ordination? Wherefore seeing they communicate this to a Presbyter; they take away in effect all difference; and so concur with the Aërians.  ORTHOD. 
For the dispelling of this cloud; let us first consider this Heresy, and then examine this odious imputation. This heresy consisted not in this, that a Bishop and a Presbyter are of one order; nor in this, that a Presbyter in some causes may ordain: which points sundry of yourselves do maintain (as hereafter shall be declared) following herein (as they were verily persuaded) Saint Jerome and others of the ancient Fathers, who are very fare from being Aërians. But what it was, and wherein it consisteth; we may learn of Epiphanius and Austen. 
d Epiph. haeres. 75. §. 3.  Epiphanius describeth it in this manner What is (said Aërius) a Bishop to a Priest? the one differeth nothing from the other. For there is one order, one honour, and one dignity. The Bishop imposeth hands; so doth also the Priest. The Bishop baptizeth; so doth likewise the Priest. The Bishop is a disposer of divine worship; and the Priest is likewise. The Bishop sitteth in the throne, the Priest sitteth also. By 
e Aug. ad Quod vult Deum haer. 53.  Austen thus: Dicebant Presbyterum ab Episcopo nullâ differentiâ debere discerni. i. The Aërians said, that a Bishop ought to be distinguished from a Priest by no difference.  
What meant Aerius when he said, there ought to be no difference? He could not mean that there ought to be none, by the laws of the Church: for it is evident, that they put a difference. Therefore his meaning was; that by the word of God, there ought to be no difference. So he controlled the pre-eminence of Bishops, as contrary to the Scripture.  
Wherein his own position was false, and contrary to the Scriptures: which plentifully proves the pre-eminence of Bishops. For though there were many Presbyters in Ephesus and Crete, yet 
f 1 Tim. 1.3. lb. 5.19. Tit. 1.5.  Saint Paul left Timothy at Ephesus, and Titus at Crete, to ordain Presbyters, to command them not to teach any other doctrine, or if they did, to put them to silence; as also to examine witnesses, and receive accusations. And forasmuch as the end and use of their office was perpetual; therefore the function and office itself must likewise be perpetual. Which proveth that it was given to them as they were Bishops, not as they were Evangelists.  
Moreover the calling of Bishops is approved by the mouth of Christ himself, when he adorned the seven Prelates of the seven Churches, with the honourable title of Stars and Angels. If they be Angels; then are they Messengers of the Lord of Hosts. If they be his Messengers; then are they sent from him, and their vocation by him authorised. But what is their charge? 
g Revel. 2.9.14, 15, 20.  to try false Apostles, and not to suffer the doctrine of Balaam, nor the doctrine of the Nicolaitans; nor to permit the woman jesabel to teach and seduce the people, or to make them commit fornication, and eat meat sacrificed to Idols. That is, both to oversee the doctrine, and discipline of the Church.  
If this be their charge: then in this God hath given them authority, to amend what is amiss. which authority is not given to many, but to one Angel, in every one Church of the seven Churches. Why should that one be charged above the rest; if he had not pastoral power besides the rest? And he is called the Angel of the Church: not of the people, nor of the Presbyters, but of the whole Church. If he be the Angel of the whole Church: then he hath pastoral authority over the whole Church; and is armed with spiritual power, to govern the same, and to reform abuses, both in the Ministers and in the people. Wherefore the opinion of Aërius concerning these Angels, as contrary to the word of God, is itself contrary unto it; and in this sense justly censured for an Heresy. Now let us see whether it can be imputed to Luther and Calvin.  
It is confessed by 
h Tom. 4. Disp. 9 q. 1. p. 2. sect. 9  Gregory de Valentiâ, that except the Anabaptists, all the sectaries (so it pleaseth him to style the Protestants) admit three degrees of Ministers; to wit, Bishops (whom they call Superintendents) Presbyters, and Deacons. Therefore by the testimony of your own jesuit they cannot be Aërïans. And surely it is famously known to the world to be so, in the reformed Churches of Denmark, Suevia, and high Germany: as also in Saxony, even at Wittenberg, where Luther flourished. Concerning which, thus writeth jacobus Heerbrandus, sometimes Divinity Reader at Tubinge. 
i Heerbrand, Loc. Com. de ministerio Ecclesiae. pag. 699.  Truly there ought to be degrees amongst the Ministers: as with us in the Duchy of Wittenberg, there are Subdeacons', Deacons, Pastors, special Superintendents, and over them general Superintendents. How can they disallow the pre-eminence of Bishops; seeing their Superintendents are nothing else but Bishops? For when the name Bishop was grown odious, by reason of abuses in the Popish Prelates; they retaining the dignity itself, changed the word Bishop into Superintendent, which is equivalent in signification.  PHILOD. 
If they allow the state of Bishops; why then did they banish their Catholic Bishops?  ORTHOD. 
They banished the Popish Bishops: not because they were Bishops, but because they were Popish. For first, such as sought reformation entreated them to redress abuses: which they utterly refused. Then the Magistrates were told, that it was their duty to reform the Church, by the example of the godly Kings of judah: which sundry of them did; yet so, that the Bishops might have kept their places if they would have favoured the Gospel of Christ. as may appear by the authors of the Augustane Confession.  

k De Eccles. Potestat.  The Bishops (say they) might easily retain the obedience due unto them, if they urged us not to keep those traditions, which we cannot keep with a good conscience. And again: 
l Apolog. Confessionis Augustanae. ad artic. 14. de ordine Ecclesiastico.  We have often protested, that we do hearty approve the Ecclesiastical policy and degrees in the Church, and so much as lieth in us, do desire to preserve them. We do not mislike the authority of Bishops, so they would not compel us to do against God's commandments. And again. 
m Ibid.  Furthermore we do protest, and we would have it recorded, that we would willingly preserve the Ecclesiastical and Canonical policy; if the Bishops would cease to tyrannize over our Churches. This our mind or desire shall excuse us with all posterity, both before God, and all Nations: that it may not be imputed unto us, that the authority of Bishops is overthrown by us.  
To the same effect speaketh George Prince Anhalt. 
n Princeps Anhalt. in Cōcion. super Matth. 7. de falsis prophetis: & in Praefatione, tit. de Ordinations.  Would to God that as they carry the name and titles of Bishops; so they would show themselves to be Bishops of the Church. would to God, that as the book of Gospels is delivered them, and laid upon their shoulders in their Ordination; so they would teach doctrine according thereunto, and would faithfully govern their Churches thereby. O how willingly, and with what joy of heart, would we receive them for our Bishops; and reverence them, obey them, and yield unto them their due jurisdiction, and ordination.  
I pass by other Colloquies, at 
o Colloquium Wormaciense: tit. de personis Ecclesiasticis; & tit. de abusibus Ecclesiarum emendandis.  Worms, and 
p Acta Colloq. Ratisbon. à Buceto edita. tit. de Ecclesiae hierarchico ordine. paragr. 7.  Ratisbone; wherein the degrees of Bishops, Archbishops, and Patriarches, are commended as profitable to preserve the unity of the Church. Concerning which, Melancthon writeth thus to Camerarius. 
q Melancth. ep. ad Camerarium. an. 1530.  By what right or Law may we dissolve the Ecclesiastical policy, if the Bishops will grant us that which in reason they ought to grant? and though it were lawful for us so to do, yet surely it were not expedient. Luther was ever of this opinion. And that they mean unfeignedly as they speak, may appear by their dealing with Michael Sidonius. 
r Historia Confess. Augustanae per Chytraeum.  Whom they thrust out of his Bishopric, because of his Popery; yet afterwards, when he embraced the Gospel, advanced him again to that Ecclesiastical office. So fare were those whom you call Lutherans from being Aërians.  PHILOD. 
But what say you to Geneva, & those Cities that embrace the Genevian Discipline?  ORTHOD. 
Their opinions are apparent by Calvine and Beza. The judgement of Calvine is the same with the Augustane Confession, to which he subscribed; and is likewise declared 
s Calvin. ad Sadolet. & de Necessitate Reformandae Ecclesiae; sub. sin.  in his Epistle to Cardinal Sadolet: where he protesteth, that if the Bishops would so rule, as to submit themselves to Christ; then if their shall be any, that shall not submit themselves to that Hierarchy, reverently, and with the greatest obedience that may be, there is no kind of Anathema whereof they are not worthy. Likewise in his Institutions. 
t Id. Instltut. lib. 4. cap. 4. §. 4.  Quòd autem singulae Provinciae etc. That every Province had one Archbishop, amongst their Bishops; and moreover that Patriarches were appointed in the Nicene Council, which were superior to Archbishops in order and dignity: that belongeth to the preservation of Discipline. And in his Epistles to Archbishop Cranmer, and the Bishop of London, he giveth them most reverend and honourable titles.  PHILOD. 
Doth not Beza in many places speak bitterly against Bishops?  ORTHOD. 
But he expoundeth himself that he meant the Popish Bishops only. For having spoken against their tyranny; he maketh this exception. 
u Bez. de divers. gradib. minist. contr. Sarav. cap. 21. §. 2.  Neque tamen etc. Yet we do not therefore accuse all Bishops and Archbishops. for what arrogancy were that? Nay so as they do imitate the examples of the old Bishops, and endeavour as much as they can to reform the house of God so miserably deformed, according to the rule of God's word: why may we not acknowledge all of them, (now so called Archbishops and Bishops) obey them, and honour them with all reverence? So fare are we from that which some object against us most falsely and impudently; as though we took upon us to prescribe to any Church, in any place our examples to be followed: like unto those unwise men, who account well of nothing but of that which they do themselves. And concerning the Bishops of England, he saith thus. 
x Id. ibid. cap. 18. §. 3.  Quòd si nunc etc. But if now the reformed Churches of England do stand under propped with the authority of Bishops and Archbishops (as it happened to that Church in our memory, that it had more of that sort, not only famous Martyrs of God, but also most excellent Pastors and Doctors) fruatur sanèistâ singulari Dei beneficentiâ, quae utinam illi sit perpetua, let her truly enjoy this singular blessing of God; which I wish may be perpetual unto her.  
By this you may see, how fare these learned Divines did differ from Aërians. For Aërius condemned the state of Bishops, as contrary to the Scriptures: these men commend it, and pray that it may be perpetual.  PHIL. 
HOwsoever you may put some nice difference between them and the Aërians: you cannot maintain their Ordination. For what power is in a Presbyter to ordain? When Coluthus a Presbyter of Alexandria presumed to ordain Presbyters, and among the rest one Ischyras: all his Ordinations were revised, and made void by the 
a Epist. Synod. Alexandr. in Apol. 2. Athanas.  Council of Alexandria, as witnesseth Athanasius. Likewise when a certain Bishop of Spain, imposing hands upon two to make them Deacons, and upon a third to make him a Presbyter; and being not able to read by reason of his sore eyes, caused a Presbyter standing by to give the blessing, that is, to pronounce the words of Ordination: though the Ordainer by reason of death escaped the censure; yet the parties so ordained were deposed by the 
b Concil. Hispalens. II. cap. 5. Distinct. 23. c. 14. Quorund. Clericor.  second Council of Hispalis. If Luther were weighed in this balance: the ordained should be deposed, the ordainer censured, and the ordinations voided.  ORTHOD. 
It is one thing to be void according to the strictness of the Canon, and another to be simply void in the nature of the thing. If a Bishop ordain another man's Clerk: it was pronounced void by the famous 
c Conc. Nicaen. Can. 16.  Council of Nice. Ordinations without Title were decreed to be void by the great 
d Conc. Chalced. can. 6.  Council of Chalcedon. The ordination of a Bishop without the consent of a Metropolitan was made void by the 
e Concil. Braccar. 2. c. 3. Dist. 65. c. 2. Non debet. etc. 3. Episcopus non est.  Council of Braccar. Yet in all those, according to your own doctrine, the Power is given, the Character imprinted; and consequently there is no nullity in the nature of the thing. How then are they void? in respect of Execution, for Disciplines sake; until it please the Church otherwise to dispose.  PHILOD. 
Then the ordinations of Luther are void; if not in the nature of the thing, yet at least in respect of Execution. So that his offspring, either have no orders, or they must surcease as though they had none. For there is the same reason of him and Coluthus.  ORTHOD. 
Not so. For it was well said of one of your Popes: 
f johann. VIII. epist. ad Anselm. Lemovic. 30. q. 1. Ad limina.  Inculpabile judicandum, quod intulit necessitas. That which necessity occasioned, is not to be blamed. Whereby you may learn, that extraordinary causes of necessity are not to be measured by ordinary rules. Neither is Luther to be paralleled with Coluthus, or the Spanish Priest; whose violations of the Canon were merely voluntary. Pope 
g Felix. iv epist 1. Vid. Gratian. 2. qu. 7. cap. Mutationes. &, Scias. item de Consecrat. dist. 1. cap. Sicut.  Felix may inform you; Aliter tractandam necessitatis rationem, aliter voluntatis.  PHILOD. 
Was it not a case of necessity, when the Bishop was blind, and could not read the words?  ORTHOD. 
No. for if he had them not in his memory, he might have pronounced them after another; or, (as now the Council of Trent hath provided in the like cases) he might have procured them to be ordained by some other Bishops. But Luther's case was indeed a case of necessity: as hereafter shall be proved.  PHILOD. 
If a Presbyter, as he is a Presbyter, were endued with intrinsical power and ability to ordain, and were restrained from the execution of it only by the Church for Disciplines sake; then peradventure his Ordinations might be tolerable in case of invincible necessity. But neither hath a Presbyter such power; neither was this a case of necessity.  ORTHOD. 
FOr the better discussing the former point, let me crave your resolution in this question, to wit; By what power a Bishop is intrinsically enabled to give orders?  PHILOD. 
All the power of a Bishop, is either of jurisdiction or of Order. Now we hold, that though the Pope take from him his jurisdiction, he may notwithstanding give orders, if he will. And albeit he sin in giving them, yet they are true orders: which proveth invincibly, that the collation of orders is not from jurisdiction. But from what order? not from the order of Priesthood alone: for then every Presbyter should have power to give orders; (which position is condemned by the 
a Sess. 23. Can. 7.  Council of Trent) not from the Episcopal considered alone and apart from the Priesthood. for the Bishopric without the Priesthood (saith 
b Bellarm. de Sacram. Ordinis, cap. 5. §. 16.  Bellarmine) is so fare from being a superior order, that in very deed it is nothing, but a mere figment in the mind. Wherefore I will anwere your question, with these words in Gregory de Valentiâ: 
c Gregor. de Valentiâ. to. 4. d. 9 q. 1. p. 4. resp. ad arg. 1.  Episcopum non per solam potestatem quam in Episcopali ordine accepit, sed per illam, & simul per Sacerdotalem potestatem, ordinare Sacerdotem. A Bishop ordaineth Priests, not by the power only which he received when he was ordained Bishop; but by his Episcopal & Presbyterial power joined together. which is agreeable to Bellarmine, saying. 
d Bellarm. de Sacram. ord. 5. §. 13.  The entire Episcopal ordination ariseth from a double ordination: and the entire and perfect Episcopal character (which is an absolute, perfect and independent power of conferring the sacraments of Confirmation and Order) is not one simple quality, but a thing composed of a double Character.  ORTHOD. 
THen you refer it only to the Sacrament and Character of order. wherefore if it can be proved out of your own writers, that every Presbyter hath as much as a Bishop of the Sacrament and Character of order; you must confess that every Presbyter hath intrinsecall power to give orders. But this shall be proved by a world of witnesses: all affirming in effect, that which is added in Episcopal Consecration, whereby a Bishop is distinguished from a Presbyter, is neither Sacrament of order, nor imprinteth a Character.  
To begin with the Schoolmen.  
The Master of the Sentences saith: 
e 4. Sent. dist. 24.  Cumque omnes spirituales sint etc. Whereas all the seven orders are spiritual and sacred; yet the Canons think that two only are called sacred orders by an excellency, to wit, the order of Deaconship and Priesthood: because the Primitive Church, so fare as we can read, had only these two; and of these only we have the Apostles precept. For the Apostles ordained Bishops and Presbyters in every City; we read also that Levits (he meaneth Deacons) were ordained by the Apostles. Thus he affirmeth that the Primitive Church in the Apostles time had Bishops, Priests, and Deacons: yet acknowledgeth but two sacred orders; the Deaconship and the Priesthood. And whereas he saith: Ordo Episcoporum est quadripartitus, the order of Bishops is branched into four parts; it is certain he taketh the word Order largely, and improperly, which may appear, because a little before he excludeth the Episcopal function from being an Order, in these plain and express terms. Sunt & alia quaedam, non ordinum; sed dignitatum vel officiorum nomina: dignitatis simul & officii nomen est Episcopus. There be also other names, not of Orders but of Dignities and offices: yea a Bishop is a name both of Dignity and Office.  
Bonaventure: 
f 4. Sent. dist. 24. q. 3. a. 2.  Episcopatus desicit ab ordine, etc. The Episcopal function cometh short of an order: because order is a seal that is a Character. because a seal doth signify a Character: and this Character is not imprinted in the Episcopal function (a sign whereof is this, that a Bishop cannot be consecrated, unless he be a Priest) and so of itself it doth not imprint a Character, Moreover, it faileth from being an Order, because there is not given any new power; but only the power of binding and losing is enlarged. And; Episcopatus includit necessariò ordinem perfectissimum, scilicèt Sacerdotium, & illi super addit eminentiam. The Episcopal function includeth necessarily the most perfect order, to wit the Priesthood, and addeth unto it eminency.  
Thomas Aquinas saith. 
g Supplement. 3 part. q. 40. art. 5.  Ordo potest accipi dupliciter. etc. Order may be taken two ways: one way, as it is a Sacrament; and so (as it is said before) every order is ordered to the Sacrament of the Eucharist: whereupon seeing a Bishop hath no more superior power then a Priest in this respect the Bishoply function shall not be an order, Order may be considered another way, in that it is a certain office, in respect of certain sacred actions: and so seeing a Bishop hath power in Hierarchichall actions above a Priest, in respect of the body Mystical; the Bishoply function shall be an Order.  
Durandus. 
h In 4. sent. dist. 24. q. 6.  Dicendum est, quòd Episcopatus, seu ordinatio Episcopalis est Ordo & Sacramentum, non quidem praecisè distinctum à sacerdotio simplici, sed ut est unum sacramentum cum ipso; sicut perfectum & imperfectum. i e. It is to be said, that the Bishoply function, or the Episcopal ordination, is an order and a sacrament, not truly and precisely distinct from the simple Priesthood, but as it is one sacrament with the Priesthood; even as perfect and imperfect.  
Dominicus Soto. 
i De justit. & jure l. 10. q. 1. art. 2. &. 4. sent. dist. 24. q. 2. art. 3.  Episcopatus non est sacramentum Ordinis: est tamen Ordo, hoc est, Dignitas & gradus altior sacerdotio, cui eminentiora officia sunt annexa. i e. The Bishopship is not a sacrament of Order: and yet it is an order, that is, a higher dignity and degree them Priesthood, to which certain eminent offices are annexed.  
Richardus. 
k In 4. sent. dist. 24. art. 5. q. 2.  Ordo dupliciter potest accipi: uno modo, pro gradu potestatis ordinatae, mediatè vel immediatè, ad consecrationem corporis vel sanguinis Christi; alio modo, pro quolibet gradu potestatis respectu quarumlibet actionum sacrarum. Primo modo, Ordo est sacramentum: & sic Episcopatus non est ordo. etc. i.e. Order may be taken two ways: one way, for the degree of an ordinate power, mediately or immediately, to the consecration of the body or blood of Christ; another way, for any degree of power in respect of certain sacred actions. In the first sense, Order is a sacrament: and so Episcopatus is not an order. and before. Non sunt nisi septem ordines in Ecclesiâ: quod non esset verum, si Episcopatus esset ordo. i e. There are but seven orders in the Church: which would not be true, if Episcopatus were an Order.  
Aureolus doth argue, 
l In 4. d. 24. q. 1. art. 2.  by proving that the Episcopal function is not another order distinct from the Priesthood; because then this order should be either superior than a Priest, or inferior. But it is neither so, nor so. Therefore it is no way an order. The Minor is proved. Because it is apparent that it cannot be an inferior order; because that which is inferior is first taken, and is presupposed to the superior order. But Episcopal consecration is not presupposed to the Priestly ordination, but rather the contrary. And that it is not a superior order is plain: because it hath no superior act, as it is distinguished against Priesthood. which is apparent: because the act of a Bishop, as he differeth from Priesthood, is to ordain; and the act of a Priest, as he differeth from a Bishop, is to make the body of Christ: which is a better, and more worthy act, then to ordain. Peradventure it will be said, that the Episcopal degree is worthier; because it includes the Priestly order, and besides this, addeth somewhat else, which is proper to itself, and both these together are more worthy than the one by itself. But it is otherwise, because the Bishoply function is not here compared to the Priesthood, in respect of that which they both include; but precisely, in respect of that whereby one differeth from another. Therefore though the Episcopal function may be called an Order, yet not distinct from the Priesthood: because it is not referred to any act superior to the act of Priesthood, nor inferior, nor equal. Hitherto Aureolus.  
I need produce no more Shcoolemen upon the Master of the Sentences: because 
m Navar. in Manuali. c. 22. num. 18.  Navarrus saith, there are only seven Orders, according to the common opinion of Divines; affirming that the first tonsure, and the Bishoply function are not Orders, but Offices. Neither is this only a common, but the more common opinion: as witnesseth 
n In scrutinio Sacerdotali. Tract. 2. de Ordine.  Fabius Incarnatus. Communior opinio est, quod prima tonsura & Ordo Episcopalis non sunt ordines. i.e. It is the more common opinion, that the first tonsure and Episcopal order, are not Orders. Where note by the way, that phrase of speech. The Episcopal Order is not an Order (an Order, and not an Order:) signifying, that though men speaking vulgarly, do improperly call it an Order; yet in his judgement, to speak exactly, it is not an Order.  PHILOD. 
Surely the Canonists do hold it an Order.  ORTHOD. 
First not all the Canonists. for whereas 
o Dist. 93. cap. Legimus.  Gratian brought in Saint jerom, word for word, affirming that a Bishop and a Priest are the same: the author of the Gloss hath these words. Some say that in the first primitive Church, the office of Bishops and Presbyters was common, and the names were common; but in the second primitive Church both names and offices began to be distinguished. And again. A third sort say, this advancing was made in respect of name, and in respect of administration, and in respect of certain ministeries which belong only to the Episcopal office. And the same author himself is of this opinion; saying. Before this advancing, these names Bishops and Presbyters, were altogether of the same signification, and the administration was common: because Churches were governed by the common advice of Presbyters. And again. This advancing was made for a remedy against schism: as it is here said by Saint jerom. That one should have the pre-eminence in regard of the name, the administration, and certain sacraments, which now are appropriated unto Bishops.  
We must understand, that when they distinguish the primitive Church into first and second; they begin the first at the Ascension of Christ; extending it to the time when the Apostles began to single out one Presbyter in every city, and gave him pre-eminence above the rest. In which time the office of Bishops and Presbyters is said to be common; because those offices, which are now appropriated unto Bishops, were then in their judgement performed by Presbyters. And those which hold, that the office and administration were altogether common, must needs hold them to be one order: for an absolute identity of offices, doth argue an absolute identity of order.  
Secondly, those Canonists which make nine orders, do not differ from the Schoolmen: as witnesseth Bellarmine. 
p Bellar. l. de Clericis. cap. 11. sect. ult.  In re non est dissensio. There is no difference in the thing itself. For the Divines do only consider orders in relation to sacrifice; in which respect a Bishop and a Presbyter are not distinguished: but the Canonists consider them as they make an Hierarchy; and therefore they rightly distinguish a Bishop from a Presbyter. Wherefore howsoever they call it an order, in respect of regiment; yet they neither think it to be a Sacrament of Order, nor to imprint a Character.  
TO these we may add a cloud of witnesses.  

q Apud Binium, Concil. Tom. 4.  Henry Kalteisen, in his answer to the second article of the Bohemians in the Council of Basill saith. It is apparent, that from the beginning of the legal Priesthood until now, there was always a distinction of a Bishop from a Priest; although they were after reckoned by the same name for their affinity which they have in authority: because a Bishop excelleth a Priest only in jurisdiction, or in the dignity of jurisdiction. If only in the dignity of jurisdiction, than not in order, according to the judgement of Kalteisen; who was a Dominican Friar, and Professor of Divinity in the University of Collen, and one of the Inquisitors against Heretics: whose Oration was lately set out by Henricus Canisius Professor of the sacred Canons at Ingolstad, and inserted into the body of the Counsels by Binius.  
Tostatus. 
r Tostat. in Exod. 29. q. 18. p. 144.  Sic est in consecrationibus, etc. So is it in the consecration of Bishops or of the Pope: in which there is not imprinted a character; seeing they are not orders, but dignities or degrees of Ecclesiastical preeminence. And again. Non dicitur potestas Episcopalis character: neque vocamus propriè Episcopatum Ordinem, neque etiam sacramentum. The Episcopal power is not called a character: neither do we call the Episcopal function properly an Order, nor a Sacrament. Armachanus. 
s Armachan. Summ. ad quaestion. Armenorum, l. 11. cap. 2.3 4, 5, 6.  Episcopus in hujusmodi etc. A Bishop in such things hath no more in respect of his order then every simple Priest: although the Church hath appointed that such things should be executed only by those men whom we call Bishops. And again. Est etiam alia ratio etc. There is also an other manifest reason: because from the time of distinction of Churches and Parishes, no 〈◊〉 man can law fully execute such things, but only in those places in which he hath power of government; which because simple Priests have not, they cannot exercise the acts of it lawfully, nor other sacramental acts, unless this be specially committed unto them by them which have authority in those places. Which restraint of Priestly power was not in the Primitive Church. This seemeth to me to be according to the holy Scripture.  
Gerson. 
t Gers. de septem Sacramentis.  Supra Sacerdotium non est ordo superior; imò nec Episcopatus, nec Archie-piscopatus. i. Above Priesthood there is no superior order; no not the function of a Bishop or Arch. bishop.  

u Alphons. in verbo, Episcopus.  Alphonsus de Castro, speaking of the Aërians, saith thus: Lectorem admonere decrevi, etc. I have determined to admonish the Reader, that he do not suppose that I so contradict the Heretics in this behalf, that I think the Episcopal function to be an other order from the Priesthood. Which I have therefore given you warning of; because there are some which are of opinion, that the Episcopal function doth differ from the Priesthood, as the Priesthood doth differ from the Deaconship, towit so, that there should be an other character imprinted in the ordination of a Bishop, than was in the ordination of a Priest.  

x Fab. Incarnate. in scrutinio Sacerdotali.  Fabius Incarnatus. Dicitur impropriè Ordo, ratione jurisdictionis; sed tamen non est Sacramentum, sed est quoddam sacramentale: idcircò dignitas Episcopalis non est ordo, imò praesupponit ordinem Sacerdotalem; sed est ordinis Eminentia, vel dignitas. It is called an order improperly, in respect of jurisdiction; but notwithstanding it is not a Sacrament, but as a certain Sacrament all thing. Therefore the Episcopal dignity is not an order, but rather it presupposeth the Sacerdotal Order: but it is an eminence of order, or dignity. And again. How many holy orders are there? I answer; that there are the Orders of Subdeacon, Deacon, and Priest.  

y Canis. Catechism. de sacrament. Ordinis. §. 4.  Petrus Canisius, a Spanish jesuit asketh this question: How many degrees doth the Sacrament of Order comprehend? and answereth, that it doth comprehend generally the lesser orders, and the greater: to wit, four lesser, of the Doorkeepers, Exorcists, Readers, and Acolytes; and three greater, of Subdeacons', Deacons and Priests. Which last he divideth into greater & lesser, but accounteth them both one Order: as may appear by these words. Et quanquam quod ad Ordinis Sacramentum, & ad sacrificandi authoritatem attinet, discrimen inter Episcopos & Sacerdotes non sit: tamen sunt illi Sacerdotibus multò excellentiores. etc. Although there be no difference between Bishops and Priests, in regard of the sacrament of order, and the authority of sacrificing: yet Bishops are much more excellent. This authority is the greater; 
In Epistolâ dedicatoriâ.  because the book is set forth by the edict of the Emperor, and commanded by the King of Spain to be taught in the Low Countries, both in Churches and in Schools.  
All this while have I said nothing of 
z Michael Medina, de sacrorum hominum origine ac continentiâ; lib. 1. cap. 5.  Medina, who was a principal Bishop of the Council of Trent, and affirmeth that Jerome, Ambrose, Austin, Sedulius, Primasius, chrysostom, Theodoret, and Theophylact, are of the same opinion. Omnes colligunt ideò aut Episcopos Presbyteros, aut Presbyteros vocari Episcopos; quòd una eademque res esset Episcopus & Presbyter, quantum ad Ordinis potestatem attinet. All collect that therefore Bishops were called Priests, or Priests Bishops; because a Bishop and a Priest were one and the self same thing, in respect of the power of Order. Which places of the Fathers. I do not particularly produce; because my purpose is only at this time, to justify the Reformed Churches by the testimonies of your own Popish writers.  
HItherto you have heard the judgement of particular persons: now you shall see the judgement of the whole Church of Rome. For the 
a Catechism. Roman. pars. 2. §. 12. & 26.  Roman or Tridentine Catechism (set out by the decree of the Council of Trent, and by the commandment of Pius Quintus; and therefore to be acknowledged as the doctrine of the whole Roman Church) saith. Docendum igitur erit, hosce omnes ordines septenario numero contineri, semperque it a à Catholicâ Ecclesiâ traditum esse: quorum nomina haec sunt. Ostiarius, Lector, Exorcista, Acolythus, Subdiaconus, Diaconus, Sacerdos. i. Therefore it shall be fit to be taught, that all those orders are comprehended within the number of seven, and that it was always so delivered by the Catholic Church: the names whereof are these. The Doorkeeper, Lecturer, Exorcist, Acolyte, Subdeacon, Deacon, and Priest. Here is no mention of the Bishop: and yet all orders are here comprehended. Wherefore the Pope and Council do teach as the general doctrine of the Catholic Church; that the Episcopal office is no order distinct from the order of Priesthood.  PHILOD. 

b Bellarmin. de Sacrament. Ordinis, lib. 1. cap. 5.  THey are one order in genere, not in specie: for so they are distinct orders.  ORTHOD. 
This is contrary to the stream of your own Writers before alleged: who hold seven Orders, the last whereof is Priesthood; and do not make the order of Priesthood to contain a special order, but plainly exclude the Episcopal office from being an Order. Some of whose Arguments I will produce: whereunto let us see what you can answer.  
You teach generally, that the diversity of holy orders, properly so called, ariseth from distinct relations to the Eucharist. But a Bishop, in that he differeth from a Presbyter, hath not any distinct relation to the Eucharist. Therefore a Bishop, in that he differeth from a Priest, hath not a divers order.  PHILOD. 

c Bellarm. ibid.  Though the Bishop and the Presbyter have the same power in consecrating of the Eucharist; yet they participate it in divers manners. Wherefore it cometh to pass, that they are two species Sacerdotum. For the Presbyter in consecrating the Eucharist, at least in respect of the use, dependeth upon the Bishop: who may forbid him to consecrate, and suspend or command him to do it, in such a place, in such a time, in such a manner.  ORTHOD. 
This argueth jurisdiction over his Person, not any more power or authority in consecrating, nor any distinct relation to the Eucharist.  PHILOD. 
A Bishop hath this power so, that he may communicate it to others by imposition of hands: which a Presbyter cannot do.  ORTHOD. 
This is to beg the point in question. Therefore if your jesuits have no better objections; the former Argument will stand impregnable.  
An other of the Schoolman's Arguments may thus be framed.  
If the Episcopal function be a distinct species of Order; then this order is either inferior to the order of Priesthood, or superior, or equal. But it is not inferior: because than one should be made Bishop before he were a Priest; which is absurd. Neither is it a superior order: for than it should be a more noble order then Priesthood, and consequently perform a more noble act. Which is contrary to the common judgement of your own men. 
d Bonav. in 4. Sent. dist. 24. part. 2. art. 2. q. 3. sect. 3.  Bonaventure calleth Priesthood, ordinem perfectissimum, the most perfect order. Aureolus saith: 
e Aureolus in 4. Sent. d. 24. q. 1. art. 2.  Nobilior actus est, consicere Corpus Christi, quàm ordinare. To make the Body of Christ, is a more noble act, then to ordain. Durandus: 
f Durand. in 4. d. 24. q. 6. sect. 9  Actus nobilior est consecrare corpus Christi, quod pertinet ad Sacerdotem, quàm ordinatio Ministri, quod pertinet ad Episcopum: nam secundus est propter primum. It is a more noble act, to consecrate the body of Christ, which pertaineth to a Priest, then to ordain a Minister, which pertaineth to a Bishop: for the second is for the first. Gerson: 
g Gerson. in Compendio Theolog. de Ordine.  Consecrare corpus Christi, est excellentissimum humanorum officiorum. to consecrate the body of Christ, is the most excellent of humane offices. and Bellarmine himself: 
h Bellarm. de Sacramento Ordinis, cap. 5  Summa potestas est, posse consecrare Eucharistiam. the highest power is, to be able to consecrate the Eucharist.  PHILOD. 
If one compare the Character, or power which a Bishop hath from his last Consecration, with the character which he hath from his Presbyterial Ordination: then his latter is greater in respect of intention, because the highest power is to consecrate the Eucharist; the former is greater in respect of Extension, because it extendeth itself unto more things.  ORTHOD. 
The excellency of an Order dependeth not upon the variety of Objects, but upon the excellency of the proper Act. Wherefore, seeing that you grant the proper Act of Priesthood more excellent; you must likewise grant, that Priesthood is the most excellent Order. Therefore the Episcopal function cannot be an order either superior or equal unto it. And it was proved before, that it cannot be an order inferior. So the conclusion followeth; that it is not properly any sacred Order at all.  PHILOD. 
The whole and entire Episcopal character is composed of a double character: the first whereof is received when he is made Priest; the other, when he is made Bishop. Now this whole and entire Episcopal character is more excellent, than the Presbyterial only; because it includeth it, and addeth another unto it.  ORTHOD. 
This doth not answer the point. For the Argument framed according to the Question, speaketh distinctly of that wherein the Bishop differeth from a Priest; and compareth it with a Priesthood. Your Answer is of a totum aggregatum, which comprehendeth both. Therefore it is not ad idem. So the Conclusion remaineth firm, as before; that it is not an Order.  
Which, me thinks, you should more willingly grant: because Bellarmine your great Bell-wether, who first held, that they were the same Order, and afterward maintained the contrary, is now in his old age returned to his former opinion. What his judgement was in his former years, may be seen in his book de Clericis, where he saith, that 
i Bellarm. de Clericis; cap. 11. §. 4.  Ecclesiastical Orders are taken two ways; properly and commonly. Orders properly taken he calleth such as are conferred by a Bishop, with a certain sacred and solemn rite, and are referred to the performance of some certain ministry about the Divine sacrifice. Orders commonly taken he calleth such, as are any way dedicated to Divine offices, though it be without relation to sacrifice: which he exemplifieth in Monks and Nuns. The proper Orders he affirmeth to be seven in number: the chief whereof is Priesthood. Concerning the difference of a Priest and a Bishop, these are his words. Et si Episcopus & Presbyter distinguantur; tamen quantum ad sacrificium idem omninò ministerium exhibent: proinde unum Ordinem, non duos faciunt. i. Although a Bishop and a Presbyter be distinguished; yet in respect of the sacrifice, they perform altogether the same ministry. Therefore they make one order, not two.  
Yet in his book of the Sacrament of Order, he affirmeth that 
k Id. de sacramento Ord. cap. 5. sect. 11. & 13.  Episcopal Ordination is a Sacrament; that a Bishop hath a new Character; that Episcopatus is one Order with Priesthood in general not in special; that the Episcopal character is compounded of a double character, and that two Sacraments are required to make a Bishop. So here he holdeth it to be truly and properly a new Order, a new Character, a new Sacrament.  
Notwithstanding now at length, having put his last hand to his former works of Controversies; considering be like, that this is contrary to the common tenant of your Church: he retracteth and disclaimeth it, in these words. 
l Id. in Recognit. pag. 89.  Vbi dixi, Episcopatum & Presbyteratum esse unum Ordinem, sed genere non specie; & paulo infrà, Presbyteros & Episcopos esse duas species Sacerdotum: rectiùs dixissem, esse unum Ordinem, sed gradus diversos. That is. Whereas I said, that Episcopatus and Presbyteratus are the same Order in general not in special; and a little after, that Presbyters and Bishops are two species of Priests: I might have said more rightly, that they are one Order, but divers degrees. This is the final judgement of your chiefest Champion.  PHILOD. 
YOur own Book of Orders calleth it an Order, even in the first sentence of the Preface; saying. It is evident unto all men diligently reading Holy Scripture and ancient Authors; that from the Apostles time, there have been these Orders of Ministers in Christ's Church, Bishops, Priests, and Deacons.  ORTHOD. 
The Canonists affirm it to be an Order: the Schoolmen deny it. Yet 
m Id. in lib. de Clericis, cap. 11. sect. ult.  Bellarmine and 
n Sculting. Bibliothecae catholicae tom. 4. contra lib. 4. Calvini. c. 9 §. 22.  Scultingius avouch there is no difference between them. Because the Canonists call it an Order in respect of Regiment: the Schoolmen deny it, as Order is a Sacrament. In like manner, because a Bishop is sanctified and set a part with Imposition of hands to public employment in Ecclesiastical Government; the Church of England, with your Canonists, call it an Order: and yet many deny, with your Schoolmen, that it is properly an Order, as Deaconship and Priesthood. To which you may the rather be induced: because the Authors of the Book having spoken first of the Ordering of Deacons, and then of Ordering of Priests; when they come to the Form of making Bishops, they never call it Ordering, but always Consecrating.  PHILOD. 
Surely the Fathers and Counsels do commonly call it Ordering: shall there be Ordination, and not an Order?  ORTHOD. 
They call it so largely and improperly: as witnesseth Bonaventure. 
o Bonavent. in Sentent. lib. 4. d. 24. part. 2. art. 2. q. 3. resp. ad object.  Non ita propriè dicitur aliquis ordinari, cùm promovetur in Episcopum, ut cùm promovetur in sacerdotem; sed magis propriè dicitur consecrari. i. One is not so properly said to be Ordained, when he is promoted to be Bishop, as when he is promoted to be Priest; but is more properly said to be consecrated. Neither is this the opinion of Bonaventure alone; but it is the common and current judgement of your Church. For those which deny this function to be an Order, cannot with reason grant the ceremony whereby it is conferred to be properly Ordering.  PHILOD. 
IF we should grant them to be one Order; what could you conclude?  ORTHOD. 
You said before, that the intrinsecall power of Ordaining proceeded not from jurisdiction, but only from Order. Therefore if you grant, that a Presbyter hath the same Order that a Bishop; I will conclude, that a Presbyter hath intrinsecall power to give Orders.  PHILOD. 
That will not follow. for howsoever they be one and the same Order, yet they differ in degree. Because there is a further extension of the character in Episcopal consecration: which Extension produceth two effects. First, it makes it a sacrament: for that ceremony, which hath this spiritual and supernatural effect, really to extend a Character, without doubt shall be a sacrament. And though Bellarmine recalled his opinion that they were two distinct orders; yet he still maintaineth, that they are two distinct sacraments. Secondly, in enableth a Bishop to confer the sacraments of Confirmation and Order: which a Presbyter, though he had the self same Order and Character, cannot confer; because he wanteth this extension, and in this respect is unperfect.  ORTHOD. 
I answer two things. First, that this opinion is contrary to your own Church. Secondly, that it is contrary to itself. Concerning the first: you lay this down, as an undoubted Principle; that the Ceremony, wherein there is a real extension of the Character, is a sacrament. But it is the common opinion of your own Church, that the Ceremony of Episcopal consecration is not a sacrament: as hath been proved. Therefore according to the common opinion of your own Church, in it there is no real extension of the Character.  
Concerning the second, your Position is this: that a Bishop and a Priest have but one Order and Character, yet differ in Degrees; because this Character is so extended in Episcopal consecration, that it maketh a new, proper, and distinct Consecration. which position is contrary to itself. For if Episcopal consecration be a distinct sacrament; what sacrament shall it be? You must needs say, the sacrament of Order. But if it be a sacrament of Order distinct from Priesthood; than it is a distinct Order. So the latter part of your position is contrary to the first, wherein they are said to be but one Order. Again, if it be a new and distinct sacrament of Order, then according to your own doctrine, it must imprint a new and distinct character: which is contrary to the first part of your Position; where you say, a Bishop and a Priest have but one character. Moreover, if a Bishop be extended to a higher degree; it should produce in him a more noble act, then in a Presbyter. But it was plentifully proved, that the act of a Bishop is not more noble than the act of a Presbyter. Therefore a Bishop hath it not in a higher degree. Thus for all your striving and struggling, you must be forced to confess; that it is neither a distinct Order, nor a distinct Sacrament, nor imprinteth a new character, nor intendeth nor extendeth the old; but is absolutely the same both in Nature and in Degree.  PHILOD. 
What then doth a Bishop receive in his Consecration?  ORTHOD. 
Your own Authors already cited may teach you; that he receiveth a sacred office, an Eminency, a jurisdiction, a Dignity, a Degree of Ecclesiastical pre-eminence.  PHILOD. 
A degree? Did you not deny that a Bishop hath any more excellency in degree then a Presbyter; and will you now affirm it?  ORTHOD. 
He hath no higher degree in respect of intention or extension of the Character: but he hath a higher degree, that is, a more excellent place in respect of Authority and jurisdiction in spiritual Regiment. Wherefore seeing a Presbyter is equal to a Bishop in the power of Order; he hath equally intrinsecall power to give Orders: which is confessed by sundry of your Divines.  
RIchardus Armachanus. 
p Armachan. Summ. ad quaestion. Armen. lib. 11. c. 7.  Episcopus in ejusmodi etc. A Bishop in such things hath no more power in respect of his order, than every simple Priest: although the Church hath appointed, that such things should be executed only by those men whom we call Bishops.  
Hugo de Sancto Victore. 
q Hugo de Sacram. lib. 2. p. 3. c. 12.  Summis ergo sacerdotibus etc. The foresaid things (among which was Ordination) are reserved for the High-priests or Bishops, in a singular manner: lest the very same authority of power should be challenged of all, and should make the inferior proud against their superiors; and so should breed a scandal, by dissolving the bond of Obedience.  
Aureolus. 
r Aureol. l. 4. d. 24. art. 2.  Omnis forma, ex quo est in actu, etc. Every form in as much as it is in act, hath power to communicate itself in the same kind: therefore every Priest hath power to celebrate orders. Why then do they not celebrate them? because their power is hindered by the decree of the Church. Whereupon when a Bishop is made, there is not given unto him any new power, but the former power being hindered is set at liherty: as a man, when the act of reason is hindered, and the impediment is remeved, there is not given unto him any new soul.  
Antonius de Rosellis. 
s Anton. Rosell. de potestate Imperatoris & Papae, part. 4. c. 18.  Quilibet Presbyter & Presbyteri ordinabant indiscretè & schismata oriebantur. Every Presbyter and Presbyters did ordain indifferently; and there arose schisms. Peter, with other Apostles, restrained the power of the Character. so that Presbyters might not indifferently confer all Sacraments: but they reserved some to those whom they created in Cities and Provinces; whom they called Bishops. The Presbyterial power was restrained, and the office of the Character: so that certain things were reserved only to Bishops; as Confirmation and Collation of Orders. Whereupon when a Bishop is consocrated, that restraint of Priestly Character is set at liberty: the Sacraments which were forbidden the Priestly order, and yet formerly belonging to the Priestly Order, are enlarged. Wherefore by the consecration of a Bishop, there is not made the impression of a new Character, but only the perfection of the Priestly character.  PHILOD. 
THough all this were granted; yet you were never the nearer. for when the Apostles advanced Bishops; the power of Presbyters was extinguished.  ORTHOD. 
It was restrained, not utterly extinguished: as the faculty of the flying of a bird, when his wings are tied.  PHILOD. 
Was the advancing of Bishops the restraint of Presbyters? Then they were restrained jure divino: because the pre-eminence of Bishops is jure divino.  ORTHOD. 
First, if you mean by jure divino, that which is according to the Scripture; then the pre-eminence of Bishops is jure divino: for it hath been already proved to be according to the Scripture. Secondly, if by jure divino you mean the ordinance of God: in this sense also it may be said to be jure divino. For it is an ordinance of the Apostles, whereunto they were directed by God's spirit, even by the spirit of Prophecy; and consequently the ordinance of God. But if by jure divino you understand a Law and commandment of God, binding all Christian Churches universally, perpetually, unchangeably, and with such absolute necessity, that no other form of regiment may in any case be admitted: in this sense, neither may we grant it, nor yet can you prove it, to be jure divino.  PHILOD. 
Whence cometh it then to be so generally received through the Christian World?  ORTHOD. 
The Apostles in their life time ordained many Bishops; and left a fair pattern to posterity. The Church following the commodiousness thereof, embraced it in all ages through the Christian World.  PHILOD. 
If the wings of Presbyters were tied by the Church, following therein the pattern of the Apostles, who were directed by the spirit of God: what authority had Luther to untie them?  ORTHOD. 
It was not voluntary in him, but a case of necessity.  PHILOD. 
Neither was there any necessity; neither can necessity authorize a man in a matter of this nature.  ORTHOD. 
I will prove both: and in the first place consider the force of Necessity.  
The Scripture declareth, when the Priests were too few, and not able to slay all the  offerings; their brethren the Devites did help them, till they had ended the work, and until other Priests were sanctified. (2. Chron. 29.34, 35.) By which it appeareth, that the Levites did help the Priests in case of necessity, if not to offer, yet at least to pull off the skins; which pertained to the Priest's office: as witnesseth Nicolaus de Lyra, saying. 
t Lyran. in 2. Chron. c. 29. & in c. 35. consimiliter Abulensis in 2. Chron. cap. 4. q. 13.  Although the pulling off of skins belonged to the office of the Priests; yet the Levites might in this help the Priests in necessity. for many things were lawful by reason of necessity, which otherwise were not lawful. If of necessity: then by proportion a Deacon may so fare intermeddle with the Presbyters office. In which case of necessity, a Presbyter cometh nearer to a Bishop, than a Deacon to a Presbyter; which are of divers Orders.  
ANd is not this your own doctrine? Do not you teach, that Confirmation of the baptised is proper to a Bishop; proceeding from the Episcopal Character as well as Ordination? and yet may be communicated to a Presbyter in case of necessity?  
Concerning the first, the Council of Trent hath thus decreed. 
u Concil. Trident. Sess. 23. Can. 7.  If any man shall say that Bishops are not superior to Priests; that they have not power to confirm and ordain, or that the power which they have is common to them with the Priests: let him be accursed. And Bellarmine saith, that 
x Bellarm. de sacram. confirmat. c. 12. §. 16. ad argum. 4.  the Episcopal Character, whether it be another from the Presbyterial or the same more extended, is an absolute, perfect and independent power, to confer the Sacraments of Confirmation and Order.  
Concerning the second, Bellarmine in his book of the Sacrament of Confirmation, proveth at large that 
y Id. de sacram. confirm. cap. 12. sect. 3. Extraordinariâ potestate possunt. sect. 15. extruordinariâ concessione possunt. & lib. de Clericis. c. 15. §. 29. Confirmare baptisatos possunt Presbyteri ex dispensatione.  Presbyters may confirm by the Pope's dispensation. And whereas in his book of the Sacrament of Order, he had let a word fall, which might seem to sound to the contrary; he explaineth himself in his Recognitions in this manner. 
z Id. in Recognit. pag. 89.  Whereas I said that only Bishops may confirm and ordain, and if inferiors attempt to do those things they could effect nothing by ordinary powen: my meaning was not to deny that, which elsewhere I had affirmed; that a Presbyter might confirm by Apostolical dispensation.  PHILOD. 
Very true: for this he hath proved by many testimonies, and among the rest by the Council of Trent: which therefore calleth a Bishop an ordinary Minister of Confirmation; to insinuate, that it may be performed by a Presbyter by extraordinary power.  ORTHOD. 
Then by Bellarmine's own reason, when Pope Eugenius in his decree for the Council of Flerence affirmed, that the ordinary minister of Ordination was a Bishop; thereby insinuated, that extraordinarily it might be done by a Presbyter.  PHILOD. 
To confirm is an act of Order; and this order is also in a Presbyter, at least inchoate and imperfect. Wherefore unless it be perfected by dispensation, a Presbyter effecteth nothing by confirming: but if it be perfected; jam ex ipso suo charactere confirmabit, he shall confirm by virtue of his own Character.  ORTHOD. 
If the Character thus perfected enable him to perform the act of Confirmation; why not of Ordination? For the doctrine of your Church is, that they both are proper to a Bishop; both derived from the same Character, both received at the same instant, from the same persons, in the same manner, and by the same words: and that the effect of both is, to imprint a character, and to give the holy Ghost. Wherefore seeing you grant the power of Confirming is communicable to Presbyters; you have no reason to deny them the like power of Ordaining.  
YOur own learned men hold, that not only a Presbyter, but also a Layman may confirm by the Pope's delegation. 
Vid. Praepositum in Decret. cap. Per. venit, dist. 95.  The author of the Gloss saith: Dicunt quidam etc. Some say that the Pope may delegate this even to a Layman: because he hath the fullness of power. Videtur, saith 
* Rosellus de potestate Imperatoris & Papae. part 4 c. 16.  Rosellus, quòd confirmatus etc. It seemeth that a man confirmed, though he be a Layman, and not in orders, seeing he hath received a Character by his Confirmation, may give Character to another by the Pope's mandate; because a Lay man may handle even spiritual things by the Pope's mandate: especially because it was not specially appointed by Christ that only Bishops should confirm. And that the most reverend Cardinal of Saba, seemeth to hold this opinion. Moreover Compostella and Sylvester are of mind, that the Pope may commit these things even to a Lay man. Hitherto Rosellus. But if you hold this to be a private opinion: yet by Bellarmine and sundry others of your own side, it is yielded that a Presbyter is capable of this commission.  
So the Author of the Gloss. 
Vid. Gloss. ad ca Manus, de Consecrat. dist. 5. verbo Irritum. & Panormitan. ad ca Quanto. extra de Consuetud. num. 8.  Dico quòd Papa potest hoc delegare simplici Sacerdoti, & non Laico (sicut credo) & sic ex tali delegatione & adminiculo habiti sacramenti, potest conferre quicquid habet: imò quilibet Clericus hoc facere potest; qui verò non habet, non potest confer. I say that the Pope may delegate this to a simple Priest, and not to a Layman (as I suppose) and by the Pope's delegation, and help of the Sacrament which he hath, he may confer whatsoever he hath (and therefore holy orders) yea every Clerk can do this thing: but he that hath it not, cannot confer.  
And Rosellus. Volunt Doctores, 
Rosell. ut suprà.  quòd Papa potest committere cuilibet Clerico, ut conferat quae habet ipse: ut si est Presbyter, possit ordinare Presbyterum, & diaconus diaconum, ex mandato Papae. i. The Doctors are of opinion, that the Pope may commit to any Clerk that he may confer these things which he himself hath: as if he be a presbyter, he may ordain a Presbyter, if he be a Deacon, he may make a Deacon, at the Pope's commandment. And again: Ego teneo, quod Papa possit demandare Presbytero, quòd conferat omnes sacros ordines: & in hoc sto cum sententiâ Canonistarum. i. I hold, that the Pope may give commission to Presbyters to confer all sacred orders: and in this I stand with the opinion of the Canonists.  
MOreover you hold the presence of three Bishops, 
See the first book, cap. 3.  as a substantial point in Episcopal Consecration; and thereupon urge a Nullity against the reformed Churches: accounting it an institution of the Apostles, which they made, the Lord so appointing. 
Ibid. cap. 7.  Yet you allow of Pope Pelagius the first; who was consecrated only by two Bishops and one Presbyter. Yea it is an usual thing in your Church, for one Bishop with two Abbats to consecrate a Bishop, by the Pope's dispensation. If these things may be done by the dispensation of a Pope; much rather by the overruling command of invincible Necessity.  
For put case, all Bishops in the World were dead: should Ordination cease for ever? Or if it should continue: by whom should it be performed?  PHILOD. 
If this should happen: then I would say with Armachanus. 
Armachan. Summ. contra Armen. lib. 11. cap. 7. ut suprà, §. 11. (ubi cap. 7. reponend. pro 2.3.4.5.6.)  Videtur quòd si omnes Episcopi essent defuncti; sacerdotes minores possent Episcopos ordinare. i. It seemeth, that if all Bishops were dead, the lesser Priests might ordain Bishops.  ORTHOD. 
But what if all the Bishops in the World were infected with Heresy, and would ordain none, but those which would approve their Heresics: were it not the like case?  PHILOD. 
These are curious Questions, and impossibilities. for the Church of God, shall always be splendent and glorious; having Pastors conspicuous, as the stars and lights of the World.  ORTHOD. 
The Sun and Moon are glorious and great lights, and yet they may be not only clouded, but eclipsed. Where was this splendour in the days of Elias? at the passion of Christ? or when the world did wonder to see itself become Arrian? But if these cases seem impossibilities; I will propound one which is very possible. Suppose a Spanish Armado, transporting men and women, and among them one Priest, for the further plantation of the West Indies, being long tossed with tempestuous winds, should at length suffer shipwreck upon a strange Coast of an unknown Island; yet so, that most of the People by the providence of God escape and come safely to the land. Now they are in another World, their ship is sunk, their tackling gone, they are void of all means and hope of return. The Priest he instructeth them, baptiseth their Children, and perform th' other Priestly offices; still expecting if any ship should arrive or approach to that Coast. Thus many years passing, their hopes fail, their hearts faint, their aged Priest is even at death's door: now tell me, what shall he do? must he leave his congregation without a guide? the sheep of Christ without a shepherd? Alas, this were the plain pathway to Paganism. Or shall he not rather make choice of some most eminent among them for knowledge and virtue; and by fasting, prayer, and imposition of hands set them a part for the Priest's office?  PHILOD. 
I am loath to answer Utopian cases: yet of this I am well assured, that holy Church teacheth according to the Council of Florence, that it is lawful for a Layman or Woman, Infidel or Pagan, to baptise in case of necessity; lest the people should perish.  ORTHOD. 
Was not the right of Baptising given by Christ's own Commission to the Apostles and their Successors, that is, according to your own interpretation, only to such as are in holy Orders? yet you allow it to Laymen, which have not the character of Order, and to women which are not capable thereof. Now consider advisedly with yourself, if a Presbyter come not nearer to a Bishop (seeing they are both one order) than a Pagan to a Presbyter. And with what face can you affirm, that a Pagan may give that character which he hath not; and deny that a Presbyter may give that which he hath? If you say that Baptism is simply necessary by the ordinance of God, as a means of salvation: I may not digress to handle that point. only this I say, that as your Church maketh Baptism necessary in respect of every particular man: so it maketh Orders simply necessary, in respect of the whole Church; teaching that without the sacrament of Order there can be no Church, and without a Church no Salvation. Wherefore, as you avouch that a Layman may baptise, lest the people should perish: so by the same reason you must avouch, that the Spanish Priest might ordain, lest the Church should perish.  PHILOD. 
IF it should be admitted in this imaginary case of the Spanish Priest: what is that to Luther? Why should he presume to do it, when there was such store of Bishops? Or why should any man be so new fangled, as to receive it other ways then in former ages?  ORTHOD. 
We must consider the difference of times. For during the sway of Popery, men being blinded with the darkness thereof, did ignorantly undertake a corrupt calling: which, notwithstanding the corruption, did give them authority to preach the truth; though as yet it was not revealed unto them. But when the light had begun to shine and to discover, amongst other Popish impurities, the abomination of your sacrificing Priesthood: they whose eyes were opened to see the same, could not with a good Conscience receive imposition of hands from your Bishops, because they would ordain none, but in a Popish manner to a Popish Priesthood, and that with an oath to maintain the Pope and his abuses. For otherwise neither Luther would have ordained, nor learned men received ordination from him, or from any others but only from Bishops. Which thing, (saith 
a Georg. Princeps Anhaltin. Contion, super Matth. 7.  Prince Anhalt, we always, and M. Luther (of most godly memory) both in words and in writings, yea and in public sermons in the Cathedral Church of Maerspurge very often professed and promised. And again this inconvenience (that Presbyters should ordain) might be prevented, if the parties to be ordained were not compelled to promise the upholding of evident abuses. for unless that were required at their hands, they would willingly receive ordination from Bishops: which now they are constrained, by a certain necessity, both to seek and receive from other Ministers.  
And as they could not obtain ordination from your Popish Churches; so neither, by the same reason, from the Greek Church. For 
b Bellarm. lib. de notis Ecclesiae, cap. 8. §. 22.  Bellarmine denyeth it to be a Church: because they were lawfully convicted in three full Counsels (at Lateran, Lions, and Florence) of heresy, and especially of the heresy about the proceeding of the Holy Ghost; which to be a manifest heresy (saith he) both the Lutherans and the Calvinists do confess. Wherefore seeing no Church will give orders, but only to such persons as approve and embrace their doctrine; therefore they could not with a safe conscience seek to the Greek Church; whose doctrine they justly misliked.  
Being thus excluded from the Greek and the Latin, from the East and the West; what should be done? It was the duty of Magistrates whose hearts the Lord had touched, not to suffer false Prophets, but to drive them away like wolves, and to plant godly Preachers in their places. But whence should they have them? The Popish Priests converted were like a few clusters in a great vintage, or a few mariners in a great ship. wherefore, either there must be a new supply, or the ship of Christ must be endangered. And there was but one way for this supply; to wit, by Ordination. Now the Bishops were so fare from yielding it in any tolerable manner; that they persecuted such as sought the reformation, and branded them with schism and heresy. Wherefore it must either be devolved unto Presbyters, or the Church of God must suffer most lamentable ruin and desolation. And was not this a case of necessity? I will conclude this point, with a memorable saying of Waldensis, worthy to be written in letters of gold. 
c Vbi ista duo concurrunt in communitate Ecclesia, scilicèt extrema & non ulteriùs differendo necessitas, & ordinarii pastoris aut praesidis ad succurrendum desperata facultas; quaerendus est extraordinarius pater, priusquàm Christi Domini fabrica dissolvatur. Thom. Waldens. Doctrinal. fidei, tom. 1. lib. 2. cap. 80. §. 2.  When these two things do meet in the state of the Church; to wit, extreme necessity admitting no delay, & the hopeless want of ability to yield relief, in the ordinary Pastor or guide: we must seek an extraordinary Father, before the fabric of the Lord jesus be dissolved.  PHILOD. 
SVppose that ordination might be devolved to Presbyters in case of necessity: yet the necessity ceasing, such extraordinary courses should likewise cease. Why then do they continue their former practice? why do they not now seek to receive their orders from Protestant Bishops?  ORTHOD. 
The Churches of Germany need not to seek to foreign Bishops; because they have Superintendents or Bishops among themselves. And as for other places, which embrace the discipline of Geneva; they also have Bishops in effect. for two things of all other are most proper to Bishops. 1. Singularity in succeeding. because though there be many Presbyters in a Church, yet above the rest there is one Star, one Angel; of whose unity depends the unity of the Church: and therefore when he dieth, another must succeed in the like singularity. 2. Superiority in ordaining. because ever since the Apostles times these Stars and Angels have been invested with the power of ordination; which they might perform without Presbyters, but Presbyters might not regularly perform without them. Now in these reformed Churches, the Precedent of each Presbytery is their Star or Angel, endued with both properties.  
Concerning the first, Beza saith. 
d Bez. de divers. gradib. mmistr. contr. Sarav. cap. 23. §. 25.  Essentiale fuit in eo de quo hîc agimus, quòd ex Dei ordinatione perpetuâ necesse fuit, est, & erit; ut in Presbyterio quispiam & loco & dignitate primus actioni gubernandae praesit, cum eo, quod ipsi divinitùs attributum est, jure. This was essential in the matter we have in hand; that by God's perpetual ordinance, it hath been, is, and shall be needful, that some one in the Presbytery, which is first both in place and dignity should have the pre-eminence in ruling of every action, with that right which is given him from God.  
Therefore concerning the second. whereas the Presbytery consisteth partly of Ministers, partly of Laymen; their Lay-presbyters are wholly excluded from Ordination. for 
e Non liquidò constat, an quum aliquis consecrandas erat minister, omnes soliti fuerunt manum imponere ejas capiti, an unus duntaxat, loco & nomine omnium. Imò huc magis inclinat conjectura, unum tantùm fuisse, qui manut imponeret. Calvin. in 2. Tim. 1.6. Ho postremò habendum est, non universam multitudinem manus imposuisse suis ministris, sed solos pastors. Id. in Institut. l. b. 4. cap. 3. §. 16.  Calvin teacheth, that in the Apostolic times, only Pastors imposed hands: neither is it lawful for every Pastor in the Presbytery to execute this office; but it is reserved to him who is first both in place and dignity, having pre-eminence in every action, and consequently in Ordination. Wherefore, though that he do it not by his sole authority, but with common consent; neither hath the name of a Bishop, or such ample titles annexed, as godly Princes have thought fit, for the honour of the place (because these things are not suitable with popular estates, delighting in equality) yet he hath the substance of the office itself: which he exerciseth not in one only particular parish, but in the City, Suburbs and the territories thereof, containing sundry Parishes; as for example at Geneva, XXIIII, or there about.  
Wherefore seeing a Bishop and a Presbyter do not differ in order, but only in pre-eminence and jurisdiction, as yourselves acknowledge; and seeing Calvin and Beza had the order of Priesthood, which is the highest order in the Church of God, and were lawfully chosen the one after the other to a place of eminency, and endued with jurisdiction, derived unto them from the whole Church wherein they lived: you cannot with reason deny them the substance of the Episcopal office. And wherein soever their Discipline is defective, we wish them, even in the bowels of Christ jesus, by all possible means to redress and reform it; and to conform themselves to the ancient custom of the Church of Christ, which hath continued from the Apostles time: that so they may remove all opinion of singularity, and stop the mouth of malice itself.  
Thus much concerning the Ministers of other reformed Churches: wherein if you will not believe us, disputing for the lawfulness of their calling; yet you must give us leave to believe God himself from heaven approving their ministry, by pouring down a blessing upon their labours.  
Bless them still, O Lord, and bless us: and make all our Ministry faithful, fruitful, and effectual to the comfort of our own Consciences, the advancing of thy Kingdom, the joy of thy little flock, and to the recalling of those lost sheep, which as yet wander in the wilderness of the Church of Rome, or elsewhere: that so it may be powerful by thy Spirit to the salvation of many thousand souls.  
AMEN.  
FINIS.