A Compendious Discourse, PROVING EPISCOPACY TO BE OF apostolical, AND CONSEQVENTLY OF DIVINE INSTITUTION: BY A clear and weighty testimony of St. Irenaeus a glorious Martyr, and renowned Bishop of lions in France, upon the year of our Lord, 184. The said Testimony being so declared, pressed, and vindicated from all exceptions, that thereby an intelligent, and conscionable Reader may receive abundant satisfaction in this behalf.  ISAIAH 39 8. Let there be peace and truth in my days. 
BY Peloni Almoni, Cosmopolites.  
LONDON, Printed by E. G. for Richard Whitaker at the King's arms in Paul's churchyard, 1641.   

To the Christian and Judicious Reader.  
IT is true in this particular case of Episcopacy, which Solomon speaketh in the general: How good is a word spoken in due season? It is like apples of gold in pictures of silver. If ever there were a season to write, or speak, in defence of Episcopacy, it is now, or never; wherein men travail in birth to bring forth their several conceits: some doubting whether it be of divine, or human institution: some affirming the one, some the other: some desiring to preserve it, some to destroy it. In such a time silence is dangerous, wherein liberty is ill given to, or ill taken by the adversaries of God's ordinance to publish their raw and undigested discourses; fraught with more malice than truth. But cantabunt cygni, cum graculi tacuerint.  
As for myself, I hope that I may make use of this public liberty, without offence (which I seek not) or danger (which I regard not) to speak a word for my Reverend Mother, the Church of England, and my Venerable Fathers, the Bishops thereof: for I may say with S. Jerome, in a cause ecclesiastical; Mori possum, tacere non possum. I pass a while under an unknown name; as some adversaries of Episcopacy do: the person is little to the matter: Res cum re, causa cum causa, ratio cum ratione concertet, as S. Augustine writeth.  
mean while know thus much of me unknown; that I have no dependence upon any Bishop; though there be one, singularly learned and truly religious, in that sacred Order, Cui debeo quicquid possum, & non possum (to use S. Hieromes' words) from whom yet, as from the rest, I expect nothing; being rich in my contentment, and private course of life; wherein though I enjoy little, yet I seek nothing more; but that the truth may have victory, the Church peace, and God the glory; Amen.  
Lond. May 31. 1641. Thy friend in Christ Peloni Almoni.   

A Compendious Discourse proving Episcopacy to be of apostolical and consequently of Divine Institution.  
It is a vanity to speak much of a little, and a difficulty to speak little of much; as in this copious argument of Episcopacy, which pleadeth descent from the blessed Apostles: to which purpose I might produce many proofs from Scripture, Antiquity, (Fathers, and Histories) from the most famous Divines of foreign Churches and our own; and finally from Reasons, depending upon the sacred oracles of God.  
But now, in this latitude of matter, to avoid longitude of discourse, I have confined myself especially to one important Testimony; one in stead of many, or of all: in pursuit, explication, and defence whereof, I shall have occasion, fairly presented unto me, to reflect a little upon those other grounds: and so out of all, to give as plentiful satisfaction upon this point as it doth require, or so compendious a discourse can permit.  
Understand then, you that are ignorant, or remember you that are learned, that S. Irenaus confuteth the Marcionites, and Valentinians (leaden heretics in that golden age) by a double probation: first out of the holy Scriptures, and then by apostolical Tradition; not in the Popish sense of an unwritten word, but in an orthodoxal sense of the doctrine preached by the Apostles, and by them, planted in the Churches which is also in the written word: the same descending from the time of the Apostles unto the time of Irenaeus himself.  
To this end and purpose, he first 
Lib. 3. cap. 3.  produceth the Church of Rome; then most famous in the world, as instructed by S. Peter and S. Paul, who as he conceiveth governed it jointly, and taught it fully in all the mysteries of Christian doctrine; which finally they watered with their own blood: from, and after whom (saith he) in a lineal succession Eleutherius, now the twelfth in order, possesseth the Episcopacy of the same.  
If any man doubt whether this Roman Episcopacy were of apostolical institution, or not, the substance of Irenaeus his discourse in that place will bear it well; to which I now remit the ingenuous Reader, because I make haste unto his subsequent discourse, which taketh away all doubt for first plantation of Episcopacy in the Church. For thus he writeth; Polycarp was not only taught by the Apostles, and conversed with many of them, who saw the Lord, but was also constituted, by the Apostles, BISHOP in Asia, and in the Church of Smyrna there; whom we also saw in our first age; being his Disciple, as S. Hierom [de viris illustr.].] doth record.  
This testimony is so clear and ponderous, that it may sufficiently determine the whole cause; if you consider the Person (who it is that speaketh) and the Matter, which he speaketh. But since nothing is so clear, which may not seem obscure, and nothing so ponderous, which may not seem light to a mind possessed with unreasonable prejudice, I will now further declare, & press this testimony of Irenaeus; fencing it also against all objections, which may be framed against it; or against our cause, which doth depend upon it.  
First, then, consider with me the author, or Relator rather, himself. Note his antiquity: he lived in the time of Eleutherius, the twelfth Bishop of Rome; upon the year of our Lord 
* Functius in Chronolog.  185. We have few Authors (grave and certain) now extant, who lived before his time; except Ignatius (whose 7. Epistles as they are his own, and approved for his by Vedelius, and are some of them lately cited by the adversaries of Episcopacy under his name; so they fully express the clear distinction of Bishops, Presbyters, and Deacons, in the first age of the Christian Church) and, after him, of Justinus Martyr, who, under the name of {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} (Governor, or perfect) doth well discover what Episcopacy was in the second age of the Church.  
Note then his quality. He was an holy man, a learned man, a peaceable man (as it may appear by his Epistles addressed unto victor, Bishop of the Church of Rome) a constant defendor of the truth, and finally a patient sufferer for the same. What is your exception against him? The late unworthy author of a book entitled, Of Reformation, &c. hath found some quarrel against him: but Fevardentius, in his apologetical preface (in the defence of Irenaeus) hath well answered such exceptions.  
Howbeit, whatsoever errors, (more, or fewer; greater, or lesser) Irenaeus had, or had not; it is nothing to the point now in question: for if he erred, it was in a point dogmatic: we are now upon a point historical, viz. Whether this relation of Irenaeus, concerning the Episcopacy of Polycarpus, which he received from the Apostles, be true, or not? Wherein he had information immediately from Polycarp himself and the whole Church of Smyrna, wherein he lived. Who will, who can who dareth say that Irenaeus hath lied in this report? He knew Polycarp very well, and knew undoubtedly that his episcopal office was derived from the Apostles: why should this relation seem incredible unto you?  
The Scriptures themselves inform us so much: For, when S. John writeth to the angel of the Church of Smyrna; who is this angel? Polycarp: So the concordance of Scriptures, and histories; so the judgement of many learned men (& some protestants) do inform us. And why is Polycarp here an angel? because he is praepositus Ecclesiae, the governor or Bishop of the Church: many Presbyters being therein, but he, in title distinct from them, and in power, superior to them; as we may clearly collect out of S. Augustine; epist. 162. where first he showeth and proveth, that under the name of Angels, are not understood celestial Angels in these 7. Churches (as Origen, and some others following him, did conceive) and then, particularly for the angel of Ephesus, he saith afterward, that he is praepositus Ecclesiae, the governor of the Church; Now since we read of many Presbyters in Ephesus, Act. 20. 28. and here of one angel in it, he must needs be a person, in place, and office, as well as name, distinguished from the common Presbyters of the Church: as Epiphanius (more ancient than Aug.) doth hence collect and constantly affirm, Haeres. 25.  
This explication is confirmed by our best Divines; as namely by venerable Bullinger, conc. 9 in Apocal. saying, An heavenly Epistle is destinated to the angel of the Church of Smyrna. Now histories do testify, that the Angel, or pastor of this Church was Polycarp; ordained a Bishop by the Apostles, even by John himself. To him I conjoin worthy Marlorat, saying that in Apoc. 2. 1, John doth not set upon the people, but upon principem Cleri, utique Episcopum: the Bishop, Prince, or chief of the Clergy (Presbyters and Deacons) in that Church. To both them I add the famous Clerk, David Pareus; who dareth not say (though some do) that Timothy was then the angel, but denieth not that we was sometimes the angel, or Bishop there: and therefore he putteth there this question in the margin; Was Timothy Bishop of the Ephesine Church at that time? He saith tunc, then: he saith not unquam, at any time: which is a plain concession, that, in his judgement, Timothy was sometimes (as indeed he was) the Bishop of that Church. Also in Apocal. 3. 1. he confesseth ingenuously (upon evidence of the text) that, under the name of angel there, is to be understood ANTISTES, the chief, the Prelate, the Bishop of the Church.  
Which resolution of ancient and modern Divines (to which I add the judgement of the great Divine D. Rainolds; Confer. with Hart. cap. 8. divis. 3:) is confirmed by the perspicuous evidence of undeniable reason: for, in the Church of Ephesus (and so in the rest) why is one man (where many Presbyters were) called an angel specially, but for his special eminency above the rest? And why was the succession of one man to one observed in Histories, and registered in the Diptycha of the Church, rather than of many to many? As here, in the Church of Ephesus, of Smyrna and the rest, one man singularly is remembered: and why one, if this one man did not, in dignity of his place and office therein, excel the' common Presbyters, as their governor and perfect, placed over these Presbyters by the holy Apostles?  
To this effect speaketh Leontius, B. of Magnesia in the council of Chalcedon, Act. 11. amongst 630. Bishops, that Memnon, then B. of Ephesus was the 27. Bishop in succession from and after Timothy, as being the first Bishop of that Church. For as the subscription of the second Epistle of S. Paul to Timothy doth directly bear it; so we have a clear attestation to it from Eusebius, l. 3. c. 4. Epiphanius, har●s. 75. Chrysostom; praf●. in 1. ad Timoth, & homil. 1. in Epist. id Philip Jerome, de viris illustr.. 
* Anno D. 540.  Primasius, paefrat. in 1 ep. ad Timoth. To all which (and others) I may add Oecumenius, who lived in the year 1080. as also Tertullian, who intimateth this truth sufficiently in his book of Prescriptions, cap. 36, and finally S. Ambrose, praefat. in 1. epist. ad Timoth. but that I esteem the author to be a counterfeit, whom yet I conceive to be very ancient.  
Finally then, to end this point; Irenaeus hath now related no more touching Polycarps Episcopacy, than is warrantable by Scriptures, Fathers, Historians, and our own Divines. I end therefore with Jerome, ep. 85. affirming that the Apostles, by their tradition did institute Bishops, Presbyters, and Deacons in the new Testament, looking unto the answerable degrees of the High priest, the inferior Priests and Levites in the old; and telling us, in his exposition of Psal 45. 16. that Bishops are there foretold; as Aug. also doth himself conceive.  
To that ancient Jerome, I add a latter, viz. the most learned Zanchius, confessing fairly and truly [Miscellan. t. 2. d● primatu papae, p. 193. impres. Neostad●i in 4. Anno D. 1608.] that, in the Church, FIRST Presbyters only were. SECONDLY, saith he, additi Episcopi, idque Apostolorum temporibus; Bishops were added [as being in degree, place and office distinct from Presbyters] and that also was done in the Apostles times. If in their times, then by their means, as any rational man may thereupon conclude. For, who durst institute Bishops in their times, without their direction? where, in Scripture, or history, do they impugn this institution? And if they made not this institution; who made it? What council; general, or provincial? when? where? produce any evidence of probable truth (I say not certain) in this behalf.  
And thus having justified the relation of Irenaeus, concerning the Episcopacy of Polycarp, to which the Apostles (and particularly S. John did advance him) I proceed to some other poor exceptions against the aforesaid testimony, which need not so large a discussion, as the former; that being the very substance and centre of our whole discourse.  
A second exception is, that, perhaps this place hath been forged or corrupted. But this objection is of no force, or value. For as this place now standeth in Irenaeus, so it stood, word for word, in the time of Eusebius, upon the year 330. who hath thence transcribed it into his ecclesiastical history, lib. 9 c. 14. This is an old device of heretics to say that the place is corrupted, when they cannot ●nswer it; as S. Augustine observeth, Confes. lib. 5. c. 11.  
A third exception is, that Irenaeus was himself a Bishop, and so not a competent witness in such a case. Shall then so holy a person be rejected as a liar? writing otherwise then he saw or heard? This were a desperate evasion, and contemptible; yet followed by the adversaries of Episcopacy, charging the Fathers as partial in their own cause. But were they not the principal writers? yet not the only: for Tertullian and Jerome were Presbyters only (and not Bishops) whose judgement and testimony I will not decline in this cause. Thus our English Divines are rejected, as being Bishops, or affecting Episcopacy, and so their own Judges. Say what you please; yet I will conclude this passage with the public protestation of that learned and holy man, D. John White, in his Sermon at Paul's cross, March 24. 1615. I protest before God and man; it amazeth me to see such, as can read either scripture, or Antiquity to carp at it [Episcopacy] when the Christian world, for 1400. years after Christ, never saw any other government, &c.  
A fourth exception is, that Polycarp was no Lord Bishop; he had no civil dignity, no temporal power, &c. and therefore very different from the Bishops of our Church.  
Truly said, but to little or no purpose. The Christian Church and temporal State were then divided; and the first was persecuted by the second, till glorious Constantine obtained the imperial diadem, upon the year 316. Afterwards by favour of the Emperor, and other Princes, civil dignity, and temporal power were annexed to episcopal places, the Church and State being now united together.  
I say therefore, FIRST, that Bishops, for three centuries, had no such dignity and power: they were Bishops without it then, and may be Bishops without it. now. SECONDLY, that, as the State, for good reasons gave it so, for good reasons (such as may be, not such as are) may take it away; but Episcopacy itself, which God gave, no man may take away. Solomon might exclude Abiathar from his Priesthood, but the Priesthood he could not dissolve. I speak not now of absolute power, but lawful power in the State; for id possumus, quod jure possumus, & no more. THIRDLY, that temporal power, annexed to episcopal function, may not only adorn it, but strengthen it, for the benefit of Church, and Common wealth. Fourthly, that Bishops are capable of this dignity, and power; as Zanchius observeth well, Epist. tom. 1. ad Ioh. Stuckium; saying, that, since in the old Testament, one man [the High priest] exercised both powers (Spiritual and temporal) Non ergo per se pugnant; these two therefore [to be a Bishop and a civil Potentate] do not, of themselves, the one oppugn the other, but may both concur in one person: and then addeth, that, in writing the Confession of his Faith (upon occasion whereof this question did arise) he was to have a regard of those Reformed Churches, wherein many [as Bishops in England] have a temporal power conjoined with their spiritual office. FIFTLY, and lastly, I demand of the adversaries of Episcopacy: If Bishops shall be excluded from civil dignity temporal power, &c. will you rest so content? & shall our Bishops yet retain their spiritual office of superiority over Presbyters, with such authority in the Church, as Christian Bishops did obtain, and exercise therein, from and in the apostolical times, and in the succeeding ages of the primitive Church? No, but you would cast them wholly out of the Church, or leave them an empty title without a real office; which, in the perpetual discourse of all ages, they have enjoyed in the universal Church.  
To conclude: if malice in some did not envy their honour, and avarice in others their estates, this exception were easily answered: but howsoever it be, Bishops they are lawfully with both, and Bishops they may be truly without either.  
A fift exception is, that Polycarp (as also Ignatius and other Bishops; such as they were) might perhaps have a priority of place before Presbyters, but not a superiority of power above them.  
A weak pretence against the known testimony, and certain experience of all ages, for proof whereof, I remit you unto S. Jerome (the supposed adversary of Bishops) who in the very place, so often produced against Episcopacy, [viz, in Tit. 1. 5.] saith that the Bishop was suprapositus, placed above the Presbyters of his Church. This is more, than he said, Epist. 85. that he was praepositus, which perhaps you will render in English; placed before them) though, in truth, it be no less.  
And to make all clear in this point, he saith yet further, Contra Luciferianos, cap. 4. The safety of the Church dependeth upon the dignity of the Bishop. Unless an eminent, and peerless power be given to him by all men, there will be as many schisms as Priests, in the Church. Whereupon it is, that in his instructions to Nepotianus, he saith very well; What Aaron and his sons once were, that we must know Bishops and Presbyters now are: viz. in distinction, office, and degree, and whence it is that, as in S. Ignatius first, so in other authors afterward, through all ages of the Christian Church Bishops, Presbyters, and Deacons are three distinct kinds in office, and degree; the first above the second, and the second above the third: and not weekly, monthly, yearly Bishops, Presbyters, and Deacons; but perpetually, during the time of their lives.  
The SIXT and last exception is yet more important, for you will say (as some have said) that they, who in the third chapter, are called Bishops by Irenaeus, are in the second chapter called Presbyters; and so Polycarp, though called here a Bishop, is but a Presbyter; since Presbyters also are so called, Act. 20. 28. Phil. 1. 1. &c.  
I answer. It is true; these Bishops here are called Presbyters before: but how? with an evident distinction from common Presbyters: for when Irenaeus, from Peter and Paul, reckoneth a succession of 12. Bishops in the Church of Rome; I demand: had these Bishops no certain distinction from other Presbyters in that Church? I showed before that their personal and lineal succession is observed by Irenaeus, and others: why? because they had a real difference from all the Presbyters therein.  
This point is cleared by many evidences; amongst which, for brevity sake, I produce the 
* Cyprian ep. 31. e. lit. 1. Pam●lii.  Epistle of the Presbyters and Deacons of the Roman Church, written to S. Cyprian (upon the year 252.) wherein they say, that FABIAN their late Bishop [the 19 in that place] was lately put to death; and that for the difficulty of the times, another Bishop was not yet constituted; who might moderate the affairs of the Church, and by his authority and counsel, might take care of such as were fallen in the time of persecution.  
I argue then, As Fabian lately was, and his successor shortly must be, in a distinct place of government above the Presbyters of Rome, so was Eleutharius (and so were his predecessors before) a BISHOP in higher place, of greater power, above other Presbyters in the Roman Church.  
For conclusion therefore of this point; I pray you, in all candour and ingenuity, to consider with me, that, though Presbyters, in the beginning (when as yet they had no Bishop over them) were called, and might be truly called Bishops (that is to say, overseers; for they did, then under the Apostles, oversec the Church, for a little time) yet, when the care of the whole Church came peculiarly to the Bishop (as Jerome saith in Tit. 1. 5.) this name was peculiarly attributed unto him, and not communicated unto them: witness the same S. Hierom et. 85. where by particular instance, he maketh the election of Bishops in the Church of Alexandria, and saith; that from Mark the Evangelist unto Heraclas and Dionysius, the Presbyters electing one of their company and placing him in a higher degree [note that by the way] called him their BISHOP. So that here the name of a Bishop (by good authority, and for good reason) once common to all the Presbyters, is now proper unto that Presbyter, who was placed in an higher degree above the rest; which Calvin also hath well observed; Inst. l. 4. c. 4. sect. 1. & 2. saying that in the old Church, the title of Bishop was specially given to one Presbyter: chosen out of the number of many.  
To conclude then; you shall find sometimes in Antiquity, that a Bishop is called a Presbyter: but can you find that anywhere a Presbyter is called a Bishop? I am no stranger in the counsels, Fathers, and Histories, (in which course of studies being now 62. years old, I have spent a moiety of my age) & yet I can remember no such thing: and were a Presbyter so called, it were rather by force of the word, (which importeth overseeing) then by propriety of speech; since, in ecclesiastical use, the name of Bishop is appropriated to him, who hath a general overfight (for the Clergy and Laity) in his own diocese or precinct.  
Finally then, as the High priest in the law is sometimes styled simply by the name of the Priest, but yet was above other Priests in the old Testament, so a Bishop is sometimes styled by the name of a Presbyter, but yet is above other Presbyters in the new.  

A Conclusion.  
Thus, at the length, having cleared the testimony of Irenaeus, touching the Episcopacy of Polycarp (committed unto him by the holy Apostles, and particularly by S. John) from all exceptions (as I conceive) which some adversaries of Episcopacy have taken, and some may take against it, I thus conclude my whole discourse, and bring it to the present purpose; viz. A Bishop, in the Church of England, doth not unjustly usurp an office therein by human institution, but doth justly possess it by 
* The exercise and execution of his office, in this or that place, a Bishop hath by the favour of the Prince.  divine right; notwithstanding all malicious scoffs, and unlearned cavils, against so ancient, so venerable, so necessary an Office in the Church of God.  
Now if any man shall except against this discourse, as prejudicial to some Reformed Churches, I answer, that my care hath been to justify ours, but my desire was not to impugn theirs: and that I am as tenderly affected to retain communion with the ancient and universal Church, as with any later, and particular Church: though in the truth, and for the truth, I love and embrace all Reformed Churches, for which I have a more copious defence, which may ensue hereafter; this discourse being only the prodromus, or forerunner of a more ample Treatise, which I have composed to maintain Episcopacy; under which I live in peace, and without which I cannot live with comfort.   
FINIS.