ΕΛΕΥΘΕΡΩΣΙΣ ΤΗΣ Αληθειασ. Truth ASSERTED BY THE DOCTRINE AND Practice of the Apostles, seconded by the Testimony of Synods, Fathers, and Doctors, from the Apostles to this Day. Viz. That episcopacy is Iure Divino. BY Sir Francis Wortley Knight and Baronet. LONDON Printed by A. N. for I. K. and T. W. and are to be sold at the White Horse in Paul's churchyard. 1641. To the most High and Illustrious Charles Prince of GREAT BRITAIN. SIR, YOu set back the Clock of my age and make it dayspring, when it is past the mid noon of my life. I court my fancy in my observations of you. My first Love, my first Master, your uncle Prince Henry, whose name is, and ever must be sacred to Mars and the Muses, whose memory is still precious to the World, justly was the rival and competitor to Honour, with your glorious grandsire Henry the Great, of France the greatest. In you dear Sir I find the Character of them both, as if you were sole heir to both; and it joys my soul to see it. I had the Honour to gird the first sword about you, with this wish, that you might use it in peace, like our Northern Solomon King James, and drawn, as that Boanerges the son of Thunder, the glory of France, your Grandfather. When your Father (whose goodness makes him glorious) shall be gathered to his Fathers, his Titles must as your Birthright descend on you; amongst the rest that which is {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, Defender of the faith. This, as it is well worthy observation, was given by him who they say could not err in Cathedra, plenario Consistorio & pleno Concilio, to him who as some of his Successors say even in that gave him the lie, who gave him the title; 'tis true 'twas an unkind requital, but there was Digitus Dei in it, for it was like the selling of Joseph into Egypt, faelix scelus in eventu, guided by that hand which cannot err. It was a work of great and high daring, a voyage wherein many of his predecessors had suffered shipwreck, and Sir Walter Raleigh observes the work suited the man, and the man was made for the work: as Nebuchadonezar was for Tyre. Sure it is strange that out of the ruins of good works faith should spring, & disorder set all the Church in order, Sed Deus est qui fecit, & est mirum in occulis nostris. Sir, the Title is the most glorious your royal father hath, and his Second is, that he is the best Friend living. It was a promise of the Prophets, that Kings should be Nursing Fathers, and Queen's Nursing Mothers to the Church. And believe me Sir, the words are emphatical, for the father's wisdom and power should provide for the child ad extra, the mother's care ad intra; The fathers is and should be protegendo, instruendo, promovendo, corrigendo; The mothers in her economics pro victu & amictu, Necessaries and Decency, and all with a▪ Nurses affection. And I am so much Irish, that as they love, the Children the Nurse, and the Children their Nurses, and foster brothers as much or more than their own: such mutual love wish I betwixt the Prince and the Church, and as that habit is acquired partly, and partly infused, So may God infuse that into your heart, and by many mutual reciprocal actions may it become habitual. So shall the Church be happy in future, and you shall be glorious in your timely reign, and blessed in your Succession, as your Father is in you, and the Prayers of the Church attracted as the Dew and Exhalations, by the glory and heat of the sun above, shall be returned in rich showers of blessing upon you and yours. Poets are Prophets, or at least would be; If I be one this is my prophecy: Your name's no stranger to the imperial seat, Our turn comes next, we must have Charles the Great. Your highnesses most humble servant, FRANCIS WORTLEY. To the well affected Reader, or otherwise. PRuning and reformation I allow, but eradication and deformation I tremble to hear of, and hope never to see. God forbid that personal errors should destroy an Institution so ancient & sealed with the blood of so many blessed martyrs. Though Judas die in the consciousness of his treason, yet an other must succeed him in his bishopric. As an obedient son to my mother the Church I wish her honour, and happiness to the Common weal, as a member of it; and that these two as mercy and Truth may kiss each other, and in their unity make the Soul and body, the King and his people happy, so shall our commonweal flourish, and our Church be glorious, and God even our own God shall bless us: Peace shall be within our Walls, & plenty within our palaces. I study Multum in parvo, and to put as much as I can into a little room, and hope to give satisfaction to such as are not more addicted to their wills then reason, if mine deceive me not. However I have discharged the duty I owe my conscience, and hope to find the benefit of that, which is all I look for, and is sufficient to arm me against the obloquies or misconstructions of those, whose hearts are full of that, which their tongues must utter, or their hearts will break with their Plerophory▪ I protest I have no end in it but God's glory & the discharge of my own studied thoughts, & have therein conquered my inclination by the assistance of my reason grounded upon much more pains than the World holds me guilty of. And thus satisfied I would not that succeeding ages should find my name amongst those who consented to eradicate episcopacy. For my part I had rather suffer the censure of the malevolent then to be thought to consent to that which my conscience approves not. If this excuse me for my writing, I am glad, If not, I have pleased myself in discharge of my troubled thoughts and conscience. ΕΛΕΥΘΕΡΩΣΙΣ ΤΗΣ Αληθειασ. Truth asserted, by the practice of the Apostles, confirmed by the testimony of Synods, Fathers, and Doctors from Christ's time to this day. IN Discourses rhetorical men desire to show the power of Nature improved by Art, which we call Eloquence: in logical Disputes, the quickness of apprehension, and the improvement of judgement. The one often makes a difference betwixt subtleties, and attempts to puzzle Reason: The other rightly employed defines and settles a Truth obscured by different falsities. In matters of Faith we lay aside reason, and yield to Scriptures truth, as other faculties of the body do to their informer the rational soul, and as young Scholars to their Ipse dixit. We believe therefore what neither sense nor reason can make us to conceive. I believe the Scripture to be the sacred Word of God: and what truth I find therein, I conceive it to be Iure Divino. My reason, I confess, is bound, and yields in the point of episcopacy, that it is Iure Divino, because I find for it so many ipse dixit's in sacred Writ. My judgement also is further strengthened therein by Reasons sufficient to settle human belief. Opinion, we define, Haerens & dubia deveritate quorumvis in animo praesumptio; A questionable and doubtful presuming in one's conceit that a matter is true; And Cognitio est rerum conceptarum per experientiam scientia; Knowledge is a sure apprehension of the matters which we conceive by experience of their causes and undoubted grounds of truth; And Resolution is Dubii depositio, the abandoning of all doubting. I am past opinion, and acknowledge myself satisfied, and well resolved, that episcopacy is Iure Divino: and am ready to give an account thereof: and endeavour so to do in this Discourse. I will not {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, withstand and resist, or seek evasions, or subtle answers to elude God's Truth. Nor do I love {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} to be in suspense: having well weighed the truth here asserted, I find cause to say {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, Great is the force of truth, and hath prevailed. To satisfy the World, what reason I have of this my confidence, I leave a Testimony thereof in this my discourse. I define Episcopum Presbyterum cum additamento superioritatis quoad regimen in Ecclesia: A Bishop to be a Presbyter, having an addition of superiority for the government of God's Church: his charge is to oversee the clergy, and their flocks. The word I confess in a large signification may be taken for a Major of a city: for he is overseer thereof: In Homer Ajex is, {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, the Bishop or Orderer of his Army: But our Episcopus est Cleri & Gregis in sua Dioecesi, Is overseer of his clergy, and his flock, bounded within his own diocese. He is also called Presbyter an ancient, and therefore experienced and able to inform and direct. As for the inferior Presbyter or ancient, and Diaconus Minister or Servant, they are distinct and subordinate to the Bishop or superior Presbyter, both in the New Testament, and in the practice of the first century, and in all Ages even to this day. Let it not stumble any man that the Apostles sometimes term themselves and Bishops by the title of Presbyters, they call themselves also Diaconos, Deacons, in a general notion. Our Presbyterians would have Bishops to be Pastores jure divine Praesides jure Ecclesiastico, Principes jure humano & Diabolico, Pastors by God's Law, precedents by ecclesiastical Law, Lords by human and diabolical law. How faulty this assertion is, let my following Discourse testify. Our Bishop is a Presbyter or ancient pastor set in eminent superiority over the clergy and their flocks with a relation to the government of them in matters ecclesiastical. And such I say the Apostles instituted, and to them gave a charge how to demean themselves. A perpetual Succession hereof by practice hath continued from Christ's Apostles to this day. Now for Ius divinum, I take that to be of Divine Right which is warranted in sacred Scripture de credendis & agendis in matters to be believed or done. Let this serve for the present, it will be more enlarged occasionally in some part of this treatise. Only here I add, that {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} the practice of the Apostles, which never was questioned or excepted against, and is recorded in the canonical Scripture; hath in it Ius Divinum, and shows what is of divine right defacto. These things▪ being premised, I proceed to Objections Object. against my Assertion, and answer unto each of them particularly. Eminent superiority, & Lordly authority over their people is that which the Lords of the Gentiles may & do challenge & practice, as their due, Iure human●, by human right. Therefore, {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, by law of things opposite, eminent superiority and Lordly authority over the clergy & the people of God is that which Bishops ought not to challenge or practice Iure Divino. For proof hereof see Mat. 20. 25. 26. The Princes of the Gentiles Dominantur, Lordly rule over them, but you non sic, not so, or, it shall not be so with you. And 1. Pet. 5. 2. 3. Feed the flock of the Lord taking the oversight thereof not by constraint, but willingly, not for filthy Lucre, but of a ready mind, neither as being Lords over God's Heritage. To this I answer, that the measure of domination, Answ. not the matter lies in the word [sic] and so is expounded by the words aforegoing, not by constraint, but willingly, not churlishly or covetously, not as though ye were Lords domineering over them, but that ye may be ensamples to the flock. Non herile aut Regale imperium exercentes, sed pastorali superioritate, & paterna gubernatione utentes, Not exercising a masterlike or Kingly command, but using a pastoral superiority and fatherly government. And so this rather (as I conceive) confirms superiority and Episcopacy than destroys them. For the word sic, so, takes not away the legality, but qualifies the power given, by saying, let it be used sic, so. This I prove to be the meaning of the Apostle by this argument. The practice of the Apostles is not contrary to Christ's and their Doctrine, and the sense thereof: But the Apostles did practise eminent superiority, and such lawful authority as Christ forbids not, over the clergy and flock, and instituted successors. Therefore their doctrine allowed the same. And so that cannot be meant by the words above, which is pretended: viz. that there should be a parity in the clergy, and that episcopacy is Dominium in Clerum, a Lordly rule over the clergy, and {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} an usurped authority. The successors which they instituted are warranted by Christ, when he said, I am with you to the end of the world: that is, I am with you, whilst you live, and with successors in your stead governing and teaching the Church to the world's end. Hence it was that the Apostles ordained Bishops to succeed them, so did the ancient Fathers in the purer times. This course continued ever since. The practice of the Apostles was in a superiority above others of the clergy: and to the Bishops whom they constituted to succeed themselves in place over the clergy, they gave a superior authority: neither did they either practice, or ever mention that parity in power, which the presbyterians so much endeavour to introduce. And therefore the Apostles never understood the words as these men do, viz. that they should disallow of Bishops in superior authority above other of the clergy. To make the practice of the Apostles more evident, I appeal to Saint Paul, who gave to Timothy and Titus episcopal power. To the one in Ephesus, to the other in Crect. Now to clear this, let us first cleanse the spring head, and then the streams will run clear down to the after times. I have to his end above defined Episcopum a Bishop: if we observe what he is, than shall we evidently see, whether Saint▪ Paul did institute such a calling or no. Of civil Bishops I speak not: but of spiritual. A Bishop of this kind I defined to be Presbyterum cum additamento superioritatis quoad regimen in Ecclesia: he governs the clergy and their flocks in spiritual matters. Bishops of this Kind Saint Paul did institute. He made Timothy and Titus Episcopos Cleri & Gregis quoad regimen in Ecclesia, Bishops of the clergy and their flocks, and to have ecclesiastical government over them: whereas before they were but Presbyters, or Disciples brought up under him. By this institution were other Presbyters made subordinate to them in governing and teaching the Church. Which to prove I thus argue. He that is ordained, and so ordained that he hath power Constituere Presbyteres per civitates, to ordain presbyters in every City, is greater than those, who have no such power in their Cities or Churches: and those who may correct, what is defective, are superior to those for whom matters defective are corrected. But Titus and Timothy had such power given them, and did so correct things defective, and none of the Presbyters had the same from the Apostles. Therefore I conclude undeniably that Titus and Timothy were superiors as Bishops over their Presbyters in their several charges and Divisions, viz▪ Titus in Crect, and Timothy in Ephesus. That they had this power given them by Paul appears 1. Tim. 5. 22. Lay hands suddenly on no man. Tit. 1. 5. For this cause I left thee in Crect, that thou shouldst set in order things which are wanting, and ordain Elders in every City, as I had appointed thee. If any other in these Churches could have ordained Presbyters, why was Timothy sent to Ephesus, and Titus left at Crect for this very purpose. And if the Cretians and their Presbyters could have set in order things defective, what need was there that Tit. alone should have this commission. Saint Jerom himself, who was accounted no great friend, but rather harsh against episcopacy, in his Epistle to Evagrius, pag. 329. gives us this as a distinction, {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, remarkable betwixt a Presbyter and a Bishop, saying, Quid facit excepta ordinatione Episcopus, quod non facit Presbyter? What doth a Bishop, except the ordaining of others, which a Presbyter doth not? And it is worth the observation that the ancient Father and great Champion for the blessed Trinity Athanasius hath in his second apology, viz. that Colythus a Presbyter of the Church of Alexandria had constituted Presbyters, but what became of them? Rescissa est haec ejus ordinatio, & omnes ab eo constituti in laicorum ordinem redacti fuere, The ordaining of others by him, was made invalid, and they who were ordained by him, were degraded and made laics. So than you see that Bishops are in this eminenter superiores Presbyteris, eminently superior to Presbyters, having power affirmative and negative by the opinion and practice of the ancient Fathers. This confirms what the Apostles had taught & practised, and appointed others in place above the ordinary Presbyters to do. Now I come to show a second difference betwixt a Bishop and a Presbyter, and wherein a Bishop hath, eminentem superioritatem, a clear superiority above a Presbyter, That is, excommunication, and was called Mucro Episcopalis, the episcopal weapon, and was a power given to Bishops successors of the Apostles, and was ever practised by them. This appears in that an account of it was and is expected at their hands, as is manifested by the quarrel, which our blessed Saviour had against the angel of the Church of Pergamus, namely, that he suffered some of his Church who held the doctrine of the Nicolaitans; and against the angel of the Church of Thyatira, viz. That he suffered the woman Jezabell to teach and seduce the people. By this it is apparent that Christ expected they should do, what they had by their places power to do; namely, that they being angels of their Churches (whom I affirm to be also Bishops thereof, and successors to the Apostles, as is sufficiently proved by the most reverend and learned Archbishop of Armach, and by Beza himself called {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, men in place above others) should haereticos coercere & ex Ecclesia ejicere, keep under heretics and cast them out of the Church. If here it be objected, that we must▪ not argue Object. from dark and mystical places of Scripture, such Answ. as the Apocalypse. I answer, that I argue from a plain place, and from the plain words, and direct scope of the place, & not the mystical sense or interpretation. Neither can we here admit of that distinction, that Angelus is in this place to be taken collectively pro tota Ecclesia, for the whole Church. For I conceive that there is not a word in the Scripture, but hath its weight: and was it not as easy to have said [Ecclesiae] as [Angelo Ecclesiae] if [Angelus] had not something more in it then [Ecclesiae.] And why not Angelus Ecclesi●, but Angelus Ecclesiae, The angel the Church, but the angel of the Church, if it had been to be taken collectively? But the terms be distinct and of a different force, like those, panis Domini, the bread of the Lord, and panis Dominus, bread representing the Lord. Besides, to return to Timothy and Titus, they are enjoined to command others {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} not to teach other doctrine, and obturare ora deceptorum, & haereticos rejicere, to stop the mouths of deceivers, and to reject heretics. These things were commanded them, and an account accordingly expected of the performance thereof: which manifestly proves that every Church had his Angelum, who had episcopal authority and jurisdiction eminent above other inferior clergymen: And not many Angels in each of these Churches all of equal authority and place. Or at least the angel in each of the seven churches was so absolute in his power, that he was {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, chief governor, the Presbyters assistants to him: he a spiritual Justicer and of the Quorum, they of the counsel. The difference also of Episcopal authority from that of Presbyters appears, in the cause of excommunication: where there was an appeal to the Synods, which either confirmed them, or dissolved them, but none to the people, none to the presbyters. This is confirmed by the ancient council at Nice Can. 5. and at Antioch Can. 6. And Jerom himself writing to Riparius concerning Vigilantius an heretical Presbyter, is angry that the Bishop under whom he was, did acquiescere eius furori, & non virga Apostolica, virgaque ferreavas inutile confringere, & tradere ad interitum carnis, ut spiritus salvu● fiat, Did quietly give way to his fury, & not rather break in pieces that unprofitable vessel with his Apostolic staff and rod of iron, and deliver him up to the destruction of the flesh, that his soul might be saved. And it seems strange to me that any should think, that our blessed Saviour his Excecutors, Administrators, and assigns knew not the meaning of his will and Testament, as well, as we in these days. Christ who ascending into Heaven gave gifts unto many, would not deny this gift so necessary. He, I say, giving supereminent gifts to his Apostles ad fundandam Ecclesiam, for the founding his Church, would not deny to their successors those, which were necessary Ecclesiae fundatae, to the Church being founded: and so necessary that nothing more concerneth the Church. Would he not, or could he not inform his trusties how he pleased to have his Church his household governed in his absence? To say he would not, is derogatory to his wisdom and goodness; to say he could not, to his Almighty and sovereign power. I therefore conclude these 2. points. 1 That Ordination of Presbyters was left to Titus and Timothy, as to men of higher place and authority, and not to the Presbyters who were of inferior degree. 2 That the power, given to the angels of Ephesus and the other Churches, puts a difference of superiority and eminence betwixt a Bishop, and an ordinary Presbyter, and others the teachers of the Churches, and gives them commission prae caeteris tam Clericis quam Laicis, above others both clergy and Laity, yea a coercive and castigative power. Further they object and say. That episcopacy Object. 2. is not Iure Divino, because Christ did not command it in the gospel. To this I answer. That Ius Divinum aliter se Answ. habet in rebus credendis, aliter in agendis; aliter in rebus fidei, aliter in rebus facti, There is a difference of Divine right between matters to be believed, and matters to be done; betwixt matters of faith, and matters of fact. In matters of faith there must be textus manifestus, aut convincens deductio, a clear text, or a sound consequence. As for example. In the beginning God made all things. Here is textus manifestus. But there is only convincens deductio, concerning the mystery of the blessed Trinity: for the Trinity is proved not by an express Text, but by convincing deductions out of sacred Scriptures; as thus. There came down at the baptism of Christ the Holy Spirit in the form of a Dove, and a voice was heard saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. Here we find the Spirit in the form of a Dove: There is heard a voice: And Christ is seen in the water. We know both by the sacred Scriptures and by the light of nature, that there is but one God: and that from one all things are, and that in one they terminate: and that there is aliud medium copulans primum & ultimum, one between both coupling the first and the last. Seeing also we read that there is a Father, a Son, and a Spirit, and that there is but one God, we hence infer by necessary deduction, that there are three persons and but one God. Besides this deduction is further confirmed by that place {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, These three are one: which in some sort is textus manifestus, a clear text. Now a matter of fact may be inferred to be Iure Divino (as I suppose) if I prove, 1 That the same fact was the practice of the Apostles. 2 That it is analogical to the institution of the Church of the Jews, which was settled according to God's appointment by the mediation of Angels, by the ministry of Moses and Aaron. 3 That it is pointed at and insinuated in the New Testament. 4 That it hath successively continued since the Apostles time. And as elsewhere, so particularly in Britain. If these points can be proved concerning the fact (viz. Government by Bishops) in question, I hope that none will deny it to be Iure Divino. Now for proof and confirmation of my Tenent, That episcopacy is Iure Divino, I will prove these points, and then say something more concerning the practice of some other Churches. 1 Saint Paul the Apostle and Doctor of the gentiles Of the first point. gave power and authority to Titus and Timothy ordinare dignos, to ordain men worthy, and to examine such as were faulty, to reprove and discharge such as were guilty, and did {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, teach other Doctrine, and were offensive to the honour of their callings, and to cherish such as did well. These things are evident in the Epistles of Paul to Timothy and of that to Titus. From Paul's practice of superiority over these two, and from the institution of Timothy and Titus to be Bishops, the one of Ephesus, the other at Crect, I prove episcopacy to be practised by the Apostles. To make which good thus I argue. If Saint Paul himself practised an eminent superiority, and in the Epistles alleged gave all that power, which of right Bishops challenge, or doth belong to the definition of a Bishop, to Timothy and Titus than Paul himself did not only practise episcopacy, but did also constitute and institute them Bishops. But verum prius, ergo & posterius. That he had {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, a bishopric as the other Apostles had, Act. 1. 20. & did diligently run his course therein, no man will deny. And that he gave power to Timothy and Titus (the same which himself had) 1 To ordain, 2 To convent, 3 To punish, 4 To reward duplici honore▪ with double honour, the Epistles alleged do sufficiently prove. Therefore Paul himself practised superiority, and constituted Timothy and Titus Bishops in place superior to Presbyters, whom they had authority to ordain, convent, punish, and reward. If they further object, That the Presbyters with Object. their President may do the same, even all things which are commanded Timothy and Titus, and therefore these things were spoken to Timothy and Titus and to their Presbyters collectively in the persons of Timothy and Titus. I answer, this is petere principium: this evasion I Answ. formerly took away. And now further I argue. Such as the charge is, such is the power: but the tharge is personal, that is, given to Timothy and Titus particularly; and therefore the power and authority given is personal: to them for their time, and to their successors in place after them; and not to them and the Presbytery collectively: nothing in places where such charge is given doth intimate the Presbyters or Deacons interposing themselves in these episcopal actions with Timothy and Titus. If they will have these privileges and performances to belong to their President, they must plead them due to him as he is successor to Timothy and Titus: and so he is in effect (if you give him continuance in his place) a Bishop indeed; the bare name of precedent cannot make him of a different calling from a Bishop, when as he acteth the part of a Bishop in all points by Saint Paul prescribed. The practice of all times, especially of the first Century warrants not a monthly or yearly precedent doing nothing for ordination, convention, punishment, & reward without the advice and consent of a company of Presbyters: but it allows Bishop's superiority to presbyters, and Presbyters to Deacons: Yea, it placed Bishops as successors to the Apostles, as were Timothy and Titus; and Presbyters and Deacons subordinat to Bishops, as to the Apostles, whilst they lived. Saint Ignatius the next Bishop to Evodius: he received episcopal charge from the Apostles: and writing to them at Antioch, when he was carried Epist. ad Antioch. prisoner to Rome, useth these words to the Laity, Obsequium praebete Presbyteris & diaconis, Be ye obedient to your Presbyters and Deacons, and addeth to the Presbyters, pascite gregem apud vos, done● Deus ostendit {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, feed the flock under you, until God show who shall be your governor: and hereby establisheth superiority to Bishops, and enjoineth the Presbyters obedience. The same Father in an Epistle to the Ephesians acknowledgeth onesimus (named often by Saint Paul) to be their Bishop, & exhorteth them saying, {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, as it becomes you submit yourselves to your Bishop's advice. Thus here we find Saint Paul's charge and ordination observed and followed by Ignatius, who lived in the first century, and whose worth and authority clouds of witnesses do confirm. In the same journey he writes to the Church of Smyrna and salutes their Bishop by name, and exhorteth the flock, {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, to follow their Bishop as Jesus Christ did his Father: and the Presbytery, as the Apostles. The Bishop here spoken of was Polycarpus, as Ireneus his successor affirms: with whom Ireneus was contemporaneus & multa accepit ab illo de Sancti Joannis vita & conversatione, contemporary, and by whom Ireneus was informed in many things concerning Saint John's life and conversation. In the life time of Trajan the Emperor, Saint John returning from his banishment out of Patmos, where he wrote his Revelation, summoned the seven Bishops, who are conceived to be those named in the Apocalypse the angels of the seven Churches, and used their ministry for settling and ordering his own Metropolis of Ephesus, and the other Churches in Asia, as the ancient Greek Records found in the Library of Photius testify. Concerning his apostolical superiority and practice of constitution and ordination of Bishops is frequent mention in Ireneus, Eusebius, and Ierom. So then, by that which hath been said, we see that episcopacy is {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, warranted by the practice of the Apostles, because that viventibus, videntibus, constituentibus, confirmantibus Apostolis & viris Apostolicis, patribus & Doctoribus testantibus, The Apostles and Apostolic men being alive, seeing it, appointing it, and confirming it, and the Fathers & Doctors being eye witnesses thereof, There were these three distinct degrees in the Clergy, Bishops, Presbyters, Deacons. Now to the second Point. That episcopacy is The second point. analogical to the institution and constitution of the Church government of the Jews in the old Testament: Which Moses as a Prince did establish by God's appointment in the wilderness, and which continued in force till the veil of the Temple was rent, and the Gentiles became heirs to Abraham, and the promises made to him, were made good to us his heirs by faith and adoption: Because the Jews, Abraham's heirs according to the flesh, by their own default & disobedience forfeited their interest in that conveyance of inheritance, which they claimed from their Father Abraham by the evidences registered in Moses and the Prophets. Episcopacy and subordination thereunto, I say, holds analogy and a kind of proportion with the Jewish Church government. For God in it appointed an High Priest, Priests and Levites subordinate one to the other, Such is the subordination of the three degrees in the clergy in the new Testament Church. This subordination of the Christian Church Saint Jerom near the end of his Epistle to Evagrius observes, and▪ says, Scimus traditiones Apostolorum sumptas de veteri Testamento. Quod Aaron & filii ejus atque Levitae in Templo fuere, hoc Episcopi, Presbyteri & Diaconi sibi vendicant in Ecclesia, scil▪ Christiana. The orders delivered to the Church by the Apostles, were taken out of the old Testament. The same subordination which was seen in Aaron, his sons, and the Levites, now appears in the Christian Church, in our Bishops, Presbyters, and Deacons. This proportion is made undeniable by Saint Jude, who chargeth some with the gainsaying of Koreth. Now there can be no gainsaying like that of Koreh in the Christian Church, except there be distinction & subordination of superiors and inferiors in the clergy, as there was: and was gainsaid by Koreh and his complices, desirous of superior honour, and of higher degrees and places, than they had a calling unto. Here than you see that God would have a proportion of Church-government betwixt the Old and New Testament. It is further worthy the observation that both the Church and commonwealth of the Jews had in their government a kind of proportion established by God. For as the Church was monarchical in Moses, aristocratical in some select Priests and Levites governing under Aaron, and democratical in the rest of the Priests and Levites: So was the commonwealth monarchical in Moses, aristocratical in some select Princes of each Tribe governing under Moses, and democratical in the rest, and in the whole body of the people. Such is the proportion betwixt our Church and commonwealth, and such hath it been from the first foundation. This will, I hope, appear, when I come to speak of the succession in our Church. And what kind of government thus suitable to that of the Jews, is in any one Church, may be in all Churches: namely, all degrees of men subordinate to their Princes, and all the Princes or Kings subordinate to Christ, without having any King on earth Head over the rest: as all degrees of men in the Churches were subordinate to the Apostles, and the Apostles going to several and far remote Nations were all equally subordinate to Christ, and no one of them Head over the rest. To conclude then, seeing the Constitution of episcopal government is so agreeable to that which was most absolute, and was established by that wisdom, that no other commonwealth and Church ever was; as one observes, Dictante Deo, constituente Mose, God ordaining it, and Moses putting it in practice: Why should we endeavour to alter it? Such an attempt might prove with us, as it did with the people of Capua, when Pacuvius saved the Senators. It is held an axiom among Architectors, that it is scarce wisdom to pull down one of the main posts of a building, especially so ancient, except another be settled and fixed, which we are sure is right and fitted to our purpose: which yet for all the workman's skill may have a private flaw in it, which cannot be discovered by the most skilful: and so may the building fall on the builders' head. Thus much for the analogy and proportion betwixt episcopacy and the Church government of the Jews. Now in the third place we come to prove that The third point. episcopacy was pointed at, and in some sort deciphered in the New Testament. What I produced before concerning the authority of Ordination, convention, punishment, and reward, put upon some special persons, may serve sufficiently to this purpose: yet some thing more I will here add. Be it so, that when the Apostle saith, {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, If any one desire the office of a Bishop, he desireth a good work, that this is spoken of an inferior Bishop, or Presbyter, who is an Overseer of the people committed to his charge, as well as of a Bishop superior, who hath the oversight of the clergy and people: yet will it follow, that if the office of an inferior Bishop or overseer of his flock be a good work (as indeed it is) then much more they, who first have laboured in that painful harvest, and afterward in their elder years are advanced to the superior Bishop's office of overseeing the clergy, of ordaining, conventing and the like as above, undergo and perform {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, A good work of greater eminency and more notable. For certainly there cannot be a more blessed work, nor more holy calling in the clergy, then to succeed the glorious Apostles, and Martyrs in their places and callings, as heirs do their parents in their estates and possessions, and to deliver and teach sacred Doctrine to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also: as Saint Paul bids Timothy▪ 2 Tim. 2. To this purpose, S. Austin upon that, Ps. 44. or as we have it, 4●. Propatribus tibi nati sunt filii, Children shall rise in steed of their Fathers, saith Patres m●ssi sunt Apostoli, pro Apostolis filii tibi nati sunt, constituti sunt Episcopi. Hodie enim Episcopi qui sunt per ●orum orbem, unde nati sunt? Ipsa Ecclesia Pa●tes ills appellat: Ipsa filios genuit, & ipsa illos constituit in sedibus Patrum: The Fathers sent to us were the Apostles, instead of the Apostles, the sons which were appointed are Bishops. For at this day the Bishops in all the World, from whom did they arise? The Church itself calls them Fathers: she herself begot these Sons, and she herself hath put them into the seats of the Fathers. Here ye see the succession of Bishops proved plainly by Saint Augustin, as before by Ireneus, Eusebius, Ignatius, and a cloud of witnesses, who sealed their witness with their blood, and are those whose robes are washed in the blood of the Lamb, and who shall shine more brightly than the Cynosure amongst other stars of Heaven. Besides all the witnesses and proofs already brought, I will produce one text more to prove Bishops to be successors of the Apostles Iure divino. In that great Synod. ACT. 1. where were assembled the eleven Disciples, and {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} fere centum & viginti, other persons believer: 120. Saint Peter moved the consideration of an election of one in the place of Judas, and urgeth two places of the psalms, as prophecies, which must be fulfilled, Psal. 69. 26. and 109. 6. There the Holy Ghost prophesied by the mouth of David concerning Judas: Let his habitation be void, and let no man dwell therein: {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, and let another take his bishopric. Mark we well the words, and grant we these two assertions. 1 That no man will say that there is a tautology or Vaniloquium in the words of sacred Scripture, or that any word may be altered or can be beitered. 2 That the Scriptures should be understood, as near as we can, literally, and as the plain sense of the place will bear, and so as may stand with the analogy of other Scriptures. These things being granted, I thus argue. That which the spirit of God by the mouth of a Prophet hath foretold, and the blessed Apostles in a Synod have ratified, that is an undeniable truth, and may plead its Ius divinum. But David did foretell by the inspiration of the Spirit of prophecy, that episcopacy should succeed Apostleship, and the Apostles ratified it in their Synod. Therefore episcopacy succeeded the Apostleship, Iure divino. It is not any other word which is attributed to Mathias place, but {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, a bishopric: and he succeeded Judas. If any here object, that Mathias had {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, Object. the bishopric of Judas, so that Judas his Apostleship is there called a bishopric in a general notion, as it imports an office or charge. And that therefore Episcopacy did not succeed Apostleship, but both of them were of right attributed to the 12 chosen by Christ, and both given to Mathias, who succeeded Judas. I answer. Suppose this be granted, it maketh Answ. much more for what I intend. For first, if they be terms of so near affinity, that they serve to express one and the same office in a different regard: than it followeth, that in regard of their affinity, the one may more easily succeed in the other place; for where there is a likeness of nature, there is facilior transitus, an easier change of one thing into another, as of air into fire, because of their agreement in the quality of heat. Secondly, Seeing the term of Apostle was by those and aftertimes in some sort appropriate to some few: it remained that the other term, viz. Bishop, should be left and turned over to their successors. And with respect to this, Mathias is expressly said to succeed in Judas his episcopacy: and the chief Officers of the clergy are termed Bishops rather than by any other name. This we read to have been the constant practice of the first Century, in which (as it is likely) the Executors and Feoffees in trust of our Lord, best understood the meaning of the testator, and had gifts extraordinary, ad Ecclesiam & fidem stabiliendam, as to establish our faith, so God's Church too, and could best fit right terms to persons and callings. But to come close to ourselves. This Isle received The fourth point. Christianity very soon, even in the days of Tiberius, as Gildas Brito a grave author writeth: who wrote, Anno 493. And as another Gildas after him confirmeth. This Gildas was called Albanicus, and, as some will have it, preceded the other. He testifies, that after the dispersing of the Disciples, by reason of the persecution, Philip sent out of France, Joseph of Arimathea, and divers others, who preached the Gospel in this kingdom. Their Doctrine (as Malmesbury hath it) was afterward confirmed by other Preachers and doctors here. This is also witnessed both by Origen and Theodoret; not to speak of those, who some of them affirm that Paul, some that James, some that Peter were in this Island, and visited the Church here established, as Baronius a Romish Writer, and of special note in that Church, hath it. 'tis further said, that Insula glacialis (which we now call Glastenbury) was granted them by Arviragus King of the Britains. This is witnessed unto by divers memorable Records alleged by the studious and learned Searchers into the British and Saxon Antiquities. As for that report of Lucius and Eleutherius mentioned by Beda and Marianus Scotus, and so often alleged by divers others, I must either think that Rome had changed her customs, and many of her tenants, or question the Truth of the relation: My Reason for this is: because, when in the year 601. Austin the Monk first required obedience to the Roman Church in three things, viz. 1. in Paschate celebrando, 2. in Baptismo ministrando, 3. in praedicando Anglis Saxonibus, In celebrating Easter, in administering baptism, in preaching to the English, His motion was refused, and Austin utterly disliked. Quia (to use the words of another) Augustini fastum spernebant, they disliked Austin's pride. And well they might, for he was haughty and harsh, and did contrary to his directions from Gregory Bishop of Rome, who sent him hither. For he incensed Edlefred so against the poor Christians of Bangor, that he put twelve hundred of them to the sword. Of this the Reason is given: Quia noluere obsequium Augustino praebere, because they would not submit to Austin's will. For this was indeed the quarrel, as our Writers say. This their refusal to yield to Austin the monk, I produce as a proof, that the Christians, which he found here, held in many things with the Eastern Churches, as having their doctrine from Jerusalem and Zion, whence the Gospel was to be sent, Esay 2. 3. Mic. 4. 2. to the Nations. And whence as Salvation went, Psal. 14. 7. So likewise the Doctrine of salvation: for Christ, who gave the Apostles Commission to go to all Nations, and preach to them the Gospel, did bid them stay at Jerusalem, till the Holy Ghost furnished them with gifts for the work commanded. This further appears by that resolute answer, which the Abbot of Bangor gave to Austin the Monk, Anno 601. viz. That he and his acknowledged no superiority in the Bishop of Rome over them, nor any superior but their own Archbishop Caer-leonis, or (as some have it) Senovensis, qui sub Deo solus positus fuit super illos ad supervidendum, & ad faciendum illos servare viam spiritualem, Who alone under God was made an overseer or Bishop to them, that he might make them observe the spiritual way. Seeing this stout Champion thus answered, it is probable that they were of the Primitive institution. And this I the rather give credit unto; because if the Bishop of Rome had then held the present Tenet of that Church: That their city is the spiritual Metropolis, and that their Bishop is Caput Ecclesiae, our predecessors would have acknowledged the Pope and his See, as they had been taught. But Baronius saith, that our British Bishops are as ancient as those of Rome. And 'tis probable they were so. For this we have good proof; that at a Council at Arles held Anno Dom. 314. we had three Bishops, viz. 1. Eborius de Civitate Eboraci Episcopus, 2. Restitutus de civitate Londini Episcopus, 3. Aldelfius de civitate Coloniae Londinensium, & exinde Sacerdos Presbyter, Arminius Diaconus, Eborius Bishop of York, Restitutus Bishop of London, Adelfius Bishop of Colchester, and after them Sacerdos a Presbyter, Arminius a Deacon. These subscribed in this Synod. Here therefore I observe, that Anno 314. we had Bishops, Presbyters, and Deacons: the very governors now in question. And Romish they were not, as I conceive: because they then acknowledged not a Subordination to Rome: and because Vrban the second called learned Anselm, Patriarcha Britaniae, the Patriarch of Britain. Therefore, methinks, it should not now be questioned, whether Episcopacy be a Romish relic, but rather, that it should be confirmed as an Evangelical Ordinance, and as ancient, as the first institution of Churches, and as a calling appointed by the Apostles. What more have we for baptism of Infants? What more for our Sunday, or the Lord's day, but convincing deductions from the Scriptures, or the practice of the Apostles, and the observation of the same in the Churches of God successively to this very day? yet we hold both these to be sacred Ordinances and of divine institution: though they both be questioned by some learned men of the reformed Churches, as episcopacy is among some of ours. The case is alike, and as clear, if not much more, for episcopacy: that it had a divine institution. If what is formerly said, satisfy not, I will only use this argument more, to prove that episcopacy is Iure Divino. If the charge given 1 Tim. 6. 14. be to Timothy personally, and be perpetual, than it is to one person, namely to Timothy, and to the successors in his place: For Timothy was mortal, so that the perpetuity of the charge must reach to all his successors, till the appearing of the Lord Christ Jesus. But the charge is personal to Timothy, and perpetual even to the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ. Therefore it is to one person, viz. to Timothy and to his successors for ever. If it be here objected, that the charge there was Object. given to Timothy, as elsewhere the keys to PETER, and according to that, which is said, Quod dixit Petro, dixit caeteris Apostolis, What was spoken to Peter, was spoken to the other Apostles also: I Answ. Answer, It is so. For what was said to Timothy, was said caeterisque Episcopis & successoribus eorum, both to other Bishops, and their successors: as Christ's giving the keys to Peter were to him and the other Apostles: But not to all the Disciples, Deacons and widows. To sum up all in a word; since it appears that episcopacy, Presbytery and Diaconatus are according to the practice of the Apostles analogical and agreeable to the constitution of the Jewish Church appointed by God, and established by Moses; pointed at, and in some kind deciphered in the New Testament; and strongly insinuated by the successors of the Apostles, to have been received and practised by them, as commended to them from divine authority: since these three orders in our Church are derived so high, have continued so long, even from the primitive times to this day: we may well conclude, that as Presbyters and Deacons, so Bishops are Iure divino: especially seeing episcopacy is so generally confirmed, and hath been so constantly continued by the Apostles, Apostolic men, councils, Fathers, and Doctors. And much the rather am I induced thus, as I have said, to judge of episcopacy: because the contrary part have not the like proofs, warrant, and approbation for their Presbytery; and can bring no sufficient and convincing authority for a quarterly or yearly precedent, joint Presbyters and Lay Elders usurping pastoral and episcopal jurisdiction. And here in confidence of my cause I add, that if they have any lawful general council, or any Synod (except their own) which established a Church Government by such a precedent, Presbyters, and Lay-elders, as above, I will yield the cause. Now it concerns us very much to be well advised and truly to judge of these matters; because it appears in that dangerous and seditious Pamphlet concerning the late Protestation, that the Author thereof, and such as he is, care not what government be established, so that Popery (which we wish more rightly than they) be abolished, episcopacy and the present government (which change how inconvenient it may be, they know not) be altered, and that they may have liberty and toleration (which what state will permit) to profess what manner of Religion they make choice of. So may we have as many religions, as there be at Amsterdam, and unpeople all our plantations by calling many fantastical schismatics home, who under colour of dislike of the Church Government here, have fallen out with our Religion, and framed to themselves divers opinions, if not Religions, contrary to ours, not only in form, but in reality. Seeing there is but one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and father of all, let us endeavour to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace: that there may be one body and one spirit, even as we are called in one hope of our calling, Eph. 4. Let us stick fast to that one truth, which we are taught, and be steadfast in one faith: and agree jointly with one accord, like children of one Father and Mother. Let us not lose the honour of our Church Government, but reform the personal errors. And since reformation signifies nothing else, but the reducing and setting matters into the form in which they were most perfect: let us constantly hold ourselves to the form kept and practised in the Primitive times, and in the first & second centuries. In which we shall find the Order episcopal, presbyterial, and Diaconall observed, and ever since confirmed by national Synods and Councils of our own, near 1400 years ago, or at least 1000, and practised by many Successions before and since. What then remaineth, but that we establish the present Government of our Church, which is so agreeable to the ancient Constitution? As for that which is alleged by Saint Jerome, in his Dialogue against the Luciferians, concerning those things which were rather in honorem sacerdotii, quam legis necessitate, gratia Principum & Conciliorum authoritate data & collata, for the honour of the ministry, than the necessity of any Law, given and bestowed by the bounty of Princes, and authority of Councils; I say for these things, I take them not to be Iure divino, though Deo data: I know that God is to be honoured with our substance, and that it is as lawful since Christ's time to vow or give to him, according as he blesseth out labours and means, as it was for David, Solomon, and their worthies; and how offensive it may be to him to alter what is given or vowed, as it was of old to change and give a bad lamb for a good, I leave to the grave consideration of others. Only I here wish that we may save the honour of our dear and aged Mother; and punish her sons, if any have dishonoured her by Pride, Tyranny, or covetousness: and that the Church and commonwealth may hold such correspondency, as they did in the days of David and Solomon: and that as Kings were Nursing Fathers, and Queen's Nursing Mothers to the Church in her infancy; so in her age she may find Kings to support her, if weak: and if any of her children be like those of Eli's, their fathers may correct them so, that their Mother be not dishonoured nor ruined. To say no more, I conclude with that of Saint Augustine, Siquid tota Ecclesia hodie per orbem frequentat, hoc quin ita sit faciendum, disputare insolentissimae est insaniae, If any thing at this day be of frequent use in the whole Church, to question and dispute whether it ought so to be is a most insolent madness. Epist. 118. And that it is Arianism to say, that Presbyters (in the common acception) are equal to Bishops, such namely as were successors of the Apostles, and such as Saint Augustine himself was. This Epiphanius reckons among the ancient Heresies, and time hath not bettered it: and whether it resembles and comes near to the antilogy of Koreh, or not, myself not being rigid, or prone to censure, I leave to be determined by others. FINIS.