THE ANGEL OF THE Church of Ephesus NO BISHOP OF EPHESUS, Distinguished in Order from, and superior in Power to a PRESBYTER.  
As it was lately delivered in a Collation before the Reverend Assembly of Divines.  
By Constant Jessop Minister of the Word at Fifeild in Essex.  
Imprimatur CHARLES HERLE.  
LONDON, Printed by G. M. for Christopher Meredith at the Sign of the Crane in Paul's Churchyard. 1644.   

TO THE RIGHT WORSHIPFUL WILLIAM TWISSE, Dr in Divinity, the Reverend & Learned Prolocutor, and to the rest of the Religious and Grave Divines of this present Assembly, summoned by the authority of the Lords and Commons in Parliament.  
Right Reverend and honoured Fathers and Brethren,  
I Never thought or intended to appear in print in this learned and critical age, being conscious to myself of mine own insufficiencies: I speak it not in an humble arrogancy, as the Orator observed some did write treatises against vainglory, and then in a vainglorious ostentation put their names thereto. muchless should I have presumed to handle this controversy, which hath been so fully agitated by others both at home and abroad. Not only by those amongst us, who have distasted the hierarchical frame of government, whose arguments have been by the Prelates answered for the most part no other way then by suspensions, silencings, deprivations, and proceed against them as disturbers of the Church's peace, and contemners of the commands of Authority: but also by almost all the Divines of note in the Reformed Churches, in their polemical dissertations against Papists, out of whose Magazine our Hierarchists have borrowed those weapons whereby they defend their own authority, and oppose their enemies; as is evident to any that shall compare the writings of the one and of the other, and (to say nothing of this as objected by the good old Non-conformitans to the Patrons of Prelacy) is acknowledged by the Papists themselves, witness that short marginal Annotation of the Rhemists, 
In john 20.17.  The Protestants otherwise denying this preeminence of Peter, yet to uphold their Archbishops do avouch it against Puritans. The course of my studies when once I became a Smatterer in Divinity, was bend another way then to the handling of Controversies. My principal and chiefest aim being this, that I might through God's blessing on mine endeavours be fitted for a Pastoral employment, whensoever the Lord in his due time should call me thereunto. Wherein I desire in humility and thankfulness to say with St PAUL, 
1 Cor. 15.10.  By the grace of God, I am what I am. As for this controversy in particular, though I had some reason to have pried into it, in regard of my father's sufferings more than once under the Prelates, in whose deprivation I and the rest of his posterity have had our share of sufferings also; yet knowing mine own inabilities to wade through it, wanting time in regard of other studies more necessary for the fitting of me for that calling wherein I was, and observing my fathers own temperature & carriage, who forbore discoursing of it in private, or mentioning, much less handling of it in public, merely on this ground, that he might fulfil his ministry in that remote, barren, (in respect of the Word) rude, and ignorant corner of Wales, to which the Lord by his providence removed him, I did also forbear the studying of it. The practices of the Prelates which caused such commotions in Scotland at first, and in the issue the abjuration of the Prelacy; the proceed against Dr Bastwick here in England for his Flagellum Latiatium episcoporum, and those high challenges which were made in the Star-chamber Speeches about that time, did first cause me to inquire into that tenure of Divine right, by which our Bishops laid claim to their Preeminence. The Oath in the Canons which came forth afterward did provoke me to set to the work a little closer; which yet I entered on only for my own private information and satisfaction, and after the considering of some places of Scripture, I addressed myself to Bishop Hall's Treatise on that subject, conceiving that in him, being the latest that did write, and withal a man of note in the Church, I should find the substance, strength and sinews of all those arguments which could be produced in that cause. Whom when I did peruse, the more I looked into his treatise, the further off I was from receiving satisfaction by him in that Tenure of Divine right, and from subscribing to his assertions. Hereupon for my own private use I set down some short marginal animadversions (and to speak the truth, as fare as I am able to judge, there is room enough in the margin to answer the whole book) divers of which are now at the desire of some godly and learned members of your Assembly presented to public view. Sundry other Collections I had once, but Sr Arthur aston's upholders of the Protestant Religion, finding my papers, when they rifled my house at Reading of what they could, soon made an end of them by fire, and with them of some Treat says of my Fathers, in this and other arguments, which (in regard of that employment in the Ministry which lay on me whilst I was in those parts) I had not read over. Being thus driven from my habitation, and by loss of my Papers and Manuscripts disabled from dealing in that controversy, I had quite laid aside the thoughts of it, until that coming before a Committee of your Assembly, according to an order of the house of Commons; I was by the Chairman of that Committee appointed to handle before you this Text, and controversy out of it. Which I persuade myself was done rather by way of Probation then out of any desire of Information from me, who am far more fit to be informed, and to receive, then to give information or satisfaction. Being thus east on a necessity of reviving my former notions, and reviewing my marginal animadversions with some other observations (which I had left) I undertook the task, and presented before you those collections and arguments, which you were pleased immediately to call for. Let that I beseech you, Fathers and Brethren, now find a second, which found a former acceptance at your hands, and unto acceptation vouchsafe to add a Patronage. Something I have indeed now added which was not in my former papers delivered, which I have done partly by the intimation of him by whose appointment I first did enter on the discussing of this question; partly because I saw the great confidence of the Bishop with whom I principally deal in this vexatious dispute, whose grounds I held it in some respect necessary to consider and examine. If in these papers there be any thing which may be subservient to the glory of God, and his great work which he hath in hand, I have my desire, and shall therein rejoice, desiring to return all to him from whom every good gift proceeds. Give me leave to close my Dedication with the same petitions which closed my Sermon in your Assembly. The God and Father of our Lord jesus Christ the Father of mercies grant that his Spirit of peace and truth may be the Precedent of your Assembly, that the peace of God may rule in your hearts whereunto ye are called in one body, and nothing may be done amongst you through strife, vainglory or contention, but ye may seek the truth, and speak the truth in love; that so through his blessing on your endeavours, studies, conferences, meditations, the breaches may be made up which are in the Church, and the Lord in his due time heal the breaches of our Land, Kingdom, and Nation, which are exceedingly shaken; which is the hearty desire, and daily prayer of  
Fifeild, March 6. 1643. The meanest of your Fellow-helpers in the work of the Lord, Constant Jessop.   

THE Angel of the Church OF EPHESUS NO BISHOP of Ephesus, etc.  REVEL. 2.1. 
To the Angel of the Church of Ephesus, writ.  
IT is not unknown unto you, Reverend and beloved Fathers and Brethren, what vexatious disputes have been between the Prelatists and Presbyterians concerning the Angels mentioned in the Inscription of this, and the other Epistles. 
a Sermon preached at Lambeth, Apr. 17. 1608.  Dr Downham hath undertaken to prove the Angels to be Diocesan Bishops, and to justify their function as lawful and of divine institution and approbation: but his 
b Gersom Bucer, dissert. de gub. eccls. An Answer to Dr Downham imprinted, an. 1609. A reply to Dr downham's defence imprinted, an 1013. The Diocesans trial by M. Paul Baines, an. 1611.  Refuters both in Latin and English have (as I conceive with submission to better judgements) made it evident that notwithstanding the Doctor's bold adventure—  
— Magnis tamen excidit ausis, he hath come short of his undertake. Yea some of the members of this grave and learned Assembly have vindicated this place from those challenges which the humble Remonstrant made unto it, by it to uphold the tottering cause of Prelacy. A cause which not long ago in Scotland, and lately in the Parliament of England, and amongst you hath been, and still is causa conclamata. I doubt not but you are sufficiently satisfied in conscience and judgement, otherwise you would not in so solemn a manner have vowed and covenanted with the Lord the extirpation of that Prelatical form of Government. It may be the Prelates themselves see their own ruin approaching, and that the down-fall of their honour is at hand, in which regard being either not willing, or not able by Scripture and force of argument to uphold it, they will now try whether it may be defended by the dint of sword. As if they were the Successors of those Prelates mentioned by 
c Quibus adjice novum eleemosynae modum, quod in mercenarios m●lites, equites & pedites, borum plurima consumuntur ad pugnas inter Christi fideles concitandas & continuè nutriendas, ●t eos suae tandem subjicere valeant potestati. Defer s. pac. part. 2. cap. 24. pag. 358.  Marsilius Patavinus, who found out novum eleemosynae modum, a new kind of alms to expend those means which were given them for hospitality and charity to the poor, in the maintenance of soldiers, troops of horses, and companies of foot, to the raising and prosecuting of wars between Christians, that so they might at length subject them to their tyrannical power: Or else the sons of that Martial Pope 
d Ealaeus in jul. 2. cited by Dr Abbots 2. part of def. of the Ref. Cathol. p. 11.  Julius the second, who finding that his Bulls and Excommunications would not prevail, went in his own person to war against the French King, and crossing the river Tiberis, cast Peter's keys into the stream with indignation, being resolved to try whether Paul's sword would help him.  
I am not now to follow them, or lead you into the fields where trumpets sound, troops are mustered, and instruments of death to fly abroad, but to inquire (by your appointment) whether the Inscription of this and other Epistles afford any solid argument for the pretended preeminence and superiority of a Bishop in Order, Office, and Power of Jurisdiction above a Presbyter. A late Patron of Episcopacy is so confident, that he tells us, 
e Bishop Hall, Episc. by divine right. p. 121.  All the shifts in the world cannot elude it; that St John was by the Spirit of God commanded to direct his seven Epistles to the Bishops of those seven famous Churches, by the name of so many Angels. And the 
f Franc. à Sanct. clara Apol. ep●s c. 5. p 62. Argumentum deniq●isiud apud ortho. loxos non minus frequens quam efficax, de Epistolis joaxnis in Apocalypsi, quas ad septem I cclesiarum A siaticarum Angelos, seu Episcopos scripsit, originem saltem Apostolicam invictè dabit.  Romish Apologist for Bishops is as confident as their English Patron, for he hath very boldly delivered it, that the argument drawn from this place will invincibly prove their original to be at least Apostolical. You hear their positions. Let us now consider what just ground there is for this their great confidence.  
1. The name Angel doth not import any such eminency of Order or Superiority of power as our Prelates plead for, and would fain wrest from the words of the Text. You know, Reverend and Beloved, that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Angel is a name of Office not of Order, a title importing Duty not Superiority in Power. It signifieth a Messenger, and in point of Embassage all that are Gods Ministers (unless they have an immediate call from God, and infallible inspiration, neither of which I conceive our Prelates will challenge to themselves) are equal. They are all by their place and Office 
g Mal. 2.7.  Messengers of the Lord of hosts. It is their duty to 
h Act. 20.27, 20.  declare the whole counsel of God, and keep back nothing which is profitable: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 
i 2 Cor. 5.19.  We are Ambassadors for Christ, saith the Apostle of himself, and all those which are entrusted with the dispensation of the Gospel. And from this their function they have their denomination 
k 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 evim utrumque, significat & senem, & legatum, teste Scapula.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. This name of Office, Angel, the Lord is pleased here to make use of rather than any other, for this reason as I conceive; Though the whole Scripture be the Epistle of the Almighty God unto his creature, as 
l Regist. ep. lib. 4. epist. 40. ad Theod. Medicum.  Gregory speaks; yet here are now special Letters to the Churches from the Lord Jesus Christ, and therefore his Amanuensis St John is commanded to direct them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, To the Angel or Messenger, to him that is the 
m Jer. 15.19.  mouth of Jesus Christ to interpret and declare his will. The direction is thus set down indefinitely, not pointing out any singular or individúall person, to give us to understand that whosoever he be that is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by his Place and Office, an Angel or Messenger, it is his duty to declare the will of the Lord Jesus Christ in the following particulars to the Church. Let this little (which, as hath been observed, sets forth the Function of that Person which is invested with it, not any order in that Function,) be duly considered, and it will cast dirt in the faces of those who so eagerly contend for the appropriation of it to the men of their order. If the Bishop and he alone is the Angel, the Messenger and mouth of Jesus Christ, how bad a case had the Church been in, in these latter days, how justly might England have joined with 
n Dicit Apostolus Augelun Satanae se transfigurare in Angelum lucis. utinam his diehus Angeli lucis non fint transfigurati in Angelos tenebrarum. N●c. de Clem. tract. de nov. celebrit. none in stit. p. 157. edit Lugd. Bat. an. 1609.  Clement in his desire, Oh that the Angels of light (i. e. those which should have been such) had not been in these days transfigured into the angels of darkness. How truly that observation of Espencaeus concerning the Bishops in his time hath been verified of the most of ours, let the world judge; 
o Espenc. digres. in ●. ad Tim l. 2. c 2. p 7●. ed t Lu●et an. 1619.  He tells us that heretofore it was accounted a very strange thing to find a non-preaching Bishop, but in these times, saith he, to find a preaching Bishop plus quàm monstrilicae haberetur, would be esteemed more than monstrous. When the 
p in Apoc. c. 1. v. 20.  Rhemists in their annotations on the former Chapter had observed, The Bishops are the stars of the Church: our learned Fulke returns them this answer, St John by the Angels of the Churches meaneth not all that should wear Mitres on their heads and hold Crozier staves in their hands like dead idols, but them that are the faithful Messengers of the Lords Word, and utter and declare the same. Had the Inscription been 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 how would our Prelatical men have vaunted? you should have heard the same from them— Invento populus quod clamat Osyri: We have found it, we have found it, when from a metaphorical notion, and such a denomination as is common to all Ministers, because used in the singular number, they do thus triumph. Yet they are not, I persuade myself, ignorant that not only 
q Angelus, i. e. nuncius Sacerdos Deiverissimè dicitur, quia Dei & hominis sequester est, ejusque ad populum nuntiat voluntatem, in Malipiero 2.  Hierome (their back friend, as they conceive) doth, as I have done before, interpret this denomination Angel, and gives his reason for it; but that with 
r Moral. in job. lib. 34. c. 7. edit. Basil an. 1564.  Gregory the Great, a Bishop and Pope of Rome, The Inscription Angelis Ecclesiarum, To the Angels of the Churches, is expounded thus, Praedicatoribus populorum, To the Preachers of the people. So that in the judgement of these Divines the Inscription comprehends all those who are sharers in this title of Office, and are by it differenced, not one from the other joined in the same Commission of Embassage, but from the Church or people unto whom in the name of the Lord they are to perform the Office of Angels or Messengers. Thus much is indeed granted by our Hierarchists, though with some additional fancies of their own; for they tell us, that 
s Episc by div. right p. 122.  All the Presbyters of these Churches were Angels in respect of their Ministry, yet (forsooth) one was the Angel in respect of his fixed superiority. There were thousands of stars in this firmament of the Asian Churches, there were but seven of the first magnitude. We hear them say so, but shill the question is how this is proved, and the assertion made good. In which regard to this their peremptory assertion, it were sufficient for me to give at present no other answer, than that short marginal animadversion which 
* Fascic. rosum expet sol. 104.  Orthuinus Gratius gives to that silly Friar William of Woodeford (who being pressed by the authority of Hierome and Armachanus) alleged by Wickliff, that before schisms did arise in the Church, matters were governed by common counsel of the Presbyters, which in that respect were all equal, returned thereto this answer, That schism began in the Apostles days, (as it is manifest in the Scripture) He 
a Dicit in Scriptura patere sed nibil probat.  saith it is manifest in the Scripture, but proves nothing. And Mirum ubi legerit author de illo schismate. I wonder where the Author reads concerning that schism. By the way observe that from this simple Ignoramus the forementioned Friar, (who undertook to write against Wickliff, that he might the better engratiate himself in the eyes of that persecuting Prelate Thomas Arundel Archbishop of Canterbury) Dr Downham and Bishop Hall our 
t Dr downham's Sermon at Lambeth, p. 88, 89. Bishop Hall, Episc. by div. right, p. 192.  hierarchical Rabbins for learning have borrowed that simple evasion, as if that Hierome using the phrase of the Apostle, by which he sets forth the schisms and divisions which were in his time in the Church of Corinth, did point out the time when this Prelation of a Bishop above the Presbyters began, to wit, in the Apostles days. Which how vain and weak it is, yea, how inconsistent with and contradictory unto what is by Hierome delivered in those places, is sufficiently discovered by sundry 
u Chamier. Panstrat. tom. 2. l. 9 de Occ Pont. c. 5. n. 16. Whitak cont. 4. q. 1. c. 3. seci 29. Wal. Mess. dissert. de presh. & episc. cap. 4. p. 242. ad p. 249  Divines; to whom I refer the Reader, if he please to peruse the quotations in the margin. I return to the application and pressing of the forementioned short marginal animadversion; and would feign know of our Prelatical men where doth the holy Ghost intimate this Hierarchy of Angels, some Angels ministerially, others Angels by a fixed superiority. Where doth St John in all this vision give the least hint of such a distinction of Stars, that some are stars of the first, some of the second or third magnitude? Or where in all the Scripture is the name of stars restrained unto Bishops. Is it in St Judes 
* Judas ver. 13.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, wand'ring stars to whom is reserved blackness of darkness for ever: or is it afterward in the Revelation, when the holy Ghost telleth us the 
b Rev. 12.4.  dragon did draw down the third part of the stars with his tail? Do not our Prelatists' reason almost as wisely and as solidely from this place and notion for their dignity and superiority of order and of power, as once the Canonist Hostiensis, and after him Andrea's Siculus Barbatias desiring to cury favour with Bessarion, did, who undertook to prove the Divine Institution of Cardinals from that place of Scripture, 
x 1 Sam. 2.  Domini sunt cardines terrae. And albeit the Lawyer thought he gave a witty reason for his conceit, because as the door in its motion is guided by the hinges whereunto it is fastened, and whereupon it hangeth, so the Church of Rome is governed by the counsel of Cardinals, yet 
y De Invent. rer. lib. 4. c. o. p. 290 edit. Basi●. an. 1555 vide, nonsecus isti jurisconsulti aliquoties detorquent sacras literas quo volunt, ac suto●es solent sordidas dentibus extende●e pelles.  Polydore Virgil gave him this censure, which by the bare change of the name of the persons censured I shall apply to our present purpose. These Lawyers, said he, these Prelatists, say I, stretch Scripture as they please, just as the Shoemaker doth his leather with his teeth, to fit it to his Laste.  
2. It is granted by Bishop Hall as an undoubted truth, that 
z Loc. cit. p. 122.  in each of these Churches there were many Presbyters, as for instance that of Ephesus; yet but one Angel, saith he, that is to say, but one Bishop. But soft and fair my Lord. The same place of Scripture which makes it unquestionable that there were many Presbyters in the Church of Ephesus, doth as apparently declare the plurality of Bishops, and so the identity of Bishops both in name and office. Thus much is yielded by the same 
a p. 119.  Patron of Episcopacy, that the Elders which Paul sent for from Ephesus to Miletum, and to whom his speech is directed, were indeed Bishops, which he doth grant from those words of the Apostle; Whereof the holy Ghost hath made you Bishops. But forsooth they were not all Bishops of Ephesus, but of different Territories, of fare dispersed charges, and how is all this proved; we hear St Paul say; Ye all amongst whom I have gone preaching the Kingdom of God: very magisterially, & tanquamè cathedra Episcopali, Episcopal dictates out of an Episcopal chair, to which all must yield an implicit faith, and blind belief. Belike St Paul held now an archiepiscopal visitation, and albeit the Archbishop's court were to be held at Miletum, yet from Ephesus by some Gentleman Apparitor, or other the Monitory Summons or Processes were sent forth to the several Dioceses— Risum teneatis amici. Who can almost refrain laughter at the very hearing or reading of such ridiculous conceits. By the way let us take notice of one thing, that to this archiepiscopal visitation not the inferior Ministers, but the Diocesan Bishops themselves were summoned and cited. The evasion is so weak that I am loath to spend time and tyre your patience in refutation of it. Only give me leave to say somewhat to it. 1. Had these Presbyters been Bishops of fare dispersed charges in Asia and different Territories, the holy Evangelist and Historian would rather have said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Of the Churches, than 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Of the Church. We find the Apostle in the like cases using the plural number. The Churches of Asia, Rom. 6.19. The Churches of God in Judea, 1 Thes. 2.14. The Churches of Macedonia, 2 Cor. 8.1. 2. Though it be not said expressly that these Elders or Presbyters were only the Presbyters of the Church of Ephesus, yet the circumstances of the text will clearly (as I conceive with submission to better judgements) evince it to be so. The Evangelist St Luke describing Paul's journey to Jerusalem, saith 
b Act. 20.17. & seq.  we came to Miletum, For Paul determined to sail by Ephesus that he might not tarry in Asia, for be hastened if it were possible for him to be at Jerusalem at Pentecoste. And sending from Miletum unto Ephesus he called together the Elders of the Church. To these Elders of the Church he doth appeal as witnesses of his fidelity and industry in preaching the word, in serving the Lord with all humility, tears and in many temptations. Now consider where was the place of Paul's abode and residence amongst them, was it not Ephesus? the former passages of the history tell us so in plain terms; that there he 
c Chap. 19.10.  continued by the space ●f two years, so that all they which dwelled in Asia heard the word of the Lord Jesus both Jews and Greeks'. Ephesus you see was the place of Paul's residence in Asia, here he gathered the Church, in the planting and settling of which he continued amongst them by the space of two years, It being the place in which the Church was gathered must be also the place of residence of the Elders of the Church. 3. If Interpreters either Greek or Latin, Ancient or Modern be consulted, we shall find them all accounting these Presbyters to be Presbyters of no other Church than the Church of Ephesus. By the clear evidence of which place sundry Divines of all sorts do prove the Identity and Indistinction of Bishops and Presbyters both in name and Office in sacred Writ. In which regard I cannot but wonder with what face our Pretenders to Antiquity for the distinction of their Order from a Presbyter, do venture to obtrude so novel a fancy on their Readers and seduced followers. For of how green antiquity are Buckeride and Barlow with their follower Dr Hall, that their Dictates must bear sway against the current of Interpreters, not one Divine of note being produced (for aught that I could yet read or hear) in favour of this ridiculous evasion, which was I am persuaded never heard of in the Christian Church, till of late Hieromonarchici nostri, (as Spalatensis styles the Papalines, and we may not unfitly style out Prelates) vented these their dreams, that by these their groundless fancies they might the better uphold their own honour and dignities; So that we may justly retort the Proverb applied by one of them to Mr Brightmen conjectures, on their own heads. Thus the bells say what some hearers think. 4. There is no colour of reason to obtrude on us such an interpretation of those words, Ye all amongst whom I have gone preaching the Kingdom of God, as if it must be understood of Paul's travelling from Diocese to Diocese, for the Text affords in plain terms another, the Apostle puts them in mind what he had done, that he. 
d Act 20.20.  had taught them and preached amongst them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 publicly and from house to house.  
3. Albeit the Inscription be in the singular number 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, To the Angel, yet that doth not prove it to be spoken unto, or meant of one individual person. He spoke a truth who said, 
c Baines Diocesans Trial, pag. 15.  Seven singular stars may signify seven unites, whether singular or aggregative: Seven pluralities of person who are so united as if they were one. And it is frequent in Scripture to note by an unity an united multitude. Now for as much as this is gainsaid by our Hierarchists as a ridiculous evasion; I will therefore confirm it against their contradiction, and endeavour to make it evident that under one many may be, many are meant. This is the language and usual stile of the holy Ghost. 1. In visional speeches Daniel in the narration and interpretation of the King's dream faith to Nabuchadnezzar. 
f Dan. 2.38.  Thou art this head of gold, after thee shall arise another Kingdom inferior unto thee. The speech is directed to Nabuchadnezzar in his own person, yet under one many are meant, for not he alone but all the King's precedent and succeeding in that Monarchy are the head of gold, as Interpreters do unanimously consent. It is said in the verse following, After thee shall another Kingdom arise, yet all that have any insight in history both sacred and profane do know that the Persian Monarchy, which is the Kingdom there spoken of, did not arise immediately upon the death of Nabuchadnezzar the Great, to whom this dream, and interpretation of it is made known, but upon the death of Belshazzar his Grandchild. So that under the Person of one, many of the same order and degree are here necessarily to be understood. The Lord represents to 
g Chap. 1.18, 19, 20, 21. If any desire more instances of this kind, for the confirmation of this, I refer him to the reply to Dr downham's defence, part 1. l. 3. c. ●. sect. 7.  Zechariah in a vision sour horns which did scatter Judah and Jerusalem, and four Carpenters which were sent to fray them away, and to repair Jerusalem. Will any sober man hence conclude the Persons which scattered Judah were individually four, no more nor no less, and the Repairers of Jerusalem just four and no more? yet this inference will hold as well as that which our Prelates make from this vision in the Revelation. Christ holdeth in his hand seven stars, which seven stars are the Angels of the Churches, therefore the Angels of the Churches are just seven and no more. They may with as much colour of reason and truth extort another conclusion also thus: Christ holdeth in his hand seven stars of the first magnitude and none but them, which seven stars are the Angels by a fixed superiority, Therefore Christ hath care of the direction and protection of none but the Bishops, which are the stars of the first magnitude, the Angels by a fixed superiority. Take one instance more. When the Apostle speaks of that grand Apostate Antichrist, he speaks of him in the singular number, 
h ● Thes. 2.3.  That man of sin, the son of perdition, now albeit the 
i Bell tyb. 3. de Rom. Pent. ●. 2. K. Secudus locus Graeci contrabunt significationem ad unam tem certam, ut 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hominem in communi, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hominem singularem fignificet. Et sanè mirum est nullum adversariorum, qui tamen jact ant linguarum peritiam, hoc animadvertisse.  Romish Cardinal do from the article prefixed, when he is st●●ed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that maen of sin, the son of perdition, that wicked one, plead for a restriction to one individual person, and wonder at it that none of the adversaries do take notice of it, notwithstanding all their skill in the tongues, of which they so much boast; yet how ridiculous a conceit this is you all know. Our polemical Divines have sufficiently discovered the falsehood and vanity of this assertion; of which I may truly say as our learned Fulk doth in his reply to the Rhemists (who trod in the steps of their fellow Jesuit ) 
k in 2 Thes. 2. ver. 3. annote ●.  This is so false that young children, which have scarce tasted of the Greek tongue, are able to disprove it by infinite Examples.  
2. In other places of Scripture where the speech is directed unto one, yet under that one others of the same order and society are meant. Our Saviour Christ said to Peter, 
l Matth. 16.19.  I will give unto thee the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven; though at Rome under the Pope's nose, in a conclave of Cardinals, the limitation of this to Peter's person (as Christ's Vicar) would be readily embraced, yet you all know, Reverend and Beloved, how repugnant this is to Scripture: in which regard he would be hooted at, as having a Pope in his belly, that should in any Reformed Church confine the power of the Keys to Peter's person: Yea, 
m de rep eccles. lib. 1. cap. 7. n. 3.  Antonius de Dominis will tell us, that it would be a monstrous thing indeed to deny that our Lord did there direct his speech to Peter, and promise him the Keys, which he did after wards infallibly confer on him; But it would be monstri majoris simile, more monstrous by fare, so to limit this promise and the execution thereof unto Peter, as that it should imply an exclusion of the rest of the Apostles. Hence divers of the Fathers have observed that there under the Person of One, to wit, Peter, to whom the speech is primarily directed, is an united multitude, the Church, to be understood. Thus Austin sundry times speaks. 
n Tract 50. in Evang. johan. judas malus Corpus malorum significat, quomodo Petrus corpus bonorum, corpus ecclesiae, imò corpus ecclesiae, sed in bonis: nam si in Petro non esset sacramentum Ecclesiae, non ●i diceret Dominus, Tibi dabo claves regni ●oelorum.  Wicked Judas signifieth the body of the wicked, as Peter the body of the good, the body of the Church which consisteth of the good, otherwise the Lord would not say to him● I will give unto thee the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven. And elsewhere, 
o Tract. 124. in idem Evang. Ecclesiae Petrus Apostolus prop●er Apostolatus sui primatum gerebat figurata generalitate personam. Quad enim ad ipsum propriè pertinet, natura unus homo erat, gratia unus Christianus, abundantiore gratia ur us idemq, primus Apostolus: sed quando et dietum, Tibi dabo claves regni coelorum, universam significabat ecclesiam.  Peter in respect of himself was properly by nature one man, by grace one Christian, by a more abundant grace one and the same a chief Apostle. But when it was said to him, I will give unto thee the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, he did signify the whole Church, etc. So he, more testimonies might be produced, but these are sufficient; he that desireth to see this truth confirmed by more suffrages of the ancients may consult 
p Loc. cit. n. 4. & seq.  Spalatensis, and receive abundant satisfaction. As then in the  speech of our Saviour under one, a collected body of Apostles and Believers is understood, so here by one Angel is meant the united body of Angels, and what is spoken unto one is to be understood as spoken to all of them, as by their place they are Angels. For the denomination is so used here that it points out rather the function than the person, as our industrious and learned Country man Mr 
q Medit. in Apoc. p. 9 edit. Lond an. 1587.  Foxe hath observed. To pass from this Instance to another. When the Apostle speaking concerning the usefulness of the Scripture, that 
r 2 Tim. 3.16, 17.  it is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, adds this as a principal end of all, that the man of God might be perfect, is this, think you, spoken concerning the perfecting of one man of God alone, or of all that are such by their place and calling? When the same Apostle gives this charge to Timothy, 
s 1 Tim. 6.11.  Thou O man of God flee these things: doth he not in the person of Timothy lay this charge upon all the Ministers of the Gospel, who share in that honourable title and function? What shall we say then to those which would make us to believe that what is here spoken to the Angel (a name of Office common to all the Ministers of Jesus Christ) is to be understood as spoken unto one, a Bishop and him that sitteth in the throne. With the same strength of argument, and as much colour of reason might a Romanist infer, because the Lord saith in the singular number of the Priest: 
s Mal. 2.7.  The Priest's lips shall preserve knowledge, and they shall seek the Law at his mouth, for he is the Messenger of the Lord of hosts. And 
t Deut. 17. 1●  The man that will do presumptuously, and will not hearken to the judgement of the Priest, that standeth to minister before the Lord, that man shall die. Though all Priests are Angels or Messengers of the Lord in respect of their Ministry, yet there is one Priest that is the Messenger or Angel by a fixed superiority, and at his mouth you must inquire, to wit, the Pope, you are not (I know) ignorant that thus some have argued, and what our Divines have answered them their writings do declare; both Dr Reynolds in his 
u Chap. 6. div. ●● p. 252.  Conference with Hart, and the learned Frenchman 
* Sum. count. part. 1. q. 8. p. 127, 128.  Rivetus in confutation of Bailie the Jesuit.  
3. Let us consider sundry passages in the Epistles themselves; into the bowels of which if we diligently look we shall find that albeit the inscription be in the singular number, To the Angel; yet the Angel was more than one distinct and individual person, and that the denomination is not to be taken 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Singularly or Personally, but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 collectively including an united multitude. In the Epistle to Thyatira the Inscription is as in the rest in the singular number, yet afterwards the holy Ghost saith thus, 
* Revel. 2. ●4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 &c  But unto you I say and to the rest in Thyatira. In which words the Church of Thyatira is distinguished, as 
x Habes hic duas ecclesie Thyatirensis parts, quarum una est Pastorum & Praesidem●u●. Ecclesiae collegium; altera reliqui corpor is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Gers But drssert. de guh. Eccl. p. 203.  Gersom Bucerus hath observed, into two parts, The one includeth the College of Pastors and Precedents of the Church; the other the rest of the members, both are set forth in the Plural number 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 unto you, answering to, To the Angel; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 To the rest, answering unto 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 To the Church in Thyatira. The speech directed to the Angel of the Church of Sardis is in the singular number, 
y Chap. 3.1.  Thou hast a name that thou livest, and art dead, compare this with that which followeth, and you shall find that what is spoken of one is meant of many, and hereby is expressed the general state of the whole Church of Sardis both Ministers and people; for it followeth, 
z Ib. v. 4.  Thou hast a few names even in Sardis which have not defiled their garments. The greatest part of both Ministers and people had but the name of an outward profession, by which they seemed to live, but in hearts they denied the power of godliness and so were dead; amongst them all there were but a few that were living members, sincere and holy. When the Lord jesus saith in the Epistle to Philadelphia, 
a Chap. 3.11.  Hold fast that which thou hast, that no man take away thy crown: If this be an exhortation to the Bishop alone to constancy in the truth, and a promise made to none but him, belike none shall wear a crown in heaven but he that hath worn a Mitre on earth, and rather parted with his Mitre here, then with the truth of Christ. The Epiphonematicall sentence which is added at the end of each Epistle; He that hath an ear to hear, let him hear what the Spirit saith to the Churches, doth clearly evince it, that by the Angel is to be understood the whole Church in all its members. I will add but one instance more: When the Angel of the Church of Ephesus is blamed, 
b Chap. 2.4, 5.  I have somewhat against thee, because thou hast left thy first love, and this reprehension is backed with a Commination, I will come unto thee quickly, and will remove thy Candlestick out of his place, except thou repent: Can any man in sober reason imagine that this is the reproose of, and threatening against one man alone, and that God would for the Apostasy or remissness of love to the truth in one Prelate cast off a whole Church? We find no such thing upon record in the whole Book of God, or any other history. That of 
c Hom ●. in Apoc. Moveb● candelabrum tuum i e dispergam populum pro peccatis.  Austin is most consonant to the truth, who doth thus paraphrase the Comminatory sentence, I will remove thy Candlestick. i e. I will scatter the people for their sins. In which regard the same Father doth afterwards tell us, 
d Angelo's ecclesiam dicit, in quibus duas parts, i. e. bonorum & malorum, ostendit, ut laus ad bonos, Increpatio ad malos dtrigatur. Sicut dominus in Evangelto, Omne praepesitorum corpus u●um servum dixit, beatum & nequam, quam venient dominus ipse dividet. Id. ibid.  He calleth the Church the Angels, in which Church he showeth there were two parts good and bad, that the praise may be directed to the good, the reproof to the bad. Thus he, with more to the same purpose. The same truth is delivered by Arethas and Andrea's Bishops of Caesarea Cappadocia, the most ancient Interpreters of this Revelation. 
e 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  He calleth the Angel of Ephesus the Church that was in Ephesus. And both confirm this Interpretation from sundry passages in these Epistles: From whence 
f Sit ergò boc fixum— hoc argumentum ab Angetis qui Episcopos denotant, nibit facere ad pr●bandum Episcopos tum suisse in urbibus singulos. Wal. Mess. dissert. 1. de presb. & epise c. 4. p 184.  Salmasius (in whom the Reader if he please may see this last quotation at large) draws this conclusion, Let this therefore be an undoubted truth, that this argument from the Angels makes nothing to prove that there was but one Bishop in a Church or city. Thus much of the third argument, I proceed to another.  
4. By the Angel in this place is not to be understood a Bishop in Order, Office, and power of Jurisdiction, distinguished from, and superior to a Presbyter, for there was no such distinction or superiority settled in the Church of Christ before, nor in St john's time, nor immediately after the Apostles days. The truth of this negative assertion I shall endeavour to confirm by these ensuing arguments.  
First, in the Word of God, we find no such difference or imparity in Order and Power between a Bishop and a Presbyter, as is pretended by our Prelates. In prosecuting of which undertaken task I will as briefly as I may consider what is delivered by a late Patron of Episcopacy, who tells us that 
g Episc. by div. right. p. 91.  This imparity of Government and Episcopal Jurisdiction was founded by Christ, erected by his Apostles, both by their practice and recommendation. In the proof of which position when he had spent sundry pages, he concludes with a great deal of assurance that he hath carried all down before him, saying, 
h Pag. 127.  I am for my part so confident of the Divine Institution of the majority of Bishops above Presbyters, that I dare boldly say, there are weighty points of faith, which have not so strong evidence in holy Scriptures. We hear him speaking with so much confidence, as if he had not only taken the Oath in the late Canons, but sworn unto, or at leastwise in heart, and by his pen subscribed to the 
i Si quis dixerit in Ecclesia catholica inon esse Hierar biam divina ordinatione institutam, quae constat ex Episcopis & Ministris Anathema sit. Seis. 7. Can. 6.  Anathematisme of the Tridentine Conventicle, in which this Hierarchy of Bishops and Presbyters is said to be of Divine institution, and an Anathema denounced against those that shall question or deny it. Yet notwithstanding the confidence of those Bishops and Friars at Trent, and of our English Hierarchists how fare this was from being embraced as an article of faith Friar Peter will inform us. 
k History of the Counc of Trent. lib. 8. pag. 743.  The sixth Anathematisme, saith he, was much noted in Germany, in which an article of faith was made of Hierarchy: which word and signification thereof is alien, not to say contrary to the Scriptures: and though it was somewhat anciently invented, yet the Author is not known; and in case he were, yet is he an hyperbolical writer, not imitated in the use of that word, nor of others of his invention, by any of the ancients, and following the stile of Christ our Lord, and of the holy Apostles and Primitive Church it ought to be named not Hierarchy, but Hierodiaconia, or Hierodantia.  
I will therefore, because the Bishop, whom I intent to chase, runs this way, follow him, and 1. Consider whether our Saviour Christ laid any foundation for this Episcopal Jurisdiction. 2. Look to the practice of the Apostles in which they say this fabric and frame of Church government was erected. 3. View their writings, whether in them there is any such distinction of Order and Power between a Bishop and a Presbyter.  
1. As for that foundation which our Prelatists say was laid by Christ, placing his Apostles above his other Disciples, the Twelve above the seventy, it hath been sufficiently discovered by sundry Divines (in which regard I shall have cause to say the less) to be sandy and weak, altogether unable to bear the weight of that fabric which is by them hereupon erected; yea, some of their own friends and sticklers in the cause have confessed it, or at leastwise yielded that which doth overthrow it. For, 1. 
m Agnoscit Saravia Septuaginta discipulos Evang listarum dignitate eminuisse, ac proinde Ordinariis Episcopis vocationis gradu a●tecelluisse. Gers. Bucer p. 515. ex Sar. de Min. Eu. grad cap. 4.  Saravia (a professed patron of Episcopacy and Antagonist to Beza, whom our Prelates look on as their backfriend) doth acknowledge that the seventy Disciples were Evangelists, and in that respect by the degree of their calling superior to Ordinary Bishops. How then is there I pray you any foundation for the imparity between a Bishop and a Presbyter laid by Christ in this fact of his choosing Twelve Apostles, and seventy Disciples, when these seventy whom the Presbyters are said to succeed were superior to Bishops themselves? 2. 
n Peracto hoc primo munere, post quam reversi sunt gaudentes, non legimus eos amplius a Christo missos in Ministerium verbimeq, novam ill is suisse replicarā commissionem, etc. de rep. Eccl. lib. ●. c. 3. n. 4. Quam confirmationem quedq, mandatum, & generalem missionem, quia à Christo factam 72. discipulis non invenio, ne●●possum affirmare in ipsis suisse directe, proximè & immediate institutum ordinem presbyteralem, &c Id. ●b num. 4.  Spalatensis hath observed that these seventy Disciples were not instituted by our Saviour for the perpetual government of the Church, but only that they had a temporary Commission 
p Luke 10.  to go before him into every City and place whither he himself would come, which was not renewed to them after their return with joy, because the devils were made subject unto them, as the Commission (given to the Apostles at first with a limitation, 
q Match. 10.  Go not into the way of the Gentiles, neither enter into the Cities of the Samaritans, but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel) was after his resurrection repeated and enlarged, 
r Match. 28.  Go teach all nations. In which regard, saith he, I cannot, affirm that in them (the 70. Disciples) was the Order of Presbyters instituted directly and immediately. Christ's election of the seventy Disciples affords you see by the confession of the Archbishop of Spalleto himself no sure footing for the subjection of Presbyters to Bishops; though he would fain claim an institution of Bishops in the Commission given to the Apostles. But thirdly the 
s Enchir. Christ. relig. in Conc. Col. p. 169. de sacr. ord.. Parisian 1558. Non est tamen putan●um Episcopos alium in Ecclesia ordinem à Presbyteris constituisse. N●m in primitiva Ecclesia iidem erant Presbyteri & Episcopi, quod Apostolorum Petri & Pauli epistolae div●● quoque, Hierony nus, ac caeteri serè omnes veteres ecclesiassici scriptores a●estantur.  Canons of Coleine speak home to the point, and in plain terms deny the consequence of this, or that hereupon we should imagine that Bishops are a distinct Order from Presbyters. Albeit, say they, Christ did institute twelve Apostles, in whose place the Bishops are, and afterwards chose seventy Disciples whose place in the Church the Presbyters do hold. Yet we must not think that Bishops did constitute in the Church an order different from Presbyters. For in the Primitive Church Bishops and Presbyters were the same, which the Epistles of the Apostles Peter and Paul, St Hierome also, and almost all other ancient Ecclesiastic all writers do testify. In which regard our learned Junius spoke a truth, and no more but the truth, when he told Bellarmine, 
* Quam patres Episcopos Apostolis, Presbyteros 7●. Discipulis succedere affirmaverunt, nunquam d●xerunt ex institute Christi succedere. Quia nunquam institu●t Christus ut Aposto is secundum gradum in Ecclesia succed●● etur, quae res si fuisset sam Apostolatus surctio ordinaria dicenda suisset. Hoc autem verirati & rationi adversatur, Omnes Dei servi in dectrina Apost olerum successerunt, in gradum corum ne mine●● adoptavit Deus. Sed & 70. Discipulorum vocatio fuit extraordinaria, postea in ordinariam ●raducti sunt ut Episcopi & Presbyteri essent in 'tis ecclesiis, quibus sunt attributi. Quomode ergo inquio dixetunt Dos illos succedere? ●empe ●umana ac non divina institutione, analogica ratione quadam, non autem propria, imitatione communi quadam, non fingulari necessita e ecclesiae. Succedere igitur ex simili non ●utem pari, hos i●●is dixere Patres, qu a gradus in Ec●lesiae non pares, sed similes, non pleuè sed quodommedo ●bservari putabant alii posse, ●●ii oportere. Siqua autem similitudo est, tantum secu●dum quid & remotissima tamen fim●●uco est; si verè vera, si imaginarie imaginaria. Haec verò secundum quid remota est & imaginaria simiti●●do, ex qua siqui absolute concludunt al solutè fallunt●●un. controv. 5 lib. 1. cap. 14 not. 15.  When the Fathers said the Bishops succeed the Apostles, and the Presbyters succeed the seventy Disciples, they never said they did succeed one the other by Christ's Institution, but by humane no Divine Ordinance. They said they did succeed them, because some thought, there might be the like degrees after a sort, though not fully the like, be observed in the Church. Yet this likeness is but in some respect a remote and imaginary fimilitude, from which, saith he, if any do infer an absolute conclusion (that it is so, that it ought to be so) they do absolutely deceive themselves and others. This is the sum of Junius more large and satisfactory answer. By all which hath been said the Reader may easily discern on how uncertain grounds the faith of the Hierarchy is built. Of much more which might be spoken in this subject, I will add only one thing. Our Saviour's act incorporating the Apostles into one collegrate body (as we may style them) investing all and each of them with equal power, conferring a Superiority or Primacy to none of them above his fellows, doth plainly evince that he laid a foundation for, and gave a platform of an Aristocratical not Monarchick Government in the Church. The Monarchy he hath reserved to himself as his peculiar Prerogative; but those to whom he gave a fixed superiority (as our Hierarchists speak) and commission during term of life, were all conjoined in an Aristocracy. If any desire a reason why our Saviour Christ was pleased in his Apostles to settle an Aristocratical Government, and lay down this as a standing platform for them and their successors to follow; the Archbishop of Spalleto shall inform him, in whom we have a full and satisfactory reason: 
t Derep. Eccl. lib. 1. c. 12. n. 3.  Albeit, saith he, it is true that in humane Commonwealths a Monarchy, but especially that which is tempered by laws is best, yet in the Church Christ did not think it fit that way should be given to a Monarchy, though never so well tempered amengst those that are his Ministers, this he judged to be worst of all in the Church. Observe I pray you his reason, for it carrieth a great deal of weight with it. 
u Salvator ipse satis praevidit quam perniciosa foret in Ecclesiae haec Monarchia, & quam sacilè in tyrannidem illa posset erumpere, ideoq, ut tyrannis haec vitaretur usus est fimilitudine servorum. etc.— Sciebat enim Monarchiam banc Ecclesiasticam surtim introductam ad tyrannidem apertum tandem transitum facturam. Id. ibid. num. 4.  Our Saviour himself did well foresee how dangerous it would prove in the Church; that if once a Monarchy did creep in by stealth it would open a manifest way to tyranny to which it would degenerate. So Antonius de Dominis, well known to be a learned and great Patron of Episcopacy. As this reason given by him serveth to overthrow the Papal Monarchy over the whole Church, so it doth effectually conclude against an archiepiscopal over a Provincial, an Episcopal Sovereignty over a Diocesan Church. For indeed there are not many steps between a Pope and a Prelate. Stapleton the Jesuit (if the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 have rightly quoted him) hath confessed it 
* Qui gravid a est ex Archiepiscopo facise parere potest Papam. Stapleton.  an easio matter for an Archbishop, impregnated with an ambitious domineering spirit, to bring forth a Pope; and the practices of our later Prelates have made it evident to all the world, that a Diocesan Monarch may quickly become a tyrannical petti-Pope. In a word, suppose it should be granted that the thrones promised by our 
Matt. 19.28.  Saviour, are thrones Apostolical, and that thereby is meant that power of Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction which Christ communicated to them his Extraordinary Delegates and Ambassadors (which yet is very questionable, 
x Chemnit. har. Eu. c 132. I ansen. conc. Eu. c. 100 Cajet. Par.  divers Divines carrying it another way, yea, 
y L. cit. cap. 11● = ●3.  Spalatensis affirms the quite contraty, that Christ there speaks not a word of the throne in the Church) yet what is all this to an Episcopal throne, or to the advancing of a Prelate above the rest of the Presbyters? What affinity is there between an Apostolical and Episcopal throne, between an Aristocratical Government which Christ founded in his Apostles, and a Monarchical Sovereignty which Prelates have usurped. We read indeed in Scripture of 
z 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. Rev. 13.  a throne which the Dragon did give to the beast on whose head are names of blasphemy, but we read not any where of an Apostolical throne derived to a Bishop. True it is as the Patron of Episcopacy hath told us that in the ancients there is mention of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, The Bishop's throne. 
a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Orat. 7.  Gregory Nazianzen indeed so styles his Episcopal dignity to which he was advanced, but withal, he saith, he could not well tell whether he should call it a tyrannical throne or hierarchical; in his next Oration he calls it in plain terms 
b Orat. 28.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a tyrannical pre-eminence, and sets down both there in prose, and afterwards in 
c Carm. de vita su● oper Graecol tom 2. p. 24. & seq edit. Par san. 1630 & Carm. de div. vitae gen●ad pseudoepisc.  verse the bloody contentions and divisions which the ambition of Bishops affecting this Episcopal throne caused both in Church and State. I would the same were not verified in our days, and that we had not cause with him to complain. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Alas for our great sorrows and occasions of grief. Thus much for the foundation of Episcopal Jurisdiction pretended to be laid by Christ himself.  
We are in the next place to inquire whether it hath in the practice of the Apostles and their recommendation any more solid and firm erection; The only instance of this, that is produced, is the charge of the Apostle in his Epistles to Timothy and Titus, wherein in my understanding (saith our  
d Page 105.  Patron of Episcopacy) the Apostle speaks so home to the point, that if he were now to give direction to an English Bishop, how to demean himself in his place, he could not speak more fully to the execution of his sacred Office. In which assertion we may se● what is one special ground of this great confidence; Those acts and offices which have been by degrees limited to the. Bishops as distinguished from Presbyters, and granted by the Custom of the Church, those are singled out as if then by the Apostle limited and restrained to the Bishop. Amidst all that is here spoken out of these Epistles, we have not the least mention of those qualifications which St Paul requirech in a Bishop; It is not the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not the work of a Bishop, but the dignity and feigned Sovereignty for which they now contend and fight, however they would feign bear the world in hand that Episcopacy is a sacred Order of Divine and Apostolical institution; so that we may truly apply that to ours which sometimes Martin Duther first, and Marlorat after said concerning Popish Prelates; 
e Perinde sunt qui statum episcopalem statum jactitant perséctionis, quum interim nthil agant, quam Satrap as pompa agere, equitare bellos caballos, nisi quod interdum templa consecrant & arras. Marle in 2 Pet. 2.18. ex Luth.  Like unto them (that speak great swelling words of vanity) are they which boast that Episcopacy is a state of Perfection, when in the mean time the only thing they aim at is to be equal to Peers in pomp, to ride on stately horses, only now and then their Lordships do consecrate a Temple or an Altar. For, if we should look for the same conditions and qualifications in many of ours, which St Paul commands to be in those Bishops there mentioned by him, we shall find that we are 
f Hujusmedi conditiones siquu exactè consideret, & conferat cum nostrae aetatis episcopis, videbitur in novo orbe, & in peregrina aliqua ecclesia, quae Christum & Apostolos penitus ignoraverit, ve sari, Salm. in Tit. 1. disp. 1. ad 4 ●●● dub.  in a new world (as Salmeron the Jesuit once spoke) and in a strange Church that never heard of Christ and his Apostles. This by the way. From all that is culled out of these Epistles, the argument by which they must prove Episcopacy to have been erected by the Apostle laboureth with an usual fallacy, a shameful begging of the question. For first of all Timothy and Titus have been sufficiently unbishopped, not only by him who hath written a particular treatise in that name, but by all that have waded into this controversy, Domestic and Foreign Divines, against English and Romish Hierarchists, neither hath there been any sacrilege committed by those which have unbishopped them, but they have been restored to the Dignity of Evangelists, from which the Prelates have sacrilegiously degraded them, that so they might on the ruins of the  Evangelists honour build up their Episcopal Sovereignty. I might be large in proving this, that Timothy and Titus were Evangelists, but the work is already sufficiently done by others; Only, I will (lest our Hierarchists should say that this is the assertion of none but their opposites) put them in mind what 
g Video Timetheum proculdubio Episcopum generalem, i. e. Apostolum nulli certae sedi adhuc alligatum ab ipso Paulo vocari suum adjutorem de rep Eccl. l. 2. ca 3. n 60.  Antonius de Dominis hath observed concerning Timothy, long after the first Epistle written to him, even when the Apostle wrote his Epistle to the Romans (which was about the time of his last journey to Jerusalem, as is clear by paralleling those two places of Scripture, Rom. 15.25. Act. 24.17, 18.) to wit, that he was out of doubt a general Bishop, i. e. an Apostle, as yet confined to no certain seat. So that if Spalatensis speak truth, his Episcopacy of Ephesus is gone, for he was not yet saith he confined to any certain See. And as he was not then when Paul wrote that Epistle to the Romans, so neither was he when the same Apostle wrote his second Epistle to Timothy himself. Consider the charge which the Apostle there gives him; 
h 2 Tim. 4.5.  Do the work of an Evangelist, make full proof of thy Ministry; He doth not say, Do the work of a Bishop, than had our Prelatists some colour for their assertions, but of an Evangelist, now it is well known that the Apostle setteth the 
i Ephes. 4.  Evangelists as Persons whose calling was extraordinary above the standing and ordinary governor's of the Church, Pastors and Teachers. Those are by the Apostle there styled Evangelists who did Evangelizare sine Cathedra, as 
k in Eph 4.  Ambrose speaks, Preach the Gospel up and down not being confined to Residence on any one peculiar charge. We have St Paul professing that on him did lie the 
l 2 Cor. 11.27.  Care of all the Churches, and oft expressing his desire in his own person to come to them to confirm and strengthen their faith, which when he could not do he sent these two (not to mention any more) sometimes to one Church, sometimes to another, but being now imprisoned at Rome, and having once answered before Nero already, knowing that he 
m Ac. ●0.  should never see their faces any more, as he said to those Elders of Ephesus, that 
n ● Tim. 4.6.  the time of his departure was at hand, as he speaks to Timothy, he puts him in mind of that Office whereto he was chosen in an extraordinary manner 
o 1 Tim. 1.14. Chap. 4.14.  by the prophecies which went before concerning him, (For these extraordinary Offices had an extraordinary manner of vocation also (as sundry 
p Vide Bez. Aq. Lyr. ●spenc. Soto major in loc.  Divines testify concerning Timothy, induced thereto by the forementioned passages of Scripture) Do the work of an Evangelist, which what it was, Eusebius doth set forth at large, where he speaks of some who performed it thus; 
q Euseb. Eccl. hist. ●i. 3 ca 34. edit Easil. an. 1570.  they did preach Christ to those which had not as yet heard the word of faith, they delivered unto them the holy Scriptures, ordained Pastors, and committed unto them the charge of those which were newly received into the Church, and then they did 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, pass over unto other countries and nations.  
Whereas it is demanded, 
r Bishop Hall, ●●●. cit. p. 118.  how should those Works of Ordination and execution of Church censures, Which are constant and ordinary, and so consequently deriveable to all successions, to the end of the World, be imposed upon a mere extraordinary agent; this is a demand so senseless and void of all reason that I wonder it should fall from the pen of so learned and grave a Divine as Dr Hall; but if he desire an answer, I will return it him in the words of Saravia (a friend and fellow-stickler in their cause) who will inform him; that 
s Gradus ministrorom evangelli itasu●sse didst inctos ut majores includerent in erisrum ministeriae. Sar. ad cap. 1. Bez. de div. gra. Min. Evang.  The degrees of the Ministers of the Gospel were so distinguished, that the greater did include the Ministeries of the lesser. To the same purpose speaks Cajetan (in Ephes. 4.) so that whatsoever were the acts of an ordinary and standing Minister of the Gospel, the extraordinary Officer might perform them; albeit the Ordinary officers might not presume with the execution of those which belonged to the extraordinary.  
2. If the Precepts given here in charge to Timothy and Titus concern a Bishop alone, then doth it concern a Bishop alone to 
s ● Tim. 4.2.  Preach the word in season and out of season, to 
t Changed 1.6.1. Ep. Chap. 4.4.  stir up the gift of God that is in him, and not neglect it, to take heed to himself and his doctrine; to flee covetousness, and follow after righteousness, godliness, faith, love. These with many other precepts belong also to the Bishop and to him alone. If our adversaries in this cause shall answer, that these are duties belonging to all Ministers wherein they and Bishops do participate, but the other mentioned by them belong to a Bishop distinct from a Presbyter; I shall return them the same reply which Gersom Bucerus doth to Dr Downham, 
u Bucer. p. 283.  Quem istius distinctionis authorem proferemus? Who hath taught us or them so to distinguish; Surely the Apostle hath not, for he makes not the least mention of what belongs to Timothy as a Bishop, what to him as a Presbyter; but gives all the commands promiscuously without any difference.  
3. For as much as those charges given to Timothy and Titus are so much insisted on, to prove their Episcopal Power, and consequently the Power and Preeminence of Bishops above Presbyters by the Apostles practice and recommendation, I will take into consideration some of those which are material, and see what strength they afford unto the cause.  
That command given by the Apostle to Timothy, Lay hands suddenly on no man, and his appointing of Titus to ordain Elders in every city is strongly urged by the sticklers for Episcopal Sovereignty, to prove that the Power of Ordination was in their hands alone. Be there what Elders soever in Ephesus, there hands without a Timothy will not serve to ordain, his without theirs might, saith Bishop 
a Pa. 113.  Hall; very confidently, but under favour, and with respect to his grey hairs, very weakly. Who seethe not how weak an inference this is, Timothy is commanded not to ordain any man suddenly, Therefore Timothy alone had power to ordain: the Consequent may on just ground be denied. The Precedent of a College may be in a letter charged to take heed he admit not suddenly any man to a fellowship in the College, will it therefore follow that the power of Election and admittance is in the hands of the Precedent alone. For as much as this answer of those which are opposites to the Hierarchy, who say that Timothy and Titus were to ordain, not by their own power alone, but by way of Partnership and Society with the Presbytery, joining with them, is rejected by 
b P. 115.  Bishop Hall, as being so palpable, and quite against the hair, that he cannot think the authors of it can believe themselves: I will therefore endeavour to confirm it, and make it good.  
1. Since the Bishop will not believe what his Opposites say, I would desire to know whether the Bishop doth believe that St Paul would invest Timothy and Titus with a greater power than he himself, or the Apostles did exercise. Now it is clear that he did not assume the power of Ordination into his own hands, to execute it by himself, but in it, though he were as Precedent to conduct and guide the action, did conjoin with himself the Presbyters in the Ordination of Timothy. For albeit in 
c 1 Tim. 1.6.  one place he speaketh of the imposition of his own hands alone, yet in 
d Chap. 4.14.  another he mentions the Presbytery as concurring with him in it. Besides, the Ordination of the Presbyters at Antioch, was not the act of Paul alone, but Paul and Barnabas at least, or rather by comparing it with other places, Paul and Barnabas with the Presbyters of Antioch, did join together in the Ordination. The phrase runs in the plural number, 
e Act. 14.236  when they had ordained them Elders, and had prayed with fasting. From whence Gersom Bucerus doth argue thus, 
f Dosser. de gu●. Eccl. p 321.  If the Hierarchists do on just ground persuade us that Ordination doth belong to the Bishops, because the Apostles, whom the Bishops (as they say) do succeed, did ordain, by the same reason may Presbyters also ordain, because the 70. Disciples (whom the Presbyters do succeed, as they inform us) did ordain. For Barnabas is by many Historians reckoned among the 70. Disciples. If we look further into the actions of the Apostles, we shall find all their Ordinations not by their own power, but by the joint consent and concurrence of the Presbyters and Disciples. When 
g Act. 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Chrys. hom. 3. in Act. c. 1.  Mathias was chosen into the room of Judas, Peter doth all by the common consent of the Disciples, nothing by his own authority, nothing like a Lord or Prince in a commanding manner, as chrysostom hath observed. So in the Ordination of the 
h Chap. 6.  Deacons they carry themselves as Presbyters not as Apostles in the action, permitting the election to the Disciples, concurring with the Presbyters in the Ordination of them. Add hereunto one instance more out of the book of God. The command of the holy Ghost concerning Barnabas and Saul, 
i Chap. 13. ●.  Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have appointed them. Paul had his call to the Apostleship immediately from the Lord some years before this; and Barnabas his call to the Ministry, for both of them had joined together in the work of 
k Chap. 11.26.  Antioch, but being now by the Lord's appointment to go to the Gentiles, and preach the Gospel unto them (for that seemeth to be the great work here spoken of by the Lord, as 
l De rep hu. l. 2. c. ●. n. 13.  Spalatensis hath rightly observed) they are now commanded to be in a solemn manner set apart for this work. As the Lord himself by a voice from Heaven gives them their immediate call, and Authoritative Designation for this Office, so their Externall Designation to it they have by his appointment also, not from any one particular person, either Bishop or Presbyter, but from all those in the Church of Antioch which ministered to the Lord; for so St Luke sets it down, 
m Cham 13, ●, 3.  As they ministered to the Lord, and fasted, the Holy Ghost said, Separate me Barnabas and Saul, for the work whereunto I have called them. And when they had fasted, and prayed, and laid their hands on them, they sent them away. From all which by the practice of the Apostles, and by this voice of God from heaven, it is clear, as fare as I can apprehend, that the Power of Ordination or Deputation to the Ministry, and work of the Lord therein, should not, doth not reside in the hand of any one particular person of what degree soever, either Bishop or Presbyter, but of the collective body of Pastors and Presbyters which minister unto the Lord.  
2. If the Bishop will not believe his Opposites, such as Parker that proud Schismatic, or Cartwright and Ames with their ignorant and malcontented, followers, some giddy corner-creeping upstarts, 
Pag. 60, 61. & 148.  (these are not mine but Bishop Hall's titles of honour wherewith he doth bespatter them) if the judgement of Divines of greatest note in the Reformed Churches will strike any stroke, we have them concurring in this, that The Power of Ordination is in the hands of the Presbyters, not of any one alone; that though these charges are given to Timothy and Titus in particular, yet doth it not follow that they alone could do it. I will only mention one of many that might be alleged. When Pamelius from those places undertakes to prove the Superiority of Bishops above Presbyters, Gonlartius answereth him thus, 
n Annot. in Cyp. ep. 65.  The argument hath not strength enough in it, Presbyters are ordained by Bishops, therefore Bishops are above them. The ancient Bishops were ordained by the Clergy and the people, if any shall thence infer, therefore the Clergy and people are above the Bishops, Pamelius and his Scholars will deny the Consequence, Ordination doth not establish a degree or Preeminence, but only showeth and commendeth the Discipline of the Church.  
3. Besides Protestants, we have Papists assenting to this truth, and confessing 1. that Presbyters may ordain. 
p Gloss. in dist. 66 cap. Porrò.  Johannes Semeca in his Gloss on the Canon Law, proves it by this, the Apostles were but Presbyters not Bishops, yet they did ordain, and in their days there was no difference between a Presbyter and a Bishop. And 
q Antis San ap. Apol. Episc. p. 165.  Altissiodorensis hath delivered it, that if there were but three Presbyters in the World, they might ordain one the other, a bishop and an Archbishop, and gives this reason for it, Presbyters as well as Bishops do receive the Keys of the Kingdom in their Ordination, for they are the successors of the Apostles. 2. That Titus was left at Crete to ordain Presbyters not otherwise then as a Moderator in the action, and as a Consul or Dictator are said to create Consuls; because they are, they hold, the Comitia or Assembly and meeting in which they are created. Thus 
r In Tit. 1. d●sp. 1.  Salmeron, as I shall afterward show more at large out of him. By this time I hope it doth appear that this is not so palpable an elusion as the Bishop is pleased to style it, but rather so manifest a truth, which the Bishop himself nor all the mitred Fathers of that order are able to disprove. Thus much for Ordination from those charges, I proceed to the next.  
That precept of the Apostle, 
x 1 Tim. 5. 1●.  Against an Elder or Presbyter receive not an accusation, but before two or three witnesses, is mainly insisted on by Dr Hall and others, to prove that Timothy was invested with Episcopal Jurisdiction, and so to conclude the Jurisdictionall Preeminence of a Bishop over the Presbyters, yet the weakness of this argument hath been already sufficiently discovered, and the place answered to the full by our polemical Divines which have disputed against Papists, from whom our Hierarchists have borrowed most of their weapons which they make use of in this quarrel. It shall be therefore sufficient for me to mention the answer which is given by our Protestant Divines to their Romish Opposites in this cause. First, our Countryman Dr Whitakers answereth Bellarmine that this place proves not Timothy's power over Presbyters, and from this place observeth that the power of Jurisdiction was not in the hand of one, but of many that were endued with equal authority. 
y Quod Timotheus jubetur non temere ● 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 admittere, hoc non probat Timotheum in Presbyteros potestatem aut dominatum habuisse. Nam ex Apostoli ment 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 est crimen ad Ecclesiam deserre, reum in judicium addacere, palam reprehendere, quod non modo superiore● possunt, sed aequales etiam atque inferiores. In Romana Repub. Equites non de populo tantum sed etiam de Senatoribus & Patrioiis judicabant. Et certè non videtur Timotheus tale consistorium aut forum babuisse, quale post Episcopis in Ecclesia constitutum suit, nam hi Presbyteri non alii quam Episcopi fuerunt ut ex Apostolo constat.— Qualis haec authoritas sucrit ex eo quod sequitur intelligi potest, Eos qui peccant coram omnibus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, quod aequales quoque possunt. Sic elim Ep●scopesiquis Presby●es aut Episcopus male avauet, ad Senatum Ecclesias●icum aut Synoaum reserebant, ●umque si d●gnus videretur ●ublico jud●cio damnabant, i. e. cut suspendebant, aut excommunicabant, aut removebant. Whitak. co. t. ●●●. 1. c. 2. sc. 16.  According to the meaning of the Apostle to receive an accusation is to acquaint the Church with the crime, and to bring the offender into judgement, openly to reprove which not only superiors, but equals also, yea and inferiors may do. The Knights of Rome did not only judge the people, but the Senators and Noblemen also if they were delinquents. Certainly Timothy had no such Consistory or Court as was afterwards attributed to the Bishops. What this authority was may be understood from that which followeth, Them that sin rebuke before all; which equals also may do. Thus of old the Bishops, if a Bishop or Presbyter were accused, did refer the matter to the Ecclesiastical Senate or Synod, and did condemn him if he were found worthy, i. e. they did suspend, excommunicate, or remove him according to the nature of his offence. Thus that Divinity Professor of Cambridge in his days. And that this was the manner of proceeding in administration of Church censures, appears by our Saviour's precept concerning other Offenders though private persons, 
z Matth. 18.  Dic Ecclesiae, Tell the Church; and the sentence of Excommunication pronounced and executed on the incestuous person at Corinth; It was not the act of a Bishop alone or of his Official or Chancellor (these are Apocryphal names and offices, unknown for some Centuries of years in the Church of Christ) but it was 
a 2 Cor. 2.6.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Punishment inflicted by many. 2. I may add the answer of Gonlartius unto Pamelius objecting this place of the Apostle to Timothy for the proof of Episcopal Preeminence over Presbyters. 
b Annot. in Cypr. Epist. 65.  An accusation is two ways received either privately or in the Ecclesiastical assembly which doth judge of those crimes. This though it be taken as spoken to Timothy alone, yet implieth, as he there shows only a pre-eminence of Order in Timothy not of power and authority. Which he thus makes good; if a Bishop were accused the Presbyters did receive the accusation and judge of it; as he proves out of Cyprian, who 
c Epist. 65. old. 3 Ep. 9  writes to Epictetus and the people of Assura commanding them not to admit to the Episcopacy again Eortunatianus who sometimes was their Bishop, but had denied the faith of Christ. Other Bishops, saith Gonlartius, are not called together, nor is there any appeal to the Bishop of Rome, but the Assuritan Church in a convenient order judgeth their own Bishop. In the Presbytery one of the Presbyters or Ministers of the Church did fit, for orders-sake only, until those degrees did arise of which we have elsewhere spoken. Therefore to receive an accusation against one is not only a note of pre-eminence, but of order also, and that pre-eminence doth not confirm those degrees which afterwards introduced tyranny into the Church, but manifesteth an eutaxie in the house of God. This shall suffice to be spoken touching that branch of Episcopal Jurisdiction; I come to another, and that concerns the Commission given to Timothy concerning the Doctrine of the Teachers.  

d Episc by. di●. right. p. 106.  Timothy is charged to charge the Preachers of Ephesus, that they teach no other doctrine, that they do not give heed to Fables and Genealogies and 
e Pag. 116.  Titus is commanded 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to stop the mouths of those false teachers, who broach doctrines they ought not for filthy lucre's sake, and to pass sharp censures upon them, what can do this but Episcopal authority, saith the Bishop; 
Pag. 107.  I may truly say (saith he) that both St Paul and Timothy his Disciple do as truly Lord it here in their Episcopal power, as those Bishops which they (the Scots) have abdicated.  
I will not here Camerinam movere, rake into the sink of the Lordly tyrannical exorbitancies of our later Prelates, they stink bad enough already, I will not cause the Reader to stop his nose at those putrid steams which would arise if that puddle were stirred. Only I would desire the Reader by the way to consider that St Paul hath professedly disclaimed all Lording it over the consciences of the Corinthians: 
f 2 Cor. 1.14.  Not that we have dominion over your faith, saith he, but are helpers of your joy; for by faith ye stand. 
g In locum.  Cajetan hath well observed that this is here added by the Apostle to exclude a calumny, which might have been cast on him, because the words of Paul which he spoke immediately before, viz. to spare you, might seem to imply some dominion, he presently subjoins this, Not that we have dominion over your faith, which words are fitly and fully paraphrased by Beza thus, 
h Ineund. locum.  Not as if I might do any thing amongst you in matter of Religion, What I pleased by my power in binding and losing of your consciences, but I am the Minister of God to comfort you and to cheer your hearts; we are helpers of your joy, wherein he doth secretly oppose the joy and peace of Conscience, Where of he makes God the author, but himself and his colleagues the Ministers, unto that tyrannical terror which is caused by those who carry themselves as if they were Lords over the consciences of both Ministers and people.  
We do not say that either Timothy or Titus were mere Presbyters, and so compeers or Equals to the Presbyters of Ephesus or Crete, nor were they Bishops such as you fancy them, and in that superiority of degree above them; but Evangelists of an higher Orb than either Bishops, for which you plead, or Presbyters. Look on them in that degree wherein they were, and they might on better grounds, with more authority charge false teachers, that they should not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 teach any other doctrine then what the Apostles had taught; (for unto that the 
i Gal. ●. 8, ●.  Apostle himself doth limit it, doubling his Anathema on the heads of them whosoever they were that should do it) than any ordinary Bishop whatsoever, if there had been then any such distinct from Presbyters. The case is clear concerning them both, they had been the Apostles companions in his travails, had been fully instructed in the doctrine which he preached, and in respect of their familiar conversing with him, they could avouch what truth he had delivered. That of Paul to Timothy, the pretended Bishop of Ephesus is clear for him. 
k 2 Tim. 3.10.  Thou hast fully known my doctrine, manner of life. 
l Ib. ver. 14.  Continue thou in the things which thou hast learned, and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them. As for Titus (touching whom Bishop 
m Pag. 117.  Hall is pleased to tell us, there is no colour to say he was an Evangelist) not to insist on the frequent use which the Apostle made of him, in sending him from one Church to another, consider what false teachers they are whose mouths the Apostle would have in an especial manner to be stopped, they are 
n Tit. 1.10.  those of the Circumcision. Them Titus could more effectually convince and confound with greater authority than any other man whatsoever. For he could in respect of his own person declare what privilege St Paul pleaded for, to wit, exemption from the yoke of Circumcision. 
o Gal. 2.  Titus was not cicumcised by reason of false brethren, who creptin unawares to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus that they might bring us again into bondage; this was done by the interposition of Apostolic authority, when others would have urged it. Yea, more than this, when Paul himself with the chosen Elders from the Churches of Antioch went by revelation to confer with the Apostles Elders and brethren concerning that vexatious question moved by some false teachers, who pretended the consent of the Apostles with them, in that which they obtruded on the Gentiles, the necessity of Circumcision, 
p Gal. 2.1.  Titus was one of those who went up with the Apostle Paul to the Apostles at Jerusalem; him and Barnabas did St Paul take along with him, to be 
q Par. lect 14. in Ep. ad Gal.  witnesses both before the Apostles of his doctrine preached among the Gentiles, and also to the Churches of his action with the Apostles, and their concurrence with him giving him the right hand of fellowship. Now consider, I pray you, what was one special privilege of the Apostles, those whom our Saviour himself made choice of, to whom he did renew and enlarge his commission after his Resurrection; and you shall find that Titus was a sharer in a privilege next removed unto it, but one degree below them. They were eye and eare-witnesses of the doctrine, miracles, sufferings and Resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ, as is clear from that 
r Act. 1.21, 22.  speech of Peter (at the election of Mathias in the room of Judas) and what elsewhere he writeth to the dispersed Jews, 
s ● Pet. 1.16, 18.  We were eye-witnesses of his Majesty; and this voice we heard. The privilege of an Evangelist was this; these things concerning Christ were 
s Luke 1.2.  delivered unto them by those which from the beginning were eye-witnesses, and ministers of the Word. As the Apostles were Christ's Attendants, and 
t Chap. 22.28.  continued with him in all his temptations, so the Evangelists were Apostolorum comites, the Apostles companions in all their travails and peregrinations, fellow-workers and helpers in the Ministry. Titus then being an eyewitness and an earwitness not only of St Paul's preaching among the Gentiles, but of the Apostles determination and conclusion in their Synodical decree touching Circumcision, might with fare more authority stop the mouths of those false teachers of the Circumcision, than any ordinary Bishop or Pastor whatsoever. By this time, I hope, it is evident that the charge given to Timothy and Titus makes nothing for Episcopal authority and Jurisdiction. 2. There is no necessity to limit and restrain that phrase of the Apostles, 
u Tit. 1.  whose mouths must be stopped to an authoritative and judiciary silencing of a false teacher, Cajetan extends it unto a 
* Authoritate & doctrina. Cajet. in loc.  Doctrinal as well as a Definitive silencing by a sentence against him. 
m Sckol. in loc.  Piscator hath observed that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is the same with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which latter word is used sometimes to express such a stopping of the mouth and silencing as is the fruit of a doctrinal conviction; and confutation by evidence of Scripture. So the Evangelist St Matthew useth it, 
* Matt 22.34. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  When the Pharisees had heard that he (Christ) had put the Sadduces to silence, which was done not by any definitive sentence pronounced in a judiciary manner against them, authoritatively commanding them to hold their peace and preach such false doctrine no more, but by testimony of Scripture was their error so fully discovered that they had not a word to reply for themselves in maintenance of their erroneous opinions. 
x Ibid.  Ye err, because ye know not the Scripture, nor the power of God. Have ye not read what God said unto Moses in the bush, etc. Of this kind of silencing or stopping the mouth the Apostle speaks in this place, as is evident by what goes before and what follows. Amongst the qualifications of a Bishop, i. e. a Presbyter, as you shall see anon, this is one, he must 
y Tit. 1.5.  Hold fast the faithful word as he hath been taught, that he may be able by sound doctrine both to exhort, and to convince the gainsayers. Why is this required, the words following show the reason, 
a Ver. 10, 11.  For there are many unruly and vain talkers and deceivers, specially they of the circumcision whose mouths must be stopped. This stopping of the mouth here spoken of must be by a Conviction from sound doctrine. Then consider what follows immediately, 
b Ver. 13.  This witness is true, wherefore reprove them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith. You see still the silencing is by a conviction, and a doctrinal confutation, so is the noun used when the Apostle saith of the Scripture, it is profitable 
c 2 Tim. 3.16.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for conviction or confutation, so the compound of the Verb, in that phrase of the Evangelist concerning Apollo's, 
d Act. 18. last. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  he mightily convinced the Jews, to wit, by the clear evidence of Scripture which could not be gainsaid or shifted off by any sophistical evasions whatsoever. But where the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used to signify the passing of sharp censures, I shall not be ashamed to confess my ignorance, but am willing to be informed by my betters, Bishop Hall or any of his brethren. Seeing the Apostle here speaks of a doctrinal silencing and confutation, I hope this is not a privilege fastened to an Episcopal chair, but such as is communicable to a Presbyter.  
Thus much shall suffice to be spoken concerning these charges given to Timothy and Titus, by which the Doctor hath undertaken to prove them to be invested with Episcopal power and Jurisdiction, but how well, let others judge. There is one thing more in these pages which will deserve a like animadversion; it is a passage, which had it fallen from the pen of any other then Doctor Hall, I should have thought the man had certainly a Pope in his belly; it is this. 
c Pag. 108.  That House of God which is the Church (wherein Timothy's behaviour is so required) is not some one private congregation, such an one were not fit for that stile the pillar and ground of truth, but the famous Diocesan Church of Ephesus. Me thinks the phrase here used, and stile of some other of late amongst us, comes somewhat near to that of the Jesuits mentioned by Doctor Bilsin; 
f Differ. betw. Christ. subject. and unchrist. rebel. p. 224. part. 2.  This is, saith he, the right trade of your apology to pretend the Church and mean the Pope.— And so you make the Church but a cloak-bag to carry the Pope's titles after him. Our Cathedralists pretend the Church but mean the Bishops and themselves, and so the Church is made but a cloak-bag to carry the Diocesans titles of honour after him. But why, I pray you, may not a particular private congregation be styled the pillar and ground of truth; There is no Orthodox Divine can be ignorant that the Church is said to be the pillar of truth, 
Non ratione architect onica, sed sorensi.  not as the notion of a pillar is taken by Architects in building, for that which doth uphold and bear up the roof, or loft that lieth on it, as if the Church did give supportance and stability to the truth, but as a pillar in the marketplace, to which the King's Proclamation is fastened, that all his subjects may take notice of it. Hath Christ fastened his truth to a Cathedral only, that there it is to be found, and no where else? The sad experience of that ignorance, superstition, and profaneness which reign in places nearest unto them hath verified the Proverb, The nearer the Church the further from God. Lyra though a popish Friar, and one that lived in times of much blindness, yet saw so much light that he could say; 
h Lyra in Matt. c. 16.  The Church consists not in men of dignity and power, either Ecclesiastical or Secular; for many Princes and Popes with other inferior persons have revolted from the faith: wherefore the Church consists in those persons in whom is the true knowledge and confession of the faith. I would we had not too much cause to confess the same of many of our Churchmen, Prelates and their adherents, the Cathedral Diocesan crew, with others: but albeit there hath been an apostasy in them, yet blessed be the Lord for it, we may truly say of the Church of England at this day, what once a 
i Dr Potter in his answer to Charity mistaken.  Cathedralist spoke in favour of the Church of Rome: The errors have been the errors of the domineering faction in the Court of England, not the errors of the Church of England. I hope they will give us leave to speak as favourably of our mother the Church of England, as they of theirs the Church of Rome, which is with them a true Church. I will shut up all that I shall say concerning Timothy and Titus, and the pretended Episcopal power committed unto them, the same as our Hierarchists say, with what they exercise, with the observation of a Friar, yet an 
k History of the Counc. of Trent. lib. 4. pag. 332.  Historian of good esteem, It is denied in words that Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction is dominion, as is the secular, yet one knoweth not how to put a difference between them. But St Paul did, when he wrote to Timothy, and repeated it to Titus, that a Bishop should not be greedy of gain, nor a striker. Now on the contrary, they make men pay for processes, and imprison the parties, as is done in the secular Courts.  
In the next place, according to promise, I come to view the writings of the Apostles, and to inquire whether in them there be any such Superiority and Distinction in Order and in Office between a Bishop and a Presbyter, as is pretended by our Prelatists. If in this Scripture may be judge it is as clear as the Sun, in my apprehension, that a Bishop and a Presbyter are one and the same in Order and in Office. For when the Apostle doth set down the sacred orders, we find no other but these, Bishops and Deacons, that which is by the Hierarchists made a middle order between both, to wit, of Presbyters is not at all expressed in distinction from the former, which doth evidently prove, that the distinction between a Bishop and a Presbyter is but an institution of man, not of God, nor hath it foundation in the Word of God. Consider the Inscription of St Paul's Epistle to the Philippians, it is directed to 
l Phil. 1. ●.  All the Saints in Christ Jesus which are at Philippi, with the Bishops and Deacons. When Paul directeth Timothy how he should carry himself in the Church of God, that is saith a late 
m Bishop Hall, pag. 108.109.  Patron of Episcopacy, how he must carry himself as a Diocesan, in such a Church where there would be need of all variety of Church-Officers, we have no other Orders set down then the , 
n 1 Tim. 3.  Bishops and Deacons, together with the qualifications of the one and the other. I demand then of our Diocesans now how comes it to pass that the order of Presbyters is left out. If Presbyters were a distinct order from Bishops, and inferior to them in place and power, would the Apostle have omitted them as unnecessary and superfluous in such a Church, as the Diocese of Ephesus, yea of Asia rather (for of that extent is the Church there mentioned by the Apostle said to be, by our  Bishop.) Come we from Timothy to Titus, and view the Epistle directed unto him; 
o Tit. 1.5.  He is left by the same Apostle at Crete, that he should set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain Elders in every city. Of what rank and order these Presbyters or Elders were, the verses immediately following will inform us. The qualifications of those which should be admitted to this order, and be made Presbyters follow; If any be blameless, 
Vers. 6.  the husband of one wife, having faithful children, not accused of riot, or unruly. Why must a Presbyter be such an one, 
Vers. 7.  the next verse gives the reason; For a Bishop must be blameless as the steward of God, not self-willed, etc. Therefore must a Presbyter be blameless, because he is God's steward, a Bishop, an Overseer (as the Greek word properly imports, and so it is rendered by our late Translators, Act. 20.) set over the House of God. In a word, if the Apostles had in their days instituted any such distinct order of Bishops above Presbyters, then surely either in their last and valedictory speeches to those Presbyters whom they ordained, and Churches which they planted, or in their Epistles sent unto them, we should have some expressions tending to this purpose, some charge or other given either to the Bishop how he should carry himself towards the Presbyters under his power and Jurisdiction, or to the Presbyters how they should behave themselves toward the Bishop set over them. But we find not the least intimation of any such thing; nor of one Bishop set over many flocks and congregations, but rather of more Bishops than one, which had the oversight of a flock. The command given to the Hebrews is this, 
p Heb. 13.17.  Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves, for they watch for your souls, as they that must give an account. He doth not say 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Be obedient to the Bishop that is over you, but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in the plural number, them that have the rule over you, for they watch for your souls; it is too great a burden for one to be entrusted with the oversight, and give an account for the souls in many congregations. The counsel of St Paul to the Thessalonians runs thus; 
q 1 Thes. 5.12.  We beseech you, brethren, to know them which labour among you, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which are over you in the Lord. However in the writings of the Fathers, as the 
r Orig. of Episc. pag. 5.  Archbishop of Armagh hath observed, which were somewhat near the Apostles days, the title of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (which is the same with the word here used by the Apostle) is limited unto one, whom other of the Fathers do peculiarly term a Bishop (in what respect you shall hear more anon) yet, it is clear by this pla●● of the Apostle, that they confined not that Title unto one, nor did they set up one under that title or notion, Superior to the rest of the Presbyters, who laboured also in the word and doctrine. In which regard 
s Am●●t in ●oc.  Beza spoke a truth, and no more but a truth, when he observed from this and other places that the Church was governed, a Pastoribus in communi, by the Paestors in common. or by the common consent and counsel of the Pastors, the degree of Episcopacy b●ing not as yet invented or found out by the Apostles or Apostolic men. Let us proceed, St Peter commandeth the Presbyters to 
t 1 Pet. 5.1, 2.  feed the flock of God which is amongst them, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 taking the oversight of them (or being and performing the office of Bishops amongst them) not by constraint, but willingly, not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind. From which and other places it is clear, that in Scripture phrase 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is so fare from signifying an Order distinct from, or superior to a Presbyter, that it imports no other thing then the Office of a Presbyter; a truth which 
u Dissert. 1. de presb & episc. cap 6.  Salmasius hath proved at large against Petavius the Jesuit. Yea, the 
* Ibid. cap. 3. pag. 172.  same learned Critic hath observed that there is as much colour of reason to say that a Senator and Counsellor were distinct Offices and Orders, as to say that a Bishop and a Presbyter are different in Office and in Order. For as the Senate and the Counsel did not constitute different bodies, but one and the same assembly was understood by both denominations, so the particular members of that body were sometimes called Senators, sometimes Counselors. Idem est, saith he, de Presbyterio & Episcopio. The Presbytery and the Episcopium were but one and the same body, and convention of Bishops and Presbyters.  
The light of Scripture is so evident and convincing (unto all those which do not shut their eyes against it, being prepossessed with other fancies that from thence (to omit other testimonies of the Fathers, with sundry Divines of note both Protestant and Popish) 
m Dist. 60. cap. Null. ex urb. Papa. Sacros or lines dicimus diaconatum & Presbyteratum. Hos quidem sotos ecclesia primitiva habusse dicitur.  Gratian, and 
x Sent. lib. 4. dist. 24. tit. 1. Excellentèr canon's duos tantum sacros ordines appellari censent, diaconatus scil. & presbytera●us, quia hos solos Ecclesia primitiva legetur habuisse, & de bissolis praeceptum Apostolihabemus.  Peter Lombard have confessed, that the Scripture mentioneth no other sacred Orders then of Presbyters and Deacons, the primitive Church is said to have these only, and we have the precept of the Apostle concerning these alone. As Gratian in his text of the Canon Law, so 
y Dicunt quidem quod in ecclesia prima primitiva common crat officium episcoporum & sacerdotum, & not mina crant communia. dist. 95. cap. Olympia, & officium crat common: said in secunda primitiva caeperunt distingui & nomiva Presbyter et Episcopus erant prorsus synonyma, & etiam administratio communis erat, quia communi consitio sacerdotum regebantur ecclesiae. In schismatis ergoremedium (ut bicdicitur) fact a est praelatio ut unus praeess●t & quoad quaedam sacramenta, quae modò appropriantur episcopis. Gloss. ikn dist. 95. cap. Legimus. verb. Postea.  Johannes Semeca in his Gloss thereon tells us, In the first Primitive Church Bishops and Presbyters or Priests were all one, both in name and office; the names and offices began to be distinguished in the second primitive Church; when for a remedy of schism one was advanced in the Church (which was before governed by the common consent of Presbyters) in respect of name, and administration, and some sacraments, which are now appropriated to the Bishops. Thus Semeca. If any shall desire to know of what extent this first primitive Church is, none can better inform him then learned Dr USSHER, once Divinity Professor at Dublin, now Archbishop of Armagh, 
z De succ. & statu Eccles. cap. 1. pag. 19  who having observed out of Hegesippus, that during the age of the Apostles the Church continued 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a pure and undefiled Virgin, adds in matters of Religion we are not ashamed to appeal to this first Primitive Church (for so it hath pleased some to distinguish) saith he, referring us in the margin to this  Gloss of Semeca. And truly as in articles of faith and points of Doctrine, against all Romanists with other pretenders of antiquity, so in matters of Discipline, and this particular point of controversy concerning the Parity, or rather Identity of Bishops and Presbyters against all Hierarchists whatsoever, we are neither afraid nor ashamed to appeal to this first Primitive Church, the Church in the Apostles days. Before I part with Gratian and the Canon Law, I shall add this out of it, we find there another Original of this Imparity and distinction in Order between a Bishop and a Presbyter, 
a Horum discretio à Gentilibus maximè introducta est, qui suos Flamines, alios simpliciter Flamines, alios Archiflamines, alios Protostamines appellabant. Grant decr. par. 1. dist. 21. Vide plura distinct. 80. Can. in Illis.  The difference that now is between an Archbishop, a Bishop, and a Presbyter was introduced, saith Gratian, into the Church from the imitation of the Heathenish Hierarchy, who so marshaled their Priests that some were Archiflamines, some Protoflamines, some Flamines. The same is acknowledged for the substance of it by the 
b  Rom. veteres olim majores & minores Pontifices, & inter hos unum summum, qui omnes sacris praecrant, habebant: it a & nos in Christianismo easdem denominationes servamus: Archiepiscopi dicti sunt tanquam primores Episcopi, etc. Desacr. Ord. p. 169. edit. Paris. an. 1558.  Canons of Coleine in their Enchiridion of Christian Religion. And were it needful I could show out of sundry 
c Mat. Park. Antiq. Brit. p. 5. Paggit in his Christianogr. and Fitzberbert the Ies.  Divines that this form of Church Government was here erected at first in England in imitation of the Heathenish Hierarchy by Lucius the first Christian King that embraced the faith. Among those many and pregnant testimonies which might be produced in confirmation of this truth, against the Divine Institution of the Majority of Bishops above Presbyters, I shall trouble your patience but with one remarkable passage in the Council of Trent. 
d HIstor●e of the Council of Trent. lib 7. p. 619.  When in the Congregation, Oct. 8. All the Spaniards with some others made a new instance that the Institution and Superiority of Bishop's de Jure divino might be defined; unto the Legates chamber the next morning came three patriarchs, six Archbishops, and eleven Bishops, with a request that it might not be put into the Canon, that the Superiority is De Jure divino. And mark I beseech you the reasons, for in themselves, but especially proceeding from the mouths of such and so many persons, they carry a great deal of weight with them; in regard that 1. It savoured of ambition. 2. It was unseemly themselves should give sentence in their own cause. 3. Because the greater part would not have it put in. And whosoever shall peruse that history, and diligently observe the managing of this business in the Council, shall find that the opinion of the Spaniards, against which the  Patriarches, Archbishops, and Bishops did produce their reasons (which I do not find were ever answered or refuted) was inserted into the Canon, merely on these two grounds 1. In opposition to the Lutherans, this was the reason given by the Archbishops of 
e Ib. p. 604.  Granata, in the Congregation held, Oct. 13.1562. and of 
d P. 606.  Zara, as also by the 
f Pa. 607.  Bishop of Segovia in the following Congregations. 2. In favour of the Pope, for they were afraid that if the Divine institution and superiority of Bishops were denied, or the Prelate's honour did decay, the Pope's triple Crown would soon fall off his head. This made the Bishop of Segovia in plain terms confess, 
g Pa. 607.  If the power of the Bishops be weakened, that of the Pope is weakened also: and when the Secretary of the marquis of Pescara dealt with the Archbishop of Granata for his stiffness in urging the divine Institution of Bishops, advising him not to touch any thing in prejudice to the holy See; Granata answered, 
h Ib pa 629.  He never meant to say any thing against the Pope, but thought that whatsoever was spoken for the authority of Bishops, was for the benefit of his Holiness; being assured that if their authority were diminished, the Obedience to the holy See would decrease also, though by reason of his old age he knew it would not happen in his time. Thus much of the first argument taken from the testimonies of Scripture.  
2. The writings of those which immediately succeeded the Apostles, and lived in the next age after them, show that in their day's Bishops and Presbyters were all one in name and office, not one preferred above the other in Order and Superiority of power. Polycarpe was as is confessed the Disciple of St John, the 
i Epis. part. 2. p. 156.  Angel of the Church of Smyrna, saith Bishop Hall, following therein (as in most others) Dr Downham. Now whether there were any such Order of Bishops superior to Presbyters in the Church of Christ in his days, let the world judge from his own words in his Epistle to the Philippians. I will not spend lines, much less leaves in the praise of the author, or his Epistle; I leave that to others who make good the Poets saying,  
Laudat venales cupiens extrudere merces. Mercator. Nor will I insist on the Inscription of the Epistle, wherein he doth conjoin with himself the Presbyters of the Church of Smyrna, though from thence 
k Dissert. de presb. & episc. cap 4. p. 232.  Salmasius doth prove that he was not a Bishop in that restrained sense wherein the word was used in after ages, for saith he, there is no example of an Epistle written by a Bishop; wherein, when once a Bishop came to be advanced above the Presbyters, he doth conjoin them in his Inscription as his Companions and Equals: But take his plain and positive command or counsel to the Philippians, how they must behave themselves. He requires them to be 
l 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  subject to the Presbyters and Deacons as unto God and to Christ. By which it is clear there were then no other orders then these two, none above a Presbyter to which they must be in subjection. Here is not the least mention of a Bishop, as 
m Omissa nescie quamebrem Episcopis mentione. ●sp. digress. in 4. Tim. lib. 1. ca 1. p. 133.  Espencaeus doth acknowledge, though being prepossessed with some fancies of his own, de ordine Principante, as he calls the order of Bishops, for which he doth contend, he wondereth why they are omitted. Let us proceed, and see what power and authority these Presbyters had in the Church of Philippi, This we shall learn from his Injunction unto them; for he commands them to provide things honest in the sight of God and men, abstaining from all anger, respect of persons and unjust judgement. He wils them farther to flee all covetousness, not suddenly giving credit to accusations against any one, nor be harsh in judgement. These passages I own to 
n Loc. cit p. 235.  Salmasius, by which it is evident that these Presbyters of Philippi, to whom he gives this in charge, had then Ecclesiastical Jurisdictive power in their hands, and none was superior unto them therein in the Church of Philippi in those days.  
Before I proceed I must remove one rub that is cast in the way by the 
o Archbishop of Armagh, Orig. of Epis.  Patrons of Episcopacy; it is this, Polycarpe was himself a Bishop of the Church of Smyrrna, as is proved amongst other evidences by the testimony of Ignatius, who in his Epistle to the Church of Smyrna 
p Epist. ad Symrn.  salutes him under that name, as a person distinct from the Presbytery, and exhorteth all the people to follow their Bishop as Christ Jesus did his Father, and the Presbytery as the Apostles, telling them that no man ought either to administer the Sacraments, or do any thing appertaining to the Church without the consent of the Bishop: and of 
q Li. 3. adv. baer. cap. 3. & in epist. ad Florin.  Irenaeus, who so styles him, and witnesseth that he himself was present when Polycarpe himself did discourse of his conversation with St John. From all which it is inferred that he was the Angel or Precedent of the Church of Smyrna, when St John wrote this his Revelation.  
Yet all this makes nothing against what I have delivered, as I conceive under favour, and with submission to men of greater reading and better judgement: For 1. Sundry passages in that Epistle of Ignatius to Polycarpe are, as 
r Margin. annot. in epist. Ignat. ad Polyc.  Vedelius hath observed, supposititious, thrust into them by some one or other out of the pretended Constitutions of Clemens, lib. 2. cap. 26. 2. Albeit Ignatius doth in that Epistle salute Polycarpe the Bishop, and the Presbytery, yet it doth necessarily follow that he was a Bishop in order distinguished from the Presbytery, if he were a Presbyter Precedent of the Presbytery it is a sufficient reason why in this falutation of Ignatius he should be named in the first place, and the Presbytery after him. It appears by Ignatius elsewhere that the Presbyters were Counsellors unto and Coassessors with the Bishop in the Presbytery, for so he doth expressly call them: 
s In epist● ad Troll. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  What is the Presbytery, saith he, but a sacred Assembly, the Counselors and Coassessours of the Bishop. In the Roman commonwealth though all the Patricii or Noblemen were Counselors of State and Senators, yet there were two chosen out from among the rest, who had for honour's sake the denomination of Consuls appropriated unto them, yet this title of honour did not advance them to a Place or Dignity of a different Order from or Superior to the rest of the Patricii, they were all Counselors, but these two the Precedents of the Counsel; and from this their Orrice they had their name of honour consuls à consulendo. How weak a ground, the restriction of the name Bishop unto him that is a Precedent of the Presbytery, to prove his distinction in order from thence, hath been showed before out of 
* Dissert. de presb. & episc. pag. 232.  Salmafius, who hath made it evident that by the same reason, a Counsellor and Senator; The Council and the Senate should constitute different Orders, and Offices: yea, all that the Primate of Armagh (whom for his Piety and Learning I shall ever honour) doth in plain terms plead for (at leastwise seems unto me to plead for) and doth undertake to prove is only this, that he to whom the title of Bishop (which was as is confessed by Dr Reynolds, whom he allegeth at first common to all the Presbyters, by whose common counsel and advice all Church affairs were ordered) is restrained by the Fathers, was a Precedent of the Presbytery, which may easily be granted without any great advantage to the Hierarchists, or prejudice to the Presbyterians. But if by reason of Presidentship it shall be inferred that the Bishop was in Order and in Office distinct from and superior to the Presbyters; I shall for my part be ready to assent unto those which say so, on the same conditions that that Old Archbishop of 
r Fa●etur Armachanus diversam sententiam● esse magis amicum Doctoribus ecclesiae, cui paratum se profitetur morem gerere; node e● divinis differentia ostendatur oraculis. mich. de Pal. in 4. dist. 24. disp. 2. Num episc. fit. ordo.  Armagh proffered to subscribe to the opinion of the Prelates and Doctors, (who were well-pleased with their assertions that did say there was by divine institution a difference between a Bishop and a Presbyter) So that the difference may be manifested out of the divine Oracles, and what is affirmed be proved by them.  
3. True it is that Irenaeus doth indeed set forth Polycarpe under that name Bishop of the Church of Smyrna, yea and withal doth say that he was constituted Bishop of that Church by the Apostles; yet doth it not follow that he was a Bishop in Order superior to a Presbyter, which I shall prove two ways: 1. By the writings of the Apostles (which best of all inform us what orders of Church Officers they did institute) a Bishop and Presbyter are one in Order and Office. Of this I have spoken before, and therefore will but mention it: only I will add the judgement of that  old and learned Archbishop of Armagh in this point; who considering the passages of the Apostle in his Epistle to Timothy, wherein there is mention of no other Orders but Bishops and Deacons, delivereth it as a 
u Constant quod inter orcinem Episcopalem, & inter ordinem Diaconatue non est orao medius, quo●iam si quis esset, non dubium, quia iste Doctor maximus qui suum evangelium recepit à Christo, ut ipse scrihit ad Gal. 1. suum discctum discipulum Timotheum de illo ord●ne instruxisset, & ei regulas dedisset, sicut de superiori & inferiori re●utas dedit. Rich. Armach. lib. ●1. quaest. Armen cap 5. fol. 84.  manifest and unquestionable truth that there is no middle order between them, for if there were, out of all doubt that great Doctor, who received his Gospel from Jesus Christ, would have instructed Timothy therein, and prescribed rules concerning that, as he did concerning the order above and below it. 2. Out of Irenaeus himself, who 
* Haec dogmata tibi, qui ante nos fuerunt prisbyteri qui & Apostolorum discipuli ●xtiterunt, non tradiderunt— Possum coram deo testificar● beatum ilum & Apost olicum Presbyterum, si tale quid audiss●t reclamatum. Iraen. in epist●ad Plorin. Cent. Magd. ent. 2. cap. 10. col. 134, 135.  elsewhere calls both Polycarpe himself, and other bishops of Asia Disciples of the Apostles Apostolical Presbyters. Under the same notion doth he mention Anicetus, Pius Hyginus, Telesphorus (who are by others called Bishops of Rome) giving them no other title than this, 
a In Epist. ad victor.  The Presbyters that were before you: Whosoever shall peruse sundry passages in 
x Iren. lib. 3. adv. haer. cap. 3. compared with ca 2. ejud lib. and li. 4. cap. 43. compared with cap 44. & 45.  Irenaeus will clearly see that in him the Succession of Bishops is all one with the succession of Presbyters. I will mention but one and refer the Reader to the rest in the margin (if he think fit to consult the author himself) 
y Iren. lib. 4. cap. 43.  We must obey, saith he, those Presbyters which are in the Church, those which have a succession from the Apostles, as we have showed. Who together with the succession of the Bishopric or Episcopacy, have received the gift of truth according to the good pleasure of the Father. The places are so clear, the words so plain and evident that from thence Spalatensis did rightly infer, 
z De rep. Eccl. l. 2. c. 3. n. 44.  In all Presbyters Irenaeus doth both acknowledge and confound one and the same order of Episcopacy, though afterwards seeking to avoid the pregnant testimonies, which overthrow his position, and the position of other Hierarchists, he gives this childish and slender answer, or rather silly evasion, that 
a Ibid. n. 42.  He calls those which wore true Bishops by the name of Presbyters, which how weak it is, let any man of understanding judge. Wherefore until I be convinced by clearer evidence (to which I shall be ready to yield, if any be produced) I shall say with Chamier, 
b Paustr. tom 2. l. 10. de Oc●. Pont. c. 6. in fine.  Ausim asserere, I dare be bold to maintain it, that Presbyters and Bishops are not where distinguished in Irenaeus. Thus much for answer to that objection. I proceed to another instance. How little strength to Episcopal Sovereignty over Presbyters the Epistle of Clemens to the Corinthians doth afford (in the commendation of which Author and Epistle, 
c Bishop Hall, pag. 129, 130, 133.  one that hath lately stepped forth, as another Atlas, to bear up Episcopacy by head and shoulders, is pleased to spend two whole pages at least) you may easily perceive, if either you peruse the Epistle itself, or parallel that passage cited by the forementioned stickler for Prelacy with divers others in 
d Dissert. de Presb. & epis. p. 202. ad p. 219.  Salmasius out of the same Epistle. For there you shall find 1. that Bishops and Presbyters are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, both denominations setting forth one and the same order, one and the same office. 2. That the Church of Corinth at that time, and other Churches also, were governed not by one but by many Bishops, that is to say, Presbyters. The passages are quoted by that learned Critic at large, I will in brief but point unto them. First, what the Apostles practice was Clemens there sets down thus: Preaching in cities among the Nations, they did constitute the first fruits of them, to be Bishops and Deacons, over them that should afterward believe. These Bishops are afterward in many places called Presbyters, Blessed are those Presbyters that went before. It is a shameful thing to hear that the ancient and firm Church of Corinth should out of respect unto one or two persons 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 move sedition against the Presbyters. Afterwards he persuades those which had been the authors of the contention to repent and yield subjection to the Presbyters. From these and sundry other passages planissimè constat, saith 
d Pag. 219.  Salmasius, it is most evident and clear, that that Church was then governed by Presbyters alone, who were also called Bishops, all constituted in equal authority, honour and power in the government thereof. Amongst many other that are remarkable, I will only touch upon one, which seeing the Author is so highly magnified, and the Epistle commended with a great deal of silken language bestowed on it, might me thinks make some impression on the Commender, and others of his Order, as it is very pathetically delivered by Clemens, Whosoever he be amongst you that is of a generous spirit, that is of a compassionate disposition, whoso is full of love let him say: If for my sake there be sedition, strife, and schisms, I depart, I am content to be gone whithersoever you will, and will do those things which are commanded me by the people: Only let the flock of Christ live in peace with the Presbyters that are set over it. Whosoever shall do this shall purchase to himself exceeding great glory in the Lord, and every place will readily receive him. Thus that holy, that Apostolical man Clemens, whose counsel if it might have found entertainment in the hearts of our Prelates and their adherents, neither Scotland of late years, nor England at this day had met with such commotions and distractions. Or if examples, and the Precedents of those Fathers (in whom because they were Bishops, our late 
e Bishop Hall, p. 62. It is our glory & comfort we have had such Predecessors.  Hierarchists do glory as being their Predecessors) are likely to be more effectual with those which would be accounted their posterity, I could put them in mind of Gregory Nazianzen, who was content to lay down his Episcopal honour, and to descend from that throne which he knew not well whether he might more properly call an hierarchical or tyrannical throne; nor did he fear to commit any sacrilege against that holy order, or contract on himself the guilt of that crime, but 
d Orat. 28 & Carm. de div. vitae gen. ad pseudoepis.  finding the Church wasted by contentions, States and Kingdoms exceedingly shaken, and like to be overturned by wars about that same 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that great and new name, as he calls the Episcopal dignity, he willingly did it, induced thereunto by a most prevailing argument. 
e Quum certus fit à Deo non excludi quibus thronus eripiatur. Cent. Mag. Cent 4. c. 10 col. 525. edit. Bas. 2624.  He was assured of this, God would not dis-throne him in Heaven, though he lost his throne on earth. If the example of one induced thereunto by the hope of heaven be not sufficient, I could propose to our Prelates for a Precedent the practice of 
f Lib. de gest. cum Emer. Don. epis. tom. 7. col. 6, 7, 638. edit. Basan. 1542.  Austin, and almost three hundred African Bishops, whose hearts were so inflamed with a desire of union and peace in the Church, that they were ready for the procuring of it to lay down their Bishoprics, which in so doing they did not account to be lost, but more safely recommended unto God. And whereas amongst them all there were but two found to whom this motion was displeasing, the brotherly exhortation and reproof generally of all the rest, did make them change their minds and confent to do, what the rest of their brethren did. The exhortation is very ponderous, and full of moving arguments. Give leave, O ye Fathers of the Church, unto a poor Presbyter to represent before you, what once your Predecessors spoke unto them, who were loath to part with their dignities for the Church's benefit. They propose in the first place that of our Saviour, Who so humbleth himself shall be exalted; and from thence infer, Why should we doubt to offer to our Redeemer the sacrifice of this humility? Hath he descended from Heaven into humane members that we might become his members, and are we afraid to descend from our seats that his very members be not torn in pieces by cruel division? There is nothing more sufficient for us then that we be faithful and obedient Christians. This we are still. But we are made Bishops for the Christian people, therefore let us do that with our Episcopal honour, which may conduce to the Christian peace of Christian people. If we be profitable servants why do we envy the eternal gain of our master for our temporal preferment? Our Episcopal dignity will be more fruitful unto us, if, being laid down, it may rather collect, then being retained scatter the flock of Christ. Austin the Bishop said, My brethren, if we have the Lord in our thoughts, this higher place is the watchtower of the vine-dresser, not the top of honour for him that is proud. If whilst I retain my Bishopric I scatter the flock of Christ, how is the damage of the flock the honour of the Shepherd? With what face shall we in the world to come hope for the honour promised by Christ, if our honour in this world doth hinder Christian unity? Thus fare the African Bishops.— Sed Cynthius aurem. I return unto, and proceed in the proving of our Proposition laid down before.  
3. In Christian Churches which were of Apostolical foundation, and others after them, we find two Bishops in a Church or City, both in, and after the Apostles days; not one advanced before the other. Which being duly considered we may invert that argument which is used by our Hierarchists for the maintenance of their Episcopal Monarchy. You know who hath laid down this amongst his Postulata: 
g Episc. by div. right. part. 1. §. 12. p. 50.  We may not entertain so irreverent an opinion of the Saints and Fathers of the Primitive Church, that they who were the immediate successors of the Apostles would, or durst set up a form of government different from that which was fore-designed unto them. Let this be granted, the position may easily be retorted on their own heads thus, If the Apostles had instituted one Bishop only in a Church, and placed him in superiority of power and order above the Presbyters, can we think that the Saints and Fathers of the primitive Churches, or the Churches themselves, would have so soon swerved from the rule and practise of their first founders, and have set up or admitted two Bishops where the Apostles had ordained but one. The truth of this assertion touching the plurality of Bishops in a Church may be easily proved by variety of examples. 
h Dissert. de gub. Eccles. p. 302, 303.  Gersom Bucerus hath proved it by no less than ten examples out of Scriptures, and others out of Ecclesiastical history. I will only mention some few. Narcissus and Alexander both Bishops of Jerusalem, not by succession one after the other, but both at the same time, as is proved out of 
i Eccl. hist. li. 6. ca 9 & 10.  Eusebius. Ignatius and Evodias both Bishops of Antioch at the same time, the one ordained by Peter, the other by Paul, as the  
* Gers. Buc. p. 439.  foreign Divine hath proved by the confession of Clemens, Constit. l. 7. c. 46. and Baronius, tom. 1. ad an. 45. At Rome Linus and Cletus, or Anacletus were Coepiscopi Fellow-Bishops in Peter's days, and afterwards as Platina 
l In vita Sancti Petri.  hath acknowledged, and before him Ruffinus, in praefar. ad lib. Recognit. as 
m Pan. tom. 2. l. 13. c. 4.  Chamier hath observed out of him, and the 
n Cent 1 part. 2. c. 10. in Lino.  Centurists of Magdenburge after them both. Liberius after his return from exile was conjoined with Felix in the Episcopal See at Rome, by the decree of the Synod of Syrmium, as I have learned from 
o Cat. test. ver. l. 4. col. 255.  Illyricus and Gonlartius out of 
p Lib. 4. c. 14.  Sozomen: which Synod was held no less than fifty six years after the Council of Nice, which first made a Canonical constitution to the contrary, prohibiting that there should be two Bishops in one city: as 
q Lib. 1. c. 6.  Ruffinus hath set down that Canon: yea, later than this Austin was made Bishop of Hippo in the days of Valerius and joined with him as his Colleague in the Episcopal honour and Function, albeit Austin was very unwilling, yet the 
x Dum id fieri solere ab omnibus suaderetur, atque id ignare transmatinis & Africanis Ecclesiae exemplis probaretur, compulsus atque●●●ctas succubuit, & Epi scapatus curam & majoris loci ordinationem suscepit. Posslid. in vita Aug. c. 8. Quod quidem quia tanta ejus obaritate, tantoque populi studio dominum id velle credidt, nonnullis jam exemplis praecedentibus quibus mibi omnis excusatioi●laudehatur, veheme●ter timuiexcusare. Aug. ep. 34. ●d Pausin.  Primate of Numidia Megatius Calamensis, and Valerius together with all the rest Bishops that were present persuaded him thereunto, and by variety of examples in the African and transmarine Churches proved it to be a thing so usual, that Austin was left without all excuse, and yielded to undertake coepiscopatus sarcinam, as he calls it, the burden of Coepiscopacie with Valerius: for the prohibition by the Nicene canon was not yet come to the knowledge of Valerius, nor to the cares of Austin, as he doth 
s Ep. 110. Quod cone liio Nieeno prohibitum, saisse nesciebam nec ipse sciebat.  else where profess. This is a truth so clear, and which hath such variety of instances for the confirmation of it, that the 
* Neq, fuit tanta valigie priscu illis Episcopis l●cum sibi interdum ascicere aliquem, ex suarum Ecclesiarum Presbyteris, qui & ipse tum furisdictione & ordine, u uque pleno Episcopalis propriae porestatis tum etiam nomine in eadem Ecclesia simul esset, & diceretur Episcopus. de rep. Eccl l 2. c 9 n. 14.  Archbishop of Spalleto doth confess, The ancient holy Bishops made no scruple of making one of their Presbyters their companion, who both in Jurisdiction and Order, and full use of power properly Episcopal should be their Colleague and Fellow-bishop in the same Church. Yea, 
t Idem est juris in parte quod in toto, & in parvis quod in magnis, sed in eodem episcopatu possunt simut esse duo episcopi, Caus 7. q. 1. c. Non est autem. & C Peristi & C. Quia vero. Ergo consimiliter propter necessitatem vel utilitatem possent esse snnut plures summi Pontifices dial part. 3. tract. 1. lib. 2. c. 25. sol. 202.  Occam proving out of the Canon Law itself that there may be two Bishops in a Bishopric or Diocese, doth thence infer that by the same reason there may be also two Popes, 
u Fideles propter necessitatem vel utilitatem sufficienter moventem constituendo plures Pontifices non facerent conditionem Ecclesiae deterivem, sed meliorarent cam. cap. 26. sol. 203. ad septimum  as the government of one and the same Church by more Bishops than one conduceth to the benefit thereof, so the regiment of the Church Catholic by many Popes. 
a Loc. cit. cap. 15. paulo ante finem.  This he maintains might be done in both, without any rent or division in the Church, without the breach of that unity which the Apostle doth require, for among all those things which he reckons up as grounds of union, and motives to the conservation of it, 
b Ephes. 4.  One faith, one Baptism, etc. Vnum Apostolicum minimè ponit, saith he, the Apostle makes no mention of one Apostolical either Pope or Prelate. In a word; the practice of governing a Church by more Bishops than one was for a while so common and usual (though by degrees it did begin in some places sooner to grow out of use than others) that if Epiphanius his observation be right, it was anciently proper to Alexandria alone to have one Bishop, whereas other Churches and Cities had two. His words are clear and express for it; 
x Haer. 68 de Milet. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  For Alexandria had not anciently two Bishops as other cities had. This testimony of Epiphanius concerning Alexandria I first lighted upon in 
y in Aug. de haer. haer. Acrian.  Danaeus, and since I met with it in him, I have oft times wondered, that in all the quotations out of the Fathers for Episcopacy, our Hierarchists take no notice of it. From the same Danaeus I have learned one thing more touching the forementioned City, where the Episcopal Monarchy first had footing, to wit, that out of the same 
z Ibid.  Church proceeded the Monastic life, and divers other things which were the bane of the Church. Perhaps in this regard our Prelates are ashamed of this their original, and would therefore fain bewitch the minds of men with an opinion of another descent from Christ's institution and his Apostles. Dealing herein as wisely for themselves, as the old Romans did, who being ashamed of the spurious and incestuous birth of their first Founder Romulus, pretended a Divine pedigree from Mars in a wood. But for my part I love them both so well, that I shall desire, that as Bishops and Monks did rise so they may fall, as they did come so they may go together, and the Christian world be rid at once of them both, which have proved Ecclesiae pests the bane of the Church.  
Before I pass from this, one thing I must crave leave to add, it concerneth the Succession of Bishops, which the Historians that did set it down, so mention, as if there were but one in a Church at once: yet this doth nothing contradict what hath been spoken touching their plurality Simul at one and the same time in the same Church. For 1. Divers of those Historians in their expressions and narrations had reference to the custom of those times in which themselves lived. For as much as in their days the custom of governing by many was changed into a government by one, and the name common at first to all, limited and restrained unto one, hence they speak but of one, though indeed (as hath been showed) there were at the same time more Bishops than one in a City. 2. When there were two or more equal in name and Office, he that was the Survivor is reckoned as the Successor, whereas indeed he was not Successor properly, but only a Colleague living longer than his fellow-bishop. Thus doth 
a Exercit. 8. in Ignat. epist. ad Mariam, cap. 3. num. 6. constant Linum & Cletum ante Clementem ●bitsse, quibus defunctis solus. Clemens superstes, solus etiam Episcopt nomen retinuit, tum quia inter adjutores Apostolorum solus restabat, etc.  Vedelius reconcile the difference which is between historians concerning those three Bishops of Rome, Linus, Cletus, and Clemens, showing that the name of Bishop was given to the last of these who was the survivor in that Church, where through the whole Chapter he discovereth the vanity of those answers which are given by Bellarmine, Baronius; and others. Lest our hierarchical Monarchy should think to elude this and blow it away as the fancy of a Disciplinarian of the Geneva cut, I will back it with the suffrage of Antonius de Dominis the Archbishop of Spalleto, whom for his pains in patronising the Episcopal cause they cannot but respect. 
b De rep. Eccl. l. 2. c. 3. n. 63.  Quoniam ex his tribus Collegis, saith he, Because of these three that were Colleagues Linus died first, Cletus next, and last of all Clemens, and each of them governed that Church with full authority, hence it came to pass that some of the ancients reckoned Linus the first Bishop of Rome, Cletus or Anacletus the second, and Clemens the third, as if they had been differenced in time one from the other, and one succeeded the other, when as indeed there was no proper succession at all.  
4. As most Churches had more than one Bishop, so some for divers years together long after the Apostles days had none at all, but were instructed in the faith by Presbyters alone without a Bishop over them. The 
c Forbes. lrens. lib. 2. cap. 11. p. 159.  Scortish pacificator in his Irenicum hath observed out of 
d Ibo. Mail. li. z. de gest. Scto c. 2.  Johannes Maoior that the Primitive Church of Scotland flourished in the faith two hundred and thirty years at least without any government by Bishops, being instructed in the faith and governed only by Priests and Monks. The same is recorded before them both concerning that Church by 
e Scoticbron. l●. 3. ca 8. ap. lacob. Armach. de pri. Eccl. Brit. p. 800,  Johannes Fordonus, who adds that the Presbyters did govern the Church, ritum sequentes Ecclesiae primitivae, following the custom of the primitive Church. Add unto this one thing more which is remarkable; The Fathers in the second Council of Carthage, which was held, an. 428. did observe that 
f Concil. Cart●. 2. can. 5.  until that time some places never had any Bishops at all, and thereupon they did ordain, ut tales in posterum non haberent, that such places as had none before, should not have any for future time. From which Canonical Constitution I may with 
g Diss. de gub. Eccles. p. 307.  Gersom Bucerus argue thus, If those Fathers had conceived that the government by Bishops was appointed by the Lord Christ, or his Apostles, they could not, they would not by an Ecclesiastical Canon have established, or permitted to the Churches the violation of Christ's. Institution, or the Ordinance of his Apostles.  
5. When after the Apostles days the distinction between a Bishop and a Presbyter began, yet that difference which was then put was no advancement to a distinct order, but only to an higher degree in the same order, nor did it bring along with it any superiority in power or Jurisdiction over and above the Presbyters. The truth of this position may be easily made manifest, and confirmed by these particulars.  
1. The name of Bishop (which together with the office was common to all the Presbyters) was now limited and appropriated unto him that was the eldest Presbyter. The name being thus restrained, there was a priority granted him, to whom in respect of age and years, in respect of his longer standing in the Presbyterial calling, and consequently in regard of wisdom, gravity, experience, or Endowments, reverence was due from his Colleagues, being his Juniors, and in that regard after a sort Inferiors. That of Ambrose, 
h in 1 Tim. c. 3.  Is Episcopus est qui inter Presbyteros primus, He is the Bishop who is the first among the Presbyters is a clear testimony, confirming what hath been delivered. For it doth declare manifestly, as 
i Paust. tom. ●. l. 9 de Oec. Pont. c. 5. n. 8. nihil abud quam inter Presbyteros is qui plures ann●s in eo muncie Presbyteratus ministriasset.  Chamier hath well observed, what was the degree of a Bishop in the first and purest times of the Church; that it was no more than this, He was accounted the Bishop, who among the Presbyters had ministered longest in the office of a Presbyter. Hence the forenamed French Divine doth conclude, 
k Ibid.  that at first there was no other difference between a Bishop and the Presbyters, than what is between the Dean and Canons in a Cathedral. In reference to this, 
l Sum. contr. tract. 2. q. 22.  Rivetus doth conceive that Tertullian speaks, when he saith President probati quique, Seniores; Approved Elders do sit as Precedents, who have obtained that honour not by price but by testimony: In testimony of that reverence and respect which age and seniority in the Ministry did bespeak at the hands of his fellow. Presbyters, was the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the chief seat in the Ecclesiastical Senate assigned unto him, to whom the name of Bishop began now to be restrained on the  grounds. Like as in the more public conventions of Bishops and Presbyters assembled in a Council, the chiefest seat was deputed for him that was the ancientest and most venerable. On this ground as Eusebius reports, saith Rivetus, 
m Hist. l. 5. c 22.  when the Bishops of Pontus met together, Palmos was made Precedent, because he was antiquissimus & maximè venerabilis; the Eldest and most reverend amongst them. Hence 
n Hom. 3. in Act. Apost,  chrysostom doth compare the Preeminence of the Bishops over the Presbyters to the Preeminence of the Eldest brother or firstborn over his younger brethren, who hath indeed a certain preeminence over them, but it is a brotherly preeminence, not a Lordly or Jurisdictionall prelation, as 
o Fraternam quidem non despoticam neque jurisd●ctionatem Spal de rep. eccls. l. 1. ca 5. n. 13.  Spalatensis doth express it, the rest of his brethren being by ordinary right his equals in all things, excepting age, and that honour which is due to him in respect of it, the precedency of primogeniture, which doth not invest him with any commanding power over them, or put them in subjection unto him. The name of Bishop being thus limited to him that was the Elder Presbyter occasioned the mention of one alone in the writings of those who set down the succession of Bishops. Learned Salmasius hath illustrated this by two examples. 
p Dissert. 1. de presb. & episc. ca ●. p. 274.  When Athens was governed by nine 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Riders, the first of them only gave the name to the year, whence he was styled 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. The Roman Emperors did ofttimes make many Consuls in a year, which were called consuls per suffectionem, yet these though they had full Consular authority were not registered among the Consuls, but only those which were created in't he beginning of the year, because they were the Eldest, the first Consuls.  
2. That Primacy which was granted unto him which was the first and eldest Presbyter, and was now peculiarly called the Bishop, was only at first a Primacy of order, no Superiority of power, or Jurisdictive dominion, that Church affairs should be ordered by him alone without the consent and counsel of the Presbyters. Observable to this purpose is that expression of Pius bishop of Rome in his second Epistle to Justus bishop of Vienna, 
q Presbyteri & Diaconi non ut majorem, sed ut Christi ministrum te observent. ap. Sal. p. 275.  Let the Presbyters and Deacons observe you not as one greater than they, but at the Minister of Christ: in which, you see, he doth in plain terms deny that Justus the bishop was greater in point of power and authority than the Presbyters and Deacons. You know, Reverend and Beloved, what was the resolution of 
r Ad id quod scripserunt mibi compresbyteri nostri Donatus & Fortunatus, Novatus & Gurdius, solus rescribere nibil po●ui, quande à primordio Episcopatus mei sta●uerim nihil sine consilio vest●o, & fine consensu plebis meae, privata sententiagerere. Ep. ●. exedit. Gonlart. aliis. lib. 3. ep. 10.  Cyprian Bishop of Carthage, from the first entrance to his Episcopacy he determined to do nothing in the managing of Church affaines of his own head without the counsel of the Presbyters, without the consent of the people, which he lays down as a reason, why he alone could not return an answer to that wherein Donatus and the rest of the Compresbyters did consult him. Nor did Cyprian entertain this resolution, and observe it in his practice merely out of a voluntary humility and condescension, as 
s De Pent. Rom. li. 1. c. 6. in resp. ad tertium arg.  Bellarmine would bear the world in hand, and by this shift elude this pregnant testimony; but he acknowledged himself by his place and Office to be bound thereunto, even by that relation wherein he stood to the Presbyters, and the Presbyters to him, 
s Sed cum ad vot per Dei gratiam venero, tunc de iis quae velgesta saint, yet gerenda sicut mutune bonor poscit, in common tractabimus, id. ib.  by virtue of that honour which they mutually owed one to the other. As the Presbyters and people did owe this honour to the Bishop that without his advice and consent they ought not to do any thing; so the Bishop owed the same honour unto them not to do any thing of his own head without their counsel and consent. What Cyprian professeth concerning himself, the late learned 
t Daven. det. quest. q. 41.  Bishop of Salisbury confesseth was in all likelihood observed by the rest of the godly Bishops in those days. How exorbitant from this rule the practices of our Prelates have been, the Christian world doth know full well; and he that should go about to reduce them unto it, might deservedly be accounted Augiae stabuli repurgator, as 
u Annot. in cypr. loc. cit.  Gonlartius speaks, the purger of Augias' stable so full of dung and filth, that it would be an Herculean labour for to cleanse it. True it is that when the title of Bishop was restrained unto one of the Presbyters, there did within a little after begin to be a kind of reservation and restriction of some of those acts and Offices which were before common to all the Presbyters. This was done for order's sake, pro bono pacis, for the preservation of the Church's peace, and for the honour of the Bishop, who being chosen by the consent of the Presbyters and people, had now a Presidentship over them, and so after a sort a majority of administration 
a Majoritas administrationis, quae quidem administratio à jurisdictione pender, ex consensu suljectionalt partim constu●●tur. s●●ut dicunus ●lectum in cligences (ex eo quod habet administrationem ordinariam) habere jurisdictionem Conc. Carth. l. 2. c. 13. p. 7.7. ed. Bas cum priv. Case Majest. ex off. Henrici-Petrina.  ex consensu subjectionali as Cardinal Cusanus hath it, from the free and voluntary act of those who consented to the prelation of the Bishop, and subjecting themselves unto him.  
Ordination is one of those acts, the power whereof the Bishops do challenge as one of those Prerogatives which belong to their Order, yet if you look into the 
b Quamvis. Chorcpiscopis & presbyteris ministerterum communis sit dispensatio quaedam tamen ecclesiasticit regulis sibt prohibita noverint: sicut est presbyterorum & diacomnorum. ●ut virginum consecratio, sicut conss i●utio altaris, ac benedictio velur●ctio Syn. Hispal. 2. sub Stsekulo can. 7. ap. Cent Maga cent. 7. c. 9 col. 142.  Canons of the second Council of Hispalis, which was held at least 600. years after Christ, you shall find this reckoned up among other particulars, which the Presbyters are there commanded to know are prohibited them by Imperial and Ecolesiasticall constitutions. And mark I pray you the reason why they might not meddle with this and other acts, 
x Quoniam quamquam consecrationem habeant, Pontificatue tamen apicem non habent; quem satis deberi episcopis ●●thoritate, canonum praecipitur, ●● per hoc. & disc●●●io graduum, & dignitatis sast●gium summi pontificit dem●ns●●etur. Ibid.  the name and title of Bishop is by the Canons of the Church limited unto one, and by the same power are these Offices limited also, that so the difference of degrees (which the Church had put between a Bishop and a Presbyter) and the honour of the Bishop might be manifested. So the Fathers in that Council. The same is acknowledged in the 
y Solum propter authoritatem summe sacerdeti Clericorum ordinatio & consecratio reservata est, ne a multis discipline ecclesiae vindicata concordiam soiveret, scandala generaret. Concit. Aquisgran. ap. Eocbel. decret. Eccl. Galled. 5. tit. 8. ca 88 pag 784.  Council of Aquisgran, an. 816. in the days of Ludovicus the first. Ordination is reserved to the Bishops only for authority, or as an ensign of his honour, and for the prevention of scandals and divisions in the Church, but as for a difference out of the word of God between a Bishop and a Presbyter, they prove at large from the Apostles words to Titus, Timothy, and Act. 20. that there is none, but Bishops and Presbyters are one and the same; yet did not this reservation by an Ecclesiastical canon put the power of Ordination into the hands of the Bishop alone, so as that he might do it without the concurrence of his Presbyters. But as the Presbyters were by the Canon of the Church prohibited to ordain, so was the Bishop by the same Canonical constitutions prohibited to do it without their consent. 
z Episcopus sine concilio clericorum suorum clericos non ordinet. Conc. Carth. 4. can. 22.  Let not a Bishop ordain Clergymen without the counsel of his Clergy, saith the Canon of the Council of Carthage, registered by 
a Dist. 24. ca 6. Episcopus.  Gratian in the Canon Law: which who so will be pleased to consult shall find that his Glossator 
b Glossa in locum. Vide etian● dist. 67. cap. 1. & Glos in ver. Sacerdotes.  Semeca doth answer an objection made to the contrary, and proves that the word solus, where it is said the Bishop alone may give honour, and alone may take it away, doth exclude other Bishops, but not his own Clergy. So that a Bishop with his own Clergy might ordain, without the consent of other Bishops, but not do it alone by his own peerless power, without the rest of his Clergy consenting to, and concurring with him in the action. In this regard it was decreed in the eleventh Council of Toledo in Spain, 
c Dist. 23. cap. Presbyter.  When a Bishop doth lay his hands on the head of him who was to be ordained, let all the Presbyters who are present lay on their hands also by the hand of the Bishop. Presbyters have you see a share with the Bishop in the imposition of hands at Ordination, which they do, 
Iren. Forb. lib. 2. cap. 11. pag. 163.  not only as consenting to the ordination, saith Forbesius, (for the consent of the people was also required, yet never were they sharers in this Act of Imposition of hands, and Ordination whereby an Ecclesiastical power is conferred, as both he and 
e De rep. Eccl. lib. 2. c. 2. n. 51. p. 187.  Spalatensis have observed, but by suffrage did they manifest their approbation of the person elected, or their election of him that was to be ordained) 
f Tanquam ordinantes, seu ordinem conferentes, & ex porestate ordinandi diviritus accepta, gratiam ordinate, boc adhibito ritu, apprecantes. Forb. ubi supra.  but as those which were Co-ordainers with the Bishop, and by the power, of Ordination received from the Lord, praying for grace to be conferred on the person ordained by them and the Bishop. This Canonical restriction of Ordination to the Bishop did no more invalidate the power of Presbyters to ordain by virtue of their Presbyterial order, then if a Canon should have been made to inhibit a Presbyter to baptise, to preach, to administer the Sacrament of the Lords Supper in the presence, or without the consent of the Bishop, it would be of force thence to conclude that a Presbyter as a Presbyter, by virtue of his order might not perform these Presbyterial acts and offices. It is not unknown that long ago even in the days of 
g Dandi quidem [Baptism] habet jus summus Sacerdos qivest Episcopus, debinc Presbyteri & Diaconi, non tamen sine Episcopi authoritate, propter Ecclesiae honorem Quo salvo, salva pax est. Tertull de ●ap. c. 17.  Tertullian there began to be a reservation of Baptism to the Bishop, that Presbyters and Deacons might not do it without the leave of the Bishop, all which was done (on the same ground that Ordination was, as hath been showed before) for the honour of the Bishop, to whom the Church had conferred honour, and for the Church's peace: yet none did ever infer from thence that this did properly belong to the Bishop, and that a Presbyter might not do it, except he had a Bishop's licence. But if the 
h Veteres à Baptismo a●i ordinationem argumentatos suisse patet ex Magistro. l. 4. dist. 25. Sadcel. resp. ad ●urr Sopb. ● ●40.  Master of the Sentences may be believed, albeit Ordination was limited to the Bishop, yet did the ancients argue from the power of administering Baptism to the power of Ordination; Presbyters might baptise, therefore they might ordain. Thus did they reason for the power, even then when the execution of the power was by canonicall-constitution restrained and shut up, sub certis terminis positivis propter meliùs, as 
i Conc. Cath. l. 2. c. 13.  Cusanus speaks in the like case, within certain positive limits and bounds, and that for the good and benefit of the Church, as it seemed unto them which first made, and afterwards continued those limitations & restrictions. Thus much for Ordination.  
Jurisdiction is the next thing wherein the Bishops do claim a peerless power; this respecteth either Presbyters subjected to censure and power of Jurisdiction in case of delinquency, or the people, in the sentence of Excommunication. The field is very large, I will not expatiate, but only tender some few glean which I had gathered in the course of my studies in this argument; I will not insist on that 
k Episcopus nullius causam audiat absque praesentia clericorum, alioquin irrita erit sententia episcopi, nifi clericorum praesentia confirmetur. Conc. Carth. 4. can. 23.  Canon of the Council of Carthage which prohibiteth the Bishop to meddle with the hearing of any cause but in the presence of his Clergy, and pronounceth the sentence of the Bishop void if it were not by them confirmed. Concerning which Canon Dr Downham himself thus speaks. 
l Defence of his Sermon, ti. 1. p. 179.  Seeing good laws arise from bad manners: It is to be imagined that the Presence of the Clergy, and Assistance of the Presbyters (who were the Bishop's Coassessors, and from the beginning were appointed Judges of causes as himself doth 
m Ibid. p. 177.  acknowledge) was neglected; and this neglect gave occasion to the making of this Canon. What is by the Fathers in this Synod decreed concerning the Cognizance of causes in general, is afterward (for that Council was held about the year 401.) by 
n Si quid de quocunque clerico ad aures tuas pervenerit, quod is justè possit effendere, non facilè credas; nec ad vindictam te ret accendat incognita, sed praesentitus senioribus ecclesiae tuae diligenter est veritas perscrutanda, & tunc si qualttas rei poposcerit, canonica districtio culpam scriat delinquentis. Greg. regist. epist li. 11. indict. 6. epist. 49. prout citatur apud Grat. sed in edit. eper Greg. an. 1615. est epist. 51. ad I●han. Episc. Panermit.  Gregory the Great mentioned and commanded in particular to be observed in the cause of a Presbyter, against whom accusations are brought, or fame is raised; for he commands the Bishop to whom he writes that in such cases he should in the presence of the Seniors of the Church make diligent inquiry into the matter, and then proceed to a Canonical censure as the quality of the crime should require: Yea 
o In epist. ad Cler. Eccles. Tornac. apud Cat. test. verit. l. 9 col. 1000  Hincmarus the Archbishop of Rheims prescribeth the same course to be followed, citing the very words of Gregory for it. I will only touch on some Canonical Constitutions which have regulated the power of the Bishops in point of Jurisdiction over the Presbyters. Who so will take the pains to consult 
p Caus. 15. q. 7. Cap. 1.  Gratian, the Compiler of the Canon Law shall find sundry Canons of more than one Council of Carthage (to wit, Carthag. 1. can. 11. & Concil. Carthag. 2. c. 10. & Concil. Carthag. 3. can. 8.) ordaining that in case any crime were objected against a Presbyter, the cause should be heard by six Bishops, the cause of a Deaon accused, should be heard by three, besides his own Bishop. This order in one of those Counsels is thus ratified, 
q Carth. 2. can. 10.  Ab universis episcopis dictum est; veterum statut● â nobis debere servari. It was said by all the Bishops, that we ought to observe the statutes of the ancient Fathers. Whereunto may be added this, that when in the Council of Hispalis complaints were made that this rule was broken, it was by the Fathers in that Synod ordered that 
r Statutum est juxta priscorum Pa●rum decretum. synodati sententia, quod nollus fine concilii exam ne dejiciendum quemtibet presbyterum, vel Diaconum au let. Na● multi suni qui indiscussos potestate tyrannica, non au●boritate canonica damaant. Syn. Hisp. a. act. 6. Cent. Magd. cent. 7. cap. 2. col. 142.  no Bishop should presume to put down a Presbyter or Deacon without examination before a Council. The contrary practice of some was adjudged to be the exercise of a tyrannical power, not of Canonical authority. I will not tyre your patience with repetition of the same decree revived and confirmed in another 
s Concil. Tribu. an. 895. can.. ●. ap. Cent. Magd. cen. 9 c. 9 co●. 262.  Council almost 900. years after Christ. Only this I will add; that, This ancient order of the Council and consent of six Bishops in the case of a Presbyters deposition from his place, was not neglected by any regular allowance, until the Apostasy of Antichrist so far prevailed, that the Gospel in the sincere and Orthodox Profession thereof was persecuted under the name of heresy. In this case Gregory the ninth (whose Decretals were published, an. 1230.) gave a 
* Quaniam Episcoporum unmerus ad degra dationem Clericorum a Canonibus constitutus, non p●●est de socili convenire: Concedtmus ut sacerdotem, vel alium clericum in sacris ordinibus constitutum (cum pro heresi suerit curiae seaulari relinquendus aut perpetuò immurand●●) ●onvocatis Abbatibus, altisque praelatis ac Religiosis personis, ac literatis s●●● Diocesis, de quibus expedire videbatur, suus solus possit Epis ●opiu degradase. Sext. decret lib 5. tit. 2. ca 1.  dispensation, that the Diocesan Bishop alone in the presence of his Abbots with some Priests and other religious or learned persons of the Diocese might proceed to the sentence. In all cases heresy excepted, the forementioned Ordinances of a Synodall audience for the Deposition of a Presbyter stood in force in succeeding ages, as that learned Canonist 
t Instit. jur. Can. lib. 1. tit. 20.  Paulus Lancelotus hath observed. By this which hath been spoken let the indifferent and impartial Reader judge of the practices of our Prelates, how strangely exorbitant, that I say not tyrannical in a very high degree they have been, in their proceed, and execution of that Jurisdiction which they have usurped.  
Excommunication is another branch of Jurisdiction, which is claimed also by the Bishops as properly belonging unto them. 
u Davenant, abi. supra. Mucro episcopalis, & fulmen epis●opale.  They tell us this Ecclesiastical censure was always accounted the Bishop's sword, and the Bishop's thunderbolt: and indeed since they have taken the power thereof into their hands, and as they have managed it, it hath been an Episcopal thunderbolt, that is to say, brutum fulmen, a thunderbolt which doth neither fright nor hurt any; the denunciation of this sentence, being much corrupted (that I say not quite altered) from the practice of the Apostles, and the Church in former days, when no punishment was imposed without great lamentation of the multitude, and greater of the better sort, saith the 
a Lib. 4. p. 330.  Author of the History of the Council of Trent; which he doth prove from those expressions of the Apostle, 
b 1 Cor. 5.  Ye have not lamented, to separate such an one from among you. And 
x 2 Cor. 12.  I fear that at my coming I shall lament many of those who have sinned before. But as for those amongst us which have challenged this power, and taken it into their hands, they have rather carried themselves like salomon's fool or madman, which casteth arrows, firebrands and death, and yet saith, Am I not in sport. Concerning this, you are not ignorant what Hierome said of old, 
y Presbytero licet, si peccavero, tradere me Satanae. in Ep. ad Heliod.  A Presbyter may deliver me to Satan if I offend. However this power hath been by the Prelates wrested out of the hands of Presbyters, yet there have not been wanting those, who, when Prelates were in the height of all their pride, and darted out their thunderbolts as it pleased them, have maintained that the power of denouncing and executing that sentence did belong to the Presbyters. I will only produce a witness or two in this, and proceed. 
z Defensor pacis part. 2. cap. 15. pag. 256.  Marsilius Patavinus disputing concerning the order of Priesthood, or of a Presbyter (for they are all one) and the power of the Keys to bind and lose, observeth out of the forementioned Father, the Church hath these Keys in the Presbyters and Bishops, and gives this reason why Hierome speaking of this power of the Keys, doth mention Presbyters before the Bishops, 
a Preponens in boc pretbyteros, quoniam authoritas baec d●betur presbytero in quantum presbyter, primò & secundum quod ipsum.  because this authority belongs to a Presbyter as a Presbyter primarily and properly. From the same Author I first took notice of this, 
b Cap 6 pag. 165 in init.  albeit Timothy (a Bishop as our Hierarchists say) was then at Corinth when the Apostle gives charge to excommunicate the incestuous person, yet we hear not a word of command to the Bishop to do it, but a mandate unto others. When ye are gathered together, and my spirit, with the power of the Lord Jesus Christ, to deliver such an one unto Satan. The charge is given to the Presbyters of Corinth, it was not the act of one, but of 
c 2 Cor 2.6.  many who did denounce and execute the sentence on him. Had it been proper to a Bishop St Paul would not have so much forgotten himself, as to lay the blame and burden upon others, and omit the mention of him. I find also that 
d Glos. in cause. 2 q. 1. ca 11. verbo Excommunicet. Ecclesiarum praelati de jure communi possunt excommunicare, licet episcopi jam praescripserint contra multos praelatos.  Bartholomaeus Brixniensis and Johannes Semeca both Glossators of the Canon Law, do maintain and prove even out of it, that by right Presbyters may excommunicate, though the Bishops by custom and Prescription have taken the power out of their hands. The same Interpreters of the Canon Law agree in this also. 
e Non debet Episcopus revocare sententias excommunicationis justè lat as ab eorum praelatis, sine corum consensit. Gloss. in dist. 50. cap 64. verb. injungere.  A Bishop ought not to revoke the sentence of excommunication which a Priest hath on just ground pronounced, without the Priests consent which did pronounce it.  
By this which hath been spoken, it is evident I hope, that though there were a Primacy granted, yet at first the Bishop had no Superiority of power, much less was the power of Ordination or Jurisdiction put into his hands alone: you are not ignorant that Calvin, Bucer, Bullinger, and Zanchie have maintained that the Bishop was at first no other than a Precedent of the Presbytery, his Act and Office in their meeting, as of the Consul in the Senate, to propound matters, to gather votes, and declare the resolutions of the Presbytery: With what scorn this is rejected by our Episcopal Monarches you all know, as if they were the mere fancies of calvin's brain, and the testimony of the rest (which confirm their assertions by pregnant passages out of antiquity) slighted, because they are Disciplinarians of the Geneva cut. If Protestant Divines be not regarded, let us see whether the judgement of a Friar, and consent of a Jesuit, will be of more weight with our Prelates, there is good reason to expect it, considering that Papists and Prelates were so linked together in their votes, (whilst they had any) Jesuits and Bishops are at this day (as all the world seethe) so nearly conjoined in their designs. The Friar is Petrus Suavis that Historian of note, who discoursing at large touching the Original of Episcopal power, and Church censures, as they were anciently administered, tells us, 
f Hist. of the Council of Trent. lib. 4. p. ●3●.  The judgement of the Church, as is necessary in every multitude was to be conducted by one, who should preside and guide the action, propose the matters, and collect the points to be consulted on. This care due to the more principal and worthy person, was always committed to the Bishop. Judge now, I pray you, Fathers and Brethren, whether this be any more than to be a Precedent of the Presbytery, or Senate Ecclesiastical. How the Bishop's power came afterwards to be ampliated, you shall there find set forth to the full; the passages are all of them too large for me to repeat, or transcribe; they are worth his reading that shall take pains to peruse them. I shall only mention one, 
g Ibid. pa. 331.  The goodness and charity of the Bishops (mark this, I pray you, he doth not say the Superiority and power, but the goodness and charity of the Bishops) made their opinion for the most part to be followed, and by little and little was the cause that the Church, charity waxing cold, and not regarding the charge laid upon them by Christ, did leave the care to the Bishop; and ambition a witty passion, which doth insinuate itself in the show of virtue, did cause it to be readily embraced. This and much more that Friar in the same place. The Jesuit is Salmeron, who expounding the words of the Apostle to Titus, I left thee in Crete to ordain Elders in every City, positively affirmeth 
h Nec hoc loco permisit Paulus Tito ut praefi●iat omnibus ecclesiis ministros: baec enim regia esset potestas, & ju● eligendi tolleretur ecclesiis, & Pastorum collegto judicium adimeretur. Sed hoc tantum jubet Apostotus ut omnibus electionibus praesit tanquam moderator, & electos orat●one, jejunio, & impositione manuum consecrare●, u● habes, Act. 6. 13, 14. Ob id enim Titum priùs à se ordinatum Episcopum reliquit, ut alios ipse constitueret: sicut d●●itur Consul aut Dictator Consutes alios creasse, quia Comitia de eis eligendis babuerunt, Salm. in Tit. 1 disp. 1.  Paul did not in that place permit Titus alone to set Ministers over the Churches, for this were to invest him with a Kingly power, and by this means the right of Election should be taken away from the Churches, and the judgement should be taken away from the College of Pastors. But the Apostle doth only command him this that he should be Precedent at all elections as a Moderator, that he should by prayer, fasting, and Imposition of hands consecrate those that were chosen, as the Apostles themselves did, Act. 6.13, 14. For this cause did he leave Titus, ordained a Bishop formerly, that he should ordain others, as the Consul or Dictator is said to create Consuls, because they held the Comitia, the Assemblies for the election and creation of them. This being a truth so clear, confirmed, as you see, by testimonies on all hands, I wonder with what face it is spoken against, 
i Episc. by div. right. pa. 120.  and another passage out of Hicrome, Tanquam imperator in exercitu, as the General in the Army, brought in obtorto collo quite against the hair. For Hierome 
k In Epist. ad Evagr.  in that place speaks not concerning the power which the Bishop had over the Presbyters, but concerning the manner of his prelation, to wit, by the free election of the Presbyters of Alexandria, who did choose one out of their own company, whom they placed in an higher degree, and called Bishop. This form of prelation, by election, he doth there illustrate by two examples, 1. 
l Quomodo si exercitus imperatorem sactat, aut Diacone eligant de se quem industrium noverint, & Arcbidiaconum vocent. ibid.  Of soldiers in an army making choice of a General and Commander in chief over them; but the Father doth not say the Bishop carried himself as a General in an army, or had power given him answerable to the power of a General. Nay on the contrary he tells the Bishops in plain terms they 
m Sicut ergo Presbyteri sciunt se ex ecclesiae consuetudine, ei qui sibi praepositus suerit subjectos esse: ita Epis●opi nover●●● so magis consuetudine, quam dispositionis Domini●ae veritate Presby●e●u esse majores: & in communi debere Ecclesiam regere: in Epist ad Titum. ca 1.  ought to govern the Church by the common counsel of the Presbyters, above whom they are by the custom of the Church advanced. 2. He instanceth in the fact of Deacons, making choice of one whom they know to be industrious, and set him to be  over them. This latter passage is cunningly omitted, the former misalleadged and fraudulently perverted, because the one cuts the comb of Episcopal Dominion, the other, as it is wrested, seemeth at first sight to uphold or favour it. Indeed the execution of Martial Law hath well pleased them which are now turned Martialists. It is too well known how they have hanged up Ministers ad placitum at their pleasure, by their suspensions, excommunications, deprivations, 
n Conc. Hisp. 2. act. 6. ap. cent. Magd●cent. 7. cap 9  by a tyrannical power, not canonical authority, as was complained of old against some Prelates, in the second Council of Hispalis. But ab initio non fuit sic, from the beginning it was not so. The College of Presbyters granted unto the Bishop the chiefest seat in their public meetings, and gave honour to him as to their Senior, and he was commanded to carry himself towards them as toward his Colleagues, by the 
o Episcopus in quolibet loco sedens stare Presterum non patiatur, Conc Carth. 4. can. 34. Episcopus in ecclesia & consessu presbuterorum sublimior sedeat, Intra domum verò collegam se Presbyterorum cognoscat. can. 35. ap Grat dist. 95.  Canons of the fourth Council of Carthage, unto which Canons registered by Gratian this summary or title is prefixed, 
p Episcopus non dominum, sed Collegam se presby●erorum cognoseat  Let the Bishop know that he is not a Lord over, but Colleague of the Presbyters. In this regard in the same Canonist, the 
q Episcopi se sacerdotes esse noverint non dominos, bonorent clericos quasi clericos, ut & it sis à clericis quasi episcopis honos. eseratur, Grat. didst 95. ca Es●o subjectus ex Hier. ad Nepot. epist. 2.  Bishops are commanded to honour their Clergy as Clergymen, that so the Clergy may reciprocally honour them as their Bishops. And the forementioned 
r Hoc est contra supercilium Episcoporum, qui subdiros appellant si●ios, cum debeant eos apple. lare fratres. Caus. 8. q. 1. cap. Quid autem. vol soci●s cause. 10 q. 3. cap. Cavendum. Gloss. in verb. quasi clerices.  Glossator Semeca hath observed that this doth sharply reprove the pride of those Bishops who account them their subjects and underlings, whom they ought to reckon of and call their brethren, and companions.  
Last of all, when the Bishop began to be distinguished in name from the Presbyters, and the forementioned Presidentship and Priority was granted him, yet was he not thereby advanced to an order distinct from, and superior to the order of Presbyters, but only to an higher degree in that Order. This is clear by this, that at the first distinction of a Bishop from the Presbyters, there was no new consecration or ordination of the Bishop. Antonius de Dominis, a man Prelatical enough, doth confess, induced thereunto by the clear testimony of Ambrose, 
s De rep. eccls. lib. 3. cap. 3. n. 2.  at the beginning, whensoever a Bishop died, and the Episcopal throne was vacant, there was not so much as an election of him that was to succeed (much less any new ordination) but the eldest Presbyter came prosently in the room of the deceased Bishop. The words of Ambrose are express for it. 
t Primi pretbyteri Episcopi appellabautur, ut recedente co, sequent ei succederet. in 4 ca ad Eph.  The first Presbyters were called Bishops, so as that when he (to wit the first or eldest Presbyter) departed, the next did succeed him. Thus it was at first, the reason why this order was changed, that Episcopacy should be conferred by Election, not by Succession, is there given by the same Father. 
* Quia caperunt sequentes Presbyteri indigul inveniri ad primatus tenendes, immatata est ratio, prospiciente Concilie, ut non ordo sed meritum crearet Episcopum, multerum Sacerdotum judlcio constitutum, ne indigum temer● usurparer, & esset multis scanlalum. id. ibid.  Because the Presbyters which followed were found unworthy to hold that Primacy, the manner of prelation was purposely changed, that worth not order should make a Bishop, being appointed by the judgement of many Presbyters, lest an unworthy person should rashly usurp the place and honour, and so prove scandalous to many. Yet did he that was named the Bishop remain still a Presbyter, as the same 
u Post Episcopum diaconi ordinationem subjicit. Quare? nisi quia Episcopi & diaconi una ordinatio est, uterque enim est sacerdes, sed Episcopus primus; ut omnis Episcopus Presbyter sit, non omnis Presbyter Episcopus Hic enim Episcopus est, qui inter Presbyteres primus. Ambr. in ● Tim. cap. 3.  Ambrose testifieth, though he was accounted the Bishop who was the first of the Presbyters, and in that respect the chiefest. As for the Bishops of Alexandria, they had no other Ordination than the free election of their Presbyters, as is evident from the formerly alleged passages of 
* In Epist. ad Evagr.  Hierome. Whence our learned and laborious Willet doth acknowledge, 
x Syn. Papis. count. 5. q. 3. p. 177.  the special consecration of Bishops was ordained only for the dignity of that calling. So that what was in the first institution of it devised and ordained merely for the dignity and honour of that Episcopal function, that is 
y Episc. by div. light. pag. 105.  now made use of as an argument to prove from thence a distinction of order. In a word 
z De Invent. ver. l. 4. cap. 6. p. 276.  Polydore Virgil doth confess, that anciently in the consecrating of a Bishop, there were no other ceremonies than these that the people met together to give their testimony and suffrage in the Election, both Ministers and people did pray, and the Presbyters gave imposition of hands. Which doth manifestly prove that both Bishop and Presbyter were one order not distinct, even then when there was in some respects a difference made between them. And long after this distinction began, 
a johannes Parisiensis in lib. depotestate reg●● & Papali, quem So●bona approbavit, assicaat Presbyteros non esse Pontisiribus inferiores, quod ad essentralem ministerii dignitatem attinet. Idque consirmat ratione hac, quod eorum ordinatio conslet iisdem verbis quibus & Episcooporum, & Apostolorum, viz. Accipite Sp sanctam. & Quodcunque tigaveritis in terra, erit ligatum in c●. ●. Teste D. Plesseo libd● eccls. ca 12. p 252.  Johannes Parisiensis in a treatise of his concerning the power of the King and of the Pope (which was approved by the Sorbon of Paris) maintains that Presbyters are not inferior to Bishops, which he doth prove by this, they have one and the same ordination, as that noble Frenchman Philip Morney hath observed. Now admit we yield unto our Hierarchists, that the Angel here spoken of is in the forementioned sense and kind a Bishop, the Senior of the Presbyters, and Precedent of the Presbytery, as 
b In locum.  Beza taketh it, and 
c Conference with Hart, ch. 8. div. 3. p. 535.  Doctor Reinolds, whose judgement of this place the Archbishop of Armagh hath published with some additions of his own out of antiquity; yet what is all this to a Bishop in order distinguished from, and superior in power to the Presbyters. Our learned countryman Dr Reinolds doth not say, that this Angel or Precedent of the Presbytery was such a Bishop, nor doth the Reverend Primate of Armagh say that he was of a different order; but only that the name of Bishop was limited to him that had the Presidentship. Who that was hath been expressed before by the clear testimony of Ambrose, to which Austin doth agree, 
Tom. 4. quest. exutroq. mixt●m cap. 101.  saying, Quid est episcopus, nisi primus Presbyter, hoc est summus sacerdos? Much less doth Dr Reinolds affirm that he which had the Presidentship had it by divine right, or undertake to prove or infer from hence a distinction in Order between a Bishop and a Presbyter by the word of God; for if so he should contradict himself, having expressed his judgement to the contrary, and proved it both by Scriptures, and by variety of other authors 
* In his letter to Sir Francis Knollys, which was reprinted about the same time that the Archbishop of Armagh published this piece of Dr Reinolds with his own Additions.  Whether this be not a weak inference, or rather a strange Non sequitur; The Angel of Ephesus was a Precedent of the Presbytery of Ephesus, therefore he was a Bishop differenced in order from and superior in power to the Presbyters of Ephesus, let any reasonable man judge. It is well known that the Speakers of both Houses of Parliament are Precedents, as it were, yet not by their Presidentship advanced to an higher order, the one is a Peer, the other a Commoner, though as Speakers they are in some sort differenced from the Peers and Commons. The Prolocutor in a Convocation as it stood formerly was by order a Clerk, and no more, though as Prolocutor he had a Presidentship over the Clarks of the Convocation. Such was the preeminence of him that was Precedent of the Presbytery. In which regard Beza, though he grant the Angel here to be the Precedent, yet might justly and on good ground maintain, 
d Hinc statui episcopalis ille gradus posteae humanltùs in ecclesiam Dei invectus, certè nec potest nec debet. Beza in loc.  that from hence that Episcopal degree, which was afterwards by men brought into the Church of God, neither may nor aught to be established.  
Thus have you, Fathers and Brethren, some of my thoughts concerning this argument of Episcopacy, contracted into as narrow a compass as I could. Wherein I have endeavoured to prove, that the Angel in my text is not a Bishop distinct from a Presbyter in Order, Office, and fixed Superiority, and so to disprove their Institution de Jure divino. Concerning which their pretended original, I cannot but assent unto the judgement of a learned Divine amongst us, one that is well known to be a man of great reading, and insight in antiquity, as also to be no Puritan, 
e M. S. deschismate.  They but abuse themselves and others, that would persuade us that Bishops by Christ's Institution have any Superiority over other men, farther than of reverence, or that any Bishop is superior to another further then positive order agreed upon amongst Christians hath prescribed. For we have believed him that taught us, that in Christ Jesus there is neither high nor low, and in giving honour every man should preserre another before himself: which sayings most excellently cut off all claim to superiority, by title of Christianity, except we can think these things were spoken to poor and private men. Nature and Religion agree in this, that neither of them hath an hand in this heraldry of Secundum, sub & supra. All this comes from composition and agreement of men amongst themselves. Wherefore this abuse of Christianity, to make it a Lackey to ambition, is a vice for which I have no extraordinary name of Ignominy, and an ordinary I will not give it, lest you should take so transcendent a vice to be but trivial. Thus the forementioned Divine clearly overthrowing their superiority by Divine right; from which if our Prelatical men be beaten, let them not wonder that they should be cashiered as Usurpers and Intruders. For, not to insist on their doom out of the book of God, we will be content to take them at their own word, if they dare stand to it, and let them have their option. You know what a Bravado the Humble Remonstrant hath made, as being willing to put it to this issue, if they be not able to prove their Divine Institution, they are content to be hissed out of all Christian Congregations. The like brag and challenge is made by a late 
f Bishop Hall, part. 2. §. 10. p. 129.  Patron of Episcopacy, who seemeth to be very near of kin to the Remonstrant in confidence and silken language. As for continuance in their places and dignities Jure humano by the Law of man. First, of all they scorn (you see, and all the world knows it) that tenure, and therefore it is not fit that they should have the benefit of it. Secondly, Though they should be willing to stick to it, yet it is neither convenient nor necessary, that they should here plead custom and prescription, at leastwise that the plea should be in force inviolably against an alteration. Ludovicus Arelatensis in his speech against Panormitan in the Council of Basil having proved out of the Fathers that by the Word of God there is no difference between a Bishop and a Presbyter, hath foretold the 
g Si pront Hieronymo placet, Episcopt sunt sola confuetudine praelati pres. byteris, utique fieri potest ut consuetudinem toltat contraria consuetudo. Aen. Syl lib. ●● de guessed. con● Basil. ap Orth. Gra. in fascia rer. expet. fol. 12.  Possibility of changing this frame of government brought into the Church merely by custom. Especially when the inconveniencies of that custom, which came in by degrees, and was embraced at first under a plausible pretence of good and benefit, shall be discovered, and the burden of it become insufferable. This is that which Beza doth intimate upon my text, that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Precedent should not have been perpetual; however 
h Bishop Hall, loc. cit p. 125.  one of late looking on his words with an Episcopal pair of spectacles, blesseth himself at the reading of them, as if some foul fiend or other did fright him, threatening to pull the mitre off his head, the Rochet off his back, and wrest the Crozier Staff out of his hands. Let the impartial and unprejudicated Reader peruse his 
i Imòne perpetuum quidem istud 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 munm esse necessariò oportuisse, sicut exortae inde ●yrannis ol●garchica (oujus apex est Anticbristians bestia) certissima cuns totius non ecclesiae ●●do, s●d 〈…〉 ●rbis pernicie, nunc tandem declarat. Bez. in Ap●c. 2.1.  words, and if I mistake not, you will find no more but this, he shows by the evil consequents which followed, viz. the tyranny of Prelates, and promotion of Antichrist, to the ruin of the Church and confusion of the whole world almost, which followed upon that perpetual Presidentship, that it should not have been perpetual; he doth not question whether it were perpetual or not, nor say it was not, as the Prelate doth wrest his words; but saith it appeareth now at length it ought not to have been, for as much as it proved in the end of such dangerous consequence, and so pernicious unto both Church and States. If on the , and other grounds which might be named, we all agree to renounce it, and cast it off, we herein do no more, than what we have a dispensation for from a great Master of the ceremonies (yet one whom for his learning, and elaborate pains against the Papists I shall ever honour) who, having maintained the Position of Protestants concerning the indistinction of a Bishop and Presbyter by the Word of God, by the testimonies of Papists themselves (as his usual course is) and vindicated it from the imputation of Arianism and Heresic 
k Absit ut praxin Ecclesiasticam, quae ad tollendum schisma instituta suit, per schisma perrunpere velimus, & non potiùs cam sancte & humiliter colamus: dummodo (quod in esclesia vestry Patres conci●orum gravitèr dolebant) schismatis remedium non pariat venenum tyrannidis Morton. Apo. Cath. lib. 1. cap. 33. in sine. , doth indeed dislike a schismatical opposition against Episcopacy, and the practice of the Church therein, desiring it should be observed holily and with humility, yet with this Proviso, So that the remedy of schism do not produce the poison of tyranny. So that by his own concession, when once the remedy is turned into poison, and so become not only as bad, but also worse than the disease, it is then by all means lawful and possible to be expelled. If this satisfy not, but our Hierarchists will still quarrel and complain of schism, faction and disorderly proceed; I shall return them the same answer which Dr Bilson, a man sufficiently hierarchical, gives the Jesuits, who complained that matters of Religion were in Queen Elizabeth's days established by a Lay-Parliament (who were not to meddle with Church affairs) without consent of the Prelates and their popish Clergy. 
l D●ffer. betw. Christ. subject. & unchrist. rebel. part. 3. p. 299. caii. Lond. an. 1586.  The Christian Princes, take which you will, that first received, and after wards restored the faith in their Empires and Kingdoms, tied not themselves to the voices and suffrages of their Clergy which were in present possession of their Churches, but eft-times removed them without counsel or common consultation. And a little after, Why restrain you truth to the assemblies and sentences of Popes and Prelates, as though they must be gently entreated and fairly offered by Christ, before he might attempt or should recover his own. When the Jesuits reply, We would have things done in order. The Doctor returneth them this answer, Call you that order where Christ shall stand without doors till your Clergy consent to bring him in? Afterwards, when the Jesuits urge a Commission and lawful authority; 
m Pag 300.  He that is sent to preach (saith the Doctor) may not hold his tongue till my Lord the Pope (you may think if you please on him, who would feign be reinvested in that title, which once his Predecessor had, being accounted, alterius orbis Papa, the Pope of the other world) and his mitred fathers can intent to meet, and list to consent to the ruin, as they coceive, of their dignities & liberties. Despise you Counsels? say the Jesuits: 
n Pag. 301.  By no means, saith the Dr, so long as they be Counsels, that is sober & free conferences of learned & godly teachers: but if they wax wanton against Christ, and will not have truth received till they have consented, which is the disposition of our Prelates and their adherents at this day, we reject them as conspiracies of the wicked, which no Christian ought to reverence. Thus fare Doctor Bilson. The conclusion of Clemangiis in his complaint of the exorbitancies of Prelates shall close up my discourse, 
o Tract. de Prae●ulib. Sim. in sine. p. 166.  Expergiseere Domine tandem aliquando; Awake, O Lord, at length, look down upon us, pity us and visit thy Church with thy salvation. Heale her, for there is none but thou canst cure her, Pour into her wounds the wine of reproof, and oil of consolation. Take thy fan into thy hand, and throughly purge thy floor which is contaminated with so great, and such impure defilements. Purge thy vineyard which is exceedingly overgrown with thorns. Make as of old a whip of small cords, drive the money-changers out of the Temple, cast out the buyers and sellers, and exterminate out of the limits of thy Church all the wicked merchants, unless they repent, amend and reform; Smite the Gehazites with leprosy. Cast down and dash in pieces the Simonites, with their master Simon, which are flown so high, and by the ministry of Satan mounted up, so that none can pull them down unless thou be pleased to do it. Or if we must have an English Litany to be used in all Collegiate and Cathedral Churches and Chapels seeing our Prelates are grown so brazenfaced as to tell us, their Jurisdiction is no other but charitable, 
p Episc. by div. right, p. 137.  as charity managed the censures before so charity doth it still; (yet I think you all know, and so do others also, that their proceed have been so charitable, that we may truly say of them, what once 
q Non ambigimus de rugitu Leonu●●, quando viderimus Principes ecclesie ita in subditos populos detonare, & vo●e tyrannica plebem conterere ut non pastore mingrege, sed Leonem inter oviculas putes frendere. Hier. in Zeph. 3.  Hierome did of the Bishops in his days, they were more like to Lions roaring among the sheep, then like shepherds set over the flock; or what Didacus Stella of the Prelates in his time, when in charity they have come to visit, 
r Non eo ten lust animo (Praelati ad visitandum dioecesos suos) ut infirmis medeantur, nec ut same pereuntes alique auxilio rest aurentur, sed ut eos exeuterent & diviscerent. Admodum similes by praelati sunt reorum custodibus, qui damnatos & in carcere detentos visitant, non ut aliquod solatii gonzs eis praestent, sed ut dolorem augeant, catenas atque compedes fortiùs comprimendo. It a nimirùm, etc. Enar. in Luc. tom. 2. in cap. 10. p. 5. edit. Antwerp. an. 1622.  they come as the Jailor doth to visit his Prisoners, that he may extort his sees, see whether they be fast bound or not, and to lay more bolts on their heels) were I fit to give advice to so grave and learned an Assembly, I should desire this might be one branch of the Litany, if we have any: From Papal tyranny, and Prelate's Charity, Good Lord deliver us. With this directory; Let all the people say, Amen.  
FINIS.   

Errata.  
PAge 3. in marg. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. ibid. lin. ult. Clement. lege Clemangiis. p. 4. line 7. licae. ● loco. p. 14. l. 23 Hierodantia. l. Hierodoulia. p. 18. in morg. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. ibid. lia. 14 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. p. 24. l. 26. Kingdom in. l. Kingdom of Heaven in. ib. in m●rg. San. l. Sum. lb. lin. 30. because they are, they hold, l. because they hold p. 38. l. 12. doth necessarily, l. doth not necessarily.  
As for the rest, if there be any literal mistakes or such like errors, the courteous Reader will e●●ly observe and correct them.