THE DETERMINATION OF THE QUESTION, Concerning the Divine Right of Episcopacy.  
By the famous and learned Divine Dr. Abrahamus Scultetus, late Professor of Divinity in the University of Heidelberg.  
Faithfully translated out of his Observations upon the Epistles to Timothy and Titus.   ⚜ 
LONDON, Printed for NATHANIEL BUTTER. 1641.   

An Advertisement to the Reader.  
KNow Reader, that whereas in one of those many angry Pamphlets, which have been lately published, there is an intimation given of some disgraceful language, that fell from Dr. Voetius, the learned professor of Virecht, concerning the person of Dr. Hall B. of Exeter; there hath been serious inquisition made into the truth of that report; and that the said Dr. Voetius disavows (to the party that inquired of it) any such words of undervaluation, by him spoken, as is testified under the hand of Sir William Boswell Knight, his Majesty's Lieger with the States: And, if, upon the sight of a displeasing title of a Book (contrary to his own judgement) any learned Divine, should have passed a censure upon the work; there was small reason for the reporters to reflect upon the person of the author: Yea, I am confident, that many of our worthy brethren at home, were differently minded concerning this Tenet of the right of Episcopacy, if they would be pleased to inform themselves thoroughly of the state of the question, as it is defended by the Author of that treatise, would find small cause of scruple in this opinion. For whereas there are three Degrees of truths, and holy institutions (as they are commonly distinguished) Humane, Apostolic Divine; The first from mere men; The second from men Apostolical; The third from God himself immediately; The Author desires to go a Midway in this difference; holding it too low to derive Episcopacy from a merely humane, and Ecclesiastical Ordinance; holding it too high to deduce it from an immediate command from God; and therefore pitching upon an Apostolical institution; rests there: but because those Apostles were divinely inspired, and had the directions of God's spirit for those things which they did for the common administration of the Church, therefore, and in that only name is Episcopacy said to lay claim to a Divine right; howsoever also it cannot be gainsaid that the grounds were formerly laid by our Saviour in a known imparity of his first agents; Now surely this truth hath so little reason to distaste them, that, even learned Chamier himself can say; Res ipsa coepit tempore Apostolorum, vel potius ab ipsis profecta est. And why should that seem harsh in us, which soundeth well in the mouths of less-interessed Divines? But because the very title of that Book hath raised more dust than the Treatise itself; Be pleased, Readers, to see, that this very question is in the very same terms determined by that eminent light of the Palatinate; Dr. Abrah. Scultetus; whose tract to this purpose I have thought fit to annex.  
Peruse it, and judge whether of those two writers have gone further in this determination; And if you shall not meet with convincing reasons to bring you home to this opinion; yet, at leastwise find cause enough to retain a charitable, and favourable conceit of those, who are (as they think, upon good grounds) otherwise minded; and whilst it is on all parts agreed by wise and unprejudiced Christians, that the calling is thus ancient and sacred; let it not violate the peace of the Church to scan the original, whether Ecclesiastical, Apostolical, or Divine. Shortly, let all good men humbly submit to the Ordinance, and hearty wish the Reformation of any abuses.  
And so many as are of this mind, Peace be upon them, and the whole Israel of God.  
Amen.   

The Question. Whether Episcopacy be of Divine right? That is, whether the Apoctles ordained this Government of the Church, that not only one should be placed over the people, but over Presbyters and Deacons, who should have the power of Imposition of Hands, or Ordination, and the direction of Ecclesiastical Counsels.  
THis was anciently denied by Aerius, as is related by Epiphanius, in his 75 Heresy, and by john of Jerusalem, as appears by Hierome, in his Epistle to PAMMACHIUS. And there are not wanting in these many learned and pious men, who, although they acknowledge Aerius to have erred, in that he should disallow of that manner of Ecclesiastical government, which had been received by the whole world; yet in this they agree with him, that Episcopal government is not of Divine Right. From whose opinion why I should sever my judgement, I am moved by these strong reasons, famous examples, and evident authorities.  
My judgement is this;  
First, in the Apostles Epistles the name of Bishop did never signify any thing different from the office of a Presbyter. For a Bishop, Presbyter, and an Apostle, were common names, as you may see Acts 20. Phil. 1. v. 1. Tit. 1. 1. Pet. v. 12. Acts 1. 20.  
Next. In the chief Apostolical Church, the Church was governed by the common advice of Presbyters; and that for some years in the time of the preaching of the Apostles. For first of all, companies must be gathered together, before we can define anything concerning their perpetual government.  
Then, the Apostles, as long as they were present or near their churches, did nor place any Bishop over them, properly so called, but only Presbyters, reserving Episcopal authority to themselves alone.  
Lastly, after the Gospel was fair and near propagated, and that out of equality of Presbyters, by the instinct of the Devil, Schisms were made in Religion, than the Apostles (especially in the more remote places) placed some over the Pastors, or Presbyters, which shortly after, by the Disciples of the Apostles Ignatius, and others, were only called Bishops, and by this appellation, they were distinguished from Presbyters and Deacons.  
Reason's moving me to this opinion? First, Hierome upon the 1. chapter of the Epistle to Titus, writeth, that a Presbyter is the same with a Bishop, and before that, by the instinct of the Devil, factions were made in Religion, and it was said among the people, I am of Paul, I of Apollo, but I of Cephas, the churches were governed by the common counsel of Presbyters: afterwards it was decreed in the whole Word, that one chosen out of the Presbyters, should be placed over the rest,  
From whence I thus argue.  
When it began to be said among the people, I am of Paul, I of Apollo, but I of Cephas, than one chosen out of the Presbyters, was placed over the rest.  
But whiles the Apostles lived, it was so said among the people. As the first Epistle to the Corinthians, besides other of St. Paul's Epistles, puts it out of doubt. Therefore, while the Apostles lived, one chosen out of the Presbyters was placed over the rest.  
Again, There can be no other term assigned, in which Bishops were first made, than the time of the Apostles; for all the prime successors of the Apostles were Bishops: witness the successions of Bishops in the most famous churches of Jerusalem, Alexandria, Antioch, and Rome, as it is in Eusebius, therefore, either the next successors of the Apostles, changed the force of Ecclesiastical government, received from the Apostles, according to their own pleasure, which is very unlikely, or the Episcopal government came from the Apostles themselves.  
Besides, even then in the time of the Apostles, there were many Presbyters, but one Bishop, even then in the time of the Apostles, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, he that was placed over the rest, which afterwards was called Bishop, did impose hands, or ordain Ministers of the Word, which Presbyters alone did not presume to do. Even then, therefore, the calling of Bishops was distinct from the Office of Presbyters.  
If any desire the examples of Apostolical Bishops, the books of the ancient are full of the Episcopal authority, of Timothy, and Titus, either of which, howsoever, first performed the office of an Evangelist, yet notwithstanding, ceased to be an Evangelist, after that Timothy was placed over the Church of Ephesus, and Titus over the church of Crete; For Evangelists did only lay the foundations of Faith in foreign places, and then did commend the rest of the care to certain Pastors, but they themselves went to other Countries, and Nations, as Eusebius writes in his 3d. book of Ecclesiastical History, and 34. chap. But Paul taught sometimes in Ephesus and Crete and laid the foundations of Faith there; therefore he commandeth Timothy to stay at Ephesus, & Titus at Crete, not as Evangelists but as governors of the Churches.  
And indeed, the Epistles, written to either of them, do evince the same; For in these, he doth not prescribe the manner of gathering together a church, which was the duty of an Evangelist, but the manner of governing a church, being already gathered together, which is the duty of a Bishop and all the precepts in those Epistles, are so conformable hereunto, as that they are not referred, in especial to Timothy, and Titus, but in general to all Bishops, and therefore in no wise, they suit with the temporary power of Evangelists.  
Besides, that Timothy, and Titus, had Episcopal jurisdiction, not only Eusebius, chrysostom, Theodoret, Ambrose, Hierome, Epiphanius, Oecumenius, Primasius, Theophylact, but also the most ancient writers, of any that writ the History of the new Testament, whose writings are now lost, do sufficiently declare. Eusebius without doubt appealing unto those, in his 3. book of Ecclesiastical History and 4. chapter, Timothy (saith he) in Histories is written to be the 1. which was made Bishop of the church of Ephesus, as Titus was the first, that was made Bishop of the church of Crete.  
But if John the Apostle, and not any ancient disciple of the Apostles, be the author of the Revelation, he suggests unto us, those seven new Examples of Apostolical Bishops: For all the most learned Interpreters interpret the seven Angels of the Churches, to be the seven Bishops of the Churches; neither can they do otherwise, unless they should offer violence to the text.  
What should I speak of james not the Apostle, but the brother of our Saviour, the son in law, of the Mother of our Lord: who by the Apostles, was ordained Bishop of Jerusalem, as Eusebius, in his 2d book of Ecclesiastical History, and 1 chap. out of the 6. of the Hypotyposes of Clement, Hierome concerning Ecclesiastical writers, out of the 1. of the Comments of Egesippus, relate, Ambrose upon the 1 chap. unto the Galatians, chrysostom in his 23. Homily upon the 15. of the Acts, Augustine in his 2d book and 37 chap. against Cresconius, Epiphanius in his 65. Heresy, The 6 Synod in Trullo, and 32. canon, all assenting thereunto. For indeed, this is that James that had his fixed residence at Jerusalem, as an ordinary Bishop, whom Paul in his first, and last coming to Jerusalem, found in the city; almost all the Apostles, preaching in other places, Gal. 1. 19 & that concluded those things, which were decreed in the assembly of the Apostles, Acts 21. For he was with chrysostom, Bishop of the Church of Jerusalem, from whom when certain came, Peter would not eat with the Gentiles, Galat. 2. 12.  
From examples, I pass to authorities, which Ignatius confirms by his own authority, Whose Axioms are these.  
The Bishop is he, which is superior in all chiefly, and power. The Presbytery, is a holy company of counsellors, and assessors to the Bishop. The Deacons are the imitators of angelical virtues, which show forth their pure, & unblameable ministry. He which doth not obey these, is without God, impure, and contemns Christ, & derogates from his order, and constitution, in his Epistle to the Trallians.  
In another place, I exhort that ye study to do all things with concord. The Bishop being precedent in the place of God. The Presbyters in place of the Apostolic Senate, the Deacons as those to whom was committed the ministry of jesus Christ in his Epistle to the Magnesians.  
And again. Let the Presbyters be subject to the Bishop, the Deacons to the Presbyters, the people to the Presbyters and Deacons, in his Epistle those of Tarsus.  
But Ignatius was the Disciple of the Apostles, from whence then had he this Hierarchy but from the Apostles?  
Let us now hear Epiphanius in his 75. Heresy. The Apostles could not presently appoint all things: Presbyters and Deacons were necessary; for by these two Ecclesiastical affairs might be dispatched. Where there was not found any fit for the Episcopacy, that place remained without a Bishop, but where there was need, and there were any fit for Episcopacy, they were made Bishops. All things were not complete from the beginning, but in tract of time all things were provided which were required for the perfection of those things which were necessary, the Church by this means receiving the fullness of dispensation.  
But Eusebius comes nearer to the matter, and more strongly handles the cause, who in his third book of Ecclesiastical History, and 22. chapter, as also in his Chronicle affirmeth, that Erodius was ordained the 1. Bishop of Antioch, in the year of our Lord 45. in the 3. year of Claudius the Emperor: at which time, many of the Apostles were alive. Now Hierome writeth to Evagrius, that at Alexandria, from Mark the Evangelist, unto Heraclus and Dionysius the Bishop, the Presbyters called one, chosen out of themselves, & placed in a higher Degree, the Bishop. But Mark died, as Eusebius, and Bucholcerus testify, in the year of our Lord, 64. PETER, PAUL, and JOHN the Apostles, being then alive: therefore, it is clear, that Episcopacy was instituted in the time of the Apostles, and good Hierome suffered some frailty, when he wrote, that Bishops were greater than Presbyters, rather by the custom of the Church, than the truth of the Lords disposing; unless perhaps, by the custom of the Church, he understands the custom of the Apostles, and by the truth of the Lords disposing, he understands the appointment of Christ, yet not so, he satisfies the truth of History. For it appears out of the first, second, and 3. chapters of the Revelation, that the form of governing the Church by Angels or Bishops, was not only ratified, and established, in the time of the Apostles, but it was confirmed by the very Son of God. And Ignatisn called that form, the order of Christ.  
And when Hierome writes, that it was decreed in the whole world, that one chosen out of the Presbyters should be placed over the rest. And when I have demonstrated, that in the life-time of the Apostles, Bishops were superior to Presbyters in Ordination: and that each Church had one placed over it, do we not without cause demand; Where, when, and, by whom Episcopacy was ordained? Episcopacy therefore is of divine right. Which, how the Prelates of the church of Rome, for almost 300. years, did adorn with the truth of Doctrine, innocency of life, constancy in afflictions, and suffering death itself for the honour of Christ; and on the other side, how in succeeding times, first by their ambition, next by their excessive pragmatical covetousness, scraping up to themselves the goods of this world, then by their heresy, last of all by their tyranny they corrupted it, that the Roman Hierarchy, at this day, hath nothing else left but a vizard of the Apostolical Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, and the lively Image of the whore of Babylon, our Histories both ancient and modern, do abundantly testify.  
Wherefore all Bishops are warned from hence, that they throughly weigh with themselves the nature of Apostolical Episcopacy, of which they glory that they are the successors.  
That Episcopacy had two things peculiar to it, the privilege of succeeding, and the Prerogative of ordaining: all other things were common to them with the Presbyters: Therefore both Bishops and Presbyters, should so exercise themselves in godliness, should so free themselves from contempt by their conversation, and so make themselves examples to their flock; not neglecting especially the gift of prophesying, received from above, but being wholly intent, to reading, consolation, and teaching: to meditate on these things, to be wholly conversant in them; and so perpetually employed in this holy function, and divine affairs, with this promise, that if they shall do these things, they shall both save themselves, and their Auditors, but if after the custom of some great ones, they follow the pride and luxury of this world, they shall both destroy themselves, and them that hear them.  
FINIS.