■ 
 
 HHi 
 
 k 
 
Digitized by the Internet Archive 
 
 in 2012 with funding from 
 
 Princeton Theological Seminary Library 
 
 http://www.archive.org/details/confessionsproofOOmort 
 
iCONFESSIONSi 
 
 I AND J 
 
 4£ 
 
 PROOFES i 
 
 S ° F § 
 
 %T%OTBSTANT DIVINES* 
 
 ± OF" & 
 
 4» 
 
 Reformed Churches, 
 
 <8* 
 
 ^ That Episcopacy is in refpeca of xht% 
 
 % Office according to the word of God, ♦ 
 
 £ and in refpeft of the Vfe she £*jh % 
 
 ± TOGETHER % 
 * With a brief Treatife touching the Originall of £ 
 
 S Bishops and Metropolitans, $ 
 
 ^ ^g* 
 
 ^ — 
 
 ■ ' * ' ■ - ,r — ~ 
 
 *§► 
 
 
 $ 
 
 
 i 
 I 
 
 VM 
 
 
 J Printed in the year, 1661. J 
 
T 
 
 The Tlous and %eligious T^eader^ 
 
 Grace and Petce In Cbrifl $ifas» 
 
 He matter fubjcft of this Treatife being yec 
 in fufpenfe 9 and to be determined defw 
 turo 3 viz, What Ecelefiafticall Govern- 
 ment is to be judged to be, according to the 
 Word of God, in refped of the office it felf^ 
 and alfo the Befi in rcfpecTof its ufe : Af- 
 ter that, upon more and more deliberation^ 
 I had perfected my conlufion, the faying of Auguftins came in- 
 to my mind, H* that concealeth a truth , and he that te ache tk 
 afatjbood are both guilty; the firft beeaufe he will not profit • 
 the other beeaufe he intsttdeth to hurt And delude: which I 
 apprehend as a double caution, both of riot publiHiing any Uto^ 
 pian Ecclefiafticall form of Government of mine own forging? 
 as aliOjOf not ftifling,by my (Hence, a form truly Apoftolicall. 
 
 Which Rcfolution, notwithftanding, I did not adventure to 
 take , before that I was fortified in my perfwafion by a general 
 con fent of Proteftant Divines of reformed Churches, and among 
 others , in fome principal points appealing to the Divines of the 
 Church of Geneva ; Nor yet do we fo much infift upon their 
 Confeflions as upon their Proofs, efpeciaily being grounded up- 
 on two infallible foundation?. The firft , the general verdict 
 of Antiquity , as well Do&rinall as Hiftoricall : Though 
 we Chould not name that general Council of Caicedon con*- 
 fitting of 63© Fathers, which by one Canon decreed it to be a 
 Sacriledge to prefTe down a Bifiiop into the degree of a Presby- 
 ter. The fame Council that did alfo ordain another Canon, 
 which was then th@ very break- neck of Romifh Popedomeo 
 
 A a 2. The 
 
The E 'pi file to the Redder. 
 
 i< The Autbenticall Texts of Scripture fo far as thereby to 
 demonftrateChrift his own approbation of Epifcopal Prelacy 
 after his Aicenlion in the Churches of Apa : in one whereof 
 without all contradiction was one Poljcarfu* Bifliop and 
 Martyr. 
 
 As for the Churches, whereof we are to fpeak, the Tra&ate 
 hsth been undertaken in behalf of Proteftant Churches, which 
 practice at this day the fame Prelacy under thefe two divers 
 names of Epifcopacy and Superintendency , as much exceeding 
 the number of thofe which are deftitute of Biftiops, yet fo, as 
 juftly condemning the Romifh Hierarchy ( rather Tyranny) 
 poyioned with moft grofle idolatry ; and not fo onely, but fo 
 faroppofice to the Epifcopacy wh»ch we defend, that it is a 
 falfe Ufurpation, that all Biihops be originally deduced from 
 the Popc,and dependant upon him. Other Churches deftitute 
 of Bifhops we ditfer from, yet not fo (far be it from us J as not 
 to account them c&ntial Churches of Chnft , but to whom as 
 formerly, we do defiroufly give the rig' t hand of Brotherly 
 fellowfhip -'to joyn againft the common and grand adverfary 
 intheRomith B*bjlon> 
 
 Concerinng other points drcumftantial we have provided, 
 that our Method be with coherence, our Styl plain and even, 
 our Allegations dired and punctuator Authors juftly approve- 
 able, our Taxations toothlefs, and our Infcrencics brief, perti- 
 nent and confectary. 
 
 A- for you ("good Chriftian Reader ) his hope is , that he 
 final! not need the ufe of the Apoftles Expoftulacion , faying, 
 jim I your enemy becmlc / tell you the truth} And his prayer 
 to God fhall be to protect and bleffe you , to the glory qf his 
 faving Grace in Chrift jefus, that he alfo w«ll diftnbme to this 
 our lacerated Church, fome portion of that his peerle/Fe Legacy 
 left unto his Apoftles, when he fad, My f<*ce 1 htvemth 
 7*»,by vertue whereof, we may with one heait and mind faith- 
 fully woifhip God in Spirit and in Truth. 
 
 f THE 
 
The Contents of every Thesis. 
 
 Hefis. That our English Epifcopacy hath beenjuftified b 
 
 the. confejjion of the mo ft learned froteflanis of remot 
 
 Churches, infpeciallby the Church o/Geneva. Pag. I 
 
 II. T hefis. That there "to as neVer any Vifible conftitu- 
 
 tcd Qhurch in all Chriflendome fince the Appoftles time 
 
 for 1 500. years and more&hich held Epifcopacy in it [elf to be imlatoful, 5 
 
 IU. Thefisi That Epifcopall Prelacy is acknowledged by Proteftant 
 
 (Divines of remote Churches to be according to the Word of God, and their 
 
 confent therein unto Primitive Antiquity, 7 
 
 IV. Tht&S'That 'Epifcopall Government in the Church is, in refoeB 
 of the neajjary ufs thereof, the BeR, by the confent of Protefiant ©*'- 
 'Pines of other reformed Churches. 9 
 
 V. Thefis. That the mo ft frbteftant Churches doprofejfe and praltife 
 a Prelacy oV>er Presbyters, 1 3 
 
 VI. Thefis. That the former %eafms ofConfejJions of froteftant <Di- 
 Vines, concerning the neceffity of Epifcopall frelacy, for preferVatim of 
 concord and preventing of Schifme t is correspondent to the judgement of 
 Antiquity, 14 
 
 VII. Thefis. that $ijh ops primitively were not only the chief efh 
 Champions for the Cbriftian Faith, but alfothegreatejl adVerfaries to %o- 
 mifh Pop? dome, ashaVs alfo GurEnghfh, 16 
 
 VULThtGs.Thattdbeof/fpo/hcalllnfiitutionarguethin it a Vi- 
 Vine ^igbt by the confejjion of excellent Divines of the reformed 
 Churches, 18 
 
 IX. Thefis. That no Ancient father abfolutely denyed the Apefticall 
 OripnallofEpifepacy. no not the objected Hierome, V>bo TVlllfbtty 
 himfelfa mamfe(l Patron thereof, ip 
 
 X The fe.Tbat Clement an Apoftolicdl ftifciple, to tohofe arbitre- 
 ment both our Oppofites and toe offer to yeild our jfelves, doth patronise 
 Epifcopacy, as being Apo/tolicall. 21 
 
 XL rhefis. That other Primitive fathers before Hierome did m&nu 
 tnoujh tefiifie an Apoflolical %igbt of Eptfcepacy , 24 
 
 XI I. Thefis. That the Apoftolicall Antiquity of Epifcopacy & c onfef- 
 fedly proved out of Ignatius. 26 
 
 XIII. Thefis. That Antiquity hath given us %ules of ^efotution for 
 the knowledge of any Apofl oik all practice , fbbhhmay ferVe in the cafe 
 of Epifcopacy, 27 
 
 XIV* Thefis. That Pmeftmt ®Mms of other ^formed Churches 
 
 have 
 
The Contents; 
 
 have held it mofh epall to he directed by the judgments of Ancients for a 
 poof of a Practice Apoflolkall. 28 
 
 XV. Th^uTtatAdr.B^ibimfclfiscballengabletoyeild unto an 
 Apoflolkall right of Epifcopacy from his own former confejfion* 30 
 
 XVI. Thefis That the teftimonies 0/Nazianzen and Auguftine are 
 unworthily objected to the contrary, 30 
 
 XV1L Thefis. That Timothy and Titus both had a Prelacy over 
 Presbyters notwithftanding the objeBion of the Community of names §f 
 ®i[boi-s and Prejbytersisfujficiently confejfcd by Prsteflam $Mne$ if 
 remote Churches. 3 a 
 
 XVI II. Thefis. That Timothy and Titus have had a Prelacy as 
 fofiops over Presbyters in the dpoftles times, notwithjtanding the Ohjeftim 
 on, that they were called Evangelijls according t% confent offrotejiants 
 of %(e formed . Churches. 34 
 
 XIX. Thefis. That Antiquity taught an Epifcopacy both in Timothy 
 and Titus. 36 
 
 XX. Thefis- That our Oppofttesfirjl ExpofitlonWhkh interpreted ths 
 Angell to meant the Whole Church and Congregation is notably extra" 
 Vagant. 38 
 
 XXI. Thefis- That our Oppofites fecond Expofition of the Word An* 
 gell % tofignifie onely the Order and Colledge ofPresbytersjs erroneous } mU 
 With/landing the Arguments of our Oppojites to the contrary. 39 
 
 Me Anfwer to the firft Argument.") 39 
 
 To the Second. \ 39 
 
 To the Third. > 41 
 
 To the Fourth* | 4* 
 
 To the Lafh j 4J 
 
 XXH.Thefis. That our Oppofites third Expofition of the Word Angell. 
 
 tofignifie one only Paflour in the Church of "Ephefus,^ extremely new ant 
 
 naught. 44 
 
 XXIII. Thefis* T^* by the Word Angell e/Ephtkis, tofignifie a fin* 
 gular and individuallPaJlour having a 'Prelacy over Presbyters, is proved 
 by a large confent off rote ftant divines Without Exception judicious and 
 ingenuous. 45 
 
 XXIV. Thefis. That Antiquity held not the Word Angell ( Whereof We 
 treat ) to be taken colleUiVely for a Multitude of Paftours. 48 
 
 XXV. Thefis. That the Word Angell 'in other places of the Relation 
 is commonly, if not alWayes individually tafyn. 48 
 
 XXVI. Thefis. That by Angell is meant bidi^ttally one $ifhop, is 
 demon/hated by Bifloricall learning Without cwtrtdittion. <,o 
 
 XXVII. Thefis. That Chrift himfelffheWed his approbation of Prela- 
 cy, Which tie fore/aid Angels had in their fcverall Churches. 52 
 
 THE 
 
The judgment of Proteftant Divines, 
 of remote Churches, aswellfuchas 
 were the firft Reformers of Religi- 
 on, as others after theoi in behalf 
 
 of Epifcopal degree in the Church, 
 
 His they perform , both by their direel and 
 ingenious confeffions t and after by found 
 andfolid Proofs , fo far as to (hew Epis- 
 copal Prelacy to be Recording to gods 
 Word, asalfo to acknowledge the fame for 
 ufe to be the 'Beft kinde of Eccfcfiaftica! 
 Government. We are, in the firft place, 
 to try their plain confefsions concerning the faid Prelacy , as 
 vrell in fpecial, for our Englifh , as touching EpifGOpacy in ge- 
 neralljin what Orijiodox Church foever,snd afterwards to ad- 
 joyn the proofeV' J 
 
 i. Thesis. 
 
 Tbdt onr TLnglifh Ffifcopacy hath been juftified by the canfef- 
 fton of the mofl teamed Proteflants of remote Curches , in 
 fecial by the Church of Geneva* 
 
 OUr Epifcopall Prelacy we are fure was profefs'd , and 
 praaif'd by Biftiops. 
 i. In the dayes of King Edward the e?. who as they were 
 the principal Authors of the Reformation of our Ptoteftant Re- 
 ligion, 
 
$• The right of E*isco*acy'J 
 
 ligion, fo did fome of them feal the truth of their profefliors 
 with their bloud , and have therefore been with others thus 
 tyMGidhiepifcextoVM by that golden mouth of the French Church (*}Maftei 
 t\ E *% iV ™ m Moulin faying, That they were for *u$al nothing inferiourte 
 Martyrum ba~ the moft excellent fervants of God 9 that Germany or France 
 bemm (criptaj everhad^hichtfmh ht)none will deny ufdjfnet wilfully /?#« 
 & memihimvA pid and b Untied in day- light. Yea, and touching thofe then 
 ifllttx^T' ArcIlDifll0 P san(3 Bifliops (b) Bez>a for the Church of Geneva, 
 hferimmreh I( happened in our memory, that /he ffpeakingof ourEnglifh 
 fraftwtffmo- Church ) hath had men of that calling^not onely co*,ftant Mar* 
 rumDsi (trvo- tyrs of God, but alfo excellent 'Paftours tind Dollars* 
 rum, quoi g«?r- 2. in the dayes of Queen Elizabeth , Calvin the moil: il- 
 ZZT-lt ,uft «<> as ^ of the Church of Geneva , doubted not to inftile 
 quincgat t opor- ArchbiGiop Cranmer (c) A mo ft accompli/h'd Prelate (faith 
 tet m fit vel he) who hath the cure^not onley e/England,^ alfo of the whole 
 improbeveccrs, Chrifiian world, which he did to the dignifying of the Go- 
 VW^^r vernmenc or " our Englifh Church; andnomarvel, feingthat 
 ™tbrofi foiuL ^oHt profefle toyeild , in behalf, even of Popilh Biffoops, 
 tatecaiiget in upon condition, that renouncing the dependence upon the 
 Uaralnce. Pope , and acknowledgment of Chrift as their onely Head, 
 (b) Beta lie- with profeflion of his Truth (d). Then {ball weprofefieall 
 fponf.adsarav. t ^ 3em T faith he J Veho [hall not reverently and willingly fubmh 
 de Minift.gra- to their Government^ to be worthy ofwhatfoever Anathema or 
 dibua^e.iB.p. curfe. So he, even in his Tractate of Reformation of the 
 line JhTlica Church , at what time alfo 'Beza after hit ^agratulating the 
 mEcckfiiin-* reftitution of our Proteftant Religion in England, earneftly de- 
 flauratafuorum fired the whole Clergy under the Government of Grindal then 
 Epifcoporum & ' 
 
 Arcbiepifcoporum authoritate fufulta praftant, quemaimodum hoc iUi nofiu memotu contigit, 
 ut tjut ordinis homines non tanwm infignes Tfei Mtartyres, fed etiam praftantijfimos Paftens , 
 ac 'Docioret habueriu (c) Calvin epift. Cranmero, Te prafmim (OrnatiJJime Praful ) 
 qui altiori in(pccula fedes , in bane curam incumbcre netejj'e eft. Scio non itaxnweAn- 
 glU baberi abs te rationem qum univerfo orbi confulas. (d) Calvin, torn. 7. ad Sadoletum, s 
 deneceffttatereformanda Ecclefia, p. 69. Vtrumtalem nobis ft ctntribuant Bierarebiam in 
 qui emineant Epfcopi, ut cbrifto fubejje non recufent , ut ab ilk tauquam ab units capite 
 pendeant % (pad ipfumreferantur, in qua. ft fraternam ebaritatem inter fe colant, & non alio 
 modo quam ejm veritate collegati, mm veto nullo non Anathmate diguos fatemur fi om crunt, 
 qui earn nonrcvei 'enter (jrfumm a. cum obedkntia obftrvent, 
 
 Bifhop 
 
The rig&t of evIscopIc^ 5 
 
 Bifliopof London, to (e) fubmii unto him, holding him mr- (0 %&&Al 
 iky of much puni foment Vhe (hot* Id defpife his Authority Yea, G m *f^Jhm 
 and fo well did he approve of the then Government by Arch- p^fluhmfuk 
 bifbops and Bifliops, as to widi it might be perpetual unto exanimoobfe- 
 them, f Sa ^ like wife, who is fufficiently commended by quantur: ma- 
 his excellent writings in defence of the Proteftant Religion, ^\ m ^JM 
 did ;oyn together with *Bt** in an Apology to vindicate [ZtmTuaT 
 themfelves from a rlnifter report, as if they had detracted from afpernabuntur. 
 the Right of Government by Arch-biLhops and Bifhops, idem rurfta ai 
 avouching the fame ajperjion to have been a moft impious flan* Sarav, upon 
 der. And (f) 'Bijbof Jeuell, how was he honoured by 'Peter f^^g* 
 Martyr , calling him A mofi renowned Prelate ; and by Sib- V ernment by ' 
 brandm * Lubbarttu, entitling him The Ornament % not omly of Arch-bifliops 
 En°land, but alfo of the whole world ? and Bifliops. 
 
 (g) HitromZanchee, one in the opinion of our Oppofites l<t* a ^l A % 
 ( we doubt dot; worthily renowned , in his Letters to Queen f e tti£quTuti- 
 Elizabeth, he exhorteth her Majefty with an imprimis , and namjitillina.' 
 efpeciaUy to extend her care,powcr and authority, to have god- tioni perpetua. 
 Ij 'Sifiops, skilful! in hdy Scriptures, of -Which fort (faith he) t This is cited 
 by the bleffing of god you have already very m my : and to che- b J { ^ £^ m 
 rijb and hear them* (h) Alfo in his Epiftie to Arch- bifhop of !he pr«cn* 
 Grindall, upon occafion of his remove to Canterbury, he ex- ded holy difci- 
 preffeth his joy for that accede of dignity , a* a tefiimony of pline^c. Be* 
 Gods love towards him , and a means whereby he might more V apudSarav. 
 and more promote Gods true ReUgi$n % Om Oppofites ought not 1^£ , 4? 
 to be offended with us , although we offer unto them next an f. * x m uelum] 
 Author, fomewhat diftaftfull unto them at the firft hearing, mould falfijjC 
 
 mS&impm 
 JLentiffimi ne-nnuUi nobis objiciunt cuiquam ufpiam Ecdefia fequendum mftrum ptculiare exeat' 
 plum prafcribamuijmperitijfimorum illorum [miles, qui mhilnifiquodipji agunt, reftum putant. 
 (!) Weh Martyr Epift. prafix. Juelli Apol. sAmplijftme Vrtful, & "Domiu mibi qu9* 
 tidie etiam atque etiam ob(ervanie. * Sibrand, contra Grouum p. i8$ 4 cit&tm a TXjcbolao Vi- 
 delio, lib. de Epifcopat, Conftantini wagni p. 25. (g) Zanchius in Epift< adEU%ab. 
 AngliaRegin* Cogitet Tua Majcftas in hoc omntm Turn curam, potentiam tyautbori- 
 mem intendcrejit imprimis Epifttpos habeas phs , (& in Sams Uteris erudites, ficut 'Dei be- 
 nefido babes quamplurimos , eofque foveas & an Has. (h) Idem Epift, Edmund grindallo 
 Epifccf.mnpffum non gratulari nwam (? ampHJJimam dignitatem: qumam iftafuntdu 
 vinx btnediftionU Tcftirmia & covi&ntU Tua in Deum pietat'u, qua ejusbenefimtia cura 
 Tua magu magifque in vsrk Jteligiwc (? pietate promoveri pofiit. 
 
 B namely, 
 
4 The nght of fcp 1 1 c op a c y. 
 
 (i) Sdtavia it namely (i) D Saravia , becaufe as he is a Religious Divine £ 
 tfinift. g'^ an da$un-Epifcopaliasanyother, foalfois he as Orthodox, 
 utotll s£ everywhere, as they know, inveighing againft the Romifh 
 tniratusfumeo- Hierarchie j he confeffeth himfelf to wonder at the wifdome 
 tumfapientiam, of the Reformers of Religion in SngUn'd, So as not any where 
 qui Anglieamz deviating from the ant lent Church of Chrifi • and concludeth 
 Ecclefarcfti- w j t ^ t ^j s Epjphofierna, faying, / hold it a fart of her happinefs 
 
 mm 
 
 cultum'& f ^ at & e b*- retained with her the order of Hi/bops 
 
 ita fe gttrnpe- 3« la the raigne of King fames, that famous (kjlfaack Ca- 
 riruni ut mif- faubon % whom we reckon as the fourth witnefle from the 
 quota dec&ijje church of Geneva , had that eftimation of our Engjifh Epifco- 
 iijti&ctfi* paH government, as to confeffe, That no Church doth come 
 confuetudinere- nsarer the form of the primitive Church, then it doth : fofarre 
 prebendi pjftnt that even thsy who envyedher happineffe t are notwithftanding 
 EtinEpiii.Ve. confirmed to ex toll it, He proceeds furthermore to blazon 
 Aicatoru ^ in t j lg WO rthineffe of it. If ( faith he ) the effentialt part of the 
 ReinuTifca Church be enquired into, and what either tteceffarily belongeth 
 mnumerandum u * t§ *^ s T)oilrine of Salvation, or el/e to the decency of the 
 eft, quod bunc Church , then (pray fed and magnified he God ) no Church 
 OrdinemEpifco* upon earth can be found , which more profeffeth the faith, and 
 ptumretinei. re femhlcth the form of the ancient Catholique Church, then 
 
 fdib^gtmdU ^ dt t0 return to our French witnefle again : worthy* Ma- 
 hquetu,inp*- fter Moulin, in an anfwer to a Papilt, who upbraided him with 
 fat* ad etcrcit. the difclpline of England, doth avouch the dignity thereof, 
 ^ui Ecclefiam telling him furthermore, That their agreement ufuch , that 
 
 ItnU Imim En § !and ( faich he ) hath heen a f *f H l e t0 our P er f eCHted 
 jdm olfa fain- Churches, and correfpondently the excellent eft fervants of god 
 ftiMdv,pdrtim in our Churches^ as Peter Martyr, Calvin, Beza, and Zanchee, 
 pidgnis Tuis la- 
 
 boribus itdinftduTdtdmutdi florentis quondam Ecclefia formom mild bodie propius decedat, 
 qulm Tud: inter, vd cxcej]'u, vet defeftu peccdtites, median vidm fequutd. £{uZ mode* 
 rdtlone bocptimum djfecuta eft Ecclefio Angticdna, ut iUi ipfi qui (nam fcelicitdtem invi- 
 dent, (apetdmen ex aliarum comparatione illam cogdntur laudare. Idem Epift. dd Cdrd. 
 Bern. Reg. Brit, nomine fed ex animi quoque fui fententia> Certo ac liquido mlbi an* 
 flat, ft nota Qtiafitf quwantur , iff veri necejjarid dd Sdlutem fpeftentur , ut etiam 
 ad decorum Ecclefia, nullam in orbe terrdmm ( T)eo mi fit laut iff glerid) tuventam, qua pr»- 
 fiusddfidem, autfpeciem antiqu* Ecclefa Gatbolka atceiat, iffc* * Mdfter Moulin in 
 hisVuctytr offditb.fy *7i 5 
 
 have 
 
Theright$fU p i scop ac y? f 
 
 have often written Letters full ofrefpett and amity te the pre- 
 lates of England* So he. 
 
 Laftly, now under our Gracious Soveraigne King Charles 
 in the time of Arch-Bifhop ts^Bbot, Whofe daily experience 
 did teftifie the reciprocall correfpondence between him, and 
 with other Biftaops and all reformed Churches beyond the Sea. 
 At what timelikewife Cjrill, late Greek Patriarch of Confta- 
 tinople 9 d\d fo far re honour both him and our Engliih Churches 
 to profeffe his accordance therewith, more fpecially then with 
 any other. And if our Biihops of later due had not been re- 
 fpe&ed, then furely would not the Divines shout *Bremc m 
 Germany have fent their controverfies had among themfelvesj 
 onely unto certain Biftiops in England (as they did ) to have 
 them moderated by their judgements, not to fpeak of their 
 dedications offome of their Books unto Bifoops. Thefe laft 
 Relations nothing, but the importunity of thefe times , could 
 have extorted from us. Thus much of particular refpeds had 
 in fpeciall to our Englifli Epifcopall Government, by lingular 
 approved Divines of the reformed Proteftant Churches. In 
 the next place, as the thread of our method leadeth us, we are 
 to examine what they will fay touching the unlawfulneife , or 
 lawfulnefs thereof in genera!!. 
 
 II. Thesis. 
 
 That there was never anj vifibly cenftituted Church in all 
 Chriftendoms fince the Apoftles time for 1 500. years and 
 more % which htld Bfifcepacy in it / elf to be unlawfully 
 
 WE are not ignorant that even at this time, all Epifco- 
 pacy, and Prelacy of any one above Presbycerie, is 
 cryed down by fome as unlawful! in it felfi notwithftanding $fffi* e ^f l * 
 cur Oppofites cannot but know what, befides Spiphanlus^ ^fofSto 
 Saint Angufiine recorded of one Aerius 9 to wit* that he, be- mn ptuit E/>/- 
 czufe he could not obtain to be made a Bijhop 9 did therefore feofus ordinart, 
 teach that there ought to be no difference between a Presbyter ^ cebat f rw 5jf" 
 and a Bi(hop\ So he : and for that caufe they lifted him among ^Zudiff^ 
 the erroneous Authors of that Age, bat ( he being excepted ) r °enti& debm* 
 
 B 2 never iifeerm. 
 
£ T&e right tfEv X s c op a c y « 
 
 never any vifible Church of Chrift before hiro, we addc , nor 
 yet any thus protefted after him, nor before thefe dayes or con* 
 tradition defended his opinion. Now whether the humour 
 of defire to rule others, and the unwillingnefle to be fubjeft un« 
 to others, may not equally tranfport fome Ecclefiafticks to op-' 
 pofe againft Epifcopacy, they can beft /udge whom it moft 
 concernes. We know ( befide infinite others, who have ac- 
 knowledged the lawfulneffe of Epifcopacy ) fome proteftant 
 Divines of remote Churches 3 who have fully condemn'd the 
 opinion of Aerius. Three may fuflfice for three hundred if 
 c^m m ^ e y ^ learned and judicious Authors, and not interefted in 
 tinjnEfifa tfiat which is now called Epifcopall policy. (4) Mafter^&#- 
 ad Epifc. Win- ^ n commeth on roundly : I have fince my infancy ( faith he ) 
 ton. AhiuuM- abhorr'dthe opinion of Aerius. (b) Tylenus alfo a Divine of 
 bulis Aerium the French Church as pertinently and plainly. None ever be- 
 damnavi. j QYe ^£ r j us endeavoured the extirpation of Epifcopacy, nor jet 
 (b) Tylenus in after him any, hut feme of Geneva. What f^me he might 
 fAranef.eAntc meane we know not, but whom he might not meane we have 
 fclti™xam-~ alreadv ^ OTn > as Calvin, Beza, Sadie, and Caufabon, who 
 randisnemo " have given their ample fufFrages for our English Epifcopacy, 
 Pft Aerium fo- but only fpeak againft the Romiili Hierarchie : And now, 
 IkmGeneven- for the generality of it, (c) Be*,* is again at hand, laying, If 
 (es ftudebant. there be any, as I thi»k^( faith he) there is rot t who altogether 
 (c)Tit%d dcMi* rejett the Ep/fcopall Order, God forbid that any of found brains 
 rift* gradibuj. fhouldever ajfent to their furies 1 and be(ides,protefteth his ac, 
 ptiSiquifunt \^ m ledged eb fervance, and all reverence to all Bifhops refor- 
 bimnfadlT' m€ ^ % Hitherto againft the objecled unlawfulneffe of Epifcopacy 
 ferfnaferls) qui in the Church of Chrift. But this will not fatisfie fome men, 
 omnem Epifco- except furthermore the lawfulnefs thereof may appear in that 
 Ptusordinem, degree which is called inrefpe&of its right , According to the 
 %ltoad>6i mrd °f GoL lt Mongtth unto us to Oitw this by the C**- 
 ntquifquamfa- f e fi°* of Divines of remote Proteftant Churches, which we 
 9ia mentis furo- arc ready to performe , and more too. 
 ribus illorum 
 
 ajfentiatur. Idem fi modi defomatam domum Dei dddmujfim ex verbi divini RegulA pro 
 viribusinftauwentiUtEcdefia cbriftianafiiosfajtow, cur mn agntfcmus? obfervemus? 
 WmniRivenntti profeqnamur? 
 
 III. The sis 
 
Iherightof Episcopacy. 7 
 
 -III. The sis. 
 
 That Epifcopal Prelacy u acknowledged hj Proteflant Divines 
 of remote Churches to be according to the Word of God, and 
 their confent therein unto Primitive Antiquity* 
 
 Vther may well be allowed for the fore-man amongft £?^f'*^ u 
 the Reformers of the Proteftant Religion, who proveth blips' fupw 
 the Prelacy of Epifcopacy above fimple Treshjters (forfohe p^ofititmbm 
 faith) by ^Divine Right ; and this he doth in his Tractate called Ljpfi* difputa- 
 his Refelution , grounding his judgment upon Scripture, thnibwbabitts, 
 whereof hereafter. Accordingly t Buctr l againft the Pope as c ^^'J^ m 
 Anti-Chrift : (b) We fee (faith he) by their perpetual obferva^ tatembabere^' 
 lion of Chnr else s y and from the Apoflles themfetves^that it fee- debcre Epifco* 
 med good to the holy Ghoft that feme finguUr one (hould be ap- pumproprium 
 pointed among the Presbyters to Govern In fo [acred An Order , J ure divino 9 
 who hath for the fame cattfe % the Appellation rfBifbopije Scrip- ®fi** Ven- 
 ture, Scuheuu the Divine s Pro feffour at Heidetbergrfrofefsing do,dicentebu- 
 Epifcopal degree to be of divine Right ^ and profeffeth to prove ]m rei gratia] 
 ittobefuch bj efficacious reafons , who in the fequell of his reliquiteCre- 
 difcourfe will be as good as his word; with whom agreeth **> m <&&*** 
 that admirable Schollar (c) Ifaac C*[aubon> the ornament oF^S^ 
 geneva who held the fame to be grounded upon the Teftimo- [ m piua Tref* 
 nies of Scriptures* Thefe may ferve for the prefent till we bytms per ti- 
 come to a larger confent. viutesficut 
 
 All thefe, and other the former confeffions of Proteflant Di- e A\ d J ffofui Hm 
 t . 1 • j f r ...... Wj Hos autcm 
 
 vines , are the proper idiom and language of primitive Atitigui- Vresbyttmfu- 
 
 ty, teaching thus. Epifceptcj h bj the Ordination of Chrift* ijJeEpifcopos. " 
 
 Hieron. & tex* 
 tus fequem oftendit , ditens, forte* Epifcopum irreprebenfibilem ejj'e. (b) Bucer 3 de T^egno 
 Cbriftilib, 2 cap. ia. Ex perpetui Ecclefiarum ebfervatione ab jpfis ApoJUlu videmm vifum 
 he ejj'e fpiritui SanftQ t ut inter Presbyteros unus Ecclefiarum & wins Sacri Minijietii gem 
 curdtn fingulorum , & ciincfis praerat alw qui de cmfi Epifeopi n§men bujufmodi Ecdcfia- 
 film CuMoribus eft pcculkriter attribtenm : tamctfi bifine itmbyterorum confilio nihil fta- 
 tuere debuerant qui& ipfiptopterbanc communem Ecclefiarum ai mhiift. ratio mm Epifeopi in 
 Smpturu vocantuf. (c) Ifaac Cafaubon , Exercit, Epifeopi, Hresbyteri , Tfiaconi apenk 
 Scpiptura teflimoniis funt fundatu Ibid, Apoftolonm bodievicarii funt, etfinonpari p@te- 
 ftate cum Apoft oik omnes Epifeopi, uteB. Cypriano antea dicehmm Extrcit. 14. Cyprian^ 
 Ep.6$. ApoftotevjeariAordinathnefuccfdere Epijceps. 
 
 So 
 
g TherlgtrteflELvi scop act. 
 
 (&)lgHdtitxit- So(d) Ignatimx and again, (e) Reverence your Si/bop as 
 Ifijnformam E- chrtft and the Apples have commanded y on. Or thus,?"* be a 
 fifcopalsm A/£ £ v j ne p m r y the refinance whereof is againfi Godhimfelfi So 
 Ttfte fculteto Cyprian. And thus, God placed Tiftops over His family ; So 
 intmm. (}) Origen. And thus , The Apo files were made Blfhops by 
 
 (e) Cyprian E< Chrifi^who ordained others (meaning Bijhops) in other places 
 pjt. 6ydd Ro, £ y whom the Church (botsld be governed : (g) So Attgufline. 
 
 nu'&tthifdU' ® l t ^ US > ^ S ffi°f s t§n ft*w te & ovsr Presbyters^ as the Word 
 'arecJntra Ve . ofGodteachehi So Epiphanifts. And thus, (*") None can be 
 urn audemut, ignorant that *Bijh$ps were infiituted by Chrifi when he made 
 qui^ Efi[cops tiu ApejlUs^ by wh&m others fhouldbe made Bijhops 9 whom we 
 ftuit; Et Epijh j H ccecdy*nd {(peaking of*Bijhops) of whom Chrifi [aid,he that 
 Znigimrdi defpi(e$hyopi defpifethmei So again Auguftine. 
 vlni lege fuw Before we end this point -we (hall defire our Oppofites to 
 data fit &c, bethink therafeives what they think may iigoifie thefuffra- 
 EpiliM Cornel. g CS f c [ ie Fathers of the Synod of Calcedm , for Antiquity % 
 E lndaMimem " e0 ^ £n€ fi#|our General!, and in this generality umvtt- 
 \utvham p- ^lly received throughout Chriftendom % for amplitude con- 
 tefatem. lifting of fix hundred and thirty Bifhops, and fot averfenejfe 
 
 (j) Origin , againft the Pope of Rome , that which undermined the very 
 traHAnMat.iu foundation of Romifh Popedom, which is a pretence of having 
 ^wdbcT been eftabliihcd $ the divine Authority of Chrift the uni- 
 wivosfdivat, verfali Billiop of the Church , and equalling another Patriarch 
 quoiconftituit with hio3 f and fhewing that all the P riroacy which the Pope of 
 £0$ 'Domitm Rome had, was but from humane Authority. This (IQ Coun- 
 luperfamilim ce j| concern i n g Epifcopacy ordain'd , that To depofe a'Bifhop 
 (S Auguft. in ^ own toth§ hgre* °f a Presbyter, is Sacriledge. 
 quaftion. veter. This fo great a Harmony, between the former Proteflant 
 GrmviTefta- Divines, and thofe eminent Fathers, how ftiall it not found 
 mcn.pag. 97 . delightful! unto every docible and unpreoccupated hearer? 
 S«ri Ttiefc confeffions nocwithftanding , we have not difcharg'd 
 
 ftmm Epifcop»s 
 
 in(tituijJe>quando Apojieli ftfti fitnt.qui miffi funt ut mittcte pojfmt alios j ipfe enim imprimis 
 Apojtolkinftituit Epifcopos. (h) Epifoaniw adverfus Aerium Qzlos huyos £i£awuT)c 
 HLrefi.jt. (i) Auguft. lib. 7 . contra Etnatift. cap. 41, VeApoftolisa C^ft ^3 S > i u ' 1 " 
 bin ms fuccejfimm eidtm poteji&te Ecclcfiam *Dei gubernantcs : 0* de Verb. Domini Scrm* 24. 
 ^ui v:j (pewit, me fomit (?c. (k) Coucil. Caked. Can, ip, Tov 'ZwicMttov ih to? fiaQ- 
 fioy ^io'.Gvripv y'ifuv UfofvKiatfi. 
 
 our 
 
Iht tight Of Ep I s cop ac y, g 
 
 our Affumption> untiil we produce their proofes,which is to be 
 perform'd according to our former promife, after that we 
 &all manifeft the like confefions of Proteftani Divines and ac- 
 cordance to Antiquity , in acknowledging Epifcopacy to be 
 the beft forme of Government in refpeel: of the ufe thereof. 
 
 IV. Thesis, 
 
 That BpifcopaH Government in the Church, u i in refpetl of the 
 neceffary ufe thereof the beft by the confent of Protefiant 
 "Divines of other reformed Churches* 
 
 SOme peradventure will conceive, that three at the lead be- 
 ing required in the degree of comparifon , to make up a 
 beft : Therefore our three muft be taken either for Spifeopacy, 
 which is a Prelacy of one above more ; or Tresbjtery, which 
 is an equality of moe among themfeives • or that which is cal- 
 led an Indeyenkncy % of one in each Parifh without relation .to 
 any other. Which mif- begotten brat was never heard of in 
 ancient times , or approved of any latter Church of Chnft 
 lince • and indeed h but the erecting of a Pope in every Pa- 
 rish, whereof fomething * hereafter. It will be fufficient that * See fcese- 
 weunderftanda heft in the full latitude with comparifon of after * 
 whatfoever other. 
 
 Our Proteftant Witnefles we ranke into two Gaffes ; Firft 
 is the Church of the Lutherans, who were the firft Reformers 
 of our Proteftant Religion, (a) If our Reader will be plcafed (a)Lmber ; 
 but to call: his eye upon the Msrginalls, he may find out tbefe tom.zfol t ?o 7 . 
 
 following obfervables s vi*. that Luther will be known, when *ff *"%!!» 
 
 i i • j en'' a t- , r, outtm werentur* 
 
 he complained ofBiihops, to have meant over tyrannous (Pa» qmtcttamian*- 
 pijb)Bijhofs t and them,( as he faith ) who are unworthy of the ft & vcter* 
 
 nomine dignof. 
 Lup$senim& canes appellare opwtet , &foLizo. Memo antra ftdtum Eifcoporum, &> 
 verts Epifcopos vsl bonos paftsres diUvim putet quicattid contra bos Tyunnos dicitur. Jpt. 
 Confejf. sAug , cap. de numero <&> ufu Sacraments, ^(ot (ape froteftati (nmus (ummi cum volun* 
 tate confervare ¥QlitiamEcclefiajlieam&gradusinEcclefi&fac~los etiam fummi autbtritaie. 
 lib 4 cap. Proteftant Je iinitat. Ecckf. ut fcblfmata vitarentur accefftt utilh ordinatio ut ex multis 
 PresbytemeligereturEpifcopusquiregcmEccMamduttidQ Evangeliura & retinened* Pi* 
 ftiplinam, ut fracjfet Pwbjtcrit, &$. 
 
 H'j 
 
rum 
 mm 
 mis 
 
 x o The right of Ep i s cop ac y. 
 
 Holy name of BiPiop ; next , that all Proteftant Churches of 
 (b) WilOAe- Germany in their generall Confeffions, had ( as they fay ) often 
 ImB Hifl conf p rotc ft e j their ear neft defire to conferva the difcipline of decrees 
 Tefe*$frlv. d'e in f ^ e Church by the cM&tk&rity dfBifiopt % whereby to remove 
 minijl. gradi* diffentions and Schifmes from the Churchy then that (b) Me* 
 bus cap. 16; lanilhon 9 by the perfwafion of Luther , was as much bent for 
 TwHr/S EptooP 811 Government as any, when he butfl: out into this 
 e [icam 3 titinrn ex P rei ^ on \ I would to God hlaj in me toreftore the Govern- 
 foflcm' admini- ment ofBtfhops, for I fee what a Church we [hall have y the 8c- 
 ftrationemreftim clef aft ic all Policy being diffolv'd, Jforefee it \\>ill be far more 
 tuere Epifcopi* intolerable then ever it was. There is added to this the ac- 
 m. Video e- fc now ] e cfgrnent ofBucer • holding it necejfary i that the Cler- 
 ...IbabituriEc U ^ ave *$*/* ( Speaking of BiQiops ) to whom the Authority cf 
 clefiavn dijjolu* *h* Church is committed : His i&foajteaft that refractory and 
 U politic Eccle- dijjolu te perfons [houldbe in the Church. Prince Hanolt, after 
 fafticA. Video fo e became a finccreiy profefs'd Preceftanfe and faithfull Prea- 
 Tjrlludem™ cherof theGofpel, fpeakingofBifliops , that would be faich- 
 mnltd intolera- ^ m Governing the Church : (c) How willingly, and with 
 biliorem, qu'lm what gladnep of hearty would we ( faith he) reverence y 
 uttquAmfuit, obey y andyeeld them their ordination and jurifdiclion % the which 
 nihil coucefsi- ne AH £ Luther have Very often protefted . both bj word and 
 mus prater u wr ; t ; n£m 
 
 (mteffercd* ' We now paffe unto the other Gaffes of Proteftant Divmes, 
 denda. of Reformed Churches , beginning with Calvin himfelf, 
 
 Mefonfifion cU w ho hath a double intuition concerning Presbyteriail Govern- 
 tatBiicerum^ mentw o oc as it may be coniidered is in an Independency ; 
 aitlomnimni fo thac ever y one * iave * Ri & ht of ^cemmunieaMion in him- 
 cejjeeft ut Cle-fctf* (d) this he calleth, unprofitable, odious % and[uch as ea(tlj 
 licifuQsbAbc* 
 
 ant Cur Atom atque Cujlodcs inftturando*, ut Epi(cop&rum y ita & sArchiepifcorum , Ali»» 
 rumque omnium •, qmbufcunque mminibus cenfantur poteftAs (? animadverfio, ne quit omnino 
 f<tinboccrdine{i<p&v?nT@-. (c) Geirgius Trine. Anbolt* Condon, InpraJAt. de OrdinA- 
 thncTcfte SoraviA pag. 167. uiinam j/cut gemnt nomha (? titul$s 9 itA fe reipfa pmjlAreut 
 Epifcopos . 6 ifideliter Gcclcfits regerent, quAm iibenter, quAnttque cordis latitid, pro Epifco* 
 pis ipfos bAbcr^revereriytnorem genre, debit Am jurifdiftionem & ordinationem cis facere, 
 eSque fne uUAruu(Atiorie frui vcllcmui. ( d ) Calvinus Epift. Ad qafpArum Mogmm utU 
 U juitjusexcommunicAtidipemittifinguUspAfloribus 3 nunc ea ns odio(Aeft 9 &jmliscjt 
 
 hpfus in 7]Mnnidem> <? Apofttli alium ufum trAdidcwtt, 
 
 turneth 
 
^he right of Ep t s e b ? a c t? n J? 
 
 iuriiith into Tyranny , 4»</ contrary to that which the Apeftles 
 taught. Next beholding them in a joynt parity, he relateth 
 the reafon of the firft beginning of Epifcopacy, and faith true- 
 ]y $ (e) that by the parity and equality among Presbyters, {as it 
 tiUth to be ) Schifmes anddijftvtions might arife among them, (?) Cdlvhftiti 
 This Parenthefis £ as it ttfeth t o be ] which he infertetb, cer- ^[f^ff-% 
 tainly hath in it a fting, which pierceth into the Bowelis of the pZ'bperumh 
 caufe. Succetfbur to Calvin was Beza,who thus far fucceedeth f uo numero ex 
 him alfo in his opinion, as (jf )to cenfeffe (as he faith from ex- fmgulis civit&« 
 perience, this of the Presbyterian Government,? W it bting not *A» uwmelU 
 fuffcient to reprefs vices t choice was made ofene to Goveme the ^fj^^J^ 
 refl,as was obferved anciently (faith he) from the Evang'Mwk Epifcopida* 
 in the famous Church of Alexandria s Again , fpeakingof the hm, ne ex *+ 
 inftitution of Epifcopacy,whatfoever it was 9 he will be known to qualitate ut fi« 
 abhore and reprehend it, as eretled by pride ; but why ? for none ^rifole^dijfidia 
 can deny (hkh he) but that there was great ufe of it whilffl fA%^dedU 
 that goodly and Godly Bifbtys were chief over others . u fc Mimfiro* 
 
 We may well prefume(as was faid jthat the other part of the rumgradibus " 
 mifquoted fentence of Zanchie is extant in fome Imprefllon of ca h **• a t U(i 
 his Works, wherein he did fo fymbolize with the forecited SSSfcS? 1 
 Sentence of Calvin, ig)Teflifying before god (for thefe are € % r S 
 the words ) that he holdeth them Schifmatickj 9 who Jhall deter- compertum fit* 
 mine, that in the r^flauration of Churches there ought to be no ijje 9 non fath 
 Bifbops, having authority over Presbyters, where freely they viriumeosba* 
 may be had. He proceeded furthermore, Ithinkwith Calvin boTctmtV^ 
 faith he>them to be Worthy ofwhatfoevey Anathema,w/^ will not dos\cmmmU 
 
 catavi^, fingu» 
 lis paftoribus pet vices bujus Primatus dignitate : Er& vifum fuit ad umim s £r ilium quidem 
 mm Pre$byterii judieio } delecf urn trans ferre, quod serti reprebendi non debet, cum pafiitiU 
 vetuftut He mos fuit in trtlexandrini Ecrfefii, jam inde i Marco Evangelifli obferv&tus ejj'et 9 
 & rarfus. zAbfit ut bum Ordinem, etfi meri divina difprftione non covfiitutum, iamen am ut te- 
 tnere, autfuperbi inventum reprebendam , cujus potius magnum ujum fui]J'e 3 quandiu boni 
 (<? Sanfti EpifcopiEcclefiisfwfucrunt , quit inficiari pojf.t t (g) chat per Petrum Moulin: 
 filium Hienn. Zancb. Tbefibus de vera reformandarum Ecclefiarum ratione, T eft or me coram 
 T>to in mea con(ciemia non alio habere loco qulm Scbifmaticorum Bos mines, qui in parte 
 Reformation!* Ecclefmrum ponunt mtllos habere Epifcopos s qui autboritatis gradu fuos 
 €ompresb)tefosemineant i ubiliquidopoJfintbdberi. ( Trat£reacum Z>. Qalv.nullo non Anaxbe- 
 mate dignos cen{eo t quotqmt Mi Hieranbia, qua fe Vomino fefu fubmittit, fubjici n$* 
 lunu 
 
 C be 
 
^■j Tk right of E ? f s c o mW^l 
 
 hefubjeBto their Government 7 which fubmitteth iff elf A 
 (h) Ztnchiat Chnfr % So he. Furthermore concerning the teftiraonics, as I 
 pg. 7 .fff/ftt may (o fay t of Ecclefiafticall Government, (h) Zmchu con- 
 Confejfwie. f e {fed Epifcopacy to have been ordained for die beft end 9 to 
 fttit'TJn* w *« the-edification of the Eied. The fentenee of Calvin hath 
 fltf&x onm- Deetl formerly alleadged ; Unto thefe we ^ddc the faying of 
 umpAmvifcrk theproloquutourintheSynodof£>^r , who is rendred unto 
 ptis qmm Ms Vi $ t by them that heard him, co have veifbed 9 that the Church 
 Mmipomm^ ^ ^-^ t ^ Hm .^ srs ^ happy ds cur Englijb^y having an EpifcopM 
 fasdkimusaim Government amsng them. This cafe was fo evident to a late 
 totim T^tpubi. Advocatfor Presbyters, Sdmafws by name, that although 
 cbrijiianxjon- he relacleth juftly againft an irregular Prelacy, yet doth he 
 (cnu tnEcde* freely and ingenuouOy grant, that (i) the preferring of one 
 fie (onjiitutos r$i(hnp in every Churchy was inftituted with beft reafons* 
 SeVSwi' au- Would any fee more ?. Then he is to obferve the -Protefta- 
 tem eg* fart qui tion made by the German Divines in the Auguflane confeffi- 
 qtioiiotaEccle* or}) protefting their deftre for the conservation of Spifccpacy % 
 fii t P Tf k 1nZ whereof 16 is teftified by- a (k) Theological! profeflbur , that 
 omneUofowi ot ^ cr P^otetlants were ready to fobfenbe to the Auguftane 
 noftri temforis Confefilon , ( per omnia) excepting only the Article of the 
 imfrobare aufi Sucharifl t becaufe it was not clearly explained: among thefe 
 (wtsquippe proteftants he names Calvin, Beza^ VermiUus^ Marlorat and 
 apoiwunt(? ZAnchius , which probably could not have been altogether 
 ciefa&expL tmG > if they had been adverfaries to the forefaid Protefta- 
 state Atqxe ad tion. 
 
 eptimos fines pro Before we cars conclude, we return to Geneva to be fatis- 
 adificatione e- g e( j - m a ma j q Ue ftj 0n . which is, whether the forme of 
 Sa Sr^cr"- Government in G^^* ought to be perfcribed as a patterne 
 fefta <& ordi- to other Reformed Churches to be regulated thereby : And 
 
 "not as qviii qued 
 
 in Ecdefiis Prdteffmium non defunt Epifcopi, (i) Wall o, aliat Salmapuslib. de Epifcf^i ? 
 Epifcopus Ecclepisregeniis uncut frapoptus eft fii 6 J Tresbyteris pluribus un'ms Ecclefa 
 paejj'et. 2t*no fine hoc inftmtum ejje nemo negAt, cum optima ratio fuerit it a inftituexdi, 
 (k) Conradus Vorjtius in vipU. Tro Ecclef, Orthodox* de A itguftan , Confcff* pag. t8?. 
 in GoUoquio Pos/iaceno sAuguflatiaconfesfioniper omniA (e fubfcYiberefArAtos t]je 9 teftAtifunt 
 irticriuam Aniculo deftrina de Embarifiii, utpote obfcuriuspofitL 
 
 whfts 
 
Tienghi $f Ep ! '* cOv a c \ ( jj 
 
 when we confute with fi)^^ about this very point* he (\)B^dc t %u i 
 telleth us, that this opinion was imparted to their Church, p*g.-?4?. afud 
 but in the name of the whole Church of Geneva reje&ethit Sarav ' <%g°6 
 zsamofifaJfe and impudent exprobration. After this com- f^i^ 
 parifon made by weight and ponderation , we feek to try what ilnZuinolk 
 may be done by computation and numbring. objidunt i mi- 
 
 quam ufpiam 
 Ecclefafefuendum noflrum peculiare cxemflum frafcribdmus 3 imperii ijfimmm iUomtn jS- 
 miles, $ u * rihil> itifi quod ipfi again, rectum putant. 
 
 V. Thesis, 
 
 That the moff Protefiant Churches do pr&fejfe andpratlife a 
 Prelacy over Presbyters* 
 
 MAny now look upon our Engliih Blihops as birds upon 
 owles, yet not pgradventure fo, as they for ftrangenefle 
 or for reverence ; but with left eyes in an opinion of Angulari- 
 ty and oneiineflfe 9 as a thing not acknowledged in other re- 
 mote and reformed Churches of Protefhnts ; not condderlng 
 what hath been publifoed to the world long-ago, that the 
 word Superintendent is of the fame iignification with the word 
 Bijhip : both from the fame Greekj EVi^o^©-. Yet fome ( * _ ,. . 
 Froteftant Churches practiling a Prelacy , vail it over with the fubonfcffim* 
 word Superiniendency : If we would know what, (a) Zan- fuitmibi fff* 
 cbie will fpeak out and to the purpofe§ in telling us that Epif- una babenda 
 cofi (whom we call Bifhops ) and Superintendents > are words ratio iUarum 
 of the fame fen fe and figm fie 'at i on : and therefore Cohere there Is e *™™ maWx* 
 an agreement in the thing Signified , there ought not to he any Evingelium 
 altercation andftrife about words. But what will he fay to complex* fint, 
 the practice > He diftinguiiheth Proteftant Churches in this re- (wtmen, p> 
 fpe& into three differences, fome whereof pradife a fuperiority j^^J^E- 
 of one above the Clergy under the proper name of Bifhops 5 an* ^lops'l qms 
 
 (mutatis b§- 
 n'n gratis riominihm in male lau?u) vocant Superiniendentes & Centralis Superintendent 
 US) fed etiamubineque vetera Ola bona Cffaca neqvte baa nevz male Lmina verba obtinent, 
 ibi tamen patent ejje aliquot primdrii- penes qaos fere ma eji Authority. Sed cum de rebus 
 ionvmi mid de nomiuibm duuanw ~j Tejte Sarav. de ■Miniftronm gradibm, c. z$ . p. 3 6 £ . 
 
 C 2 other 
 
£ 4 If he right of E^ i s c o p a c y ; 
 
 other fort the fatne,but under the name of Superintendents and 
 general Superintendents, whom we call Arcb-biJbop s * Laftly 
 he difclofeth a third kinde, (a circumfiance very remarkable) 
 who although they avoid the Titles of Bifhops or Superin- 
 tendents,yet ufe they to be fuch primarily as to fay, eminent in 
 Trelacyw in whom (for fo he faith) the whole Authority con- 
 fifteth* Now therefore our queftion muft be, whether the 
 Church exercifing Prelacy,or the other that onely pracWe equa- 
 lity, exceed in number. 
 
 The number of Churches , which had Prelates under the 
 name of Bifhops, and the other of Superintendents ( being. in 
 fignification the fame) feemed to Greg* de falentia 9 the Jefuite, 
 fo many , that he thought all Proteftant Churches to have 
 Bifiiops* 
 
 An excellent fervant of God Doctor Varans , and a zealous 
 hunter after the beft game, which is, the general peace ofPro- 
 tefiant Churches among themf elves , hath fet down a Cata- 
 logue of the Churches reformed on both Parties , and reckon- 
 ed ( if he be not miftaken ) feven Bifhops in the Kingdom of 
 Swede : in Denmark Bifhops, in other Lutheran Churches Su- 
 perintendents , and in all Imperial Cities among the Prote- 
 ftants, befides divers other reformM Churches the like ; which 
 we fuppofe will rather keep their conformity with Bnglana\ 
 then taft new wine with others, feing that , as the Text faiths 
 
 * Luke*. $9. * The old is better ; and whether the Epifcopal form be not 
 the onely and Apoftolical, cometh now to be difcuffed by in- 
 quiring into Antiquity* 
 
 VI. This is. 
 
 That the former reafons of Ccnfefsiens of? rot eft ant Divines, 
 concerning the necefsity of Epifcopal Prelacy , for preferva- 
 tion of concord and preventing of [chifme, u correspondent 
 to the judgment of Antiquity, 
 
 IT would be worth oar knowledge to under ftand, that the 
 former Confcfllons of Proteftant Divines are, in effect, but 
 
 the 
 
The right /j/Ehscopacy, I S 
 
 the ecchoings unto the fentences of ancient tathers. Among r^g^^w 
 VihomjH^rome could tell us, (a)That the original of 8pi/co- yjj. ad Eitag, 
 pacy ( which is the placing of one Presbyter in a degree above Omnes Epifcop* 
 Others) was decreed throughout the whole world, for ta\ing (« ta ^ u ^f 
 away Schifme: which ufe thereof was held foneadary in the ^*^ B "i- 
 dayes of Antiquity, that the fa id Hitrome fpared not to af- Jpiorum. M 
 firm" (£) That the fafety of the Church dependetb upon the Evagr. 4uoi 
 dignity of a r Bifhop y to wh&m,except fome eminent Authority be pfteauvus eft 
 liven, there will he as man] Schifme s as there are Pr lefts in the cUBustfue pro* 
 Church. Sohe^dbefotQ hmTertullianthu h (c)TheBifhop \™J™h^xis 
 is for the honour of the Churchy "tehich being infafetj^our peace n ' me ji um fa 
 will be alfofafe. But how (d) Chryfoftome and gregory Nyf- Uum eft,nequif- 
 /^doiiluftrate, both affirming the fame neceffity of a Biftiop quem ad (e tra- 
 in the Church , as is a Trecent or in a Quire, a Governour in ^1"%^ 
 a Campe , and a Pilot in a Ship. By which Epifcopai order p atu 
 ("faith (e ) 'Btfel) the Church is reduced as one foul into com- (b) Hknn.ai- 
 rnunion and concord ; yea and before all thefe 1 (f) Cyprian vsrf Lucif. Ec- 
 Bidiop and Martyr, complained of fuch infolencies of Pref tUMfmex 
 byters againft their Bifaops , as being caufes of kerefies and [JJJ % "££ m 
 fchifmes againfi a divine power of Government. So he 5 Thefe, detail nifi ex* 
 will fome fay, are but their fayings, and (hall we therefore on quadam & 
 think that their fayings were not the fymbolls and exprefii- ab omnibus emi- 
 ons of their meaning ; but we prefume better of them that are ? w ^ r L*'f" 
 ingenuous , and the rather for their further fatisfadtion which [ufiTe^eientut 
 may be had in the next Thefis* ; schemata quot 
 
 Saeeriotes, 
 
 (c) Tertull. lib. de Tiaptifmo, Epifcopm propter Eedefia bonorem, quofalvofalvaefiTax. 
 
 (d) Kjjicn. Horn, in Ecdefiaft. ut Chorus ai Coripbmm nfpicit, vgmpi fuum duciorem, nauU 
 ad Guberxatorem & Antes ad Imperatorem \ ita etiam ad Ecdepam qui prafunt in ccetu £c» J 
 tlefia. Cbrjfoffom.orat. in dicid Jpojioli, Omnia in gloriatn Dei. ^uemadmodum Cbr- 
 rm Pracentotem , if nautarum multitudo gubtrnatorcm requirit t fu <& Safer dot em ccetus Ton- 
 tificem , <Stc. (e) Bafit. in Epift» ad Ecdcf. At* de Epiftopn Membra Ecclefnt hie dignitate 
 tanquamuni quadem animim contordiam, & communhnem reducdntur. (t) Cyprian E* 
 fift. Vnde Harefes, unit Sehifmata , nifi quod Sacerdoti dei non obtemperent 9 qui eft loco 
 Cbrifti tfudex, Idem Epift* f j. AHum eft de Epifcopatus vigore , &* de Ecdefia gubcrnani'm 
 fublimiaedivinApmftate^ (?e. (where he fpeakediof himfelf, and not of theBifoopof 
 
 VII. Tresis. 
 
f £ The nght of Ep i s c o p a c y ; 
 
 VII. Thssis. 
 
 That Bifhops primitive Ij Vvere not only the chief eft champions 
 for the Chriftianfaith y but alfo the great eft adverf dries to 
 Romifi Popedoms, as have alfo our Englifh* 
 
 BEfore we can begin the proof of this Thefis, we are con- 
 fronted by our Oppofltes againft Primitive Fathers in 
 Tf^vindi"- ^ ran § e termesj Bifhops by advancing the authority of Epila- 
 tion. " f ac J ^ thereby (fay they) but plead their own cauje^and made 
 aftirropfor the Romi[h Antichrift to mount into his Pontificall 
 :n%mM n ^ d ! c ' So £he ^ Which contumely againft the reverend an* 
 Viockfuin til tiqaity, we are loath to call by its proper name ? being there- 
 foribiu eram a- fore not oo reprove others, but to prove what we have in 
 tncijjimarta- hand, which is that fome of the ancient Bifhops lived in the 
 fidtilsadlxte* torr ^ zone °^ &ry perfecotion ? and others in a temperate. 
 mumwlamen Of the firft, fort we have It confeffed, That the perfecting 
 conftanter per* Emperours did, above all others, make their Inquifition and 
 Jliterunttrepor- exercifes of- their furies moft efpecially upon Bifhops ; we 
 tames Tropbaa jj ave j c U p 0n recor( | j a Cyprian, but much more in other Ec- 
 %?fij"°2°.° clefiafticall Hiftorics, wherein , as is confeffed by (a) Ma- 
 (b)Complur'es &er B right man t although Diocletian in his Editt, did efpecially 
 Epifc, infignes command the deftrw&ion of all thil had taken f acred Order s^yet 
 trantin Conci- ' m a further (Jb)fpeciality the majfacring of Bifhops > 9i he relateth 
 lioJUcanoi^ 9 t fo at om hanAredandfixtj of them were martyred in two places- 
 riam/mpfit °" ) ea > an ^^ n the Church 0/Rome itfclfis alfo reckoned the num- 
 raeminit centum ber of\6o, Bifhops , who were martyrs of Chrift in thofs primi* 
 tyfexajgnta tive times. To fancy that thefc afflicted and. perfecuted Mem- 
 Epifcopomm , ^ ers Q f thrift for their degree fake, could pride it in their 
 txliZmffi* Epifcopail office, would be held to be but a dream , they will 
 tsrin pfovhri- rather think, that if they ihould prelate it, ( as Marriners ufe 
 MeitftoRe- to frolike it) rather in a caime of tranquility ; but for this alfo 
 gis proferamur we (hall eafily fubcribe to the judgement of Matter 7?e*a t 
 unfverTqulfa vvho when h? wa5 tlms P°^> whether he fhould impute the 
 irosZdints note ?f P r 'de unC0 cne ^ c Primitive fe^vants of God, ( Whofe 
 babucrint. names hue al waves been cckbrious in the Church of Chrift 
 
 (to 
 
The right ofl&v isconcv Yy 
 
 ( to Wit) Bdfi!,Nyfen, Naz,ianz&n i AihmnfuiS, Chryfcflome] 
 Amhrafe-y srd Auguftine^ who are known co havenf terwards 
 hsd EpifcopaU Government in their fcveral Churches ) an- 
 ftveretb, fajing, (c) I never heard any fpeak, or read any (c) %#& de 
 write otherwife then honourably of thofe men, as was pqeete- Minijmriifo 
 So he, of his time ; he could not prophetic of the. future- It ^ ilb ^h-^^ 
 were good, that tbcfe who ufe this new and broad language |^J|;^ 
 had considered, * That Biftiops were then alitioft the only minem^dbuc 
 one?, who, as occasion fell out, either pulled the Ronsiih Pope audiift loquen- 
 out ofhis Saddle when he was mounted, or el-fe pluck t away ^v^s %£ 
 his Stirrop, that in thole times he could not gee up, ?^S*2S«fi 
 whereas Popeuome , beingacoubleufurpation, one or pkm- to ^ re/ £ / s 
 tude of Authority, funiverfaii over Biihops ; and the G|h|r mugnisiUkfwt* 
 of an infallibility of judgement in determining all Con trover- r^m^sr^ 
 lies of Faith, it hath been evidently and copioufiy proved, bominibusfen* 
 that the amplitude ofhis Dioccffe was limited by three hun- ^.^^ 
 dred Bifhops in the General! Counceil of Nice. His pretend- ^jjjeno^Baf^ 
 ed right of Univerfall Authority was contradicted an. 553. ihmagnoAtbci- 
 by fix hundred Bifhops in the Ceunceii ofCa!ceden y where mfc Gypian** 
 we find it accounted to be but of Humane Authority againft Ghvfefti™ * 
 his pretended univerfall challenge of appeale to Rome , k was ~ x %ilf™* "" 
 twice contradicted by Bifnops in two CounceSlsin Africki *i r en.Hh.p 
 and as for his pretended infallibility in judgement, the 16$ adverfus baref, 
 Bi/hopsin thQ Counceil of Conft amino fie condemned the De- a*M°« 
 cree of Pope Vigilius ; and in the fixtb and feventh Councells, t s ^f *M b °^ 
 confining in all of 603. Bifhops, was Pope Honorm condem- ^^ anni 
 ned for an Heretique 8 We may not omit the mention of (in- impjUr, 
 gular perfons Bifhops , who have had their fclernae oppofitl- throughout; 
 ons againft the Popes of their times, Cyprian^ Athdnafius, *Ba- 
 j% Cyriil of Alexandria, Hilary of sArlts and Ati£uftine f 
 with many others. But what talke we of Bifhops in other 
 Sees f feeing we have in the Sec of Rome k felf one, who did 
 prejudice the pretended and ufurped dignify and authority 
 of all his Succeifours in condemning the pretence of the high- 
 eft Title and Prerogative which the Pope doth challenge, 
 which is to be called The Vnivsrfall Bi/bop of Chrifis Churchy 
 by judging it to be proud, prophtne, and biafphemous 9 and 
 
1 8 The right (fc.Pi scopac*; 
 
 the Bi&op we mean was Pope (} re gory the firft , whom Mi} 
 *Mr.*Bright» Brightman hath adorned with this Encomium , * The flying 
 wan in Ape. jngell mentioned 9 Apoc. 8.13.^0/* luftre , faith he, God 
 hereafter. C1£C muld u ^ e f or the cfo "rch. As for out Church of England h n ce 
 the Reformation, it hath been conformable to the Primitive. 
 Surely greater faithfulnefs could not be (hown then in the 
 feal of Martyrdom, nor more oppofition to Popedom , then 
 to cut off all dependence upon it by the neck ever fince , nor 
 this more by any then in Biftiops , as our Ecdefiaftical monu- 
 ments have recorded ; not to mention the writings publique 
 in confutation of all Popifli Errours and Herefies, onely let it 
 be lawful! for us to point at the laft Synod and Convocation 
 was vehement againft Popery, as ffor this is fpoken by him 
 that was abfent from it) any one may read. After thefe Con- 
 feflions of Proteftant Divines , we are to afcend higher to our 
 proofs , for evincing the fame to be according to the word of 
 God, as Apoftolieal ; firft from Antiquity, and after from the 
 word of God it feif. 
 
 Our firft proof, that Epifcopacy is according to the word of 
 God , by manifefting it to have been of Apoftolieal Inftitution 
 by neceffary reafons. 
 
 VIII.Thisis. 
 
 That to be of Apoftolieal Inftitution , argueth in it a divine 
 Right , by the confefsion of excellent Divines of the Reform 
 med Churches, 
 
 FRom the Church of Genev* 9 we have before us Mr. Bez,a 
 to deliver his own words, (a) Surely if epifcopacy had 
 ilat. diMinifi. proceeded from the Apoftles , / would not doubt to afcribe un- 
 gradibm c.xy t0 $ t a fa vine Ordinance. So he. This is plain ; Second- 
 %niUtZ S{ y> from the Churches within the Palatinate, Scultetus by 
 frofetia-bJs name, argueth accordingly, (b) The Apoftles placed Bijhops 
 
 mutatio* nan 
 
 vererer illam nt extern sApoftolicM Ordinathnes divina in folidum difpofitioni tnbuerc. 
 (b) Scultetm obfervat in Tit. ejjc juris divin'u Ratio. Apojiohi prafixijje Vrestyterk 
 ipifcopou 
 
 above 
 
rflw Trefbjfers] and therefore is Spifcopucj of divine In flit u* 
 iion. A third,proper!y eall'd Salmafim^ out of the Univerfity 
 and Church of Leiden sn the Low-countries , one of great 
 fame, and a profeff'd friend unto our Oppofites ; and not- 
 wichftandingconfefletkfaying, (c) If the Institution of Epif- £0^*$* 
 w^7(fa«h herefrom the Apoftles.then it U of divine Right. ggJfeS 
 So they. Certainly, becaufe what power was ordained by the i v ftitntiQ % Epi{~ 
 Apoftles proceeded from the Spirit of God : like as was their c&pifiabAp^ 
 decree agzlnb Strangled and bloody their Holj-kiffe , their $•&>$$** 
 Agapa, and the like in their firft Institution, ©iww. 
 
 And although thefe were abrogated in time, yet the necefll-^ 
 ty of perpetuating Epifcopacy, ftandeth upon two grounds- 
 one, is the firft reafon of inftitution thereof, which was, lor 
 avoiding Schifrae ; the other was, the universal continuance 
 thereof from age to age, upon experience of the fame reafon s 
 Which, as we have heard, hath been held mcftreafonable 
 to almoft al! Proteftant Divines of remote Churches. Now 
 therefore , that which w6 are to make good is onely our Af- 
 fumption ; to wit , that Epifcopacy was of Apoflolical In- 
 stitution , then which nothing almoft can be more evinceable* 
 if teftimonies from Antiquity, evidences out of Scriptures, 
 and upon both thefe, the confeflions of Proteftant Divines of 
 the Reformed Churches may be held fatisfa&ory , our firft 
 endeavours concerning Antiquity for this performance, muft 
 be to remove objections which our oppofites caft in our way. 
 The onely peremptorily obje&ed Ancients are thefe two, 
 Bieroms and Clement } both whom we are now to falute. 
 
 IX. Thesis. 
 
 That no Ancient Father ab{olutelj denied the Apofiolical Ori- 
 ginal of 'Bpifcopacy , no not the objected Hierome Who mU 
 (hew himfelf a manifeft Patron thereof* 
 
 THe objected fentence of (a) Hierome 9 faying, concerning (3) Hier&u. in 
 Epifcopal Prelacy, That it is rather hj the cuflom of the i« adTit. shut 
 
 Trejbjteri fci- 
 
 mfeEcctcfiaeonfuetudinc lis, qui fibi prapojiti funt ejfe fubjeftos-, it A Efifcepi noveriut fe 
 magi* confuetudine , quant difpoptfonis2)tffljniMMtiWcl!wtytfrff <^f*1lftj»f 
 
 muni debere EsslefiM regers . *■ "*~*' 
 
 D ChnrcL 
 
jg. The right tfEtttto'tkc rl 
 
 Churchy then by the Lords difpofal \ is confefled by the TfieS 
 logical ProteifontProfeflbur in the Univerfity of Heidelberg 
 tV\ Scnttei. t0 ^ e un< ^ er ^ ooc l (&) h f ^ e & ecres °f l ^ e ^ords dijpofal ; the 
 obfervit'iftTit. immediate ordinance of Chrift, in his dayes upon earth, and 
 t 's.. >itfft forti affirming the cuflom , happilj to have meant the Apoflolical 
 cmfuttuiinm cuftom , after they began the forming and framing of the 
 hemdh^^ Churches.- However, for this one place ob;e&ed againft us, 
 ftoiiujt dtfpo- we have manymoft evident Teftimonies out of Hierome him- 
 fitionis zximi- felf , to prove the firfl inftitution of Epifcopacy to have been 
 «« vviwem Ift&cz&.tsfpoftstical. 
 
 cbrifitJapkt ^ lt ^ * ls frorn the original occafion, whereunto heaiiudeth, 
 even the contention in the Church o£ Corinth, when (c) [ome 
 (c) nitron, in i n n f p au j ? f 9ms Q f Appollo , (ome of Cephas, whereof it is 
 wmiiablli confeflTed by the foreceited Palatinate Dolour , (d) That the 
 inltinftu (India words of the Apoflle will not (uffer me ( faith he) to doubt but 
 inReligionefie- that alteration was made in the dayes of the Apoftles y and his 
 ran iiverft in- confirmation is as doubtleiFe • namely ,hecaufe no man can pro- 
 
 E ' Q(um°i>auli £ ' uce m Y °>^ er or *£* na ' ! ' °^ c ^ e $&&&& Schifme and con 
 Ego^Lpmlis] tention. This is a chief point, and therefore -we defire to 
 Ego Cepba, [ hear what (e ) fidetim the Divine Profeflbur in Geneva^ will 
 communi confi- fay unto it. He handieth the matter accurately , which is to 
 lio Presbytetis fc re f erv -j £0 its proper place. In fumme, out of Ignatius the 
 
 naamufp^'a difci P ,c of thc A P° ft,cs he faeweth the difference of Bifbop 
 mtem in toto and Presbyter begun timely in the Church, even prefently after 
 terrarum orbe the contention to the Corinthians , whereof it is fay'd , fome 
 decretum eft ut held of Patd % and fpme of Apollo r and fome of Cephas. 
 unus ex Presfy- Secondly, Hierome granteth in general, yet diftin&ly of 
 fcrponetur B inops, {/) That thej are the Succeffors of the Apoftles. 
 
 (ceteris. Thirdly , yea he (heweth who were Succeflburs in the very 
 
 (A)scuUctusin dayes of the Apoftles, reckoning among others, *Timothj> 
 Tic. hoc cap- Titus, P^jcarpus and Euodius* 
 
 turn tfl viventibus tApoftoliirfrior ZpifoU dd Co-riutbbs usdubiure non finit. (e) Viklius 
 
 in Efrft. lenat ai 'Pbilaiclpben-es , cap, 14, "Difnmtn Mud Presbyter orum & Epifiopiutex 
 
 Urum locis appamjempore fgnatii fuit, etenimillud valde mature tpfomm Apo> 
 
 'usinEcc'c(i<imi'yrep{it{taumpoftquamdicic(Bpmmelf f Ego fum Pauli,Ego 
 
 noiutitum. (f) Hicron. in Epijl.ai Eua^r. Omnes Eptfcopi 
 
 mftms lunt ApojhlL * As they are fet down in their divers 
 
 ^nh^&ovfc Pf EMfytajtitisftriptmbus*' 
 
 Fourthly, 
 
The right of&? I s cOpac y, if 
 
 Fourthly, He relateth who were firft Bifliops of ail others 
 after them, to wit, (g) fames of ferufalem, and Markf of M^^ 
 
 Alexandria* iadbm^minot 
 
 Fifthly, (h) he alleadgeth the Analogy between Aaron Himl6lymitdm 
 and his fonnes in rcfped of the Levites with Bifliops and PreA m s Eficoput, 
 byters, from ( as he faith ) Apoftolicali tradition. Marcus Eccle* 
 
 Sixthly, the (i) Epifcopall part of Excomrnankation ^ **<«™w= 
 agaioft Vigilantim he caileth His Apoftolicali Iron Rodde. So eJmhs*. 
 Hierome* It were incredible if that ail thefe Apoftolicali Re- (h)lden£JE$& 
 lations concerning Epifcopacy, fhould not amount unto io adEuag. 58* 
 much as to make up an Apoftolicali Inftitution thereof. sAmntsr filii 
 
 The Tecond objected Father, is Clement, whereof their fuc* ^*3* 
 cefle will be no better, if not much worfe. tongieayir^ 
 
 Levita» juxta 
 traditions Apoftolicas hoc [tint EpifeopifEtestyuriy & 2)idconi, (i) Idem ad Rupert, adver /. 
 Vigilant, Miror fanffum Epifcopum in cujus parocbii Fresbyter ej}editfi%r 9 aqujefcere 
 fHroriejtts, (g'-nonmga. Apofttiiu&'ferni confritigerevas inutile. 
 
 K.Thesis. 
 
 That Clement an Apoftolicali Difciple 9 to Vohcfe arbitrement 
 both onr Oppojites and we effer tojeeld our{elves> doth pa- 
 tronise Spifcopacj , as being Apoftolicall, 
 
 WE are earneftiy called upon to hearken unto Clement] smtftym, y j n ^ 
 talking of "a prophecy of a future contention ^hich fhould fgg> 13$. 
 happen about the name of Bijhop. Next, That there is no peece 
 of Antiquity of more efteem^then the Bpi file of Ckraetit unto 
 the Corinthians. Then; That this was brought to light by a 
 learned (gentleman Mr. 'Patrick Young 1 and laftly for th<e 
 matter it feif, That there is a common and promifcmus ufe of 
 the word Fresbyter and Bijhop, 
 
 We fhall anfwer punctually to every one, vis. The Pro- 
 phecy maketh for us 3 the Bpiftls much more, the Publisher alf© 
 asmuchascanbedefircd, and that Objection of the indifFe- 
 rency of the Woids of Bi/hop mdTresiyterh fcarce worthy 
 the mention. 
 
 We. begin with the Prophecy: Th; Prophscj was only, 1 
 
 D a "-■ ~' : ^ thac 
 
gj The right of E? is c 6tp Act? 
 
 that there {hould be in time to come, a contention abeui the 
 word r Bilhop % \i we (hould ask our Oppofites,when this conten- 
 tion was fir ft known in times of old, they would be loth to tell 
 us, knowing right well, that it was firft raifed by one Aerhu % 
 
 * See above* of whom Epiphanius and Auftin have * told us, that he broke 
 out into Schifme, and* becau/e he could not obtain to he 
 made a 'Bijhop , did therefore fparne againft Ipifcopacy, 
 teaching, faith St. Auftw, that there ought t§ be no difference 
 between Bi/hop s and Presbyters ; therefore thus they may fee 
 the Prophecy fulfilled , both when, and in whom, if they like 
 it. But if any (hall boaft , that it is fulfilled now by their pre- 
 sent Oppofalls againft Epifcopacy, after that it hath had ap- 
 probation with a continual! ufe univerfally in the Churches of 
 God : Then have we nothing elfe to reply, but what the fpirk 
 of God , from the pen of the holy Apoftle, putteth in our 
 mouth ; Jf*ny be contentious (faith he J we have nofuchcu- 
 pome, nor the Churches of god 9 whereby the wilfully conten- 
 tious maketh himfeif an adverfary to the Churches of God, and 
 confequcntly no way acceptable to God himfeif. 
 
 The fecond point which we are to difcerne , is that, which 
 they call identity of names of Bijhops and Presbyters : they 
 fliould have called it community of names, efpecially know- 
 ing that there is no more identity in the words Presbyters and 
 Bijkof>$ t then there is between the letters of *P. and B. But 
 this was a lapfe : Therefore to our matter in han4. We an- 
 fwer, that meet names and words make but vcrball confe- 
 quences, to which we oppoicareallandLogicallconfequence 
 a paribus, thus : For of the very Apoftles of Chrift one inftt- 
 led himfeif C 0a f res h ter > another himfeif Presbyter t a third 
 himfeif Deacon, who are all common names with others that 
 were not Apoftles ; and notwithftanding, the Apoftles them- 
 fe Ives En refped of their offices and Functions were Gover- 
 nours over Presbyters i which (lieweth that the enterchange- 
 ablcneflfc of names cannot conclude an indifFerency of degree. 
 But this crambe will be fodden once again, when we fhall be 
 occafioned to- give further fatisfacTfion. As for the prcfent, it 
 May well be fad j what \[baU we needwrds % when we fee Att* 
 
 and 
 
. The right of Episcopacy. %§ 
 
 and deeds, namely concerning this foment} Not onfy that (a)fodctim. 
 he maintained the diftind degrees of Epifcopacy, but that aifo ^'* ?"£ 
 he was diftinftly above Presbyters, a Bifoop himfelf. Yet miumi ^ 
 fhouid not cur Oppofites pofc us in that, where (a) Vedeliut umtst C let9 
 a Profeflfour of Geneva gave them/ if they have read him) defwetisante 
 fome fatisfadion ; fhewing, that atfoonas Clemens remained cicmemem, (o- 
 thefole^djutonr of the Apples after Linus and Cletus, the l "fa$j£ 
 name of Biijsopreas given unto him , and not attributed to any \l am ^pfcoft 
 fresbyter % or Presbyters in the £hurcb of Rome. So he. Is not vomenmimit t 
 this to the point ; the diftinguiftnng of times doth folve many *«» quia inter 
 doubts. It is meet now at length we hear fomens him- *&&*»** ft** 
 felf fpeak. foment immediately after his relation of the afore- vJ^flabT* 
 hid Prophecy, addeth,faying concerning the Apoftles, (b) for tum qu j a iam 
 this caufe , they having a perfeft foreknowledge 9 eor$itH- invaluerat di- 
 ted the /fore faid^and left a description of Officers and Mini ft ers ftinftio Efifcqi 
 in their courfejvho after that they them f elves fh mid fall afleep % P* Presbyterz. 
 other Qodly men might fucceed and execute their fmblkm So ^ailfwRoma- 
 £lement. Whence it is evidently collected, that Bifhops were m PmbyterU* 
 the fucceffours of the Apoftles, becaufe a Role and Catalogue quicumfolo 
 ofBftiops is frequently had in Ecclefiafticaft (lories, iineally Clemente,cf. 
 deduced from the Apoftles, as theasoft of the learned Prote- 'ZfZlttrt 
 ftants of the Reformed Churches have ever confeffed. But if butum. 
 our Oppofites cannot prove the like Catalogue of Presbyters 
 of a primitive and right line of defcent, then are they wboly (h) clement ad 
 to yeeld the caufe, and that even by the judgment of foment, Corinth. EpijU 
 which is now ready to be furthermore confeffed by the exad ?.$7«4/"*t*/- 
 learning of the Publiilier of fowetf. This Gentleman, our w * v f " t7 <- 
 Oppofites call Learned, we owe him an higher Title, even one Zmq^T™- 
 exquifitely learned ; he commenting upon the fame Epiftle of hu^^cLjli^ 
 Clement, now objected againft Epifcopacy , teacheth that the 'a*vj*STs&u~ 
 right word &rayo/xn agreeth with the word cenfus in TertulUan W^m % y-\- 
 by whom it appeareth, that it was a cuftome in Apoftolicall'J^^^r 
 Churches to make a Role ( for this word he held not unfit ) of M^wKotptr- 
 the order of Biihops to bring them unto their firO: original!, '£aW,c/W&> 
 even as, faith Tertnllidn, Polycarpfts % wz$ from John the Apo- % av 3 h$a* 
 ftlein the Church of Smyrna, and foment, in the Church * l *™*^f% 
 tflteme % from T^^r 5 fpeak ing even of this, our foment ^ ^ and K^yilUu^ 
 
 addeth 
 
 iuy% 
 
t fbc right tffa is cov-hCYi 
 
 addeth of others ; and others f faith he) whom the tdpoftles 
 ctnftitnteA Bifbops, from whom others might deduce their tra- 
 ductions and offsprings 3 what is,ifthi$ be not 3 an inexpugnable 
 convincement of our Oppofites to prove Epifcopacy to be of 
 an Apoftolical Ordination? Yet is not this all. 
 
 Clement is further reprcfented unto us by the fame learned 
 Publisher, as one regifter'd and enroll'd by antiquity as Bifhop 
 of Rome, in the Catalogue of the fameBiiliops lineally defcen- 
 ded from the Apoftles , whether in the firft j fecond or third 
 rank, it matters not; and the doubt, fuch as it is,is folved 
 in the M argent by our forefaid Geneva Profeflbur : And for 
 wkneffes hereunto are cited Optatus % Hierome, Rttjfwus, £u* 
 chsrius and Thatius , fet down expreffely in the fame Book, 
 which our Oppofites have ob/ecled againft us; which if you 
 would not fee , or feing not regard , ail we Jliall fay U t We are 
 forry for it : Yet after this our retorfion of their objected Au- 
 thors upon rhernfelves , we (hall endeavour to give them fur- 
 ther fatisfac^ion from our fele&ed and cxprefle fuffrages ot 
 Antiquity for the truth of Apofiolicall fucceffion of Epifco- 
 pacy. 
 
 XL.Thesis. 
 
 That othir Primitive Fathers before Hierome did unani- 
 (3) Iteneusdfa mottflj tefiifie an Jp&fttlical right af Spifcopacy, 
 verfbarefJ. $• - 
 
 c ^nuJ?rtTZ XTOthingcan be more manifeftfor the firft t\\ttt(«)heniH* 
 fid ab Apftdk LN (b) Tertulltan t m&(c) Ortgen^o which we add(f) Au- 
 tnftituufunt E- gitftine 9 do all profeffe themfelves ready to deduce the fuccef- 
 fifcopiinEccie- (ion of Bifhops in the principal Sees from thedayes of the 
 
 ft£5S& ApoftIeSf Next the ^ inftance in fome A P oftolic * !1 Churcb > 
 
 €umfu6ceJfioneEpi[copm1sCbrifma vstimk cerium accepetunt. (b) Tertull.pr*[cript t cap. 
 31. lib, 4, contra Marcion. ctp» 5 . Romance perinde <& caters extant Ecclefia , quaab&4po* 
 jtoltiinEpifcopatum conjlitutos Apftolicifemims traduces babcant. (c) Otigen intfobau, 
 de Epifc. <Quod Vomima in Ectlefia. ordinavit poft Apojiohs , qutt in el primum (miii funt 
 lecum. (d) Auguft. Epifl. 4 t. Kidix Cbriftianafoeletaw per fdes Apoftshrum^' (uccflio- 
 %e§ EpifcopQWa ccrti pkotbim prvpagujoiic difwdiw. 
 
Tie right tfEv ! * cot acy £y 
 
 as aameiy fromf *. the B op of Hicro'f. & <fl/*r^in AiexMrU q yr A ti f mM 
 What fay our Oppofittsto this > a principal one f<? j (SaMa* salmsfMEfifc 
 fun by name J caileth this alleadgmenc of James a Biftiop i^] 1,01 '^' 
 falie and foolifh : his reafon was , becaufe 7^w« was an A po» {^? ^;£ 
 file; and therefore not to keep refidence in one See. Firft, be l Hni cmm ai- 
 it known, that whatfoever-this James was, all Antiquity ren- mm. (? h 4° 6 * 
 dcrethhirauntousaBifhopof Blerufalem^ (vU,) (f) Eh- Vabulatfl^ 
 
 and (k) dmhrofe, the (I) Synod of Trullo : Row then (hall it ^V&tft. 
 become us but of yefterdayes birth , thus to pull reverend An- n ^ & c . 
 tiquity by the beard , and give them the fcol ? Yet we may (f) Eufebius 
 not reftrain rational men from rcafoning, and therefore we an- l & ?• ca $- 3s 
 fwer,tb2t were it that la. had been an Apoftle f yet other Pro- D q ^ m ^ tipma 
 teftant Divines of the reformed Churches were no fools, as j mrem <Domi- 
 Dr- (ffl) Scul$etw 9 (n) Zmngiiw 9 and Mr. (o) Moulin ninsminahHie- 
 each one can anfwer ; that notwithftanding the proper fun- rofolym Eccle- 
 aionsof the Apofties, in vifitingof Countries after. Coun- fi^W™ &ccc " 
 tries for conversion of people, and founding of Churches ; yet ^y^i^ m , 
 whether enfeebled by age* or upon extraordinary occafions, ub fU cap a. 
 they might fix themfelves to one Province* But yet are we not Haref. 6*. fa* 
 coftrained to this anfwer ; but furthermore tell our Oppo- £0bus P im ™ 
 fitesthat, (which hath been {/>) iudieioufly proved at large) ?^f^ 
 that this was not lames that Apoiiie , but Umes the Brother fa Egelifftes, 
 of our Lord, and onely an Apoftolical Difciple, which may fa- Jpfokmm 
 
 tempmbm em 
 mod $dcobu$ cagnomento tfuftui EccUfim Hierof. pofl cApoft. dccepitJicHieron,defcriptU 
 Ecclefa in tfacobo. (i) Chryfoft* Horn, *$. in &4ft. i.ii-facobyAEpiff.EcriefiaHiero* 
 folymitana, (k) tAmbrcf. in 1. Galat, fdcoBus &b eApoftdu HierofoL eonftitutus e(t Epifco- 
 pus. (1) Synod* 6. in Trulls can. $1. Ad ftipulantes, enimvero hie eft illefscobuj , qui 
 fixum Hierefolymis babuit damuilium vehtt OrMnarius Epifcopus , quern T auiusprimo £7 nlti- 
 m§ (no adventuinvenit in urbe zApoftolis fere omnibus writ Evangeln^antibus, Qah uA&, 2.1. 
 Cm) Scultctus obfervat in Tit, factbum ah ApojiaUs Hierof olymmtm Efifcopum otiinsinm 
 teftantur panes quamphrimz. ( n) Zuingliusum. z . de Ecde[. joL 48 , oApoftoli sApoftolorum 
 ' iiomin&depofucrunt, uvifeiiaffixi, five(eneft& mptditi^ autferegfiu&tienibusafiliffi', exem- 
 flumeftotfacobusmnwHierciiL Efifcopus. (a) Moulin lib, de Vatibu* cup. jo ApojUli 
 toti EccUfia invigiteb&nt in iolidum (*r indhifum , aliquam tamen peculianrn proviticiamqui* 
 lufdam ApofteiisfuiJJ'e a]Jignatam'di(cimus ex S&cti Sniftm^ Gal 1.7. (p^ Arcbiepfa 
 fus Sfalati'nfu , tome quam. 
 
 tkfie 
 
2 6 The right if & v I s c 3? a c y ; 
 
 tisficourOppofites, until! we come to fpeak of their obje- 
 cted Timothy and Tit»s 9 called Evangeiifts j As for Mar fa if 
 in the line of fucceffion of Bi/hops of ^Alexandria , he only 
 he taken exclufively, yet muS: the Ordinance of that See be ne- 
 ceffarily held Apoftolicall. 
 
 XIL Thesis. 
 
 "that the Apoftolicall ^Antiquity of Efifeopacy is confeffedly 
 proved oat of Ignatius. 
 
 yMtlim pro- "XTEdeiius that learned Divinity Profeffor in the Acade- 
 fejforgene. y mv of Geneva^ in his moft elaborate work of Exercita- 
 
 TmitltK tlons upon the Epift!es of J £" a * ius for vindicating hisDo- 
 lfmiius^p' ^ r ' nc ^ rom £ne ^ e glofe of ' < Bellarmine 9 Baronim and 
 ftoiommdifci- other Romifti writers, is copious in manifefting the direcT: 
 fulusemtquem judgement of Ignatius in many notable points. Concerning 
 vemonegabit Ignatius himfeif he rendereth him unto us a Difciple ef the 
 fSmmum 3 Kc A ftfUs,a Hijhop ofAntkvh, an holy maraud a faithful! M*~ 
 defa AntiocbU n *ft er ofC^ifl* 2 * C oncernm & x ^ e cat *fe again ft Be/larmine^nd 
 Epfcopm, t$, others who will have Bifaops the rlrft under the Pope of 
 quiCbrifiive- Rome , as the Apoftles were under Chrift , this he confuteth 
 ritati Teftim^ 0UtQ f ' JgMOtms % who taught that Presbyters fbould he fab jell 
 7™Zmml to-Bifho^andBilhopto Chrift. 3 . Againft Papifb who pro- 
 geuTefubTrA- claimc the Pope to be Bifhop of Bifliops : he confefleth Ig- 
 janoimpera- natius holding the Bifhop in every Church to be the next un* 
 tore. tier Chrift s and chief therein* 4. The diftintlion between *Bi- 
 
 liemEMcit. p Q p m( i p res fry teYS 9 was i„ the day es of the tApoftles \ and 
 
 TraU.cap.4 § 4 J a % profeffeth for himfelf and others, that if they had a Bi- 
 
 BeUar.lib,4.de 
 
 fontifice c. 25. ^uemadmodum Apoftoli ftimi erant fub Cbrift@,ita Epifeop ptimi fub Pontifi- 
 ce.%e(p. ImoEpifcopinonfuntprimifubToniifac, fed [uh Qbrifio, nip Bellarmino Ignatius 
 mentuur^ qui Epifcepum nullam in Ecclefii bdbere fupra fepotcftatcmdicitUcip(iEpilto» 
 ld,Et Eptft.ad Smyrnenfes. Ol KctiKoi roif AtaKovoit vTeraoyid-afAV ol Aiakovoitoh 
 npif@v7S£?i< ol U.$i<?Gvti&i 7uIL'7ri<T}LQ'r(pi E7Ti(T>407r©- t£ Xf/r£. lb, c.g.num.S. 
 fontificii jtatuunt Papam ut Epifcoporum T)ominum : at Ign&tii tempore mavimus in Ecclefii 
 em Epifcopiu, poft. Arcbiep. Item Exerciu i.cap.z.num.$Jgntt. in Epijl. ad Polycarp. Verba 
 ejus monet Epi/copu officii fui&t agnofcatfe turn demum aliorum Epifcopum efle ) qu»ni$ipfc Epi- 
 fcoporuprincipipareat: Talibus Efifcopis & lib enter pat mm j, %Q<pirtims M W%v^ajou 
 
 Uiop 
 
7 he right of E p t * "c o p act; ? j 
 
 (hop, fuch as vn%Tolycarfus (aDifcipiealfoof theApoftfesj 
 they as Ignatius required of the Smywaans, would willingly, 
 yea 9 nectjfarily obey hint. So he. In this Maxtme 'w^bchollLtw&-- 
 Difcipies of the Apoftles, Ignatius and PoTycarju T; bothBi- 
 {hops diftinclly from Presbyters and Governours : and this in 
 the Apoftles times. As well therefore may our Oppofites deny 
 themfelves to have depended naturally from their own pa- 
 rents, as Bifhops, originally from the Apoftles. We are to 
 purfue this yet a little further. 
 
 X11I. Thesis. 
 
 That Antiquity hath given m Rules of Refolution for the 
 knowledge of Any Apofiolicall praUice % -which may ferve in 
 thecafe of Efifcopacj. 
 
 THe rule given by Antiquity, was alwayes held Catholique 
 throughout all Chriftian Churches of ancient times. St. 
 %sf*ftins~Tuk may be our flrft direction thus, (a) whatjo- (*) Jufftft.it 
 ever the Vniverfall Church holdeth, and was not inflitnted by JgJS " 8lrJ 
 Councels % but alwayes lgf? t that mufl moft rightly be judged ^§A univcrfa 
 to have been from esfpeftolicali Authority % So he : which for tenet Ecclcfia, 
 ourpurpofeisasmuchas Dr. Scuhettu moft judicioufly and wcmfiUh in* 
 sngenuoufly confefs'd, that if no Interim can be fhewfl be- y^ m ^ ed 
 tween the Apoftles times, and the dayes immediately fuccee- tmljCnounifi 
 ding, when there was no Epifcopall Government over Prelby- tdutberitatc 4- 
 ters in the Church, then muft the fame have proceeded im- Pftelhd tr&AU 
 mediately from the Apoftles. We hold this mod reasonable , ****&*§** 
 even as if the Queftion were , what the practice is of the 6H(imr ' 
 Country ad joyniog unto us i Our next bordering neighbours 
 to it, would be the moft competent witneiTes of their manners, 
 fuch have been hitherto our proofes even from fuch Anci- 
 ents, as either had feen the Apoftles, or elfe from fuch as had 
 been converfant with the immediate Difcipies of the Apo- 
 ftles. Our Oppofites not able to inftance in the practice of any 
 one Primitive Church to the contrary, onely objed: a com- 
 munity of names of Presbyters and BiQiops, which Shadow 
 
 E will 
 
£S Thtrig&t j/Eh ic op Ac y * 
 
 will vanifli, as foou as we fhaii give hghtbypfooresof ths 
 Apoftolicall Ongi all of Epsftopacy in divcrfe Tlw/W folio wing 
 'kye^rcffion^cQrif^IidiiftddAaefaoritks.- 
 
 XIV* Thesis. 
 
 That Prvte ft tint Divines of other R?f$rm*d Churches, have 
 h id a ««$ f^fc*?// to h£ dire&sdtj xhi judgements ef Anci- 
 ents for proof of a graft ice /ififtofatit 
 
 fz)Ca!vTrAtt* T T7 E plead no other equity in this caufe, then what Cat- 
 TbeoL.Eedfi. VV vm held n^ceilary againft Anabipt»ftlcail Reveiau- 
 reform,: a* 74 om , arguing negatively in this manner, Theft lyes ( faith 
 irettco & On ^ j ^ r0 tM ji]y confuted^ecatife many j®tf?e then living whp had 
 Ultlumimpre- ^ ecn cmverfmt with the % Difc*fl*s of ihs tAfo files. So he 
 bti nebuiombus, concerning Do&nnes. How much more convincent muft this 
 qui, dum pro it- Argument be, when our Queftion fhaU be of rbe pradtce of the 
 giooserwes q^^ \$ the dtyes of the ApoirJes ? even m h daily done by 
 wtimllosWi all Cht iiitan Ghu'dies, for p oof of the practice of baptizing 
 divnitu) rcve- of Infants, againft the fame Anabaptifticall .Fa&ioti j yes, why 
 /dMi deban-^ n ot alfo f,*n h-:; !ik: G:>j*inall pradtce of Epiftopacy , eveffby 
 
 HujHSM-n^ i the COnfetlson of Pr&teft ant Divines of excellent juigementi 
 faults e^t Re- % ftf^ffiuftnot be'ftefclc&ed, telling us, that be w*kt nrt 
 few juperliver t0 ne l *& tlot 0} ** »*«*** *f ^ «'£ ^ **£■'•*' */ « # //?*/> *£*z/f 4 
 eranimHUiy l Tresbftrr y kec^ufe this W4S an ancient cuflome in the famous 
 qui [ami Hares church *f rflrjcandri*. So he. This h Well, but he hath r;ot 
 di*f 6 i!ifu™- q^eeoldouthi* ra'e, which he dorh elfewhere out of the 
 runTqu*u7re. words of (c) Mierom^ Tying namely* that in Ahxtndri*, 
 ccmtrn bujus from Mir*, the Eva*gel$ y one was defied by the Presbytery ' 
 doctrine mc+ 
 
 wcridrfum^poifolitradikrunt (h)Beia deMhift grid-bus. T^e pfimatu Otitis imtt 
 Presb)teros com fiuvhato n nju'i-pifton bus per vices Primirnr dignit&e, quod wiUmfuii 
 hunc adunurn equtdem tctinip eibyierii j'Jiao ddeftum transferrer certe reprebendt t/(CvoJJit 9 
 nee debet; cum prajertiinvtujiusmas \U t prim.™ pres'jterum .Uligwdo in AUxvilrmd Ec- 
 ilefti cdeberrimi ihdt I Mitco Lvindt fti jbe vum (t) B \t icMini'l s*r*i c. i$ X uoi 
 autcmunusdettuiefl({u<cxte*ii ptAponrr t4fi in sebifm,itis }*3*m tU ^clmm, ne ttTiuf- 
 qii que adfe Qbri.lum trabens fyclefia a ru m urn ; na n & AtexmdrU a M xrco Eva i^cliftl 
 ei HcrxLufque ctfoicnjfium Epttcopes, En*bjteri uman (em%cr Hfedtftu/n in celfiore graitt 
 uUt.aium ^i^umnomtnabanh 
 
 ami 
 
The right o/Evi s c o> a c y tp 
 
 mnd placed in a higher degrtej&baw they named Bifh*p % which 
 wot done for a remedy againfi Schifme&z i« thcts chat touching 
 this Series and order of Succcfiion , as it was /aid of Saint 
 Mark the Apoftle, beit taken in cteftvely, or exciufively j it 
 needfariiy iraplyeth, that the Original of Epjfcopacy was 
 in the dayes of the fame Apoftles. Mafter Moulin giveth us 
 a lowder Accenr, faying, that (d) he was never fa hard faced 
 Astecenfurethsle-Bifhopx Ignatius, Pelycarpe, Augu<ftine, )f^Ep%. 
 Chryfoftome, and other great lights of ike Church * t*ha*e m n ton Hon 
 ufurped an unlawfuU funilion in th* Church &f Chrijf * So he : [ U m adeo $rv 
 Alleadging among his ancients Poljcarft 'and Ignatius ; the duriutvdim 
 firft of which, as a!l the learned know, lived m (he djtjrci of J^^ 
 the Apoftles ,. and as antiquity it felf ceacheth , andeoofcnt of ^ml**. ignatt 
 Proteftant Divines of- Remote Churches wilt afterwards um^Polyearpum 
 grant, to have been in the dayes of Saint John the Evafigelift, Cypmnum.Au* 
 theBifhopof<tajr^. The other, *>/*, Ignatius y was alfo guff hum, cbry- 
 acquainted wkhthofe, who had been the Difciples ©f Chrift. ^rTS^' 
 Befides, we lave heat d (e.) Scultewt re fotiiag, that lames \ m ^ uta i vt ^ us 
 (not the Apoftle.) the Brother of our. Lord, was "Bifhop of Hfa* ufurpawes mu- 
 rufalem f from the plentiful tefiimsnies of Antiquity it felf. neris illicit!: 
 We will conclude with this our proof from the fame Anti* f to* [&*}&** 
 quity ; but what? even that which (f) Bucer finds refoived ^Znd*An~ 
 upon (as he faith)befbre Hiercm^kt us take his own wcrds*Z>*- tiquit& 3 qu&m 
 vine Fathers mor& ancient then Hierom. Cyprian,lreneus,Eu- novcllacujuf- 
 febius , and other gcclefidftical Hiftorianr /hew, That in the quota conftittu' 
 tsfpoftles times there was one elected l and ordained \ tihojhould !£?• s eebeIow. 
 have Epijcopal funfikn and fupsrhritj over Pretifters • fo knowlcd<»ment 
 
 will Bc%a give 
 us hereafter, (e) Seultet. obfervat. in Titum c 8. fed ego ds sfactbo dlcasn, nen itlo quidem 
 Apoftolo fed Sdlvmris nojiri fmte, (f) Bum de Anim. cut a et officio Paftor .• Apud pttes 
 Hieronymovetuftiores clara babemm Teftimcnia ', in pracipufs Ecclefm omnibus tempotibus 
 Apoftolorum ita comparatum eft s ut PresbjurU omnibus quidem \ officium Epifcopde fuerit 
 impofitum. Interim tamen'aApifUlorum-tempmbiis unmje Piestywh etecfus utque or- 
 dinatus eft in vfjicii ducem & qua.fi iAntiffitcm , qui ceteris omnibus prmvit, & curam 
 avimarum, minifieriumqut Epifiopale \-- paeiput is* in frmme geffu atcfie adminifirsvit 3 
 quod ie facobo Itgis , *Acl> i^ ubi Lucas ^atobuta dtfmb'n M sAMfUtem Utius Es* 
 slefia ornniumque Fmbytcrorum. 
 
 E 2 he, 
 
The right of Ep i s c o> a c y* 
 
 he, tnftmeing in lames, of whom we have fpoken who wai 
 Bilbop of Hierufalem, 
 
 XV. The si s. 
 
 fi&j^ Mafter Bezi himfelfis challepgable to ye\ld unto Apofto* 
 ileal right of €pijcepacy, from hu own former confession. 
 
 M After Be*,* hath already *confeft:d concerning the 
 Famous Church ofssllexandria, that from Mark^ the 
 Evangelift, one was chofen to be placed in a degree above 
 Presbyters, called Bsftiop, is according to the Teflimony of 
 Hierom. The Story hereof hath been of late publifhed by 
 Matter Selden, the Ornament of our Nation, excellently con- 
 verfant in ancient & exotick Learning , out of the Relation of 
 Eutjchtusfhu Markjht Ev. placed Anianus Patriarch or Bi- 
 (hop over Presbyters in the Church of Alexandria,. In which 
 bookalfo, there is fet down the full Catalogue of i8.Bi(hopr 
 fucccflively unto Dionyfws , that pofTefTed the fame See, 
 which provefeh as plainly an Epifcopal and perfonal fucceffion, 
 by an Apoftolical Conftitution from Anianus to Alexandria 
 in a lineal fucceflion, as was the filiall and natural defcent from 
 Adam to Thara 9 which makes up eighteen Generations. What 
 ■eed then many words ? the moft Tkefes which have been 
 prcmlfed , and almoft all afterwards to be propounded , do de- 
 clare the fame by joynt accordance of Proteftant Divines of 
 reformed Churches , and fufFrages of Antiquity. We haften 
 to our laft proof ; but are arrefted in our way by our Oppo- 
 fitcs, toanfwer two objected Teftimonies of Antiquity. 
 
 XVI. Thesis. 
 
 That the Teftimonies of Nazianzcn and Auguftine are unwor- 
 thily ob jetted t9 the contrary. 
 
 TTTTEarc urged to reckon thefe two excellent Bifhops, 
 Smeti.v'w&i- y y a i c hough in true Conftrudion they have anfwered 
 or.flg.88. for themfelves. Naz.ianz.en (fay our Oppofites,) 
 
 muttering up the evils that had hapned unto him, reckoneth 
 
 ejeAiosh 
 
the right of Ep I $ c Op a : 6r, 31 
 
 eje&ion out of his Epsfcopacy, holding it a pare of wifdome 
 to avoid it , wiping that there were no wf ogcfpU place of Pre- 
 fideot-(bip, or Ti/paw>c» T^ofcia or Tyrannical! Prerogative in 
 the Church, but that they might be known only by vertue. 
 We have alleadged Naz.ianz.en according to the genuine fenfe; 
 So they : But fo as ufually in an Hetero^cneall fenfe co inferre 
 a neceifary abnegation of Epifcopaty. They who feek 
 iugenuoufly the genuine fenfe of Sentences in Authors muft 
 be ' J*tttisA*ke faced, looking rr^oscd ^Wioju backward and 
 foreward, both which properties have been wanting to our op- 
 pofites; firftbicaufe before the words objeded they lay be- 
 fore" their eyes this faying of (4) 7^sda%^nsthere was atime ( a )^? 4B » 
 Vvhtn Spijcopaey was had in great admiration, and de fired of t rat. 8. 
 wife and prudent men . and the fecond, as not confidering that Fuittemfus 
 was then fpoken only comparatively 3gainft the Tyrannical! $** n ty cordate 
 Government of Bilhops, which by ail Proteftart Biftiops %X^^L 
 hath been condemned in the Popifh Hierarchie ; be f&m&nim in admit a- 
 that this was but the breath of vexatious palTion upon otca- tionc bakuerunt 
 fionof one Aiaximus^ whom N*z,ia*z,tn calleth a Cynicke (ftifitoabm 
 and doggiili Philofopher, becaufe, whereas he himfdf had 
 the Generall efteem in the Church ofChriftto be, by way of 
 excellence, called &tfcoy@-, the Divine, notwithftandirg he l^^fquk 
 was vehemently perfecuted by the fame unworthy Prelate, $btimit* m E- 
 and by his circumvention difturb'd out of his BiiLopricke ; and pifccpztu* 
 therefore fenfibleof that iudignity, did utteer the language of Presfyterhma- 
 his hearts grief. But why did not our Oppofites tell as, that fj**™^™ 
 after this ftorme there fell a cafrae, when the fame godly Bifhop & w / tfj em nftt 
 was with generall applaufe received to his Bifhoprick agiin 5 er confuetudinc 
 but efpecially we may complaine that they have by their Ecckfatnus 
 filence fmothered Ifyz.iamens judgement concerning the caufe covjhtutumejt 
 itfelf, which is the right of Epifcopacy, and which heeftee- ^JSt™ 
 med the moft perfett kind of Government ; So he. And is Presbytmr, 
 not this as much as to have held it the beft ? Which he further turn cxn dh 
 declareth in his funerall Orations which he had of three famous fi in %* v ? c * h Q, 
 Bifhops, -Safil, Athanofius, and Cyprian. Auguftw writing *!££# £ 
 to Hierome{b)h\th y tkat cttftom bath obtained y that Spifcopacy 'flj n ftjQ* 
 jhenld be higher them Presbytery ^ according to the honour and 
 
 dignitj 
 
3 z the Tight of b P I s C 0* A C T. 
 
 ■dig* it j of the wards* Therefore faith Waloj f A* diftinllion of 
 hpifcopacy and Prefbyte/ry wasfirft comftituted by the Church* 
 So he ; whole difciples our other Qppofites have learned this 
 leffon, faying, (c) If Auguftine had kpown the majority of 
 (i)Smc% Vin- Bifhops above Presbyters, to have been of Divine or vdpo- 
 dic* fag. 8;. ft die Ml inftitution^he might have [aid fo much*, nay he Would 
 havefaid as much. Ana we anfwer, if any of our OppofitS 
 hadreguarded to fearch the judgement of Aug uftine, they 
 would not have faid thus much, becaufe it is evident that Au- 
 guftine did fay as much as they require, he fhould have faid, 
 as hath been ftiewn 5 faying of hirafelf and other Bifhops, 
 thus; wefuccecd the Apoftlesin the fame ^Po^toer, and that 
 Chrtft inftuuud 'Bifhops when he ordained his Afoftler I That 
 we * repeate not his condemning Aerius ( as Bpiphanius did ) 
 * See above, for deeding Epifcopacy to have been an inftitution Apofto- 
 Ileal! j and now whether our Reader think it more reafona- 
 y^byeeid to the fuppofition of what Augaftine would 
 h%ve„ done, or the maoifeiheion what he did , we permit to 
 .his judgement. This obftaclethus removed,we fall now upon 
 the laft proof. 
 
 Our laft proof % that Epifcopacy u of Apoftolicall right & ae~ 
 cording to the word of God, even from the Word of'Cjod itfelf* 
 To this purpofe, two places of Scripture are efpecially to 
 be alleadged : The Epiftles otPafil to Timothy and 77^/, and 
 the Epiftles of St. fohn'm the Revelation to the feven Chur- 
 ches in Afia. t which are to be difcuffed according to our forc- 
 mer Method , by the confonant Teftimonies of ancient Fa- 
 thers; and confent of Proteftant Divines of-generall efteera 
 and approbation., 
 
 XII. Thesis. 
 
 That Timothy attd Vitus both had a Prelacy over Presbyters , 
 mtwitbftanding the ob^etlion ef the community of Names of 
 TSifbops and Presbyters ,is fufficiently confejjedby Proteftant 
 'Divines of Rt mete Churches* 
 
 Here can none be held a more fufficient wmres with our 
 Oppofites, then he who hath profcfiedJy pleaded this 
 
 caufc 
 
 T 
 
The right of Ep l scop ac y, 33 
 
 caufe 16 their behalfe.i& notwithstanding fredy, & deerly gran- 
 
 tctfa : that (*) Timothy and Titos fcrfr* *»$«8l Govemtttrs -{^WoUlibAe 
 
 ever their Pr evinces and flat t sphere the Ape file hud appoint- %¥*(*>&* tohl '^ 
 
 td thm % and thai they hadovtr the "Presbyters a kj*$ oftffo* ^mihanl^ . 
 
 fiolical ewthoritjiVthkh he *« his own jmdgtmtnt caikih extra' rnijjiott & jun* 
 
 ordinary ', and we take him at his own words $ in granting "that fiione ^jo.jlc 
 
 it was fome way an Authoritative Prelacy, and for thediftin- ^ii dimuli 
 
 dtton of e*tr*ordinary,it will by and by receive an ordifiary,but c *lljj^ $s~ 
 
 atrueanfwer : yet we do not fo much prelTe his confefTion, & c .p.ii9 Tu 
 
 as we may do hi€ Rest forts thereof, deducted from the Te^ts turn cnta tnfn* 
 
 themfelves, concerning their Prektieail -power of ordering -Ufrafwt ^ 
 
 mutters that were kmiffe. Tit I. 5. of receiving vSccxfaiun P^dii^quinon 
 
 agaixft Tretbyter^ 1 Tim. 5. tp. and th Q like. S^; 
 
 But our other Oppofites- will needs pofeus, requiring us to pjcopufuit, 
 
 anfvver their firft Objection, videl. f That tho'Bi^ops i -whole (edtotm Mam 
 
 ■■ pzdesree was derived fr em the dpoftles , were no other then pw'mmm&i 
 
 Pretbyters) then this is proved,fay they.by two inilances; the ^rilT/fee- 
 
 firftis, The identity ef their names, whkh (quoth they ) k a IwtJ.pftsh* 
 
 freofefnofma&c&nfequencti we anfwer, yea, rather of none at tumauditores 
 
 all: Elfe was Mafter Be** but of -fmall judgement, when & diicipuU 9 
 
 fpeak'wgofthe Apolitical] Age, be cpnfeffed, {b} that the ^ e ^ €0 ' 
 
 prejbytery had then a ^prtfifara -over them, ye^ } whtn the com- ru ^l^ e 0' ei * 
 
 rnunity «f names. So he; of Preftytets**d B?°' remaimd among ^ g c J 4 fc 
 
 them ; accoidingly as (c) Dr Reynolds hath faid that the Pres- Unifi. grad, 
 
 ■hy eery had then one, who was prefiAent over them^ when at yet eap. **• Habuit 
 
 the names of *Bi (hop and Presbyter were thejawex who Fur- \ amtum Fres ~ 
 • f cj-n at. m- hte : turn uum 
 
 ihermore concerning tuc time crdtltingmflung the name of Bi- ai\aut^^^ 
 {hdp-a-nd Presbyter, whither fooner or later, here or there, es-aia'tnibjm 
 he faith* The name of Bfhoo was afterwards appropriated hy nrw» : en&m 
 the tij'^l language of the Fathers of the Churth^o him thai Prcshpwrum 
 had the Preftdentfi ip oyer the Slders, So he ; Hert by granting ^iaffeTati^ 
 that the Preiidentftiip-'bjp Bifhops was of foiCe before then- tnt 
 tie and name was appropriated and allotted unto ttum» If (c)Do&os 
 our Oppofites had acquainted themfeives wkh thefe learned ^eynolcshis 
 authors , they would have fpared their pains in oppugning n*bHux.cfr 
 Epifcopacy.. How much more if. they had confulted. wi-h ^ t * V sn j a ' 
 Gods own Oracle io his word, wherein we find ( which 
 
 formerly 
 
34 The right of Ep I s c op a c y; 
 
 formerly we pointed at ) that Saint Peter intituled him felf 
 
 a Co -presbyter. i.P^f. 5. & i. Saint /*£» himfelf a Pres» 
 
 bytsr. i. John i. And Saint PWhimfelf thrice (he could 
 
 then (loop no lower ) a Deacon, CoU 1.23. 0* 2$ . a Or. 3, 
 
 <#- 6. Yet notwithstanding all thefe inferiour appellations they 
 
 held Ml the Authority of their Apoftelfhip $ wc end this 
 
 point in hope that our Opposite* will take out this leffon, 
 
 which Calvin learnt from the Divine. Text in the Epiftie of 
 
 Titus ; what's that ? Even our full eonclufion in this caufe. 
 
 (J)Cdvlnus in (d) We learn from hence , that there yea snot then an equality 
 
 Titum k %Mh ( faith he ) among the Mmifiers of the Church • but that one 
 
 cimus ex bos lo- was w j t h Authority placed ever others* Their fecond con vine- 
 
 VSS& in § ob ^ ion would be difcutf ' d 
 
 inter JMiniftros, 
 
 quia anus all- ^CVIII.ThESIS. 
 
 quit autboritate 
 
 X7^%' ' ^at Timothy andTims have had a Prelacj t *s %ifl?ops ever 
 dicat ■par.\j<[ *^ s P reSt by* ers *» the A po files times : nottvithfi anting the 
 (a.) Luther torn, ohje&ion thxt they were called Evan gelifls % according to 
 i.fol 309 Re. confentofProteftantsof reform'd Churches* 
 folutiones ejus 
 
 f ™Ljt!% TNche next place we are to examine the fecond, and only 
 futat, concluf. 1 other objection, which our Oppofites enforce in this cafe, 
 il.Probequam- to wit, f tioat Timothy and Titus, with all other fuch Difciples 
 libtt civitatem of the Apoftles^ the affiftants and immediate [uccefj or s^did take 
 habere debere C4re jr^ e churchs, not as Properly Bifheps* but as bvange- 
 
 pfuTu™ P ll ¥*> who h * d no f etIed re fi dence in **J *f the churches : So 
 vine, quod ex ~ they, but are encountred with other Proteftant Divines of re- 
 PauioadTitum mote Churches in good number* For (a) Luther among his 
 ejiendo dicevte, ocner Refolutions inferred this z That Epifcopacy was of di- 
 iiinliquite^ ** ine Rt & ht > grounding his judgement upon the Text, fpecifying 
 cretaluiqua Titus his Government in Creete, as being confonant to the 
 dedmtcorrigas, judgement of Auguftine. 
 iff cevjlitudi 
 
 c Prab)tiros per civitatefyficut difpofuitibi) Hos autem Tfcsbrtem fuijfe Epifcopos Hieron 9 
 if tcxtus fequens ojienitt dicens t Oportct Eplfcopum irreprebcnJibUcjn ejjc, (ft. B. Auguflin.in 
 Epift adHieron. Efi / f t.de J criptumsrath?iemredditO' licit. EratenimCivttasquajidiccrctj, 
 nw eratfimplcx PresbjteT^jtd Eipfe. de quo loquor, quia eratciviias cuipracraf, 
 
 2. Their 
 
% Their learned (b ) Scultetus (heweth^ that at this time] (b)$cuhttusin 
 they were not exercis'd in a fp fling t he Apofloles for coUefting Titum MM* 
 rf Churches as Evangelifls, but for governing of them that ^Epbefittfa 
 'had been coHtcled 9 M the general! pracepts given bj the Apofties cmaaliauan- 
 (faith heV<? prove thereby to become the examples^ Types for diudocuerat % U 
 the fusee ffottrs to follow i and thereupon he concludeth them deoTitumo* 
 to have been the fame, who otherwife were called Evangc- ^™°* b .™ m iri 
 Uflx for preaching the Gofpet, although by their fuperinten- nere'IoVutiaTi 
 dsney Bifhops. To the fame purpofe (c) Mifter Moulin will ut Evangetiftas 
 have it known, that whatfoever Timothy and Titus had, whe- fc&Eedefi* g U - 
 ther as Bifhop or Evangeliftyt was fuch as had a continual J uc^ b ^atores. id 
 ctffion in the Church, which is as others confe§e> as James had T^J* 1 *? E " 
 inferulahm^nA Margin ^Alexandria* which was Epifco- trumque fcripta 
 pall. Titus (faith (d)To(janus) after his peregrinations with evincuntilnbk 
 *Paul, was appointed 'Bifhop of Creet, and before thefe (e) enim non Ecclt* 
 Zuinglius confefs'd, that Tim. at that very time^ when Paul P aco ^nda 9 
 advis'dhim topurfue the worhjofan Svangelift. 2 Tim. ^was ^mf^f^ 
 then Bifhop in fome place or other % by at conference* colleftaguber- 
 
 (f) Dr. 6 erhard a late famous Theological Author is copi- nanda,quaeft 
 ous in this Argument : who in the fame fliewech that the word Epifcopernin^ 
 Evangdift^ given to Timothy when Paul wrote onto him, f ^T^- t iUk 
 was taken in a gener*H acceptation, and not as properly be- Jiittquelracep. 
 longing to him, as he had been an Afliftant,^r» as Luther ta omnia ita 
 
 Hnfirmatd, ut 
 mn(p(daumad Timotbcum vcl Titum, fed generatim adenines Epifctpos referatttur. Ideoqueai 
 Temper ariam Evangel 'iji arum potejtatem minimi quadrent (c) Moulin in Efift \\*adEpife .Win- 
 ton, ^hwmedo appetiaveris Titum, Timotbeum.& Marcum/feu Epitopes Jive Evangdijlashon- 
 jfot e$sbabujj]e(uuejjores Efifccpcs bxredesillius preminentia (d) P&ulus Tcflanus index in. 
 Sacra Bib Tim comes Peregrinattonvm Pauli, poflca CretenfittmEfifcopus (e) Zuinglius tom s 
 Ztfol.qf, Idem £pi(ct>pi& Evingcliflavomen ; nam Paulus, 1 Tim. 4. [ Tu vigila. opus Evan* 
 gelijtaperags s mimjterium tuumprobatum reddito] aliquo in loco tunc temporis fuit Epifcopus, 
 cum hoc (criberct Apostolus, Ergo conjtat idem fuijje Officium utriufqxe. (f) Gerhard, tern. 
 6.2)eMinifitr.EccUfiaft. mm* 117* zTim.4. Fac quae Evangtlifts. Hat vox hoc in tea 
 gemralittr fumimr, non fpecialiter fro quodam "Dcclorum or dine, quoTimotbcusconflitutus 
 juerit Eccleja Epbefim Epifcopus. ncc ulttrius Paulum comitatus, Sicut etiam Lutherus red- 
 diditffecialiter Idifii Evongelifaeram Apoftoforum crunpyci jy (rvfaGiTxpyol, a quibus in 
 partem muncris Apufldici afe'tti ad diver] a hca abillismiitebantur. lniUorumEvdngelijta* 
 mm mimeio lenfcndifunt Timotbeus ct Titus. Timotbcum Lyftna afjumpfit Paulus sAci. 16, 
 pftea cum mift in Macedonian .*Acl. 19. 2, t. ©• ad 1 Cor. 4. ij. sAd : ?hil, a 19. Ad Tbef. 
 1. c. $, Tandem veto Efafva' Ecrteftx Epifcepus. 1 Tim, ?. 15. rimw o-i'ftf>78y x Cot. 8. % j # 
 cum miff ad Qorinth z Cor. 5. 6. 1 1. 18. AjJumpJltfecHm Hierojol: gal. 1. 1. Mijit in T>aima+ 
 titan. 2. Tim, 4, 10'. T&ndem Cunnfmm Lccki-aram cwftitttii Eptfcofum Tit. u f, 
 
 S ' (faith 
 
2& fwr^Wtf/EtucOMcti 
 
 (faith he ) underwood \u Befides he fheweth out of Scripture 
 exactly the feverall Stations, which Timothy had with Saint 
 Paul in cxercifing his office, before that time that be was 
 placed Bifaop in Sphefus. 
 
 We forbeare the full allegation of the like Authours cited 
 by others, that, we may hearken to our EngSifh Dodtour Rey- 
 nolds, nothing inferiour to any of the reft even in the opinion 
 of our Oppofices therofelves , telling us of that very time 
 when Paul aitedibled the Miniflry at Miletum i Ail. 20 > 28, 
 ffeJIDr. R(f- (g) One was c bo fen as chief in the Church of Ephcfus to gmd 
 jwfcfcGome- fa, the fame whom afterwards the Fathers of the 'Primitive 
 hattiCdp.*: Church catted 7! i/Ztep. So he. And for confirmation hereof* 
 diftintt,}, (heweth that which muft indeed be impregnable, to wit, A 
 (h)'Calyix. in- Uneall fucceffion of 27. Bijhops fas hath been proved) from T*« 
 % ltHt 'p b ii ] ' € j,l' s watby In the Church of Ephe(m 1 and for furplufage to all this 
 fingulhajfigns- we anfwer, to the objeded reafons propounded for Timothy's 
 turfedet, inter* non-re(idence in Epbe/ut, by that qualification, which (h) fcal- 
 cammnegamus, vinhith done in like cafes, namely, that Ta flours are not fo 
 qutipaftora- ftrffily tied m their Glebe or charge, as that they may not help 
 
 lia$ £ "}efif Qtker churches upon neceffarj occafigHs. As for the ob/eded 
 adiuvare posftt r r l ia u ' J r r . .' 
 
 qui mi eft attu terme of Svangelijts, we moreover anfwer from Scripture, 
 gatus: five quid, where we find Philip preaching the word of god in Samaria. 
 turbamm inter- jft, ^, 5, £ ailed an Svangeiift, All* 21*8. And yet was one 
 cedat qu9le\us ^ t ^ Q f eV en, meaning "Deacons* All. 6. 5. Our Qipre is, why 
 luVat^flwab Timatky, might not as well be called an Evangelift for preach- 
 
 eo ptatur w». ing the word, being a Bifkop % as Philip was, for the fame caufe, 
 ftlium. Hcce^ named an Evangeltft, being a 'Deacon* We think all this 
 
 nimfunt veiutl fa^id De fatisfaftory, although no more were faid : But more 
 
 Gltb* addiHh we have 
 
 That Antiquity taught an- Epifcopacy both in Timothy 
 and Tjtus. 
 
 (3) tValo, alii? /*\Ur ftrongeft Oppofite (a) Salmafius could not but con- 
 
 salmaf. libM- \JfeQe concerning Antiquity, ( although he fpurne againft 
 Epifc pag.i 19* 
 
 Titum Greta infulaprafccit Paulus, qui non pnguUri in aliqui chime Epifcopus fuit , (el 
 toi&m Mam provinciam ad tempui procuraret. Tales jucrunt yipojtoimm zAuditores <t? di[cu 
 2*11, quHuttque primi (ornmfuccejlomexiiteret 
 
 it}. 
 
The right ofEvtscoPkc t * 37 
 
 it) That Chryfoftome, Epiphaneus, Theophylaft, TheotJoret, 
 and other Greeks Comment atottrs have co/lecled out of the 
 words of Paul, that Titus was verily Bifhop of Greeted** that 
 there could not be divers Bifbops in one CVfy, which is our pre- 
 fent defence, and agreeth as well to Timothy zs to Tittu* 
 (b) Hierome hath recorded both Timothy and Titus B'ftiops, 
 the one of EphefuStind the other of Creete, to whom (c)Am- fl>; uiefon. ds 
 bro/e t (d) Prima fus t (e) Gregory the great,doconfent : Lu- Ecdcf. (crtft. 
 ther alfo bringeth in Augufiine into the faid Chorus. We Vw e " 
 haftentoourlaftAa. figgS 
 
 Cur fecond ground out of Scripture to prove a Prelacy over ( c ) dmhrof.iit 
 Presbyter s^to be according to the word of Godv t Rev. c. 2. 3. JJjgjf^ f, h»«<? 
 
 In the Book of Revelation, Chrift by his Angel (properly **»imm<* 
 fo called J commanderh Uhn to write unto the fevenChur- TtyGreg.Pdp. 
 chesin Aft* $ verf. 1. Telling him myftically of [even golden deCurat}Ba[u 
 candleftickj, verf. 13. and Qii(evtnftarres % verf. itf. and after- pau%*u\u 
 wards expoundeth their meanings ; [even fiarres to fighifie ( e ) &* ma f m 
 (even Angels of the /even Churches* and fe ven candleftic^s t ttt l * m * 
 to betoken the (even C hurcbes^verf. 20 . By and by, defend- 
 ing to particulars s ^e diredeth his feveral EpiAlcs to the 
 feveral feven Angels of the feven Churches , beginning at the 
 Church of Sphefusfoy'mg^rite to the Angel of the Church of 
 £/>£<?/#/,andfoofthereft. Thefeareour Texts, which we 
 are, in difcufling tbefe our differences, to infill upon. 
 
 The State of the ^uejlian. 
 
 We readily grant , that whatfoever matter was written to 
 thefe Angels concerning either themfelves or .others., were by 
 them to be communicated feverally to the Churches , and all 
 the faithfull as they wereinterefted therein, according to that 
 8piphonema t feverally applied in every Epiftle thus 5 £H* 
 that hath an ear to hear * let him hear"^ But the onely qae- 
 ftion is , whether each of thefe Angels of the Churches were 
 lingular perfons, having a Prelacy over other Paftors and 
 Clergy >or no t Ouroppofitesiay nay, vreye*. fhcoddf is 
 ex Diametro. 
 
 Ii We 
 
38 The right af Episcopacy, 
 
 We are therefore according to true fniethocl : firft, t& 
 difprove their negative, and after to evince oor affirmation * 
 But, in the firft place, be it known that our Oppofites in 
 their negatives are diftraded into three Opinions. One forr 
 by the word Angel 9 will have uuderftood the while Church 
 collettively, as well Laitie as Clergy. Not fo, fay the fecond 
 Opinatours, but by Angel is collectively meant onely the Or~ 
 der orCoHedge of P aft ours or Presbyters. After thefc the No- 
 velifts, its neither fo nor fo ; but by Angel is meant one indi- 
 vidual Paftour, without relation to any other, newly called 
 an Independent , whereas our tenet is , by Angel , to under- 
 ftand one individual Ecclefiaftical perfon, having a Prelacy 
 above the reft. 
 
 XX. Thesis. 
 
 That our Oppofites firft Expofi$ion t \^hich r inter preteth the Ah* 
 gel to mean the whole Church and eongregation 9 u notably 
 extravagant* 
 
 (a) Lib. h ie a Lthough ( a ) Walo Mejfalhm, $ he grand Ad verfary to 
 
 Me'rlo^boc*' "•+*• Ep^ C0 P ac y> De vcr Y peremptory for this expofition, yet 
 
 fxumfperAn- will it altogether appear groundleffe. ''But firft we are to 
 
 gthsnibilaliud hearken unto his gloffe. Let it be held a firm andfixt truth % 
 
 voluijfe foban* (faith he) that by the name of Angels are not fignifiedavy that 
 
 nem defignari, ^^ Prefidencj over others , but the whale congregation and 
 
 Mm. E(m Chttrckos* So he ; Pythagorically upon his own word, as we 
 
 fee: whereuntowe may rather anfwer, Let it be held firmly 
 
 and fixtly , that this gloffe upon the Text is evidently confuted 
 
 by the context, which ftandeth thus, cap. i. and 20. The An* 
 
 gels arc called Starres, and the Churches Candle ft kki % fo that 
 
 he muft turn Starres into Candlefticks , before that he can 
 
 make the Angel to (ignifie the whole Congregation. Be- 
 
 fide cap. 2.j . the command to J*hn [sprite to the Angel of the 
 
 Church of Sfhe/m , where if by Angel muft be underftood 
 
 the Churchy then were it as much as to have been faid , Write 
 
 unto the Church of the Church of Spheftts. But WC know the 
 
 fpirit of wifdom could not write unwifely. 
 
 ^ XXI. Thesis* 
 
| Cv Tkertgbt */ Ep i s c op a c y. 
 
 XXI. Thesis. 
 
 3"«r4^ *#r Offofites fecond Sxpofitioneftke word Angel, tof%g. 
 mfie only the Order and Co Hedge of Presbyters } is erroneous^ 
 notwithstanding the Arguments of our Offofites to the con* 
 trary. 
 
 The Anfwer to their firfl Argument, 
 
 THis indeed is the common expoiuion of our oppofice:, 
 whereunto our ob/e&ours adhere, upon , as they cali 
 them firme Arguments^ as firft ; Our firji Argument ', fay they 
 is drawn from the Epiftle to the Church of 'Thy atira where after 
 it was [aid to the lAngeli £ I have fomething againft thee ] in 
 the fingular number, Cap. 2. 20. It is after added in the plural, 
 verr.24. [_ But I fay to you, and to the reft "] But what of this ? 
 This fkeweth (fay they) thewordAngellto be colletlive s to fig- 
 nifie a multitude of Paftours. We anfwer, if fo, then was Be- 
 z,a butdim-fighted, who paraphras'd upon thefe words thus 
 £unto you] that is (faith he,) unto the Angell as Prefident^ard 
 unto Colleguesi as unto the Aftembly ^meaning of Presbyters) 
 and to the reft, that is, to the whole flock* So he. Where 
 we fee that the Angell wars as individuall and fingular, as ei- 
 ther Thee, or Thy s And is it posfible our Oppolices fhould 
 be ignorant what an Apoftrophe is? And that there is 
 no figure of fpeech more familiar and ufualJ among men, then 
 it is ? As when a Lord writing to his chief Steward of matters 
 belonging to him and other Officers under him, and the whole 
 Family : Be thou circumfpetl in managing my affaire s^nd af* 
 terward as well unto him, as others, but fee that you and the 
 reft keep at home, as much as may be, becaufe of the danger of 
 the Peftilence which now rageth on ail fides* 
 
 Anfwer to the fecond Argument. 
 
 Our fecond Argument (fay they ) is drawn from the Phrafes smeft. vinih 
 even in tjiis very bool^ of Revelations ^wherein it is ufual to ex* cation* 
 prefs a company under a fingular perfon^at the civil State of 
 
 Rome 
 
f%erigbtifE m s c Op a ct ; 
 Rome called a Beafl with pen beads , which f revet h that the 
 Angell might be taken colleftively. Is this ail I Matter Meade 
 ( fay they) one better skU'din the meaning of the ReveUtion 9 
 then onr sdverfarj^aidjhat the word Angell is commonly £ if 
 not alvvayes ] in the Revelation taken collettivelj* So they. 
 This faying have I diligently fought after, but it fled from me : 
 But yet I (hall be content to be fatisfied of Mr. Meade his 
 meaning from his other fayings more obvious unto me,to ftiew, 
 that he hath not been rightly underftood by thefe obje- 
 dtours. For Colletlively, properly taken, is a word compre- 
 hending a multitude without diftin&ion of perfons, as Chrift 
 in his Lamentation faid, {O Hieru(alem % how oft would I have 
 gathered thy Children, but then Wouldfi not ] where the words 
 fi ngular Thou, and Thy, do here comprehend all the Citizens 
 ofRierufalem without diftin&ioQ. Had Matter Meade this 
 coile<5tivefenfe. ? He (heweth the fiat contrary, Apoc.y.iq, 
 £ four Angells ] Thefe four ( faith he ) were fut for Nations^ 
 which thej were thwght to Govern. So then, they did repre* 
 fent Nations, as notwithttanding to be diftin&ly their four 
 Governours. Next upon Revel. 14 6* £ I fa vv another An- 
 gell flying J We are to call to mind ( faith he^ that which be* 
 fore wot cap. y.jhewed : that the Angells of like Vifions do re* 
 frefent them i of Whom they have Government Vvhtrefoever* 
 And again upon verf. 7. The flying Angell is ruler, nop onely of 
 men, but alfo of a more eminent rmke* So he. If that our Ob- 
 jeclours had (according to Matter Meade 9 $ direction J but cal'd 
 to minde his own explanations, they might have eafiiy per- 
 ceived he faid no more, then as if we may grant that under the 
 word Angell, to whom the Epiftle is in fpeciall directed, are 
 implyed all thofe who are concerned therein. But how ? Not 
 by alteration of his perfon, but by communion of intereft, for 
 which caufe Matter Be*. a acknowledged him the Prefidcnt 
 over others, even as many other Proteftant Divines are ready 
 to do , and that as exactly as either we can defirc, or our Gp- 
 pofites mi Hike, when we come to difcharge the affirmative 
 point. 
 Two Anfwers we wift* our Oppofites to take into their fe- 
 
 cond 
 
Tk 'right tf/EpiscQPA cy w 4: 
 
 cond thoughts ; One, as they have prefented him by way of 
 comparifon, as totter skilfd in. the Book of the Revelation 
 then his adverfary : the other, as he is to be fingly refpe&ed* 
 and in his own worthineffe. To the firfi we fay , that compa- 
 rifon might well have been forborne, which cow provoketh 
 us to another comparifon 1 between him and one as dear to 
 our Oppofites as any other, whom they know to have been 
 as converfant in the Book of the Revelation altogether, where- 
 in he, notwithstanding, after the fecond and third Chapter f,. 
 hath been fo far from the collective interpretation of the 
 word A'*£el.l, that he hath not any where, as we can find, 
 fet it down as comprehending any Multitude , nay in many 
 places he expreffeth by name the individual perfons them- 
 selves, or fome Individnum Vagnm fignified thereby,fome (in- 
 gular notable one. 
 
 The confederation of Mafter Meade his worthineffe and 
 judgement touching Epifcopacy, would be had the rather, 
 becaufe we have read the Translation of his Book authored 
 in this manner,// is Order eh by the Committee of the Commons 
 Ho fife in Parliament^ that the B oolite ntitnled^ The Key of the 
 Revelation.be printed. So they. Which Key doth unlock unto 
 us his judgement in behalf of Epifcopacy , to be fo fully 
 according to the word of God, that part. 1. c. 4. v. 6j* p 35. 
 The four And twenty Elders (faith he) compajfe next about the 
 throne, which represent the Bifbops and ^Prelates of the Chur- 
 ches -, and do anfwer both in place and order to the Levites and 
 ^Priefls in the Camps of Ifrael, &e\ Thus Mafter Meade y fo 
 commended by our Oppofites themfelves , who if they {hall 
 approve his Key in this point , it is well , we in imparting thus 
 much unto them have but done our duty. 
 
 * The third Argument • 
 
 Our third Argument, fay they, is taken from the word An- 
 gel, as it is a common name to all Minifters and MelTengcrs, Sm&.wutfh- 
 and furely if Chrift had intended to point out any individuall 1? Hi * 
 perfon , he would have ufed fome diftinguifhing name, as to 
 have called him ?rtf)dent % Bettor 9 Superintendent, So they* 
 
 As 
 
4i The right of E? is c op a c h. 
 
 (a) cdlvln in- As if by this their (urelj they would allure us it is a Truth , if 
 ftitutLs.cz. w e (hall take their own word for it, contrary to the judge- 
 m'JtoftQti fnent0 ^ a ^the Learned, who have every where taught that 
 etfiexverbi E- ever fince Angelical Spirits were revealed to the world, the 
 tymriti ftc p(- word Angel, fpoken in the better part, hath beenufed to 
 (unt vocari om : expreffe the dignity of their Orfice, and accordingly of the 
 Ifri^uoriami Mini ^ ers °f God whenfoever it is applyed unto them : Ocher- 
 Dmmmitl wi ^ e our Oppofites , I think , would have gratified us with 
 tuntur nmcii 5 the allegation of fome one Author that ever fancied the con- 
 fer tamsn quia trary , whom notwithstanding we fhall endeavour to fatii- 
 magni refer* fa fy a p 3ra u e | j n t fo c wor d ^peftlcs ( Signifying Meffengers) 
 Te'mummlk whereof Mr. Calving) This word (faith he) according to its 
 cne uotimm, & tjmon agree tb to any Minifter of Chrift, yet was it entit tiled 
 qui rem imu- upon the twelve esf fifties 9 because they were the immediate 
 ditam afferent, Embaffadours ofchrift. So he. And yet we prefume that our 
 dUO ulaT'b U0 H~ ^PP°fi tes would not, becaufeof the Community thereof, call 
 uihante omnes either every Minifter of Chrift fent to preach the Gofpel , an 
 infigniriopu Apoftle ; or every Cobkr fent on a mefiage , an Angel. 
 
 tun, 
 
 Their fourth Argument* 
 
 * Smeti. vind. Our fourth Argument, fay they,ftandeth thus 5 * Our Savi- 
 i*& H 6 » our faith , that the (even Candiefticks are the feven Churches, 
 but he faith not likewife that the feven Starres are the feven 
 Angeh , but in mentioning Angels, omitteth the word feven, 
 which is not done without a Myftery j to wit, that the Angels 
 do not fignifie feven individual Paftours. So they. Whofe Te- 
 nents are two; Firft, that the ommiiTion of the word feven ar- 
 gueth a Myftery ; Secondly, that the Myftery Signified thereby 
 is this,*W the word Angel is not individually , but collettively 
 taken. We cannot but deny both , and fo willany even with 
 wonderment at the Objeclours boldnefTe in uttering fuch 
 their conceptions : for firft to call that a M) ftery, which by all 
 Grammar learning is in every Language moft common, by that 
 which the Grecians call &n>.<™ uiv^ that is a word not expref- 
 fed following upon courfc in the underftanding of any ratio- 
 nil Reader. As for example : If any one of our Oppofites 
 writing to any of his Servants to bring him his two Horfes, 
 
 the 
 
The right of E* is cop acv; 41 
 
 the black Horfeand the white, omitting in the fecond place 
 the word Hone, which word doth follow in courfe of com- 
 mon understanding • yet his man (hould bring only the 
 black, but not the white, might his excufe have been, It 
 was a Myftery ? 
 
 Secondly , were it that a Myftery {hould be imagined 
 therein, yet that denial of the word Angel , to be an indivi- 
 dual pcrfon in the Text>contradieleth the Context. The Con- 
 text ftandeth thus , cap. i . 26. The Starres are faid to be the 
 feven Angels of the Churches, & cap, 2. & 3. The fame An- 
 gels being recko ed, prove accordingly to be feven. In the 
 Context we have Numerum numerantem, in the Text Nuwe- 
 rum numeratum^ that that which maketh up a number, (hould 
 be faid not to refer unto a number , which was before exprefsM 
 by Chrift* He that hath a perfect natural ttand,isfaid to have 
 individually every finger, although he reckon thera not to 
 be five. 
 
 Their Ufi argument anfwereA. 
 
 This Argument f fay they) is taken from Chrifts devwei- Stne&ym.fa^ 
 at ion again ft the Angel of the Church of Ephefus , to remove I4 8 « W#W» 
 hi* C and left ick out of its place % if he did not repent : where tj 
 Candleftick is meant the Church or Congregation; 'But if 
 there by Angel were (ignified one individual per f on , then the 
 congregation and people Jhculd be punijled for the offence §f 
 that one Paftour, So they. Who would not have thus argued,if 
 they had confidered ; that by thus oppugning our Exposition, 
 they have as utterly undermined and overthrown their own. 
 As for example, their tenent hath been ; that by the word 
 Angel is fignified the Order and CoHedge of < Paflourt i in the 
 Church of Spbefus* Now then ( to return their own en- 
 gine upon them) if the Candleftick , (ignifying the Church, 
 fliould be removed out of its place , except thofe Paftours 
 ihould repent, then {hould the people and congregation be pu- 
 ntfhed for the fault of thofe Paftours. Therefore all the odds 
 that is between both the& confequences t is no more than 
 this, viv the punifhing of people for the fault of the Paftour: 
 
 G and 
 
^ Theright of Eim $ c Op a c V?- 
 
 and for the faults of the Paftours , in extremity equally , fine* 
 quaHyinbothj whereas they {hould have laboured to folve 
 the doubt by fome commodious , and congruous interpre- 
 tation. 
 
 Whether thus, if by Candleftick be to be underftood the 
 people : then by people to conceive fuch of whom the Pro- 
 phet fpake Uhe people lify Paftour, fo that the irrepentant peo- 
 ple adhering to the unpenitent Paftor , may juftly be involvd 
 in the fame ponifliment, Secondly, or thus, by taking the 
 word Candkftick to fignifle the Paftor himfelf , for the ^wi- 
 der? of the Gofpel are fo called , Mat. 5.15 And that ihe 
 fame word ftiould be diverfly taken in the fame fentence, can- 
 not be ftrange to him who is not a Granger to Scripture. As 
 where it is faid, He that fhali/ave his Ufe 9 (viz. Mortall ) {hall 
 looft bis lljs - to^ir, the Sternal ; And again, 2. C or * 5** *• 
 Of Chrsft , He thst kn?v> nofin, (properly taken) was made 
 for us fin , that is , a facrifice for fin, or elfe (not to feek fur- 
 ther) by di^nguiiliing of the word place , as here betoken- 
 ing mans eftate and condition with relation to others, in which 
 fenfe might the Church of Epkefus^ be removed by altering the 
 relation to that one Paftor , both by not acknowledging him 
 their B'lliop, and by withholding maintenance. 
 
 (z) Ttrigbtman XXII, Thesis. 
 
 jnApw.p. 11. 
 
 El bfo €Va ^te Tl9 ** mr °if°( ltes Mr ^ E x P*fi tion °f the *•& d*gcl % to fig- 
 ^aultlpeum ni fa one Qne h ? a ft 0r * n ^ g Church of Ephefus, is extreme- 
 trienndlcm in I) new and naught. 
 
 el Aft. 19. 10, 
 
 & 2.0. 3 1. t>U to**H#£ mif-begotten brat, namely an Expofition, which 
 ZZsriJSS' -*- before thefedayes of diftraaion never faw print, we 
 Ef//f. datum Us might think foould by and by vanifh with its ownnovel- 
 Timetbeum p« ty : How much more for the fafety thereof, which we are 
 ftorem aefati- rather to enquire after , feeming to us to be very tranfpa* 
 tifimamfr- wnt> £ or ^ rea f ons . w hj c h tne f e our Oppofites niight 
 
 ITtotanZ' nave read in (a) Mr. 'Brhhtma* , viz. The Citj of Ephe- 
 imgax'mm* fus was wore ennobled of all other , by Pauls Triennial la- 
 bow 
 
The right of*E hscopac y 4? 
 
 kour therein: Next, by the divine Spiftle written unto the 
 feofle th?re t ad alfo by that Timothy Was ordained their Paftor* 
 4ndbefvdes 9 for)ohti*% laborious watring thereof for fe many 
 years together. So he. But how fucceffefull were thefe then ? 
 this was told us in the Acts of the Apoftles, concerning the 
 Church of Ephefus j whereof it ssiaid , fo mightily grtwthtt 
 word of God) and prevailed* uibl. i p. 20. Now that after 
 Pants long refldence , after Timothies Paftorfhip , and after 
 Saint Johm watering of that Church, and fo long a time; 
 and that with fo admirable fuccefie, and yet here but one onely 
 Paftor among them. Is this credible ? What faith the Scri- 
 pture? The Harveft indeed is great^but the labourers are f eft 
 But here in the mightily great Harveft, the labourers are fewer 
 then few. We ought not to be blamed for medling with fuch 
 trifles in earned, but that our ftudy hath been to weed outeven 
 the leaft fcruples, now that we are to expedite a matter of high- 
 eft importance, which is our proof of Epifcopacy from the word 
 of God: and to that parpofe from confutation of the negative 
 part held by our Oppofite?, we paffe to the proofes and confir- 
 mations of our affirmative* 
 
 KX1II. Thesis. 
 
 That by the nerd Angel of Ephefus \ to fignife a fingular 
 and individual Paflor having a Prelacy over Presbyter s % 
 is proved by a large confent ofTroteftant Divines Without 
 exception judicious and ingenuous. \ 
 
 THe Divines, which we foall produce ftiall be tbofe, , s Mafter25 ^ 
 whom our Oppofites themfelves cannot call Partialis ^ his notes 
 in behair of Biftiops, whether they be of remote Chur- upon the Apoc. 
 ches, or as it were domeftiques in our own Country. Of the a. i« 
 firft kind, we allcadge the laft chief Paftor of the Church 
 of geneva (a) Mailer Deodate, who is to be cited out of 
 his Book lately authoriz'd to be publifti'd , by Order of the 
 Houfe of Commons this Parliament. The Text in the Reve- 
 lations is, Write to the Angel of the Church of Efhejus : His 
 
 G 2 ' pataphrafe 
 
^6 The right of E J> i s t o p a e y ; 
 
 (b) Beii in paraphrafe thus. That is, faith he , to the Paftor or Bifliop "| 
 jipoczA.An- un c[er whofe perfon ought to be underftood the whole 
 gdm Twut* 9 church - The c « urch co be implyed or underftood , and the 
 fiZncrie* Paftor or Bifliop, under whofe perfon, which, becaufe perfon 
 pereum Colle- can be but one , according to the Etjmon o( the word Angel, 
 gas % totamque ^perfona qua ft per fe una ; Or as it is defin'd in Philofophy. A 
 *dsoEccle(ia>n. p er f Qn & an individual intelieclual Nature * yet io in this 
 
 S^f;l wm. P i:ice as ^e b ^ n S t0 ac q uain£ al1 with tae contents of this Epi- 
 conch (eptimal ftle,ali were underload to be concerned in him , as afl the other 
 Hemoautem following witnefres will acknowledge. Before him in the fame 
 exiftimet bme Church of Geneva was Theodore (b) 'Bez.ajy tAngel (fmh 
 Epiofilam urj h * ^ mgam h p r£ ftdent. w ho was ad monifh'd and his Col* 
 tnfemtam An* ,-' . . ,. c « 
 
 gelo/i e. Epif- l *g H * 5 mth him * So he ' 
 
 copovelptflofi, (c) #/*//*ag«?r, although he,as others affirmjthat the Epiftlc 
 nlbiUi Ecele- concerneth as well People as Paftors , yet doth he confem un- 
 fiam t € pi n * re ' to us,that, the Bpiftls wai in[cribed to one^by whom the Paftors 
 EtlftolaEpi™ 4»d people might ie enformed: As punctually and pertinently 
 pbonemaad)ici<* (d) Marlorqt , fome things (faith he J were to be correEled 
 tur. £>ui habet m well in the people at in the Clergy; jet doth not John addrefs 
 eurcm audiat him felf unto the people nor yet to the Clergy , but to the chief 
 W d S S l ff.* cf them, which it the Bi/bop, and that not without good reajon. 
 ^mnatureu So ^ e * Of our c ^ lc ^ W Gualther held the fame opinion 
 go pijior, fed with further evidence of thefe other words. £ Unto the An- 
 nontxcludun- gel of the Church of Smyrna write] that is , faith he, To the 
 tut ovicula 5 Blfbop thereof \m Hiftories do manifefl. (f) Gafpar Sibilius $ 
 l AmdQh\cn- having compared the divers Expofitions, confefs'd , faying, 
 bitur, utadmo- Thie.as fpo^en but of fine Angeljleafeth me better, (g) Pifca- 
 veantur Pa/to- tor briefly and confonantly to the tsfngel, that is, to the 'Bifhop 
 res, inipfisefe m ito the Church: namely Bifliop expreflely, and Church 
 mTwEcdcl. con ^ ucntly » becaufe of matters of concernment to them al- 
 U)MarloraUn fo« (h) P*r*** doubteth not to make his explanation as ge- 
 *Apoc. 1. 1 1. neraliy to be obferv'd in thefe Epiftles. It u the word of £hrift 
 *%uamvis qua* 
 
 dam tarn in Qero } qnlm in populo corrigenda e{j'cnt,non tamen populum, fed Clerum aggreditur t 
 ntc quemlibct de Clero.nominatim principem Qteri 9 utiquc Epifeopum. (c) gualtbcr.Rom. 9. 
 in Apoc 8« Angtlo, id eft, EpifcopoSmyrncnfiyatqueaieotouEcctejiaiconjlatexHiftoriif 
 Polycarpumfuiffehunc *Angelum.(0 Gafpar, Sib. in 4p$c. p, i8$# deuno fmgulari Angela qua 
 (ententia mibi magk arridet. (g) *2i(c£torincgniemApoc.[Angelo']ideft,Epi(copo % necnon 
 ippEtelcfi* (h) Paratit [Angelo Ephefinae Eccleiiae] fie vatat faftorem ejtt$,eadem apclla* 
 tmc Cbrifita aiiarum Eulcjtarum Epiftopos di&natur, 
 
 ((aitt| 
 
Tht right of Ep iscopacy, 47 
 
 ( faith he) that that, which is meant to the Churchjhould be & iAretlm 
 infcribed to the 'Bijhop of the place t or Church. (i) Aretius is ^"S^ ^ * 
 ofnolefTeefteem then the former, and as pun&uali altoge- c ilfj^r quem 
 ther, by Angel interpreting afpeciall one Minifler, andTHfci- a dtotum mum 
 pie of] ohn ; bj Whom the writing might be commended to the res poferantur. 
 while Church* (k.) Peter Martyr ufed to be reckoned among WP- Martyr 
 the firft Worthies. fob* (h\th he) was commanded to write to J^jJgT 
 theAngelsyWhoweretheBiJhopsofthe^hurches. Bat what lt x ha7ines 
 do we multiply remote Authors, when one of their Dodons jubetui fcribere 
 may fatisfy us both for the generall, and for himfelf ? (I) All ad Angeloj E<?- 
 the mofl learned Interpreters^ faith Dr. Scultetusj by Angels tk/tartm t j?U- 
 txpound the Ttifhops of the Churches, nor can it be otherwife 2LL * ■■': 
 Interpreted witha #t violence to the Text. So he. After our fyscuttem 
 fo long peregrination io remote Churches, it is time tohafte obfavat in 
 home, to try what our own Englifo Divines have fudged ©F Ti^Vo^isjind 
 this matter ; and left now we be too numerous, we fhall (ingle WJ* fySJi* 
 out three, who will be held lingular in the eftimation of our Ecclefimim 
 Oppofkes themfelves, (m) Dr. Reynolds. Although in the Angelas inter- 
 Church efSphefta, faith habere were (undry Elders and Pa- pretantur fef- 
 ftors toguidit > yet i among thc/e [undry, "toot there one Chiefs temEccleftamm 
 whom our Saviour caUeth the An^el of the Church. Apoc. 2. f^emm^aUtcr 
 So he- His words need no Paraphrafe. (»)Dr. Ful{e is one of fogunt.iim nifi 
 them whom our Oppofices have cited for their part, who, if he facereteztui 
 fpeak dire&ly againft them, they may not be offended with w//»*. 
 US. The Epijlle to Per gamut, tilth he,was dire tied to the <Bi- jJJ^^J" 
 fhop thereof. We have referved Mafter Cartwright to the lad. Conference, 
 that his Teftimony may be more lading in the memory of our with Hart. c t z. 
 Oppofites, as from one who ufeth to be mod: gratefull unto divifo.3. 
 them.7^ letters written to the Churches, faith hc^were there- { n )j° r ' Ful h* 
 fore dire tied to the Angel> becaufe he is the meetefl man by of- p^JJ^g 
 fice^bj whom theChurcb may under ftand the tenor of the letter. EccUfiaEp(cQ m 
 So he, and fo they. Although this Cloud of witnefles thus rai- pmEpijiola 
 ning down aboundance of Teftimonies, for proof of an Apofto- baG dejthatur. 
 licall originall of Epifcopacy, may juftly be held fo convin- »°/j^ r ' f^" 
 cent , that nothing buw ":lfeneflfe in any party can oppofe any Rfaems Tefbu 
 thing againft it, yet (hall we furthermore fortify their proofes, ment upon A* 
 defiring that this one thing may be obferved, (to wit) she rea- P°c *» 
 
 fon 
 
48 iherightof&vitcovkcxt 
 
 ion why all oar Oppofites have ftrugled againft this our Ex- 
 poficion, as a break-neck to their whole caufej butwee'll 
 goon. 
 
 •-, XXIV. Thesis, 
 
 That Antiquity held not the word Angel (whereof we treat) 
 to be taken Collectively for a multitude of Paftours. 
 
 i 
 
 F that our Oppofites had not faid that we cited no ancient 
 
 Fathers for our expofition, we fhould not have framed this 
 
 Tnefis; only we cannot tell with what appetite they did 
 
 it : Is it thauhey hold the judgement of Fathers fatisfaftory 
 
 % in this cafe ? Why then have they not alleadged any one fyi- 
 
 lable out of them for their own collective fenfe ? But we lift 
 
 not to expoftulate, rather hoping the beft, we entreat them to 
 
 (a) Amhrof. in fpell the words of (a) tsimbro/e, they are but few, 1 call hi- 
 
 i Corint.u An- fkofs Angeh % as I am taught in the Revelation. What Am- 
 
 gtios Epifcopos fr ro f e meant by Bifhops who can doubt ? Likewife (b) Augu* 
 
 iTdTcahlT fi lne thc famous Bi(h °P of Hi^#,faitb > of one of thefe Angels, 
 
 tfolannct. * That he was fet over the Qhurch by the divine voice ("meaning 
 
 (b)<sAuguft t E- the Scriprure.J if* Scultetus when he faid, that all the mod 
 
 pft.jft, z>i- learned Interpreters 3 by Angels, underftood Biihops ; if among 
 
 vindvocelau* jj^ he comprehend the Ancients, we have not to feek more 
 
 nomine frJp. witneffo • however, we need not, becaufe there is but very 
 
 fitwEeclefia. rare commenting upon the Apocalyps among the Fathers, 
 
 * See above, rnuch lefTe upon thefe Texts. All this notwithftanding we are 
 
 fure of that what is wanting in their Comn>entaries,they fupply 
 
 in their KiftoricaH relations, as will appear by and by, rendring 
 
 unto us one Polycarpus BiQiop and Martyr to have been one 
 
 of thefe Angclls in the Church of Smyrna. In the interim we 
 
 will plead Reafon with our oppofites. 
 
 XXV. Thesis. 
 
 That the word Angel in other places of the Revelation is com* 
 monly if not alwayes Individually taken. 
 
 B 
 
 Etter reafon they cannot expect then is the retorting of 
 their own Argument upon them 5 When they diflike this, 
 
 Tit 
 
The right of Ei>Xs cop act,' 49 
 
 The word AngeU U commonly \ if rut alwayes taken Colleftivefo 
 trgo, ought it to be fo interpreted in the (econd And third cap. 
 So they; but altogether amitfe, as hath been (hewen. It will 
 be our part to prove the contradictory, whereof upon obferva- 
 tion in reading Commentaries upon the Revelation, we are the 
 more confident j our Oppofites at their leifure may inquire to 
 other Authors ; We for this prefenfc fball need but commend^ j Erhbtmaw- 
 a fpecial one unto them who in their opinion may (land for m&'nmincl$.7.t. 
 ny,becaufe only now at hand* He after thefe two Chapters"!*/*. Conftan- 
 ( as the Marginalls ihew ; (*) through his whole Comment* • ^^V/* 
 ries upon the fame 'Book, taketh the word A*gel fo far inM- [ ans j.^q^. 
 viduaUj, as to enter pret it of feme one perfon, either exprefly by Magnus c. 10, 
 name, or elfe equivakntlj by an Individuum vagum & thm y zAngelm robu- 
 fome notable one, or the like. '. frt^cf ^'i 
 
 In the fecond place, we do appeale to the Texts them- There fcfeven* 
 felvesto give a fufficient tafte; foroftentimethe Angels are times alius Aw- 
 reckoned feven, and after diftributed ordmativtly into firft^^andof 
 fecond, third, and fo till the feventh, as plainly as one can ^^ r *£ ce 
 reckon the feven dayes in the week, Chap. 15. and l6t ^tmtetidm 
 Afterwards we have recited one Angel having the Key of the^^ w . w -. 
 bottomlelTe pit, Chap. ao» was there need of a Collectively ri,&cv. j?» 
 underftood multitude of Angels to keep one Key? The like Ajm i mproba : 
 may be faid of a mighty Angel for delivering a little D00 ^ e >^ a na ^af- 
 Chap* 19. 1, 2. Befides the Angel whom John is faid to have^, j yj" h a ' 
 worfhiped, Chap. 22. will they fay this Angel alfo to com- fondly, v. it. 
 prehend a Multitude ? Then might the Angel reply, have you sAngeius alms 
 forgot when I faid to John, J am thy fellow Servant, but five *Aj"^. (>*«- 
 words* and every one an Individual!. ™iusTfo &L 
 
 Thirdly, to return to the queftioced Text, whereas fomc mimiCa ^ ,/, 
 of the Angels are commended for notable vertues, and as sunt 7 . AngeU, 
 much condemned for fpme notorious vices ; they that think v.x.Angtim 
 t-bac ail the fame vices and vertues did as well imply every gTfa* ll * Sem 
 Paftour in all the Colleges of the feven Churches, may 29 well C undus?'id ejtl 
 conceive , that where the deformities are noted in any Cor- Mart, cbemnh 
 
 geha Aquarian) ClvU aliquis ZMdgiftram, v. 7. &Alm Angelas. Units aliquk,. Videatrelipa 
 UttoT) sap, 16. vcr(, a,$. 5.7. iii 17. w£« 18, yerf* iiiftf^i?, verf* 17* 
 
 poMtioa 
 
jo fht right ofEvistoeAtto 
 
 poration, therefore every perfon in it is equally rlat-fiofe^ 
 crook'c- legged, bald-headed, and the like, 
 
 Lailiy, the Angels and Churches being both reckoned diftin* 
 dly feven times, that there fhouid be a Colleclive number of 
 the Order of Paftours, without fo much as any infinuation of 
 didinguiihing them either from Angels , or Churches ; have 
 they any Key to unlock fuch a Myftery ? From this kind of 
 reasoning, we paffe unto an evidence of no lefle importance, 
 Hifioricall Experience, and Practice, 
 
 XXVI. Thesis. 
 
 That by Angel is meant Individually one *Bi/hep t u demo** 
 ftrated by Hiftorieall learning without contradiction. 
 
 H 
 
 Iftory is the life of memory, and memoriall of mens 
 lives, if it may be undubitably had, it muft necerTarily 
 feal up the verity of all that hath been faid of an Apoftolicall 
 Inftitution of Epifcopacy, whereof we have had evident in- 
 ftances in the Epifcopall Traditions from fames in Jerusalem, 
 MarkjwtAlexandy'ta) P tier in Antioch and in Rome : And 
 now wc are toinfift upon examples of the defcent from John 
 in two of thefe Angelical Churches Ephefus and Smyrna. For 
 theflrft, it hath been made good unto you out of 8ufebiKt 9 
 (z)Poljcrat.E- tnat 0) yolycratesmkhimfetfBi/hopofEphtfaStteftifying 
 f>ift,adVifto- Wit hall aline of (even Bifhops of his own kindred^ his Prede^ 
 remapudEuftb ceffours : W hereunto may be added the Declaration made by 
 Hi(t. lib. 5. Leontitts the Archbifhop oiMagnefta in the general (£)Coun- 
 C (b)condi fai. cellof C*/w^»of the fucccflion of the feven and twenty Bi- 
 (cd. Aft. i 1. fhops from Timothy in the fame Church of Efhefns • which 
 Timothy, all antiquity with a large confent of raoft approved 
 Proteftant Divines have teftified to have been Bifhop there • 
 none will think , but ftiame it felf would have reftrained 
 Ltontim from making fuch a publique Declaration in the hear- 
 ing of fix hundred Fathers affcmbled in this Councell, if the 
 matter it felf had been liable to any contradidion. The 
 next inftance ( as wc are perfwaded) may be held fatisfadroy 
 
 and 
 
The right of Ep t s c op a c y; 5X 
 
 aad frJringeable in it fclf, in Polycarpus Bifcop of Smyrna, in 
 the dayes when Saint •/*&# lived t - Our witntfies deferve your 
 hearing, we will begin with the vericft junior of all, faying, 
 (c) Poly carpus who had been Difciple to one that heard the (c)Pikronyml 
 Lord, And afterward burnt a Martyr of Chrift,?? as ordained dt Scrip, Ecctef* 
 Bifbop */ Smyrna by Saint John, (c) So Hierome. Another, J^riZfofZ 
 Tolycirpm'Bi flop and Martyr, Was placed by John ^'V&^'f /*'*£» l $* t \ 
 Smyrna* So(d) Eufebius. A third before him. By Johnw^ Smyrna Epifce* 
 Polycarpus confiitutedBi/bep of Smyrna. So(e)Ter$u/lian. And ?«* ordinatw, 
 before mm a fourth teftifieth as one that had feen this Vely- *wmj$<* 
 carpus, That after that he had been inftrutiedby the Jpofiles ^^JuUos 
 ef Qhrifi^ with whom he had been ccnverf ant, he yeas wade by ApojiUorumqui 
 them Btjbop of Smyrna. So {f) Ireneue . We afcend fame* Tfominum vide- 
 what higher, to one who write an Epiftle to the fame Pdycar* rmt Magflw 
 fus, intituling him the Bifhopof Smyrna-, and in his Epiftle to h /^ t em p %^ 
 the Church of Smyrna, faluting him as their Bifhop. (g) lg- ^ ' reg nante 
 watius'm thefe Epiftles and fayings which Vedelins the Pro- Marco eAntonfo 
 feffour in the Church of Geneva, and an exact difcerner and quart* pofttfe- 
 difcoverer of the corruptions crept into his writings , doth ™ nm P'fcw- 
 hold as genuine and legitimate. - Can our Oppofites require a ^//h^wm- 
 greater confirmation of any hiftoricail point, which they f u i € <&> unfacr- 
 themfelvcs maintain, as more amply teftified then this is? fopoputeinAm* 
 whereto as many of our former Proteftant Divines did fub- $it\iet. *dver- 
 fcribe, fo is there not one, taour knowledge, from this Saint ^Uet^mtm 
 John that ever did contradict it. dim J* 
 
 (d) Eufeb, «/*- 
 UmTolycarpus. Epi(c. & Martyr (uffrdiiis Smymenf, EpifcofAtum obtinuit. (e) Tertull. 
 frafcript. cap, z$. a fobanne Smyrna cdloeatus. Eufeb. Hift.lib. $ % t, $o. Epifcofm Imyrn* 
 ab iis qui erant avroaroi r Kvfh, (J) Iren. lib. ? . cap, 3 . vide & apud Eufeb lib. 3 » e, ? y, 
 UokuM.*}*©- cTs ov y/ow, &t. Polycarpus nonfolum edoffus a Cbrifti difeiputis & cornier* 
 fattcs apud mulm qui Cbrijtum ipfum viierunt, verum etiam ab Apoflolu eonftitutus Epifcoput 
 Ecchfiain&AjiaquA dicitur Smyrna, quern in tcncranoftra atate nos ipfi vidimus; dm enim 
 vixit & valde fenex per nobile & gloriofum Martyrium vita decejfit (g) Ignatius Epifi. 
 TIo*.vk&$wc* Ww>*a iKKMQ-tetc 2ftvpftfi«v & Epifi. ai Smyrnenjes , £tfm&p&e 
 afi&W vpM ■$foffMirQv UohvK^7TQy 9 Vedelim, Emrih iu ifias Zfift. 
 
 H KXVIIt T»s- 
 
bright ef Ep i s c ojac y. 
 
 XXVII. Thesis* 
 
 That (hrift himfelf foeWed hk approbation of the PreUcj 
 Vehick the f ore f aid Angsts had in their fever all ^htirches, 
 
 THcre was yet never either favourites to Epifcopacy, nor 
 oppofites againft it, but have granted, that whatfoever 
 the Government was meant in thefe feven Churches, it had 
 the approbation of Chrift, by the tenour of his Epiftles writ- 
 ten unto them. Firft from the words of the Chap. i,i*[The 
 Revelation of fefuv Chrift fent by his ^Angel to his Servant 
 John 3 to acknowledge the Epiftles to have been dictated 
 by Chrift himfelf, conveied by an Angel to Iohn t and as it fol- 
 loweth in the fecond and third Chapters, distributed by Iohn 
 to the feverall Angels, and communicated to the Churches. 
 After this, by the vertue of the fame letters, an inquiiition is 
 made, (as it were a Vifitation kept^ upon every Angel of the 
 Churches, concerning the difebarge of theit offices ; wherein 
 two of them are found of weighc and commendable, the 
 Other five, more or leffe criminally delinquents, yetfo, as to 
 manifeft a jollification of the Offices. The approbation of the 
 function is feen , not only ( which reafon none can deny ) by 
 Chrift his commending their diligence, *,<?*/, and faithfttll- 
 netfe • but even likewife in his procefle ofconvittions, repre* 
 henfions r and dennntiations againft their remif[enep % diffolute- 
 neffc % and faith) 'nine ffe of others ; but how ? certainly, fo that 
 the condemnation of their vices and abufes argued an appro- 
 bation of their Offices and Functions, becaufe it was done, not 
 with an ibfolute intent to remove them at the firft, but onely 
 to reforrae them, and continue them upon their Reformation ; 
 therefore was it (aid from Chrift to one, Repent, or elfe r &c* 
 Chap. 2. 5»& 1 6. to another, Repent y if not t l^U come againfi 
 thee 9 and the like ; this we fee was no deprivation of the Of- 
 ficers at firft, much leffe abolition of the Offices which were 
 to continue from age to age. 
 The laft poynt will be our Affumption from all thefe pre- 
 
 miffes^ 
 
The right ^/EpIscOpac^ j$ 
 
 imffesi Which h] that thefe Angels, being fo amply, evident 
 ly , and with fo unanimous confent of the moft and be ft ap- 
 proved Proteftant Divines, agreeable to Hiftoricall pra&ifcof 
 Apoftolicall Churches , proved to hare been fucb Bifhops as 
 had a Prelacy over the Clergy with Chrifts own approbation, 
 a truths which the evidence of thefe Scriptures did exprtffe in 
 part from (a) 2^ahimfelf$ his fentence is large, confiding ^) B%ade 
 of thefe briefes ; Firft, that the Spifcopacy which (eemed to Minijt.grad. 
 him to be regulate , Was to be collected out of this Scripture of Mp \ ? • ^Jd 
 the Apocalypse Secondly, that the fame Was a Trefdency, ° t ^i n J^ 
 tnd'Prefecl are/hip of one <P res bj 'ter ever the reft. Thirdly, Jj'fjf* JfaEc* 
 that it Was a Prelacy of *Anthoritj. Fourthly, that Hierorne defiafeptem 
 'Was of judgement* Fifthly, that to hold other Wife , Wert to babuerunt Epjf- 
 doate and play thefooh all which prove the difference of Bifhop €9 F'> divln } 
 and Presbyter both to have been of Apoftolicall Inftitution, be- Tn^Une^bt 
 caufe under John in the Church ofesffa $ and to have had the prtfeftos, Apt* 
 approbation of Chrift, becaufeofChrift his commendation of jtoiofmgulosil* 
 the faithfull difcharge of this Function, which fully makes losfingularm 
 good unto us both our conclufions, That £pifcepacj for |fff£f 
 Office and Function ttfelf^ according to the Word of God l ana g m p e Ugturo 9 
 in rejpett ofnfe, therefore the Beft. & cu ip am mali 
 
 obtia funftionk 
 minimi iUU attributuro , nifieminemior fuifftt emm in Eeclepa regimhe auBoriiMs Hot 9 
 jnquam,quor(umadvcr(usHicT9n}mum& ms torques? nee enim ille, quum diceret Ecclefitf 
 initio fni fie communi Ptubyttrorum eonfiliogubernatas i ita defyuifie cxiftim&ndus e$ 3 u$ (om* 
 wrttnemitiem ex PfeifyterUiUicKtui frafuijfe, g^ 
 
 H % THE 
 
54 
 
 The Original! of Bishops and 
 
 Metropolitans, briefly laid 
 down by fames , Arck-Bijhop 
 
 Of ASMAGH. 
 
 tfEfa 66 i 
 
 He ground of Epifcopacy is derived partly 
 from the patterne perfcrifaed by God in 
 the Old Teftament ; and partly from the 
 imitation thereof brought in by the Apo- 
 flies and confirmed by Chrifi himfejf 
 in the time of the NeV>s>) The government 
 of the Church of the Old-Teftament 
 was committed to the Priefts and Levitt -i unto whom the 
 Minifters of the 2\£f V* do now fucceed ; in like fort ts 
 our Lords-day hath done unto their Sabbath, that it might 
 be fulfilled which was fpoken by the Prophet, touching the 
 vocation of the Gentiles. (<*) I mil take of them {or Priefts^ 
 and for Levits, faith the Lord* 
 
 That the Priefts were fuperiour to the Levlts, no man 
 doubteth : and that there was not a parity, either betwixt the 
 Priefts ot betwixt the I^v/V/ themfelves, is manifeft by the 
 word of God $ wherein mention is made of the Heads and Ru* 
 lers both of the one, and of the other, i Cbron.XXlV. 6Ai 
 tnd£*r.VIII. 29. 
 
 The Levitt were diftributed into the three families of the 
 Gerfbonitet, Cohathitet, and Mtrariteti and over each of 
 
 them 
 
 ■M 
 
The OrigivatfofB I s hop si- 5 $ 
 
 them God appointed one XW2 hx av or Kuler 9 Num. III. 24. 
 30.35. the Priefts were divided by David into four and twen- 
 ty courfes *, iC£r*»,XXlV. Who likewife bad their Heads ; 
 who in the Hiftory of the New-Teftament are ordinarily called 
 (b) apx'€?«?» or chief of the Priefts ; and clearly diftingulfhed BMatth.i. 4 . 
 from that Angular one, who was the type of our ^r***- and 17. 
 High Priefts that is faffed into the Heavens, Jeftts the Son Aft. 19. 14- See,. 
 #/5W. Yea in the XI. of Nehemy, we find two named Si- - 4 ' * 4 ' 
 /&^j, the one of the Priefts^ the other of the Levits that dweis 
 in ferufa/em* The former fo expreflly tearmed by the Greek 
 in the 14. the latter both by the Greek and Latin Interpreter 
 in the * 22 verf. and not without approbation of the Scripture * et/^ot©- 
 \t felf, which rendreth the (d) Hebrew word of the fame aswtSv.LXX 
 originallin the OU % by the (e) Greeke hmwjh in the ^rj^- lEpftopA 
 TeftamenU h^T*' 
 
 OiLevi it was faid-by Mofes the man of God (f) They jlf^ 
 [baU teach Jacob thy judgement s 9 and Ifrael thy law , they [hall pf a i. \o 9 . 8. 
 put incenfe before thee ^ and whole brunt facrifice upon thine cA&s. i.io. 
 >f /f4r. Becaufe this latter part of their office hath ceafed with /Dent, j $. 
 them, and the Leviticall Altar ( the truth prefigured thereby I0 * 
 being now exhibited)is quite taken away a- May not we there- 
 fore conclude out of the former part ( which hath no fuch ty- 
 picall relation an it ) that our Bifbops and Presbyters {hould be 
 ( as the Apoftle would have them to be) (g ) Amavrmoi apt to - x Tira§ 2 : 
 teach\ (h) able by found doBrine both to exhort, and to con- b Titi f 9. 
 vince the gain- fay ers ?' Nay, and out of the latter part it felf; rDeut aS, 1, 
 where God had appointed* that (*:) the Priefts the Levits and 
 all the Tribe ofLvs'xfhostldeat the offerings of the Lord made by 
 fire ; doth not the Apoftle by juft analogy inferre from thence, 
 that for afmuch as (kj they -which waited at the Altar , were ^ x Cor. 9. 1 $ $ 
 partaker with the Altar ; even fo had the Lord ordained^ that 14. 
 they which preached the GofpeU, fbould live of the gefpell } , 
 
 With what : (hew of reafon then can any man imagine, that 
 what was inftituted by God'm the Law„ for raeere matter of 
 Ciovemment and prefervation of good order ( without all re- 
 fpe&oftype or ceremony; ) fhould now be rejected in the 
 Gofpe/l % as a device oiAmiehrift ? That what was by the Lord 
 
 once 
 
5 $ The Origindl ofb I s h o p s ; ' 
 
 i Jcrem. 2. a. mct(l)pl*nted a noble vinejvholly aright (eidfiaoxAi now be 
 
 fo turned into the degenerate plant ofaflrange vine ; that no 
 
 purging or pruning of it will ferve the turne, but it muftbe 
 
 m Matth. 1 J. cut ^ own roo£ aoc * branch, as (m) a plant Which our heavenly 
 
 1 j. Father had never planted} But nothing being fo familiar now 
 
 adayes, as to father upon Antichrift, whatfoever in Church 
 
 matters we do not rind to fuite with our own humors : The 
 
 'fafeft way will be, toconfult with Chrift himfelf herein, and 
 
 hear wl at he dclivereth in the caufe. 
 
 Theje things faith he > that hath the [even Starves* Revel. 
 I II. x. he ownetb then, we fee,thefe Starrs ; whatfoever they be. 
 And,the My fiery of them he thus further openeth unto his be- 
 loved Difciple. The [even Starrs which thou faWifiin my 
 right hand % are the Angels of the (even Churches* Revel.I.20. 
 From which words a learned man , very much devoted to the 
 now fo highly admired Difclpline, deduceth this conclufion. 
 .. (n)HoW great therefore U the dignity of true paftottrs, Wh» 
 uflfriMve- * re both STAllRES, fixed in no other firmament then in the 
 nrumiafto. right hand of Chrifi, and AN G E L S ? 
 rum, qui turn He had considered well, that in the Church of Epb€fm( one 
 fietla (unt, non Q c tne f even h ere pointed at ) there were many (0) PRE S- 
 in aliofirm- 3 Y T E R S, whom the holy qhofi had made BISHOPS, 
 7mAchm or Over feers, over all that flock., tofeed the Church of God, 
 fxaJumsAn- Which he had pur chafed With hisoWn blood* And withall he 
 ge/z?r.Biight- fawi that by admitting one /f^/ there above the reft ( all, 
 mon. in Apoca- as we u ^ extraordinary Propbets^qjordinwy PafteHrsJbc- 
 ^Aft 1 o°'i7 i^S m ^ Klt own ^ evera ^ Nations accounted Angels or Me f 
 * 2 % t ' ,I7 ' fengersof the Lord of Hofts ^ he fliould be forced alfo to ac- 
 f Judg. ii b knowledge the eminency of one *BiJhop above the other 'Bifhops 
 Hagg i.i?. ( t hat name being in thofe dayesfr J common unto all the Prcs- 
 ^"ach 1 * 18, h ters ) and to yeeld withall, that fuch a one was to be 
 f PhMp.ii?" efteemed as a ft ar re fixed in no other firmament^ then in the 
 1 Tim. 1 . x. right hand of Chrift. 
 
 Tit. i. 5, 7. To fal ve this therefore ; all the flarrs in every Church muft 
 
 be prefuppofed to be of one magnitude, and though thofe 
 ftarrs which typified thefe tsfngels are faid to be but feven % 
 yet the Angels therafdves muft be maintained to be farre 
 
 more 
 
The Original ^/Bishops, J7 
 
 more in number : and in fine, where our Saviour Saith/ZJ unto f Revel, ?. /. 
 the Anoel of the Church of Ephefm write • k mult by no c Ne f mi al h 
 means be admitted, that (*J> any 0»f^»£*/ihouJd be.rrjeanE umurt fUtoti 
 hereby , but the wW* Coliedgeof P afters rather. And all (n f /^ ffwKj) 
 upon pretence of a poor fhew of Tome ilullow reafons ; that Cotiegh Ptjto- 
 there w^ not one Ansel of Ephefus but many, and among- ru „ m 5 2 ui mm 
 them not any PrtnctpaL , r voce com pre. 
 
 Which wreihng of the plan words of our Saviour is fo btnimtur.Hon 
 extream violent, that M. Beza ( though every way as zea- cnim mm a at 
 loufly afre&ed to the advancement of the new Difcipline, as AngelmEfieji, 
 was the other) could by no means digeft it : but ingenuoufly faf %**?%** 
 acknowledged the meaning of our Lords diredion to have *'l 4r'mtp. 
 been this, (tt) To the hngeljhat itjtoihs Prsfident^ as whom Brightman in 
 it behoved (pecially to be admomfhed touching thofe matters ; Apocalypf :.t. 
 and by him both the reft of hid colleAgMs^ndthe whole Church " ?Q a-yh*>y» 
 likewife. And that there was then a (landing Prefident over ^^^zS 
 the reft of the Paftors of Ephefm , and he the very fame (as c prmit inpri- 
 learned (x ) Dodor Rjnolds addeth ) with hira whom after- mUdsbk nbm 
 Ward the Fathers called Bijbop : may further be made manifeft, odmoncri f ac$cv 
 not only by the fucceflion of the firft Bifoops of that Church, [? X*"" 
 bucalfoby the clear teftimony of Ignatius % who (within J m que aTw 
 no greater com paffe of time then twelve years afterwards) Ecciejiam.Btzi 
 diftiaguilheth the lingular and conftant *Prefident thereof, in Apocalypf. 
 from the reft of the number of the Tresbyters 9 by appropriate- z - *• 
 ing the name of Bifiopmto him. li&mZ™. 
 
 As for the former , we find it openly declared in the gene- ]j v i{. u 
 ral Council of £halcedon , by Leontius Bidiop of Magnefta . y i a<t3 £ dyi* 
 shat(?)from Timothie(*nd fo from the dayes of the Apoftles) T///o£s»//exp* 
 there had been a continued fucceflion of [even and twenty Bi~ v £* «**r/£VR 
 fi*fs ; all of them ordained in Ephefus, Of which number the *™*™%w 
 Angel of the Church of Bphsjus, mentioned in theRevela- s/EpWpfysi- 
 tioo,muft needs be one : whether it were Timothie himfelf, foTovhSiwav. 
 as (*) fome conceive ; or one of his next SuccetTours a as others cwtii. choice- 
 ratkr do imagine, &i&£ to , 
 
 Apocalypf, cap. i, difp* t. Alcafa : Prosem. in caj>. i } & j. Apscal, notac, t. & Pecr,HaU 
 lois, Hotm. in viu Polycarp, cap* 7, 
 
y g The Orignal of B I s h o p '*} 
 
 zHctandumeft For that Timothie had been fome time 60 * the •g,«rJ r 
 exbochco,Tf. (which is the appellation that (#) Jufiin Martyr , inhi&fe- 
 
 SS" P^£ C ° nd Ap ° !0gy f ° r Chnftian? > & W *>'"jH of .Corinth not 
 urio tum fuifle long after him , in his epiille to the Church of -Athens, and 
 oe*sr«T^ (i.e. (<0 Marcelius Biiliop of Ancyra in his Letters to 7*l*'#s Bi- 
 antiftitm ) «* (hop of Romero give unto a *2i/hop) or Amines, or Present 
 vom fuftinu, of che £ p ^«, Presbjterj, is confeflfed by.*««rhimfclf ; and 
 fntffa**°.T 9 \ thaE fie was o^ained rtr Jfeji ?4*«?of the Church of the 
 b «f«i '^//Mrf EpbefiansjNt do not only read in the fubfer iptioo of the fecond 
 cauffreliquK Epiftlc to Timothy, and thd Ecdefiaftical Hiftory of (*) £»/>« 
 fratribus in «*- bias 9 but alfo in two ancient Treatifes concerning the tnartyr- 
 frflimfrtV c!om °f Tim0t h 5 tnc one Rameleffe in the Library of (f)Pk*» 
 %oZ$tIv9- tim y the other bearing the name of fc) Poljcrates , even' of 
 car; peculiar!- that Poljcr sites , who was not only himfelf Biftiop of this 
 *er diciEpifco- Church of Ephe(u$ y but born alfo within fix or feven and thir- 
 Fhm^i l t AU ty ^ ears af£er S * ?^» wrote the fore-named Epiftle unto the 
 c Pies//" co- An ^ or " tnat Church : as it appeareth by the years he was of, 
 rintKh e'pifl.ad when he wrote that Epiftle untoVifior Biftiop of ^oww.where- 
 Athenienics, in he maketh mention of (hj [even ^infmen of hk who had 
 codem (enfu b een Bifbops ; he himfelf being the eight. 
 pubhum mar* j come now ro tne te ftjrjiony f Ignatius % whom (*) Theo- 
 Vot^Ik *'"*>**& (k) Felix Biftiop of Rome, and (/) John the Chro- 
 7n y ] qwproxi- nographer of Antioeh, report to have been ordained Biftiop of 
 mum ejus (uc- Antiochhy S» Peter in fpecial, Chryfoftome fwhowasa Pref- 
 cefforemQai. byterof the fame Church) by (m) the Apofties in general ; 
 ^l^Avilf*** an< * w,tnout al * controverfie did fit in that See , the very fame 
 ;p»4Eufebiumj time wherein that Epiftle unto the Angel of the Church of 
 i.^bilt.Kc^ity. Bphefus was commanded to be written. 
 
 d Aitvoi Kara 
 
 7£ ffi 7% 0gK GH,Ktomw 9 jtj &$$<$? <arpird>7(»v tiivjay t6t Qh[.wKetet m M&tceU. Ancyun . 
 cpui Epipbamum, barebjt. c Eufeb. Hift. lib. $, Kiip. e/L f 'Ot/ K^rov Ti[/.&d-iov h ir&- 
 f\uj& 7vyy£e/.q>Y\ qmrtv' Evict oTno-KowtiifcLt^ pofi r/ OTt o ^toVoA®*T///6^©- \jzsv t» /*e- 
 7/«.Ak rictu as j£ yj,iyTtvUTdii$* EtyiGiav ii-ttfovroKiMs amf/toTos >y LvSpovi^ZTcLt. Vhou 
 TiiblioLnum 154. g Polycrat.ic wflrcjr/o Timothci: inter vitgs SanHcrum edit. Lovaniiann$ 
 148 5. h'Eiflx piv w&v ffvyyzvilf iAHcrfi<THoftot)lya$oy<Poo;, Polycrat.Ep/Jt, di T/- 
 ftcrtm, apui Euleb. /, ^ Hift. Kitp. ki. i Theodore c, inVialogo 1. five'A7nWlo. k Fe- 
 lix III. j« £p//t rfrf Zcnonem Jraf . m/fcif /» V i>«oio Conft amino poL Aft. 1. (towe z. C7o»«- 
 //or, pig. 1 10. ed/>. Binnii. dnwo 1606* 1 Johan.Malela Awmbcnus, Chronic* lib. 10 M.S. 
 tnnaey.'ffi J.yicov iMiivav r rbS> «?^^ taviIw wiytieifffa, ty at ffi fJLetx.aej.av 'Ato* 
 roA»^ x f '^P s ^ 7 WJ is£?^ UeiV»f «4*t"?"o ^e9«tA«j. ^c. Cbrjr(oJt. in Jgnacii Eticcmto. 
 
 In 
 
The Orlgindll of Bi s hop % 1 5P 
 
 In the Iflfi of Patmos had $. John his Revelation manifefted 
 , unto him, (») toward the end of the Empire ofDomitian , as n ^e}< tv t4 
 j Irene us teftifieth • or the fourteenth year of his government, as Ku ^ t Ao i" T ^ 
 f {o) Bujebius and Hierome fpecifie it. From thence there are * r £ 2Swr/«"lbj" 
 but twelve years reckoned unto the tenth of Trajan: where- nfMb.^caf go* 
 in Ignatius 9 m that laft journey which he made for the confum- 
 mation of his glorious Martyrdome at Rome , wrote another ^*&b.cbm. 
 Epiftle unto the felf-fame Church of Epkefus. In which he ^^r.^c/^- 
 maketh mention of their then Biftiop Onefimusi as it appears ^./ K j hanne. 
 both by (p) Eufebius citing this out of it , and by the Epiftle 
 it felr yet extant. pEufeb. Uhf. 
 
 In this Epiftle to the Ephefians, Ignatius having accknow- kijt>Kw.Kt, 
 ledged that their (q) numerous multitude was received by q riw toau- 
 him in the perfon of their Bifliop Onefimus^nd (r) bkifed God k^iim t/- 
 for granting *nto them fuch a 2?*'^/? as he was : doth after- -ffij* ovbpA- 
 wards put them in minde of their (f) duty in concurring with ^®% ?J*£ 
 him,as he (heweth their worthy Presbytery did , being (t)fa ff \^ Mt i gnar ]. 
 conjojn'd (as he faith) ■»*>& their Bi[bop t as the firings are with epft. *d-Ephef. 
 jfc*? H^rp : and toward the end exhorteth them to(u)ebey both r 
 ?&* Bifhcp and the 'Presbytery with an undivided minde. Qth< L^. 
 
 In the fame journey wrote Ignatius alio an Epiftle unto the c&^ivo? vyjp 
 Church of Smyrna , another of the/*z/*», unto whom thofe rot&TQie %<?t 
 letters are directed in S. Johns Revelation, wherein he alfo 7ol * TOV &*• 
 (x) faluteth their Bifiop and Presbytery: exhorting all the °T™' f ~ 
 people to (;) follow their Bijhop.as Chrifljefus did his Father, f 9*^£[ m 
 and the Presbytery , as the Apofiles : and telling them that ^Jt^v'^ 
 Qz) no man ought either to adminifter the Sacraments, or do o-k>tv' yvd- 
 any thing appertaining to the Church, without the confent of ^ JW& 
 the Bijhop. tT J^ct 
 
 Who this <Bifiop 9 and what that Presbytery was, appear- TilZT&tw 
 
 OP TO ®2K, «- 
 
 7&-<TWriWo?a<tTtocr7n<T>d'7r<>> 9 a* ^ojcfle*/ Xf-9-ap$. Ibid, u "TirAKxoVTZf t$ c,7TJffKQ~ 
 vrv j£ tg> ^s^UTggJct) dnriexajsA^oi d'tetvoiet- Ibid, x 'Aazrtt£o//a/ top A^/o^ioy cot<7X0- 
 ^toj' [I'/t^noAi/xtf^op] ^To^-gcayiw^flrffo^tTtetov. Id, in epift. ad Smjrn, yTlctP* 
 
 view : IvAivtf fcfcaia Iv^aexria. iiyKeQa, >j w top Im^KOTop %<ra, t « &Jiv ayrh hzi* 
 7f i4|»- r Ou& £?oy &£? yndt t hmMw* *m /2«mt7I £«y, &c» !&#♦ 
 
 I etli 
 
€o ftitO'tighaU ?f Bishop s. 
 
 *n«AaM«tpTor eth by another Bpiftle written a little after from Smyrna > by 
 ago! a-Jv am? * poly car fm and the pnsbyters that were with him % unto the 
 U ~%tiritl% Tbitipftims. And that the fame Poty carpus was then aifo Bi- 
 ©Vr?) *■*&?/» P }0 f there, when S. John wrote unto the Angst of the Church 
 Kvfn&i*'m- of Smyrna • who can better inform us then Irenaus ? who 
 note Pdyccfp. did not only know thofe worthy men, (a) tybofucceeded Poly- 
 tpift.jiPbt- cn^minhkSee^ butalfo (b) was pre fen t , when he bimfelf 
 lolukyex&v ^ difcourfe of his ■ convcrfation with S. Joh* $ and of thofe 
 ficLfiyiAvci things which he heard from thofe who had feen our Lord 
 iov tv rioAu- JefttSt 
 
 Ka?7r*&&y°v* Poly carpus % {c) faith hc^as net $nly taught by the Afoflles 
 Tibial" an ^ c^wrfadwith mmj of thtfe that h&d feen Cbrift, hut aifo 
 hid inepiftai was h ffi, -Apoftltt conftuuteiin Ada Bijhop *f the Church . 
 Vimnum : (u which id in Smyrna .• whom we our f elves al/o did fee in c-,ur 
 pi Euieb. lib, younger age y for he continued long : & being very age d % he mcfi 
 * **** * J ®* giorioufij ana nobly fufferittg Martyrdome departed this life, 
 (tbiLLo*Kr) ^ ew keing ordained Bifhop of Smyrna by the ^Apofiles > 
 c xj nW**p- who had finished their courfe, and departed out of this life 
 w®- o « p'ovo;* before S John Cthe lad furviver of them) did write his Reve---. 
 varo A-roro- Utjon : who but he could there be rnesnt by the Angel of the 
 l*J fsc™: Church in Smyrna? in which that he ftill held his Epifco- 
 va?e%->.U ' pal office unto the time of his Martyrdome ( which fell out' 
 vofaolt tois $ LXXI V* years afterward ) may farfteiently appear by this 
 Xe/r*? **■€& teffcmony, which the brethren of the Church of Smyrna, who 
 xo™\tfM*^ were prelenf at his fuffering,gave unto him. (d) He Vw the 
 HZv k ^ 9r °~ nvoft admirable man in our times % an Apoftolical andTr ophe- 
 Zih tU tUj ticaU'Dotfor* and Hi/bop of the Catholkk Church "tohich is in 
 'KvUvkv tm Smyrna, Whereunto we may add the like of P&lycrates Bt* 
 c* Spi's vjj i«,v f^Qp f gpheffts, who lived alfo in his rime and in his neigh- 
 %£%?&* bou r hood » affirming (e) Polycarpus to have been both Bijbop 
 $t/n7f i»*hu& An & Martyr in Smyrna. So faith he in his Sy nodical Epilile di- 
 
 (MJ >C¥ "*» *rgto- 
 
 lAApTvcnTaftfZn^dzrtgiii Utulib t cap \,Vii. (2* Ewkb, lib. ^. hi jt kw.ki. <ivT&-yiyo- 
 
 VtV &tLVHtt(Fl%»T&TQ~ IV TOIS KeL^ ^[AtiLf ^QVOtf, <Pl<PcL<rK<tAQ' ^r0A/X,Of ^ «^^»T/- 
 
 ^ofj ytvbpiv& anifKoTQ- t£ .# iv 2/A^'pv» K*$QhiKnf vMMfi&s. bmjrnen/. Ecclef, 
 eprjt */fwjr(;rjePolycaipi. Eultb. lib ^bift K2<p./r c Jlo^J kao'TtQ-^ %h^>^'m $ 
 cmaMie^- £ pap rvu Polycrat, epfi.ai hftotcm ; tyud Eufcb. lib. 5- bift. M<p. k<A< 
 
 reded 
 
the OrigtmUof&u u-6mi €i 
 
 reeled unto Vitlor Birtiop of R»me $ about 27 years after the 
 Martyrdome of Polycarpus 3 he himfelf being ac that tuna 
 ^5 years of age. 
 
 About the very fame time wherein Tolycrates wrote this 
 Epiftle unto Vitlor 9 d\d TertuUian publifh his book of Prefcrip- 
 tions againft Hcreticks i wherein he avoucheth againft their^ 
 that (/) as the Church of Smyrna had Polycarpus placed there * stout Smyrna* 
 by John, and the Church of Rome Clement ordained by Peter ; °S u ! n Ec <W* 
 [0 the rep of the Churches alfo did fbew Vphat Vifaps they j^IZTcZZ 
 had received by the appointment of the Apcfiles, to traduce the catum refert j 
 Apoftoltcal feed unto them* And fo before him did Iren&us pcut Rmano* 
 urge againft them (g) the fuccefftons of'Bi/hops^unto whom the rum Clemen* 
 Apoftles committed tks charge of the Church in every pi 'ace, #^/ v°/f" 
 {h) For all the Hereticks ( faith he) are much later then thofe proinde(ox>ptv* 
 t BiJhofs > unto whom the Apo files committed the Churches* And inie) utique& 
 (*) we are able to number thofe Who by the Apples were or- cat ^i "#*- 
 dainedBiJhops in the Churches ^nd their Succe fours unto eur b J nt * 1 U V *? 
 dayes ; Kho neither taught nor knew any fuck thing as theft $ }mm cm- 
 men dream of ftitutos,Afi>fh* 
 For proof whereof, he bricgeth in the fuccefHon of the lici fcminis tra. 
 Bifoops of Rom$ , from (k) Linus (unto whom the bic£Ted p €s ***"£• 
 Apofiles committed that Epifcopacy)mdAnacletus (by others tribal 1^ 
 called Cletm)md Clement {who did both fee the Aptfths % and ya '& *^ # 
 conferred with them) unto (I) Eleutheriw ; who when Ire- lib, 4. contra 
 nam wrote* had the charge of that r Bifhopric\ in the twelfth &*arcion tap.f. 
 place after the Apoftles. Concerning whom, and the integrity §^^* w 
 which then continued in each other fuccedion from the A- Jdbm ™foftg- 
 poftles dayes , Hegeftppw , who at the fame time pubiidied ucam qua in 
 
 unoqxoquc loco 
 eft Ecclefutm tradiicrunt, Iren. lib. 4. adverf. haref, cap. 6$; fa Omnes enim it valdi 
 pofttrtores (urn qulm Epifcopi , quibus sApoftoli tradiderunt EccUfirt. Id. lib. 5, cap. 20. 
 i Habtmus annumcrare eos qui ab eApoftolk injiimi funt Epifiofi in Eidefiu, &* ■ (uccejores 
 eorum ufque ad nos ; qui niml tale dowcrunt, ueque cognoverunt quale ab bis deliratur* Id, lib* 
 5. cap* $. k ®ipihta><?a,vTt$ *v iteti hiKoJoiAfcavTz; U^cL^exoi' A<&orohot rfo o&K.>wi* 
 AM t Aiv&riiVT'iitc'meKo'Griis tenxfyicw bjiyzipewj. (tstst ArV« UetvhQ' Zv T&t$ 
 
 fj,ax.cLm$ , Aw®r'oKtt 9 £ ffu&f&i@MKcb{ twroii. Id.ibid. 1N<JV faftK&TQ tqitq 79vv 
 
 I 2 ^ his 
 
6z The Original of B i s h o p $ I 
 
 mrid&'Avi- his Hiftory of the Church, faith thus, (m) Soterfucceeded A* 
 *riTvftciM%e~ nicetus % and after him Was Elentherius* Now> in every fuc- 
 ™Eh&3i&s • Ci f l0 *9 an * in €Ve 'f) C lt y, * 11 things fo ft and, <u the Law and 
 'Ev Ueeir H the Prophns and our Lord do preach, 
 fictfcxjjuy Ly And more particularly concerning the Church of Corinth; 
 WB **?T iA " *« (»)afcer he had fpoken of thcEpiftle written unto them by £le- 
 l£L^w>j'iju menf > ^ or l ^ e r eprefiing of fome factions wherewith they 
 tyot^s^TOA were at that time much troubled (which gave him occafion 
 *} o Kifpios. to tell them, that (o) the Apofties, of whom he himfelf was an 
 Keitfip.dpud hearer, had perfect intelligence from our Lord Jefus Chrift, of 
 ?.« * / 'i* the contention that {hmld arife about the name of Epifcopacy ) 
 nMsT^Vitae- be declareth, that after the appearing of this tumult, (p) the 
 nirneKMS.it- Church of the Corinthians continued in the right way, until! 
 gendum., non the dayes of Primns^ whom he did vifice in his fay ling toward 
 f*gf*^0 ™* Rome, Which Primus had for his fucceiTour that famous Dio» 
 1XIVT&- \pU *jfi" f i whofe Epiftle to the Church of the Athenians hath 
 KofiM*! bm- bcene before nominated ; wherein he put them in minde of 
 r*>Ajfe 'carTw ei- (q) the prft £i(hop that had been placed over them, even Dio- 
 iT* VA 'w kb ' n )fi* s c ^ e Areipagitci (r)S.Pauls own convert,a thing where- 
 
 ' **@ t Mm °^ ^y cou ^ at that tmt ^ ave n0 more Cau ^ e t0 ^ ou ^ r > ^ en 
 tfatMffa we ftiould have, if any queftron were now ^tiade of the Bi- 
 oiU/oi'A^rfl- (hops that were here in King Edward the VI. or Queen 
 wkgi fi/ffi'iy- Maryes dayes 2 I might alfofay, in the middle of the raigne 
 ^^Y» of Q aeen£// ^^^ herfelf i ,Twith (0 Baroniutl would 
 ffS Xp/tC or/ P roc * ace the sAreofagites life unto the government of the Em- 
 gp/f «r^ cot perour Hadrian. 
 
 & ovb(j.cLT<&- This Hegefipptis, living next after the fir ft fucceffton of ih* 
 wcMiffKcjm, Apoflles (*s(t )Eufcbius nomh) and being himfelf a Chriftian 
 %v7l*Airi0M* ( H ^ of the race of the Hebrew s j was csrefull to record unto 
 «pS>iw/y «*' pofterity the ftate of the Church of lerufdUm in the dayes of 
 *wp«T€* Ts- the Apoftles, and the alteration that followed after their de- 
 €nv t«* <&&HftiiAvvi. Clemcv. epi(f. ai Corinth, pag* 57. <?<?/>. "D. Patricii Junii. p Kal 
 iffi[jAvsvn ItcKhnricLffi KvpivQiau Ivr^bf^ci hhyp, jwe%p/ np/fw cmo-aoTivovrQ-. 
 IvKophQa, (ita MS. non oh ) ffwiiit^et nhiav ih 'Ptf/ni* Hegelip. apud Eufeb. 
 lib. 4 4 kiq. Kg. q'Dionj/f, Corinth apud eund. Eufeb. Itb. $. *sp.«P. & lib 4. m? Ky x 
 r Act. 17. j 4. (Baron. ^Awnal. torn. 1. am. 120. t Eufeb. lib. z* *€$. Ky* 'O 'ftyMin* 
 -77©-" (non, ut vulgo Icgitur, 'IwVimt©-) amrni <®pg>tm nfyJ' 'A&orbbovyzi'QtJt.iv®' 
 ftetfoxtis- Egefippus qui foft ipfas jlgtim prim** Apojtolorum fuccefiioves fuit ; utRufinus 
 locum expreflic. u £uffb, lib 4, K sp, *$,fitt. parture. 
 
The Origwallefhl shops. $l 
 
 parture out of this life. Where firft he ftieweth,that (x) lames x A/auPl£*« 
 the brother of our Lord, furnamed the Iuft % did governe that rat rh <*». 
 Church together With the Apoftlesi yet fo (as iy) Clement ^^^. 
 of Alexandria, who wrote fome twenty years after him, fur- ^,5*7^3* 
 ther addethj that he had this preferment even before the three ? YLvd*u*e£ 
 prime Apofties, Peter and the two fonsof Zebedee ( lames £©^, «»¥*• 
 and M*J to be chofen the peculiar Vijbop of leruUhm, the **»<<?***- 
 then mother Church or the world. Hegefipp.com- 
 
 After the death of lames the Juft, (*>) Hegejippas declarech ment&mt. lib. 
 that Symeon the fonne of Clop as or Ciecpbat was conftkuted j< <*/wi «»i» 
 2W/&o/>, and fo continued until! the dayes of the Emperour *«&&•!& z« 
 Trajan: under whom he faifered a glorious Martyrdome ^'q^' - n ii 
 (about the fame time that Ignatius didjbeing then an hundred \ ro ^' Q l ^yp^ 
 and twenty years of age ; and by that account borne before the typofcSn : ubi 
 Incarnation of our bleiTed Saviour. Where, the observation iiarrat,nt7fov 
 of this prime Hiftorian is not to be pa (led over ; that frfjuntill $*if**f ^ $ 
 thefc times the Church was called a Virgin : as being not yet llf^f^' 
 corrupted with the overfpreading of hereticall doclrine. For ^ tv » ^ T j^ 
 howfoever herefies did fpring up before, yet they were fo p©-, «* <*f $ 
 kept down by the authority of the Apoftles and the Difciples <&? to Kvpjtf 
 who had heard our Lord himfeife preach; that the authors ^J'^f" 
 andfautors thereof were not able to get any great head, being ^l&lb&i' /i* 
 forced (by the authority of inch oppofitesj to lurk in ob- ^ 5^ 'id- 
 fcurity. KagovitoAt* 
 
 But as foone as all that generation was gathered unto their KAI ^ writo- 
 fathers, and none of thofe were left who had the happinefle *"•' i^f^r' 
 to near the gracious words that proceeded from mt Lords ^^ e Hnd,l; 
 
 x. cap. i. 
 % Apud Eufeb fit. 4 £dp. 22. ViietmL lib, 5 rdp. n. (£* $2. a »**£* ykyjuffi 7*7$. 
 yjlvw <r«tpdb©- zad-et?*, ^ rtcT/A^O-op©- 'ipttviv » l^KKn^ia,, \vi£hKtp<o* encore* 
 (paKdj*v r rcdv<i\<TiTiT9'T$ffi i U)$7iV£i\zrti%x ov > <&§>$$§&$&? UfaygifivTav tov vyw 
 
 i<Zf*K\ST&i H,a.Tti%lvy.iv&>VyTbMlK0JJ7& THf tf £g« TKa.Vti{ Ttlv # p^V ihapfavtV » ft/VtfOVf, 
 
 «f/a th* <$T Its? ofifeLfKahcov ^ftTOf, 0Dya.fi m\f&o$ 'iiiffi ^snvToKeov KwroyLivx t 
 
 yV^fVhOl^V «cTh T? Jtg^fifcAH, Tit) T«J eiAud^CC* KHfJyjJLATl 7tiV -\dj<tMVVtM)V ymaiv 
 
 iv7tKi}frj7Jiiv iirixfyvt, Hegefipp. 4p?id f w»4, /io, j » w^ 32, 
 
 owne 
 
A£ The Origin aU ^Bishop sv 
 
 own mouth : the Heretkkj* taking that advantage^ began to 
 enter into a kind of combination, and with open face pub* 
 b'jLpnbwut t lickly to maintain the {&) epfe prions of their [cunce f nifty fa 
 7M 46<fiuvu ca foj ^ $ wm whence they aiiumed ufito chemfelvcs the name 
 ^TimT/wV o?&*°fl ic ks> or men of knowledge; againftthe preaching of 
 c Luc. i. a. ' that troth, which by thofe who were (c) eje-mtneftes and mi- 
 d Jude vj. . niders of the Word had been (d) ONCE delivered unto the 
 e A/* t«"to I* Saints, (e) The firO: beginner of which confpiracy was one 
 "«%'™*T- Tktbktbis i who had at the firft been bred in one of the [even 
 tew?*™* ( e & s t into which the people of the f«wwerein thofe dayes 
 yif 'iv$eL<>TQ divided ; but afterwards, becaufe he miffed of a 'Bijhopricke 
 mom n&T*i« unco which he had afpired,( this of Jerufalem^ it may feetr^ 
 %*{q$*Iu whereunto Juft/ss 9 after the death of Sjmesn 9 was preferred 
 JilrtJiyi- hefoiehim) could think of no readyer a way throughly to re- 
 vMai (W7ov venge himfelf of this difgrace , than by railing up the like 
 bniwrov, diftra&ions among the Ghriftians. Which as, in the effetl y it 
 y^^ilV^ns fiiewech the malignity of that ambitious Seclary ; (o doth it, 
 £u'i<navftyL in the occafi&n, dilcover withall the great efteem that in thofe 
 dvrhi hv h t3 early dayes was had of Eptfcopacy, 
 
 ha.a Hcgtfipp. When Hegefippus wrote this EcclefiaftJcall Hiftory (the 
 ^»iEuieb.//^ anc i ente ft f an y, (ince the Ads of the Apoftles,) Eleutherius 
 4- Hif>x>&* gs we yfext before, was Bifhop of the Church of Rome : un- 
 f Mifitad eum to whom (f) Lucius King of the Brit /tins (as our Bede rela- 
 Lucius Btitan- teth ) fat an Bpiftle • de firing that by his means he might be 
 mum Rexepi* m ^ g fchrifti&n.who prefemlj obtained the effetl of his pious re- 
 .T \ * Weft i and the 'Brit tins kef* the faith then received, found and 
 \m mtndawm undeftlea %n quiet peace^ nntill the times of Dioclenan the cw- 
 Cbrijlianm ef per our. By whofe bloudy perfection the faith and difcipline 
 ficemur. Et c four Brittifti Churches was not yet fo quite extinguifhed ; 
 ™* € M^ r * ± but that within ten years after { and eleven before the firft 
 nk conlLutm generall Counceil of Nice ) three of our Bifhops were prefent 
 eft: fufceptam. and fubferibed unto the Councel of Aries: (g)Shrim of Tor ^ 
 quefidmBri- Reft it uttu of London, and tAdelftus of Colckefter ; if that be 
 tanni ufqw in j tj w hich is called there CohnU LonAmenfium, The firft root 
 clctbnl Trfw- ^^ ^ ^ UCC€ ^ on we muft fetch beyond Eleutherius, and 
 cipk invhlatamintegramque quiet* pace fervabant. Bed, hift, ecelefiaft, Angler, lib i cap 4. 
 g Tom. i. Qoncilier. gallia, \ iirmondt edit pig. 9. 
 
 as 
 
The OriginallofhiSRQv'S'. 65 
 
 as high as $>¥eter himfeif: if it be true, that he {h) conftitH- h'ttipurttf 
 ted Churches here^and ordained Bifhops, Presbyters^dDca- 'fo&$t?r*.vi* 
 rw in them; as Symeon Metapkrafies related] cut of feme J^l^^^f 
 part of (I) Eufebius ( as it fecraeth ) that is not come onto f/ f (f) ^folk 
 our hands* ■ <f ^ettofeefft 
 
 But, to return unto the Angels of the [even C hurchss % men- *>jw*i ?* **£ 
 tioned in the Revelation of b. lohnv by what hath been (aid, M™f iv ?*>*? 
 it is apparent, that [evtn lingular B ijhops, who were the con- ^p^^pa^ 
 ftant Prefidents over thofe Churches, are pointed at under that-jWoj/** x Um 
 name. For other fure they could not be, if all of them were call &TovJi<ratJ'G>* 
 into one mould, and were of the fame quality with Poljcar' °j** T v l7i f 
 pus, the then Angel of the Church in Smyrna i who without Vfi^V^'^L, 
 ail quekion was iuch, if any credit may. be given herein unto fijp^^ 
 thole thit fsw him and were well acquainted with him. &y'mTeuMt* 
 
 And as Tertnllian in expreffe termes atgriheth him to have topbrafi. Com- 
 been placed there by S,M* himfeif fin the teftimony before £^£'p™To" 
 aliedged out of his (kj Prefcripiw 1) (o doth he elfe- where, \Htum 41?"- 
 from the order of the fucceeding Bifhop?, not obfeurely inti- nit, 
 mate, that the reft of that number were to be referred unto 
 the fame defcent- (I) We havejmh he>tke Churches that were gj ^ ^ < 
 £r«f by John, i^r although Marcion do rejetl hie Revelation s L Ev ?J f i 
 j*£ ?0# ortftfr #/ f«f Bijbops reckon* a up unto tbsir ortgtnall, j iKA p i v % rn 
 will fiand for John f* ^ their Founder, ^icnei^ettUL 
 
 Neither doth the ancient Writer of the Martyrdoms of TV- r&v^xiytht 
 mothy ( mentioned by Phnitts ) mean any other by thofe/*- I* * K J r ?^ 
 ve» r Bifhops 9 whofe afliftancc he faith SJohet did ufe, after his ^^otn^v^* 
 return from Pttmos, in she government oM<? Metropolis of •{„ 79 '?<»<$$ 
 the EphefiartS. For (m)being revoked from his f:r#/*,faUk ht^by % t^w Bf st*- 
 the/entexce of RttVi, he betook himfeif to the Metropolis of *(**£•?**?** 
 Bphefus; and bang affl fled with the prefence of hEVEN ^^^1^//^ 
 
 fc-Tcrtull. Prtfcrip.c. $*, Similiter Gr Hieronymus inCatal.fcript<Ecdefiajt, cap, 17* in 
 Polycarpoj (sr Nicepborus, itk ^bijl. ecclefiaft. cap %. {Habtmwtis* Johannls alumn&s, 
 Ecclefias. Hum etfi dpcriypftm^ ejus Marcion rtfmit 5 ordo tamttt Epifcofomm ad orhinem 
 tecsnfmjn Johznacm fiabit auHtrem. Sic (p caterarum generofitat recogncfatur. Ter tuilian. 
 
 efrfiUi T&Uv k. Phot. BiUmbth ™m* 154, 
 
 000 
 
( 6 "The Ortginall »/Bishops, 
 
 (heps y hetooj^ttpon htm the government of the Metropolis of 
 the Bphefians : and continued, f reaching the word of piety 
 m'trfl the Empire 0/ Trajan. 
 
 That he remained with the Sphejians and the reft of the bre- 
 thren of Aftd, until! the dayes o£Tr#jan y and that during the 
 time of his abode with them, he publifhed his Go/ pel ; is fuffi- 
 n Irenxus <si- ciently witneded by (n) Irenem. That upon his return from 
 verf.bxrefJ.i, t fe Hand, after the death of 'Domitian, heapplyed hirafelf 
 tib'il*.!!&\ m co c ^ c government of the Churches tf*A(ta t is confirmed iike- 
 ' wife both by (i)-Estfebfii :i and by (p) Hierom : who further 
 mfw Hht *" ac ^ eth ' that(^jattheearneftintreatyofthe Bifhops of t^fia 
 *_ * 2 *' he wrote there his Gofpel, 
 P Hicronym./» And that he himfelfe alio, being free from his banifliment 
 clTa(t C i P ' EG ' did ordaipcii^ir in diverfe Churches, isciearely teftified by 
 q U.ibil\st ChmcM of Alexandria : who lived in the next age after, and 
 TrafatjitE- delivereth it as a certain truth, which he had received from 
 .wage/. Mat- thofe who went before him, and could not be farre from the 
 V 51 ' , w time wherein the thing it felf was a&ed. (r) When S, John 
 r T^^t (faith he ) Dbmitian the Tjrant being dead, removed from the 
 7 faMT@- $J Hand of Patmos vinto Ephefus, by the intreaty offomehe went 
 tm Udr^.a 'f alfo unto the neighbouring nations- in feme places corftituting 
 vfoapiTnxSiv Bifhops, in others founding whole Churches. 
 a?n r«v "Epi- Among thefe neighbouring Churches was that of Hierapo- 
 
 ™£l!X& *•: which had ft? V P isced W * l M therein. That this man 
 
 xj bm r'd ctam- was ( t) a hearer of $*) ohn, and a companion of Polycarpus, is 
 eibx*>?cL jp teftified by his mm Schoilar (tt) Iren&ut z and that he conver- 
 tfvZvJvu niv f ec [ w j t h ( x ) the difciples of the Jpoftles, and of Chrifl alfo • 
 JX?^ hc himfelfdoeh thus declare, in the Prcemeofthe five books 
 ookoi IkkZ* which he intituled, A declaration of the words of the Lord. 
 
 Ciem. Alexandria in lib. de divite falvctndo, (qui falfo Origenis vtmine babetureditus, 
 ad calccm tomi $. Commentariorum Michaelis Gbijlerii.) Eufeb. bijl. lib. $. cap z$. 
 fEufeb. lib. }.bijt.cap. ^5. Hieron. Catal. fcript Ecclefiaft. cap. 18. <? Cbronic. adann, 
 Trajmi t, tncfrTrtcts'lcoayvK /Av aKV?i)s, TiohVKapTntfiiTcup©- yiyo;uf t ct^cuQ- 
 m e$. Irenxus adverf. baref lib. $ cap* ? $. u lrenaeus , vir sApofteliwum temporumO* 
 Tapia auditors Evangetijfa Johannis difcipulut, Epijcopus Eccle/i* Lugdunenfts Hie- 
 ronym. epijt. 19. ad Theodoram. x Hi fum Preibjuri dpoftolorum difcipulit quorum 
 Ircnaus, lib. j.cap, j6.meminit. . 4 
 
 if 
 
(y) lf#t* n -* e€a fi on m J °f t ^ ee Presbyters, which had*ccon£ y p ^ , 
 f anted the Apofties, did come • 1 diligently enquired what were Jf / T ^ ^ J; 
 the fpeeches which the Apoftlts ufed, what Andrew or what ^rkfa? *•*- 
 Peter did fay , or What Philip, *r Thomas, or James, or John, pw*ox«3ma* 
 or Matthew, or fome other of the difctples of the Lord; and T0 " l A * 05 '' 6m y 
 the things that Ariftion and John *£<? Elder, our Lords di- *g* 'A^orrl* 
 [ciptesy did (peak*. The two iaft of whom he often cited by kuv J/iKaviv 
 nameintheprocefleofthe work ; relating the paflagesin this My*s (itae- 
 kind which he had heard from them. "j™ * xGrrcis 
 
 Neither can any man be fo (imple as to- imagine, that in the ™faivtt&* 
 language of Clemens *Alexandrinus the name of a Bi(bop ne j ocus e ^ rc- 
 ftiould import no more then a bare Presbyter i if he confider, ftituendus) tE 
 that not the (a ) difference only betwixt Presbyters, 'Bifhops 'Aj/pW^ii 
 andZ>*^*risby him acknowledged ; but further alfo, that P 6 ^ iiw * 
 the difpofition of their three offices, in his judgement, doth l™?*®™^ 
 carry with it (b) an imitation of the *Angt lie all glory* To « 'tituSo* , g 
 £ay nothing of the Emperour Hadrian : who, hard upon the j/ 'la&vns 
 time of the fore- named < Papias i writing unto the Con ful $er* 5 MaT-fra/V, 
 w«w touching the ftate of things in Mgjpt, maketh diftinft \ ™^®*& t 
 mention in his letter of (c) the 'Presbyters of the Chrifiians t ^ad-mav^ at§ 
 and of thofe (d) who call therofeives the "Bifhops of Chrift* 'A&Hav '*} • 
 
 And thus having deduced Epifcopacy from the Apoftolicall jtps^'t*^^ 
 times; and declared,*^** *&* Angels of the f even Churches were **w»*>«/re 
 no other, but fuch as in the next age after the Apoftles were r %?*$y JJ K / 
 by the Fathers tearmed Bifhops : we are now further to en- Papfas, in Pro! 
 quire, why thefe Churches are confined unto the number of/*- osmio Acyiav 
 ven 3 in the fuperfcription of that Apoftolicall Epiftle prefixed K f a *^^ 
 before the book of the Revelation, (e) lohn to the 1'™*^*$^ 
 Churches in Afia : Grace be unto you and peace, where S.John ^^ # x " g - A g t 
 
 x 'A p/r?0y&" 
 
 O^r 'TrpiffivripK 'I««m twirwoov icwiov (pita yivi<?$<u, ovoyL&si y*v T0MeU/£ wrap 
 pvnpwdjc&Sihf rel? awTx ffvyypet[Afj.a<ri ti&mgiv *vt&v <®^y JWs/*. Eufeb* ibid, a Mv- 
 §tcu <fi oaeti •dmiStiKctiy sU <B£kaa<&8. cmKikta £i<L7'?.iv>i<?cu. zyyiye£<p*,7cu TtCis fti^Koie 
 T&is ayieuf, at y£v Tai<rgvTig?i{, at cPg ZfatrKQ'Trots, Jiattbvoif afacu %«£#/£• Clem, 
 Aiexandr Pxdagog. lib. 3. cap. uit. b At ivTtwSa, v$ riuJ 6*.x.?>twav m&toirets, £h- 
 ffK07rcoyy nfi<j$VTi?av, tPtetKovcov, pi^ny. at cl •!/**/ Ttii dyyihta^i JlQ^Hf. Id.Scromas, 
 lib. 6* c Memo Cbriftianmm Presbyter, Hadrian. epift. ad Servian apud Pi, Vopifc.in vita 
 Satumitii. d <%ui fc Ghrijii E$cop$ dicunt. Id, Aid. e ReyeJ # 1. 4f 
 
 K direding 
 
£ } TBe Orlglndof Metro p o l i tan % \ 
 
 directing his letters unto them thus indefinitly, without any 
 mention of their particular names • cannot by common intend- 
 ment be conceived to have understood any other thereby, but 
 fuchasby fome degree of eminency were diftinguiftiable from 
 a!! the reft of the Churches that were in Afui % and in fome fore 
 aifo did comprehend all the reft under them. 
 
 For taking Afia here in that ftri&er fenfe, wherein the New 
 Teftament ufeth it, as denoting the Lydian Afia alone (of the 
 / Difquifo. circuit whereof I have treated If) elfe where more particularly); 
 touching the [ t j s not t0 |> e imagined, that after fo long pains taken by the 
 fo Sled &c? A P oft,es and tneir difctples in the husbanding of that part of 
 chap. L ' tne Lords vineyard, there fliould be found no more but fevem 
 
 fi Cor.. j. io. Churches therein, efpecially fince S.Paul that (g)wfc mafte>r* 
 iCor.16. 8,q. builder profeffeth,that he had het£(h)a great door and efcUn* 
 all opened unto him : and S» Luke teftifieth accordingly, that 
 I Aa.ip*io,xo # (i) a ii ^j nkici, dwelt in Afia heard the word of the Lord le- 
 fus % both lews And Greeks ; ft mightily grew the Word of God 
 . ft - . • and prevailed.* Which extraordinary bleffing of God upon his 
 | x - Q?1 k labours, moved the Apoftle to make his refidence (l() inthofe 
 parts for the fpa.ee of three years ; wherein hecea/ed not to 
 warn every one night and day With tears. 
 
 So that in all reafon we are to fuppofe , that thefe feven 
 
 Churches f comprising all the reft within them) were not bare 
 
 P arochlaU ones,or fo many particular congregations ; but Z>/W 
 
 cefan Churches fas we ufe to call them) if not Metropoliticall 
 
 pl . .., , rather. For that in (I) Laodwea, Sardis r Smyrna^ 'fhefus and 
 
 m!mUm. (r») Per gamut, the Roman governours held their Courts of 
 
 ap/ ( ' juftice, to which all the Cities and Towns about, had recourfe 
 
 m UMd^io, for the ending of their fuites ; is noted by Pliny* And befides 
 
 »P«lem.cjtt. thefe (which were the greateft) Thyatira is alfo by (») Ptolo- 
 
 ir&pMb.%. flfjexprefly named a Metropolis: as ^Philadelphia alfo is, in 
 
 emit, (>- the (o) Greek A&s of the Gouncell of ' Conflantinople held un- 
 
 ft* nt **°P*fi& dcr Menas. Which giveth us good ground to conceive, that 
 Wen», Ait. f the feven Gti ^ in whjch thefe j tven churche5 llad their j Mtj 
 
 were all 6f thejri MetropoliticaH % and fo had relation unto the 
 reft of the Tovynes and Cities of v*fi*i as unto daughters rifing 
 under them. 
 
 Xhii. 
 
The OrigltMMdfWlitWvo t It Atffc! €f 
 
 This Ljiian Afia was feparated from Caria by the rive* 
 
 'jtfaander : upon the banks whereof Magnefia and 7>*tf« 
 were feated, to the Chriftians whereof Ignatius directed two 
 of his epifties 5 wherein he makcth mention of Damat Bifliop 
 of the one Church, and Poljbitu Bifliop (or (p) ##/<r, as £*- P fW/, T *" 
 /****/ calleth him) of the other, whom they had fent to vifit ^ ^ ? ' « 
 hrmat Smyrna, adding withall in that to the TraUians, his qTycw*i*s» 
 ufuall admonitions. (<2)#' /«£;'# f# f£* Hi/hop^a* to the Lord : ■vfcnrVef«xtfffl*i 
 and (r) *0 ^ Presbytery, as to the Apples of fefus Chrift »f ™ Kwlp. 
 «#r &*/*. ( He that doth any thing without the Bi/hop and ^[- a ^f * 
 *£* Presbyters and the Deacons, fuch a one is defiled in confei- , , 
 «»**. (0 Fare ye mil in fefm Chrift ; fa^ f»ty# r« the lj?™£%] 
 %ifiop, and likeVpife to the Presbyters. £vrsp4> 3 &s '. 
 
 Wherein we may note, that within twelve years after men- Sros-^w; 'i«- 
 tk>nofthc/*v*» Churches made in the Apocalyps (Tor then, f flJ XfiroJ <£ 
 as hath been (hewed, were thefe epifties of Ignstfrs writ- gjJJ f *^ 
 ten) other Epifcopai cities are found id the fame Lydian Afia ; ( <o ^»?i* « 
 and two fuch, as in after times are well known to have been bmeni** *5 , 
 {»)undcr the government of the Metropolitan of Sf befits. But *W "WteforU 
 whether this fubordination were as ancient as the dayes of Ig- l* v ^^ ^i** 
 nanus (whofe Epifties are extant unto thefe three Churches ) ^JIZ^' 
 and (x) Damat the then Bifliop of Magnefi a, W\th Poly bins of ^Uv^ t? 
 Trattis, were at that time fufojccl to Onefimus the Biflaop of ovvufhju.lb* 
 Epheftts, might well be doubted: but that the fame Ignatius « "if fa-fls j* 
 diredeth one of his Epifties unto the Churchf?)*^ bad pre- ^%£ V * H 
 (tdency in the place of the Region of the Romans ; and in the bo- ^^S2SrA 
 dy thereof dorh attribute unto himfelf the title of the Bijbop bpoiat £ vfis 
 of Syria. Whereby, as he intimateth himfelf to have been tyHrpvTi&iu 
 notonely the Bifliop of zsfntiocb, but aifoof the reft of the ^n r J W f; 
 province of Syria, which was under that Metropolis 5 fo doth poiitar° ii^Ae- 
 helikewife notobfeurely (ignifie that the Bifliop of Rome had pead. Gco- 
 at that time a prefidency over the Churches that were in the graph. facr,Ca* 
 (*.) Vrbicarian Region, as the Imperiall Conftitutions.or the toli 4S ' p * uI ?* 
 
 tomo 1. Juris Grxco Romani. a Jo. Leunclavio edit, pag 90. x Eufeb. lib* $. Bift«cap.j $. 
 fUris tB&**&*d ** T ^ X a fh 'Pajjicttvf. Ignat. epift, ad Roman, a Ex VrkiMi 
 Rcgiw Cod. T&eod. lib. u. (it* 2. leg. ;, 
 
 K s Roman 
 
~6 ThtOrigmaR tf Metropolitans'! 
 
 * Ex P«wj- * Roman Trovince y as the Afts of the firft Couficell of Aries 
 
 c'ii Kmaniy call it. 
 
 tivi n al£ &c° r \n Wbat tbat Vrbic * rian &eg™ n wa«, 1 will not now ftand to 
 miminibusquae difcuflfe : whether Tttfcia onely, wherein Rome it felfe was 
 ConciHo Are- (ituated (which in the dayes of Ig nanus was one entire regi- 
 ktenfi I. prse- n 3 but afterwards divided into Tufcfa Subnrbkaria and An- 
 fixalegumur. no naria) or the territory wherein the Pr&fettm Vrbis did ex- 
 ut >fepem*cdii erc ^ e ^' s jurifdidtoon ( which was confined within the com- 
 UtmicsEpi- paflfe of a hundred miles about the City J or, with that, thofe 
 fcopos erant alii other provinces alfo whereunto the authority oCthe Vicarim 
 Epifccp, qui ztrbu did extend ; or laftly the circuit within which thofe 69. 
 
 ^""'xiw^f W w€re * mme & at ty fubjed 
 
 Ponti^cf^nuUi to the Bifhop o? Rome, and frequently called to his Synods: 
 aliiPrimativH the names whereof are found regtftred in the Records of that 
 mArcbiepiftopo Church. The antiquity of which number, as it may in fome 
 fubjefli ; qui f or£ rcce j ve confirmation from the Roman Synod offevemy B$* 
 sySlVl fi'pshddun&zrGtlafeHsi fofor the diftinftionof theBifliopi 
 rentur. MS. which belonged to the city of Rome % from thofe that apper* 
 Vatican afud tained to Italy, we have a farre more ancient teftimony from 
 Baron, ann, t ^ c Edift f the Emperour Auretian 5 who in the controvert 
 k°*0* S ** ?# * (iethatarofe betwixt T 3 'aulas Samofatenus and 'Domnus for 
 Vu^l^ffKo- the houfe which belonged unto the Church of Antiocb, com- 
 iroiiinriMw* manded that it (liould be delivered to theoi 5 ( b) to whom the 
 7&< IvfoKfo&i Biftop of Italy and Rome flhould by their fetters declare that 
 w : (aiib Ni- j t 0U g nt t0 be given. Which diftinclion^ afwell in the foreci- 
 lift.Iib U 6. Ha ^d (0 Ads of the Councell otArks, as in the Epiftles of the 
 cap! 29 6«*Eu" (<0 Sardkan Synod and /O dthantfiitsjnity likewife beobfer- 
 fcb.hb.7.c, ?o. ved : the name of Italy being in a more ffcricT: fenfe applyed' 
 mrejullj, oh therein to the feven Provinces, which were under thcCivMju-- 
 ?i 7 " h 'w J w rifdiclion of the Vicarinsm Lieutenant of Italy t and the Ec* 
 ?fo 'PwjloUv clefiafticall of the Bifliop oiMillaine* 
 9t6a/^ Wktk'q- And it is well worth the obferving, that the Fathers of the 
 
 Tojiw/riMo/ei/. c.'Ex^YovincuHali4 i civitdUMed.ioUnen > &c. Ex Trovfacii 7{pmani, 
 tivitate Portucn. utfupra, d*H«>i*cruyo/o;<ry^AX^^^^ ' tp ^ M ^ >l7 '* A/ « t?S y na£j ' 
 Sardic,epift. ad Alexandria in i. Athanafii Apologia (tomo 1. Oper edit.Commelin. 
 pag, 588.) c'Awo'Te t«< piyvKm 'J>a>y.v\$ $ 7 fo 'l7**fo Ww. AthanaG fpiiUd 
 folitar, fit. agents, (ibid, pag, 640, ) 
 
 great;. 
 
the Ortgfadllof M e trop o t"i tans.' 71 
 
 great Councell of Tijce afterwards confirming this kinde of 
 primacy, in the Bifhops o^ Alexandria, Rome and ss4ntioch>VOy.oUt o $ 
 and (/) in the Metropolitans of other Provinces * do make their #J rlw Av J 1 ?- 
 entrance into that Canon with T<* fyx*** ^ k&thto. Let the ^?*V?vJuf *£ m 
 ANCIENT cuflomes continue. Which as it ckareth the ^^x'^ > ™ 
 antiquity of the Metropolitieali jurifdiclion of the Bifhop of <®f>w££* ro- 
 Rome, fo doth it likewife confirm the opinion of thofe, who &<rQ** f ***e 
 conceive the Metropolitan of Alexandria to be meant in that Jj^^^L- 
 paffage of the Emperour Hadrians epiftle unto Serviantts. ^ )]K ° oV *i&siy H 
 (g)Sven the very Patriarch himfelf^hen he commeth into 8' %ts u th ya>- 
 gypt>it by fume compelled to adore $erapis % and by others to wor- eU >?»£*«* /*»?- 
 {hip Ch>ift. As if, upon his returning into Egypt , either from <W« A ,' T « >*• 
 his vifitation oILybia and Pentapolu (which this fame Nicene ™™^*£ T l 9 
 Canon fheweth to have of old belonged unto his care ) or from jutyaw <rv~ 
 his flight in that prefent time of perfecution ; he (hould fuffcr Y*U<jLw*\m 
 this diftraftion : the heathen labouring to cornpellhim to the «^" «I?«j &*?* 
 v/orQiivQt Serspu, and his own Chriftian flock on the other N^il'fa *' 
 fide driving to keep him conftant in the fervice ofChrift. For Can, L * 
 that either the Heathen had »///, or the Chriflians power at g ipfeillePa* 
 tliat time to force the Jewijb Patriarch (of whom fome do un- ni&tcba quuvt 
 derftand the place) to the adoration of Cbrift ; hath no man- ®^£fl*«* **- 
 ner of probability in it. 7cu£ s fL- 
 
 That part alfoof the Canon, which ratifieth the ancient rare, abaliis 
 rights of Metropolitans of all other Provinces, may ferve to cogitur cbri- 
 open unto us the meaning of that complaint which, fome ft urn * Hadriant" 
 threefcore and ten years before the time of this Synod, S. Cj- ^'Jjy rvi ' 
 prian madeagainft Novatianns ; for the confu(ion which by pjf c ^n smt^ 
 his fchitme he brought upon the Churches of God : that vino. 
 (h) whereas longfincc in all Provinces, and in all Cities, *Bi- h Cum jampri* 
 
 4V I I i 1 • 1 • .* r } * /- • I 1 /lira *« M .« . _ 
 
 >ordi?iati fit 
 
 fubordinate 'Bifhops in every City , and Metropolitans in Epifcepi in ata- 
 every Province* ** antiqui, in 
 
 In lAfricke at that time, although there were many civil! ^ n m ^ ri * /*' 
 
 %i y hi tsrfccutwc profmfti} jUe [uper cos crtare Aim p(eudt/-e$i[copot audeat. Cyprian- 
 Epift. 5*. 
 
 Provinces 
 
« TheOfigindllef Met*o?Oliyaiiv 
 
 i T« VLwapiA* Provinces, yet was there but one Ecclefiaftieall : whereof C/« 
 f5? >w/*4w» frianhimklf was (7) Archbifbop ; as the Fathers of the 7V*ji 
 
 ■^Tw vrf- /4 * S ^ iad cal! h[mt ir ' /r ^» faith hc in onc of his E P iftle *t 
 jLef. Conal. (fcj "^ '^ Bi/hofs conjiituted either in our Province or be* 
 
 Conftantinop. jendtbe Sea % intimating thereby^ that all the Bifhops which 
 
 flu frmiuia., unto it. Whence that great Councell affcmbled by him for 
 vcl tuns marc determining the queftion touching the baptizing of thofe that 
 4onflitotis.Cy- na( j beep baptized by Hereticks, is faid to be gathered (m) out 
 Vt&mamfa* of the Province of Africa, Numidia, and Mauritania. For 
 tmj*{& ejt n$- howfoever in the civiil government, the Troconjular ±A fries 
 ftra frwincidi (wherein Carthage was feated) Numidia and both the Man- 
 babet etiam r it antes ( Sitifenfis and Cafarienfts) were accounted three di- 
 famtZn ftina Provinces : yet it> the Ecelefiafticail adminiftration they 
 dun fibicoba- were joyned together and made but one Province, immediately 
 wnfw.UEpift. fubjecl to the; Metropolitan /urifdidion of the prime See of 
 45. Carthage, 
 
 ™J??f r0 ™ ncia Some thrcefcore years before this African Councell was 
 duMmita- held by Cyprian, thofe other Provincial! Synods wereaflcm- 
 uti! Condi, bled by the Metropolitans of fundry nations, fot the composing 
 Cy'priani of the Pa fch all con trover fie, then hotly purfued s and among 
 TiJavxpTtLK- the reft, that in our neighbour country, out of (») the Pa- 
 -**-" v*^w^ r% ^ es f ^ or ^ * n c ^ e anc * ent ^ an g ua g c °f tne Church, thofe 
 •t^lmXiJum P recin,as werc name d» which now we call Diocefes ) of which 
 Eufcb.hiftor. * lrenaus had the fuperintendency • whence alfo he wrote that 
 lib.* 4 cap*$. free Epiftle unto r^erBiftiop of Rome, (0) in the per [on of 
 o'e* <agvG><7r* thofe brethren over whom he was Present. At which time 
 tuAT^'ig? ( m ^ before) the (/>) moft famous Metrepoles of that Country, 
 IcTfe^Sabid. an( * *° ^ e ( l) mo & eminent Churches therein, were Lyons and 
 cap. j6. Vimna ; in the one whereof Iren&ns * was then no lefle re- 
 
 p*Hf jAnhnb- nowned a Prelat, then Cyprian was afterwards in Africa. 
 Mt< vmrnpoi THonyfitts. the famous Bifliop of Corinth, was elder then 
 
 £>**c nftj &C7Q&1 ItA^iffcti, /2sj3Sih£) A«7/«TaK©- $ h'lvvex.. Ibid. cap. 1. q \A/tm/« 
 ftAQctvirAT&t oKKhimtt* Id. ibid. * of tw* noAi/jtctpTa <Pt£a,ffKAhia$ a,irfa(M<sw 9 
 iyiy'mi *} 9»r«p r*A*7w <$/ ssnrspfoy, Theodoret, in *AT}iwlp, 
 
 they 
 
 
The Original! of M^ tropolitans. 1 6j 
 
 they ; who among many other Epiftles,dire&ed one (r)to the r J? ohxam^/* 
 
 t Church of gortyna, and all the reft of the Churches of Crete • T f *■*#'**'■* 
 
 I wherein he faluted A*> tf #7ty P&ty . Whereby it appearetb, 7 °?™";*% 
 
 that at that time, afwell as in the ages following, (/) Cjorty na ^ ^n-rluj 
 
 was the Metropolis, and the S */&*/> thereof the Metropolitan w*}*im*k 
 
 of all the reft of that whole Ifland. Which kinde of fuperin- &*£**<> #ft 
 
 [tendency there, £*/**** (theancienteftEcdefiafticaUHifto- h '"™ <fV 
 
 J % i • i * ■ • /•<-»-. i oK,0<ZFQV 0JJ7COV 
 
 i nan now extant) denveth from the very times of Titus; whom, ^j^g^. /^ 
 out of the hiftories that were before his time, he relateth to nb 44 . cap* %$* 
 have held (t) the Bifboprick^ofthe Churches in £rete. With f Subfcript. 
 whom the Grecians of after times do fully concurre ; as appea- Condi. Chal- 
 reth both by the fubfeription annexed by them unto the Epiftle &CondhCon.l 
 of S.Faul (u) to Titus, ordained fas there they fay) thefirfi ftantinop. fub 
 Bifhop of the Church of the Cretians $ and by the argument Mera, Aft.?, 
 prefixed by them before the fame, fpeaking of him to the fame & Synodi V. 
 efFedt, that(.v) he was by Paul ordained Bi/hop of that great ^""o cd- 
 country, and had commifpen to ordain the Bijhdps that were j at g # 
 under him, which they gather out of thofe words of S.Paul t tmktew T »V 
 unto him* (y) For this caufe left I thee in Crete, that thou U 'E<pk<ra v«- 
 (bouldeft fet in order the things that arewanting r and ordain ^lUteU^R* 
 Elders in every City, as 1 had appointed thee. Out of which T f\ *?*"& 
 lX.£alvin colle&eth rfiis do&rine unto us for the general!. We *y S^-Aw 
 learn out of this place, that there was not then fuck an equality fc £ ThQ- 
 betwixt the minifiers of the Churchy hut that there Was (ome ray cm Kpjf- 
 one who was preftdent over the reft both in authority and in ™ wmKs&n 
 counfell.hnd SChryfoftomfor the particular of Titus, (a) Had u ub f C *{' 1 \ 
 he not been an approved man ,he would not htve committed that " ^^ ~ l T°* 
 whole lland unto him : he would not have commanded him to KK ^l^ ^^ 
 fupply the things that were defective • he Would not have com- T:V cmewaov 
 mitted unto him the judgement of fo many Bifhops, if he had xtt^rm\^hv 
 mot had very great confiaence in the man. And Bidiop Jewell T f • , 
 
 *?KpHTHf 5 pzyfcMxfM, JM^s/jpoTWflTO -fori TQ(J TldJJte, kvm$A^or$-T**'uar\*VTlP 
 hm<TKQT*i yiifoTWYiG &i. Theodoret. argument, epift ad Tit. in Oecomenio. y Tit, i. ?• 
 % Vifiimm ex bee loco, non earn fmjj'c tunc zqualitatem inter Ecclefia minifirosi pin umes all 
 Juk autoritate & confdio fraejjet. Calvin, in Tit, i. 5. a EV //A -yb'nv '/oic/fi©"> «k« 
 
 4U/7WTHP VY[<J0V OhOKK^tH iT^i^iVy %A AP Ttf ifaWpdlVTA t.V&TrMpaf** <B&<TVTtLC,& 
 
 7fi4s/» u /4 f$ofe& ibdphi- i$ avff t* Chryfoil 4 in Tit* i, HomiU 1. 
 
 upoa 
 
 
74 The Original of Metropolitans? 
 
 upon him again. Having the government ofminj Bljhops \ 
 what may we caM him but an Archbifhop ? 
 
 Which is not (o much to be wondred at, when we fee that 
 the Bilhops of another Hand ftick not (and that without any 
 controil ) to deduce the ordination of their Metropolitan from 
 the Apoftolick times, in the face of the whole generall Coun- 
 cil of Sphefus. For whereas the Patriarch of Antioch dii 
 b AfdnUisA- c ^ m an mt ercft in the ordaining of the Metropolitan of Cy- 
 pftoiu nun- f rHi '• the Bifliops of that Hand prefcribed to the contrary, that 
 quam pojfmt (b) from the time of the holy Apefths it could never be fhs^ed % 
 eftendere qw>i t b at t fc Bifbop of Antioch Was ever prejent at any fuch ordina- 
 te ) il *tfrli' tton * or -^ ever GommHniC * te the grace of ordination to that 
 naverit, wl ~ ll *"& \ and that the former Bifli ops of C'onfianti*. (xhtMe* 
 cemmunkave* tropolu of Cyprus) Troilus y SabinHs, gpiphanius, (c) and all 
 rit unquamin* the holy and orthodoxs Bifbop s which were before them, ever 
 fnUorditmtio- fince the holy Apoftles, were confiituted by tho(e which were in 
 TuFSiwimti- c 7F H h™& therefore deiired thatW as in the beginning from 
 quam. ConciL^e times of {he ApoftleS) and by the conftitutiens and canons 
 Ephefin. Aa.7. of the moft holy and great Synod of Nicej the Synod of the Cy- 
 c Et nunc me- prian Bilhops remained untouched and fuperiour to privy under- 
 mwAuEfifcopi minings and open power ; fo they might ftijl be continued in the 
 Apofkoli ■ "rant pofleflion of their ancient right. Whereupfon the Counceil con- 
 omnes ortbo demning the attempt of the Biftiop of Antioch, as (e) an inno- 
 doxi, abbUqui vation brought in a gain fi the Ecclefiafticall laws and the ca~ 
 in Cypro canjti- mns of the holy Fathers ; did not only order, that (f) the go* 
 ' w /v x '. . .. vernmrs of the Churches which were in Cy prus Jhould keep 
 h tempovibm their own right entire and inviolable •, according to the Canons 
 Afoftvlorum & of the holy Fathers and their ancient cufiome : but alfo (g}fov 
 conftnutionibus 
 
 Cf canombm fanftijfima & WAgn<zSymii Hicana% iUafa & fuperiorinfid/is & potemia. 
 ferm&nfit nefira Cyprhrwm Synodus. Ibid, e H$yp& wagy. t«? ctf,fcAWtf7*r/»«? dir^s x) 
 T*f Kavovdi ffi dyicov trenipav xaivo7o\K*[t.\vov. Ibid, f ''Ef act To dviTrnfeetTOV )y &'$/- 
 etrov ffi oylvv inKhwteoy nffl xp ty\v Kvispov «nr^^a>Ti^ xp -mi Kavbvttc TW office? 
 TA-ripvv tyTM o.^dLicty Qvvi]$*ic)LV']bi&, g To "5 avrl }y lm •T^VaiT^cov J iQiMcricov XjTut 
 o.iteLVTtLyZi'* tL$ r /joov T&gy.iQvKcLytyhfiTcit.h «r£ [/.n^iva rccv SioqiKis-a.iMV bm<sx.W(or 
 iirayyja.v iri^y, aa vravava&iv Xj i^ap^s v®* T ^ v # V7 * 'iyzv ruv we) avTv yfie$% 
 KATA^a,[x^vitv & paulopoft. "JE^afs roi wv t'm dyict xj 9tKv[AiviK» (rvyo^co, o-co^i7^eu 
 |)totr»i i^Ap^iot Hcidae?. }y 0@ia.rit ra ctVT? <st£S<tQVT& ^iKcua, dviij \% 4pX^ ( ^^^t 
 xj 1 7^ 'TTahai Ke&TnfM 'idoc, ibid. 
 
 all 
 
The ongtnau ^metropoutans, 75 
 
 all other Diocefes and Provinces wherefoever ; that no Biiliop 
 fhould intrude himfelf into any other Province, which had nos 
 formerly and from the beginning been under him or his prede- 
 ceflbuts. 
 
 The beginning of which kind of fubordination of many Bi- 
 fhops Unto one chief, if it were not to be derived from Apofto- 
 licall right 5 yet it is by Be^a fetched (b) from the fame light b ,^^f 
 of Nature and enforcement of Necejjity, whereby men were Zltndumtfi, 
 at hxft induced to enter into confociations, fu-bjccted one unto hunc externum 
 another 5 and by 'Bucer acknowledged to have ( i) been con/en- ordinem juijfe 
 taneom to the Law of Chrift, and to have been done by the initfa bumani 
 right of the body ofchrifi . and by all men nrnft be conMed to f^^^f 
 be conformable to the pattern delivered by g dd unto Ado f^, u^f^ ex $& 
 For having fet apart the three families of the Levitts for his gkmbes, & 
 ownfervice, and conftituted a chief (as we have heard ) over ** wbibmci* 
 every of them: he placed immediately over them all, not states 1 Pfe> im 
 4aron the High Trie ft % but 8Uax*r his fon, faying, (k) €le> ^^^tau 
 d&ar, the (on of A*ron the Triefl^ (hall be chief over the chief fagj t6n te 9 fe?fc 
 oftheLevites ; and have the over fight of them that keep the Jim coicrmti 
 charge of the Stntltsary. aliii riorum 
 
 In refpeel: of which overfight, as he hath by the Septxagint e * e ™? lu ™ ^* 
 fwarrantably enough by the Word of God) given unto him diyerf. gradib. 
 the name of ( I) a Bijbopi fo the Holy Gh oft having vouch- miniflr. contr." 
 fafed to honour him with the title of inn WW 2 WiDl ( m ) ° Sarav - ^P« *i* 
 StfX av &™ r ® v *?X°~ VTm * ' T ® y AivircoVf the prefident of the Ptefi' *-«• 4* f 
 dents of the Levites ; none>that without prejudice did take the ) on f^ ie \^ G i im 
 matter into confiderarion, would much (lick to aford unto him gtchrijii, ffe* 
 the name of an Arcb-bijhop^t leaft he would be taught hertby, b&que ex jure 
 to retain that reverend opinion of the primitive Bijhops of the «*?«» cbrijik 
 Chriftian Church (whofo willingly fubmitted themfclves, not ^FV'J—* 
 only to the ArchtepiJcofalJoui alio to a Patrtarcbical govern- i\ tv ^ ^ inter 
 ment) which Calvin profefled he did: that in all this 3 they were fcriptaejasAn- 
 far from having a thovrght,(»)*0 devife another firm of Ch^ch' gtem, pag, 
 government i then that which god hadprefcribed in hk Word* *** • ) 
 
 I , £<S70 , Xfl<zs-©- 'EA€a£«tf. LXX,Num.4. 16. m id. Num." $. 52. n Repe tiemw veie-- 
 tet Efijeopot non altam regeudgEsclefa Jormam volaijje fngereab ea. quamVm Ftf-bofuo- 
 pfiferiffiu Calvin. Inftimt. lib. 4, cap. 4. fed. 4. 
 
 L- TBE^ 
 
7*' 
 
 The Writers , which in the next Age after the Apoftles, 
 
 have here given ufiimony f$r Epifcopacp 
 
 alyvov'ojijx, |N the XIIII. year o?®omitian f about the XCV. year of our 
 
 rt9'Ut/TK>¥«r§ * Lord (according to the vulgar account) S. John wrote his Re- 
 
 il tyS?®* ^ velation 5 and in it, the Epiftle directed by our Saviour ft the dn~ 
 
 n^cd-irnr'/iv . gel f t fo Church in Philadelphia. No longer then twelve years a f- 
 
 f*cLtovi&vTM cer | .| iat t j mej jg m i m ( § # j y ns s c holiar) writeth his Letters unto 
 
 ?vnZffd.v°k'l'' C ^ e ^ mt Church, In the beginning whereof, he giveth this tefti- 
 
 \upi<7$viv*h mon Y im -° ^ Clt ®*ft d P 5 that (a) he fyieft? him to have been promoted, 
 
 Ignac. eoiit/ad n °t °f himfelft nor by men, unto that Miniftery, pertaining to %hepublk\ 
 
 Philadelph.' y>Ml of the Church 1 which is every whit as much, as if he had cal- 
 
 b us hm <tko- led him their Angel. Afterwards he telleth them? that there is but 
 
 -srofi oiy.& ^4 (b) one Bijhop, joyntdftiitb the Tresbyterj and the {Deacons: 'and that 
 
 <sw^uTfcpf$> he delivered this as the voice of God ; (c) Ta^e heed unto your ®u 
 
 fyTols frcbKo-Jbopi avd to the fresbytery and the 'Deacons, (d) calling him to wit- 
 
 von. ibid. ^ ne (jg } f or y<fa Qm ne was bound (and for whom he went then unto 
 
 C °i£ % ^ ' ms * a ^ martyrdome ) that he had not this from humane flefti ( or 
 
 0? T-*" from the mouth of men) but that the Spirit fpakeit. Without the 
 
 ffKwa mewl- ®*{ ho P ^° m ^' m i* So £ hat from S. Johns cime, we have this<:on- 
 
 yi7i ' ^~ \J tinued fucceffion of witneffes J in the age next following, for Epif- 
 
 mptcrlZvTipia copacy. 
 
 JtjroiffiAKoyoif,. Ibid, d Mtf prt/<; (Aoh Nov fiAtpAitori'&id royL&T©- etvSfcoTrts (aL 
 $ri ff*fXQf iv&fairhtis) **> 'iyv&v to 3 w*vwcMnpv%i [//o/, ] htywraju X&gh 
 t<viffKwv jtviftv mottiTe* Id. ibid, cum Antiocho, kerm.124. 
 
 In the year: 
 CVII. Ignatius , Bifhop of Ant'mh , where firft they were 
 
 called Chifiians. 
 CXXX. Hadrian the Emperor a touching the Bidiops of 
 
 J&gypi, 
 CL. '/«/#» Martyr, from Samaria. 
 ClXfX. The Church of Smyrna. 
 CLXXV. Vionyfius, Bifhop of Corinth* 
 CLXXX. Hegefippus, from Jwjfe*. 
 
 IrcnceuS) Biihop of Lions, near unto us; 
 CXCV. Tertullian, hom Jfrit^ 
 
 Volycrates, Bifhop of Epbefus. 
 CC. Clemens , Presbyter of Alexandria. 
 
 THE 
 
77 
 
 The Apoilolicall InfHtution of 
 
 Episcopacy ^ deduced out of 
 
 the premises > by W. C 
 
 F we ahOrscl from Epifcopall government 
 all accidental^ and coniider onely what is 
 edendall and necefTary to it ; we ftiall find 
 in it no more but this : An appointment, 
 of one man of eminent fanftity and fuflRei- 
 ency to have the care of ail the Churhes, 
 & within a certain Precinct or Diocefle ; and 
 furnishing him with authority, not abfoluteor arbitrary, bus 
 regulated and bounded by lawes, and moderated by joyning to 
 him a convenient number of affiftantsr To the Intent that all 
 the Churches under him may be provided of good and able Pa- 
 ftours : and that both of Paftours and people conformity to 
 lawes and performance of their duties may be required, under 
 penalties, not kk to difcretion, but by law appointed* 
 
 To this kind of government I am not by any particular Ih- 
 tereft fo devoted, as to think it ought to be maintained, ei- 
 ther inoppofition to Apoftolick institution, or to the much 
 defired reformation of mens Jives, and reftauration of Primi- 
 tive difcipline, or to any law or precept of our Lord and S a* 
 viour Jefus Chrift : for that were to maintain a means con- 
 trary to the end. For obedience to our Saviour is the end for 
 which Church Government is appointed. But if it may be 
 deraonftrated, or made much more probable then the contra- 
 ry , as I verily think it may s I. That it is not repugnant to 
 
 L ^ she 
 
"The Afcftolicall Institution of Ep I s cop a c y? 
 the government ktkd in and for the Church by the Agoftlerf 
 II. That \t is as complyable with the reformation of any 
 evill which we defire to reform either in Church or .State* 
 or the introduction of any good which we defire to intro- 
 duce, as any other kind of government ; And III. That there 
 is no law, no record of our Saviour agairsft it.* then I hope it 
 wiH. not bethought an unreafonable motion , if we humbly 
 defire thofe that are in authority, efpecially the High Court 
 of Parliament, that it may not be ficrificed to clamour, or 
 over-born by violence : and though (which God forbid J the 
 greater part of the multitude fhould cry> C ruc $ e * Crucifix 
 yet our Governours would be fo full of Juftice and cou- 
 rage, as not to give it -up until! they perfectly underftand con- 
 cerning Epifcopacy it felf, Jgjxid mail fecit. I (hall fpeak at 
 this time only of the firft of thefe three points : That Epifco- 
 pacy is not repugnant to the government fetled in the Church 
 for perpetuity by the Apoftles. Whereof I conceive this which 
 followes as clear a demonftration, as any thing of this nature is 
 capable of. 
 
 That this government was received univerfalfy in the Church, 
 either in the Apoftles time, or prefently after, is To evident and 
 unquestionable, that the rnoft learned adverfaries of this go- 
 vernment do themfelves confeffe it. 
 
 Tetrus Molinaus, in his book *De munere paflorali^ pur- 
 pofely written in defence ofthePresbyteriall government, ac- 
 knowledged : That prefently after the Apoftles times , or 
 even in their time (as Ecciefiafticali ftory witneflfeth ) it was 
 ordained, That in every City one of the Presbytery (liould be 
 called a Bi&iop, who iliould have preheminence over his Col- 
 leagues; to avoid confufion which oft times arifeth out of e* 
 quality. And truly this form of government all Churches every 
 where received. 
 
 Theodorm Bez.a s in his Trad; *De triplici EpifcopAtns ge- 
 nere, confeffeth in effecT: the fame thing. For having diftin- 
 guifhed Epifcopacy into three kinds, Divine t Humane, and 
 Satanicali, and attributing to the fecond (which he calls Eu- 
 mane, but we maintain and conceive to be Apoftolicdl ) not 
 
 @nly 
 
The Afofiolkall Jnftitwon of E p i s c o p a c y « 7£ 
 
 only a priority of order, but a fuperiority of power, and au- 
 thority over other Presbyter?, bounded yet bylawes and ca- 
 nons provided sgainft Tyranny: he clearly profefletb, that of 
 this kind of Epifcopacy is to be underftood whatfoever we 
 read concerning the authority of Biihops or Presidents (as 
 jHftinM*rtjrca\\s&zm) in Ignatius, and other more anci- 
 ent Writers. 
 
 Certainly from * thefe two great defenders of the Presby* * To whom 
 tery weihould never had this free acknowledgement, fo pre- two others al- 
 judiaall to their own pretence, and fo advantageous to their fo * rom G™*' 
 adverfaries purpofe, had not the evidence of clear and unde- V /^ y j^hl 
 niable truth enforced them to it. It will not therefore be ne- cbamicm (in 
 ccfliry to fpend any time in confuting that uningenuous aflfer- Panftraua, to, 
 tion of the Anonymus Authour of the Catalogue of Teftimo- *• l ib IO « ca Pj 
 ciesfor the equality of Bifliops and Presbyters, who affirmes, ^^ % yalvm 
 That their difparity began long after the Apoftles times : But (ExercWt 3. 
 we may fafely take for granted that which thefe two learned in epiftjgna- 
 Adverfaries have confeflfed 5 and fee, whether upon this foun- tii ad pJula- 
 dation laid by them, we may not by unanfwerablereafon raife ^ e] P h - ca P ! 4- 
 thisfupetftruftion. / f n f XTai 
 
 ' c That feing Epifcopali Government is confefifedly fo anci- Mariam, cap, 
 " ent and fo Catholique, it cannot with reafon be denyed to be *.) which is 
 f c Apoftolique. fully alio de« 
 
 For fo great a change, as between Presbyteriall Govern- ~J r in 
 ment and Epifcopali, could not poffibly have prevailed all Treadfe" by 
 the world over, in a little time. Had Epifcopali Govern- the teftimo- 
 ment been an aberration from, or a corruption of the Govern- nies ri thofe 
 ment left in the Churches by the Apoftles, it had been very who wrote ia 
 ftrange, that it Pnould have been received in any one Church !£* ^^J 
 fo fuddainly , or that it fhould have prevailed in all for ma- Apoftles! 
 ny Ages after. Variaffs debuerat errer Scclefidrum : quod 
 mtem *pud omnes unum eft % non eft erratum, fed traditurss. 
 Had the Churches err'd , they would have varied, What 
 therefore is one and the fame amongft all , came not fure 
 by erroor , but tradition. Thus Tertullian argues very pro- 
 bably from the confent of the Churches of his time, not long 
 
 after 
 
 • 
 
after the Apbftlcs, and that in matter of opinion much more 
 fubjed to unobfervM alteration. But that in the frame and fub-' 
 ftance of the ncceffar'y government of the Church, a thing al- 
 wayes in ufe and pradice, there fliould be fo fuddain a change 
 as prefently after the Apoftfes times, and fo univerfall, as re- 
 ceived in all the Churches, this is clearly impoffible. 
 
 . For what univerfall caufeean be aligned or fained of this 
 univerfall Apoftafie ? you will not imagine that the Apoftles, 
 all or any of them, made any decree for this change^ when they.-. 
 were living ; or left order for it in any Will or Teftament,when 
 thef were dying. This were to. grant the quqftion • to wit, 
 that the Apoftfes s being to leave the government of the 
 Churches themfelves, and either feeing by experience, or fore- 
 feeing by the Spirit of God, the . dfiftfadions and diforders 
 which would arife from a multitude of cqualls, fubftituted Epi- 
 fcopall government inftead of their own. General! Councells- 
 to make a Law for a general! change, for many ages there was 
 none. There was no .Chrifiian Emperour, no coercive power 
 over the Church to enforce it. Or if there had been any, we 
 know no force was equallto the courage of the Chriftians of 
 thofe times. Their lives were then at command (for they 
 had not then learn'e to fight for Ghrift) but their obedience 
 to any thing againO: his Law was not to be commanded ( for 
 they had perfectly learn'tto die for him.; Therefore there was 
 no power then to command this change ; or if there had been 
 any, it had been in vain. 
 
 What device then (fall we ftudy , or to what fountaine 
 ftiall we reduce this (irange pretended alteration ? Can it 
 enter into our hearts to think , that all the Presbyters and 
 other Chriftians then, being the Apoftlcs Scholkrs, could be 
 generally ignorant of the will of Chrift:, touching the necedi- 
 tyofa Presbyteriaii government? Or dare we adventure to 
 think them fo flrangely wicked all the world over, as againft: 
 knowledge and conference to confpire againft it ? Imagine 
 the fpiiit oVDiotrephes had entered into iome or a great many 
 of the Presbyters, and pofleflfed them with an ambitious defire 
 
 o£ 
 
the AfofmicaU injntunon $f fcp x $c of a c y, gf 
 
 of a forbidden fuperierity, was it pofllble they Oiould attempt 
 and atchieve it once without any opposition or contradicli- 
 on? and befides that the contagion ofthis ambition fhould 
 fpread it felf and prevail without flop or controule , nay, 
 without any noyfe or notice taken of it, through ail the 
 Churches in the world j ail the watchmen in the mean time 
 being fo fail: aflcep , and all the dogges fo dumb ? that not 
 fo much as one fhould open his mouth againft it ? But let us 
 fuppofe (chough it be a horrible untruth; that the Presbyters 
 and people then were not fogood Chriftians as the Presby- 
 ters are now, that they were generally fo negligent to retain 
 the government of Chrifts Church commanded by Chriit , 
 which we now are fo zealous to reftore: yet certainly we 
 muft not forget nor deny that they were men as we are. And 
 if we look upon them but as meer naturall men, yet know- 
 ing by experience how hard a thing it is even for policy 
 arm'd with power by many attempts sad contrivances* and 
 in a longtime to gain upon the liberty of anyone people, 
 undoubtedly we (hall never entertain fo wild an imaginati- 
 on, as that among ail the Chriftian Presbyteries Ira the world, 
 neither confcience of duty, nor love of liberty, nor averfe- 
 neiTe from pride and ufurpation of others over them, fhould 
 prevail fo much as with any one, to oppofe this pretended 
 univerfall invafion of the Kingdome of Chrift and the liberty 
 ofChriilians. 
 
 When I (hall fee therefore all the fables in the MetAmoy* 
 f hefts aded and prove ftories » when I fball fee all the De- 
 mocraties and Ariftocraties in the world lye down and ileep, 
 and awake into Monarchies : then will I begin to believe thac 
 Presbyteriall government , having continued in the Church 
 during the Apoftles times, fhould prefentiy after, againft the 
 Apoftles do&rine and the will of Chrift, be whiri'd about 
 like a fcene in a mafque, and transformed into Epifcopacy; 
 In the mean time, while thefe things remain thus incre- 
 dible, and in humane reafon impoffible , I hope I {hall have 
 leave to conclude thus. Epifcopall government is acknow- 
 ledged 
 
ledged to have been uriiverfaliy received in the Churc 
 , prefently after the Apoftles times. Between the AjpofU 
 times and this presently after, there was not time enough for, 
 nor poflibility of,fo great an alteration. And therefore tfcejc 
 was no fuch alteration as is pretended. And therefore Ep& 
 fcopacy , b-ing confcffed to be fo ancient and Catholkjue, 
 rnuit be granted alfo to be Apoftoliqne. -JStubd erat dtmori* 
 * Jkrm&nm* . 
 
 JF ■/ J%# ■■& 
 
 \ 
 
" r TS 
 
 A 
 

 /