It is a vanity to speake much of a lit­tle, and a difficulty to speake little of much; as in this copious argument of Episcopacy, which pleadeth dis­cent from the blessed Apostles: to which purpose I might produce many proofes from Scripture, Antiquity, (Fathers, and Histories) from the most famous Divines of forraine Churches and our owne; and finally from Reasons, depending upon the sacred oracles of God.

But now, in this latitude of matter, to avoyd longi­tude of discourse, I have confined my selfe especially to one important Testimony; one in stead of many, or of all: in pursuit, explication, and defence whereof, I shall have occasion, fairely presented unto me, to reflect a little upon those other grounds: and so out of all, to give as plentifull satisfaction upon this point as it doth require, or so compendious a discourse can permit.

Understand then, you that are ignorant, or remember you that are learned, that S. Irenaus confuteth the Mar­cionites, and Valentinians (leaden heretickes in that golden age) by a double probation: first out of the holy Scriptures, and then by Apostolicall Tradition; [Page] not in the Popish sense of an unwritten word, but in an orthodoxall sense of the doctrine preached by the A­postles, and by them, planted in the Churches which is also in the written word: the same descending from the time of the Apostles unto the time of Irenaeus himselfe.

To this end and purpose, he first Lib. 3. cap. 3. produceth the Church of Rome; then most famous in the world, as instructed by S. Peter and S. Paul, who as he conceiveth governed it joyntly, and taught it fully in all the my­steries of Christian doctrine; which finally they wa­tered with their owne blood: from, and after whom (saith he) in a lineall succession Eleutherius, now the twelfth in order, possesseth the Episcopacy of the same.

If any man doubt whether this Romane Episcopacy were of Apostolicall institution, or not, the substance of Irenaeus his discourse in that place will beare it well; to which I now remit the ingenuous Reader, be­cause I make hast unto his subsequent discourse, which taketh away all doubt for first plantation of Episcopa­cy in the Church. For thus he writeth; Polycarp was not onely taught by the Apostles, and conversed with many of them, who saw the Lord, but was also constituted, by the Apostles, BISHOP in Asia, and in the Church of Smyrna there; whom we also saw in our first age; being his Disciple, as S. Hierom [de viris illustr.] doth record.

This testimony is so cleare and ponderous, that it may sufficiently determine the whole cause; if you con­sider the Person (who it is that speaketh) and the Mat­ter, which he speaketh. But since nothing is so cleare, which may not seeme obscure, and nothing so ponde­rous, which may not seeme light to a mind possessed with unreasonable prejudice, I will now further de­clare, & presse this testimony of Irenaeus; fencing it also against all objections, which may be framed against it; or against our cause, which doth depend upon it.

[Page] First, then, consider with me the Authour, or Relator rather, himselfe. Note his antiquity: he lived in the time of Eleutherius, the twelfth Bishop of Rome; upon the yeere of our Lord Functius in Chronolog. 185. We have few Authors (grave and certaine) now extant, who lived before his time; except Ignatius (whose 7. Epistles as they are his owne, and aproved for his by Vedelius, and are some of them lately cited by the adversaries of Episcopacy under his name; so they fully expresse the cleare distinction of Bishops, Presbyters, and Deacons, in the first age of the Christian Church) and, after him, of Justinus Martyr, who, under the name of [...] (governour, or prefect) doth well discover what Episcopacy was in the second age of the Church.

Note then his quality. He was an holy man, a lear­ned man, a peaceable man (as it may appeare by his Epistles addressed unto Uictor, Bishop of the Church of Rome) a constant defendour of the truth, and finally a patient sufferer for the same. What is your exception against him? The late unworthy Authour of a booke intituled, Of Reformation, &c. hath found some quarrell against him: but Fevardentius, in his apolo­geticall preface (in the defence of Irenaeus) hath well answered such exceptions.

Howbeit, whatsoever errours, (more, or fewer; grea­ter, or lesser) Irenaeus had, or had not; it is nothing to the point now in question: for if he erred, it was in a point dogmaticall: we are now upon a point historicall, viz. Whether this relation of Irenaeus, concerning the Episcopacy of Polycarpus, which he received from the Apostles, be true, or not? Wherein he had information immediately from Polycarp himselfe and the whole Church of Smyrna, wherein he lived. Who wil, who can who dareth say that Irenaeus hath lyed in this report? He knew Polycarp very well, and knew undoubtedly that his Episcopall office was derived from the Apostles: [Page] why should this relation seeme incredible unto you?

The Scriptures themselves informe us so much: For, when S. John writeth to the Angell of the Church of Smyrna; who is this Angell? Polycarp: So the concor­dance of Scriptures, and histories; so the judgement of many learned men (& some protestants) do informe us. And why is Polycarp here an Angell? because he is prae­positus Ecclesiae, the Governour or Bishop of the Church: many Presbyters being therein, but he, in title distinct from them, and in power, superiour to them; as wee may clearely collect out of S. Augustine; epist. 162. where first he sheweth and proveth, that under the name of Angels, are not understood celestiall Angels in these 7. Churches (as Origen, and some others fol­lowing him, did conceive) and then, particularly for the Angell of Ephesus, he saith afterward, that he is praepositus Ecclesiae, the governour of the Church; Now since we read of many Presbyters in Ephesus, Act. 20. 28. and here of one Angell in it, he must needs be a person, in place, and office, as well as name, distinguished from the common Presbyters of the Church: as Epiphanius (more ancient then Aug.) doth hence collect and con­stantly affirme, Haeres. 25.

This explication is confirmed by our best Divines; as namely by venerable Bullinger, conc. 9. in Apocal. saying, An heavenly Epistle is destinated to the Angell of the Church of Smyrna. Now histories doe testifie, that the Angel, or pastor of this Church was Polycarp; ordained a Bishop by the Apostles, even by John himselfe. To him I conjoyne worthy Marlorat, saying that in Apoc. 2. 1, Iohn doth not set upon the people, but upon principem Cleri, utique Episcopum: the Bishop, Prince, or chiefe of the Clergy (Presbyters and Deacons) in that Church. To both them I adde the famous Clerk, David Pareus; who dareth not say (though some doe) that Timothy was then the Angell, but denieth not that we was some­times [Page] the Angell, or Bishop there: and therefore he putteth there this question in the margine; Was Timo­thy Bishop of the Ephesine Church at that time? He saith tunc, then: he saith not unquam, at any time: which is a plaine concession, that, in his judgement, Timothy was sometimes (as indeed he was) the Bishop of that Church. Also in Apocal. 3. 1. he confesseth ingenuously (upon evidence of the text) that, under the name of Angell there, is to be understood ANTISTES, the Chiefe, the Prelate, the Bishop of the Church.

Which resolution of ancient and moderne Divines (to which I adde the judgement of the great Divine D. Rainolds; Confer. with Hart. cap. 8. divis. 3:) is con­firmed by the perspicuous evidence of undeniable rea­son: for, in the Church of Ephesus (and so in the rest) why is one man (where many Presbyters were) called an Angell specially, but for his speciall eminency above the rest? And why was the succession of one man to one observed in Histories, and registred in the Diptycha of the Church, rather then of many to many? As here, in the Church of Ephesus, of Smyrna and the rest, one man singularly is remembred: and why one, if this one man did not, in dignity of his place and office therein, excell the 'common Presbyters, as their Governour and Prefect, placed over these Presbyters by the holy Apostles?

To this effect speaketh Leontius, B. of Magnesia in the Councell of Chalcedon, Act. 11. amongst 630. Bi­shops, that Memnon, then B. of Ephesus was the 27. Bi­shop in succession from and after Timothy, as being the first Bishop of that Church. For as the subscription of the second Epistle of S. Paul to Timothy doth directly beare it; so we have a cleare attestation to it from Eu­sebius, l. 3. c. 4. Epiphanius, har [...]s. 75. Chrysostome; praf [...]. in 1. ad Timoth, & homil. 1. in Epist. id Philip Hierome, de viris illustr. Anno D. 540. Primasius, paefrat. in 1 ep. ad Timoth. To all which (and others) I may adde Oecumenius, who [Page] lived in the yeere 1080. as also Tertullian, who intima­teth this truth sufficiently in his book of Prescriptions, cap. 36, and finally S. Ambrose, praefat. in 1. epist. ad Ti­moth. but that I esteeme the authour to be a counterfet, whom yet I conceive to be very ancient.

Finally then, to end this point; Irenaeus hath now related no more touching Polycarps Episcopacy, then is warrantable by Scriptures, Fathers, Historians, and our owne Divines. I end therefore with Hierome, ep. 85. affirming that the Apostles, by their tradition did in­stitute Bishops, Presbyters, and Deacons in the new Testa­ment, looking unto the answerable degrees of the High priest, the inferiour Priests and Levites in the old; and telling us, in his exposition of Psal 45. 16. that Bishops are there foretold; as Aug. also doth himselfe conceive.

To that ancient Hierome, I adde a latter, viz. the most learned Zanchius, confessing fairely and truely [Mis­cellan. t. 2. d [...] primatu papae, p. 193. impres. Neostad [...]i in 4. Anno D. 1608.] that, in the Church, FIRST Pres­byters onely were. SECONDLY, saith he, additi Epis­copi, idque Apostolorum temporibus; Bishops were added [as being in degree, place and office distinct from Pres­byters] and that also was done in the Apostles times. If in their times, then by their meanes, as any rationall man may thereupon conclude. For, who durst institute Bishops in their times, without their direction? where, in Scripture, or history, doe they impugne this institu­tion? And if they made not this institution; who made it? What Councell; generall, or provinciall? when? where? produce any evidence of probable truth (I say not certaine) in this behalfe.

And thus having justified the relation of Irenaeus, con­cerning the Episcopacy of Polycarp, to which the Apo­stles (and particularly S. Iohn did advance him) I pro­ceed to some other poore exceptions against the afore­said testimony, which need not so large a discussion, as the former; that being the very substance and center of our whole discourse.

[Page] A second exception is, that, perhaps this place hath 2 beene forged or corrupted. But this objection is of no force, or value. For as this place now standeth in Ire­naeus, so it stood, word for word, in the time of Eusebius, upon the yeere 330. who hath thence transcribed it into his Ecclesiasticall history, lib. 9. c. 14. This is an old device of heretickes to say that the place is corrupted, when they cannot [...]nswer it; as S. Augustine observeth, Confes. lib. 5. c. 11.

A third exception is, that Irenaeus was himselfe a Bi­shop, and so not a competent witnesse in such a case. 3 Shall then so holy a person be rejected as a lyer? wri­ting otherwise then he saw or heard? This were a de­sperate evasion, and contemptible; yet followed by the adversaries of Episcopacy, charging the Fathers as partiall in their owne cause. But were they not the prin­cipall writers? yet not the onely: for Tertullian and Hierome were Presbyters only (and not Bishops) whose judgement and testimony I will not decline in this cause. Thus our English Divines are rejected, as being Bishops, or affecting Episcopacy, and so their owne Judges. Say what you please; yet I will conclude this passage with the publique protestation of that learned and holy man, D. Iohn White, in his Sermon at Pauls Crosse, March 24. 1615. I protest before God and man; it amazeth me to see such, as can read either SCRIPTVRE, or Antiquity to carpe at it [Episcopacy] when the Chri­stian world, for 1400. yeeres after Christ, never saw any other government, &c.

A fourth exception is, that Polycarp was no Lord 4 Bishop; he had no civill dignity, no temporall power, &c. and therefore very different from the Bishops of our Church.

Truely said, but to little or no purpose. The Christi­an Church and temporall State were then divided; and [Page] the first was persecuted by the second, till glorious Con­stantine obtained the Imperiall diadem, upon the yeere 316. Afterwards by favour of the Emperour, and other Princes, civill dignity, and temporall power were an­nexed to Episcopall places, the Church and State be­ing now united together.

I say therefore, FIRST, that Bishops, for three cen­turies, had no such dignity and power: they were Bi­shops without it then, and may be Bishops without it. now. SECONDLY, that, as the State, for good reasons gave it so, for good reasons (such as may be, not such as are) may take it away; but Episcopacy it selfe, w ^ch God gave, no man may take away. Salomon might exclude Abiathar from his Priesthood, but the Priesthood he could not dissolve. I speake not now of absolute power, but lawfull power in the State; for id possumus, quod jure possumus, & no more. THIRDLY, that temporall power, annexed to Episcopall function, may not onely adorne it, but strengthen it, for the benefit of Church, and Common wealth. FOVRTHLY, that Bishops are cape­able of this dignity, and power; as Zanchius obser­veth well, Epist. tom. 1. ad Ioh. Stuckium; saying, that, since in the old Testament, one man [the High priest] exercised both powers (spirituall and temporall) Non ergo per se pugnant; these two therefore [to be a Bishop and a civill Potentate] doe not, of themselves, the one oppugne the other, but may both concurre in one per­son: and then addeth, that, in writing the Confession of his Faith (upon occasion whereof this question did arise) he was to have a regard of those Reformed Churches, wherein many [as Bishops in England] have a temporall power conjoyned with their spirituall office. FIFTLY, and lastly, I demand of the adversaries of Episcopacy: If Bishops shall be excluded from civill dignity temporal power, &c. will you rest so content? & shall our Bishops yet retaine their spirituall office of superiority over Presbyters, with such authority in the Church, as Chri­stian [Page] Bishops did obtaine, and exercise therein, from and in the Apostolicall times, and in the succeeding ages of the primitive Church? No, but you would cast them wholly out of the Church, or leave them an empty title without a reall office; which, in the perpe­tuall discourse of all ages, they have enjoyed in the uni­versall Church.

To conclude: if malice in some did not envie their honour, and avarice in others their estates, this excep­tion were easily answered: but howsoever it be, Bishops they are lawfully with both, and Bishops they may be truely without either.

A fift exception is, that Polycarp (as also Ignatius and 5 other Bishops; such as they were) might perhaps have a priority of place before Presbyters, but not a superiority of power above them.

A weake pretense against the knowne testimony, and certaine experience of all ages, for proofe whereof, I remit you unto S. Hierome (the supposed adversary of Bishops) who in the very place, so often produced a­gainst Episcopacy, [viz, in Tit. 1. 5.] saith that the Bi­shop was suprapositus, placed above the Presbyters of his Church. This is more, then he said, Epist. 85. that he was praepositus, which perhaps you will render in Eng­lish; placed before them) though, in truth, it be no lesse.

And to make all cleare in this point, he saith yet fur­ther, Contra Luciferianos, cap. 4. The safety of the Church dependeth upon the dignity of the Bishop. Unlesse an emi­nent, and peerelesse power be given to him by all men, there will be as many schismes as Priests, in the Church. Where­upon it is, that in his instructions to Nepotianus, hee saith very well; What Aaron and his sonnes once were, that we must know Bishops and Presbyters now are: viz. in distinction, office, and degree, and whence it is that, as in S. Ignatius first, so in other Authours afterward, through all ages of the Christian Church Bishops, Pres­byters, [Page] and Deacons are three distinct kinds in office, and degree; the first above the second, and the second above the third: and not weekely, monthly, yeerely Bishops, Presbyters, and Deacons; but perpetually, during the time of their lives.

The SIXT and last exception is yet more important, 6 for you will say (as some have said) that they, who in the third chapter, are called Bishops by Irenaeus, are in the second chapter called Presbyters; and so Polycarp, though called here a Bishop, is but a Presbyter; since Presbyters also are so called, Act. 20. 28. Phil. 1. 1. &c.

I answer. It is true; these Bishops here are called Presbyters before: but how? with an evident distincti­on from common Presbyters: for when Irenaeus, from Peter and Paul, reckoneth a succession of 12. Bishops in the Church of Rome; I demand: had these Bishops no certaine distinction from other Presbyters in that Church? I shewed before that their personall and line­all succession is observed by Irenaeus, and others: why? because they had a reall difference from all the Pres­byters therein.

This point is cleared by many evidences; amongst which, for brevity sake, I produce the Cyprian ep. 31. e. lit. 1. Pam [...]lii. Epistle of the Presbyters and Deacons of the Romane Church, writ­ten to S. Cyprian (upon the yeere 252.) wherein they say, that FABIAN their late Bishop [the 19. in that place] was lately put to death; and that for the difficulty of the times, another Bishop was not yet constituted; who might moderate the affaires of the Church, and by his authority and counsell, might take care of such as were fallen in the time of persecution.

I argue then, As Fabian lately was, and his succes­sour shortly must be, in a distinct place of government above the Presbyters of Rome, so was Eleutharius (and so were his predecessours before) a BISHOP in higher place, of greater power, above other Presbyters in the Romane Church.

[Page] For conclusion therefore of this point; I pray you, in all candor and ingenuity, to consider with me, that, though Presbyters, in the beginning (when as yet they had no Bishop over them) were called, and might be truely called Bishops (that is to say, overseers; for they did, then under the Apostles, oversec the Church, for a little time) yet, when the care of the whole Church came peculiarly to the Bishop (as Hierome salth in Tit. 1. 5.) this name was peculiarly attributed unto him, and not communicated unto them: witnesse the same S. Hierom et. 85. where by particular instance, he maketh the e­lection of Bishops in the Church of Alexandria, and saith; that from Marke the Evangelist unto Heraclas and Dionysius, the Presbyters electing one of their com­pany and placing him in a higher degree [note that by the way] called him their BISHOP. So that here the name of a Bishop (by good authority, and for good reason) once common to all the Presbyters, is now pro­per unto that Presbyter, who was placed in an higher degree above the rest; which Calvin also hath well ob­served; Inst. l. 4. c. 4. sect. 1. & 2. saying that in the old Church, the title of Bishop was specially given to one Presbyter: chosen out of the number of many.

To conclude then; you shall finde sometimes in An­tiquity, that a Bishop is called a Presbyter: but can you finde that any where a Presbyter is called a Bishop? I am no stranger in the Councels, Fathers, and Histories, (in which course of studies being now 62. yeeres old, I have spent a moiety of my age) & yet I can remember no such thing: and were a Presbyter so called, it were rather by force of the word, (which importeth over­seeing) then by propriety of speech; since, in Ecclesiasti­call use, the name of Bishop is appropriated to him, who hath a generall overfight (for the Clergy and Laity) in his owne Diocesse or precinct.

Finally then, as the High priest in the law is sometimes styled simply by the name of the Priest, but yet was [Page] above other Priests in the old Testament, so a Bishop is sometimes stiled by the name of a Presbyter, but yet is above other Presbyters in the new.