THis was anciently denyed by Aerius, as is related by Epi­phanius, in his 75 Heresie, and by Iohn of Hierusalem, as appeares by Hie­rome, in his Epistle to PAMMACHIVS. And there are not wanting in these many learned and pious men, who, although they acknowledge Aerius to have erred, in that hee should disallow of that manner of Ecclesiasti­call [Page 174] government, which had beene received by the whole world; yet in this they agree with him, that Episcopall government is not of Di­vine Right. From whose opinion why I should sever my judgement, J am moved by these strong reasons, famous examples, and evident authori­ties.

My judgement is this;

First, in the Apostles Epistles the name of Bi­shop did never signifie any thing different from the office of a Presbyter. For a Bishop, Presbyter, and an Apostle, were common names, as you may see Acts 20. Phil. 1. v. 1. Tit. 1. 1. Pet. v. 12. Acts 1. 20.

Next. In the chiefe Apostolicall Church, the Church was governed by the common advice of Presbyters; and that for some yeares in the time of the preaching of the Apostles. For first of all, companies must be gathered together, before we can define anything concerning their perpetuall government.

Then, the Apostles, as long as they were present or neere their churches, did nor place any Bishop over them, properly so called, but onely Presby­ters, reserving Episcopall authority to them­selves alone.

Lastly, after the Gospell was faire and neere propagated, and that out of equality of Presby­ters, by the instinct of the Devill, Schismes were made in Religion, then the Apostles (especially in [Page 175] the more remote places) placed some over the Pastors, or Presbyters, which shortly after, by the Disciples of the Apostles Ignatius, and others, were onely called Bishops, and by this appella­tion, they were distinguished from Presbyters and Deacons.

Reasons moving me to this opinion? First, Hierome upon the 1. chapter of the Epistle to Titus, writeth, that a Presbyter is the same with a Bishop, and before that, by the instinct of the Devill, factions were made in Religion, and it was said a­mong the people, I am of Paul, I of Apollo, but I of Cephas, the churches were governed by the common counsell of Presbyters: afterwards it was decreed in the whole Word, that one chosen out of the Pres­byters, should be placed over the rest,

From whence J thus argue.

When it began to be said among the people, I am of Paul, I of Apollo, but I of Cephas, then one chosen out of the Presbyters, was placed over the rest.

But whiles the Apostles lived, it was so said a­mong the people. As the first Epistle to the Co­rinthians, besides other of St. Pauls Epistles, puts it out of doubt. Therefore, while the Apostles li­ved, one chosen out of the Presbyters was placed over the rest.

Again, There can be no other terme assigned, in which Bishops were first made, then the time of the Apostles; for all the prime successors of [Page 176] the Apostles were Bishops: witnesse the succes­sions of Bishops in the most famous churches of Hierusalem, Alexandria, Antioch, and Rome, as it is in Eusebius, therefore, either the next suc­cessors of the Apostles, changed the force of Ec­clesiasticall government, received from the Apo­stles, according to their owne pleasure, which is very unlikely, or the Episcopall government came from the Apostles themselves.

Besides, even then in the time of the Apostles, there were many Presbyters, but one Bishop, e­ven then in the time of the Apostles, [...], he that was placed over the rest, which after­wards was called Bishop, did impose hands, or ordaine Ministers of the Word, which Presby­ters alone did not presume to doe. Even then, therefore, the calling of Bishops was distinct from the Office of Presbyters.

If any desire the examples of Apostolicall Bi­shops, the books of the antient are full of y ^e Epis­copall authority, of Timothy, and Titus, either of which, howsoever, first performed the office of an Evangelist, yet notwithstanding, ceased to bee an Evangelist, after that Timothy was placed over the Church of Ephesus, and Titus over the church of Crete; For Evangelists did onely lay the foun­dations of Faith in forraigne places, and then did commend the rest of the care to certaine Pa­stors, but they themselves went to other Coun­tries, and Nations, as Eusebius writes in his 3 ^d. booke of Ecclesiasticall History, and 34. chap. But Paul taught sometimes in Ephesus and Crete [Page 177] and laid the foundations of Faith there; there­fore he commandeth Timothy to stay at Ephesus, & Titus at Crete, not as Evangelists but as gover­nors of the Churches.

And indeed, the Epistles, written to either of them, doe evince the same; For in these, he doth not prescribe the manner of gathering together a church, which was the duty of an Evangelist, but the manner of governing a church, being already gathered togither, which is the duty of a Bishop and all the precepts in those Epistles, are so con­formable hereunto, as that they are not refer'd, in especiall to Timothy, and Titus, but in generall to all Bishops, and therefore in no wise, they suit with the temporary power of Evangelists.

Besides, that Timothy, and Titus, had Episco­pall jurisdiction, not onely Eusebius, Chryso­stome, Theodoret, Ambrosius, Hierome, Epiphanius, Oecumenius, Primasius, Theophylact, but also the most antient writers, of any that write the Histo­ry of the new Testament, whose writings are now lost, doe sufficiently declare. Eusebius without doubt appealing unto those, in his 3. book of Ec­clesiasticall History and 4. chapter, Timothy (saith he) in Histories is written to be the 1. which was made Bishop of the church of Ephe­sus, as Titus was the first, that was made Bishop of the church of Crete.

But if John the Apostle, and not any antient disciple of the Apostles, be the author of the Re­velation, hee suggests unto us, those seven new Examples of Apostolicall Bishops: [Page 178] For all the most learned Interpreters interpret the seven Angels of the Churches, to be the seven Bishops of the Churches; neither can they doe otherwise, unlesse they should offer violence to the text.

What should I speake of Iames not the Apo­stle, but the brother of our Saviour, the sonne in law, of the Mother of our Lord: who by the Apostles, was ordained Bishop of Hierusalem, as Eu­sebius, in his 2 ^d book of Ecclesiasticall History, and 1 chap. out of the 6. of the Hypotyposes of Cle­ment, Hierome concerning Ecclesiasticall wri­ters, out of the 1. of the Comments of Egesippus, relate, Ambrose upon the 1 chap. unto the Gala­tians, Chrysostome in his 23. Homily upon the 15. of the Acts, Augustine in his 2 ^d book and 37 chap. against Cresconius, Epiphanius in his 65. He­resie, The 6 Synod in Trullo, and 32. canon, all assenting thereunto. For indeed, this is that James that had his fixt residence at Hierusalem, as an ordinary Bishop, whom Paul in his first, and last comming to Hierusalem, found in the city; al­most all the Apostles, preaching in other places, Gal. 1. 19. & that concluded those things, which were decreed in the assembly of the Apostles, Acts 21. For he was with Chrysostome, Bishop of the Church of Hierusalem, from whom when certaine came, Peter would not eate with the Gentiles, Galat. 2. 12.

From examples, I passe to authorities, which [Page 179] Ignatius confirmes by his owne authorite, Whose Axiomes are these.

The Bishop is he, which is superiour in all chiefely, and power. The Presbytery, is a holy company of counsellours, and assessours to the Bishop. The Deacons are the imitators of angelical vertues, which shew forth their pure, & unblameable mi­nistry. He which doth not obey these, is without God, impure, and contemnes Christ, & derogates from his order, and constitution, in his Epistle to the Trallians.

Jn another place, I exhort that yee study to doe all things with concord. The Bishop being president in the place of God. The Presbyters in place of the Apostolick Senate, the Deacons as those to whom was committed the ministry of Iesus Christ in his Epistle to the Magnesians.

And againe. Let the Presbyters be subject to the Bishop, the Deacons to the Presbyters, the people to the Presbyters and Deacons, in his Epistle those of Tarsus.

But Ignatius was the Disciple of the Apostles, from whence then had he this Hierarchy but from the Apostles?

Let us now heare Epiphanius in his 75. Here­sie. The Apostles could not presently appoint all things: Presbyters and Deacons were necessary; for by these two Ecclesiasticall affaires might bee dis­patcht. VVhere there was not found any fit for the Episcopacy, that place remained without a Bishop, [Page 180] but where there was need, and there were any fit for Episcopacy, they were made Bishops. All things were not compleat from the beginning, but in tract of time all things were provided which were required for the perfection of those things which were neces­sary, the Church by this meanes receiving the ful­nesse of dispensation.

But Eusebius comes neerer to the matter, and more strongly handles the cause, who in his third booke of Ecclesiasticall History, and 22. chap­ter, as also in his Chronicle affirmeth, that Ero­dius was ordained the 1. Bishop of Antioch, in the yeare of our Lord 45. in the 3. yeare of Claudius the Emperor: at which time, many of the Apo­stles were alive. Now Hierome writeth to Eva­grius, that at Alexandria, from Marke the Evan­gelist, unto Heraclus and Dionisius the Bishop, the Presbyters called one, chosen out of themselves, & placed in a higher Degree, the Bishop. But Marke dyed, as Eusebius, and Bucholcerus testifie, in the yeare of our Lord, 64. PETER, PAVL, and JOHN the Apostles, being then alive: therefore, it is cleare, that Episcopacy was instituted in the time of the Apostles, and good Hierome suffered some frailty, when he wrote, that Bishops were greater then Presbyters, rather by the custome of the Church, then the truth of the Lords disposing; unlesse perhaps, by the custome of the Church, he understands the custome of the Apostles, and by the truth of the Lords disposing, he understands the appointment of Christ, yet not so, he satisfies the truth of Hi­story. [Page 181] For it appeares out of the first, second, and 3. chapters of the Revelation, that the forme of governing the Church by Angels or Bishops, was not onely ratified, and established, in the time of the Apostles, but it was confirmed by the very Son of God. And Ignatisn called that forme, the order of Christ.

And when Hierome writes, that it was decreed in the whole world, that one chosen out of the Pres­byters should be placed over the rest. And when J have demonstrated, that in the life-time of the Apostles, Bishops were superior to Presbyters in Ordination: and that each Church had one pla­ced over it, doe we not without cause demand; Where, when, and, by whom Episcopacy was ordained? Episcopacy therefore is of divine right. Which, how the Prelates of the church of Rome, for almost 300. yeares, did adorne with the truth of Doctrine, innocency of life, constan­cy in afflictions, and suffering death it selfe for the honour of Christ; and on the other side, how in succeeding times, first by their ambition, next by their excessive pragmaticall covetousnesse, scraping up to themselves the goods of this world, then by their heresie, last of all by their tyranny they corrupted it, that the Romain Hie­rarchy, at this day, hath nothing else left but a vizard of the Apostolicall Ecclesiasticall Hierar­chy, and the lively Image of the whore of Babylon, our Histories both antient and moderne, doe a­bundantly testifie.

[Page 182] Wherefore all Bishops are warned from hence, that they throughly weigh with themselves the nature of Apostolicall Episcopacy, of which they glory that they are the successors.

That Episcopacy had two things peculiar to it, the priviledge of succeeding, and the Prerogative of ordaining: all other things were common to them with the Presbyters: Therefore both Bi­shops and Presbyters, should so exercise them­selves in godlinesse, should so free themselves from contempt by their conversation, and so make themselves examples to their flocke; not neglecting especially the gift of prophecying, re­ceived from above, but being wholly intent, to reading, consolation, and teaching: to meditate on these things, to be wholly conversant in them; and so perpetually imployed in this holy functi­on, and divine affaires, with this promise, that if they shall doe these things, they shall both save themselves, and their Auditors, but if after the custome of some great ones, they follow the pride and luxury of this world, they shall both destroy themselves, and them that heare them.