run cleare down to the after times I have to his end above defined Episcopum a Bishop if we observe what he is then shall we evidently see whether Saint Paul did institute such a calling or no Of Civill Bishops I speake not but of Spirituall A Bishop of this kind I defined to be Presbyterum cum additamento superioritatis quoad regimen in Ecclesia he governs the Clergie and their flocks in spirituall matters Bishops of this Kind Saint Paul did institute He made Timothy and Titus Episcopos Cleri Gregis quoad regimen in Ecclesia Bishops of the Clergie and their flocks and to have Ecclesiasticall government over them whereas before they were but Presbyters or Disciples brought up under him By this institution were other Presbyters made subordinate to them in governing and teaching the Church Which to prove I thus argue He that is ordained and so ordained that hee hath power Constituere Presbyteres per civitates to ordain presbyters in every City is greater then those who have no such power in their Cities or Churches and those who may correct what is defective are superiour to those for whom matters defective are corrected But Titus and Timothy had such power given them and did so correct things defective and none of the Presbyters had the same from the Apostles Therefore I conclude undeniably that Titus and Timothy were superiors as Bishops over their Presbyters in their severall charges and Divisions viz Titus in Creet and Timothy in Ephesus That they had this power given them by Paul appeares 1. Tim. 5. 22. Lay hands suddenly on no man Tit. 1. 5. For this cause I left thee in Creet that thou shouldst set in order things which are wanting and ordain Elders in every City as I had appointed thee If any other in these Churches could have ordained Presbyters why was Timothy sent to Ephesus and Titus left at Creet for this very purpose And if the Cretians and their Presbyters could have set in order things defective what neede was there that Tit. alone should have this commission Saint Ierom himselfe who was accounted no great friend but rather harsh against Episcopacie in his Epistle to Evagrius pag. 329. gives us this as a distinction {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} remarkable betwixt a Presbyter and a Bishop saying Quid facit excepta ordinatione Episcopus quod non facit Presbyter What doth a Bishop except the ordaining of others which a Presbyter doth not And it is worth the observation that the ancient Father and great Champion for the blessed Trinity Athanasius hath in his second Apologie viz. that Colythus a Presbyter of the Church of Alexandria had constituted Presbyters but what became of them Rescissa est haec ejus ordinatio omnes ab eo constituti in laicorum ordinem redacti fuere The ordaining of others by him was made invalid and they who were ordained by him were degraded and made Laicks So then you see that Bishops are in this eminenter superiores Presbyteris eminently superior to Presbyters having power affirmative and negative by the opinion and practice of the ancient Fathers This confirms what the Apostles had taught practised and appointed others in place above the ordinary Presbyters to do Now I come to shew a second difference betwixt a Bishop and a Presbyter and wherein a Bishop hath eminentem superioritatem a cleere superiority above a Presbyter That is excommunication and was called Mucro Episcopalis the Episcopall weapon and was a power given to Bishops successors of the Apostles and was ever practised by them This appears in that an account of it was and is expected at their hands as is manifested by the quarel which our blessed Saviour had against the Angell of the Church of Pergamus namely that he suffered some of his Church who held the doctrine of the Nicolaitans and against the Angell of the Church of Thyatira viz. That hee suffered the woman Iezabell to teach and seduce the people By this it is apparent that Christ expected they should doe what they had by their places power to doe namely that they being Angells of their Churches whom I affirme to bee also Bishops therof and successors to the Apostles as is sufficiently proved by the most reverend and learned Arch-bishop of Armach and by Beza himselfe called {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} men in place above others should haereticos coercere ex Ecclesia ejicere Keepe under Heretikes and cast them out of the Church If here it be objected that wee must not argue from darke and mysticall places of Scripture such as the Apocalypse I answere that I argue from a plain place and from the plain words and direct scope of the place not the mystical sense or interpretation Neither can we here admit of that distinction that Angelus is in this place to bee taken collectively pro tota Ecclesia for the whole Church For I conceive that there is not a word in the Scripture but hath its weight and was it not as easie to have said Ecclesiae as Angelo Ecclesiae if Angelus had not something more in it then Ecclesiae And why not Angelus Ecclesiâ— but Angelus Ecclesiae The Angell the Church but the Angell of the Church if it had beene to be taken collectively But the tearmes be distinct and of a different force like those panis Domini the bread of the Lord and panis Dominus bread representing the Lord Besides to return to Timothy and Titus they are injoyned to command others {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} not to teach other doctrine and obturare ora deceptorum haereticos rejicere to stop the mouthes of deceivers and to reject Hereticks These things were commanded them and an account accordingly exspected of the performance thereof which manifestly proves that every Church had his Angelum who had Episcopall authority and jurisdiction eminent above other inferior Clergie-men And not many Angels in each of these Churches all of equall authority and place Or at least the Angell in each of the seven churches was so absolute in his power that he was {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} chief Governour the Presbyters assistants to him he a spirituall Justicer and of the Quorum they of the Counsell The difference also of Episcopal authority from that of Presbyters appears in the cause of excommunication where there was an appeal to the Synods which either confirmd them or dissolved them but none to the people none to the presbyters This is confirmed by the ancient Councill at Nice Can. 5. and at Antioch Can. 6. And Ierom himselfe writing to Riparius concerning Vigilantius an Hereticall Presbyter is angry that the Bishop under whom he was did acquiescere eius furori non virga Apostolica virgaque ferreavas inutile confringere tradere ad interitum carnis ut spiritus salvuâ— fiat Did quietly give way to his fury
not rather break in pieces that unprofitable vessell with his Apostolike staffe and rod of iron and deliver him up to the destruction of the flesh that his soul might be saved And it seemes strange to mee that any should think that our blessed Saviour his Excecutors Administrators and assignes knew not the meaning of his will and Testament as well as wee in these dayes Christ who ascending into Heaven gave guifts unto many would not deny this guift so necessary Hee I say giving supereminent guifts to his Apostles ad fundandam Ecclesiam for the founding his Church would not deny to their successors those which were necessary Ecclesiae fundatae to the Church being founded and so necessary that nothing more concerneth the Church Would he not or could he not informe his Trustees how he pleased to have his Church his houshold governed in his absence To say he would not is derogatory to his wisdome and goodnesse to say he could not to his Almighty and Sovereigne power I therefore conclude these 2. points 1 That Ordination of Presbyters was left to Titus and Timothy as to men of higher place and authority and not to the Presbyters who were of inferiour degree 2 That the power given to the Angells of Ephesus and the other Churches puts a difference of superiority and eminence betwixt a Bishop and an ordinary Presbyter and others the teachers of the Churches and gives them commission prae caeteris tam Clericis quam Laicis above others both Clergie and Laity yea a coercive and castigative power Further they object and say That Episcopacie is not Iure Divino because Christ did not command it in the Gospell To this I answere That Ius Divinum aliter se habet in rebus credendis aliter in agendis aliter in rebus fidei aliter in rebus facti There is a difference of Divine right betweene matters to bee believed and matters to bee done betwixt matters of faith and matters of fact In matters of faith there must be textus manifestus aut convincens deductio a cleere text or a sound consequence As for example In the beginning God made all things Here is textus manifestus But there is only convincens deductio concerning the mystery of the blessed Trinity for the Trinity is proved not by an expresse Text but by convincing deductions out of sacred Scriptures as thus There came downe at the Baptisme of Christ the Holy Spirit in the form of a Dove and a voice was heard saying This is my beloved Son in whō I am well pleased Here wee find the Spirit in the form of a Dove There is heard a voice And Christ is seene in the water We know both by the sacred Scriptures and by the light of nature that there is but one God and that from one all things are and that in one they terminate and that there is aliud medium copulans primum ultimum one between both coupling the first and the last Seeing also we reade that there is a Father a Son and a Spirit and that there is but one God we hence infer by necessary deduction that there are three persons and but one God Besides this deduction is further confirmed by that place {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} These three are one which in some sort is textus manifestus a cleere text Now a matter of fact may be inferred to bee Iure Divino as I suppose if I prove 1 That the same fact was the practice of the Apostles 2 That it is analogical to the institution of the Church of the Jewes which was setled according to Gods appointment by the mediation of Angels by the Ministery of Moses and Aaron 3 That it is pointed at and insinuated in the New Testament 4 That it hath successively continued since the Apostles time And as elsewhere so particularly in Britain If these points can bee proved concerning the fact viz. Government by Bishops in question I hope that none will deny it to be Iure Divino Now for proofe and confirmation of my Tenent That Episcopacie is Iure Divino I will prove these points and then say something more concerning the practice of some other Churches 1 Saint Paul the Apostle and Doctor of the Gentils gave power and authority to Titus and Timothy ordinare dignos to ordain men worthy and to examine such as were faulty to reprove and discharge such as were guilty and did {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} teach other Doctrine and were offensive to the honour of their callings and to cherish such as did well These things are evident in the Epistles of Paul to Timothy and of that to Titus From Pauls practice of superiority over these two and from the institution of Timothy and Titus to be Bishops the one of Ephesus the other at Creet I prove Episcopacie to be practised by the Apostles To make which good thus I argue If Saint Paul himselfe practised an eminent superiority and in the Epistles alleadged gave all that power which of right Bishops challeng or doth belong to the definition of a Bishop to Timothy and Titus then Paul himselfe did not only practise Episcopacie but did also constitute and institute them Bishops But verum prius ergo posterius That he had {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} a Bishoprick as the other Apostles had Act. 1. 20. did diligētly run his course therein no man will deny And that he gave power to Timothy and Titus the same which himself had 1 To ordain 2 To convent 3 To punish 4 To reward duplici honore with double honour the Epistles alledged doe sufficiently prove Therefore Paul himselfe practised superiority and constituted Timothy and Titus Bishops in place superior to Presbyters whom they had authority to ordain convent punish and reward If they further object That the Presbyters with their President may doe the same even all things which are commanded Timothy and Titus and therefore these things were spoken to Timothy and Titus and to their Presbyters collectively in the persons of Timothy and Titus I answer this is petere principium this evasion I formerly took away And now further I argue Such as the charge is such is the power but the tharge is personall that is given to Timothy and Titus particularly and therefore the power and authority given is personall to them for their time and to their successors in place after them and not to them and the Presbytery collectively nothing in places where such charge is given doth intimate the Presbyters or Deacons interposing themselves in these Episcopall actions with Timothy and Titus If they will have these priviledges and performances to belong to their President they must plead them due to him as he is successor to Timothy and Titus and so hee is in effect if you give him continuance in his place a Bishop indeede the bare name of President cannot make him
Divino because I find for it so many ipse dixit's in sacred Writ My judgment also is further strengthned therein by Reasons sufficient to settle humane belief Opinion we define Haerens dubia deveritate quorumvis in animo praesumptio A questionable and doubtfull presuming in ones conceit that a matter is true And Cognitio est rerum conceptarum per experientiam scientia Knowledge is a sure apprehension of the matters which we conceive by experience of their causes and undoubted grounds of truth And Resolution is Dubii depositio the abandoning of all doubting I am past opinion and acknowledge my selfe satisfied and well resolved that Episcopacie is Iure Divino and am ready to give an account thereof and endeavour so to doe in this Discourse I will not {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} withstand and resist or seek evasions or subtle answers to elude Gods Truth Nor doe I love {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} to be in suspense having well weighed the truth here asserted I finde cause to say {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} Great is the force of truth and hath prevailed To satisfie the World what reason I have of this my confidence I leave a Testimony thereof in this my discourse I define Episcopum Presbyterum cum additamento superioritatis quoad regimen in Ecclesia A Bishop to bee a Presbyter having an addition of superioritie for the government of Gods Church his charge is to oversee the Clergie and their flocks The word I confesse in a large signification may be taken for a Major of a Citie for hee is Over-seer thereof In Homer Ajex is {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} the Bishop or Orderer of his Army But our Episcopus est Cleri Gregis in sua Dioecesi Is Over-seer of his Clergie and his flock bounded within his own Diocesse Hee is also called Presbyter an ancient and therefore experienced and able to informe and direct As for the inferiour Presbyter or ancient and Diaconus Minister or Servant they are distinct and subordinate to the Bishop or superiour Presbyter both in the New Testament and in the practice of the first Centurie and in all Ages even to this day Let it not stumble any man that the Apostles sometimes terme themselves and Bishops by the title of Presbyters they call themselves also Diaconos Deacons in a generall notion Our Presbyterians would have Bishops to be Pastores jure divine Praesides jure Ecclesiastico Principes jure humano Diabolico Pastors by Gods Law Presidents by Ecclesiasticall Law Lords by humane and Diabolicall law How faultie this assertion is let my following Discourse testifie Our Bishop is a Presbyter or ancient Pastour set in eminent superiority over the Clergie and their flocks with a relation to the government of them in matters Ecclesiasticall And such I say the Apostles instituted and to them gave a charg how to demean themselves A perpetuall Succession hereof by practice hath continued from Christs Apostles to this day Now for Ius divinum I take that to be of Divine Right which is warranted in sacred Scripture de credendis agendis in matters to be believed or done Let this serve for the present it wil be more enlarged occasionally in some part of this treatise Only here I adde that {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} the practice of the Apostles which never was questioned or excepted against and is recorded in the canonicall Scripture hath in it Ius Divinum and shews what is of divine right defacto These things being premised I proceed to Objections against my Assertion and Answere unto each of them particularly Eminent superiority Lordly authority over their people is that which the Lords of the Gentiles may do challenge practice as their due Iure human◠by humane right Therefore {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} by law of things opposite eminent superiority and Lordly authority over the Clergie the people of God is that which Bishops ought not to challeng or practice Iure Divino For proofe hereof see Mat. 20. 25. 26. The Princes of the Gentiles Dominantur Lordly rule over them but you non sic not so or it shall not bee so with you And 1. Pet. 5. 2. 3. Feed the flock of the Lord taking the over-sight therof not by constraint but willingly not for filthy Lucre but of a ready minde neither as being Lords over Gods Heritage To this I answere that the measure of domination not the matter lies in the word sic and so is expounded by the words aforegoing not by constraint but willingly not churlishly or covetously not as though ye were Lords domineering over them but that yee may be ensamples to the flock Non herile aut Regale imperium exercentes sed pastorali superioritate paterna gubernatione utentes Not exercising a masterlike or Kingly command but using a pastorall superiority and fatherly government And so this rather as I conceive confirms superiority and Episcopacy then destroies them For the word sic so takes not away the legality but qualifies the power given by saying let it be used sic so This I prove to bee the meaning of the Apostle by this argument The practice of the Apostles is not contrary to Christs and their Doctrine and the sense thereof But the Apostles did practise eminent superiority and such lawfull authority as Christ forbids not over the Clergie and flock and instituted successors Therefore their doctrine allowed the same And so that cannot be meant by the words above which is pretended viz. that there should be a parity in the Clergie and that Episcopacie is Dominium in Clerum a Lordly rule over the Clergie and {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} an usurped authority The successors which they instituted are warranted by Christ when hee said I am with you to the end of the world that is I am with you whilst you live and with successors in your stead governing and teaching the Church to the worlds end Hence it was that the Apostles ordained Bishops to succeed them so did the ancient Fathers in the purer times This course continued ever since The practice of the Apostles was in a superiority above others of the Clergie and to the Bishops whom they constituted to succeed themselves in place over the Clergie they gave a superior authority neither did they either practise or ever mention that parity in power which the presbyteriās so much endeavour to introduce And therefore the Apostles never understood the words as these men doe viz. that they should disallow of Bishops in superior authority above other of the Clergie To make the practice of the Apostles more evident I appeale to Saint Paul who gave to Timothy and Titus Episcopall power To the one in Ephesus to the other in Creet Now to cleere this let us first cleanse the spring head and then the streames will
of a different calling from a Bishop when as he acteth the part of a Bishop in all points by Saint Paul prescribed The practice of all times especially of the first Century warrants not a monethly or yeerly President doing nothing for ordination convention punishment reward without the advise and consent of a company of Presbyters but it allows Bishops superiority to presbyters and Presbyters to Deacons Yea it placed Bishops as successors to the Apostles as were Timothy and Titus and Presbyters and Deacons subordinat to Bishops as to the Apostles whilst they lived Saint Ignatius the next Bishop to Evodius Hee received Episcopall charge from the Apostles and writing to them at Antioch when hee was carried prisoner to Rome useth these words to the Laity Obsequium praebete Presbyteris diaconis Be yee obedient to your Presbyters and Deacons and addeth to the Presbyters pascite gregem apud vos done◠Deus ostendit {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} feed the flock under you untill God shew who shall bee your governour and hereby establisheth superiority to Bishops and enjoyneth the Presbyters obedience The same Father in an Epistle to the Ephesians acknowledgeth ONESIMVS named often by Saint Paul to be their Bishop exhorteth them saying {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} as it becomes you submit your selves to your Bishops advice Thus here wee finde Saint Pauls charge and ordination observed and followed by Ignatius who lived in the first century and whose worth and authority clouds of witnesses doe confirme In the same journey he writes to the Church of Smyrna and salutes their Bishop by name and exhorteth the flock {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} to follow their Bishop as Jesus Christ did his Father and the Presbytery as the Apostles The Bishop here spoken of was Polycarpus as Ireneus his successor affirmes with whom Ireneus was contemporaneus multa accepit ab illo de Sancti Ioannis vita conversatione contemporary and by whom Ireneus was informed in many things concerning Saint Iohns life and conversation In the life time of Trajan the Emperour Saint Iohn returning from his banishment out of Patmos where he wrote his Revelation summoned the seven Bishops who are conceived to be those named in the Apocalypse the Angells of the seven Churches and used their ministery for setling and ordering his own Metropolis of Ephesus and the other Churches in Asia as the ancient Greeke Records found in the Library of Photius testifie Concerning his Apostolicall superiority and practice of constitution and ordination of Bishops is frequent mention in Ireneus Eusebius and Ierom. So then by that which hath been said wee see that Episcopacie is {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} warranted by the practice of the Apostles because that viventibus videntibus constituentibus confirmantibus Apostolis viris Apostolicis patribus Doctoribus testantibus The Apostles and Apostolike men being alive seeing it appointing it and confirming it and the Fathers Doctors being eie witnesses thereof There were these three distinct degrees in the Clergy Bishops Presbyters Deacons Now to the second Point That Episcopacie is analogicall to the institution and constitution of the Church government of the Iewes in the old Testament Which Moses as a Prince did establish by Gods appointment in the wildernesse and which continued in force till the veil of the Temple was rent and the Gentiles became heirs to Abraham and the promises made to him were made good to us his heirs by faith and adoption Because the Iews Abrahams heirs according to the flesh by their own default disobedience forfeited their interest in that conveiance of inheritance which they claimed from their Father Abraham by the evidences registred in Moses and the Prophets Episcopacie and subordination thereunto I say holds Analogie and a kinde of proportion with the Jewish Church government For God in it appointed an High Priest Priests and Levits subordinate one to the other Such is the subordinatiō of the three degrees in the Clergie in the new Testament Church This subordination of the Christian Church Saint Ierom neere the end of his Epistle to Evagrius observes and says Scimus traditiones Apostolorum sumptas de veteri Testamento Quod Aaron filii ejus atque Levitae in Templo fuere hoc Episcopi Presbyteri Diaconi sibi vendicant in Ecclesia scil Christiana The orders delivered to the Church by the Apostles were taken out of the old Testament The same subordination which was seen in Aaron his sons and the Levits now appeares in the Christian Church in our Bishops Presbyters and Deacons This proportion is made undenyable by Saint Iude who chargeth some with the gain-saying of Koreth Now there can be no gain-saying like that of Koreh in the Christian Church except there be distinction subordination of superiours and inferiors in the Clergie as there was and was gain-said by Koreh and his complices desirous of superiour honour and of higher degrees and places then they had a calling unto Here then you see that God would have a proportion of Church-government betwixt the Old and New Testament It is further worthy the observation that both the Church and Common-wealth of the Jewes had in their government a kind of proportion established by God For as the Church was Monarchicall in Moses Aristocraticall in some select Priests and Levits governing under Aaron and Democraticall in the rest of the Priests and Levits So was the Common-wealth Monarchicall in Moses Aristocraticall in some select Princes of each Tribe governing under Moses and Democraticall in the rest and in the whole body of the people Such is the proportion betwixt our Church and Common-wealth and such hath it beene from the first foundation This will I hope appeare when I come to speak of the succession in our Church And what kind of government thus sutable to that of the Jews is in any one Church may be in all Churches namely all degrees of men subordinate to their Princes and all the Princes or Kings subordinate to Christ without having any King on earth Head over the rest as all degrees of men in the Churches were subordinate to the Apostles and the Apostles going to severall and far remote Nations were all equally subordinate to Christ and no one of them Head over the rest To conclude then seeing the Constitution of Episcopall government is so agreeable to that which was most absolute and was established by that wisdome that no other Common-wealth and Church ever was as one observes Dictante Deo constituente Mose God ordaining it and Moses putting it in practice Why should wee endeavour to alter it Such an attempt might prove with us as it did with the people of Capua when Pacuvius saved the Senators It is held an axiome among Architectors that it is scarce wisdom to pull down one of the mayne posts of a building especially so
ancient except another be setled and fixed which we are sure is right and fitted to our purpose which yet for all the workmans skill may have a private flaw in it which cannot be discovered by the most skilfull and so may the building fall on the builders head Thus much for the analogie and proportion betwixt Episcopacie and the Church government of the Jews Now in the third place wee come to prove that Episcopacie was pointed at and in some sort deciphered in the New Testament What I produced before concerning the authority of Ordination convention punishment and reward put upon some speciall persons may serve sufficiently to this purpose yet some thing more I will here adde Bee it so that when the Apostle saith {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} If any one desire the office of a Bishop hee desireth a good work that this is spoken of an inferior Bishop or Presbyter who is an Overseer of the people committed to his charge as well as of a Bishop Superiour who hath the oversight of the Clergie and people yet will it follow that if the office of an inferiour Bishop or Over-seer of his flock bee a good work as indeed it is then much more they who first have laboured in that painful harvest and afterward in their elder yeeres are advanced to the Superiour Bishops office of Over-seeing the Clergie of ordaining conventing and the like as above undergoe and performe {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} A good work of greater eminencie and more notable For certainly there cannot be a more blessed worke nor more holy calling in the Clergie then to succeed the glorious Apostles and Martyrs in their places and callings as heires doe their parents in their estates and possessions and to deliver and teach sacred Doctrine to faithfull men who shall bee able to teach others also as Saint Paul bids Timothy 2 Tim. 2. To this purpose S. Austin upon that Ps. 44. or as we have it 4â— Propatribus tibi nati sunt filii ChildreÌ„ shall rise in steed of their Fathers saith Patres mâ—ssi sunt Apostoli pro Apostolis filii tibi nati sunt constituti sunt Episcopi Hodie enim Episcopi qui sunt per â—orum orbem unde nati sunt Ipsa Ecclesia Paâ—tes illes appellat Ipsa filios genuit ipsa illos constituit in sedibus Patrum The Fathers sent to us were the Apostles insteede of the Apostles the sons which were appointed are Bishops For at this day the Bishops in all the World from whom did they arise The Church it selfe calls them Fathers shee her selfe begot these Sons and shee her self hath put them into the seats of the Fathers Here yee see the succession of Bishops proved plainly by Saint Augustin as before by Ireneus Eusebius Ignatius and a cloud of witnesses who sealed their witnesse with their bloud and are those whose robes are washed in the bloud of the Lamb and who shall shine more brightly then the Cynosure amongst other starrs of Heaven Besides all the witnesses and proofes already brought I will produce one text more to prove Bishops to bee successors of the Apostles Iure divino In that great Synod ACT. 1. where were assembled the eleven Disciples and {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} fere centum viginti other persons believer 120. Saint Peter moved the consideration of an election of one in the place of Iudas and urgeth two places of the Psalmes as prophecies which must be fulfilled Psal. 69. 26. and 109. 6. There the Holy Ghost prophesied by the mouth of David concerning Iudas Let his habitation be void and let no man dwell therein {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} and let another take his Bishoprick Mark wee well the words and grant we these two assertions 1 That no man will say that there is a Tautologie or Vaniloquium in the words of sacred Scripture or that any word may be altered or can be beitered 2 That the Scriptures should be understood as neere as we can literally and as the plaine sense of the place will beare and so as may stand with the Analogie of other Scriptures These things being granted I thus argue That which the spirit of God by the mouth of a Prophet hath foretolde and the blessed Apostles in a Synod have ratified that is an undeniable truth and may pleade its Ius divinum But David did foretell by the inspiration of the Spirit of Prophecie that Episcopacie should succeed Apostleship and the Apostles ratified it in their Synod Therefore Episcopacie succeeded the Apostleship Iure divino It is not any other word which is attributed to Matthias place but {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} a Bishoprick and hee succeeded Iudas If any here object that Matthias had {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} the Bishopricke of Iudas so that Iudas his Apostleship is there call'd a Bishopricke in a generall notion as it imports an office or charge And that therefore Episcopacy did not succeed Apostleship but both of them were of right attributed to the 12 chosen by Christ and both given to Matthias who succeeded Iudas I answer Suppose this be granted it maketh much more for what I intend For first if they be termes of so neere affinity that they serve to expresse one and the same office in a different regard then it followeth that in regard of their affinity the one may more easily succeed in the other place for where there is a likenesse of nature there is facilior transitus an easier change of one thing into another as of aire into fire because of their agreement in the quality of heat Secondly Seeing the terme of Apostle was by those and after-times in some sort appropriate to some few it remayned that the other term viz. Bishop should be left and turned over to their successors And with respect to this Matthias is expresly said to succeed in Iudas his Episcopacie and the chiefe Officers of the Clergie are termed Bishops rather then by any other name This we read to have beene the constant practice of the first Century in which as it is likely the Executors and Feoffees in trust of our Lord best understood the meaning of the Testatour and had gifts extraordinary ad Ecclesiam fidem stabiliendam as to establish our faith so Gods Church too and could best fit right terms to persons and callings But to come close to our selves This Isle received Christianity very soon even in the days of Tiberius as Gildas Brito a grave Authour writeth who wrote Anno 493. And as another Gildas after him confirmeth This Gildas was cald Albanicus and as some will have it preceded the other He testifies that after the dispersing of the Disciples by reason of the persecution Philip sent out of France Joseph of Arimathea and divers others who preached the Gospel in this Kingdome Their Doctrine as Malmesbury hath it was afterward
confirmed by other Preachers and Doctours here This is also witnessed both by Origen and Theodoret not to speake of those who some of them affirme that Paul some that Iames some that Peter were in this Island and visited the Church here established as Baronius a Romish Writer and of special note in that Church hath it T is further said that Insula glacialis which we now call Glastenbury was granted them by Arviragus King of the Britains This is witnessed unto by divers memorable Records alleaged by the studious and learned Searchers into the British and Saxon Antiquities As for that report of Lucius and Eleutherius mentioned by Beda and Marianus Scotus and so often alleaged by divers others I must either thinke that Rome had changed her customes and many of her Tenents or question the Truth of the relation My Reason for this is because when in the yeer 601. Austin the Monk first required obedience to the Roman Church in three things viz. 1. in Paschate celebrando 2. in Baptismo ministrando 3. in praedicando Anglis Saxonibus In celebrating Easter in administring Baptisme in preaching to the English His motion was refused and Austin utterly disliked Quia to use the words of another Augustini fastum spernebant they disliked Austins pride And well they might for he was haughty and harsh and did contrary to his directions from Gregory Bishop of Rome who sent him hither For he incensed Edlefred so against the poore Christians of Bangor that he put twelve hundred of them to the sword Of this the Reason is given Quia noluere obsequium Augustino praebere because they would not submit to Austins will For this was indeed the quarrell as our Writers say This their refusall to yield to Austin the Monke I produce as a proofe that the Christians which hee found here held in many things with the Eastern Churches as having their doctrine from Ierusalem and Sion whence the Gospel was to be sent Esay 2. 3. Mic. 4. 2. to the Nations And whence as Salvation went Psal. 14. 7. So likewise the Doctrine of salvation for Christ who gave the Apostles Commission to go to all Nations and preach to them the Gospel did bid them stay at Jerusalem till the Holy Ghost furnished them with guifts for the worke commanded This further appeares by that resolute answere which the Abbot of Bangor gave to Austin the Monk Anno 601. viz. That he and his acknowledged no Superioritie in the Bishop of Rome over them nor any Superiour but their own Archbishop Caer-leonis or as some have it Senovensis qui sub Deo solus positus fuit super illos ad supervidendum ad faciendum illos servare viam spiritualem Who alone under God was made an Over-seer or Bishop to them that hee might make them observe the spirituall way Seeing this stout Champion thus answered it is probable that they were of the Primitive institution And this I the rather give credit unto because if the Bishop of Rome had then held the present Tenet of that Church That their Citie is the spirituall Metropolis and that their Bishop is Caput Ecclesiae our Predecessours would have acknowledged the Pope and his See as they had been taught But Baronius saith that our British Bishops are as ancient as those of Rome And t is probable they were so For this we have good proof that at a Council at Arles held Anno Dom. 314. wee had three Bishops viz. 1. Eborius de Civitate Eboraci Episcopus 2. Restitutus de civitate Londini Episcopus 3. Aldelfius de civitate Coloniae Londinensium exinde Sacerdos Presbyter Arminius Diaconus Eborius Bishop of Yorke Restitutus Bishop of London Adelfius Bishop of Colchester and after them Sacerdos a Presbyter Arminius a Deacon These subscribed in this Synod Here therefore I observe that Anno 314. wee had Bishops Presbyters and Deacons the very Governours now in question And Romish they were not as I conceive because they then acknowledged not a Subordination to Rome and because Vrban the second called learned Anselme Patriarcha Britaniae the Patriarch of Britaine Therefore me thinks it should not now be questioned whether Episcopacy be a Romish Relicke but rather that it should be confirmed as an Evangelicall Ordinance and as ancient as the first institution of Churches and as a calling appointed by the Apostles What more have we for Baptisme of Infants What more for our Sunday or the Lords day but convincing deductions from the Scriptures or the practice of the Apostles and the observation of the same in the Churches of God successively to this very day yet wee hold both these to be sacred Ordinances and of divine institution though they both be questioned by some learned men of the reformed Churches as Episcopacie is among some of ours The case is alike and as cleere if not much more for Episcopacie that it had a divine institution If what is formerly said satisfie not I will only use this argument more to prove that Episcopacie is Iure Divino If the charge given 1 Tim. 6. 14. be to Timothy personally and be perpetuall then it is to one person namely to Timothy and to the successors in his place For Timothy was mortall so that the perpetuitie of the charge must reach to all his successors till the appearing of the Lord Christ Iesus But the charge is personall to Timothy and perpetuall even to the appearing of our Lord Iesus Christ Therefore it is to one person viz. to Timothy and to his successors for ever If it be here objected that the charge there was given to Timothy as elswhere the Keyes to PETER and according to that which is said Quod dixit Petro dixit caeteris Apostolis What was spoken to Peter was spoken to the other Apostles also I Answer It is so For what was said to Timothy was said caeterisque Episcopis successoribus eorum both to other Bishops and their successors as Christs giving the keys to Peter were to him and the other Apostles But not to all the Disciples Deacons and widdowes To summe up all in a word since it appeares that Episcopacie Presbytery and Diaconatus are according to the practice of the Apostles analogicall and agreeable to the constitution of the Jewish Church appointed by God and established by Moses pointed at and in some kinde deciphered in the New Testament and strongly insinuated by the successors of the Apostles to have beene received and practised by them as commended to them from divine authority since these three orders in our Church are derived so high have continued so long even from the primitive times to this day we may well conclude that as Presbyters and Deacons so Bishops are Iure divino especially seeing Episcopacie is so generally confirmed and hath beene so constantly continued by the Apostles Apostolick men Councills Fathers and Doctors And much the rather am I induced thus as I have said to judge