man and will bring good tidings D. Well let us hear him I. Irenaeus contra Valent. lib. 3. cap. 3. says Habemus annumerare qui ab Apostolis usque ad nos instituti sunt Episcopi in Ecclesiis successores eorum c. that is we can reckon on who have been Bishops in the several Churches and who their successors from the Apostles even to our own times and because he sayeth it were longsome to go through all he mentions the succession in the Church of Rome until he come down to Eleutherius who was his own Contemporary And this he doth to prove the falshood of Hereticks their Doctrine because not agreeing with the Doctrine of the Bishops who from the Apostles downward had been in the Church And in that same place he speaketh of Polycarp who says he had conversed with them who saw the Lord and was by the Apostles made Bishop of Smyrna and that when himself was young he had seen Polycarp for saith he he lived long Now hence we may observe 1. that Polycarp contemporary with the Apostles was even such a Bishop as Eleutherius of Rome who lived in the time of Irenaeus for Irenaeus makes no difference and no doubt Eleutherius was such a Bishop as Irenaeus who was Bishop of Lions in France which I suppose few will question 2. That as some have observed Polycarp behoved to be the very same Angel of Smyrna who was written to Rev. 2.8 for Irenaeus saith Polycarp was ordained Bishop of Smyrna by the Apostles themselves who all lived before John and he surviving the rest wrot at Christs command these Epistles to the seven Angels so that Polycarp must be that Angel of Smyrna to whom John wrot for Polycarp lived till Iraeneus his time who says when himself was a child he saw this old Bishop for says he Polycarp lived long and continued in Smyrna until his last and died a martyre Usher in his Orig. of Bishops pag. 60. reckons his martyrdome to have been seventy four years after Johns writing that Epistle to him and that he continued Bishop there until his death is collected from Euseb lib. 4. cap. 15. 3. We see clearly though there were in the Church of Rome many Presbyters or Ministers yet without taking notice of them Irenaeneus only names one at a time who was more eminent than the rest and after he is gone nameth another who succeeded him Now if all comes only to this that these whom he nameth had no more but the same authority and succession with the rest of the Presbyters Why are these we contend for singled out and named and not the other Presbyters as well as they Why are the Presbyters or Ministers passed over in silence and only Linus and Cletus and Soter c. taken notice of in their several successions one after another No doubt because they were the Bishops and had an authoritative inspection above the rest as hath been shewed already in Timothy and Titus and in the seven Angels Revel 2.3 and from the Epistles of Ignatius and other instances And to say they only are named for the more expedit reckoning is gratis dictum and as good as to say nothing and whereas some object that writers differ about the line of succession among these Primitive Bishops therefore it may be doubted there was any such thing as Bishops or a succession of one Bishop after another at all The King answers at the Isle of Wight this will no more follow than that because Chronologers differ about the line of ancient Kings in such a Kingdom therefore there was no Kingly power nor Kings there at all 4. Observe that Irenaeus saith these these ancient Bishops succeeded one another by Apostolical institution Qui ab Apostolis instituti sunt saith he usque ad nos Episcopi 5. This Valentinus against whom Irenaeus writes was a Presbyter and turned Heretick because he came short of a Bishoprick Tertul. adversus Valent. cap. 4. See also Irenaeus lib. 4. cap. 43 44. and to add a word of Irenaeus himself he was Bishop of Lions in France 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Euseb lib. 5. cap. 23. But after the Latine 21. Paroeciarum per Galliam quas Irenaeus moderatus est Hence it is clear he was their Bishop or Arch-bishop as some think for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 then signified as much as a Diocess now See Can. Apost Can. 14. Concil Antioch 9.14 Concil Ancyr Cap. 13 18. D. Against what you speak of Irenaeus calling him a Bishop and an Arch-bishop I have this to say that the Gallican Church in their letter to Eleutherius calls Irenaeus Presbyter and so doth Eusebius lib. 5. cap. 4. I. Peter calleth himself a Presbyter or Elder 1 Pet. 5.1 And yet we know he was more Irenaeus himself in his writings calls Bishops Presbyters Victor who succeeded to Eleutherius in Rome is called Presbyter Euseb lib. 5. cap. 4. and yet without all contradiction he was a Bishop and a great one too when he would have extended his Jurisdiction not only over his own but over the Asian Churches also Euseb lib. 5. cap. 21 23 25. Salmasius in his Walo Messalinus freely confesseth pag. 265. Romani Pontifices vocantur Presbyteri etiam postquam Episcopatus apicem supra presbyteros consequuti sunt singuli in toto orbe Episcopi But hardly will you find the name of Bishop any wherein those times given to a single Presbyter D. What more can you say for Bishops out of the ancient Fathers I. I could produce you Testimonies from Polycrates Bishop of Ephesus who was contemporary with Irenaeus but something of him I spoke before and from Clemens Alexandrinus and other Fathers who lived in the second age And from Tertullian about the year of Christ two hundred who shews de prescript cap. 36. That the Apostolical Chairs at Corinth Philippi Thessalonica were possest not by a Presbytrie but by single persons Also cap. 11. and de baptismo cap. 7. Dandi Baptismum jus habet summus sacerdos qui est Episcopus Dehinc Presbyteri Diaconi non tamen sine Episcopi authoritate propter honorem Ecclesiae quo salvo salva pax est c. That is the Bishop hath the power of giving baptism then the Presbyters and Deacons yet not without the Bishops authority c. I might produce much more from those first times in favours of Bishops Eusebius the ancientest Church historian now extant all along maketh it his work to set down the succession of Bishops in the Churches of these first times Rome Alexandria Antioch c. from the Apostles downward unto his own time in every of which Churches none that hath any skill can deny that there were sundry Presbyters or Ministers at the same time and yet without noticing these he sets down the line of Bishops one after another in these several Churches And for the time that followed after Tertullian it 's undenyable by you all there were Bishops in the Church and
the Fathers who followed were not only most of them Bishops themselves but looked upon Episcopacy as descending unto them from the Apostles as can be made out from their Writings D. You know Jerome who lived toward the end of the fourth or beginning of the fifth Century saith Episcapocy was not from the beginning in the Christian Church Epist ad Euag. which is the 85. Manifestissime comprabatur eundem esse Episcopum Presbyterum quod autem postea unus electus est qui caeteris praeponeretur in schismatis remedium factumest ne unusquisque ad se trahens Christi Ecclesiam rumperet That is It 's most manifest that Bishop and Presbyter are the same and that afterward one was chosen and set over the rest it was done in remedy of Schism c. I. Jerom's meaning is that in the very first beginnings of the New Testament times it was so while the Apostles were yet alive and did by their own presence and industrie supplie the room of Bishops but as their presence began to sail by death or even sooner as their other great business called them elsewhere upon the dayly increase and enlargement of the Church then to prevent Schism that arose from equality there were Bishops set over Presbyters And that Jerome must be understood speaking so early of the Church appeareth from what immediatly followeth in that same Epistle Nam sayes he Alexandriae a Marco Evangelista usque ad Heraclium Dionysium Episcopos Presbyteri semper unum ex se electum in excelsiori gradu collocatum Episcopum nominabant quomodo si exercitus Imperatorem faciat aut Diaconi Archidiaconum That is at Alexandria from Mark the Evangelist downward to Heraclius and Dionysius Bishops the Presbyters alwise elected one from among themselves whom they placed in a higher degree and called him Bishop even as an Army would chuse a General or Deacons an Archdeacon Now Mark is reckoned to have died before either Peter or Paul and even from him downward Jerome saith there were Bishops in that Church It is strange to see how warily and defectively Smectimnuus cites these words of Jerome quite beside Jerom's intent to prove that Bishops were not from the beginning and to show how they vvere brought in by Presbyters Which if Smectimnuus mean to have been in the Apostles ovvn times we agree that so it was but because they for Smectimnuus is a Name composed of sundry Authors would fain have Jerome to be meant speaking of Bishops coming into Alexandria not until the Apostles were gone therefore they leave out his first words a Marco Evangelista they take what they think may seem to make for them and leave out what is directly against them which is scarce fair dealing But Calvine Institut lib. 4. cap. 4. num 2. citeth this passage intirely and from it concludes that Jerome maketh Bishops ancient enough Also you may observe how the learned M. Durham on Revel pag. 225. making use of this passage of Jerome that you do to prove that Bishops were of later date than the Apostles Yet he mentioneth not Jerom's words Alexandriae a Marco c. in which Jerome clearly makes the Original of Bishops in that Church as high as Mark which passage either destroyeth the gloss you would put upon Jerom's former words if in them you think the Father speaks of bringing in Bishops into the Church not till after the Apostles times as Mr. Durham saith expresly or else you would make Jerome contradict himself 2. Mr. Durham as he takes no notice of the Succession of Bishops at Alexandria from Mark downward so neither of the first Simile which Jerome makes use of viz. Quomodo si exercitus imperatorem faciat But only of the second Simile of Deacons making an Arch-deacon for helping them saith he in what belongeth to the orderly management of their business which shews what kind of Precedency this is he attributeth to the Bishop even such as he would allow to a Deacon who is advanced to some Peculiar Care by others for some special end Thus Mr. Durham as he is very loath to bring in Bishops till after the Apostles times so after they are brought in he would have their power as insignificant as may be but taketh no notice of Jerome his comparing the Bishop to an Emperour or General of an Army who hath not only a Precedency but without all controversie a Superiority of power and command D. Jerome on Tit. 1. is very express that Bishop and Presbyter are the same Idem est ergo Presbyter qui Episcopus antequam diaboli instinctu Studia in religione fierent diceretur in populis Ego sum Pauli ego Apollo ego autem Cephae communi Presbyterorum consilio Ecclesiae gubernabantur Postquam vero unusquisque eos quos baptizaverat suos putabat esse in toto orbe decretum est ut unus de Presbyteris electus superponeretur caeteris ad quem omnis Ecclesiae cura pertineret Schismatum semina tollerentur That is Presbyter and Bishop are the same and before through Satans instigation there were divisions and some said I am of Paul I of Apollo and I of Cephas The Churches were governed by Presbyters in common but afterward when every one thought those to be his whom he had baptized it was declared through the whole world that one should be set above the rest and on him all the care of the Church devolved and the seeds of Schisms rooted out I. Some think Jerome in that place speaketh of the power Bishops in his time had come to beyond what the first Bishops had That at the first Presbyters had a hand in Government but afterward Omnis Ecclesiae cura ad unum pertinebat The whole care of the Church was put over upon the Bishop alone But if you think Jerome there speaks of the first Introduction of Bishops unto the Church then I say he must be meant speaking of the Apostles own times D. What reason have you to think so I. First because Jerom's words import this while he says that the thing which gave occasion to the introducing of Bishops was the divisions that arose among Christians and some said I am of Paul I of Apollo c. And then Presbyters began to think these to be theirs whom they had baptized Now thus we read it was among the Corinthians 1 Cor. 1. And though Jerome on Tit. 1. take occasion from the Community of Name that the Apostle there uses while he calls the Presbyter Bishop ver 5. and 7. compared together to shew that at first there were no Bishops above Presbyters yet this will not necessarily infer that there was no distinction of Office betwixt Bishop and Presbyter when the Apostle wrot to Titus or that Jerome thought there was no such distinction then But that as the names were then promiscuously used by the Apostle so sometimes there was no distinction of the Offices till necessity introduced it which change Jerome takes
nisi abolito nomine re ipsa Episcopi i. e. To what purpose is it to abolish the name of Bishop and retain the thing for both these Calvin and 〈◊〉 what were they while living but indeed Bishops though without the name And was it not so even among our selves when the name of Bishop could not be endured a meer parity is hardly practicable any where unless it be in Vtopia Now since you think Calvin a great adversary to Bishops a mistake that many are under I will produce some few places out of him to undeceive you Institut lib. 4. Cap. 4. Sect. 2. speaking of the first Bishops he citeth Jerom's words ad Euagrium and then subjoyneth alibi tamen docet quam antiquum fuerit institutum dicit enim Alexandriae a Marco Evangelista usque ad Dionysium c. i. e. Nevertheless in another place Jerome teacheth how ancient the institution of Bishops is for he sayeth that at Alexandria from Mark downward there was still a Bishop c. Where you see Calvin passing that place of Jerome that seemeth to make against the antiquity of Bishops he rather layeth hold on that other place that speaketh them as ancient as Mark the Evangelist And a little before Calvin saith Bishops were brought into the Church ne ex aequalitate ut fieri solet dissidia nascerentur Observe this he saith equality of Ministers breedeth strifes and ut fieri solet so it useth to be And from these words of Calvin we may collect that he giveth to the first Bishops some superiority in power above the Presbyters without which saith he dissidia nascerentur Strifes would arise and so he makes them more than meer Moderators Another passage of Calvin I cited to you a little before Institut lib. 4. cap. 4. sect 4. Si rem omisso vocabulo intueamur reperiemus c. And Institut lib. 4. Cap. 5. Sect. 11. Supersunt Episcopi Paraeciarum rectores qui utinam de retinendo officio contenderent libenter illis concederemus eos habere pium eximium munus i. e. Now we are to speak of Bishops who I wish would contend about the retaining of their Office we would willingly grant unto them He is speaking of the popish Bishops that they have a holy and excellemt Office if they would rightly discharge it Where you see he calleth the Office pium eximium munus Holy and excellent And again a little after shewing how when it is objected to the Papists that their Regnum i. e. Church Government as managed by them is antichristian tyranny they answer it is that venerable Hierarchy so much and often commended by holy and great men Which answer of theirs he repells thus Sect. 13. Quasi vero sancti Patres quum Ecclesiasticam Hierarchiam aut spirituale regimen ut ipsis per manus ab Apostolis traditum erat commendarent hoc deforme vastitatis plenum chaos somniarent ubi Episcopi vel rudes c. i. e. as if forsooth the holy Fathers when they commend that Ecclesiastical Hierarchy as it was delivered or handed unto them from the Apostles did mean it of your deformed Government Where you see he saith that the ancient Episcopacy was delivered down to the Fathers per manus ab Apostolis from the Apostles hands or from the Apostles by hand to hand And on Titus 1.5 He saith We may learn from that Text that then there was not such an equality among the Ministers of the Church Quin unus aliquis authoritate consilio praesset i. e. But that some one person was in authority and counsel above the rest And in a long Letter of his to an old friend who now was made a Bishop in the Church of Rome Veteri amico nunc Praesuli it is to be found in the Volume of his Opuscula pag. 72. he saith Episcoparus ipse a Deo profectus est Episcopacy it self is from God institutus and institute by God and within a few Lines after addeth In aestimando Episcopi munere neque recte neque tuto credi populo Judicium unius Dei esse audiendum Cujus authoritate est constitutum illud legibus definitum i. e. In esteeming of the Episcopal Office we must not regard the people's judgement but Gods only by whose authority it is constitute c. And sundry other clear Testimonies in that Epistle which were tedious here to recite There he speaks not one word against the Office of a Bishop but only against the abuses of it in the Romish Church In one place of it he saith omnino tibi sane quod ab Episcopo requiritur praestandum aut fedes Episcopi deserenda i. e. either do the duty of a Bishop or leave the Bishop's Seat He willeth him not to leave it on any terms no but if he minds to be faithful keep it still And in an Epistle of his to the King of Poland he approveth of all the degrees of the Hierarchy in the ancient Church even unto Patriarchs And in a long Epistle to the Duke of Somerset Protector of England in Edward the sixth his Minority as it is cited by Durel View of Govern pag. 165. Giving his advice anent reforming of many things in Religion yet never adviseth to remove Episcopacy out of the English Church which had he been of your opinion he would not have failed to have done Only he adviseth that both Bishops and Ministers be put to swear they shall deliver no other Doctrine but such as is contained in the articles of Religion And what is worthy the observing in that Letter he saith Audio esse duo seditiosorum genera quae adversus Regem Regni statum caput extulerunt alij enim cerebrosi quidem viz. sub Evangelij nomine 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 passim invectam vellent alij vero in superstitionibus Antichristi obdurantur ac merentur quidem tum hi tum illi gladio ultore coerceri i. e. I hear there are two sorts of seditious persons who have gotten up the head against the King and State of the Kingdom The first a kind of heady humorous people who under pretence of the Gospel would bring in confusion and disorder every where The other are such who are hardned in their antichristian superstitions and these in authority should restrain both Now how near what he saith of the first sort may touch your selves I leave it to your consideration There is one passage more in Calvin I cannot ommit in his Treatise to the Emperour Charles the fifth and States of the Empire intituled de necessitate reformandae Ecclesiae speaking of the Popish Bishops he saith Talem nobis si Hierarchiam exhibeant in qua sic emineant Episcopi ut Christo subesse non recusent ab illo tanquam unico capite pendeant ad ipsum referantur in qua sic inter se fraternam societatem colant ut non alio nodo quam ejus veritate sint colligati tum vero
rarum prae multis quod sine Schismate nedum Haeresi unitatem cum puritate Doctrinae retinuerit i. e. The Church of Scotland hath this rare priviledge above many others That since the Reformation they have without Heresie or so much as Schism retained Vnity with purity of Doctrine O but how have we now lost our good Name How is the Staff BANDS broken in the midst of us Zech. 11.14 The Author could have wished a work of this nature had been undertaken by some able hand or at least this had been in a better dress but now Reader you have it such as it is and if thou be one concerned be intreated to lay aside prejudice Consider what a woful thing division in a Church is and what the fearful consequences may be A kingdom divided against it self cannot stand saith Christ Mark 3.24 If we bite and devour one another take heed we be not consumed one of another saith Paul Galat. 5.15 Dissolution is the daughter of division saith another Omne divisibile est corruptibile saith the Philosopher Divide impera saith the Politician Si collidimur frangimur said the two earthen Pots in the Fable that were swiming down the Stream together These expressions tend to shew the bad consequences of division We have lately received a loud warning from Papists to unite Rome knows how to fish in our troubled Waters The Lord convince us of the necessity of Vnion and teach us to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace and discover to many what smal evidence they give of friendship to the Protestant Interest by keeping up divisions The Reader is desired to correct these following Errors with his pen before he readeth at least to read them right as they are here marked ERRATA P. L For Read 17 17 Evangelist Evengelists 23 16 Polycrats Polycrates 23 20 either Usher 39 24 Ministrum Christi Ministrum 39 25 Christs Minister a Servant 55 20 dâ—clared decreed 57 15 and â—o chaâ—ge and the change 57 16 but the vestige but no vestige 74 5 〈◊〉 me 85 12 Pâ—â—â—t putiâ—t 94 11 pag. 2â— pag. 52. 94 25 â—ayeth he sayeth he pag. 39. 99 21 Author Authorâ— 104 15 protestantâ— protestantes 133 19 veâ—â— 1â— vers 7.14 142 11 Racâ—el Rachab 150 10 fuerâ—â—t fuerint 155 4 dâ—bâ—â—â— debate 157 16 Opinionem Opinionum 157 17 Opiniantium Opinantium 161 8 deney deny 165 8 Zauchius Zanchius 166 21 Chap. Chap. 7 167 5 one â—n 169 21 became become 172 1  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 172 16 Luâ— Luk. 177 7 useth use it 186 19 really real 188 12 are not all are not at all 189 4 unwarrantably warrantably 195 8 Lectures Lectores 195 27 another other 215 23 favour fervour 216 8 we leave in we live in The Pages 46. 47. are in one anothers place Also some Sentences wrong pointed which the Reader may advert to THREE DIALOGUES Betwixt a Doubting Person and an Informer The First anent Episcopacy The Second anent the Obligation of the Covenants abjuring Episcopacy The Third anent Separation The first Dialogue anent Episcopacy Doub WHat news Neighbour Inf. All the news now are about our growing Confusions and Disorders D. I doubt you can ever expect better under Bishops I could wish they were taken away I. Why so what ill have they done D. I never heard of any good Bishops did I doubt a Bishop can be a good Man I. Say not so the Histories of the Church tell us what singular good men Bishops have been and that hundreds of them have died Martyres for the Gospel under heathen persecutors besides what many excellent men of them suffered afterward by Arrians and other Hereticks D. I doubt these were Lord Bishops such as ours now are I. If by Lord Bishops you mean such as have a superiority over ordinary Ministers it 's clear they were Lord Bishops in that sense but if you mean Bishops Dignified with Titles of Honour by the secular powers I grant they were not Lord Bishops nor could look for any the least respect from the powers of those times who for the most part were enemies either to Christianity altogether or to the Orthodoxy of it Yet at the time of the Reformation from Popery in England in Queen Maries days we find sundry Lord Bishops as you call them were Martyres for the Truth As for Bishops their acting in civil affairs sometimes I will make it none of my business to debate it with you Only that it is not altogether incompatible with Ecclesiastical Functions may appear from these few things The Jewish Sanhedrim made up of the seventy Elders at first appointed to be assistants to Moses in the civil Government Numb 11. did consist partly of Priests which I suppose few versed in the Jewish Learning will deny see Goodwinus his Moses and Aaron lib. 5. Cap. 5. Junius on Numb 11. and others Consider Deut. 17. v. 8 9 10 11 12. Eli the Priest judged Israel fourty years 1 Sam. 4.18 and after him Samuel the Prophet though from his birth lent to the Lord 1 Sam. 1.28 went in circuit yearly judging the people 1 Sam. 7. v 15 16. And under the New Testament how much Bishops were imployed in Civil Matters after Emperours became Christian you may see confessed by Smectimnuus Sect. 12. It s true Church-men should be as abstract from these incumbrances as possibly they can nor are they needlesly or of choice to entangle themselves for no man c. 2 Tim. 2.4 And therefore some ancient Councils have discharged them to follow Military Imployments to take Farms or the like And some of the Fathers have complained that themselves were too much diverted and overcharged with secular matters Yet its hard to say that its absolutely and in every case unlawful for Church-men to medle in these things for then it will follow that a Minister may not look after any civil affair that concerns himself and family and yet whatever Christian neglects this is worse then an Infidel 1 Tim. 5.8 Some of the Fathers were a gainst Churchmens being Tutors or Curators yet I believe your selves do not scruple this now adays nor Countrey Trysts neither I need not tell you how much some Ministers in our late times medled in State affairs Saravia at some length defends Church-mens actings in these matters But passing this I suppose you question the lawfulness of the Episcopal-Office it self D. I do so because I find no command or express warrand in the Word for it I. That proves it is not simply necessary because not commanded but proveth not the unlawfulness of the Office Many things may be lawful yea and expedient too which are not commanded unless under some General such as That all things be done decently and in order or to edification and such like That in a meeting of Ministers there be a Moderator and a Clerk I know you will not say is unlawful yet this is not any where commanded And many
Light I shall endeavour to let you see warrant from the word for Bishops D. I am not so settled in my perswasion against Bishops as to stand out against light that is offered to me from the Word for this were a great fault in me or in any man else yet I believe it will be hard for you to let me see any convincing Scripture Evidence for them I. Under the Old Testament setting aside the High-priest who was a Type of Christ there was a subordination among the rest of the Priests mention is often made of the Chief-priests 2 King 19.2 Ezra 8.29 Mat. 2.4 Act. 19.14 and over these again there was a Chief or High-priest under the Highest of all who only was Typical hence sometimes two High-priests are mentioned Luk. 3.2 So there was a subordination among the Levits Ex. 6.25 Num. 3. vers 18 19. compared with vers 24 30 32 35. and in other places Neh. 11. We find one over the Levites vers 22. named Episcopus by the Greek and another over the Priests vers 14. So you see subordination among Church-men is no such new nor odious thing as some would make the world believe D. I see indeed there was a subordination under the Old Testament but that proves not that there ought to be the like under the New I. I know no reason why the Lord would have a subordination under the Old Testament but to maintain Order and Unity in his Church and this reason is still the same for a subordination under the New yea is now stronger because the Christian Church is of much greater extent than the Jewish was and so the danger of divisions and schisms and the necessity of preventing them greater And what better way for this than Gods own way which he prescribed under the Old Testament whereby the same way and course is examplarly pointed out to Christians although the New Testament gave no other ground for the like What better pattern for modelling of Church Government can we now have than his own pattern who knows best what is most behoveful for his Church and this you see was a subordination under the Old Testament D. Yet I desire to hear what warrand you can produce for Bishops out of the New Testament I. First I produce to you the superiority of the twelve Apostles above the seventy two Disciples as is granted by Divines generally D. That was extraordinary personal and temporary and to expire with the Apostles I. Indeed in some things the Apostles were extraordinary and their priviledges to cease with themselves such as their immediat calling their sending to all Nations their Infallibility Gifts of Tongues or whatever else was necessary for the first founding of the Christian Church But in some other things wherein they were superiour to other Ministers their power was not extraordinary and temporary but was necessary and still to be continued in the Church after they were gone such as Ordination of Ministers and governing of them by Ecclesiastical Authority Those things which were thus necessary they transmitted to others after them even to the Bishops says Augustin on Psal 45.16 In stead of thy fathers shall be thy children By the Fathers he understands the Apostles by the Children the Bishops who followed after the Apostles Hodie enim saith he Episcopi qui sunt per totum mundum unde nati sunt that is the Bishops who are this day over the whole World Whence are they born and addeth that the Church calleth the Apostles Fathers and did bear the Bishops as Sons and placed them in the room of the Fathers In the next place I produce to you Timothy and Titus both Bishops the one at Ephesus the other at Crete D. All the Ministers who were at Ephesus and Crete were Bishops too for so Paul names them in these Epistles I. It s true Paul names Ministers not only Presbyters but also Bishops yet I say Timothy and Titus were Bishops in that sense that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Bishop was afterward ordinarly taken in that is they had a power in Ordination and Jurisdiction over and above inferior Ministers Our debate is not about the Name but about the Office D. That Timothy and Titus had a power in those matters over other Ministers at Ephesus and Crete I grant for they are taught by the Apostle how to ordain Ministers what qualifications to require in them how to proceed in their tryal and censures c. But this power they had as Evangelists that is they were companions to the Apostles in their labours and travels and appointed by them to settle and water those Churches they had planted I. Then it seems you would unbishop Timothy and Titus and make them extraordinary Officers whose Office was not to continue in the Church D. I think so Paul 2 Tim. 4.5 wileth Timothy to do the work of an Evangelist therefore I think he was an Evangelist and no Bishop I. Indeed he was an Evangelist in a large sense that is one who preached the Evangel or Gospel but that he was an Evangelist in the strict sense can no more be proved from that Scripture than that he was a Deacon because the Apostle in that same place saith Fulfil thy deaconship so the Greek word signifieth we have it translated Ministry or that Philip was an extraordinary Evangelist because he is called an Evangelist Act. 21.8 For he was a Deacon Act. 6. And vve read Act. 8.5 that upon the dispersion he also preached the Gospel but find no ground that therefore he was one of those extraordinary Evangelist whose Office was to cease in the Church and besides Ordination and Jurisdiction is properly no work of an Evangelist but rather preaching and spreading the Gospel D. Philip might be both a Deacon and an Evangelist I. If you will have him so why might not Timothy and Titus as well be both Evangelists and Bishops if you will needs have them Evangelists in your sense even as Jerom in Epistola ad Euagrium and de scriptoribus ecclesiasticis maketh Mark the Evangelist Bishop of Alexandria D. Bishops they could not be because we find them very unsetled especially Timothy had he been Bishop of Ephesus he had been confined to his charge but 1 Tim. 1.3 He was left there only for a season and upon an occasional business I. Timothy and Titus were rare and singular persons and useful to the Apostle in those first beginnings of the Gospel and so no wonder though the Apostle seeth fit now and then to call them from their particular charge when the good of the whole Church required it Phil. 2.19 20. 2 Cor. 8.23 Hath it not been usual in any time and have we not seen it practised in our own time that a Bishop or Minister be called away from his settled charge for a season when the good of the Church requires their service elsewhere and to return when that service is over Gerhard Locor Theologic Tomo
must confess that ordinary and inferior Officers might ordain a Supeâ—ior cxtraordinary Officer which is absurd D. Have you any proof more for bishops out of the New Testament I. The Angels of the seven Churches Rev. chap. 2. and 3. were Bishops for it is undenyable there were many Ministers for example at Ephesus Act. 20.27 28. Yet Revel 2. When that Church is written to which was long after Pauls exhortation Act. 20. and the Church was on the growing hand yet I say we find but one Angel among all these Ministers and he alone spoken to and commended for what was praise-worthy in that Church and blam'd for what was faulty as he who had the chief hand in that Churches affairs So may be said of the rest the Epistle always directed to the Angel and he commended for what was right and discommended for what was wrong seing by his place and authority he ought to have seen to the preventing or reforming of those things D. The word Angel Rev. 2. and 3. denoteth not one single person but is taken collectively for all the Ministers that were in each of these Churches I. I know that is the answer usually given but have oft wondered at it No doubt this Scripture pincheth sore when ye flee to such a shift Scultetus a learned Protestant in his observations upon Titus hath these words doctissimi quique interpretes per septem ecclesiarum angelos intenpretantur septem ecclesiarum Episcopos neque enim aliter possunt vim nisi textui facere velint that is the most learned Interpreters all expound the Angels of the seven Churches to be the Bishops of those Churches neither can they expound the words otherwise unless they offer violence to the text D. But Rev. 2.24 Christ by John speaks to moe then one for it is in the plural number 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vobis Hence it is clear to me that by the Angel of that Church he meant all the ministers I. Will you be content to stand to Beza's exposition of the place he says 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is to you the President and to the company of ministers and to the rest of the people You see the word Angel in his opinion is still to be taken for a single person and that in this place moe then the Angel are spoken unto This is as some think an Apostrophe which is an ordinary Figure in speech when the speaker turns his discourse to some other than he had at first been speaking to but that which I think should put it out of question is the Light we have from antiquity declaring to us that these Angels were single persons and condescending upon some of their Names for I suppose the practise opinions and assertions of such as followed hard after these Angels should by any rational man be acquiesced in as a sufficient commentary on this and the like Scriptures that speak of Church Governours D. Well What say they I. I told you before that Polycrates who was Bishop of Ephesus and born near to the Apostles times speaks of seven of his predecessors who had been Bishops there before him and Leontius Bishop of Magnesia in the council of Chalcedon speaks of twenty seven Bishops of Ephesus successively from Timothy We find the Bishops of those seven Churches of Asia present at the first Council of Nice and designed by their several Churches Ephesus Smyrna c. and subscribing the Acts of the Council with the rest of the Bishops Jerome de Scriptoribus Ecclesias tells us that Polycarp who had been John's disciple was by him made Bishop of Smyrna so Eusebius lib. 3. cap. 32. So Tertullian praescrip cap. 23. And Iraeneus lib. 3. cap. 3. contra Valentin sayes Polycarp was by John ordained Bishop of Smyrna and that he saw Polycarp when he himself was a child for says he Polycarp lived long Now should not these testimonies think you have weight with any man that 's free of prejudice And further among Ignatius his Epistles who was contemporary with the Apostle John we find one written to this Polycarp Bishop of Smyrna who is thought to be the very same Angel to whom John writeth Rev. 2. D. I think indeed much of these testimonies especially of that of Irenaeus who says he saw Polycarp and so knew the better that he was a Bishop And I have heard that Irenaeus himself was a Bishop too but for Ignatius his testimony I am not much moved with it because I hear say that these Epistles of his are forged and counterfit I. Of these Epistles we may have occasion to speak afterward but if you will be at the pains to see what the most part by far and with all the most learned of Protestant Writers and Interpreters think of these Angels you shall find Beza Diodat Marlorat Bullinger Gualter Piscator Sibelius Pareus Aretius Fulk Our own Countreyman Napier of Marchistoun Cartwright the learned Reynolds in his conference with Hart yea and Blondel in the preface to his Apologia pro sententia Hieronymi all expounding the Angel in each of these Churches to be a single person So true is it what I told you Scultetus observes doctissimi quique interpretes per septem Ecclesiarum Angelos interpretantur septem Ecclesiarum Episcopos D. Beza and may be others of these Divines though they interpret the Angel to be a single person yet they never thought that person to be a Bishop but meerly a Moderator and President among the rest of his brethren I. He could be no less than bishop because the Epistle is still directed to him though it 's true the whole Church be concerned in what is written yet I say the Angel is chiefly commended or discommended according as matters were right or wrong which clearly imports that he had the chief hand in business and so he chiefly capable of what Christ by John says to him And the power we saw before in Timothy and Titus above inferiour Ministers may oblige us to think no less can be allowed to the Angels And further most of the Divines I have named do say that these Angels were Episcopi Bishops And Beza himself de Minist Grad doth in effect cap. 13. give to the Angels an Episcopal power for he saith Horum authoritas in Ecclesiae regimine fuit eminentior that is their authority in governing the Church was more eminent than the rest's I might also shew you how Mr. Mede is misunderstood as if in his Key of the Revelation he did teach that the word Angel is commonly through the Revelation taken collectively that is not to signifie one person you may see the contrary in his Key Apocal. 9.14 and 14.6 7. And he sayeth the twenty four Elders about the Throne do represent the Bishops and Prelats of the Churches You may also see Brightman on cap. 7 8. and ordinarily through the Revelation he expounds the word Angel of some single person I shall produce one place more from the New Testament
to prove Episcopacy viz. John Epist 3. ver 9. Diotrephes loveth the preeminence D. I have heard that place brought against Episcopacy But never for it till now The Apostle there speaks against preeminence I. Not at all He only speaks against ambitious seeking after preeminence and finds fault with Diotrephes that he was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is he did ambitiously love to be first or to have the chief place An Office may be good and lawful and yet an ambitious desire after the Office sinful Look what the most judicious Interpreters say on the place Beza renders the Greek word thus qui primatum ambit Now your selves confess it was authority over other Ministers he looked at and from this ye infer that the Office he aimed at was unlawful which will not follow but rather that there was such an Office then in the Church and at this time void unto which he meant to put himself or had already done so out of an ambitious desire to be great which was a sinful end It was not the good of the Church but himself he lookt after Blondel confesseth as much in his Apologia pag. 54. Saying that Diotrephes would be Primus Presbyter to which place he willingly grants authority over the rest did belong though he will not call him Bishop yet he grants to him an Episcopal power in effect Quis enim saith he praesidentiam sine authoritate somniet pag. 39. But of this and the like Concessions of his I may have occasion to speak to you afterward D. If Bishops were by the Apostles left to rule the Church as you seem to prove from the New Testament why then do we not find them in the Church after the Apostles left the world I. We do find them after the Apostles left the world D. But not for a long time after the Apostles were gone I. You are mistaken we find Bishops immediatly after the Apostles which confirmeth what I have been saying for Episcopacy from the New Testament For the Bishops found in the Church immediatly after the Apostles or even before all the Apostles were gone are a good commentary on Timothy and Titus and on the Angels of the seven Churches and on the passage anent Diotrephes D. I would gladly hear what you can say for Bishops about or immediatly after the Apostles times I. If you will credit Jerome whom you take for the Patron of your cause he de Scriptor Eccles speaks of sundry of these first Bishops of James made by the Apostles the first Bishop of Jerusasalem whose successor he saith on Galat. 1.19 was Simeon c. Epaphroditus Bishop at Philippi and Mark Bishop of Alexandria c. Eusebius lib. 3. Hist. Cap. 4. Cap. 33. Cap. 31.36 lib. 4. Cap. 14.25 and in other places is very express to this purpose It 's known there were in some of the Churches many Presbyters or Ministers yet in these most ancient Records we can read but of one Bishop at a time and after him another succeeds in his place and that by a new Ordination For Jerome says Jacobus ab apostolis Episcopus ordinatus est Of Episcopal Ordinations see also Euseb lib. 5. cap. 5. But passing these I produce to you Ignatius contemporary with the Apostle John he was Bishop of Antioch and as is thought an Arch-bishop for in his Epistle to the Romans he stiles himself Bishop of the Church in Syria which is supposed to have hade moe Episcopal Seats in it than only that of Antioch This Ignatius died martyre about eight or nine years after the Death of John he wrote Epistles to sundry Churches of that time in which he frequently speaks of the Bishops of those Churches and setteth down these three degrees of Church-Officers viz. Deacons Presbyters or Ministers and Bishops And exhorts those Primitive Christians to be subject to the Bishop as the only mean to avoid Schisme and that without him nothing be done D. I have heard learned men say that these Epistles are much falsified so that we have them not now as they were written by Ignatius and therefore any testimony taken from them is the less to be valued I. Indeed the Arch-bishop of Armagh Vsher a man well read in Antiquity as also Vedelius who hath written on those Epistles shew that the Copies of these Epistles which were used till of late years are very faulty which is proved from this among other things that many of these Quotations which in the Fathers are found to be cited out of Ignatius are not to be found in those Epistles as they have been used But of late years Vsher found two very ancient Manuscripts of these Epistles in some Libraries in England and about that same time Is Vossius found a Greek Manuscript of them at Florence All which three Copies agreed together and differed much from these that were used before and in these three were found the Fathers Quotations which were not found in the old ones and even in these late found Copies the Testimonies for Bishops are most clear and full And this so much troubles Blondel in the Preface to his Apologia that he is forced to seek a new shift viz. that even those Epistles as we have them in the Copies found by Vsher and Vossius are vitiat also and thinks the Fathers who cite them were deceived by them he thinks they have been vitiat or forged about the year 180. Salmasius thinks Circiter medium aut initium secundi seculi about the middle or beginning of the second age Now Ignatius lived about the beginning of the second age and is it probable they could then be medled with The reasons for this forging of them are alledged by Blondel and answered by Doctor Hammond Can it be imagined they should be so far vitiat that the very Scope of sundry of them should be altered which is to perswade obedience to the Bishop as he without whom nothing ought to be done as they would avoid Schism The Divines who debated with the King at the Isle of Wight found themselves so pinched with these Epistles that they found no way to escape but utterly to reject them all as counterfeit Which the King told them they did without any regard either of Ingenuity or Truth Sure I am neither Scultetus nor Rivet did presume to do so for seven of these Epistles they own as written by Ignatius Howbeit they think some corruptions through time had crept unto them which corruptions they observe but say not that their mentioning of Bishops as Superiour to Presbyters is one of these corruptions Certainly had these two judicious Divines thought this a corruption crept into these Epistles they would have observed and mentioned it You may see Scultetus in his Medulla patrum And Rivet in his Criticus sacer what their judgementis of these Epistles But now of late Doctor Pearson in England hath largely and fully vindicat Ignatius his Epistles and therefore to him I refer you D. Yet I
occasion to speak of from the community of Name still used by the Apostle even after the change was made Secondly because that decree which Jerome says was made over all the world for introducing Bishops had it been after the Apostles times we should have some account of it in antiquity about what year after what manner in what Council c. that Decree was made and no change that followed upon it but the vestige of this is to be found Thirdly The supposing such an universal change of Government after the Apostles were gone will infer that shortly after the Apostles there was an universal defection in all the Christian world from that Government which ye think the Apostles left as unalterable in the Church which is very hard to imagine What! Not one honest man in all the world that we hear of to open his mouth and oppose this innovation but without contradiction Toto orbe decretum est how cold will you make the zeal of those Primitive Christians to have been in respect of your own now adays Fourthly because Jerome tells us this change was made ad tollenda schismata And in remedium schismatis to take away Schism Now to think that the Apostles left a Government in the Church which was liable to this great inconvenience of Schism and that those who came after saw cause to change that Government unto another for shunning of the foresaid evil Is too great an Imputation upon the wisdom of the Apostles and too great a preferring of Posterity before them But this is salv'd if we say that the Apostles themselves forseeing that parity would breed Schism did before their departure for preventing of this set Bishops over Presbyters Fifthly because this same Jerome in sundry places of his writings derives the Original of Bishops as high as the Apostles if not higher de Scriptor Eccles he says Jacobus ab Apostolis statim c. James was by the Apostles immediately after Christs Ascension made Bishop of Jerusalem and that to him succeded Simon And on Galat. 1.19 He says as much of Titus at Crete of Polycarp at Smyrna of Epaphroditus at Philippi and again de Scrip. Eccles He makes Mark the first Bishop of Alexandria and in Epist ad Euagrium says Vt sciamus traditiones Apostolicas sumptas de veteri Testamento Quod Aaron filij ejus Levitae in Templo fuerunt hoc sibi Episcopi Presbyteri Diaconi in Ecclesia vendicent That is that we may know the Apostolical Traditions to be taken out of the Old Testament What Aaron and his Sons and the Levites were in the Temple that Bishops Presbyters and Deacons are in the Church And Epist 54. Apud nos Apostolorum locum tenent Episcopi With us the Bishops hold the room of the Apostles And Epist 1. Ad Heliodorum And dialog adversus Luciferianos and Epist ad Riparium adversus Vigilantium Miror Sanctum Episcopum in cujus Paraecia esse Presbyter dicitur acquiescere furori ejus non virga Apostolica confringere vas initile Where you see he calls the Bishop's power Virga Apostolica The Apostolical Rod or which was derived from them These and moe Testimonies are brought out of Jerom's Writings to shew that he deduces Episcopacy from the Apostles themselves So that if you think in some places he cryeth down Bishops as an invention later than the Apostles you shall find that in many moe places he makes them high enough And if you will needs have this Father to contradict himself it will be with advantage to Bishops For for one word against them he speaks three for them But if you will save his Credit you must understand that change he speaks of to have been in the Apostles own times D. But Jerome says Episcopi noverint se magis consuetudine quam dispositionis dominicae veritate Presbyteris esse majores That is Let Bishops know that they are greater then Presbyters rather by custom then by the truth of the Lords appointment Which words shew that Episcopacy came into the Church by custom not by any divine right I. Some are of opinion that Jerome speaks of that authority Bishops were then invested with over Presbyters beyond what the first Bishops were this he saith they had attained to by custom for in the same Epistle he maketh three subordinate degrees of Clergy and that Ex traditione Apostolica By Apostolical Tradition which words have much perplexed those of your perswasion So that if you think Jerome by Consuetudo meaneth Custome which came in after the Apostles times you shall make him say and unsay in one and the same Epistle But if by Consuetudo be meant that Authority the Bishops in his time did exercise beyond what the first Bishops did no such inconvenience will follow And that he is so to be understood appears from this that in equalling the Bishop as he was at first with the Presbyter he saith Quid facit Episcopus quod non facit Presbyter Excepta Ordinatione That is What doth the Bishop which the Presbyter doth not except Ordination Where you see though he make the Bishop above the Presbyter as to Ordination yet he seemeth to equal them as to Jurisdiction And this seems agreeable to what he saith that at first inter plures Ecclesiae cura divisa and Communi Presbyterorum consilio gubernatae Ecclesiae i. e. Presbyters did at first by common counsel govern the Churches which doth not necessarily exclude the first Bishops And afterward speaking of the power that accresced in after times to Bishops he saith ad unum omnis Ecclesiae cura delata est all the care of the Church was put over upon one He seems to mean that the Bishops afterward acted solely to avoid schism that arose from the disagreeing of many Counsels thus some answer that place of Jerome 2. Others as the learned Davenant think That by dominicae dispositionis veritas Jerome meant Christ's express Command and by Consuetudo Apostolical practice begun by the Apostles and continued by their Successors And this is very probable for this same Jerome writing ad Marcellum about the observation of Lent saith it is apostolica traditio and adversus Luciferianos calleth it Ecclesiae consuetudo so that according to him what was begun by the Apostles may be called Church custome because continued by the Church So then this will be Jerom's meaning Bishops are greater than Presbyters not by Christ's express Command but by custome brought into the Church by the Apostles and continued by their Successors And now to say no more of this Father whom you take to be the great prop of your Cause in antiquity consider seriously these few things anent him 1. Doth not Jerome expresly speak of an Apostolical right at least that Episcopacy hath and that in very many places of his writings as I hinted before 2. Where he seems to speak otherwise suppose he were to be understood in your meaning which is to
so gross a violation pass so smoothly and without very great contradiction But further to let you see that those Divines come even as great a length as needeth to be desired Blondel in his Apologia Pag. 25. Speaking of the very first meetings of Presbyters that were in the beginning of Christianity he saith Antiquissimo inter Collegas primatus contigit i. e. The primacy fell upon the eldest and Pag. 53. he grants that this first Presbyter had the chief hand in Ordination and afterward that it was for this place that Diotrephes made so much ado and is called by the Apostle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And Thebuthus did the like at Jerusalem shortly after And again he confesses that this Primus Presbyter had authority with his precedency quis enim saith he Praesidentiam sine authoritate somniet and lest it seems he be thought to give too much power to that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or chief Presbyter as indeed he giveth him an Episcopal power he addeth Ego sane hanc Politi◠formam ab initio observatam Christianis traditam libere crediderim sed ut mutabilem pro usu arbitrio Ecclesiae mutandam Where after he hath confessed a first Presbyter with an Episcopal power in effect finding this too high a concession which yet truth enforceth him to he sayeth that that form was mutable at the pleasure of the Church And Chamier confesseth that there was always from the beginning a Primus Presbyter or first Minister and that he had Novam potestatem Jurisdictionem ne esset Episcopatus merus titulus i. e. A new power and Jurisdiction that his Episcopacy might not be a meer title This he confesseth when pressed with Testimonies out of antiquity And what needs more than we find Blondel and him confessing And Moulen in Epist 3. to Bishop Andrews at last granteth that Ordo Episcopalis est juris Apostolici i. e. The Episcopal Order is by Apostolical right and then lest he should seem by this concession altogether to have yielded up the Cause to the Bishop he subjoyneth a distinction betwixt jus Apostolicum and jus divinum And that although he grant Episcopacy to have Apostolical warrant yet that will not infer a Divine unalterable warrant for saith he some things which were brought into the Church by Apostolical prudence as fit for that time are now abrogate as Deaconesses Stillingfleet in his Irenicum Pag. 230. useth this same evasion To whom the learned and judicious Author of the account of ancient Church-government among other things returns this answer that it 's granted that some Apostolical practices yea and constitutions are alterable because they were introduced by the Apostles upon reasons and considerations not holding equally for all places times and persons but if some be thus alterable yet it follows not that therefore any or all are so And then the question will be who shall judge what practices are alterable what not or when the reasons of them are dispensable when not Now I suppose none can rationally say that any private man or lesser part of a Society is competent Judge of these practices and reasons else what confusion will ensue every one establishing or abrogating what he pleaseth but this belongeth to the Church in her Representativ's and accordingly we find Bishops and Councils have retained and declared Episcopacy downward from the Apostles through many Centuries of years as the standing unalterable Apostolical Government and that reasons of its first Institution do hold still to wit preservation of Unity shunning of Schism and the like But these Apostolical practices which were founded on temporary reasons and occasions were permitted to run into a desuetude Thus you see what shifts the ablest Pens who have set themselves against Episcopacy are driven unto to shun a Conquest And truely by their great concessions which they are forced to from evidence in antiquity they yield the whole Cause Hence it is we find them speaking so uncertainly in their Writings Sometime one would think disputing down all Bishops or rather up Presbytrie at an other time setting up Bishops higher and more early than their purpose can well allow or consist with the Scope of their Debates sometime again expressing their great respect for Bishops and sincere wishes that such Churches as had them might still retain that happiness as I hinted before And I also shew that their purpose mainly was to vindicate the practice of their own Churches in having parity and not to cry down Episcopacy especially that which was in Protestant Churches as Beza expresly professes so did Blondel in the close of his Apologia of which I spoke before D. There have been many moe Protestant Divines of great note who lived since the Reformation in Europe may be many of those have been no friends to Episcopacy I. Durel View of Government supposeth a Council to be called consisting of the most famous Protestant Divines who since the Reformation have lived in all the Churches abroad France Geneve Switzerland Bohem Poland Holland and the sundry parts of Germany c. And maketh Calvin Moderator and puts Episcopacy to the Vote among them and out of their Writings delivereth their opinions in favours of Episcopacy You may see this at length in Durels View of Government from Pag. 199. to Pag. 309. And to them I may add our own John Knox who as is to be seen before the old Psalm Book in the year 1560. preached in Edinburgh at the admission of the superintendent of the three Lothians a diocy large enough which act was more Episcopal like than Presbyterian Thus I have deduced unto you Episcopacy from Scripture from the most primitive times which followed after the Apostles and from the confessions and concessions of the ablest Protestant Divines all which I think ought and will be very convincing to any who is pleased to lay aside prejudice and impartially make search after truth in this point To what I have said before I add these few things The Author of Jus Divinum Ministerij Anglicani are at great pains to produce some Fathers Schoolmen and some Episcopal Divines in England who were of opinion that betwixt Presbyter and Bishop there is little or no difference To which I say that the debate among the Schoolmen is meerly whether Bishop and Presbyter are diversi ordines different orders or only diversi gradus ejusdem ordinis divers degrees of one and the same Order Now this says nothing against Episcopacy for even these who think they differ only in degree yet notwithstanding might be of the mind that always from the Apostles downward there were Bishops distinct from Presbyters howbeit the difference was not so great as to constitute a different Order but only a higher degree or eminency as some speak in the same Order And these Fathers and late Episcopal Divines might be of the same mind This is sure all of them looked on Episcopacy as lawful and useful in the Church