Anſw. I anſwer, Their Old Friend (Collectively) will do them as little good here, as elſewhere; for this is but petere principium, an Evaſion which I have formerly taken away: And now, further I argue, Such as the Charge is, ſuch is the Power; but the Charge is perſonal that is given to Timothy and Titus particularly, and therefore the Power and Authority given, is perſonal; to them for their time, and to their Succeſſours in place after them; and not to them, and the Presbytery Collectively; nothing in place where ſuch Charge is given, doth intimate the Presbyters or Deacons interpoſing themſelves in theſe Epiſcopal 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 he is in effect (if you give him Continuance in his place) a Biſhop indeed: The bare Name of a Preſident cannot make him of a different Calling from a Biſhop, whenas he acteth the part of a Biſhop in all thoſe points by St. Paul preſcribed. The Practice of all times (eſpecially the firſt Century) warrants not a Monthly or Yearly Preſident doing nothing for Ordination, Convention, Puniſhment, and 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 Succeſſours to the Apoſtles, as were Timothy and Titus; and Presbyters and Deacons ſubordinate to Biſhops as to the Apoſtles whilſt the lived.

St. Ignatius, the next Biſhop to Evodius, he received Epiſcopal Charge from the Apoſtles; and writing to them at Antioch, when he was carried Priſoner to Rome, he uſes theſe words to the Laity, Obſequium prebete presbyteris, & Diaconis; be ye obedient to your Presbyters and Deacons; and addeth to the Presbyters, paſcite gregem apud vos, donec Deus oſtendit 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , feed the Flock under you, until God ſhew who ſhall be your Governour: and hereby eſtabliſhes Superiority to Biſhops, and enjoyns the Presbyters Obedience. The ſame Father in an Epiſtle to the Epheſians, acknowledgeth Oneſſimus, (named often by Paul) to be their Biſhop; and exhorts them, ſaying, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , as it becomes you, ſubmit your ſelves to your Biſhops Advice: Thus here we find St. Pauls Charge or Ordination obſerved and followed by Ignatius, who lived in the firſt Century, and whoſe Worth and Authority clouds of Witneſſes do confirm.

In the ſame Journey he writes to the Church of Smirna, and ſalutes their Biſhop by name, and exhorts the Flock, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ; to follow their Biſhop, as Jeſus Chriſt did his Father; and the Presbytery as the Apoſtles. The Biſhop here ſpoken of was Policarpus; as Ireneus his Succeſſour, affirms; & multa accepit ab illo de ſancti Johannis vita & converſatione; Cotemporary with Ireneus, and by whom he was informed in many things concerning St. John's Life and Converſation.

In the life time of Trajan the Emperour, St. John returning from his Baniſhment out of Patmos, where he wrote the Revelations, ſummoned the Seven Biſhops, (who are conceived to be thoſe named in the Apocalips the Angels of the Seven Churches) and uſed their Miniſtry for ſetling and ordering his own Metropolis of Epheſus, and the other Churches in Aſia; (as the antient Greek Records, found in the Library of Photius, teſtifie) Concerning this Apoſtolical Superiority, and practice of Conſtitution, and Ordination of Biſhops, is frequent mention in Ireneus, Euſebius, and Jerom.

So that by that which hath been ſaid, we ſee, that Epiſcopacy is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , warranted by the practice of the Apoſtles; becauſe that viventibus, conſtituentibus, & confirmantibus Apoſtolis; & viris Apoſtolicis, patribus & doctoribus teſtantibus; The Apoſtles and Apoſtolick men being alive; ſeing it, appointing it and confirming it; and the Fathers and Doctors being eye-witneſſes thereof, there were theſe three diſtinct Degrees in the Clergy, (viz.) Biſhops, Presbyters, Deacons.

Now to the Second Point, That Epiſcopacy is Analogical to the Inſtitution of the Church Government of the Jews in the Old Teſtament, which Moſes, as a Prince, did eſtabliſh by Gods appointment in the Wilderneſs, and which continued in force, till the Veil of the Temple 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 Jews, Abrahams Heirs according to the Fleſh, by their own default and diſobedience, forfeited their Intereſt in that Conveyance of Inheritance which they claimed from their Father Abraham, by the Evidences regiſtred in Moſes and the Prophets: Epiſcopacy and Subordination thereto, I ſay, holds Analogy and a kind of proportion of the Jewiſh-Church-Government; for God, in it, appointed an High-Prieſt, Prieſts, and Levites, ſubordinate one to the other; ſuch is the Subordination of the three Degrees in the Clergy. In the New-Teſtament-Church, St. Jerom near the end of his Epiſtle to Evagrius, obſerves, and ſays, ſcimus traditiones Apoſtolorum ſumptas de veteri Testamento, quod Aaron & filii ejus at que Levitae in templo fuere, Hoc Epiſcopi, Presbiteri, & Diaconi ſibi vindicant 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 in Aaron, his Sons, and the Levites, now appear in the Chriſtian Church, in our Biſhops, Presbyters, and Deacons. This proportion is made undeniable by St. Jude, who Charges ſome in the Chriſtian Church, with the Gainſaying of Korah; now there can be no gainſaying like that of Korah in the Chriſtian Church, except there be diſtinction and ſubordination of Superiours and Inferiours in the Clergy, as there was in Korah's time, and was gainſaid by him and his Complices, deſirous of ſuperiour honour, and of higher degrees and places than they had a Calling unto. Here then you ſee, that God would have a Proportion of Church-Government betwixt the Old and New-Teſtament.

And it is further worthy the obſervation, that both the Church and Common-wealth of the Jews, had in their Government a kind of proportion eſtabliſht by God: For the Church was Monarchical in Aaron; Aristocratical in ſome Select Prieſts and Levites; ſo was the Commonwealth Monarchical in Moſes: Aristocratical in ſome Select Princes of each Tribe governing under Moſes; and Democratical in the reſt, and in the whole Body of the People. And ſuch is the proportion betwixt our Church and Common-wealth, and ſuch hath it been from the firſt foundation; this will, I hope appear when I come to ſpeak of the Succeſſion in our Church; and what kind of Government thus ſuitable 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 Princes or Kings, ſubordinate to Christ, without having any King on earth Head over the reſt: As all the degrees of men in the Churches were ſubordinate to the Apoſtles, and the Apoſtles, going to ſeveral and far remote Nations, were all equally ſubordinate to Chriſt.

To conclude this then, ſeeing the Conſtitution of Epiſcopal Government, is ſo agreeable to that which is moſt abſolute, and was eſtabliſht by that Wiſdom, 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 any endeavour to alter it? It is held an Axiome amongſt Architectors, that it is not wiſdom to pull down a main Poſt of a Building, eſpecially ſo antient and well ſettled, except we be ſure to ſettle and fix another which 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; and ſo may the Building fall on the Builders Heads.

Thus much for the Analogie and Proportion betwixt Epiſcopacy, and the Church-Government of the Jews.

Now, in the Third place, I come to prove, That Epiſcopacy 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 ſpecial perſons, may ſerve ſufficiently to this purpoſe; Yet ſomething more I will here add. Be it ſo, that when the Apostle ſays, If any deſire the Office of a Biſhop, he deſires a good work, that this is ſpoken of an Inferiour Biſhop or Presbiter, which is an Overſeer of the People committed to his charge, as well as of a Biſhop Superiour, who hath the overſight of the Clergy and People: Yet will it follow, that, if the Office of an Inferiour Biſhop or Overſeer of his Flock be a good Work, (as indeed it is) then much more they who have laboured in that painful Harveſt firſt, and afterward, in their elder Years, are advanced to the Superiour Biſhops Office of Overſeeing the Clergy, of Ordaining, Conventing, and the like, as aforeſaid, undergo and perform 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , a good work of greater eminency and more Notable; for, certainly, there cannot be a more bleſſed Work, nor more holy Calling in the Clergy, than to ſucceed the Glorious Apoſtles and Martyrs in their places and callings, as Heirs do their Parents in their Eſtates and Poſſeſſions; and to deliver and teach Sacred. Doctrine to Faithful men, who ſhall be able to teach others alſo, as St. Paul bids Timothy, Tim. 2.2. To this purpoſe St. Auſtin upon the 45th. Pſal. Thus Gloſſes, Pro patribus tibi nati ſunt filii, Children ſhall be inſtead of Fathers; ſaying, Patres miſſi, ſunt Apoſtoli; pro Apoſtolis filii tibi nati, conſtituti ſunt Epiſcopi; hodie enim Epiſcopi qui ſunt per totum orbem, unde nati ſunt? ipſa eccleſia patres illos appellat, ipſa filios genuit, & ipſa illos conſtituit in ſedibus patrum; the Fathers ſent to us were the Apoſtles, the Sons which were appointed, are Biſhops; for at this day, the Biſhops in all the world, from whence did they ariſe? the Church it ſelf calls them Fathers; ſhe her ſelf begot theſe Sons; and ſhe her ſelf hath put them into the Seats of the Fathers: Here you ſee the Succeſſion of Biſhops proved plainly by Austin, as before by Ireneus, Euſebius, Ignatius, and a Cloud of Witneſſes, who ſealed their witneſs with their Blood, and are thoſe whoſe Robes are waſht in the Blood of the Lamb; and who ſhall ſhine brighter than the Cynoſure amongſt the Stars of Heaven.

Beſides all the Witneſſes and Proofs already brought, I will produce one Text more to prove Biſhops to be Succeſſours of the Apoſtles jure divino: In that Great Synod, Acts 1. where were aſſembled the eleven Diſciples, & fere centum & viginti, other perſons Believers about an hundred and twenty, St. Peter moved the conſideration of an Election of one in the place of Judas, and urges two places in the Pſalms as Propheſies which muſt be fulfilled, Pſal. 69.25. and Pſal. 109.6. there the Holy Ghoſt propheſied by the mouth of David concerning Judas, Let his Habitation be void, and let no man dwell therein: Not his place only void, but 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , let another take his Biſhoprick. Mark well the words, and grant we theſe two Aſſertions:

Firſt, That no man will ſay there is a tautologie or vaniloquium in the words of Sacred Scripture, or that any word may be altered, or can be bettered.

Secondly, That the Scriptures ſhould be underſtood, as near as we can, litterally, and as the plain ſence of the place will bear, and ſo as may ſtand with the Analogie of other Scriptures.

Theſe things granted, I thus argue:

That which the Spirit of God by the mouth of a prophet hath foretold, and the bleſſed Apoſtles in a Synod have ratified, that, I ſay, is an undeniable Truth, and may plead its jus divinum; But David did foretel, by the Inſpiration of the Spirit of Propheſie, that Epiſcopacy ſhould ſucceed Apostleſhip, and the Apoſtles ratified it in their Synod, therefore Epiſcopacy ſucceeded Apoſtleſhip jure divino: It is not any other word which is attributed to Matthias's Place but 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , a Biſhoprick; and he ſucceeded Judas.

Object. If any here object, That Matthias had 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , the Biſhoprick of Judas; ſo that Judas's Apoſtleſhip, is there called a Biſhoprick in a general notion, as it imports an Office or Charge; and that therefore Epiſcopacy did not ſucceed Apoſtleſhip; but that both of them were of right attributed to the Twelve, choſen by Chriſt, and both given to Matthias who ſucceeded Judas.

Anſw. Suppoſe this be granted, it makes much more for what I intend: For firſt, If they be terms of ſo near Affinity, that they ſerve to expreſs one and the ſame Office in a different regard; then it follows, that in regard of their Affinity, the one may more eaſily ſucceed in the others place: For where there is a likeneſs of Nature, there is facilior tranſitus, an eaſier Change of one thing into another; as of Air into Fire, becauſe of their agreement in the quality of heat.

Secondly, Seeing the Term of Apoſtle, was by thoſe and after times in ſome ſort appropriate to ſome few, it remained, that the other Term, of Biſhop, ſhould be left and turned over to their Succeſſours; and with reſpect to this, Matthias is expreſly ſaid to ſucceed in Judas's Epiſcopacy: And the chief Officers of the Clergy are termed Biſhops, rather than by any other Name. This we read to have been the conſtant practice of the firſt Century; in which (as it is likely) the Executors and Feofees in truſt of our Lord, beſt underſtood the Meaning of the Teſtator; and had Gifts extraordinary ad eccleſiam & fidem ſtabiliendam, as to eſtabliſh our Faith, ſo the Church too, and could beſt fit right terms to Perſons, and Callings.

But to come cloſe to our ſelves; This Iſland received Chriſtianity very ſoon, even in the days of Tiberius, as Gildas Brietto (a grave Authour writeth; who wrote Anno 493. And as another Gildas after him confirms. This Gildas was called 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 preacht the Goſpel in this Kingdom; their Doctrine (as Malmsbury hath it) was afterward confirmed by other Preachers, and Doctors here. This is alſo witneſſed both by Origen, and Theodoret; (not to ſpeak of thoſe, who ſome of them affirm that Paul ſome that Peter, and ſome that James were in this Iſland, and viſited the Church here eſtabliſhed; (as Baronius, a Romiſh Writer, and of ſpecial note hath it.) It is further ſaid, that Inſula Glacialis (which we now call Glaſtenbury) was granted them by Arviragus, King of the Britains, and that Joſeph of Arimathea, lived, died, and was buried there: This is atteſted by divers memorable Records, alledged by the ſtudious and learned Searchers into the Brittiſh Antiquities.

As for that report of Lucius and Eleutherius of Romes Supremacy, mentioned by Beda and Marianus Scotus, and ſo often alledged by divers others; I muſt either think that Rome had changed her Cuſtoms and many of her Tenents, or queſtion the Truth of the Relation: My reaſon for this, is, becauſe when in the year 601. Auſtin the Monk firſt required obedience to the Roman Church in three things, (viz.) in paſcate celebrando; in baptiſmo ministrando; in predicando Anglis Saxonibus: In Celebrating Eaſter; in Adminiſtring Baptiſm; 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 Austin's 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 inſenſed Edelfred, ſo againſt the poor Chriſtians of Bangor, that he put 1200 of them to the Sword; Of this the reaſon is given, quia noluere obſequium Augustino prebere, becauſe they would not ſubmit to Auſtin's Will: For this was indeed the quarrel, as our Writers ſay. This their refuſal to yield to Auſtin the Monk, I produce as a Proof, that the Chriſtians, which he found here, held in many things with the Eaſtern Churches, as having their Doctrine from Jeruſalem and Sion, whence the Goſpel was to be ſent, Iſaiah. 2.3. Malachi 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 the Goſpel, did bid them ſtay at Jeruſalem (not at Rome) till the Holy Ghoſt had furniſht them with Gifts for the work commanded. This further appears, by that reſolute Anſwer which the Abbot of Bangor gave to Auſtin the Monk, Anno 601. (viz.) that he and his acknowledged no Superiority in the Biſhop of Rome over them, nor any Superiour but their own Arch-Biſhop Caer Leonis, or (as ſome will have it) Senovenſis, qui ſub Deo ſolus poſſitus fuit ſuper illos, ad ſuper videndum & ad faciendum illos ſervare viam ſpiritualem, who alone was, under God, made an Overſeer or Biſhop to them, that he might make them obſerve the Spiritual way. Seing this ſtout Champion thus anſwered, it is propable that they were of the Primitive Inſtitution: And this I rather give credit to, becauſe, if the Biſhop of Rome had then held the preſent Tenent of that Church, (viz.) that their City is the Spiritual 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 Engliſh Biſhops are as Antient as thoſe of Rome, and it is probable they were.

For this we have good proof, that at a Council held at Arles, Anno 314, we had three Biſhops, (viz.) Eborius de Civitate Eboraci Epiſcopus, Reſtitutus de Civitate Londini Epiſcopus, Eldelphius de Civitate Coloniae Londinenſium; & exinde, Sacerdos Presbyter, Arminius Diaconus: Eborius Biſhop of York; Reſtitutus Biſhop of London; Eldelphius Biſhop of Colcheſter; and after them, Sacerdos a Presbyter; Arminius a Deacon: Theſe ſubſcribed in this Council; here therefore I obſerve, that in the year 314, we had Biſhops, Presbyters, and Deacons, the very Government now in queſtion; and Romiſh they were not, (as I conceive) becauſe they then acknowledged not a Subordination to Rome, and becauſe Urban the Second called Learned Anſelme, Patriarcha Brittanniae, the Patriarch of Brittain: Therefore methinks it ſhould not now be queſtioned whether Epiſcopacy be a Romiſh Relique; but rather that it ſhould be confirmed as an Evangelical Ordinance, and as Antient as the firſt Inſtitution of Churches, and as a Calling appointed by the Apoſtles. What more have we for Baptiſm of Infants? What more for our Lords Day or Sunday, 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? And yet we hold both theſe to be Sacred Ordinances, and of Divine Inſtitution; though they be both queſtioned by ſome men of the Reformed Churches, as Epiſcopacy is among ſome of Ours: The Caſe is alike, and as clear, (if not clearer) for Epiſcopacy, that it had a Divine Inſtitution.

If what is formerly ſaid ſatisfie not, I will only uſe this Argument more, to prove that Epiſcopacy is jure divino. If the Charge given, Tim. 1.6, 14. be to Timothy perſonally, and be perpetual; then it is to One perſon namely to Timothy and to the Succeſſours in his place; for Timothy was Mortal, ſo that the perpetuity of the Charge muſt reach to all his Succeſſours until the Appearing of our Lord Jeſus Chriſt: But the Charge is perſonal to Timothy, and perpetual even to the Appearing of our Lord Jeſus Chriſt, therefore it is to one perſon, (viz.) to Timothy and to his Succeſſours for ever.

Object. If it be here objected, that the Charge was given to Timothy, as elſewhere the Keys to Peter; and according to that which is ſaid, quod dixit Petro, dixit ceteris que Apoſtolis, what was ſpoke to Peter, was ſpoke to the other Apoſtles alſo.

Anſw. I anſwer, It is true; for, what was ſaid to Timothy, was ſaid ceteriſ que Epiſcopis & Succeſſoribus corum; both to other Biſhops and their Succeſſours, as Chriſt's giving the Keys to Peter, was to him and the other Apoſtles; but not to all Diſciples, Deacons, and Widdows.