ST. Paul having in the preceding Chapters given Timothy some general Account of the true Faith, and suitable Worship of God; as a necessary means for the continuing and ex­tending of the one, and for the becoming per­formance of the other, proceeds in this, to treat [Page 2]of the Government of the Church. And by way of Introduction to what relates to the par­ticular Offices, of those persons who were to be respectively concern'd in it, He makes a Declara­tion to this purpose: That whosoever desires to be invested with that Power and Authority which of Right belong to the highest and most eminent of them, he desires an Employment worthy and honourable, an Office by which he may be enabled to do some Service to his great Creator, be a publick Blessing to the Age he lives in, a Dispen­ser of God's Favours to men, and as it were an Agent to maintain and keep up a Correspon­dence between Earth and Heaven. For this I judge a Paraphrase not strained on the Apostles words, This is a true Saying, &c.

Being to speak before this great and honou­rable Audience, upon this Occasion and Subject, I shall humbly beg leave to make a modest En­quiry into these following particulars.

First, Whence our present Bishops have their Authority?

Secondly, Whether Episcopacy hath any Ad­vantages above other Forms of Church-Govern­ment?

Thirdly, What may be justly and reasonably expected from Persons entrusted with that Sacred Authority?

Fourthly, What Honour and Respect is due from us to them?

By what I shall say in resolution hereunto, 'twill I hope be plain enough, That he desires a good Work, who desires the Office of a Bishop.

I begin with the

First Enquiry, Whence our present Bishops have their Authority?

That ever since these Nations have preten­ded to Adore Jesus Christ as their Lord and Redeemer, They have, in Obedience to him, Worshipped God, after a way not known be­fore, is denied by none. That all who have agreed in this belief and way of Worship, have reputed themselves in that respect, a Community different from Civil Bodies Politick, is as evident; from their Exercising and Submitting to, an Au­thority distinct from all Civil Power. That Bishops have been the Chief meerly Spiritual Governours of this Society, from the very first Constitution of it here, and that those Venerable Persons whom we now call Bishops, have re­ceiv'd the Spiritual Authority they claim from others of that Order and Title, who received the same from their Predecessors, and so in a continued series, from the first entertainment of that Religion in these Islands (were it necessary) might with much ease be clearly made out. So [Page 4]that the Question will be reduc'd to very narrow Terms, What Authority, and from whom, the first planters of Christianity among us, were intrusted with to Communicate to others? For more full Satisfaction in this matter, it being liable to many mistakes of evil consequence, I shall lay down what I have to say concerning it, in these distinct and plain Propositions.

1. That Our Blessed Saviour had Power and Authority to Institute, and Form a Society over the whole World, to be governed by such Laws and such Officers as he should appoint.

This is evident both from the Prophecies con­cerning the ^(a) Messiah in the Old Testament; That the Government should be upon his Shoulders, and the like; and also from what is said of Jesus Christ, in the New. That ^(b) God Annointed him with the Holy Ghost, and as it were Conse­crated him to be Ʋniversal Pastour, and the great Apostle and High Priest of our Profession, and Bishop of our Souls, and that he had all Power both in Heaven and in Earth: and that he did in his own Person Rule and Govern, make Laws and constitute Governours, and not only did he [Page 5]declare Gods Will to Mankind, but did also take order that such Persons should be admitted into that his Society by Baptism, as were willing to submit to the Rules and Constitutions of it.

2. That Our Saviour committed the Govern­ment of this Society, to those who in the Evan­gelists are call'd Apostles. This appears from the tenour of the Commission which he gave them, when he breathed on them the ^(c) Holy Ghost. As my Father sent me, so send I you. Whosesoever sins ye remit they are remitted unto them, and whoseso­ever Sins ye retain, they are retained.

3. The same Authority which was given to the Apostles to Govern this Society (excepting those attendants of Gifts, as of Tongues, doing Miracles, and the like Extraordinary Helps and Supplies, which the Necessity of the Primitive Church requir'd, till it came in the Ʋnity of the Faith unto a perfect Man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ, as St. Paul expresses it) was for ever to continue to their Successors.

This appears from the very Nature and Design of that Government which Christ appointed; it being so absolutely necessary to the preservation ^(d) [Page 6]of his Society, and consequently of his Religion, that such a Society could not subsist without it; and therefore as necessary to continue that Soci­ety, as first to form it. Some will think more necessary in succeding Ages, than at that time, when our Saviour's Miracles were so fresh in their remembrance; their Devotion so new, and their Zeal so warm and vigorous. We likewise find this plainly intimated in the Commission which Christ gave his Apostles. ^(e) Go and teach; or make Disciples in all Nations, and lo I am with you alway even unto the end of the World. Now they themselves were not to live so long, and there­fore this special Presence and Assistance, must be understood to have been promised to their Succes­sors also.

Farther, Christ sent them as his Father sent him; that is, with such Authority to Ordain others, and to Institute Ecclesiastical Discipline, and so to make Successors, and to communicate to them of that Spirit, which he breathed on them, as Moses did to Joshua, ^(f) the Spirit of Wis­dom, by laying their hands upon them. And hence it was that St. Paul told the Bishops of Asia, upon whom he had lay'd his hands, when upon his Summons They met him at Miletus, ^(g) That [Page 7]the Holy Ghost had made them Overseers, or Bishops, over the Church of God. I may add, that all Disputers in this Cause, and all Pretenders to different Forms of Church-Government, do Acknow­ledge some Form to be always necessary, and consequently Authority to Rule and Govern, for ever to reside in some Persons or other.

4. That Bishops, be the true extent of their Authority what it will, are declar'd to be in Scripture, and were look'd upon in the first Ages (h) of the Church, as Successors to the Apostles; and so Authoriz'd by Christ to Govern this Society.

Thus far we have but little Controversie with the main Opposers of Episcopacy. For they can­not deny but that our Bishops are Presbyters, and therefore if, (as they will have it) Presby­ters were the Antient Bishops, and are Successors to the Apostles, our Bishops upon that account are so. If therefore we be satisfied that Our Saviour gave some Power and Authority to his Apostles, with a design that They should leave it to others, to be transmitted through all Ages ^(h) [Page 8]successively, to some fit persons, for the Exigen­cies of the Church; and that our Bishops are Suc­cessors to those Apostles (which one Party of our Churches Adversaries are obliged to own, by virtue of their being Presbyters; and which the other have no pretence to deny here in Ireland, whatever Fables ⁽ⁱ⁾ they have invented, to disparage the English Consecrations; we being able to prove, That our present Bishops of Ireland were Consecrated by ^(k) such Bishops, as receiv'd their Consecration from other Consecrated [Page 9] Bishops; and so on to before the Reformation; from Records never in the least question'd or suspected) we must Acknowledge that what Authority our present Bishops have, They have from Christ Jesus.

The way being thus far clear'd, before I pro­ceed to the main thing behind, to wit; To de­monstrate, that Bishops are a distinct Order from and above Presbyters, by that Authority They have receiv'd from Christ, I shall deduce some few Corollaries from what has been said, such as:

1. 'Tis evident from hence, That when the Apostles Ordained Bishops, they did it by Au­thority given them by our Saviour; and not only in pursuance of a Jewish Custom of creating Elders, which the famous Mr. Selden so much contends ^(l) for. Had they not done it upon an Account peculiar to Christianity, St. Paul when a Jew, and a most violent Persecutor of Christs Church, had had as full Authority to make Bishops as when a Apostle, and must have deriv'd it not from the Holy Ghost, (as he constantly Affirms) but from his Master Gamaliel.

2. Hence it follows, That Bishops have not [Page 10]their Authority from the Civil Magistrate. There is a great difference between the designation of a Person to an Office, and the giving him Autho­rity in it. Thus a Mayor of a Corporation is Chosen by the Burgesses of it, but receives his Authority from the King alone; and so in many other instances. And therefore this Assertion of ours, cannot be suspected as any way prejudi­cial to our Princes Antient Right of Electing Bishops. The Church is a Society, and Body Politick distinct from that of the Common-wealth; which appears from hence, That it did subsist when separated from, and persecuted by all Civil-Powers; it is founded upon Principles different from the Law of Nature, and com­mon Notions of Mankind, and settled by Di­vine Positive Laws; and consequently the Go­vernment of it must be proportionable. And they who resolve to hold the contrary Opinion, may take its Foundation along with it, and be­lieve the Gospel it self to be no Law, but as Enacted by the Civil Magistrate.

3. We may hence infer, that all other Bishops are not merely Substitutes of the Bishop of Rome, and that he in the Right of St. Peter, is not the Only Bishop, who hath his Authority from Christ, so that all must receive theirs from him. This was with much Vehemence and equal Applause, [Page 11]defended in the ^(m) Council of Trent, by Father Laynez, General of the Jesuits: and Friar Simon a Florentine, did there likewise maintain, That the Institution of Bishops in the Apostles, was only Personal, and ended with them. But this (as the good Bishop of Paris then said) is a Novel Doctrine; first invented by Cajetane to gain a Cardinalship; and as such was Censured by the Doctors of the Sorbonne, and Richerius a ⁽ⁿ⁾ Sorbonne Doctor, in his History of General Councills, lately Printed; has made it out, That in Antient Times the very Italian Bishops them­selves, did subscribe Bishops, Dei Gratia, without any mention of the Pope, or Apostolick See.

4. We may likewise hence conclude, That Bishops have not, nor ought to have their Au­thority from the People. That they had, in the Apostles days, was held by Mr. Hobbes; ^(o) and he says, 'Tis so declar'd in Scripture. But 'tis plain, that he makes it the same thing, to Elect and to Ordain, which the ^(p) Scriptures make very different. As to what relates to the People, [Page 12]it does indeed appear from Antiquity; that They were somewhat concern'd in the Election of Bishops; ^(q) but 'twas only by way of Ap­probation, and that St. Paul's Rule might be the better observ'd, That a Bishop be Blameless, and of Good Report. And that they were of Good Report the People could best testifie. But this occasion'd many disturbances, so that Chri­stian Magistrates were forced sometimes to in­terpose, and at last upon prudent Considerations 'twas quite dis-used.

Having setled these matters, I come now to prove, that Bishops by vertue of this Authority which they have from Christ, are above Presby­ters. I must desire to be excused that I do not make the Enquiry, Whether Bishops be of a distinct Order from that of Presbyters, Jure Divino or not. Which by the Advantage of Ambiguous expres­sions, made use of by some unwarily, by others on purpose, and by the motives of Interest and Envy, has been made the subject of much dis­pute, and of many Books in this last Age. This I have designedly declin'd medling with. For [Page 13]unless we be willing Eternally to wrangle and dispute, and to make the Controversy to last as long as the Order it self, even to the end of the World; We must state the Question plainly, and after some sort, that we may find a clear deci­sion of it some way or other. And I know none more fair than this: Whether the Apostles before their Martyrdoms committed the Authority, which Christ gave them of Governing his Church, and the inferior Officers of it, and of Ordaining others in every Church to single Persons, or to several in Conjunction.

To determine this, Let us first consult the Holy Scriptures.

We find that the first Successor to any of the Apostles, who was made by them, was Matthias; who when Judas- had fallen away, though he was a Disciple, by the direction of the Holy Ghost, ^(r) was assm'd to a higher de­gree, to the dignity of an Apostle. ^(s) St. Peter says, To take Judas his Bishoprick.

We find St. James (who was not ^(t) of the Twelve, and whom all Ecclesiastical Histonias reckon) Bishop of Hierusalem, that he resided constantly there, and that any matter of impor­tance which hapned, was communicated unto him. That the Presbyters attended on him: that when St. Peter was deliver'd out of Prison by an Angel, he bade them whom he first met, ^(u) to go and shew those things unto James, and unto the Brethren; and that St. Paul, as soon ^(w) as he came to Hierusalem, after his Fourteen Years Preaching to the Gentiles, went in unto James, and all the Elders were present. Though the Presbyters were all there, he made his Application in a parti­cular manner to St. James. And in the First Council held there upon occasion of a Contro­versie about keeping the Law of Moses, St. James determin'd as one in Authority, in these words: ^(x) Wherefore my Sentence is. St. Paul com­mitted his Authority at Ephesus to Timothy; we find him give him in Charge, That he should not receive an Accusation against a Presbyters, but con­firm'd by two or three witnesses, ^(y) and him [Page 15]that sinned, to Rebuke before all, that others also might fear. So by his Place we see that he might receive an Accusation, and summon Witnesses before him, and Examine them, and give Sentence against Pres­byters, which he could not have done, had they been his Equals. Besides, he was charged with a solemn adjuration ^(z) before God and the Lord Jesus Christ, and the Elect Angels, to do these things without Partiality; which shews that by his Authority he was able to shew fa­vours to some Presbyters above others, and that his Partiality would have been of great Conse­quence. The same St. Paul made Titus Metro­politan of Creet, gave him Authority ^(a) To Ordain Elders in every City. And as to what cencerns the rest of the Apostles, we may be­leive They endeavour'd that there should be Uniformity in all Churches, which 'tis plain ^(b) St. Paul labour'd much after: and Uniformity could not be, had they instituted different Forms of Government in them.

But no considering Person will think it strange, that the particular Form of Government is not more expresly described in the Relation we have in those Sacred Books, of what was done by [Page 16]the Apostles immediately after our Saviours Ascension. They could not of a sudden settle all matters; nor was it necessary that They should appoint Successors long before they were to leave them. Besides, the Account which we have of what they did, is very short. St. Luke was the only Person who Compos'd and left to Posterity, Commentaries o their Acts. In them we find little of St. Peter; but what was transacted within a Year or two after his Masters Ascension; little of St. Paul, but his Conversion, and what St. Luke saw him do in his several journeys; less of any other of the Apostles. And as to St. Paul's Epistles, they do rather suppose the then Esta­blishment (whatever it was) sufficiently known, than undertake to describe it. And after all those Books were finish'd, we have reason to believe, that the Church being so very much enlarged by the Accession of New Converts, that they made their form of Government more exact than before Comported with the Circum­stances of Affairs.

However, One thing, we find in the Reve­lations, which seems plain enough in this matter. Our Saviour Commanded St. John to write to the Angels of the Seven Churches of Asia: That it was not to the Seven Churches themselves, is evident from his Saving, That the seven Churches [Page 17]were the Seven Candlesticks, but the Seven Stars ^(c) were the seven Angels, which did shine in them. That the Angel of each of those Churches was not a Synod of Presbyters, but a Single Per­son, appears from this, that the Reproofs and Charges given there, are Personal. We cannot say, for instance, that all the Elders of the ^(d) Church of Ephesus, (where St. Paul settled many) could agree in all those Qualifications and Defects mentioned by St. John: from whence it follows, that each of those Churches in St. John's days was Governed by Single Persons.

But tho' there be some who will have nothing esteemed of momen in this Concern, but what is found in Scripture, or in some System of Di­vinity; yet I hope we may be allowed to make recourse to Ecclesiastical History. For we are not to seek in the Scriptures for what was done after that they were written; and the Fathers who were the Successors of the Apostles, can best tell what they who were next before them, did, To shew the unreasonableness of the contrary Opinion, I shall propose a like Case. If a Question were now made, how Alexander the [Page 18]Great his Empire was disposed of after his Death, and any one would take upon him to dictate with great Confidence, That we ought not to consult Diodorus Siculus, Plutarch and others, who wrote of those Transactions, but to apply our selves wholly to Aristotles Politicks, (or which is in­deed much nearer to the prudent Advice of some of our Anti-Episcopal writers) to take the words of some now alive; and to send for certain Sober, Good, Able Men; to whom they can recommend us, who perhaps have never much troubled themselves with that useless Study of History; but yet having profoundly studied Po­liticks, can from their own Models and Principles best inform us, how those matters went then; we should, I presume, beg their Pardon, and upon the very same grounds we must so now, and address our selves to Antiquity for a Resolution.

Now we cannot find one word in Ecclesi­astical History, (of which it is not improbable that they are well aware) that from the days of the very Apostles, any Church was otherwise Governed than by a Single Person, till after the beginning of the Sixteenth Century. But it would not be proper here to prosecute this matter largely, and therefore I shall only propose a few instances out of the most early Christian Writers.

The eldest of the Fathers we have is Clemens Romanus; and he in his excellent Epistle to the Corinthians, shews plainly that he was of Opi­nion; that, as it was actually in his Time, the Apostles themselves did by Divine Inspiration continue a Government, in which Bishops and Presbyters were no less distinguished than they are now. I cannot stay to consider what is weakly Objected out of him, but must refer to others, particularly to the two Learned An­notators upon him; and to the Worthy and Learned Defender ^(e) of the Codex Canonum.

St. Ignatius the Martyr, who Lived with the Apostles, and was afterwards Bishop of Antioch himself, in many places of his Epistles, shews that the Church was Governed by Bishops, and that he means by a Bishop ^(f) the same that we do. And indeed his Testimony in this Controversie, is so full and positive, that they who desire that what he Affirms should not be true, and yet pretend some Respect for so Apostolick a man, have no shift, but to deny that these Epistles are Genuine. But that they are, has [Page 20]been as fully demonstrated, as any thing of that nature can possibly be, formerly by several other worthy Persons, particularly by that Prodigie of Learning and Piety, the most Excellent Primate Ʋsher, a Person one would think, sufficient to reconcile Men, who were Lovers of either, to that Order; and since by a Reverend and Learned Prelate ^(g) now Living, in England.

That Bishops were above Presbyters in the Second Century, is expresly Asserted by ^(h) Clemens Alexandrinus, by ⁽ⁱ⁾ Origen, and ^(k) Tertullian. Of Heraclas, who was afterwards [Page 21] Bishop of Alexandria, Origen ^(l) testifies, That he was first a Presbyter of the same Church. That Irenaeus was first a Presbyter, afterwards Bishop of Lions, appears from Eusebius, ^(m) and St. Hierom: Dionysius Alexandrinus, in an Epistle to Dionysius Romanus, shews that he was then a Presbyter; afterwards Eusebius and St. Hierom inform us, ⁽ⁿ⁾ That he was a Bishop. Irenaeus, and Eusebius, Socrates, and Theodoret, do furnish us with Catalogues of the Bishops in their respective Sees, from the very Time of the Apostles, to their days. And St. Hierom says, ^(o) That from the time of St. Mark there was a Bishop always above Presby­ters, in the Church of Alexandria. And all this is so very clear, that none were they not most perversely biass'd by Prejudice or Interest, if they be acquainted with Antiquity, would question it.

The first Man that ever we can hear of, who did oppose the Superiority of Bishops above Presbyters, was Aerius, almost 330 Years after our Saviour, a very Proud, Humorsome Man, who because he could not obtain a Bishoprick which he aimed at, as Epiphanius informs us, ^(p) he resolv'd that a Bishop was not above a Presbyter; and for his he was by the good Men of those days, condemn'd of Heresie, and therefore we cannot but suspect that there is a little too much assurance in the Men of our Times, who desire to be thought most Pure and Orthodox, and yet will undertake against the whole Church of God, for many hundreds of Years, to defend a Notorious, Infamous Heretick; a Heretick who had no Sober Man in those Ages to Counte­nance him. For as for Medina, who says, That St. Hierome, Sedulius and others, were of his Heresie, the Most Learned Arch-Bishop of Spalato, do's [Page 23]prove him ^(q) to be very impudent for saying so.

But all this and much more of this nature makes but little with some, in this Cause. For when by Learned Men it was demonstrated, That Bishops were above Presbyters, in the very First and Purest Ages of the Church; They whose Passions or Interests had render'd them Enemies to that Order, made this Reply. That Diotre­phes sought the Preheminence in the Apostles times, and the Mystery of Iniquity did then begin to work. Among others, this is the Answer of a Presbyter of great Fame and Repute among his Followers, who were deeply Engag'd in the Late Troubles, Alezander Henderson, ^(r) in a Letter to the Late King of Blessed Memory; and in his First Paper, he had the modesty to call our Bishops, [Page 24]The ^(s) Limbs of the Antichristian Hierarchie. I shall not positively Charge him with what a Reverend Divine, who had been a Member of the Synod of Dort, tells us ^(t) was Reported of him, That when he was Moderator of that famous Assembly at Glasgow, ^(u) he said, That St. Paul himself, by Appointing Bishops, was a Worker in that Mystery of Iniquity. But 'twas not long after that this Answer was Applauded, That the Socinians, Independents, and Anabaptists, took confidence from he Example, and termed the Mystery of the Holy Trinity, the Power of inflicting Ecclesiastical Censures, and the Baptizing of Infants, The Mystery o Iniquity. And truly some Learned Men think that there cannot be more said for the Baptizing of Infants, nay for the Cannon of the Scripture, and for the Observation of the Lord's Day it self, than for Episcopacy.

However, shall we think that our Saviour would be so unkind to his Church, as to deliver it up wholly to the Management of Antichrist for fifteen hundred years together? Nay, if Bishops because Bishops, must be Antichrists, how can we avoid reckoning St. James himself, the Brother of our Lord, the Antichrist of Jerusalem, Timothy the Antichrist of Ephesus, and Titus of Creet? And St. John should not have directed his Epistles to the Seven Angels, but in our [New Stile] to the Seven Antichrists of the Churches of Asia. Shall we think that Christ's Apostles themselves, who Lived to See, and to Establish Episcopacy, as to the Essential Parts of it, as it now stands, would betray his Church into the hands of Antichrist; and help to exalt the Man of Sin? and that many of the most Godly and Faith­ful Servants of Jesus Christ, the Blessed Martyrs of the Primitive Church, would be themselves Limbs of Antichrist, and rejoyce in him? far be it from us to entertain such horrid Imaginations.

But to take no farther Notice of odious Terms and ill Language. Did Christ's Apostles behave themselves Unfaithfully in their Charge, and when they had Converted Persons enough to make a Church, did they Establish any other Form of Government than what they had receiv'd Com­mission from their Master to Establish, and which [Page 26]was to Endure to the End of the World? all which Time, we see he has promised his special Presence and Assistance, to their Legal Successors.

And as to those who succeeded the Apostles, shall we suspect that such good Men, that Men who died for the Gospel, durst presume to set up a Government contrary to it; and so unani­mously agree in so wicked a Contrivance? They were doubtless, Holy, Conscientious, and Morti­fied Persons, very Humble and Devout; and therefore we cannot honestly say, (as some would have the first devisers of Episcopacy to have been) That they were Covetous, Proud, Ambitious, Tyrannical, and Usurpers. Was it Honour, Riches, State and Grandeur, that those Humble, Patient Men, who were always under Persecu­tion, could be Corrupted and Allured with, in those Days when, (as the famous Petrus de Marca, upon occasion ^(w) of Pope Leo his Letter to Anastasius Bishop of Thessalonica, truly observes) That Episcopatus erat veluti gradus quidam ad crudelissima supplicia, a Bishoprick intituled the Possessour only to the Priviledge of being more Barbarously Tormented than othes? Nay, after that Age, the Bishops themselves were so good [Page 27]Men, so excellent, ^(x) that Calvin says (and we may venture to take his word when he speaks well of any of that Order) that a bad Bishop would have been esteemed instar portenti, as a strange, prodigious thing! shall we suppose that these Men would be so abominably ungrateful to their Lord and Saviour, as most Sacrilegiously to violate his own Institution, and so injurious to their Brethren, as to rob them of the Au­thority given them by their Master? and yet if we hold either Presbytery, or any other way than what they then used, to be of Christ's In­stitution; we must conclude these Martyrs, these Holy, Devout, Self-denying Men, to have been so Covetous, so False, so Ambitious, such Ty­rants, such Usurpers. One might tremble to think that to maintain a New Conceit, and the Credit of some Popular Men among us in a wicked degenerate Age, we should labour to prove those Worthies, the Basest, Falsest Villains, that ever lived among Men.

But if they were so, could they have Agreed all the World over in this Knavery, (for it ad­mits not of a softer expression) were all the rest so tame as to submit to it? And why did not [Page 28]the Presbyters then, as some of ours did of late, rise up against them and say they were Anti-Christian?

Upon the whole, we see that for a Bishop to be above the Presbyters is not late Usurpation, but Practis'd in the Purest, in all the Ages of the Christian Church; not invented by Antichrist, nor part of the Mystery of Iniquity, but an Apostolick Constitution, conformable to our Saviour's own. And who can shew a better Title to any Privi­ledges or Estates upon Earth, than a Possession of above Sixteen Hundred Years, without the least Fraud or Violence at the beginning? This therefore being manifest, that in the Ages im­mediately following the Apostles, the Churches were Govern'd by Single Persons, who pretended to derive their Authority from them; and that we have all the reason imaginable to believe, that they would not, nay that they could not, have pretended so, had it been false: we may safely conclude, That they had, and consequently that they who are their Legal Successors, now have their Authority from the Apostles, and so from Christ.

I shall just mention a few inferences which we may make from what hath been said, and then proceed.

1. Hence we see upon what Foundation that part of the Establish'd Doctrine of the Churches of England and Ireland is built, which asserts that Episcopal Power, in the Sense in which we understand it, was exercised by the Apostles, and by their Successors made by them, by vertue of the Commission which they receiv'd from Christ. This we find in the Book of Consecration, which is Approv'd of by the Articles of our Churches, Art. 36. Confirm'd by Act of Parliament, and Sub­scribed to by all who have taken Holy Orders.

2. We see what reason the Reformed Churches abroad had to speak so honourably of our English Episcopacy, as they have frequently done: for which at large I may refer to Dr. Durell's View of the Government of those Churches, and to his later Defence of the Church of England, in Latin. As to their own Practice, To urge their having no Bishops, which their Superiours who are of another persuasion will not allow of, as an Ar­gument against our Bishops, is as unreasonable as it would be to perswade us now to Assemble for the Publick Worship of God, in Caves and Dens; because the good Old Christians being not per­mitted by their Persecutors to have Churches, were forced to do so. And we may say to them, what a most Reverend Prelate of ours did write to one of their Ablest Divines, Non culpa vestra, [Page 30]sed injuria temporum, abesse Episcopatum. ^(y) You have no Bishops, not because you would not, but because ye ^(z) cannot have them.

3. Hence we see how little foundation there is in Scripture, or in Antiquity, for any other Forms of Church-Government. For to say that the Classical, or that the Congregational way (which some think Socinus invented) was used by the Apostles, and by their immediate Successors, and yet not the least appearance of them in the Acts or Epistles, and that they should never be heard of for Fifteen Hundred Years together, is an As­sertion so very strange, that one might with as much modesty and reason go about to per­swade us, that the Caesars (whom we have hitherto taken for other kind of Officers) were but Masters of the Corporations of Rome, or Chairmen of their Committees.

Fourthly and Lastly, From hence we may con­clude, how highly insolent and presumptuous it would be in us to prefer any new fangled Scheme [Page 31]of Government, before that which was founded by Christ, and exercised by his Apostles, and by the whole Church, to our days. And certainly Generations to come will look upon this last as a very wild Age, in which so many People ^(a) bound themselves by an Oath to Extirpate such a Government.

But yet, allowing a great part of what hath been discoursed, Two things are supposed by some to make a great difference between ours and the Primitive Episcopacy. Their Temporal Jurisdictions, and their Titles and Estates. To which I shall only say that our Bishops do Claim no Temporal Jurisdiction by an inherent Right, as Bishops, and Exercise it only by the Favour and Authority of the King. And to suppose that a Princes giving great Titles, and Honours, and Estates to Bishops, do's render them not Christian and Apostolical Bishops, is very like sup­posing, that the fairly Binding up and Guilding, and Enamelling a Bible, do's make it cease it to be the Word of God.

Having discoursed thus largely in order to a Resolution of the First Enquiry, Time will not allow that I speak so fully to those that are be­hind; and therefore I shall contract what I con­ceive necessary, into as little compass as I can.

The Second Enquiry was, concerning the Ad­vantages of this sort of Government above others.

And here two very considerable Advantages are obvious to us both from Reason and Expe­rience.

First, In reference to the Peace of the Church. St. Hierom, of all the Fathers least favourable to Episcopacy, having (as he thought) been unkindly dealt with by the Bishop of Hierusalem; does plainly profess That the Peace of Particular Churches cannot be preserved without this Government. His words are, ^(b) Ecclesiae salus in summi Sacer­dotis dignitate pendet, cui si non exors quaedam & ab omnibus eminens detur potestas, tot in Eccle­siis efficientur schismata, quot Sacerdotes. Take away the Dignity of the Bishop and you ruin the Church, and if you will not allow him a Power above all, and in which they have no share, you shall have as many Schisms made as [Page 33]there be Presbyters. 'Tis St. Cyprian's Obser­vation ^(c) in his 55th. Epistle, That most of the Schisms which have harass'd and disgrac'd the Church, have proceeded from disobedience to the Bishop. And Epist. 69. ^(d) He says, That the Contempt of the Bishop will naturally end in Schism and Heresy. And Calvin, ^(e) as he supposes Episcopacy to be of human institu­tion, so he says it was Established, Ne ex aequalitate, ut fieri solet dissidia nascerentur. To prevent those Contentions which are com­monly occasion'd by Equality. And our late Experience tells us how the Church was di­vided and subdivided, among us in the Late Un­happy Times, when the Bishops were by the prevailing Party, by force driven from their Charges; the evil effects of which we are yet too sensible of. In short, a Bishop cannot have any design in disturbing the Peace of the Church, and in occasioning Separations; he can have no [Page 34]Advantage by it, and consequently no Tempta­tion to it, which I need not say, Others may have.

Secondly, In reference to the Civil Govern­ment, happiness of the State, and ease of the Subject. When other Forms of Church Go­vernment were in the Ascendant in England, it cannot yet be forgotten what Diminution and Prejudice to the Royal Honour and Prosperity attended them. I need not put your in mind, how Seditious, Insolent, Turbulent and Ungo­vernable, ^(f) King James to his great Grief, found the Presbyteries in Scotland for many Years together; and what usage his Son, since Martyr'd, did many Years after receive from them. It may be demonstrated that They who speak severely against the Bishops, for being (as they pretend) Enemies to the Civil Magi­strate, in claiming their Authority from God, do the same themselves, only with far less rea­son, and with much greater injury to their Prince. Thus the Presbyterian Model and Disci­pline, though never heard of the World till within these last Two Hundred Years, is declared [Page 35]by them to be the very Scepter of Christ's King­dom, to which all must submit, even Princes, their Thrones and Scepters. The Independents pretend the Holy Scripture for theirs, that any Society of men Combining together by common consent, in a Church-way and Membership, is by Divine Right, Free and Absolute within it self, to Govern its self by such Rules, as it shall judge agreeable to Gods Word; without de­pendance or subjection in Spiritual Concerns, to any Human Person, or Society whatsoever. 'Tis notorious, that the Presbyters do Claim to their Consistories, Full and Absolute Spiritual Power and Jurisdiction over Princes themselves, with Power to Excommunicate them when they see Cause. And the Independents do exempt their Congregations from all Spiritual Subjecti­on to the Civil Powers. But our Bishops do neither pretend to Jurisdiction over our King, nor do withdraw their due Subjection from him whom God has made Supream upon Earth, over all Persons, in all Causes, Spiritual as well as Temporal within his Dominions.

And as to the good of the Subject. 'Tis not so long since Presbytery was Established, and found Intolerable in England, and we are not Ignorant how all Parties did contribute to throw it down, 'twas so very uneasie. As for Independency, [Page 36]few now know what it is, ^(g) and fewer do desire it. And as for other Sects, they are not yet agreed what Government they would have, nor is it likely that ever they will be. Some in­deed do fancy Independency to be a pretty, easy, sweet, gentle thing. But certainly, for men to cry out against the Yoke of Bishops as intole­rable, and yet to make every Parish-Minister a Bishop; an Absolute, Sovereign Independent Bishop, owning no Superiour under Heaven to whom Appeal may be made, is as Ridiculous, as 'twould be to Cry out against Monarchy as unsupportable, and to desire in lieu of it, that every Constable be made a King.

To conclude this point. Many and great Ad­vantages hath the Church of God in all Ages enjoyed, and we do now enjoy by this Govern­ment, and of many of them, like one of the greatest Blessings of this Life, the Health of our Bodies, whilst we are constantly well, we are almost insensible. But still they are not the less for it, though we understand them more by their absence, and can then put the truest value [Page 37]on them, when we see others in Feavers and Frenzies, and it may be for their Comfort, in the hands of Empericks too. And so I come to the

Third Enquiry, What may be reasonably ex­pected from Persons intrusted with that Sacred Power and Authority,

It was not only St. Paul's Charge to Titus, after he had made him a Bishop, To shew himself in all things a Pattern of good works, but he also makes it a necessary qualification to every Bishop, that he be Blameless. And with great reason. For we know that for one in that Dignity to be wicked, is the boldest Affront and Dis­honour to God himself, and one of the most fatal mischiefs to his Church imaginable, so dread­ful, that a vicious Bishop would not be looked on so much as a Governour, as a publick Judg­ment; over our heads. Besides Vice hath this property, that it renders all men contemptible, most of all Clergy-men, because 'tis their bu­siness and profession to make men good, and among them, They who are of the highest Rank shall be the more signally despised, and thereby made clearly unserviceable. It will therefore be justly expected that they do not contradict their Divine and Holy Doctrines, and make useless their Authority, by their loose and unsanctified Lives.

Farther, 'Twas St. Paul's Charge, That they should speak the things that become sound Doctrine, exhort and convince Gainsayers, and rebuke with all Authority. And indeed men will suppose that Power was committed to them to the in­tent that they should make some use of it; and that we are made subject to them, that they may compel us if there be occasion, to do our duties. And now that there is so miserable a decay of all Devotion and Piety, that men are so loose in ther Principles, and so corrupt in their Lives, that the Church is so despised, and Religion it self so commonly suppos'd a Cheat, or made one: it may be humbly supposed; that these Reverend Persons, will labour to reduce Offenders by the Censures of the Church, and make some use of Ecclesiastical Discipline, so long, by the misfortunes of the times, disused, that we are just upon the point of forgetting that ever there was such a thing; and that they will do this with Vigour and Resolution, though they know 'twill prove, as of necessity it must, very ungrateful to many; and though they thereby procure ever so much ill will, and gain for, it among us only Curses from the Pro­phane, and graver Reproaches from the Hypo­critical. This is a Time to shew their Zeal for the House of God, a Time to shew their Christian [Page 39]Fortitude and Constancy; and seeing they are so well furnish'd with Power by their Lord and Master, and so much Countenanced by an Ex­cellent Prince, we may expect that they will not, like those Children of Ephraim, ^(h) of whom King David tells us, being harnassed and carrying Bows, turn themselves back in the day of Battle. And 'twill be thought but reasonable, that as they ingage themselves in it, so they will pro­tect those persons who are Active and Zealous in the Churches Service, from the unworthy and vile entertainments of those who hate the Church. All this men will make bold, and think they may be justly allowed, to expect from them. In fine, They stand in view of many critical and malici­ous Observers, and therefore must Walk Circum­spectly, because the days are so very Evil. Above all considering, that from them, as St. Paul, ⁽ⁱ⁾ the Canons of the Apostles, and of the Council of Antioch, teach us, God will exact an Account of all the Souls committed unto them. And may they imitate the Holiness and Integrity, the Justice, Charity, Temperance, Humility and Zeal of their worthy Predecessors, in the Primi­tive [Page 40]Times; that so having been thus Wise, ^(k) and such Teachers, they may hereafter shine as the brightness of the Firmament, and having turned many unto Righteousness, as the Stars for ever and ever.

And so I come in the Fourth and Last place, briefly to consider, What Honour and Respect is due to them from us.

As these Reverend Persons are of God's own Appointment, so their Labours are for our great and unspeakable Advantage, and therefore we cannot but believe that they ought to be Loved and Honour'd by us. Nature dictates to us, that God is to be Worshipped, and therefore they who are immediately instrumental and assistant to us in holy Services, are to have pro­portionable respect, it being one of the principal ways we have of shewing how much we honour God. Some call the universal Practice of man­kind, the Voice of Nature; and therefore would time allow, I might here take occasion to tell you out of Antient Historians; ^(l) That among the Albans the Priests had the Honour next to the King; Of the great Dignity of the Priests among [Page 41]the Comani, and in Meroe, and of the Respect pay'd to the Druids. That the King of Sparta was Priest of Jupiter. That Plutarch tells us, that among the Grecians, the Priesthood was of equal Dignity with the Kingdom. ^(m) That Ari­stotle testifies the same in many places of his Politicks. That the Roman Pontifex Maximus, had his Sella Curulis and Lictors, as the Consuls had, and that the Emperous were often Ambitious of that Office.

To proceed. That Melchisedec was a King and a Priest, that the Princes of On and Midian, were Priests, that great was the Dignity of the High-Priest, and of the [...] or Ruler of the Synagogue among the Jews. That in the New Testament our Bishops are often peculiarly En­tituled Gods Servants, and therefore we must Acknowledge that 'twill not be for his Honour that they who are his Domesticks and immedi­ate Attendants, be trampled on, be in want, in meanness and disgrace. ⁽ⁿ⁾ They are represented to be God's Heralds, Embassadors, and as it [Page 42]were his Residents among men, and such have ever been held honourable, and their Persons inviolable, among even the most Barbarous People. That the good Old Christians ^(o) paid their Bishops the greatest Veneration, even the Emperour ^(p) Constantine himself, so great honour, that this Age will not bear the very mentioning of it. That in the Fourth and Fifth Centuries, the Learned Fathers both of the Greek and Latin Churches, gave to the Bishops the Titles of Prin­cipes. So St. Hilary in the beginning of his Eighth Book De Trinitate, calls them Principes Ecclesiae. And Gregory Nazianzen, who was so Humble and Pious, that rather than that the Peace of the Church should be disturbed, he did in the first Constantinopolitan Council, resign the great Patriarchate of that City and retire, do's challenge these Titles. That the good People ^(q) gave the greatst Expressions of concern for St. Chrysostom when Banish'd, for Nazianzen's Father when Sick, ^(r) and for Basil Bishop of Caesarea, ^(s) when he lay a Dying. Instances of this sort [Page 43]are infinite. I might shew at large, how great Respect the Foreign Reformed Divines of most Note, have payed to our Bishops, particularly that Calvin, Beza, Sadeel, nay the whole Consistory of Pastors at Geneva, that Danaeus, Peter Martyr, Gualierus, Spanhemius and others, do in their Works call our Bishops, Lords, and Most Reverend Fathers in God; enough one would think to secure the Title from being Antichristian; and I might mention what ours, and all the Wisest Princes of Europe have thought due to them. In short, we are not to learn our duties from the corrupt practice of a Profane, Atheistical Gene­ration, nor of some men of late years, famous only for being Ill-natur'd, and Troublesome.

We know the evil Consequences of making the Clergy and way Contemptible, and may be­lieve King Solomon, ^(t) at least our own Expe­rience, that the Poor, the despis'd Man's Wisdom is despised, and his words are not heard. We find that Moses knowing that he was soon to be gathered to his People, besought God that he would please to Appoint one to succeed him, and thereupon God commanded him to take Joshua, and lay his hand upon him, and to give him a [Page 44]Charge before all the Congregation, and adds ^(u) And thou shalt put some of thine Honour upon him, that all the Congregation of the Children of Israel may he Obedient. Some of thine Honour. This many Learned Commentators suppose to be Ensigns of Authority, Attendants extraordinary, and other Circumstances that usually procure Respect; which we see God himself thought necessary, in order to gain their Obedience. So that it cannot be Religion which labours to make those Persons Low and Sordid, and Mean and Contemptible, and Useless, whose Contempt and Meanness renders Religion it self so.

Besides, were not Religion, were not the pub­lick good so much concerned in their Usage, to deal ingenuously, and to speak it out plainly, it cannot but be thought a hard Case, that Men who came into the World with perhaps as good Parts, and as fit for Honour and for great Acti­ons as their Neighbours, after they have had an Education Liberal and Ingenuous, and all the Improvements of Wit and Judgment, Reason and Eloquence; after many Years exhausting [Page 45]their Spirits, and wasting their Vigour in publick Services (as our Blessed Saviour, after going about and doing good, was arrayed in Purple that he might be set nought by Herod and his Men of War) should be condemned to a Sacred Station of pre­tended Dignity and Authority, only that they may be the more exposed to Envy and Malice, Hatred and Contempt, be the more eminently despised, and more augustly ridiculous.

And has this Order deserv'd such usages at our hands? How many of it have we had even in this last Century in these Kingdoms, who have been of Primitive Piety and True Learning, an Honour to their Country, and Examples for future Ages, Able and Couragious Defenders of the Truth, Zealous Opposers of Romish Super­stition, (that I say not the very Bulwarks of Protestancie) most admirable Writers, and in­comparable Preachers? And, (by which one may judge of the unreasonableness of our pre­sent Clamours against them) I may add, That no Anti-Episcopal man, of what denomination soever hath in the judgment of unprejudiced Persons, written so Learnedly and Solidly, against the Romanists, though Aspers'd themselves with Popish Inclinations and Designs, as the Late Murdered Primate of England, in his Book against Fisher, the Late Primate of Ireland in [Page 46]several of his Treatises, and the Late Bishop of Durham, concerning the Canon of the Scripture, and Transubstantiation; to name no others.

But we have a sort of men among us, from whose Scorn and Reproaches, no Innocence, no Vertue, no Learning, no Prudence or Caution, can Protect either the Fathers, or the Sons of the Church. Be they what they will, they are all become abominable and gone out of the way, there is none that does good, no not one. As if a man must of necessity, be forsaken of God, and of all Goodness, as soon as he is ingaged in his more immediate Service; and lose his Wits, at least, part with all sense of Piety and Reli­gion, as soon as he enters upon any Spiritual Office, so it be by Law Established. I wish there were no reason for this Complaint. But the Injury extends farther than to the present Clergy.

A Leading-Man among the Dissenters, has lately added to his great number of Books, with which he had favoured the World, One which he calls a Church-History, or History of Bishops; which the Learned Answerer justly Stiles, An Ac­count of all the faults which Bishops have com­mitted in the several Ages of the Church; and I may add, a great many of their Vertues made Faults. And what can be the design of such a [Page 47]Work as this, but to supply what is wanting in the Prelates now Living, to make the Order odious, by relating all the defects of those in former Ages? But alass! this is a Melancholy Consideration, and must needs make a sad im­pression on any Pious Soul. For though we cannot think it strange, that Men who are pro­fessed Enemies of God, and of all Religion, and would feign laugh them both out of the World, do endeavour to expose, and to make ridiculous and odious those persons whose work and study it is to keep up a sense of Religion upon mens hearts; yet that men, who pretend to be Pi­ously disposed, and heartily concerned for the Honour of God and of the Gospel, should take much pains to disgrace, and to render such vile and abominable; this, this is a lamentable indi­cation of a degenerate Age, of an Age ready to be over-run with Profaneness and Impiety, and industrious to force God to take away the Light of the Gospel from among them.

It must be Acknowledged that the best of men are still but men, and therefore liable to some mistakes and defects. So that it does not appear fair and equitable, that they who, it may take no Notice of Great and Extravagant Faults among their own Party, should most severely Censure and Aggravate the least Mis­carriage [Page 48]in a Prelate; as if they disliked the Cause and the Persons, and not the Crimes, or thought that they stricter Piety of the Bishops, like the Offering of the High Priest among the Jews; were to make Attonement for the Sins of the People. I come not here to flatter any man, or to make Apologies for their Vices, and think I have not as far as became me, spoken too favourably of Vicious Prelates, if any happen to be so. But 'tis absolutely necessary, (though it will not please all) that the People be told their duty plainly in this point, and I know not a more proper occasion, and therefore omitting to speak of the Zeal and Diligence of some, and of the Hastiness, Credulity and Uncharitableness of others, I shall in a word or two shew how easie a thing it is to slur a false colour on then most innocent Actions of the best men, and consequently how little Notice Sober Persons should take of the Invectives we daily hear against our Spiritual Governours. How easie a thing is it if they will not by servile com­pliances Fawn upon, and vilely Court those whom they should Command, to call them Proud? If they will not let their Honour lie in the dust, and allow that their Office is as Contemptible as their Enemies would have it be, to represent them as Ambitious? and how [Page 49]natural is it for those who pretend that making them poor would make them humble, to make them look as if they were proud, that it may be thought necessary to humble them? Be they ever so Charitable to the Poor, ever so Just and Ge­nerous in their dealings, if they will not part with the Churches Right to any litigious Person, can they forbear calling them Covetous? And, which is a very fashionable Calumnie now, and almost in the mouth of every one of one sort, if they do but perswade the People to Obey Magi­strates as Christianity obliges them, and will not joyn with the discontented in their unreasonable jealousies of their Prince, how easie is it to say, that They are for Tyranny and Arbitrary Govern­ment? As if they had not as true a Property in their Estates, and as good a Title in Law as any Freeholder in the Kingdom; which all must Acknowledge, unless they will have Property, so highly magnified, to be a word that signifies nothing, but in the concerns of a Lay-man; and they who stand up for it so warmly, mean only their own. If they be for a grave and regular devotion, is it difficult to say. They are Popish? and if they would have men reverent in Divine Offices, to revile them as Superstitious? and if any one venture to say these dealings are not fair and honest, to vote him Ambitious, and a [Page 50]Flatterer? But if these be the Crimes of our Bishops, may they ever be guilty of them; and if they be, under the most invidious Character, and with ever so much dis-ingenuity, repre­sented to the World upon these Accounts, and be ever so much hated and contemned for them, They have this Comfort, that God, from whom they expect their Reward, seeth not as man sees, and that whilst we regard only the outward ap­pearance, he views the heart.

May I not be allowed to beseech you with some earnestness, that if you have any Love for the Truth, any Zeal for the Gospel, and any Concern for the Peace and Prosperity of the Church: That you will not suffer your selves to be prejudiced by the heat and importunities of none of the most knowing and peaceable men, against a Government built upon a foundation of Christ's own Institution, Exercised by the Holy Apostles, and continued from them to us? the only Government used in all Ages by the whole Christian Worlds; honoured and reverenced by all, and administred by many of the Holy Fathers, Martyrs and Confessors; acknowledged by all Councils, honoured by all the worthy English, and [Page 51]Learnedest nf the Forreign Reformers, and highly Respected and Advanced by all Christian Kings and Princes; and never opposed in the Antient Church by any, but by one desperate man, immediately branded for a Heretick upon that Attempt? And let us not be drawn unac­countably into a Kindness for any Novel, Un­certain and Arbitrary Form, one thing to day, and we know not what to morrow, to the distur­bance of our quiet, and for ought as we can tell, to the Ruin and Desolation of these three Flourish­ing Kingdoms; to the Eternal Shame and Dis­grace of the Protestant, nay of the Christian Re­ligion, and the great Joy and Triumph of the Enemies of all Religion, and of God himself.

Consider what hath been said, and the Lord give You understanding in all things. Amen.