of it; which seems absurd to imagine. But if the power of Timothy and Titus (as it is described in the epistles to them) did remain the same in them, and others such as they were, after that the Apostles were departed out of this world; then the office of a bishop, as above described, was of Apostolick institution nor do I think it of any moment to contend about the name or title given to them.

As to the fifth proposition: if we duly consider that the office of superintending and governing the churches, every where at first planted, was chiefly exercised by the Apostles themselves who planted them; as appears from the example of St. Paul, who had the care of all the churches (that is all of his planting) upon him, 2 Cor. xi. 28. visiting every city where he had preached the Word of the Lord, Acts, xv. 36. And though absent, yet could and did give judgment in cases that required the diseipline of the church, 1 Cor. v. 3. If this, I say, be duly considered; and also that the Holy Scripture is silent as to what was done by almost all the rest of the Apostles, beyond Jerusalem and Judæa, in the propagation of the Gospel: it is not to be wondered that we meet with so little in the New Testament touching any others who acted in the capacity of bishops (as we now understand that word) as long as the Apostles remained alive. But as the instances of Timothy and Titus do sufficiently prove that some such bishops, as we contend for, were appointed, as occasion required, even in the days of the Apostles themselves: so is it freely owned by the greatest

champions for presbytery that immediately after their time, this form of government universally obtained throughout the whole Christian church. And that you may not think yourself imposed upon by this assertion, I shall here transcribe the quotations that Mr. Chillingworth has set down, and add a few others for your farther satisfaction.

Petrus Molinæus in his book De Munere Pastorali, purposely written in defence of the presbyterial government, acknowledgeth, that presently after the Apostles' times; or even in their time (as ecclesiastical story witnesseth) it was ordained, that, in every city one of the presbytery should be called a bishop; who should have pre-eminence over his colleagues; to avoid confusion, which oft-times ariseth out of equality and truly this form of government all churches every where received.

Theodorus Beza, in his tract, De triplici Episcopatus genere, confesseth in effect the same thing. For, having distinguished episcopacy into three kinds, divine, human and satanical; and attributing to the second (which he calls human, but we maintain and conceive to be Apostolical) not only a priority of order, but a superiority of power and authority over other presbyters, bounded yet by laws and canons provided against tyranny; he clearly professeth, that of this kind of episcopacy is to be understood whatsoever we read concerning the authority of bishops (or presidents, as Justin Martyr calls them) in Ignatius and other more ancient writers.

Thus far out of Mr. Chillingworth, whose quota

tions indeed, having not the books at hand, I have not examined, but yet have no doubt of the exactness of them; not only on the score of his great ability and sincerity, but also because I never could find that he has herein in the least been contradicted.

In the margin of the same discourse I find quoted Dan. Chamier Panstrať. tom. ii. lib. 10. сар. 6. sect. 24. His words are Inæqualitatem [sc. inter episcopos et presbyteros] esse vetustissimam, ac vicinam Apostolorum temporibus:quod nos ultro fatemur. He calls this inequality there indeed an innovation: but yet owns that in Alexandria, which was the last church wherein it took place, it was introduced aut nondum elapso, aut vix elapso primo seculo.

I find there also quoted Nic. Vedelius, Exerc. iii. in Epist. Ignat. ad Philadelph. cap. 14. et Exerc. viii. in Epist. ad Mariam, cap. 3. but have not the book by me. But the former of these quotations I find in Vedelius's words set down by Forbesius Irenic. lib. ii. cap.-11. Jam, inquit, temporé Ignatii erat discrimen illud presbyterorum et episcopi.

Hieronymus Zanchius (quoted also by Forbesius) saith thus, Non ita multo post Apostolos, obtinuit consuetudo, ut ex multis pastoribus, seu presbyteris et episcopis, unus præficeretur reliquis omnibus, non tanquam dominus, sed ut rector reliquis senatoribus; cui imprimis commendata esset cura totius alicujus ecclesia; reliqui illius esset coadjutores et collegæ.— Ac proinde huic etiam primarii xal ¿¿òxy nomen episcopi et pastoris attribuebatur: reliqui collegæ

presbyterorum tantum nomine contenti fuerunt. Ita factum erit et quæque civitas unum haberet episcopum et multos presbyteros, &c. In Quart. Præcept. Pag. (Forbesio) 732, 733. (Mihi) 666, 667.

Augustinus Marloratus, by the Angels of the Seven Churches, Rev. i. 20. understands with the generality of interpreters, the bishops or pastors of those churches. And that you may clearly see what notion he had of those bishops which were appointed in that early age of the church, take his own words (Exposit. Ecclesiast. in Apoc. cap. ii. v. 1.) Non populum aggreditur sed Clerum; nec quemlibet de Clero nominatim compellat, sed Principem Cleri, utique episcopum. This he speaks without any doubt or hesitation; and his testimony is so much the more to be regarded, because he was well acquainted with, and a diligent collector of the opinions of the learned divines of those foreign reformed churches where the presbyterian government was established.

Monsieur Bochart is indeed of opinion, that the government of the church at first, was according to the presbyterian model into which mistake it is probable he was led by finding presbyters settled in several churches, before there was any fixed or resident bishop amongst them the office of superintending and governing the churches every where being, as I have already said, for some time exercised by the several apostles that planted them. But yet observe the free acknowledgement of this learned man in his own words, Cependant je demeure d'accord que Ordre Episcopal est de grande antiquité,

et qu'il a été reçu avec beaucoup de fruit par toute l'église, bientôt après les Apôtres. Lettre à Monsieur Morley, p. 4.

Were it necessary in so plain a case, I could add many more quotations to the same purpose. But I conclude this point with one out of David Blondel, who was the greatest champion that ever yet appeared against episcopacy. He then (Præf. ad Apol. pro Sentent. Hieron.) describes the place and office of the senior presbyter in every church to have been much the same as I have said Mr. Chillingworth ascribes to a bishop, calling them Presbyterorum Præpositos, ἐξάρχος, Cleri totius capita πρωτοκληθέντες, who had the first, or chief, care of each church, by the consent of their fellow presbyters; and telling us, that the well or ill doing of the flock committed to them, might justly be charged upon them. As he says it appears by the messages sent to the angels of the Asiatic churches, Rev. ii. 3. And having in these and other words described them as persons of a remarkable eminence above the rest of the presbyters; he tells us (on what solid ground I cannot find) that this office of course belonged to the eldest presbyter in every church, upon whose death he says it was, by succession, derived to the next in seniority, and so continued until the year of our Lord 108 (for the case of Timothy and Titus he looks upon to be extraordinary); after which he has these remarkable words: Sed paulo post-ad Suffragia ubique (velut conspiratione facta) itum, ut deinceps fratrum caput et wp0:5ws esset non (pro veteri more)