A VINDICATION OF THE DISSERTATIONS CONCERNING EPISCOPACY: From the ANSWERS, or EXCEPTIONS offered against them by the London Ministers, in their Jus Divinum Ministerii Evangelici.  
By H. HAMMOND, D.D.  
LONDON, Printed by J. G. for Richard Royston, at the Angel in Ivy-lane, 1654.   

TO THE READER.  
IN Erasmus' distribution of his own writings into Tomes, the 8th. we find thus inscribed by him, Octavum occupent Apologiae. Me miserum. Et hae justum volumen efficient. It was his great infelicity, that the Apologies and Answers to exceptions and calumnies, which he was constrained to write, made up an entire large Volume in folio. Now though I have that pleasure in the temper of that person, which gives me security, by the Romanists Proverb, never to be deemed one of their good Catholics, and so may probably partake of some part of his fate, yet't were great insolence in me, who have not troubled the World with a tenth proportion to that were with he hath favoured it, to expect the Tithe of that consideration, which is required to make one capable of that degree of infelicity, which lay a full load on him; Nevertheless these few last months have given me a taste and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 what I am to expect. For besides the reproaches of one learned Gentleman (to which, being barely such, I have no one word to retribute, but that of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which Christ directs me to) I have farther met with some variety; Many exceptions, though little of contumely from these Assemblies; More, and in a very distant Character from a large Preface of Animadversions on the Dissertations sent me lately from Oxford; others also there are which I have not yet had leisure to weigh, but soon purpose and hope to do it; and if either I discern myself, or find it the opinion of others, that what is already said in the Tracts, which they oppose, be not sufficient to prevent, or remove the scruples proposed by them, I shall willingly dedicate some time of vacancy to that employment. At the present, the Exceptions of the London Ministers have challenged the precedence, and here are offered to consideration. And because the preface from Oxford falls on the same sort of matter, Episcopacy and Ignatius' Epistles, as they are defended in the Dissertations, I purpose, God-willing, that an Answer to that shall now follow, assoon as the Printer can dispatch it. And that is all that I had to say to the Reader by way of preface.   

THE TABLE.  

CHAP. I.  
COncerning the Angels of the Churches of Asia, Page 9  
Section 1. The grounds of affirming them to be Bishops. Ibid.  
Sect. 2. Of Timothy, of Onesimus, of Policarpe, p. 15.  
Sect. 3. Of the negative argument from S. John's not using the word Bishop. Of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Revelation, p. 19  
Sect. 4. Of S. John's writings. Again of Diotrephes, p. 25  
Sect. 5. Of S. John's being Bishop of Asia. Of the Apostles being Bishops, p. 29  
Sect. 6. Of the word Angel, and Star, pretended to be common to all Ministers. Of Messenger, and Ambassador. The singularity of the word Angel, p. 35  
Sect. 7. Of their exception to our arguing from Symbols: Of Bishop and Elder being the same, p. 38  
Sect. 8. Of the singularity of each Angel. The objections from the use of the plural number, p. 41  
Sect. 9 Of the Elders at Ephesus Act. 20. p. 45  
Sect. 10. Of expressing a number by singulars. A Church by a Candlestick. Of the seven Angel's Rev. 8. p. 47  
Sect. 11. Of the Epistles being sent to the whole Church, not to the Bishop only. Of Timothy, Onesimus and Polycarp, being Bishops of some of the Asian Churches, without any charge of Apostasy falling on them by this means, p. 50  
Sect. 12. Of Timothy's being an Evangelist, that it hinders not his being a Bishop. p. 55  
Sect. 13. Of the Bishops at Ephesus. Of the plural number in the Epistle to the Angel of Smyrna, p. 56  
Sect. 14. Of Beza's interpretation, of the President▪ p. 57  
Sect. 15. Of Dr. Reynolds interpretation, of the Bishop in Cyprian. Of Ordination by Bishops not without Presbyters, from the Testimonies of Cyprian, and Fermilian, p. 51  
Sect. 16. Of the Churches of Asia being Metropolitical. Of the paucity of believers, p. 54  
Sect. 16. Of modelling Churches according to the Government of the Roman state. Of exemplars of Metropolitans among the Jews. Testimonies of the Apostles instituting Metropolitans, p. 67  
Sect. 17. Of the objection against Metropoles from the seven Stars in seven Churches, p. 71  
Sect. 18. Of the use of the word Bishop for Archbishop in Tertullian: Of Angel in Christ's Epistle. p. 64  
Sect. 19 Of division into Parishes, and Union into Dioceses. Of Diocesan Bishops in the Apostles days. Elders in every Church, Act. 14. Elders of the Church, Act. 20. That place vindicated from exception. p. 75   

CHAP. II.  
OF the equivalence of the words Bishop and Elder in the New Testament. p. 92  
Sect. 1. Four sorts of equivalence of these words proposed, Ibid.  
Sect. 2 Of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, p. 95  
Sect. 3. Of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Elder, p. 100  
Sect. 4. Of reverence to Antiquity, and the interpretations of the Ancients. Of Praelatists' disagreement among themselves; 102.  
Sect. 5. Inconveniencies objected, and answered. Of more Bishops in one City. No Presbyters in the Apostles days. The no Divine right of the order of Presbyters, p. 105  
Sect 6. A first confession objected and vindicated. Of the Ephesine Presbyters being all the Praelates of Asia, Elders, Aldermanni, p. 108  
Sect. 7. A second confession of the Bishops, Phil. 1. 1. being Bishops of that whole Province, Philippi a Metropolis, and a Colony, p. 110  
Sect. 8. A third confession, of Timothy's being an Archbishop. Of the qualifications, 1 Tim. 3. 2 belonging to Bishops. Of the Bishops being worthy of double-honour, though he never preach. Of the word, and Doctrine. Of the Presbytery, 1 Tim. 4, Of Rebuking and receiving accusation against an Elder. p. 112  
Sect. 9 A fourth confession of Titus being Archbishop of Crect, p. 116  
Sect. 10. A fifth charge of contrariety to Scripture answered. Of visitation of the sick belonging to Elders, James 5. p. 118  
Sect. 11. A last objection from Act. 21. 18. and. 14. 3. and 11. 30. answered. Elders for Rulers or Bishops. p. 122   

CHAP. III.  
COncerning the Opinion of Antiquity in this Question. Page 129.  
Sect. 1. The Testimonies of Clemens Romanus, Bishops and Deacons the only offices at the first. Corinth Metropolis of Achaia. What 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies. The Apostles care to prevent contentions about Episcopacy. Hegesippus' testimony of the contentions at Corinth. Clement a Bishop, p. 129.  
Sect. 2. The Testimony of Policarpe. That he was himself a Bishop. His mention of Ignatius' Epistles, fit to give authority to them, being so confirmed as it is by a series of the Ancients, p. 139  
Sect. 3. A vindication of Ignatius' Epistles, Vossius' edition of them, and the Archbishops of Armagh. Some Testimonies out of them, The cause of his so inculcating obedience to Bishops. Mr. Causabones Testimony considered, and the Allegations from the Archbishop of Armagh. Three reasons against these Epistles answered (No Marriage without the Bishop.) Of the Reformed Churches. Of the Church of Scotland after the first conversion, p. 143  
Sect. 4. Of Salmasius' conceit that these Epistles were written at the time of Episcopacy first entering the Church, p. 163  
Sect. 5. Testimonies of Iraeneus, The use of Presbyteri for Bishops, p. 165  
Sect. 5. Testimonies of Tertullian. Seniores & Majores nat● for Bishops, so in Firmilian. p. 169  
Sect. 6. S. Jerom's Testimony of Bishops, etc. by Apostolical Tradition. Consuetudo opposed to Dominica dispositio. S. Jerom's meaning evidenced by many other Testimonies to be, that Bishops were instituted by the Apostles. So by Panorm●tan also. The Testimonies of Isidore, etc. the Council of Aquen, and of Leo vindicated. Of Ischyras' Ordination. The testimony of the Synod ad Zurrium, and of the 4th Council of Carthage. p. 171  
Sect. 7. The Testimonies of Ambrose and Austin. Consignare used for consecrating the Eucharist, and that belonged to the Bishop when present. p. 187  
Sect. 8. Of the Ch●repiscopi, p. 189    

A VINDICATION OF THE Dissertations concerning Episcopacy, From the Answers or Exceptions offered against them by the London-Ministers in their Jus Divinum Ministerii Evangelici.  

The INTRODUCTION.  
Of the occasion of this Work, The state of the Controversy, The Heads of the Prelatists' Plea, from Scripture and Antiquity, with some Observations assistant to them. The considerable concernements of the question.  
BEing advertised from many hands, that the Book called Jus Divinum Ministerii Evangelici, which is lately published by some, who entitle themselves the Provincial Assembly of London, hath undertaken to consider and confute many passages of the Dissertations, three years since published in Latin, in defence of Episcopacy, against D. blondel and others, I have thought myself obliged to examine whether there be any thing objected by them in relation to those Dissertations, which may reasonably move me to retract what was there either with diffidence proposed, or more confidently asserted by me.  
2. And having diligently surveyed the whole Book, that I might omit no passage, wherein my interests might be in the least concerned & being truly able to affirm from that view, that it hath yielded me no one syllable of useful Exhortation, no motive to retract any period, or alter any expression in those Dissertations (but as far, as I do persuade myself that this Provincial Synod contains in it Men of judgement and abilities to maintain the truth and convince gainsayers, so far I am forced to assume, that what I have written is testified to be Truth, and by that privilege competently secured against all opposers) I might herein reasonably acquiesce, without farther importuning the Reader or myself with impertinent vindications, only trusting and adventuring the whole matter to the judgement of each intelligent Reader, who is obliged by all Rules of Justice to compare either by his Memory, or by his Eye those passages in this Book, and the Chapters in the Dissertations to which they are confronted.  
3. But I am again told that many, who have read and are moved by the Arguments and Answers of this Book, and the Authority of a Provincial Synod, are yet disabled to be so just as to examine them by comparing them with the latin Dissertations, and that we are fallen upon those times wherein whatsoever is not answered, is cried up as unanswerable (an humour, of which, if I might be permitted to receive the fruits. I should have no temptation to complain, there being so much a greater part of those Dissertations, which was never attempted to be answered.) I continue still under some seeming obligation to give an exact account of the whole matter as it lies in contest between this Provincial Synod and those Dissertations, and I shall hasten to do it, when I have first by way of▪ necessary Introduction premised these two things.  
4. First, the state of the Controversy, as it generally lies between us, which is this; whether the Apostles of Christ, when they planted Churches in each City, left them in the hands of many to be governed by the Common Council of those many, erecting an equality or parity of several Rulers in every City, to whom all others were subjected, and they to none: or whether they placed the Superior power and Authority in some one, and subjected all others to him. Other consequent differences there are arising from hence, (and those of such weight and concernment to those with whom I now dispute, in case the Truth be not on their sides, as will make this return to their Objections, no less than a duty of Charity, as to Brethren, if by the Grace of God they shall judge it reasonable to make that use of it) but this is the one Basis of all, whether the Apostles planted parity or imparity in the Church, many equal Governors in one City, or but one in each; The former is the Presbyterians interest to defend, the latter the Prelatists; And so the controversy stands between them to be debated and evinced by such evidences as a matter of Fact is capable of, (the Right being by both sides acknowledged to follow that Fact) i. e. by the Testimonies of those who are fit to be credited in this matter.  
Secondly, the brief heads of the Plea, by which I have undertaken to maintain the Prelatists' assertion, 1. By Scripture, 2. By the Records of the first times, the Writings of those who were nearest the Apostles, and either affirm what was done by the Apostles, or how it stood practised in the Churches, all the World over, which were planted by them. As for the third way of arguing from the universal consent and practice of all Churches for about 1400. years together, i. e. from about the year 140. till the Reformation, this I do not insist on, as I might with all evidence, because it is known and confessed by the Adversaries, and all that is by them pretended, is, that parity and equality being prescribed and practised by the Apostles soon after their death, and quite contrary to their platform, Prelacy was introduced into all Churches; It being their desire and demand now (a little different from what M. Calvin at first proposed to the Churches of Helvetia) that all may be reform and reduced to the state wherein the Apostles left it.  
6. In the managing the proofs proposed by me, I have used this method, which seemed to me most convincing. 1. To insist on some few Testimonies under each head, which are sufficient to conclude the matter on the Prelatists' side; and then to propose some observations, which may accord all other places both of Scripture and ancient writers, with those Testimonies and that conclusion.  
7. The special proofs of Scripture are taken, First, from the power derived (as from God the Father, to Christ, so) from Christ to the Apostles; not as to a Common council of social Rulers, but as so many several planters and Governors of the Church, each having all power committed to him, and depending on no conjunction of any one or more Apostles for the exercise of it; And this is largely and clearly deduced Dissert. 3. c. 1. 2. 3. 4. And this power being by them derived to Bishops in each City, in the same manner as they used it themselves (which is also farther evidenced and vindicated, c. 5. etc.) this was deemed a first competent proof of this matter, and as a confirmation of it, it was observable, that the first Bishops made by them, were in the very Scripture called Apostles, James the Bishop of Jerusalem, etc. Diss. 4. c. 3.  
8. A second principal proof of Scripture is taken from the several mentions of the so many Churches of Asia, and the so many Angels assigned to them, one to each, as a singular Governor or Bishop in the Revelation. And in discourse of these we have found great evidence of the fact to authorise us to improve the conclusion a little higher, than was necessary to the defence of the main cause; viz. to affirm of these Angels, that each of them was an Archbishop or Metropolitan, and having done so to discern upon undeniable grounds that there were many other such, mentioned in the Scripture (though not under that title) as James the brother of the Lord, Metropolitan of all Judea, Titus of all Crete, with an hundred Cities in it, etc.  
9 And the ways of according all other Scriptures with these have been briefly these. 1. By observing this difference betwixt Cities and Metropoles, as the true cause and occasion of the mentions of many Bishops in (not of) one City, meaning thereby the Bishops of all the Cities under that Metropolis as Phil. 1. 1. Act. 20. 17. Secondly, by examining the Nature of all the words, which I conceived to be used in Scripture for Bishops, as (beside Apostle and Angel forementioned) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Bishop, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Ruler, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Doctor, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Pastor, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Precedent, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Elder (and in the Fathers, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Chief Priest, and Sacerdos, Priest's) each denoting Dignity and Authority, and all cleared to be in their own nature applicable, and by the circumstances of the Context to be actually applied to the singular Governors in each City; most of them constantly so, and that one of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, if not constantly so, yet very rarely otherwise. And this is done Dissert. 4. c. 7. and so to the end of that Diss. Thirdly, by observing the paucity of believers in many Cities in the first Plantations, which made it unnecessary that there should by the Apostles be ordained any more than a Bishop and Deacon (one or more) in each City, and that this was accordingly done by them at the first, is approved by the most undeniable ancient Records. Such as those 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the profoundest Histories, out of which 
* L. 1 l. 3.  Epiphanius makes this Observation; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Where there wanted Bishops, and there were found persons worthy of the Office, Bishops were constituted; but where there was no multitude, there none were found among them to be constituted Presbyters, and they satisfied themselves with a Bishop alone in a place; Only the Bishop could not possibly be without a Deacon, and accordingly the Apostle took care that the Bishop should have his Deacons to minister to him. That which is thus cited by Epiphanius out of those Ancient Records, is found clearly affirmed by 
* Ep ad Cor.  Clemens Romanus, an Apostolical person, and witness of the Apostles practice; that they being sent out by Christ; as he by his Father, went out Preaching the Gospel, and proclaiming it through Regions and Cities, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, they constituted their first fruits into Bishops and Deacons, of those which should afterward believe. To both which we shall again add what Ephiphanius prefaceth in that place; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that when the preaching was new, the Apostle St. Paul wrote agreeably to the present state of affairs. We have here so clear an account of the reason of the Apostles immediate subjoyning of Deacons to Bishops, Phil. 1. 1. and 1 Tim. 3. (viz. because those were the only two Orders then constituted in every Church) that these two places (which are made use of by the adversaries against us) are most punctual evidences of the Truth of ours, and of the unseasonableness of their pretensions.  
10. As for the Testimonies out of the first Antiquity; The groundwork I have chosen to lay in Ignatius his Epistles, because the Testimonies thence are so many and so evident, and the Writer so near the Apostles time (that holy men being Martyred in the 10. of Trajan, to whose Reign S. John lived) and most of his Epistles written to the very Churches of Asia planted by St. John, and the Bishops of many of them named by him, and of one Bishop the Presbyters under him, that if that one Authors Testimonies be attended to, there is an absolute decision of the whole matter on the Prelatists' side; To which purpose I have also vindicated these Epistles from all that hath been objected to them in these late years, and asserted their Authority by as ancient and authentic evidences, as can be vouched for any ancient piece, next the Holy Scriptures themselves, and contented myself with the most pure and uncorrupted Copies and Editions of it.  
11. In accord with these Testimonies I have also produced many others out of Clemens Romanus, Hegesippus, Polycarpe, Papias, Polycrates, justin, Jrenaeus, Clemens Alexandrinus, T●rtullian, and as many of the first times as have said any thing to this matter, and found a full consent in all, and in most irrefragable suffrages, which conclude this whole controversy on the Prelatists' side. To which I have also added some few observations of unquestionable truth, as 1. That of the continuance of the use of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Elder, to signify Bishop (in our Modern sense) among some of these most ancient Church writers (whereas the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is never used by any, but for a singular Governor.) Secondly, that of the distinct Congregations of jewish and Gentile Christians in the same City (the grounds of which are evident in Scripture) and consequently of the several Governors or Bishops over them (which was useful for the removing some seeming difficulties in the Catalogues of the first Bishops of Rome, Anti●ch, etc.) and some other the like, not for the serving the Necessities of our Cause, but as supernumerary, and ex abundanti. And upon these and such like heads of probation we have built our plea, descending also to a particular survey of Saint Hierom's testimonies, which are by the adversaries principally made use of against us.  
And if what is thus copiously deduced in the Dissertations, together with Answers, and refutations of the principal Objections of Doctor Blondel, and Walo Messalinus, do really stand in force, and appear not to be refuted now in whole, or in part, by these men, who have often attempted to refute them, I shall then leave them seriously, and Christianly to consider but this one thing, and to return their anger not to me, but to themselves, what security of grounds they can build upon in their present practices, particularly in their assuming to themselves that power or authority which doth not belong to them; For 1. if the Praefecture in each Church were (as by Christ to the Apostles, so) by the Apostles given to the singular Governor or Bishop (by them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, constituted over all) and from that time to this, regularly continued in a succession of Bishops in every Church; and secondly, if those which are now called Presbyters, were by those, who first instituted them, placed in a second rank as of dignity, so of power, and never had all that power committed to them, which to the Bishop was committed, particularly not that of Ordaining the meanest Deacon, much less Presbyters with power of Ordaining other Presbyters; and thirdly if they, on whose authority they most depend (S. 
* Exceptâ Ordinatione, Hier. ep. 85. ad Evagr. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Chrysost. Hom. in 1 Tom.  Hierome the Presbyter, etc.) do expressly assure them, that the Presbyters in their times had not power of Ordination, but acknowledge the Bishop superior to the Presbyter in that (and it is not imaginable how that power should be conveyed to any Presbyter now, which was not vested in any at that time, nor pretended to be so in above a thousand years after them.) And lastly, if no man may take that which is not given him from Heaven (or give that which he hath not) which the Scripture yields to, as a rule by which both John Baptist, John 3. 27. and Christ himself, Luk, 12. 14. was to be judged, and the Apostle, Heb. 5. 4. hath applied that general rule to this particularity, of Priesthood in the Church, viz. that no man may 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 assume an honour to himself, but who is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, called by God, 
In Ep. ad Heb. p 913.  (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, advanced by God, saith Theophylact) either immediately or mediately, either by the Apostles, or by those which received it successively from them (all others being truly affirmed by the 
* Theophylact Ibid.  Ancients 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to leap into the honour, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (and to corrupt the rule or law by which they should be guided) than I say, upon what solid grounds can they satisfy Conscience, who without all pretence of necessity (which by some is here made use of as an excuse) the regular way being open and plain before them, have run before they were sent, assumed that power to themselves, which belongs not to them, nor was ever by any, which had it, bestowed upon them?  
I do not foresee any more here necessary to be premised to our future debates, and shall therefore hasten to them, as to an unpleasant progress, that I would willingly be at the end of, and commit all to the grace and unerring judgement of him, whom we all profess to serve and obey in this, as in all other things.   

CHAP. I.  
Concerning the Angels of the Churches of Asia.  

Section I.  
The grounds of affirming them to be Bishops.  
FOr the vindicating of the Dissertations from all the exceptions which are offered against them in the Book, which I have now before me; It is no whit necessary that I give the Reader any the most cursory view of the whole Book; I shall therefore fall in, though abruptly, on the sixth Chapter of the second part of it. For although in some of the former Chapters of that part, some endeavours are used to assert Presbytery against Episcopacy by Arguments so frequently produced by that party, that they were every one foreseen; and in the Dissertations largely evidenced to have no validity in them, yet it falls out somewhat to mine own and the Readers ease, that I am not personally called into the lists, till the beginning of the sixth Chapter; which by the signal of some Latin words in the Margin out of Dissert. 4. c. 4. Sect. 4. have marked me out as the person against whom that Chapter was entirely designed, and I shall readily answer the call, and not refuse the pains to examine every Section of that Chapter.  
2. The subject of this Chapter is the pretended (as they please to style it) Episcopacy of the seven Asian Angels, And thus they begin their assault; The second Scripture ground brought to prove the Divine Right of Praelacy, is from the Angels of the seven Churches of Asia; These Angels, say they (the Assertors of Prelacy) were seven single persons, 
In 〈◊〉 lu●e adhuc ca●c●ire aliquos inter 〈◊〉 in●uspicatissimi saeculi prodigi● numerandum est▪  and (as one hath lately written) not only Bishops, but Metropolitans and Archbishops. This is said with so much confidence that all men are condemned as blind or wilful that endeavour to oppose it: And it is reckoned as one of the great prodigies of this unhappy Age, that Men should still continue blind, and not see light enough in this Scripture to build the great Fabric of Episcopacy by Divine Right upon.  
3. This is, it seems, the first crime chargeable on me as Author of the Dissertations, that I am confident of my Assertion, and condemn all others as blind or wilful that endeavour to oppose it. And although this be no competent way of disproving what is asserted, for it is no universal maxim or Datum among the Objecters that confident asserting should be looked on as a character of falsity, yet I, that would much more be ashamed to have been presumptuous than mistaken, and deem it not a sin to have erred modestly, am concerned to avert the envy of this their Prooeme, and to give this essay, how far any the most moderate speeches may be disguised and deformed by a disadvantageous interpretation.  
4. These words [in tantâ luce—] lie thus in the Dissertations; [Ad tertium accedo— I proceed to the third thing, that which concerns the Angels in the Apocalypse, that by them are noted so many prefects of the chief Cities or Churches in Asia, whom you may call not only Bishops, but Primates, Enarches, or Metropolitans. Each of these things must be briefly taken notice of. First, that each of these were single and properly called Bishops. So Andreas Caesariensis pronounceth of them, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, The seven Ephori (inspectors or Bishops, so called from the Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Inspectors', directly equivalent to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) parallel to the number of the seven Churches are in that place of the Apocalypse called Angels. This title of Angel is sufficiently known from Malach. 2. 7. to belong to the chief Priest of the Jews, for he is called the Angel of the Lord of Hosts, as the person from whom the Law was to be derived to the people. Further more these Angels in that vision of Johns are likened to so many Stars, which, seeing Christ is said to bear or carry in his Right-hand Apoc. 1. 16. 20. & 1, 2. an argument of competent validity may be drawn from thence, that this dignity and power of them in the Church is, if not immediately instituted, yet approved and confirmed by Christ; especially when in these so many parts of this Epistle, Christ himself hath written to every of them under this title of honour and dignity. In the presence of so much light that some Men should still continue blind is to be numbered among the prodigies of this worst and most unhappy age. For as to that which from the one word [yo●] in the plural. c. 4. 24. I find objected by some against so many single mentions of the Angels (one in every Church) that will immediately vanish, etc.  
5. These words thus entirely set down have a face very distant from that so much confidence and censoriousness that I am here charged with by the Provincial Synod. For 1. For the conclusion deduced from the mention of these Angels, 'tis not the Divine Right of Prelacy (which phrase might yet have been reconciled with rules of Sobriety and Modesty, as well as the Jus Divinum of Presbytery) but Christ's approbation and confirmation of this dignity and power of Bishops, which conclusion hath evident grounds in those Texts which mention Christ's holding them in his Hand, and his addressing an Epistle to them, supposing only, what is undertaken to be evidenced by other mediums, that these Angels were single persons in each Church.  
6. Secondly, that which is by me so confidently affirmed, is not, as this learned Assembly is pleased to suggest, that these Angels were Metropolitans or Archbisops. That they were such, is afterwards as a distinct matter in the next Chapter proposed in a much more moderate style, statim credibile fiet, it will straightways become credible, and with no more show of confidence than the premises which are there at large set down, will Authorise.  
7. These be two competent essays to begin with, by which we may proportion our expectations; But there is yet a third which hath somewhat more of injustice in it, to mention my so much confidence in asserting, but never to take notice of the grounds produced, whereon this confidence (as far as it extends) is built, the want of which is so constantly the one thing, which renders confidence unseasonable or unblamable, that it is not in the power of any man to have apprehended grounds as proper to induce a conclusion, and to suspend the belief and confidence of the truth of that conclusion, which is so inferred. The injustice, I say, is there not taking notice of the mediums, whereon the confidence is founded, very competent to infer a conclusion in that stile, wherein it was there inferred, if they had been pleased to advertise their Readers of it.  
8. The inference lies thus; The Angel of each Church of Asia was a single person, therefore not a College or Consistory of Presbyters, and the singularity of the person is there supposed to be evidenced sufficiently by that which is so many times repeated in the Text, the Angel of the Church of Ephesus, the Angel of the Church of Smyrna, and the like, by the testimony of Andreas Caesariensis, the Principal Annotator or Interpreter of the Revelation, transcribed by Aretas in express words, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the number of the Bishop's equal to the number of the Churches; and by the answer rendered to that one Objection which is brought by the Presbyterians against the singularity of the person of each Angel.  
9 Secondly, this singular person was a Bishop in that notion of the word which signifies a precedence of power and dignity over all others in that Church. This again was made evident, both by the forementioned singularity of his power and person in each Church, and farther by the propriety of the title bestowed on him, an Angel, such as among the Jews the chief Priest was styled; Malac. 2. to which matter I shall now superadded one Testimony which Photius hath out of Diodorus Siculus concerning the Jews; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Him they call the High Priest, and deem him to be to them an Angel or Messenger of the commands of God▪ (a Commissioner of Heaven, impowered from thence for the execution of his Office among them.)  
10. This by the way, gives us the reason of the denomination, because as Angels do not only carry up our Prayers to God but also bring down Gods Commands to us, so did the High priest under the Law. This dialect is also said to be derived from the Hebrews to the Egyptians, who call their chief Priest Angel also. And then how fitly the parallel runs betwixt the High Priest among the Jews, and the Bishop, in the Christian Church, taken in the Prelatists' notion of him; was a theme which seemed not to need any length of harangue to perform or illustrate it. And yet after a Section spent to clear that one difficulty of the [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, you, in the plural c. 2. 24.] there are two Sections added more for the farther fortifying of this evidence. 1. From the Council of Chalcedon; Act. 2. which 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  from Timothy till the time of their Session numbers 27. Bishops in one of these Sees, that of Ephesus, all ordained there (and Timothy we know being ordained by the laying on of St. Paul's hands 2 Tim. 1. 6. will divolve it to that orginal, Apostoliacll institution) and 2. from Polycrates, 
† De Martyr. Timoth.  who was borne soon after St. john's days, and is a witness of a competent antiquity, and affirms himself to be the 
* Ep ad. victor. ap ●u●eb. Eccl Hist. l. 5. c. 25.  eight Bishop of that See; From both which testimonies of the Catalogue, and number of Bishops, ascending to St. Timothy, as the first of that rank (who certainly was constituted there before the Epistle of Christ to the Angel of that Church) the conclusion is obvious and irrefragable, that either Timothy or some successor of his was personally the Angel to which the Epistle was addressed, and I profess not to wish for a greater evidence to justify a Prelatist in his desire to live in obedience to that order so signally confirmed by Christ.  
11. The like is in the next Section produced out of Irenaeus l. 3. c. 3. concerning the Angel of the Church of Smyrna. Irenaeus lived in the time of Polycarp that ancient Primitive Martyr, and being a youth had the honour to see that venerable old Man, and of him he affirms, that he was 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  not only a Disciple of the Apostles, and conversed with many that saw Christ, but that also he was sent to Asia, and constituted Bishop in the Church of Smyrna; And if there needed any more light after so clear and authentic a testimony (which again concludes either Polycarpe, or some successor of his to be the Angel of the Church of Smyrna to whom Christ addresseth his Epistle) there is another added out of Tertullian, a Writer of great Antiquity and reputation for knowledge in the Records of the Church in these words. 
* Sicut Smyrnaeortem Ecclesi● Poly●●rpum à Johanne collocatum refert, sicut Romano●um Clementem à Petro ordi●atum edit, perinde utique & ●aeterae exhibent, quc● ab Apostolis in Episcopatum constitutos, Apostolici i● semins traduces habent. De Praescrip c: 32.  As the Church of Smyrna relates Polycarpe to have been constituted there by John, as the Church of Rome affirms Clement to have been ordained by Peter, so in like manner the rest of the Churches exhibit the Records of those whom they have had their Bishops constituted by the Apostles and conveyors of the Apostolical seed to them. And more particularly of the Churches of Asia, the subject of our present discourse. 
* Habemus Johannis alumuas Ec●lesias— Oedo Episcoporum ad originem rec●●sus in Johanu●m fltabi● authorem. Adu. Ma●c. l. 4. c. 5.  We have the Churches fed by John, and the course of Bishops being driven to the Original, acknowledge John (the Apostle) to be the Author of them. Here certainly is light enough to make some confidence excusable in a Prelatist, and to make his wonder seasonable, that any that have eyes, should in so clear a Sunshine want the use of them, and to think it no very auspicious omen that they do. Yet because I had much rather assist, then upbraid other men's infirmities, I have here given them an instance how easy it had been for them to have informed themselves and their respective charges of the grounds of the Prelatists' confidence, that the Epistle of Christ to the Angels of the seven Asian Churches was an evidence of his approbation of the Order of Bishops in our modern notion of that word for a single overseer in every Church.  
12. And if there be any obscurity still remaining in the premises, because the Council of Chalcedon (and Polycrates) makes Timothy, who was ordained by Paul the first Bishop or Angel of the Church of Ephesus, but Tertullian divolves the Original of the course or Catalogue to St John, the answer is easy, that there were two sorts of Christians in Ephesus, and throughout all Asia, the first of Gentile converts, brought into the faith by St. Paul the Apostle of the Gentiles, and over them it was that Timothy was by him placed in Ephesu● their Bishop; the second of Jewish Proselytes converted by St. John (by compact designed to go to the Jews, as his Province Gal. 2. 9 and those peculiarly the Asian Jews, as appears every where in 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 l. 3. 23.  Eusebius story, and by the relation of his death in that place, given us by 
† Ibid. c. 31.  Polycrates, an early Bishop there) and the Author of the constivations out of an ancient tradition tells us that another of the same name, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) was by that Apostle ordained Bishop of the jewish Christians there, as Timothy by S. Paul of the other Congregation of Gentile Christians. An observation which is largely educed and exemplified in the 
* Dissert 4. c. l, & 7. etc.  Dissertations, and of which there is no small use for the dilucidating of obscurities in ancient story, and the clearing of this controversy betwixt us and the Presbyterians; but I must not here take liberty to enlarge on it unnecessarily, having been thus far forced to expatiate somewhat above proportion to the length of their own period, wherein my confidence and censoriousness were shortly accused, how deservedly, I hope hath now been made manifest.   

Section II.  
Of Timothy, of Onesimus, of Polycarpe.  
The next period in their charge against me runs thus. 
Nun. 1.  It is farther added, that some of the Ancient Father's mention the very men that were the Angels of those Churches. Some say Timothy was Bishop of Ephesus, when John wrote his Epistle to it; Others say Onesimus, others say that Policarpe was Bishop of Smyrna; And from hence they conclude with a great deal of plansibility, that the Angel of the Churches were seven individual Bishops.  
2. Here is as yet no great charge offered, but a confession rather, that I had some temptation for the confidence, of which I was formerly accused, my conclusion being acknowledged by the adversaries to be inferred with a great deal of plausibility. But I have not so much reason to depend on their civilities, as to omit the inserting here, what may be useful to prevent mistakes, and shall therefore think it necessary to set down entirely, what it is which I have affirmed in this matter.  
3. And 1. I have yet no where said that Timothy was Bishop of Ephesus when John writ this Epistle to that Church; My words are expressly otherwise, Ex quibus patet vel Timotheum ipsum vel aliquem ei succedaneum hunc ipsum Angelum fuisse, quem c. 2. 1. Christus alloquitur. By which it appears (having formerly set down my grounds to induce this conclusion, that either Timothy himself, or some body that succeeded him, was that very Angel to whom Christ addressed his speech, c. 2. 1. But that is not to affirm it of Timothy, but purposely to abstain from affirming any thing that could be denied or doubted, and only to affirm it either to Timothy or some successor of his, which evidently and infallibly it must be, if there be truth in the premise from which it was inferred, the words of the Council, and the Father, that after Timothy, the first, succeeded of continual series of Bishops there.  
4. What my opinion is in this matter, I shall now freely tell them, though before I had not occasion to do it, together professing it to be only my opinion, and so still affirming nothing in a matter of some uncertainty, or farther than the grounds, on which my opinion is founded, shall appear able to support it. My opinion briefly is, that Timothy was then Bishop of Ephesus at the time of addressing that Epistle to the Angel of that Church; And the grounds are these. 1. That St. 
He●. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  John's banishment and prophesying are by Epiphanius twice expressly affirmed to have been 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in the times of Claudius Caesar; Then secondly, that as it is by Chronologers set down to be in the 13. of Claudius, that Timothy was left by Paul at Ephesus, when he went into Macedonia; 1 Tim. 1. 3. Act. 20. so it is generally resolved that Timothy suffered at Ephesus under Nerva, and that agreeable enough with his age, who appears to be young when Paul first placed him Bishop of Ephesus. If these grounds have truth in them, than Timothy cannot be doubted to be Bishop of Ephesus, when St John's vision was received; And though 'tis true, that Ireneus seems to assign another date of these visions, at least of some of them, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, at the end of Domitian's Reign (which what it is to be deemed to signify, is 
* Annot. p. 906.  elsewhere explained) yet still that is within the compass of Timothy's life, if he suffered not till Nerva's Reign. And so much for that of Timothy's.  
5. Secondly, that Onesimus was Bishop of Ephesus at the date of that Epistle, is no where so much as intimated to be my opinion, much less affirmed by me. And therefore I need reply no more to that. Yet because Ignatius in his Epistle to the Ephesians mentions Onesimus their Bishop (and that Testimony is produced by me Dissert. 2. c. 25. Sect. 9) I shall here freely give them my opinion also of that matter.  
6. First, that there is little ground of question, but that one of that name, Onesimus, was Bishop of Ephesus in the tenth year of Trajan, wherein Ignatius wrote that Epistle.  
7. Secondly, that by one indication there is some small reason to guests, that this Onesimus was then lately come to that dignity; I mean Ignatius his words of gratulation to that Church, that God had given them the favour to obtain or have such a Bishop; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
8. Thirdly, that according to Epiphanius his setting down the time of John's banishment and visions, in the days of Claudius, there must be above 50 years' distance between the date of this Epistle of Christ, and that of Ignatius, and consequently that it is not so likely that Onesimus, that was their Bishop in the later, should be that very Angel in the former.  
9 Fourthly, that as I can have no cause to consent with Ado (in lib. de Fest. Apost. ad 14. Cal. Mart.) that this Onesimus in Ignatius was he that is mentioned by St. Paul to Philemon, so nor to adhere to the Roman martyrology, that he whom Paul mentions, was constituted Bishop of Ephesus after Timothy.  
10. And therefore five, it must be remembered, that both the Greek Menologies, and Simeon Metaphrastes (who celebrate his memory on March 13.) acknowledge not that Onesimus to have been at all Bishop of Ephesus, and that others also of the ancients make him to have been Bishop of Beraea, and martyred in Domitian's Reign: and Dorothea's in Synopsi expressly affirmeth that Gaius succeeded Timothy in Ephesus.  
11. From all which it follows, that Onesimus mentioned by Ignatius, was some later Bishop of that City, who bore that very Ordinary Greek name, and so that his being Bishop of Ephesus no way belongs to that time of the Angel in the Revelation, not interferes with their opinion, who think Timothy to have been that Angel; The appearing incompetibility whereof was it, I spppose, that brought in here the mention of Onesimus.  
12. This was here seasonable enough to be confronted to their words in this place, and will be of use to be remembered in the process of their Discourse.  
13. Thirdly, for Polycarp's being Bishop of Smyrna, as there is left no place for the doubting of that (if either Irenaeus, that lived in his time and saw him, or if Tertullian, who lived not long after, and was a curious Antiquary, may be believed in their joint affirmations of a known matter of Fact) so it is again no where affirmed by me, that he was the very man, to whom that Epistle to the Angel of Smyrna was sent, and if that were their meaning, they have again misreported my words.  
14. All that I had said, I think was proved irrefragably; that in two of those Churches mentioned in the Apocalypse; Timothy and Poylcarpe are by Anthentick testimonies affirmed to be constituted Bishops, the one by St. Paul, the other by St. John, and that is a competent argument added to others, to infer that the Angel of each of those Churches was a single person, and so a Bishop in the Prelatists, not in the Presbyterians notion of the word, an assertion which I need not fear will yield any advantage to the adversaries, and so I as briefly commit it to them.   

Section 3.  
Of the negative Argument from St. John's not using the word Bishop. Of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Revelation.  
IN the next place by way of answer to this plea of the Prelatists, we are referred to three writings of their party, Smectymnuus, the Vindication of Smectymnuus, the Humble Addresses of the Divines at the Isle of Wight, wherein, say they, these things are fully, clearly, and satisfactorily handled.  
2. But it being certain that every one of these three was published some years before the Dissertations, I should think it strange that the particulars there insisted on by me, should by divination be thus answered before their conception, being able truly to profess, that though I am not unwilling to make use of any man's aid for defending truth, yet none of those writings, to which any of those three were given in answer, were by me made use of in those compositions.  
3. But we are superseded the trouble of examining any of these three, by the leave that is craved to borrow from them what may be useful for the turn, and then in like manner I shall more willingly receive from these, what shall appear to answer, or prejudge our plea, than undertake new troubles in farther unnecessary search of it.  
4. First, than they desire it may be considered, that S. John, the Penman of the Revelation doth neither in it, nor in any of his other writings so much as upon the (by; I suppose, for the Printer fails me) name Bishop. He names the name Presbyter frequently in the Revelation, yea, when he would set out the office of those who are nearest the throne of Christ in his Church, Rev. 4. he calls himself a Presbyter, Ep. 2. And whereas in S. John's days some new expressions were used in the Christian Church, which were not in Scripture, as the Christian Sabbath began to be called the Lords day, and Christ himself the Word, now both these are found in the writings of St John; And it is strange to us that the Apostle should mention a new phrase, and not mention a new Office erected by this time (as our Brethren say) in the Church, especially if we consider that Polycarpe (as it related) was made Bishop by him; And no doubt if he had been made Bishop in a prelatical sense, we should have found the name Bishop in some of his writings, who lived so long as to see Episcopacy settled in the Church, as our Adversaries would make us believe.  
5. We are now to consider what degree of conviction, or Argument, to the prejudice of our pretensions, can be fetched from this large consideration. And first it is most evident and notorious among all Artists, that an argument from Authority cannot conclude negatively that there were no Bishops in St John's time, because St. John doth not mention Bishops. It is the same way of arguing, as if they should conclude that there was no God in the time of writing the Canonical Chapters of Hester, because God is not found once mentioned in those Chapters. And yet of this inartificial kind is the whole discourse of this Paragraph, the premises barely negative throughout all the consideration; And so nothing is conclusible from it to the prejudice of us, or benefit of our adversaries.  
6. Secondly, all that this consideration pretends to, is terminated in the bare name of Bishop, that is it which they pretend is not to be found in St. John. But 1. They knew that the word Angel is oft in St John, and by us contested, by the singularity of the person one Angel in each Church (and other Characters) to conclude the Office of Bishop as irrefragably, as if the word Bishop were there specified. Nay of this we have a competent experience, that if the word Bishop had been found there, it would by Presbyterians be as readily expounded to signify a Presbyter, or college of such (for so certainly they have done in other places) and truly with as much reason and satisfaction to any impartial judge, as they have affirmed the word Angel in each Church to denote such. And therefore  
7. Thirdly, I shall demand, would the Apostle St. John's using the name Bishop, be at all useful to the Prelatists' interests, to conclude that there was such an Office in the Church in his time, or would it not? If not, then sure it is not to our prejudice, that he hath not mentioned that name, and then this whole consideration is perfectly to no purpose. If it would, then sure St. Paul's and St. Luke's frequent mentions of them (I may add St. Peter also) will supply St. John's omissions, and conclude there were Bishops in their time, and that was long before St. John's death, if it had been considered.  
8. Fourthly, when it is said that St. John frequently names the name Presbyter in the Apocalypse, 'tis not imaginable that they should think the Author of the Dissertations could receive any prejudice from thence, when he hath avowed to believe that those 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Elders, mentioned in those so many places of the Revelation, were the 24. Bishops of Judaea sitting in Council at Jerusalem their Metropolis, encompassing James the Bishop there together with the four living creatures, denoting the four Apostles that were joined with them in the council, and the 7. Lamps, the emblems of the 7. Deacons attending; Of which matter till they have disproved what is commodiously deduced Dissert. 4. c. 20. Sect. 10. I shall have no need farther to enlarge, it being perfectly useless to our present inquiry, that either the word Bishop or Elder should be used by S. John, for a single Perfect in the Christian Church, supposing (as now we do in the Objection, and 'tis but a begging of the question in the respondent to suppose the contrary) that the word Angel is a notation of it.  
9 By this it appears five, how little we incommodated by the position of these Elders in the Revelation placed nearest to the throne of Christ in his Church, for supposing, as I do, that Christ is by way of vision represented there under the person of the Bishop of Jerusalem sitting in council, and encompassed (on each side) with a Semicircle of Thrones, on which sat the 24 Bishops of Judea, I can well allow these 24. (call them Elders, or what you please) to be nearest to that middle throne, whereon Christ is seated. And truly if it should be otherwise interpreted of Presbyters in the modern notion of the word, it would be hard to make the other parts of the vision to bear proportion with that fancy; For I must suppose, according to St. John's words, that in the vision these thrones were set up in Heaven; And then I shall demand, was that a representation of any council or Judicature on Earth▪ or not? If it were not, than nothing can be inferred thence in favour of Presbyters, more than of Bishops, for of both these we speak, as of Officers on Earth; But if it were, then applying it to Presbyters, it must follow, that in the midst of them there is some other (environed on each side by them) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, sitting upon that throne of principal dignity, before whom also they on the other thrones must fall down v. 10. (or else the parallel will not hold throughout) and the least that can be signified hereby, will be superiority of dignity in him that sits on that middle throne above all the 24. Elders, which will be deemed to exceed the case of a Prolocutor or Moderator of an Assembly, which is the ut most that the Presbyterian 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or equality can admit of, but much more commodiously agrees to the Metropolitan of all judea, sitting in a national Council with the Bishops about him, for of these we doubt not to affirm that they were as much inferior to him, as this representation doth pretend them to be.  
10. As for the sense affixed to it by the Assemblers, that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are Presbyters in the modern notion, and that he that sits in the midst of them is Christ, this is against all analogy, and rules of interpreting, a mining and confounding the Original with the Copy, the type with the Antitype, interpreting one part of the vision, as if it were in Heaven (for it was there where Christ did sit as Judge) and the other as if it were on Earth, for sure the Presbyters in this notion are to be considered as there; And this is a very sufficient prejudice against their interpretation (if there were not enough besides) and such as no way presseth our way of setting it, as hath been already manifested.  
11. Sixtly, for his calling himself a Presbyter Ep. 2. I answer, that as far as this allegation hath truth, it hath no force in it at all against our pretensions. He doth indeed call himself 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (the Elder, we fitly render it) noting thereby (according to analogy with the solemn notion of the word both among sacred and profane Writers, set down at large Dissert. 4. c. 19) a person of authority in the Church of Christ; an Apostle first, and then the supreme Governor of the whole jewish Church in Asia, which is but proportionable to Saint Paul's beginning his Epistles with Paul an Apostle (or Commissioner) of jesus Christ (placed in that power in the Church by Christ himself) and with the same style in the front of Saint Peter's Epistles, only with this Characteristic note peculiar to Saint john in his Gospel and Epistles, of omitting the expression of his own name; And then all that this text is of force to do, is to prove that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth not import a Presbyter (in our modern use of the word) governing in common with other Presbyters, but rather a singular Governor of the Church, such as Bishops are by us contested to be; And so the Greek Scholiasts have expressed it, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, By the word Elder he calls himself Bishop. And this, 'tis certain, is for the interest of the Author of the Dissertations, and no way to his prejudice, if it had been adverted by them that produce it.  
12. Seventhly, when 'tis said that in Saint John's days some New expressions were used in the Christian Church, which were not in Scripture, as the Lords day, and the Word, I profess not to comprehend what advantage to their praetensions could be designed or aimed at in this part of the consideration: For 1. how can it truly be said, that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Lord's day, which is in the Revelation, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Word, which is in Saint John's Gospel, were not in Scripture? I must suppose the meaning is, that they were not in any other writings of Scripture, except Saint John's: But then 2. that doth not infer them to be new expressions in Saint John's days, as these days are distinguished from the days of the other Apostles, whom john survived, but only that they were idioms or characters of speech that Saint john delighted to make use of.  
13. Thus indeed 'tis ordinarily observed of his expressing of Christ by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the word, which yet is taken from the Ancients of the Jewish Church (the Chaldees paraphrase being known frequently to use 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the word of the Lord, and Plato seems to have been acquainted with the expression, which caused Amelius to swear at the reading the beginning of S. John's Gospel, that that Barbarian was of their Plato's mind, that the word of God was in order of a Principle) and perhaps not peculiarly to him appropriate, for 
* In Pandect. pag. 31.  Budaeus a very learned Critic in Greek affirms Saint Luke to have used it in this notion, cap. 1. 2. and if he doth not, yet still 'twill be but a peculiar part of Saint John's style, which if he had written his Gospel in the same year that Saint Matthew did his, he would doubtless have made use of, the phrase being certainly in the world before that time (and so not new, as they would have it) and the usage of it in the Church being in all reason to be derived from Saint John's use of it (who was from thence called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Divine) not Saint John's use of it from the new admission of it into the Christian Church.  
14. And for the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Lord's day, as it is not certain that it is the Christian Sabbath (I mean the weekly Lord's day,) which is meant by that title once used in the Revelation, but as probably the feast of Easter, the annual commemoration of Christ's rising from the dead (and accordingly Andreas Caesariensis sets it indifferently, yet so as it seems rather to incline to the later, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Lord's day bearing the memorial of the resurrection of Christ) so in what notion soever it be taken, it was against Saint John's use of the word that gave it authority in the following dialect of the Church, not the Church's usage (that we any where can discern) from whence Saint john derived it; And so this will be an instance as ineffectual as the former, to infer the conclusion to which it is designed: For indeed bating the unskilfulness of the argument, ab authoritate negative, already mentioned, what a strange way of concluding would this be? S. john useth the words [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the word] and [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Lord's day] (supposing also, that 'tis true which is added) and no other writer of the Scripture useth them but in stead of them, [the Son of God] (Messias, Christ) and the [first day of the week] therefore if there had been any office of Bishops erected in the Church in Saint John's time, it is strange that Saint john should not mention the name 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Bishop: 'Tis at the first hearing clear enough, that there is no strangeness in this, both because Saint john undertook not to set down a Dictionary of all words or customs which were in his time in the Church, and because there is no proportion held betwixt the members of the comparison, as hath been showed. And it will yet be less strange, because 1. it is easily supposeable and not strange, that he should have no occasion at all to mention that office, or that mentioning it, he should do it in his own chosen expression, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Angel, or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Elder (as in other greater matters he is acknowledged and allowed to do) by either of those signifying the same thing as expressly as the using of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Bishop would have done: And 2. it is otherwise as manifest by Saint Paul and Saint Luke, that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Bishop, and the office belonging to it were before the time of Saint John's writings used in the Church, as it could be, if Saint john had made express mention of it.  
15. And lastly, for the highest round in the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the special part of the consideration, our affirmation that Polycarp was made Bishop by Saint john, that doth not (any more than all the rest) infer it necessary that Saint john should mention the name Bishop: Saint jude, I hope, is supposed by the Assemblers to have constituted some Presbyters in the Church, and yet he in his Epistle hath made no mention of any such name or office. And so much for that first consideration.   

Section IU.  
Of Saint John's writings. Again of Diotrephes.  
A Second consideration now follows to be added to this, That there is not any the least intimation in all S. John's writings, of the superiority of one Presbyter over another, save only where he names and chides Diotrephes, as one ambitiously affecting such a Primacy.  
2. A consideration of the same unhappy constitution with the former, 1. a testimonio negatiuè again, Saint john had no occasion to mention it, therefore there was in his time no such thing, and 2. in respect of the matter just the same again, put only in other words, there 'twas, [No mention of Bishop in all Saint John's writings,] here, [No superiority of one Presbyter over another in all Saint John's writings.] And so it can add no accumulation of weight to the former.  
3. But then 2. (bating again those two infirmities in discourse) what if it were granted that at the time of Saint John's writing, there were not in the whole Church of Christ any one Presbyter, superior to another Presbyter, what hath the Author of the Dissert: lost, or they gained by this? He makes no doubt willingly to yield to any enforcing reason that is or shall be produced to conclude that at that time, there was above Deacons but one degree in the Church, and yet to be never the less qualified to maintain his praetensions, Nay he is known to have expressed it as his opinion probably inferred, and not easily confuted (and that by which, if it be true, or because there is no evidence to the contrary, all the Presbyterian praetensions, founded in the doubtfulness of words in Scripture, are utterly excluded) that there were not in the space within compass of which, all the Books of the New Testament were written, any Presbyters in our Modern notion of them, created in the Church, though soon after, certainly in Ignatius' time, there were; and than if the consideration now before us were of any force at all, this would be the one direct and proper use of it, to add more confidence to this opinion, and so to confirm, not to invalidate our praetensions.  
4. Thirdly for Diotrephes and Saint John's chiding of him for ambitiously affecting a Primacy over other Presbyters, there will appear to be more than one misadventure in it. For 1. it is apparent in the Text that this Di●trephes (whom 
* 〈◊〉 Pag. 24.  Walo Messalinus a good friend to the praetensions of the Assemblers, describes so, as will conclude him a me●re Presbyterian, Noluit, saith he, agnoscore superiorem aliqu●m in Presbyteros habentem potestatem, he would not acknowledge any superior having power over Presbyters) contended for superiority, not only over his equals, but over Saint john himself, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, faith that Apostle, he 〈◊〉 not us, yields no obedience, gives no heed to our letter of directions; This certainly belongs not to the superiority or dignity of Bishops, which reserves the Primacy to the Apostles entire, and no way clasheth with it, and only pretends to that power and office of duty, which for the preserving of unity, and the good of the flock, the Apostles thought fit to intrust and commit to them.  
5. Secondly, Diotrophes was not (as far as appears, or we have reason to conjecture) ordained to any office of power in the Asian Church, committed to that Apostles care, but of himself without any mission, nay expressly against the Apostles consent, was willing to assume and exercise this power, and is but an example of Corah's sedition and presumptuous humour (and that is inevitably the case of the Presbyterian, unless he can show his commission for the power he pretends to) all one with that of the Gnostics censured by Saint jude under the style of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the gainsaying of Cora●●, and this no way belongs, or is appliable to the practice of the Bishop, who by Commission from the Apostle, not by any ambition or presumption of his own, regularly ascends to this degree of office and dignity in the Church, and useth it as regularly also, in subordination to all his superiors.  
6. On this Occasion the Dissertations have offered a Dilemma to these Disputants, which I should be willing to hear answered by them, in this form, Either Diotrephes exercised in the Church the power of the Bishop, in the notion of a singular Praefect, assuming power over the Presbyters, or he did not; If he did not, then is this consideration presently at an end, Diotrephes is falsely accused, and the innocent Bishop unjustly wounded through his sides, who it seems was no Bishop: But if it be said he did, than I demand, Why is not Diotrophes checked by S. John for that presumption of affecting a power over his equals? And why doth the whole charge lie another way, that he received not S. John's Letters, nor paid due obedience to them? Or why is that very thing charged so heavily on the Bishops in our age, and punished so severely in them, which the Apostle living and seeing, and upon occasion taking notice of Diotrephes his insolence, doth not so much as reprehend or accuse in him?  
7. For as to the Epithet which he bestows upon him, that he was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, one that loved the praeeminence, supposing that were the title of his fault, yet that extends not the Apostles speech to censuring or blaming the use of that power, but only the ambition and affectation of it, which were otherwise lawful to be enjoyed; as when 'tis noted in the Pharisees, that they did 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, love or affect the uppermost seats in the Synagogues, which otherwise simply to have sat in, had employed no crime of theirs, for to this very end, that some body should sit in them, they were certainly erected, and 'tis known that there was among them a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 head of the Consistory, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Governor of the Synagogue, to whom that seat belonged by God's appointment.  
8. Nay for the very desire, as far as is expressed by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1 Tim. 3. 1. desiring and coveting, it is allowed by the Apostle to be terminated in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the office of a Bishop, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as a good, and consequently a desirable work, and if Diotrephes be supposed guilty of any other, it may safely be yielded to have been a fault in him, without praejudice to the good office which he so viciously and criminously affected, according to that of 
* In 1 Tim. 3. 1  Theodoret, that the Apostle, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, accuses not the desire simply, but the desire of rule, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and teacheth to desire, not the honour, but the virtue, not to covet the dignity, but to seek the work of the dignity, the task to which it belongs. By all which, and much more added in the 
* Disser● 1. cap. 13.  Dissertations, it is evident, how little advantage hath accrued to the Assemblers from their mention of Diotrephes out of Saint John, and by consequence from their second consideration.   

Section V.  
Of St. John's being Bishop of Asia. Of the Apostles being Bishops.  
NOw succeeds a third consideration. viz. That the same Authors that say that S. John made Polycarpe Bish. of Smyrna, & that S. Peter made Ignatius Bishop of Antioch, do also say that St. John himself sat many year's Bishop of Ephesus, and was the Metropolitan of all Asia, which (say they) is an evident demonstration to us, that these Authors did not use the word Bishop in a Prelatical sense. For it is certain that the Apostles cannot be properly called Bishops; For though they do eminently contain the Episcopal Office, yet they were not formally Bishops. For this were to degrade the Apostle, and to make their Office Ordinary and perpetual, this were to exalt the Bishop above his degree, and make him an Apostles, and to make the Apostle a Bishop. It doth not much differ from madness, to say that Peter or any one of the Apostles were properly Bishops, as learned Whitaker saith, whom we shall have occasion to cite to this purpose hereafter.  
2. Whether this consideration be likely to contribute any thing to their advantage, save only by amusing the Reader, and keeping him longer in expectation, that somewhat may possibly be produced to the disparagement of our plea, I desire may distinctly be considered by these degrees.  
3. First, I acknowledge that stile [the same Authors—] to belong truly to ancient Writers produced by me in the Dissertations, who, as they do affirm St. John to have constituted Policarpe Bishop of Smyrna, Diss. 4. c. 5. Sect. 5. and St. Peter to have placed Ignatius Bishop of Antioch. Diss. 5. c. 1. Sect. 18. so they consent also that St. John sat Bishop of Ephesus and Metropolitan of all Asia: so 
* L. 3. c. 23.  Eusebius frequently, that after his return from his banishment 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, he administered or governed the Churches there, i.e. in Asia; and (as he citys it lib. 3. cap. 31. out of Polycrates his Epistle) died there. So the ancient Writer of the Martyrdom of Timothy, 
† Biblioth: Num. 25●.  in Photius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Being recalled by Nerva's decree, he sat down at Ephesus, and himself personally, with seven Bishops his adsessors (those in all probability the Bishops of the seven Churches in the Revelation) he governed the Metropolitan City of Ephesus that prime Metropolis of all Asia, to the Bishop whereof, saith 
† Hom. 15. in 1 Tim. 5. 19  chrysostom, was entrusted 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the whole Nation of Asia; These testimonies may suffice for the substance of the affirmation that St. John governed the Church of Ephesus, and under it all Asia, which is the notion we now have of a Bishop Metropolitan and Primate.  
4. As for the word Bishop, how can it be inconvenient to bestow that upon him, when he discharged the Office, nay when Christ himself that great exemplar and original of this power, is expressly called the Bishop of our Souls, as well as the Apostle; when the Office from which Judas fell, and to which Mathias is assumed, is by St. Luke out of the Septuagint called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Bishopric, Act. 1. 20. When accordingly from the Scripture usage the Fathers of the Church have continued the style, Apostolos i. e. Episcopos & Praepositos Dominus elegit, the Lord chose Apostles, i. e. Bishops and Governors of the Church, saith 
* Ep. 65.  Cyprian, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Peter and Paul were the first or chief in Rome, the same persons, Apostles and Bishops, saith 
* L. 1. Con●. Carpocr.  Epiphanius, and Apostoli Episcopi sunt, firmante illud Petro Apostol●— the Apostles were Bishops, as is confirmed by Peter in these words. His Bishopric let another take, saith 
† In Eph. 4. & 1 Cor. 12. 29.  Hilarius Sardus, and again, Areall Apostles? ●Tis true, saith he, quia in Ecelesiâ unus Episcopus, because in each Church there is one Bishop. And, Nemo ignorat Episcopos servatorem Ecclesi●s instituisse, Ipse enim priusquam ascenderet, imponens manum Apostolis ordinavit eos Episcopos. No man is ignorant that our Saviour instituted Bishops in the Church, for before he ascended to Heaven he laid his hands on the Disciples and ordained them Bishops; saith the 
* Quaest. 97.  Writer of the questions on the Old and New Testament, and, Sanctus Matth●us Episcopatum sortitus est, St. Matthew was Bishop, saith Gildas. And to shut up all, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉— It is manifest that the Apostles were Bishops, St John in Asia, St. Andrew in Achaia, St. Thomas in India; saith 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Gabriel Philadelph: And agreeably when St. John of whom we now speak, calls himself in the front of two Epistles 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Elder, the Greek scholiast, resolves 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, by the word Elder he calls himself Bishop. And so there is no news in thus affirming.  
5. But than secondly, when they take this for an evident demonstration, that these Authors did not use the word Bishop in a Prelatical sense, this is very far distant from a demonstration, having not arrived to the lowest degree of probability or credibility. For what is a Bishop in the Prelatical sense, but a single person governing in chief in a City or wider circuit? And such certainly was St. Peter at Rome, S. John at Ephesus, etc. As long as they continued to execute that power of the Keys (the donation of which instituted them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Stewards in God's House, Governors of the Church) in this or that City or Region, and ordained other Bishops there.  
Thirdly, therefore when 'tis added, that it is certain that the Apostles cannot be properly called Bishops, I reply that it is most certain they may, not only because these so many ancient Writers, through several ages have called them so, and may not, with any justice from us, be accused of impropriety, but because the donation of the Keys did as properly make them Bishops, as the Commission to go preach to all Nations, being added to it, made them Apostles. To which purpose let these few things be considered, 1. That it is here by the Assemblies acknowledged, that the Apostles did eminently contain the Episcopal Office, which though it be a little hastily expressed, and should be, I suppose, that the Apostolical Office did eminently contain the Episcopal, yet there is no doubt, but this is the meaning of it, that the Apostles had all the Episcopal power in their hands, and over and above, something more, and if they had Episcopal power, then sure in respect of that, they may as properly be called Bishops, as in respect of their Apostolical Commission, which they had also, they may be properly called Apostles. Thus we know that they that have first the power of Deacons bestowed on them, and after of Presbyters, are questionless Deacons still, though they be also Presbyters, and they which from the Office of Presbyters are advanced to Bishops, are certainly Presbyters still, though they be also Bishops, and do not lose the former power by being advanced to the latter, are not lessened by this increase of their dignity.  
7. Secondly, that when an Apostle is differenced from a Bishop, it is either by his extraordinary power granted him for the planting of the Church, or by the Universality of his Diocese, the [all the World] to which his Commission extended, whereas the ordinary Bishop's power and Diocese are more limited. But then these differences are of no force in this matter, they only conclude that the Apostle is more than a Bishop in those two respects, not that in other sufficient respects he is not a Bishop.  
8. Thirdly, when the Apostles had each of them (not only all together in a consistory) that unlimited power, in respect of the extent to all the World, given to them by Christ, we know that after his ascent they parted and distributed this Province among them, assigned every one 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 his proper place or lot, to which he should betake himself for the planting of the faith of Christ; And then there will be no doubt but that he, who according to his line (in St. Paul's phrase) had planted the faith in such a City or Province, and sat down, and confirmed, and farther instituted (which is the meaning of labouring in the Doctrine, as well as in the word) and governed them, and exercised all Episcopal acts among them, might in so doing be styled a Bishop in that City or province, and that as truly and as properly as he that could do all the latter and not the former (building on another man's foundation▪ governing and instructing, where another had planted the faith might be said to be.  
9 Nay fourthly, we know, that although by Canons of the Church there is provision made, upon prudential considerations, that no man shall be made a Bishop sine titulo, without a title or particular See, to which he is assigned, yet before those Canons forbade it, such Bishops there were, and those never doubted to be properly Bishops, though they were not affixed to any Diocese; And then nothing can hinder but that the Apostle, who had each the whole World for his Title, though he were never affixed to any particular Diocese or Province, might be most properly styled a Bishop for all that. But this is ex abundanti, more than is needful to our present praetentions of St. John, who, we know, was after his return from banishment affixed to Asia, and seated at Ephesus the chief Metropolis there, to superintend in the Jewish part of the Asian Church over all the Bishops and Metropolitans there.  
10. To this I might add five, that the Bishops in every City were successors of the Apostles, as is largely deduced Diss. 3. c. 3. Sect. 14. etc. which they could not truly be, if the Apostles, whom they succeeded, were not in vested with that power, wherein they succeeded them, i. e. were not first Bishops before them. But I shall not enlarge of this, having no need of more evidences in this matter.  
11. Fourthly therefore, when it is added, that if the Apostles be affirmed to be properly Bishops, this were to degrade the Apostles, and to make their office ordinary and perpetual. This is but a shortness of discourse, of which a very few words will suffice to admonish any, for there is no more strength in that consequence, than there would be in affirming that such an one is a Man, therefore he is not a living Creature, or that he that saith he is a living Creature, degrades him from being a man; For as to that of [ordinary and perpetual] 'tis no way inconvenient, that the Apostles, who had somewhat temporary and extraordinary for the first planting of Churches (in respect of which especially they were called Apostles) might also have somewhat, which was of ordinary perpetual use in the Church, wherein others might and should succeed them, and that is it unquestionably which we mean by the word Bishops, when we ascribe it to them or any of them, or to Christ himself, the source and original Copy of that power in the Church.  
12. Fiftly, when another inconvenience is accumulated on this, (much to the former purpose, but in more words) this were to exalt the Bishop above his degree, and make him an Apostle, end to make the Apostle a Bishop. 1. It is evident, that if the forementioned exception were true, viz. That it were the degrading the Apostle, it could not farther be truly said, that it were the exalting the Bishop above his degree, for supposing one to be above the other, the degrading one would make the other eguall to him without any new act of exalting him▪ if the Apostle have already descended to the Bishop, sure the Bishop need not, cannot ascend to the Apostle; I cannot go up stairs to him who hath prevented me by his dignation or misfortune, and is already come or fallen downe● to me. Secondly therefore this makes not the Bishop an Apostle, which is a degree higher than he, (though in respect of the Episcopal power common to them with the Aposles it is nothing strange in the Ancient Writers for the first Bishops of the Churches; James the Bishop of Jerusalem, Thaddaeus, Luke, Barnabas, Mark Timothy, Titus, Clemens, Ignatius, to be called Apostles, as is evidenced at large in the 
* Diss. 4. c. 3.  Dissertations) but only supposes the Apostle to be a Bishop, which he may well be (as the greater containeth the less) though the Bishop be no Apostle, as it is confessed that the less contains not the greater.  
13. And lastly for the citation out of Dr. Whitaker, I have no directions to the place, which may enable me to examine it; And I know circumstances of the context, or the design of the speech may much alter it, from what it signifies to me at my reading it thus cited; But if it be distinctly thus, and incapable of a more commodious interpretation, I cannot consent to the truth of it, or comprehend upon what grounds of reason he should so severely censure those Scriptures and Fathers, which have been produced to affirm that the Apostles were Bishops, and particularly St. John and St. Peter. And indeed when it falls out, that each of those two Apostles peculiarly calls himself 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an Elder, or as they render it Presbyter, I shall demand; Did either of those speak properly or no? If they did, were either of those little distant from, madmen? If so I shall be content to be under any censure in their company. And therefore if they spoke not so properly, I shall be content with them to have spoken improperly also: But if Apostles may be called Presbyters without any of these inconveniences of degradation in them, any insolence in the Presbyter, or madness in the Speaker, my only remaining Quaere is, why they might not, without all this ado, be called Bishops also, meaning by Bishops, as I now mean? For I am sure that is the same thing that I understand by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Elder in those three places, and they, who differ from me herein, do yet understand it of Presbyters (and so had said in the second consideration expressly, that St. John calls himself a Presbyter) and then all the spice of madness consists in this, thinking a Bishop capable of that exaltation, that a Presbyter in perfect sobriety is capable of. And so much for the third consideration.   

Section VI.  
Of the word Angel, and Star, pretended to be common to all Ministers. Of Messenger, and Ambassador. The singularity of the word Angel.  
THe fourth consideration is, That the word Angel (which is the title given to those supposed Bishops) doth not import any peculiar jurisdiction, or praeeminence, but is a common name to all Ministers, and so is used in Scripture. For all Ministers are Gods Messengers and Ambassadors sent for the good of the elect, and therefore the name being common to all Ministers, why should we think that there should be any thing spoken to one Minister, that doth not belong to all? The same may be said of the word Star (which is also a title given to those supposed Metropolitans) It is evident that all faithful Ministers are called Stars in Scripture, whose duty is to shine as lights unto the Churches in all purity of Doctrine, and holiness of conversation; There is nothing in these titles that argue these Ministers to be Bishops in our brethren's sense: Insomuch as had they not been called Bishops by some authors that succeeded them, (who spoke of former times in the language of their own times) this way of arguing would have been counted ridiculous.  
2. ●o this consideration I might, if it were needful, reply, 1. That the word Angel is no where used for any other Officer or Minister in the Church, save only the Prophets (such as Haggai. c. 1. 13. and John Baptist, Mat. 11. 10.) and the chief Priest, Mal. 2. 7.  
3. Secondly, that, as to the words Messenger, and Ambassador, there is in ordinary speech some considerable difference between them, the latter having in it a connotation of dignity, sustaining the person of the King, from whom he is sent immediately, which is not applicable to the former; And agreeably when it is used of St. Paul and Timothy, in whose name that Epistle is written [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, we are Ambassadors, 2 Cor. 5. 20.] there is added 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, for, or, in the name, and authority of Christ, and again we pray you 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which we well render, in Christ's stead, as his proxies, for to Ambassadors are; which being there applied to S. Paul an Apostle, and to Timothy, one employed by him immediately to preach and plant the faith, and after to govern in the Church, may be proportion belong to the Bishops their successors peculiarly.  
4. Thirdly, that as the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies a Messenger, or Nuntio, so the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Apostle (according to the origination of it from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be sent) signifies also without any considerable difference, but yet is never thought fit, either in Scripture, or in the style of the Church to be applied to ordinary Ministers, but only to those sent immediately by Christ, as he by his Father to plant and rule Churches, and to those who first succeeded them, or were employed by them in that great office.  
5. But that which wholly frustrates the design of the consideration, is this, that the singularity of the person, (one Angel in each of the seven Churches) is all that we argue from, in this matter; For as to the power and authority in each Church, That is certainly pretended to (and not declined) by the Presbyterian as well as the Prelatist, the only Question is, whether it be placed in one over the rest, or in more than one, ruling together in common, and from the style of Christ's Epistle to the Angel of the Church of Ephesus, and the like in each of the seven, we think we conclude regularly, that it was one, it being certain that the singular number is not the dual or plural, and that [Angel] is a person, not an aggregate body or multitude.  
7. And to the same purpose again we conclude not from the mention of the Stars, not from their light or shining, but from their number, but seven in all, no more than there are Churches, i. e. one only in each Church; And we know there is difference between a Star and an Asterisme or constellation, one single light, and a conjunction of many; And accordingly Mr. Brightman, that is resolved not to find this truth in that Text, is forced to deal plainly, and to tell us, that the Epistles are not each of them sent to any one Angel, but to the College of Pastors, nec uni alicui Angelo mittuntur, sed toti, ut ita dicam, collegio Pastorum, in Apoc. c. 2. 1. which being sufficiently contrary to the evidence of the Text, which reads 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the Angel, in the singular, he thinks fit to add his reason for it; Non enim unus erat Angelus Ephesi sed plures, nec inter istos aliquis Princeps, for there was not 〈◊〉 Angel of Ephesus, but many: nor any one among those principal or chief, which is the begging of the Question, or proveing his assertion only by asserting it; whereas Beza finding himself more pressed by the force of the place, is forced to render it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to the Angel, i. e. to the precedent, quem nimirum oportuit inprimis de his rebus admoneri, who was in the first place to be admonished of these things.  
8. What the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the use of the Ancient Church properly signifies, is shown at large out of Justin Martyr, Dionysius Bishop of Corinth, Marcellus Ancyranus and the Council of Ephesus, Dissert. 4. c. 17. directly the same that we mean now by Bishop; But that I pretend not to think Beza meant by it (his Prolepses and espoused Principles leading him another way) All that I observe from the citation, is, that by the singularity of [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Angel] not Angels, he was forced to confess a single person to be understood, which is contrary to Mr. Brightman, and those that comprehend a College of Presbyters under the title, which being yielded, I doubt not but our other evidences already produced (which must not be at every turn repeated) from the Catalogue of Bishops in the Church of Ephesus, etc. and the judgement of the Universal Church concerning those single persons, will conclude them indeed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, not in Beza's notion, but in Justin Martyrs (who was much a more competent judge) i. e. the very Bishops which we pretend them to be: And truly I cannot discern any weak part (which may hazard being counted ridiculous) in this way of arguing.   

Section VII.  
Of their exception to our arguing from Symbols: Of Rishop and Elder being the same.  
THe last Consideration now remains in these words, These titles of Stars and Angels are mysterious and metaphorical, It is said Rev. 1. 20. The Mystery of the seven Stars— And certainly it cannot be safe or solid to build the structure of Episcopacy by Divine Right upon mysterious and metaphorical denominations, Theologia Symbolica non est argumentativa, Especially if we consider that there are abundance of clear texts that make Bishops and Presbyters to be one and the same; and it cannot be praiseworthy for any men (though never so learned in the esteem of the world) to oppose certain allegorical and mysterious titles to so many express testimonies of Scripture.  
2. To this the Answer will be satisfactory, though it should be but brief, that we do not found our argument in an allegory. For 1. though the word Stars applied to the Governors of Churches be only figuratively so applied, yet the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (if the Authors of this consideration may be believed in that which immediately preceded) signifies (not an Angel from Heaven, or incorporeal substance, but) a Messenger or Ambassador, such as, say they, all Ministers are, And agreeably in that which is here annexed to prove the allegorical or mystical phrases (from Rev. 1. 20. the Mystery of the seven Stars) it is evident, that only the word [Stars] is Symbolical or Mystical, and as evident that the Angels are not, for it is in the explicating and not in the forming of the figure, that the Angels of the Churches are mentioned, as the things which are signified by the mystery of the Stars, as the Churches themselves by the Lamps; and therefore as it would be absurd to say that a symbol is explicated by a symbol, one mystery by another, or proportionably that the Churches, by which the Lamps are expressed, are a mystical allegorical phrase, so it will be as unreasonable to affirm of the Angels, that they are a mystery or allegory, because of the Stars it is affirmed that they are such, when indeed the word Angel is the interpretation and unfolding of the mystery, which is as far from being the mystery, as the light is from being darkness, which it expels out of the horizon, and is purposely sent by God to do so.  
3. But than secondly, 'tis yet more manifest, that if the word Angel were here used figuratively (as it is evident it was not, and was so confessed, when it appeared useful to the Objectors that it should not) yet it being the singularity of the person, wherein our argument is founded, our argument is not founded on that which is mystical, For certainly this number is a plain Grammatical notation of a singular person, and that is proof enough that it was not a collective body, a Presbytery or Consistory, that is meant by it. And in this all the controversy betwixt us and the adversary consists, whether it was in many or in one in each Church, that the Ecclesiastical jurisdiction was vested, and that is sufficiently decided by that which is clear and unfigurative in this Text, and cannot be imagined otherwise, but by forcing some figure on it, by which one Angel may be set for more Ministers, which if it be done, would not by their rule be argumentative.  
4. Thirdly, Whereas it is suggested, that this which we conclude from hence, is opposite to many express testimonies of Scripture, I have no more to say in this place, where this is only affirmed, but not attempted to be proved, but to profess my persuasion and assurance (the truth of which must be in the process of this discourse contested) that there is no such thing, but on the contrary, that the whole Scripture, and practice, and writings of the first ages of the Church, and the succeeding through all the world, agree directly with what I conclude from the singularity of the Angel; And when in the following words the testimonies are expressed to be those which make Bishops and Presbyters to be one and the same, This also will immediately vanish, when it is remembered, what is largely deduced in the Dissertations, that the word Bishop in the Scripture is never used for a Presbyter in our Modern notion of the word, but constantly for the one single Governor in a Church or City, and that if there be any truth in that which is here affirmed, Presbyters must be taken in a notion distant from that in which now we use it, and signify, as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hath already been said to do, the singular Bishop in each Church, and 'tis certain such an identity of the names, will never be deemed contrary to what we have concluded from the Angel, but directly confirm it for us.  
5. And although here is no occasion in this place to prove and make good this assertion in each part of it, (the first positiuè, that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Bishop in Scripture always signifies the singular Bishop; the second suppositiuè, that if 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Bishop, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Elder, be one and the same in Scripture, it must be by interpreting 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Elder, so as to signify a Bishop in all place▪) yet 'tis certain, that this is already done at large in Dissert. 4. cap. 6. Sect. 19, 20, 21, 22. and shall here again be repeated and vindicated, when the proper place requires it, which I foresee it will speedily do.  
6. In the mean, I must take leave to express my present sense, and hope that others will not think it too hasty, that no one of these five Considerations, nor consequently all of them together, have at all praejudged our Conclusion (now in hand) inferred from that of the Epistle of Christ to the 7. Angels of the 7. Churches.   

Section VIII.  
Of the singularity of each Angel. The objections from the use of the plural number.  
THese considerations being thus laid as their foundation (and I suppose being already removed from superseding or hindering our superstructure) The next part of their method is, having mentioned our objection from the singularity of each Angel's person, to whom Christ's message or Epistle is sent, and the conclusion of an high Prelatist from hence, that these Angels are not only Bishops but Archbishops, to apply solid and every way sufficient answers to this Objection.  
2. In this proposal of our Objection, I shall not need to inquire who this high Prelatist is; The former intimations and directions have persuaded me that I am looked on as this Objector, though it be sufficiently known that the most Reverend Archbishop of Armagh, Lord Primate of Ireland, hath many years since deduced this conclusion in every part from this Text, and might, if they had pleased, have secured me from the opinion either of novelty, or singularity in the Assertion.  
3. But I shall most willingly assume the burden, and proceed to the view of the solid and every way sufficient answers, which are said to be given to this Objection, which though they be, it seems to be fetched out of Smectymnuus, etc. yet it happens well, that we shall (without need of consulting those larger volumes) find them here with more ease, reduced to two heads, One, that the word Angel signifies not a singular person, the second, that if it did, it will not at all advantage the Episcopal cause.  
4. These two, I confess, if either of them be solidly proved, will utterly drive us from our hold: The only question at present is, whether in either part the proofs be solid, and of this we must now inquire, and first of the former of them.  
5. This they thus propose, That the word Angel is not to be taken 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, not individually, but collectively, for all the Pastors and Ministers of the respective Churches.  
6. But before their proofs for such an assertion (that the Angel of such a Church, which is certainly an individual, as much as the Bishop of such a Diocese, is not yet to be taken individually) they first add their confession that this answer is called a poor shift, a vain conceit, etc. but promise such reasons for the justification of it, which cannot be answered.  
7. To the view of these unanswerable Reasons therefore we shall now hasten; And the first reason is, because our Saviour speaks to the Angel often in the plural number, Rev. 2. 21. But unto you I say, and the rest of Thyatira, and so Rev. 2. 10. and 13. By which, say they, it is evident, that by the word Angel is not meant one singular person, but the collective body of Rulers.  
8. To this first reason I shall answer, by separating that one text of Thyatira from the other two, and all that are of the same nature with them, and speak first of these two, and remind them 1. that in an Epistle unquestionably addressed to a particular person, others under his care and charge may be, and are occasionally mentioned, so in that to Titus, Paul●s own Son, i. e. under the particular character of the beloved person converted by him; in the conclusion we find these words, Grace be with you all, i. e. not with him as he must signify a whole Presbytery, but all the sincere lovers of Christ, and Saint Paul, they that love us in the faith, in the former part of the verse.  
9 Secondly, that though the one Angel of the Church be the person to whom each part of the Epistle is addressed, yet in it are set down the sins and fate of the whole Church,, i. e. of all the believers in it; Thus when the people of Israel or Judah were fallen into foul sins and provocations against God, it was ordinary for God to send a Prophet to the King of either of them, and admonish him what reformations were to be wrought, and what judgements were a coming in case of neglect. In which kind of messages of the Prophet delivered to the King, 'tis certain that the whole people were concerned, and so without question was it here, Rev. 2. 10. the Devil shall cast some of you, i. e. some Members of that Church, into prison, etc. and so ver. 13. among you, i. e. among you of that Church or City.  
10. And indeed if each of those Churches had been governed by a Consistory of coequal Presbyters, and those (as is pretended by our adversaries) signified by the Angel, yet there would be as little reason to doubt, but the sins of the people, as well as the Clergy were here reprehended by Christ, and the judgement threatened to one as well as to the other, And to this can be no reason to infer the Angel to be no singular person, the Church ruled by one, making up a multitude, as well as if it were ruled by a Presbytery.  
11. As for the place, cap. 2. 24. concerning Thyatira, that hath a different appearance, For the Greek copy ordinarily reading it [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, But I say unto you (in the plural and to the rest which are in Thyatira] the [you] in the plural, is by the Objectors thought necessarily to belong to the Angel of that City, as [the rest] to the community of the people. To this place therefore we have formerly answered, that the reading in the Ancient Manuscripts, particularly in that belonging to the King's Library at Saint James', leaves out the [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and] and reads thus, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, But to you I say the rest which are in Thyatira] And this takes away all force from the objection, for the former part of the Epistle belonging to the Angel, who permitted Jezabel, and to them that committed fornication with her, the [But] in the front separates the [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, you the rest] from the Angel, and those other formerly spoken to, and therefore the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, you, cannot possibly be the Angel, wherein all the strength of the Objection consists.  
12. But this Answer, though taken notice of, is disliked: For, say they, he that shall view the Antecedent and Consequent, and consider that ver. 23. it is said, I will give to every one of you, etc. and then follows, but I say unto you, and then in the conclusion of the verse, I will put upon you no other burden, will confess that the old copies are better than that which is said to be Tecla's Manuscript.  
13. And here I shall desire the Reader to bear me company in obeying their directions, and observe what the Antecedents and Consequents can afford to the prejudice of that Ancient copy. 'Tis most true, that v. 23. we read, I will give to every one of you, and that then it follows v. 24. But I say unto you, and in the conclusion of the verse, I will put upon you— But I demand, what will they conclude from hence? That by the word [you] in all these places the same persons are to be understood, and that those persons are the interpretation of the Angel v. 18? These two things they must conclude, or else they will fail in their design, which is to show that by the word Angel the collective body of Rulers is meant. But the first of these is evidently false, whatsoever reading be retained, for besides that the [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, But] doth clearly separate the second [you] from the first, and makes them distinct persons, The very matter of the speeches will convince it: For in the 23. v. the [you] are those that were corrupted by jezabel v. 20. 22. who are now to be exemplarily punished and destroyed, I will kill her (i. e. Iezebels) children with death (as also those that had committed Fornication with her v. 22.) and all the Churches shall know that I am the searcher of hearts, and I will give to every of you according to your works; But the second [you] and so also the third, are the quite contrary to these, As many as have not this Doctrine, and who have not known these depths of Satan, and consequently, who are not to be punished, nor so much as admonished, but only confirmed in their present practice, to hold fast what they have already.  
14. So contrary is it to all appearance of truth, that the Antecedent and Consequent should favour their pretention.  
15. This matter is so evident (the contrary conditions and fates of the [you] in v. 23 and the [you] in v. 14.) that if the ordinary reading were to be retained [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] and that rendered [to you and the rest in Thyat●ra] so as to difference [you] and [the rest] another Antecedent to the Relative [you] must necessarily be sought out, and then that can be no other but the Churches incidentally mentioned v. 23. who had not been charged for this crime. For as for the Angel v. 18. if he were not so remote (6. verses off) and if the singular number could be the Antecedent to the plural [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, you] (as it cannot) yet still he is charged for suffering the Woman Jezabel, and so is numbered among the gulity persons, that are to repent or be punished, and not to have no other burden laid on them, save only to hold fast what they have, as is said of the second [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 you] v. 24.  
16. But the truth is, that of making the Churches the Relative is so inconvenient (and yet no other way imaginable to reconcile the ordinary reading) and the whole sense is so much more clear and current in the reading of the King's M S. [But to you the rest in Thyatira (those that had not been guilty of the misbehaviours censured, and threatened in the former Verses) that I profess I cannot discern any appearance of reason to quesion the truth of it, much less to conceive that the ordinary copies are better, which yet however they read it, must oppose the [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 you] to those before mentioned, and so cannot apply it with any appearance of probability to the Angel, or consequently pre-judge ours, or confirm their pretensions.   

Section IX.  
Of the Elders at Ephesus Act. 20.  
A Second reason to prove the Angel to be a collective body, is this, because it is certain that the Church of Ephesus was a collective body▪ and that there were many Presbyters to whom St. Paul, at his final departure from them, committed the charge of that Church. And these Presbyters are called Bishops, and were all of them Stars of the same magnitude, and Angels of the same order without a difference or distinction.  
2. But this is a way of proving a thing which is denied, by another which they know is equally denied by him, against whom they dispute, and therefore that argument can be of no force with us.  
3. 'Tis most true indeed, what they begin with, that the Church of Ephesus was a collective body, for so 'tis certain every Church is, whether governed by one or more Rulers; But the Church is not the Angel, any more than the candlesticks are the Stars, but punctually distinguished from them Rev. 1. 20. But this I suppose was a mistake hastily fallen from them, and I shall not pursue it any farther.  
4. Their argument, I conceive, depends upon the plurality of Elders [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] which were at Ephesus Act. 20. when Paul takes his leave of them, and calls them Bishops. But to this they know I have answered clearly, that as in other places of Scripture, so in that, the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Elders, being all one with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Bishops, denote (not the many Presbyters of the one City of Ephesus, but) the many Bishops of that and other Cities of Asia, which at that time by S. Paul's summons sent to Ephesus, the chief Metropolis of Asia, were called and met together at Miletus.  
5. To this purpose 
* L. 3. c. 14.  Irenaeus is a witness beyond exception, who speaking of these Elders or Bishops, adds, ab Epheso & proximis civitatibus convocatos esse, that they were assembled from Ephesus and the next Cities, in which as the faith was planted, as well as in Ephesus (even in all Asia) so there is no reason to doubt but there were Bishops in them, as well as in Ephesus (seven such Churches we know are here mentioned in the Revelation) and that Paul was as careful to take his leave of them (as many as could conveniently come to Miletus in his hasty progress) as of the Bishop of Ephesus he is justly deemed to have been.  
6. Other arguments and authorities I need not here accumulate for this notion of Elders Act. 20. because here is no appearance of reason offered to prove their, or impugn our Assertion. This perhaps will be afterward attempted, and then I shall, as occasion requires, farther enlarge: In the mean it sufficeth that it yet no way appears, that Ephesus was governed by many Presbyters, and not by one Bishop, and therefore this second offer of reason is as deficient as the first, to prove the Angel of that Church to have been a collective body.   

Section X.  
Of expressing a number by singulars. A Church by a Candlestick. Of the seven Angel's Rev. 8.  
THeir third reason is, because It is usual with the Holy Ghost, not only in other Books of Scripture, but in this very Book of the Revelation, in mysterious and prophetic writings, and visional representations (such as this of the Stars and Golden ●Candlestick is) to express a number of things or persons in singulars. And this in visions is the usual way of Representation of things, a thousand persons making up one Church is represented by one Candlestick, many Ministers making up one Presbytery by one Angel. Thus Rev. 8. 2. It is said that John saw seven Angels which stood before God. By these seven Candlesticks (I suppose it should be seven Angels) Dr. Reynolds doth not understand seven individual Angels but all the Angels; For there are no seven individual Angels, but all the Angels; For there are no seven individual Angels that stand before God, but all do, Dan 7. there are many more instances brought in the Books forementioned.  
2. To this third Reason I have no obligation or notice to give credit, any farther than the evidences persuade, for many of which, though we are referred to Smectymnuus, etc. yet having received promise from these, that they would borrow a few things from those others; I shall with reason hope that what they have upon choice borrowed, leaving, as they say, much more behind, is the most satisfactory and solid of any thing by them produced; and consequently if there be no force in these instances to oppugn our conclusion, we shall not expect to find more convincing one's by travailing farther, and gathering up out of those dispersions, what they have refused to take up and offer to us.  
3. The thing they would prove is, that 'tis usual with the Holy Ghost in this (as in other mysterious prophetic Books) to express a number of things or persons by singulars. Their proofs are but three, and the first is of no force, because the word Church denotes a singular thing, as well as Candlestick that represents it; for though a thousand men make up one Church, yet one Church is but one thing, considered as a Church, and proportionably as one Candlestick in the singular is set to denote each Church, so there are seven Candlesticks to represent the seven Churches.  
4. As for the second, that of the Angels, that that signifies many Ministers, that cannot be offered as a proof, being itself the matter of the question. And indeed though Church be a collective body, and so one Church is known to consist of many men, yet Angel is not of that nature, one Angel neither signifies many men, nor many Angels.  
5. And whereas the parallel is set betwixt the word Candlestick, and the word Angel, that they (each) are singular words, by which multitudes are represented, that is a mistake, for the parallel lies betwixt Church and Angel (and on the other side betwixt Candlestick and Star, as appears Rev. 1. 20.) and both these are individual things, the Church an individual Church, and there be seven such individual Churches, and the Angel an individual Angel, and there be seven such individual Angels, and there can be no more pretence that one Angel should signify many Ministers, than that one Church should signify many Congregations.  
6. Lastly, for the third proof, that of seven Angels, Rev. 8. 2. if that were granted to Doctor Reynold's authority, that the [seven Angels] there signifies all the Angels, yet would it not at all contribute to the proof of the point in hand, which is, that many shall be signified by a singular, for we know that seven are not a singular, but the custom indeed being ordinary to use a certain definite number, for an uncertain or indefinite, and the septenary being a perfect number, and so fittest for the turn, 'tis more tolerable that the number of seven may represent some greater number, one plural a larger plural, than that a singular one should do so.  
7. And yet secondly, there is no great reason to doubt, but that the seven Angels are indeed very seven Angels, and no more; This I collect, 1. from the seven Trumpets that were given them, ver. 2. and the specifying them by that Character, the seven Angels, which had the seven Trumpets, ver. 6. Secondly, by the several employments assigned them in the subsequent parts of the vision which brings them upon the scene one after another, the first Angel, ver. 7. the second Angel, ver. 8. and so to the seventh. Thirdly, by the distinction that is evidently made between those seven Angels and another Angel, ver. 3. And another came and stood at the Altar: which makes it certain that the former seven did not signify all the Angels, unless after all, there could yet be one more. Fourthly, from the mention of the seven Spirits, cap. 1. 4. which are said to be before God's throne, that sure is all one with standing before him here, and it being certain that Angels are Spirits, I have no reason to doubt but that these seven Angels are those seven spirits, and so still a definite number of seven, and no more. Fifthly, from the mention of the seven Eyes, Zach. 4. 10. which seem to be interpreted to this sense, Rev. 5. 6. seven eyes which are the seven Spirits of God sent into all the Land.  
8. And though in some of these places other men have had other notions, yet 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 'tis more to be approved that we understood Angels by that phrase, cap. 1. saith Andrea's C●sariensis, And of the whole matter, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, there are seven which have the greatest power, the first borne Princes of the Angels, saith Clemens Alexandrinus. In which words of his, 
Strom▪ 6▪  the first borne Princes are evidently taken from Dan. 10. 13. where the Hebrew reads 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Principal or first rulers or Princes, of which Michael is the first, and thence called Archangel.  
9 And so in Tobit, cap. 12. 15. we find seven holy Angels which present the prayers of the Saints, which description of them and their office, to present the prayers of the Saints, if it be thought unagreeable to their standing here before God or being before his throne, it will soon be reconciled by that speech of Christ, that the Angels of the infant tender Christians always behold the face of God, and by that means are qualified to make their wants known unto him, which is all one with presenting of prayers.  
10. Sixthly, from the mention of the seven Lamps, Rev. 4. 5. (styled Lamps, in reference to the like number of Lamps on the Candlestick in the Sanctuary) which burn before the throne, as cap. 1. they are before the throne, For of these it is added 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which are the seven (by way of eminency, or the seven Principal) spirits of God.  
11. Seventhly, from the no appearance of the least reason produced to the contrary; For as to that which is introduced with a [For] and supplies the place of a reason, it is evidently a bare assertion of the contrary, [there are no seven individual Angels that stand before God] without any offer of proof, that testimony out of Dan. 7. that all do, being far from concluding that there are not such seven principal Angels which these so many evidences assure us there are.  
12. In that of Dan. 7. 10. upon that solemn occasion of God's judgements expressed by a fiery stream, thousand thousands are said to Minister to him, and ten thousand times ten thousand to stand before him. But how doth that hinder but at another time, seven principal Angels may be employed by him, and in order to that stand before him too, and when we so oft read of such seven, what question but they were individual Angels? And so much for the third reason.   

Section XI.  
Of the Epistles being sent to the whole Church, not to the Bishop only. Of Timothy, Onesimus and Polycarp, being Bishops of some of the Asian Churches, without any charge of Apostasy falling on them by this means.  
THere is a fourth behinds still, that though but one Angel ●e mentioned in the forefront▪ yet it is evident that the Epistles themselves (though we are far from thinking that in formal denomination, the Angels and the Candlesticks are the same) are dedicated to all the Angels and Ministers in the Church, and to the Churches themselves, as appears, R●v. 1. 10. Rev. 2. 7. 11. 17. And therefore when it is said in the singular number, I know thy works, This thou hast, Repent and do thy first works, etc. All these and the like places are not to be understood as meant of one individual person, but of the whole company of Ministers, and also of the whole Church, because the punishment threatened is to the whole Church, Rev. 2. 5. 16. 2. Now we have no warrant in the word to think that Christ would remove his Gospel from a Church for the sin of one Bishop, when all the other ministers and Churches are far from those sins.  
2. To this I shall need make no reply, having done it sufficiently already, by concession that the Angel being the Ruler of a Church, the whole Epistle belongs to him and the Church promiscuously, and agreeably those expressions, which are used in the singular number, do not all belong to the Bishop, but to the Church wherein he praesides: But certainly this is far from inferring that the Bishop and Church are all one, or that the word Angel signifies the collective body of the Church, for, besides that the Text is express in making a signal difference between the Stars and the Candlesticks, the Angels and the Churches (and the Assemblers are here forced to confess that the Angels and Candlesticks are not the same) the confounding them will be as disadvantageous to them as to us, and I shall as regularly be able to conclude that the word Angel signifies not the Presbytery, but the whole diffusive body of the Church, as they can pretend to do upon their own postulatum, that the Angel denotes not the Bishop but the whole Church, it being as certain that they make a difference between the Church or multitude of believers, and the Presbytery that is set over them to rule, as we do between the same Church and the Bishop.  
3. Thus have we viewed all the reasons produced by them to assert or confirm their first answer, and showed divers ways how no manner of validity there is in any one or all of them, to evidence it to be a solid and every way sufficient answer. And therefore there was some use of the next part of the Method, to call in the authority of other men to countenance this interpretation, Master Brightman, Master Perkins, Master Fox, (who citeth Primasius Haymo, Beda, Richardus, Thomas, etc.) Doctor Fulke, Master Meade, Gregory and Saint Austin; But although they have thought fit to set down these names, yet having omitted to add their Testimonies, and indeed having resolved to forbear, because Smectymnuus hath done it already, I shall confess myself willing to leave this chase, and in stead of leading the Reader so wearisome a walk, to examine the several comments here named (and but named) give him more shortly my conjecture what truth may be in them.  
4. Master Brightman, I know (and some others 'tis possible) may have interpreted the Angel to signify the whole College of Pastors, and truly I should much sooner take up an Interpretation upon the bare word of these Assemblers, than I would upon no better evidence from M. Brightman; He was one learned man, long known to be unkind to our Pralates, and here are many, for aught I know, as learned, though under the same praejudices.  
5. Some others here cited, I cannot believe are brought to testify this, but only that what is said to the Angel in each part of the Epistle, was said to the whole Church, and not only to the Bishop; and if that be all they say, it is that which we cannot doubt to affirm with them, and have oft confessed to understand Christ's Epistle so, without any incommodity to our praetensions.  
6. If I mistake in these conjectures, I desire pardon, and shall hope to give a better account, when I read the testimonies in the Authors from whence they are cited. For in these derivations of testimonies, the Assemblers citing them from Smectymnuus, Smectymnuus from Master Fox, Master Fox from Primasius, etc. there is great possibility of mistake, and therefore I shall follow the example before me, forbear adding any more of this matter.  
7. In the next place they are pleased to take notice as of an objection against their interpretation, that some Authors say, Timothy was Bishop of Ephesus when our Saviour wrote this Epistle, others that Onesimus was Bishop, others that Polycarp was Bishop of Smyrna at that time, and therefore these Angels must needs be taken individually for so many single persons.  
8. Of this Objection, which they have thus form for us, there is only thus much of truth, that out of authentic Records we bring undeniable evidences for Timothy's being constituted by St. Paul Bishop of Ephesus, for Onesimus being placed in that See at the time of Ignatius' writing to the Ephesians, that Polycarpe was constituted Bishop of Smyrna by S. John, of all which we have spoken enough already.  
9 But of all or any of these being Bishops in those Cities at the very time of Christ's addressing this Epistle to the Angels of each, this had no where been our affirmation, nor would it have been useful to us in any considerable degree, if we had grounds positively to affirm it. All that is needful to us is this, that by the Ancient Records, which evidence them to have been so early Bishops in two of those Churches, to which Christ's Epistle was sent, and Bishops in the notion wherein we now use the word, we are secured of the truth of ou● collections, when from the mention of the seven Angels of the 7. Churches, we assert the Ecclesiastical power in the hands of a single Bishop in each Church to be owned and confirmed by Christ; And supposing some other persons, and none of these three to have been those very numerical Angels to whom those Epistles were written, this conclusion of ours stands yet as firm, as if we could demonstrate it of those very numerical persons, there being no reason to doubt but the same manner of Government continued all the Scripture times; and to Timothy's successor and Onesimus' predecessor, being as certainly Bishops, as either Onesimus or Timothy himself; when withal we have already produced mentions from the Ancients of the Catalogues of those Bishops which succe deed Timothy in that See.  
10. Having thus set right the Objection for them, so as it is owned by us to be an Objection against them, it will now soon appear what force there is in their answers to it, and those are three.  
11. First, that they that say that Timothy was then Bishop, offer no little injury to him, for they thereby charge him to be guilty of Apostasy, and of losing his first love, and so out of a blind zeal to Episcopacy they make that glorious Saint to stand charged as an Apostate. The like injury is offered by Objections to Onesim●s.  
12. But first you see whatever our opinion is expressed to be we have not affirmed either of these, as to the person either of Timothy or Onesimus, but left it uncertain who the Angel of the Church of Ephesus was, whether either or neither of these, but some successor of the one, and predecessor of the other, and so what charge soever falls on that Angel, it falls not necessarily on either of these.  
13. Secondly it is already agreed betwixt the parties, affirmed by them, and acknowledged by me, that the Epistle being addressed to the Angel of Ephesus, the Church or diffusive body, the Christians in it, were concerned in the contents of it; And than whatsoever charge be found in the Epistle, of how heavy a nature soever, even of Apostasy itself, yet there is no necessity the Angel or Bishop should be personally guilty of it, and so whosoever the Bishop was, though Timothy himself, our zeal to Episcopacy hath not been so blind or transporting, as to put us on any uncharitable censure, to affix any unhandsome character upon so glorious a Saint.  
14. Lastly, to remove this answer yet one degree farther from being satisfactory, it no where appears that apostasy is in that Epistle laid to the charge, whether of the Church or Angel; The first part is all in commendation of their former zeal, and the later, wherein their charge consists, v. 4. is only this [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] which is not (as is suggested) losing their first love, but remitting it; Their love to Christ had formerly been strong as death, pure and vehement, such as had cast out all fear of dangers, and evidenced itself in courageous confession, but now, though it were not quite lost, yet it was remitted, lessened in the degree, not so intense as formerly, and therefore when they are bid remember from whence they are fallen, that fall doth not necessarily signify Apostasy or renouncing of Christianity, for than it had been an impertinent threatening to remove their Chandlestick v. 5.) but a falling from the former degree, a cooling of the intense heat, which had been so laudable in them. And so still there is more invalidity in this first answer.   

Section XII.  
Of Timothy's being an Evangelist, that it hinders not his being a Bishop.  
THe second is, that they have already proved that Timothy was an Evangelist in a proper sense, and therefore cannot be called Bishop of Ephesus in their sense.  
2. To this I reply, 1. That Timothy's being an Evangelist no way prejudgeth his being a Bishop in our ●ense, An Evangelist is one commissionated by any of the Apostles ' 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to preach the Gospel to any City or People; And a Bishop is one commissionated by the like Apostle to praeside in, and govern a Church already planted. And what hinders but that he that hath been employed in the former capacity to plant, may elsewhere or in the same place be appointed to Govern, and so the Evangelist be a Bishop?  
3. Whatsoever Objections can be brought against this, I shall not doubt will be easily answered, but there is no offer of any here, and therefore it will not be pertinent farther to treat it in this place.  
4. Secondly, it must again be remembered, that what is here said of Timothy is proper to his person, both from Onesimus and Polycarpe, and all other Angels, whether succeeding Timothy in Ephesus, or praesiding in the other 7. Asian Churches, and therefore though Timothy by being an Evangelist were rendered uncapable (which yet he was not) of being the Bishop of Ephesus in our sense, yet those other seven Angels at the very time of the writing this Epistle of which none have been proved to be Evangelists, may still be Bishops in our sense.  
5. Thirdly, I shall demand upon the Assemblers principles, who allow a Primus Presbyter, a Prolocutor in their consistory or Council of Presbyters, might Timothy be that first Presbyter in the Church of Ephesus, or did his being an Evangelist hinder him from being so, when he was by St. Paul exhorted or appointed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to abide in that City? I cannot imagine they will say he could not, who give both St. Peter and St. John leave to call themselves Presbyters; But if he could in their opinion, then why might he not be a Bishop in our sense (notwithstanding that he was an Evangelist) as well as a Presbyter in theirs? I foresee not what answer can be adapted to this Dilemma.   

Section XIII.  
Of the Bishops at Ephesus. Of the plural number in the Epistle to the Angel of Smyrna.  
THere remains a third branch of the Answer, that it will not follow because Onesimus was Bishop of Ephesus in St. John's days, that therefore he was the only person to whom Christ wrote his Epistle; For St. Paul tells us there were many Bishops at Ephesus (besides the supposed Onesimus) and Christ may very well write to him, and to all the rest as well as him. The like may be said concerning Polycarpe, for our Saviour speaks to the Angel of the Church of Smyrna in the plural number, Rev. 2. 10. And therefore he may truly be said to write to all the other Angels that were at Smyrna, as well as to one.  
2. Here is nothing in this branch but what hath been distinctly forestalled, and spoken to largely already, it will suffice that we repeat the heads, and leave the Reader to view the places, where they are more explicitly handled. And 1. though St. Paul should tell us that there were many Bishops at Ephesus, as there might be from other Cities occasionally met there, yet it would not follow that there were more than one Bishop of that City, or consequently that Christ in a peculiar address to the Angel of that City could write to more Bishops there.  
3. But than secondly, the whole truth is this, that S. Luke (and not St Paul) tells, that upon St. Paul's summons sent to Ephesus, many Bishops met him at Miletus; Ephesus being the chief Metropolis was the fittest means to convey the summons to the Cities near it, and from them and not only from them, and not only from Ephesus came the Bishops to him, as hath been declared out of Irenaeus.  
4. Thirdly, for our Saviour's speaking to the Angel of the Church of Smyrna in the plural number, that is not punctually true, for though the letter be written and inscribed to the Angel, yet, as hath oft been said, the whole Church is concerned in the contents of it, and so speaking to the Angel in the singular, he may yet speak to the Church or any members thereof, in the plural number. And so much again to demonstrate the ineffectualness of the first Head of Answers.   

Section XIV.  
Of Beza's Interpretation, of the President.  
THe second follows upon a supposition (but not grant) that these Angels were personae singulares, and that the word Angel is to be taken individually, yet they conceive this will not at all advantage the Episcopal cause. For 1. Mr. Beza (no great friend to Episcopacy) acknowledgeth that by these words to the Angel is meant 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the President, as whom it behoved specially to be admonished touching those matters, and by him both the rest of his Colleagues, and the whole Church likewise; but then he addeth, But that Episcopal degree which was afterward by humane invention brought into the Church of God, certainly neither can nor aught to be from hence concluded. Nay, not so much as the Office of a perpetual Precedent should be of necessity as the thence arising Oligarchical tyranny (whose head is the Antichristian beast) now at length with the most certain ruin, not of the Church only, but of the word also, maketh manifest; By which quotation it is evident, that though Beza held the Angel to be a singular person, yet he held him to be Angelus Praeses, not Angelus Princeps; and that he was Praeses pro tempore, just as a Moderator in an Assembly, or as a Speaker in Parliament.  
2. To this I reply, 1. that Mr. Beza's interpretation, as it was foreknown and formerly mentioned by us, so was it not in reason to be of any force or authority with us, if it be but upon the score intimated here, that he was not only no great friend, but a known professed enemy of Episcopacy, and so was obliged to be, by the course wherein he was engaged at Geneva. All that his authority concludes, is, that to avoid a plain testimony, which is not for his turn, a man may be induced to affirm that confidently, for which he hath no ground of proof, nay, wherein all ways of evidence, that th● matter is capable of, are absolutely against him.  
3. Thus 'tis certainly in this matter, for when Beza hath here acknowledged that the Angel was the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Precedent, who will be the most competent Judge or Witness, to determine what was meant by the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 President] in the Primitive Church, what kind of Praesidency he had, whether only of place or order, and that only for a time, or of superiority of power and office, and that perpetual? In all reason this is to be fetched from those first Writers which speak of it, and either use the very word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Precedent, for such a Bishop, as we now assert (a singular person in every Church, having a power for life over all the Officers and Members of the Church, and succeeding some Apostle, or Apostolical person in that power) or else in other words affirm the same thing.  
4. Of this, store of evidences are 
* Dissert. 4.  elsewhere produced, in the explication of the several titles, by which this singular perfect was anciently known, whether of Apostle, in a secondary use of that word, of Angel, of Bishop, of Elder, of Ruler, of Pastor, of Doctor, of Steward, of Precedent, of Priest; Against which the bare authority of Mr. Beza's name, who hath fancied a temporary Precedent or Prolecutor, and brought no manner of reason to confirm it, will have very little validity in it.  
5. What is proved by the bare testimony of Beza, is farther confirmed by a like citation out of the Reverend Divines at the Isle of Wight, who by the example of the King sending a message to both Houses, and directing it To the Speaker of the House of Peers, which infers not that 〈◊〉 the Speaker is always the same person, or the Governor, or Ruler of the two Houses in the least, conclude, that notwithstanding this direction of Christ's Epistle to the Angels, yet they might be neither Bishops, nor yet perpetual Moderators.  
6. But the authority of those Divines, which had this answer from Beza, adds nothing of weight, because nothing of proof to it; As for their similitude, it concludes nothing but this, that these Divines thought fit to make use of this instance of a Speaker in Parliament, to show the thing possible to have been, not to prove that so it was, And the matter of our present inquiry, is not, what a kind of precedent Christ and his Apostles might, if they would, have left in each Church, but what really they did; And that must be contested by the best Records of those times, not by a similitude of a Speaker in our Parliaments. And that is all I need to say to that Section.   

Section XV.  
Of Dr. Reynolds interpretation, of the Bishop in Cyprian. Of Ordination by Bishops not without Presbyters, from the Testimonies of Cyprian, and Fermilian.  
AFter the authority of Mr. Beza, backed with that of the Divines at the Isle of Wight, is added, in the second place, the authority of Dr. Reynolds, who as he hath a Letter in print against the Divine Right of Episcopacy, so he acknowledgeth also in his conference with Hart, Dial. 3. That this Angel was persona singularis: For he saith,  
2. The whole place of Dr. Reynolds is set down at large by the Archbishop of Armagh in the front of his learned Dissertation of the Original of Bishops and metropolitans, and I shall not need here to recite it, being of some length, and indeed nothing in it defined or expressed of his opinion, that the Precedent, when he was made such, either continued to be equal with the rest of the Presbyters, or lasted but for a time, so as the Prolocutor of an Assembly doth; I am sure he affirms him to have had the Presidentship (not among, but) over Elders (which I suppose must imply some power) and that this was he that in the Primitive Church the Fathers called Bishop, and applieth to him the mentions of Bishops made by St. Cyprian (and Cornelius) of whose notion of Bishops, that it 〈◊〉 not to a bare Prolocutor of an Assembly, nay, that in nothing it differeth from ours, I am sufficiently assured, and so will the Reader by what is cited from him Dissert. 3. c. 3. §. 13. And because from some other intimations in this Book I see there is need of it, I shall here 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 out of many, mention this one evidence more.  
3. In the 60 Epistle to Rogation a Bishop, who had been wronged and contumeliously used by a Deacon of his Church, 
Ego & Collegae mei qui praesen ●es ad●rant.  and had written an account of it to Cyprian and the 
* Append. p. 219  annual Council of Bishops with him, Cyprian returns this Answer, that it was his humility to make this complaint to the council, Cum pro Episcopatus vigore, & Cathedrae authoritate haberes potestatem, quâ possis de illo statim vindicari, when by force of his Episcopal power, and by authority of his chair, he had power himself to inflict punishment on him immediately, and that punishment afterward specified, ut eum deponas vel abstineas, either to depose him or suspend him.  
4. Here it was a part of Rogatian's Episcopal power, without any joining with him, to judge and censure the inferior Officers of the Church, and they were bound honorem sacerdotis agnoscere & Episcopo praeposito suo— as it follows in that Epistle, to acknowledge the honour of their Priest, and with full humility make satisfaction to the Bishop which is set over them. All power in the hands of one set over all, called promiscuous●ly Priest and Bishop in Cyprian's style.  
5. And therefore when in the Appendix to this Book, these men to prove that Ordination by Bishops without the assistance of Presbyters was always forbidden and opposed, tell us of Aureliu's being ordained by Cyprian, and his Colleagues▪ Ep. 33. and then assure us from 8p. 58. that by his colleagues he means his Presbyters (where yet there is no other proof of it▪ but the using of these words in the Inscription of the Epistle, Cyprianus▪ cum Collegis, and Ego & collegae, Cyprian with his colleagues, and I and my colleagues) This is a great, but discernible fallacy put upon the Reader, as will soon appear 1. If we but observe that the 33 Epistle, where he tells of Aurelius, was written by Cyprian to his Presbyters, and so they are the persons whom he advertiseth, what he and his Colleagues had done, and so sure were not those Colleagues that did it with him. Or secondly, if for the understanding Cyprian's notion of Colleagues, Ep. 58. we shall but look forward to the next Epistle 59 for that will fully discover it, being this, Cyprianus & caeteri Collegae qui in Concilio affuerunt numero LXVI. where Cyprians Colleagues are evidently the 66. Bishops that were in Council with him.  
6. The like might be also observed of the Testimony out of Firmilian, which they there subjoin, of the Seniores and Praepositi that have power of ordaining, by whom, say they, the Presbyters as well as the Bishops are understood; But again 'tis clear by the express words of the Epistle, that by them are meant the Bishops in their annual Council, Necessary apud nos fit ut per singulos annos Seniores & Praepositi in unu● conveniamus— 'Tis necessary that every year we the Elders and Governors should meet together to dispose and order those things which are committed to our care, adding concerning the Church (in opposition to Heretics) that all power and grace is placed in it, ubi praesident majores natu, qui & Baptizandi & manum imponendi & ordinandi possident potestatem, wherein the Elders praeside, and have power of Baptising, absolving and ordaining, an evident description of the Bishops. But this by the way, as an essay, what their testimonies out of the Fathers, scattered sometimes in this Book, would be found to be, if this were a place to examine them.  
7. Lastly Dr. Reinolds acknowledges another President even among Bishops, the Bishop of the chiefest City in the Province, and so a Metropolitan. All which are contrary enough to the praetensions of the Presbyterians (what amends he hath made them in his Printed letter I know not▪)  
8. Yet after all this, there lies no obligation upon us to regulate our Doctrine by Doctor Reinolds' scheme in this matter, being sufficiently instructed by the Primitive records and practice, what kind of power and dignity belonged to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or President among them, the very same that we now pretend to be the Bishop's due, And if Christ's letter were addressed to the Angel, as to such a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or President, 'tis all that we desire, to erect our fabric of Spiscopacy on this one place, if there were not (as there are) others able to support the weight of it.  
9 And so we see what reasons have been brought to make good their second head of Answers, of which we had promise that they were solid and every way sufficient answers, and yet in the issue there is nothing so much as offered toward it, save only the testimony of Master Beza, the Divines at the Isle of Wight (which is by interpretation themselves) and Doctor Reynolds, who yet is not perfectly of their party neither.   

Section XVI.  
Of the Churches of Asia being Metropolitical. Of the paveity of believers.  
HAving thus done, they say It is objected by some men that the seven Cities, in which these seven Asian Churches had their seat were all of them Metropolitical, and so had relation to the rest of the Towns and Cities of Asia, as unto daughters rising under them, and that therefore these Churches were Metropolitical Churches, and their Angels Metropolitical Bishops.  
2. How this comes to be styled an objection I cannot well guess, or what it is, against which it is thought to be objected. The truth of it, as far as any Episcopal person I know, is interessed in it, is this, It is not only evident of the Angels of the seven Asian Churches, that they were Bishops, which is sufficient for us against the Assemblers, but there is over and above that, all reason to deem them Stars of a first magnitude, i. e. Bishops of Mother-Cities, metropolitans and that very pertinent to be urged in this matter of the Asian Angels, not to secure the proofs of Episcopacy taken from thence, but to render a reason why in all Asia but seven Churches and their Bishops are named there. To this purpose the discourse is enlarged (above what it needed to have been) Dissert. 4. 5. to set down the nature of metropolitans, the exemplars of them among the Jews, the expresses of the Institution in the Apostles writings, and the signal evidences of it in the Primitive Church, and the Ancient Canons in the Council of Nice and Antioch, and Ephesus, all owning them as Primitive and Apostolical Institutions, and all this exemplified in Jerusalem, in Antioch, in Rome, in Alexandria, in Gortyna of Crect, and at length in all the seven Churches of Asia.  
3. What is there thus set down, if it have not perfect truth in it, I shall be very glad to see the weak parts of that discourse discovered, and therefore though I never proposed or meant it as an Objection of ours against the Presbyterians, having no need of such auxiliaries, and the whole matter being sufficiently proved without, and this only added ex abundanti, yet I shall most willingly attend their motions, and see what answers they will adapt to this Objection, as they call it.  
4. And 1. they answer, that it will hardly be proved that these seven. Cities were all of them Metropolitical Cities in S. John's days, And the situation of most them lying nearer together on the Sea side makes it very improbable.  
5. To this I reply, that for five of them, Ephesus, Smyrna, Sardis, Pergamus, and Laodicaea, Pliny, that lived and wrote in the beginning of Vespatian's reign, 
Lib. 5. ●. 29. 30.  is a competent witness, that they were Cities wherein the Roman Proconsul's sixth their Courts or Seats of Judicature, and administered justice there to all the Cities about them, and that is the interpretation of a chief City or Metropolis, in the secular account, and agreeably Ulpian mentions Ephesus as the chief of these Metropoles. And for the other two, Philadelphia and Thyatira, the latter of these by 
* Greg. l. 5 c. 2.  Ptolomee, the former by the Council of Constantinople sub Menâ is punctually affirmed to be a Metropolis. To these are added other evidences and reasons, and the Lord Archbishop of Armagh hath written (besides his Original of metropolitans) a very learned Dissertation of the Lydian Asia, on purpose to clear this matter.  
6. And when a thing is so largely proved already, and when a satisfactory proof of it in any one of the seven Cities is abundantly sufficient to the asserting of metropolitans, (for then the Angel of that one was a Metropolitan) 'tis then certainly a very incompetent confutation barely to say, that it will hardly be proved, that these seven Cities were all of them Metropolitical Cities in Saint John's days, for if it be proved, it matters now how hardly, and if any one were so in S. John's days, it matters not, if possibly some other were not, that one was a Metropolitical Angel, which is all we need insist on.  
7. And for the Argument to make it improbable, drawn from the situation of the Cities, that is as infirm; for this, as all other controversies of matters of fact, must be waged by authorities of those which were likely to know the truth, and to testify aright, and to those we have all reason to adhere, and not to be moved by arguments that seem probable to those that live 1600. years after, and are not perhaps so perfect Masters of the Geography of the place as duly to be able to judge even what is in that respect most probable.  
8. Nay for the distances of these Cities, though I have not now Mr. Brightman by me, yet my notes out of him tell me, that in his scale of furlongs, Pergamus was distant from Smyrna 540. furlongs, i. e. about 68 English miles, and Ephesus from Smyrna 320. i e. about 40. miles, and Thyatira from Pergamus 80. English miles, which is a distance very reconcileable with their being Metropoles.  
9 But they are content to suppose this was true, and then have answers ready another way, 1. That it is no good argument from the greatness of the Cities to infer the greatness of the Churches, for though the Cities were great, yet the Churches were but small, and the number of believers very few in comparison of the rest of the people.  
10. To this I reply, 1. by concession, that in all places and times the greatness of the Church cannot absolutely be concluded from the greatness of the City, because it is possible that a great City may have utterly resisted the faith, and a lesser City received it; or again a greater City, that hath received the Faith in some of the Members, may yet have fewer believers in it, than another City, which is not so great. This therefore is not our way of concluding, from the bare greatness of the Cities, to infer the great number of believers in them.  
11. Our way of concluding is this; Paul had spent three years, Act. 20. 31. in this Lydian or Proconsular Asia, ver. 18. In this time he had pursued his work very diligently and zealously, not ceasing to warn every one night and day with tears, and herein his harvest was proportionable to his labour; After two years' space and upwards spent at Ephesus, it is said, ver. 19 that by the continuance of his preaching and gathering Disciples, all they that dwelled in Asia, heard the word of the Lord both Jews and Greeks, and though many were hardened and believed not, and spoke evil of that way, ver. 9 yet ver. 17. by some extraordinary works of his, which were made known to all the Jews and Greeks dwelling at Ephesus, fear fell on them all, and the name of the Lord Jesus was magnified, a conversion in a manner general, and therefore it follows, and many that believed— ver. 18. and so mightily grew the word of God and prevailed, ver. 20. Whereupon Saint Paul himself speaking of these successes, calls it a great door and an effectual, 1 Cor. 16. 9 which at Ephesus, v. 8. was opened unto him.  
12. From hence we conclude, and sure safely may, 1. that in Asia generally, and especially in Ephesus there was a great number of Christians, before this time of Christ's Epistle, (which is not a concluding it barely from the greatness of that or any other Cities of Asia) Secondly from hence, together with Ephesus' being in the secular account (the Notitiae Imperiales) a Metropolis, where the Assizes were kept, we conclude that Ephesus was in the Christian account also a Metropolis, and the chief of all Asia; and this I hope is not so improbable infirm a way of concluding, as the other imposed on us seemed to be.  
13. Thirdly, from hence, and from other exemplifications of it (as that Trallis and Magnesia, which appear to be under the Metropolis of Ephesus, are by Ignatius written to as all Episcopal Sees, in our present notion of the word Bishop) we conclude that other Cities of Asia beside these seven, had received the Christian faith, and were certainly taken care for by Paul, which had planted it among them, and agreeably had Rulers settled in them, i. e. Bishops subordinate to the Metropolitans. And all these inferences I doubt not will appear regular enough, and I should farther enlarge on them, if there were any thing in the answer, which could render it needful or seasonable.  
14. As for the paucity of Christians in those times in comparison of the rest of the people, that cannot be pertinently opposed to our pretensions, because still the number of Christians in a great City might bear the same proportion to the number of the Christians in the smaller Cities, that the people in the one did to the people in the other, one thousand bearing the same proportion to one hundred, that an hundred thousand doth to ten thousand.  
15. And it being the affirmation of Clemens, that the Apostles in each City, where they received any proselytes, though never so few, before their parting constituted a Bishop (with his Deacon) who was to be governor 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, of those that should after believe, it follows unquestionably from thence, that in the Cities which had but few Christians, Bishops might be and were constituted, and those very regularly depending on the greater (their Metropolitical) Cities, from whence the faith was derived to them, (as from Ephesus, where Paul chiefly resided, to the Cities about it) and all this without any need of balancing the parties, or considering what comparison the number of the Christians in one, or the other, bore to the number of the unbelievers in either City. And let this serve by way of Reply to the first branch of the second answer.   

Section XVI.  
Of modelling Churches according to the Government of the Roman state. Of exemplars of Metropolitans among the Jews. Testimonies of the Apostles instituting Metropolitans.  
THeir second answer is, we do not believe that ever it can be proved that the Apostles did model the Government of the Church, according to the Government of the Roman state. This was the after policy of Christian Emperors and Bishops, but no part of Apostolical policy; And therefore it doth not follow, that because there were divers Cities under the jurisdiction of those 7. Cities, that therefore there should be divers Churches subordinate to the 7. Asian Churches.  
2. That the Apostles, which designed to plant a Church in the Heathen World, should do it in that manner as would be most advantageous to their end, will not I hope be accounted strange. This generally was by betaking themselves to the Cities, rather than the villages, and first to the greater Cities, unto which was the most frequent resort, that by that means the faith might be most compendiously and successfully propagated. If a greater City resisted their preaching, or fewer Saints were gathered there, I do not then pretend to prove, or to believe that that was constituted a Metropolitan Church with superiority over others of greater antiquity, or larger growth in the faith whatsoever the dignity of it were in the secular account; But when a whole Nation is converted, and the greatest and most populous Cities first, and from thence the sound gone out into all the Region, and lesser Cities in it, that then the Apostles, which certainly constituted Bishops in every believing City (and therefore what is reported to have been done 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in every Church, Acts 14. 23. is appointed to be done 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in every City, Tit. 1. 5) should set up the principal Sees in those most Christian Cities, which had formerly the priority in the Roman state, as it is the wisest method, and fittest for the wisest planters to take, so we have all reason to believe it was done particularly in the Lydian or Proconsular Asia, in which there being many more Christian Cities, than those seven, to whom Christ's Epistle is addressed, those are in all reason to be accounted the chief of that Region, and those which are not named, less principal than they: which concurring with what we find recorded in Pliny and Ptolemy of the account of them in the imperial noticiae, if it demonstrate not, is yet matter of exceeding great probability, and may persuade with any reasonable man, as long as there is nothing in any degree such, which is offered to be confronted against it.  
3. If that which scandalizeth the Assemblers (for we are left to Divine what it is) be the unfitness that the Apostles should model the Church according to the Roman state. I shall first demand how it is possible to imagine a plantation of a Church in any, whether Jewish or Heathen state, without doing somewhat equivalent to this? For suppose Joseph of Arimathea to have (as 
* De excid. & Conqu. Brit.  Gildas saith) converted the Britannic church in Tiberius' time, is it to be imagined that he should meddle with the civil power of this Nation, as it stood in respect of its separation from other Nations, toto divisa Orb, or with the divisions or distributions of this Nation within itself, into Cities, and Provinces, etc. or go about to innovate any thing in that matter? Is it not certain that it was no part of the Christian faith to be such a judge or divider; but on the other side that all should remain as it did (in that respect) before the coming of Christianity? And therefore supposing 1. That this Nation were governed by a King of its own; is it not certain that this national Church should follow the boundaries of the Nation, and so be modelled according to the government of the (formerly Heathen) Britannic state? And supposing again (what hath already been proved by the testimony of Clemens, and by comparing Act. 14. 23. with Tit. 1. 5.) that a Bishop were constituted in every Church, in each City, will there be any reason of doubting but that those Cities being subordinate one to another, according to the customs of the Nation, the Churches in those Cities, and the Bishops in those Churches shall be so also? This I hope will not be deemed an impious compliance with heathenism, or conformity with the World, nay, though the Emperor of Rome (by his conquests here) were the author of these distributions.  
4. But than secondly, it is already cleared in the Dissertations, that this Ecclesiastic division of Cities into Mothers and Daughters, Metropoles and inferior Cities, was by the Apostle copied out from the Jews, as when God commands by Moses, that Judges and Officers should be ordained in every City, Deut. 16. 18. and that in matters of weight and doubt they should resort to Jerusalem; to the Judge and Sanhedrim there, according to which it appears that Jerusalem was the Metropolis of those other Cities, and so is evident, Act. 9 by the story of Saul carrying Letters of Commission from the Sanhedrim there to the consistories in Damascus, and by many other evidences. So likewise Numb. 3. when three Families of the Levits, the sons of Aaron, were separated for the service of the Tabernacle, and an head or Prince or Precedent of every of these, called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 v. 24. 30. 35. Eleazar Aaron's Son is constituted over all these, and styled 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the head of the heads of the Levites, This is clearly a pattern of the metropolitans in the Christian Church, which may therefore own its derivation from thence, and not from the Heathen models of Government, which yet it was not reasonably to disturb, being found so concordant to, and commodious for it.  
5. And that what was done in this kind, was done by the Apostles themselves and Apostolical persons, the first founders of Churches, and not only by the after policy (as is suggested) of Christian Emperors and Bishops, might have appeared abundantly by these few testimonies, of they had been worthy to be taken notice of. First, of the council of Nice An. Domini 325. not many years after the conversion of Constantine, the first Christian Emperor, Can. 6. which takes care for the preserving the privileges of the metropolitans (by name that the Bishop of Alexandria should have power over the Churches in Egypt, Lybia and Pentapolis, that in Antioch and the rest of the Provinces 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the priveleges should be preserved to the Churches) begins with this rule 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Let the ancient customs continue in force, which certainly refers to that which was long before the Christian Emperors, and (without any reason of doubting) to the first constitutions of those Churches by St. Mark, and St. Peter, and then the Canon goes on to exact this by way of conformity with other places, with Rome itself, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, for this is the custom of force with the Bishop of Rome, and upon these grounds the Canon requires 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 universally, that if any man be made a Bishop 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, without the judgement of the Metropolitan, he ought not to be Bishop—  
6. So in the 9 Canon of the Council of Antioch, in the year 341. which begins thus, that the Bishop, which presides in the Metropolis, aught to know the Bishops in every Province, and to take care of the whole Province, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, because all that have business, resort from all sides to the Metropolis (which is the very thing we now contend, to be the reason of conforming the Ecclesiastic to the civil models) and then proceeds to forbid other Bishops acting any thing of such a nature without him, this is backed with these words, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, according to the ancient Canon of our Fathers, which hath been in force, referring again to the immemorial custom of all Churches since the first plantation, and not the after-policie of Christian Emperors and Bishops, as is here suggested.  
7. Lastly, in the last canon of the Great council of Ephesus, in the year 431. (which is the defining a special matter of Metropolitical right) where the occasion of the controversy is rehearsed, how the Bishop of Antioch invaded the privileges of the Cypriots, contrary to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the ancient custom, and the decree is made that the Bishops of Cyprus shall retain them inviolate, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, according to the Canons of the Holy Fathers, and the ancient custom; The Canon extends itself to all other Dioceses and Provinces, that no Bishop shall meddle with another Province 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which was not upward and from the beginning under his, i. e. his praedecessors power, where it is most evident that the Metropolitical power, and primacy Ecclesiastical is derived from the beginning of the plantation of each Church, and consequently that this was a part of Apostolical policy, and not only an after policy of Christian Emperors, etc.  
8. And upon these grounds of probation, I shall be competently secured that this is proved, which they do not believe ever can be, and have no other argument to prove their negative, but their not believing the affirmative.   

Section XVII.  
Of the objection against Metropoles from the seven Stars in seven Churches.  
OF the same temper is their third answer, that they are fully assured that it can never be made out, that any of these Asian Angels were Archbishops or Bishops over other Bishops, or Bishops over divers settled Churches. The seven Stars are said in Scripture to be fixed in their seven Candlesticks or Churches, not one Star over divers Candlesticks or Churches.  
2. What they are already fully assured of, that it can never be made out, I shall have little confidence to persuade them was formerly done to their hands; Otherwise I should hope that by what had long since been said, and hath now been more largely deduced in Reply to their last answer, they might find cause to alter their judgements, and retract their so definitive sentence of full assurance.  
3. As for the only appearance of reason, which is here superadded, viz. that the seven Stars are found fixed in seven, not one over divers Churches, this I conceive not to be of any force. For it being by us granted and presumed that each of the seven Asian Angels was Bishop of his particular Church, one of Ephesus, another of Smyrna, etc. It is perfectly reconcileable herewith, that in case these seven were not the only Cities and Churches in Asia (as it is certain they were not, all Asia, consisting of many more Cities, being before this converted to the Faith) all the other might have dependence on these seven.  
4. For this we know, that two Bishops in England, that were each of them, first in one City, for example in Canterbury or York, had yet each of them a superiority or Metropolitical power over divers other Cities, and when any Record styles one of them Bishop of Canterbury, as the Scripture doth Angel of Ephesus, we should sure acknowledge it a very infirm inference from the words of that Record, to conclude that being Bishop of Canterbury he could not be Metropolitan of London, Rochester, etc.  
5. And this is the very parallel to the present instance, and if it were not invalid enough, by being a bare negative argument [they are not said in Scripture to be one Star over divers Churches] (all things that are, are not said in Scripture, those Angels have not therefore no names, because they are not there recorded) this parallel instance, which supposes the contrary to their pretensions, would be sufficient to invalidate it.   

Section XVIII.  
Of the use of the word Bishop for Archbishop in Tertullian: Of Angel in Christ's Epistle.  
A Fourth answer, or rather confutation, is added, That if this opinion were true, than Tertullian did not do well in saying that St. John made Polycarpe Bishop of Smyrna, but he should rather have said that he made him Archbishop. And our Saviour Christ had not given to these seven Angels their due Titles, for he must have written to the Angel of the Church of Ephesus, together with all those Churches in the City's subordinate to Ephesus. And so likewise of the other six.  
2. To this I reply, that the affirming the seven Angels to have been metropolitans, no way obligeth us to find fault either with Tertullias or our Saviour's style. Not with Tertullian's, for 1. an Archbishop is a Bishop, though dignified above some others of that order. Secondly, supposing Smyrna to be a Metropolis (as no doubt, if it were, Tertullian knew and supposed it to be) than his styling Polycarp Bishop of Smyrna, is equivalent to his calling him a Metropolitan or Archbishop, As acknowledging Canterbury to be a Metropolitical See in England, the affirming William Laud to be constituted Bishop of Canterbury, is all one, as to affirm him Archbishop.  
3. Thus when 
* In Tit. 1. Hom. 1.  chrysostom saith of Titus, that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, an entire Island and the judgement of so many. Bishops was committed to him, what is this but to affirm Titus' Archbishop of Crete? And yet 
* Lib. 3. cap 4.  Eusebius, who believed this, and adverted to it, as much as chrysostom, uses this phrase, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that he was Bishop of the Churches of Crect, calling him Bishop distinctly, though by the mention of the Churches in the plural, 'tis evident he meant the same that we do by Archbishop.  
4. So again 
* Lib 5. cap. 23.  Eusebius of Irenaeus, that he 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, was Bishop of the Provinces of France, which must needs signify Archbishop of Lions, for so he was. And 'tis certain that other of the Ancients use the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Archbishop, of those which were no otherwise qualified for that title, as when Saint Cyprian the Bishop of Carthage, under which the whole Province of afric is comprehended, is by the 
* In Trallo. can. 2.  Council of Constantinople called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Archbishop of the region of afric.  
5. The same answer will competently suffice, for the reconciling Christ's style and ours, for supposing Ephesus to have been a Metropolis, the writing to the Angel of that Church, implies writing to those other Churches in the City's subordinate to Ephesus, and need not be more fully expressed, as when the Apostle wrote to the Church of Corinth, and not only so, but to all the Saints (and so all the Churches) in all Achaia. 2 Cor. 1. 1. 'tis certain that the former Epistle was written to those very same Churches (viz. all under the Metropolis of Corinth) and yet it is inscribed to the Church of God which is at Corinth, 1 Cor. 1. 1. without mentioning of Achaia, save only in a general indefinite phrase, with all that in every place call on the name of Jesus.  
6. Secondly, the word in Christ's Epistle being not Bishop but Angel, is not at all liable to this exception, For why may not an Archbishop be as fitly called an Angel, as a Bishop would be? nay if it be remembered what was formerly cited out of Clemens Alexandrinus, Strom. 6. that there are seven Angels which have the greatest power, by him styled 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the firstborn rulers of the Angels; parallel to the phrase in Dan. 7. 10. 13. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the head, Lords or chief Princes, or, as we ordinarily style them, the Archangels, of which number Michael is there named to be one, There will then be more than a tolerable propriety of speech in Christ's style, a most exact critical notation of their being Arch-Bishops, and withal a farther account of Tertullian's calling Polycarp a Bishop of Smyrna, though he were Archbishop, just as the Archangels in Daniel are more than once called Angels in the Revelation.  
7. For a close of this mater they are pleased to add their Character, not over-benigne of those by whom this device, as they style it, was found out for the honour of Archpiscopacy, [that they did aspire unto that dignity.]  
8. If hereby be meant the Lord Primate of Ireland in his discourse of the Original of Bishops, this character can have no propriety in it, he having quietly enjoyed that dignity many years before the writing hereof. If it be designed for a reproach to me, I shall elude the blow by not thinking it such. For as at a time when Episcopacy itself was by the Parliament abolished, (and that Act of severity actually put in execution) it had been a great folly in any to hope that he should ever attain to that Office of Dignity in the Church, (and what ever other follies I have been guilty of, truly that was none of them) so I think there could not a point of time more commodiously have been chosen in the space of above 1600 year●s, wherein a man might have better secured a Discourse for Bishops and metropolitans, from the Censure of aspiring to either of those Dignities, that was that, wherein that Book was published.  
9 To this if I add by way of retortion, that it is evident that they which write this Jus Divinum Ministerii Evangeliei, do aspire every one of them to their part of a Ruling Presbytery, which their brethren that have not those Ambitions are far from thinking to have any Divine Stamp upon it, I shall have given an account of the unskilfulness of their Reproaches, as well as of the invalidity of their Answers.  
10. As for the fear which their Discourse on this matter suggests to their more moderate brethren, that if a Jus Divinum be stamped on Archbishops and Primates, and Patriarches, they may be forced by the same proportion to put a Divine stamp upon the Pope himself, I persuade myself that I have given the ingenious reader a satisfactory account of the inconsequence hereof, in a Discourse of Schism, to which I shall refer him, if he need, or desire farther trouble or direction in this business.   

Section XIX.  
Of Division into Parishes, and Union into Dioceses. Of Diocesan Bishops in the Apostles days. Elders in every Church, Act. 14. Elders of the Church, Act. 20. That place vindicated from exception.  
AFter all this, they add a fourth (whether Answer or suppletory Consideration) for the conclusion of this Discourse concerning the Asian Angels, and I shall follow them to that more cheerfully, because it looks like a conclusion.  
2. It is this, That it can never be provide that these Asian Angels were Bishops in a Praelaticall sense, much less Arch-Bishops and metropolitans. For it is believed upon all parts, that believers in great Cities, were not divided into set and fixed Congregations and parishes, till long after the Apostles days, and that Parishes were not united into Dioceses till 260. years after Christ. And therefore sure we are that there could not be Diocesane Churches and Diocesane Bishops formerly so called in the Apostles days; These Angels were congregational, not Diocesan. In the beginning of Christianity the number of Believers, even in the greatest Cities were so few, that they might well meet 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the same place. And these were called the Church of the City, and therefore to ordain Elders 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, are all one in Scripture.  
3. To the preface of this conclusion, that it cannot be proved] it is again very sufficient to answer, that when a proposition hath already been proved so far, that no answer hath been rendered, which at all satisfies, or invalidates the force of the proofs, it is very unlike Artists to say, that it cannot be proved. Nay, although some inconvenience were producible, which would press our assertion yet the old rule would require its place, incommodum non solvit argumentum, the mention of an inconvenience ensuing, doth not take off the force of an argument.  
4. But we need not that wariness here; the reason which is here annexed to prove that it cannot be proved, is of no force against us, For 1. as Congregations and Parishes are synonimous in their style, so I yield that Believers in great Cities were not at first divided into Parishes, while the number of the Christians in a City was so small, that they might well assemble in the same place, and so needed no partitions or divisions.  
5. But what disadvantage is this to us, who affirm that one Bishop, not a College of Presbyters, presided in this one Congregation, and that the Believers in the Region and Villages about, did belong to the care of that single-Bishop of the City-church? May not these be ruled by a Bishop as well before, as after the division into Parishes? Or is this division more necessary to the Government by one Bishop in each City, than to the Government of more Presbyters in every City? In all reason the division of this one into several Parishes should make Presbyters more necessary after than before such division, that each Parish might have one Presbyter, to officiate among them in things of daily use; and upon that account I suppose it was, that when the number of Believers was so far increased, that all the Christians of a City could not meet commodiously in one place, and when the Regions and Villages so abounded with Proselytes that in respect of them also it was necessary, than the Bishop of each City thought fit to constitute Presbyters, in our modern notion of them, many in every City, and many in every Region, one in every Village, though as yet the word Parish, in our modern sense, was not come into the World.  
6. And so this is far from being Argumentative against us, it is rather useful to confirm what is asserted by us, that it is against the whole Scheme which the Scriptures or first writers give us of Churches, to imagine that in every City there was by the Apostles a College of Presbyters constituted, when as they agree to assure us a Bishop and his Deacon were sufficient at the first (so thin) Plantations.  
7. So again when they take it for granted that Parishes were not united into Dioceses till 260. years after Christ; I shall ask 1. whether they were sooner divided into Classes, etc. and if not, what they have gained to their Jus Divinum by this observation?  
8. But than secondly, 'tis clear that there might be Dioceses before this division into Parishes, in our modern notion; For what is a Dioces● but a Church in a City with the Suburbs and Territory or Region belonging to it? And this certainly might be, and ●emaine under the Government of a single Bishop, as well before, as after any more minute distributions into such, as we now call Parishes.  
9 For it is one thing for the Church of this City to be divided from the Church of every other City, another thing for the same Church to be divided into many Assembles; The first is it which is required for the setting up of Government; and of any such Church so bounded there may be a Bishop, and that whole Church shall be his Diocese, and so he a Diocesan Bishop, though as yet this Church be not subdivided into more several Assemblies.  
10. And therefore when they add, that there could not be Diocesan Churches and Bishops formerly so called in the Apostles days, unless they have some little aequivocation in the word Diocesan, It is most certain they have no reason on which to found their confidence, For that there was a Church in each City, and its territory (howsoever governed by one or more) is most certain, and equally affirmed by them and us, and equally their interest and ours, that it be affirmed. As for the use of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that hath oft varied, and hath sometimes been of a larger, sometimes of a narrower signification, and so hath 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the original of our Parish also, but I hope our contentions must not be always about words, when the matter is sufficiently agreed on among us, and the words sufficiently explained to express that matter.  
11. And therefore when they add these Angels were congregational, not Diocesan, the reply is obvious, they were every of them Angels of a Church in a City, having authority over the Region adjacent, and pertaining to that City, and so as Church and Congregation are all one (as in ordinary use in all languages they are) they were congregational and Diocesan also.  
12. What follows of the paucity of believers in the greatest Cities, and their meeting in one place, as also of a Church and City being all one, is willingly granted by us, and hath not the least appearance of being useful to their pretensions, or hurtful to ours, and therefore I have no temptation to make any the lest Reply to it.  
13. That which next follows, though it concern us not to examine it, our interest being equally secured, be it true or false, yet I cannot but take some notice of it in passing, because it is a little extraordinary.  
14. Afterwards, say they, we conceive that believers became so numerous in these great Cities, as that they could not conveniently meet in one place; Thus it was in the Church of Jerusalem, Act. 2. 41. and 4. 4. and 5. 14. and thus possibly it might be in most of these Asian Churches in St. John's time.  
15. Here certainly the word [Afterwards] is relative, and refers to the Antecedent in the former Paragraph, and that is, [In the beginning of Christianity] Hereupon I demand, what time is that which they call [the beginning of Christianity?] Is it that wherein Christ continued on the Earth? If so, they will easily believe us, that we do not think, that Diocesan Bishops were placed in the Church, within that period If it be the time immediately following the Resurrection of Christ, when the Apostles began to preach and propagate the Faith, then how come they to divide that time, which is spoken of Act. 2. 41. from that time of the beginning of Christianity, by this word [Afterward] for 'tis certain what is there storied of the 3000. Converts, is the effect of the first Sermon preached by any of the Apostles immediately upon the descent of the Holy Ghost upon them, and the gift of Tongues, the wonderment whereof brought those so many Auditors together.  
16. So secondly when they say of this point of time, Act. 2. 41. The believers were so numerous that they could not conveniently me●t in one place, This is contrary to the evidence of the Text, which saith expressly v 44. That all the believers were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which in the last paragraph, they interpreted, meeting in ●ne and the same place. The like might be said of the other places. Act: 4. ●4. and 5 14. for certainly, as yet though the number of Believers increased, yet they were not distributed into several Congregations. But this by the way, being assured that this disquisition is perfectly extrinsecall to the matter in debate between us, because as at Jerusalem the ancients are clear in affirming, that soon after Christ's Ascension, 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Euseb. Eccl. Hist. l. 2 c. 1. Ex. Clem. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Peter and James and John chose James the just, the Brother of the Lord, and constituted him Bishop or Jerusalem, which is all that we need pretend to from the story of that Church, so it matters not much at what point of time that was done, whether at the very beginning or afterwards, much less how soon it was that that Church was distributed into several divided Assemblies, the Creation of the Bishop not at all depending on that, as hath formerly been showed.  
17. Hence will it appear to how very little purpose are those cautions added, and observations made in the remaining part of this sixth Chapter.  
18. Thus, say they, possibly it might be (i.e. the believers be so numerous in great Cities, that they could not conveniently meet in one place) in most of these Asian Churches in St. John's time. But yet notwithstanding all this, there are three things diligently to be observed; First, that these meeting places were frequented promiscuously and indistinctly, and that believers were not divided into set and fixed Churches or Congregations in the Apostles days.  
19 But first I demand, Is there any truth in this observation? was not the Church of Jerusalem in the Apostles days a set and fixed Church, so as to be perfectly severed from the Church of Alexandria and Ephesus? Was not James the Brother of the Lord Bishop of the one, and not of the other?  
20. Secondly, why was this for the Presbyterians interest to be so diligently observed? If one of these Churches were not thus divided and severed from others, how could it be governed by a Presbytery, as they pretend it was? Must it not be a determinate fixed body that is governed by any, whether Bishop or Presbyters? I profess not to be able to discern by my most diligent observation, why this was so necessary to be so diligently observed.  
21. Secondly, (say they, it must be as diligently observed) that notwithstanding these different meeting places, yet the Believers of one City made but one Church in the Apostles days, as is evident in the Church of Jerusalem, which is called a Church not Churches, Act. 8. 1. & 15. 6. & 22. 16. And so likewise it is called the Church of Ephesus, and the Church of Thyatira, etc. not Churches, etc.  
22. This Observation I acknowledge to have perfect truth in it, and not to be confutable in any part (save only that the two latter Texts are certainly misquoted, and not rectified in the Errata) and therefore instead of rejecting, I shall embrace it, and from thence conclude, that there is no manner of incongruity in assigning of one Bishop to one Church, and so one Bishop in the Church of Jerusalem, because it is a Church not Churches, being forced to acknowledge that where there were more Churches there were more Bishops, and so likewise one Angel of Ephesus, and of Thyatira, etc. This I suppose was not the thing they meant to infer from hence, nor indeed do I conceive it necessarily inferred from (only very agreeable to) the oneness of each Church, without other arguments to join with it. But I am still to seek, and emand what advantage accrues to their cause, or disadvantage to ours by this observation?  
23. But than thirdly they add, that this Church in the City was governed in the Apostles days by the common council of Presbyters or Bishops.  
24. This indeed were worth their diligent observing, if it could be descried, and would abundantly recompense them for the no-profit their two former observations brought them in, if it could be obtained by all their diligence. But this being the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the only thing in question betwixt us, whether the Church in each City was in the Apostles days governed by the common council of Presbyters or Bishops, or by one single Bishop, called sometimes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Elder (as that signifies simply a Governor, not with restriction, a member of a College of Governors) this I say being the only question in debate between us, it must not be any farther yielded to them, than their proofs and evidences will enforce it; And these of what virtue they are, must now appear by the view of them. And the first they produce is this.  
25. The Apostles went about ordaining Presbyters in every Church, Act. 14. 23.  
26. But surely this is an infirm argument. Every Church signifies without question more Churches than one, viz. Derbe, Lystra, Iconium, Antioch, v. 20. 21. And if in each of those one 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be supposed to be ordained, that certainly will satisfy the importunity of that Text, and the mention of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Elders in the plural, viz. four Elders in those so many Churches. And if because 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is in the singular number, they therefore think that those plural Elders must be ordained in each of those Churches. This is too gross a mistake for Scholars to be guilty of, it being certain that that is not the importance of the phrase 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, any more than of the English [Church by Church] or [in every Church] i.e. more Elders in more Churches, one in every one.  
27. Their next proof is from Act. 20. 17. Paul called for the Elders of the Church of Ephesus (one of these seven Churches) and calls them Bishops, and commits the whole government of the Church to them; The like may be said of the other six Churches.  
28. What may be said of Ephesus, I grant may be said of the other six Churches, but the Text no where affirms it of Ephesus, and so the analogy will no way prove it of the rest. All that the Text saith, is this, And from Miletus he sent to Ephesus and called the Elders of the Church. This is not to say the Elders (as that signifies Presbyters in our modern notion) of the one City, and so Church of Ephesus, but the Elders, i.e. Bishops either of the Asian Church of that whole Region, or at least of the Ephesine Province, the neighbouring▪ Bishops of the Churches or Cities that were under that Metropolis of Ephesus, who by St. Paul's sending his summons to Ephesus, the chief City of the one, and chief Metropolis of the other (which consequently had daily means of communicating intelligence to those other Cities) might thus most commodiously be advertised of St. Paul's coming, and provide to meet him at Miletus.  
29. That this is no strained interpretation or answer, is elsewhere evidenced, and may summarily appear by these two testimonies, one of Irenaeus here formerly mentioned, l. 3. c. 14. ab Epheso & reliquis proximis civitatibus convocatos esse, that they were called from Ephesus and the rest of the nearest Cities adjoining to it, This is an express evidence, which being allowed puts the whole matter out of question. And although in a matter of fact, a testimony of so credible a person that lived so near the times, being an auditor of Polycarpe the first Bishop of Smyrna, and is not contradicted by any contemporary, is of a competent authority, and need not any other Topickes to assist it, yet for the removing all possible prejudices from it, and rendering it yet more indubitable, I shall a little farther enlarge for the confirming of it.  
30. And 1. the Apostle at his meeting with them, v. 18. begins in this style, ye know from the first day that I came into Asia, after what manner I have been with you at all seasons; An address to them, either as to the Elders of Asia indefinitely, as many as could conveniently come to Miletus at that time, or at least as to more than to the Elder (or Elders, if that could be truly pretended) of one City of Asia, peculiarly, or exclusively to all others.  
31. So again v. 25. And now behold I know that ye all, among whom I have gone preaching the Kingdom of God, shall see my face no more; This evidently addresses the speech not only to the inhabitants of one City, but to all those (as many as were then present) among whom he had gone preaching the Faith of Christ, and that we know was done by him to the other Cities, and not only to that of Ephesus, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in passage (though not so solemnly as at Ephesus) going through all the Region and preaching the Gospel to all, saith Oecumenius on 2 Joh. And so 'tis expressly said Act. 19 21. that after the two years and three months spent at Ephesus, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, he stayed and spent some time in Asia, And accordingly v. 26. Demetrius truly saith, that not only at Ephesus but almost throughout all Asia, Paul had persuaded and turned away the people.  
32. Secondly, than the Faith being before this time successfully propagated through all Asia, and not only in this one City of Ephesus, there were without question Churches accordingly gathered and compacted in many other Cities, as well as in Ephesus, before this time of Paul's parting never to see them again. And not only in the other Metropolis, (six more of which are owned by the Objectors, Smyrna and the rest Rev. 1.) but also in the lesser Cities, which were not Metropolitical, and yet more especially in those Cities which were nearest Ephesus, and which as belonging to that Metropolis, had frequent resort thither to the Assizes which were there kept Act. 19 38. and so must be supposed to have received special influences from the Apostle's residing there for the space of two years and three months, Act. 19 8. 10.  
33. To which purpose it must again be remembered, that as Tim●thy is by Eusebius styled 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Bishop of the Province that belongs to Ephesus, l. 3. c. 4. which is all one as to make that a Metropolis over other Cities, and accordingly in the order of Metropolitical Sees at the end of Codinus, the Bishop of Ephesus is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Primate of all Asia, so Ignatius in Tra●an's time is by joint consent of the ancients affirmed to have written Epistles to two Churches, Magnesia and Trallis, which are known to be Cities under this Metropolis of Ephesus, and to have named the Bishops of each, Damas' of the one, and polybius of the other.  
34. And as there is no question among any but that Ignatius wrote such Epistles to those Churches (Salmasius citys that to the 
* Ana●letum & Cle●●entem Petri M●●istics facit Ignatius in Epistola ad Trollenses. Wal. Me p. 222.  Trallians expressly as the Epistle of Ignatius, which certainly he would never have done, if he had doubted whether ever Ignatius wrote to them; and indeed all that is questioned by him and D. blondel is but this, whether the Epistles now extant under his name be genuine or no, not whether Ignatius, as all writer's accord, wrote seven Epistles, of which these which we now speak of, be two) so there is no ground of imagining that they were of a later plantation, than that which is here recorded to be wrought by St. Paul, Act. 19 All Asia having then heard the Faith, v. 10. and received it in a remarkable manner v. 20. and a great door, saith St. Paul being opened to him at Ephesus peculiarly, which must needs have influence on the City's next adjoining to it in a special manner.  
35. To this I shall add thirdly, that as 
* Or. add Asiat. Civ. de concord.  Aristides saith of Ephesus, that it was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the common magazine or store-house of Asia, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, their refuge for all wants, so it must needs be the fittest way of conveying intelligence speedily to all the Cities of Asia, especially the proximae civitates, as Irenaeus said, the City's next adjoining, and so most commodious to assemble those other Bishops to Paul at Miletus and not only him, or those that are supposed to have resided at Ephesus.  
36. And accordingly we find in Eusebius, 
Eccl. Hist l. 4. c. 23.  that the Epistle of Antonius ●ius concerning the Christians, which was to be communicated to all Asia, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, was proclaimed or divulged at Ephesus, in the common meeting of Asia, as the readiest way to make it universally known.  
37. All which being premised, and withal that there is no reason to imagine, that St. Paul at the time of his fimall parting, (taking his solemn last leave) of them v. 38. should not so much consider, as to call for, or desire to see any of the rest of his Sons, the Governors of the Inferior Churches, to whom he had committed that numerous flock (which was now so universally in such danger of Wolves) save only those of the one Church, of that one City of Ephesus (supposing there had been more than one there.) This will be a very competent confirmation of Irenaeus his testimony, that indeed thus it was, as he hath delivered, that the Bishops of the Cities nearest adjoining to Ephesus (as many as by summons from thence could speedily be called together, in all reason the Bishops of the Cities which were under that Metropolis) were sent to meet the Apostle at Miletus, and accordingly met him there.  
38. The second testimony is that maxim of the Greek Scholiast on 1 Pet. 1. 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. The Book of the Acts calls the Bishop's Elders, which being avowed by me in the Dissertations, and cleared through all the places in the Acts, they ought, by all Laws of disputing, either to have endeavoured the refuting of what is there said, or the proving that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Elders must needs there signify Presbyters in the modern notion, which having not here attempted to do, there is no kind of force in what is here dictated, nothing said but what had been long since largely and clearly answered▪  
39 Yet because in the next Chapter, where this place of the Acts is viewed again, one argument I see produced in favour of their pretensions, which they found in an observation of mine, I shall think myself concerned to give an account of it.  
40. It is this, Pag. 85. If the Apostle by the Elders of the Church had meant the Bishops of the Church of all Asia, he would have said, not the Elders of the Church, but of the Churches. It is an observation made use of by one of those that makes use of this answer we are now confuting, That when the Scripture speaks of Churches in Cities it always useth the singular number, as the Church of Jerusalem, the Church of Corinth, etc. but when it speaks of provinces where there are many Cities, than it uses the plural number, as the Churches of Judaea, and the Churches of Asia, Rev. 1. 11. According to this observation, if the Apostle had meant of the Bishops of all Asia, he would have said the Elders of the Churches, whereas he calls them Elders of the Church, v. 17. and so must mean the Elders of the Church of Ephesus, and so mere Presbyters, not Bishops.  
41. But herein is a manifest mistake; For the observation is not made as is here suggested, of Churches in Cities and Provinces, that the former of them are constantly to be understood where there is mention of a Church in the singular number (without any name of particular City added to it) and that when a Province is mentioned, 'tis always done by Churches in the plural number; This is the sense on which their argument is founded. But if the Reader consult the Dissertations p. 190. He shall find there is no such thing, 'tis only this, That in the New Testament there is mention made of Churches in the plural number, the Churches of Judaea, of Samaria, of Galilee, of Syria, of Cilicia, of Galatia, of Asia, of Macedonia, whereas in other places there was as frequent mention of a Church in the singular, the Church in Jerusalem, in Antioch, in Cenchrea, in Corinth, of the Thessalonians, of Ephesus, of Smyrna, of Pergamus, of Thyatira, of Sardis, of Laodicaean.  
42. The cause of that difference is there said to be this, that Judaea, &c, was the name of a Province, in which there being many Cities, there were consequently many Churches and Bishops in them, whereas one City with the territory adjoining to it being ruled by one single Bishop, was to be called a singular Church, and therefore that which is said to be done in every Church, Acts 14. 13. is said to be done in every City. Tit. 1. 5. The sum of which observation is only this, that one City, with the territory adjoining to it never makes above one Church in the Scripture style, whereas a Province or Country, or Nation consists of many Cities, and so of many Episcopal Sees or Churches.  
43. This was all that was said in that place, or that was useful to be said in order to the end (to show the Original of metropolitans) there. And what a wresting of a plain obvious observation is it, to conclude it from hence to be my assertion, that when (that must be, whensoever, or else the conclusion cannot be deducible from it) the Scripture speaks of a Province, it is in the plural number? It doth sometimes do so, and that was all that was useful to me. If it had done so but once, though twenty times it had done the contrary, it had been sufficient (for some reasonable account there must be for the doing it once, and what could that be, but the number of the Cities and so of Churches in each Province or Nation) much more when there were so many examples of it.  
44. But this is not to affirm that it always doth so, especially when being left at large without any restraint, not the Church of Ephesus, or the like, but indofini●ely the Church, it is very capable of another interpretation. For sure when I wrote that, I had not forgotten my Creed, or in it the name Church in the singular number, which by the adjunct of Catholic must needs be more than the Church of one City. And having read Mat. 16. where the whole Church of Christ is called my Church in the singular, a like phrase to that of the Church of God, which the Bishops here are commanded to feed, and in the one Epistle to the Ephesia●s having six examples of the word Church in the singular, each signifying evidently the universal Church, I might very well be allowed to discern the word Church in the singular, without any addition of Ephesus or the like, which restrains it in all the examples there produced, to be appliable to a far larger body, than the Church of one City, and consequently be quit from all obligation of making the Elders of the Church, Act. 20. 17. the Elders of the one City of Ephesus.  
45. There is little doubt I suppose but the Church of the whole World, consisting of many Churches, as the parts thereof, may be, and is in Scripture called the Church in the singular, and so certainly may the Church of a Nation or a Province, especially if it be united together under one Primate or Metropolitan, as it is certain the Churches and Cities near Ephesus, nay over all Asia were, according to the plain words of St. chrysostom, who when 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Anon. ap. Phot. num. 254.  others affirm of Timothy that he was by Paul ordained Bishop of the Metropolis of Ephe●us, expresseth the same thing thus, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, It is manifest that Timothy had a Church committed to him, or indeed an entire Nation, that of Asia. The like is ordinarily observable of Crete, a whole Island with an hundred Cities in it (in each of which Titus was appointed to ordain a Bishop or Elder) which yet is styled in the subscription of the Epistle to Titus, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Church of Crete, and the subscription never questioned upon that score by any, that it spoke improperly herein.  
46. And consequently there can be no harshness in this interpretation, Paul sent to Ephesus and called the Elders of the Church to come to him to Miletus, and in his Oration addressed to them called them Bishop of the flock and of the Church of God, meaning them singular praefects of several Cities of the Church of Asia, especially of those which were nearest Ephesus, the chief Metropolis of the whole Nation.  
47. And so much in answer to that Objection, in defence of their argument from the Elders of Ephesus, as they call them.  
48. Another proof of the same is there added Pag. 85. Thus, The Syriack translation reads it, he sent to Ephesus, and called the Elders of the Church of Ephesus, so Hierome, Presbyteros Ecclesiae Ephesinae, so concilium Aquisgranense.  
49. What authority St Hierome's testimony is to carry with us in this matter, hath been elsewhere largely showed, and we may hereafter have farther occasion to declare it, and our reasons of it. At the present it is willingly confessed that St. Hierome on Tit. 1. doth endeavour to prove that in Scripture, Bishop and Presbyter is the same, and from him Isidore Hispalensis de officiis Eccl. l. 2. hath the same, and both have according to that prolepsis changed the words of the Text in the Acts, and instead of what there we read, sent to Ephesus and called the Elders of the Church, they read, sent to Ephesus and called the Elders of the same Church, expressing themselves to mean of the Church of Ephesus. And the council of Aken (Aquisgranense) having transcribed nine Chapters from Isidore verbatim, consequently do the like. So that the authority of Isidore and that council being as great as St. Hierome can make it, from whom evidently it proceeds, may yet be allowed to yield to the far greater authority of Polycarp's auditor Irenaeus, who hath sufficiently cleared it to the contrary.  
50. As for the Syriack tanslation, it is not here recited exactly accordingly to the truth, For in that, thus the words lie: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And from Miletus he sent and called for the Elders of the Church of Ephesus, where is but one mention of Ephesus, not two, as is here suggested from the translation, that it reads, he sent to Ephesus and called the Elders of the Church of Ephesus. The short of it is, Ephesus being but once named in that verse, the Greek placeth it in the beginning 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, from Miletus he sent to Ephesus, and this being the Original must certainly overrule all translations, and accordingly all translations but one to read it, only the Syriack hath misplaced the word Ephesus, put it in the later part of the period, quite against all Syntaxis, and for doing so, are here cited, and their testimony made use of to assist Presbytery, when the manifest truth in the Original, and by all other translations acknowledged, would not allow them any the least advantage.  
51. After they had produced these two arguments, to prove that the Church in the City was governed in the Apostles days by a Common-council of Presbyters, the Reader would hardly expect that which now next follows in these words.  
From all this we gather, that the Asian Angels were not Diocesan Bishops, but congregational Presbyters, seated each of them in one Church, not any of them in more than one.  
52. This conclusion, as the words lie, consists of two parts, 1. That each of these Asian Angels, under the title of congregational Presbyters, was seated in one Church▪ This, if it were meant, as the words sound, were the granting to us all that we contend, and would hardly be reconciled with the third observation, that the Church in the City was governed by the common council of Presbyters; For sure each of those Presbyters is not a common council; But I rather believe they have not so soon disclaimed their praemisses, and therefore that it is more reasonable to interpret their words by their principles, than their meaning by their words, and so that by congregational Presbyters they meant so many Colleges of such Presbyters, seated each of them, i. e. each of those Colleges in one Church; And if that be their conclusion, I must acknowledge it to accord perfectly with their praemisses, which being already answered, there remains no force in the conclusion.  
53. And for the second part, that not any of them was seated in more than one, understanding it again as the words sound, it is no way contrary to our pretensions, for we do not think that the Angel of Ephesus was seated in Smyrna, or in any Church but that of Ephesios', and the territory thereof; and although as that was a Metropolis, other Cities were under it, and so other Bishop's subordinate to the Bishop of Ephesus, yet was not any other City the Seat of that Metropolitan, but only Ephesus, whereof he takes his denomination, as although Rochester be under the Metropolis of Canterbury, yet the Archbishop of Canterbury is not seated at Rochester, but some other Bishop affixed to that City and Diocese. As for any other meaning of it, proportionable to that which we were fain to affix to the former, I confess myself ignorant what it can tend to, For it is as if they should say, not any council of Presbyters was seated in more Churches than one. Which is as if they should say, no one body is in several places. And I know no Prelatist that either directly or by consequence hath affirmed it is.  
54. What remains in the last Paragraph of this Chapter, is only to state the Question betwixt us, which is all the while no more but this, whether Tertullian and Irenaeus that call Polycarpe and Onesymus Bishop of Smyrna and Ephesus, mean Bishops, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in a peculiar sense, or in a general phrase, as all Presbyters are called Bishops. And this I acknowledge to be the only question between us, and if Bishops do signify Bishops, I cannot doubt but the cause is by them adjudged on our side; And why it should not, they have, to conclude, only this offer of argument, that Bishops and Presbyters had all one name in the Apostles days, and long after in Irenaeus' time.  
55. I am truly weary of the length of this Chapter, and cannot but by consent have some compassion on the Reader, and therefore I shall bring the matter to this short issue. This reason of theirs is no reason, unless the word Bishop, both in the Apostles days and long after Irenaeus' time, signified a Presbyter in our modern notion; For if both 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Bishop and Elder signified Bishop in our notion, this again gives the cause to us from them. And upon these terms I am content to leave it, if ever they find in Irenaeus that Episcopus signifies a Presbyter in our modern notion, I will confess them conquerors, but this they have not offered here to do, and I have some moderate assurance they never will.   
And so much for that Chapter.   

CHAP. II.  
Of the equivalence of the words Bishop and Elder in the New Testament.  

Section I.  
Four sorts of equivalence of these words proposed.  
THe next place where I find myself called forth, is about the midst of their seventh Chapter, toward the bottom of pag. 92. Only for the conclusion of this Discourse, etc. For although in the former part of that Chapter they undertake to vindicate their chief proofs of Scripture, Act. 20. 17, 28. Phil. 1. 1. 1 Tim. 3. 1 Pet. 5. and to make replies to the Answers given to them, and although it is most certain that in the Dissertations every of those places are answered, and showed to be fully reconcileable with our praetensions for Praelacy, yet they have not pleased to take any notice of what is there said, which if they had done, I might, without insolence, undertake to show, that it had prevented all appearance of force in any of their Replies; And therefore being by this means perfectly freed from all obligation to view any Paragraph of that former part of the Chapter, and having already said somewhat to the chief of their places, Act. 20. and foreseeing a fit opportunity for the rest, I shall for mine own, and the Readers ease, punctually expect and obey the summons, appear when I am called before them, but no sooner, avert their charge, and not multiply debates above what is necessary.  
Thus than they begin, that there is a Doctor, a high Praelatist, etc. That in a late Book of his hath undertaken to make out these two great Paradoxes, 1. That wheresoever the word Bishop is used in the New Testament, it is to be taken in a praelaticall sense. 2. That wheresoever the word Presbyter is used in the New Testament, it is to be understood, not of a mere Presbyter, but of a Bishop properly so called. And whereas we say that the Scripture-Bishop is nothing else but a Presbyter, and that there was no Bishops distinct from Presbyters in the Apostles days, this Author on the contrary saith, that the Scripture-Presbyter is a true Bishop, and that there were no single and mere Presbyters in the Apostles days. For our parts we do not think it necessary to take a particular survey of all that is said in justification of these Paradoxes, only we desire it may be considered.  
There is so much of the sense of some passages in the Dissertations set down in these words, that I am forced to believe, that I am the Author here charged for these two Paradoxes. That they are so styled by those who are contrary minded, and who have assumed a power, which, if either of these propositions be true, they must be obliged to part with, I cannot think strange; And if I should style their assertions as perfectly Paradox (i.e. as contrary to all the ancients sense or Doctrine in this matter) when they say that the Scripture-Bishop is nothing else but a Presbyter, etc. this were certainly an introduction fit to be confronted to theirs, as being equally argumentative. But because this verbal eloquence hath little of efficacy in it, and will never be a means of evincing the truth of our pretensions, by affirming the contrary to be errors or Paradoxes, and because what is affixed to me, is not entirely my sense, though it recite it in some part, and approach near to it, I shall here begin with a brief relation of what is affirmed by the Dissertations in this matter, and then inquire what is here produced to invalidate it.  
Dissert. 4. c. 6. the method leading to the consideration of the word [Bishop] and [Elder] in the Scripture, the first thing taken notice of was the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or equivalence of these words in the opinion of many. To which purpose Theodoret, chrysostom, Oecumenius, and St Hierome are cited, as favourers of this opinion, but this with some difference of the one from the other. And for the distinct stating of the Question, four senses were set down, wherein it was possible that this equivalence of the words might be understood. 1. That both Bishop and Elder should signify one and the same, viz. a Bishop in our modern notion. 2. That both should signify the same thing, viz. a Presbyter. 3. That both of them should signify promiscuously, sometimes a Bishop, sometimes a Presbyter, i. e. that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 should sometime signify a Bishop, sometime a Presbyter, and in like manner 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signify sometime a Bishop, sometime a Presbyter. 4. That the word Bishop should always signify a singular Bishop, and the word Elder sometimes a Bishop, and sometimes a Presbyter.  
Of these four senses of the equivalence of these words, it was sure no error to conclude, that they were not all of them true, each being exclusive of the other three; and although some of the ancients might be brought in favour to one, more than to the other, yet this was eminently observable, that those that favoured that species, which is most for the Presbyterians interest to be accepted, do yet assert the cause of the Prelatists as confidently as any. So Theodoret, who seems most to assert the second species, doth yet propugne the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the superior dignity of Bishops above Presbyters, and affirms 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. Theo. in 1 Tim. 3. 1.  Those who were in his time called Bishops (the Singular praefects of Cities) to have been styled Apostles in the Scripture-times, and that Epaphroditus was called so by St. Paul, as being Bishop of the Philippians, and so saith he, Titus was Apostle of the cretans, and Timothy of the asiatics.  
So when chrysostom, and Theophylact, and Oecumenius approve of the third species, 
In Phil. 1. and Act. 20. and 1 Pet. 5. 1.  and affirms Bishops to be called Presbyters (and Deacons also) and on the contrary Presbyters to be called Bishops, yet of each of them it is notorious, that they asserted the superiority of Bishops over Presbyters, not only in their own, but in the Apostles time. And to that purpose the concession and testimony of Peter Moulin was produced, 
Epist. 1. ad Epise. Winton  that the most famous Bishops of the ancient Church, chrysostom, etc. did not think it any diminution to their dignity that the words Bishop and Elder were at first conceived to be used in the same sense, which observation being premised, and thereby the Prelatists' pretensions competently secured, which soever of those senses should be accepted, so long as they that were authors of the assertions be permitted to give their own interpretation of them; It was then, I thought, perfectly seasonable and safe to discuss the question freely, and to set down what to me appeared most probable, without prejudice to any other dissenter, and upon those terms, and not otherwise, these two propositions were offered to farther consideration of learned men.  
1. That the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Scripture constantly signify a singular Bishop.  
2. That the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 either constantly signifies a Bishop also, or else commonly a Bishop, and sometime, but rarely, a Presbyter.  
These are somewhat different from the two paradoxes affixed to me, And in these terms I shall now resume them again, and clear them to be no paradoxes. And begin first with the former of them, concerning the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Bishop. And this is already done, 1. By considering the original notation, and use in the Old Testament, of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, then by going over every place in the New Testament, where the word Bishop is used.   

Section II.  
Of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
THe word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 naturally signifying an overseer, and used by Aristides for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Governor, the same that Justinian calls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Ruler of Provinces and Metropoles, and by Cicero ad Articum rendered speculator & custos, one that looks to, and guards a Province (and so fitly styled Angel, who's generally deemed to have those two Offices, and is in the Scripture called an eye, and vulgarly a guardian) doth in the Greek of the Old Testament sometime render the Hebrew 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which is common to God, Lord, Angel, and generally denotes Dominion; sometimes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Praefect or Commissary, entrusted with the administration of some affair, whether in army, as a Commander, Numb. 31. 14. in Mechanical working, as a Master-workeman, 2 Chron. 34. 12. 17. in a City, a Ruler or Prince, Nehem. 11. 9 peculiarly the chief of the Priests v. 10 in the Ministry of the Temple as Eleazar (the Ruler of the Levites) Num. 4. 16. and lastly in the House of the Lord, the Ruler set over that, 2 Kin. 11. 18. And the result of all this is, that it generally signifies an office of charge and dignity and power and superiority over others, all one with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which are all used to render the same word that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth, and so is most fitly qualified to signify the like, viz. a praefecture in the Christian Church under the New Testament.  
Accordingly there we find it applied, 1. to Christ himself, the Bishop of our souls, who though he ministered to his Disciples, yet owned the title of Lord and Master, as that which from them belonged to him, Joh. 13. 13. Secondly, to the Apostles Act. 1. 20. And for all other places where it is used, it is evidently capable of a sense very agreeable to these premises, being never once used in the New Testament, but where it will be very commodious to render it Bishop in our modern notion of the word for a singular perfect in each Church, not a colleague in a Presbytery.  
This is at large showed by a survey of every of those places; First, that of Act. 20. 28. where the Apostle takes leave, and exhorts the Bishops set over the flock by the Holy Ghost: They are there bid to feed the Church of God, i.e. the Christians of the several Cities of Asia, or near about Ephesus, as was in the last Chapter evidenced out of Irenaeus, auditor to Polycarpe made Bishop of Smyrna by St. John, and therefore may well be resolved to be the singular Bishops of those Cities, and not only of the one City of Ephesus, as was largely showed in the last Chapter.  
The second place is that of Phil. 1. 1. where after the mention of all the Saints in Christ Jesus which are at Philippi, is added, with the Bishops and Deacons; where although some of the Greek Commentators, which at the same time assert Episcopacy, do for that very reason, because there could not be many Bishops in one City, understand that place of Presbyters in our modern notion, and add that the words 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Theophyl. in Phil. 1. 1.  Bishop and Presbyter, yea and Deacon too, were not as yet distinct, but promiscuously used, the one for the other; here the word Bishops for Presbyters, as elsewhere the Presbytery is used for Bishops, 1 Tim. 4. 4. adding this reason 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. , because Presbyters ordained not a Bishop; And although many expedients were ready at hand to keep the Text from being useful to the Presbyterians, in case it were granted that by Bishops the Presbyters were meant, as that Epaphroditus their present Bishop (as is acknowledged by Theodoret, chrysostom and Theophylact, who are most favourable to that interpretation) was with St. Paul at the writing that Epistle, c. 4. 18. yet I have the authority of Epiphanius to affirm, that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 there signifies peculiarly Bishops, and I doubt not but it may do so, referring it to all the Bishops of the several Cities belonging to that Metropolis.  
For such was Philippi, both as the first-fruits of all Macedonia, first converted to the Faith, 2 Act. 16. 9 & 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a prime City of that Province of Macedon, v. 12. of itself, before its conversion, and so saith 
* Epist. 247.  Photius distinctly, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and accordingly Polycarps Epistle to them is inscribed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the whole province that belongs to Philippi; In which there being divers Cities, and Bishops in them, the Epistle to St. Paul is to be conceived written to them all, (as the Epistle to the Corinthians appears to have been written to the Saints of all Achaia) and being inscribed to Philippi, was to be communicated to those others, as the Epistle to the Colossians was to be communicated to the Laodicaeans, Col. 4. 16. and that which the Laodicaeans had received (whether, as Tertullian seems to believe, that to the Ephesians, or any other) in like manner to be communicated to the Colossians, and the Epistle of the Church of Jerusalem to the Church of Antioch did belong and was communicated to all the Churches of Syria and Cilicia. Act. 16. 4.  
And then all that the immediate subjoyning of the Deacons in that place, will conclude, is only this (which is far from yielding the Presbyterians any profit) that as 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. l. 1. Contr. Aër.  Epiphanius saith, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Churches being but newly planted, there were not Presbyters as yet constituted among them, only a Bishop with one Deacon or more in each City, in like manner as it was at Jerusalem Act. 6. where after James' assumption to the Bishopric, which the Ecclesiastical writers tell us of, the seven Deacons are soon instituted, no Presbyters being created in the middle, betwixt the Bishop and them, that either Scripture or ancient Record inform us of.  
And 
† Clem. Rom. Ep. ad Corinth.  Clemens, St. Paul's fellow Labourer, mentions it as the general practice, that the Apostles preaching through Regions and Cities constituted their first fruits into Bishops and Deacons of those which should come in to the faith.  
Thus far is this from being a forced interpretation being perfectly regular, and conformable to what we read of those times, out of the best and ancientest Records of them; And if in any circumstance we should be liable to mistake, yet for the main, the Reader will hardly think it possible, when he remembers this very Church of the Philippians to be one of those expressly named by Tertullian, among whom in his time, Apostolorum Cathedrae suis adhuc locis praesidebantur, The Chairs of the Apostles were yet extant praesiding in their due places, which concludes some Bishop or singular praefect to have succeeded the Apostles in this Church (as in those other, Thessalonica, etc.) and by Theodoret, whose authority is most used against us in this matter, to prove that the Bishops were Presbyters here, Epaphroditus is expressly affirmed to be that Bishop.  
The next place is that of 1 Tim. 3. 1, 2. If any man desire the Office of a Bishop he coveteth a good work: A Bishop therefore must be blameless— where there is no reason of doubting, but the Bishop is the singular praefect or Governor of the Church; For the only appearance of the contrary being again (as in that to the Philippians) the immediate subjoyning of Deacons and their qualifications, v. 8. that presently vanisheth, if again we remember the observation of Epiphanius, which he had out of the most ancient Records, and was found exactly conformable to the express words of Clemens Romanus, the contemporary of the Apostles, that at the beginning of the Church 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, before the government was complete in all the Offices, the Apostles and Apostolical persons placed in the Church by them, such as Timothy to whom here he gives the directions, created no more but a Bishop and Deacon (one or more) in each Church, the present state of things neither requiring nor being well capable of any more, in respect of the paucity of the Christians to be governed or instructed, and of those which were fit to be made Presbyters.  
And although Theodoret again (with some few others) interpret the place of Presbyters, yet 'tis as evident, he doth it not to the disadvantage of Bishops, adding in the same place, that the Bishops especially should observe these Laws 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as those which had atteined to a greater honour.  
Meanwhile S. chrysostom interprets it distinctly of 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Bishops, as I have done, and in that notion of Bishops which severs them from Presbyters, such as govern in each City, and addeth the qualifications to be such, as being spoken of Bishops, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, do agree to Presbyters also. And accordingly Theophylact interprets it of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Precedent and Ruler, without any mention of Presbyters.  
There remains but one place, and that of the very same nature with this last, and must certainly be regulated by it, Tit. 1. 7. For a Bishop must be blameless, as the steward of God (answerable to that notion of the word Bishop in the Old Testament for the Ruler set over the House of the Lord, 2 Kin. 11. 18. i e. the Steward, to whom the Keys of the House were committed, Isa. 22. 22.) That this is the singular Bishop in every City, signified before v. 5. by the Elders, which Titus was left in Crete to constitute, is the joint affirmation of St. chrysostom, Theophylact and Oecumenius on those words of v. 5. Elders in every City, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. By Elders he there means Bishops, as in the Epistle to Timothy, appointing them to be constituted in every ●ity, for he would not have the whole Island administered by one, but that every ●ity should have its proper Pastor (or Bishop) that so the labour might be the lighter, and the care more exact. In Crete there were certainly many Cities, Eusebius mentions an hundred, of all which, 
* L. 3. c. 4.  saith he, Titus was made Bishop by St. Paul, that under him, saith 
† Arg. Ep. ad Tit. In tit. 1 Hom 1.  Theodoret, he might ordain Bishops: to which 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Arg. Ep.  chrysostom and Theophylact add 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that he might have power to judge or censure those Bishops, as a Metropolitan and Prima●e over them.  
There is now no other place wherein the word Bishop is used, and by this brief view of these, I hope the first proposition is competently rescued from meriting the censure of Paradox, whether that signify novel or strange; this being so conformable both to the nature and use of the word, to the tradition of the ancient Church, and the importance of each Scripture, where it is used, that Bishop should signify 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the singular Pastor or Governor in each City or Church.   

Section III.  
Of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Elder.  
NOw to the second proposition, which pretended not to so much positiveness, but is set down in a greater latitude of defining, that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 either constantly signifies a Bishop also, or else commonly a Bishop, though sometimes, but most rarely a Presbyter. Of this I shall now need to praemise but these few things.  
First, that the nature of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 commonly rendered 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Elder in the Old Testament, doth denote most properly, and signify most constantly (as in all Languages the word is found vulgarly to do) a Ruler or Governor. This is so largely deduced and demonstrated in the Annotation on Act. 11. 30. that I shall not endeavour farther to manifest it.  
Secondly, that as in some places of the New Testament the word is necessarily to be understood of Bishops, so in every other place it is very fitly capable of that interpretation; This is again so particularly evidenced to the Latin Reader, Diss. 4. c. 19, 20, 21, 22. and to the English Reader Annot. on Act. 11. b. and 14. a. that I cannot deem it reasonable to tyre myself farther with transcribing it.  
Thirdly, that if any one or more places shall be thought by any man to belong to Presbyters in our modern sense, as that of Jam 5. 14. or the like, I shall only desire, that he will bring any convincing proof or authentic Testimony, that in that or those places it so signifies, and I shall most willingly grant it to him, and be so far from thinking it, in the least degree, disadvantageous to our pretensions, that I shall not doubt to evidence it a demonstrative argument to confirm them, but shall not need to insist on that, till such proof be offered.  
Fourthly, that by this it is already most evident, that my assertion was not truly cited p. 92. in these words, that wheresoever the word Presbyter is used in the New Testament, it is to be understood not of a mere Presbyter, but of a Bishop properly so called; Certainly neither my words nor sense extended to the wheresoever— and, it is to be— being only in a disjunctive form, either constantly so, or sometimes but rarely otherwise.  
Fifthly, that if I were not misreported, and the Paradox were as high and as positive, as it is represented, yet I conceive not the reason why they that have with great confidence affirmed that both Bishops and Elders do always signify in Scripture their Presbyters and no more, (for if either of those words do but once signify a Bishop, their Jus Divinum, and whole cause falls to the ground irrecoverably) should be so much at leisure from excusing themselves, to accuse that for a Paradox in others, which is not imaginable to be more an extreme on one side, then theirs is on the other▪  
Lastly, that if they do not think it necessary to take a particular survey of all that is said in justification of these (which they thus please to style) Paradoxes, which is in effect, as if they should profess to deny and declaim against the conclusion, without attempting to satisfy any reason, by which it is inferred; It might be as just in me to tender them answers of the same making, and so to supersede any farther dispute in this matter.  
But I shall not imitate their method, but rather prepare to attend them in it, and having thus far served them, by undertaking the task which was due to them, in giving the Reader a brief view of the grounds of my Assertions, which were too long for them to take notice of, I shall now trace their steps, and follow them which way soever they lead.   

Section IU.  
Of Reverence to Antiquity, and the Interpretations of the Ancients. Of Praelatists' disagreement among themselves.  
FIrst then, say they, we desire it may be considered, that these assertions are contrary to antiquity, which yet notwithstanding our Brethren do so highly magnify and boast of it in this controversy, and for receding from which, as they say we do, they do most deeply charge us.  
That these Assertions, as far as they are owned by me, and are Assertions, are so distant from being contrary to antiquity, that they are founded in the Records of the most ancient reverend authority, hath appeared most plainly by what hath now been said, and had before been laid, as the ground of the interpretations, in the fourth Dissert. if they, which gathered the conclusion from thence, would have vouchsafed to take notice of the praemisses.  
The utmost that can be with truth pretended, is, that some of the Texts, which we have insisted on here, and so likewise some of those where 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Elders are mentioned, are not by all the ancients interpreted just in that manner, as I think they may safely and most probably be interpreted, and so as they will best accord with the opinions which those very ancients appeared to have concerning the Original of Episcopacy.  
In this I hope I have not offended against the ancient Church, or if I had, as I should have expected other accusers, than those I have, so should I wait for no other judge but myself, and immediately submit to any penance for it.  
But they which truly reverence antiquity, discern also wherein this Reverence is terminated, not in adhering to every interpretation of each Text of Scripture given by any ancient Commentator or Interpreter, for truly that is absolutely impossible, several of them being known in interpreting of Texts very frequently to differ one from the other; This can be no news to any man, who hath but lightly viewed them, or but occasionally consulted Tirinus, or such like later Commentators, who have collected the Interpretations of the Ancients, and marshaled their names, and told us how many have been for one, how many for another sense of such a Text.  
And in affairs of this nature, wherein they have neither taught Doctrines, nor testified Traditions, but only expressed their single opinions, or conjectures of an Apostles meaning in words capable of more senses than one, I know no Praelatist that ever denied later Writers liberty to recede from one, and adhere to some other of the ancients, or if more convincing reasons appeared for any fresh interpretation, never given before, the like liberty hath been allowed; And indeed if it were not so, our studying of the Originals, inquiry into the nature of words and phrases, observation of customs among the ancients, and all wherein learned men differ from unlearned, consideration of the context and argument, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as well as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of each difficult place, and all the other skills and advantages of a good Interpreter would all be unuseful first, and then dangerous, would tempt one oit to recede from some former Writers, to forsake the road and method (so ordinary) of transcribing other men's labours, and by inciting him to say any thing which had not oft been said before, (which if it have, why doth he again trouble himself and others to repeat it) would infallibly involve him under the burden and guilt that is here laid on me, of being contrary to Antiquity.  
But I am unwilling to discourage them from any sort or degree of reverence to antiquity, and on condition they will be fairly tried by it in any notion by which they can imagine to define that Reverence, or the word Antiquity, I will forgo all my novel interpretations, and say no one word which the Ancients have not distinctly said before me, and refer the whole fate of the cause to this judicature.  
Their second consideration is, that they are contrary to all that have ever written in defence of Episcopacy, from whence they conclude that till their brethren (i. e. we Praelatists) agree among themselves, they need not spend time to answer the private Opinions of one Doctor.  
To this I answer, that it hath always been deemed lawful to any man, which hath undertaken the defence of a Christian cause, asserted constantly by the Church, to choose his arguments (as combatants do their weapons) such as he thinks are fittest for his managery, and will most probably (in his opinion) convince the gainsayers; No obligation lying upon him by the Laws of these agones, to use those arguments (and no other, nor otherwise improved) which all other writers of that side have done before him; For if this were the manner of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the legail combat, to what end should any second writing on the same subject ever appear to the World? That which had been formerly said, needed not to be transcribed and said again, but either the book might be reprinted or translated into a language more intelligible (as I have here been fame oft to do) And though I might truly say, that for those more minute considerations or conjectures, wherein this Doctor differs from some others, who have written before him (as to the manner of interpreting some few Texts) he hath the suffrages of many the learnedst men of this Church at this day (and as far as he knows, of all that embrace the same cause with him) yet I do not think it necessary to prove my agreement with others of my brethren by this only medium; It being certain that they who believe the same conclusion upon several mediums or ways of inferring it, are in that, and may be in all other conclusions at perfect accord and unity among themselves.  
All that I can conclude from this and the former consideration (the double charge laid on me of contrariety to antiquity, and other asserters of Episcopacy) is only this, that the authors of them are ill pleased, that I use any other arguments, or answers but what they were willing to assign me: otherwise if there had been less, not more truth, or evidence in my way of defending the cause, they would have had the greater advantage against me, and I doubt not, have been, in the space of three years, at leisure to have observed it.   

Section V.  
Inconveniencies objected, and answered. Of more Bishops in one City, No Presbyters in the Apostles days. The no Divine right of the Order of Presbyters.  
BUt they are, in the third place, pleased to object some inconveniences which the defending of these paradoxes must necessarily bring upon me; And to these I shall more diligently attend.  
First, say they, he that will defend these Paradoxes must of necessity be forced to grant that there were more Bishops than one in a City in the Apostles days, which is to betray the cause of Episcopacy, and to bring down a Bishop to the rank of a Presbyter.  
To this I reply by absolute denying of this consequence (for supposing the Scripture-Bishop to be always a Bishop, and so the Scripture Elder also, how can it follow from thence that there are more such Bishops in any one City?) 'tis most evident that this is no way inferred upon either, or both of my assertions, nor is here one word added to prove it is, to which I might accommodate any answer. 'tis on the contrary most manifest, that whensoever I find mention of Bishops or Elders in the plural, as Act. 20. Phil. 1. etc. I interpret them of the Bishops of Asia, and the Bishops of Macedonia, Bishops of Judaea, etc. (and render my reasons of doing so) and consequently affirm them to be the Bishops of divers (sure that is not of one) Cities.  
The second inconvenience is, that I must be forced to grant that there were no Bishops over Presbyters in the Apostles days, for if there were no Presbyters, there could be no Bishops over Presbyters.  
Here is an evident mistake, for I no where say, that there were no Presbyters in the Apostles days, but only that in the Apostles writings the word [Bishops] always signifies Bishops, and the word [Elders] either never, or but rarely, Presbyters; Now besides that it is possible for those to be in the time of the Apostles writing, which yet for want of occasion are not mentioned in those writings (and I that love not negative arguments à testimonio, should never have thought fit to conclude there were no Presbyters within the time wherein the several Books of Scripture were written, upon that one argument, because I could not find them mentioned there) besides this, I say, 'tis certain that the Apostles times are somewhat a larger period than the time of the Apostles writings, and therefore that what is spoken only of the later, was not meant to be extended to the former.  
For 1. the Apostles continued alive some time after writing their Epistles, and secondly, some of the Apostles survived others; John, of whom Christ's will was intimated, that he should tarry, and not die till after the coming of Christ, and that Kingdom of his, commenced in the destruction of the Jews, did accordingly live till Trajanes' time, and by that time I think it probable that the number of believers daily increasing, there were, as the wants of the Church required, Presbyters ordained in many Churches: And accordingly in the Dissert. p. 229. when I speak of this matter, I expressly except S. John, and p. 211. I make use of a testimony of Clemens Alexandrinus, on purpose to conclude that this Apostle ordained Presbyters in Asia, after his return from the Island, to which he was banished, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. and to the same matter I 
* D'ssert 4. c. 4. Sect. 4, 5.  elsewhere apply that of Ephiphanius, out of the profoundest, i.e. ancientest Records, that as Moses and Aaron took to them first the Princes of the people, and at length the Sanhedrim of the seventy Elders, so the Apostles first constituted Bishops, and in process of time Presbyters also, when occasion required, as the Bishop's assistants, and Council, and that upon account of this Analogy with the Sanhedrim, they were styled 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Elders  
And Ignatius making mention of Presbyters, as of a middle degree in the Church betwixt Bishops and Deacons in his, i. e. in Trajan's time, and that in his Epistles to several of those Asian Churches, Smyrna, Ephesus, Magnesia, Philadelphia, Trallis, I think the argument of great validity to conclude, that in that Province that Apostle had in his life time instituted this middle order. And therefore I that had so carefully prevented, was not to be charged with this crime of affirming there were no Presbyters, or Bishops over Presbyters (which certainly there were, if there were Presbyters under them) in the Apostles days.  
And third inconvenience they add, that by consequence I must affirm that Ordo Presbyteratus is not Jure Divino.  
But that is no more consequent to my assertion, than it was my assertion, that there were no Presbyters in the Apostles days, and therefore I that am guiltless of the assertion, cannot be charged with the consequents of it; John I know was an Apostle, and John, I believe, ordained Presbyters, and thence I doubt not to conclude the Apostolical institution, i.e. in effect, the Divine right of the order of Presbyters, though not of the government of the Church by Presbytery; and so I am still clear from the guilt of that crime which the worst of Papists would abominate, which they are resolved I must have lain under, if I had questioned the Divine Right of Presbyters, though they can more than question the Divine Right of Bishops, and never have remorse or compunction, or dread any charge or ●entence for it.   

Sect. VI.  
A first confession objected and vindicated. Of the Ephesine Presbyters being all the Praelates of Asia, Elders, Aldermanni.  
AFter these inconveniences briefly touched (and almost as briefly by me averted) they proceed to take notice in the fourth place, of some confessions of mine, which the justification of my opinion have forced from me. By this method thinking (as at length they say) to render Episcopacy, that is thus maintained, or else my way of maintaining it, odious and contemptible to all sober, and godly, and moderate Christians, i.e. to all those, who for the attaining of those titles, good opinion, and good words from them, shall be invited to contemn, or hate those, whom they are yet pleased to call their brethren. And this I confess is the most compendious way of confuting that which would not otherwise be confuted.  
What those confessions of mine are, which are like to render my assertions so odious, I must next take a view, and consider with what justice this is said by them.  
The first is, that the Ephesine. Presbyters, whom Paul sent for to Miletus, were all the Praelates of Asia.  
To say that the Ephesine Presbyters, in their sense of the phrase, are Praelates of Asia, were, I confess, a ridiculous, and so, if they please, a contemptible confession, but I have yet been under no such torture from their arguments, as should constrain such confession from me. What I say is sufficiently known to be my free opinion, (and no forced confession, such as the necessity of a desperate enterprise might extort from me) that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Elders of the Church, who by summons sent to Ephesus, the chief Metropolis of all Asia (and by that convenient way communicated to other Cities) were assembled to Paul at Miletus, Act. 20. 17. were, as Irenaeus assures me, the Bishops of the other Cities in those parts, and not only of the one City of Ephesus.  
What harshness there can be in this assertion, to be rejected as odious at the first hearing, I confess I divine not, That those Cities had Bishops, as well as Ephesus, cannot be strange, or that Paul desired to speak with them before his final parting. And that the Bishops may be called Elders, will be as little strange, if it be but remembered, what is at large showed in the Dissertations, that the word Elder had in the Old Testament denoted dignity and Praefecture in single persons, as when Eleezer Abraham's Oeconomus, who was set over his servants, is styled 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Elder of his house, and Ruler of all that was his (by Elder and Ruler signifying the same thing) and so the Elders 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, of the Moabites, Num. 22. 7. are the Princes of Moab, v. 8. and the Elders of Israel are the heads, or Praefects of the principal Families of Israel, Exod 6. 14. the Rulers of the people c. 16. 22. the Elders of the Tribes, Deut. 31. 28. and all this, and much more, before they were called into a Council, or Senate, to assist Moses, as appears Num 11. 16.  
And proportionable to this hath been the use of the word among all Nations, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Elder always hath the Rule, and all obey him, saith 
* L. 2.  Diodorus Siculus, and so Seniors] in all languages is a title of honour and dignity.  
And peculiarly among us, as when Aethelstane the half King (as he was called) of the East Angles, was saluted by the title of 
* Vid. Author lit. Rames. Sect. 4. and 33. and S. H●n. Spelma●s Glessary. p. 28. 29.  Aldermannus, i.e. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Elder of all England, and so Aethelwod and Aelwin, so in King Aelfred's Laws c. 34. there is mention Regis Aldermanni and Presbyteri Regis; And accordingly Mat. 20. 25. those words of the Princes of the Nations exercising dominion over them, are by the Saxons interpreted Ealdo●men wealdaqthat; hisa ðeodo, Elders have dominion over their Nations, and Luke 9 22. the Elders and chief of the Priosts are by them rendered Ealdrum and Ealdormaannum. All taking the word Elder for a title of Dignity and praefecture (and from that notion of it the Pre●bytorians are not observed to decline.)  
And then finally that the addition of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Church, though in the singular, cannot make it unfit for these Elders to denote the Bishops of Asia, or near Ephesus under that Metroplis, hath been already accounted for at large. And so still I hope they, and all godly and moderate brethren need neither hate, nor contemn Episcopacy, nor the defenders of it, upon pretence of this (so far from incommodious or inconvenient) confession.   

Section VII.  
A second confession of the Bishops, Phil. 1. 1. being Bishops of that whole Province, Philippi a Metropolis, and a Colony.  
LIke unto this first, is the second which they take notice of, That the Bishops of Philippi, whom S. Paul salutes Ch. 1. were not the Bishops of that City only, but of the whole Province, whereas Theophylact saith that Philippi was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a little City subject to the Metropolis of Thessalonica.  
That the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Bishops, Phil. 1. 1. denotes the Bishops of the Cities of Macedonia, which were under this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, chief City, or Metropolis, as S. Luke calls it, Acts 16. 12. is already evidenced to be no strange or violent (I hope as little odious) confession. I need not farther repeat, or enlarge on that, but bear in good part, whatsoever fate is decreed by them to attend that Confession.  
As for the Objection which is here subjoined, and to which they were directed by Dissert. 4. c. 10. Sect. 12. they might, if they had been so pleased, have taken the antidote with the poison, observed, and tendered to the Reader the answer, which in the five following Sections is solemnly rendered to it, and confuted that answer, if they had discerned any infirm part in it.  
First then, the answer is, that that description of Philippi in the argument prefixed to Theophylact's notes on that Epistle, was taken out of an ancient Geographer, and belonged to that City, as it was built by Philip, having been formerly called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, than 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: not to the later times, under the Roman Empire, and that it is no new, or strange thing, that under the Romans those Cities should become Metropoles, which formerly had not been such, to which agrees that of the Council of Chalcedon, Can. 12. which mentions, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Cities honoured by the imperial Letters with the name and dignity of Metropoles.  
And indeed the saying of 
* Geogr. l. 13.  Strabo is of evident truth, ordinarily experimented, that Provinces were often confounded 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, by cause of the Romans distributing them not according to the distributions of Regions or Nations (such as the Geographers anciently had made use of) but after another manner, according to the Cities, in which they kept their Courts or Assizes, as before was said of the Cities of Asia.  
Accordingly when S. Paul first comes to Philippi, St. Luke mentions it under the title of the prime City of the Province of Macedonia, and is not that more to be heeded, speaking so expressly of that City at that time, than that Geographers description, which no way discovers to what time it belongs, and cannot belong to this time of the planting the faith at Philippi, if S. Luke may be believed?  
Secondly, the same St. Luke saith of it at that time, that it was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a colony of, i.e. a City replenished by the Inhabitation of the Romans; And of those Colonies in chief Cities, there is no question but they were especially chosen to be places of their Assizes, whither the Neighbouring Cities resorted for Justice, and so were Metropoles in the civil accounts.  
Thirdly, of this City of Philippi 'tis as evident, that it was the first converted of all Macedonia, and that from thence he went after to Thessalonica; And so the right of Primogeniture, which ordinarily gave claim to the Metropolitical dignity in the Ecclesiastical account (as in the case of Antioch and Jerusalem appears) belonging to Philippi, over and above the forementioned praecedence thereof in civil account, there is no reason to doubt, but this was a Metropolitical Church, an Elder Sister to Thessalonica, and each a Mother to the Churches of lesser Cities of Macedonia that belonged to them.  
According to which it is, that Polycarpe in his Epistle, mentions St. Paul's Epistles in the plural, written to these Philippians, which learned men interpret of the Epistles to the Thessalonians, and it cannot commodiously be understood any other way.   

Sect. VIII.  
A third Confession, of Timothy's being an Archbishop. Of the qualifications, 1 Tim. 3 2. belonging to Bishops. Of the Bishops being worthy of double honour, though he never preach. Of the word, and Doctrine. Of the Presbytery, 1 Tim. 4. Of Rebuking and receiving accusation against an Elder.  
THe third Confession is, that Timothy was Archbishop of Ephesus, that when Paul sets down the qualifications of Bishops, though he mention none but such as are common to a Presbyter with a Bishop, yet he is to be understood to speak of Bishops in a Praelaticall sense, and not at all of Presbyters; And when he saith the Elders that Rule well are worthy of double honour—, this is, saith this Author, the Bishops that Rule well— thereby holding out this great error, that a Bishop that Ruleth well is worthy of double honour, though he never preacheth; And when St. Paul bids Timothy not neglect the gift that was given him by the laying on the hands of the Presbytery, that is, saith he, of Episcopacy; And when the Apostle chargeth him not to rebuke an Elder,— and not to receive an accusation against an Elder,— this is to be understood of Bishops, saith he, and not of mere Presbyters.  
To this accumulative crime affirmed to be confessed by me in so many particulars, I answer by avowing my Confession thus far, 1. that I take Timothy to have been Bishop of Ephesus, and conclude it from 1 Tim. 1. 3. then that Ephesus was a prime Metropolis of Asia, from the testimonies of Pliny and Ulpian, and generally the Antient Church-writers: And from those two put together, I hope I may gain liberty to confess, that Timothy was Archbishop of Ephesus.  
Secondly, That Paul 1 Tim. 3. 1, 2. speaking of Episcopacy, as of a good work or office, and the qualifications required in the person to be promoted to it speaks of a Bishop in the Praelaticall sense; so I am sure chrysostom doth understand him, and the testimony was lately cited out of him, and Theodoret that understands it otherwise, yet applies it first to Bishops, and saith on that occasion, that their degree in the Church is superior to that of Presbyters. And if no higher qualifications be required of a Bishop, than are fit to be required of a Presbyter (which yet I no where say, and the argument taken from the noother qualifications here specified, than only for the Bishop and the Deacon, are of no force to induce it, both because it is a negative argument, and there is another reason for the omitting Presbyters, because in this infancy of the Church there was not any such need of them, the Bishop with his Deacon, one or more, were sufficient in every City, and besides the qualifications assigned the Deacon, may be common to him with the Presbyter, as well as those assigned the Bishop) yet that is no prejudice to the superiority of the office, or to my interpreting that Text of the Bishop; For sure I may as conveniently say, that the Bishop is named without the Presbyter, at a time when there were Bishops, but as yet no Presbyters in the Church, and that when there were Presbyters instituted, their qualifications were to be regulated by the rules given of Bishops, as it can be imagined to be fitly said by them, that the place is meant of Presbyters (when the Apostle names Bishops expressly, and when by many other evidences we know, that then there were Bishops, but by no footsteps can discern that then there were Presbyters) upon no other reason, but that the qualifications are common to Presbyters.  
Thirdly, For the mention of the Elders that rule well, 1 Tim. 5. 17. I doubt not but it may very commedicuoly be interpreted of the Bishops through all his Province, for as there the style is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, praeside or rule, so 'tis certain, that in the use of the Church this was the title of the Bishops, as hath formerly been showed out of Justin Martyr and others, and the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 double honour 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the privilege of Primogeniture, being assigned as his portion, is an evidence thereof.  
And the inconvenience that is here urged against that interpretation, is perfectly of no force. For 1. if from hence it might be concluded that a Bishop is worthy of double honour, though he never preacheth, then from their interpreting it of the Presbyter, it will as much follow to be their opinion, that the Presbyter is worthy of double honour though he never preach.  
But than secondly the truth is, that neither of these conclusions follow either the one or the other interpration, for the first phrase of labouring in the word, and the other of labouring in the doctrine (which by these are confounded, and so expressed undistinctly by preaching) denote two several things; the former the planting of the faith where it is not yet received, which is constantly expressed by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, preaching the Gospel, and the word; the latter signifies taking pains in a Church already gathered, for the confirming and farther instructing of believers. And then as he that doth one of these, may yet possibly not do both, occasion not requiring, and so not be so eminently worthy of the double honour, as he that actually doth both; so certainly, he that rules well in any Church, and beside the care belonging to rule, undergoes that other double hard travel (so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies) of preaching the faith to Infidels, and confirming, and instructing believers, doth very highly deserve the double honour and alimony; And this as it is the exact meaning of that Text, so it utterly supersedes all force of this objection or exception against our understanding it of the Precedents or Bishops in the Praelaticall sense.  
Fourthly, For the word Presbytery, 1 Tim. 4. 14. by which they say, I understand Episcopacy, I answer, that I interpret it of some combination either of Apostles or Apostolical persons and Bishops, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Theodoret's phrase, such as were vouchsafed the Apostolical grace, i. e. of Paul assuredly, 1 Tim. 2. 6. and perhaps of Barnabas, perhaps of some other Apostolical person with him, in like manner as both Peter and John style themselves 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Elders, and 
* Ep. ed Philad.  Ignatius styles the Apostles 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Presbytery or Eldership of the Church, and as of Ignatius himself S. chrysostom affirms, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that the hands of more Apostles than one were laid on him, in his ordination to the Bishopric of Antioch.  
To which matter the Scholion of chrysostom is express, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, he speaks not here of Presbyters but Bishops, adding the reason, because Presbyters did not ordain Bishops, and so Theophylact and Oecumenius.  
Lastly for the other two places of not-rebuking and receiving an accusation against an Elder, though in those places it were clearly for my interest to interpret 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Presbyter in our modern sense, for then as 
* Cont. Ha. l. 3. t. 1.  Epiphanius saith, there is an evidence of proof that the Bishop hath power over the Presbyter (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) Timothy over the Elder, saith he, but never the Elder over Timothy: Yet I confess myself inclined by other considerations to forego that advantageous sense of the place.  
Because Timothy being placed in the prime Metropolis had power over the Bishops of lesser Cities, and that, as hath oft been showed, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as well as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 power of ●udging as well as of ordaining Bishops, which is 
* Dissert. 4. ●. 19 Sect. 11, 12.  elsewhere evidenced to be the opinion of S. chrysostom, in order to the understanding of this place. And so still the crime is not very great or reproachful, which I am said to have confessed, it amounts no higher than the former confession had done, that Timothy was Archbishop of Ephesus; and yet this you see without any necessity to extort it from thee, save that of speaking freely what I conceived most probable; For otherwise nothing could be more for the advantage of the main cause I defen●, than that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Elders should signify Presbyters in these two places.   

Sect. IX.  
A fourth confession of Titus being Archbishop of Crect.  
THeir fourth charge is, that I am forced to confess that Titus was Archbishop of Crect, and that he received no commission from S. Paul to ordain single Elders, but only for ordaining Bishops in every City. It seems, say they, this Author slights the Postscript, where Titus is called the first Bishop of Crect, and slights all those ancient Fathers that are cited by his own party, to prove that he was Bishop of Crect: But he must be an Archbishop, and so must Timothy also, or else these assertions of his will fall to the ground. Now that they were neither Bishops nor Arch-Bishops hath been sufficiently proved (as we conceive) in the former discourse.  
That Titus was Archbishop of Crect, I confess again that I cannot but believe, till I am showed how the contrary were possible, i. e. how he that was fastened in (and, as 
* Lib. 3. c. 4.  Eusebius saith, had 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Episcopacy of) a whole Island, which had an hundred Cities in it, and was there placed, that he might ordain Bishops under him in each of those Cities, Tit. 1. 5. 7. and, as the ancients add, exercise jurisdiction over them, should be other than an Archbishop.  
That this was his condition, hath been showed already, And for the inconveniences that it is pressed with, they will prove very supportable. For I shall not at all be obliged thereby to slight either Postscript or Fathers, but give the disputers example to pay them all reverence, being very well able to discern the Bishop through the Archbishop, & having never imagined that the styling Michael an Archangel was denying him to be an Angel. He certainly was an Angel, and that of an higher degree, or else could never have been justly called an Archangel; and 'tis just so with Titus, if I had not thought him a Bishop, I could never have affirmed him an Archbishop, and they that in common speech give him the title of Bishop, do no way intimate their thoughts to be contrary to mine, for every Archbishop is certainly a Bishop, though every Bishop be not an Archbishop.  
And therefore if all the danger of my assertions falling to the ground be consequent to this of Titus or Timothy's proving to be no Archbishop, I shall deem them competently safe, for each of them were unavoidably such, Timothy Archbishop of Ephesus, the prime Metropolis of all Asia, and Titus of the whole Island of Crect, and accordingly to those two, peculiarly as such, directions are given for the ordaining Bishops and Deacons in every City.  
And the proofs which were offered to the contrary, have I suppose already been answered, and being not here thought fit to be recited, the replies shall not be so impertinent, as to appear without their antagonists. Only because it is here inserted as part of my inconvenient confession, that Titus received no Commission from Saint Paul to ordain single Elders (which I believe I no where say, any otherwise than that the Commission, cap. 1. 5. was to create Bishops in every City) I shall freely tell them my opinion of that, viz. that a greater power may very fitly be said to comprehend under it the lesser of the same kind, and consequently that both Timothy and he which had Commissions to ordain Bishops in every City, had also by the same commission power to ordain single Presbyters, where those were useful to be ordained, as is evident by the qualification of Deacons and Widows abovementioned in one certainly, and, as I conceive, in both Epistles, for that supposeth their Commission to extend to the ordaining of those, who yet had not been named in them, if we may guess by that of Titus, cap. 1. 5. And so much also of that part of my confession, which is as free and unforced, as the former had been, and I believe as fafe to the affirmer.   

Sect. X.  
A fifth charge of contrariety to Scripture answered. Of visitation of the sick, belonging to Elders, James 5.  
BUt the fifth and last charge is more severe than any of the former, that these paradoxes, as they style them, are contrary to the very letter of the Scripture, as we have made it evident in our arguments against the Jus Divinum of Episcopacy, and would farther manifest it, if we thought it necessary.  
This I confess of contrariety to the very letter of the Scripture (rightly understood) I, looked upon as so high a charge, that I verily expected somewhat extraordinary to bind it on me, and I suddenly resolved (as I read the first words of that Section) to examine those Scriptures that should now be produced, ponderingly and exactly, and either confess my own conviction, or give competent reasons why I was not convinced by them.  
But I soon found my expectations frustrated, for as here is no one such Scripture mentioned, so for their arguments against the Jus Divinum of Episcopacy, I know not where to seek them, and never heard (and verily believe there is no such thing) that they had formerly written any such Book against Bishops, wherein the Dissertations or any assertions of mine therein, were so much as arraigned by them, much less evidenced to be contrary to the very letter of Scripture: If I had, I assure them I should then have been as ready to have made my reply, as now I have been to attend them thus far.  
And for their evidencing this in any tract published by them before the Dissertations were written, by which notwithstanding the Dissertations were to be concluded, I have no reason to think that to be their meaning, because these assertions of mine are by them affirmed to be Paradoxes, contrary to all that have ever written in defence of Episcopacy, and therefore could not, unless it were by divination, be taken notice of, and prevented by them.  
After they had expressed their opinion that it was not necessary for them farther to manifest the contrariety of my Paradoxes to the very letter of the Scripture, they yet farther proceed in these words,  
For when the Apostle saith, James 5. 14. Is any man sick among you? let him call for the Elders of the Church— who is there that can be persuaded to believe that all these Elders were Bishops (in the sense that Bishops are taken in in our days) Is this the proper Work of Bishops to visit the sick? And besides, if the Apostle by Elders had meant Bishops in that sense, he would have said, let him call for the Elders of the Churches, not of the Church, unless our brethren will say that there were divers Bishops in every Church in the Apostles days, in which there were many sick persons.  
What the [For] in the front here signifies, I shall not go about to conjecture, The antecedents would incline me to believe that it pretends to introduce a reason, which might make it evident that my assertions are contrary to the very letter of Scripture: But that sure it doth not any way attempt or appear to do, unless the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Elders of the Church be supposed here to signify Presbyters in our modern notion of the word: But then that is so far from being granted, that it is known to be the only 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the matter of question betwixt us all this while, and so was to be proved not supposed or presumed in this matter.  
But bating them this begging of the Question, I shall proceed to satisfy their wonderment, that I should go about to persuade any, that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Elders, in this place of Saint James, were Bishops in that sense that we now understand and use the word.  
And 1. I shall not doubt to avow, that for all that space, that in any Church there were no other officers ordained, but only the Bishop and Deacon, it must of necessity be resolved the proper work of Bishops to visit the sick. That there was at the first, when the Faith was but thin planted, such a time hath already been evidenced out of Clemens Romanus, and the profoundest antequities that Epiphanius could meet with, And that then this office must either be neglected, or performed by either Bishop or Deacon, will not need any farther proof.  
As for the the Deacons in their institution, we find not that to be any part of their office, and indeed the suitableness of absolution to that state of dangerous sickness, and the mention of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 his having committed sins, and the command of giving it (in case he be qualified for it) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, absolvetur ei, absolution shall be given him, doth render the Deacon incompetent for that work, and so, where there are no Presbyters, must needs divolve it on the Bishop.  
And this account hath more than probability, no less than perfect evidence in it, if we only suppose what hath been so oft cleared from the Ancients to be matter of fact, that where the number of believers was small, and none qualified for the office of Presbyters, there the Apostles constituted no more but a Bishop and a Deacon in each City. For whilst this was the state of that City, I shall suppose a man sick, and by the force of S. James' exhortation, desirous of absolution, etc. Who is there supposeable in that City to give it him but the Bishop? And whom else can he call to him for this purpose? And than who can doubt but this is the work, in itself very agreeable, and in this supposed case peculiar and proper to the Bishop? so that unless this supposition be false, nay impossible to be true, I may safely say, this was or might be the Bishop's work, to visit the sick, etc.  
And indeed, if it were not, how could it be by the Bishop, when other parts of his office became his fuller employment, committed to the Presbyter? For 1. he could not commit this to others, if he first had it not in himself; and Secondly, this was the only reason of ordaining inferior officers in the Church, that part of the Bishop's task might be performed by them (as when the whole burden, which was too heavy for Moses, was distributed among other men) which in this particular could not be, if before this assignation of assistants, it were not originally the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 work or proper task of the Bishop.  
To this may be farther added the real dignity, because necessary charity of this performance of visiting the sick, etc. and this arising both from the intimation of Gods own finger, pointing out this a most agreeable season for all spiritual admonition and comfort, a molle tempus fandi, wherein a word seasonably spoken, may most probably find the due reception, and wherein the prayers and blessing of the most Apostolical person, or the most highly and justly dignified in the Church, & in the favour of God, may come in most opportunely, & in this respect we see in that place, that the prayers of the great Prophet Elias are made use of by S. James, to exemplify the practice, which in this particular he recommended to the Church.  
And I must needs tell the Objectors, that as mean an opinion as they seem to have of this work of visiting the sick, I cannot but affirm on the contrary, that if it were duly and advantageously managed, it were extremely useful and beneficial to the good of Souls, and as proper for a Bishop personally to perform, when his other public necessary tasks (wherein many more are concerned, and wherein he hath no proxies to supply his place) permit, as any one part of his divine office, differing from the rest only in this, (and in that respect yielding the precedence to them) that other parts of his office are, or may be at the same time extensive to many, whilst each act of this is terminated in some one, whose soul yet aught to be more precious in his eyes, than all other acquisitions in the world.  
Accordingly it is in the 
* Dissert. 4. 21, 22.  Dissertations evidenced out of Polycarp's Epistle (who was somewhat after the time of James the author of this Epistle) that part of the Bishop's office it was then esteemed to be, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to visit all the sick, in like manner as in Justin Martyr he is made the Curator of all that are in want, the grand distributer of all the liberalities of the Church.  
As for the only objection that is here tendered against this interpretation of the place, from the singalar [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the Church] not of the Churches, the answer is obvious, that this Epistle of James being written to all the Jews in dispersion, Jam. 1. 1. these could not make up any one particular Church of any single denomination, but yet all conjoin very fitly in that one Universal style of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Church. In this respect we know 'tis called the Catholic Epistle of James, because written to the whole Church of the Jews, all the believers of that nation, wheresoever dispersed out of their Country.  
Now these inhabiting in divers Cities, it is as certain there were divers Bishops in this circuit, and so the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Elders of the Church, are most commodiously set to express these several Bishops, belonging to this complexe body, the Church of the dispersion.  
Not that there were more of these in one City, for that consideration would never have caused the plural expression, because were there never so many, the sick person needed not have called more at once (and upon that score 〈◊〉 shall demand of them that argue from the number, was every sick man in their opinion, to call for the whole Presbytery?) ●or again because there were not as many Churches as Elders, but only because these many particular Churches, of which there was an equal number of Elders, were very fitly comprehended under the one general 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Church in the singular number.   

Sect. XI.  
A last objection from Act. 21. 18. and 14. 3. and 11. 30. answered. Elders for Rulers or Bishops.  
THere yet remains one sort of Objections more against these Paradoxes, in these words.  
Besides, when it to said, Act 21. 18. Paul went in with us unto James, and all the Elders were present, It is supposed by our Episcopal men, that James was at this time Bishop of Jerusalem. Now we demand, who were these Elders? were these also Bishops of Jerusalem? will this answer consist with our brethren's judgement? so likewise when it is said, Act. 15 4. And when they were com● to Jerusalem, they were received of the Church, and of the Apostles and Elders, we demand, what is meant by the Church? Is it not meant the Church of Jerusalem, to which place they are said to come? And if so, than we ask● farther, what is mean● by the Elders? Must it not be answered, that by Elders are meant the Elders of Jerusalem? And then let any man 〈◊〉 us, how these Elders can be said to be Bishops in a Prelatical sense, especially according to the sense of our brethren, who make James to be at this time the only Bishop of Jerusalem. Add farther, It is said, Act. 14. 3. Wh●n Paul and Barnabas had ordained them Elders in every Church, Act. 11. 30. They sent relief to the Elders, etc. Can any imagine that this relief was sent only to Bishops, and that Paul and Barnabas ordained no Presbyters in any Church, but only Bishops? Is not this to offer manifest violence to the Scriptures? and instead of upholding of Episcopacy, is not this sufficient to render it odious and contemptible to all sober, and godly, and moderate Christians? But we forbear.  
It seems we have still remaining another heap of inconvenient Confessions that we labour under; And upon them, more socratico, they make their demands; And although I might justly wonder why they which have read the Dissertations, and know what answer I give to every of their demands, should be at the trouble to ask them again, yet because I am resolved not to be weary of attending them, I shall answer them as punctually as they could wish, and patiently support all the odium that will result from thence, among all sober, and godly, and moderate Christians.  
Here only I desire two things may be remembered, which have already been evidenced, 1. that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Elder● in the style of the Old Testament, in the continued use of all languages, being an expression of power and dignity, is in the New Testament upon all reasonable accounts as properly applicable to the Rulers and Governors Ecclesiastical, as the word Apostles, or Bishops, or Precedents, or Rulers, or any the like would be thought to be, and withal very fit to express single Rulers in each particular Church (in case any such may otherwise appear to be mentioned in Scripture) there being no propriety in the word, or peculiarity in the usage of it, to incline it to joint power of Colleagues ruling in common.  
Accordingly evidences have been produced in the Dissertations to show the continuance of this usage among Authors after the Scripture-time, that it long remained in the language of the Ancients, Policarpe, Papias, Irenaeus, Clemens Alexandrinus, and Tertullian, many of which are known and by the adversaries acknowledged to assert Episcopacy in our modern sense, and yet use the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Elders, to denote sometimes the Apostles, sometimes the singular Bishops in each Church.  
And therefore the affirming this one thing, so attested and confirmed, viz. that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may very conveniently be interpreted Bishops, as oft as the circumstances of the Text will bear it, will not, I hope, still be so unfortunate as to fall under the censure of Paradox and odious, being indeed a plain obvious observation, which hath nothing of difficulty or harshness in it.  
Having praemised this, I shall only add, that the Apostles being by all Praelatists (I hope convincingly) affirmed and proved to have ordained Bishops in every City of Converts and proselytes to the Faith, and there being many such Cities in Judaea, besides Jerusalem, and consequently many Bishops in those Cities, one in each, it can be no new thing to conclude, that when we read of Bishops in the plural within that pale of judaea, these are the Bishops of judaea, and so in like manner when we find the Bishop of jerusalem mentioned separately, and then those others with him, (expressed by any title which signifies Bishops, be it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it matters not) and with all, these never expressed to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Elders of the Church of jerusalem, but either Elders simply, or else 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in or at jerusalem, denoting only the place, where, at that time, they were present, it will be as little harsh to infer, that at such time there were assembled or met together at jerusalem, james the Bishop of that Metropolis, and the other Bishops of the whole region, the Bishops of judaea with him.  
From hence there will now be no difficulty to make a brief answer to each of their demands, 1. that Act. 21. 18. the Elders which were present with james the Bishop of jerusalem, were the Bishops of judaea which were then, upon the emergent affairs of the Church, present at jerusalem, whether all of them assembled in Council, to receive an account of Saint Paul's transactions and successes among the Gentiles v. 19 or many of them on any other Ecclisiasticall concernment.  
But that which puts it out of question, that it was all of them in Council, is, what follows v. 25. where they refer to the decrees which had been conciliarly delivered v. 15. by them, who are now there present, we have written and concluded. And what Paradox can there be in this, that all the Bishops of Judaea should be in Council at Jerusalem, and St Peter and St. john with them, and that St. Paul should come and give an account of his travails and actions in their presence.  
The same answer certainly belongs to the place next mentioned c. 15. 4. where after mention of their Reception by the Church follows [and of the Apostles and Elders] by the Church is meant the Believers that were at Jerusalem, whether inhabiting there continually, or now occasionally present there. By the Apostles, James the Brother of the Lord, the then Bishop of the Metropolis, together with Peter and John the known Apostles of Christ, this James by them set over that Church, saith 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, l. 6.  Clemens and 
† 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Hegesippus, and by S. Paul himself reckoned among the Apostles, Gal. 1. 19 and so in the title of his Epistle, and named before Peter and John the two prime Apostles, as being in this his See, Gal. 2. 9 and expressed to pronounce the decree in the Council, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, I judge, Act. 15. 19 and this confirmed by the testimonies of those Ancients that the Presbyterians make the most frequent use of, Theodoret and 
* Come. in Isa.  St. Hierome; the former expressly affirming of those times, that they which were after styled Bishops, were then called Apostles, and the latter styling this James particularly, Apostolum decimum tertium, the thirteenth Apostle.  
And then what can be more agreeable to the Context (to make the Council complete, a Council for the Churches of Syria, &c, to appeal to) then to render the Elders the Bishops of all Judaea, which were certainly fitter for the turn to join in the Council, and give Law to other Cities, than the bare Presbyters of the one City of Jerusalem could have been esteemed, if any such there had been in the Church so early.  
For though of the Apostles, who had an universal jurisdiction, and of the Bishop of Jerusalem (as that was the prime Metropolis not only of Judaea, but Syria also) with the Bishops of the whole Province in Council with him, some reasonable account may be given, why they should be consulted by the Church, of Antioch, and give binding decrees in that matter, to all that were subject to that Metropolis, yet supposing the Church of Jerusalem to be governed by Presbyters, and that (as these say) the Elders mentioned in the Council were none but the Presbyters of that particular Church, there could no reasonable account be given, why they should join with the Apostles in this work, wherein not Jerusalem, of which alone they were Presbyters, but Antioch and other Cities of Syria and Cilicia were immediately concerned, and concluded by the sentence of James, that must be, (according to their opinion) of one of the Presbyters of Jerusalem.  
In the next place what is said of Act. 14. 23. and Act. 11. 30. is somewhat unhappily put together, and yet not rectified in the Errata. For 1. the ordaining Elders in every Church to which Act. 11. 30. is affixed, is not mentioned there, but Act. 14. 23. and the sending relief, which in the Syntaxes must be affixed to Act. 14. 23. is not to be met with there, but ●●ct. 11. 30. But this were imputable to some haste either of Scribe or Compositor, were there not a second incongruity interweaved in it, viz. that when Paul and Barnabas had ordained them Elders, etc. (which was not done till Act. 14. 23.) They sent relief to the Elders, (which was done Act. 11. 30.) which is an evident 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which I cannot discern how it was useful for them to be guilty of.  
As for their Quaeres raised on these two Texts, the Answers are obvious, and here to be translated out of the Dissertations as formerly, that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Elders Act 11. 30. are the Bishops of the several Cities of Judaea, not the Presbyters of that one City Jerusalem.  
For 1 the famine that occasioned this charity of the Antiochians, was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, not upon Jerusalem alone, but all the World, i.e. in the Scripture-stile, Lu. 21. 26. Rom. 10. 18. over the whole Land of Judea, according to the manner of the septuagint, who oft render 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the earth or the Land, when it signifies the Land of Judaea, by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the World, As Isa. 10. 23. and 13. 5. 9 and 24. 1. and accordingly Josephus saith of this time of Claudius' Reign 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that there was a great famine over Judaea.  
Secondly, the charity is distinctly said to be designed by the Donors, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to the brethren that dwelled in Judaea, in no wise confined to Jerusalem, nor consequently can the Elders to whom it was sent, and in whose hands it was put, be any others than the Elders, i.e. say we, Bishops of all Judaea.  
Thirdly, it is very agreeable to the office of Bishops, as we find the practice in the Primitive Church, to be the receivers and stewards and dispensers of the wealth of any sect, which was brought in to the Church, whether by the offertory of the faithful in the Sacrament, or by the liberality of other Churches, enlarged to those that were in want. It being Justin Martyr's affirmation of the first times, that all the offerings were brought to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Precedent, and that he was thereby made 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Curator of all that were in want.  
And when what is sent to the Bishop is supposed to be sent to him, as the Oeconomus or steward of the Church, not for the enriching himself, but to provide for those that wanted, I cannot imagine why this may not be as conveniently supposed, as that it should be sent to the Presbyters only.  
So in like manner the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Act. 14. 23. are Bishops again, and such and only such (as far as we have any footsteps of it) were at that time ordained in the Churches, one in every City where the Gospel was received with one or more Deacons to attend him.  
And to this as the words so often mentioned out of Clemens Romanus are most evident, that the Apostles of Christ preaching through Cities and Regions, constituted their first fruits 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for Bishops and Deacons, so the context in this place of the Acts is very agreeable: For here when Paul and Barnabas had preached and converted a competent number at Derbe, v. 12. and returned to the Cities of Lystra, Iconium and Antioch v. 22. confirming the souls of the brethren i.e. the faithful, there it follows, before their parting, that they ordained Elders 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in every Church, that sure is in every of the Churches here named, not many in each, but Elders in all, one Bishop in every Church, which again is no news for me or any Praelatist to affirm, when in the Epistle to Titus, St. Paul's direction is conformable to his practice, appointing him to ordain Elders 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, City by City, or in every City, c. 1. 5. and presently calling the Elder so to be ordained Bishop, as in the Epistle to Timothy he is also called.  
Thus much pains I shall not grudge to have taken, if it be but to rescue a small book, very innocently meant, from the charge of two su●h Paradoxes, as they are called by those, who have not thought fit to believe them, and are as unwiling that others should, and therefore conclude their discourse against them with tragical expressions of offering manifest violence to the Scriptures, of being sufficient, instead of upholding Episcopacy, to render it odious and contemptible, etc. And when they have said so much with so little weight of reason to justify it, they will then part with all meekness and perfect temper [but we forbear] i.e. abstain to add more, when they had said as much ill as could be. I am sorry there was still any more bitterness within, to be suppressed, when there was so much vented. However it is, we are now at end of a second post, and to have time to breathe a while after some lassitude.    

CHAP. III.  
Concerning the Opinion of Antiquity in this Question.  

Sect. 1.  
The Testimonies of Clemens Romanus, Bishops and Deacons the only offices at the first. Corinth Metropolis of Achaia. What 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, signify. The Apostles care to prevent contentions about Episcopacy. Hegesippus' testimony of the contentions at Corinth. Clement a Bishop.  
SOme things there are yet behind in their Appendix, wherein I discern myself to be concerned, in some directly and immediately, in others by remoter obligation, as when some of those testimonies of Antiquity, which are in the Dissertations manifested to be perfectly reconcileable with our pretensions, and some of them evident confirmations of them, are yet by these Writers crudely taken up, and made use of, as Testimonies on their side, without ever taking notice of that which is said in the Dissertations to clear the contrary.  
Of the former sort, wherein I am more immediately pointed at, there are four things. First, Concerning one testimony of St. Hierome. Secondly, concerning Ignatius his Epistles in general, and the appeals that I make to h●s authori●●, which they will not allow to have force with them. Thirdly, concerning one testimony cited by them out of St. Ambrose on Ephes. 4. and answered by me▪ but that answer disliked and rejected by them. Fourthly▪ concerning the Chorepiscopi. Of the second sort, are the testimonies out of Clemens Romanus, Polycarpe, Irenaeus, and Tertullian, especially the two former of them.  
I shall therefore briefly survey every one of these, and I suppose I have pitched on the most convenient Method (and that which will give the Reader the clearest view both of the judgement of Antiquity concerning Episcopacy in general (to which their Appendix professeth wholly to be designed) and more particularly of the truth of those two propositions which have been accused as Paradoxes in me, but will now appear not to be such) by taking these testimonies, as they lie in the order of time, wherein the Authors lived, and then that of St. Hierome, which happens to be first mentioned by them, p. 102. will fall to be one of the last to which we shall make reply.  
First then for Clemens, 
P. 104.  they thus begin, sure we are that Clemens, who lived in the first century, in his famous Epistle to the Corinthians (an undoubted piece of antiquity) makes but two Orders of Ministry, Bishops and Deacons. And having set down the place which testifies this, 
Clem, ad Corin. p. 54,  * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and rendered it thus, Christ jesus sent his Apostles through Countries and Cities, in which they preached and constituted the first fruits (approving them by the spirit) for Bishops and Deacons to those who should afterwards believe. From hence they observe, p. 105. That Bishops and Deacons were the only orders of Ministry in the first Primitive Church. And that the Apostles appointed but two Officers (that is Bishops and Deacons) to bring men to believe, because when he had reckoned up three Orders appointed by God amongst, the Jews, Highpriest, Priests, and Levites: coming to recite Orders appointed by the Apostles under the Gospel, ●e doth mention only Bishops and Deacons.  
And here one would think were little for the Presbyterians advantage, even no more than one of my Paradoxes would have afforded them, which, from this very testimony and some other, concluded that which was then so strange for them to hear (yet now can be confessed by them) that the Apostles at their first plantations contented themselves with Bishops and Deacons, one of each, or perhaps more of the latter in every City.  
But when these men thus grant the conclusion from this place, which I inferred, I have yet no reason to boast of their liberality, because I suppose it their meaning, that by Bishops Clemen●● meant Presbyters, though this they do not so much as say in twice repeating of their conclusion.  
And yet certainly it needed more than saying, proving by some evidence or argument, that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Bishops in that place signifies any thing else but Bishops. All that they offer toward a reason for this, must be contained in these words of theirs that follow in the former place.  
The occasion of that Epistle seems to be a new sedition raised by the Corinthians against their Presbyters, p. 57 58. Clemens to remove their present sedition tells them how God hath always appointed several orders in his Church, which must not be confounded; in the Jewish Church he appointed Highpriest, Priests and Levites, And then tells them for the time of the Gospel that Christ Jesus sent his Apostles as before, citing the words of Clement already set down.  
But certainly this doth not prove Bishops in that Epistle to be no more than Presbyters, but may as fitly be argumentative for me, that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Elders in that Epistle signify Bishops. The only imaginable medium of proof, which can be useful for their turn, I shall suppose to be this, that Corinth was but one City, and therefore 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Elders at, and of Corinth, must needs be Presbyters, because according to our opinion there were not more Bishops in one City.  
But to this I answer, 1. That what Clemens saith in the testimony now produced, he speaks not of Corinth peculiarly, but of the Cities, and Regions in general, which the Apostles converted, and of them in the plural number, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, through Regions and Cities, and then in those many Cities, there may well be many Bishops, and yet certainly no more than one in one City.  
Secondly, that this Epistle of Clemens to the Corinthians was not to the Christians of that one City, but to the whole Province of Achaia, of which Corinth was the Metropolis, and wherein the Proconsul of Achaia resided, and kept his Courts, Act. 18. 12. 15. So the Title of the Epistle inclines, being inscribed to the Church 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which denotes the whole Province, then called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as when in Polycarps Epistle, the Church 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] is not only that of the City Philippi, but of the Province belonging to it, and in the other part of the title of this Epistle, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Church of God dwelling about Rome,] in the Church of Rome, and all that belonged to that Metropolis, called by Ignatius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the place of the Region of the Romans, i. e. the City, and the whole Region about it; 
* l. 4. c. 23.  And so when Eusebius mentions Dionysius the famous Bishop of Corinth, he calls him Bishop 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, of the Province of, or about Corinth.  
And that this is the truth of it, and no conjecture of mine may appear by one character in the Epistle; He tells them that they had formerly received Epistles from St. Paul. This directs to resolve that these to whom this Epistle was addressed, were the same to whom St. Pawles were formerly sent, And it is evident that those were the Saints or Christians in all Achaia, 2 Cor. 1. 1. And the same is doubtless implied by the phrase in every place, 1 Cor. 1. 2. not in every place simply of the World (for it was no Catholic Epistle, but a particular admonition for particular faults, incest, etc.) but in that whole Porvince or Region of Achaia. So that which Apollos is said to have done among them (Apollos hath watered) 1 Cor. 3. 6. appears by the story Act. 18. 27. to have belonged to all Achaia. And so what the Apostle writes to them of sending their offertory to Judaea, 1 Cor. 6. 1. 2 Cor. 8. and 9 doth appear by Rom. 15. 26. to appertain to all Achaia, Macedonia, saith he, and Achaia have pleased to make a contribution, and 2 Cor. 9 2. I know your forwardness, that Achaia hath been ready above a year ago. Where the [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 you] and [Achaia] must needs be of the same latitude, and so again it is c. 11. 9 compared with v. 18. And so those of St. Paul, and consequently this of Clement was not to the City of Corinth alone, but to all the Churches of Achaia, and if among them there were more Bishops than one, there will certainly be no news in that, and if those Bishops (according both to the nature of the word, and the use of it in those days before and after Clement) were styled sometimes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, sometimes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 also, than all is very agreeable to all that we contend for, that there was one Bishop, not a College of Presbyters in Clement's days in every City.  
And this is directly the importance of Clement's words, as they lie in the Epistle, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, saith he, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Christ was sent out from God, and the Apostles from Christ (As my Father sent me, so send I you] And then to show that the Bishops were in the same manner sent, i. e. commissionated by them, he adds, that they, i. e. the Apostles 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 went out Preaching, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. Therefore Preaching through Regions and Cities, they constituted their first fruits— for Bishops and Deacons, Cities and Regions in the Plural, and Bishops and Deacons proportionable thereto.  
And when he adds that they were thus made of their first fruits, i. e. of those that were first converted by them, and to this end, that they might be officers of those which should after believe (supposing that there were not many now that did so) this is directly a description of those times, of which Epiphanius speaks, saying, that when the Gospel began to be Preached, there was yet no need of Presbyters, but Bishops and Deacons served the turn.  
And accordingly Deacons in those days were immediately made Bishops, as is sufficiently known of Clement the Writer of this Epistle, who was St. Peter's Deacon and Bishop after him, as is cleared in Dissert 5. c. 1. Sect. 11. And so much for that first testimony.  
One thing only more from hence they are desirous to conclude, that in the first and purest times the custom was to choose Bishops in Villages, as well as in great Cities, grounded upon this, that here the Apostles are said to have appointed Bishops 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as well as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
But there is no ground of this conclusion in this testimony, For 1. here is no mention of villages, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is not Greek for them, but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and 'tis the former, not the latter which here we find. It is evident what is meant by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, when it is joined with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Cities, viz. Provinces, which have each of them many Cities in them, and when it is joined with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Villages, it fitly denotes Regions, in which there are many Villages.  
So saith 
* Geo. lib. 13.  Strabo of Asia, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Romans made that Region a Province, and so in the Ecclesiastical writings 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is a Province made up of many Cities, each of which had a Bishop over them, as when in the 
* Can. 2.  Council in Trullo. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Cyprian is said to be Archbishop of the Region of the Africanes, Region there signifying the whole Province under that Metropolitan, and so 
* Ep. 52.  Cyprian himself makes it his observation, Jampridem per omnes provincias & singulas urbes instituti sunt Episcopi. Anciently through all the Provinces and each of the Cities, Bishops were instituted. Where the Bishops in the several Provinces, as those differ from the Bishops in each City, are undoubtedly Archbishops.  
And if that place so very agreeable to this of Clemens may be allowed, to give us the meaning of it, we see what it will be, and how distant from these men's conclusion that the Apostles instituted Bishops in every City, and in each Region or Province, and in the Metropolis or chief City of it, a Metropolitan or Archbishop.  
But then 2. if 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 should signify, as they would have it, a company of villages or little towns lying near together, so as to be here used in opposition to the Cities, yet could it not be from hence concluded, that the Apostles constituted Bishops in those villages. The words are, they preached through regions and Cities, and constituted their first fruits (earlyest converts) into Bishops and Deacons, which will be perfectly true, though all the Bishops and Deacons constituted by them, had their fixed seats of residence in the Cities; For that they constituted Bishops in the Regions, is not here affirmed.  
Much more might be said in this matter, to show that the utmost concessions that the adversaries could demand from hence, would no way hinder or disadvantage our pretensions, but only give the Chorepiscopi a greater Antiquity in the Church, than either they or we have reason to think they had, of which whole matter the reader may see a full discourse, Dissert. 3. c. 8. Sect. 25. etc. and of it somewhat we shall anon have occasion to repete from thence.  
The second Testimony of Clemens is set down by them in these words, That the Apostles knowing by Jesus Christ, 
Pag. 57  that there would a contention arise, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 about the name of Bishop, & being endued with perfect foreknowledge they appointed the aforesaid (that is, the aforesaid orders of Bishops and Deacons) etc. Here they require two things to be noted 1. that by name is not meant the bare name of Bishop, but the honour and dignity, as it is taken, Phil. 2. 9 Ephes. 1. 21. Heb. 1. 4. Rev. 11. so that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, The controversy among the Corinthians was not about the name, but dignity of Episcopacy; for it was about the deposition of their godly Presbyters, pag. 57 58. 2. That the only remedy appointed by the Apostles for the cure of all contentions arising about Episcopacy, is, by committing the care of the Church to Bishops and Deacons: Afterwards the Church found out another way, by setting up one Bishop over another; But Clemens tells us, that the Apostles endued with perfect foreknowledge of things ordained only Bishops and Deacons for a remedy of Schisms.  
To this they add (to supersede farther citations our of this Epistle) It would be too long to recite all that is said in this Epistle for the justification of our proposition, let the Reader peruse pag. 57 62. 69. 72. and take notice that those which are called Bishops in one place are called Presbyters in another, and that they are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 throughout the whole Epistle.  
What this whole Epistle will yield toward the proof of their proposition, which is, [That after Christ's Ascension the Church of God for a certain space of time, was governed by a Common Council of Presbyters without Bishops] I think it reasonable for any that hath not read it, to conjecture by these two testimonies, which these, who assert the proposition, and here undertake to prove it, have thought fit to cull out of it, having withal nothing more to collect for their turn from the rest of the Epistle, particularly from the comparing those four pages, 57 62. 72. but only this, that they which are called Bishops in one place, are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Elders in another.  
Now this last they know is the very thing that I contend (as from the Scripture, so) from this and other ancient writings, that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, [Bishop and Elder] are words of the same importance, all the question is, whether at the first both imported Bishops or both Presbyters in our modern notion. That there is no one circumstance so much as offered by them to consideration, which may incline it their way, is evident by their own words, neither of their two notes pretending to it, only their conclusion affirming, that they are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, words of the same importance. The whole matter therefore will still divolve to this one Quaere, whether, when Clement saith of the Apostles that they constituted none but Bishops and Deacons, by Bishops a College of Presbyters in every City be to be understood, or rather one Bishop, with his Deacon or Deacons in every City.  
For the clearing of this one difficulty (for this being evinced, all that their two notes affirm, is directly on our side against them) I shall here entirely set down the whole place last produced, of which they have left out one half. It is thus, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Our Apostles knew by our Lord Jesus Christ (that must be by revelation from him) that there would contention arise upon the name or dignity of Episcopacy (i. e. about the authority of Bishops in the Church, some opposing it, and casting them out of their Offices, as here in the Church of the Corinthians, and through all Achaia was actually come to pass at this time, and occasioned this Epistle to them) For which cause therefore the Apostles having received perfect foreknwoledge (that there would be such contentions on this occasion) did (for the preventing of them) constitute the forementioned (Bishops and Deacons of those which should come in to the Faith in their new plantations) and after them (so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies in Barnabas' Epistle, Sect. 10. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the people that should be after, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Act. 13. 42. that which should follow the next after) gave a Series or Catalogue, or manner of succession (i. e. set down a note of them which in each Church should succeed the present Incumbent) that when they died, other approved men might succeed to their office or ministry.  
What can be more manifest, than that the dignity, which the Apostles conferred on the Bishops in each City and Province, which in the former Testimony hath been cleared to belong to single Bishops, not to any College of Presbyters, was by them foreseen, that it would be matter of Contention, occasion of Sedition in the Church: for the prevention of which, they used the probablest means imaginable, named successors to the present Bishops in every Church, who should supply the vacant places, as soon as they fell, and so prevent suing and contending for them, and were by the special spirit of God directed, who those successors should be; so that the opposing their succession, or casting them out afterwards, must be a great sin, even of resisting the spirit of God, who had designed them to this inheritance. Which, next to Christ's bearing them in his right hand, Rev. 1. 20. is the greatest character of dignity, and evidence of Christ's approving of the Order, and care of continuing it, as the original of union (not division) in the Church.  
There is not by these men one word of objection offered against this conclusion, thus formerly deduced in the Dissertations, and therefore I need add no more for the vindicating this testimony, yet will it not be amiss here to interpose the words of Hegesippus, one that was present at the time of that sedition, and gives an account of it in 
* L. 4. c. 2●.  Eusebius, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, saith he, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, The Church of the Corinthians continued in the right, until Primus was Bishop of Corinth. Which is a testimony as ancient as that of Clement, and tells us what Bishops they were which Clement speaks of, such as Primus was at Corinth, i. e. one singular Governor in a City.  
The same will be yet more manifest, if we consider what by all Authors is affirmed of Clemens himself, the writer, at the time of writing this Epistle, that having been Saint Paul's Peter's Deacon (Ignat. in Ep. ad Trall.) he was no Bishop of Rome, by the joint suffrage of Irenaeus and all the Ancients, even of Saint Jerome himself in his Catalogue, and by him styled an Apostolical person on Isa. 52. a companion of the Apostles (in Interp. Com. Orig. in Rom.) and by Clemens Alexandrinus, Strom. lib. 4. an Apostle in the sense that Theodoret saith, those whom in his time they called Bishops, had been at first called Apostles.  
Accordingly of him, saith Irenaeus in his Catalogue of the successive Governors of the Church, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in the third place from the Apostles Clemens came to the Bishopric, Which how it is easily to be accorded with those who truly make him Peter's immediate successor, see Dissert. 5. c. 1. Sect. 6. etc.  
Other testimonies there are producible from this Epistle of Clement, which are all to the same purpose with the former; As when he finds an image of the Ecclesiastical state under Bishops and Deacons, in the prophecy of Isaiah, cap. 60. 17. where in the Greek translation, then in use, he had read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, I will constitute their Bishops in righteousness, and their Deacons in faithfulness, speaking of the Judges and their Ministers and officers in every City.  
And so again when he exhorts them to give due honour to the Elders among them, talks of their sedition against their Elders, and casting them out of their Episcopacy, in one place (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) and removing them from that honoured office (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) in another, and the like; All of the same importance, and to be interpreted by the former.   

Sect. II.  
The Testimony of Polycarpe. That he was himself a Bishop. His mention of Ignatius' Epistles, fit to give authority to them, being so confirmed as it is by a series of the Ancients.  
IN the next place follows their testimony out of Polycarpe, introduced in this manner,  
The like Record we have of Polycarpe that famous Disciple of John the Apostle, who lived also within the first century, and wrote an Epistle to the Philippians, in which he makes also but two Orders of Ministry, Bishops and Deacons, and persuades the Philippians to be subject to their Presbyters and Deacons, as to God and Christ.  
To this Testimony from Polycarp there is no reason I should deny any part of my assent, being so perfectly such, as the cause which I defend requires; If there be with him but two orders of Ministry, Bishops and Deacons, and he persuades the Philippians (i.e. that whole Province, the same to which Saint Paul had written, consisting of many Churches, all under that Metropolis of Philippi) to be subject to their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Elders and Deacons, and sets the former of them, in the comparison, to answer God the Father the supreme Monarch of Heaven; and the latter to be the parallel to Christ who came out from Heaven upon his Father's messages, than what reason have I to doubt, but that these Elders and Deacons are the very same which Saint Paul had called Bishops and Deacons, Phil. 1. 1. which that it belonged to the several Bishops of that Province of Macedonia, hath before been sufficiently vindicated.  
And therefore without farther debating this Testimony, I shall add some few things concerning this Polycarp, which will help conveniently to clear the whole matter.  
First, That as it is most true, that is here said of him, that he was a famous Disciple of john the Apostle, so this is added to his titles by the authonti●k Epistle of the Church of Smyrna, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. This was the most wonderful person in our times, being an Apostolical and Prophetical Doctor, and that he was a most glorious Martyr, is the designed matter of that whole Epistle.  
Secondly, That this famous, most admirable Apostolical Doctor and Martyr, was the Bishop of Smyrna, and so constituted by the Apostles, as will appear by three Testimonies, each of them irrefragable. 1. By the Epistle of that Church of Smyrna, written on purpose concerning his Martyrdom, a reverend piece of Antiquity, fit to compare with any that remains in the Church. And there we find in the close of his titles, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that he was Bishop of the Catholic Church, which is in Smyrna, i. e. both of jewish and Gentile Christians there.  
So Polycrates (the eight Bishop of Ephesus, borne within a while after Saint John's death) in his Epistle to Victor, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Polycarp the Bishop of Smyrna and Martyr.  
So Irenaeus, lib. 3. cap. 3. speaking of him, saith, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that he was constituted by the Apostles Bishop of the Church of Smyrna in Asia.  
And then what possibility can there be, that he being thus a Bishop, nay Metropolitan himself, (as hath formerly been showed) writing to another Metropolis, and commanding to obey the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Deacons, should mean any thing else but Bishops by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
Thirdly, That this Polycarp, as in this Epistle he acknowledgeth to have received an Epistle from Ignatius (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, You wrote to me, and to Ignatius also) so he tells them that he had sent them a collection of the same Ignatius' Epistles. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉— The Epistles of Ignatius sent to us by him, and as many others as we had by us, we have sent to you, as you required, which are subjoined to this Epistle, by which you may receive great benefit.  
By this passage it is clear, that as Ignatius wrote one Epistle to Polycarpe, another to the Church of Smyrna, whereof Polycarpe was Bishop, both contained under the phrase 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, sent to us, (as it is explained by Eusebius in these words, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Ignatius wrote to the Church of Smyrna, and severally to Polycarpe the Ruler thereof) so he wrote divers others also, which at that time, before Ignatius' death were by the Philippians desired from Polycarpe, and by Polycarpe transmitted to them, and so cannot with any sense be affirmed to be forged, and affixed to his name after his death.  
How these Epistles were from Polycarpe brought down to the hands of Irenaeus, who lived in Polycarp's time, and saw him an old man, and so testifies in his Epistle to Florinus; and citys a notable passage out of Ignatius, which we now have in his Epistle to the Romans: How, soon after Irenaeus, 
* In Luc. Hom. 6.  Origen citys them again, calling him Martyr and Bishop of Antioch, the second after Peter, and setting down the very words which we now have in the Epistle to the Ephesians; How, after Origen, 
† L. 3. c. 35. 36.  Eusebius sets down the whole story of writing them, together with a distinct Catalogue of seven, to Ephesus, to Magnesia, to the Trallians, to the Romans, to the Philadelphians, to the Smyranaeans, and to Polycarpe: 
Catal. Script. & ad H●lvid c. 9  And in like manner Athanasius, citing from Ignatius words which we now find in his Epistle to the Ephesians, and Theodoret in many passages out of that to the Ephesians, 
Dissert. 2. c. 24.  to the Trallians, to the Smyrnaeans; And at last St. Hierome (on whose authority the Presbyterians so much depend) according exactly with Eusebius, to give these seven Ep●stles of Ignatius a full authority with all; All this I say hath been at large deduced and evidenced in the Dissertations; And this, one would think, might have been sufficient to have given Ignatius some place among their Testimonies for the opinion of antiquity in this matter, especially when that very Epistle of Polycarpe, which for the bare name of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Elders used by him, they cite, and give him his just honour, doth give testimony to the Epistles of Ignatius, as clear, and as universally, and fully confirmed by others, as any, by which that Epistle of polycarpe or Clemens, or any other ancient writing stands in the Church.  
But all this, it seems, is of no weight with them, and therefore after the two testimonies of Clemens, and one of Polycarpe, backed with the like number of three more, a saying of Bishop Bilson (very unlikely to be to the praejudice of Bishop●, if it were here seasonable to examine it) and the like of Gratian, and the third of the Lord Digby, They are then at leisure to remember what out of Ignatius is objected against them; Had he by any possible colour of any passage in him, been capable of doing them any service, he might then, as his Epistles were written before Polycarps, have also been called out and cited before him; But all those Epistles being so diametrally contrary to their pretensions, as every man knows they are, he is now to be looked on and answered, as temptations are wont to be, to be mentioned only, that he may be rejected by them.   

Section III.  
A vindication of Ignatius' Epistles, Vossius' edition of them, and the Archbishops of Armagh. Some Testimonies out of them. The cause of his so inculcating obedience to Bishops. Mr. Causabones Testimony considered, and the Allegations from the Archbishop of Armagh. Three Reasons against these Epistles answered. (No Marriage without the Bishop.) Of the Reformed Churches. Of the Church of Scotland after the first conversion.  
THus therefore they proceed, p. 107. Against all that hath been said in this proposition, it is objected, that the blessed St. Ignatius, who lived in the first century, hath in his Epistles clearly and fully asserted Episcopal Government, as it is distinct from Presbyterial, and that therefore there was no space of time, wherein the Church of Christ was governed by the common council of Presbyters without Bishops properly so called.  
I do not conceive that they have said any thing of any avail, for the proving their Proposition, and presume that neither from Clement nor Polycarpe it hath appeared that they have gained any thing; And therefore against all that they have said there is no need that I should make any Objection. But in a far larger style I think it were no insolence to say, that against all that was ever imagined by any to be producible out of Antiquity in behalf of Presbytery, the bare testimonies of this one Apostolical Martyr, Ignatius, will be abundantly sufficient, being put in the other Scale, to weigh them all down and decide the controversy on the Prelatists' side.  
It were here unreasonable at large to recite all these testimonies, being already set down particularly Dissert. 2. c. 25. and the notoriety of the fact being such that a special Objection against the Epistles is, that he every where asserts Episcopacy. And therefore the only way that could be invented for the supporting the Presbyterians interest against such direct Testimonies, so (every where) inculcated, and so impossible to be reconciled with their assertions, is this which they give us, p. 108. in these words.  
In answer to this we must entreat the Reader to take notice that in the Primitive Times there were abundance of spacious and supposititious works put forth under the Names of the Apostles and blessed Martyrs, which were none of theirs, etc. The like fraud hath been used in Ignatius' works, etc.  
Here first 'tis a little strange that the spurious and supposititious works of the Apostles and Martyrs should be said to be put forth in the Primitive Times, unless that phrase Primitive, be taken in a very great Latitude, I had thought that it had been in after times, when errors were gotten in, and sought patronage and covert from the Primitive Fathers, that these spurious brats were borne, and affixed to great Names; And by this means indeed they are generally descried, by their impudent mentioning of some matters of fact, which fell out in those latter times, and so discovered the imposture.  
But this mistake importeth not much to our present controversy; If what is here confidently affirmed, [The like fraud was used in Ignatius' works] can be any way proved to have truth in it, either in respect of the Primitive or aftertimes, I shall not quarrel upon such niceties. I shall therefore examine their proofs which follow.  
And first, say they, it is certain the Epistle of the blessed Virgin Mary to Ignatius, and of Ignatius to the blessed Virgin, and two other Epistles of Ignatius to John the Apostle are spurious and counterfeit.  
To this I most willingly yield, that the Epistles under Ignatius' name to the blessed Virgin and St. John may very probably be deemed none of his, and so they are generally rejected by those who maintain ours, as well as their interests. I shall only add that there is no one word in them concerning Bishops, nor were they ever produced by any Prelatist in defence of them.  
Next then, say they, As for his other twelve Epistles, five of them are by invincible arguments, as we conceive, proved by Vedelius to be written by a Pseudo-Ignatius. Eusebius and Hierome make mention but of seven.  
Here also will easily be granted by us whatsoever is demanded; For though Vedelius a Divine of Geneva since the casting out of their Bishop and setting up of the new Government, might well be looked on as a partial arguer or Judge concerning Ignatius' writings, yet it being true, and by me formerly acknowleged that Eusebius and St. Hierome mention but seven Epistles of his, I shall also be ready to yield to the utmost that Vedelius contended, that there be no more than seven Genuine Epistles of Ignatius, not that every of the other five can be proved to be suppositious, but because the ancient testifications of the Church do not make it so evident, that those other five are all his, as of the other seven they do.  
According to this concession it is, that in the Dissertations all the Testimonies which are produced in defence of Episcopacy, are taken out of those seven Epistles which St. Hierome, the Presbyter, and only trusted friend of the Presbyterians, doth acknowledge to be his.  
But of these seven also they have somewhat to say, in these words: And for those seven, though with Scultetus, Vedelius and Rivetus we do not renounce them as none of his, yet sure we are, they are so much adulterated and corrupted, that no man can ground any solid Assertion about Episcopacy from Ignatius' works.  
I hope I shall not now be looked on, as an intemperate asserter of Episcopacy, if in this third step also I go so far with the Presbyterians as to yield that I shall rest contented even, with those parcels of those seven Epistles, which these most rigid censors, even Vedelius himself, which published him at Geneva, is content to acknowledge for his. If this be allowed me I shall need demand no more; The matter is evident, any man may consult Vedelius' edition, and find testimonies as clear for our turn, as could be wished, in those parts of those Epistles which he allows of.  
But for the purging of Ignatius, as of all other Ancients, I suppose the Method, which Vedelius used, proceeding for the most part, by his own conjecture and fancy, is not likely to be the best; The one course which any Judicious Man would require or depend on, hath been used in this matter, since Vedelius had done his best; I mean the most ancient copies in Europe have been consulted, and God's Providence hath been eminently discernible in the result of that inquiry.  
Isaac Vossius, a known learned Man of that part of the Reforme● Church, which is governed by Presbyters, hath met with an Ancient Manuscript in the Medicaean library, which hath none of the suspected Epistles, and is perfectly free from those passages, which were formerly among sober Men made matter of suspicion against the Epistles; And as in them we find those very passages entire, which the Ancients have cited out of them, so from them again all the Testimonies are fetched, which we desire to make use of in this matter.  
So that if ever Ignatius wrote those Epistles which from Polycarpe downward the Ancients generally agree that he wrote, I have no reason to fear or doubt but his authority, and the Testimonies I have brought from him, will be of full value and force in this matter.  
When this Copy out of the Medicaean Library was first transcribed by Vossius, the greatest enemies of Episcopacy were much taken with it; D. Blondel confesses that he presently got a Transcript of it, compared it with the Testimonies, which the Fathers (Polycarpe, Irenaeus, Origen, Eusebius, Athanasius, Jerome, chrysostom, etc.) had cited out of Ignatius, and finding them all to agree with this copy, confesseth of himself that he was glad for this age of ours, that we had now gotten that very copy that 1300. years ago, Eusebius had used, and expected great light from thence. But at length this proved not for his turn, the Author spoke so much of Bishop's 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in season and out of season, that he set himself to form arguments against it, which are answered at large in the Dissertations.  
But beside this Greek copy of Vossius' Edition, it fell out very opportunely, that the most Reverend Archbishop of Armagh about the same time met with some ancient Latin copies in England, which he thought fit to publish, although the Translation were rude and barbarous, and that Latin Edition of his was found every where agreeable to that Greek of Vossius, freed, as that, from all interpolations, and by this concurrence of these Providences, there is all reason to think that we have at last the Epistles of Ignatius, as purely set out as either that of Clemens, or Polycarpe, or any other ancient writing.  
And in this purity it is that we now appeal to it, and have the three orders in the Church, Bishops, Presbyters and Deacons, and the Obedience and respects due to them, as evidently and irrefragably asserted in very many places, as any truth of Scripture can be expected to be.  
After all this, most distinctly deduced in the Dissertations, they yet proceed, we will not, say they, for our parts trouble the Reader with a large discourse about this subject. If he please he may read what the Archbishop of Armagh, what Rivet, Vedelius, and Cook in his Censura Patrum, and what Salmasius and D. Blondel say about it, who all of them bring divers arguments to evince the invalidity of these Epistles. There is a— Doctor that hath undertaken to answer the Objections of the two last, But this Doctor should do well to answer also what the Archbishop of Armagh, hath written about these Epistles, who proves at large that six of them are nothae, the other six mixtae, and none of them to be accounted omni ex parte sincerae & genuinae, who also tells us out of Casaubone, that among all the Ecclesiastical Monuments there are none in which the Papists put more confidence, than in Ignatius' Epistles.  
This being the sum of their charge on me in this place, that having answered all the Arguments of blondel and Salmasius (I hope satisfactorily, or else they were very unkind not to express their dislikes of some one answer) I have not yet answered the Arguments of the Archbishop of Armagh against these Epistles, I shall hope, that when either I have done that, or given competent reason, why I need not do it, I shall not need to travail any farther in this Argument; yet to omit no pains which they can but think of prescribing me, I shall take the whole matter of this their last Section before me, and consider every part of it.  
And 1. For Rivet, Vedelius and Cook in Censura Patrum 'tis evident, that their exceptions and censures belong to the former Printed Copies of Ignatius, that especially which had been set out by Mastraeus a Papist, against whom Vedelius his Edition and Exercitations were chiefly designed.  
But then Vedelius having called this volume to a very strict examination, 'tis evident that that Copy, which he had thus purged, cannot be still liable to his and the like exceptions, which before were made against the former Copies.  
As for Salmasius and blondel, their exceptions have, as is here confessed, been already examined, and I need say no more of them till those answers be some way attempted to be invalidated, which here they are not, but instead of it, I am called to answer the Archbishop of Armagh his Arguments. Lastly, therefore for the Archbishop of Armagh; It is first somewhat unexpected, that what he had said, as the ground and occasion of making a new Edition, setting out this very ancient Copy, and by it purging Ignatius, who had before been so corrupted in his opinion, should now be proposed to me to be answered, who use that very Copy, which that Archbishop set out, and acknowledge it was formerly as corruptly set forth, as he conceived it to be.  
Is it not visible that the Archbishop's whole design in two impressions of those Epistles, was to set them out free from all corruptions and mixtures, and interpolations, which they had before been under: And that all his discourses in his Prolegomena, were to prove the former editions to have been corrupt, and so that the●e was great need of seeking out better Copies, and that he verily thought he had now found such? And then what can be required of me to answer in his writings, who am directly of his opinion in all the substantial parts of the whole matter?  
As for lesser doubts, as whether that one to Polycarpe be among the genuine or no, though with Eusebius and St. Hierome I believe it is, and have given the reasons of my opinion, yet I need not controvert this with any, because the other six will still serve my turn abundantly, and the Testimonies out of the most purged Geneva, or Amstelodam-editions of those six, will sufficiently vindicate Episcopacy in our present notion of it to be then received, and of the Apostles erecting in the Church.  
A few of these Testimonies I shall here set down 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that the Reader may know the unquestionable opinion of Ignatius, and how far I am from necessity of using any corrupted copy of those Epistles. First, then in his Epistle to the Smyrnaans', we have the three Orders set down distinctly, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and again 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the like in 3. places to the Ephesians, in 3. to the Magnesians, in 4. to the Philadelphians, in 4. to the Trallians. So secondly we have their particular Bishops mentioned, as such, Polycarpe of Smyrna, in the Epistle to the Magnesians, Onesimus of Ephesus in his congratulation to the Ephesians, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that they had such a Bishop, adding▪ Burrhus his Deacon: Damas' of the Magnesians, together with the names of two of their Presbyters, Bassus and Apollonius, and Sotion the Deacon, all in the Epistle to the Magnesians. Polybius of the Trallians, in the Epistle to them. Thirdly we have his affirmation concerning Bishops through the whole World, that they are constituted as, or by the mind of Christ, i. e. sent by him, as he by his Father, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 
* Perhaps 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in both places.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Jesus Christ is the mind or by, or according to the mind of the Father (sent and Commissionated by him to reveal his will to us) and so the Bishops constituted through the World are the mind, or by the mind of Christ. Fourthly, he tells us that all in the church, particularly Presbyters, must yield obedience to the Bishop, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, all follow the Bishop, in the Epistle to the Smyrnaeans, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that being subject to the Bishop ye may be sanctified in all things, in Ep. ad. Eph. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, ye ought to pay all reverence to the Bishop, adding, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as he had observed their pious Presbyters to do, though their Bishop were young in Ep. ad Magnes: and again, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, be subject to the Bishop, so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 give heed to the Bishop, in Ep. ad Philad. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, & 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, be subject, and it is necessary to be subject to the Bishop, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Farewell ye that obey the Bishop, in Ep. ad Trall. Fifthly, he oft adds, that nothing ought to be done in the Church without licence of the Bishop, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Let none without the Bishop do any of the things that belong to the Church, instancing in Baptism and the other Sacrament, in Ep. ad Smyr. and so in the Epistles to the Philadel●hians and Trallians. Sixthly, that a convenient reverence and respect is also due to the Presbyters, and to the Deacons, as is every where taken notice of by him, almost in every Epistle.  
And all this and much more we have in the Copies, which are now come, most uncorrupt, unto us, And there is no imaginable way to avoid the force of these Testimonies, and the authority of that holy Martyr for Episcopacy, but the una litura, expunging or casting away the whole volume of Epistles.  
For the truth is, his whole design, before his departure from the world, being this one of divine Charity, to fortify the several stocks, to which he wrote, against the poison of Heretics, the Gnostics, so early creeping in, and despising the Governors of the Church, (as they had done the Apostles themselves) and the Doctrine of the Apostles being by him known to be deposited with the Bishops in each Church, and having particular assurance of the sanctity, and foun● faith of the present Governors of these Churches, to which he writes, He thinks fit to make use of this one most compendious course, most immediately tending to his end, to keep them all in obedience to their Bishops and officers under them, and to make the contrary (as it was indeed) the sure mark of Heretics, whom they were to avoid.  
And so this is it which hath so filled all the Epistles (except that one to the Romans) with continual discourse of the Bishops, etc. And it is evident that in that present conjuncture of affairs, nothing could with more reason and ●tnesse have been insisted on.  
Mean while that I may return to the place from which I have a while diverted, It is so certain and evident of the learned Archbishop of Armagh, that he never disputed against the validity and authority of these Epistles thus purged, that it cannot be unknown to them that thus dispute, what arguments he hath urged for the authority of them, and in like manner what and how satisfactory answers he hath given to the special exceptions of others, which very thing occasioned a particular letter of reply to him from D. blondel, which by that Archbishop's favour I received, and made my rejoinder to it in the 
* Diss. 2. c. 9 Sect 6 etc.  Dissertations.  
This I hope may be sufficient to have said in this matter, instead of undertaking so unreasonable a task of answering any thing asserted by that Archbishop.  
As for that which follows out of him and M. Casaubone of Baronius and the Papists making such use, and placing such confidence in these Epistles above all other Ecclesiastical Monuments, it is speedily answered also out of what is already said, that they were the former corrupt editions, which were abroad in Baronius' time, with all those supposititious additions & interpolations, which the Papists are either by Mr. Casaubone, or that Archbishop said to have made use of; there being no one word or period in this volume, to which my appeal is made, which yieldeth any advantage to the Papists in any point, nor is it, nor can it be pretended by any that it doth, unless by those in whose opinion the maintaining of Bishops is reputed for such. And therefore that very learned man, M. Casaubone, is so far from rejecting all these Epistles, that he distinctly promiseth nonnullaru●n ex illis antiquitatem se novis rationibus tuiturum, that he will, if God permit, defend the antiquity of some of them, by reasons which others had not taken notice of: Exerc. 16. Cont. Baron. Sect. 10. And this promise of his is cited by the Archbishop, Dissert. de Epist Ign. pag. 136. so far is it from all appearance of truth, which is cited as the opinion of these two learned men.  
After all this▪ three Reasons they will briefly off●r, why they cannot build their judgement concerning the Doctrine of the Primitive Church, about Episcopacy upon Ignatius' Epistles.  
1. Because there are divers things quoted out of his Epistles by Athanasius, Gelasiu●, and Theodoret, which are either not to be found in these Epistles or to be found altered and changed, and not according as they are quoted▪ This is Rivets argument, and pursued at large by the Archbishop, to whom we refer the Reader.  
Being among their other Readers referred to the Archbishop of Armagh for the validity and pursuit of this first reason, I shall to him very securely make my appeal, what force there is in it, against the volume of Epistles now twice in several forms published by him. And in the ●rolegomena to the former of them, pag. 15, 16 etc. this is most evident that the passages cited by Athanasius, Gelasius, and Theodoret, which were not indeed to be found in the former printed Greek copies, are exactly discerned and evidenced by him to be in the old latin Interpreter, which he therefore thought fit to publish both out of Caius College and Bishop Montacutes Library. The same hath he farther shown, cap 4. pag. 19 etc. out of the same and other of the Ancients, Eusebius, Hierome, etc. and set down the places in columns, by way of parallel, to demonstrate the agreement of this Copy with the genuine Ignatius.  
And is it not a little strange, that I should be now referred to that Archbishop for the pursuit of this argument, which he hath so distinctly proved to be of no force against the Copy which now I use, but to concur in demonstrating the purity of it?  
Their second Reason they draw from his overmuch extolling himself in his Epistle to the Trallians, where he saith that he had attained to such a measure of knowledge, that he understood heavenly things, the orders of Angels, the differences of Archangels, and of the heavenly host, the differences between powers and dominations, the distances of thrones and powers, the Magnificencies or Magnitudes of Aeones or Principalities, the sublimity of the Spirit, the excellencies of Cherubims and Seraphims, the Kingdom of the Lord, and the incomparable Divinity of the Lord God almighty. All these things I know, and yet am not perfect, etc. Now who is there that can believe that such arrogant boasting can proceed from such an holy man, and humble Saint, as Ignatius was?  
And who would believe that the writer of this Appendix, which had cited the Archbishop of Armagh in his Prologomena to his first Edition of Ignatius, and so could not but be able to have consulted that Edition, should thus think to defame, and blast the whole volume of Epistles, for one such periods sake, which is not to be discerned in this, or that Archbishop's latter, or in Vossius' edition of them, to which only he must know we make our appeal for Episcopacy?  
In these Copies the words are quite distant from what is here cited, and in effect, directly contrary to them, evidences of the greatest humility, now when he was so near the honour of Martyrdom, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, For I am not, because (or in that) I am in bonds able also to understand heavenly things, the Positions of Angels, their assemblies of Principalities (or of the Rulers of them) both things visible and invisible. Besides this, I am yet also a Disciple, etc. What arrogance, I pray, or boasting is there in this? and yet he adds no more in that place but only, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, For many things are wanting to us that we may not be left behind by God, thinking himself utterly unworthy of the honour (and fearing he may yet miss of it) to suffer Martyrdom for him. And so much for the second Reason.  
The third (which, say they, is most for our purpose) is from his over eager and over-anxious defence of the Episcopal Hierarchy, which he doth with such strange and Hyperbolical expressions (as if all Christianity were lost, if Prelacy were not upheld) and with such multiplied repetitions, ad naus●am usque, that we may confidently say as one doth, 
Ceci censure.  Certo certius est has Epistolas vel supp●sitias esse, well ●oede corruptas, and that they do neither agree with those times wherein he wrote, nor with such an holy and humble Martyr as he was. We will instance in some few of them.  
What reasons and design Ignatius had to exhort the Christians, to whom he writes to obedience to their Governors, in the Church, hath already been said at large, this being the only expedient, that, at that time, could be thought on, to keep out most dangerous heresies out of the Church. And therefore what that holy Mart●r did in that kind, when he was carried from his own Church, never to return to it again, cannot be looked on, as the seeking any great things for himself, and so contrary to either his piety or humility, but as a desire full of both those, that the Church of God might enjoy truth and peace, after the beasts had devoured him.  
As for the strange and hyperbolical expressions, mentioned in the objection, and exemplified in the two following pages, the Reader must again be told, that what they had done most unreasonably before, is here practised again at large, several places brought out of the former corrupt editions of Ignatius, of which no one word is to be found in the new editions out of the most ancient Copies Greek and Latin, from which alone it is evident that we produce all our testimonies for Episcopacy, and so have produced very few of those, which they are thus pleased to find fault with.  
The places which they urge, are eight, I shall not need to set them down, but give the leader a much shorter, and yet as satisfactory an account of them. Two are cited from the Epistle to the Trallians, and neither of them are in any part to be found in our Editions. Two are cited from the Epistle to the Magnesians, and the first is not at all in our Editions, nor the second any farther than thus, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. As Christ being one with his Father did nothing without him, either by himself or by his Apostles, so neither do ye act any thing without the Bishop and the Presbyters, nor endeavour that any thing should appear reasonable to you which is private, or of your own devising A speech in every syllable of it, very well becoming that Holy Martyr, written by him at a time, when the truth being by the Apostles deposited with the Bishops, all private devises of their own were most justly to be suspected.  
The fifth is in the Epistle to Polycarpe, and is in our Copies thus, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. It becomes the men that marry, and the women that are married, to consummate their union with the consent of the Bishop. And I wonder what age of the Church there hath been from that time to this, which hath not been of the same opinion. For what is by Bishops committed to Presbyters, that is not done 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, without the mind of the Bishop (as elsewhere in those Epistles appears of Baptism and the Lords Supper, neither of which, saith he, are to be meddled with without the consent of the Bishop, and many testimonies out of Antiquity are 
* See N●m. 55.  elsewhere produced in perfect conformity therewith.) And consequently, if in the Christian Church, marriage hath always been consummated by the Priest or Presbyter, then cannot this speech of Ignatius have any blame in it.  
And that thus it hath been through all ages, there is little matter of question (and no word here produced by the Objectors to the contrary) * Tertullian will be a good competent tostimonie for the next Centurie, 
Ad Uxor. l. 2. c. ult.  speaking of the felicity of the Christian Marriage, quod Ecclesia conciliat, & confirmat oblatio, & obsignat benedictio, Angeli renuntiant, etc. Which the Church makes, the Sacrament of the Lords Supper confirms, the benediction of the Priest Seales, and the Angels pronounce valid. And in * another place, 
De Pudic. c. 4.  Penes nos occultae co●junctiones, i. e. non prius apud Ecclesiam professa, juxta moechiam & fornicationem judicari periclitantur, Marriages that are not done publicly before the Church, are in danger with us, to go for adultery and fornication.  
The same is every where to be found in the Decretal Epistles of Euaristus, about Ignatius' time (which makes it a tradition from the Apostles and their successors) of Soter not above 50. years after, of Callistus near fifty years after him, of Silvester an 100 years after him, of Siricius 70. years after Silvester, of Hormisdas 130. years after Siricius: And though some of these be by D. Blondel thought to be of later dates than the titles of them would pretend, yet the authority of most of them is unquestioned, as to this matter.  
And the ancient piece lately published by Sirmund concerning the Heresy of the Predestinatis, written, saith he, 1200. years since, speaks of it, as a known custom and Canon of the Church, over all the world, For, saith that ancient author, If marriage be unlawful, Emendate ergo Ecclesia regul●m, damnate qui in toto orbe sunt, sacerdotes, Nuptiarum initia benedicentes, consecrantes, & in Dei mysteriis sociantes, Amend then the rule the of Church, and condemn the Priests which are in all the world, who bless the beginnings of Marriage, consecreate, and join the parties together with the Holy Sacrament.  
And the fourth Council of Carthage, before the year 400. hath these words, Sponsus & sponsa cum benedicendi sunt à sacerdote— When the Bridegroom and the Bride are to be blest by the Priest, Can. 13. And for latter ages the matter is out of Question.  
And so it will be much more reasonable, from this passage in Ignatius, being found so perfectly concordant with other passages of the times so near him, to resolve the rule of the Church concerning sacerdotal benediction in marriage to be received from the Apostles and their successors, than from finding this speech in one of Ignatius' Epistles, to cast away the whole volume.  
As for that which is added at the end of this testimony from the Epistle to Polycarpe, My soul for theirs, that obey the Bishop, Presbyters and Deacons, there can be no fault in that, supposing as hath been said, that the Bishops at that time, & the Presbyters & Deacons living regularly and in union with them, had the true safe way among them, wherein any man might walk confidently, all danger being from the Heresies that crept in, and broke men off from that unity of the faith.  
The sixth place from the Epistle to the Philadelphians, of the Princes and Emperors obeying the Bishop, is certainly inserted by forgery in the former, for not one word of it, or like it, is to be found in our editions.  
So likewise for both parts of the seventh place out of the Epistle to the Smyrnaeans, they are not to be found in our Editions.  
The last only is to be met with there, but that in a much more moderate strain, than the former, in words and sense very agreeable to wholesome doctrine, and the exigencies of those times, wherein there was no visible way to keep out the tares of false teachers, but by requiring all to be kept to the managery of the true husbandman. And accordingly I have cited this very speech out of Ignatius for the asserting of Prelacy (and if there were no such, the Epistles might pass well enough with these, as with all other men, they would have needed no vindication, having no adversary) The words are these, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉— All of you follow the Bishop as Christ Jesus did his Father (i. e. as elsewhere appears by the like expression, with [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] added to it, be at perfect unity of doctrine, etc. with the Bishop, as Christ was with God the Father) and the Presbytery as the Apostles, and reverence the Deacons as those that are appointed by God, (viz. mediately by the Apostles.  
Where it may be observable, that the obiectors which find such fault with this speech of Ignatius in their quarrelling with it, leave out this latter part of Presbytery and Deacons; they cannot find in their hearts to quarrel, or accuse him for bidding them follow the Presbytery as the Apostle, the only crime was to bid them follow the Bishop (not, as Christ in the dative, i. e. as they follow Christ, but) as Christ follows his Father, the only piacular offence, to recommend unity with, and obedience to the Bishop. But that by the way.  
It follows in the place, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Let no Man without the Bishop do aught which belongs to the Church, Let that be accounted a firm Eucharist, which is done by the Bishop, or him whom the Bishop shall permit. Where the Bishop appears there let the multitude be, as where Christ is, there is the Catholic Church, It is not lawful without the Bishop (i. e. as before, without commission from him) either to Baptise or Administer the Eucharist, but what he approves of (thus in these public Ministrations) that is well pleasing to God, that it may be sa●e and firm whatsoever is done; It doth well that men know God and the Bishop. (as their Ruler under God, with whom his truth is by the Apostles deposited) he that honours the Bishop, is honoured by God, he that doth any thing clancularly without him, serves the Devil (performs a very acceptable service to him; For so in a very eminent manner the Heretics of that age, the Gnostics did, which secretly infused their devilish Leaven, and deadly poison into men's hearts, by which they took them quite from Christ, but could not have done so successfully, if this Holy Martyr's counsel here had been taken.)  
What inconvenience can be imagined consequent to our affirming that Ignatius was the author of these words, I confess not to comprehend; Of this there is no question, but that it is the ordinary Language of the ancient Church, and accounted necessary in an eminent degree, to preserve unity and truth in the Church, and to hold up the authority of Governors among all, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, The Presbyters and Deacons must do nothing without the mind of the Bishop, Can. Apost. 40. and the reason is added 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, for he is entrusted with the people of the Lord, So in the 56. Canon of Laodicaea, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, The Presbyters must do nothing without the mind of the Bishop, and so in the Council of Arles, Can. 19 The Presbyters must do nothing in any Diocese sine Episcopi sententia, without the Bishop's mind, and sine authoritate literarum ejus, without authority of his Letter●.  
All that is here offered by them to make the like words in Ignatius a competent charge, upon which to throw away the whole volume of Epistles, is only this, If this be true Doctrine, what shall become of all the Reformed Churches, especially the Church of Scotland, which (as John Major saith lib. 2. Histor. de Gestis Scotorum, c 2.) was after its first conversion to the Christian faith above 230 years without Episcopal Government.  
To this double question I might well be allowed to render no answer, It being certainly very extrinsecall to the Question in hand, (which is only this, whether Ignatius wrote or wrote not those Epistles) to examine what shall become of the Reformed Churches, etc. It were much more reasonable for me to demand of the Objectors, who suppose their Presbyterial platform, as that is opposed to Episcopal, to be settled in the Church by Divine Right, If this Doctrine be true, what did become of all those Primitive Churches all the World over, which they confess departed from this model, and set up the contrary, and so of all the succeeding ages of the Church for so many 100 years, till the Reformation, and since that also, of all the other Churches, which do not thus far imitate Mr. Calvin, casting out the Government by Bishops?  
Is it not as reasonable that they should be required to give a fair and justifiable account of their dealing with (and judging, post factum, of) all these, as I should be obliged to reconcile Ignatius his speech concerning his present age, with the conveniencies of the Reformed Churches, which he could neither see, nor be deemed to speak of, nor consequently to pass judgement on them by divination.  
What they were guilty of which secretly infused their poison into Men and Women in his age, and would not let the Bishop the Governor of the Church, be the Judge of their Doctrines and practices, he here tells us, viz. That they performed service to the Devil, in stealing men's hearts from Christ; But what crime it was in those of Corinth, and through all Achaia, to turn their Bishops out of their places, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to cast them out of their Episcopacy their Office and Ministration, this he tells them not in that place, Clemens Romanus had done it competently in his Epistle.  
As for the particular case of those Reformed Churches, which have done more than so, not only cast out their present Governors, but over and above utterly cast off the Government itself, there had been I confess, a great deal said, both in this and other places of Ignatius, and many other Ancient Writers, who yet never foretold these days, abundantly sufficient to have restrained them from so disorderly proceedings, if they would have pleased to have harkened to such moderate counsels. But having not done so, Ignatius hath gone no farther, he is only a witness against them, he undertook not the Office of a ●udge so far beyond his Province, hath pronounced no sentence upon them.  
And to proceed one degree farther, to the successors of those in the Reformed Churches (as many as are justly unblamable for treading in their Leaders steps) though I may truly say, they have as little taken that Hol● Martyrs advise, and more than so, that they have retained a considerable corruption in their Churches, and that they should do well, if now they know how, to restore themselves to that meddle, which they find every where exemplified in Ignatius, yet till they shall have done so, I know that they are exactly capable of being concerned in any part of these words, last cited from Ignatius.  
For they that have no Bishop at all, cannot be required to do nothing without consulting with the Bishop; They are justly to be blamed, as far as they are guilty, that they have no Bishop; but then that is their crime (and they are to reform it as soon as they please) but that being supposed, this of not consulting the Bishop, while they have none, is no new crime, nor liable of itself to the censure of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here, which was affixed to those that had Bishops, and would not have their Doctrines examined by that standard, of which they were the Depositaries. And this is as much as is needful to be said in this place for that first inconvenience affixed to Ignatius' words.  
As for the other, the Church of Scotland in its first conversion, the matter again is so remote from the task we have now in hand, for the vindicating the Authority of Ignatius' volume of Epistles, and withal so uncertainly set down by Authors, that it would be unseasonable to engage far in so dark a part of History so impertinently. In brief therefore, though I have not John Major by me to consult, yet I conceive I shall not guess amiss at the grounds, and consequently at the truth and weight of his assertion.  
Joannes Jordanus was of opinion that 
* Demster. Appar ad Hist. Scot l. 1. c. 6.  Paschasius a Sicilian prima Christianae pietatis rudimenta mandante P. Victore in Scotia nuntiavit, first preached the Christian Faith in Scotland by the command of Pope Victor. And this was about the year 203. And 
† Eccle. Hist. l. 1. c. 13.  Bede saith that in the eight year of Theodosius Junior, that is about the year 431, Palladius ad Scotos in Christum credentes a Pontifice Romanae Ecclesiae Coelestino primus mittitur Episcopus, Palladius was by Celestine Bishop of Rome sent first Bishop to the Scots that believed. And the distance betwixt these two terms being 228. years, this I conceive the ground- work of John Major's affirmation here cited, of the 230. years, wherein that Church after it●s first conversion remained without Episcopal Government.  
But first it is to be noted here, that the saying of Jordanus of Paschasius in Victor's days, is no more than this, that he preached the Gospel there, prima rudimenta nuntiavit, declared the first rudiments there, and, as it follows in Demster, tyrocinia fidei fecit, laid the grounds of Christianity among them; And that might be done, and soon moulder away again, and never come to so much maturity, as either to have Bishops or Presbyters constituted among them. And secondly, though Bede say that Palladius was sent to them Episcopus primus, their first Bishop, yet neither he, nor any other affirms that they were formerly ruled by a Presbytery, or so much as that they had any Presbyter among them. Nay thirdly, Demster reports it from Jordanus but slightly, Joh. Jordanus putavit, it was the conceit or opinion of that author. And that which 
* Lib. 8. de signis Eccl. c. 1.  Bozius tells us will take off much from the creditablenesse of that Opinion, Traditur in Scotiâ, quae tunc erat Hibernia, Christi cultum disseminatum eodem tempore quo in Britanniâ, sub annum Christi 203. Victore sedente. They say that the faith of Christ was disseminated in Scotland, which was then Ireland, at the same time that it was in Britanny, about the year 203. in the time of Victor's Papacy.  
By this it appears that the conceit of Jordanus belonged to Ireland, not to Scotland, Ireland being anciently called Scotia (as in 
† Li. 2. c. 4.  Bede we find, Scotorum qui Hiberniam insulam Britanniae proximam incolunt, the Scots which inhabit Ireland, and 
* L. 3. c. c.  Gentes Scotorum quae Australibus Hiberniae partibus morabantur, the Scots which inhabited the Southern parts of Ireland) and that which is now Scotland, was then styled Nova Scotia, to distinguish it from the other. And it is worth remembering that Marianus the Scotch Antiquary had no knowledge of this conversion of Scotland under Victor, 
† See Baron. Annal. Tom. 5. Anno. 429. Sect. 2.  nor is there any show of it in Bede, who tells us of the latter.  
Nay it is yet more evident 
* Adu. Coll●s. in fine.  by Prosper, that 'twas a conversion from barbarous to Christian, which is spokon of in Coelestines time, and that the Faith was planted, and the Bishop constituted there together, Venerabilis memoriae Pontifex ab hoc codem morbo Britannias liberavit, & ordinato Scotis Episcopo, dum Romanam insulam studet servare, Catholicam fecit etiam barbaram Christianam, Pop● Celestine freed Britain from Pelagianisme, and ordained a Bishop for the Scots, and so while he endeavoured to keep a Roman Island within the bounds of the Catholic Faith, he also made a barbarous Island Christian. Which as it differs somewhat from Bedes expression of Palladius' being sent ad credentes, to believers, so it gives us occasion to propose that which may reconcile these seeming differences, viz. 1. That Christanity was planted in Scotland before Caelestine's time, derived to them most probably from their Neighbours the Britain's here, with whom they are 
* See Bede l. 2. c. 4. Scotos nihil discripar● à Britonibus in eorum conversatione didicimus, and c. 19 & l. 3. c. 3. Hoc enim ordine septentrionalis Scotorum Provincia & ●●nis n●tio Pictorū Pascha Dominicum ●●lebrabat.  known to have agreed in the keeping of Easter, contrary to the custom of the Roman Church, and so cannot be deemed to have received the first Rudiments of their conversion from Rome: Then secondly, that this Plantation was very imperfect, differing little from Barbarism, and so reputed by Prosper, till the coming of Bishop Palladius among them. Thirdly, that even after that, they retained the usage of Easter, contrary to the Roman custom, which still refers to some rude conversion of theirs before Palladius.  
By all this it is cleared to us, what is to be thought of John Major's affirmation, which hath now very little appearance of truth in it, and if it had, would be little for the Presbyterian interest to insist on it, when after all that time of the supposed government of that Church by Presbyters, it was found directly barbarous, and to be planted with Christianity anew, at Palladius'● coming.  
Some uncertainty we see there is of the time and means of planting Christianity in Scotland, 
69▪  but as to this matter of the 230. years under Presbytery, there can be no ground to affirm it; For if the conversion of it be dated from Victor's time, as that opinion would have it, yet even by that account 'twas after the space, wherein the Presbyterians themselves acknowledge Episcopacy to have prevailed over all the World; and then, upon that account, it must be granted, that whensoever their first conversion was, 'twas certainly derived to them by those who had Episcopal Government among them, and then they having sent them Presbyters to instruct and officiate (as Presbyters not as Bishops) among them, those Presbyters must be supposed to have continued under those Bishops by whom they were sent, whether from Rome, or nearer home from the British, so far at least, as that when they failed, their number was supplied from the same Fountain from which they first sprang, (in the same manner as our own experience tells us of Virginia, which since the first Plantation continued to receive Presbyters from hence) and so continued to be, until they had Bishops ordained and planted among them. And so much for that second supposed inconvenience also.   

Sect. IU.  
Of Salmasius' conceit that these Epistles were written at the time of Episcopacy first entering the Church.  
THat which follows of the Justice of the Reverend Presbyterian Divines censure of these Epistles, & of Salmasius' his belief, that they were written by a Pseudo-Ignatius, will not require any answer from me, who cannot be moved by the conclusion made by those Divines, any farther than the Premises here produced and answered, have appeared to have force in them, and who have more largely examined Salmasius his exceptions heretofore, and was even now by them acknowledged so to have done, and nothing yet replied to my answers, and therefore must not for ever turn the same stone, begin the same task again.  
But for the conceit which is here cited from Salmasius, which I confess I considered not so much before, as to make any reply to it, viz. That these Epistles were written when Episcopacy, properly so called, came into the church, and that proved from hence, because in all his Epistles he speaks highly in honour of Presbytery as well as of Episcopacy, that so the people, that had been accustomed to the Presbyterian Government, might the more willingly and easily receive this now Government by Episcopacy, and not be offended at the novelty of it. It is evident how easily this may be retorted, and the argument as firmly form to conclude, that Presbyters were then newly come into the Church, and therefore to make the people inclinable to give them a willing Reception, without being offended at the novelty of them, he still speaks highly in honour of Episcopacy.  
Such Arguments as these you will guess from hence, how incompetent they are to conclude matters of fact, done so many hundred years ago, (such is the question, whether Ignatius wrote these Epistles or no) It is much more probable that they wanted Arguments of any real validity, who are fain to fly to such Succours as these.  
Yet one farther misadventure there is, in forming or making use of this conceit, For what is said in those Epistles concerning the honour due to Presbyters or the Presbytery, is far from looking favourably on the Presbyterian Government, for certainly as long as there is a Bishop, properly so called, set over the Presbyters, as they know there is in all those Epistles, and as long as the Presbyters are to do nothing without commission from him (as they knew also (and even now quarrelled at it) that by him they are required to do) there is little show of the Presbyterian model discernible, no whit more, than there was in England long before they covenanted to cast the Bishops out of the Church, It being certain that no community or equality of Presbyters taken into council with the Bishop, doth constitute the Government Presbyterian, as long as there be any Bishops to have power over Presbyters; Else had the Convocation of Deans, Archdoacons and Clerks, fourteen years ago, been the platform of Presbyterian Government in England.  
This is, I conceive, a full answer to every the most minute part or appearance of Argument here produced against these Epistles, and is all that was proper here to be said concerning Ignatius, whose Epistles as long as they have any authority with us, let it be in the most Reformed, purified Edition, that ever was, or can be hoped for, there is evidence enough for the Apostolical Institution of Bishops in the modern notion of the word, And if after all this they must have no authority, for no other crime, but because they are such punctual Asserters of this Doctrine; 'Tis to little purpose farther to examine or inquire, what Antiquity hath affirmed or practised in this matter.   

Sect. V.  
Testimonies of Irenaeus, The use of Presbyteri for Bishops.  
YEt because their Method leads us forward to consider some other of the Ancient Writers, and I have promised so far to comply with them, I shall now in the next place attend them to the view of two of those, Irenaeus and Tertullian, p. 114. 115. where having acknowledged of them that they say that Apostles made Bishops in Churches, Polycarpe in Smyrna, Clemens at Rome, etc. all that they require of us to prove, is, that by the word Bishop is meant a Bishop as distinct from Presbyters, and the reason why they think this needs proving, is, because both those Authors use the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Bishops, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Presbyteri, Seniores, for the same thing, the one calling Anicetus, Pius, Hyginus, Telesphorus, Xystus, Presbyters of the Church of Rome in his Epistle to Victor; the other calling the Precedents of the Churches Seniores in his Apology, and some other places are produced to the same purpose.  
To this therefore I shall now briefly give answer, i. e, by concession that the same persons, who by these two Authors are called Bishops, are promiscuously called Presbyteri and Seniores also; And therefore secondly, that this question being thus far (as to the Names) equally balanced between us, they saying that Bishops] signifies Presbyters in the modern notion, we that Presbyters] signifies Bishops in the modern notion, some other Indications, beside this of the Names, must be made use of on either side, toward the decision of it.  
Of this sort there is no one offered to us by them, and so as they have nothing to incline the balance their way, so we have nothing to make answer to in that particular. I shall therefore (as the only thing left for me to do) render some few Reasons, why the words Bishop and Elders in these Authors must needs signify Bishops in our Modern sense.  
And the first proof, as far as concerns Ironaeus, is, because Irenaeus, who useth these words promiscuously, was himself a Bishop in our modern notion, and yet is by others in his own days called Elder of the Church of Lions, at that very time, when he is acknowledged to be Bishop of it, in our modern sense of the word; This I thus manifest in each part.  
And first, That Irenaeus was Bishop of Lions, in such a sense, as we now use Bishop, appears by what 
* L. 5. c. 23.  Eusebius saith of him, importing that he was Primate of all France, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, saith he▪ he was Bishop of the Provinces through France: Now this, we know, cannot be affirmed of a modern Presbyter, who pretends not to any such wide and singular jurisdiction; And this needs no farther proof, it being by D. blondel in his Apology for St. Hierome confessed, that 140. years after Christ, i.e. nigh 40. years before this time, the Government of the Church was in the hands of Bishops over all the World, one in every Church set over all the rest of the Church.  
For the second part then, that at that time, when he is thus an acknowleged Bishop and Archbishop, he is yet called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Elder of the Church, I appeal to the Testimony of the Gallicane Church, at that time, as it lies recorded in 
† L. 5. c. 4.  Eusebius, where in an Embassy performed by him in the name of the Martyrs of Lions to Elentherius the Bishop of Rome, we have these words concerning him, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. We have entreated our Brother and partaker Irenaeus to bear these Letters to you, O Father Eleutherius, and we beseech you to prise him at one very zealous of Christ's Covenant; If we thought that Justice would purchase a place to any, we had commended him in a principal manner, as Elder of the Church, for so he is.  
Here nine years after he had been Bishop and Archbishop of Lions, about the year of Christ 177. he is styled by those Letters, Elder of the Church; by which it appears that in his time Elder was the title of Bishop, in our Modern sense, and consequently so it may fitly signify in his own writings, and so must needs do there, when 'tis applied to those, who were acknowleged Bishops at that time, when by the Presbyterians acknowledgement Episcopacy was come in, in that notion, wherein we now understand it.  
A second proof of this, is, that what in one place out of Papias he saith of all the Seniores or Elders, which in Asia conversed with St. John, that Clemens Alexandrinus, who lived in the same time, affirms of the Bishops or Elders of Asia; meaning by both of them the Bishops in our notion of the word.  
Clemens Alexandrinus wrote his Stromata about the year 192. which is five years before Irenaeus Martyrdom, in the 5. of Severus. Now of this Clemens, it is certain, 1. That he acknowleged the three Orders in the Church, which he calls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 
Strom. 6.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the three degrees or promotions in the Church, of Bishops, Presbyters, Deacons, and consequently must by the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 understand Bishops in our modern sense.  
Secondly, that when he makes the Relation of John's meeting with the Bishops of Asia (which is the same matter which Irenaeus produceth out of Papias) he calls them in the same period both Elders and Bishops indifferently, For speaking of St. John he hath this passage, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉— Coming to a City not far off— and looking on the Bishop, which was constituted over all, seeing a young man, he said, This person I commit to thee— And the Elder took him home, brought him up baptised, and at last gave him confirmation.  
Here it is evident this Elder of Asia, one of those which, in Irenaeus, conversed with Saint John, is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a Bishop constituted over all in that City; and agreeably when Saint John comes back that way again, he calls to him by that title, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, O Bishop, render us the depositum, which both I and Christ delivered to thee in the presence of the Church, over which thou art set. Where again he that is called Elder both by him and Irenaeus, is also by him called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Bishop set over the Church. And so that is a second evidence of it.  
Thirdly, In his Epistle to Victor Bishop of Rome, he speaks of his Predecessors thus, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉— The Elders which were set over the Church which thou rulest, Anicetus, Pius, Hyginus, and Telesphorus, and lib. 3. cap. 3 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉— The blessed Apostles having founded and built the Church of Rome, put the Episcopal office into the hands of Linus, Anacletus succeeded him, Clemens Anacletus, Evarestus Clemens, Alexander Evarestus, than Xystus the sixth from the Apostles, after him Telesphorus, than Hyginus, than Pius, after him Anicetus, after Anicetus, Soter; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Now in the twelfth place Eleutherus possesses the Bishopric from the Apostles.  
Here 1. it is evident that every one first named as Elders, are yet single persons, one succeeding another, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 set over, or ruling the Church of Rome: Secondly, That for twelve successions together they are by Irenaeus looked upon all, as of the same rank, succeeding one another, and the first as well as the last, called Bishop, which must conclude it to be understood by him in such a notion, as is equally compatible to all, and so must be in our modern notion, if the great Asserters of the Presbyterian cause say true, that about the year 140. i e. certainly before Elutherius was Bishop of Rome, there were Bishops over Presbyters all the world over.  
Lastly, 
* L. 4. c. 44.  Irenaeus, speaking of some unworthy voluptuous Elders, expresseth their faults in such a manner, as cannot fitly belong to any but Bishops, Principalis concessionis tumore elati sunt, they are puffed up with the ●ride of the principal place, the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the principal chair, which as Bishops belonged to them. ●or though it is as possible that Presbyters should be guilty of the pride, the tumour and elation, as that Bishops should be guilty of the same, yet the occasion of it there mentioned, the principalis consessio, the chief place of dignity, is peculiar to the one, and not reconcileable with the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or equality of the other.  
These evidences have readily offered themselves to show what Irenaeus means by Presbyteri, when he useth that and Bishops promiscuously, viz. by both, Bishops in our modern notion, and he that shall read over that author diligently, and compare his dialect with Polycarpe and Papias, with whom he accords, the former using 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for Bishops (as hath largely been insisted on) and the latter for Apostles and Bishops, single Governors of each Church, (
* Euseb. l. 3. c. 39  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and elsewhere 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Andrew, Peter, Aristion, John, Mark, all Elders) will doubtless find many more proofs that thus he used the word, and (I shall adventure to undertake) meet with no one indication to the contrary.   

Sect. V.  
Testimonies of Tertullian. Seniores, & Majores natu for Bishops, so in Firmilian.  
AS for Tertullian I shall need say no more, but that it is the confession of the great Patron of Presbyterians, 
D Blondel Apol. pag. 38.  that he doth aperte tueri communiusu receptam ordinis in Episcopos, Presbyteros & Diaconos, distinctionem. Openly defend the received common distinction of the Ecclesiastic order into Bishops, Presbyters and Deacons, and he that can yet doubt of it, let him examine his citations, de Prescript. cap. 41. de Baptism cap 17. de Monogam. cap. 11. de Fuga c. 11. And that de Baptismo as high & clear, as that which was most quarrelled with in Ignatius. Dandi Baptismum jus habit summus sacerdos, qui est Episcopus, dein Presbyteri & Diaconi, non tamen sine Episcopi authoritate, propter honorem Ecclesiae, quo salvo salva pax est. The Bishop hath the right of giving Baptism, after him the Presbyters and Deacons, yet not without the authority of the Bishop, for the honour of the Church, which being preserved, peace is preserved.  
So that of him it is as clear, as of Irenaeus or Clemens, that he must understand Bishop in our Modern notion: And yet even by him, these of this uppermost degree are called Seniores, and Majores natu, Elders, President probati quique Seniores, the Elders praeside, Apol. c. 39 and of the Bishops of Rome, the series of whom he had brought down to Anicetus, lib. 3. contr. Martion. cap. 9 he expresses them by Majores natu, successors of the Apostles, in his Book, written in verse, against Martion.  
And there will be less wonder in this, when it is remembered that after this in Saint Cyprian's times (who hath been sufficiently evidenced to speak of Bishops in our modern notion of them) Firmilian Bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia, in vulgar style calls them Seniores, and Praepositi, Elders, and Provosts, in his Epistle to Cyprian, and again President Majores natu, etc. the Elders praeside, evidently meaning the Bishops by those titles.  
And so much be spoken in return to what they have objected from these two Ancients, Irenaeus and Tertullian, supposing that I have competently performed the task by them imposed on the Praelatists, showed that the Bishops spoken of by them, were Bishops over Presbyters, and by them understood to be so▪   

Sect. VI.  
Saint Jerom's Testimony of Bishops, etc. by Apostolical Tradition. Consuetudo opposed to Dominica dispositio. Saint Jerom's meaning evidenced by many other Testimonies to be, that Bishops were instituted by the Apostles. So by Panormitan also. The Testimonies of Isidore, etc. the Council of Aquen, and of Leo vindicated. Of Ischyras' Ordination. The testimony of the Synod ad Zurrium, and of the 4th Council of Carthage.  
IN the next place I am to proceed to that of Saint Hierome in his 85. Epistle ad Euagrium, the unanswerableness of which I am affirmed to make matter of Triumph over D. Blondel and Walo Massalinus, seeming to say, that it never can be answered, whereas say they, if I had been pleased to cast an eye upon the vindication— written by Smectymnuus, I should have found this answer—  
What this answer is, we shall see anon, In the mean it will be necessary to give a brief account, what it was, which is called a triumphing over these two learned men.  
And first it is sufficiently known, what advantages the defenders of Presbyter● conceive themselves to have from that one Ancient writer, the Presbyter Saint Hierome: From him they have the interpretation of those Scriptures, which they think to be for their use, as that the word Bishop and Presbyter are all one in several texts of Scripture, and both signify Presbyters, and that the Apostles at first designed, ut communi Presbyterorū concilio Ecclesiae gubernarentur, that the Churches should be governed by the common Council of Presbyters, and that it so continued till upon the dissensions, which by this means arose in the Church, it was judged more prudent and useful to the preserving of unity, ut unus superponeretur reliquis, that one should be set over the rest, and all the care of the Church belong to him, And this, saith Hierome, in toto Orbe decretum, decreed and executed over the whole world.  
By whom this was conceived, by him to be thus decreed, he gives us not to understand in that place, nor in what point of time he thought it was done, but leaves us to collect both from some few circumstances; as 1. that it was after Schisms entered into the Church, and one said I am Paul, I of Apollo's, etc. And if it were immediately after that, than the Presbyterians will gain but little by this Patron: For his whole meaning will be, that the Apostles first put the Government of each Church into the hands of many, but soon saw the inconvenience of doing so, and the Schism and ruptures consequent to it, and changed it themselves, and settled one singular Bishop in the whole power of Government in every Church, to which very fitly coheres what Clement had said, that lest new contentions should arise about this singular dignity and authority who should succeed to it, they made a roll or Catalogue of those, which in vacancies should succeed in each Church.  
That this was not, in Hierome's opinion, done thus early in the Apostles time, the Presbyterians think they may conclude from what he saith on Tit. 1. Episcopi noverint se magis consuetudine quam dispositionis Dominicae veritate Presbyteris esse Majores, Let Bishops know that their greatness and superiority over Presbyters is held rather by custom, than by Christ's having disposed it so. But it is very possible that this may not prove the conclusion, which is thought to be inferred by it, For here Consuetudo, Custom, as opposed to Christ's disposition, may well signify the Practice of the Church in the later part of the Apostles times, and ever since to S. Hierome's days, and that may well be severed from all command, or institution of Christ's, & so Jerom's opinion may well be this, that Christ did not ordain this superiority of one above another, but left all in common in the Apostles hands, who within awhile, to avoid Schism, put the power in each Church in the hands of some one singular person.  
And that this was Hierome's meaning, I thought myself, in charity to him, obliged to think, both because in this sense his words would better agree with the universal affirmation of all Orthodox Christians, that before him (and after him too, unless those few that took it on his credit) speak of this matter, and also, because if this be not his sense, he must needs be found to contradict himself, having elsewhere affirmed that the three degrees of Bishops, Presbyters and Deacons in the Church were of Apostolical tradition, i. e. by the Apostles themselves delivered to the Church.  
And now before I proceed, I desire the ingenuous Reader, who is contrary minded, to consider, what he can object to this conclusion of mine thus inferred concerning S. Hierome's opinion, and consequently what probability there is, that the Presbyterians 'cause should be superstructed on any Testimony of S. Hierome, supposing what I am next to demonstrate, that the three orders are by him acknowledged to be delivered from the Apostles.  
And this is evident in his Epistle to Euagrius, where having again delivered the substance of what hath been now cited from his notes on Tit. 1. he yet concludes, Et ut sciamus-traditiones Apostolicas sumptas de veteritestamento, Quod Aaron & filii ejus atque Levitae in temple fuerunt, hoc sibi Episcopi & Presbyteri & Diaconi in Ecclesiâ vendicent. That we may know that the Apostles traditions are taken out of the Old Testament, we have this instance, that what Aaron and his Sons and the Levites were in the Temple, the same the Bishops and Presbyters and Deacons challenge to themselves in the Church. Where these three degrees (and so the superiority of Bishops over Presbyters) are by him affirmed to be traditions of the Apostles.  
On occasion therefore of enquiring into Hierome's meaning (and because this place so readily offered itself to expedite it) it was sure very reasonable to examine, and observe, what they which made most advantage of Hierome's authority, should be found to say to this testimony of his, for the Apostolical tradition of three orders. And among these, three principal persons offered themselves to our consideration, D. blondel, Walo Messalinus, or Salmasius, and Lud. Capellus, every of them having newly written on this subject, and collected especially what Jerome had said of it.  
Of these three the last was soon discerned to have dealt most prudently, setting down the other testimonies out of him, but wholly omitting this; The other two having not been so wary, made use of another dexterity, set down the words, but deferred their observations on them, till some fitter season; D. blondel put it off to his sixth Section, whereas upon examination he hath but three in his whole book, and so is certainly never likely to speak of it, nor can be justly believed to have, in earnest designed any such thing: The other saith, he expects more and better notes on it from Salmasius (i.e. from himself) in another book, viz. De Ecclesiastico Ordine, and after a great volume come out of that subject 8. or 9 years after, he yet never takes this place, or his own promise into consideration.  
This was all that my search produced, and the taking notice of these plain matters of fact, the behaviours of these men in that, which so much concerned the whole cause to be taken notice of, and laid to heart, is all that was done by me, and which is styled by these a triumphing over those learned Men. And I hope there was little of hard measure, and as little of insolence in this.  
Now because what these learned Men thus averted the doing, is yet here said to be done by Smectymnuus, and that if I had cast an eye on the vindication— I should there have found that place of Hierome's answered, I am now in the last place to obey their directions, and consider the answer, which from Smectymnuus they have set down for me.  
And it is twofold, the first is a civil denial that there is any truth in the words, For, say they, It is hard to conceive how this imparity can be properly called an Apostolical Tradition, when Jerome, having mentioned John the last of the Apostles, saith it was postea, that one was set over the rest.  
But is this the way of answering the place, or salving the difficulty? Hierome saith, Bishops, Presbyters and Deacons in the Church (that sure is this imparity) are an Apostolical Tradition; and they answer, It is hard to conceive how it can be properly so called. What is this but to make Hierom's words (as soon as ever he saith any thing which accords not with their interest) as unreconcilable with truth, as with his own former words, which they had cited from him? And then how much kinder to Hierome was I than they, who thought it necessary to affix a commodious meaning to his former words, and interpret confuetudo] the custom of the Church begun in the Apostles days, that so in thus saying, he might be reconcileable with himself, when he called Episcopacy a tradition Apostolical?  
As for the reason, which makes this so hard for them to conceive from Hierome's words, I believe it hath no force in it; For though after the mention of S. John's words in his second and third Epistle, he saith that [postea, afterwards] this imparity was introduced, yet this proves not his opnion to be, that it was not Apostolical tradition; It might be done after the writing of those Epistles, and yet in St. John's time, i. e. before his death. And though I believe St. Hierome was mistaken, in thinking there were no Bishops till then (it would have had more truth in it, if he had said there were no Presbyters till then) yet for all that, I cannot doubt but this was his opnion, because as he no where saith any thing which is contrary to this, so here be saith expressly that it was Apostolical tradition, which in his opinion it could not be, if it were not in the Church, in his opinion, before St. John's death. And so there is but little appearance of validity in their first Answer.  
And for their second, that is somewhat like the former, viz. that with Hierome Apostolical tradition and Ecclesiastical custom are the same.  
If this be true, then certainly I did not amiss in thinking that when Hierome used consuetudo custom in opposition to Dominica dispositio, Christ's appointment or institution, I ought to interpret custom in that place, by Apostolical Tradition in the other. For how Ecclesiastical custom with him, and Apostolical Tradition should be the same, and yet Ecclesiastical custom may not be interpreted by Apostolical tradition, especially when the same man affirms them both of the same thing, I confess I cannot apprehend.  
But than secondly, because I must suppose, that by making them the same, they must mean to bring down Apostolical tradition to signify Ecclesiastical custom, not to advance custom to signify Apostolical tradition (in the same manner as when they make Bishop and Elder the ●ame, they bring down Bishop to signify Presbyter, but will not allow Elder to signify Bishop) that also will be worth examining a while.  
And 1. Can there be any reason to imagine, that Hierome or any man should set down that for an instance of Apostolical tradition, which the same person doth not believe to be delivered by the Apostles, but to be of a latter date? That which is delivered by the Apostles, and received, and practised by the Church, may fitly be called a custom of the Church, without adding or specifying, that we mean the Apostolical Church, because the Apostles, while they lived, were a part of the Church, and the following age was a part of the Church also. But can it be truly said, that that was delivered by the Apostles, which was only accustomed in the subsequent Church, and not so much as introduced under the Apostles?  
This certainly is another strange way of interpreting words or phrases quite contrary to all Lexicons, or to the use of such words or phrases, which unless they be changed, it is as much as to say, he that said Tradition Apostolical, did not mean Tradition Apostolical; And this sure will bring little credit to St. Hierome, on whose authority they so much depend in this matter.  
As for their proof of what they say, viz. because the observation of Lent, which he saith, ad Marcellum, is Apostolica traditio, is contra Luciferianos, said by him to be Ecclesiae consuetudo,] that sure is not of force to conclude what they would have it, for it may be (or by him be deemed to be) both, an Apostolical tradition and a custom of the hurch too, it being very ordinary and reasonable, that what the Apostles delivered, the Church should also accustom, and practice. But could both these be said by him of that which he thought were but one of these? That is again to make him testify against his conscience, to say Lent was an Apostolical tradition, and to believe it was not an Apostolical tradition.  
Here I shall not need debate whether the observation of Lent were Apostolical, or no; All that is necessary to insist on, is, whether Saint Hierome, that said it was such, believed it to be such, And if he be mistaken in his belief, than he may be as well mistaken in the meaning of those passages, which he interprets so, as is useful to, and in favour of the Presbyterians, as that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Elders, Act. 20. were the Presbyters of the Church of Ephesus; that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Bishops, Phil. 1. are Presbyters of that one Church or City, and the like. For either of those is but his belief or persuasion too, and the more fallible they find him in other things, the less weight they ought to lay on his opinion in this, and the less blame on us, for departing from his opinion.  
But having said this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, for the repelling all force of their objection, I shall now add some other testimonies out of Saint Hierome, and after them, one argument, ad homines undeniable, to demonstrate, that it was indeed and without question S. Hierome's opinion, that Bishops in our modern notion were instituted by the Apostles themselves.  
1. In his 54. Epistle he sets down this difference among others, between the Catholics and the Montanist heretics, Apud nos Apostolorum locum tenent Episcopi, apud eos Episcopus tertius est, Among the Catholics the Bishops (such as were in S. Hierome's time, i. e. certainly such as in ours not mere Presbyters) hold the place of the Apostles (i. e. the uppermost place in the Church of Christ, and succeed the Apostles in it) and among those Heretics the Bishop is the third, which it seems was one character of their being Heretics, and so a deviation from an Apostolical truth.)  
2. In this Book, de script. Eccl●s● he saith of James the brother of the Lord▪ Jacobus ab Apostolis statim post ascensionem Domini Hierosylimorum Episcopus ordinatus, suscepit ecclesiam Hierosolyma. Timotheus à Paulo Ephesiorum Episcopus ordinatus, Titus Cretae, Polycarpus à Johanne Smyrnae Episcopus Ordinatus, James presently after Christ's Ascension, was ordained Bishop of Jerusalem, and undertook (i. e. ruled, as to receive the Congregation, Psal. 75. is to rule it) the Church of Jerusalem, Timothy was ordained Bishop of the Ephesians by Paul▪ Titus of Crete, Polycarpe was by John ordained Bishop of Smyrna. Where, as it is evident, and by the Presbyterians acknowledged, that Timothy and Titus were singular rulers (which therefore they are wont to excuse by saying they are extraordinary officers or Evangelists) and yet by him said to be Bishops of Ephesus and Crete, and so constituted by the Apostles, so it is consequent that James and Polycarpe were by him deemed singular rulers also (and not Colleagues in a Presbytery) and those so constituted by the Apostles also, and accordingly of this James he saith, ad Gal. 2. Jacobus primus ei Ecclesiae praefuit— Eciscopus Hierosolymorum primus fuit, James was the first that was set over that Church— was the first Bishop of Jerusalem. And in consequence thereto in his comments on Isae. lib. 5. cap. 17. he calls this James Decimum tertium Apostolum the thirteenth Apostle  
3. In like manner 
* Pag. 85.  Epist. ad Euagrium, speaking of Mark (who dying in the 8th. of Nero▪ what was done by him, must be resolved to have been in the Apostles times, and agreeable to then practice] he saith, Alexand●iae à Ma●co Evang●●●stâ ad Heraclam & Dionysium Episcopos Presbyteri semper unum ex se electum in excelsiori super Presbyteros gradu● collocatum, Episcopum nominabant, quomodo si exercitus Imperatorem faceret. At Alexandria from the time of Mark the Evangelist, to the time of Heraclas and Dionysius Bishops, the Presbyters always named one chosen from among themselves, and placed in an higher degree above Presbyters, their Bishop, as if an army should choose their General. That what is said of the Presbyters choosing their Bishop, belongs not to Presbyters imposing hands on him, is 
* Dissert. 3. cap 10.  elsewhere largely evidenced. And so, by the way, appeareth the falseness of the citation out of Jerome, Appen. p. 142. that in Alexandria for a long time the Presbyters ordained (it should have been said elected) their Bishop. That which I here infer from the testimony is manifest, viz. that in Saint Marks time, and from the first planting of the Church at Alexandria, one Bishop or singular Ruler was constituted among them, as that signifies an higher degree than that of Presbyters.  
4. More places there are in him, which evidence his opinion, that Bishops, as they differ from Presbyters, are successors of the Apostles: In his Comment on Psal. 45. Nunc quia Apostoli à mundo recesserunt, habes pro his Episcopos filios, sunt & high patres tui, quia ab ipsis regeris. Now (in●. Hierome's time) because the Apostles are parted from the world, you have in their steads Bishops their Sons; They also are thy Fathers, because thou art governed by them. Where the Bishops that then ruled (those are confessed to be single persons, not Presbyteries) are the successors of the Apostles in his opinion. And Ep. 1. ad Heliodorum, of not undertaking the office of Bishop. Non est facile stare loco Pauli, tenere gradum Petri; 'tis not easy to stand in Paul's place, to hold the degree of Peter. Where Episcopacy is the place and degree of those Apostles. And so Ep. 13. ad Paulinum, Episcopi & Presbyteri habeant in exemplum Apostolos & Apostolicos vires, quorum honorem possidentes habere nitantur & meritum, Bishops and Presbyters must have for their Examples the Apostles and Apostolical men, whose honour they possess, and therefore ought to endeavour to imitate their merit.  
5. I shall add a Cumulus of other passages much to the same purpose with the former, and fit to be taken in conjunction with them, to give us the full understanding of S. Hierome's opinion in this matter. Ad Nepotian. Ep. 2. Esto subjectus Pontificituo, & quasi anima parentem suscipe, quod Aaro● & filios ejus, hoc Episcopum & Presbyteros esse noverimus. Be subject to the Bishop, and receive him as the parent of thy Soul, what Aaron and his Sons were, that we must know the Bishop and Presbyters to be. And on Tit. 1. speaking of S. Paul's directions for the making a Bishop, Apostolus, saith he, Ecclesiae Principem formans, the Apostle forming the Prince or ruler of the Church, and so again in the same words on Psal. 45. deciphering a single ruler by that Bishop, which the Apostle there meant to form. So on that 45. Psal. Constituit Christus in omnibus finibus mundi Principes Ecclesiae Episcopos, Christ in all parts of the world constituted Princes of the Church, the Bishops, just the same as hath been cited from Ignatius, that all the world over, the Bishops were ordained by the Apostles according to the mind of Christ. In his Dial. adv. Luciferian. Ecclesiae salus in summi sacerdotis dignitate pendit, cui si non exors quaedam & ab omnibus eminens detur potestas, tot in Ecclesiis efficientur Schismata quot sacerdotes; and, Si quaeris quare in Ecclesiâ baptizatus, nisi per manus Episcopi non accipiat spiritum sanctum— disce hanc observationem ex ●a authoritate descendere, quod spiritus sanctus ad Apostolos descendit. The safety of the Church depends on the dignity of the chief Priest (or Bishop) to whom▪ if a peculiar power be not given above all that others have there will be as many Schisms as Priests in the Churches— If you demand why he that hath been baptised in the Church, may not receive the Holy Ghost but by the hands of the Bishop, learn that this observance descends from that Authority in that the holy sp●it descended on th● Apostles 〈◊〉 Testimony, as it shows the necessity of a singular Bishop to avoid Schisms in the Church, and so must affix the institution of them on the Apostles, who made provision against that danger (and that I suppose is his meaning in 
* In t●to o● be 〈…〉 ut unus de Pre●byteris 〈…〉 ad quem omnis Ecclisiae cura 〈◊〉, ut schisatum semi●● toilcrentur, and Paulatim ut diss●● sionum semina t●llercutur, ad unum omnis ●oll●itudo d●ela● a est. Come ad Tit.  that place which the Presbyterians make most use of) so it directly derives the authority, by which Bishops stand in the Church, distinct from Presbyters, and above them from the descent of the Holy Ghost on the Apostles. Lastly, adv. Jovinian. 〈◊〉. Episcop● & Presbyter & Diaconus non sunt meritorum nomina sed offi●ior●m Nec dicitur, si quis Episcopatum desilerat— The Bishop and Presbyter and Deacon, are names of offices, neither is it said▪ If any man d●si●e a Bishopric— applying those Texts of Saint Paul, concerning the qualifications of Bishops to the Bishop, as in his time he stood, distinct from Presbyters.  
All this I suppose may suffice to give authority to my collection and conclusion from plain words of Saint Hierome, that his meaning was as plain and undubitable, that Episcopacy was delivered down and instituted in the Church by the Apostles themselves. And I cannot conceive what can be invented to avoid the evidence of these testimonies; yet because I promised it, I shall now add that one argument (ex abundanti, and much more than is necessary) to the same purpose, (viz. to prove that this was Hierome's meaning, which I pretend it to be.) And that such, as by these objectors cannot with justice be denied, to have a full irrefragable force in it, having themselves made use of it against us, which they ought not to have done, if by themselves it shall now be denied when it is produced by us.  
In the close of their Appendix, they have set down several propositions declaring the judgement and practice of the Ancient Church about ordination of Ministers, and their first proposition, being this, that in the first and purest times— there was ordination of Presbyters without Bishops over Presbyters, their proof is this. For these Bishops came in postea and p●ul●tim, afterward, and by little and little as Jerome saith. And Panormitan, lib. 1. Decretal. de Consuetud. cap. 4. saith Olympia Presbyteri in communi regebant Ecclesian● & 〈◊〉 sacerdotes, & pariter conferebant omnia sacramenta. Of old the Elders ruled the Church in common, and ordained Priests, and jointly conferred all the Sacraments.  
These two testimonies of Hierome and Panormitan, being brought to prove the same proposition concerning ordination by Presbyters, and the time of Bishops coming in to the Church, It must sure be reasonable to resolve that what Panormitan hath defined in this matter, that was Saint Hieromes sense also; Now what that is, will be discerned by setting down Panormitane's words at large, as they lie in the place cited by them.  
The business he hath there in hand is to prove that custom is not of force so far, as to prescribe that an Ordinary Clerk as Presbyter should perform an Episcopal act, Ea quae sum ordinis Episcopalis non possunt acquiri per ordinem inferiorem ex consuitudine quantamcunque ve●ustissimâ. Those things that are of Episcopal order cannot be any custom▪ how ancient soever, be acquired by any Inferior order: The reason is, quia consuetudo non facit quem capacem, because custom doth make no man capable— Then he makes this observation, that Ritus Apostol orum circa sacramenta habent impedire characterus impressionem; The rites, or practice, or Institutions of the Apostles about the Sacraments, have power to h●nd ●the impression of the Character, nam immediate post mortem Christi●om●es Presbyteri in communi regebant ecclesiam, non fuerant inter ipsos Epi●scopi, sed idem Presbyter quod Epi●copus, & pariter conferebant omnia sacramenta, sed postinodum ad Schismata sed●nda fecerunt seu ordinaverunt Apostoli, ut crearentur Episcop● & certa sacramenta iis reservarunt, illa interdicendo simplicibus Presbyteris— For immediately after the death of Christ, all th● Elders in common ruled the Church, and so there were no Bishops among them, but a Presbyter was the same that a Bishop, and they jointly conferred all the Sacraments. But after a while for the appeasing of Schisms the Apostles caused or ordained that Bishops should be created, and reserved to them some Sacraments (or holy Rites) forbidding single Presbyters to meddle with them: and he concludes, Et vides hic quod talis ordinatio habet impedire etiam impressionem Characteris, quia si Presbyteri illa de facto conferunt, nihil conferunt, and here you see, that such an Ordination is able to hinder the impression of the Character, because if Presbyters do de facto confer them, they confer nothing.  
Where, as Panormitan cited by them to prove Ordination without Bishops (and specious words picked out of him to that purpose) doth yet distinctly affirm that Presbyters, which confer Orders without a Bishop confer nothing, all their Ordinations are mere nullities (and what could have been said more severely against their practice, and their design in citing him, than this?) so he plainly interprets St. Jeromes assertion of the occasion and time of Bishops being set over the Presbyters, that it was done by the appointment of the Apostles themselves, and so that consuetudo, custom in Jerome, opposed to Dominica dispositio Christ's disposal, is no more than [postmodum ordinaverunt Apostoli, after a while the Apostles ordained] opposed to [immediatè post mortem Christi, immediately after the death of Christ.]  
And then by the way, as the Reader may hence discern what force there is, in this Testimony of Panormitan to support their first proposition concerning the Ordination of Presbyters without Bishops over Presbyters (for which besides St. Jeromes postea and paulatim, and part of this testimony of Panormitan, they produce no other) and as by what was formerly said of the Testimonies of Cyprian and Firmilian, their chief supports for their 
* Append. p 129  second proposition, have already been utterly demolished, so also the Testimonies of Isidore Hispalensis and the Council of Aquen produced for the proof of their 
† Append. p. 131.  third Proposition, concerning the Presbyters having an intrinsic power to ordain Ministers, will immediately vanish in like manner. For as it is evident that that place in that council of Aquen is for nine Chapters together transcribed out of Isidore, and consequently the Testimonies out of him and that council are but one and the same thing, twice repeated, to increase the number, so 'tis as evident that what is by them said, is taken from St. Hierome, and can no farther be extended either in respect of the authority or the matter of the Testimony, than in St. Hierome it hath appeared to extend. 
Append p. 13●.  And therefore as the * words cited by these men out of them are no more than these, that solum propter authoritatem Clericorum ordinatio & consecratio reservata est summo sacerdoti, That Presbyters have many things common with Bishops, only in respect of authority (or for the preserving it entire, and the unity of each Church; which depended on that, in St. Hierom's opinion) the Ordination and consecration of Clerks (i. e. of all Presbyters and Deacons) was reserved to the chief Priest, i. e. the Bishop; which how far it is from concluding what it was brought to prove, the intrinsic power of Presbyters to ordain Ministers, I leave to any Reader to pass judgement. And yet truly this doth it as well as their one other ancient Testimony, that of Leo, set out in their front, out of his 88 Epistle▪ concerning the Consecration of Presbyters and Deacons, and some other things, Quae omnia solis deberi Pontificibus authoritate canonum praecipitur, All which that they should be due to the Bishops and to none else, it is commanded by the authority of the canon's. Who would ever have thought fit from such words as these, which affirm this privilege to be reserved peculiarly to the Bishops, and that the authority of the Canons so requires, to conclude that the Presbyters had this intrinsic power; As if all that the Canons deny Presbyters, were infallibly their due to enjoy, and the Argument demonstrative, that it was their Original and intrinsic due, because the Canons deny it.  
What they add of Ischyras Prop. 6. that being deposed from being a Presbyter, 
P. 143.  because made by Colluthus who was but a Presbyter himself, and not a Bishop, this was done, not because the act of Colluthus was against the Canon of Scripture, but only because it was against the Canons of some counsels.] is somewhat of the same nature with the former, and will be best judged of by the relation of the Fact, which in the story of those times is thus made by Socrates, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 
L. ●. c. 10.  He adventured on a thing worthy of many Deaths, for being never admitted to the Priesthood, and assuming to himself the name of an Elder, he dared to do the things belonging to a Priest. A censure which certainly sets the fault somewhat higher than the transgressing of the Canons of some Counsels.  
Two Testimonies more I shall touch on, before I return to the pursuit of my proposed Method, and then I shall render the reason of this Excursion.  
For the confirmation of their second Proposition concerning Ordination, one Testimony they produce from the Synod ad Quercum Ann. 403. where it was brought as an accusation against chrysostom, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, That he made Ordinations without the company and sentence of the Clergy. Another from the council of Carthage Can. 20. Vt Episcopus sine Concilio Clericorum s●orum non ordinet, That a Bishop ordain not Clerks without the Council of his own Clerks, and Can. 2. Cum Ordinatur Presbyter Episcopo eum benedicente, & manum super caput ejus tenente, etiam omnes Presbyteri qui prasentes sunt manus suas juxta manum Episcopi super caput illius teneant. When a Presbyter is Ordrined, as the Bishop blesseth him and lays his hand on his head, let all the Presbyters also that are present lay their hands on his Head by the Hand of the Bishop. And the conclusion deduced from these Testimonies (and the forementioned of Cyprian and Fermilian) is this, that Ordination by Bishops without the assistance of his Presbyters was always forbidden and opposed. How truly this is inferred from the Praem●sses will soon be judged by a view of the Testimonies.  
For the first, this is the truth of the Story, Theophilus a guilty person, and as such, cited to answer, what was objected against him, making use of the envy, under which chrysostom then laboured, shifted the Scene, and becamse his judge, nay, as Photius tells us, he and the rest of that Conventicle, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that were chrysostom ' s greatest enemies, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, were at once Judges, and Accusers, and Witnesses of all that was charged against him. And therefore we already see, what heed is to be given to the accusation of those Father's ad quercum, and how valid an argument can be deduced from it; And we shall the better guess at it, if we consider also, what other particulars were, in the same manner that this was, charged against him, set down by Photius in his Bibliotheca. The 23. charge was, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉— that the Bath was heated for him alone, and that after he had bathed, Serapion shuts the passage into the Bath, that no body else might bathe: The 25. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉,— that he ate alone, living like one of the Cyclopes, and betwixt these two new found crimes, comes in this, in the midst, being the 24. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that he ordained many that had no testimonials; which being set down by Photius, as the sum of that charge, refers us indeed to the ground, on which their charge was built, of his ordaining without a Council, and against the mind of his Clergy, (those testimonials, and so the approbation of the person by the Clergy being generally a good preparation to the receiving Orders) but doth not at all prove that a Bishop might not ordain without assistance of his Presbyters, or that it was always forbidden, any more than it proves that eating or bathing alone was always forbidden also.  
As for that of the 4. Council of Carthage Can. 20. They have set down but half the Canon; the whole runs thus, Vt Episcopus sine concilio Clericorum non ordinet●, ita ut civium conniventiam & Testimonium quaerat, That the Bishop ordain not without his council of Clergy, so that he seek the liking and testimonial of the Inhabitants. Which again only serves to show, the use of the assistant Presbyters, to help the Bishop to a due knowledge of the person to be ordained (and this they know we Praelatists assent to and approve of) but is no argument of the unlawfulness of sole ordination, or of any power that the Presbyters have in the conferring of Orders.  
So likewise that from Can. 2. is only a Testimony for the fitness and usefulness of that custom (still retained and used in our Church in all Ordinations of Presbyters and Deacons) that the Presbyters there present should lay on their hands by the hand of the Bishop, and so join in the Prayer or benediction, but no proof that a Presbyter might not be ordained by a Bishop without the presence of such Presbyters.  
I have for a while gone aside from the consideration of S. Hierome's testimony (the designed matter of this Section) and allowed myself scope to take in all the testimonies of Antiquity, which are made use of by these Assemblers, for the justifying their Ordination of Ministers; And I have done it on purpose (though a little contrary to my designed Method and brevity) because after the publishing of the Dissertations against Blondel. I remember I was once told, that though it was not necessary, yet I might do well to add some Appendix, by way of Answer to that one head of discourse concerning Presbyterial Ordination, and the Instances which were objected by him. For which reason I have now, as near as I can, taken in all, in this place, which are in their Appendix produced on that head, and do not elsewhere in this brief reply, fall in my way to be answered by me. For some others, mentioned by D. Blondel, I refer the Reader to the learned pains of the Bishop of D●rry, in his vindication of the Church of England from the aspersion of Schism, p. 270. etc.  
And so being at last returned into my road again, This may, I hope, suffice to have said in the justification of what was done in the Dissertations concerning St. Hierome, both to clear his sense, and for the setting the balance aright betwixt his authority on the one side, and the authority of Ignatius on the other, betwixt some doubtful sayings of the former, which seemed to prejudice the Doctrine of the Apostles instituting imparity, which yet elsewhere he affirms to be Apostolical tradition, and the many clear and uncontradicted, constant sayings of the latter, which are acknowleged to assert it. Which one thing, if it be not in the Dissertations so done, as may satisfy any impartial Judge, that Ignatius, in full concord with all, is to be heeded on our side, more than St. Hierome, in some few of his many Testimonies, can be justly produced against us, I shall then confess myself guilty of overmuch confidence; but if therein I have not erred, it is most evident that I need not undertake any farther travail in this whole matter.   

Sect. VII.  
The Testimonies of Ambrose and Austin. Consignare used for consecrating the Eucharist, and that belonged to the Bishop when present.  
THere now follows in the next place the passage cited by them p. 133. out of Ambrose on Eph. 4. where to prove that even during the prevalency of Episcopacy 'twas not held unlawful for a Presbyter to ordain without a Bishop, they urge out of St. Ambrose these words, Apud Aegyptum Presbyteri consignant, si praesens non sit Episcopus, In Egypt the Presbyters consign, if the Bishop be not present. And the like out of Austin (or whosoever was the Author) in Quaest. ex utroque Testam. Qu. 101. In Alexandria & per totam Aegyptum, si desit Episcopus, consecrat Presbyter, In Alexandria and through all Egypt, if the Bishop be wanting, the Presbyter consecrates. And having done so, they add, which words cannot be understood (as a— defender of Prelacy would have them) of the Consecration of the Eucharist; For this might be done by the Presbyter praesente Episcopo, the Bishop being present, but it must be understood either of confirmation, or (which is more likely) of ordination, because Ambrose in that place is speaking of Ordination.  
To this I shall briefly reply, 1. That it is sure enough, & granted by the most eminent Presbyterians, that these two Books, whence these Testimonies are cited, were not written either by Ambrose or Austin, but by some other (Hilarius Sardus, saith Blondel) and unjustly inserted among their works, and then the authority of such supposititious pieces will not be great to overrule any practice otherwise acknowledged in the Church of God.  
Secondly, that the mistakes of Blondel and Salmasius, concerning the meaning of the former of these places, were so evidently discovered by the second of them (the consignant in the one, interpreted by consecrat in the other) that I conceived it sufficient, but to name them, For can there be any thing more unquestionable than this, that consecrare in ancient writers signifies the Consecration of the Eucharist? And then if consignare be a more obscure phrase is there any doubt, but it must be interpreted by that which is so much more vulgar and plain? and all the circumstances besides being exactly the same in both places, what doubt can there be, but in both, the words are to be understood of the Eucharist?  
Yet because some advantage was by this their misunderstanding sought to the Presbyterians cause, they now resolve; and insist, that it must not be rectified, though they know not which to apply it to, Confirmation or Ordination, and pretend not to produce any Testimony, where consecrare is ever used for the latter, or consignare for either of them. And indeed 
* Apol. p. 57  Blondel and 
† Appar. ad. lib. de Prim.  Salmasius were yet more uncertain, for they thought it might also belong to the benediction of Penitents, and that as probable as either of the two former; And when the truth is rejected, thus it is wont to be.  
As for the only reason which inclines them to confine it to Ordination; because Ambrose in that place is speaking of Ordination, if the place be reviewed, it will not be found to have truth in it; He speaks immediately before of the several Ministerial Acts, Preaching and Baptising, adding indeed that Scripta Apostoli non per omnia conveniunt Ordinationi, quae nunc in Ecclesia est, The writings of the Apostle do not in all things agree to the Order, which is now in the Church. There is mention of Ordinatio indeed, but that signifies not Ordination, as we now use it for ordaining of Ministers, but manifestly the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the rule, or order used in the Church, in several respects, saith he, different from what it was in the writings of the Apostle.  
And for their objection against my interpretation, that it cannot be understood of consecrating the Eucharist, [because this the Presbyter might do when the Bishop was present] If they would have taken notice of the many evidences brought by me in that place out of the Ancients, the Canons of the Apostles, Ignatius ad Magnes. the 56 Canon of the council of Laodicaea, and Tertullian, that the Presbyter might not administer either Sacrament without the Bishop's appointment, and distinctly of this Sacrament: Non de aliorum quam de Praesidentium manu Eucharistiam sumimus, we receive it not from the hands of any but the Precedents, i. e. (in his style) the Bishops, Tertull: de Cor. Mil. they could never have thought this a reasonable Objection, It being evidently the sense of the Ancient Canons, (to which the description of the practice in Justin Martyr doth perfectly agree, Apol. 2.) that only the Bishop had power to consecrate the Eucharist, and in his absence only, the Presbyter, to whom he gave that power.  
Had they been pleased to have taken notice of these Canons and ancient Records, punctually set down by me in that place, it must certainly have prevented this their exception, and utterly robbed them of those two Testimonies to that Proposition. And as to that of the Alexandrian Bishops out of Hierome, that is also largely answered by me, Dissert. 3 c. 10. but that again they were resolved not to take notice of.   

Sect. VIII.  
Of the Chorepiscopi.  
THere still remains one mention of me, upon occasion of the Chorepiscopi or Regionary Bishops, Append. p. 138. Of that subject they are somewhat large, and so D. Blondel had been before them, and in answering him, all their pretensions from thence, and that whole argument (by them pursued. P. 135. 136, 137. 138.) is punctually answered, before it was produced, Dissert. 3. c. 8.  
And yet they go on roundly, as if there were no such thing, only in the close they add, There is another whom we forbear to name, that saith that the Chorepiscopi were Bishops. But he adds, though they were Bishops, yet they were made but by one Bishop, and Bishops merely titular and sine Cathedrâ, which is all one as if he should say, they were not properly Bishops.  
That which is said of the Chorepiscopi in the Dissertations is too long to be here so impertinently repeated, If the Reader please to consult the place, I have no fear that he will return unsatisfied in any thing that is by these men objected against Praelacy from that head. A Dilemma is there used, which, whether they were Bishops or no, will certainly secure us.  
As to their present argument against me, I answer, that what I say of those Chorepiscopi, is, not that they were Bishops merely titular, but that they were Proxies or vicarii of the Bishop of the City, acting by Commission from him in the Region or Country, and were under the Bishop of the City and Ordained by him, and so were true Bishops, but not of the Cities, had Ordination as other Bishops had, though three Bishops were not by the Canon required to the ordaining of such, but only that one Bishop of the City, whose Proxy or Vicarius the Chorepiscopus was: Bishops in cases of necessity, ordained sine titulo, without a title or City to which they were affixed, and for some time allowed to ordain Presbyters and Deacons in the Country, and to do some other things in the Bishop's stead.  
All which is so largely set down in the Dissertations, and vindicated so absolutely from serving the Presbyterians interest, that I must not for ever do the same thing again, transcribe what is there said abundantly, and nothing here objected against it, but that what I affirm of them, makes them to be not poperly Bishops. Where if by properly Bishiops they mean Bishops of Cities, they say very true, for I affirm them to be, as their title assures me they were, Regionary Bishops, Vicarii and Proxies to the City Bishop.  
But that they were mere Presbyters, and no more, and by their being Presbyters had the Power to Ordain other Presbyters (which alone is the Presbyterians task to make good, if they will have it useful to the proof of their conclusion, their 
* Append p. 133  4. Proposition, That Presbyters, during the Prevalency of Episcopacy, had not only an inherent power of Ordination, but in some cases did actually ordain) this they do not undertake to make good against the discourse in the Dissertations; And therefore I have no excuse to make any larger reply to them.    

The Conclusion.  
I Have now gone through every part of my designed Method, and not omitted one intimation of theirs, wherein I could think myself concerned; And that it may appear that I should not have chosen this, as a season, to begin any debate concerning a subject so forgotten in men's minds as Episcopacy is, I shall thus conclude the Readers trouble, without examining what else they say on this subject; having, I hope, competently secured myself from the Opinion of having formerly attempted to seduce any, so little either to his or my own advantage.   
THE END.   

The Printer to the Reader.  
THe absence of the Author, and his inconvenient distance from London, hath occasioned some lesser escapes in the impression of this Vindication, & ●. The Printer thinks it the best instance of pardon if his E●capes be 〈◊〉 laid upon the Author, and he hopes they are no greater than an ordinary understanding may amend, thus.  
PAge 5. l. 25. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. p. 6. l. 5. r. which when we. l. 6. r. place, l. 7. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. l. 9 r. affairs, we have then so. l. 19 r. holy man. p. 7. l. 20. r. of David. l. 24. r. their answer. p. 8. marg. l. 4. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. l. 6. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. p. 10. l. 21. r. exarches. p. 12. l. 1. r. their not. p. 13. l. 4 r to confirm. l. penult. r. some praedecessor. p. 16. l. 14. r. of Timothy. l. 18. r. a continual. p. 18. l. 4. r. D●rotheus. p. 21. l. 24. r. we are. p. 22. l. 22. r. mixing. l. 33. r. praetensions. p. 23. l. 35. r. Chaldee. p. 24. l. 24. r. was again. p. 25. l. 27. r. And in them of Diotrephes. p. 31. l 31. r. Assemblers. p. 36. l. 18. r. for so. p. 43. l. 11. r. so this. p. 49. l. 19 r. understand p 53. l. 25. r. and so p. 63. l. 21. r. most of them lying near. p. 66. l. 2. del. all, p. 67. l. r. r. Sect XVII. p. 69. l. 33. r. the sixth Canon, which. p. 72. l. 7. r. fixed in. p. 73. l. 22. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. l 29. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. p. 74. l. 14. r. head-Lords. p. 76. l. 3. r. formally. p. 78. l. 1. r. formally. p. 79. marg. l. 10. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. p. 83 l. 33. r. Metropoles. p. 85. l. 5. r. Antoninus Pius. l. 24. r. sent for to p. 89. l. 25. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 l. 32. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 l. 34. r. so read p. 94. mar. l. 4. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. l. 25. r. affirm. p. 97. marg. l. 4. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. p. 99 l. 18. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. l. 25. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. p. 100 l. 20. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. l. 30. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 107. l. 25. r. A third. p. 111. l. 6 r 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. l. 12. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. p. 127. l. 16. r. any sort. p. 128. l. penul. r. and so. p. 132. l. 1. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. l. 4. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. l. 22. r. Province. p. 136. l. 22. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. p. 139. l. ult. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. p. 140. l. 1. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. l. 34. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. l. 35. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. p. 142. l. 22. r. of spurious. p. 249. marg. l. 2. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. l. 13. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 155. l. 23. r. Ecclesiae. l. 29 r. of the. p. 160. l. 1. r. know not that. p. 162 l. 2. r servare Catholican. p: 165. l. 25. r. answer 1. by p. 166. l. 17. r: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 167. l. 3. r: that place would purchase justice. p 169. l. 22. r: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. l. 23. r: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. p 171 l. 8. r: Synod. ad Quercum. p 174. l. 8. r: years since, p. 183. l. 14. r: so how far this is. p. 184. l. 15. r: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. l. 16. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.