NAZIANZENI QUERELA ET VOTUM JUSTUM. The Fundamentals of the HIERARCHY examined and disproven:  
Wherein the choicest Arguments and Defences of the most applauded and latest Hierarchick or Prelatic Writers, A. M. D. D. the Author of An Enquiry into the New Opinions (chiefly) propagated by the Presbyterians in Scotland, the Author of the Fundamental Charter of Presbytry examined & disproven, and many others are sincerely expended, the Plea they bring from Ignatius' Epistles more narrowly discussed, many things much enlightening this Controversy, either not at all, or not so fully hitherto unfolded, are, from ancient Church-Writers, and other unsuspected Authors, advanced.  
By William Jameson.  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
Would to God there were no Prelacy, no Prerogative of Place, no Tyrannical Privileges, that by Virtue alone we might be discerned. Now this Right and Left Hand, and middle Rank, these higher and lower Dignities, and this Statelike Precedence, have caused many fruitless Conflicts and Bruises, have cast many into the Pit, and carried away Multitudes to the place of the Goats.  
Gregorius Nazianzenus Orat. 28.  
GLASGOW, Printed by Robert Sanders, for the Author. Anno DOM. 1697.   

The Introduction to all the sincere Lovers of the Christian, truly Catholic, Protestant Principles; and the Haters of Romish Dross and Innovations, but Chiefly to these of the Church of SCOTLAND.  
I Can truly say I am so far from loving a Salamandra's Life, the line of Contention, or Controversy for Controversie's sake, as to pray earnestly that all our intestine Heats and Struggle may resolve into that happy and lawful Striving, how each of us may best please him that has called us unto Holiness & Peace, and that there be no Provocation, save unto Love and to good Works. My main End is only to Dis-abuse my Protestant Brethren misled by some who are so uncharitable as to Vnchurch and Damn the greater and better part of the Reformed, because they embrace not as Divine that which, at best, is but of Humane Device, and who thus conspire with the mortal Enemies of all Protestants, against these of 'em whom the common and unsatiable Adversaries most implacably hate: for, above all others, the Presbyterian Puritans (as they speak) are acknowledged to be most irreconcilable to the Roman Catholic Doctrine, and on this account, the prime Object of their Malice. This is obvious in the Writings of the Romanists; but chiefly in these of the Jesuits; witness (to name no more) Petavius in his books of the Hierarchy and Appendix thereto, and another Papist the Author of Presbytries' Trial, prime Armouries whence our present Adversaries fetch most of their weapons. The Papists in this, as in many things else, are followed by the Quakers, as is evident from most of their Pamphlets, but more especially from a pretended Answer to a part of a Book, wherein I gave some further Discoveries than had been already made of the Impieties and Self-contradictions of that Sect. This Answer they (for I do not think that it belongs all to one Parent) name The Ploughman rebuking the Priest: of which I can say, with with the Prophet Jeremiah, that I have suffered Rebuke for my God's sake; and, with Job, can take mine Adversaries Book on my shoulder, and bind it as a Crown to me, having received all along throed, in stead of a Confutation, a most strong Confirmation of the Truth of the Doctrine I propugned, and much more ground to abhor the Impieties of Quakerism, and to bless God who hath brought to pass that their very Attempts to palliate their Abominations, proved a further Detection thereof. Read, pray, earnestly, and compare it with mine, and you shall find them most frequently yielding the whole Controversy, as also overskipping the marrow of what I had adduced, and yet anon triumphing as if they had never, in the least, been guilty of such dealing; you shall find that the most pardonable pieces of their Book are wild Gibberies, extravagant Roveries, mere Impertinencies, palpable Perversions, loud Lies, Heresies, Blasphemies, and, in a ward, a lump of stuff so Atheistical, that it proclaims the Authors neither to fear God, nor regard man, never to have consulted Conscience, nor to have remembered of future Judgement, or of the account they must give at the tremenduous Tribunal of God. Yet all this is but what I expected, and is not unworthy of these, who, with Satan's sworn Slaves, renounce their Holy Baptism, and, therewith, whatsoever is constitutive of a Christian. For a further Manifestation whereof, hear the Quakers themselves, who are now split into Factions; to wit, into Keithians, after George Keith a prime Pillar of Quakerism; and Foxonians, as they're called: These reckon the Keithian Quakers for lost, and call G. K. 
a Judgement given forth etc. Page 12.  Brat of Babylon, Apostate, worse than profane, a Liar, Devil, one that always endeavoured to keep down the Power of Truth, gone into a spirit of Enmity, foaming out his own shame, without the Fear of God before his Eyes, a Preacher of two Christ's &c. Again G. K. 
b Ibid.  who is herein approved by his Keithian Quakers, calls them Fools, ignorant Heathens, Infidels, Liars, Heretics, rotten Ranters, persecuting Quakers 
c The Trial of Peter Bess etc. Page 6. ; And informs us 
d Plea for the Innocent. Page 12.  that no such damnable Heresies &c, are tolerated in any Christian Society as are among many called Quakers. For Example that 
e Pag. 11.  they deny the Day of Judgement and any Resurrection, but what they have already attained; that they make the Light sufficient without any thing else excluding the Man Christ Jesus, and his Obedience, Death and Resurrection, Ascension, and Mediation for us in Heaven. I am grieved (writes J. Humphrey's 
f More Divisions amongst the Quakers Page 15.  to hear some say they expect to be justified by that Blood which was shed at Jerusalem. Wherein, as G. K. shows, he's patronised by not a few. Another great Zealot among the Quakers said, and affirmed boldly (saith G. K. 
g Judgement given forth etc. Page 17. and Append. to the History of the Quakers. Pag. 16.  that he expected not to be saved by that which died at Jerusalem, to wit the Man Christ. And again G. K. 
h Ibid. pag. 12.  calls them Pelagians and Deists. And 
i ibid. pag. 17.  To many of the Quakers (saith G. K.) all are Christians [to wit, Jews, mahometans, paynims] in whom any good seed of Religion appeareth, and which they say is from Christ, yea is Christ himself. And 
k ibid. pag. 20.  Many, yea the most, or rather almost all the Ministers among the Quakers (very few excepted) do affirm, that this inward Light is sufficient to bring forth the new Birth, and to give eternal Salvation, without any thing, without us, that is, without the man Christ that was outwardly born, and crucified and rose again, whom some of their Ministers in my hearing, hath called an outward thing, a shell, a husk, that doth little or nothing profit us, and the Faith of which doth nothing profit us. And William Penn (continues G. K.) in that Meeting at Ratcliff, where he falsely called me an Apostate, did publicly proclaim after this manner: Friends, said he, I see no great need of preaching, the Faith of Christ's Death and Sufferings, for all England and all Christendom hath that Faith, and it doth not profit them. But the Faith which profiteth Men is the Faith of Christ within, and that Friends preach. Let now (saith G. K.) the Author judge, or any other intelligent Person (professing Christianity) whether William Penn hath not sufficiently by these words proved himself an Apostate from the Christian Faith.  
Thus you have a taste (for it is no more, compared with what I could produce) of Quakerism from the Quakers themselves. Surely most admirable and adorable is divine Providence in so prodigiously strange, and clear a Detection of these infernal Blasphemies and Abominations, from the very Mouths of the chief Actors themselves; to the end, doubtless, that all may hear and fear, tremble and quake indeed to meddle, in the least, with these Quakers, lest God (as is the Lot of these Wretches) by giving them up to so strange Delusions and damnable Lies, make their Plagues wonderful. May God mercifully grant, (as the Effect of this Discovery) that the sound and stable Christians may regard the Operations of his Hand, and give due Praise to him that preserves them from so deadly an Infection; that the Weak may be confirmed in their Belief of these Divine Verities which are revealed in the Holy Scriptures, and that these who are catched in the Gin may yet escape, like a Bird out of the Snare of the Fowler.  
But of Quakers enough; only I must repeat that I cannot think my Ploughman to be the sole Author of the Book that bears his Name; no, I think some good part thereof belongs to some, who own neither Name nor Profession of Quakerism. It's true, they hate all Protestants, and, chiefly, Presbyterians; yet, there is in that Book something singular, its Author appears rather to have studied the blackening and bespattering of Presbytry, than either the Defence or Palliation of Quakerism: for in lieu hereof, I find, in many places, only Libels larded with such Lies, Calumnies, and Slanders, as the more invective Romanists, and other invective Hierarchicks used to throw at all true Protestants, but mainly at the Puritan Presbyterians. There is, moreover, in some places, more plainly expressed, but all along couched, yet obvious enough to the observant, a warmth and kindness for these of the Hierarchick, or Prelatical Principles. In a word, much of the Book breathes forth another Species or sort of Malignancy, than is that of Quakerism, a Malignancy peculiar to the Author of Presbytries' Trial, and such professed Romanists; to Heylen and Le Strange, and such barefaced Papaturians, much rather than to these more fallacious and spiritual Antichristians. Neither can any sensible Man earnestly read their Book, and not perceive so much. Strange! Can't they not uphold their Hierarchy, except they thus study to undermine Christianity, and join with its deadly Enemies, and that too with such Varlets of 'em whose Brutishness and molish despicableness, as was the good fortune of Aesop's Ass, are their only security, and set them too low for any Man to nottice them? I'm also informed that the pretended Author used to have most closely and frequent Converse with an Episcopal Minister of no mean Rank. Moreover, seeing many of the Prelatists oppose the sometimes received Sentiments, yea and common Articles of the Church of England, for which they pretend such Veneration, by Espousing, with Papists, Quakers, and the like Opposers of Truth, the Tenets of Pelagians, and Arminians, no great wonder tho' they syncretize with such Sectaries against the Presbyterian Calvinians (as they speak) and accordingly the Neopelagian Hierarchicks (for there are Episcopals, surely of a better Mind, and Judgement more Orthodox) make a third Squadron of this unsanctified Army, and in Railing, Antichristian Sophistry, and such unworthy Methods, labour to come short of neither Quakers nor Papists. Such a black Combination would well nigh move one to say of Presbyterians as Tertullian said of Christians, There must needs (saith he) be some good thing among Christians, seeing they were chiefly persecuted by such a Monster as Nero. It's a sign of your greater Glory (saith Hierome 
l Inter Epist, Augustini 25.  to Augustine) that all the Heretics abhor you. And here I cannot but nottice how the Author of The fundamental Charter of Presbytry &c. (having most untruly insinuated, as if we ascribed to our first Reformers an Impeccability, and espoused every particular Sentiment or Expression of every one of 'em, as infallible) no less falsely gives out and earnestly studies to persuade the World that all these our first Reformers, and especially Mr. Knox, were nothing but a pack of treacherous bloody Rebels and most odious Men: see, to name no other places, from page 334. to 346. and is not this sufficient Evidence that the Author has a large measure of the Spirit of Ham the cursed Exposer of his Father's nakedness, but he knows who'll thank him, Hoc Italus velit & magno mercetur Abaddon. The matter is, these Men are much grieved that ever we were freed from Rome's Tyranny and Superstition, and so know not how to be even with these precious Instruments of that our most happy and admirable Deliverance. Another of their Arts is that they use boldly to pretend the Doctrine of their Hierarchy to be most Catholic and absolutely necessary, and so Vnchurch most of the reformed Churches; and, which is no less Vn-christian, they strive to support it with such Arguments as equally serve to establish an universal Papacy. Again, they use to English these Romish Sophisms, and yet quite dissemble the Answers and Refutations the Reformed have given thereto, as, to name no more, is the constant Practice of A. M. D. D. Moreover they now darr to assert, contrary to the acknowledgement of all Men, and the Concessions of the greatest Prelatists, that our first Reformers were of the Prelatical Persuasion. They would possess Men with the same thoughts of the Transmarine Reformers, and therefore, among other Means to effect it, they use to work on the necessituousness or ambition of some foreign Protestants, as the Romanists do on needy Greeks and other Easterns, and bribe them to publish, for the received Doctrine of the Churches they were bred in, what is quite contrary to their known and common Sentiments and public Confessions. I only give some Examples of these their Arts (for who can recount them all) this is certain that if ye ransack and unfold their Methods, you shall find none of 'em without some noteable Cheat and fallacy at bottom. Their Hierarchy leans on three Props, as its fundamental Supporters: The first is their wretched perversion of some Scriptures, the second is their Fancy that it still obtained in the primitive Church, the third, that 'twas believed by all Ages to be of Apostolic Institution. These Conceits are the very Fundamentals of the Hierarchy, which I here examine, and, as I trust, disprove, and accordingly so Intitulat the subsequent Papers. I repeat as little as is possible of what has been said before, and especially meet with the Hierarchys most applauded and latest Asserters, and among these A. M. D. D. and the Author of the Fundamental Charter etc. the far more considerale part, yea the very substance of both which Books I examine and exartuat. I discuss moreover the Plea they bring from Ignatius' Epistles, as also detect most of the forementioned Artifices together with many such ungenerous Methods not hitherto so fully discovered Hence I hope I cannot be justly accounted an Aggressor or Provocker, nor yet my Papers superfluous: I don't notwithstanding impeach as guilty of these Deallings all Episcopal men, for of these there have been and doubtless now are both good men and stout Protestants, and such, I know, will never be offended if I lay open open the Weakness and unworthy Deallings of such as anathematise whosoever prefer the Model of the prime ptimitive Church-Government, the Apostolic Humility and Simplicity, to their Diocesan Hierarchy, the secular Grandeur of subsequent and more degenerate Times, if I, among many other Demonstrations hereof, bring a Cloud of most competent and unsuspected Witnesses, who depone that during the Apostolic Age and the prime Primitive Church, there was a Bishop for each Congregation, an Identity of Bishop and preaching Presbyter, and, finally, a complete Parity of ordinary Pastors; if I make appear that the greatest Enemies to this Truth and Adorers of the Hierarchy are (maugre all their Cunning) compelled to subscribe and seal it. If yet some hesitat and admire, how then so many of the Learned can give their Hierarchy a divine Sanction, or set it so high as the times of the Apostles, such wowld remember that to fewer, at least, and these of no less Learning, no less confidently pretend a Divine Origen for many things, the Foundation whereof notwithstanding is undeniably in the dust of humane Corruption. How many Torrents of Wormwood hide their little heads in sources in that Christian 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the space of about an hundred years after the Canon of the Scriptures was sealed, whereof so few genuine Monuments now remain, and wherein christian's (as they were also for a good many years after that time) being astonished at these more prodigious Heresies, and wholly employed in quelling these Hydra's, were kept from watching against more fly and subtle Assaults of the Enemy, the Danger of whose Tares was scarce discernible till they were hardly to be eradicated.  
Again, 'tis to be remembered that there are vast Odds between the Cases of the Contending Parties; many things tempt and invite men to patronise the Hierarchy, whereto the other side is not obnoxious: for whosoever confides in his own Parts and Abilities may probably promise to himself a gradual Ascent even to the satiety of worldly Ease, Riches, and Honour. Did not these and such Motives bias too many men, together with the Liberty Prelacy gives to Heterodox Principles and to licentious Practices, how few should there be found to agent its Cause? On the other hand Pre●h●●●erian Discipline they think too rigid against both these Enormites': and as to worldly Encouragements, there's nothing in Presbytry but a mediocrity of Stipend with a hard and perpetual Labour without any Hope of Ease, Grandor, or more opulent Fortune. I should now have done, only I can not but express how desirable 'twere that haying aside our own unscriptural Fancies, the Grounds of these most lamentable Contentions, all of us followed after the things which make for Peace, a●d things wherewith one may edify another. Who would have thought, not many years hence when all true Protestants were at the very bri●k of Destruction, but that the admirable Deliverance God give us, should have had this most desirable Consequent. How amazing is it that a number called Protestants should vent their Spite, Malice and Treason against the most happy Instrument of this our Delivery in Peace, His Majesty King WILLIAM, who is under God, the main Stay of Protestants, whom yet God protects, and I pray may protect, maugre all the malicious Machinations of wicked Men. God yet continues to call us to the same Duty of Christian Concord, to name no others, by terrible Monitors: for at one Quarter we are besieged by nominal Theists but real Atheists who ridicule God's Sacred Word as the product of Rogues or Sots, and explode the Doctrine of the Existence of Angels and Spirits, and consequently of the Being of God the Father of Spirits, as the Dream of some Brainsick Weaklings, and below a man of sense: and at another Quarter, by a direful Combination of Infernal Fiends and wretched Mortals. It's pleasant notwithstanding to observe how the latter of these Satanical Machine's split and undo the former: for the well known and confessed Compacts and Commerce between these wicked Spirits and Miscreants of human Race, and Operations of Demons, and such Effects undeniably proceeding from preternatural and incorporeal Causes are sure Proofs of such immaterial Beings, and so demonstrat the Falsehood of what is broached by these abominable Saducees, — aliquisque malo fuit usus in illo.  
O how clossly ought all of us to join in Weeping, Sighing, and Crying, not only for our owned Gild, but also for these & such horrible Abominations that be done in the midst of the Land. In the mean while these and a thousand such Mischiefs mostly owe themselves to this Controversy, our Divisions, Ignorance, want of Church-Discipline, and other such its odious Effects. How many, through God's Blessing, should that Zeal, Learning and Industry spent for the support of men's unscriptural Conceits, have brought to the Obedience of Christ from both Romanists and open Infidels? 
Heu, quantum potuit Terrae, pelagique parari  
Hoc, quem Civiles hauserunt, sanguine, dextrae!   
Blessed then in this Case should be the Peacemaker, wherefore, let all of us Pray for our Jerusalem that Peace may be within her Walls, and Prosperity within her Palaces. Let us also with Tertullian 
m Adversus. Herm●o●enem.  adore the fullness of the Scriptures; which (as Augustine 
n De Doctrine Christiana. Lib. 2. Cap. 9  teaches) contain all things needful either for Faith or Life. The Books (saith Constantine the Great 
o Theodoret. Hist. Eccles. Lib. 1. Cap. 7. & Hist. Trip●rtit. Lib. 2. Cap. 5.  of the Evangelists, Apostles and ancient Prophets, clearly teach us the Mind of God wherefore laying aside hostile Discords, let us seek from these the Determination of our Controversies. Surely this is a Catholic Principle: Good had it been if the Fathers had as closely stuck to't in Practice as they firmly believed it. You assert (saith Optatus 
p Lib. 5.  to the Donatists) We deny; between your Assertion and our Denial the People's minds Waver; let none believe either you or us, we are all contentious Men, Judges must be sought, if these be sought for among Christians, they can be found among neither of the Parties, because the Truth is impeded through Partiality; we must seek for Judges from without, if the Judge be a Pagan, he cannot know the Mysteries of Christians; if a Jew, he is an Enemy to Christian Baptism; on Earth therefore there can't be round a Determination of this Controversy: a Judge must be sought from Heaven; but why should we knock at Heavens Gates, when, hearing the Gospel we have Christ's Testament. And having elegantly compared the Scripture to Man's Testament, which is able to determine every Controversy that may arise among his Children, adds, He who le●t us this Testament is in Heaven; let his Will therefore be sought for in the Gospel as in a Testament: for the things which you now do, Christ foresaw before they came to pass. The same Justice and no more do we require in the present Case; we require, with Cyprian 
q Epist. ad Pompejum.  that Custom or Tradition which is without Scripture, tho' otherways never so Old, be thrown away as mouldy Errors. Let not the Hope of Emoluments, secular Grandeur, or Power, make Men rack their Wits to Deprave and Detire the Truth, and despise the Apostolic Humility, and Parity. Then (saith chrysostom 
r In Acta Apost. Homil. 3.  speaking of these Apostolic Times, and that by way of Opposition to his own Age) Church-Government was not Honour or Grandeur, but Watching and Care of the Flock. Seeing its evident (saith Isidorus Pelusiota) how vast a difference there is between the Ancient humble Ministry and the present Tyranny: Why don't ye Crown with Garlands and Celebrate the Lovers of Parity or Equality? Let not the gay Pageantry of foppish Ceremonies steal away our Hearts from the simplicity of the Gospel. Is such trash worth the patronising? Nay rather, Let the Sword of God (The●'re Jerome's words 
s In primum Haggaei.  cut off every thing that men, without the Authority and Testimony of the Scriptures, have devised and pretend as if they had it by Apostolic Tradition. Let all such things be broken in Pieces called Nehustan, and, finally, sacrificed to Truth and Peace. Whatsoever thing God commands us let's observe to do't, and neither add thereto nor diminish from't. This I'm sure is the old Path, and the good Way wherein if we Walk we shall find rest to our Souls, our Peace shall be as a River, and our Righteousness as the Waves of the Sea, we shall Dwell together in that Brotherly Unity, which is a true Antecedent of Life for evermore. And thus I can freely say, is the ultimat Design of Composing and Emitting the ensuing Treatise, and is and still shall be the fervent Prayer of  
Will. Jameson. Nazianzeni   

THE CONTENTS.  

PART I.  

SECT. I. The Scope of the ensuing Treatise.  
The ancient Church for no Divine Right of Diocesan Episcopacy. pag. 1.  
The ablest of its late Patrons of no other mind, where Dr. Sandersone is noted. 2  
An examen of the Conveniencies and Inconveniencies of Prelacy undertaken. 5   

SECT. II. The Aphorism No Bishop no King discussed.  
Prelacy contributes not a little to introduce Tyranny. ibid.  
Prelates several ways most hurtful to Princes. 6  
Presbytry well agrees with Monarchy: where their Charge of Sedition and Disloyalty is largely vouched to be most unjust, from the most applauded Writers of our Adversaries themselves. 8   

SECT. III. Their Argument taken from Order weighed.  
Their strange Improvement thereof. 17  
It equally serves Prelatists and Papists. Ibid.   

SECT. IV. The Plea for Prelacy drawn from Unity discussed.  
Dissensions most frequent where Bishops bore sway. 18  
Unity and Parity harmoniously lodged in one and the same Assembly. 19   

SECT. V.  
The Argument Prelatists bring from antiquity canvased. Ibid.   

SECT, VI  
The Instance of Aërius condemned by Epiphanius proved to be unserviceable to our Antagonists.  
They join with the most disingenous of Papists in using this Argument. 21  
The choicest of the Fathers for the Scriptural and Apostolic Identity of Bishop and preaching Presbyter. 22  
Epiphanius giveth little Patrociny to our Adversaries. 23  
His Injustice to Aerius in this matter. ibid.  
If Aerius was Arrian largely disputed: the affirmative whereof is rendered improbable by the profound Silence of those who were concerned to have mentioned it. 24  
The Tractate ascribed to ●●siliu● 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is judged supposititious: wherein there's nothing to be found concerning Aerius. This report of Aërius his Arrianism leans on Epiphanius' testimony alone, whose great Levity and Credulity is universally noted. 25  
It is instanced in his dealing with the Donatists whom on no good ground he accuses of the same crime of Arrianism. 26  
They're absolved by Augustine and Optatus. Ibid.  
It's objected that Aerius his commerce with Eustathius of Schastia may give countenance to the report of Epiphanius. Ibid.  
Eustathius tho' a Heretic yet was not Arrian but a Macedonian, who seems rather to have been dangerously shaken then entirely wedded to Macedonianism. Ibid.  
But on supposition of the worst several reasons are brought making probable that nothing can be inferred from his commerce to prove Aërius' Heretic. 27.  
The loss of the Writings of the Ancient and traduced witnesses of tru●h is lamentable. Ibid.  
The Judgement of Philastrius concerning Aërius related; against whom the Aërians are vindicated from the Crime of Encratitism. 28  
They were fiercely persecuted and why. 29  
Between Philastrius and Epiphanius no good agreement. The negative testimony of both Philastrius and Rabanus Maurus against what is delivered by Epiphanius. 30   

SECT. VII. No Diocesan Bishops in several ancient Churches.  
This Instanced in the Churches of Ireland, of afric, and of Scotland. 30  
The ablest of our Adversaries brought to a sore pinch hereby. 34  
Sir George Mckenzie is Epistolary Defence of Prelacy canvassed: where Bede is vindicated against the Bishop of St. Asaph, and Buchanan and Hector Boethius vindicated against Spotswood, to whom the Advocate referred. Ibid.  
That we had a constitute Church before the coming of Palladius evinced against both Bishop and Advocate. 38  
Our Primitive Doctors why called Monks. The cavils of Spotswood and the Bishop of St. Asaph removed. 39  
Small power of Prelates for a long time after Palladius. 40  
The most memorable result of the Combat between the Advocate and the Bishop of St. Asaph. Ibid.  
D. M.'s exceptions removed. His negative argument no argument. 42  
●●●ndel vindicated. 44  
D. M's perversion of Baron's clear testimony detected. Ibid.  
He in vain attempts to deprave, and then to exauctorate Prosper himself. 46  
Other specimen of D. M's unhandsome dealing. 47   

SECT VIII. Prelacy opposite to the Principles of our Reformers.  
The Hierarchy is condemned by our Confession. 49  
Knox and his fellows are proved to have been most opposite to the Hierarchick Domination. 50  
The Author of the Fundamental Charter of Presbytry adventures not on our special Arguments. Ibid.  
Against whom Knox's great averseness from Prelacy is evinced by vindicating of his Letter to the Assembly. 51  
And by vindicating of Knox's words and actions at the Instalment of John Douglas. 52  
And from clear and unsuspected records: where 'tis also evinced that the bulk of both Ministers and People were then opposite to Prelacy. 54  
This Authors cavils from the meeting at Leith 7½ and from some expressions of the Assemblies canvased and annihilated. 56  
Knox's antiprelatical judgement demonstrated from Beza's Letter, which is vindicated from this Author's exceptions. 60  
Who pretending to make Knox a Prelatist only labours to prove him and our other Reformers self-repugnant Babblers. 61  
His ridiculous Sophisms examined and exposed. 62  
Knox alloweth no Prelacy to England. 66  
He exhorts the English to embrace a Church-government and Discipline altogether Antiprelatical. 67  
The Assemblies letter 1566. vindicated from this Author's pretended allowance of Prelacy. 69  
Knox acknowledged by the fiercest Prelatists to be truly Presbyterian. 70  
Superintendents in Scotland a temporary expedient. The nullity of this Author's reasons to the contrary detected. 72  
The falseness of his Gloss of our first Book of discipline largely demonstrated. 76  
Superintendency not really inconsistent with parity. This Author's unchristian raillery, his overthrowing of the great principle of Hierarchicks are discovered, and his bottomless cavils enervated. 77  
The stock of Prerogatives he pretends to have belonged to Superintendents evinced to be unserviceable to his design of giving Superintendents a superiority over their Pastors. 81  
He at once yields the whole cause, and clasheth with himself. Our first Reformers their opposition to, and hatred of Prelacy's being damnable demonstrated. The Helvetian and other 〈◊〉 Churches opposite to Prelacy as being destitute of Scripture-foundation. 86   

SECT. IX. The foreign Reformed Churches truly Presbyterian.  
The Judgement of Luther and Lutherans. 89  
The mind of Calvin and those called Calvinists both in their private capacities, and confessions of the most famous Churches. 90  
Specimens of the chiefest objections adduced and removed where the uncandide dealing of our Adversaries is unfolded. 91  
Who yet are forced to acknowledge the truth of our assertion. 95  
The eminent Opposers of Popery before Luther truly Presbyterian. 96  
The first Reformers and body of the Church of England at that time for no divine right of Prelacy where some of Saravia's qualities are noted. Ibid.   

SECT. X. Some of the manifold Inconveniences attending Prelacy briefly mentioned.  
A Spirit of Persecution still attended it. 98  
The Principles of Prelacy and practice of Prelatists most Schismatical. Ibid.  
It's native tendency to introduce Popery. 99  
And to a Papal Domination and enslaving of the Kingdom. 100  
The spite and hatred the Hierarchicks show against our Reformation from Popery, their impiety, and affection to Popery. Ibid.  
Dr. Burnet's exceptions from the Regulars the●r trampling on the Bishops and the dealing of the Papalines at the Council of Trent enervated. 102  
Another exception or retortion of this Author cashiered. 105  
Lousness and Profanity the constant attendent of Prelacy. 106    

PART II.  

SECT. I. Of Ignatius and his Epistles.  
Papists and other Hierarchicks make a fairer appearance from humane than from Divine Writings. 109  
A short account of Ignatius and of the Epistles bearing his name. 110  
Various Editions thereof. Ibid.  
Our Adversaries now acknowledge to be spurious that they once gave out for genuine: where of the Florentine Copy. 111  
Debates among the Learned concerning it. Ibid.  
The unhandsome arts of our Adversaries to free themselves of further dispute. 112  
The great Confidence they place in Ignatius. 113  
Three Hypothese laid down, according to each whereof Ignatius becomes unserviceable to the Prelatists. Ibid.   

SECT. II. The first Hypothesis viz. that Ignatius is, at best, interpolated.  
Writings pretending to greatest proximity to either Old or New Testament carry most manifest signs of spuriousness, in which Divine Providence is observed. 114  
Their Epistolick Ignatius' want of Apostolic Gravity and Humility: his enslaving of the People and flattering, yea deifying of all Churchmen. 115  
Dr. pearson's Exceptions removed. 119  
Du Pin's self-repugnancy. 121  
Dr. Wake's Error discovered. 122  
A brief sum of the Arguments evincing our assertion. 124  
Other things very early falsely fathered on Ignatius. Ibid  
His Journey to Rome uncredible. 125   

SECT III The second Hypothesis, viz. That the Antiquity of the true Ignatius could not secure him from all Lapses or Escapes, nor serve to prove that there were no declension in his time.  
Whole Churches suerving during the life of the Apostles themselves. They grew worse after their death. 126  
Papias' mistakes and multitude of Followers. 127  
The failings of Justine Martyr and Irenaus. Ibid.  
The influence they had on the Church. The common mistakes of these times in Practics no less than in Dogmatics; which is instanced in their debate about Easter. 128  
Both parties went contrare to the Apostolic practice; which is proved by clear Testimonies of Iranus and Socrates. 129  
Their strange conduct in managing this debate, who Metamorphosed some Apostles into Jewish High-Priests. 130  
The Credulity and Oseitancy of Hegesippus. 131  
We are to hearken to God before the chiefest of Men. Divine providence observable in the mistakes of the Ancients. 132   

SECT IV. The third Hypothesis, that there is no real disagreement, but a true concord betwixt the Doctrine of Ignatius and that of the present Presbyterians.  
They are reconciled by sustaining the Hypothesis of ruling Elders, which Office is vouched to be of greatest Antiquity; and where Ambrose or Hilary is vindicated against Dr. Field. 134  
Ignatius most express for the reciprocation of a Bishop and a Pastor of one Congregation 136  
Our Adversaries yield the whole Controversy; where Dr. Maurice's Mist is dispelled. 138  
Vindiciae Ignatianae destroy their Authors ultimate design. 140   

SECT. V. The Objections they pretend to bring from Scripture against the Doctrine now deduced from Ignatius, removed.  
D. M's reasonings for the Diocesan Episcopacy of Timothy and Titus, annihilated 140  
No power properly Apostolic ordinary and permanent in the Church. 143  
Willet's answer to the jebusites vindicated against their Advocate. D. M. 147  
The Office and nature of an Evangelist declared out of the Ancients. 148  
D. M●s mutilation and perversion of Eusebius. 149  
That Timothy & Titus were Evangelists, and not Diocesan Bishops made out from Scripture. Ibid.  
Apostles and Evangelists degraded by the Hierarchicks. 150  
Their Arguments for Timothy and Titus their Diocesan-ship houghed by the very Authors in whom they most confide, both ancient and modern. Ibid.  
Their Argument from the Asian Angels several ways overthrown, and D. M's shifts and perversions expunged. 151  
Malach. 2. 7. vindicated against Dr. Hammond. 153  
His Correction of the received Greek Copy of Rev. 2. 24. corrected D. M's strange and wild Gloss. Ibid.  
Salmasius vindicated against him, and the mind of Presbyterians concerning Apocalyptick Angels fully sustained by Scripture and Fathers. 154  
The best of our Adversaries really acknowledge Episcopacy destitute of Scripture warrant. Dr. Hammond wholly destroys Episcopacy while he attempts to establish it. 155   

SECT. VI Our meaning of Ignatius confirmed from the writings of the Apostles his immediate Ancestors.  
Acts 20. v. 17, 28 vindicated against Dr. Maurice and others who are by the ears among themselves. 157  
Philippians 1. 1. vindicated; where the Diocesanists their Digladiations are exposed. 158  
Philippi no Metropolis; where Dr. Maurice his weakness is detected; the fiction of the existence of Metropoles in the Apostolic age exploded by the Hierarchy's truest friends; Dr. Maurice's slippery dealing. 159  
The first to Timothy 3. vindicated against Bellarmine, and his Friend D. M. 162  
As is also Titus 1. 164   

SECT. VII. The grand objection taken from the Commentaries of the Ancients.  
The primitive Doctors (as themselves acknowledge) were subject to many considerable lapses and escapes. 165  
The causes thereof. 167  
Several reasons demonstrating that if ever the Fathers so glossed these texts as not to hurt Diocesan Episcopacy, they then gave not their genuine sentiments. 168   

SECT. VIII. More clear testimonies of the Primitive Doctors against the Divine right of Diocesan Episcopacy produced and vindicated.  
The testimony of Ambrose or Hilary: Bellarmine's perversion discovered. 171  
Petavius' vain attempts both to exauctorate and deprave Hilary. 173  
The testimony of chrysostom 174  
He's vindicated from Bellarmine's depravation. 175  
The testimonies of Pelagius, Sedulius, and Primasius. 176  
Augustine vindicated against Bellarmine and his Plagiary D. M. 177  
Apart of Jerome's testimony on the epistle to Titus vindicated against the dishonest dealing of Bellarmne and D. M. 178  
No ground to think that ever Jerome accounted James Bishop of Jerusalem. 180  
All Dispenser's of the Word and Sacraments are in Jerome's account the Apostles Successors. 181  
The rest of Jerome's testimony on the Epistle to Titus vindicated. 182  
His testimony out of the Epistle to Enagrius vindicated against Bellarmine and D. M. 183  
This doctrine of Jerome most catholic and universally received. 188   

SECT. IX. The testimenies of Ignatius his Contemporaries and Suppars disproving what our Adversaries would force him to speak, and confirming what we have proved to be his mind, viz. that he cashiers a Diocesan Prelacy.  
Negative testimonies. 190  
Clemens Romanu●'s positive and clear testimonies. 192  
Petaviu●'s exceptions met with. 194  
As are these of his Underling D. M. 197  
The testimony of Polyca●p: where Dr. Pearson's strange evasion is routed: and D M ● ill gronnded vaporing exploded. 199  
The testimonies of Hermas: where the vanity of D. M. ● Romish Cavils is discovered and Blondel vindicated. 200  
The testimony of Justine Martyr where Dr. Maurice's perversions are detected, as is also the unreasonableness of D. M's. reasons against Justine Martyr's plain meaning. 204  
Irenaeus identifies Bishop and preaching Presbyter. 206  
D. M's. Popish query. 207   

SECT. X. Other Observations and Arguments eversive of Diocesan Prelacy.  
A Bishop is a name of labour, a Presbyter a name of honour, Ibid  
The true notions of the Apostolic and Hierarchick Bishop diametrically opposite one to another. 209  
The example of the Apostolic Bishop followed, and the Idea thereof retained by all the true primitive Bishops or Doctors, which is all one with the notion of a laborious Pastor of a Congregation. Ibid.  
This is confirmed out of the Council of Sardica and others of these times, where Dr. Maurice and Dr. Beverige their sly and perverse dealing is discovered. 2●0  
The subjecting of one Pastor or Church to another finally resolved into a Romish slavery. 213  
Every Disepnser of the Word and Sacraments is a true Bishop. 214  
That in the least Village and meanest Countrie-places, where there was a Congregation, there was a true Bishop largely evinced: where Dr. Maurice his exceptions is obviated. Ibid.  
All Bishops equal among themselves; hence their Hierarchy is overthrown. 216  
Their Romish argument from the pretendedly uninterupted succession of Diocesan Bishops enervated. 217  
The argument drawn from the lists of Bishops in Rome and such great Cities satisfied; First, From the positions already demonstrated, which are further confirmed: Secondly, From the confessed uncertainty of these lists: Thirdly, From this that in Rome there was at once a plurality of Peter's pretended successors: Fourthly, From this that Peter was never at Rome, which is largely demonstrated: Fifthly, from the evident falsity of the lists of the Bishops of Jerusalem. 218  
That the government of the prime primitive Church was truly Presbyterian made out from a cloud of most unsuspected Authors, 225  
A prostasy gradually turned into a Papal Tyranny 230  
The Ancients kept fast the Foundations of Christianity, but strayed exceedingly in superstitious additions, 231  
The Hierarchicks embracing divers novel Enormities desert the Primitive Church: where Heylen's preversion of the Ancients is discovered: Matthew 20, 25, etc. vindicated. and D. M's Romanism and Judaisme detected. 223  
The Bishop of Aiace his Christian Discourse unchristianly eluded and slighted by the Trent-Hierarchicks. 239     

ERRATA.  
pag. lin. read 2 7 r. this 4 23 r. thereto is sufficient. 7 1 r. palpably. 8 10 r. Jac. 14 1 r. the fears of the. 26 33 deal comma. 32 penult. r 158. Ibid ibid. r 163. Ibid. ult. r 53. 37 25 deal (y) 59 10 deal as 69 21 r hope of their. 80 25 r is enjoined. 82 32 r life. 84 1 r Act. 85 13 r their. 87 ult. r disaproved. 92 15 r liked. 104 33 r from. 125 7 r leans. 129 6 r Apostles. 137 13 r breaking on bread. 140 30 r whereon. 150 28 r Apostles. 168 21 r expositures: 175 24 r other Pastors. 178 5 r in. 184 12 deal that. 185 18 r Apostolical. 186 28 r were. 188 27 add it. 197 26 deal it. 202 18 r from. 207 1 r our. 214 6 r or. Ibid. 7 r of. 216 ult. r are. 217 20 add acknowledged. Ibid. 31 r them. Ibid. pen. r de cornu. 219 20. r breaks. 223 1 Babylon, and is called a Persian i. e. a Parthian City, and the Metropolis. 237 16 r allowable. 239 28 r would   

ADDENDA  

pag. 71. lin. 21.  
But (saith Heylen, cosmography pag. 332.) being once settled in an orderly and constant Hierarchy, they held the same until the Reformation began by Knox: when he & his Associates approving the Genevian Platform, took the advantage of the Minority of King James the sixth, to introduce Presbyterian Discipline and suppress the Bishops.   

pag. 96. lin. 9  
What was the mind of the Waldenses & Hussites (saith Voetius speaking of the Opposers of Prelacy, Polit. Eccles. part. 2. pag. 833.) is evident from their most accurate History written by Joh. Paulus Perrinus, which is not extant save in their vulgar Tongues.    

Nazianzeni Querela et Votum Justum. OR, The Fundamentals of the HIERARCHY examined and disproved.  

Part I.  
Which briefly handles the prime Arguments for the Hierarchy, as also some of its Concomitants and Qualities.  

Section I.  
The Scope of the ensuing Treatise.  
THE purpose of our present Discourse is not directly to handle that much tossed Debate; if an Office in the Church for species or kind superior to that of dispensing the Word and Sacraments hath any footing or warrant in the Word of God? Neither will this be judged necessary by any who call to mind that many Treatises disproving the divine right of Episcopacy, as Altar Damascenum, and Rectius Instruendum, have had so good success that, for aught I know, they stand entirely without any shadow of an Answer. Yea the most learned that ever pleaded for the Lawfulness of Episcopacy, will not blame us, though we yield no Scripture-ground to it, but only consider it in itself as a thing indifferent; of which mind, among the Ancients, were, not only those who denied not the exercise of his Office to be Lawful, as Hierome; but also the very Bishops themselves, as Augustine, all of them founding this Office, not upon Jus Dominicum, the Law of God in the Scriptures; but Ecclesiasticam consuetudinem, the practice of the Church.  
Add hereto that both Fathers and Councils equally in Opinion and Practice, stuck no less to the lawfulness of Patriarchat, than that of simple Episcopacy; and yet I believe few among real Protestants will either assert the Divine Right of this Office of Patriarchat, i. e. that it had any Warrant for it in the Word of God; or yet that those Fathers and Councils so believed. Which present Consideration furnisheth us with another Argument sufficient to evince that the ancient Ch●rch founded this Office only upon Custom; and, as they thought, Christian Prudence, and not at all upon the Books of the Old and New Testament.  
§. 2. Neither do the most Learned of the Modern Episcopals in the least swerve from this Opinion; amongst whom I reckon D. Forbes, who, 
a Iren. lib. 2. Caput 11.  having, for a while with the greatest tenderness and fear, handled this Matter, propones at length the Question, If Episcopacy be of Divine Right? And yet declares himself highly difficultated what to Answer; for absolutely deny it, he will not: and positively assert it he dares not: he therefore confounds it with a Synodical Moderatourship, and then fairly tells us that it is of Divine: Right; because of the general Scripture-Precepts of Church-Order and Decency. And indeed he carries himself all along in this Matter with so much nice Caution, Ambiguity and Fear, that he evinces the desperation of the Episcopal Cause, to which so learned a Man could afford no better Defence, than really to destroy what he pretends to vindicat.  
Neither is the most Learned Bishop Vsser of another mind, who has reduced it to a mere shadow, and nonentity.  
And 
b Synop. pap. conti. 5. Quest. 3. Part 2.  Willet, though he says that a difference is needful for Church-Policy, yet affirms, that this cannot be proved by the Word of God, and that in the Apostles times a Bishop and Presbyter were neither in Name nor Office distinguished. And he at large answers all Bellarmine's Arguments to the Contrary. See the Appendix to the second part of the forecited Question. Of this same Judgement is their applauded Hooker 
c Preface to his Ecclesiastical Policy▪ p. 2. 19 and 20.  viz. that there is no ground for their Hierarchy in the word of God; while he declares himself against all particular Forms of Church-government, and acknowledges that nothing for Diocesan Prelacy can be brought therefrom. The necessity of Policy (saith he 
d P. 131. ) and regimen in all Churches may be held without holding any one certain Form to be necessary in them all. And the general Principles are such as do not particularly prescribe any one, but sundry Forms of Discipline may be equally consonant unto the general Axioms of Scripture. It hath been told them that Matters of Faith, and in general, Matters necessary unto Salvation are of a different Nature from Ceremonies, Order, and the kind of Church-Government, that the one are necessary to be expressly contained in the Word of God, or else manifestly collected out of the same; the other not so, that it is necessary not to receive the one unless there be something in Scripture for them, the other free if nothing be alleged against them. And the Learned D. Stilling fleet is at no small pains to cashier and expunge, among the rest of peculiar Forms of Government. This Diocesan Prelacy out of Scriptural-Articles; and not only acknowledges, but also, 
e In Iren.  musters not a few Arguments, whereby to Prove that it hath no Ground in Holy Scripture.  
And, Dr. Morton, 
f Apologiae Cathol. lib. 1. p. 118. 119. 120.  Though a zealous Defender of Episcopacy: Asserts that Hierome made not the Difference between Bishop and Presbyter of Divine Institution; he ass●nts to Medina the Jesuit, and asserts, that there was no Difference in the matter of Episcopacy betwixt Hierome and Aerius: He avers further that not only the Protestants, but also all the primitive Doctors were of Hierome ' s mind And finally he concludes, that according to the Harmonious Consent of all Men in the Apostolic Age, there was no Difference between Bishop and Pesbyter, but was afterward introduced for the removal of Schism. And Jewel Bishop of Sarisburie (a Man for Piety, and Ability, Second, I am sure, to few that ever filled an Episcopal Chair) most expressly asserts the Identity of Bishop and Presbyter Here (saith 
h Defence of the Apology of the Church of England. pag. 121.  he) Mr. Harding findeth great fault, for that I have translated these words, ejusdem Sacerdotii, of the same Bishopric, and not, as he would have it, of one Priesthood. God wot a very simple Quarrel. Let him take, whether he listeth best: if either-other of these words shall serve his turn. Erasmus saith, id temporis idem erat Episcopus, Sacerdos, & Presbyter: these three Names, viz. Bishop, Priest. and Presbyter at that time were all one. And 
i page 248.  but what meant Mr. Harding here to come in with the Difference between Priests, or Presbyters and Bishops? Thinketh he, that Priests, and Bishops hold only by Tradition? Or is it so horrible an Heresy, as he maketh it, to say, that by the Scriptures of God, a Bishop, and a Priest are all one? Or knoweth he, how far, and unto whom, he reacheth the Name of an Heretic? Verily Chrysostom saith, Inter Episcopum, & Presbyterum interest ferme nihil; between a Bishop, and a Priest, (which is all one with Presbyter) in a manner there is no difference. St. Hierome saith, somewhat in a rougher sort, Audio Quendam etc. I hear say there is one become so Peevish, that he setteth Deacons before Priests, that is to say, before Bishops: whereas the Apostle plainly teacheth us that Priests, and Bishops be all one. Thus far Jewel.  
The Bishops and Priests (saith the famous Bishop Cranmer 
k Stillingfleet Iren. pag. 392. ) were at one time, and were not two things, but both one Office in the beginning of Christ's Religion. And, In the New Testament, he that is appointed to be a Bishop or a Priest, needeth no Consecration by the Scripture; for Election or Appointing thereto sufficient.  
In the same MS. (saith Dr. Stillingfleet 
l Iren. pag. 393. ) it appears, that the Bishop of St. Asaph, Therleby, Redman, and Cox, were all of the same Opinion with the Archbishop, that at first Bishops and Presbyters were the same; and the two latter expressly cite the Opinion of Jerome with Approbation. Thus we see by the Testimony chiefly of him who was Instrumental in Our Reformation, that he owned not Episcopacy as a distinct Order from Presbytry but only as a prudent Constitution of the Civil Magistrate, for the better governing in the Church. And having proved that Whitgift, and with him the whole Body of the English Episcopal Divines were of the same Judgement, thus concludes; 
m pag. 395.  By which Principles the Divine Right of Episcopacy as founded upon Apostolical Practice, is quite subverted and destroyed.  
Now judge if Dr. Sandersone 
n Episcopacy not prejudicial to regal Power. Page 13, 14, 15.  spoke not without the allowance, ye acontrary to the express Mind of his Brethren, when he says that the Difference among the Advocats for Episcopacy is only Verbal, and that all of them, even those who yield that it is not of Divine Right, no less than the rest, assert that it is founded on the Example and Institution of Christ or his Apostles.  
§. 3. This Discourse therefore shall weigh the Advantages alleged to flow from Episcopacy, that it may appear if it have such Effects as they Promise; As also inquire if the Hurt and Damage does not preponderat all the Good they can pretend to be linked to their Hierarchy. Neither shall we neglect to examine, if what the most Learned of that Persuasion bring from Ecclesiastic Antiquity, be subservient to their Cause.   

Section II.  
The Aphorism No Bishop No King discussed.  
A Chief Argument whereby they would prove the necessity of Prelacy they bring from the great Support which they say it affords to Monarchy. Hence with them No Bishop No King is an axiomatick Aphorism, which cannot be readily granted, seeing, to name no more, the charges the Hierarchy stood the King and Kingdom made a dear Bargain. Much was spent in their stated Revenues, but more by their clandestine Exactions, and other sinistrous means of draining the Country, and places of their pretended Jurisdictions, throw which there are Incorporations that, even at this day, groan under the Debts they then contracted: And yet more by sustaining Standing-forces to be Janissaries to the Prelates and their Complices, and persecute the sincerer part of Protestants, for else there was then no use of such numbers. Yet their Maxim may be thus far granted, that Prelacy may much contribute to the introduction of a Despotic and Arbitrary Government: And indeed the great Power they usurped, and manifold Influences they had over both Cities and Country, either to wheedle or menace them to elect such Members of Parliament as pleased them; and to Cajole or awe these Parliament-men to speak in their own Dialect: And the being of a good number of them prime Lords of the Articles, whereby they had either the mediate or immediate Flection of the rest, made them well nigh able to effect no less: Which kind of Government no Wise and Paternal Prince will desire.  
§ 2. Moreover that Princes have no great reason to be fond of them is apparent from their great unfitness to manage Politic and State-Affairs.  
There are two Ways whereby one may be fitted for being a Statesman; either when Natural enduements are extraordinary, which I doubt if many of our Prelates could affirm of themselves: Or else that of Education and continued Industry whereby to be fitted for State-imployments; but so far were they from any thing of this, that during their greener years, they had quite other Studies and Employments, being designed for the Ministry; and so were obliged to prosecute hard the Study of Divinity, which, I am sure, will give any Man his handsfull of Work, who makes earnest of it.  
From this they are taken to feed some Flock, which, at least, will give them no less exercise. Now, how these Men can be fit for managing State-affairs, or, how they can be well kept from falling into Solecisms therein, whose skill is so small, is not very discernible. But though they were never so well fore-armed for such high State-imployments, how find they leisure to exercise them? Is not the Ruling, and Governing so many Ministers and Churches, which they allege themselves to be entrusted with, a Work heavy enough to exercise, if not to bruise any one Man? Or, where have they found Warrant to relinquish the Ministry, and turn themselves to Offices of State when offered, or to undertake both together? Do they not believe that either of them is heavy enough? Know they not that not only the Apostle, but also the ancient Canons, and, to name no others, these which (though not truly) are called the Canons of the Apostles, most clearly condemn this their Practice?  
Let neither (say they (a)) Bishop, Presbyter or Deacon taken upon him any secular Business; otherways let him be cast out off his Office: Hence we may learn, 
b Canon 6. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  if it be out of Conscience that these Men plead for Antiquity, when they palpable contemn and trample what themselves count the most venerable Precepts thereof. Moreover it's observable how they, so far as their Interest led them, still studied the ruin of those to whom they owed their Being, as Bishops. Thus the Roman Prelates studied the Ruin of both the Eastern and Western Emperors: Thus the Bishops of Scotland brought no small Vexation to both King and Nobility, in the Reign of Alexander the III. And so Becket of Canter●ury, and his Faction handled Henry the TWO of England. But worse did their Successors treat Richard the TWO, whom, in his Absence, they deprived of his Kingdom. It's vain to repone that these were Papists; seeing the ambition of Prelates is well enough known of whatever Name they be: Yea such also have been the Practices of Prelates who acknowledged no Pope, as divers of the Greek Patriarches, who helped not a little to Dethrone their Emperor. And the English Bishops (as Sir Francis Knols complains in a Letter to Secretary Sicily) encroached not a little upon the Privileges of the Crown, kept Courts in their own Name, and still give out, that the Complex of their Office, i. e. the civil part of it, as well as the other, without any Distinction, was not from the King but from Jesus Christ. Which Encroachments are really Imperium in Imperio.  
On which account, this their usurped Power, as being dangerous, and of a Romish Original, was abolished in the first Parliament, of Edward the VI The Substance of what Dr. Sanderson either insinuats or more clearly expresseth in Answer hereto, is, that this was a Corruption in Edward 's Reformation: And that some other Courts in England, as well as these of the Bishops are not kept in the King's Name. But sure, it's not very credible that this was a Corruption seeing nothing else, since Edward's Days, hath been done, during the succeeding Reigns, for that Church's further Reformation; but 'tis an odd Paradox if we consider the Author, for it was Mary who Abolished this Act of Edward, and restored their Power when she brought back the rest of Popery: And though other Courts, as he says, be not kept in the King's Name, yet reason teacheth, and former experience proves, how dangerous it was to give ecclesiastics ought that looks like an Absolute power, and worldly Grandeur, whereby, like the Pope, they may, by his Artifices arrive, at length, to a real Independency. And indeed B. Laud made large steps towards it, who, as Roger Coke relates, 
c Detection of the Court and State of England. Vol. 1. Page 361.  copt with the King himself, and maugre both his Will and Authority must visit Colleges not as his Commissioner, but by his own Metropolitan right, and plumed (thus saith the Author) in his own Feathers, all black and white, without one borrowed from Caesar whereby the more he assumes to himself the less he leaves to the King, he now soars higher.  
And notable here is Dr. Sanderson's disingenuity, who always gives out that the Marian Act, which he still compares with, yea prefers to that of Edward, was never repealed by any succeeding Parliament. But we are informed by the same R. Coke (d) that by the 1. Tac. 25. the Marian Act was repealed and so that of Edward revived. And now to see him, who pretends to be a Minister of the Gospel (whose Office is only Ministerial and spiritual, exercised only in spiritual things, without reaching Men's Bodies, inflicting only Rebukes, and such verbal punishments) to see such I say keeping Courts altogether Civil, and inflicting corporal mulcts and Punishments after the manner of Worldly Potentats, but especially when all this is done in their own Name, would really make the indifferent Beholder aver that such imitated, to the Life, his Romish Holiness, and believed much better his Doctrine of his receiving both spiritual and temporal Sword, than that of our Saviour, whereby he prohited his Apostles and their Successors all such earthly Grandeur and despotic Power, as resembles the Lordship and Dominion of worldly Princes.  
§. 3. But their Maxim not only intimats that Prelacy well acordeth with Movarchy; but also, that any other Form of Church-government is destructive thereof. Which how they will evince I know not: How they can show that presbytery, with which I am only here concerned, is destructive of, or in the least inconsistent with Monarchy I cannot perceive. They can, I am sure, neither deduce their Inference from the Practice of Presbyterians, nor the Principles of presbytery: Not from the first, for though they load them, as if they had been the Cause, of many Civil Broils and Calamities, and especially of these ensuing the Year 38. We may justly, yea with the allowance of the Hierarchie's greatest Favourers, reject the Charge, and send it home to the Prelates, who, by their attempting to introduce into the Church a Mass of Romish Superstitions, and their Pride and Tyranny exercised on all sorts, were become unsupportable to both Nobility and People.  
B. Laud, Montegue and such Papaturients were then earnestly labouring the reintroduction of a Mass of Romish Leaven into England, though there were but too much there already which had never been cast ●ut. Take one Instance or two in the words of R. Coke a high Church-of-England-man, and no Lover of Presbyterians, I'm sure. The Bishops (saith he 
e Vol. 1. Pag. 361. ) of the Province of Canterbury in their own Names, enjoin the removal of the Communion-table in the Paroch Churches & Universities, from the body of the Church or Chancel to the east of the Chancel, & cause Rails to be set about the Table, and refuse to administer the Sacrament to such as shall not come up to the Rails, & receive it Kneeling: that the book of Sports, on Sundays, be read in Churches, and enjoin Adoration. I do not find that Adoration was ever enjoined before, nor any of the forenamed Injunctions in any Canon of the Church. Our Bishops were of the same metal with these Innovatours in England, and their most docile Scholars: Laud therefore and his Faction apprehending that we would make but a small resistance against them to whom England was likely to yield, prepared for us all her Cup with some other additional Drugs more Romish, than what was obtruded on the English. Witness the Form in the Administration of the Sacrament which (as R. Coke 
d Pag. 368.  acknowledges) was the same in the Mass. But seeing, the knowledge of the state we were in, when the Nation entered into a Covenant, and opposed that Stream of Romish Abominations, contributes not a little to repel their fierce charges of Rebellion and Sedition; the Reader will pardon me though at some length I transcribe a Passage from one who is beyond suspicion of being partial in favours of presbytery, Covenant, or aught of that nature: I mean Dr. Burnet 
f Memoires of the D. of Hamiltoun. Pag. 29. 30.  The Bishops (saith he) therefore were cherished by him (the King viz.) with all imaginable expressions of kindness and confidence; but they lost all their Esteem with the People, and that upon divers Accounts. The People of Scotland had drunk in a deep prejudice against every thing that savoured of Popery. This the Bishops judged was too high, and therefore took all means possible to lessen it, both in Sermons and Discourses, mollifying their Opinions and commending their Persons, not without some reflections on the Reformers. But this was so far from gaining their Design, that it abated nothing of the Zeal was against Popery, but very much heightened the rage against themselves, as favouring it too much.  
There were also subtle Questions started some Years before in Holland about Predestination and Grace; and Arminius his Opinion, as it was condemned in a Synod at Dort, so was generally ill reported of in all reformed Churches, and nowhere worse than in Scotland: but most of the Bishops, and their Adherents, undertook openly and zealously the Defence of these Tenets. Likewise the Scotish Ministers and People had ever a great respect to the Lord's-day, and generally the Morality of it is reckoned an Article of Faith among them: but the Bishops not only undertaken to beat down this Opinion, but by their Practices expressed their neglect of that Day; and after all this they declared themselves avowed Zealots for the Liturgy and Ceremonies of England, which were held by the Zealous of Scotland all one with Popery. Upon these Accounts it was, that they lost all their Esteem with the People. Neither stood they in better Terms with the Nobility, who at that time were as considerable as ever Scotland saw them; and so proved both more sensible of Injuries, and more capable of resenting them. They were offended with them, because they seemed to have more interest with the King than themselves had, so that Favours were mainly distributed by their Recommendation; they were also upon all Affairs, nine of of them were Privy Counsellors, divers of them were of the Exehequer, Spotswood Archbishop of S. Andrews, was made Chancellor, and Maxwell Bishop of Ross was fair for the Treasury, and engaged in a high rivalry with the Earl of Traquair, than treasurer, which tended not a little to help forward their Ruin. And besides this, they began to pretend highly to the Titles and Impropriations, and had gotten one Learnmonth a Minister presented Abbot of Lindoris, and seemed confident to get that state of Abbots, with all the Revenue and Power belonging to it, again restored into the hands of Churchmen; designing also, that according to the first Institution of the College of Justice, the half of them should be Churchmen. This could not but touch many of the Nobility in the quick, who were too large sharers in the Patrimony of the Church, not to be very seusible of it. They were no less hateful to the Ministry, because of their Pride, which was cried out upon as unsupportable. Great Complaints were also generally made qf Simoniacal Pactions with their Servants, which was imputed to the Masters, as if it had been for their advantage, at least by their allowance.  
They also exacted a new Oath of Intrants, (besides what was in the Act of Parliament for obedience to their ordinary) in which they were obliged to obey the Articles of Perth, and submit to the Liturgy and Canons. They were also daily making Inroads upon their Jurisdiction, of which the Ministers were very sensible; and universally their great rigour against any that favoured of Puritanism, together with their meddling in all Secular-affairs, and relinquishing their Dioceses to wait on the Court and Council, made them the Object of all Men's fury. But that which heightened all to a Crisis was, their advising the King to introduce some Innovations in the Church by his own Authority; things had prospered so ill in general Assemblies, that they thought of these no more. And in the Parliament 1633. that small addition to the prerogative, that the King might appoint what habits he pleased to the Clergy, met with vigorous opposition, notwithstanding the King seemed much concerned for it; those who opposed it being sharply taken up, and much neglected by his Majesty, which stuck deep in their Hearts, the Bishops bearing all the blame of it. At this time a Liturgy was drawn for Scotland, or rather the English reprinted with that Title, save that it had some Alterations which rendered it more invidious and less satisfactory; and after long consulting about it and another Book of Canons, they were at length agreed to, that the one should be the Form of the Scotish-worship, and the other the model of their Government, which did totally vary from their former Practices and Constitutions: and as if all things had conspired to carry on their Ruin, the Bishops not satisfied with the General High-commission-court, produced Warrants from the King for setting up such Commissions in their several Dioceses, in which with other Assessors, Ministers, and Gentlemen, all of their own Nomination, they might punish Offenders. That was put in practice only by the Bishop of Galloway, who though he was a pious and learned Man, yet was fiery and passionate, and went so roundly to work, that it was cried out upon as a Yoke and Bondage which the Nation was not able to bear. And after all this the King (advised by the Bishops) commanded the Service-book to be received through Scotland, and to be read according to the New Book at Edinburgh on Easter-day in the year 1637.  
Thus Dr. Burnet, of which kind much more might be taken from his, and the Writings of other Adversaries themselves, and yet far more from these of the Disinterested. And now judge under how woeful a Burden we then groaned, and if it was not high time for the Nation to curb such Tyranny over Bodies and Consciences, and stem the tide of these hateful Corruptions, which not softly and by a stealth, but by violence, like a mighty torrent, were bearing all before them, and at once ready to sweep away both Religion and Property: Should they not by sitting still and quietly yielding both Sacred and Civil Rights, have proved in the highest degree treacherous to their God, Country and Posterity? And seeing the Prelates were either the Authors, or great Promoters of all this Mischief. and the Office itself asserted only upon human-right, and so as a thing indifferent, by its ablest Advocats; and by the King himself 
h Nalson's Collections Vol. 1. Page 247.  yielded to be contrary to the constitution of the Church of Scotland; And, finally, by the body of the Nation held to be unlawful, Tyrannical and Antichristian: Were they not then highly obliged, not only, to cashier the Officers, but also to abolish the Office itself? In the mean while, though their Supplications were both most humble and reasonable, yet so had B. Laud and his Faction misled and abused the King's Majesty, who otherwise was both Virtuous and Laudable, that the Suppliants were at first answered with terrible Menaces, then with dilatory and ambiguous Speeches, which were seconded with earnest Preparations for a most destructive War, and vengeance on the supposed Delinquents. Nor was ever aught granted but by inches as the urgency of the Courts Affairs compelled them, resolving in the mean while only to gain time, and practise such Artifices until strength being recovered, the Suppliants, either broken among themselves, or lulled into security, might be overwhelmed at unawars, and with the more ease sacrificed to the fury of the Canterburians. As for the black and criminal Actions imputed, during these Times, to the Covenanters (i e. to the body of the Nation, seeing not only the Bulk of the Commonalty, and Gentry, but also the Nobility well nigh to a man, save the Papists, as is acknowledged on all hands, joined in opposing these Enormities) as I shall ever most frankly condemn them when the charge is proved, and doubt not (which falls out in the best of Actions) but that divers who joined them might drive sinistrous Ends; so I aver that all the impartial will distinguish between Scelus and Error, and ascribe any Escapes or Solecims, any way chargeable on others, not to their want of Conscience and Loyalty, but at worst to their want of foresight: to which bias the odd dealings of the Court, and their want of Experience of these with whom they afterward joined, doubtless contributed not a little to incline them. They were not ignorant that King James who (as Dr. Burnet 
i Memoires Page 29.  intimats) opposed Presbytry, not out of Conscience, but Policy, rarely minded to keep what he promised; and, at every innovation he introduced, averred that it should be the last, while he only designed to make it a preparative for more. And indeed, to name no others, King James his prevaricating, temporising, promising, and consenting to what he never meant to stand longer than until by force, he should be able to undo them, is not altogether concealed even by his own Spotswood 
k Hist. Page 447, 453.  himself, though rarely, I acknowledge, guilty of so much ingenuity. Neither made he any bones to obtrude on this Kingdom inquisitionlike High-commission-courts, without any Law 
l Memoires Page 47. & alibi  or Acts of Parliament.  
These his steps were trodden by his Successor, who, being Prepossessed by the Canterburians, with all imaginable severity, urged and increased these lawless Innovations, and yet stuck not to aver that he took Arms only to surpress Rebellion, and not to impose Novelties 
m Memoires Page 60. . And that all Concessions then given were only to gain time, till sufficient strength to overwhelm this Kingdom, might be recovered, is not only colligible from the more impartial Accounts of these Times, but also from Nalson himself. The King (saith he 
n Collections Vol. 1. Page 245. ) was prevailed with, by this reason offered by Traquair to sign the following Instructions. That his Majesty notwithstanding whatever the Parliament could do, might, whenever he was in a better Capacity, introduce Episcopacy, because the Bishops being by all the Laws of Scotland, one of the three Estates of Parliament, no Act that passed without them would be of force, much less an Act for their Abolition, especially they not appearing or consenting to it, but protesting against it. Now, as the same Nalson relates, In these Instructions the King allows his Commissioner to cousent in his Name to the abolishing of Episcopacy when it should be enacted by the General Assembly. And now judge what strange Policy this was, which left the King at Liberty to null all Acts of Parliament wherein Bishops had not a Vote, even tho' himself had ratified the Abolition of Episcopacy, and added never so positive a Sanction to these Acts made without Bishops, which presupposed his Ratification of their Exclusion from voting in Parliament. Now I say, such strange dealings as these, and thereupon the dreadful Effects of the Court's fury, so soon as it could gather strength to exercise them, might promp Men to an extreme sheiness of believing any of its Promises, and incline them to a closer Conjunction with these of whose Arts they had less Experience. And doubtless when they made the League with the English Parliament, they were far from believing that some of them drove such Ends as afterwards appeared, and far from foreseeing (as certainly were many of the than English Parliament) the dismal Alterations which ensued; otherwise certainly they had never joined with the English or done aught of that kind. And indeed, as to their second entry into England, Dr. Burnet 
i Memoires Page 235, 236.  ingenuously demonstrats that it was well nigh impossible for them at that time to do otherways. Moreover that the Crime of Selling his Majesty is falsely imputed to the State or Church of this Nation, and that they abhorred and detested so wicked a Parricide as was committed on his Royal Person, may be attested even by the greatest of Royalists themselves; whereof, their Reception of, and standing for King Charles the TWO, and that in opposition to Antimonarchicks, until they together with him were broken by the prevailing Enemy, is a sufficient evidence.  
And as I shall not defend the separate actings of some called the Associates, so I say that every just Estimator of these Affairs will, after serious reflection, be ready, at least, to excuse and pity them; seeing they not only had fresh memory of the scarce paralleled dealing of the preceding Reign, but also perceived evident Specimens' of a strange Genius in the Successor; whence they might collect how sad and terrible things might be feared from him, should he be permitted to give the reins of Affairs to the Popish and other Incendiaries, whom even at that time he was observed most to favour; and if his subsequent Actions have not given these too much to say for themselves, I leave to the judgement of the unbyass'd. However things be, seeing these were but a handful never approved by the body of the Nation, or the most part of Presbyterians therein, their doings cannot in the least infringe the instance. Another instance is that of the Presbyterians their assisting and preserving of King James the VI in his Minority.  
But now put case many foul and unjustifiable things might be objected, and these their Actions accompanied with many Circumstances and Concomitants not to be defended; yet how levels this at the core of the Controversy? Jam dic Posthume de tribus capellis? Let them either speak to the purpose, or acknowledge their extravagancies: It's evident, and we prove, yea even from their own most approved Writers, that then, Liberty, Religion, and all morality was struck at and well nigh overwhelmed; the Body of the Nation jointly opposed themselves, that they might stop the Torrent. Now the Question is, if this was Lawful and well done? and with this they rarely dar meddle, or if they do, it must be on presupposition of pure passive obedience, without any exception, and of other such Hypotheses as not only equally levelly at the Reformation of most of the Churches from Popery, but also transform regular Monarchy into an absolute Tyranny, ruin all Subjects, and at length prove really destructive of what they pretend to advance: either I say they must use these or the like Hypotheses, and so give what is well nigh nothing to the purpose, or else adduce what is wholly foreign thereto, and only load our stout and worthy Opposers of that Mass of Romish Superstition, Irreligion, and Profanity, with most heavy Accusations, as false and perfidious, acting from bad and base Motives, using unworthy Methods, driving sinistrous Ends, and thus only endeavour to bespatre and blacken their Adversaries, not to handle the Controversy: And this minds me of what I have observed in some of the Popish Historians, and others of their Declaimers against our first Reformers, for their bad cause permitting them to speak little or nothing directly to the Purpose, and their Malice allowing them as little to be silent; they spend most of their Harangues in decrying and reproaching all who were active in that Reformation as guilty of many foul personal Blemishes, acting nothing sincerely but out of base Principles, and to as ill Designs: and amongst other things is chiefly objected the Crime of Rebellion, whereon the Romanists most commonly expatiat: and some of them add much about Conspiracies between these Rèformers and the Turk against the Catholics as if He had been at the bottom of most was then done: just as our Adversaries make Cardinal Richlieu, and the French, the Authors and chief Promoters of our opposing Laud's Popish Innovations: surely the former is less ridiculous and carries more colour of possibility than the latter. In the mean while it will make their Calumnies of less Credit with all true Protestants, that they load Knox and the rest of our first Reformers with no less black detraction and slander, than they do these of the 38, accusing and condemning them of an anarchick and ungovernable Temper, hatred against all Kings, Faction and Rebellion: and on this false pretence they breathe out their malice and bitterness against them, and that no less fiercely than they do against the Opposers of the Canterburian Incendiaries. And thus much of the Practice of Presbyterians.  
Neither have they any more reason to allege the second, that the Principles of Presbytry are contrary to Monarchy, none of them yielding any such Inference. Their peculiar Hypothesis wherein they oppose Prelacy is, that no Pastor ought to usurp a Dominion or Superiority over his Brethren: And how this Principle can induce any to attempt the eversion of Monarchy, is not easily conjectured.  
They have yet another Principle, that whosoever is called to the Ministry ought not to entangle himself in any Civil Affairs, but to lay out himself wholly for the Souls of Men, and to this end be instant in season and out of season: Which is consonant enough to the former, but opposite to the Principles of Prelates; who assert that Civil and Ecclesiastic Offices are compatible, and may be lodged in the same Subject: and accordingly they grasp and enhance whatsoever Places of State they can come by, both of higher and lower degree. Now, whether that Government which is only Ministerial, not, if they hold to their Principles, concerned with Politics, or Civil Government, but only with the Souls of Men, for the Edification of whom all their Studies are directed; or that which is pompous and despotic, allowing Churchmen to climb unto the highest Places of State, be most opposite to Monarchy, let any Man judge. And although the Prelates acknowledge dependence upon their Prince, they but only do what the Popes did, who for a long time acknowledged their dependence upon the Emperor, and sought their Election or the Confirmation thereof from him, until by little and little they got to stand upon their own Legs to, almost, the overthrow and ruin of their Sovereign and Benefactor. Now Prelacy and Popery being really one and the same Government, Princes ought to fear no less Mischief from the one than from the other.   

Section III.  
Their Argument taken from Order, weighed.  
ANother Achillean Argument they bring from the Nature of Order, which, they say, is wholly inconsistent with Parity. Hence one of their Coryphaei brandishing it, to the end he might complete the Demonstration, cited Aristotle himself for the Definition of Order, which (saith he) is secundum quem aliquid altero prius aut posterius dicitur. For that unhappy word simul would have spoiled the whole Business, and therefore must be left out. And certain it is that none of them can improve this Argument any more than he has done, seeing, according to the express Definition of Order, a Parity is no less consistent therewith than Superioty and Inferiority.  
§. 2. Moreover if this Topick do them any service, it shall, at length, establish a Pope over them all; seeing a Parity of superior Officers, as Bishops or Archbishops, is no less Cyclopic and Monstrous (for with these names they calumniat Presbytry) than a Parity of Pastors. Yea by this their Argument it is manifest how they reproach most of the reformed Churches, as if there were nothing there but a Babylonish Confusion; and the Apostles themselves, none of whom, I think, took the Oath of Canonical Obedience to another. Moreover, whosoever denies a Parity in a plurality of Governors (tho' the chiefest in a Society) as if 'twere unwarranted by Example, and tending to Confusion, discovers either his Ignorance, or what is worse; seeing it is well known that at the same time there was a plurality of Kings in Sparta, of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Princes in Athens, and of Consuls in Rome; during which Governments there was, I am sure, as little Disorder as when they were in the Hands of one single Man. So much is really affirmed by their own learned Sutlivius 
a De pontiff. Rome, lib. 1. cap. 8. Praeterea exercitus non semper unum habet ducem, etc.  who brings store of such Examples, and irrefragably evinces our Purpose: so true it is that none can smartly oppose the Pope's Crown, but must eâdem operâ (were he, as indeed Sutlivius is, the greatest Friend to Prelates) ruffle also their Mytres.   

Section IU.  
The Plea for Prelacy, drawn from Unity, discussed.  
NO less fiercely do they argue that Episcopacy is altogether necessary on the account of Unity; Without which (say they) there can be nothing but Schism and Dtvision; and therefore the Ancient Church sustained it. But altho' this might have deceived some of the Ancients, whose ends were good (though this mean fell out ineffectual, yea unhappy whereby to obtain them) yet it is strange that any now, if at all they reflect on past times, can place any confidence in such Church-policy, in order to procure Peace and Unity: seeing it is of all things most undeniable, that, notwithstanding hereof, the primitive Church was oppressed and rend with innumerable Schisms, hatched and sustained by Bishops, in opposition to Bishops; no less, at least, than by Presbyters, in opposition to Presbyters. Yea it is certain that these, whom they contend to be Diocesans, were either the Inventors, or, at least, the main Propagators and Abettors thereof. Were not Victor of Rome, and Polycrates of Ephesus, the Authors of that great Schism and Controversy anent the Celebration of Easter? Were not Stephen Bishop of Rome, and Cyprian of Carthage Authors of another Schism about Rebaptising of the lapsed? Was not Paulus Bishop of Samosata, Author of that non-such Schism and Heresy of the Samosatenians? Did not the mighty Schism of the Donatists fall out because Sicilianus Competitor with Donatus was preferred? And, when the Heresy of the Bishop of Samosata was varnished by a Presbyter Arrius, how was it hugged and propagated by the bulk of the Oriental Bishops? Was not Macedonius, Bishop of Constantinople, the Author of that most damnable Heresy known by his Name? Again Nestorius, Bishop of that same City, gave both Being and Name to another Schism no less dangerous than the former. Time would fail me to reckon up Berillus, Bostrensis, Nepos an Egytian Bishop, Fidus in afric, Photinus of Syrmium, with many others. And in short, few Heresies or Schisms sprang up in these Times, but they had either Bishops for their Authors, or else for their great Abettors; without whose influence, they were likely shortly to have starved: or else they were raised through the Pride and Competition of men aspiring to the Episcopal Dignity▪ which, to name no others, is clear in the Instance of Donatus. Yea that all the blackest Schisms and most pestilent Heresies had Bishops for their Authors, Sutlivius 
a De pontiff. Rom. Lib. 2. Cap. 10. Nulla enim in Ecclesia Dei graviora excitata sunt Schismata, nec Hereses exorta sunt ab ullo tetriores quam ab Episcopis.  expressly affirms.  
But take one Instance further, in respect of which the rest are but Grasshopers, in the Person of the Romish Bishop, or Bishops; who have been the great Authors and Fomenters of the most damnable Heresies, and mighty Schisms, that the Christian World hath hitherto seen. Certainly, had the Church contented Herself with the Apostolic Parity we plead for, the Man of Sin could not have mounted the Throne of Iniquity; on which, for many Ages, he hath continued to the most pestiferous Infection and distracting Division of the Church, that ever Satan did excogitat, or Man behold.  
§. 2. Moreover, suppose they could with the greatest plausibility conclude the inconsistancy of Unity and Parity, they were yet to be neglected; it being certain that, in the choicest Assembly the World ever saw, both of 'em were harmoniously lodged; and that there are Christian Churches enjoying no less Harmony without Diocesans, than those who have 'em.   

Section V.  
The Argument Prelatists bring from Antiquity, canvased.  
THeir next Plea is from Antiquity: but for us it may be enough to say from the Beginning it was not so. Thus Christ answered the Pharisees: thus the Christians answered the Heathens alleging the Antiquity of Gentilism. They can give few or no Proofs for their Proposition from the first, and best part of the second Century: They pretend indeed to the Epistles of Ignatius, which, to say the best, are in divers places spurious, carrying Self-contradictions, vain Boastings and Flattery all along; but of this more afterward.  
Other Catalogues and Memorials of the Bishops of the ancientest Times, were written long after, when Prelacy had got a higher ascendant, and the Mystery of Iniquity was more palpably working: therefore these Authors spoke according to, and in the Style of their own times, and not in the Style of the times wherein these Pastors lived. And here I say nothing, but what is vouched by Dr. Stilling fleet 
a Iren. Part 2. Chap. 6. . And, amongst many others, these his words are most observable: for having taken notice that Eusebius makes it a most hard Matter to know who succeeded the Apostles in the Churches they planted, adds, say you so? is it so hard a Matter to find, out who succeeded the Apostles in the Churches planted by them, unless it be mentioned the Writings of Paul? What becomes then of our unquestionable Line of Succession of the Bishops of several Churches, and the large Diagrams made of the Apostolic Churches with every one's Name set down in his Order, as if the Writer had been Clarenceaulx to the Apostles themselves? Is it come to this at last that we having nothing certain but what we have in Scriptures? And must then the Tradition of the Church be our Rule to interpret Scriptures by? An excellent way to find out the Truth doubtless, to bend the Rule to the crooked stick, etc. Again it's certain that, for divers Centuries, Bishops were nothing like what they are now, either in exercising Civil Power, or Jurisdiction over other Pastors, or yet in the largeness of Dioceses; so that the Term Bishop in respect of the two is little better than an equivocal. It's certain also that the ancient Church wanted not her own Blemishes: which was well perceived by her Doctors, who still looked on the Word of God only as the Rule of Faith and Manners, on which they never founded the Episcopal Superiority. Hence this their Argument carries nothing of Cogency.   

Section VI.  
The Instance of Aërius condemned by Epiphanius, proved to be unserviceable to our Antagonists.  
TO Illustrate and Corroborat this their Argument from Antiquity, they adduce the Instance of Aërius; who was for this his Judgement of Presbytry, as well as for Arrianism, condemned and counted Heretic by Epiphanius. But it is certain that Epiphanius censured Aërius, not only for his being Anti-episcopal, and, as he believed, because Arrian, but also for his rejecting of Lents, set and Anniversary Fasts, and for denial of Prayer and Sacrifice for the Dead. Now either purer Antiquity joined with Epiphanius in asserting of the necessity of Prayer and Sacrifice for the Dead, and other such Fopperies; or they did not; and if they joined with him therein, than our Prelatists, if they be Protestants, are concerned to reflect better of how little weight their Argument from the Ancients, pressing their unwarrantable Additions, can be unto them: But if they say that sounder Antiquity consented not to Epiphanius, while he urged Prayer and Sacrifice for the Dead, and such Anti-scriptural Fictions, we return that neither did the choicest of the Ancients agree with him in his Plea for Prelacy.  
The Judgement of Hierom is so well known herein, that the Bishop of Spalleto 
a De Repub. Ecclesiasticâ. Lib. 2. Cap. 4. Numb. 46. Sunt qui Hieronymum in rectam sententiam vel invitum velint trahere— neque in hoc aut excusari satis potest, aut etc.  acknowledges that Hierom can by no means, yea not byforce be reconciled to their Cause. Hierome's Judgement (saith Saravia 
b De diversis gradibus ministrorum Evangelii. Cap. 23. Dico privatam fuisse Hieronymi opinionem, consentaneam cum Aërio etc. ) was private; all one with that of Aërius, and contrary to the Word of GOD, wherefore we shall examine his Arguments. And on this account he is much offended with Hierome accusing him of Vanity, 
c Ibid. 27.  Self-contradiction 
d Exam. tract. de triplici Episcopatû. Page 25. , and Prevarication 
e Ibid. Page 34. ;  
And Alphonsus de Castro 
f Contra Hereses fol. 103. B. Sed revera fallitur Thomas Waldensis quoniam in toto illo decursu p●st verba proximè citata nihil aliud conatur Hieronymus quam ut ostendat ex Divina Institutione non esse differentiam inter Presbyterum & Episcopum— Et fol. 104. D. Nec etiam mirari quisquam debet quod Beatus Hieronymus Vir alioqui doctrissimus sic deceptus fuerit, etc.  sharply reproveth Thomas Waldensis another Papist, who had intended to pervert the Testimonies, which are commonly alleged for Presbytry out of Hierome: There De Castro having proved, out of divers places of Hierome, that he was truly for the Scriptural and Apostolic Idenity of Bishop and preaching Presbyter, concludes, against Waldensis, that of necessity there must be another way taken to Answer the Passages alleged out of Hierome for Presbytry: And at length flatly opposes himself to Hierome in this Matter, and saith, that we ought rather to believe the Decrees of Popes and Councils, than the Doctrine of Hierome, though both very Holy and Learned.  
And Medina, another Champion of the Hierarchy, cited by Bellarmine, asserts the same of Hierome, saying, He was of the same Judgement with Aërius in this Matter. Bellarmine 
g De Cler. Cap. 15. Michaël Medina— affirmat sanstum Hieronymum idem omnino cum Aërianis sensisse, neque solum Hieronymum in ea Heresi fuisse, sed etiam Ambrofium, Augustinum, Sedulium, Primasium, Chrysostomum, Theodoretum, OEcumenium, & Theophilactum, atque ita (inquit Medina) isti Viri ali●qui Sanctissimi & Sacrarum Scripturarum consultissimi, quorum tamen sententiam, prius in Aërio, deinde in Waldensibus, postremo in Johanne Wicklefo, damnavit Fcclesia. Et infra. Ergo in Hieronymo & Gracis illis Patribus etc.  is very displeased with his Brother for his Ingenuity, and therefore attempts to bring Hierome over to the Episcopal Party; but instead of performing this Task, he only fruitlessly endeavours to set Hierome at variance with himself.  
The like success had another of the same Fraternity, who, like Bellarmine, attempted to draw Hierome to his Faction, Bayly the Jesuit: 
h Catechism. tract. 2. Quest. 23.  And yet with these, the most disingenous of the whole fry of Loyolites, some called Protestants stick not warmly to join themselves, and plead for a Patrociny to their Cause from Hierome.  
§. 3. Yea not only was Hierome of the same Judgement anent Episcopacy with Aërius, but also, as even the Jesuit Medina acknowledges, the most of the Greek and Latin primitive Doctors, and in special Ambrose, Augustinus, Sedulius, Primasius, Chrysostomus, Theodoretus, Oecumenius, Theophilactus. This their Opinion (saith Medina) was first condemned in Aërius, then in the Waldenses, and lastly in Wicklef, but this Doctrine was either dissembled or tolerated by the Church in them for the Honour that was had to them, while on the other hand it was always condemned in these Men as Heretical, because in many other things they swerved from the Church. Many Papists and other Prelatists cannot away with this Medina's free dealing, and use many shifts to refute him, and draw these Fathers to their Party. But to use the Words of Rivet 
i Cath. Orth. Tom. 1. Page 286. , Whosoever shall consider their Answers collested by Sixtus Senensis Biblioth. lib. 6. annot. 319, 323, 324. they shall presently perceive that all their Distinctions are most pitiful Elusions, and that indeed all these Fathers were no less Presbyterian than Aërius, although they accommodat themselves to the Custom then received; lest for a Matter not contrary to the Foundations of Religion they should have broken the Unity of the Church. What do our Opposites herein, but espouse what the Romanists, in whom any ingenuity remains, have long since disowned?  
§. 4. But tho' Epiphanius were the mouth of all Antiquity, and the only fit Judge in this Controversy, the Triumph of our Adversaries should be very small: for Aërius to Prove the Idenity of the two, having adduced a parallel of many particulars, Epiphanius 
k Heresi 55. five 75. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  denieth nothing of these to belong to Presbyters, except only Imposition of Hands; he yields therefore that both of them equally have Power to Baptise, to occupy the Chair, and finally to perform all Divine Worship. Our Antagonists therefore offering to vouch the Prelacy they plead for, by the Authority of Epiphanius, promise much more than they can perform; for what, pray, is this Power of Imposition of Hands, or Ordination, compared with what they covet, and pretend to support by Epiphanius, his Authority, I mean the, both great and many Differences between Bishop and Presbyter.  
§. 5. In the mean while Epiphanius his unjust dealing towards Aërius, is most palpable, for he sticks not to give out, that Aërius his Judgement of the Identity of Bishop & Presbyter, was looked on by the whole Church as an intolerable Heresy condemned by the Word of God, when yet the quite contrary is so plain in the Writings of the Ancients down from the very Apostles, that even Epiphanius himself could not be ignorant thereof. Neither are his Deductions from Scripture more solid than his Allegation of the Suffrages of the Catholic Church, is true: all he brings from Scripture being 1 Tim. 5. 1. and 19 but he so grossy abuses these Scriptures that even Spalatensis 
l De repub. eccles. Lib. 2. Cap. 5.  himself, and the ablest Patrons of Prelacy are ashamed of these Inferences. But Epiphanius had less exposed himself, had he, as he did in the Matter of Lents, set Fasts, Prayer and Sacrifice for the Dead, and other such his dear and beloved Doctrines, pretended only to Tradition; and so the Lettuce should have been fitted for the Lips, and also his miserable weakness have been less apparent.  
§. 6. And though in the last place, to render Presbytry more odious, they still upbraid us with the Arrianism of Aërius; we need be little concerned therewith, seeing we have the greatest Opposers of Arrians, entirely Aërians (to speak in the stile of our Opposites) in the matter of Presbytry, as we have already showed. But I must here add, that it is upon no good Ground believed that ever Aërius was Arrian: all the Schisms and Divisions, though but very small, among the Arrians themselves are diligently described by the Historians of these times, as Ruffinus, Socrates, Sozomen, Theodoret, Theodorus Lector, Philost●rgius, and others; but none of these or any others mention a word of the Schism of Aërius, which if we believe Epiphanius, was a Schism among the Arrians themselves: for he tells us that Eustathius Bishop of Sebastia in Pontus, from whom Aërius made the separation, was a downright Arrian, and persisted therein till his Death.  
Add hereto that Augustine and others, who, in their Catalogues of Heretics mention Aërius, still in their Preambles, intimat that their Author is Epiphanius. I name Augustine on the vulgar supposition that he is the Author of that tract de Heresibus, which yet is very doubtful, seeing it's altogether improbable that he ever heard off, & far less read Epiphanius his books 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It's altogether unprobable that they were then translated, and it's certain that Augustine was utterly unable to understand them in the Original. Moreover, we have in that Tractat Relations of the Nestorian and Eutichian Heresies, not broached till after Augustine's Death. Which Relations, altho' some allege to have been added by another to the rest, which they think to be really Augustine's, yet seeing they are no less than the rest handed down under his Name (tho' they now stand there as an Appendix, for in the end of the Pelagian Heresy which is the last before the Appendix, he promises more) make a good proof that it's not easy to discern the genuine part of that Tractat from the Spurious. However this be from what is said, the matter of Aërius resolves into this Issue, that we have only the report thereof from Basilius, and Epiphanius.  
§. 7. But that discourse of Basilius, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in which Aërius is mentioned, is suspected & well nigh condemned by Erasmus 
m Epistola ejus dedicatiora translationi suae praefixa.  And to confirm what he asserts, Robert Cock, in his Censure of the Fathers, adds divers Reasons, as I am informed by Rivet, 
n Critic. Patrum Page 330.  for I have not perused Cock himself; neither need I, seeing in all that Tractat there is not the least mention of Aërius. The ground of sums mistake was, that instead of Aëtius, who indeed was a most noted and pernicious Arrian, by the escape of the Printer, or some other accident, the word Aërius had crept into Erasmus his Translation thereof: But in the Original, printed at Paris Anno MDXVIII, there is Aëtius, not Aërius. They have (saith he 
o 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. cap. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. cap.2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ) a certain old Quibble from Aëtius the head of his Heresy. And indeed Basil could never have termed Aërius, or any thing said by him, ancient, seeing he was scarcely so old as Basil himself, As for Epiphanius, if we consider the Passion wherewith he manages the Debate with Aërius, and his great credulity of whatever might favour his own Cause, and his many Mistakes in Historical Matters, he deserves little Credit in this Matter. A mighty Tide of Passion, which both blinds men's eyes, and opens their Ears to false Reports, visibly appears in Epiphanius his whole conduct of the Dispute with Aërius: and that he was most credulous, believing the most light and groundless Reports, and in matters of Fact, of all men most frequently fell into Mistakes, is attested, not only by Melchor Canus, and Baron, in many places of his Annals, among the Papists; but also by the learnedest of the Protestants, as Casaubon, 
p Vir maximus Epiphanius, sed, quem res arguit ipsa, levibus auditiunculis, nescio unde acceptis, facilè nimis aliquando fidem habuisse.  whose words are: Epiphanius was a great Man, but, as is very evident, he did most easily believe every most silly and groundless Report. To which also the learned Rivet assenteth.  
§. 8. One Instance whereof appears in his Relation of the Donatists, whom, either out of misinformation, or some other weakness, he accuses also of Arrianism, and tells us 
q Haeresi 39 vel 59 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉—  that they agreed with Arrius in Doctrine, and that one Refutation would serve for both.  
§. 9 Augustine 
r Epistola 50. ad Bonifacium.  indeed speaks as if some of them believed the Son to be less than the Father: But, as appears from the same Author, 
s Ibidem.  they erred rather in expression than reality; for he presently absolves them from the Charge, and informs us, that between the Church and them, there was no Question concerning this Matter. And elsewhere, 
t Tom. 6. Haeresi 69.  he imputes this dangerous Expression to Donatus their Leader, who had used it in some of his Writings, but tells us with all that his Party follow him not herein. Neither (saith Augustine) shall ye readily find one among them all who knows that Donatus had any such Opinion.  
And Optatus 
u Lib. 3. Page 101.  plainly declares, that in the great Foundations of Christianity, there was no difference between the Orthodox and Donatists. And indeed it is acknowledged by all, except Epiphanius, that the Donatists were only guilty of Schism, not of Heresy.  
§. 10. But Aërius (they may object) his Arrianism is sufficiently attested by what is recorded of Eustathius his Friend and Bishop: and indeed Basil 
x Epist. 74.  accuses Eustathius of Arrianism, but for aught I remember the Historians of these times differ from Basil.  
§. 11. They accuse Eustathius of Levity, Deceit, Macedonianism, or the denial of the Holy Ghost's Divinity, a most damnable Heresy, yet different from Arrianism. And herein also they represent him rather variable and unfixed, than entirely wedded to this Heresy. He once subscribed to the Orthodox Doctrine, and was approved as such by Liberius the Bishop of Rome, than Orthodox, and other Catholic Christians. But they write that he relapsed. In the mean while, when he was most for the Macedonians, he said as he would not call the Holy-Ghost God, so he durst not call him a Creature; hence, he may rather be counted among these who were most dangerously shaken, than a downright Macedonian; and may for all is said of his Opinions plead for some Charity from all that well consider, the most dismal and dangerous Age wherein he lived.  
§. 12. But let him be an Arrian blacker than Arrius himself, it will be hard thence to draw any Conclusion concerning Aërius.  
For First, Basil, in the forecited place, tells us, that Eustathius was so cunning, as to persuade the ablest of these times that he was Orthodox; and why might he not then put a Cheat on his own Presbytry.  
Secondly, Eustathius, as is related, was much given to Covetousness, and altho' Epiphanius carried out with Passion, for his Innovations justifies and praises him, that he may reach a harder Blow to Aërius: yet this his Avarice was one of the Grounds wherefore Aërius, (as he professeth) deserted Eustathius: and this I think is no less to be believed, than ought else we have from Epiphanius, uncharitably at least, wresting both his Words and Actions. And it is not improbable that he, who had the Conscience to dislike Eustathius for his Vices, might do no less on the account of his Errors.  
Thirdly, Aërius was privileged by God with, both, eyes to perceive, and courage to oppose the unwarranted Festivals, superstitious Fasts, Prayer and Sacrifice for the Dead, and other such then growing Dottages, notwithstanding that they were so kindly embraced by most Christians. Now I believe that hardly an Instance can be adduced, of any who set himself in Opposition to the whole World, by condemning such growing Corruptions, and attempting at least to stop the beginnings of Anti-christianism, and yet fell into this damnable Heresy wherewith they brand Aërius. I hope therefore, that henceforth all true Protestants shall enlarge their Charity, and be more backward to join with Romanists in bespattering the memory of him who did amongst the first declare his Detestation of the leaven of Romanism.  
§. 13. Had any thing written by Aërius, come unstained to our hands, I doubt not but we had got a far other account of his Creed and Doctrine: but the Zeal of these Innovatours prompted them to make all Opposers of their Fopperies grand Heretics, and falsely stigmatize Truth's Witnesses with what really deserved that name, and then overwhelmed them with Calumnies; and gave their Writings to the Flames for a Repository. This was the Fate of Vigilantius, Claudius Taurinensis, and others, of whose Writings nothing, except some mangled and depraved scrapes found in the bitter Invectives of their most partial and disingenous Adversaries, remains.  
§. 13. The Aërians are also remembered by Philastrius 
y Haeresi 25. Aërii ab Aërio quodam sic appellati sunt, qui astinentiis vacant etc.  They are so named (saith he) from Aërius, they give themselves to abstinences, and live mostly in Pamphilia, they are also call●d Encratites, i. e. Abstinents. They possess nothing; They abhor Meats which God with his Blessing hath bestowed on Mankind: They condemn moreover lawful Marriage, alleging that it's not of God's Institution. Thus Philastrius.  
§. 14. But to me it is not probable that any who denied, and despised all their Lent-seasons, Xerophagies, wherein nothing was eaten but dry Bread, and such rigorous Fasts and restraints, were ever addicted to Encratitick abstinences, whereby all use of Wine, Flesh, and other such Delicacies was probihited.  
Secondly, Epiphanius makes the Encratits and Aërians quite contrary Sects to one another, who sustained quite contrary Doctrines and Practices: for according to him 
z Haeresi 27. sive 47. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  the former ate no living Creature— nor drank Wine. Which is also Attested by Eusebius 
a Hist. Eccles. Lib. 4. Cap. 29. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 etc. , and Irenaeus. 
b Lib. 1. Cap 30.  The latter Epiphanius, 
c Haeresi 55. sive 75. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  according to his custom of turning all the Aërians their Practices into Crimes, will have to be excessive Gormandizers, and but to liberal to themselves in both Flesh and Wine: so far was he from joining with Philastrius in ascribing Encratitism to the Aërians.  
Thirdly, Another of the Heresies of these Encratites, was their rejecting much of the New Testament, and in particular the Epistles of Paul 
d Eusebius Eccles. Hist. Lib. 4. Cap. 29. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 etc. . But so far were the Aërians therefrom, that they founded 
e Epiphanius Haeresi 55. sive 75. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  the Doctrine, for which they are so much reproached by Epiphanius, viz. that of the Identity of Bishop and Presbyter, on these very Epistles of Paul citing 1 T●m. 3. 4. & 14. And the like places of Paul for Proofs of their Doctrine, which afterward was done by Hierome, and after him by the stream of Interpreters of these Places, and others that handled that Subject, and at this day by the Body of the Reformed Churches. From all which is evident the falsehood of what Philastrius alleges, and that the Aërians were far from being guilty of Encratitism or such Crimes, but they must needs first suffer the persecution of tongues as a preamble and preparative to make them a Prey more obnoxious to the violent hands of these who are beginning to dote on the Romish Superstition.  
§. 15. And so it fell out. For Epiphanius 
f Ibidem 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  himself tells us, that the Aërians were banished from Churches, Lands, Villages, and Cities, and that often times they lodged only in the open Air, all covered with Snow, and were obliged to seek shelter in the Woods and Rocks. Now what was the cause of this so violent hatred and hot Persecution? Was it their being guilty of Arrianism? sure not: For if we believe Epiphanius they were a branch of the Arrians, and, as he insinuats, lived among them. But suppose they did not, we find no such Persecution of the Arrians on the account of their Faith in these times, but only their Exclusion from the public Churches. They being permitted in the mean while to keep their Conventicles in private Houses, even at the very Gates of the greatest Cities. Add hereto (which we trust we have evinced) that Aërius never Arrianized, and so they could not persecute him, and his Followers upon this account. From all that is now said, 'tis clear, that we most seek another spring of this violent Hate and Persecution. And this I think may easily be reached and perceived to be nothing else but the passionate Zeal, the World, declining more and more after Anti-christian Superstition, had for their set Lent-seasons, their Fasts of their own making, Prayer and Sacrifice for the Dead, their despotic Hierarchy, and other such preparatives of the Man of Sin's appearance, all which were opposed by Aërius, and his Followers with more Zeal than they were by any others in the World at that time, and so had presently War made upon them by such as minded nothing more than worshipping the Rising-Sun of Unrighteousness. And indeed to me the whole strain of Epiphanius his Discourse clearly intimats, that not Arrianism but the opposing of these Dotages was the Ground of all this Hatred and Spite that was poured upon Aërius and his Adherents.  
§. 16. And now I have done with Philastrius: only I must observe, for which I mainly adduced him, that in him there's no mention of Aërius his Arrianism, which, tho' a negative Testimony, yet exceedingly weakens that we have from Epiphanius, Philastrius being a Bishop, a Man of Credit, and of no less Antiquity than the other. In which Sentiment, I am confirmed from Rabanus Maurus 
g De instit. cler. Lib. 2. Cap. 58. Aëriani ab Aërio quodam nuncupati sunt, high offer sacrificium pr● defunctis spernunt.  Bishop of Mentz, who only informs us, that the Heresy of Aërius consisted in despising Sacrifices for the Dead. From all which to me it's more than probable, that there's no ground to believe that ever Aërius Arrianized.   

Section VII.  
No Diocesan Bishops in several Ancient Churches.  
THo' their Argument brought from Antiquity, be already satisfied, we shall yet give some Instances of Churches, which, for several Centuries, were really without Diocesan Bishops. St. Patrick, the Irish Apostle, is commonly said to have ordained several hundreds of Bishops in Ireland, who, I'm sure, could not be Diocesans. Dr. Maurice, 
a Defence of Diocesan Episcopacy. Page 153.  being displeased with this Instance, rejects Nennius, the Author from whom we have the account of St. Patrick's ordaining 365 Bishops, as fabulous. But it's not in their accounts of the numbers of Bishops, but of the Deeds and Miracles wrought by Bishops, and others of their Saints, that the fabulousness of the Writers of these times is commonly to be observed.  
He next quarrels with the common reading of that Author, alleging that He speaks only of the Bishops in France and Britain, in communion with St. Patrick, not of his Irish Bishops. But, I think, we may, in such critical Learning give Bishop Usher the Preference, who 
b Of the Religion of the Irish. Page 59  neither judged this Book fabulous, nor its common reading to be suspected. And this account of the great number of Ancient Irish Bishops, is strongly confirmed by what Clarkson 
c Primitive Episcopacy. Page 40.  citys out of Bernard and Baron, showing that there were well nigh as many Bishops as Churches. This the Doctor passes over in silence, which was scarce fair enough dealing. Neither can the Doctor's ordinary salvo, viz. that the Practice was not generally approved, nor of primitive Constitution, here serve them; for whatsoever differed from the Roman Model, was presently made a Novelty. And tho' Bernard and Lanfranc dislike the Practice of having so many Bishops, yet they adventure not to instance any time wherein the Irish had been ruled by a few Diocesans. And lastly, the Authors most regardable herein, inform us that this Practice of having so many Bishops had place even in St. Patrick's time, and mere infancy of the Irish Church.  
§. 2. Most visible footsteps of this also appear in the African Church, during the time of Cyprian; for in that Council of Carthage, where he presided, there was no small number of Bishops conveen'd, tho' doubtless there were many more Bishops in afric, who could not be all Diocesans, seeing few than were Christians in afric, save a small part of the Roman Colonies only. Yea the hamlets and villages, these Bishops had for their Jurisdictions, are so obscure, that the learned Pamelius is at a stand where to place them. And, long after, in the time of the Vandalick Persecution, as Victor Vticensis relates, 
d Lib. 1. Vnde factum est ut post obitum Carthaginis Episcopi Zeugitanae, & procensulari Provinciae, Episcopos interdiceret ordinarios quorum erat numerus 164.  there were in the Zeugitan or proconsular Province alone 164 Bishops: others reckon moe. Now this was but a small part of what the Romans possessed in afric, and few, beside the Roman Colonies, were at that time Christian; for the Moors, or old Africans, who, beside what they had in the Cities, possessed almost the whole Country, are by the same Victor without exception, called Gentiles; and many of the Romans themselves had not yet embraced Christianity. Now subduce, from that small number of the Zeugitan Province who were Christians, the many Arrians, and other Heretics, and Schismatics, whom these Bishops did not reckon as a part of their Flocks, and surely there shall scare be found so many as to make up above 164 Parishes. Dr. Maurice tells us 
e Page 164.  that all the African Bishops in Cyprian's time, could not have supplied the Dioceses of one Province, in the V or VI Century. Which, if true, is a strong Confirmation of what we plead for, viz. that they then were nothing less than Diocesans: seeing as is now evident, there were, even in the fifth Century, but a very small number of Christians in afric, compared with the rest of the Inhabitans. And in Cyprian's time, it may well be judged that there were some hundreds of Bishops in the Roman afric. But in such Cases, not the extent of Bounds, but number of Souls is to be considered. Wherefore he should be a wild Reasoner, that should conclude from Africa's having a dozen, or such a number of Bishops, or Pastors, for surely there were but few at the entry of Christianity, that there needed be no more afterward, and so make that number the Standard to discern how many Bishops, by primitive Right, were to be placed in all Africa.  
And this is a Kin to what he says 
f Page 185.  elsewhere, that tho' there were Bishops in small Towns, this was not the primitive State of the Church; it may be indeed; nor yet, at the first entry of the Gospel, were there Bishops in most part of the great Towns: but was this for fear of Multiplication of Dioceses? no surely; but these few were all could be then gotten. The substance of his Answer here is, that Africa was most large, fertile, popolous. The first of which is readily granted, but the second not so easily, much of these Regions being more fertile of sand and Serpents than of Corn and Wine: and this in part discredits the third; seeing so much as was barren, is not to be supposed Popolous; wherefore it's surprising to find him making the Old Roman afric more Popolous than France is now. He 
g Page 165.  supposes that afric had but 500 Bishops, and yet might have 40000 villages. But I answer, that if the villages were considerable, and had Christian Inhabitants, for otherways this is nothing to this purpose, than had afric 40000 Bishops: for H. Thorndick 
h Right of Churches, review Page 153.  acknowledges that Bishops in afric were so plentiful, that every good village must needs be the Seat of an Episcopal Church. Which words of H. Thorndick are cited by Clarkson but dissembled by the Doctor. In the mean while, I can find nothing which can shake what I have said above, or overturn, as for example, what I have noted from Victor's words, and oblige me to lessen my substraction. Add to what is said the words of Dr. Burnet. In St. Augustin's time (saith he 
i Conferences. Page 348. ) it appears from the journals of a Conference he had with the Donatists, that there were about five hundred Bishoprics in a small tract of ground. But we need not cross Seas in pursuit of ancient Churches free of Diocesans, seeing our Country Scotland affords us so luculent a proof of our Assertion. The words of Prosper Aquitanicus, in his Chronicle annexed to that of Eusebius and Hierome, are most clear and cogent. Palladius (saith he 
k Ad Scotos in Christum credentes ordinatur à Papa Caelestino, Palladius & primus Episcopus mittitur. ) is ordained by Pope Celestine for the Scots that had already believed in Christ, and is sent to them to be their first Bishop. Never was a passage of any Historian more universally believed, than this of Prosper, which Beda● 
l Edit. Lovan. Fol. 15. , and a MS. Chronicle of Scotland in the Library of Glasgow, yea the whole stream of Historians repeat and approve: but none more amply and plainly, than Cardinal Baron 
m Ann. 429. numb. IV. Primum verò eam gentem à Coelestino Papa Episcopum habuisse Palladium omnes consentiunt. , whose words are, All Men agree that this Nation (viz. Scotland) had Palladius their first Bishop from Pope Celestine. And again 
n Ibid. Ex his autem habes quibus redarguas asserentes Sedulium Christianum Poëtam quem tantopere Gelasius laudat habuisse praeceptorem Hildebertum Scotorum Archiepiscopum: Etenim cum ipse Sedulius ad Theodosii Imperatoris tempora referatur quo modo usus esse potuit Hildeberto Scotorum Archi-episcopo Paerceptore, si nullus adhuc ordinatus erat in Scotia Archiepiscopus & Palladius absque controversia primus dicatur ejus Gentis Antistes.  thus you are instructed how to refuse these who allege that Sedulius the Christian Poet, whom Pope Gelasius so much extols, had for his Master, Hildebert the Archbishop of the Scots: for, seeing even Sedulius himself laved in the time of Theodosius the Emperor, how could he have had, for his Master, Hildebert the Archbishop of the Scots, seeing there was no Archbishop yet ordained in Scotland, and Palladius is without debate affirmed to have been the first Bishop of that Nation. This is yet more plainly expressed by the most learned Antiquaries of our Country: all of them agree in this, that before Palladius, the Church was ruled and guided without any Diocesan Bishops. For, as Fordun hath it 
o Lib. 3. Cap. 8. Ante cujus (Palladii sc.) adventum habebant Scoti Fidei Doctores, ac Sacramentorum Ministratores, Presbyteros solummodo vel Monachos, ritum sequentes Ecclesiae primitiva.  before the coming of Palladius the Scots, following the Custom of the primitive Church, had Teachers of the Faith and Dispenser's of the Sacraments, who were only Presbyters or Monks. And johannes Major 
p De gestis Scotorum. Lib. 2. Per Sacerdotes & Monachos, sine Episcopis Scoti in fide erudiebantur.  saith, the Scots were instructed in the Faith by Priests and Monks without Bishops. And Hector Boethius 
q Fol. 132. Erat Palladius primus omnium qui apud Scotos sacrum egere Magistratum, à summo Pontifice Episcopus creatus: quum antea Populi suffragiis etc. , Palladius was the first of all who exercised any Hierarchical Power among the Scots, being ordained their Bishop by the Pope, whereas before, their Priests were, by the suffrages of the People, chosen out of the Monks and Culdees. Add hereto the known Testimony of Buchanan; and of Sir Thomas Craig, To pass over (saith he 
r Scotland's sovereignty asserted. Page 134. ) that most silly ' Fable of the three Archflamins, and the twenty eight Flamens; it's plain that there was no Bishop in Britain before Palladius, who is by the English themselves called the Bishop of the Scots; or if either the Britons or English have any, let them name them, and at what time they flourished.  
§. 3. Yea so clear is this Truth, that the most learned of our Adversaries have found no better way to elude, when they cannot clide it, than, as Torniellus in another case said of Bellarmine, to endeavour the penetrating of a most firm wall, and cast the History about forty of our ancient Scotish Kings, as a forged legend. Among these is Loyd Bishop of St. Asaph: but both he and Dr. Stillingfleet are nervously refuted by the learned Sir George M●kenzie Advocate; and that their main purpose and undertaking was utterly desperate, he makes soon appear. And tho' (saith he) this Author could prove, that we were not settled here, before the year 503 yet that could not answer the Argument. (viz. that is brought against Episcopacy from the Scotish primitive Church-government for the Culdees might have been settled before that time. And thus, in a few syllables, he demonstrats that the Bishop, as to his ultimat design, had only his labour for his cost. But Sir George being too sagacious not to foresee, that, from the mutual struggle between himself and the Bishop, any man might easily conclude, that Presbytry was the primitive Government of the Church of Scotland: and having been one of the prime Instruments to put in execution the prelatical Fury, judged himself concerned, in credit, to say somewhat in favours of Episcopacy, and attempt the stopping of such an Inference. Wherefore, to this purpose, in a Letter to the Earl of Perth, prefixed to the defence of the Antiquity of the Royal Line of Scotland, He makes several assays: The first whereof is,  
That this is one of the meanest Arguments, that ever were used by a Presbyterian:— And that it is a weak Argument, (saith he) appears from this, that I have met with very few Laics in all our Country, who had heard of it; nor with one, even of these few who had valued it. But be it so that the Argument seem mean, we gain notwithstanding a most sufficient Argumentum ad hominem, seeing our ablest Adversaries value it so much; yea, Sir George himself clearly acknowledges this, while he saith, and what can the Presbyterians think of their other Arguments, which they value much? since this, which they valued so little, is thought of such force by a learned Bishop, as to deserve a whole book, the cutting off of 44 Kings, and the offending a Nation of Friends. But it's nothing though the Laics had neither valued nor heard it, seeing, as himself grants, Blondel, with whom join the rest of the Presbyterian Writers, urged it. Hence appears, that this Argument is, by both Parties, judged to be of great force and consequence: for the solution whereof, the Advocate brings nothing save what is altogether unworthy of any ingenious man. As for example, since (saith he) it cannot be denied, but that these who ordained our Presbyters were Bishops; it necessarily follows, that Episcopacy was settled in the Christian Church before we had Presbyters or Culdees. Wherein, as to the solution of our Argument, which was the scope of his Letter, he only begs the Question, and gives us what is impertinent thereto, and contradicts, moreover, these our Historians, whose credit he so excellently vindicats, seeing, as we heard, they plainly tell us, that our ancient Anti-diocesan practice was the very custom of the primitive Church. And, when our Historians say that the Abbots of Icolm-kill had Jurisdiction over all the Bishops of the Province, that is to be understood, as Beda observes, more inusitato; after an unusual manner. And yet he compares this practice of the Abbot to that of a King who makes one a Bishop, and to the practice of a Mother who makes her Son a Churchman: now if it be any strange or surprising thing for a King, by his Congé d'eslire, to make one a Bishop, or for a Mother to educate her Son in order to be a Churchman, and procure some place for him, let any man judge. And, later Historians (saith the Advocate) meeting with these ambigous words in our Annals Designatus, Electus, Ordinatus, were, by a mistake, induced to appropriate these words to the formal Ceremony of Ordination and Imposition of hands. As if any man in his wit could take these words to mean any other thing than Ordination, providing they be, as they are in our Annals, spoken of one Churchman in relation to another. Moreover, he knew sufficiently that the best Records of our Country expressly say, that our Church was ruled by Presbyters without Bishops, and so leave not the least room for tergiversation. Bede is one of these Authors who create them so much vexation; for speaking of Icolm-kill, the Isle (saith he 
s Lib. 3. Cap. 4. Habere autem solet ipsa Insula Rectorem semper Abba●tem Presbyterum, cujus Juri & omnis Provincia & ipsi etiam Episcopi ordine inusitato debeant esse subjecti, juxta exemplum primi Doctoris illius qui non Episcopus, sed Presbyter extitit. ) still uses to have for its Rector an Abbot, who is a Presbyter to whose Jurisdiction the whole Province and even the Bishops themselves, after an unusual manner ought to be subject according to the example of their first Teacher, who was no Bishop but a Presbyter. Hence it's clear, that even in Bede's time, Bishops were but of small note here, and their power much less than in other Churches. They are therefore much pained with Bede's words, and chiefly St. Asaph, who, amongst other odd things he excogitats, tells us, that the Superiority this Presbyter had over the Bishops, was only in respect of the royalty of the Isle which the King gave the Abbot. As if ever Bede, or any man else could have marked such a Superiority as strange and unusual, it being nothing but what every Prince or Lord of any place still practices; who, altho' he subject himself to a Bishop in Spirituals, yet in respect of Temporals and the Royalty, uses to retain the Superiority. But, which ' utterly spoils the Bishop's comment, Bede 
t Ibid. Vnde & praefatam Insulam ab eye in possessimem Monasterii faciendi accepit. Neque enim magna est, sed quasi Familiarum quinque etc.  tells that all Columbanus got, was the possession of a little Isle, able to sustain about five Families, for building of a Monastery, without the least mention of his being invested with the Royalty thereof, or any other Island: and yet to him were all the Bishops of the whole Province (all the Bishops of Scotland, saith the Saxon Chronicle, cited by the Bishop himself) subjected, so that this pretended Royalty of Columban over the Island, becomes a vain dream, & tho' 'twere real could do him no kindness, the whole Province being certainly a far other thing than any such Island; wherefore the Superiority this Presbyter had over these Bishops, must needs have been in Ecclesiastic affairs; and this was really remarkable and unusual. But of this enough; for, whosoever believes that the errand of this most ancient Preacher and Propagator of Christ's Kingdom, was to win an earthly Kingdom to himself, and that the King shared with him his Sovereignty and Realm, may as soon swallow the whole legend of Constantine's Donation to Sylvester.  
But to return to the Advocate, as, in the things that he touches, he wholly prevaricats, so he never handles our main Argument, which is taken from what is related of our Church's practice, preceding the coming of Palladius. He only refers to Spotswood who says 
u Hist. Pag. 7.  Buchanan is of opinion, that before Palladius his coming there was no Bishop in this Church;— what warrant he had to write so, I know not, except he did build upon that which Joannes Major saith, speaking of the same Palladius;— The Scots (he says) were instructed in the Christian Faith by Priests and Monks, without any Bishops. But from the instruction of the Scots in the Faith to conclude, that the Church after it was gathered had no other form of Government, will not stand with any reason. For be it as they speak, that by the Travels of foam pious Monks the Scots were first converted unto Christ; it cannot be said that the Church was ruled by Monks, seeing long after these times it was not permitted to Monks to meddle with matters of the Church, nor were they reckoned among the Clergy. But it's strange how he can allege Buchanan to be supported by no Authors, except Major, for Palladius his being Scotland's first Bishop: he could not but know, that not only Major, but also Fordun, Bede, with many others within the Isle; Prosper, Bergumensis, and, among the later Historians, the Magdeburgenses, Baron, with many other Transmarines, assert it. And this last affirms that none can deny it.  
§ 4. It's true, Spotswood says 
x Hist. Page. 4.  that Both out of ancient Annals reports that these Priests were wont for their better Government to elect some one of their number, by common suffrage, to be Chief and Principal among them, without whose knowledge and consent nothing was done in any matter of importance; and that the person so elected was called Scotorum Episcopus, a Scots Bishop, or a Bishop of Scotland. But they reap little advantage here, for in Boeth's words (y) there is no mention, as the Bishop without book affirms, whether these Annals were ancient or modern. But whatever they be Hector gives ground to believe that he had Annals declaring the contrary, as appears by his words above cited, where he homologated that common sentiment of Christians, and told us that Palladius was our first Bishop, and that none before him had any Hierarchical Power in Scotland. To allege therefore Boethius as espousing their cause here, is any to set him at variance with all Christians, and by the ears with himself. But grant it were as Spotswood says, yet there should no small damage accreu to their Cause, seeing, on supposition hereof, it follows, that the Episcopal Ordination was altogether wanting in the primitive Church of Scotland; it not being supposeable that this one man could Ordain all the Pastors in Scotland, yea, that even this their great Bishop had no other Ordination himself, but what he received from Presbyters.  
§. 5. The Bishop's following words, from the instruction of the Scots in the Faith etc. are altogether void of reason. For it's granted that after the coming of Palladius (which is the time whereunto he must refer the gathering of the Church) she then indeed began to have another Government, and never man yet pleaded, that, because the Church of Scotland was not governed by Bishops before Palladius, therefore 'twas not really governed by them after his coming; which is the Inference the Bishop's words seem to deny. But I believe there is more in them, for they are abstruse: and judge their meaning to be, that tho' we had no Bishops before Palladius, yet this can be no ground to conclude that we ought to have none afterward, our Church being then rude and in her infant state. The Advocate is of the same mind, saying, that before Palladius his time our Church was constituenda or unsettled. But who can believe it? For, first, it's generally supposed that Palladius came to free this Church from Pelagianism, and not to establish Church-government.  
Secondly, Is't credible that the Church of Scotland, after so long a continuation and flourishing of Christianity, had been, rather than any other Churches, without any certain form of Government? This is certainly a thing unparalellable, even according to our Adversaries, who tell us that every Church very soon after its beginning had its Diocesan Bishops, and so a certain form of Government.  
Thirdly, Yea altho' many other Churches had been without all Government for such a tract of time, there is ground to believe that Scotland could not; they lying most of this time under the persecuting Sword, whereas we read of no persecution in our Church, even while our Kings were Pagan; and our King Donald the I, the first crowned Head in the World that ever subjected itself to Jesus Christ, very much encouraged the Christians, and was seconded herein by severals of his Successors. And altho' some of 'em were vicious, and their Reigns short, or vexed with Wars, yet such trouble never struck directly against Christianity, like the fury of the Pagans throng the rest of the World: and others were both excellent Men, and had longer and peaceable Reigns, as Findochus, and Cratilinthus, but especially Fincormachus, an excellent man and a great promoter of Religion, and therefore, as is most presumable, was a great Instrument under God, for the settlement of our Church-affairs.  
Add to all this, Fourthly, That the terrible Storm of Persecution through the Roman World, drove then from the Britons, and other places, no small number of excellent Men to Scotland, who doubtless did no small service to God therein, and especially in the time of Fincormachus, when, as all observe, a great many fled hither who were famous both for Life and Doctrine, yea long before this even in the time of Tertullian, our Church was well known to much of the Christian World, as appears from his clear Testimony. The places of Britain (saith he 
y Contra Judaeos. Cap. 7. Loca Britannorum Romanis inaccessa, Christo tamen subdita. ) to which the Romans could not yet pass, are notwithstanding subject to Christ. And if any have called Scotland barbarous, or not well reformed before the coming of Palladius, Sir George learnly refutes them; and names severals, and among them even Stannihurst, otherways an enemy to our Nation, who have done it: and he well observes, that the reason why some speak of us as than not well enough reformed, was because of our want of agreement with the Church of Rome.  
§. 6. As to the last part of the Bishop's discourse, saying, that it was not permitted to Monks to meddle with the matters of the Church etc. And wherein he is seconded by St. Asaph, who falls foul on Presbyterians on this account, as if they were darkners of all Church History etc. They should know, that as our Historians called these Monks, they also called them Priests, sometimes Presbyters, or Bishops, or Doctors, and frequently Culdees. Our people (saith Both 
z Lib. 6. Fol. 95. v. 40. Coeperi & nostri eo temp●re Christi dogma acuratissimè amplexari Monachorum quorundam ductu & adhortatione qui quia sedulo pr●dicationi vacarent, essentque frequentes in oratione, ab incolis Cultores Dei sunt appellati: invaluit id nomen apud vulgus in tantum ut Sacerdotes omnes ad nostra pene tempora vulg● Culdaei; i. e. Cultores Dei, sine discrimine vocitarentur. ) also began most seriously at that time to embrace the Doctrine of Christ, by the guidance, and exhortation of some Monks; who, because they were most diligent in Preaching, and frequent in Prayer, were called by the Inhabitants, Worshippers of God: which name took such deep root with the common People, that all the Priests, even to our time, were commonly without difference called Culdees, i e. Worshippers of God: Elsewhere this Author called these Teachers and Guides indifferently Priests, Monks, and Culdees. Thus also speaks the best of our Historians, some of whom we have heard calling them Presbyters, and Admistrators of the Sacraments. Hence 'tis clear, that when they call them Monks, the word is not to be taken in the later Popish sense, for a Layhermite; for these our primitive Pastors were only called Monks, by reason of their strictness of life, and frequent retirement to Devotion, when the public work of the Ministry did permit it, and perhaps also divers of them abstained from Marriage, that they might keep themselves free from the World, and its care, without urging this on others, as was the practice of the famous Paphnutius in the council of Nice: From all which I conclude, that before the coming of Palladius, we had a settled Church without the least umbrage of their Hierarchy.  
§. 7. I add, that long after that, it had but very slender footing here; seeing, according to Spotswood, they had no distinct Titles or Dioceses, whose words 
a Hist. Page. 4.  are, neither had our Bishops avy other Title (then that of Scotorum Episcopi, or Scotish Bishops) whereby they were distinguished, before the days of Malcomb the III, who first divided the Country into Dioceses, appointing to every Bishop the limits etc. Yea, after most strict search, 
b Book 1.  for a long time posterior to Palladius, he can scarce find the least footsteps of Episcopacy. And again, long it was after the distinction of Dioceses, before they were admitted to any civil Places or Votes in Parliament, Hence nothing is more certain than that, for many Ages, the Church of Scotland knew nothing of their Hierarchy: the first Rudiments whereof were bronght from Rome, which was sent packing thither again, when we renounced our obedience to Anti-christ.  
§. 8. Take but one other particular, and I take leave of the Advocate: he's much displeased with St. As●ph terming him a Caresser of fanatics, for affirming that in consequence of this our Argument taken from the confessed Practice of our primitive Church, we might reasonably conclude, that when we covenanted against Episcopacy, we had only used our own right; and thrown out that which was a confessed Innovation; in order to the restoring of that, which was our primitive Government. A notable and never to be forgotten Concession of so learned an Adversary as is this Bishop. Let's hear what the Advocate returns him. It will not follow (saith he) that because our Church in its infancy and necessity was without Bishops for some years; therefore it was reasonable for Subjects, to enter into a solemn League and Covenant, without, and against the Consent of their Monarch; and to extirpate Episcopacy settled then by Law, and by an Old Prescription of 1200 years at least. But this most unfair Representation of our Arguments antecedent is, I trust, now sufficiently discovered: wherefore, I have nothing to do here with it, not yet am obliged to evince the consequence he denies, seeing 'tis not to be accounted ours but his own, who made the antecedent. Of the Grounds why the Nation entered into a Covenant, I also discoursed already. In the mean while, I can't but take notice of his settling Episcopacy by Prescription; a Romish Argument, which, whatever it may do in Law, has no place here. His Prescription, I'm sure, essentially differs from that of Tertullian against the Heresies of his time, seeing he lived in a very early Age, when especially, if ever, Prescription could have place in the Church, and the Doctrines which he defended were generally and uninterruptedly held by the Pastors, even from the Apostles times, and more ancient than the Heresies, against which he prescribes, whereas in the present case all things are clean contrary. For, as the Advocate himself here supposes, the original of Scotish Episcopacy is several Age's posterior to that of the Apostles; so that if the Argument could militat for either Party, it served well the Church of Scotland against Prelacy, and not at all e contra. But tho' things had been quite otherwise, there had been no fear of harm from their Prescriptions; seeing, as Vincentius Lerinensis admonishes 
c Cap. 39 Caeterum dilatatae & inveteratae Haereses nequaquam etc.  In refutation of inveterat Errors, we must recur to the sole authority of the Scriptures. And Optatus Milevit. plainly asserts that Christ's Testament abundantly suffices to determine all, and every particular Controversy among Christians. Thus we see how pleasant a spectacle these two Champions afford us; the Bishop forms the Major Proposition, and asserts, on supposition of the Antiquity of our Royal Line, and veracity of our Historians, that our Church acted with reason enough, and was only recovering her own Right, when she cashiered Prelacy. The Advocate, in attempting to disprove this the Bishop's Proposition, has only given such prevarications and elusions, as most strongly confirm all the disinterested of the truth thereof. As for the Minor Proposition, that our ancient Royal Line is not forged but real, and our historical Monuments most true and credible, the Advocate himself, to the conviction of all the unbyass'd, in both his Books, makes appear. It remains therefore as a conclusion of undoubted verity that our Church was acting most rationally, and only recovering her own Right, when at any time she expelled Prelacy, together with all its Innovations.  
§. 9 There is yet another Advocate of the Party, whose look is more stout than his Fellows. We shall try if his reason be answerable to his confidence. I mean A M. D. D. (I shall design him D. M.) The Author of a late Book called, An Enquiry into the New Opinions (chiefly) propagated by the Presbyterians in Scotland. Who, 
d Page 227. Et sequentibus.  in opposition to the Defender of the Vindication of the Church Scotland, handles the same Argument at large, and supposes, as a main Ground of his Discourse, that his Antagonist denies, that there is any force in Argumento negativo. To require (saith D. M.) that a matter of Fact be attested by competent Witnesses is, in the language of our Author to raze the Foundation of all History. He spends therefore about 14 pages, to prove that a negative Argument in some Cases may have place. But vainly, seeing the Author of the Vindication does not once insinuat 
e Defence of the Vindication of the Church of Scotland. Page 36.  that a negative Argument can in no Cases be used, or that to require competent Witnesses in a matter of Fact, is to raze the Foundation of all History. Yea he believed that there were Witnesses so competent for his Assertion, that no Argument, whither negative, or of whatsoever kind else, shall ever be able to darken their Testimony, and that we have as good ground for our ancient Church, her being without Bishops, as for any other part of our Nations Antiquities. And indeed the Argument the Apologist, whom D. M. would vindicat, used, levels at all parts of our ancient History, no less then at the thing under debate. The Argument was, There were none that lived near that age that wrote the History of it, and the Monks who wrote any thing were extremely ignorant. Now this, if it do any thing to the Author's purpose, equally shakes and overthrows all parts of our ancient History, seeing with the like force and success it may be brought against any of 'em. Justly therefore repones the Defender of the Vindication, that this is at one blow to raze the Foundation of the History of our Nation, and that of most others: and to make them all to be Fools, who have enquired into these Antiquities that concern our Nation, and others: such as Fordon, Major, Beda, Usher etc. whereto, all, D. M. rejoins, is, that many collateral proofs may be brought from the Roman Historians, that the Scots inhabited that part of Britain, long before the imaginary period of his Presbyterian Church.— And the manner of reckoning the Scotish Genealogies at their Marriages, their Births, and other remarkable Solemnities, was an infallible conveyance of true, constant and perpetual Traditions. Their Bards whose Science it was to repeat those Genealogies upon solemn Occasions, & to celebrat their greatest Achievements in verse, could not add one to the number of their Kings, but upon the Death of his Predecessor. But in all his Discourse, there is wrapped up a concession of all the Defender of the Vindication charged on the Apologist; seeing he evidently intimats, that unless it be assertined some other way, nothing in any of our Country's Historians merits any credit. And to confirm this, I except, (saith he) against all the three, (viz. Fordon, Major and Boethius) that none of 'em, could be a competent Witness in Affairs of that nature at so great a distance from their own time, unless they had named the Authors and Records upon whose Testimony their Relation was founded. As to his mentioning of collateral Proofs etc. it is a mere Shame; seeing, if once we yield with him, that no credit is due to any of our Monuments now extant, except what is confirmed by some exotic Records, how sorry an account have we of any of our Antiquities of whatsoever kind? which foreign Testimonies notwithstanding may, if compared with our Writers, give light to our Histories.  
I'm sure moreover, notwithstanding of whatsoever old Traditions, or Bard's verses are mentioned, all or surely most of these now being lost, or, tho' extant, mostly unintelligible, our Royal Line could never be asserted without ascribing to our Writers, both the reach and integrity of able and faithful Historians. And yet D. M. is not afraid to compare his Apologist negative Argument to another of Eusebius lib. 3. Where (saith D. M.) by this very Argument, he overthrows the authority of several Books that some would impose upon the Church, merely because they were not duly attested, and none of the Ancients brought any Testimonies from them. But Eusebius saw and perused these Ancients, who either directly or occasionally mentioned all the Canonical Books, and so justly their silence overthrew the Authority of the Spurious, and baffled the credit of their Imposers: but has D. M. or his Apologist, seen or perused all the Monuments from which our Historians took their materials, and which were lost long before either of them were born? Can they from these Records, tho' they would fain do't, rub shame upon all the Historians of our Country, as a creu of lying Forgers? seeing then, that this is impossible to be done, and that, as the Advocate has solidly made out, they were men of sufficient Candour and Reputation; seeing they used many ancient Reeords now lost, and were of sufficient Discretion and Knowledge to distinguish genuine from fictitious, seeing they relate what we plead for with no less unanimity and concord than they do any thing else, and either profess, or sufficiently enough intimat, that they brought all their Composours from ancient Records, seeing that their Judgement is confirmed by unsuspected Forerunners both ancient and modern, yea and suffrages of all mankind, who had ever any occasion to speak of this matter, seeing what they relate is so far from being fabulous, that our ancient Church-government they mention is sufficiently attested and acknowledged by the fiercest of our Adversaries to be truly Apostolic, and seeing, lastly, as we have heard, Prelacy, for a long time after Palladius, was of far less bulk and power in Scotland, than in other Churches; the Apologists negative Argument has just as much consanguinity with that of Eusebius, as is between a downright Paralogism, and a solid Deduction: yea I aver moreover, that considering Prelacy was then at its Ela in Scotland, and none of our Historians at least before Buchanan were Presbyterian, nor could reap any Advantage by disobliging the Prelates, any one of their Testimonies alone might give sufficient ground to believe that what they said was well founded on good and ancient Records.  
§. 10. But after a long, and, as himself truly says, needless digression, he comes to examine our Testimonies, and will have Boethius to contradict the rest, alleging that his meaning is not, that Palladius was the first Bishop, but only the first sent from Rome, but of Boethius already.  
Here D. M. falls foul on Blondel as a corrupter of Boethius, because he said as out of him that the Presbyters elected and ordained their Bishop. There is nothing (saith D. M.) said by Boethius, but that the Bishops were elected from among both the Priests and Monks. And true it is there is no more said in the words D. M. citys, but 'tis as true that elsewhere 
f Fol. 95. Pontificem inter se communi suffragio deligebant etc.  Boethius expressly says, that the Pastors, Priests or Culdees themselves by common suffrage elected this Pontificem or Perfect. Add hereto, that, if Boethius have said aught inadvertantly or obscurely, he is to be corrected or explained by the harmonious and most express Testimonies of Fordun, Major, Buchanan, Craig, and other such most learned of our Antiquaries, all of whom are, beyond scruple, most positive for what we affirm.  
§. 11. Next he assaults Prosper's Testimony, alleging that, according to Baron, Palladius was not sent to the Scots in Britain, Baronius (saith D. M.) never thought that Palladius was sent by Pope Celestine to the Scoto-Britanni, but rather to the Irish. And, whatever the Testimony of Prosper be, Spondanus and Baronius leave the Vindicator, for they understood Prosper' s words of Palladius his mission to Ireland, and not to that part of Britain, which is now called Scotland. To prove this his Assertion he adduces, but, which was his wisdom, untranslated, these words of Baron 
g Ann. 431. Numb. 191. Perductum quoque fuisse ad Hiberniam Insulam, sed citò morte subduectum ex hac vita migrasse, ex Probo qui res gestas S. Patricii scripsit dictum est superius, Hibernorum quidem conversionem Deus S. Patricio reservavit. ; that he (viz. Palladius) was brought also into the Isle of Ireland, but was soon taken away by Death, is related by Probus, who wrote the Deeds of St. Patrick. Egregiously reasoned! Probus saith that Palladius went once into Ireland; therefore Baron thought the words of Prosper not at all to be understood of his coming into Scotland. Surely this Author may be allowed a chief place in their next Book of Sports for the Sabbath. Yea these words, that he was brought also etc. seem clearly to hold forth that he was sent to another place beside, out of which he came into Ireland, and what place this was, the immediately preceding words evince 
h Ibid. Hoc eodem anno sub iisdem Consulibus Sanctus Prosper missum ait Palladium ordinatum primum Episcopum ad Scotos: perductum quoque fuisse ad Hiberniam etc.  the same year and in the time of the same Consuls St. Prosper saith that Palladius was sent to the Scots, being ordained the first Bishop. That he (continueth Cardinal Baron) was brought also into the Isle of Ireland etc. Where 'tis most evident that Baron distinguishes the Scots, to whom Prosper saith Palladius was sent, from the Inhabitants of Ireland. But, to cut off all further debate of this matter, the Cardinal clearly demonstrats what we plead for, while he expressly says, 
i Numb. 4.— Magno honore prosequentes ejus Reliquias in Mernia Scotiae Provincia collecatas.  that they highly honour Palladius his Relics which are buried in the Mernes, a Province of Scotland. And the Cardinal continuing his Discourse of the same Scots, whose first Bishop, in his Judgement Prosper makes Palladius to have been 
k Numb. 5. Porro eandem Ecclesiam nobilissimam hoc nostro saculo Deus tentati permisit, ut Christianae constantiae praeclarissimum specimen ederet, cum inter alios Martyres habere etiam meruit (quod nulla hactenus Christiana Gens habuit) ipsam Reginam, Catholica Fidei eximium Decus & ornamentum diutissimâ consessione in carcere ante probatam, nobiliori coronâ Martyrii auctam. , saith that their late Queen (viz. Marry) was the Glory of the Catholic Faith, and a Martyr: but I insist not on a matter so evident, the Advocate hath learnly made it out, and prevented all such attempts of D. M. and the like Enemies of our Country.  
§. 12. He having thus abused Baron, prepares next for the depravation of Prosper himself, telling us, that all that can be inferred is, that Palladius was the first Bishop of the Roman mission. But Prosper's words are clear and without any such limitation. Palladius (saith he) is ordained by Pope Celestine for the Scots that had already believed in Christ, and is sent to them to be their first Bishop. Behold our very Assertion, and why we should yield it, and in lieu thereof embrace its contrary, I am yet to learn. He adds, that as soon as the Pope aspired to his unlimited and universal Supremacy, there were several Bishops sent to other Churches, already constituted, not to introduce Episcopacy, which was the Government of the universal Church, but rather a subjection to, and uniformity with the Roman See. But tho' all this were as true as some of it is false, it's nothing to the purpose, except he find good Authors, wherein a Bishop sent to a People, who not only were Christians, but also governed by Bishops before he came, is called without restriction their first Bishop.  
And Boethius (continues D. M.) understood the History of Palladius in this sense, Which tho' 'twere yielded, stands him in little stead, seeing all the Historians & Antiquaries of our Country, and, as we have heard from Card. Baron, with whom joins our learned Advocate, all men everywhere else understand Prosper in the sense we plead for; believing that there was no Bishop in Scotland before Palladius.  
But 'twill not satisfy D. M. to wrest Prosper's words, except he also at once overthrow his whole Chronicle, telling us, that it is not thought by the learned to be the genuine Work of Prosper. All he brings for this, is a conjecture of Petrus Pithoeus, fancying that the Chronicle ascribed to Prosper, & appended to that of Eusebius & Hierome, is of a different stile from that of a confused fragment, which he took for a part of the true Prosper's Chronicle, & wherein there is nothing concerning Palladius. But why the mere conjecture of one man should be enough to discredit that Chronicle so universally ascribed to Prosper, I leave to the Judgement of the learned. Vossius 
l De historicis latinis. Page 229.  indeed mentions this fragment, but if it be preferable to the vulgar Copy, determines not: neither, for aught I know, did ever any save, D. M. embrace this faint Conjecture of Pithoeus, and indeed there must be brought incomparably better Arguments before that confused fragment either be preferred to, or vie with the universally received Copy, immemorially, under Prosper's name, affixed to Hierome's Chronicle. Moreover, seeing this Schred is most disordered, and the words now under debate most universally believed to have been written by Prosper, 'tis highly probable, on supposition that this fragment is a part of the true consular Chronicle, that it once contained that passage, tho', throw mutilation, and either negligent or malicious transcribing, it hath now lost it: however the matter be, we are at no loss; for never was there a sentence more unanimously ascribed to any Author than this concerning Palladius is to Prosper, and is by all, both ancient and modern acknowledged 
m Vide Usserii Brit. Eccles. Antiquates. Page 799. : so that all their endeavours to prove this passage supposititious, and that it belongs not to Prosper, or some else of equal Antiquity, and Authority, are the last efforts of mere desperation,  
And indeed had they not in defiance of the whole Christian World and Truth itself, resolved per fas aut nefas to maintain that there was never a Church without Diocesan Bishops before the time of Calvine and Beza, they had never adventured their skulls on what is so hard, firmly bottomed, and so universally believed. Have we not already heard fully, how the most knowing and zealous for Prelacy while they sustained the truth of our Country Histories, and yet laboured to disprove what we now plead for, gave only, in favours of their latter Assertion, trifles so empty, and prevarications so apparent, that 'tis most presumable they believed nothing of what they said, & how the most learned of the Episcopal Persuasion acknowledged the truth of our Assertion, on supposition that any credit is to be given to our Historians, with whom also joins the learned Dr Stillingfleet 
n Irenicum Part 2. Ch. 7. , So (saith he) if we may believe the great Antiquaries of the Church of Scotland, that Church was governed by their Culdei as they called their Presbyters without any Bishop over them for a long time. He gives also instances of other ancient Churches without Diocesan Bishops.  
§. 13. It had been more manly therefore and honest for D. M. to have at least attempted a refutation of Dr. Stillingfleet, than to have dared his Adversaries to bring but one example of Churches without Diocesan Bishops, seeing he knew there were store already given even by Episcopals, no less than Presbyterians, which hitherto stand unanswered. Let them also chaw their cude on that famous and well known Distinction of a first and second primitive Church acknowledged by Semeca and others, even Popish Divines, noticed by Usher 
o Antiq. Brit. Eccles. Page 809.  and embraced by Stillingfleet 
p Iren. Part 2. Ch. 6. , in the former whereof Diocesan Episcopacy was not yet come in fashion, nor was any such thing as a Difference, either in Name or Office, between Bishops, and Priests or preaching Presbyters, then in Being. From all which judge with what brow D. M compares the account of our ancient Church-government to a supposed Fiction of the King of China, and his Presbyterian Lady.  
And by this dealing of D. M. I am put in mind of another piece of his Art, who 
q Page 39, & 40.  avers that all brought by Salmasius and Blondel to prove that Hierome was for the Scriptural and Apostolic Identity of of Bishop & Presbyter, and whatsoever is said by them, for Presbytry is refuted by D. Pearson in his Vindic●ae Ignatianae. I must not (saith D. M.) transcribe the acurat and unanswerable Dissertations of several learned Men, who have sufficiently exposed the Writings of Blondel and Salmasius on this head, particularly the incomparable Bishop of Chester (vind▪ St. Ignat.) But no where did ever Dr. Pearson engage with these Authors on this subject, nor does he any such thing, only he has some few excursions which touch not the marrow of the Controversy, and therefore is nothing to D. M's purpose, whether the advantage be yielded to Salmasius and Blondel or to Dr. Pearson. He abuses also some passages of Hierome to prove him self-repugnant, but all such depravations had been by junius and others against the Papists, and by Stillingfleet in his Irenicum clearly discovered, & the places unanswerably vindicated, even before he wrote his Vindiciae, which their vindications of Hierome, as also many other defences of the same Author brought by Salmasius and Blondel, he scarce once adventures to handle. But he has vindicated Ignatius, they will say, and this is enough. But suppose that he had as really evinced these Epistles to be the genuine Work of Ignatius, as he's groundlessly pretended to have done't, yet so far is their inference from being good, that as we shall hear, the quite contrary follows, viz. that in the Ignatian age, Bishops were all one with the Pastors of single Congregations. Hence it appears that this was one of D. M's pious Frauds to skarr his vulgar Reader (for others he could not hope to catch thereby) from the New Doctrine of Presbytry.   

Section VIII.  
Prelacy opposite to the Principles of our Reformers.  
I Said, when we renounced our Obedience to Anti-christ, we sent, amongst the rest of the Romish leaven, Prelacy packing thither: which, tho' we had no more Arguments, our Confession of Faith compiled by our Reformers clearly evinces. We detest (say they) Antichrist's worldly Monarchy with his wicked Hierarchy. Of which Hierarchy, as is acknowledged by the Council of Trent 
a De Sacramento ordinis. Can. 6. , & Bellarmine 
b De Clerici●— Cap. 11. , the Bishops make a principal part. And the Episcopal Office with its distinction, belong solely to their Hierarchy, otherwise, they confess, there's no Difference between Bishop and Presbyter. At them therefore these words of the Confession must especially levelly. And his subtlety, who would save the Prelates from this blow, by seeking the foundation of a distinction where 'tis not; as if by the word Wicked, the Confession pointed at another Hierarchy which is Pious, must be reckoned, by all the disinterested, to nigh of kin to his pericranium, who, to save another part of Romanism, made a fair distinction between Lawful and Unlawful Idolatry. I say, it can be no otherwise here; for, to speak truth, their Hierarchy is nothing, save the Corruption of Church-government, and pride of her Governors, raised by certain stories, and tending towards the Papacy, as its highest pinnacle, whereof both name and notion owe their Original to one, who indeed was not the Father of lies, yet in lying came so near him, as readily any copy to its Original. I mean the false Areopagite, whose whole Book may really be termed a fardel of Fictions. Moreover, this Confession was compiled in the year 1581. when Prelacy had been unanimously by the whole Assembly, in the preceding year cast out of the Church. And for many succeeding Assemblies, their Declaration of their dislike and hatred of Prelacy, and approbation of this Confession, went hand in hand, with whom then in both of these, the King's Majesty joined. For the Assembly at Glasgow 1581. consisting for the most part, of such as voted, and were present in the Assembly at Dundie, in the preceding year when Prelacy had in terminis been renounced and ejected, declares that they meaned wholly to condemn the whole estate of Bishops, as they are now in Scotland,— and that this was the meaning of the Assembly at that time. The King's Commissioner presented to this Assembly the Confession of Faith, subscribed by the King, and his household, not long before, together with a plot of the Presbytries to be erected, which is registrat in the Books of the Assembly, with a Letter to be directed from his Majesty to the Noblemen, and Gentlemen of the Country, for the erection of the Presbytries, consisting of Pastors, and Elders, and dissolution of Prelacies, and with an offer to set forward the Policy until 'twere established by Parliament. The King's Letter subscribed by his hand, to the Noblemen, and Gentlemen, was read in open audience of the whole Assembly. This Assembly ordained also that the Confession of Faith be subscribed, as being true, Christian, and faithful. And in the Assembly 1595. amongst other things of the same tendency, it was cleared that Episcopacy was condemned in these words of the Confession His Wicked Hierarchy. See store of irrefragable proofs of this our Assertion in the Acts of the Assembly at Glasgow, 1638. Sess. 16.  
§. 2. They only bewray their ignorance, if not worse, while they give out, that our Church, in her first Reformation, had Bishops (as the word is now taken) under the name of Superintendents. For tho' this were true, all they shall gain hereby, would only be the fastening of a self-contradiction on Mr. Knox, and the rest of these most honourable Instruments of our Freedom from Mystical Babylon: our Adversaries acknowledging that Mr. Knox, and his Fellow-labourers in the Church-policy, did exactly follow the Genevan Model, which these men use to make the Original of Presbytry: It's confessed also 
c Fuller, lives of the Divines.  that John Knox refused a Bishopric in England on this account, that it had Quid commune cum Antichristo. Whereby, tho' nothing else could be brought, 'tis clear as the Sun, that Knox (I may say the same of most of his Fellow-labourers in the Reformation) was entirely averse from their Hierarchick Domination.  
§. 3. Wherefore the Author of a late Book called The Fundamental Charter of Presbytry examined and disproven, quite skips over these Evidences of Knox's being Antiprelatick; notwithstanding that the only design of the far greater part of his Book, was directly to prove these out Reformers, and Knox in special, to have been of the prelatical Persuasion, However, let's hear the chief of the Answers he gives to such other Proofs hereof, as he adventures to engage with. 
d Pag. 24. Et sequentibus.   
§. 4. The first is a passage of Knox's letter to the Assembly, viz. Unfaithful, and Traitors to the Flock, shall ye be before the Lord Jesus if that with your consent, directly or indirectly, ye suffer unworthy men to be thrust in within the Ministry of the Kirk under w●at pretence that ever it be, Remember the Judge before whom ye must make an account, and resist that Tyranny as ye would avoid Hell-fire. To which our Author answers denying that Knox by Tyranny here means Episcopacy, and saith, that 'tis impossible to make more of the Letter, than that Knox deemed it a pernicious and tyrannical thing, for any Person whatsoever to thrust unworthy Men into the Ministry of the Church. Which Answer evanishes, so soon as we shall understand the occasion of Knox's Letter. Some powerful Courtiers had then sacrilegiously invaded a great part of the Church's Revenues; and were greedily grasping the remainder, to the great grief of all good Men, and detriment of the Church, which both in her Assemblies, and otherways, vehemently urged that these Revenues should be employed on sustentation of Ministers, many of whom, being unprovided, were ready to starve; and on maintaining of Schools, relieving the Poor, and other such pious Uses. These Courtiers therefore, to free themselves of such unacceptable Monitors, and secure them of what they had gotten, plot the reduction of a kind of Diocesan Bishops, Abbots, Priors, and other such Popish Orders, with whom they were to make a sacrilegious Compact, and to give these titular Churchmen some small pittance of the Revenues, the rest being possessed, in their name, by these Courtiers. Now at the very time of the writing of Knox's Letter, this was in agitation, and a design laid to practise upon some of the Assembly, as shortly thereafter at the Meeting in Leith appeared, at which, and elsewhere in these times, there were not wanting among the Ministers, who, moved with hope of Domination over their Brethren, and some small augmentation of Rent, made no bones of such simoniacal Pactions or (to use the express words of the Confessions of their best Friends) such durt● and vile Bargains. 
e Fund. Charter. Pag 26. Spotswood. Hist. Pag. 316.   
And now judge what Knox meant by his Exhortation to keep out unworthy Men, and resist Tyranny: And 'tis most presumable that Spotswood 
e Hist. Page 257, 258.  sufficiently saw, that Knox's Letter gores Prelacy, otherwise he had not mangled the same, and wholly omitted all mention of Tyranny.  
§. 5. And that this Knox's Letter levelled at the Bishops then about to be introduced, is further evident from his refusal to inaugurat John Douglas Bishop of St. Andrews, his denouncing an Anathema to the Giver and Receiver of the Bishopric, and his open professing his dislike of the whole Order. At this our Author takes exception, saying, The certain Manuscript from which Calderwood says he had this relation, is uncertain. But he should have looked into Petrie, who 
f Century 16. Page 371.  names the Author William Scot, that eminent Minister at Couper.  
Now, that 'tis like enough that Knox, who was then at St. Andrews, said so, and expressed suitable resentments of the dirty Bargain between Morton and Douglas, who by a simoniacal Paction, got into the See, is by our Author expressly acknowledged. And indeed, if we consider the indignity of the Crime, and the Lion-like boldness of Mr. Knox against such Vices, 'tis altogether incredible, but that he vented his resentments with a Witness, and to the noticing of all thinking Men then present: yet all this is skipped over by Spotswood, For he knew well enough, that this Relation should have showed how little kindness Knox bore to their Hierarchy.  
Moreover, which is most noticeable in this matter, these who then favoured Prelacy, being generally such simoniacal Pedlars, were so far from writing the several Actions and Church-transactions of these times, that they made it their care to suppress and destroy the public Monuments of the Church. Witness B. Adamsone 
g Cald. Hist. Page 261. : one of the Articles of whose Confession, to which, as is acknowledged by Spotswood 
h Hist. Page 385. , he subscribed, was, that not without his special allowance, some leaves of the Books of the Assemblies were rend out, and such things as made against the Bishops their estate, were destroyed in Falkland, before the Books were delivered to the King's Majesty. Which considerations, suffice to prove the truth of that historical Relation.  
He alleges next, that tho' we had reason to believe, that Knox said and did so, yet it follows not that he was for the Divine Right of Parity. Adding, That 'tis like enough Knox said so— for dreadful Invasions were made upon the Patrimony of the Church. But this Invasion was so linked with the introduction of Prelacy, that they had both common Friends and Enemies, so that Knox declaring against either, must be judged equally averse from both. And indeed the introduction of Prelacy, was consequentially this very destruction and consumption of the Church's Goods, against which Knox inveighed. Or dare he say, that it had satisfied him, if they had been consumed in sustaining the Luxury and Grandour of Bishops, Abbots, and Priors, whom the Court was about then to introduce, providing only these Church Revenues, had been kept from the secular Nobility. Moreover, 'tis evident, to whosoever reads Knox's words, that the Invasion of the Church-patrimony, was far from being the sole Ground of the dislike he showed to Episcopacy. The Matter in short is, when John Douglas was made Tulchan Bishop of St. Andrews, Mr. Knox refused to Ordain him, denouncing Anathemaes to the Giver, and to the Receiver: and when John Rutherford Provest of the old College had said, that Mr. John Knox' s repining, had proceeded from male-contentment, the next Lora's-day, John Knox said in Sermon, I have refused greater Bishopric than ever 'twas, and might have had it with the favour of greater Men than he hath this, but I did, and do repine for discharge of my Conscience, that the Church of Scotland be not subject to that Order. This last Clause, viz. that the Church of Scotland be not subject to that Order, he adventures not once to mention, which yet is a reason of Knox's repining, and so gives the meaning of his whole Discourse. And seeing 'tis of equal credit with his foregoing words, being not only with the rest taken by Petrie, out of that Historical Relation, but related also by Calderwood 
i Ms. Hist. Vol. 2, Page 340.  fully scatters all his fog, and clearly determines the present Question, somewhat else he hath here, but of small moment. As, Knox, when Douglas, who was already Rector of the University, and Provest of the old College was made Bishop, regretted, that so many Offices were laid on an old Man, which scarcely twenty of the best Gifts were able to bear. Thence he Infers, that Knox' s resentment of Douglas his advance, was not from any Persuasion, he had of the unlawfulness of Prelacy. As if Knox might not assert the unlawfulness of Prelacy, and yet say so much for a a Superpondium to his other Grievances. And to show, even on Supposition, as they pretended, of the allowableness of Episcopacy, how little sense of Duty or Conscience was in either Givers or Receivers.  
§. 6. There was at this time (saith M. D. Hume. 
k History of the Houses of Douglass and Angus. Page 320. , no small Contest and Debate, betwixt the Court and the Church, about Bishops and Prelates, concerning their Office and Jurisdiction. The Ministers laboured to have them quite abolished and taken away, and the Court thought that form of Government to be agreeable, and compatible with a Monarchical Estate, and more conform to the Rules of Policy, and Civil Government of a Kingdom. Besides, the Courtiers had tasted the sweetness of their Rents and Revenues, putting in titular Bishops, who were only their Receivers, and had a certain Pension or Stipend, for discharging and executing the Ecclesiastical part of their Office, but the main profit was taken up by Courtiers for their own use. Wherefore they laboured to retain at least these shadows of Bishops, for letting of leases, and such other things, which they thought were not good in Law otherways. There was none more forward to keep them up than the Earl of Morton; for he had gone Ambassador to England on his own private Charges, and to recompense his great Expenses in that Journey, the Bishopric of St. Andrews, being then vacant, was conferred upon him. He put in Mr. John Douglass (who was Provost of the New College in St. Andrews) to bear the Name of Bishop, and to gather the Rents (till such time as the Solemnity of Inauguration could be obtained) for which he was countable to him. This he did immediately after he came home out of England. Now he will have him to sit in Parliament, and to vote there as Archbishop. The Superintendent of Fyfe, did inhibit him to sit there, or to Vote under pain of Excommunication; Morton commanded him to do it, under pain of Treason and Rebellion. The Petition given in to the Parliament, desiring a competent Provision for the maintaince of Preachers, in which they complained of the wrong done unto them by the Courtiers, who intercepted their means, was cast over the Bare, and rejected, and by the most common report, Morton was the first cause thereof. Afterward Morton in a Meeting of some Delegates, and Commissioners of the Church at Leith, by the Superintendent Dune's means, used the matter so, that he obtained their Consent to have his Bishop admitted, and installed. Wherefore, the third of February, he caused affix a schedul on the Church door of St Andrews, wherein he charged the Ministers to conveen, and admit him to the Place, which they did accordingly, but not without great Opposition. For Mr. Patrick Adamson (than a Preacher, but afterward Archbishop there himself) in a Sermon which he preached against the Order and Office of Bishops, said, there were three sorts of Bishops: 1. The Lord's Bishop (to wit Christ's) and such was every Pastor. 2. My Lord Bishop, that is, such as Bishop as is a Lord, who sits, and Votes in Parliament, and exercises Jurisdiction over his Brethren. 3. And the third sort was, (my Lord's Bishop) that is, one whom some Lord or Nobleman at Court did put into the place to be his Receiver, to gather the Rents, and let Leases for his Lordship's behoof, but had neither the Means nor Power of a Bishop. This last sort he called a Tulchan Bishop, because as the Tulchan (which is a Calf's skin stuffed with straw) is set up to make the Cow give down her milk; so are such Bishops set up, that their Lords by them may milk the Bishoprics. Likewise Mr. Knox preached against it the tenth of February, and in both their hear (Morton's, and his Archbishop) to their Faces pronounced, Athathema danti, Anathema accipienti.  
And 
l Page 333.  We showed before, how in matters of Church-government, he ever inclined (as the most politic Course) to the state of Bishops. The Name was yet retained by Customs, the Rents were lifted also by them (as we have said) more for other men's use and profit, than their own. They had also place and vote in Parliament after the old manner, and he would gladly have had them to have keeped their Power and Jurisdiction over their Brethren. Master John Douglass being dead, he filled the place by putting in Mr. Patrick Adamson his domestic Chaplain, who then followed that Course, though before he had preached against it. Many were displeased herewith, all the Ministers (especially they of the greatest Authority) and all Men of Estates that were best affected to Religion. (And which he citys out of an English Historian Francis Botevill) 
m Page 354.  As touching his (viz. Morton's) setting up and maintaining the estate of Bishops (whereof there had ensued great debate and contention betwixt him and the Ministry) he said, it did not proceed of an ill mind, of any malice, or contempt of them, or their Callings, but merely out of want of better knowledge, thinking that Form of Government to be most conform to the Rules of Policy, and to be fittest for the times. That if he had then known better, he would have done otherways. And 
n Page 358.  He (viz. Morton) was also calm— this appeared in his carriage toward Mr. Knox, who had used him roughly, and rebuked him sharply for divers things, but especially for his labouring to set up and maintain the estate of Bishops.  
Hence 'tis most manifest how, not only Knox, but also the whole body of our Church disliked and hated the very first bud, and likeness of Prelacy: and how by mere force and fraud of the voracious Court-politicians upon the dishonesty of some, but the unwariness and faintness of many more of the Ministry. These monstrous Tulchans, for all men even our present Prelatists are ashamed of them, got that minot's harbour in Scotland.  
§. 7. Our Author Answers, for he insists long on this matter, 
o Page 192.  That the Question is not now, how this was done, but if it was done? For if it was done, it is an Argument that the Clergy then thought little on the iudispensibility of Parity. Just as if what any man either by Fraud or Force is made seemingly to yield to▪ were to be taken for his true and genuine Sentiments: I thought this kind of reasoning had been peculiar to a Spanish Inquisitor or French Converter. Or that they were bad Men (continues he) a hard construction: For then Hierome of Prague who was forced, and so many of the choice Fathers of the Council of Arminum, who were tricked to admit, in appearance, something contrary to their true Sentiments; shall all be bad men? That the Ministers at this Convention at Leith dealt most unwarily, and some of 'em also with too little integrity, is beyond scruple: But that all of 'em, or most of 'em were poor covetous Rogues etc. neither Petrie nor any of his Persuasion ever affirmed.  
He adds that the Courts Arguments for the Leith-establiment were mainly Politic; for they turned not Theologues to persuade Episcopacy's Divine Institution from Scripture etc. Well then, there was little true Piety, no consulting of Conscience or the Word of God in the Matter: And if some of the Ministry, as he says, were taken with these politic and state Reasons, they in so far fell from their own Principle viz. 
p 1 Book of disc. head 1.  That in the Books of the Old and New Testament, all things necessary for the instruction of the Church, and to make the Man of God perfect, are contained and sufficiently expressed. But the Clergy (saith he) had found that the new Scheme of the first Book of Discipline had done much hurt to the Church. As if the old Popish Scheme, under which the Church's goods, by God's Law destinated for the promoval of piety and learning, and sustaining of the poor, were consumed and debauched, in upholding the grandour and luxury of a spurious ecclesiastic Nobility, could have been really more profitable to the Church than that of the Book of Discipline, on of the prime designs whereof was the bestowing of the Church Revenues for these their true uses, to which God's Law had appointed them. Or as if Pastors, Schools, and Poor can in no place be provided for, where the Romish Church-policy is wanting. But,  
The six Commissioners (saith he) that treated with the State at Leith were sensible Men, and far from being Parity-men. Just so far from being Parity-men, that most of 'em, in an Assembly 1580. July 12. deliberately found and declared Episcopacy unlawful in itself. 
q Calderwood's Ms. Hist. Vol. 2. Page 597.   
He intimats, that the Courts motive for the Leith-establishment could not be their desire to possess the Church's Patrimony. An untruth, as we have now seen, too bare faced to need more refutation. His proof hereof is of the same stamp, viz. Had the Clergy fallen so suddenly from their constant claim to the Church's Revenues? did that which moved them to be so earnest for this meeting with the State miraculously slip out of their minds. Seeing not the Church, but the Court-politicians, as is evident, with desire to circumveen her, chiefly procured that meeting, and if these Delegates were either the only or first men, who by sinistrous Artifices fell into a bad Compact, then let him exclaim with admiration of this matter: what follows is yet odder, viz. Was it not as easy for the Court to have possessed themselves of a Bishopric, an Abbacy, a Priory etc. when there were no Bishops— as when there were. For he's to be pitied if he be ignorant that the Courtiers having no Law-title thereto, had no hope save under covert of their own Creators, these titular Bishops, of any peaceable and secure possession of the Church's Revenues.  
But an undoubted Assembly [saith he] owned the Leith convention as an Assembly, and its Authority as the Authority of an Assembly— and for several years after that establishment at Leith, beside which there was no other fond for owning them for Bishops, Bishops were present, and as such were obliged to sit and vote in general Assemblies— and many Acts of subsequent Assemblies put this matter beyond all probability of ever being controverted as the Assembly in August 1574. which petitioneth the Regent, that Stipends be granted to Superintendents in all time coming, in all Country's destitute thereof, whether it be where there is no Bishop, or where there are Bishops, who cannot discharge their Office as the Bishop of St. Andrews and Glasgow. And that his Grace would provide qualified Persons for vacant Bishoprics. But this, tho' it be his prime Argument, is soon removed, our Church knew that divers Ministers and others had been allured, or awed to that agreement: She knew that 'twas only made for the Interim 
r See Spotswood Hist. Page 260.  and for the Interim only did she tolerate it, with a full resolution to have a more perfect Order. 
s Cald. Ms. Hist. Vol. 2. Page 354  And as for the words, In all time coming, there's not a syllable of them in the Act he citys 
t See Page 457.  Nor indeed any where else of all the Acts of these Assemblies. She knew also that during that Interim, 'twas impossible to get, that which had been the Revenues of Popish Bishops & other Church Rents out of the Regent and other Courtiers their hands. In the mean while the vast number of unplanted Churches, weakness of the Ministry in divers parts, and unsettlement, even unto that time, of the Church's Affairs, allowed for a space the continuance of Evangelistick Superintendents or Commissioners, who were to be in almost perpetual motion and travels, and therefore needed much larger maintenance than did fixed Pastors; which large maintenance the Church, being thus stripped of her Patrimony, could not afford to the number that was needful. On these and such Grounds, the Church indulged to that Convention the name of an Assembly, tolerated in these Tulchans' the name of Bishops: And, seeing they had got more Rent than was given to ordinary Ministers, allowed them to exercise the Labour and Travel of Superintendents or Commissioners: And thus the Church made the best she might of that their unlawful Bargain. And tho', 
u See our Author Pages 207, 208.  which he also objects, some Assemblies allow Bishops to conveen and proceed against delinquents, command Ministers by their Letters to admonish concerning persons to be excommunicated, it helps him nothing, seeing the very Acts he citys give no less power to Superintendents, yea to Commissioners, whom yet the Church used, even after she had declared Episcopacy unlawful in itself. So far is our Churches tolerating for a space these Tulchans from being any Argument, that she believed not the Divine Right of Parity. But how appearsed (saith he) that our Church received the Leith Articles only for an Interim out of a dislike to Episcopacy:— And there were other things in the Articles which required amendment. But sure these Articles were without any exception received and tolerated only for the Interim, and how well these Court-bishops were liked, is already made manifest, and our Churches subseqnent actings declare, which never rested, but still wrestled against the storms of both Power and Policy, until they were sent packing. 'Tis true, as he says, the Church met with Opposition; but that this was only from these titular Bishops, and Rent-gatherers to the Courtiers, supported with all the might, Wit and Artifice of an awful gripping, politic Regent, and no few other potentand subtle Courtiers driving their own ends, as has already appeared, and is most evident from the best accounts now extant of these Affairs, and this is the undoubted Cause, why the six Collocutors at the Assembly in August 1575. think it not expedient presently to answer directly to the Question of the Function of Bishops. But he who stilleth the noise of the Seas & the noise of their waves, having restrained these impetuous Tempests, how cordially did our Church proceed to the utter extirpation of Prelacy? Forsamekle (they are the words of the Assembly holden at Dundee, Anno 1580. July 12. Sess. 4. 
x Cald. Ms. Hist. Vol. 2. Page 597. ) as the Office of a Bishop, as it is now used and commonly taken within this Realm, hath no sure warrant, authority, or good ground out of the Book, and Scriptures of God, but brought in by the folly and corruption of men's invention, to the great overthrow of the true Kirk of God, the whole Assembly of the Kirk in one voice, after liberty given to all Men to reason in the matter, none opponing themselves in defence of the said pretended Office, findeth and declareth the 'samine pretended Office, used and termed as is above said, unlawful in the self, as having neither fundament, ground nor warrant in the word of God etc. And in all this, our Church, as she clearly here expresses, did nothing save what she was obliged to do by her own Principle in the first Book of Discipline, which affirms that all thing necessary for the instruction of the Church is contained in the Books of the Old and New Testament. And that whatsoever is without express commandment of God's Word, is to be repressed as damnable to Salvation. Our Reformers therefore, except our Adversaries say, (which even impudence, itself dare not say), that they believed the Hierarchy to be founded on the express command of God's Word, were bound by this their Principle to oppose it as a manifest corruption, and according to this Principle, whensoever Prelacy, by force of the secular arm, and fraud of serpentine policy, and, as one well words it, by terrors and allurements, crosses and commodities, banishment and benefices (for by other means it could never be admitted) overwhelmed this Land, and discovered the Hypocrisy or Gallio-like Disposition of many; all the true Lovers of our Reformation still then had, in greater or lesser measure, as their love was to this truly Protestant, yea truly Catholic and Christian Principle of our Reformers, their Feasts turned into Mourning, their Songs into Lamentation, their Tears for Meat, and their Harps hanged on the Willows. And now suppose that our Reformers, in that unstable condition of our Church, and very first rudiments of Protestancy had in some of their Doings or Saying afforded some colour or appearance, either for the scruples of the curious, or the quirks and cavils of the captious, does not, pray, this most unanimous, most clear, and every way most unexceptionable Act of our most full and free General Assembly, that consisted for the far greater part of the very same Men, who were the Actors and Promoters of our first Reformation, most fully open our Remormers their minds, show their ultimat tendency and scope, and finally, for ever determine the present Controversy.  
§. 8. He hath more to say of John Knox, I return therefore to attend him. His next Plea 
y Page 28. Et sequentibus.  is with Calderwood about Beza's Letter to Knox, where he denies that Beza wrote being informed by Knox of the Courts intention to bring in Bishops, and adds, that if any thing of Knox' s Sentiments can be collected from Beza ' s Letter, it seems rather he was for Prelacy than for Presbytry: For Beza (saith he) seems clearly to import, that Knox Beza's Words are. 
z Epist. 79. Sed & istud mi Knox— sicut Episcopi Papatum pepereunt. ita psendespiscopos— (Papatus reliquias) Epicureismum terras invecturos etc.  But I would have you, my dear Knox, and the other Brethren, to Remember that which is before your eyes: that as Bishops brought forth the Papacy: so false Bishops the relics of Popery, shall bring in Epicurism to the World: They that desire the Churches good and safety, let them take heed of this Pest, and seeing ye have put that Plague to flight timously, I heartily pray you, that Ye never admit it again, albeit it seem plausible, with the pretence or colour of keeping unily, which pretence deceived the ancient Fathers, yea even many of the best of 'em.  
Where Beza without giving any proof thereof, clearly supposes as a thing believed by Knox no less than by himself, that the Bishops whom some were then labouring to introduce into Scotland were false Bishops, the relics of Popery, which had already been once driven out of Scotland, and on this supposition, as any Orators use to do from Principles common to themselves, and these to whom they are speaking, he admonished him and the rest to beware of this Plague. Certain it is then, if we believe Beza, that he knew, if by a Letter from Knox, or otherwise concerns not the matter in hand, that Knox judged the Bishops then to be introduced to be no others than were the Popish Bishops, whom Knox and his fellow Reformers had lately expulsed Scotland, and both sorts of Bishops to be equally false and Anti-christian. And now consider this Letter of Beza written near the same time with that of Knox to the Assembly, and the disinterested shall soon perceive that the former explains the latter, and sufficiently shows what Knox meant by the Tyranny mentioned therein. Moreover, whosoever finds so much against Episcopacy in Beza, even tho' it had been spoken by him without any relation or respect to Knox, and remembers how universal and firm Concord was between these excellent Persons, Qui duo corporibus mentibus unus erant, will easily conclude that Knox bore but small kindness to Prelacy.  
§. 9 He comes next to prove, Knox was not for Parity. Had he been (saith he) so persuaded, how seasonable had it been for him to have spoken out so mnch, when he was brought before King Edward ' s Council? The Question was then put to him, whether he thought that no Christian might serve in the Ecclesiastical Ministration, according to the Rites and Laws of the Realm of England?— Yet he answered nothing, but that no Minister in England had Authority to separate the Lepers from the whole, which was a chief part of his Office. Plainly founding all the unlawfulness of being a Pastor of the Church of England, not only the unlawfulness of the Hierarchy which he spoke not one word about, but on the Kings retaining— the chief Power of Ecclesiastical Discipline. As if Knox had judged nothing in the Church of England unlawful but the King's retaining the Ecclesiastical Discipline in his own hand; which all Men, even Episcopals no less than Presbyterians, know to be an arch and palpable untruth. Does not (as for example) our Assembly Anno 1566. in a Letter to the English Bishops and Pastors, being moved thereto by John Knox, if Spotswood 
a Hist. Pages 198, 199.  speak truth, expressly, among many other things to this purpose, say If Surplice, Corner-cap, and Tippet have been the badges of Idolaters, in the very act of their Idolatry, what have the Preachers of Christian Liberty, and the Rebukers of Superstition, to do with the dregs of that Roman Beast? yea, what is he that ought not to fear either to take in his hand or forehead the Print & Mark of that odious Beast? etc. See store to this purpose in Heylin's History of the Presbyterians: whereby 'tis most evident, that this Author endeavoured nothing more earnestly than to persuade the World that Knox was a self-repugnant Idiot.  
It sufficed if before that celebrious Assembly he answered to the Question, and gave some one reason that showed he could not comply with them, tho' he declared not all the grounds of his dislike of their Practice.  
As to the matter of Francfort, which this Author mentions, drawing from it the like Consequences, there was no Bishop there, nor any mention of the necessity thereof, but only a bus●e made by some superstitious Bigots for their Popish Ceremonies or Fooleries, as Calvin calls them, and so there was no occasion of venting himself in this matter, and tho' there had, he sufficiently declared his mind while publicly in a Sermon, he alleged 
b Cald. Page 3.  that nothing ought to be thrust upon any Congregation without the warrant of the Word of God. Yea, if we may believe Le Strange 
c Holy Cheat. Pages 31, 32.  Knox and his Associates sufficiently discovered themselves to be of the Consistorian or Presbyterian Persuasion.  
§ 10. He adds that Knox in his Appellation etc. plainly supposes the lawfulness of the Episcopal Office. I deny't. But all alongst throw it (saith he) Knox appeals to a lawful general Council, snch a Council as the most ancient Laws and Canons approve, and who knows not that the most ancient Laws and Canons made Bishops the chief, if not the only Members of such Councils. Knox says, if the Popish Clergy his Adversaries are for it, he's content that matters in Controversy between him and them be determined by the Testimony and Authority of Doctors and Councils, three things being granted him, whereof these are two. 1. That the most ancient Councils nearest to the primitive Church in which the learned and godly Fathers examined all Matters by God's Word, may be holden of most Authority. 2. That no Determinations of Councils or Men be admitted against the plain verity of God's Word, nor against the Determinations of the four chief Councils. Would Knox if he had been Presbyterian have agreed so frankly to have stood by the Determination of these four chief Councils? Could he have expected they would have favoured the Divine Right of Presbyterian Parity? Will any scotish Presbyterian now adays stand to the Decision of these four chief Councils?  
But all our Author here infers is by Knox prevented and cut off, while, in the first place, he requires, that no Determinations of Councils nor Men be admitted against the plain Verity, i. e. 
d First Book of Discipline head first.  without the expressed commandment of God's Word.  
We cheerfully appeal in the present Controversy, and provoke our Adversaries to this Rule, which most of 'em I have hitherto met with, expressly acknowledge to contain nothing in their favours.  
Secondly, The Actions of the first four Councils were of two sorts, Creeds viz. and Canons. Now, as John Knox and all the Presbyterians in cordial subscribing to the former, viz. The Symbols of these Councils, are confessedly not behind any part of the Christian World: so part of the latter sort, I mean the Canons, are rejected by Episcopals no less than by Presbyterians. As for example, the Constantinopolitan 
e Can. 7. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Council appoints that reduced Heretics and Schismatics must be anointed on the Forehead, Eyes, Nose, Mouth and Ears. And in the Council of Chalcedon 
f Can. 14. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  'tis permitted only of all the Churchmen to the Lectors and Cantors to Marry. Yea that none of the Clergy after that manner should Marry, was statuted by the Council of Nice. 
g Sozomen Lib. 1. Cap. 23. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  And they were also to have separated from their Wives the Churchmen, who were in Wedlock already, had they not been restranied by the grave admonition and solid reason of Paphnutius. 
h Socrates. Lib. 1. Cap. 11. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉,— 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc.   
Now, 'tis true indeed Presbyterians admit not of these Decrees. But dare they say that Knox embraced them? Or, do our present Adversaries themselves receive them? Knox therefore spoke of the Symbols: Our Author introduces him, and gives out as if he had spoken of their Canons, to the end he may deceive the vulgar Reader; for none that look into the Councils can be obnoxious to this his Fraud.  
The same conclusion, viz. That Knox supposes the innocency and lawfulness of the Episcopal Office, he would deduce from Knox's following words. You may in a peaceable manner, without Sedition, withhold the fruits and profits which your false Bishops and Clergy most unjustly receive of you, until such time as they shall faithfully do their Charge and Duties, which is to preach unto you Christ Jesus truly; rightly to minister the Sacraments according to his Institution; and so to watch for your Souls as is commanded by Christ etc. But might not Knox, had he been there, given the like admonition to the Romans concerning their Bishop and Clergy? should he thereby have supposed the Lawfulness and Innocency of the Papacy and Power the Romanists gave to the Pope.  
Secondly, Does not Knox admonish the People concerning the rest of the Clergy wherein there was comprehended the Abbots, Priors, and all the rest of the Romish rout, no less than concerning the Bishops? Did therefore Knox suppose the Innocency and Lawfulness of all these Offices?  
Thirdly, Knox utterly baffles all our Author's Sophistry, and sufficiently preserves himself from his abuses and depravations, while he places the Office of all true Bishops in truly preaching of Christ Jesus, rightly ministering the Sacraments and watching for Souls: Which I hope is equally the Office and Duty of all Christ's Ministers. So true is it, we observed from Beza's Letter, that Knox looked on all Lordly Diocesan Prelates as false Bishops. And all they pretend to, beside what is common to every Pastor under whatsoever Name or Profession they go, as unwarrantable and unjust.  
But (saith our Author) Knox's great Work in his Admonition to the Professors of England, was to enumerat at the Causes, which in God's righteous Judgement brought Queen Mary's Persecution on them: But he quite forgot to name the Sin of Prelacy as one; Ergo etc. And did he enumerat and reckon up all things he judged to be Errors or Sins wherefore God was pleading with the English, and had sent among them that Persecution? The truth is the main design of that Admonition is not to give an accurate enumeration of the Causes of the Persecution, but to give comfort to the Faithful under it. But abstracting what Knox thought to be the Causes of that Persecution, and what not, our Author must sustain that Knox reckoned up whatsoever he judged to be Sins and Abuses in that Church, otherwise he does nothing. But dare he say, that Knox there did so? Spoke he ever a word of the Tippet, Corner-cap, and Surplice, there being Badges of Idolaters, and Marks of the odious Beast? Hath he one syllable of Christmas, Feasts and such holy Days, 
i Spotsw. Hist. 153. 174.  which he also judged superstitious and sinful? Or of the Faults of their Service-book about which, as all Men know, fell out the Controversy at Francfort? or the depriving Ministers of Power to separate the Lepers from the whole? at which our Author grants Knox to have been offended.  
But Knox calls Cranmer that reverend Father in God; Ergo. Bellè. As if forsooth Knox might not use a Phrase of the common stile of the times, but he must be presently concluded a propugner of the Hierarchy. 
k Cald. Ms. Hist. Vol. 2. Page 143.  Was not at the Assembly in Edinburgh March 1570. whereof John Knox was a Member, one of the Heads of Adam Bishop of Orknay ' s Accusation, which by the Assembly he was desired to redress, that he styleth himself with Roman Titles, as Reverend Father in God, which pertaineth to no Ministers of Christ Jesus, nor is given them in Scriptures?  
John Knox (continues our Author) said, the false Religion of Mahomet is more ancient than Papistry, yea Mahomet had established his Alcoran before any Pope of Rome was crowned with a triple Crown etc. Can any Man think (subjoins our Author) John Knox was so very unlearned as to imagine Episcopacy was not much Older than Mahomet? Or knowing it to be Older, that yet he could have been so ridiculous, as to have thought it a relict of Popery, which he himself affirmed to be Younger than Mahometism? But, was Knox so very unlearned, as not to know, that divers Popish Errors and Dotages had generally obtained and got good footing before the time of Mahomet? Do not these who know any thing, know so much? Have we not heard how he rejected, as unwarrantable and unlawful, Christmas, Feasts, and such holy Days? Will our Author acknowledge they obtained not before the rise of Mahomet, or the Pope's triple Mitre? I think he will not. Have we not seen how, good space before these times, other Innovations as unction of Poenitents, and Caelibacy of Churchmen were coming in fashion, and countenanced by the most famous Councils. Knox had been unlearned indeed, if he had not known so much; he spoke therefore only of the maturity and more open appearance of the Man of Sin, and as he expresses, of his coming to his triple Crown; and meant not at all that before Mahomet's time, no Popish Doctrines were generally broached and embraced: yet so our Author (otherwise he's quite beside his purpose) makes him to speak; than which nothing more false and injurious to Mr. Knox, can be expressed.  
Hitherto, we have been entertained with Sophistry so silly, and Paralogisms so palpable, that 'twere unjustice done to this Gentle-man's Intellectuals, not to believe that he sufficiently discerned the Fallacies. But he promiseth to make a mends for the future; as yet, he has only brought up his Rorarios and Velites, but now the case is quite altered.  
Ecce ferunt Troes ferrumque Ignesque Jovemque!  
§ 11. He has yet more to say; yes, more with a Witness! Knox says, in his Exhoatation to England, Let no man be charged in preaching of Jesus Christ above that a man may do; I mean that your Bishoprics be so divided that of every one as they are now for the most part, may be ten, and so in every City and great Town, there may be placed a godly learned Man, with so many joined with him for Preaching and Instruction as shall be thought sufficient for the bounds committed to their Charge. But the Reader, impartially weighing what we have adduced, must yield, that 'tis impossible, either from this, or any other place, to make Knox a Prelatist, except we involve him in manifest self-repugnancy, which there is no necessity to do for any thing here said: For tho' Knox, considering how the English were wedded to something of a hierarchick Splendour, had indulged them in a good deal thereof: it had been only a parallel Action to that of his Friend Calvin, who 
l Vide Epist. 206. Coxo & gregalibus suis.  tho' sufficiently Anti-ceremonial, yields, notwithstanding, for a time, and for Peace's sake, to that Nation, some of their Ceremonies which he calls tolerable Fooleries, unprofitable Trifles etc. Yet I have met with none, who on this score has taxed Calvin of Self-contradiction. But this ex abundanti; for they cannot from these Knox's words conclude, that he favoured so much as the least grain of the substance of Prelacy: of each of their Bishoprics he makes ten, which I think will bring his Lordship comparatively considered, to a very narrow compass. But to show that he put a definite number for an indefinite, he gives not only to every City, but to every great Town a Bishop: Now, of Cities and Mercat-towns in England, which, there, are not inconsiderable, there are odds of 600, 
m Heylin's Cosmography. Page 305.  But that none may justly cavil, let's make a large abatement of the number where they may be smaller; and yet, I'm sure, so many remain as there should be ordinary Presbytries in England, providing it were so divided.  
Moreover, the great End and Work of this Bishop Knox makes to be the preaching of the Gospel, and instructing of the People; of his Dominion and Power over the Clergy not a syllable; yea, he gives not to him alone the Charge of the Flock, 'tis their Charge, the Charge of the rest, no less than the Bishop; they are joined with him, not his Curates under him: And we have heard him already making the Office of a Bishop nothing else but what is common to all Pastors: And, if his Doctrine and Practice in Scotland may be allowed as an Explication of his Exhortation to England, this Bishop was subject to the Admonition and Correction of the Presbytry, wherein he was Bishop.  
Nothing therefore can necessarily be drawn from Knox's words, except that this Bishop was to have (if Temporary or continued, I dispute not, for it touches not the present Question) a mere presidency of Order or Moderator-ship; nothing of Dominion or Power to Knox's Bishop. Nothing therefore of imparity amongst Pastors can from the words in hand with any good consequence be deduced.  
Lastly, whatever 'twas, it appears clear from these words, that he allowed this only for a time, during the rarity of Preachers.  
§ 12. But hear somewhat more of the same Exhortation. Touching the Reformation of Religion (saith he 
n Page 108. Et sequentibus. ) ye must at once so purge and expel all dregs of Papistry, Superstition and Idolatry, that thou, O England, must judge and hold execrable and accursed, whatsoever God hath not sanctified to thee by his blessed Word, or by the Action of our Master Jesus Christ. The glistering beauty of vain Ceremonies, the heaps of things pertaining nothing to Edification, by whomsoever they were invented, justified or maintained, ought at once to be removed, and so trodden under the obedience of God's Word, that continually this sentence should be present in thy Heart, and ready in thy Mouth, not that which appeareth in thine own Eye shalt thou do etc. Deut. 12.— Let not then the King and his proceedings, whatsoever they be, not agreeable to the Lord's Holy Word, be a snare to thy Conscience.— Let God's blessed Word alone be the Rule and Line to measure his majesty's Religion. What it commandeth, let it be obeyed, & what it commandeth not, let that be execrable, because it hath not the sanctification of God's Word, under what Title or Name soever it be published. Halt no longer on both parts. Let not these Voices prevail in your Parliament, This to our Judgement is good and godly, this the People cannot well bear, this repugneth not to God's Word. And, But let his holy and blessed Ordinances by Christ Jesus commanded to his Kirk, be within thy limits and bounds so sure, and established, that if Prince, King, or Emperor would enterprise to change or disannul the same, that he be the reputed Enemy of God.— Which horrible Crimes if ye will avoid in time coming, then must ye (I mean the Princes, Rulers, and People of the Realm) by solemn Covenant renew the Oath betwixt God and you.— That benefice upon benefice be heaped upon no Man, but that a suffient Charge with a competent Stipend be assigned to the Workmen; for O how horrible was that confusion that one Man should be permitted to have two, three, four, five, six, or seven Benefices, who scarcely in the year did so often preach; yea, that a Man should have the Charge of them, whose faces he never saw.— For the great Dominions and Charge of your proud Prelates (impossible by one Man to be discharged) are no part of Christ's true Ministry, but are the maintenance of the Tyranny first invented, and yet retained by the Roman Antichrist. That diligent heed be taken, that such to whom the Office of preaching is committed, discharge and do their Duties: for it is not; nor will not be the chanting nor mummelling over of certain Psalters, the reading of Chapters for matines & evening Song, or of homilies only (be they never so godly) that can feed the Souls of hungry Sheep.— What efficacy the living voice hath above the naked letter which is read, the hungry and thirsty do feel to their comfort. But the other maketh for Mr. Parson's purpose, who, retaining in his hand a number of Benefices, and appointed such in his place as are altogether destitute of the Gift of Preaching; but let all such Belly-gods be whipped out of God's Holy Temple. Let none that be appointed to labour in Christ's Vineyard be entangled with Civil Affairs— except it be when the Civil Magistratand the Minister of the Word assemble together for Execution of Discipline, which is a thing easy to be done without withdrawing any Person from his Charge, if that which was before expressed be observed: For as touching their yearly coming to Parliament for matters of Religion, it shall be superfluous & vian, if God's true Religion be once so established that after, it never be called in controversy. And as touching Execution of Discipline that must be done in every City and Shire, where the Magistrates and Ministers are joined together without any respect of Persons. So that the Ministers, albeit they lake the glorious Title of Lords, and the Devilish Pomp which before appeared in proud Prelates, yet must they be so stout, and so bold in God's Cause, that if the King would usurp any other Authority in God's Religion than becometh a Member in Christ's Body, that first he be admonished according to God's Word etc.  
Read pray, the rest of this Exhortation, and you shall find that never was light more opposite to darkness, than Knox is to their Ceremonies and Hierarchy, and, in a word, their whole way whatsoever they contend for in opposition to the Church of Scotland. Now suppose, which yet he is far from doing, that Knox allowed them some umbrage of imparity, should they not, notwithstanding, providing they closed with what he saith here and elsewhere, really relinquish what they call the Churchof- England's way, and come over unto us? Yea, were they according to Knox's Exhortation stripped of the hope their exorbitant Gain, Ease, and Grandour, &c: they should soon also send packing their Plea for Imparity, this being a mere shroud, and pretext to cover these Enormities from which Knox so warmly dehorts, and whieh with less colour of modesty can be sustained.  
Add hereto, that seeing Knox so zealously requires express and positive Warrant in the Word of God for every thing in the Worship, Government and Discipline of the Church; and seeing hitherto none hath darred to aver, that he was for the Divine Right of Prelacy, yea even our Author himself adventures not plainly to assert so much, but only labours to make Knox to account it Lawful and Innocent, and to speak nothing against it, it must undeniably follow, that he was for a Divine Right of Parity.  
§. 13. Did not Knox (continues our Author) write and bear the Letter sent by the Superintendents, Ministers and Commissioners of the Church within the Realm of Scotland, to their Brethren the Bishops and Pastors in England, Anno 1566? Did not he in that same Title of that same Letter acknowledge, that these Brethren, Bishops and Pastors of England had renounced the Roman Antichrist, and professed the Lord Jesus in sincerity? And doth not the Letter all alongst allow of the Episcopal Power and Authority of these English Bishops? But, had never a Protestant to do with an Abbot, Prior, or some other such Popish Officers, whose Offices he did not allow? Might he not therefore speak or write to him in such Terms without which he should either not have been understood, or his Letter, or his Discourse been altogether uneffectual? Although then it could be proved, they had given Bishops the distinguishing Titles they assume, by no good Logic could it be inferred that they accounted the Office, as it is distinguished from any other Pastor, Lawful: which yet can never be proved, nor any thing concluded from the Letter, save that they took Bishop and Pastor for synonymous Terms.  
Moreover, 'twill no more follow, that they count Episcopacy Lawful, than that they esteem so of the Surplice, Corner-cap and Tippet, which yet in the same Letter, they make the Marks of the odious Beast. They there indeed acknowledge the English to have renounced the Roman Antichrist, but so as notwithstanding to have retained divers of his Abominations, whereof they name none, but only the most notorious of these which the then present English Controversies gave occasion to mention.  
The rest of his Discourse on this Head leans on this, that our Superintendents were really Diocesan Bishops, of whom more anon. And well may I deny't, were there no more than the Doctrine and Practice of John Knox, who, as our Author grants, compiled the first Book of Discipline, wherein the Appointment and Duties of Superintendents are set down.  
§. 14. And indeed that Knox was truly Presbyterian, is so manifest, that until now, when Men have broke the bonds of all modesty, and abandoned themselves to aver every thing to be as they would have it, was in neither hand called in question, but Enemies no less than Friends, either more indirectly or more plainly acknowledged it. This was the Policy (saith 
o Hist. Page 174.  Spotswood) desired to be ratified. It had been form by John Knox, partly in imitation of the Reformed Churches of Germany, partly of that which he had seen in Geneva etc. Nothing then from England, which flatly contradicts our Author, who, throw no small part of his Book, pretends to prove that all was taken especially from England. Now, what was the Government of the reformed Churches of Germany and Geneva, I think few are ignorant. And elsewhere, 
p Hist. Pag. 266.  Many good Men (saith Spotswood) have disliked some of Knox' s Opinions, as touching the Authority of Princes, and the Form of Government which he laboured to have established in the Church. The Prelate indeed here, as his custom is, delivers the Truth as sparingly, as may be; yet not so, but both Presbyterians can perceive, and Hierarchicks must confess what is wrapped up in this forced Confession: And while he endeavours yet more to obscure it, by impertinently adding, that Knox was always urging the Obedience of Ministers to their Superintendents, he only hereby shows, that he was loath the World should know, that he had been forced to Confess that Knox was really a Presbyterian. But their own dearest Friends and Brethren gave Testimony against them. Knox (say they 
q See L'estrange holy Cheat. Page 31. ) was of the Consistorian stamp. These sc. Gilby, Goodman and Whittingham led the dance in England, Knox in Scotland, and at this day our Presbyterians do but write after their Copy, professing the same Principles, pretending the same Scruples, and beyond doubt proposing the same end. 
r Pag. 133.  Let me be understood likewise by Presbyterians to intend these of the Scotish Race, to whom we are beholden for our Discipline. That Faction first advanced itself by popular Tumult and Rebellion, Knox learned the Trick of it at Geneva, and brought it into Scotland. I forbear to cite others: see in lieu of many Heylin's History of the Presbyterians, who is most ample to this purpose.  
I only Note how various Methods have been used to destroy our Reformed Religion: The Papists, when the Divine Light of the Gospel began to break throw their Babilonish Fogs, to other means for extinguishing thereof, added that of lying, reproaching and bespattering most odiously our first Reformers, endeavouring to ridicul and expose, together with their Doctrine, their Discipline also, and Government, which they saw like to obtain amongst most of the reformed, and which sometimes in scorn they named after Geneva; but they were open and professed Enemies, and so the Net was laid in sight of the Bird: A new Squadron must be added who, under the name of Protestant, may better manage the Romish Design, Tuta frequensque Via est per amici fallere nomen.  
These in the mean while with open mouth proclaimed this Truth, that Knox, and the rest of our first Reformers in Scotland, were, no less than Calvin, Beza, and such transmarine Propagators of the Gospel, truly Presbyterian, and, as they scornfully spoke, fiery Zelots of t●e new holy Genevan Discipline: And on this very account threw upon them all the Iniquity, Aspersion and Infamy their black Art could invent, or the spirit of Lies and Malice suggest. Yet with all good Men and true Protestants they effected nothing, save to bring themselves into just suspicion of being masked Romanists: some of 'em therefore of late, find it there interest to alter their Method, & to forbear somewhat to utter their wont Calumnies, and Malice against the persons of our Reformers (for as for speaking any good of 'em, we shall most rarely find them do it, or if ever, 'tis done with so much coldness and lameness, and with such mixtures of detraction, that they appear content that the Reader believe them not, and resolved to pull back with the one hand, what they were compelled to give with the other) and in the mean while, aver with an unparallelled confidence, that these our Reformers were never for the Genevan way, (as they call it) were never for Parity of Pastors or Presbyterian Government; that so they may the more securely follow the steps of the former, and vent their spleen at both Government and Discipline, and yet be less obnoxious to suspicion of driving Rome's interest. But 'tis to be hoped they shall not speed well, seeing herein, they only endeavour to darken the Sun, to contradict what's known and believed all Europe-over: And loudly, finally, to give the lie to their own dearest Friends.  
§. 15. Now to their second Objection, which is from the Superintendents, which, together with whatever else they advance from this Argument, we, having thus evinced that Knox, whose Judgement is confessedly of such moment in the present Case, was truly Antiprelatick, might without just blame have neglected, it melts quite away, if we remember that this practice was only a temporary expedient, during the unsettl'd condition of the Church. The Objection dwindles also to nothing on this account, that tho' our Reformers had designed the perpetual use of Superintendents, yet these toto coelo, as they say, differed from Diocesan Prelates, so that, notwithstanding hereof, the Government was really Presbyterian, or without aught that can be called Imparity. The former of these our Answers is plainly set down in the first Book of Discipline 
s Head 5.  If the Ministers (say our Reformers) whom God hath endowed with his singular Graces amongst us should be appointed to several places there to make their continual residence, that then the greatest part of the Realm should be destitute of all Doctrine: which should not only be the occasion of great murmur, but also be dangerous to the Salvation of many. And therefore we have thought it a thing most expedient at this time, that from the whole number of Godly and learned Men, now presently in this Realm, be Selected ten or twelve (for in so many Provinces we have divided the whole) to whom Charge and Commandment should be given to Plant and Erect Kirks, to set, order, and appoint Ministers, as the former Order prescribes, to the Countries that shall be appointed to their care where none are now.  
This was but too plain, and therefore is much curtailed by Spotswood; 
t Hist. Page 158.  as our Author, who dwells long on this Objection from Superintendents 
u Pages 143, & sequentes. , cannot deny. He therefore takes a new Way, and thus glosses the Passage. If I mistake not (saith he) the true gloss of this Period will amount to no more than this, that because there were then so few Men qualified for the Office of Superintendency, tho' ten or twelve were, by far, too small a number for the whole Kingdom, yet, at that time, they thought it expedient to establish no more: and tho', when the Church should be sufficiently provided with Ministers, it would be highly reasonable, that the Superintendents should have Places appointed them, for their continual residence; yet, in that juncture, 'twas necessary that they should be constantly travelling throw their districts, to Preach, and Plant Churches etc. To establish his gloss he says, the Compilers of the first Book of Discipline, viz. Mr. J. Winrame, John Spotswood, I, Willock, J. Douglas, J. Row and J. Knox, were still of prelatical Principles. But tho' this were as true as 'tis false, the quite contrary would rather follow, viz. that they had resolved to change afterward the Superintendents for Diocesan Bishops: To prove they were Prelatists, he says, three of them were Superintendents, begging the Question, as if Superintendent and Bishop were one and the same. But Douglas died Archbishop of St. Andrews. But is't strange that he, who, in favours of a Tulchan Bishopric, had a stomach able to deject Simoniacal Pactions and dirty Bargains, made no bones of sacrificing his former Principles to his interest? But Spotswood was a constant Enemy to Parity, as appears from his Son's account of him. But his Son says not so much: Moreover, which quite spoils our Author's Cause, he makes 
x Page 174.  without naming any other, John Knox the Author of that Book of Policy, yea he averrs 
y Page 344.  that in his Father's Judgement, the Old Policy was undoubtedly the better than the New. John Row defended the lawfulness of Episcopacy at the Conference appointed by the General Assembly 1575. But J. Row, no less than the other Collocutors, in their Report to that Assembly, tho', for the iniquity of the time, not in so many words, yet really condemned Prelacy, 
z Cald. Ms. Hist. Vol. 2. Page 489.  and was also a Member of that Assembly, which with one voice— found and declared the Office unlawful in itself. 
a Ibid. Page 595. Et seq.  Judge then of his confidence, who yet adventures hence to conclude that he was a Prelatist.  
He adds out of Knox, that Superintendents and Overseers were nominated, that all things in the Church might be carried with Order and well, which reason for establishing Superintendents (saith our Author) will continue to hold so long as the Church continues. But let him once prove that Knox speaks of the constant and ordinary Church regimen and guidance, and not of the settling and ordering of a Church little more than in fieri, and as yet not all sufficiently constitute, otherwise we have a mere Paralogism. At the Admission of Spotswood (continues he) John Knox asserted the necessity of Superintendents and Overseers, as well as Ministers the necessity I say, & not the bare expediency in the juncture. The words are 
b Knox Hist. 289.  first was made a Sermon, in the which these Heads were handled: first the necessity of Ministers and Superintendents or Overseers etc. We have indeed here the necessity of Superintendents mentioned, but that it arose above an expediency, we do not hence learn: That Knox asserted the necessity of Superintendents as well as Ministers, or an equal necessity of the one and the other, can by no means be inferred: Yea, who can, with our Author, believe that tho' any People had abundance of sufficient and lawfully ordained Ministers, yet, in Knox's Judgement, if Superintendents were wanting, such a People could no more be counted a Church, than if they had no Minister at all?  
He brings also some Expressions out of the first Book of Discpiline, as, After the Church shall be established, and three years are past, no Man shall be called to the Office of a Superintendent, who hath not two years given a Proof of his faithful Labours in the Ministry of some Church. Such passages indeed suppose some continuance of Superintendents tho' no perpetuity. For our Reformers could never think that within three years or thereabout, the Church should be fully established, & few or no Churches to be planted; unto which full settlement, the forecited passage of the Book of Policy allows the use of Superintendents.  
This Book of Discipline (saith our Author) supposeth that Superintendents and Colleges were to be of equal continuance, for the Superintendent was still to be at the choosing and instalment of Principals and Rectors etc. But this his Argument, he himself overthrows. The Assembly (saith he) May 27. 1561. addresseth to the Council, that special and certain Provision might be made for the maintenance of the Superintendents, Ministers, Exhorters and Readers etc. Now, who sees not, that this Address speaks after the same manner concerning all these, so that, using our Author's way of arguing, we should infer, that our Reformers thought the Exhorter (which confessedly was a kind of Function purely temporary) was no less to be perpetual than the Superintendent, yea, or the Minister. And the Assembly at Edinburgh December 25. 1565. 
c Cald. Ms. Hist▪ Vol. 2. Page 5.  appointed Mr. Knox to pen a comfortable Letter in their Name to encourage Ministers, Exhorters and Readers to continue in their Vocation etc. From these and the like Acts he may as well conclude the equal duration of Exhorters and Ministers, as he infers from the Book of Policy, the equal duration of Superintendents and Colleges.  
He would next prove, from the account of the Election and Admission of Superintendents, prefixed to the old Psalms, that, according to our Reformers, this was an Office distinct from that of other Pastors, of Divine Institution, and so perpetual. The Order and Form (saith he) for admitting a Superintendent and a Minister, was all one, and there was nothing in it importing the one Office to be temporary, more than the other. But therefore, there's nothing elsewhere importing so much, is a clear non sequitur. In the mean while, from what he grants, 'tis plain that the Superintendent wanted the very specific difference of a Diocesan Bishop, wherefore tho' they used this Phrase, The Office to which God called him, and this Question to the People, Will ye not acknowledge this your Brother for the Minister of Christ Jesus? your Overseer and Pastor? Will ye not maintain and comfort him— against all such as wickedly would rebel against God and his Holy Ordinance. And that Petition, Send unto this our Brother, whom, in thy name, we have charged with the chief care of thy Church within the bounds of L. etc. They can thereby mean no other Office, no other Ordinance of God, and, for kind, no other Charge, than what's given to every particular Pastor. For we find mentioned the chief 
d 2 Cor. 11. 5.  of the Apostles in Labour viz and Care, who yet were all equal. Neither is it strange that they thus set apart him who was, for the time, found needful in these dark times and places, to plant and erect Churches, preach perpetually where there were none, and in a word, in several things completely to imitate the ancient Evangelist. Thus Paul and Barnabas were separated with a solemnity of Fasting, Prayer and Imposition of Hands 
e Acts 13. 3. compared with 14. 26.  And yet the Work or Office for which they were separated, was neither new nor perpetual.  
§. 17. Having overthrown the Reasons of his Gloss, it must yield to the Text, expressly telling us, they were erected only for that time, and that for the paucity of Ministers endowed with singular Graces. But this reason (says he) is nought. For suppose we 20, 30, 40 Men in the Kingdom qualified for the Office of the Ministry; could not these have divided the Kingdom into a proportionable number of large Parishes? And, still, as more Men turned qualified, could they not have lessened these greater Parishes? But he with whom our Reformers 
f See his Pages 242. & sequentes.  were all most contemptible Idiots, and more especially in Church-policy, needs not wonder tho' they had fallen into a much greater Solecism. But he forgets, that many in these most dark times were made Ministers, who yet needed the Assistance and Direction of the better qualified for a while in Church-policy, and matters of such importance, till they should be able to go hand in hand with them, and that the main end of Superintendents was the perpetual Travelling, Preaching and Instructing where there were no Pastors and planting of Churches. As well (continues he) as our Presbyterian Brethren now unite Presbytries. A strange mistake, as if, where Presbytries are united, any Minister took for his proper Charge a multitude of Parishes. He here insinuats, that in the Superintendents there was established a Prelacy: But the present Question is only about the sentiments of our Reformers: and that they never thought the use of Superintendents croffed the Doctrine of Parity, is most clear, were there no more, from their using Superintendent-commissioners, even after they had declared Episcopacy unlawful in itself. But all this their jangle is the fruit of mere prejudice or worse, for none near these times looked on Superintendency as perpetual. Not the Court Party, seeing they endeavoured to change Superintendents for Tulchan Bishops: not the rest of the Church, who, as the necessity of them decreased, suffered them to wear out. And after that, in an unanimous Assembly, they had ordained that the whole Church should be divided in a competent number of Presbytries, declared that Superintendents were no longer expedient. And good ground had they, even from that very Book of Policy so to do: for, if the whole tenor of that Head of Superintendents, appointing them almost constantly to Travel, to Preach thrice a week at least, and beside that to examine the Life etc. of the Ministers, the Orders of the Kirks, the manners of the People, care how the Poor be provided, how the Youth be instructed, admonish, where it's needful, by good Counsel, compose Differences, note and delate to the Kirk heinous Crimes, and all this, because of the paucity of qualified Ministers; evidently proclaims not, that this Superintendent was a kind of Evangelist, expedient only at that juncture of the reentry of the Gospel into Scotland, I appeal to the candid Judgement of the impartial.  
Moreover, if 'twere otherwise, why should they not as punctually have described his Duties after the time of his perpetual Travels, his Preaching thrice a week, and other such vast Labours were ended (for he grants these were to endure but for a time) after which he insinuats, that the Superintendents were to remain quiet in their chief Towns, but no word in all the account we have of them of such distinctions of times, of such perpetual rest, not a word therefore of their perpetuity.  
Last; which he wisely, i. e. suitably to his purpose, omitted, for, like the Council asked at Abel, it ends the matter; see this Head of Superintendents. Because (say they) we have appointed a larger Stipend to them that shall be Superintendents, than to the rest of the Ministers, we have thought good to signify to your Honours such Reasons as moved us to make difference betwixt Preachers at this time. Now, pray, may not he that runs, read here that, had it not been for some forcing Circumstances and Exigencies of the then present time, they had made no difference at all between one Minister and another. And then after a few lines they laid down their Reasons in the very words, the sense whereof is now under Debate; If the Ministers etc.  
§. 18. In the mean while, we need not be much concerned whether these Superintendents were to be temporary or perpetual, there being nothing therein that made any real difference between the Church-government which was then, and that which is now. And indeed, these vast Travels and Pains in preaching thrice a week etc. are sure enough Tokens that the Superintendent could not be much distinguished from an ordinary Pastor, save in these extraordinary Labours, and was far from the Episcopal Eminency, and Grandour, seeing he was so far from the Episcopal ease and idleness, without which the former but rarely obtains.  
This, and other such Proofs of the vast difference between the Superintendents and their Diocesans, and of the likeness between the Government under the Reformers and that which is now, our Author slides over with rallry saying, it may be as well told them, that Bishops wore black Hats and silk, Superintendents blue Bonnets and tartan; as if most constant and hard labour in the Gospel, were no more valuable for distinguishing one Minister from another, than highland Plydes and blue Bonnets. He meets you with the like Drollery, if you mind him, that the Superintendents had no Metrapolitan and Episcopal Consecration or Ordination, but it's risus sardonius. And his Questions, (What is this to Parity or Imparity amongst the Governors of the Church? Do these differences distinguish between Bishops and Superintendents as to pre-eminence of Power?) flow from deep dissimulation of the mortal Wound given to his Cause, seeing without Episcopal Ordination, which was never required to a Superintendent (For Knox, as for example, who with our Author was only a Presbyter, ordained or admitted, as they then spoke, Spotswood Superintendent) there can be no Episcopal Power, no, not so much as the very essentials of a Bishop. These Superintendents were also without any Civil Places, power or emoluments that way, which make up the far greater part of the Episcopal greatness, and still subject and accountable to the General Assemblies.  
And there was reason for it (saith our Author) supposing that General Assemblies as then constituted, were sit to be supreme Judicatories of the National Church, For there was no reason that Superintendents should have been Popes. Then surely either were our Prelates, Popes, or most vehemently coveted a papal Power, seeing above all things they feared, abhorred and studied the ruin of these our General Assemblies. And no wonder if they did so, and that our Author intimats his dislike of these our Assemblies. For if this one thing, viz. the subjection of the Superintendents to these Assemblies, as they were then constituted, be duly weighed, it's fair to ●et them on the very same level with their Brethren. For, give him never so great a Power in the Province where he superintended, and let him use it as he pleased, yet neither can the Imparity be counted considerable, not the harm he could do very hurtful, for within half a year at most (for there was a General Assembly twice, at least, every year) they had a prospect of a General Assembly to right their wrong, wherein every Pastor was to have no less Power than any Superintendent, and no less capable to sit judge and censure the Superintendent, than the Superintendent was on the other hand, to exerce the like Power over him; yea, any Minister in the Assembly, & such sometimes as were none, was as fair to be chosen Moderator as any Superintendent. By the frequency of these Assemblies, it came to pass, that few or no matters of importance were determined in the inferior Synods, but came thither for their final Decision. Wherefore, if we narrowly look on these times, we shall find that the Superintendents were rather appointed as Observers and Delators of Matters to the Assembly, than any proper Judges thereof, save when a special command was given him to cognosce on such and such particular Matters. He was frequently also charged with execution of the Assemblies Determinations, all which was common to him with other Commissioners to whom the Assembly gave the like Charge, and sent them not rarely to these very Provinces where there were Superintendents with equal Power and Authority to that of the Superintendent. Sometimes they ordained Causes to be handled by the Superintendent with the assistance of these Commissioners, sometimes by the Commissioner with the assistance of the Superintendents, which Commissioners were sometimes Ministers of another Province, and sometimes of that Province wherein was the Superintendent, with whom they were joined with equal Power & Authority. From all which 'tis evident, how much they are taken with the humour of cavilling, who dare to ascribe to the Superintendents any real Superiority or Power over other Pastors, or any thing repugnant to a complete Parity.  
But there is yet more: even in his own Synod, he could do nothing contrary to the Majority, for he was to act nothing without the Synods Consent, neither could he impede ought done by the Majority, for he had no negative vote. 
g See 1. Book of Discipline. Head 5. Of the Election of Superintendents.  Yea, he was made subject to the Trial and Censures of the Synod of the very province where he superintended. And here our Author is compelled to acknowledge that there was a considerable difference between Superintendents and Bishops: and indeed 'twas considerable with a witness, and so considerable that it really sets them on even ground with each Pastor of the word. He adds, that this was a great wrong, and error in the Constitution; and on this occasion has a long invective 
h pag. 160, et sequentib.  against our Reformers, & in special Knox, counting them Children, Idiots, Ungovernable, and of bad Principles, and spares not to flegg at all Scots men or Scotch metal, as he speaks. But this is but a kicking against the pricks. He knows all this helps him nothing, nor is to the present Question, which is not the jure but de facto, what our Reformers freely and jointly did? Not, on what grounds they did so?  
He next retorts, that according to the book of Discipline, the Elders are allowed to admonish, correct, and, with the consent of the Church and Superintendent, depose their Minister. But, First, though our Reformers had spoken just alike of the Elders and Ministers as they did of the Synod and Superintendent, their words will not bear the like inference: the power they give to the Elders could certainly be a spurr to the Ministers, and yet they might be sure the few Elders of one parish would never make so bold with their Minister, as the whole Synod might with their Superintendent.  
Secondly, There is no such allowance given to the Elders concerning their Minister as to the Synod over their Superintendent: the former much act only with the consent of the Kirk and Superintendent, but nothing of this enjoined to the latter. Yea our Author himself will have the power of Deposition to be a prerogative of the Superintendent, and no doubt he or the Commissioner did, in the Church's name, execute her sentence. To Depose therefore here, and that with allowance of the whole context of that 8 head of Discipline, which he citys, is nothing else than to delate to the Church, and Superintendent the crimes of the Minister, and in their own sphere assist them in that action. He adds, he hath no where found that de facto the Superintendent was judged by his own Synod. And it may be so: for little do we find of any thing was then done by provincial synods, every thing of moment being left to the General Assemblies, which were then most frequent. Such a Constitution (adds he) infers no such thing as Parity among Church-Offices Those who maintain that the King is inferior to his Subjects in their Collection, are not yet so extravagant as to say, he is not Superior to every one of them in their Distribution. But where Superiors or Equals can be gotten, the Men of this Principle will freely yield, that none, who are Inferiors in the Distribution ought to judge the Actions of their Superiors, providing other Judges can be had, who, in this Case can't, there being but one King only in a Kingdom: Hence they, believing that none may live lawless, think the King's Actions are cognoscible by these who are his Inferiors, but altering their capacity in the Collection. But is it so in the Case of the Superintendent, whereof there were severals, & not one only, as there is one commonly King in a Kingdom? Seeing then he was to be judged by the Synod, notwithstanding, that there were other Superintendents in the Church; 'tis evident, they counted every Brother in the Ministry his equal.  
§. 19 But the Superintendents (saith our Author 
i Page 120. ) had a stock of prerogatives above other Pastors. But be it so: yet notwithstanding hereof, if we suppose, which I trust at the narrowest search shall appear, the truth of what we have now adduced, and the self consistency of the actings of our Reformers, whom he would fain set at variance with themselves, whatsoever Prerogatives he has really brought, can never prove that the Superintendent had any Dominion over other Pastors, or that they acted not in a true and real Parity; so that, from what is now said, these his pretended Disparities are prevented and removed. For example, he tells us, that Superintendents had a larger district, were nominated by the Council, elected by the Nobility and Gentry; 'twas not so with the Paroch Ministers. But the Commissioners had no less districts, and were appointed by the General Assembly, which I'm sure is of no less weight in the case than the Councils Nomination, even tho' the gentlemen's Election be added thereto, and yet, who in his Wit will take him for any other Officer than is every Parish-minister, or fall into the rovery of our Author, who 
k Page 37.  calls these Commissioners temporary Bishops.  
Paroch-ministers, by the first Book of Discipline head 8, were deposeable by the Superintendent, and the Elders of their Parishes. The Superintendent was to be Judged by the Ministers and Elders of the whole Province. But the fraud is palpable, the words of the Book of Discipline are, that if a Minister be worthy of Deposition, the Elders of his Parish may, with consent of the Kirk and Superintendent, depose him. Where you see the Kirk or Minister and Elders of the Province are no less interested in the Deposition of a Minister than in the judging of a Superintendent. He suppressed therefore all mention of the Kirk, which even Spotswood, whom he citys, 
l Pag. 168.  expresses: to the end he might make his Reader believe no Minister, save the Superintendent only, had any power in Deposition of Ministers.  
But private Ministers (saith he) were to be admitted by their Superintendents, but the Superintendents by the Superintendents next adjacent, and the Superintendents had the Power of Ordination. The first Book of Discipline and several Acts of the Assemblies. But, had only the Superintendents the Power of Ordination? yea, not only was there no plurality of Superintendents present at the Action, but also John Knox, who was no Superintendent, ordained or admitted Spotswood Superintendent of L. yea, every particular Minister, when commissionated by the Assembly, had no less Power of Ordination or any other thing whatsoever, than is either in the Book of Discipline or any where else given to the Superintendent. Neither might any one particular Minister while he was a Commissioner, more than the Superintendent, be translated from one district to another without the Counsel of the whole Church or Assembly; neither were there meaner Qualifications requisite in any Commissioner. And I think Knox, who was never a Superintendent, was in these not inferior to any of 'em.  
But he had a living five times so much as another Minister. But then I'm sure, he had five times as much to do with it, being perpetually to Travel, Preach and Exhort far and wide &c: but, if this Rule had been keeped, our Bishops had got five times less than any other Minister, for rarely did they any such Duty, either at home or abroad. In the mean while, The Power of Riches, and the baseness of Poverty, maketh not a Bishop either higher or lower. 
m Hieronymus Euagrio.   
But Superintendents (saith he) were constant Members of General Assemblies, had Power to Visit, and to try the like etc. of the Ministers of all the Churches of the Diocese, and were to try those who stood Candidates for the Ministry, had Power of granting Collations on Presentations. But, whatsoever he had of these, belonged also to every particular Pastor when commissionated by the General Assembly: but, tho' the Superintendent or Commissioner is only named in such Cases, as in trial of the Candidats, granting Collations, Deposition of Ministers etc. He is to be understood as the Moderator, and mouth of the Synod where he Superintended, for Example, the Assembly in the case of transportation, chargeth the Ministers to obey the Voice and Commandment of their Superintendent, and yet by the very same Act, 
n Cald. Ms. Hist. Vol. 1. Page. 789.  none can be translated without the Consent of the most part of the Elders and Ministers of Kirks conveen'd in the Synodal Assembly; and yet from this very Act, he adventnres to conclude the Canonical Obedience of Pastors to their Superintendents.  
But, he had Power to nominal Ministers to be Members of the General Assembly. For, Assembly 1562. 'twas ordained, that no Minister leave his Flock for coming to the Assembly, except he have Complaints to make, or be complained off, or at least, be warned thereto by the Superintendent. And the L. Glamis in a Letter to Mr. Beza, saith, 
o Apud Saraviam exam. tract. de Episcopatuum triplici genere. Quest. 2. Pag. 91. Post reformatam Religionem, consuetudine receptum est, ut Episcopi, & ex Ministris, Pastoribus, & Senioribus, tot, quot iidem Episcopi jusserint, unum in lucum conveniant etc.  that, after the Reformation it fell out by custom, that the Bishops and so many of the Ministers, Pastors and Elders as the Bishops appointed— came to the General Assembly. But touching what he alleges as said by the L. Glamis, I can find it no where, save in the Works of Saravia; and Beza's Answer to Glamis his second Question, wherein these words are found, neither meets with, nor presupposes any such Clause. But be it that L. Glamis said so, what will they hence infer? he says indeed, that this came to pass after the Reformation, but how long 'twas after the Reformation, before this was practised, he says not. 'Twas (saith he) received by Custom: by no Decree of the Church then, or Acts of the Assembly. And lastly, he speaks of Bishops, not of Superintendents. And I never find that any about these times gave Superintendents the name of Bishops; and so this makes nothing for our Author's purpose. Wherefore, if ever L. Glamis had any such Expression, whereof I much doubt, in my mind, he meant it of the Tulchans, who, for some space after the Leith-convention made some steps toward such a Superiority; otherwise, all the accounts we have of these times, and, in special, the Acts of our Assemblies demonstrat, that there was no such Power or Privilege given to any then in Scotland: yea, so much our Author himself presently proves, and overturns this his own Argument by citing another out of the Assembly July 1563, (1568, he should have said) 
p Cald. Ms. Hist. Vol. 2. Pag. 87. Spots. Pag. 219.  viz. Anent the Order hereafter to be used in General Assemblies— They all voted and concluded as followeth, viz. that if the Order already received, pleases not, by reason of the plurality of Voices, it be reform in this manner.  
First, that none have place to Vote, except Superintendents, Commissioners appointed for visiting the Kirks, and Ministers brought with them, presented as Persons able to reason, and having knowledge to judge: with the aforenamed shall be joined Commissioners of burgh's and Shires, together with Commissioners of Universities. Secondly. Ministers and Commissioners shall be Chosen at the Synodal-convention of the Diocese, by the Consent of the rest of the Ministers and Gentlemen, that shall conveen at the said Synodal-convention etc.  
From this Act 'tis clear, that the former in 1562. has only been mentioned, never concluded; or, at least, cassed and repealed by some intervenient Assembly, otherways, there had been no place or ground for the Act of 1568. which presupposes, that even these, that were not at all thus Chosen at the Synod, were free to come and Vote at the Assembly. So far was this liberty from being put in the Superintendent or Commissioner's Power. And indeed from this Act, 'tis most evident, and 'tis left on Record also, by the Vindicatour of Philadelphus, that before the time of this Act, all Ministers who pleased, were free to Vote at the Assemblies, & yet, with our Author, Petrie must be a mixer of lies for saying so much. But Calderwood (saith our Author) leaves out entirely these words, brought with them, i. e. with the Superintendents and Commissioners of Kirks, presented as Persons able to reason, and having knowledge to judge, whereby the Power of Superintendents and Commissioners for visiting of Kirks is quite stifled, and the whole sense of the Act perverted. For what sense is it I pray, to say, that the Ministers were Chosen by Consent of the rest of the Ministers, when you tell not who was to choose, or who they were to whose choice or nomination the rest of the Ministers were to give that Consent, But to stifle the Power he pleads for to Superintendents was a Work impossible, either to Calderwood, or any man else, the very Act itself most irrefragbly showing, they could have none, save such as is in any mere Moderator of our Synods or Presbytries. For, be it, which yet the Assembly expresses not, that the Superintendents were to nominate Ministers for the Assembly, yet they could do no more, but only as the Synod by their Votes assented or choosed the nominated Persons, whom if the Synod or its major part rejected, these could not go to the Assembly, yet some behoved to go, and consequently the Superintendent or Commissioner was to make a new Light, and name again; and if these did not yet please, another Light, and so on, until the Synod was satisfied, and choosed some Persons or other according to their pleasure, for the Assembly. This much is undeniably contained in the Act, and I'm sure, no Moderator of any Synod or Presbytry enjoys any less Power, providing it deserve the name. Seeing then Brought with them, cannot possibly mean any peculiar Power, I see not wherein Calderwood by ommitting them can be culpable. Neither, can he be accused of nonsense, seeing 'tis sufficiently intelligible and plain how these Ministers and Commissioners could be chosen by the consent of the rest of his Brethren, the Ministers and Gentlemen, members of the Synod, who, by joint and mutual consent, choosed them after the Superintendent or Commissioners nominating or liting, which, by a fraud too palpable, he confounds with Election. And here it's observable in how much torment and perplexity this so clear an Act involves all of 'em. Spotswood, adduced it in his latin Pamphlet, but is so sound chastised by the Vindicator of Philadelphus, that our Author finds not a syllable to say in his defence. He pretends also to relate it in his History 
q Page 219. , but with an essential Depravation, for he leaves out these words, Ministers and Commissirners of Shires shall be chosen at the Synodal Convention of the Diocy, with consent of the rest of the Ministers and Gentlemen that shall conveen at the said Synodal Convention. For, he saw it quite spoiled his Cause, and really left the Superintendent no Power, but what was equally in any of the rest, and foists into the Text these such Ministers as the Superintendents should choose in their Diocesan Synods. Neither can our Author be blameless in suppressing the following words. Commissioners of burgh's shall be appointed by the Council and Kirk of their own Towns, none shall be admitted without sufficient Commission in write. And lest this should turn to perpetual Election of a few and certain Persons, it is concluded, Ministers and other Commissioners be changed from Assembly to Assembly. Whereby appears the Church's great care, that neither Superintendent nor any other might have aught like an Episcopal Power, and that all fit Persons might have equal privilege of Voting at the Assemblies. There yet remain many of his pretended Disparities, but, are no more significative of eminency or superior Office, no less communicable to the rest of the Ministers when Commissioners than were the former, as will be evident to any, who reads the Acts of the Assemblies, among which, he reckons the Superintendent's modifying to Ministers their Stipends, as if, because Judas had the Bag, and bare what was put therein, he had been Bishop over the rest of the Apostles. In the mean while, the Superintendents could do nothing of this, but only as Moderator of the provincial Synod.  
Another Deduction of no better metal is, 
r Pages 138, 139.  that the Laird of Dun, Superintendent of Angus, not as such, but by virtue of a particular Commission given by the Assembly to him and others joined with him, deposed a Regent of Aberdeen, a place entirely without the bounds of his Superintendency; therefore Superintendents as such, had a Power Paramount and Episcopal. And was not such an arguer a man of sense? I pass the rest of his thirty Disparities not without admiration, that such a fertile brain could not invent one other, for one and thirty used to carry the Game.  
Add to all this, that tho' some that had been Popish Bishops in Scotland and embraced the Gospel, as Mr. Gordon of Galloway a man of no contemptible Gifts, were by our Reformers allowed, without any new Admission, to dispense the Word and Sacraments; yet, they were never allowed to exercise what they counted their Episcopal Function, or looked on as Bishops of these Dioceses: yea Mr. Gordon, tho' he earnestly sought for it, could never be admitted to Superintend in Galloway, which is a clear Demonstration, that our Reformers looked on the Episcopal pre-eminence as a mere Popish Corruption, otherways, why did not Mr. Gordon, verbi causâ, remain in the Power and Character he had enjoyed while Romanist.  
It's most clear also from all the accounts we have of the Tulchan Bishops, that all men of all parties looked on a Bishop, as a thing altogether divers from a Superintendent.  
§. 20. And now at length hear him yielding the whole Plea, 
s Pages 167, 168.  There was (saith he) a Principle had, then, got too much footing among some Protestant Divines, viz. That the best way to reform a Church, was, to recede as far from the Papists as they could; to have nothing in common with them, but the essentials; the necessary and indispensable Articles and Parts of Christian Religion; whatever was, in its Nature indifferent, and not positively and expressly commanded in the Scriptures, if it was in fashion in the Popish Churches, was therefore to be laid aside, and avoided as a Corruption; as having been abused, and made subservient to Superstition and Idolatry.  
This Principle John Knox was fond of, and maintained zealously; and the rest of our reforming Preachers were much acted by his influences. In pursuance of this Principle, therefore, when they compiled the first Book of Discipline, they would not Reform the old Polity, and purge it of such Corruptions as had crept into it, keeping still by the main draughts and lineaments of it;— But they laid it quite aside, and in stead thereof hammered out a new Scheme, keeping at as great a distance from the old one, as they could, and as the essentials of Polity would allow them; establishing no such thing, however, as Parity, as I have fully proven. And no wonder; for as Imparity has, obviously, more of Order, beauty and usefulness in its aspect, so it had never so much as by dreaming, entered their tboughts, that it was a limb of Antichrist, or a relict of Popery.  
But was not Episcopacy in fashion in the Popish Churches? And, dare he, yea or any mortal say, that ever our Reformers believed it to be an indispensible part of the Christian Religion positively and expressly commanded in the Scriptures: Do not therefore his saying establishing however no such thing as Parity &c and the rest of his Discourse mutually give the lie, and flee in the face of one another. And indeed, he here at once overthrows whatsoever he said on this Subject: and now for ever to silence all reasonable men, and stop them from such desperate adventures as this of our Authors, take the following Argument.  
Whatsoever our Reformers believed to be without the express and positive Testimony of the Scriptures, that they believed to be a damnable Corruption in Religion, and as such to be avoided.  
This the major is put beyond scruple, by what we have brought from the first Book of Discipline, Knox, and the Confessions of our Author: Now I subjoin.  
But they believed, that Episcopacy was altogether without any express or positive Testimony, yea, or any Warrant or Ground from the Word of God, the Books of the Old and New Testament; Ergo etc. The minor is no less evident from what is already adduced: and moreover, from the latter Helvetian Confession, which was all (save the allowance of the remembrance of some Holy Days, which they expressly disproven) approved and subscribed by our whole General Assembly at Edinburgh, December 25. 1566. 
t Cald. Ms. Hist. Vol. 2. Page 24.  For, in that Confession (mark it, pray, carefully, and by no means forget, that our Church and Reformers, who approved and subscribed this Confession, firmly believed that, whatsoever is without the express Commandment of God's Word, is damnable to Man's Salvation.) they say 
u Fol. 52. Data est autem omnibus in Ecclesia Ministris una & aequalis potestas sive functio. Certè ab initio, Episcopi vel Presbyteri Ecclesiam communi opera gubernaverunt: nullus alteri se praetulit— Sic legitur secisse in Actis Apostolorum S. Petrus, qui tamen ideo nec aliis fuit praepositus, nec potestate majore caeteris praeditus.— Ideoque nemo jure prohibuerit ad veterem Ecclesiae Dei constitutionem redire, & illam prae humana consuetudine recipere.  There's given to all Ministers in the Church, one and the same Power or Function: And indeed, in the beginning, Bishops and Presbyters ruled the Church in common, none preferred himself to another, or usurped any more honourable Power or Dominion to himself over his fellow Bishops. But according to the words of the Lord, who will be first among you, let him be your Servant, they persevered in Humility, and helped one another by their mutual Duties, in Defending and Governing the Church. In the meantime for preserving Order, some one of the Ministers, did call the Assembly, and proposed these things that were to be consulted in the Meeting; He did also receive the Opinions of others; and finally, according to his Power, he took care that no confusion should arise, so S. Peter is said to have done in the Acts of the Apostles, who notwithstanding was never set over the rest, nor endued with greater power and honour, but the beginning took its rise from Unity, that the Church might be declared to be one. And having related Hierome's Doctrine of the Idenity of Bishop & Presbyier thus they conclude. Therefore none may lawfully hinder to return to the ancient Constitution of the Church of God, and embrace it before human Custom.  
Thus far the Authors of that most famous Confession, who both in the Title page, and after the Preface expressly assert, that our Church of Scotland together with the Churches of Poland, Hungary, Geneve, Neocome, Myllhusium, and Wiend approved and subscribed this their Confession.  
From all which it's easy to gather and perceive, with how black a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 our first Reformers and whole primitive Church Protestant branded Prelacy or Imparity amongst Pastors.   

Section IX.  
The Foreign reformed Churches truly Presbyerian.  
BUT let's hear the Judgement of the rest of the Reformers, and Reformed transmarine Churches. Gerard, a famous Lutheran divine, 
a Loc. come. Tom. 6. Col. 260.  altho', for Orders sake, he admit of some kind of Episcopacy, which really he makes as good as nothing above a Moderator-ship, yet even for that umbrage allows nothing but humane Institution, and will acknowledge no distinction by Divine Right between Bishop and Presbyter. The Papists (saith he 
b Col. 261. Atqui superiorem illam jurisdictionis potestatem jure Divino Episcopis competentem Pontificii in eo vel maximè ponunt, quod Episcopus possit ordinare Ministros, Presbyteri vero minimè, etc. ) especially place that superior Power of Jurisdiction which they make to agree to Bishops in this, that the Bishops can Ordain Ministers but the Presbyters cannot. And all along this Question he strongly proves that, during the Apostolic age there was no such thing as a distinction between a Bishop and a preaching Presbyter: and enervats all the Arguments that both Romanists and other Prelatists commonly bring to the contrary. But, we need not insist on the Testimonies of particular Men: we have the joint suffrages of the body of Lutheran Divines, Luther himself being the mouth to the rest, in the Articles of Smalcald 
c Apud Osiandrum. Epitome. Hist. Eccles. part. 1. Page 299. Art. Smalkald. de Episcoporum jurisdictione. Liquet autem confessione omnium, etiam Adversariorum nostrorum, hanc potestatem (Evangelium docendi viz. peccata remittendi etc.) communem esse omnibus,— Hic docet Hieronymus, distinctos graedus Episcoporum etc. tantum humana authoritate constitutos esse— quia autem jure Divino vullum est discrimen inter Episcopum etc. . It's clear (say they) even from the Confession of our Adversaries, that this Power, to wit of preaching, dispensing the Sacraments, Excommunication and Absolution, is common to all that are set over the Churches, whither they be called Pastors, Presbyters or Bishops: Wherefore Hierome plainly affirms, that there is no difference between Bishop and Presbyter, but that every Pastor was a Bishop.— Here Hierome teaches, that the distinction of degrees between a Bishop and a Presbyter or Pastor, was only appointed by humane Authority. And the matter itself (continues Luther and his Associates) declares no less, for, on both Bishop and Presbyter is laid the same Duty and the same Injunction. And only Ordination in after times made the difference between Bishop and Pastor.— And by Divine Right there is no difference between Bishop and Pastor.  
§ 2. As for Calvin, his judgement in this matter was altogether conform to his practice, which by the very Adversaries themselves is made the very Pattern of Presbytry, for he 
d Instit. 4. Cap. 3. Sect. 8. & alibi.  asserts the Idenity of Bishop, Presbyter, Pastor, and Minister: and this Idenity of Bishop and Presbyter, he found'st on Titus 1. and 5. compared with the 7, as Hierome had done long before him, and Presbyterians do now. And when he descends to after times succeeding these of the Apostles, he tells us, 
e Cap. 4. Neque tamen sic honore & dignitate superior erat E●iscopus ut dominium in collegas haberet sed quas partes habet Consul in Senatu— Atque id ipsum pro temporum necessi●ate fuisse humano consensu inductum fatentur ipsi veteres.  that then the Bishop had no Dominion over his Colleagues sc. the Presbyters, but was among them, what the Consul was in the Senate, and his Office was to propone Matters, inquire the Votes, preside in Admonition, and moderate the Action, and put in Execution what was decreed by the whole Consistory: All which exceeded little or nothing the Office of a Moderator. And that even this (saith he) was introduced through the necessity of the time by humane consent is acknowledged by the Ancients themselves. But I shall not insist in citing Calvine nor Beza, who, every where is full sufficiently to our purpose, both of 'em being abundantly vindicated, and evinced to be Presbyterian in a singular tractat by the most judicious Author of Rectius Instruendum, from the attempts of one who pretended to be Mathematico-Theologus, but was in reality Sophistico-Micrologus. And were there any doubt concerning these, as indeed there's none, their Practice and that of the Church wherein they lived, our very Adversaries being Judges, sufficiently discuss it, and prove them to be truly Presbyterian: and to them subscribes the stream of transmarine Writers, Systematicks, Controvertists, and Commentators. As for Example, the famous and learned Musculus 
f Loc. Com. Page 246. Tertio eosdem esse Presbyteros quosque & Episcopos & pastors, ex eo patet quod Act. 20. legimus ad hunc modum etc.— unde videas Apostolorum tempore in Ecclesia Christi eosdem fuisse Presbyteros, pastors & Episcopos.  asserts and proves from Acts 20. Philip. 1. and the like Texts, which we now use, that Bishop, Pastor and Presbyter are all one and the same, and that in one Church there were at one time conjunctly many Bishops. Of the same mind are all the Systematick Divines, yea even Tilen himself while Orthodox. We judge (saith he 
g Syntag. part. alt. Page. 544. Quod ex horum Pastorum seu Presbyter●rum collegio, unus reliquis esset praepositus & Episcopi cognomento ornatus singulariter ab humano ortum instituto, nona divino pracepto, existimamus, non solum cum Hieronymo verum etiam cum Lombardo, Gratiano, Card. Cusano & aliis. ) not only with Hierome, but also with Lombard, Gratian, Card. Cusan and others, that the preferring one out of the College of Pastors to the rest, and giving him the name of Bishop was a humane Invention. This Author indeed altered his mind concerning Church Government when he pelagianized, for than he turns altogether (tho' to his cost) a Hectorer of the Zelots of the Genevan Discipline. Time would fail me in collecting Testimonies of this kind, seeing, there were ever few, I may say none, save a small handful in Britain, who have not asserted that, during the Apostolic age, there was no such thing, as any distinction between Bishop and Pastor or preaching Presbyter: and that among these there was an entire equality.  
To these we may add the Testimonies of the most and famousest of the reformed Churches in their Confessions, whereof we have seen not a few already, while we related the Testimony of the Helvetian Confession, together with the approbations thereof: no less illustrious and pregnant is the Testimony of the French Confession: We believe (say they 
h Art. 30. Credimus omnes veros Pastores ubicunque locorum collocati fuerint eadem & aequali inter se potestate essepraeditos. ) that all true Pastors where ever they be, are endued with equal and the same power, under that one Head Christ the Chief and Universal Bishop. To the same purpose also speaks the Dutch Confession: We believe (say they 
i Credimus veram hanc Ecclesiam debere regi etc. ) that this true Church ought to be governed by that spiritual Policy, so that there be in it Pastors or Ministers that may purely dispense the Word and Sacraments, that there be also Elders and Deacons etc.  
§. 3. The harmonious and Catholic Testimony of all the reformed Churches are to some like pricks in their eyes, and thorns in their sides, and therefore, most various and hetrogeneous means are used to render it unserviceable. And amongst other things, we are told, that many foreign Divines and Churches have a great liking for their Diocesan Way, and Zanchius (say they 
k Prideaux apud Maresium exam. prim. 4. Questionum Theolog. Pag. 63. pro Calvinistis etc. ) counts all its Opposers Schismatics. But Maresius answers 
l Page 66. Quamquam non ut dominus etc.  that Zanchius never allowed of a Lord Bishop, but only of such a one who is like a Rector of a College, whose Power I'm sure, is little or nothing above that of a Moderator. Maresius adds 
m Pag 65. Nullum novi Zanchii tractatum de etc.  that he can find in no place of Zanchius, the words Prideaux had alleged. And lastly, as Maresius tells us 
n Page 66. Profitetur se non posse nostrorum zelum non amare qui ideo illa nomina (Episcoporum & Archiepiscoporum) oderunt etc. , Zanchius professes that he cannot but love the zeal of such as hate the names of Bishop and Archbishop, fearing least with these Names the ancient Ambition and Tyranny together with the destruction of the Churches should return. Prideaux also alleges that Calvin writing to the King of Poland, advises him to establish Bishops and Archbishops. But has the same return from Maresius 
o Page 67. Nec Calvinus ut somniat doctissimus Episcop. etc. , viz. that this is the Bishop's own Dream, and that there is no such thing to be found in Calvin. This dealing is not very laudable.  
Neither are Means wanting to procure Advocats from Abroad; one 
p Spanhemius F. contra Ʋander Waeyen.  whereof brings many things either to defend or excuse the Hierarchy, and to show that it's not ill linked abroad, and amongst other things saith, 
q Parte speciali. Page 149.  that notwithstanding of what is in the Helvetian Confession, its Authors condemn not the Liberty of other Churches as they manifest in their Preface, protesting, that in all this Confession they agreed with the Church of England. But this Author can't be ignorant, that seeing, according to that Confession, Christ gave equal Power to all Pastors, and according to what is alleged to be the Judgement of the present Church of England, he did the quite contrary. Their Preface can by no means prove, that they allow of the Sentiments and Practice of the present English Church, except he would have the Preface to contradict the Confession. But all this he says is only to darken an evident Truth; the meaning of the Preface being, that between the Helvetians and the English there was no such fundamental Difference as prohibited mutual Charity one to another which many have given, and may give to these, who, as they judge, retained many Errors, tho' not Fundamental. The same Author, 
r Pages 129, 130, 131. 132, & alibi.  objects, that many Churches, and amongst others, that of the Helvetians, have either Bishops over their Pastors, or, which is really the same, Superintendents. But to instance in the Helvetians, they in their Confession saying that, Christ gave a like Power to all Pastors etc. and therefrom concluding, that none may hinder to return to Christ's primitive Institution, make most apparent that they intended no continuation of any Superiority amongst Pastors, and consequently of no Bistops, or, their equivalent, Superintendents: but all this work he makes, is dicis gratia for the fashion only: for if in Helvetia or else where, there be any umbrage of Bishops or Superintendents, it's really an Obtrusion and Erastian Usurpation; and this we may learn from himself, freely acknowledging, 
s Nomothesia istic Ecclesiastica penes supremum Magistratum.  that the chief legislative Power in the Church matters, is in the hands of the supreme Magistrate. Otherways he confesses, that 
t Pag. 131, 132. Haud me equidem fugit etc.  the choicest of Writers, and amongst others, Hoornbeck, make the Discipline of the Scots, French, Dutch, and Helvetian Churches to be one and the same. Moreover, he sufficiently answers himself while, 
u Page 130. Sed ut quod est dicam longissimo inter utrosque discrimine. Priorem siquidem mera est ordinis & honoris, null● jurisdictionis vel potestatis proprie dictae, praerogativa.  he expressly grants, that between the Superintendents or Bishops through Germany, and these of England, there is an infinite difference, and that these in Germany have only a simple prerogative of Order, but not at all of any Jurisdiction, or any thing that can be properly termed Power. Thus he. And I'm sure, that any P●aeses of an Assembly hath no less Superiority than he here ascribes to these transmarine Superintendents or Bishops: and indeed, shortly to give an account of this Author, besides, as we have now seen, he is obliged to pull back with the one hand, what he had bestowed on the Hierarchicks with the other; his whole Discourse leans upon this Supposition, that there is no certain Form of Church Government left by Christ in his Word: on this depend his Glosses upon the passages we produced of the French and Dutch Confessions. Vide inter alia part. spec. a pag. 171 ad pag. 189, where he all along presupposes and inculcats, that, tho' according to the Authors of the Confessions, Christ gave equal Power, etc. to all Pastors, yet in their Judgement if the Church will, she may alter this kind of Government, and change that Equality which Christ gave, for an Inequality, and give some Pastors a Power over the rest. Which, if it be not a Contradiction to these Confessions, in stead of an Explication, it looks as like it is one Crow can be like another. For, who can believe, but that if the Authors of these Confessions had believed an indifferency of Equality or Inequality of Pastors, they had either intimated so much, or been altogether silent thereof, neither of which they did, but gave to the World solemnly as the Confession of their Belief, that Christ gave to to all Pastors equal and the same power: and yet, if we believe this Interpreter, this that Christ gave may, according to the Authors of that Confession be relinquished when Men will, and Inequality, it's quite contrary introduced in the place thereof. Is not this too like the dealing of the Romanists, who, when they are compelled to acknowledge that the Apostles gave the Cup to the People, yet pretend that they may deprive them of what Christ and his Apostles gave them? Divers indeed have said, that Church Government was among the Adiaphora, and things indifferent. But these were more wary then to say (as he would have the Authors of these Confessions to say) that Christ gave equal, and the same Power to all Pastors, yea, such used not to grant that Christ gave either Equality or Inequality of Power, but left all to the Church's management.  
Moreover, as he does us no damage, so, I'm sure, he does the present Hierarchicks as little service; for, if this Hypothesis, that no kind of Church Government is juris divini, stand, than the jus divinum of Episcopacy is lost, and therefore I'm sure, they shall give him as little thanks as we. 'Tis also observable, that when ever the Authors of these Confessions, or other Divines of their Persuasion said, that Communion with Churches of a different Government was not to be broken, or any thing of that kind; he presently infers that they judged any other form no less agreeable to the word of God than their own.  
And here I can't but take nottice of what I have met with somewhere in M. Claude's historical defence of the Reformation (for, at present, I have not the book) viz. that Diocesan Episcopacy is no less condemnable than Pilgrimages, Purgatories, or some such Romish dotages which he there names, and how averse he was from Diocesan Episcopacy, is observed by the Prefacer to the English Translation: and yet, if we believe some, he gave large Testimonies of his great affection to the Diocesan cause.  
And this brings to mind another Artifice; for when any Protestant Divines, considering the great Power of Popish Bishops, and vehemently desiring Peace for the free Preaching and Propagation of the Gospel, strained their Judgement, and seemed at any time to do or say somewhat that appeared to comply with Episcopacy, our Prelatists anon Infer, that such Divines were great Lovers of their Hierarchy. Thus, for Example, they abuse the Words and Actions of Melancton; but they should remember that sometimes, driving the same Design, some of these Divines seemed no less to comply with the Papacy itself, as appeared at the pressing of the Interim. The same end drove Melancton, when, in a Conference at Ausburg, as Osiander relates 
x Epitome. Hist. Eccles. Part. 1. Cent. 16. Lib. 2. Cap. 15. Videtur autem Melancton in causa fuisse, ut Episcopis aliquid Jurisdictionis concederetur: speravit enim, si etc. , he seemed to yield somewhat of Jurisdiction to Bishops; for be hoped that, if Jurisdiction were granted them, they would not so much oppose the Gospel. But Philip considered not, (continues Osiander) that the Fox may change his hair, not his Temper. Melancton 
y Osiand. Epit. Hist. Eccles. Cent. 16. Part. 1. Lib. 2. Cap. 37. De pontifice autem statuo. Si Evangelium admirteret, posse ei propter Pacem etc.  granted also to the Pope, provided he would admit the Gospel, a superiority over other Bishops, founded only on humane right, and yielded for procuring of the Peace of Christendom. Thus Melancton, through his extreme desire of Peace, forced his own Judgement, for, with Luther and the rest, he subscribes the Smalkaldick Articles, wherein, as we have heard, the Scriptural Idenity of Bishop and Presbyter is most clearly asserted.  
But, what ever they say to persuade us, that these or other such Divines favour them, we are little obliged to believe it, for they believe it not themselves: and these of our Adversaries that speak out their mind freely, tell us, that all the transmarine reformed Churches are really Presbyterian: It were too much I'm sure, to transcribe what D. Heylin says of this, for he freely grants it, and then through a whole large Folio, as such bespatters with the blackest of Rail and Calumnies, every one of the reformed Churches in particular.  
No less positive is Howell, 
z Fam. Letters. Vol. 3. Page 395.  who makes Calvin the first Broacher of the Presbyterian Religion, And a little after, Thus (saith he) Geneva Lake swallowed up the Episcopal See, and Church Lands were made secular, which was the white they levelled at. This Geneva Bird flew thence io France and hatched the Huguenots, which make about the tenth part of that People; it took wing also to Bohemia and Germany high and lo, as the Palatinate, the land of Hesse, and the confederate Provinces of the States of Holland.  
Yea Bellarmine 
a De Clericis cap. 14.— et nostris temporibus Lutherani & Calvinistae etc. , being to write against Presbytry, lays down in the entry as undeniable that ' 'tis the common doctrine of both Calvinists and Lutherans.  
§. 5. To these may be added all such as were valiant for the truths of God, and stoutly opposed themselves to Antichrist, before Luther, as the Waldenses and Albigenses, of whom Alphonsus de Castro 
b fol. 102. hunc eundem errorem post multos annos ab Inferis suscit arunt Waldenses, dicentes nullum esse inter Sacerdotes discrimen.  relates, that they denied any difference between Bishop and Presbyter, and herein differed nothing from Aërius. This same may be learned from Thuan 
c Hist. part. 1. lib. 5. Quibus respondent, qui hodie in Anglia puriorem doctrinam praese ferunt. , who compares them with the English Non-conformists. So far from truth was D M. when 
d pag. 239.  he says, that these only declaimed against the corrupt Manners of the Church of Rome, but never declaimed against the subordination of one Priest unto another.  
This same doctrine held Wicklef and his followers, denying that there is any difference between Bishop and Presbyter 
e Alphonsus de Castro fol 102. . The Waldenses and Wicklef were in this, as in the rest of their Articles, followed by J. Huss and his Adherents, who also asserted, that there ought to be no difference between Bishop and Presbyter or among Priests 
f Aenaeas Silvius de Bohemorum origine et gestis cap. 53. dogmata sunt— inter Sacerdotes nullum discrimen esse etc. . Yea so Catholic and universal hath this doctrine, of the Identity of Bishop and Presbyter, still been, that it hath all along, by the Romanists, been justly reck'ned a prime doctrine of Rome's Opposers 
g see the history of the Council of Trent pages 596, 605, 606, 607. . Nor shall you readily find one before Luther, for of such I now speak, of Truth's Witnesses who condemned not all distinction between Bishop and Presbyter.  
§. 6. And even in England itself after the Reformation, the famousest Bishops and lights of that Church, as Hooper, Latimer, and others, could not, without great difficulty and reluctancy, admit the exercing of the Episcopal Office, the using of their Priestly vestments &c: to be in any sense lawful: so far were they from believing a Divine Right of Diocesan Episcopacy. But, as Voëtius observes 
h Polit. Eccles. part. 2. pag. 833.  the use of it was excused rather than defended.  
The first, or at least the Standard-bearer among the first, that either in England, or any where else in the reformed World, had the brow to assert its Divine Right, appeared in the latter part of Queen Elizabeth's Reign: neither was he a Native of Britain, but a Fleming, I mean Hadrian Saravia once a Pastor in the reformed Netherlands, but, as Maresius witnesses 
i Exam. Theol. Quatuor Quaest Insignium. Quaest 1. pag. 68 S●raviam vero suis Belgium orthodoxum non annumerat, utpote etc. , rejected by them, as being an Enemy to both their Church and State. Neither was he better looked on, as himself acknowledges 
k Epist. dedicat. ad Episcopos Anglicanos praefixâ libris de gradibus Ministrorum, et alibi pluries. , by the rest of the reformed Churches abroad. And I think every true Protestant will yield that they had reason so to do, seeing he dares make 
l De gradib. Ministrorum cap 24. et alibi.  not only Bishops, but also Arch-Bishops, Metropolitans, yea and Patriarches to be of Divine Right. And over all these he places the Bishop of Rome, as the Supreme in Order and Honour. He contends moreover, that one Man may be lawfully enough both a Bishop and a Civil Magistrate, and exerce one of these Offices by himself, and another by his Substitutes. 
m De honore Praesulibus et Presbyteris debito. cap. 19  The vast Rents of Prelates, the external Pomp of Honours, Titles, and train like that of the greatest secular Nobles, agree well enough with the simplicity of a Gospel-Ministry. They may lawfully enough in their Grandor and multitude of Servants imitat the greatest Earls and Dukes. All this is sufficiently warranted by Christ while he chused twelve Apostles, and seventy Disciples. If you tell him that Christ riding to Jerusalem had no train of Servants, no Noblemen attending him, adorned with golden Chains, and riding on trapped Horses, he answers, that Christ did so throw the necessity of that time, lest he had been suspected as affecting an earthly Kingdom, and that his want of such Splendour, was the fault of Herod and such Princes as knew him not. This Argument (continues Saravia) that they make against the Popish Prelates and ours, is frivolous, for it's deduced from the Deeds of the Infidels, and hath no place among Christians. Tho' 
n Cap. 29.  Bishops have Bands of armed Men to guard 'em, and Noblemen adorned with golden Chains constantly to Page and attend them; this aught to offend no Body. And whatsoever he says for covering this Scandal that such superlative Grandour, Pomp and Vanity give to every sober Beholder, his Reader shall find to be nothing else save what's commonly brought to palliate the Offence which the World so justly takes at the Luciferian Pride and Arrogance of the great Antichrist: yea even long after that time, notwithstanding of all the endeavours of Saravia and his Complices, so great a Stranger was this Doctrine even there, that T. Holland 
o Spanhem. part. spec. pag. 221. Quisc. Laudum pro gradu disputantem asserentemque Episcoporum ordinem esse divini ac necessarii juris, publica ignominia notavit. , the King's Professor at Oxford branded Laud with public infamy for asserting the divine right of Episcopacy.   

Section X.  
Some of the manifold inconveniences and noxious Qualities of Prelacy briefly mentioned.  
I Might, in the next place, enlarge on its Concomitants and Qualities: a few whereof I shall only name. One of these was a direful Spirit of Persecution, which still raged during the Prelatical Government, the sad effects whereof, through no small part of this Kingdom, on both Bodies and Consciences of the best part of Protestants therein, and that for their refusal of the very things which many of the Urgers acknowledged to be altogether indifferent, are but too well known.  
§. 2. Another of its Qualities, little better than the former, is their Schismatical Practice and Principles; as for instance, at the last return of Prelates, the Church of Scotland, whatsoever Differences might have been therein, yet was but one, and not Altar against Altar: did they not then become the Authors of a complete National Schism, while they broke the whole Church into Parties, to the end (only) they might establish such things as many of themselves acknowledged to be indifferent? Again, their reentry into Scotland was so far from being Legal, that it wanted the very colour of all Order & Law: for no General Assembly of whatsoever kind introduced them. Seeing then this Church has, ever since her return from Rome, held General and National Assemblies for her supreme Judicatory, and Prelates were extruded by full National Assemblies, they ought, for their reentry without the like Authority, to be accounted, by all true Members of the Church of Scotland, manifest Violators of all her Laws and Authority. And while they upbraid us with the Crime of Separation, are exactly like these, who, having overturned all fundamental Laws of a Society, and ruin'd all both Officers and Members cleaving thereto, should moreover reproach them, upon this very account, that they would not subscribe to the overthrow of their fundamental Laws and Constitution. But marvel not tho' they made so wide a Breach here; for they give but too much ground to judge, that they have separated themselves from the Body of the reformed Churches; as appears, amongst other things, in their Doctrine and Practice of Re-ordaining all who come over unto them from these Churches. Some indeed would persuade us, that they hold this but as a small Ceremony; but yet it's such an one, as, for aught I can learn, they will never quite with, notwithstanding of all the Scandals given or taken thereby. And the most earnest Asserters of Episcopacy have their Episcopal Ordination in such esteem, that they account none true Ministers without it; and so look on most of the Reformed Churches as being without all true Ministers, & consequently without either true Preaching or true Sacraments. And is not this too like a Donatistick Schism? And is it strange then that our Church did still, with greatest care and vigour, tho' on this account only, oppose Prelacy and Prelatists, they being generally leavened with such dangerous Principles?  
And here observe that all the Heats and Debates that were in our Church since her Reformation from Popery, owe their Original, either more directly, to Prelacy, while she strove to keep or drive it out of Scotland: or more indirectly, while some (if on good ground or otherwise, I determine not) greatly feared that some Persons or Practices would prove introductive thereof; and therefore, against the mind of others, sought to have them laid aside. And thus Prelacy, whither present or absent, hath still been the bane of this Church. And there's little doubt, but that they were so wise, in their Generation, as both to kindle and blow at the fire of any Division that happened.  
§. 3. And, as they give but too evident signs of their separating from the Body of the reformed Churches, so, in too many things they but too nigh approach the Romanists. Their Government and Hierarchick Scale is one and the same, save one roundle, with that of Rome. All their Arguments they bring, either from Scripture or Antiquity, are learned from Bellarmine and such Romanists, and admit no less improvement for the evincing a papal Authority, than the Episcopals have made thereof for the establishing of their prelatical Power. The Romanists affirm, that the Apostles and Evangelists were Prelates of particular Dioceses, and that a power properly Apostolic still remains in the Church. In these and other such Positions too many of our Episcopal Men are ready to follow them. But leaving the Apostolic times, descend to the subsequent Ages called Antiquity, there, they're Pylades and Orestes, mutual Supporters of one another, and have, in arguing from this Fountain so great a resemblace, that you shall scarce know with whither of the two ye are dealing. Neither, as we have already touched, in the Topics they pretend to draw from Reason, as that of Order and the like, is there between them any less Consanguinity.  
§. 4. The Practice also of our Prelates both former and latter bore no small resemblance to that of the Romanists, while they affected so earnestly a secular Grandour, and the sullying the purity and simplicity of the Gospel, with a mass of Superstition and Romish Ceremonies. The affection of too many of that Party to Rome was also visible in their earnestness to get and keep a zealous Papist upon the Throne, and in their melancholic and Pannick-fears at any appearance of our Relief from Slavery and imminent danger of Popery. And lastly, in their excessive Joy when any hope of our Delivery seem to have been crushed and blasted. All this was most legible in their Practice at the appearance of the Duke of Monmouth and the Earl of Argyle, and the failing of their Designs. They were no less galled and vexed at the most noble and happy Design of his present Majesty, praying, in the chief Churches of this Kingdom, that he, might be sunk as a Stone in the mighty Waters. And after his entry that, as his Army came in one way, it might be scattered seven ways.  
§. 5. Add to all this, their either more indirect, or downright calumniating and maligning of the reformed Churches and first Reformers, placing them in the same Category with Papists. Take for instance the frontispicial Lines of Nalson's Collections, 
Like Bifrons Janus next does court your eye  
Rome and Geneva in Epitome,  
They squint two ways in the main Point agree.   
And indeed this is but their kindest dealing. Neither do they then speak as they think; for their Love and Charity is by many degrees greater toward the Romanists, than to the reformed Churches. They will admit none of the latter to a pastoral Office if they refuse Re-Ordination; but kindly receive a Romish Priest without it. Of the most learned and godly Protestant Dissenters from them, they speak most contemptuously 
a Dr. Pearson. prooem. ad vind. St. Ignat.  terming them Arch-schismaticks. But the Jesuit Bellarmine, and Baron the Popish grand Legendary, they with greatest deference call most eminent Cardinals. Yea even in the chief Churches of this Kingdom, they repeated their invectives against our first Reformers and Reformation, and in some Churches thereof, they were not ashamed to say, that our Reformation was Deformation: Knox deserved knocks. On the other hand, not a few of 'em all along showed no little warmth of affection to Papists, intitulating them to the same God, and Heaven with themselves, and asserting their neighbourhood and conjunction to be infinitely more eligible than that of these whom they-called fanatics, as appears, for instance, in a printed Sermon of Mr Mcqueen. And Heylin 
b Hist. of the Presbyterians. Page 0.  says, that the Genevan Discipline was begotten in Rebellion, born in Sedition, and nursed up by Faction. And indeed this Author is an Enemy so open and implacable to all the reformed Churches, that Strada, Gretser, Becan, Campian, or the like most fiery and venomous Loyolites could scarce, with all their impudent slanders and infernal rage, outdo, yea or equal him. With such stuff most of his Works, and especially his History of the Presbyterians, are wholly crammed. Yea, he doubts not 
c Hist. Quinquart. Page's 5, 6.  to call both Luther and Calvin Manichees, i. e. such as hold two infinite Being's, or two Gods. Others of the Faction, as Dodwell, are ready to pronounce all, who dislike Diocesan Episcopacy, guilty of the Sin against the Holy Ghost. But the World hath now seen, that the most fiery of such Zelots at length threw off the Mask, and professed themselves Romanists: as for instance L' Estrange or else, which their own Dr. Burnet 
d Preface to the second Vol. of his Hist of the Reformation.  observes of Heylin, one would think they had been secretly set on by these of the Church of Rome. And so, they were, in their profession of Protestancy, hateful Hypocrites, that they might the more easily bespatter and gore the protestant Religion through the sides of Presbytry. Others of 'em are yet more downright Atheists, who, if they hear the wrath of God, and Hell's torments denounced against impenitent Sinners, will tell you 
e Howel. Fam. Lett. Pages 471, 472.  that such a Doctctrine came from a Winter-Preacher, so that if a Schytian or Groenlander, who are habituated to such extreme cold, had heard him, they would have thought he preached of Paradise. And some call the Doctrine of Communion with God and Faith in Jesus Christ, fine Fables and Stories. Behold the Men who make it their chief Work to adore the Hierarchy, and inveigh against Presbytry: which brings to mind the saying of Tertullian, 
f Apolog. Cap. 5.  that Christianity must needs be some excellent thing, seeing only Nero and such Monsters were its prime Persecuters. Some there are also (as their own Edwards 
g Of the stile of the Scriptures. Page 34. et seq.  relates) even of their Reverend Divines, who turn all the Mosaic History concerning Adam and Eve, the Serpent, Paradise, eating the forbidden Fruit, and all the passages relating to them, into Parable, yea into Ridicule; saying that Moses only so talked in compliance with the blockish, and thick skulled Israelites, but not a syllable of truth is in all that he saith. This is very strange language (subjoins Edward's) from a Reverend Divine, who thereby destroys the whole system of Theology, and of Christianity itself. And yet, for such black and heinous Crimes we can't hear that they undergo the least degree of Censure. In my Judgement, (saith Edward's) if there be no public Censure passed upon such a daring Attempt as this, by a Member of our Church, Atheists will have just ground to laugh at our Discipline. And here in Scotland, all along during their Reign, how closely did they connive at such Irreligion, as also, at all the growth and progress then made by the active Spirit of Popery: and in stead of being providers against such Pests, some of our Prelates at Court proved Mediators in their behalf, saying, that there was less to be feared from Papists than from fanatics. And in answer to some imputing gross Enormities to the Church of Rome, said, that such things were only to be ascribed to the Court of Rome, not to the Church of Rome. Add hereto the great love of not a few of 'em to the Pelagian, Jesuitick or Arminian Doctrines, Hypotheses clean contrary to the belief of all the reformed Churches; and more especially to that of the Church of Scotland. They pretend notwithstanding, as if the establishing of Prelacy were the debarring of Popery. Episcopacy (say 
h Burnet's Confer. Page 323.  they) was so far from being judged a step to it, that the ruin of the Episcopal Authority over Presbyters, and the granting them exemptions from the jurisdiction of their Ordinary, was the greatest advance the Roman Bishop ever made in his tyrannical Usurpation over Churches. I need not here tell so known a matter, as is that of the exemption of the Regulars, who being subject to their own Superiors and Generals, and by them to the Pope, were sent through the World in swarms; and with great shows of Piety, Devotion, and Poverty, carried away all the esteem, and following from the secular Clergy; who were indeed become too secular, and these were the Pope's Agents and Emissaries, who brought the World to receive the Mark of the Beast, and wonder at her. For before that time, the Popes found more difficulty to carry on their Pretensions, both from secular Princes and Bishops: but these Regulars being warranted to Preach and Administer the Sacraments without the Bishop's licence, or being subject and accountable to him; as they brought the Bishops under great contempt, so they were the Pope's chief Confidents in all their treasonable Plots against the Princes of Europe. And when at the Council of Trent, the Bishops of Spain being weary of the insolences of the Regulars, and of the Papal Yoke, designed to get free from it. The great Mean they proposed, was to get Episcopacy declared to be of Divine Right, which would have struck out both the one and the other. But the Papal Party foresaw this well, and opposed it with all the Artifice imaginable: and Lainez the Jesuit, did at large discourse against it; and they carried it so, that it was not permitted to be declared of Divine Right. And by this, judge if it be likely that the Papacy owes its rise to Episcopacy. The emptiness of which discourse is apparent. For,  
First, The tendency and nature of Prelacy, and the Topics whereon they Found it, aiming no less at one Head over all, then at one Prelate over a few Churches, make evident, that he touches not the Argument in hand, only giving out that some time by one accident or other, the humbling, and depression of the Prelates proved the Pope's exaltation.  
Secondly, Strange, I'm sure, and most demonstrative must the Reasons be that make null clear Matters of Fact, or persuade Men that such things have never been; and 'tis undeniable that the Councils and other Cabals, which from time to time raised the Pope gradually to his present height, were all consisting of, or managed by Bishops; and if any happened to spurn at his rising, the Pope got still far more than a plurality to crush them: and indeed 'twas impossible the Pope should have risen by any other means, the whole sway of Church Affairs and guidance thereof being then in the hands of Bishops: wherefore if the Pope was raised to despotic Sovereignty, whereby he might absolutely dispense of Church Affairs, and trample at pleasure on the fairest mitres, they only are to be blamed, having themselves advanced him to this transcendental Preeminency.  
Thirdly, Neither are the Bishops less guilty of this the Pope's exaltation, upon the account of their profound sloth and negligence: the Author well observes, that they were become too secular, and indeed they were so immersed in Luxury and Ambition, that providing they might wallow in their Lusts, and obtain from the Pope a Domination over other Churches, they little valued any thing else.  
Fourthly, But 'tis yet more admirable how he can allege, that the Regulars brought the World to receive the Mark of the Beast: as if the Bishops (for this he must intimat or he says nothing) had been innocent; he's too learned not to know that gross Papal Darkness had overspread the World ere ever any such Exemptions were given, or the Regulars distinguished from Seculars. 'Tis true indeed that the swarms of Friars were amongst the most pestiferous Locusts, the World hath been pestered withal, but, to lay all or the greatest share of this Gild of exalting the Pope, on their shoulders, is a shrewd evidence of partiality; nothing being more notour, then that as the Bishops were the main Assistants and Supporters in every Innovation he decreed, so they with the greatest care, rigour and fury pressed them on both Clergy and People.  
Fifthly, That the wicked fraternities in the several Orders of Regulars, were the Pope's Agents in contriving, and sometimes effecting the ruin of Kings and Princes, is but too well known and evident enough; yet that the Prelates were no less guilty, and far more efficacious herein, is no less deniable. Were there no Bishops supporting the Pope in his War against the Emperor Barbarossa? Did not a crew of the same cattle join him in Dethroning Henry the IV? And at a word, where did ever the Pope make his impresses, but he was strengthened by their arm and support.  
Sixthly, But tho' Episcopacy at the Council of Trent had been declared of Divine Right, what great relief had this been, either from the Papal Yoke, or insolences of the Regulars; it might perhaps for the time have procured some more Honour to the Bishops for the Pope's Italians of other Orders: but might not the Pope notwithstanding, by his boundless Authority and Supremacy he pretends over all Bishops, have continued to gall and oppress their Order, and also send, especially where the negligence of Prelates invited him, his Missionaries through the World, yea thus the Pope's power paramount had not once been touched at that Council, or hurt by such a Declaration. Was his infallibility ever there questioned by the Bishops? Did they at all endeavour the removal of the unsupportable Burdens and Slavery the Church groaned under? And should it not have been a great benefit to the Church, or diminishing the Pope's power, tho' his Holiness had pleased to declare the Divine Right of their Office?  
Seventhly, But whatever it was the Bishops aimed at in the Council of Trent, I'm not much concerned; only I would gladly know, how from this their Action it follows that Bishops had never been the Men, or Episcopacy one of the means whereby the Papacy had been brought into the World; which is the Author's Inference, and is just as one should reason thus: some of Alexander's Macedonian Soldiers, vexed with his tyranny and insolence, and his preferring of Strangers, attempted his down-throw: (the like may be said of some of the Soldiers of Julius Caesar, Galba, Didius Julianus, Maximinus and others) therefore they had not contributed to the raising and absolute Supremacy of these Princes. And should not such an one be reckoned an admirable Logician? And yet this Inference should be far more pardonable than the former; in so much as the thing the Bishops aimed at against the Papacy, if it can be called any thing, came infinitely short of what these Conspirators attempted upon the powers they deemed unsupportable.  
And by this, judge if the most earnest efforts of their chiefest Authors make it in the least improbable, that the Papacy owes its rise to Episcopacy: and if such pitiful paralogisms proclaim not, that they can really find nothing wherewith to cover Prelacy from the heavy; but just imputation of being the certain introductive of Popery.  
§. 6. This odd reasoning of the Doctor minds me of another of his of his Essays, or Retorsions which is of Kin to this Argumentation. May not one (saith he 
i Page 321. ) that quarrels a standing Ministry, argue on the same Grounds, a Minister's Authority over the People, gave the rise to the Authority Bishops pretend over Ministers, and so the Minister will be concluded the first step of the Beast's Throne? But this retorsion, being once handled, shall hurt us no more, than what we have already removed; for take a Gospel Ministry unconfounded with a papal Hierarchy, and then there is not the least colour or pretext for any Man's ascribing to it the first rise of Popery, the parity we plead for among Pastors of Flocks secures a Gospel-Ministry from any force or appearance of reason in any such assault: whereas (on which I'm not now to dwell) the Topics establishing Prelacy, tend no less to assert a Papacy. But again the belief of a Gospel-Ministry as a thing altogether necessary for the Being of a Church, is so well and so universally rooted in the hearts of all Christians, that they, compared with the rest, have scarce amounted to a handful who had the holdness to deny it; and so there's little hazard to be feared from these few contemptible Objectors: and tho' there seemed to be, and the Objection should appear never so pungent, yet it could be really of no weight against so necessary and indispensible an Ordinance. Whereas on the other hand, there's so little necessity of Prelacy, that the far greatest and best part of its Abettors, and in these the Author himself (as in due time shall appear) grants, that 'tis no different Order from Presbytry, has no footing in the Word of God, and in a word to the overthrow of his Principles, confounds a Prelate with a parochial Pastor.  
Another grand, but just prejudice against the Hierarchy, is the looseness and profanity most frequently cleaving thereto: how profane and scandalous they and theirs were, during former Prelacy, has already appeared: of the latter the matter is no less evident; for at such a height & growth during their Government, yea under their wings did profanity, abusing of God's blessed Name, and such gross immoralities arrive, that to abstain from such vices and follow piety, was a Crime well nigh able to make a Man pass for a Whig and Fanatic, and what hazard did enshew these Surnames, none is ignorant. All this and much more was not only evident to the body of this Kingdom, but was also noticed abroad: and, amongst others, by their Friend R. Coke. Yea his Majesty, whom Divine Mercy sent for our Relief, well knew't, and accordingly, in his Declaration for Scotland, has, amongst many others, this most memorable Sentence. Although (saith He) the Dissenters have just cause of distrust when they call to mind how some hundreds of their Ministers were driven out of their Churches without either Accusation or Citation: the filling of many of whose Places with Ignorant and Scandalous Persons hath been one great occasion of all those Miseries which that Country for a long time hath groaned under. They may pretend that such Enormities were only accidental to Prelacy, which may fall out under any Government: but none versant in Church Story is ignorant how much mischief and scandal this Hierarchy hath cast upon Christianity. Let them read Socrates and other Records of these more ancient times, and they shall find that the Prelates, tho' but beginning to appear, and by far, not so degenerate from the simplicity of the Gospel as afterward by their swelling tympany, and aspiring to Domination, induced the People to commit the most lewd and vile Pranks readily imaginable, to the doolfull scandalising of Jew and Gentile, and their utter abominating of Christianity itself: as is clear from the miserable Havoc, Destruction and Slaughter, the contrary Factions of Bishops in the Plea for the Episcopal See between Damasus and Vrsinus prompted the People to commit, from the most scandalous Pranks of Theophilus Bishop of Alexandria, the most unhuman and barbarous concomitants and consequents of the Deposition of chrysostom with many other such open Impieties, all caused and occasioned by the Prelatic pride and insolency, which public and most scandalous Enormities, had the Christian World retained the truly Primitive and Apostolic Parity we plead for, could never have happened: for had the Superiority, Riches, and Grandour, the very apples of these most unchristian Contentions, been wanting, and had every Pastor been kept at the earnest labour of Teaching, Exhorting, and Catechising a particular Flock or Congregation, with only such a competent Stipend as sufficed to secure him from the contempt of Poverty, not to feed Luxury, Grandour and such like Vices, there had been no occasion of such lamentable Broils. This was observed by Nazianzen, who himself was Bishop of Constantinople, and therefore he earnestly wished 
k Orat. 28.  that there had been no primacy of Place, no Prelacy, no Prerogative, no Superior or Inferior Degrees of Pastors. The marrow of Saravia's Answer 
l Def. tract. De diversis gradibus Ministrorum Evangelii. C●p. 23.  to this most cogent place of Nazianzen, is that he finds no fault with the Order of Degrees themselves but with Men, and with the times wherein the ambition of the Arrians troubled the Church. The common and blunt shift of the Romanists whereby to palliate the unlawfulness of their Papacy, and a real and clear contradiction of Nazianzen's plain words. And was not afterward the Papal and Prelatical pride, and affectation of secular rule the prime source of the unspeakable Evils that reigned all along before the Reformation, and yet continue in the Papacy? Is not that Kingdom where Prelacy is of most account filled with the most idle, naughty, and profain Clergymen that are to be found, at least, in the Protestant World? And how can it be otherwise, seeing things or Offices retaining little or nothing of what did primitively constitute them, produce quite contrary effects to these designed by the Authors thereof? But nothing is more plain, than that the simplicity of the Gospel-Ministry is altered into a secular Grandour, more by far, resembling the Princes of the Gentiles, than the Apostles of our Meek and Lowly Jesus, who came not to be ministered to, but to Minister. Now the best of things once degenerate become most noxious; what can therefore be expected from such but that they should suit their Government and Policy, change the Spirit of a Gospel-Ministry for that of Pomp and Secularity, grow entirely Carnal, and so become the source of Profanity in stead of Holiness?    

Part II.  
Wherein the Epistles of Ignatius are more particularly considered, and the Plea of the Hierarchicks therefrom, examined.  

Section I.  
Of the Author and his Work.  
IT is evident and clear to the more thinking and ingenuous part of the Christian World, how Rome's Advocats, while they Agent her Cause from the truly Canonical Writings of the Apostles and Prophets, after some few struggle, sorry evasions and feeble resistance, are compelled to give back, and, in reality, abandon their Posts: but were they permitted to use Apocryphal Writings, which, they say are Ancient enough, and written not long after the Holy Scriptures; were not these also pulled out of their hands by demonstrating the spuriousness thereof; they should perhaps make a greater appearance, and keep the fields somewhat longer.  
The same also is the fate of other Hierarchicks pleading the Cause of Episcopacy: for while they manage it from Scripture-grounds, you may perceive them to make so wide and incoherent Deductions, so slender and pitiful Defences, so wild and unbottomed Distinctions, as loudly proclaim that, except they procure Auxuliaries from some other where, they must also defert their Cause, and leave the Field to their Adversaries. But let them descend somewhat lower to Ecclesiastic Antiquities, we shall find their confidence stronger: for they then bring a multitude of great Names, as so many armed Champions marshelled in Rank and Order. Among these there be some, wherewith, as with so many Elephants, they threaten to make vast lanes among their Adversaries: but there's no great cause of terror; for if they be but boldly confronted we shall then find them either, like these Elephants Ctesias and Diodore fable to have been used by their fictitious Semiramis, deceitful Images and hobgobling to strike a vain fear in their Enemies: or like the African Elephants in Polybius, which, in stead of destroying the adverse Party, frequently turned back, dissipated and overthrew these who brought them to the Battle. The greatest of these, and whom they with most confidence produce, is their Epistolick Ignatius, who is to them as one of the Hee-goats and Rams before the Flock, of whom they boast as if nothing should stand before him. It shall not therefore be amiss if (as we promised) we look more narrowly into this their bold Assertion, and examine if their Grounds be equal to their Confidence.  
§. 2. Ignatius, as Eusebius 
a Hist. Eccles. Lib. 3. Cap. 36.  relates, was a Bishop or Pastor of Antioch, and being brought to Rome in the time of Trajan the Emperor, gloriously laid down his Life for the Cause of Christianity. He is said to have written in his Journey to Rome, several Epistles, viz. To the Smyrneans, to Polycarp, to the Ephesians, to the Magnesians, to the Philadelphians, to the Trallians and Romans, all which are either mentioned or cited by Eusebius. There are other Epistles also by Writers of a much later date, ascribed to Ignatius; but in the first seven only do our Adversaries place the weight of their Cause; and therefore with them alone we shall be concerned.  
§. 3. Of these Epistles in the former Century, first in Latin and then in Greek, appeared at the first but two or three only; afterward they amounted to fifteen, all which they Fathered upon Ignatius: these were greedily hugged by the Romanists; and reason they had so to do, most of these Epistles being fraughted with stuff that savoured of the Romish Innovations, and proclaimed them several Centuries posteriour to Ignatius his Age, and accordingly these Editions were scarce born while they were condemned and stigmatised by the most learned of the Reformed viz. Calvin, the Magdeburgick Centuriators, and afterwards by Whittaker, Perkins, Scultet, Rivet, and others, as the issue of a quite other Parent than him of whom they boasted.  
§. 4. Notwithstanding hereof the Advocats for Prelacy, such as Whitgift, Bilson, Dounam, Heylyn, Taylor and the rest of the Party, leaned on these Epistles as firm propes of their Caufe, giving severals of 'em the Epithets of Learned and Pious without the least exception. Thus, for a long time, were these Epistles condemned by many, yet applauded by a few.  
§. 5. But at length the most learned and famous Dr. Vshher lighted on two Latin Manuscripts, much differing from the former Editions, and containing many passages cited by the Ancients, that were wanting in the former. And soon after Isaacus Vossius produced a Greek Copy out of the Duke of Tuscanie's Library, in many things agreeing with usher's Manuscripts. These Copies bred a wonderful confidence in the minds of the Episcopal Party: after which every one of them gave his loud 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and therewith pleased themselves, as if the Controversy concerning Prelacy had been already determined by a Divine Oracle. But in the mean while, and by this very Action of embracing and extolling this new Edition, as the only genuine Copy of Ignatius. They published to the World that they had all along (while in conjunction with Romanists and in opposition to Protestants they so passionately propugned the former Editions) either been lamentably shallow in their knowledge of Ecclesiastic Antiquity, notwithstanding their great boast thereof, as if all Men beside were Dwerfs herein: or, which is little better, exceedingly partial in favours of their Cause and Interest. However, maugre all such Impeachments, they alter their Judgements as they see fit, reject what they had but the other day warmly hugged, and applaud their new Ignatius.  
§. 6. Yet also they were their alone herein: for the most learned, and these of the reformed Churches who were most able to give Judgement concerning such Controversies, as Blondel, Salmasius and others continued in their former Sentiment, believing that these new Copies did as really lie under just suspicion as the Old. After divers Re-encounters amongst learned Men concerning these Epistles, Dallaeus a learned French Minister wrote more largely and directly to evince them spurious, but was opposed by Dr. Beverige, and D. Pearson who wrote his Vindiciae Ignatianae, a large and laborious Work, to prove that these Epistles were the genuine product of Ignatius, in which his Party triumphed not a little, apprehending that this Matter was decided; so as there was no more Dispute or Opposition to be feared. But 'twas not long till Daill's Defence was undertaken by Monsieur L'arroque another learned Pastor of the French Church: and being again opposed by Pearson and Beverge, wrote a second time concerning the same Subject.  
§. 7. But such Arts were used as suppressed and stifled the Work of this learned Author: of which Book L'arroque's Son, in his Life, prefixed to his Adversaria Sacra gives us this account, 
a Typis mandavit Observationes in Ignatianas' Pearsonii vindicias nec non in Beverigii Annotationes— cui responsum pavins, quodque prae manibus ferme absolutum habemus, Author noster, instantibus quibusdam Amicis, alio subito divertit. Sed autem etc.  He published his Observations on Pearson's vindiciae Ignatianae, and Beverige ' s Annotations, which came to the light by this occasion: John Daille being departed this Life, two great Englishmen who had procured to themselves a perpetual Fame, of whom the one lately deceased, had the Name of the Bishop of Chester, the other was adorned with the Title of Dr. but deserved a greater Dignity, exploded what Daille had written concerning Ignatius his Epistles. But L'arroque in favours of his deceased Friend, undertook the Patrociny of this Hero; and except Fame be altogether false, has fortunatly defended his Judgement. These Observations were again assaulted by the famous Beverige, to whom our Author preparing an Answer, which we have by us, almost perfected, through the Importunity of some Friends was suddenly turned another way. This he did the more willingly, both because he had done enough in favours of his dead Friend, and also that he might make it appear, that seeing while he was yet fresh, he sounded a retreat, he had unwillingly entered the Lists with the English Protestants. Thus he, and who these Friends were, we are informed by another Author, a Man of the Episcopal Persuasion, and therefore may the better be believed in this Matter, viz. Jos. Walker Translator of L'arroque's History of the Eucharist, who, describing the Life of L'arroque, which he prefixes to his Translation, tells us, that at the request of some Persons favouring Episcopacy, he did not finish this his second Piece. From these Authors it's sufficiently evident, that the issue of this Debate concerning Ignatius his Epistles, was neither advantageous nor honourable to the Favourers of Episcopacy; seeing by such doings they acknowledged their Adversary so formidable that, except by powerful Solicitations and charms the Storm were diverted, nothing less than the utter ruin of their Cause was to be feared. Now, by these their dealings so dishonest both first and last, judge if such Men don't at once bewray extreme want of candour and diffidence in their Cause. And this much was meet here to be premised in favours of many, who may have been ●●umbled at the great Name of Ignatius, and yet altogether Strangers to the thoughts of the more learned, and ingenuous concerning the Epistles that bear his Name.  
§. 8. In this Ignatius the Patrons of the Hierarchy wonderfully please themselves, and triumph 
b Pearson. Prooem. ad vind. Ignat. Cap. 1. In ea autem tract and a magni ponderis merito habita esse Sancti Ignatii Viri Apostolici, & Martyris Autori●as, etc. Burnet's Conferences. Page 314.  as if from thence Prelacy received a most sufficient support and proof, well nigh infallible, of its divine Institution, and that if these Epistles be his, Presbytrie's undone. For, if we believe them, Ignatius is for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or genuinness of these Epistles above the smallest suspicion of Forgery, for Antiquity and Vicinity to the Apostles, above possibility of being mistaken: and finally, for clearness in the Episcopal Cause, above doubt or scruple. Now seeing, so far as I know, little or nothing of this Subject is yet in English, and the ears of many who know no other Tongue, are perpetually beaten & deafened with a mighty noise, as if all the lofty Titles and Honours of Prelacy were adopted by a genuine and Apostolic Ignatius; it shall neither be improfitable nor unacceptable, if with a convenient brevity we overthrow the principal Pillars of so proud a Structure; and render the Weapons, in the estimat of our Adversaries so keen and weighty, completely unserviceable to their Cause.  
§. 9 I therefore with no less confidence deny what they so boldly affirm. I deny that the Epistles ascribed to Ignatius, whether of the elder or later Editions, are throughly genuine, and so free of Forgeries, that no chaff hath been thrown into, and huddled amongst the grains of Wheat that may remain therein. I deny that the Antiquity of the true Ignatius was able to secure him from all Lapses and Mistakes; or that in his time some Churches might not be itching after several Novelties. I deny finally that he is so clear and positive in the Matter of Episcopacy, as to denude Presbyterians of all rational Defence, should they acquiesce in his Judgement, and herein join with their Adversaries, who still appeal to Ignatius his Bar. But I shall not rest in Denials, but shall turn them to so many contrary Positions, and demonstrat each of 'em in particular.   

Section II.  
The first Hypothesis viz that Ignatius is interpolated.  
MY first Assertion therefore is that the Epistles ascribed to Ignatius, whether of the Elder or Later Editions, are not throughly genuine, nor so free of Forgeries, that no Chaff hath been thrown into and huddled amongst the grains of Wheat that may remain therein. As the Writings pretended to come nearest in time to the Scriptures of the Old Testament, carry notwithstanding evident Characters of a quite other time and Parent than these whereto they are falsely ascribed; so also the Pieces that pretend greatest proximity to these of these New Testament, afford no less just ground of suspicion. Of this kind are Barnabas, Hermas and others, all which are generally either shroudly suspected as mere Forgeries, or at least as not being without manifest corruption and interpolation. Yea Clemens Romanus, who, doubtless, is by far the most choice and virgin Monument of Antiquity, has notwithstanding fallen into the like adulterous hands as the story of the Daughters of Danaus and Dirce there recounted among the Christian Sufferers, makes manifest. And herein Divine Providence is to be adored, and extolled. For had such Writings as plead for the first place after these of either Old or New Testament, not under-ly'n such impeachments, the great proximity thereof to the Prophetic and Apostolic Writings, had certainly allured many to take these for Canonical; whereas now they serve, in some measure, for a rampire and hedge about the Holy Scriptures: and by the manifest corruption of the Apocryphal Writings, we are taught to distinguish betwixt divine and humane Letters: wherefore it should be a Paradox and a Wonder, had Ignatius escaped all such infectious Touches. But there's no ground for such admiration. For, that Ignatius, whither of the Elder or Later Edition, is not throughly genuine, and so free of Forgery and Interpolation, a few Examples shall make evident.  
§. 2. For in his Epistle to the Smyrneans, he thus discourseth them. 
a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 etc.  All of you follow after the Bishop as Jesus Christ follows the Father, and the Presbytry as the Apostles. Reverence the Deacons as the Commandment of God. Let no Man without the Bishop do any of these things that ought to be done in the Church. Let that Worship or Thanks be accounted lawful, which is either performed by the Bishop himself or permitted by him. Wheresoever the Bishop appears, let there also the Multitude be present; even as where Christ is, there is also the Catholic Church. Without the Bishop it's neither lawful to Baptise nor Celebrate the Lord's Supper or Love-feasts: but, whatsoever he approves is acceptable to God. And again in his Epistles to Polycarp. 
b 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 etc.  Attend to the Bishop as God doth to you; my Soul for such as obey the Bishop, Presbyters and Deacons, and with such let me have my Portion in God. And in his Epistle to the Ephesians. 
c 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 etc.  I write not to you as if I were of any account. For altho' I be bound in the Name of Christ, yet I am not perfect in Christ Jesus. For now I begin to learn and speak to you as my Teachers And again in the same Epistle. 
d 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 etc.  If I in so short a time have had such familiarity with your Bishop, not Humane I say, but Spiritual, how much more do I pronounce you blessed being joined together as the Church to Jesus Christ, as Christ to the Father; so that all things are in a harmonis Unity. Let none be deceived, whosoever is not within the Altar, is deprived of the Bread of God. For if the Prayers of one or two be of much weight, how much more these put up by the Bishop and the whole Church. Whosoever therefore cometh not into the same place, he is proud and hath condemned himself; for it's written God resisteth the Proud. Let us make haste therefore not to resist the Bishop, to the end, that we may obey God. And the more silent any Man perceive the Bishop, let him fear him the more: for whomsoever the Lord of the House sends to Govern it, we ought to receive him as him that sends him. Let us manifest that we ought to receive the Bishop as the Lord. And again in the same Epistle, thus. 
e 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 etc.  I know who I am. and to whom I write, I'm condemned, ye live in Peace, I'm in danger, ye sure; ye are a Passage to these who are slain in the Lord: The Condisciples of Paul, sanctified, and made Martyrs, worthy, blessed, under whose footsteps let me be found when I enjoy God. And to the Magnesians 
f 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 etc.  Because I was found worthy to see you in your Bishop Damas', and your worthy Presbyters Bassus and Apollonius, and my Fellow servant the Deacon Sotion whom let me enjoy, because he's subject to the Bishop as to the Grace of God, and to the Presbyters as to the Law of Christ. And again, 
g 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 etc.  Study to do all things in the Concord of God, the Bishop presiding in the Place of God, the Presbyters in the Place of the Confession of the Apostles, and my most sweet Deacons having committed to their Charge the Service of Christ. And within a few lines. 
h 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 etc.  Therefore as the Lord did nothing without the Father, being one with him, neither by himself nor by his Apostles; so do ye nothing without the Bishop and Presbyters. And to the Philadelphians. 
i 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 etc.  So many as belong to God in Christ Jesus, these remain with the Bishop. And in the same Epistle. 
k 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. etc.  I cried in the midst of the Congregration; I spoke with a loud voice, take heed to the Bishop, the Presbytry, and the Deacons. Somebody thought that I spoke these things foreseeing a Division: but he in whom I am bound bears me witness that I had this knowledge from no Man, but the spirit preached, saying, without the Bishop see ye do nothing. And in his Epistle to the Trallesians. 
l 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Whom I Salute in fullness, and an Apostolic Character. And again. 
m 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 etc.  For when ye are subject to the Bishop, ye seem not to Walk according to Men, but according to Jesus Christ. And in an other place of the same Epistle, 
n 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 etc.  And in like manner, let all Men reverence the Deacons as the command of Jesus Christ; and the Bishop as Jesus Christ, who is the Son of the Father, and the Presbytry as the Council of God and Senate of the Apostles, without which there is not a Church, and thus I counsel you to esteem of them, for I have gotten an Example of your Charity, and retain the same with me, in your Bishop, whose very composition is a great deal of Discipline, and his mansuetude Power, whom I believe the very wicked reverence. And afterward in the same Epistle. 
o 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Can I not write unto you Heavenly Things? But I sear that I should thereby endamage you being but Children, and forgive me, lest not being able to comprehend them, you be strangled. For I am not bound in every respect, but can be able to know things Heavenly, the Orders of Angels, their Constitutions, Principalities, things visible and things invisible. And again, 
p 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 etc.  Thus shall it be unto you if ye be not Proud, and remain unseparable from God, the Bishop and Apostolic Orders. And again in the same Epistle. 
q 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 etc.  Farewell in Christ Jesus, if ye be subject to the Bishop, as to the command of God, and in like manner to the Presbytry.  
But I'm weary, and did never translate more of any Author with less delight, or pleasure; not because I'm in the least graveled by what is here said concerning Bishops, altho' the whole strength, of what the Episcopals deduce from Ignatius, be wrapped up in these Passages, yea I'm persuaded, that from these very Places the Hierarchy's wounded under the fifth Rib. But because the most part of what we have quoted, as also no small part of what is behind, is altogether insulfe, putide, and more tasteless than the white of an Egg: and the Reader may easily perceive by these Examples that the Spirit and genius of this Author is quite different from what can be looked for in Ignatius a prime Martyr of the primitive Church. In all these Epistles 'tis clear as the Noon-sun, that a headstrong Passion, and a furious Zeal of enslaving all Christians under an illimited and blind Obedience to all Churchmen, as so many Romish Holinesses did entirely possess, and reign in the Author of these Epistles. The Apostle indeed sometimes admonishes the Churches of the Duties and Esteem, Christians should pay to Church-Officers; but withal uses but rarely to handle that Subject, and with the brevity and modesty that became him, ascribing to them only the Titles of Watchmen, and Labourers, Bishops or Pastors and the like, which best became the simplicity of the Gospel; whereas on the other hand, the pretended Ignatius so far swerves from this humble and Apostolic strain, that none, tho' they search the Writings of the most corrupt Ages, shall be able to find any that in exaltation of the Clergy, and depressing and subjecting of the Laity out did him. How secure should Basilides and Martial, two Spanish lapsed Bishops, have been, had their Flocks believed this Ignatian Doctrine, who having consulted Cyprian 
r Tom. 1. Ep. 68  If they might not desert these and choose new Bishops, were by him resolved in the affirmative, and admonished to choose other Pastors: but had they believed this pretended Ignatius, it had been with them the blackest impiety to have separated from their Bishop, or attempted so to do on whatsoever account.  
The Apostles frequently both to Pastors and Churches inculcat the diligent perusal and understanding of the Holy Scriptures as a special Duty, that by them as a sure Rule all men's Doctrines and Injunctions (without any exception) may be tried: but in lieu hereof, this their Ignatius has only men's Persons in admiration, perpetually deafening his Hearers, or at least wearying his Readers with Injunctions of absolute and blind Obedience, as if all and every one of his Bishops Dictates were to be received without the least Examination, a Privilege that even Christ and his Apostles (tho' they might have done it) never assumed to themselves; but still remitted their Hearers to the Scriptures for the trial thereof: this can't but in the estimat of all the judicious, be a Fault altogether unworthy of the True Ignatius. I hope that all honest Men shall give more Charity to this choice Martyr, than to believe that he's guilty of so gross Idolatry (for I can call it no better) and fantastic and impious doting on the person of any Man whatsoever: in which unworthy Work this Author (I will not say Ignatius) spends no small part of these Epistles. Therefore, altho' the asserting of all therein to be genuine, be so far from assisting our Adversaries, that their Cause is, by the very Passages they allege for its confirmation, mortally wounded; I can never persuade myself, but they have fallen into the wicked hands of Forgers who, tainted with the common Vice of the Ages subsequent to that of Ignatius, foisted in a great many Passages wherein nothing but the illimited Power of all Churchmen is depredicated, and the blind Obedience of the Laity is enjoined and commended.  
I'm confirmed in my sentiment by Ignatius his Epistle to the Romans, who certainly had as truly a Bishop as the Smyrneans, Magnesians, or any other saluted by Ignatius; but of the Roman Bishop or of the Honour and Obedience due to him in all this Epistle we find not a syllable. Certainly had this servile Obedience to the Clergy been such a fundamental Article of the Christian Religion, as all along through these other six Epistles he makes it, he had not failed to have informed the Romans thereof, seeing nothing (I believe) can be alleged to exime the Romans, more than other Churches, from paying such Honour to their Clergy. 'Tis vain to repone that he was then on his Journey to Rome, and was shortly to see that Church, and might on this account forbear: seeing they may after this manner of arguing prove the whole Epistle spurious, or at least superfluous; this Duty of Obedience to Churchmen, if we believe these six Epistles being so necessary a part of the Christian Religion, that 'tis never to be forgotten, but at all times with the greatest zeal and fervency to be inculcated.  
§. 3. Yet in defence of all these most dangerous Injunctions of his Ignatius, Dr. Pearson saith 
s Vind. Ignat. Part. 2. Page 220.  That there could be no fitter remedy against Heresies then that the Churches should adhere to the Pastors whom Ignatius knew to be Orthodox. But such an adherence as these Epistles every where command, is so far from being a Remedy against Heresies and Schisms, that, as the sad instance of the Romanists witness, it has been the greatest Augmentation, and the most deadly humour in all the Disease. But why did he not acquaint the Romans with this Remedy? Did he suspect their Bishop as unsound? Or thought he that every Roman Christian was above danger and infallible? And indeed the scarce paralellable extolling of Churchmen through all the former six Epistles, & the perpetual silence thereof in that to the Romans, loudly proclaim, that either they were write by different Authors, or else, that they have undergone no few Additions and Corruptions, which his Epistle to the Romans had escaped, seeing, I think they will scarce adventure to say that the Epistle to the Romans sometime had in it such Injunctions of Obedience to the Roman Clergy, which by some chance or other were afterward obliterate.  
§. 4. Again, what can we make of that proud boasting in his Epistle to the Trallesians, as if he had been the only Muster-Master to the Angels. But Pearson tells us 
t Vind. Ignat. Part. 2 Pages 140, 141. Quasi vero Christiano Viro, & quidem Episcopo, & ab Apostolis edocto nulla superc●elestium scientia competeret etc.  That it's not strange tho' Ignatius a Bishop who had long conversed with the Apostles, could write something concerning Heavenly Things which are so often mentioned by the Apostles: and he stiffly denies, in opposition to Daille, That such knowledge is not given to Mortals; and perhaps (saith Pearson) we know not well what Ignatius meant, when he wrote these things concerning Angels, and yet who will say but that he knew them himself? And then he acknowledges that Ignatius discourses of his Know not given to any Mortal, seeing for the proof hereof it's enough to repone the words of Elephas, to which of the Saints wilt thou turn thee? Surely not to Paul, seeing it can never be made evident that he either taught others, or ascribed to himself the knowledge of these Ignatian (or rather Pseudo-Ignatian) Mysteries. Although therefore we know not the meaning of these his words, we shall (I believe) incur little hazard thereby; and if he knew them himself I shall not debate. Certainly if we judge of the Author by his Work, we shall have little ground to apprehend that his Judgement was of the greatest reach, for, remove a very few flowers, this so much celebrated Garden shall be nothing but a den of weeds: neither can better be expected, where any intrude into the things they have not seen, as the Author of this Passage appears to have done; boasting of that wherein neither the Penmen of the Holy Scriptures, nor the primitive Christians professed themselves to be skilful: for altho' the Ancients acknowledged that there were, or might be such Dignities & Distinctions among Angels, yet who before the Impostor that borrowed the name of the Areopagite, adventured to profess their acquaintance with the particulars thereof? But most of all I admire that he for his purpose alleges Irenaeus, as if the Mysteries of God were nothing else but a convertible term with the Politics or Tactics of Angels. With how much more reason may we understand the Mysteries mentioned by Irenaeus, to be these magnified by the Apostle 1 Tim. 3. 16. which without Controversy are equally great and profitable.  
Lastly, as to chrysostom, he citys no where, wherefore I can't so easily make a judgement concerning him; otherwise ' tseems he may be understood of a greater measure of knowledge of the Mysteries frequently spoken off by the Apostle. And withal I observe that Dr. Pearson still insinuates and intimates as if Ignatius and other primitive Christians received from the Apostles other mysterious Doctrines not to be committed to writing, different from what is comprehended in the holy Scriptures; wherein, notwithstanding the whole Counsel of God is delivered, which Opinion is much fitter for a Jewish Cabalist or Romish Traditionary than a Protestant Doctor.  
§. 4. M. Du Pin 
u Bibl. Patrum. Vol. 1. Page 42.  embraces and only contracts Pearson's Answer saying that the knowledge of the Orders, Offices and Stations of Angels might be affirmed by an ancient Bishop, all Christians knew Heavenly Things: And Ignatius says nothing of Angels but what had been said by St. Paul. But herein he palpably contradicts himself, and affirms what he had before denied; for 
x Page 33.  to prove the Forgery of these Books that bear the Areopagites name Du Pin gives us this Argument: He (viz. the Author of these Books) distinguishes the several Orders of Angels and observes their difference, things that were unknown to the ancient Writers, and concerning which they were not solicitous to be informed, as S. Irenaeus assures us, in lib. 2. ch. 55. He opposes also Dr. Pearson, who, as we have heard, deduced from this same Irenaeus a quite contrary Doctrine.  
§. 5. Thus far I had proceeded secure of any other Controversy concerning this Passage, when I was surprised to find Dr. Wake 
y His genuine Epistles of Apostolic Father's Page 149.  the Englisher of these Epistles make Ignatius, together with his language, change his Doctrine, and speak quite contrary to what he had delivered either in Greek or Latin: for thus he Englishes the now controverted words of Ignatius. For even I myself, altho' I am in bonds, yet am not therefore able to understand Heavenly Things, as the description of the Places of the Angels, and the several Companies of them, under their respective Princes, the things visible and invisible, but in these things I am yet a Learner. But this Version is by no means to be embraced. For first the old Greek Copy commonly said to be spurious, uses indeed to add to, and dilate what is comprehended in the New Edition, yet not so as to contradict it; and therefore may serve for an Interpreter, were there any thing dubious herein: but this Old Copy is positive in favours of the received sense, and after an enumeration of the Particulars whereof Ignatius professes the knowledge, concludes all with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 when, or altho' I know so much; and thus the Old Copy is understood by all Interpreters, as the Old Latin of Vairlenius which is printed at Antwerp 1566, and by the Author of another Version, or at least an emendation of the Old, printed amongst the Orthodoxographa Patrum at Basile 1569, and by Videlius, and for aught I can learn, by whosoever interpreted or revised these Epistles.  
Secondly, The Cantabrigian or Vsserian Copy, the Authority whereof is little inferior to the Florentine Original, is no less positive for us against this New Interpreter; For (saith he) I am not bound in every respect, but am able to know Heavenly Things etc. And having enumerated the Particulars, concludes with a praeter hoc beside or notwithstanding of this: importing that some greater measure of that knowledge was, notwithstanding of the vast measure he had received, yet to be sought for.  
Thirdly, All Men in their Disputes and other Discourses about Ignatius, have thus understood the Passage now under Debate. If the ascribing of such knowledge to himself could agree to the genuine Ignatius they disputed much; but that the now disputed Passage really ascribes, and not denies to Ignatius the knowledge of these Heavenly Things, all except this Interpreter unanimously acknowledge. And this certainly was the mind of Isaacus Vossius who, otherways being a zealous Patron of the Florentine Copy, had in his Notes doubtless taken notice of such a common mistake, and observed the contrariety between the Cantabrigian and Florentine Editions. And Spanhemius F. 
z Introduct. ad Chron. et Hist. Sac. Pag. 127.  always supposes the sense we plead for of these words of Ignatius, and on this ground, notwithstanding what Dr. Pearson had said, shroudly suspects these Epistles as forged. And Daille, yea & even Dr. Pearson, his most learned and vigilant Adversary, always supposed as uncontrovertible, the sense we now plead for.  
Fourthly, And reason they had so to do, seeing otherways both sense and the self consistency of this Passage is lost; he had but just now arrogat to himself such a knowledge of Heavenly Things, the very declaration whereof should be enough to overwhelm and strangle the Church of the Trallesians, and then as a reason or declaration of his great Knowledge, and to show how far 'twas out of their reach, advances the Passage now in hand, whereas this Clause concerning his Bands is only introduced to show the consistency between outward Troubles and spiritual Furniture. Excellently therefore and most conform to the Greek, is it rendered in the Cantabrigian Copy, non secundum quodcunque ligatus sum, I am not bound in every respect. But were this New Version admitted, Ignatius, while he ascribes so great a knowledge of Heavenly Things to himself, and presently afterward denies that he knew Heavenly Things, should, in esteem of all disinterested, complete a Contradiction; whereas, according to the Cantabrigian and our Version of the Passage, the sense runs natively without the least appearance of any roughness.  
Lastly, I do not remember that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 any where is to be rendered although ', (which is the mind of this Interpreter) I shall not say that foreseeing this Passage if truly translated would prove the dead Flee and make the rest both ill savoured and justly suspected, he wilfully perverted it: I should rather charitably think that out of ignorance, a far more pardonable weakness, he fell into such an Error.  
§. 6. And now to proceed, I impeach not these Epistles, of their frequent mention of Bishops and their Superiority over Presbyters, as if herein they savoured a Diocesan Prelacy; nay I'm so far from this, that I'm persuaded from the self same places, that according to this Author a Bishop and a parochial Pastor are reciprocated; and therefore the Doctrine of our Adversaries is overthrown by the very places from which they labour to establish it. The Grounds on which I accuse these Epistles are, the Author (not to mention self Contradictions) his affected Humility, hateful deifing of all Churchmen, most unworthy and parasitick flattering of whomsoever he salutes, and, which is the end of all, his endeavouring to persuade Christians, that an Autocratorick Power is to be ascribed, and blind Obedience to be paid to all Churchmen, as to so many absolute and unerring Deities. And lastly his audacious boasting of his Knowledge of these things wherewith, for aught we can learn either from Scripture or any Author of Credit, no mere Man hath been hitherto acquainted. And these Grounds, were there no others, may suffice at least to evince the Interpolation of the Epistles.  
§. 7. And how this came to pass is not hard to conceive if we reflect upon the genius of subsequent Ages; the uncontrolled Power and superlative Veneration of Churchmen, the special Forerunner and introductive of Antichrist, together with other parts of Superstition, took special rooting in the third and fourth Centuries. Now, as the Church like a choice Garden nourished many prime and useful Plants; she had also most pestilentious and noisome Weeds, Monsters which you can scarcely name, and not the transported with indignation. These, the better to promote such Impieties, Fathered the brats of their own Brains on some choice Dr, by whose warmth they might be cherished and supported. Such Men not only forged or (at best) polluted these Epistles, but also attributed more of the like stuff to Ignatius, some whereof are mentioned by Daille and Dr. Pearson, and others omitted by them, are remembered by Socrates, 
a Lib. 6. Cap. 8. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc.  who tells us that the beginning of the Antiphones was reported to have come from Ignatius, which they said he had revealed to him by Queers of Angels that use to descend and sing the Praises of the holy Trinity. Add to all, which shakes the very foundation of their Plea, the incredibleness of Ignatius his Journey to Rome, whether he is said, after his Condemnation at Antioch, to have been sent by Trajan, that he might be thrown to wild Beasts, on the truth of which these Epistles leaned, still insinuating and presupposing it: But why should Trajan be at pains to have sent him guarded thither? Certainly not for an entertainment to the People as the pretended Acts of Ignatius affirm. They had store of Christians of all sizes at Rome with the spectacle of whose Sufferings they might daily be cloyed, neither, as some answer, because he was a famous Christian and Bishop, at whose death the Roman Christians might be terrified, seeing the Emperor might conclude from Ignatius his great resolution and boldness which himself had perceived that he would much animat them. But the perpetual Practice of these times frees us from further debate herein: I can never find that the Romans brought Christians from Asia or such remote places to be executed at Rome, but still to the nearest seats of Justice, as is clear in Polycarp and other most famous Bishops or Pastors. And truly (saith Dr. Stillingfleet 
b Iren. Page 298.  the story of Ignatius (as much as it's defended with his Epistles) doth not seem to be any of the most probable. For wherefore should Ignatius of all others be brought to Rome to suffer, when the Proconsul's and the Praesides provinciarum did every where in time of Persecution execute their Power in punishing of Christians at their own Tribunals, without sending them so long a Journey to Rome to be martyred there? And how came Ignatius to make so many and such strange Excursions as he did by the Story, if the Soldiers that were his Guard were so cruel to him, as he complains they were? Now all these uncertain and fabulous Narrations as to Persons then arising from want of sufficient Records made at those times, make it more evident, how incompetent a Judge Antiquity is to the certainty of things done in Apostolical times.  
And now from what is said, judas if D. M. 
c Page 160.  had any good ground to query, whether there's any good and solid Argument brought by the Presbyterians against the Authority of St. Ignatius his Epistles, that is not already sufficiently answered.   

Section III.  
The second Hypothesis, viz. that the Antiquity of the trne Ignatius could not secure him from all Lapses or Escapes in Doctrine or serve to Prove that there was no Declension in his time.  
MY second Assertion is, that the Antiquity even of the true Ignatius was not able to secure him from all Lapses and Mistakes, and that in his time some Churches not only might; but actually were itching after several Novelties. Which Assertion, if once demonstrated, renders Ignatius of little or no use to our Antagonists: their Inference is, that, if Ignatius spoke positively in favours of Episcopacy, and lived in a closely vicinity to the Apostles, then there's no doubt but the Apostles established such a Government: which consequence, like the Apples of Sodom, resolves anon into smoke, our Assertion being proved; which I now come to demonstrate. The Apostles of our Lord had not changed their earthly Tabernacle, for that which is not made with hands; when, to their inexpressible sorrow, they beheld not only particular Persons, but even the greater part of some Churches, they themselves had either planted or watered, in stead of Grapes, to bring forth will Grapes, and in place of being the Repositories of the precious Truths of the Gospel, become nests and cages of the most abominable Errors. Other Churches there were that holding fast the Foundation of the Apostolic Doctrine, but raising thereupon a structure of the stubble and hay of either Judaisme or Paganism (in one of which all of them had been educated) had well nigh made up an Edifice of most Hetrogeneous Materials. Hence it is that the Apostle is at such pains to Correct them in their Abuses of the Sacrament, in their Superstition concerning Meat and Drink, and their unwarrantable observation of Times, that wanted all Divine Sanction.  
§. 2. But these infallible Guides being at length possessed of their Master's Joy, Affairs grew yet worse: for then the grand Enemy of the Church did in greater abundance; and with more security sow his tares. Hence it was that not only those, who are justly branded for Arch-heretics, and Schismatics; but even those who persisted Orthodox in the main Principles of Christianity were drawn into, neither few nor inconsiderable Mistakes.  
§. 3. I'm sure Papias Bishop of Hierapolis was a Man, both in respect of his Antiquity and Authority, among the primitive Christians, little inferior to Ignatius: 'twas he notwithstanding who either greedily embraced, or first of all hatched the gross Fancy of the Saints their corporal Kingdom for a thousand years after the Resurrection. Moreover (saith Eusebius 
d Lib. 3. Cap. 39 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 etc.  speaking of Papias) the same Writer alleges something as from unwritten Tradition, viz. some strange Parables and Doctrines of our Saviour, and some other fabulous things; and, amongst the rest, he saith that after the Resurrection, there shall be a thousand years, wherein Christ shall reign on Earth bodily. But to me he seems through misunderstanding of the Apostle's Discourse, to have taken what was spoken mysteriously, in a quite other sense from its true meaning. For he was os a very weak Judgement; as his Writings sufficiently declare. He was notwithstanding the Author of this Opinion to the most part of the following Ecclesiastical Writers, for they looked only to his Antiquity as Irenaeus, and whosoever else favoured his Opinion. We see here a Man of no little Antiquity and Repute drawing the greatest Lights of the Church, and consequently the rest of the Christians to a Doctrine destitute of all countenance from the Word of God.  
§. 4. Another Conceit no less Ancient but more wild, was that of the Angels their carnal Knowledge of Women. This was hugged by Justin Martyr 
e Apolog. ad Senatum. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 etc.  who lived in the same Century with, yea, and not many years after Ignatius. The Angels (saith he) transgressing their Order, by carnal Copulation with Women, fell from their primitive State, and begot Children who are now called Devils. He was followed notwithstanding by Irenaeus & Athenagoras, the most famous Writers of their Age; as also the stream of these that flourished in the succeeding Centuries, Irenaeus also with a great many others held, that the beatific Vision is not enjoyed until the day of Judgement. Now beyond peradventure such Leaders as these, had the most part of the Churches at that time for their Fellows and Followers in these Opinions.  
§. 5. And seeing both such Pillars, and the rest that leaned on them were ready to swerve in Matters of Speculation, or Opinion, they were no less capable of straying in things belonging to Practice; for there's no more security promised to the Church from the one than the other. Neither did the closely Vicinity to the times of the Apostles, preserve the Churches from evident Lapses of this nature. Was not the mixing of the Sacramental Wine with water, a matter of Practice, and altogether destitute of warrant from Scripture, in which we hear of nothing but the Fruit of the Vine drunken by Communicants. And yet Justin Martyr 
f Apolog. ad Antoninum pium. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 etc.  informs us that the mixing of the Sacramental Wine with water was the Practice of his time.  
§. 6. Another Instance of the most early Declension of the primitive Church in Matters of the same kind, viz. the external Rites, and Ecclesiastic Ceremonies, was their observation of Easter; concerning which the Controversies first arose between Polycarp 
g Euseb. Hist. Eccles. Lib. 4. Cap. 14. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. etc. Et Lib. 5. Cap. 23. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. etc. , and the Churches of the East on the one hand, and Anicetus and the western Churches on the other. Polycarp alleged John the Evangelist, whose Disciple he had been, for the Author of his Opinion: but Anicetus and the Romans pretended the Authority of Peter and Paul for the quite contrary Doctrine.  
I have oftentimes much admired how either of these Parties, if we consider either Sincerity, or Vicinity to the Apostles, were liable to any Mistake of this kind; I believe scarce any Man now living shall be able to give any rational account of the Cause thereof; yet that one of them was mistaken, and that the Apostles did not keep up a perpetual observation of contrary Practices one to another, is to me, and to as many as truly acknowledge the Scriptures, among the things of highest certainty; and if either of them strayed, if sufficiently serves our turn, and is an ocular Demonstration that not only the clearest Lights, and nearest to the Apostles might relinguish some part of the Apostolic Purity, and fall into Rites and Customs never countenanced by the Apostles; but also be accompanied by no small part of the Church therein.  
§. 7. Yea I dare avouch and sustain, that both Parties equally swerved from the Truth, seeing both of them had equal Means to have informed themselves, and were alike nigh to the Apostles; so that many were certainly alive of both Parties who had been conversant with them: hence there's no reason to believe either of the Parties, that ever the Apostle enjoined or allowed the observation of Anniversary, weekly or monthly times either in the same time with, or so near to the Judaical, (and then buried) Ceremonies; excepting the Sabbath only, the observation whereof had been expressly enjoined in a clear and Moral Precept. Neither, in this Assertion, shall we remain alone, but be supported by the suffrages, of the choicest of the Ancients. No less Irenaeus in Eusebius intimats, while he tells us, 
h Euseb. Hist. Eccles. Lib. 5. Cap. 24. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 etc.  that this Difference did not arise first in his Age but long before in the time of their Forefathers, who (as is probable) being negligent in their Government, delivered to their Posterity a Custom, which had only crept in through Simplicity and ●gnorance. And Socrates, a grave and solid Author, averrs 
i Socrates Lib. 5. Cap. 22. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc.  that, neither more Ancient nor Later who inclined to follow these Jewish Rites, had any cause to raise so great Contention. And that the keeping of Easter and such Holy Days were altogether Legal, the observation whereof is not at all enjoined in the Gospel: for (continues Socrates) they did not consider that, after the Jewish Religion was changed into that of the christians, the strike observation of Moses Law, and the shadows of future things were wholly abolished, which by a most sure proof may be thus evinced. For by no Law of Christ is it granted to Christians to observe Jewish Customs; yea the Apostle did expressly forbid it, not only rejecting Circumcision; but admonishing moreover that about Feast Days there should be no Contention, wherefore in writing to the Galatians he thus speaks, tell me ye who desire to be under the Law, do ye not hear the Law? And after he had discoursed a little concerning these Matters, he shows the Jews to be under Bondage, but that those who had followed Christ Jesus were called unto Liberty: he Exhorts furthermore that Days, Months or Years, in no ways be observed. Moreover, writing to the Collossians, he clearly asserts that such observations are but a mere Shadow. Wherefore, saith the Apostle, let no Man judge you in Meat or Drink, or in respect of an Holy Day, of the New Moon, or of the Sabbath days, which are a shadow of things to come. But in the Epistle to the Hebrews, confirming the same matter he thus speaks. For the Priesthood being changed, there is also a necessity of the change of the Law: surely the Apostles and the Evangelists did never impose a Yoke upon these that became obedient to the Doctrine of Faith, but Easter and other days were left to the choice and equity of those who in such days had received the Benefits: wherefore, seeing Men love Holy Days, because they bring them some respite of their Labours, divers Men in divers places following their particular Inclinations, did, according to certain Custom, celebrate the memory of our Saviour's Passions: for neither our Saviour, nor his Apostles did by any Law ordain that it should be observed; neither did the Gospels nor the Apostles threaten us with a Mulct, Punishment, or Curse, as the Law of Moses was wont to do to the Jews.  
This and much more are we taught by Socrates; from all which its most clear that in this Dispute concerning the Celebration of Easter, both Parties were equally culpable, as building upon a false Supposition, viz. that Christ and his Apostles had appointed some of these Days anniversarily to be kept, which yet never came into their mind And here 'tis most observable how, even in these oft early times they heaped Falsehood upon Falsehood and supported one Forgery with another: the Fable of Peter's being at Rome and conjuring of Simon Magus there, was even then beginning to obtain; whereof the Romans made their Advantage, and began to ascribe to him some Head-ship over the rest; and then averred that he had appointed them, not only to celebrate Easter, but also had determined the particular day of its Celebration, and enjoined them to keep it on the fifteenth and not on the fourteenth day of the Month as did the Eastern Churches: Now that they might be even with the Romans, and meet with them after their own Fashion and arts, the Asians invented the like Legends of the Apostle John, who, as they alleged, died at Ephesus and enjoined them to keep Easter, but by no means on the fifteenth but on the fourteenth day of the Month, and the better to set off the Fable, Polycrates of Ephesus, in his Letter to Victor, harangues in the Praises of John, that thereby he might prefer him to Peter, and sticks not to assert that John was a Priest, and wore a High-Priests Golden Crown or Breastplate 
k Euseb. Hist. Eccles. Lib. 5. Cap. 24. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  And yet, as is acknowledged, John was not at all of the Priestly Race, far less was he the Highpriest, to whom only of all the Priests, such a Crown was peculiar. Therefore Valesius 
* In notis ad Eusebii locum.  imagines that the first Christian Priests, as he speaks, wore such a Crown for a Sign of Honour in imitation of the Jews. As if the Christians of these times had ever dreamed of retaining the very marrow of Judaisme which was then abolished by the coming of Christ the substance. But this Antichristian dottage being so gross to be dejested by any real Protestant, the learned Le Moyn 
l Varia sacra. Vol. 2. Page 30.  says that Polycrates spoke metaphorically of John' s supereminent Knowledge and Gifts. But if this be true, with how great caution are these Ancients to be read, without which we shall be led into the belief of the greatest falshhoods. In the mean while I see no ground for this gloss in Polycrates his words, either as they are related by Eusebius or by Hierome and Rufine. And Epiphanius 
m Haeresi 29. Nazara●rum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 etc.  gives another such golden Crown to James, which is no less true than that he was Diocesan Bishop of Jerusalem. The same saith a Ms. Author, cited by Valesius 
n Ubi supra. Quem quidem B. Marcum juxta ritum carnalis Sacrificii pontificalis apicis petalum etc.  of Mark the Evangelist, viz. that Mark was of the Priestly Race, and according to the Custom of the carnal Sacrifice, carried publicly a Golden Crown as the Badge of his Priestly Dignity. There is indeed nothing more certain than that the primitive Doctors who are ordinarily known by the name of Orthodox Fathers, stuck with a due preciseness to the great and capital Doctrines of the Christian Religion, without any swerving therefrom: but it's no less demonstrable, as we have now made evident, that the same Leaders, and these next the Apostles of greatest Antiquity, in many other things strayed exceedingly from the true Apostolic Simplicity.  
§. 8. Nothing was more frequent to them than, relying upon their Vicinity to the Apostles, to neglect a more accurate search of the Scriptures, relate things otherways than they were transacted, allege the Apostles for Practices to which they never gave Patrociny, which, beside what we have said already, may be sufficiently vouched from the Relation of Hegesippus in Eusebius 
o Euseb. Hist. Eccles. Lib. 2. Cap. 23. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  The Administration (saith he) was undertaken by James the Lord's Brother (together with the rest of the Apostles) who from the time of Christ even unto our Age is surnamed Just, for there were many others of that Name beside, but as for him he was sanctified from the Womb, neither did he ever drink Wine or strong Drink, and did altogether abstain from the Flesh of any living Creature, neither ever came there a Razor on his Head, nor did he ever use to anoint or wash, and he only of all Men had free liberty to enter into the innermost Sanctuary of the Temple; for he was not wont to wear a woollen but a linen Garment: he used to enter alone into the Temple, and with bended knees to pray for the People. And in the sequel of this discourse he tells us, that in the Martyrdom of this James, he was both thrown from the pinnacle of the Temple, and also beaten to Death with a Fuller's Club: a certain Priest one of the Sons of Rechab mentioned in Jeremiah, exhorting the People to milder Counsels, and that all this was done in a tumultuous way, without the least appearance of any judicial Process against this Martyr. But this Relation of Hegesippus is not only contrare the Holy Scripture, where we are assured that the Highpriest (alone) entered into the Holy of Holies, and that the Rechabites were not of the Priestly Race, and to Josephus who informs us 
p Ant. judaie. Lib. 20. Cap. 8. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉▪  that James being sisted before the High-Priest's Council, and by a kind of judicial Process condemned, was stoned to Death: but also a most insulfe Rhapsody, savouring more of a Legendary than a primitive Doctor. Yet the Author thereof lived contemporary with Justin Martyr, a few years only below the Apostles.  
§. 9 But of this enough, and indeed with me it had been highly Sacrilegious to have said so much, but buried in a perpetual silence the Escapes of these whose memory is otherways to me more precious than the ashes of Mausolus to his Artemisia; and in fragrancy far surpassing the choicest of Oriental Spices; did not the injustice and importunity of these who prefer the Escapes, yea and Extravagancies of Men, and the blemishes of these great Lights, yet but terrene Lights, to the unspotted Beams of the Father of all Lights, compel me hereto. And herein I'm a true Son of the primitive Church, whose Doctors have taught me, that when the Dictates of God and these of Men, whosoever they be, interfere, and through humane Corruption are set in Competition, I ought to hold to the first; and in comparison herewith, despise the latter.  
§. 10. Add hereto, that seeing Antichristianism the Mystery of Iniquity was working even in the Apostles days, seeing this Defection was mysteriously promoted, and seeing, as experience hath proved, it arrived at its height, and Antichrist was brought to his Throne by the exorbitant elevation of Clergymen, it's much less to be wondered at, if the most frequent Escapes and Lapses of the Primitive, and otherways Orthodox, Fathers chanced to be of this nature, and tend to the establishing an unwarrantable Supremacy and Dignity, which only these, who were of such Repute in the Church were capable to effect. And in all this I have said nothing but what has been asserted by the most approved Divines especially in their Writings against the Romanists. Yea the most judicious & learned Bishop Usher 
q De Christianarum Ecclesiarum successione et statu. Page 19 Etsi enim qui proximè Apostolis successerunt, Pietate cum primis & Sanctitate excelluisse negari non potest: certum tamen est, neque eorum qui praecesserunt, virtutem assecutos, neque ita simplicem, ut Magistri eorum, orationem consecutos esse, quemadmodum rectè à Nicephoro notatum est.  is of the same mind: Although (saith he) it be undeniable that the first Successors of the Apostles excelled in Piety and Holiness, it's certain notwithstanding that they neither attained to the Virtue nor simplicity of Doctrine that we in their Ancestors and Teachers as is well observed by Nicephorus. And now judge if D. M's. Romish Querie, whether the Ecclesiastical Government could be changed from Parity to Prelacy (as is pretended) in those early Ages of the Church, especially since some Apostles and several Apostolical Men survived the Period, sixth by some Presbyterians, (but no Presbyterian did ever yield that this Change was made during the Life of any of the Apostles) for the beginning of this (pretended) Change; and if the Change was in itself impossible, then Prelacy must needs be acknowledged Apostolical. I therefore turn my Assertion into a Conclusion, and from what is said with confidence Infer, that the Antiquity even of the true Ignatius was not able to secure him from all Lapses and Mistakes, and that in his time some Churches, not only might, but actually were itching after several Novelties.   

Section IU.  
The third Hypothesis; that there is no real Disagreement, but a true Concord betwixt the Doctrine of Ignatius and that of the present Presbyterians.  
I Now come to the third Hypothesis, and assert that Ignatius is not so clear and positive in the Matter of Episcopacy, as to denude Presbyterians of all rational Defence, should they acquiesce in his Judgement, and therein join with their Antagonists who still appeal to his Determination. For all he speaks of Presbyters as distinguished from Bishops may well be meant of these who are called Ruling Elders, and that there was such an Office in the primitive Church is made evident by what is commonly brought from Origen, Tertullian, Optatus, the African Code, and Augustine, frequently distinguishing them from preaching Presbyters. And Purpurius expressly terms them Ecclesiasticos Viros, Ecclesiastic Men: In vain therefore object Petavius and others that these were only Churchwardens not properly ecclesiastics. And indeed the Ancients not only tell us there was such an Office, but also plainly assert that, through pride and haughtiness of the Church Doctors, this Custom was abolished, as Ambrose, or rather Hilary sufficiently witnesses. The Synagogue (saith he 
a Com. In. Ep. prior. ad Tim. Cap. 5. Vnde & Synagoga & postea Ecclesia seniores habuit quorum sine Consilio nihil agebatur in Ecclesia. Quod qua negligentia obsoleverit, nescio, nisi forte Doctorum desidia, aut magis superbia dum soli volunt aliquid videri. ) and afterward the Church, had Elders, without whose Counsel nothing was to be done in the Church; which, by what negligence was abolished, I know not, except perchance it were through the sloth, or rather the pride of the Church-Doctors, while they desired to carry all the esteem their alone.  
§. 2. Doctor Field tells us 
b Field on the Church. Book 5. Cap. 26.  That these were not Lay-Elders. Neither, as they themselves well know, do we so term them: but did as the Ancients reckon them among the ecclesiastics.  
And we assert, that these very Lay-Elders (as he calls them) are understood by Hilary. For first, this Practice of the Christian Church is by Hilary deduced from the Synagogue, wherein there were Elders distinct from the Doctors or Pastors. Secondly, He attributes to the Elders, as their Office, only the Power of Consulting and Deciding, as being Assessors to the Doctors in the management of Church-Affairs, without intimating aught of their Power to dispense the Word and Sacraments. Thirdly, He expressly distinguishes them from all Doctors or Teachers of the Church, and therefore excludes them from all Power of Preaching, or Administration of the Sacraments. But Doctor Field saith that, Ambrose by the name of Teachers, whose sloth and pride he condemneth in this place, might fitly understand the Bishop, seeing none but Bishops have Power to preach in their own Right, and others but only by Permission from them. But this Answer supposes that the time was when Bishop, Teacher and Doctor, were reciprocal Terms, and that whoever had the Charge of never so small a Flock was the Bishop thereof: for who can believe, that ever any received the Charge of a Flock, to whom he was only to preach, and dispense the Sacraments as a Journeyman to another? Lastly, When Hilary speaks in the preterite Tense that the Church had such, tells that their Office consisted in being Assessors to the Teachers, and says that the use of these was laid aside, he clearly intimats that the Elders he speaks of, were well nigh abolished, and then scarce in Being Which by no means can be said of the preaching Presbyters. For let Bishops be not only as proud as Dr. Field would have them, but even as Lucifer himself, yet most certain it is that long after Hilarie's time, the Bishops in all weighty Affairs used, at least, to consult the Presbyters, and that both then and still afterward, preaching Presbyters were existent. But herein I will not enlarge. See their Glosses of both Scriptures & Fathers, whereby we vouch this Matter removed, to name no others, by Didoclavius 
c Alt▪ Dam. Page 917. & sequentes. , to which I find nothing replied. This clear Proof that there were in the primitive Church other Elders, distinct from those preaching Presbyters, who in the time of the Apostles, not much distant from that of Ignatius, were dignified with the name of Bishop, furnisheth us with an Answer sufficient alone to solve whatsoever they can deduce from these Epistles. Their only Argument is that Ignatius distinguishes between Bishop and Presbyter, why then by Bishop may we not understand a Pastor of one Congregation, and under the name of Presbyter a Ruling Elder? They can only repone that Ignatius mentions but one Bishop of any City he wrote to, which yet required more than one Pastor. But one Man may be called the Bishop or Pastor of such a place, altho' he be placed in a College; where a Plurality equally participats of the pastoral Charge and Honour: and that this Answer may please them the better, I shall give them Ignatius for my Patron herein; who, writing to the Romans, expressly termeth himself 
d 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 etc.  Bishop of Syria, to whose Charge, even our Adversaries being Judges, Antioch (only) one City thereof, was committed. 'Tis moreover certain and granted by our Adversaries, that there was even in one City frequently a Plurality of Bishops. But tho' 'twere yielded that neither Scripture nor Antiquity favour these Ruling Elders, and therefore that these Ignatian Presbyters must be something else, we are yet where we were.  
§. 3. Our inquiry is after a Diocesan Bishop, we're sent to Ignatius to find him, but all, after the strickest search, we meet with, is only a Bishop or Pastor of one single Congregation as these ensuing Places proclaim.  
Let none (saith he 
e Ep. ad Smyrnaeos. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉— 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 etc.  do any of these things that ought to be practised in the Church without the Bishop, let that Worship be counted Lawful that is performed by him; or which he (at least) has permitted, wheresoever the Bishop is, there let also the Multitude be present, even as where Christ is, there is also the Church: it is not lawful either to Baptise or Celebrate the Lord's Supper without the Bishop, but whatsoever he alloweth, that is acceptahle to God, that whatsoever is done may be established. From which Passage it's evident that Ignatius supposes and allows one of these Bishops to each particular Flock or Congregation; without whose Presence the Word and Sacraments were not to be dispensed: and altho' he adds that in some Case his Allowance or Approbation did warrant the practising thereof; yet I'm sure none can Infer any thing therefrom except that at some rare times, when the Bishop happened to be absent from his particular Flock (which uses to fall out to every particular Pastor) another approved by him might, until his return to his Congregation, discharge his Office. And again 
f Ad Polycarpum— 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Let there be (saith he) frequent Gatherings of yourselves together or Congregations. Inquire thou (speaking to Polycarp Bishop of Smyrna) or seek after every Man by his Name, neglect neither servants nor handmaids. From whence it's clear, that this Ignatian B●shop was particularly to be acquainted with, and have particular Inspection of every one who was under his Charge; which I'm sure cannot be easily performed by a Diocesan Bishop; but is proper only to a Pastor of a particular Congregation: or who can forbear to conclude as much from another Passage of the same Author, where he saith 
g Ad Ephesios'. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 etc.  Whosoever is not within the Altar is deprived of the Bread of God, for if the Prayers of one or two have so much efficacy, of how much weight must these be that are put up by the Bishop and the whole Church. Sure I am, the genius and air of this Passage, proclaims Ignatius speaking of such a Bishop or Pastor, as is under a Tie reciprocal between him and one particular Flock or Congregation. And again 
h Ibidem. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 etc.  In obedience to the Bishop, break-Bread, which is the Medicine of Immortality. Neither is he a greater Friend to Diocesan Prelacy, while he admonisheth the Church of Philadelphia in these words 
i Ad Philadelphicos. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 etc.  Children of the Light and of the Truth, fly Divisions and Corrupt Doctrines, and wherever the Pastor (viz. the Bishop) is, thither you as Sheep follow him. And again 
k Ibidem. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 etc.  One Flesh of our Lord jesus Christ, and one Cup in the Union of his Blood, one Altar and one Bishop. Add to all this, that Ignatius every where in these Epistles, speaks to, and of the Bishop; as a correlative of, and with respect unto the People or Flock, and not Presbyters or inferior Pastors, as the proper Object of his Episcopal Office. Seeing then all the Pastors of any Church he writes to, might equally be termed Bishop or Pastor of such a place; seeing whatsoever he saith to or of Bishops, hath a particular reference to the Flock or People; and seeing, finally, so many things spoken by Ignatius of these Bishops, can agree only to Congregational Pastors; I conclude, that by these Ignatian Bishops, not Diocesan Prelates, but Pastors of particular Flocks, not only may but of necessity must be understood. And it's further observable that Preaching, Visiting of particular Persons and the rest of the Pastoral Work is either enjoined unto, or clearly intimated to belong to the Bishop only, but nothing to the Presbyters, save sitting in Council with him. Now if our Opposites insist on their contrary Argument from the largeness of the Cities, and from this that Ignatius still speaks but of one Bishop therein, and hence conclude that he must be Diocesan; the result of all must be a sharper Conflict between Ignatius and himself, and so a fuller proof of the spuriousness of these Epistles, it being evident from what is adduced that this Bishop was only a Pastor of a single Congregation, yea so evident that it hath puzzled the learn'dest of our Opposites.  
§. 4. Of this mind is Joseph Mede. 
l Proof for Churches in the second Century. Pages 28, 29.  For speaking of these Ignatian Epistles, It should seem (saith he) that in these first times before Dioceses were divided into those lesser and subordinate Churches, we now call Parishes, and Presbyters assigned to them) they had not only one Altar in one Church, or Dominicum, but one Altar to a Church, taking Church for the Company or Corporation of the Faithful, united under one Bishop or Pastor; and that was in the City and Place where the Bishop had his See and Residence: like as the Jews had but one Altar and one Temple for the whole Nation united under one Highpriest. And yet, as the Jews had their Synagogues, so perhaps might they have more Oratories than one, tho' their Altar were but one; there namely where the Bishop was. On Sunday (saith Justin Martyr) all that live in Towns or in the Country meet together in one Place; namely, as he there tells us, to celebrate and participate the Holy Eucharist. Why was this, but because they had not many places to celebrate in? And unless this were so, whence came it else that a schismatical Bishop was said to set up another Altar; and that a Bishop and an Altar are made Correlatives? See St. Cyprian Ep. 40. 72. 73. Et de unitate Ecclesiae. And thus perhaps is Ignatius also to be understood in that forequoted Passage of his, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 etc. Where 'tis clear that Mr. Mede well perceived the thing we now plead for in Ignatius, viz. that this Bishop was only the Pastor of a single Flock. Indeed fear to offend his Friends, or something else, made him say so little as he could, and something that he ought not to have said while he would parallel this Altar with that of the Jews: yet he's express enough that all subject to the Bishop met in one place for Participation of the Sacraments, and consequently for hearing of the Word; and moreover really acknowledgeth that Dioceses than were only what Parishes are now, and if so, tho' they had other Oratories 'tis nothing to the purpose of our Opposites, which yet his (perhaps) proves him afraid to assert. For he knew well enough, that, seeing, as he grants, all under his Charge took their Communion with the Bishop at his Church, which, as every one knows, was then Celebrated (at least) every Lord's day, any other Oratories for public Worship had been altogether unnecessary; with which superfluities the Church in these early and tempestuous days was not at all acquainted. In vain therefore Dr. Maurice, 
m Defence of Diocesan Episcopacy. Pag. 37. and 38.  that he may at once abuse both Mede and Ignatius, tells us that Altar in the primitive sense signified not only the Communion Table but the whole Place where the Chair of the Bishop and the Seats of the Presbyters were placed: and in this sense there was but one Altar in one Diocese, as there is now but one Consistory, as is clear from Ignatius and Ʋsher. And to be in one Altar, which is Ignatius his Phrase is only to be in Communion with the Bishop. And this Dr. Maurice would have to be Mede's meaning thereof. But the falsehood of this is not only evident from Ignatius, who all along (as we have seen) reciprocats his Bishop with the Pastor of a particular Flock, but also from Mede's express words, as we have already observed from them. I pass as scarce good sense Dr. Maurice his saying that Altar not only signified the Communion Table, but the whole place of the Bishop's Chair etc. The Dispute not being what place or thing in a Church, Altar signified, but if thereby in Ignatius one or more places for public Worship be meaned: yea this my sense of Ignatius, Doctor Wake 
n Genuine Epistles of the Apostolic Fathers. Pages 183, 184.  seems to grant, while he says, speaking of these Ignatian times, that none officiated but either the Bishop himself or he who was appointed or allowed by him, and that they had in every such Place of their Assembling, one Table, or Altar at which they performed this Service. We have heard already Mede rightly observing out of Ignatius, that the Altar or Communion Table was (only) at the Bishop's Residence, and where he officiated. And we see from Dr. Wake that in every place of solemn Worship they had an Altar or Communion Table. The Conclusion than is, which we also already heard Mede acknowledging, that there were then no fewer Bishops than Places of public Worship, which is the Truth, and what we conclude from Ignatius.  
And to these add the words of one who is neither unskilful in these Matters, nor yet Partial in favours of Presbytry. In the beginning (saith he 
o Dr. Burnet on the 1. and 2. of the Apost. can. Page 51. ) the Bishop's whole Charge was called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and by the strain of Ignatius his Epistles, especially that to Smyrna, it would appear, that there was but one Church, at least but one Place, where there was one Altar and Communion in each of these Parishes, for he saith, there was one Bishop, one Church and one Altar. And now judge of the symphony of this Assertion, with the Principles of the Author, or how he could aver 
p Confer. Page 314.  that if these Epistles be Genuine the Cause of Presbytry will be undone. But of all things most strange and unaccountable is Dr. Pearson's Conduct in the Dispute, who with indefatigable pains and vast learning wrote his Defence of Ignatius to the end (as he pretends) he might well nigh infallibly establish a Diocesan Bishop; and yet has proved so far from hitting the white at which he ultimately levelled, that on supposition of the sufficiency of his Vindiciae, he most sufficiently demonstrats the Identity of Bishop and parochial Pastor during the time of Ignatius, and thus inavoidably ruins what he most earnestly intended to repair. And now behold the vast Fabric and Engine wherewith they threaten the utter Ruin of Presbytry turning upon and shattering to pieces their Dio cesan Hierarchy. 
— Nec enim Lex justior ulla,  
Quam necis Artifices arte perire sua.    

Section V.  
The Objections they pretend to bring from Scripture against the Doctrine now deduced from Ignatius, removed.  
ANd indeed Ignatius is encompassed with so thick a Cloud of Witnesses, who, not only deny all support to, but give most evident Depositions against the Diocesan Prelat, that his Testimony in favours thereof should be a firm demonstration of the Bastardy of these Epistles. The time of the Apostles was not far above that of Ignatius. Now, if we consult these, we shall not only find our Adversaries destitute of their Suffrages, but also overwhelmed with their plain Testimonies against the Hierarchy.  
'Tis true they allege several things out of the Apostolic Writings, for establishing their Cause; as that Timothy and Titus, as also the Angels of the Asiatic Caeurches were Diocesan Bishops. The grounds wherein t●ey establish the Episcopacy of Timothy and Titus, are, that they are enjoined to Ordain Elders which in after Ages was the peculiar Province of Diocesan Bishops; and that in the Postscripts of these Epistles they are both called Bishops But their later Topick is by the profound silence of the ancient Commentaries and many other tokens of Forgery and Novelty so baffled that Prelacy's present Agents, and amongst others D. M, are so wise as to suppress it. And yet D. M. 
a Pages 106. 107.  adventures to conclude Timothy his being made Bishop of Ephesus from Acts 20. 3, 4, 5. (which Inference few, I think, beside the Author can gather) compared with 1 Tim. 1. 3. I besought thee to abide still at Ephesus— that thou mightest charge some that they teach no other Doctrine. From which even tho' it be compared with the other Scripture, any Man in his Wit would much rather, with chrysostom, infer the very contrary, and conclude that Timothy's stay at Ephesus was only temporary, to expede the Business there mentioned but not to fix therein. But, saith he 
b Page 108.  1 Tim. 3. 14. 15. These things I write unto thee &c. plainly insinuat his particular Relation to the Church of Ephesus. But the many Scriptures informing us of Timothy's almost perpetual absence from Ephesus; persuade that there was no such Relation, neither does this place in the least insinuat it, but only that Timothy if not sent for was to stay till Paul's return, wherefore he begs the Question while 
c Page 107.  he tells us that after he was in a particular manner established Bishop of the Church of Ephesus he might wait upon Paul. Moreover this was an odd Attendance that scarce ever suffered Timothy to stay with his Flock, and this shift, too like that of the Romanists, who, in Answer to the Argument from Scripture-silence against Peter's being Bishop of Rome, tell us that he was frequently abroad. But here we have not only Scripture-silence but Scripture Testimony, showing Timothy's almost perpetual absence from Ephesus. He essays also 
d Page 108.  to bring Timothy's Episcopal Power and particular Relation to Ephesus from 1 Tim. 5. 9 1 Tim. 2. 1. and 1 Tim. 5. 21. And that this was not temporary or transient, but successive and perpetual, he would prove 
e Pages 109.  from 1 Tim. 6. 13. 20. and 2 Tim. 2. 2. and adds that his Adversaries grant that the Power he pleads for to Bishops was exercised by Timothy. But as for the particular Relation he speaks of, he should have proved it, seeing he knows it will not be granted, except he bring more than the bare recital of the places from which his fancy collects it, and without such a particular Relation the Power Timothy exercised, be what it will, makes nothing for his purpose: seeing it might be lodged in him alone as an Evangelist, and thus most of his postulata 
f Pages 109, 110.  prove useless. Yet I will handle them particularly, of which the first two are, that the Power which Timothy exercised was in itself lawful, and that he practised it in Ephesus. And 'tis true none denies it, but what then, until he first prove Timothy's particular Relation to the Church of Ephesus. The third and fourth are, that it was committed to him alone, and not to a College of Presbyters acting among themselves in Parity. And that there's no mention of any spiritual Power lodged in a College of Presbyters to which Timothy was accountable. But Willet, an approved Divine of the Church of England, shall answer for us; Neither (saith he 
g Syn. pap. contr. 5. Quest. 3. ) can it be gathered by these words of the Apostle, lay Hands suddenly upon no Man etc. That Timothy had this sole Power in himself, for the Apostle would not give that to him which he did not take to himself, who associated unto him the rest of the Presbytry in Ordaining of Timothy. I add that there's no less mention of a spiritual Power in a College of Presbyters etc. than of Timothy's being fixed Bishop of Ephesus. Hence his 5. postulatum (viz. That the great and most eminent Branches of the Episcopal Power were lodged in Timothy ' s Person, the ordination of such as were admitted unto the sacred Function, the care of Widows, the Censuring of Elders, and his autoritative preventing of Heresies) becomes unserviceable. His VI is, that this Authority was not in itself of temporary duration, transient, or extraordinary, but such as the constant Necessities of the Church do make necessary in all Ages; for he was commanded to commit it unto faithful Men, such as should be able to teach others, and if there be nothing in it extraordinary, why do they say that in the discharging of an ordinary trust, there was need of an extraordinary Officer.  
But First he corrupts the Apostles words 2 Tim. 2. 2. substituting (it) in stead of (them) that thereby he may force the Text to speak of a Power equal to that of Timothy, which was to be derived unto succeeding Teachers, when yet it plainly speaks of the Transmission of the Doctrine or things Timothy had heard, and others were to teach; but nothing of an equality of Timothy's Power to be derived in solidum to every subsequent Bishop or Teacher. Now except this be proved, D. M. saith nothing. Yea Hammond 
h In locum.  expressly contradicts him, Appoint them (saith he) as Bishops under thee. Moreover, Christ committed the things Paul here speaks of to his Apostles; yet will D. M. say their Power was equal to Christ's?  
Secondly, In this his last postulatum there appears a strange kind of reasoning viz. the Things or Actions wherein Timothy and Titus were employed, are perpetual and ordinary; therefore they were not extraordinary Officers: just as if one would Reason: It's ordinary for a skilful Physician to relieve a Febricitant; therefore our Saviour relieving Peter's Wife's Mother, was no extraordinary Physician. For their Method and Way of performing these Actions was extraordinary and temporary, they having no special Power over, or Relation to, any one particular Congregation; but such a Power and Relation as equally were extended over all the places whither they were sent. Moreover others of their Actions, and these which were properly Evangelistick, were extraordinary: such as that of Planting the first Christian Churches.  
Lastly, I appeal to all Protestants, if his ascribing to every Bishop a Power of authorative preventing of Heresies (i. e. a Power of making Canons that lean only on the Bishop's own Will, and which he's not obliged to prove from Scripture, otherwise every Minister of Christ hath a Power and Authority, by public preaching and reasoning from the Word of God, to prevent and overthrow Heresies: and so D. M. speaks not to the purpose) hath not a rank savour of what is no better than the grossest of Popery. The Romanists give such an authoritative Power to one Pope, but from a persuasion of his Infallibility: this Author will have it unto every single Bishop, tho', as yet, he has not adventured to ascribe to each of 'em such a Privilege, and to explain, if need were, what he means by this authoritative preventing of Heresies.  
§. 2. Look but on page 95 et seq. and you shall see him make every Bishop an Apostle in the strickest sense, and privileged with no less Power over the Church-Officers and People in his Diocese than an Apostle ever had or could exercise: viz. a Power to Govern the Churches, to give Rules and Directions, to inflict Censures, to communicate his Authority to others, to hear Complaints, to decide Controversies— to Confer the Holy Ghost— viz. the Gifts of the Holy Ghost, that must needs attend the authoritative Ministry of holy Things; and therefore that the Office of an Apostle is altogether ordinary and permanent. The Apostolical Office (saith he) being essentially no other than this, the ordinary Necessities of the Church require that it should continue till the second coming of our Saviour. But the extraordinary Gifts of the Holy Ghost, the Power of Miracles, of Languages— were only extriasick Advantages,— and not peculiar to the Apostles. And to affirm otherways; and say that the proper Apostolic Office is now ceased, he makes proper to Presbyterians and Socinians. But so far is he from speaking Truth here, that the ceasing of the proper Apostolic Office and Power is asserted by the Body of Protestants, even Episcopal no less than Presbyterian, in opposition to the Jesuits his Masters, who, as he doth to his Diocesan Bishop, arrogate an Apostolic Office and Power to their Pope. Spanhem F. 
i Dissert. 3. Numb. 25. Etseq.  a fervent Apologist of the Hierarchicks, assigns many Characters of the Apostolate as an extraordinary Calling either immediate or equivalent thereto, Infallibility of Doctrine, transcendent Efficacy and energy in Preaching, admirable success therein, the Gift of Tongues, and of working Miracles: all which things, altho' some of 'em might have been in some measure in others, were (saith he) in a more Divine and Eminent manner in the Apostles. And he affirms that every one who was endued with a true and proper Apostolic Power, had, and could give such visible Proofs and ocular Demonstrations thereof: and then concludes against the Pope; thus, 
k Numb. 37. Eat nunc de rupe turpeia Pontifex, & cum Apostolis loquatur Linguis Sp. S. exlo visibiliter arcessat, virtutes similes edat, magnalia eadem obsignet, ac venerabimur in eo Apostolatus Apicem!  let the Pope now descend from the Capitol, let him, as did the Apostles, declare that he has the Gift of Tongues Divinely infused, let him bring visibly the Gifts of the Holy Ghost from Heaven, let him work like the Apostles such illustrious Miracles, and then we shall yield that he has Apostolic Authority: and so shall we to the Diocesans when they adduce these Proofs of their Apostleship. He asserts 
l Numb. 34.  that they're much deceived who would bring the Apostles down to the Order of particular Bishops; and demonstrats against Hammond, that they were not at all called Apostles on the account that they were Bishops, & consequently that Apostle and Bishop are quite different things. 
m Numb. 17.  In short the very Sum and Substance of Spanhemius his Disputation is nothing save an Approbation and Confirmation of that common Sentiment of Protestants expressed by Beza 
n In Epist. ad Ephesios. Cap. 4. ver. 11. Constitutis ergo his hoc quoque munus necessario fuit sublatum: itaque tyrannica hodie vox est in Ecclesia seize Apostolum ex Successione profiteri.  The Churches (saith he) being once constitute, this Office of the Apostle-ship was of necessity taken away: he is a Tyrant therefore who does now profess himself an Apostle in the Church by Succession. And by this one Observation, viz. that wherever the proper Apostolic Power was, they could give ocular and undeniable Proofs and Demonstrations thereof, the Protestants for ever silence and baffle the Jesuits and their Progeny D. M. and such Companions ascribing a Power properly Apostolic to their Roman Antichrist and their Diocesan Prelates, and fully remove all their Quibbles on this Theme, as Dr. Scot's Quirk, the Substance whereof is, there's no mention in Scripture of the taking away of this Apostolic Office; and therefore it yet remains. But I forgot that for the permanency of a Power properly Apostolic D. M. citys Mat. 28. 20. And lo I am with you always, even unto the end of the World. As if, not to mention Protestants, 
o Vide, inter alios, Marloratum in locum.  even the more ingenuous Romanists, as Lyra, did not understand this place, of Christ's assistance given to all Doctors of the Church without any Discrimination. Moreover all his Exceptions and pretended Instances to the contrary are impertinent, and severals of 'em false in matter of Fact, as for Example, nor is it necessary (saith D. M.) to make up an Apostle that he be immediately called to the Apostolate by our Saviour; for Mathias— was not immediately ordained by our Saviour, but by the Apostles. But Spanhemius 
p Numb. 27. De Matthia sort, id est divina voce, qualiter in distributione terrae, in segregatione Hirci etc.  tells these Jesuits that the Lot that fell upon Mathias was really the voice of God, no less than was that of the Division of Canaan, of the Scape-goat etc. And indeed, as I said, that the Office and Power properly Apostolic is long since ceased, is the common Doctrine of Protestants; as Calvine 
q Vide Instit. Lib. 4. Cap. 3. . None (saith Sadeel 
r Et nemo sane, nisi plane sit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Apostolatum confuderit.— dico igitur immediate eligi & vocari a Deo ad praedicandum Evangelium, esse essentiale Ministerio Apostolatus.  against Turrian the Jesuit) but he who is an Ignoramus in Divinity will confound an Apostle with a Bishop— I assert therefore that God's immediate calling and choosing to preach the Gospel is essential to the Office of an Apostle. But these, say you, were Presbyterians. I deny't not; however, they were then pleading the common Cause of Protestants, and were never opposed herein by any save down-fight Papists only, till that now we have to do with real Jesuits, who yet mask themselves, and will not acknowledge the name. In the mean while I do not think they'll say Spanhemius Fil. is a Presbyterian, nor yet Nilus ' Bishop of Thessalonica who saith 
s De primatu Papae. Lib. 2. Pag. 30, 31. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  the Pope is not an Apostle, the Apostles did not ordain other Apostles, but only Doctors and Teachers. Of this mind is also Willet 
t Page 145. . Bellarmine [saith Whitaker 
u De pontiff. Romano. Page 61. Qua igitur in re— in Apostolatu videtur dicere Bellarminus— At Apostolicam potestatem nemo habere potest, nisi qui verè ac pro●riè Apostolus est etc. ) seems to say the Pope succeeds Peter in his Apostle-ship— but none can have Apostolic Power but he who is properly and truly an Apostle; for the Power and Office of an Apostle constitute an Apostle. But that the Pope is neither truly nor properly an Apostle is proved by these Arguments whereby Paul proves his Apostle-ship, as, that he was not called by Men etc. Gal. 1. 1, and 12. and Ephes. 3. 3. and 5. 1 Cor. 9 1. Although (saith Sutlivius 
x De pontiff. Rom. Pages 175, 176. Quare etiam olim Episcopi R. Petro successerint in Doctrina, & externa Cathedra, non tamen in Apostolatu, etsi successerunt, at posteriores Pontifices nec &c, ) the ancient Bishop of Rome succeeded Peter in Doctrine and the Chair, yet they succeeded him not in his Apostle-ship, but the latter Bishops in neither etc. And Lightfoot 
y Vol. 1. Page 787.  a renowned Divine of the Church of England, proves that the Apostle-ship was an Order for ever unimitable in the Church. The Apostles (saith the same Author 
z Page 745. ) could not ordain as Apostle by Imposition of Hands, as they could ordain Elders; but they are forced to use a Divine Lot, which was as the immediate Hand of Christ imposed on him that was to be ordained: that Opinion took little notice of this circumstance, that hath placed Bishops in the Place of the Apostles, by a common and successive Ordination. Dr. Barrow, whose Works are published by Bishop Tillotson, and therefore are to be looked on as his, is copious on this Subject. Apostles also (saith he 
a Of the Pope's Supremacy. Page 78. ) did Govern in an absolute manner, according to Discretion, as being guided by infallible assistance, to the which they might on occasion appeal, and affirm, it hath seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us.— Neither did the Apostles pretend to communicate it. They did indeed appoint standing Pastors and Teachers in each Church; they did assume fellow Labourers or Assistants in the Work of Preaching and Governance; but they did not constitute Apostles, equal to themselves in Authority, Privileges or Gifts, for who knoweth not (saith St. Austin) that Principate of Apostle-ship to be preferred before any Episcopacy? And the Bishops (saith Bellarmine) have no part of the true Apostolical Authority. And now judge of the Spirit of these Men, who are glad most falsely to brand these famous Bishops, and others the most eminent Doctors of that Persuasion as being guilty of the most abominable Crime of Socinianism, providing they can thereby bespatter and make odious the Presbyterians. Judge also of D. M's Query 
b Page 158.  whether the Apostolical Power, as to it's permanent, necessary, and essential Branches, was not in its nature Perpetual and Successive; and by them transmitted in solidum, as they received it from our blessed Saviour to single Successors in particular Sees, and not to a College of Presbytsrs in the modern Notion? As to the last part of his Query and his Presbyters in the modern Notion, I know none such if 't be not these of the Hierarchicks their half Ministers, for which there is no ground in Scripture. And accordingly its certain that the Apostles left the managing of the Church to neither Bishops nor Presbyters in his sense, both of them being Chimeras but to Colleges of Bishops who are also Presbyters, both being one in Scripture & during the Apostolic age. But tho' we should grant them all the Query seeks, supposing, which all the Ancients affirm, the equality of all Bishops who, at the beginning, were reciprocated with Congregations, he's yet but where he was, and has really done nothing for the establishing of his Hierarchy. Judge lastly, of that doughty Argument of the Papists 
c Alphonsus de Castro adversus haereses. Fol. 102. Bellarm. de Clericis. Cap. 14.  and our Hierarchicks for Prelacy: to wit, that Bishops succeed to the Apostles and Presbyters to the 70 Disciples: which has been generally reckoned, by Protestants, among Rome's dotages, and as such refuted in their Popish Controversies; and, to name no others, by junius 
d Tom. 2. Col. 1209.  and Willet 
e Synops. papism. Page 236.  who answers that not only Bishops, but all faithful Pastors are the Apostles Successors: and that, even according to the Pope's Decrees, not Bishop, but Priests, succeed the Apostles; and Deacons, not Presbyters, succeed the 70 Disciples. And now, to go on with D. M. and his Fellows, all their cavilling to make Timothy and Titus Hierarchick Bishops, is but the product of a late Popish Dream. For the Fathers, when they so called them, or the Apostles, meant not of Bishops in this sense.  
§. 3. Wherefore Willet 
f Ibidem.  Answers that it is most like Timothy had the Place and Calling of an Evangelist: and that the Calling of Evangelists and Bishops which were Pastors was divers. This Answer which so approved a Divine of the Church of England gave the Papists, D. M. 
g Page 111.  calls a ridiculous subterfuge. For (saith he) the Work of an Evangelist has nothing in it opposite to, or inconsistent with, the Dignity of a Bishop etc. A most disingenuous tergiversation and sliding from the Office of the opponent or probant to that of the defendant, seeing this was one of his special Scripture-Arguments whereby to establish his Hierarchy; and it's sure that if Timothy and Titus might do what they did under another Notion and Capacity than that of a Diocesan Prelate, his Argument goes to wrack. As does also his perversion of 2 Tim. 4 5. for he insinuats that from Timothy's being enjoined to do the Work of an Evangelist, it will no more follow that he deserved the Name than Daniel's saying Ch. 8. 27. that he did the King's Work, will prove him a King. But had he ever considered the rest of the Epistle, the context of the place, and the Signification and Notation of the Word Evangelist, he had clearly seen that the Apostle so adapts this Work of an Evangelist to Timothy, that the Name and Character properly belongs unto him. He adds 
h Page 112.  That any who now convert Jews or Pagans are as properly Evangelists as any so called in the primitive Church; and thus insinuats that Evangelists, such as Timothy and Titus, were no extraordinary Officers, which, except a few Novelists wedded to their Fancies, is condemned by all Men.  
§. 4. And that there was such a Function by which some in the days of the Apostles were raised far above the rank of ordinar Pastors or Doctors, and placed in the very next degree to the Apostles themselves, whose Office was mostly ambulatory, going from Church to Church in the exercise thereof, is in part intimated by Sedulius and Theodoret and others upon Ephes. 4. 11. but more fully by Eusebius 
i Lib. 3. Cap. 37. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉— 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉— 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉— 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉— 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 etc.  who informs us that even after the Death of the Apostles divers remained who were in a far higher rank than the rest of their Successors, who being (saith he) the admirable and divine Disciples of so great Men built up the Churches the Apostles had founded, promoving the preaching of the Gospel, and sowing Seed of the Kingdom of Heaven far and wide through the whole World: for many of these Disciples that were yet living, whose Minds the Divine Word had inflamed with a vehement desire of Wisdom, fullfilling our Saviour's Command and dividing their Goods among the Poor and thus leaving their Country, exercised the Office of Evangelists among these who had not yet heard the Doctrine of Faith by most diligent preaching of the Gospel and furnishing their Hearers with the Holy Scriptures: these, so soon as in any remote and barbarous Country they had laid the Foundations of Faith and ordained Pastors, and had committed to these Pastors the care of this New Plantation, being content therewith and accompanied by the Grace and Power of God hastened to other Countries; for even to that time the Divine Power of God's Spirit wrought Miracles by these Men, so that at the first hearing of the Gospel some whole People's readily embraced the Christian Religion. Behold Reader how plainly and fully Eusebius relates the thing we plead for viz. that those Officers were altogether extraordinary unfixed and temporary.  
§. 5. Wretch'dly therefore does D. M. 
k Page 111.  castrat this full and plain discourse, while he only says that an Evangelist, in the Notion of Eusebius, was a Person that preached the Gospel to those that had not heard of it or resisted it; and thus dissembles the whole matter in question which Eusebius clearly determines.  
And according to this Relation of Eusebius, 2 Timothy 4. 5. he is enjoined to do the Work of an Evangelist, and never made a long stay at one place for even after the time of his pretended Ordination to the Bishopric, we find him not rarely with the Apostle Paul as his Attendant or Fellow Labourer: which not only his joint Superscriptions to the second Epistle to the Corinthians and these to the Philippians, Colossians, both his Epistles to the Thessalonians, and to Philemon: but also the long Journeys and Peregrinations wherein we find Timothy still employed, irrefragably make manifest: for after he is supposed to have been Bishop of Ephesus, he was accompanying Paul in his Voyages Acts 20. 4. and was with him Prisoner at Rome as is probable from Philippians 1. and 1. Heb. 13. 23. as also frequently employed in long Voyages to several Churches, and that in Businesses which could not be expeded in a day as is evident 1 Cor. 4. 17. 1 Cor. 16. 10. Philip. 2. 19 Heb. 13. 23. 2 Tim. 4. 21. So that if he was Bishop of Ephesus he will prove a sufficient Pattern for nonresidence. Most of which things may be supposed of Titus, whose frequent long Journeys are mentioned by the same Apostle. Yea they have just as good ground in 2 Tim. 4. 10. to fix Titus his Episcopal Chair in Dalmatia, which was the Fancy of Aquinas 
l In locum. Titus etiam missus ab eo abiit in Dalmatiam, ubi finaliter fuisse Episcopus dicitur.  and others as, they can ever show for their dream of its being among the Cretians. And indeed the very Phrase from which they gather the Prelacy of Titus (as we have already observed of Timothy) gives real ground to conclude the contrary: For this Cause (saith he) I left thee in Crete that thou shouldest set in Order the things that are wanting and ordain Elders. From which place any ingenuous Man shall be compelled to infer, that Titus was only left there to supply some present want, and to return again, much rather than that he was the fixed Archbishop of Crete.  
§. 6. It's amazing then that in defiance of so clear Antiquity, yea and so clear and full Scripture evidence, some dare to transform Timothy and Titus unto ordinary and fixed Officers; why? they see that among the ordinary and fixed Church-Officers; they cannot find what they covet, the Scriptures making Bishop, Pastor, and Presbyter one and the same, but yielding no place to their Diocesan Bishop, a Lord and Ruler over other Bishops or Pastors. They are compelled therefore, in imitation of the Romanists, who degrade the Apostle to find the Bishop of Rome and Antioch, just so to handle the Evangelists that Peter be not alone, but may find other degraded Companions if he shall by chance, in his Journey from one of his Sees to another, visit Crete or Ephesus.  
§. 7. But more strange is that most precarious Assertion of D. M. 
l Page 112.  that Philip the Evangelist had no Power of Ordination. But it's yet more admirable how, to establish Timothy a Bishop, he can adduce 
m Page 107.  the eleventh Act of the Council of Chalcedon: surely, had he read the learned Stillingfleet 
n Irem. Pages 302, 303.  who hath for ever baffled them in this their Allegation, he had blushed at the very mentioning thereof. And we learn from Hierome 
o Pro●em. in Tit. Scribit ad Titum etc.  that Titus, after he had given some Instruction to the Churches of Cret●, was to return again to the Apostles, and to be succeeded by Artemas or Tychicus, for comforting of these Churches in the absence of the Apostle. Judge Reader if Hierome thought Titus was fixed Archbishop of Crete. It's questionable (saith chrysostom 
p Hom. 1. in 1 Tim. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. ) if the Apostle had then constituted Timothy Bishop there: for he saith, that thou mightst charge some that they teach no other Doctrine. Thus he, without a word more for solution of this his Doubt. Judge therefore if, from the very Scripture, whereon (alone) they would found Timothy's being Bishop of Ephesus, he really concludes not the quite contrary Doctrine. It's doubtful (saith a most earnest Prelatist, Salmeron the Jesuit 
q Disp. 1. in 1 Tim. Dubium est an Episcopus fuerit Ephesinus etc. ; if Timothy was Bishop of Ephesus, for altho' he preached and ordained some to the Ministry there, it follows not that he was the Bishop of that place, for Paul preached also there above two years, and absolved the Penitents, and yet he was no Bishop. Add that now and then the Apostle called him away unto himself and sent him from Rome to the Hebrews with his Epistle. And in the second Epistle he commands him to come to him shortly. Timothy was also an Evangelist of that Order Eph. 4. He gave some Apostles etc. So that Dorotheus says in his Synopsis, that Timothy preached through all Grecee but he stayed at Ephesus not to be Bishop, but that in the constitute Church of Ephesus he might oppose the false Apostles etc. It appears therefore that he was more than a Bishop, altho' for a time he preached in that City as a Pastor and ordained some to the Ministry. Hence it is that some call him Bishop of Ephesus. And to conclude this matter, the celebrated Stilling fleet 
r Iren. Page 340.  ingenuously grants that Timothy and Titus were no fixed Bishops or Pastors but Evangelists, notwithstanding [saith he] all the opposition made against it, as will appear to any who will take an impartial survey of the Arguments on both sides.  
§. 8. As for the Apocalyptick Angels, tho', with Beza, we should affirm that by one of 'em one single Moderator is meant, we yield them nothing, but, e contra, cut the sinews of their Argument. With this D. M. 
s Page 117.  engages not; only he calls the Alterableness of the Moderator, which Beza holds as defensible, ridiculous, which is said without proof, and tho' it were so, touches not the marrow of our Answer. But they shall find their Foundation yet weaker for such a structure, so soon as they shall with attention read over the contexts of the place now in Controversy. The seven Stars which are the seven Angels are said to be held in God's right hand; whereby, without peradventure, is signified the great care our Lord had of the Pastors of these Flocks, in order to the promoting of the great Gospel-Design, the gaining of Souls to himself. But Bishops, I mean Diocesans, as such, and distinct from other Pastors, are not at all Dispenser's of the Word and Sacraments, by whom mostly this Gospel-design is effected.  
Moreover, how few should they be, to whom this care was extended, and how small comfort should the bulk of the Labourers in the Word and Doctrine be able to reap from the Scripture; which otherways is one of the most refreshing Cordials to the weary and fainting Labourers of Christ's Vineyard. And if we consult the Epistles to these Churches, how many things shall we find therein that argue, beyond scruple, that the Spirit is speaking to the collective Bodies of Church-Officers and not to one Man only. Shall we believe that for the sin of one Diocesan Bishop, who, as such, was scarce so much as a Preacher of the Gospel, all the Candlesticks of the Gospel were to be removed from the whole Church, and the Light thereof extinguished: a grievous Punishment, and too universal, providing the Diocesan only were to be charged with Defection. Yea have we not much better reason, to judge that this declining, and deserting of their first Love, imputed to the Ephesian Angel, had crept into, at least, the far greater part of the Church-Officers; and so the sin charged upon them, and the punishment threatened shall have a far greater correspondency. Moreover the trial of false Teachers, for which the same Ephesian Angel is commended, is not the Work of any one Church-Officer, but of the Ecclesiastical Senate, which therefore must be the Angel, who upon this account is here commended. D. M. yields that the Heavenly Admonitions first addressed to these Angels were also communicated to the Churches but by the interposal of their Angels. But, were this as certain as, from what is now said, it appear● precarious, yea and uncredible; yet this Angel or Bishop might be only a Praeses or Moderator, so his Argument is not at all relieved. Who (continues he) can't be called a College of Angels but one single Angel etc. Which is a most flat begging of the Question. And tho' (saith he) there be Instructions in these Epistles, in which, besides others, the Angels are particularly admonished, yet they are no less addressed to single Angels than the Epistle to the Philippians is to that Church, Tho' St. Paul uses particular Compellations Ch. 4. verse 2. 3. Where he perverts the state of the Question which is not, If in any Epistle there may be Instructions that concern some beside these to whom they are chiefly directed? But if what is here said to the Angel can agree to any one Man? And beside what is instanced, to what one Man in the World can that agree which is promised to the Philadelphian Angel? viz. That the Heretics were to come and Worship before his Feet. Such a promise indeed is made to the Church, Isai. 60. 14. but to one mere Man no where.  
§. 9 From all which 'tis evident that by the Name of Angels, not particular Men, but at least the Ecclesiastic Senates are designed which is not unfrequent in Scripture, as Mal. 2. 7. where 'tis said that the Priests lips should keep knowledge, from whose mouth the Law was to be sought, the reason of which is subjoined, that he was the Messenger or Angel etc. as the Seventy have it. I know from the Passage Dr. Hammond, on the Revelation, attempts to conclude the quite contrary, alleging that in this place the Highpriest only is to be understood, but without any ground of his alledgiance: this his Assertion further supposes, that the Highpriest alone was the Cabin of Knowledge, and the People's Teacher from whom the Law was to be learned; quite contrary to 2 Chron. 17. 8, 9 where we learn that amongst the rest of the Teachers sent through the Kingdom by Jehoshaphat, were Elishamma and Jehoram Priests. Moreover the 4, 5, and 6. verses of the same second of Malachy, where under the name of Levi in the singular Number all the Levites are undeniably to be understood, and what's said of Levi as of one Man is certainly meant of a Multitude; evince that under the name of Priest in the following verse, we must understand a Plurality.  
§. 10. But the 24. verse of the second Chapter, Unto you I say and to the rest of Thyatira puts this beyond Debate. But Hammond excepts, that in the Ancient Greek Mss. And particularly that at St. James 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is left out, and the words read To you the rest or To the rest of you in Thyatira. But be it so, yet I think these will not serve to discredit the Vulgar, and universally received Greek Copy in which this particle is found. Yea 'tis found in so many Greek Copies, and these of so good Note, that I doubt if any of all these who during eight or nine Score of years, translated or expounded this Place, has ommitted it; and altho' some Copies of the Vulgar Latin want it; yet there be no few that retain it; and amongst other two Mss. in the Library of Glasgow. And Aretas or rather Andreas who lived in the fifth Century; above, as I believe, the age of most of the Mss. now in the World, I except not that at St. James' notwithstanding of what is fabled to the contrary, retains this Particle as a part of the then uncontroverted Copy. And after him Beda: to which we may yet add the ablest of the Romanists, as Dionysius Carthusians, Lyra the Glossa interlinearis, and a Lapide, no Friends to Presbytry.  
§. 11. But D. M. 
t Page 117.  tells us that these words in the 24 v. But unto you I say, &c. cannot be applied so properly to the Angel of the Church of Thyatira as to these mentioned in the end of the 23 verse, the other Churches of Asia. Which, (saith he) because they are mentioned in the Speech directed to the Angel of the Church of Thyatria the immediate transition from him to them is easy.  
But except we force the place nothing of this kind can be thence collected, there being nothing in this Epistle spoken to or of the other Churches except the mere mentioning thereof, the more to hold forth the greatness and conspicuousness of the Punishment denunced against the Strayers in Thyatira. Yea the latter part of the 24 verse, And to the rest in Thyatira proclaims that the former part of the verse is to be understood of the same People of Thyatira likewise. In a word his gloss is so uncouth and strained that you cannot easily tell what to make of it. And 'tis, at least, no more odd than his Conduct all along.  
§. 12. And to instance, in the present Theme, he would fain ridicule Salmasius for affirming that, under the names of the Angels, the Churches themselves or the more pure and Angellike parts thereof are to be understood. According to Salmasius his Iterpretation (infers D. M.) the seven Stars must needs be the seven Churches of the seven Churches. As if such Phrases were not frequent enough in Authors, and yet not justly liable to any such Inference; or as if the more holy and spiritual part of the Church were the whole visible Church: for except D. M. so affirm, the Author of this Gloss can't be accused of nonsense; who yet is not Salmasius, for he only learned it from Aretas, or Andraeas, and other Fathers, and defended it against the Jesuit Petavius, whom D. M. would patronise against both Protestants and Fathers.  
The second of the Homilies ascribed to Augustine 
u Et Angeli earum ibidem non debent intelligi, nisi aut Episoopi aut praepositi Ecclesiarum.— Nam quia etiam Angelus nuncius interpraetatur, quicunque aut Episcopus aut Presbyter aut etiam Laicus frequenter de Deo loquitur, & quomodo ad Vitam eternam perveniat meritò Angelus Dei dicitur.  in Apocalypsin informs us that under the name of Angel not only Bishops but other Church-Rulers are likewise understood. And again, seeing Angel signifies a Messenger; whosoever, whether Bishop, Presbyter or Laic frequently speaketh of God, and declares how we may obtain eternal Life, deservedly gets the name of an Angel of God. And Aretas 
x Comment. in Apocalyps. Cap. 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  saith, he calleth the Church itself the Angel. And Primasius 
y In Cap. 1. Apoc.  saith by these Angels of the Church are to be understood the Guides and Rectors of the People, who ruling in particular Churches, Preach the Word of Life to all Men: for the name of Angel signifies a Messenger. And 
z In. Cap. 2.  again both Church and Angel is comprehended under the Person of the Angel. And thus their main Scripture-Argument even the Father's being Judges goes to ruin.  
§. 13. Yea the more sagacious of our Adversaries well perceive that neither this Scripture, nor any other, supports their Doctrine: Wherefore Petavius never attempts to bring his Proofs from Scripture, but only from Ecclesiastic Traditions. Add hereto the words of Dr. Burnet 
a Confer. Page 310.  As for the Notion (saith he) of the distinct Offices of Bishop and Presbyter, I confess, it is not so clear to me: and therefore since I look upon the Sacramental Actions, as the highest of sacred Performances; I cannot but acknowledge these who are empowered for them, must be of the highest Office in the Church. So I do not allege a Bishop to be a distinct Office from a Presbyter; but a different degree in the same Office, to whom for Order and Unities sake, the chief inspection and care of Ecclesiastical Matters ought to be referred, and who shall have Authority to curb the Insolences of some factious and turbulent Spirits. His Work should be to feed the Flock by the Word and Sacraments, as well as other Presbyters; and especially to try and ordain Entrants, and to Oversee, Direct, and Admonish such as bear Office. And I more willingly incline to believe Bishops and Presbyters, to be the several degrees of the same Office, since the names of Bishop and Presbyter, are used for the same thing in Scripture; and are also used promiscuously by the Writers of the two first Centuries. Where he plainly contradicts Dr. Pearson, who, in favour of his Ignatius, largely pleads for the accurate distinction of Bishop and Presbyter in the second Century, denies Bishop and Presbyter to be distinct Orders; and finally acknowledges, that in the chiefest parts of the Ministerial Function they are equal: and so really denudes the Bishop of all the degree he left him. But more clearly elsewhere, I acknowledged (saith he 
b Confer. Page 331. ) Bishop and Presbyter, to be one and the same Office; and so I plead for no New Office-Bearers in the Church. Next, in our second Conference, the Power given to Churchmen was proved to be double. The first Branch of it, is their Authority to publish the Gospel, to manage the Worship, and to dispense the Sacraments. And this is all that is of Divine-Right in the Ministry, in which Bishops and Presbyters are equal sharers, both being vested with this Power. But beside this, the Church claims a Power of Jurisdiction, of making Rules for Discipline, and of appointing and executing the same; all which is indeed suitable to the common Laws of Societies, and to the general Rules of Scripture, but hath no positive Warrant from any Scripture-Precept. And all these Constitutions of Churches into Synods and the Canons of Discipline, taking their rise from the Divisions of the World into the several Provinces, and beginning in the end of the second, and beginning of the third Century, do clearly show they can be derived from no Divine Original; and so were, as to their particular Form, but of humane Constitution: therefore as to the management of this Jurisdiction, it is in the Church's Power to cast it in what mould she will. A Presbyter (acknowledges even Cornelius à Lapide 
c In Philip. 1. 1. ) is equal to a Bishop in the chiefest Order, which is the Order of the Priesthood.  
§. 14. To which add the Judgement of Dr. Hammond a Man so distempered with extreme Passion for the Hierarchy, that he makes 
d On Rev. 4. compared with his Notes on Acts 11.  him that sat on the Throne Rev. 4. God the Father, and the four and twenty Elders with their Golden Crowns, an Image and Representation of the Metropolitan Bishop of Jerusalem, and the four and twenty Bishops of Judaea in Council, for Golden Crowns or Mitres he makes the Characters of the Episcopal Dignity. Yet even he asserts (on Acts 11. 30. & Philip. 1. 1.) that the Title of Presbyter in Scripture times belonged principally if not only to Bishops: There being (saith he) no evidence that any of that second Order were then instituted but Bishops (only) and Deacons. This he at large confirms, and so really overthrows Prelacy when he would fainest establish it, joining with the Presbyterians in their grand Antiprelatick Principle; viz. that simple Presbyter (as the Hierarchicks phrase it) without Power of Ordination or Government, or a distinction between Bishop and preaching Presbyter, is a mere stranger, & without all Foundation in the Holy Scriptures. From all which 'tis clear that these Bishops or (which is all one) preaching Presbyters, in Scriptures, and during the Apostolic age, were nothing save Pastors of particular Congregations.   

Section VI.  
Our meaning of Ignatius confirmed from the Writings of the Apostles, his immediate Ancestors  
MOreover nothing can be more clear for the Idenity of Bishop and preaching Presbyter, than that known Scripture Acts 20. 17, 28. They Answer, that the Bishops of Asia, not the Pastors of Ephesus, were, by Paul, sent for, which some would support from the 18 ver. From the first day that I came into Asia etc. But since, as is clear ch. 19 verse 10. from his coming into Asia, he had been most in Ephesus, he might truly say so much tho' the Ephesians only had been present; but suppose he spoke to others beside, we are at no loss; the Question is, if he gave not, tho' amongst others, the Title of Overseers or Bishops to these he sent for? verse 17. And if these were not the Elders of Ephesus? They yet object the words of Irenaeus viz. That Paul called together to Miletum the Bishops and Presbyters of Ephesus and the neighbouring Towns. But as for his seeming here to distinguish Bishops from Presbyters, this Scripture where they get both Names, and which Iraeneus had then in his view, and his frequent promiscuous using of these Names, persuade me that he only respected the 17 and 28 verses, and so took Bishop and Presbyter Synonimically for one and the same. His adding of the neighbour Towns to Ephesus might flow from his inadvertency whereat no attentive Reader of Irenaeus 
a Lib. 2. Cap. 4.  will marvel, and yet this is as likely to have crept into the Version, for the Original of Iraeneus we have not, because these Elders their belonging to Ephesus alone is not only so clear from the 17 verse, that the repeating of the word Ephesus would really prove a redundancy, wherefore the Syriack omits it in the former part of the verse and expresses it in the latter, and called for the Elders of the Church of Ephesus: but also all the Ancients either affirm, as Hierome, or suppose that these Elders belonged only to Ephesus, which even Dr. Maurice 
b Pages 31, 32.  yields against Dr. Hammond and says, that then, properly speaking, there might not be a Bishop amongst them all, for they are Presbyters belonging not to several Congregations; but to one Church and might have a Bishop. But not only the promiscuous attributing to them the Names Bishop and Presbyter, their being, and that without any insinuation of their Subjection to a superior Bishop, enjoined by the Apostle to Oversee and feed the Flock; and finally the very Repetition of this Fiction of their Hierarchy in the Apostolic Age sufficiently refute it. Who (continues he) the Ancients thought was Timothy. And thus all resolves into the fictitious Episcopacy of Timothy, already overthrown. Now 'tis observable how they contradict one another, and by halfs acknowledge to be false all they plead for: for some, as Dr. Maurice, perceiving that the Ancients affirm and the Scriptures proclaim all these Elders to belong to the Church or City of Ephesus, acknowledge these could be no Diocesan Bishops. Others as Dr. Hammond (in locum & alibi) and Petavius 
c Apud Wal. Mess. Page 96.  seeing that these are not only dignified with the name of Bishop but entrusted with the care of the Flock, and that without Paul ' s mentioning of any superior Bishop; when, if ever, there was ground to have mentioned him; yield that, of necessity, these Elders must be Bishops or more than simple Presbyters. Whence is all this Contradiction and Confusion of Tongues? but from the force of Truth before which Men must either bow or break, and be compelled, tho' after never so much interpolation and disguise, to express what they would fainest conceal. The matter is, their Diocesan Bishop, their simple Presbyter, their distinction between Bishop and Presbyter are mere Antiscriptural Figments, in the sustaining of which against this and the like Scriptures, they are obliged to confront one another, and in the throng of their blundering entirely yield the Controversy.  
§. 2. The same line of confusion runs along their Answer to Philip. 1. 1. with the Bishops and Deacons etc. whence 'tis clear that there were in one City many Bishops who were no other thing than Presbyters, and that these were no distinct Orders, the Deacons being immediately subjoined, these were the Bishops of the several Cities of Macedonia under Philippi the Metropolis (saith Dr. Hammond in locum) 'tis denied by Dr. Maurice 
d Page 27.  I could never find reason (saith he) to believe them any other thing than Presbyters. Philippi was a Metropolis because a Colony; saith Dr. Hammond: but that this will not follow is acknowledged by Dr. Maurice. Thus they are still by the ears. But saith Dr. Hammond, the Apostle might retain the Episcopal Power in his own hands, and tho' absent might exercise it by Letters: but they can give no ground why the like may not be said of the Apostle in reference to the rest of the Churches, and so Timothy and Titus shall be dethroned and our Adversaries, endeavouring to Answer one of our Arguments, loss two of their own, yea all of them: for it being no less presumable that John would keep the Episcopal Power over the Churches of Asia in his own hand than that Paul kept that of Philippi, there shall be no ground nor colour to Metamorphose the Apocalyptick Angels into Diocesan Bishops? Or it's possible (continues Dr. H.) that then the Bishop's Chair was vacant. But if so and a Diocesan so necessary as they pretend, without peradventure the Apostle had not only mentioned it. but also spent some part of his Epistle in directing and giving them Rules in order to their choice of a fit Successor. Or the Bishop (saith he) might be absent, and Epaphroditus by the Ancients judged Bishop of Philippi appears to have been then with Paul. But this Dream of Epaphroditus his being Bishop of Philippi, the Doctor in that very place 
e Page 636.  condemns and overthrows, and so frees us of further trouble about it.  
§. 3. Yea in none of these Answers does Dr. H. rest, but, as is said, in this pretext that Philippi was a Metropolis over many subject Bishops, leaning mainly on Acts 16. 12. whose Arguments were examined by Dr. Stillingfleet 
f Ir. Page 369. Et seq.  and Mr. Clerkson. 
g Prim. Episc. Page 7. Et seq.  Dr. Maurice, tho' a grand Enemy to Hammond's grand Principle, undertakes notwithstanding the defence of some of these Arguments against the latter, but medles not with the former, and saith that Beza ' s Manuscript hath 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as hath also the Syriack and Arabic. But OEcumenius and Theophilact, and even chrysostom, yea and the received Greek Copy which Translators, generally follow, read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. But seeing, as the learned Stillingfleet demonstrats, Philippi was not then a Metropolis in the Civil sense which is the Foundation of all their Structure, 'tis impossible that it can be called by Luke 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or first in respect of Dignity; but only either must be meant as Luke may well be understood that it was the first Colony they met with coming from Samothrace, or in respect of Situation it being scarce within the Bounds of the proper Macedonia, but on the Thracian side of the River Strymon the Boundary between Thrace and Macedonia, yet it might be nearer to the proper Macedonia than was Neapolis, and therefore is rather to be reckoned a part of that Country than Neapolis could be: wherefore on both, at least, certainly on one of these accounts, appears the nullity of Dr. Maurice his Answer, while he says that not Philippi but Neapolis was the first in Situation. Of the same kidney is his saying that Philippi might be more considerable in Luke ' s time than in the time of P. Aemilius: seeing this is a mean begging of the Question: for he brings nothing from any Records which a Matter of this kind requires, to make in the least probable the growth of Philippi between the time of Aemilius and Luke: and chrysostom 
h Homil. 35. In Act. Apost. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  speaking of Luke's time, tells us that it was no great City. Moreover Dr. Stilling fleet, ex abundanti, clearly shows through the several periods of time that Philippi was of no greater Dignity in the time of Luke than in the time of P. Aemilius. Dr. Maurice adds as a proof of Philippi's Metropolitanship, in Luke's time that the Bishop of Philippi is mentioned as Metropolitan in Liberatus, the Council of Ephesus, Sedulius, and in an old Notitia. To which I Answer with Dr. Stillingfleet 
i Iren. Page 361.  in the like Case: But what validity there is in such Subscriptions, or Allegations in the latter end of the fourth, or the time of the fifth Century to prove a Metropolis: in the first, let any-one judge that doth but consider how common a thing it was to alter Metropoles, especially after the new Disposition of the Roman empire by Constantine. Yea Carolus à sancto Paulo who was most versant in these Matters, and with him Dr. Stillingfleet, believe that for the first six Centuries Philippi was no Metropolis.  
§. 4. But I will not enlarge in overthrowing a Fancy so wild and gross. But in the end of the second Century, (saith Dr. Burnet, 
k Conferences. Pages 307, 308. ) the Churches were framed in another mould from the Division of the Empire: and the Bishops of the Cities did, according to the several Divisions of the Empire, associate in Synods with the chief Bishop of that Division or Province, who was called the Metropolitan, from the Dignity of the City, where he was Bishop. And hence sprang Provincial Synods, and the Superiorities, and Precedencies of Bishoprics. You see how the chiefest of Prelatists disown and disclaim this Metropolitan Fiction: but none more fully than Dr. Stillingfleet who has nervously baffled all their Pretences, prevented whatsoever Dr. Maurice advanced (for I speak not of Mr. Clerkson who has also sufficiently done it) and finally, more particularly, ruined all their Pretexts for Philippi's Metropolitanship, either in a Civil or Ecclesiastic sense, during the first Century or Apostolic age. Judge therefore of Dr. Maurice his Candour, which minds me of another piece of his Legerdemain to evite the force of Philippians 1. 1. For if (saith he 
l Page 27. ) in Mr. Clerkson' s Opinion, the Bishops mentioned Philip. 1. 1. be no other than Presbyters, than this place is impertinently alleged, since many Presbyters are by all sides acknowledged to have belonged to one Church, but if he speak of Bishops in the common Ecclesiastical sense, and then conclude from this Passage that there were many in the Church of Philippi, his Opinion is as singular as that of Dr. Hammond which he endeavours to refute, for my part I must profess I am not concerned in this Dispute; and I could never find reason to believe them any other thing, than Presbyters— 
m Page 30.  Or were these Bishop's only Presbyters ruling the Church of Philippi, with common and equal Authority? Then our Author must give up the Question, and in stead of making many Bishops, must own that there was none at all there, but Presbyters only, if he thus contend he will abuse his Reader with the ambiguity of a word, which he takes in one sense, and the Church in another. That many Presbyters might belong to one Congregation, none ever denied; that many Bishops in the allowed and Ecclesiastical sense of the word, had the oversight of one City, sounds strange and incredible to the ancient Christians. Where he sleely supposes as granted that Bishops in Philip. 1. 1. must either be understood of their simple Presbyters or of Diocesan Bishops, and then equipps his horned Argument no other ways than if he had professedly declined all Dispute, till once his Adversary had, out of kindness, yielded the Question, which is only about the Scriptural and Apostolic sense of the word and notion of the Office of a Bishop, if that, and the Office of a preaching Presbyter be not in Scripture one and the same, and consequently if these at Philippi were not Scriptural Bishops no less than they were Presbyters? Now that he concerned not himself in this Dispute, nor was in earnest in it. I deny not: his slippery dealings make it but too, too apparent: his simple intimation that these were only their simple Presbyters, I pass, having already blown off all their noticeable Depravations of Philip. 1. 1. I have yet met with; and observe that he, following the Romanists, insinuats that we can't understand the Scripture's meaning, until we have their Church's Commentary. His ambiguous and unhandsome conduct is no less apparent in these his Phrases (common Ecclesiastical sense— which he takes in one sense, and the Church in another) For either he may mean that the Church, when she speaks of Bishops who were in after times, understands, by this Name, only Diocesans; and so touches not in the least (contrary to what he insinuats) the Churches received sense of this Text, nor what Notion she had of Scriptural-Bishops: Or his sense may be that, when she speaks of Apostolic and Scriptural Bishops, she then still means Diocesans and Rulers over their simple Presbyters, and this he must mean if he speak to the Purpose. And then I inquire what Church was of this mind? Surely neither Primitive nor reform Churches, I except not that of England, whose greatest Lights we have already heard disclaiming all Divine Right of Diocesan Episcopacy, and identifying Bishop and Presbyter. Yea many, even of the Romanists, are forced to confess so much; There are Catholics (saith the Jesuit Justinianus 
n In Philip. 1. 1. Haeserunt in eodem Luto nonnulli Catholici. ) who have stuck in the mud of Aërianism. The Church than he means must be only a few factious Novelists, who, in despite of both Divine and Humane Records, and the common Sentiment of Christians, dare to obtrude on the World, as a Fundamental of Religion, their private and wild Fancies. Neither is it strange that so few embrace this conceit of denying the Scripture-Identity of Bishop and Presbyter.  
§. 5. For beside these Scriptures now adduced let them but look unto 1 Tim. 1. 3. where they shall find a transition from Bishop to Deacons without any mention of intermediant Presbyters, and consequently the Identity of these Offices. Bellarmine 
o De Clericis. Cap. 15.  Answers that the Apostle gives a general Instruction to the Clergy, & that under the name of Bishops & Presbyters all the superior Clergy is comprehended. But seeing they make a Distinction of these Offices so necessary, it was requisite they had been handled in particular, and not huddled up in a general, seeing no where in Scripture there's any more particular Distinction of Bishop and preaching Presbyter assigned: but Bellarmine's main Answer to this and all such Scriptures is, that the Names Bishop and Presbyter were then common to both Orders: which Answer all the Hierarchicks and more particularly D. M. borrow from the Jesuit. But I answer and argue with Junius against Bellarmine 
p Tom. 2. Col. 1211.  that seeing the Names were then common, and a real community of Names imports a community of things which by these names are signified; it necessarily then follows that, as the Names were then common, so were the Offices designed by these Names. But to see the Reformed conquering, and the Jesuits foiled some are much pained: and in special D. M. who spends about 17 pages 
q Page 22. Et seq.  for the support of Bellarmine's Answer: the substance whereof, and of his first three Queries 
r Pages 157, 158.  is, that Still in the Pentateuch the High Priest is named by the same Appellative (without any distinction of Order or Jurisdiction) that the other Priests were named by: and the title of a Priest was promiscuously applied, without any distinction or marks of Eminence to the High Priest as well as to the Subordinat. And, The Apostles retained the Phraseology of the Jews who spoke of Priests and Levites as two distinct Orders, without mentioning the High Priest. And, When the Ancients Dichotomized the Clergy, they in other places plainly reckon up three distinct Orders of Bishop, Presbyter, and Deacon. But is there never in all the Scriptures any Title, Distinction, or Marks of Eminence given to one Priest, which were not communicable to all of 'em? Got ever all of 'em promiscuously the Title of High Priest, or such distinctive Appellations? Did the Apostles so retian the Phraseology of the Jews, as that they sometimes make a Bipartite and sometimes a Tripartite Division of ordinary Church-Officers, and give to any one ordinary Pastor, sometimes at least, a distinguishing Title and Marks of Eminence which are at no time communicable to all ordinary Pastors promiscuously? As to the Ancients their sometimes Dichotomizing, sometimes Trichotomizing the Clergy; it's most certain that in their Dichotomies they eyed the prime primitive Church, and in their Trichotomies their own times. But Christ saith D. M.) is called an Apostle & a Bishop, the Apostles, Presbyters and Deacons. But was Christ so called an Apostle that he had no other peculiar titles or marks of Eminence, or that on the other hand the name Christ was given promiscuously to all Apostles or ever given to any of 'em? Lastly, was the Apellation of Apostle equally communicable to all Presbyters or ordinary Pastors, as to the twelve and some few else extraordinary Officers? All which he must swallow, else he gives no relief to his Friend Bellarmine. We Argue, that seeing to no ordinary Pastor is given any peculiar Appellation, Character, or Description, but what is equally common to all, there must be an Equality and Parity amongst all of 'em; and this they can never get over. Moreover among the Evangelists, yea and among the Apostles, Officers superior to ordinary Pastors, the reformed Churches being Judges, there was a complete Parity as was also among the Deacons their Inferiors: notwithstanding of all which the Hierarchicks must plead for certain Stories of Pre-eminence among the ordinary Pastors; in favours; whereof ne gry quidem they can bring from the Word of God the only Rule of Faith and Doctrine.  
§. 6. Add hereto Tit. chap. 1. where we not only find the Apostle using indifferently and promiscuously the two words Bishop and Elder, but also he allegeth the necessity of fit Qualifications in the one, to prove that the same are required in the other; the Presbyters that were to be Ordained must be blameless etc. because a Bishop must be so: wherein either we have an ocular Demonstration of the Identity of these two Officers, or else (which I abhor to think) the Apostles reasoning is more pitiful than the most equivocant Paralogism; their being not so much as a nominal Connexion betwixt the Antecedent and Consequent; and no less ridiculous than if one should reason that every Captain of a single Company must be able to guide and manage a whole Army, because such Qualifications are required in a General. Now, seeing these Scriptures already vindicated, to name no others, evidently declare that there was no such thing as a Diocesan Bishop, that there's a complete Identity of Bishop and preaching Presbyter, and consequently a Parity of all ordinary Pastors, they of necessity condemn the Hierarchick and Diocesan Imparity: for I'm persuaded these who allege that they find in Scripture a Distinction between these Offices, will judge that they may with reason enough conclude the Divine Right of Episcopacy. Hence judge of D. M's fifth Query 
s pag. 158.  where and in what places of Scripture the superiority and jurisdiction of one Priest above another is forbidden? And if it be not plainly forbidden, than the Fancy of a Jus Divinum in favours of Presbytry (such as is exclusive of all other Forms of Ecclesiastical Government) is groundless and Chimerical.  
From all which I conclude that if the Ignatian Bishop and Presbyter most be understood in the Notion of our Adversaries, he then quite crosses the Apostles, & so his Doctrine is stark nought, or (which is a far more charitable Sentiment) his Epistles have suffered no small interpolation.   

Section VII.  
The grand Objection, taken from the Commentaries of the Ancients, removed.  
BUT the Fathers, as our Adversaries pretend, glozing on these Texts, went quite cross to our Doctrine, To the Bishops and Deacons (saith chrysostom 
a On Philip. 1. 1. ) What means that? What? was there a Plurality of Bishops in one City? Not at all: for at that time the Name was yet common, so that a Bishop was also named a Deacon, that is a Servant. And adds, that both Timothy and Titus were Bishops. Of the same mind (say they) were Hilary, Epiphanius, Theodoret, OEcumenius and others: which harmonious Consent of Ancients cann't but be the true meaning of the places in Controversy. But as these, and such Fathers confess, and their Works proclaim, they were, like others, subject to humane Weakness and Corruption, fell into compliance with the growing Errors, into immoderate heat, prevarication and self-repugnancy, and negligence to search for the Scriptures their meaning. How loudly sounded the debate concerning rebaptising between Stephen and Cyprian, which ●ore almost the whole body of Christians into a pair of Factions? With what heat was it prosecuted? And, which is most lamentable, how pitifully was the truth on both hands deserted? For altho' it be commonly believed that Stephen only held the truth, and Cyprian and his failed, yet Stephen and the Romans did no less betray it: On the other extreme, while they asserted the sufficiency of Baptism, altho' administered by the grossest Heretics and capital Enemies of the Fundamentals of Christianity. How great, both before and after that time, were the Contests about Easter? How scandalous were the Contests between chrysostom, Epiphanius and Theophilus: and between Hierome and Ruffian. Not to name others, in all which it is apparent how little they believed one another, and how much many of 'em prevaricated in favours of their particular Fancies.  
§. 2. But their Contradictions to one another are less to be admired when we clearly perceive that one and the self same Author, either out of negligence or some other weakness, hath given us quite contrary Doctrines. Justine Martyr, which Sculte● observes 
b Medulla. Theol. Patrum. Vol. 1. Lib. 1. Cap. 17. , in one place ascribes the whole Work of Regeneration to free Grace, and in another destroys what he had builded; and places free Will in the room thereof. And Clemens Alexandrinus, as the same Scultet observes 
c Lib. 5. Cap. 13.  following Justine Martyr delivers the like inconsistencies about the same Theme: he sometimes ascribes our Salvation wholly to Faith, and again tells us that we may purchase it with the Treasure of our Works.  
§. 3. Of the same kind are their polemic Discourses, wherein their study was much more directed to bespatte their Antagonists, and allure the vulgar Auditor, than solidly to support the Truth. I shall never believe that Optatus 
d Contra Parmenianum. Lib. 3.  believed himself, when he maintained that all the Menaces uttered in the Old Testament against Tyre and her King had for their Object Parmenianus the schismatical Bishop of the Donatists, who lived at Carthage, that had once been a Tyrian Colony, but in the time of Parmenianus was inhabited by Romans who had either quite extirpated or expelled thence the whole Race of the Tyrians. With no less lightness, but more danger did Justine Martyr 
e Apologia ad Antonium pium Imp. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  long before Optatus, endeavour to persuade the Gentiles, that all Mankind were Partakers of Christ, because they were Partakers of Reason, and Christ is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which also signifies Reason. Where we see that Justine leans only on a pitiful Equivocation, the deceit of which could not be unknown to him who natively spoke Greek. Neither were Origenes, Methodius, and others, as Hierome witnesseth, more solid in their Writings. Yea Hierome himself distinguisheth between Progymnasticks and Dogmatics, alleging that in the former of these a Disputant hath liberty to muster up many Arguments in which he hath no confidence.  
§. 4. To these we may add both their Homilies and Expositions wherein it's not easily determined when they spoke their own minds, or when they gave us only Transcripts of others, to believe and defend which they held themselves but little obliged. Yea Hierome oftener than once tells us that it was the common Practice of the Writers of these times to give the Expositions of others, and yet conceal the names of the Authors, and so involve the Reader, and make him take for their judgement the things they never believed.  
§. 5. If we search into the causes of so strange dealing, we have heard out of Hierome that one of 'em was mere sloth and neglect. See much more to this purpose in Dallaeus de usu Patrum. Another Cause, why they both spoke, wrote and practised otherways than they knew could be warranted by Scripture, was their unjustifiable Compliance with both Jews and Pagans; good perhaps intentionally being out of design the better to Proselyte them, but eventually proved as unhappy as its Practice was unwarrantable, and destitute of Scripture ground. Hence their Deacons were named Levites, their Bishop's Priests and High-Priests, the Lord's Table the Altar, and the Lord's Supper a Sacrifice, and at length Diocesan Bishops and Arch-Bishops were instituted in imitation of the 
f Lombard. Lib. 4. Distinctione 24. M.  Pagan Flamines and Protoflamines. Another Cause thereof, which especially takes place in their Homiles and Expositions, was the multitude of Alterations and Corruptions well grown before any of these Homilies and Commentaries we now enjoy were extant, these were too deeply rooted to be opposed; and therefore they believed themselves under a kind of necessity to accommodat their Comments and Declamations thereto, at least, so to temper and compose them that they should not thwart therewith. Of this sort of Conduct, we have a clear instance in Augustine, who sometimes commends and praises several unscriptural Ceremonies: But 
g Epist. 118.  elsewhere speaking his Mind more freely disapproves them as both unwrantable and burdensome. He indeed there intimats that some things commonly observed throw the World tho' they were not written yet might be kept as having come from the Apostles or general Councils; such as was the Observation of the Lord's Passion, Resurrection and Ascension. But even this, as is most probable, he yielded out of humane Weakness and Fear to oppose the then prevailing Innovations: for, the needlesness of such preterscriptural Observations he evidently declares elsewhere 
h De Doctrina Christiana. Lib. 2. Cap. 9  saying that all things which belong either to Faith and Manners are plainly contained in Scripture. From all which is clear, that we cannot at all be sure if the Fathers, Commenting on the places in hand, either knew their true meaning, or if they did, sincerely gave us what themselves believed.  
§. 6. And that in their Explications of these Texts, we have not their genuine Sentiments, is to me evident. First, because they gave such Reasons of their Exposition as the greatest Prelatists count stark nought. Thus Bellarmine 
i De Clericis. C●p. 15.  rejects and overturns the Grounds of every one of these Expositors in particular, except these of chrysostom only, who yet hath nothing of any moment above the rest: for chrysostom exponing Philip. 1. 1. alleges only in defence of his Exposition that the sole Title and Name of Bishop was common to both Orders: but this is refused by Dr. Hammond and others, and, as we shall hear, by chrysostom himself. But the Jesuit intending to retain that Exposition, thought himself obliged to embrace some of their Defences, whereas in truth they themselves never believed them to be solid, but only the growing Corruptions being too strong to be opposed, and some of 'em having got an Episcopacy which was then creeping in, and which they, depending on the Church's Authority, thought they might retain, they believed that for the fashion they might so gloss the Scriptures whereby Episcopacy is wounded that the People should not perceive the unwarrantableness thereof. Secondly, The main ground common to all these Expositions why they expone any of these Texts as if they condemned not a Diocesan Bishop, is a sufficient evidence that they were far from being in earnest in their Glosses, for they still allege that there behoved to be a Bishop above these Bishops in Philippi whom Paul salutes, because there might not be Plurality of Bishops in one City. This Practice indeed was for the most part current in this time, tho' not universal, as we learn from 
k De heresi Miletiana.  Epiphanius, informing us that even in these times there used to be a Plurality of Bishops in one City. Yet quite contrary to this Text which they either carelessly or timourously shuffled. They judged (saith Dr. Stillingfleet 
l Iren. Page 317. ) the Practice of the Apostles by that of their own times; as is evident by Theodoret and the rest of the Greek Commentators, assigning that as the reason why the Presbyters spoken of in the Epistles to Timothy and Titus, were not Bishops in the sense of their Age, because their could be but one Bishop in a City. And Petavius 
m apud Wal. Mess. pag. 6. & 114.  grants that many true Bishops were sometimes at once in one City. And 
n Apud Salmas. apparat. ad libros de primatu. Page 23.  altho' the Episcopal Order be of Divine Right, yet at's not of Divine Right that there should be only one Bishop in one City, this was only brought in by the Authority of the Church and Councils, and accordingly Hierome and Ambrose are to be understood. By what Law (saith 
o Episcopacy asserted. Page 132.  J. Taylor) speaking of Philippi and that not as a Metropolis) may there not be more Bishops than one in a proper sense in one Diocese? Where 'tis not unpleasant to hear so great a Prelatist by one Interrogation overthrowing the whole Episcopal Cause, and propugning the main Plea of the Presbyterians viz. that in Philippi alone there were many who had not only the power of dispensing the Word and Sacraments, but also of Ordination and Jurisdiction, and were every way Bishops in a proper sense. Thirdly, Some of these Expositors proclaim what we allege for 
p 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉,— etc.  OEcumenius who, like the rest intimats, as if in Philippi there had been a Bishop superior to the plurality of Bishops saluted by the Apostle. Yet on Acts 20. and 17. gives this Paraphrase. Because many are ignorant of the Manner especially of the New Testament, whereby Bishops are called Presbyters and Presbyters Bishops. This much may be observed both from this place and from the Epistle to Titus and to the Philippians, and 1. to Timothy. From this place therefore of the Acts we may arrive at the certainty of this Matter. For thus it is written, from Miletus he sent and called the Elders of the Church, it is not said the Bishops. And afterwards he subjoins, over which the Holy Ghost hath made you Bishops to Feed or Rule the Church: and from the Epistle to Titus, that thou mightest appoint Elders in every City, as I ordained thee: and from the Epistle to the Philippians, to all that are at Philippi with Bishops and Deacons: and, as I believe, the same may be gathered from the frist to Timothy: If any Man (saith he) desires the Office of a Bishop, he desires a good Work; a Bishop therefore should be blameless. And shortly after, let not a Widow be taken into the number under threescore years (which the Transcriber of OEcumenius hath out of negligence inserted from the 5. Chap. and 9 ver. in stead of the 8. verse of the 3. Likewise let the Deacons be grave etc.) For this is the Church Canon directing what manner of Man such an one viz. the Deacon ought to be. Thus far OEcumenius, and not a word more to this purpose, where, having really proposed the now much tossed Question, mustres up four of the chief Places from which the Identity of Bishop and Presbyter is commonly inferred, and directs us to learn the Solution of this Doubt therefrom. Hence 'tis certain that OEcumenius, no less than Hierome and Aërius of old, and Presbyterians now, believed the Scriptural Identity of Bishop and Presbyter, seeing, he having brought up these Scriptures, which, even in the Judgement of our Adversaries, create to the Hierarchicks a vexatious Scruple, and pungent Objection, is so far from glozing them, as thereby to leave any room for a Diocesan Bishop, that he plainly informs us, that these Scriptures only suffice to dissolve all our Scruples and period the Dispute. 'Tis evident then that OEcumenius, commenting on Philip. 1. 1. or wherever he seems to say nothing against a superiority of Diocesans, spoke only out of compliance with the Custom of his time, or some such weakness. Neither is the matter less clear of Theodoret, who, altho' he ascribes an Episcopal Dispensation over the Philippians to Epaphroditus, yet even then he looks on him as no ordinary or fixed Officer, which is really yielded by Petavius 
q Apud Wal. Mess. Pag. 80.  and is plain from Theodoret himself 
r In priorem Ep. ad Tim. Cap. 3.  The Apostle (saith he) calls a Presbyter a Bishop, as we showed when we exponed the Epistle to the Philippians. Which may be also learned from this Place. For after the Precepts proper to Bishops, he describes the things that agree to Deacons, omitting the Presbyters. But, as I said, of old they called the same Men both Bishops and Presbyters, but these who are now called Bishops they then called Apostles: But afterward the name of Apostle was left to the real Apostles: And the name Bishop given to these that were of old called Apostles. Thus Epaphroditus was the Apostle of the Philippians— Thus was Titus the Apostle of the Cretians, Timothy of the Asians, Thus the Apostles and Presbyters at Jerusalem write to the Antiochians. And on 1 Cor. 12. 28.— first Apostles— The Apostle saith not God hath sent only Twelve Apostles but also the Seventy. And these who also received the like Grace. For Paul himself after his Calling was of the same Order, and Barnabas and many others. And again he calls Epaphroditus the Apostle of the Philippians. Where 'tis clear as the Sun, that Theodoret, by these his Bishops or Apostles, understands only the real Apostles themselves together with Timothy and Titus and other such Evangelists and extraordinary Officers, who never had any fixed Station. And this was well perceived by the Jesuit Medina, who therefore really yields Theodoret with Hierome, Aërius, Augustine etc. to the Presbyterians, and warmly recented by Petavius, who, besides many other places, spends at once near a 
s De Hierarchiâ Ecclesiasticâ. Lib. 2. Cap. 1.  whole Chapter to prove Theodoret a self repugnant blunderer. Hence it's clear that they can't rend Theodoret from us, until (Tullus-like) they first rend him from himself. Wherever therefore these Ancients so spoke as that they seemed not to oppose the Divine Right of Episcopacy; 'tis clear they did so out of carelessness, or unwarrantable Compliance, but mostly, as may be gathered from the handling Aërius met with, out of fear lest they had derived on their Heads the hate of much of the then degenerating Church, and secularizing Clergy.   

Section VIII.  
More clear Testimonies of the primitive Doctors against the Divine Right of Diocesan Episcopacy, and for the Identity of Bishop and Presbyter produced and vindicated.  
THE Bishop (saith Ambrose 
a In Epist. ad Ephes. Cap. 4.  or rather Hilary, the ancientest Commentator save some Fragments of Origen, now extant) because he opens the hidden sense of the Scriptures, is said to. Prophecy, chiefly because he dispenses the words of future hope. Behold the very Idea the Ancients still retained of a Bishop, and yet it's nothing but the real Notion of every true Pastor or Dispenser of the Word and Sacraments. Which Order may now be that of the Presbyters. For in the Bishop are all Orders; for he is the first Priest that is the Prince of Priests, and Prophet, and Evangelist. And whatsoever else is for fullfilling the Office of the Church and Service of the Faithful. And, The Apostle calls Timothy a Presbyter whom he had instituted a Bishop, for the first Presbyters were called Bishops; so that one Dying the next succeeded. And lastly, in Egypt the Presbyters ordain in the Bishop's absence; where we see what he means by the Prince of Priests, and that with him a Bishop was nothing but the first either in Age or in respect of Ordination amongst the College of Presbyters without any other Pre-eminence or Power over the rest but what these respects gave them. Which, I'm sure, exceeds not the Dignity of a Moderator of a Synod or Presbyter. But because the following Presbyters were not found worthy of the first place this way was changed by a Council that none by his being first in order, but by his desert might be made a Bishop, and that by the Votes of many Priests, lest an unworthy Man should rashly usurp the Office to the offence of many. There were born Priests under the Law of the Race of Aaron the Levite, but now all are Priests according to the Apostle Peter; and therefore Priests may be chosen out of the People. And on 1 to Timothy 3. But after the Bishop he strait way subjoins the Ordination of a Deacon, and why? But because of Bishop and Presbyter there's but one Ordination for both of them are Priests, but the Bishop is first, so that every Bishop is a Presbyter not every Presbyter a Bishop, for he's the Bishop who is first among the Presbyters. Finally the Apostle shows that Timothy was ordained a Presbyter, but because he had no other Presbyter before him he was a Bishop. And from thence he shows how Timothy can Ordain a Bishop for 'twas not lawful for the Inferior to Ordain a Superior.  
§. 2. Hence appears the perverseness of Bellarmine 
b De Clericis. C●p. 15.  affirming that Hilary says only there was no need of a new Election, but denies not (saith he) the necessity of a Consecration or Episcopal Ordination. A flat Contradiction of Hilary's express saying that there's but one Ordination of both Bishop and Presbyter, and that even Timothy was of no higher Order than that of a Presbyter, whose whole primacy consisted in his mere being the first Presbyter in respect of age or time of his Ordination as Hilary hath taught us: And so, as he doth also all-along through the forecited Passages, explains fully his calling the Bishop Prince of Priests, which the Cardinal also objects, and shows that thereby we're to understand only such a Dignity as either mere priority of Ordination or Seniority yields. Thus Hierome also understands this Title, who 
c Catal. Scriptor.  calls Peter Prince of the Apostles, and yet asserts 
d Tom. 2. Fol. 12.— Aetati delatum est quia Petrus senior erat.  that any Priority Peter had was given to his Age only, which in that very place he makes as good as nothing. Informing us that the Church was equally founded on all the Apostles, and that the rest no less than Peter received the Keys. Take but another place of Hilary, By Angels (saith he 
e In 1. ad Cor. 11. 10.  the Apostle means the Bishops as we learn in the Revelation of John, who being Men are challenged for not reproving the people, or commended for their Virtues— And because Sin entered by the Woman she ought to have this token that in the Church, for the reverence to the Bishop, her head ought not to be free but covered with a vail; and she has not power to speak because the Bishop represents Christ's person; she ought therefore because of the Original of Transgression appear subject before the Bishop as before the Judge because he is the Lord's Vicegerent. Here we see that, according to Hilary, there was a Bishop over every Congregation, and in every place of public Worship frequented by Men and Women, and that the Apocalyptick Angels were only such Congregational Pastors. From which we may well gather that when any in these early times had the name Bishop more peculiarly given them, yet the Primacy could be but only of Order, and nominal which is fitly illustrated by the Athenian Archons.  
Petavius therefore 
f De Hierarchia Eccles. Lib. 1. Cap. 12.  to shield his Cause from so deadly blows, does his outmost to discredit these Commentaries, and make their Author some obscure fellow: and to prove they belong not to Hilary the Luciferian, he brings two passages thereof that show their Author to have been of the Roman Communion which Hilary deserted. But might he not have been of that Communion when he wrote the commentaries, and yet deserted it afterward? This the Jesuit attempts not to disprove. But whosoever this Author was, or by whatsoever name known, neither are we hurt nor the Hierarchicks helped thereby; his Authority is unquestionably great, being cited by the Councils of Paris and Ayx 
g Apud Blondellum.  no mean Conventicles under the name of Ambrose: afterward the learned, as Bellarmine 
h De scrip. Eccles.  and the Divines of Louvain 
i In Scholis ad Cap. 4. Lib. 4. Augustini contra duas Epistolas Pelagiani.  gave these Commentaries to Hilary a Roman Deacon and stout Opposer of the Arrians; the Foundation of which Opinion is strong: For Augustine oftener than once attributes these Commentaries to Hilary.  
And it's likely that Petavius knew that the Authority of this Writer was not to be shaken with all his Cavils, but only at that time he had found nothing else to say, wherefore he afterwards 
k In appendice ad Hierarchiam. Lib. 2. Cap. 1.  excogitats more Quibbles to darken and deprave this Author; and chiefly strives to make Hilary speak nothing for the Right of Seniority, and against the Election of a Successor to any deceasing Bishop. He says therefore that when Hilary tells us, that one dying, the next or following succeeded, we must not understand it in respect of Years or Ordination, but any of 'em indefinitely taken, who was notwithstanding afterward to be elected by the Clergy, but all the Presbyters in time becoming unworthy of the Episcopal Honour the Method was altered, and another not out of the College of Presbyters, but out of some other Order according to their desert was admitted unto that Office. To support which Gloss, he brings Hierome's saying that the Presbyters of Alexandria named one elected from among themselves, Bishop, as if Hierome were not speaking of Alexandria alone, and to instance therein, that Prelacy came not soon to any growth; or as if Hierome and Hilary could not agree in its being of humane Original, and yet differ in the circumstances of its rise. The rest of his prolix Discourse on this Theme is only a train of mere Cavils and Clouds too thin and airy to feed a very Chamaeleon, all which are quite dissolved and disappear if we but look into one small parcel of Hilary's words, where he tells us that after the Method was altered then the Bishop whose desert raised him was constitute by the Judgement or Votes of many Priests or Presbyters: For this Clause being of design inserted by Hilary to show the Opposition between the latter and the former Method of coming to the Primacy, proclaims that as after the Change, Suffrages and Election were used, so before this Change, there had been no such Custom. With this the Jesuit darrs not engage nor with Hilary's making the Ordination of both Bishop and Presbyter, the same, his making Timothy only a Presbyter, his placing all the Essence or Constitutive of a Bishop in being the first Presbyter of the College, his giving a Bishop to every Congregation, etc. These I say, he never adventures once in the least to handle; wherefore surely he was conscious to himself that he spent both Pains and Brains for the sole production of a bulkish nothing.  
§ 3. To Hilary I add chrysostom (which Theoplylact his real Epitomator transcribes) After (saith he 
l In prior. Epist. ad Tim. homilia 11 ma, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 etc.  the Apostle had discoursed concerning the Bishops, and described them, declaring what they ought to have, and from what they ought to abstain; omitting the order of Presbyters he descends to the Deacons; and why so? But because between Bishop and Presbyter in a manner there is no difference, seeing that also to the Presbyters the Care or Government the Church is committed, and whatsoever he said of Bishops agrees also to the Presbyters, in Ordination alone they are Superior, and they seem to have this only more than the others. Where he clearly overthrows all their Distinction between Bishop and Presbyter; notwithstanding that to some he may seem to give the Power of Ordination to Bishops above Presbyters. For First, The words are most capable of another Translation. Thus only in the Matter of Ordination they have got up or set themselves above them. secondly, Of the Power of Ordination, it's being proper to Bishops, he speaks most doubtfully 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they seem &c. (saith he). Thirdly, Had he believed that the Power of Ordination by Divine Right belonged to Bishops above Presbyters, he had never said that there's notwithstanding in a manner nothing between them: surely Epiphanius thought the Power of Ordination made a most large and notable Difference. Once again I shall with our Adversaries suppose that chrysostom allows that Power of Ordination by Divine Appointment was appropriated to Bishops they can't with reason deny, but that, in all other things to a hair, he asserts the Equality, yea the Identity of Presbyters with Bishops. Now will they stand to chrysostom herein? Surely they will not; for thus they should be obliged to let go all the Prerogatives and Privileges Bishops both claim and exerce over their Pastors, all their Power Paramount of Governing the Church and her Pastors, all their exorbitant Wealth, Grandeur, Pomp, and Splendour, and, in a word, whatsoever renders to them the Hierarchy amiable or desirable, and so should be really reduced to the condition of an ordinary Parish-pastor. And were things so, little, I'm sure, would they care or stickel for upholding of any Distinction between these Officers: hence let them blush any more to pretend to Chrysostome's Patrociny: seeing all they can, with the least colour plead for, being given, not granted, he really subverts their Cause, and levels their Diocesan Prelate with a parochial Pastor.  
§. 4. Bellarmine 
m De Clericis. Cap. 15. 10.  Answers that chrysostom and others, while they say that only in Ordination a Bishop is above a Presbyter, speak only of such things which no way agree to Presbyters for jurisdiction and Confirmation may be performed by Presbyters by virtue of Commission from the Bishop. But thus he really makes chrysostom contradict himself: chrysostom said they differed nothing save in Ordination; Bellarmine compels him to say that they have another Difference no less conspicuous than is between the King and his Commissioner, who can do many regal Acts, being warranted by him thereto. Does such a Power lodged in the Bishop, which agrees to none of the Presbyters, make no Distinction between him and them? Or rather, does it not make up the far greater and more conspicuous part of the prelatical Eminency above the rest of the Clergy? Add hereto Chrysostome's Books of the Priesthood, wherein, altho' he expressly professes he was to treat of the Office of a Bishop, yet in these Books there's nothing but what concerns a congregational Pastor, nothing but what concerns public prayer, dispensing of the Word and Sacraments, and such Duties that terminat on the People alone, but not a word of the Duties of the Bishop or Prelate over inferior congregational Pastors as their Object which is a sure Demonstration that, with chrysostom, Bishop, Priest, and Pastor were Synonymous Terms.  
§. 5. To these add Pelagius a grand Heretic indeed, but never branded as such for ought he said of Church-Government, who 
n In Rom. 12.  restricts all Church-Officers to Priest and Deacon. And 
o In 1 Cor. 1.  asserts that Priest without any Discrimination or Restriction are the Successors of the Apostles. And 
p In Philip. 1. 1.  Here (saith he) by Bishops we understand Presbyters for there could not have been more Bishops in one City: but we have this Matter also in the Acts of the Apostles Where it's clear that Pelagius, altho', in conformity to the introduced Custom of distinguishing Bishops from preaching Presbyters, he endeavoured accordingly to expone this place with as little damage thereto as is possible, deduceth notwithstanding the Ground of the Difference between Bishop and Presbyter from the Churches latter Custom of having but one Bishop in one City, and not from any Scripture-Warrant, and indeed when he brings to clear his Comment the 20. of the Acts 17. and 28. he plainly intimats that even when he and others of that Age seem most clearly to hold forth a Difference betwixt Bishop and preaching Presbyter, they then believed no such thing to flow from Divine Institution.  
And 
q In 1 Tim. 3.  There is a Question (saith he) why the Apostle made no mention of Presbyters but comprehended them under the Name of Bishops, because, (answers he) this is the second, yea, in a manner, the very same Degree with that of Bishops, as the Apostle writes in the Epistle to the Philippians; To the Bishops and Deacons: when yet one City can't have more Bishops than one: and, in the Acts of the Apostles, Paul being to go to Jerusalem and having gathered the Elders of the Church, saith, among other things, take heed to the Flock over which the Holy Ghost hath made you Bishops. Hence it's most evident that he believed both Offices to be, by Scripture-Warrant, one and the same, and not a mere Communication of Names only. But the thing most observable here, is, that to prove the Identity of Bishop and Presbyter, he brings Philip. 1. and hereby shows us, that some of the Ancients, from whose accustomed Phrases he departed not while he exponed it, when they seem to infer from that place, only a Community of Names, did really believe no such thing, but were persuaded that Philip. 1. 1. quite overthrows all Distinction betwixt Bishop and preaching Presbyter. And Sedulius 
r In Tit. 1.  asserts and proves the Identity of Bishops and Presbyters, and concludes from the Example of the Ephesian Elders or Bishops, that there were many Bishops in one City, contrary to the Practice of his Age; and that, among the Ancients, Bishop and Presbyter was one and the same. And Primasius 
s In 1 Tim. 3.  proposeth the Question, why the Apostle comes to the Deacons without any mention of the Presbyters? And Answers in the very words of Pelagius. Thus it's clear, even these whom the Hierarchicks take for the prime Pillars of Prelacy being Judges, that there's no Divine Warrant for Diocesan Episcopacy, and that a Bishop and Presbyter in Scripture in Apostolic times are one and the same.  
For (saith 
t Epist. 19 2d Hieronymum.  Augustine, (with whom I begin, tho' Younger than Hierome, being longer to insist on the other) tho' according to these Names of Honour which the Custom of the Church hath now brought in fashion the Office of a Bishop be greater than that of a Presbyter, yet in many things Augustine is below Hierome; where we see that the whole Difference was in Expression rather than reality, and that even that was only by Custom not by Divine Appointment. These words (hath now brought in fashion (answers Bellarmine 
u De Clericis. Cap. 15.  are not opposed to the ancient time of the Church, but to the time before the Christian Church, so that the sense is, before the times of the Christian Church these Names Bishop and Presbyter were not Titles of Honour but of Office and Age, but now they are Names of Honour and Dignity. D. M. follows his Master Bellarmine in this wretched Detortion, 
x Page 81. & seq.  and adds that this was but a mannerly Compliment to Augustine. A piece of immodesty proper to D. M. not arrived at by the Jesuit; Augustine then was only some frenchified Spark that intended not to speak as he thought: but I reply with Junius 
y Tom. 2. Col. 1214.  that this their Answer is clean contrary to Augustine ' s mind and intention; for he was not so mad as to compare things so hetrogeneous as were the Rites and Customs of the Gentiles, and these of the Church: if it be said that he spoke of the Church of the Jews, where, pray, is there any mention of Bishops in all the Old Testament, and History of the Jewish Church. I add that if this had been Augustine's meaning, he had too much drepressed, and in too unworthy Terms expressed Christ's Institution to busk a Compliment for Hierome. But Augustine, saith D. M. reasons from the Succession of Bishops. This Romish Cavil is a 1000 times baffled, and by none more sufficiently than by Dr. Stillingfleet 
z Irenicum. Pag. 300. & seq.  who shows that from such Reasonings of the Fathers, and their mentioning of Successions of Bishops, it can never be proved that Bishops were of a higher Order, or had any other Power over Presbyters, nor that in all places there was so much as any Difference at all between them, nor that they meant aught save a Succession of Doctrine, and that no less is said of Presbyters.  
Lastly, Bishop Jewel 
a Defence. apolog. Pages 122, 123.  advanceth this very passage of Augustine, and thereby proves the Identity of Bishop and Priest or Presbyter. And he thus Englishes Augustine's words, The Office of a Bishop is above the Office of a Priest, not by Authority of the Scriptures, but after the Names of Honour, which the Custom of the Church hath now obtained.  
§. 7. Let us (saith Hierome 
In Epist. ad Titum.  attend diligently to the words of the Apostle saying that thou shouldst Ordain Elders in every City as I appointed thee, and what kind of Presbyter ought to be ordained, he declares in the following Discourse; If any (saith he) be blameless, the Husband of one Wife etc. and after, he Infers, For a Bishop must be blameless as the Steward of God; Therefore both Bishop and Presbyter is one and the same. And before that by Satan's instigation there were Divisions about Religion, and it was said in the Churches, I am of Paul, I of Apollo, and I of Cephas, the Church was governed by a common Council of Presbyters: But after that whomsoever any had baptised were by them counted their own, not Christ's, it was Decreed through the whole World that one, Chosen out of the Presbyters, should be set over the rest to whom all care of the Church should belong, and the Seeds of Division be removed. But you may think that this is our Mind and not the Mind of the Scriptures that a Bishop and a Presbyter is one and the same thing, and that the one is a Name of Age, and the other of Office. Let them read over the words of the Apostle to the Philippians, where, as Hierome professedly asserts the Presbyterian Thesis, so he clearly proves it by the Presbyterian Arguments. And I would fain learn wherein, as touching the Scriptural Identity of Bishop and Presbyter, he differed from Aërius. They differed as much (answers Bellarmine 
c De Clericis. Lib. 1. Cap. 15.  as Heaven and Hell. For Hierome still held that a Bishop was greater than a Presbyter as to the point of Ordination, and that doubtless by Divine Right. Bellarmine is herein followed only by some of the more impudent of his Brethren as Bayly the Jesuit and Petavius; and last of all appears their perpetual shadow D. M. 
d Page 65. & seq.  with whom Hierome is a grand Asserter of the Episcopal Hierarchy, and Aërius a grand Heretic. But Junius 
e Col. 1212.  answers to both the Jesuits and their Genuine Issue, that Hierome, when he said, what doth the Bishop except Ordination which a Presbyter does not? understood it only of his owned time. But Bellarmine (saith Junius) confounds the time (as doth D. M.) that he more easily may deceive the Simple. We have heard already that many of the greatest Lights of the Church of England, yea, and of the Romanists, have exploded this shameful and Jesuitical Attempt of making Hierome for the Divine Right of Prelacy, or for any Difference between Bishop and Presbyter. To which add Dr. Stillingfleet. For (saith he 
f Irenicum. Page 276.  as to the Matter itself, I believe upon the strickest Enquiry, Medina ' s Judgement will prove true that Hierome, Austin, Ambrose, Sedulius, Primasius, chrysostom, Theodoret, Theophylact, were all of Aërius ' s Judgement as to the Identity of both Name and Order of Bishops and Presbyters in the primitive Church etc. Of what Church then shall we count D. M. and his Brethren who only scrape together these most dishonest and a thousand times baffled depravations and perversions of the Jesuits, and being plumed with the feathers of so unlucky Birds, can appear without any more shame and blushing than as if they were the innocent penns of a Dove? But Hierome (subjoins Bellarmine, who is transcribed by D. M.) acknowledges that the Difference between Bishop and Presbyter, as also the Princely Prerogatives of Bishops, was introduced by the very Apostles, when 'twas said, I am of Paul etc. But it's answered by Junius 
g Tom. 2. Col. 1213.  that the former of these can never be proved from Hierome, and the latter Hierome denies, while he saith, when these whom any baptised were counted their own etc. Where [saith Junius] Hierome shows that 'twas not when this Evil was at Corinth only, but when 'twas spread through the whole Churches: And the latter of these [continues Junius] Paul denies while he reproves this Evil in the Corinthians, and yet neither in the first nor in the second Epistle makes ever the least mention of setting up a Bishop over them. They who use this Argument (saith Dr. Stillingfleet 
h Iren. Page 280.  among many other Answers far better than ever such a Cavil deserved) are greater Strangers to St. Hierome ' s Language than they would seem to be, whose Custom it is, upon incidental Occasions to accommodat the Phrase and Language of Scripture to them as when he speaks of chrysostom ' s Fall, cecidit Babylon, cecidit, of the Bishops of Palestine, multi utroque claudicant pede— All which Instances (saith the Doctor) are produced by Blondel, but have the good fortune to be passed over without being taken nottice of. And now judge whether there was more Ignorance or Impudence in D. M's following Query 
i Page 159.  Whether the Opinion of St. Hierome be not disingenuously represented by the Presbyterians, since he never acknowledged nor affirmed any interval after the Death of the Apostles, in which Ecclesiastical Affairs were governed communi Presbyterorum consilio? Bellarmine objects also (as doth his Epe D. M.) that Hierome says James was made Bishop of Jerusalem, presently after the Death of our Saviour. But both are repelled by junius 
k Col. 1213.  who shows that the common reading of that place of Hierome ' s Catalogue is corrupted. And Answers that James was only left while the Apostles went through the World for the Commodity of that Church, and was never absolutely ordained a Bishop by the Apostles, for James himself was an Apostle. Of the same Mind is Salmasius, that James resided not at Jerusalem as one of their Hierarchick Bishops, but as an Apostle 
l Vide inter alia Wal. Mess. Page 45. Et seq. & Page 193. Et seq.  And yet D. M. 
m Page 138.  is not ashamed to tell his Reader, as the Concession of Salmasius, that we have a Diocesan Bishop established in the person of St. James the Just, in the City of Jerusalem. Now that Hierome understood James' Episcopacy in the sense given by Junius and Salmasius against the Jesuits, is most apparent especially if we consider how the Ancients used to speak of the Apostles and Apostolic extraordinary Church-Officers in the Style of their own times, and how positive Hierome was for the Identity of Bishop and Presbyter during the Apostolic age and first primitive Church.  
Add hereto that Hierome (as he shows in his Preamble to Dexter) was altogether uncertain of much of what he wrote in his Catalogue of Writers, which is yet more clear from his account of Paul, for the writes that he was a Native of Gischalis, and during the Wars between the Jews and Romans stead with his Parents to Tarsus when Gischalis was taken. Which, I'm sure, Hierome, a Man so well acquaint with the Affairs of the Jews, who had no Wars with the Romans for many years after the time wherein the Fabler, whom Hierome transcribes, supposed these Wars to have been commensed, and Gischalis taken, could never believe; but only, because he could light on no better, transcribed things as he found 'em. Which removes, tho' no more could be said, D. M's Objection from Hierome's mentioning of Ignatius his Epistles, whereon D. M. with no small Ostentation insists. He follows also Bellarmine objecting that Hierome makes Bishops the Apostles Successors. But Junius Replies that Hierome denies not this to be also the privilege of Presbyters. It's also objected by Dr. Pearson 
n Vind. St. Ignat. Part 1. Pages 191, 192.  that Hierome, in his Epistle to Heliodorus, speaks of the Deacons as the third Order. And seeing this, of all the passages of Hierome produced by the Papists to involve him in self-repugnancy, is most plausible, take it at full length. If a Man (saith Hierome 
o Epist. ad Heliodorum.  desires the Office of a Bishop, he desires a good Work: These things we know; but add what follows, A Bishop then must be blameless etc. and having expressed the rest of the things which there follow concerning a Bishop, the Apostle uses no less diligence in setting forth the Duties of the third Degree, saying, Likewise let the Deacons be grave etc. But passing that he was scarce more than a Child when he wrote that Epistle, and wrote clearly for the Identity of Bishop and Presbyter in his riper years, it's certain he pretends no Divine Warrant for this Tripartition. Yea from the very words they would now detort, it's most evident that tho' Hierome, following the Custom of his Age, mentions a third Degree, he notwithstanding takes both Paul's Bishop and Presbyter for one and the same thing. Moreover in this same Epistle Hierome makes all who had the Power of Dispensing the Sacraments, Successor, to the Apostles 
p Absit ut de his quicquam sinistrum loquar: qui Apostolico gradui succedentes, Christi corpus sacro ore conficiunt: per quos & nos Christiani sumus etc. . which the Jesuits and their Supporters appropriate to Bishops: hence they are baffled with the very places of Hierome they endeavour to abuse.  
§. 7. But I return to Hierome, Philippi, continues he, is a single Town of Macedonia, and truly in one City there could not be (called are they as) more Bishops. But because at that time they called the same Men both Bishops and Presbyters, therefore he spoke indifferently concerning both Bishops and Presbyters. From these words (saith Petavius 
q Appendice ad Hierarchiam Lib. 2. Cap. 5.  It can be evidently demonstrated that Hierome believed that Bishops and Presbyters were not one and the same Order, yea even in the Age of the Apostles: For had he so believed he had never said that there could not be a plurality of Bishops in one City, when surely there was a plurality of Presbyters. As if Jerome's whole discourse, scope, and conclusion, were not directly opposite to what the Jesuit impudently fathers on him, who in the words Petavius abuses, only meets with some Wranglers as he elsewhere terms them, who, to elude the proof Jerome brought for the Identity of Bishop and Presbyter, from Philippians 1. & 1. absurdly contended that in the City of Philippi alone there were a multitude of Bishops distinguish, d from, and superior to other Pastors. But yet this may seem doubtful (continous Jerome) to some except it be confirmed by another Testimony. It is written in the Acts of the Apostles that when the Apostle was come to Miletum he sent to Ephesus and called for the Elders of that Church, to whom, amongst other things, he said, take heed to yourselves and to the Flock over which the Holy Ghost hath made you Bishops to feed the Church of Christ— And observe this diligently how the Apostle calling the Elders of Ephesus, which was but one City afterwards names them Bishops, if any receive the Epistle which under Paul's Name is written to the Hebrews, there also the care of the Church is equally divided amongst a plurality. For he writes to the People, Obey your Governors and be subject to them, for they watch— And Peter, who received his Name from the strength of his Faith, saith in his Epistle, The Elders which are among you I exhort who am also an Elder— We have enlarged on these things that we might show that among the Ancients Bishops were all one with Presbyters. Hierome then never, as Petavius and his Followers impudently pretend, thought that there had happened no alteration, or that Bishops bore greater bulk in his time than they had done in the Age of the Apostles) but by little and little to the end the seeds of Schism might be removed, the whole care was devolved upon one; wherefore as the Presbyters know that by the Custom of the Church they are subject to their perfect, so let Bishops know that rather by Custom than by the Truth of Christ's Institution they are greater than Presbyters, and aught to Rule the Church in common with them, imitating Moses who, when he alone had Power to Rule the Israelites, choosed other Seventy with whom he might judge the People. Here (say they) is a proof of Superiority of Bishops by Divine Right, but they should remember that Hierome here undertook to prove the quite contrary. And it's most injust to fish and search for self-contradictions in any Author when with ease he may be understood otherways as the Matter is here. Hierome is arguing a majori ad minus, from Moses his Practice who, tho' he had sole Authority by Divine Right, yet shared it with others, to that which ought to have been done by the Bishops of his time whom only Church Custom not Christ's Appointment had raised over other Pastors. And indeed they might on equal grounds infer from John 13. 14. If I then your Lord and Master have washed your Feet, ye ought also to Wash one another's Feet, that every Apostle yea and every Believer is Lord and Master of the rest.  
§. 8. And writing to Euagrius I hear (saith Hierome) there is one so mad as to prefer the Deacons to the Presbyters that is to the Bishops. For seeing the Apostle clearly teaches that Bishops and Presbyters are one and the same, how can a Server of Tables and Widows, proudly prefer himself to these at whose Prayers the Sacrament of Christ's Body and Blood is consecrated: you will require a Proof, hear a Testimony, Paul and Timothy to all the Saints in Philippi with the Bishops and Deacons; would you have another Example in the Acts of of the Apostles, Paul thus speaks to the Presbyters of one Church, Take heed to yourselves and the whole Flock over which the Holy Ghost hath made you Bishops to Rule the Church, etc. And that none may contentiously plead that in one City there were many Bishops, here also another Testimony wherein it's most evidently proved that both Presbyter and Bishop were one and the same, and then produces the 1 to Titus, and 1 to Timothy 4. 8. 14. neglect not— with the laying on of the Hands of the Presbytry. And 1 Peter 4 and 1. 2 John 1. 3 John 1. And all these to prove that he had undertaken viz that both Bishop and Presbyter were one and the same. Now it's most observable that that he infers this Conclusion not only from Scriptures written long after the first Epistle to the Corinthians, where it's said, I am of Paul etc. but even from the last Epistle of John the longest Liver of all the Apostles. And therefore no less notticeable is D. M's extreme stubborness and aversion from Truth, who would force Hierome to introduce Bishops presently after that Schism mentioned 1 Cor. 1. And accordingly, as his bad Cause obliged him to do with this and the rest of Hierome's Testimonies, wholly smuthered it. And indeed all hitherto who have adventured to grapple therewith have been conquered thereby, yea even Bellarmine himself is compelled to give up the Cause. Hierome endeavours, (saith the Jesuit 
r De Clericis. Cap. 15. ) to conclude the equality of Bishops and Presbyters from the Epistle to Titus, to the Philippians, and from the Epistles of Peter and John which were written after the first Epistle to the Corinthians. Neither can the Jesuit find another way to be even with Hierome, but by arraigning him as fraughted with self-repugnancy, levity, and instability in this Matter; and all the Arguments he brings to prove Hierome a Favourer of Episcopacy are only so many fruitless Attempts to make that appear.  
But let us go on with Hierome. But (saith he) the reason why after this (viz. the writing of both the Epistles of John) one was chosen and set over the rest, was that there might be a remedy of Schism, lest every one, drawing the Church of Christ to himself, should divide it. For in Alexandria from Mark the Evangelist even to Heraclas and Dionysius the Presbyters still gave to one elected from amongst themselves, and placed in a higher seat, the Name of Bishop, as if an Army should create a General, or the Deacons should choose one of themselves whom they know to be industrious and name him Archdeacon. On these words D. M. triumphs, The Custom was (saith he) even from the days of St. Mark the Evangelist that a Presbyter was chosen who Governed the whole Society: this in the Opinion of St. Hierome cuts off that imaginary Interval, wherein the Church is said to have been Governed by a Parity of Presbyters. Where he forgeth a Gloss no way contained in the words of Hierome, whose Example of an Army and Deacons are only adduced to show the manner of that Presbyter or nominated Bishop's entrance, and not at all the measure of his Power over his Colleagues. And that no Power over the rest can be collected from this place is beyond Scruple clear from Hierome's present Scope, who introduces this Ancient Alexandrian Practice to clear and prove the Identity of Bishop and Presbyter, which, according to him, remained in the Church for a while after the Writings of John, the longest Liver of all the Apostles. Haddit D. M. perused Dr. Stillingfleet 
s Irenicum. Pages 273, and 274.  he had taught him that both Election and Ordination of this Alexandrian Bishop was only performed by his Fellow Presbyters, & that the Original of Hierome's exsors potestas, any Power he mentions in Bishops over Presbyters, is by Hierome attributed not to any Episcopal Institution but to the free choice of the Presbyters themselves: for what doth a Bishop (continues Hierome) except Ordination, which a Presbyter may not do. Here the Jesuits and their Follower D. M. dream they find a fine Distinction made by Hierome between Bishop and Presbyter: but first they must make an unseasonable Antiptosis, and compel Hierome to speak contrary to the express words of this place which are in the present Tense, contrary to the scope and design of this Epistle, which is professedly to show the great Dignity of Presbyters, yea even their Identity with Bishops, and thereby to reach a sharper reproof to the petulant Deacon. And contrary, finally, to Hierome's most clear and most frequently repeated Doctrine of the Scriptural Identity of both Offices. Were it not madness then to dream, with the Jesuits, that, in these words, Hierome makes any Distinction between the Scripture- Bishop and Presbyter, who is here only asserting that in all places (Rome excepted, where the Presbyters were more depressed and the Deacons more raised than in other Churches) even then in his time, a Presbyter was allowed by the Canons and Constitutions of the Churches to do aught that a Bishop might do, save Ordination alone. This his Design of holding forth the most great dignity of Presbyters, yea even their equality with Bishops, which Bellarmine acknowledges that he may the better compesce the Insolency of the Deacons, Hierome all along this Epistle prosecutes: and having again cited the Epistles to Timothy and Titus to prove that a Presbyter is contained in, i. e. is one and the same with a Bishop, otherways a Deacon is also in a Bishop; and so Hierome had crossed his own Design by the very Argument wherewith he minded to compass it, and, having added some other Topics to the same purpose, thus concludes his Epistle. And that we may know that the Apostolic Traditions are brought from the Old Testament, that which Aaron and his Sons, and the Levites were in the Temple, the Bishops, Presbyters, and Deacons claim in the Church,  
Nunc animis opus Aenaeae, nunc pectore firmo.  
All the Jesuits and their Complices will presently be about our Ears, But  
Solamen nobis Soeios habuisse malorum.  
Their Attaques are no less on Hierome than us, wherefore this is one of the chief places brought by Bellarmine 
t De Clericis. Cap. 15.  to involve Hierome in a maze of self-contradiction, and make him propugn Prelacy, who is followed by others of the Hierarchicks but chiefly the Jesuits: And lastly in the rear comes D. M. concluding that the Hierarchy of the Christian Church is founded upon Apostolic Tradition, and that the Apostles had the Model of the Temple in their view when they erected this Platform. But Junius 
u Col. 1213.  Answers that their Conclusion is a non sequitur. For (saith he) this comparison is not particular between each of these particular Officers under the Old Testament, and these under the New, but in common showing, that as they are all obliged to serve the Church of the Jews, so all the Church-Officers under the New Testament ought to serve the Christian Church. Moreover, (continueth Junius) tho' we should give that the Comparison were particular, yet their Conclusion would not follow, seeing Hierome speaks only of the Church Polity of his own time, and the Question now is about Hierome's Sentiments of the Church Government and Polity in the Apostolic Age and first primitive Church. And that this in Hierome's Mind was not Hierarchick but a mere Parity of Pastors, Junius already evinced: and Dr. Stillingfleet 
x Irenicum. Pag. 266. & seq.  at more length overthrows this their Jesuitical Doctrine, and Demonstrats that by Apostolical Tradition in Hierome only Ecclesiastic Custom of some Antiquity is meant, & asserts that it's not imaginable that Jerome who had been proving all along the Superiority of a Presbyter above a Deacon, because of his Identity with a Bishop in the Apostles times should at the same time say that a Bishop was above a Presbyter by the Apostles Institution, and so directly overthrow all he had been saying before. The plain meaning (continues Dr. Stillingfleet) then of Jerome is no more but this, that as Aaron and his Sons in the Order of Priesthood were above the Levites under the Law: So the Bishops and Presbyters in the Order of the Evangelical Priesthood are above the Deacons under the Gospel. For the Comparison runs not between Aaron and his Sons under the Law, and Bishops and Presbyters under the Gospel; but between Aaron and his Sons, as one part of the Comparison under the Law, and the Levites under them as the other; so under the Gospel, Bishops and Presbyters make one part of the Comparison, answering to Aaron and his Sons in that wherein they all agree; viz. the Order of Priesthood; and the other part under the Gospel is that of Deacons, answering to the Levites under the Law. The Opposition is not then in the Power of Jurisdiction between Bishops and Priests, but between the same Power of Order, which is alike both in Bishops and Presbyters (according to the acknowledgement of all) to the Office of Deacons which stood in Competition with them— Hereby we see how unhappyly those Arguments succeed, which are brought from the Analogy between the Aaronical Priesthood, to endeavour the setting up of a Jus Divinum of a parallel Superiority under the Gospel. All which Arguments are taken off by this one thing we're now upon, viz, that the Orders and Degrees under the Gospel, were not taken up from Analogy to the Temple.— Other passages of Jerome they also study to abuse, but these now handled are the most specious. But of such Allegat●ons out of Jerome, hear the same Dr. 
y Irenicum. Page 277. Et seq.  And among all these fifteen Testimonies produced by a learned Writer out of Jerome for the Superiority of Bishops above Presbyters, I cannot find one that doth found it upon any Divine Right, but only upon the conveniency of such an Order for the Peace and Unity of the Church of God: But granting some passages may have a more favourable aspect towards the Superiority of Bishops over Presbyters in his other Writings, I would fain know whether a Man's Judgement must be taken from occasional and accidental Passages, or from designed and set Discourses; which is as much as to ask, whether the lively Representation of a man by picture, may be best taken, when in haste of other business he passeth by us, giving only a glance of his countenance, or when he purposely and designedly sits in order to that end that his countenance may be truly represented? He adds that Jerome, in his Commentaries, where he expressly declares not his own mind, transcribes often out of others without setting down their names etc.  
§. 9 Most dishonest therefore is the conduct of the Loyolites, and of others of the Prelatists their Associates in this Matter, but above all men that of D. M. who, beside all this his foul dealing, following Bayly the jesuit, has scarce adventured to lay before his Reader in ●nglish so much as one scrape or particle of what the Reformed bring from Jerome against the Romanists and such Hierarchick Advocats; which in D. M. is the most certain product of both extreme Disingenuity & Diffidence But so great is the power of prejudice that they stick not to sacrifice both their Credit, and whatsoever else they should reckon most estimable, to such Dreams, as even most of the Church of England, yea and of the Romanists either acted by the love of the Truth or compelled by its Power, had condemned. We have heard how Bishop Jewel, Dr. Morton, the Bishop of Spalleto, and Dr. Stillingfleet, renounce and explode so palpable an untruth. And Dr. Forbes 
z Irenicum. Pag. 130.  is of the same Mind, yielding that Hierome is all one with Aërius in this, that Bishops by Divine Right are not at all Superior to Presbyters. And that these two are entirely of one and the same Mind, we have heard also granted by the most learned of the Romanists as Alphonsus de Castro, and Medina, some whereof acknowledge, that none could be of another Opinion concerning them. And Benedictus Justinianus and other Romanists are of the same Mind. How then, were all these Doctors sitting in Council to determine of this very Matter, should they chastise and brand these most partial and disingenuous Dealers, we have now to do with? Other Hierarchicks who would not confess so much in plain Terms, yet sometimes discover both their disingenuity and true Sentiments so palpably as if they had expressly made the same Confession. Dr. Pearson, tho' he says nothing in his own Name, yet 
a Vind. Ignat. Part. 2. Pag. 22.— tam multa de Presbyteratus Autoritate congerit, ut cum eam stabiliat, aeqnalem penè ipsi Episcopali po●esta●i statuere censeatur.  acknowledges that Hierome hath said so much for the Authority of Presbytry, and endeavoured so much to establish it, that he is judged to make it well nigh equal to the Episcopal Order. And Bellarmine tells us that Hierome was self repugnant, and knew not what he said. And Petavius, tho' the most pertinacious wrangler of all the Society, grants 
b Dog. Theol. Tom. 3. Pag. (mihi.) 747. Hieronyn us— Presbyteros suppares Episcopis facit etc.  that Hierome makes Presbyters well nigh all one with Bishops but not the very same (saith the Jesuit) or entirely their Equals being Inferior in so much as they want the Power of Ordination. And 
c Pag. 756.— regendae Ecclesae potest ●tem externamque Gubernatianem sola consuetudine, non dispositionis Dominicae Veritate Episcopis tribuit.  that according to Hierome's Mind mere Custom and not the Lord's Appointment gave to the Bishops above Presbyters any Power they have either in Ruling the Church, or external Government. And were things brought to this pass, I'm sure they should make but small account of the sorry remainder Petavius makes Hierome leave them, as being altogether useless for support of the Pomp and Splendour of their Hierarchy. To these add the Jesuit Cel●otius who after a thousand Meanders and serpentine windings to elude and deprave these clear Testimonies of Hierome, at length, seeing all would not do, rejects them all as the Forgeries of unlucky Aërian hands never written by Hierome. For which Cellotius is chastised even by Petavius and others of the Loyolites themselves. Into such Discord, Confusion and Torment do Men usually throw themselves, so soon as they obstinately resolve to wage War with so clear and irradiant Verities. And here it's observable that in all times, and in all Churches, the Authority of Hierome has been exceeding great, and above most of the primitive Writers which came not to pass without a special Divine Providence that he, and in him the whole primitive Church whose Judgement in these Matters he most clearly delivers, might remain as an unsuspected and an uncontroverted witness against some of latter Ages pretendedly Catholic but really Sectarian Novelists. Among the great Services he did to the Church, two Pieces are more especially notticeable viz. his most clear asserting and acurat distinguishing the Canonical Books from the Apocryphal above all who handled or wrote of that great and most necessary Article: and, which is the Matter in hand, his Antiprelatick Doctrine of the Identity of Bishop and Presbyter: these not only Hieronymian, but also truly Catholic Doctrines are with equal fierceness impugned by the Romanists: and I appeal to the impartial Reader if their Exceptions against this latter be a whit more solid than these which are advanced against the former, viz. Hierome's Judgement of the Canonical Scriptures which are to be found collected and learnly refuted by Dr. Cousin 
e Scholast. Hist. Of the Canon of Scripture. Page 74. Et seq. . And indeed these Sophisters, endeavouring to subvert these Catholic Doctrines of Hierome, dash only on an Adamantine Rock: for as never any Articles were better founded, so, notwithstanding of whatsoever practical Aberrations therefrom were fallen into, none were more universally embraced, received and handed down: for to speak of the Matter of our present concern, this Hieronymian Doctrine all following Church Writers ratify and approve; the bulk of subsequent Commentators, Writers of Offices and of other Treatises, as 
f Timotheus Lib. 3.  Salvianus, Isidorus Hispalensis 
g De Officiis. Lib. 2. Cap. 8. Et de Originibus. Lib. 7. Cap. 12.  Amalarius 
h Apud Blandellum. Page 80. , Rabanus Maurus 
i De constit. cler. Lib. 2. Cap. 6. , yea, and entire Councils as that 2 of Sevil 
k Can. 7.  which ascribes the whole Difference and Superiority only to Church-Canons and late Constitutions: and after them Gratian 
l Distinct. 60.  and Lombard 
m Sentent. Lib. 4. Distinct. 24. , who affirm that in the primitive Church there was only Presbyters and Deacons and his Expositors, among whom is Aestius 
n Comment. In locum.  who very fairly quites the Scriptures, and tells us that this Superiority is not very clear from Scripture, which is nothing but a Confession of the Truth of Hierome's Doctrine forced from this great Prelatist and School-man. Yet adds Aestius, this may be sufficiently proved another way. To which words Dr. Stillingfleet occurrs. Ingenuously said (saith he 
o Iren. pag. 294. ) however; but all the difficulty is, how a Jus Divinum should be proved, when Men leave the Scriptures. But in the recounting and transcribing of such Confessions or Testimonies, I will not enlarge. And now having rescued the principal Scriptures, our Antagonists detort in favours of their Distinction between Bishop and Presbyters, and vindicated some places commonly adduced for the Identity thereof, as also evinced that the most celebrated of the Ancients did no otherways understand these Scriptures, nor derive the Original of Prelacy from Divine Institution, I may with confidence conclude that Ignatius had none before him of the Judgement that he (if we believe the Hierarchicks) so passionately favoured.   

Section IX.  
The Testimonies of Ignatius' contemporaries disproving what our Adversaries would force him to speak, and confirming what we have proved to be his mind, viz. that he cashiers a Diocesan Prelacy.  
HAving viewed the Apostolic Writings and dived into their most ancient Commentators and primitive Doctors, and having found that in the time of the Apostles the immediate Ancestors of Ignatius there was in the Church no such thing as a Diocesan Prelate. Let us next look unto what remains of his Contemporaries or these who lived near Ignatius' time, and we shall have ground to deduce the same Inference. And first its observable that these Writers, such as Clemens Romanus in his Epistle to the Corinthians (for the rest that bear his Name are undoubtedly spurious) Polycarp to the Philippians, Hermas or Pastor, Justine Martyr, tho' they, as occasion offers, frequently mention Pastors, Doctors, Bishops, Presbyters, indifferently taking all of 'em for on and the same Office, yet of a Diocesan Prelat, or one set over other Pastors, or over these that had Power of Dispensing the Word and Sacraments, in all their Writings have not a syllable. Which Argument against a Diocesan Prelat, tho' negative, is not to be slighted if we consider these Authors their closely Vicinity to the Apostles the occasion they had to have mentioned him had he been then existent, their more than a Pythagorick silence concerning him. Yea the same kind of negative Argumentation Eusebius uses, while he disproves and explodes some Writings forged in the Name of John, Andrew, and other Apostles 
a Hist. Eccles. Lib. 3. Cap. 25.  because (saith he) no ancient Ecclesiastic Writers mention these Books. We shall find moreover that they positively disclaim Diocesan Prelacy. I begin with Clemens Romanus, who, writing to the Corinthians, commends their former carriage in these words, Ye walked in the commands of God, and being obedient to these that had the rule over you, and giving your Elders due honour, ye were wont to admonish the younger with Moderation, to seek after things that are honest 
b pag. 4. . And again 
c pag. 98.  Wherefore the Apostles, preaching the Word through the several regions, and proving by the Spirit the first fruits thereof, ordained Bishops and Deacons for these who should believe: neither was this a new Ordinance, for many ages before, it was written concerning Bishops; for so in a certain place saith the Scripture, I will appoint their Bishops in Righteousness and their Deacons in Faith. And 
d pag. 102.  Our Apostles by Jesus Christ our Lord knew that there would arise Contention concerning the Name of a Bishop, and therefore, being endued with a perfect Foreknowledge, they ordained the foresaid Officers, and left unto us described the particular services of both Ministers and Offices, to the end that approved Men might succeed in the place of the defunct, and execute their Office. These therefore who are ordained by them or by other famous men with the Consent of the whole Church, who blamelessly served the Sheepfold of Christ with humility and quietness, & without baseness, and who for a long time had a good Testimony from all: These, I say, can't be justly thrust out of their Office: for we commit no light sin if we cast out these from the Bishop's Office who holily and blamelessly performed it. Blessed are these Presbyters or Pastors who have perfited their journey and are dead, and who have obtained a profitable departure: for they are not afraid lest any thrust them out of their places into others: For we see that you have cast some from their Charge which they performed with honour. 
e pag● 119, 120.  It's base Beloved, yea very base and unworthy of a Conversation that is in Christ Jesus, to hear that the most stable and ancient Church of Corinth, for the sake of one or two should raise sedition against the Presbyters. And 
f pag. 124.  If I be the Cause of Contention, schism and sedition, I'll depart and be gone whithersoever ye will, and do what the People shall command, providing only that the sheepfold of Christ, with the Presbyters appointed over it, may have peace. And 
g pag. 132.  And you therefore, who were the Authors of this Division subject yourselves to your Presbyters. Hence Observe First, that he never names, or so much as insinuats that in Corinth there was any Bishop Superintendent over the rest of the Pastors. But as the Apostle to the Hebrews had done before him, honours equally all their Pastors with the Title of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 these that bear Rule over them.  
Secondly, That, in imitation of the same Apostle Paul, he names only Bishops and Deacons as the only Orders of Divine Institution, by whom the whole Gospel-Service was to be performed. Therefore afterward when he names Presbyters in distinction from the Flock and as Rulers over it, he can't be understood (as Petavius and Pearson would force him) to speak of Presbyters with Relation and Respect only of their Age, but to give them this Demonstration as a peculiar Designation of a Church-Office; and so the word Presbyter most of necessity with Clement coincide in its meaning with the word Bishop, and both of 'em become Synonymous Terms to hold forth but one and the same thing.  
Thirdly, That the Apostles did not, as we find afterward Decreed by the Synod of Sardica, and admonished by Pope Leo, choose out only the greater Cities, and neglect and forbear to place Bishops in lesser Villages, that the name of Bishop hereby might not fall into Contempt, but indifferently and without distinction of places every where settled them according as there was a probability they might serve the great end of their calling therein.  
Fourthly, That to found the Distinction and number of these Orders, if we believe Clement, the Apostles had no eye unto the Jewish Church-Polity, so as to make it a Pattern for that of the Christian, but only to what was prophesied and foretold by the Prophets concerning a new frame of the New Testament Church, and thus Clement really contradicts all the Patrons of the Hierarchy, who would still found their triple Orders on that of the Highpriest, Priests and Levites of the Temple.  
Fifthly, That in Corinth it was attempted to throw out a plurality of real Bishops and cast them from their Charge, and that the Sedition was not moved against one only but divers Bishops in that Church. Many other things might be observed; but these serve sufficiently to prove that there was a plurality of true Bishops of Corinth, who were in nothing distinguished from Pastors of particular Flocks, or preaching Presbyters.  
§. 2. Petavius 
h Appendice ad Hier. Eccles. Lib. 1. Cap. 12.  notwithstanding can't abide any such Inference from the words of Clement. Wherefore he scrapes together several things whereby to ward off the force of these Passages: and alleges that Clemens his silence of the Bishop of Corinth makes nothing for us. For Pope Siricius (saith he) in his Epistle to the Church of Milan maketh no mention of their Bishop, altho' in that mean time Ambrose occupied the Chair. But the vast Difference between the Cases and the Circumstances of the Churches of Corinth and Milan quite nullifies the Jesuits Instance. The People of Milan jointly both Clergy and Laity had thrust out Jovinian, few or none of them (for aught we hear) being prosylited to his Doctrine: wherefore Siricius had nothing to do but show them in General that he had excommunicated Jovinian with two or three others who had fled to Rome for Sanctuary. So there was no special Ground or Cause why particular mention should be made of Ambrose the Bishop, or any other, whether of the Clergy or Laity, the whole Body thereof, for aught now known, being without any Schism earnest enough for the expulsion of Jovinian, and only expecting what the Bishop of Rome which they acknowledged as the first See, and whether Jovinian had fled, would do in this Matter. Whereas, one the other hand, Clemens writes to a Church cut in pieces with a Schism in their own Bowels, infected with Sedition of no small part of the People against their Pastors, broken with (as appears plain) a division of the very Pastors themselves; and this grown to such a height, that some of the Pastors were thrust from their places, and driven out: now in this Case the Bishop had either the best of it; and so the seditious part merited a severe, and special reprimand on the account of their Opposition to, and Separation from their Bishop, and thus he should certainly have been mentioned: or else he was the Cause of the Division; or, at least, joined with the injurious, and therefore should have been particularly reproved or admonished. Clement, it's true, names none: but the influence which the good or evil Carriage the Bishop had, and could not but have in such a Matter, had certainly obliged Clement either to mention his name of give some signification of him, if there had been any Diocesan Bishop existent in Corinth. Clemens speaks of several Pastors of Flocks, which I think none will deny, intimats the diversity of their Carriage in that Business, and gives Directions accordingly. How can it be apprehended that he should pass over the chief Pastor, and go to the rest without so much as the least Direction unto him, the least mention of him, yea or the least insinuation that there was, in Corinth, any such thing. Petavius' next Attempt is on these words of Clement, 
i Page 98.  where he tells that the Apostles instituted Bishops and Deacons. And the Jesuit contends, that two distinct Orders are not here meant, but that the word Deacon is only explicative of the former word Bishop, and citys several places where the word Deacon is taken in a signification of Honour, and applied to the Apostles and Civil Magistrates: And afterward terms Salmasius ridiculous, for saying that Clemens named only Bishops and Deacons without mention of Presbyters. For (saith the Jesuit) Presbyters are more frequently mentioned by Clement than either Bishops or Deacons. But certainly these Orders are again and again mentioned by Clement without adding any thereto ordetracting therefrom; when he appears to reckon up all the Church-Officers that are of Divine Institution. And altho' the word Deacon be sometimes taken for the Designation of a higher Office. Yet, as Petavius himself 
k Appendice ad Hierar. Eccles. Lib. 2. Cap. 5. Siquidem Diaconus alias, idque passim, non propriè, sed appellatiuè sumitur: & tunc ferè aliud nomen in gignendi casu huic adjungitur etc.  else where observes, It is with the addition of such a word or phrase as guides our Judgement, and gives us to learn that by it is not understood this lower Order of Church-Officers as Rom. 13. the Magistrate is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Minister of God. But there is no such explicative word or particle in Clement to alter the common Signification thereof, on which account we're not lightly to resile therefrom. But that which utterly overthrows the Jesuite's Cause, is Clement's closely Conformity to the Apostle in his account of Church-Orders, who 1 Tim. 1. 3. beyond all Scruple of any Party, takes these words in the sense we plead for to Clement, and makes not at all the word Deacon exegetick and explicative of the word Bishop: but by it designs a distinct Order of Church-Officers from what is signified by the other. For doubtless Clement Paul's Fellow-Labourer took the words in the same signification and meaning, wherein the Apostle had understood them. And accordingly Clement, for Confirmation hereof, adduces the words of Isaiah 60. 17. which place, as he then certainly found it in the Septuagint, contains the words Bishops & Deacons exactly as Paul expresseth & distinguisheth Church-Officers: and on this Ground Clement goes when he intimats that the Apostles in their Institution of Church-Officers had an eye to these words of the Prophet. In vain therefore labours Petavius to disprove the Copy of Isaiah used by Clement, and brings the Hebrew, Hierome and others taking the word in a different signification: for thus he hath not Salmasius or any other modern Defender of Presbytry but Clement himself, whom he pretends to vindicate, for his Adversary: seeing we Dispute not concerning the Greek Copy Clement used, but of the thing he inferred from these words of Isaiah according to the Copy he then cited. Neither is it more to the Jesuite's advantage that the word Presbyter is several times found in Clement. For seeing, as is plain, yea and the Jesuit himself not only grants but proves, that it frequently there denotes, not a degree of Age but a Church-Officer, it must of necessity be a Term altogether Synonymous with the word Bishop. For they themselves plead not for the Equipolency thereof with the word Deacon, wherein Petavius himself shall afford us no small assistance, who having, but to no purpose (seeing never Man denied it) showed that with Clement the word Presbyter is sometimes taken appellatively, to denote old Age but no Church-Officer, subjoins these remarkable words; At other times Clement so uses the word Presbyter as thereby to signify a certain Function and public Office in the Ministry, and a certain Dignity in the Church, which he calls an Episcopacy or the Office of a Bishop. From this plain Testimony of a Man in learning, and love to Prelacy, second to none that ever undertook its Defence, it's clear, as the Light itself, that with Clement the word Bishop and the word Presbyter when he takes it for a Church-Function, are Terms altogether Synonymous. For if 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Episcopacy or the Office of a Bishop be competent to Clement's Presbyter, and things as they ought, receive Denominations from Forms wherewith they're clothed, than this Presbyter in the Judgement of Clement is really a Bishop, and indeed this is superlatively clear to any, who, but with an open and unprepossessed Mind reads the places of Clement we have already produced. Howbeit the Testimony of such an Adversary gives no small additional Confirmation to the Truth thereof. Yea the same Adversary in the same place acknowledges, that even then the Title of Bishop was also common, and in after times only appropriated to one. And again, It's clear (saith Petavius) from this place, that there was a Council or Ecclesiastic Senate ordained by the Apostles at Corinth; whose Dignity and Office Clemens calls Episcopacy, and the chiefest of the Clergy he names Presbyters, as also from this which Clement afterward writes. It's base Beloved, yea most base etc. And he names the same Presbyters Pastors and Church-governors of the Christian Sheepsold. And now judge how the Jesuit after these Concessions could yet say, that it follows not from hence that in Corinth or at other Cities there was no peculiar Bishop.  
§. 3. And here again we find D. M. 
l Page 44. Et seq.  at his old filching Trade transcribing Petavius his Perversions of Clement, or bringing what is no more serviceable to either Cause or Credit: as that Clement comprehends all the Jewish Clergy under the name of Priests and Levites: Therefore (Infers D. M.) It follows not from Clement his naming only Bishops and Deacons, that Bishops and Presbyters are not in Clement distinct Offices. But D. M. should remember that Clement not only Dichotomizes but Trichotomizes the Jewish Clergy into three Parts. But does he any where so divide the Christian Clergy? He not only names the two Kind's of Offices, but so names them as to identify and take for one and the same Bishop and Presbyter: which Petavius and D. M. and their Brethren by all means labour to make him distinguish. But St. Clement (saith D. M.) exhorting the Corinthians to order sets before them the subordination under the Temple-Service, how the Highpriest, Priests, and Levites were distinguished by their proper Service, and immediately recommends to them, that every one of them should continue in his proper Order. Now (continues D. M.) when we consider the primitive Method of reasoning from Jewish precedents, St. Clement had never talked at this rate, if the Jurisdiction of one over many Priests had been abolished under the New Testament. But, why does he mutter, for it if he can bring aught for his purpose he must also Infer from this passage of Clement 
m Pages 94, and 96. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 etc.  that as there was a Highpriest over all the Jewish Church, so there must be another Highpriest over all Christians. And that all Christians must bring Oblations and Sacrifices to the Temple at Jerusalem: for from these Topick does Clement exhort the Corinthians to Harmony. Whether then D. M. be a Romanist or a Jew may be a Question; for unquestionably his way of reasoning symbolizes with both of them. The Truth is, nothing can be inferred from this place of Clement, but that as under the Old Testament every one, whether Churchman or Laic, was to abide in his own Order without raising Schism or Confusion, so it ought to be under the New Testament. St. Clement himself (continues D. M.) distinguishes the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 An express untruth, and I challenge D. M. and his Complices to prove it. Nor can it be (adds D. M.) an Objection of any weight, that the first who were their Spiritual Governors are mentioned in the plural number, since this was an Encyclical Epistle addressed to Corinth as the principal City, and from thence transmitted to its dependencies etc. By which words, if he speaks sense, he intimats that there were in the Apostolic age Metropolitan Cities in an Ecclesiastic sense, whose Bishops according to the Civil Dignity of these Cities were Metropolitan, and had their numbers of inferior and dependent Bishops. A most nauseous and hateful Hypothesis of some giddy Papaturiants which, as we have heard, even the more candid of the Episcopalls, disclaim and explode.  
I shall shut up all concerning Clement with the Suffrages of two illustrious Names, neither whereof, I'm sure, did ever favour Presbytry: I mean Grotius and Stillingfleet. Had Episcopacy (saith the Doctor 
n Iren. page 279. ) been instituted on the occasion of the Schism at Corinth, certainly of all places, we should the soon have heard of a Bishop at Corinth for the remedying of it; and yet almost of all places, these Heralds that derive the Succession of Bishops from the Apostles times, are the most plunged whom to six on at Corinth. And they that can find any one single Bishop at Corinth at the time when Clemens writ his Epistle to them (about another Schism as great as the former, which certainly had not been according to their Opinion, if a Bishop had been there before) must have better Eyes and Judgement, than the deservedly admired Grotius, who brings this in his Epistle to Bignonius as an Argument of the undoubted Antiquity of that Epistle, quod nusquam meminit exsortis etc. that Clement no where mentions, that singular Authority of Bishops which by Church custom after the Death of Mark at Alexandria, and by its Example in other places began to be introduced, but Clemens clearly shows as did the Apostle Paul, that then by the common Council of the Presbyters who both by Paul, and Clement are called Bishops, the Churches were governed.  
§. 4. I proceed next to the Vindication of Polycarp. Subject yourselves (saith he 
o Epist. ad Philipp. ) to the Presbyters and Deacons as to God and Christ, and, as Virgins, walk with a pure Conscience, let the Presbyters be simple or innocent, merciful in all things, turning all Men from their Errors, visiting all who are weak, not neglecting Widows, Orphans, and those that are Poor, but always providing such things as are good in the sight of God and Men. Here we learn that the highest Office then in the Church of Philippi was that of a Presbyter, and that there was a Plurality to whom the Philippians were to be subjected without the least mention of a particular Bishop governing those Presbyters. And, which deserves no overly Consideration, we here see that as, when Clement gives an account of Church Orders, he named two only, so we have the same number expressed by Polycarp, but they altered their Denomination of the former Order, and they whom Clement calls sometimes Bishops, sometimes Presbyters, Polycarp calls still Presbyters. It's most observable also, how both Paul and Polycarp subject the Church of one single City Philippi to a Plurality or Multitude of Pastors, whom Paul calls Bishops, and Polycarp Presbyters. From all which the Identity of Bishop and Presbyter most inevitably results.  
§. 5. And indeed this Passage of Polycarp so much gravells the Hierarchicks, that Dr. Pearson is driven to his last Legs, and compelled to present us with a shift unworthy of its Author. Who can prove (saith he 
p Vind. Ignat. Part. 2. Page 168. Sed quis dabit Episcopum Philippensium tunc in vivis fuisse? Quis praestabit Philippenses etc. ) that the Bishop of Philippi was then alive, who can show us, that the Philippians asked not Counsel at Polycarp, for this cause, that they then enjoyed not a Bishop, for thus Polycarp bespeaks them. These things Brethren, I write not of myself to you concerning righteousness, but you have moved me thereunto. Thus Pearson, and indeed it's enough here to return the Question inverted, who is able to prove, if there had been a Bishop in Philippi, that he was not alive? For seeing he affirms it, he or his Advocats are obliged to instruct what they say. That which he pretends to from these words of the Epistle wherein Polycarp saith he was moved thereto by the Philippians themselves, affords him not the least support; there not being therein one syllable concerning the vacancy of the Bishop's Seat or the Church Government during this Defect; or how to fill the Chair. Of all or any of these nec vol● nec vestigium, but only (as is evident from Polycarp) they seem to have desired of him some Direction concerning the blameless walk of any Christian. And indeed, the Bishop within a very few lines fairly yields the Cause, really acknowledging that he had said nothing to the purpose. But seeing (saith he) these things are uncertain, we have no certainty from the Discourse of Polycarp. Well then, it must follow, for aught he knew, that Polycarp knew no Diocesan Bishop in Philippi, that he had never heard of his Death, seeing nothing hereof can be gathered from him. And that he had never heard of his Life or Being, we may well conclude from this, that he devolves the whole Church-Affairs upon a Plurality of Presbyters. But once again; Is it at all credible, but that if Polycarp had written to the Philippians after the death of their Bishop and during the vacancy of the Chair, he had comforted them after this so considerable a Loss, and given them Directions for choosing of a worthy Successor, especially if [as Pearson would have] they had asked his counsel concerning this very Matter? Had ever a Pastor like Polycarp neglected so seasonable an Office? His profound silence therefore of the Death of any such Bishop in Philippi sufficiently demonstrats that this Dr. Pearson's Invention was only the product of a desperate Cause, and that there was left here no door of Escape.  
And here let me observe that Philippi is no less fatal to the Episcopals, than its neighbouring plains were to the Pompeians: for they are stung and confounded with the very first words of Paul to that Church, and, as we have heard, amongst their other wild shifts, they answer that the Bishop was often absent. But there was a good number of years between the writing of Paul and that of Polycarp to the Philippians, and yet we see the Bishop is never come home; Why tarrieth the wheel of his Lordship's Chariot? Hath he not sped at Court? And having supplanted some of the Nobility, made a prey of the Office of Chancellor or treasurer, that after so long absence there is no news of his return? Nor are we ever like to hear any more of him, for now [say they] he's dead: I had perhaps believed them, were't not impossible for one to die who was never alive. But enough of this; for such Answers would really tempt one to think that their Authors studied nothing more than to ridicule their owned Cause and afford Game to their Reader.  
§. 6. And here I can't but nottice the ill-grounded vapouring of D. M. who 
q pag. 49. & seq.  from the inscription of the Epistle (Polycarp and the Presbyters that are with him) concludes that he was vested with Episcopal jurisdiction and eminency amongst these Presbyters. And so much he pretends to bring out of Blondel as as his forced Confession, which is so far from being true, that it's brought in by Blondel as an Objection and silly Conjecture of the Episcopals, which he 
r Apolog. prosent. Hieron. pag. 14. & seq.  divers ways overthrows. And indeed never was there a more wretched deduction framed, seeing, as Blondel at large shows, the phrase natively yealds only this sense viz. Polycarp and the rest of the Presbyters of that Colleague. And thus D. M. may as well infer Peter's Superiority and Power over the rest of the Apostles from Acts 2. 37. To Peter and to the rest of the Apostles. Moreover Blondel demonstrats how, on divers accounts, Polycarp without any Eminency and Power over the rest may be particularly nominated rather than others; as, because he was first in Order and Years. But I insist not herein, but refer to Blondel who hath nervously baffled this their pitiful Coujecture. D. M. adventures to engage with nothing of what he saith, and yet is not ashamed to bring to the Field so blunted a weapon. I pass also D. M.'s two Arguments for Polycarp's Diocesan Episcopacy, drawn from the pretended Succession of Diocesan Bishops in Smyrna, and the Epistles of Ignatius mentioned by Polycarp, having overthrown both of 'em already, and proceed to the Testimony of Hermas who 
s Lib. 1. Vis. 2.  thus speaks: Thou shalt write two Books, thou shalt send one to Clement and one to Graptes, and Clement shall send it to foreign Cities; for to him this is permitted: and Graptes shall admonish the Widows and Orphans, but thou shalt read it with, or relate it unto the Presbyters in this City who govern the Church. Where we see that not any one Bishop, but a College of Presbyters (called, doubtless, afterward by the same Author, Bishops) governed the Church of one City. Yet D. M. pretends to find here a palpable Evidence of Episcopacy; For (saith he 
t pag. 53. & seq. ) the sending of the Encyclical Epistle to foreign Cities is insinuated to be the peculiar Privilege of Clement than Bishop of Rome. But if he conclude from this place of Hermas that Clement had any Power over these to whom he was to send that Book or Epistle (as for Clement's being Bishop of Rome it's so far from being insinuated here, that the quite contrary is from this very place most evident) he may as well infer from Col. 4. 16. that they had Power over the Laodiceans whither they were to send, and cause to be read the Apostle's Letter.  
Secondly, D. M. ascribing to the Bishop of Rome Power over foreign Cities, erects a Pope rather than a Bishop. But I'll assure him he came not in so early: for seeing there was undoubtedly one Bishop (at least) in every particular City so soon as there were any in the World, this place of Hermas (if it bear D. M's Inference and give a Power to Clement over foreign Cities) insinuats nothing of a Bishop's Dignity above Presbyters, but of the power of one Bishop over another or rather of a Pope over other Churches. A falsehood most unanimously exploded by Cyprian, Jerome, Augustine, and the rest of the Ancients D. M. seeks also for his Prelacy in these words of Hermas viz. 
u Lib. 2. Mand. 12.  The Earthly Spirit exalts itself and seeks the first seat. 
x Lib. 3. Simil. 8.  Some contend for Principality and Dignity. But what if Hermas had said that some contended to get an Empire and Popedom over the whole Church; would D. M. hence conclude that it was lawful or then practised in the Church, or when the Apostles contended who should be the greatest? Had Christ before that time assured them of the lawfulness of such an Office, and told them, that they were to have one to be a Prince over the rest? By no Logic therefore can it be inferred for Hermas his words that a chief Seat or Principality (for both are one and the same with Hermas) was then either exercised or held lawful. Again, tho' both had been then in Custom, no Power of one over the rest can be hence concluded; seeing the chief Seats are given to the Moderators of Synods and other Precedents of Assemblies, who have no primacy of Power but only of Order. And again 
y Lib. 1. Vis. 3. , The polished and white Stones (saith Hermas) are the Apostles, and Bishops, and Doctors, and Deacons, who walked in the Clemency of God, a●d exercised the Office of a Bishop, and taught and served. And, 
z Lib. 3. Simil. 9  Such are some Bishops, that is Governors of the Churches, and these who have the Char●e of the Services.  
§. 7. In both places (saith Blondel) he makes only two Degrees that of the Bishops who governed the Churches, and that of the Deacons who had the charge of the Services, for it's acknowledged by all that the Doctors are all one with the Bishops, when they are said to have performed the Office of a Bishop, and that the Apostles as they are opposed to Bishops, were placed above the whole Clergy. This (repons D. M.) is Tergiversation with a Witness, and a fraudulent Trick in Blondel, since Presbyters in the primitive Church are frequently distinguished by the Name of Doctors: and Blondel's Commentary is a manifest violence offered to the Text, for Doctors are not said to have performed the Office of a Bishop but to have taught: and this is very agreeable to their Character, being so much employed by their respective Bishops in teaching the Catechumeni; and the natural position of these words will allow of no other meaning. Which Answer D. M. hath learned from the Practice of our late Bishops, during whose Epocha the Buffund might have hid himself well nigh the whole year from the Bishop's fury in the Bishop's pulpit, seeing he scarce ever came thither to play the Doctor or aught else. As for the Ancient and true primitive Bishops, they perpetually preached or taught (saith Le Moyn 
a Varia sacra. Page 34.  Moreover the Fathers generally take Pastor, Bishop, and Doctor for one and the same as chrysostom, Theophylact, Theodoret, Sedulius; and after them, Aquinas, Haymo, Benedictus Justinianus with others on Ephes. 4. 11. Of the same mind are Hierome, Augustine and Anselm 
b Apud Corn. a Lapide in Eph. 4. 11. , and the pretended Clemens Romanus cited by Gratian and Benedictus Justinianus, and the Fathers of the Council of Carthage. Of the same Mind are the ablest of our Episcopals, as Field, Hammond and Heylen 
c History of Episcopacy. Part 2. Page 39  So truly did Blondel say that Bishop and Doctor is universally taken for one and the same. Neither was ever the Presbyter either in Cyprian or any other Ancient, called Doctor in opposition to the Bishop but to other Ecclesiastic Presbyters, who taught not, of whose existence, as was before touched, we have most sufficient assurance. But D. M. in contradiction to the Apostle would have a Bishop who is no Teacher or Preacher, like the Droll who said, he met with Priests who were no Clerks. And seeing with Hermas there are but two Orders of Churchmen, and Bishops, and praesides Ecclesiarum Church Governors are reciprocal Terms taken for one and the same: and seeing that his Presbyters are expressly termed Church-governors; it's most evident that he takes Bishop and Presbyter for one and the same, and that the word Doctor is purely exegetick or explicative of the word Bishop, and that both of them, which I'm sure is not unfrequent in all sorts of Authors, evidently signify one and the same thing.  
§. 8. I now proceed to Justine Martyr who 
d Apolog. ad Antonium Pium. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 etc.  thus gives an account of the state of the Churches their particular and weekly Assemblies for receiving the Word and Sacraments. After this, Bread and Wine tempered with Water is brought to the Ruler or Governor of the Brethren, which when he hath received, he gives praise and glory to the Parent of all— The Deacons give to all present Bread and Wine tempered with Water after they are Consecrated by thanksgiving, and carry them to such as are absent. And on Snnday all who live either in Cities or in the Country come together into one place— And when the Reader has ceased, the Governor makes an exhortatory Sermon— The voluntary Contribution is laid up with the Governor who distributes it to the Orphans etc. Where it's not only observable that Justine following not the pretended Ignatius but the Apostle, Clement, Polycarp, Hermas, mentions only two Orders of Churchmen, viz. Governors and Deacons, but also that he gives a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Bishop to every Congregation, and that Justine's 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is all one with the Bishop who was then in being is yielded by the fiercest Hierarchicks, Heylen 
e Hist. of Episcopacy, part 2. pag. 39  who yields his whole Plea and says that Justine's Precedent of the Congregation, or Bishop, ordinarily celebrated the Eucharist and Preached God's holy Word; and Maurice 
f Defence of Diocesan Episcopacy pag. 39 . Well then, 'tis all one how this ancient Church-Ruler be named, whither Presbyter, Governor, or Bishop, seeing there was one for every Congregation that met for receiving the word and Sacraments, the Controversy between us and the Hierarchicks, which is not about Names but Things, is fully ended if they stand to Justine's Decision.  
§. 9 Dr. Maurice would have Justine to be understood as speaking only of the Diocesan Bishop's Church. For (saith he) to carry the Bread and Wine to all absents in their several Duelling, was not convenient nor easy in numerous Congregations, and they knew not well who were absent. But this Perversion is too wretched & palpable to wheedle any in in his right wit out of Justine's plain Meaning. Dr. Maurice knew well enough that in these times of such Fervour and Love among Christians, and such Veneration for the Lord's Supper, they doubtless most exactly observed the Ordinances, and absented not without special and weighty Causes. And seeing the Custom of receiving the Elements at home, when they could not come to Church was then in vigour, and believed to be their Duty (if these Elements were given to Absents as their proper Communion, or were only the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the last remains of the custom of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Love Feasts, I now dispute not) they took special care to signify their Absence and Causes thereof, by their Relations or Christian Brethren to their Deacons, and such as were concerned to know it. Neither, if we consider the Church-Discipline of these times, is it to be doubted that the Deacons had an exact List of all to whom they were each Lord's Day to give the Sacrament, and consequently by no means could be ignorant who were either absent or present. Wherefore, tho' the Deacons had been fewer than they were, they could easily, tho' the whole Congregation had been never so numerous, carry the Elements to these very few whom sickness or other lawful and weighty Reasons had confined to their Habitations: all which Dr. Maurice well enough perceived; and therefore he's here no less feeble in his Actings than a man breathing his last, and advances only such trifles as may make his Friends ashamed and confirm his Adversaries. Neither do I wonder hereat, seeing he undertook the Defence of a palpable untruth: for not only speaks Justine of the Christian Assemblies in common without the least exception, but clearly tells us that he speaks of the meating of all the Christians for receiving the Word and Sacraments, not only in Cities, but in the Country a place too base for the Cathedral and Diocesan Bishop's Chair, and of all such Congregations, as in the first day of the Week, as the Apostle speaks, made Collections or had Deacons for that end, which belongs to every Congregation where the Word and Sacraments are dispensed. Neither is this aught but what we have discovered to be the Mind of their Ignatius himself, and seconded with the Suffrages of the greatest Friends to Prelacy.  
§. 10. Wherefore most vain is D. M's 
g Page 58. Et seq.  Labour to prove that it follows not from Justine that there were then only two Orders of Churchmen. Seeing Justine giving a Governor or Bishop to every Congregation, quite overturns Diocesan Episcopacy. And more vain yet is this, that as, what he undertakes though proved is nothing to his purpose, so the Reasons he brings prove nothing of what he undertakes. For his first Reason, viz. That Justine intended only to give a true account of what was ordinarily performed in the Christian Meetings in opposition to the abominable Stories propagated against them by their Enemies, so that he had no occasion to reckon up the several Gradations of the Hterarchy, is equally favourable to Prelatists and Papists, who may as well use it for a Sanctuary to their Pope as they to their Prelates. And indeed had there then either been a Pope over all or a Prelate with Princely Power as D. M. pleads for over a multitude of Churches, the Christians seeing they were frequently reproached with an intended Rebellion, had found themselves obliged in a special manner to apologise for their Princes and absolute Lords, who would have been looked on as little less than the Emperor's Rivals and Arch-Promoters and Heads of the supposed Insurrection. Moreover, which we have already noted, and fully shows the nullity of D. M's Reason, not only Justine but all the genuine Writings of them that went before him, mention only, like Justine, these two Orders of Churchmen.  
D. M's second Reason, viz. That the Christians were most shy to publish any thing relating either to the Mysteries of their Religion or the Constitution of the Church, more than was absolutely necessary in their own Defence etc. is another lurking place for Romanists when urged to show the Antiquity of their Innovations: and indeed if it do any thing, it tends to prove that no Party can make any Advantage of aught spoken or written by the Fathers; and if so, have at the Foundation of Diocesan Prelacy, its prime Advocats acknowledging that no Argument for it can be draun from Scripture, but only from the writings of the Fathers.  
His third Reason is, that as the Offices, so the names of Bishop and Presbyter were not only known to be distinguished in his days among the Christians (but he brings no genuine Writer of that Age to prove this, and that it is most false is already evinced) but even the Heathens knew so much: and citys Adrian's Epistle to Servianus: but it's highly probable that the Emperor if we allow him any knowledge of these Affairs, understands under the name of Presbyters the very same Officers, the very same Men, that he means by the name Bishops, rather than e contra: see Pray the Letter itself apud Flau. Vopis. in Saturnino.  
§. 11. 'Twere easy to show divers succeeding Fathers to have been of Justine's Mind and Strangers to Diocesan Episcopacy, ignoring all Discrimination between Bishop and preaching Presbyter or Pastor. I shall only here with one Chamier 
h Paustratiae Tom. 2. Lib. 10. Cap. 6. Denique ausim asserere nunquam ab Epis●opis distingui, nedum separari Presbyteros apud Irenaeum.  against Bellarmine and the rest of the Jesuits, assert against their Successors and Defenders under whatever Name they be known, that according to Irenaeus the Churches were committed to the Presbyters, no less than to the Bishops, that these who are now reckoned Popes, High-Priests, universal Bishops, are only Presbyters in the Judgement of Irenaeus: and that in him Presbyters are not so much as once distinguished, and far less separated from Bishops. From what is said, appears the vanity of D. M's Popish Query. 
i Pages 158, 159.  Whether (all things duly considered) a more evident and universal Tradition for the Superiority and Jurisdiction of a Bishop above a Presbyter, can be reasonably demanded; and whether the Argument from universal Tradition, be not in this Case the most proper and most necessary? And whether the Tradition for the Superiority of a Bishop above a Presbyter, be not more universal, unanimous and uncontradicted, in the Primitive Ages, than many other Traditions that are unquestionably received? What these his other Traditions are, we are not ignorant. The Doctrine certainly of the morality of the Sabbath, of Baptism, and of the Holy Trinity, and the like; these they 
* Vide Petavium de Hierarchia Eccl. Lib. 1. and D. Taylor Episcopacy asserted.  think lean only on Tradition, and that the Institution of their Diocesan Prelates, Metrapolitans, and Arch-Prelats, and other such Effects and Inventions of a degenerating and apostatising Church, are better founded than these most Scriptural Catholic and necessary Doctrines.   

Section X.  
Other Observations and Arguments eversive of Diocesan Prelacy.  
AND now in the next place, I would gladly learn how they will describe, or whereon they can found their Romish, or, which is all one, their Hierarchick Diocesan Bishop. For as Augustine 
a De civitate Dei. Lib. 19 Cap. 19 Exponere voluit quid sit Episcompatus: quia nomen est operis non honoris etc.  well observes, it is a name of Labour and Travel, not of Honour and Dignity: and indeed, it imports only Watchfulness, Labour and Care as its most native and proper Signification; and on this account, only the King gets the name of Bishop in Hesychius 
b Ad vocem.  as he gets the name of Pastor in Homer 
c Iliad. ●. . And Hesychius gives it no less to every Watchman. Thus the word Bishop denotes a vigilant Watchman in Suidas 
d Ad vocem.  where he tells us that some bearing this Name were sent by the Athenians to observe the Affairs of their subject Cities who were called Watchmen. So is the same word understood to denote only Care and Labour by Jullius Pollux 
e Lib. 3. Cap. 21.  whereas, on the other hand, the word Presbyter when taken for a Function or Office, natively imports Rule and Honour 
f Suidas ad vocem, & Hesychius ad vocem. . A Presbyter (acknowledges even Saravia 
g Saravia de diversis gradibus. Cap. 9 ) is a Name of Honour, and was given to the more honourable, and to the Magistrates among the Jews in the Old Testament, and was thence transferred to signify the Governors of the Churches of Christ in the New Testament, but they are called Bishops from their watchful Care which is a Name of Work and Labour. The name Presbyter (saith Dr. Stillingfleet 
h Iren. Pages 285, and 286. ), as the Hebrew ZAKEN tho' it originally import Age, yet by way of connotation it hath been looked on as a Name both of Dignity and Power among the Jews, in the times of the Apostles, it is most evident that the Name 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 imported not only Dignity but Power; the Presbyters among the Jews having Power both of Judging and Teaching given them by their Semicha or Ordination. Now under the Gospel the Apostles retaining the Name, and the manner of Ordination, but not conferring that judiciary Power by it, which was in use among the Jews, to show the Difference between the Law and the Gospel, it was requisite some other Name should be given to the Governors of the Church, which should qualify the importance of the word Presbyters to a sense proper to a Gospel state; which was the Original of giving the Name 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the Governors of the Church under the Gospel; a Name importing Duty more than Honour, and not a title above Presbyter, but rather used by way of Diminution and Qualification of the Power employed in the name of Presbyter etc. The Hierarchicks therefore should act much more rationally if they turned the Tables, and gave the name of Presbyter to their Diocesan, and that of the Bishop to their inferior Curates, who usually do most of the Pastoral Work. In the mean while it's sure from what we just now learned out of these Authors that during sounder Antiquity, before men equally abused Names and Things, a Bishop could never be either ane Order or Degree or any thing else above▪ a Prsbyter.  
But from Names if we pass to things, and look into Scripture and sounder Antiquity, we shall find the ancient Bishop so different from the present Diocesan, that the very Ideas and notions of the two are diametrically opposite one to another. The Apostles themselves Acts 6. 2, 4. following the Commandment of their Master, found it their Duty so assiduously to labour in Preaching and Prayer that they thought it unreasonable to be diverted even by the Distribution of the Collections, and Care of the Poor, which otherways was a Work both lawful and pious. And to Timothy, who, if we believe the Hierarchicks, was ane Archbishop of a vast Diocese, it's enjoined as his proper Task to Preach the Word, to be instant in season and out of season, to reprove, to rebuke, exhort with all Long-suffering and Doctrine. I need not here multiply Texts; read and read over again the whole New Testament, and you shall find that the Exercise of Prayer, Dispensing the Word and Sacraments was the main Duty and perpetual Employment of every Pastor or Minister of Christ. Look, on the other hand, to the bulk of the Hierarchick Lord-Bishops, they have a quite different Work and Exercise, and if any of 'em happen to spend some time in the Ministerial Duties how are they commonly gazed on and depredicated as Men of extraordinary Condescension, superlatively stuping to a piece of Service far below the Episcopal Grandeur and unusual to the Order? Are they not then quite another thing than the Apostolic and scriptural Bishops?  
This Apostolic Example the Conscientious Primitive Bishops or Pastors clossly followed; not so much as once dreaming that any who was ordained a Minister of the Gospel, and entrusted with a Flock, might on whatsoever pretext neglect to exercise himself perpetually in Prayer and Dispensing the Word and Sacraments. This they judged his constant Employment, and this was the Practice of all the sincere Bishops even after the Distinction of Degrees was introduced, as appears in the weekly and sometimes the daily Homilies and Lectures of chrysostom and Augustine which are yet extant. And it's already observed how Hilary makes the Bishop a sedulous Dispenser of the Words of suture Life. And indeed all the Hierarchick Grandeur and Domination whereby a Bishop was entirely Metamorphosed into a quite other thing than what he had once been, could never notwithstanding obliterate and blot out of thinking men's Minds the true Scriptural Notion and Idea thereof. The Episcopal Dignity consists in Teaching (saith Balsamon 
i In Can. Apost. 58. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. ). And the fourth Council of Carthage decrees that a Bishop shall not be employed in caring for his household Affairs, but shall wholly occupy himself in Reading and Praying, and Preaching the Word 
k Caranza summa Con. folio 118. Can. 20. .  
§. 12. 'Twere endless to allege all that may be produced to this purpose; neither could any Man who ever seriously read the Bible have any other Notion of a true Bishop than what is common to every Pastor of a Congregation; seeing the Apostle's Description of a Bishop 1 Tim. 3. and Tit. 1. agrees equally to all of them. And here it's observable, that still where Bishops are spoken of in Scripture, not only is the Work and Office which is enjoined them, that of Teaching and Feeding, but also the Name is correlative to the Flock, and not to a Company of Clergymen, as Acts 20. 28. Take heed to yourselves, and to all the Flock over which the Holy Ghost hath made you Overseers or Bishops 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to Feed the Church of God. 1 Pet. 5. 2. Feed the Flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight thereof or Bishoping it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; and accordingly, as we have oftener than once demonstrated, over every particular Congregation there was a Bishop.  
This Assertion may be strongly confirmed from the undoubted Practice of the Church in the fourth Century, even when she was fallen into no small Declension from the Primitive Purity. For the Council of Sardica Decrees 
l Can. 6. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  that a Bishop may not be placed in a Village or small Town where one Presbyter may suffice. Dr. Maurice 
m Page 67.  says that this Canon is justified by the Arrians their great multiplication of Bishops to strengthen their Party. But the Council itself assigns a quite different Ground that moved them to make this Decree, viz. that the Name and Authority of a Bishop fall not into Contempt. Where we see the Design of abolishing the Primitive and Apostolic Custom of giving a Bishop indifferently to every Congregation, whether in City or in Country, was the Introduction of a secular Pomp and Grandeur into the Church, which finally resolved into a Papal Slavery. However, this Sardican Canon had not so good effect, but that, about twenty years after, a new Sanction thereto was found needful: for the Council of Laodicea 
n Can. 56. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 etc.  Decrees that it shall not be lawful to place Bishops in little Villages or Country Places, but only Visitors, and that the Bishops who were already placed in these little Villages and Country Places, should for the future do nothing without the knowledge of the Bishop of the City.  
Mark, how a pace the mild and fraternal Church Regimen is turned into a Worldly Domination and Dignity to pave the way for a papal Tyranny. These rural Bishops or Countrey-parish Pastors (for they can be called nothing else) whom Dr. Beverige 
o On the 56 or 57 Canon of Laodicea. Ergo ante hoc 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 etiam revera Episcopi constituti sunt.  acknowledges for real and true Bishops, were also assaulted, and the subjecting and enslaving of them to the Prelates and Clergy in the greater Cities, designed by other Councils as that of Ancyrum 
p Can. 13. , and of Neocesaria 
q Can. 14. , and of Antioch 
r Can. 10. , there they are called Chorepiscopi i. e. Country Bishops. And it has been disputed if these were real & true Bishops. But the same Dr. Beverige not only yields, but at large pleads for the Affirmative 
s On the 13 Canon of the Council of Ancyrum. Quibus etiam conficere non dubit amus veteros Chorepiscopos,— revera Episcopos fuisse— Enimvero cum Episcopi in Civitatibus solum antiquitus ordinati fuerint etc. . He pretends in the mean while that anciently Bishops were ordained in Cities only, many whereof had according to the model of the Empire, such ample Territories that 'twas impossible for the Bishop of the City his alone to visit and sufficiently to guide them, and so it seemed needful for such Bishops to have, according to the amplitude of their Bishoprics, one or two Coadjutors in some Region without the City, who might disburden them of some parts of the Episcopal Function, which could not be done but by some consecrated Bishops. Hence 'twas that some of these great Bishops Ordained, in some part of their large Provinces, these Bishops, but with this provision, that these without their leave should do nothing of moment, seeing these Regions also belonged to the Care of the City Bishop, which we learn, (continues he) from the tenth Canon of the Council of Antioch, where it's expressly Decreed, that no Country Bishop Ordain Presbyter or Deacon without the Bishop of the City, to which, he and his Region is subject. But indeed there's no such thing, to be learned from that Canon, it only says 
t 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  that the Chorepiscopus and his Region was subject to the City (as they really were in a Civil Sense) not to the Bishop of the City: and though they had said so it's no proof of his Conclusion, seeing they usually pretended Antiquity for the greatest Innovations. How far either in, or nigh to the Time of the Apostles the Church was from giving to the Bishop such a Princely Dignity as he pretends, or from allowing him to do the Work proper to himself by substitute Vassals, none acquainted with what remains of these Ancient times can be ignorant, and is already oftener than once evinced. And now I'm sorry to find a Protestant of sense and Learning lean on that shameful and most exploded Falsehood, viz. that the Apostles took the Government of the Empire for their Pattern of Church-Government; and daring to publish such gross Falsehoods whereof even the more ingenuous Romanists are ashamed.  
The Ecclesiastical Degrees (saith Suave 
u History of the Council of Trent. Page 216. Et seq. ) were not Originally Instituted as Dignities, Preeminencies, Rewards, or Honours, as now they are, and have been, many hundred years, but with Ministry, and Charges, otherwise called by St. Paul, Works, and those that exercise them, are called by Christ our Lord in the Gospel, Workmen; and therefore no Man could then enter into cogitation to absent himself from the Execution thereof in his own Person: and if any one (which seldom happened) retired from the Work, 'twas not thought reasonable, he should have either Title or Profit. And tho' the Ministeries were of two sorts, some Anciently called, as now they are, with care of Souls: others of temporal things, for the sustenance and service of the Poor and Sick, as were the Deaconries, and other inferior Works, all held themselves equally bound to that Service, in Person; neither did any think of a substitute, but for a short time, and for great Impediments, much less to take another Charge, which might hinder that.  
§. 13. Bnd now to go on, these Country Bishops or Pastors could not yet by all these Councils be Un-bishoped. And therefore Pope Damasus must next fall on them, and authoratively define 
x Caranza Fol. 100 etc.  that they were stark nought in the Church, their Institution wicked and contrary to the holy Canons. And thus he acted suitably to his purpose, seeing the enslaving the lesser and Country Churches to the Domination of these of the greater Cities made fair way for subjecting all to Rome, which on many Accounts was greater than any of the rest. He also hereby gratified and much obliged the Bishops of these great Cities who were desirous of nothing, more than of Domination, and accordingly they even at these times were giving him their mutual help for raising of the Papal Throne, yea before the time of Damasus this same Council of Sardica, which thought it too vile and base for a Bishop to Dwell out of a great City, Decreed also 
y Can. 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 etc.  That if any Bishop thought he was injured in any Cause by his Comprovincials and ordinary Judges, it should in this Case be lawful for him to appeal to the Bishop of Rome. Let us honour (say they) the Memory of St. Peter, that either these who examined the Matter or other neighbouring Bishops write to Julius' Bishop of Rome, and if he think it fit then let the Matter be tried and judged again, and let him appoint Judges for the Purpose, but if he approve of what's already done, and think not fit to call it into Question, than the things already done shall be accounted firm and stable. Thus these Fathers, many whereof otherwise were excellent Men, the first, I think, that ever gave such Deference and Authority to the Pope, 'twas not therefore incongruous that both of these Decrees should proceed from one and the same Council.  
Hence it's to be noted, that the Tympany of these times had not only exerted itself in separating the things God had conjoined, and in an holygarchick Confinement of the Power God had given equally to all Pastors, unto a few whom they named Bishops, a Name also equally belonging to all Christ's Ministers; but also in subjecting of the Presbyters, yea and even the Bishops of the Country to the very Presbyters of the City 
z Neocesar. Can. 13. & Ancyrum. Can. 13.  but much more the Bishops or Pastors of the Country to the Bishops of the Cities, and these again to the Bishops of the greater Metropolitan Cities, and so on till at length (not to name the rest of the higher and lower roundles of this Hierarchick Ladder) all centred in Rome.  
Yet in these very times it was notwithstanding firmly rooted in men's Minds that whosoever dispensed the Word and Sacraments, and had a Flock or Congregation was a true Bishop, as I have made out to be the mind of Hilary, and many others of the fourth and fifth Centuries. Moreover Optatus asserts 
a Lib. 3.  that Preaching or Exponing is the proper Province of a Bishop. But, to proceed, these Chorepiscopi, or Country Bishops of Parish Pastors were in the third Century called absolutely Bishops at the Country Places or Villages; so speaks the Council of Antioch, He (say these Fathers) i. e. Paulus Samosatenus 
b Eusebius Lib. 7. Cap. 30. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 etc.  suborned the Bishops of the neighbouring Country Villages and Towns, as also Presbyters his Flatterers to praise him in their Homilies. Dr. Maurice 
c pag. 77.  answers that it appears not hence that these were Parish Bishops for Chorepiscopi had many Congregations. As if these who dwelled not only in greater Towns, but also in the very Country Villages which were near to Antioch, and near to one another, and that even where the far greater part of the Inhabitants were not of their Flocks, yea were not at all Christians, could be by any in their Wit judged to be any thing else save Parish Bishops or Pastors. But let us hear one of the learn'dest of our Adversaries determining the Controversy. 
d Dr. Burnet's Observations on the first and second Canons commoaly ascribed to the Apostles, pag. 47, 48, & 49.  That (saith he) which next occurrs to be considered is, in what places Bishoprics were founded, and Bishops settled. We find in all Cities where the Gospel was planted, and Churches constituted, that Bishops were also Ordained. Among the Jews, wherever there were an hundred and twenty of them together, there did they erect a Synagogue, and a lesser Sanhedrin the Court of twenty three Judges. Compare to this Acts 1. 15. where the number of those that constituted the first Christian Church, is the same. So it is like wherever there was a competent number of Christians together, that a Church was there settled. Yet in some Villages there were Churches and Bishops; so there was a Bishop in Bethany: and St. Paul tells of the Church of Cenchrea, which was the Port of Corinth. It is true, some think that the Church of Corinth met there. Which Opinion he irrefragably Refutes, and then proceeds, saying, Therefore it's probable that the Church of Cenchrea was distinct from Corinth: and since they had Phebe for their Deaconness, it's not to be doubted but they had Both Bishops and Deacons. From the several Cities the Gospel was dilated and propagated to the places round about. But in some Countries we find the Bishoprics very thick set. They were pretty throng in Asrick, for at a Conference which Augustine and the Bishops of that Province had with the Donatists, there were of Bishops two hundred eighty six present, and one hundred and twenty absent, and sixty Sees were then Vacant, which make in all four hundred sixty and six: there were also two hundred and seventy nine of the Donatists' Bishops.  
Thus he. And now, not to multiply Testimonies in so confessed and plain a Matter, it's most certain that, at least, for upwards of the three first Centuries, you shall not meet with the meanest Dorp, or country place where there was a Church or Congregation to hear the Word, and receive the Sacraments, but it had also its proper Bishop, I aver no Example to the contrary either has yet, no not by Dr. Maurice or any other, been, or can be brought from the gennine Monuments of these times. Yea even from the spurious Writings of Impostures the greatest Adorers of the Hierarchy, good proofs of this Truth may be adduced; For the thirty eight of the Canons ascribed to the Apostles, gives the care of the Ecclesiastic Goods to the Bishop, as Justine Martyr gives to his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 who, as we have seen already, was purely a Parish Pastor. And the 39 
e 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  Canon saith, Let the Presbyters and Deacons attempt nothing without the Bishop, for to him the Lord's People is committed, and for their Souls he must give an Account. Now I demand of all Men brooking either Conscience or Candour if Souls could be committed to any save him, who was their ordinary Feeder and Instructor. And the Pseudo-Dionysius clearly intimats, that wherever either Baptism or the Lord's Supper was administrated, a Bishop was there, and was the Dispenser thereof. The Highpriest (saith he 
f De Hierarchia Eccles. Cap. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 etc. ) that is the Bishop, preaches to all Men the true Gospel, every one that desires to Partake of these Heavenly Things, coming to one of the learned in these Mysteries, desires to be led to the Highpriest— and he brings him to the Highpriest, who receiving him with gladness as a Sheep on his shoulders— praises the bountiful prinple, by which all are called who are called at all— The Highpriest dips him thrice. The Highpriest 
g Cap. 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 etc.  himself having made a holy Prayer at the Divine Altar and beginning to Offer, goes round about the whole Chore— and the Highpriest praising the Holy Divine Actions, sacrifices the most Divine Thing— and taking and delivering the Divine Communion he ends with a Holy Thanksgiving. Do 
h 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 etc.  nothing (saith the Pseudo-Ignatius to Hero a Deacon of Antioch) without the Bishops for they are Priests, thou their Deacon: they Baptise, Sacrifice or Dispense the Lord's Supper, impose Hands: thou serves them as St. Stephen in Jerusalem administered to James and the Elders. From which place it's most evident, that all Pastors or Priests (as the Author speaks) are true Bishops, that on the account of such things as are common to all Pastors, they receive the prime Episcopal Honour and Deference, that there was a College of true Bishops in the single City of Antioch, & accordingly that the rest of the Elders with James at Jerusalem were really true Bishops no less than he. I don't say that Bishops and Congregations were reciprocal everywhere in the fourth or fifth Century when these Impostors wrote, only being to personat Apostolic Men, they saw themselves obliged to mix into their Legends some shreds of true Antiquity. The stuff they invented themselves was of a far different and contrary Metal, and far from being so conform and like to the Apostolic and prime Primitive Church.  
§. 14 And here it's to be added, that as every Bishop had once, which continued in very many places for a good space, one Congregation only, so all Bishops whatsoever are of the same Dignity, and Equal with one another. For Cyprian 
i (Mihi) Lib. 2. Epist. 1.  calls all Bishop's Colleagues, adding, we force none, we give Laws to none, seeing every Governor in the Administration of the Church, hath Power to do according to his own Will, for which he is to give God an Acconnt. And, 
k In sententiis Episcoporum de Haereticis baptizandis. Page 334.  for none of us is a Bishop of Bishops, or by a Tyrannical Power can force his Colleagues to Obedience etc. And Hierome 
l Epist. 85.  saith, wheresoever Bishops be, at Rome or Eugubium, Constantinople, Rhegium, Alexandria or Tanis, they are all of the same Dignity and Priesthood, Riches and Poverty make not a Bishop either higher or lower, they are all the Successors of the Apostles. Which is also Augustine's Mind, and must be granted by all who acknowledge the Equality of the Apostles, and that Bishops were their Successors.  
Now the Truth of these two Things, viz. the allowableness of a Bishop to every Congregation, yea the primitive Reciprocalness of a Bishop and a Congregation, and the Equality of Bishops among themselves being supposed, which indeed is undoubtable to all the Ingenuous, their whole Hierarchy turns to nothing.  
And now I hope that which some pretend to be a mighty Prejudice, viz. that Episcopacy still the facto has been, and from the earliest times of Christianity we hear of Bishops, is many ways removed, and that by this time it has clearly appeared, that either profound Ignorance, Osscitancy, or the massy beam of Interest in men's Eyes has been the true Source of this Prejudice.  
Moreover, suppose that it could not be easily told when this Corruption, which is like the Tares sown during the sleeping of the Husbandman, crept into the Church: Can they tell when all other Corruptions made their first Entry? As for Example, can they give a distinct account when the use of Oil in Baptism, whereof Tertullian 
m De Baptismo. Cap. 7. Exinde egressi de lavacro perunguimur benedicta unctione de pristina Disciplina, qua ungui oleo decorum in sacerdotium solebant.  speaks as of a thing constantly practised among Christians, came first in Fashion? The like I may say of Exorcisation, and many other things altogether uncertain as to their Beginning, and yet by all Lovers of the Truth of Christianity to be Corruptions, whereof see store in Chamier's Panstratia 
n Tom. 4. Lib. 5. Cap. 16. .  
Secondly, I trust also that by the foregoing Discourses, the Weapon the Papists and other Hierarchicks use against the Reformed Churches to prove that they have no Ministers, because of the want of a Succession of Bishops, is sufficiently blunted.  
And this minds me of an Objection I was assaulted with from a Gentleman of that Persuasion, 'twas that these Episcopal Men who ordained our Pastors, gave them the Power of Ordination neither in express Terms, nor yet intentionally; Ergo not at all. I Reponed, that tho' they did not give it them intention Operantis, yet notwithstanding intention Operis: in so much as they ordained the Ministers of the Gospel, all whom we sustain to be true Bishops. I add, this is to a hair like Becan 
o Compen. Manualis Cap. 12. Paragr. 11.  the Jebusites arguing against Luther's Call to be a Protestant-Minister, Luther (saith he) had no lawful Calling to the Ministry he exercised after his Defection, for than he began to oppugn the Catholic Church, abolish Feasts, Monastic Vows, and Prayers for the Dead, these things he could not do by the Power which he had received in the Catholic Church, for the Bishop who ordained him, gave him no Power for the Destruction of the Church.  
§. 15. But there yet remains a great Prejudice, and no wonder, for it comes from a great City, Rome (say they) and other such vast Cities, which certainly contained many Congregations, have been always ruled by their particular Bishops as the Catalogues yet extant evince But tho' 'twere so, seeing it's at least, no less certain, that in other places Bishops and Congregations were Reciprocal, we are even with them, and their Argument quite evanishes, and Antiquity allows us to give a Bishop to every Congregation, no less than it warrants their giving a multitude of Parishes to any one Bishop. And Dr. Maurice 
p page 449.  acknowledges, he never yet heard of any Man who made it essential to a Bishop to have many Congregations under him. And he's so far in the right herein that, during prime Antiquity, 'twas never so much as dreamed, that 'twas either essential or any way requisite for a Bishop to have a plurality of Congregations. It's not (saith he 
q page 451. ) the being Pastor of one or many Congregations that makes one a Bishop; but the Order. There are (saith Saravia 
r Exam. Tract. de triplici Episcopatuum Genere pag. 16.  and have been Bishoprics so small that their Bishops had only one or two Presbyters; for we measure not a Bishopric by the number of the Clergy or by the amplitude of the City or Diocese, the magnitude of Riches, but by the Authority of the Episcopal Degree, altho' the Bishopric be included in one small Parish alone. And some of the most Episcopal amongst them acknowledge that any of our Ministers tho' they have but one Parish, want nothing to make them Bishops but only the Episcopal Consecration, whereby they at once yield the whole Plea, destroy their Hierarchy, and withal discover their preterscriptural, and therefore antiscriptural Superstition.  
And now seeing there is all the warrant and allowance that either can be desired or thought on that a Bishop and a Pastor of one single Flock or Congregation is one and the same, and that every Congregation may have its own proper Bishop, their Plea for the Distinction between Bishop and preaching Presbyter, tho' its Ground were no less solid than it's naught and slippery, becomes really of no subserviency at all to their Hierarchick Cause, and so on this account is truly exhausted (for providing the Pastor of any Parish or Congregation be constantly employed in Preaching and Edifying the People, we shall not envy him others, so far as is requisite, to assist him, the People may be instructed the better) Don't therefore Dr. Maurice 
s Preface to his Defence of Diocesan Episcopacy.  and the Men of that stamp, while they pretend that tho' there be allowed to every Congregation its proper Bishop, yet there's a most different and momentuous Controversy behind, about the Distinction between Bishop and Presbyter, seek, as the Proverb is, a Knot in the Rush, and trifle with a witness?  
Give them moreover out of sole kindness, that the 
t See Doctor Scot's Christian Life. Vol. 2. Chap. 7. and D. M. Page 98. Et seq.  Apostolic Power and Office is permanent and to be transmitted to all Bishops, yet on Supposition of these Truths, viz. that every Congregation had, yea or may have its proper Bishop, and that all Bishops are equal, they shall be compelled to desert the whole of their Plea, and acknowledge the sure Foundation and lawfulness of what they call Presbyterian Parity.  
Secondly, Eusebius 
u Hist. Eccles. Lib. 3. Cap. 8. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 etc.  plainly says that it cannot be known who were the Successors of the Apostles to feed the Churches they had planted, save what is to be collected from the words of the Apostles, and so break the Chain at the Top, where it should be strongest, and shows that their best twisted Cords become Ropes of Sand, to which, as we already noticed, the learn'dest of their own Writers subscribe.  
Thirdly, To come to Rome in particular, altho' 'twas the Head of the World, and indeed the Head and Fountain from whence all the Hierarchicks draw their best support, no Man of Reason, whoever looked into the divers, yea and contrary Accounts given by the Ancients of the first pretended Successors of Peter; can ever infer that the Romans had, in these early times of Christianity, one peculiar Diocesan Bishop over the rest of the Pastors: yea indeed Cletus, Clemens, Linus, all whom, if you compare the best Accounts they have, you shall find to have been at one and the same time Bishops of Rome, and Successors of Peter, are a good evidence that he had no singular Successor at all. This was so made out by the Protestant Writers, that for aught I know the Romanists were despairing of any plausible Answer, altho' I doubt not, but they take Heart, since some among the Protestants 
x Pearson suis posthumis & Dodwell.  have used prodigious Endeavours to gratify them, and reconcile real Contradictions, and fix the singular Successors of Peter. I can scarce light on any of the Books they cite, and yet I'm at no great loss. For, 4 lie, It's certain that Peter was never at Rome, which at once dispatches the grand Plea of all the Hierarchicks. The whole stream of Writers 
y Arnobius. Lib. 2. Eusebius. Hist. Eccles. Lib. 2. Cap. 14. Epiphanius. Tom. 2. Page 59 Philastrius. Hieronymus Cat Script. Augustinus Tom. 6. Page 6. Sulpitius severus Lib. 2. and others.  who record Peter's Voyage thither either relate or suppose that his Errand was to oppose Simon Magus, so that the Truth of both these Relations must stand or fall together. But Simon Magus, (if we believe Origenes 
z Contra Celsum Lib. 1. ) was never there. Simon (saith he) the Smaritan and Majician endeavoured by Sorcery to destroy some, and I believe deceived many with his delusions. But now throw all the World you shall scarce find thirty who follow him, and I perhaps have called them more than they are. Indeed there are some few in Palestine, but in the rest of the Regions of the World his very Name is not heard off, altho' he mainly desired that his Fame might be spread abroad, and if perhaps there be any report of him at all, it's only to be learned from the Acts of the Apostles. And Time, which often has discovered things commonly taken for Truth to be altoger False, hath verified the words of Origenes: For the Statue which gave the occasion of the fixion is now found to be the Image an old Sabin King or fictitious Deity called by the Romans Semo Sangus, Sancus or Sanctus 
a Dionys. Halicar. Lib. 4. Ovid Fast. Lib. 6. Livius Dec. 1. Lib. 8. Augustinus de civitate Dei. Lib. 13. Cap. 19  which Justine Martyr, throw his unskilfulness of the Latin Tongue, and a Cheat put upon him by some Samaritans, took for Simon Magus as is acknowledged even by the learned Romanist 
b Annot, in Euseb. Lib. 2. Cap. 13.  Valesius. The Inscription of this statue is Semoni Sango Deo Fidio. Now according to the Genius of the Age the fraud prevailed, and Simon Magus must be brought to Rome, made to effect monstruous Prodigies; and therefore Simon Peter his old Adversary must also be sent thither to Conjure and Baffle him a second time. And this is the prime Source of Peter's imaginary Journey to Rome, and his fictitious Roman Episcopacy, and the whole Papal Structure. For, as Simon Magus his coming to Rome is mentioned by none before Justine, and by him only on this false Ground, so Peter's Journey thither is before that time mentioned by none, save Papias, if he may be said to mention it, for if at all, he does it very obscurely 
b Eusebius lib. 2. cap. 15. . And tho' he had been never so positive in this Matter, it's of small Consequence, for, as Eusebius already told us, (tho' elsewhere 
c lib. 3. cap. 36.  he forgets himself) he was of so little Wit, so fabulous and given to believe everything he heard, that his Testimony merits little or no Credit. Irenaeus indeed says that Papias was a hearer of the Apostles, and himself also intimats so much, but again clearly denies it while he says 
d Euseb. lib. 3. cap. 39 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 etc.  that he used, when he met with any: who had been acquainted with the Elders, to inquire what Andrew, Peter, Philip, Thomas, James, John, Matthew and the rest of Christ's Disciples had been wont to say. And this he intimats had been his Practice only, when he was a young Man, and so gives us clearly to understand that when he wrote, there was not one of the Hearers of the Apostles alive. So far was Papias from being their Disciple. 'Twas he also who gives out that Mark wrote not his Gospel by Divine Inspiration, but only by the help of his Memory. 'Twas he also who was the Father of the carnal and gross Chiliasts, and the first who abused the Scriptures, turning them all to Allegories, and had not so much as the knowledge to distinguish Philip the Apostle from Philip the Evangelist. The same Papias is the first Author of the report of Peter's Journey to Rome (providing it may be said that he reports it at all) which mistake, as Eusebius intimates 
e Hist. Eccles. lib. 2. cap. 15. , flowed from his misunderstanding of 1 Pet. 5. 13. The Church that is at Babylon etc. And seeing that by Babylon in the Apocalypse Room is meant, he and many of these times, through their want of skill to distinguish between the Prophetic Mystick, and Epistolick plain Phrase and Style, concluded that in Peter also Room is to be understood. But this Gloss is so foreign and absurd that even the most learned of the Romanists, as Petrus de Marca Bishop of Paris 
f de Concordia Sacerd. & Imp. tom. 2. pag. 174.  acknowledges that these Words of Peter are not to be understood of Rome, but of the eastern Babylon, where (saith the Bishop) Peter was settled hereditary Patiark. Some indeed understand them of a City bearing that name in Egypt, and this Spanhemius F. and Dr. Pearson 
g Posth●m. de Success. Rom. Pontif, Dissert. 1. cap. 8.  prefer to the Assyrian Babylon: the former because the old Chaldean Babylon was then desolate, the letter for this that after Anilaeus a chief man among the Jews in these parts had injured the Inhabitans, many of them were cut off and the rest driven from Babylon, who fled to Ctesiphon, the most part whereof notwithstanding in a combination made against them by the Assyrians and Greeks were either cut off or expelled. Therefore he concludes that tho' Peter was the Apostle of the Circumcision, yet he could expect no harvest of the Jews in these parts. Now, as to the ground Spanhemius goes on, it seems sufficient to prove that it could not be the old Chaldean Babylon: For it's certain from Scripture, and Plinius witnesses 
i lib. 6. cap. 26. Caetero in solitudinem rediit, exhausta vicinitate Seleuciae.  that 'twas then reduced to a solitude. It seems therefore to be meant of the Principal City of the Parthian empire which succeeded to Babylon in name no less then in honour as is clear from that in Lucan 
k lib. 1. , 
Cumque superba foret Babylon spolianda Trophaeis  
Ausoniis.—   
If this their chief City was Ctesiphon or Seleucia, may be a doubt Plinius 
l ibid. Ctesiphontem— condidere Parthi quod nunc est caput Regni.  calls Ctesiphon the Head of the Parthian Kingdom. But Strabo seems to be more clear in this matter, and to give light to Pliny, Tacitus, Herodianus, Am. Marcellinus, or otherwise to lay open the ground of their mistake. Seleucia (saith he) 
m lib. 16. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 etc.  a City by the bank of Tigris, as Babylon was of old, is now the Metropolis of Assyria, near it there is a great Village Ctesiphon wherein the Parthian Kings used to winter, sparing Seleucia that it might not be spoiled by the warlike Scythians (by whom I understand their Auxiliary or guard Soldiers who were rude and ready to Mutiny, and therefore were not brought within their Chief and Treasure City) this Village is now arrived at even the power and greatness of a City. Where, as is evident, he so much prefers Seleucia to Ctesiphon that he makes the former the chief City of the empire. Moreover Crassus when he designed the conquest of Parthia and the possession of the King's treasures being asked by the Messengers of Orodes King of Parthia why he broke the peace made with Pompey and Sylla, said he would answer them at Seleucia 
n Florus lib. 3. cap. 11.— Seleucia se responsurum esse respondit.  proudly insinuating that he would subdue and spoil their chief City. And this City expressly gets the name Babylon by Stephanus 
o ad vocem Babylon. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. , and he confounds it with the old Babylon. Hence it appears that Seleucia was the chief City of the Parthian empire, and commonly then got the name of Babylon, and that the very place of old Chaldean Babylon was not then known, for they were certainly in distant places; therefore, if Josephus seem to mention another Babylon distant from the chief City of the Parthians this is rather to be understood of the Country Babylonia then of the old Chaldean Babylon which then was ruined now tho' the Jews for a time might be compelled to leave that principal City of Parthia they might notwithstanding soon after be permitted to return no less than these who were expelled Rome by Claudius, got Liberty shortly to come thither again. This Dr. Pearson allows and therefore cannot deny the probability of the other However this be, nothing is more certain than that by Babylon, which Peter mentions, the literal proper and well known Babylon, which was then the chief City of Parthia Seleucia, must be meaned, otherways the dispersion to which he writes had neither known where he was nor what Church saluted them, which is quite contrary to the Apostles Intention there. For at that time the Apocalypse was not written, and yet on this most false Supposition viz. that by Babylon Peter understands Rome, was his Journey thither founded and so must prove no less false in the matter of fact, and with it his Episcopacy and that of the earliest Popes his pretended Successors seeing all lean on his Journey thither. And ' its with no less confidence and concord averred and delivered then is either his, or his pretended Successors their Episcopacy, or aught else Subsequent to this his falsely supposed Voyage. And indeed the evidence of this our Assertion is so strong that it compelled even the learned Romanists themselves to acknowledge the Truth thereof, as J. Bapt. Mantuanus, Michael Caefenas, Marsilius Patavinus, Joh. Aventinus, Joh. Lelandus, Car. Molinaeus, who are Cited by Spanhemius F. in his Golden Dissertation on that Subject 
p Page 22.   
In the mean while I cannot but wonder how this otherways accurate and learned Antiquary 
q page 146.  finds an Egyptian Babylon in that distich of Martial 
r Lib. 14. Epigr. 15. . 
Haec tibi Memphitis Tellus dat munera, victa est  
Pectine Niliaco jam Babylonis acus.  
Th' Egyptian slay gives Tapestry more fine  
Than ever Babylon could sue or spin.   
Where the Poet only prefers the Aegyptain woven Cloth to the finest needlework of the old Chaldaean Babylon; But, as it is most apparent, no more here either expesses or insinuats that there is a place named Babylon in Egypt, then 
s Lib. 8. Ep. 28.  where he commends a Gown bestowed on him by Parthenius a gentleman of Domitius' Chamber in this distich, 
Non ego praetulerim Babylonica picta superbe  
Texta, semiramiâ quae variantur acu.  
It far excels the rich Embroideries  
Of Babylon built by Semiramis.   
Moreover Clemens Romanus speaking of the Death of Peter and Paul, intimates that he knew sufficiently where and by whom Paul was killed with other such Circumstances of his Death, but insinuats that he had no such knowledge of any such Circumstances of the Death of Peter. And it's colligible from Jerome 
t in 23. Mat.  that both Peter and Paul were not killed by the Romans but by the Jews, in, or not far from Palestine.  
'Twere easy to discover the Forgery and Falsehood of their other Catalogues of Bishops pretended to have been in the like great Cities, as for example that of the Bishops of Jerusalem whereof they fain 
u Euseb. Hist. Eccl. lib. 2. cap. 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Euseb. hist. Eccles. lib. 3. cap. 32. & lib. 4. cap. 5.  that the Apostles made James Bishop, and that on a ground to base and carnal, viz. because he was the Son of Joseph, and so related to Christ whom the Apostle Paul knew not according to the flesh. 2 Cor. 5. 16. and then make him and his pretended successor Simeon to continue Bishops of that See from a little after the death of our Saviour to, I know not what year of Trajanus, between which time and Adrian Trajanus' immediate successor his rebulding of Jerusalem, they give to that Church thirteen Bishops, to all of whom little more than twenty years can be assingned; yea some three or four of these are crammed into one year 
x Euseb. Chronic.  and yet we hear of none of these thirteen who died a violent death, but which yet more fully discovers the Forgery all along from the destruction of the City by Titus, until 'twas rebuilt by Adrian there was no Inhabitant there, no place for my L. Bishop's grace, nothing whereon to exercise the Episcopal power save rubbish and desolation. 
y Iren. pag. 301.  In none of the Churches (saith Dr. Stilling fleet) most spoken of is the succession so clear as is necessary. For at Jerusalem it seems somewhat strange how fifteen Bishops of the Circumcision should be crowded into so narrow a room as they are, so that many of them could not have above two years' time to rule in the Church. And it would bear an inquiry where the seat of the Bishops of Jerusalem was from the time of the destruction of the City by Titus, (when the walls were laid even with the ground by Musonius) till the time of Adrian.  
I shall yet in the last place adduce a few passages, and I entreat my Reader seriously to weigh them and from whom they came, for I am sure they will give great light and satisfaction to all the truly conscientious and disinterested.  
The sixth Anathematism (saith a Romanist 
z Suavis Hist. of the Council of Trent pag. 743. ) was much noted in Germany; in which an Article of Faith was made of HIERARCHY, which word and signification thereof is alien, not to say contrary to the holy Scrsptures: and tho' 'twas somewhat anciently invented, yet the Author is not known, and in case he were, yet he is an Hyperbolical Writer, not imitated in the use of that Word, nor of others of his Invention, by any of the Ancients: and following the Style of Christ our Lord, and the Holy Apostles, and primitive Church, it ought to be named, not Hierarchy, but Hierodiaconia, or Hierodoulia. And Dr. Heylen, who 
a Hist. of Episcopacy, part 2. page 39  like to Balaam blessing Israel when he would fainest have cursed them, uses to establish a Presbyterian Parity of Pastors while he is most desirous to destroy it, makes the Bishop in Justine Martyr ' s time all one with the Precedent of the Congregation and ordinary Preacher of God's Word and Celebrator of the Eucharist therein. And pleads that in Tertullian's mind Baptism was a work most proper to the Bishop in regard of his Episcopacy or particular Office. And the Doctor contends out of Tertullian that in his time Christians received the Eucharist only from the Bishop's hands 
b part 2 pag. 96, 97. , and so there were no fewer Bishops than Congregations who met for hearing of the Word and Celebration of the Sacraments. What show of reason can be given (saith Dr. Stilling-fleet 
c Iren. page 257.  why the Apostles should slight the Constitution of the Jewish Synagogues, which had no dependence on the Jewish Hierarchy, and subsisted not by any Command of the Ceremonial Law? The Work of the Synagogue not belonging to the Priests as such, but as Persons qualified for instructing others. And 
d pag. 264, 265.  We are to take nottice, that the Rulers of the Church under the Gospel do not properly succeed the Priests and Levites under the Law, whose Office was Ceremonial, and who were not admitted by any solemn Ordination into their Function.— It is then a common Mistake to think that the Ministers of the Gospel succeeded by way of Correspondence and Analogy to the Priests under the Law; which Mistake hath been the Foundation and Original of many Errors. For when in the primitive Church, the name of Priests came to be attributed to gospel-ministers from a fair Compliance (as was thought then) of the Christians only to the name used both among Jews and Gentiles: in process of time, corruptions increasing in the Church, those names that were used by the Christians by way of Analogy and Accommodation, brought in the things themselves primarily intended by these names: so by the metaphorical names of Priests and Altars, at last came up the Sacrifice of the Mass; without which, they thought the names of Priests and Altars were insignificant. This Mistake we see run all along through the Writers of the Church, as soon as the name Priests was applied to the Elders of the Church, that they derived their Succession from the Priests of Aaro●'s Order. In short he still contends that the model of Governing the Christian Church was an exact imitation of that of the Synagogues, which were no other thing than the particular parish Churches among the Jews, and in every one of which there was a a Bishop parallel to him who, in the Apocalypse, is the Angel of the Church.  
And Dr. Lightfoot is of the same mind; The Apostle (saith he) 
e Vol. 1. pag. 308.  calleth the Minister Epis●opus, from the common and known title of the CHAZAN or Overseer in the Synagogue. And 
f Vol. 2. pag. 133.  Besides these there was the public Minister of the Synagogue who prayed publicly and took care about reading the Law, and sometimes preached if there were not some other to discharge this Office. This person was called SHELIACH TSIBBOR the Angel of the Church, and CHAZAN HAKENESETH the Chazan or Bishop of the Congregation. The Aruch gives the reason of the name: The Chazan (saith he) is SHELIACH TSIBBOR the Angel of the Church (or the public Minister) and the Targum renders the word ROVEH by the word HOSE one that oversees. For it's incumbent on him to oversee how the Reader reads and whom he may call cut to read in the Law. The public Minister of the Synagogue himself read not the Law publicly but every Sabbath he called out seven of the synagogue (on other days fewer) whom he judged fit to read. He stood by him that read, with great care observing that he read nothing either falsely, or improperly and calling him back and correcting him, if he had failed in any thing, and hence he was called CHAZAN that is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. Bishop or Overseer. Certainly the signification of the word Bishop and Angel of the Church had been determined with less noise if recourse had been made to the proper fountains and men had not vainly disputed about the signification of words taken I know not whence. The service and worship of the Temple being abolished as being Ceremonial, God transplanted the worship and public adoration of God used in the synagogues, which was moral, into the Christian Church: to wit, the public Ministry, public prayers, reading God's Word, and preaching etc. Hence the names of the Ministers of the Gospel were the very same, the Angel of the Church, the Bishop which belonged to the Ministers in the synagogues. There were also three Deacons or Almoners on whom was the care of the poor etc. Among the Jews (saith Dr. Burnet 
g Observ. on the 1 Can. page 2.  he who was the chief of the synagogue was called CHAZAN HAKENSETH the Bishop of the Congregation and SHELIACH TSIBBOR the Angel of the Church. And the Christian Church being modelled as near the form of the synagogue as they could be, as they retained many of the Rites so the form of the government was continued, and the names remained the same, And 
h Obs. on the 2 Can. page 83.  In the synagogues there was first one, that was called the Bishop of the Congregation. Next, the three Orderers, and Judges of every thing about the synagogue who were called TSEKENIM, and by the Greeks 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is Elders. These ordered and determined every thing that concerned the synagogues or the persons in it. Next them, were the three PARNASSUS or Deacons, whose charge was to gather the Collections of the rich, and to distribute them to the poor.  
All the Presbyters (saith the Learned Le Moyne 
i V●ria Sacra tom. 2. pag. 35. Nam non omnes Presbyteri onus concionandi & Verbum Dei enarrandi in se recipiebant etc. ) took not on them the burden of preaching and exponing the scriptures, some were taken up in serving at the administration of the Sacraments searching into scandals, visiting the sick, strengthening the weak, and providing for the Church's profit, but the business of preaching belonged only to the Apostles the Bishops and the first Presbyters. Hence in times of the ancient Church the Bishops perpetually preached which the inferior Presbyters did not except they were admitted thereto by the Bishops and chief Presbyters.  
Most memorable to this purpose are the words of the learned Jesuit Sirmundus 
k apud Le Moyne pag. 36, ibid. Verbam Dei, soli olim in Ecclesia praedicabant Episcopi, quarum proprie id Munus erat. Post etiam id Presbyteris, sed non uno apud omnes tempore permissum etc.  Anciently (saith he) the Bishop's only and no others preached the word of God for this was their proper province and work 'twas afterwards, tho' not alike soon every where, allowed to the Presbyters to preach: this was soon begun in the East, as is clear from the practice of Pierius, chrysostom, and others who preached while they were only Presbyters.  
And now judge, tho' nothing else had been adduced but what is just now brought from these profoundly learned and most unsuspected Arbiters, if the Regimen and Way of the true primitive Church was not according to the Gospel's Humility and Simplicity, most opposite to a terrene Domination, Prelatical Grandor and Power over other Pastors, and the vanity of preterscripturall and superstitious Ceremonies? if she than enjoyed not Bishops or Pastors, Ruling Elders and Deacons? if then, whosoever had power to dispense the Word and Sacraments with the Charge of any particular Flock or Congregation, was not reciprocally one and the same with a Bishop, and finally, if the primitive Way was not entirely one with that of our Church of Scotland, and others of the reformed Churches, which is now known by the name of Presbytry?  
Hence it's carefully to be noted how odd and grievous Alterations were made both as to the use of Terms and in the Offices they had primitively signified in Scripture. In, yea even after the Apostolic Age we find that the word Bishop, wherever it holds forth an ordinary Church-Officer, always signifying a Labourer in the Word and Doctrine, and Dispenser of the Srcraments, Pastor of a Flock or Congregation. We find also the Word Presbyter taken as its equivalent denoting this very thing: elsewhere (as is now made evident) the word Presbyter signifies no Pastor of a Flock, but only one who was to assist him in Ruling and Guidance thereof; some also of this latter kind of Presbyters designing the Ministry, there being then few or no Theological Schools, were trained up for the Office under the Inspection of Bishops or Parochial Pastors, and accordingly while assisted them therein. But this was only accidental to the Office of a ruling Presbyter. Afterward there was a new kind of Church Office invented whose chief work was not to feed any Flock or Congregation and yet was reputed the Pastor of many Flocks which was a complete Contradiction. His Province was mainly to rule and domineer over a multitude of both Pastors and Flocks, him they called the Bishop. Another Office epually new and unknown to Scripture and prime Antiquity was a kind of semipastor or half Minister who was to do all the Ministerial Work, and yet was so far from having any Pastoral Power that on the contrary he was only the subject and substitute of another, and him they called the Presbyter: As for the other sort of Presbyters they came in time to be well nigh entirely abolished and forgotten. The like chrysostom 
l On the 6 of the Acts hom. 14.  observes of the Deacons, saying that in his time such Deacons as the Apostles ordained were not in the Church. Hence it's not strange if the Ancients, while sometimes they violent the Scriptures to make them favour what in their owned times was obtaining, and at other time's while, either out of design and freedom, or casually they light on the true Meaning of the Scriptures, speak most perplexedly of Bishops and Presbyters, and afford no small ground of Wrangling and Disputation to all that are exercised in this Controversy.  
In the mean while such Immutation was not made in a day, 'twas slow and apparently plausible like the weed which at length you may see that it is groun up, yet its act of growing ye shall never perceive. This Alteration, as even Spanhemius F. 
m Introduct. ad Hist. Nou. Test. Pag. 166.  no enemy to the Hierarchy, observes, began first in great Cities, and beside the general occasions or rather pretexts for it, which we already noted, there was this colour more peculiar to great Cities; in Rome, for example, though there were Christian's sufficient to make up several ordinary Congregations, yet at some special times all or most of these used to meet at one place, and accordingly were accounted but one Church. This might occasion the making of a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or one particular Moderator among the Pastors who got some primacy of Order, and at these more solemn meetings of the People appeared & spoke most and in time got the appropriation of the name Bishop: all this was notwithstanding only a mere prostasy: he must nixt have a power over his Colleagues in the City: the Bishops, the parochial Pastors of the Country and lesser Cities are next to be invaded.  
This Fermentation, which had small beginnings and still grew until all was soured, suelled especially and was most operative in a time of peace, whereof in the third Century they had a good space, even from the Death of Valerian until Dioclesian's Persecution. The Emperor's themselves (saith Eusebius 
m Hist. Eccles. Lib. 8. Cap. 1.— 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  then so much favoured them that they not only gave them Liberty of the public Exercise of their Religion, but also made some of them their Chamberlains and Governors of Provinces. In this time the alteration of both Government and Worship was certainly not a little promoved. For nothing then reigned among the Christians but contention & ambition. They were not content (continous he) with the former Edifices but builded large Churches from the foundation— But when through too much liberty we fell into sloth and negligence, when every one began to envy and backbite another, when we managed as 'twere an intestine war amongst ourselves with Words as with Swords, Pastors against Pastors, and People against People, being dashed one on another, exercised strife and tumult, when deceit and Guile had grown to the highest pitch of wickedness— When being void of all sense we did not so much as once think how to please God; yea rather on the other hand impiously we imagined that human Affairs are not at all guided by Divine Providence, we daily added Crimes to Crimes when our Pastors having despised the Rule of Religion strove mutually with one another, studying nothing more than how to outdo one another in strife, threatening Emulation, Hatred, and mutual Enmity, proudly usurping Principalities or Prelacies as so many places of Tyrannical Domination.  
To this time doubtless did the Nicene Fathers look in their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ancient Customs that they mention, which will be denied by none who remember that even things of a very late date 
n Vide sis Clementis Epist. Pag. 112. & Irenius ● verba ap●d Eusebium hist. Eccles. Lib. 5. Cap. 24. & Optatum Milevitanum Lib. 1.  used then to be called ancient, and, which is yet more, they were wont to pretend Apostolic Authority and Tradition for every one of their Innovations. For this their Pride and Superstition and such Vices God sent a long and most grievous Persecution, after which it might have been reasonably thought they would have returned to the Humility and Simplicity of the Gospel, and Apostolic Age. But so far were they from this that the Gangrene began faster than ever to consume the Vitals of Chrsitianity, and having got a Christian Emperor to indulge and enrich them they quickened their Pace, and in the gadiness of Pride and giddiness of Superstition, extravaging without bounds in this Declension they piece and piece laid aside the Scripture, and in the model of their Government and Worship eyed and followed three patterns, the Jewish Policy, Ceremonies, and Temple, where there was one Highpriest, the magnificent and splendid Government of the Roman Empire, over which there was one Head, one Emperor. And lastly, the way of the Roman Pagan Priests in which there was also at Rome a Pontifex Maximus or Highpriest over all the many Degrees of Priests in the Empire, and so in process of time it came to pass that he who by his first Institution was designed to be a Pastor of a Flock or Congregation, and to imitate the Apostolic Simplicity and Humility, turned to be the great Antichrist, the son of Perdition. and grand Emissary and Lieutenant of the red Dragon, and these who were ordained to be his Fellow-Pastors and Ministers of the Gospel became his Underlings and Slaves in that Apostasy, and being martial'd into a thousand Ranks and Orders proved so many Squadrons of hellish Locusts, so that scarce in any part of the Creation of God was there ever a more sad and direful Depravation, if it were not when our first Parents fell into the Cloutches of the old Serpent, or when the Sons of God became his greatest Enemies, and those morning Stars, the beautiful Angels turned into infernal Firebrands, black and abominable Devils.  
Most observable notwithstanding, yea and adorable is Divine Providence in this, that even in the growth and increase of this black Apostasy, the Church in Opinion and Doctrine, at least, still held fast the great, and capital Articles of Christianity, as the sufficiency of the Canonical Books of Scripture, the Doctrine of the holy Trinity, of free Grace, of Justification by Faith in Christ's Blood etc. Their great sin lay not in the Defect but in the Excess, by superadding to these golden Foundations a heap of hay and stubble, the wild Fancies of Apostatising Brains; And in process of time equalizing, yea and preferring them to these Divine and most necessary Truths comprehended in the Books of the Old and New Testament. Then it was when, tho' they still acknowledged the Identity of Bishop and preaching Presbyter, or Pastor of a Congregation, they must, amongst the rest of their novel Foppereiss, raise one Bishop, or Highpriest (as they spoke) over a number of other Pastors, and Churches, whose Ordination and Consecration must be accompanied with a dale of Alloy suitable to this their humane and unwarrantable Institution: He must have a Cudgel put in his hand, to signify his Rule and Authority over the People, and a Ring to signify his Pontifical Honour, and the hidden Mysiereiss wherewithal he is entrusted 
m Isidorus de Officiis lib. 2. cap. 6.  The Bishop being consecrated, shaved, and anointed, it was his proper Work and Office to erect and consecrate Churches, to make their Chrism or Holy Oil; For the Art of Besmearing was pretty early in the Church, no later at least than their Diocesan, and therewith to anoint the forehead, Eyes, and Ears of the Baptised, to receive the Penitents, and perform such greasy businesses about them. These and the like Actions were reserved as the special Ornament and Badges of the High-Priest's Honour 
n Vide Con. Hispalense 2. Can. 7. apud Carranzam fol. 269. & Isidorum de Originib. lib. 7. cap. 12. & de Officiis Ecclesiasticis lib. 2. cap. 7. & Rabanum Maurum de Institut. Cler. lib. 1. cap. 6▪ . And indeed hitherto they acted congruouly, for 'twas but meet, that their own Antichristian Inventions, the Institution whereof never came into God's mind, should be appropriated to their own Church-Officer whom God never appointed, Caetera conveniunt sed non levis error in uno est.  
For they debased and polluted God's Ordinance, I mean the Ordination of Pastors which they threw in among their Trash, and left likewise to their Bishop or Highpriest as a part of his peculiar Province (Superstitionists sometimes for such Fooleries deprave the Scripture, which Dr. Lightfoot one of the learned est of the Churchof- England Divines, observes and baffles, Here (saith he) 
o on Acts 8. 17.  Episcopacy thinketh it hath an undeniable Argument for Proof of its Hierarchy, and of the strange Rite of Confirmation etc.) And this is very like another Practice for Antiquity also not a white lower than their Diocesan, they made another fixed Church-Officer whom they called an Exorcist. His Office was to dispossess and cast out Devils 
p Vide Isidorum de originib. Lib. 7. Cap. 12. & Rabanum Maurum de Institut. Clericorum Lib. 1. Cap. 10. . Now surely such an ordinary Church-Officer was never appointed by God, and therefore, 'tis most likely that some of those Exorcists needed some to have casten the Devils out of themselves, or at least, to have given them a a round dose of Hellebore, no less, than did any of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 their Patients. But seeing they made such a Church-Officer, and the dispossessing of Devils was amongst the greatest and most miraculous Works that ever was practised even by the greatest Apostles. It may be thought that this Exorcist was one of their highest Church-Officers, a Metropolitan certainly, Archbishop or Patriarch, but he was none of these, yea he was no Bishop, no Presbyter, no Deacon, no Sub-Deacon, yea not so much as an Acolyth, that is a Candle-carier, for they used in fair-day-light and Sunshine to light Candles in the Church to obey and fulfil (as they said) that Scripture, John 1. 9 That was the true Light, which lighteneth every Man that cometh into the World 
q Vide Isidorum de originib. Lib. 7. Cap. 12. Rabanum Maurum de Institut. Lib. 1. Cap. 9 . This Exorcist was yet a degree lower than their Candle-Carier, and therefore was placed in the very rear and tail of all their Clergy. So dangerous, yea and unaccountable were many of their Actings, but especially in the matter of Church-Office-bearing.  
Moreover I appeal to all the judicious and conscientious if out of a conscientious desire of conforming to the primitive Church, our Adversareiss make such a horrid noise, bustle and Schism for their Hierarchy. For, suppose it to be as true as I hope by this time to all the unbiased it's manifested to be false, that in all points they could vouch their Hierarchy to be warranted by the true primitive Church and the Government of the one entirely like that of the other, yet do they not desert her in many other things? Did the primitive Church use Organs in Divine Worship? Were they not first introduced in the seventh Century by Pope Vitalian 
r Platina in Vitaliano & Volater. apud Onuphrium in Chronographia.  And yet it is doubtful if they were so soon received: For Aquinas dislikes and condemns them 
s Secunda secundae Quest. 91. Articul. 2. . Or where, pray, in the true primitive Church shall they find the Surplice, Corner-Cap and Tippet? Or where, to name no more, shall they find the Bishop allowed to involve himself in secular cares; Civil and State Offices or Employments? Some used indeed, when they pleased, the Christian Emperor allowing it, to make the Bishop's Arbiters of their private Debates, but to all the good Bishops, as Augustine 
t In Psalmum 118.  complains, this was a most weighty Grievance. But in more early times even this was not permitted, for Cyprian 
u Lib. 1 Ep. 9— Cum singuli divino sacerdotio honorati & cuncti in clericali Ministerio constituti non nisi altari & sacrificiis deservire, & precibus atque orationibus vacare debeant. Scriptum est enim etc.  condemns as altogether unlawful that any Churchman should be so much as a testamentary Tutor to any Pupil. And mark the ground he goes on, For (saith he) whosoever are honoured with the Divine Priesthood or have a place in the Clergy ought only to serve at the Altar, and spend their time in Prayer and Supplication. For, 'tis written, no Man that warreth entangleth himself with the Affairs of this Life, that he may please him who hath chosen him to be a soldier. Th●● is such a clear and inevitable Condemnation of the Practice of the Hierarchicks, that the Learned Annotators, Pamelius, and the Bishop of Oxford, finding nothing wherewith to elude it, skipp it over with deep silence. And now judge if Cyprian was of one mind with the Bishop of Five Churches, who will have the meaning of Paul's words cited by Cyprian to be 
x Hist. of the Council of Trent. pag. 490.  that every Christian ought to abstain from those things which are repugnant to Christian Profession, which are sins only; and will not have the Apostle to speak any thing of Churchmen in particular, or if Cyprian would have exponed the sixth of the Canons ascribed to the Apostles as doth Heylyn, who 
y Histor. of Episcop. part 2. page 25.  makes the Canon only to mean that Bishops or inferior Clergymen might not be Consuls, Praetors, Generals, or undergo such public Offices in the State of Rome, as were most sought for and esteemed by the Gentiles there. Heylen is here somewhat intricat, and his cause required it. However the sum of his drift is, that the exercising of these or the like Offices is allowed to any Pastor by the Canon. Now, altho' ' tallowed it not when the Empire was Pagan, and he would prove something of this kind from 1 Cor. 6. where he must count all Magistrates through the Christian World, Pagans and Unbelievers, for otherways none shall ever prove from this Scripture, so much as the lawfulness of a Bishop or Pastors, judging and determining any difference between any two that refer themselves to his Arbitration. And tho' he should prove it, pray what is this to 
part. 2. pages 22, 23.  
part. 2. pag. 376. 377.  the exercising the Office of Consul, General, Praetor, Chancellor, Treasurer or the like pieces of such temporal Power and Grandor? Judge moreover, were there no more but Paul his words to Timothy, 1. 4, 13, 14, 15. And 2 Tim. 4. 2, 5. If there be Leisure left any Pastor to be either Consul, General, or aught else of this nature: and consequently if all the shifts they use on this head be not sufficiently overthrown by these Scriptures only. But I had almost forgotten to notice how they torment themselves that they may torment and detort Cyprian, For Saravia says, that the Canon Cyprian speaks off was but particular and provincial only for the Church of Carthage. But Heylen refutes Saravia his comment and says Cyprian spoke so, because the Church was then almost destitute and unprovided of Presbyters. As if Cyprian had not spoken of Chruch-men absolutely and without the least intimation of any such restriction, and grounded his saying on a Scripture which, whatsoever it speaks of Churchmen, confessedly says it of the mall, be they many or few or in whatsoever time and place they live. Moreover it's most certain that in Matthew 20. 25, 26, 27, 28. The Princes of the Gentiles etc. And Mark 10. 42, 43, 44, 45. And Luke 22. 25, 26, 27. All Pastors of Flocks are prohibited to exercise Dominion, secular and state Dignity, and a parity of the Apostles amongst themselves, and in them a parity of all ordinary Pastors or Ministers of the Gospel among themselves is enjoined. D. M. 
a Pag. 16 & seq.  pretends to engage with the latter part of this Inference, but first he mis-states the question as if from these Texts we pleaded for a perfect equality of all the Officers of Christ's house without distinction between extraordinary and ordinary Ministers, or between Pastors and other Officers, and so his saying that the Apostles exercised Jurisdiction over other ecclesiastics, whether true or false, is nothing to the purpose. But saith D. M. Our blessed Saviour supposeth degrees of Subordination amongst his own Disciples as well as other societies, and therefore he directs the ecclesiastics who would climb up to the highest places in the Church, to take other methods than these that are most usual amongst the Grandees of the World: He that deserved preferment in the Church was to be the servant of all. Which answer he steals from the Jesuit Bellarmine 
b De Pontifice Lib. 5. Cap. 10.  who answers that Christ only directs ecclesiastic Princes, & teaches that as such they ought to rule their subjects, not as do Kings and Lords, but as Fathers and Pastors, To whom Junius replies 
c Tom. 2. Col. 875, 876.  that all this is quite contrary to both Christ's words and scope, The sons of Zebedie (saith he) desired a Dominion, this Christ rejects and refuses to give them; again the falsehood of this answer is demonstrated positively by Christ's following words, who in stead of this Dominion which they desired, enjoins them a humble Ministry and Service. Wherefore there is a clear opposition between Dominion and Ministry, the former belonging the World, the latter to the Church. Bishops are not (saith Bellarmine) here forbidden to exercise a dominion like that of godly Kings, but only like that of Tyrranical Kings who know not God. We deny (replies Junius) that there is any such restriction, neither can it be proved. And accordingly Junius refutes and bafles all the Sophistry that Bellarmine, and, after him, our Prelatists ordinarily bring to prove that only tyranny and not all sort of principality or superiority is by our Saviour in these Texts, prohibited. And with Junius joins the whole stream of Protestant Writers. But our Saviour (saith D. M.) did that himself among them, which he now commanded them to do to one another, and therefore the doing of this towards one another in obedience to the command now under consideration, could not infer a Parity, unless that they blasphemously infer that Christ and his Apostles were equal: For our Saviour recomends what he enjoins from his own constant and visible practice among them, viz, that he himself who was their Lord and Master, was their sevant, and therefore, it becomes the greatest among them, in imitation of him, to be modest, calm, and humble, towards all their subordinate Brethren. A sturdy argument forsooth, as if our most blessed Master to quell his Disciples their ambition of aspiring to a pre-eminence over one another, and to render them more content with a humble and brotherly parity, could not adduce and urge his own most holy and meek example of his most wonderful condescending to take upon him the form of a Servant, and do the works of a Servant among his Apostles, and that so humbly, as if he had been only their Companion and nothing above them: but he must anon be concluded to degrade and throw down himself into a mere equality with his Disciples. Can any in the exercise of his wit make such a Collection? Neither can better befall him: for, as is his constant practice this wretched Paralogism he also borrows from another Jebusite Cornelius a Lapide, who at the same rate depraves this Text of Matthew to save from a mortal blow Peter's fictitious Primacy. But in the next place, which is little better, D. M. turns Jew on our hand: Let it be further considered (saith he) that the Hierarchy and Subordination of Priests was established by Divine Authority in the Jewish Church, and if our Saviour had pulled down that ancient Polity, and commanded an equality among the Presbyters of the New Testament, he would not have stated the Opposition between his own Disciples and the Lords of the Gentiles, but rather between the Priests of the Mosaic Oeconomy and the Disciples of the New Testament. And agian, fearing lest his J●daism and also his self-repugnancy should not have otherways been apparent enough, We do not (saith he 
d page 27. ) now plead, as some ignorant People may pretend, that there ought to be a Bishop above Presbyters, because that there was a Highpriest among the Jews, but rather thus, that the Hierarchy that obtained in the Patriarchal and Jewish Oeconomy was never abrogated in the new. Well then, is there on Earth a visible Highpriest over the whole Church the Levitical Orders, Rites, & Temple-service, the very things wherein the Jewish Hierarchy consisted, and shadows of Christ to come, now allowable. But to come to his cavil, and quiet this child of Ignorance, D. M. should know that beside the Disciples ambition to get up over one another, according to the carnal apprehension they then entertained of Christ kingdom (wherein our Hierarchick Lord Bishops are the Apostles successors indeed, and all Hierarchicks, men of Apostolic principles) they looked also for a great, worldly, and civil power and dominion, which was not at all comprehended in the Jewish Priesthood, nor was then possessed by any of the Priests; and so our Lord's stateing the opposition between his Disciples and the Lords of the Gentiles, is by far more apt for his purpose than if he had stated it between them and the Priests of the old Oeconomy, which had been altogether lame, and done scarce the half of his bussiness. In a word, the Romishness and Falsehood of all these his Cavils is manifest, were there no more, from this only, that if they do any thing, they make for the defence of that new Romish Doctrine of Peter's Supremacy, which both the Fathers, and all sound Protestants, not only Presbyterians, but also Episcopals, yea some that otherwise deserve not the name of Protestants, as Dr. Heylen 
e Hist. of Episcopacy part 1 pag. 15. & seq. , explode, & prove that there was a complete Equality & Parity amongst the Apostles: And they deduce their Conclusion especially from this text of Matthew's Gospel and its parallels. And indeed if there be, as doubtless there are, any places of Scripture fit to prove it, these texts deservedly hold the first place. The Author of the Opus imperfectum, thought by some to be chrysostom, saith, on this place of Matthew, Quicunque autem desiderat primatum in terrâ, inveniet confusionem in coelo, Whosoever desires a primacy on Earth, shall find Confusion in Heaven. Now suppose the truth of these words, and compare them with the words of the Apostle 1 Tim. 3. 1. If a man desires the Office of a Bishop, he desires a good work. And it's clear the Office of a Bishop is quite another thing than a Primacy; for to desire the former is lawful and laudable, but to desire the latter is dangerous and damnable: and so much by the way, for I love not to transcribe the labours of others 
f See if you please for example Rectius Instruendum. . And so angry is D. M. at New Opinions, and for their sake at every thing that's New, that he scarce ever advances any Argument, Vindication, or Defence, but what is so frequently and sound baffled, so bare and worn, as to vy even with the old ancient Garments of the Gibeonites. These Texts, as I said, prohibit also all Pastors of Flocks to exercise Dominion, Secular or State Dignities, which is irrefragably made out by our Writers against Bellarmine de Pontifice, and other Romanists. However 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 either the Possession or Hope of such Emoluments and Dignities, as also the glistering gaiety of gorgeous and theatrick Ceremonies, close men's mouths, and keep them from acknowledging the Truth, for which even a Pagan 
g Persius' Satyrâ secundâ.  may come in to reprove them, 
O curvae interris animae, & coelestium inanes!  
Quid juvat hoc templis nostros immittere mores?  
Et bona Dijs ex hac scelerata ducere pulpa.  
Dull earthy minds who know no heavenly thing,  
What profits it into the Church to bring  
Our own Inventions? or to dream that we  
Can with Lust's fuel please the Deity.  
Dicite Pontifices, in sancto quid facit aurum?  
Speak out your minds ye Priests and do not lie,  
Can gold your holy places sanctify?   
It's an old saying that the Church brought forth Riches, but the Daughter devoured the Mother, who when she had wooden Cups she had golden Priests, but afterward she got golden Cups and wooden Priests. Even their Pseudo-Clement 
h Epist. ad Jacobum fratrem Domini.  is prolix on this subject, exhorting the Bishop to be dis-engaged of all worldly cares and affairs, and perpetually employed in Preaching and Prayer, and the like Ministerial duties. And indeed all Pastors of Flocks would carefully abstain from secular and state Offices, and every thing else that may abstract them from their Charges and Flocks, lest their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 procure them Functius' reward. But if our Hierarchicks will not hear our blessed Lord and his Apostles, if they will not hear the genuine writings of the Ancients, nor yet these spurious pieces whose Authros were otherways sufficiently Hierarchick and Ceremonious, I think they might listen to the Bishop of Aiace, for he was a Member of the Council of Trent: John Baptista Bernard (saith Suave 
i hist. of the Council of Trent pag. 489. ) Bishop of Aiace, who, th● he believed that residency was de jure Divino, yet thought it not fit to speak of that question, delivered a singular speech, saying that, not aiming to establish one Opinion more than another, but only so to enforce residency, as that it may be really executed, he thought it vain to declare from whence the obligation came, or whatsoever else and that it was sufficient only to remove the cause of Absence; which is, that Bishops do busy themselves in the courts of Princes, and in the affairs of the World, being Judges, Chanchellours Secretaries, Counselors, Treasurers, and there are but few Offices of state into which some Bishop hath not insinuate himself. This is forbidden by St. Paul, who thought it necessary that a Soldier of the Church should abstain from secular Employments. Let God's command be executed, and them forbidden to take any Charge, Office, or Degree, ordinary or extraordinary, in the affairs of the World; and then their being no cause for them to remain at Court, they will go to their residency, of their own accord, without Command or Penalty, and will not have any occasion to depart from thence. In conclusion he desired that the Council could constitute, that it should not be lawful for Bishops or others, who have care of souls, to exercise any secular Office or Charge.  
But all this was in vain, for that Synagogue of Satan was deaf like the Adder, & the Bishop of Five Churches who haranged to the contrary & eluded or neglected all his reasons telling the Council withal, that if Aiace were followed their Church would anon become base & contemptible, was heard with applause of the the whole Conventicle (tho' not without a self-contradiction as the Historian observes) so that this ingenuous and Christian Discourse was slighted and contemned. Neither can I find much ground to expect any fairer treatment from men of a Tridentine Spirit, whose strength lies mostly in mean sophistry, and unmanly snatching at colours and shaddous, disimulation of the unsoundness of their Cause, banter and Hectoring, noise and ill founded claims to Antiquity. From these I may look for unkind handling indeed; but withal have some assurance to meet with better dealing from all the Admirers and Students of most true and only unspotted Antiquity, the sacred Scripturers, whom God hath quickened by his Precepts, who know that serious and assiduous Meditation in God's Law and keeping his Precepts will make them understand more than even the Ancients, and therefore rejoice in the Way of his Testimonies as much as in all Riches, and esteem the Words of his Mouth more than their necessary food, to whom these are the Joy and Rejoicing of their heart. These, I am somewhat confident, will not be much displeased with what I have said. My Antagonist, if any happen, or I'm exceedingly mistaken, will be of quite different Qualities, I can sincerely affirm that I have not willingly or wittingly injured the Truth, or any man's person, and that the Love of sacred Verity moved me to publish these papers. Others, doubtless, of suitable Abilities may soon advance things of far greater worth than what can come from we whose mite is so mean and inconsiderable, and who, beside the other disadvantages that environ me, according to the good Pleasure of him that doth all things well, from the very womb have laboured under the want of that noble Sense of SEEING, and so am obliged to read with the Eyes and write with the Hands of others. Yet tho' I be deprived of the sweet Light and pleasure of beholding the Sun, it little moves me, if so be I may see the infinitely more precious Light of the most glorious and dear SON of Righteousness, and be illuminated and enlyvened with that all healling Virtue which is in his Wings.  
FINIS.