AN ANSWER TO THE ANIMADVERSIONS ON THE DISSERTATIONS TOUCHING IGNATIVS' EPISTLES, and the EPISCOPACY in them asserted. By H. HAMMOND, D. D. LONDON, Printed by J. G. for Richard Royston, at the Angel in Ivy-lane. 1654. AN ANSWER TO THE ANIMADVERSIONS on the Disputations concerning EPISCOPACY. THE INTRODUCTION. Nu. 1. I Had thought I had concluded the Readers trouble and mine own, when I had gotten to an end of the Assemblers Exceptions, but by that time I had transmitted those debates to the Printer, and from him received one Sheet of the Impression, I found myself called out anew by a Preface (to a Book of a very distant subject, The Saint's verseverance) wherein is inserted, a Discourse touching the Epistles of Ignatius, and the Episcopacy in them asserted, and some animadversions on Dr. H. H. his Dissertations on that subject: And this Preface (and these contents of it) le●t it might be less discernible, thought fit to be expressed in the Title page, and subscribed by John Owen, servant of Jesus Christ in the work of the Gospel. 2. And although the speedy return of such tasks is not overgrateful to me, yet because 1. I conceive it is his pleasure that we should enter this commerce: And 2. because the work of the Gospel is so glorious an employment, that I cannot be averse or flow to the giving all possible satisfaction to any which professeth to labour in it: And 3. because, if the Reader so consent, this discourse may be annexed to the former debates with the Provincial Assembly, being likely to be on the same heads, which are there spoken to, I shall not doubt thus speedily to undertake the labour of it; and if his Animadversions prove any way useful to me, I shall acknowledge by whom I have profited, retract most readily what he shall give me cause to retract, and never multiply any debates, which may be thus more compendiously ended, being confident that no miscarriage of mine (of which yet I am not conscious to have committed any in the Book of Dissert.) will be able to prejudice the main truth which is there defended, the Institution of Bishops by the Apostles. CHAP. I. Of the Apostolical Canons. Sect. 1. The Controversy about them. The Codex Canonum. What is meant by Apooryphal, and so by Genuine Canons. The two mistakes of the Praefacer, which produceth his Animadversion. What is meant by the title, Apostolical Canons. The Praefacers' ungrounded suggestion against the writings of the first times. Numb. 〈◊〉. TO set out then, with all speed that may be, on this new Stage, not knowing of what length it may prove, the first Animadversion I find myself concerned in, is in * Praef. p. 6. these words. The first Writings that are imposed on us after the Canonical Scriptures, are the eight Books of Clement, commonly called, The Apostles Constitutions, being pretended to be written by him at their appointment, with the Canons ascribed to the same persons. These we shall bu● salute; for besides that they are but faintly defended by any of the Papists, disavowed and disclaimed as Apocryphal by the most learned of them, as Bellarmine de Script. Eccles. in Clem. who approves only of fifty Canons of eighty five. Baronius, An. Dom. 102▪ 14. who adds thirty more, and Bi●ius with a little enlargement of Canons in Tit. C●n. T. 1. Con. p. 17. and have been throughly disproved and decried by all Protestant writers that have had any occasion to deal with them; their folly, and falsity, their impostures & ●…triflings have of late been so fully manifested by Dallaeus de Pseudepigraphic Apost. that nothing need be added thereunto. Of him may Dr. H. H. learn the truth of that insinuation of his, Dissert. 2 c 6. sect. 3. Canone Apostolico secundo (semper inter genninos habito) but of the confidence of this Author in his assertions afterward. 2. I am not here much surprised 1. with this charge of untruth; and 2. this promise, that my confidence in asserting shall be discovered, knowing that it was one of Aristotle's insinuations in his Elenches, at the beginning of a Dispute to endeavour to put the Respondent in passion, and then he might easily have fallacies imposed on him, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. If this were his design, I have more reasons than that one, to hope his pardon, if I do not thus gratify him. And although there be not one word said in this place, to prove either of these charges, but I am appointed to learn one from Mr. Daillé, whose book I have not been so curious as to see, and to expect the other afterwards from the Prefacer; yet being concerned to know that veracity and humility are my duties, as I am a Christian, and that I ought not to live one minute under the scandal of having offended against either of them, and having yet no motive to retract that expression in the Dissert. I am obliged to render an account of my using it. And it is this. 3. In the second Canon of the Council in Trullo. An. 681. I find a conciliarie affirmation of eighty five Canons under the title of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Canons of the holy and honourable Apostles before us. And what was there confirmed is farther ratified by the second Council of Nice, An. 787. which citys the 53d of those Canons. And this I take for a testimony of the Eastern Church's reception of that number of 85 Apostolical Canons at that time. Whereas in the Western Churches, both before, and after this time, although the Canons of the Apostles were by the Eastern communicated to them, yet that number was not received, but in a Council of seventy Bishops at Rome, under Pope Gelasius, somewhat before 500 years after CHRIST, the Book of the Apostles Canons, was defined to be Apocryphal. By Apocryphal here I conceive to be meant such as are not obligatory, w●…ch are not so owned, or received by the Church, as to be entered into Codex, ordinarily known by the name of Corpus Canonum▪ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in * Bibl, Num. 112. Photics his stile, The body of Synodical Canons, their * Novel. Const 131. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Justinia●… their Rule of Discipline, in like manner as the Books of Canonical Scripture (to which * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Nou. 131. See Anton. Augustin. l 1. de ●mend. Gratiani, Dial. 11. Justinian added the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or definitions of the four first General Councils) made up their Rule of Doctrines: That there was such a Codex, we find in the fourth General Council (that of Chalcedon) when the Book of Canons, as well as the Bible, was solemnly brought in at the opening of the Council, and * called for to be read before them as occasion required. And 'tis sufficiently known what Justellus observes, That the Christian Church was ruled of old by a double Law, Divine, the Books of the Canonical Scripture, and Canonical, the Codex of Canons: And those Canons that were not received into that Codex, though they might hold the authority due to ancient pieces, be esteemed worthy the reading and observing, were yet styled Apocryphal, i. e. useful, though not obligatory, reverenced for their Antiquity, but not allowed the power, or title of Laws, as the body of the Canons is known to be, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, we observe them as Laws, saith Justinian, and they are thence called Nomocanon, and Canon Law. 〈…〉 That this is the meaning of the word Apocryphal, I shall conclude from the story of the fact; for soon after this sentence of that Council of Rome, within very few years, we know that they were set up and received in that very place, where they had been thus looked on as Apocryphal: For Dionysius Exiguus about the year 527. made a collection of Canons, ex Graecis exemplaribus. Canon's Ecclesiasticos— composuit, quos ●odie usu celeberrimo Ecclesia Romana complectitur, out of the Greek copies he composed Ecclesiastical Canons, which at this day the Church of Rome embraceth, and useth most honourably, as Cassiodore his contemporary and consort saith of him, Divin. Lect. c. 23. In this collection he set fifty of these in the front, under the title of Apostolical Canons, prefacing this concerning them, In principio Canon's, qui dicuntur Apostolorum de Graeco transtulimus, quibus quia plurimi consensum non praebuere facilem, hoc ipsum ignorare vestram noluimus sanctitatem, quamvis postea qu●dam constituta Pontificum ex ipsis Canonibus assumpta esse videantur: In the beginning we have translated out of Greek the Canons, which are said to be the Apostles, to which because very many have been hard to give assent, we have thought fit to mention so much to you, though afterward▪ some constitutions of Bishops seem to have been taken out of these very Canons. Here it is evident, 1. that what was a few years since looked on as Apocryphal, is within a while received into their Codex, cel●berrimo usu, said Cassiodore at that very time. And 2. whilst it was not in the Codex, yet Constitutions of the Bishops were taken ●…ut of them, which argues to me, that they were not to be rejected, as to be disliked, but only so, as not to be obligator●…, any farther than as some new Decrees of the Church should give them their authority. So again in Isidore Mercator's Collection, he prefaceth thus, Propter ●orum authoritatem c●teris concil●…s praepos●imus Canon's, qui dicuntur Apost●l●rum, lic●t a quibusdam Apocrypha dicantur, quoniam plures eos recipiunt, & sancti Patres eorum sententias Synodali authoritate roboraverunt, & inter Canonicas posuerunt constitutiones. In respect of their authority we have before the rest of the Councils passed set down the Canons of the Apostles, so called, though by some they are said to be Apocryphal, because more receive them, and the holy Fathers have confirmed them by authority of Council, and placed them among Canonical Constitution▪ Where the opposition is clear, betwixt Apocryphal on one side, and confirmed by Councils, and placed among Canonical constitutions on the other side. 5. One thing only I can foresee to be by Mr. Daille or any man objected against this, viz. the Censure that * In Praef. ad Concil. Toler. See Gratian. d. 16. c. 1 & Anton. Augustin. de ●m●nd. Gr●tian. l. 1. dial. 6. p. 47. ●dit. Par. 1607. Isidore Hispalensis hath passed upon the Apostolic Canons, in these words (which I see are thought by some learned men to refer to that Council at Rome under Gelasius, but whether by Mr. Daillé, I know not) Eodem nec sedes Apostolica recepit, nec sancti patres illis assensum praelucerunt, pro co quod ab haereticis sub nomine Apostolorum compositi dignoscuntur: The Apostolic See received them not, and the holy Fathers have not allowed them their assent, because they are discerned to be framed by heretics under the name of the Apostles. Here I shall offer my conjecture (and submit it to better judgements) that Isidore speaks not of the first fifty Canons, which were certainly before his time (who was a member of the Council of Toledo in Spain, An. 633.) received into the Roman Codex, as hath already appeared, nor consequently refers to the Synod under Gelasius (which, upon other reasons I acknowledge, spoke even of those fifty) but of the whole number of 85, for in those latter 35 it is, and not in the first fifty, that the Apostles are pretended to be the Authors of them, viz. Can. 82. Where they call Philemon's servant 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, our Onesimus, and Can. 85. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Acts, or Canons of us the Apostles, whereas no such thing is so much as intimated in the first fifty: For as for those words in the fiftieth Canon which refer to the Apostles, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, according to the sentence of Christ, and our constitution by the spirit, 'tis evident that they are in Turrian's Edition, inserted, and added to that Canon, after the words, with which Dionysius Exiguus his old collection and translation ended. And so in the former part of the Canon [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, for he said not unto us] (as if the Writers were the Apostles) 'tis certain that the [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to us] is inserted: And accordingly in Balsamon's Text and Comment, which I have before me, the Canon is entire without either of those insertions. To all which I may add, that the matter of all those first fifty Canons, and the very form of words, is such, as gives not the least occasion to think them composed by heretics (certainly not put under the Apostles names by those heretics) as Isidore affirms of those of which he speaks. 6. This is to my understanding the meaning of the Controversy concerning the number and authority of these Canons, which were to be accounted Apocryphal, and which not, and so likewise which Genuine, and which not, and to this Controversy it is, that my insinuation and my words refer, and the second Canon being one of those former 50, which though they have been counted Apocryphal in one sense, were yet Genuine in another, i. e. none of the later addition of 35. which are called by learned men novitii and adulterate, I thought I had reason (and cannot but still think it) to say that that second Canon was semper inter genuinos habitus, always accounted genuine, i. e. received and acknowledged among the Canons of the Ancient Church by those who controverted, and rejected the other 35. 7. Thus much may perhaps suffice to remove the two mistakes, which by some indications I conceive to have produced this Animadversion: For 1. when in the words immediately precedent, he saith, they are disavowed and disclaimed by the most learned Papists as Apocryphal, this I suppose must be his meaning, either that by that Synod at Rome under Pope Gelasius, they were defined to be Apocryphal (and then as there is truth in that, so I may be permitted to have told him what I conceive meant by Apocryphal in that place those that were not yet received into their Codex) or else that the rest besides the first 50 are disclaimed by the most learned Papists, so I learn from my Lord Primate, that they are by Humbert in his Answer to Nicetas, Sancti Patres Canones Apostolorum numeraverunt inter Apocrypha, exceptis capitulis quinquaginta, quae decreverunt regulis Orthodoxiae adjungenda. The Holy Fathers have numbered the Canons of the Apostles among Apocryphal writings, except only fifty Canons, which they have decreed to be annexed to the rules of the true doctrine, i. e. to the Book of Canons received by them: (Where again, by the way, the notion of Apocryphal is evident, as opposed to those which are received into the Codex, Regulis Orthodoxiae adjungenda) And so by Bellarmine, whom he names in the front of those most learned Papists, and of him saith expressly and truly, that he approves only of 50 Canons of 85 (de script. Eccles. in Cl●m.) And then again, I have now minded him of that which was before evident, that the second Canon, which was cited by me, was one of those fifty, and so not disproved by that learned Papist. As for the other two, Baronius, and Binius, whom he names to the same purpose as those who have disavowed and disclaimed them as Apocryphael, I shall not accuse his confidence, but must think he was in some haste, that he could do so, Baronius being by him acknowledged to add 30 more, and Binius to have made a little enlargement of Canons, which sure doth not intimate that they disavowed, or disclaimed the fifty. 8. So when he saith of them, that they are faintly defended by any of the Papists, I shall desire to know (among many others, Bovius, Lamb. Gruterus, Stapleton Haleander, etc.) what he thinks of Turrian, whether he were a Papist or no, and whether he were a faint defender of them, nay whether Monsieur Daillé take no notice of his zeal for them? If he do not, I shall very much wonder at it: If he do, I shall have the more reason for my question, how he that sends me to be taught by M. Daillé, had not learned so much from him, that there was some Papist, by whom they were not faintly defended? So again when he saith that they have been throughly disproved and decried by all Protestant writers that have had any occasion to deal with them, I might certainly mind him of more Protestants than one that have been far from decrying them. I shall not mention, as I might, the several Bishops of our Church, since the Reformation, and our Divines in their writings, that make their Appeals to them frequently, and with as pompous forms of citations, as I have done [semper inter genuinos habito] I shall not add the learned Hugo Grotius, because I know not whether any, or all of these may not be deemed by him to be no Protestants. Only what doth he think of Frigevillaeus Gautius? He certainly An. 1593. in his second part of his Palma Christiana (dedicated to Queen Elizabeth) c. 1. & 2. was far from disavowing, and decrying those Canons: How little short he came of Turrian himself, I shall not now tell him, lest he be disavowed as no Protestant, for so doing, but leave him at his leisure to inquire, whether one such example might not have taken off from the generality of the affirmation [decried by all Protestants] or indeed whether D. Blondel's vouching them in the manner which I shall by and by set down, might not have had some force in it, if he had taken notice of such things. But all this by the way, as an Essay, that some other men, as well as H. H. may be confident in asserting. 9 Secondly, When immediately after his Animadversion on my words, he mentions his Exceptions to the Books of Apostolical Constitutions and Canons taken out of Daillé, and the learned Usher, 'tis apparent that these all belong to the Books under Clement's name, called the Apostles Constitutions: But than it must be remembered, that that Book of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or Constitutions is another thing, clearly distinct from the Book called the Apostles Canons, and there is but one way imaginable to involve the later under the censure that belongs justly to the former, and it is this, That in some Copies the Constitutions and Canons are put together into one Volume (and that 〈◊〉 * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (i. e. in the volume of Clement's Constitutions) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Numb 112. Photius his time) and that in the end of the Canons, there is a solemn confirmation of the Constitutions. But than it must be remembered again, that these are later Copies, which so confound them, and I take not them to be genuine, and that Canon is the eighty fifth of that Book, and so no part of the first fifty, which I suppose to be the only genuine Canons, and consequently that none of the ridiculous things in the Constitutions is imputable to that former Collection, but indeed, on the contrary, that one expression in that eighty fifth Canon, which prescribes the keeping them * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. close, because of some mysterious passages in them, is justly thought by learned men to betray them both (the later 35 Canons, and the Constitutions so magnified by them) to be of a much later Edition, than that which they pretend to. 10. And thus I hope I have vindicated myself, and given the grounds of my Assertion, And for the confidence, I did not, I confess, expect to be charged with any immoderate degree of it from any, nor do I yet discern how those few words in the Parenthesis (semper inter genuinos habito) could be deemed so criminously guilty of it, or that he that undertook to be my Monitor, having in so short a time proved so much more guilty of it, should in any reason think himself the most competent for that office. 11. To help him to any appearance of reason, and so to qualify him thus to charge me, some want of observation of vulgar stile must be necessary, either in not adverting what is ordinarily meant by their title of Apostolic Canons, or some other the like. That he takes the meaning of that title to be their pretention to be written by the Apostles, or by Clement at their appointment, I conclude from the words with which he begins that Paragraph [The first writings, that are imposed on us after the Canonical Scriptures, are the eight Books of Clement, commonly called the Apostles Constitutions, being pretended to be written by him at their appointment, with the Canons ascribed to the same persons] and if according to this his notion, he conceive me by the word genuine to affirm that they are rightly so ascribed, he is mistaken. 12. That those Canons, whether to the number of 85. or but of 50 were written by the Apostles, I never meant, but neither is that the meaning of those that cite them, and call them as I have done, by the vulgar name of Apostolic Canons: If there be any doubt of this, I shall prove it by competent testimonies, whether among Papists or Protestants. Of the former, in stead of many, I instance only in that account, which Gabriel Albispine in his Observations rendereth of it, * Lib. 1. that some of these Canons (the fifty he means) being made by the Successors of the Apostles (the Bishops of the Ancient Church) who were called (saith Tertullian de Praseript.) Apostolici viri, Apostolical men, Apostolicorum primum Canon's, dein nonnullorum Latinorum ignorantia, aliquo● literarum detractione, Apostolorum dicti sunt, They were first call●d the Canons of the Apostolicks, after by the ignorance of some Latin Writers, and by the taking away of a few Letters, they were called the Canons of the Apostles. 13. Among Protestants I might instance in the Archbishop of Armagh, here cited under the name of the Learned Usher, who by styling the fifty, Veteres Canon's Ecclesiasticos ●b antiquitatem Apostolicos doctos, the old Ecclesiastical Canons for their Antiquity styled Apostolical, and distinguishing them from the thirty five nova Capitula & novitii Canon's, new Chapters, and novice Canons, clearly justifies all that I have said: But I have no reason to go any farther than Dr. Blondel himself, with whom I had then to do, and I am sure 'tis ordinary with him to cite these Canons under the title of Apostolic, and so to yield them their authority (yet I suppose is not thought by his Colleague Mr. Daillé to have made the Apostles themselves the Authors of them) you may see it twice together in two lines, Apol. pro scent. Hieron. pag. 96. Anno Dom. 363. Laodicano Canone 56. secundum Apostolicum 38. cautum fuit, Care was taken by the Council of Laodicaea, Can. 56. according to the 38th Apostolical Canon, calling it first an Apostolic Canon, and then affirming it the rule by which the Laodicaean Canon was made, and so clearly giving it a greater Antiquity than that Council: And immediately again, Apostolico 33d (longè antequam Ancyrae conveniret Synodus) in the 33d Apostolic Canon, long before the Synod met at Ancyra, which we know was in the year 314 and what was acknowledged to be long before that, must be of a pretty antiquity, although it were not written by the Apostles. 14. 'Tis true indeed some have thought fit to use greater exactness of speech, as the Council of Paris, Anno 580. calling them * Gregor Tur●ner● H●st. ●ra● lib. 5. 〈◊〉. 18. Canon's quasi Apostolicos, the Canons as it were Apostolic; and Dionysius Exiguus, and Isidorus Mercator, Canon's qui dicuntur Apostolicorum, the Canons said to be the Apostles. And Hincmarus Rhemensis saith, they were A primis temporibus traditione viritim Apostolicorum virorum, mentibus commendati; From the first times by tradition of Apostliocal persons commended to the minds of men, from man to man, and a devotis quibusque collecti, collected by all devout men. See Concil. Gallic. l. 2. p. 473, 474. And as for those which pretend the whole 85. as well as the Constitutions to have been peuned by Clemens, there is little doubt but they did, by so doing endeavour to impose false ware upon the Church, but still this praejudgeth not my affirmation of the former fifty, that they were always accounted genuine. Not meaning thereby that they were written by the Apostles, or at their appoint-ment by Clemens (I say not a word, that so much as insinuates either of those to be my sense, and I can justly affirm it was not) but genuine, i. e. truly, and without contradiction (as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are taken for Synonyma's in this matter) what they were by the Church generally taken to be, i. e. Canons of ancient Bishops (before the times of the General Councils) of Apostolical persons, successors of the Apostles, in Churches, where they presided, called Apostolical Churches. 15. I add no more of a matter so clear, yet before I proceed, I shall desire the Author of this Animadversion, to consider how unjustly his Censure hath fallen (in the page immediately praecedent) on the Writings of the first times, immediately after the Apostles fell asleep. His words are these, I must be forced to preface the nomination of them (the first Writers) with some considerations: The first is that known passage of Hegesippus in Euseb. Eccl. Hist. l. 3. 26. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Setting out the corruption of the Church as to Doctrine, immediately after the Apostles fell asleep, whereof whosoever will impartially, and with disengaged judgements search into the writings that of those days do remain, will perhaps find more cause than is commonly imagined with him to complain. 16. Here is a ●ad jealousy raised against all Antiquity, even of the purest times next the Apostles, and indefinitely without any limitation, on the writings of those days that remain, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, i. e. all that are extant, in one common mass, and it (besides that one saying of Hegesippus) no one word added to found it on (but only dubious, suspicious expressions [will perhaps find more cause than is commonly imagined] to warn all how they give any trust to the purest Antiquity. Whereas all that Hegesippus there saith, is only this (which they that pay most reverence to Antiquity, take as much notice of as he could wish) viz. that the poison of the Heretical, or Apostatical, or Atheistical Gnostics, in express words, the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the sect of the Gnostics, falsely so called (the same that had been mentioned by St. Paul to Timothy) and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Atheistical seducers did openly set up against the truth of Christ, as soon as ever the Apostles were dead. Which being by Hegesippa● terminated in the known despisers and persecuters of the true Church and Orthodox professors, the grievous Wolves that worried the flock, and those constantly resisted, and combated with, preached against, and written against by the Fathers and ancient Writers, and never observed by any man to have gained on them, or infused any the least degree ●f their poison into them, or their Writings, which are come to us (which to undertake to make good against any opposer is no high pitch of confidence, again to be censured in me) It is a sad condition that the just and the unjust, the false Teachers and the Orthodox Professors should fall under the same envy, be involved under the same black censure, those that watched over the flock as Shepherds, and oft laid down their lives for the Sheep, be again defamed and martyred by us their unkind posterity, under pretence, forsooth, that they were in the Conspiracy of the Wolves also. I leave this to his, and the Readers consideration, and so proceed to the next charge. CHAP. II. Of Ignatius' Epistles. Sect. 1. The comparison betwixt them and the Epistles of Clement, and Polycarpe. Of Salmasius and Blondel being the first that rejected them. Of the Vir doctissimus, answered by Vedelius. Of Bishop Mountague's censure of Vedelius. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: Of Salmasius' Contumely, Title of Learned Grammarian. Illecebre. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Consnlting Authors to serve our own turns. Numb▪ 1. THE next charge I find in the eighth page of this Preface, in these words. A late learned Doctor in his Dissertations about Episcopacy, or Dispute for it against Salmasius and Blondellus, tells us, that we may take a taste of h●s confidence in asserting, Dissert. 2. cap. 23. 1. That Salmasius and Blondellus, mortalium omnium primi, thought these Epistles to be feigned or counterfeit. And with more words, cap 24. he would make us believe Unicum D. Blondellum aut alterum fortasse inter omnes mortales Wallonem Messalinnm c. 23. sect. 3. that these Epistles of Ignatius were always of the same esteem with that of Clemens from Rome to the Corinthians, or that of Polycarpus to the Philippians, which we have in Eusebius, and then he adds, in the judgement of Salmasius and Blondellus, Solus Ignatius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, cujus tamen Epistolae pari semper cum illis per universam ab omniaevo patrum nostro●um memoriam reveren●iâ excipiebantur: nec prius à mortalium quovis in Judicium voc●bantur (mul●ò minus ut in re certâ, & extra dub●… posita inter planè 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 & 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 rejici●bantur) quam Presby●… Anglicani patribus suis contumeliam facere coepissent, iisque aut suppetias far, a●t rem gratam facere (quibus illecebris adducti nescio) high du● non ignobiles Presbyteranae causae hyperaspistae in selpsos recipissent. Of his two learned Antagonists one is dead, and the other almost blind, or probably they would have dealt not much more gently with the Doctor for his Parenthesis (quibus illecebris adducti nescio) than one of them formerly did (Salmasius de subscribendis & signandis Testamentis, seu specimen Consul. Animad. Heraldi, cap. 1. p. 19 Nuper quidam etiam nebulo in Angliâ, Capellanus, ut audio, Regis, Hammondus nomine, libro quem edidit de Potestate Clavium, Salmasio iratus, quod aliam quam ipse sententiam probet ac defendat, haud potui● majus convicium, quod ei diceret, invenire, quam si Grammaticum appellaret) for his terming him a Grammarian, yet indeed of him (such was the hard entertainment he found on all hands) it was by many supposed that he was illecebris adductus (and they stick not to name the b●… he was caught withal) wrought over in a manner to destroy the faith of that which he had before set up and established. For the thing itself affirmed by the Doctor, I cannot enough admire with what oscitancie or contempt he considers his Readers (of which manner of proceeding this is far from being the only instanc:) that he should confidently impose such things upon them. He that hath written so much abou● Ignatius, and doth so triumph in his authority, ought doubtless to have considered these concernments of his Author, which a eobvi●us to every ordinary Inquirer: Ved●lius his Edition of Ignatius at Geneva came forth with his Notes in the year 1623. long before either Salmasius o● Blondellus had written any thing about the suppositi●iosness of these Epistles; in the Apology of Ignatius whereto prefixed, he is forced to labour and sweat in the Answer of one, whom he deservedly st●…cs virum Doctissimum; (arguing not contemptibly) that Ignatius never wrote any such Epistles, and that all those which were carried about in his name, were false and counterfeit. But perhaps the Doctor had taken caution of one of the Fathers of his Church, that à Genevensiqus istis Typographis praeter frauds & sucos & praestigias non es● quod quicquam expectemus (Montac. Appar. l. 5. sect. 4●. p. 19) and so thought not fit to look into any thing that comes from them. Especially may this be supposed to have some influence upon him, considering the gentle censure added in the next words by that Reverend Father of his Church, concerning the endeavour of Vedelius, in his Notes on that Edition. Neque audax ille & importunus Ignatii Censor quicquam attulit ad paginas suas implendas praeter inscit●am, & incuriam & impudentiam singularem (ne saevi magne sacerdos) dum ad suum Gene● vatismum antiquitatem detorqu●t invitissimam, non autem, quod oportu●… Calvinismum amussitat ad antiquitatem. And what I pray you is the reason of his Episcopal censure? That he should deal with poor Ved●…s in that language wherewith men of his order and authority were wont to deal with preaching Ministers at their Visitations? why this poor man in that passage which you have in the Epistle to the Magnesians (in that Edition p. 56.) where treating of the Ancient Father's expectations of the coming of Christ, retains the common reading of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, referring the word to their expectation of seeing him come in the flesh, which upon the testimony of our Saviour himself, they desired to see, and saw it not, not correcting it by a change of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 into 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, so referring it to their faith in Christ, and salvation by him▪ as in his judgement he ought to have done. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, A little thing would provoke the indignation of a Prelate against any thing that came from Geneva. I say I would suppose that this might divert ou● Doctor from casting his 〈◊〉 Veaclius, whose defensative would have informed him that th●…stles ●●d been opposed as false and counterfeit, before ever Salmasius or Blondellus had taken them into con●de●ation; but that I finding hi●…e●imes ●…ing on tha● Geneva Edition. For whereas Cap. 2. sect. 2. he tells you that he intends to abide only upon the Edition of Is●●● Vossius in G●eek, published from the Archives of the Library of Laurence di Medi●es, and the Latin Edition published by Bishpp Ʋsher ou of our Library here at Oxford, yet cap. 8. being pressed with the testim ny o● the writers of the Epistle to the Magnesians, calling Episcopacy 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 plainly intimating a comparative Novelty in that order to others i● the Church's, and fearing (as well he might) that his translation of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 into the ordination of a young man, would scarce be received by the men of his own praejudice (for surely he never supposed that he should impose on any other, by such gross figments) he prefers the Vedelian Edition (where these words are not so used) before it, and informs us, that ●ic legend●… (as it is in the Geneva Edition) suadet to●a Epistolae ser●es. Now this truly is marvelious to me (if the Doctor consulteth Authors any farther, than merely to serve his present turn) how he could ever advi●e with that Edition of Vedelius, and yet so confidently affirm, that Sa●…s and Blondellus were the first that rejected these Epistles as feigned and counterfeit. 2. The sum of this charge is▪ 1. that I would make men believe that Ignatius his Epistles were always of the same esteem with that of Clement, and of Polycarpe. 2dly That 〈◊〉 say that Salmasius and Blondel were the fi●st that thought these Epistles (of Ignatius) to be feigned and counterfeit. 3dly That this is in me a confidence in asserting, an admirable piece of oscitancie and contempt of the Reader, confidently to impose upon him, and all this against express evidence, when 4thly long before either of these, Vedelius was fain to answer a vir doctissimus, arguing that Ignatius never wrote such Epistles, and this the more to be admired, because 5thly it appears that I had advised with that Edition of Vedelius, where those arguments are propounded, and answered, and yet say that Salmasius and Blondel were the first that rejected these Epistles. To these five branches of the original, and grand charge are added incidentally these other passages. 1 That if Salmasius were not dead, and Blondel almost ●lind, they would probably have called me knave for using this Parenthesis (quibus illecebris adducti nescio, I know not by what invitations they were brought to do what they did) adding of the former, that indeed it is by many supposed that he was illecebris adductus. 2 That Bishop Montacute inveighs bitterly against the Geneva Writers, and particularly against Vedelius his Censures on Ignatius. 3 That my interpretation of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by the ordination of a young man, is a gross figment. 4 That it is doubtful whether I do consult Authors any farther than is for my own turn. 3. To these particulars, which will soon be found to be of no very weighty importance, yet such as they are, I shall punctually make my reply. 4. For the first, I shall not need labour for proofs to balance the estimation of Ignatius' Epistles, either with that of Clemens, or Polycarpe: For, beside that here is not a word objected against it, nor so much as the ordinary charge of confident asserting affixed to this part of my speech, but my words are barely repeated without any exception to them. The thing may be manifest to any that shall, for Clemens, peruse the Testimonies out of ancient Writers, concerning his first Epistle, that to the Corinthians, set down to his hand by Mr. Patrick Young, before his Edition of that Epistle, and then compare them with those concerning Ignatius' Epistles prefixed by the Archbishop of Armagh to his former Edition of Ig●ati●…, and to that add but this one place of Eusebius, E●cl. Hist. l. 3▪ c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. where speaking of those Writings reserved to his time, wherein the Apostolic doctrine was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by way of Records delivered to them, he instanceth in Ignatius (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in the Collection of Epistles which he had formerly mentioned from Polycarpe) and in Clement' s Epistle, which in the name of the Church of the Romans he sent to the Church of the Corinthians, and was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, received and confessed by all, which passage doth directly assert this exactness of tarallel betwixt them two, as equal in conveying Apostolic Doctrine to us. 5. To which I may add, that the prejudices our present volume of Ignatius' Epistles are under, are not greater than those which lie against the Epistle of Clement, set forth from Tecla's ●opie. I shall instance in sour: 1 Among the examples of generous Christian sufferers of that Age, proposed to be treated of (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Pag. 7. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Let us come to the eminent persons which are nearest us, let us take the generous copies of our age) immedately after Peter and Paul, and those that came in to them, are mentioned 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Daughters of Danaus and Dirce, of whom it is said, that having suffered sore, or cruel contumelies, or punishments, they came to the constant course of Faith, and being weak in body, received a generous reward 6. This is so unfit for the place wherein it is found in Tecla's copy (and we have no better, or other to mend it by) that Mr. Young hath set a mark upon it, as that which he cannot allow to be genuine Clemens. 7. Secondly: Speaking of the Sea, he hath these words, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Pag 28. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Patric. Junius. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Ocean unbounded to men, or, which men cannot pass over, and the world that are beyond it. 8. Thirdly: Speaking of the Resurrection, he not only offers to contemplation the Resurrection, which every day brings us, Pag 34 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the night lies down to sleep, the day rises again, but also the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the wonderful sign which is in Arabia, the Phoenix, which being 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, but one of the species, lives five hundred years, then drawing near to death, makes a nest of Frankincense and Myrrh, and other Spices, and goes into it, and dies; then out of the corruption of the flesh grows a Worm, which being fed with the moisture of the dead creature, grows to perfection and wings, then carries the nest where the former bird was entombed (and embalmed as it were) from Arabia to Egypt, to Heliopolis, and in the day time in the presence of all men, lays it upon the Altar of the Sun, and returns again. And the Priests looking into their Records, and keeping exact calculation of the time, find that at the end of five hundred years this is done. And all this, saith he, afforded us by GOD, who 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, by this bird shows the magnificent greatness of his promise. 9 These two latter are the objections of Photius himself * Biblioth. n. 126. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, saith he, one may find fault with him in these; adding also another (the 4th which I proposed to mention) that as the second Epistle under his name (which * N. 113. elsewhere he saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, is rejected as supposititious) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, inserts some passages as from Scripture, which are strangers to it, so * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. N 126. this first Epistle is not perfectly free in this matter. 10. These four prejudices notwithstanding (and a fifth also by him mentioned) 'tis the same Photiu● his judgement, that it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, an Epistle worthily esteemed, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Biblioth. n. 113. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, thought by many worthy of such reception as to be read publicly. 11. And so it hath among all men generally been entertained, and Mr. Yong's Edition of it justly looked on by this Prefacer, as a genuine piece, abundantly testified to of old, a writing full of ancient simplicity, humility and zeal, and testimony solemnly fetched from it, to prove the but two Orders in the Church, and the power of the People in Ecclesiastical affairs. 12. Now, as on one side all these objections may, I suppose, have very competent Answers adapted to them, and I think for the first three Mr. Yong's Notes may be sufficient, that the Danaides and Dirce was an insertion of some Scribe taken in from the Margin into the Text, that the Ocean was the British Sea, and the Worlds beyond it these Islands, that the Story of the Phoenix is no Fable, but vouched by very great and ancient Authors, though perhaps fabulosis aucta (and M. Blondel, I hear, hath written a Dissertation in defence of it) so I am to think that all the objections against Ignatius, as far as our Copy, which we adhere to, is concerned, are answered also. 13. And so still the parallel remains complete betwixt Clement's one Epistle set out from the King's Library, and Ignatius' seven set out from the Medicaean Greek, and our old Latin Copies. 14. And for Pol●carpe and him, the comparison will be more easy by viewing the testimonies by the Lord Primate produced out of the Ancients concerning each of them, prefixed before the one common volume of both their Epistles: And indeed of them two, the advantage is clearly on Ignatius' side, because as generally they that make mention of the one, join the other with him, with the same reverence, only giving the precedence to Ignatius ( * Nunquid non possum tibi to●●; vitum Scriptorum ser●em commovere Ignatium, Polycarpu● c 9 St. Hierome ad Helvidium may stand for many; Can I not, saith he, summon the whole Catalogue of ancient Writers, Ignatius, Polycarpe—) So Polycarpe himself in his Epistle gives his testimony and commendations of Ignatius and his Epistles, and from him it is that originally we fetch our collection, and just esteem of them. I hope I shall not need to add more to justify my con●idence in that matter. 15. Secondly: For my affirming that Salmasius and Blondel were the first that thought these Epistles of Ignatius to be feigned and counterfeit (which is the one thing that must bear all the weight of my accusation for confidence in asserting, confidence in imposing upon Readers, oscit ancie, or contempt in considering them) my account will be soon given, by viewing my periods, on which this charge is laid, and they are three; two set down in his Text, one in his Margin: The two former are fully and truly cited by him: That in the Margin is set down imperfectly, and lies thus in the Dissert. (it should be) c. 23. sect. 3. In his quispe (Rebus in Ecclesiam primaeuâ gestis, ut an Ignatius Epistolas scripserit) unicum D. Blondellum, aut alterum fortassis inter omnes mortales Walonem Messalinum rectius judicare, quam patres universos: This is to conclude, that in matters of fact done in the first Ages of the Church, one Blondel, or perhaps his second Salmasius, pass a righter judgement than all the Fathers. 16. The plain sense and drift of these words is this, that when there was a Copy of Ignatius produced, which had in it the several sentences, which the Fathers (all, without exception of one) cited from Ignatius, by which it appears that those Fathers universally gave credit to these Epistles in this form, in which D. Blondel, and Salmasius reject them; and when this was taken notice of by Blondel as an objection against his discourse [his ipsis Epistolis Patres fidem adhibuisse, That the Fathers gave credit to these very Epistles] and that answered by Blondel, with a Quid tum! Quam multa minimè suspicaces ac imparatos & fefellerunt semper, & quotidie fallunt? What matter for that? How many things both have always deceived, and do daily deceive persons, that are not suspicious, and upon their guard? From this answer of Blondels I conclude, that if he hath reason on his side in it, than the judgement of one or two Modern Writers, Blondel and Salmasius is to be preferred before all the Fathers, and that in a matter of story, a narration of things done in the Primitive times, wherein the Fathers lived, and from whence these others are so many hundred years distant. 17. This conclusion of mine, as it is most undeniably deduced from Blondel's words, and is, I think, a competent evidence of the unreasonableness of his proceedings (for it is obvious to all men, who are the most competent Judges or Witnesses of matters of fact, sure they which are nearest the times, and have the most uniform consent of others that speak of it, not they that are but singular Affirmers, and at a vast distance from it) so it is a full interpretation of my meaning, not that Blondel and Salmasius were the first of men, which ever opposed any Volume of Ignatius' Epistles, or that thought them (I mean again, any that go under that name, or any volume of such, set out by any) feigned or counterfeit, but that they were the first which rejected those more emendate Copies, found upon trial to accord with all that the Fathers cite from them, and so which are by themselves confessed to be the very Epistles, which the Fathers used, and owned as Ignatius'. 18. An evidence of the truth of this I shall produce from Blondel's own words in his Preface p. 40▪ where mentioning how greedily he laid hold of the Laurentian Copy, lent him by Vossius in Manuscript, how he transcribed it with his own hand, collated it diligently with the places cited from these Epistles by the Ancients (and if it were done studiosè diligently, those Ancients must be, Polycarpe, Irenaeus, Origen, Eusebius, Athanasius, Hierome, chrysostom, Theodoret, etc.) at length he confesses se gratulatum seculo nostro, quod illud ipsum exemplar quo ante 1300 annos usus erat Eusebius, novam ipsi propediem affulsuram lucem sponderet, that he congratulated our age, that that very Copy, which Eusebius used 1300 years ago, promised now to bestow new light upon the Age. 19 Here it appears, that in his dispassionate, impartial judgement (founded on prudent consideration, and his having used the best means of judging) this Copy, which Blondel rejected, was the Copy that the Ancients owned, particularly Eusebius: And of his rejecting this Copy (not any other, formerly published among us) it is most evident that I speak in all the places of the Dissertations, and consequently that unless some other man can now be named, which rejected this Copy (the Laurentian I mean, set out by Vossius, to which the old Latin one published by the Lord Primate is answerable, though a barbarous translation) or the Copy which Eusebius and the Fathers used, before Blondel and Salmasius rejected it, I have affirmed that which is exactly the truth, and am guilty neither of confidence, nor imposing, nor oscitancy, nor contempt of the Reader. 20. And then, I pray, how was I concerned in the negations and arguments of the Vir doctissimus, which Vedelius answered, which must needs belong to the Epistles then extant, and carried about in Ignatius' name, & could not, by divination be confronted to this Edition of Vossius, or to the Laurentian, or our old Latin Manuscripts, which may well be presumed to have never been heard of by him, or Vedelius either, and yet are the only volume of Ignatius' Epistles there spoken of by me, and of which my affirmation proceeds. As for this vir Doctissimus, I have now been able to consult Vedelius, and * there I first find that he hath neither Name nor Ap●l pray Ignat. cap. 4. Book delivered to us, and that in all probability he never published any word to that purpose. And for what hath passed betwixt private men in more private Letters, I know not that I was obliged to take any notice, if I had remembered that Anonymus ineditus vir doctissimus. 2 That this unus quidam vir doctissimus is mentioned as the only person (and opposed to the alii, others, that expressed their doubts and scruples only) which extra omne dubium ponit, affirms positively, and without doubting, suppositionem harum Epistolarum, that these Epistles were supposititious, or that Ignatius never wrote such Epistles, whence by the way I am secured from the other instances which are by the prefacer after brought to say the same thing which that vir Doctissimus had done 〈◊〉 for Vedelius was as ignorant as I, an plures ejus mentis fuerint, whether there were any more of that mind with him. Lastly, that this vir Doctissimus durst say, that Ignatius never wrote any Epistles at all, which is to me an assurance that as learned as he was, he never knew any thing of Polycarpe's collection, or of the ancient Writers citations out of them (which if he had, he might as well have said, that Polycarpe, and the rest of those ancients never wrote neither) and consequently that his ignorance secured him from being guilty of that which I charge on Blondel and Salmasius, viz. rejecting all the Fathers with a [Quid tum?] and these Epistles in despite of all the authority which the Fathers were acknowledged to have given them. This aught to have been adverted by my Monitor, and then he might certainly have spared himself, and the Reader, and me the several gainlesse pains that his sharp Animadversion hath, in several kinds cost each of us. 21. As for his amplifications, backward and forward, on this head of discourse, that perhaps I had received caution never to look into any thing that comes from Geneva, and yet that that could not be the truth, because I had occasionally insisted on that Edition of Vedelius, though now it be far from needing reply; yet 〈◊〉 shall be willing to oblige him, by telling him the whole truth, and making him my Confessor in this matter. That 'tis now near thirty years since that I read over diligently that whole volume of Vedelius, with all his Exercitations annexed to it, that I did it in my entrance on the study of Divinity, beginning with him as the first Rcclesiastical Writer then extant; for Clement's Epistle was by Mr. Young seven or eight years after published. This vindicates me from his jealousy, that perhaps I took caution from Bishop Montague never to look into Book that came from Geneva. 22. For although I began not that study so, as to fall under Bishop Abbot's censure (in the top of the tenth page produced) that Calvin had holpen me to a mouth to speak (any more than it is true of me, that I am still opening my mouth against Calvin) yet truly my first Author, used in my search of the opinion of the Ancient Church, was delivered me by Vedelius from Geneva, and so from Geneva itself I first learned the three Orders of men in the Church to be of Apostolic institution, which, as far as concerns the second of them (by him and ever since called Presbyters) the Scripture had not taught me. 23. If this be not enough, I next acknowledge, that when this Prefacer told me of the vir Doctissimus, that Vedelius was fain to answer, I had not any such thing in memory, and though I am sure I formerly read it, because I now see it is in that Book, yet 'tis due to his Animadversions, that I had not utterly lost it: From this occasion I shall not have temptation to lose time in bemoaning myself, that my memory is so frail, both because of the many thousand things which I have read, and heard, and utterly forgotten, this was as fit to be one, and as easy to be spared as any, and if it had been explicitly in my memory, it had been perfectly useless to me in this matter, I could not reasonably have interposed any mention of him, or added his name with any truth to those two of Blondel and Salmasius (the two men which peculiarly rejected the Laurentian (or Eusebian) Copy, Blondel having a transcript from Vossius, and Salmasius a sight or it from Blondel) and also because I see other men's memories are as frail as mine, and that in things both of present use, and fresh observation: Witness my Monitor himself, who, whilst he is a chiding, or admiring me for oscitanc●, and contempt of my Reader, etc. tells me that Bishop Usher published his Latin Edition of Ignatius out of the Oxford Library, whereas that Archbishop, that best knew, professes * Pag. 16. it was from two Manuscripts, one belonging to Caiw College in Cambridge, the other to Bishop Montague: This were too mean a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to mention, but that, besides that it is an example, that men that are the severest on others no-slips, may themselves be guilty of as great, as they judge in others: It is also a way of giving some account of that speech of Bishop Montagues, which fall so tartly on Vedelius, and is here thought fit to be brought in, in the Prefacers' digression. For bating the asperity of the language, which I do as little commend in either Father, or Son of the Church, as any, the Copy which he had by him of so venerable Antiquity, might by him very reasonably be thought a more Scholarlike, and less deceivable way of correcting Ignatius' Epistles, than Vedelius' single conjectures, and prejudices, which made him, as that Bishop thought, willing to conform Antiquity to the Doctrines then received at Geneva. 24. And this will appear yet more reasonable in the particular, which is here said to have occasioned that bitter speech of that Bishop, where, in Videlius' reading, it is said of the Fathers of the Old Testament, that they came 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, ad vacuam spem, saith Vedelius, to a frustration of their hope, but the Bishop's Latin Copy reads, in novitatem spei, to the newness of hope, evidencing the reading to be with an easy change 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to the newness, and so it is in the Laurentian Greek which is now extant. Now as again 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 might be an easy change for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (which that Bishop it seems liked best 〈◊〉 and either of those readings might well pass, either that they joined with us Christians in the same common hope Evangelical, or came to the newness of ●ope, i. e. hoped for mercy on the same terms of new Evangelicall obedience, on which we now hope for it, and so set on purifying, as St John saith he will do, that hath this hope in him, so truly the other of [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] would hardly be kept from being blasphemy, cannot possibly be salved, as this Prefacer would salve it, by referring it to their expectation of Christ's coming in the flesh, which, saith he, upon the testimony of our Saviour himself they desired to s●e, and saw it not. But 1. I pray where doth our Saviour testify this, that they desired to see it, and saw it not? I suppose in those words of Luk. 10. 24. For I tell you that many Prophet● and Kings have desired to see those things which you see, and have n●t seen them. But will this justify or maintain the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the frustration of their hope, or at all prove, that they had such hope of seeing Christ come in the flesh? Men may desire that which they do not hope, the goodness of the thing once apprehended, is enough to raise desire, but hope must be founded in some promise, or else it is but either wish, on one side, or on the other, presumption. 25. But than secondly, to justify Vedelius in his retaining of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 there is more necessary, viz. to consider the Context as it lies in the Epistle published by him, and then the whole passage will be found to be this, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉— If therefore they who conversed in the ancient writings came to a frustration of hope, expecting Christ (as the Lord teacheth, saying, If ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me; for he wrote of me: and Abraham your Father was exceeding glad that he might see my day, and he saw it and rejoiced; for before Abraham was I am) how shall we— By this Context 'tis now evident, 1. how impossible it is that the Vedelian reading of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 can stand; for Abraham, who is the instance, did not miss of his hope, what he hoped for he obtained, he had promise that he should see Christ's day, viz. see it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in the spirit, not carnally in the flesh, see it in destinatione divinâ, in God's destination: And that promise 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that he should see it, put him in an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, an exultation of joy, and neither hope nor joy were frustrated; for it follows, he saw, and was glad. Secondly: how seasonably the testimony of Christ was here produced by this Prefacer, in these words of his [referring to their expectation of Christ's coming in the flesh, which, upon the testimony of our Saviour himself they desired to see, and saw it not] I demand, Doth the Vedelian Edition so refer to any such testimony of Christ, which ends with [saw it not?] doth it not quite chose produce the testimony of Christ concerning Abraham, affirming of him that [he saw it?] which is competently distant from the Prefacers' Text of, they saw it not. Again, are not these words of our Saviour concerning Abraham's seeing (in spirit) and satisfying himself, and rejoicing at that sight, perfectly agreeable to the general purport of the Gospel? Is it not the Doctrine thereof frequently expressed, that Christ was known by the Fathers of the former ages, by the title of [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, he that was to come] and that till the fullness of time was come, though they did (as the Vedelian Copy adds) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, expect to see Christ, yet not so as to see him come in the flesh, but lived by Faith, as Abraham sojourned, assuring themselves, that he would be really exhibited to their posterity, being for themselves content to see him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in the spirit, and by no other eye but that of Faith? And then can it be said, that they were frustrated in their hope? that what they hoped, they received not: or hoped for that which they did not receive? Simeon indeed had it revealed to him, that he should not see death before he had seen the Lord's Christ, Luk. 2. 26. but this was about the time of the designed exhibition of him, and accordingly he did see him, and embraced him, and was not frustrated of his hope: But this promise was never made to Father Abraham, and those of the former ages, nor to those Prophets and Kings, Luk. 10. and so having no promise of this, they entertained not themselves with hopes of it (though they might with desires, submitted to God's wiser choice) and consequently never came thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to the emptiness, or cassation, or frustration of hope. So that to maintain the Vedelian reading of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 'tis evident that the following words must be, not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, he saw, but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, he saw not, the direct contradictory to the words as they were spoken by Christ. My Lord Primate tells us from a Manuscript in Baliol-Colledge Library, that rather than the Scribe there would adventure (so near blasphemy, as) to write ad vacuam spem, the interpretation of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to avoid, or cassate hope, he those to insert a [not] in that Latin Copy, and wrote ad non vacuam spem, to a hope not void: This again shows how intolerable that reading is of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, whereas the other 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which our Laurentian Copy gives us (being retained, and not changed into 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) is perfect clear sense, and elegantly agreeable to the Context, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, saith he, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 — the most divine Prophets lived according to Jesus Christ▪ and then soon follows, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉— If therefore they that conversed in those old things i. e. lived under the Law of the Jews) came, or advanced to the newness of hope (i. e. as before, lived according to Christ, an Evangelical, Christian life) etc. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, how shall we live without him, whose disciples in spirit the Prophets were, and expected him as their Master (but sure by so doing were not frustrated in their expectation.) 26. All this hath been said to render it reasonable for my Monitor to be less severe to the writings of others, and from hence to observe, that one digression doth unnecessarily, and unluckil▪ sometimes, beget another, and therefore that 'tis the safest course to keep close to the matter we have before us, which yet I am not permitted to do, having still three parts of this branch of digression more, which I am obliged to give account of. 27. In the next place then, for the probability that my two adversaries Salmasius and Blondel, if they had not been one dead, the other almost blind, would have dealt not much more; gently with me for my Parenthesis (quibus illecebris adductinescio) than one of them did (calling me knave) for my terming him Grammarian, I am able also to give him some Answer, and an account, I think, satisfactory to that whole matter. 1 By assuring him that I knew how Salmasius had dealt with me in that passage to Heraldus, before my setting about the Dissertations, that this was so far from embittering my stile against him, that I did the more carefully watch over my pen, not to say any reproachful thing of him, but rather to commend his second thoughts in the matter of Presbytery, which he was willing to testify in some passages of his Defensio Regia, and truly this was it, which I shall not say I learned from Ignatius, though I confess it looks very lovely in his divine expressions, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. To their anger do ye return meekness, to their speaking big be ye humble, to their fierceness be ye tame, not desiring, or attempting to imitate them Epist. ad Ephes. 'twas the lest that I thought myself obliged to do, in obedience to our Saviour's precept, Mat. 5. 44. of blessing and praying for those that curse and despitefully use us, from whence I must conclude, that contum●lies are our adminitions of duty, even that of taking those who pour them upon me, into my special intercessions. 28. Secondly: That my terming Salmasius formerly a Grammarian, with the addition of Learned, was in the sincerity of my heart meant as a title not of diminution, but of honour to him, he was a very learned man in several parts of good literature, especially skilled in Greek and Latin words, and phrases, and customs, and his Plinianae exercitationes had long since given me that notion of him, as equal thus far to any of his age, and fit to be named with Scaliger and Casanbon of the preceding. And knowing I that Grammaticus was anciently a title of ●…our among learned men, witness Suetonius his Book de Illustribus Grammaticis; and 2. that of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) there are three parts, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, (the two later of which being peculiarly his ex●…ies, were fully comprehended in the general title of Grammarian) and last, that being neither Divine nor Physician, nor Lawyer by profession, I could not fitly make either of those his title, I thought it most agreeable to all these reasons to style him learned Grammarian, especially having so little reason, as I then had, to commend his knowledge in Theologie. This it seems was so represented to him from England, that having no other reason (that I am conscious of) to quarrel with my behaviour toward him, he was content to reproach me, upon that stile: And all that I shall say to it, is, that I had rather be in the so●lest manner reproached without cause, then to be commended for ill doing, or to be justly censured by any. 29. Thirdly, when I said of him and Blondel (quibus illecebris adducti nescio) I do not think myself to have wronged them, or used them contumeliously: Not wronged them, because I verily believe there were motives properly styled illecebrae (I mean not bribes from England) which brought them to do what they did: And as I did not think fit then to express those motives, being 1 matters of fact, of which at this distance, I could not have perfect knowledge or evidence, and so could truly say [quibus nescio] and 2 being personal matters, which I love not to publish, farther than the matter itself reveals and declares them, so I shall not choose now out of season, and less pertinently to enlarge on that matter: I shall only add, that Salmasius lived, and Blondel saw, many months, some years, after the publishing of the Dissertations, and neither of them thought fit to fall into such passion so causelessly, nor, that I ever heard, sent the Author of these Animadversions their Letters of Attorney to do it for them, so that I am to acknowledge what he hath done in this, to be an act of his own inclinations, but have no manner of like return to make him for it. 30. How justly the many which he mentions have supposed that he was illecebris adductus, and from what evidence they name the bait, or with what truth it is suggested that he had ever set up and established that faith which his Defensio Regia endeavoured to destroy, are things so far removed from the subject before us, the authority of Ignatius' Epistles, and so unlikely to be concluded by our disputes, that I think we may by consent let them alone: Otherwise the then present lownes, and improsperity of the cause, which he defended, would offer itself for a very competent argument to infer, the love of truth more than expectation of any temporal advantage, to have persuaded the writing of it. 31. The second incidental branch concerning Bishop Montague and Geneva hath been as incidentally, but more largely discharged already. 32. The third concerning my interpretation of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for the ordination of a young man, might surely have been spared, when it is by him confessed, that rather than I could think fit to adhere to it, I chose to prefer Vedelius' Edition, which reads 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the appearing youth of their Bishop, before this reading of the Laurentian in that place, and that done by me in the first place, to remove all force of Salmasius' argument, there present before me, all that followed being ex abundati, more than needed, and not proposed, as the truth of the matter, but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to supersede all possible reply in it. 33 But my Monitor runs too hastily into ill language, which yet he dislikes so much in Bishop Montague (gross figments is no very nice expression) else he might have seen enough produced by me, to have prevented, or allayed the storm of his displeasure. 34. Salmasius to take advantage from those Epistles, both against Episcopacy, and the Epistles themselves, finds in the Laurentian Copy 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, spoken of Damas' Episcopacy, hence he infers that Episcopacy was there styled a new Order, and that the Epistles were written in a later age, then that of Ignatius, and so that Episcopacy was of that later institution. To this purpose, saith he, the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 cannot belong to his age, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies new, and brings 2 Tim. 2. 22. where 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which we truly render youthful lusts, signify, saith he, novae aut novarum rerum cupiditates, new desires, or desires of new things. To this whole way of arguing I confess I could not afford the least degree of consent, and still think that that learned Grammarian did never more passionately 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, than in this heap of inconcludencies. To these therefore I answered by degrees proportioned to the several steps of his procedure: 1 That the Laurentian seemed not the right reading, but the Vedelian, not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, however rendered, but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, his appearing youth: This the whole course of the Epistle exacted, Damas' then Bishop of the Magnesians being a young man, and Ignatius desiring his youth might not bring contempt upon him, and therefore advising expressly, not to d●spise the age of their Bishop, and this acknowledged by Salmasius himself to be the purport of the Epistle. 35. Secondly: That if the utmost that could be desired were granted, both that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, were the right reading, and that it were justly rendered a new order, yet what was instituted by the Apostles might pass for new in Ignatius' days, who died very few years after St. John, and both of them in the reign of Trajan, or that however what was in Ignatius' days (and to that Rivet referred it, novellus ordo, sive 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 〈◊〉 loquitur Ignatius, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) even so new as to be but ust the● instituted, was yet pretty ancient, very little distant from Apostolical (Ignatius himself being styled an Apostolical person) and without controversy long before that famous Epocha of 140 years after Christ, to which Blondel affixes the rise of Episcopacy. 36. Thirdly: That (to avoid all the force of his argument) I was not obliged to affirm, that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 belonged to age, on one side, or that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signified 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 on the other. For in case that were granted to be the right reading (not absolutely; for that was prevented, but ex hypothesi, if it were) yet 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 might more agreeably to the context, and the nature of the word, signify Ordination; and for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in that place to Timothy by him cited, it evidently signified not new (for what could the Apostle mean in forewarning him to abstain from new lusts, were not ancient as dangerous?) It was much more reasonable to think young Timothy was advised to beware of such sins as are met with among young men (which was the reason that young men were not ordinarily made Bishops) and consequently, as to that again, both the Context, referring to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the age, i e. the youth of Damas' their Bishop, and the nature of the word being a denominate from a young man, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, would persuade rather to render it so there also; and so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 would be the ordination of a young man; and so I am sure the learned Primate renders it, juvenilem ●rdinationem, and Vossius, who reteins the old barbarous Latin, yet in his Notes hath these words, Non debere eo●conti, i. e tanquam commodato accipere. & ad se pertrahere 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 illam juvenis istius Episcopi, which sure in his Paraphrase of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, & 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and punctually agrees with my interpretation also. And the Analogy with the use of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (being an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but once used) in Scripture would much better agree with this, than the rendering it a new Order. 37. And now I shall be very well content to be told by the Reader, of what persuasion soever, what figment, or how gross it was that I endeavoured to impose upon him, when I began first with a profession, that I did not assent to that reading, and then only added, that I did as little assent to Salmasius' interpretation, but could not be deemed absolutely to like the interpretation produced by me, but only ex hypothesi, and in comparison with that of his affixed to St. Paul's words to Timothy, where 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was used; nay, that rather than I would make use of my own, though backed with the concurrent judgement of such learned men, I chose to forsake the Laurentian Copy in that particular, which in others I generally adhered to. 38. There remains one part of the suggestion still, the doubtfulness which the [if] importeth, whether I consult Authors any further than merely to serve my own turn. To which I answer 1. by professing that I seek truth from Authors, and no proofs, or confirmations of any thing, but what I verily believe to be such. 2 That I may well be believed in this profession, because I am of no party, which either hath appeared to want such supports, or if it did, could probably tempt any man, with competent rewards, to undertake so vile an office, as is writing and consulting Authors to maintain that, which the conscience doubts of, or knows to be false. Last; That the particular, whereon this suggestion is founded, can be no just cause of this suggestion: For 1. not having Vedelius' Edition of Ignatiu by me, when I wrote the Dissertations, I had yet the Lord Primates first Edition of the Epistles, which is known to contain the Vedelian Text of the Epistles, but hath not his Exercitations, where the Vir doctissimus was mentioned: And 2. the whole matter concerning that vir Doctissimus being already perfectly cleared, and that if that passage, and those arguings of the vir Doctissimus in Vedelius had actually occurred to my memory, it had not been in the least degree pertinent to the subject of my then present affirmation, it must now be as unseasonable for me farther to vindicate my integrity herein, as it will be uncharitable in any, without any new cause to doubt of it. This only I must observe for mine own use, both from the beginning, and the end of this Animadversion, that my Monitor is one of them whom I am by obligation of Christian Charity, bound to bless and pray for, and I shall do it, either in my own choice of words, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or in any other form he shall prescribe me. And so much for this Section. Sect. 2. Answer to Testimonies of Mr. Calvin, the Centuriators, and Dr. Whittaker. Of Lent. ●he occasions of Ignatius' Epistles. His journey from Antioch to Rome. Numb. 1. BUt this Act is not yet at an end, there is, it seems, more of this Animadversion still behind, following in these words. But yet a little farther: The first Edition of these Epistles in Latin, was Augustae Vindelicorum, An. 1529 in Gree● a● Basil 1566. Before which time I suppose the Doctor expects not that any opposition should be made to them, considering ●he heaps of filth and dung, that until about that time were owned for the Offspring of the Ancient Fathers. Upon their first appearing in the world what is the entertainment they receive? One who was dead before either the Doctor, or either of his Antagonists were born, and whose renown among the people of God will live when they are all dead, gives them this welcome into the world; Ignatium quod obtendunt, si velint quicquam habere momenti, probent Apostolos legem tulisse de quadragessim● & similibus corruptelis, nihil naeniis istis quae sub Ignatii nomine editae sunt putid●us: Quo minus tolerabilis est ●o●um impudentia, qui tal●bus larvis ad fallendum se in●●●uunt. Calv. Instit. lib. 1. c. 13. sect. 29. What ever be the judgement of our Doctor concerning this man (as some there are, of whom a learned Bishop in this Nation long ago complained, that they are still opening their mouths against Calvin, who h●lp them to mouths to speak with: Abbot. ad Then.) He will in the judgement of some be so far accounted some body, as to take off from them the confident Assertion, that Salmasius and Blondellus were mortalium primi that rejected these Epistles. The Centuriato●s of Magdenburg were esteemed to be some bodies in their days, and yet they make bold to call these Epistles into question, and to tender sundry arguments to the impairing their credit and authority. This than they Cent. 2. cap. 10. de Episc. Antioch. at primum de Ignatio. Lectori pio & attento considerandum relinquimus quantum sit illis Epistolis tribuendum. Non enim dubitamus quin in lectione earum cuilibet ista in mentem veniant: primùm quod ferè in omnibus Epistolis, licèt satis copiosis, occasio scribendi prete●mittitur, nec vel divinare licet, quare potissimum ad hanc vel illam Ecclesiam literas voluerit mittere. Deinde ipsius poregrinationis ratio non parvum injicit scrupulum considerantibus quod multo rectiore & breviore itinere Roman potuerit navigare, ut testatur vel ipsius Pauli exemplum— Expende quam longum sit iter Antiochiâ ad litus A geis pelagi se recipere, thique recta rursum versus septentrionem ascendere, & praecipuas civitates in litore ●itas usque ad Troadem perlustrare, cum tamen Romanum iter sit destinatum versus occasum. Tertio res ejusmodi in istas literas inspersae sunt, ut ad eas propemodum obstupescat Lector, etc. Haec cum alias non somnolento Lectori incidant, nos existimaverimus, etc. Thus they at the world's first awaking, as to the consideration of things of this kind. To them add the learned Whittaker, contra prima de perfect. Script. Quest. sexta c. 12. Where after he hath disputed against the credit of these Epistles; jointly, and severally, wi●h sundry arguments, at length he concludes, Sed de his Epistolis satis multa, & de hoc Ignatio quid judicandum fit, satis ●x iis constare potest quae diximus. Ista Papistae non audent t●eri— To whom sundry others m●ght be added, convincing Salmasius and Bloud●llus, not to have been mortalium primi that called them into question. 2. What is here brought out of Calvin, the Centuriators, and Whitaker, must still be remembered to be by the Prefacer produced to prove the falseness, and ungrounded confidence of my assertion, that Salmasius and Blondel were mortalium omnium primi, the first of men that called them into question: And my answer must certainly be the same, which in the last Section it was, that it must be remembered what Copy of the Epistles it was which Salmasius and Blondel rejected, and of which I spoke when I affirmed them to be the first that did so, viz this Laurentian Manuscript Copy, set out after by Vossius (agreeing with our two ancient barbarous translations, which the Lord Primate had met with in England, that very Copy) which Blondel acknowledged to be the same which Eusebius 1300 years ago (and the other ancient Fathers) had used, and gave belief unto, and by that means was forced to cast off the Fathers with a [Quid tum! What then!] to say that they were deceived, and imposed upon in that belief, and without doing so, had no possibility of doubting the genuinenesse of this Copy. 3. So that the plain result and sum of my affirmation must evidently be this, that the Laurentian Copy of these Epistles, according with all that the ancients cited from the genuine Epistles of Ignatius, and by Blondel's collating them found to do so, i. e. in effect the Eusebian Copy of Ignatius, and as such acknowledged by Blondel, was never rejected by any before Salmasius and Blondel rejected it. 4. This being the only true setting of the case between me, and my Adversaries, I shall now need add no more but this one question, whether the Author of these Animadversions can now think, that this was the Copy of Epistles which either Mr. Calvin, or the Centuriators, or Dr. Whitaker rejected in the places by him transcribed from them? I might make my question a little more difficult to be answered by him, in the affirmative, whether in case such a purged Copy of those Epistles had been brought to any of them, which they had been forced to acknowledge to be the same, or exactly agreeable to that, which the Fathers (all that could be consulted, and gave testimony in this matter) received as authentic Ignatius, whether, I say, on that supposition, they would in any probability have rejected it, with a nil naeniis istis putidius, and larvae, & c? But the question will be sooner at an end, if we consider the matter of fact, as it lies before us, and therefore in that form he must apply the answer (which he shall return either to me or to his own conscience) whether Mr. Calvin ever saw this Copy, or any other the like, of which it may be said, what of this appears, in relation to Blondel, that he acknowledged it to be the same that Eusebius and the Fathers used and owned, and if he never did see that, or any the like, whether he can be produced as an instance against my affirmation, an example of those that rejected these, before either I or my Antagonists were born? 5. Another Copy I acknowledge he rejected, and in compliance with that judgement of his, Vedelius, that long after followed him at Geneva, and trod in his foetsteps, endeavoured to purge that volume of Epistles, meaning, I suppose, to make it such, as if Mr. Calvin had lived, he would not have rejected. To which purpose it may now be remembered, that Vedelius being pressed with calvin's authority for the rejecting these Epistles, he answers, that they are mistaken, who think Calvin spoke against the Epistles, and citys Rivet's Critica sacra c. 1. to prove Calvinum non in Ignatium, sed in quisquillias & naenias depravatorum Ignatii invectum esse, that Calvin inveighed not against Ignatius, but against the trash that the depravers of Ignatius had imposed upon him. This I have recovered by consulting Vedelius about the vir doctissimus: And this, he that sent me thither, might have seen if he had pleased. But beyond what Vedelius could attempt, the providence of God hath favoured this age, and afforded it better commodity to reduce these Epistles to the ancient genuine form, and of that only it was that I spoke, and of that Mr. Calvin could not divine to speak, and so there is an end of that instance. 6. The same answer evidently absolves me from the other two Instances of the Centuriators, and Dr. Whitaker: for 1. both those, as Vedelius saith, do not reject, but only doubt of them. 2. They are again the corrupt copies (those that by me are acknowledged to be such) of which their doubt is made, viz. the Copies which were out in their days, long before Vedelius undertaken to cleanse the Augaean stable, and much longer, before Vossius, and the Lord Primate more dextrously, and successfully performed it. And so there is nothing behind, which may assume to make good the least part of the charge against me, whether of confidence or oscitancy, or what else was thought fit to be laid upon me; I may again be able to look Scholars or sober men in the face, till I make forfeiture of my credit by some future miscarriage. 7. Yet because in the Instances here produced, that of Calvin and of the Centuriators there are mentioned some exceptions to these Epistles, to which our present Copy may still seem liable, I will not omit to make him my return (though ex abundanti, and extra orbitam) to those also. 8. And first for that of Calvin, that they which attribute any thing to Ignatius' authority, must first prove that the Apostles made any law for observing Lent: It is easily answered (without entering into any dispute concerning the antiquity of that Fast in the Church of Christ) by observing but these two things, that the place ordinarily produced to that purpose being out of the Epistle to the Philippians, in these words, [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Dishonour not the Feasts, despise not the quadragessimal Fast, for it contains an imitation of Christ's conversation] 1. This Epistle is none of the seven certainly genuine, which we have from Polycarp's collection, or which we adhere to in our account or plea for Ignatius. 2. That the Author of that Epistle whosoever he was, doth not make Lent to stand by any Law, or Institution of the Apostles, but only as an act of imitation of Christ, who fasted forty days in the wilderness. 9 Nay when the Book of Constitutions, which is thought to bear such Analogy with the Epistles affixed to Ignatius, speaks of the same matter, and adds 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Legislation [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, it contains a commemoration of Christ's conversation and Law-giving] I do not believe that this at all refers to any command or institution of Christ or his Apostles in this matter of observing of Lent, but that as Christ's fasting in the Wildernes●… Mat. 4. was a preparative to his entering on his Prophetic office, Mat. 5. where, in that divine Sermon on the Mount, he gave Evangelicall laws to his Disciples, the Holy Ghost, having formerly descended on him & consecrated him to it, Mat. 3. so the Quadrigessimal Fast was observed in the Church to commemorate both these, the Laws that he gave as well as the Fast that he prepared for them. And so no part of the suggestion from Mr. Calvin holds against our pretensions, the Epistle is not by us reckoned as Ignat Epist. nor the Institution of Lent said by that supposititious Epist. to be instituted by the Apostles, and so that is sufficient security to us from that first exception. 10. Next for those exceptions of the Centuriators, I shall take them in order as they lie. The first is, that almost in all the Epistles the occasion of writing them is ●mitted, nor can any man divine why he should send Letters to this or that Church rather than any other. 11. To this I answer, that, to my understanding, the occasions of every of his Epistles are as evidently legible, and discernible in them, as in most of the Apostles Epistles they are. In them they are not set down by way of syllabus, at the beginning, nor in any more visible gross way of transition, but are closely couched in the manner that the Authors of them thought fittest, and are discernible to a careful observant reader, and so are they here also. 12. The first, that to the Church of Sm●rna, is to confirm them in the Faith against the infusions of the Gnostics, which by this time (as appears by St. John's first Epistle) oppugned the reality of Christ's birth, and death, and resurrection, to whom he therefore confronteth the true doctrine vindicated in every branch, and vehemently inculcates the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, truly, and in the flesh, against the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the bare appearing to suffer, etc. which, faith he, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, some unbelievers or unfaithful Apostate Christians, evidently the Gnosti●k heretics affirmed and taught. 13. And here by the way appears more fully the injustice of that suspicion, which at the beginning of his view of Antiquity, the Author of this Preface was willing to infuse into the Reader, as if haeretical corrupt doctrine would be found to have crept into the writings of the * See Chap 〈…〉 s●… first times, that remain to us, whereas the plain truth is, that those heresies, which so earl● were gotten into the Church, and began 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to oppose the truth, were by those first writers as punctually confuted, as [reality] and [in the flesh] can be thought to be opposed to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the bare appearance. 14. To the same head of discourse it pertains which so l●ws, that these heretics reject the Eucharist upon the same grounds, not believing the reality of Christ's death▪ And that the one compendious way of arming the Orthodox against all their poisonous infusions, was to adhere to their Bishop and Officers of the Church under him, and not to do any thing in Ecclesiastical matters without his direction or commission: It being certain that these Heretics attempted to move the settled Faith, and practices, and that the Governors of the Church were by the Apostles instituted to preserve unity, and true doctrine, and had their rules and grounds of faith deposited with, and committed to them. 15. To this he adds things very particular both to him, and to that Church of Smyrna, that he took notice of their prayers for the Church of Syria, that he was now hastening to his Martyrdom, being at the writing hereof at Troas on his journey to Rome; that in his coming from Antioch the whole tempest and rage of the persecutors having fallen upon him, the Churches of Syria had now obtained their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a peaceable enjoyment of the Christian Assemblies. 16. A thing particularly taken notice of in Histories, that whilst Trajan now stayed at Antioch, to consult of his affairs, and war with the Parthians, upon the Letter of Tiberianus Precedent of the prime Nation of Palestine, Trajan gave order to him, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that he should leave off killing the Christians, so ●aith * Cron. lib. 11. Johannes Antiochenus, adding 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that he gave the same order to all the rest of the Governors, and concluding, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and the Christians had some truce from their persecutions. So Suidas in the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Trajan gave the Christians some truce, cessation of punishment, dating it from the time of Tiberiana's Letter (which was certainly at this time of Trajan's being at Antioch, and Ignatius on his journey toward Rome, though being already condemned, the mercy extended not to him) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, ●aith he, from hence forth, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Trajan forbade all under him to punish the Christians: So * Tom. 2 p. 20▪ Zonaras in the story of that time takes notice of this cessation, produced by the suffering of many, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. The Emperor hearing of the multitude of christians that had been butchered, gave order for more mercy, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and so the persecution became more moderate, which is farther evident by Trajan's Rescript to Pliny, and Tertullian's Animadversions upon it, Apol c. 2. 17. And this they, which had prayed for them in time of their persecutions, were now in all reason to acknowledge to God, as an answer and gracious return to their prayers, and to perfect their Christian work toward them, he now advises them to send a solemn Messenger with an Epistle to congratulate with those Churches this blessed change, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that together with them he might bless God for this tranquillity, or fair weather, which he had now given them, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and that by the benefit of their prayers those others were now landed safely at their desired haven. 18. Then he mentions the salutations of the Church at Troa●, from whence he wrote, and names Burrhus, whom they had sent along with him, which again is the yet more particular occasion of his writing to them at that time, at the return of their Messenger and Officer, whom he would not dismiss without a Letter of kindness and Christian care to them, who had showed so much of both to him, and the Church committed to his charge: And then ends with as affectionate a salutation, and as large an enumeration of all the several relations to which he desired to be kindly mentioned, as any Christian heart could do at the time of his last farewell to them. 19 And so what could have been more exactly performed, than that which these Objectors cannot take notice of to be done at all? What could be more express and visible, than the occasion and particular reasons of this address? And the like might be as largely, and as evidently deduced in reference to the rest of the Epistles, but truly that would be too long a work, and therefore let this serve 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for an instance of the no grounds of that exception. 20. The next exception is the ipsius peregrinationis ratio, the nature of his journey from Antioch to Rome, the stages whereof, as they are discoverable in these Epistles, are by the Objectors observed to differ from St. Paul's, and not to be the nearest way that might have been chosen thither. 21. But to this the answer is obvious, 1. that what in the Epistles is discoverable concerning his journey, and the several stages of it, is directly agreeable to the relations of his Martyrdom, recorded by the most ancient and punctual Historians, that have written on that subject: The Reader may consult the ancient piece called Martyrium Ignatii, & he will find this exactly true, without depending on the confidence of my affirmation. 22. Secondly: For many stages of this journey from Antioch toward Rome, they are here the very same to Ignatius, which we find in the Acts, in the relation of St. Paul's voyage, first from Asia, then after to Rome; St. Paul went from Troas to Neapolis, from Neapolis to Philippi, Act. 16. 10. And so the Acts of Ignatius have it exactly, Illinc (i. e. a Trod) ductus Neapolim, per Philippenses pertransivit Macedoniam pedes: From Troas he was carried to Neapolis, from thence he went on foot by Phillippi through Macedonia. So when Act. 28. S. Paul comes to Regium, thence to P●teoli, thence to Rome, ver. 13, 14. 'Tis in like manner manifest by the Acts of Ignatius, that he was carried the same way: And accordingly when he came in sight of Puteoli, 'tis said of him, that he Paul's steps: Mart. Ignat. pag. 44. 23. And for the variations in some part of the voyage, the account is easy also: For in the Acts of Ignatius set down by Simeon Metaphrastes, as there is an account given why Trajan sentenced him to that kind of death, to fight with, and to be torn asunder with wild beasts, * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. because he looked on this as the severest sort of death (and so most proportionable to his rage against him, for his bold answers made to him at Antioch, telling him that the † Daemonia gentium Deos existimans, errs. Mar●. Ignat. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Niceph. l. 3. c. 19 Gods he worshipped, were the Daemons of the nations) & in like manner also why this was not to be done at Antioch, but by sending him to Rome, lest it might more stir up the love & admiration of the people toward him, when they that knew him so well already, should now see him suffer for Christ's name so miserably, * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. whereas at Rome he might die unknown, and unpitied and unremembered, so there is also as clear a reason given, why being carried by ten soldiers from Antioch to Rome, the next, or most direct way was not constantly chosen for him, viz. that the journey might be the more tedious, and wearisome to him, and by that means possibly his constancy might be broken or lessened) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, saith he, mentioning it as the advice of Trajan's Council, that were then with him at Antioch, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, by the length of his journey he shall undergo the shrewder punishment: To which purpose also St. chrysostom mentions it as the artifice of the Devil (in his * Encomium of Ignatius) that Bishops should not be Tom. 5. p. 502. butchered in their own Cities, but carried far off to gather their Martyr's Crown, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, at once endeavouring to deprive them of all conveniences, and withal hoping by this act, by the toil and lassitude of the journey to make them more weak, and unfit for their final combat, which if it were the policy and design of cruel persecutors (as in this particular 1. the narrations of the fact say it was, and 2. a special passage in the Epistles to the Smyranaeans may be some indication of it, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, saith he, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, All my journey from Syria to Rome I fight with wild beasts, expressing his meaning in the next words, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, by land and sea, night and day chained to ten Leopards: And 3. the Centuriators have no objection against it) then sure there is no cause of wondering, that the ten Leopards, the Soldiers that guarded him did not choose out the shortest cut from Antioch to Rome, that their Map could have directed them to. Nay, St chrysostom is yet more express in it, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Devil called him from Antioch to Rome, setting him a course to be run forward and backward (that is the meaning of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as it is opposed to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as the Scholiast on Pindar tells us) and that of a very tedious length, to this very end, saith he, by the length of the way and the time, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, expecting to prostrate and subdue his resolution, or constancy of mind, to make him renounce the Faith of Christ, on which terms he was to be released by the decree of Trajane; so saith Nicephorus, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, He sent him from Antioch to Rome to be cast to the Lions to be devoured, unless he would abjure the Faith of Christ. 24. Thus unreasonable is it in matters of fact, the occasions and motives whereof are not always visible to every man, placed at a distance from them, to fancy and conjecture, what is probable or improbable, and accordingly to reform the Records of Antiquity from our own guesses, many things being every day done, which are not the most probable, and many things being probable and credible enough, when all the causes and circumstances are known, which while we continue in the dark, or see them with prejudices, may appear to be in some degree, or in some other respect improbable. 25. A more particular account of the several stages of his long wearisome journey, perfectly agreeable to these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and having now nothing of difficulty in it, & withal expressly vindicated from the contrary conjectures of the Centuriators, as also from the mistakes of Vedelius, the Reader may consult in the Lord Primate's Notes on Martyrium Ignatii, which makes it very impertinent for me farther to enlarge on it. Otherwise it were no hard task by setting down the whole passage in the Centuriators, of which only a part is here given us, to show the many misadventures those learned men were guilty of in their improvident pursuit of this matter, as when they say he could not have liberty long as ambages quaerere to go far out of his way in his journey, quia captivus ducebatur, because he was carried captive (whereas no man thinks that he chose this increase of his torment and toil for himself, yet might have it imposed on him quite contrary to his choice; by the severity of the Emperors, or his Councils directions, as hath been said) And again, that there is no mention of his following the Emperor's Army, nor relation in story that the Emperor fetched such a circuit in his journey from Antioch to Rome, whereas indeed the matter is clear, that he was committed to a guard of Soldiers, commonly called by him the ten Leopards; and for Trajan, it is sure that he did not at all return to Rome after this, but died in Cilicia. But this ex abundanti again, more than needs to the vindicating of Ignatius, who may now be at rest for a while, till he be soon called out again to a fresh combat. CHAP. III. Of the Corruptions in Ignatius' Epistles. Sect. 1. The emondate Editions. Their authority equal to the Epistle of Clement or Polycarpe. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Theodoret's citation out of Ignatius about the Eucharist. Jerome's about Christ's choosing the greatest sinners, Publicans. Num. 1. THE Prefacer is pleased not to dismiss Ignatius so, but beginning with some show of more moderation and temper toward him than he had observed in others, he yet soon resolves that it shall not be very useful to him, or to us, that expect to receive benefit from his suffrages in the defence of Episcopacy: Thus than he proceeds. 2. I have not insisted on what hath been spoken, as though 〈◊〉 were wholly of the mind of them who utterly condemn those Epistles as false and counterfeit; though I know no possibility of standing against the arguments levied against them notwithstanding the fo●em●n ioned D●… attempt to that purpose, without acknowledging so much ●…up ion in them, Additions, and Detractions from what they were, when first w●… as will render them not so clearly serviceable to any end or purpose, whereunto their testimony may be required, as other unquestionable writings of their antiquity are justly esteemed to be, That these Epistles have fallen into the hands of such unwo●…hy Impostors, as have filled the later Ages with labour and vavail to discover their deceits, the Doctor himself gr●…th Disse●t. 2. c. 2. sect. 6. Nulla (saith he) qu●dom nobis in●umb●t neces●itas 〈◊〉 in tanta exemplarium & edit●onum vari●t●t● & ●…stantia ni●. l usquam Ign●… interpola●um aut ad●utum ●…s. And indeed the foisted passages in many places are so evident, yea shameful, that no man who is not resolved to say any thing wi●… proof or truth, can once appear in any defensative ab●… them: Of this sort are the shreads and pieces ou● of that brande● cou●… piece of Clemens, or the Apostles Constitutions, which are almost in ev●… Epistle packed in, in a bungling manner, oftentimes disturbing th●… and coherence of the place: yea sometimes such things are thence tra●…, as in them are considerable arguments of their corruption and falsehood: So is that period in the Epistle to the Magnesians taken from Clemens Con●…. l 6. c. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. This Abedaddan being mentioned next after Absolem's dying by the loss of his head, is therefore supposed to be Sheba the son of Bickri, but whence that counterfeit Clemens had that name is not known: That the counterfeit Clemens by Abedaddan intended Sheba is evident from the words he assigns unto him in the place mentioned, Abedaddan said, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. And joins him with Absolom in his rebellion: Such passages as these they are supposed to receive from that vain and foolish Impostor: But if it be true which some have observed, that there is not the least mention made of any of those fictious Constitutions in the three first ages after Christ, and that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 mentioned by Eus●bius and Ath●n●sius, as also the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Epiphanius, are quite other things than those eight books of Constitutions we have; it may rather be supposed that that sottish deceiver rather raked up some of his filth from the corruption of these Epistles, than that any thing out of him is crept into them. Other instances might be given of stuffing these Epistles with the very garbage of that beast. Into what hands also the Epistles have fallen by the way, in their journeying down towards these ends of the world, is evident by these citations made out of them by them of old, which now appear not in them. Theodor●t. Dial. 3. adver. Haeret. gives us this sentence from Ignatius, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Which words you will scarcely find in that Epistle to the Church of Smyrna, from whence they were taken. Hierom also Dial. 3▪ cont▪ Pelag▪ hath this passage of him, and from him Ignatius, vir Apostolieus & Martyr scribit audacter, elegit Dominus Apostolos qui super omnes bomines peccatores erant, which words as they are not now in these Epistles, so as one observes, if ever he wrote them, as is pretended, he did it audacter indeed. But of these things our Doctor takes no notice. 3. The things that are here said, I am not so nearly concerned in (not so severe charges prepared and brought in against me) as in the former. I am but thrice and incidentally mentioned: The first mention concerns my answers to the arguments brought against Ignatius' Epistles; the second, my confession of the corruptions and interpolations in them; the third, my not taking notice of some special evidences which are by him mentioned against them. To these I shall not need to prepare any large reply. A few words may suffice to avert these charges. 4. For the first, concerning my answers to the arguments brought against the Epistles, which notwithstanding, saith he, there is no possibility of standing against the arguments, with out acknowledging so much corruption in them, etc. I need but mind the Reader 1. that Salmasius and Blondel being the two men that set themselves expressly to argue against the Epistles, I applied punctual answers to every argument by them produced, and so that business must rest, till either new arguments be produced, or intimation given, wherein any one of those answers hath been, or may be disproved or invalidated by any. 5. Secondly: That as there is no question made by me, but that former Editions have been corrupted (otherwise there had been no use of the Lord Primates, and Vossius' diligence, and pains in preparing, and setting out purer Copies) so 1. that being now done by them, and 2. the success being so remarkable, that they have concurred in publishing a Latin and Greek Copy from several Libraries, wherein the places cited from Ignatius by the Fathers, just as they are cited by them; and then 3. the number of the Epistles being reduced to that of Polycarpe's Sylloge or collection; and 4. our appeal to Ignatius being made in this form, to this pure edition of these so testified Epistles, the same that Blondel our Adversary acknowledgeth to have been used 1300 years ago by Eusebi●…, and which we have no reason to doubt but Eusebius received it from them who received it from Polycarpe; all this, I say, being laid by way of groundwork, there will, I now hope, be no confidence in making the comparison betwixt these, and other unquestionable writings, and assuming that these Epistles thus produced by us in defence of Episcopacy, are as fit to give in their testimony, and by all reasonable men to be embraced, as any writings of the same antiquity with them, which are most unquestionable, as Clemens and Polycarpe, and other the like. 6. For when many writings are in later times put upon the world under the name of Clemens Bishop of Rome, Epistles, Constitutions, etc. And when the writings of the Ancients are found to make mention of his Epistle to the Corinthians, as an undoubted writing of that holy man, and to recite many things from thence, and when out of a Manuscript of Reverend Antiquity this Epistle of Clement, thus concordant with those citations is lately published to the world, there is no sober man which reasonably may, or that I know of, doth appear to oppugn the authority of this Epistle. And the case is the very same, and in no particular that I discern, unequal, for Ignatius, as he is now published by Vossius and the Lord Primate. 7. The same might be said of Polycarpe, but that I have already spoken enough of this parallel betwixt Ignatius, and each of them in the first Section of the second Chapter. 8 Then for the second thing, my confession of the Corruptions and Interpolations of the Epistles, I wonder how it should be thought fit to be taken notice of; it being certain that that confession of mine belongs not at all to the Editions to which I make my appeal, but only to the former Editions. And is it impossible for any Author that was once corrupted, ever to be reform, for that to be cleansed, which was once sullied? 'Tis true it may be a matter of labour and travail for Critics by their own conjectures to make discoveries of such deceits, and therefore though Vedelius his Edition was fit enough for the Prelatists' pretensions, and withal that Author not liable to suspicion that he should be partial for Episcopacy (I might well hope that what came licenced from Geneva, would not have been disclaimed by those of the Genevan party) yet I wished for a surer way of reforming Ignatius, than his diligence, without the assistance of old Manuscript Copies, could afford us: But when this was done by two learned men (one of which, Isaacus Vossius, had visibly no interests to misguide him) and the severest Inquisition was not able to deprehend any considerable objection against the Edition, and when this was it that I desired, and offered to be tried by, and insisted on the justness of it, at the very time when I made that confession, how can it still be pertinent to argue or infer any thing from my confession, that once these Epistles were set out corruptly? 9 Or how can this Prefacer reasonably proceed to talk of the foisted passages so evident and shameful, that no man, who is not resolved to say any thing, without care of proof or truth, can once appear in any defensative about them? Have I said a word in defence of those, that have any of those foisted passages in them? Or may not I be able to appear in defence of the innocent blameless creature, though I cannot of the shameless and prostitute? Certainly he that had read the Dissertations so exactly, as to threaten a yet more severe censure of the whole Book in a few days or hours, and so cannot but have adverted that principal praecognoscendum in it, viz. what Edition of Ignatius it is, which in such variety I appeal to, might well have spared vouching of this confession of mine, of the corruptions of former Editions, it being to visibly, and so perfectly reconcileable with all other my pretensions. 9 The third and last thing I am to account for, is, my not taking notice of some special evidences, which are here mentioned against them: The first is the mention of Abeddadan for Sheba, in the Epistle to the Magnesians. 10. But how can this be suggested against the Edition we appeal to, when it is certain there is no such word in it, and when by the Lord Primate, that endeavoured to evidence the purity of this, and the corruptness of the former Editions, this very word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is particularly * Proleg●m p. 71. produced as an argument, that those things are reform here, which were vitiated before? And when it is visible by the whole passage here set down, that he had consulted the words of the Lord Primate (not in Ep. ad Magnes. p. 15.) 'tis not easily conceivable how he could still think fit to make this evidence of the incorruptness of the Copy, an instance of the corruption of it. 11. So again when it is objected in the next place (as an evidence, what hands these Epistles have fallen into by the way) that some citations are made out of them of old, which now appear not in them, and of this sort two instances are tendered, one a citation from Theodoret, the other from Hierome: 'Tis hardly imaginable how he could think ●it to make such an objection. 12. The place cited by Theodoret is in the very same form in the old Latin Copy, which the Lord Primate set out, and so in the Laurentian published by Vossius, with very little change: Thus, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, They depart from the Eucharist and prayer, because they do not acknowledge the Eucharist to be the flesh of Jesus Christ our Saviour, which suffered for our sins, which the Father raised up. All the difference is but this, that where Theodoret reads [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, they receive not the Eucharist and oblations] Our Copy of the Epistle to the Church of Smyrna reads 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, they recede from the Eucharist and the prayer] (which is to the same sense, which soever be the truest reading, and greater differences there oft are discernible in citation of places of Scripture in the Fathers) and then how could he think fit to add [which words you will scarcely find in that Epistle to the Church of Smyrna, from whence they were taken] I cannot yet make any conjecture, what he should aim at in thus affirming, contrary to every man's sight, which shall but read that Epistle, and therefore I cannot farther apply fit remedy to it. 13. The case is evident; These words are wanting in the corrupt Copies of Ignatius, and yet are cited by Theodoret out of him: This concludes, that there were more perfect Copies in Theodoret's time, than our former had been, and now the Copies lately published have these words in them, which is an evidence of the accord between these Copies and that which Theodoret used; and so being an argument for the incorruptness of these Copies, and the very thing which caused the Lord Primate to make search in our English Libraries for those Copies, because he found this particular place cited by three ancients of this Nation, Wodeford, Robert Lincolniensis, and Tissington, it was not either very reasonably, or very luckily produced, as an evidence against them. 14. The full importance of the speech itself hath been formerly intimated, viz. that the heretics, which denied the reality of Christ's death and Resurrection, did, consequently to their hypothesis, reject the Eucharist, and prayers, or oblations of the Church, wherein that death of his was solemnly commemorated, and the flesh of the crucified Saviour Sacramentally offered, and received, and so maintained to be by the Orthodox believers. 15. The other speech said to be cited from Ignatius by St. Hierome, may also well be his saying, though I find it not in these Epistles: Our Saviour, we know, spoke many things which are not written in the Gospels, and some of them are recited afterwards by the Apostles in the Acts, and some recorded by the Writers that followed the Apostles: And so well enough may some periods, delivered to Ignatius, be preserved to us, not in his own Writings, but in the Writings of other men; and this far from prejudicing the Epistles, which have been transmitted to us, which may well be genuine, though all that was such be not come down to us. As for the [audact●r] that it was a bold saying in him that said it, I have little reason to be disturbed by that, because if Ignatius said it, it is not my interest to inquire or examine, how boldly, and if he did not say it, than nothing can be inferred from his saying it: But then after all this, Christ, we know, called and chose one of his Disciples from the Toll-booth, where they that sat were proverbially called sinners, and generally accounted such beyond all other men, their very trade was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, filthy and sordid, saith * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. l. 4. c. 44 59 Artemidorus, and fit to be joined with that of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, thiefs and cheaters; and in Theophrastus in his Characters, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, whoremongers and Publicans, as in Scripture, Publicans and Harlots go together, and accordingly when * Musonius in Sto●●us p. 31. Theocritus was asked what was the cruelest beast? he answered, Of those in the Mountains, the Bear and Lion, but of those in the City 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Publicans and Sycophants, and as of them the Poet concludes, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, they are all, generally all, Robbers, so the Jews are wont to cry out of them, that they are all 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 thiefs, wicked sinners: And then what boldness is there in saying of Christ, who chose such, that he chose those who were sinners above all other men: It being no way to the dishonour of Christ to have chosen such, who from the chief of sinners, blasphemers, and persecutors, and injurious (as St. Paul saith of himself) converted, and became the most zealous servants and Disciples of their Master. Sect. 2. The style, and barbarous words in these Epistles. Variety of styles. Exuberance of affection. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Ignatius' title, an indication of the language of that age. Compositions, and new forms in Scripture. The four Latin words in these Epistles, paralleled by Hegesippus. The Church of Smyrna, and many more in the New Testament. Num. 1. THE next objection against these Epistles is taken from the style, and the use of barbarous words in Ignatius, and it begins thus. 2. The style of these Epistles doth not a little weaken the credit of them, being turgent, swelling with uncouth words and phrases, affected manner and ways of expression, new compositions of words, multiplying titles of honour to men, exceedingly remote and di●●ant from the plainness and simplicity of the first Writers among the Christians, as is evident by comparing these with the Epistles of Clement before mentioned, that of Polycarpus in Euscbius, the Churches of Vienna and Lions in that same Author and others. Instances for the confirmation of this observation are multiplied by Blondellus, my designed work will not allow me to insi●● particulars. In many good words this charge is waved, by affirming that the author of these Epistles was a Syrian, and near to Martyrdom, and that in the Scripture there are sundry words of as hard a composition, as these used by him, Ham. Dissert. 2. c. 3. And as he says, from this kind of writing an argument of sufficient validity may be drawn to evince him to be the Author of these Epistles. Hierome was of another mind speaking of Dydimus, Imperitus (saith he) sermone est, & non scientia, Apostolicum virum ex ipso sermone exprimens, tam sensum nomine, quam simplicitate ver borum; But seeing Ignatius was a Syrian, and near to Martyrdom (though he writes his Epistles from Troas and Smyrna, which without doubt were not in his way to Rome from Antioch, and yet every where he saith he is going to Rome: ad Eph●s. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which in the close he affirms he wrote from Smyrna, whither he was had to his Martyrdom) what is it to any man what style he used in his writings, what swelling titles he gave to any, or words he made use of. Who shall call those writings (especially Ignatius being a Syrian) into question. But perhaps some farther question may here arise (and which hath by sundry been already started) about the use of divers Latin wo●ds in those Epistles, which doubtless cannot be handsomely laid on the same account of the Author, being a Syrian, and nigh to Martyrdom▪ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, are usually instanced: words to which no Roman● Customs, Observations, Orders, nor Rules of Government do administer the least occasion. Of these the Doctor tells you, he wonders only that in so many Epistles there are no more of this kind. And why so? the Epistles are not so large a volume, a very few hours will serve to read them over; and yet I am persuaded that in all that compass of reading, in the Greek Fathers, which our Doctor owns, he cannot give so many instanc●s of wo●ds barbarous to their language, no way occasioned by the means before mentioned, as have been given in these Epistles. But he wonders that there are no more, and some wonder that all are not of his mind. But he farther informs us, that a diligent reader of the Scripture may observe many more Latin words in the New Testament, than a●● used in these Epistles; and for a proof of his diligence and observation, reckons up out of the end of Passor's Lexicon, sundry words of that kind made use of by the Sacred Writers. I fear unto some men, this will sc●●ce be an Apology prevalent to the dismission of these Epistles from under the cen●ure of being at least foully corrupted. Of the whole collection of words of that sort made by P●ssor, among which are those especially culled out by our Doctor to confirms his Observations, there is scarce one, but either it is expressive of some Roman Office, Custom, Money, O●der, or the like: words of which nature pass as proper names, (as one of those mentioned by the Doctor is, and no otherwise used in the New Testamen) from one Country and Language to another, or are indeed of a pur● G●eek Original, or at least were in common use in that age, neither of which can be spoken of the words above mentioned, used in the Epistles: which were never used by any before or after them, nor is the●e any occasion imaginable why they should: Parvas hab●nt sp●s Epistolae, si tal●s habent: I would indeed gladly see a fair, candi●, and ingenious defensative of the style and manner of writing used in these Epistles, departing so eminently from any thing that was customary in ●he writings of the men of those days, or is regular for men in any generation, in Repetitions, affected Compositions, Barbarismes, Rhyming expressions, and the like: for truly notwithstanding any thing that hitherto I have been ab●● to obtain for help in this kind, I am enforced to incline ●o V●…s his answers to all the particular instances given of this nature; this, and that place is corrupted, this is from Clement's constitutions, this from this or that Tradition, which also would much better free those Epistles from the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 used in the sense whereunto it was applied by the Valentinians long after the death of Ignatius, than any other Apology I have as yet seen, for the securing of its abode in them. 3. The, total of this double objection against turgencie of style and barbarousness of words, is this, The objections formerly drawn by D. Blondel from those two heads, and punctually answered by me Dissert. 2 c. 3. are again called up, and some general heads of my answers slightly repeated, and scoffed at, and put into as disadvantageous a dress, as he could choose for them, and then the old answered arguments may stand good again, and all must be rejected as supposititious, which hath any of this turgent style, or these barbarous words in it. 4. In full answer to this, I, that know best the force of my own answers, and wherein their strength lies, shall very briefly give the Reader, that is not at leisure to turn to the Dissertations, a view of them, and vindicate them from any appearance of reply which here is made to them. 5. Three things are more distinctly objected by Blondel on this head, turgency of style, new forms of compounded words, and a few, viz. four Latin words made Greek. 6. To the first of these my answer is, 1. that the styles of men in the same age are oft very different, I add, as different and discernible to a curious observer, as their hands or characters, or as their countenances, several lines and features, and airs as it were, several dashes and forms visibly observable in them. Accordingly we * Cicer fam. Ep. lib. 9 Ep. 16. read of Caesar, that if any passage were brought to him for Cicero's, which was not Cicero's, he would constantly reject it. And the same could * Ibidem. Servius do, if any verse in the name of Plautus were recited to him, which was not his. And we know it is the part of an Aristarchus, or skilful Critic, and the common way of discerning such or such a writing, whether it be his, whose it pretends to be or not, diligently to observe the style or character, which could not be any probable way of judging, if all others, which wrote in the same age, wrote the very same style: And so that which is here added of comparing Ignatius his style with that of Clement and Polycarp, and the Church of Vienna, is a very strange argument, just as if one should say, he that owns this Preface is not the Author of it, and bind him, for the justifying that he is, to demonstrate the agreement of his style with all men that have written in this last age in our language. 7. 2ly. When Blondel saith, that the Author of these Epistles doth nimis Rhetoricari, too much rhetoricate; I answer, that it is hard to define the bounds of Eloquence, within which it is obliged to contain itself. Cicero in his Institution of an Orator commending that plenty, cui aliquid amputari possit, where there is somewhat to spare, which is an evidence that that Master of Eloquence is no way displeased with all exuberance; And to this particular it was, that peculiarly I added the mention of his being near his Martyrdom, and his flagrant desire of it, which might inflame his soul, and that send out those warmer breathe or expressions, which might be as much above the ordinary simplicity of speech, as he was at that time above the ordinary cold temper of other men. And against this there is not the least word here objected by this Praefacer. 8. For the second part of the objection, the new forms of compounded words, observable in these Epistles, my answer is, that though Blondel set down 17. of such words, yet many of them are of the same kind, compounded of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 & 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, & so arise by the same analogy, that fewer would do, and consequently the multitude of them signifies no more than a smaller number of the same. And of these it is observable, that the title, by which Ignatius was vulgarly known at that time, was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, one that carried God, and when Trajan condemned him to death▪ it was upon this point and in this form, that he owned that name, Ignatium praecipimus in seipso dicentem circumferre Crucifixum, vinctum à militibas duci ad magnam Romam, My sentence is that Ignatius, that says he carries about in himself the crucified, i. e. that calls himself Theophorus, (as he did in that answer to Trajan's calling him Cacodaemon, Nullus Theophorum v●cat Cacademo●em) shall be carried bound to great Rome, and cast on the Theatre to the wild beasts, as we find it in the relation of his Martyrdom. Now this being then his ordinary title, the other like words are directly of the same composition with that: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and from hence I argued (and I still think probably) that his use of such compositions was an argument that he wrote these Epistles, not that he wrote them not, it being evident by that one word (so vulgarly then used to signify him) Theophorus, that such compositions were then agreeable to the ears and genius of that age. 9 And the argument thus used by me, was neither not apprehended, or very uneffectually answered, by opposing the words of Saint Hierome of Didymus, that he expressed himself an Apostolical person by the simplicity of his language. So Didymus might, and yet the argument conclude probably, that these Epistles were written by Ignatius, because as he was vulgarly called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, so words of the like nature with that, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, familiarly discernible in those Epistles. 10. As for the other words by Blondel objected, which were of other forms of composition, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. My answer is, that none of these are at all Monstreus in the language of a Syrian, that writes Greek, and that in the New Testament, words are to be found, as distant from common language, and as extraordinarily compounded as these, for instance, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in Saint Luke, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Saint John, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in Saint Peter, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in S. Paul, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a word made on purpose by Saint Paul, without example of the like (not only of the same) in other authors. 11. To this answer of mine, here is no kind of reply, but of scoffs only, [But seeing Ignatius was a Syrian, and near to Martyrdom (though he writes his Epistles from Troas and Smyrna, which without doubt were not in his way to Rome from Antioch, and yet every where he saith he is going to Rome—) what is that to any man what style he used in his writings— and so in the mode of sarcasme. 12. But I wonder what caused this mirth, and in sadness demand, whether I ever rendered it as the reason of his using those new compositions, that he was near to Martyrdom, he cannot but know that that was the plea for the exuberance of his affection, which might render the reason of the warmer expressions, which Blondel had censured for too much Rhetoric; and to that it was proper, though not to making of new words, which is the present business. 13. Secondly, why might not he be a Syrian, and write as a Syro-Graecian would write, although his Epistles were dated from Troas and Smyrna? 'Tis sure enough that he lived at Antioch, and that was the Metropolis of Syria, & the soldiers carrying him bound to Troas and Smyrna, was not likely so suddenly to change his dialect, or make him write more familiar Greek, than in Antioch he would have written, and being called vulgarly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 at Antioch, what wonder is it that he should now write in the same style, use 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 at Smyrna? 14. Thirdly, For his going by Tr●as and Smyrna from Antioch to Rome, all records of his journey make it certain, and if it were not the nearest way, the account hath been given of that in the former section, And so the Praefacer might well enough have kept his countenance, and spared his Sarcasmes, Here was nothing to discompose him, nothing ridiculous in all this. 15. Lastly, therefore, for the four Latin words turned into Greek, & used in those Epistles produced by D. Blondel, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, my answer is, 1. that there is nothing strange in that, it might be as great matter of wonder, that in seven Epistles there are no more of that kind. 16. To which here it is replied, 1. that the Epistles are not so large a volume, a few hours will serve to read them over, 2. that no Roman Customs, Observations, Orders, nor rules of Government did administer the least occasion of the use of these words, and 3. that the like number cannot he produced out of all the Greek Fathers that I own the reading of 17. To these I answer, 1. that as far from large as the Epistles are, there might as probably have been more such words, as so many, seven Epistles, each of them being much longer than some of the Apostles in the Scripture, if they had had but one such word a piece (which sure each might as reasonably have as any) this had almost doubled the number, which now we find in the objecters own computation. And indeed three of these four being altogether in the Epistle to Polyear●e (which if, with some, I should leave out of the Collection of the Genuine, I should have enough behind to maintain Episcopacy) in all the other six there remains but one, which in no immoderate proportion. 18. Secondly, That as in Hegesippus fragments left to us in Greek, Blondel hath taken notice of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as perfect and unexcusable a Latinisme as any of these, so in the one Epistle of the Church of Smyrna (of a very moderate length, concerning Polycarps Martyrdom (another piece of the same age's production) we have 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, another parallel instance of the use of such words at that time. 19 3ly. The like words and phrases in the New Test. which is also no vast volume (though not fit to be read ad clepsidram, the length of it measured by the hourglass) are so many more than these that are accused, and produced from these Epistles (near thirty for four) that this may well vindicate so small a number, and make it more strange that there are no more than four, than it ought to be that there are so many. 20. So in the next place for the four heads into which he brancheth the causes of the use of Latin words among Greek writers, I answer 1. that if he hath observed four, other men may as lawfully observe some other, and are no way obliged to marshal all they find of this nature, under one of his four heads. 2. That if there be by him acknowledged four such heads of causes, I may reasonably allow Ignatius to have used four such words, and render but this one single reason for them all, that Antioch, being part of the Roman dominion, and many that spoke Latin inhabiting there, four Latin words might easily be transfused into common use among them, acceptum, depositum, desertor, exemplar. 21. If this seem strange, let it be remembered, that if ●ot all, certainly the three later of these very four are in vulgar use among us of England, derived certainly from the same fountain whence Ignatius had them, and so may well be allowed them, who had the same occasion, and the same liberty. 22. Thirdly, that three of these four, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, are all Military words; as for the first of them, 'tis clear, and for the other two, he might be informed from Halloix, When Soldiers went on an expedition saith he, in civitatibus peculia sua castrensia deponebant, quae reversi recipiebant, Illa deposita appellabantur ab eo qui deponebat, accepta ab eo qui accipiebat, confectis ergo bellis illi deposita repetebant, high accepta restituebant. And then what was thus taken from the Militia, may well be reduced to one of the Prefacers' heads, the first, that of Roman customs, and so by his own rules these Latin words might here be lawfully used, in a metaphorical passage especially, which was all Military. 23. Lastly, what need I take the pains to turn over the Fathers, to parallel these four words, when if I do succeed in the attempt, he hath his reserve [yea, but they are taken from one of the four heads mentioned by him, Customs, Observations, Orders▪ or Rules of Government] (which are prettily comprehensive indeed, as they may be applied) and when out of the very Greek Testament (which was written nearer to the time of Ignatius than the Volumes of the Greek Fathers were) I have already produced so many more, than are vouched from these Epistles. 24. But to this it is said, 1. That as a proof of my diligence and observation, I reckon sundry words of this kind out of the end of Passor' s Lexi●…. 2. That of that whole collection there is scarce one b●t either is expressive of some Roman Office, Custom, Money, Order, or the like, or else a proper name, as one mentioned by me, or indeed of a p●… Greek Original, or that were in common use in that age. 3. That neither of these can be spoken of those which are used in these Epistles. 24. To all these I make my rejoinder. To the first, 1. That 'tis as good an evidence that there are such words in the New Testament, if Passor collected them, as if I, or this Prefacer were supposed to have done it. I was not then contending for commendation of diligence or observation, but demonstrating one truth and vindicating another, and this might as effectually be done (without my reading over the New Testament on purpose) by any other easier method, that could offer itself unto me. 25. But than secondly: if this were so accurately done by Passor before me, my advantage was the greater against Blondel, who might so easily have discerned so many, and yet would take notice but of one in all the New Testament, viz. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 26. Thirdly, That the Prefacer was not acquainted with me, nor knew so much of my secrets, as that he can upon knowledge, or with truth affirm, what he doth without any peradventure, that I Passor's Lexicon. I had not conversed with, nor, that I know of, was ever owner of that Author of his, but did, as was necessary for me, that knew no more compendious way, write them out of my ill memory, and imperfect Notes, taken at least twenty or thirty years before: And accordingly the Catalogue then made by me was but imperfect, and I have since found occasion to increase it, and when I meet with Passor, may perhaps have reason farther to enlarge it (and if I do, shall be obliged to acknowledge by whom I was directed to him.) 27. And so in the second part of the reply, the Prefacer hath thought fit to do, having added one head more, that of Money to the four which he had formerly made use of, and not only so, but left room for more by a large form of Analogy [and the like] and yet farther reckoned up three heads more, to each of which he acknowledges the [like] to be equally imputable. 28. As for the proper name (that, I suppose, must be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Justus) as it is true, that it is such, so 'tis certain that that Latin proper name is first a Latin common Adjective, and being spoken of, in Greek, might as well hae been translated into 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as either Cephas is into 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or Tabytha into 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 if there had been any criminous barbarousness in using foreign words, or turning them into Greek: As for the pure Greek Original, that some of the words are of, if he mean any of those mentioned by me, I confess I know not what he means; If he means those mentioned by Passor, I have no commodity to know, nor obligation to account for it. 29. As for the last, that they were of common use in that age, I doubt it not, and shall therefore hasten to the last particular, and give the like account of that, and that I doubt not but the four words in Ignatius, were at Antioch, where he lived, in frequent and common use at that time, and till that be disproved, we are perfectly agreed upon the account, that it was very lawful for Ignatius to use them. And this I hope may at last be sufficient to have added to the former competent length of account, concerning the style of these Epistles. 30. In the close, there is a mention of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, another of D. Blondel's exceptions, but of that I have spoken so largely, both to Blondel's original objections, and to his replies (and there is not one word here said to the confirming of his, or refuting of my pretensions, that I must not superadd one word more of that subject. Sect. 3. The immoderate exaltations of Bishops objected to these Epistles. But belong not to our Copies, save in one testimony, and that no way immoderate. Num. 1. THe next charge against these Epistles is, the frequent commendation of Bishops, etc. Thus it lies. It is not a little burdensome to the thought of sober and learned men, to consider how frequently, causelessly, absurdly in the midst of discourses quite of another nature, and tendncy, the Author of those Epistles (or some body for him) breaks in upon the commendation of Church Officers, Bishops and Presbyters, exalting with titles of honour to the greatest Potentates on earth, and comparing them to God the Father & Son, whereas none of the sacred Writers that went before him, nor any of those good & holy men, who (as is supposed) followed after him, do hold the least communion or society with him in that course of proceeding, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Epist. ad Trall. Whereunto is immediately subjoined that Doctrine concerning Deacons, which will scarcely be thought to be exegetical of Act. 6. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉— And 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. What the Writer of this passage intended to make of a Bishop, well I know not, but thus he speaks of him, Epist. ad Mag●●●. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (as the Apostle speaks concerning God, Heb. 6. 10. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Thus indeed some would have it, who to help the matter, have further framed such an Episcopacy, as was never thought on by any in the days of Ignatius, as shall afterwards b●e made evident: And in the same Epistle this is somewhat uncouth and strange. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Whether the Lord Christ hath bound any such burden upon the shoulders of the Saints, I much question; nor can I tell what to make of the comparison, between God the Father, and the Bishop, Christ, and the rest of the Church, the whole sentence in word and matter being most remote from the least countenance from the sacred writings. Ep. ad Philad●l. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (well aimed however) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. The Epistle to the Church of Smyrna is full of such stuff, inserted without any occasion, order, coherence, or any colour to induce us to believe that it is part of the Epistle as first written. O●e passage I may not omi●, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (in the language of our Saviour repudiating the Pharisces corrupted glosses on the Law) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. So Peter● mista●e is corrected; his reasons follow, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (as was Jesus Christ) and it is added, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. How well this ●ui●s the doctrine of Peter and Paul the Reader will easily discern; Caesar or the King is upon all accounts thrust behind the Bishop, who is said to be consecrated to God for the salvation of the world; him he is exhorted to obey, and in express opposition to the Holy Ghost, the Bishops name is thrust in between God and the King, as in a way of prae●minence above the latt●●, and to do any thing without the Bishop, is made a far greater c●ime than to rise up 2▪ 'gainst the King. As this seems scarce to be the language of one, going upon an accusation to appear before the Emperor, so 〈◊〉 am certain, it is most remote from the likeness of any thing that in this affair we are instructed in from the Scripture. Plainly this language is the same with that of the false Impostor Pseudo-Clemens, in his pretended Apostolical Constitutions. At this rate or somewhat beyond it, you have him ●anting l. 2 c. 2 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. All Popes, with all ●…s of persons whatsoever, Priests, Kings and Princes, Fathers, and childen, all under the feet of this exemplar of God, and ruler over me●, a passage which doubtless eminently interprets, and illustrates that place of Peter, 1 Epistle, c. 5. v. 1, 2, 3. The Elders that are among you I exhort, who am also an Elder, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that shall be revealed, feed the ●lock of God, which is among you, taking the oversight thereof not by constraint, but willingly, not for fil●●y lucre, but of a ready mind, neither as being Lords over God's heritage, but being examples to the flock: But yet as if the man were stark mad with worldly pride and pomp, he afterwards in the name of the holy Apostles of Jesus Christ, commands all the ●aity (forsooth) to honour, love, and fear the Bishop, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, lib 2. c. 20. And that you may see whither the man drives, and what he aims at, after he hath set out his Bishop like an Emperor, or an Eastern King in all pomp and glory, he adds, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. The paying of Tribute to them as Kings, is the issue of these descriptions, that they may have wherewithal to maintain their pomp and greatness▪ according to the institution of our Lord Jesus Christ, and his blessed Apostles But I shall not rake farther into this dunghill, nor shall I add any more instances of this kind out of Ignatius, but close i● to one insisted on by our Doctor, for the proof of his Episcopacy, Di●…r●. 〈◊〉, 〈◊〉. 25. 7. saith he, Qu●●●ò, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Episcopo attendite ut & vobis Deus attendat, ego animam meam libenter corum loco substitui, cuper●● (Quod Arglice optimè decimus, my soul for theirs) qui Episcopo, Presbyteris, & Diaconis obsequuntur. I hope I may without great difficulty obtain the Doctor's pardon, that I dare not be so bold with my soul as to jeopard it in that manner, especially being not my own to dispose of. 2. I shall not need to inquire who those sober and learned men are, with the mention of whom the Prefacer here begins; I question not but that they are he, and those of his persuasion, I only hope it is possible that they have not the enclosure of that title, and then there may be others as sober, and as learned, that consent with me in their opinion of this matter. 3. What is said here of those sober and learned men, that it is not a little burdensome to their thoughts, that the Author of these Epistles so frequently, causelessly, and absurdly breaks in upon the commendation of Church-Officers] may be just matter of compassion in me; as far as I believe there is any truth in it: For truly I should be sorry, that any sober, or learned man's thoughts should be so causelessly, and yet so heavily burdened and disquieted: And yet if that be the case, I may certainly be able to do more than compassionate, I may administer comfort also: For if that Author's commendations of Bishops be causeless and absurd, than their grief and pressure of thoughts must be as causeless (that I add not, absurd) who are much disturbed with them: If the supposititious Ignatius that hath taken that person on him, act and personate so very absurdly, any sober, or learned man will be glad, that he hath so luckily discovered his fraud, that the Visor is fallen off by this means, and the cheat so speedily come to an end. 4. If therefore there be any thing serious in this expression (as [not a little burdensome to the thought of sober and learned men] is a very solemn and grave style, that admits no suspicion of Smile or Irony) it must to my understanding signify, that they that are not friends to Episcopacy, are not a little burdened to think, that Ignatius, that Primitive glorious Saint and Martyr, should so frequently (which they must be supposed to think causelessly and absurdly) commend and exalt Bishops: And though in their doing this, I know they do not expect I should commend them, yet ●t so falls out, that I am very well able to excuse them, if the passages, which are here set down by the Prefacer, be the only matter of burden to their thoughts. 5. For indeed it is a little strange, that he that hath undertaken to write Animadversions on my Dissertations, and knows what Copies they are of Ignatius, which I defend, as the genuine Epistles, should produce testimonies out of these Epistles to invalidate their authority, and yet never but once consult these Copies to which I appeal, but gather up the off-scouring of the corrupt Editions, which even now he had called the very garbage of the beast, when, if he had pleased, he might have entertained himself and the Reader with much wholesomer diet in the volumes set out by Vossius and the Lord Primate. 6. As it is, the task lies more truly burdensome on me, who must now be fain to survey, very unnecessarily all the testimonies here set down, and demonstrate that it is unjustly suggested by the Prefacer, that the Author of these Epistles (he ought to mean those, which he, with whom he disputes, takes for his) exal●s Bishops with titles of honour to the greatest Potentates on earth. 7. For the first testimony then, taken from the Epistle to the Trallians, he might only have corrected the reading out of the emendate Copies, and so have read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and then, as the testimony had been more Grammatical sense, not [whatsoever things you do, do nothing—] but [it is necessary, as already you practise, to do nothing without the Bishop] so the reasonableness, and moderation of that speech had been discernible enough, being both the ordinary language of the ancient Canons (always thought necessary to the unity of the Church) and peculiarly useful at that time to be inculcated (to keep out the poison of the haeretical and schismatical Gnostics) as hath at large been formerly demonstrated, both in answer to * Dissert. 3. numb. 9 Blendel, and again to the † Cap. 3 sect. 3. numb. 54. London Assemblers, and need not now be repeated here. 8. The second testimony, which concerns Deacons, and is not conceived to be reconcileable with their institution, Act. 6. is in our Copies, both in words and sense, different from that which is here cited out of the corrupt, and hath nothing of high or strange in it. It is thus, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, The Deacons being Ministers of the Mysteries of Jesus Christ, aught to please all men; for they are not dispensers of meat and drink (i. e. not only, or especially such) but officers of the Church of Christ, they ought therefore to keep themselves from accusations as from fire. What is there in this above the proportion of moderate and sound doctrine? 9 But the third testimony is an immoderate one indeed, and gives him, I confess, a supereminent jurisdiction in the [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] But by good hap there is not a word of it in our Editions, and so we are not farther concerned to vindicate or examine it. 10. So for the fourth, from the Epistle to the Magnesians, the immoderate height whereof is argued from the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 used of God, Heb (I suppose it should be) 10. 31. I need say no more again, but that there is no part of it in our Copies nor any thing instead of it above this moderate pitch, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉— To the honour of God, whose pleasure it is, it becomes us to obey the Bishop without any hypocrisy. 11. Of the fifth there is only thus much in our Copies by way of caution against Schisms, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Be united to your Bishop, and those that are set over you, for a copy and doctrine of incorruption. Which, by the way, sets down the plain reason of his so frequent inculcating obedience to, and union with their Bishop (just as in our Vindication to the London Assemblers, and elsewhere, hath oft been said) because the true doctrine being by the Apostles before their decease deposited with these, as their successors in every Church, and because having particular knowledge of the Orthodoxalness of Damas' in this, and the like of other Bishops and Presbyters under them in the other Churches, there was no way so prudent, and so compendious to preserve them from the corruptions of the heretics (who were then creeping in clancularly) as their keeping themselves exactly close to the Bishop, and their Superiors under him. And accordingly it follows, As therefore the Lord being united to his Father did nothing without him, either by himself, or by his Apostles, so neither do ye any thing without the Bishop, and the Presbyters; nor endeavour to account any thing reasonable which is private, or of your own devising: Which again differs from the reading that is here offered, and tells us clearly what is meant by the comparison betwixt God the Father and the Bishop, Christ and the rest of the Church, even no more than Christ means when he said, Learn of me, for I am meek: Christ did all by commission from, and nothing without his Father, and so betwixt them unity was preserved: And in like manner the Members of the Church must obey, and do nothing without their Governor, and so union may among them be preserved also. But of this entire place we have formerly spoken in the Vindication to the London Assemblers, c. 3. sect. 3. n. 42. 12. The sixth place is of some weight indeed, from the Epistle to the Philadelphians, requiring all, of what sort soever, not only Presbyters, Deacons, and the whole Clergy, but all the People, Soldiers, Princes, Caesar himself to perform obedience to the Bishop. And here, I acknowledge, there is a testimony and evidence of the charge of extolling Bishops above the greatest Potentates; for sure Caesar was such, and if Ignatius had thought fit to use such language, and done it at a time when Caesar was heathen, and he by Caesar's sentence already condemned, and within a while to be brought forth to the Amphitheatre, I might have justly deserved a severe Animadversion for moving tongue or pen in defence of this rebellious, extravagant, senseless doctrine. But I need not take pains to examine the place, my memory, as ill as it is, assures me there is no such thing in the Epistles owned by us Prelatists; and upon consulting the place, I find there are almost eight pages together inserted by some Impostor, of all which there remains not above one page in our Editions, which certainly is an evidence, that some Reformation was wrought, some degree of purity restored to these Epistles, by this so fiery a purgation: And 'tis very strange that this Prefacer could not take notice of it. 13. So again the seventh, in the Epistle to the Smyrnaeans, is advanced to the same pitch of Insolence, placing the Bishop betwixt God and the King, and that by way of correction of the words of Scripture [My son, fear God, and the King] and all the several branches of that place here cited, are every word vanished out of our volume of Epistles. And so the Prefacer hath only had an opportunity to betray his mistake, in affirming of Ignatius at the time of writing that Epistle, that he was going upon an accusation to appear before the Emperor, whereas it is certain he had before this, received his condemnation from Trajan the Emperor at Antioch, and was now carrying to Rome for his execution, and that is all he hath gained by producing this testimony. 14. And so you see I have no reason to make any further answer to what the Prefacer here justly adds concerning the unreasonableness, and unchristiannesse of these expressions, whether in these insertions published once under Ignatius his name, or the like in the Constitutions fathered also upon Clemens, I am as perfectly of his opinion concerning the impiety of them, as he could wish, and am thereby obliged to value our new Editions, the more for freeing an innocent Martyr and his Reader from such Impostures. 15. Only I wonder that over and above all those that are by that Impostor appointed to obey the Bishop, the Prefacer (as if the other had been too wary) should think fit to make a further insertion, and to the Catalogue of the Bishop's subjects, add [All Pope's] when the Greek cited by him hath only 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which he truly renders Priests in the words following. What is this but to corrupt the sink, to help the Garbage to get a stronger savour, to go beyond the Artificer at his own weapon, to fancy a command to the Bishop to obey himself, to Pope Clemens to be subject to Clemens the Pope? If the supposititious Clemens had written at that rate, he had certainly never imposed on any. But I must not advise my Monitor, else he should have rendered the Greek in plain English, and spared that whether paraphrase, or insertion [All Popes.] 16. The last place produced out of the testimonies cited in the Dissertations is indeed to be found in Vossius' edition, and the Medicean Copy of our Epistles. And the producing of that from thence, and mentioning it as produced by me, is an evidence that the Prefacer knew the way, if he had pleased to make use of it, to have cited none but Genuine Testimonies: For all such, as far as the uncorrupted Copies would afford, were by me set down to his hand: But that method was not, it seems, for his turn, the Reader could not have been so amuzed with a multitude of odious passages out of Ignatius, if this, as fairer, so easier course had been taken. 17. For this one place then, where the genuine Ignatius bids them, or rather exhorts Polycar● the Bishop to advise them, to give heed to the Bishop that God may attend to them, and adds, my soul for theirs who obey the Bishop, Presbyters, and Deacons] though I cannot wonder that in these da●es there are some, who are not well qualified to say Amen to it, yet being taken as it was meant by that holy man, there is certainly nothing in it to be startled at, or improbable to be written by the Saint Ignatius. 'Tis in the Epistle to Polycarp, and it concerns the Church under him, And at that time it appears the Gnostick heretics were infusing their poison there, and their first artifice of insinuation was, taking upon them to understand or know more than their Bishop or Teacher did, though he the most famous Doctor of all Asia, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, an Apostolic, and Prophetic, and illustrious Doctor, saith the Epistle of the Church of Smyrna concerning him. This is set down in the words precedent, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, If a man assume and b●ast of his knowledge, take upon him to know more than the Bishop, by this you may know that he hath imbibed and sucked in that Gnostick poison (that makes him so swell presently) And in opposition to these it is, and upon perfect knowledge of their Bishop, that he thus proceeds to exhort and conjure them to attend to their Bishop, and not to such assuming Corehs, and to do it more effectually, offers to jeopard his soul for theirs, that they shall suffer no damage for so doing. And supposing the Bishop to be in the right▪ Orthodox and careful to build them up in the truth, and that the heretics which advanced themselves above the Bishop, designed that which would be their ruin and perdition, if they succeed in their attempt (as it is certain that this must, at this time, in this matter, be supposed) what danger was Ignatius in by venturing his soul in this manner: This certainly he might do, as far as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 reacheth (no more than this, that he durst or would be content to venture it) though his soul (nay more than his life, which he now more than ventured) was not his own to dispose of. Sect. 4. Of the three Orders in the Church. Of the Order of Presbyters when it came in. No mention of it in Clemens Romanus, or Polycarpe, but in Ignatius. Lombard words of the two Orders. The Popish Doctrine concerning Bishops. Num. 1. FRom these premises thus laid, and, I suppose, by this time, removed out of the way, from being occasion of stumbling to any, he now proceeds to infer his conclusion, thus. 2. Upon these, and many more the like accounts do the Epistles seem to me to be li●e the children that he Jews had by their strange wives, N●h. ●3. who spoke part the language of Ashdod, and part the language of the Jews That there are in them many footsteps of a gracious spirit, every way worthy of, and be ming the great and holy personage whose they are esteemed, so there is evidently a mixture of the working of that worldly and carnal s●● it, which in his days was not so let loose as in after times. For what is there in the Scripture, what is in the genuine Epistle of Clemens, that gives countenance to those descriptions of Episcopacy, Bishops, and the subjection to them, that are in those Epistles (as now 〈◊〉 have them) so insisted on? What Titles are given to Bishops? What Sovereignty, Power, Rule, Dominion is ascribed to them? I ●here any thing of the like nature in the Writings of the Apostles? In Clemens, the Epistle of Po●ycarpus▪ & ●? ●r any unquestionable legitimate offspring of any of the first Worthies of Christianity? Whence have they their ●hree Orders of Bishops, Presbyters, and Deacons, upon the distinct observation of which so much weight is laid? Is there any one word, iota, tittle, or syllable in the whole B●o● of God giving countenance to any such distinctions? Eph 4. 11. We have Pastors and Teachers. Rom. 12 7, 8. H●m that teacheth, him that exhorteth, him that ruleth, and him that showeth m●●cy Phil. 1. 1. We have Bishops and Deacons; and their Institutions with the order of it, we have at large expressed 1 Tim. 3. 1, 2. Bishops and Deacons without the interposition of any other Order whatsoever; Deacons we have appointed Act. 7. and Elders Act. 14, 23. those who are Bishops we find called Presbyters Tit. 1. 5, 7. And those who are Presbyters we find called Bishops Act. 20. 28. So that Deacons we know, and Bishops who are Presbyters, or Presbyters who are Bishops we know, but Bishops, Presbyters, and Deacons, as ●hree distincct Orders in the Church, from the Scripture we know not. Neither did Clemen● in his Epistle to the Corimb●ans know any more than we do, which a few instances will manifest: Saith he, speaking of the Apostles, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉— Bishops and Deacons (as in the Church at Philippi) this man knows, but the 〈◊〉 Order he is utterly unacquainted withal And that the difference of this man's expressions concerning Church Rulers from those in the Epistle under consideration, may the better appear; and his asserting of Bishops and Presbyters to be one and the same, may the more clearly be evidenced, I shall transcribe one other passage from him, whose length I hope will be excused from the usefulness of it to the purpose in hand, Page 57▪ 58. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (for so it seems was the manner of the Church in his days, that their Officers were appointed by the consent of the whole Church) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (or the Bishops of whom he was speaking) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. And su●d●y other discoveries are there in that Epistle of the like nature: It is not my design nor purpose to insist upon the parity of Bishops and Presbyters, or rather the Identity of the Office denoted by sundry app●llations from these, and the like places: This work is done to the full by Blondellus, that out labour in this kind (were that the purpose in hand) is prevented. He that thinks the arguments of that Learned man to this purpose are indeed answered throughly, and removed by D. H. in his fourth Dissertation, where he proposes them to consideration, may one day think it needful to be able to distinguish between words and things. That Clemens owns in a Church but two sorts of Officers, the first whereof he calls sometimes Bishops, sometimes Presbyters, the other Deacons, the Doctor himself doth not deny. That in the judgement of Clemens no more were instituted in the Church is no less evident. And this carries the conviction of its truth so clearly with it, that Lombard himself confesses, Hos solos ministrorum duos ordines Ecclesiam primitivam habuisse, & de ●is solis praeceptum Apostoli nos habere, lib. 4. sent. D. 24. 2. To supersede a conclusion not magisterially dictated (that were the confidence quarreled at in me) but regularly inferred from premises, there can be no more necessary than to discover the falseness of the premises, or their weakness and incompetency to induce that conclusion. And this being already done particularly and at large, 'tis impertinent to give any further answer to, or account of this conclusion. I shall only lightly pass through the several steps of it, and acknowledge of his conclusion, as much as either here, or from the premises I find any reason to acknowledge, and briefly touch at the reasons (before more largely rendered) why other parts of it may not be consented to. 3. And 1. what he saith of these Epistles, that they seem like the children of the strange wives. [speaking part the language of Ashdod, and part the language of the Jews] hath perfect truth in it, being applied to the former corrupt Editions of Ignatius, but none at all, nor any appearance of any, as it is applied to that volume, by which we desired to be judged, in the business of Episcopacy. 4. Secondly, what is by these Epistles, as they are in our more emendate Copies, affirmed of Bishops, is very agreeable to what is by the Scripture, by Clemens, by Polycarpe, said of the same subject, all which under the name of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and the like, describe their office, and require subjection and obedience to be paid to them. 5. Thirdly; for the three orders, particularly for the second of those three, which anciently, and still (but either rarely, or not at all in the Scripture) are called Presbyters, but may most distinctly be styled Presbyteri secundarii, or partiarii, Elders of a second rank, admitted to the exercise of some parts of the Episcopal office, but not to all, and so distinguished from Bishops, or Elders of the first rank. These the Prefacer cannot but know that I do not undertake to find either in the Scripture, or in Clement's, or in Polycarp's Epistle, and that though I have reasons to assure me, that when the namber of believers increased so far, that there was both need of them, and competent store of fit persons to undergo that office, than such Presbyters were ordained to bear part of the burden with the Bishop, as the seventy Elders with Moses (and I have compent reasons to persuade me, that this was done, in some places, before the departure or decease of all the choir of Apostles, particularly that St. John instituted such in Asia, when he * Clem. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. apud Euseb. l. 2. c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. did 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) yet this was not so universally done thus early, as that either the Writers of the Scripture could, or after them Clement at Rome should be required to make mention of it: And for Polycarpe, though I suppose, and doubt not but he lived to see such in the Church, yet there was no necessity that in that one Epistle of his, he should mention them, or use the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Elders of any others but Bishops, it being certain that after the secundary Presbyters were instituted, the name 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 still continued common to Bishops, and was not presently appropriated to Presbyters, as is elsewhere made clear out of Iraeneus, Clemens Alexandrinus and Tertullian, Dissert. 4. c. 22. and in the vindication of them from the exceptions of the London Ministers. 6. It remains therefore that the Epistles of Ignatius are the best records of Primitive Antiquity, on which to build this second Order of secundary, or Partiarie Presbyters, which if they were instituted personally by St. John, or if they were designed by the other Apostles, and not ordained in their times, only because thus early (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in Epiphanius' style) there was no need of them, their Institution will still be Apostolical, though not mentioned in the Apostles writings, as in the Answer to the London Assemblers hath been shown also. 7. Fourthly, concerning the title of Pastors●nd ●nd Doctors, or Teachers, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Scripture, he cannot but know the account given by me, viz. that by all, and each of those Bishops are to be understood, as hath been showed Dissert. 4 c. 14, 15. and nothing being here said to disprove it, 'tis but petitio principii to suppose the contrary: So also of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Rulers, I have spoken at large, Dissert. 4. c. 13. The like of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, when they have none but Deacons joined with them, Phil. 1. 1. and 1 Tim. 3. All which are perfectly agreeable to my hypothesis, that there are no single Presbyters, or middle order of Officers betwixt Bishops and Deacons that I discern mentioned in Scripture. So the use of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Elders for Bishops, 'tis 1. 5, 7. is by me acknowledged (though not of Bishops for Presbyters, which conceit is as largely * Diss. 4. c. 8. vindic. of Diss c. 3. sect 19 n. 27. elsewhere confuted.) 8. And for the two large and express places here transcribed out of Clemens, they had before been particularly produced by me, and found perfectly to consent, and accord with the notions, which out of Scripture I had received, and which by Epiphanius were vouched 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 out of the profoundest Records. And for Blondel's collection to the contrary, I shall hope that to other men my answers will appear more than verbal, and though I have here somewhat an unkind character given me of them, viz. that they that approve them may one day think it needful to distinguish between words and things, yet I am not quite discouraged, being competently assured, that if he that said so, had had any thing else to say, any more than words to object against them, he would not have been so reserved, or sparing of his pains, as to have denied it place in his Animadversions. 9 Lastly, 'Tis evident (what he saith) that I do not deny Clement's owning but two sorts of Officers in a Church, Bishops (sometimes called also 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Elders) and Deacons: But it is as evident by my words what I mean, & by Clement's words, that I mean as he doth, viz. that at the Apostles first preaching, and planting the Faith in Cities and Regions before any multitude of Believers came in, they constituted in each City no more but a Bishop, and one, or more Deacons, after the exemplar in Jerusalem, where James the Lord's Brother, soon after our Saviour's ascension was constituted Bishop there, and seven Deacons, Act 6. to attend him, but as yet no Presbyters of any middle order between them and him. 10. This I have cleared concerning those first times out of Epiphanius, and taken notice of the causes of it, intimated both by Clemens and him, 1. The paucity of fit men for that office, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, there were not found among them men fit to be constituted Presbyters; and 2. The no need of any more at that time, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a Bishop in each City or Region served the turn (only he could not be without a Deacon) which is the more manifest, because the Bishops and Deacons, which were then instituted, were (as in the former of these testimonies from Clemens appears) the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the first fruits of their labours, their first converts, and the flock assigned them, the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, those that should afterwards believe. 11. To this if the words of Lombard would agree (as they will so far as here cited, if only by Ecclesia Primitiva we understand the first age, or infancy of the Church, at the time of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the first preaching of the Apostles) than that testimony would by me be fully subscribed also, meaning by the duos ordines, the Bishops truly so called (and by him styled Episcopos & Presbyteros) and Deacons, concerning whom, and whom only, 'tis true, praeceptum Apostoli nos habere, that we have the precept of the Apostle, viz. St. Paul in his Epistles to Timothy and Titus. But the truth is, Lombard's words belong to another matter, a nicety that is gotten into their schools, that Episcopacy and Presbytery are not diversi ordines, but diversi gradus, not different orders, but only different degrees of the same one order of Sacerdotium or Priesthood, upon a fancy that Sacerdo is so called from sacra do, delivering, or imparting holy things, so faith he expressly, Ideo autem etiam Presbyteri sacerdotes vocantur, quia sacrum daunt, Presbyters are also called Priests, because they give holy things. In which matter as it is of little importance which way the question is decided, as long as the superiority of Bishops over Presbyters is agreed on to be such, as hath some Powers reserved to the one which are not common to the other, so if Lombard's words should by any be thought farther extensible, as founded in that opinion, that first Presbyters ruled in common, and that beside them there were none then but Deacons, I must then think it as reasonable for me to be permitted to forsake Lombard in this, as the Prefacer will deem it for him to depart from him in other matters. 12. For though it be here set down as an argument of the evidence and clear conviction, and so of much more, than of the bare truth of the position, that Lombard himself confesseth it (which, I suppose, is not an acknowledgement that all that Lombard saith is true, but an insinuation that this of Bishops, as maintained by me, is for the matter a Popish Doctrine, and yet is in this particular rejected, and the contrary confessed by Lombard an eminent Popish Doctor) yet I must crave leave to interpose my exceptions to this way of arguing or concluding. 13. 1. That neither I, nor any true member of the Church of England, owe or pay any observance to the bare dictates of Lombard, or indeed farther than he hath reasons or proofs of Scripture or Antiquity to confirm them. 14. 2. That in this point, which must be waged by Testimonies, there are none produced, I shall add, producible by him out of Scripture, to prove that ever there was a time, when there were in the Church none but those two orders of Presbyters (in our modern notion) and Deacons, I may (without immoderate confidence) assume, that all that can be offered to this purpose are considered, and answered in the Dissertations. 15. 3. That the principal Testimonies of Antiquity, on which in this matter some Papists build, being some obscure words of St. Hierome the Presbyter, which yet must be so understood, as to be reconciled with his making the three orders to be of Apostolical tradition, the result must be this, that though they are mistaken in some circumstances, yet they maintain with us the more substantial truth, that Bishops are instituted by the Apostles. 16. So 'tis elsewhere made made evident of Panormitan, who though he affirm, that immediately after the death of Christ, all the Presbyters in common ruled the Church, yet postm●dum, L. 1. Decret. de Conquer c. 4. saith he, ordinaverunt Apostoli ut ●rearentur Episcopi & certa Sacramenta eye reservarent, illa interdicend● simplicibus Presbyteris, Within a while the Apostles ordained that Bishops should be created, and reserved certain Sacraments to them (Confirmation and Ordination) and forbade them to be meddled with by simple Presbyters. And accordingly it is also in the forecited place of Lombard, in the beginning of that 24 Dist. Presbyteri, licet sint Sacerdotes, tamen Pontificatus aepicem non habent, sicut Episcopi, quia ipsi nec chrismate frontem signant, nec Paracletum daunt, quod solis deberi Episcopis lectio Actorum Apostolorum demonstrate. Presbyters though they be Priests, yet have not that superior part of the Pontificate, which the Bishops have, because they neither Confirm nor Ordain, which, that it belongs to the Bishop only, the reading of the acts of the Apostles demonstrates. Where whatever his opinion was concerning that nicety, of distinction betwixt Degree and Order, it is evident that he gives the superiority of degree to Bishops, and reserves to them those two Powers, and foundeth this in the Apostles times and practise. 17. 4. That though this may seem at the first, but a slight difference in these men from that which the Ancients have more generally taught, viz. that the Apostles first instituted Bishops and Deacons, not simple Presbyters and Deacons (as beside the plain words of Clemens and St. Paul, the sense whereof may possibly be controverted, the testimony of Epiphanius, and of the profoundest monuments of History irrefragably enforceth) yet their interests for the magnifying of the Papacy, upon the score of succession to St. Peter, do clearly discover themselves in this way of decision, and so make Papists very incompetent witnesses in this matter. 18. For upon this conceit [that there was a time in the first plantation of the Gospel, when the power of Bishops and Priests lay confused, though afterward separated by the Apostles themselves] the conclusion aimed at, and, when occasion requires, deduced by them, is evident, that this later, though Apostolical institution, may be altered by the Po●e, out of the supereminence of his power, as he is the Vicar of CHRIST, though they pretend not, that he may lawfully attempt to overthrow the primary and fundamental Sanction. And so though Priesthood may not be taken out of the Church, yet the tenure, by which Bishops hold, is not so firm; but must stand wholly at the pleasure of the Pope. 19 The defence of which conclusion, being none of the Interests of the Cause, which I assert, I shall no farther be obliged to hearken to the premises, as they are here but intimated by Lombard, and frequently repeated and built upon by sundry of that party, than they shall be able regularly to prove them: Which being not here attempted, but only the specious (but fallacious) argument proposed from the confession of Lombard himself (whose confessions are no obligations to all other men) I have no more occasion to enlarge on this particular. 20. Which if it were seasonable, I might easily do, in observing other particulars among the Popish Writers, wherein they show themselves far from passionate espousers of Episcopacy. The Pope, forsooth, must be the fountain of all Ecclesiastical authority, and all other Rivulets must run in a weak stream, and then also derive all they have from him. And so much on occasion of this testimony from Lombard, and much more than was necessary to have said, if I had looked no farther than his Testimony. CHAP. FOUR Concerning the power of the People in appointing Bishops, and Deacons, and other Ecclesiastical affairs. Sect. 1. Clement's words, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, considered, and vindicated. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. The first Bishops designed particularly by God. When this way of designation ceased. Num. 1. UPon occasion of the former citation of some words out of Clemens, the displeasure is for a while removed from Ignatius, and another matter of discourse is sprung, concerning the power of the people in appointing Bishops and Deacons to their office in those days. To this we shall now attend, as it follows, in these words. 2. It seems moreover that those Bishops and Deacons in those days (as was observed) were appointed to the office by an● with the consent of the people, or whole body of the Church; no less do those words import, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Our Doctor indeed ●enders those words, ap●l●uden●● aut congratulen●e 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and adds (●atis pro imperio) ui●●l ●ic dea ceptation●▪ otius Ecclesiae, 〈◊〉 q●●●p s●…os & Diaconos ab Apostolis & ●p●stoli●is vi●… hoc l●co concludit B●ond●●lus, qu●si qui ex De●j●ssu & app●obatione const●…n●ur, populi etiam acceptatione indigere putandi essent, Dissent. 4. 〈◊〉. 7, 8, 〈◊〉 And who dares take that confidence upon him, as to affirm any mo●e▪ hooing 〈◊〉 a Doctor hath denved? Though the scope of the place, the nature of the thing, and first most common sense of the word here use●, being willingly to consent (as it is also used in the Scripture for the most part, Acts 〈◊〉. 1. 1 Cor. 7. 12.) to a thing to be done, or to the doing of it, yet here it must be taken to applaud or congratulate, or what else our Doctor pleases, because he will have it so. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 also must be viri Apostolici m●n with Apostolical power, when they are only the choice men of the Church where such a Constitution of Officers is had, that are intended, because it is ou● Doctor's purpose to have the words so rendered: Ex jussu Dei & approbatione, is added, as though any particular command or approbation of God were intimated, for the constitution of the Bishops and Deacons mentioned, beyond the institution of the Lord Jesus Christ, that Elders should be ordained in every Church, because this would seem to be exclusive wholly of the consent of the people, as any way needful or required to their Constitution, which yet, as it is practically false, no such thing being mentioned by Clemens, who recounteth the way and means whereby Officers were continued in the Church, even after the decease of the Apostles, and those first ordained by them to that holy employment, so also it is argumentatively weak and unconcluding. God appointed, designed Saul to be King, approving of his so being, and yet he would have the people come together to choose him. So also was it in the case of David. Though the Apostles in the name and the authority of God, appointed the Deacons of the Church at Jerusalem, yet they would have the whole Church look out among themselves the men to be appointed. And that the ordaining of the Elders was with the people's Election, Acts 14. 23. It will ere long be manifested, that neither our Doctor, nor any of his Associates have as yet disproved. This poor thing the people, being the peculiar people of Christ, the heritage of God, and holy Temple unto him, etc. will one day be found to be another manner of thing, than many of our great Doctors have supposed. But he informs us, cap 4 sect. 3. from that testimony which we cited before, that the Apostles in the appointment of Bishops and Deacons (for so the words expressly are) are said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, i. e. saith he, Revelationibus edo●to● esse, quibus demùm baec dignitas comm●●icanda esset, that is, that they appointed those whom God revealed to them in an extraordinary manner to be so ordained, and this is the meaning of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. And why ●o●●he holy Ghost orders concerning the appointment of Deacons 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 1 Tim. 3. 10. That those, who are to be taken into office and power in the Church, had need first to be tried & approved, is granted. And this work the Apostles give to the multitude of the Church, Acts 6. Where yet after the people's Election, and the Apostles approbation, and the trial of both, one that was chosen, is supposed to have proved none of the best. And yet of him, and them, are the Apostles said by Clemens that they did 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. But how shall it be made to appear, that spiritu proba●te●, trying of proving by the spirit, or spiritually proving them, to try whether they were able Ministers of the New Testament, not of the Letter but of the Spirit, proving them by that Spirit, which was promised unto them to lead them into all truth, must needs signify, they were taught whom they should appoint by immediate Revelation. To prove by the Spirit, or spiritually the persons that are to be made Ministers or Bishops, is to have their names revealed to us. Stephen is said to speak 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Acts 6. 10. And Paul purposed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Acts 19 21. and we are said to serve God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Gal. 5. 5. and to make supplication 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Eph. 6. 18. with many more expressions of the like nature. Does all this relate to immediate Revelation, and are all things done thereby which we are said to do in the spirit? Before we were inst ucted in this mystery, and were informed that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 did signify to be taught by Revelation, we had thought that the expression of doing any thing 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 had manifested the assistance, guidance, and direction, which for the doing of it we receive by the holy and blessed Spirit of God promised unto us, and bestowed on, in, and through the Lord Jesus Christ. Yea but he adde● that it is also spoken of the Apostles, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 praecognitionem (i. e.) revelationem 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they appointed them Bishops and Deacons by the helps and presence of the Spirit with them, the Apostles examined, tried those who were to be appointed Bishops, so obtaining and receiving a perfect foreknowledge or knowledge of them before their admission into office. This also expresses revelation (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) upon trial it was revealed unto them, and so must any thing else be allowed to be, that our Doctor will have to be so, now he is asserting to that purpose. But had the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, who appointing Bishops and Deacons after the Apostles time, had they also this special Revelation? Or may they not be said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉? If not, how will you look upon them under the notion of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, who neglected so great a duty: If they did, let us know when this way of constituting Church Officers by immediate revelation ceased, and what was afterwards took up in the room thereof: and who they were that first proceeded on another account, and on what Authority they did it? There are a generation of men in the world, will thank the Doctor for this insinuation, and will tie knots upon it, that will trouble him to lose. 3. I shall not here suffer myself to be detained by the scoffs and accusations of affirming pro imperio, etc. with which I am very liberally treated, but, withal, before this time. so familiarly acquainted, that I can look on them as parts of his style, as idioms of his Dialect, and nothing else. All that can pertain to me, by way of vindication, is, entirely to set down what it is I have said, and then to remove whatsoever appearance of reply, or objection I can here discern to be made to it. 4. Upon these words of Clement [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] delivered about the ordaining or constituting of Bishops by the Apostles and other 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, D. Blondel had inferred this conclusion [Episcopos & Diaconos Apostolis Apostolicisque viris, nunquam nisi totâ acceptante Ecclesiâ constitutos esse] that Bishops and Deacons were never constituted by the Apostles or Apostolical persons, unless the whole Church accepted them.] This conclusion he thus crudely inferred, without any one syllable added to confirm it, leaving it to secure and sustain itself by these few words of Clement's testimony. 5. The testimony, wherein those words were contained, being by me laid down at length, and considered as far as was useful to the main Question concerning Episcopacy, I could not fitly take farther notice of those few words of it, and his conclusion hastily collected from them, than to say that there was nothing in it concerning the necessity of that acceptation of the Church, which Blondel concluded thence; And this I chose to do 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in passing, and in a parenthesis, not willing to detain the Reader any longer so impertinently, adding only a short reason, why I could not conceive that the Bishops by them constituted could want the apprebation of the Church, because it had formerly been said of them by Clement, that they were constituted by the appointment and approbation of God, which I supposed must necessarily supersede all want of the Church's approbation. And upon these grounds I rendered the phrase 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, not as D. Blondel had done, acceptante simul universâ Ecclesiâ, but applaudente aut congratulante totâ Ecclesiâ, the whole Church applauding or congratulating. 6. In this passage thus truly related, in every circumstance, I hope 'tis already clear, that I was not guilty of any imperious or magisterial affirming (which I dislike so much in others, that I would be very sorry to be found guilty of it) when to a positive unconfirmed conclusion, I made reply by giving my reason, why I could not consent that it was duly inferred from those words in Clement. 7. And for the thing itself, the matter of my affirming, being now excited to it, I shall give a full account of it, though there it had been impertinent to do so. 8. And that 1. by considering the force of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 2. the position of it in that place, 3. the circumstances of the context, which preclude Blondel's, and enforce my interpretation. 9 The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] is known to signify [being well pleased] so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is either simply the same, or with the connotation of a relation to some other, whether persons or matter, formerly spoken of. So 1 Mac. 1. 57 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, if any were well pleased with the Law, i. e. resolved to live according to the Mosaical institution, such as are there joined with those with whom was found the Book of the Testament, that they would not forsake the Jewish observances upon Antiochus his prohibition of them. So again the same sort of men which would not live according to the King's heathenish commands, but kept close to the Jewish laws, are said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, not to be well pleased with the change, 1 Mac. 11. 24. we render it in both places consenting and not consenting, but sure it signifies not any legal consent asked of them, at the constituting either of the Law by God, or of the change by Antiochus, but an acquiescence, or peaceable, willing, constant submission and obedience to it. Elsewhere we render it being well pleased with, 2 Mac. 11. 35. where yet the matter spoken of, makes it a more formal act of consent, than in either of the former it had been. Whatsoever (say the Consuls) Lysias hath granted, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, therewith we also are well pleased, which indeed is a confirmation of Lysias' act or grant. 10. These are all the places where the word in that double composition is found in the Greek, whether Canonical or Apocryphal of the Old Testament. In the New we have it, Luc. 11. 48. where of the Jews it is said, that they did 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, allow, or approve their Father's works, those which they had done long since, and wherein their approbation was never asked, the kill of the Prophets, ver. 47. So Act. 8. 1. of Saul's concurrence in Saint Stephen's death, so far as to keep the clothes of the executioners, which signified him to have been an active person in that murder, to have had a special liking to it, not again any act of legal consent; for all was there done without legal process, judicio zelotarum, by the (judgement, or rather) popular fury of Zealots. So again Rom. 1. 32. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, They take pleasure, say we, in them that do them. There I think Theophylact's Scholion is very proper, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, they not only do unlawful things themselves, but plead for wickedness, are advocates for those that commit any the foulest evil. So again 1 Cor. 7. 12. of the Christian man or woman that hath an unbeliever to wife or husband, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, if the unbelieving man be pleased, think good, be content to live with the Christian, or if we render it again consent, yet sure we must not mean any legal consent, for that had been formerly given in marriage, and no new act of it is now needful in the unbeliever, but only a being content to continue to live with her, which is there opposed to departing, v. 15. 11. By this view of the word in the Scripture, it already appears, how little ground there is for D. Blondel's rendering of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by acceptante, and his conclusion deduced from thence of the necessity of the wh●le Church's acceptation. And against that only it was that my words were directed, nihil hic de acceptatione— there was no syllable in Clemens from whence to conclude the necessity of such acceptation. And unless I have mistaken in this, certainly there is neither confidence nor magisterial affirming imputable to me in this matter. 12. And it seems the Prefacer doth as little adhere to Blondel's rendering, as I, for he renders it [willing consent] And how knows he that I reject this rendering of willing consent, or that if Blondel had so rendered it, I would then have rejected it. Truly if that consent signify no more than a voluntary act of acquiescence and good liking (as consent ordinarily signifies) I have no dislike to that rendering, only I rather think the word here signifies a little more not less) an outward expression of this good liking, which was the only reason which moved me to use the phrase [applaudente aut congratulante] meaning thereby that the Church had expressed that good liking and joy of theirs, which is more than their bare consent to what was done in the constitution of their Bishops. 13. So that the Praefacer needed not to have undertaken this verbal contention with me, about the signification of an ordinary word. In that he really is at more peace with me, than it seems he knew of, and so men are apt to be, which begin and pursue●uarrells ●uarrells, so hastily and so keenly. 14. The truth is, it is the matter of the conclusion which I then resisted in Blondel, and so must still in the Praefacer; Blondel made the people's acceptation, a sine quâ non, a necessary condition, affirming that Bishops, etc. were never constituted by the Apostles and Apostolical men, nisi, unless they had this, which, I suppose, makes the people's acceptation praevious to the Apostles act, for if it followed after, it can be of no moment, the Act of the Apostles was complete without it, and stood valid without it, and though it was most happy when it followed, yet still this, as any other consequent, must be accidental and intrinsical to the Constitution of Bishops, as that which advenit enti in actu existenti, comes to it when it is (which is the definition of an accident) is no way required to, or constitutive of its being. 15. And so in like manner this Prefacer also, though he pretend only to the consent of the people, yet by saying that the Bishops were appointed to their office by the consent] and by his after mention of his notion of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, for consent to a thing to be done, or to the doing of it, and lastly by expressing his sense of this consent of the people, as of a thing needful, or required to the constitution of those Bishops, I am assured that he affirms this consent of the people, to have been required and needful antecedently to the Apostles instituting Bishops at that time. 16. And this is the thing that I still profess not to believe conclusible from the words of Clement, and whether it be or no, let us now examine by proceeding to the second, and third things, even now proposed by me, the position of this phrase, and the circumstances of the context in this place of Clemens. 17. The position of the phrase may first deserve to be taken notice of, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Those that were constituted by the Apostles or after by other illustrious persons, the whole Church expressing their good liking or consent, and that have officiated without blame, and been well reported of by all for a long time, etc. Here in setting down the unreasonableness of the sedition raised against their Bishops, he aggravates it by these gradations, 1. that these Bishops were constituted by the Apostles or other illustrious persons after them, 2. that when they were so constituted, the whole Church liked it very well, and expressed their liking it, I mean the constituting them by the Apostles, 3. that being in office they had without blame discharged it, 4. that for a long time they had every man's good word, though now they were ejected by them. 18. By this distinct view of the words 'tis plain, that the whether consent or good liking, which the people thus expressed, was after the Apostles constituting them, as after that again their officiating, and after their officiating their continued approbation. And indeed it were as reasonable to affirm, the second testimony or approbation [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc.] too be praevious to their blameless officiating [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] as to say their consent was needful or required to their constitution, as to the thing to be done, for that also supposeth it praevious to it. 19 This was a competent security to me, that my rejecting Blondel's conclusion, was no Magisterial dictate of mine; But then the Circumstances of the context through the whose Epistle make it most evident, that Blondel then was, and this Praefacer now is mistaken. 20. For to repress the fury of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, seditions against their Bishops, he had before immediately told them how these Bishops were placed among them, viz. after this manner. The Apostles 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 knew or understood by Christ that there would be contention for the name of dignity of Bishops. For which cause, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, having received perfect foreknowledge they constituted the foresaid Bishops, and after left a list, or roll (of successors) that when any died, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Other approved persons should take up, or succeed to their office. 21. Here the Question may be, What is meant by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, approved persons, and who had the approving them? For if the People had, than Blondel and the Prefacer are in the right; but if not, then still here is nothing to be pretended for them. 22. And indeed another (yet former) fundamental place of Clement in this Epistle, takes away all place of doubting, and tells us punctually whose approbation it was, The Apostles, saith he, preaching through regions and cities constituted their first converts, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, examining or approving them by the spirit to be Bishops and Deacons 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of those which should come into the Faith. 23. Here 1. it is not imaginable how the examination and approbation could belong to the people, or the whole Church, when those, over whom they were constituted, were not yet come in, they are made Bishops 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, of those which should afterward come in to the Faith. And 2. if there had been a full Church to choose, yet the matter in Clemens extending not only to the Bishops of the present, but also to the successors for the future age, what right could the then present people have to choose, not only for their own, but the future age, and so deprive their successors of their Privilege? 24. But waving both these, the matter is otherwise clear, They are the same persons which did preach and constitute, and examine or approve, i. e. the Apostles did every of these, And doing it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by the Spirit, by Revelation or direction of the Spirit (in the same manner as they are said to know by Christ, that there would be contention about this matter, and that having received perfect foreknowledge, they constituted those Bishops) it is evident they had no need of any act of the People in doing it, and so that the examination and approbation was that of the Apostles, and not of the People, of the Apostles assisted and directed by the Spirit of God, and not so much as advised, that we hear of, or instructed by the people. 25. This farther appears by another passage in that Epistle, where this act of the Apostles approving by the Spirit, and receiving perfect foreknowledge what would fall out, and what they should do, is by him illustrated by the example of Moses, who 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 fore-knew, (i. e. certainly) had it revealed to him by God, that Aaron should be the Priest. 26. Examples of such Revelations of God's in the first times, I have set down in the * Pag. 167. Dissertations, As first of Mathias, when God being prayed to, that he would demonstrate or declare (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) which of the two he had chosen, he did by lot point him out to be the person, Act. 1. 24. Secondly of Paul and Barnabas, Act. 13. 2. Thirdly of Timothy, to whom the Episcopal dignity was given 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by Prophecy, 1 Tim. 4. 14. & 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, according to the prophecies which had before been delivered of him, 1 Tim. 1. 18. Upon which chrysostom and Theophylact make their observation, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, The dignity of Bishop (which they there style of Doctorship and Priesthood) being great, wants God's direction that a worthy person may receive it. And the same is affirmed by Clemens in Eusebius l. 3. c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. of the Bishops whom Saint John ordained in Asia, that they were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signified to him by the Spirit According to what Saint Paul had formerly said of the Bishops of Asia, Act. 20. that the holy Ghost had set them to preside over the flock peculiarly. 27. This, I must think, was, and still is sufficient to clear the difficulty, and put it beyond question, who they were, by whom the Bishops in Clement are said to be approved, certainly not the People, but the Apostles that constituted them, or yet higher, the Spirit of God who signified or pointed them out unto them, or by whose directions they approved them. 28. I shall not now need more largely to insist on all the severals here objected against me by the Prefacer; By this clear setting down of the whole matter, 'tis certain, all his exceptions must speedily vanish. I shall but touch on them that have not yet so fully been taken notice of and prevented in passing. 29. And 1. that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 were viri Apostolici, though it was truly supposed by me, yet was it not my magisterial dictate, but, to my hand, the plain affirmation of D. Blondel; My words were regularly to be confronted to his conclusion in the very form wherein he had produced it, and so I was to set it by Apostolicis also. 30. The Reader may, if he will, see my rendering of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, literally by illustribus viris, and the putting of [i. e. p. 278. Apostolicis, & Spiritu Dei probatis] into a Parenthesis, signified [Apostolicis] to be no rendering of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, but another character of the same men, collected out of other parts of the Epistle. 31. And so indeed it is most evident by the whole place, [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, The Bishops constituted by the Apostles, and after them by other illustrious persons] that those that are there called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, illustrious men, were the successors of the Apostles, such as, when they were gone, constituted Bishops in the Church. 32. And then what offence was there in my calling them Apostolical persons? Or what pretence for the Prefacer to say they were only the choice men of the Church, in opposition to my calling them Apestolicall? Choice men of the Church, I know, they were, for so must they be deemed, who by the Apostles were left Rulers of it. But such the Prefacer cannot mean, when he sets it in opposition to me, who called them Apostolici; He must therefore questionless mean the choice men of the People, and then those choice men must be concluded to constitute Bishops, and not only to consent to their constituting, (as before he had set it) And then I desire he will say positively, that this was his meaning, and that from any place of Scripture or ancient Writer, he will show me where any choice men of the people constituted Bishops after the departure of the Apostles. 33. Secondly, when he saith, that the words [ex iussu Dei & approbatione, by the appointment and approbation of God] are added by me, 'tis not imaginable what he should mean by it: Those words are evidently set by me as an argument that they could not want the approbation of the people, because they were sufficiently furnished by the appointment and approbation of God, as had appeared by the testimony of Clement set down in the page immediately precedent: And what is produced by me as an argument to convince the unconcludeney of Blondel's collection, can it be blamed in me, as an insertion or addition either to Clement's or Blondel's words? 34. And when he goes on reproaching this Edition with his [as though any particular command or approbation of God were intimated for the constituting of the Bishops and Deacons mentioned] I hope it hath sufficiently appeared that there was such command or appointment of God more than intimated by Clemens in that Epistle, and the like expressed in Scripture in many parallel cases, and this particularly a designation of the persons, which were to be ordained, and so somewhat beyond the general institution of the Lord Jesus (which he speaks of. I suppose he means the commission of the Apostle to Titus and the like) that Elders should be ordained in every Church. 35. Thirdly: When he saith 'tis argumentatively weak and unconcluding, he must mean that this argument of mine is a weak, and unconcluding argument, I shall therefore repeat it again, and put it formally into a syllogism; They who had been constituted by the appointment and approbation of God, cannot then be thought to want the acceptation of the people: But the Bishops, spoken of by Clement, had been constituted by the appointment, and approbation of God: Therefore, they cannot be thought to want the acceptation of the people. What proposition can here be denied, I confess I see not. 36. The Major hath its evidence in its self; for certainly that which is already done, and done by God's appointment, needs no other extrinsical addition or accomplishment, unless that also be ordained by God, which in this case of the acceptation of the Bishop by the people, no way appears, and till it doth appear, cannot be supposed, or pretended by any to be thus needful. 37. And for the Minor, it is the express affirmation of Clement, that they that instituted them, examined and approved them by the spirit, and knowing by the Lord Christ, & having perfect foreknowledge of what should be, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 constituted these Bishops, and this is mentioned by Clement as an aggravation of their crime, that rejected these that were thus constituted. And then I hope the premises having strength, the conclusion from them regularly inferred, will not be denied me. 38. For as to the examples of Saul and David, I am sure they prove nothing; for if there were perfect truth in all which is here pretended, which is more than from the circumstances of the stories I can affirm, viz. that God, who designed them Kings, would have the People come together to choose them, then from that act of God's will it was, and from God's expressing it, that the convening and election of the People was necessary, and if God had not willed it, or not appointed it, it had then as certainly not been necessary. 39 Now let any such declaration of Gods will be showed, that he would have the People convene and choose their Bishop, and then I shall think my argument weak, but otherwise I must not think it concluded so by these examples 40. So in the case of the Deacons Act. 6. the Apostles appointed the Disciples to seek out seven men from among them, withal directing them how they should be qualified, and reserving to themselves the entire power of constituting them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to the office of Deacon. And so nothing from that third instance can be inferred against us, it being no way parallel to the case in Clement, as already is visible: For in the Acts, the Disciples look out, and choose v. 5. the persons, and bring them to the Apostles, v. 6. and the Apostles lay their hands on them in the remainder of that verse: But in Clemens, God designs the persons (and so in the other Scripture instances, and in that of Clemens Alexandrinus of the first Bishops of Asia ordained by St. John) and the Apostles, and their successors ordain and lay hands on them. 41. As for that of Act. 14. ●3. that the ordaining of the Elders was with the People's election (by the way, it was even now by, as well as with the consent of the People) or indeed that any mention of the People is made there, or so much as intimated by the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. All that I can say, is, that it hath been disproved, as far as any, that I know of, hath yet endeavoured to prove it, i. e. all arguments, that I have seen for it, I have * Resol. to the fifth Quest. elsewhere answered: But what will ere long be manifested, I am not able to forecast, and so am not now to provide answers by divination. 42. No more am I able to foresee what he saith will one day be found, and yet I think it is very possible: Neither he, nor I may live to see that day, when any thing shall be farther manifested in this matter, than what the great Doctors already suppose. The resolution of the question, what right every one hath in these affairs, being founded in plain matter of fact, viz. what Christ or his Apostles instituted in the Church, and that being already as visible to them, that are conversant in Scripture and ancient Records of the Church, as it can well be imagined to be, till either a new mine of such Records is sprung, or men receive knowledge of story by Revelation: Neither of which am I forward to expect in this age. 43 In the next place for his objections against my interpreting of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, of God's extraordinary revealing whom he would have ordained, they will soon vanish also. For 1. the place of St. Paul concerning Timothy's ordaining of Deacons, and appointing 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, let them be first tried or examined, 1. Tim. 3. 10. belongs nothing to this of the trying by the spirit: Timothy might have ordinary means of trying (and the whole discourse of St. Paul, then setting down the qualifications of those that were to be ordained, tends to that, and then he had no need of extraordinary. 44. And so likewise the Apostles Act. 6. referred the matter of trial and approbation to the Disciples, and without more ado, and without this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, trying by the spirit, ordained those that were thus presented to them. But these two instances can no way praeclude divine revelations concerning Mathias, and Paul, and Barnabas, and Timothy, and the Bishops of Asia, and the Bishops of Achaia, of whom the express words of Scripture and Clemens, are, that by God, and his Spirit, and Prophecy, these were assigned to their Offices. 45. And accordingly though one of those Deacons in the Acts be supposed to have proved none of the best, yet we see that Clement here useth it as an argument to evidence the unreasonableness and impiety of ejecting their Bishops, that they were thus constituted, which I suppose concludes, that this was not to be suspected or feared of them, which was experimented to have befallen Nicolas. 46. Secondly: for the notion of [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, by the spirit] that it signifies, as I affirm, and not, as he suggests [spiritually proving them, etc.] he knows (and straight confesses) one way, by which I prove it, the mention of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that they had perfect foreknowledge to this matter, and what is that receiving of perfect foreknowledge, but the spirit of prophecy; and that, as was said, immediately before, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, they knew it by our Lord Jesus Christ, and by him were directed perfectly to do what they did. And so this is one competent proof of it. 47. And by the way, how is the very first part of the phrase [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, trying] being applied to the Apostles and their Successors [if 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 had been left out] reconcileable with the people's trying, examining, or approving? Before 'twas said that this work of trying (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 1 Tim. 3. 10.) was by the Apostles given to the multitude, Acts 6. But how can it possibly be so here in Clement, where it is said of the Apostles, that they did 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, try them by the spirit? 48. This I say, to show how far he would be from gaining his design, though it should be granted which he desires, that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 refers not at all to any▪ extraordinary ways of revelation, which if it did not, yet neither refers it to the peoples, but to the Apostles examining and approving. 49. But, I say, 'tis already evident, that I have given other reasons, why I interpret Clemens thus of extraordinary revelations, which he ought to have adverted before, and I have now mentioned them again, and must not repeat eternally. 50. This again shows how little I am bound to assert, that every thing, which is said to be done in the spirit, is done by immediate revelation, because if some things be, this may be one of those some, and that it is, is sufficiently proved by those other evidences. 51. Next to his question, whether the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, who appointed (ordained) Bishops and Deacons after the Apostles times had also this special revelation or no] I answer, that Clement no where saith that they had, only that they 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, ordained (that is all one with laying hands on) them, whom the Apostles by their Prophetic spirit had designed to that office. 52. To this the Context in Clement is clear, that the Apostles by that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, foreknowledge, ordained some, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, for the future, to be successors to them, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, they left a roll or list of names, who should succeed unto their dead places, and these, as oft as any Bishop (ordained by the Apostles) died, were by the other Bishops, i. e. the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ordained in their places, according to that rule left by the Apostles for their succession. So that in this matter there could be no need of any further revelation, they were to ordain those which were next upon the Apostles list, and that might be done without multiplying of revelations. 53. And so his next question is at an end also; for I have no occasion or ground to extend these revelations any farther than the persons of the Apostles (though I know there were also Prophets in those times, beside Apostles) but may safely and reasonably leave all others, where the Apostles had left no such lists, or when they were at an end, to be concluded by Paul's directions to Timothy, without depending farther on special revelations. 54. And now I think I have answered all his questions, or given him my Key to do it himself, and so must be content to return weary home, without receiving any of those thanks from that generation of men whom he pleaseth to mention, but shall be content with my lot, being also competently secured from the trouble of losing knots, which those thanks were dedesigned to bring along with them. Sect. 2. Another testimony in Clemens concerning the power of the People examined. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Numb. 1. BUt this business of the power of the People in the Church is not to be dismissed so, but must more largely be resumed again, and my attendance shall be answerable to my Leaders pleasure, who thus enlargeth his digression. 2. Before we return, let us look but a little further, and we shall have a little more light given us, into what was the condition and power of the people in the Church in the ●ayes of Clemens, speaking of them who occasioned the division and schism in the Church of Corinth, or them about whose exaltation into office, or dejection from it, that sad difference fell ou●, he giv●s th●m this advice; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. It seems the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the multitude, or the people, were not such poor inconsiderable things as they are reported to be, when he advises them to stop and stay the sedition by yielding obedience to the things by them appointed and commanded. If it were in itself evil, disorderly, and not according to the mind of Christ, that the people should order and appoint things in the Church, it had been simply evil for Clemens to have advised any to yield obedience to the things by them so appointed. Where is now Ignatius his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉— Even those who are contending about rule and government in the Church, are advised to stand to the determination of the people, and to cry, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. This is also insisted on by Blondellus, who thence argues, Potestatem ple●is circasacra Dissert. 4. c. 8 ●ect 4. Ad verba hae● (saith our Doctor) prod●gii i●star est quod notandum duxit D. Blondellus [potestatem pl●bis circa sacra] (de quâ tandem integra● dissertationem elu●ub●avit) artificiis quibus unque asserturus. Hic (inqu●t) nos monet Clemens fideles etiam de Episcopatu aut Presbyterio contendentes non ab Epis●opi singulari 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nutu, sed à multitudinis p●aeceptis p●pendisse. But let not our Doctor be angry, nor c●y out out so fast of Prodigies, a little time will manifest that many things may not be prodigious, which yet are contrary to sundry of his exceptions and apprehensions. I cannot but acknowledge him to be provoked, but withal I must say, that I have found very commonly, that reasons ushered in by such loud clamours, have in examination proved to have in examination proved to have stood in need of some such noises, as might fright men from the consideration of them. What is in the next Sections set up to shield the children of Episcopacy from being affrighted with this prodigy, may perhaps be of more efficacy thereunto▪ than the exclamations before mentioned: He therefore proceeds, Sect. 5● Certè (saith he) si s●r●òre● egerit D Blondellus, de Presbyteris suis (non de Episcopis nostril) actum pla●e & triumphatum erit, nec enim ab universo aliqu● Presbyterorum Colleg●o, quod ille tam affl●ctim ardet, sed à multitudinis solius arbit●io tum contendentes de Episcopo, tum siideles omne● Corinthio▪ pepe●disse, aequè concludendum crit. If any man in the world hath manifested more desperate affection towards Presbytery, than this Doctor hath do●… toward Episcopacy, for my pa●● solus habeto. But though neither Clemens nor Blondellus speak any one word about the ordering of things, multitudinis solius arbitrio, yet here is that said by them both, as is sufficiently destructive, not only to the Episcopacy the Doctor contends for, as a thing wholly inconsistent with the power and liberty ●ere granted the people, but of any such Presbytery also, as shall undertake the ordering and disposing of things in the Church of God▪ without the consent and conc●… suffrage of the people. Such a Presbytery it seems Bl●ndellus does not defend. But yet neither the Doctor's ou● cry, as at a prodigy, nor this retortion upon Presbytery, is any answer to the testimony of Clemens, nor ind●ed is there the ●ast possible reflection upon an orderly Gospel Presbytery in any Church, and over it, by what Clemens here professeth to be the power of the people, all appearance of any things is from the term solius, ●…ysted into the Discourse of Blondellus by the Doctor, in his ta●ing or it up to retort. Clemens in the very next words secures us from any thought, that all things depend à multitudinis solius arbitrio. His very next words are, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Our Doctors and Masters having stu●t their imaginations with the shape and lineaments of that hierarchical fabric, which the craft, policy, sub●●ty, avarice, pride, ambition of many ages successively had form and ●●amed according to the pattern they saw in the Mount of the World, and the governments therein, upon the first hearing of a Church, a s●●ck of Christ, walking in orderly subjection to their own Elders concurring with them, and consenting to them in their rule and government, instantly as m●n amazed, cry out a prod●g●. It is not imaginable into what ridiculous, contemptible miscarriages, pride, prejudice, and sel●ulnesse do oftentimes betray men, otherwise of good abilities in their ways, and commendable industry. But Section the sixth, the Doctor comes closer and gives his reason why this testimony of Clemens is not of any efficacy to the purpose in hand, saith he, At qu●● (sod●s) à fidelibus de Episcopatu (ut a●s) ●●ntra ipsos ab Apostolis const●●atos contend●…bus, quis à populo contraprincip●●● suum ●umultus tiente, qu●s verbis ad retundendum seditionem ad plebe● factis argumenta ad Authoritatem populo adjud●●andum principi derogandum duci posse ●xistiSavit● Though many words follow in the next Section, yet this is all of answer that is given to this signal testimony of Clement's. I know the Doctor for the most part mee●s, not only with favourable Readers, but also partial Admirers; or else certainly his exclamation would scarce pass for an invincible argument, nor such Rhetorical diversions as this be esteemed solid Answers. There is not by Blondellus any argument taken from the faithfuls tumultuating against the Bishops (that, of appointed by the Apostles which is thrust in, taken for the persons of those Bishops, is against the express testimony of Clemens in this Epistle) nor from the people's se●…sly rebelling against their Prince, nor from any word sopken to the people to repress their sedition; neither was any thing of this nature urged in the least by Blondellus, nor is there any colour given to such a collection from any thing in the words cited from the Epistle, or the Context of them. It is the advice of the Church of Rome to the persons (whether already in office, or aspiring thereunto) about whom the contention and division was in the Church of Corinth, that is insisted on. It is not the words nor plea of them who were in disorder, there is no● any reprehension given to the body of the Church, the multitude or people who are supposed to tumultuate, to quiet them, but a direction given (as was said) by the Church of Rome to the persons that occasioned the difference, how to behave themselves so, that a timely issue might be put to the division of the Church. To this end are they advised to observe the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Orders, Precepts, Decrees, or Appointments of the multitude, as (from Act. 15.) the body of the Church is called. It is not that they should yield to their tumultuating, but to yield obedience to their orderly precepts, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, are by him approved; and had it not been lawful for them, with the Presbyters 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in affairs of the Church, Clemens writing this Epistle to the whole Church, could not possibly have led them into a greater snare. It is a sad thing to consider the pitiful entanglements and snares that some men run into, who will undertake to make good, what they have once engaged for, let what will come against them. 3. In this Section again the usage is, as formerly, very extraordinary: First, I am put under Discipline to teach me (that which was anciently accounted a very high pitch, propè res una, but these times may be able to advance one to, which is but of ordinary parts) the Nile admirari, to see, and hear the most portentous things, and to admire at nothing; I must not be permitted to say of any, though never so strange, unreasonable a collection of Blondel's, that it is instar prodigii, but I am censured as angry, and guilty of loud clamours, out-cries, exclamations, noises, and these designed to fright men from consideration of my reasons, as after (on as little cause) of desperate affection to Episcopacy, of forgery, or foisting in the word solius into Blondel ' s discourse, and if this be not enough for my humiliation, there is a reserve of [ridiculous, contemptible miscarriages, such as it is not imaginable men should be betrayed to] and yet farther, as the causes of these, pride, prejudice, and selfulness] and to conclude [pitiful entanglements and snares, etc.] 4. This is truly somewhat above the proportion of the turgent style, or the but four barbarous words in seven Epistles, and yet I verily believe the Section is genuine, no part of it inserted by any 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, it bears so perfect proportion with what I have hitherto had from the same hand. And the assuring him, that all this might, if he had so pleased, have been very easily spared, is all that I have to return to the more Rhetorical part of this Section. 5. Only when after all this severity, he thinks fit to give me some of his benediction at parting, and to allow me a room among men of good abilities in their ways, and very commendable industry, I cannot but remember the critical note of Eumani●es the Atticist, that the ordinary form of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Epistles was first used by Cleon to the Athenians, after he had taken 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from them, whereupon a Comical person answered, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, You, Sir, are the first that bid us be well, and rejoice, having given us much cause of sadness. This our English proverb expresses very significantly, and I that had as little right to his plaster, as I had to the displeasure which made him think I wanted it, may tell him, he hath dispensed both without any merit of mine. 6. As for the argumentative part of his discourse I shall now come briefly to that, and doubt not to show, 1. That D. Blondel's Collection was very strange, and so merited the expression that was bestowed on it [instar prodigii] (I meant not that it looked like a blazing star, or any other such prodigy) 2. That solius was not foisted in by me. In a word, that all really was as I pretended it to be. This must be cleared by a brief narration of the whole passage, as it lies visible in the fifth Dissert. c. 8. 7. There was a sedition in the Church of Achaia, the Metropolis whereof was Corinth, and that advancing so high, as to the ejecting their Bishops out of their office (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) and these Bishop's 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, those very persons which by the Apostles had been either designed, and put upon the list, or actually ordained and constituted among them. 8. This was done, saith Clemens 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, for one or two only persons sakes, whom the actors in the comm●… had a mind to advance to that office. 9 For the calming this tempest, Clemens makes use of many methods and arguments of persuasion At length he betakes himself to the persons, for the advancing of whom all this stir was made, this tempest was raised. To them he thus makes his address; Tells them what M●ses had done when the people were in a foul sin, being himself content to be blotted out of the book of the living, rather than the wrath of God should light on the people, and then (in the words which are set dow● by the Prefacer) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉— Who then among you is a generous person; who hath bowels of kindness and compassion? who is replenished with love or charity? Let him th●● say (to this seditious multitude) If the sedition, and contention, and schisms are for me, or my sake (viz. that I am not in so great place or office as you contend, and desire to have me) I am gone, I depart to what place soever you will, and do what the multitude appoint me; only let the flock of Christ ●e at peace with the Elders that are placed over them. Adding, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Thus godly men have done, and will do, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Many have removed out of their own Cities, that the Sedition might not farther extend itself. 10. In these words nothing can be more manifest than 1. That this short Oration to the tumultuous people was only designed to still their commotion, and to reduce them at once to peace and subjection to their superiors placed over them in the Church. And so it can be no farther argumentative, than to that, or the like case, or conjuncture, viz. that for the acquiring peace to the public, and quiet subjection to Governors, any generous or charitable person ought even to leave his Country, if need so require, and if that will do it, to do, or suffer any thing for the regaining the public peace, not that every Christian is in all cases bound to do this, or that; what is charitable in these circumstances, is simply, and without them necessary: For then the example there used of M●ses must be obligatory too, and every man shall at all times be bound to wi●● and pray what in that one case he did. 11. Secondly: That it is by Clement put into the mouth, not of the true Bishops or Elders, duly constituted among them at that time; for should they have offered to g●e ●ut and depart, 1. There is no ●…s●ion but they had been permitted to do so, by them who had already ejected them from their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Ministration: And 2. how could the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the flock be at peace together with these ●…tuted Elders (i. e. with these that were already constituted) in case they should thus depart: And 3. how had lemens' done the work to which his who●e Epistle was designed, viz. re-establi●ht the true Governors in their ●h●irs again, if they had thus, by his advice, departed. But, I say, this speech of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, I am gone, I depart, is by Clement put into the mouth of the one or two persons 〈…〉 f●r whose sakes this commotion was raised against their Eccl●…stic●l Governors (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) and this is so manifest, that it is to him that shall but lightly view the place in the Epistle, impossible to make any question of it. 12. Thirdly: ●t is here as manifest, that the recess here s●o●en of, and after exemplified in the 〈◊〉, the many that had done so, and in like manner by Kings and Princ●● that in times of plagues had, in obedience to the Oracle● delivered themselves up to death, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that by their own blood th●y ●…t res●… and diliuer their citizens, as before it had been by Moses 〈◊〉 ●…ver [blot me out▪] was an act of gene●… & charity in the●… that should do it, a mere spontaneous, voluntary recess, no act of ordinary duty or obligation. And consequently, though it were very lawful for Clemens to advise this generosity, yet it had been very ill in the seditious people to require them to be gone, who so earnestly desired the restoring them to peace, and due subjection, and so this can be no instance of the people's power in this or any thing else. 13. These things being granted, the strangeness of D. Blondel's conclusions from the words will immediately appear: They are two; the one set down p. 12. the other p. 13. of his Apology: In p 12. thus: Hic nos monet, fideles etiam de Episcopatu sive Presbyterio contendentes, non ab Episcopi singulares, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nutu, sed a multitudinis praeceptis pependisse. Here Clement mindeth us that the faithful, even such as contend for the Bishopric, or office of Elder, depend not on the pleasure of the Bishop, the singular Bishop, and who had the supreme power, but on the precepts of the multitude. In p. 13. thus, Presbyteros nihil 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 attentâsse, sed propter Christum communemque piae fraternitatis aedificationem, multitudinis dicto audientes fuisse: That the Elders attempted not to do any thing by way of command or empire, but for Christ's sake, and for the common edification of the brethren, they were obedient to the command of the multitude. 14. In the first of these conclusions, that which is very strange, is, that the believers should from Clement's words be concluded 1. not to have depended on the pleasure of their Bishop. 2. to have depended on the precepts of the multitude: Whereas 1. there is no one syllable of their not depending on the pleasure of their Bishops, but special mention of the preserving their Bishops quietly in their seats, as the end, which, with the peace of the Church, was the only thing they had in their view: And 2. they no otherwise depended on the precepts of the multitude, than as for the avoiding and quieting the Sedition, they should voluntarily submit themselves, which is far from concluding any due power in the multitude, as my bribing a Plunderer to save my life, is from inferring that he hath a lawful power over it; or my telling any man in an extremity, I will do whatsoever you bid me, on condition you will be quiet, and let my Master alone, will conclude that man to have had any power over me, before I had said it, or that that power shall always continue to have obligation on me afterwards: Or, to go no farther than the Context in Clemens, than the Kings being content to die for the removing the Plague from the People, can be a precedent and obligation to all Kings and Rulers, not only to do the like in the like case, but to acknowledge themselves universally to depend upon the commands of the people. 15. By this already appears, how free I am from being chargeable with those things of which the Prefacer accuses me: As 1. that I foist in the [solius] into Blondel's discourse. It is an ugly word, but sure I am not guilty of it: For doth not Blondel say, non ab Episcopi nutu, sed a multitudinis praeceptis? that they depended not from the Bishop's pleasure, but from the multitudes precepts? Is not the [non, sed, not, but] here perfectly all one with [solius, only?] Where there are but two parts, the Governor (or Governors, as Blondel would have it) in every Church, and the People; what is done by the power of the People, and not by the power of the Governors, must sure be done by the power of the people alone. That which can be done but three ways, by the Prefacer, or by me, or conjunctim by both of us together; if it be done by him, and not done by me, is it not done by him only? What possibility is there that I should deceive myself, or any man else by thus concluding? 16. This Prefacer, I acknowledge seems to set it otherwise than Blondel had done, and so, I suppose, fancies it a joint power of the orderly Gospel Presbytery and the People: But then 1. I that was speaking to Blondel, was not to ●e supposed to speak to this Prefacer, who differs from Blondel. And 2. that which is done by the Presbytery and People jointly, how can it be said to be done not by the Presbytery, or to be done by, or depend from the people's command, not from the Presbytery? So that certainly I was capable of a more benign censure, I might have been spared the accusation of s●isting or forgery in this matter. 17. So likewise for his second charge, that I misreport Blondel's way of arguing, making him take his argument from the faithful, tumultuating against the Bishops, from the people's seditiously rebelling against their Prince, from words spoken to the people to repress their sedition; whereas, saith he, there is not any thing of this nature urged in the least by Blondel] this sure will vanish presently also: For as to the first two branches, 'tis certain I no where thus recite Blondel's arguing: My words he had just before set down truly, if he would have construed them right, Quis, sodes, à fidelibus de Episcopatu contra Episcopos centendentibus, quis à populo contrae Principem suum tumultus ciente— argumenta— duci posse existimavit? Who, I pray, for the asserting the authority of the people would think arguments might be brought from the faithful, contending for authority against their Bishops, from a people raising sedition against their Prince?] that is, from any thing said or done by such men at such a time. This is not from the faithfuls contending, or the people's rebelling (as the Prefacer was pleased to misconstrue me) but from the faithful contending, i. e who contended, or (as the parallel to that) the people rebelling, or, who rebelled. And, I pray, doth not Blondel fetch his argument in this place of Clement from th●se, and none but these? Are not his very words, fideles de Episcopatis contendentes— a multitudinis pr●●●ptis rependisse, that the faithful contending, or, who contended for the Bishopric depended on the commands of the multitude] and doth he not draw his argument for the people's power from them, and (which was the third thing) from the words, that they are by Clement bid use to the people to repress their sedition? From whence, I beseech him, is Blondel's argument drawn, if not from hence, when from this one speech of theirs (made for them by Clement) it is that this whole argument is drawn? 18. 'Tis true, indeed, Blondel should not have affirmed of those whom he calls the Contenders, that they depended on the commands of the people, but that Clemens bid them that they should make that offer to them, that in that particular they would. But I, who was confuting Blondel's argument, was to take it as he set it, not as it ought to have been set by him, and so have done nothing criminous in so doing. 19 There is yet a third charge in a parenthesis, that the words [appointed by the Apostles] taken for the persons of those Bishops is thrust in by me, and is against the express testimony of Clemens in this Epistle.] But certainly this is also a groundless accusation. For as to Blondel's words or arguing, they are not by me thrust into them, but used as a circumstance of some force in my arguing against him, to show that his argument taken from what was said or done by those whom he acknowledges contenders, was sure to be no good argument, when they, against whom they are by him supposed to contend, being the Bishops of Corinth, those Bishops were, say I, constituted by the Apostles: This was but a light circumstance, yet that which I thought would be some farther prejudice to his argument, when the words, from whence he inferred his conclusion, were supposed to be spoken by the contenders, those again contenders against Bishops, and those Bishops constituted by the very Apostles. 20. And then for Clement, 'tis most certain (whatsoever the Prefacer is pleased to affirm to the contrary) that he expressly saith this of these Bishops, whom they contended against, and ejected, that they were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, constituted by the Apostles, or after by other esteemed men, some immediately both designed and ordained to the Office by the Apostles personally, others designed and nominated, or put upon the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the list of succession by the Apostles, and as places were vacant, actually ordained by the imposition of the hands of those esteemed or eminent men, the successors of the Apostles (such as were also themselves called Apostolical men by Blondel, and by the ancients, Apostoli secundarii, secundary Apostles.) 21. This is most evident again by what was cleared in the last Section: And so the Parenthesis had as little of Justice in it, as the main period, and might have been spared also, if the Prefacer had so pleased. 22. What follows after in this place [It is the advice of the Church of Rome—] is for the most part true, and I have suggested nothing against it, nor am now a whit concerned in the contents of it, and therefore though there be some infirm parts in it also, and many more in the former words, yet having vindicated myself, I shall not trouble the Reader to pursue this matter any farther; what he hath mistaken, he may, if he please, rectify by what hath been said, and particularly inform himself of his doubts, that they to whom the advice is given, and on occasion of whom the sedition was raised, are not they that were in danger of being derected from their office (as at the beginning of this Section he thought it possible) n●r consequently they (as toward the end he saith) which were already in office, but they * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, p. 69. and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, pag. 62. for whom the people contended to have them advanced to the Bishop's seats, they that were the occasion and the subject matter of the contention, and as we may conclude from some passages, † Pag. 69. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the ringleaders of the sedition, and * Pag 72. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, they that laid the foundation of it. 23. And that bring me to the second strange part of Blondels collection, Communi Presbyteros consilio Ecclesiam rexisse, eosdem nihil 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 attentâsse, sed— multitudinis dicto obedientes fuisse, that the Presbyters by Common Council ruled the Church, and that the same Presbyters (in the text of Clemens) were obedient to the command or saying of the multitude. But that certainly could not be hence concluded, the persons into whose mouth Clemens put these words being not Presbyters nor Bishops neither, but those whom the people would have Bishops, and to that end raised this sedition, and cast the true Bishops out of the Church, And so they of whom this sage observation is made, [that they did nothing imperiously, but depended on the commands of the multitude] are but these unruly fellow-believers, not really vested with any power in the Church, only one part of a seditious multitude, exhorted by him to endeavour to pacify another, and to endeavour to rescue the legal Bishops from suffering in this tempest (yea, though the same popular tumult would have put them into their places) others being resolved to shake the whole Church, rather than they would miss of their design of raising those that they thought fit to admire. 24. And for any such words used (or by Clemens advised to be used) betwixt one part of this multitude and the other, I still desire it may be considered, whether it be possible that an argument can be regularly drawn from them, on which to found the right or power of the people, in ordering Ecclesiastical affairs, when besides, all that hath formerly been said, 'tis certain the speech was made to that part of the people, which were in open rebellion against their superiors, and was only a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or mollifying plaster applied to the part which was at that present most inflamed, embrocation to allay the paroxysm. 25. I might now join issue with the Prefacer, and examine the truth of his positive affirmation, that in this saying of Clemens, there is that laid which is sufficiently destructive to the Episcopacy that I contend for (and also of any such Presbytery as shall undertake the disposing of things in the Church of God, without the consent & concurrent suffrage of the people) or that the Episcopacy I contend for, is wholly inconsistent with the power, and liberty here granted to the people. But there is not one syllable here produced for the defence of this affirmation. And I think it competently appears by this time, how far that bare text of Clement is from founding it, and therefore I have now nothing more to contend with, my contrary affirmation, that no such thing is yet concluded, will certainly be true, and fit to be confronted to, and balanced with it, and if I should farther improve it into this, that nothing is conclusible, I think having already seen the utmost, that two such skilful artificers, Blondel, and the Prefacer, have been able to produce toward it, it would not be thought any grand insolence. 26. One thing only I cannot omit, that when he speaks of the power of the people, he calls it [their concurrent suffrage] once, and after joins them with the Presbyters in the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 commanding or ordaining in the affairs of the Church. But I shall demand, can any thing like that be drawn out of the place in Clement? Is it not certain that the multitude, whose 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Ordinances he there speaks of, had cast out their Bishops or Elders out of the Church, and those that are to speak to them, and join with them, are not Presbyters, but those whom they would have exalted to that office, and raised their tumult about it? And how then can the Presbyters in that place be supposed to join with the people in this ordaining? 27. I shall not make my observations from hence, but leave the Prefacer to examine himself, with what justice he hath managed his replies to me, or reproached my answers to D. Blondel. And so indeed, as he saith, It is a sad thing to consider the pitiful entanglements and snares, etc. And so much for this Section also. The employment is so dry to me, and the profit to the Reader so thin from such kind of debates, that I should be glad it were the last of them. CHAP. V. Of the plurality of Elders in Clement's Epistle. Sect. 1. The difference betwixt Ignatius and Clement in the enumeration of Officers in the Church. Clement's Epistle to the Churches of Achaia. (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.) Paul's Epistles to those. Metropolitical Churches in the Apostles times. Answer to a charge concerning Grotius. Num. 1. IN the next place, this digression concerning the power of the people being absolved, I am called back again to Ignatius, and in him to that of his asserting the three Orders in the Church, which is thought fit to be considered a while by comparing it with Clement's doctrine in this matter; who is acknowledged to name but two. And then his charge against Ignatius and against me is thus managed. 2. To return then, it is evident that in the time of Clement there were but two sorts of Officers in the Church, Bishops and Deacons, whereas the Epistles of Ignatius do precisely in every place, where any mention is made of them, as there is upon occasions, and upon none at all, insist on three orders distinct in name and things. With Clement it is not so. Those whom he calls Bishops in one place, the very same persons he immediately calls Presbyters, (after the example of Paul, Act. 20, 28 and Tit. 1. 5. 7.) and plainly asserts, Episcopacy to be the office of Presbyters, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, saith he, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, viz. Because they were in no danger to be cast from their Episcopacy. And whereasth fault which he reproves in the Church of Corinth, is their division, and wan● of due subjection to their spiritual Governors, according to the order which Christ hath appointed in all the Churches of the Saints, he affirms plainly, that those Governors were the Presbyters of the Church, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (saith he) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. And in all places throughout the whole Epistie, w●iting (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) to that particular Church of Corinth, the Saints dwelling there, walking in the order and fellowship of the Gospel, where he treats of these things, he still intimates a plurality of Presbyters in the Church, (as the●e may, nay there ought to be in every single Congregation, Act 20 28.) without the least intimation of any singular person promoted upon any accounted whatever above his follows. So in the advise given to the persons who occasioned the division before mentioned; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Had there been a singular Bishop at Corinth, much more a Met opolitan, such as our Doctor speaks him to have been, it had been impossible that he should be thus passed by in silence. But the Doctor gives you a double answer to this observation, with the several parts, whereof I doubt not but that he makes himself me●●y, if he can suppose that any men are so wedded to his dictates, as to give them entertainment; for indeed they are plainly jocular But learned men must have leave sometimes to exercise their ●ansies, and so sport themselves with their own imaginations. 1. Then, For the mention that is made of the many Presbyters in the Church of Corinth, to whom Clement in the name of the Church of Rome, exhorts to give all due respect, honour, obedience. He tells you that by the Church of Corinth, all the Churches of Achaia are meant and intended. The Epistle is directed only 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, without the least intimation of any other Church o● Churches. The difference it is written about was occasioned by one or two persons in that Church only; it is that Church alone that is exhorted to order, and due subjection to their Elders, from the beginning to the end of the Epistle, there is not one word, ap●… or ●ittle, to intimate the designation of it to any Church or Churches, beyond the single Church of Corinth, or that they had any concernment in the difference spoken to. The Fabric of after-ages lies so close to the Doctor's imagination, that there is no entrance for the true frame of the Primitive Church of Christ, and therefore every thing must be wrested and apportioned to the conceit of such an Episcopacy as he hath entertained. Whereas he ought to crop off both head and heels of his own imagination, and the Episcopacy of the later days, which he too dearly affects, he chooseth rather to stretch and torture the ancient Government of the Church, that it may seem to answer the frame presently contended for. But let us a little attend to the Doctor's learned arguments, whereby he endeavours to make good his assertion. 1. He tells you, that Corinth was the chief City of Achaia, the Metropolis (in a political sense and acceptation of the word) of Greece, where the Proconsul had his residence, Diss. 5. cap. 2. Sect. 3. Let us grant this to our Learned Doctor, lest we find nothing to gratify him withal; and what then will follow? Hence, saith he, it will follow (Sect. 4.) that this Epistle which was sent, Ecclesiae 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, non ad unius Civitatis Ecclesiam, sed ad omnes totius Achatae: Christianos, per singulas civitates & regiones, sub Episcopis aut Praefectis suis ubique collocatas missa existimetur: But pray Doctor, why so? We poor creatures, who are not so sharp sighted, as to discern a Metropolitan Archbishop at Corinth, of whom all the Bishops in Greece were dependant, nor can find any instituted Church in the Scripture, or in Clement, of one denomination, beyond a single Congregation, cannot but think, that all the strength of this consectary, from the insinuation of such a state of things in the Church of God, is nothing but a pure begging of the thing in question, which will never be granted upon such c●mes. Yea, but he adds, Sect. 5. that Paul wrote his Epistle not only to the Church of Corinth, but also to all the Churches of Achaia, therefore Clement did so also. At first view this argument seems not very conclusive, yea, appears indeed very ridiculous; the enforcement of it, which ensues, may perhaps give new life and vigour to it: How then is it proved that Paul wrote not only to the Church of Corinth, but to all them in Achaia also? why saith he in the 2 Ep. 1. Chap 1. ver. it is so expressed: he writes, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Very good! It is indispurably evident, that Paul wrote his second Epistle to the Church of Corinth, and all the rest of Achaia, for he expressly affirms himself so to do, and for the first Epistle it is directed not only to the Church of Corinth, 1. Ch. 2. v. but also, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is, saith our Doctor, in the whole region of Achaia. So indeed says the Doctor's great friend Grotius, to whom he is beholding for more than one rare notion. I say it not in any way of any reproach to the Doctor, only I cannot but think his careful warding of himself against the thoughts of men, that he should be beholding to Grotius, doth exceedingly unbecome the Doctor's gravity, and self-denial. This is complained of by some who have tried it in reference to his late Comment on the Revelation. And in this Differtation he is put by his own thoughts (I will not say guilty) to an Apology, cap. 1. Sect. 24. Quâ in re suffra▪ gium suum tu●●sse H●gonem Grotium, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ●x Annotationibus, po●…, nuper ●ditis, & postquam haec omn a Typographo transcrip●a essent, cur●… perlectis edoctum gratulor. Let not the Rea●er think that Doctor Ham: had transmitted his papers full of ra●e conjectures to the Prin●e●, before G●…us his Annotations on the Revelation were published, but only before he had read them. The Doctor little thinks what a fly this is in his pot of Ointment, nor how undecent with all impartial men, such Apologies, subservient to a frame o● spirit in bondag●… a man's own esteem and reputation, appear to be: but let this pass: and let the Saints that call upon the name of Jesus Christ in every place, be the Saints in every part of A●…a, though the Epistle itself (written indeed upon occasion tak●n from the Church of Corinth, y●●) was given by inspiration from God, for the use not only of all Saints in the whole world, at that time wherein it was written, but of all those who were to believe in any part or place of the world, to the end thereof: although the assertion of it be not built on any tolerable conjecture, but may be rejected with the same facility wherewith it is tendered; what now will ●ence ensue? why hence it follows, that Clement also wrote his Epistle to all the Churches in A●haia. Very good, Paul writing an Epistle entitled chiefly to the Corinthians, expressly and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 directs i● to all the Saints or Churches of Achaia, yea, to all that call upon the name of God in every place, so that his Epistle being of Catholic concernment, is not to be confined to the Church of Corinth only, although most of ●e particular things mentioned in that Epistle related only to that particular Church; Therefore Clement directing his Epistle to the Church of Corinth only, not on●● mentioning nor insinuating an intention of extending it to any other, handling in it only the peculiar concernment of that Church, and a difference about one or two persons therein, m●st be supposed to have w●i●en to all the Churches of Achaia. And if such arguments as these will not prove Episcopacy to be of Apostolical constitution, what will prevail with men so to esteem it? Si Pergamon dextrâ defendi possent, etiam hac de●ensa faissent. And this is the ●ause of naming many Elders or Presbyters in one Church: For my part I suppose the Doctor might more probably have adhered to a former conjecture of his Dissert. 4. cap. 10. Sect. 9 concerning two sundry different Churches, where were distinct Officers in the same City, Primò (saith he) respondeo▪ non usquequaque verum est, quod pro concesso fumitur, quamvis enim in unâ Ecclesiâ aut 〈◊〉, plures simul Episcopi nunquam fuerint (pray except them mentioned, Act. 20. 28. and those Act. 14. 23.) nihil tamen ●…are, quin in eadem civitate duo aliquando ●…us di●●erminati fuerint. He might (I say) with more show of probability have abode by this observation, than to have rambled over all Greece, to relieve himself against his adversaries. But yet neither would this suffice. What use may or will be made of this concession shall elsewhere be manifested. 3. That which is extended to this length in this part of the Prefacers' discourse, may briefly be summed up into these four heads; 1. a brief touch of the difference betwixt Clemens and Ignatius, the one mentioning but two, the other three Orders in the Church: 2. His asserting the Bishops mentioned in Clemens to be bare Presbyters, concluding that from the number of them, many in that 〈◊〉 Church of Corinth; 3. a taking notice of a first answer of mine to that argument, and endeavouring to invalidate it; 4. a reproach of my vainglory in borrowing notions from Grotius, and being unwilling to be thought to do so. Which last, though it hang loose from the matter in hand, being perfectly extrinsecall to our Controversy, whether about Ignatius Epistles or Episcopacy, (because 'tis certain that one that hath received help from Grotius, is not for that the more likely to be in the wrong, or to be unable to maintain his assertions; and because he that hath faults in his manners, the vainglorious and ingrateful, may yet by so good a guide as Grotius, fall upon some truth) yet I shall afterward punctually reply to, and dispatch that also, and show how little happy the Prefacer is in all his acts of severity. But as the order and the rule before me directs, I must begin with the more material parts. 4. And first for the difference betwixt Clement and Ignatius, it was far from being any observation of the Prefacers, or useful to him against us, It is known to be a principal ingredient in the foundation, on which I build and assert Episcopacy, viz. that in the times of the Scriptures and of Clemens, there appear to have been two, and not above two Orders in the Church of Christ, Bishops and Deacons, that these Bishops were promiscuously styled, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Bishops and Elders, the nature of each word agreeing, to denote a singular Governor, and the use of it both in Scripture and Clemens no way inclining to determine it to a number or College of Presbyters in each Church, ruling in Common Council. That Saint Paul, Phil. 1. 1. Tit. 1. 5. 7. 1 Tim 3. expressly sets down this course, under the two plain heads of Bishops and Deacons, that Clemens is as express, that the Apostles at their first preaching constituted or ordained their first converts to be Bishops and Deacons of those that should after believe, that Epiphanius voucheth it out of the profoundest Histories, the ancientest Records, that while the paucity of Christians was such, as neither to need more than a Bishop, and his Deacons in each Church, nor to afford much choice of persons for any more, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they were contented every where with these two; Lastly, that when the number of believers was greatly increased, and so permitted and required it, than a second order, under Bishops, and above Deacons, was erected in each Church by Apostles and Apostolical men, particularly, as may probably be collected by Saint John in Asia, toward the end of his days, and accordingly that Ignatius' Epistles written some years after John's death, are the first that mention that second order. 5. All this in every branch hath been distinctly cleared both in the Dissertations, and since in the Vindication of them from the London Assemblers, and not one word is here pretended to invalidate any one part of it, any farther, than as it will fall under one of the two following heads of discourse, and therefore I am now to hasten to them. Only to be s●re to have neglected nothing, that can expect to be considered in the least, It is here presently visible, 1. how causelessly Ignatius is quarrelled with, for mentioning the Orders of the Church upon no occasion, when the design of his Epistles being to preserve truth and peace among the Churches, he had no better and more compendious way to do it, than by requiring their subjection to their Governors, and thereupon he so constantly inculcates it, and this is a very important occasion, and that which always makes it very seasonable and pertinent, whensoever it is done by him. 6. Secondly, How fallaciously the discourse proceeds, which supposeth Clemens to call those Presbyters (which ought to signify as among us the word now signifies, colleagues and fellow-rulers in the same Church) whom before he had called Bishops, adding that he plainly asserts Episcopacy to be the office of Presbyters, and that their Spiritual Governors were the Presbyters of the Church, and a plurality of Presbyters in the same Church, whereas all this while he knows that Clement saith that the Apostles instituted Bishops and Deacons in all Cities and Regions, and that these are by us cleared to be singular Bishops, and that to prevent contentions, they left a list of successors to that singular office in each Church, and that these singular Bishops are oft called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Elders, not only before, but after Clemens, even by those that appear, and are acknowledged to assert the three Orders, and consequently that Clement may well be allowed to style them so, in whose time, for aught appears, there were none of that second order, now vulgarly called Presbyters, yet erected, either at Rome, from whence or at Corinth, or in all Achaia, to which he wrote this Epistle. 7. Thirdly, How infirm a way of arguing it is, to say that Clement doth not in the least intimate any singular person, promoted above his fellows, and that had there been any such at Corinth, it had been impossible he should be thus passed by in silence, when he knows that the Apostles constituting Bishops and Deacons, and what follows on that account, is by us insisted on, and confirmed to be more than an intimation of it, and when the whole purport of the Epistle is to preserve the authority of the Governors of the several Churches under that Metropolis, whom he knows we contend and prove to be the singular Bishops, and must not forgo that pretention till it be confuted. 8. To proceed to the second head of discourse, his asserting the Bishops mentioned in Clemens to be bare Presbyters.] For this it is certain, that he makes no tender of any other argument, or appearance of proof, but only the mention of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (which he renders Presbyters) in the plural, whom therefore he concludes to be many Presbyters in the same Church: But 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Elder, signifies Bishop in Scripture, in Clemens, in Polycarpe, in those of the Ancients after them, that are known to assert the singular Bishop above Presbyters in each Church. And this having been said and cleared in the Dissert: is not, in the least, attempted to be disproved by him. 9 Secondly, These many Elders are not all (or more than one) said or intimated by Clement to be in one City. For the Epistle, as was showed in the Dissert: is, I suppose, most certainly, may have been addressed by Clement, not to the single Church of that one City of Corinth but to the Churches of all Achaia or Greece, of which Corinth was the chief, being the Metropolis. 10. That it was not so, is barely said, but largely proved in that place, Dissert: 5. cap. 2. first from the title of the Epistle, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, where it is on each part the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or whole province, as of Rome, so of Corinth, the Region and territory that belonged to either of those Metropoles, which in that age was called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or the adjacent region, expressed by Ignatius, by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the place of the region of the Romans, by Polycarpe in the same kind, speaking of Phili●pi, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Church adjoining or belonging to Philippi, and by * Lib. 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Eusebius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Province belonging to Corinth, of which Dionysius was Bishop or Metropolitan. 11. Secondly, this was proved by the analogy held between this Epistle of Clemens, and the Epistle of Saint Paul, inscribed to the Corinthians; For I demand, was not this Epistle of Clement written to the same Church or Churches, to whom Saint Paul's two Epistles had been addressed; That it was, is more than probable by the Common title; and other Characters in the Epistle itself incline to it. As that he refers them to the Epistles of Saint Paul written to them, and that upon the like occasion of divisions and factions, so early crept in among them. So pag. 61. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉— Take, saith he, the Epistle of Saint Paul, consider what he saith to you in the beginning of his preaching to you, certainly it was by inspiration from God, that he wrote to you concerning himself and Cephas, and Apollo's, because that then ye had partialities and inclinations to one more than to another, but that partiality brought less sin unto you— Here still it is the same [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, you] that before, and now were guilty of this sin of carnality, admiration of person, faction, and now at length sedition, and so the same Churches now and then, to whom these Epistles on that occasion were addressed, and there is no circumstance producible, that restrains one more than the other. 11. Now of the Epistles of Paul it is evident they were not confined to the one City of Corinth, but to all the Churches of Achaia, so it is specified of the second● of them, 2 Cor. 1. 1. To the Church of God which is at Corinth, with all the Saints which are in all Acha●a: And though this be not expressly said of or in the first Epistle, or in this of Clement, yet the relation that one hath to the other, will conclude it of those also; and the phrase, which there we find superadded to the Church of Corinth, 1 Cor. 1. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to all that are called by the name of Christ, all Christians, in every place] (and the like form at the conclusion of this, The Grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and with all every where that are called by God] hath in all probability the same importance) for that being universal, and extended beyond Corinth, must not yet be interpreted of all Christians in the world, for that would make each of these a Catholic Epistle, and would conclude the Apostle to have received an Epistle from the Catholic Church, to which this return was made: c. 7. 1. and so likewise the particular sins, & sinners both there and here, to which they apply their exhortations, the in●est, the going to Law before heathen judicatures, the seditions, etc. do evidently restrain it from that latitude, which two circumstances being balanced on each side, will certainly leave it in the middle, betwixt the one Church of Corinth on the one side, and the universal Church of the whole world on the other, and so leave it commensurate and appliable to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 all the coasts of Acha●a. Thus when 1. Cor. 3. 5. it is said of Apollo's, that he hath watered them, as the Minister by which they to whom he wrote believed and so in this of Clemens, that they had been factiously inclined to Apollo's) it is evident by the story in the acts, that this belonged not only to Corinth, but to Achaia indefinitely, Act. 18. he resolved to go into Achaia, and coming thither he contributed much to those that believed. v. 27. 12 To these are added these farther indications, that in the Epistle to the Romans sent from Corinth, the salutations are sent from the Churches of Christ, in the plural, Rom. 16. 16. mention is made of the Church which is at ●enchrea (which is one of these Churches) v. 1. so what the Apostle writes in these Epistles concerning the collection for Judea, 1 Cor. 16. 1. and 2 Cor c. 8. and 9 evidently belongs to all Achaia. Rom. 15. 26. Macedonia and Achaia have pleased to make a certain contribution, and I know your forwardness, Achaia hath been ready or prepared, 2 Cor. 9 2. and so when c. 1. 9 he had said, when I was present among you and wanted, I burdened no man, it f●llowes, v. 10. this boasting shall not be shut up against me in all the regions of Achaia. Where still [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] and [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] [you] and [Achaia] are all one, and if that liberty be but allowed in this Epistle, the whole difficulty is at an end, for then, as there were many cities and Episcopal sees in Achaia, the chief of which was Corinth, and what was sent to that Metropolis was from thence to be communicated, as it belonged to all those others: so the Bishops of each of these might very fitly be called by Clement 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Elders, and not the Elders of that one Church or City of Corinth, but all that related to that Metropolis. 13 This, I may have leave to hope, will be look● on as a ●irmer foundation on one side, to conclude that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Elders, which is also the title of Bishops, in this Epistle, being also called Bishops here (a title which, as is * Dissert. 〈◊〉 c 8. &c 〈◊〉. c. 2. sect. 2. elsewhere showed at large, as far as the Scriptures never was applied to a bare Presbyter) were the several Bishops or singular Governors of the many cities of Achaia, than the bare number or multitude of them, without any other circumstance to enforce it, will be sufficient to infer that they were the many Presbyters in one city. 14. To come therefore to the third thing, the taking notice of this answer, and his endeavouring to invalidate it, I shall briefly examine whatsoever is said by him in pursuit of that attempt. And his first Method is that of the Scoffer, to prepare his reader to look on this answer as ridiculous, he doubts not but the Doctor makes himself merry, if he can suppose any so wedded to his dictates, as to give it entertainment, for it is plainly jocular; and again, I must in the same Scophick humour, be styled a learned man, so to be allowed to excercise my fancy, to sport with my own imaginations. 15. But 1. truly, Sir, I was neither then nor am now at so much vacancy, which might call for sport; If I were, I would find out more Christianlike divertisements. 2. I could never think that what was thus confirmed by Arguments (and this had been done in the Dissert. on the same grounds of probation, which have here been mentioned) could be liable to the censure either of Dictates on one side, or of jocular, on the other; and 3. If he had been as well able to confute my answer, or confirmations of it, as he was to scoff and cry, ●…cular, etc. he must needs have thought it more like a Christian, and a Scholar, and a propugne of truth, to have insisted wholly on the former, and omitted the latter. Lastly, I learn from hence, wherein my crime consisted, when I said of one of Blondel's observations from Clement, that it was instar prodigii; It seems I should have said that it was plainly ●ocular, have smiled instead of wondering, and all had been very well. 16. Having thus answered his proem, I come to his narration: And there truly I find no one argument of force to countenance or justify his mirth. A cumulus there is, but that will signify nothing, unless some one of the particulars, of which it consists, do so. And that they cannot do, being by him known to be denied by me, before they are mentioned, and yet no proof added to support them. 17. As 1. that the Epistle is directed to the Church 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, without the least intimation of any other Church or Churches, and after in the like words, a little varied, that there is not an apex or tittle to intimate the designation of it to any but the Church of Corinth.] This is a negative unproved and concluding nothing, whereas it is evident to him, that the very phrase [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] is taken by me for more than an intimation that it was the whole 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Province, which he wrote to, and that the consent betwixt this and S. Paul's Epistles intimated them to be addressed to the same, and so to the Churches of all Achaia. 18. So 2. when he saith the difference it was written about, was occasioned by one or two persons in that Church only, and that it was that Church only that is exhorted to order and due subjection to Elders, that is petitio principii, and that which no way appears in the Epistle, one or more of these might be in other Churches of Achaia, and those other Churches might be all exhorted to order and subjection to their several Bishops. 19 3. When he falls back so soon into his first Topick again, that of Contumely [the fabric of after-ages lies so close to the Doctor's imagination, that there is no entrance for the true frame, and therefore every thing must be wrested, etc.] and yet more, that whereas I ought to crop off head and heels (a phrase that I have not met with, cropping off heels) I chose to stretch and torture—] 1. It is evident how easily this might be retorted, thus, that the fabric of this last part of this last age in this Island of ours, lies so close on my Monitor's imagination, that the frame in Clement's time, of a Church governed by Bishops, ordained by the Apostles and their successors, not by the people or the whole congregation, cannot find entrance with him. And secondly, from the recurring of such kind of Rhetoric as this, so soon I might very probably conclude, that his whole confidence was placed in this one Topick, which is ordered both to lead the van, and also to bring up the rear, to be the reserve as well as the forlorn hope; And then upon this view of his reply, I desire it may be indifferently considered, whether my arguments were not as valid to confirm my answer as his mirth and repetitions and bare negations without any attempt of proof, were of force to assert the contrary. 20. Next he promises to attend to my arguments, but cannot hold his countenance again, they must be styled [learned arguments] forsooth (to have spoken as he thought, had been more like a serious person, that meant to attend to arguments) And the first that he attends to is, that Corinth was the Metropolis of Greece, in a political sense and acceptation of the word, where the Proconsul had his residence, and this he grants, but for my consectary from thence, that Epistle inscribed to the Church 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, should be conceived sent to the Christians of all A●haia] all the strength thereof, saith he, from the insinuatian of such a state of things in the Church of God, is nothing, but a pure begging of the thing in question. 21. But first, certainly this cannot be that fallacy called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the begging of the question; It is the ●…erring of that which is there proved both before and after; before, both as that signifies long before, and immediately before; long before, viz. Dissert. 4. c. 5. the erection of Metropoles and metropolitans in the Church had been demonstrated; Immediately before, it had been mentioned as a praecogn●scendum, that Corinth was such an one, which if granted, it must follow, that there was a Metropolitan Archbishop at Corinth, of whom all the Bishops in Greece were dependent. So again this was proved after, by the consent betwixt this and Paul's E●istles; those were written to all the Christians of all Achaia, and then why should not this be resolved to be so written also? And how then can the question be here said to be begged by me? If this of Corinth's being a Metropolis in the political sense, were not sufficient to infer this conclusion, first that might then have been said, the consequence denied, and traill made, what was, or what could be farther said to prove it; but that method was not here thought safe, it was easier to say, the strength of the consectary is nothing but a pure begging of the question,) which yet I never heard said of a conclusion, inferred from praemisses, and after farther undertaken to be proved; I desire to consult Aristotle in his discourse of that fallacy, and he shall find it was not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, on my side a begging of the question, but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, on his, a denying the conclusion. 22. This for the form of his reply; Secondly then, as to the matter of it, I did, and still do think it a concluding argument, which I there used; and being briefly set down, 'twill be more explicitly this: An Epistle addressed to a Metropolitical see, under the title of the Church adjacent to such a chief City or Metropolis, is addressed to all the Cities and Churches that relate to that Metropolis. But Corinth was such a City, and this Epistle was so addressed to it— That Corinth was such a Metropolis was apparent, and is not denied, as to the political acceptation of it; And if it were so also in the Ecclesiastic, there is no farther difficulty; And if my supposing and not farther proving of this in that place, were the infirm part of the discourse, and begging of the question, I must answer, that I had no reason to expect it should be esteemed so, having long before, on occasion of the Angels in the Revelation, entre 〈◊〉 into a discourse of Metropolitical Cities, and showed, that not only in the political but Ecclesiastical acceptation, there were such in the Apostles, and so in Clement's time. 23 This was there manifested in many instances, 1. in Antioch the Metropolis of Syria and Cilicia, and all the Churches of those regions, the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of Antioch and dependent on that; Secondly in Rome the Metropolis of the Roman Province, or Vrbicarian region; Thirdly, in Alexandria the Metropolis of Egypt, whereupon Mark is said by * Lib. 2. c. 〈◊〉▪ Eus●bius to have lonstituted Churches (in the plural) there, all which under the title of † Ibid. c. 〈◊〉▪ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the province of, or belonging to Alexandria (as here 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) were by Saint Mark committed to Anianus or Ananias, and the Government administered by him, all the rest of the Churches there planted by Mark, relating to this as to the Metropolis. Fourthly, in Gortyna the prime Metropolis of Crete, the Archbishop whereof in the Epistle of Dionysius Bishop of Corinth, Ann: Changed: 175. is styled Bishop 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, of the Church adjacent to (i. e. the province of) Gortyna, and of all the rest in Crete. Fifthly, in Philippi, the Metropolis of one Province of Macedonia, Act. 16. 12. to which purpose it is that in the Epistle said to be written by Ignatius to them of Tarsus, we find, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Churches (in the plural) of the Philippians salute you. Sixthly, in the several Churches of Asia, mentioned Rev. 1 each of them a Metropolis over some other ●ities, and Ephesus the prime of all the Proconsular Asia. And this form, or this state of things in the Church of God, is there by three Canons of the three great Counsels, Nice, Antioch, Ephesus, testified to be the ancient primitive, Apostolical state. 24. This being then done at large, and thereby the Primitive constitution of Metropolitical Churches competently asserted, it seemed to me sufficient but to re-mind the Reader, that Corinth was one such Metropolis of Achaia or Greece, and accordingly, that upon that account (in the Ecclesiastical as well as Political acceptation) the Epistles of Paul inscribed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to the Corinthians, were meant to all the Churches of Achaia, and not only to that one of Corinth. And what error I have committed herein, I confess I am not yet able to discern or divine, or what there is behind that wants farther proof. 25. The only thing I can yet think of, is, that in this Praefacer's judgement, I have not made it sufficiently appear by that one evidence of Corinth's being a Metropolis, where the Proconsul of Achaia kept his residence, Act. 18 12, 15. (i. e. a Metropolis in the Political acceptation) that it was also a Metropolis in the Ecclesiastical notitiae, and then it may be fit perhaps farther to add something to clear that, and put it out of question, not only in thesi, that the Church generally thus corresponded with the state, (according to that of Origen, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Governor of the Church of every City must keep conformity to the ruler of those that are in the City, Contr. Cells. l. 3.) but also in hypothesi, that so it was particularly in this of Corinth. 26. To which purpose it were easy to multiply testimonies, which put it out of question that Corinth was a Metropolitical Church, and so is recorded to be in all the Notitiae, that are extant; But I shall content myself with one testimony, that of * Edit. Savi●. Tom. 3▪ p. 343. Saint chrysostom, who asketh this question, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉— Why writing to the Metropolis, he writes (i e. expresses himself to write) to all by or through that, whereas in other Epistles he doth not do so? for writing to the Thessalonians, he no where addresseth it to the Macedonians also, and writing to the Ephesians in like manner, he comprehendeth not all Asia, and the Epistle to the Romans was not addressed also to the inhabitants of Italy; but here this he doth, and in the Epistle to the Galatians, for there also he makes his address, not to one, or two, or three Cities, but to all every where dispersed, saying, Paul an Apostle— to the churches of Galatia— where, as Corinth at the time when Saint Paul wrote that Epistle, is by him supposed to be a Metropolis, and so Thessalonica, and Ephesus, and Rome, so both in the Epistles to the Corinthians, and in that to the Galatians, there were more Cities than one, to whom they were addressed. And then I suppose there is a full testimony to all, and more than I undertook to prove from it. At the present it sufficeth, Corinth, saith he, was a Metropolis, and that in the Ecclesiastic notion, when Saint Paul wrote to it. 27. What the Prefacer farther adds, is for the examining my next proof or evidence, that Clement's Epistle belonged to the Churches of Achaia, and not to Corinth only, because the Epistles of Saint Paul appear to have done so. And besides the scoffs and the demurer accusation about Grotius (which shall anon be considered) all that he replies is, 1. That though St. Paul's being expressly and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 directed to the Churches of A●haia, cannot be confined to the Church of Corinth, yet Clement directing his Epistle to the Church of▪ orinth only, without mention, or insinuation of any intention to extend it to any other, handling in it the peculiar concernment of that Church, and a difference about one or two persons therein, cannot be supposed to be written thus to the Churches of all Achaia. Secondly: That in his opinion I might more probably have adhered to a former conjecture of mine concerning two different Churches, with distinct Officers▪ in the same City, though this would not suffice neither. 28. To these I reply. 1. That o● St. Paul's only one (the second) is expressly directed to all the Churches of Achaia, and yet the former is without that express direction, already sufficiently cleared (and not here denied) to belong to the same Churches, and the same reasons hold for this of Clemens, which was written to them, to whom ●aul wrote, and not to the Church of Corinth, but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the Church ad acent, the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the territory, that belonged to it. And therefore, secondly; That this is more than an insinuation of an intention to extend●t ●t to those other Churches. Thir●ly: That the concernments of the Epistle are no way restrained to the particular Church of Corinth, but by common to the other Churches of Achaia. Fourthly: that the difference, or rather sedition, doth no way appear to be peculiar to the Church of that one City: The one or two, if they signify strictly no greater a number than two, might yet as probably be in any one or two other Cities of Greece, as in that one of Corinth And there is no probability of reason to conclude, that the Errors about the Resurrection, etc. had spread no farther than that one City. 29. Lastly, for his opinion that I might more probably have adhered to my former conjecture concerning the two different Assemblies of of Jewish and Gentile Christians in one city; All that I need say, is, that though I still adhere to that conjecture, as far as ever, and no way fear what he threatens, that any use, which I shall repent of, will, or ever can be made of this concession, yet I never thought fit to apply it to this matter, both because here is no need of such aids, (and I may have leave to think the Prefacer would not have suggested it to me, if there had, and that if he had had any way to wrest the former hold from me, he would not thus have attempted it by diversion) and because as I am not sure that there ever were two such distinct Coetus at Corinth under distinct Bishops (only from the authority of Dionysius Bishop of Corinth, that there were two parts of their first plantation, one from Paul, another from ●eter) so if there ever were, yet they might before this time of Clement's writing, be made up into one body, as I know the Jewish and Gentile Church at Rome, that had been under different Governors, were now united under Clement. 30. And therefore to conclude this matter. I desire every man may be allowed liberty to use his own arguments and answers, and to take his own time to produce and apply them, and that, till what hath been said, be refuted, I may be permitted to think that the whether 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Bishops or Elders, in this Epistle of ●lement are the singular Governors of the several cities of Achaia 31. What he saith by the by, of Act. 20. 8. and Act. 14. 23. that those two places must be excepted from the universal negative. that there were never more Bishops than one in a city, he cannot but know how little force it hath against me, who have manifested out of Irenaeus, that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Elders or Bishops ●ct. 20. were the Bishops of Asia, not of the one city of Ephes●●, and that the Elders ordained in every Church Act. 14. were the Bishops ordained at Lystra, Iconium and Antioch, and not any plurality of Presbyters in one city. 32. Having now done with all the three former particulars, wherein Ignatius and Clement, Episcopacy and Presbytery were concerned, there remains only that which is personal to me, in relation to Grotius, but that consisting of several branches, of which it will presently appear how many, or rather how few of them have any degree either of weight or of truth in them. 33. The first is very light, and unconsiderable, that in interpreting [all in every place] 1 Cor 1. 2. Grotius saith the same with me. And would not any man believe this assertion of the Prefacer, take it on his word, and not think it needful to examine it, but resolve it is so much the better, and that thereby it seems, that I am not singular in my imagination: But to see the luck of it, having no such idea in my memory, I turned to Grotius' Notes on the place, and this is all that they say there: Ostendit vocationem omnibus esse communem, ac proinde unum esse corpus debere, non tantum unius loci, sed & omnium locorum, puta Achaiae & Macedoniae, in quâ tum erat Paulus, Ecclesiam. The Apostle by the phrase [all that in every place call on the name of the Lord Jesus, both theirs and ours] shows that vocation is common to all, and consequently that the Church, not only of one place, but of all places, to wit of Achaia, and Macedonia, where Paul then was, aught to be one body] From hence truly I was not so diligent a reader of that learned man's Annotations, as to make any collection at all, or so much as to remember that he had said it, nor was I ever so acute, or sagacious, as from those words to have been able to infer this conclusion, that the Epistle was written to all the Churches of Achaia: For as long as Corinth was in Achaia, there had been perfect truth in Grotius' words, though the Epistle had been written only to Corinth, as there is on the other side in his mention of Macedonia (where Paul then was) though Paul was not conceived by Grotius to have been in above one City of Macedonia (viz. Philippi) at this time when thus he wrote. 34. The second is, that H. Grotius is my great friend, to whom I am beholding for more than one rare notion. To which I answer, that this is so far perfect truth, that he is one whose memory I exceedingly reverence and value for what he hath written; one from whom I have from my first entrance on the consideration of Divine and Moral learning, received more useful notions than I have from any Writer of this last Age, and so may any man else that is not very much above my pitch, if he read him with a sincere desire of knowing and practising the truth. As for any uncertain conjectures, which I suppose the Prefacer means by rare notions, or for any expedients whereby to defend the matter in hand, that of Episcopacy, I know not that I received any the least hint or direction from him. 35. The third is, that I ward myself carefully that I may not be thought beholding to Grotius. To which I reply, that I never was sparing on any occasion, whether by words or writings to give my testimony of my valuing, and my being beholding to him, but especially that I have done this very frequently in my papers that have been published, as I shall not need make proof by citations or references to them, and I pretend not either to more gravity or self-denial, than is perfectly reconcileable with this, how far either of these are discovered by the Prefacer, it is not my purpose to examine. And whereas it is suggested as the complaint of some that have tried it in reference to the Comment on the Revelations, this must needs be in those men, whosoever they are, a most groundless complaint or quarrel, 1. Because it is most certain that Grotius' Book of Notes upon the Revelation, came out after I had penned the Annotations on the Revelation, and so all that I had to do, was to survey them as soon as they came out, and comparing my Notes with his, to reap what been 't I could from him, but did not, could not receive from him my scheme of that Prophecy, or series of my interpretations on the whole, or on any part thereof, save only those two Chapters (1. 3. and 17.) whereon he had formerly written. 36. Secondly: Because in the one place which my memory at present suggesteth to me, that I borrowed the inter retation from him there I find upon examination, that I have owned it from him, in that of the two Witnesses, p 962. 〈◊〉 say, it is reasonable to forsake all other conjectures, and pitch upon that which the learned H. Groti hath resolved on. 37. Lastly, because I had made my particular and solemn acknowledgement to this Learned man, by recommending, next after chrysostom and the Greek Scholiasts, his admirable Comments and posthumous Annotations, in which number this on the Revelation was specially comprehended. This is once done in the beginning of the Preface, and again toward the end of it. And that is the third argument to supersede all force of this charge. And so I am still, I suppose, free from all appearance of having merited any part of this character fastened on me by him and his other complainers. 38. After I had written thus much, and just as this paragraph was transcribed, it happens quite above my expectation, that a fourth evidence was offered to me in a Letter from a Learned friend, an account whereof, by transcribing some few passages in it, will a little longer divert the Reader: It is in these words. Sir, I have seen a Preface of Mr. Owen' s before his Answer to Mr. John Goodwin touching Perseverance, and I doubt not but you have seen it, or w●ll see it before this Paper comes to you; so I will take no trouble to render to you any thing more of that Digression, which he spends upon you, than to give you notice that I observe amongst the many reproaches, wherewith he endeavours to load you, in the 17. and 18. pages, he tells men, That there are many that complain of your secret vain glory, in seeking to disclaim the direction from H. Grot●… in reference to your Comment on the Revelation This charge, I suppose, reflect; upon the very close of your Praemonition concerning the Interpretation of the Apocalypse, viz. (Among which number I now also find the most learned Hugo Grotius, in those posthumous Notes of his on the Apocalypse lately published.] It seems those many complainers suspect, that (for the main delineation of your work on that Prophecy) you took it from Grotius, though you do pretend, that without any other light going before you, you derived it from the light shining in the Prophecy itself. Unless you think it more fit for you to contemn than to vindicate yourself from that aspersion, sure you want not sufficient evidence to reprove that surmise. I doubt not but you communicated your thoughts concerning that Prophecy to several friends, whom you judged proper to be consulted in such a matter: Amongst others, I am sure you acquainted Mr. John D. with the first draught of your Interpretation, who thereupon told you, That when he and I conversed together, which was in the year 1645. I had in some discourses declared my opinion concerning that Prophecy to what times it referred, and that he found a great concurrence in your opinion and mine, which relation of his moved you to write to me, and require of me to communicate my thoughts to you about the scope of that Prophecy; and this your Letter was dated Octob. 9 1648. To which desire I forthwith paid a due respect, and in such manner, as I was able, gave you a scheme of my thoughts on that Prophecy, and then soon after my answer sent to you, I received a second Letter from you, in which you said [That which you have now sent me is the laying down of all the very grounds, which I have laid down for the interpreting the Apocalypse, and unless it be in one little particular, the concurrence is exactly the same for the interpretation of the several parts.] And then you proceeded in that Letter to give me the sum of every part of the Prophecy, which is the exact sum of your interpretation which is published: And this second Letter was dated Decemb. 18. 1648. I have thus punctually set down the times, because it is very likely that you cannot with so much ease distinguish the times as may clear you perfectly from that calumny, if you think fit to take any notice thereof at all. All that I shall add to this seasonable assistance of my ill memory, is but this, that Grotius' Notes were not published till the year 16●0. And so much above what 〈◊〉 intended in answer to that suggestion. 39 The fourth thing is, that which is concluded from mine own Apology, as he is pleased to call it, Dissert. 5. c. 1. sect. 24. where I said, that I was glad to find by Grotius ' s Annotations on the Revelation (read hastily by me after the Dissertations were finished and transcribed for the Printer) that he was of my opinion concerning a Gentile and a Jewish congregation of Christians in the same city. How I offended in this, or why this should be styled an Apology, or what I should have said in any syllable otherwise than I did, I confess I cannot imagine. This only I know, that it was perfect truth, what there I said, that that whole discourse, about the two sorts of Assemblies and Bishops, in every branch of it was made before his Annotations either were read by me, or published, that if I had had his authority to have vouched for the whole observation, I should most gladly have owned it, and counted it my interest to do so, that I might not be blamed for the singularity of the observation by those, who were otherwise minded: That as it was, I was glad I had his suffrage, and accordingly expressed I was so. 40. And now truly I am very little concerned in the gloss, which, quite contrary to my expectation, I find put upon it, were it not my duty to avert the suspicion of a vice, and the ill example consequent to it, I should never have disturbed the fly, which he tells me, this hath let into my pot of ointment. The Prefacer should have had my free leave to have said this, and much more (so long as it was so far from truth) against me, without my making any word of solemn reply to it. As it is, I am not ill pleased, that I am now at an end of it. Sect. 2. A digression concerning some jealousies spread of Hugo Grotius. 1. YEt because I will be as little in the debt of that learned man Hugo Grotius, as I may, and because I have the occasion offered, which suggests it my duty to make some return of gratitude to so good a friend of mine, as I am told he is, I shall do it in a way, which seems to me most proper at this time. 2. This very pious, learned, judicious man hath of late among many fallen under a very unhappy fate, being most unjustly calumniated, sometimes as a Socinian, sometimes as a Papist, and as if he had learned to reconcile Contradictories, or the most distant extremes, sometimes as both of them together. 3. For that of his being a Socinian, three things are vulgarly made use of, to infuse that jealousy into men's minds: 1. Some parcels of a Letter of his to Crellius. 2. Some relations of what passed from him at his death. 3. Some passages in his Annotations. Of these it may suffice to say briefly, that the collection, which is made from the first, and the whole of the second, is perfect calumny and forgery, the third an injustice in the publisher. 4. For the first of them, having seen above 20. years since, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, fragments or excerpta of a letter of his to Crellius (on occasion of that man's defence of Socinus, against his excellent book De satisfactione Christi) wherein there were many civilities and commendations of what was any way commendable in the Socinian writings, and finding that this was looked on as an indication of his judgement, very favourable to that sect, that instead of replying to his confutation, he returned nothing but words of kindness and esteem to him and his whole tribe, and having then commodity to make a more particular inquiry into the truth of that whole matter, I accordingly made use of it, and had this account from that learned man, which as well as my memory will afford, I will set down entirely, 1. that upon the Survey of Crellius' book against him, he found there was but one thing of any weight, which seemed to stand in force against him, and to exact any reply from him, and that was about 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, vicaria satisfactio, one man's laying down his life for another, the innocent to rescue the nocent: Secondly, that after the publication of his Book, De Satisfactione, but withal long before Crellius' reply, he had taken that one particular into more serious consideration, and in his book, De Jure Belli ac Pacis, set down his thoughts on that subject more exactly, I think it was l. 2. c. 21. Thirdly, that to that discourse he remitted him, being of opinion, that he needed not add any more in relation to that Controversy, as it lay betwixt them, joining as appears by the Excerpta, many passages of civility and commendations, which he thought du● to them in one respect, their professed desire to advance the practice of virtue and Christian life. And this account of this letter gives it a quite different and distant appearance, from that which the fragments, all of one sort, taken alone, out of this conjunction had given it. 5. For the second, concerning some words which are reported (variously) to have passed from him at his death, they will be evidenced to be either totally falsified, or foully mistaken and distorted from the true meaning of them, by the account given of his sickness and last passages, by John Quistorpius, Doctor of Divinity, and Pastor of the chief Church in Rost●ch, who assisted him in his last trial. His Letter being already in Print, in Doctor Causabone's little Book entitled (as I remember) De Vsu verborum, I must not here set it down, but refer the Reader to that view of it, where he will find no other words of his but these; when the Doctor wished he had been to converse with him in health, his answer was, it a Deo visum est, thus God hath pleased to dispose of it; when he mentioned confession of sins, and the example of the Publican, he interposed, Ego ille sum Publicanus, I am that Publican; when he remitted him to Christ, without whom there is no Salvation, he replied, In solo Christo omnis spes mea reposita est, In Christ only all my hope is reposed. When he used the prayer beginning Herr Jesus wahrer Mensch und God, etc. he folded his hands and followed him in a low voice; when he asked him at the end whether he understood, he answered, probè intellexi, I understood it well; when upon reciting some seasonable texts of Scripture, he askt-againe whether he understood him, his last words were, Vocem tuam audio, sed quae singula dicas difficulter intelligo, I hear your voice, but do not easily understand every word you say. And having said so, he became Speechless. This bare recital of his novissima, is a sufficient confutation of all the uncharitable relations that are made of them. 6, Lastly, then for the passages in the Annotations, it may suffice to remember that they are in his posthuma, those which have been published since his death, those especially on the Epistles, of which it is evident, that they had never been form by him, or fitted for the public, but were put together by some body else, after his death, who finding many things in his adversaria, thrown into Paper books as he had at any time occasion, either from his reading of Scripture or others writings (it being ordinary for every man to note, not only what he approves, but what he dislikes, and what he thinks matter of farther consideration) hath, as he thought fit, made a body of Annotations, and published them under his name. Many indications of the truth of this I might produce, having elsewhere mentioned some. I shall only add one, Col. 1. 16. where the Apostle saith [by him all things were created that are in Heaven—] the Annotation published under Grotius' name, hath these words, Rectius est; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, hic interpretari, ordinata sunt, novum quendam statum sunt consecuta, the righter interpreting of [were created] is, were ordered, obtained a new kind of state, and so in the end, All things were created by him] the Scholion is, Intellige omnia quae ad novam creationem pertinent, Understand all things which belong to the New Creation. 7. Which explications as they more than savour of the Socinian leaven, not willing to permit Christ there to be said the Creater of Angels, but referring all to the New Creation (as the Socinians generally do, and accordingly interpret. In principio, Joh. 1. 1. In principio Evangelii, In the beginning of the Gospel) so they are expressly contrary to the words of Grotius, as we know they were published by him on Jo●. 1. 3. where on those words [without him was nothing made that was made] the nothing, saith he, is put to take away all exception, Id autem ideo factum, ut in iis, quae per verbum sunt condita, intelligerentur etiam ea quae conspicua nobis nen sunt, Col. 1. 16. This was done, that among these things that were created by the word, may be understood also those things that are not seen, citing this very place to that sense, Col. 1. 16. which in the post humous Annotations, is interpreted in such a contrariety both to this former note, and to the writings last published by him before his death, that nothing can be more discernibly injurious to him. 8. By this the Reader may observe and judge of others, and consider how unequal we are likely to be to dead men, if we judge of their opinions by all that is after death published under their names. Witness also his Book, De Potestate Regis ●irca sacra, which being written by him in his younger days, but never approved by him to be published in his life, but purposely suppressed, only some Copies stolen out in Manuscri●●ts from him in which form I read it many years since) 'tis now against his consent (and in many things distant from his sense expressed in later writings) published, as if it had been fully allowed by him. But this by the way. 9 Next then for the charge of Popery that is fallen upon him, it is evident from whence that flows, either from his professed opposition to many doctrines of some Reformers, Zuinglius, and Calvin, etc. Or from his Annotations on Cassander, and the Debates with Rivet, consequent thereto, the Votuns pro Pace and Discussio. 10. For the former of these 'tis sufficiently known what contests there were, and at length how professed the divisions betwixt the Remonstrant and Contraremonstrant, and it is confessed that he maintained (all his time) the Remonstrants' party, * Disq●is●an Pelagiana sint dogm. etc. vindicating it from all charge, whether of Pelagianism, or Semipelagianism, which was by the opposers objected to it, and pressing the favourers of the Doctrine of Irrespective Decrees with the odious consequences of making † Appendix to de Antichristo. God the author and favourer of sin, and frequently expressing his sense of the evil influences that some of those Doctrines were experimented to have on men's lives; and by these means it is not strange that he should fall under great displeasure from those, who having espoused the opinion of irrespective decrees, did not only publish it as the truth, and truth of God, but farther asserted the questioning of it to be injurious to God's free Grace, and his eternal Election, and consequently retained no ordinary patience for, or charity to opposers. 11. But then still this is no medium to infer that charge. The Doctrines, which he thus maintained, were neither branches nor characters of Popery, but asserted by some of the first, and most learned and pious Reformers. Witness the writings of Hemingius in his Opuscula (most of which are on these subjects) whereas on the contrary side, Zuinglius and others, who maintained the rigid way of irrespective decrees, and infused them into some of this Nation of ours, are truly said by an * D●… jackson's Book 10. ch. 49 excellent Writer of ours to have had it first from some ancient Romish Schoolmen, and so to have had as much (or more) of that guilt adherent to them, as can be charged on their opposers. 12. The truth is, these (or the like to them) have been matters controverted in all times, and in these latter days the controversies inflamed, and the doctrines warmly maintained on both sides by the Lutherans against the Calvinists, who are yet no more Papists than they, and by the Papists among themselves, witness the continual disputes between the Jesuits and the Dominicans, and at this time between the Molinists and Jansenians, the parties for a long time so equally balanced, that the Popes have thought it prudent to wave defining on either side, till this last year Innocentius X. upon the instance of the French King hath made a decision of them. 13. So that from hence to found the jealousy, to affirm him a Papist because he was not a Contraremonstrant, is but the old method of speaking all that is ill of those, who differ from our opinions in any thing, as the Dutch man in his rage calls his horse an Arminian, because he doth not go as he would have him. And this is all that can soberly be concluded from such suggestions, that they are displeased and passionate that thus speak. 14. As for the Annotations on Cassander, etc. and the consequent vindications of himself against Rivet, those have with some colour been deemed more favourable toward Popery; but yet, I suppose will be capable of benign interpretations, if they be read with these few cautions or remembrances. 15. 1. That they were designed to show a way to peace, whensoever men's minds on both sides should be piously affected to it. Secondly, that he did not hope for this temper in this age, the humour on both sides being so turgent, and extremely cont●…ary to it, and the controversy debated on both sides by those, qui aterna cupiunt esse dissidia, saith he, who desire to eternize, and not compose contentions, and therefore makes his appeal to posterity, when this paroxysm shall be over, Judicet ●qua posteritas, ad quam maxime provoco. 16. Thirdly: That for the chief usurpations of the Papacy, he leaves it to Christian Princes to join together to vindicate their own rights, and reduce the Pope ad Canon's, to that temper which the ancient Canons allow and require of him, a●d if that will not be done, to reform every one within their own dominions. 17. Fourthly: That what he saith in favour of some Popish doctrines, above what some other learned Protestants have said, is not so much by way of assertion or justification of them, as to show what reasons they may justly be thought to proceed upon, and so not to be so irrational or impious as they are ordinarily accounted, and this only in order to the peace of the Christian world, that we may have as much charity to others, and not as high animosities, live with all men as sweetly, and amicably, and peaceably, and not as bitterly as is possible, accounting the Wars, and Seditions, and Divisions, and Rebellions, that are raised, and managed upon the account of Religion, far greater and more scandalous unchristian evils, than are the errors of some Romish doctrines, especially as they are maintained by the more sober and moderate men among them, Cassander, Picherel, etc. 18. Fifthly: What he saith in his Discussio of a conjunction of Protestants with those that adhere to the Bishop of Rome, is Page 255. no farther to be extended than his words extend it. 1. That there is not any other visible way to the end there mentioned by him, of acquiring or preserving universal unity. 2. That this is to be done not crudely, by returning to them as they are, submitting our necks to our former y●ke, but by taking away at once the division, and the causes of it, on which side soever; adding only in the third place, that the bare Primacy of the Bishop of Rome secundùm Canon's, such as the ancient Canons allow of (which hath nothing of supreme universal power or authority in it) is none of those causes, nor consequently necessary to be excluded in the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, citing that as the confession of that excellent person Phil. Melancthon. 19 So that in effect that whole speech of his, which is so solemnly vouched by * Page 167. Mr. Knot, and looked on so jealously by many of us, is no more than this, that such a Primacy of the Bishop of Rome, as the ancient Canons allowed him, were, for so glorious an end, as is the regaining the peace of Christendom, very reasonably to be afforded him, nay absolutely necessary to be yielded him, whensoever any such Catholic union shall be attempted, which as it had been the express opinion of Melancthon, one of the first and wisest Reformers, so it is far from any design of establishing the usurpations of the Papacy, or any of their false doctrines attending them, but only designed as an expedient for the restoring the peace of the whole Christian world, which every disciple of Christ is so passionately required to contend and pray for. 20. So that, in a word, setting aside the prudential consideration and question, as whether it were not a hopeless design that Grotius engaged himself in, expressing desires of an universal reconciliation, when there was so little hope on either side, that the extreme parties would remit so much, as to meet in the middle point (to which also the expressing of his no hopes of it at this time, and the making his appeal to more impartial posterity, is a satis●…orie answer) all that this very learned man was guilty of in this matter, was but this, his passionate desire of the unity of the Church in the bands of peace and truth, and a full dislike of all uncharitable distempers, and impious doctrines (whether those which he deemed destructive to the practice of all Christian virtue, or which had a particularity of ill influence toward the undermining of Government, and public peace) wheresoever he met with them. 21. All which notwithstanding, the temper of that learned man was known to be such, as rendered him in a special manner a lover and admirer of the frame and moderation observed in our Church of England, as it stood (shaken, but not cast down) in his life time, desiring earnestly to live himself in the Communion of it, and to see it copied out by the rest of the world. 22. And so much for this large digression, which if it be no necessary return to the Prefacer, may yet tend to the satisfaction of some others, and to the vindicating the memory of that Learned man. Sect. 3. Of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Clemens. How many Orders there were in Corinth at the writing this Epistle. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Metropolitical Churches at the first. Philippi a Metropolis at the first, as Canterbury at Augustine's first planting the Faith. The Institution of Presbyters, when, by what authority. St. Jerome's opinion. The use of the word Presbyters in Scripture. The Bishop's task. Num. 1. THE Prefacer now proceeds to take notice of a second answer of mine to the objection from the plurality of the Elders in Clement, and this yields him also matter for many questions, and great appearance of triumph. It is managed in these words. 2. But the Doctor hath yet another answer to this multiplication of Elders, and he mention of them with Deacons with the eminent identity that is between them and Bishops through the whole Epistle, the same persons being unquestionably intended in respect of the same office, by both these appelations. Now this second answer is founded up on the supposition of the former (a goodly foundation!) namely, that the Epistle under consideration was written and sent not to the Church of Corinth only, but to all the Churches of Achaia, of which Corinth was the Metropolitan. Now this second answer is, that the Elders or Presbyters here mentioned, were properly those whom he calls Bishops, Diocesans, men of a third order and rank above Deacons and Presbyters in the Church Administrations and Government: And for those, who are properly called Presbyters, there were then none in the Church. To give colour to this misrable evasion, Diss. 4. c. 10, 11. He discourseth about the government and ordering of Church affairs by Bishops and Deacons. In some Churches that were small, not yet form or completed, nor come to perfection at the first planting of them; how well this is accommodated to the Church of Corinth, which Clement calls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and which himself would have to be a Metropolitical Church, being confessedly great, numerous, furnished with great and large gifts and abilities, is seen with half an eye. How ill also this sh●ft is accommodated to help in the case, for whose service it was first invented, is no less evident. It was to save the sword of Phil. 1. 1. from the throat of Episcopacy he contendeth for: That Epistle is directed to the Saints or Church at Philippi with the Bishops and Deacons. Two things do here trouble our Doctor: 1. The mention of more Bishops than one at Philippi. 2. The knitting together of Bishops and Deacons, as the only two orders in the Church, bringing down●… Episcopacy one degree at least from that height, whereto he would exalt it. For the first of these he tells you, that Philippi was the Metropolitan Church of the Province of Macedonia, that the rest of the Churches, which had every one their several Bishops (Diocesan we must suppose) were all comprised in the mentioning of Philippi: so that though the Epistle be precisely●… directed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, yet the Bishops that were with them, must be supposed to be the Bishops of the whole Province of Macedonia, because the Church of Philippi was the Metropolitan. The whole Country must have been supposed to be converted (and who that knows any thing of Antiquity, will dispute that) and so divided with Diocesans, as England of late was, the Arch-Bishops so being at Philippi: but how came it then to p●sse, that here is mention made of Bishops and Deacons only, without any word of a third order or rank of men▪ distinct from them called Presbyters or Elders? To this he answers secondly, that when the Church was first planted, before any great number were converted, or any sit to be made Presbyters, there was only those two orders instituted, Bishops and Deacons, and so that this Church of Philippi seems to have been a Metropolitical Infant. The truth is, if ever the Doctor be put upon reconciling the contradictions of his answers one to another, not only in this, but almost in every particular he deals withal (an intanglemen; which he is thrown into, by his bold and groundless conjectures) he will find it to be as endless as fruitless: but it is not my present business to interpose in his quarrels, either with himself, or Presbytery. As to the matter under consideration, I desire only to be resolved in these few Queries. 1. If there were in the time of Clement no Presbyters in the Churches, not in so great and flourishing a Church as that of Corinth; and if all the places in Scripture, where there is mention of Elders, do precisely inten Bishops, in a distinction from them who are Deacons, and not Bishops also, as he asserts; when, by whom, by what Authority, were Elders, who are only so inferior to Bishops, peculiarly so termed, instituted and appointed in the Churches? And how comes it pass that there is such express mention made of the office of Deacons, and the continuance of it, none at all of Elders, who are acknowledged to be superior to them, and on whose shoulders in all their own Churches, lies the great weight and burden of all Ecclesiastical administration? As we say of their Bishops, so shall we of any Presbyter, not instituted and appointed by the authority of Jesus Christ in the Church, let them go to the place from whence they came 2. I desire the Doctor to inform me in what sense he would have me to understand him, Diss. 2. cap. 20, 21, 22. Where he disputes that these words of Hicrome, Antequam ●ludia in Religione fierent, & diceretur in populis, Ego sum Pauli, ego Cepbae, communi Presbyterorum consensu Ecclesia 〈…〉 be understood of the times of the Apostles, when 〈…〉 Church of Corinth, when it seems that neither 〈…〉 such thing as Presbyters in the 〈…〉 we can 〈…〉 As 〈…〉 Presbyters were Bishops properly so 〈…〉, who are they so, 〈◊〉 of whom 〈◊〉 〈…〉 to be a 〈…〉 so called. To 〈…〉 I 〈…〉. 〈◊〉. 〈…〉 in the Scripture, we 〈…〉 of Church 〈…〉. This (〈…〉 Doct●…) is that of 〈…〉, give us 〈…〉 of Christ, give us in every Church, Bishops and Deacons (〈◊〉 than we 〈…〉) let those Bishops attend the 〈…〉, over which they ●…ching the 〈◊〉, and administ●… O 〈…〉, in and to their 〈…〉; And I 〈◊〉 〈…〉 all the Comenders for Presbytery in this N●●ion, and much 〈…〉 the Independents, that there shall be a ●end of this quarrel: that they will 〈…〉 with the Doctor, not any living, for the ●…duction of any 〈◊〉 so●t of persons though they should be 〈…〉 Presbyters into Church office and Government. Only this I must 〈…〉 this second sort of men 〈…〉 Presbyters, than it doth Bishops, and that word having been 〈…〉 third 〈…〉, we desire leave of the D●ctor and his 〈…〉 if we also most frequently call them so, no ways declining the other application of Bishops, so that it be applied to signify the second▪ and not third 〈◊〉 of men. But of this 〈◊〉 business, with the nature, con●… and frame of the first Churches; and the 〈◊〉 m●st●k 〈…〉 men have be their own prejudices been engaged into, in this d●… of them, a 〈…〉 opportunity (if God will) may 〈◊〉 long be a●…ded. 3. Here first I shall demand, whence it appears, that I accommodated a double answer to the multiplication of Elders in Clemens, etc. Truly I do not yet know or remember that I did. This certainly was all (and this can amount (if to any) but to one answer, that which we have vindicated already) that the Elders in the Epistle of Clemens were all the Bishops of Achaia. This indeed when it was proposed, was more distinctly set down by 4. steps or degrees, (but then again those are no more two than four answers) 1. that the Epistle was addressed to the Church, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, i. e. to the whole Province; Secondly, that (to make it capable of that title) Corinth was known to be the Metropolis of Achaia. Thirdly, that Saint Paul's Epistles to the Corinthians belonged to all the Churches of Achaia, not only to Corinth, and so in any probability Clements was to do also, being written to the same, and inscribed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and therefore Fourthly, that these many Elders were the singular Bishops in the several Cities of Achaia, in each of which, the Apostles had instituted a Bishop. And this is all that is there said in that second Chap. of Diss 5 And (yet farther) no part of this adapted as an answer to that objection of the plurality of Elders (or any other) but as things thought fit to be premised concerning that Epistle of Cl●…, before the taking into consideration any testimony produced out of it. 4. This might spare me the pains of f●rther considering what is here replied to this supposed second answer, But I have not hitherto been so thirsty, as might now justify any such hasty dismission of him, I shall therefore 〈◊〉 di●p●se the matter orderly before me, which is a l●ttle disordered and i●…led by the Prefacers' hasty handling, and then give answer to every appearance of scruple mentioned by him. 5. There are two things (to the business of 〈◊〉) ●…ly observable in this Epistle of 〈◊〉, First, what he says of the Apostles constituti●● of Bishops and Deacons at their first preaching of the Gospel, and this ●…lly considered, through all Regions and C●…s where they preached: without any restraining of their speech to the whether Church of Corinth, or Churches of Achaia. This is considered in Diss. 5. cap. 10. and reference made in the margin to a former discourse, Diss. 4. cap. 10. where out of the most ancient Records it had been cleared, that at the first the Apostles had constituted no more in every Church, than here were mentioned, a Bishop and one or more Deacons. And so to this 〈◊〉 practice of the Apostles, it is that that refers, which is here by the Prefacer●iscalled ●iscalled the colour of this second answer (which he farther styles a miserable evasion) and so evidently it belongs not to the plurality of Elders in Corinth, etc. 6. The second thing there discernible is, the plurality of Bishops (styled also 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Elders) among those to whom he there writes. And those, say I, are the Bishops of all Achaia, as that is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Province pertaining to that Metropolis. 7. Now these things ought thus to have been severed, and then having competently vindicated the former of these, Chap. 3. Sect. 4. (that there were indeed at the first but two orders, showing when the middle order of Presbyters came in, viz. most probably in Saint John's time in Asia) and so * Cap. 5. Sect. lately, as I was required, manifested the second, that of the Bishops of Greece being meant by the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Elders, I might, as I said, have reasonably been spared from being so speedily called out again to the same exercises. 8. But as it is, I shall now attend him, and first when he objects, that what was discoursed of some Churches, small, and not yet form or completed at the first planting, cannot be accommodated to the Church of Corinth, which Clement calls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, most firm and ancient, and which I affirm to have then been a Metropolitical Church, being confestly great, numerous— To this I answer, 1. That I have no where affirmed this Church to be in Clement's time small, unformed, etc. nor had any occasion, or temptation to do so. 2. That I no where accommodate to this Church at that time, what I had before observed of the Church indefinitely at the first planting; These two are but effects of the Prefacers' haste, without any foundation in any words of mine. 3. That if I am now asked, whether at this time of Clement's writing there were any more than two orders in Corinth, and the other Cities of Greece, I must say, as formerly, that though 'tis probable there were none, yet I find no foundation in this Epistle either for denying or affirming it. 9 The chief occasion of writing the Epistle was the sedition against the Bishops, or Governors of the first order, on design 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to cast out of their Bishoprics some of those, whom the Apostles had placed over them, and either for Prsbyters, the second, or Deacons, the third order, there was no such contention, but only (as saith he, the Apostles foresaw) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, for the name or dignity of Bishop, and so there is no occasion to mention any but their Bishops, which yet is far from concluding that there were not any other, for Deacons we are sure there then were, no Bishop being ever without such. 10. Again, that Bishops continued to retain the name of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Elders, even after there was a second sort ordained, whom we now call Presbyters, hath elsewhere appeared from Polycarp, Papias, Irenaeus, and Tertullian, who certainly lived to see them in the Church, and yet call Bishops 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Seniores, and so the Bishops being called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Clement, is no indication that there were at that time no second order of Presbyters in that Church. 11. And yet on the other side, Clement's death falling not far from St. John's, which was in the third of Trajan, 'tis as possible, and, I confess, to me much more probable, that there might be yet no Presbyters ordained at Corinth, or in the rest of Achaia, at the time of his writing this Epistle. And so there lies no obligation on me, whose conjectures are wont to bring me so little thanks from the Prefacer, to interpose them in this matter, where I have so little light to see by. Only I am sure that the Prefacer's objection here mentioned, would be of no force against me, in case I should deny that there were then any Presbyters at Corinth, because, as the meaning of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which Clemens affirms of it can be no more than this, that this Church was founded and established by the Apostles themselves, and so was kept upright by them till the time of this sedition, which * Euseb. l. 4. c. 22 Hegesippus tells us was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Primus being Bishop of Corinth, so that concludes nothing for their having Presbyters ordained among them. And when I said that at the first preaching of the Apostles, they instituted none but Bishops and Deacons, I never granted, or employed, or believed, that as soon as ever that was done, they instituted more, viz. Presbyters also. 12. And whereas he fancies my observation to be made of some Churches only, that were small, and not yet form▪ etc. this is another mistake; for I take Clement's and Epiphanius' words universally of all Churches at their first planting, the fuller, as well as the thinner plantations. As at Jerusalem, where all the Ancients tell us there was a Bishop presently upon Christ's Ascension, and thenumber of Believers so great, that there were seven Deacons instituted to attend him, yet neither in Scripture, nor in the Ancients find we any footsteps of this middle order of Presbyters in that City, at that time, or soon after. And the reason is clear, that though in some Cities there were more, in some fewer converts, and so, comparatively to others, the Church at Corinth, and through Achaia might be numerous, both Paul and Peter having laboured there successfully, yet for some t●me there were not any where so many, but that the Bishop, and his Deacon, or Deacons might be sufficient for them. 13. So likewise the being a Metropolis is no argument that there should be Presbyters by this time constituted there; for supposing, as I do (and my grounds have been largely set down) that the Apostles conformed their models to the Governments and forms among the Nations where they came, at their first planting the Faith in any region, it must follow, that the Church of Corinth, as soon as it was form into a Church, with a Bishop over it, was also a Metropolitan Church, in relation to all other Cities of Greece, which either than did, or should after believe, as Jerusalem was to all the Cities of Judea, or as Philippi, being a prime City, or Metropolis of Macedonia, and the first where Paul planted the Faith, was straightway a Metropolitical Church, how few, or how many Christians there were in it, it matters not. 14. And therefore for his change of the scene from Corinth and Clement's to Philippi and St. Paul's Epistle, it will bring him no advantage. The case between them is exactly parallel. There was a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or Province of Macedonia, saith St. Luke, of which Philippi was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Metropolis, just as Corinth was of Achaia, and this City being the first in that region, wherein St. Paul planted the Faith, it was certainly a Metropolitical Church, and Epaphroditus was the Metropolitan of that Province, the first day he was Bishop of it. The truth of which is so evident, that the jeer of the [Metropolitical Infant] might seasonably have been controverted into a more serious, and decent expression, there being no reason imaginable, why, if the Apostles did institute Metropolitical Churches (as here is not one serious word of objection against all that hath been said to assert it) those Churches should not at their first institution (call it their infancy if you will) be Metropolitical Churches. For as to that of the whole countries being supposed to be converted, and divided into Dioceses, that is not consequent or necessary to my assertion; for as Clement saith of the Bishop and Deacon in each City at the first planting of the Faith, that they were constituted in relation to them (not only which did, but expressly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) who should afterward believe, so the Church and Bishop in the Metropolis, when that was first converted, might very well be Metropolitical in respect of the other Cities of that Province, which should afterward receive the Faith. 15. As we know when Augustin came first over into England, and preached the Faith, and converted Christians first at Ethelberts seat, and the Metropolis of that Province, he was by being made Bishop there, made Metropolitan also. That sure was Bede's meaning, when he saith of it, lib. 1 c. 27. Venit Arelas & ab Archiepiscopo ejusdem civitatis Eth●rio Archiepiscopus Gen●i Anglorum ordinatus est; He came to Arles in France, and by Etherius Archbishop of that City was ordained Archbishop to the Nation of the English, and if, as a learned Antiquary thinks, Bede spoke after the use of his own time, and that the word Archiepiscopus was not in use here then, at Augustine's coming hither, yet for the substance of the thing, wherein I make the instance, and all that I contend from thence, there can be no doubt, but that he being at first made Bishop of the Metropolis, was thereby made also Metropolitan. 16. As for the divisions into Dioceses, how little force that hath against all that I have said, or thought in this business, whether of Bishops or Metropolitans, I have spoken enough to that in the Vindication to the London Ministers, c. 1. sect. 19 and to that I refer the Prefacer. 17. And so still I am free enough from quarrelling with myself in the least, or from being engaged in any endless labour to reconcile the contradictions of my answers, which as far as my weak understanding can reach, are perfectly at agreement with one another. If the labour of showing they are so, prove fruitless, I know to whom I am beholding for it, even the Taskmaster whom I have undertaken to observe, and in that guise of obedience, shall now proceed briefly to answer every of his questions, and I hope there cannot now need many words to do it. 18. To the first, concerning the Institution of the second order, that of Presbyters; for the [when] I answer, I know not the year, but evidently before the writing of Ignatius' Epistles, in Trajan's time, and, in all probability, after the writing all the Books of Scripture, and, for aught I can discern, of Clement's Epistle, as far as concerns either Rome, or Corinth. 19 For the [by whom, and by what authority] I answer, I think they were first instituted by St. John in Asia, before his death, and shall add to my reasons elsewhere given for it, this farther consideration, that Ignatius in all his Epistles to the Churches of Asia, Ephesus, Smyrna, Trallis, Magnesia, Philadelphia, makes mention of them, within few years after St. John's death, though in his Epistle to the Romans he doth not. And if this be so, then also it appears by what authority, viz. such as St. John's was, Apostolical. Or if this should not be firmly grounded, as to the person of St. John, yet the reason why they were not at first instituted, as well as Deacons, being but this, because there was no need of them yet, and the power given by the Apostles to the first Bishops, being a plenary power, so far that they might communicate to others, what was committed to them, either in whole or in part, and those accordingly, in the force thereof, constituting Presbyters, in partem officii, the authority still, by which they were instituted, will be Apostolical, and so if (as this Prefacer gives order) they be let go to the place from whence they came, they will not be much hurt, they are but remitted to the society of the Apostles and Apostolical persons by this. 20. To the second, concerning the meaning of my words Diss. 2. c. 29, 21. when I say that Hierom's words [of Churches being governed by common consent of Presbyters] are to be understood of the times of the Apostles, and whether all those Presbyters were Bishops properly so called] I answer, that my meaning was, that if Hierome be reconcileable to himself, that must be his meaning, that in the Apostles times the Churches were first governed by common consent of Presbyters, and after, in the Apostles times too, upon the rising of Schisms, a Bishop was every where set over them; that according in Hierome's notion all those Presbyters were not Bishops, but such, as out of whom after, one was chosen in every Church to be a Bishop. 21. That this was the truth of the fact, I no where expressed myself to think, but that this was the most commodious meaning to be affixed to Hierom's words add Euagrium, so as they might be reconcileable with the many other testimonies brought out of him, which concluded it his opinion also, that the three orders were of Apostolical institution. But if I am now asked my sense expressly, whether I think thus it was, as Hierome (I think) conceived it, I answer positively, that I think Hierome was mistaken in that circumstance, and that Clemens Romanus, and the Records that Epiphanius citeth, are much a more competent authority for the contrary, that Bishops were first instituted, whensoever any Apostle in his travail planted a Church in any City, and retained not the Government in his own hands. Yet if by any Record it shall be made to appear, that before any such City was left by the Apostle, and so before any Bishop were instituted in it, the Elders, or, as those may signify, the chief believers (a name of age, as well as of power) were trusted by them for some short time of their absence (as I mentioned it there sect. 20. as a possible thing) there will then be some ground of St Hierom's mistake in that circumstance. But this, I confess, more than yet hath any way appeared to me, and therefore I am content to part with it as a fancy, or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to help St. Hierome, and not so much as a conjecture. And so much for his Queries. 22. As for his addition by way of Corollary to his questions, the answers to th● qu●stions have already perfectly superseded it: The three orders ●…ignatius have already appeared to be of Apostolical i●stitu●…, and the very frame of the first Churches, though there was no need of the second of them, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, at the first plantation in every City And it will not be easy for any man which hath looked into ancient writings to be persuaded the contrary, It being the universal affirmation of all that speak of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ignatius to St. Hierome, and for many hundred years downward▪ though there be some difference in some few circumstances, St. Hierome thinking that Presbyters first ruled in common, before the singular Bishop was brought in over them, for the avoiding of Schisms) that the three orders were all instituted in the Church by the Apostles appointment. And if this be the sad mistake and prejudice, from which he will shortly deliver us, I may have leave to advise him the one method of attempting it, that cheaper of setting Antiquity aside in the delineation and not the more costly of professing to make his appeal to it, as in this Preface he hath adventured to do. 23. One thing he here thinks farther necessary for him to add, that the Scripture more frequently terms this second sort of men Elders and Presbyters, than it doth Bishops, wherein there be but these three misadventures; 1. That this second sort of men are frequently mentioned in Scripture. 2. That this second sort of men are sometimes called Bishops in Scripture. 3. That they are frequently called Elders there: No one of which he will ever be able to justify. Let him please to turn to the Vindication of the Dissert from the Exceptions of the London Ministers, cap●. and if against what is there said, or before in the Dissertations, he think himself able to evince any one of these three propositions, I shall willingly acknowledge myself his Disciple, being also sure, that unless both Bishops and Elders signify nothing but Piesbyters in every place, their signifying most frequently so, is the giving the question, the yielding the whole cause to the Prelatist. 24. As for the tasks of the Bishop's office, and his performance of them, I shall willingly grant him my suffrage, let them discharge them (and I besee●h all who have any way hindered them, at length to let, and quietly permit them) On condition he will do this as cheerfully as I, I shall never contend with him concerning the nature of the●● task, ●e it, as he ●aith, their attending their particular 〈◊〉, 〈◊〉 which they are appointed (the Bishop of Oxford over that Fl●ck or portion, to which he was, and is a p●inted, and so all others in like manner) be it their preaching and administering the holy Ordinances of the Gospel, in, and to their own flock, and whatsoever else of duty and r●ti●e officii belongs to a rightly constituted Bishop. And let all that have disturbed this course so duly settled in this Church, and in all the Churches of Christ, since the Apostles planting them, discern their error, and return to that peace and unity of the Church, from whence they have so causelessly, and unexcusably departed, and let none be so uncharitable as to surmise, that he which thus exhorts them, hath any other design in doing it, than that which alone he professeth to have, their timely, and now, if ever seasonable Reformation. CHAP. VI Of Testimonies in Ignatius, deemed to favour the Congregational way. Sect. 1. The Prefacer's pretensions avoided. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. His Hypothesis confutable from Ignatius. The power of prejudice. Of Popish Churches. Chorepiscopi. Metropoles. Conformity of Ecclesiastic with Civil distributions. The Ignatian Churches fancied by the Prefacer. The Gnostick heresy no deflowering of the purity of the Church. The several branches of the fancied Model, how well grounded in Ignatius. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. A Catholic, a National, a Metropolitical, a Diocesan Church in Ignatius. Num. 1. BUT we are from Clemens once more brought down to Ignatius again, and of the great prejudices and mistakes, and unjust apprehensions which we Prelatists have had in reading, and bringing testimonies from him, we are now to be admonished in these words, as followeth. 2. To return then to our Ignatius, even upon this consideration of the difference that is between the Epistles ascribed to him, and the writings of one of the same time with him, or not long before him, as to their language and expression about Church-Order and Officers, it is evident that there hath been ill favoured tampering with them, by them who thought to prevail themselves of his authority, for the asserting of that which never came into his mind. As I intimated before, I have not insisted on any of those things, nor do on them altogether, with the like that may be added, as a sufficient foundation for the total rejection of those Epistles which go under the name of Ignatius. There is in some of them a sweet and gracious spirit of Faith, Love, Holiness, Zeal for God, becoming so excellent and holy a witness of Christ as he was, evidently breathing and working. Neither is there any need at all, that for the defence of our Hypothesis concerning the non-institution of any Church-Officer whatsoever, relating to more Churches in his office, or any other Church, than a single particular Congregation; that we should so reject them: For although many passages, usually insisted on, and carefully collected by D. H. for the proof of such an Episcopacy to have been received by them of old, as is now contended for, are exceedingly remote from the way and manner of the expressions of those things, used by the Divine Writers, with them also that followed after, both before, as hath been manifested, and some while after the days of Ignatius, as might be farther clearly evidenced, and are thrust into the series of the discourse with such an incoherent impertinency, as proclaims an interpolation, being some of them also very ridiculous, and so foolishly hyperbolical, that they fall very little short of Blasphemies, yet there are expressions in all, or most of them, that will abundantly manifest, that he who was their Author (whoever he was) never dreamt of any such fabric of Church-Order as in after Ages was insensibly received. Men who are fu●l of their own apprehensions, begotten in them by such representations of things, as either their desirable presence hath exhibited to their mind, or any after prejudicated presumption hath possessed them with, are apt upon the least appearance of any likeness unto that Church, they fancy, to imagine that they see the face and all the lineaments thereof, when upon due examination it will easily be discovered, tha● there is not indeed the least resemblance, between what they find in, and what they bring to the Author's, in, and of whom they make their inquiry. The Papists having hatched and owned by several degrees, that monstrous figment of Transubstantiation (to instance among many in that abomination) a folly, destructive to what ever is in us as being living creatures, Men, or Christians, or whatever by sense, reason, or Religion, we are furnished withal, offering violence to us in what we hear, what we see with our eyes, and look upon, in what our hands do handle, and our pala●s taste, breaking in upon our understandings with vagrant flying forms, self-subsisting accidents, with as many express contradictions on sundry accounts, as the nature of things is capable of relation unto, attended with more gross Idolatry than that of the poor naked Indians, who fall down and worship a piece of red cloth, or of those who first adore their Gods, and then correct them; do yet upon the discovery of any expressions among the Ancients seeming to favour them, which they now make use of, quite to another end and purpose, than they did, who first ventured upon th●m, having minds filled with their own abominations, do presently cry out, and triumph, as if they had found the whole fardel of the Mass in its perfect dress, and their breaden God in the midst of it. It is no otherwise in the case of Episcopacy; men of these later Generations, from what they saw in present being, and that usefulness of it to all their desires and interests, having entertained though's of love to it, and delight in it, searching Antiquity, not to instruct them in the truth, but to establish their prejudicated opinion received by Tradition from their Fathers, and to confute them with whom they have to do, whatever expressions they find, or can hear of, that fall in, as to the sound of words, with what is now insisted upon, instantly they c●y out vi●imus, Io-Pean● what a simple Generation of Presbyters and Independents have we, that are ignorant of all Antiquity, or do not unders●… what they re●d and look upon Hence if we will not believe that in Igna●tus's days there were many Parish Churches with their single Pr●…, 〈◊〉 subordination to a Diocesan Bishop, either immediately, or by the into posed power of a Chore-episcopus and the like, and ●hose Dioc●●ans ag●…n in the precincts of Provinces, laid in a due subjection to their Metrop●●itans, who took care of them, as they of their Parish Priests, every Individual Church having no Officer but a Presbyter, every Diocesan Church having no Presbyter but a Bishop, and every Metropolitan Church having ●…her Presbyter nor Bishop properly related unto it, as such, but an Archbishop, we are worse than Infidels: Truly, I cannot but wonder, whether it doth not sometimes ●nter into these men's thoughts to apprehend now ●…prible they are in their proofs, for the fathering of such an Ecclesiastical distribution of Governors and Government, as undeniably i● qu●d, after the civil divisions and constructions of the times and places, wherein it was introduced, upon th●se holy persons, whose souls never o●ce entered into the secrets thereof. Thus fares it with our Doctor and his Ignatius: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, (it should be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. I shall o●el● crave leave to sa● to him a, Augustulus of Quintilius Varus, upon the loss of the Legions in Germany under his command; Quintui Vare, red ●…gi●res; Domine Doctor, red Ecclesias: Give us the Churches of Christ, such as they were in the days of the Apostles, and down to Ignatius, though before that time (if Hegisippus may be believed) somewhat d●…ure●, and our contest about Church-Officers and Government will be never at an end, than p●●h ●●s you will readily imagine. Give us a Church all whose members are holy, called, sanctified, justified, ●●ving stones Temples for the Holy Ghost, Saints, Believers, united to Christ the 〈◊〉 by the Spirit that is given to them, and dwelleth in them, a Church whose 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that doth nothing by its members ap●…, that appertains to Church ●●de, but when it is gathered 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a Church that being so gathered together in one place 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, acting in Church things, in i●s whole body under the 〈◊〉 and residence of its Officers▪ a Church walking in o●●er, and not as some, who 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (of whom saith Ignatius, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, such as calling the Bishops to the Assemblies, yet do all things without him (the manner of some in our ●ayes) 〈◊〉 supposeth not to ●eep th● Assemblies according to the command of Christ) give us, I ●●y ●uch a Church, and let us come to them when they 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, such as the Churches in the days of Ignatius appear to have been, and are so rendered in the Quotations taken from his Epistles, by the learned Doctor for the confirmation of Episcopacy, and as I said before, the contest of this present digression will quickly draw to an issue. 3. The first thing here assumed, is the evidence of some ill favoured tampering with Ignaetius' Epistles, deduced from the difference between them and Clement' s, in their expression about Church-Order and Officers. But indeed if there were any such thing, I hope it will not be imputed to me, who have been as careful as is possible, to get an emendate copy of these Epistles, and having first contented myself with that, which had past Vedelius' trial at Geneva, which one might hope would burn up all the stubble, which could be gotten in there, toward the founding of Episcopacy, I have since fallen upon Copies much more purified than that, cleansed from almost all the dross. every passage, which this Prefacer hath thought fit to accuse or dislike in them: And seeing he now professeth against the total re●ecting of them, and gives them many good words in testimony of a sweet and gracious spirit breathing in them, if he shall now be pleased to direct me to any way of procuring a yet more emendate Edition, & such as may perfectly accord his language with all others of his time, or not long before him, particularly with Clemens, I shall acknowledge it a great obligation, and a discovery worth his undertaking. But as far as my eyes yet serve me, there is little hope of this, and therefore as it is, I must be content to think, as the evidences before me exact from me, that though Clemens saith truly, that the Apostles at their first preaching placed no more but a Bishop and Deacon in each City, yet before Ignatius' time, there was a middle order constituted in the Churches of Asia, and that also by the appointment of the Apostles, and that this is a very fair account of all the difference of their language and expression about Church Order and Officers. 4. In the next place he hath very ingenuously discovered, upon what account it is, that he hath bestowed so many of his good words at last upon Ignatius, because, forsooth, he hath no need for the defence of his Hypothesis totally to reject them, and because there are expressions in all, or most of them, that will abundantly manifest, that he who was their Author, never dreamt of any such fabric of Church-order as in after ages was insensibly received. But 1. I think not this the right way of judging men's works, whether they be theirs or no (the due motive of receiving or rejecting any ancient writing) by comparing them with our own Hypotheses, and observing which way our necessities oblige us. This we were wont to call 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, serving and requiring all others to serve and minister to the wants of our Hypothesis. 5. Secondly: If it should really appear, what is here pretended, that there should be expressions in these Epistles which would abundantly manifest that their Author never dreamt of our modern Hierarchy, how easy would it be for one that would transcribe copies from our Prefacer, to reply, that such and such places were interpolated and inserted by some later hand, who meant unkindly to Episcopacy, and then what security could be found to ascertain those passages to be genuine, which would not as reasonably serve our turn, to retain those which we think define for Episcopacy. 6. Thirdly: Whereas he adds, that the fabric we plead for, being not yet dreamt of in Ignatius ' s days, was in after ages insensibly received, why may not that also minister to us an excuse, in case we should not have been able to answer one of his former questions, to set down distinctly at what time Presbyters (the second or middle order) came first into the Church, it being as easy to imagine, and as credible to be affirmed, that after the Clement's one, before the writing of Ignatius' many Epistles, this order was brought in, but so as to us at this distance of so many Centuries, it is not now senible or discernible. 7. All this may again be said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and to show that it is no hard matter to write 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Animadversions on the Author of the Animadversions. At the present I am to take notice what the Prefacer's Hypothesis is, which he hath undertaken to defend, viz. That there never was any Church-Officer instituted in those first times, relating to more Churches in his Office, or to any other Church than a single particular Congregation. The very same indeed that my memory suggests to me out of the Saints Belief, printed twelve or fourteen years since, where instead of that Article of the Apostolic Symbol, the Holy Catholic Church, this very Hypothesis was substituted. But than it must be remembered, that the Dissertations being written in answer to Blondel, were not obliged to be confronted to this Hypothesis, and that though Ignatius should be found to say as little as I, against this, yet he might yield competent testimonies against Blondel for the superiority of Bishops above Presbyters, which was all that I there endeavoured, because all that I was there required to evince from them. 8. But than secondly; Ignatius is not perfectly silent in this matter neither; for as in his Epistle to the Smyrnaeans, beside the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or multitude under a particular Bishop, there is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Catholic Church, which sure is more than a single particular Congregation, so the National Church of Syria under the Metropolis of Antioch, of which Ignatius himself is styled the Bishop and Pastor, is frequently mentioned in those Epistles. In the Epistle to the Ephesians, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, pray for the Church which is in Syria, the Church of that whole Nation put under that one denomination, of which yet certainly there were ●ivers assemblies, and so twice in the Epistle to the Magnesians, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Church in Syria; and in the Epistle to the Philadelphians, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Church of Syria which is at Antioch, joining them all under Antioch, the Metropolitical Church. And let this serve for a taste of Ignatius' judgement of our Prefacer's Hypothesis. 9 What again here follows of the hyperbolical, and little short of blasphem●●s passages in these Epistles, of their impertinency, of their remoteness from the way and manner of expression in the Divine Writings, and those which followed after, I have formerly wearied myself, and the Reader with the account of them severally, and, I think, given him reason to believe with me, that they needed not here again have been heaped up so soon by way of repetition. 10. The next larger portion of this Section endeavours to show what prejudice, or the fullness of a man's own apprehension, is able to do in the reading and citing Testimonies out of Authors, and this is by me so fully granted, and in part experimented in this Prefacer, particularly, in his fetching the power of the people in Ecclesiastical affairs, from Clement's bidding the generous person (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) to sacrifice his own prosperity and possessions to the peace of the People, as when a King ventures his life, or Moses saith, Blot me out of thy book, in order to the same end, that truly I needed not the instance of the Papist fetching his doctrine of Transubstantiation out of the Ancients to convince me of it. As it is, I have no exceptions to his evidence, nor to the conclusion inferred by it, in general, of men full of their own apprehensions. Only I crave leave to interpose, before it be thought applicable to me: For unless he can prove that Ignatius' plain mentions (so oft repeated, that it is become a charge of impertinence against him) of the three Orders in the Church, Bishops, Priests, and Deacons, are as little able to infer (what I alone undertook to deduce from them) that there were more than two Orders in the Church in Ignatius' time (and so before Blondel's aera of 140. years) as the testimonies from whence the Papists conclude their Transubstantiation, and their whole fardel of the Mass are unable to infer their desired conclusion, I shall sit down in peace, wholly unconcerned in that large instance, and the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of it, or application, to the men of these latter days in the matter of Episcopacy. 11. Only let me assure him that these later days afford some men, which have searched Antiquity to instruct them in the truth, taking the pains of that travail on purpose for that one end, and after the Scripture, have expected to fetch truth from that search, rather than any other; and have therefore begun their study of Divinity in that order, and counted the ordinary course of setting out from the modern systemes to be very preposterous, and if the Prefacer's own conscience should chance to tell him that he hath not exactly observed this method, that he hath first espoused opinion and frames of Government, and then searched Antiquity to establish them, or if it should not, yet because it is as credible, and easily suggested of him, as by him of others, and others consciences may and do excuse them as perfectly, as his can be pretended to excuse him, I hope this will be a competent reply to that part of this Section also. 12. For as to that which follows in the pursuit hereof, of the Parish Churches in Ignatius' days, of the Chorepiscopus, etc. of the Diocesan's subjection to the metropolitans, etc. from whence his necessary wonder ariseth, whether it doth not enter into our hearts, how contemptible we are in our proofs, etc. It may suffice to say, that the Prefacer hath sure forgotten himself, when he desired to persuade others, that all these are the conclusions which I have made (or any other Prelatist) out of Ignatius' Epistles: Certainly the asserting of the three orders, all of them as Apostolical, is the one thing which we need deduce from thence, and if that be granted us from that authority, there is an end of the Prelatist's contention with Blondel. 13. As for that of Parish Churches, sure I have as yet concluded nothing from Ignatius concerning that subject, nor ever expressed myself to think him worse than an Insidel, that discerned them not in these Epistles. The first time I ever spoke of them was very lately in answer to the London Ministers, which the Prefacer, having not yet seen, may turn to it, cap. 1. sect. 19 And I shall now only add in relation to Ignatius, that the form of Government there described being this, one Bishop with his Presbytery, i. e. College of Presbyters under him, and one, or more Deacons of a third rank, ruling, and administering in their several places and o●… the affairs of any one particular Church, be it Trallis, Magn●sia, or the like (together with the whole Territory belonging to that Church of such a Cit●; or if it be a M●…polis, the 〈◊〉 adjoining) all this may very well be done, and very easily imagined without any exact distribution into several congregations, such as we now call Parishes, as long as the Orders of the Bishops, without whom, saith he, nothing was to be done, were by all inferiors regularly observed And if, as occasion seemed to require, or expedience advise, the Bishop (either then or afterwards) made more punctual distributions of the believers committed to his charge, and so appointing several assemblies in the same City, and in each village one, placed also a Presbyter in every such assembly, this I hope, will not be styled any working of the mystery of iniquity (which I see by and by mentioned) but a regular acting of the Bishop according to that power, which from the Apostles every such singularly instituted Governor was entrusted with in every Church. 14. Next for the Chorepiscopi, it is known how little I am concerned to justify the deducing them from these Epistles. I profess to believe there is not a word said of them there, nay when Blondel was willing to deduce them from Clement's phrase, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and out of him the London-Ministers, I have * Diss 3 cap. 8. Sect. 17. etc. V●●d. Lond. Minist cap. 3. Sect. 1. n. 16. refuted their deduction, and showed that they came not into the Church so early, And so for that also he might have omitted his wonderment now, as reasonably, as I was but lately rebuked for it. 15. As for that of Metropolitan Churches or Bishops, I do not again remember that Ignatius first gave me the model for that frame; Certainly I have produced other, I hope, competent evidences to conclude whatsoever I affirm of it, and if some not obscure intimations out of Ignatius were observed to be given that way, as when in the Epistle to the Romans he calls himself 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Bishop of Syria, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Pastor of the Church in Syria, being at that time the known Bishop of Antioch, one single City; but that the Metropolis of Syria, to which I may add, that in the Epistle to Polycarpe, speaking of his successor, he doth it in the like style, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, he that should be thought worthy of the dignity of going into Syria, yet have not I 〈◊〉 those Dissertations laid the weight on them, (much less counted them worse than infidels, that are not convinced by them) though if I had, that would not have rendered my proofs so admirably contemptible, as 'tis pretended. 16. Lastly, for the whole frame of Ecclesiastic Government, being, in his phrase, la●quied after the civil divisions,] as I no where Father it on, or deduce it from Ignatius, whom now we have to deal with, so if instead of his darker phrase of contempt, the matter be set down in more significative intelligible words, v●z. That the Apostles in each Nation, where they came to plant the Faith, thought not fit to innovate (unnecessarily) in this matter of distributions already made, whether in Judaea or the Gentile regions, but planting a Church in a chief City, and extending the Faith to the Region about it, and to other adjacent inferior Cities, annexed the Regional-Church to the City-Church, and preserved the subordination of inferior Citie-Churches to the chief Citie-Church, i. e. to the Metropolis, and this constantly when there was no considerable reason to advise any change, if, I say, the matter be thus intelligibly, and without the help of odious expressions, represented, I know not what appearance of exception can lie against it: But of this also I have formerly and * Vindic. to ●●nd Minist. cap. 1. sect. 1●. elsewhere spoken sufficiently, and here is nothing, I am sure, suggested, to which any farther reply can be accommedated. And therefore as yet I need add no more of it. 17. So that what follows of the red Legiones, and red Ecclesias, requiring me to restore the Churches of Christ, as they were in the Apostles days, etc. was sure very unnecessary. I have in no kind robbed him of the Churches, which before my tampering with Ignatius he had found, and made himself owner of there: If Quintilius Varus had been as guil●l●ss of the l●sse of the Legions in Germany, as I have been of purloining the frame of Independent Congregations out of these Epistles, I believe Augustus would not have inflicted any severe fine upon him for that misadventure I can truly assure him, that if I had found any M●d●l form according to his hypothesis in those Epistles, when I read them, as diligently as I could, to discern what the Government was in his time, I might, and should have answered Blondel another way than I did, and replied first to his Preface, which is much of it written with some asperity against the Independents, and had that more compendious way of not being concerned in the whole subsequent Apology, which is designed against Episcopacy: And I shall not lie, if I now tell him that I have since my writing the last period, once more read over all the seven Epistles, as they are in Vossius' Edition, on purpose to observe whether there were any one word, formerly unobserved by me, which might in the least favour his hypothesis, and I shall speak my sense uprightly, that I might as successfully have sought it in the first Chapter either of Genesis, or St. Mathew's Gospel, whether the former interpolated copies, or supposititious Epistles may afford him any aid, he will pardon me, I hope, that I have not had the curiosity or leisure to examine. 18. This being thus true, it was but necessary for him to remember out of Hegesippus, that the Churches before Ignatius' time were deflowered: That place of Hegesippus to which he refers, is sure the same which he had set down in the entrance on the view of Antiquity, and which I took a view of cap. 1. Sect. 1. and showed how unjust his collection was from thence, as it was by him applied to the Ancient writings: And I have now the like reason to complain again, that what Hegesippus faith of those vile haeretical Apostates, the Gnostics, that they opposed their false Doctrine, and preached it up against the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, preaching of the truth, should by him be applied to the prejudice of the true Church, which carefully opposed all their insinuations, or to these Epistles of Ignatius, which were purposely written, almost every one of them, to keep that poison out of the Churches. It is most certain, that the first method of these deceivers, was by despising and speaking eviil of the Governors of the Church to insinuate their poison into the brethren's minds, and so that they were the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the secret biters first, and then afterward the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the raving dogs, as he calls them, which slew in the face of the Government, but the Church held out constantly against their clancular, and open assaults, and they never were able in the least to deflower it, the heretics doctrines, and their practices are continually branded by the Writings of those times, and there is not the least appearance of their leaven, but all the direct contrary in any Epistle of Ignatius, or other writings of those times. 19 It is time that I now come to the interpretation of his red Ecclesias, the particulars of his demand, concerning the Churches, which he hath found in Ignatius, and I am accused for robbing him of. And though I have already said enough of this in the gross, yet I shall spare no pains to give punctual answer to every branch of it. 20. And 1, saith he, Give us a Church, all whose members are holy, called, sanctified, justified, living stones, Temples for the Holy Ghost, Saints, Believers, united to Christ the head by the Spirit that is given to them, and dwelleth in them. To this I answer very briefly, that in all Ignatius' Epistles, there is no title so much as of intimation that any Church, to which he wrote, or which was under his Government, or which he had any occasion to speak of, was thus qualified, particularly all whose members were holy or sanctified. Secondly: I am not sure that if that were the Ignatian model of a Church, this Prefacer would be able to parallel it in any congregation, which these last, not best da●es, have brought out among us. Thirdly: That this might as well be done, and as probably hoped under a subordination of Officers and Governors, such as we Prelatists pretend to, as in any equal number of men, by whatsoever other form compacted or knit together. This may suffice without farther insisting, till some reason be urged to the contrary against any of these three affirmations. 21. Secondly: He demands a Church whose 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or multitude is where the Bishop appears. This character of a Church, or rather exhortation how it ought to be, is indeed set down by * Voss Edit. p. 6. Ignatius in his Epistle to the Church of Smyrna, where in pursuit of the advice, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Let all men follow the Bishop, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Let no man do aught of the things that belong to the Church without the Bishop, and that Eucharist was to be accounted 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, firm, or valid, which was done by the Bishop, or by some commissionated by him, he then a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Where the Bishop appeareth, there let the multitude be, as where Christ Jesus is, there is the Catholic Church, making in the latter part that difference between the Orthodox, and haeretical Apostate Gnostics, that the former acknowledged and adhered to him, and the later denied him, and proportionably in the former, making the same difference betwixt the Eucharist duly, and unduly administered; that where it-was duly, there the people received it in communion with their Bishop, either of him, or of some body commissionated by him; which as it is competently distant from their model, where neither Bishop, nor any from him commissionated is received, so I am sure it is far enough from any contrariety to the Prelatists, or favour to the Prefacers' pretensions. What particle of it it is, which to his fancy looks so agreeable, I cannot divine, and so have no more to reply to it. 22. Thirdly: He demands a Church that doth nothing by its members apart, but when it is gathered 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. This, I presume belongs to a place in the Epistle to the Magnesians, which we shall meet again in his last demand, and there consider it more fully. At the present, let it suffice, that it is no more than this, that no man was to do any thing on his own head, or without the Bishop and Presbyters, but when they met together they should join in one prayer, etc. And this sure may be granted without any damage to the Prelatist, who desires as much as any, that public Assemblies be frequented, which is the meaning of being gathered 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and that no inferior member of the Church do aught 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that belongs to the Church, without the Bishop. But if the meaning of the demand be▪ either that the Bishop with his Presbyters, who are indeed members of the Church, shall do nothing without the concurrent consent of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or people, which was the thing he contended for out of Clemens, this I am able to assume, will never be inferred from that place, or out of these Epistles, and for any other inference he will draw from hence, in order to the no other Church, but a single particular Congregation, which we find in his hypothesis, this I shall speak to in answer to his last demand, where he recurres to this place again. 23. Fourthly he demands a Church that being so gathered together in one place doth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, acting in Church things in its whole body, under the rule & presidence of its officers.] Here if [acting in its whole body] denote any power again of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or whole body of the people, or any more than their regular obedience to the lawful commands of the Bishop over them, I shall be able to demonstrate that the words of Ignatius sound nothing toward it. They are in the Epistle to the * Voss. Edit. pag. 33. Magnesians, and are a plain exhortation to unity and concord, and that to be evidenced in their actions, and the rule of that obedience to their Bishop, presiding, saith he, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in the place of God, as the Presbyters in the place of the College of Apostles, and the Deacons entrusted with the Ministry of Jesus Christ, from whence he concludes with the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 paying reverence to one another, i. e. (according to the meaning of that phrase in S. Peter, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 1 Pet. 5. 5.) to the Bishop, etc. their superiors, and, besides mutual love, and care of avoiding divisions, to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. being united to the Bishop, and th●se that are set over them, for a pattern and doctrine of incorruption or Orthodox Religion, in opposition to the infections and corruptions of the Gnostick Heresies. And then what analogy bears this with the hypothesis of the Prefacer, what unkind aspect hath it on the Prelatist's pretensions? 24. Fifthly, he demands a Church walking in order, and not as some, who, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which he renders, such as calling the Bishop to the Assemblies, yet do all things without him— Here it was a little news to me to see a piece of Greek Englished (This being, I think, the first time that the Prefacer hath done so, I shall not attempt to guess at the reason of it) But indeed it was much more so, to find [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] rendered [calling the Bishop to the Assemblies] Doth he mean that the people had the ●ower of calling Assemblies, or calling the Bishop to them? I shall not again detain the Reader with my conjectures of his sense, This I am sure of, 1. that there is no mention of Assemblies, but that those words, [to the Assemblies] are perfectly interpolated by the Prefacer: 2. that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] is no more than they call him Bishop, allow him the name or title, but, as he adds, do all without him, subject not their actions to his directions or command (as in the words immediately precedent, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, being only called Christians, and being truly such, are set as extremely contrary, or as in the same * V●ss. Edit. pag. 36. Ep. ad Magnes: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, calling Jesus Christ is opposed to true Christ●●ity, and sure doth not signify calling Jesus Christ to their assemblies) and then of them that do thus, Ignatius may be allowed to add, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that they d●e not assemble validity according to the command (all actionr of such, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, having no kind of validity in them) and by so adding he passes no sentence upon the Prelatist, unless he be only nominally such, plead for Bishops and disobey them. 25. Lastly, saith he, give us such a Church, and let us c●me to them when they are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, (i. e. all in the same place assembled together in prayer) such as ●he Churches in the days of Ignatius appear to have been, and are so rendered in the quotations taken from his Epistles by the Doctor for the confirmation of Episcopacy.] To this I answer, 1. that if the Church he would have, be set down by me as he desires, in the quotations from Ignatius, than I needed not have been called to for the giving him his Churches back again, I had, it seems, either never detained them, or else rendered them already. Secondly, for this last passage, the most that I have quoted toward it, is from the Epistle to the Magnesians, And the whole passage lies thus, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Be ye united to the Bishop— and straight, Pag. 33. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. As the Lord therefore being in union with, did nothing without his Father, neither by himself, nor by his Apostles, so neither do ye any thing without the Bishop and his Presbyters, nor attempt to account any thing reasonable, which appears so to you privately, but in the same place let there be one prayer, one supplication, one mind, one hope, in love, and joy unblameable. 26. This whole plaee, I did not conceive what it imported, save only perfect agreement and submission to the judgement of their superiors, in opposition to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, those that entertained private doctrines, which were not left in the Church by the Apostles, together with all mutual unity, charity, conjunction in prayer of all sorts, for supply of wants, pardon of sins, in the same h●pe and joy— But I now suppose that the thing here designed to be inferred from this in the close (as from the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 toward the beginning) of his demands, is the establishment of his grand hypothesis forementioned, the n●…institution of any Church Officer whatever, relating to more Churches in his Office, or any other Church than a single particular congregation. And this, it seems, he was so willing to have competently testified here, that one and the same testimony, a little disguised, is 〈◊〉 to appear twice to the same purpose, and so becomes a double witness (a military trick, which officers sometimes use, when their companies are not fu●…, to muster the same soldier twice under several names) And so we see that which truly I have attended for all this while (and could not really think it designed by him, till this repetition of the testimony shewed me, that special weight was laid on it.) that this one place of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is again inserted to help the inference) must conclude the ●…institution of any Church Officer relating to any but a single particular congregation. The reasonableness of which will be judged by any man, if he shall but put the premises and conclusion together thus; It was Ignatius' command to the Mag●●si●ns, that no man must do any thing ●n his own head without the Bishop and Presbyters, but when they assemble together, they must have one prayer, one supplication (adding, one mind, one hope in charity, in joy unblameable) therefore in Ignatius' time there was no other Officer instituted in the Church, which related to more Churches in his office, or to any other Church than a single particular congregation. 27. If this be the manner of concluding Church-models from ancient Writers, I shall not wonder that the Pr●latists ways of inference have been disliked, for I acknowledge they bear no proportion with this. For certainly 1. if he had spoken of some single congregation, which constantly met in the same place, within the same walls, and bid them when they thus met, they should have one prayer, one supplication, as one mind, one hope, this would only conclude that there were such particular congregations, and so we know among us every Parish Church is, where none but the public Liturgy is used; but this would no way conclude, as the hypothesis doth, that there is no other but such. A particular affirmative hath no power of excluding all but its self. Ignatius' speaking of a single house, cannot conclude it his opinion, that there is no Town, no City, no Province, no World made up of all these, nor consequently that he which is Ruler of that house, may not also be placed in office in the City, in the Nation, etc. 28. But than secondly; 'tis manifest that in this place, where he talks of [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] he talks also of the Bishop and Presbyters, and the Prefacer hath not yet told me, that his particular congregation will bear all those, a Bishop and Deacon, or Deacons, he said he could allow, but then that Bishop was to be but a Presbyter, whatsoever he was called: And therefore I may suppose that a Bishop and Presbyters in Ignatius' sense, such as he makes two orders, superior to Deacons, and all three in that Church of the Magnesians, to which he speaks, will not be born by his particular Congregation, and therefore even that, which Ignatius here speaks of, was not such. 29. Thirdly: They that live under a Bishop and Presbyters, and do every one of them, somewhere or other, assemble with other Christians in some one place (as whosoever assemble in any place, must assemble in one) may yet all of them make up above one single congregation, the several Christians of the City of Oxford, may live obediently under the Bishop of Oxford, and vuder the Presbyters of that City, and every one assemble 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, partake constantly of the Church-meetings, some at St. Peter's, others at Allhallows, and every one at some or other, and yet all those make up many particular Congregations, and the Bishop govern them all, and so relate in his office to them all, and by the several Presbyters, ordained and instituted to the several charges, administer and order all. 30. Nay fourthly: the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉— might fitly be rendered no more but unanimous ●rayer, all one with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, continue in concord, and in prayer one with another in the Epistle to the Trallians, and that may equally be done, whether they meet all in one, or in many places. And so still he hath not gained so much as his particular affirmative from hence, that the [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] here spoken of by Ignatius, referred to a single congregation, which yet if it did, were far enough from concluding the [none but such.] 31. Lastly, It is farther evident from Ignatius, 1. that there is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Catholic Church. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Church in Syria, joined under himself as their one Pastor, i. e. a National Church; and thirdly, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Church of Syria at Antioch, a Metropolitical Church, and so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Church which presided in the place of the Region, or Province of the Romans, a Metropolitical and Provincial Church again: And fourthly, in every Epistle, a Church under a Bishop, Presbyters, and Deacons, which the world hath hitherto called a Diocesan Church, consisting of many single congregations. 32. It is not easy to reckon up all the inconsequences of this inference, whereby the Prefacers' hypothesis is concluded from this Testimony of Ignatius These may at the present suffice, till farther discovery be made by him, what medium will be chosen to draw this conclusion out of these premises, which seem not at all inclined to it. And so though we are not come much nearer to a conclusion of this controversy, there is yet no season of adding more to the debating of it, and therefore so much for this Section also. Sect. 2. The mystery of iniquity. Clement's argument for the allaying the sedition. Proofs of the Congregational way invalid. The contrary more than intimated by Ignatius. The Ecclesiastic distributions contempered by the Apostles to the Civil. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Ignatius. Num. 1. THat which next follows, is the telling us three things that he will not insist on, and only one fourth that he will, and methinks that should not detain us long. He thus begins. 2. Being unwilling to go too far ou● of my way, I sh●ll no● 1. Consider the severals instanced in, f●r the proof of Episcopacy by the Doctor, seeing inde●i●bl● the interpretation must follow, and be proportioned by the general issue or that state of the Church, in the da●es wherein those Epistles we●e w●…, or are pretended so to be, if that appear to be such as I have mentioned, I presume th● Doctor himself will confess, tha● his witnesses 〈◊〉 wor● to his business, for who●e confirmation he doth produce them Nor 2. Shall I insist upon the degeneration of the institutions and appointments of Jesus Christ, concerning Church-Administrations in the mannagement of the succeeding Churches, as principled, and ●pir●ted by the operative and efficacy us mystery of iniquity, occasion'● and advantaged by the accommodation of Ecclesiastical affairs to the civil ●ist●ibu●ions, and alo●ments of the political state of things in those days; nor 3. Insist much farther on the exceeding dissimilitude and inconformity that is between the expressions concerning Church Officers, and 〈…〉 these Epistles (whence ever they come) and those in the writings of unquestionable credit, immediately before, and after them, as also the u●ter silence of the Scripture in those things, wherewith they so abound. The Epistle of Clemens, of which mention was made before, was wri●ten for the composing and quieting of a division and distemper that was fallen out in the Church of Cor●n●h. Of the cause of that dissension that then miserably rend that congregation, he informs us in that complaint, that some (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) were wrongfully cast from the Ministry by the multitude, and he tells you, that these were good honest men, and faithful in the discharge of their du●y; for saith he 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, though they were unblameable both in their conversation and Ministry, yet they removed them from their office: To reprove this evil, to convince them of the sinfulness of it, to reduce them to 〈◊〉 right understanding of their duty, and order, wal●…ing in the fellowship of the Gospel, what course doth he proceed in? what arguments doth he use? He min●s them of one God, one Ch●●st, one B●d●, one Faith; tells them that wicked men alone use such ways and practices, bids them read the Epistle of Paul formerly written to them upon ●cc●sion of another division, and to be subject to their own Elders; and all of them leave off contending, quietly doing the things which the people, o● the body of the Church commanded Now had this person w●i●ing on this occasion, using all sorts of arguments, artificial, o● inartificial 〈◊〉 his purpose, been baptised into the opinion and esteem of a single Episcopal superintendent, whose exultation seems to be the design of much which is said in the Epistles of Ignatius, in the sense wherein his words are usually taken, would yet never once so much as bid them be subject to the Bishop, that resemblance o● God the Father supplying the place of christ, nor o●… them h●w●…er●ib●e a thing it was to disobey him, nor pawed his soul ●or theirs, that should submit to him, that all th●● obeyed him w●r safe, all that disobeyed him were rebellious, cu●sed, and separated ●…m G●d. What Apology 〈◊〉 be made for the weakness and ignorance of that Holy M●…yr, if we sh●ll suppos● him to have had apprehensions like those in there Epistles of ●h●● sacred order, for omitting those all-conq●e●ing ●e●sons, which they would have supplied him withal, to his purpose in han●, and p●●ching on arguments every w●y less useful and cogent. But I say I shall not insist on any such things as these, but onel● 4. I say there is not in any of the Doctor's Ex e●p●a from those Epistles, not in any passage in 〈◊〉, any mention, or the least intimation of any Church whereunto a●y Bishop was related, but such an one, as whose members met altogether in one place, and with th●i● Bishop disposed and ordered the 〈◊〉 of the Church. Such was that whereunto the h●l● Martyr was rela●ed; such were those neighbouring Churches that sent Bishops and E●…s to that Church: And when the Doctor proves the contrary, ●rit m●h●…magn●● Apollo: From the Churches and their stat● and constitution, is the state and condition of their Officers, and their ●●lation to them ●…en Let that be manifested to be such from the appointment of Jesus Christ to his Apostles, or de facto in th● d●yes ●f Ignatius, o●… be●ore the contemperation o● Ecclesiastical ●ff●i●es occasionally, or by ch●…ce, to the civil constitution of Cities ●nd Provinces in these days, as woul●, 〈◊〉 possibly c●uld bear a 〈…〉 Diocesan, Metropolitical Hierarchic, and this controversy will be at an end: When this is by any attempted to be demonstrated▪ I desire i● may not be wi●h suc●●●ntences as that u●ged by our Doctor from Epist. ad Ephes. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. The expression in it concerning Christ being unsound, unscriptural, concerning Bishops, unintelligible, or ridiculous. 3. How unwilling the writer of this Preface (therein to show the judgement of Antiquity concerning Perseverance) hath been to go out of that his way, the large Animadversions, which he hath afforded Episcopacy, Ignatius, and me, will sufficiently demonstrate: As it is, the sooner he shall now return to his road again, the more tolerably easy it will be for the Reader, and me, and therefore I shall endeavour to make as much haste as he, and neither take any notice of what hath been said in the Dissertations for proof of Episcopacy, but yield, that if it appear, that there were none but particular Independent Congregations in Ignatius' time, I have then produced no testimony from him by which the Prefacer may be concluded, though as far as concerns Blondel, who went upon distant hypotheses, all that I said may have been in full force against them. 4. His second consideration concerning the degenerating of Christ's institutions concerning Church Administrations in the management of succeeding Churches, and the principle of that degeneration the working of the mystery of iniquity, and the occasion of that again, the accommodation of Ecclesiastical affairs to the civil distributions (which is in effect that the Apostles erecting Mother-Churches in chief Cities, where they first preached, as at Jerusalem to all Judaea, Antioch to all Syria, etc. was a special occasion of, and advantage to the working of the mystery of iniquity) is that which in the several degrees of it might yield large discourse, the mystery of iniquity, in St. Paul, being remote enough from this; and distributions of Churches, such as were most commodious, far enough from having either iniquity or mystery in them. But I shall readily transcribe his pattern, & as he hath not, neither shall I infist on it. 5. The third, on which he will not insist much farther, was competently insisted on before, in comparing Clement's two orders in the Church (and the like in St. Paul) with Ignatius' three. But the design of returning to it again, was to offer one argument more, which had not formerly been made use of, and I must not let that fall to the ground: It is this, that if the Bishop had been in that esteem in Clement' s time, in which these Epistles set him out, as the resemblance of God the Father, he would certainly have bid them be subject to him, and used that as an argument to compose the sedition, of which he wrote unto them. 6. But 1. it is certain that negative arguments prove nothing, there might be Bishops in Clement's days, and the power due to them as great, as that which would entitle them to the image of God the Father, and yet the sedition being raised against the Bishops themselves, and the question being not concerning the Order, but the Persons, who should be advanced to it, the mention of the dignity of the Order, or of the due subjection to it, might be no proper way of appeasing that sedition, nor, as such, chosen to be made use of by Clement. 7. Secondly: We know that next the obligations to peace, etc. the first and principal argument used by Clemens, was the institution of these their Bishops by the Apostles, and the dignity of that Order being such, that the Apostles foresaw the contentions that would be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for the dignity or name of it, he tells them that the Apostles had made a list of successors in each Church, presuming, and not needing more particularly to tell them, that this was an high aggravation of their crime, in throwing those out, whom God had thus particularly set over them And I know not that Ignatius would or could upon his hypotheses, have argued stronger to his purpose. 8. What the Prefacer adds by way of flourish, I shall not need to attend to: By this brief account 'tis clear, though Clemens mentions but two Orders, and Ignatius three, yet Bishops may have been in equal esteem with both of them. And that is all that I need reply, to that which, he saith, is one of the such things which he will not insist on. 9 The fourth thing, on which he is resolved to insist, and enlarge his digression, is, that which I had thought had been already newly insisted on (and, I hope, compently answer●…d) that in all the Epistles there is no intimation of any Church whereunto any Bishop related, but such an one as whose members met altogether in one, and with their Bishop disposed and ordered the affairs of the Church. And so on to the same purpose, and I shall be Magnus Apollo, if I show him any. 8. Now I am persuaded, 1. that it already appears sufficiently, that the [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] the members of each Church meeting together in prayer, is no proof, that to them bell aged in the least, to dispose and order the affairs of the Church, and yet besides, that nothing hath yet been pretended for it out of Ignatius, unless it be the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, nothing on their own heads, in the same place, which is much remoter from that purpose. 9 Beyond this it hath appeared farther, that the office of all members under the Bishop was by Ignatius' doctrine to obey their superiors, to live under subjection, and that is not to dispose, or order. And the places so long insisted on out of Clemens also, have, I hope, appeared to infer nothing to that purpose. 10. Secondly: 'Tis as certain that I have * See sect. 1. n. 8. & 14. already performed this task laid on me by him, and showed him that Ignatius, as Bishop of Antioch, the Metropolis, is called Bishop and Pastor of the Church of Syria, and some other the like passages, which directly infer what he requires me to infer, and so that I have thus much title to his favour, and should not be put off to a Poetical expression for my reward. 11. As for the condition he interposeth, that I must show this before the contemperation of affairs to the civil constitutions of Cities & Provinces, I confess that to be a rigorous condition, and such as unless I be released from that restraint, I shall be utterly disabled to perform my task: For he cannot but know, that it is my affirmation that, at the first planting of the Churches, the Apostles thus contempered the Ecclesiastic to the Civil distributions of Citie● and Provinces, having no power of making new Cities or Provinces, any more than of constituting new Nations, and yet planting their Churches, and constituting Bishops in ●ities (and thence 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in every City, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in every Church, is all one in the sacrea style) which must necessarily infer that the Ecclesiastical agreed with the civil distributions And truly how the Church was ordered before the Apostles planted it, I have not the curiosity to inquire. 12. A second condition he is also pleased to lay on me by way of farther restraint, to make my obedience yet more difficult. That my proofs must not be such as is that Testimony urged by me from the Epistle to the Ephesians, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.] This passage it seems hath not found favour with him, the first part of it is, saith he, un●ound and unscriptural, the second unintelligible or ridiculous. 13. But I cannot yield to his censure in either part. For the first, Let it but be considered that Christ came to reveal the will of his Father that whatsoever he taught, he taught from his Father, & there can be no unsoundness in the expression, to say, that Christ is the sentence of his Father (any more than that he is the word, or the wisdom of his Father) meaning thereby that what he delivered▪ was his Father's sentence or good pleasure, for so in the title of the Epistle to the Philad: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by Christ's s●…e is explained immediately by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, according to his own will. 14. And for the second, let him but read it as he may find Vossius and the Archbishop of Arm●gh read it, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by the appointment or sentence, or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, own will of Christ, and sure it is very intelligible and far from ridiculous, even no more than this, that the Bishops ordained in all regions by the Apostles, were appointed by, or by appointment of Christ, as the same matter is in the Epistle to the Philadelphians set down in a parallel phrase, where the Bishop, Presbyters and Deacons are said to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, designed by the appointment of Jesus Christ. Or if the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be le●t out, then, reading 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 subscri●tum, as the old Latin Sententia will bear, it is directly all one with the former. Or if in the third place, it be read in the nominative case, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, than the figure is very intelligible, that these Bishops are Christ's ●p●…intment, Christ's sentence, Christ's will, i. e. are appointed or determined or willed by him. And so I hope there is yet nothing so very unintelligible, or at all ridicul●… in Ignatius, or my testimonies from him, that I should need this c●●tion to be interposed against I produce more. CHAP. VII. Of Metropoles and Metropolitans. Sect. 1. Some account of the probations produced for Episcopacy, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. The power of Metropolitans. Their relations to more Churches than one. An enumeration of primates, and Metropolitans. Num. 1. HAving made this solemn promise, that I should be so highly rewarded in case I produced any intimation to prove, that there was any other but single particular Congregations, It was now timely remembered that I had done somewhat like this already, in proving the seven Angels of the seven Churches in the Revelation to be Metropolitans, and to the consideration of that he now next proceeds, and that brings in an examination of what I have said of Metropoles and Metropolitans: And it begins thus, 2. But it may be said, what need we any more writing, what need we any truer proof, or testimony? The learned Doctor in his Dissertations, Dissert. 4. cap. 5. hath abundantly discharged this work, and proved ●he seven Bishops of the seven Churches mentioned, Rev●l. 2. 3. to have been Metropolitans or Arch-Bishops; so that no just cause remains, why we should farther contend. Let then the Reader pardon this my utmost excursion, in this digression, to whose compass I had not the least thoughts of going forth at the entrance thereof, and I shall return thither whence I have turned aside. Dissert. 4. cap. 5. The Doctor tells us, that Septem Ecclesiarum Angeli non ta●tum Episcopi, sed & Metropolitae, i e. Archi-Episcopi statuendi sunt, i. e principelium urbium, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, ad quos provinciae integrae, & in i● multarum inferiorum ●…bium Ecclesiae, earumque Ep●scopi tanquam ad Archi●p●scopum aut Metropolitanum pertinebant. The Doctor in this Chapter commences per saltum, and taking it for granted, that he hath proved Diocesan Bishops sufficiently before, though he hath scarce spoken any one word to that purpose in his whole book (for to prove one superintending in a Church, by the name of a Bishop, others acting in some kind of subordination to him, by the name of Elders, and Presbyters, upon the account of what hath been offered concerning the state of the Churches in those days, will no way reach to the maintenance of this presumption) he sacrifices his pains to the Metropolitical Archi●piscopall dignity, which as we must suppose is so clearly founded in Scripture and Antiquity, that they are as blind as Bars and Moles, who cannot see the ground and foundation of it. But first, be it taken for granted, that the Angels of the seven Churches are taken for the Governors of those Churches, then that each Angel be an Individual Bishop of the Church to which he did belong: 2 be it also granted, that they were Bishops of the most eminent Church or Churches, in that province, or Roman political distribution of those Country's, in the management of the government of them, I say, Bishops of such Churches, not u●bium 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (as the Doctor terms them) what a●…ce is ma●e by all this to the Assertation of a Metropolitical Archiep●…pacy, I cannot as yet ●…is●…v●r. That they were ordinary officers of Christ's institution, rel●…ing in their office and ordinary discharge of it, not one●y to the particular Churches wherein they were placed, but to many Churches also no less committed to their charge, than these wherein they did reside, the Officers, Rulers, Go ●…ors, of which Churches depended on them, not only as to their advice and counsel; but as to their power and jurisdiction▪ holding their place and employment from them, is some part of that, which in this undertaking is incumbent on our Doctor to make good, if he will not be supposed to prevaricate in the cause in hand. 3. Being here called out anew to the maintaining of what I had said in the Dissert: concerning Metropolitical Churches, and Bishops, and having so lately been engaged in the same task by the exceptions of the London-Ministers, and many objections, which here in the process of this discourse are lightly proposed, being by them formerly made, and accordingly answer accommodated to them, and yet farther, the main thing which is here done, being to set down many Latin passages, out of the Dissert: and to deem them confuted by the bare recital of them, upon these grounds I do not foresee that there will be any necessit● of making any large returns to this last, but not concisest part of his digression. What had been returned to the London-Ministers, the Reader will find in that Vindication, Cap. 1. Sect. 16 (of which number, by the fault of the ●…rinter, ●e will meet with two Section) and so on for the three subsequent Sections, and to the Dissertations themselves, and that vi●…ication of them, I shall willingly refer this matter▪ Yet shall I not o●…t to gather up whatsoever I shall here find ●…ggested, which was not there punctually spoken to, and of that nature here are four things in this Paragraph. 4. First that in the 5. Ch. of Diss: 4. I commence per saltum, taking it for granted, that I had proved Diocesan Bishops before, though saith he, I had scarce spoken one word to that purpose in my whole Book. To this I answer, that as in the first Dissertation▪ had answered one sort of objections against Episcopacy, and in the whole second Diss. asserted it out of Ignatius and Saint Hierome himself, so in the third, I had deduced it from Christ and the Apostles, and I suppose laid those grounds, and by all antiquity confirmed, and by answer of Blondel's objections vindicated them, so that they were competently fitted to bear that structure of Episcopacy, which I had laid upon them; and then having in the fourth Diss: added to this the visible practice of this in the hands of single Governors, whether the Apostles in their several 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or their successors the first Bishops, called secundary Apostles, mentioned in the Scripture, and yet more particularly in the Angels of the seven Churches, (which being acknowledged to be the Governors of those Churches, were proved to be single Governors of them, which was the only thing in question betwixt Blondel and me) I had some reason to hope that I might be allowed to have spoken some one word to that purpose in that Book, before I came to prove those Angels to have been Metropolitans, which he knows was not attempted, t●ll all this of Episcopacy had been premised by me. 5. The reason, which he addis in a parenthesis, why he affirms thus expressly, that I had scarce spoken one word to prove a Diocesan Bishop in that Book, is the second thing I am to reply to; For, saith he, to prove one superintending in a Church by the name of Bishop, others acting in some kind of subordination to him under the name of Elders and Presbyters, will no way reach to the maintenance of this presumption. 6. To which I answer, that the question lying, as there it did betwixt Blondel and me, there can be no doubt, but, if I have evinced the power in every Church, to have been in the hands of a single Bishop, and either no college of Presbyters in that Church, or else those Presbyters subordinate to the Bishop (meaning by subordinate, subject to his power and authority over them) I have also evinced the cause against Blondel; And this I may have leave to hope is there done, till the contrary be made appear, and here being no offer of that, but only a mention of the account of what hath been offered by the Prefacer, concerning the state of the Churches in those days, 1. that account hath already been shown to have no force in it, 2. if it had, it belongs not to the controversy, as it lay betwixt me and Blondel, but is as contrary to Blondel● pretensions as to mine, and so still I cannot see how I fell under his Animadversion in this matter, or how I commenced per saltum, in doing what there I did as regularly as I could imagine. 7. The third thing is, that I call the Bishops of the most eminent Churches, urbium 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, whom he will have called Bishops only. But of this there can be no Controversy, the fitness and propriety of words being to be judged from the use of them, and the case being clear, that a Metropolitan, especially a Primate, was called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the ancient Counsels and * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Cod●…. Church-writings, and from them, and not from Scripture, which useth no higher style for them, than of Bishops and Angels, it is, that I borrowed that appellation. 8. The last thing, that I must, if I will not be supposed to prevaricate, make good, is, that the Angels of the Churches related in their office not only to the particular Churches wherein they were placed, but to many Churches also, no less committed to their charge, than these wherein they did reside, and that to power and jurisdiction, etc. 9 That they related to other Churches besides their own, even to all that belonged to their Province, I suppose myself obliged to make good, and the 34. Apostolic Canon is alone able to do it in general, as shall anon appear. Then more particularly, that they had power of ordaining Bishops, and of judging them also, is Saint Chrysostome's affirmation of Titus, whom I suppose to be such a Metropolitan in Crete, That if any were made Bishop 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, without the judgement and liking of the Metropolitan, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, He ought not to be a Bishop, is the sixth Canon of the first Council of Nice; And what is there defined of the Metropolitan's rights, besides that 'tis done by 318. Bishops, the most select of the whole Christian world, and in an age very competent to pass a ●udgement of an Apostolical custom, it is also vouched by them expressly as one of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the ancient immemorial: customs of the Church. And much more to the same purpose is evident by the ancient Canons of the uni●ersall Church, as hath in some measure been set down (and as far as I can be concerned to make good, either against the Presbyterian, or Congregational, or P●pist way) in a tract of Schism, Chap. 3. Sect. 11 etc. 10. To this the story of those first tunes exactly accords, telling us that Irenaeus by being Metropolitan of Lions, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Euseb▪ Eccles. Hist. l. 5. c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, was Bishop (that sure must be interpreted Metropolitan or Primate) of the Diocese sand so Bishops) that pertain to France, and * Ibid, c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. again 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he had the Government of the Brethren▪ i. e. the Christians that belong to France. And this 〈◊〉 the Scholar of Polycarpe, auditor of the Apostles, the●, Demetrius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 undertook the administration of the Dioceses belonging to Alexandria, Ibid, c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. and both these at the same time in Commod●…'s reign. And that whole Chapur in Eusebius is but the enumeration of several such Metropolitans by name, who were all at the same time, of the Church of the Antiochians, S●rap●●n, the eighth from the Apostles, of the Church of Rome, El●…us's successor, Victor; of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or as he phraseth it in the next Chapter, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Theophilus; of the Church in Jerusalem, Nar●●ssas; of the Church of Corinth; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Banchyllus; and of Ephesus, or, as he phraseth it, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Polycrates, 〈◊〉. 〈◊〉. of whom he after saith that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, he was chief as Prime or Ruler of the Bishops of Asia. In the same manner as afterward, Saint Cyprian Bishop of Carthage in the Council of Constantinople in Tru●… styled 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ca●. 2. Archbishop of the Region, or Province of afric, which is, as to the matter of it, owned by himself, Epist. 40. and 45. where he mentions his Province, and the extent of it. Sect. 2. Of Churches in the p●●ral, and a Church in the singular in the Scripture. 〈◊〉. 1. IN pursuit of this matter of metropolitans, he proceeds next to take notice of one observation of mine in these words. 2. To this end he inform●… sect. 2. that in the New Testament there is in s●ndry places mention ma●e of Church 〈…〉 ●umber, a● Gal. 1. 21. 1 Thes. 2. 14. Acts 9 35 Act 〈…〉 Gal. 〈◊〉. Rev. 1. 11. sometimes of Church only 〈…〉, as Acts 8. 1, 15. 4. 22. Acts 1. 〈…〉. Heb. 16. 1. 1 ●or 〈◊〉. 2 ●or. ●1. 1. Thes. 1. 1. Rev. 〈◊〉. 〈◊〉, 8, 1●, 18 Now this is 〈…〉 beholding to the Doctor for i●, no mo●e I supp●● 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ●●und to be to it, when the reason of it shall be a li●…e w●…d ●…ed. The sum is, that the name Church, in the sing●…r 〈…〉, but where i● relates to the single congregation, in, or o●●…e C●●y or Town: Th●● of Churches respecting ●he several Church●… Congregations that were gathered in any Country or Province: Manifest than it is from hence, that there is in the New Testament, no Church of one denomination beyond 〈◊〉 single Congregation: And where there are more, they are always called Churches: How evidently this is destructive to any Dioce●… Metropolitical Officer, who hath no Church left him thereby of Christ's institution to be related to, another opportunity will manifest. 3. Here is but one thing done by the Prefacer, a recital of my observation in the words, just as I set it, that there is in the New Testament mention sometimes of Churches in the plural, sometimes of a Church in the singular. 4. For this observation he saith, he is not beholding to me, and I shall imitate him thus far in replying, that neither is he the first that hath mistaken it, the London Ministers had done before him just what now he thinks fit to do. For having duly recited the observation, when he comes to give the sum of it, that sum is very different from the particulars (just as by the * Pag. 85. London. Ministers it had been before) viz. that my observation is, that the word Church is never used in the singular, but when it relates to a single congregation. 5. Here I must interpose (as to the London-Ministers I did, and to the * Pag. 86, 87, 88 Vindication there I refer the Reader for it, and shall here recite it no farther than only thus) that I only say the word Church was so used in the singular for the Church of one City, meaning still (as I there express, and I always do, when I speak of a Citie-Church) with the territory adjoining, whether again that be a territory of more Cities, when that which is spoken of is a Metropolis, as many of those which I there mention, were, Corinth, Ephesus (& all certainly, except Cenchrea, being near unto, and an Haven-City of Corinth, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, saith Stephanus Byzantinus, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.) or whether the villages adjacent, when it is not a Metropolis. But that the word Church in the singular, is never used but when it thus relates to the single congregation in, or of one City, Metropolis, or not Metropolis, that I never said, nor thought, nor was it useful to me to observe o● suggest any such thing. 6. And so being mistaken in his ground, his inference must also suddenly vanish, which he affirmed to be so manifest, and so likewise all the advantage, which when opportunity should serve, he meant to have made of it. Sect. 3. The meaning of Provinces. Philippi a Metropolis. Dionysius' Epistle to Gortyna. Philip Bishop of all the Churches in Crect. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Num.. 1. FRom the mention of my observation, he goes on to examine the use which I made of it. 2. For the present (saith he) let us see what use our Doctor makes of this observation Sect. 3: says he, Ju●ae●, and the rest of the places where Churches are mentioned, are the names of Provinces, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, quatenuus ●ae 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 contradistinguuntur: But if the Doctor takes these words in an Ecclesiastical sense, he begs that which will upon such unworthy terms never be granted him: If no more be intended but that Jud●●. Gala●●a, and he like names of Coun●…s were Provinces wherein were many Churches; Smyrna. Ephesus, of Towns and Cities wherein there was but owe, w● g●●nt h●m▪ And how much that 〈◊〉 is to his advantage hath been intimated: And this seems to be his 〈◊〉 by his following words, Pro●…rum inquam, in quibus ●…mae civ●tate● singu●… singularum Ecclesiarum sede●, 〈…〉, ●…que Ecclesiae in plurali istius sive istius Provinci●…; well, what then? ●um tamen unaquaeque civitas, cum territori● sibi a ju●ct● (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉!) ab Episcopo suo administrata, singularis Ecclesia dicenda sit: Id●●que quod 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 factum dicitur, Acts 14, 15. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 jubetur, Tit. 1. 5. tha● in every City there was a singular Church in those Provinces, (I speak of those where any number were converted to the Faith) I g●●n●, for the annexed terri●…es le● the Doctor take care: The●● bring one Church at Cor●●h, and another at Cenchrea, So that ev●ry single city had its own single Church with its Bishop in it, as at ●…ppi. The passage mentioned by the Doctor, concerning the Epistle of Dionysius to the Church of Go●●yna in Crete, is very little to his purpose: Neither doth he call Ph●l●p the Bishop of that Church, the Bishop of all the other Churches in Crete, as the Doctor intimates; but the Bishop of them to whom especially and eminently he wrote. 3. It being here, as he saith, uncertain to him, what I mean, when I say Judaea, Syria, and the like are Provinces, as they are contra-distinguished from those which were no more than Dioceses in our modern use of the word, though I thought I had spoken intelligibly enough before, yet I am most ready farther to explain myself, That I mean Province in an Ecclesiastic sense, the several Churches of several Cities (with their territories adjoining to them) altogether making up one Provincial Church, so styled, as meeting occasionally, or at set times at the Metropolis in an Assembly ordinarily called Provincial, in which the Bishop of the Metropolis praesideth, as James at Jerusalem with the Bishops of all Jud●a joining with him, as I conceive the model set down both Acts 15. and Rev. 4. 4. by way of visional representation. 4. These several Churches considered by themselves, are each the Church in, or of such a City, and so each mentioned in the singular number, but being considered all together, though the d●…, wherein they all agree, be in the singular also. Ju●…, Syria, etc. (and accordingly we have in Ignatius the Church of Syria, both Church and Syria in the singular number) which, as comprehensive of all the severals in it, I call a Province (as men have generally done before me) yet the severals so comprehended, are oft mentioned in the plural, the Churches of Judaea, etc. This is the observation, and being, as 〈◊〉 thought, evidenced by the instances there made, I did not think it could want farther proof, or be liable to be censured as that fallacy of begging the question on such terms, as ●…e is pleased to think unworthy. 5. At the present, all that I had there to say in the * Dissertations being only this, the rendering some reason of that differe●… 〈◊〉 Dissert. 〈◊〉. 〈…〉. of style in Scripture, sometimes the Churches in the plur●… sometimes in the singular, and that reason being visible, because Judea had many Churches in it, as many Cities, and C●…rea, etc. was but one Church of one City, and the territory (though perhaps many places of Ecclesiastic assemblies in that ●…uit) this cannot be a begging of more than is made evident. All that I am by him warned t●… take farther care of, is, the territory, (what cause he had to cry 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉! at the mention of it, I shall not inquire) which I shall be mindful to do, when it is in any danger, or need of my care, which as yet it is not, being no way assaulted by him, and therefore ●ere is at present no place of my farther solicitude. 6. What he is pleased to interpose of Philippi, its being a single City with its Bishop in it, he cannot but know, is, as to me, a mere begging of the question, which just then he had accused in me, some pains being taken in that Dissertation, cap. 10. to show that those plural Bishops, were not the Bishops of that one City of Philippi; To which having never offered the least word of answer, the contrary should not thus have been taken for granted by him. 7. One thing he adds in the close, which was a little unexpected, that the passage, concerning the Epistle of Dionysi●s to the Church at Gortyna in Crete, is very little to my purpose, and that neither doth he call the Bishop of that Church, the Bishop of all the other Churches in Cr●…. What truth there is in this suggestion will soon be d●…d. 8. And first, these are the words o● that E●…, o● the 〈…〉 of it, in E●… l. 4. c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Di●…us Bishop of Corinth, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (this he should not have rendered, to the Church of Gortyna, but) to the Church adjacent or lying about Gorty●●, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, together with the rest of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (the word common to Dioceses and Provinces) in Crete. The controversy, I perceive, here, is not concerning 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, what that signifi●● (but the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the rest, how far that extends, whether to all, or to some to whom he especially and eminently wrote) and so I shall not need insist on it, else it were easy to show, that signifying originally, adjacence of habitation, it belongs indifferently, whether to a greater or less circuit, a Parish (which word comes from thence) or adjacence of houses; a Diocese, or adjacence of Parishes to a City; a Province, or adjacence of Cities (with their territories) to a Metropolis or chief City. And which of these it signifies at any time, the Context must define. 9 So the Church 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, must here be the whole Province, relating to Go●tyna the Metropolis of ●rete, and then the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, can be no other but the rest of the (Provinces if there were more than one, or else the) Dioceses (as we now style them) which were in r●te▪ And then certainly the adding of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the rest, to the mention of that which Gortyna was the Metropolis, must conclude him to comprehend all the other, beside that, which were in Crete, and Philip, which is there said to be Bishop 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of them, in the plural, not only 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of that about Gortyna, must needs be concluded Bishop of them all, which he could not be any other way, then as he was Bishop of the Metropolis, to which those other related. And then what could be more to my purpose than this, I confess I know not. Against this there is no word of reason offered, only 'tis said that it is not to my purpose— and so I have nothing to which I can make reply in this matter. Sect. 4. The Original of Metropolitical Churches. Accommodation of the Ecclesiastic to the Civil distributions. The Bishop of Rome's greatness. Num. 1. THe next thing he is pleased to examine, he calls (I shall not debate how fitly) my application of the forementioned observation, and from thence he expects some great advantage. 2. Sect. 4. saith he, Application is made of the forementioned observation: Sect. 2. and the Interpretation given of it, Sect. 3. in these words, His sic positis, illud statim seq●●tur ut (in Imperii cognition) in provinci● qual b●●, cum plure, Urbes ●int, una tamen primaria & principalis c●nsenda ●rat, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ideo dicta, cui itidem inferiores reliquae civitates subjiciebantur, ●t ●●vitat bus regiones, sic & inter Ecclesias, & Cathedras Episcopales unam semper primariam & Metropoliticam fuisse. In this Section the Doctor hath most ingenuously and truly given us the ●ise and occasion of his Diocesan and Metropolitical Praelates, from the aims of men, to accommodate Ecclesiastical or Church-affaires, to the state and condition of the civil government, and distributions of Provinces, Metropolitan Cities, and chief Towns within the several dependencies (the neighbouring villages being cast in as things of no great esteem, to the lot of the next considerable Town and seat of Judicature) did the Hierarchy, which he so sedulously contendeth for, arise; what advantage were afforded to the work, by the paucity of believers in the Villages and less Towns (from which at length the whole body of Heathenish Idolaters were denominated Pagans) the first planting of Churches in the greater Cities, the eminence of the Officers of the first Churches in those Cities, the weakness of many rural Bishops, the multiplying and growing in numbers and persons, of gifts, abilities, and considerable fortunes and employments in this world, in the Metropolitan Cities, with their fame thereby, the tradition of the abode of some one or other of the Apostles in such Cities and Churches, with the eminent Accommodation at the administration of civil Jurisdiction and other affairs, which appeared in that subordination and dependency, whereunto the Provinces, chief Cities, and territories in the Roman Empire were cast, with which opportunities Satan got by these means, to introduce their ways, state, pomp, words, phrases, terms of honour of the world into the Churches; insensibly getting ground upon them, and prevailing to their declension from the naked simplicity and purity wherein they were first planted, some other occasion may give advantage for us to manifest; for the present it may suffice that it is granted, that the Magnific Hierarchy of the Church arose from the accommodation of its state and condition of the Roman Empire and Provinces. And this in the instances of alter●ages that might be produced, will easily be made yet farther evident; in those shameful, or indeed rather shameless cont●…s, which fell out among the Bishops of the third Centu●ie, and downward, about precedency, titles of Honour, ex●●nt of Jurisdiction, Ecclesiastical subjection to, or exemption from one another, the considerableness of their Cities in the civil state of the Roman Empire where they did reside, was still the m●st prevalent and cogent argument in their brawls: the most notable brush, that in all Antiquity we find given to the great Leviathan of Rome, who sported himself in those gatherings together of the waters of people, and multitudes, and Nations, and Tongues, or the general Counsels (as they are called) was from an a gument taken from theseat of the Empire, being ●ixt at Con●lantinople, making it become new Rome, so that the Bishop of the Church there, was to enjoy equal privilege with him, whose lot was ●allen in the old imperial City. 3. The brief sum of what he there quotes in Latin, is this, that as in the civil account, the chief City where there are many in a Province, is the Metropolis, to which the inferior Cities are subjected (and relate to it, as the adjacent region to the City) so the chief Church in a Province was by the Apostles designed (which I hope is far enough from Satan's introducing it) to be a Metropolitical Church, on which the inferior Churches and their Bishops depended, and observed concord and unity with it. This the Prefacer looks on, as a special discovery, and having threatened what some other occasion may give advantage to manifest, he is not pleased to make any the least objection against it at this time, or to endeavour to prove that it was not thus, but is very well satisfied that it is granted, that the Magnific (as he will style it) Hierarchy of the Church arose from this accommodation of the Ecclesiastic to the civil forms of distributions. 4. This indeed, as far as concerns every national Church, which by this means is best disposed for order and unity within itself, is by me willingly and profestly granted, and if the reasonableness, that it should do so, do not competently vindicate it, yet supposing (as the discourse there doth) that the Apostles themselves did generally so design it in every region, I hope there will lie no charge against it; And if farther than so, the observing of it proved useful, as he saith it did, to the reducing the Bishop of Rome to some moderate terms, equalling another Bishop to him, when the Empire was removed to another seat, I know not still, why this should be such a disobligation to the Prefacer, who will hardly be able to give any more moderate or less Popish account of the immense greatness which that Bishop by prescription of some number of years did challenge, than this of the Imperial seat having been fixed at Rome, and these privileges accrueing to him by that means, & not by any investiture from Christ, by succession to Saint Peter, as they plead, nor by appointment of the Apostles in their first plantations, which now we speak of. 5. I have elsewhere spoken on this subject in the tract of Schism, in the latter part of Chap. 3. and to the London Ministers, cap. 1. sect. 16. and there briefly showed the reasonableness of it. And here being yet nothing but promises of objections against it, it may suffice that I defer the answering them, till they be produced. Sect. 5. The Grounds of the Apostles instituting Metropoles. The frame of Heathen Governments, and the patterns among the Jews, civil, and sacred. N●…. 1. NExt he proceeds to that which I add, as an image of this model in the Church, taken from God's direction to Moses for the government of the Jews, thus, 2. B●…u Doctor adds, Sect▪ 5. Illud ●x Jud●●rum exemplari transcripsisse Apostol● vid●mur, cum Mother a●… a id lege caut●m ess●t, ut Judi●es & ministri●… qual●b●t civ●ta●e ordina●…ur, Deut. 16. 18. ill● v●…ebus dabi●s ad Ju●●…cem (M●fis su●…ss●…m) ●●nedrio Hi●rosolym tano cinctum recurre●e ●…ntur, Cap. 17. 9 an●… in S●ct. 6. ●e proves Jerusalem to have been the M●…s of th●… N●…ion, Eglantine ●gia●… v●…o laudem! But 1. The D●… presume knows bef●…e this▪ that those with whom he hath to 〈…〉 give him he thing in question upon his begging, or request 〈…〉 consideration and inquiry is, whether the Ap●… any such model of Church order and Government▪ as is by the Doctor contended for; to this he tells you, that the Apostles seem to have done it, from the pattern of Mosaical institutions in the Church of the Jews; But, Doctor, the question is not, with what respect they did it, but whether they did it at all or no? This the Doctor thought good to let alone till another time, if we would not grant him upon his petition, that so they did. 2. This then is the Doctors second argument for his Diocesan and Metropolitan Prelates. His first was, from the example of the Heathers, in their civil administrations and rule, this second from the example of the Jew's Not to divert into the handling of the Church and Political state of the Jews, as appointed by God, no● that dissonancy that is between the institution of civil Magistrates, and Evangelicall administrations, this is the sum of the Doctors reasoning, in his 5, 6, 7, and 8. Sections God in the Church and among the people of the Jews, chose out one City to place his name there, making it the place where all the types and ceremonies which he had appointed for the discovery and shadowing forth of the Lord jesus Christ, were visibly and gloriously to be managed, acted, and 〈◊〉 forth (●undry of them being such, as whose typicalness would have been destroyed by their muliplication) and principally on this accoun●…ing that place or City (which was first S●…) the seat of the Kingdom, or habitation of the chief ruler, for the administration of Justice, who appointed judges in all the Land, for the good and peace of the people, therefore the Churches of jesus Christ, disposed over the face of the whole world, freed from obligations to Cities of Mountains, walling before God, in, and with a pure and spiritual worship, having no one reason of that former institution, in common with the Church of the Jews, must be cast into the same mould and figure; I hope without offence I may take leave to deny the consequence, and what more I have to say to this argument I shall yet defer▪ 3. One great fallacy I am here charged to be guilty of, (but having been oft accused of this very crime, I yet never had the ill luck to be convict by him) that I beg the question again, which, saith he, is only this, Whether the Apostles institutea any such order, or no? 4. But can this be a begging the question, when Sect. 9 of that Chapter, I expressly undertake to prove that the Apostles did institute such model, and when he himself in the very next paragraph, expressly confesses that I proceed to prove it. 5. Can that be said to be begged, which is undertaken to be proved, and the proofs as yet not so much as considered by him, and so certainly not invalidated? Or can a man be bound to prove his assertion, before he hath explained what he means by it, or upon what grounds of credibility he affirms it? 6. That which I do in that Chapter may analytically be divided into two parts, 1. the grounds upon which 〈◊〉 conceive the Apostles thus modelled the Church, and secondly; the proofs or testimonies by which I manifest that they did so. The question in hand being a matter of fact, whether or no the Apostles instituted Metropolitical Churches, etc. that was to be proved or disproved only by testimonies, and if that be not attempted to be done, but taken for granted, that were indeed a begging of the question, but a due place being reserved for that in the latter part of the Chapter, I conceive it no breach of the Laws of discourse, owned and exemplified by artists, first to render the assertion credible, by proposing the grounds upon which I conceive they did it. 7. And those grounds were of two sorts, 1 The known frame of the Heathen Governments, where they came to plant the Gospel, and by attending to which they should plant it more advantageously, and then what Nazianzen saith of Julian, that it was in him a wise but a wicked policy, for the reducing Heathenism among Christians to appoint the heathen Priests to make use of the Christian observances, may be very credible, as an act of Divine policy in the Apostles, to make their advantage for the propagating and preserving the Faith, by observing and not going contrary to the civil distributions, which they should meet with among the Heathens. 8. Secondly, The patterns of this among the Jews, and those we know, the more considerable in this, because they were there instituted by God himself, and because many other observances in Christianity are by Christ and the Apostles visibly accommodated from the Jews. And again there are two of those patterns, one in their civil managery, Judges and Officers in every City, Deut. 16. 18. and Moses in matters of higher concernment and difficulty with 〈◊〉 Sanhedrim at Jerusalem; and the other in their Ecelesiastical, the three families of the Levites, separated for the sacred offices, a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or chief over them, Num. 3. 24. and over them Eleazar the Son of Aaron the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the chief of the chiefs of the Levites. And the advantages of order, and unity, and due administration of Justice, which recommended those forms among the Jews, were all fit to be taken care of, and consequently were so many motives to induce the Apostles to copy them out under the New Testament, and to observe the like uniformity in all their Plantations. 9 And these grounds being thus laid as a foundation, to support and fit the building, which in the remainder of the Chapter was regularly, i. e. by testimony of the Scripture and the Ancient Church, superstructed on it, I cannot guess, what I could otherwise have done in respect of the Method, than what was there designed by me And truly if I did, let the proof of the fact alone, as he saith, till another time, as long as that other time was so near at hand, in the same Chapter, in the very next Section after the setting down 〈◊〉 exemplary among the Jews, I cannot yet discern how I have ●…nd●… in it. No man can do two things at once, and I was free to choose my own Method, as long as 〈◊〉 neither omitted nor put off (as the Prefacer hath often done, and so now again in the last words of this Paragraph he doth) to some other occasion, that which was so necessary to be proved there. 10. As for his summary account of my discourse again, it is very much varied from that, which those four Sections yield, which is no more than this, that as by God's appointment to Moses, there were many inferior and superiour●ourt ●ourt; many in the several Cities of Judea, and one at jerusalem, to which the inferior related, as the Mother and prime; and as in the Temple about the Levites there were heads of the Levites, and heads of those heads, so it would be ●…ctly parallel in the Apostles to institute Bishops in every City Church, and metropolitans in the chief Cities, which as it is no argument at all to prove the matter of tact, that indeed it was so, nor by me designed for such, proposed only as an exemplar or parallel, not as a proof, and accordingly induced with [ad hanc imaginem, after this image] Sect. 9 an [as] and [so] not a [therefore] (and so there was no consequence in it capable of being denied so again such as it was it very much differed from that which is here set down in Italic letters, as if it were the English of my Sections (which, again, were never set down in English, till now that this advantage might be gained by it.) 11. This manner of dealing, what it imports I shall not judge, but leave the Prefacer to pass his own animadversions on it. Sect. 6. Of Antioch the Metropolis of Syria, Acts 15. What the dependence of Inferior Churches to their Metropolis. The reference to Jerusalem made by the Church of Antioch. The decrees delivered to other Churches. jerusalem the grand Metropolis. Philos Testimony. Ignatius Pastor, Bishop of Syria. The Epistle to the Antiochians. A Testimony thence. Num.. 1. NOw than he proceeds to the examination of my proofs, (If it might have been foreseen that there were any such, the last Paragraph might certainly have been spared.) 2. But, saith he, the Doctor proceeds to prove, that indeed the Apostles did dispose of the Churches in this frame and o●de, according to the pattern of the civil government of the Roman Empire, and that instituted of God among the Jews. The ninth section, wherein he attempts the proof of this assertion, is as followeth. Ad hanc imaginem, Apostolo● Ecclesias ubique disponendas cuirass, & in omnbus plantationibus su●…, minorum ab ●m●…ioribus civitatibus dependentiam & subordinationem constituisse exemplis quidem plurimi● monstrari possit, illud in Syriâ & Cilicia patet Act. 6. 4 cù●●nim 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 illud c. 15. 2. Hierosolymas referr●tur ab Ecclesià 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Antiochi●, Cap. 14 26 & 15. 3. & de● etum ab Apostolis d●…ò ad eos mitteretur v. 22. in Epistolâ quâ decretum illud co●tin●batu●, ●imul cum Antiochensibus, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 comprehensos videmus v. 23. De●… Epistolâ 〈◊〉 Antioch●… Eccle●i● redditâ v. 30. Paul●s tandem & Sylas Syriam & Cili●iam peragr●…tes v. 41. c. 16. 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 singulis civitatibus observanda tradiderunt, ut quae ad hanc Antiochiae Metropolin, ut ●●tidem subordina●● Ecclesiae pertinerent, ut & ipsa Antiochia ad Hieros●ly●…as, primariam tam latae (ut ex Ph●lone p aediximus) Provinciae Metropolin pertinebat, & ad ●am, ad ●…imen●am litem istam, se conferebat. This being all that the Doctor hath to produce from the Scripture to his purpose in hand, I have transcribed it at large; for this being removed, all that follows, will fall of its own accord 1. Then, the dependence on, and subordination of lesser cities to the greater, is asserted ●s an Apostolical institution; Now because I suppose the Doctor will not assert, nor doth intend a civil dependence, and subordination of Cities, as such, among themselves, nor will a dependence as to counsel, advice, assistance, and the like supplies, which in their mutual communion, the lesser Churches might receive from the greater and more eminent, serve his turn: but an Ecclesiastical dependence and subordination, such as whereby many particular Churches, with Inferior Officers residing in them, and with them, depended on, and were in subjection to some one person of a superior order, commonly residing in some eminent City, and many of these Governors of a superior order in the greater Cities were in subordination unto some one of high degree, termed a Metropolitan. and all this by Apostolical institution is that which he aimeth a●, which being a most gallant adventu 〈◊〉, 〈◊〉 a waking generation, we shall doubtless find him quitting himself ●●ke a man in his undertaking. 2. Then he tells you that the question about Mosaical Rites, and necessity of their observation, was reffered to Jerusalem by the single Church of Antioch. But how does the Doctor make good this first step, which y●… if he could, would do him no good a●…all? It is true, that Paul was now come to Antioch, Ch. 14. 26. and a●… that he was brought on his way by the Church Chap. 15. 3. Bu● ye● that he breath 〈…〉 who were t●ug●t the Doctrine contested about, v. 〈◊〉. were only of the Church of Antioch (when it is most certain from the Ep●…s of Paul to the Galatians, Colossians, Romans, and others, that great disturbance was raised fa●… and wide, in all the Churches of the Gentiles about this con●…ve●sy) no ●ing is offered. It seems indeed that their disputes grew to the greatest heights at Antioch, whither brethren from other parts and Churches did also c●me, whilst Barnabas and Paul abode the●e, but that tha● single Church ●e●erred the determining of that controversy, to them at jerusalem, exclusively to others, the Doctor proves not. And it is most evident, from the return of the answers sent by the Apostles from Jerusalem, ver. 23. that the reference was from all the Churches of the Gentiles, yea and all the scattered brethren, perhaps as yet not brought into the Church order not only at Antioch, but also throughout Sy●…a and Cilicia. It is then granted what he next observes, viz. that in the answer returned from Jerusalem, with them at Antioch, those in Syria and Cilicia are joined, the reason of it being manifest, namely their trouble about the same controversy, being no less than theirs at Antioch. It is also granted, that as Paul passed through the Cities, that he delivered them the decrees to keep, that were ordained by the Apostles and Elders, cap. 16. 4. and that not only to the Churches of Syria, and Cilicia, which he left cap. 15. 41. but also to those throughout Phrygia, and the regious of Gal●tia, ver 6. What now follows out of all this? What? but that Antioch by Apostolical institution was the Metropolitan See of all the Churches of Syria and Cilicia. Good Doctor do not be angry▪ but tell us how this may be proved. Why doubtless it was so; as Antioch belonged to the Metropolitan Church at Jerusalem, as he ●old us out of Philo (who was excellently acquainted with Apostolical institutions) what Jerusalem was to the whole Church and Nation of the Jews, while the name of God was fixed there, we know▪ But what was the primitive estate of the Churches of jesus Christ, made of jews and Gentiles, tied neither to City, or Mountain, I must be pardoned if I cannot find the Doctor making any tender of manifesting or declaring. The reasons of referring this controversy unto a determination at Jerusalem, the Holy Ghost acquaints us with Act. 15. 2. That we have no need of this Metropolitical ●igment, to inform us in it. And now if we will not, not only submit to Diocesan Bishops, but also reverence the grave Metropolitans, standing upon such clear Apostolical institution, It is fit that all the world should count us the arrantest Schismatics that ever lived since Pope Boniface his time. The sum then of this doughty argument for the Apostolical institution of Metropolitans (that none might ever more dare to call Diocesans into question hereafter) is this; Paul who was converted about the third or fourth year of Caligula, five or six years after the ascension of Christ, having with great success for three years preached the Gospel, went up to Jerusalem with Barnabas, upon the persecution raised against him at Dam●scus, Act. 9 22. whence returning to the work, he went first to Tarsus, Act. 9 30. thence to Antioch, where he abode one whole year, Act. 11. 25. 26. and was then sent to Jerusalem with the collections for the Saints, about the fourth year of Claudius, ver. 30. thence returning again to Antioch, he was sent out by the command of the Holy Ghost more eminently, and peculiarly than formerly for the conversion of the Gentiles, Act. 13. 1, 2, 3▪ in this undertaking in the space of a year or two, he preached and gathered Churches (whereof express mention is made) at Salamis, Act. 13. 5. in the Isle of Paphos, ver. 6. at Perga in Pamphylia ver. 13. at Antioch in Pisidia, ver. 14. a● Ico●ium, cap. 14. 1. at Ly●tra and Derbe, ver. 6. and at Perga 26. in all these places gathering some believers to Christ, whom before they returned to Antioch, he visited all over the second time, and settled Elders in the several congregations, Chap. 14 21, 22, 23. in this journey and travel for the propagation of the Gospel, he seems in all places to have been followed almost at the heels, by the professing Pharisees, who imposed the necessity of the observation of Mosaical Ceremonies upon his new Converts; for instantly upon his return to Antioch, where during his absence, probably they had much prevailed, he falls into dispute with them, Chap. 15. 1. and that he was not concered in this controversy, only upon the account of the Church of Antioch, himself informs us, Gal. 2. 4. affirming that the false brethren, which caused those disputes and dissensions, crept in to spy out his liberty, in his preaching the Gospel among the Gentiles, ver. 2. that is in the places before mentioned, throughout a great part of Asia. For the appeasing of this difference, and the establishing of the Souls of the Disciples, which were grievously perplexed with the imposition of the Mosaical yoke, It is determined that the case should be resolved by the Apostles, Act. 15. 2. partly because of their authority in all the Churches, wherein those, who contended with Paul, would be compelled to acquiesce, and partly because those Judaizing teachers pretended the commission of the Apostles for the Doctrine they preached, as is evident from the disclaimu●e made by them, of any such commission or command, ver. 24. Upon Paul's return from the assembly at Jerusalem, wherein the great controversy about jewish Ceremonies was stated and determined, after he had in the first place delivered the decree and Apostolical salutation by Epistle to the Church at Antioch, he goes with them also to the Churches in Syria and Cilicia, expressed in the letter by name, as also to those in Pamphilia, Pisi●ia, Derb●; Lystra, Iconium, etc. Ch●p. 16. 1, 2, 3, 4. and all the Churches which he had gathered and planted in his ●ravels through Asia, whereunto he was commanded by the Holy Ghost, Act. 13. 1, 2. Things being thus stated, it necessarily follows, that the Apostles had instituted Diocesan and Metropolitan Bishops. For though the Churches were so small, and thin, and few in number, that seven years after this, may we believe our Doctor, the Apostles had not instituted or appointed any Elders or Presbyters in them, viz. When Paul wrote his Epistle to the Philippians, which was when he was Prisoner at Rome, as appears, cap. 1. 7, 13, 14. cap. 4. 22. about the third year of N●ro, yet that he had fully built and settled the hierarchical fabric contended for, who once dares question? Audacia— Creditur à multis ●iducia. But if this will not do, yet Ignatius hits the nail on the head, and is ready at hand to make good whatsoever the Doctor will have him say, and his testimony takes up the sense of the two n●xt following Sections, whereof th● fi●st is as follows. Hinc dicti Ig●atiani ratio constat in Epistolâ ad Romanos, ubi ille Antiochia Ep●…scopus se 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, past●●em Eccl●siae quae ●st in Syria app●lle●●um ad Antiochiam, s●il. ut ad Me●…opolin su●m tota Syria pertineret. Sic & Author Epistolae ad Antio●he●os 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 cam i●scrib●●s, totam ●yriam ●jus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 esse conclud●t. But yet I fear the Doctor will find he hath need of other weapons, and other manner of Assistance to make good the cause he hath undertaken. The words of Ignatius in that Epi●●●e to the Romans 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: Because he recommends to them that particular Church in Syria, which by his imprisonment was deprived of its Pastor therefore without doubt he was a Metropolitical Archbishop. Tity●e tu p●… etc. But the Doctor is resolved to car●y his caus●, & therefore being forsaken of all fair and honest means, from whence he might hope for assistance or success, he tries (as Saul the wi●ch at En●●●) the counterfeit, s●…ious title, of a counterfeit Epistle to the Antiochians, to see if tha● will speak any comfortable words, for his relief or no. And to make sure work, he causes this Gentleman so to speak, as if he intended to make us believe that Syria was in Antioch, not Anti●ch in Syria, as in some remote p●rts of ●he world, they say they inquire whether London be in England, or England in London, What other sense can be made of the words as by the Doctor transcribed? 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, To the Church of God dwelling in Syria which is in A●tioch: now if thi● be so, I shall confess it is possible we may b● in more errors than one, and that we much w●nt the learned Doctor's assistance for o●r information; the words themselves, as they are used by the worshipful writer of that Epistle, will sca●ce furnish us with this learned and ra●e notion, they are at length, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (fo● so he ●i●st opens his mouth with a lie) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, W●at is here more expressed, than that th● l●tter passage is ●est●●ct●ve of what went be●ore, was spoken of its residence i● Sy●i●, wi●● reference to the name of Christian, fi●st given to the Disciples in th●… place, I know not; and therefore it is most certain that the Apostles in st●…uted Metropolitan Archbishops, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 3. The large transcripts of the Latin sections being the foundation of his whole ensuing discourses, it is a little necessary they should be made intelligible to all, to whom the confutation of them is addressed: This I shall be content to do fo● him; and the plain English is this. 4. According to the image of the civil government among the Jews, and the like again in their Temple (forementioned) the Apostles appear to have disposed of Churches every where, and in all their plantations to have constituted a subordination and dependence of the Churches in the infer●…r Cities, to those in the Chief or Metropoles. An example of th●● we have in the story of the Acts, concerning Syria and Ci●●cia, and the several Cities thereof, in relation to A●tioch t●● Metropolis, For when the question Act. 15. 2. was referred and brought to Jerusalem from the Church (peculiarly) of Antioch. ●ap. 14. 26. and 15 3. and the decree of the Council returned to them by whom the question was proposed, i. e. to the Church of Antioch, ver. 22. yet in the Epistle in which that decree was contained, we find the brethren through Syria and Cil●cia, i. e. all the Christians of that Province, to be expressed and joined with those of Antioch, ver. 23. And after, when that Decretal Epistle was delivered to the Church of Anti●ch, ver. 30. Paul and Sylas went over Syria and Cilicia, ver. 41, 42. and as they went, they delivered to every City the Decrees of the Council, c. 16. 4. which is an evidence, that the Churches of those Cities, related either immediately to Antioch, or, as Antioch itself did to Jerusalem, and were in subordination to it, as to the principal Metropolis, of so wide a Province, according to that of Philo, that jerusalem was in his time the Metropolis not of Judea alone, but of many other regions, in respect of the Colonies, which is sent out of the Jews that dwelled in the●…, naming Syria & Cilicia & divers others. 5. What is here said, may be divided into two branches, one concerning the Cities of Syria as relating to Antioch, the other concerning Antioch itself and other Cities, relating to Jerusalem: The latter is mentioned incidentally; the former is it, which was proposed for the example to testify the Apostles distributions, and the plain story of the Acts seemed to me to manifest it fully, that the Churches of the inferior Cities of Syria etc. related to Antioch as to the Metropolis; And the matter also being farther clear by all Ecclesiastic writers, which make Antioch the Metropolis of Syria, I gave a taste thereof out of Ignatius' Epistle to the Romans, who being the known Bishop of Antioch, settled there by the Apostles, calls himself Pastor (as elsewhere Bishop of the Church in Syria. And so the Ancient writer of the Epistle to the Antiochians under Ignatius' name, (but none of those which we receive from Polycarps collection) hath these words in his inscription. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉▪ to the Church of God which is at Antioch, lying together in Syria, making Syria to be the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Province, of which Antioch was the Metropolis. 6. The same is after manifested of other chief City's, Rome, Alexandria, Gortyna in Crete, and the seven Churches of Asia, and the plain words of the three Counsels forementioned, which devolve the whole business o● the rights of Metropoles to their first plantations. And of all these there is not one word replied, save only what concerns Rome and Alexandria. To those two, we shall come in the next Section, But in this I am to consider what he hath to object to the severa● proofs concerning the Church of Antioch, being as I conceive it manifest, a Metropolitical Church in the Apostles times. 7. And first it seems I must define, what I mean by this dependence and subordination of inferior Churches to their Metropolis. And I shall do it, in my own words, not in his, for they are very obscure, 1. I mean by inferior Churches, the several Churches in the several lesser Cities with the region adjoining, administered and governed each of them by the Bishop of each such lesser City-Church, and his officers under him. 2. By the Metropolis, I mean the Church of the chief City of that Region or Province, and such, say I, was the Church of Antioch in respect of Syria. 3. By the subordination and dependence of the inferior to the Metropolis, I mean not any inferiority of order and dignity, nor a dependence only as to counsel and advice and mutual Communion, but an inferiority of pow●r in many things, which the Apostles left not to the Bishops of the inferior Cities, but reserved to the metropolitans. To this purpose the 34th. Apostolic Canon is clear, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Bishops of every Nation must know their Primate, (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, saith Zonara's) and account him as the head of them, and the powers that thus belong to him, are known in the ancient Counsels by the title of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 privileges and praeeminencie●, which are proper to such, and for which even immemorial and Apostolical tradition and custom is vouched by them. Such as receiving accusations against, and appeals from inferior Bishops, ordaining of them, as Titu● is appointed to do through Crete, and as the sixth Canon of Nice saith, that he that is made Bishop without the Metropolitan, shall not be deemed a Bishop; For this I again refer the Reader to the Discourse of Schism●, pag. 60. etc. and there to that ninth Canon of the Council of An●ioch, the same in effect with the 34th. Apostolical ●anon forementioned, where the Bishops of inferior Cities are interdicted doing, without the Metropolitan, any thing which is there styled 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, i. e. (as is there explained) where in more Churches than one are concerned equally; The Bishop's power extending to the administration of affairs in his own Diocese, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, whatsoever belongs to his Diocese, say both those Canons, but things of a more foreign nature, which belong not to the particular Bishop, ratione officii, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which respect the common state of the Church (as Zonoras' interprets 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) being reserved and pertaining to the care of the Metropolitan. 8. This, I suppose, sufficiently expresses, what subordination I mean, the very same which the most Ancient Canons of the Universal Church express to be due from the Bishop to the Metropolitan, and then I shall not trouble myself to inquire what he means by [some eminent Cities, and, Governors of a superior order in greater Cities] which I should have thought had been Metropoles and Metropolitans, had I not found them all placed by him in subordination to some one of high degree termed a Metropolitan.] And by that Character being assured, that by the former he must mean no more but Bishops of inferior Cities, I must be content not to understand the mystery, why they should yet be styled eminent and greater Cities, and so briefly pass to the next thing. 9 Secondly then, he will examine my plea from that passage in the Acts, cap. 15. and the thing he dislikes is my making the question sent for resolution to Jerusalem, to be referred to them by the single Church of Antioch. This, ●aith he, 〈◊〉 do not prove, though if I could prove it, it would do me no good at all. And yet, to see, in the process of the discourse, he severally grants all the rest, And only desires me not to be angry, but to prove that Antioch by Apostolical institution was the Metropolitan See of all the Churches of Syria and Cilicia, which is in effect to deny, or bid me prove the conclusion, without offering to deny above one proposition, which therefore, I must assume, will, if it be proved, infer the conclusion, and so do me all the good, which I pretend to expect from it. 10. Now truly, that this question thus referred to Jerusalem, was at this time, Act. 15. 1. referred to it, by the single Church of Antioch (but that as Metropolis of all Syria) I thought sufficiently proved by the text itself first cited, cap. 14. 26. and 15. 3. In the former of these places, the Apostles were come to Antioch, as that signifies Antioch the great (to difference it from another City of that name, v. 21. the same which is by Pliny placed in Pisidia, as here also it is, ver. 24.) that City peculiatly where the Scripture saith they were first called Christians, and whereof Euodius and Ignatius were constituted Bishops by Peter and Paul, one of the Jewish, the other of the Gentile Christians. And being there they gathered the Church together, ver. 17. that I suppose to be the Church of the City of Antioch, (or if any more, those certainly as some way relating and subordinate to Antioch, which again infers Antioch to be their Metropolis) Then of Antioch it follows that there they abode, v. 28. And then cap 15. 〈◊〉. certain men, which came down from judea, infused the judaical ritual doctrine into the brethren, who are those but the Christians of Antioch, where then they were? And upon the dispute had with those judaizers, v. 2. they determined, that sure must still be the Church of Antioch peculiarly, that Paul and Barnabas should go to Jerusalem about this question, and then ver. 〈◊〉. they are brought on their way by the Church, What Church is this still, but the Church cap. 14. 27. i e. the Church of Antioch? 11. This was my way of proof (designed to lay the foundation of that argument of Antioch's being the Metropolitical See) that this question was referred to jerusalem from the Church peculiarly of Antioch. And I must hereby think it competently proved, unless some weak part be discovered in it, or some absurdity or repugnancy be objected to it; None of which, I see, is here done. 12. For 1. as to that which is offered at, by his saying that I have not proved that the brethren that taught the doctrine contested about, ver. 1. were only of the Church of Antioch, sure that is of no force. For as I doubt not but the same doctrine might be, and was infused into many others in Galatia, Colosse, yea, and Rome itself, as he truly ●aith, and never conceived that the poison was confined to, or enclosed within Antioch, so all that is needful to my ●ur●e, is this, that at this point of time noted Acts 15. 1. the judaizers' pretensions were solicited at Antioth, and that on that particular occasion of the dispute between Paul and them, the question was by them peculiarly referred to jerusalem. And that sure might be done by them alone, though others far distant as well as they, either at that or some other time were disturbed with the like scruples. 13. That which the Prefacer here confesses, that the disputes grew to the greatest height in Antioch, is a very sufficient account in this matter, why Antioch peculiarly should send up to jerusalem about this question, when others, who were not so much concerned in it, did not do so; And moreover the convenience of such Messengers, Paul & Barnabas, who could say so much, from the success they had had among the Gentiles toward the deciding of the question, might both qualify and incite them to do it, rather than any others at this time; And so still there is more reason why I should conceive the question referred to jerusalem, peculiarly or alone by Antioch (and not so by Colosse, or Rome, or Galatia) and no appearance of any thing yet produced to the contrary. 14. Secondly, He adds, then to Antioch brethren from other parts and Churches also came, whilst Paul and Barnabas abode g●ere. To what purpose this is urged by him I know not, but this I know, that there is no mention in that story of any such, but only of those which ver. 1. came from judea, and taught the necessity of judaizing. And of them 'tis not probable that they joined with the Antiochians to refer the question to jerusalem, or if they did, I am sure the Decretal Epistle from the Council was not addressed to them, but to the Gentile Christians ver. 19 23. and takes no other notice of them, than as of seducers ver. 24. And so still it appears not of any, that they thus referred the question, but only of the Antiochians. 15. Thirdly, Whereas he concludes it most evident from the Council's answer, ver. 23. that the reference is made from all the Churches of the Gentiles, if he mean it of all other Gentile Churches, beside Syria, and Cilicia, as Phrygia, Galatia etc. Which he after mentions, and Rome, and Colosse, which before he had mentioned, there is no appearance of truth in it, the text saying expressly, that it was sent to the brethren of the Gentiles in Antioch, and Syria, and Cilicia; But if he means it of all not absolutely, but all of Syria and Cilicia, and not only of Antioch, then as that is the very thing observed by me, to prove that Antioch was the Metropolis of Syria and Cilicia, so certainly it is far from evidencing the contrary. I grant, nay, I make it matter of observation, that when the Question was sent to Jerusalem by Antioch peculiarly, the Decretal Answer of the Council is addressed, not only to Antioch, but also to all the Christains of Syria and Cilicia, and what reason can there be for that, when the Question was not, as far as appears, proposed by them, but only this, that those Regions depended on, and related to that Church, from which the Question was sent, i. e. to Antioch; which if it be but possible (much more, if by other evidence, that out of Ignatius, it be proved to be more than possible, even perfectly true) it must thence follow, that the argument drawn from the Council's answer being addressed to Syria and Cilicia, as well as to Antioch, will no way conclude that the Question was referred by all those, when the Text, which is the only ground of affirming aught in this matter, mentions none but the Church of Antioch in the referring of the question, and this other reason is so ready at hand, for the mention of more, in their giving answer to it. 16. Fourthly: Whereas he adds, that the Apostles delivered these Decrees, not only to the Churches of Syria and Cilicia, which Paul left, c. 15. 41. but also to those throughout Phrygia, and the Regions of Galatia, ver. 6. 1. 'tis no where said, that they did so in Phrygia, and the regions of Galatia; for the mention of the delivering the Decrees being ver. 4. no way belongs to Phrygia and Galatia, which are not mentioned till ver. 6. nor can be farther extended than to D●rle and Lystra forementioned ver. 1. which we know were Cities of Lycaonia, Act. 14 6. and neither of Phrygia nor Galatia. Nay, 2. it is not necessary, that the delivering of the Decrees mentioned chap. 16. 4. should belong to all the Cities which had by that time been mentioned: S●. Lak●'s words will be true, that as they went through the Cities they delivered them the Decrees to keep] though it should be affirmed, that they delivered them only to the Churches of Syria and Cilicia, which they are said to confirm cap. 15. 41. as here to establish in the Faith, cap. 16. 5. But these two things having been said only 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to show how far the Prefacer is from speaking demonstratively, when he is censuring others for want of that. In the third place, I shall acknowledge it very possible, and most probable, that St. Paul did deliver these Decrees of Jerusalem to other Churches beyond Syria and Cilicia, where he came, particularly to the Churches of Lycaonia, Derbe and Lystra, yea, and to the Churches of Phrygia and Galatia, which no way disturbs my pretensions, because as Paul that planted those Churches might reasonably have care to uphold them in the truth, so in the latitude of Philo's speech, all these, even Phrygia and Galatia also, in respect of the Jewish inhabitants dispersed among them, might in the secular account refer to Jerusalem as their grand Metropolis. 17. For so saith Philo, it was the Metropolis of most, whither it had sent Colonies, naming Egypt, Phoenicia, Syria, and Coelosyria, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 others far distant, Pamphylia, Cilicia, and a great deal of Asia as far as Bythinia and Pontus (and Lycaonia, etc. are sure within this distance, nearer to Jerusalem than some here named) and then by the contemperation we speak of, of the Ecclesiastic to the Civil distributions, why should not they all relate to the Metropolitical Church at Jerusalem also? 18. And St. Paul's delivering them these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, decrees to keep, and doing it not upon his own authority, as his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, his private Apostolical judgement, but as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, judged, and conciliarly determined by the Council at Jerusalem, this sure is an evidence that St. Paul, that planted these Churches, set them in subordination to, and dependence on the grand Metropolis of those parts, that at Jerusalem: Which is the thing I was to prove, that these distributions were made by the Apostles, that planted Christianity. 19 But than it must still be remembered, that the Cities of Lycaonia and Phrygia, and Galatia were not named in the Councils Epistle, but only Syria and Cilicia, and accordingly this of c. 16. 4. is no proof, I acknowledge, that these Churches did belong, and were subordinate to Antioch: That was to be proved not by this passage c. 16. 4. (thus understood) but from the inscription of the response of the Council to the brethren of Antioch, and Syria, and Cilicia, as it was before explained and cleared, and farther from Ignatius his styling himself Pastor of Syria, who, we know, was no otherwise so, than as he was Bishop of Antioch, the Metropolis of Syria. And so still I hope the conclusion now regularly follows out of these premises, there shortly set down, but here more largely evidenced to infer, that Antioch was by Apostolical institution the Metropolitan See of all the Churches of Syria, and Cilicia. And so sure I have no temptation to be angry, nor ever discovered any part of that passion to the Prefacer, and so needed not have been besought, so affectionately, not to fall into it at this time, when there is no rub in my way, no difficulty to oppose, or provoke the least degree of it, in the most rageful. 20. What follows by way of scoff at the citation from Philo, as if I took him for a person well acquainted with Apostolical Institutions, might also, as now appears, very well have been spared. I had brought in that Testimony seasonably enough sect. 6. when I was speaking of the exemplar among the Jews, and by it showed that Jerusalem was the Metropolis to all those regions in the jewish account, and now all that I concluded in reference to that citation, was, that Antioch was in the number, and then the appeal which Antioch made to the Council at jerusalem (and not the Testimony of Philo) was the argument on which I inferred the Conclusion, that the Church of Antioch was now subordinate to the Church or Council at jerusalem (which if it were, must be by the Apostles institution) as all Syria in Philo was to the S●nhedrim at jerusalem. 21. To which I shall now farther add: If it were not so, why did the Church send up Paul and Barnabas thither? Why did not Paul, who planted Christianity there, finally determine the controversy? Why did the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Elder●, whosoever they were (the Bishops of judaea, I suppose, but it will be much more strange, if they were but the Presbyters of jerusalem) join with the Apostles in making Decrees, whereby those of Antioch, and all through Syria should be bound, if all this while the Church of jerusalem were not their Metropolis, and so had no manner of power over them? 22. As to that which he saith, that the Holy Ghost, Acts 15. 2. acquaints us with the reasons of referring this controversy to a determination at Jerusalem, so that he hath no need of this (as he will style it) Metropolitical figment, to inform him in it. I confess I cannot reach him in it, for all that that verse informs us, is, that upon occasion of that dispute between Paul and Barnabas on the one side, and the judaizers that came from judaea, on the other side, the Church determined to send up to jerusalem about this Question. This only informs us of the occasion of referring the question, whereon there was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, no small dispute, such, as it seems, they could not so convincingly decide within themselves, but this renders no account, why they sent and referred it to jerusalem peculiarly, and not to any other Church, unless we here suppose, as I do, that jerusalem was looked upon as their Mother Church. 23. What reason it is which the Prefacer finds in that second verse, or by what medium it comes to have the force of a reason, he is not here pleased to communicate, but only saith, the Holy Ghost hath there acquainted us with the reason. But in the next page he is more liberal, gives us the reasons of their sending to jerusalem, partly because of the authority of the Apostles (which were there) in all the Churches, wherein those, who contended with Paul, would be compelled to acquiesce; partly because those judaizing Teachers pretended the commission of the Apostles for their doctrine. 24. As for the first of these, I suppose that, taken alone, cannot be the reason, because there being but two Apostles there at that time, Peter and john, 1. there might be so many in some other City. 2. Paul and Barnabas being before this separated by God's command to the Apostolic Office, were in this respect of equal authority with them, and so in this sense the words of St. Paul have truth, in relation to them, Gal. 2. 6. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, they added nothing to me. 3. The reference is made Act. 15. 2. not to the Apostles alone, but to the Apostles and Elders, i. e. the whole Council at jerusalem at this time. 4. The cause of the reference was not only the contention of those who came out of judaea, but the Antiochian Christians being taught, i. e. seduced by them, c. 15. 1. and accordingly the Decree respected them peculiarly. And so this first reason is of no force. 25. For the second; 'tis true indeed, and 'tis affirmed ver. 1. that certain men, which came down from Jerusalem, taught the brethren, and said, except ye be circumcised, ye cannot be saved, and that may seem to be set down as the reason of their making this reference to jerusalem, because the men came from judaea, which made it fit to inquire whether the Apostles and Council there were of these men's opinions: But then even this will very little advance his, or prejudice our pretensions: For this goes upon a ground which will be useful, not disadvantageous to me, viz. that if these certain men, which came from judaea, had been truly sent, or commissionated by the Church of jerusalem, than this would have been of some force at Antioch (which it could not be, if Antioch were perfectly Independent from jerusalem) and accordingly in the Epistle from the Council, ver. 24. we have these words; For as much as we have heard, that certain, which went out from us, have troubled you, etc. to whom we gave no such commandment or commission (so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 literally signifies) It seemed good unto us, etc. 26. Where it is apparent that any such former commission being disclaimed, now they send their express decree, not their bare counsel, or advice, or assistance, which the Prefacer would allow, but, I say, a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a conciliarie, dogmatical definition, by which, as it appears by the consequents, all were deemed to be obliged, which were within the circuit, of which jerusalem in the jewish account was the Metropolis. And so still, this reason, if any such be discernible, Act. 15. 2. confirms my assertion instead of invalidating it. 27. That which next follows in the Prefacer, as the sum of my argument, is very far from being what he saith it is, either my argument, or the sum of it: My argument it is not, being quite a distant thing, a recapitulation of the whole story of St. Paul from his conversion to his coming this time to Jerusalem from Antioch, whereas I collected nothing from any part of the whole story, but only from this particular, the reference from Antioch to Jerusalem. And than what is so much larger than the particulars diffusively taken, is sure very unlikely to be the sum of them. And yet 'tis a little strange, that that which is so over large a recitation, should choose to omit the one thing, whereon the whole force of my argument lies, i. e either the reference made to Jerusalem from Antioch, to infer the dependence and subordination of Antioch to Jerusalem, or the style of the Epistle from the Council, taking in Syria and Cilicia, as well as Antioch, when the reference had been made, and the Messengers●ent ●ent from Antioch peculiarly. 28. And when he saith, that for the appeasing of the difference it was determined, that the case should be resolved by the Apostles, that sure is unduly suggested; for c. 15. 2. the reference is not made either to the Apostles indefinitely, wheresoever they were, or to the Apostles that were at Jerusalem at that time, and to none but such, but in express words, to Jerusalem to the Apostles and Elders, comprehending under the word Apostles, James the Bishop of Jerusalem, which was none of the twelve, and yet pronounceth the decree, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, I judge, or, my sentence is, v. 19 and by the word Elders, as I suppose, all the Bishops of judaea, sitting in Council with him: And so still this is to the Church of jerusalem, as the Metropolis of judaea, and in an eminent manner, of Syria also, and not only to the Apostles alone, or peculiarly to be resolved by them. 29. The Prefacer here in his haste saith, that Paul goes with the decrees to the Churches in Pamphylia, Pisidia, and by name Iconium, citing c. 16. 1, 2, 3, 4. and all the Churches which he had gathered through Asia. Whereas 1. there is no mention of Pisidia, or Pamphylia in those verses (nor since, c. 14. 24. for what is said of Mark's departing from them from Pamphylia, c. 15. 38. belongs to the former story) nor of any City but of Derbe and Lystra, which are known to be in Lycaonia. Secondly; That there is no mention of their passing through Iconium, nor of the very name of the City, but once incidentally, that Timothy was well reported of by the brethren that were at Iconium, ver. 2. Thirdly; That for Asia, the Text saith expressly, ver. 6. that they were forbidden of the Holy Ghost to preach the word in Asia, and that therefore when they had gone through Phrygia and Galatia, they came to Mysia, etc. So that he could not well have multiplied more mistakes in so few words, and all to make up his hypothesis, that the Decree of jerusalem had no more reference to Antioch, and the regions, whereof that was the Metropolis, than to all those other Churches, which yet if it be extended no farther than to Asia itself, will by Philo's words be interpretable of the Province subordinate to jerusalem. 30. What remains to this head, is made up of contumely and reproach of my audaciousness, with reflection only upon a supposition of mine, that after this time the Churches were small, and thin, and few in number, and so that of Philippi was seven years after this, which is designed as a prejudice to my hypothesis concerning Metropolitan Churches so early. But to the former of these, the reproaches, I have nothing to return but my thanks; to the latter I have answered formerly, that the smallness of the number of Christians nothing hinders the dependence of one Church upon another. See Vindic. to Lond. Minist. chap. 1. sect. 16. numb. 14. And so much for the evidence out of the Acts. 31. Next he comes to my proof out of Ignatius, who, say I, being Bishop of Antioch doth yet in the Epistle to the Romans call himself Pastor of the Church of Syria. The words wherein he so styles himself, he sets down in the Greek, and instead of translating them (as they should be translated) Remember in your prayers the Church of Syria, which in stead of me hath Christ for their Pastor (viz. now that he was carried from them to his Martyrdom) he takes advantage of the Readers unskilfulness in that language, and forms my proof into a ridiculous argument, Because he recommends to them that particular Church in Syria, which by his imprisonment was deprived of its Pastor, therefore without doubt he was a Metropolitical Bishop; and then is very pleasant with his Tityre t●… pat●…——. 32. But would not a little sadness and justice have done better, and then it had been most clear that Ignatius his saying, that Christ was now their Pastor instead of him, must necessarily imply that he was formerly their Pastor, and whose Pastor was he? expressly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Pastor of the Church in Syria; where it is evident, that the whole Church in Syria, not that particular Church only of Antioch, is by him supposed to be under his Pastoral care, the same thing being before in the same Epistle expressed in words no way liable to misunderstanding, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, God hath vouchsafed or dignified the Bishop of Syria, calling himself Bishop of Syria, and so not of Antioch only. This hath been formerly cleared against all Chap. 6. sect. 1. 〈◊〉. 15. exception, and need not be here farther repeated. 33. There remains the testimony of the Author of the Epistle to the Antiochians, which I vouched not as the genuine writing of Ignatius, but only as an ancient Writer according to the genuine in this matter. Hence I am cried out on as forsaken of all fair and honest means, and like Saul trying the Witch of Endor, etc. But this is but ordinary style, a flourish of his Rhetoric, and need not stay us to consider it; that which follows is more to the purpose, that I make this counterfeit speak as if Syria were in Antioch, not Antioch in Syria, and here asks, What other sense can be made of the words as by me transcribed, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to the Church of God dwelling in Syria, which is in Antioch, and then triumphs in this discovery. 34. But certainly the Witch was not so contrary to a wise woman, the counterfeit author so perfect a changeling, as here he is set out to be. Certainly the Greek, as transcribed by me, lies thus in the construction, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to the Church of God which is at Antioch, with this farther denomination added to it, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, adjacent, or lying together in Syria, or allowing them the same position in English, which they have in Greek, To the Church of God lying together in Syria, the Church, or, that which is at Antioch; but taking all the words together (of which I there only gave the abstract) to the Church pitied by God, chosen by Christ, lying together in Syria, which first received the surname of Christian, the Church which is at Antioch— And so he may discern it possible to make sense of these words, a very little skill in that language being sufficient to enable one to join 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the not very remote, as well as with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the immediate Antecedent. And so this leaves it clear as the day, 1. That Antioch was believed by that Author to be in Syria (not Syria in Antioch) and 2. That Syria was the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or Province belonging to Antioch the Metropolis, and that is a proof, as far as his authority will bear, that the Apostles instituted Metropolitans, and so of the very thing in earnest, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which was to be demonstrated. 35. And if this authority were not so great as the former of the true Ignatius had been, yet, first, he was an ancient Writer, and so acknowledged; and, secondly, one that imitated ancient style, and calls himself Ignatius, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the known title of Ignatius, by which he was condemned by Trajane, and so, though he feigned a person, yet did it decently, and so testifies his opinion that this was the style of Ignatius' days, or else would not have discovered himself by using it. Thirdly, his testimony added to Ignatius', and in concord with it, will not (certainly) take off the for●e from Ignatius'. And fourthly, if this be finally reprobated, there be several more behind of Scripture and the Ancients concerning Gortyna in Crete, and seven Metropolitical Churches in Asia, and a reference to the Archbishop of Armagh's discourse on that subject, and passages collected out of the Canons of the Ancient Universal Church, and no one word offered to be replied to all this, which makes it very impertinent to go about farther to confirm this assertion, which else I might do, and for brevity's sake refer the Reader to Frigevillaeus Gautius, Par. 1. c. 4. the subject of which Chapter is, Primates esse jure Divino, That Primates are by Divine right. Sect. 7. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Casaubon's Censure of that phrase. Numb. 1. NExt he comes to examine Sect. 11. and that one small testimony from the inscription of Ignatius' Epistle to the Romans. Before I proceed to which, I shall confess to the Prefacer, that he hath m●st an opportunity of great rejoicing: For the truth is, in the end of sect. 10. there lay a passage, wherein though I affirmed not, but only past my conjecture (crediderim, etc.) yet I now, by a last reading over of Ignatius' Epistles, discern myself to have mistaken● For in the Epistle to the Magnesians, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Ephesians from Smyrna, are not, as I conceived it possible, the Smyrnaeans called Ephesians, because Ephesus was the prime Metropolis, but the Ephesians, which together with some of the Church of Smyrna, were sent with him from Smyrna, such as Burrhus mentioned in the Epistle to Pag. 9 the Smyrnaeans, who appears to be a Deacon of the Church of Ephesus in the Epistle to them, and yet is said to be Pag. 1●. sent with him by the Smyrnaeans, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, with other of the Ephesians also. This I desire Pag. 9 the Reader now to correct in the Dissertations, by blotting out that last part of * Diss. 4. 〈◊〉. 5. Sect. 10. which concerns that matter. 2. I come now to his view of the Testimony from the Epistle to the Romans, and it is set down in these words. 3. But to make all su●e, th● l●…ctor will no● so give ●ver, but Sect. 11. he adds, that ●he Epigraph of the Epistle to the Romans g●ants him the whole case, ●hat is, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, ex qua (saith he) E●●lisiae Romanae ejusque Episcopo suo●… E●…iis omnibu● in ur●…ri● regione, aut p●ovi●c●â Roma● a cont●nti●, p●aefe●… comp●…e vide ●u●. Although I hav● spent some time in the consideration of men's conjectures o● those sub● bicarian Churches, that (as is p●…nded) 〈◊〉 here pointed to, and the rise of the Bishop of Rome's jurisdiction ●ver those Churches, in a correspondency to the civil Government of the Perfect o● the City, yet s● great a Critic in the Greek ●ongue as Casa●●o● Ex●…c ●6. ad Ann. 150. having professed that expression, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to ●e barbarous, and u●inte●…g●…, I shall not co●… about it. For the presidency me ●…ioned of the Church i●, or at Rome, that it was a presidency of jurisdiction, and not only in eminence of F●…h and Holiness that is in ended, ●he Doctor thinks it not incumbent on him to prove: Those with whom he hath to ●o are of another mind; although by this time some a tera●… mign: be attempted; yea, ●here was as elsewhere shall be showed: And so much fo● Ignatius●is ●is Archie●…e. 4. This Testimony it seems must be thrown off upon the one score of Isaac Casaubon's Censure, that the expression was barbarous and unintelligible: I must therefore examine his words, which I find Exerc. 16. sect. 150. though not add Ann. 150. that whole book of Exercitations against Baronius extending no farther than the Life of Christ. 5. Casa●bon's words are these (speaking of Bellarmine's collection of the Roman domination from thence) Rogandi sunt ut barbaram locutionem prius nobis explicent, quam ullum ex iis verbis argumentum ducant, quae ne ipsi quidem intelligant. They that endeavour to draw these words to this purpose, are to be entreated first to explain to u a barbarous expression, before they draw any argument from those words, which they themselves d●e not indeed understand. Here it 〈◊〉 true th●t Casaub●n saith of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that it is barbara locutio, but for the un●…, which the Prefacer adds, and which seems to be expr●…n these words also, it is possible it may be a mistake. Isa●c Casaubone conceived himself to have observed by many indications, that Cardinal Bellarmine understood no Greek, he calls him a little before, hominem Graecarum literarum prorsus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a man utterly unskilled in the Greek learning; adding, that all his works, especially that which he last wrote, demonstrate it. And why may not the [ne ipsi quidem intelligunt] be thus meant by him, that Bellarmine was very unfit to make collections out of a Gre●…, which 'twas certain he did not understand. 〈…〉 I am sure he had before said of him expressly, concerning the writings of Dionysius Areopagita, Est quidem ridicula plane res— It is a very Pag. 542. ridiculous thing for one that hath n● Greek to ●ffer to jud●e of a Greek Author. Which being granted of that Cardinal, I should yet well have hoped, that the Prefacer, who hath so much Greek in this Preface, and very little of it translated, might himself have been able to understand such plain words (for, of the words it is that Casaubone speaks, not of the full importance of them) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which presides in the place of the Region of the Romans. 6. But then, secondly, there will be little reason to doubt what the full sense also of these words is: For without disputing what Casaubone saith, that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is not proper o● vulgar style, but in some respect barbarous, I shall yet suppose it put by Ignatius (being joined with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, presidence) for the Latin sedes, seat, or see, which [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, place] will, without any forcing, signify, as when the Gallican Church in their Epistle to Eleutherius, saith of Iraeneus Archbishop of Lions, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, If we Euseb. lib. 5. c. 4. knew that place would purchase righteousness to any, the meaning is, if his being Bishop of so eminent a City and Province would commend him— (and accordingly Peter Halleix would here have it read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, throne, or seat, but hath no Manuscript●o ●o favour his conjecture) Nay, if we shall observe the ancient Latin forms, we shall have no reason farther to deem 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 barbarous, than as it directly answers to the Latin usage of locus, place, and that sure may be allowed Ignatius in an Epistle to the Romans: For in the second Epistle of Anacletus to the Bishops of Italy, we have these words, In capite Provinciarum, ipsis quoque in civitatibus vel locis nostris Patriarchias vel Primates, etc. In the head of Provinces, and in our Cities or places, Patriarches, or Primates were constituted. The authority of that Epistle may sure be sufficient to manifest the use of a word, and then our City, and our place is all one, and that properly of a chief City or Metropolis, such as here Rome is contested to be. And then the sense will be as plain as the words intelligible, that the Church, to which that Epistle was addressed, was the presiding Church in the place, or seat of the region of the Romans, i. e in the chief place, or seat, or City of that Region, commonly called the suburbicarian Region. And thus hath Jacobu● G●tt●fred●…, a learned Lawyer, and Critic expressed himself to understand it, meaning by the suburbicarian region, all that in the civil not●tiae was under the administration of the Perfect of the City of Rome, answerable to which circuit was the Primitive Province of the Roman Bishop. And here being nothing offered against it, I have no occasion to give farther answer: For as to that of Jurisdiction, what degree of that belonged to the Primate in every Province, over and above that which belonged to a Bishop of an ordinary City and territory, that hath oft been spoken to already, and need not be again repeated or enlarged on. 7. In the close he is pleased to add, that by this time (i. e. in Ignatius' time, who suffered in Trajan's time, and survived St. john very little) some alteration was attempted, and if that were so meant by him, as to belong to the jurisdiction of the Church of Rome over other Churches, which the discourse is upon, this truly might pass for pr●ttie ancient, being scarce distinguishable from Apostolical, and so if what was attempted, were attained also, 'twill be very like the yielding that, which I contended from that testimony▪ Sect. 8. Alexandria a Patriarchate instituted by St. Mark. This proved and vindicated. The Essens in Alexandria, Christians, Bishops among them. Num. 1. IN the next, and last place, he will pass his judgement on the evidence drawn from the story of the Church of Alexandria, thus. 2. The ex●mp●e of Alexandria is urged in the next place in these words, id●● de 〈◊〉, de qua Eusebius, Mar●um 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Ecclesias (in plurali) primum in Alexandriá instituisse. Ha● omnes ab eo sub nomine 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 administrandas sus●episse Anianum, Neronis anno octavo idem Eusebius affi●…t, quibus pat●t primariam Alexandria & Patriarchalem Cathed●●m fi●…sse, ad quam reliquae Provinciae ill●us Ecclesiae à Marco plantatae, ut 〈◊〉 Met op●…tica●, suam pertinebant; doubtless; for 1. There is no● any passage i● any a●…ent Author more clearly discovering the uncertainty of many things in Antiquity than this pointed to by the D●cto● in Eusebius: F●… 〈◊〉, the sending of Mark the Evangelist into Egypt, and his pretching the●e at Alexandria, what he had written in ●h● Gospel, is but a Rep●●●: Men said so, but what ground they had for their saying so, h●…elat●s no●. And yet we know what a foundation of many affection's, by following W●…s, his u●●or o● report is made to be. 2. In the very next wo●●●, the Author affirms, and insists l●ng upon it in the next Chapter, that Ph●lo's b●ok 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, was written concerning the C●… conv●r●ed by Mark's preaching at Alexandria, when it is notoriously known, that it treateth of the Essens, a Sect among the Jew, amongst whose observances many things were vain, superstirious, and foolish; unworthy to be o●ce applauded as the practice of any Christian in those day s; that 〈◊〉 Ph●lo, ●s far as can be gathered, living, and dying in the Jewish Religion, having been employed by them with an Apology to Rome in the days of Calig●l●. But 3. suppose that Mark were at Alexandria, and preached the Gospel there, which is not improbable, and ●…ed many Church's in ●●at great and populous City of Jews and Gentiles, and that as an Evangelist the care of those Churches was upon him in a ●eculiar manner; ●ay, and add farther, th●● after his death, as Hierome●ssu●●s ●ssu●●s us, the Elders ●nd Presbyters of those Churches c●o●●e ou●…ne among themselves to preside in their Convocations and meetings. ay, I say ●l ●his be supposed, what will ensue? w●y than it is manifest tha● the● was fixed at Alexandria a Pa●…cha● Chai●, and a Metropolitical Church, according to the appointment of Jesus Christ by his Apostles, Si ho● non sit probationum satis, nescio quid sit satis. If some few Congregations live together in love and communion, and the fellowship of the Gospel in a City, he is stark blind that se●s not that to be an Archbishops See. The reason is as clear as his in the Com●…, for the freedom of his Wife; Sy Utinam Phrygiam ●x●r●m m●am ●●à mecum videam l●beran. Dem. Optical muliere● qui lem. ●y. Et quidem nepoti tuo, hujus fili●, hodi● primam mammam deed. haec. Dem. Hercle, vero, s●…ò, siquidem prio●am dedit, ba d●dubium qu●● em●●i Aequum s●●t. M●● Ob ea●● rem? Dem. Ob ●am. And there is amend of the contest. The Doctor indeed hath sund●y other Sections added to ●h●se foregoing, wh●… as they concern times more remote from those who first received the Apostolical Institutions, so I must ingeniously profess that I cannot see any thing whereon to fasten a su●pi●ion of a proof, so ●a re as to call it into examination, and therefore I shall absolve the Reader from the penalty of this D●gression. 3. It is most true that I have deduced the Original of Metropolitans from the first plantation of the Faith in Alexandria, the prime City of Egypt, and having * Disser. 3 c. 10 before spoken many things of it, I begin here with a reference to what had there been said. And for the clearing of it, it is not a●●sse that I give the Reader a brief view of all. 4. They that write the History of that Church, and are thought to write it least favourably to Bishops, do yet a●… of the Records of that Church, that St. Mark●ound●● ●ound●● 〈◊〉, and left Ananias, or Anianus Patriarch there: Of this Eus●b us thus speaks, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, L●●. 2. c 〈◊〉. that Mark first erected church's in Alexandri●, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Anianus received and ruled, under th●● t●●o 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Cap. 〈◊〉. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Province of Alexandria adding that 〈◊〉 was such a multitude of them, which upon St. Mark's 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 first onset▪ received the Christian Faith, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, by 〈◊〉 most Philosophical, or pious excellent m●●ner 〈◊〉 living that Philo Jud●us, who lived at that time, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ●it to write a Book to describe their whole manner of 〈◊〉. 5. That the same St. Mark constituted 〈◊〉 so in Pentapolis, is affirmed by the Author of his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 accordingly the sixth Canon of the first 〈◊〉 N●… appoints those Churches, as also all 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Lybia, to be subject to the Patriarch o● Alexand●● 〈◊〉 firming that so it was to be by the ancient and primitive custom. 6. Here it is evident, that by Mark himself Alexandria was constituted a Metropolitical Patriarchal See, in the hands and government of a Patriarch, who by being Bishop of that, had the care of the whole Province, and many particular Churches in it, and accordingly superintended in all of them. And this the second Canon of the Council of Constantinople refers to, when it decrees 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that the Bishop of Alexandria shall administer only the affairs of Egypt, and this in their care 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, not to confound the Churches, disturb the order anciently observed among them. 7. The only thing that I could foresee possible to be objected to this was the authority of Eutychius the Annalist, affirming that till the time of Demetrius' Patriarchate, there was no other Bishop in Egypt but only at Alexandria. But to this authority it was sufficient to oppose the far greater of Eusebius, who speaking of that Demetrius, saith, that after Julian he undertook, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the government of the Dioceses there, in the plural, which cannot be imagined to be without Bishops over them. And the same is in a manner confessed by Eutychius himself, who saith Ananias was made Patriarch by Mark, which he could not be, if he had no Bishops under him. 8. And indeed Philo describing the manner of these Holy men i● Egypt, the Christians of Mark's planting, sets down 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the manner of presidency, or rule of them who performed the Ecclesiastic Ministeries, and saith it was made up of * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Deacons and Bishops, who were in the uppermost rank placed over all. 9 And so when † Cou●r. 〈◊〉 i● ivit. Tertullian tells us of Valentinus the heretic, that he had an ambition to be Bishop, it is evident enough that this was in Egypt, for he was of that Country; and 'tis no way probable that it was the Patriarchate of Alexandria, that he sued for, being, as Epiphanius saith, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Hae●. Valent. in in●●. of the Athribitick division, which was far distant from Alexandria. To which again belongs what was premised of Mark's planting Churches in Pentapolis, and the Nicen● Council giving that Patriarch jurisdiction over them by the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the ancient, or original customs, which suppose● still that there were such Churches and Bishops originally from St. Mark. 10. The matter lying thus, and being indeed in every branch thus laid in the Dissertations (if the Prefacer had been at leisure to attend it) I supposed the way clear to my conclusion. But he is pleased to make his Exceptions. Those he seems to promise shall be more than one, for he begins with [For 1.] but then having branched that again into three parts, and so again beginning [For first] by that time he hath gotten through those branches, he hath forgotten what was promised to succeed his first general in the division. 11. As it is, we have enough remaining: For his general exception being the uncertainty of things in this story (from whence by the way, he makes haste to conclude the clear discovery of the uncertainty of many things in Antiquity, so ready he is upon all occasions to express his affections that way, that his conclusion is far wider than his promises) the first that he mentions is, the sending Mark the Evangelist into Egypt, and his preaching at Alexandria what he had written in the Gospel: This, saith he, is but a report, Men said so; but what ground they had for saying so, Eusebius relates not. 12. But 1. is there any thing more acknowledged, and uniformly attested in story, than this of Mark's preaching the Faith (that sure is what he had written in the Gospel) in Egypt, and particularly at Alexandria? Is it doubted of by any Writer? or is there the least ground of doubting? 13. Secondly: Eusebius being to set down a fact of former times, which he received by tradition, either from man to man, or in writing, what could he say more, than [Men said so?] And who ever required other ground● of narrations of notorious facts, than the common unquestioned affirmations of men? and so, it seems, it was here: And certainly there is no cause imaginable, why any man should question this, or believe the contrary, and why following Writers should not found assertions on such matters of fact, with so uncontrolled a consent of all Historians (that speak of that Church's plantation) brought down to us, or why we Prelatists should not conclude from thence, what even St. Hierome himself, and Eutychius, the prime favoured Authors of the Presbyterians have yielded us premises to conclude. 14. His next branch of Exceptions is against Eusebius' affirming Philo's book 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to have been written concerning the Christians converted by Mark ' s preaching, when, saith he, it is notoriously known, that that book treateth of the Essens, and Philo lived and died a Jew. But certainly this no way prejudiceth Eusebius' affirmation, Essens we know signify holy pious men, and Christians converted to the Faith by St. Mark, may doubtless be such, and being jews by parentage, and by the example and doctrine of St. Mark brought to a strict ascetic life, why might not Philo describe and commend them as such, being, though a Jew, yet, that we can any way discern, not any professed enemy of Christianity, which also was but Judaisme reform and heightened. 15. And for any vanities or follies taken notice of in that Sect of the Jews, ordinarily called the Essens, there is no necessity that those should be found among the holy men in Egypt, described by Philo, or if any relics of them should be discerned among them, 'twould be no stranger, than that there should be some of the Pharisaical leaven among other Primitive Christians, as it is evident by Scripture that there was. 16. It will be very much more difficult for the Prefacer to avoid the force of many passages in that book of Philo, which inclined Eusebius that way, and have had the same force on many others, I shall mention but one, which is already touched on, and belongs to our business in hand, their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and the Bishops and Deacons among them, which will not be found in any sect of Jews that were not Christian. 17. His third branch is made up of Concessions and liberalities (one more than is useful or necessary for me to have granted) and then as if he had repeated the full force of my argument, he laughs at it, and falls into a Scene of the Comedian, and so concludes in great cheerfulness: And truly I am very glad to find him in so good humour, and although my argument might with ease have been truly and fully repeated [viz. that St. Mark planting many Churches in Egypt, subjected them all to the Patriarch of Alexandria, therefore here is an example in the Apostles times of a Metropolitical Church constituted] and although the argument lying thus, it be far from ridiculous, and if it were not conclusive enough, there are many more evidences of the same matter in that Section of the Dissertations, and as there is no word offered to them, so what is objected against this, hath appeared to have no force, yet I shall most willingly have the Prefacer excused for all this, and give my plaudit to his exit, upon that one score of the obligation laid upon me, much more than upon the Reader in absolving me from the penalty of this digression. Errata: PAge 1. l. 4. r. Dissertations. p. 3 l. 34. r. confirmation. l. 35. r 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. p. 4. l. 9 r. into their Codex. l. 10. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 l. 〈◊〉. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. l. 28. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. marg. l. 7. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. p. 5. l. 20. for to be r. so. p. 6. l. 4. r. Eadem. l. 5. r. pr●buerunt. l. 19 r. where. l. 24. r 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. p. 8. l. 14. r. Holoander. p. 11. l. 5. r. Da. Blondel. p. 12. l. 23. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. p. 18. l. 16. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. l. 35. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. p. 19 l. 1. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. l. 10. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. p. 25. l. 1. r. fell. p. 28. l ult. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. p. 29. l. 3. r, imitate. l. 10. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. p. 30. l. 36. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. p. 31. l. 3. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 32. l. 30. r. couti. l. 32 r. is his. p. 34. l. 31. r. Thoms. p. 35. l. 16. r. controv. p. 36. l. 14. r. him in. p. 38. l. 16. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. p. 40. l. 14. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. l. 19 r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. l. 20. r. Tiberianus'. l. 28. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. l. 31. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. p. 41 l. 4. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. p. 42. l. 33. r. (and by. p. 43. l. 6. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. l. 33. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. p. 44. l. 20. r. long as. p. 46. l. 11. r. fictitious. l. 2●. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. l. 27. r. him, Ignatius vir. p. 47. l. 19 r. lie just. l. 26. deal it. p. 49. l. ●7. r. not. p. 50. l. 4. r. 〈◊〉. p. 51. l. 〈◊〉. r. by Ignat. p. 52. l. 3●. r. sensuum. l. 36. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. p. 56. l. 9 r. either. l. 20. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. l. 26. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. p. 58. l. 〈◊〉. r. is. l. 13. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. p. 61. l. 25. r. pretensions. p. 6 〈◊〉. 19 r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. p. 63. l. 3. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. l. 5 r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. l. 8. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. l. 15. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. l. 18. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. l. 19 r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. p. 72. l. 18 r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. l. 21. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 〈◊〉. 22. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. p. 74. l. 5. r. competent. l. 27. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. marg. l. 2. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. p. 76. l. 15. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. p. 77. l. 36. r. reseruârunt. p. 81. l. 22. r. communicanda p. 82. l. 8. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. p. 84. l. 7. r. they that. p. 87. l. 25. r. seditious. l: 29. r. or dignity. l. 31. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. p. 91. l. 4. r. addition p. 93. l. 2. r. possible neither. p. 94. l. 10. phecy? p. 95. l. 7. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. p. 96. l. 14. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. l. 33. r. singularis. p. 97. l. 8. r. effictim. p. 100 l 29. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. p. 101. l. 6 r. or that what. p. 102. l. 12. r. singularis. l. 35 r is as far. p. 109. l. 16. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. p. 111. l. 7. r. edoctus. p 120. l. ●8. for) r.] p. 121. l. 2. r. desire him. p. 123 l. 9 r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. l. 10. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. l. 14. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. p. 124. l. 24. r. but lie. p 138. l. 30. r. Deacons, in. p. 145. l. 13 r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. p. 147. l. 11. r. accordingly. p. 152. l. 20. r. Augustus. l. 33. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. p. 154. l 30. r. sensible. l. 31. r 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. p. 156. l. 1. r. apprehensions. l 25. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. p. 158. l. 25. r. 〈◊〉 l. 28. r. City pag 163. i 26. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. p. 164. l. 12. r. validly: l 13. r. actions. l 35. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. p. 168. l. 35. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. p. 172. ●6. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. p. 174. l. 6. r. Primates. ●28. r. urbium. p. 177. l. 15. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. p. 178. l. 14. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. l. 21. r. Apostles; That. l. 36. 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. l. 39 r. is styled. p. 180 l. 11. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 18●. l. 11. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. l. 16. r. but one. p. 184. l. 1. r. of, which. p. 180. l. 18. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. p. 190. l. 10. r. above. p. 195. l. 11. after passage r in Antioch. p. 197. l. 19 r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. p. 205. l. 29. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. p. 208. l. 28. r. with the. l. 34. r. and he. p. 213. l. 2. r. Patriarchas. p. 216. l. 12. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. FINIS.