The Good Old Way Defended, Treatise · Section 7

The Good Old Way Defended · Treatise · Section 7

p. 89SECTION VII.

The Authors Arguments examined, which pretend to prove the Succession of Bishops to the Apostles.

MY Adversarie hath hitherto acted defensively. In his second Chapter p. 94. & seq. he beginneth to assault us with his Arguments for Episcopacy. He placeth his main strength in this, that the Bishops were Successors to the Apostles; and that when the Apostles went off the Stage, they left Diocesan Bishops to rule over the Presbyters and People, as themselves had done. And now he pretendeth to fix the true state of the Controversy: which he should have done before he had so largely debated it: we might for him been fighting in the Dark all this time: and neither understood against whom, nor about what we contend. He sheweth his wonted Benignitie, and good Temper, in his Preamble to p. 90his stating of the Question; when he saith, such as design no more than Confusion and Clamour, endeavour to darken the true State of the Controversy That the Presbyterians have such Designs we disown, (and it may be presumed we know our own Designs better than he doth) neither shall we take upon us to judge his design in this Book, but leave that to the unbyassed who read it, and consider his Strain and his Arguments. To his stating the Question he premiseth two things agreed on; that … Government is not ambulatory. I am glad that we are agreed about this it was not so when the Magistrate was on their side; we were alway… of that Opinion, but so were not they generally; otherways Dr. Stillingfleets Irenicum had not got such universal Acceptance among their as it did. He saith we are likewise agreed that there was a Hierarchy und… the Old Testament: whence this Conclusion is necessary, that the Subordination of one Priest to another is not simpliciter unlawful. If I were a Papist, and disputing against A. M. D. D. for the Popes Supremacy, I would likewise pretend to this Concession from him, that under the Old Testament there was one Priest to whom the whole Church of God, Priest and People were subject; whence this Conclusion is necessary, that or single person be Head of the Universal Church, is not in its self simplic… ter unlawful. This Author is in a great Mistake, if he imagine that … say that Episcopacy is simpliciter, and in it self unlawful: we think that Christ might have set up Bishops, yea a Pope (with such limited Power … his Wisdom might have seen to be consistent with the Churches good in the Church, if so it had seemed good to Him. And if He had … done, we should cheerfully have submitted to the one, or the other wherefore our Question is not, what was lawful antecedently to Christ Institution, but what He hath appointed, as the way how He will ha… His Church governed. The other thing that he premiseth to his stating of the Question, is an Enquiry into the nature of the Apostolick Office: where he laboureth to separate the ordinary permanent, essential Pow… of the Apostles, which he maketh to be perpetual; from the extrinsick, a… extraordinary Priviledges, and Advantages of that Power, sutable to the fi… Plantations of Christianity; which he maintaineth to be Transitory, and … have ceased when they died.

§ 2. The Essence of the Apostolick Office he will have to be in the Rectoral Power, or spiritual Jurisdiction that they had over other Ecclesiastick and not in their extraordinary Gifts, nor Infallibility, nor in their immed… Call; nor in their being Witnesses of our blessed Saviours Resurrection: and h… p. 91proveth of each of these, that others beside the Apostles, had these Priviledges. These things are asserted Dictatorie: but I see not from what Grounds he draweth these confident Decisions. It is not any where told us in the Word, what is precisely the Essence of the Apostolick Office, and what is accidental or extrinsick to it; and therefore we must be very Wa…e in determining so positively in this Matter. It might be expected that this Gentleman, who when the Presbyterians hold Paritie to be of Divine Right, requireth of them plain Proofs, else they must be lookt upon as Impostors, p. 13. should give us very plain and positive Evidence for what he doth thus magisterially Dictate; and which he layeth for the Foundation of his Opinion concerning the Divine Right of Episcopacy: but here we are disappointed. He hath not attempted to prove that the nature of the Apostolate is not an Aggregate of all these, preaching Power, with Administration of the Sacraments, Supreme Jurisdiction in the Church, and that with Rule over all Churches, an immediate Call, extraordinary Gifts, Infallibility; to have seen the Lord. If one should assert that they who have all these are Apostles, and none else are Apostles; and so that these are the Properties of an Apostle, which agree to Apostles, omni, soli, & semper; and consequently they complexly taken, are the most essential Attribute of an Apostle, by which we must judge of the Essence of that Office (for we know not the Essences of things, but by their first, and essential Properties) how will our Author disprove this Opinion to establish his own?

§ 3. I shall set before the Reader the Opinions of others (on both sides) about the Matter of the Apostolate; or the distinguishing Characters of an Apostle; that he may be the better able to judge of this Authors Opinion about it; which yet is not his, but is borrowed from the Papists. But I first observe, that Christs twelve Disciples, who are by way of Eminency called Apostles, arrived at that height of Church Dignity and Power, by degrees: they were first called to be Believers: and afterward were sent forth as Preachers; Christ having bred them to that Work by their Converse with Him, for some time: in neither of these Degrees, had they any Church Power, except that of Preaching, and Baptizing: they were no Church Rulers; for there was as yet, no Gospel Church to be ruled, but they were still subject to the Government that was exercised in the Jewish Church: at last our Lord, after his Resurrection, gave them their Apostolick Commission; by which they were clothed with the Authority that belonged to that Office; and p. 92sent them out, both with Authority to Teach, gather, and setle, and to govern Churches; and their complete Ordination, or solemn setting them apart for that Office, by which also, they were furnished for the Discharge of it, above what they had been before, was when the Spirit was poured out on them, on the day of Pentecost: they got their Commission Mat. 28. 18, 10, 20. but the pouring out of the Spirit on that day, was as it were putting the Broad Seal of Heaven to their Commission; as may be gathered from Act: 1: 4, 5. Luk. 24. 44. It is true, others, beside the Twelve, got some Drops of that heavenly Shower, but they had not the same Commission with them, and therefore the Measure that they got did neither authorize them, nor fit them for Apostolick Work. Another thing that I here observe is, that though the Name Apostle be given to others in Scripture, yet there were some to whom that Name was given in a peculiar manner; though the Word is sometime used at large, yet it is applyed to them, so as by it they are distinguished from other Church Officers: hence the Apostle not only taketh that Designation to himself, in the Inscriptions of his Epistles, but taketh pains to prove that he was an Apostle 2. Cor 9. 1, 2. Now our enquiry is, wherein consisteth the nature of that Office that they had, who by way of Eminence were called Apostles; or what are the Characte… that they may be distinguished by from other Church Officers? If we can arrive at any Light in this, it will help us to understand whether the Bishops be Apostles, as some plead, or their Successors, as others imagine.

§ 4 I begin with the learned Bishop of Worcester Iren. p 209. where he discourseth of the common use of the Word, but p. 210. he telleth us, that the Twelve were called Apostles, from their immediat Commission that they had from Christ, and that our Lord made use of the word Sending (as applied to them) in the proper and peculiar sense. And he is so far from making Apostles and Bishops to be the same, that he maintaineth, that … Argument can be drawn for the Form of Church Government from Christs Actions towards his Disciples. Whitaker, against Bellarm: de Pontif: Roman… (who hath the same Notion of the Power given to Peter, that our Author hath of that given to the Apostles, and maketh the Pope to succeed to Peter, not in his extraordinary, but his ordinary Power; exactly as this Author saith of the Bishops, compared with the Apostles) Whita… I say, bringeth his Proofs against the Popes being an Apostle, from these Characters of an Apostle: and this he borroweth from the Apostle himself, proving his own Apostleship: that he was not called by men, Gal: 1. 1. p. 93Now saith he, the Pope is called by men; so say we of Bishops; that he had his Doctrine, not by mens teaching, but by Revelation, Gal. 1. 2. Eph …. 3. This agreeth neither to the Pope, nor Bishops: that he had seen Christ; 1 Cor. 9. 10. That the Apostles were Witnesses of Christs Resurrection, Acts 1. 22. You see then how our Writers maintain the Protestant Cause against Papists: that they gi…e other Characters of an Apostle, which they make essential to him: and that this Enquirer hath the same Notions of this Matter that the Papists have. Calvin: In… lib. 4: cap: 3. § 4. giveth these Characters of an Apostle: his universal Charge, and not being tyed to a particular Church: and for this citeth Mark 16. 15. and Rom. 15. 19, 20. where he observeth, that there was no bounds set to their Labours, but the whole world was given them to labour in: and that when Paul would prove his Apostolate, he doth not tell us of his gaining one City to Christ: but how he had travelled through a great part of the World, preaching the Gospel. He mentioneth also another Character, that the Apostoli were tanquam primi Ecclesiae Architec…, qui …jus …und … in … or be …: They were the first Planters of Churches, of which afterward. If it be objected, that these things belonged to the first, and extraordinary Apostles, not to these that are secondary, and permanent, or ordinary Apostles. This is to suppose what is in Question the Scripture giveth us the Characters of the Apostles that were the first Founders of the Church; but giveth no account of other Apostles; therefore these other are not Apostles, except in the general Notion, as they are sent to do Church work: Gersom Bucer: dissert: de gubern: Eccles. Episceps: 70. p. 269. proveth, that the Apostolate was a distinct Office from all other Church Officers, from 1 Cor: 12. 29. are all Apostles? so that it cannot be confounded with the Episcopal Office, nor differ from it only in these accidental things that this Author speaketh of: and Episceps 98. p. 383. he citeth both Whitaker and Polanus, making the Apostles such a distinct Office, to which there was no Succession in respect of their Degree, and making this a distinguishing Mark of that Office, that their Calling was foreign, immediate. The same hath Paul Bay…, Dyoces: …ryal, p. 52. Didoclav: altar: Damascen: C. 4. p. 141. citeth Whitaker, and Junius, to this purpose: and even Tilenus, who was no friend to Presbyterie, Petrum (saith he,) unius loci aut urbis Episcopum facere, est Apostolicam dignitatem ei detrahere. de. Pontif: lib: 2: C. 4. Not: 6. and lib. 1. C. 25. Not▪ 7. he hath these words, neque eam Apostolus ullus uni civitati, tanquam globae, ascriptus fuit, quod Gregarli est Episcopi, non Apostoli. Also lib. 2. C. 12. p. 94…

§ 5. I have seen a Manuscript of a learned Minister of this Church, now deceased, which, by an accident, hath stuok in the Birth, (I mean the Press) for some time: the design of which is to prove (and I think he doth it solidly) that the proper distinguishing Character of an Apostle is, he was commissioned by Jesus Christ in an immediate way, to gather and to plant Churches; and to institute all Christs Ordinances, in them: to teach them to observe all that he hath commanded. So he, p: 61. That Apostles were appointed for the erecting and building of the Church, as ordinary Officers are for the constant care of it, and administring the Ordinances of it. And p. 64. he maketh the Power of the Apostles, to be instituting the Ordinances of the Church, Ministerially, under Christ, whereas the Power of all other Officers lyeth in executing what is by them instituted. the Apostles Power of Executing these Institutions arose from this, that every superior Church Officer hath the Power of all p. 95inferior Officers. He further sheweth, that the Office of an Apostle differed from all the extraordinary Offices that were in the Church, in the beginning of the Gospel, particularly, the Evangelists (whose Office had the most Resemblance of the Apostolate) in that 1. They had not the same Mission with the Apostles (the one was immediatly from Christ, the other was from Him, by the Apostles: though their Gifts were sometimes immediate, and extraordinary.) 2. They were not under the infallible guidance of the Spirit, as the Apostles were; but were directed and ordered by the Apostles. 3. They had not their particular Instructions from Christ immediatly, as the Apostles, as appeareth from the Epist to Tim: and Titus 4 They had not the Power of conferring the Gifts of the Holy Ghost by laying on of Hands, as the Apostles had. My design in all this is to shew, that we have little reason to take this our Authors Doctrine about the nature of the Apostolick Office, how ever confidently asserted by him, on his bare word; seing so many of all sorts of Protestants are against him in this: for his talk of the uniform Testimony of Antiquity for what he saith, we look on it as a groundless Fancie; that he can never make out. I find indeed that some of the Ancients call Bishops, and some of them call Presbyters, Apostles, in a large sense; that is Christs Ambassadors: but that some of them think, or say, that the Office of them who now rule the Churches, is the same with that of them who at first planted them, I find not: when he shall please to produce some of these Testimonies that he pretendeth to be uniform, they shall be considered.

§ 6 I cannot pass over without correction, an Argument he hath p. 99. to prove that it was not necessary to make up an Apostle, that he be immediately called to the Apostolate by our Saviour; for Matthias was not immediatly ordained by our Saviour, but by the Apostles; who had power to continue that Succession to the end of the World. A. It is most absurdly said, that Matthias was ordained by the Apostles; for if they had had power to ordain an Apostle, why made they use of Lots? They did not so in the Election or Ordination of any other Church Officer. I think Lightfoots Opinion will find moe to assent to it, his words are, Apostoli non poterant Apostolum ordinare impositione manuum, prout Presbyteros ordinabant, sed sorte utuntur, quae erat veluti immediata manuum Christi impositio in eum. Nor doth it make against this, that it is said foreign; for Dr. Hammond (who was as great an Asserter of Episcopacy as this Author can pretend to be, and understood as well what could be p. 96said for it) saith, constat Matthiam sorte delectum fuisse, non per hominum suffragia. And Corn: à Lapide in locum, verbum hoc loco Catachrestice usurpatur de qualibet electione; idemque significat quod eligi, accenseri, annumerari. Not only Beza, but Corn à Lapide, expoundeth it, q. d. hic sortis eventus communi omnium sententia comprobatus fuit. And it is certain, that a Lot is a Divine Determination, Prov. 16. 33. Cartwright, Mellis: Hebraic: hath this Note on the Text, quod sortem appellat judicium, docet, non nisi in rebus gravioribus ad sortem esse recurrendum; maxime cum per sortem Deus ipse in judicio sedeat. It was not then the Apostles, but Christ himself, who chose Matthias to the Apostleship: nor was ever any Apostle chosen or called by Men; which the Apostle Paul denyeth of himself, as not agreeing to that Office, Gal. 1. 1. He telleth us, p: 100. that the ordinary and perpetual Power that Christ gave to his Apostles, was derived by them to their Successors. Here he supposeth that the Apostles had an ordinary and perpetual Power; which is that we now contend about; for we maintain that their Power was extraordinary, and ceased with them; and that it was an inferior sort of Power which their Successors got. He telleth next, that the name also was derived to others beside the twelve. That hath been already granted, that that Name, in a large sense, was given to others: yet in another sense it was restricted to the Twelve. But he is very unhapy in his Proof of this uncontested Truth; by Instancing Phil. 2. 25. where Epaphroditus is called the Messenger, foreign, of the Church of Philippi: for it is plain from the Text, that he is so called as being sent by the Philippians to Paul, and not as sent of God to them (tho we deny not but that in that sense he might be called an Apostle) for in that he is said, with the same Breath, to be he that Ministred to Pauls wants; and seeing it is as evident from the Text, that he was then with Paul and not at Philippi; it appeareth that he had been sent by them to Paul with some token of their bounty, for the Apostles subsistance. Thus Grotius expoundeth this Place: who saith, that they who gathered and carried the sacred Money were called foreign: and likewise, he saith, that the Philippians had sent Money to Paul by Epaphroditus, which he received, because being in Bonds, he could not then work with his hands For the same interpretation are Beza, Piscator, Zanchius, Uorstius; yea, Estius, who citeth Thomas Aquinas for it; and Cajetan. But he undertaketh to prove his sense of the word, by this Assertion, that an Apostle, in the New Testament, never signifieth a Messenger sent by men to men; but always a Messenger sent from God to men. p. 97This he extendeth to other places, as 2 Cor. 8. 23. This assertion is wholy groundless: yea, it is false, as I have already proved with respect to Epaphroditus. Phil. 2: 26. for 2 Cor. 8. 23. The word is not so to be taken there neither; for all his confidence in saying that our Translation is certainly a mistake. Grotius is here also against him; and saith, they were called foreign, because of their carrying Aims to the Churches of Judea. And it is evident from the Context, which telleth us of Pauls sending Titus about this Affair v. 27. and v. 18, 19. Another Brother is chosen by the Churches to travel (viz. to Judea) with this Collection: and v. 22. Yet another Brother is sent with Titus and that Brother formerly mentioned. Now the Apostle giveth a Character of these Commissioners; as for Titus, as well known to the Apostle, being in high Station in the Church, and an Evangelist; he telleth that he was his Partner, and Fellow Helper; as for these other Brethren, he insinuateth that they must needs be very commendable persons; being chosen by the Churches, and so entrusted by them; in that they made them their Messengers. What he excepteth against this is frivolous; for they are not called the glory of Christ on account of this Employment; neither could they be called the glory of Christ, simply, on account of their being sent by him to the people; yea, or being Bishops: but they are so called, because of their holy conversation, and faithful discharge of their Office, what ever it was, in the Church. Another Scripture he bringeth Rom: 16: 7. where some are called foreign, where saith he, the Greek Phrase may be rendered, inter prima…ios Apostolos. This is a Blunder that he would have thought sufficient to ruine the Credit of a Presbyterian for ever, as ignorant of the Greek, and of good sense: for neither can the word foreign signifie Primarius. or Chief; but may well be rendered, of note, noted, or eminent: nor can foreign and foreign agree, as Substantive and Adjective, as this learned Author maketh them to do; contrary to all Rules of Grammar. The meaning is plain, that these men were noted, or eminent in the Church, and so esteemed among the Apostles, or by them; nor doth it at all import that they themselves were Apostles. So not only Beza and Piscator; but Toletus, Vatablus, Grotius. The falshood of his Assertion, p. 100. That the word Apostle never signifieth a Messenger sent by men to men, but always one sent by God to men; is evident from Joh. 13. 16. Neither is he that is sent, foreign, greater than him that sent him; where the word is taken at large, for any one that is sent by another. And p. 98the Verb whence it is derived, is often used for a Mans sending; as Mat. 2. 16. and 21. 3: and 27: 19: 2 Tim: 4: 12 & passim.

§ 7. He took notice, it seems, that his Adversaries make Universality of Apostolick Jurisdiction to be one distinguishing Mark of their Office, which Bishops cannot pretend to; and therefore Bishops have not the Substance of the Apostolick Office. Hence he laboureth to take this Scruple out of the way, p. 101, 102, 103, 104. And 1. He telleth us the narrowness of the Limits of these Provinces assigned to the secondary Apostles (he meaneth the Bishops) did not alter the nature of their Office, from that of the twelve Apostles; more than the Kings of Juda lost the Honour of sitting on the Throne of David, after the Revolt of the ten Tribes. Here is a gross Mistake of the Question, which is not, whether the largeness or narrowness of the Charge that a Church Ruler hath, do alter the nature of his Office; but whether a limited and particular Charge do not so differ from that which is universal and extended to the whole Church of Christ, as that he who hath the one Charge and he that hath the other is not in the same Office. Will any Papist say, that the Univers… Bishop who sitteth at Rome, hath the same Office in the Church, and no higher than any poor Bishop in Italy or elsewhere? The Similitude brought from the Kings of Juda is impertinent to this purpose: if one had the Empire of the whole World, and lost that, and got the Crown of one particular Kingdom; I think his Office is not what it was. Beside, if we should yield all that he here alledges, it were no loss to our cause: for we do not make universal Jurisdiction the only Character of an Apostle; but that complexly, and in conjunction with others: as is above shewed. Another Consideration that he hath, is, the Apostles themselves had not equal Bounds and Provinces for their Inspection, but some travelled further than others; yet this did not change their rectoral Power, or Jurisdiction: no more did the confining Bishops in the exercise of their Power, to narrower Limites, make their Power to differ from what the Apostles had: that Restriction not being by the nature of the Power it self; but from the various Necessities and Circumstances of the Church, the Rules of Order, and the multitude of Converts, which obliged them afterwards to more personal Residence. I reply to this, 1. Here is a wide Door left for his Holiness of Rome to enter into the Church by: and it is observable, how naturally, and frequently, this learned Author, and some others of his Gang, do shew their Byass to that side. If nothing but Order, and Circumstances, and not Divine Institution, do confine Bishops to their Sees, whether larger, p. 99or less extended; and every one of them have, actu primo (as may be deduced from this Doctrine) universal Jurisdiction; why may not the exercise of it be committed to one of them; and the rest be subject to him? Some think that this belongeth to good Order, (though ordinary Pastors be related actu primo, to the Universal Church; yet they have not that Jurisdiction that the Apostles had, who needed no more but their intrinsick Power to warrant its Exercise in any particular place.) 2. It is without all warrant to suppose that every Bishop hath universal Power over the Church of Christ, as every Apostle had: they have not that Commission, go teach all Nations: this was the peculiar work of Apostles, to travel and plant Churches: the work of Bishops (if such an Office be in the Church) is to stay at home, and feed that part of Christs Flock which is committed to them. 3. It is falsly supposed that the Apostles had so their several Provinces as that they were confined to these: the World was the Province of each of them; though by mutual Consent, or by the immediat Conduct of the Holy Ghost, who guided their Motions, (as may be gathered from Acts 17. 7, 9, 10.) they went into several places of the World; yet so as they observed not that Division very critically; for we find them meeting sometimes; and though Peter was the Apostle of the Circumcision, yet Paul often preached to the Jews 4. The confinement of the ordinary Pastors to their several Charges is not the effect of Prudence, and Agreement of them among themselves, alone; but it is Gods Appointment, (though the setting of the Bounds of their several Districts in particular, be a work of men) for Christ hath not only set Pastors in the Church, but he hath set them over their particular Flocks, Acts 20. 18. so as they have the charge of them, and must give account of them; and not of the Souls in all Churches.

§ 8. His Notion, p. 103. that the Apostles divided the World among themselves by Lot, I know is to be found in Eusebius, Dorotheas, and Nicephorus, and some others of the Ancients; and some latter Writers have taken it on trust from them, as this Author doth: neither shall I be at pains to disprove it; it is done learnedly and fully by Dr. Stillingfleet, Iren: p. 232. & seq. by eight Arguments, that this Author will not easily answer: and particularly he sheweth, that Acts 1. 25. foreign, cannot be understood of a District appointed at first for Judas, and he falling from it was alloted to Matthias: which our Author taketh for an uncontested Truth, p. 103. Another thing I observe is, p. 104. that he p. 100saith, neither the Apostles, nor their immediat Successors, were so confined to particular Sees, but that proportionably to the Exigencies of the Catholick Church their Episcopal care and Superintendency did reach the whole, as far as was possible; and as Christian charity did require or allow, notwithstanding of their more fixed and nearer Relation they might have to particular Churches: which he proveth by their Epistles to other Churches, and by their Travels: and he concludeth, that the confinement to a particular See, doth not proceed from the nature of the Priesthood, but from the Rules of Prudence, Ecclesiastical Oeconomy, and canonical Constitutions. I first take notice, that this is still beside the Purpose, for it can never evince that the Bishops are Apostles, unless he make it out that no other Mark can be assigned in respect of which they differ. We say, that though Bishops and Apostles were Universal Officers in the Church, there are other things wherein they differ, as hath been shewed. 2 That the Apostles had a fixed and nearer Relation to one particular Church more than another, is denyed, and he can never prove it. The contrary is proved abundantly by the Author last cited. It is true, some of the Fathers do sometimes call James Bishop of Jerusalem: but that is with respect to his Residence, not to the confinement of his Authority: he was determined to stay there, as the place which Christians did resort to from all parts of the World (not in Pilgrimage, but on many other Occasions) that he might there superintend the Affairs of the Universal Church. Euseb. lib: 2. c: 23. and Jerome de viris illustribus, say, he was by the Apostles ordained the first Bishop of Jerusalem; but this they take out of Egesippus (as themselves confess) a most Fabulous Writer, and both of them relate out of him, several things concerning the same James, that all do look on as idle Dreams. 3. It is also without warrant, that he asserteth, that the first Bishops were not confined to their Sees, more than the Apostles were. If he understand of the Evangelists, we shall debate the case afterward. If of ordinary Pastors of the Church, I deny not but that they had a regard to neighbouring Churches, which were not furnished with Pastors, or otherways had need of their help (so do Ministers at this day, and ought to do) and this is all that can be inferred from their Epistles, or their Travels, which he mentioneth: but that they had universal Jurisdiction, as every one of the Apostles had, we deny, and he hath brought no Proof of it. 4. Who ever thought that the Confinement of a Pastor to a particular Charge, doth proceed from the nature of the Priesthood? if one Pastor could feed Christs p. 101Flock, more were superfluous: neither doth it proceed from mens Prudence, and Church Canons; but from Christs Institution, built on natural necessity. He directed his Apostles to ordain Elders in every City, and in every Church.

§ 9. He cometh now p. 105. to discourse of Succession to these Apostles, whose Office he had taken so much pains (to what purpose let the Reader Judge) to describe: and fixeth the Debate in this Question, Whether the Apostles committed their Episcopal Jurisdiction and Apostolick Authority, which they exercised in particular Churches, to single Successors, duely and regularly chosen, or to a Colledge of Presbyters, acting in the Administration of Ecclesrastical Affairs, in perfect Parity and Equality? And this he taketh to be the genuine State of the Controversie, and so do I; if some of his Prejudices, and unwarrantable Suppositions be cut off from it. For correcting this State of the Question, let it be observed first; that we will never own that the Apostles had any Successors in the whole of what was essential to the Apostolick Office: particularly, that rectoral Power that every one of them had over all other Ecclesiasticks: we deny that this was transmitted to Church Rulers who came after them. This our Author supposeth; whereas he should have proved it. That all that Power that was necessary for the Church, was transmitted from the Apostles to their Successors, we acknowledge: such as Power of Preaching, Administring of Sacraments, Ordaining Ministers, Ruling the Church: this they left in the Church; whether they left this Power to one in every Church to Rule the rest in these Administrations, or to many equally, is the Question. I join all these Powers together; because our Brethren with whom we now debate, our Jure Divino Prelatists, put them all in the Bishops hands alone, to be parcelled out to his Curats as he pleaseth. So that Presbyters may not preach, baptize, nor do any thing else in the Churches, without his allowance; they make the Bishop the sole Pastor of the Diocess. Wherefore our Author to this Question should have premised another, viz. whether the Apostles have any Successors at all, in the plenitude of that Power that they had over the Churches? He taketh it for granted, we deny it: and prove what we say. 1. The Apostles had their Power both as to its being, and extent, and that toward persons and things or actions, by an immediat Call: The Lord by himself, without any act of the Church interveening, pitched on the persons, made them Church Officers, and told them their work, and set the bounds of their Power. Now if any p. 102pretend to succeed to them in the plenitude of this Power, they must instruct the same immediat Call, or shew that the Lord hath left Directions in his Word, for clothing some persons with all that Authority: but this neither the Bishops, nor none else can pretend to. Not to an immediat Call; for then they must shew their Credentials. Nor to Scripture Warrant for all the Power of the Apostles; where is their Warrant for going through the World, in their own personal and intrinsick Authority, to order Affairs in all Churches where they come, or for instituting Gospel Ordinances; and appointing new Officers in the Church, that were not in it before: or even for ruling over their Brethren? This last I know they claim: and we shall debate it with them; but these others also belonged to the plenitude of an Apostolick Power. We have indeed sufficient warrant in the Word, for Men to Teach and Rule the Church; and these things are necessary to be, and a Power for doing that was needful to continue in the Church to the end of the World; but for other Powers that the Apostles had, they were only needful for planting the Gospel; not for Churches planted: neither have we Directions about propogating such a Power in the Church.

§ 10. Another Argument. The Apostles in their own time, divided their Power and Work among several sorts of Church Officers: they appointed Elders, some for Teaching and Ruling, as hath been proved; some for Ruling only, 1 Tim. 5. 17. They appointed also Deacons, to have a care of the Poor; which was also a part of their Power but they appointed none to succeed in the whole of their Power. This Conduct they could not have used, if they had been to have such Successors. If they made diverse sorts of Church Officers to succeed them, every one in his share of that work that is alloted to him. All which was done by the Apostles: and if they have not told the Church, that every one of these Officers must act in dependency on one, who is over them, as the Apostles were over all: how can we imagine that there is one Officer in the Church (by divine or Apostolick appointment) who hath all the Power that they had, and to whom all must be subject as to them. 3. The Fathers do not only make Bishops to be Successors to the Apostles, but they say the same of all Church Officers, Ergo, they did not think that any person succeded to them in the plenitude of their Power. The consequence is evident, for parcelling out their Succession, and one enjoying it in solidum, are inconsistent; the Ant. I prove by several Testimonies. Ignatius Ep: ad Trall: Presbyteros vocat p. 103conjunctionem Apostolorum Christi: & jubet, ut eos sequamur tanquam Christi Apostolos. Ep: ad Smyrnen: and Ep: ad Magnes. he saith expresly p: 33. edit: Vossi, that the Presbyters succeeded foreign, in the place of the Council of the Apostles. Irenaeus advers Haereseslib: 3: c: 2. saith, traditionem quae est ab Apostolis per successionem Presbyterorum custodiri: and lib: 4: c: 43. enjoineth, ut Presbyteris qui in Ecclesia sunt, & ab Apostolis successionem habent, auscultemus. And c: 45. Uhi (saith he) charismata Domini posita sunt, ibi discere oportet veritatem, apud quos est ea quae est ab Apostolis Ecclesiae successio. Cyprian lib: 4. Ep 4: affirmeth, omnes praepositos (and it is known that he giveth that Title also to Presbyters) vicaria ordinatione Apostolis succedere. Jerome (who was no Bishop) owneth himself for one of the Successors of the Apostles, dist: 35: cap. Ecclesiae in Apostolorum loco sumus, non solum sermonem eorum imitemur, sed & seorsum abstinentiam. And ad Heliodorum: absit ut de his quicquam sinistrum loquar, qui Apostolico gradui succedentes, Christi corpus sacro ore conficiunt; & per quos nos Christiani simus. August ad fratres in eremo, calleth them expresly, among many glorious Epithets, Apostolorum successores. And Ser: 33. He hath these words, non Laicis spiritualia dona tradita sunt; sed vicariis Domini, vicarii domini sunt qui vicem Apostolorum tenent: which ye see he saith of all the Clergy.

§ 11. Another thing I dislike in this state of the Question is, that he supposeth the Apostles exercised their Jurisdiction in particular Churches. I have above shewed, that this they did not ordinarily, in Churches already planted, and furnished with Officers. A third thing is, that he supposeth us to maintain a perfect Parity among Presbyters in the administration of Ecclesiastick Affairs. This I also cleared, S. 2. § 5. that we own a temporary Disparity, though not a Jurisdiction, in our ambulatory Moderator. These things being cleared, the Question is to be understood of that ruling Power that was in the persons of the Apostles, and is now necessary to continue in the Church. The Question is, whether, when the Apostles setled Churches, and committed the Government of them to Officers who were to continue in Succession in all the Ages of the Church, they committed that ruling Power to a single person, or to a Colledge of Presbyters? He saith it was committed to a single Bishop, I maintain it was committed to a Colledge of Presbyters, without any Disparity of Power, or Jurisdiction among them. And I further add, that neither did the Apostles give more of this Power to one of the Presbyters above the rest, neither did they allow them to p. 104transfer that equal Power into the Hands of another, and suffer him to rule over them. Some light Velitations he hath (before he came to his main arguments) for proving his Point. And 1. From Christs promise, that the Apostolick office shall indure perpetually; and this promise was made to them, not in their Personal, but in their Spiritual capacity I suppose he aimeth at Mat: 28: 20. where there is not one word of the Apostolick office in the Plenitude of that power they had. It respecteth their power of Teaching, Baptizing and Ruling; and the promise implieth that there shall be some to the end of the World who shall be imployed in that work; and it ensureth Gods presence to them who are so employed; but it saith nothing, directly nor indirectly, how much of the Apostolick Power these Successors shall have. His second Hint of an Argument is, that Christ loved the Church as much after the decease of the Apostles as before. A. It thence followeth that he did not let them want whatever spiritual Authority and Jurisdiction was needful for them: but it no way followeth, that the Apostolick Power, in all its Latitude, must continue; because though that was needful for planting the Church, it is not needful for her watering, and her continuance. That the Testimonies he is to bring were universally received, and the Church knew no other Government for 1400 years; as he saith, p. 106. is one of his bold affirmations, which must stand for Argument, to his easie Believers.

§ 12. He undertaketh to prove that the Apostles transmitted their Rectoral Power immediatly to single Successors, both by Scripture, and by the Ecclesiastical Records. The first Scripture Proof is, from Timothy being Bishop at Ephesus, and Titus at Crete. This his Argument he prosecuteth somewhat confusedly: but we must follow whether he leadeth. He bringeth nothing for proof of their being Bishops there, but that the Apostle besought Timothy to abide at Ephesus, when himself was going into Macedonia, 1 Tim. 1. 3. with Acts 20: 3, 4, 5. And then, after taking off (as he fancieth) one of our Exceptions against his Argument, he proveth, that the work that they did was competent to a Bishop. The Exception that our Writers commonly bring, is from Timothies non residency at Ephesus, and travelling with Paul. His refutation of this, p. 107, is, that Timothy after he was established Bishop at Ephesus, did often wait on the Apostle Paul, his spiritual Father, to assist him in the Offices of Religion but such occasional Journeyings cannot infer his being disengaged from his Episcopal Authority at Ephesus: Philip was as much a Deacon when he went and preached at Samaria, as when he served Tables at Jerusalem. The Presbyterians p. 105have not lost their Title to their particular Flocks, when they are imployed to visit the Court, or Forreign Churches. The Ancients laid no weight on this Objection, for Concil: Chalcedon: Act: 11: reckoned 27 Bishops from Timothy to their own days. The Reply to all this is easie. 1. He doth not propose our Argument fairly, nor in its full Strength: for then; this his Answer would appear trifling. We plead, that it cannot be made appear that ever Timothy was fixed at Ephesus, as Pastor of that Church; but that he was only sent to it, as Pauls Deputy, for a small time, to do some Work there. I besought thee to abide still at Ephesus, 1 Tim: 1: 3. cannot import a fixed Charge: but on the contrary; that his being first sent to that Place was lookt on as a Temporary Imployment; and the Apostle finding need of his being longer there than he at first thought, doth now lengthen out his Commission for some longer time. If he had been fixed at Ephesus as his particular Charge, and in a Pastoral Relation to that People, that was to end only with his Life, such a Desire for his staying longer in that Place had been very impertinent. Again, the Strength of our Argument lieth in this; that we find Timothy not only now and then in other Places, Labouring in the Work of the Gospel (that I confess is consistent with a fixed Charge) but the Course of his Ministerial Labours was, to be imployed else where, and we have little, or no more of him at Ephesus than what is mentioned in this place. We find that as soon as Paul returned to Ephesus from Macedonia, that he sent Timothy thence to Achaia, himself staying at Ephesus, Acts 19: 22: After Paul came from Ephesus to Macedonia again, and returned thence unto Asia, we find Timothy with him; not at Ephesus, Acts 20: 1, 4: After which we never read that Timothy wrote, came, or returned to Ephesus. We find that Paul sent him to Corinth, 1 Cor: 4: 7: and 16: 10: 2 Cor: 1: 19. And to Philippie, Philip: 2. 19. And to Thessalonica, 1 Thess: 3: 2, 6. Also he joyneth with Paul in Writing his second Epistle to the Corinthians, which was written at Philippie, and was sent, as also the first, from the same Place: and in that to Philippie written from Rome; and in the first to Thessalonica from Athens: and in the second. He is also mentioned in these Epistles, as being elsewhere: but we read no more of his being at Ephesus. He joyneth with Paul in his Epistle to the Colossians, from Rome. He was at Corinth when Paul wrote his Epistle to the Romans, Rom: 16: 21: with the Postscript of the Epistle. He was in Italy when the Epistle to the Hebrews was written, Heb: 13: 23: But in the Epistle to the Ephesians, which was written from Rome, long after the p. 106time that Timothy was supposed to be made Bishop, no word of him, neither as being at Rome, saluting them; nor as being at Ephesus, saluted by Paul. And it is strange, if when Paul speaks so much to the Elders of Ephesus at Miletum, Acts 20: 17,—that he taketh no special notice of him their Bishop. Beside, he telleth Timothy that he had sent Tychicus to Ephesus, 2 Tim: 2: 12. and that about the same Work that he had enjoyned Timothy to do there; and mentioneth him as sent to them, Ephes: 6: 21, 22. So that there is full as much ground to say that Tychicus was Bishop of Ephesus, as to assign that See to Timothy: and more ground to make Timothy Bishop of several other Churches above-mentioned, than of Ephesus.

§ 13. I hope, 2. These Reasons against Timothies being Bishop at Ephesus, are not taken off by telling us of Philip the Deacon Preaching at Samaria: for it is probable, that Philip was now Called to an higher Office; and so might leave his Deaconship to another: or, he might return to his Work at Jerusalem, seing we read not of such a constant Course of his being elsewhere, as we find in Timothy. Neither is it paralell to a Presbyterian Ministers visiting the Court, or Forreign Churches. If they be constantly Abroad, and especially, if they were never more setled in a particular Place, save that such a Man was sent to Preach, and do other Ministerial Work there for a time, we think it a good Argument against their Pastoral Relation to that Place. If the Council of Chalcedon, Act 11. mention twenty seven Bishops in Ephesus (which I find not in Caranza, nor is it said by the Council, Bibthoth. Concil. but by one Man, Obiter. Leontius Bishop of Magnesia, Tom. 4. p. 700.) it signifieth no more than that Timothy setled that Church (which he might do in the short time he stayed there) and from that time there had been so many Bishops, that is, Ministers, or Chief Ministers who were Presidents in their Presbyteries, during that time. This can neither prove Timothy's fixed Pastoral Relation to that People; nor the sole, or superior Jurisdiction of them who came after him. He next laboureth to prove that Timothy was Bishop of Ephesus, from the Power he was to Exercise, and the Work he was to do there; which he asserteth to be, all the Power and Work they claim for a Bishop. And he insisteth at length, from the Epistles written to Timothy, to shew what was his Power and Work. We do not contest with him about this; as himself confesseth, p. 104. surely Timothy could do as much as any Bishop can lay Claim to: only we deny his being fixed there; and we deny that he Acted as an ordinary p. 107fixed Officer; but as the Apostles Deputy, set there for a time, to do what the Apostle might have done, if he had been personally there. He was an Evangelist, and as such Acted in Ephesus, and wherever else he was imployed. That these Epistles were Directed to Timothy; only with Respect to his Work at Ephesus, is by some imagined, without all ground. He was imployed here and there by the Apostle, and whereever he had Work, he was to manage it according to these Directions. It is an inconsequential Argument that our Author bringeth, p. 108. to prove Timothy's particular Relation to the Church of Ephesus, that 1 Tim: 3: 14, 15: It is told him, that the Apostle gave him these Directions, that if he should tarry longer from coming to him, he might know how to behave himself in the House of God. For all this may agree to any Church, as well as to that of Ephesus: and it cannot be said (which followeth) of Ephesus alone, that that Church was the Pillar and Ground of the Truth: Wherefore, the Apostle intended these Injunctions not for Timothy alone; but for all Pastors of the Church: far less for Timothy only while at Ephesus; but for him in whatever part of the Lords Vineyard he should have Occasion to Labour. Neither do we now Debate, whether Timothy had a particular Relation to the Church of Ephesus (which may be granted while he abode there) but whether he had a fixed Relation to it, so as he had not afterward to other Churches whereto the Apostle sent him: or whether he was Related to it as an Itinerant Evangelist, or as as an ordinary and fixed Bishop.

§ 14. He argueth also p. 109. that his Power was not temporary or transient, but successive and perpetual, and derived to others in solidum, as he received it himself: and this he proveth, because he is injoyned to commit it to faithful Men who should be able to Teach others also. Here is still a Mistake of the Question; which is not about the Perpetuity of Timothy's Power; which I believe he had wherever the Apostle sent him about the Work of the Gospel: but the Question is about the Perpetuity of his Abode at, and Pastoral Relation to Ephesus: which is not proved by his Power of Ordaining Ministers. He demandeth p. 109, 110. somethings to be granted to him: some of which I freely yield. 1. That this Power of Timothies was lawful. 2. That he exercised it at Ephesus; viz. for a time. 3. That it was committed to him alone, and not to a Colledge of Presbyters. This I yield so far, that Timothy had a Vicarious Apostolick Power, that was superior to that of the Presbytery: but it is no Consequence, Timothy had such a Power at Ephesus for a time, Ergo, the Presbytery was p. 108not ordinary Rulers of that Church. I proved §. 7. That the Apostle setled a Colledge of Presbyters for the ordinary Government of that Church, and that from Acts 20. 28. 4. That there is no mention of a Colledge to which Timothy was accountable for his Administrations. The first part of this I deny: the grounds are mentioned in the place cited. Beside, it is like there was no such Colledge at Ephesus then; for Timothy is Directed about Chusing and Ordaining them: 1 Tim 3. 1 &c. The second part I freely yield, that Timothy could not be accountable to any Colledge of Presbyters, nor to any Man, except the Apostle who sent him: but this maketh nothing for such Exemptions to a Bishop; unless he could prove, each of them that they have a Personal Mission from an Apostle, or immediatly from Christ. 5. That the great Branches of Episcopal Power was lodged in Timothy's Person: this I yield, understanding it of that Power that Bishops pretend to. 6. That this Authority was … in it self temporary, transient, or extraordinary; but such as the necessities of the Church do make necessary in all Ages. This also, sano sensu, I yield: it must always be lodged somewhere: but that there must be a single Person endowed with such Power, I know no lasting necessity for that. I Answer to his Question p. 110. Why do they say, that in the discharging of an ordinary Trust, there is need of an extraordinary Officer. A. We say an extraordinary Officer was needful at first, till ordinary Men were by him Authorized, and Impowered to propagate this Trust; but that being done, we plead for no such need; but Debate against it. Against Timothy's Episcopal Relation to Ephesus further Arguments may be brought; from the Apostles putting the Government of that Church in the hands of Elders, acts 20. 28. 28. which must be after they were setled by Timothy, and that in his presence, he being then with the Apostle. Also, from the Apostles declaring to these Elders all the Council of God, Acts 20. 27. and yet he told them nothing of so important a point, as of the chief Pastor whom they must obey: a point that our Brethren lay so much stress on, as that they make the Beeing of Ministers and Churches to hang on the Succession of Bishops. From the Apostles not mentioning Timothy when he writeth to Ephesus. From his telling them that they should see his Face no more, Acts 20. 25. and yet not a word of leaving Timothy to take care of them, but laying it on the Elders, but I shall not enlarge on these.

§ 15. He alledgeth, with the same Confidence, and as little Strength of Argument, that the same power was committed by Paul to Titus, in Crete. p. 109And here p. 111. he maketh a very faint Attempt against our Plea, that Titus (we say the same of Timothy) was an Evangelist: which he very discretly, more suo, calleth a ridiculous Subterfuge. I shall examine what here he bringeth to back this Confidence; and then shew that Timothy and Titu were Evangelists. …. Saith he, It is no where said in Scripture, that he was one of them who were called Evangelists. A. He should have described to us them who in Scripture are called Evangelists: The word is divers ways used in Holy Write: neither do we argue from the Name, that either he, or Timothy (to whom this Name is expresly applyed, 2 Tim. 4. 5.) were Evangelists: but we argue from their Work and Circumstances, together with the mention that is made of such an Office being in the Church, in the beginning of Christianity. There are others beside them, whom we can prove to have been Evangelists, who, may be, get not that Name expresly given them in the Scripture. Next he argueth, the Work of an Evangelist hath nothing in its nature opposit to, or inconsistent with the Dignity and Character of either Bishop, Presbyter, or Deacon. What if all this were yielded? what gaineth he by it? Titus being an Evangelist might do all the Work that our Adversaries ascribe to him; tho he were no Bishop, and tho his being a Bishop were not inconsistent with being an Evangelist; what we design is, that doing such Work doth not prove him to have been a Bishop; seing he was an Evangelist; who hath all that power that Titus is said to have. Beside, Saravia (who hath said more for Episcopacy than this Author hath) de Ministr. Evang. grad. C. p. Saith nam quemadmodum major Apostoli authoritas fuit quam Evangelistae, & Prophetae & Evangelistae major quam Episcopi vel Presbyteri, ita Titi & Timothei, qui Presbyteri & Episcopi erant, major fuit authoritas quam Presbyterorum quos oppidatim Apostolica authoritate crearant. He maketh Evangelists to be a higher degree than the Bishops; if then Titus was an Evangelist, is it imaginable that he was afterward degraded to be a Bishop? Do we ever read that an Apostle was turned to an Evangelist; or a Bishop to a Presbyter; or he to a Deacon: unless some of these were degraded for some fault. Wherefore if Titus had the Character of an Evangelist, it is not like he was setled at Crete as an ordinary Bishop. Further he describeth an Evangelist; out of Euseb. lib. 3. C. 37. hist. Eccles. That he is a person that preached the Gospel to such as had not before heard of it; at least were not converted by it. Eusebius is not by him fairly cited, C. 33. (not 37.) he is giving account of such as builded the Churches planted by the Apostles (as his own words bear; therefore they did p. 110not only preach to them who had not heard the Gospel) he saith they fulfilled the Work of Evangelists, that is (saith he) they preach Christ to them who as yet heard not of the Doctrine of Faith; and published earnestly the Doctrine of the Holy Gospel. Which sheweth that Eusebius calleth them Evangelists, whom the Apostles imployed to Water their Plantations (as Apollo did after Paul, 1 Cor. 3. 6.) also whom they sent to preach to the Unconverted; or any way to preach the Gospel. His at last is his own addition to Eusebius, not the words of that Historian. It is evident then, that Eusebius hath said nothing that can exclude Titus from being an Evangelist. I do not deny that any ordained Minister may preach the Gospel to Infidels, and on that account be called an Evangelist, in a large sense; as may also every on that preaches the Gospel: but we now speak of an Evangelist in the more restricted sense, as it signifieth a Church Officer whom Christ had set in his Church, distinguished from Apostles, Prophets, Pastors, Teachers, &c. Eph. 4. 11. That it is no where insinuated that Titus was such an Evangelist, he alledged p. 111. but we prove from the Work he was imployed about, that it is more than insinuated. He proveth that one may do the Work of an Evangelist who is much higher than an Evangelist (which is a Truth, but very impertinent to his purpose) because Daniel did the Work of the King; who was no King but much lower than a King: a very wise Consequence indeed; That Philip the Evangelist had no power to confirm, or ordain, he affirmeth, p. 112. which is both false; he had power to ordain when any of the Apostles sent him about that Work: and Timothy and Titus had it not otherwise. (For the power of Confirmation, we know none had it: there being no such Ordinance, in our Authors sense, in the Apostolick Church) It is also wide from this purpose, for the Apostles might send the Evangelists clothed with what power they thought fit to impart to them. Paul might send Titus to Crete to ordain Elders, and Philip might be sent elsewhere, on another Errand; and yet both be Evangelists. That most of the Primitive Bishops were Evangelists, is true, in the large sense, as before: but not in the strick sense: neither is this to our present purpose: for he saith nothing unless he can also make it appear that all the Evangelists, in the Primitive Times, were Bishops. But what followeth is wholly false: that any Bishop or Presbyter, who now adays converteth any Jew or Pagan, are as properly Evangelists as any of them who were so called in the Primitive Times. If it were so, every such Minister should be a Church Officer of a distinct …m all other Church Officers: for there were whom the Scripture p. 111doth particularly call Evangelists, Eph. 4. 11. as so distinguished.

§ 16. That we may more fully and distinctly take off what our Adversaries pretend to bring for Timothy and Titus being Bishops; and not Evangelists; I shal shew what is the true Notion of an Evangelist; whence it will appear plainly, that Timothy and Titus were such: and that there is no ground from what is said of them in Scripture to think, that they were ordinary Officers in the Church, or Diocesan Bishops. I deny not that the word Evangelist is sometimes taken for any Preacher of the Gospel, who bringeth the good News of Salvation to Mens Ears. Yet it is often taken foreign, for, 1. One who wrote the History of the Life and Death of Christ; and that by the infallible Guidence of the Spirit; and so Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John are called Evangelists. 2. For an extraordinary Officer who was imployed by the Apostles for planting Churches, and propagating the Gospel. That there was such an Officer distinct from all others, both extraordinary, or temporary, and ordinary, or permanent, is evident from that place already cited, Eph. 4. 11. Our work is then to enquire what is the distinguishing Character of this Church Officer, from all others. Also that some are called Evangelists peculiarly, and by way of Distinction from other Officers of the Church, as Philip, Acts 21. 8. Of whom Grotius in locum, saith, qui cum olim de numero Diaconorum fuisset, factus est Presbyter foreign, nulli certae Ecclesiae affixus; quales Evangelistae vocabantur, Eph: 4. 11. 2 Tim. 4. 5. i. e. foreign Esai. 40. 9. and 51. 7. Ita solent promotiones fieri foreign, 1 Tim: 3: 17. Let us then see what Light we can get in this matter from Scripture, or from Antiquity, or by the help of later Writers. The Scripture not only giveth us account (as hath been said) that there was such an Officer in the Church; but that some were sent hither and thither by the Apostles, and that about such a Work as could not be done but by Apostolick Authority; as is evident in Timothy (as is shewed §. 12.) and Titus; whom Paul made his Companion in his Travels, Gal: 2. Whose Journeys and Imployments the Reader may satisfie himself about, from Smectym: §: 3: p: 38. (That I may shun the pains of Transcribing) Tichycus, Softhenes, Luke, &c. several of them are mentioned by Euseb: hist: lib: 3: C: 33. It is evident that these Men can be Ranked into no other Class of Church Officers, neither ordinary nor extraordinary. Wherefore they must be Evangelists: and from the account that we have of them, we must gather what was the Power, the Work, and the Characteristick Note, of an Evangelist, p. 112that he was an extraordinary Officer in the Church, needful for the first planting and setling of the Churches, who was imployed by the Apostles, and by them authorized to do what ever work, or exerce what Acts of Power, the Apostles themselves, who imployed them, might have done.

§ 17. For what account of them is to be found among the Ancients, it is to the same purpose: they make them no fixed Officer, but itinerant. They ascribe to them Apostolick Power; and make them subordinat to, and delegated by the Apostles; for this see Euseb: hist: lib: 3: C: 33: (or as some editions have it 37:) who telleth us of some who foreign: being sent Abroad, performed the Work of an Evangelist: and this Work of Evangelists he sheweth to have been, preaehing the Gospel, planting the Faith in strange Places, and ordaining other Pastors, committing to them the Labouring (foreign) of them who were newly brought in: and he addeth, that they themselves went to other Countreys and People, foreign. Can there be a more lively Description of Evangelists, in the Notion that Presbyterians have of them: Euseb: also hist: lib: 5: C: 9: speaking of Pantaeus, that he was sent as far as Judea, he hath these words foreign, &c. There were many of the Evangelists, who had a great Zeal after the manner of the Apostles (foreign) to promote the Heavenly Word, and to plant it, and these Evangelists, he saith, they were prepared of purpose, which relateth to the Divine Institution of this Office. Augustine de tempore, Serm. 14 … calleth the Evangelists, suppares Apostolorum: which setteth them in very nigh degree to the Apostles, and far above the ordinary Bishops: with which if we compare council: Chalcedon: which saith, that it is Sacriledge to set a Bishop in the degree of a Presbyter; they should more count it Sacriledge so to degrade an Evangelist, as to set him in the degree of a Bishop, or an ordinary Pastor in the Church, Chrysost: in Eph. 4. foreign —3ly, Evangelists who went about every where preaching the Gospel, as Priscilla and Aquila. Later Divines, both of the Episcopal and Presbyterian side, tread in the same steps. Grotius not only is clearly for this Notion of Evangelist, on Acts 2: 8: above cited; but on 2 Tim: 4: 5: he calleth them, adjutores Apostolorum; quae (saith he) magna sane dignitas, Scultet: & Piscat: in 2 Tim. 4. Evangelistae proprie dicti erant, tempore Apostolorum, qui itinerum eorundam & laborum socii erant, qui ad diversas missi sunt Ecclesias, ut fundamenta jacerent, quales Philippus, Sylvanus, & alii. Estius in Eph. 4. 11. saith, they were praediti singulari dono Evangelium predicandi. Grotius, and Hamond on the p. 113same Text, they were adjutores, vel comites Apostolorum. From all this it may be concluded, that Timothy and Titus were Evangelists in the strict sense of that word: and considering the nature of their Office, and their Travels mentioned in the Scripture, they were not fixed to any particular Charge: and consequently were not Bishops, in the sense that we use that word. If my Adversary will prove them to be Bishops, he must bring Arguments to prove their Office to have been ordinary and permanent in the Church; and that they were fixed in a particular Pastoral Relation, each to some Flock: which is no ways done by what he hath yet said.

§ 18. I now proceed with my Antagonist, who p. 112. bringeth a new Argument, viz. That James the Just was Bishop of Jerusalem, and he saith, it is not material to his design, whether he was one of the twelve Apostles, or not: One would think that this is more to his purpose than he is aware of: for he is proving the Succession of Bishops to the Apostles, and if James was an Apostle, this instance can never prove such Succession. But I pass this. I think he was one of the twelve, because he is so called, Gal. 1. 19. and 2. 9. Paul speaketh there of the Apostles in the strickest sense; for he cannot mean he had seen no Preacher of the Gospel at Jerusalem, save Peter, and that he speaketh of that James, who abode at Jerusalem, when the rest of the Apostles left it, is not to be doubted. That James stayed at Jerusalem, and did not travel as the rest of the Apostles, I have acknowledged, §. 4. and there have given account how it came to pass. That he had all the Power that our Brethren give to their Diocesan, we deny not: The Apostolate included that, and more. That he might be called a Bishop, and was sometimes so stiled, we may easily grant: for that word is sometimes used generally: for all Church Rulers, and not only Apostles, but their, and our great Master is so called, 1 Pet. 2. 25. But none of these Concessions, nor all of them in Conjunction, will prove that James was Bishop of Jerusalem, in the sense of the word that is now current; that is, that he was an ordinary Ruler of the Church, inferior to an Apostle, and an Evangelist, whose Jurisdiction was limited to one District, and not extended to all the World. Let us now hear his Proofs for James's Episcopacy at Jerusalem. 1. It is uniformly attested by the most ancient Witnesses, particularly, Clem. Alexandr. and Hegesippus. I can easily yield him a great many more Witnesses; and persons of more Credit than Hegesippus, and of more Antiquity than Clem. Alexandr. tho I will not yield, p. 114that all his Adversaries grant it, in his sense. Salmasius (whom he citeth) saith nothing, but that he abode at Jerusalem. The Answer to this Argument is easie, the Ancients called James Bishop of Jerusalem (as they also called some other Apostles who abode not so long in one place) because of his Apostolical Authority which he there exercised; which included in it all that Authority that any of the Ancients (or Moderns either) ascribe to a Bishop: and usually they began their Catalogues of Succession with some Apostle, or Apostolick Man: as Peter at Rome; tho it is certain he did not reside there: and it is a Question whether ever he was there. And indeed it was usual with the Ancients to speak of things long before their time, in the Dialect that was current among themselves. His Argument from this Denomination is naught, unless he can make it appear, that James had his Authority, not from his Apostolate; but by his being ordained a Bishop. I wonder to find that such a Learned Man as Downam asserteth that James, before his Ordination as Bishop, had Authority as an Apostle; but had no Jurisdiction over that particular place; but was a Pastor sine titulo: for this strange fancie will infer, that Paul and the rest of the Apostles never had Jurisdiction any where; seing they were no where ordained Bishops: nor doth the Scripture give account of any such Ordination of James.

§. 19. We have further Argument from p. 113. Peter when he was delivered out of Prison commands that these things be made known to James, Acts 12. 17. Where (saith he very wisely) the deference paid to Saint James is visible: and taken notice of elsewhere frequently, as Gal: 1: 19: and 2. 1, 9. Truly the Papists have many Arguments that have a fairer shew than this hath for its Conclusion, for Peters Supremacy. I wonder that a Man pretending to Learning, is not ashamed of such an Argument. Was not all this respect due to James as an Apostle; how then doth it prove him to have been a Bishop: is there any thing that looketh like Jurisdiction (which yet we deny not to James at Jerusalem) cannot Men be civil to a Person so eminent for Grace, Gifts, and his Character, but they must make him a Diocesan Bishop? but the strongest Argument is yet behind: Act. 15. He pronounceth the Sentence by his Episcopal Authority. A. He might far rather do it by his Apostolick Authority: but there was no need of either of them; he did it as being chosen Moderator of that Meeting: and that he exercised no Episcopal Authority in this Case, is evident; for the rest of the Apostles were present, Act. 15. 2, 4, 6, 22. And it was never heard of (but among Papists) that one Apostle had Authority p. 115over another, or over all the rest: much less that a Bishop should have Authority over Apostles. I am afraid this Author unawares doth so stretch the Episcopal Authority, that he will make it break, and be contemptible. He telleth us, Calvin holdeth all that he saith, on Gal: 2: 9: in saying that James was preferred to Peter, because he was Hierosolymitanae Ecclesiae praefectus. He disingenuously leaveth out Calvins, fortassis; which sheweth that he was not positive in that matter. But I shall positively yield him what Calvin doth but doubtingly, and let him make his best of it. Let it be granted that James was chosen Praeses of that Meeting, because of his Residence at Jerusalem, and being the chief Governour of that Church where the Meeting was held, (not as Bishop but as Apostle) this can prove no Preference to any of the Apostles; Presidency in such a case doth not infer a Superiority of Power. It rather sheweth that the Apostles did not there act in their Apostolick Capacity, but in a Parity with the other Elders; with whom they are always joyned in that Chapter, when spoken of. Our Author now making a Transition to another Head of Arguments, cannot go out of his Road, in concluding with insolent Contempt of his Adversaries. I do not (saith he) now insist on these imaginary and superficial Exceptions that are made by our Adversaries. If they were such, they were well suted to some of the Arguments he hath last used.

§ 20. Another Argument he beginneth, p. 114. and prosecuteth it in some Pages following, is taken from the seven Angels of the seven Asiatick Churches; by whom he understandeth the Bishops of these Churches: if they were so, the Consequence is, that Bishops were setled in the Churches by the Apostles: and that these Churches were not by Divine Right ruled by a Colledge of Presbyters. This Argument hath been much tossed; and in my Opinion, urged with more Strength, by others of his Party, than he giveth to it. For clearing the Truth in this Matter, I shall give my Opinion, and lay down the Grounds of it; and then Examine what he saith in Enforcing and Vindicating this his Argument. I find three Opinions among the Presbyterians about these Angels. The first is, that by Angel is meant the Collective Body of the Church; for this our Author citeth Salmasius, Walo. Messal. p. 184. Ambrosius Ausbertus, is also cited by Smectym: and Aretas Caesariensis by Turret. his Words are, foreign, &c. Also Ticonius was of this Opinion, as is said by August. de Doct. Christian. lib. 3. c. 30. And it is certain, that not only all the Members of the Churches were concerned in what is written in p. 116these Epistles; but John was commanded to write them to the Churches, Rev. 1. 11. And in the Conclusion of every Epistle, all the Church Members are excited to hear what the Spirit saith to the Churches, and not to the Ministers only, which yet doth not prove that by Angel is meant the Church: their Concernments in these times were entrusted to the Angel; not that they were the Angel. Another Opinion is that of Beza, Reynolds, and others; who take Angel foreign; for a single person; but maintain, that not a Diocesan Bishop is to be understood, but the foreign, or Moderator of the Presbytery, by whom the Epistle was to be communicated to the rest of the Pastors, and by them to the People: and indeed it is certain, that the Word may be so taken; and if we should yield this to our Brethren, it cutteth the Nerves of their Argument, unless they can prove; that these single persons had Jurisdiction over the rest of the Pastors of these Churches. Which they can never do from the Epistles themselves; for all the Reproofs and Commendations may be intended for the Colledge of Presbyters, tho addressed to them by the Praeses. Nor can the Direction of the Epistle to a single person prove what they intend: there is nothing more ordinary than to address a Community by the Praeses of their Meeting: if a Letter be Directed to the Moderator of a Presbytery for the use of the Presbytery, doth this Entitle him to Episcopal Jurisdiction? The third Opinion (to which I most incline) is, that Angel is here to be taken foreign, o… Collectively, for the Colledge of Presbyters; so that to the Angel is (in our Phrase) to the Moderator and remanent Brethren. In the Contents of the old Translation of the Bible (which expresseth the sense of the old Church of England, in this matter) they are called Ministers So it was understood by Aretas, Primasius, Ambrose: Gregory the Great Beda, Haymo; and many others, saith Owen of Ordination, C. 2. p. 35.

§ 21. I shall first prove that it may be so taken: next, that it mu… be so understood. For the former, it is usual in the Scripture, and particularly in the Mystical Parts of it; in Types and Visions (and th… most of the Book of Revelation is written in that Stile, every one knoweth) to put the Singular Number for the Plural; or to mean a Multitude when but one is exprest: how often is a People or Nation expressed by the Virgin or the Virgin Daughter of such or such a Place? Th… Ram, Daniel 8. 3. is interpreted to be the Kings of Media and Persia, … 20. The whole Succession of the Apostate Bishops of Rome, is calle… Antichrist, the Man of Sin, the Son of Perdition. The Antichristian Church p. 117consisting of Priests and People, is called a Beast, the Whore: So an inferior Number is put for a great Multitude; the Enemies of the Church are called four Horns, and her Deliverers four Carpenters, Zech. 1. 18, 20. The Directions given to Judges are often in the singular number, thou shalt do so and so: hundreds of Instances of this nature may be given Whence it is easie to conclude, that there is no Absurdity, nor is any Violence done to the Text, if by Angel we understand the Rulers of the Church, or the Colledge of Presbyters. My next work is to prove that Angel must be so understood, for which I bring these Arguments, 1. The Lord here useth a Title that doth not signifie Rule, or Jurisdiction; but Gods Messenger to the People: as also, Rev 1. 16, 20. These Angels are called Stars, which importeth their Teaching, or holding forth Light to the People; both which are common to the Presbyters: seing then he doth not use a word of Authority, whereby the Bishop is pretended to be distinguished from the Presbyters; but of Embassy, and giving Light; whereby the Presbyters are distinguished from the people; this word cannot be taken for a Ruling Bishop, but for Teaching Presbyters. It were a strange thing, if our Lord designing to single out one person from all the rest of the Church, would design him by that which is common to him with many others, and not by that which is peculiar to himself. It doth also strengthen this Argument, that both in the Old and New Testament, they whom God sent to his People to reveal his Mind to them, are called Angels, Jud. 2. 1. Hag. 1. 13. Mal. 2. 7. 1 Cor. 11. 10. Yea the Legions of Angels who are imployed to Encamp about the People of God for their Safety, are called the Angel of the Lord, Psal: 34: 7.

§ 22. Argument 2. It is not without a Mystery, that Rev: 1: 20: our Saviour in opening the Mystery of the Vision, speaketh twice of the seven Churches; but shunneth calling the Angels seven: he saith not, the seven Stars are the seven Angels of the Churches; but the Angels of the seven Churches: as by the seven Spirits, Rev: 1: 4: and 3: 1: is meant the Spirit of God, sufficient for the needs of all the seven Churches; so here, the Angels of the seven Churches must be the Pastors whom the Lord hath provided for the use of his Churches; tho they were not one only for every Church, but more. Argument 3. It is manifest from Acts 20: 28: (and I have evinced it § 3. of Sect. 3.) that there were more Presbyters, or Bishops at Ephesus than one: If then Christ wrote to the Rulers of the Church of Ephesus under the Title of Angel, he could not mean a single p. 118person. It cannot be denyed, that they who are called Overseers of the Church of Ephesus, Acts 20: 28: are they whom Christ here calleth Angel: the same thing is expressed in the one Place in a more plain Stile, in the other in a more Obscure and Mystical Stile. Argument 4. Our Brethren will not deny, that there were more Church Officers imployed in Teaching each of the Churches than one Bishop. Now these must either be comprehended under the Candlestick, or under the Star: they cannot be a part of the Candlestick; for they give Light, as the Candlestick doth not, but by the Candlestick is meant the People to whom the Light shineth: they must then be comprehended under the Star, and consequently under the Angel; whence it followeth that the Angel is a Plurality of Persons. So that we may conclude, that as by Candlestick i… understood the Collective Body of People, so by Star, or Angel, is understood a Body of Church Officers, and not a single Bishop. Argument 5. Many things are said in these Epistles, which cannot be Expounded with respect to a single person: as at Ephesus, the Angels forsaking his first Love is threatned with removing the Candlestick: that is, Unchurching that People: can we think that such a fearful Judgment could be threatned for the Sin of one Bishop, if the rest of the Elders and People were free: and this we must say, unless we acknowledge that the Angel to whom the Epistle is Directed is not a single person, but a Community. The same may be said of several other Churches; would the Lord spu… out all the Presbyters and People of Laodicea, for the Hypocrisie of one Bishop. Argument 6. There are several Passages in these Epistles wherein a Plurality is expressed; as that which is meant by Angel, to whom the Epistle is addressed: as the Devil shall cast some of you into Prison: can that be Expounded, some of thee Bishop of Smyrna, or some of your Pastors, and People? and unto you I say, foreign, and the rest in Thyatira: is not there a plain Intimation of a Plurality, under the Name of the Angel? by the rest in Thyatira must needs be understood them who are distinct from the Angel, and the Angel must be who ever is distinct from these who are called the rest? and yet beside the rest, there is a Plurality, you. My Antagonist hath an Answer to this Passage, such as it is; which I shall consider, when I come to Examine his Vindication of his Argument. Smectym. Sect. 13. out of Fox, Meditation on the Revelation (which I have not seen) citeth August. Ep. 132. Sic enim (saith he) in Apocalypsi legimus, Angelus, &c. Quod si de Angelo superiorum Coelorum, & non de praepositis Ecclesiae velit intelligi, non consequenter dicat habeo adversum te, &c. And p. 119Homil. 1. in Apocaly…. Quod autem dicit Angelo Thyatirae, habeo adversum te pauca, dicit praepositis Ecclesiarum. And Greg. moral. lib. 34. in Job 4. Saepè sacra Scriptura praedicatores Ecclesiae, pro eo quod Patris gloriam annunciant, Angelorum nomine solere designare: & hinc est quod Joannes in Apocalypsi septem Ecclesiis scribens, Angelis Ecclesiarum loquitur, id est, praedicatoribus populorum. Also Primasius, Haymo, Beda, Richardus, Thomas, and others are cited by Mr. Fox, to this purpose.

§ 23. I shall now examine what my Adversary bringeth, offensively, or defensively, for his Opinion about these Angels, 1. He falleth on Walo Messalinus, who p. 184. interpreteth Angel, by Church: calling V. G. the Angel of Ephesus, the Church of Ephesus; and he giveth the reason, because the Christians in each of these Towns were purior & sanctior pars urbis, atque adeo magis spiritualis; therefore that part was compared to an Angel. Tho I do not owne this Notion of the Learned Salmasius, yet I judge our Authors calling it a silly Subterfuge, and his ridiculing of it, to be pretty ridiculous: he maketh the meaning be, the seven Stars are the Angels of the seven Churches, that is, the Churches of the seven Churches. By his favour, it hath no such sense (Salmasius can hardly be Taxed with Nonsense, even by Men of more Critical Skill than this Author is) it should be thus Paraphrased, the seven Angels are the Churches of the seven Towns: and it is evident, that according to the Opinion of that Learned Writer, the Angels are not distinguished from the Churches, but from the Towns wherein they were. Also, when the Epistle is addressed to the Angel of the Church of Ephesus, the meaning is not, to the Church of the Church of Ephesus; but to the Church which is at Ephesus: even as the Virgin Daughter of Israel, is not the Nation of the Nation of Israel; but that Nation which is called Israel. Mystical Expressions must not be strained by Critical Wits: some Atheists, by this method, have endeavoured to draw Nonsense out of the most Profound, and Instructive Parts of Scripture. Our Author hath not dealt very fairly with Salmasius, in this matter; for he understandeth by Angel, the Church Guides signanter, and also the whole Church; his words are, per Ecclesiam (having said that Angelus was Ecclesia) non tantum Ecclesiasticum ordinem intellexit Joannes, sed universum in quaque civitate fidelem populum, ut mo… est Apostolis loqui. And if he will ridicule Salmasius, the same Censure must fall on Aretas Bishop of Cesarea Cappadociae, whom Salmasius citeth, p. 183. Discoursing at large to the same purpose. I cannot understand what he designeth by telling us, p. 115. That the Church p. 120cannot be called a Company, a Multitude, or a Colledge of Angels; but one single Angel praesiding in their Ecclesiastical Meetings. For no Man doth so sense the word; but by Angel some understand a Multitude of People, others a Plurality of Elders; but none of them make Angel to be a Multitude of Angels.

§ 24. He next telleth us, that tho there be Instructions in these Epistles, in which others are concerned, yet the Epistles are no less to single Angels, tha… the Epistle to the Philippians is to the whole Church there, tho particular Compellations he used, as, I intreat thee true Yoke Fellow, Ch. 4. Here is an odd Consequence, there is an Apostrophe used to a single person, in an Epistle expresly Directed to a Community, and that in plain and proper Language, Ergo, when in a Mystical Speech an Epistle is Directed in the singular Number, in a borrowed Term, we may not understand a Plurality, tho when the Writer of the Epistle speaketh more properly, he speak expresly to a Plurality. What tho the Conclusion of the second Epistle to Timothy had been to a Plurality; doth it thence follow, that a Mystical Word in the singular Number, may not be Plurally taken? the contrary would seem to follow more natively. But he is guilty of a double Mistake here, one is, that the Conclusion of that Epistle is to all the Faithful; the last words are, The Lord Jesus Christ be with thy spirit; grace be with you Where he is mentioned expresly as the Person to whom the Epistle is Directed: and the People of God with him are remembred also expresly: it is not alike, when the Word is used in the Direction of an Epistle, which, tho singular, is capable of a plural Sense; and in the Epistle a Plurality is expresly spoken to. His next Fancy is most groundless, that the Bishops of the Asiatick Churches are called Angels in Imitation of the High Priest, who was Dignified with that Name: and for this he citeth Mal. 2. at the 7. v. For tho we should grant that foreign may be Translated Angel, as well as Messenger; yet this is a Description of the Priests Work and Authority, telling us what he is; it is not a Name by which he used to be Designed. Again, what Warrant is there to say, that this is meant of the High Priest peculiarly? it is evidently to be understood of Priests in common: the Priest, that is, every Priest. For Deut. 27. 9, 10, 11. (whence that Axiom seemeth to be taken) Ascribeth this Priviledge to a Plurality of Priests; and not to the High Priest alone. Further, it is a bad Consequence, the High Priest was called an Angel, and the Church Rulers are called Angels, Ergo, every one of them had the same Jurisdiction that hehad: this is a loose way p. 121of Reasoning; and either will fix the Pope in his Chair, or is Insignicant. He hinteth (very superficially, and obscurely) an Answer to one of our Exceptions, p. 116. That the Faults of the Churches are imputed to the Angels, because they had Spiritual Power to reform them. Reply, it cannot be so understood; for some of the Faults are such as no Church Discipline can reach, nor any Ministerial Care prevent, or amend: as having a name to live when they are dead; Hypocrisie is not properly the Object of Church Censures: but such Scandal as are the Symptoms of it: nor are Ministers always to blame when the Word doth not make People sincere. That this Hypocrisie was the Fault of the People as well as of the Angel, may be gathered from v. 4. where a few, and only a few, in that Church, are excepted from that blame. I add, that not only the Angel is blamed for the Faults of the Church; but the Church is threatned for the Fault of the Angel: if the Epistle be Directed to him in his single Capacity.

§ 25. He hath a peculiar Answer to what we alledge from Rev. 2. 24. To you, and to the rest in Thyatira. 1. He borroweth an Answer from Doctor Hamond against Blondel, who not only blameth our Translation, but the Greek; which he alledgeth to be corrupted, by adding foreign: he would have it read to you, the rest of Thyatira. His ground is, the most ancient Manuscripts; particularly, that of Alexandria, preserved in the Royal Library, hath not this foreign. Ans. It is Confidence enough, if it be also Candor, to pretend to the Countenance of the most of the ancient Manuscripts, when but one can be instanced. Grotius, Ribera, and Beza, mention but three, which is far from the most part; and Beza proveth the ordinary reading out of Aretas. I oppose to this bold Pretence, the Collections of various Readings made by Curcellaeus (who hath, with no good Design toward the Scripture, gathered together what he could meet with; and may be more than ever were extant) where this is not to be found. Also the Laborious Work of the Learned and Industrious Walton, who in the Appendix to his Biblia Polyglotta, hath gathered the various Readings out of most ancient Manuscripts: (which he there nameth) and not a word of these in any of them. Likewise the Operose Notes of Lucas Brugensis, (in the fore-mentioned Appendix) where nothing of this appeareth. If his one Manuscript, be enough to Overballance all the Manuscripts, and Printed Copies extant, let the Reader judge. Because he could not but jealous this Shift as insufficient to his purpose, he hath a second Answer, which supposeth our Reading of the p. 122Text to be right: that foreign, you, relateth to all the Churches of Asia, which had been spoken of in the former v. This is his own Invention, and let him have the praise of it, (Doctor Ham. in loc. maketh the rest to be the other Cities under Thyatira the Metropolis, which is better sense: but without all ground, unless what is in Question be yielded to him:) his Party may applaud his Zeal, which will rather Distort the Scripture, and turn it to Nonsense, than not defend the Dignity of Bishops. For what sense could it make, I will make all the Churches of Asia to know that I search the Reins and Hearts; but to you, the Churches of Asia, and to the rest in Thyatira, I say: these of Thyatira were a part of the Churches of Asia; how then can they be called the rest, as distinguished from them. Beside, he had been speaking of the Churches of Asia in the third person: It were then strange, if with the same breath he should speak to them in the second person. I insist not on his calling Beza's sense of the Angel, that a Praeses is meant, ridiculous, and contrary to the sense of all Antiquity; such Confidence and Contempt are the Flowers of his Rhetorick. Neither doth Beza speak of a Weekly, or Monethly Moderator, but pleadeth against his being perpetual: which this Author should have opposed with Reason, or Scripture, not with Taunts. We make no Argument of the seven Angels not being called Bishops: his refuting of it is idle work. That Polycarp was then Bishop of Smyrna (as he saith p. 118.) is no more certain than that Timothy was then Bishop of Ephesus: and if the Good that is said of Smyrna, sute to the one History, the Ill that is said of Ephesus, will as ill agree to the other. He telleth us of the Explications of the Sectaries (the Presbyterians) being spoiled by comparing the Epistle to the Angel of Smyrna with the most ancient Acts of the Martyrdom of Polycarp. But hath not thought fit to point at the Arguments that arise from this Comparison; wherefore he cannot expect that we should Answer them: which might easily be done, if they be no stronger than what he hath hitherto brought from Antiquity.

§ 26. He hath now fallen on an easie way to determine the whole Question, p. 118. It is pity it came not sooner, that all this Labour might have been saved. But it may be this Birth also may miscarry. Parturiunt montes,—the Question seemeth to me to be in the same State, and his Opinion to labour under the same Difficulties, as before this Invention was hatched. His easie way lieth in three Enquiries. Whether the Ancients affirmed that the Apostolical Power was derived to the Bishops as their Successors. 2. Whether they insist frequently on this Succession of single Persons to the Apostles in Particular Sees, when they p. 123reason against Hereticks. 3. Whether we may not with Safety and Confidence lean on their Authority, and Tradition, in an Affair of this Consequence? If ye will give our Enquirer leave to Dictat magisterially the Answers to these three Questions, our whole Debate will soon, but not soundly, be at an end: but if we contest every one of them (in his sense) with him, we cannot so soon conclude this Dispute as he imagineth: For his first Enquiry, it must not be made, nor the matter determined so indistinctly as he doth. It is not denyed that Bishops succeeded to the Apostles; but the Question is, whether these Bishops had the same Jurisdiction over Presbyters and People, that the Apostles had? The Ancients sometimes, with the Scripture, called all Presbyters Bishops; sometimes, by a Custom that early crept into the Church, they restricted that Name to the Praeses in the Meeting of Presbyters: and the Question is, whether this Praeses had the Apostolick Power in his single person, or it was diffused equally among the Members of that Colledge in which he did praeside? This being premised as the state of this Question about Succession to the Apostles; I hold, that all that Apostolick Power that was needful for the Churches once planted, and must be continued to the end, was communicated, not to the Praeses alone, but also to the rest of the Presbyters: and that all of them were the Apostles Successors, in that respect: he is for the contrary Opinion.

§ 27. Let us now hear his Reasons, Two things he brings for Arguments, or what else I do not well know. One is, It is evident that the Ancients affirmed that the Apostolical Power was derived to the Bishops as their Successors, from the Catalogue of Bishops in the Apostolick Sees, by the most ancient Records of the Church. This is no dreadful Argument: for, 1. Among all the Sees he mentioneth (I need not transcribe them) there is not one in which an Apostle was said to sit, but that of Jerusalem: the rest indeed were excellent Men who first praesided in these Churches: but not Apostles; and therefore their Sees can no more be called Apostolick, than that of Canterbury or York, &c. whose Bishops this Author reckoneth to be the Apostles Successors, tho not so immediatly as those mentioned. 2. These Catalogues that he mentioneth, were not so early made as he would insinuat: they do indeed begin with early things, and guess at what past in, or near, the Apostles Times: but we do not find that such Co…ion of the Succession of Bishops was made for near three hundred years …er Christ; except some little account by Irenaeus: and these that are …nt, are so perplext, and do so disagree with one another, p. 124that nothing can be concluded from them, with any certainty: particularly in the Succession at Rome, there is no certainty that Peter was there, nor who were after him; the same might be shewed of others of them. 3. No more can be proved from these Catalogues, but that in the first Ages of the Church, there were such men who Ruled and Taught these Churches, whom after Ages called Bishops: but the Catalogues neither tell us what Power they had; nor whether they ruled these Churches alone, or in Parity with the rest of the Presbyters. As Gers-Bucer expresseth it, p. 423. Non queritur an Episcopi continua successione usque ad Nicenum Concilium Ecclesias gubernaverint, sed quales Episcopi suerunt; & quid imperii aut potestatis in Ecclesiam aut Presbyterium habuerunt. That one only is mentioned is no proof of sole power: for, 1. That is not always done, Irenaeus lib. 3. C. 3. beginneth the Succession at Rome with Peter and Paul. 2. In their Catalogues they mentioned the Eldest, or the Praeses of their Meeting, or the Man of most Fame for Grace or Gifts. For their Design was not to number all the Pastors of the Churches; but to shew a Succession of Pastors, and of sound Doctrine. Neither do we find such Records of Succession in all Churches, but in some that were of most Note.

§ 28. His second Enquiry and Observation, p. 119. is, In what Language the Ancients spake of Bishops, who are said to have succeeded to the Apostles: where he bringeth a number of Citations litle to the purpose in hand. His first is Irenaeus: Et habemus annumerare eos qui ab Apostolis instituti sunt Episcopi in Ecclesiis, & successores eorum usque ad nos, qui nihil tale docuerunt, neque cognoverunt, quale ab his deliratur. What can be hence inferred, further than that there were Sound and Orthodox Men, whom Irenaeus calleth Bishops, from the Apostles time: which is not to our Question. That Irenaeus Reasons from this against the Valentinians, is not probative of our Authors point: what he addeth out of Irenaeus, Quos (Episcopi) & successoru relinquebant, suum ipsorum locum Magisterii tradentes; is not concludent: for, 1. This is not spoken of a single Bishop in one place; but of all the Pastors of the Churches: whom we maintain to have been a Plurality. 2. Or this Magisterium may well be understood of their Teaching Authority; for that was to his purpose; that they whom the Apostles Authorized to Teach the Church, Taught not the Doctrine of the Valentinians. For what he saith that Irenaeus carefully distinguishes between Bishops and Presbyters, he hath cited no place for it: and if he had, it importeth no more, but that special notice was taken of the p. 125Praeses, beyond the rest of the Presbyters: it can never prove sole, nor superior Jurisdiction. Another Citation out of Irenaeus (that I may not transcribe all the words) is no more, but that Apostoli illis tradiderunt Ecclesias: which we deny not: seing it may be understood of all Presbyters: and indeed Irenaeus saith the same of Presbyters, lib. 4. C. 43. Only our Author will have it understood of Bishops, because of their Age: on the contrary, I plead, that it should be understaod of Presbyters by Office? because Preaching Power was committed to them, and not to Bishops only: and it is of that he is speaking; as that by which the Valentinian, and other Heresies were condemned. Another Testimony out of Irenaeus, we must obey them qui successionem habent ab Apostolis—qui cum Episcopatus successione Charisma veritatis certum, secundum placitum Dei acceperunt. I see nothing to prove that all this may not be applyed to every Presbyter, or Pastor of the Church; nor is there any Shadow of Ground for his Inference, viz. Ye see here, that the Episcopal and Apostolical Dignity are one and the same, in the Language of Irenaeus. None can see this, unless the Eyes of his mind be Tinctured with prejudice. For 1. Episcopatus successio is competent to all Presbyters, in our Opinion: which he should refute, not suppose it to be false. 2. Here is not the Apostolical Dignity mentioned by Irenaeus, but a part of it, to wit Charisma veritatis certum; which I think he will not say is peculiar to Diocesans: the Church would be ill served, if they only had the Gift of Preaching the Truth: seing they cannot preach to all their People: and in our days seldom preach to any of them. He bringeth another wonderful Argument, which he speaks of as what may supersede his insisting on what he is discoursing: the Prophesy (saith he) which threatned that the Bishoprick possessed by a notorious Malefactor should be given to another, was literally fulfilled when Matthias was advanced to the Apostolate, in the Room of Judas. I am so slow as that I cannot perceive what he aimeth at by this, unless he would infer, Matthias succeeded to Judas, Ergo, the Bishops, and they alone, succeed to the Apostles: which is much more ridiculous, than what he a litle before he charged Beza with. If he lay stress on the word Bishoprick, it is captio ab homonymia.

§ 29. Cyprian is the next Father whom he adduceth, as a Witness that the Bishops succeed to the Apostles. All that he bringeth from the Writings of that Learned Father, and Holy Martyr, I have lately Answered, in a Debate on this Subject, with I. S. I am not willing to repeat: yet I shall point at Answers to what he citeth. Cyprian saith, p. 126Apostolos, id est, Episcopos & Praepositos, Dominus elegit. His Objection hath its own Answer; Cyprian distinguisheth between Episcopos & Praepositos: the President Bishop and the Presbyter; and he calleth them both Apostles; because they succeeded to the Apostles. I hope he will not make Praepositos to be Exegetick of Apostolos, least he make Cyprians sense to be, Apostolos, i. e. Episcopos, i. e. Praepositos. Another Citation, quod enim non periculum metuere debemus de offensa Domini, quando aliqui de Presbyterie, nec Evangelii, nec loci sui memores, neque futurum Dei judicium, neque nunc sibi Praepositum Episcopum cogitantes, quod nunquam omnino sub Antecessoribus nostris factum est, totum sibi vendicant. This may seem plausible to such as know not the occasion of these words; which was: while Cyprian was retired from Carthage, because of the Persecution, some of the Presbyters, without the rest, took on them to absolve some of the Lapsed: this Cyprian complaineth of, as justly he might; yea, he had cause to complain, that their Bishop (that is, constant Moderator of their Presbytery) was neglected in this matter; for that cause should have been determined in consessu Presbyterorum; which should have been called together by him; as Praepositus illis, that is, by their Choice, made the constant Praeses of their Meeting: There is no proof here of a solitude of Power: nor of Cyprians Succession to the Apostles (which is the thing that our Author citeth it for) more than the rest of the Presbyters did. The special notice that is here taken of his being neglected, proceeded from the Genius of that Age, wherein perpetual Presidency had set the Bishop a little higher in Dignity above the Presbyters, than they had been from the beginning. Another Citation (which also misseth the mark, viz. Succession to the Apostles) is, that Cyprian saith, Ecclesia super Episcopos constituitur, & omnis actus Ecclesiae per eosdem gubernatur; and saith, this is Divina lege fundatum. All this may be understood of Scripture Bishops, that is, all the Presbyters: and if ye will take it of the Cyprianick Bishop, that is, the Praeses, we assent to it as truth; provided we understand not these Bishops in their single Capacity, but in Conjunction with their Presbyters: the Church is set on all Pastors who teach sound Doctrine, with respect to her Soundness in the Faith, and Edification in Holiness: on the Presbytery, or ruling part, (among whom, in Cyprians time, the Praeses, or Bishop, was specially taken notice of, tho he did not rule by himself) with respect to her good Order: and that all this is Juris Divini, I no way doubt. If our Author can make out sole Jurisdiction from these words, he must bring better p. 127Arguments than I have yet seen. Again, Cyprian saith, the Bishops succeeded to the Apostles vicaria ordinatione. This is also granted, and may be understood of all Pastors of the Church; and we deny it not of the praesides Presbyteriorum, who were peculiarly called Bishops: they succeeded to the Apostles as Ministers of the Gospel; but that they either had the Plenitude of Apostolick Power, or that their Presidency, as a distinct Office, or superior Degree, was by Succession from the Apostles, we deny; and it is not proved from Cyprians words. Their ruling power they have, with the rest, by Divine, or Apostolick Institution: that there be a Presidency, is of the Law of Nature; and hath Scripture example; the person who should preside, is to be chosen by common consent; nor do we find any warrant from Scripture, either that he should have power superior to the rest, or that this Presidency should always be in one person. He bringeth also Tertullian, saying, percurre Ecclesias Apostolicas, apud quas ipsae adhuc Cathedrae Episcoporum suis locis praesident: habes Corinthum, habes Ephesum, habes Romam. This Testimony importeth no more than that there continueth in the Churches, planted by the Apostles, a Government to this day. Gathedrae cannot be strained to signifie a Bishop with sole Jurisdiction: the Notion of that word is sufficiently Answered by a Judicature in the Church, where one presideth: which we say should be in every Church. He is so consident of his Conclusion, that he desireth us to read Cyprian himself (we do it, Sir, and think not fit to take all on Trust that is cited out of him by your Party) and he thinketh the Disingenuity of Blondel, and his Associats will appear to the highest Degree. I desire, on the other hand, that he would read him with an Unbyassed Mind, and then all this Airy Confidence will evanish. That he asserteth, p. 123. that the Authority of Bishops over Presbyters, Deacons, and Laity, will appear to them who read Cyprian, is denyed, except in the sense that I yielded in the Book above pointed at: they have joynt power with the rest of the Consistory over one another, and over the whole Church.

§ 30. I proceed with him p. 123. to his second Enquiry: Whether the Ancients insisted frequently on this Succession of single Persons to the Apostles in particular Sees, in their Reasoning against Hereticks. I acknowledge that they frequently Reasoned from the Doctrine that had been taught by persons succeeding to the Apostles in particular Churches: and that they named particular Men, or single Persons in that Succession: but that they laid any weight on their being single Persons whom they so p. 128named; or that they lookt on these as the only Successors of the Apostles in these Churches, we deny; and have not yet seen it proved. It is the same thing, as to the Strength of their Reasoning, whether one Minister, or more, had the Power of Governing these Churches. Wherefore, if we should yield him all that he is here enquiring for, it doth not advantage his Cause, nor hurt ours; unless it be made appear that the single persons so named, were the sole, or supreme Rulers in these Churches: which I am well assured is not proved by any of the Testimonies that he bringeth. His first Citation is out of Tertull. whose Argument is plainly this, that the Hereticks could not shew the beginning of their Churches, as the Orthodox could do, from persons placed then by the Apostles; as Polycarp was by John at Smyrna, and others in other places: and he addeth, perinde utique & caeterae exhibent, quos ab Apostoli in Episcopatum constitutos Apostolici seminis traduces habeant. Here is no one word of Singularity of Power: and it is certain, that the Apostolici Seed of sound Doctrine might be transmitted to Posterity by a Plurality of Presbyters, as well as by single Bishops: yea, and better too; for if one erred, the rest might correct him; but if the Bishop erred, there w… none in that Church that might oppose him. That Polycarp in Smyrna and none else, is named, doth not prove that he alone Preached the true Doctrine, and far less that he Governed that Church by himself And indeed the Zeal and Unanimity that he mentioneth p. 125. was … good mean of keeping the Doctrine of the Church pure: but as this Unanimity could not be in one Church, but among a Plurality of Tea chers, so the Unanimity of a few Bishops in several Diocesses, could not be so convincing in this matter, as that, with the Unanimity of Presbyters among themselves in these several Churches that they were to instruct. Another Testimony of Tertull. he bringeth, Ordo tamen Episcoporum ad originem recensus in Joannem stabit authorem. There is nothing here but what hath been already Answered: there was an Order, or Succession of Bishops, whereof John the Apostle was the Appointer of the first of them: but he doth not tell us of their sole Jurisdiction. He argueth p. 126. that if the imaginable Interval of Parity had been known, after the Apostles, and the Succession of single Bishops interrupted, this Argument had been weak, and the Hereticks might have insulted. A. I deny that either he, or the Hereticks could have any such advantage: because the Fathers did not argue from the Singularity of the Persons succeeding one to another, they had no occasion to consider that, in this Debate; further p. 129than to instance in one person so succeeding in a Church, where there were more: it was enough to confound the Hereticks, that such Doctrine was constantly taught since the Apostles days, and they could tell them by whom. What followeth p. 126, 127. is a Repetition of the same thing: about which I shall trouble him no more, let him tell it over again as oft as he will. He needed not tell us p. 128. that the Successions of single Persons Governing particular Churches, and their Jurisdiction and Preheminence, is acknowledged by some of the Gallican Church; we know there are Worthy Men in that Church; but we never thought them all infallible.

§ 31. His third Enquiry is, Whether we may safely lean on the Authority of the Ancients, in an Affair of this Consequence? he saith, no doubt we may; and ought. I affirm that this matter may admit both of further Distinction, and of some Doubting: and that it is blind Confidence to be so positive, without clearing the State of the Question. And there is the more need of distinguishing in this Case, because our Author seemeth, in pursuing this his Enquiry, to confound two different Questions: one is, whether we may lean to the Accounts they give of the Succession of Bishops since the Apostles days? Another is, about the Antiquity of Episcopal Government, as he wordeth it, p. 131. It is one thing to owne a Succession of Teachers in a Church, whome some Men will call Bishops; another to owne that the Government of the Church was managed by them alone. I shall here propose and apply five Distinctions. 1. The Ancients and their Writings are to be distinguished. Some of them lived in, or near to the Apostolick times: others of them some Ages after: the Credibility of the former, caeteris paribus, is far greater than that of the later: Because they had better causam scientiae; and because, tho Tradition, without Writing, may, at first, and under the best advantages, soon, and easily be corrupted; yet by length of time, and passing through many hands, it is more apt to be depraved; and that even without design. For the Writings ascribed to the Ancients, some of them are Spurious, and only bear the Names of Famous Men. Others of them are corrupted, and interpolated; tho they were really done by them whose Names they bear: others of them are Dubious; so that it is sub judice, whether they be credible Testimonies, or not. A second Distinction is, of the things about which we debate: our Author indeed doth distinguish, in the Progress of the Debate, between Matters of Fact, and Matters of Opinion, or Principle: of which afterward. p. 130I distinguish things on which our Faith, or our Duty doth depend; from these things that we are not so concerned in, being merely Historical Passages, or Debates about Natural or Politick Things; in Matters of Fact of the later sort, we are to believe the Fathers as credible Historians; and regard them (at least some of them) as Men of Learning; yet so as not to believe their Histories, nor receive their Conclusions against Sense and Reason: for the former sort of things, I look on their Testimony as insufficient, to perswade the Mind, or clear the Conscience: Scripture, not the Fathers, must be the Rule of our Faith, and Religious Practice. Distinction third, These things that we Debate about, are either determined in Scripture, or not: if not, much regard is to be had to thess Holy and Learned Men; who had much of the Mind of God in many things: yet, as was said before, we must not blindly follow them, over the Belly of Sense or Reason. If they be, Scripture light must be our Guide, not the Opinion of the Fathers. Listinction fourth, The Testimony of the Fathers is either Unanimous, or they are Divided: in the later case, we cannot follow them; but must examine which of their Opinions is best founded. In the former, their Testimony may occasion a great prejudice, and may readily byass the Mind; yet it should not determine us against Scripture Light, they all being fallible Men. Distinction fifth, The Opinions of the Fathers are either clearly delivered, or we must guess at them, from dark Hints. As the one sort can no way command our Faith: so neither the other is to be received implicitly.

§ 32. Out of these Distinctions, this State of the present Question resulteth, whether the Testimonies of the Fathers be a sufficient ground on which we may determine, whether Episcopacy or Parity be the Government of the Church that Christ hath instituted. My Antagonist is for the Affirmative, I am for the negative: for which I give these Reasons, 1. We have no concurrent, nor unanimous Testimony of the Fathers on either side; for all the noise that is made of the Universality and Perpetuity of this Tradition, and Unanimity about it. If they can prove what they confidently affirm in this point, we shall quit this Argument. Many of the Fathers have said nothing on this head: few of them have have written on it directly, and of purpose; and what they have said, is but indirectly, without considering the State of our Controversie; which I am perswaded, was not brought into Debate in the Primitive Times: many of the Excellent Men of the first Ages have p. 131written nothing: many of the Writings of that time are perished: there are different Opinions in this Debate among them, whose Writings we have; which arose from the Change of the Practice that had been in the Apostolick Age: whence then should we have this Harmony that they talk of? for this last (the rest are certain enough) I refer the Reader to what hath already been said in this Disputation. 2. What most of the Fathers say on this head, is obscure, and hard to be understood: their Expressions being suted to the Customs and Dialect of that time, which was plain enough to them who then lived; but not so to us, who know not their Idioms, nor the Customs that they relate to, as then known things: they also used words in a far different sense than we do: As Merit, Pennance, Bishop, and such like. It is sometimes far easier to clear the Point in Debate from Scripture, and Reason, than to clear the Expressions of some of the Fathers about it. 3. The Uncertainty that we are at about the Genuine, and Spurious; the Pure and Corrupted Writings of the Fathers, make their Testimony unsafe to be the solitary ground of our Faith, or Practice, even in this matter. Who knoweth not what Debates are among Learned Men on this Head? and how Conjectural all the Knowledge is that can be attained by the most diligent Search? And surely it is no Wisdom to build our Opinion in a Matter of Religion, wherein we either please God, or sin against him, on such a Sandy Foundation: Of this Opinion was Theophilus Antiochenus who flourished about an. 130. and is said to be Sextus a Petro, in the Church of Antiochia, lib. 3. ad Autolycum, near the beginning: he is shewing the Certainty of what Christians believed; compared with the Stories about the Heathen Gods, and hath these words, foreign, &c. i. e. It was needful that Writers should be Eye Witnesses of what they affirmed: or that they have exactly learned the truth of things from them who were present when they were done: for they who write Uncertainties that they themselves know not, do as it were, beat the Air: his work is to be found Biblioth. Patr. T. 2. This Passage is, p. 151. of the Cologn Edition 1618. 4. It is acknowledged by the best Antiquaries, that the History of the Ages of the Church next to the Apostles, is defective, dark, and uncertain: This is not only found now, at this distance of time; but it was early complained of by Eusebius, who had far more help to a certain and distinct knowledge of these things, than we have, lib. 3. C. 4. foreign —But how many, and what sincere Followers (or Successors) have Governed the Churches p. 132planted by the Apostles, it cannot be confirmed, but so far as may be gathered out of the words of Paul. Where he layeth the Certainty of our Knowledge of what concerneth the Government of the Church, on Scripture, and not on the Fathers. And in his Preface to his History, he telleth us, he had gone in a Solitary and Untroden Path, and could no where find so much as the bare Steps of such as had passed the same Way; having only some small Tokens foreign here and there, as it were. Also, that he had not found any Ecclesiastical Writer, who unto this day (and it was the Interval of three hundred years) have in this behalf (he is speaking of the Succession of Bishops) imployed any Diligence. Is there not then great Certainty to be expected from this, or any other Writer, concerning these times; that we should look on their Accounts as sufficient ground to build our Faith on, in a matter that Religion is so nearly concerned in? The Learned Scalliger hath this Observation to our purpose: Intervallum illud ob ultimo capite actorum Apostolorum ad medium Trajani imperium, quo tracts Quadratus, & Ignatius florebant, plane cum Varrone foreign vocari potest, is quo nihil certi de rebus Christianorum ad nos pervenit, praeter admodum pauca, quae hostes pietatis obiter delibant, Swetonius, Tacitus, Plinius; quem hiatu… ut expleret Eusebius, foreign Clementis, nescio cujus, (non enim est ille eruditus Alexandrinus, foreign Hegesippi, non melioris scriptoris, sine delectu ea deprompsit. Tilenus (no Friend to Presbytery) saith full as much; he telleth us of the Lacunae and Hiatus of these times: and that a fine actorum Apostolorum, ad Trajani tempora, nihil habemus certi. Shall we then take the broken and uncertain Accounts that we find of these times, for a sufficient Foundation of our Faith, about what is the Will of God concerning the Government of his House.

§. 33. Our fifth Argument we take from the Fathers disowning each himself, and all others, beside the Prophets and Apostles, from having sufficient Authority to determine in the Controversies of Religion; not exempting that about Church Government. This our Writers have made so evident against the Papists, that it is a wonder that Protestants should use such a Plea. And indeed the Papists get much advantage by this Conduct: for the same Arguments that our Author, and his Complices, use in this Debate, they improve in the other Controversies; and with the same advantage. For if the Scripture be not sufficient Light to us in this, I see not how it can be thought perfect in some other of our Debates: if unwritten Traditions be found necessary in the p. 133one case, it will be hard to lay the same aside in some others. I have adduced some Testimonies of Fathers to this purpose, Preface to Cyprianick Bishop Examined: to which I shall now add, August. lib. 2. contr Manichae. of the Scriptures he saith, 161. Si quid velut absurdum noverit non licet dicere, author hujus libri non tenuit veritatem; sed aut codex mendosus est, aut interpres erravit, aut tu non intelligis. In opusculis autem posteriorum, quae libris innumerabilibus continentur, sed nullo modo illi sacratissimae Scripturarum Canonicarum excellentia conquantur, etiam in quibusdam eorum invenitur par veritas, longe tamen est impar authoritas. Jerom is much, and often in this strain, Ep. 62. ad Theoph. Alexandr. Scio me aliter habere Apostolos, aliter reliquos tractatores: illos semper vera dicere, istos in quibusdam ut homines errare: Et Ep. 76. Ego Originem propter eruditionem sic interdum legendum arbitror, quo modo Tertull. Novatum, Arnob. & nonnullos scriptores Ecclesiasticos, ut bona eorum eligamus, evitemusque contraria; juxta Apostolum dicentem, omnia probate, quod bonum est eligite. The same he saith also of his own Writings, in Hab. & Zech. Si quis melius, imo, verius dixerit, & nos libenter melioribus acquiescemus. Ambros. de incarnatione, C. 3. Nolo nobis credatur; non ego dico a me, quia in principio erat verbum; sed audio, non ego affingo, sed lego, &c. Cyril. Hierosol. Cat. 12. Meis commentis foreign non attende; possis enim forte decipi: sed nisi de singulis Prophetarum testimonia acceperis ne credas dictis, &c. Yea, the Papists themselves reject the Authority of the Fathers when they please, and teach in general, that they are not always to be followed: as Dally and Turretin shew, out of Cajeton, Canus, Maldonate, Petavius, and Baronius, who often reprehendeth the Fathers, even in the Historical Accounts they give of Matters of Fact: and doth not this very Author so far forget himself, as to say, that Jerom erred in his account of the practice of the Apostolick Age, p. 73. as I above observed: and if Jerom did mistake, why might not the rest also, the Opinion of the Learned and Excellent Bradward. de Causa Dei, lib. 2. C. 3. corroll. p. 601, 602. is consonant to what I have said. p. 134He sheweth, that the Fathers did often seem, at least, to favour Hereticks: particularly Pelagius: and p. 602. E. Et quis theologus nesciat alias scripturas quorumcunque scriptorum non tanta firmitate semper muniri, sed posse quandoque ab hominibus emendari, and instanceth in Origen, Jerom, Cyprian, and Augustin. Our Authors Exception against this, in his Distinction of Matters of Opinion, and Matters of History, that the Fathers might mistake in the one not in the other, I am afterward to consider.

§ 34. For further Confirmation of this Truth, I shall transcribe a few heads of Arguments, out of a Manuscript written by a Learned Divine of this Church; Entituled, Some Propositions collected out of the Writings of Divines about Church Government: because few can have access to read the Manuscript it self: He proveth, 1. That the Testimony of the ancient Historians is not in every thing, and particularly in that point of the Hierarchy, probably true, because, 1. Even Episcopal Writers of the best Note, deny their Testimony to be universally true: Sutliv. de Pontiff. lib. 2. C. 11. p. 148. Multa de Petre & Paulo & aliis sanctis hominibus narrantur fabulose, quibus nemo necessario tenetur credere: ibid. p. 153. About Peters being at Rome, Ad testimonia Patrum quod attinet expedita est Responsio: quae fama acceperant, narrant, sed dubia & incerta. Whitaker of Peter and Pauls being buried at Rome, Hoc totum nititur fidei humanae, & ex historiae veritate pendet: at fides & Religio nostra certiori fundamento nititur; testimonio, scil. spiritus sancti: Baron Pref. p. 3. Nulla res hactenus in Ecclesia magis negligi visa est quam Ecclesiasticarum rerum narratio: quod si Historias consules, magnam eorum classem ess… intelliges, quae absque delectu perceperunt, & aniles fabulas. 2. They relate many things that are generally disbelieved, as the Letter of Abgarus to Christ, and Christs Answer: Peter being twenty five years at Rome, as Bishop of that Church, is questioned by most Protestants; Sutliv. saith, Credo eum Romam nunquam vidisse. Reynold, Colla: with Hart, bringeth strong proofs that Mark was not Bishop of Alexandria. 3. Many of these old Histories are lost, as that of Egesippus, as Bellarmine confesseth: others are vitiated, some carelesly written, as Socrates testifieth of Eusebius's History, lib. 1. C. 1. That he took more care to praise the Emperor, than to describe the Acts of that time. Also several things are in Eusebius which he did not write, for he citeth Sozomen, lib. 3. C. 20. who lived an hundred years after him. 4. The Testimony of most Ancients about the Hierarchy, is in causa propria. 5. Many of them whose Testimony is brought, lived an hundred years after the Apostles times: and therefore had things by Tradition, which useth to grow by being often rehearsed; p. 135for, saith Socrates, lib. 5. C. 9. Nulla fabula narratur bis quin duplo major evadat. 6. The Testimonies of the Ancients in this are not harmonious. He further proveth. 2. That these Testimonies cannot found a Theological Conclusion: For, 1. They are no part of the Canon of Scripture, on which ground Protestants reject Testimonies from Apocrypha. 2. Their Writings contain some things that neither Party assenteth to. 3. Their Sayings were not probative in their own time, Ergo, neither in ours; seing we and they have the same ground of Faith. 4. A Theologick Conclusion must be built not on Topick, or uncertain grounds: Reynold Colla. with Hart, C. 6. Praeter authores sacros nullus Historicus certus esse potest, i. e. Idoneus ad faciendam fidem in Theologia. Sarav. de Pontif. l. 2. p. 151. Quis Ecclesiae status fuerit antequam Apostoli tradiderunt rationem gubernandi Ecclesiam, nemo dicere potest, nisi ex sacris scripturis. Sutliv. 12. T. Probatur nostra sententia (that Peter was not at Rome,) 1. Quia nusquam ex scripturis probatur, nihil ejus seripsit in Epistolis suis Petrus, nihil Paulus, nihil Lucas, qui res Apostolorum diligenter prosecutus est. A Theologick Conclusion must either be founded on some evident and clear Demonstration, or some infallible Authority: neither of which is in the Sayings of the Ancients for the Hierarchy.

§ 35. Let us now hear what he bringeth for this his Opinion; where in he is so positive and confident: one might here expect strong Reasons; but behold, pro auro paleas. He telleth us, p. 128, 129. The Apostolical Churches had their own Fasti, in which were recorded the Succession of their Bishops, and the Names of the Martyrs: and that there are many Apostolical Monuments beside: in which Egesippus, &c. could not be mistaken. A. 1. Euseb. was of a contrary Opinion: he could find none of these Fasti: but was forced to go in an untroden Path, as I shewed §. 31. 2. He should have given some evidence for this confident Assertion: for we know not where to find these Fasti, without his Direction. I deny not that in some after Ages they began to keep Records in Churches; but that in the Apostolick and next succeeding Age, they had them, we find not▪ and these are times of which we, with Eusebius, and others, complain of, as to the Uncertainty and Defectiveness of History. 3. The Memory of the Martyrs was early Recorded: we do not find that the Succession of Bishops was so. 4. Suppose the Records of both had been early and exactly kept, this can give no Light in the present Debate, unless they had Recorded what Jurisdiction they whom they called Bishops did exercise: which he doth not so much as alledge out of p. 136these Fa…i. 5. It is confessed by all, that Hegesippus was a very Fabulous Author, and took many things on Trust, which he neither found in the Fasti, nor any Apostolical Monuments. For Irenaeus and Tertull, they say nothing for his Cause but what we are ready to contest with him; even supposing their Authority to be as great as he will make it. For Clement, he is mistaken about him, as I shewed before, out of Scalliger.

§ 36. Next he advanceth a Distinction (and ingeminateth it) of Theorems and Matters Fact: he confesseth, in the former that the Ancients might mistake; but not in the latter: that it is impossible that they should mistake, and they would not impose upon Posterity; seing such things were obvious to the Knowledge and Observation of the meanest Christians: we must not think that they Lied in these, or Conspired to propagate a Lie to Posterity: for they were Men of such Sanctity, defended the Truth with their Blood, many of them had miraculous Gifts; they were Unanimous in delivering this their Testimony. A few Considerations will easily dissipate this Mist, 1. He supposeth the Unanimity of the Ancients bearing Testimony to Episcopacy being the way setled by the Apostles: which is utterly denyed: he taketh it also for granted, that that was universally practised in, and since the Apostolick Age, till of late: which is also said without all ground; if he will prove either of these, we shall insist no more on either Arguments, or Defences from Antiquity. If he will take it for certain, and despise all that we bring out of the Fathers, and all our Exceptions to what he and his Party bring; we must leave it to the Judicious Reader to believe as he seeth cause. 2. He doth most unreasonably suppose, that, if we think the Testimonies of the Fathers was insufficient to determine us in that matter, that therefore we impute Lieing to them; or that they designed to impose upon Posterity. For one may mistake, and misrepresent a History, and yet not lie, or design to deceive others: because he speaketh as he thinketh; the Error is in his Understanding, not in his Will. Doth this Author think that Jerom told a Lie, or designed to impose on others in that wherein he imputeth Error to him, as is above said; I suppose he will not owne such Thoughts of that Holy and Learned Person: wherefore it is most absurd to impute to us that we count some of the Fathers, yea, or all of them, Liars, because we think they might err, even in Matter of Fact: It is well known that Matters of Fact are frequently misapprehended, and thence misrepresented, even by them who would be loath to tell a Lie: if this were so; I could prove him, and some others of his Party, to be notable Liars; which … p. 137will be far from asserting: is there not much false History of things done in the time when they are reported or written; much more it may be so at great distance of time, when Reports pass through many hands, viresque acquirunt eundo. Wherefore the Sanctity, Zeal for Truth, and other Excellencies of the Fathers are no ways impeached by rejecting them as insufficient to be the Rule of our Faith, or Practice, in the things that concern Religion. 3. For the Miraculous Gifts of the Fathers, about whose Testimony we now Debate, I think he will find it hard to prove them. I deny not that some extraordinary Gifts did continue in the Church some time after the Apostles, but can this Author tell us who had them, or that the Fathers who have left Writings behind them were so Gifted? Beside, their Gifts, if they had such as he alledgeth, could not prove what he intendeth, unless he could make it appear that they had such infallible assistance as the Apostles had: which I think he will not attempt to prove.

§ 37. I fourthly observe on this part of his Discourse, that his Distinction is wholly impertinent to this purpose; and that the Fathers were capable to be deceived in this Matter of Fact, no less than some Theorems, or Matter of Principle: because, 1. This matter doth contain in it a Principle, or Theorem, viz. That Episcopacy was instituted by the Apostles: now this might arise from misinterpreting some Passages of the Apostolick Writings: if they say the Church was governed by Bishops in the Apostles time, which is Matter of Fact: they must also say it was appointed by the Apostles, which is Matter of Jus or a Theological Theorem: and this must depend on their understanding some Passages of Scripture, as holding forth that Truth. For Example, I left thee in Crete, unto the Angel of Ephesus, and such like: now they might misunderstand some other Scriptures as is confessed; why not these also. None of the Fathers is so positive as to say that he saw a Bishop exercising sole Jurisdiction in the Apostles time: wherefore their Assertion of the Factum (if any such there be) must have been built on their Misapprehensions of the Jus: and if they be not infallible in the one, they could not be so in the other. 2. This Factum, that Bishops alone governed the Church, and not Presbyters with them, (for that is our Question) and that in, and next after the Apostles times, must come to all, or at least to most of the Fathers by Tradition: for none of them could see the Practice of the Church in all these Ages, about which we dispute: but Tradition is very lyable to lead People into Error, as every p. 138one knoweth: if the Fathers might mistake about what is written in the Scripture, as is confessed, how much more might they err in that which they have but by Tradition; which their Fathers have told them, and which is not so Recorded in Scripture, but that they might misapprehend it? 3. Whereas our Author, p. 130. ascribeth Fallibility to the Fathers in Doctrines and Theorems, because these might depend on their Ratiocinative and Intellectual Faculties, and they had no Priviledge against Error of that Nature: may not the same be said of this Matter of Fact that we now debate about? the Management of Church Government is such a thing as a Man cannot understand, nor rightly apprehend merely by Sense, and without the use of Ratiocination. How can we understand what is the Power and Jurisdiction of one Man over others, without inferring it from the Acts we see him do, with respect to them? I find my Antagonist often out in his Reasoning in this very thing. He readeth of a Bishop set in a higher Seat than the Presbyters; Church Acts spoken of as done by him, without mentioning the Presbyters: he findeth in Catalogues of Successions in Churches one mentioned and no more; and such like: here his Intellectual and Ratiocinative Faculty inferreth, that one Bishop ruled these Churches, and the rest of the Presbyters had no hand in the Government, further than advising: here is ill Logick, and false Reasoning: and in that he will not say that he is infallible. It cannot then be denyed, but that the Fathers behoved thus to reason from what they saw and heard: if then they might err in the use of their Intellectual and Ratiocinative Faculty, what should hinder but that they might err in this matter: which maketh his Distinction wholly void. He saith, p. 131. We must either receive this Historical Truth, or say that no Age, or no Society of Men in any Age, can transmit the Knowledge of any Matter of Fact to the next Generation. A. 1. It is not absurd to say, that no Humane History about Matters of Fact can so transmit what was done in former Ages, as to be a sufficient Foundation for our Faith or Practice, in any part of Religion, without, or contrary to Scripture; tho it may give ground for a Historical Certainty in things that are not of that Concernment. To apply this, we maintain that Episcopacy is beside, and contrary to the Scripture (and if he will beat us out of that Hold, we shall yield him the Fathers) wherefore, if all the Fathers in one Voice, and that plainly and positively, would say (which yet they have never done) that Episcopacy is of Divine Right, we are not obliged to believe it, because we know they may err, and the Scripture cannot p. 139err. 2. The Consequence is naught. There are Matters of Fact that are purely such; that Men see, or hear; and cannot mistake about them, if their Sense be sound, and other Requisits to right Sensation be not wanting: these may be so transmitted by Humane History, to Posterity, that we need not fear to be deceived about them; but have a Moral Certainty: but it doth not hence follow, that such Matters of Fact, as must be known, not only by Sensation, but Conjoyned Reasoning, can be so transmitted to Posterity, by mere Humane Testimony, as that we are obliged on that Testimony alone, to build an Opinion, or engage in a Practice, that Religion is so nearly concerned in, as it is in the Matter under Debate. The Ordinances that we owne, must have surer ground than is necessary for many Historical Truths, that we do not, nor ought to Question.

§ 38. He affirmeth, p. 131, 132. that Episcopacy was from the beginning, by Divine Authority, a Copy of the Jewish AEconomy, transmitted from the Apostles to single Successors, perpetually to be preserved in all Ages: that it was uniformly setled by the Apostles in all Churches. All this he hath said over and over again: but hath not proved one word of it. Neither is any thing here said to our present purpose, unless he prove that the Testimony of the Fathers alone, is a sufficient ground for us to believe all this: for that is the present Debate. He saith, nothing is answered to all this, but that they (the Presbyterians) say the Ancients were Erroneous in several things. And is that nothing? I have shewed that they were no more under infallible Conduct in this, than in other things. That they who transmitted to us the Knowledge of the Polity setled by the Apostles, were sufficiently acquainted with the Apostolical Constitutions, and that these Customs and Constitutions were not only preserved in the Ecclesiastical Records, but conveyed to their Eyes in the dayly Practice of the Church: this he affirmeth, p. 133. I suppose to prove that the Testimony of the Fathers alone is sufficient ground for our Faith, that Episcopacy is Juris Divini. Most of this is already Answered, being but a Repetition of what he hath said before. I further A. 1. These Fathers were acquainted with the Apostolical Constitutions by their Writings (for he will not say that they were Eye Witnesses to Apostolick Practices; tho it is alledged that one of them saw John the Apostle; that will not prove such acquaintance with his, or other Apostles way) we have their Writings, as well as they had; and seing it is confessed, that they were not infallible in Understanding and Expounding Scripture, it is reasonable that we should p. 140see with our own Eyes, and not with theirs, and we should not implicitly believe the Fathers in telling us that the Apostles meant so and so in their Writings. 2. We think the Apostolick Constitutions are best preserved, and most purely, yea infallibly, in the Apostolick Writings, these are the Ecclesiastical Records that we lay more weight on than the Fasti of the Churches that he saith, were in the after Ages. 3. That the dayly practice of the Church did convey to the Eyes of the Fathers the Constitutions of the Apostles, we utterly deny: for Practice and Institution are two different things: for the one is not always a good commentary on the other▪ even in the Apostles times, the Mystery of iniquity began to work, Practice began to vary from Institution: and in the very thing we now speak of, there were Efforts to carry Practice beyond the Rule; when Diotrephes did foreign, affected to be primus Presbyter: and we may rationally think, that this Ferment did (when the Apostles were gone off the Stage) gather strength among Men who were not so humble, nor mortified as they should have been. Practice doth often degenerate from Principles (as we see in dayly Experience) and it is probable that this very thing might deceive some of these Holy Men, and make them judge a miss of the Apostolick Constitution; and consequently make their Sentiments no safe Rule for our Guidence in this Matter. Beside all this, we cannot yield that the Practice of the Church was such as our Author fancieth, in the times of the first of the Fathers: or, that they do so represent the Practice of the Church as he imagineth. He insinuateth another Argument, p. 134. That the Fathers found the Series of single Successors in all the Apostolical Churches, governing Ecclesiastical Affairs, and this Succession not asserted as a thing that was then opposed, but rather supposed; and inferreth, that a Tradition so stated, and conveyed, is as Authentick and Infallible as any thing of that Nature can be. A. That the Fathers found this, or that they a…erted it, is denyed: what he else where bringeth for proof of this is answered. Again, if the Fathers had found this, they had erred: we maintain that they were Men capable to mistake, and to find what was not to be found. Further, it is not probative, that the Fathers did not find this way opposed, but supposed: both because the Degeneracy from the Apostolick Constitution that there was in the Primitive Church came in insensibly; it wrought as a Mystery, unobserved, 2 Thess. 2. 7. (I do not understand that Scripture exclusively of other things, but inclusively of this) and were as the Tares, when Men Sleep. Also because, if there were Opposition made, it might be suppressed, p. 141and not transmitted to Posterity, by the Influence of the Party which had the Ascendent. Yet for all this; we deny that the Fathers of the first Ages had that Jurisdiction of Bishops that he talketh of to oppose, or that it was in their days.

§ 39. What followeth, p. 134, 135, 136. seemeth to be designed as a Herculean Argument: it is brought from the dangerous Consequence they run upon, who derogate from the Authority of this Traditional Conveyance, in a Matter of Fact: for by the same reason, we must question the most Sacred things in our Religion. And for an Instance of this, he sheweth that the Canon of the Scripture was not universally received before the Death of the Apostles, but some Books questioned, these Books were received upon Search made by the Church, and finding that they were agreeable to the Apostolick Standard; and that the Original Conveyance of such Books was supported by the Testimony of Apostolical Persons, or Holy Men who Conversed with such. If we receive some Books of Scripture on the Testimony of the Ancients, how dare we dispute their Fidelity in a Matter of Fact, relating to the Polity of the Church? So that, on the whole Matter, either we must receive their Testimonies in this, or we must question the Authority of some Books now received into the Canon: for it may be objected against this last Tradition, that it was so opposed by Men of great Name, but the other was always universally received: I have heard that A. M. D. D. hath been jealoused as inclining to Popery, tho his Accusers failed in their Probation: he here (and in some other Passages of this Book) seemeth to prove what they could not make out. This Medium Stapleton, and many others of the Romish Doctors, use, to prove that the Church, not the Scripture, is the Ground of our Faith, because without the Church we cannot know which Books of Scripture are Genuine, and which are Spurious: just as this Author telleth us, we cannot know this but on the accurate Search made by the Church; upon which Scrutiny some books are received into the Canon which at first were doubted of. I advise him to read Whitaker against Stapleton; especially his Duplicatio: lib. 2. C. 26. where this Controversie is solidly handled, as it is also in many other Protestant Writers. It is observable that Popery and Prelacy must be defended by the same Arguments: and that this Author hath no better Evidence for, nor firmer Faith of the Divinity of the Scriptures, than he hath of Episcopacy: that his Faith in both is built on the Authority of the Church. I mention the Divinity of the Scriptures, because the whole of it is made up of its Parts, the several Books; and if our Belief, that this Book is a part of the Canon, Ex Gr. p. 142Ruth; be built on the Churches Authority, so it must be with another Book, and another, and so of them all. I must here then digress a litle from defending Presbytery to the Defence of Protestantism, against this my Antagonist. Let me not here be mistaken, as thinking that our Certainty of the Christian Doctrine in general, were no greater than that we have about this or that Book of Scripture being Canonical: We have sufficient, though not equal Certainty of both: Or as holding that the Authentickness of the several Books of Scripture were alike evident: some of them bear more manifest Marks of Divinity, or Motives of Credibility, than others do: And yet in them all, there is what may satisfie us, that they are from God. Or thirdly, As of Opinion that the Testimonies of the Christians of the first Ages are of no use, not Conducive to our Certainty in this Matter: I owne with Chemnit. exam. Concil. Trident. pt. 1. p. 86. That as Scriptura habet authoritatem principaliter, a spiritu sancto; deinde a Scriptoribus, so, postea a Primitiva Ecclesia tanquam teste. No doubt the Concurrent and Harmonious Testimony of the first Ages is a strong Plea: but we rest not on that Ground alone: for if we did, our Faith should be resolved into the Authority of fallible Man: Yea, we should reject some of these Books, which we now receive as Canonical; which were for some time questioned: we affirm then against this Author, that the Books of Scripture were not received by the Church, upon the Testimony of Men singly: Which he either must mean, or his Argument is not to the purpose. I argue then against him out of his own words; the Church having made an accurate Search into the Doctrine of these Books, and finding it was agreeable to the Apostolick Standard, and that the Original Conveyance of such Books was supported by the Testimony of Apostolick Persons, or other Men, &c. Here himself doth not make the Testimony of the Fathers a sufficient ground of our receiving these Books: but what the Church found in them by Searching: So that indeed he overturneth the Sufficiency of the Foundation that he would have us build on, by laying another beside it. If he will let us see Episcopacy to be suteable to the Apostolick Standard, we shall embrace it; but cannot owne it without that, tho all the Fathers in one Voice, should plead for it. Again, the Church after her Scrutiny; and these Apostolick and Holy Men who bare Testimony to the Conveyance of these Books, either had some ground for owning them as Divine, or none; but because they thought so, the latter I hope he will not say: if he say the former, we shall receive these p. 143Books, not on their sole Authority; but on these Grounds that they went upon. If he say the present Church received them from the Church of former Ages, he must needs sist somewhere, and not proceed in infinitum. Whatever Person or Church he sist in, the Argument recurreth with respect to them. Further, if we receive the Books of Scripture because of the Testimony of the Church, our Faith, both of their being from God, and of the Truths contained in them, must be resolved ultimately into the Veracity of fallible Men; and not into the Veracity and Authority of the Infallible God: unless he will make the Church infallible, as his Complices in this Opinion do: and even that will not help him, seing this Infallibility cannot be proved. And if it could, I ask whether these infallible Persons, who, after the Apostles, searched what Books were Authentick, had the Knowledge of this by Means, or by Revelation? the latter the Papists do not pretend; the former will serve us, using the same Means for this Knowledge. Lastly, I ask, whether they who conveyed these Books to us could be deceived, or not? The latter he will not assert, for he hath told us they may be deceived about Theorems, and that such a Book is Canonical, is such: if they could be deceived, it is not fit for us to build our Faith of a thing of so high Concernment on their Opinion. I conclude, that the Books of Scripture are foreign, and our Faith that they are Gods Word is built, not on the Testimony of the Church; but on the Veracity of God who speaketh: and we know that God speaketh in them, from the Motives of Credibility that the Scripture it self affordeth; of which our Writers against the Papists bring not a few. If he can give as good ground for Episcopacy as we can give for the Books of Scripture being the Word of God, we shall receive the one as well as the other.

§ 40. His next Work, which beginneth p. 136. is to consider the Concessions of the Learned Presbyterians in this controversie: which yield some Propositions that not only shake, but quite overturn the whole Fabrick of the new Doctrine. It is well that there are some Learned Men among them: he sometimes speaketh of them, without Exception or Discrimination, in another Strain: and even here, what he giveth with the one hand, he taketh away with the other: for it is no great Evidence of Learning for to overturn the whole of what one taketh pains to build. I, in the Entrance of this Contest with him, must enter my Protestation, that I will not owne any Proposition, tho advanced by the Learnedest of the Presbyterians, that hath a mischievous Tendency: and if any such Assertion p. 144should happen to drop from me, upon Admonition and sufficient Instruction, I shall retract it; errare possum, haereticus esse nolo. He beginneth with Salmasius, Walo, Messal. p. 7. confessing, that even the ancien times (except the Apostolick Age) distinguished between Bishop and Presbyter: I acknowledge the same, and require this Author to shew how this overturneth the Fabrick of Presbyterianism, which he reckoneth the … Doctrine. The Ancients early made difference in the Name; reserving that of Bishop to the foreign, or Moderator; soon after, there was a difference made in their Dignity: but we deny that there was, in the first Antiquity, any difference in the matter of Jurisdiction: and so our Principle standeth firm, for all this Concession. What he next citeth, out of the same Author, p. 17. is so far from his purpose, that it sheweth litle Skill, or Consideration at least, that he mentioneth it: Salmasius saith the Apostles sometimes called themselves Bishops and Presbyters, that they might put the Honour on them to whom they committed the care of the Churches, to seem to be equal to them. May not this be meant of Presbyters, as well as Bishops, that the Apostles so honoured them. For our Argument from the Confusion of Names of Bishop, and Presbyter, which he thinks is here overturned: the Reader, before he come this length, will see this Cavill to be groundless; if he consider how we manage that Argument. He citeth him also saying, that the Ancients called Timothy Bishop of Ephesus, and Apostle. I have above shewed in what sense both these are spoken, without any Inconveniency to our Cause, see Sect. 2. § 3. It is as litle to his purpose, that he further citeth from Salmasius, that he saith James, whom the Ancients say was ordained Bishop of Jerusalem, was over the lesser Bishops, as now one Bishop is over many Presbyters. He was over the Bishops that is Presbyters, in the Quality of an Apostle: that the Ancients called him a Bishop, I have shewed how that is to be understood, in the place last cited. He is at him again, in his p. 181. of Wal. Messal. that he confesseth the Form of Government was changed after the Death of Peter, and Paul, tho not soon after; yet in the end of the first Century, and beginning of the second. If Salmasius mean (as I am confident he doth) that a Change unto perpetual a Praesidency, and Majority of Dignity and Notice, did then begin to creep in, I confess the same: let our Author make his best advantage of it: if he think that Bishops were then set up with sole or superior Jurisdiction, I dissent from him: tho even this would not overturn our Cause, which is built on Scripture, not on the Opinion or Practice of the Ancients that were after the Apostles.

p. 145§ 41. He next, p. 138. brings some concessions of Blondel, apol. p. 3. that Episcopacy of one over many Presbyters did not prevail before the year, 140, This is a foul misrepresentation: Blondel is there speaking of the Divisions, in which one said, I am of Paul, &c. after the manner of the Corinthians; that this could not be proved to be before the year 140. Now it is probable that Episcopacy, as the supposed remedy, was not presently applied on the first appearance of the Malady: but that other means were used. Blondel saith, Pref. p. 76. that in great Cities, where were many Thousands of Christians, they had but one Church; this saith our Author, could not be without a Bishop over them. Which I deny: the contrarie is ordinary at this day: all the Congregations may be under one Presbyterie, and their Moderator; which in that place he calleth unicum concessum. in some places many Meetings are counted one Parochial Church; which I cannot so well understand. Yet neither way overturneth Presbyterie; nor doth necessarily infer Episcopacy. He next Citeth Bocharti Phaleg. which is a Mistake; the Words are in his Epistle to Dr. Morley P. mihi 34. nor are his Words fully Cited: he expresly assenteth to Jerome, Apostolorum aetate inter Episcopos & Presbyteros nihil fuisse discriminis; & communi Presbyterorum Concilio Ecclesias fuisse administratas: then follow the Words Cited by the Enquirer, asserting the antiquity of Episcopacie. And a little after, proinde tam qui Presbyterialem, quam qui Episcopalem ordinem juris Divini esse asserunt, videntur foreign. So that it is plain that Bochart saith as little for his Cause as for ours; Seing both are for a jus Divinum. So that if all whom he hath mentioned were sitting in Council (it is his own conceit) we should have two for his one, and allow Bocharts suffrage to be, non liquet. And let him raise what Batteries he will on this ground, which he saith the Adversary yieldeth (supposing fondly four men who lived in Presbyterian Churches, to be the whole Partie; and that some of them said what they never thought.) His first Batterie is, a Question P. 140 & seq que Seing that Episcopy was the Government all over the Christian Church toward the beginning of the Second Centurie, quo molimine, quibus machinis, was the Ecclesiastical paritie of Presbyters (which the Apostles left the Church in Possession of) changed from that aequality into Prelacie, and here he hath a long harangue, and many tragical words, setting forth the impossibility of this Change, and the absurditie of asserting it. To all this the Answer is plain and easie, and I hope will be convincing to such as do not look on things with the prejudice that this Gentleman seemeth to be under the power of.

p. 146§. 42. I Answer then 1. This his Supposition we will never yield, unless we see more reason for it than yet hath been proposed: we deny that the Authors he hath cited have made such concessions as he supposeth: and if any of them have, let him answer the Absurditie that followeth on it, we are not concerned, we cau yeild no further than, the Apostles, having settled the Government of the Churches in paritie among Presbyter, and Nature having made a reses necessarie in their Meetings; soon after (the remains of the History of these Ages causeth that we cannot t… how soon) this Presidencie being constant in the same person, began … be taken more notice of than was fit, and more deference to be payed … the Praeses than was meet: and that after some Ages, some, in some places did Usurp, or grasp at more Power than was due: but that either the Solitude of Church Power, or the Superiority of it, was owned, … practised avowedly, for the first three Centuries, we deny: yea, we … not find that it became Universal for some time after. Wherfore, … ground he buildeth his Batterie on failleth; and so, his roaring Canon will prove but bruta fulmina; and we are not obliged to account for neither so sudden, nor so great a Change, as he mentioneth. 2. We can easily give a rational dilineation of such a Change, as was indeed made from the Apostolick constitution, and practice of the first times. We do not ascribe it to a general Council, nor to a Conspiracie of all the Presbyters in their scattered and Persecuted State, to make that Change. Nor do we derogate from the Holyness and faithfulness of the first Pastors of the Church who were settled by the Apostles: let him please himself with all he saith to prove the Absurditie of thinking that a Change could be wrought that way. But 1. We are persuaded that a great Change there was, by compareing the Practice, and some Canons of Cent. 5, 6, 7. &c. with the Apostolick Writings. 2. We think there is no impossibilitie in such a Change as I have acknowledged: considering the corruption of Men, yea the sinful infirmities of good Men; some of whom may be apt to Usurp; and others to overlook evils that are not easily observable in their Progress. And considering how suddenly Changes to the worse have fallen out in the Church, see Moses Prae…icti… Deut. 31. 27, 28, 29. see also Exod. 32. 8. and the frequent Apostacies of Israel after the death of their good Kings made this so evident, that it can never be denied, nor ought to be wondered at. 3. This Change did not come suddenly, nor all at once, and therefore was not so obvious to everie ones Observation: that it was not complained of by any p. 147we cannot say; not having the compleat and distinct Records of the first Ages: farre less can it be affirmed that it was not observed by some who might Lament it in Secret; but for Peace sake, and because the things they had to Complain of were dark and doubtful, and but small, and almost insensible Declensions from what had been before, they would make little noise with their dissatisfactions. It is well known that thus Degeneracie hath grown in latter Ages of the Church: and I wish it be not at this Day. Verie often a well Reformed Church doth thus degenerate, whose Maladie is like latent Diseases which are little observed till they be past Remedy.

§. 43. I adde 4. The true Account of this Change of the Church is given by way of Praediction, by our Lord himself on the Parable of the Tares of the field, Matth. 13. 24. &c. this with other Corruptions, grew while the Guids of the Church slept, which case, in some degree or other, is incident to the best of Men; and as, in process of time, the Ministers of the Church grew more remisse, this evil had the more advantage to grow. Of this I have Discoursed else-where; Rational Def. of non conformitie. I shall now attend my Antagonist, endeavouring to Run down this apprehension of things with many hard Words: which amount to no more but this, that it was impossible to be brought about, because of the observablenss and suddeness of the Change, and the Faithfulness of the Guids of the Church that then were set over her. All which is already Answered. His ingeminating his Question about the possibility of this Change, P. 142. his saying, that this cannot be imagined, if we believe the other parts of Evangelical History; are but words that evanish into nothing, on supposition of the Account that I have given of it: for we deny that the Evangelical History, whether Sacred, or Humane, giveth us Account of such a constitution of Episcopacy as he imagineth, in the first Ages. That no Historian took Notice of it, though it was most memorable, p. 143. is still his rotten Hypothesis, that this Change should have been made suddenly, and all at once: and I adde the History of the time of the Rise and Progress of this is defective, and uncertain, as I have shewed, Sect. 32. We do not say that it was Agreed upon by some ambitious Ecclesiasticks, as he P. 144. such Men might carrie it on in their several places, without Consultation; Nature, and a corrupt Heart, prompting them to it, and the World and Satan tempting them: yea, it might in some degree, be promoted by better Men than these, unawares; taking that for their Due which was not so: for its being submitted p. 148to tamely (which he mentioneth ibid.) that was not to be wondered at, because of the Humility of some, and minding other work for the Peoples Edification, leaving the the Ruling part too much to them who inclined to it; and their not observing this Change, which by in insensible Degrees, made its Progress so in the dark.

§. 44. He p. 145, &c. draweth some absurd Consequences, by which he laboureth to load our Assertion, that the Apostolick Government of Paritie, was in after Ages, changed into Prelacie. The 1. is, that they who were marked for the Sacred Function by the Lord Christ, after some Experience, Judged it necessary to Change Parity for Prelacy. 2. That this Change was brought about, not in any of the ordinary Methods by which things of that nature are transacted among Mankind, but instantly, and in a miraculous manner. 3. That the immediate Successors of the Apostles were all Presbyterians (this we hold) but that these Presbyterians (most of them Martyrs for Christianitie) preferred Prelacy to Paritie. 4. That in their Opinion, there was no other Remedie againstSchism and Confusion. He saith, these Conclusions are evident, and necessarie, if their (the Presbyterians) Hypothesis be allowed. Such Consequences from our Opinion we utterly deny; and Challenge him to Prove their Dependance on it. The judicious Reader will easily see, that they all are Grounded on his fond Conceit, that we hold that this Change was made suddenly, openly, and all at once: if he find us Maintaing that, let him load our Opinion with as many absurd Consequences, as he can devise. And we neglect his triumphant Repetition of his continual Cant, p. 145, 146. about the Universal Consent of the Christian Church, and its being received without Contradiction. But to establish this last Notion, he telleth us, that none before Aerius, opposed Episcopacy; of whom, and his Actings, he taketh the liberty to give such Account as he thought sit for his design: that his Motive was Ambition, and missing of a Bishoprick: was dull, had no Parts: This (in this learned Authors opinion) must needs be the native Consequent of his being a Presbyterian: for he reckoneth them all such. I have given a more true account of Aerius, §. 16. of §. 6. Established on better Authority than he in this Narrative pretendeth to, which is none but his own. He needed not to spend a whole page to tell us what he meaneth by the Impossibility that he ascribeth to the Change we speak of, let him understand it as he will, we are not concerned, who have given account of that Change which maketh it both possible and easie to be understood. p. 148. He hath another Argument (if it be different from what p. 149he hath said before) we must not say that the primitive Church immediately Succeeding the Apostles so soon Apostatized from their Original Establishment, else we have no certain Standard to know what is Genuine, and what is Suppositions in the whole frame of our Religion: This he enforceth by telling us, they might Change other things; and if the first and best Christians were not to be trusted in matter of Fact, they are less to be trusted in matter of Opinion. Here we have yet more plainly expressed, the Popish Principle, that the Churches Authority is the ground of our Faith: we do not so Trust the first and best Churches (except the Apostles) as to make them the rule of our Religion, either in their Historical, or other Writings: We give that Deference to the Scripture alone. Again, we impute no such Apostacie to the first and best Saints; but to them who, at some distance, Succeeded them; as hath been declared: and we know, that in after Ages, even among them who go under the name of the Fathers, other things were Changed, as well as Church Government.

§ 44. That our Reformers from Popery (whom he calleth the first Presbyterians, p. 149.) did not plead a Jus Divinum, is no Argument against us: for few of his Party, to this day, plead for a Divine Right to be on their side, as he and some few others do. And himself and his Complices, made no noise with it, when the Oath of Supremacy, and the Test were in Fashion: our Reformers did not disowne it, and they had not the Occasion, and may be, not the Light, to assert it, that aftertimes had. Whereas it is palpable, that Interest maketh some of his Side to change their Note. If Beza wrote smoothly to the English Episcopal Clergy, and some more freely to Mr. Knox, and Mr. Melvil; I know no blame in that piece of Civility (unless he can say, that Beza ceded in many of his Principles, to please the English Church; which cannot be alledged. His imputing Force and Violence to us, and fancying that no Records can be true or genuine that are against us, we pass, as angry and empty Words, but no Arguments: we owne all genuine Records that can be made appear to be such; whether they be for us, or against us: but build not our Faith on any of them, except such as are contained in the Scriptures of Truth. And here he bringeth in, p. 150. the Controversie about Ignatius's Epistles; and imputeth to Dally and others, that they reject them on no other ground, but because they owne Episcopacy. It is not fair dealing to impute such Prevarication to a Person of Monsieur Daillies Worth, after he is laid in the Grave. He will not pretend, p. 156. to debate the matter about the Authority of these Epistles; but p. p. 150150. and what follow, runneth out in a high Commendation of Doctor Pearson, on that Subject, and many confident Assertions, that what he hath said cannot be Answered. I shall be far from derogating from the Learning and Critical Skill of that Author. But am not convinced by his Arguments. I am sure there is not that Evidence, nor Certainty in them, that is sufficient for us to build on, in a Matter that Religion is so nearly concerned in, as is the Government appointed by Christ in his Church. He telleth us Monsieur L'Arroque attempted to Answer the Bishop of Chester, but not to the Satisfaction of his own Party: and his Collections are Answered by Nourry. The truth is, L'Arroque was prevailed upon by some of the Episcopal Party, (as witnesseth the Translator of L' Arroques Historie on the Eucharist, in his Life, p. 5.) by some specious Arguments, from the Unseasonableness of Debates among Protestants, to desist from that Work, and it never was perfected: therefore it might be the more easily answered: and we cannot judge what Esteem it would have obtained: it seems they dreaded the Strength of it. Whether we ever were able to bring one plausible Argument for that Cause; the Reader must judge; we will not in this, stand to his Decision, which he confidently maketh p. 141. he declineth (ibid.) renewing the Debate about these Epistles: wherefore I hope I may be excused if I do so too. And he asserteth that their Cause loseth nothing by their being laid aside: as I also affirm, that our Cause may be maintained, if they be allowed to be really what he would have them to be. Some Citations out of them I have answered Cyprianick Bishop Examined. And if he had thought fit to produce moe, it is like they might be found to do no hurt to our Cause. Or if he had cited what he talketh of out of the Acts of the Martyrdom of Ignatius, he might have received what should satisfie about it. A Distinction between Bishop (that is Moderator) and Presbyter, and Deacon, we owne, as well as these Acts do, which is all he mentioneth as making for him, in these Acts. He citeth Wal. Messal. p. 153. asserting, that these Epistles were written in the beginning or middle of the second Century (this is but the Guess of the Learned Salmasius) but our Author doth not tell us that Salmasius, in the same place, setteth forth, that they could not be written by Ignatius; from some Absurdities that he maketh appear to be contained in them. This Gentleman mistaketh, when he saith, he that wrote thom could not represent Ecclesiastical Policy different from what it was in the days of Ignatius, that is to say, he could not mistake. He should have proved this, by p. 151demonstrating that that Person, tho he knoweth not who he was, had the Gift of Inerrability: and if he ascribe that to a Person whose other Characters he knoweth not; he might as well say, that no Writer of that Age could misapprehend what was the Principle and Practice of the former. Is it not possible, that this Person might be another Diotrephes; who, while there was some Tendency to a Declension from Parity, did zealously forward it; and run a little before the soberer and better Men of that time; and that his Zeal for the Opinion he had taken up might make him misapprehend, or misrepresent, what was the Opinion of the true Ignatius? it is a Dream, that it followeth from the Concession, or Guess, of Salmasias, that that Author gave … a true Idea of the Ecclesiastical Policy of the beginning of the second Century: and another, that he must represent Church Policy as those in his own days thought it to be in the days of Ignatius: there was nothing in all the Presbyterian Writings so visionaire (to use his own word) as this is. For could not this unknown Person differ in the Apprehension of this Matter, from most, yea, from all his Contemporaries? and it is strange that our Author should suppose that this personate Ignatius was a Martyr, or a Bishop; as he doth p. 154. He pleadeth next for the Epistles of Ignatius, from the Diligence and Authority of Eusebius; and saith, that he hardly could be imposed upon in an Affair of this Consequence. A. This is to beg the Question, to say that the Church was in this imposed upon: he should prove that the Churches then thought these Epistles to be written by Ignatius. for Eusebius, I think few, who are vers'd in Antiquity, will lay so much weight on his Historical Authority as this Author doth. Himself giveth ground to suspect some things that he wrote; as I shewed before: and others have observed yet more ground for it. It is a pleasant Argument, the Church was careful to gather up some hard Bones of Ignatius, that the Lyons had left, Ergo, they were more watehful over the Remains of his Mind, viz. his Epistles. If we have no more Certainty about the Epistles, than we have about the genuine Bones of that Holy Martyr, and other Popish Relicks; few wise Men will be much moved by Arguments brought from them. That Polycarp made a Collection of these Epistles, and Irenaeus cited them, proveth no more but that good Men may be imposed on by Forged Writings. Eusebius rejected some suppositions Books, after accurate Enamination; were a good Argument, if it could be made out that he rejected all such: the contrary whereof is well known. For his Belief that the Orations of Cicero are genuine, let him enjoy it; but if he build his p. 152Faith on any Article of Religion, or his Practice of Piety towards God, on that Certainty, I cannot do so too. Whether Cicero wrote these Orations or not, is neither a Matter of such Moment, nor so contested by plausible Arguments, as what we now Debate is.

§ 45. What remains of my Antagonists Discourse on this Controversie about Episcopacy, is a Recapitulation of what he hath already said; in nine Questions: which he seemeth to set down as so many Trophies of Victory over all his Adversaries; and a few other Hints for strengthning his Cause. His Questions need litle Animadversion: all that is contained in them being already Answered, and his Opinion in these things disproved: whether concludently and solidly or not, the Reader will judge. His first three Questions do all suppose that we are against Prelacy, merely from the Dichotomy of the Clergy used in Scripture, which is a false Supposition: I have proposed our Argument with more strength, Sect. 4. §. 5. so as it is no way touched by what he here saith: wherefore it is no loss to our Cause if we give a negative, or affirmative Answer, to these Questions, whether he shall chuse. To his fourth Question I Answer, that Apostolick Power, as to its permanent Branches, was perpetual and successive (my Answer must be Tautological, because his Question is such) but not so, as to all its Essential Branches. As to its necessary Branches; if he mean what is necessary to the Beeing, or Idea of an Apostle, I deny these to be Perpetual and Successive. To the second part of this Question, I Answer negatively; that this Power was not transmitted, in solidum, to single Successors in particular Sees; but to a Colledge of Presbyters. Question fifth, Where Superiority is forbidden; is most impertinent to our Debate: seing he pleadeth for a Jus Divinum for it; he should bring either a Command for it; or what is equivalent. The Popes Monarchy over the Church is not more forbidden, than the Superiority of one Priest (as he speaketh) over another; both of them must be Juris Divini, in his Opinion. I retort his own Argument, if Parity be not plainly forbidden (which I am sure he cannot shew) then the Fancy of a Jus Divinum in favours of Episcopacy (such as is exclusive of all other Forms of Ecclesiastical Government) is Groundless and Chymerical. It is enough to us, that Christ hath instituted Parity, and he hath not allowed Men to change it: we think this a sufficient Prohibition of the Superiority that he pleadeth for. His sixth is a heap of Questions, to which I Answer, we deny the universal Tradition for Prelacy that he fancieth, and say, a more universal Tradition might be demanded. We deny also that the Argument p. 153from universal Tradition (exclusive of Apostolick Tradition; if he can bring that he hath done his Work) is in this Case, either the most proper, or most necessary. Scripture Command, or Example, is both more proper, and more necessary. For the seventh, we do not pretend there was such a great Change so suddenly, as he fancieth we do; and therefore are not concerned to Debate the Possibility of it. I have said enough on this head, § 41. To his eighth, we affirm, that Jeroms Opinion is fairly and truly represented by Presbyterians: and have answered what he saith to the contrary, Sect. 6. §. 7. & seq. His last Question about Ignatius's Epistles may be retorted on himself, whether there be any solid Argument brought for them: sub judice lis est. Himself declineth that Debate, as I also do. It is enough to us, that even the Testimonies out of these Epistles are not concludent: and if the Epistles were Authentick, their Authority is but Humane and Fallible: and cannot be a Prejudice against Divine Institution: and indeed cannot make Faith where the Question is de Jure Divino, as here it is.

§ 46. I now proceed to consider some immethodical and incoherent Notions, with which he concludeth this Chapter. He telleth us, p. 160. Presbyterians owne a Praesidency since the days of the Apostles (he might have added, and in their days too) so that the Quarrel is not so much against Episcopacy, as against the Extent of their Diocess, and Increase of their Power; over what it was in the Primitive times. Now he will prove their Power over Presbyters to have been much more absolute, than now it is pretended to be: for nothing was to be done without the Bishop; a Presbyter might not Baptize without his express Indulgence: as Tertull witnesseth. This Testimony of Tertull. I have answered, Cyprianick Bishop Examed, §. 49. By Bishop may either be understood the Moderator, not in his single Capacity, but with the Presbytery: none might act within their District, but by their Allowance: or a Parish Minister, none might Baptize, &c. in his Parish, but by his Consent. He next citeth Dyonisius Bishop of Corinth, writing to the Gnossians, exhorting Pinytus, their Bishop, not to lay the heavy burden of Caelibacy (I suppose that he meaneth by foreign) on the Brethren, that is the Clergy: whence he wisely inferreth the Power of Pinytus to have done this. And citeth on his Margin, Euseb. hist. Eccles. but neither Book nor Chapter, nor the place of Dionysius where the words may be found. A. Euseb. hist. lib. 4. C. 23. hath a part of an Epistle of Dionysius to Pinytus, and his Answer to him, where he checketh Dionysius for that Advice to him. But nothing of all this importeth the Power p. 154of Pinytus to forbid Marriage: he might say on this burden by preaching the necessity of Caelibacy, without Authoritative imposing it. Yea, he might impose it as Praeses, by the concurrent Authority of the Presbytery, without sole Jurisdiction. He mentioneth likeways the Canon. Apostol. and Ignatius's Epistles, but citeth nothing out of them: so that he cannot expect an Answer. As to the Extent of Diocesses, we no further make an Argument from it, than we maintain that a Pastor of a Church should have no larger Charge, than he can dispense the Word and Sacraments to; and that he should not do this by Deputies under him. We lay no Stress on the word Diocess, nor on the unequal Extent of a Pastors District, provided he pretend to no Power over his Brethren; nor have a Charge that he cannot manage without such Superiority over others. What he saith of Greg. Thaumaturgus proveth nothing, unless he can evince that the Presbyters, who were necessary for the growing Charge, were his Underlings, not his Collegues.

§ 47. A strong Argument for Diocesan Episcopacy (as he thinketh) he manageth, p: 164: & seq: from James Bishop of Jerusalem; who was over many Congregations; for the Increase of Christians was such, as that they could not meet in one place. The Answer hath been before given; James was no ordinary Bishop, but an Apostle: and had Jurisdiction, not only over the Christians in Jerusalem and in Judea; but in all the World. He telleth us, that we use many Evasions; but he thinketh it then only seasonable to Answer them, when he knoweth which of them we most trust to. If I had dealt so by his Book, no Answer had been given to it. I know neither which of his Arguments he most trusteth to; nor which of them doth best deserve that regard. If he had answered all that we say, he could not have missed what we most trust to: he should deal with our Arguments and Exceptions, not according to our Esteem of them; but according to the Influence they may have on the Debate now in hand. As for the Debate between Clarkson and Maurice, we are not much concerned in it; it is not material whether there be more or fewer Congregations in a City, provided their Pastors be not subject to one, but Co-ordinate among themselves. His Information to him whom he calleth the Vindicator of the Kir…, was needless: he knoweth Attempts have been made to Answer Blondel, Dally, and Salmasius, yet that Author might modestly put him in mind, how unfit it was for him to pick out here and there a word occasionally spoken; and when he had (in his own Apprehension) baffled that, triumph over Presbytery, as if never p. 155more had been said for it; while he hath neither out of his own Store, nor from the Answers of thess Books, brought any thing against our main Arguments.