The Doctrine of the Saints Perseverance

A Preface to the Reader.

I F thy enquiry be only after the substance of the Truth in the ensuing Treatise contended for, I desire thee not to stay at all upon this preliminary discourse, but to proceed thither, where it is expressly handled from the Scriptures, without the intermixture of any human Testimonies, or other less necessary Circumstances, wherein perhaps many of them may not be concerned, whose interest yet lies in the truth it self, and it is precious to their Souls. That which now I intend and aim at, is to give an account to the learned Reader, of some things nearly relating to the doctrine, whose protection (in the strength of him, who gives to his, suitable helps for the works and Employments he calls them to) I have undertaken, and what entertainment it hath formerly found, and received in the Church, and among the Saints of God. For the Accomplishment of this intendment, A brief mention of the Doctrine it self will make way. Whom in this controversy we intend by the name of Saints, and Believers, the Treatise following will abundantly manifest. The word Perseverantia is of most known use in Ecclesiastical writers: Austin hath a book with the inscription of it in it's forehead. The word in the New Testament signifying the same thing is, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Of them that followed Paul it is said that he persuaded them, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Act. 13. 43. That is: to Persevere. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is of the same import. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Math. 10, 23. He that persevereth to the end; The Vulgar Latin renders that word almost constantly by persevero. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is a word also of the same signification, and which the Scripture useth to express the same thing: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is, sometimes by a Metathesis expressed 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ; Thence is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , valde: and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , spoken of him who is of a valiant resolved mind. By faith Moses left Egypt, not fearing the wrath of the King, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . He. 11. 27. As eying the invisible he endured (his trial) with a constant valiant mind. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 from thence is most frequently to persevere. Act. 1. 14. and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Act. 2. 42. They persevered in the Doctrine of the Apostles. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 once used in the New Testament, is rendered by our Translatours perseverance. Eph. 6. 18. In what variety of Expression the thing is revealed in the Scripture, is in the Treatise it self abundantly declared. The Latin word is Classical, Persevero, is Constanter sum severus: In that sense as Seneca says, Res severa est verum gaudium. It's extreme in excess is, Pertinacy; if these are not rather distinguished from their objects, then in themselves. Varro lib 4. de ling: Lat: Tells us that Pertinacia is a continuance or going on, in that, wherein one ought not to continue, or proceed. Perseverantia is that, whereby any one continues in that wherein he ought so to do. Hence is that definition of it commonly given by the School-men from Austin: Lib 87. qu: 31, who took it from Cicero (one they little acquainted themselves withal) lib. 2, de Invent: it is say they, In ration been fundatâ▪ stabilis & per petua permansio. And this at present may pass for a general description of it, that is used in an Ethical, and Evangelical sense. Perseverance was accounted a commendable thing among Philosophers. Morally Perseverance is that part of Fortitude whereby the mind is established in the performance of any good and necessary work, not withstanding the assaults and opposition it meets withal, with that tediousness and wearisomeness, which the protraction of time, in the pursuit of any affairs, is attended withal. Aristotle informs us that it is excercised about things troublesome, lib. 7. Eth: Nicom: giving a difference between Continence with it's opposite vice, and forbearance, or perseverance 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . He that abides in his undertaken work, so it be good and honest, notwithstanding that trouble and perplexity he may meet withal is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Hence he tells us that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 as well as 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is not pleasant to many, lib. 10. cap. 9. And that because so to live, implies difficulty and opposition. And He also, as Varro in the place above mentioned, distinguishes it from pertinency; And of men infected with that depraved habit of mind, he says there are three sorts, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 : all These are in his Judgment, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Nic •• lib. 7. cap. 9. Which perverse disposition of spirit he there clearly manifests to be sufficiently differenced from a stable resolved frame of mind, what ever it may resemble it in. Now though there is no question, but that of two persons continuing in the same work, or opinion, one may do it out of pertinency, the other out of perseverance, yet amongst men who judge of the minds of others, by their fruits, and of the Acts of their minds by their objects, these two dispositions or Habits are universally distinguished, as before, by Varro. Hence the Termes of pertinency and obstinacy being thrust into the definition of herisy, by them who renouncing any infallible living Judge and determiner in matters of faith, to make way for the inflicting of punishment on the entertainers and maintainers thereof, they take no thought of proving it such, but only because it is found in persons embracing such errors; The same Affection of mind, with the same fruits and demonstrations of it, in persons embracing the Truth, would by the same men be termed perseverance. But this is not that whereof I Treat.

Evangellical perseverance, is from the Scripture at large explained in the Book it self. As it relates to our Acceptation with God, and the immutability of Justification (which is the the chief and most eminent part of the Doctrine contended for,) as it hath no conformity in anything, with the moral perseverance before described, so indeed, it is not comprehended in that strict notion and signification of the word it self, which denotes the continuation of some Act, or Acts in us, and not the uninterruptibleness of any Act of God. This then is the cause of perseverance, rather than perseverance it self; yet such a cause, as being established, the effect will certainly and uncontrolably ensue. They who go about to assert a perseverance of Saints, cut off from the absolute unchangableness of the decree, purpose, and Love of God, attended with a possibility of a contrary Event, and that not only in respect of the free manner of it's carrying on, whereby he that wills to persevere, may not will so to do, but also in respect of the issue and end it self, will, I doubt not, if they are serious in what they pretend, find themselves entangled in their undertaking. As perseverance is a Grace in the subject on whom it is bestowed, so it relates either to the spiritual habit of faith, or the principle of new life they have received from God, or to the actual performance of those duties wherein they ought to abide. In the first sense it consists in the point of being, or not being. Whilest the habit of faith remains, there is in respect thereof an uninterrupted perseverance in him in whom it is; and this we contend for. As it respects Actions flowing from that Habit and principle; so it expatiates it self in a large fieild. For as it imports not at all a perpetual performance of such Acts without Intermission, (which were naturally as well as spiritually impossible, whilst we carry about us a body of death,) so neither doth it necessarily imply a constant tenor of proceeding in the performance of them, but is consistent with a change in degrees of performance, and in other respects also, not now to be insisted on. Perseverance in this sense being the uninterrupted continuance of Habitual grace, in the hearts of Believers without intercision, with such a walking in obedience, as God according to the tenor of the new covenant will accept, upon the whole of the matter, it is in it's own nature, (as every thing also is that hath not it's being from it's self) liable and obnoxious to Alteration; and therefore must be built and repos'd on that which is in it self immutable, that it may be rendered on that supposition, immutable also. Therefore is Perseverance in this sense resolved into that Cause of it before mentioned, which to do is the chief endeavor of the following Treatise. Of the Groundlessness of their opinion, who granting final perseverance, do yet plead for the possibility of a final Apostasy, and an intercision of faith, no more need be spoken, but what upon the account last mentioned hath been argued already. Some discourses have passed both of old, and of late, concerning the nature of this perseverance, and wherein it doth propperly consist. Many affirm it not really to differ from the habit of faith and love it self, for which Bradwardine earnestly contends. Lib. 2. de Cau: dei: cap. 11. Concluding his disputation, that Perseverantia Habitualis, est justitia habitualiter preservata, preseverantia Actualis, est justitiae perseverantia Actualis, ipsum vero perseverare, est justitiam preservare. Whereupon ( su • more ) he infers this corollary. Quod nomen perseverantiae nullam rem absolutam essentialiter significat, sed accidentaliter, & relative Charitatem videlicet, sive justitiam, cum respectu futurae permansionis Continue us{que} in finem; & quod non inprobabiliter posset dici perseverantiam esse ipsam relationem hujus: And therefore in the next Chapter, to that objection, If perseverance be no more but charity, or righteousness, then everyone that hath once obtained these, or true grace, must also persevere; He returns no Answer at all: plainly insinuating his Judgment to be so; of which afterwards: and therefore he spends his thirteenth Chapter of the same Book to prove, that the Holy Spirit is that Auxilium, as he called it, whereby any persevere.

And Chap. 1. He resolves all preseveration from no • being overcome by Tentation, or not being tempted to a prevlencie (the same for substance with perseverance) into the will and purpose of God. Quicun{que} (saith he) non Tentatur, hoc necessario est à deo, quod non tentatur. Sicut 11 • pars 13 • primi probat: & per 22um primi, Deus necessario • abet aliquem actum voluntatis circa tal • m non tentationem, & non nolutionem, quia tunc per decimum primi non tentaretur, ergo volutionem, qnae per idem decimum ipsum tentari non sinit, &c. Others render it as a Gift super-added to faith and love, of which Judgment Austin seems to have been, who is followed by sundry of the School-men, with many of the Divines of the reformed Churhes. Hence is that Conclusion of Alvarez: de Auaeil: lib: 10. disp: 103: secundum fidem Catholicam asserendum est, praeter gratiam habitualem, & virtutes infusas esse necessarium, ad perseverandum in bono us{que} in finem, auxilium speciale, supernaturale scilicet donum Perseverantiae. And of this proposition he says, in hâc omnes Catholici Conveniunt. Of the same Judgment was his Master Thomas: Lib 3. con: Gen: cap: 155. Where also he gives this Reason of his opinion; Illud quod naturâ suâ est variabile, ad hoc quod figatur in uno, Indiget auxilio alici • jus moventis immobilis; sed liberum Arbitrium, etiam existens in gratiâ habitually, ad huc manet variabile, & flexibile à bono in malum; ergo ad hoc quod figatur in bono, & perseveret in illo us{que} ad finem, indiget specially Dei Auxilio: The same Argument having been used before him by Bradwardine, though to another purpose, viz: not to prove perseverance to be a super-added gift to saving grace, which (as before was observed) he denied, but to manifest that it was immediately and wholly from God: His words are, lib: 2. cap 8. Cocol: Sicut secundum primi docet, Omne quod est Naturale, & non est per se tale, sed est mutabile in non tale, si manere debeat immutatum, oportet quod imitatur continue alicui per se fixo; quare & continue quilibit justus Deo. The same School-men also (a generation of men exceeding ready to speak of anything, though they know not what they spake, nor whereof they affirm,) go yet farther some of them and will distinguih between the gift of perseverance, and the gift confirmation in Grace. He before mentioned, after a long dispute pag. (104) concludes, ex his sequitur differentiam inter donum perseverantiae, & confirmationis in gratiâ▪ he means that which is granted in viâ) in hoc consistere, quod donum perseverantiae nullam perfectionem intrinsecam constituit in ipsâ gratiâ habitually, quam tamen perfectionem intrinsecam illi tribuit Confirmatio in Gratiâ. What this intrinsical perfection of habitual grace, given it by confirmation, is he cannot tell: for, in those who are so confirmed in Grace, he asserts only in inpeccability upon supposition, and that not alone from their intrinsical principle, as it is with the blessed in heaven, but from help and assistance also daily communicated from without: Durand in 3. d. 3. q. 4, assigns the deliverance from sin which those who are confirmed in grace do obtain unto the Holy Ghost: so far well: but he kicks down his milk by his addition, that he doth it only by the removeal of all occasion of sin: But of these persons, and their Judgment in the point under debate, more afterwards.

For the thing it self last proposed, on what foot of account it is placed, and on what foundation asserted, The Treatise it self will discover. That the thing aimed at, is not to be straightened or restrained to any one peculiar Act of grace, will easily appear. The main foundation of that which we plead for, is, The Eternal purpose of God, which his own nature requireth to be absolutely immutable and irreversible. The Eternal Act of the will of God designing some to salvation by Christ, infallibly to be obtained, for the Praise of the, glory of hu grace, is The Bottom of the whole; Even that foundation which standeth forever, having this seal, The Lord knoweth who are his. For the Accomplishment of this eternal purpose, and for the procurement of all the good things, that lie within the compass of it's in tendment, are The Oblation and Intercession, (the whole mediatory undertaking of Christ) taking away sin, bringing in Life and immortality, interposed, giving further causal influence into the truth contended for. In him and for his sake, as God graciously, powerfully, and freely gives his Holy Spirt, faith, with all the things that accompany salvation unto all them, whom he accepts and pardons by his being made sin • or them, and Righteousness unto them, so he takes them thereby into an everlasting Covenant that shall not be broken, and hath therein given them innumerable promises that he will continue to be their God forever, and preserve them to be, and in b • ing his people: to this end, because the principle of Grace, and living to him, as in them inherent, is a thing in its own nature changable, and liable to failing, he doth according to his promise, and for the Acccomplishment of his purpose, daily make out to them, by his Holy Spirit, from the great treasury and storehouse thereof, the Lord Jesus Christ, helps and supplies, increasing of faith, Love, and Holiness, recovering them from falls, healing their backslidings, strengthening them with all might according to his glorious power, unto all patience and long suffering with joyfulness, so preserving them by his power through faith unto salvation: And in this way of delivering the doctrine contended about, it is clearly made out, that the disputes mentioned are as needless, as groundless, so that we shall not need to take them into the state of the controversy in hand, though I shall have occasion once more to reflect upon them, when I come to the consideration of the doctrine of the School-men, in reference to the opinion proposed to debate. The main of our enquiry, is after the Purpose, Covenant, and promises of God, the undertaking of Christ, the supplies of Grace promised and bestowed in him: on which accounts, we do assert and maintain; That all true Believers who are in being so, interested in all those causes of preservation, shall infallibly be preserved unto the end, in the favor of God, and such a course of Gospel obedience as he will accept in Jesus Christ.

That, (as was formerly said) which at present I aim at in Reference to this Truth is, to declare it's Rise and Progress, it's course, and opposition, which it hath found in several Ages of the Church, with it's state and condition at this day, in respect of Acceptance with the people of God.

It's rise, with all other divine truths, it owes only to Revelation from God, manifested in the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament; some of the most eminent places wherein it is delivered in the Old Testament are: Gen: 3. 17. chap: 17. 1. Deut: 33. 3. Josh: 1. 5. 1 Saw: 12. 22. Psal: 1. 3. Psal: 23. 4, 6. Psal: 37. 39, 40. Psal: 52. 8, 9. Psal: 89. 31, 32, 33, 34, 35. Psal: 33. 9, 10, 11. Psal: 92. 13. &c. Is: 27. 3, 4. Is: 46. 4. Is: 59. 21. Is: 54 9. 10. Is: 4. 4, 5. Is: 40. 27, 28, 26, 30. Is: 43. 1, 2. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8. Jer: 3▪ 3, 31, 32, 33, 34. Jer: 32. 38, 39. 40. Ezek: 36. 25, 26, 27. Hosea: 2. 19, 20. Zach: 10. 12. Mal: 3. 6: with innumerable other places. In the new Testament God hath not left this truth, and work of his Grace without witness; as in sundry other places, so it is testified unto, Math; 6. 13. Mat: 7. 24, 25 Mat. 12. 20. Mat: 16. 18. Mat: 24. 24. Luk 1. 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75. Luk: 8. 5, 8. Luk: 22. 32. Joh: 3. 36. Joh. 4. 13, 14, 16. Joh. 5. 24. Joh: 6. 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 57. Joh: 7. 38. Joh: 8. 35, Joh: 10. 27, 28, 29, 30. Joh: 13. 1. Joh: 14 15, 16, 17. Joh: 16. 27 Joh: 17. throughout: Act: 2. 47. Act: 13 48. Ro: 6. 14. Rom: 8. 1, 16, 17, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, &c. 1 Cor: 1. 8, 9. 1 Cor: 10. 13, 14. 1 Cor: 15. 49, 58. 2 Cor: 1. 21. Eph: 1. 13, 14. Eph. 3. 17. Eph: 4 30. Eph. 5. 23. Gal: 2. 20: Phil: 1. 6. Phil: 2. 13. 1 Thes: 5 24. 2 Tim: 4. 17, 18. Tit: 1.1. Heb: 6. 19. Heb: 10. 38, 39. Heb: 12. Heb: 9. 14. Heb: 13. 5, 21. 1 Pet. 1. 2, 3, 4, 5. 1 Joh. 2. 19, 24. 1 Joh: 3. 9,19. 1 Joh. 5. 14, 18. Jude 1 Rev: 20. 6. So plentifully hath the Lord secured this sacred Truth wherein he hath enwrapped so much, (if not, as in the means of conveyance the whole) of that peace, consolation, and Joy, which he is willing the heirs of promise should receive. Whether the faith hereof thus plentifully delivered to the Saints, found Acceptance with the primitive Christians, to the most of whom it was given not only to believe, but also to suffer for Christ, to me is unquestionable. And I know no better proof of what those first Churches did believe, than by showing what they ought to believe, which I shall unquestionably be persuaded they did believe, unless most pregnant Testimony be given of their Apostasy. That Paul believed it for himself, and concerning others is evident. Ro. 8. 38, 39. 1 Cor. 1. 8, 9. Phil: 1. 6. Heb. 6.. 9, 10, are sufficient proof of his faith herein: That he built up others in the same persuasion, to the enjoyment of the same peace and Assurance with himself, is undeniable. And if there be any demonstration to be made of the belief of the first Christians, of any evidence comparable unto this, I shall not deny but that it ought to be attended unto. But that we may not seem willing to decline the Consideration of what those who went before us in the several Ages and Generations past, apprehended, and have by any means communicated unto us, of their thoughts about the business of our contest, (having no reason so to be) I shall after a little preparation made to that work, present the Reader with something of my Observations to that end and purpose.

Of the Authority of the Ancients in matters of Religion and worship of God, of the Right use and improvement of their writings, of the several Considerations that are to be had and exercised by them who would read them with profit and Advantage, after many disputes and contes • s between the Papists, and Divines of the Reformed Churches, the whole concernment of that Controversy, is so clearly stated, Managed and resolved by Mounseiur Dalie in his Book of the Right use of the Fathers, that I suppose all farther labor in that kind may be well spared. Those who intend to weigh their Testimony to any head of Christian Doctrine, do commonly distinguish them into three greater periods of time: The first of these is comprehensive of them, who lived and wrote before the Doctrine, concerning which they are called out to give in their thoughts and verdict, had received any signal opposition, and eminent discussion in the Church on that acccount. Such are the Writers of the first 300 years, before the Nicene Counsel, in reference to the Doctrine of the Trinity: and so the succeeding writers, before The stating of the Mac • donian, Eutichian, and Nestorian Heresies. In the next are they ranked who bare the burden and heat of the Opposition made to any Truth, and on that Occasion wrote expressly and at large on the controverted doctrines. Which is the Condition of Athanasius, Basil, Gregory, and some others in that Arian Controversy: And in the last place succeed those who lived after such concussions, which are of less or more esteem, according as the Doctrines inquired after, were less or more corrupted in the general Apostasy of the latter days. According to this order Our first period of time will be with the Rise of the Pelagian Heresy, which gave Occasion to the through, full, and Clear discussion of the whole doctrine concerning the grace of God; whereof that in whose defense we are engaged is no small portion: The next of those whom God raised up to make head against that Subtil opposer of his Grace with his followers, during the space of an 100 years and somewhat onwards, ensuing the promulgation of that heresy: What have been the thoughts of men in the latter Ages until The Reformation, and of the Romanists since to this day, manifested in a few pregnant instances, will take up the third part of this design. Of the Judgment of the Reformed Churches, as they are commonly called, I shall speak particularly in the close of this discourse. For the first of these! not to insist on the paucity of writers in the first 300 years, sundry single persons in the following Ages, having severally written three times as much, as we have left and remaining of all the others, (the names of many who are said to have written, being preserved by Eusebius Eccles: Hist: and Jerome lib: de script: their writings being perished in their days) nor in general of that corruption, whereunto They have almost everyone of them been unquestionably exposed, I must be forced to preface the nomination of them with some Considerations: The first in that known passage of Hegesipus, in Euseb: Hist: Eccles:lib, 3. 26. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . So far Hel setting out the corruption of the Church even as to doctrine, immediately after the Apostles fell asleep: whereof whosoever will impartially, and with disengaged Judgments serach into the writings, that of those days do remain, will perhaps find more Cause than is commonly imagined, with him to Complaine.

2 The main work of the writers of the first Ages, being to contend with Heathenish Idolaters, to convince them of their madness, and folly, to write Apologies for the worship of God in Christ in General, so to dissuade their Rulers from persecution, or in contesting with Heretics, for the most part appearing to be men either corrupt in their lives, or mad and brainsick (as we say) as to their Imaginations, or denying the Truth of the person of Christ, what can we expect from them, as delivered directly and on set purpose to the matter of our present contest? Some principles may in them possibly be discovered, from whence by a regular deduction, some Light may be obtained into their thoughts concerning the points in difference. Thus Junius thinks, and not without cause, that the whole business of Predestination, may be stated upon this one principle, that faith is the free Gift of God flowing from his Predestination and Mercy; and concerning this, (saith he) Hoc autem omnes patres uno consensu ex Christo & Paulo agnoverunt; Ipse Justinus Martyr in Apolog: 2: & Gravissime ver • Clemens Alexandrinus, in hâc alioquin palestrâ non itaexercitatus ut sequentia secula: Hom: lib: 2. Basil • i & Valentini dogma esse dicit, quod fides a naturâ sit. Consid. Senten. Pet. Baroni: without this what Advantage can be taken, or what use can be made for the discovery of the mind of any of the Ancients; by cropping of some occasional expressions, from their occasions and aims, I know not. Especially, would I more peremptorily affirm this could I imagine any of them wrote as Jerome affirms of himself, that he sometimes did. Epist. ad August: which is among his 892. Ita{que} (saith he) ut simpliciter fateor, legi haec omnia, & in mente meâ plurima coacervans, accito notario vel mea, vel aliena dictavi, nec ordinis, nec verborum interdum nec sensuum memor: should any one say so of himself in these days, he would be accounted little better then a mad man: much then on this Account (or at least not much to the purpose) is not to be expected from the fathrers of the first Ages.

3. Another observation to our purpose, lies well expressed in the beginning of the fourteenth chapter of Bellarmine's second Book de Grat: & lib: Arb. Praeter Scripture as adferunt alia Testimonia patrum; saith he speaking of those who opposed God's free Predestination: to which he subjoins: Ne{que} est hoc novum Argumentum, sed antiquissimum. Scribit enim S. Prosper in Epistola ad S. Augustinum, Gallos qui sententiam ej • sdem Augustixi de Prede stinatione calumniabantur, illud potissimum objicere solitos quodea sententia doctrine veterum videbatur esse contraria.

Sed respondet idem Augustinus inl ib • de bono perseverantiae, veteres patres, qui ante pelagium flo • uerunt, quaestionem istam nunquam accurate tractasse sed incidenter solum, & quasi per transitum illam attigisse. Addit vero in fundamento hujus sententiae quod est gratiam dei non praevenire ab ullo opere nostro sed contra, ab illâ omnia opera nostera praveniri, it a ut nihil omnino boni, quod attinct ad salutem sit in nobis, quod non est nobis ex des, convenire Catholicos omnes; & ibidem citat Cyprianum Ambrosium, & Nazianzenum, quibus addere possumus Basilium & Crysostomum. To the same purpose with Application to a particular person doth that great, and holy doctor discourse, de doctrine. Christianâ lib: 3 cap: 33: saith he, non erat expertus hanc haeresin Tychoni • , quae nostro tempore exorta, multum nos ut gratiam dei quâ per dominum nostrum Jesum Christum est adversus eam defenderemus exercuit, & secundum id quod ait Apostolus, oportet heresies esse, ut probati manifesti fiunt in nobis, multo vigilantiores diligentiores{que} reddidit, ut adverteremus in Scriptures Sanctis, quod istum Tychonium minus attentum minus{que} sine host solicitum fugit. That also of Jerome in his second Apology against Ruffinus in reference to a most weighty Article of Christian Religion is known to all: fieri potest (saith he) ut vel simpliciter erraverint, vel alio sensu scripserint, vel à librariis imperitis corum paulatim scripta corrupta sint: vel certe antequam in Alexandria quasi Daemonium meridianum Arius nasceretur, innocenter quaedam, & minus • ante locuti surt, & quae non possunt perversorum hominum calumniam declinare. And what he spake of the writers before Arius, in reference to the person of Christ, we may of them before Pelagius in refernce to his Grace. Hence Pererius in Rom. c. 8. dispute. 22: tells us (how truly ipse viderit, I am not altogether of his mind) that for those Authors that lived befofe Austin's time, that all the Greek Fathers, and a considerable part of the Latin, were of opinion, that the cause of Predestination, was the foresight which God had, either of man's good works, or of their faith, either of which opinions, he assures us is manifestly contrary, both to the Authority of the Scriptures, and particularly to the doctrine of Saint Paul. I am not (as I said) wholly of his mind, partly upon the account of the observations made by his fellow Jesuit out of Austin, before mentioned, partly upon other accounts also. Upon these and the like Considerations, much I presume to the buisness in hand, will not be produced on either side, from the Fathers that wrote before the Rise of the Pelagian Heresy. And if any one of the parties at this day litigant about the Doctrines of the Grace of God, should give that advise, that Sisinniuss and Agellius the Novatians sometimes gave, as Zozomen reports of them. ( Hist. Eccles lib. 7. cap. 12) to Nectarius by him communicated to the Emperor Theodosius, to have the quarrel decided by those that wrote before the Rise of the Controversy, as it would be unreasonable in it self, so I persuade myself neither party would accept of the conditions, neither had the Catholics of those days, got anything, if they had attended to the advise of those Novatians. But these few observations premised, something as to particular Testimonies, may be attended unto.

That we may proceed in some order, not leaving those we have nothing to say to, nor are willing to examine, whilst they are but thin, and come not in troops, unsaluted; The first writings that are imposed on us after the Comical Scriptures, are the eight books of Clement, commonly called the Apostles constitutions, being pretended to be written by him at their appointment, with the Canons ascribed to the same persons. These we shall but salute: for besides that they are faintly defended by any of the Papists, disavowed and disclaimed as Apocryphal, by the most learned of them, as Bellarmine de script: Eccles. in Clem: who approves only of 50. Canons: of 85 Baronius An. D • m. 102. 14: who adds 30 more, and Binius with a little enlargement of Canons, in Tit. Can. T. 1. Con. pi. 17: and have been thoroughly disproved and decried by all Protestant writers, that have had any occasion to deal with them, their folly and falsity, their impostures and triflings, have of late been so fully manifested by Dallaeus de pseudepigrapis Apostol. that nothing need be added thereunto. Of him may Doctor H. H. learn the Truth of that Insinuation of his, dissert. de Episcop. dis. 2da cap 6. Sect. 3. Canone Apostolico secundo (semper inter genuinos habito: ) but of the confidence of this Author in his Assertions afterwards: This indeed (insisted on by Daellaus, and the Learned Usher in his notes upon Ignatius ) is childishly ridiculous in them, that whereas it is pretended that these constitutions were made at a convention of the Apostles, as l. 6. c. 14, they are brought in discoursing, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 &c. They they are made to inform ns lib. 2. cap. 57. That the Acts written by Luke and read in the Churches are theirs, and the four books of the Gospel. Whereas the story of the death of James (here said to be together with the Apostles ) is related Act. 12: and John by the consent of all, wrote not his Gospel until after the dissoluton of his Associates. Also they make Stephen and Paul to be together, at the making of those constitutions Const: lib. 8. cap. 4. (whereas the Martyrdom of Stephen, was before the convesiron of Paul, ) and yet also mentions the stoning of Stephen: lib. 8.46. They tell us whom they appointed Bishops of Hiesalem after the death of James, and yet James is one of them, who is met together with them l. 7. c. 48: nay mention is made of Cerinthus, and that Mark the heritick, Menander, Basilides and Saturnilus were known and taken notice of by the Apostles, who all lived in the second Century, abought the Rain of Hadrian, as Eusebius manifesteth, and Clem. Alex. Strom. lib. 7.

But to leave such husks as these, unto them who loath Manna, and will not feed on the bread that our heavenly Father hath so plentifully provided for all that live in his family, or any way belong to his house, let us look onward to them that follow, of whose Truth and Honesty we have more assurance.

The first Genuine piece that presents it self unto us, on the Roll of Antiquity, is that Epistle of Clemen's, which in the name of the Church of Rome, he wrote to the divided Church of Corinth, which being abundantly testified to of old, to the great contentment of the Christian world, was published, here at Oxford some few years since; A writing full of ancient simplicity, humility, & Zeal. As to our present business much I confess cannot be pleaded from hence, beyond a negative impeachment, of that great and false clamour which our Adversarie have raised, of the consent of the primitive Christians with them in their by paths, and and ways of error. It is true, treating of a Subject diverse from any of those heads of Religion about which our contests are, it is not to be expected that he should anywhere plainly, directly, & evidenty deliver his judgment unto them. This therefore I shall only say, that in that whole Epistle, there is not one word, iota, or syllable that gives countenance to the tenent of our adversaries, in the matter of the Saints perseverance: but that on the contrary, there are sundry expressions, asserting such a foundation of the Doctrine we maintain, as will with good strength infer the Truth of it. Pag. 4. Setting forth the virtues of the Corinthiaus before they fell into the schism that occasioned his Epistle, he minds them that: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . That God hath a certain number of Elect to be saved, and for whose salvation by his Mercy the Church is to contend with him, is a principle wholly inconsistent with those, on which the doctrine of the Saints Apostasy is bottomed. Corresponding hereunto is that passage of his concerning the will of God, p. 12: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . A mere consideration of this passage causeth me to recall what but now was spoken, as though the Testimony given to the Truth, in this Epistle, was not so clear as might be desired. The words now repeated, contain the very Thesis contended for. It is the beloved of God (or his Chosen) whom he will have made partakers of saving Repentance; & hereunto he establisheth them (for with that word is the defect in the sentence to be supplied) by, or with the Almighty will: because he will have his beloved partakers of saving Repentance, and the benefits thereof, he confirms and establishes them in it, with his Omnipotent, or Sovereign will. The inconsistency, and irreconcileableness of this assertion, with the doctrine of these Saints Apostasy, the Learned Reader needs not any Assistance to manifest to him. Answerably hereunto he saith of God. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , pag. 38: and p 66: mentioning the blessedness of the forgiveness of sins, out of Ps. 32: he adds. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . The Elect of whom he speaks, are those, on whom, through, and for Christ, God bestows the blessedness of Justification: Elect they are of God anteecedently to the obtaining of that blessedness, and through that, they do obtain it: so that in that short sentence of this Author the great pillar of the Saints perseverane, which is their free Election, the root of all the bless • dness which afterward they enjoy, is established: other passages like to these, there are in th • t Epistle, which plainly deliver the primitive Christians of the Church of Rome, from any communion in the doctrine of the Saints Apostasy, and manifest their Perseverance, in the doctrine of the Saints Perseverance, wherein they had been so plentifully instructed not long before, by the Epistle of Paul unto them.

He who upon the Roll of Antiquity presents himself in the next place to our consideration, is the renowned Ignatius, concernig whom I desire to beg so much favor of the learned Reader, as to allow me a diversion unto some thoughts and observations, that belong to another subject, then that, which I have now peculiarly in hand, before I come to give him a taste of his Judgment in the doctrine under debate.

As this Ignatius Bishop of the Church at Antioch, was in himself • man of an excellent spirit, em • nent in holiness, and to whom on the behalf of Christ it was given not only to believe on him, but also suffer for him, and on that account of very great and high esteem among the Christians of that Age wherein he lived, and sundry others following, so no great Question can be made but that he wrote toward the end of his pilgrimage, when he was on his way to be offered up through the holy Spirit by the mouths of wild beasts to Jesus Christ, that he wrote sundry Epistles to sundry Churches, that were of chiefest note and name in the Countries about. The concurrent Testimony of the Ancients in this matter of fact, will give as good Assurance as in this kind we are capable of: Eusebius reckons them up in order, so doth Jerome.

After them frequent mention is made of them by others, & special sayings in them are transcribed: And whereas it is urged by some, that there is no mention of those Epistles before the Nicene Council, before which time, it is as evident as if it were written with the beams of the sun, that many false and supposititious writings had been imposed on, and were received by many in the Church, (as the story of Paul and Tecla is mentioned and rejected by Tertull: de Baptis: Hermae Pastor by others) it is answered that they were mentioned by Irenaeus some good while before, Lib. 5. cap. 28. saith he. Quemadmodum quidam de nostris dixit, propter Martyrium in Deum adjudicatus ad bestias; quoniam frumentum sum Christi & per dentes bestiarum moler ut mundus panis Dei inveniar. Which words to the substance of them are found in these Epistles: though some say nothing is here intimated of any Epistles or writings, but of a speech that might pass among the Christians by Tradition, such as they had many among themselves, even of our Savior's, some whereof are mentioned by Grotius on these words of Paul, remember that word of Christ that it is more blessed to give then to receive. What probability or ground for conviction there is in these or the like Observations, and Answers is left to the judgment of all. This is certain that the first mentioning of them in Antiquities is to be clearly received, (and that perhaps with more then the bare word of him, that recites and approves of the Epistles of Jesus Christ to Abgarus the King of the ( Edessens ) or of him that reckons Seneca among the Ecclesiastical writers, upon the account of his Epistles to Paul ) or the following Testimonies, which are heaped up in abundance by some who think (but falsely) that they have a peculiar interest enwrapped in the Epistles, now extant, will be of very small weight or value.

For my part I am persuaded, with that kind of persuasion wherein in things of no greater moment I am content to acquiesce, that he did write 7. Epistles, and that much of what he so wrote is preserved in those that are now extant, concerning which the contests of learned men have drawn deep and run high in these latter days, though little to the advantage of the most that have labored in that cause, as shall be manifested in the process of our discourse.

A late learned Doctor in his dissertations about Episcopacy, or dispute for it against Salmasius and Blondellus tells us, that we may take a taste of his confidence in asserting Dissert: 2. cap. 23. §: j. that Salmasius and Blondellus mortalium omnium primi, thought these Epistles to be feigned, or counterfeit. And with more words Cap. 24. 1. he would make us believe, that these Epistles of Ignatius where always of the same esteem with that of Clemens from Rome to the Corinthians of which he treats at large in his fourth Dissertation) or that of Polycarpus to the Philippians which we have in Eusebius he adds in the judgment of Salmasius and Blonde • lus, Solus Ignatius 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 cujus tamen Epistolae pari semper cum illis per universam ab omni av • patrum nostrorum memoriam reverentiâ Excipiebantur; nec prius a mortalium quovis in judicium vocabantur (multo minus ut in re certâ & extra dubium positâ inter plane 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 & 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 rejiciebantur) quam Presbyteri Anglicani patribus suis contumeliam facere caepissent iisque aut suppetias ferre, aut rem gratam facere (quibus illecebris adducti nescio) hi duo non ignobiles Presbyteranae causae hyperaspista in seipsos recepissent. Of his Two learned Antagonists one is dead, and the other almost blind, or probably they would have dealt not much more gently with the Doctor for his Parenthesis (quibus illecebris adducti nescio ) then one of them formerly did ( Salmas: de subscribendis & signandis Testamentis se • specimen Consula: Animad: Heraldi: Cap: 1. Pag: 19 Nuper quidem etiam nebulo in Angliâ, Capellanus ut audio Regis, Hammendus nomine, libro quem edidit de potestate clavium Salmasse iratus quod aliam quam ipse sententiam probet ac defendat, haud potuit majus convicium, quod ei diceret, invenire, quam si Gramaticum appellaret ) for his terming him a Grammarian, yet indeed of him, (such was the hard entertainment he found on all hands) it is by many supposed that he was illecebris adductus (and they stick not to name the bait he was caught withal) wrought over in a manner to destroy the faith of that, which he had before set up and established.

For the thing it self affirmed by the Doctor, I cannot enough admire with what oscitancy or contempt, he considers his Readers (of which manner of proceeding this is very far from being the only instance) that he should confidently impose such things upon them. He that hath written so much about Ignatius, and doth so triumph in his Authority, ought doubtless to have considered those concernments of his Author which are obvious to every ordinary enquirer: Vedelius his Edition of Ignatius at Geneva came forth with his notes in the year 1623 long before either Salmasius, or Biondellus had written anything about the supposititiousness of these Epistles: in the Apologic for Ignatius whereto prefixed, he is forced to labor and sweat in the Answer of one, whom he delervedly stiles Virum Doctissimum; arguing (not contemptibly) that Ignatius never wrote any such Epistles, and that all those which were carried about in his name, were false and counterfeit.

But perhaps the Doctor had taken caution of one of the Fathers of his Church, that à Genevensibus istis Typographis praeter fraisdes, & fucos, & praestigias non est quod quicquam expectemus (Montacu: Appar: lib. 5. Sect: 46. pag: 19.) and so thought not fit to look into anything that comes from them.

Especially may this be supposed to have some influence upon him, considering the gentle censure added in the next words by that Reverend Father of his Church concerning the endeavor of Vedelius in his notes on that Edition. Ne{que} Audax ill & importunus Ignatii Censor, quicquam attulit ad paginas suas implendas praeter inscitiam, & incuriam, & impudentiam singularem (nec saevi magne sacerdos) dum ad suum Genevalismum antiquitatem detorquet invitissimam, non autem quod oportuit, Calvinismum amussitat ad antiquitatem. And what I pray is the reason of his Episcopal censure? That he should deal with poor Vedelius in that language wherewith no men of his Order, and Authority were wont to deal with preaching Ministers at their visitations? Why this poor man in that passage which you have in the Epistle to the Magnesians (in that Edition: p: 56.) where treating of the Antient Fathers expectations of the coming of Christ, retains the common reading of, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 referring the word to their expectation of seeing him come in the flesh, which upon the Testimony of our Savior himself, they desired to see, and saw it not, not correcting it by a change of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 into 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , so referring it to their faith in Christ and salvation by him as in his Judgment, he ought to have done 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉

A little thing would provoke the indignation of a Prelate against anything that came from Geneva.

I say I would suppose, that this might divert our Doctor from casting his eye upon Vedelius, whose defensative would have informed him that these Epistles had been opposed as false and councerfeit, before ever Salmasius, or Blondellus had taken them into consideration; but that I finding him sometimes insisting on that Geneva Edition.

For whereas Cap: 2. Sect: 2: he tells you that he intends to abide only upon the Edition of Isaac Vossius in Greek, published from the Archives of the Library of Lawrence de Medices, and the Latin Edition published by Bishop Usher, out of our Library here at Oxford, yet cap. 8: being pressed with the Testimony of the writers of the Epistle to the Magnesians, in that Edition calling Episcopacy 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , plainly intimating a comparative Noveltie, in that order to others in the Churches, and fearing (as well he might) that his translation of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 into, the ordination of a young man, would scarce be received by the men of his own prejudice (for surely he never supposed, that he should impose on any other, by such gross figments) he prefers the Vedelian Edition (where these words are not so used) before it: and informs us that sic legendum (as it is in the Geneva Edition) suadet tota Epistolae series. Now this truly is marvelous to me (if the Doctor consulteth Authors any farther, then merely to serve his present turn) how he could ever advise with that Edition of Vedelius, and yet so confidently affirm, that Salmasius and Blondellus were the first that rejected these Epistles, as feigned and counterfeited.

But yet a little farther I the first Edition of these Epistles in Latin was Augustae Vindelicorum, an: 1529: in Greek at Basil 1566: Before which time I suppose the Doctor expects not, that any opposition should be made to them, considering the heaps of filth & dung, that until about that time, were owned for the offspring of the Antient Fathers.

Upon their first appearing in the world what is the entertainment they receive? One who was dead before either the Doctor, or either of his Antagonists were borne, and whose Renown among the people of God, will live when they are all dead, gives them this welcome into the world: Ignatium quod obtendunt, si velint quicquam habere momenti; probent Apostolos legem tulisse de quadragessima, & similibus corruptelis. Nihil naeniis istis quae sub Ignatii nomine edetae sunt putidius. Quominus tolerabilis est eorum impudentia qui talibus larvis ad fallendum se instruunt. Cal. Instit. lib. 1 cap. 13. Sect: 29.

What ever be the Judgment of our Doctor concerning this man, (as some there are of whom a learned Bishop in this nation long ago complained, that they are still opening their mouths against Calvin, who hope them to mouths to speak with: Abbot: ad Thom: ) He will in the Judgment of some, be so far accounted some-body, as to take off from them the confident. Assertion that Salmasius, and Blondellus, were mortalium primi that rejected these Epist • es.

The Centuriators of Magdenburg were esteemed to be some bodies in their days: and yet they ma • e bold to call these Epistles into Question: and to tender sundry Arguments to the impa • ing of their Credit and Authority. This then they Cent: 2. cap: 10 De Epi, cop: Antioch: ac primum de Ignatio.

Lectori pio & attento considerandum relinquimus quantum sit illis Epistolis tribuendum. Non enim dubitamus quin in lection earum cu • libet ista in mentem veniant: primum quod se e in omnibus Epistolis; licet satis Copiesis, occasio scribendi praetermittitur, nec vel divinare licet, quare potissimùmad hanc vel illam Ecclesiam literas voluerit mittere. Deinde ipsius peregrinationis Ratio non parvum injicit scrupulum considerantibus, quod multo rectiore & brevioriitinere, Romam potuerit navigare, ut testator vel ipsius Pauli Exemplum.—Expende quam longum sit iter, Antiochiâ ad littus Aegaei pelagi se recipere, ibi{que} rectâ sursum versus Septentricnem ascendere, & praecipuas civitates in littore sitas us{que} ad Troadem perlustrare, cum tamen Romanum iter sit destinatum versus occasum. Tertiores ejusmodi in istas literas inspersae sunt ut ad ease propemodum obstupescat lector &c. Hac cùm aliàs non somnolento lectori incidant, non existimaverimus &c.

Thus they at the worlds first awaking, as to the Consideration of things of this kind.

To them add the learned Whitaker Cont: I mâ de perfect: script: quaest: sextâ c: 12: where after he hath disputed against the credit of these Epistles, jointly and severally, with sundry Arguments at length he Concludes, sed de his Epistolis satis multa, & de hoc Ignatio quid judicandum sit, satis ex its const are potest quae diximus. Ista Papistae non advent tueri &c. To whom sundry others might be added convincing Salmasius and Blondellus, not to have been Mortalium primi that called them into Question.

I have not insisted on what hath been spoken, as though I were wholly of the mind of them, who utterly condemn those Epistles as false and counterfeit; though I know no possibility of standing before the Arguments levied against them (notwithstanding the fore-mentioned Doctors attempt to that purpose, without acknowledging so much corruption in them, Additions and Detractions from what they were when first written, as will render them not so clearly serviceable to any end or purpose, whereunto their Testimony may be required, as other unquestionable writings of their Antiquity are justly esteemed to be. That these Epistles have fallen into the hands of such unworthy Impostors as have filled the latter ages with labor and travel to discover their deceits, The Doctor himself granteth: dissert: 2. cap. 2 Sect: 6: nulla (saith he) quidem nobis insumbit necessitas, ut in tantâ exemplarium & editionum varietate & inconstantiâ, nihil uspiam Ignatio interpolatum aut adsutum affirmemus.

And indeed the foisted passages in many places are so evident, yea shameful, that no man who is not resolved to say anything, without care of proof or Truth, can once appear in any defensative about them. Of this sort are the shreds and pieces out of that branded counterfeit piece of Clemens, or the Apostles constitutions which are almost in every Epistle packed in, in a bungling manner, oftentimes disturbing the sense and coherence of the place: yea sometimes such things are thence transcribed, as in them, are considerable Arguments of their Corruption, and falsehood: so is that period in the Epistle to the Magnesians taken from Clemens. Constitut lib. 6 cap. 2. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . This Abeddadan being mentioned next after Absalom's dying by the loss of his head, is therefore supposed to be Sheba the Son of Bickri, but whence that counterfeit Clemens had that name is not known. That the counterfeit Clemens by Abeddadan intended Sheba is evident from the words he assigns unto him in the place mentioned. Abeddadan said, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . And joins him with Absalom in his Rebellion▪ such passages as these they are supposed to have received from that vain and foolish Impostor: but if it be true which some have observed that there is not the least mention made of any of those fictitious constitutions in the three first Ages after Christ, & that the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 mentioned by Eusebius, and Athanasius, as also that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in Epiphanius, are quite other things, then those eight books of constitutions we now have, it may rather be supposed, that that sottish deceiver rather raked up some of his filth from the Corruption of these Epistles, then that anything out of him is crept into them. Other instances might be given of stuffing these Epistles with the very garbidge of that beast. Into what hands also these Epistles have fallen by the way, in their journeying down towards these ends of the world, is evident from these citations made out of them, by them of old, which now appear not in them. Theodoret. Dial: 3. adv: Haere: gives us this sentence from Ignatius: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 : which words you will scarcly find in that Epistle to the Church of Smyrna, from whence they were taken: Jerome also, Dial. 3. Con. Pelag: hath this passage of him, and from him. Ignatius vir Apostolicus & Martyr scribit audacter, elegit Dominus Apostoles qui super omnes homines peccatores erant: which words as they are not now in these Epistles, so as one observes if ever he wrote them as is pretended, he did it audacter indeed. But of these things our Doctor takes no notice.

The style of these Epistles doth not a little weaken the credit of them, being turgent, swelling with uncouth words, and phrases, affected manner and ways of expression, new compositions of words, multiplying Titles of honor to men, exceedingly remote and distant from the plainness and simplicity of the first writers among the Christians, as is evident by comparing these with the Epistles of Clement before mentioned, that of Polycarpus in Eusebius, The Churches of Viena in that same Author, and others. Instances for the confirmation of this Observation are multiplied by Blondellus: my designed work will not allow me to insist on particulars. In many good words this charge is waved, by affirming that the Author of these Epistles was an Assyrian, and near to Martyrdom, and that in the Scriptures there are snndry words of as hard a composition, as these used by him: Ham: disser: 2. cap 3. And as he says, from this kind of writing an Argument of sufficient validity may be drawn to evince him to be the Author of these Epistles. Jerome was of another mind speaking of Didymus. Imperitus (saith he) sermon est, & non scientia, Apostolicum virum ex ipso sermon exprimens, tam sensuum nomine, quam simplicitate verborum. But seeing Ignatius was a Syrian, and near to Martyrdom (though he writes his Epistles from Troas, and Smyrna, which without doubt were not in his way to Rome from Antioch: & yet everywhere he saith he is going to Rome: ad Ephes: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 which in the close he affirms he wrote from Smyrna, whither he was had to his Martyrdom) what is it to any man, what style he used in his writings, what swelling titles he gave to any, or words he made use of. Who shall call those writings (especially Ignatius being a Syrian ) into question.

But perhaps some farther Question may here arise, (& which hath by sundry been already started) about the use of divers Latin words in those Epistles, wich doubtless cannot be handsomely laid on the same account of their Author being a Syrian, and nigh to martyrdom, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , are usually instanced in: words to whose use no Roman customs, observations, Orders, nor rules of Goverment, do administer the least occasion. Of these the Doctor tells you, he wonders only that in so many Epistles, there are no more of this kind: And why so? The Epistles are not so large a Volume; a very few hours will serve to read them over; and yet I am persuaded that in all that compass of reading, in the Greek Fathers which our Doctor owns, he cannot give so many instances of words barbarous to their language, no way occasioned by the means before mentioned, as have been given in these Epistles. But he wonders there are no more, and some wonder that all are not of his mind. But he farther informs us, that a diligent Reader of the Scripture, may observe many more Latin words in the New Testament then are used in these Epistles; and for a proof of his diligence and observation, reckons up out of the end of Passor's Lexicon sundry words of that kind, made use of by the Sacred writers. I fear unto some men, this will scarce be an Apology prevalent, to the dismission of these Epistles, from under the Censure of being at least foully Corrupted. Of the whole collection of words of that sort made by Passor, among which are those especially culled out by our Doctor to Confirme his observations, there is scarce one, but either it is expressive of some Roman Office, Custom, money order, or the like: words of which nature pass as proper names (as one of those mentioned by the Doctor is, and no otherwise used in the New Testament) from one Country and language to another, or are indeed of a pure Greek Original, or at least were in common use in that Age; neither of which can be spoken of the words above mentioned, used in the Epistles: which were never used by any before or after them, nor is there any occasion imaginable why they should: Parvas habent spes Epistolae, si tales habent: I would indeed gladly see a fair, candid, & ingenious defensative of the Style & manner of writing used in those Epistles, departing so eminently from anything that was customary in the writings of the men of those days, or is regular for men of any generation, in Repetitions, affected compositions, Barbarismes, Rhyming expressions, and the like; for truly notwithstanding anything that hitherto I have been able to obtain for help in this kind, I am enforced to incline to Vedelius his answers, to all the particular Instances given of this nature; this, and that place is corrupted, this is from Clemen's Constitutions, this from this or that Tradition: which also would much better free those Epistles from the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , used in the sense whereunto it was applied by the Valentinians long after the death of Ignatius, then any other Apology, I have as yet seen, for the securing of its abode in them.

It is not a little burdensome to the thought of sober and learned men, to consider how frequently, causelessly, absurdly in the midst of discourses quite of another nature, and tendency, the Author of those Epistles (or somebody for him) break in upon the Commendation of Church Officers Bishops and Presbyters, exalting them with titles of honor to the greatest Potentates on earth and compareing them to God the Father and Son; where as none of the Sacred writers that went before him, nor any of those good and holy men who (as is supposed) followed after him do hold the least communion or society with him. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Epist: ad Tral: whereunto is immediately subjoined that Doctrine concerning Deacons, which will scarcely be thought to be exegetical of Act. 6. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 &c. And 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . What the Writer of this passage intended to make of a Bishop well I know not: but thus he speaks of him Epist: ad Magnes. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (as the Apostle speaks concerning God, Heb: 6 10.) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Thus indeed some would have it, who to help the matter, have further framed such an Episcopacy, as was never thought on by any in the days of Ignatius, as shall afterwards be made evident. And in the same Epistle this is somewhat uncouth and strange. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Whether the Lord Christ hath bound any such burden upon the shoulders of the Saints, I much question; nor can I tell what to make of the comparison, between God the Father, and the Bishop, Christ, and the rest of the Church; the whole sentence in word and matter, being most remote from the least Countenance from the Sacred writings Epist: ad Philadel: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (well aimed however) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . The Epistle to the Church at Smyrna is full of such stuff, inserted without any occasion, order, coherence or any color to induce us to believe that it is part of the Epistle as first written. One passage I may not omit. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (in the language of our Savior repudiating the Pharisees corrupted glosses on the Law) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . So Peter's mistake is corrected: his reasons follow, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (as was Jesus Christ) and it is added, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . How well this suits the doctrine of Peter and Paul, the Reader will easily discern. Caesar or the King is upon all accounts thrust behind the Bishop, who is said to be Consecrated to God for the salvation of the World: him he is exhorted to obey; and in express opposition to the Holy Ghost, the Bishop's name is thrust in between God and the King, as in away of preeminence above the latter: and to do anything without the Bishop is made a far greater crime then to rise up against the King. As this seems scarce to be the language of one, going upon an Acculation to appear before the Emperor, so I am certain, it is most remote from the likeness of any thing, that in this affaire we are instructed in from the Scripture. Plainly this language is the same with that of the false Impostor Pseudo-Clemens in his pretended Apostolical Constitutions. At this rate, or somewhat beyond it have you him ranting Lib. 2, cap. 2. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . All Popes, with all sorts of Persons whatever Priests, Kings, and Princes, Fathers and Children, all under the feet of this Exemplar of God, and Ruler over men. A passage which doubtless eminently interprets and illustrates that place of Peter's Epistle ch. 5. v. 1. 2. 3. The Elders that are among you I exhort, who also am an Elder, and a witness of the suffering • of Christ and also a partaker of the glory that shall be revealed, feed the flock of God, which is among you, taking the oversight thereof not by constraint, but willingly, not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind, neither as being Lord's over God's heritage but • eing Examples to the flock. But yet as if the man were stark mad, with wordldy pride and pomp He afterwards in the name of the Holy Apostles of Jesus Christ, commands all the Laity (forsooth) to honor, love, and fear the Bishop, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Lib. 2. Cap 20. And that you may see whither the man drives, and what he aims at after he hath set out his Bishop like an Emperor, or an Estern-King, in all pomp and glory. He adds, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . The paying of tribute to them as Kings is the Issue of these descriptions, that they may have wherewithal to maintain their pomp and greatness, according to the institution of our Lord Jesus Christ and his blessed Apostles. But I shall not rake farther into this dunghill, nor shall I add anymore instances of this kind out of Ignatius, but close into one insisted on by our Doctor, for the proof of his Episcopacy. Dissert. 2. Cap. 25. 7. Saith he Quarto. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Episcopo attendite, ut & vobis Deus attendat, ego animammeam libenter eorum loco substitui cuperem (quod Anglice optime dicimus, (my soul for theirs) qui Episcopo, Presbyteris, & Diaconis obsequuntur. I hope I may without great difficulty obtain the Doctors pardon, that I dare not be so bold with my soul as to jeopard it in that manner, especially being not mine own to dispose of.

Upon these and many more the like accounts do the Epistles seem to me, to be like the Children that the Jews had by their strange Wives. Neh: 13, who spake part the language of Ashdod, and part the language of the Jews. That there are in them many footsteps of a gracious Spirit, every way worthy of, and becoming the great and holy personage, whose they are esteemed, so there is evidently a mixture of the working of that worldly and carnal Spirit, which in his days, was not so let loose as in after times. For what is there in the Scripture, what is in the genuine Epistle of Clêmen's, that gives countenance to those descriptions of Episcopacy, Bishops, and the subjection to them, that are in those Epistles (as now we have them) So insisted on? What titles, are given to Bishops? What Sovereignty, Power, Rule, Dominion is ascribed to them? Is there anything of the like Nature in the writings of the Apostles? In Clemens, the Epistle of Polycarpus &c. Or any unquestionable legitimate offspring of any of the first Worthies of Christianity? Whence have they their three orders of Bishops, Presbyters, and Deacons, upon the distinct observation of which so much weight is laid? Is there any one word, iota, title, or syllable, in the whole book of God giving countenance to any such distinctions? Eph. 4. 8. We have Pastors and Teachers. Rom: 12. 7.8. Him that teacheth, him that exhorteth, him that ruleth, and him that showeth mercy, Philip. 1. 1. We have Bishops and Deacons: and their Institutions with the order of it, we have at large expressed. 1 Tim: 3. 1. 2. Bishops and Deacons without the Interposition of any other order whatever. Deacons we have appointed Acts the 7. And Elders. Acts 14. 23. Those who are Bishops we find called Presbyters. Titus: 1. 5. 7. And those who are Presbyters, we find termed Bishops. Acts 20. 28. So that Deacons we know and Bishops who are Presbyters, or Presbyters who are Bishops we know, but Bishops, Presbyters, and Deacons, as three distinct orders in the Church, from the Scripture we know not. Neither did Clemens in his Epistle to the Corinthians, know of anymore then we do, which a few instances will manif • st: saith he speaking of the Apostles. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 &c. Bishops and Deacons (as in the Church at Philippi ) this man knows: but the third order he is utterly unacquainted withal. And that the Difference of this man's expressions, concerning Church Rulers from those in the Epistle under consideration, may the better appear; and his asserting of Bishops, and Presbyters to be one and the same, may the more clearly be evidenced, I shall transcribe one other Passage from him, whose length I hope will be execused from the usefulness of it, to the Parpose in hand. Pag. 57. 58. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (for so it seems was the manner of the Church in his days, that their officers were appointed by the consent of the whole Church) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (or the Bishops of whom he was speaking) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . &c. And sundry other discoveries are there, in that Epistle of the like nature: It is not my design, nor purpose to insist upon the parity of Bishops and Presbyters, or rather the Identity of office denoted, by sundry Appellations from these and the like places: this work is done to the full by Blondellus, that our labor in this kind, (were that the purpose in hand,) is prevented. He that thinks the Arguments of that Learned man to this purpose are indeed answered thoroughly, and removed by D. H. in his fourth dissertation, where he proposes them to Consideration, may one day think it needful, to be Able to distinguish between words and things. That Clemens owns in a Church but two sorts of Officers, the first whereof he calls sometimes Bishops, sometimes Presbyters, the other Deacons, the Doctor himself doth not deny.

That in the Judgment of Clemens no more were instituted in the Church is no less evident. And this carries the conviction of it's truth so clearly with it; that Lombard himself confesseth, hos solos ministrorum duos ordines Ecclesiam primitvam habuisse, & de his solis praeceptum Apostoli nos habere. Lib. 4. Sen. D. 24. Lib. 3. ext. It seems moreover that those Bishops and Deacons in those days (as was observed) were appointed to the office, by and with the consent of the People, or whole body of the Church: no less do those words import, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Our Doctor indeed renders these words, applaudente aus congratulante Ecclesiâ totâ: and adds ( satis pro imperio) nihil hìc de acceptatione totius Ecclesiae, sine quà Episcopos & Diaconos ab Apostolis & Apostolicis viris constitutos non esse, ex hoc loco concludit Blondellus, quasi qui ex Dei jussu & Approbatione constituebantur populi etiam acceptatione indigere putandiessent. Dissert: 4. Cap. 7. 8. 10. And who dares take that confidence upon him, as to affirm anymore, what so great a Doctor hath denied? Though the scope of the place, the nature of the thing, and first most common sense of the word here used, being, willingly to Consent (as it is also used in the Scripture for the most part. Act: 8. 1. 1 Cor 7. 12) to a thing to be done, or to the doing of it, yet here it must be taken to applaud, or congratulate, or what else our Doctor pleases, because he will have it so. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 also, must be Viri Apostolici, men with Apostolical or extraordinary power, when they are only the choice men of the Church, where such a constitution of Officers is had, that are intended because it is our Doctors purpose to have the words so rendered. Ex jussu Dei & Approbatione, as though any particular command or opprobation of God were intimated, for the constitution of the Bishops and Deacons mentioned, beyond the institution of the Lord Jesus Christ, that Elders should be ordained in every Church, because this would seem to be exclusive wholly of the consent of the people, as any way needful or required to their constitution: which yet as it is practically false, no such thing being mentioned by Clemens, who recoutneth the way and means, whereby Officers were continued in the Church even after the decease of the Apostles, and those first ordained by them to that holy employment, so also is it argumentatively weak and Unconcluding. God appointed, designed Saul to be King, approving of his so being, and yet he would have the people come together to choose him. So also was it in the case of David. Though the Apostles in the name & the authority of God, appointed the Deacons of the Church at Jerusalem, yet they would have the whole Church look out among themselves the men to be appointed. And that the ordaining of the Elders was with the people's Election Act. 14. 23. It will ere long be manifested, that neither our Doctor nor any of his Associates have as yet disproved. This poor thing the people, being the peculiar people of Christ, the heritage of God and Holy Temple unto him &c. Will one day be found to be another manner of thing, then many of our great Doctors have snpposed. But he informs us Cap. 4. Sect 3. From that Testimony which we cited before, that the Apostles in the Appointment of Bishops and Deacons (for so the words expressly are) are said 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 i: e: Saith he Revelationibus edoctos esse, quibus demum haec dignitas communicanda esset; that is, that they appointed those, whom God revealed to them in extraordinary manner to be so ordained, and this is the meaning of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , and why so? The holy Ghost orders concerning the appointment of Deacons 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . 1 Tim 3. 10. That those who are to be taken into office and power in the Church had need first to be tried and approved; is granted. And this work the Apostles give to the multitude of the Church. Act: 6. Where yet after the people's Election, and the Apostles Approbation, and the trial of both, one that was chosen is supposed, to have proved none of the best. And yet of him, and them, are the Apostles said by Clemens that they did, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . But how shall it be made to appear that, Spiritum probantes, trying or proving by the Spirit, or spiritually proving them to try whether, they were able Ministers of the New Testament, not of the Letter, but of the Spirit, proving them by that spirit, which was promised unto them to lead them into all truth, must needs signify they were taught whom they should appoint by immediate Revelation. To prove by the Spirit, or Spiritually the persons that are to be made Ministers, or Bishops, is to have their names revealed to us. Stephen is said to speak, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Act. 6. 10. And Paul purposed 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Act: 19. 21. And we are said to serve God, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Gal. 5.5. and to make supplication 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Eph. 6. 18. With many more expressions of the like nature. Does all this relate to immediate Revelation, and are all things done thereby which we are said to do in the Spirit? Before we were instructed in this mystery, and were informed that, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , did signify to be taught by revelation. We had thought that the expression of doing anything 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 had manifested the Assistance, guidance, and direction, which for the doing of it we receive, by the holy and b • essed spirit of God, promised unto us, and bestowed on, in & through the Lord Jesus Christ. Yea but he adds, that it is also spoken of the Apostles. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 praecognitionem (i: e:) Revelationem 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , they appointed them Bishops and Deacons, by the helps and presence of the spirit with them, the Apostles examined, tried those who were to be appointed Bishops, so obtaining, and recieving a perfect foreknowledge, or knowledge of them before their Admission into office. This also expresses Revelation ( 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ) upon trial it was revealed unto them) and so must anything else be allowed to be, that our Doctor will have to be so, now he is asserting to that purpose. But had the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , who appointing Bishops and Deacens after the Apostles time, had they also this special Revelation? Or may they not be said, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . If not, how will you look upon them under the notion of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , who neglected so great a duty: if they did, let us know when this way of constituting Church officers by immediate Revelation ceased: and what was afterwards took up in the Roome thereof: and who they were that first proceeded on another account, and on what Authority they did it? There are a generation of men in the world, will thank the Doctor for this insinuation, and will tie knots upon it, that will trouble him to loose.

Before we return, let us look but a little further, and we shall have a little more light given us, into what was the conditon and power of the people in the Church in the days of Clemens, speaking of them who occasioned the division, and schism in the Church of Corinth, or them about whose exaltation into office, or dejection from it that sad difference fell out, he gives them this advice. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . It seems the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , the multitude, or the people were not such poor inconsiderable things as they are reported to be, when he advises them to stop and stay the sedition, by yielding obedience to the things by them appointed and commanded. If it were in it self evil, disorderly, and not according to the mind of Christ, that the people should order and appoint things in the Church, it had been simply evil for Clemens, to have advised any to yield obedience unto things by them so appointed. Where is now Ignatius his 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 & 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . &c. Even those who are contending about Rule and Goverment in the Church, are advised to stand to the determination of the people, and to cry, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . This is also insisted on by Blondellus, who thence argues potestatem plebis Circa Sacra. Disser. 5. Cap. 8. Sect. 4. Ad verba haec (saith our Doctor) prodigii instar est quod notandum duxit Dav: Blondellus [ potestatem Plebis Circa Sacra ] ( de quâ tandem integram dissertationem elucubravit) artificiis quibuscun{que} asserturus. Hic (inquit) nos monet Clemens fideles etiam de Episcopatu aut Presbyterio contendentes, non ab Episcopy singulari 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 nutu, sed à multitudinis praeceptis pependisse. But let not our Doctor be angry, nor cry out so fast of Prodigies: a little time will manifest, that many things may not be prodigious, which yet are contrary to sundry of his conceptions, and Apprehensions. I cannot but acknowledge him to be provoked; but with all must say, that I have found very commonly, that reasons ushered in by such loud Clamours, have in examination proved to have stood in need of some such noises, as might fright men from the consideration of them. What is in the next Sections set up to shield the Children of Episcopacy from being affrighted with this prodigy, may perhaps be of more efficacy thereunto, then the exclamations before mentioned: He therefore proceeds. Sect: 5. Certe (saith he) si serio rem ageret Da • Blondellus de Presbyteris suis (non de Episcopis nostris) actum plane & triumphatum erit, nec enim ab universo aliquo Presbyterorum Collegie, quod ill tam afflictim ardet, sed a multitudinis solius Arbitrio, tum contendentes de Episcopo, tum fideles omnes Corinthios pependisse aeque concludendum erit. If any man in the world hath manifested more desperate Affection towards Presbyterie, then this Doctor hath done toward Episcopacy, for my part solus habeto. But though neither Clemens, nor Blondellus speak any one word about the ordering of things, multitudinis solius arbitrio, yet here is that said by them both, as is sufficiently destructive, not only to the Episcopacy the Doctor contends for, as a thing wholly inconsistent with the power, and liberty here granted the people, but of any such Presbyterie also, as shall undertake the ordering and disposing of things in the Church of God, without the consent and Concurrent suffrage of the People. Such a Presbytery it seems Blondellus does not defend. But yet neither the Doctors Out-cry as at a Prodigy, nor this retortion upon Presbytery, is any answer to the testimony of Clemens, nor indeed is there the least possible reflection upon an orderly Gospel Presbytery in any Church, and Over it, by what Clemens here professeth to be the power of the People, all the appearance of any such things is from the term Solius, foisted into the discourse of Blondellus by the Doctor, in his taking of it up to retortat. Clemens in the very next words secures us from any thought, that all things depended à multitudinis solius arbitrio. His very next words are, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Our Doctors and Masters having stuffed their imaginations with the shape, and lineament of that Hierarchichal fabric, which the Craft, Pollicy, Subtilty, Avarice, Pride, Ambition of many ages successively, had formed, and framed according to the Paterne they saw in the Mount of the World, and the goverments therein, upon the first hearing of a Church, a flock of Christ, walking in orderly subjection, to their own Elders concurring with them, and consenting to them, in their Rule and Goverment, instantly as men amazed, cry out a Prodigy. It is not imaginable into what ridiculous, contemptible miscarriages, pride, prejudice, and selfulness do often-times betray men, otherwise of good abilities in their ways, and very commendable Industry.

But Section the sixth, the Doctor comes closer, and gives his Reason why this Testimony of Clement is not of any efficacy to the purpose in hand, saith He! At quis (sodes) à fidelibus de Episcopatu (ut vis) contra ipsos ab Apostolis constitutos Episcopos contendentibus; quis à populo contra principem suum tumultus ciente; quis verbis ad retundendum seditionem ad plebem factis, argumenta ad Authoritatem populo adjudicandum principi derogandum duci posse existimavit? Though many words follow in the next Section, yet this is all of Answer that is given to this signal Testimony of Clement's. I know the Doctor for the most part meets, not only with favorable Readers, but also partial Admirers; or else certainly his Exclamation would scarce pass for an invincible Argument, nor such Rhetorical diversions as this, be esteemed solid Answers. There is not by Blondellus any Argument taken from the faithful's tumultuating against the Bishops (that if appointed by the Apostles which is thrust in, taken for the persons of those Bishops, is against the express Testimony of Clemens in this Epistle) nor from the people's seditiously rebelling against their Prince, nor from any word spoken to the People to repress their sedition; neither was anything of this nature urged in the least by Blondellus: nor is there any color given to such a collection from anything in the words cited from the Epistle, or the context of them. It is the advise of the Church of Rome to the persons (whether already in office, or aspiring thereunto) about whom the contention, and division was in the Church of Corinth, that is insisted on. It is not the words nor plea of them who were in disorder, there is not any reprehension given to the body of the Church, the multitude or people who are supposed to tumultuate, to quiet them, but a direction given (as was said) by the Church of Rome to the persons that occasioned the difference, how to behave themselves so, that a timely issue might be put to the division of the Church. To this end are they advised to observe the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , the orders, precepts, decrees, or appointments of the multitude, as (from Acts the fifteenth) the body of the Church is called. It is not, that they should yield to their tumultuating, but to yield obedience to their orderly precepts. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , are by him approved; & had it not been lawful for them, with the Presbyters 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in the Affaires of the Church, Clemens writing this Epistle to the whole Church, could not possibly have led them into a greater snare.

It is a sad thing to consider the pitiful entanglements, and snares that some men run into, who will undertake to make good, what they have once engaged for, let what will come against them.

To return then; It is evident, that in the time of Clement, there were but two sorts of Officers in the Church, Bishops, and Deacons; whereas the Epistles of Ignatius do precisely in every place where any mention is made of them, as there is upon occasions, and upon none at all, insist on three Orders distinct, in name, and things. With Clement it is not so. Those whom he calls Bishops in one place, the very same persons he immediately calls Presbyters (after the Example of Paul. Act: 20. 28. And Titus. 1. 5. 7.) And plainly asserts Episcopacy to be the office of Presbyters. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (saith he) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 : viz: Because they were in no danger to be cast from their Episcopacy. And whereas the fault which he reproves in the Church of Corinth, is their division, and want of due subjection to their spiritual Governors, according to the order, which Christ hath appointed in all the Churches of the Saints, he affirms plainly that those Governors were the Presbyters of the Church: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (saith he) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . And in all places throughout the whole Epistle, writing ( 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ) to that particular Church of Corinth, the Saints dwelling there, walking in the order & fellowship of the Ghospel, where he treats of those things, he still intimates a plurality of Presbyters in the Church (as there may, nay there ought to be in every single congregation, Act: 20. 28.) without the least intimation of any singular Person, promoted upon any account whatever above his fellows. So in the Advice given to the persons who occasioned the division before mentioned; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Had there been a singular Bishop at Corinth, much more a Metropolitan, such as our Doctor speaks him to have been, it had been impossible that he should be thus passed by in silence.

But the Doctor gives you a double answer to this observation, with the several parts whereof, I doubt not but that he makes himself merry, if he can suppose that any men are so wedded to his dictates, as to give them entertainment: for indeed they are plainly iocular. But learned men must have leave sometimes to exercise their fancies, and to sport themselves with their own imaginations.

1 Then, for the mention that is made of many Presbyters in the Church of Corinth, to whom Clement in the name of the Church of Rome, exhorts to give all due respect, honor, obedience. He tells you that by the Church of Corinth, all the Churches of Achaia are meant and intended. The Epistle is directed only 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , without the least intimation of any other Church or Churches. The difference it is written about, was occasioned by one or two persons in that Church only: it is that Church alone that is exhorted to order, and due subjection to their Elders. From the beginning to the end of the Epistle, there is not one word, apex, or tittle to intimate the designation of it, to any Church, or Churches beyond the single Church of Corinth: or that they had any concernment in the difference spoken to. The Fabric of after Ages lies so close to the Doctor's imagination; that there is no entrance for the true frame of the Primitive Church of Christ: and therefore everything must be wrested, and apportioned to the conceit of such an Episcopacy as he hath entertained. Whereas he ought to crop off, both head, & heels of his own imagination, and the Episcopacy of the latter days, which he too dearly affects, he chooseth rather to stretch, & torture the ancient government of the Church, that it may seem to answer the frame presently contended for. But let us a little attend to the Doctor's learned arguments; whereby he endeavors to make good his assertion.

1 He tells you that Corinth was the chief Citty of Achaia: the Metropolis (in a political sense and Acceptation of the word) of Greece, where the Pro-Consul had his Residence: Diss: 5: cap: 2. Sect. 3. Let us grant this to our learned Doctor, least we should find nothing to gratify him with all; what then will follow? hence (saith he) it will follow ( Sect: 4:) that this Epistle which was sent, Ecclesiae 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , non ad unius civitatis Ecclesiam, sed ad omues totius Achaiae Christianos, per singulas civitates & regiones, sub Episcopis aut praefectis suis ubi{que} callocatas missa existimetur: But pray Doctor why so? We poor creatures who are not so sharp sighted, as to discern a Metropolitan Arch-Bishop at Corinth, of whom all the Bishops in Greece were dependant, nor can find any instituted Church in the Scripture, or in Clement, of one denomination, beyond a single Congregation, cannot but think, that all the strength of this Consectary, from the insinuation of such a state of things, in the Church of God, is nothing but a pure begging of the thing in Question, which will never be granted upon such terms.

Yea but he adds, Sect: 5: That Paul wrote his Epistle not only to the Church of Corinth, but also to all the Churches of Achaia, therefore Clement did so also: At first view this Argument seems not very conclusive, yea appears indeed very ridiculous: the enforcement of it which ensues may perhaps give new life and vigor to it: How then is it proved that Paul wrote not only to the Church of Corinth, but to all them in Achaia also? why saith he in the 2 Epistle: 1. chap: 1. v: it is so expressed: he writes, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Very good▪ It is indisputably evident that Paul wrote his second Epistle to the Church at Corinth, and all the rest of Achaia, for he expressly affirms himself so to do, and for the first Epistle, it is directed not only to the Church of Corinth 1: cap: 2. verse, but also 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 : that is, saith our Doctor, in the whole Region of Achaia. So indeed says the Doctor's great friend Grotius, to whom he is beholding for more then one rare notion. I say it not in any way of any reproach to the Doctor, only I cannot but think, his careful warding of himself against the thoughts of men that he should be beholding to Grotius, doth exceedingly unbecome the Doctor's gravity, and self denial. This is complained of by some who have tried it in reference to his late comment on the Revelation. And in this dissertation, he is put by his own thoughts, (I will not say guilty) to an Apology cap. 1. Sect. 24 Quâ in resuffragi msuum tulisse Hugonem Grotium 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ex annotationibus posthumis, nuper editis, & postquam haec omnia Typographo transcripta essent, cursim perlectis edoctum gratulor. Let not the Reader think that Doctor Ham: had transmitted his papers full of rare conjectures to the Printer, before Grotius Annotations upon the Revelations were published, but only before he had read them. The Doctor little thinks what a fly this is in his pot of Ointment, nor how undecent with all impartial men, such Apologies, subservient to a frame of spirit in bondage to a man's own Esteem and Reputation, appear to be: but let this pass: and let the Saints that call upon the name of Jesus Christ in every place, be the Saints in every part of Achaia, though the Epistle it self (written indeed upon occasion taken from the Church of Co • nth, yet) was given by inspiration from God for the use not only of all the Saints in the whole world, at that time wherein it was written, but of all those who were to believe in any part or place of the world to the end thereof; although the assertion of it be not built on any tolerable conjecture, but may be rejected with the same facility wherewith it is tendered; what now will hence ensue? Why hence it follows that Clement also wrote his Epistle to all the Churches in Achaia. Very good? Paul writing an Epistle entitled chiefly to the Corinthians, expressly and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 directs it to the Saints or Churches of Achaia, yea to all that call upon the name of God in every place, so that his Epistle being of Catholic concernment, is not to be confined to the Church of Corinth only, although most of the particular things mentioned in that Epistle related only to that particular Church; Therefore, Clement directing his Epistle to the Church of Corinth only, not once mentioning nor insinuating an intention of extending it to any other, handling in it, only the peculiar concernment of that Church, & a difference about one or two persons therein, must be supposed to have written to all the Churches of Achaia. And if such Arguments as these, will not prove Episcopacy to be of Apostolical constitution, what will prevail with men so to esteem it? Si Pergama dextra defendi possent, etiam hâc defensa fuissent. And this is the cause of naming many Elders, or Presbyters in one Church: For my part I suppose the Doctor might more probably have adhered to a former conjecture of his, Dissert. 4 ^tâ cap. 10. Sect: 9. Concerning two sundry different Churches, where were distinct officers in the same Citty: primo (saith he) respondeo non us{que} qua{que} verum est, quod pro concesso sumitur, quamvis enim in una Ecclesia aut caetu plures simul Episcopy nunquam fuerint (pray except them mentioned, Act: 20▪ 28: and those Act: 14 23) nihil tamen obstare quin in eadem civitate due aliquando caetus disterminati fuerint. He might (I say) with more show of probability have abode by this observation, then to have rambled over all Greece, to relieve himself against his Adversaries. But yet neither would this suffice. What use may, or will be made of this concession shall else where be manifested. But the Doctor hath yet another Answer to this multiplication of Elders, and the mention of them with Deacons, with the eminent identity that is between them, and Bishops through the whole Epistle, the same persons being unquestionably intended in respect of the same office, by both these appellations Now this second Answer is founded upon the supposition of the former: (a goodly foundation!) namely, that the Epistle under consideration was written and sent not to the Church of Corinth only, but to all the Churches of Achaia, of which Corinth was the Metropolitan.

Now this second answer is, that the Elders or Presbyters here mentioned, were properly those whom he calls Bishops, Diocesans: men of a third rank and order above Deacons, and Presbyters in the Church-Administrations and government. And for those who are properly called Presbyters, there were then none in the Church, to give color to this miserable evasion, Disser: 4. chap. 10 11: He discourseth about the government and ordering of Church affairs by Bishops and Deacons, In some Churches that were small, not yet formed or completed, nor come to perfection at the first planting of them: how well this is accomodated to the Church of Corinth which Clement calls, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 : & which himself would have to be a Metropolitical Church, being confessedly great, numerous; furnished with great and large gifts, & abilties is seen with half an eye. How ill also this shift is accommodated to help in the case for whose service it was first invented, is no less evident. It was to save the sword of Phil: 1. 1. From the throat of the Episcopacy he contendeth for; That Epistle is directed to the Saints, or Church at Philippi, with the Bishops and Deacons. Two things do here trouble our Doctor. 1 The mention of move Bishops then one at Philippi. 2 The knitting together, of Bishops and Deacons, as the only two orders in the Church, bringing down Episcopacy one degree at least from that height whereto he would exalt it. For the first of these, he tells you that Philippi was the Metropolitan Church of the Province of Macedonia, that the rest of the Churches, which had everyone their several Bishops (Diocesan we must suppose) were all comprised in the mentioning of Philippi: so that though the Epistle be precisely directed 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , yet the Bishops that were with them, must be supposed to be Bishops of the whole Province of Macedonia; because the Church of Philippi was the Metropolitan: The whole country must have been supposed to be converted (and who tha • knows any thing of Antiquity will dispute that) and so divided with Diocesan's, as England of late was: the Arch-Bishops so being at Philippi: but how came it then to pass, that here is mention made of Bishops, and Deacons only, without any one word of a third order, or rank of men distinct from them called Presbyters or Elders? To this he Answers, 2ly, That when the Church was first planted, before any great number were converted, or any fit to be made Presbyters, there was only those two orders instituted Bishops and Deacons: so that this Church at Philippi seems to have been a Metropolitical Infant. The truth is if ever the Doctor be put upon reconciling the Contradictions of his answers one to another, not only in this, but almost in every particular he deals withal (an entanglement which he is thrown into, by his bold and groundless conjectures) he will find it to be as endless, as fruitless: but it is not my present business to interpose in his quarrels, either with himself, or Presbytery. As to the matter under consideration, I desire only to be resolved in these few Queries.

1 If there were in the times of Clement no Presbyters in the Churches, not in so great and flourishing a Church, as that of Corinth; and if all the places in the Scripture, where there is mention of Elders, do precisely intend Bishops, in a distinction from them who are only Deacons, and not Bishops also, as he asserts, when, by whom, by what Authority, were Elders, who are only so inferior to Bishops, peculiarly so termed, instituted and appointed in the Churches? And how it comes to pass that there is such express mention made of the Office of Deacons, and the continuance of it, none at all of Elders, who are acknowledged to be superior to them, and on whole shoulders in all their own Churches, lies the great weight and burden of all Ecclesiastical Administration. As we say of their Bishops, so shall we of any Presbyter, not instituted and oppointed by the Authority of Jesus Christ in the Church, let them go to the place from whence they came.

2 I desire the Doctor to inform me, in what sense he would have me to understand him: Disser. 2. cap. 29. 21, 22: where he disputes that those words of Jerome. Antequàm studia in Religion fierent, & diceretur in populis, Ego sum Pauli, ego Cephae, communi Presbyterorum consensu ecclesiae gubernabantur, are to be understood of the times of the Apostles, when the first Schism was in the Church of Corinth, when it seems that neither then, nor a good while after, there was any such thing as Presbyters in the Church of Corinth, nor in any other Church as we can hear of: As also to tell us whether all those Presbyters, were Bishops properly so called, distinct from Elders who are only so, out of whom one man is chosen to be a Bishop properly so called. To these enquiries I shall only add.

3ly, That whereas in the Scripture, we find clearly but of two sorts of Church-Officers mentioned, as also in this Epistle of Clement; the third that was afterward introduced, be it what it will, or fall on whom it will, that we oppose. This (saith the Doctor ) is that of Presbytery, give us the Churches instituted according to the word of Christ, give us in every Church, Bishops, and Deacons, (rather then we will quarrel give us a Bishop, and Deacons ) let those Bishops attend the particular flock, over which they are appointed, preaching the word and administering the holy ordinances of the Gospel, in and to their own flock: And I dare undertake for all the Contenders for Presbytery in this nation, and much more for the independents, that there shall be an end of this quarrel; that they will not strive with the Doctor, no • any living, for the introduction of any third sort, of persons (though they should be called Presbyters ) into Church Office and government. Only this I must add, that the Scripture more frequently terms this second sort of men Elders, and Presbyters, then it doth Bishops, and that word having been appropriated to a third sort peculiarly, we desire leave of the Doctor and his associates, if we also most frequently call them so, no ways declining the other Appellation of Bishops, so that it be applied to signify the second, and not third rank of men: But of this whole business, with the nature, constitution, and frame of the first Churches; and the sad mistakes, that men have by their own prejudices been engaged into, in this delineation of them, a fuller opportunity (if God will) may ear long, be afforded.

To return then to our Ignatius! even upon this consideration of the difference, that is between the Epistles ascribed to him, and the writings of one of the same time with him, or not long before him, as to their language, and expression about Church order and Officers, it is evident that there hath been ill-favor'd tampering with them, by them who thought to prevail themselves of his Authority, for the asserting of that, which never came into his mind.

As I intimated before, I have not insisted on any of those things, nor do on them altogether, with the like that may be added, as a sufficient foundation for the total rejection of those Epistles which go under the name of sgnatius. There is in some of them, a sweet & gracious spirit of Faith, Love, Holiness zeal for God; becoming so excellent, & holy a witness of Christ as he was, evidently breathing and working. Neither is there any need at all, that for the defense of our Hypothesis concerning the non-institution of any Church officer what ever, relating to more Churches in his Office, or any other Church, then a single particular Congregation, that we should so reject them. For although many passages, usually insisted on, and carefully collected by D. H: for the proof of such an Episcopacy, to have been received by them of old as is now contended for, are exceedingly remote from the way, and manner of the Expressions, of those things, used by the Divine Writers, with them also that followed after, both before as hath been manifested, and some while after the days of Ignatius, as might be further clearly evinced, and are thrust into the series of the discourse with such an incoherent Impertinency, as proclaims an Interpolation being some of them also, very ridiculous, & so foolishly Hyperbolical, that they fall very little short of Blasphemies, yet there are Expressions in all, or most of them, that will abundantly manifest that He who was their Author (whoever he was) never dreamt of any such fabric of Church-Order as in after ages was insensibly received. Men who are full of their own apprehensions begotten in the • by such representations of things, as either their desirable presence hath exhibited to their mind, or any after prejudicate presumption hath possessed them with, are apt upon the least appearance of any likness unto that Church they fancy to imagine that they see the face & all the lineaments thereof, when upon due examination it will be easily discovered, that there is not indeed the least resemblance, between what they find in, and what they bring to the Authors, in and of whom they make their enquiry; The Papists having hatched, & owned by several degrees, that monstrous figment of Transubstantiation (to instance among many in that Abomination) a folly, destructive to whatever is in us, as being living Creatures, Men, or Christians, or what ever by sense, Reason, or Religion, we are furnished with all, offering violence to us in what we hear, in what we see with our eyes, and look upon, in what our hands do handle, and our palates taste, breaking in upon our understandings with vagrant flying forms, self subsisting Accidents, with as many express contradictions on sundry accounts, as the nature of things is capable of Relation unto, attended with more gross Idolatry then that of the poor naked Indians; who fall down and worship a piece of red Cloth, or of those who first adore their gods, and then correct them; do yet upon the discovery of any Expressions among the Ancients, which they now make use of, quite to another End, and purpose, then they did who first ventured upon them, having minds filled with their own Abominations, do presently cry out, and triumph, as if they had found the whole far dell of the mass, in it's perfect dress, and their breaden God in the midst of it. It is no otherwise in the case of Episcopacy: men of these latter Generations, from what they saw in present being, and that usefulness of it to all their desires and interests, having entertained thoughts of love to it, and delight in it, searching Antiquity, not to instruct them in the truth, but to establish their prejudicate Opinion received by Tradition from their Fathers, and to consult them with whom they have to do, what ever Expressions they find, or can hear of, that fall in, as to the sound of words with what is now insisted upon, instantly they cry out, Vicimus Io▪ Paean • what a simple generation of Presbyters, and Independents have we that are ignorant of all Antiquity, or do not understand what they read and look upon. Hence if we will not believe that in Ignatius his days there were many Parish Churches with their single Priests, in subordination to a Diocesan Bishop, either immediately, or by the interposed power of a Chore • Episcopus and the like, and those Diocesans again in the precincts of provinces, laid in a due subjection to their Metropolitans, who took care of them, as they of their Parish Priests, every individual Church having no Officer but a Presbyter, every Diocesan Church, having no Presbyter, but a Bishop, and every Metropolitan Church having neither Presbyter, nor Bishop properly related unto it, as such, but an Arch-Bishop, we are worse then Infidels, truly I cannot but wonder whether it doth not sometimes enter into these men's thoughts to apprehend, how contemptible they are in their proofs, for the fathering of such • n Ecclesiastical distribution of Governors, and Goverment, as indeniably lacquied after the civil divisions, and constitutions of the times and places, wherein it was introduced, upon those holy persons whose souls never once entered into the secrets thereof.

Thus fares it with our Doctor, and his Ignatius: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ; I shall only crave leave to say to him as Augustus of Quintilius Varus; upon the loss of his Legions in Germany under his command; Quintili Vare read legiones: Domine Doctor red Ecclestas: give us the Churches of Christ such as they were in the days of the Apostles, and down to Ignatius though before that time (if Hegesippus may be believed) somewhat deflowered, and our contest about Church-Officers, & Goverment, will be nearer at an end, then perhaps you will readily imagine. Give us a Church, all whose members are holy, called, sanctified, justified living-stones, Temples for the Holy Ghost, Saints, Believers, united to Christ the head by the Spirit, that is given to them, and dwelleth in them, a Church whose 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , that doth nothing by it's members apart, that appertains to Church-order, but when it is gathered 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ; a Church that being so gathered together, in one place 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , acting in Church things, in it's whole body under the Rule, and presidence of it's Officers. A Church walking in order, and not as some who 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (of whom saith Ignatius 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , such as calling the Bishops to the Assemblies, yet do all things without him, (the manner of some in our days) he supposeth no • to keep the Assemblies according to the command of Christ) give us, I say, such a Church; and let us come to them when they are 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , such as the Churches in the days of Ignatius appear to have been, and are so rendered in the Quotations taken from his Epistles by the Learned Doctor, for the Confirmation of Episcopacy, & as I said before, the contest of this present digression, will quickly draw to an Issue. Being unwilling to go too far out of my way, I shall not,

1 Consider the severals instanced in, for the proof of Episcopacy by the Doctor. Seeing indeniably the Interpretation must follow, and be proportioned by the General Issue of that state of the Church, in the days wherein those Epistles were writ, or are pretended so to be, if that appear to be such as I have mentioned; I presume the Doctor himself will confess, that his witnesses speak not one word to his business, for whose confirmation he doth produce them. Nor

2ly, Shall I insist upon the degeneration of the Institutions, and Appointments of Jesus Christ, concerning Church Administrations in the management of the succeeding Churches, as principled, and spirited by the operative and efficacious Mystery of Iniquity, occasioned and advantaged by the Accommodation of Ecclesiastical affairs to the civil distributions, and Alotments of the political state of things in those days, nor

3 Insist much farther, on the exceeding dissimilitude, and inconformity that is between the Expressions concerning Church-Officers, and a •• airs in these Epistles (whence ever they come) and those in the writings of unquestionable credit immediately before, and after them, as also the u •• er silence of the Scripture in those things, wherewith they so abound. The Epistle of Clemens, of which mention was made before, was written for the composing, and quieting of a division and distemper that was fallen out in the Church of Corinth. Of the cause of that distention that then miserably rent that congregation, he informs us in that complaint, that some ( 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ) were wrongfully cast from the ministry, by the multitude, & he tells you, that these were good honest men, & faithful in the discharge of their duty; for saith he, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 : though they were unblamable both in their conversation, & ministry, yet they removed them from their office; To reprove this evil, to convince them of the sinfulness of it, to reduce them to a right understanding of their duty, & order, walking in the fellowship of the gospel, what course doth he proceed in? what arguments doth he use? He minds them of one God, one Christ, one body, one faith, tells them that Wicked men alone use such ways & practices: bids them read the Epistle of Paul formerly written to them, upon occasion of another division, and to be subject to their own Elders: & all of them leave off contending quietly doing the things which the people, or the body of the Church delivered, & commanded. Now had this Person writing on this occasion, using all sorts of Arguments, Artificial, or inartificial for his purpose, been baptized into the opinion & esteem of a single Episcopacy superintendent, whose Exaltation seems to be the design of much which is said in the Epistles of Ignatius in the sense wherein his words are usually taken, would yet never once so much as bid them be subject to the Bishop, that Resemblance of God the Father, supplying of the place of Christ, nor told them how terrible a thing it was, to disobey him, nor pawned his soul for theirs, that should submit to him, that all that obeyed him were safe, all that disobeyed him, were rebellious, cursed, and separated from God. What Apology can be made for the weakness, and Ignorance of that holy Martyr, if we shall suppose him to have had Apprehensions like those in these Epistles of that sacred Order, for omitting those all-conquering Reasons, which they would have supplied him with all, to his purpose in hand, and pitching on Arguments every way less cogent and useful. But I say, I shall not insist on any such things as these, but only,

4 I say that there is not in any of the Doctor's excerpta from those Epistles, nor in any passage in them, any mention or the least intimation of any Church whereunto any Bishop was related, but such an one, as whose members met altogether in one place, and with their Bishop disposed, and ordered the affairs of the Church. Such was that whereunto the holy Martyr was related; such were those neighbouring Churches, that sent Bishops, and Elders to that Church; And when the Doctor proves the contrary, erit mihi magnus Apollo: From the Churches and their state and Constitution, is the state and Condition of their Officers, and their Relation to them to be taken. Let that be manifested to be such from the appointment of Jesus Christ by his Apostles, or de facto in the days of Ignatius, or before the contemperation of Ecclesiastical Affaires occasionally, or by choice, to the civil constitution of Cities, and Provinces in those days, as would, or possibly could bear, a rural Diocesan metro-political Hierarchy, and this controversy will be at end; When this is by any attempted to be demonstrated, I desire it may not be with such sentences as that urged by our Doctor, from Epist: ad Ephes: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . The expression in it concerning Christ being unsound, unscriptural, concerning Bishops unintelligible, or ridiculous: But it may be said, what need we anymore writing, what need we any truer proof, or Testimony? The Learned Doctor in his Dissertations Disser: 4. cap: 5: hath abundantly discharged this work, and proved the seven Bishops of the seven Churches mentioned Revel: 2. 3: to have been Metropolitans, or Arch-Bishops: so that no just cause remains, why we should farther contend.

Let then the Reader pardon this my utmost Excursion in this digression, to whose compass I had not the least thoughts of going forth, at the entrance thereof, and I shall return thither whence I have turned aside.

Dissert: 4. cap. 5. The Doctor tells us that, septem Ecclesiarum Angeli, non tantum Episcopy sed & Metropolitae i: e: Archi-Episcopy statuendi sunt. i: e: principalium urbium 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ad quos provinciae integrae & in iis multarum inferiorum urbium Ecclesiae, earum{que} Episcopy tanquam ad Archiepiscopum aut Metropolitanum pertinebant.

The Doctor in this Chapter commences per saltum, and taking it for granted that he hath proved Diocesan Bishops sufficiently before, though he hath scarce spoken any one word to that purpose in his whole book, (for to prove one superintending in a Church by the name of Bishop, others acting in some kind of Subordination to him, by the name of Elders, and Presbyters, upon the Account of what hath been offered concerning the state of the Churches in those, days, will no way reach to the maintenance of this presumption) he sacrifices his pains to the Metropolitical Archi-Episcopacy dignity, which as we must suppose, is so clearly founded in Scripture and Antiquity, that they are as blind as Bats and Moles, who cannot see the ground and foundation of it.

But first, be it taken for granted, that the Angels of the seven Churches, are taken for the Governors of those Churches, then that each Angel be an Individual Bishop of the Church to which he did belong. 2 Be it also granted that they were Bishops of the most eminent Church or Churches, in that province, or Roman political distribution of those countries, in the management of the Goverment of them, I say, Bishops of such Churches, not urbium 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , (as the Doctor terms them) what advance is made by all this to the Asserration of A Metropolitical Archi-episcopacy, I cannot as yet discover. That they were ordinary Officers of Christ's institution, relating in their Office, and ordinary discharge of it, not only to the particular Churches wherein they were placed, but to many Churches also, no less committed to their charge, then these wherein they did reside, the Officers, Rulers, Governors of which Churches, depended on them, not only as to their advise, and counsel: but as to their power and Jurisdiction, holding their place, and employment from them, is some part of that, which in this undertaking is incumbent on our Doctor to make good, if he will not be supposed to pre, varicate in the cause in hand; To this end he informs us, Sect: secundâ, that in the New Testament there is in sundry places, mention made of Churches in the plural number; as Gal: 1. 21. 1 Thes: 2: 14. Acts 9 31. Acts 15. 41. 1. Cor: 16. 1. Gal: 1. 2. Revel. 1. 11▪ sometimes, of Church only in the singular number; as Acts 8. 1, 15, 4. 22. Acts 11. 26. Rom: 16. 1. 1 Cor: 1. 2. 2 Cor. 1. 1. 1 Thes: 1. 1. Revel: 2. 1. Revel: 2. 8. Revel: 2. 12, 18. Now this is an Observation, which as we are not at all beholding to the Doctor for it, no more I suppose will there be found to be to it, when the reason of it shall be a little weighed and considered. The sum is, that the name Church, in the singular number, is never used, but when it relates to the single congregation, in or of one City, or Town. That of Churches respecting the several Churches, or Congregations that were gathered in any Country or Province; manifest then is it from hence, that there is in the New Testament, no Church of one denomination beyond a single congregation; And where there are more, they are always called Churches; how evidently this is destructive to any Diocesan, or Metropolitical Officer, who hath no Church left him thereby, of Christ's Institution to be related to, another opportunity will manifest. For the present let us see what use our Doctor makes of this observation.

Sect: 3. Says he Judea and the rest of the places where Churches are mentioned, are the names of Provinces, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 quatenus 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 contradistinguntur. But if the Doctor takes these words in an Ecclesiastical sense, he begs that which will upon such unworthy terms, never be granted him; If no more be intended but that Judea, Galatia, and the like names of Countries, were Provinces wherein were many Churches; Smyrna, Ephesus, of Towns and Cities, wherein there was but one. We grant it with him:

And how much that Concession of ours, is to his advantage hath been intimated. And this seems to be his intendment by his following words, provinciarum inquam in quibus plurimae civitates singulae singularum Ecclesiarum sedes, comprehendebantur, ideo{que} Ecclesiae in plurali istius sive istius provinciae dicendae. well, what then? cum tamen unaquae{que} civitas, cum territorio sibi adjuncto ( 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ) ab Episcop • suo administrata, singularis Ecclesia dicenda sit: ideo{que} quod 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 factum dicitur, Act: 14. 25: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 fieri jubetur, Tit: 1. 5. that in every City there was a singular Church in those Provinces (I speak of those where any number were converted to the faith) I grant, for the annexed Territories let the Doctor take care: There being one Church at Corinth, and another at Cenchrea. So that every single City, had it's own single Church, with it's Bishops in it, as at Philippi. The passage mentioned by the Doctor, concerning the Epistle of Dionysius to the Church at Goryna in Crete, is very little to his purpose: neither doth he call Philip the Bishop of that Church, the Bishop of all the other Churches in Crete, as the Doctor intimates: but the Bishop of them to whom especially and eminently he wrote.

Sect: 4. Application is made of the fore-mentioned Observation. Sect: 2, and the Interpretation given of it Sect: 3, in these words; His sic positis, illud statim sequitur ut (in imperii cognition) in provinciâ qualibet, cum plures Urbes sint, una tamen primaria, & principalis censenda erat, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ideo dicta, cui itidem inferiores reliquae civitates subjiciebantur, ut civitatibus regiones, sic & inter Ecclesias, & Cathedras Episcopales unam semper primariam & Metropoliticam fuisse.

In this Section the Doctor hath most ingeniously, and truly given us the rise, and occasion of his Diocesan, and Metropolitical Prelates, from the aims of men to accomodate Ecclesiastical, or Church-affairs to the state and condition of the civil Goverment, and distributions of Provinces, Metropolitan Cities, & chief Towns within the several dependencies, (the neighboring Villages being cast in as things of no great esteem, to the lot of the next considerable Town, and seat of Judicature,) did the Hierarchy which he so sedulously contendeth for arise: what Advantage were afforded to the work, by the paucity of Believers in the villages, and less Town • (from which at length, the whole body of Heathenish Idolaters were denominated Pagans ) the first planting of Churches in the greater Cities, the Eminence of the officers of the first Churches in those Cities, the weakness of many rural Bishops, the multiplying and growing in numbers and persons of gifts, abilities and considerable fortunes, and employments in this world, in the Metropolitan Cities, with their same thereby, the tradition of the abode of some, one or other of the Apostles in such Cities, and Churches, with the eminent Accommodation at the administration of civil Jurisdiction, & other Affaires, which appeared in that subordination and dependency whereunto the Provinces, chief Cities, and Territories in the Roman Empire were cast, with which opportunities Satan got by these means, to introduce their ways, state, pomp, words, phrases, terms of honor of the world into the Churches, insensibly getting ground upon them, and prevailing to their declension from the naked simplicity & purity, wherein they were first planted, some other Occasion may give Advantage for us to manifest: for the present it may suffice that it is granted that the Magnifick Hierarchy of the Church, arose from the accommodation of it's state, and condition of the Remans Empire, and Provinces. And this in the instances of after Ages that might be produced, will easily be made yet farther evident; In those shameful, or indeed rather shameless Contests, which fell out among the Bishops of the third Century, and downward, about precedency titles of honor, extent of Jurisdiction Ecclesiastical subjection to, or exemption from one another, the considerableness of their cities in the civil state of the Roman Empire where they did reside, was still the most prevalent and cogent argument in their brawls: the most notable brush, that in all Antiquity we find given to the great Leviathan of Rome, who sported himself in those gatherings together of the waters of people, & multitudes, and nations and tongues, or the general counsels (as they are called) was from an Argument, taken from the seat of the Empire, being fixed at Constantinople, making it become new Rome, so that the Bishop of the Church there was to enjoy equal privilege, with him whose lot was fallen in the old Emperial City; but our Doctor adds;

Sect: 5. Illud ex Judaeorum exemplari transcripsisse Apostoli videntur: cum Mosaicâ id lege cautum esset, ut judices & ministri in qualibet civitate ordinarentur, Deut: 16. 18: illi vero in rebus dubiis ad judicem (Mosis successorem synedrio) Hierosolymitano cinctum recurrere tenerentur, Cap: 179: and in Section 6: he proves Jerusalem to have been the Metropolis of that whole nation. Egregiam vero laudem • But

1 The Doctor I presume knows before this, that those with whom he hath to do, will never give him the thing in question upon his begging, or request. That which alone falls in under our consideration and enquiry is, whether the Apostles instituted any such model of Church-Order and Goverment, as is by the Doctor contended for; to this he tells you, that the Apostles seem to have done it, from the pattern of Mosaical institutions in the Church of the Jews; But, Doctor, the Queston is not, with what respect they did it, but whether they did it at all or no; this the Doctor thought good to let alone uncil another time, if we would not grant him upon his petition, that so they did.

2 This then is the Doctors second argument for his Dioc • san, and Metropolitan Prelates. His first was, from the example of the Heathens, in their civil Administration and Rule, this second from the example of the Jews. Not to divert into the handling of the Church and Political state of the Jews, as appointed of God, nor that dissonancy that is between the Institution of civil Magistrates, and Evangelical administrations; this is the sum of the Doctors reasoning in his 5, 6, 7, and 8 Sections. God in the Church and among the people of the Jews, chose out one City, to place his name there, making it the place where all the Types & ceremonies which he had appointed for the discovery, and shadowing forth of the Lord Jesus Christ, were visibly and gloriously to be managed, acted, and held forth (sundry of them being such, as whose Typicalness would have been destroyed by their multiplication) and principally on this account, making that place or City (which was first Shilo) the seat of the kingdom, or habitation of the chief Ruler for the administration of Justice, who appointed Judges in all the land, for the good and peace of the people: therefore the Churches of Jesus Christ, dispersed over the face of the whole world, freed from Obligations to Cities, or Mountains, walking before God, in, and with a pure and spiritual worship, having no one Reason of that former institution, in common with the Church of the Jews, must be cast into the same mould and figure: I hope without offense I may take leave to deny the Consequence, and what more I have to say to this Argument I shall yet defer.

But the Doctor proceeds to prove, that indeed the Apostles did dispose of the Churches in this frame and order, according to the pattern of the civil government of the Roman Empire, and that instituted of God among the Jews. The ninth Section, wherein he attempts the proof of this Assertion, is as followeth:

Ad hanc Imaginem, Apostoles Ecclesias ubi{que} disponendas curasse, & in omnibus plantationibus suit, minorum ab eminentioribus civitatibus dependentiam, & subordinationem constituisse exemplis quidem plurimis monstrari possit, illud in Syria, & Silicia patet, Act: 16.4. cum enim 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , illud, cap: 15. 2. Hierosolymas reforretur ab Ecclesia 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Antiochiae, Cap. 14. 26, & 15. 3. & decretum ab Apostolis denuo ad eos mitteretur, v: 22. in Epistolâ, quâ decretum illud continebatur simul cum Antiochensibus 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 comprehensos videmus, v: 23. Dein Epistolâ istâ Antiochenae Ecclesiae reddita v: 30. Paulus tandem & Silas Syriam & Ciliciam peragrantes, v: 4. cap. 16. 4. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , singulis civitatibus observanda tradiderunt, ut quae ad hanc Antiochiae Metropolin, ut totidem subordinatae Ecclesiae pertinerent; ut & ipsa Antiochia ad Hierosolymas, primariam tam latae (ut ex Philone pradiximus) provinciae Metropolin pertinebat, & ad eam ad dirimendam litem istam se conferebat.

This being all that the Doctor hath to produce from the Scripture to his purpose in hand, I have transcribed it at large; for this being removed, all that follows, will fall of it's own accord.

1 Then the dependence on, and subordination of lesser Cities, to the greater, is asserted as an Apostolical institution; Now because I suppose the Doctor will not assert, nor doth intend a civil dependence, and subordination of Cities, as such, among them selves, nor will a dependence as to Counsel, advice, assistance, and the like supplies which in their mutual Communion, the lesser Churches might receive from the greater and more eminent, serve his turn: but an Ecclesiastical dependence and subordination, such as whereby many particular Churches, with Inferior Officers residing in them, and with them, depended on, and were in subjection unto someone person of a superior order, commonly residing in some eminent City, and many of these Governors of a superior order in the greater Cities were in such subordination unto someone of high degree, termed a Metropolitan, and all this by Apostolical institution is that which he aimeth at, which being a most gallant adventure, in a waking generation, we shall doubtless find him quitting himself like a man in his undertaking.

2 Then he tells you that the question about Mosaical Rites, and necessity of their observation, was referred to Jerusalem by the single Church of Antioch. But how does the Doctor make good this first step, which yet if he could, would do him no good at all? It is true, that Paul was now come to Antioch, ch: 14, 26: also that he was brought on his way by the Church, chap: 15. 3: but yet that the Brethren who were taught the Doctrine contested about, v. 1: were only of the Church of Antioch (when it is most certain from the Epistles of Paul to the Galatians, Colossians, Romans, & others, that great disturbance was raised far and wide, in all the Churches of the Gentiles obout this controversy) nothing is offered. It seems indeed that their disputes grew to the greatest height at Antioch, whether Brethren from other parts and Churches did also come, whilst Barnabas and Paul abode there, but that that single Church referred the determining of that controversy, to them at Jerusulem, exclusively to others, the Doctor proves not. And it is most evident, from the return of the Answer sent by the Apostles from Jerusalem, v: 23: that the reference was from all the Churches of the Gentiles, yea and all the scattered brethren, perhaps as yet not brought into Church Order, not only at Antioch, but also throughout Syria and Silicia. It is then granted what he next observes, viz: that in the Answer returned from Jerusalem, with them at Antioch, those in Syria and Silicia, are joined; the reason of it being manifest, namely their trouble about the same Controversy being no less then theirs at Antioch. It is also granted, that as Paul passed through the Cities, that he delivered them the decrees to keep, that were ordained, by the Apostles and Elders, ch: 16. 4: and that not only to the Churches of Syria and Silicia, which he left, c: 15. 41: but also to those throughout Phrygia, and the Regions of Galatia v: 6. What now follows out of all this? What? but that Antioch by Apostolical institution was the Metropolitan See of all the Churches of Syria and Silicia. Good Doctor do not be angry, but tell us how this may be proved. Why doubtless it was so: as Antioch belonged to the Metropolitan Church at Jerusalem, as he told us out of Philo (who was excellently acquainted with Apostolical institutions.) What Jerusalem was to the whole Church, and Nation of the Jews, whilst the name of God was fixed there, we know; But what was the primitive estate of the Churches of Jesus Christ made of Jews and Gentiles, tied neither to City, or Mountain, I must be pardoned, if I cannot find the Doctor making any tender of manifesting or declaring. The reasons of referring this controversy unto a determination at Jerusalem, the Holy Ghost acquaints us with, Acts 15: 2. That we have no need of this Metro-political figment, to inform us in it. And now; if we will not, not only submit to Diocesan Bishops: but also reverence the grave Metro-Politans, standing upon such clear Apostolical institution; It is fit that all the world should count us the arrantest Schismatics that ever lived since Pope Boniface his time. The sum then of this doubty Argument for the Apostolical institution of Metropolitans (that none might ever more dare to call Diocesians into question hereafter) Is this; Paul who was converted about the 3 or 4th year of Caligula, 5, or 6 years after the Ascension of Christ, having with great success for 3 years preached the Gospel, went up to Jerusalem with Barnabas, upon the Persecution raised against him at Damascus Act: 9 22: whence returning to his work, he went first to Tarsus, Act. 9. 30: thence to Antioch: where he abode one whole year. Act: 11. 25. 26: & was then sent to Jerusalem with the collections for the Saints about the 4th year of Claudius, Ver. 30: thence returning again to Antioch, he was sent out by the command of the Holy Ghost more eminently, & peculiarly, then formerly, for the conversion of the gentiles, Act: 13. 1, 2, 3: in this undertaking in the space of a year, or two, he preached, & gathered Churches (whereof express mention is made) at Salamis Act 13. 5: in the Isle of Paphosv.