The case of the Church of England, briefly and truly stated in the three first and fundamental principles of a Christian Church : I. The obligation of Christianity by divine right, II. The jurisdiction of the Church by divine right, III. The institution of episcopal superiority by divine right / by S.P.

PART II. (Book 2)

HAving hitherto treated with the false Pretenders to the Church of England, I come now in the last place to treat more amicably with some of its mistaken Friends, and they are those that own a Government in it, but without Governours; allowing indeed that there ought to be some sort of Government establish'd in the Church, but then they deny any particular Form of it to have been settled by Divine Right, or Apo∣stolical Constitution, and leave it whol∣ly to the choice and determination of Humane Authority. So that though the Church of England happen to be at pre∣sent govern'd by Bishops; and though upon that account we may owe duty and subjection to them as our lawful Supe∣riours, yet they are not set over us by any Divine Commission, but purely by his Majestie's good Will and Pleasure, who at his Restitution to his Kingdoms, might have forborn to restore the then Abolish'd Order of Bishops, and instead

of that have establish'd some other Form of Government, that he judg∣ed most suitable to the present state of things; which if he had done, that then had been the Church of England. Now the Birth of this Opi∣nion seems to have happened on this manner. Mr. Calvin having founded his Geneva Platform upon Divine Insti∣tution, as he particularly does in the Fourth Book of his Institutions, Chap. 11. though some men, that are more his Disciples than they are willing to own, are pleased to deny it. And in pursuance of this Decree, Beza and all the other first Apostles of his Church having spent all their pains in endea∣vouring to make it good out of the Word of God, the learned men that came after them, both in the French and Dutch Churches, because they must needs go beyond those that went before them, proceeded to advance the Argu∣ment from Scripture to Antiquity; and have with infinite industry sifted all the Writings of the Ancients, to prove that there was no other Form of Govern∣ment in the Church but by Presbyters in the first Ages of it, next and imme∣diately

after the Apostles. The chief Labourers in which Cause among many other less learned, were Blondel, Salma∣sius, and Dallé, who spent the greatest part both of their Life and Learning, upon this Argument. But they pro∣ceeding for the most part in a sceptical and destructive way, not so much rely∣ing upon the Testimony as impairing the credit of Antiquity, which it seems they supposed the best way to main∣tain their Argument, this soon gave oc∣casion to some Learned men conversant in their Writings, to conclude against all pretences to the Divine, or Aposto∣lical Institution of any unalterable and perpetual Form of Church-Government whatsoever, and so to think of allay∣ing those Controversies about a Jus Di∣vinum, that had been lately and still were managed among us with so much heat and noise, by leaving it (as they say our Saviour and his Apostles did) to the prudence of every particular Church to agree upon its own Form, as it judg∣eth most conducing to the end of Go∣vernment in that particular Church. This is the state of the Question as they determine it, and the Opinion is grown

popular and plausible, in great Vogue both among the Learned and Unlearn∣ed, and is almost become the Rule and Standard of all our Ecclesiastical Polity. In so much, that there are many wor∣thy Gentlemen (as any one may ob∣serve in his ordinary Conversation) that were stout and loyal Confessors to the Church of England under its Suf∣ferings, that at this time look upon it as an Arbitrary and indifferent thing. And therefore in pursuance of my de∣sign in behalf of the Church of Eng∣land, I am obliged to examine the reasons and Principles upon which it is founded, and to shew that it is so far from tend∣ing to the Peace of an Establish'd Church, that it is destructive to the Be∣ing and Settlement of all the Christian Churches in the World. And though here I have many learned worthy men for my Adversaries, yet I hope to ma∣nage the Dispute with that Candour and Integrity, that none shall have any reason to complain of any more unkind∣ness, than what is absolutely necessary to my doing right to the Church of England. And this I am sure can give no Offence to good men, how much

soever I may chance to cross with their particular Sentiments and Opinions. And as for bad men (for there are of both sorts engaged in the Opinion) I were not true to my own Integrity, if I suffered my self to be in the least sway∣ed by their good or bad Opinion; for I write not to please but to convince them, which I know as long as they continue bad is but to provoke them. And with this honest resolution, I now proceed to vindicate one of the most evident, but most injured Truths in the World. And in it I shall be much briefer than at first I intended, for when we have lopt off all that is not directly pertinent to the Enquiry, as we shall reduce the Debate to a narrow compass, so may we easily bring it to a speedy issue. And therefore I shall purposely pass over all those things, that relate only to the occasional exercise, and out∣ward administration of Church-Autho∣rity. And particularly that wide argu∣ment of Dispute, whether the distri∣bution of Provinces and Diocesses were through the Roman Empire, framed by the division of the Civil Government. For whether it were, or were not,

that concerns not the question of the Institution of a Ruling Clergy, but on∣ly the manner or fashion of administring their Power when reduced to Practice. For the extent of their Jurisdiction, is is but accidental to the supremacy of their Power, and whether the Circuit of a Monarchs Government be little or great, it is all one as to the nature of Monarchy. So that it is not at all ma∣terial how the bounds of Diocesses came to be assign'd; how Churches ex∣tended themselves from great Cities into the adjacent Territories, till they some∣times swell'd into Provinces, and how Bishops came to be subject to Metropo∣litans, and Metropolitans to Patriarchs; all which, and divers other particulars, though they are very copiously insisted upon by Learned men in the present Question, are yet altogether useless as to its Determination, because they only concern the outward and accidental Ex∣ercise, and have no reference to the essential Form of Church-Government. So that the only thing concern'd in our present enquiry is, as Mr. Selden has rightly stated it, Utrùm ex ipsâ purâ putâ * 1.1 Origine, seu primâ ac merâ nascentis Ec∣clesiae

Christianae Disciplinâ, Episcopalis seu Ordo, sive Dignitas, sive Gradus, Presbyterali seu Sacerdotali, superior vel alius, aut ei neutiquam dispar seu idem fuerit habendus. That is in short, whe∣ther the Church were at first founded in a superiority and subordination of Ecclesiastical Officers to each other, or a parity and equality of all among them∣selves; so that if we can prove the preeminence and superiority of one Order above all others in the Govern∣ment of the Church from the beginning of it, we shall thereby make good all that is essential to that Power and Au∣thority, that we challenge as proper only to the Episcopal Order and Of∣fice. And this we doubt not but to perform with clear and demonstrative evidence from these three Topicks.

I. Of our Saviour's own express In∣stitution.

II. The practice of the Apostles in Conformity to it.

III. The practice of the Primitive Church in the Ages next and im∣mediatly after the Apostles.

And First, As to our Saviour's Insti∣tution it is manifest, That he founded his Church in an imparity of Ecclesia∣stical Officers, in that he did by his own immediate Appointment, authorize and set apart two distinct Orders of men for Ecclesiastical Ministries, the Twelve Apostles, and the Seventy Disciples, whose Office, if it were the same, to what purpose were they distinguish'd? And why when a place was vacant in the Apostolate, must one be substituted by Divine Designation to complete the Number? Why should not one of the Seventy without any further Election, have served the turn, seeing he was qualified with an Identity of Office and Order? Nay to what purpose should they be reckoned apart under different Names and in different Ranks, if there were no difference intended in their employments and commissions? And why were they not all comprehended in one number, and ranged in one Catalogue? If the Twelve were nothing more than the Seventy, and the Seventy nothing less than the Twelve, to what purpose do we hear so oft of the Twelve and the Seventy, or of the Seventy two

(for of that the learned dispute) and not rather of the Eighty two, or Eighty four? For do we think that our Saviour would distinguish the Officers of his Kingdom by meer Words and empty Titles? And yet the Apostleship could be nothing more, if it carried in it no superiority of Office above the Seventy. Some inequality we must discover, and that intended too by our blessed Savi∣our himself, else shall we never be able to give our selves any imaginable Ac∣count of their Institution. And now, what clearer evidence can any man de∣mand for a Divine Right of Superiori∣ty and Subordination of Church Offi∣cers, than our Saviour's own express and particular Institution?

Yes (say they) but the Inequality between the Twelve Apostles and the Seventy Disciples consisted in a superi∣ority of Order and Office, not of Pow∣er and Jurisdiction. Very good! This grants all that we can desire or demand, to prove the Supreme Authority of the Supreme Order, because every Superi∣our Ecclesiastical Order as such is Au∣thoritative, and therefore an eminency of Order must not only infer, but include a

superiority of Power, seeing the Order it self as such (if it be any thing) is the proper and immediate seat of Au∣thority, and all the Jurisdiction of the Bishop, whatsoever it is, is claim'd and exercised by vertue of his Order. So that if the Apostles were the highest Order of Ecclesiasticks, they were for that Reason alone, though there were no other, the highest Judicature. And in the same degrees of proportion that they were advanced above others in dignity of Title, they were so in supremacy of Power, because their Dignity as such, is nothing elie but so much Power in the Church of God; devest them of that, and they immediately return to the condition of Ordinary and Uncon∣secrated men: And the Apostles them∣selves were no more than all other com∣mon Believers, but by vertue of their Commission to rule and govern the Church; reverse that, and they are de∣graded from their Order, as well as stript of their Jurisdiction. So lamenta∣bly do these learned men entangle them∣selves by distinguishing so vainly in this case between a superiority of Order and Power, when the one is not only

the very Ground and Foundation, but (to speak in the language of the School∣men, from whom these Metaphysical no∣things are taken) the very Formality of the other, and the Apostolical Pow∣er is Formally, and as such, the very same with the Apostolical Office. So little real difference is there in this di∣stinction, that it is not possible to frame one in Notion and Conception, but whoever pretends to conceive one, must of necessity conceive both, or conceive nothing. And therefore I would very fain know wherein consists this superiority of Order and Dignity, without any superiority of Power: For what do men mean by Power, but a right to Govern? and what by Order but a superiority of some as Rulers and a subordination of others as Ruled? What then is the difference between an inequality of Order and Power, when they both equally signifie Supe∣riority and Subjection? And therefore these Persons that relie so much on this distinction, would have done very well to have considered with themselves, wherein consists the Essence of Order when separated from Power, which if

they had done, they would soon have discerned, that they had only deceived themselves with an idle and an empty Word. However it were worth their while, to define what it was that was peculiar to the Apostolical Order, be∣side the Supreme Government of the Church, especially when (as it is ac∣knowledged by all Parties) the Apo∣stles enjoyed during their own lives, the supreme Power in the Government of the Church, and that the Parity of Presbyters arose not till after their Deaths, they having appointed no Suc∣cessors in their Apostolical Supremacy. From whence, what can be more apparent than that their Office could not possibly consist in any thing less than a superiority of Power over all the other Pastors of the Church. And now when our Saviour himself has thus expresly Establish'd the Government of his Church in an im∣parity of Order and Power, what far∣ther Prescript would men have for the continuance of his own Establishment? That alone is sufficient to prescribe to all Ages and Nations, and if any man shall dare to remonstrate to its Obliga∣tion, he must have confidence enough

to presume that he is indued with more Wisdom, or entrusted with more Autho∣rity than our Saviour himself. For o∣therwise he cannot but think that he is obliged in Conscience and Modesty too, rather to esteem this Model than any one of his own, or any others Contri∣vance. Yes, but though it be proved that the Apostles had superiority of Or∣der and Jurisdiction over the other Pa∣stors of the Church by an Act of Christ, yet it must further be proved that it was Christ's intention, that Superiority should continue in their Successors; or it makes nothing to the purpose. For a bare Divine Command, say they, is not sufficient to make a Law immutable, un∣less there be likewise expressed, that it is the Will of God that it should always conti∣nue. No, no, you are too nice and shie of your Obedience in this particular Case, and may upon the same ground set your selves loose from all the Laws of the Gospel that are not enjoyn'd with an express declaration of their being Immutable, and thereby you have quit your selves of the greatest part of your Christian Duty. For we shall find but very few Precepts, either of our Savi∣our

or his Apostles tied with this double Knot, and it seems without that, they are not strong enough to tie any man to O∣bedience. Neither do I see how upon this Principle, we can avoid that frivo∣lous Objection of the Socinians against the perpetual necessity of the Sacra∣ment of Baptism, viz. That seeing it was Instituted by our Saviour only to pass men from Judaism and Gentilism to Christianity, it is therefore now of no necessity among Christians, unless our Saviour had declared, that it was his Will and Intention that it should always continue in his Church. Especially when this Ceremony was taken up from the practice of the Synagogue, where when any man had once renounced Hea∣thenism, and entred himself into the Jewish Church, it was never after re∣peated in any of his Posterity, but they were all by vertue of their Fore-fathers Baptism, esteem'd as born in a state of Holiness and Regeneracy. But how∣ever this general Principle is so far from Truth and Sobriety, that it is a plain thrusting our own Presumptions upon the Will of God, which being once de∣clared, it binds us for ever, till himself

is pleased to reverse it, his meer Institu∣tion is its own perpetual Obligation, and whatever he commands no Power can take it off, but that which bound it on. And therefore it is a vain scrupu∣losity (if I may call so sceptical a pre∣tence by that name) to require of him not only to fasten his Laws by enacting them, but as it were to clinch them too by declaring their perpetuity. In all other Cases but this, it is supposed that whatever he commands, he commands for ever till he declares the contrary; for though his Positive Laws be revo∣cable in themselves, yet being revoca∣ble only by God himself and his own Power, since he hath already in his Word fully revealed his Will, unless therein he hath declared when their Obligation shall cease, they continue Irreversible. It therefore being once granted that the Apostles had a superio∣rity of Jurisdiction by an Act of Christ, it plainly follows that without any far∣ther declaration of its perpetuity, their Power is irreversible. Especially when the Rule whereby we are left to judg of the mind and intention of the Law∣giver is the Reason of the Law, viz.

That the Reason continuing the Law should remain in force; though I can∣not see of what use this should be to those who will give leave to demand no other reasons of any Divine Positive Laws beside the Will of the Law-giver: For if that be the only reason of the Law, then it is in vain to pretend to judg of it by any other. But yet however I shall close with them upon their own Principle, and to save farther trouble, I would only put them to assign what par∣ticular Ground and Reason there was of establishing a Superiority and Subordi∣nation of Church-Officers then; that is ceased for all succeeding Ages of the Church; and till they can give them∣selves and us some competent satisfacti∣on in this, desire them to acquiesce in our Saviour's Institution. But alas, this was never so much as attempted, and is manifestly impossible to be per∣form'd; for that man no doubt would make wise work of it, that should un∣dertake to give the World a satisfacto∣ry Account of the particular Grounds and Reasons that should make an ine∣quality of Power in Ecclesiastical Offi∣cers necessary in our Saviour's Days,

and needless ever since. But if this cannot be done (as it is certain at first view, that it never can) then certainly the meer Institution of our Saviour in a matter of so great moment to the Church, is sufficient of it self to pass a perpetual and indispensible Obligation upon all Ages of it. And now upon these Grounds that I have already ob∣tain'd from our Saviour's express Institu∣tion, I need not dispute with our Adver∣saries (for that is one of their little shifts) whether the Missions of the Apostles and the Seventy, were only Tempo∣rary. For whether they were, or were not, it is from thence evident what Mo∣del of Government our Saviour framed for his Church; and that is all that is needful to my purpose. And therefore I will freely grant that our Saviour's design in Life-time, seems to have been not so much to found Churches himself, as to have prepared and instructed his Disciples, how to do it after his depar∣ture. So that he rather made a Speci∣men of the Constitution of his Church, than erected any standing Fabrick of it. For the Foundations of it were to be laid in the evidence of his Resurrection

from the dead. And therefore we do not find that the Apostles acted with a plenitude of Power, till he had given them a new Commission after his Re∣surrection, and it is remarkable that in St. Matthew 16. 19. he vests them with the power of Binding and Loosing in the Future Tense. But in St. John 20. 23. after his Resurrection it is expressed in the Present Tense. Then it was that he gave them that Authority which himself had exercised whilst he remain'd on Earth. But then, when immediate∣ly in pursuance of their new Commis∣sion, the Apostles thought themselves obliged to choose one into their Order, to supply the Vacancy made by the death of Judas; What can be more evi∣dent than that they thought the Aposto∣lical Office by our Saviour's Appoint∣ment, distinct from and superiour to all other Offices in the Church? So that it is manifest that the Form observed by the Apostles in the Planting and Go∣verning of Churches, was Model'd ac∣cording to our Saviour's own Plat∣form; and after that it is not at all ma∣terial to enquire whether he only drew the Model, or erected the Building.

But whichsoever he did, it is improved into an impregnable Demonstration from the undoubted Practice of the Apostles, and from them the perpetual Tradition of the Catholick Church, in that it is plain that they thought them∣selves obliged to stand to this Original Form of Church-Government. For the Apostles (we all know, and all Parties grant) during their days, kept up the distinction and preeminence of their Order, and from them the Bishops of the First Ages of the Church claim'd their Succession, and every where chal∣lenged their Episcopal Authority from the Institution of Christ, and the Exam∣ple of his Apostles.

And now are we enter'd upon the se∣cond main Controversie, viz. The Au∣thority of the Apostolical Practice, a∣gainst which, three things are usually alledged: That neither can we have that certainty of Apostolical Practice which is necessary to constitute a Divine Right, nor secondly is it probable that the Apostles did tie themselves to any one fixed Course in Modelling Churches; nor thirdly, if they did, doth it necessarily follow that we must observe the same. And the first of

these is made out from the equivalency of the names Bishop and Presbyter; secondly from the Ambiguity of some places of Scripture, pleaded in behalf of different Forms of Government; thirdly from the Defectiveness, Ambi∣guity, Partiality, and Repugnancy of the Records of the succeeding Ages, which should inform us what was the Apostolical Practice. But as to the first, I shall wholly wave the dispute of the sig∣nification of the words, because it is altogether beside the purpose; and if it were not, our other Proofs are so preg∣nant, as to render it altogether useless. Neither indeed would this ever have been any matter of Dispute, had not our Adversaries for want of better Ar∣guments, been forced to make use of such slender pretences. But how impo∣tently Salmasius, and Blondel, who were the main Founders of the Argument, have argued from the Community of the Names, the Identity of the Office, any one that has the patience to read them over, may satisfie himself. As for my own part I cannot but admire to see Learned men persist so stubbornly in a palpable Impertinency, when from the

Equivalency of the words Bishop and Presbyter in the Apostles time, they will infer no imparity of Ecclesiastical Officers, notwithstanding it is so evi∣dent and granted by themselves, that the Apostles enjoyed a superiority of Power over the other Pastors of the Church, which being once proved or granted (and themselves never doubt∣ed of it) to infer their beloved 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or Parity of the Clergy from the Equi∣vocal signification of those two words, is only to out-face their own Convictions and their Adversaries Demonstrations. For if it be proved, and themselves cannot deny it, that there was an ine∣quality of Offices, from the Superiority of the Apostles, it is a very Childish at∣tempt to go about to prove that there was not; because there were two Syno∣nymous Terms whereby to express the whole Order of the Clergy. But to persist in this trifling Inference, as Sal∣masius has (who when he was informed of its manifest weakness and absurdity, would never renounce it, but still re∣peated it in one Book after another, without any improvement but of Pas∣sion and Confidence) is one of the most

woful Examples, that I remember, of a learned man's Trifling, that has not the ingenuity to yield, when he finds himself vanquish'd not only by his Ad∣versary but his Argument.

Neither shall I trouble my self with other mens disputes about particular Texts of Scripture, when it is manifest from the whole Current of Scripture, that the Apostles exercised a superiority of Power over the other Pastors of the Church, and that is all that is requisite to the Argument from Apostolical Pra∣ctice; for as yet it is nothing to us whe∣ther they were Presbyters or Bishops, that they set over particular Churches; that shall be enquired into when we come to the Practice of the Primitive Church, it is enough that they were subject to the Apostles, for then by Apostolical Practice there was a Supe∣riority and Subordination in Church-Government. And therefore I cannot but wonder here too at the blindness of Walo Messalinus, who in pursuance of his Verbal Argument, produces this passage out of Theodoret, and spends a great deal of the first part of his Book in declaiming upon it. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉,

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Then the same men were call'd Presbyters and Bishops, and those that we now call Bishops, they then call'd Apostles, but in process of time the name of Apostolate was appropriate to them who were truly and properly Apostles, and the name of Bishop was applied to them who were formerly call'd Apostles. Than which words (beside that they contain the true state of the Question) there is scarce a clearer passage in all Antiquity to confound his cause. For what can be a plainer Reproof to their noise a∣bout the Equivalency of words than to be told that it is true, that the words Bi∣shop and Presbyter, signified the same thing in the Apostles time, but that those that we now call Bishops, were then call'd Apostles, who exercised the Episcopal Power over the other Clergy, but that afterward in process of time they left the word Apostolate to those who were strictly and properly so

call'd, and stil'd all other Bishops; who in former times were stiled Apostles. What I say can be more peremptory against his Opinion, that concludes from the equivalency of Names, to the pari∣ty of Power, than this, that notwith∣standing the words were equivalent, yet the Episcopal Power was then in the Apostles, whose successors in their supremacy came in after-times to be call'd Bishops? And if so, then is it evident that there was the same imparity of Church-Officers in the Apostles time, as in succeeding Ages. Nay, our friend Walo is not content to make this out for us only, as to the Apostles themselves but as to their immediate Successors, whom they employed in the settlement of Churches, and to whom they com∣mitted the Apostolical Power for their Government, and these too he proves were stil'd Apostles, such as Titus, Ti∣mothy, Epaphroditus, Clemens, Linus, Marcus, so that not only the Apostles, but the Evangelists (as they call'd them) were distinguish'd from the other Cler∣gy, and endued with a superiority of Power over their respective Churches, and hereby we gain the authority of

Apostolical Practice, not only for them∣selves, but for their Companions and Successors, which does not only extend our Argument, but joyns together the practice of the Primitive Times, of which we have certain Records with that of the Apostles, and so prevents all their fond Dreams of an unknown In∣terval immediately after the death of the Apostles; for if these Apostolical men supplied their Places, it will be very easie to find out who supplied theirs.

Neither, thirdly, need I trouble my self with any long dispute concerning the Obligation of Apostolical Practice, for whether or no meer Apostolical Practice be obligatory by vertue of their Example, is very little material to our Enquiry; for some things are too trifling, or too transient in their own Natures to deserve to pass into prescrip∣tion; but it is enough in this case, that what the Apostles did, was in pursuance of our Saviour's Institution, and that in a matter of perpetual concernment to the Church; and they who require to the Obligation of such an Apostolical Pra∣ctice, an express Law to declare their in∣tention

that it should bind for ever, are guilty of the same phantastick niceness as they that require the same for the perpe∣tuity of every Divine Law, and therefore have been consider'd already. And for that reason I shall add nothing more to what I have already said as to this par∣ticular, than to grant that whatever the Apostles either commanded, or practi∣sed upon some particular temporary and occasional Cases, was not sufficient to found any universal and unchangeable Obligation, because the reason of the Precept was apparently transient, and the goodness of the action casual. But otherwise if there were any Prescript, or Practice of theirs (though it were not founded upon any Divine Instituti∣on) that did not relate to peculiar Occasions and Circumstances, but are or may be of equal usefulness to all Places, Times, and Persons, that is a certain and undoubted evidence of their constant and unabolishable Obligation. And therefore here I shall only put them to their former task to assign what particular ground and reason there was of establishing a Superiority and Subordination of Church-Officers in the

times of the Apostles that is ceased in all succeeding Ages of the Church, and till they can discharge this Task, advise them not to depart rashly from so sacred and venerable a Prescription.

But that which improves the Argu∣ment both from our Saviour's Instituti∣on and the Apostles Practice, into a complete Demonstration, is the prac∣tice of the Primitive Churches, in the Ages next and immediately succeeding the Apostles; For if the Government of the Church were by our Saviour founded upon Divine Institution in an inequality of Church-Officers, and if the first Governours of it thought them∣selves obliged to keep close to its Ori∣ginal Platform; and if their immediate Successors conceived themselves as much obliged to observe the same as imposed upon them by the Command of Christ, and deliver'd to them by the Example and Tradition of his Apostles, that cer∣tainly may serve for a very competent proof of its necessity and perpetuity. Now then as for the power and prehe∣minence of the Episcopal Order, it is attested by the best Monuments and Records of the first and most remote

Antiquity; and we find such early in∣stances and evidences of it, that unless it descended from the Apostles times, we can never give any account in the World whence it derived its Original. And this brings us upon the main sanc∣tuary of our Adversaries, viz. The de∣fectiveness of Antiquity in reference to the shewing what certain Form the Apostles observed in settling the Go∣vernment of Churches; and here they run into a large common place, of the deep silence of antiquity and the defectiveness of the Records of the Church in the interval next and imme∣diately succeeding the Apostles. But here in the first place I must desire them to consider, that if this Objection be of any force against the certainty of Apo∣stolical Tradition in this particular, it will utterly overthrow all the testimo∣ny of the Ancients as to all other mat∣ters of Faith, and particularly as to the certain Canon and Divine Authority of the Scriptures, for if they are not (as is pretended) competent Witnesses of the practice of the Apostles, because of their distance from the time of the Apo∣stles, neither for the same reason are

their reports to be relied upon with a∣ny confidence, as to the certainty of any of their Writings. It is not to be expected that I should here reprent how false this exception is de facto, and how unreasonable de jure, either against the Constitutions, or the Authentick Epi∣stles of the Apostles, it is enough that they stand and fall together, so that whoever opposes the Divine and Apo∣stolical Form of Church Government as delivered to us by the Primitive Church, does upon his own principles defeat and reject all the proofs of the Divine Au∣thority of the holy Scriptures, in that those sceptical grounds and pretences he is forced to urge against one, fall as dan∣gerously on both. And this may serve to prevent and invalidate the force of their Argument without answering it; when if they should deal as rigorously in any other case as they are pleased to do in this, the most certain and undoubted Records cannot escape the severity of their censure. Though our comfort is that neither of them are liable to such wild and wanton Objections, in that (as I shall shew) the Tradition of the Church was always constant and unin∣terrupted,

and that there was no such Chasm, as is pretended, between the times of the Apostles and the next Chri∣stian Writers. For (to say nothing here of the Canon of the Scriptures) though the men of that Age left us no formal Histories and Catalogues of the succession of Bishops in all their several Sees, wherewith some men unreasonable enough upbraid us, when it is so mani∣fest that it was at that time too young for that care, in that as yet there was scarce any succession. Yet were they no less than Apostolical men that vouch∣ed the Apostolical Order and Jurisdi∣ction of Bishops, and this one would think enough to satisfie any modest or ingenious man of their Institution from the beginning. When it is asserted, or rather supposed by the very first Wri∣ters of the Church that were ca∣pable of attesting it. So that whoever can withstand their Evidence, is proof against all Evidence of matter of Fact, and may, if he please, laugh at all the Tales and Legends that are told con∣cerning the succession of the Roman Empire from Augustus to Constantine. But to wave all other parallel Cases,

that which I have already propounded is irrefragable, viz. That those men that beat about in the Writings of the An∣cients to start sceptical pretences against the use and institution of Episcopacy, would do very well to consider the consequences of this rude and licenti∣ous way of Arguing. And (as the Reverend and Learned Doctor Ham∣mond long since remarked it) they that so confidently reject the Epistles of Ignatius, shrewdly indanger (if they will stand to their own principles) the cre∣dit and authority of the sacred Canon; when these are vouch'd for the true and authentick Epistles of Ignatius, by as strong a current and unanimous con∣sent of the Fathers, as most of the Canonical Books of Scripture. And therefore it is observable, that the proud Walo Messalinus does with the same ease and confidence, pish away one of the * 1.2 Epistles of St. Peter, as he does all these of this Apostolical Martyr; and might in the same pert and pedantick humour, and with the same evidence of Reason huff all the rest after it into the Apo∣cryphal Rubbish. But because our Ad∣versaries main strength lies in this Ob∣jection,

and some ill-minded men will be hasty to seise on it for worse purpo∣ses than they intended, I shall consider it in its full force and glory, The de∣fect then pretended is three-fold, as to Places, as to Times, as to Persons.

1. As to Places, and here they tell us we can have no certainty without an universal Testimony. For if but one place varied, that is enough to over∣throw the necessity of any one form of Government, and therefore seeing we have not an account of what was done by the Apostles in all Churches, we can have no sufficient certainty of their practice. But certainly never was any thing so hardly dealt with as Anti∣quity by these men; for unless we could be certain that every thing that was done in the Church 1500 Years agoe was recorded, and made known to us by some unquestionable way, all that is recorded, be it never so certain and evident, can be of no use for our In∣formation. If this hard condition be put upon us, I must confess that we not only have no certainty of the Primitive Practice, but that it is impossible that we should have any either in that or

any other Record. But this certainly is too rigorous proceeding with the au∣thority of Precedents, that let us pro∣duce never so many, they shall signifie nothing as to their use, unless we can demonstrate that there never was, or indeed could be one contrary Example in the World. But I am very apt to believe that all ingenuous men will be fully satisfied with this, that all the pre∣cedents that are recorded are for us, and therefore till our Adversaries are able to produce some against us, to rest in the certainty of those Records that are preserved, without a vain enquiry after what might or might not be in those that are lost. And therefore our Ad∣versaries in stead of making such wild and sceptical demands, if they would prevail upon the minds of men, should in the first place have proved the varie∣ty of Apostolical Practice, and that in∣deed would have disproved the necessi∣ty of any one Form; but that is a thing they never attempt. When therefore we have this uniformity of practice in all Churches, whose settlement is known, it betrays an unreasonable partiality in men to put us upon giving an account

of what St. Andrew did in Scythia, and St. Thomas in India, for certainly all im∣partial men will be satisfied with the uniform practice of all the known Chur∣ches of Europe, Asia, and Affrica. And that is enough in answer to the first pre∣tended defect of Antiquity as to Places.

The second defect is as to Times. And here they fall directly upon the credit of all Ecclesiastical History, and in par∣ticular upon Eusebius the Father of it; who, they say, lived at too great a di∣stance from Apostolical Times, and wanted sufficient Records for his Infor∣mation. But this I must answer that I know not any Historian furnished with better and more certain accounts of the things they write of, than Eusebius. The Tradition of the Church being conveyed down to him in the most un∣interrupted and undoubted manner pos∣sible. St. Polycarp, St. Ignatius, St. Clemens of Rome, were familiarly ac∣quainted with the Apostles themselves; Irenaeus, Tatianus, Theophilus Antioche∣nus, Athenagoras, Justin Martyr, and many more converst with them, as they did with the Apostles; to these succeed Origen, Clemens, Alexandrinus, Tertul∣lian,

Minutius Faelix, Lactantius, Ar nobius, Dionysius Alexandrinus, Grego∣rius Thauntaturgus, St. Cyprian, beside many other excellent Writers, whose Works he enjoyed, though some of them are since perish'd, who all lived in the first and second Centuries after the Apostles. Now out of these Euse∣bius collected his History, and to their genuine and undoubted Writings ever refers himself to justifie his own Fide∣lity, quotes no Author for any matter of fact but what was done in his own Age, as particularly in the beginning of the second Book the Reader is desired to observe, that he collected the materials of it from the Writings of Clemens, Tertullian, Josephus, and Philo, and the same Preface he might have set before every particular Book. And as he al∣ways refers to good Authors, so he re∣jects many things as counterfeit and spu∣rious for this reason only, because he finds no account of them in the Ancient Writers. But beside the Writings of the Doctors of the Church, and the Epistles of Bishops, the Originals where∣of were then reserved in the Archives of their several Churches, he made

very great use of the Acts of the Mar∣tyrs, that were then preserved with great care and sacredness, though after∣wards it being the most valued part of Ecclesiastical History, it was the most improved into fabulous Legends and Stories. And beside all this he was furnished with many excellent materials of the First Times (which alone he could be supposed to want) by Hege∣sippus, who wrote five Books of Com∣mentaries, of the Acts of the Church about the Reign of Marcus Aurelius, which was scarce eighty Years after the death of St. John. So that it is no bet∣ter than a very rash censure of such an Ancient and Apostolical Writer, to say that his Relations are as questionable as those of Eusebius himself in reference to those elder Times, when he lived al∣most in the very eldest times, and so near to the Apostles, that it was scarce possi∣ble that any matter of Fact, that hap∣pened in that Interval, could escape his knowledg. Now last of all, the Hea∣then Records themselves were not a little useful to him, as himself informs us. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, * 1.3

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. In the••e times (that is, about the Reign of Do∣mitian) the Doctrine of the Christian Faith was so flourishing, that the Hea∣then Writers have left exact Records of the Persecutions and Martyrdoms. As for Eusebius his saying (which is so triumphantly insisted on to blast the * 1.4 whole credit of Antiquity) that it is difficult to find out who were the Suc∣cessors of the Apostles in the Churches planted by them, unless it be those men∣tioned in the Writings of St. Paul, it is evident from his own words, that the difficulty arises not from the deficiency but from the too great plenty of Suc∣cessors. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, For he had a thousand Helpers, or as he was wont to call them Fellow-Souldiers. So that the reason why it is so difficult to assign whom he appointed to preside over the Churches that he converted, is because he had such an innumerable company of followers, that whom he set over what Churches, it is not possi∣ble

to define, than as himself has happen∣ed to name particular Persons, as Timo∣thy, Titus, Crescens, Clemens, Epaphroditus, &c. which alone are a sufficient evidence of the Apostles care to settle Successors in the greater Churches. However this passage can by no means be made use of to blast the credit of Antiquity as to the matter in debate, because it con∣cerns not the uncertainty of the form of Government, but only of the Per∣sons who succeeded in the Apostolical Form in some particular Churches. And that alone is answer enough to the third defect as to Persons, viz. That granting the Catalogues of the first Bishops to be defective, that is no proof against the certainty of Episcopal Government, unless at the same time that we cannot find the Bishop, we could find some o∣ther form of Government. Nay fur∣ther, those particulars that we have, are a sufficient Testimony to the general Truth that we assert, in that it is at∣tested by all the Records that are re∣maining, and that is enough to satisfie any reasonable or impartial man, espe∣cially when in the greater and more known Churches we have as certain an

account of the Succession, as we have of the Bishops of England from the Reign of Henry the VIII, to Charles the II. But that concerns the Argument of Personal Succession, which though I have prevented, I may consider in its proper place: At present in order to the confuting of this Objection from the defect of Time, I shall shew that we have as certain and uninterrupted a Tra∣dition of the matter in hand, as the most curious and diffident enquirer can de∣mand for his full satisfaction.

And first, What can be more ancient, or is more evident, than the Testimony of Clement of Rome, in his famous Epi∣stle to the Corinthians, where exhort∣ing them above all things to Peace and Unity, which indeed was the main Ar∣gument in the first Writers of the Church, one chief way that he pro∣pounds in order to it, is that every man keep his Order and Station, where be∣side the Laity, he reckons up three di∣stinct Orders of the Christian Clergy, which he expresses by an allusion, as was the custom of the Apostolical Wri∣ters, to the Jewish Hierarchy, viz. The Office of High Priest, Priest and Levite.

The passage is very full and pregnant. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. The High Priest has his peculiar Office assign'd him, and the Priest has his Station bounded, and the Levites have their proper Ministries determined, and the Lay-man is obliged to his Lay-Offices. My Brethren, let every one in his Place and Order, worship God with a good Conscience, not transgressing the settled Canon of his Duty according to the rule of Decency. Where it is ma∣nifest that he describes the several Mini∣stries of the Christian Church at that time, by alluding to the Offices of the Mosaick Institution. For why else should he conclude with this Exhorta∣tion; [And therefore, my Brethren, let every one of you keep his own Order,] unless this distinction of Officers con∣cern'd the Corinthian Christians. So that though it be expressed by alluding

to the Ordinances of the old Jewish Institution, yet it is a description of the present state of the Christian Church among those to whom he writes, other∣wise it were very impertinent to exhort them to keep those Stations, if there were no such among them. But the great Witness in this cause is that brave Martyr St. Ignatius, Pupil to St. John, and by him ordain'd Bishop of Antioch, and chief Bishop of Asia, who whilst he was in his way to his Martyrdom (being sent from Antioch to Rome, to be de∣voured by wild Beasts) in his journey wrote several Epistles to several Chur∣ches, in which he gives such a plain Ac∣count of the Constitution of the Hie∣rarchy in his time by the Orders of Bi∣shop, Presbyter, and Deacon, as plainly demonstrates it to have been of Aposto∣lical Antiquity. And this is so evident that there is no way of avoiding the Testimony but by flatly denying it: And therefore our Adversaries will upon no terms allow these Epistles to be ge∣nuine, and take infinite pains to prove them, if it be possible, supposititious; so that this is become the great point in this Controversie, and has been eagerly

disputed by many Learned men on both sides. The two last that engaged in it are a learned Prelate of our own, and the famous Monsier Daillé, in whose Books the whole cause is not only con∣tain'd, but I am apt to think, decided. For though Daillé was a Person of more Judgment, Temper, and Learning, than most of his Brethren, yet they were strangely overborn by the strength of Prejudice; and it is plain to any man that ever look'd into him, that he was first resolved upon his Opinion, and then right or wrong to make it good, and because he was well aware that these Epistles alone, were so clear and full a Testimony to the Apostolical Antiquity of the Episcopal Order, that they plain∣ly prevented all Attempts and Argu∣ments against it, he therefore set him∣self with all vehemence, and made it the business of his Life to destroy their Credit, and with infinite pains sifted all the Rubbish of Antiquity, to find out every shred and atom of a Criticism, that might any way be made use of to im∣pair their Reputation. Yet after all this Drudgery, are his Exceptions so plainly disingenuous and unreasonable,

that they would fall as well upon any o∣ther ancient Record whatsoever, not on∣ly that ever has been, but that ever could have been, though upon no other score than purely that of its Antiquity. But this Cause hath breath'd its last in this man, and this advantage we have gain'd by his zeal to maintain, and his ability to manage it, that it has put an utter end to this Controversie, in that all his forces have been rebuked and overthrown with such an irresistible strength of Rea∣son and Learning, that for the time to come we may rest secure that never any man of common Sense, or ordinary Learning, or any Modesty will dare to appear in such an helpless and bafled Cause. For the particulars I refer to the learned Authors themselves, but as to the general Argument, I shall give a brief and distinct account of it, and then leave it to the Reader to judge, whether he could desire or contrive more evidence for the authority of any Book, than is produced for the Epistles of Ignatius. St. Polycarp then who was his particular Friend and Fellow-pupil under St. John, and St. Irenaeus who was Disciple to Polycarp, give in full and

clear testimony to the Martyrs Epistles Polycarp sent a Copy of them to the Church of Philippi, as appears both by his own Epistle still extant, and by Eu∣sebius his Quotation out of it, and that at a time when it was vulgarly known and commonly read in the Churches of Asia. Polycarp's Epistle was never call'd in question by any good Author, was immediately attested by Irenaeus, read with Veneration in the Churches of Asia, even to the very time of Eusebius and St. Hierom. So that I know not what more undoubted or publick Testi∣mony Monsieur Daillé could demand for his satisfaction, and indeed it is hard to conceive what more effectual evidence could have been provided to secure their Authority. For when St. Polycarp's Epistle was so universally known, it was impossible to corrupt it. And yet in this wild Supposition, is Monsieur Daillé forced at last to shelter himself; he allows his Epistle it self to be of un∣doubted Credit, and the greatest part of it to have been written by Polycarp, but that a certain Impostor a little be∣fore the time of Eusebius, had foisted in that Paragraph in which this passage

concerning Ignatius his Epistles is found, which Eusebius meeting with, he took it to be of the same credit with the rest of the Epistle. Which is all so very ungrounded and precarious, that with the same liberty he might deny, or de∣stroy the validity of any ancient Re∣cord whatsoever; but beside this, the Epistle was so publick, so exposed to the view of all men, so known to the Learned and Unlearned, that it were as easie to poison the Sea as for a pri∣vate man to corrupt it. Or if he would attempt to do it, how was it possible for Eusebius and all the World beside, to be deluded by so bold an Imposture. Does not Eusebius himself inform us, that it was read in the Churches of Asia at the time of his writing? Did he not then know what was read there, and therefore if this passage were not read, could he be so stupid as to be im∣posed upon by one single private man against the authority of all the publick Books, or if he were, could all the Fathers, whom Daillé will have to have followed his Dance, be so prodi∣giously blind and careless as in a thing so known and common, to be deceived

by him, and that no man (if we may believe him) should discover the mi∣stake till Nicephorus, who lived five hundred Years after him? But granting the Testimony to be true, he denies it to be effectual, because Polycarp only says that Ignatius wrote Epistles, but no where affirms that those we have are the true ones. So that it seems unless St. Polycarp had written particularly against Mounsier Dail••é himself, and declared that those very Epistles that he opposes with so much zeal, were written by his Friend the Martyr, it was not possible for him to give suffici∣ent testimony to their truth. And yet that could not have been a more ample proof than this amounts to. For he declares not only that Ignatius wrote certain Epistles, but that himself made a Collection of them, and this Colle∣ction was seen by Eusebius and others of the Ancients. Now when we con∣sider the Reputation of the Martyr both for his acquaintance with the Apostles, his eminent dignity in the Church, the gallantry of his Martyr∣dom; when we consider the time and occasion of his writing, which was at

the approach of his Death, and as it were his dying Exhortation to the Churches; when we consider how they were recommended by Polycarp, whose Epistle was publickly read in their As∣semblies; is it any way credible that these true Epistles should all perish be∣fore the time of Eusebius, and other coun∣terfeit ones rise up in their room, and among all those learned men that then were very inquisitive after Ancient and Apostolical Tradition, none should ever discern or discover it? Nay, that Eu∣sebius, a man so throughly versed in all Ecclesiastical Antiquities, so conversant with the choicest Libraries, should be so grosly and so easily cheated by a double Imposture contrived in his own time, as to take the new invented Epi∣stles of Ignatius, for the old authen∣tick Writings of that holy Martyr, and then to vouch it by a forg'd Passage foisted into Polycarp, against the autho∣rity of all the vulgar Books. So many hard Suppositions, one would think, were enough to shame any modest man out of his Opinion.

The second Witness to these Epistles is St. Irenaeus, whose testimony is no

more to be doubted of than the for∣mer, being extant both in Eusebius, and those pieces of Irenaeus, that are preser∣ved down to our times, though most of his works are perish'd. But to this Monsieur Daillé answers that Irenaeus cautiously expresses his Quotation of the holy Martyr by Dixit, and not Scripsit, and thence conjectures that he quotes it only as a Saying or Apothegm, and not as a Citation out of his Wri∣tings. But, (1.) There is no Record of any such Saying as this, neither in that particular Quotation, that is pre∣served, could we know whom Irenaeus means, did we not find the same sen∣tence in Ignatius his Epistle to the Ro∣mans, so that it is a vain and a frivo∣lous thing to forsake that, and to fetch the business from unknown and unheard of Reports. And. (2.) This is the very form of all Irenaeus his Quotati∣ons, who never uses the word Scripsit, but always Dixit. But then why does he not cite some Testimony against the Hereticks out of Ignatius, in whom there were so many apposite to his pur∣pose? I answer for the same reason that he does not cite other as pertinent Au∣thors

as Ignatius. For out of all the Ecclesiastical Writers that lived before him, he has in his surviving Works but four Quotations, of which that out of Ignatius is one. Neither would this way of disputing have been at all per∣tinent in the days of Irenaeus, when the Hereticks against whom he wrote, al∣lowed no Authority to the ancient Do∣ctors of the Church, but always re∣curred to certain wild Apocryphal Books of their own, and therefore it had been but a vain thing for Irenaeus to have prest them with this Topick. The next Witness is Origen, who quotes him by name, but against this Testimo∣ny we have these two Exceptions: First, That it is at too great a distance from the time of Ignatius: Secondly, That those Writings, in which he is quoted are none of Origens. First, As to the first we would grant the force of the Objection, if this had been the first Testimony in the cause; but following Polycarp and Irenaeus, it proves the con∣stant opinion of Learned men before Eusebius, and his Impostor. Secondly, It overthrows Daillé's great conceit that these Epistles appeared not till

two hundred Years after Ignatius, whereas by his own confession Origen writ within one hundred and forty Years. Thirdly, It cuts off the great pretence, that Eusebius was the Founder of this mistake, whereas it hereby ap∣pears, that if it were one, he only fol∣lowed his Predecessors in it. But the main of the Controversie here is the second thing, Whether those Books a∣scribed to Origen, in which Ignatius is quoted, are really his, or not. Daillé says, No; but his learned Adversary has with no less than evidence of De∣monstration proved they were, though if he had not done it, St. Jerom has done it long since, who plainly tells us that himself translated them out of Ori∣gen's Greek into Latine. And now af∣ter these I need add nothing of the Te∣stimony of Eusebius and those that fol∣low him, for if he be mistaken their Authority is of no use, if he be not it is of little necessity, but that he is not, is demonstrated from these more anci∣ent Testimonies. Though if any man desire more Witnesses, I shall refer him to my learned Author, who has sum∣mon'd * 1.5 them out of every Age, from

that in which the Epistles themselves were writen, down to that next our own.

But to all the Testimonies of the An∣cients, what do our Adversaries op∣pose? irst, Salmasius opposes the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 of Nicephorus Patriarch of * 1.6 Constantinople, by which, says he, the Authentick and spurious Books of the Church were distinguish'd, and among many others the Epistles of Ignatius are censured for Apocryphal Books. But to this it is replied by the Pious, the Reverend, and the Learned, Dr. Ham∣mond, * 1.7 that the opinion of one Author, especially of later date (for Nicepho∣rus lived not before the ninth Century) was not of weight and authority e∣nough to oppose to the consent of so many ancient Writers. Secondly, That the word Apocryphal, which is used by Nicephorus, does not always signifie Spurious, but it is very often used by Ecclesiastical Writers as opposed to Ca∣nonical, and so is given to Books, whose Authors were never question'd, only to seclude them from the Canon of the Scripture. To the first it is re∣plied by Daillé, and that I must say * 1.8

with impertinency enough, that the authority of Nicephorus is at least equal to Dr. Hammonds, as if the Dispute were between them two, whereas the Dispute was between Walo and the Do∣ctor, who when he had produced the Testimonies of the Fathers of all for∣mer Ages, could not but think it very hard that the opinion of one late Wri∣ter should be opposed to all their Au∣thority. To the second he replies, That it is true that the word Apocry∣phal is oftentimes opposed to Canoni∣cal, yet it is very frequently too used by Ecclesiastical Writers as equivalent to Spurious and Counterfeit, and that therefore the Doctor in vain takes re∣fuge in the Ambiguity of the word. But certainly, it is the manifest design of these men to tire out their Adversaries with verbose Trifles. For who could have expected this Answer, that when Walo had argued from the word Apo∣cryphal, as if it only signified Spuri∣ous, and that when to the Argument the Doctor had answer'd that it no ways follows, because it as often signi∣fied not Canonical; who, I say, after this would have expected that his Ad∣versary

should upbraid him with taking Refuge in the ambiguity of the word, when the Ambiguity of the word a∣lone was not only a full answer to, but a clear confutation of the Argument? But he replies, secondly, That some of the Books joyn'd with it are confessed by all to be Supposititious, and therefore as they were censur'd for that reason, so must the Ignatian Epistles. But this is manifestly false, and though if it were true, it follows like all the rest. For the Censure has no regard to their Author, but whether Spurious or Ge∣nuine, to their Authority, and only de∣signs to shut them out from creeping in among the Canonical Scriptures. For that was the only danger it aim'd to prevent; least the Books that either were or pretended to be of Apostolical Antiquity should creep into the Ca∣non. And it is plain from the Decree it self, that Nicephorus intended nothing else than to determine the Canonical Books of Scripture, and prevent all others that came nearest to them in Age, from obtaining sacred Authority. But, says Daillé, Pope Gelasius when he defines what Books are Apocry∣phal,

he does not confine it meerly to the Canonical Scriptures, but to all other Ecclesiastical Writers not allowed of, and therefore this must be the mean∣ing of Nicephorus. That is to say, that because Gelasius in his Decree deter∣mines what Ecclesiastical Books of what kind soever are to be reputed Ortho∣dox, what Heterodox, that therefore Nicephorus, when he distinguishes the Canonical Books of the New Testa∣ment from the Apocryphal, does not mean as himself declares, but must be understood in the sense of Gelasius.

And yet when all is done there is no such Testimony, but the whole Story is a meer Dream of their own, who catch at any shadow that may seem to serve their turn: For, sirst, it is cer∣tain, That Nicephorus was not the Au∣thor of the Stichometria. Secondly, That the Author of it, whoever he was, did not pass this censure upon Ignatius his Epistles. For we find in it only the name of Ignatius, without any mention of his Epistles; Which indeed cannot in Daillé's sense be call'd Apocryphal, because they were never esteem'd Canonical. For that is the true

Original of the distinction, that where∣as there were some Books written by the Followers of the Apostles, as Cle∣mens, Barnabas, and Hermas, left these by reason of their nearness to the Ca∣nonical Books, should in process of time be reckoned with them, the Church was careful to range them in a Classis by themselves: And whereas there were many other Books that pretended to be dictated by the Apostles, and written by their Disciples, lest they should gain the Authority they pretended to, it concern'd the Church to give them the Apocryphal Mark. Seeing there∣fore Ignatius Epistles were never upon either of these accounts in any proba∣bility of being accounted Canonical, it would have been a needless Caution to refer them to the Apocryphal Cata∣logue. And though to Ignatii Daillé after his usual way of making bold with his Quotations adds Omnia: It is pro∣bable that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 should be added as it is in another Index of Apocryphal Books in the Oxford Library. It be∣ing the custom of some idle men of those times to make Institutions of Di∣vinity, and then fasten them upon Apo∣stles

and Apostolical men, out of which as our learned Author with great pro∣bability conjectures, was afterward made that Collection, which goes un∣der the name of Apostolical Constituti∣ons. Now these spurious pieces pre∣tending to Canonical Authority, it was very requisite to prevent and discover the Imposture. But whatever proba∣bility may be in this Conjecture, of which we stand in no need, I am sure there is as little modesty as reason in Salmasius his Argument, when he op∣poses the single authority of Nicephorus to the concurrent Testimony of the Ancients. But much less in Daillès de∣fence, especially when we consider with what state and confidence he ushers it in, Ecce Auctores habemus & multis ante nos seculis denatos, & ab omni contra Hierarchiam suspicione semotos, qui om∣nia Ignatii scripta rotunde ac sine ullâ haesitatione ad Apocrypha relegarunt in stichometriâ Georgio Sincello in libro an∣tiquissimo praefixâ. For what confidence can be more enormous than that when these Epistles have been attested by some of the best of the ancient Writers, ters, to pretend to destroy their Au∣thority

by a multitude of Writers, and yet produce but one, and he at the distance of seven hundred Years. But the last aggravation of his confidence is, when he professes that he produces the authority of this Stichometria not to prove his own Opinion, but only to remove the prejudice of its Novelty, and yet cite no other Authors in its behalf. For all the rest of his Proofs are drawn from Negative Authority, in which he is no more happy than in his many one positive Testimony. For when he argues that these Epistles were unknown to every Writer that does not quote them, methinks it is an hard condition that he imposes upon all Au∣thors to cite all the Books that they read. But, says he, because of that great authority that Ignatius had in the Christian Church, when any Christian Writers had any fair occasion for it, it is very likely that they would have ap∣peal'd to his Authority, which because they have not done, we may justly pre∣sume that there were no such Writings extant in their time. This is the whole force of his Negative Argument; and yet when he comes to particulars, he is

so unhappy as only to produce those Authors whose custom it is to avoid this kind of Quotations, as we have alrea∣dy shewn concerning Irenaeus. And so for Clemens Alexandrinus, who though he is a great quoter of Heathen and Heretical Writers, yet no where cites Ecclesiastical Authors, unless such as he supposed to belong to the sacred Canon. And so for Tertullian, who too is frequent in the Testimonies of Heathens, or Hereticks, but scarce ever mentions any Ecclesiastical Wri∣ters, and when he does, it is not to prove or confute any Doctrine by their Authority. And this in the last place is the case of Epiphanius, who makes no mention of a great number of Eccle∣siastical Writers that lived before him, and when he does it in his Book of He∣resies, it is only in an Historical way, either to spare his own pains, or to justifie the truth of his own Relations out of other Histories, but never (as Daillé requires of him) to prove the truth of his Opinion. I mention no more of his Negative men, who make a great shew in the Contents of his Chapter, in that they are alledged al∣together

impertinently to his purpose, because all those Passages which he ima∣gines they were obliged to have quo∣ted, belong not to the ancient Copies of Eusebius, but are taken out of the late Interpolations.

And now comparing the Testimo∣nies on both sides, we may very safely turn any honest man loose to judg of the Authority of these Epistles, and that being once establisht, we can nei∣ther have nor desire a more ample Te∣stimony than they give us of the Pri∣mitive Practice of Episcopal Superio∣rity. The holy Martyr every where founding the Peace and Security of the Church against Schisms and Heresies upon the Bishops supreme Authority, which he, as our Adversaries fancy, magnifies so highly (though not more than the other Orders of the Church in their respective Function) that they think that alone the main objection against the truth of his Epistles. Though in truth, setting aside all Testimonies, the Argument and Spirit of them are no small proof of their genuine Antiqui∣ty. Being composed of two Argu∣ments peculiar to the first Writers of

the Church; a vehement zeal for Unity, and a passionate sense of Immor∣tality. They were possest with a seri∣ous belief of the reality of our Savi∣our's Promises, and therefore they li∣ved in this World purely, in order to the Rewards of the World to come, And how earnestly the Author of these Epistles thirsted after it, no good Christian can read without great plea∣sure, and being affected with some workings of the same Passion. And as for his way of securing, Peace, and Unity in all Churches by obedience to the Bishops, and under them to the Pres∣byters and Deacons, (for his funda∣mental Rule was, that nothing was to be done without the Bishop) he de∣rives it from our Saviour's Commission and Promise to the Apostles and their Successors for ever, when he consti∣tuted them Pastors of his Flock, and promised to be perpetually assistant to them by his Divine Providence in the execution of their Office. And there∣fore he does not refer the Government of the Church to them for the greater Wisdom, greater Learning, or any o∣ther natural Advantages of the men

themselves, but only upon the account of our Saviour's express Institution, who had sent them as his Father had sent him, and had therefore engaged himself to be present with them to the end of the world, so that upon that se∣curity to follow the Bishop was to fol∣low Christ, because he had undertaken to be the Bishops Guide. And this be∣ing the state of the case between Ignati∣us and his Adversaries, their Objections will not reflect upon his discretion but our Saviours Integrity, and when the cause is brought to that, Ignatius is se∣cure, and if any man be pleased to raise any further controversie, it is only be∣tween our Saviour and the Levia∣than. And there I am content to leave it.

The next proof of the Primitive and Apostolical Practice of Episcopacy, that we meet with among the Ancients is in the Apostolical Canons, i. e. a Collection of the Decrees of Synods and Councils be∣tween the time of the Apostles and the Council of Nice; so that they may not im∣properly be stiled the Code of the Canons of the Primitive Church. And now con∣cerning them the case of the Controver∣sie

is much the same with that of Igna∣tius Epistles; for the Testimony that they give in to the Episcopal superiority is so full and plain that it is undeniable. And therefore there is no avoiding them but by impeaching their Antiquity and Authority; and as the state of the con∣troversie is the same, so is the success too; for it has been thoroughly dispu∣ted between the said Monsieur Daillè and a very learned Divine of our own Church, and that with the very same inequality of reason too. I shall not give any large account of the engage∣ment, because the Books are so lately published, and may be so easily perused, and therefore I shall rather refer to the Authors themselves, especially because I am not a little zealous to recommend one of them as an incomparable treasure of Ecclesiastical Antiquity. And there∣fore omitting Daille's beloved Nega∣tive and internal Arguments, which his Adversary has for ever routed with a prodigious force of reason and dexterity of learning, I shall only give an account in short of the main rational point of the Controversie. That is, what an∣tient Testimonies are to be alledged

either for or against their Antiquity. On the one side they are frequently owned and quoted by all the first general Councils, and therefore must have been enacted in the Interval between the Apostles and the Council of Nice. They are cited by many of the most ancient Fathers, as Canons of the first and most early Antiquity. And they are expres∣ly referred to by the most famous Em∣perours in their Ecclesiastical Laws. All which concurrent Testimony any mode∣rate man would think sufficient to give Authority to any Writing, and yet it is all over-ruled by a single Decree of Pope Gelasius supposed to be made Anno Domini 494. in which the Apostolical Canons are reckoned among the Apo∣cryphal Books. But first, is it reasona∣ble to set up the Opinion of one man against many that were more anci∣ent, and so much the more competent witnesses than himself? Secondly, it is uncertain whether any such Decree as is pretended were ever made by Gelasius, in that we never hear any thing of it till at least three hundred years after his time. Thirdly, if there were any such Decree, it is certain that this Passage

concerning the Canons of the Apostles was foisted into it, it not being found in any of the most ancient Copies; and Hincmarus, a Person of singular learn∣ing in his time, that makes mention of this Decree of Gelasius as early as any Writer whatsoever, expresly affirms that there was no mention of the Apo∣stolical Canons in the whole Decree. De his Apostolorum Canonibus penitus ta••uit, sed nec inter Apocrypha eos misit. Where he expresly affirms, that in the Decree these Canons were altogether omitted, and ranged neither with the Orthodox, nor with the Apocryphal Books. This Testimony is given in with as peremptory terms as can be expressed, and therefore Daillé, for no other rea∣son than to serve his cause, quite in∣verts the Proposition, and changes mi∣sit into omisit, that is, turns I into No. But men that can deal thus with their Authors, need never trouble their heads with Testimonies of Antiquity, for after this rate it is in their power to make any Author affirm or deny what they please. But fourthly, suppose Gelasius had made any such Decree, how does that destroy the Antiquity of these

Canons, when he has condemned the Books of Tertullian, Arnobius, Lactan∣tius, and Eusebius for Apocryphal? And yet Tertullian lived three hundred years before the Decree, and therefore why may not the Apostolical Canons be allow∣ed their reputed Antiquity too notwith∣standing that Sentence, which only re∣lates to the Authority his Holiness is pleased to allow them in the Roman Church, and not at all to their Antiqui∣ty, unless perhaps he designed to de∣clare that they were not framed by the Apostles themselves, as he might fancy from their Title, not knowing that whatever was of prime Antiquity in the Church was by the first Writers of it stiled Apostolical, as being supposed to descend from the Tradition of the Apo∣stles themselves. Fifthly, will Monsieur Daillè allow this Decree of Gelasius suf∣ficient to give any Book the Apocry∣phal stamp; If he will, then he must reject many of the best Fathers, and in their stead admit the Acts of St. Sylve∣ster; the Invention of the Cross, and the invention of St. John Baptists head, for whilst the History of Eusebius, together with the other Fathers, is

rejected, such Fables as these are warrant∣ed by that barbarous and Gothish De∣cree. And that is enough, though there were nothing else, to destroy the Autho∣rity of this mans censure, his meer want of Judgment. Now comparing this one pretended Testimony of Gelasius under all the disadvantages that I have repre∣sented, with the express counter-testi∣mony of so many Councils, Fathers, and Emperours, if any man be resolved notwithstanding all to stick to it, I will say no more than this, that his Cause is much more beholden to him than he to his Cause.

And now having given this account of these Apostolical men that conver∣sed with the Apostles themselves, or immediately succeeded them in the Go∣vernment of the Church, if we de∣scend to their Successours from Age to Age, we are there overwhelmed with the croud of Witnesses. But because they have been so often alledged and urged by learned men, I should have wholly waved their citation, had not our Adversaries made use of several shifts and artifices to evade their Au∣thority. And therefore though I shall

not trouble the Reader with their di∣rect Testimonies, yet to shew the vanity of all our Adversaries pretences, I shall endeavour to vindicate the credit of the Ancients against all their Exceptions. And here the first pretence is the ambi∣guity of their Testimony, which is en∣deavoured to be made out by these three things: First, That personal succession might be without such superiority of order. Secondly, That the names of Bishop and Presbyters were common after the distinction between them was introduced. Thirdly, That the Church did not own Episcopacy as a divine In∣stitution, but Ecclesiastical; and those who seem to speak most of it, do mean no more. First then a succession there might be as to a different Degree, and not as to a different Order. Before we distinguished between Order and Po∣wer, now between Order and Degree, and by and by between the Power of Order and the Power of Jurisdiction. But these distinctions are only the tri∣flings of the Schoolmen, whose proper faculty it is to divide every thing till they have reduced it to nothing. For what does the degree of a Church-Officer

signifie but such an order in the Church, and what order is there with∣out a power of Office according to its degree, and therefore it is plain preva∣ricating with the evidence of things to impose these little subtilties upon the sense of Antiquity, they (good men) meant plainly and honestly, and when they give us an account of Apostolical Successions, they were not aware of these scholastick distinctions, and intend∣ed nothing else than a succession in the government of their several Churches. Thus when Irenaeus gives us a Catalogue of twelve Bishops of Rome, Successours to the Apostles in that See, what did he mean but the supreme Governours of that Church, when that was the on∣ly signification of the word Bishop in his time. He never dream'd of their being stript of the Apostolical power, and so only succeeding them in an em∣pty Title, in the meer name or the me∣taphysical notion of Bishops, and they were no more, if they had no more power than the rest of the Clergy. But secondly, This new distinction spoils the former evasion, viz. That the Apostles were superiour in order, not in power

over the LXX. but now a superiority of order is made equivalent to a supe∣riority of power, for that from the time of our Saviours Resurrection is granted them by our Adversaries, though it is denied their Successours. Thus we en∣large, or abate, or evacuate that Com∣mission that God himself has given them at our own meer will and pleasure. If it be convenient for our cause to assert in one place that they were vested with no superiority of Power, they shall be put off with an empty superiority of order separated from power: If in another that Assertion seem not so convenient to our purpose, they shall be presently advanced to an absolute supremacy over the other Pastors of the Church, but then that must last only during their lives, and as for their Successours we are pleased to degrade them from the Apostolical both Order and Authority; and allow them nothing but an empty degree of I know not what; but to say no more of the difference between Order and Degree: As for the distin∣ction between Order and Jurisdiction, though in one place I affirm that the Apostles were a distinct Order from the

other Clergy, without any superiority of Jurisdiction, yet in another, if my cause require it, there shall be but one order in the Christian Clergy, and no difference but what is made by Juris∣diction, and the Bishops themselves shall be equal to Presbyters in order by Divine Right, and only superiour in jurisdiction by Ecclesiastical Constitu∣tion. For so I read, that for our better understanding of this, we must consi∣der a twofold power belonging to Church-Officers, a Power of Order, and a Power of Jurisdiction; for in every Presbyter there are some things insepa∣rably joyned to his Function, and be∣longing to every one in his personal ca∣pacity, both in actu primo, and in actu secundo, both as to the right and power to do it, and the exercise and execution of that power; such are, preaching the Word, visiting the Sick, administring Sacraments, &c. but there are other things which every Presbyter has an aptitude, and a Jus to in actu primo, but the limitation and exercise of that Po∣wer does belong to the Church in com∣mon, and belongs not to any one per∣sonally, but by a further power of

choice or delegation to it, such is the power of visiting Churches, taking care that particular Pastors discharge their duty; such is the power of Ordination and Church-Censures, and making Rules for Decency in the Church. This is that we call the power of Jurisdiction. Now this latter power, though it be∣longs habitually and in actu primo to every Presbyter; yet being about mat∣ters of publick and common concern∣ment, some further Authority in a Church constituted is necessary besides the power of Order; and when this power, either by consent of the Pa∣stors of the Church, or by the ap∣pointment of a Christian Magistrate, or both, is devolved to some particular Persons, though quoad aptitudinem, the power remain in every Presbyter, yet quoad executionem it belongs to those who are so appointed. Whatever truth there is in this, the Assertion is plain, that our Saviour appointed but one order in the Clergy, and that the difference which has since been made by the con∣sent of the Church consists in nothing else but Jurisdiction. And this is very consistent with the former Assertion,

that there was no difference between the Apostles and the LXX. beside di∣stinction of order, when now there is no more by divine appointment than one order in the Church. And yet af∣ter all this their fluttering between Or∣der and Power, Degree and Order, Power of Order and Power of Juris∣diction; all superiority of Order, so much as it is, is so much superiority of Power. Thus to take their own In∣stance of the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 at Athens, the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or the President of the Assembly was so far superiour over his Colleagues in Power as he was in Order: For whatsoever was peculiar to his Of∣fice gave him some more advantage in the Government of the Common∣wealth than they had; for the very power of calling and adjourning As∣semblies, presiding and moderating in them is no small degree of Power in a Republican Government. But seeing the difference between a superiority of Order and Power is thought to be made out best by these parallel Instances of Commonwealths, let us run the parallel with the Apostles and the LXX. for if to be superiour only in Order is to be

President in an Assembly, or Prolocutor in a Convocation, and if this were all the Office peculiar to the Apostles, then when our Saviour appointed seventy Disciples, and twelve Apostles, he made twelve Prolocutors over a Con∣vocation of seventy. Seeing therefore that is too great a number of Speakers for so small an Assembly, it is manifest that when he separated them for a di∣stinct Office, he intended something more by an Apostle than meerly a Chairman in a Presbytery; and what∣ever it is, it is either an higher power than others had, or it is nothing at all. Secondly, This Succession is not so evi∣dent and convinced in all places as it ought to be to demonstrate the thing intended. For it is not enough to shew a List of some Persons in the great Churches of Jerusalem, Antioch, Rome, and Alexandria, but it should be pro∣duced at Philippi, Corinth, and Caesa∣rea, &c. This I perceive to be our Adversaries darling Objection, being the only matter made use of to shift off several heads of Argument: This was the proof of the defect of the Te∣stimony of Antiquity as to places; and

is now here the only evidence of its ambiguity; and by and by will be cal∣led in as the only instance of its Repug∣nancy. But certainly their fondness to it is not grounded upon any great ver∣tue that they see in it, but they are on∣ly forced for want of more material Arguments to lay a mighty stress upon such poor pretences, as in any other dispute they would be a shamed to own. For first, supposing the Succession can∣not be shewn in all Churches, is that any proof against the Succession that can? And suppose I cannot produce a List of Bishops at Philippi, Corinth, and Caesarea, shall I thence conclude against the Succession, though I have very good History for it, at Jerusalem, Anti∣och, Rome, and Alexandria? This is such an Inference as rather shews a mans good will to his Opinion than his Un∣derstanding. But I have already pro∣ved that it is highly reasonable to con∣clude the customs of those Churches that are not known from those that are; and apparently absurd to question the Records of those that are preserved for the uncertainty of those that are not. But secondly, What though we do not

find in all Churches an accurate Cata∣logue of the succession of all Bishops, do we find any Instance in any one an∣cient Church of any other form of Go∣verment? If we can, that were some∣thing to the Argument, but that is not pretended in the Exception. But otherwise because the exact suc∣cession of Persons in any Bishoprick has not been preserved with that care and diligence that it ought or might have been, to conclude that therefore there was no certainty of the Episcopal form of Government, is the same thing as to conclude, that there never was any ancient Monarchy in the world, because in all their Histories there are some flaws, or defects, or disagreements as to the names of Persons in the succession. But we think it enough, that where we find an established Monarchy, though we meet with some intervals of History, in which the Princes names that then reigned are uncertain or forgotten, and meet with no Records that the Go∣vernment was at that time changed into a Common-wealth, to conclude that the Monarchy was all along preserved. And that is the case of Episcopal Government

in the Church, in that in all times and places, where and when Records have been preserved, we find the same Form practised, and therefore ought to con∣clude, that the same was observed in those short intervals of time (if we suppose there were any such) in which they were lost) Though I do not find that the Register of particular Persons is so defective as is pretended, but that in most Churches their very names are accurately enough recorded. Thus first, for the Church of Jerusalem, in which we find a succession of fifteen Bi∣shops before its destruction, attested by the best and most ancient Writers, of the validity of whose Testimony we have no reason to doubt. For it is no Objection that so many Bishops should be crouded into so narrow a Room, that many of them could not have had above two years time to rule in the Church, When almost all that time the Jews were in Rebellion against the Ro∣mans, continually provoking them by their Insurrections to the utmost severity both against Jews and Christians, for as yet the Romans understood no difference, nor were they broken into any open

division among themselves, all these Bi∣shops being as formally circumcised as any of the most zealous Retainers to the Jewish Religion. So that it is no more wonder that so many Bishops should succeed in so short a time, than that such an incredible number of Jews should perish by the Sword. But secondly, It is less material to enquire (as Scaliger * 1.9 does) where the Seat of the Bishops of Jerusalem was from the time of the destruction of the City by Titus till the time of Adrian. For what if he had no Palace, was he no Bishop? Or what if we cannot tell where he assembled his Flock, was there no Church? Perhaps it was in a Cockloft at Pella; but be∣cause we cannot tell where it was, was it no where? And therefore to return the Quere, Was there then a Church of Jerusalem? If there was (whether E∣piscopal, Presbyterian, or Indepen∣dent, or all together) I would fain know where it was; and if you cannot tell me, conclude, as you do, that there was no Church at all. And so he has answered his own little Objection him∣self, that the Church follows the Bi∣shop, and is not confined to stone Walls,

and therefore that the Church of Je∣rusalem was then at Pella, though there was no such place as Jerusalem, as at this day the Patriarchal Seat of An∣tioch, is at Meredin in Mesopotamia, and that of Alexandria at Grand Cairo. As for the succession at Antioch, I find not the least ground to doubt of its truth, for I think it no objection, that though it be clear, it is not certain whether they succeeded St. Peter or St. Paul; for be it either, or both, or neither, it is all one so it be any; that is enough, that there was a succession though we did not know the particular Founder of the Church in whom it began; and who∣ever of the Apostles it was, whether one or more, they had Apostolical Au∣thority over it, and whoever succeed∣ed them, succeeded in the same form of Government. As for the Church of Rome, all the difficulty is about the suc∣cession of Linus and Clemens, being both reckoned in the first place, but the conjecture is very probable that Cle∣mens succeeded St. Peter in the Church of the Jews, as Linus did St. Paul in the Church of the Gentiles, and that surviving both Linus, and Cletus that

succeeded him till the union of the two Churches, he governed both. For whatever ground there is for the con∣jecture that there were separate Churches of Christian Jews and Gen∣tiles in other Cities, there is a very pro∣bable foundation for it at Rome in the Apostolical History, Acts xxviii. where St. Paul expresly declares to the Jews that from thenceforth he would preach only to the Gentiles, and so in all pro∣bability gathered a distinct Church of them by themselves. And therefore it is observable, that in that famous passage of Irenaeus, in which he derives the succes∣sion of the Bishops of Rome from St. Pe∣ter and Paul down to Eleutherius his Cotemporary, that he speaks not of the Church of Rome in the single number, but Ecclesiae Petro & Paulo Romae fun∣datae & canstitutae, as if they had been several Churches. And to this purpose it is a pretty observation of Mr. Thorn∣dike that St. Pauls being buried in the * 1.10 Way to Ostia, and St. Peters in the Va∣tican (as we understand by Caius in Eusebius) seems to point them out Heads, the one of the Jewish Christi∣ans, the other of the Gentiles, in that

the Vatican was then the Jury of Rome, and notorious for the Residence of Jews. But though these first Records could not be fully made out, we have no reason to doubt of the History, but rather to suspect some mistake in after∣times, or the omission of some circum∣stance that might, if it had been record∣ed, have removed the difficulty. For it is very hard, that when Irenaeus (to men∣tion no more) gives us a Catalogue of the Bishops of Rome from St. Peter down to the time when himself was at Rome, and who lived not at a greater distance from St. Peter than we do from the first Archbishop in Queen Elizabeths Reign, that we should suspect the whole truth of his Relation, because we can∣not give an account of all the particu∣lar circumstances of the Succession. This I say is too hard dealing with any anci∣ent Records, though the conclusion is much harder, that because we have no certainty of all the Persons that suc∣ceeded in Church-Government, and of the particular manner of their Successi∣on, that therefore we have no certain∣ty of the particular Form of it, not∣withstanding we have no Record of any

form but one. As for the Church of Alex∣andria, there the Succession is acknow∣ledged to be clearest (as indeed it is un∣questionable) only it is imputed to the choice of Presbyters; but of that in its proper place; the evidence of personal Succession is enough, and all that is pertinent to our present debate. And the succession of Ephesus might have been as unquestionable, but that one Leontius pleads at the Council of Cal∣cedon, that all the Bishops thereof, to the number of twenty seven, had been ordained in the City it self; but that it seems, proving a false Allegation, he has given us no reason to believe him in his Tradition. An Inference much like this; that supposing two persons to contend for their rights, and the Advo∣cate of one of them shall in his plea alledge a false prescription, his Adver∣sary should thence conclude upon him, that he had no reason to believe that there was any such Person in the world as his Client. For this is the case, The matter of the dispute was where the Bishops of Ephesus ought to be or∣dained according to the Canons? At Ephesus, says Leontius, by constant Pre∣scription.

No, says the Council, for many of them have been ordained at Constanti∣nople. Now is it not awkerd to infer from thence, that the Council denies the cer∣tainty of the Succession it self; when as the debate was grounded upon the sup∣position of it? It being granted on both sidesas a thing undoubted, that there was a succession of Bishops at Ephesus; and the Controversie was only about the accustomed place of their Consecration. Now from the variety of that to con∣clude, that it is uncertain whether there were any such thing as Bishops at all, is such a forced Argument as proves no∣thing but that we have a very great mind to our Conclusion. I might proceed to the Succession in other Churches, of which we have certain Records, but I will not engage my self in too many particular Historical Disputes where I know it is easie, if men will not be in∣genuous, to perplex any matter with little critical scruples and difficulties; and therefore I will cast the whole of this Controversie upon this one Princi∣ple: That though the Records of the Church were as defective as is pre∣tended, yet seeing all that are preser∣ved

make only for Episcopacy, and that our Adversaries are notable to trace out one against it, that is evidence more than enough of its universal practice; and if that will not serve the turn, it is to no purpose to trouble our selves on either side with any proof that may be had from the Testimony of Anti∣quity; for if upon that account we have not any, it is not possible either for them or us to have it in this or any other Con∣troversie whatsoever.

Thirdly, The Succession so much pleaded for by the Writers of the Pri∣mitive Church was not a Successi∣on of Persons in Apostolical Power, but a Succession in Apostolical Do∣ctrine. Whether any Persons succeed∣ed in Apostolical Power has been al∣ready considered, and therefore all that is here requisite to be enquired into, is, by what Persons the Apostolical Do∣ctrine was conveyed. And if it be pleaded by the Writers of the Church to have been done by Bishops as the Apostles Successours, that proves the Succession of Persons as well as Do∣ctrines. But seeing this is to be done, as our Adversaries instruct us, by a

view of the places produced to that purpose, let us view them too. The first is that of Irenaeus, Quoniam valdè longum est in hoc tali volumine omnium Ecclesiarum enumerare successiones, maxi∣mae & antiquissimae, & omnibus cognitae à gloriosissimis duobus Apostolis Petro & Paulo Romae fundatae & constitutae Ec∣clesiae, eam quam habet ab Apostolis tradi∣tionem, & annunciatam hominibus fi∣dem, per successiones Episcoporum perve∣nientes usque ad nos, indicantes, confun∣dimus omnes eos, &c. Where we see, that whatever the Argument of Irenaeus was, his design was to prove that the succession of the Apostles was convey∣ed down by the hands of the Bishops that were Successours to them in their several Sees. So that it is evident, that he designed to prove the Succession of the Doctrine by the Succession of the Doctors; and therefore if he does not prove it, he does more; he supposes it, and by the undoubted evidence of it, demonstrates the truth of the Doctrine, in that those Persons who were appoin∣ted by the Apostles to oversee and go∣vern the Churches have conveyed the Apostles Doctrine down to us by their

Successors. And what fuller Testimony can there be of a Personal Succession of Bishops to the Apostles? And yet Ire∣naeus does more than this, he derives the Personal Succession from the Apostles down to his own time, and they all suc∣ceeded the Apostles as they succeeded one another; and as Linus was their Successour, so was Eleutherius, who sate at the same time that Irenaeus wrote; and therefore if Linus was Successour to the Apostles, so was Eleutherius, and if Eleutherius was Bishop of Rome, so was Linus: So that it was one and the same thing to succeed in the Bishoprick and the Apostolical Authority. And to the same purpose is the passage of Tertullian, Edant origines Ecclesiarum suarum, evolvant ordinem Episcoporum suorum, ita per successiones ab initio de∣currentem, ut primus ille Episcopus ali∣quem ex Apostolis aut apostolicis viris ha∣buerit Authorem & Antecessorem. Hoc modo Ecclesiae Apostolicae census suos de∣ferunt; sicut Smyrnaeorum Ecclesia ha∣bens Polycarpum à Joanne conlocatum re∣fert, sicut Romanorum Clementem à Pe∣tro ordinatum edit, proinde utique & ••aeterae exhibent, quos ab Apostolis in

Episcopatum constitutos Apostolici seminis traduces habeant. The whole design of which passage is to prescribe against the Hereticks by the Authority of the Apostolical Successours, and that be∣ing expresly appropriated to single Bi∣shops, I hope I need not now dispute whether they succeeded them only in Degree, and not Order; or in Order only, and not Jurisdiction; all that I desire from this Testimony is, that they succeeded them in their several Churches (for though he instances only in the Church of Rome, yet he declares himself able and ready to give the same account of all other Churches) and by vertue of that warranted the truth of their Doctrine. Than which I must confess I cannot understand what more can be desired to justifie their Succession in the Apostolical Authority. Especi∣ally from Tertullian, who was neither Thomist nor Scotist, and so was utterly unacquainted with those fine distincti∣ons of Degree, Order, and Jurisdicti∣on, but spoke like a plain and a blunt African, when he called the Bishops in their several Diocesses the Apostles Suc∣cessours. And so all the Writers of the

same Age understood by a Bishop, one superiour to subject Presbyters; for whatever was the signification of the word in the Apostles time, it was now determined to this Order, and so used in vulgar speech; so that when we meet with it in their Writings, we must understand it in the common sense. And therefore by a Bishop we must mean the same thing from the Apostles downward, and a Bishop in their time was superiour to Presbyters, and the Apostles are granted to have been su∣periour to the other Pastors of the Church, so that the Succession from first to last continued in superiority of Ju∣risdiction. And now when this Suc∣cession is so expresly derived down by single Persons, and when the truth of the Apostolical Doctrine is vouched by the certainty of this Succession, it is a very cold answer to tell us, that the Fa∣thers talk only of a succession of Do∣ctrines, and not of Persons.

Fourthly, This Personal Succession so much spoken of, is sometimes attri∣buted to Presbyters, even after the di∣stinction came in use between Bishops and them. I pray by whom? Why, by

Irenaeus. But does Irenaeus, when he speaks of the Bishops and Presbyters of his own time, confound their names and offices, or any other Author of the same Age? Nay, do they not carefully distinguish them from each other; though when they speak of things as done in the Apostles times, they may speak in the language of those times. The names therefore of Bishop and Presbyter being not then distinguished, it was but proper for them to express things, as they were then expressed. So that though Irenaeus never would stile a Bishop of his own time by the name of Presbyter, but ever carefully di∣stinguished the two Orders; yet when he speaks of the Bishops of the first time, it is neither wonder nor impro∣priety, if he call them Presbyters; for I will yield so far to our Adversa∣ries, that they were so called till the death of the Apostles; and then suc∣ceeding into their Power, it was but fit that they should be distinguished by some proper name from the inferiour Clergy. And there lies the root of all our Adversaries pretences, that they will have the Office of a Bishop to have

been born at the same time with the distinction of the Name. Which if we will not grant them (as without a ma∣nifest affront to the Apostles we can∣not) their whole Cause sinks to no∣thing. For that is the only proof al∣ledged in behalf of the sententia Hie∣ronymi, that the Offices were not di∣stinguisht before the names. But of that in its due place already, at present I chal∣lenge them to produce any one Author, that treating of things after the sepa∣ration of the words was made, ever calls a Bishop a Presbyter, or a Presby∣ter a Bishop. And in that I am very much their friend, for if they can, it utterly overthrows their main Argu∣ment, that Bishops and Presbyters were the same in the Apostles times from the promiscuous use of their names, in that we find them promiscuously used after the distinction. But that by the word Presbyteri, Irenaeus does not mean a sim∣ple Presbyter, is plain from the words themselves, in which he prescribes against the novelties of the Hereticks by the undoubted antiquity of the Churches Tradition, which he says was conveyed by the Apostles themselves

to the Ancients who succeeded them in their Episcopacy; so that by his Pres∣byteri he means, as he explains himself, such of the Ancients, qui Episcopatus successionem habent ab Apostolis, i. e. the Ancient Bishops. This is all that I meet with material upon this Head, for when they go about to prove by the Autho∣rity of Ignatius himself that Episcopacy is not a Divine, but an Ecclesiastical Con∣stitution, they are to be given up for pleasant men that will attempt any Pa∣radox in pursuit of the Cause. And it exceeds even the rashness of Blondel himself, who that (as he speaks) his St. Je∣rom might not stand alone, like a Spar∣row upon the house top, has, after his rate of inferring, fetched in all the Fa∣thers to bear him company, except only Ignatius, whom it seems he de∣spaired of making ever to chirp pro sententiâ Hieronymi; but now it seems at last, that the holy Martyr himself might not be made the solitary Sparrow, by being deserted by all the Fathers, he is brought over to the Party, but with such manifest force to himself as plain∣ly shews him to be no Volunteer in the Cause. Thus when he commends the

Deacon Sotion for being subject to the Bishop ut gratiae Dei, and to the Pres∣bytery ut legi Jesu Christi. By the Law of Jesus Christ we are taught to un∣derstand divine Institution, but by the grace of God only humane Prudence; though that too was directed to it by the special favour or Providence of God as the only means of preserving peace and unity in the Church. Be it so, the grace of God no doubt is as firm a ground of Divine Institution as the Law of Christ; so that if Episco∣pacy was established by Gods special favour, we are as well content with it as if it had come by the Grace of Christ. Neither does this Interpre∣tation derogate any thing from the Episcopal Order, but very much from our blessed Saviours Wisdom, viz. that when he had established Presbyteries in his Church for the Government of it, that establishment was found so in∣effectual for its end, that Almighty God was afterward constrained, for preventing of Schisms, and preserving of Unity in the Church, in a special manner to inspire the Governours of it in after-ages to set up the Form of

Episcopal Government. And yet that was no less disparagement to himself than his Son; for seeing what our Saviour did in the establishment of his Church, he did by the Counsel of his Father; if its Institution proved defective for its end, it was an equal over-sight of both; and the After-game of Episco∣pacy was only to supply a defect that they did not fore-see, but were taught by Experience. A very honourable representation this of the Wisdom of the Divine Providence. However, take it which way we will, we cannot desire a plainer acknowledgment of Divine Institution, for so it come from God, it matters not which way he was pleased to convey it to us. And now have we not reason to wonder, when we see men attempt to bring this holy Martyr off with such slights so expresly against his own declared Opinion, who every where grounds his Exhortation of Obedience to the Bishop upon the command of God, and adds even in the words following the forecited passage; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. And yet not to him, but to the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ Christ, who is the Bishop of us all, and therefore for the honour of him that requires it, it is our boun∣den duty to be obedient without hypo∣crisie. What can be plainer than that the power of the Bishop stands whol∣ly upon the command of God? So again in the Epistle to the Ephesians, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Let us take care not to oppose the Bishop as we would be obedient to God, and if any man observe the silence of his Bishop, let him reverence him so much the more: For every one that the Master of the Family puts into the Stewardship we ought to receive him as the Master himself, and therefore it is manifest that we ought to reverence the Bishop as we would our Lord. And therefore it is a great over-sight to affirm, that there is not one Testimony

in all Ignatius Epistles that proves the least semblance of an Institution of Christ for Episcopacy, when in every Epistle he so plainly enforces his Ex∣hortation of obedience to the Bishop purely by vertue of the command of Christ. And thus have I cleared the Records of the Church from the de∣fect of ambiguity grounded upon those four pretences, That the Succession might be only of a different degree; That it is not clear and convincing in all places; That where it is clearest, it it meant of a succession of Doctrine, and not of Persons; And lastly, That if it were of Persons, yet Presbyters are said to succeed the Apostles as well as Bishops. By which last we have already cleared the next thing objected, to shew the ambiguity of the Testimony of Antiquity, which was the promiscuous use of the names, Bishop and Presbyter, after the distinction be∣tween their Office was brought in by the Church; which I have already shewn to be false, and that if it were true, it utterly destroys their Argument of the Identity of a Bishop and a Presbyter in the Apostles times, from

the promiscuous use of the names. But because new Instances are here brought to prove the same thing, we must fol∣low. And first, as for the passages ci∣ted out of Clemens Romanus, he is con∣fessed to have written before the di∣stinction of the names, and therefore is here cited to no purpose. But the great and only Testimony is that of the Gal∣lican Church, who in their Epistle to Eleutherius Bishop of Rome, give Ire∣naeus the title of Presbyter, though he had been nine years Bishop of Lyons. And this looks very big, if it were true, but it is a meer Chronological Blunder of Blondel against the clearest * 1.11 Testimony of all Antiquity. For first the Martyrs of Lyons in their Epistle to the Churches of Asia and Phrygia, speak∣ing of their Bishop Pothinus, they give give him that Title; but in this Epistle to Eleutherius they (or as Blondel will have it, the Church of Lyons) give Irenaeus only the Title of Presbyter, and both Eusebius and St. Jerom affirm, that he was no more, at the writing of it. To all which Blondel objects, that they both place the Martyrdom of Pothinus and his Frenchmen immediately after

that of Polycarp and the Asiaticks, which was in the seventh year of Marcus Au∣relius, and therefore the other was about the same time; so that when Ire∣naeus went to Rome with the Letter to Eleutherius, which was in the seven∣teenth year of that Emperour, he had been so long Bishop. But to this it is easily answered, that though the Rela∣tion of these two Martyrdoms imme∣diately follow one another in Eusebius his Cronicon, and St. Jeroms Translati∣on, yet it does not at all follow that they immediately followed in time. Because these two Martyrdoms are all that they mention concerning the fourth Persecution, which lasted the greatest part of the Reign of Marcus Aurelius; so that though one were in the seventh, the other might be in the seventeenth of that Emperour, and therefore we ought to follow Eusebius his more ac∣curate account in his History, who there expresly places it in the seven∣teenth year, and withal affirms, that Irenaeus was then only Presbyter, rather than from so weak a surmise from the * 1.12 nearness of the Stories in his Chronicon to bring confusion upon the whole

History, especially when it so fairly clears it self, in that this Letter was di∣rected to Eleutherius, who succeeded in the Church of Rome in the sixteenth year of Marcus Aurelius; and in the same year that he came to that See, the Gallican Persecution began, and there∣fore it was impossible that Irenaeus could be advanced to the Bishoprick before that time; so that it is like the rest of Blondels stretches to infer from a remote guess that the Persecution was in the seventh year, when it is evident from the clearest Story, that it was not till the sixteenth or seventeeth: And now this Chronological mistake being re∣moved, this Testimony is clearly eva∣cuated, and so this business is wholly ended.

The last thing alledged to prove the Ambiguity of the Testimony of the Ancients, is, that the Church did not own Episcopacy as a Divine Institution, but Ecclesiastical. But of this Argument I shall choose to discourse in the last place in answer to the sententiae Hieronymi, because it is the only positive Argument that they produce in their own behalf. And for

that reason I refer it to the last place, that when I have made it appear that they have nothing material to except against what they oppose, I may then shew that they have as little to confirm what they assert, and both together will prove more than enough to put an end to this controversie. As for the other two things that remain to shew the incompetency of the Testimony of Antiquity, viz. its Par∣tiality and Repugnancy, little or no an∣swer will serve their turn. For, as for the Partiality, all the proof that is ma∣terial to our Argument, is, that the Fathers judged the practice of the Apo∣stles by that of their own times. And very good reason too, because they conformed the practice of their own times to that of the Apostles. But if our Adversaries would infer, that the Fathers had no other ground of judg∣ing of the Practice of the Apostles but meerly by the prejudice of their own customs, it is only a precarious Asser∣tion, and a direct impeaching them of a more than vulgar folly and ignorance. But the Fathers here glanced at are St. Chrysostom, and the Greek Commen∣tators that follow him. Thus who

can imagine any force in Chrysostoms Argument, that the Presbyters who laid hands on Timothy must needs be Bishops, because none do Ordain in the Church but Bishops, unless he makes this the medium of his Argument, that whatever was the practice of the Church in his days, was so in Apostoli∣cal times. But there is no need of that poor medium to enforce his Argument, the force of it lies in the universal practice of the Church; for it was ne∣ver heard of that meer Presbyters took upon them the Power of Ordination, and therefore the meer exercise of that Power is a manifest proof that those that had it were somewhat more than Presbyters; and even St. Hierom him∣self, who will have them sometime (though when he knows not) to have shared with the Bishop in all other parts and branches of Jurisdiction, ex∣cepts the Power of Ordination, as pe∣culiar to the Episcopal Order. And there lies the force of St. Chrysostoms Argument, in the practice of the Church in all Ages, not in in the cu∣stom of his own. And when he is vin∣dicated, it is not to much purpose to

add any thing of the Greek Commen∣tators, because they all follow him; and though they may sometimes fall short in their reasonings, yet it is manifest that they believed Episcopacy to have been received by the Catholick Tradi∣tion of the Church, and that is all the deposition they are capable to give in this cause. The last thing objected, is the repugnancy of the Testimony, and this is proved from the difference of some accounts concerning the Successi∣on of some Bishops. But this has been objected two or three times already, and as often answered; and therefore at present I shall say no more to it, than only granting the truth of the Premises, to mind the Reader of the weakness of the conclusion, that from the uncer∣tainty of some Persons in the Succession infers an uncertainty of the form of Go∣vernment it self.

And now am I come to our Adver∣saries only positive proof in their own behalf, that is, the Authority of St. Je∣rom; for though they pretend to one or two Authors more, yet still at the last push St. Hierom is the only man. And the sum of all that is pretended

from him is this, That though the Apo∣stles exercised a superiority over the other Pastors of the Church during their own lives, yet immediately upon their decease, having, it seems, provi∣ded no Successours in that Power that themselves enjoyed, the Church was every where governed by the whole Body or Common-Council of Presby∣ters; but this Form of Government be∣ing quickly found very apt to breed Schisms and Divisions, it was, for the better prevention of them, agreed up∣on all the world over, to chuse one Pres∣byter out of the rest, and settle a Su∣premacy of Power upon him for the more effectual Government of the Church. Antequam diaboli instinctu stu∣dia in religione fierent, & diceretur in populis, Ego sum Pauli, Ego Apollo, Ego autem Cephae, communi Presbyterorum con∣silio Ecclesiae gubernabantur. Postquam verò unusquisque eos quos baptisaverat suos putabat esse, non Christi, in toto Orbe de∣cretum est ut unus de Presbyteris electus superponeretur caeteris; ad quem omnis Ecclesiae cura pertineret, ut schismatum semina tollerentur. From whence it is inferred, that though this Form of

Government hapned to be set up in the after-ages of the Church, yet it was not upon the account of any Divine Right or Apostolical Constitution, but purely upon prudential motives, and by the Churches discretion, that might have instituted either that, or any other al∣terable Form, as it judged most tending to its own peace and settlement. Be∣fore I come to answer the whole Argu∣ment, I cannot but observe what disin∣genuous advantage these men make of the hasty expressions of that good Fa∣ther; let him in the heat and eagerness of dispute but drop an inconsiderate word that may reflect upon the Re∣cords, or the Reputation of the anci∣ent Church, it immediately serves to justifie all their Innovations. And thus I remember Monsieur Daillé, in his shallow Book, of the Use of the Fa∣thers, frequently makes good (as he thinks) his charge against them all only by impleading St. Hierom; but though he is made use of to serve them at all turns, yet in this Argument they de∣volve the whole credit of all the an∣cient Church upon his single Autho∣rity. And is it not very strange, that

two or three hasty passages of this sin∣gle Father, not only against the con∣current Testimony of all the ancient Church, but against his own express Opinion, should be seized upon with so much zeal and greediness to give defi∣ance to all the practice of Antiquity? That is bold enough, but it is much more so, to force all the rest of the Fa∣thers against their own Consciences and Declarations to subscribe to his Opinion, as Blondel has done, who having first placed St. Jerom in the front, and flourished all his sayings with large Commentaries, ranges all the rest of the Fathers under his Co∣lours, excepting only Ignatius (though since he too has had the honour to be admitted into the service) but he has drawn them into the Party by such a forced and presumptuous way of ar∣guing, that I know not a greater In∣stance of the power of Prejudice in a learned man. I once thought to have taken him particularly to task, but his trifling is so grosly palpable, that there needs no more to expose it to any mans contempt, than that he can endure the Penance of reading him over. And

how was it possible for any man to discourse after a wiser rate, that under∣takes to prove, that Clemens Alexan∣drinus, Origen, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Epi∣phanius, Eusebius, Chrysostom, Theodo∣ret, Theophylact were Presbyterians. It is just such another design, as to go about to prove that Calvin, Beza, Blondel, Salmasius, Daillé, and all the other Calvinian Fathers have been zea∣lous Assertors of Episcopacy. And yet this task too some men have un∣dertaken, and I suppose, will make good by the same Topicks, and doubt not but they will both gain belief toge∣ther. Now in answer to the great Autho∣rity of St. Jerom, there are many things alledged and insisted upon by learned men; some plead, that it is contrary to his own express and declared Opinion, and therefore is not to be taken for his setled and deliberate sense of the thing, but only for an hasty and over-lavish expression. Others endeavour to ex∣pound him to a good sense, consistent with himself, and the rest of the Fa∣thers, viz. that writing against some proud Deacons, that would set them∣selves above Presbyters, he tells them,

that it was much the same insolence as if they should go about to prefer them∣selves above the Bishop, in that the distance was much the same, they alone being reckoned in the Priesthood with the Bishop, whereas the Deacons had no higher Office in the Church than to serve Tables and poor Widows. So that the difference was the same as in the Levitical Priesthood, the Bishop and the Presbyters being as Aaron and his Sons, who alone were accounted into the Priestly Office, whereas the Deacons had only the Office of Levites, that were no better than Servants to the Priests. And though Presbyters at that time exercised no Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction in the Church, yet they were formerly joyned with the Bishop himself in the Government of it, and shared in all acts of Power and Disci∣pline, excepting only Ordination. And for this reason, because they were placed so near to the highest Order, that they were capable by vertue of their own Order to exercise almost all the Offices of that, it was not to be endured that such inferiour Ministers, as the Deacons were, should prefer

themselves above them. Quis patia∣tur ut mensarum & viduarum minister supra eos se tumidus efferat, ad quorum preces Christi Corpus sanguisque confici∣tur. Though this probably was all the design of St. Jerom, yet because he seems to have said more than he de∣signed, I shall not contend about his meaning, but shall give my Adversaries the whole advantage of his Authority, and let them make the best of it. Nei∣ther shall I go about to overthrow it by the contrary Testimony of the Anci∣ents; for though that were easily done, the cause does not require it; but granting the Authority of St. Jeroms Opinion, and that it was never contra∣dicted by any ancient Writer, I will demonstrate the falshood of the Opi∣nion it self from its own absurdity. And therefore in answer to it, I will at present only return these few brief Considerations, each whereof will be enough to satisfie men, if they will be reasonable, and altogether more than enough to silence them, if they will not.

The first ill consequence then of this Opinion is only this, that it charges

our Saviour and his Apostles of not making sufficient provision for the lasting peace and settlement of the Church; so that had not After-ages supplied their defects in such things as were absolutely necessary to the Go∣vernment of it, there had been no re∣medy for curing or avoiding eternal schisms and divisions; for according to this account of the Original of the Episcopal superiority, all the world were by sad experience convinced of its great necessity for the prevention of factions and confusions. Now, what a dishonourable reflection is this upon the Wisdom of our Saviour and his Apostles, to institute a Society of men in the World without providing a com∣petent Government to secure its con∣tinuance in peace and unity?

But then secondly, whilst this Con∣ceit explodes the claim founded upon Divine Right, it is forced to grant a necessity founded upon natural Rea∣son; so that acccording to it Episco∣pal Government is made necessary by vertue of all those Laws of God and of Nature that provide for the Churches peace, and the preservation of Society.

For if this were the ground of that universal agreement in the Institution of Bishops that St. Jerom speaks of in his toto Orbe decretum est, viz. ut schis∣matum semina tollerentur; and if there were no remedy for the prevention of this evil whilst the Government of the Church was administred by the whole Body of the Presbyters, the conse∣quence is unavoidable; that though our Saviour, or at least his Apostles, had no more discretion that to leave all Church-Officers in an equality of Power, yet the light of Nature, and the Laws of Society made it necessary to establish a superiority of one Order above another. Ecclesiae salus in summi sacerdotis dignitate pendet, cui si non exors quaedam & ab omnibus eminens detur potestas, tot in Ecclesiis efficientur schismata quot sacerdotes. The securi∣ty of the Churches peace depends up∣on the preheminence of the Bishops power, which were it not supreme and paramount in reference to the other Clergy, we should quickly have as many Schisms as Priests, says St. Je∣rom. Setting aside the Authority of the man, the reason and experience of

the Argument it self is unanswerable. For in such a vast body of men as the Clergy, it is obvious to every mans un∣derstanding, that considering the passi∣ons of mankind there could be no possible agreement, and by conse∣quence no Government without a su∣periority of power in some above others. Now this is another pretty handsome reflection upon the wisdom of our Saviour and his Apostles, that they were so shamefully defective in their first settlement of the Church, as shewed them to be so far from being di∣rected by any divine and infallible Spi∣rit, that they fell short of the princi∣ples of common discretion. For though any man of an ordinary understanding might easily discern how impossible it was to avoid Schisms, while the Power of the Church resided in the whole Body of the Clergy, partly by the ban∣dying of the Presbyters one against another, partly by the siding of the People with some against the rest; partly by the too common use of the Power of Ordination in Presbyters, by which they were more able to in∣crease their own Party by ordaining

those who would joyn with them, and by this means perpetuate Schisms in the Church; when, I say, these inconve∣niences were so obvious, what a pro∣digious neglect or weakness must it be to leave the Church through all Ages in such a shattered and tottering con∣dition, insomuch that it must unavoida∣bly have perished, had not some that came after them invented better means to prevent or redress mischiefs than they had left them? For upon this it was, that the graver and wiser sort con∣sidering the abuses following the pro∣miscuous use of this power of Ordina∣tion, and withal, having in their minds the excellent frame of the government of the Church under the Apostles and their Deputies, for preventing future Schisms and Divisions among them∣selves, unanimously agreed to chuse one out of their number, who was best qualified for so great a trust, and to devolve the exercise of the power of Ordination and Jurisdiction to him; so that it seems we are more obliged to those wiser and graver sort, than to the Apostles for their care in preventing Schisms and Divisions through all Ages of the Church.

But thirdly, this conceit bottoms up∣on no better foundation than a bold and presumptuous conjecture. And there is no dealing with such men as are able to blast the credit of all the most undoubted Records of ancient times with an imaginary and sinister suspicion, for when we have pursued the Succession of Bishops through all Ages of the Church, up to the very times next to the Apostles, it requires somewhat a bold face to tell us, that though this perhaps may be sufficiently evident from the practice of the Pri∣mitive Church, and of the Apostles and their Deputies, yet there was a dark interval between the death of the Apo∣stles and the time of the most ancient Fathers, in which it was abolished, and a new Form of Government set up, but that being found inconvenient, it was thought good, and agreed upon in all Churches, to lay that aside, and restore the old Apostolical superiority. These are very hard conceits, especially when they cannot so much as pretend to give us any the least probable account, where, and when, and by whom this was done. And this is pretty modest

to bear up so confidently against all the current of Antiquity without so much as any pretences of ground or evidence to rely upon. But so it hapned once upon a time in which toto Orbe decretum est, though when that time was, we have no more certain knowledg than we have in what degree of Latitude this totus Orbis lies. Perhaps it was (as Blondel will have it) about the thirty fifth year after the death of St. John, and what if he had been pleased to have said the fifteenth, or sixty fifth year, the guess had been altogether both as learned, and as well grounded. How∣ever, is it not a pleasant thing to tell us boldly, and at all adventure, in toto Orbe decretum est, without so much as telling us when, or where, or attempting to prove the matter of Fact; especially when it is plainly impossible that so universal and remarkable a change should be so unanimously agreed upon and effected, and that upon such great and urgent reasons, without ever being so much as taken notice of. Why may we not as well discredit any Record (chuse what you please) by pretend∣ing there once was, or perhaps might

have been an unknown time, in which all mankind conspired to put an abuse upon all their Posterity? As to say in this case, that there once was such a season, in which all the world agreed, though no body knows when, or where, to make an universal and perpe∣tual alteration of the Form of Church-Government. But to conclude, grant∣ting these men all that they contend for, I would fain know what greater advantage any reasonable man can de∣sire, either to make good the title, or to enhance the excellency of Episcopal Government than St. Hierom and Blon∣del give us, viz. that it was practised by the Apostles, but that upon their de∣cease their Authority devolved upon the Body of Presbyters, which Form of Government was every where found so incompetent and inconveni∣ent, that all Churches in the world were within the space of thirty five years, or thereabouts, convinced of the necessity of retrieving the old Aposto∣lical Inequality, as they ever intended to secure the peace and unity of the Church. This is pretty well, and ad∣vantage enough to satisfie any modest

or reasonable man, and therefore with it I shall rest contented. Only I cannot but remarque the strange partiality of our Adversaries in this cause, not only to set up this absurd suggestion of St. Je∣rom concerning the unknown time of an universal alteration of Church-Go∣vernment, and that not only without the Testimony of any Record (for if there had been any then, it had not been unknown) but against the faith of all History, and the most certain Traditi∣on of the Church; there being nothing more clear in Ecclesiastical Story than the succession of single Persons in the Government of the Church from the Apostles down to his own Age, espe∣cially in the greatest and most eminent Churches, such as Rome, Jerusalem, An∣tiochia, and Alexandria; so that there could have been no such universal change as St. Jerom dreams of, when in these great Churches Episcopacy was established antecedently to any such supposed alteration. But beside this, they oppose the custom of one particu∣lar Church, and that attested only by one Author, to the known practice, not only of all other Churches, but of

that particular Church it self. Thus because the same St. Jerom says, with the same hast and inconsideration, that there was a custom in the Church of Alexandria, from St. Mark down to Heraclas and Dionysius, for the Presby∣ters of that Church, in the vacancy of the See, to chuse one out of their own number, and from thence-forward call him their Bishop, in the same manner as when an Army makes their own Ge∣neral, or the Deacons may chuse one out of themselves, and constitute him their Arch-deacon. Now, I say, sup∣posing this Story to be true, is it not very severe by the singular practice of one Church to overthrow the Consti∣tution of all other Churches? For what if at Alexandria they had a pe∣culiar, or a corrupt custom, does that impair or destroy the Catholick pra∣ctice of the Christian Church? It is possible not only for one particular Church to deviate in some circum∣stances from their Primitive Insti∣tution, but that is no Argument against a certain right. Yes, but, say they, this custom was derived from St. Mark himself. But that would re∣quire

some better proof than the bare Assertion of St. Jerom; For it is possible there might have been a preposterous practice in after-times, which he, to give the more Authority to it, might in his lavish heat ascribe to the Founder of it. But granting the truth of the whole Story, what was this custom? Was it for Presbyters to ordain their Bishop? St. Jerom seems willing to say so, but dares not, and therefore ex∣presses himself in odd ambiguous and general terms, Unum ex se electum in excelsiori gradu collocatum Episcopum no∣minabant; which signifies nothing cer∣tain; but that he intends not Ordinati∣on is evident by the words that imme∣diately follow: Quid enim facit exceptâ ordinatione Episcopus quod Presbyter non faciat? Which words, upon whatsoever account they are added, come in here very impertinently, if he had by the Story spoke of Ordination. At least out of these general words nothing more can be collected, than their right or custom of electing their own Bishop, as was the custom of Cathedral Churches afterwards. Nay, that too is more than is true, or can be proved,

for St. Jerom does not say, that the Bishop was chosen by the Presbyters, but out of the Presbyters, so that he does not give them so much as the right of Election, but only appropriates to them the capacity of being elected, and that was all the peculiar priviledge of the Presbyters of that Church, that they alone were qualified to succeed in the See, and if any one will from hence infer, as Mr. Selden is pleased to do, * 1.13 their power not only of Election, but Ordination, he may thank himself, and not St. Jerom for his conclusion. For there is not any the least ground for the inference beside the learned Gentle∣mans resolution to have it so; and therefore when he gives us an account of several both Divines and Lawyers, that understand no more by this passage than meerly capitular Election, he con∣futes them with no other argument than only by saying positively that they are ipst Hieronymo adversissimi: But alass, wise men will not quit their own Opini∣ons, only to submit to the confidence of other mens Assertions, and there∣fore he ought either to have proved more, or to have said nothing. Nay, so

far were they from having any power of Ordination that they had not that of Election, when it is so very well known that the Patriarch of Alexandria was of old time chosen, not by the Presbyters, but by the People; so that to ascribe their Election to the Presby∣ters is plainly to contradict the known custom of that Church. But be that as it will too; it is very strange, as Mr. Sel∣den * 1.14 himself observes, that there are not to be found the least footsteps of this Alexandrian custom in any legitimate ancient Author but only St. Jerom. For if there had been any such custom in this Church, of which we have as good and as many Records as of any other Church in the world, it is scarce credi∣ble but that upon some occasion or other some Writer should have taken notice of it, and therefore so universal a silence cannot but bring a very great suspicion upon the truth of St. Jeroms relation; at least it is very unreasona∣ble upon the single report of one hasty man concerning the peculiar custom of one Church, to renounce (as our Ad∣versaries do) the known practice of all the Churches in the world beside.

But to avoid this heavy Objection of singularity, our learned Adversary has taken vast pains to find out a second Witness, and then two Witnesses, we know, according to our Law can prove any thing, and at length he has disco∣vered an Arabian Author, and with more than ordinary joy and transport immediately publishes the particular Story by it self, with large and learned Notes upon it; but not content with that, he procures the translation of the whole Book, and is so satisfied with it, that though it were done by another hand, yet he adorns the Frontispiece with his own Picture. Now certainly one would take this valued piece to have been a work of prime Antiquity, and undoubted Authority. But as for its Antiquity, the Author of it lived no higher than the tenth Century, and that is so distant from the Primitive Age, that he had not been a more in∣competent Witness, if he had lived in our own. As for his Authority, it is manifest that he was a very careless and injudicious Writer, his whole Book be∣ing every where stuft with childish fa∣bles and absurdities, and particularly

this Paragraph having as many falshoods in it almost as words. For whereas St. Jerom continues this custom only to Heraclas and Dionysius, he continues it to Alexander, the immediate Prede∣cessour of St. Athanasius, which is above an hundred years difference; and beside that, if such a notable change had been first made in the preferment of Athanasius, we could not but have had some notice taken of it in a Per∣son whose life and story is so well known; so that Eutychius could not have begun this new custom more un∣happily at any one Bishop that ever sate in that See than at St. Athanasius, the proofs of whose Election by the People were debated and passed in ge∣neral Council. Again in the same Story he tells us, that there were no Bishops in all Aegypt beside the Patriarch of Alexandria untill the time of Demetri∣us, which is most grosly and notoriously false. I might add many more proofs of ignorance, that are collected by the learned Doctors, Hammond and Pear∣son, * 1.15 but I shall instance only in one that they have omited, viz. that there were no less than 2048 Bishops present at

the Council of Nice. And yet from this gross mistake Mr. Selden is resolved to bring him off, though he confesses there are not so many Bishops in the Chri∣stian world, for, says he, Diocesses were * 1.16 not then divided as now they are, but before the conversion of the Roman Empire, they were of a much less ex∣tent than they were afterwards, when they were modled in conformity to the Civil Government. Whether the Alle∣gation be true or not, I need not now enquire; for though it be true, it is to no purpose; for what if it is possible that there might then have been so many Bi∣shops in the world, when it is certain there were not so many at the Council of Nice, in that (as he confesses in the same place) all the Writers that either lived in, or near the same time, and some of the Council it self give in a much smaller number, and therefore it it is a very odd attempt, to bring him off from so gross a mistake against such pregnant Evidence of what was done only by the possibility of what might have been done. We will grant this lear∣ned Gentleman that there might have been ten thousand Bishops there, if

he please, whilst we are secure that there were not many more than three hun∣dred; and therefore when his Author, with some other of his Arabian Friends, raise the number to above two thou∣sand, it is a manifest instance of Orien∣tal Ignorance. But waving all other Exceptions, his Novelty is an unanswe∣rable Objection, though Mr. Selden, to magnifie his Author, is pleased to stile him the Egyptian Bede, but if Bede had betrayed as much Barbarity as this Au∣thor has done, he would have justly de∣served the Title of the English Eutychi∣us. For it is evident that this man scraped together his Annals, not out of any certain Records, but out of a va∣riety of Authors without judgment, still adding to them the customs and fashions of his own age; and hence it comes to pass that he so frequently contradicts himself in the same Story, because whilst one Author tells it one way, and ano∣ther another way, he follows both. But still, I say, setting aside his Barba∣rity, I would have excepted against Bede himself as a competent Witness of any matter of fact that was transacted at the same distance from his Age, as

this was from the time of Eutychius, un∣less he had confirmed the truth of his Relation by some ancient Testimony, and then it is not Bede, but his Author, that I rely upon, and therefore unless Mr. Selden could have vouched the addition of Eutychius to St. Jerom con∣cerning the Presbyters Ordination by imposition of hands and benediction, he might have spent his pains as useful∣ly, if he had wrote Commentaries up∣on some of the old Welch Antiquaries, who tell us what their Ancestors were doing from year to year many thousand years before the coming of the Ro∣mans. And thus we see in short into what wonderful evidence the whole opposition of Episcopacy is at last resolved, a vain imagination from Nicephorus Stichometria opposed to the most ancient Fathers concerning the Ignatian Epistles; a supposed Decree of Pope Gelasius opposed both to the most ancient Fathers, Councils, and Histo∣rians concerning the Apostolical Ca∣nons; an apparently false Assertion of St. Jerom, opposed to all the Writers of the Primitive Church concerning the Original of Episcopacy; lastly, a

barbarous tale of a modern Arabian concerning the Ordination of the Bi∣shop of Alexandria by Presby∣ters.

And now, if we lay all the Premises together, it will I hope amount to a competent demonstration of the matter in debate. For if our blessed Saviour first founded the Government of his Church in a real imparity of Church-Officers; if the holy Apostles, during all their time, conformed their practice to his Institution; and if the Primitive Church every where, as far as their Records are preserved, followed their prescription; if no credible account can be given of the Original of Bi∣shops, unless we derive their Succession from the Apostolical Age; if their In∣stitution be (as it is confessed to be) necessary to the peace and unity of the Church; if there be nothing to make it suspected for being meerly of humane Appointment, but such bold, such groundless, and such disingenuous sur∣mises, as may be as well objected against all or any the best Records of Antiquity in the World: If, I say, all this be true, I hope it will be no

presumption to add, that it is a sufficient not only defence, but proof of the Epis∣copal superiority against all Exceptions that are close or pertinent in Blondel, Walo Messalinus, Daillé, or any other Authors that are worth naming or reading. For as for the little People among ourselves, that have for so many years waged so fierce and implacable a War against Prelatry (as they call it) they are so invincibly ignorant, that it is utter∣ly needless to confute, and impossible to convince them: And how little they were all able to perform, is notorious from the great Smectymnuan Mouse, that was brought forth by the clubbed la∣bour of so many of their greatest mountains. And therefore wholly neglecting them, and all their poor En∣deavours, I have confined my self to the discourses of men of sense and learning, i. e. no Smectymnuans, and have di∣stinctly considered, and I hope confu∣ted all their material pretences against the Episcopal superiority in the Pre∣mises. But as for Grammatical Criti∣cisms, and Historical Digressions, they concern not us, because they concern not our Enquiry. And if learned men

would but come up roundly, and keep ingenuously to the main point of the Controversie, they must rub their fore∣heads pretty hard to out-face the evi∣dence of our cause. But alas! the cu∣stom of them all is to range up and down through the whole field, or ra∣ther wood of Antiquity, and pursue every thing, little or great, that starts within their view. And they seem to make choice of this Subject, rather from it to take occasion of shewing the va∣riety of their Reading, than with any design to make good the undertaking of their Title Page. And it is very ob∣servable, that among the many thou∣sand Pages that have been of late years wasted in the Anti-episcopal cause, it will be very hard to find half an hun∣dred directly to the purpose. And that of it self is Argument enough that they have but very little to say against it. And what that is, I have in the Premises fully represented; for I protest, that, as I will answer it to Almighty God, I know no other pretences, that are at all pertinent or material, besides those that I have considered.

But in the last place, beside the direct and positive Argument that I have thus far pusued from ourSaviours own express Institution, the undoubted practice of the Apostles, and the most unquestiona∣ble Records of the Primitive Church. I come to the last Topick propounded, those enormous inconveniences that un∣avoidably result from the contrary Opi∣nion, I shall represent only two. The first is this, that if the Form of Go∣vernment in the Christian Church be not setled by the Founder of it, that then we are at a loss to know by whom it may or ought to be determined. For the Society of the Church being foun∣ded upon an immediate Divine Right, no Person can justly challenge any Au∣thority in it as such, unless by vertue of some Grant or Commission from the divine Founder of it. If therefore those Commissions that were granted by our Saviour to his Apostles do not descend to some certain Order of men, as their Successours in that Authority, wherewith they were invested, who shall challenge the exercise of it after their decease? To this we never recei∣ved any certain Answer, but are only

told in the general, That the particular Form of Government in the Church is left wholly to the prudence of those, in whose power and trust it is to see that the peace of the Church be secured on lasting foun∣dations. But then I would fain know who those are that are intrusted with this Power. It would have been very well worth their pains to have deter∣mined the particular Persons expresly appointed by God to this Office. Espe∣cially when it is laid down as a funda∣mental Principle, that all things neces∣sary to the Churches peace must be clearly revealed in the Word of God; and if so, then no one particular Form may be established in it by any Autho∣rity whatsoever, because no one parti∣cular Form (as is all along pleaded) is prescribed by the Word of God, and yet it is plainly necessary to the Churches peace (if Government be so) that it be governed by some one par∣ticular Form. But yet however, when we come to enquire after these Trustees to whose power it is left to see the peace of the Church secured on lasting foun∣dations, the answer is ever ambiguous and unconstant. Sometimes it is the

Civil Magistrate, and sometimes the People. But this very uncertainty where this Power is lodged is both in it self, and according to the fundamental No∣tion of the Hypothesis that we oppose, a manifest confutation of the whole de∣sign. For if our Saviour have not de∣termined to whom it appertains, that is evidence enough that he never inten∣ded by this way to provide for the peace and settlement of his Church. For if he had appointed such Feoffees in Trust as is imagined, he would at least have left it certain who they were that he intended; which not having done, that is demonstration enough that it was never his intention to set any such pretended Guardians over his Church. But be it where it will, it is very strange that these Learned men should be so intent upon the fineness of their Model, as never to consider the wild consequences of either way, when reduced to practice. For be it in the Civil Magistrate, they would first have done very well, according to their own Rule ro have searched for some Commission in the Word of God, whereby our Saviour entrusted this

power with him. We find indeed Pro∣phesies and Predictions that Princes should become Patrons and Protectors of his Church, but that they should be vested with a Power of instituting and abolishing Church Orders and Offices at pleasure is such a wild conceit as will not find any the least counte∣nance from the Word of God. Second∣ly, By what Authority was the Church governed from our Saviour to the Reign of Constantine, when if he had appointed the Civil Magistrate Over∣seer of his Infant Church, there was then none that cared to execute his Office. Beside thirdly, If Church-Officers derive their Authority in the Church from the meer appointment of the Civil Magistrate, they are then on∣ly of Humane Institution, and derive not their Power from any appointment of our Saviour, and so are only Mini∣sters of State, and not of the Gospel. But to put it into the power of any mortal man to alter the whole frame of Government in the Church as he pleases, is the most improper way in the world to provide for its peace and set∣tlement. For by this means it will be

ever in the power of any Common∣wealth lawfully to overturn all manner of Ecclesiastical Order at pleasure: If to day perhaps the Bishops, either by chance, or by vertue of some Grant from the Civil Government, enjoy the Supreme Power in the Church, it may with good Authority to morrow de∣pose them, and translate their Power to the Presbyters, from the Presbyters to the Deacons, from the Deacons to the People, and from the People to the Pope; and it would be very consistent no doubt with the wisdom of Christ in founding his Church, and providing for the peace and settlement of it, to leave its whole frame of Government thus at the Mercy of any mans Power or Will. We have one example of this project put in practice upon Record in the Long Parliaments Midsummer-Model of Reformation, when they vote, June 12. 1641. that all Ecclesi∣astical Jurisdiction should be put into the hands of such Commissioners as their Worships should think fit. In pursuance of which they vote, June 21. that six of the Clergy and six of the Laity should be appointed in every

County for the setling of Church-Go∣vernment; but July 9. that nine of the Laity and three or the Clergy in every Diocess should have power to exercise all Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction as shall be ordered by Parliament, and to have their monthly meetings for that pur∣pose; that five of the Commissioners shall be a Quorum, and have full power to try all Ecclesiastical Causes, and to appoint Deputies under them in seve∣ral places, and that if any of the nine Commissioners should die or resign, that five or more of them are to chuse another presently. Thus far they pro∣ceeded under the Government of Mid∣summer-Moon; but about the beginning of the Dog-days they vote, that no Clergy-man shall be of the Commissi∣on, and that the Committee shall be empowered to appoint five of the Clergy in every County, under them to grant Ordinations. Now all these Proceedings, as ridiculous as they are, and destructive of the very Being of a Church, yet, had the King joyned with his Parliament, had upon this Principle been justifiable. And so it will be in their power to vote up, and

down what Orders and Offices in the Church they please, to day Episcopa∣cy, to morrow Presbytery, next day Independency, then a Committee, and that of Lay-men too, and if they please, at last to abolish all Orders of the Clergy, in that there are none by this Principle established by Divine Right; these are excellent models of Church-Government, and admirable methods of providing for the peace and settlement of it.

But if this trust be vested in the People, beside that this too would re∣quire some proof out of the Word of God before it be granted, and that it is liable to all the former inconveni∣ences, in that the putting the power of the Church into their hands makes the peace and settlement of it to depend upon the most giddy, most ignorant, and most uncertain thing in the world. Besides all this, I say, this is so far from destroying any divine and unalterable Form of Church-Government, that it sets up the Socinian model of Indepen∣dency (for F. Socinus was the first foun∣der of it) by Divine Right. In that according to it all Societies of Chri∣stians

are by our Saviour entrusted with a Power within themselves of electing of Church-Officers, and governing Church-Affairs, as they shall judge most conducible to Peace, Order, and Tranquillity, which is the exact model of Independent Government. Now this model if they will own, it is not the Church of England that they plead for, but Independency; and if it is that they assert, let them say so, and not carry on the Cause of the Congre∣gational Churches under the name of the Church of England; but if they disavow it (as they all do) I shall only challenge them how to avoid it. But to conclude this Argument, in this one Principle do all the Enemies of the Church lay their ground-work, that there is no known and setled Seat of Ecclesiastical Power, and therefore that whoever happens to have its pre∣sent possession, seeing he never recei∣ved it by any Commission from our Sa∣viour, he may without any offence against the standing Laws of Christi∣anity be deposed from it. The incon∣venience whereof is so great, that it seems to me a very forcible Argument

from the nature and necessity of the thing it self for some certain divine establishment of Church-Government, in that without it, it is plainly impossi∣ble either to secure any peace, or ex∣ercise any Authority in the Church; because whoever obtains it, has it not from any divine Commission, and if no Commission, then no Authority. However, I cannot but admire that those learned men who take away the divine right of some particular Form of Church-Government have not all this while been aware that they run us into all the exorbitancies and confusi∣ons of Independency, in that when they have once removed the settlement by Divine Right, they leave it, do what they can, entirely in the Peoples power to set up their own Form of Go∣vernment. Seeing then, that unless the Christian Church be subject to Govern∣ment, it can be no more than a Rabble, and a Riot: Seeing unless the Govern∣ment thereof be vested in some certain Order of men, it must be for ever ob∣noxious to unavoidable disorders and confusions; and seeing it was with par∣ticular care setled by our Saviour on

his Apostles, and conveyed by the Apo∣stles to the Christian Bishops as their proper Successours. I cannot see how the Divine and Apostolical Right of Episcopacy, if the providence of God had designed to make it unquestiona∣ble, could have been made more evi∣dent either from Common Reason or Catholick Tradition.

But secondly, As the taking away of the divine and perpetual Right of Episco∣pacy does on one hand open a door for Independency, so it does on the other for Popery. For next to rescuing the Kings of England from the Usurpation of the Popes of Rome upon their Crowns; under the pretence of an ob∣lique or direct Supremacy over them; and the reforming of many Supersti∣tions both in Worship and Doctrine; the main design of our endeavoured Reformation was to assert and retrieve the Rights of the Episcopal Order against his illegal encroachments. For whereas the Original Government of the Catholick Church was vested in the Apostolical Order, whereby as every Bishop had supreme ordinary Power within his own Diocess, so a

general Council of Bishops had supreme Power over the Universal Church. So that whatever priviledges or prehemi∣nences were granted to the Bishops of particular Churches by Ecclefiastical Constitution, yet their essential Power was equal, and could no way exert it self as to the Catholick Church but in Council; and so the Church was go∣verned for many hundred years, till the Bishop of Rome, taking advantage of those peculiar priviledges and prehemi∣nences that were granted to his See as the seat of the Empire, did by degrees assume to himself an absolute Sove∣reignty over all the Pastors of the Uni∣versal Church, transferring all Eccle∣siastical Government to the Court of Rome, where it was managed by him∣self and his Officers with all the arts of Tyranny and Oppression. And here first began the breach, our reforming Bishops at first not disputing the pre∣heminence of his See (because that concerned not them) which he had for a long time enjoyed in most other parts of the Western world, and perhaps might still have done, would he have been contented with it: But alas they

were no more fond even of the Title of Patriarch, as great as it was, than they are of their mock Title of Ser∣vus servorum Domini. Nothing less would satiate their ambition than a sole and absolute Sovereignty over all; and to this purpose they impudently applied all those promises that our Sa∣viour made to his Apostles and their Successors, of being for ever present with, and assistant to them in the exer∣cise of their Office to the Popes Per∣son; and they having once assumed this Power, resolved to keep it, and for many Ages reigned absolute Monarchs over the Christian World. And here, I say, began the breach, the lopping off of that infinite power, and by con∣sequence, the stopping of those vast treasures that continually flowed from all parts of Christendom into the Popes Coffers. Though many other cor∣ruptions that were crept into the Church, partly by the negligence of the Popes, while they alone governed in it; partly, by the Incursions of bar∣barous Nation••, they as justly com∣plained of, and might probably have had them all reformed, if they would

have yielded to him his two funda∣mental points, Wealth, and Empire. And as that was then their just com∣plaint, so is it still of all the Bishops, that are by force kept in his Commu∣nion. Not only all their Revenues, but, which is much more dishonoura∣ble, all their Power being taken from them, they being every where (un∣less such as retain to the Court of Rome) little better than the Popes Curates; nay, not so much; being stript of all Authority, and the Go∣vernment of their Diocesse wholly put into other hands. And here comes in the great Mystery of Jesuitism, for this complaint was so Universal, that it was impossible for the Pope alone to withstand it, and therefore this pro∣ject was at last fixed upon, being at first started by a fanatique Souldier, to set up a new Order of Ecclesiasticks, exempt from all other Jurisdiction, and immediately dependent upon, and absolutely subject to the Pope, and by them chiefly to manage all the Affairs of Christendom. And there lies all the strength of the Jesuits, in their Vow of absolute Obedience to their

Superiour, and of their Superiour to the Pope, so that whatever they are commanded, be it never so unaccoun∣table to their own Consciences, they are implicitely bound to execute up∣on pain of damnation. And this de∣vice has taken so successfully, that not∣withstanding all that opposition that has been made to the Order, they have for many years exercised an ab∣solute Tyranny, not only over all the People, but almost all the Go∣vernours of that Church. And to ju∣stifie these irregular proceedings, the Bishops are by little tricks, and sense∣less distinctions of the School-men, degraded into the same Order with the Presbyters, and then the Priests of the Jesuits Order are as well quali∣fied to exercise Jurisdiction as them∣selves, especially, if licensed thereto by the Popes Dispensation, according to the Decree of Innocent the IV. Ex delegatione Domini Papae quilibet Cle∣ricus potest, quicquid habet ipse conferre. So that by this device they may be en∣abled to give Priests Orders, as well as exercise Episcopal Jurisdiction. This design was all along aimed at in the

Institutions of their Regular Priests, but never effectually compassed, till the foundation of this Society. So that you see that the whole myste∣ry of Jesuitism at last resolves it self into Presbytery, and the funda∣mental Principle of both consists in slighting and opposing the Episcopal Order. And therefore it is a little observable, that they were both born into the World at the same time, it being the year 1541. when Calvin made himself Pope of his Lay-Cardinals at Geneva; and Ignatius obtained to be made Superiour of his Order at Rome. Since which time, between them both, Christendom has enjoyed very little peace or quiet, and particularly, by their joynt-malice was wrought just that time an hundred years, viz. 1641. the overthrow and destruction of the Church of England. And if the Church of Rome could but get rid of the Church of England by the help and zeal of the other Factions, she would quickly scorn and defie all their little Pretences. For when they have run into all their sub-divisions, there can be no more than two other Forms

of Government; either the Genevian of Presbytery, or the Racovian of In∣dependency; but both being so pal∣pable Innovations in the Christian Church, and withall of so very late a date; it will be no difficult matter for the Church of Rome to defend her own Title, how bad soever, against such upstart and absurd Competitors. But when they have to do with the Church of England, they are then apparently bafled with the undenia∣ble practice and constitution of the Primitive Church. And this is so ob∣servable, that I do not remember any learned Writer of the Church of Rome, that has undertaken to charge any fault or defect upon the Constitution of our Church it self. Here their only To∣pick is to upbraid her with those abuses, that have been put upon her by other by-designs, in which indeed she is very much concerned as a Sufferer, but no way guilty as an Actor. For what is that to me if, when I see gross and scandalous abu∣ses in the Church, I endeavour to re∣move or reform them, other men that pretend to come in to my assistance,

shall under that pretence design nothing but Plunder and Sacriledge? That lies wholly upon their Conscience, but I am innocent, and it is very disinge∣nuous, and foolish too, to load me with their wickedness. Let them prove that there were no corruptions in their Church that needed Reformation, and then I must confess I am convicted; but if they cannot, then the baffle lies plainly at their own doors, and it is in vain to charge me with the miscarri∣age of other men. This, I say, is the state of the Controversie between the Church of England and the Church of Rome as to this point, and whilst we keep to this Station, nothing is more easie than to maintain our ground, but if once we quit it, we fall under all the disadvantages of Innovators. And how∣ever we may afterwards annoy the Enemy, we can never defend our selves. And that, I say, is the case of all other parties in their opposition to the Church of Rome, excepting the Church of England, and those that stick to the same Primitive Constitution: As therefore we are concerned to fortifie our selves against the Romans, let us

secure this Bulwark, that they can ne∣ver force; but if we once forsake it, we have nothing left but to encounter Innovation with Innovation, and then when both Parties are in the wrong, it is not much material who overcomes.

This is all I think good at this present to propound in the behalf of the Church of England, and when these Principles are laid at the foundation of the building, it will then, and not till then, be seasonable to pro∣ceed to more practicable Propositions; and therefore I shall say no more at present than only to summon in all good and honest men to the maintenance of this just Cause, as they will one day an∣swer it to Almighty God, against all the present open and wicked attempts of Atheism and Superstition; and as they have any fear of God or man, as they love their Country, or their Posterity, as they have any sense of Interest, or Honour, or Conscience, neither by their carelesness, nor their cowardise to betray the best Church in the world to the fury and the folly of the worst of men. And in this case let no man make excuses, or raise difficulties from the

badness, or the opposition of the times; the worse they are, the more they re∣quire our zeal to oppose and to reform them. And it is never more seasonable to assert the Rights of the Christian Church than when they are most dis∣owned. Let us but do our duty, and God will do his work, and let us not betake our selves to tricks and shifts upon any pretences (if any such there are) of loss or danger, the Church of Christ subsists upon no other Politicks than Courage and Integrity. Let us then be true to those two fundamental Principles of Christianity, and our Sa∣viour has undertaken for the event, that the Gates of Hell, much less Rome or Geneva, shall never be able to prevail against it.

Notes

• * 1.1

  Praefat. in Eutych.
• * 1.2

  Diff. 1. cap. 1.
• * 1.3

  Lib. 3. cap. 18.
• * 1.4

  L. 3. c. 4.
• * 1.5

  Part. 1. Cap. 2.
• * 1.6

  Walo Mes∣sal. p. 252.
• * 1.7

  Diss. 2. c. 1. § 2.
• * 1.8

  Lib. 2. Cap. 4.
• * 1.9

  Animad. In E••••o. Chron. N. MMCXL.
• * 1.10

  Ep. l. 3. chap. 18.
• * 1.11

  Apol. p. 23.
• * 1.12

  V. Vales. Annot. in Euseb. hist. l. 5. Pro∣oem. & cap. 4.
• * 1.13

  Com∣ment. in Eutych. p. 27.
• * 1.14

  Prefat. in Eutych. p. 6.
• * 1.15

  Dissert. 3. cap. 10. Vindic. l. 1. c. 10.
• * 1.16

  Pag. 38.