Chapter 3: Of the Corruptions in Ignatius's Epistles

Of the corruptions in Ignatius's Epistles.

Sect. 1.

The emendated editions. Their authority equal to the Epistle of Clement or Polycarpe. [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉]. Theodoret's citation out of Ignatius about the Eucharist. Jerome's about Christ's choosing the greatest sinners, Publicans.

Num. 1. The Prefacer is pleased not to dismiss Ignatius so, but beginning with some show of more moderation and temper toward him than he had observed in others, he yet soon resolves that it shall not be very useful to him, or to us, that expect to receive benefit from his suffrages in the defence of Episcopacy: Thus then he proceeds.

2. I have not insisted on what has been spoken, as though [〈◊〉] were wholly of the mind of them who utterly condemn those Epistles as false and counterfeit; though I know no possibility of standing against the arguments levied against them notwithstanding the [illegible] attempt to that purpose, without acknowledging so much corruption in them, additions, and detractions from what they were, when first written, as will render them not so clearly serviceable to any end or purpose, whereunto their testimony may be required, as other unquestionable writings of their antiquity are justly esteemed to be, that these Epistles have fallen into the hands of such unworthy impostors, as have filled the later ages with labor and travail to discover their deceits, the Doctor himself grants Dissert. 2. c. 2. sect. 6. Nulla (says he) quidem nobis incumbit necessitas [〈◊〉] in tanta exemplarium & editionum varietate & constantia nisi usquam Ignatius interpolatum aut adulteratus est.

And indeed the foisted passages in many places are so evident, yes shameful, that no man who is not resolved to say anything without proof or truth, can once appear in any defensative about them. Of this sort are the shreds and pieces out of that branded counterfeit piece of Clemens, or the Apostles Constitutions, which are almost in every Epistle packed in, in a bungling manner, oftentimes disturbing the thread and coherence of the place; yes sometimes such things are from there transcribed, as in them are considerable arguments of their corruption and falsehood. So is that period in the Epistle to the Magnesians taken from Clemens Constit. l 6. c. 2. [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉]. This Abedaddan being mentioned next after Absolom's dying by the loss of his head, is therefore supposed to be Sheba the son of Bickri, but from where that counterfeit Clemens had that name is not known. That the counterfeit Clemens by Abedaddan intended Sheba is evident from the words he assigns to him in the place mentioned, Abedaddan said, [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉], and joins him with Absolom in his rebellion. Such passages as these they are supposed to receive from that vain and foolish impostor. But if it be true which some have observed, that there is not the least mention made of any of those fictitious Constitutions in the three first ages after Christ, and that the [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] mentioned by Eusebius and Athanasius, as also the [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] in Epiphanius, are quite other things than those eight books of Constitutions we have; it may rather be supposed that that sottish deceiver rather raked up some of his filth from the corruption of these Epistles, than that anything out of him is crept into them. Other instances might be given of stuffing these Epistles with the very garbage of that beast. Into what hands also the Epistles have fallen by the way, in their journeying down towards these ends of the world, is evident by these citations made out of them by them of old, which now appear not in them. Theodoret. Dial. 3. adver. Haeret. gives us this sentence from Ignatius, [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉], which words you will scarcely find in that Epistle to the Church of Smyrna, from where they were taken. Jerome also Dial. 3. cont. Pelag. has this passage of him, and from him Ignatius, vir Apostolicus & Martyr scribit audacter, elegit Dominus Apostolos qui super omnes homines peccatores erant, which words as they are not now in these Epistles, so as one observes, if ever he wrote them, as is pretended, he did it audacter indeed. But of these things our Doctor takes no notice.

3. The things that are here said, I am not so nearly concerned in (not so severe charges prepared and brought in against me) as in the former. I am but three times and incidentally mentioned: the first mention concerns my answers to the arguments brought against Ignatius's Epistles; the second, my confession of the corruptions and interpolations in them; the third, my not taking notice of some special evidences which are by him mentioned against them. To these I shall not need to prepare any large reply. A few words may suffice to avert these charges.

4. For the first, concerning my answers to the arguments brought against the Epistles, which notwithstanding, says he, there is no possibility of standing against the arguments, without acknowledging so much corruption in them, &c. I need but mind the reader 1. that Salmasius and Blondel being the two men that set themselves expressly to argue against the Epistles, I applied punctual answers to every argument by them produced, and so that business must rest, till either new arguments be produced, or intimation given, wherein any one of those answers has been, or may be disproved or invalidated by any.

5. Secondly: that as there is no question made by me, but that former editions have been corrupted (otherwise there had been no use of the Lord Primate's, and Vossius's diligence, and pains in preparing, and setting out purer copies) so 1. that being now done by them, and 2. the success being so remarkable, that they have concurred in publishing a Latin and Greek copy from several libraries, wherein the places cited from Ignatius by the Fathers, just as they are cited by them; and then 3. the number of the Epistles being reduced to that of Polycarpe's Sylloge or collection; and 4. our appeal to Ignatius being made in this form, to this pure edition of these so testified Epistles, the same that Blondel our adversary acknowledges to have been used 1300 years ago by Eusebius, and which we have no reason to doubt but Eusebius received it from them who received it from Polycarpe; all this, I say, being laid by way of groundwork, there will, I now hope, be no confidence in making the comparison between these, and other unquestionable writings, and assuming that these Epistles thus produced by us in defence of Episcopacy, are as fit to give in their testimony, and by all reasonable men to be embraced, as any writings of the same antiquity with them, which are most unquestionable, as Clemens and Polycarpe, and other the like.

For when many writings are in later times put upon the world under the name of Clemens Bishop of Rome, Epistles, Constitutions, &c., and when the writings of the Antients are found to make mention of his Epistle to the Corinthians, as an undoubted writing of that holy man, and to recite many things from there, and when out of a Manuscript of Reverend Antiquity this Epistle of Clement, thus concordant with those citations is lately published to the world, there is no sober man which reasonably may, or that I know of, does appear to oppugne the authority of this Epistle. And the case is the very same, and in no particular that I discern, unequal, for Ignatius, as he is now published by Vossius and the Lord Primate.

The same might be said of Polycarpe, but that I have already spoken enough of this parallel between Ignatius, and each of them in the first Section of the second Chapter.

Then for the second thing, my confession of the Corruptions and Interpolations of the Epistles, I wonder how it should be thought fit to be taken notice of; it being certain that that confession of mine belongs not at all to the Editions to which I make my appeal, but only to the former Editions. And is it impossible for any Author that was once corrupted, ever to be reformed, for that to be cleansed, which was once sullyed? 'Tis true it may be a matter of labor and travail for Criticks by their own conjectures to make discoveries of such deceits, and therefore though Vedelius his Edition was fit enough for the Prelatists pretensions, and withal that Author not liable to suspition that he should be partial for Episcopacy (I might well hope that what came licensed from Geneva, would not have been disclaimed by those of the Genevan party) yet I wisht for a surer way of reforming Ignatius, than his diligence, without the assistance of old Manuscript Copies, could afford us: But when this was done by two learned men (one of which, Isaacus Vossius, had visibly no interests to misguide him) and the severest Inquisition was not able to deprehend any considerable objection against the Edition, and when this was it that I desired, and offer'd to be tryed by, and insisted on the justness of it, at the very time when I made that confession, how can it still be pertinent to argue or infer any thing from my confession, that once these Epistles were set out corruptly?

Or how can this Prefacer reasonably proceed to talk of the foisted passages so evident and shameful, that no man, who is not resolved to say any thing, without care of proof or truth, can once appear in any defensative about them? Have I said a word in defence of those, that have any of those foisted passages in them? Or may not I be able to appear in defence of the innocent blameless creature, though I cannot of the shameless and prostitute? Certainly he that had read the Dissertations so exactly, as to threaten a yet more severe censure of the whole Book in a few days or hours, and so cannot but have adverted that principal praecognoscendum in it, namely what Edition of Ignatius it is, which in such variety I appeal to, might well have spared vouching of this confession of mine, of the corruptions of former Editions, it being too visibly, and so perfectly reconcileable with all other my pretensions.

The third and last thing I am to account for, is, my not taking notice of some special evidences, which are here mention'd against them: The first is the mention of Abeddadan for Sheba, in the Epistle to the Magnesians.

But how can this be suggested against the Edition we appeal to, when it is certain there is no such word in it, and when by the Lord Primate, that endeavoured to evidence the purity of this, and the corruptness of the former Editions, this very word [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] is particularly produced as an argument, that those things are reformed here, which were vitiated before? And when it is visible by the whole passage here set down, that he had consulted the words of the Lord Primate (not in Ep. ad Magnes. p. 15.) 'tis not easily conceivable how he could still think fit to make this evidence of the incorruptness of the Copy, an instance of the corruption of it.

So again when it is objected in the next place (as an evidence, what hands these Epistles have fallen into by the way) that some citations are made out of them of old, which now appear not in them, and of this sort two instances are tendred, one a citation from Theodoret, the other from Hierome: 'tis hardly imaginable how he could think it to make such an objection.

The place cited by Theodoret is in the very same form in the old Latin Copy, which the Lord Primate set out, and so in the Laurentian published by Vossius, with very little change: Thus, [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉], They depart from the Eucharist and prayer, because they do not acknowledge the Eucharist to be the flesh of Jesus Christ our Savior, which suffered for our sins, which the Father raised up. All the difference is but this, that where Theodoret reads [[〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉], they receive not the Eucharist and oblations] Our Copy of the Epistle to the Church of Smyrna reads [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉], they recede from the Eucharist and the prayer] (which is to the same sense, which soever be the truest reading, and greater differences there oft are discernable in citation of places of Scripture in the Fathers) and then how could he think fit to add [which words you will scarcely find in that Epistle to the Church of Smyrna, from where they were taken] I cannot yet make any conjecture, what he should aim at in thus affirming, contrary to every man's sight, which shall but read that Epistle, and therefore I cannot farther apply fit remedy to it.

The case is evident; these words are wanting in the corrupt Copies of Ignatius, and yet are cited by Theodoret out of him: This concludes, that there were more perfect Copies in Theodoret's time, than our former had been, and now the Copies lately published have these words in them, which is an evidence of the accord between these Copies and that which Theodoret used; and so being an argument for the incorruptness of these Copies, and the very thing which caused the Lord Primate to make search in our English Libraries for those Copies, because he found this particular place cited by three antients of this Nation, Wodeford, Robert Lincolniensis, and Tissington, it was not either very reasonably, or very luckily produced, as an evidence against them.

The full importance of the speech itself has been formerly intimated, namely, that the heretics, which denied the reality of Christ's death and Resurrection, did, consequently to their hypothesis, reject the Eucharist, and prayers, or oblations of the Church, wherein that death of his was solemnly commemorated, and the flesh of the crucified Savior Sacramentally offered, and received, and so maintained to be by the Orthodox believers.

The other speech said to be cited from Ignatius by Saint Hierome, may also well be his saying, though I find it not in these Epistles: Our Savior, we know, spake many things which are not written in the Gospels, and some of them are recited afterwards by the Apostles in the Acts, and some recorded by the Writers that followed the Apostles. And so well enough may some periods, delivered to Ignatius, be preserved to us, not in his own Writings, but in the Writings of other men; and this far from prejudicing the Epistles, which have been transmitted to us, which may well be genuine, though all that was such be not come down to us. As for the [illegible] that it was a bold saying in him that said it, I have little reason to be disturbed by that, because if Ignatius said it, it is not my interest to inquire or examine, how boldly, and if he did not say it, then nothing can be inferred from his saying it. But then after all this, Christ, we know, called and chose one of his Disciples from the Toll-booth, where they that sat were proverbially called sinners, and generally accounted such beyond all other men, their very trade was [illegible], filthy and sordid, says Artemidorus, and fit to be joined with that of [illegible] and [illegible], thieves and cheaters; and in Theophrastus in his Characters, [illegible] and [illegible], whoremongers and Publicans, as in Scripture, Publicans and Harlots go together, and accordingly when Theocritus was asked what was the cruellest beast? he answered, Of those in the Mountains, the Bear and Lyon, but of those in the City [illegible], Publicans and Sycophants, and as of them the Poet concludes, [illegible], they are all, generally all, Robbers, so the Jews are wont to cry out of them, that they are all [illegible] thieves, wicked sinners. And then what boldness is there in saying of Christ, who chose such, that he chose those who were sinners above all other men: It being no way to the dishonor of Christ to have chosen such, who from the chief of sinners, blasphemers, and persecutors, and injurious (as Saint Paul says of himself) converted, and became the most zealous servants and Disciples of their Master.

Sect. 2.

The style, and barbarous words in these Epistles. Variety of styles. Exuberance of affection. [illegible]. Ignatius's title, an indication of the language of that age. Compositions, and new forms in Scripture. The four Latin words in these Epistles, paralleled by Hegesippus. The Church of Smyrna, and many more in the New Testament.

The next objection against these Epistles is taken from the style, and the use of barbarous words in Ignatius, and it begins thus.

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

But perhaps some farther question may here arise (and which has by sundry been already started) about the use of divers Latin words in those Epistles, which doubtless cannot be handsomly laid on the same account of the Author, being a Syrian, and nigh to Martyrdom — [illegible] — are usually instanced: words to which no Roman Customs, Observations, Orders, nor Rules of Government do administer the least occasion. Of these the Doctor tells you, he wonders only that in so many Epistles there are no more of this kind. And why so? The Epistles are not so large a volume, a very few hours will serve to read them over; and yet I am persuaded that in all that compass of reading, in the Greek Fathers, which our Doctor owns, he cannot give so many instances of words barbarous to their language, no way occasioned by the means before mentioned, as have been given in these Epistles. But he wonders that there are no more, and some wonder that all are not of his mind. But he farther informs us, that a diligent reader of the Scripture may observe many more Latin words in the New Testament, than are used in these Epistles; and for a proof of his diligence and observation, reckons up out of the end of Passor's Lexicon, sundry words of that kind made use of by the Sacred Writers. I fear to some men, this will scarce be an apologie prevalent to the dismission of these Epistles from under the censure of being at least foully corrupted. Of the whole collection of words of that sort made by Passor, among which are those especially culled out by our Doctor to confirm his Observations, there is scarce one, but either it is expressive of some Roman Office, Custom, Money, Order, or the like: words of which nature pass as proper names, (as one of those mentioned by the Doctor is, and no otherwise used in the New Testament) from one Country and Language to another, or are indeed of a pure Greek Original, or at least were in common use in that age, neither of which can be spoken of the words above mentioned, used in the Epistles: which were never used by any before or after them, nor is there any occasion imaginable why they should. Parvas habent spes Epistolae, si tales habent: I would indeed gladly see a fair, candid, and ingenious defensative of the style and manner of writing used in these Epistles, departing so eminently from any thing that was customary in the writings of the men of those days, or is regular for men in any generation, in Repetitions, affected Compositions, Barbarisms, Rhyming expressions, and the like: for truly notwithstanding any thing that hitherto I have been able to obtain for help in this kind, I am inforced to incline to Voss his answers to all the particular instances given of this nature; this, and that place is corrupted, this is from Clement's constitutions, this from this or that Tradition, which also would much better free those Epistles from the word [illegible] used in the sense whereunto it was applied by the Valentinians long after the death of Ignatius, than any other apologie I have as yet seen, for the securing of its abode in them.

3. The total of this double objection against turgencie of style and barbarousness of words, is this, The objections formerly drawn by Doctor Blondel from those two heads, and punctually answered by me Dissert. 2 c. 3. are again called up, and some general heads of my answers slightly repeated, and scoffed at, and put into as disadvantageous a dress, as he could choose for them, and then the old answered arguments may stand good again, and all must be rejected as supposititious, which has any of this turgent style, or these barbarous words in it.

4. In full answer to this, I, that know best the force of my own answers, and wherein their strength lies, shall very briefly give the Reader, that is not at leisure to turn to the Dissertations, a view of them, and vindicate them from any appearance of reply which here is made to them.

5. Three things are more distinctly objected by Blondel on this head, turgency of style, new forms of compounded words, and a few, namely four Latin words made Greek.

6. To the first of these my answer is, 1. that the styles of men in the same age are oft very different, I add, as different and discernible to a curious observer, as their hands or characters, or as their countenances, several lines and features, and airs as it were, several dashes and forms visibly observable in them. Accordingly we read of Caesar, that if any passage were brought to him for Cicero's, which was not Cicero's, he would constantly reject it. And the same could Servius do, if any verse in the name of Plautus were recited to him, which was not his. And we know it is the part of an Aristarchus, or skillful Critic, and the common way of discerning such or such a writing, whether it be his, whose it pretends to be or not, diligently to observe the style or character, which could not be any probable way of judging, if all others, which wrote in the same age, wrote the very same style. And so that which is here added of comparing Ignatius his style with that of Clement and Polycarp, and the Church of Vienna, is a very strange argument, just as if one should say, he that owns this Preface is not the Author of it, and bind him, for the justifying that he is, to demonstrate the agreement of his style with all men that have written in this last age in our language.

7. 2ly. When Blondel says, that the Author of these Epistles does nimis Rhetoricari, too much rhetoricate; I answer, that it is hard to define the bounds of Eloquence, within which it is obliged to contain itself. Cicero in his Institution of an Orator commending that plenty, cui aliquid amputari possit, where there is somewhat to spare, which is an evidence that that Master of Eloquence is no way displeased with all exuberance; And to this particular it was, that peculiarly I added the mention of his being near his Martyrdom, and his flagrant desire of it, which might enflame his soul, and that send out those warmer breathings or expressions, which might be as much above the ordinary simplicity of speech, as he was at that time above the ordinary cold temper of other men. And against this there is not the least word here objected by this Praefacer.

8. For the second part of the objection, the new forms of compounded words, observable in these Epistles, my answer is, that though Blondel set down 17. of such words, yet many of them are of the same kind, compounded of [in non-Latin alphabet], and [in non-Latin alphabet] & [in non-Latin alphabet], & so arise by the same analogy, that fewer would do, and consequently the multitude of them signifies no more than a smaller number of the same. And of these it is observable, that the title, by which Ignatius was vulgarly known at that time, was [in non-Latin alphabet], one that carried God, and when Trajan condemned him to death it was upon this point and in this form, that he owned that name, Ignatium praecipimus in seipso dicentem circumferre Crucifixum, vinctum à militibas duci ad magnam Romam, My sentence is that Ignatius, that says he carries about in himself the crucified, that is, that calls himself Theophorus, (as he did in that answer to Trajan's calling him Cacodaemon, Nullus Theophorum v[illegible]cat Cacademo[illegible]em) shall be carried bound to great Rome, and cast on the Theatre to the wild beasts, as we find it in the relation of his Martyrdom. Now this being then his ordinary title, the other like words are directly of the same composition with that: [in non-Latin alphabet], and from hence I argued (and I still think probably) that his use of such compositions was an argument that he wrote these Epistles, not that he wrote them not, it being evident by that one word (so vulgarly then used to signify him) Theophorus, that such compositions were then agreeable to the ears and genius of that age.

9. And the argument thus used by me, was neither not apprehended, or very uneffectually answered, by opposing the words of Saint Hierome of Didymus, that he expressed himself an Apostolical person by the simplicity of his language. So Didymus might, and yet the argument conclude probably, that these Epistles were written by Ignatius, because as he was vulgarly called [in non-Latin alphabet], so words of the like nature with that, [in non-Latin alphabet] and [in non-Latin alphabet], familiarly discernable in those Epistles.

10. As for the other words by Blondel objected, which were of other forms of composition, [in non-Latin alphabet], my answer is, that none of these are at all monstrous in the language of a Syrian, that writes Greek, and that in the New Testament, words are to be found, as distant from common language, and as extraordinarily compounded as these, for instance, [in non-Latin alphabet] and [in non-Latin alphabet], in Saint Luke, [in non-Latin alphabet] and [in non-Latin alphabet] in Saint John, [in non-Latin alphabet], in Saint Peter, [in non-Latin alphabet] in Saint Paul, and [in non-Latin alphabet], a word made on purpose by Saint Paul, without example of the like (not only of the same) in other authors.

11. To this answer of mine, here is no kind of reply, but of scoffs only, [But seeing Ignatius was a Syrian, and near to Martyrdom (though he writes his Epistles from Troas and Smyrna, which without doubt were not in his way to Rome from Antioch, and yet every where he says he is going to Rome—) what is that to any man what style he used in his writings—and so in the mode of sarcasm.

12. But I wonder what caused this mirth, and in sadness demand, whether I ever rendered it as the reason of his using those new compositions, that he was near to Martyrdom, he cannot but know that that was the plea for the exuberance of his affection, which might render the reason of the warmer expressions, which Blondel had censured for too much Rhetoric; and to that it was proper, though not to making of new words, which is the present business.

13. Secondly, why might not he be a Syrian, and write as a Syro-Graecian would write, although his Epistles were dated from Troas and Smyrna? 'Tis sure enough that he lived at Antioch, and that was the Metropolis of Syria, & the soldiers carrying him bound to Troas and Smyrna, was not likely so suddenly to change his dialect, or make him write more familiar Greek, than in Antioch he would have written, and being called vulgarly [in non-Latin alphabet] at Antioch, what wonder is it that he should now write in the same style, use [in non-Latin alphabet] and [in non-Latin alphabet] at Smyrna?

14. Thirdly, for his going by Tr[illegible]as and Smyrna from Antioch to Rome, all records of his journey make it certain, and if it were not the nearest way, the account has been given of that in the former section, and so the Prefacer might well enough have kept his countenance, and spared his sarcasms, here was nothing to discompose him, nothing ridiculous in all this.

15. Lastly, therefore, for the four Latin words turned into Greek, & used in those Epistles produced by Doctor Blondel, [in non-Latin alphabet], my answer is, 1. that there is nothing strange in that, it might be as great matter of wonder, that in seven Epistles there are no more of that kind.

16. To which here it is replied, 1. that the Epistles are not so large a volume, a few hours will serve to read them over, 2. that no Roman customs, observations, orders, nor rules of government did administer the least occasion of the use of these words, and 3. that the like number cannot be produced out of all the Greek Fathers that I own the reading of.

17. To these I answer, 1. that as far from large as the Epistles are, there might as probably have been more such words, as so many, seven Epistles, each of them being much longer than some of the Apostles in the Scripture, if they had had but one such word a piece (which sure each might as reasonably have as any) this had almost doubled the number, which now we find in the objectors own computation. And indeed three of these four being altogether in the Epistle to Polycar[illegible]e (which if, with some, I should leave out of the Collection of the Genuine, I should have enough behind to maintain Episcopacy) in all the other six there remains but one, which is in no immoderate proportion.

18. Secondly, that as in Hegesippus fragments left to us in Greek, Blondel has taken notice of [in non-Latin alphabet], as perfect and unexcusable a Latinism as any of these, so in the one Epistle of the Church of Smyrna of a very moderate length, concerning Polycarp's Martyrdom (another piece of the same age's production) we have [in non-Latin alphabet], another parallel instance of the use of such words at that time.

19. 3ly. The like words and phrases in the New Testament, which is also no vast volume (though not fit to be read ad clepsidram, the length of it measured by the hourglass) are so many more than these that are accused, and produced from these Epistles (near thirty for four) that this may well vindicate so small a number, and make it more strange that there are no more than four, than it ought to be that there are so many.

20. So in the next place for the four heads into which he branches the causes of the use of Latin words among Greek writers, I answer 1. that if he has observed four, other men may as lawfully observe some other, and are no way obliged to marshal all they find of this nature, under one of his four heads. 2. That if there be by him acknowledged four such heads of causes, I may reasonably allow Ignatius to have used four such words, and render but this one single reason for them all, that Antioch, being part of the Roman dominion, and many that spoke Latin inhabiting there, four Latin words might easily be transfused into common use among them, acceptum, depositum, desertor, exemplar.

21. If this seem strange, let it be remembered, that if not all, certainly the three later of these very four are in vulgar use among us of England, derived certainly from the same fountain from where Ignatius had them, and so may well be allowed them, who had the same occasion, and the same liberty.

22. Thirdly, that three of these four, [in non-Latin alphabet], are all military words; as for the first of them, 'tis clear, and for the other two, he might be informed from Halloix, When soldiers went on an expedition, says he, in civitatibus peculia sua castrensia deponebant, quae reversi recipiebant, Illa deposita appellabantur ab eo qui deponebat, accepta ab eo qui accipiebat, confectis ergo bellis illi deposita repetebant, hi accepta restituebant. And then what was thus taken from the militia, may well be reduced to one of the Prefacer's heads, the first, that of Roman customs, and so by his own rules these Latin words might here be lawfully used, in a metaphorical passage especially, which was all military.

23. Lastly, what need I take the pains to turn over the Fathers, to parallel these four words, when if I do succeed in the attempt, he has his reserve [yes, but they are taken from one of the four heads mentioned by him, Customs, Observations, Orders or Rules of Government] (which are prettily comprehensive indeed, as they may be applied) and when out of the very Greek Testament (which was written nearer to the time of Ignatius than the volumes of the Greek Fathers were) I have already produced so many more, than are vouched from these Epistles.

24. But to this it is said, 1. That as a proof of my diligence and observation, I reckon sundry words of this kind out of the end of Passor's Lexicon. 2. That of that whole collection there is scarce one but either is expressive of some Roman office, custom, money, order, or the like, or else a proper name, as one mentioned by me, or indeed of a pure Greek original, or that were in common use in that age. 3. That neither of these can be spoken of those which are used in these Epistles.

24. To all these I make my rejoinder. To the first, 1. That 'tis as good an evidence that there are such words in the New Testament, if Passor collected them, as if I, or this Prefacer were supposed to have done it. I was not then contending for commendation of diligence or observation, but demonstrating one truth and vindicating another, and this might as effectually be done (without my reading over the New Testament on purpose) by any other easier method, that could offer itself to me.

25. But then secondly: if this were so accurately done by Passor before me, my advantage was the greater against Blondel, who might so easily have discerned so many, and yet would take notice but of one in all the New Testament, namely [in non-Latin alphabet].

26. Thirdly, that the Prefacer was not acquainted with me, nor knew so much of my secrets, as that he can upon knowledge, or with truth affirm, what he does without any peradventure, that I reckon them up out of Passor's Lexicon. I had not conversed with, nor, that I know of, was ever owner of that author of his, but did, as was necessary for me, that knew no more compendious way, write them out of my ill memory, and imperfect notes, taken at least twenty or thirty years before: and accordingly the catalogue then made by me was but imperfect, and I have since found occasion to increase it, and when I meet with Passor, may perhaps have reason further to enlarge it (and if I do, shall be obliged to acknowledge by whom I was directed to him.)

27. And so in the second part of the reply, the Prefacer has thought fit to do, having added one head more, that of money to the four which he had formerly made use of, and not only so, but left room for more by a large form of analogy [and the like] and yet further reckoned up three heads more, to each of which he acknowledges the [like] to be equally imputable.

28. As for the proper name (that, I suppose, must be [in non-Latin alphabet], Justus) as it is true, that it is such, so 'tis certain that that Latin proper name is first a Latin common adjective, and being spoken of, in Greek, might as well have been translated into [in non-Latin alphabet], as either Cephas is into [in non-Latin alphabet], or Tabitha into [in non-Latin alphabet] if there had been any criminal barbarousness in using foreign words, or turning them into Greek: as for the pure Greek original, that some of the words are of, if he mean any of those mentioned by me, I confess I know not what he means; if he means those mentioned by Passor, I have no commodity to know, nor obligation to account for it.

29. As for the last, that they were of common use in that age, I doubt it not, and shall therefore hasten to the last particular, and give the like account of that, and that I doubt not but the four words in Ignatius, were at Antioch, where he lived, in frequent and common use at that time, and till that be disproved, we are perfectly agreed upon the account, that it was very lawful for Ignatius to use them. And this I hope may at last be sufficient to have added to the former competent length of account, concerning the style of these Epistles.

In the close, there is a mention of the word [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉], another of Doctor Blondel's exceptions, but of that I have spoken so largely, both to Blondel's original objections, and to his replies and there is not one word here said to the confirming of his, or refuting of my pretensions, that I must not superadde one word more of that subject.

Sect. 3.

The immoderate exaltations of Bishops objected to these Epistles. But belong not to our Copies, save in one testimony, and that no way immoderate.

Num. 1. The next charge against these Epistles is, the frequent commendation of Bishops, &c. Thus it lyes.

It is not a little burthensome to the thought of sober and learned men, to consider how frequently, causelesly, absurdly in the midst of discourses quite of another nature, and tendncy, the Author of those Epistles (or some body for him) breaks in upon the commendation of Church Officers, Bishops and Presbyters, exalting with titles of honor to the greatest Potentates on earth, and comparing them to God the Father & Son, whereas none of the sacred Writers that went before him, nor any of those good & holy men, who (as is supposed) followed after him, do hold the least communion or society with him in that course of proceeding, [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉], Epist. ad Trall. Whereunto is immediately subjoyned that Doctrine concerning Deacons, which will scarcely be thought to be exege[illegible]cal of Act. 6. [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉]—And [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉]. What the Writer of this passage intended to make of a Bishop, well I know not, but thus he speaks of him, Epist. ad Mag[illegible]. [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] as the Apostle speakes concerning God (Hebrews 6:10). [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉]. Thus indeed some would have it, who to help the matter, have further framed such an Episcopacy, as was never thought on by any in the dayes of Ignatius, as shall afterwards be made evident. And in the same Epistle this is somewhat uncouth and strange: [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉]. Whether the Lord Christ has bound any such burthen upon the shoulders of the Saints, I much question; nor can I tell what to make of the comparison, between God the Father, and the Bishop, Christ, and the rest of the Church, the whole sentence in word and matter being most remote from the least countenance from the sacred writings. Ep. ad Philad[illegible]. [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] (well aimed however) [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉]. The Epistle to the Church of Smyrna is full of such stuffe, inserted without any occasion, order, coherence, or any color to induce us to believe that it is part of the Epistle as first written. One passage I may not omit, [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] (in the language of our Savior repudiating the Pharisees corrupted glosses on the Law) [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉]. So Peter's mistake is corrected; his reasons follow, [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] (as was Jesus Christ) and it is added, [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉]. How well this suits the doctrine of Peter and Paul the Reader will easily discerne; Caesar or the King is upon all accounts thrust behinde the Bishop, who is said to be consecrated to God for the salvation of the world; him he is exhorted to obey, and in expresse opposition to the Holy Ghost, the Bishops name is thrust in between God and the King, as in a way of præeminence above the latter, and to doe any thing without the Bishop, is made a farre greater crime than to rise up against the King. As this seems scarce to be the language of one, going upon an accusation to appear before the Emperour, so [〈◊〉] am certaine, it is most remote from the likeness of any thing that in this affair we are instructed in from the Scripture. Plainly this language is the same with that of the false Impostor Pseudo-Clemens, in his pretended Apostolicall Constitutions. At this rate or somewhat beyond it, you have him [illegible]anting l. 2 c. 2 [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉]. All Popes, with all [illegible] of persons whatever, Priests, Kings and Princes, Fathers, and children, all under the feet of this exemplar of God, and ruler over men, a passage which doubtlesse eminently interprets, and illustrates that place of Peter, 1 Epistle, c. 5. v. 1, 2, 3: "The Elders that are among you I exhort, who am also an Elder, and a witnesse of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that shall be revealed, feed the flock of God, which is among you, taking the oversight thereof not by constraint, but willingly, not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind, neither as being Lords over Gods heritage, but being examples to the flock." But yet as if the man were stark mad with worldly pride and pomp, he afterwards in the name of the holy Apostles of Jesus Christ, commands all the laity (forsooth) to honor, love, and fear the Bishop, [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉], lib 2. c. 20. And that you may see whither the man drives, and what he aims at, after he has set out his Bishop like an Emperour, or an Eastern King in all pomp and glory, he addes, [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉]. The paying of Tribute to them as Kings, is the issue of these descriptions, that they may have wherewithall to maintain their pomp and greatnesse, according to the institution of our Lord Jesus Christ, and his blessed Apostles. But I shall not rake farther into this dunghill, nor shall I adde any more instances of this kind out of Ignatius, but close it to one insisted on by our Doctor, for the proof of his Episcopacie, Di[illegible]. [〈◊〉], [〈◊〉]. 25. 7. says he, Qu[illegible]ò, [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉]. Episcopo attendite ut & vobis Deus attendat, ego animam meam libenter corum loco substitui, cupere (Quod Anglice optimè decimus, my soul for theirs) qui Episcopo, Presbyteris, & Diaconis obsequuntur. I hope I may without great difficulty obtaine the Doctors pardon, that I dare not be so bold with my soul as to jeopard it in that manner, especially being not my own to dispose of.

I shall not need to inquire who those sober and learned men are, with the mention of whom the Prefacer here begins; I question not but that they are he, and those of his perswasion, I onely hope it is possible that they have not the inclosure of that title, and then there may be others as sober, and as learned, that consent with me in their opinion of this matter.

What is said here of those sober and learned men, that it is not a little burthensom to their thoughts, that the Author of these Epistles so frequently, causelesly, and absurdly breaks in upon the commendation of Church-Officers, may be just matter of compassion in me; as far as I believe there is any truth in it: for truly I should be sorry, that any sober, or learned man's thoughts should be so causelesly, and yet so heavily burthen'd and disquieted. And yet if that be the case, I may certainly be able to doe more than compassionate, I may administer comfort also: for if that Author's commendations of Bishops be causeless and absurd, then their grief and pressure of thoughts must be as causelesse (that I adde not, absurd) who are much disturbed with them. If the supposititious Ignatius that has taken that person on him, act and personate so very absurdly, any sober, or learned man will be glad, that he has so luckily discovered his fraud, that the Visor is fallen off by this means, and the cheat so speedily come to an end.

If therefore there be any thing serious in this expression (as [not a little burthensome to the thought of sober and learned men] is a very solemn and grave style, that admits no suspition of Smile or Ironie) it must to my understanding signifie, that they that are not friends to Episcopacy, are not a little burthen'd to think, that Ignatius, that Primitive glorious Saint and Martyr, should so frequently (which they must be supposed to think causelesly and absurdly) commend and exalt Bishops: and though in their doing this, I know they do not expect I should commend them, yet it so falls out, that I am very well able to excuse them, if the passages, which are here set down by the Prefacer, be the only matter of burthen to their thoughts.

For indeed it is a little strange, that he that has undertaken to write Animadversions on my Dissertations, and knows what Copies they are of Ignatius, which I defend, as the genuine Epistles, should produce testimonies out of these Epistles to invalidate their authority, and yet never but once consult these Copies to which I appeal, but gather up the offscourings of the corrupt Editions, which even now he had call'd the very garbidge of the beast, when, if he had pleased, he might have entertained himself and the Reader with much wholesome diet in the volumes set out by Vossius and the Lord Primate.

As it is, the task lyes more truly burthensome on me, who must now be faine to survey, very unnecessarily all the testimonies here set down, and demonstrate that it is unjustly suggested by the Prefacer, that the Author of these Epistles (he ought to mean those, which he, with whom he disputes, takes for his) exalts Bishops with titles of honor to the greatest Potentates on earth.

For the first testimonie then, taken from the Epistle to the Trallians, he might onely have corrected the reading out of the emendate Copies, and so have read [in non-Latin alphabet] for [in non-Latin alphabet], and then, as the testimony had been more Grammatical sense, not [whatever things you doe, do nothing—] but [it is necessary, as already you practise, to doe nothing without the Bishop] so the reasonablenesse, and moderation of that speech had been discernable enough, being both the ordinary language of the antient Canons (alwaies thought necessary to the unity of the Church) and peculiarly usefull at that time to be inculcated (to keep out the poyson of the haeretical and schismatical Gnosticks) as has at large been formerly demonstrated, both in answer to Blendel, and again to the London Assemblers, and need not now be repeated here.

The second testimony, which concerns Deacons, and is not conceived to be reconcileable with their institution (Acts 6), is in our Copies, both in words and sense, different from that which is here cited out of the corrupt, and has nothing of high or strange in it. It is thus, [in non-Latin alphabet], The Deacons being Ministers of the Mysteries of Jesus Christ, ought to please all men; for they are not dispensers of meat and drink (that is, not onely, or especially such) but officers of the Church of Christ, they ought therefore to keep themselves from accusations as from fire. What is there in this above the proportion of moderate and sound doctrine?

But the third testimony is an immoderate one indeed, and gives him, I confesse, a supereminent jurisdiction in the [[in non-Latin alphabet], and the [in non-Latin alphabet]] but by good hap there is not a word of it in our Editions, and so we are not farther concern'd to vindicate or examine it.

So for the fourth, from the Epistle to the Magnesians, the immoderate height whereof is argued from the [in non-Latin alphabet] used of God (Hebrews 10:31), I need say no more again, but that there is no part of it in our Copies nor any thing instead of it above this moderate pitch, [in non-Latin alphabet][in non-Latin alphabet]—To the honor of God, whose pleasure it is, it becomes us to obey the Bishop without any hypocrisie.

11. Of the fifth there is only thus much in our Copies by way of caution against Schisms, [in non-Latin alphabet], Be united to your Bishop, and those that are set over you, for a copy and doctrine of incorruption. Which, by the way, sets down the plain reason of his so frequent inculcating obedience to, and union with their Bishop (just as in our Vindication to the London Assemblers, and elsewhere, has oft been said) because the true doctrine being by the Apostles before their decease deposited with these, as their successors in every Church, and because having particular knowledge of the Orthodoxalness of Damas in this, and the like of other Bishops and Presbyters under them in the other Churches, there was no way so prudent, and so compendious to preserve them from the corruptions of the heretics (who were then creeping in clancularly) as their keeping themselves exactly close to the Bishop, and their Superiors under him. And accordingly it follows, As therefore the Lord being united to his Father did nothing without him, either by himself, or by his Apostles, so neither do you any thing without the Bishop, and the Presbyters; nor endeavor to account any thing reasonable which is private, or of your own devising: Which again differs from the reading that is here offered, and tells us clearly what is meant by the comparison between God the Father and the Bishop, Christ and the rest of the Church, even no more than Christ means when he said, Learn of me, for I am meek: Christ did all by commission from, and nothing without his Father, and so between them unity was preserved: And in like manner the Members of the Church must obey, and do nothing without their Governor, and so union may among them be preserved also. But of this entire place we have formerly spoken in the Vindication to the London Assemblers, c. 3. sect. 3. n. 42.

12. The sixth place is of some weight indeed, from the Epistle to the Philadelphians, requiring all, of what sort soever, not only Presbyters, Deacons, and the whole Clergy, but all the People, Soldiers, Princes, Caesar himself to perform obedience to the Bishop. And here, I acknowledge, there is a testimony and evidence of the charge of extolling Bishops above the greatest Potentates; for sure Caesar was such, and if Ignatius had thought fit to use such language, and done it at a time when Caesar was heathen, and he by Caesar's sentence already condemned, and within a while to be brought forth to the Amphitheatre, I might have justly deserved a severe Animadversion for moving tongue or pen in defence of this rebellious, extravagant, senseless doctrine. But I need not take pains to examine the place, my memory, as ill as it is, assures me there is no such thing in the Epistles owned by us Prelatists; and upon consulting the place, I find there are almost eight pages together inserted by some Impostor, of all which there remains not above one page in our Editions, which certainly is an evidence, that some Reformation was wrought, some degree of purity restored to these Epistles, by this so fiery a purgation. And 'tis very strange that this Prefacer could not take notice of it.

13. So again the seventh, in the Epistle to the Smyrnaeans, is advanced to the same pitch of insolence, placing the Bishop between God and the King, and that by way of correction of the words of Scripture [My son, fear God, and the King] and all the several branches of that place here cited, are every word vanished out of our volume of Epistles. And so the Prefacer has only had an opportunity to betray his mistake, in affirming of Ignatius at the time of writing that Epistle, that he was going upon an accusation to appear before the Emperor, whereas it is certain he had before this, received his condemnation from Trajan the Emperor at Antioch, and was now carrying to Rome for his execution, and that is all he has gained by producing this testimony.

14. And so you see I have no reason to make any further answer to what the Prefacer here justly adds concerning the unreasonableness, and unchristianness of these expressions, whether in these insertions published once under Ignatius his name, or the like in the Constitutions fathered also upon Clemens, I am as perfectly of his opinion concerning the impiety of them, as he could wish, and am thereby obliged to value our new Editions, the more for freeing an innocent Martyr and his Reader from such Impostures.

15. Only I wonder that over and above all those that are by that Impostor appointed to obey the Bishop, the Prefacer (as if the other had been too wary) should think fit to make a further insertion, and to the Catalogue of the Bishop's subjects, add [All Popes] when the Greek cited by him has only [in non-Latin alphabet], which he truly renders Priests in the words following. What is this but to corrupt the sink, to help the Garbage to get a stronger savor, to go beyond the Artificer at his own weapon, to fancy a command to the Bishop to obey himself, to Pope Clemens to be subject to Clemens the Pope? If the supposititious Clemens had written at that rate, he had certainly never imposed on any. But I must not advise my Monitor, else he should have rendered the Greek in plain English, and spared that whether paraphrase, or insertion [All Popes.]

16. The last place produced out of the testimonies cited in the Dissertations is indeed to be found in Vossius's edition, and the Medicean Copy of our Epistles. And the producing of that from there, and mentioning it as produced by me, is an evidence that the Prefacer knew the way, if he had pleased to make use of it, to have cited none but genuine Testimonies: For all such, as far as the uncorrupted Copies would afford, were by me set down to his hand: But that method was not, it seems, for his turn, the Reader could not have been so amused with a multitude of odious passages out of Ignatius, if this, as fairer, so easier course had been taken.

For this one place then, where the genuine Ignatius bids them, or rather exhorts Polycarp the Bishop to advise them, to give heed to the Bishop that God may attend to them, and adds, my soul for theirs who obey the Bishop, Presbyters, and Deacons] though I cannot wonder that in these days there are some, who are not well qualified to say Amen to it, yet being taken as it was meant by that holy man, there is certainly nothing in it to be startled at, or improbable to be written by the Saint Ignatius. 'Tis in the Epistle to Polycarp, and it concerns the Church under him, and at that time it appears the Gnostick haereticks were infusing their poison there, and their first artifice of insinuation was, taking upon them to understand or know more than their Bishop or Teacher did, though he the most famous Doctor of all Asia, [in non-Latin alphabet], and [in non-Latin alphabet], an Apostolic, and Prophetic, and illustrious Doctor, says the Epistle of the Church of Smyrna concerning him. This is set down in the words precedent, [in non-Latin alphabet], If a man assume and boast of his knowledge, take upon him to know more than the Bishop, by this you may know that he has imbibed and sucked in that Gnostick poison (that makes him so swell presently) and in opposition to these it is, and upon perfect knowledge of their Bishop, that he thus proceeds to exhort and conjure them to attend to their Bishop, and not to such assuming Corehs, and to do it more effectually, offers to jeopard his soul for theirs, that they shall suffer no damage for so doing. And supposing the Bishop to be in the right, orthodox and careful to build them up in the truth, and that the haereticks which advanced themselves above the Bishop, designed that which would be their ruin and perdition, if they succeed in their attempt (as it is certain that this must, at this time, in this matter, be supposed) what danger was Ignatius in by venturing his soul in this manner? This certainly he might do, as far as [in non-Latin alphabet] reaches (no more than this, that he durst or would be content to venture it) though his soul (no, more than his life, which he now more than ventured) was not his own to dispose of.

Sect. 4.

Of the three Orders in the Church. Of the Order of Presbyters when it came in. No mention of it in Clemens Romanus, or Polycarpe, but in Ignatius. Lombard words of the two Orders. The Popish doctrine concerning Bishops.

Num. 1. From these premises thus laid, and, I suppose, by this time, removed out of the way, from being occasion of stumbling to any, he now proceeds to infer his conclusion, thus.

Upon these, and many more the like accounts, the Epistles seem to me to be like the children that the Jews had by their strange wives (Nehemiah 13), who spoke part the language of Ashdod, and part the language of the Jews. That there are in them many footsteps of a gracious spirit, every way worthy of, and becoming the great and holy personage whose they are esteemed, so there is evidently a mixture of the working of that worldly and carnal spirit, which in his days was not so let loose as in after times. For what is there in the Scripture, what is in the genuine Epistle of Clemens, that gives countenance to those descriptions of Episcopacy, Bishops, and the subjection to them, that are in those Epistles (as now we have them) so insisted on? What titles are given to Bishops? What sovereignty, power, rule, dominion is ascribed to them? Is there any thing of the like nature in the Writings of the Apostles? In Clemens, the Epistle of Polycarpus, or any unquestionable legitimate off-spring of any of the first Worthies of Christianity? From where have they their three Orders of Bishops, Presbyters, and Deacons, upon the distinct observation of which so much weight is laid? Is there any one word, iota, tittle, or syllable in the whole Book of God giving countenance to any such distinctions? In Ephesians 4:11 we have Pastors and Teachers. In Romans 12:7, 8 him that teaches, him that exhorts, him that rules, and him that shows mercy. In Philippians 1:1 we have Bishops and Deacons; and their institutions with the order of it, we have at large expressed in 1 Timothy 3:1, 2, Bishops and Deacons without the interposition of any other Order whatever; Deacons we have appointed in Acts 7, and Elders in Acts 14:23. Those who are Bishops we find called Presbyters in Titus 1:5, 7, and those who are Presbyters we find called Bishops in Acts 20:28. So that Deacons we know, and Bishops who are Presbyters, or Presbyters who are Bishops we know, but Bishops, Presbyters, and Deacons, as three distinct Orders in the Church, from the Scripture we know not. Neither did Clemens in his Epistle to the Corinthians know any more than we do, which a few instances will manifest: says he, speaking of the Apostles, [in non-Latin alphabet] — Bishops and Deacons (as in the Church at Philippi) this man knows, but the [illegible] Order he is utterly unacquainted withal. And that the difference of this man's expressions concerning Church Rulers from those in the Epistle under consideration, may the better appear; and his asserting of Bishops and Presbyters to be one and the same, may the more clearly be evidenced, I shall transcribe one other passage from him, whose length I hope will be excused from the usefulness of it to the purpose in hand, Page 57–58. [in non-Latin alphabet] (for so it seems was the manner of the Church in his days, that their Officers were appointed by the consent of the whole Church) [in non-Latin alphabet] (or the Bishops of whom he was speaking) [in non-Latin alphabet], etc. And sundry other discoveries are there in that Epistle of the like nature. It is not my design nor purpose to insist upon the parity of Bishops and Presbyters, or rather the identity of the office denoted by sundry appellations from these, and the like places: this work is done to the full by Blondellus, that our labor in this kind (were that the purpose in hand) is prevented. He that thinks the arguments of that learned man to this purpose are indeed answered throughly, and removed by Doctor H. in his fourth Dissertation, where he proposes them to consideration, may one day think it needful to be able to distinguish between words and things. That Clemens owns in a Church but two sorts of Officers, the first whereof he calls sometimes Bishops, sometimes Presbyters, the other Deacons, the Doctor himself does not deny. That in the judgement of Clemens no more were instituted in the Church is no less evident. And this carries the conviction of its truth so clearly with it, that Lombard himself confesses, Hos solos ministrorum duos ordines Ecclesiam primitivam habuisse, & de his solis praeceptum Apostoli nos habere, lib. 4. sent. D. 24.

To supersede a conclusion not magisterially dictated (that were the confidence quarreled at in me) but regularly inferred from premises, there can be no more necessary than to discover the falseness of the premises, or their weakness and incompetency to induce that conclusion. And this being already done particularly and at large, 'tis impertinent to give any further answer to, or account of this conclusion. I shall only lightly pass through the several steps of it, and acknowledge of his conclusion, as much as either here, or from the premises I find any reason to acknowledge, and briefly touch at the reasons (before more largely rendered) why other parts of it may not be consented to.

And first, what he says of these Epistles, that they seem like the children of the strange wives, [speaking part the language of Ashdod, and part the language of the Jews] has perfect truth in it, being applied to the former corrupt Editions of Ignatius, but none at all, nor any appearance of any, as it is applied to that volume, by which we desired to be judged, in the business of Episcopacy.

Secondly, what is by these Epistles, as they are in our more emended Copies, affirmed of Bishops, is very agreeable to what is by the Scripture, by Clemens, by Polycarpe, said of the same subject, all which under the name of [in non-Latin alphabet], and the like, describe their office, and require subjection and obedience to be paid to them.

5. Thirdly; for the three orders, particularly for the second of those three, which antiently, and still (but either rarely, or not at all in the Scripture) are called Presbyters, but may most distinctly be styled Presbyteri secundarii, or partiarii, Elders of a second rank, admitted to the exercise of some parts of the Episcopal office, but not to all, and so distinguisht from Bishops, or Elders of the first rank. These the Prefacer cannot but know that I do not undertake to find either in the Scripture, or in Clement's, or in Polycarp's Epistle, and that though I have reasons to assure me, that when the number of believers increased so far, that there was both need of them, and competent store of fit persons to undergo that office, then such Presbyters were ordained to bear part of the burden with the Bishop, as the seventy Elders with Moses (and I have competent reasons to persuade me, that this was done, in some places, before the departure or decease of all the quire of Apostles, particularly that Saint John instituted such in Asia, when he did [in non-Latin alphabet]) yet this was not so universally done thus early, as that either the Writers of the Scripture could, or after them Clement at Rome should be required to make mention of it. And for Polycarp, though I suppose, and doubt not but he lived to see such in the Church, yet there was no necessity that in that one Epistle of his, he should mention them, or use the word [in non-Latin alphabet] Elders of any others but Bishops, it being certain that after the secondary Presbyters were instituted, the name [in non-Latin alphabet] still continued common to Bishops, and was not presently appropriated to Presbyters, as is elsewhere made clear out of Irenaeus, Clemens Alexandrinus and Tertullian, Dissert. 4. c. 22. and in the vindication of them from the exceptions of the London Ministers.

6. It remains therefore that the Epistles of Ignatius are the best records of Primitive Antiquity, on which to build this second order of secondary, or partiarie Presbyters, which if they were instituted personally by Saint John, or if they were designed by the other Apostles, and not ordained in their times, only because thus early ([in non-Latin alphabet] and [in non-Latin alphabet], in Epiphanius's style) there was no need of them, their institution will still be Apostolical, though not mentioned in the Apostles' writings, as in the Answer to the London Assemblers has been shown also.

7. Fourthly, concerning the title of Pastors and Doctors, or Teachers, [in non-Latin alphabet] in Scripture, he cannot but know the account given by me, namely that by all, and each of those, Bishops are to be understood, as has been showed Dissert. 4 c. 14, 15. and nothing being here said to disprove it, 'tis but petitio principii to suppose the contrary. So also of [in non-Latin alphabet] Rulers, I have spoken at large, Dissert. 4. c. 13. The like of [in non-Latin alphabet], when they have none but Deacons joined with them (Philippians 1:1. and 1 Timothy 3). All which are perfectly agreeable to my hypothesis, that there are no single Presbyters, or middle order of Officers between Bishops and Deacons that I discern mentioned in Scripture. So the use of [in non-Latin alphabet], Elders for Bishops (Titus 1:5, 7) is by me acknowledged (though not of Bishops for Presbyters, which conceit is as largely elsewhere confuted.)

8. And for the two large and express places here transcribed out of Clemens, they had before been particularly produced by me, and found perfectly to consent, and accord with the notions, which out of Scripture I had received, and which by Epiphanius were vouched [in non-Latin alphabet] out of the profoundest records. And for Blondel's collection to the contrary, I shall hope that to other men my answers will appear more than verbal, and though I have here somewhat an unkind character given me of them, namely that they that approve them may one day think it needful to distinguish between words and things, yet I am not quite discouraged, being competently assured, that if he that said so, had had any thing else to say, any more than words to object against them, he would not have been so reserved, or sparing of his pains, as to have denied it place in his Animadversions.

9. Lastly, 'tis evident (what he says) that I do not deny Clement's owning but two sorts of Officers in a Church, Bishops (sometimes called also [in non-Latin alphabet], Elders) and Deacons. But it is as evident by my words what I mean, and by Clement's words, that I mean as he does, namely that at the Apostles' first preaching, and planting the Faith in Cities and Regions before any multitude of Believers came in, they constituted in each City no more but a Bishop, and one, or more Deacons, after the exemplar in Jerusalem, where James the Lord's Brother, soon after our Saviour's ascension was constituted Bishop there, and seven Deacons (Acts 6) to attend him, but as yet no Presbyters of any middle order between them and him.

10. This I have cleared concerning those first times out of Epiphanius, and taken notice of the causes of it, intimated both by Clemens and him, 1. The paucity of fit men for that office, [in non-Latin alphabet], there were not found among them men fit to be constituted Presbyters; and 2. The no need of any more at that time, [in non-Latin alphabet], a Bishop in each City or Region served the turn (only he could not be without a Deacon) which is the more manifest, because the Bishops and Deacons, which were then instituted, were (as in the former of these testimonies from Clemens appears) the [in non-Latin alphabet], the first fruits of their labours, their first converts, and the flock assigned them, the [in non-Latin alphabet], those that should afterwards believe.

11. To this if the words of Lombard would agree (as they will so far as here cited, if only by Ecclesia Primitiva we understand the first age, or infancy of the Church, at the time of the [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉], the first preaching of the Apostles) then that testimony would by me be fully subscribed also, meaning by the duos ordines, the Bishops truly so called (and by him styled Episcopos & Presbyteros) and Deacons, concerning whom, and whom only, 'tis true, praeceptum Apostoli nos habere, that we have the precept of the Apostle, namely Saint Paul in his Epistles to Timothy and Titus. But the truth is, Lombard's words belong to another matter, a nicety that is gotten into their schools, that Episcopacy and Presbyterie are not diversi ordines, but diversi gradus, not different orders, but only different degrees of the same one order of Sacerdotium or Priesthood, upon a fancy that Sacerdo is so called from sacra do, delivering, or imparting holy things, so says he expressly, Ideo autem etiam Presbyteri sacerdotes vocantur, quia sacrum dant, Presbyters are also called Priests, because they give holy things. In which matter as it is of little importance which way the question is decided, as long as the superiority of Bishops over Presbyters is agreed on to be such, as has some powers reserved to the one which are not common to the other, so if Lombard's words should by any be thought farther extensible, as founded in that opinion, that first Presbyters ruled in common, and that beside them there were none then but Deacons, I must then think it as reasonable for me to be permitted to forsake Lombard in this, as the Prefacer will deem it for him to depart from him in other matters.

12. For though it be here set down as an argument of the evidence and clear conviction, and so of much more, than of the bare truth of the position, that Lombard himself confesses it (which, I suppose, is not an acknowledgement that all that Lombard says is true, but an insinuation that this of Bishops, as maintained by me, is for the matter a Popish doctrine, and yet is in this particular rejected, and the contrary confessed by Lombard an eminent Popish doctor) yet I must crave leave to interpose my exceptions to this way of arguing or concluding.

13. 1. That neither I, nor any true member of the Church of England, owe or pay any observance to the bare dictates of Lombard, or indeed farther than he has reasons or proofs of Scripture or Antiquity to confirm them.

14. 2. That in this point, which must be waged by testimonies, there are none produced, I shall add, producible by him out of Scripture, to prove that ever there was a time, when there were in the Church none but those two orders of Presbyters (in our modern notion) and Deacons, I may (without immoderate confidence) assume, that all that can be offered to this purpose are considered, and answered in the Dissertations.

15. 3. That the principal testimonies of Antiquity, on which in this matter some Papists build, being some obscure words of Saint Hierome the Presbyter, which yet must be so understood, as to be reconciled with his making the three orders to be of Apostolical tradition, the result must be this, that though they are mistaken in some circumstances, yet they maintain with us the more substantial truth, that Bishops are instituted by the Apostles.

16. So 'tis elsewhere made evident of Panormitan, who though he affirm, that immediately after the death of Christ, all the Presbyters in common ruled the Church, yet postm[•]dum, says he, ordinaverunt Apostoli ut [•]rearentur Episcopi & certa Sacramenta eis reservarent, illa interdicend[•] simplicibus Presbyteris, Within a while the Apostles ordained that Bishops should be created, and reserved certain Sacraments to them (Confirmation and Ordination) and forbade them to be meddled with by simple Presbyters. And accordingly it is also in the forecited place of Lombard, in the beginning of that 24 Dist. Presbyteri, licet sint Sacerdotes, tamen Pontificatus aepicem non habent, sicut Episcopi, quia ipsi nec chrismate frontem signant, nec Paracletum dant, quod solis deberi Episcopis lectio Actorum Apostolorum demonstr[•]t. Presbyters though they be Priests, yet have not that superior part of the Pontificate, which the Bishops have, because they neither Confirm nor Ordain, which, that it belongs to the Bishop only, the reading of the acts of the Apostles demonstrates. Where whatever his opinion was concerning that nicety, of distinction between Degree and Order, it is evident that he gives the superiority of degree to Bishops, and reserves to them those two powers, and founds this in the Apostles times and practice.

17. 4. That though this may seem at the first, but a slight difference in these men from that which the Ancients have more generally taught, namely that the Apostles first instituted Bishops and Deacons, not simple Presbyters and Deacons (as beside the plain words of Clemens and Saint Paul, the sense whereof may possibly be controverted, the testimony of Epiphanius, and of the profoundest monuments of History irrefragably enforces) yet their interests for the magnifying of the Papacy, upon the score of succession to Saint Peter, do clearly discover themselves in this way of decision, and so make Papists very incompetent witnesses in this matter.

18. For upon this conceit [that there was a time in the first plantation of the Gospel, when the power of Bishops and Priests lay confused, though afterward separated by the Apostles themselves] the conclusion aimed at, and, when occasion requires, deduced by them, is evident, that this later, though Apostolical institution, may be altered by the Po[•]e, out of the supereminence of his power, as he is the Vicar of Christ, though they pretend not, that he may lawfully attempt to overthrow the primary and fundamental sanction. And so though Priesthood may not be taken out of the Church, yet the tenure, by which Bishops hold, is not so firm; but must stand wholly at the pleasure of the Pope.

19. The defence of which conclusion, being none of the interests of the cause, which I assert, I shall no farther be obliged to hearken to the premises, as they are here but intimated by Lombard, and frequently repeated and built upon by sundry of that party, than they shall be able regularly to prove them: which being not here attempted, but only the specious (but fallacious) argument proposed from the confession of Lombard himself (whose confessions are no obligations to all other men) I have no more occasion to enlarge on this particular.

20. Which if it were seasonable, I might easily do, in observing other particulars among the Popish writers, wherein they show themselves far from passionate espousers of Episcopacy. The Pope, forsooth, must be the fountain of all ecclesiastical authority, and all other rivulets must run in a weak stream, and then also derive all they have from him. And so much on occasion of this testimony from Lombard, and much more than was necessary to have said, if I had looked no farther than his testimony.