Chapter IV: Concerning the Power of the People in Appointing Bishops

Concerning the power of the People in appointing Bishops, and Deacons, and other Ecclesiastical affairs.

Sect. 1.

Clement's words, [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉], considered, and vindicated. [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉]. The first Bishops designed particularly by God. When this way of designation ceased.

Num. 1. Upon occasion of the former citation of some words out of Clemens, the displeasure is for a while removed from Ignatius, and another matter of discourse is sprung, concerning the power of the people in appointing Bishops and Deacons to their office in those dayes. To this we shall now attend, as it follows, in these words.

2. It seems moreover that those Bishops and Deacons in those days (as was observed) were appointed to the office by an [illegible] with the consent of the people, or whole body of the Church; no less do those words import, [in non-Latin alphabet]. Our Doctor indeed renders those words, applaudentes aut congratulentes [illegible] and adds (satis pro imperio) [illegible] hic dea ceptatione otius Ecclesiae, [illegible] quos [illegible] Diaconos ab Apostolis & Apostolicis vi[illegible] hoc loco concludit Blondellus, quasi qui ex Dei jussu & approbatione constituuntur, populi etiam acceptatione indigere putandi essent, Dissent. 4. [illegible] 7, 8, [illegible]. And who dares take that confidence upon him, as to affirm any more, when [illegible] a Doctor has denied? Though the scope of the place, the nature of the thing, and first most common sense of the word here used, being willingly to consent (as it is also used in the Scripture for the most part, Acts [illegible] 1. 1 Corinthians 7:12.) to a thing to be done, or to the doing of it, yet here it must be taken to applaud or congratulate, or what else our Doctor pleases, because he will have it so. [in non-Latin alphabet] also must be viri Apostolici with Apostolical power, when they are only the choice men of the Church where such a constitution of officers is had, that are intended, because it is our Doctor's purpose to have the words so rendered. Ex jussu Dei & approbatione, is added, as though any particular command or approbation of God were intimated, for the constitution of the Bishops and Deacons mentioned, beyond the institution of the Lord Jesus Christ, that Elders should be ordained in every Church, because this would seem to be exclusive wholly of the consent of the people, as any way needful or required to their constitution, which yet, as it is practically false, no such thing being mentioned by Clemens, who recounts the way and means whereby Officers were continued in the Church, even after the decease of the Apostles, and those first ordained by them to that holy employment, so also it is argumentatively weak and unconcluding. God appointed, designed Saul to be King, approving of his so being, and yet he would have the people come together to choose him. So also was it in the case of David. Though the Apostles in the name and the authority of God, appointed the Deacons of the Church at Jerusalem, yet they would have the whole Church look out among themselves the men to be appointed. And that the ordaining of the Elders was with the people's election, Acts 14:23, it will ere long be manifested, that neither our Doctor, nor any of his Associates have as yet disproved. This poor thing the people, being the peculiar people of Christ, the heritage of God, and holy Temple to him, &c. will one day be found to be another manner of thing, than many of our great Doctors have supposed. But he informs us, cap 4 sect. 3. from that testimony which we cited before, that the Apostles in the appointment of Bishops and Deacons (for so the words expressly are) are said [in non-Latin alphabet], that is, namely, says he, Revelationibus edoctos esse, quibus demùm haec dignitas communicanda esset, that is, that they appointed those whom God revealed to them in an extraordinary manner to be so ordained, and this is the meaning of [in non-Latin alphabet]. And why so — the holy Ghost orders concerning the appointment of Deacons [in non-Latin alphabet], 1 Timothy 3:10. That those, who are to be taken into office and power in the Church, had need first to be tried and approved, is granted. And this work the Apostles give to the multitude of the Church, Acts 6, where yet after the people's election, and the Apostles' approbation, and the trial of both, one that was chosen, is supposed to have proved none of the best. And yet of him, and them, are the Apostles said by Clemens that they did [in non-Latin alphabet]. But how shall it be made to appear, that spiritu probantes, trying or proving by the spirit, or spiritually proving them, to try whether they were able Ministers of the New Testament, not of the Letter but of the Spirit, proving them by that Spirit, which was promised to them to lead them into all truth, must needs signify, they were taught whom they should appoint by immediate Revelation. To prove by the Spirit, or spiritually the persons that are to be made Ministers or Bishops, is to have their names revealed to us. Stephen is said to speak [in non-Latin alphabet], Acts 6:10, and Paul purposed [in non-Latin alphabet], Acts 19:21, and we are said to serve God [in non-Latin alphabet] (Galatians 5:5), and to make supplication [in non-Latin alphabet] (Ephesians 6:18), with many more expressions of the like nature. Does all this relate to immediate Revelation, and are all things done thereby which we are said to do in the spirit? Before we were instructed in this mystery, and were informed that [in non-Latin alphabet] did signify to be taught by Revelation, we had thought that the expression of doing any thing [in non-Latin alphabet] had manifested the assistance, guidance, and direction, which for the doing of it we receive by the holy and blessed Spirit of God promised to us, and bestowed on, in, and through the Lord Jesus Christ. Yes, but he adds that it is also spoken of the Apostles, [in non-Latin alphabet] praecognitionem (that is) revelationem [in non-Latin alphabet] — they appointed them Bishops and Deacons by the helps and presence of the Spirit with them, the Apostles examined, tried those who were to be appointed Bishops, so obtaining and receiving a perfect foreknowledge or knowledge of them before their admission into office. This also expresses revelation ([in non-Latin alphabet]) — upon trial it was revealed to them, and so must any thing else be allowed to be, that our Doctor will have to be so, now he is asserting to that purpose. But had the [in non-Latin alphabet], who appointing Bishops and Deacons after the Apostles' time, had they also this special Revelation? Or may they not be said [in non-Latin alphabet]? If not, how will you look upon them under the notion of [in non-Latin alphabet], who neglected so great a duty? If they did, let us know when this way of constituting Church Officers by immediate revelation ceased, and what was afterwards took up in the room thereof, and who they were that first proceeded on another account, and on what authority they did it? There are a generation of men in the world, will thank the Doctor for this insinuation, and will tie knots upon it, that will trouble him to loose.

3. I shall not here suffer myself to be detained by the scoffs and accusations of affirming pro imperio, &c. with which I am very liberally treated, but, withal, before this time so familiarly acquainted, that I can look on them as parts of his style, as idioms of his dialect, and nothing else. All that can pertain to me, by way of vindication, is, entirely to set down what it is I have said, and then to remove whatever appearance of reply, or objection I can here discern to be made to it.

4. Upon these words of Clement [⟨in non-Latin alphabet⟩] delivered about the ordaining or constituting of Bishops by the Apostles and other [⟨in non-Latin alphabet⟩], Doctor Blondel had inferred this conclusion [Episcopos & Diaconos Apostolis Apostolicisque viris, nunquam nisi totâ acceptante Ecclesiâ constitutos esse] that Bishops and Deacons were never constituted by the Apostles or Apostolical persons, unless the whole Church accepted them. This conclusion he thus crudely inferred, without any one syllable added to confirm it, leaving it to secure and sustain itself by these few words of Clement's testimony.

5. The testimony, wherein those words were contained, being by me laid down at length, and considered as far as was useful to the main question concerning Episcopacy, I could not fitly take farther notice of those few words of it, and his conclusion hastily collected from them, than to say that there was nothing in it concerning the necessity of that acceptation of the Church, which Blondel concluded from there. And this I chose to do [⟨in non-Latin alphabet⟩], in passing, and in a parenthesis, not willing to detain the Reader any longer so impertinently, adding only a short reason, why I could not conceive that the Bishops by them constituted could want the approbation of the Church, because it had formerly been said of them by Clement, that they were constituted by the appointment and approbation of God, which I supposed must necessarily supersede all want of the Church's approbation. And upon these grounds I rendered the phrase [⟨in non-Latin alphabet⟩], not as Doctor Blondel had done, acceptante simul universâ Ecclesiâ, but applaudente aut congratulante totâ Ecclesiâ, the whole Church applauding or congratulating.

6. In this passage thus truly related, in every circumstance, I hope 'tis already clear, that I was not guilty of any imperious or magisterial affirming (which I dislike so much in others, that I would be very sorry to be found guilty of it) when to a positive unconfirmed conclusion, I made reply by giving my reason, why I could not consent that it was duly inferred from those words in Clement.

7. And for the thing itself, the matter of my affirming, being now excited to it, I shall give a full account of it, though there it had been impertinent to do so.

8. And that 1. by considering the force of the word [⟨in non-Latin alphabet⟩], 2. the position of it in that place, 3. the circumstances of the context, which preclude Blondel's, and enforce my interpretation.

9. The word [⟨in non-Latin alphabet⟩] is known to signify [being well pleased] so [⟨in non-Latin alphabet⟩] is either simply the same, or with the connotation of a relation to some other, whether persons or matter, formerly spoken of. So 1 Mac. 1. 57. [⟨in non-Latin alphabet⟩], if any were well pleased with the Law, that is, resolved to live according to the Mosaical institution, such as are there joined with those with whom was found the Book of the Testament, that they would not forsake the Jewish observances upon Antiochus his prohibition of them. So again the same sort of men which would not live according to the King's heathenish commands, but kept close to the Jewish laws, are said [⟨in non-Latin alphabet⟩], not to be well pleased with the change, 1 Mac. 11. 24. We render it in both places consenting and not consenting, but sure it signifies not any legal consent asked of them, at the constituting either of the Law by God, or of the change by Antiochus, but an acquiescence, or peaceable, willing, constant submission and obedience to it. Elsewhere we render it being well pleased with, 2 Mac. 11. 35. where yet the matter spoken of, makes it a more formal act of consent, than in either of the former it had been. Whatever (say the Consuls) Lysias has granted, [⟨in non-Latin alphabet⟩], therewith we also are well pleased, which indeed is a confirmation of Lysias's act or grant.

10. These are all the places where the word in that double composition is found in the Greek, whether Canonical or Apocryphal of the Old Testament. In the New we have it, Luc. 11. 48. where of the Jews it is said, that they did [⟨in non-Latin alphabet⟩], allow, or approve their Fathers works, those which they had done long since, and wherein their approbation was never asked, the killing of the Prophets, ver. 47. So Act. 8. 1. of Saul's concurrence in Saint Stephen's death, so far as to keep the clothes of the executioners, which signified him to have been an active person in that murder, to have had a special liking to it, not again any act of legal consent; for all was there done without legal process, judicio zelotarum, by the popular fury of Zealots. So again (Romans 1:32), [⟨in non-Latin alphabet⟩], They take pleasure, say we, in them that do them. There I think Theophylact's Scholion is very proper, [⟨in non-Latin alphabet⟩], they not only do unlawful things themselves, but plead for wickedness, are advocates for those that commit any the foulest evil. So again (1 Corinthians 7:12), of the Christian man or woman that has an unbeliever to wife or husband, [⟨in non-Latin alphabet⟩], if the unbelieving man be pleased, think good, be content to live with the Christian, or if we render it again consent, yet sure we must not mean any legal consent, for that had been formerly given in marriage, and no new act of it is now needful in the unbeliever, but only a being content to continue to live with her, which is there opposed to departing, v. 15.

11. By this view of the word in the Scripture, it already appears, how little ground there is for Doctor Blondel's rendering of [⟨in non-Latin alphabet⟩] by acceptante, and his conclusion deduced from there of the necessity of the whole Church's acceptation. And against that only it was that my words were directed, nihil hic de acceptatione — there was no syllable in Clemens from where to conclude the necessity of such acceptation. And unless I have mistaken in this, certainly there is neither confidence nor magisterial affirming imputable to me in this matter.

And it seems the Prefacer does as little adhere to Blondel's rendring, as I, for he renders it [willing consent] And how knows he that I reject this rendring of willing consent, or that if Blondel had so rendred it, I would then have rejected it. Truly if that consent signify no more than a voluntary act of acquiessence and good liking (as consent ordinarily signifies) I have no dislike to that rendring, only I rather think the word here signifies a little more not less an outward expression of this good liking, which was the only reason which moved me to use the phrase [applaudente aut congratulante] meaning thereby that the Church had exprest that good liking and joy of theirs, which is more than their bare consent to what was done in the constitution of their Bishops.

So that the Praefacer needed not to have undertaken this verbal contention with me, about the signification of an ordinary word. In that he really is at more peace with me, than it seems he knew of, and so men are apt to be, which begin and pursue quarrels, so hastily and so keenly.

The truth is, it is the matter of the conclusion which I then resisted in Blondel, and so must still in the Praefacer; Blondel made the people's acceptation, a sine quâ non, a necessary condition, affirming that Bishops, &c. were never constituted by the Apostles and Apostolical men, nisi, unless they had this, which, I suppose, makes the peoples acceptation praevious to the Apostles act, for if it followed after, it can be of no moment, the act of the Apostles was compleat without it, and stood valid without it, and though it was most happy when it followed, yet still this, as any other consequent, must be accidentall and intrinsecall to the constitution of Bishops, as that which advenit enti in actu existenti, comes to it when it is (which is the definition of an accident) is no way required to, or constitutive of its being.

And so in like manner this Prefacer also, though he pretend only to the consent of the people, yet by saying that the Bishops were appointed to their office by the consent] and by his after mention of his notion of [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉], for consent to a thing to be done, or to the doing of it, and lastly by expressing his sense of this consent of the people, as of a thing needful, or required to the constitution of those Bishops, I am assured that he affirms this consent of the people, to have been required and needful antecedently to the Apostles instituting Bishops at that time.

And this is the thing that I still profess not to believe conclusible from the words of Clement, and whether it be or no, let us now examine by proceeding to the second, and third things, even now proposed by me, the position of this phrase, and the circumstances of the context in this place of Clemens.

The position of the phrase may first deserve to be taken notice of, [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] Those that were constituted by the Apostles or after by other illustrious persons, the whole Church expressing their good liking or consent, and that have officiated without blame, and been well reported of by all for a long time, &c. Here in setting down the unreasonableness of the sedition raised against their Bishops, he aggravates it by these gradations, 1. that these Bishops were constituted by the Apostles or other illustrious persons after them, 2. that when they were so constituted, the whole Church liked it very well, and exprest their liking it, I mean the constituting them by the Apostles, 3. that being in office they had without blame discharged it, 4. that for a long time they had every man's good word, though now they were ejected by them.

By this distinct view of the words 'tis plain, that the whether consent or good liking, which the people thus exprest, was after the Apostles constituting them, as after that again their officiating, and after their officiating their continued approbation. And indeed it were as reasonable to affirm, the second testimony or approbation [[〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉], &c.] to be praevious to their blameless officiating [[〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉]] as to say their consent was needful or required to their constitution, as to the thing to be done, for that also supposeth it praevious to it.

This was a competent security to me, that my rejecting Blondel's conclusion, was no magisterial dictate of mine; But then the circumstances of the context through the whole Epistle make it most evident, that Blondel then was, and this Praefacer now is mistaken.

For to represse the fury of the [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉], seditions against their Bishops, he had before immediately told them how these Bishops were placed among them, namely, after this manner. The Apostles [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] knew or understood by Christ that there would be contention for the name of dignity of Bishops. For which cause, [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉], having received perfect fore-knowledge they constituted the foresaid Bishops, and after left a list, or roll (of successors) that when any dyed, [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉], other approved persons should take up, or succeed to their office.

Here the question may be, What is meant by [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉], approved persons, and who had the approving them? For if the people had, then Blondel and the Prefacer are in the right; but if not, then still here is nothing to be pretended for them.

And indeed another (yet former) fundamental place of Clement in this Epistle, takes away all place of doubting, and tells us punctually whose approbation it was, The Apostles, says he, preaching through regions and cities constituted their first converts, [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉], examining or approving them by the spirit to be Bishops and Deacons [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] of those which should come into the Faith.

Here 1. it is not imaginable how the examination and approbation could belong to the people, or the whole Church, when those, over whom they were constituted, were not yet come in, they are made Bishops [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉], of those which should afterward come in to the Faith. And 2. if there had been a full Church to choose, yet the matter in Clemens extending not only to the Bishops of the present, but also to the successors for the future age, what right could the then present people have to choose, not only for their own, but the future age, and so deprive their successors of their privilege?

But waving both these, the matter is otherwise clear, they are the same persons which did preach and constitute, and examine or approve, that is, the Apostles did every of these, and doing it [in non-Latin alphabet] by the Spirit, by Revelation or direction of the Spirit (in the same manner as they are said to know by Christ, that there would be contention about this matter, and that having received perfect fore-knowledge, they constituted those Bishops) it is evident they had no need of any act of the People in doing it, and so that the examination and approbation was that of the Apostles, and not of the People, of the Apostles assisted and directed by the Spirit of God, and not so much as advised, that we hear of, or instructed by the people.

This further appears by another passage in that Epistle, where this act of the Apostles approving by the Spirit, and receiving perfect fore-knowledge what would fall out, and what they should do, is by him illustrated by the example of Moses, who [in non-Latin alphabet] fore-knew, (that is, certainly) had it revealed to him by God, that Aaron should be the Priest.

Examples of such Revelations of God's in the first times, I have set down in the Dissertations, as first of Matthias, when God being prayed to, that he would demonstrate or declare ([in non-Latin alphabet]) which of the two he had chosen, he did by lot point him out to be the person (Acts 1:24); secondly of Paul and Barnabas (Acts 13:2); thirdly of Timothy, to whom the Episcopal dignity was given [in non-Latin alphabet] by Prophesy (1 Timothy 4:14), and [in non-Latin alphabet], according to the prophesies which had before been delivered of him (1 Timothy 1:18). Upon which Chrysostome and Theophylact make their observation, [in non-Latin alphabet], the dignity of Bishop (which they there style of Doctorship and Priesthood) being great, wants God's direction that a worthy person may receive it. And the same is affirmed by Clemens in Eusebius, of the Bishops whom Saint John ordained in Asia, that they were [in non-Latin alphabet] signified to him by the Spirit, according to what Saint Paul had formerly said of the Bishops of Asia (Acts 20), that the Holy Ghost had set them to preside over the flock peculiarly.

This, I must think, was, and still is sufficient to clear the difficulty, and put it beyond question, who they were, by whom the Bishops in Clement are said to be approved, certainly not the People, but the Apostles that constituted them, or yet higher, the Spirit of God who signified or pointed them out to them, or by whose directions they approved them.

I shall not now need more largely to insist on all the severals here objected against me by the Prefacer; by this clear setting down of the whole matter, 'tis certain, all his exceptions must speedily vanish. I shall but touch on them that have not yet so fully been taken notice of and prevented in passing.

And 1. that [in non-Latin alphabet] were viri Apostolici, though it was truly supposed by me, yet was it not my magisterial dictate, but, to my hand, the plain affirmation of Doctor Blondel; my words were regularly to be confronted to his conclusion in the very form wherein he had produced it, and so I was to set it by Apostolicis also.

The Reader may, if he will, see my rendering of [in non-Latin alphabet], literally by illustribus viris, and the putting of [namely Apostolicis, and Spiritu Dei probatis] into a Parenthesis, signified [Apostolicis] to be no rendering of [in non-Latin alphabet], but another character of the same men, collected out of other parts of the Epistle.

And so indeed it is most evident by the whole place, [[in non-Latin alphabet], the Bishops constituted by the Apostles, and after them by other illustrious persons] that those that are there called [in non-Latin alphabet], illustrious men, were the successors of the Apostles, such as, when they were gone, constituted Bishops in the Church.

And then what offence was there in my calling them Apostolical persons? Or what pretense for the Prefacer to say they were only the choice men of the Church, in opposition to my calling them Apostolical? Choice men of the Church, I know, they were, for so must they be deemed, who by the Apostles were left Rulers of it. But such the Prefacer cannot mean, when he sets it in opposition to me, who called them Apostolici; he must therefore questionless mean the choice men of the People, and then those choice men must be concluded to constitute Bishops, and not only to consent to their constituting, (as before he had set it) and then I desire he will say positively, that this was his meaning, and that from any place of Scripture or ancient Writer, he will show me where any choice men of the people constituted Bishops after the departure of the Apostles.

Secondly, when he says, that the words [ex iussu Dei and approbatione, by the appointment and approbation of God] are added by me, 'tis not imaginable what he should mean by it: those words are evidently set by me as an argument that they could not want the approbation of the people, because they were sufficiently furnished by the appointment and approbation of God, as had appeared by the testimony of Clement set down in the page immediately precedent. And what is produced by me as an argument to convince the unconcludency of Blondel's collection, can it be blamed in me, as an insertion or addition either to Clement's or Blondel's words?

And when he goes on reproaching this Edition with his [as though any particular command or approbation of God were intimated for the constituting of the Bishops and Deacons mentioned] I hope it has sufficiently appeared that there was such command or appointment of God more than intimated by Clemens in that Epistle, and the like expressed in Scripture in many parallel cases, and this particularly a designation of the persons, which were to be ordained, and so somewhat beyond the general institution of the Lord Jesus (which he speaks of, I suppose he means the commission of the Apostle to Titus and the like) that Elders should be ordained in every Church.

35. Thirdly: When he says 'tis argumentatively weak and unconcluding, he must mean that this argument of mine is a weak, and unconcluding argument, I shall therefore repeat it again, and put it formally into a syllogism; They who had been constituted by the appointment and approbation of God, cannot then be thought to want the acceptation of the people: But the Bishops, spoken of by Clement, had been constituted by the appointment, and approbation of God: Therefore, they cannot be thought to want the acceptation of the people. What proposition can here be denyed, I confess I see not.

36. The Major has it's evidence in its self; for certainly that which is already done, and done by God's appointment, needs no other extrinsecal addition or accomplishment, unless that also be ordained by God, which in this case of the acceptation of the Bishop by the people, no way appears, and till it does appear, cannot be supposed, or pretended by any to be thus needful.

37. And for the Minor, it is the express affirmation of Clement, that they that instituted them, examined and approved them by the spirit, and knowing by the Lord Christ, & having perfect foreknowledge of what should be, [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] constituted these Bishops, and this is mentioned by Clement as an aggravation of their crime, that rejected these that were thus constituted. And then I hope the premises having strength, the conclusion from them regularly inferred, will not be denyed me.

38. For as to the examples of Saul and David, I am sure they prove nothing; for if there were perfect truth in all which is here pretended, which is more than from the circumstances of the stories I can affirm, namely, that God, who designed them Kings, would have the People come together to choose them, then from that act of God's will it was, and from God's expressing it, that the convening and election of the People was necessary, and if God had not willed it, or not appointed it, it had then as certainly not been necessary.

39. Now let any such declaration of God's will be showed, that he would have the People convene and choose their Bishop, and then I shall think my argument weak, but otherwise I must not think it concluded so by these examples.

40. So in the case of the Deacons (Acts 6), the Apostles appointed the Disciples to seek out seven men from among them, withal directing them how they should be qualified, and reserving to themselves the entire power of constituting them [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉], to the office of Deacon. And so nothing from that third instance can be inferred against us, it being no way parallel to the case in Clement, as already is visible: For in the Acts, the Disciples look out, and choose (v. 5) the persons, and bring them to the Apostles (v. 6), and the Apostles lay their hands on them in the remainder of that verse: But in Clemens, God designs the persons (and so in the other Scripture instances, and in that of Clemens Alexandrinus of the first Bishops of Asia ordained by Saint John) and the Apostles, and their successors ordain and lay hands on them.

41. As for that of (Acts 14:3), that the ordaining of the Elders was with the People's election (by the way, it was even now by, as well as with the consent of the People) or indeed that any mention of the People is made there, or so much as intimated by the word [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉], all that I can say, is, that it has been disproved, as far as any, that I know of, has yet endeavoured to prove it, that is, all arguments, that I have seen for it, I have elsewhere answered: But what will ere long be manifested, I am not able to forecast, and so am not now to provide answers by divination.

42. No more am I able to foresee what he says will one day be found, and yet I think it is very possible: Neither he, nor I may live to see that day, when any thing shall be farther manifested in this matter, than what the great Doctors already suppose. The resolution of the question, what right every one has in these affairs, being founded in plain matter of fact, namely, what Christ or his Apostles instituted in the Church, and that being already as visible to them, that are conversant in Scripture and ancient Records of the Church, as it can well be imagined to be, till either a new mine of such Records is sprung, or men receive knowledge of story by Revelation: Neither of which am I forward to expect in this age.

43. In the next place for his objections against my interpreting of [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉], of God's extraordinary revealing whom he would have ordained, they will soon vanish also. For 1. the place of Saint Paul concerning Timothy's ordaining of Deacons, and appointing [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉], let them be first tried or examined (1 Timothy 3:10), belongs nothing to this of the trying by the spirit: Timothy might have ordinary means of trying and the whole discourse of Saint Paul, then setting down the qualifications of those that were to be ordained, tends to that, and then he had no need of extraordinary.

44. And so likewise the Apostles (Acts 6) referred the matter of trial and approbation to the Disciples, and without more ado, and without this [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉], trying by the spirit, ordained those that were thus presented to them. But these two instances can no way preclude divine revelations concerning Matthias, and Paul, and Barnabas, and Timothy, and the Bishops of Asia, and the Bishops of Achaia, of whom the express words of Scripture and Clemens, are, that by God, and his Spirit, and Prophesy, these were assigned to their offices.

45. And accordingly though one of those Deacons in the Acts be supposed to have proved none of the best, yet we see that Clement here uses it as an argument to evidence the unreasonableness and impiety of ejecting their Bishops, that they were thus constituted, which I suppose concludes, that this was not to be suspected or feared of them, which was experimented to have befallen Nicolas.

46. Secondly: for the notion of [[〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉], by the spirit] that it signifies, as I affirm, and not, as he suggests [spiritually proving them, &c.] he knows (and straight confesses) one way, by which I prove it, the mention of [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉], that they had perfect foreknowledge to this matter, and what is that receiving of perfect foreknowledge, but the spirit of prophesy; and that, as was said, immediately before, [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉], they knew it by our Lord Jesus Christ, and by him were directed perfectly to do what they did. And so this is one competent proof of it.

And by the way, how is the very first part of the phrase [⟨in non-Latin alphabet⟩, trying] being applied to the Apostles and their Successors [if ⟨in non-Latin alphabet⟩ had been left out] reconcileable with the peoples trying, examining, or approving? Before 'twas said that this work of trying (⟨in non-Latin alphabet⟩, 1 Timothy 3:10.) was by the Apostles given to the multitude, Acts 6. But how can it possibly be so here in Clement, where it is said of the Apostles, that they did ⟨in non-Latin alphabet⟩, try them by the spirit?

This I say, to shew how far he would be from gaining his design, though it should be granted which he desires, that ⟨in non-Latin alphabet⟩ refers not at all to any extraordinary ways of revelation, which if it did not, yet neither refers it to the peoples, but to the Apostles examining and approving.

But, I say, 'tis already evident, that I have given other reasons, why I interpret Clemens thus of extraordinary revelations, which he ought to have adverted before, and I have now mentioned them again, and must not repeat eternally.

This again shews how little I am bound to assert, that every thing, which is said to be done in the spirit, is done by immediate revelation, because if some things be, this may be one of those some, and that it is, is sufficiently proved by those other evidences.

Next to his question, whether the ⟨in non-Latin alphabet⟩, who appointed (ordained) Bishops and Deacons after the Apostles times had also this special revelation or no] I answer, that Clement no where says that they had, only that they ⟨in non-Latin alphabet⟩, ordained (that is all one with laying hands on) them, whom the Apostles by their Prophetic spirit had designed to that office.

To this the Context in Clement is clear, that the Apostles by that ⟨in non-Latin alphabet⟩, foreknowledge, ordained some, and ⟨in non-Latin alphabet⟩, for the future, to be successors to them, ⟨in non-Latin alphabet⟩, they left a roll or list of names, who should succeed to their dead places, and these, as oft as any Bishop (ordained by the Apostles) died, were by the other Bishops, that is the ⟨in non-Latin alphabet⟩ ordained in their places, according to that rule left by the Apostles for their succession. So that in this matter there could be no need of any further revelation, they were to ordain those which were next upon the Apostles list, and that might be done without multiplying of revelations.

And so his next question is at an end also; for I have no occasion or ground to extend these revelations any farther than the persons of the Apostles (though I know there were also Prophets in those times, beside Apostles) but may safely and reasonably leave all others, where the Apostles had left no such lists, or when they were at an end, to be concluded by Paul's directions to Timothy, without depending farther on special revelations.

And now I think I have answered all his questions, or given him my Key to do it himself, and so must be content to return weary home, without receiving any of those thanks from that generation of men whom he pleaseth to mention, but shall be content with my lot, being also competently secured from the trouble of loosing knots, which those thanks were designed to bring along with them.

Sect. 2.

Another testimony in Clemens concerning the power of the People examined. ⟨in non-Latin alphabet⟩.

Numb. 1. But this business of the power of the People in the Church is not to be dismissed so, but must more largely be resumed again, and my attendance shall be answerable to my Leader's pleasure, who thus enlargeth his digression.

Before we return, let us look but a little further, and we shall have a little more light given us, into what was the condition and power of the people in the Church in the [illegible] days of Clemens, speaking of them who occasioned the division and schism in the Church of Corinth, or them about whose exaltation into office, or dejection from it, that sad difference fell out, he gives them this advice; ⟨in non-Latin alphabet⟩. It seems the ⟨in non-Latin alphabet⟩, the multitude, or the people, were not such poor inconsiderable things as they are reported to be, when he advises them to stop and stay the sedition by yielding obedience to the things by them appointed and commanded. If it were in itself evil, disorderly, and not according to the mind of Christ, that the people should order and appoint things in the Church, it had been simply evil for Clemens to have advised any to yield obedience to the things by them so appointed. Where is now Ignatius his ⟨in non-Latin alphabet⟩ and ⟨in non-Latin alphabet⟩ — Even those who are contending about rule and government in the Church, are advised to stand to the determination of the people, and to cry, ⟨in non-Latin alphabet⟩. This is also insisted on by Blondellus, who from there argues, Potestatem plebis circasacra Dissert. 4. c. 8 sect 4. Ad verba haec (says our Doctor) prodigii instar est quod notandum duxit D. Blondellus [potestatem plebis circa sacra] (de quâ tandem integram dissertationem elucubravit) artificiis quibusunque asserturus. Hic (inquit) nos monet Clemens fideles etiam de Episcopatu aut Presbyterio contendentes non ab Episcopi singulari ⟨in non-Latin alphabet⟩ nutu, sed à multitudinis praeceptis pependisse. But let not our Doctor be angry, nor cry out so fast of prodigies, a little time will manifest that many things may not be prodigious, which yet are contrary to sundry of his exceptions and apprehensions. I cannot but acknowledge him to be provoked, but withal I must say, that I have found very commonly, that reasons ushered in by such loud clamors, have in examination proved to have stood in need of some such noises, as might fright men from the consideration of them. What is in the next sections set up to shield the children of Episcopacy from being affrighted with this prodigy, may perhaps be of more efficacy thereunto than the exclamations before mentioned: He therefore proceeds, Sect. 5. Certè (says he) si strictore egerit D. Blondellus, de Presbyteris suis (non de Episcopis nostris) actum planè & triumphatum erit, nec enim ab universo aliquo Presbyterorum Collegio, quod ille tam afflictim ardet, sed à multitudinis solius arbitrio tum contendentes de Episcopo, tum fideles omnes Corinthios pependisse, aeque concludendum erit. If any man in the world has manifested more desperate affection towards Presbytery, than this Doctor has done toward Episcopacy, for my part solus habeto. But though neither Clemens nor Blondellus speak any one word about the ordering of things, multitudinis solius arbitrio, yet here is that said by them both, as is sufficiently destructive, not only to the Episcopacy the Doctor contends for, as a thing wholly inconsistent with the power and liberty here granted the people, but of any such Presbytery also, as shall undertake the ordering and disposing of things in the Church of God without the consent and concurrent suffrage of the people. Such a Presbytery it seems Blondellus does not defend. But yet neither the Doctor's outcry, as at a prodigy, nor this retortion upon Presbytery, is any answer to the testimony of Clemens, nor indeed is there the least possible reflection upon an orderly Gospel Presbytery in any Church, and over it, by what Clemens here professes to be the power of the people, all appearance of any things is from the term solius, foisted into the discourse of Blondellus by the Doctor, in his taking of it up to retort. Clemens in the very next words secures us from any thought, that all things depend à multitudinis solius arbitrio. His very next words are, ⟨in non-Latin alphabet⟩. Our doctors and masters having stuffed their imaginations with the shape and lineaments of that hierarchical fabric, which the craft, policy, subtlety, avarice, pride, ambition of many ages successively had formed and framed according to the pattern they saw in the Mount of the World, and the governments therein, upon the first hearing of a Church, a flock of Christ, walking in orderly subjection to their own Elders concurring with them, and consenting to them in their rule and government, instantly as men amazed, cry out a prodigy. It is not imaginable into what ridiculous, contemptible miscarriages, pride, prejudice, and selfishness do oftentimes betray men, otherwise of good abilities in their ways, and commendable industry.

But Section the sixth, the Doctor comes closer and gives his reason why this testimony of Clemens is not of any efficacy to the purpose in hand, says he, At qu[illegible] (sod[illegible]s) à fidelibus de Episcopatu (ut a[illegible]s) [illegible]ntra ipsos ab Apostolis const[illegible]atos contend[illegible]bus, quis à populo contraprincip[illegible] suum [illegible]umultus tiente, qu[illegible]s verbis ad retundendum seditionem ad plebe[illegible] factis argumenta ad Authoritatem populo adjud[illegible]andum principi derogandum duci posse [illegible]xistiSavit[illegible]. Though many words follow in the next Section, yet this is all of answer that is given to this signal testimony of Clement's. I know the Doctor for the most part meets, not only with favourable readers, but also partial admirers; or else certainly his exclamation would scarce pass for an invincible argument, nor such rhetorical diversions as this be esteemed solid answers. There is not by Blondellus any argument taken from the faithfuls tumultuating against the Bishops (that, of appointed by the Apostles which is th[illegible]ust in, taken for the persons of those Bishops, is against the express testimony of Clemens in this Epistle) nor from the peoples s[illegible]ly rebelling against their Prince, nor from any word spoken to the people to repress their sedition; neither was any thing of this nature urged in the least by Blondellus, nor is there any color given to such a collection from any thing in the words cited from the Epistle, or the context of them. It is the advice of the Church of Rome to the persons (whether already in office, or aspiring thereunto) about whom the contention and division was in the Church of Corinth, that is insisted on. It is not the words nor plea of them who were in disorder, there is not any reprehension given to the body of the Church, the multitude or people who are supposed to tumultuate, to quiet them, but a direction given (as was said) by the Church of Rome to the persons that occasioned the difference, how to behave themselves so, that a timely issue might be put to the division of the Church. To this end are they advised to observe the ⟨in non-Latin alphabet⟩, the orders, precepts, decrees, or appointments of the multitude, as (from Acts 15.) the body of the Church is called. It is not that they should yield to their tumultuating, but to yield obedience to their orderly precepts, ⟨in non-Latin alphabet⟩, are by him approved; and had it not been lawful for them, with the Presbyters ⟨in non-Latin alphabet⟩ in affairs of the Church, Clemens writing this Epistle to the whole Church, could not possibly have led them into a greater snare.

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

3. In this Section again the usage is, as formerly, very extraordinary: first, I am put under discipline to teach me (that which was anciently accounted a very high pitch, propè res una, but these times may be able to advance one to, which is but of ordinary parts) the Nil admirari, to see, and hear the most portentous things, and to admire at nothing; I must not be permitted to say of any, though never so strange, unreasonable a collection of Blondel's, that it is instar prodigii, but I am censured as angry, and guilty of loud clamours, out-cries, exclamations, noises, and these designed to fright men from consideration of my reasons, as after (on as little cause) of desperate affection to Episcopacy, of forgery, or foisting in the word solius into Blondel's discourse, and if this be not enough for my humiliation, there is a reserve of [ridiculous, contemptible miscarriages, such as it is not imaginable men should be betray'd to] and yet farther, as the causes of these, pride, prejudice, and selfishness] and to conclude [pitiful entanglements and snares, &c.]

4. This is truly somewhat above the proportion of the turgent style, or the but four barbarous words in seven Epistles, and yet I verily believe the Section is genuine, no part of it inserted by any ⟨in non-Latin alphabet⟩, it bears so perfect proportion with what I have hitherto had from the same hand. And the assuring him, that all this might, if he had so pleased, have been very easily spared, is all that I have to return to the more rhetorical part of this Section.

5. Only when after all this severity, he thinks fit to give me some of his benediction at parting, and to allow me a room among men of good abilities in their ways, and very commendable industry, I cannot but remember the critical note of Eumani[illegible]es the Atticist, that the ordinary form of ⟨in non-Latin alphabet⟩ in Epistles was first used by Cleon to the Athenians, after he had taken ⟨in non-Latin alphabet⟩ from them, whereupon a comical person answered, ⟨in non-Latin alphabet⟩, You, Sir, are the first that bid us be well, and rejoice, having given us much cause of sadness. This our English proverb expresses very significantly, and I that had as little right to his plaster, as I had to the displeasure which made him think I wanted it, may tell him, he has dispensed both without any merit of mine.

6. As for the argumentative part of his discourse I shall now come briefly to that, and doubt not to show, 1. That Doctor Blondel's collection was very strange, and so merited the expression that was bestowed on it [instar prodigii] (I meant not that it looked like a blazing star, or any other such prodigy) 2. That solius was not foisted in by me. In a word, that all really was as I pretended it to be. This must be cleared by a brief narration of the whole passage, as it lies visible in the fifth Dissert. c. 8.

7. There was a sedition in the Church of Achaia, the metropolis whereof was Corinth, and that advancing so high, as to the ejecting their Bishops out of their office (⟨in non-Latin alphabet⟩) and these Bishops ⟨in non-Latin alphabet⟩, those very persons which by the Apostles had been either designed, and put upon the list, or actually ordained and constituted among them.

8. This was done, says Clemens ⟨in non-Latin alphabet⟩, for one or two only persons sakes, whom the actors in the comm[illegible] had a mind to advance to that office.

9. For the calming this tempest, Clemens makes use of many methods and arguments of persuasion. At length he betakes himself to the persons, for the advancing of whom all this stir was made, this tempest was raised. To them he thus makes his address; tells them what Moses had done when the people were in a foul sin, being himself content to be blotted out of the book of the living, rather than the wrath of God should light on the people, and then (in the words which are set down by the Prefacer) — Who then among you is a generous person; who has bowels of kindness and compassion? who is replenished with love or charity? Let him thus say (to this seditious multitude) If the sedition, and contention, and schisms are for me, or my sake (namely, that I am not in so great place or office as you contend, and desire to have me) I am gone, I depart to what place soever you will, and do what the multitude appoint me; only let the flock of Christ be at peace with the Elders that are placed over them. Adding, thus godly men have done, and will do, and many have removed out of their own cities, that the sedition might not farther extend itself.

10. In these words nothing can be more manifest than 1. That this short oration to the tumultuous people was only designed to still their commotion, and to reduce them at once to peace and subjection to their superiors placed over them in the Church. And so it can be no farther argumentative, than to that, or the like case, or conjuncture, namely, that for the acquiring peace to the public, and quiet subjection to governors, any generous or charitable person ought even to leave his country, if need so require, and if that will do it, to do, or suffer any thing for the regaining the public peace, not that every Christian is in all cases bound to do this, or that; what is charitable in these circumstances, is simply, and without them necessary: for then the example there used of Moses must be obligatory too, and every man shall at all times be bound to wish and pray what in that one case he did.

11. Secondly: That it is by Clement put into the mouth, not of the true bishops or elders, duly constituted among them at that time; for should they have offered to go out and depart, 1. There is no question but they had been permitted to do so, by them who had already ejected them from their [illegible] or ministration: And 2. how could the flock be at peace together with these constituted elders (that is, with these that were already constituted) in case they should thus depart: And 3. how had Clemens done the work to which his whole epistle was designed, namely, re-establishing the true governors in their chairs again, if they had thus, by his advice, departed. But, I say, this speech of [illegible], I am gone, I depart, is by Clement put into the mouth of the one or two persons for whose sakes this commotion was raised against their ecclesiastical governors, and this is so manifest, that it is to him that shall but lightly view the place in the epistle, impossible to make any question of it.

12. Thirdly: It is here as manifest, that the recess here spoken of, and after exemplified in the many that had done so, and in like manner by kings and princes that in times of plagues had, in obedience to the oracles delivered themselves up to death, that by their own blood they might rescue and deliver their citizens, as before it had been by Moses — [blot me out] — was an act of generosity and charity in those that should do it, a mere spontaneous, voluntary recess, no act of ordinary duty or obligation. And consequently, though it were very lawful for Clemens to advise this generosity, yet it had been very ill in the seditious people to require them to be gone, who so earnestly desired the restoring them to peace, and due subjection, and so this can be no instance of the people's power in this or any thing else.

13. These things being granted, the strangeness of Doctor Blondel's conclusions from the words will immediately appear: they are two; the one set down p. 12. the other p. 13. of his Apology. In p. 12. thus: Hic nos monet, fideles etiam de Episcopatu sive Presbyterio contendentes, non ab Episcopi singulares, nutu, sed a multitudinis praeceptis pependisse. Here Clement mindeth us that the faithful, even such as contend for the bishoprick, or office of elder, depend not on the pleasure of the bishop, the singular bishop, and who had the supreme power, but on the precepts of the multitude. In p. 13. thus, Presbyteros nihil attentasse, sed propter Christum communemque piae fraternitatis aedificationem, multitudinis dicto audientes fuisse: That the elders attempted not to do any thing by way of command or empire, but for Christ's sake, and for the common edification of the brethren, they were obedient to the command of the multitude.

14. In the first of these conclusions, that which is very strange, is, that the believers should from Clement's words be concluded 1. not to have depended on the pleasure of their bishop. 2. To have depended on the precepts of the multitude: whereas 1. there is no one syllable of their not depending on the pleasure of their bishops, but special mention of the preserving their bishops quietly in their seats, as the end, which, with the peace of the Church, was the only thing they had in their view: and 2. they no otherwise depended on the precepts of the multitude, than as for the avoiding and quieting the sedition, they should voluntarily submit themselves, which is far from concluding any due power in the multitude, as my bribing a plunderer to save my life, is from inferring that he has a lawful power over it; or my telling any man in an extremity, I will do whatever you bid me, on condition you will be quiet, and let my master alone, will conclude that man to have had any power over me, before I had said it, or that that power shall always continue to have obligation on me afterwards: or, to go no farther than the context in Clemens, than the kings being content to die for the removing the plague from the people, can be a precedent and obligation to all kings and rulers, not only to do the like in the like case, but to acknowledge themselves universally to depend upon the commands of the people.

By this already appears, how free I am from being chargeable with those things of which the Prefacer accuses me: As 1. that I foist in the [solius] into Blondel's discourse. It is an ugly word, but sure I am not guilty of it: For does not Blondel say, non ab Episcopi nutu, sed a multitudinis praeceptis? That they depended not from the Bishops pleasure, but from the multitudes precepts? Is not the [non, sed, not, but] here perfectly all one with [solius, onely?] Where there are but two parts, the Governour (or Governours, as Blondel would have it) in every Church, and the People; what is done by the power of the People, and not by the power of the Governours, must sure be done by the power of the people alone. That which can be done but three wayes, by the Prefacer, or by me, or conjunctim by both of us together; if it be done by him, and not done by me, is it not done by him onely? What possibility is there that I should deceive my self, or any man else by thus concluding?

This Prefacer, I acknowledge seemes to set it otherwise than Blondel had done, and so, I suppose, phansies it a joynt power of the orderly Gospel Presbytery and the People: But then 1. I that was speaking to Blondel, was not to [illegible] supposed to speak to this Prefacer, who differs from Blondel. And 2. that which is done by the Presbytery and People joyntly, how can it be said to be done not by the Presbytery, or to be done by, or depend from the peoples command, not from the Presbytery? So that certainly I was capable of a more benign censure, I might have been spared the accusation of s[illegible]sting or forgery in this matter.

So likewise for his second charge, that I misreport Blondel's way of arguing, making him take his argument from the faithfull, tumultuating against the Bishops, from the peoples seditiously rebelling against their Prince, from words spoken to the people to represse their sedition; whereas, says he, there is not any thing of this nature urged in the least by Blondel] this sure will vanish presently also. For as to the first two branches, 'tis certain I no where thus recite Blondel's arguing: My words he had just before set down truly, if he would have c[illegible]nstrued them right, Quis, sodes, à fidelibus de Episcopatu contra Episcopos centendentibus, quis à populo contrae Principem suum tumultus ciente—argumenta—duci posse existimavit? Who, I pray, for the asserting the authority of the people would think arguments might be brought from the faithfull, contending for authority against their Bishops, from a people raising sedition against their Prince?] that is, from any thing said or done by such men at such a time. This is not from the faithfuls contending, or the peoples rebelling (as the Prefacer was pleased to misconstrue me) but from the faithfull contending, that is, who contended, or (as the parallel to that) the people rebelling, or, who rebelled. And, I pray, does not Blondel fetch his argument in this place of Clement from th[illegible]se, and none but these? Are not his very words, fideles de Episcopatis contendentes—a multitudinis pr[illegible]ptis rependisse, that the faithfull contending, or, who contended for the Bishoprick depended on the commands of the multitude] and does he not draw his argument for the peoples power from them, and (which was the third thing) from the words, that they are by Clement bid use to the people to represse their sedition? From where, I beseech him, is Blondel's argument drawn, if not from hence, when from this one speech of theirs (made for them by Clement) it is that this whole argument is drawn?

'Tis true, indeed, Blondel should not have affirmed of those whom he calls the Contenders, that they depended on the commands of the people, but that Clemens bid them that they should make that offer to them, that in that particular they would. But I, who was confuting Blondel's argument, was to take it as he set it, not as it ought to have been set by him, and so have done nothing criminous in so doing.

There is yet a third charge in a parenthesis, that the words [appointed by the Apostles] taken for the persons of those Bishops is thrust in by me, and is against the expresse testimony of Clemens in this Epistle.] But certainly this is also a groundlesse accusation. For as to Blondel's words or arguing, they are not by me thrust into them, but used as a circumstance of some force in my arguing against him, to shew that his argument taken from what was said or done by those whom he acknowledges contenders, was sure to be no good argument, when they, against whom they are by him supposed to contend, being the Bishops of Corinth, those Bishops were, say I, constituted by the Apostles. This was but a light circumstance, yet that which I thought would be some farther prejudice to his argument, when the words, from where he inferr'd his conclusion, were supposed to be spoken by the contenders, those again contenders against Bishops, and those Bishops constituted by the very Apostles.

And then for Clement, 'tis most certain (whatever the Prefacer is pleased to affirm to the contrary) that he expresly says this of these Bishops, whom they contended against, and ejected, that they were [in non-Latin alphabet], constituted by the Apostles, or after by other esteemed men, some immediately both designed and ordain'd to the Office by the Apostles personally, others designed and nominated, or put upon the [in non-Latin alphabet], the list of succession by the Apostles, and as places were vacant, actually ordai[illegible]'d by the imposition of the hands of those esteemed or eminent men, the successors of the Apostles (such as were also themselves call'd Apostolical men by Blondel, and by the antients, Apostoli secundarii, secondarie Apostles.)

This is most evident again by what was cleared in the last Section. And so the Parenthesis had as little of justice in it, as the main period, and might have been spared also, if the Prefacer had so pleased.

22. What follows after in this place [It is the advice of the Church of Rome—] is for the most part true, and I have suggested nothing against it, nor am now a whit concerned in the contents of it, and therefore though there be some infirme parts in it also, and many more in the former words, yet having vindicated myself, I shall not trouble the Reader to pursue this matter any farther; what he has mistaken, he may, if he please, rectify by what has been said, and particularly informe himself of his doubts, that they to whom the advice is given, and on occasion of whom the sedition was raised, are not they that were in danger of being directed from their office (as at the beginning of this Section he thought it possible), nor consequently they (as toward the end he says) which were already in office, but they for whom the people contended to have them advanced to the Bishops seats, they that were the occasion and the subject matter of the contention, and as we may conclude from some passages, [in non-Latin alphabet] the ring-leaders of the sedition, and [in non-Latin alphabet], they that laid the foundation of it.

23. And that brings me to the second strange part of Blondel's collection, Communi Presbyteros consilio Ecclesiam rexisse, eosdem nihil [in non-Latin alphabet] attentâsse, sed — multitudinis dicto obedientes fuisse, that the Presbyters by common counsel ruled the Church, and that the same Presbyters (in the text of Clemens) were obedient to the command or saying of the multitude. But that certainly could not be hence concluded, the persons into whose mouth Clemens put these words being not Presbyters nor Bishops neither, but those whom the people would have Bishops, and to that end raised this sedition, and cast the true Bishops out of the Church. And so they of whom this sage observation is made, [that they did nothing imperiously, but depended on the commands of the multitude] are but these unruly fellow-believers, not really vested with any power in the Church, only one part of a seditious multitude, exhorted by him to endeavour to pacify another, and to endeavour to rescue the legal Bishops from suffering in this tempest (yes, though the same popular tumult would have put them into their places) others being resolved to shake the whole Church, rather than they would miss of their design of raising those that they thought fit to admire.

24. And for any such words used (or by Clemens advised to be used) between one part of this multitude and the other, I still desire it may be considered, whether it be possible that an argument can be regularly drawn from them, on which to found the right or power of the people, in ordering ecclesiastical affairs, when besides, all that has formerly been said, 'tis certain the speech was made to that part of the people, which were in open rebellion against their superiors, and was only a [in non-Latin alphabet] or mollifying plaster applied to the part which was at that present most inflamed, embrocation to allay the paroxysme.

25. I might now join issue with the Prefacer, and examine the truth of his positive affirmation, that in this saying of Clemens, there is that laid which is sufficiently destructive to the Episcopacy that I contend for (and also of any such Presbyterie as shall undertake the disposing of things in the Church of God, without the consent & concurrent suffrage of the people) or that the Episcopacy I contend for, is wholly inconsistent with the power, and liberty here granted to the people. But there is not one syllable here produced for the defence of this affirmation. And I think it competently appears by this time, how far that bare text of Clement is from founding it, and therefore I have now nothing more to contend with, my contrary affirmation, that no such thing is yet concluded, will certainly be true, and fit to be confronted to, and balanced with it, and if I should farther improve it into this, that nothing is conclusible, I think having already seen the utmost, that two such skillful artificers, Blondel, and the Prefacer, have been able to produce toward it, it would not be thought any grand insolence.

26. One thing only I cannot omit, that when he speaks of the power of the people, he calls it [their concurrent suffrage] once, and after joins them with the Presbyters in the [in non-Latin alphabet] commanding or ordaining in the affairs of the Church. But I shall demand, can any thing like that be drawn out of the place in Clement? Is it not certain that the multitude, whose [in non-Latin alphabet], ordinances he there speaks of, had cast out their Bishops or Elders out of the Church, and those that are to speak to them, and join with them, are not Presbyters, but those whom they would have exalted to that office, and raised their tumult about it? And how then can the Presbyters in that place be supposed to join with the people in this ordaining?

27. I shall not make my observations from hence, but leave the Prefacer to examine himself, with what justice he has managed his replies to me, or reproached my answers to Doctor Blondel. And so indeed, as he says, It is a sad thing to consider the pittifull intanglements and snares, &c. And so much for this Section also. The employment is so dry to me, and the profit to the Reader so thin from such kind of debates, that I should be glad it were the last of them.