Chapter V: Of the Plurality of Elders in Clement's Epistle

Of the plurality of Elders in Clements Epistle.

Sect. 1.

The difference between Ignatius and Clement in the enumeration of Officers in the Church. Clements Epistle to the Churches of Achaia. ([in non-Latin alphabet].) Pauls Epistles to those. Metropolitical Churches in the Apostles times. Answer to a charge concerning Grotius.

Num. 1. In the next place, this digression concerning the power of the people being absolved, I am called back again to Ignatius, and in him to that of his asserting the three Orders in the Church, which is thought fit to be considered a while by comparing it with Clements doctrine in this matter; who is acknowledged to name but two. And then his charge against Ignatius and against me is thus managed.

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

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

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

1. He tells you, that Corinth was the chief City of Achaia, the Metropolis (in a political sense and acceptation of the word) of Greece, where the Proconsul had his residence, Diss. 5. cap. 2. Sect. 3. Let us grant this to our learned Doctor, lest we find nothing to gratify him withal; and what then will follow? Hence, says he, it will follow (Sect. 4.) that this Epistle which was sent, Ecclesiae [in non-Latin alphabet], non ad unius Civitatis Ecclesiam, sed ad omnes totius Achatae: Christianos, per singulas civitates & regiones, sub Episcopis aut Praefectis suis ubique collocatas missa existimetur. But pray Doctor, why so? We poor creatures, who are not so sharp sighted, as to discern a Metropolitan Arch-Bishop at Corinth, of whom all the Bishops in Greece were dependent, nor can find any instituted Church in the Scripture, or in Clement, of one denomination, beyond a single Congregation, cannot but think, that all the strength of this consectary, from the insinuation of such a state of things in the Church of God, is nothing but a pure begging of the thing in question, which will never be granted upon such terms.

Yes, but he adds, Sect. 5. that Paul wrote his Epistle not only to the Church of Corinth, but also to all the Churches of Achaia, therefore Clement did so also. At first view this argument seems not very conclusive, yes, appears indeed very ridiculous; the inforcement of it, which insues, may perhaps give new life and vigor to it: How then is it proved that Paul wrote not only to the Church of Corinth, but to all them in Achaia also? Why says he in the 2 Epistle, 1 Chapter, 1 verse, it is so exprest: he writes, [in non-Latin alphabet]. Very good! It is indisputably evident, that Paul wrote his second Epistle to the Church of Corinth, and all the rest of Achaia, for he expressly affirms himself so to do, and for the first Epistle it is directed not only to the Church of Corinth (1 Corinthians 1:2), but also, [in non-Latin alphabet], that is, says our Doctor, in the whole region of Achaia. So indeed says the Doctor's great friend Grotius, to whom he is beholding for more than one rare notion. I say it not in any way of any reproach to the Doctor, only I cannot but think his careful warding of himself against the thoughts of men, that he should be beholding to Grotius, does exceedingly unbecome the Doctor's gravity, and self-denial. This is complained of by some who have tried it in reference to his late Comment on the Revelation. And in this Dissertation he is put by his own thoughts (I will not say guilty) to an Apologie, cap. 1. Sect. 24. Quâ in re suffragium suum tulisse Hugonem Grotium, [in non-Latin alphabet] ex Annotationibus, post, nuper editis, & postquam haec omnia Typographo transcripta essent, curis perlectis edoctum gratulor. Let not the Reader think that Doctor Ham: had transmitted his papers full of rare conjectures to the Printer, before Grotius his Annotations on the Revelation were published, but only before he had read them. The Doctor little thinks what a fly this is in his pot of ointment, nor how undecent with all impartial men, such Apologies, subservient to a frame of spirit in bondage to a man's own esteem and reputation, appear to be: but let this pass. And let the Saints that call upon the name of Jesus Christ in every place, be the Saints in every part of Achaia, though the Epistle itself (written indeed upon occasion taken from the Church of Corinth, yet) was given by inspiration from God, for the use not only of all Saints in the whole world, at that time wherein it was written, but of all those who were to believe in any part or place of the world, to the end thereof: although the assertion of it be not built on any tolerable conjecture, but may be rejected with the same facility wherewith it is tendered; what now will from there ensue? Why hence it follows, that Clement also wrote his Epistle to all the Churches in Achaia. Very good, Paul writing an Epistle intituled chiefly to the Corinthians, expressly and [in non-Latin alphabet] directs it to all the Saints or Churches of Achaia, yes, to all that call upon the name of God in every place, so that his Epistle being of Catholic concernment, is not to be confined to the Church of Corinth only, although most of the particular things mentioned in that Epistle related only to that particular Church; therefore Clement directing his Epistle to the Church of Corinth only, not once mentioning nor insinuating an intention of extending it to any other, handling in it only the peculiar concernment of that Church, and a difference about one or two persons therein, must be supposed to have written to all the Churches of Achaia. And if such arguments as these will not prove Episcopacy to be of Apostolical constitution, what will prevail with men so to esteem it? Si Pergama dextrâ defendi possent, etiam hac defensa fuissent. And this is the cause of naming many Elders or Presbyters in one Church: For my part I suppose the Doctor might more probably have adhered to a former conjecture of his Dissert. 4. cap. 10. Sect. 9. concerning two sundry different Churches, where were distinct Officers in the same City, Primò (says he) respondeo, non usquequaque verum est, quod pro concesso sumitur, quamvis enim in unâ Ecclesiâ aut [in non-Latin alphabet], plures simul Episcopi nunquam fuerint (pray except them mentioned, Acts 20:28, and those Acts 14:23) nihil tamen [illegible] quin in eadem civitate duo aliquando [illegible] determinati fuerint. He might (I say) with more show of probability have abode by this observation, than to have rambled over all Greece, to relieve himself against his adversaries. But yet neither would this suffice. What use may or will be made of this concession shall elsewhere be manifested.

3. That which is extended to this length in this part of the Prefacer's discourse, may briefly be summed up into these four heads; 1. a brief touch of the difference between Clemens and Ignatius, the one mentioning but two, the other three Orders in the Church: 2. His asserting the Bishops mentioned in Clemens to be bare Presbyters, concluding that from the number of them, many in that [in non-Latin alphabet] Church of Corinth; 3. a taking notice of a first answer of mine to that argument, and endeavoring to invalidate it; 4. a reproach of my vainglory in borrowing notions from Grotius, and being unwilling to be thought to do so. Which last, though it hang loose from the matter in hand, being perfectly extrinsical to our Controversy, whether about Ignatius Epistles or Episcopacy, (because 'tis certain that one that has received help from Grotius, is not for that the more likely to be in the wrong, or to be unable to maintain his assertions; and because he that has faults in his manners, the vainglorious and ungrateful, may yet by so good a guide as Grotius, fall upon some truth) yet I shall afterward punctually reply to, and dispatch that also, and show how little happy the Prefacer is in all his acts of severity. But as the order and the rule before me directs, I must begin with the more material parts.

4. And first for the difference between Clement and Ignatius, it was far from being any observation of the Prefacers, or useful to him against us, It is known to be a principal ingredient in the foundation, on which I build and assert Episcopacy, namely, that in the times of the Scriptures and of Clemens, there appear to have been two, and not above two orders in the Church of Christ, Bishops and Deacons, that these Bishops were promiscuously styled, [in non-Latin alphabet] and [in non-Latin alphabet], Bishops and Elders, the nature of each word agreeing, to denote a singular Governor, and the use of it both in Scripture and Clemens no way inclining to determine it to a number or College of Presbyters in each Church, ruling in Common Council. That Saint Paul (Philippians 1:1, Titus 1:5, 7, 1 Timothy 3) expressly sets down this course, under the two plain heads of Bishops and Deacons, that Clemens is as express, that the Apostles at their first preaching constituted or ordained their first converts to be Bishops and Deacons of those that should after believe, that Epiphanius vouches it out of the profoundest histories, the ancientest records, that while the paucity of Christians was such, as neither to need more than a Bishop, and his Deacons in each Church, nor to afford much choice of persons for any more, [in non-Latin alphabet] they were contented every where with these two. Lastly, that when the number of believers was greatly increased, and so permitted and required it, then a second order, under Bishops, and above Deacons, was erected in each Church by Apostles and Apostolical men, particularly, as may probably be collected by Saint John in Asia, toward the end of his days, and accordingly that Ignatius's Epistles written some years after John's death, are the first that mention that second order.

5. All this in every branch has been distinctly cleared both in the Dissertations, and since in the Vindication of them from the London Assemblers, and not one word is here pretended to invalidate any one part of it, any farther, than as it will fall under one of the two following heads of discourse, and therefore I am now to hasten to them. Only to be sure to have neglected nothing, that can expect to be considered in the least, It is here presently visible, 1. how causelessly Ignatius is quarrelled with, for mentioning the orders of the Church upon no occasion, when the design of his Epistles being to preserve truth and peace among the Churches, he had no better and more compendious way to do it, than by requiring their subjection to their Governors, and thereupon he so constantly inculcates it, and this is a very important occasion, and that which always makes it very seasonable and pertinent, whenever it is done by him.

6. Secondly, How fallaciously the discourse proceeds, which supposes Clemens to call those Presbyters (which ought to signify as among us the word now signifies, colleagues and fellow-rulers in the same Church) whom before he had called Bishops, adding that he plainly asserts Episcopacy to be the office of Presbyters, and that their spiritual Governors were the Presbyters of the Church, and a plurality of Presbyters in the same Church, whereas all this while he knows that Clement says that the Apostles instituted Bishops and Deacons in all Cities and Regions, and that these are by us cleared to be singular Bishops, and that to prevent contentions, they left a list of successors to that singular office in each Church, and that these singular Bishops are oft called [in non-Latin alphabet] Elders, not only before, but after Clemens, even by those that appear, and are acknowledged to assert the three orders, and consequently that Clement may well be allowed to style them so, in whose time, for ought appears, there were none of that second order, now vulgarly called Presbyters, yet erected, either at Rome, from where or at Corinth, or in all Achaia, to which he wrote this Epistle.

7. Thirdly, How infirm a way of arguing it is, to say that Clement does not in the least intimate any singular person, promoted above his fellows, and that had there been any such at Corinth, it had been impossible he should be thus passed by in silence, when he knows that the Apostles constituting Bishops and Deacons, and what follows on that account, is by us insisted on, and confirmed to be more than an intimation of it, and when the whole purport of the Epistle is to preserve the authority of the Governors of the several Churches under that Metropolis, whom he knows we contend and prove to be the singular Bishops, and must not forgo that pretension till it be confuted.

8. To proceed to the second head of discourse, his asserting the Bishops mentioned in Clemens to be bare Presbyters. For this it is certain, that he makes no tender of any other argument, or appearance of proof, but only the mention of [in non-Latin alphabet] (which he renders Presbyters) in the plural, whom therefore he concludes to be many Presbyters in the same Church. But 1. [in non-Latin alphabet] Elder, signifies Bishop in Scripture, in Clemens, in Polycarpe, in those of the Ancients after them, that are known to assert the singular Bishop above Presbyters in each Church. And this having been said and cleared in the Dissertations is not, in the least, attempted to be disproved by him.

9. Secondly, These many Elders are not all (or more than one) said or intimated by Clement to be in one City. For the Epistle, as was showed in the Dissertations, is, I suppose, most certainly, may have been addressed by Clement, not to the single Church of that one City of Corinth but to the Churches of all Achaia or Greece, of which Corinth was the chief, being the Metropolis.

10. That it was not so, is barely said, but largely proved in that place, Dissertations 5. cap. 2. first from the title of the Epistle, [in non-Latin alphabet], where it is on each part the [in non-Latin alphabet], or whole province, as of Rome, so of Corinth, the region and territory that belonged to either of those Metropoles, which in that age was called [in non-Latin alphabet], or the adjacent region, expressed by Ignatius, by [in non-Latin alphabet], the place of the region of the Romans, by Polycarpe in the same kind, speaking of Philippi, [in non-Latin alphabet], the Church adjoining or belonging to Philippi, and by Eusebius [in non-Latin alphabet], the province belonging to Corinth, of which Dionysius was Bishop or Metropolitan.

Secondly, this was proved by the analogy held between this Epistle of Clemens, and the Epistle of Saint Paul, inscribed to the Corinthians; for I demand, was not this Epistle of Clement written to the same Church or Churches, to whom Saint Paul's two Epistles had been addressed? That it was, is more than probable by the common title; and other characters in the Epistle itself incline to it. As that he refers them to the Epistles of Saint Paul written to them, and that upon the like occasion of divisions and factions, so early crept in among them. So pag. 61. [in non-Latin alphabet]—Take, says he, the Epistle of Saint Paul, consider what he says to you in the beginning of his preaching to you, certainly it was by inspiration from God, that he wrote to you concerning himself and Cephas, and Apollos, because that then you had partialities and inclinations to one more than to another, but that partiality brought less sin to you—Here still it is the same [in non-Latin alphabet], you] that before, and now were guilty of this sin of carnality, admiration of person, faction, and now at length sedition, and so the same Churches now and then, to whom these Epistles on that occasion were addressed, and there is no circumstance producible, that restrains one more than the other.

Now of the Epistles of Paul it is evident they were not confined to the one city of Corinth, but to all the Churches of Achaia, so it is specified of the second of them (2 Corinthians 1:1), To the Church of God which is at Corinth, with all the Saints which are in all Achaia: and though this be not expressly said of or in the first Epistle, or in this of Clement, yet the relation that one has to the other, will conclude it of those also; and the phrase, which there we find superadded to the Church of Corinth (1 Corinthians 1:2), [in non-Latin alphabet], to all that are called by the name of Christ, all Christians, in every place] (and the like form at the conclusion of this, The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you, [in non-Latin alphabet], and with all every where that are called by God] has in all probability the same importance) for that being universal, and extended beyond Corinth, must not yet be interpreted of all Christians in the world, for that would make each of these a Catholick Epistle, and would conclude the Apostle to have received an Epistle from the Catholick Church, to which this return was made: c. 7. 1. And so likewise the particular sins, and sinners both there and here, to which they apply their exhortations, the incest, the going to law before heathen judicatures, the seditions, etc. do evidently restrain it from that latitude, which two circumstances being balanced on each side, will certainly leave it in the middle, between the one Church of Corinth on the one side, and the universal Church of the whole world on the other, and so leave it commensurate and applicable to the [in non-Latin alphabet] all the coasts of Achaia. Thus when (1 Corinthians 3:5) it is said of Apollos, that he has watered them, as the minister by which they to whom he wrote believed and so in this of Clemens, that they had been factiously inclined to Apollos it is evident by the story in the Acts, that this belonged not only to Corinth, but to Achaia indefinitely (Acts 18), he resolved to go into Achaia, and coming there he contributed much to those that believed, v. 27.

To these are added these further indications, that in the Epistle to the Romans sent from Corinth, the salutations are sent from the Churches of Christ, in the plural (Romans 16:16), mention is made of the Church which is at Cenchrea (which is one of these Churches), v. 1. So what the Apostle writes in these Epistles concerning the collection for Judea (1 Corinthians 16:1) and (2 Corinthians c. 8 and 9) evidently belongs to all Achaia. Romans 15:26, Macedonia and Achaia have pleased to make a certain contribution, and I know your forwardness, Achaia has been ready or prepared (2 Corinthians 9:2), and so when c. 1. 9. he had said, when I was present among you and wanted, I burdened no man, it follows, v. 10, this boasting shall not be shut up against me in all the regions of Achaia. Where still [[in non-Latin alphabet]] and [[in non-Latin alphabet]] [you] and [Achaia] are all one, and if that liberty be but allowed in this Epistle, the whole difficulty is at an end, for then, as there were many cities and episcopal sees in Achaia, the chief of which was Corinth, and what was sent to that Metropolis was from there to be communicated, as it belonged to all those others: so the Bishops of each of these might very fitly be called by Clement [in non-Latin alphabet] Elders, and not the Elders of that one Church or city of Corinth, but all that related to that Metropolis.

This, I may have leave to hope, will be looked on as a firmer foundation on one side, to conclude that the [in non-Latin alphabet] Elders, which is also the title of Bishops, in this Epistle, being also called Bishops here (a title which, as is elsewhere showed at large, as far as the Scriptures never was applied to a bare Presbyter) were the several Bishops or singular Governors of the many cities of Achaia, than the bare number or multitude of them, without any other circumstance to enforce it, will be sufficient to infer that they were the many Presbyters in one city.

To come therefore to the third thing, the taking notice of this answer, and his endeavoring to invalidate it, I shall briefly examine whatever is said by him in pursuit of that attempt. And his first method is that of the Scoffer, to prepare his reader to look on this answer as ridiculous, he doubts not but the Doctor makes himself merry, if he can suppose any so wedded to his dictates, as to give it entertainment, for it is plainly jocular; and again, I must in the same scoffing humor, be styled a learned man, so to be allowed to exercise my fancy, to sport with my own imaginations.

15. But 1. truly, Sir, I was neither then nor am now at so much vacancy, which might call for sport; if I were, I would find out more Christian-like divertisements. 2. I could never think that what was thus confirmed by arguments (and this had been done in the Dissert. on the same grounds of probation, which have here been mentioned) could be liable to the censure either of Dictates on one side, or of jocular, on the other; and 3. if he had been as well able to confute my answer, or confirmations of it, as he was to scoff and cry, [illegible]cular, &c. he must needs have thought it more like a Christian, and a Scholar, and a propugner of truth, to have insisted wholly on the former, and omitted the latter. Lastly, I learn from hence, wherein my crime consisted, when I said of one of Blondel's observations from Clement, that it was instar prodigii; it seems I should have said that it was plainly [illegible]ocular, have smiled instead of wondering, and all had been very well.

16. Having thus answered his proeme, I come to his narration: and there truly I find no one argument of force to countenance or justify his mirth. A cumulus there is, but that will signify nothing, unless some one of the particulars, of which it consists, do so. And that they cannot do, being by him known to be denied by me, before they are mentioned, and yet no proof added to support them.

17. As 1. that the Epistle is directed to the Church [in non-Latin alphabet], without the least intimation of any other Church or Churches, and after in the like words, a little varied, that there is not an apex or tittle to intimate the designation of it to any but the Church of Corinth — this is a negative unproved and concluding nothing, whereas it is evident to him, that the very phrase [[in non-Latin alphabet]] is taken by me for more than an intimation that it was the whole [in non-Latin alphabet] or Province, which he wrote to, and that the consent between this and Saint Paul's Epistles intimated them to be addressed to the same, and so to the Churches of all Achaia.

18. So 2. when he says the difference it was written about, was occasioned by one or two persons in that Church only, and that it was that Church only that is exhorted to order and due subjection to Elders, that is petitio principii, and that which no way appears in the Epistle, one or more of these might be in other Churches of Achaia, and those other Churches might be all exhorted to order and subjection to their several Bishops.

19. 3. When he falls back so soon into his first topic again, that of contumely [the fabric of after-ages lies so close to the Doctor's imagination, that there is no entrance for the true frame, and therefore every thing must be wrested, &c.] and yet more, that whereas I ought to crop off head and heels (a phrase that I have not met with, cropping off heels) I chose to stretch and torture — 1. it is evident how easily this might be retorted, thus, that the fabric of this last part of this last age in this Island of ours, lies so close on my Monitor's imagination, that the frame in Clement's time, of a Church governed by Bishops, ordained by the Apostles and their successors, not by the people or the whole congregation, cannot find entrance with him. And secondly, from the recurring of such kind of rhetoric as this, so soon I might very probably conclude, that his whole confidence was placed in this one topic, which is ordered both to lead the van, and also to bring up the rear, to be the reserve as well as the forlorn hope; and then upon this view of his reply, I desire it may be indifferently considered, whether my arguments were not as valid to confirm my answer as his mirth and repetitions and bare negations without any attempt of proof, were of force to assert the contrary.

20. Next he promises to attend to my arguments, but cannot hold his countenance again, they must be styled [learned arguments] [illegible]orsooth (to have spoken as he thought, had been more like a serious person, that meant to attend to arguments) and the first that he attends to is, that Corinth was the Metropolis of Greece, in a political sense and acceptation of the word, where the Proconsul had his residence, and this he grants, but for my consectary from there, that Epistle inscribed to the Church [in non-Latin alphabet], should be conceived sent to the Christians of all A[illegible]haia — all the strength thereof, says he, from the insinuation of such a state of things in the Church of God, is nothing, but a pure begging of the thing in question.

21. But first, certainly this cannot be that fallacy called [in non-Latin alphabet] the begging of the question; it is the [illegible]erring of that which is there proved both before and after; before, both as that signifies long before, and immediately before; long before, namely Dissert. 4. c. 5. the erection of Metropoles and Metropolitans in the Church had been demonstrated; immediately before, it had been mentioned as a praecogn[illegible]scendum, that Corinth was such an one, which if granted, it must follow, that there was a Metropolitan Archbishop at Corinth, of whom all the Bishops in Greece were dependent. So again this was proved after, by the consent between this and Paul's E[illegible]istles; those were written to all the Christians of all Achaia, and then why should not this be resolved to be so written also? And how then can the question be here said to be begged by me? If this of Corinth's being a Metropolis in the political sense, were not sufficient to infer this conclusion, first that might then have been said, the consequence denied, and trial made, what was, or what could be farther said to prove it; but that method was not here thought safe, it was easier to say, the strength of the consectary is nothing but a pure begging of the question, which yet I never heard said of a conclusion, inferred from premises, and after farther undertaken to be proved; I desire to consult Aristotle in his discourse of that fallacy, and he shall find it was not [in non-Latin alphabet], on my side a begging of the question, but [in non-Latin alphabet], on his, a denying the conclusion.

22. This for the forme of his reply; secondly then, as to the matter of it, I did, and still doe thinke it a concluding argument, which I there used; and being briefly set downe, 'twill be more explicitely this: An Epistle addrest to a Metropolitical see, under the title of the Church adjacent to such a chiefe City or Metropolis, is addrest to all the Cities and Churches that relate to that Metropolis. But Corinth was such a City, and this Epistle was so addrest to it — that Corinth was such a Metropolis was apparent, and is not denyed, as to the politicall acceptation of it; and if it were so also in the Ecclesiastick, there is no farther difficulty; and if my supposing and not farther proving of this in that place, were the infirme part of the discourse, and begging of the question, I must answer, that I had no reason to expect it should be esteemed so, having long before, on occasion of the Angels in the Revelation, entre [illegible] into a discourse of Metropolitical Cities, and shewed, that not onely in the political but Ecclesiastical acceptation, there were such in the Apostles, and so in Clement's time.

23 This was there manifested in many instances, 1. in Antioch the Metropolis of Syria and Cilicia, and all the Churches of those regions, the [in non-Latin alphabet] of Antioch and dependent on that; Secondly in Rome the Metropolis of the Roman Province, or Urbicarian region; Thirdly, in Alexandria the Metropolis of Egypt, whereupon Marke is said by Eusebius to have lonstituted Churches (in the plural) there, all which under the title of [in non-Latin alphabet], the province of, or belonging to Alexandria (as here [in non-Latin alphabet]) were by Saint Mark committed to Anianus or Ananias, and the Government administred by him, all the rest of the Churches there planted by Mark, relating to this as to the Metropolis; Fourthly, in Gortyna the prime Metropolis of Crete, the Arch-Bishop whereof in the Epistle of Dionysius Bishop of Corinth, Ann: Ch: 175. is styled Bishop [in non-Latin alphabet], of the Church adjacent to (that is, the province of) Gortyna, and of all the rest in Crete; Fifthly, in Philippi, the Metropolis of one Province of Macedonia (Acts 16:12), to which purpose it is that in the Epistle said to be written by Ignatius to them of Tarsus, we finde, [in non-Latin alphabet], the Churches (in the plural) of the Philippians salute you; Sixthly, in the several Churches of Asia, mentioned (Revelation 1), each of them a Metropolis over some other cities, and Ephesus the prime of all the Proconsular Asia. And this forme, or this state of things in the Church of God, is there by three Canons of the three great Councels, Nice, Antioch, Ephesus, testified to be the ancient primitive, Apostolical state.

24. This being then done at large, and thereby the primitive constitution of Metropolitical Churches competently asserted, it seemed to me sufficient but to re-mind the Reader, that Corinth was one such Metropolis of Achaia or Greece, and accordingly, that upon that account (in the Ecclesiastical as well as Political acceptation) the Epistles of Paul inscribed [in non-Latin alphabet], to the Corinthians, were meant to all the Churches of Achaia, and not onely to that one of Corinth. And what error I have committed herein, I confesse I am not yet able to discerne or divine, or what there is behinde that wants farther proof.

25. The onely thing I can yet thinke of, is, that in this Praefacer's judgement, I have not made it sufficiently appeare by that one evidence of Corinth's being a Metropolis, where the Proconsul of Achaia kept his residence (Acts 18:12, 15), (that is, a Metropolis in the Political acceptation) that it was also a Metropolis in the Ecclesiastical notitiae, and then it may be fit perhaps farther to adde something to cleare that, and put it out of question, not onely in thesi, that the Church generally thus corresponded with the state, (according to that of Origen, [in non-Latin alphabet], the Governour of the Church of every City must keep conformity to the ruler of those that are in the City, Contr. Cels. l. 3.) but also in hypothesi, that so it was particularly in this of Corinth.

26. To which purpose it were easie to multiply testimonies, which put it out of question that Corinth was a Metropolitical Church, and so is recorded to be in all the Notitiae, that are extant; but I shall content my selfe with one testimony, that of Saint Chrysostome, who asketh this question, [in non-Latin alphabet] — Why writing to the Metropolis, he writes (that is, expresses himselfe to write) to all by or through that, whereas in other Epistles he does not doe so? For writing to the Thessalonians, he no where addresseth it to the Macedonians also, and writing to the Ephesians in like manner, he comprehendeth not all Asia, and the Epistle to the Romans was not addrest also to the inhabitants of Italy; but here this he does, and in the Epistle to the Galatians, for there also he makes his addresse, not to one, or two, or three Cities, but to all every where dispersed, saying, Paul an Apostle — to the churches of Galatia — where, as Corinth at the time when Saint Paul wrote that Epistle, is by him supposed to be a Metropolis, and so Thessalonica, and Ephesus, and Rome, so both in the Epistles to the Corinthians, and in that to the Galatians, there were more Cities than one, to whom they were addrest. And then I suppose there is a full testimony to all, and more than I undertook to prove from it. At the present it sufficeth, Corinth, says he, was a Metropolis, and that in the Ecclesiastick notion, when Saint Paul wrote to it.

27. What the Prefacer farther addes, is for the examining my next proofe or evidence, that Clement's Epistle belonged to the Churches of Achaia, and not to Corinth onely, because the Epistles of Saint Paul appear to have done so. And besides the scoffs and the demurer accusation about Grotius (which shall anon be considered) all that he replyes is, 1. That though Saint Paul's being expresly and [in non-Latin alphabet] directed to the Churches of Achaia, cannot be confined to the Church of Corinth, yet Clement directing his Epistle to the Church of Corinth onely, without mention, or insinuation of any intention to extend it to any other, handling in it the peculiar concernment of that Church, and a difference about one or two persons therein, cannot be supposed to be written thus to the Churches of all Achaia. Secondly: That in his opinion I might more probably have adhered to a former conjecture of mine concerning two different Churches, with distinct Officers in the same City, though this would not suffice neither.

28. To these I reply. 1. That Saint Paul's only one (the second) is expressly directed to all the Churches of Achaia, and yet the former is without that express direction, already sufficiently cleared (and not here denied) to belong to the same Churches, and the same reasons hold for this of Clemens, which was written to them, to whom Paul wrote, and not to the Church of Corinth, but ⟨in non-Latin alphabet⟩ to the Church adjacent, the ⟨in non-Latin alphabet⟩ the territory, that belonged to it. And therefore, secondly; that this is more than an insinuation of an intention to extend it to those other Churches. Thirdly: that the concernments of the Epistle are no way restrained to the particular Church of Corinth, but are common to the other Churches of Achaia. Fourthly: that the difference, or rather sedition, does no way appear to be peculiar to the Church of that one city: the one or two, if they signify strictly no greater a number than two, might yet as probably be in any one or two other cities of Greece, as in that one of Corinth. And there is no probability of reason to conclude, that the errors about the Resurrection, &c. had spread no farther than that one city.

29. Lastly, for his opinion that I might more probably have adhered to my former conjecture concerning the two different assemblies of Jewish and Gentile Christians in one city; all that I need say, is, that though I still adhere to that conjecture, as far as ever, and no way fear what he threatens, that any use, which I shall repent of, will, or ever can be made of this concession, yet I never thought fit to apply it to this matter, both because here is no need of such aids, (and I may have leave to think the Prefacer would not have suggested it to me, if there had, and that if he had had any way to wrest the former hold from me, he would not thus have attempted it by diversion) and because as I am not sure that there ever were two such distinct Coetus at Corinth under distinct Bishops (only from the authority of Dionysius Bishop of Corinth, that there were two parts of their first plantation, one from Paul, another from Peter) so if there ever were, yet they might before this time of Clement's writing, be made up into one body, as I know the Jewish and Gentile Church at Rome, that had been under different governors, were now united under Clement.

30. And therefore to conclude this matter. I desire every man may be allowed liberty to use his own arguments and answers, and to take his own time to produce and apply them, and that, till what has been said, be refuted, I may be permitted to think that the whether ⟨in non-Latin alphabet⟩ or ⟨in non-Latin alphabet⟩, Bishops or Elders, in this Epistle of Clement are the singular governors of the several cities of Achaia.

31. What he says by the by, of Acts 20:8. and Acts 14:23. that those two places must be excepted from the universal negative, that there were never more Bishops than one in a city, he cannot but know how little force it has against me, who have manifested out of Irenaeus, that the ⟨in non-Latin alphabet⟩ Elders or Bishops Acts 20. were the Bishops of Asia, not of the one city of Ephesus, and that the Elders ordained in every Church Acts 14. were the Bishops ordained at Lystra, Iconium and Antioch, and not any plurality of Presbyters in one city.

32. Having now done with all the three former particulars, wherein Ignatius and Clement, Episcopacy and Presbytery were concerned, there remains only that which is personal to me, in relation to Grotius, but that consisting of several branches, of which it will presently appear how many, or rather how few of them have any degree either of weight or of truth in them.

33. The first is very light, and inconsiderable, that in interpreting [all in every place] (1 Corinthians 1:2), Grotius says the same with me. And would not any man believe this assertion of the Prefacer, take it on his word, and not think it needful to examine it, but resolve it is so much the better, and that thereby it seems, that I am not singular in my imagination: but to see the luck of it, having no such idea in my memory, I turned to Grotius's Notes on the place, and this is all that they say there: Ostendit vocationem omnibus esse communem, ac proinde unum esse corpus debere, non tantum unius loci, sed & omnium locorum, puta Achaiae & Macedoniae, in quâ tum erat Paulus, Ecclesiam. The Apostle by the phrase [all that in every place call on the name of the Lord Jesus, both theirs and ours] shows that vocation is common to all, and consequently that the Church, not only of one place, but of all places, to wit of Achaia, and Macedonia, where Paul then was, ought to be one body. From hence truly I was not so diligent a reader of that learned man's Annotations, as to make any collection at all, or so much as to remember that he had said it, nor was I ever so acute, or sagacious, as from those words to have been able to infer this conclusion, that the Epistle was written to all the Churches of Achaia: for as long as Corinth was in Achaia, there had been perfect truth in Grotius's words, though the Epistle had been written only to Corinth, as there is on the other side in his mention of Macedonia (where Paul then was) though Paul was not conceived by Grotius to have been in above one city of Macedonia (namely Philippi) at this time when thus he wrote.

34. The second is, that H. Grotius is my great friend, to whom I am beholden for more than one rare notion. To which I answer, that this is so far perfect truth, that he is one whose memory I exceedingly reverence and value for what he has written; one from whom I have from my first entrance on the consideration of divine and moral learning, received more useful notions than I have from any writer of this last age, and so may any man else that is not very much above my pitch, if he read him with a sincere desire of knowing and practicing the truth. As for any uncertain conjectures, which I suppose the Prefacer means by rare notions, or for any expedients whereby to defend the matter in hand, that of Episcopacy, I know not that I received any the least hint or direction from him.

35. The third is, that I ward myself carefully that I may not be thought beholding to Grotius. To which I reply, that I never was sparing on any occasion, whether by words or writings to give my testimony of my valuing, and my being beholding to him, but especially that I have done this very frequently in my papers that have been published, as I shall not need make proof by citations or references to them, and I pretend not either to more gravity or self-denial, than is perfectly reconcilable with this, how far either of these are discovered by the Prefacer, it is not my purpose to examine. And whereas it is suggested as the complaint of some that have tried it in reference to the Comment on the Revelations, this must needs be in those men, whoever they are, a most groundless complaint or quarrel, 1. Because it is most certain that Grotius's Book of Notes upon the Revelation, came out after I had penned the Annotations on the Revelation, and so all that I had to do, was to survey them as soon as they came out, and comparing my Notes with his, to reap what benefit I could from him, but did not, could not receive from him my scheme of that Prophecie, or series of my interpretations on the whole, or on any part thereof, save only those two Chapters (1. 3. and 17.) whereon he had formerly written.

36. Secondly: Because in the one place which my memory at present suggests to me, that I borrowed the interpretation from him there I find upon examination, that I have owned it from him, in that of the two Witnesses, p 962. [illegible] say, it is reasonable to forsake all other conjectures, and pitch upon that which the learned H. Grotius has resolved on.

37. Lastly, because I had made my particular and solemn acknowledgement to this learned man, by recommending, next after Chrysostome and the Greek Scholiasts, his admirable Comments and posthumous Annotations, in which number this on the Revelation was specially comprehended. This is once done in the beginning of the Preface, and again toward the end of it. And that is the third argument to supersede all force of this charge. And so I am still, I suppose, free from all appearance of having merited any part of this character fastened on me by him and his other complainers.

38. After I had written thus much, and just as this paragraph was transcribed, it happens quite above my expectation, that a fourth evidence was offered to me in a Letter from a learned friend, an account whereof, by transcribing some few passages in it, will a little longer divert the Reader: It is in these words.

Sir, I have seen a Preface of Mr. Owen's before his Answer to Mr. John Goodwin touching Perseverance, and I doubt not but you have seen it, or will see it before this Paper comes to you; so I will take no trouble to render to you any thing more of that Digression, which he spends upon you, than to give you notice that I observe among the many reproaches, wherewith he endeavours to load you, in the 17. and 18. pages, he tells men, That there are many that complain of your secret vain glory, in seeking to disclaim the direction from H. Grotius in reference to your Comment on the Revelation. This charge, I suppose, reflects upon the very close of your Praemonition concerning the Interpretation of the Apocalypse, namely, Among which number I now also find the most learned Hugo Grotius, in those posthumous Notes of his on the Apocalypse lately published. It seems those many complainers suspect, that (for the main delineation of your work on that Prophecie) you took it from Grotius, though you do pretend, that without any other light going before you, you derived it from the light shining in the Prophecie itself. Unless you think it more fit for you to contemn than to vindicate yourself from that aspersion, sure you want not sufficient evidence to reprove that surmise. I doubt not but you communicated your thoughts concerning that Prophecie to several friends, whom you judged proper to be consulted in such a matter: Among others, I am sure you acquainted Mr. John D. with the first draught of your Interpretation, who thereupon told you, That when he and I conversed together, which was in the year 1645. I had in some discourses declared my opinion concerning that Prophecie to what times it referred, and that he found a great concurrence in your opinion and mine, which relation of his moved you to write to me, and require of me to communicate my thoughts to you about the scope of that Prophecie; and this your Letter was dated October 9. 1648. To which desire I forthwith paid a due respect, and in such manner, as I was able, gave you a scheme of my thoughts on that Prophecie, and then soon after my answer sent to you, I received a second Letter from you, in which you said [That which you have now sent me is the laying down of all the very grounds, which I have laid down for the interpreting the Apocalypse, and unless it be in one little particular, the concurrence is exactly the same for the interpretation of the several parts.] And then you proceeded in that Letter to give me the sum of every part of the Prophecie, which is the exact sum of your interpretation which is published: And this second Letter was dated December 18. 1648. I have thus punctually set down the times, because it is very likely that you cannot with so much ease distinguish the times as may clear you perfectly from that calumny, if you think fit to take any notice thereof at all.

All that I shall add to this seasonable assistance of my ill memory, is but this, that Grotius's Notes were not published till the year 16[illegible]. And so much above what [illegible] intended in answer to that suggestion.

39. The fourth thing is, that which is concluded from mine own Apologie, as he is pleased to call it, Dissert. 5. c. 1. sect. 24. where I said, that I was glad to find by Grotius's Annotations on the Revelation (read hastily by me after the Dissertations were finisht and transcribed for the Printer) that he was of my opinion concerning a Gentile and a Jewish congregation of Christians in the same city. How I offended in this, or why this should be styled an Apologie, or what I should have said in any syllable otherwise than I did, I confesse I cannot imagine. This onely I know, that it was perfect truth, what there I said, that that whole discourse, about the two sorts of Assemblies and Bishops, in every branch of it was made before his Annotations either were read by me, or publisht, that if I had had his authority to have voucht for the whole observation, I should most gladly have own'd it, and counted it my interest to doe so, that I might not be blamed for the singularity of the observation by those, who were otherwise minded: that as it was, I was glad I had his suffrage, and accordingly expressed I was so.

40. And now truly I am very little concern'd in the gloss, which, quite contrary to my expectation, I find put upon it, were it not my duty to avert the suspition of a vice, and the ill example consequent to it, I should never have disturbed the fly, which he tels me, this has let into my pot of ointment. The Prefacer should have had my free leave to have said this, and much more (so long as it was so far from truth) against me, without my making any word of solemn reply to it. As it is, I am not ill pleased, that I am now at an end of it.

Sect. 2.

A digression concerning some jealousies spread of Hugo Grotius.

1. Yet because I will be as little in the debt of that learned man Hugo Grotius, as I may, and because I have the occasion offer'd, which suggests it my duty to make some return of gratitude to so good a friend of mine, as I am told he is, I shall doe it in a way, which seems to me most proper at this time.

2. This very pious, learned, judicious man has of late among many fallen under a very unhappy fate, being most unjustly calumniated, sometimes as a Socinian, sometimes as a Papist, and as if he had learnt to reconcile Contradictories, or the most distant extreames, sometimes as both of them together.

3. For that of his being a Socinian, three things are vulgarly made use of, to infuse that jealousie into mens minds: 1. Some parcels of a Letter of his to Crellius. 2. Some relations of what past from him at his death. 3. Some passages in his Annotations. Of these it may suffice to say briefly, that the collection, which is made from the first, and the whole of the second, is perfect calumnie and forgery, the third an injustice in the publisher.

4. For the first of them, having seen above 20. years since, [⟨in non-Latin alphabet⟩], fragments or excerpta of a letter of his to Crellius (on occasion of that mans defense of Socinus, against his excellent book De satisfactione Christi) wherein there were many civilities and commendations of what was any way commendable in the Socinian writings, and finding that this was lookt on as an indication of his judgement, very favourable to that sect, that instead of replying to his confutation, he returned nothing but words of kindnesse and esteeme to him and his whole tribe, and having then commodity to make a more particular inquirie into the truth of that whole matter, I accordingly made use of it, and had this account from that learned man, which as well as my memory will afford, I will set downe intirely. First, that upon the Survey of Crellius's book against him, he found there was but one thing of any weight, which seemed to stand in force against him, and to exact any reply from him, and that was about [⟨in non-Latin alphabet⟩], vicaria satisfactio, one mans laying downe his life for another, the innocent to rescue the nocent. Secondly, that after the publication of his Book, De Satisfactione, but withall long before Crellius's reply, he had taken that one particular into more serious consideration, and in his book, De Jure Belli ac Pacis, set downe his thoughts on that subject more exactly, I thinke it was l. 2. c. 21. Thirdly, that to that discourse he remitted him, being of opinion, that he needed not adde any more in relation to that Controversie, as it lay between them, joyning as appears by the Excerpta, many passages of civility and commendations, which he thought due to them in one respect, their profest desire to advance the practice of vertue and Christian life. And this account of this letter gives it a quite different and distant appearance, from that which the fragments, all of one sort, taken alone, out of this conjunction had given it.

5. For the second, concerning some words which are reported (variously) to have past from him at his death, they will be evidenced to be either totally falsified, or fouly mistaken and distorted from the true meaning of them, by the account given of his sicknesse and last passages, by John Quistorpius, Doctor of Divinity, and Pastor of the chiefe Church in Rostoch, who assisted him in his last tryall. His Letter being already in Print, in Doctor Causabone's little Booke intituled (as I remember) De Usu verborum, I must not here set it downe, but referre the Reader to that view of it, where he will finde no other words of his but these; when the Doctor wished he had been to converse with him in health, his answer was, it a Deo visum est, thus God has pleased to dispose of it; when he mentioned confession of sinnes, and the example of the Publican, he interposed, Ego ille sum Publicanus, I am that Publican; when he remitted him to Christ, without whom there is no Salvation, he replyed, In solo Christo omnis spes mea reposita est, In Christ onely all my hope is reposed. When he used the prayer beginning Herr Jesu wahrer Mensch und Got, &c. he folded his hands and followed him in a low voice; when he asked him at the end whether he understood, he answered, probè intellexi, I understood it well; when upon reciting some seasonable texts of Scripture, he askt againe whether he understood him, his last words were, Vocem tuam audio, sed quae singula dicas difficulter intelligo, I hear your voice, but doe not easily understand every word you say. And having said so, he became Speechlesse. This bare recitall of his novissima, is a sufficient confutation of all the uncharitable relations that are made of them.

6. Lastly, then for the passages in the Annotations, it may suffice to remember that they are in his posthuma, those which have been publisht since his death, those especially on the Epistles, of which it is evident, that they had never been formed by him, or fitted for the public, but were put together by some body else, after his death, who finding many things in his adversaria, throwne into Paper bookes as he had at any time occasion, either from his reading of Scripture or others writings (it being ordinary for every man to note, not onely what he approves, but what he dislikes, and what he thinkes matter of farther consideration) has, as he thought fit, made a body of Annotations, and publisht them under his name. Many indications of the truth of this I might produce, having elsewhere mentioned some. I shall onely adde one (Colossians 1:16), where the Apostle says [by him all things were created that are in Heaven—] the Annotation publisht under Grotius's name, has these words, Rectius est; [〈in non-Latin alphabet〉], hic interpretari, ordinata sunt, novum quendam statum sunt consecuta, the righter interpreting of [were created] is, were ordered, obteined a new kinde of state, and so in the end, All things were created by him] the Scholion is, Intellige omnia quae ad novam creationem pertinent, Understand all things which belong to the New Creation.

7. Which explications as they more than savour of the Socinian leaven, not willing to permit Christ there to be said the Creater of Angels, but referring all to the New Creation (as the Socinians generally doe, and accordingly interpret. In principio, John 1:1. In principio Evangelii, In the beginning of the Gospel) so they are expresly contrary to the words of Grotius, as we know they were publisht by him on John 1:3, where on those words [without him was nothing made that was made] the nothing, says he, is put to take away all exception, Id autem ideo factum, ut in iis, quae per verbum sunt condita, intelligerentur etiam ea quae conspicua nobis nen sunt (Colossians 1:16). This was done, that among these things that were created by the word, may be understood also those things that are not seen, citing this very place to that sense (Colossians 1:16), which in the posthumous Annotations, is interpreted in such a contrariety both to this former note, and to the writings last published by him before his death, that nothing can be more discernibly injurious to him.

8. By this the Reader may observe and judge of others, and consider how unequall we are likely to be to dead men, if we judge of their opinions by all that is after death published under their names. Witnesse also his Book, De Potestate Regis [illegible] irca sacra, which being written by him in his younger dayes, but never approved by him to be publisht in his life, but purposely supprest, onely some Copies stolne out in Manuscripts from him in which forme I read it many yeares since, 'tis now against his consent (and in many things distant from his sense exprest in later writings) publisht, as if it had been fully allow'd by him. But this by the way.

9. Next then for the charge of Popery that is fallen upon him, it is evident from where that flows, either from his profest opposition to many doctrines of some Reformers, Zuinglius, and Calvin, &c., or from his Annotations on Cassander, and the Debates with Rivet, consequent thereto, the Votuns pro Pace and Discussio.

10. For the former of these 'tis sufficiently known what contests there were, and at length how profest the divisions between the Remonstrant and Contraremonstrant, and it is confest that he maintain'd (all his time) the Remonstrants party, vindicating it from all charge, whether of Pelagianism, or Semipelagianism, which was by the opposers objected to it, and pressing the favourers of the doctrine of Irrespective Decrees with the odious consequences of making God the author and favourer of sin, and frequently expressing his sense of the evil influences that some of those doctrines were experimented to have on mens lives; and by these meanes it is not strange that he should fall under great displeasure from those, who having espoused the opinion of irrespective decrees, did not onely publish it as the truth, and truth of God, but farther asserted the questioning of it to be injurious to God's free grace, and his eternal election, and consequently retain'd no ordinary patience for, or charitie to opposers.

11. But then still this is no medium to inferre that charge. The doctrines, which he thus maintained, were neither branches nor characters of Popery, but asserted by some of the first, and most learned and pious Reformers. Witnesse the writings of Hemingius in his Opuscula (most of which are on these subjects) whereas on the contrary side, Zuinglius and others, who maintained the rigid way of irrespective decrees, and infused them into some of this Nation of ours, are truly said by an excellent Writer of ours to have had it first from some antient Romish Schoolmen, and so to have had as much (or more) of that guilt adherent to them, as can be charged on their opposers.

12. The truth is, these (or the like to them) have been matters controverted in all times, and in these latter dayes the controversies inflamed, and the doctrines warmly maintained on both sides by the Lutherans against the Calvinists, who are yet no more Papists than they, and by the Papists among themselves, witnesse the continual disputes between the Jesuits and the Dominicans, and at this time between the Molinists and Jansenians, the parties for a long time so equally balanced, that the Popes have thought it prudent to wave defining on either side, till this last year Innocentius X. upon the instance of the French King has made a decision of them.

13. So that from hence to found the jealousie, to affirm him a Papist because he was not a Contraremonstrant, is but the old method of speaking all that is ill of those, who differ from our opinions in any thing, as the Dutch man in his rage calls his horse an Arminian, because he does not goe as hee would have him. And this is all that can soberly be concluded from such suggestions, that they are displeased and passionate that thus speak.

14. As for the Annotations on Cassander, &c. and the consequent vindications of himself against Rivet, those have with some color been deemed more favourable toward Popery; but yet, I suppose will be capable of benigne interpretations, if they be read with these few cautions or remembrances.

15. 1. That they were designed to shew a way to peace, whenever mens minds on both sides should be piously affected to it. Secondly, that he did not hope for this temper in this age, the humor on both sides being so turgent, and extreamly contrary to it, and the controversie debated on both sides by those, qui aterna cupiunt esse dissidia, says he, who desire to eternize, and not compose contentions, and therefore makes his appeal to posterity, when this paroxisme shall be over, Judicet æqua posteritas, ad quam maxime provoco.

16. Thirdly: That for the chief usurpations of the Papacy, he leaves it to Christian Princes to joyn together to vindicate their own rights, and reduce the Pope ad Canones, to that temper which the antient Canons allow and require of him, and if that will not be done, to reform every one within their own dominions.

17. Fourthly: That what he says in favor of some Popish doctrines, above what some other learned Protestants have said, is not so much by way of assertion or justification of them, as to shew what reasons they may justly be thought to proceed upon, and so not to be so irrational or impious as they are ordinarily accounted, and this onely in order to the peace of the Christian world, that we may have as much charitie to others, and not as high animosities, live with all men as sweetly, and amicably, and peaceably, and not as bitterly as is possible, accounting the wars, and seditions, and divisions, and rebellions, that are raised, and managed upon the account of religion, far greater and more scandalous unchristian evils, than are the errors of some Romish doctrines, especially as they are maintain'd by the more sober and moderate men among them, Cassander, Picherel, &c.

18. Fifthly: What he says in his Discussio of a conjunction of Protestants with those that adhere to the Bishop of Rome, is no farther to be extended than his words extend it. 1. That there is not any other visible way to the end there mention'd by him, of acquiring or preserving universal unity. 2. That this is to be done not crudely, by returning to them as they are, submitting our necks to our former yoke, but by taking away at once the division, and the causes of it, on which side soever; adding onely in the third place, that the bare Primacie of the Bishop of Rome secundùm Canones, such as the antient Canons allow of (which has nothing of supreme universal power or authority in it) is none of those causes, nor consequently necessary to be excluded in the [in non-Latin alphabet], citing that as the confession of that excellent person Phil. Melancthon.

19. So that in effect that whole speech of his, which is so solemnly vouched by Mr. Knot, and lookt on so jealously by many of us, is no more than this, that such a Primacie of the Bishop of Rome, as the antient Canons allow'd him, were, for so glorious an end, as is the regaining the peace of Christendome, very reasonably to be afforded him, yes absolutely necessary to be yielded him, whenever any such Catholick union shall be attempted, which as it had been the expresse opinion of Melancthon, one of the first and wisest Reformers, so it is far from any design of establishing the usurpations of the Papacie, or any of their false doctrines attending them, but onely designed as an expedient for the restoring the peace of the whole Christian world, which every disciple of Christ is so passionately required to contend and pray for.

20. So that, in a word, setting aside the prudential consideration and question, as whether it were not a hopelesse designe that Grotius ingaged himself in, expressing desires of an universal reconciliation, when there was so little hope on either side, that the extream parties would remit so much, as to meet in the middle point (to which also the expressing of his no hopes of it at this time, and the making his appeal to more impartial posterity, is a satisfactorie answer) all that this very learned man was guilty of in this matter, was but this, his passionate desire of the unitie of the Church in the bands of peace and truth, and a full dislike of all uncharitable distempers, and impious doctrines (whether those which he deemed destructive to the practice of all Christian virtue, or which had a particularity of ill influence toward the undermining of Government, and public peace) wherever he met with them.

21. All which notwithstanding, the temper of that learned man was known to be such, as rendred him in a special manner a lover and admirer of the frame and moderation observed in our Church of England, as it stood (shaken, but not cast down) in his life time, desiring earnestly to live himselfe in the Communion of it, and to see it copied out by the rest of the world.

22. And so much for this large digression, which if it be no necessary return to the Prefacer, may yet tend to the satisfaction of some others, and to the vindicating the memory of that Learned man.

Sect. 3.

Of [in non-Latin alphabet] in Clemens. How many Orders there were in Corinth at the writing this Epistle. [in non-Latin alphabet]. Metropolitical Churches at the first. Philippi a Metropolis at the first, as Canterbury at Augustines first planting the Faith. The Institution of Presbyters, when, by what authority. Saint Jerome's opinion. The use of the word Presbyters in Scripture. The Bishops task.

Num. 1. THE Prefacer now proceeds to take notice of a second answer of mine to the objection from the plurality of the Elders in Clement, and this yields him also matter for many questions, and great appearance of triumph. It is managed in these words.

2. But the Doctor has yet another answer to this multiplication of Elders, and he mention of them with Deacons with the eminent identity that is between them and Bishops through the whole Epistle, the same persons being unquestionably intended in respect of the same office, by both these appelations. Now this second answer is founded up on the supposition of the former (a goodly foundation!) namely, that the Epistle under consideration was written and sent not to the Church of Corinth onely, but to all the Churches of Achaia, of which Corinth was the Metropolitane.

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

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

2. I desire the Doctor to inform me in what sense he would have me to understand him, Diss. 2. cap. 20, 21, 22. Where he disputes that these words of Jerome, Antequam studia in Religione fierent, & diceretur in populis, Ego sum Pauli, ego Cephae, communi Presbyterorum consensu Ecclesia [illegible] be understood of the times of the Apostles, when [illegible] Church of Corinth, when it seems that neither [illegible] such thing as Presbyters in the [illegible] we can [illegible] As [illegible] Presbyters were Bishops properly so [illegible], who are they so, [illegible] of whom [illegible] to be a [illegible] so called. To [illegible] I [illegible].

[illegible] in the Scripture, we [illegible] of Church [illegible]. This ([illegible] Doctor) is that of [illegible], give us [illegible] of Christ, give us in every Church, Bishops and Deacons ([illegible] than we [illegible]) let those Bishops attend the [illegible], over which they [illegible] the [illegible], and administer [illegible] in and to their [illegible]; And I [illegible] all the contenders for Presbytery in this nation, and much [illegible] the Independents, that there shall be a end of this quarrel: that they will [illegible] with the Doctor, not any living, for the introduction of any [illegible] sort of persons though they should be [illegible] Presbyters into Church office and government. Only this I must [illegible] this second sort of men [illegible] Presbyters, than it does Bishops, and that word having been [illegible] third [illegible], we desire leave of the Doctor and his [illegible] if we also most frequently call them so, no ways declining the other application of Bishops, so that it be applied to signify the second and not third [illegible] of men. But of this [illegible] business, with the nature, constitution and frame of the first Churches; and the [illegible] mistake [illegible] men have by their own prejudices been engaged into, in this discussion of them, a [illegible] opportunity (if God will) may not long be afforded.

3. Here first I shall demand, from where it appears, that I accommodated a double answer to the multiplication of Elders in Clemens, &c. Truly I do not yet know or remember that I did. This certainly was all (and this can amount (if to any) but to one answer, that which we have vindicated already) that the Elders in the Epistle of Clemens were all the Bishops of Achaia. This indeed when it was proposed, was more distinctly set down by 4 steps or degrees, (but then again those are no more two than four answers) 1. that the Epistle was addressed to the Church, [in non-Latin alphabet], that is, to the whole Province; Secondly, that (to make it capable of that title) Corinth was known to be the Metropolis of Achaia; Thirdly, that Saint Paul's Epistles to the Corinthians belonged to all the Churches of Achaia, not only to Corinth, and so in any probability Clement's was to do also, being written to the same, and inscribed [in non-Latin alphabet], and therefore Fourthly, that these many Elders were the singular Bishops in the several Cities of Achaia, in each of which, the Apostles had instituted a Bishop. And this is all that is there said in that second chapter of Dissertation 5. And (yet farther) no part of this adapted as an answer to that objection of the plurality of Elders (or any other) but as things thought fit to be premised concerning that Epistle of Cl[illegible], before the taking into consideration any testimony produced out of it.

4. This might spare me the pains of further considering what is here replied to this supposed second answer, but I have not hitherto been so thirsty, as might now justify any such hasty dismission of him. I shall therefore dispose the matter orderly before me, which is a little disordered and [illegible] by the Prefacer's hasty handling, and then give answer to every appearance of scruple mentioned by him.

5. There are two things (to the business of [illegible]) chiefly observable in this Epistle of [illegible]. First, what he says of the Apostles' constitution of Bishops and Deacons at their first preaching of the Gospel, and this fully considered, through all regions and cities where they preached: without any restraining of their speech to the whether Church of Corinth, or Churches of Achaia. This is considered in Dissertation 5, chapter 10, and reference made in the margin to a former discourse, Dissertation 4, chapter 10, where out of the most ancient records it had been cleared, that at the first the Apostles had constituted no more in every Church, than here were mentioned, a Bishop and one or more Deacons. And so to this [illegible] practice of the Apostles, it is that that refers, which is here by the Prefacer misalled the color of this second answer (which he further styles a miserable evasion) and so evidently it belongs not to the plurality of Elders in Corinth, &c.

6. The second thing there discernible is, the plurality of Bishops (styled also [in non-Latin alphabet] Elders) among those to whom he there writes. And those, say I, are the Bishops of all Achaia, as that is the [in non-Latin alphabet] or Province pertaining to that Metropolis.

7. Now these things ought thus to have been severed, and then having competently vindicated the former of these, chapter 3, section 4 (that there were indeed at the first but two orders, showing when the middle order of Presbyters came in, namely most probably in Saint John's time in Asia) and so lately, as I was required, manifested the second, that of the Bishops of Greece being meant by the [in non-Latin alphabet], Elders, I might, as I said, have reasonably been spared from being so speedily called out again to the same exercises.

8. But as it is, I shall now attend him, and first when he objects, that what was discoursed of some Churches, small, and not yet formed or completed at the first planting, cannot be accommodated to the Church of Corinth, which Clement calls [in non-Latin alphabet], most firm and ancient, and which I affirm to have then been a Metropolitical Church, being confessedly great, numerous — to this I answer, 1. That I have nowhere affirmed this Church to be in Clement's time small, unformed, &c. nor had any occasion, or temptation to do so. 2. That I nowhere accommodate to this Church at that time, what I had before observed of the Church indefinitely at the first planting; these two are but effects of the Prefacer's haste, without any foundation in any words of mine. 3. That if I am now asked, whether at this time of Clement's writing there were any more than two orders in Corinth, and the other cities of Greece, I must say, as formerly, that though 'tis probable there were none, yet I find no foundation in this Epistle either for denying or affirming it.

9. The chief occasion of writing the Epistle was the sedition against the Bishops, or governors of the first order, on design [in non-Latin alphabet], to cast out of their Bishoprics some of those, whom the Apostles had placed over them, and either for Presbyters, the second, or Deacons, the third order, there was no such contention, but only (as says he, the Apostles foresaw) [in non-Latin alphabet], for the name or dignity of Bishop, and so there is no occasion to mention any but their Bishops, which yet is far from concluding that there were not any other, for Deacons we are sure there then were, no Bishop being ever without such.

10. Again, that Bishops continued to retain the name of [in non-Latin alphabet], Elders, even after there was a second sort ordained, whom we now call Presbyters, has elsewhere appeared from Polycarp, Papias, Irenaeus, and Tertullian, who certainly lived to see them in the Church, and yet call Bishops [in non-Latin alphabet] and Seniores, and so the Bishops being called [in non-Latin alphabet] in Clement, is no indication that there were at that time no second order of Presbyters in that Church.

And yet on the other side, Clement's death falling not far from Saint John's, which was in the third of Trajan, 'tis as possible, and, I confesse, to me much more probable, that there might be yet no Presbyters ordain'd at Corinth, or in the rest of Achaia, at the time of his writing this Epistle. And so there lies no obligation on me, whose conjectures are wont to bring me so little thanks from the Prefacer, to interpose them in this matter, where I have so little light to see by. Onely I am sure that the Prefacer's objection here mention'd, would be of no force against me, in case I should deny that there were then any Presbyters at Corinth, because, as the meaning of [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉], which Clemens affirmes of it can be no more than this, that this Church was founded and establisht by the Apostles themselves, and so was kept upright by them till the time of this sedition, which Hegesippus tels us was [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉], Primus being Bishop of Corinth, so that concludes nothing for their having Presbyters ordain'd among them. And when I said that at the first preaching of the Apostles, they instituted none but Bishops and Deacons, I never granted, or implyed, or believed, that as soon as ever that was done, they instituted more, namely Presbyters also.

And whereas he phansies my observation to be made of some Churches onely, that were small, and not yet formed &c. this is another mistake; for I take Clement's and Epiphanius's words universally of all Churches at their first planting, the fuller, as well as the thinner plantations. As at Jerusalem, where all the Antients tell us there was a Bishop presently upon Christ's Ascension, and the number of Believers so great, that there were seven Deacons instituted to attend him, yet neither in Scripture, nor in the Antients finde we any footsteps of this middle order of Presbyters in that Citie, at that time, or soon after. And the reason is clear, that though in some Cities there were more, in some fewer converts, and so, comparatively to others, the Church at Corinth, and through Achaia might be numerous, both Paul and Peter having labor'd there succesfully, yet for some time there were not any where so many, but that the Bishop, and his Deacon, or Deacons might be sufficient for them.

So likewise the being a Metropolis is no argument that there should be Presbyters by this time constituted there; for supposing, as I doe (and my grounds have been largely set down) that the Apostles conformed their models to the Governments and forms among the Nations where they came, at their first planting the Faith in any region, it must follow, that the Church of Corinth, as soon as it was formed into a Church, with a Bishop over it, was also a Metropolitan Church, in relation to all other Cities of Greece, which either then did, or should after believe, as Jerusalem was to all the Cities of Judea, or as Philippi, being a prime Citie, or Metropolis of Macedonia, and the first where Paul planted the Faith, was straightway a Metropolitical Church, how few, or how many Christians there were in it, it matters not.

And therefore for his change of the scene from Corinth and Clement's to Philippi and Saint Paul's Epistle, it will bring him no advantage. The case between them is exactly parallel. There was a [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉], or Province of Macedonia, says Saint Luke, of which Philippi was [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉], the Metropolis, just as Corinth was of Achaia, and this Citie being the first in that region, wherein Saint Paul planted the Faith, it was certainly a Metropolitical Church, and Epaphroditus was the Metropolitan of that Province, the first day he was Bishop of it. The truth of which is so evident, that the jeere of the [Metropolitical Infant] might seasonably have been controverted into a more serious, and decent expression, there being no reason imaginable, why, if the Apostles did institute Metropolitical Churches (as here is not one serious word of objection against all that has been said to assert it) those Churches should not at their first institution (call it their infancie if you will) be Metropolitical Churches. For as to that of the whole countries being supposed to be converted, and divided into Dioceses, that is not consequent or necessary to my assertion; for as Clement says of the Bishop and Deacon in each City at the first planting of the Faith, that they were constituted in relation to them (not onely which did, but expresly [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉]) who should afterward believe, so the Church and Bishop in the Metropolis, when that was first converted, might very well be Metropolitical in respect of the other Cities of that Province, which should afterward receive the Faith.

As we know when Augustin came first over into England, and preacht the Faith, and converted Christians first at Canterbury, Ethelbert's seat, and the Metropolis of that Province, he was by being made Bishop there, made Metropolitan also. That sure was Bede's meaning, when he says of it, lib. 1 c. 27. Venit Arelas & ab Archiepiscopo ejusdem civitatis Etherio Archiepiscopus Gentis Anglorum ordinatus est; He came to Arles in France, and by Etherius Archbishop of that Citie was ordained Archbishop to the Nation of the English, and if, as a learned Antiquarie thinkes, Bede spake after the use of his own time, and that the word Archiepiscopus was not in use here then, at Augustine's coming here, yet for the substance of the thing, wherein I make the instance, and all that I contend from there, there can be no doubt, but that he being at first made Bishop of the Metropolis, was thereby made also Metropolitan.

As for the divisions into Dioceses, how little force that has against all that I have said, or thought in this businesse, whether of Bishops or Metropolitans, I have spoken enough to that in the Vindication to the London Ministers, c. 1. sect. 19. and to that I refer the Prefacer.

And so still I am free enough from quarrelling with my self in the least, or from being ingaged in any endlesse labor to reconcile the contradictions of my answers, which as farre as my weak understanding can reach, are perfectly at agreement with one another. If the labor of shewing they are so, prove fruitlesse, I know to whom I am beholding for it, even the Task-master whom I have undertaken to observe, and in that guise of obedience, shall now proceed briefly to answer every of his questions, and I hope there cannot now need many words to doe it.

18. To the first, concerning the institution of the second order, that of Presbyters; for the [when] I answer, I know not the year, but evidently before the writing of Ignatius's Epistles, in Trajan's time, and, in all probability, after the writing all the books of Scripture, and, for ought I can discern, of Clement's Epistle, as far as concerns either Rome, or Corinth.

19. For the [by whom, and by what authority] I answer, I think they were first instituted by Saint John in Asia, before his death, and shall add to my reasons elsewhere given for it, this further consideration, that Ignatius in all his Epistles to the Churches of Asia, Ephesus, Smyrna, Trallis, Magnesia, Philadelphia, makes mention of them, within few years after Saint John's death, though in his Epistle to the Romans he does not. And if this be so, then also it appears by what authority, namely, such as Saint John's was, Apostolical. Or if this should not be firmly grounded, as to the person of Saint John, yet the reason why they were not at first instituted, as well as Deacons, being but this, because there was no need of them yet, and the power given by the Apostles to the first Bishops, being a plenarie power, so far that they might communicate to others, what was committed to them, either in whole or in part, and those accordingly, in the force thereof, constituting Presbyters, in partem officii, the authority still, by which they were instituted, will be Apostolical, and so if (as this Prefacer gives order) they be let go to the place from where they came, they will not be much hurt, they are but remitted to the society of the Apostles and Apostolical persons by this.

20. To the second, concerning the meaning of my words Diss. 2. c. 29, 21. when I say that Hierom's words [of Churches being governed by common consent of Presbyters] are to be understood of the times of the Apostles, and whether all those Presbyters were Bishops properly so called] I answer, that my meaning was, that if Hierome be reconcileable to himself, that must be his meaning, that in the Apostles times the Churches were first governed by common consent of Presbyters, and after, in the Apostles times too, upon the rising of schisms, a Bishop was every where set over them; that according in Hierome's notion all those Presbyters were not Bishops, but such, as out of whom after, one was chosen in every Church to be a Bishop.

21. That this was the truth of the fact, I no where expressed myself to think, but that this was the most commodious meaning to be affixed to Hierom's words ad Euagrium, so as they might be reconcileable with the many other testimonies brought out of him, which concluded it his opinion also, that the three orders were of Apostolical institution. But if I am now asked my sense expressly, whether I think thus it was, as Hierome (I think) conceived it, I answer positively, that I think Hierome was mistaken in that circumstance, and that Clemens Romanus, and the records that Epiphanius cites, are much a more competent authority for the contrary, that Bishops were first instituted, whenever any Apostle in his travel planted a Church in any city, and retained not the government in his own hands. Yet if by any record it shall be made to appear, that before any such city was left by the Apostle, and so before any Bishop were instituted in it, the Elders, or, as those may signify, the chief believers (a name of age, as well as of power) were trusted by them for some short time of their absence (as I mentioned it there sect. 20. as a possible thing) there will then be some ground of Saint Hierom's mistake in that circumstance. But this, I confess, more than yet has any way appeared to me, and therefore I am content to part with it as a fancy, or [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] to help Saint Hierome, and not so much as a conjecture. And so much for his queries.

22. As for his addition by way of corollary to his questions, the answers to the questions have already perfectly superseded it: the three orders [in] Ignatius have already appeared to be of Apostolical institution, and the very frame of the first Churches, though there was no need of the second of them, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, at the first plantation in every city. And it will not be easy for any man which has looked into ancient writings to be persuaded the contrary, it being the universal affirmation of all that speak of [illegible] Ignatius to Saint Hierome, and for many hundred years downward, though there be some difference in some few circumstances, Saint Hierome thinking that Presbyters first ruled in common, before the singular Bishop was brought in over them, for the avoiding of schisms, that the three orders were all instituted in the Church by the Apostles' appointment. And if this be the sad mistake and prejudice, from which he will shortly deliver us, I may have leave to advise him the one method of attempting it, that cheaper of setting antiquity aside in the delineation and not the more costly of professing to make his appeal to it, as in this Preface he has adventured to do.

23. One thing he here thinks further necessary for him to add, that the Scripture more frequently terms this second sort of men Elders and Presbyters, than it does Bishops, wherein there be but these three misadventures; 1. That this second sort of men are frequently mentioned in Scripture. 2. That this second sort of men are sometimes called Bishops in Scripture. 3. That they are frequently called Elders there: no one of which he will ever be able to justify. Let him please to turn to the Vindication of the Dissert from the Exceptions of the London Ministers, cap[.] and if against what is there said, or before in the Dissertations, he think himself able to evince any one of these three propositions, I shall willingly acknowledge myself his disciple, being also sure, that unless both Bishops and Elders signify nothing but Presbyters in every place, their signifying most frequently so, is the giving the question, the yielding the whole cause to the Prelatist.

As for the tasks of the Bishop's office, and his performance of them, I shall willingly grant him my suffrage, let them discharge them (and I beseech all who have any way hindered them, at length to let, and quietly permit them) on condition he will do this as cheerfully as I, I shall never contend with him concerning the nature of the task, be it, as he says, their attending their particular [illegible], to which they are appointed (the Bishop of Oxford over that flock or portion, to which he was, and is appointed, and so all others in like manner) be it their preaching and administering the holy ordinances of the Gospel, in, and to their own flock, and whatever else of duty and [illegible] belongs to a rightly constituted Bishop. And let all that have disturbed this course so duly settled in this Church, and in all the Churches of Christ, since the Apostles planting them, discern their error, and return to that peace and unity of the Church, from where they have so causelessly, and unexcusably departed, and let none be so uncharitable as to surmise, that he which thus exhorts them, has any other design in doing it, than that which alone he professes to have, their timely, and now, if ever seasonable Reformation.