Chapter VI: Of Testimonies in Ignatius Deemed to Favor the Congregational Way

Of Testimonies in Ignatius, deemed to favor the Congregational way.

Sect. 1.

The Prefacer's pretensions avoyded. His Hypothesis confutable from Ignatius. The power of prejudice. Of Popish Churches. Chorepiscopi. Metropoles. Conformity of Ecclesiastick with Civil distributions. The Ignatian Churches phansied by the Prefacer. The Gnostick haeresie no deflowring of the purity of the Church. The several branches of the phansied Model, how well grounded in Ignatius. A Catholick, a National, a Metropolitical, a Diocesan Church in Ignatius.

Num. 1. But we are from Clemens once more brought down to Ignatius again, and of the great prejudices and mistakes, and unjust apprehensions which we Prelatists have had in reading, and bringing testimonies from him, we are now to be admonished in these words, as followeth.

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

As I intimated before, I have not insisted on any of those things, nor doe on them altogether, with the like that may be added, as a sufficient foundation for the total rejection of those Epistles which goe under the name of Ignatius. There is in some of them a sweet and gracious spirit of faith, love, holiness, zeal for God, becoming so excellent and holy a witnesse of Christ as he was, evidently breathing and working. Neither is there any need at all, that for the defence of our Hypothesis concerning the non-institution of any Church-Officer whatever, relating to more Churches in his office, or any other Church, than a single particular Congregation; that we should so reject them: For although many passages, usually insisted on, and carefully collected by Doctor H. for the proof of such an Episcopacy to have been received by them of old, as is now contended for, are exceedingly remote from the way and manner of the expressions of those things, used by the Divine Writers, with them also that follow'd after, both before, as has been manifested, and some while after the dayes of Ignatius, as might be farther clearly evidenced, and are thrust into the series of the discourse with such an incoherent impertinency, as proclaims an interpolation, being some of them also very [illegible], and so foolishly hyperbolical, that they fall very little short of Blasphemies, yet there are expressions in all, or most of them, that will abundantly manifest, that he who was their Author (whoever he was) never dreamt of any such fabrick of Church-Order as in after Ages was insensibly received. Men who are full of their own apprehensions, begotten in them by such representations of things, as either their desirable presence has exhibited to their mind, or any after prejudicate presumption has possess'd them with, are apt upon the least appearance of any likenesse to that Church, they fancie, to imagine that they see the face and all the lineaments thereof, when upon due examination it will easily be discovered, that there is not indeed the least resemblance, between what they find in, and what they bring to the Authors, in, and of whom they make their inquiry. The Papists having hatched and own'd by severall degrees, that monstrous figment of Transubstantiation (to instance among many in that abhomination) a folly, destructive to whatever is in us as being living creatures, Men, or Christians, or whatever by sense, reason, or Religion, we are furnished withall, offering violence to us in what we hear, what we see with our eyes, and look upon, in what our hands doe handle, and our palats taste, breaking in upon our understandings with vagrant flying formes, self-subsisting accidents, with as many expresse contradictions on sundry accounts, as the nature of things is capable of relation to, attended with more grosse Idolatry than that of the poor naked Indians, who fall down and worship a piece of red cloth, or of those who first adore their Gods, and then correct them; doe yet upon the discovery of any expressions among the Antients seeming to favor them, which they now make use of, quite to another end and purpose, than they did, who first ventured upon them, having minds filled with their own abhominations, doe presently cry out, and triumph, as if they had found the whole fardel of the Mass in its perfect dress, and their breaden God in the midst of it. It is no otherwise in the case of Episcopacie; men of these later Generations, from what they saw in present being, and that usefulnesse of it to all their desires and interests, having entertain'd thoughts of love to it, and delight in it, searching Antiquity, not to instruct them in the truth, but to establish their prejudicate opinion received by Tradition from their Fathers, and to confute them with whom they have to doe, whatever expressions they find, or can hear of, that fall in, as to the sound of words, with what is now insisted upon, instantly they cry out vidimus, Io-Peane, what a simple Generation of Presbyters and Independents have we, that are ignorant of all Antiquity, or doe not understand what they read and look upon. Hence if we will not believe that in Ignatius's dayes there were many Parish Churches with their single Presbyters, in subordination to a Diocesan Bishop, either immediately, or by the interposed power of a Chore-episcopus and the like, and those Diocesans again in the precincts of Provinces, laid in a due subjection to their Metropolitans, who took care of them, as they of their Parish Priests, every Individual Church having no Officer but a Presbyter, every Diocesan Church having no Presbyter but a Bishop, and every Metropolitan Church having neither Presbyter nor Bishop properly related to it, as such, but an Archbishop, we are worse than Infidels: Truly, I cannot but wonder, whether it does not sometimes enter into these mens thoughts to apprehend how horrible they are in their proofs, for the fathering of such an Ecclesiastical distribution of Governors and Government, as undeniably is squared after the civil divisions and constructions of the times and places, wherein it was introduced, upon those holy persons, whose souls never once entred into the secrets thereof.

Thus fares it with our Doctor and his Ignatius: [in non-Latin alphabet], it should be [in non-Latin alphabet]. I shall also crave leave to say to him as Augustulus of Quintilius Varus, upon the loss of the Legions in Germany under his command; Quintui Vare, redde [illegible]gires; Domine Doctor, redde Ecclesias: Give us the Churches of Christ, such as they were in the days of the Apostles, and down to Ignatius, though before that time (if Hegisippus may be believed) somewhat [illegible], and our contest about church officers and government will be never at an end, than perhaps as you will readily imagine. Give us a Church all whose members are holy, called, sanctified, justified, living stones, temples for the Holy Ghost, saints, believers, united to Christ the [illegible] by the Spirit that is given to them, and dwells in them, a Church whose [in non-Latin alphabet], that does nothing by its members apart, that appertains to church order, but when it is gathered [in non-Latin alphabet], a Church that being so gathered together in one place [in non-Latin alphabet], acting in Church things, in its whole body under the [illegible] and residence of its officers, a Church walking in order, and not as some, who [in non-Latin alphabet] (of whom says Ignatius, [in non-Latin alphabet], such as calling the Bishops to the Assemblies, yet do all things without him (the manner of some in our days) [illegible] supposes not to keep the Assemblies according to the command of Christ) give us, I say such a Church, and let us come to them when they [in non-Latin alphabet], such as the Churches in the days of Ignatius appear to have been, and are so rendered in the Quotations taken from his Epistles, by the learned Doctor for the confirmation of Episcopacy, and as I said before, the contest of this present digression will quickly draw to an issue.

3. The first thing here assumed, is the evidence of some ill-favored tampering with Ignatius's Epistles, deduced from the difference between them and Clement's, in their expression about church order and officers. But indeed if there were any such thing, I hope it will not be imputed to me, who have been as careful as is possible, to get an emended copy of these Epistles, and having first contented myself with that, which had past Vedelius's trial at Geneva, which one might hope would burn up all the stubble, which could be gotten in there, toward the founding of Episcopacy, I have since fallen upon copies much more purified than that, cleansed from almost all the dross. Every passage, which this Prefacer has thought fit to accuse or dislike in them: and seeing he now professes against the total rejecting of them, and gives them many good words in testimony of a sweet and gracious spirit breathing in them, if he shall now be pleased to direct me to any way of procuring a yet more emended edition, and such as may perfectly accord his language with all others of his time, or not long before him, particularly with Clemens, I shall acknowledge it a great obligation, and a discovery worth his undertaking. But as far as my eyes yet serve me, there is little hope of this, and therefore as it is, I must be content to think, as the evidences before me exact from me, that though Clemens says truly, that the Apostles at their first preaching placed no more but a Bishop and Deacon in each city, yet before Ignatius's time, there was a middle order constituted in the Churches of Asia, and that also by the appointment of the Apostles, and that this is a very fair account of all the difference of their language and expression about church order and officers.

4. In the next place he has very ingenuously discovered, upon what account it is, that he has bestowed so many of his good words at last upon Ignatius, because, forsooth, he has no need for the defense of his Hypothesis totally to reject them, and because there are expressions in all, or most of them, that will abundantly manifest, that he who was their Author, never dreamt of any such fabric of church order as in after ages was insensibly received. But 1. I think not this the right way of judging mens works, whether they be theirs or no (the due motive of receiving or rejecting any ancient writing) by comparing them with our own Hypotheses, and observing which way our necessities oblige us. This we were wont to call [in non-Latin alphabet], serving and requiring all others to serve and minister to the wants of our Hypothesis.

5. Secondly: If it should really appear, what is here pretended, that there should be expressions in these Epistles which would abundantly manifest that their Author never dreamt of our modern Hierarchy, how easy would it be for one that would transcribe copies from our Prefacer, to reply, that such and such places were interpolated and inserted by some later hand, who meant unkindly to Episcopacy, and then what security could be found to ascertain those passages to be genuine, which would not as reasonably serve our turn, to retain those which we think define for Episcopacy.

6. Thirdly: Whereas he adds, that the fabric we plead for, being not yet dreamt of in Ignatius's days, was in after ages insensibly received, why may not that also minister to us an excuse, in case we should not have been able to answer one of his former questions, to set down distinctly at what time Presbyters (the second or middle order) came first into the Church, it being as easy to imagine, and as credible to be affirmed, that after the writing of Clement's one, before the writing of Ignatius's many Epistles, this order was brought in, but so as to us at this distance of so many centuries, it is not now sensible or discernible.

All this may again be said [in non-Latin alphabet], and to shew that it is no hard matter to write [in non-Latin alphabet], Animadversions on the Author of the Animadversions. At the present I am to take notice what the Prefacer's Hypothesis is, which he has undertaken to defend, namely, that there never was any Church-Officer instituted in those first times, relating to more Churches in his Office, or to any other Church than a single particular Congregation. The very same indeed that my memory suggests to me out of the Saint's Belief, printed twelve or fourteen years since, where instead of that Article of the Apostolick Symbole, the Holy Catholick Church, this very Hypothesis was substituted. But then it must be remembred, that the Dissertations being written in answer to Blondel, were not obliged to be confronted to this Hypothesis, and that though Ignatius should be found to say as little as I, against this, yet he might yield competent testimonies against Blondel for the superiority of Bishops above Presbyters, which was all that I there indeavoured, because all that I was there required to evince from them.

But then secondly; Ignatius is not perfectly silent in this matter neither; for as in his Epistle to the Smyrnaeans, beside the [in non-Latin alphabet], or multitude under a particular Bishop, there is [in non-Latin alphabet], the Catholick Church, which sure is more than a single particular Congregation, so the National Church of Syria under the Metropolis of Antioch, of which Ignatius himself is styled the Bishop and Pastor, is frequently mention'd in those Epistles. In the Epistle to the Ephesians, [in non-Latin alphabet], pray for the Church which is in Syria, the Church of that whole Nation put under that one denomination, of which yet certainly there were divers assemblies, and so twice in the Epistle to the Magnesians, [in non-Latin alphabet], and [in non-Latin alphabet], the Church in Syria; and in the Epistle to the Philadelphians, [in non-Latin alphabet], the Church of Syria which is at Antioch, joyning them all under Antioch, the Metropolitical Church. And let this serve for a taste of Ignatius's judgement of our Prefacer's Hypothesis.

What again here follows of the hyperbolical, and little short of blasphemous passages in these Epistles, of their impertinency, of their remotenesse from the way and manner of expression in the Divine Writings, and those which follow'd after, I have formerly wearied my selfe, and the Reader with the account of them severally, and, I think, given him reason to believe with me, that they needed not here again have been heaped up so soon by way of repetition.

The next larger portion of this Section endeavours to shew what prejudice, or the fulnesse of a mans own apprehension, is able to doe in the reading and citing Testimonies out of Authors, and this is by me so fully granted, and in part experimented in this Prefacer, particularly, in his fetching the power of the people in Ecclesiastical affairs, from Clement's bidding the generous person ([in non-Latin alphabet]) to sacrifice his owne prosperitie and possessions to the peace of the People, as when a King ventures his life, or Moses says, Blot me out of your book, in order to the same end, that truly I needed not the instance of the Papist fetching his doctrine of Transubstantiation out of the Antients to convince me of it. As it is, I have no exceptions to his evidence, nor to the conclusion inferr'd by it, in general, of men full of their own apprehensions. Only I crave leave to interpose, before it be thought applicable to me: For unlesse he can prove that Ignatius's plain mentions (so oft repeated, that it is become a charge of impertinence against him) of the three Orders in the Church, Bishops, Priests, and Deacons, are as little able to inferre (what I alone undertook to deduce from them) that there were more than two Orders in the Church in Ignatius's time (and so before Blondel's aera of 140. yeares) as the testimonies from where the Papists conclude their Transubstantiation, and their whole fardel of the Masse are unable to inferre their desired conclusion, I shall sit down in peace, wholly unconcern'd in that large instance, and the [in non-Latin alphabet] of it, or application, to the men of these latter dayes in the matter of Episcopacie.

Only let me assure him that these later daies afford some men, which have searcht Antiquity to instruct them in the truth, taking the pains of that travail on purpose for that one end, and after the Scripture, have expected to fetch truth from that search, rather than any other; and have therefore begun their study of Divinity in that order, and counted the ordinary course of setting out from the modern systemes to be very preposterous, and if the Prefacer's own conscience should chance to tell him that he has not exactly observed this method, that he has first espoused opinion and frames of Government, and then searcht Antiquity to establish them, or if it should not, yet because it is as credible, and easily suggested of him, as by him of others, and others consciences may and doe excuse them as perfectly, as his can be pretended to excuse him, I hope this will be a competent reply to that part of this Section also.

For as to that which follows in the pursuit hereof, of the Parish Churches in Ignatius's dayes, of the Chorepiscopus, &c. of the Diocesan's subjection to the Metropolitanes, &c. from where his necessary wonder ariseth, whether it does not enter into our hearts, how contemptible we are in our proofs, &c. It may suffice to say, that the Prefacer has sure forgotten himself, when he desired to perswade others, that all these are the conclusions which I have made (or any other Prelatist) out of Ignatius's Epistles: Certainly the asserting of the three orders, all of them as Apostolical, is the one thing which wee need deduce from there, and if that be granted us from that authority, there is an end of the Prelatist's contention with Blondel.

13. As for that of Parish Churches, sure I have as yet concluded nothing from Ignatius concerning that subject, nor ever expressed my self to think him worse than an infidel, that discerned not in these Epistles. The first time I ever spake of them was very lately in answer to the London Ministers, which the Prefacer, having not yet seen, may turn to it, cap. 1. sect. 19. And I shall now only add in relation to Ignatius, that the form of government there described being this, one Bishop with his Presbytery, that is, College of Presbyters under him, and one, or more Deacons of a third rank, ruling, and administering in their several places and [illegible] the affairs of any one particular Church, be it Trallis, Magnesia, or the like (together with the whole territory belonging to that Church of such a City; or if it be a Metropolis, the [illegible] adjoining) all this may very well be done, and very easily imagined without any exact distribution into several congregations, such as we now call Parishes, as long as the Orders of the Bishops, without whom, says he, nothing was to be done, were by all inferiors regularly observed. And if, as occasion seemed to require, or expedience advise, the Bishop (either then or afterwards) made more punctual distributions of the believers committed to his charge, and so appointing several assemblies in the same City, and in each village one, placed also a Presbyter in every such assembly, this I hope, will not be styled any working of the mystery of iniquity (which I see by and by mentioned) but a regular acting of the Bishop according to that power, which from the Apostles every such singularly instituted Governor was intrusted with in every Church.

14. Next for the Chorepiscopi, it is known how little I am concerned to justify the deducing them from these Epistles. I profess to believe there is not a word said of them there, no when Blondel was willing to deduce them from Clement's phrase, [in non-Latin alphabet], and out of him the London-Ministers, I have refuted their deduction, and showed that they came not into the Church so early, and so for that also he might have omitted his wonderment now, as reasonably, as I was but lately rebuked for it.

15. As for that of Metropolitan Churches or Bishops, I do not again remember that Ignatius first gave me the model for that frame; certainly I have produced other, I hope, competent evidences to conclude whatever I affirm of it, and if some not obscure intimations out of Ignatius were observed to be given that way, as when in the Epistle to the Romans he calls himself [in non-Latin alphabet] Bishop of Syria, and [in non-Latin alphabet], the Pastor of the Church in Syria, being at that time the known Bishop of Antioch, one single City; but that the Metropolis of Syria, to which I may add, that in the Epistle to Polycarpe, speaking of his successor, he does it in the like style, [in non-Latin alphabet], he that should be thought worthy of the dignity of going into Syria, yet have not I [illegible] those Dissertations laid the weight on them, (much less counted them worse than infidels, that are not convinced by them) though if I had, that would not have rendered my proofs so admirably contemptible, as 'tis pretended.

16. Lastly, for the whole frame of ecclesiastical government, being, in his phrase, [illegible] after the civil divisions, as I no where father it on, or deduce it from Ignatius, whom now we have to deal with, so if instead of his darker phrase of contempt, the matter be set down in more significative intelligible words, namely, that the Apostles in each Nation, where they came to plant the Faith, thought not fit to innovate (unnecessarily) in this matter of distributions already made, whether in Judaea or the Gentile regions, but planting a Church in a chief City, and extending the Faith to the Region about it, and to other adjacent inferior Cities, annexed the Regional-Church to the City-Church, and preserved the subordination of inferior City-Churches to the chief City-Church, that is, to the Metropolis, and this constantly when there was no considerable reason to advise any change, if, I say, the matter be thus intelligibly, and without the help of odious expressions, represented, I know not what appearance of exception can lie against it. But of this also I have formerly and elsewhere spoken sufficiently, and here is nothing, I am sure, suggested, to which any farther reply can be accommodated. And therefore as yet I need add no more of it.

17. So that what follows of the redde Legiones, and redde Ecclesias, requiring me to restore the Churches of Christ, as they were in the Apostles days, &c. was sure very unnecessary. I have in no kind robbed him of the Churches, which before my tampering with Ignatius he had found, and made himself owner of there: if Quintilius Varus had been as guiltless of the loss of the Legions in Germany, as I have been of purloining the frame of Independent Congregations out of these Epistles, I believe Augustus would not have inflicted any severe fine upon him for that misadventure. I can truly assure him, that if I had found any Model formed according to his hypothesis in those Epistles, when I read them, as diligently as I could, to discern what the government was in his time, I might, and should have answered Blondel another way than I did, and replied first to his Preface, which is much of it written with some asperity against the Independents, and had that more compendious way of not being concerned in the whole subsequent Apologie, which is designed against Episcopacy. And I shall not lie, if I now tell him that I have since my writing the last period, once more read over all the seven Epistles, as they are in Vossius's Edition, on purpose to observe whether there were any one word, formerly unobserved by me, which might in the least favor his hypothesis, and I shall speak my sense uprightly, that I might as successfully have sought it in the first Chapter either of Genesis, or Saint Matthew's Gospel. Whether the former interpolated copies, or supposititious Epistles may afford him any aid, he will pardon me, I hope, that I have not had the curiosity or leisure to examine.

18. This being thus true, it was but necessary for him to remember out of Hegesippus, that the Churches before Ignatius's time were defloured: That place of Hegesippus to which he refers, is sure the same which he had set down in the entrance on the view of Antiquity, and which I took a view of cap. 1. Sect. 1. and showed how unjust his collection was from there, as it was by him applied to the ancient writings. And I have now the like reason to complain again, that what Hegesippus says of those vile heretical apostates, the Gnostics, that they opposed their false doctrine, and preached it up against the [in non-Latin alphabet], preaching of the truth, should by him be applied to the prejudice of the true Church, which carefully opposed all their insinuations, or to these Epistles of Ignatius, which were purposely written, almost every one of them, to keep that poison out of the Churches. It is most certain, that the first method of these deceivers, was by despising and speaking evil of the governors of the Church to insinuate their poison into the brethren's minds, and so that they were the [in non-Latin alphabet], the secret biters first, and then afterward the [in non-Latin alphabet], the raving dogs, as he calls them, which slew in the face of the government, but the Church held out constantly against their clancular, and open assaults, and they never were able in the least to deflour it, the heretics' doctrines, and their practices are continually branded by the writings of those times, and there is not the least appearance of their leaven, but all the direct contrary in any Epistle of Ignatius, or other writings of those times.

19. It is time that I now come to the interpretation of his redde Ecclesias, the particulars of his demand, concerning the Churches, which he has found in Ignatius, and I am accused for robbing him of. And though I have already said enough of this in the gross, yet I shall spare no pains to give punctual answer to every branch of it.

20. And 1, says he, Give us a Church, all whose members are holy, called, sanctified, justified, living stones, temples for the Holy Ghost, saints, believers, united to Christ the head by the Spirit that is given to them, and dwells in them. To this I answer very briefly, that in all Ignatius's Epistles, there is no title so much as of intimation that any Church, to which he wrote, or which was under his government, or which he had any occasion to speak of, was thus qualified, particularly all whose members were holy or sanctified. Secondly: I am not sure that if that were the Ignatian model of a Church, this Prefacer would be able to parallel it in any congregation, which these last, not best days, have brought out among us. Thirdly: That this might as well be done, and as probably hoped under a subordination of officers and governors, such as we Prelatists pretend to, as in any equal number of men, by whatever other form compacted or knit together. This may suffice without farther insisting, till some reason be urged to the contrary against any of these three affirmations.

21. Secondly: He demands a Church whose [in non-Latin alphabet] or multitude is where the Bishop appears. This character of a Church, or rather exhortation how it ought to be, is indeed set down by Ignatius in his Epistle to the Church of Smyrna, where in pursuit of the advice, [in non-Latin alphabet], Let all men follow the Bishop, and [in non-Latin alphabet], Let no man do ought of the things that belong to the Church without the Bishop, and that Eucharist was to be accounted [in non-Latin alphabet], firm, or valid, which was done by the Bishop, or by some commissionated by him, he then adds [in non-Latin alphabet], Where the Bishop appears, there let the multitude be, as where Christ Jesus is, there is the Catholic Church, making in the latter part that difference between the orthodox, and heretical apostate Gnostics, that the former acknowledged and adhered to him, and the latter denied him, and proportionably in the former, making the same difference between the Eucharist duly, and unduly administered; that where it was duly, there the people received it in communion with their Bishop, either of him, or of some body commissionated by him; which as it is competently distant from their model, where neither Bishop, nor any from him commissionated is received, so I am sure it is far enough from any contrariety to the Prelatists, or favor to the Prefacer's pretensions. What particle of it it is, which to his fancy looks so agreeable, I cannot divine, and so have no more to reply to it.

22. Thirdly: He demands a Church that does nothing by its members apart, but when it is gathered [in non-Latin alphabet]. This, I presume belongs to a place in the Epistle to the Magnesians, which we shall meet again in his last demand, and there consider it more fully. At the present, let it suffice, that it is no more than this, that no man was to do anything on his own head, or without the Bishop and Presbyters, but when they met together they should join in one prayer, &c. And this sure may be granted without any damage to the Prelatist, who desires as much as any, that public assemblies be frequented, which is the meaning of being gathered [in non-Latin alphabet], and that no inferior member of the Church do ought [in non-Latin alphabet] that belongs to the Church, without the Bishop. But if the meaning of the demand be either that the Bishop with his Presbyters, who are indeed members of the Church, shall do nothing without the concurrent consent of the [in non-Latin alphabet] or people, which was the thing he contended for out of Clemens, this I am able to assume, will never be inferred from that place, or out of these Epistles, and for any other inference he will draw from hence, in order to the no other Church, but a single particular congregation, which we find in his hypothesis, this I shall speak to in answer to his last demand, where he recurs to this place again.

23. Fourthly he demands a Church that being so gathered together in one place does [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉], acting in Church things in its whole body, under the rule & presidence of its officers. Here if [acting in its whole body] denote any power again of the [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] or whole body of the people, or any more than their regular obedience to the lawful commands of the Bishop over them, I shall be able to demonstrate that the words of Ignatius sound nothing toward it. They are in the Epistle to the Magnesians, and are a plain exhortation to unity and concord, and that to be evidenced in their actions, and the rule of that obedience to their Bishop, presiding, says he, [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉], in the place of God, as the Presbyters in the place of the College of Apostles, and the Deacons intrusted with the Ministry of Jesus Christ, from where he concludes with the [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] paying reverence to one another, that is (according to the meaning of that phrase in Saint Peter, [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉], 1 Peter 5:5.) to the Bishop, &c. their superiors, and, besides mutual love, and care of avoiding divisions, to the [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉], &c. being united to the Bishop, and those that are set over them, for a pattern and doctrine of incorruption or Orthodox Religion, in opposition to the infections and corruptions of the Gnostic Heresies. And then what analogy bears this with the hypothesis of the Prefacer, what unkind aspect has it on the Prelatist's pretensions?

24. Fifthly, he demands a Church walking in order, and not as some, who, [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉], which he renders, such as calling the Bishop to the Assemblies, yet do all things without him — Here it was a little news to me to see a piece of Greek Englished (this being, I think, the first time that the Prefacer has done so, I shall not attempt to guess at the reason of it) but indeed it was much more so, to find [[〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉]] rendered [calling the Bishop to the Assemblies]. Does he mean that the people had the power of calling Assemblies, or calling the Bishop to them? I shall not again detain the Reader with my conjectures of his sense. This I am sure of, 1. that there is no mention of Assemblies, but that those words, [to the Assemblies] are perfectly interpolated by the Prefacer; 2. that [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] is no more than they call him Bishop, allow him the name or title, but, as he adds, do all without him, subject not their actions to his directions or command (as in the words immediately precedent, [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉], being only called Christians, and being truly such, are set as extremely contrary, or as in the same Epistle to the Magnesians: [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉], calling Jesus Christ is opposed to true Christianity, and sure does not signify calling Jesus Christ to their assemblies) and then of them that do thus, Ignatius may be allowed to add, [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉], that they do not assemble validly according to the command (all actions of such, [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉], having no kind of validity in them) and by so adding he passes no sentence upon the Prelatist, unless he be only nominally such, plead for Bishops and disobey them.

25. Lastly, says he, give us such a Church, and let us come to them when they are [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉], (that is, all in the same place assembled together in prayer) such as the Churches in the days of Ignatius appear to have been, and are so rendered in the quotations taken from his Epistles by the Doctor for the confirmation of Episcopacy. To this I answer, 1. that if the Church he would have, be set down by me as he desires, in the quotations from Ignatius, then I needed not have been called to for the giving him his Churches back again, I had, it seems, either never detained them, or else rendered them already. Secondly, for this last passage, the most that I have quoted toward it, is from the Epistle to the Magnesians, and the whole passage lies thus, [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] Be you united to the Bishop — and straight, [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉]. As the Lord therefore being in union with, did nothing without his Father, neither by himself, nor by his Apostles, so neither do you any thing without the Bishop and his Presbyters, nor attempt to account any thing reasonable, which appears so to you privately, but in the same place let there be one prayer, one supplication, one mind, one hope, in love, and joy unblameable.

26. This whole place, I did not conceive what it imported, save only perfect agreement and submission to the judgement of their superiors, in opposition to the [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉], those that entertained private doctrines, which were not left in the Church by the Apostles, together with all mutual unity, charity, conjunction in prayer of all sorts, for supply of wants, pardon of sins, in the same hope and joy — but I now suppose that the thing here designed to be inferred from this in the close (as from the [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] toward the beginning) of his demands, is the establishment of his grand hypothesis forementioned, the non-institution of any Church Officer whatever, relating to more Churches in his Office, or any other Church than a single particular congregation. And this, it seems, he was so willing to have competently testified here, that one and the same testimony, a little disguised, is [〈◊〉] to appear twice to the same purpose, and so becomes a double witness (a military trick, which officers sometimes use, when their companies are not full, to muster the same soldier twice under several names) and so we see that which truly I have attended for all this while (and could not really think it designed by him, till this repetition of the testimony showed me, that special weight was laid on it.) that this one place of [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] and [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] (for [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] is again inserted to help the inference) must conclude the non-institution of any Church Officer relating to any but a single particular congregation. The reasonableness of which will be judged by any man, if he shall but put the premises and conclusion together thus; It was Ignatius's command to the Magnesians, that no man must do any thing on his own head without the Bishop and Presbyters, but when they assemble together, they must have one prayer, one supplication (adding, one mind, one hope in charity, in joy unblameable) therefore in Ignatius's time there was no other Officer instituted in the Church, which related to more Churches in his office, or to any other Church than a single particular congregation.

If this be the manner of concluding Church-models from ancient writers, I shall not wonder that the Prelatists ways of inference have been disliked, for I acknowledge they bear no proportion with this. For certainly 1. if he had spoken of some single congregation, which constantly met in the same place, within the same walls, and bid them when they thus met, they should have one prayer, one supplication, as one mind, one hope, this would only conclude that there were such particular congregations, and so we know among us every Parish Church is, where none but the public Liturgy is used; but this would no way conclude, as the hypothesis does, that there is no other but such. A particular affirmative has no power of excluding all but itself. Ignatius's speaking of a single house, cannot conclude it his opinion, that there is no Town, no City, no Province, no World made up of all these, nor consequently that he which is Ruler of that house, may not also be placed in office in the City, in the Nation, &c.

But then secondly; 'tis manifest that in this place, where he talks of [⟨in non-Latin alphabet⟩] he talks also of the Bishop and Presbyters, and the Prefacer has not yet told me, that his particular congregation will bear all those, a Bishop and Deacon, or Deacons, he said he could allow, but then that Bishop was to be but a Presbyter, whatever he was called: and therefore I may suppose that a Bishop and Presbyters in Ignatius's sense, such as he makes two orders, superior to Deacons, and all three in that Church of the Magnesians, to which he speaks, will not be born by his particular Congregation, and therefore even that, which Ignatius here speaks of, was not such.

Thirdly: They that live under a Bishop and Presbyters, and do every one of them, somewhere or other, assemble with other Christians in some one place (as whoever assemble in any place, must assemble in one) may yet all of them make up above one single congregation, the several Christians of the City of Oxford, may live obediently under the Bishop of Oxford, and under the Presbyters of that City, and every one assemble ⟨in non-Latin alphabet⟩, partake constantly of the Church-meetings, some at St. Peters, others at Allhallows, and every one at some or other, and yet all those make up many particular Congregations, and the Bishop govern them all, and so relate in his office to them all, and by the several Presbyters, ordained and instituted to the several charges, administer and order all.

No, fourthly: the ⟨in non-Latin alphabet⟩ — might fitly be rendered no more but unanimous prayer, all one with ⟨in non-Latin alphabet⟩, continue in concord, and in prayer one with another in the Epistle to the Trallians, and that may equally be done, whether they meet all in one, or in many places. And so still he has not gained so much as his particular affirmative from hence, that the [⟨in non-Latin alphabet⟩] here spoken of by Ignatius, referred to a single congregation, which yet if it did, were far enough from concluding the [none but such.]

Lastly, It is further evident from Ignatius, 1. that there is ⟨in non-Latin alphabet⟩ a Catholic Church. 2. ⟨in non-Latin alphabet⟩, the Church in Syria, joined under himself as their one Pastor, that is, a National Church; and thirdly, ⟨in non-Latin alphabet⟩, the Church of Syria at Antioch, a Metropolitical Church, and so ⟨in non-Latin alphabet⟩, the Church which presided in the place of the Region, or Province of the Romans, a Metropolitical and Provincial Church again: and fourthly, in every Epistle, a Church under a Bishop, Presbyters, and Deacons, which the world has hitherto called a Diocesan Church, consisting of many single congregations.

It is not easy to reckon up all the inconsequences of this inference, whereby the Prefacer's hypothesis is concluded from this Testimony of Ignatius. These may at the present suffice, till further discovery be made by him, what medium will be chosen to draw this conclusion out of these premises, which seem not at all inclined to it. And so though we are not come much nearer to a conclusion of this controversy, there is yet no season of adding more to the debating of it, and therefore so much for this Section also.

Sect. 2.

The mystery of iniquity. Clement's argument for the allaying the sedition. Proofs of the Congregational way invalid. The contrary more than intimated by Ignatius. The Ecclesiastic distributions contempered by the Apostles to the Civil. ⟨in non-Latin alphabet⟩ in Ignatius.

Num. 1. That which next follows, is the telling us three things that he will not insist on, and only one fourth that he will, and methinks that should not detain us long. He thus begins.

2. Being unwilling to go too far out of my way, I shall not

1. Consider the several instances in, for the proof of Episcopacy by the Doctor, seeing indeed the interpretation must follow, and be proportioned by the general issue or that state of the Church, in the days wherein those Epistles were written, or are pretended so to be, if that appear to be such as I have mentioned, I presume the Doctor himself will confess, that his witnesses [illegible] were to his business, for whose confirmation he does produce them. Nor

2. Shall I insist upon the degeneration of the institutions and appointments of Jesus Christ, concerning Church-Administrations in the management of the succeeding Churches, as principled, and spirited by the operative and efficacious mystery of iniquity, occasioned and advantaged by the accommodation of Ecclesiastical affairs to the civil distributions, and allotments of the political state of things in those days; nor

3. Insist much farther on the exceeding dissimilitude and inconformity that is between the expressions concerning Church Officers, and these Epistles (from wherever they come) and those in the writings of unquestionable credit, immediately before, and after them, as also the utter silence of the Scripture in those things, wherewith they so abound. The Epistle of Clemens, of which mention was made before, was written for the composing and quieting of a division and distemper that was fallen out in the Church of Corinth. Of the cause of that dissention that then miserably rent that congregation, he informs us in that complaint, that some [illegible] were wrongfully cast from the Ministry by the multitude, and he tells you, that these were good honest men, and faithful in the discharge of their duty; for says he [illegible], though they were unblameable both in their conversation and Ministry, yet they removed them from their office. To reprove this evil, to convince them of the sinfulness of it, to reduce them to a right understanding of their duty, and order, walking in the fellowship of the Gospel, what course does he proceed in? What arguments does he use? He minds them of one God, one Christ, one Body, one Faith; tells them that wicked men alone use such ways and practices, bids them read the Epistle of Paul formerly written to them upon occasion of another division, and to be subject to their own Elders; and all of them leave off contending, quietly doing the things which the people, or the body of the Church commanded. Now had this person writing on this occasion, using all sorts of arguments, artificial, or inartificial to his purpose, been baptised into the opinion and esteem of a single Episcopal superintendent, whose exaltation seems to be the design of much which is said in the Epistles of Ignatius, in the sense wherein his words are usually taken, would yet never once so much as bid them be subject to the Bishop, that resemblance of God the Father supplying the place of Christ, nor offer them however terrible a thing it was to disobey him, nor pawned his soul for theirs, that should submit to him, that all that obeyed him were safe, all that disobeyed him were rebellious, cursed, and separated from God. What apology can be made for the weakness and ignorance of that holy Martyr, if we shall suppose him to have had apprehensions like those in these Epistles of that sacred order, for omitting those all-conquering reasons, which they would have supplied him withal, to his purpose in hand, and pitching on arguments every way less useful and cogent. But I say I shall not insist on any such things as these, but only.

4. I say there is not in any of the Doctor's excerpta from those Epistles, not in any passage in them, any mention, or the least intimation of any Church whereunto any Bishop was related, but such an one, as whose members met altogether in one place, and with their Bishop disposed and ordered the affairs of the Church. Such was that whereunto the holy Martyr was related; such were those neighbouring Churches that sent Bishops and Elders to that Church. And when the Doctor proves the contrary, [illegible]: From the Churches and their state and constitution, is the state and condition of their Officers, and their relation to them taken. Let that be manifested to be such from the appointment of Jesus Christ to his Apostles, or de facto in the days of Ignatius, or before the conformation of Ecclesiastical offices occasionally, or by chance, to the civil constitution of Cities and Provinces in these days, as would, or possibly could bear a Diocesan, Metropolitan Hierarchy, and this controversy will be at an end. When this is by any attempted to be demonstrated, I desire it may not be with such sentences as that urged by our Doctor from Epist. ad Ephes. [illegible]. The expression in it concerning Christ being unsound, unscriptural, concerning Bishops, unintelligible, or ridiculous.

3. How unwilling the writer of this Preface (therein to show the judgement of Antiquity concerning Perseverance) has been to go out of that his way, the large Animadversions, which he has afforded Episcopacy, Ignatius, and me, will sufficiently demonstrate. As it is, the sooner he shall now return to his road again, the more tolerably easy it will be for the Reader, and me, and therefore I shall endeavour to make as much haste as he, and neither take any notice of what has been said in the Dissertations for proof of Episcopacy, but yield, that if it appear, that there were none but particular Independent Congregations in Ignatius's time, I have then produced no testimony from him by which the Prefacer may be concluded, though as far as concerns Blondel, who went upon distant hypotheses, all that I said may have been in full force against them.

4. His second consideration concerning the degenerating of Christ's institutions concerning Church Administrations in the management of succeeding Churches, and the principle of that degeneration the working of the mystery of iniquity, and the occasion of that again, the accommodation of Ecclesiastical affairs to the civil distributions (which is in effect that the Apostles erecting Mother-Churches in chief Cities, where they first preached, as at Jerusalem to all Judaea, Antioch to all Syria, &c. was a special occasion of, and advantage to the working of the mystery of iniquity) is that which in the several degrees of it might yield large discourse, the mystery of iniquity, in Saint Paul, being remote enough from this; and distributions of Churches, such as were most commodious, far enough from having either iniquity or mystery in them. But I shall readily transcribe his pattern, and as he has not, neither shall I insist on it.

5. The third, on which he will not insist much farther, was competently insisted on before, in comparing Clement's two orders in the Church (and the like in Saint Paul) with Ignatius's three. But the design of returning to it again, was to offer one argument more, which had not formerly been made use of, and I must not let that fall to the ground. It is this, that if the Bishop had been in that esteem in Clement's time, in which these Epistles set him out, as the resemblance of God the Father, he would certainly have bid them be subject to him, and used that as an argument to compose the sedition, of which he wrote to them.

But 1. it is certain that negative arguments prove nothing, there might be Bishops in Clement's days, and the power due to them as great, as that which would intitle them to the image of God the Father, and yet the sedition being raised against the Bishops themselves, and the question being not concerning the Order, but the Persons, who should be advanced to it, the mention of the dignity of the Order, or of the due subjection to it, might be no proper way of appeasing that sedition, nor, as such, chosen to be made use of by Clement.

Secondly: We know that next the obligations to peace, &c. the first and principal argument used by Clemens, was the institution of these their Bishops by the Apostles, and the dignity of that Order being such, that the Apostles foresaw the contentions that would be [in non-Latin alphabet] for the dignity or name of it, he tells them that the Apostles had made a list of successors in each Church, presuming, and not needing more particularly to tell them, that this was an high aggravation of their crime, in throwing those out, whom God had thus particularly set over them. And I know not that Ignatius would or could upon his hypotheses, have argued stronger to his purpose.

What the Prefacer adds by way of flourish, I shall not need to attend to. By this brief account 'tis clear, though Clemens mentions but two Orders, and Ignatius three, yet Bishops may have been in equal esteem with both of them. And that is all that I need reply, to that which, he says, is one of the such things which he will not insist on.

The fourth thing, on which he is resolved to insist, and enlarge his digression, is, that which I had thought had been already newly insisted on (and, I hope, competently answered) that in all the Epistles there is no intimation of any Church whereunto any Bishop related, but such an one as whose members met altogether in one, and with their Bishop disposed and ordered the affairs of the Church. And so on to the same purpose, and I shall be Magnus Apollo, if I shew him any.

Now I am persuaded, 1. that it already appears sufficiently, that the [in non-Latin alphabet] the members of each Church meeting together in prayer, is no proof, that to them belonged in the least, to dispose and order the affairs of the Church, and yet besides, that nothing has yet been pretended for it out of Ignatius, unless it be the [in non-Latin alphabet], nothing on their own heads, in the same place, which is much remoter from that purpose.

Beyond this it has appeared farther, that the office of all members under the Bishop was by Ignatius's doctrine to obey their superiors, to live under subjection, and that is not to dispose, or order. And the places so long insisted on out of Clemens also, have, I hope, appeared to infer nothing to that purpose.

Secondly: 'Tis as certain that I have already performed this task laid on me by him, and showed him that Ignatius, as Bishop of Antioch, the Metropolis, is called Bishop and Pastor of the Church of Syria, and some other the like passages, which directly infer what he requires me to infer, and so that I have thus much title to his favor, and should not be put off to a Poetical expression for my reward.

As for the condition he interposes, that I must shew this before the contemperation of affairs to the civil constitutions of Cities & Provinces, I confess that to be a rigorous condition, and such as unless I be released from that restraint, I shall be utterly disabled to perform my task. For he cannot but know, that it is my affirmation that, at the first planting of the Churches, the Apostles thus contempered the Ecclesiastic to the Civil distributions of Cities and Provinces, having no power of making new Cities or Provinces, any more than of constituting new Nations, and yet planting their Churches, and constituting Bishops in cities (and from there [in non-Latin alphabet], in every City, and [in non-Latin alphabet], in every Church, is all one in the sacred style) which must necessarily infer that the Ecclesiastical agreed with the civil distributions. And truly how the Church was ordered before the Apostles planted it, I have not the curiosity to inquire.

A second condition he is also pleased to lay on me by way of further restraint, to make my obedience yet more difficult. That my proofs must not be such as is that Testimony urged by me from the Epistle to the Ephesians, [in non-Latin alphabet]. This passage it seems has not found favor with him, the first part of it is, says he, unsound and unscriptural, the second unintelligible or ridiculous.

But I cannot yield to his censure in either part. For the first, Let it but be considered that Christ came to reveal the will of his Father that whatever he taught, he taught from his Father, & there can be no unsoundness in the expression, to say, that Christ is the sentence of his Father (any more than that he is the word, or the wisdom of his Father) meaning thereby that what he delivered was his Father's sentence or good pleasure, for so in the title of the Epistle to the Philad: [in non-Latin alphabet] by Christ's [illegible] is explained immediately by [in non-Latin alphabet], according to his own will.

And for the second, let him but read it as he may find Vossius and the Archbishop of Armagh read it, [in non-Latin alphabet] by the appointment or sentence, or [in non-Latin alphabet], own will of Christ, and sure it is very intelligible and far from ridiculous, even no more than this, that the Bishops ordained in all regions by the Apostles, were appointed by, or by appointment of Christ, as the same matter is in the Epistle to the Philadelphians set down in a parallel phrase, where the Bishop, Presbyters and Deacons are said to be [in non-Latin alphabet], designed by the appointment of Jesus Christ. Or if the [in non-Latin alphabet] be left out, then, reading [in non-Latin alphabet] with [in non-Latin alphabet] subscriptum, as the old Latin Sententia will bear, it is directly all one with the former. Or if in the third place, it be read in the nominative case, [in non-Latin alphabet], then the figure is very intelligible, that these Bishops are Christ's appointment, Christ's sentence, Christ's will, that is, are appointed or determined or willed by him. And so I hope there is yet nothing so very unintelligible, or at all ridiculous in Ignatius, or my testimonies from him, that I should need this caution to be interposed against I produce more.