with more fubtilty brought about, both anciently by other Heretiks, and modernly by Papifts, then to falfifie the Editions of the Councels, of which wee have none but from our Adverfaries hands, whence Canons, Acts, and whole spurious Councels are thrust upon us, and hard it would be to prove in all, which are legitimat against the lawfull rejection of an urgent, and free disputer, but this I purpose not to take advantage of, for what availes it to wrangle about the corrupt editions of Councells, when as we know that many yeares ere this time which was almoft 500. Years after Chrift, the Councels themselves were fouly corrupted with ungodly Prelatifme, and so farre plung'd into worldly ambition, as that it stood them upon long ere this to uphold their now well-tasted Hierarchy by what faire pretext foever they could, in like manner as they had now learnt to defend many other groffe corruptions by as ancient, and fuppos'd authentick tradition as Epifcopacie. And what hope can we have of this whole Councell to warrant us a matter 400. years at least above their time concerning the distinction of Bishop and Prefbyter, whenas we find them fuch blind Judges of things before their eyes in their decrees of precedencie between Bishop, and Bishop, acknowledging Rome for the Apoftolick throne, and Peter in that See for the rock, the bafis, and the foundation of the Catholick Church, and Faith, contrary to the interpretation of more ancient Fathers; and therfore from a mistaken text did they give to Leo as Peters fucceffor a kind of preheminence above the whole Councel, as Euagrius expreffes (for now the Pope was come to that height, as to arrogate to himselfe by his Vicars incompetible honours) and yet having thus yeilded to Rome the univerfall Primacie for fpirituall reasons, as they thought, they conclude their fitting with a carnall, and ambitious decree to give the second place of

dignity to Conftantinople from reason of State, because it was new ROME, and by like confequence doubtleffe of earthly priviledges annext to each other City, was the BISHOP therof to take his place.

I may fay againe therfore, what hope can we have of fuch a Councell, as beginning in the Spirit, ended thus in the flesh. Much rather should we attend to what Eufebius the ancienteft writer extant of Church-history, notwithstanding all the helps he had above these, confeffes in the 4. chap. of his 3. Book, that it was no eafie matter to tell who were those that were left Bishops of the Churches by the Apostles, more then by what a man might gather from the Acts of the Apostles, and the Epiftles of St. Paul, in which number he reckons Timothy for Bishop of Ephefus. So as may plainly appeare, that this tradition of Bishoping Timothy over Ephefus was but taken for granted out of that place in St. Paul, which was only an intreating him to tarry at Ephefus, to do fomthing left him in charge.* Now if Eufebius a famous writer thought it fo difficult to tell who were appointed Bishops by the Apostles, much more may we think it difficult to Leontius an obfcure Bishop speaking beyond his own Dioceffe: and certainly much more hard was it for either of them to determine what kind of Bishops those were, if they had fo little means to know who they were; and much leffe reason have we to stand to their definitive fentence, seeing they have bin fo rash to raise up fuch lofty Bishops and Bishopricks out of places in Scripture meerly misunderstood. Thus while we leave the Bible to gadde after these traditions of the ancients, we heare the ancients themfelvs confeffing, that what knowledge they had in this point was such as they had gather'd from the Bible.

* 1 Tim. I. 3.

Since therfore Antiquity it felfe hath turn'd over the controverfie to that fovran Book which we had fondly ftraggl'd from, we shall doe better not to detain this venerable apparition of Leontius any longer, but difmiffe him with his Lift of feven and twenty, to fleep unmolested in his former obscurity.

Now for the word pоEσTs, it is more likely that Timothy never knew the word in that fense: it was the vanity of those next fucceeding times not to content themselves with the fimplicity of Scripturephrase, but must make a new Lexicon to name themfelves by, one will be call'd ρоEσтws, or Antiftes, a word of precedence, another would be term'd a Gnoftick, as Clemens, a third Sacerdos, or Priest, and talks of Altars; which was a plaine figne that their doctrine began to change, for which they must change their expreffions: But that place of Justin Martyr serves rather to convince the Author, then to make for him, where the name προεστὼς τῶν ἀδελφῶν, the prefident, or Paftor of the Brethren (for to what end is he their Prefident but to teach them) cannot be limited to fignifie a Prelaticall Bishop, but rather communicates that Greek appellation to every ordinary Prefbyter: for there he tells what the Chriftians had wont to doe in their feverall Congregations, to read, and expound, to pray and adminifter, all which he faies the poσTs, or Antiftes did. Are these the Offices only of a Bishop, or fhall we think that every Congregation where these things were done, which he attributes to this Antiftes, had a Bishop present among them? unleffe they had as many Antiftites as Prefbyters, which this place rather feems to imply, and fo we may inferre even from their own alledg'd authority, that Antiftes was nothing else but Prefbyter.

As for that nameleffe Treatise of Timothy's martyrdome, only cited by Photius that liv'd almoft 900. yeares after Chrift, it hanfomely follows in that author,

the Martyrdome of the feven Sleepers, that slept (I tell you but what mine Author fayes) three hundred feaventy, and two years, for fo long they had bin shut up in a Cave without meat, and were found living. This Story of Timothy's Ephefian Bishopricke, as it follows in order, fo may it for truth, if it only subsist upon its own authority, as it doth, for Photius only faith he read it; he does not averre it. That other legendarie piece found among the lives of the Saints, and fent us from the shop of the Jefuites at Lovain,* does but bear the name of Polycrates, how truly who can tell? and fhall have fome more weight with us, when Polycrates can perfwade us of that which he affirms in the fame place of Eufebius 5. Book, that St. John was a Priest, and wore the golden breftplate and why should he convince us more with his traditions of Timothy's Epifcopacie, then he could convince Victor Bishop of Rome with his traditions concerning the Feast of Easter, who not regarding his irrefragable inftances of examples taken from Philip, and his daughters that were Propheteffes; or from Polycarpus, no nor from St. John himselfe, Excommunicated both him, and all the Afian Churches for celebrating their Eafter judaically: he may therfore goe back to the feaven Bishops his kinsmen, and make his moane to them that we esteem his traditionall ware, as lightly as Victor did.

Thofe of Theodoret, Felix, and John of Antioch are autorities of later times, and therfore not to be receiv'd for their Antiquities fake to give in evidence concerning an allegation, wherin writers fo much their Elders, we fee fo eafily miscarry. What if they had told us that Peter, who as they fay left Ignatius Bishop of Antioch, went afterwards to Rome, and was Bishop there, as this Ignatius, and Irenæus,

* Eufeb. 1. 6. oQ%ɛ.

and all Antiquity with one mouth deliver, there be never the leffe a number of learned, and wife Proteftants who have written, and will maintain, that Peters being at Rome as Bishop cannot stand with concordance of Scripture.

Now come the Epiftles of Ignatius to fhew us first, that Onefimus was Bishop of Ephesus; next to affert the difference of Bishop and Prefbyter, wherin I wonder that men teachers of the Proteftant Religion, make no more difficulty of impofing upon our belief a fuppofititious ofspring of fome dozen Epiftles, whereof five are rejected as fpurious, containing in them Herefies and trifles, which cannot agree in Chronologie with Ignatius, entitling him Arch-Bishop of Antioch Theopolis, which name of Theopolis that City had not till Juftinians time long after, as Cedrenus mentions, which argues both the barbarous time, and the unfkilfull fraud of him that foifted this Epiftle upon Ignatius. In the Epistle to those of Tarfus he condemns them for Ministers of Satan, that fay Christ is God above all. To the Phillippians them that kept their Eafter, as the Afian Churches, and Polycarpus did, and them that fafted upon any Saturday, or Sunday, except one he counts as those that had flain the Lord. To thofe of Antioch he falutes the Sub-Deacons, Chaunters, Porters, and Exorcifts, as if these had bin Orders of the Church in his time: thofe other Epiftles leffe queftion'd are yet so interlarded with Corruptions, as may juftly indue us with a wholsome fufpition of the rest. As to the Trallians he writes that a Bishop hath power over all beyond all goverment, and autority whatsoever. Surely then no Pope can defire more then Ignatius attributes to every Bishop, but what will become then of the Archbishops and Primates if every Bishop in Ignatius judgement be as fupreme as a Pope? To the Ephefians, near the very place from whence they