Quotation there are these two things plainly affirmed : First, That Presbyters are Succeflors to the Apostles. Secondly, That their Succeffion, and the Succeffion of Epifcopacy, is the fame thing, and by confequence that according to their original Inftitution they were the fame with Bishops; tho' Custom and the Confent of Churches has fince made fo great a Difference. 'Tis further remarkable that this venerable Author is looked upon by our Brethren as an eminent and topping Prelate; and therefore cannot be fufpected of Partia lity in favour of an inferior Order, or of any Defign to derogate from the Dignity and Honour of his own Character. But Mr. Withers might have known, if he had been pleafed to have examined those who had written on the other fide, that this Argument of his had received a very full Anfwer long before he produced it, and particularly from Dr. Parker Bifhop of Oxford, in his Account of the Government of the Chriftian Church for the firft 600 Years, where that Learned Prelate having fhewed, that (a) as foon as the Apoftles were withdrawn, and fo the Name of an Apoftle began to be laid afide, the Name of Bishop was appropriated to their Succeffors in the Supremacy; fo that we find not one Writer after the Apostles Time that doth not very, carefully distinguish the Names of Bishop and Presbyter, the one as peculiarly appertaining to the Supreme Order, the other as to the Inferior, fo as never to give the Name of Bishop to a Presbyter, or of a Presbyter to a Bishop, proceeds to answer fuch Inftances as are here brought by Mr. Withers; and fays, I know indeed that Blondel, Salmafius, and Daille, that Geneva Triumvirate, or Confederacy for the Subverfion of the ancient State of the Chriftian Church, have, after their ufual manner, raked together vaft·

(4) pag 54, 55, 56%

Heaps

Heaps of Inftances out of the Writers of the two fift Ages, in which the Name Presbyter is applied to Bijhops; but they all depend upon one fmall Quibble, or equivocal Senfe of the Word, as it fometimes fignifies Age, and fometimes Office: For there is not one Inftance in which they give the Title of a Presbyter to a Bijkop of their own Time, and whenever they speak of them, appropriate it to fubordinate Presbyters, to exprefs their Diftinction from Bijhops; but when they Speak of Bishops of former Times, they give them fometimes the Appellation of Presbyters, as it is equivalent to that of Ancients, and fignifies not their Office, but their Antiquity in the Church, and fo might be given not only to all Orders of the Clergy, but to the Laity, and the whole Body of Chriftians, by whom the Apoftolical Tradition was any way conveyed down to after Ages. And it was upon that Occafion that they ufed this Word, to fhew the Certainty of the Conveyance of the true Chriftian Doctrine from the Apostles, in that they received it from the Ancients that received it from them; in this Senfe, and in this only, do they use the Word, as it denotes not their Office, but their Age. This one short Obfervation is a clear Anfwer to all their voluminous Heaps of Collections, that tho' they make a great Shew to the Ignorant with the Length of their Train, yet they all run upon this poor and dull Miftake, as will appear more fully when we come to Particulars. In the mean time it is enough to our prefent Purpofe, that the Epifcopal Succeffion to the Apostles is fo unanswerably proved and attefted by the most ancient Writers of the Church, and that without Ambiguity or Equivocation in their Words. And then in particular as to the forecited Words of Irenæus quoted by Mr. Withers, he fays (b) What, cannot a Man prove the Certainty of the Tra

(b) p. 101, 102.

Da

dition

dition of the Church, as Irenæus often doth, by the undoubted Teftimony of the Ancients, but they must all immediately be transformed into Presbyters? And that he fo frequently gives them that Title in refpect of their Antiquity, not their Office, is fo evident from the Paffages themselves, that it is a burning Shame for Learned Men to perfift so stubbornly in jo thick a Miftake. Otherwife it is certain that he never confounds either the Name or the Office of Presbyter and Bishop, and derives the Succeffion of proper Bishops from the Apostles, fuch as the Bishops of Rome and Polycarp, who had their Presbyters under them, as is evident from the Infcription of Polycarp's own Epiftle, and the Proceedings of the Presbytery at Rome against Marcion; neither indeed could he confound the Names, who fo well knew the Distinction of Offices, as having been firft a Presbyter himself, and then a Bijhop. What an endless Outcry do these Men keep up with Irenæus's Presbyters, as if they alone had been immediate Succeffors to the Apostles, and he had known no higher Order of Men called Bifhops, when himself was advanced from the lower Order of Presbyter to that of a Bishop, when he has fo often exprefly diftinguished them? fo that if he had expreffed himself carelefly, and fometimes called a Bishop a Presbyter, it were nothing but wilful Perverfenefs from thence to conclude that he knew no Difference between them, and plainly to give the Lie to his own Declaration of his own Senfe; but when there is not one Paffage in all his Writings in which he files a meer Presbyter a Bishop; and when every Paffage in which a Bishop is filed a Presbyter, fo apparently explains it self to be understood of their Age, not their Office; after this to interpret it of their Office, plainly fhews that Presbytery has no other Way to preferve it felf, than by putting Tricks upon Antiquity. From what this Learned Prelate has therefore faid, it is evident that Mr. Withers has given

us

us a wrong Tranflation of the Paffages he has cited from Irenæus, and that the Word he renders Presbyters fhould be rendred Ancients, and then his whole Argument from Irenaus falls to the Ground. It is alfo obfervable that Mr. Withers himself represents Irenæus as an eminent and topping Prelate, and one that cannot therefore be fufpected of Partiality in favour of an inferior Order, or of any Defign to derogate from the Dignity and Honour of his own Character. But if he had fuch a Character, and had fuch an inferior Order of Presbyters fubje&t to him, and was an eminent and topping Prelate, could he think himself and his Inferiors to be of the fame Order? If this is not a Contradiction, I will not pretend to say what is.

§ XV. The next Author I fhall produce, is Clemens Alexandrinus, who flourished in the latter End of the Second Century, about the Year 192, and fhall begin with that very Paffage which Mr. Withers (c) quotes to prove this Father alfo to have been a Patron of Presbytery. I fhall therefore first recite his Words. A third Witness, who Speaks the Language of the former, is Clement of Alexandria, who alfo flourished in the first Ages of Chriftianity. Having spoken of Judas his Election to the Apostleship, and his unworthy Conduct in it, he proceeds in thefe following Words: Wherefore Mat thias, tho' he was not chofen together with the reft, when he had approved himself worthy to become an Apoftle, was fubftituted in the room of Judas. And it is poffible even NOW for those who exercise themselves in the Divine Command, who live knowingly, as becomes the Gospel, to

(c) Truth tried, p. 80, 81.

be enrolled in the Number of the Apostles. This is a real Presbyter of the Church, and a true Minifter of God's Will, if he does and teaches the Things of God; nor is he 'efteemed a juft Man because he is a Presbyter, and ordained by Men; but because he is a juft Man, therefore he is taken into the Presbytery. In the first of these Sentences this Learned Author takes it for granted, that in the Age in which he lived, fome Men might be reckoned in the Number of the Apoftles; by which he must understand their Succeffors in the Gospel Miniftry, they themselves being dead fome Scores of Years before. In the next Sentence he defcribes the Man that deferves fo high a Character, and that is the Presbyter, who adorns his Function by a wife and holy Converfation. And it is evident to any one that confults this Paffage, that the Presbytery, in the latter part of it, anfwers to the Catalogue of Apoftles in the former; and this being granted, we need no more to prove the Validity of a Presbyterian Ordination. But if this be not granted, then it proves no fuch thing. For if he had not mifrepresented the Paffage, by putting the now ambiguous Word Minifter inftead of Deacon into it, there would have been no Colour for Wyre-drawing it to his Meaning. And it is plain that this was not done by Mr. Withers inadvertently, but with Defign, for when he quotes this Paffage in the Greek in his Margin, juft where the Word Aiánov, Deacon, fhould come in, he puts an &c. and fo gives us but one half of the Original, for fear the Reader, who might understand that Language, might be thereby undeceived, and fee that Clemens here fpeaks of all the Three Orders, the Bishop, who is the Perfon he fpeaks of, as who may be now enrolled in the Number of Apostles, and after him the Presbyter, and then the Deacon. And the Words immediately following this Paffage quoted by

Mr.